AP4242
                     Supplement B
                   September 1988
  SUPPLEMENT B
          TO
   COMPILATION
          OF
  AIR POLLUTANT
 EMISSION FACTORS
      Volume I:
   Stationary Point
  And Area Sources
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     Office Of Air And Radiation             ~p
 Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards      vec   -\j
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711     <° /^ o-$-

-------
Thi- rr purl lid- I) ecu rev ieucd h\ The ()l'l"uv Of Vir On a lil\ Planning \nd Standards. I .S. Kn\ iron men la I
Protect ion \
-------
                    INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSERTING SUPPLEMENT B

                                   INTO AP-42
Pp. iii and iv replace same.  New Publications in Series.
Pp. v through viii replace same.  New Contents.
Pp. 1.1-1 through 1.1-17 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pp. 1.2-1 through 1.2-7 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pp. 1.10-1 through 1.10-5 replace 1.10-1 through 1.10-7.  Major Revision.
Pp. 1.11-1 through 1.11-7 replace 1.11-1 and 2.  Major Revision.
Pp. 2.1-1 through 2.1-10 replace 2.1-1 through 2.1-6.  Major Revision.
Pp. 2.5-1 through 2.5-6 replace 2.5-1 through 2.5-3.  Major Revision.
Pp. 4.2.2.7-1 through 4.2.2.7-8 replace 4.2.2.7-1 through 4.2.2.7-3.  Major
      Revision.
Add pp. 4.12-1 through 4.12-10.  New Section.
Pp. 5.15-1 through 5.15-5 replace 5.15-1 through 5.15-4.  Major Revision.
Pp. 6.4-1 through 6.4-15 replace 6.4-1 through 6.4-7.  Major Revision.
Pp. 8.15-3 through 8.15-5 replace same.  Editorial Change.
Pp. 8.19.2-1 through 8.19.2-6 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pp. 8.24-1 through 8.24-11 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Add pp. 11-1 and 2.  Editorial Change.
Pp. 11.1-1 through 11.1-11 replace 11.1-1 through 11.1-5.  Major Revision.
Pp. 11.2.1-1 through 11.2.1-8 replace 11.2.1-1 through 11.2.1-6.  Major
      Revision.
Pp. 11.2.3-1 through 11.2.3-5 replace 11.2.3-1 through 11.2.3-6.  Major
      Revision.
Pp. 11.2.6-1 through 11.2.6-5 replace same.  Major Revision.
Add pp. 11.2.7-1 through 11.2.7-15.   New Section.
Add pp. C.3-1 and 2.  New Appendix.

-------
                             PUBLICATIONS IN SERIES
       Issue

COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS (Fourth Edition)
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.1

  Appendix C.2
                                                          9/85

                                                         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
SUPPLEMENT B
  Section 1.1
          1.2
          1.10
          1.11
          2.1
          2.5
          4.2
          4.12
          5.15
          6.4
                                                         9/88
Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal Combustion
Anthracite Coal Combustion
Residential Wood Stoves
Waste Oil Combustion
Refuse Combustion
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Surface Coating
Polyester Resin Plastics Product Fabrication
Soap And Detergents
Grain Elevators And Processing Plants
                                      iii

-------
Section 8.15    Lime Manufacturing
        8.19.2  Crushed Stone Processing
        8.24    Western Surface Coal Mining
        11.1    Wildfires And Prescribed Burning
        11.2.1  Unpaved Roads
        11.2.3  Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles
        11.2.6  Industrial Paved Roads
        11.2.7  Industrial Wind Erosion
Appendix C.3    Silt Analysis Procedures
                                      IV

-------
                                    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
     1.6    Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills	  1.8-1
     1.9    Residential Fireplaces 	  1.9-1
     1.10   Residential Wood Stoves 	 1.10-1
     1.11   Waste Oil Combustion 	 1.11-1

2.   SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL	  2.0-1
     2.1    Refuse Combustion 	  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
            Highway Vehicles 	 Vol. II
            Off Highway Mobile Sources 	 Vol. II
     3.1    Off Highway Stationary Sources 	  3.1-1

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    Adi pic 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   Paint And Varnish 	  5.10-1
     5.11   Phosphoric Acid 	  5.11-1
     5.12   Phthalic Anhydride 	  5.12-1
     5.13   Plastics 	  5.13-1
     5.14   Printing Ink 	  5.14-1
     5.15   Soap And Detergents 	  5.15-1
     5.16   Sodium Carbonate 	  5.16-1
     5.17   Sulfuric Acid 	  5.17-1
     5.18   Sulfur Recovery 	  5.18-1
     5.19   Synthetic Fibers 	  5.19-1
     5.20   Synthetic Rubber 	  5.20-1
     5.21   Terephthalic Acid 	  5.21-1
     5.22   Lead Alkyl 	  5.22-1
     5.23   Pharmaceuticals Production 	  5.23-1
     5.24   Maleic Anhydride 	  5.24-1

6.   FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 	   6.1-1
     6.1    Alfalfa Dehydrating 	   6.1-1
     6.2    Coffee Roasting 	   6.2-1
     6.3    Cotton Ginning 	   6.3-1
     6.4    Grain Elevators And Processing Plants 	   6.4-1
     6.5    Fermentation	   6.5-1
     6.6    Fish Processing	   6.6-1
     6.7    Meat Smokehouses 	   6.7-1
     6.8    Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers 	   6.8-1
     6.9    Orchard Heaters 	   6.9-1
     6.10   Phosphate Fertilizers 	  6.10-1
     6.11   Starch Manufacturing 	  6.11-1
     6.12   Sugar Cane Processing 	  6.12-1
     6.13   Bread Baking 	  6.13-1
     6.14   Urea 	  6.14-1
     6.15   Beef Cattle Feedlots 	  6.15-1
     6.16   Defoliation And Harvesting Of Cotton 	  6.16-1
     6.17   Harvesting Of Grain 	  6.17-1
     6.18   Ammonium Sulfate	  6.18-1

7.   METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY 	   7.1-1
     7.1    Primary Aluminum Production 	   7.1-1
     7.2    Coke Production	   7.2-1
     7.3    Primary Copper Smelting	   7.3-1
     7.4    Ferroalloy Production 	   7.4-1
     7.5    Iron And Steel Production 	   7.5-1
     7.6    Primary Lead Smelting	   7.6-1
     7.7    Zinc Smelting 	   7.7-1
     7.8    Secondary Aluminum Operations 	   7.8-1
     7.9    Secondary Copper Smelting And Alloying 	   7.9-1
     7.10   Gray Iron Foundries 	  7.10-1
     7.11   Secondary Lead Smelting 	  7.11-1
     7.12   Secondary Magnesium Smelting	  7.12-1
     7.13   Steel Foundries 	  7.13-1
     7.14   Secondary Zinc Processing ...,	  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   Wildfires And Prescribed Burning 	 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
                                      vii

-------
                                                                        Page




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




APPENDIX C.3   Silt Analysis Procedures	   C.3-1
                                      viii

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

1.1.1  General 1

     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, i. 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.
 9/88
External Combustion Sources
1.1-1

-------
H
CO
3
g
8
_
8
1

a
CO
CO
Q
CO
1— i
o
z
M
M
CO

1

H
s>
a
OS

CO
04
g
U
z
EMISSIO

^i
r-t
*
U
H

„
|
«


«
1
i
i
Monoxld««
1
3
'|
£
«ltcot*°


u>
•S
s
9
3
in








S
u
-•
g


§
1

1
#
Jf
a
e

*


Ib/tOD


5

1
*
1
•
Itf
9
e
i*



000 0 0 0 00 *  « w w SS

1 1 1 I 1 1 H «

| 'S a i sas'S
< f ^ e^ &
0 . «
—ie c e
U O O O
So ~* — -- v
« 0 4J U C
O -i X 0 X O
v -^ e u «j u -^
* U -4 •*» U
»- x v ti e v x
• u *j "o "o, • ^ £ ^ «-g "S. i -o
•ew u 9 * o 3 ^ • >• • » o 9 o
uuuiu 4. § B ^ 5 i. • ^ b
NO O fcifci £fcj u Li flu (Uu
•5 jO 2 41 4>C t. « *- IM 11 C h. tie
'hU-^VBu. k>B
-------
z
0
H
CO
1
o
u
,_3

o
a
CO
o
z
M
S

H
M
pa
s
co

Q
%
to
§
z



s
H

M
O
fa

CO
CJ
z
w
u


rrj


Q
Z


•K
CO
u
Z

g
S
PS
o
H
CJ

fa

Z
0
1— 1
CO
CO
M
Cvl
1
i-f
U




c

I



8
S
1
4J

i



41
•a
X
i

|





W
41
i
8

0
z



n
41
73

^

3


3









a.







•
*
t
;
i
u

'
!
(


«*;
i
ac

oi
c
"£
«
ce
4
CB
g


£




3


01
e
•*H
,3
ce




*

e
3
at


1*4

K



t*
C

S



.
2


M
_c

fl
K





I
4
J
a
i
a
4
1
£
i
u


S S
* *
ao := r ; s ^E^**»A


< -<< •< < < <•<<-< Q


CO
u^ ao ao
tn" cos s s s s s • s "I
t/i i/> r-v Q
«* tn





S & 3*
* 1 *
9« ft *H CM 00
^ M >D -f -^
1 :r ..ss T i
00^ (^r^ »-•*
• * * * » » .
•£ f** r*>^ r*«r^ wo
»^>» r-trt r«i •« o-t irt
< «C< < X -< MeaaoAQ



.
£ p;
t i •
v0 ^O »H ^ O"» CO
"i "i ^"^ .. ^i . •* .


< u« < ^-< < < « A a

^ £
o^S S
^**sz s s; E = ss
1 ^ sD CO
* T ? "^

- -< -« 9v
* "* ^



•< << •< <•< <O ^* W* P (*4»^O • f«» • • O
-* ^ •* r* r* ^ r-. a* «»rt« * o>



x o Q to aa< « PQ A u a





Q 1 41
S3 I !
0 01 ** U
ft —, U X
U Q 41 U
x5 -H
U 41 4» O 41 W «
VU U S -^ 5 *- 4^4
< U 4» -O VO4IO 41 -O J< ^ O. *J
( fl ^ 5 ~i jr ^ n ~t Ji« o « -H -H
• 4e o -• a.«u u o -» u^ua
0 Oh U~4 *44X£X W ^H 4 ~4 ~4 3
u u "*4 u^^i-14 h 'O^if)
0 0 k«U 3 >M g X • "O *J 4>W V
-S ^v 4ie « o - o «o Saw*
e •« o £w>4«u «o *4 o « -H
u a ^ V_B 4i-H a we  a 4
o « < 6 3 3




« °2
5.23
B 3 "
B h 0 M
S^i 8 2
31 "o Si

Iss s
u TH e u
4 •** W
W 4» 4t
O W J3
< ^ ^
: S S3
5"5 »
O 4 O
* <*4 H «J
4> 4 41 4
(B U 4 *M
.2 -3 ^ e
" 4 5
(U . QC

u B C
U O 41 W
«*- 00 « JS
S5"s
IL!!
v r s *"
o e
.c « u o
g-a 31 "
^S .S

* « § S
Isr a
o^-o "
O u V X
> 3 « S
I «is
.528
! ao%*

0 M O 1
•rt


jj (j ^j v4

9 94
0 ?« u
5** **

W ^ 00
2=«:s&
U I 4 O
4i x a
'il * "c w" **
M - O 4» 4
4 > y
§ 6 1 S s
u p 41 -r4
U jfi 4 0

w w w
2 -i -u ^
u u w M y
o O 4 •*
^4-1 w  w ** 00 CL
M e
41 ** 41 --4 4
W 4 JO X
§2 ^85

4) 41 w C 4
i *J 4 3 Q
U U 0
§•<-! 41 *4
•O -C 4
-• C *J 4
•H W W 00
4 *4 W W kt
W 4 41
W U >
41 0 S 44
4 ** O
| S ;. ||
9/88
Combust ion S
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 term  "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.

     Particulate2~4 - Parttculate 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 particalate
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  participate.   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  retnjection 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 overfire air pressures are increased.^
1.1-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
     The primary kinds of parttculate control devices used for coal combustion
Include multiple cyclones, electrostatic preclpitators, 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 preclpitators (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.  Participate 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.  \n advantage of fabric filters is that they are unaffected by high
flyash resistivities associated with low sulfur coals.  ESPs located after air
preheaters (1. 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?~9 _ Gaseous sulfur oxides from external coal combustion
are largely sulfur dioxide (802) and much less quantity of sulfur trioxide
(SO-j) and gaseous sulfates.  These compounds form as the organic and pyrltic
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 subbttumlnous 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

9/88                      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  he 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 SOx.  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. 7 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 10-11 - 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 ea$y 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 D£
  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 NC^ 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 NOx reduction
  techniques.  To date, flue gas treatment is not  used  to reduce nitrogen  oxide
  emissions because of its higher cost.
1.1-6
                                 EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
     Volatile Organic Compounds And Carbon Monoxide - Volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO)' are unburnt gaseous combustibles whicb 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.
                          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 COALa
                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
                     C  (uncontrolled)
                     'C,  (scrubber and  ESP  controlled
                     E  (multiple cyclone  and baghouse)
Particle «lzeb
(u.)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative aasa I < stated aUe
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
U
100
Baghouee
97
92
77
53
31
25
U
100
Cumulative mission factorc [kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal, aa fired)
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
(0.10)
5A
(10A)
Controlled"1
Multiple
cyclone
0.54A
(1.08A)
0.29A
(0.58A)
0.14A
(0.28A)
0.03A
(0.06A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
1A
(2A)
Scrubber
0.24*
(0.48A)
0.21A
(0.42A)
0.19A
(0.38A)
0.15A
(0.3A)
0.11A
(0.22A)
0.09A
(0.18A)
0.06A
C0.12A)
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)
Baghouae
0.010A
(0.02A)
0.009A
C0.02A)
0.008A
(0.02A)
0.005A
(0.01A)
0.003A
(0.006A)
0.003A
(0.006A)
0.001A
(0.002A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
 ^Exprcaaed aa aerodynamic equivalent dlaaeter.
 CA - coal ash weight I, as fired.
 ^Estimated control efficiency for nultlple cyclone, 80%; acrubber, 94Z;
  ESP, 99.21; baghouae, 99.81.
          2.0A

          1.8A

          1.6A

          1.4A

          1.2A

          l.OA

          0.8A

          0.6A

          0.4A

          0.2A

          0
Scrubber
                   I   ill!
                      Bdghouse

               Uncontrolled

              Multiple cyclone

      J - 1 — I  1 I I I ll _ I _ i  i
                                                                 i I
                   .2    .4  .6   i     2    4   6  10

                                Particle diameter (urn)
                        20
                             40  60  100
                                     l.OA

                                     0.6A

                                     0.4A
                                     0.2A  *^  -H
                                          Q. O
                                          ••- U
0.1A    ,
     -C- *X

0.06A *°
     o *-"
0.04A o o
     
     UJ

0.01A     —
0. 1A

0.06A

0.04A


0.02A


0.01A


0.006A

0.004A


0.002A


0.001A
    Figure  1.1-1.   Cumulative size specific  emission factors  for dry  bottom
                      boilers burning pulverized  bituminous  coal.
1.1-8
       EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                          9/88

-------
TABLE 1.1-4.
CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE SPECIFIC  EMISSION
FACTORS FOR WET BOTTOM BOILERS  BURNING PULVERIZED  BITUMINOUS COAL3

              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
Particle size1"
(ui.)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass t < stated size
Uncontrolled
40
37
33
21
6
It
2
100
Controlled
Multiple
cyclone
99
93
84
61
31
19
e
100
ESP
83
75
63
40
17
8
e
100
Cumulative emission factorc [kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal, as fired]
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)
Controlled"1
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)
   aReference 61.  ESP - electrostatic prectpltator.
   ''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
   CA - coat ash weight X, as fired.
   dF.Btlmated control efficiency for multiple cyclone,  80*; ESP, 99.22.
   elnsuffIclent data.
         3.W\
         2.1ft  -
         1.4A  -
        O./OA ~
                          .6  1
                                   246     10
                                Particle diameter dun)
                                                    20
                                                        40   60  100
                                                              1A


                                                              06A
                                                                 t-
                                                                 o

                                                              04A £.

                                                              02A §
                                                                             0 01A
                                                                                  at
                                                                 d -—
                                                                 QJ to
                                                                 f— O
                                                              006Ap °
                                                                 iz
                                                              OOAAo'S,
                                                                             0.002A
                                                                             0 001A
    figure  1.1-2.   Cumulative size specific  emission factors for  wet bottom
                     boilers  burning pulverized  bituminous  coal
9/88
            External  Combustion Sources
1.1-9

-------
TABLE 1.1-5.
CUMULATIVE PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC  EMISSION

 FACTORS  FOR CYCLONE FURNACES  BURNING BITUMINOUS COAL*



               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
Particle size*1
(um)
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)
0.13A (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 precipitator.

     ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.

     CA = coal ash weight %, as fired.

     dlnsufficient data.

     eEstimated control efficiency for  scrubber, 94%; ESP, 99.2%.
                 l.QA


                 0.9A



                 C.8A|



                 0.7A


                 0.6A


                 0.5A



                 0.4A



                 0.3A


                 0.2A


                 0.1A


                 0
                                 ESP -
                             I  I  I I I i I
                                             Uncontrolled
                                                                I   i i  i i i I
                                                          0.10A

                                                                i_
                                                                O
                                                                4~>


                                                          0. OfaA   £

                                                                C
                                                                O


                                                          0.04A   '£.



                                                          0.03A   *
0.01A



0.006A


0.004A






0.002A


0.001A
i— fO
o
t.  -


o o
O O

D- cr>
                    .1     .2   .4  .6    1     2     46    10

                                         Particle diameter (pm)
                                            20
                                                  40 60 100
        Figure 1.1-3.
         Cumulative size specific emission  far tors tor ';yd on-

         furnaces  burning bituminous  coal
 1.1-10
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                        9/88

-------
TABLE 1.1-6.   CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION
               FACTORS FOR SPREADER  STOKERS BURNING BITUMINOUS GOAL3
               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)



15

10

6

2.5

1.25

1.00

0.625

TOTAL

Cumulative mass % < stated alee
Uncontrolled

28

20

14

7

5

5

4

100

Controlled
Multiple
cyclone0
86

73

51

8

2

2

1

100

Multiple
cyclone1*
74

65

52

27

16

14

9

100

ESP
97

90

82

61

46

41

e

100

Baghouse
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
cyclone":
7.3
(14.6)
6.2
(12.4)
4.3
(8.6)
0.7
(1.4)
0.2
(0.4)
0.2
(0.4)
O.I
(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)
Raghouee
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)

CWHh flyaen reinjection.
^Without flyash reinjection.
einauf f iclent data.
fKntlmated control efficiency for ESP, 99.21; baghouse, 99.81.
     -o ;?
     * s
          10

           9
           8  -
           6  -
           5  -
           4  -
                                                            10.0
                 1ultiple cyclon
                 flyash reinject
             i
                      .4  .6
                                                     40  60 100
                                            0.06

                                            U.04


                                            0.02


                                            0.01

                                            0.006

                                            0.004


                                            0.002


                                            0.001
                                 2    4  6   10
                              Particle diameter (pin)
     Figure 1.1-4.  Cumulative  size specific emission factors for spreader
                     stokers burning bituminous coal
9/88
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
(pm)
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
cont rol led
60
55
49
43
39
39
16
100
1
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 (lh.0)
Multiple cyclone
cont rolled^
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)
       ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
       clnsufftclent data.
       ''Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80%.
                8

                7.2

                6.4

                &.6

                4.8

                4.0

                3.2

                2.4

                1.6

                0.8

                  0
                          Multiple
                          cyclone
                           i  i  i i i i I I
                                                               i  i 111
10

6.0

4.0


2.0


1.0

0.6
0.4

0.2



O.l
                             .4 .6    1     2    4   6  10
                                    Particle diameter (urn)
                                                        20
                                                             40 60 100
     Figure 1.1-5.   Cumulative size  specific  emission  factors  for overfeed
                      stokers  burning  bituminous coal
1.1-12
                   EMISSION FACTORS
             9/88

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

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Particle slzeb

-------
References for Section 1.1

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

2.   Control Techniques for Particulate 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 Particulate 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                           9/88

-------
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, jUag 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.
9/88                      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.  ibidem-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.  ibidem-Site 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, Rlckenbacker 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.  ibidem-Site H, EPA-600/7-80-112a, May 1980.

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

44.  Ibidem-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 Patk, 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 1964.
1.1-16                          EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
 48t  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.    3

 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^.  N0y
     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.


9/88                      External Combustion Sources                     1.1-17

-------
1.2  ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION

1.2.1  General1"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"1'*

     Parttculate 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 o-'ide 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.
9/88                      External  Combustion Sources                      1.2-1

-------
       O
       t— I
       H
      I
      1
      C/3
      Od
      O
      H
      CO
      an
      Q
      w
      •J
      H
      z:
      o
       I
      CM


05
U
«H
C
10
EP
o

01
,— f
•H
4-1
10
rH
O




01
01
•H
X
o
c
o
c
o
•e
to
o

•o
05
01
•o
•H
X
o

0)
0°
IH
4-1
•H
z

u

01
T3
•H
X
O
IH
3
UH

CO


43
01
4-1
10
i—l
g
•H
4-1
IH
10








OI
a

4J
IH
OI
,— 1
•H
O
PO

01
B
si
4-1
OI
X


OI
C
«0
4J
01

p
o
z



c
o
4-1
JD
rH


>£^
5



c
o
•"^_
I-l

1
BO



C
o
4-1
1 — .
,0
,-H.

bO
*C

JP

c
0
4-1
JD
I-H



bO


















UH UH UH








UH UH UH









vO
O



en
O




GO (^ fO
*-H "^


in
CN in «-H




CO W W
O^ ^ O1^
PO f^ ro



CO CA CO
in in in

O*» O"^ ^^


00
UH « JS
ON CO
wH


bO
UH « JS
•» m


TJ
01
IH
•H
UH

,-H 01
§4J ca
10 4J
U IH -H
M C
01 bO
N C Ui TJ
•H -H 01 01
IH rH 4tf UH
01 01 O
> > « "O
rH CO 01 C
3 IH a
d, H -C





















i
£4
•H
to
10
o
•H
4-1
f\

3
co
O
u
^
2
o
o
4H

•a
01
•H
ft.
10

0)


TJ
1
jC
00
•8
fB
to
e
M
to
0)



"8
•H
»H
O
^

c
o
c
3

IH
UH

01
(0
05
IH
o
W
U
£
id


















































.
4=
u
4J
o

UH
•H
4=

4J
O
IH
UH
^
m

"8
Si
u
01
s
<

o

TJ
to
2
JD







0)
U
C
01
IH
UH
01
M

e
•H
id
4J
<0
"8
4J
•H
^H
J

•
_>
O
01
CO

IB
4J
4-1
•H
§
to
•H
|H
3

rH
0)
fH
01
3
UH

4-1
05
O


o
0)
3

1
U

In
O

CO
§
e


4J
.0

J=
4->
Tj

(A
*
00
0)
g
a
a


4-1
a)

4J

00
4J
«
U

2


CO


•
o1
CA

,
»H
4-1
09
O
•
0)
a)
i

•H
CO
W
•rt
S


•
09
IH
01
1H
O
,0

1
UH

01
•H
U
to

4^

a)
"8
N
(j
01
^
3
a

M
tM

CO
£
>,

IH
OI
>








































•
01
>
•H
bO

01
3
rH
id
^

0)
X


01
TH
rH
O"
4J

B
41

TJ
rH
3
£
CO

IH
UH
pH
3
K
u
Si
f4
V
^
0


v
e
o
•rt
0)
3

B
O

rH
10
O
U


o
c
•H
1
*f4
JS
o
4-1

IH
R)
i-H
iH
09

01

O
4-1
"8
05
0)
id

A
09
TJJ
3

T>
«
UH
"Q
1
id
jC

1
to
^4
01
•H
O
40

OI

•H
UH
01
4J
U
10
M
4J
C
a

41
ig
ir4
01
rH
3
CU
M
O
fe
•o















































•
^H
p«4
•
05
W
U
01
IH
0)
UH
«

01
01
CO
m
p
01
Mj
4J
to

41
a
IH
U
g
•H
r-
01
>
h
4J
rH
s
01 O

Cd 4J
fcl -H
bOTJ
g>«
IH X
rH 43
0)
5^
IH 4J
4-1 tO
•H
k4 U
o e
rV <0
CO
• 43
•83
c
•H •
0) 09
4J r.
C 01
*_J n^ 1
11

IH
°n
15

O.rH
3
w a
o
C IH
O
0) U.
01
rH •
•H OO
O
JO 01
u
«C C
4J OI
•H IH
^ OI

01 01
TJ a:
4j C5
•H -H
B
00 B
B -H
4-1
UH   W

                                                                                  C 09  B TJ  B
                                                                                 ^ IH  OJ £  «J

                                                                                  eg w  «    v

                                                                                  CO id  01 O  OJ
                                                                                 TJ rV PC UH  Pd
                                                                                   UH bO   J=
1.2-2
                                              EMISSION  FACTORS
                        9/88

-------
     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
9/88
External Combustion Sources
1.2-3

-------
     TABLE 1.2-3.  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AM)  SIZE  SPECIFIC
            EMISSION FACTORS  FOR DRY BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED
                                    ANTHRACITE COAL3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle sireb
(un)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative 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
Cumulative emission factor0
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) bark, as fired]
Uncontrolled
1.6A (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)
Controlled"1
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)
O.OOI8A (0.004A)
e
0.01A (0.02A)
    •Reference 19.
    ''Expressed as aerodynanlc equivalent diameter.
    CA - coal ash weight, as fired.
    ^Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80Z; baghouse, 99.81.
    insufficient data.
                        .4  .6
                                     2     4   6   10
                                  Particle diameter (|im)
                                                     20
                                                          40 60
                                                                             0.010A

                                                                             0.009A
                                                                                  o
                                                                             0 008A u


                                                                             0.007A |"g

                                                                             0.006A e"~
                                                                                  Qj 1/1

                                                                             O.OObA 2_"

                                                                             0.004A t °
                                                                                  c en
                                                                                  O £
                                                                             0.003A „ S1

                                                                             0 002A I

                                                                             0 001A ™


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

               EMISSION  FACTORS                                9/88

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

                         EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   E
Particle size*5
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass %
< stated size
Uncontrolled0
64
52
42
27
24
23
d
100
Cumulative emission factor
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal, as fired]
Uncontrolled
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.
                                                     I   I I  I I M
                  .1   .2   .4  .6   1     2    46   10   20    40  60  100
                                   Particle diameter (pni)
   Figure 1.2-2.  Cumulative size  specific emission factors for traveling
                  grate stokers burning  anthracite coal.
9/88
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.   Mr 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 informatlonT 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/ 4-79-02 1 , 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, Shi ppensburg, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Scott Environmental
     Technology, Inc., Plurasteadville, PA, May 1975.
1.2-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
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 Partlculate Source Category Report for External Combustion
     Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156,  Acurex Corporation, Mountain View,
     CA, January 1985.
9/88                      External  Combustion  Sources                      1.2-7

-------
1.10    RESIDENTIAL WOOD STOVES

1.10.1  General1"2

     Wood stoves are commonly used as space heaters to supplement conventional
heating systems in residences.  They are increasingly found as the primary
source of heat, as well.

     Because of differences in both the magnitude and the composition of
emissions from wood stoves, four different categories of stoves should be con-
sidered when estimating emissions:

        the conventional noncatalytic wood stove

        the noncatalytic low emitting wood stove

        the pellet fired noncatalytic wood stove

     -  the catalytic wood stove

     Among these categories, there are many variations in wood stove design and
operation characteristics.

     The conventional stove category comprises all stoves without catalytic
combustors and are not included in the other noncatalytic categories.   Stoves
of many different airflow designs, such as updraft, downdraft, crossdraft, and
S-flow, may be in this category.

     "Noncatalytic low emitting" wood stoves are those having no catalyst and
meeting EPA certification standards.

     Pellet fired stoves are fueled with pellets of sawdust, wood products,
and other biomass materials pressed into manageable shape and size.   These
stoves have a specially designed or modified grate to accommodate this type
of fuel.

     Catalytic stoves are equipped with a ceramic or metal honeycomb
material, called a combustor or converter, that is coated with a noble metal
such as platinum or palladium.  The catalyst material reduces the ignition
temperature of the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in the  exhaust
gases, thus augmenting their ignition and combustion at normal stove operating
temperatures.  As these components of the gases burn, the temperature  inside
the catalyst increases to a point where the ignition of the gases is essen-
tially self sustaining.

1.10.2  Emissions3-13

     The combustion and pyrolysis of wood in wood stoves produce atmospheric
emissions of particulate, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, organic  compounds,
mineral residues, and to a lesser extent, sulfur oxides.  The quantities and
types of emissions are highly variable and depend on a number of factors,
including the stages of the combustion cycle.  During inital stages  of burning,
after a new wood charge is introduced, emissions increase dramatically,
primarily of volatile organic compounds (VOC).   After the initial period of

                          External Combustion Sources                    1.10-1

-------
high burn rate, there is a charcoal stage of the burn cycle,  characterized by a
slower burn rate and decreased emission rates.   Emission rates during this
stage are cyclical, characterized by relatively long periods  of low emissions
with shorter episodes of emission spikes.

     Particulate emissions are defined in this  document as the total catch
measured by the EPA Method 5H (Oregon Method 7) sampling train.  A small
portion of wood stove particulate emissions includes "solid"  particles of
elemental carbon and wood.  The vast majority of the particulate emissions
is condensed organic products of incomplete combustion equal  to or less than
10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
     Although reported particle size data are scarce, one reference states that
95 percent of the particles in the emissions from a wood stove were less than
0.4 micrometers in size.^

     Sulfur oxides are formed by oxidation of sulfur in the wood.   Nitrogen
oxides are formed by oxidation of fuel and atmospheric nitrogen.   Mineral
constituents, such as potassium and sodium compounds, are also released from
the wood matrix during combustion.  The high levels of organic compound and
carbon monoxide emissions result from incomplete combustion of the wood.

     Organic constituents of wood smoke vary considerably in both  type and
volatility.  These constituents include simple hydrocarbons (C^-Cy), which exist
as gases or which volatilize at ambient conditions, and complex low volatility
substances which condense at ambient conditions.  These low volatility conden-
sable materials are generally considered to have boiling points below 300°C
(572°F).

     Polycyclic organic matter (POM) is an important component of  the
condensable fraction of wood smoke.  POM contains a wide range of  compounds,
including organic compounds formed by the combination of free radical species
in the flame zone through incomplete combustion.  This group contains some
potentially carcinogenic compounds, such as benzo(a)pyrene.

     Emission factors and their ratings for wood combustion in residential
wood stoves are presented in Table 1.10-1.

     As mentioned, particulate emissions are defined as the total  emissions
collected by EPA Method 5H (Oregon Method 7).  This method employs a heated
filter followed by three impingers, an unheated filter, and a final impinger.
Emissions data used to develop the factors in Table 1.10-1 are from a data
base developed during EPA certification tests and from data collected during
field testing programs.  See Reference 1 for detailed discussions  of EPA
Methods 5H and 28.

     Note that the data shown on Table 1.10-1 have been derived primarily from
laboratory tests.  Review of some emission tests of woodstoves in  actual use
indicates that laboratory tests may underestimate actual emissions significantly.
Evaluation of field test results is proceeding, with completion scheduled for
October 1988.
1.10-2                          EMISSION FACTORS

-------
   o
   H
   CO
   o
   o
   M
   H
   W
   Q
   2;
   o
   M
   H
   CO
   3
   PQ
   u
   O
   CO
   c*;
   o
   H
   CJ
   o
   M
   CO
   CO
   M
   I
  O
   w
   fj
   CO
   
cfl t!
rH tfl
0 43
> 4.J
i!
T3
|J 01
3 0)
IM -O
rH -H
3 X
fi O
tfjd
01 tO
M) 0)
O t)
l-i i-l
4J X
•H O
S3
43
CU
C •«
O -H
43 X
l-< 0
f» C
U 0
S
o
42
0)
4-1
tO
rH 0
d 3
u o
•H —I
4J
M Vl
tO
f>-,





co
CO O-
> >,
O 4J
4-1
W
X-N
r^.
rH X-N
-^< oo
CM
sO *^^
t
~* 00 CO -H

XV
XV O
co r«.
tv CN
v — ' ^.X

r~ 
~v -HO — .
43 4J -H 43
O rH >% 4J rH
•H s^ rH (3 v-x
4J Cd CO
>~, U BO 4J > Vl bO
rH 43 J? Cd £3 43 Jd
cd v^^. u o ^.-v,
4J bo bo O U bO bO
cd O
o a





II II










II II
XV XV
-* vt
• •
o o
V-' V- •
CN CM CM CM
• • • •
O O 0 O


1 1 4-1
c*
U-I *
CN vO
^H
XV
O xv
v£> v£>
CN CO
^x . >— '

O O CM 00
00 CO CM -^
«— 1 ^H








II II




XV XV
bO C T3 C
£3 O CO O
•H 4-1 ^* 4J
4J ~v. iH ^.
4J 43 14-1 43
•H rH rH
0 v^ 4J ^x
S CO
t-l bO rH Vl bO
> 43 ^ rH 43 j?
6 ^.-v 01 -v ~v.
rJ bO bO P-c bO bO

                                                                                        OI

                                                                                        rH
                                                                                        >»
<
(X
W  4J  OJ
    •H  a
 WJrH  3
 £3  -H  W
"-"  -2  S
 CO  tO  O
 3  43  U
    O
 CO  U -O
 eu  O. O

:gg,s

4J  «H xv
 «s  g

 g-o-ii
 CO  (U 43
•H  4J r-l
 U  43 ^
 cd  bO
 P.-H  bO
 CJ     bO

•O  £3 -O
 O  O  C
43 i-l  cd
4-1  CO
 oj  co  oi
 s -H  B
    S -H
4J W  4J
 CO
 oj     bo
4J   '  C
    0) -H   •
T3 43  C  CO
 (3 i-l  Vi  01
 CO  Vi  3 i-l
    O 43 •«

 <°  ~  .   3
4J  C  t-l  4J
 CO 1-1 43  CO
 a)    '•v
4J "O  bO-O
    0)    rH
 £3  bO Q)  0)
 O  B  M n
•H  Cd  Cd M-l
4J  M
 oj  »-i  co n-i
 CJ  Cd 4J  O
•H    -H
IM  I-l  £3  5
i-l  CO »  0)
4J •£    -H
 u  B     >
 0>  3  •  O)
 y i-i oo  h
                                                                                                     •H
                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                     0)
                                                                                                     bO
                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                     U
                                                                                                        f3
                                                                                                        •H
                                                                                                        cd
                                                                                                     O  O
                                                                                                     £3  43
                                                                                                     O  4J
                                                            o c
                                                            43 O
                                                            M bo
                                                            co 01
                                                            o IH
                                                               o
 0>  (3
 >  O
 O -H
 4-1  CO
 to  13

 C3B1

 °3
•o
 01  M
 W -H
                                               S
                                               f  9

                                               ~a
                                                M
                                                eu 33
                                                CJ  B
                                                c  cd
                                                0)
                                                U  CO
                                                eg 4-1
                                               14-1  CO
                                                0)  01
                                               K 4-1
                                               CO
      •o  §
       o  o.
      43  3


      *3

      «rH
      fX<  CX
      u  o,

      «H  CO
       o
          0)

       a "°
       co  o
      43 4J
       CJ
       CO  CO
         4J
       bp cd
       c •«
      •H
      4-> II
      43
       b043
      •H  a>
       0»  n)
             Hi
             4-1 -O
             CO O
             r-l 43
             3 *J
             o ai
 Ui .
 O 43
14-1

 bO U
 C 4-1
•H  Cd
 4J  CJ


*v
 I-l 4-1
 O  O
 4J 4J
 U
 cd  co
h  cd

 £3 T3
 o  co
•H  £3
 CO iH
 CO 4-1

•a a
w
                                                                      05
                                                                      O
                                                                     •H
                                                                      a
                                                                      co
                                                                      bO
                                                                      l-l
                                                                      o
                                                                     43
                                                                      CO

                                                                      a.
                                                                      co
                                                                      i-i
                                                                      bo
                                                                      o
                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                              CO
                                                                                                              4J
                                                                                                              O
                       o
                       4-J
                                                                      I
                                                                      CM
                                                                     U
                      CJ

                    bo •—i
                    C O
                   •H
                   4.)  bO
                    cd  C
                                                                                                           l-i  T3
                                                                                                           O  to
                                                                                                           4J
                                                                  C  co
                                                                  O  4-1
                                                                  •H  Cd
                                                                  CO rH
                                                                  co  3
                                                                  •H  CJ
                                                                  a <-<
                                                                  H  «
                                                                            4J
                                                                            (3
                                                                            •H

                                                                            a
                                                                            CO
                                                                           T)
                                                                            bb
                                                                            C
                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                     co  co
                                                                                                     o  o
                                                                                                     a  G
                                                                                                     01  0)
                                                                                                     U  I-l
                                                                                                     oi  co
                                                                                                              vO
                                                                                                              1
                    CO  CO
                    co  o>
                    u  u
                    a  a
                    CO  CO
                    Wt  14
                    CO  01
                                                                                                        oioo
 bo  C
 c  o
•H
4J 13
 cd  0)
W  CO

 ^ pa
 o
4J
 o  «
 cd m
PM
    CO
 £3  CJ
 o  e
•H  01
 to  v
 CO  0>
•d ^
 a  co
                                                                                                    43  CJ
                                                                                                             Q)
9/88
External  Combustion Sources
                                                                                                                   1.10-3

-------
References for Section 1.10

 1.  G. E. Weant, Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 1.10,
     Residential Wood Stoves. EPA Contract No.  68-02-3888, Engineering Science,
     Inc., Gary, NC.  In Printing.

 2.  R. Gay and J. Shah, Technical Support Document For Residential Wood
     Combustion, EPA-450/4-85-012, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  February 1986.

 3.  Residential Wood Heater Test Report, Phase 1, Tennessee Valley Authority,
     Chattanooga, TN, November 1982.

 4.  J. A. Rau and J. J. Huntzicker,  "Composition And Size Distribution of
     Residential Wood Smoke Aerosols", Presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of
     the Air Pollution Control Association, Pacific Northwest International
     Section, Portland, OR, November  1984.

 5.  R. C. McCrillis and R. G. Merrill, "Emission Control Effectiveness Of A
     Woodstove Catalyst And Emission  Measurement Methods Comparison", Presented
     at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
     Detroit, MI, 1985.

 6.  L. E. Cottone and E. Messer, Test Method Evaluations and Emissions Testing
     For Rating Wood Stoves, EPA-600/2-86-100,  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, October 1986.

 7.  K. E. Leese and S. M. Hackins, Integrated Air Cancer Project - Source
     Measurement, EPA Contract No, 68-02-3992,  Research Triangle Institute,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  March 1986.

 8.  Residential Wood Heater Test Report, Phase II, Vol. 1, Tennessee Valley
     Authority,  Chattanooga, TN,  August 1983.

 9.  J. M. Allen, et al., Study Of The Effectiveness Of A Catalytic Combustion
     Device On A Wood Burning Appliance. EPA-600/7-84-04, U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1984.

10.  J. M. Allen and W. M. Cooke, Control Of Emissions From Residential Wood
     Burning By Combustion Modification, EPA-600/7-81-091, U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.

11.  R. S. Truesdale and J. G. Cleland, "Residential Stove Emissions From Coal
     And Other Fuels Combustion", Presented at the Specialty Conference on
     Residential Wood and Coal Combustion, Louisville, KY, March 1982.

12.  R. E. Imhoff, et al., "Final Report On A Study Of The Ambient Impact Of
     Residential Wood Combustion in Petersville, Alabama", Presented at the
     Specialty Conference on Residential Wood and Coal Combustion, Louisville,
     KY, March 1982.
1-10.-4                         EMISSION FACTORS

-------
13.   D.  G.  Deangelis,  et al.,  Preliminary Characterization Of Emissions From
     Wood-fired Residential Combustion Equipment.  EPA-600/7-80-040,  U.  S.
     Environmental Protection  Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH,  March 1980.

14.   Standards Of Performance  For New Stationary Sources:   New Residential Wood
     Heaters.  53 FR 5860,  February 26, 1988.
                          External  Combustion Sources                     1.10-5

-------
1.11 WASTE OIL COMBUSTION

1.11.1  General

     "Waste oil" or "used oil" refers to spent lubricating and other in-
dustrial oils that are recovered for reuse as fuels, road oils and processed
oils.  The principal type of waste oil is used vehicle crankcase oil recovered
by automobile service stations and waste oil collection depots.  Other types of
waste oil include metal working lubricants, heavy hydrocarbon fuels, animal and
vegetable oils and fats, and industrial  oils, including those used as trans-
former and other heat transfer fluids.  Common contaminants in waste oils
include metals, halogens, various volatile organic compounds (VOC) and solvents,
and sulfur.  Lead is found in appreciable quantities in used crankcase oil
because of the use of tetraalkyllead gasoline additives.   Many other metals and
sulfur are introduced directly during formulation of lubricating oils as com-
ponents of additives.  Also, metals can  be introduced through abrasion and wear
of lubricated parts and surfaces.  Halogens are introduced from the use of
organic halides as lead scavengers in gasoline, or through commingling of waste
oils and cleaning solvents such as perchloroethylene.  Commingling of used oil
and other organic compounds during collection and storage appears to be a
common occurrence, as evidenced by the large number of relatively low molecular
weight organics frequently found in used oils but not present in the original
oils.1

     In 1983, over 8.7 billion liters (2.3 billion gallons) of automotive and
industrial lubricating oils and other industrial oils were sold.^"^  Of this
total, 4.6 billion liters (1.2 billion gallons) were recovered as used oil and
subsequently reused or disposed of.  The remainder was lost through engine
breakdown during engine operation, end use application, leakage and handling.
Waste oil combustion consumed 2.2 billion liters (0.59 billion gallons), or
roughly half of the recovered total, up  appreciably from 1970 estimates
because of higher fuel costs, past fuel  shortages, and the decline of other
outlets for used oil, such as road oilant or base stock for re-refining.-^

     Waste oil may be burned alone or mixed with other fuel oil, in most
conventional oil burning combustion systems.  Several problems are associated
with waste oil combustion, including reduced combustion efficiency and the
corrosion and erosion of system components.  However, these problems are not
felt to be serious, and they can be reduced if the waste  oil is blended with
fuel oil or if the used oil is treated to reduce sediment, water, light end and
metal content.   Metal emissions can be  reduced if a vaporizing burner rather
than an atomizing burner is used in small waste oil space heaters.

1.11.2  Emissions

     Emission factors for uncontrolled waste oil combustion are presented in
Table 1.11-1.  Lead emissions depend on  the oil's lead content and on boiler
and burner design and operating conditions.  Because of greatly decreased use
of lead in gasoline, the lead content of waste oil has dropped significantly,
falling from 10,000 parts per million in 1970 to 1,100 parts per million in
1982-83 and to 300 - 500 parts per million in 1985.2~3  While further decreases
9/88
                          External  Combustion Sources                    1.11-1

-------
 n)

 §
 M
 H
 t/1
 M
 O
 H
 en
 i-l

 §
 H
 J25
 O
 CJ
 g
 O
 H
 U
 O
 M
 CO
 W


















x>





W
















Li
41


O
X>
-H
Li
co
3
1
iH
a
•H
u
Li
B
§
U

















D
41
C
3
x>

M
C


•H
Li
O
a
;>








^
4)
C
Li
X)
bq
C
N
§
n

Li






























C
O
•H
tn
to
g









0
•H
DO
(0
S
w


e
o

EO
Cfl
*B
W





O
iH
(0
•H
J


C
O
en
«

B


CD
|
•H
a
ID
•rt





3





u
C
03
3
^
O
CL

S ff
4J i-t
y 4-1
tti e^


t-<
(6
bO





X»
•H
^-*
X-s
''B

bO
J£

Li bO
O C
4J -H

eo n



^
bO
M
XI
•w/

m
*S>
*-'

s s?
4J TH
y 4-1
oa ra

c^
bo
%
X)
"•*'
•""
e
"--
5
Li
ai
4J s~*.
II
~r











O Q O D P P





y-N




z . . -a- o z




<—* ^
4* *^ .—*.
< (^ O ^3 •* ^0 — <
Z . . oo . • • z
O O -- CM O O




U Q O Q P d P






^^^^^^^ ^ ^ ^



^^.^^^.^^ ^ ^
s^rsrxooo x - £ * -r, -
ci m .3- .n vc vo i- r~ .0 CO N ° ° z



O OUUOUCSu



^^^^^^^ „ „ „ „
r-~ f*j in •-* co "^ -J — ' rJ i~* o u"* •— < *£>
-

o ^ c* C^ cr cr c? ^ '""*
•i sw s_x s_^ ^ ^. C- i ^ --N CN] ^-*
rOff'f^^r^^-^ ro o tn  u
^m-T-a-m^vr. f^mcocNO o co
tn
O O rsi m O O O
O "^ ~^ CN| \D O u^
bO x: y
U-i 03 01 -H
•O 0) 4) "d C
4) T) -O -H «
s -a -s 1 ^ .2
^-i O O C O -O Li
3«-i o e o
T3 C B 4» 3 — i
"^* §c e '"' ° ^ "^
§O «H
lJ U
X^ O & * *3 -^ «0 *O ° 'Si'"
£ HJwzt3>x
as
•g
(B
r
Q
O.
D-i
3
4)
-H
*
9

4)
U-l
U
>
c'
•o








"o

iJ
n

3

0)

S
u
g
3
C


*O
C

2
3
n
U-4

4)
Li
*
O
*j
CO

«
>e reduced if overall fue
re most bottom sediment ai
>> s
< B Ll
NOX emissions
dlmentatlon to
• w
> o

4-* Li
||
41
>
U
C .H
4) •-(


O



U 0

"c "eu
« 3
- **""
Xi r

4>
.e" iJ
CO 41
(Q Li
£
0) 3
5 =
4J
" J

4>
4-t •
r-< C
41 -^

C
4-* X)
41 S^


4)
" O
C •«
° £
tn m
"jg
4) Z

Pb emissions accordingly
.sslon factors of 7.3(A^
C V
uce partlculat<
llutants.
rail oarticulat
" O 41
01 e. >
Li O
c J o

ft-S ° "S
O W_| CO
^ ° »
O y>
O *
3 CO 4>
tn ,
T-- ^ O
tQ 4)
bO 0' «
uj TO 01
•H x CO


e rn 41
I1 T-< CO
tJ > CD
0>

o c &
o w .—
-H tg 1



«-t U
1-1 (X f 01
It- 41 4)
u e c
• 0» 4) 41
41 41 41 4)
CO O 4) QJ

x> y
r air atomizing space
IM
<0
O
XI
1-1
<
_
"i
bO


"<

•0
C
CO
CO




O
xt


to
Li
• 1ft
3
-o
c
T-l
^J

, —<
u
i
B
O
y
Li

IM
"

, bO
2
X3




"^
•— '
B
bn


CO
U-l
O
4J
§
CO
«?
X
o
y
a
0
Li
U-l
m

x;

<
u
x





u
0

"^
o
rH
«

tJ
cu
(0
B

cO
•£
tn
eo


e
<4-l
4)


ts
T



CO
4)
co d
LI 4)
JJ 0)
4) m

•a
j 0.65*.
: half catch). (P) is
In waste oil was 0.04Z
:al concentration of S In
islty of 900 kg/m3
O X) *CX -O
ash in waste c
EPA Method 5 (
oncentration ol
alue given. A
as, for oil wit
«£ £ 0 > M
1 Si ^|
4_i u o. aj
« 41 X -HO
e 'o < -H ^

C Qj « 3
0 w C § B
y to 41 o

"in 3 li "° *"

& Li 3 3O
X CO »H O UJ


•< u-i CO

0 x^ "c "^
• C • OJ W
41 .2 4) B - <*j
> 4J «-( IH _H O
bO O O- O Li
O, —i l-i 4>
4J 4J CU C U-l
3 i— < »— < > •T-t «
« *J B tft CO
> C 4) t-i
ft) 4) 00 <4-l 4J
X> 0) 4) ° M
TJ 'tU S 0 M S
4) 3 41 AJ
i— i cO -C 00 4-1


r-l C C TJ 4)
B U-l U -rH O.

"° *o &i3
•O • 41 •
r-t CN C M
01 *> 0 .


•O tf-t -H
C CO O X 00
CO 4) l-i 4) r-J
- C 3 C O
>-i «) u e 0)
O 4) bO"-3 4) 4J
C *flj aj C ^ S

41 U4
or fuel N content.
41
a
4J
Ions to boiler
CO
g
4)

BJ
4)

O
C
01
1 Cl




tn


O

0)
a

«
4-1
to
o


CN
o
tn
a


to
CO
41
CM


0 0
* 1 1


ct) tn ao
be a> 4)
^S c e
»— ( 4) 4)
in 4) 41
* **"* **jj

bo x:


|
"So
«
3
«


V
•H
a.

g
4)


T3

g
o
x:
n

C
(B
„

•H
O
C


O

o
M
4_l

bo
•H
s

en
y-s
_. ^


CO
CO
4) 4)
C C
4) 4)
4> 4)

t-i ^
1.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
are forecast, the current lead content ib still appreciably higher than the up
to 100 parts per million levels found in conventional fuels.  Typically, 50
percent or more of the lead in waste oil is emitted with flue gas during
combustion, with the remainder deposited on internal surf aces. •*» 5-10 However,
in small space heaters employing vaporizing burners, less than 5 percent of the
lead in the waste oil is emitted.-*

     Cumulative size distribution data and size specific emission factors for
uncontrolled particulate emissions from waste oil combustion in commercial or
industrial boilers and air atomizing space heaters are presented in Tables
1.11-2 and 1.11-3.  Uncontrolled size specific emission factors are presented
in Figures 1.11-1 and 1.11-2.  Particulate emissions are based on the ash
content of the fuel.  Because the ash content of waste oil is generally higher
than that found in refined oils, emissions from waste oil combustion will be
greater.

     Emissions of other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide (SC^) and hydro-
chloric acid (HC1), will depend on the respective sulfur and chlorine levels in
the oil.  Because levels of these precursor materials are generally greater in
waste oils than in refined fuel oils, particularly distillate oil,  waste oil
combustion will produce more emissions of SOX and HC1.  In contrast, emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (00) and VOCs are similar for both
waste and refined fuels.

1.11.3  Controls

Pretreatment - Most waste oil now sold as a fuel receives some sort of physical
pretreatment (e. g., sedimentation, filtration, centrifugation, water and light
end distillation).  Lead and other trace element concentrations and the ash
content of the waste oil generally will be lowered somewhat by some of these
pretreatments, probably less than 30 percent.  While lead and ash content
reduction will reduce emissions of lead and particulate matter proportionately,
its purpose is to reduce water, sediment and low boiling components.  This
provides a safely handled fuel with combustion properties similar to those of
conventional fuels and with physical properties resembling a No. 4  fuel.
Thus, criteria pollutant emissions primarily affected by overall combustion
efficiency (carbon monoxide and VOCs) will be similar to those from con-
ventional fuels."

     Other criteria pollutants, such as sulfur and NOX which depend either
totally or partially on the fuel sulfur and nitrogen contents, will be emitted
at levels consistent with those concentrations.  Fuel sulfur and nitrogen
levels generally do not decline with pretreatment.   Because waste oil sulfur
usually contains more sulfur than does distillate oil, emission factors for its
combustion will be proportionally higher.  Similarly, the higher nitrogen
content of the waste oil can be expected to result in higher nitrogen oxide
emissions.  Emissions of chloride will be directly related to the chlorine
content of the fuel, with 80 to 90 percent of the chlorine emitted  as HC1.8-9
Many chlorinated organics,  such as the low molecular weight chlorinated sol-
vents, will be removed during pretreatments employing light end distillation.
However, chlorine bearing compounds with vapor pressures similar to those of
the virgin base stock (e. g., polychlorinated biphenyls) will not be removed by
this pretreatment.  Expensive hydrofLnishing, or possibly clay contacting
operations, must be used to remove such chlorine.

 9/88                      External Combustion Sources                   1.11-3

-------
   TABLE  1.11-2.
CUMULATIVE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR UNCONTROLLED
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING WASTE OIL*
Particle sizeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Cumulative mass %
< stated size
88
84
78
67
57
53
45
Emission factorc
(kg/m3) (Ib/I03 gal)
6.4(A) 54(A)
6.1(A) 51(A)
5.7(A) 48(A)
4.9(A) 41(A)
4.2(A) 35(A)
3.9(A) 32(A)
3.3(A) 27(A)
 aReference  1.   A = ash content in fuel.
 ^Expressed  as  aerodynamic  equivalent diameter.
 GBased on an overall  particulate emission  factor  of  7.3(A)
  [61(A) lb/103 gal].
   TABLE 1.11-3.
CUMULATIVE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR UNCONTROLLED
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
FOR AN AIR ATOMIZING SPACE HEATER UNIT FIRING WASTE OIL3
Particle sizeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Cumulative mass %
< stated size
91
89
S2
68
53
48
39
Emission factor0
(kg/m3)
7.0(A)
6.8(A)
6.3(A)
5.2(A)
4.KA)
3.7(A)
3.0(A)
(lb/103 gal)
58(A)
57(A)
52(A)
44(A)
34(A)
31(A)
25(A)
 aReference 5.   A = ash content  in  fuel.
 ^Expressed as  aerodynamic equivalent  diameter.
 cBased on an overall particulate emission factor of  7.7(A)  kg/m3
  [64(A) lb/lQ3 gal].
1.11-4
              EMISSION FACTORS
                                                          9/88

-------
        < OC
        «e
   10A

E   8A

    6A
           i   4A
               2A
               OA
        0.1


Figure 1.11-1.
                                                      i	t  _j._.
                                  1               10
                             PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
                                                      100
                         Cumulative  size specific particulate  emission
                         factors for commercial/industrial boilers
                         firing waste oil.
9/88
        z in
        Is
   10A

    8A


    6A

    4A


    2A
               OA
                 0.1
                                                           i i  i i
                       1               10
                 PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
                                                        100
         Figure 1.11-2.   Cumulative size specific particulate emission
                         factors  for an air atomizing space heater unit
                         firing waste oil.
            External  Combustion Sources
                                                              1.11-5

-------
Blending - Blending waste fuel and virgin fuel oil generally will reduce emis-
sions of lead, particulate,  sulfur dioxide and hydrochloric acid.  Emissions
of these pollutants will be approximately proportional to the respective con-
centrations of lead, ash, sulfur and chlorine in the blended fuel.   NOX emis-
sions may also be reduced, although available data do not support a reduction
estimate.  Emissions of VOC and carbon monoxide, which depend on combustion
efficiency, will not be significantly affected by blending.

Unit Design - There has been an increase in the use of waste oil as a fuel in
small space heaters (those with less than 250,000 British Thermal Units per
hour input). >10  Two types of burners are employed in these combustion systems,
air atomizing and vaporizing.  The conventional air atomizer injects aerosolized
oil vapor into the combustion chamber, whereas the vaporizing burner operates
through volatilization of heated oil.  In the latter, the vapors are burned,
and a residue is left behind in the vaporizing pot.  The atomizing units emit
at least an order of magnitude more particulate, lead and trace elements than
do the vaporizing units.  Although levels of VOC and other unburned combustible
emissions appear comparable from both types of units, limited data suggest a
significantly higher level of polycyclic organic matter emitted from vaporizing
burners.

Control Equipment - Apart from the measure of control introduced by pretreat-
ment, blending or the use of vaporizing burners, no additional controls are
being applied to waste oil combustion.  Waste oils are usually burned in small
devices, for which controls are virtually nonexistent.  Because greater than
80 percent of the lead bearing particulate is submicron in diameter, only high
efficiency control devices such as fabric filters can provide significant
control.  Mechanical collectors will achieve little if any measurable control,
either of lead emissions or of the submicron fraction of the particulate (about
55 percent) emitted in flue gas.8


References for Section 1.11

1.   Composition And Management Of Used Oil Generated In The United States,
     PB85-180297, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
     November 1985.

2.   Waste Oil: Technology, Economics, And Environmental Health And Safety
     Considerations, U. S. Department Of Energy, Washington, DC, January 1987.

3.   N. F. Surprenant, et al., The Fate Of Hazardous And Nonhazardous Wastes In
     Used Oil Disposal And Recycling, DOE/BC/10375-6, U. S. Department Of
     Energy, Bartlesville, OK, October 1983.

4.   T. D. Coyle and A. R. Siedle, "Metals In Oil: Occurrence And Significance
     For Reuse Of Spent Automotive Lubricating Oils", Measurements And Standards
     For Recycled Oil - II, Special Publication 556, National Bureau Of
     Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, September 1979.

5.   Final Report Of The API Task Force On Oil Disposal, American Petroleum
     Institute, New York, NY, May 1970.
1.11-6                          EMISSION FACTORS                            9/88

-------
 6.   G. A. Chappell,  Waste Oil Reprocessing,  Project No.  72-5,  Esso Research
      and Engineering  Co.,  Government Research Laboratory,  Linden,  NJ,  January
      1973.

 7.   D. A. Waite,  et  al.,  "Waste Oil Combustion:  An Environmental  Case Study",
      presented at  the 75th Annual Meeting  of  the  Air Pollution  Control
      Association,  New Orleans, LA, June 1982.

 8.   Environmental Characterization Of  Disposal Of  Waste  Oils In Small
      Combustors, EPA-600/2-84-150, U.  S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
      Cincinnati, OH,  September 1984.

 9.   Used Oil Burned  As A  Fuel, EPA-SW-892, U.  S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency,  Washington, DC,  August 1980.

10.   R. E. Hall, et al. , "Comparison Of Air Pollutant Emissions From Vaporizing
      And Air  Atomizing Waste  Oil Heaters", Journal  of the  Air Pollution Control
      Association,  ^3_(7 ): 683-687 , July 1983.

11.   R. L. Barbour and W.  M.  Cooke, Chemical  Analysis Of Waste  Crankcase Oil
      Combustion Samples, EPA-600/7-83-026, U. S.  Environmental  Protection
      Agency,  Cincinnati, OH,  April 1983.

12.   W. B. Walker  and R.  Salter, Pollution Of The  Environment By The Burning Of
      Waste Oils, PB83-004943,  National  Technical  Information Service,
      Springfield,  VA, September 1980.
 9/88
                          External Combustion Sources                     1.11-7

-------
2.1  REFUSE COMBUSTION

     Refuse combustion generally means the burning of predominantly nonhazardous
garbage or other wastes.  Types of combustion devices used to burn refuse
include single chamber units, multiple chamber units, trench incinerators, con-
trolled air incinerators, and pathological incinerators.  These devices are
used to burn municipal, commercia'l, industrial, pathological, and domestic
refuse.

2.1.1  Municipal Waste Combustion^

     Mass burn excess air combustion is the predominant method of burning
municipal solid waste (MSW).  Approximately 70 percent of the MSW burned is
burned in mass burn units.  The term "mass burn" means the burning of MSW with-
out any prior processing other than the removal of bulky items (stoves, tele-
phone poles, etc.) to produce a more homogeneous fuel.  Mass burn units are
preferred for disposal of large amounts (up to 2700 megagrams metric tons [3000
tons] per day) of MSW.  Some mass burn units coincinerate MSW and sewage sludge.
A second type of municipal waste combustor is the starved air or modular
combustor.  Starved air combustors are the most common type of combustor because
they handle smaller amounts (up to 450 megagrams [500 tons] per day) of MSW.
Another type of municipal waste combustor is the refuse-derived fuel (RDF)
combustor.  Refuse-derived fuel combustors burn MSW from which metals and other
noncombustible materials have been removed.  Because of the processing costs
associated with producing RDF, these units are not as popular as mass burn or
starved units.  Some RDF is incinerated with coal or sewage sludge.

2.1.2  Process Description^'^

     Mass Burn Combustors - Typically, an overhead crane mixes MSW in a storage
pit and then moves it into a feed chute.   A hydraulic ram system under the feed
chute charges the waste onto a grate system.  As the waste is moved through the
combustion chamber by the grate system, it passes through three zones:  a dryout
zone, where moisture in the waste is evaporated; a combustion zone; and a burn-
out zone, where final combustion occurs.   The resulting ash falls into a flooded
ash pit and is removed and sent to a landfill.  In some cases, ferrous metals
are removed from the ash by magnetic separation.  The capacity of individual
combustors can range from 50 to 1000 megagrams of waste per day, and usually 2
or 3 units are at a site.

     Several types of grate systems are used with mass burn combustors.  They
are all similar in being designed to move the waste through the combustor and
to promote complete combustion.  The grates can be traveling, rocking, recipro-
cating, roller, or rotary designs.  The combustion process is supplied with
underfire air, which is introduced into multiple compartments, or plenums,
under the stoker grates, and with overfire air from nozzles or openings above
the grates.

     New mass burn combustors can be expected to have a water wall furnace to
recover energy in the form of steam.  Many older facilities have refractory
lined walls rather than water walls.  Large mass burn units are usually field
erected.
9/88                          Solid Waste Disposal                        2.1-1

-------
     The air pollution control systems for these combustors are electrostatic
precipitators (ESP), dry fabric filters (FF),  dry scrubbing systems (with
either ESPs or FFs), and wet scrubbers.

     Starved Air Combustors - A typical such unit has separate primary and
secondary chambers.  The primary chamber is fed MSW by a hopper and ram feed
system.  Air is supplied to the primary chamber at substoichiometric levels.
Rams in the primary chamber push residue and break up clinker.  Exhaust gases,
including incomplete combustion products, (mostly carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbons of low molecular weight) pass into the secondary combustion chamber.

     In the secondary combustion chamber, more air is added, and combustion is
completed.  The resulting hot gases,  1000° to 1200°C (1800° to 2200°F), can be
passed through a heat recovery boiler for energy recovery, and all new starved
air combustors can be expected to have such systems.  Ashes are quenched and
removed for disposal.  Most existing starved air municipal waste combustors
operate without emission control systems, although some have ESPs or fabric
filters for particulate control.  Starved air combustors generally are available
on the market and can be installed relatively quickly.

     Refuse-derived Fuel Combustors - An alternative to direct combustion of MSW
is processing the waste to produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF).  The four main
types of RDF are fluff, densified, powdered, and wet pulped.  Fluff RDF is
prepared by mechanical shredding of MSW, followed by air classification,
magnetic separation, or trommeling to reduce the noncombustible content of the
waste stream.  If multiple shredding stages are used, fine RDF is produced.
Densified RDF is fine RDF extruded in a pellet mill.  Production of powdered
RDF requires mechanical, thermal and chemical processing of shredded MSW that
has undergone screening and magnetic separation.  In the wet pulping process,
the pulper is fed wet MSW that has been sluiced with water.  Noncombustibles
are removed in a liquid cyclone, then the RDF is then mechanically dewatered
to a moisture content of 50 percent.

     Boilers dedicated to RDF combustion are of basically the same design as
those used for coal combustion.  Typical configurations Include suspension,
stoker, and fluidized bed designs.  These boilers may burn up to 900 megagrams
(1000 tons) of RDF per day.  The ash is quenched and removed to a landfill.
Most RDF units use ESPs for particulate matter control.

2.1.3  Emissions And Controls3"^

     Refuse incinerators have the potential to emit significant quantities of
pollutants to the atmosphere.  One of these pollutants is particulate matter,
emitted because of  the turbulent movement of the combustion gases with respect
to the burning sludge and resultant ash.  Particulate matter is also produced
when metals that are volatilized in the combustion zone condense in the exhaust
gas stream.  Particle sizes and particulate concentrations leaving the inciner-
ator vary widely, depending on the composition of the refuse being burned and
on the type and operation of the incineration process.

     Incomplete combustion of refuse, through improper incinerator design or
operating conditions, can result in emissions of intermediate products such as
volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide.  Other potential emissions


2.1-2                           EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, metals, acid gases, and toxic organic
compounds.

     A wide variety of control technologies is used to control refuse
incinerator emissions.  Currently,  the most widely used devices are ESPs,
fabric filters, wet scrubbers and dry scrubbers.  Many control systems use a
combination of these.

     Electrostatic precipitators are used on 75 percent of existing municipal
waste incinerators, to control particulate emissions.  The efficiency of a
typical ESP can range from 90 to 99 percent, depending on particle size
distribution, gas flow rate and particle resistivity.

     Fabric filters generally have not been applied directly to flue gases from
municipal incinerators, but rather are used as sorbent collectors and secondary
reactors for dry and semidry scrubbers.  With upstream scrubbing of acid gases
and sorbent accumulation on fabric materials,  fabric filters become a viable
choice for control of fine particulate as well as other pollutants.

     Many types of wet scrubbers are used for removing acid gases - spray
towers, centrifugal scrubbers and venturi scrubbers.  Scrubbers with internals,
such as packed beds and trays, are less commonly used.  In wet scrubbers, the
exhaust gas enters the absorber and contacts enough alkaline solution to satur-
ate the gas stream.  The alkaline solution reacts with the acid gases to form
salts, which are generally insoluble and removable by sequential clarifying,
thickening and vacuum filtering.  The dewatered salts or sludges are then used
as landfill.

     The two types of dry scrubbing are dry injection and semidry scrubbing.
In both,  the material collected in the particle collector is dry.  Dry injection
is the injection of a solid powder such as lime or sodium bicarbonate into the
flue gas (with a separate water injection).  Acid gas removal occurs in the
duct and continues in the dust collector, as sorbent and ash particles and
condensed volatile matter are captured.  In a semidry process, also known as
spray drying or wet/dry scrubbing,  the sorbent enters the flue gas as a liquid
spray, with sufficient moisture to promote rapid absorption of acid gases, but,
because the moisture evaporates, only dry solid particles collector.

     Emission factors for municipal waste incinerators are shown in Table 2.1-1.
Table 2.1-2 shows the cumulative particle size distribution and size specific
emission factors for municipal waste combustors.  Figures 2.1-1, 2.1-2 and
2.1-3 show the cumulative particle size distribution and size specific emission
factors for mass burn, starved air and RDF combustors, respectively.

2.1.4  Other Types Of Combust ion2,5-7

     The most common types of combustors have a refractory lined chamber with
a grate upon which refuse is burned.  In some  newer incinerators,  water walled
furnaces are used.  Combustion products are formed by heating and burning refuse
on the grate.  In most cases,  since insufficient underfire air is provided to
complete combustion,  additional air is admitted above the burning waste to
promote complete gas  phase combustion.  In multiple chamber incinerators, gases
from the primary chamber flow to a small secondary mixing chamber,  where more
air is admitted and more extensive  oxidation occurs.   As much as 300 percent

9/88                          Solid Waste Disposal                        2.1-3

-------
                 12
                 10
       O

       CD
       C
       o
         00
         s

         00
       o
       i-l
       4J
       c
       o
       a
       c
                              Controlled
                                                     Uncontrolled
                         i   i  i  i i i i i i
                                                          0.12




                                                          0.10




                                                          0.08




                                                          0.06



                                                          0.04




                                                          0.02
                   0.1
                     1.0                10

                        P»rt1cle dUmeter (u«)
                                                                     100
           Figure 2.1-1.  Cumulative particle size  distribution  and

                           size  spt • . f .    -11.. - - i )i factors for mass

                           burn  combustors.
       V-i
       o
       ti
       o
       •H
       W /->
       CO CO
       D  oo
       O
       t-i
       4-1


       O
       O
       a
1.20




1.00




0.80




0.60




0.40




0.20



   0
                                  Controlled
                                                         Uncontrolled
                                                                         0.0150
0.0125
                                                                         0.0100
                                                                         0.0075
                                                                         0.0050
0.0025
                    o.l
                      i 0               10
                         Partlclt dUMtcr
                                                                      100
           Figure  2.1-2.   Cumulative particle size  distribution and

                            size specific  emission  factors  for

                            starved air combustors.
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  rt
         fi
         o

         en oo
         en S
         •rl ~-.
         a oo
         -d
         01
         o
         S-i
         iJ
         c
         o
         u
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   4J
                                                                                   o
          o
         •H ^
          03 00
          en a
         •H --.
          6 oo
          0)
          C
          O
          o
2.1-4
                    EMISSION FACTORS
         9/88

-------
      CO
      J-4
      Q
      C
      Q
     •r-t
      Cfl /—»
      (A 00
     •rf S
      6 ^
      01 oo
     41
     O
     l-i
     4J
     C
     O
     O
     d
     ;=>
30

25


20


15


10

 5

 0
                        Uncontrolltd
                                              Controlled
                      i  i  i i i i 11
                                        i i i i 111
              0.1
                  1.0              I0~
                     PirtlcU 4U«tttr
                                                                0.60
                                                                0.50
0.40
                                                               0.30
0.20
0.10
       CO
       u
       O
                                                                      O
                                                                      CO
       O
       •H /—.
       CO 00
       M S
       •H -^
       6 oo
       0) j«!
        N^
       •a
       (U
       e
       o
       o
                                                            100
          Figure 2.1-3.   Cumulative  particle  size  distribution and
                          size specific  emission  factors  for refuse-
                          derived  fuel combustors.
excess air may be supplied in order  to promote  oxidation of combustibles.
Auxiliary burners are sometimes  installed  in the mixing chamber to increase the
combustion temperature.  Many small  incinerators are  single chamber units in
which gases vent  from the primary  combustion chamber  directly into the exhaust
stack.  Single chamber incinerators  of this  type do not meet modern air pollution
codes.

2.1.5  Process Description^*5-7

      Industrial/Commercial Combustors -  The  capacities  of these units cover a
wide range, generally between 23 and 1800  kilograms  (50 and 4000 pounds) per
hour.  Of either  single  or  multiple-chamber design,  these units are often
manually charged and intermittently  operated.   Some industrial combustors are
similar to municipal combustors  in size  and  design.   Better designed emission
control systems include gas  fired  afterburners, scrubbers, or both.

     Trench Combustors - A trench  combustor  is  designed to handle wastes of
relatively high heat content and low ash content.  The  design is a simple
U-shaped combustion chamber  formed by the  sides and bottom of the pit, and air
is supplied from nozzles (or fans) along the  top of the pit.  The nozzles are
directed at an angle below the horizontal, to provide a curtain of air across
9/88
                   Solid Waste Disposal
            2.1-5

-------
I
H
O
M
r-l

 I
04

b.
"S
h
01
•o
Refuse




•«•*
CO
in




c
9
to
CO
n
I



Emission
«

Ui
c
3
t>
0)
.-(
0
u
Emission Uncont

w
o
h
C
3
•s
o
u
Emission Ur

"8
*H
O
u
1
o
c
• o
c
01
u
Pollutant
Pai
Factor
Rating

e
J4 ~H

U) O
00.0
.* -*
v^
*• 00
o e
U .H
a u
22


&2

£?

Factor
Rating


fl
^f
g°
£2
01
J3
«rH
•o
M
U
OO 00
0 0
o
O -"
0 0
. 0
•ff
.» 0
Q
JO
-O ON
o o
o o
00 ON
o o
o o
0 0
00 O
o o
-* in
o o
u
JO
±2
o o
in *o
o o
o o
-» o
f*. in
in
CM
O — '
0

OO CM -» 00
0000
CM en en en
o o o o
CM CM -* 00
NO — 1 CM -*
—> CM CM CM
O CM ^ *O
CM CM CM CM
O O O O
O O O O
O -< 
m
o\
o
u
00
o
ON
O
00

Total
Particulate
Q
CJ
o
0
o
o
en

in
vO
o
o
0
CM
O
o
o
o
o
o
-*
o
o
o
CM
o
0
o
o
00
o
ON
o
o
•o
CO
01
Q

_
in
m
o
~
m
00
o
Q
01
-H
in
in
o
^
in
CO
o
o
^
->
in
in
o
r-.
in
00
O
Sulfur
[ Dioxide^
a
o
in
in
CM
o

in
CM
a
u
-d-
CM
CM
•*.
CM

                                                                        O  O
                                                                        ! < U
2.1-6
EMISSION  FACTORS
9/88

-------
          CM
           I
          CN





0
4-1
J3
i— 1
I"
Jf

kl
4J
O
CD
<4H
C
O
•H
co
•H

•H
4J
«J
i— I
3
CJ



•o

n n n CN — i o "A
O O C3 O O CO CO
M3 -*  oo m
— I — « — < -H O O — <
0 O 0 O 0 O O
o o o o o o o
o oo o i/i m -H oo

0 O O O O O O
o o m «•> m
O CT* CO r^ sO »A O\
— c O O O O O -•
O 0 O O O O O
s~\
CO
CO sT CN CM O 00 O
-a- •* -* m CN >-• oo
-*
-31 CM — « >O O .O
CM CM CN -H -* ^ sf
s~\
m -r m CM o oo ON
.«..*..
"~> o m o o o u"i
r~ r~ so xO m •* ON
o o o o o o o
^N ^N *^%
^^ ^^ ^^ CNI o -3" •*••*
oo  vO in o
•— «
m r-» n •» -* n n CM o
~4
o m m o tn -^ o
vj3 u-| m -» CM -H O
*^
ON -* co en en CN o
r~ r» \o %O m -* O
^^
r^ r~ rv| 3" en en CN ** —« O
i-^
in
CN •-(
o o O in o vo eg
...... 4J
m o m CN -H o O
-« -" H












•
tH

ki
4)
•o
(U
CO
3
4)
ki
1
s
aReference 3. MB - mass burn. SA - starved air.
9/88
Solid Waste Disposal
2.1-7

-------
O
H
CO

PH

O
U

w
CO
p

w
a
w
o
u
H
CO
g
o
Pu

CO
Pi
O
H
U

PH
 CO
 CO
 Q
 W
 rJ


 I
 H
 Z
 O
 u
 I
 i-H

 CN
     O
a!
o
H
O
CO
CO
•a
0]
01
-o
•H
X
o
c
M
O
it
4-1
•H
Z
C
O
4J
- —
f\
rH



bO
S

60
A!

O
CO
O
•H
C
cd
bt

O
ft)
i-H
4J
(0
rH
O


•O
K
0
6
§

C
o
&
IH
CO
U



e
0
4-1

n
rH


60
2

60

C
o
4J
XI
i-H



60
2

60



,0
a
41
•fl
•H
X
O

IH
3

^H
3
(A
C
o
4J
"^
XI
rH



60
2

60






4)
4-1
cd
i-H
3
O
•H
4-1
l-l
cd
PH

B
O
4J
^^
.0
i-H


bO
32

bo












4)
a.
^
4J

IH
O
4-1
cd

4)
C
•H
U
C
M




co CM -^ <3 • oo r^ o \o
rH «-H C*S CO CO
rH



m in m m
• • • •
co ^^ *o ON oo m fi
NO >-H »-H









41 4)
(0 m N/
IH 3 IH
O) 60 in 0)
XI H CO 4) rO
§41 4) |H B
rO r4 CO
J= 6 -H rH X S
U CO 4-1 CO O 13
fi (X 4)
4) O w iH T3 O iH
rH JS 4) O 4) rH <4H
O.4) XT3XI-H I4HOO-H
•rlrH OOXld CT3
4->bO CO33 41 -H O
rH c oi 3 a: s s co z:
3 -H IH rH
£ M H Pu




-H OJ





m
•
0 -H









O CM
O
i-H





O rH
in


O 60
O 41
CO S^




O 60
in 41
*-H £5





in m
. •
0 0




m in
CM CM
• .
o o








m r-.
CO




in m
• •
P*» CO
rH



C
IH
IH 4)
01 C O.

834)
5 XI C
fi IH
O ^^ 3
d *">
4) cd
rH 3 ^
60 -H IH
C IH CO
•H a. B
CO TH
4-1 IH
O3O.
•H 0
4J Si f.
05 4J 4J
4) -H -H
O
a




ro





m
•
rH









60
ai
z




60
4)
z


bO
4)
Z




60
4)
Z





60
4)
Z





60
4)
Z








00







«^















D*
rH
CO
O
•H
bO
0
rH
O
4->
cd
Pu





•
4)
rH
•H
•H
rH
60
Ol
^
,
60
01



«
0)
rH

M
•H
B
CO

^
O
e
<

.
60
C
•H
4J
05
41
4J

*S
O
CO
4J
CO
O
4J
cd
IH
4)
C
•H
O
C
•H

IH
0
UH

CO
4)
|H
3
•a
4)
u
o
M •
O. CO
4J
<; cd
P- -0
a]
|H
c o
O 4J
CO
•O IH
41 4)
ca e
CO -H
XI U •
• C co
CO 4) tH rH
4) C • •
M <0 CO rH —1
(0 • tf • ^H CO *^4
t-i CM4J CM I O. 1
4) O 4) O O -H O
> CO S Z rH 0 -H
CO --H .
CO (0 09 ^O CM >O
4) cd co 
4)
CJ C
c o
41
Vj *O
ItH CO
01 CO
.e •<->















































•
-«•
^^
1
CO
rH
A
NO

co
4)
U
e
4)
IH
4)
UH
4)



•
CD
rH
O
H
4J
C
O
CJ

4J
UH
cd
IH
•o

•o
• CO
m
^H 00
1 IH
-! 4)
rH C
M l-l
SO 3

CO IH
4) 0)
CJ 4J
C **H
4) CO
M
UH 4-1
4) tH
rV! 8























































































•
rH
rH •
1 NO
O • rH
rH O •

CO
4) 4) 4)
cj O cj
C C C
4) 4) 4)
IH M H
UH UH UH
41 41 U
C tx cr
 2.1-8
                                 EMISSION  FACTORS
11/88

-------
the top of the pit and to provide air for combustion in the pit.  Low con-
struction and operating costs have led to use of this combustor to dispose of
materials other than those for which it was originally designed.  Emission
factors for trench combustors used to burn three such materials are given in
Table 2.I.3.8

     Domestic Combustors - This category includes combustors marketed for
residential use.  Fairly simple in design,  they may have single or multiple
chambers and usually are equipped with an auxiliary burner to aid combustion.

     Flue Fed Combustors - These units, commonly found in large apartment
houses, are characterized by the charging method of dropping refuse down the
combustor flue and into the combustion chamber.  Modified flue fed incinerators
utilize afterburners and draft controls to improve combustion efficiency and to
reduce emissions.

     Pathological Combustors - These are combustors used to dispose of animal
remains and other organic material of high moisture content.  Generally, these
units are able to process 23 to 45 kilograms (50 to 100 pounds) of such waste
per hour.  Wastes are burned on a hearth in the combustion chamber.  The units
are equipped with combustion controls and afterburners to ensure good combustion
and reduced emissions.                     <

2.1.6  Emissions And Controls^)?

     Operating conditions, composition of refuse, and basic combustor design
have a pronounced effect on emissions.  The manner in which air is supplied to
the combustion chamber or chambers has a significant effect on the quantity of
particulate emissions.  Air may be introduced from beneath, aside or atop the
combustion chamber.  As underfire air is increased, an increase in fly ash
emissions occurs.  Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the com-
bustion bed and subsequent release of large quantities of particulate.  Large
amounts of uncombusted particulate and carbon monoxide also are emitted for
an extended period after the charging of batch fed units, because of inter-
ruptions in the combustion process.  In continuously fed units, furnace parti-
culate emissions strongly depend on grate type.  Use of a rotary kiln and
reciprocating grates results in higher particulate emissions than does use of a
rocking or traveling grate.  Emissions of oxides of sulfur depend on the sulfur
content of the refuse.  Carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbon emissions may
be significant, and are caused by poor combustion resulting from improper
combustor design or operating conditions.  Nitrogen oxide emissions increase
with increases in combustion zone temperature, residence time in the combustion
zone before quenching, and excess air rates to the point where dilution cooling
overcomes the effect of increased oxygen concentration.6


References for Section 2.1
  -,
 1.  Appendix A;  Characterization of the Municipal Waste Combustion Industry,
     Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1986,

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


9/88                          Solid Waste Disposal                        2.1-9

-------
 3.   Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 2.1.1;  Municipal Waste
     Combustion (Draft),  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September
     1987.

 4.   C. B.  Sedman and T.  G. Brna,  Municipal Waste Combustion Study;  Flue Gas
     Cleaning Technology, EPA/530-SW-87-02Id,  U. S. Environmental Protection"
     Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, June  1987.

 5.   Control  Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,
     AP-65,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH, March 1970.

 6.   Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40,  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH, 1967.  Out of Print.

 7.   J. DeMarco,  et al.,  Incinerator  Guidelines, 1969, 13TS, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1969.

 8.   J. 0.  Brukle, J. A.  Dorsey and B. T. Riley, "The Effects of Operating
     Variables and Refuse Types on Emissions from a Pilot-scale Trench
     Incinerator", Proceedings of the 1968 Incinerator Conference, American
     Society  of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, May 1968.

 9.   Walter R. Nessen, Systems Study  of Air Pollution from Municipal
     Incineration, Contract No. CPA-22-69-23,  Arthur D. Little, Incorporated,
     Cambridge, MA, March 1970.

10.   C. V.  Kanter, R. G.  Lunche and A. P. Fururich, "Techniques for Testing Air
     Contaminants from Combustion Sources", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control
     Association, 6/4): 191-199, February 1957.

11.   J. L.  Stear, Municipal Incineration:  A Review of Literature, AP-79, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1971.

12.   E. R.  Kaiser, Refuse Reduction Processes  in Proceedings of Surgeon
     General's Conference on Solid Waste Management, PHS No. 1729, U. S.
     Public Health Service, Washington, DC, July 1967.

13.   Unpublished source test data on incinerators,  Resources Research,
     Incorporated, Reston, VA, 1966-1969.

14.   E. R.  Kaiser, et al., "Modifications To Reduce Emissions From A  Flue-fed
     Incinerator", No. 552.2, College of Engineering, New York University, New
     York,  NY, June 1959.

15.   Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston,  VA, and
     Division of Air Quality Control, Maryland State Department of Health,
     Baltimore, MD, 1969.

16.   Unpublished incinerator test data, Office of Air Quality Planning And
     Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, 1970.
2.1-10                          EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
2.1.2  Other Types of Combustors

     The most common types of combustors consist of a refractory-lined
chamber with a grate upon which refuse is burned.  In some newer
incinerators water-walled furnaces are used.  Combusti   products a.-e formed
by heating and burning of refuse on the grate.  In most cases, since
insufficient underfire (undergrate) air is provided to enable complete
combustion, additional over-fire air is admitted above the burning waste to
promote complete gas-phase combustion.  In multiple-chamber incinerators,
gases from the primary chamber flow to a small secondary-mixing chamber
where more air is admitted, and more complete oxidation occurs.  As much as
300 percent excess air may be supplied in order to promote oxidation of
combustibles.  Auxilliary burners are sometimes installed in the mixing
chamber to increase the combustion temperature.  Many small-size incin-
erators are single-chamber units in which gases are vented from the primary
combustion chamber directly into the exhaust stack.  Single-chamber
incinerators of this type do not meet modern air pollution codes.
                            i-1*
2.1.2.1  Process Description

     Industrial/Commercial Combustors—The capacities of these units cover a
wide range, generally between 50 and 4,000 pounds (22.7 and 1,800 kilograms)
per hour.  Of either single- or multiple-chamber design, these units are
often manually charged and intermittently operated.  Some industrial
combustors are similar to municipal combustors in size and design.  Better
designed emission control systems include gas-fired afterburners, scrubbers,
or both.

     Trench Combustors—A trench combustor is designed for the combustion of
wastes having relatively high heat content and low ash content.  The design
of the unit is simple:  a U-shaped combustion chamber is formed by the sides
and bottom of the pit, and air is supplied from nozzles (or fans) along the
top of the pit.  The nozzles are directed at an angle below the horizontal
to provide a curtain of air across the top of the pit and to provide air for
combustion in the pit.  Low construction and operating costs have resulted
in the use of this combustor to dispose of materials other than those for
which it was originally designed.  Emission factors for trench combustors
used to burn three such materials are included in Table 2.1.2-1.

     Domestic Combustors—This category includes combustors marketed for
residential use.  Fairly simple in design, they may have single or multiple
chambers and usually are equipped with an auxiliary burner to aid
combustion.

     Flue-Fed Combustors—These units,  commonly found in large apartment
houses, are characterized by the charging method of dropping refuse down the
combustor flue and into the combustion chamber.   Modified flue-fed
incinerators utilize afterburners and draft controls  to improve combustion
efficiency and reduce emissions.

     Pathological Combustors—These are combustors  used to dispose of animal
remains and other organic material of high moisture content.   Generally,
these units are in a size range of 50 to 100 pounds (22.7  to 45.4 kilograms)


9/88                         Solid Waste Disposal                     2.1-11

-------


0)
CO
hJ
O
e
z
o
u
o
a
H
i— i
S
H
3
3
cu
u
M
35

X
]Z
is**
H "
® H
CO 3
**> CM
PC
COMBUSTO
1 FACTOR
*
"2
§«
g w
5s 3C
Cd
OH
£
CO
OtS
0
g
CK
Z
o
1— 1
CO
co
t— t

Cd


^
1
CM
*~J
CM
U
H-]
eQ
H

•o
S
g
c
§
2
Z
5.



g
S





wt
g
1
|

*-
^
_2*


g


1
X
o
I
§
.3
1
^


g



.O
Wt

X
0
^
H-
5
t
oi
"*
g



s
»2
a
u
fe


H-
5*


g
4-*
r—















1
•*-»
u
o
IO
1
u
c
in^.  m m o ••* •
•-« f»T r*^ ^-1 «
X

m u> "-> •'^ •*•» in fn o (M «
^ " 22*


in o •"-» •••> 'o o m o • •
^-4 i-t m » 01
z x



o o •"-> •*•» ••"> o o o • .
*-* M oi ^H O W O»
**1 J( ^

mu> m -^ m in in min
O4I 4> • *~ V ? 4?
•f- Vt ,
^» -F-^- O»"O W-r-V-ft

"(O *O & 'C "* **-' *** A>*C *r^
•^ [o.^f •fi'SS"" "S ^ -ii 3°" S1
+* -M *5» F ^ ^ 3 **- V « f£ •—
«/) ^- C W 3 K 3£ 1 I Wt 4-» *» O
3 a*t*> t_ 4) 4> If '— '— g
-i 5 ^ ^ 3315^5
C ^ r— O &- fe -C
lo*I«-|«- .35*1
ij"**tflgwlu>ig-jg(rt'£
*^'8'8^S c S u e^ u £
«!WtCOCCO'VC
-------
per hour.  Wastes are burned on a hearth in the combustion chamber.  The
units are equipped with combustion controls and afterburners to ensure good
combustion and minimal emissions.

2.1.2.2  Emissions and Controls

     Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic combustor design
have a pronounced effect on emissions.  The manner in which air is supplied
to the combustion chamber or chambers has a significant effect on the
quantity of particulate emissions.  Air may be introduced from beneath the
chamber, from the side, or from the top of the combustion chamber.  As
underfire air is increased, an increase in fly-ash emissions occurs.
Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the combustion bed and a
subsequent release of large quantities of particulates.  Large quantities of
uncombusted particulate matter and carbon monoxide are also emitted for an
extended period after charging of batch-fed units because of interruptions
in the combustion process.  In continuously fed units, furnace particulate
emissions are strongly dependent upon grate type.  The use of a rotary kiln
and reciprocating grates results in higher particulate emissions than the
use of a rocking or traveling grate.   Emissions of oxides of sulfur are
dependent on the sulfur content of the refuse.  Carbon monoxide and unburned
hydrocarbon emissions may be significant and are caused by poor combustion
resulting from improper combustor design or operating conditions.  Nitrogen
oxide emissions increase with an increase in the temperature of the
combustion zone, an increase in the residence time in the combustion zone
before quenching, and an increase in the excess air rates to the point where
dilution cooling overcomes the effect of increased oxygen concentration.
 9/88                        Solid Waste Disposal                     2.1-13

-------
References for Section 2.1.2

 1.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  Final Report,  Resources Research,
     Incorporated, Reston,  VA,  prepared for National Air Pollution Control
     Administration,  Durham, NC,  under Contract Number CPA-2269-119,
     April 1970.

 2.  Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary
     Sources, U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
     Administration,  Washington,  DC,  Publication Number AP-65,  March  1970.

 3.  Air Pollution Engineering  Manual, U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for
     Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, OH, Publication Number  999-AP-40,
     1967, p. 413-503.

 4.  J. DeMarco. et al., Incinerator  Guidelines 1969, U.S. DHEW, Public
     Health Service,  Cincinnati,  OH,  SW.  13TS, 1969, p. 176.

 5.  J. 0. Brukle, J. A. Dorsey,  and  B. T. Riley, The Effects of Operating
     Variables and Refuse Types on Emissions from a Pilot-Scale Trench
     Incinerator, Proceedings of  the  1968 Incinerator Conference, American
     Society of Mechanical  Engineers,  New York, NY, May 1968, p. 34-41.

 6.  Walter R. Nessen, Systems  Study  of Air Pollution from Municipal
     Incineration, Arthur D. Little,  Inc.  Cambridge, MA, prepared for
     National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, NC, under
     Contract Number CPA-22-69-23, March 1970.

 7.  C. V. Ranter, R. G. Lunche,  and  A. P. Fururich, Techniques for Testing
     Air Contaminants from  Combustion Sources,  J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.,
     6(4): 191-199, February 1957.

 8.  J. L. Stear, Municipal Incineration;  A Review of Literature, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Air Programs, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, OAP Publication Number  AP-79, June 1971.

 9.  E. R. Kaiser, Refuse Reduction Processes in Proceedings of Surgeon
     General's Conference on Solid Waste Management, Public Health Service,
     Washington, DC,  PHS Report Number 1729, July 10-20, 1967.

10.  Unpublished source test data on  incinerators,  Resources Research,
     Incorporated, Reston,  VA,  1966-1969.

11.  E. R. Kaiser, et al.,  Modifications to Reduce  Emissions from a Flue-Fed
     Incinerator, New York  University, College  of Engineering,  Report
     Number 552.2, June 1959, p.  40 and 49.

12.  Communication between  Resources  Research,  Incorporated, Reston,  VA, and
     Maryland State Department  of Health, Division  of Air Quality Control,
     Baltimore, MD, 1969.
  2.1-14                       EMISSION FACTORS                          9/88

-------
13.  Unpublished data on incinerator testing.   U.S.  DHEW,  PHS, EHS, National
     Air Pollution Control  Administration,  Durham, NC,  1970.
  9/88                       Solid Waste Disposal                     2.1-15

-------
2.5  SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION

2.5.1  Process Description

     In sewage sludge incineration, materials generated by wastewater
treatment plants are oxidized to reduce the volume of solid waste.

     In the first step in the process, the sludge is dewatered until it is
15 to 30 percent solids so that it will burn without auxiliary fuel.
Dewatered sludge is conveyed to a combustion device where thermal oxidation
occurs.  The unburned residual ash is removed from the combustion device,
usually on a continuous basis, and disposed.  The exhaust gas stream is
directed to an air pollution control device, typically a wet scrubber.

     Approximately 95 percent of sludge incinerators are multiple-hearth and
fluidized-bed designs.  Multiple-hearth incinerators are vertically oriented
cylindrical shells containing from 4 to 14 refractory hearths stacked one
above the other.  Sludge typically enters at the periphery of the top hearth
and is raked inward by the teeth on a rotating rabble arm to a drop hole
leading to the second hearth.  The teeth on the rabble arm above the second
hearth are positioned in the opposite direction to move the sludge
outward.  This outside-in, inside-out pattern is repeated on alternate
hearths.  Fluidized-bed incinerators also are vertically oriented
cylindrical shells.  A bed of sand approximately 0.7-meters (2.5-feet) thick
rests on the grid and is fluidized by air injected through the tuyeres
located at the base of the furnace within a refractory-lined grid.  Sludge
is introduced directly into the bed.  Temperatures in a multiple-hearth
furnace are 320°C (600°F) in the lower, ash-cooling hearth; 760° to 1100°C
(1400° to 2000°F) in the central combustion hearths; and 540° to 650°C
(1000° to 1200°F) in the upper, drying hearths.  Temperatures in a
fluidized-bed reactor are fairly uniform, from 680" to 820°C (1250° to
1500°F).  In both types of furnaces, an auxiliary fuel may be required
either during startup or when the moisture content of the sludge is too high
to support combustion.

     Electric (infrared) furnaces are the newest of the technologies
currently in use for sludge incineration.  The sludge is conveyed into one
end of the horizontally oriented incinerator where it is first dried and
then burned as it travels beneath the infrared heating elements.

     Other sludge incineration technologies that are no longer in widespread
use include cyclonic reactors, rotary kilns, and wet oxidation reactors.
Some sludge is coincinerated with refuse.
                             124
2.5.2  Emissions and Controls ' '

     Sludge incinerators have the potential to emit significant quantities
of pollutants to the atmosphere.  One of these pollutants is particulate
matter, which is emitted because of the turbulent movement of the combustion
gases with respect to the burning sludge and resultant ash.  The particle
size distribution and concentration of the particulate emissions leaving the
incinerator vary widely, depending on the composition of the sludge being
burned and the type and operation of the incineration process.


9/88                           Solid Waste Disposal                      2.5-1

-------
     Total particulate emissions are usually highest for a fluidized-bed
incinerator because the combustion gas velocities required to fluidize the
bed result in entrainment of large quantities of ash in the flue gas.
Particulate emissions from multiple-hearth incinerators are usually less
than those from fluidized-bed incinerators because the agitation of ash and
gas velocity through the bed are lower in the multiple-hearth
incinerators.  Electric furnaces have the lowest particulate matter
emissions because the sludge is not stirred or mixed during incineration and
air flows through the unit generally are quite low, resulting in minimal
entrainment.

     Incomplete combustion of sludge can result in emissions of intermediate
products (e.g., volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide).  Other
potential emissions include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, metals, acid
gases, and toxic organic compounds.

     Wet scrubbers are commonly used to control particulate and gaseous
(e.g., S02, NOx, CO, and VOC's) emissions from sludge incinerators.  There
are two practical reasons for this:  (1) a wastewater treatment plant is a
source of relatively inexpensive scrubber water (plant effluent) and (2) a
system for the treatment of the scrubber effluent is available (spent
scrubber water is sent to the head of the treatment plant for solids removal
and pH adjustment).  The most widely used scrubber types are venturi and
impingement-tray.  Cyclone wet scrubbers and systems combining all three
types of scrubbers are also used.

     Pressure drops for venturi, impingement tray, and cyclone scrubbers are
1 to 40 kPa, .0.4 kPa per stage, and 1 to 2 kPa, respectively.  Collection
efficiency can range from 60 to 99 percent depending on the scrubber
pressure drop, particle size distribution, and particulate concentration.

     Emission factors and emission factor ratings for sludge incinerators
are shown in Table 2.5-1.  Table 2.5-2 shows the cumulative particle size
distribution and size specific emission factors for sewage sludge
incinerators.  Figures 2.5-1, 2.5-2, and 2.5-3 show the cumulative particle
size distribution and size-specific emission factors for multiple-hearth,
fluidized-bed, and electric infrared incinerators, respectively.
    2.5-2                         EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                           9/88

-------












(0
23
Qo

§
Cd
Z
H
Z
M
Ed
0
O
3
CO

U
Ed
CO
I
CO
g
y
U
 g^
S*-2


&ss'/?
** "5 "«rt ^i **
< b w 5^
-8 0

"8
||f|
O • ^^
5"


c
•So?
at! 2
Irt U **


fcg ^
«» *5 d.
S ~*


^
Uncontrolle
aiissions,
kg/Mg
(lb/ton)b

*"l
^ ^u S
.2 •




I
£



« Of <
S S °. ". °. •». °.
d d — — — 2. 2.
S*"* ^^ o o P«J o
^^ . -.JJ N-
dd°°


oego^voto o 5
•-H t-« eg en *O CO *— '
O
S S . ^ . . *"'

c> o ^^ *^ ^



o u a



d d d d d d S ^
O *— '
ssssas n <*
d d d d d d 8
d











j, 0, „
2 2 SSRiS S S
dddddd d d
S88322 9 3
dddddd d d



S» esj CJ eg (M o O
01 rJ » aj ^ 2. —.
SS*^^"^ o* o" S
0 ^ ^ ^ 'J «> * UJ
ft ^ r-l CM ^ O
do d

jn



- _^ ^ ^ ^
o s^ 5 is
eg •
O CO
o *"^
«-< <*>





a o uj uj



O O eg 
u> . oo






*« * 5 • s
*x "x O fc wi ttt JE
o o fi o -5 e **
' S 8 "158
£ ? | i p£
<3 z 5 5





























1
s
£
k
„,
•^
M
5
2
u
•s
1
*•»
1
J=
**
19
f ft
*- «
t/> • fc.
.1 |5
**- u *
o "* 7
a t£
fee 5.5
. -i! £-
ot c ja . > a
c .!*•§",.
> 1C ^ u 1c 1o
i!!!i!I
aWtfA*
9/88
Solid Waste Disposal
2.5-3

-------
 TABLE  2.5-2.   CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE  SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE  SPECIFIC
           EMISSION  FACTORS FOR  SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS3
Particle
size.
microns
15

10

5.0

2.5

1.0

0.625

TOTAL
^Reference
Cumulative mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled Controlled
MHD Fbc Ela MHD Pbc Ela
15 NA 43 30 7.7 60

10 NA 30 27 7.3 50

5.3 NA 17 25 6.7 35

2.8 NA 10 22 6.0 25

1.2 NA 6.0 20 5.0 18

0.75 NA 5.0 17 2.7 15

100 100 100 100 100 100
5.
Cumu 1 at i ve
Uncontrol
MH° Fbc
6.0 NA
(12)
4.1 NA
(8.2)
2.1 NA
(4.2)
1.1 NA
(2.2)
0.47 NA
(0.94)
0.30 NA
(0.60)
40 NA
(80)

emission
led
El«
4.3
(8.6)
3.0
(6.0)
1.7
(3.4)
1.0
(2.0)
0.60
(1.2)
0.50
(1.0)
10
(20)

factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Control led
MHD Fbc
0.12 0.23
(0.24) (0.46)
0.11 0.22
(0.22) (0.44)
0.10 0.20
(0.20) (0.40)
0.09 0.18
(0.18) (0.36)
0.08 0.15
(0.16) (0.30)
0.07 0.08
(0.14) (0.16)
0.40 3.0
(0.80) (6.0)


Ela
1.2
(2.4)
1.0
(2.0)
0.70
(1.4)
0.50
(1.0)
0.35
(0.70)
0.30
(0.60)
2.0
(4.0)

Kfrl = mul-tiple hearth.
^
^^

I
/
/
/
/\
/ \
S >
.^
ff^
1 ' i i i i n

.^l

/
/
f






















— Uncontrolled


i i
10
.\


1_ 1 1 1J_LL
°'18 00
S3
00
0.15 ^
o
4-1
0.12 «

(3
0.09 °
CI3
CO
•rH
6
0)
0.06 ^
0)
t-i
o
0.03 £
c
o
o
0
100





















2.5-4
Figure 2.5-1.  Cumulative particle size distribution
            size-specific  emission factors  for
              multiple-hearth incinerators.
                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               and
9/88

-------
                   0.1
                                 nr
                   Pirtlelt dUwtttr (m»)
                                                                      0.24
                                                                      0.20
                                                                      0.08
                                                                      O.OA
100
                                                                            60
                                                                           s

                                                                            6D
                                                                            J-i
                                                                            o
                                                                      0.16  g
                                                                     0.12   °
                                                        •H
                                                         cn
                                                         to
                                                        •H
                                                         E
                                                         0)

                                                        "O
                                                         cu
                                                                            C
                                                                            O
                                                                            o
                 Figure 2.5-2.  Cumulative particle size distribution and
                             size-specific emission  factors for
                                 fluidized-bed incinerators.
                60
               f&

                60
               J4

                .5
                u
                o
                u
                y
                «9 .
                tfl
                (0
                o
                u
O.I
                                                     Uncontrolled
                              Illl Ill
                                   1.0               10
                                      Pirtlelt dUntttr (w»)
                                                   1.50




                                                   1.25




                                                   1.0




                                                   0.75



                                                   0.50




                                                   0.25
                                                100
        I
         00
         V-i
         o
         a
         n)
         c!
         o
         •H
         CO
         CO
         •rl

         §

         TJ
         CU
         O
         M
                                                                            C
                                                                            o
                 Figure 2.5-3.   Cumulative particle size distribution and
                            size-specific emission factors  for
                             electric  (infrared) incinerators.
9/88
             Solid Waste Disposal
          2.5-5

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.5

1.  Environmental Regulations and Technology;  Use and Disposal of Municipal
    Wastewater Sludge, EPA-625/10-84-003, U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September 1984.

2.  Seminar Publication;  Municipal Wastewater Sludge Combustion Technology,
    EPA-625/4-85/015, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
    OH,  September 1985.

3.  Written communication from C. Hester, Midwest Research Institute, Cary,
    NC, to J. Crowder, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September
    1985.

4.  Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources
    Volume 1, EPA-45/3-81-005a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1982.

5.  Draft report.  Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 2.5—
    Sewage Sludge Incineration, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division,
    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1987.
    2.5-6                        EMISSION FACTORS                         9/88

-------
4.2.2.7  Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates

     "Polymeric coating of supporting substrates" is defined as a web coating
process other than paper coating that applies an elastomer or other polymeric
material onto a supporting substrate.  Typical substrates include woven, knit,
and nonwoven textiles; fiberglass; leather; yarn; and cord.  Examples of
polymeric coatings are natural and synthetic rubber, urethane, polyvinyl
chloride, acrylic, epoxy, silicone, phenolic resins, and nitrocellulose.
Plants have from 1 to more than 10 coating lines.  Most plants are commission
coaters where coated substrates are produced according to customer
specifications.  Typical products include rainwear, conveyor belts, V-belts,
diaphragms, gaskets, printing blankets, luggage, and aircraft and military
products.  This industrial source category has been retitled from "Fabric
Coating" to that listed above to reflect the general use of polymeric coatings
on substrate materials including but not limited to conventional textile
fabric substrates.

     Process description ~  - The process of applying a polymeric coating to a
supporting substrate consists of mixing the coating ingredients (including
solvents), conditioning the substrate, applying the coating to the substrate,
drying/curing the coating in a drying oven, and subsequent curing or
vulcanizing if necessary.  Figure 4.2.2.7-1 is a schematic of a typical
solvent-borne polymeric coating operation identifying volatile organic
compound (VOC) emission locations.  Typical plants have one or two small
(<38 m  or 10,000 gallons) horizontal or vertical solvent storage tanks which
are operated at atmospheric pressure, however, some plants have as many as
five.  Coating preparation equipment includes the mills, mixers, holding
tanks, and pumps used to prepare polymeric coatings for application.  Urethane
coatings typically are purchased premixed and require little or no mixing at
the coating plant.  The conventional types of equipment for applying organic
solvent-borne and waterborne coatings include knife-over-roll, dip, and
reverse-roll coaters.  Once applied to the substrate, liquid coatings are
solidified by evaporation of the solvent in a steam-heated or direct-fired
oven.  Drying ovens usually are of forced-air convection design in order to
maximize drying efficiency and prevent a dangerous localized buildup of vapor
concentration or temperature.  For safe operation, the concentration of
organic vapors is usually held between 10 and 25 percent of the lower
explosive limit (LEL).  Newer ovens may be designed for concentrations of up
to 50 percent of the LEL through the addition of monitors, alarms, and fail-
safe shutdown systems.  Some coatings require subsequent curing or vulcanizing
in separate ovens.

     Emissions sources ~  - The significant VOC emission sources in a
polymeric coating plant include the coating preparation equipment, the coating
application and flashoff area, and the drying ovens.  Emissions from the
solvent storage tanks and the cleanup area are normally only a small
percentage of the total.

     In the mixing or coating preparation area,  VOC's are emitted from the
individual mixers and holding tanks during the following operations:   filling
of mixers, transfer of the coating, intermittent activities  such as changing


9/88                      Evaporation Loss Sources                    4.2.2.7-1

-------
4.2.2.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
the filters in the holding tanks, and mixing (if mix equipment is not equipped
with tightly fitting covers).  The factors affecting emissions in the mixing
area include tank size, number of tanks, solvent vapor pressure, throughput,
and the design and performance of tank covers.

     Emissions from the coating application area result from the evaporation
of solvent around the coating application equipment during the application
process and from the exposed substrate as it travels from the coater to the
drying oven entrance (flashoff).  The factors affecting emissions are the
solvent content of the coating, line width and speed, coating thickness,
volatility of the solvent(s), temperature, distance between coater and oven,
and air turbulence in the coating area,

     Emissions from the drying oven result from the fraction of the remaining
solvent that is driven off in the oven.  The factors affecting uncontrolled
emissions are the solvent content of the coating and the amount of solvent
retained in the finished product.  Fugitive emissions due to the opening of
oven doors also may be significant in some operations.  Some plasticizers and
reaction by-products may be emitted if the coating is subsequently cured or
vulcanized.  However, emissions from the curing or vulcanizing of the coating
are usually negligible compared to the total emissions from the operation.

     Solvent type and quantity are the common factors affecting emissions from
all the operations in a polymeric coating facility.  The rate of evaporation
or drying is dependent upon solvent vapor pressure at a given temperature and
concentration.  The most commonly used organic solvents are toluene, dimethyl
formamide (DMF), acetone, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), isopropyl alcohol,
xylene, and ethyl acetate.  Factors affecting solvent selection are cost,
solvency, toxicity, availability, desired rate of evaporation, ease of use
after solvent recovery, and compatibility with solvent recovery equipment.
                      1 2 U —7
     Emissions control ' '    - A control system for evaporative emissions
consists of two components:  a capture device and a control device.  The
efficiency of the control system is determined by the efficiencies of the two
components.

     A capture device is used to contain emissions from a process operation
and direct them to a stack or to a control device.  Covers, vents, hoods, and
partial and total enclosures are alternative capture devices used on coating
preparation equipment.  Hoods and partial and total enclosures are typical
capture devices for use in the coating application area.  A drying oven can be
considered a capture device because it both contains and directs VOC emissions
from the process.  The efficiency of capture devices is variable and depends
upon the quality of design and the level of operation and maintenance.

     A control device is any equipment that has as its primary function the
reduction of emissions.  Control devices typically used in this industry are
carbon adsorbers, condensers, and incinerators.  Tightly fitting covers on
coating preparation equipment may be considered both capture and control
devices.

     Carbon adsorption units use activated carbon to adsorb VOC's from a gas
stream; the VOC's are later recovered from the carbon.  Two types of carbon


9/88                      Evaporation Loss Sources                    4.2.2.7-3

-------
adsorbers are available:  fixed bed and fluidized bed.  Fixed-bed carbon
adsorbers are designed with a steam-stripping technique to recover the VOC
material and regenerate the activated carbon.  The fluidized-bed units used in
this industry are designed to use nitrogen for VOC vapor recovery and carbon
regeneration.  Both types achieve typical VOC control efficiencies of
95 percent when properly designed, operated, and maintained.

     Condensation units control VOC emissions by cooling the solvent laden gas
to the dew point of the solvent(s) and collecting the droplets.  There are two
condenser designs commercially available:  nitrogen (inert gas) atmosphere and
air atmosphere.  These systems differ in the design and operation of the
drying oven (i.e., use of nitrogen or air in the oven) and in the method of
cooling the solvent laden air (i.e., liquified nitrogen or refrigeration).
Both design types can achieve VOC control efficiencies of 95 percent.

     Incinerators control VOC emissions through oxidation of the organic
compounds into carbon dioxide and water.  Incinerators used to control VOC
emissions may be of thermal or catalytic design and may use primary or
secondary heat recovery to reduce fuel costs.  Thermal incinerators operate at
approximately 890°C (1600°F) to assure oxidation of the organic compounds.
Catalytic incinerators operate in the range of 315° to 430°C (600° to 800°F)
while using a catalyst to achieve comparable oxidation of VOC's.  Both design
types achieve a typical VOC control efficiency of 98 percent.

     Tightly fitting covers control VOC emissions from mix vessels by reducing
evaporative losses.  Airtight covers can be fitted with conservation vents to
avoid excessive internal pressure or vacuum.  The parameters affecting the
efficiency of these controls are solvent vapor pressure, cyclic temperature
change, tank size, throughput, and the pressure and vacuum settings on the
conservation vents.  A good system of tightly fitting covers on mixing area
vessels is estimated to reduce emissions by approximately 40 percent.  Control
efficiencies of 95 or 98 percent can be obtained by directing the captured
VOC's to an adsorber, condenser, or incinerator.

     When the efficiencies of the capture device and control device are known,
the efficiency of the control system can be computed by the following
equation:

    (capture efficiency)x(control efficiency)=(control system efficiency).

The terms of this equation are fractional efficiencies rather than
percentages.  For instance, a system of hoods delivering 60 percent of VOC
emissions to a 90 percent efficient carbon adsorber would result in a control
system efficiency of 54 percent (0.60x0.90=0.54).  Table 4.2.2.7-1 summarizes
the control system efficiencies that may be used in the absence of measured
data on mix equipment and coating operations.
4.2.2.7-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                            9/88

-------
              TABLE 4.2.2.7-1.  SUMMARY OF CONTROL EFFICIENCIES*
                                                             Overall control
Control technology                                           efficiency,  %"

                         Coating Preparation Equipment

Uncontrolled                                                        0

Sealed covers with conservation vents                              40

Sealed covers with carbon adsorber/condenser       _               95


                              Coating Operation0

Local ventilation with carbon adsorber/condenser                   81

Partial enclosure with carbon adsorber/condenser                   90

Total enclosure with carbon adsorber/condenser                     93

Total enclosure with incinerator                                   96


aReference 1.  To be used in the absence of measured data.
 To be applied to uncontrolled emissions from indicated process area, not
 from entire plant.
clncludes coating application/flashoff area and drying oven.
                                    1 l4_8
     Emissions estimation techniques '    - In this diverse industry,
realistic estimates of emissions require solvent usage data.  Due to the wide
variation found in coating formulations, line speeds, and products, no
meaningful inferences can be made based simply on the equipment present.

     Plant-wide emissions can be estimated by performing a liquid material
balance in uncontrolled plants and in those where VOC's are recovered for
reuse or sale.  This technique is based on che assumption that all solvent
purchased replaces VOC's which have been emitted.  Any identifiable and
quantifiable side streams should be subtracted from this total.  The general
formula for this is:
                                                         •\
                    r  solvent  i  r  quantifiable  •>_/•   VOC
                    ^•purchased'  ^-solvent  output1^  ^emitted''*

The first term encompasses all solvent purchased including thinners, cleaning
agents, and the solvent content of any premixed coatings as well as any
solvent directly used in coating formulation.  From this total, any
quantifiable solvent outputs are subtracted.  These outputs may include
solvent retained in the finished product, reclaimed solvent sold for use
outside the plant, and solvent contained in waste streams.  Reclaimed solvent
which is reused at the plant is not subtracted.
9/88                      Evaporation Loss  Sources                    4.2.2.7-5

-------
     The advantages of this method are that it is based on data that are
usually readily available, it reflects actual operations rather than
theoretical steady state production and control conditions, and it includes
emissions from all sources at the plant.  However, care should be taken not to
apply this method over too short a time span.  Solvent purchases, production,
and waste removal occur in their own cycles, which may not coincide exactly.

     Occasionally, a liquid material balance may be possible on a smaller
scale than the entire plant.  Such an approach may be feasible for a single
coating line or group of lines served by a dedicated mixing area and a
dedicated control and recovery system.  In this case, the computation begins
with total solvent metered to the mixing area instead of solvent purchased.
Reclaimed solvent is subtracted from this volume whether or not it is reused
onsite.  Of course, other solvent input and output streams must be accounted
for as previously indicated.  The difference between total solvent input and
total solvent output is then taken to be the quantity of VOC's emitted from
the equipment in question.

     The configuration of meters, mixing areas, production equipment, and
controls usually will not make this approach possible.  In cases where control
devices destroy potential emissions or a liquid material balance is
inappropriate for other reasons, plant-wide emissions can be estimated by
summing the emissions calculated for specific areas of the plant.  Techniques
for these calculations are presented below.

     Estimating VOC emissions from a coating operation (application/flashoff
area and drying oven) starts with the assumption that the uncontrolled
emission level is equal to the quantity of solvent contained in the coating
applied.  In other words, all the VOC in the coating evaporates by the end of
the drying process.  This quantity should be adjusted downward to account for
solvent retained in the finished product in cases where it is quantifiable and
significant.

     Two factors are necessary to calculate the quantity of solvent applied:
the solvent content of the coating and the quantity of coating applied.
Coating solvent content can be directly measured using EPA Reference
Method 24.  Alternative ways of estimating the VOC content include the use of
either data on coating formulation that are usually available from the plant
owner/operator or premixed coating manufacturer or, if these cannot be
obtained, approximations based on the information in Table 4.2.2.7-2.  The
amount of coating applied may be directly metered.  If it is not, it must be
determined from production data.  These should be available from the plant
owner/operator.  Care should be taken in developing these two factors to
assure that they are in compatible units.

     When an estimate of uncontrolled emissions is obtained, the controlled
emissions level is computed by applying a control system efficiency factor:

            /•uncontrolled i  r.        ,     _     rr.  .     i  r   VOC   i
            I     „/,«     Jxll-control  system efficiencyl = l   .    ,1.
            *•     VOC     '  ^            J               ''  '•emitted'
4.2.2.7-6                     EMISSION FACTORS                             9/88

-------
     TABLE 4.2.2.7-2.  SOLVENT AND SOLIDS CONTENT OF  POLYMERIC  COATINGS3


                                         Typical percentage, by weight
Polymer type                          % solvent                 % solids
Rubber
Urethanes
Acrylics
Vinylc
Vinyl Plastisol
Organisol
Epoxies
Silicone
Nitrocellulose
50-70
50-60
b
60-80
5
15-40
30-40
50-60
70
30-50
40-50
50
20-40
95
60-85
60-70
40-50
30
Reference 1.
 Organic solvents are generally not used in the formulation of acrylic
 coatings.  Therefore, the solvent content for acrylic coatings represents
 nonorganic solvent use (i.e., water).
cSolvent-borne vinyl coating.

As previously explained, the control system efficiency is the product of the
efficiencies of the capture device and the control device.  If these values
are not known, typical efficiencies for some combinations of capture and
control devices are presented  in Table 4.2.2.7-1.  It is important to note
that these control system efficiencies are applicable only to emissions that
occur within the areas served  by the systems.  Emissions from such sources as
process wastewater or discarded waste coatings may not be controlled at all.

     In cases where emission estimates from the mixing area alone are desired,
a slightly different approach  is necessary.  Here, uncontrolled emissions will
be only that portion of total  solvent that evaporates during the mixing
process.  A liquid material balance across the mixing area (i.e., solvent
entering minus solvent content of coating applied) would provide a good
estimate.  In the absence of any measured value, it may be assumed that
approximately 10 percent of the total solvent entering the mixing area is
emitted during the mixing process, but this can vary widely.  When an estimate
of uncontrolled mixing area emissions has been made, the controlled emission
rate can be calculated as discussed previously.  Table 4.2.2.7-1 lists typical
overall control efficiencies for coating mix preparation equipment.

     Solvent storage tanks of  the size typically found in this industry are
regulated by only a few States and localities.  Tank emissions are generally
 9/88                      Evaporation Loss  Sources                    4.2.2.7-7

-------
small (<125 kg/yr).   If an estimate of emissions is desired, it can be
computed using the equations,  tables,  and figures provided in Section 4.3.2.

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.2.2.7

1.  Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates—Background Information for
    Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-85-022a, U.  S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle  Park, NC, October 1985.

2.  Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources—
    Volume II;  Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper,  Fabrics, Automobiles,
    and Light Duty Trucks, EPA-450/2-77-008,  U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle  Park, NC, May 1977.

3.  E. J. Maurer, "Coating Operation Equipment Design  and Operating
    Parameters," Memorandum to Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates
    File, MRI, Raleigh, NC, April 23,  1984.

4.  Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources—
    Volume I;  Control Methods for Surface-Coating Operations, EPA-450/2-76-
    028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
    November 1976.

5.  G. Crane, Carbon Adsorption for VOC Control, U. S.  Environmental
    Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1982.

6.  D. Moscone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance for NSPS," Memorandum, Office
    of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.  S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle  Park, NC, June  11, 1980.

7.  D. Moscone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance for NSPS, Addendum,"
    Memorandum, Office of Air  Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 22,
    1980.

8.  C. Beall, "Distribution of Emissions Between Coating Mix Preparation Area
    and the Coating Line," Memorandum to Magnetic Tape Coating Project File,
    MRI, Raleigh, NC, June 22, 1984.
4.2.2.7-8         .            EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                          9/88

-------
4.12  POLYESTER RESIN PLASTICS PRODUCT FABRICATION

4.12.1  General Description1"2

     A growing number of products are fabricated from liquid polyester resin
reinforced with glass fibers and extended with various inorganic filler
materials such as calcium carbonate, talc, mica or small glass spheres.
These composite materials are often referred to as fiberglass reinforced
plastic (FRP), or simply "fiberglass".  The Society Of The Plastics Industry
designates these materials as "reinforced plastics/composites" (RP/C).  Also,
advanced reinforced plastics products are now formulated with fibers other
than glass, such as carbon, aramid and aramid/carbon hybrids.  In some
processes, resin products are fabricated without fibers.  One major product
using resins with fillers but no reinforcing fibers is^the synthetic marble
used in manufacturing bathroom countertops, sinks and related items.  Other
applications of nonreinforced resin plastics include automobile body filler,
bowling balls and coatings.

     Fiber reinforced plastics products have a wide range of application in
industry, transportation, home and recreation.  Industrial uses include stor-
age tanks, skylights, electrical equipment, ducting, pipes, machine compo-
nents, and corrosion resistant structural and process equipment.  In
transportation, automobile and aircraft applications are increasing rapidly.
Home and recreational items include bathroom tubs and showers, boats (build-
ing and repair), surfboards and skis, helmets, swimming pools and hot tubs,
and a variety of sporting goods.

     The thermosetting polyester resins considered here are complex polymers
resulting from the cross-linking reaction of a liquid unsaturated polyester
with a vinyl type monomer, most often styrene.  The unsaturated polyester is
formed from the condensation reaction of an unsaturated dibasic acid or
anhydride, a saturated dibasic acid or anhydride, and a polyfunctional
alcohol.  Table 4.12-1 lists the most common compounds used for each compo-
nent of the polyester "backbone", as well as the principal cross-linking
monomers.  The chemical reactions that form both the unsaturated polyester
and the cross-linked polyester resin are shown in Figure 4.12-1.  The emis-
sion factors presented here apply to fabrication processes that use the
finished liquid resins (as received by fabricators from chemical manufac-
turers), and not to the chemical processes used to produce these resins.
(See Chapter 5, Chemical Process Industry.)

     In order to be used in the fabrication of products, the liquid resin
must be mixed with a catalyst to initiate polymerization into a solid thermo-
set.  Catalyst concentrations generally range from 1 to 2 percent by original
weight of resin; within certain limits, the higher the catalyst concentration,
the faster the cross-linking reaction proceeds.  Common catalysts are organic
peroxides, typically methyl ethyl ketone peroxide or benzoyl peroxide.
Resins may contain inhibitors, to avoid self curing during resin storage,
and promoters, to allow polymerization to occur at lower temperatures.


9/88                      Evaporation Loss Sources                    4.12-1

-------
                TABLE 4.12-1.   TYPICAL COMPONENTS OF RESINS
                     To Form the Unsaturated Polyester
 Unsaturated Acids         Saturated Acids         Polyfunctional Alcohols

 Maleic anhydride          Phthalic anhydride      Propylene glycol
 Fumaric acid              Isophthalic acid        Ethylene glycol
                           Adipic acid             Diethylene glycol
                                                   Dipropylene glycol
                                                   Neopentyl glycol
                                                   Pentaerythritol
                       Cross-linking Agents (Monomers)
                              Styrene
                              Methyl methacrylate
                              Vinyl toluene
                              Vinyl acetate
                              Diallyl phthalate
                              Acrylamide
                              2-ethyl hexylacrylate
     The polyester resin/fiberglass industry consists of many small faci-
lities (such as boat repair and small contract firms) and relatively few
large firms that consume the major fraction of the total resin.  Resin
usage at these operations ranges from less than 5,000 kilograms per year
to over 3 million kilograms per year.

     Reinforced plastics products are fabricated using any of several
processes, depending on their size, shape and other desired physical
characteristics.  The principal processes include hand layup, spray layup
(sprayup), continuous lamination, pultrusion, filament winding and various
closed molding operations.

     Hand layup, using primarily manual techniques combined with open
molds, is the simplest of the fabrication processes.  Here, the reinforce-
ment is manually fitted to a mold wetted with catalyzed resin mix, after
which it is saturated with more resin.  The reinforcement is in the form
of either a chopped strand mat, a woven fabric or often both.  Layers of
reinforcement and resin are added to build the desired laminate thickness.
Squeegees, brushes and rollers are used to smooth and compact each layer
as it is applied.  A release agent is usually first applied to the mold
to facilitate removal of the composite.  This is often a wax, which can
be treated with a water soluble barrier coat such as polyvinyl alcohol to
promote paint adhesion on parts that are to be painted.  In many operations,
4.12-2                       EMISSION FACTORS                            9/88

-------
                            CM

                            U

                            CM

                            U

                            o

                           BO - CJ
                           ! U - U
                            o
                             CM

                            o
                             I
                            U
                             CM
                            ac
0)

J  8

o


o








o







o














1
s±U
O
I
ss CJ
|
O
1
CM
X
CJ
1
CM
•r*
U
1
O
1
= CJ
1
X
— CJ
| X
X 1
o - cj
1 1
= CJ X
1
o
1
CM
X
CJ
1
CM
X
CJ
1
""— *
t
•n
2 1
3 «





js
""J*
CM
X
O
1
CM
X
CJ
1
O
1
O=CJ
^^ 1 3C
KJ! = •
\\JJ CJ - CJ
^s«^^ 1 I
1 X X
- CJ - CJ
1 1
X O=O
1
o
1
CM
O
1
CM
CJ
1
O
1
0=0
1
0 = "
!




C
11
18
s >•
u-5
O.

(r "A!
lOi
\^-^\^

1
— CJ -
1
X

















                                                          T3

                                                          ffl
                                                                                           cc
                                                                                           a;
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          a
                                                                                          *a
                                                                                          rt
                                                                                          VJ
                                                                                          3  •
                                                                                          •U  C
                                                                                          cd  o
                                                                                          CO -H
                                                                                          C 4J
                                                                                          3  co

                                                                                          *  E
                                                                                          o  o
                                                                                          CQ  C
                                                                                          C -H
                                                                                          O  M
                                                                                          •H  0)
                                                                                          •U  M
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          03  !-i
                                                                                          0)  OJ
                                                                                          (-J t->
                                                                                             cn
                                                                                          iH  0)
                                                                                          CO  >*
                                                                                          a i-t
                                                                                          •H  O
                                                                                          a  a
                                                          i
                                                         CN
                                                                                          0)
                                                                                          l-l
                                                                                          3
                                                                                          00
                                                                                          •H
                         0- cj

                         o   ||
                         I
   .s •=
   II
                 U
                                                 CJ
                                                 <
                        CJ
                         II
                         CM
'9/88
Evaporation Loss Sources
                                                                                      4.12-3

-------
the mold is first sprayed with gel coat, a clear or pigmented resin mix
that forms the smooth outer surface of many products.  Gel coat spray
systems consist of separate sources of resin and catalyst, with an airless
hand spray gun that mixes them together into an atomized resin/catalyst
stream.  Typical products are boat hulls and decks, swimming pools, bathtubs
and showers, electrical consoles and automobile components.

     Spray layup, or "sprayup", is another open mold process, differing from
hand layup in that it uses mechanical spraying and chopping equipment for
depositing the resin and glass reinforcement.  This process allows a greater
production rate and more uniform parts than does hand layup, and often uses
more complex molds.  As in hand layup, gel coat is frequently applied to the
mold before fabrication to produce the desired surface qualities.  It is
common practice to combine hand layup and sprayup operations.

     For the reinforced layers, a device is attached to the sprayer system to
chop glass fiber "roving" (uncut fiber) into predetermined lengths and pro-
ject it to merge with the resin mix stream.  The stream precoats the chop,
and both are deposited simultaneously to the desired layer thickness on the
mold surface (or on the gel coat that was applied to the mold).  Layers are
built up and rolled out on the mold as necessary to form the part.  Products
manufactured by sprayup are similar to those made by hand layup, except that
more uniform and complex parts can generally be produced more efficiently with
sprayup techniques.  However, compared to hand layup, more resin generally is
used to produce similar parts by spray layup because of the inevitable over-
spray of resin during application.

     Continuous lamination of reinforced plastics materials involves impreg-
nating various reinforcements with resins on an in-line conveyor.  The
resulting laminate is cured and trimmed as it passes through the various con-
veyor zones.  In this process, the resin mix is metered onto a bottom carrier
film, using a blade to control thickness.  This film, which defines the pa-
nel's surface, is generally polyester, cellophane or nylon, and may have a
smooth, embossed or matte surface.  Methyl methacrylate is sometimes used as
the cross-linking agent, either alone or in combination with styrene, to
increase strength and weather resistance.  Chopped glass fibers free-fall
into the resin mix and are allowed to saturate with resin, or "wet out".  A
second carrier film is applied on top of the panel before subsequent forming
and curing.  The cured panel is then stripped of its films, trimmed and cut
to the desired length.  Principal products include translucent industrial sky-
lights and greenhouse panels, wall and ceiling liners for food areas, garage
doors and cooling tower louvers.  Figure 4.12-2 shows the basic elements of
a continuous laminating production line.

     Pultrusion, which can be thought of as extrusion by pulling, is used to
produce continuous cross-sectional llneals similar to those made by extrud-
ing metals such as aluminum.  Reinforcing fibers are pulled through a liquid
resin mix bath and into a long machined steel die, where heat initiates an
exothermic reaction to polymerize the thermosetting resin matrix.  The compo-
site profile emerges from the die as a hot, constant cross-sectional that
cools sufficiently to be fed into a clamping and pulling mechanism.  The pro-
duct can then be cut to desired lengths.  Example products include electrical
insulation materials, ladders, walkway gratings, structural supports, and
rods and antennas.
 4.12-4                          EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
          Resin metering device -*
                                              Cure area
                                                            Cross cut saw or shear
                                                     rewind
                                                     "9  Ed9e'T o
                                                       Inspection area

                                                            Stacking device II   ii
       Figure 4.12-2.  Typical  continuous  lamination production process.
       Filament winding is the process  of  laying a band of resin impregnated
  fibers onto a rotating mandrel  surface  in a precise geometric pattern, and
  curing them to form the product.   This  is an efficient method of producing
  cylindrical parts with optimum  strength characteristics suited to the
  specific design and application.   Glass  fiber is most often used for the
  filament, but aramid, graphite, and sometimes boron and various metal wires
  may be used.  The filament can  be  wetted during fabrication, or previously
  impregnated filament ("prepreg") can  be  used.  Figure 4.12-3 shows  the
  filament winding process, and indicates  the three most common winding
  patterns.  The process illustration depicts circumferential winding, while
  the two smaller pictures show helical and polar winding.  The various wind-
  ing patterns can be used alone  or  in  combination to achieve the desired
  strength and shape characteristics.   Mandrels are made of a wide variety  of
  materials and, in some applications,  remain inside the finished product as
  a liner or core.  Example products are  storage tanks, fuselages, wind
  turbine and helicopter blades,  and tubing and pipe.
                                                              Helical Winding
                                                            Polar Winding
              Figure 4.12-3.  Typical  filament winding process.-^
9/88
Evaporation Loss  Sources
4.12-5

-------
     Closed, such as compression or injection, molding operations involve
the use of two matched dies to define the entire outer surface of the part.
When closed and filled with a resin mix, the matched die mold is subjected
to heat and pressure to cure the plastic.  For the most durable production
configuration, hardened metal dies are used (matched metal molding).
Another closed molding process is vacuum or pressure bag molding.  In bag
molding, a hand layup or sprayup is covered with a plastic film, and vacuum
or pressure is applied to rigidly define the part and improve surface
quality.  The range of closed molded parts includes tool and appliance
housings, cookware, brackets and other small parts, and automobile body and
electrical components.

     Synthetic marble casting, a large segment of the resin products indus-
try, involves production of bathroom sinks, vanity tops, bathtubs and
accessories using filled resins that have the look of natural marble.  No
reinforcing fibers are used in these products.  Pigmented or clear gel coat
can either be applied to the mold itself or sprayed onto the product after
casting to simulate the look of natural polished marble.  Marble casting
can be an open mold process, or it may be considered a semiclosed process
if cast parts are removed from a closed mold for subsequent gel coat spray-
ing.

4.12.2  Emissions And Controls

     Organic vapors consisting of volatile organic compounds (VOC) are emit-
ted from fresh resin surfaces during the fabrication process and from the
use of solvents (usually acetone) for cleanup of hands, tools, molds and
spraying equipment.  Cleaning solvent emissions can account for over 36
percent of the total plant VOC emissions.^  There also may be some release
of particulate emissions from automatic fiber chopping equipment, but these
emissions have not been quantified.

     Organic vapor emissions from polyester resin/fiberglass fabrication
processes occur when the cross-linking agent (monomer) contained in the
'liquid resin evaporates into the air during resin application and curing.
Styrene, methyl methacrylate and vinyl toluene are three of the principal
monomers used as cross-linking agents.  Styrene is by far the most common.
Other chemical components of resins are emitted only at trace levels,
because they not only have low vapor pressures but also are substantially
converted to polymers.-^"6

     Since emissions result from evaporation of monomer from the uncured
resin, they depend upon the amount of resin surface exposed to the air and
the time of exposure.  Thus, the potential for emissions varies with the
manner in which the resin is mixed, applied, handled and cured.  These fac-
tors vary among the different fabrication processes.  For example, the
spray layup process has the highest potential for VOC emissions because the
atomization of resin into a spray creates an extremely large surface area
from which volatile monomer can evaporate.  By contrast, the emission
potential in synthetic marble casting and closed molding operations is
considerably lower, because of the lower monomer content in the casting
resins  (30 to 38 percent, versus about 43 percent) and of the enclosed
nature of these molding operations.  It has been found that styrene

4.12-6                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
evaporation increases with increasing gel time, wind speed and ambient
temperature, and that increasing the hand rolling time on a hand layup or
sprayup results in significantly higher styrene losses. 1  Thus, production
changes that lessen the exposure of fresh resin surfaces to the air should
be effective in reducing these evaporation losses.

     In addition to production changes, resin formulation can be varied to
affect the VOC emission potential,  In general, a resin with lower monomer
content should produce lower emissions.  Evaluation tests with low-styrene-
emission laminating resins having a 36 percent styrene content found a 60
to 70 percent decrease in emission levels, compared to conventional resins
(42 percent styrene), with no sacrifice in the physical properties of the
laminate.   Vapor suppressing agents also are sometimes added to resins to
reduce VOC emissions.  Most vapor suppressants are paraffin waxes, stearates
or polymers of proprietary composition, constituting up to several weight
percent of the mix.  Limited laboratory and field data indicate that vapor
suppressing resins reduce styrene losses by 30 to 70 percent.  °

     Emission factors for several fabrication processes using styrene con-
tent resins have been developed from the results of facility source tests (B
Rating) and laboratory tests (C Rating), and through technology transfer
estimations (D Rating).*  Industry experts also provided additional infor-
mation that was used to arrive at the final factors presented in Table
4,12-2.6  Since the styrene content varies over a range of approximately 30
to 50 weight percent, these factors are based on the quantity of styrene
monomer used in the process, rather than on the total amount of resin used.
The factors for vapor-suppressed resins are typically 30 to 70 percent of
those for regular resins.  The factors are expressed as ranges, because of
the observed variability in source and laboratory test results and of the
apparent sensitivity of emissions to process parameters.

     Emissions should be calculated using actual resin monomer contents.
When specific information about the percentage of styrene is unavailable,
the representative average values in Table 4.12-3 should be used.  The sam-
ple calculation illustrates the application of the emission factors.

      Sample Calculation - A fiberglass boat building facility
      consumes an average of 250 kg per day of styrene-containing
      resins using a combination of hand layup (75%) and spray layup
      (25%) techniques.  The laminating resins for hand and spray lay-
      up contain 41.0 and 42.5 weight percent, respectively, of styrene.
      The resin used for hand layup contains a vapor-suppressing agent.

      From Table 4.12-2, the factor for hand layup using a vapor-suppresed
      resin is 2 - 7 (0.02 to 0.07 fraction of total styrene emitted);
      the factor for spray layup is 9 - 13 (0.09 to 0.13 fraction emit-
      ted).  Assume the midpoints of these emission factor ranges.

      Total VOC emissions are:

         (250 kg/day) [(0.41)(0.045)(0.75) + (0.425)(0.11)(0.25)]

                            = 6.4 kg/day.

 9/88                    Evaporation Loss Sources                    4.12-7

-------
      TABLE 4.12-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED POLYESTER RESIN
                       PRODUCT FABRICATION PROCESSES3
             (100 x mass of VOC emitted/mass of monomer input)
Process
Hand layup
Spray layup
Continuous lamination
Pultrusiond
Filament winding6
Marble casting
Closed moldingg
Resin
NVS
5-10
9-13
4-7
4-7
5-10
1 - 3
1 - 3
VSb
2-7
3-9
1 - 5
1 - 5
2-7
1 - 2
1 - 2
Emission
Factor
Rating
C
B
B
D
D
B
D
Gel Coat
NVS
26 - 35
26 - 35
c
c
c
f
c
VSb
8-25
8-25
c
c
c
f
c
Emission
Factor
Rating
D
B
—
—
—
—
—
aReference 9.  Ranges represent the variability of processes and sensiti-
 vity of emissions to process parameters.  Single value factors should be
 selected with caution.  NVS = nonvapor-suppressed resin.  VS = vapor-sup-
 pressed resin.
^Factors are 30-70% of those for nonvapor-suppressed resins.
cGel coat is not normally used in this process.
^Resin factors for the continuous lamination process are assumed to apply.
eResin factors for the hand layup process are assumed to apply.
fFactors unavailable.  However, when cast parts are subsequently sprayed
 with gel coat, hand and spray layup gel coat factors are assumed to apply.
gResin factors for marble casting, a semiclosed process, are assumed to
 apply.

             TABLE 4.12-3.  TYPICAL RESIN STYRENE PERCENTAGES
             Resin Application
Resin Styrene Content3
      (wgt. %)
             Hand layup
             Spray layup
             Continuous lamination
             Filament winding
             Marble casting
             Closed molding

             Gel coat
           43
           43
           40
           40
           32
           35

           35
 4.12-8
         aMay vary by at least +5 percentage points.

                               EMISSION FACTORS
                                  9/88

-------
      Emissions  from  use of  gel  coat  would  be  calculated  in  the  same manner.
 If  the monomer  content  of  the resins were  unknown,  a  representative value
 of  43 percent could  be  selected  from Table 4.12-3 for this  process combina-
 tion.   It  should  be  noted  that  these emissions represent  evaporation of
 styrene monomer only, and  not of  acetone or other solvents  used for clean-
 up.

      In addition  to  process changes  and materials substitution,  add-on con-
 trol  equipment  can be used  to reduce vapor emissions  from styrene resins.
 However, control  equipment  is infrequently used  at  RP/C  fabrication facili-
 ties,  due  to  low  exhaust VOC concentrations and  the potential for contami-
 nation of  adsorbent  materials.   Most plants use  forced ventilation techni-
 ques  to reduce  worker exposure  to styrene  vapors, but vent  the  vapors
 directly to the atmosphere with  no attempt at collection.   At one contin-
 uous  lamination facility where  incineration was  applied  to  vapors vented
 from  the impregnation table, a  98.6  percent control efficiency  was mea-
 sured. 1 Carbon adsorption, absorption and condensation  also have been
 considered for  recovering  styrene and other organic vapors, but these tech-
 niques have not been applied to  any  significant  extent in this  industry.

      Emissions  from  cleanup solvents can be controlled through  good house-
 keeping and use practices,  reclamation of  spent  solvent,  and substitution
 with  water based  solvent substitutes.
 References  for  Section  4.12

 1.   M.  B. Rogozen,  Control Techniques for Organic Gas Emissions from Fiber-
     glass Impregnation  and Fabrication  Processes, ARB/R-82/165, California
     Air Resources Board,  Sacramento, CA, (NTIS PB82-251109), June  1982.

 2.   Modern  Plastics Encyclopedia,  1986-1987, J33  (10A), October 1986.

 3.   C.  A. Brighton, G.  Pritchard and G. A.  Skinner, Styrene Polymers;
     Technology  and  Environmental Aspects, Applied Science Publishers, Ltd.,
     London,  1979.

 4.   M.  Elsherif, Staff  Report, Proposed Rule 1162 - Polyester Resin
     Operations, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule Develop-
     ment Division,  El Monte, CA, January 23, 1987.

 5.   M.  S. Crandall, Extent of Exposure  to Styrene in the Reinforced Plastic
     Boat Making Industry, Publication No. 82-110, National Institute For
     Occupational Safety And Health, Cincinnati, OH, March 1982.

 6.   Written  communication from R.  C. Lepple, Aristech Chemical Corporation,
     Polyester Unit, Linden, NJ, to A. A. MacQueen, U.S. Environmental Pro-
     tection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 16, 1987.

 7.   L.  Walewski and S.  Stockton, "Low-Styrene-Emission Laminating Resins
     Prove It in the Workplace", Modern  Plastics, 62(8):78-80, August 1985.
9/88                     Evaporation Loss Sources                    4.12-9

-------
8.  M. J. Duffy,  "Styrene Emissions - How Effective Are Suppressed
    Polyester Resins?", Ashland Chemical Company, Dublin, OH, presented
    at 34th Annual Technical Conference, Reinforced Plastics/Composites
    Institute, The Society Of The Plastics Industry, 1979.

9.  G. A. LaFlam, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 4.12;
    Polyester Resin Plastics Product Fabrication, Pacific Environmental
    Services, Inc., Durham, NC, November 1987.
 4.12-10                     EMISSION FACTORS                             9/88

-------
5.15  SOAP AND DETERGENTS

5.15.1  Soap Manufacture

Process Description^ - Soap may be manufactured by either batch or continuous
process, using either the alkaline saponification of natural fats and oils or
the direct saponification of fatty acids.  The kettle, or full boiled, method
is a batch process of several steps, in either a single kettle or a series of
kettles.  Fats and oils are saponified by live steam boiling in a caustic
solution, followed by "graining", which is precipitating the soft curds of soap
out of the aqueous lye solution by adding sodium chloride (salt).  The soap so-
lution then is washed to remove glycerine and color body impurities, to leave
the "neat" soap to form during a settling period.   Continuous alkaline saponi-
fication of natural fats and oils follows the same steps as batch processing,
but it eliminates the need for a lengthy process time.  Direct saponification
of fatty acids is also accomplished in continuous processes.  Fatty acids
obtained by continuous hydrolysis usually are continuously neutralized with
caustic soda in a high speed mixer/neutralizer to form soap.

     All soap is finished for consumer use in such varied forms as liquid,
powder, granule, chip, flake or bar.

Emissions And Controls^ - The main atmospheric pollution problem in the manu-
facture of soap is odor.  Vent lines, vacuum exhausts, product and raw material
storage, and waste streams are all potential odor sources.  Control of these
odors may be achieved by scrubbing all exhaust fumes and, if necessary, inciner-
ating the remaining compounds.  Odors emanating from the spray dryer may be
controlled by scrubbing with an acid solution.

     Blending, mixing, drying, packaging and other physical operations all may
involve dust emissions.  The production of soap powder by spray drying is the
largest single source of dust in the manufacture of soap.  Dust emissions from
other finishing operations can be controlled by dry filters such as baghouses.
The large sizes of the particulate from soap drying mean that high efficiency
cyclones installed in series can give satisfactory control.

5.15.2  Detergent Manufacture

Process Description^^ - The manufacture of spray dried detergent has three
main processing steps, slurry preparation, spray drying and granule handling.
Figure 5.15-1 illustrates the various operations.   Detergent slurry is produced
by blending liquid surfactant with powdered and liquid materials (builders and
other additives) in a closed mixing tank called a crutcher.  Liquid surfactant
used in making the detergent slurry is produced by the sulfonation, or sulfa-
tion by sulfuric acid, of either a linear alkylate or a fatty acid, which is
then neutralized with caustic solution (NaOH).  The blended slurry is held in a
surge vessel for continuous pumping to a spray dryer.  The slurry is sprayed at
high pressure into a vertical drying tower having a stream of hot air of from
315° to 400°C (600° to 750°F).  Most towers designed for detergent production
are countercurrent, with slurry introduced at the top and heated air introduced
at the bottom.  The detergent granules thus formed are conveyed mechanically
or by air from the tower to a mixer, to incorporate additional dry or liquid
ingredients, and finally to packaging and storage.


9/88                       Chemical Process Industry                     5.15-1

-------
ca

5
C9

>
cc
a
>
<
oc
a.
CO
    <
    oc
    <
 a.
 >
 oc
 cc

 _l
 CO
 ta   . ec
 Z  ui  uj
 ^  to  u,
 >  <  v*
 UJ  OC  Z
 cj  o  <
 UJ  h-  OC
 OC  CO  h-
                                                                                              V)
                                                                                              -M

                                                                                              0)
                                                                                              O)

                                                                                              0)
                                                                                              •f-l
                                                                                              (U
                                                                                             13
                                                                                              O)
                                                                                              2
                                                                                              a
                                                                                              CO
                                                                                              (O
                                                                                              4-
                                                                                              a
                                                                                              c
                                                                                              CD
                                                                                              in
                                                                                               en
 5.15-2
                                        EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                                               9/88

-------
Emissions And Controls^ •* - In the batching and mixing of fine dry ingredients
to form slurry, dust emissions are generated at scale hoppers, mixers and
crutchers.  Fabric filters are used, not only to reduce or to eliminate the
dust emissions but also to recover raw materials.  Emission factors for parti-
culate from spray drying operations are shown in Table J.15-1.  Tabie 5.15-2
and Figure 5.15-2 give size specific particulate emission factors for operations
on which information is available.  There is also a minor source of volatile
organics when the product being sprayed contains organic materials with low
vapor pressures.  These vaporized organic materials condense in the tower
exhaust air stream into droplets or particles.

     Dry cyclones and cyclonic impingement scrubbers are the primary collection
equipment employed to capture the detergent dust in the spray dryer exhaust for
return to process.  Dry cyclones are used, in parallel or in series,  to collect
particulate (detergent dust) and to recycle it back to the crutcher.   Cyclonic
impinged scrubbers are used, in parallel, to collect the particulate  from a
scrubbing slurry and to recycle it to the crutcher.  Secondary collection equip-
ment is used to collect the fine particulate that has escaped from the primary
devices.  Cyclonic impingement scrubbers are often followed by mist eliminators,
and dry cyclones are followed by fabric filters or scrubber/electrostatic
precipitator units.  Conveying, mixing and packaging of detergent granules can
cause dust emissions.  Usually, fabric filters provide the best control.


    TABLE 5.15-1.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR DETERGENT SPRAY DRYING^

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
Particulate
Control
device
Uncontrolled
Cyclone^
Cyclone
w/Spray chamber
w/Packed scrubber
w/Venturi scrubber
w/Wet scrubber
w/Wet scrubber/ESP
Fabric filter
Efficiency
-
85
92
95
97
99
99.9
99
kg/Mg of
product
45
7
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.544
0.023
0.54
Ib/ton of
product
90
14
7
1.08
0.046
'.1
   aReferences 4-8.   VOC emissions data have  not  been reported  in the
    literature.  Dash = not applicable.  ESP  = electrostatic precipitator.
   t>Some type of primary collector, such as a cyclone,  is  considered integral
    to a spray drying system.
  9/88                     Chemical Process Industry                     5.15-3

-------
         CO
         pd
         o
         H
         U

         EM

         z
         o
         I—I
         CO
         CO
         CJ
         u
         w
         P-,
         co to

         M^
         S3 I-l
         CO S
         0°
         O CO
         I-l
         H H
         l=> Z

         M O

         H w
         CO H
         hH M
         a Q

         d3 p^»
         IS3 O
         t~~l fr i
         CO
         d
         M
         H

         CM
         CM
         CQ

         H
O
O
H
Fb

Z
O
M
CO
CO
e
3

O

o
^
v|
lJ
o
0)4-1 S
4J CJ X-N 3
tO to 00
•-I <4-i se o
3 <.
y C to NO,
•H O >{ V
•U «H v«^
U CO
to co
P-l -H
§ §

m
CM,
V|






§
Y*>
C O
o •
•H 0
4-1 i— 1
J!
•H
t-4 *^N
4-1 8-9 S
co 3
•H •
73 4J O

cu NO
N • Vl
•H a
u> 3
O
cu ^-^
,—1
cj S
T-l 3
4J
l-i in
to •
Pu CM
















cu
CJ
•H

cu
73

i-l
O
t-l
4-1
C
cS


^
•—> tLj C3 O

CO
CM
O

0





CO
CM
O

O




CO
CM
O

O








^^
9
^^
ON






•*;
f^.
ON








O
f
^B
ON







V)
o
4J

U 4-)
0) -H
4 0.
rfl 1-1
3 0
U CU
CJ t-l
co a,
4-1 O
CU -H
i 4J
CO
73 4J
C CO
CO O
14
OJ 4J
C 0
O V
.H i-l
0 CU




TlJ
CU
CO
a>
cu

^
w


•
o
o
i-H
J^
^/

C
o
nH
4J
M
•H
U
a
C cu
CU N
cu co
CO CU
3 0
• -H
CU CU 4-1

O ft CO
•H eo a.
t! cu X
CO r-l
0. 0 x-v
•H --I
U 4-1 1
•H ** "^
E CO -•
CO o, •
c m
^> bo
•a C cu
O -H i-)
V^ ^O *Q
cu o to
CO 0 H
d* **~s
o eo
4J 
i-H CO O
•H U CO 3
CO "H t-t *t3
4J B 0
cu i-i 53 p
i-H tO CX
u ex a>
•H 4J <4-l
4J IM (D O
lJ O i-H
CO 3 *-"
•H bO
4J 4J ^
• J-3 14 CU
^ "bO « »
-H ^t «X
1  o *»
U iH 4-1 CO
C 4J 4->
CU <0 CO «H
H l-H r-l d

eS 0 W* co
CO ,O CJ
5.15-4
                     EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
References for Section 5.15

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

 2.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual,  AP-40,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out Of Print.

 3.  Source Category Survey; Detergent Industry, EPA-450/3-80-030, U.  S, Envi-
     ronmental Protection  Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park,  NC,  June  1980.

 4.  A. H.  Phelps,  "Air Pollution Aspects Of  Soap  And Detergent Manufacture",
     Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, j^CS):505-507, August
     1967.

 5.  R. N. Shreve, Chemical  Process  Industries, Third Edition, New York, McGraw-
     Hill, 1967.

 6.  G. P. Larsen, et al. ,  "Evaluating  Sources Of Air Pollution", Industrial And
     Engineering Chemistry. 4_5:1070-1074, May 1953.

 7.  P. Y. McCormick,  et al. , "Gas-solid  Systems", Chemical Engineer's Handbook,
     McGraw-Hill Book Company,  New York, 1963.

 8.  Communication  from Maryland  State Department  Of Health,  Baltimore,  MD,
     November 1969.

 9.  Emission Test Report,  Witco Chemical Corporation, Patterson, NJ, EMB-73-
     DET-6, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     July 1973.

10.  Emission Test Report,  Lever Brothers, Los Angeles, CA, EMB-73-DET-2, U. S.
     Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  April 1973.

11.  Emission Test Report,  Procter and Gamble,  Augusta, GA, EMB-72-MM-10, U. S.
     Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research Triangle  Park, NC,  June 1972.

12.  Emission Test Report,  Procter and Gamble,  Long Beach, CA, EMB-73-DET-4,
     U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park,  NC, April
     1973.

13.  Emission Test Report,  Colgate-Palmolive, Jeffersonville, IN, EMB-73-DET-7,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research  Triangle Park, NC,  June
     1973.

14.  Emission Test Report,  Lever Brothers,  Edgewater,  NJ,   EMB-72-MM-9,   U.   S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle  Park,  NC, June  1972.
9/88                     Chemical Process  Industry                       5.15-5

-------
6.4  GRAIN ELEVATORS AND PROCESSING PLANTS

6.4.1  General1"3

     Grain elevators are facilities at which grains are received, stored, and
then distributed for direct use, process manufacturing, or export.  They can
be classified as either "country" or "terminal" elevators, with terminal
elevators further categorized as inland or export (marine) types.  Operations
other than storage often are performed at elevators, such as cleaning, drying
and blending.  The principal grains handled include wheat, milo, corn, oats,
rice and soybeans.

     Country elevators are generally smaller elevators that receive grain by
truck directly from farms during the harvest season.  These elevators some-
times clean or dry grain before it is transported to terminal elevators or
processors.  Terminal elevators dry, clean, blend and store grain for ship-
ment to other terminals or processors, or for export.  These elevators may
receive grain by truck, rail or barge, and they have significantly greater
grain handling and storage capacities than do country elevators.  Export
elevators are terminal elevators that load grain primarily onto ships for
export.

     The first step at a grain elevator is the unloading of the incoming
truck, railcar or barge.  A truck discharges its grain into a hopper, usually
below grade, from which the grain is conveyed to the main part of the eleva-
tor.  Barges are unloaded by a bucket elevator (marine leg) that is extended
down into the hold.  The main building at an elevator, where grain is elevated
and distributed, is called the "headhouse".  In the headhouse, grain is lifted
on one of the elevator legs and discharged onto the gallery belt, which con-
veys the grain to the storage bins, or silos.  A "tripper" diverts grain into
the desired bin.  Grain is often cleaned and/or dried before storage.  When
ready for shipping, grain is discharged from bins onto the tunnel belt below,
which conveys it to the scale garner and on to the desired loadout location.
Figure 6.4-1 illustrates the basic elements of an export terminal elevator.

     A grain processing plant (mill) receives grain from an elevator and per-
forms various manufacturing steps that produce a finished food product.
Examples of these plants are flour mills, animal feed mills, and producers of
edible oils, starch, corn syrup, and cereal products.  The elevator operations
of unloading, conveying and storing also are performed at mills.

6.4.2  Emissions And Controls1

     The only pollutant emitted in significant quantities from grain eleva-
tors and processing operations is particulate matter.  Small amounts of
combustion products from natural gas fired grain dryers also may be emitted.
Grain elevators and grain processing operations can be considered separate
categories of the industry when considering emissions.
9/88                   Food And Agricultural Industry                   6.4-1

-------
                                                                                   S-i
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   4-1
                                                                                   cfl

                                                                                   01
                                                                                   C
                                                                                   •H
                                                                                   tO
                                                                                   M
                                                                                   toO
                                                                                   cfl

                                                                                   •H
                                                                                   4J

                                                                                   •U
                                                                                   S-i
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   cd
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   •H
                                                                                   CX
                                                                                    0)
                                                                                    t-l

                                                                                    too
                                                                                   •H
                                                                                   PM
                                    o. Z
6.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
6.4.2.1  Grain Elevators - Emissions of fugitive dust occur whenever quanti-
ties of grain are set into motion during loading, conveying, transfer, drying
or cleaning operations at a grain elevator.  The emission rate can be
affected by the quantity of foreign material in the grain (dirt, seeds,
sticks, stones, etc., known as "dockage") and by the type of grain.  While it
is difficult to quantify the effect of dockage, observations indicate that
soybeans, oats and sorghum are usually very dusty, whereas wheat and corn are
comparatively clean.4 Total particulate emission factors for the principal
operations at grain elevators are presented in Table 6.4-1.  Since data dif-
ferentiating these emission factors by grain type are sparse, all of these
factors are approximate average values intended to apply to a variety of
grains.  Tables 6.4-2, 6.4-3 and 6.4-4, and Figures 6.4-2, 6.4-3 and 6.4-4,
show particle size distributions and size specific emission factors for three
operations at grain elevators.

     The emission factors in Table 6.4-1 represent the amount of dust genera-
ted per unit weight of grain processed through each uncontrolled operation.
Since the amount of grain passing through each individual operation is often
difficult to determine, it is sometimes convenient to express the emission
factors in terms of the quantity of grain received or shipped by the eleva-
tor.  (It is assumed that the amounts shipped and received are equal over the
long run.)  Therefore, the factors in Table 6.4-1 have been modified and are
expressed in Table 6.4-5 as a function of the amount of grain received or
shipped.  The ratios shown in Table 6.4-5 are approximate values based on
averages for bin turning, cleaning and drying in each elevator category.
However, because operating practices at individual elevators are different,
these ratios, like the emission factors themselves, may lack precision
when applied to an individual elevator.

     The factors in Tables 6.4-1 and 6.4-5 should not be added together in
order to obtain a single overall emission factor for a grain elevator
because, in most elevators, the emissions from some operations are controlled
and others are not.  Therefore, emissions estimations generally should be
undertaken for each operation and its associated control device.

     Several methods are available to reduce or control dust emissions at
grain elevators.  Since most emissions are generated when air passes swiftly
through a mass of grain, measures that slow down grain transfer (conveying)
rates or that reduce free fall distances will reduce emissions.  Bulk grain,
especially when falling through' the air, should be protected from significant
air currents or wind sources.  Many operations at elevators are partially or
totally enclosed (e. g., screw conveyors, drag conveyors, elevator legs) to
isolate generated dust from the atmosphere.  Hooding in the vicinity of some
operations (e. g., grain unloading, conveyor transfer points) collects gener-
ated dust by creating a negative pressure area (through suction, or air
aspiration) near the center of activity and then ducting the dusty air to a
control device.  Recent developments in the control of ship and' barge loading
operations include the use of "dead boxes" and tent controls.  The dead box
is a baffled attachment on the loading spout that serves to reduce the speed
of the falling grain before it reaches the open air and strikes the grain
pile.  Aspiration to a control device often accompanies the use of the dead
box.  Large flexible covers connected to the loading spout and aspiration
ducting, called tents, are used to cover the holds of ships during most of a
loading operation.  The tent must be removed during topping off (usually

9/88                    Food And Agricultural Industry                  6.4-3

-------
             TABLE 6.4-1.  TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         UNCONTROLLED GRAIN ELEVATORS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Type of Operation
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Dryingb
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Inland terminal elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying^3
Cleaning0
Headhouse ( legs )
Tripper (gallery belt)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Dryingb
Cleaning0
He adhou se ( le gs )
Tripper (gallery belt)
Total particulate
kg/Mg

0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.8

0.5
0.2
0.7
0.6
1.5
0.8
0.5

0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.5
0.8
0.5
Ib/ton

0.6
0.3
1.0
0.7
3.0
1.5

1.0
0.3
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
^Expressed as weight of dust emitted/unit weight of grain handled by each
 operation.  For inland terminal and export elevators, Reference 5; for dry-
 ing, References 2, 6; for country elevators, Reference 5 and additional test
 data in References 7-10.
^References 6, 11.  Based on 0.9 kg/Mg for uncontrolled rack dryers and 0.15
 kg/Mg for uncontrolled column dryers, prorated on the basis of the distribu-
 tion of these two types of dryers.
^Reference 11.  Average of values, from < 0.3 kg/Mg for wheat to 3.0 kg/Mg
 for corn.
6.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
              TABLE  6.4-2.  PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION
                       FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED RICE DRYERSa

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
Aerodynamic particle
   diameter (urn)
Cumulative weight %
  < stated size
                                                          Emission  factor*1
                                                             (kg/Mg)
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
Total particulate
0.8
2.6
7.7
24.5

0.0012
0.0039
0.012
0.037
0.15C
          References  1,  12.
          ^Expressed as cumulative weight  of  particulate _< corresponding
           particle  size/unit weight of rice  dried.
          cReference 11.
                    99.9
                   31  90
                  •8
                   M

                  V
                     50
                    0.01
                    UNCONTROLLED
                 — Uaighc percent
                 ___ EmUiion factor
                                                        0.04
                                                        0.03
                                                            3!
                                                            09
                                                        0.01
                                  5     10   20      50

                               Particle diameter, urn
                                                      100
              Figure  6.4-2.  Cumulative size  distribution and
               emission factors for uncontrolled rice dryers.
9/88
             Food And Agricultural Industry
                                        6.4-5

-------
               TABLE 6.4-3.  PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION
                 FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED  BARGE UNLOADING/CONVEYING3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
           Aerodynamic particle
              diameter (urn)
  Cumulative weight %
     <  stated size
Emission factor**
  (kg/Mg)
2.5
6.0
10.0
4.0
11.0
18.0
0.00013
0.00037
0.00054
           Total particulate
                               0.003C
           aReference 13.  Control  is  by fabric filter.
           ^Expressed as cumulative weight of particulate _<_ corresponding
            particle size/unit weight  of grain unloaded/conveyed.
           cTotal mass emission factor is from Reference 1.
                     99.9
                   0)
                   N
                   •H  95
                   -O  90
                   01
                      50
                               CONTROLLED
                              - Weight percent
                              - Emission factor
                        0.1   0.2    0.5    1     2      5    10
                                Particle diameter, urn


                Figure  6.4-3.   Cumulative size distribution and
          emission factors  for controlled barge unloading/conveying.
6.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                 9/88

-------
                TABLE 6.4-4.   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION
                        FACTORS  FOR UNCONTROLLED  SHIPLOADING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
Aerodynamic particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
Total particulate
Cumulative weight %
< stated size
10.4
27.0
42.0
53.0

Emission factor^5
(kg/Mg)
0.05
0.13
0.21
0.26
0.50C
           References 1,  14-15.
           ^Expressed as cumulative weight of  particulate <_ corresponding
             particle size/unit weight of grain loaded onto ships.
           cReference 11.
                      99.9
                       99
                       95
                    -a
                    o>
                    u
                    a
                      0.01
                                             UNCONTROLLED
                                           •   Weight parcenc
                                         —^K— Emission factor
                                                          0.35
                                                          0.20
                                                          0.15
                                                              oo
                                                              3f
                                                              00
                                                          0.10
                                                          0.05
                             2      5     10   20      50   100

                                Particle diameter, um
                Figure 6.4-4.   Cumulative size  distribution and
                 emission factors  for uncontrolled shiploading.
9/88
Food And Agricultural Industry
6.4-7

-------
               TABLE  6.4-5.  TOTAL PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR
          GRAIN ELEVATORS, BASED ON  AMOUNT OF  GRAIN  RECEIVED OR SHIPPED3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
Type of Operation
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt) ,
Drylngd
Cleaning6
Headhouse (legs)
Inland terminal elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Dryingd
Cleaning6
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying^
Cleaning6
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Emission factor,
kg/Mg handled15

0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.8

0.5
0.2
0.7
0.6
1.5
0.8
0.5

0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.5
0.8
0.5
X























Typical ratio of grain
processed to grain
received or shipped0

1.0
1.0
2.1
0.3
0.1
3.1

1.0
1.0
2.0
0.1
0.2
3.0
1.7

1.0
1.0
1.2
0.01
0.2
2.2
l.l
=























Emission factor,
kg/Mg received
or shipped

0.3
0.2
1.0
0.1
0.2
2.5

0.5
0.2
1.4
0.1
0.3
2.3
0.8

0.5
0.5
0.8
0.01
0.3
1.7
0.6
 aAssumes amount received is approximately equal to the amount shipped.
 bTo obtain units of Ib/ton, multiply factors by 2.0.
 cReference 6.  Average  values from a survey of elevators across the U. S.
 for any Individual elevator or group of elevators in the same locale.
 dSee Note b In Table 6.4-1.
 eSee Note c in Table 6.4-1.
                             Can be  considerably different
6.4-8
EMISSION  FACTORS
9/88

-------
about 25 percent of the total loading), allowing essentially uncontrolled
emissions to escape.

     Most elevators utilize particulate control devices on at least some of
their operations.  The traditional form of control at elevators has been
mechanical collectors, or cyclones.  Cyclones collect particles larger than
about 10 microns with only 85 to 95 percent control efficiency, often
producing visible emissions.  Hence, fabric filters are usually selected in
areas having more stringent control requirements.  Typical efficiencies for
well operated fabric filters exceed 99 percent, with no visible emissions.
The air aspirated from enclosed equipment and hoods is ducted to a fabric
filter or, in some cases, one or more cyclones.  Rarely are other particulate
control devices, such as wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators,
applied at elevators.  Grain dryers present a different sort of control
problem because of the large volumes of warm, moist air exhausted.  Most
dryers are enclosed with a continuously vacuumed polyester or stainless steel
screening to collect particulate, with the vacuum usually discharged to a
cyclone.  Two principal dryer configurations, rack and column, are in use.
The majority of dryers manufactured today are of the column type, which has
considerably lower emissions than the rack type.'6

6.4.2.2  Grain Processing Plants - Several grain milling operations, such as
receiving, conveying, cleaning and drying, are similar to those at grain
elevators.  In addition to these, breaking down (milling) the grain or grain
by-products for processing through various types of grinding operations is a
further source of emissions.  The hammermill is the most widely used grinding
device at feed mills.  Product is recovered from the hammermill with a
cyclone collector, which can be a major source of dust emissions.  Again,
like elevators, mills use a combination of cyclones and fabric filters to
conserve product and to control emissions.  Drying at a grain mill is accom-
plished using several types of dryers, including fluidized bed dryers (soy-
bean processing) and flash fired or direct fired dryers (corn milling).
These newer dryer types might have lower emissions than the traditional rack
or column dryers, but data are insufficient at this time to quantify the
difference.  The grain pre-cleaning often performed before drying also likely
serves to reduce emissions.  Emission factors for various grain milling and
other processing operations are presented in Table 6.4-6, and the particle
size distribution and size specific emission factor for a roaster operation
are shown in Table 6.4-7 and Figure 6.4-5.  The origins of these emission
factors are discussed below.         ^

     Emission factor data for feed mill operations are sparse.  The factors
for receiving, shipping and handling are based on estimates made by experts
within the feed industry.17  The remaining feed mill factors are based on test
data in References 2, 18 and 19.

     The roasting of carob kibble (or pods), which are ground and used as a
chocolate substitute, is similar to coffee roasting.  The emission factor and
particle size distribution for this operation were derived from References 20
and 21.

     Three emission areas for wheat mill processing operations are grain
receiving and handling, cleaning house and milling operations.  Data from
Reference 5 were used to estimate emission factors for grain receiving and

9/88                    Food And Agricultural Industry                  6.4-9

-------
             TABLE  6.4-6.   TOTAL  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                 UNCONTROLLED  GRAIN  PROCESSING OPERATIONS21

                          EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:   D
Type of Operation
Feed mills
Receiving
Shipping
Handling
Grinding
Hamme rmil li ngb
Flakingb
Crackingb
Pellet coolerb
Carob kibble roasting
Wheat milling
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Mill house
Durum milling
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Mill house
Rye milling
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Mill house
e
Oat milling
Rice milling
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Dryingf
Cleaning and mill house
Emission factor
kg/Mg

1.3
0.5
2.7

O.lc»d
O.lc
0.01c»d
0.2C
3.0

0.5
2.5
-
35.0

0.5
2.5
—
"~
0.5
2.5
—
35.0
1 ?S
J. . t, _J
0.32
2.5
0.15
—
Ib/ton

2.5
1.0
5.5

0.2c«d
0.2d
0.02c«d
0.4C
6.0

1.0
5.0
-
70.0

1.0
5.0
—
«
1.0
5.0
—
70.0
2 S
&• . ~j
0.64
5.0
0.30
—
6.4-10
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
                           TABLE 6.4-6 (concluded).
/
Type of Operation
Soybean milling
Receiving
Handling
Cleaning
DryingS
Cracking and dehulling
Hull grinding
Bean conditioning
Flaking
Meal dryer
Meal cooler
Bulk loading
Dry corn milling
Receiving
DryingS
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Degerming and milling
Wet corn milling
Receiving
Hand li ng
Cleaning
Dryingh
Bulk loading
Emission factor
kg/Mg
0.8
2.5
-
3.6
1.7
1.0
0.05
0.29
0.75
0.9
0.14

0.5
0.25
2.5
3.0
~

0.5
2.5
3.0
0.24

Ib/ton
1.6
5.0
-
7.2
3.3
2.0
0.1
0.57
1.5
1.8
0.27

1.0
0.5
5.0
6.0
~*

1.0
5.0
6.0
0.48
"
aMost emission factors are expressed as weight of dust emitted/unit weight of
 grain entering the plant, not necessarily the same as amount of material
 processed by each operation.  Dash = no data.
^Expressed as weight of dust emitted/unit weight of grain processed.
GWith cyclones.
"Measured on corn processing operations at feed mills.
eRepresents several sources at one plant, some controlled with cyclones and
 others with fabric filters.
fAverage for uncontrolled column dryers; see Table 6.4-2.
SDryer types unknown.
"For rotary steam tube dryers.
9/88
Food And Agricultural Industry
6.4-11

-------
               TABLE 6.4-7.   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION
                  FACTORS  FOR UNCONTROLLED CAROB KIBBLE ROASTERS3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
           Aerodynamic particle
              diameter (urn)
   Cumulative weight  %
     < stated size
Emission factor'3
  (kg/Mg)
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
Total particulate
0.6
0.7
2.0
11.5

0.018
0.021
0.060
0.35
3.0^
           ^Reference  18.
           ^Expressed  as cumulative weight of particulate jC corresponding
            particle size/unit weight of carob kibble  roasted.
           Reference  21.
                    01
                    .2  M
                                UNCONTROLLED
                             — Height percent
                             .__ Emission factor
                             i   iti
                                                          0.40 3
                                                          0.30 31
                                                          0.20
                                                          0.10
                             2      5    10    20     50    100

                                 Particle diameter, urn
                Figure 6.4-5.  Cumulative size  distribution and
           emission  factors for uncontrolled  carob kibble roasters,
6.4-12
EMISSION FACTORS
                 9/88

-------
handling.  Data for the cleaning house are insufficient to estimate an emis-
sion factor, and information contained in Reference 2 was used to estimate the
emission factor for milling operations.  The large emission factor for the
milling operation applies to uncontrolled operations.  Almost all of the
sources involved, however, are equipped with control devices to prevent
product losses.  Fabric filters are widely used for this purpose.

     Durum and rye milling operations are similar to those for wheat milling.
Therefore, most of these emission factors are assumed equal to those for
wheat mill operations.

     The grain unloading, handling and cleaning operations for dry corn mill-
ing are similar to those in other grain mills, but the subsequent operations
are somewhat different.  Also, some drying of corn received at the mill may
be necessary before storage.  An estimate of the emission factor for drying
was obtained from Reference 2.  Insufficient information is available to
estimate emission factors for degerming and milling.

     Information necessary to estimate emissions from oat milling is unavail-
able, and no emission factors for other grains are considered applicable
because oats are reported to be dustier than many other grains.  The only
emission factor data available are for controlled emissions.

     Emission factors for rice milling are based on those for similar opera-
tions in other grain handling facilities.  Insufficient information is avail-
able to estimate emission factors for drying, cleaning and mill house
operations.

     Information contained in Reference 2 is used to estimate emission factors
for soybean mills.

     Emissions information on wet corn milling is generally unavailable, in
part because of the wide variety of products and the diversity of operations.
Receiving, handling and cleaning operations emission factors are assumed to
be similar to those for dry corn milling.  The drying emission factor is from
tests at a wet corn milling plant producing animal feed.22

     Due to operational similarities between grain milling and processing
plants and grain elevators, the control methods used are similar.  Both often
use cyclones or fabric filters to control emissions from the grain handling
operations (e.g., unloading, legs, cleaners, etc.).  These same devices are
also often used to control emissions from other processing operations.  A
good example of this is the extensive use of fabric filters in flour mills.
However, there are also certain operations within some milling operations
that are not amenable to the use of these devices.  Therefore, wet scrubbers
have found some application, particularly where the effluent gas stream has a
high moisture content.  Certain other operations have been found to be
especially difficult to control, such as rotary dryers in wet corn mills.
The various emission control systems that have been applied to operations
within the grain milling and processing industry are described in Reference
2.
9/88                    Food And Agricultural Industry                 6.4-13

-------
References for Section 6.4
1.   G. A. LaFlam, Documentation for AP-42 Emission Factors;   Section 6.4,
     Grain Elevators and Processing Plants, Pacific Environmental Services,
     Inc., Durham, NC, September 1987.

2.   L. J. Shannon, et al.,  Emissions Control in the Grain and Feed Industry,
     Volume I - Engineering  and Cost Study, EPA-450/3-73-003a, U.S.  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, December 1973.

3.   The Storage and Handling of Grain, PEI, Inc.,  Cincinnati, OH, for
     U. S. EPA Region V, Contract No. 68-02-1355, March 1974.

4.   Technical Guidance for  Control of Industrial Process  Fugitive Particu-
     late Emissions, PEI, Inc., for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, Contract No. 68-02-1375,  March 1977.

5.   P. G. Gorman, Potential Dust Emission from a Grain Elevator in Kansas
     City, Missouri, MRI for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, Contract No. 68-02-0228, May 1974.

6.   L. J. Shannon, et al.,  Emission Control in the Grain  and  Feed Industry,
     Volume II - Emission Inventory, EPA-450/3-73-003b, MRI for U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, September
     1974.

7.   W. H. Maxwell, Stationary Source Testing of a  Country Grain Elevator  at
     Overbrook, Kansas, MRI  for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, Contract No. 68-02-1403,  February 1976.

8.   W. H. Maxwell, Stationary Source Testing of a  Country Grain Elevator  at
     Great Bend, Kansas, MRI for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, Contract No. 68-02-1403,  April 1976.

9.   F. J. Belgea, Cyclone Emissions and Efficiency Evaluation, (Tests at
     elevators in Edinburg and Thompson, North Dakota), Pollution Curbs,
     Inc., St. Paul, MN, March 10, 1972.

10.  F. J. Belgea, Grain Handling Dust Collection Systems  Evaluation for
     Farmer's Elevator Company, Minot, North Dakota, Pollution Curbs, Inc.,
     St. Paul, MN, August 28, 1972.

11.  M. P. Schrag, etal., Source Test Evaluation for Feed and Grain Indus-
     try, EPA-450/3-76-043,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, December 1976.

12.  Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
     Particle Emission Information System (FPEIS),  Series  No.  228, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, June 1983.

13.  Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corporation, Destrehan, LA, EMB-
     74-GRN-7, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, January  1974.

6.4-14                         EMISSION FACTORS                          9/88

-------
14.  W. Battye and R. Hall,  Particulate Emission Factors  and Feasibility of
     Emission Controls for Shiploading Operations at Portland,  Oregon Grain
     Terminals, Volume I,  GCA Corporation,  Bedford,  MA.,  June 1979.

15.  Emission Factor Development for Ship and Barge  Loading of  Grain, GCA
     Corporation for U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle
     Park,  NC, Contract No.  68-02-3510, October 1984.

16.  J. M.  Appold, "Dust Control for Grain Dryers,"  in Dust Control for Grain
     Elevators, presented  before the National Grain  and Feed Association, St.
     Louis, MO, May 7-8, 1981.

17.  Written communication from D. Bossman, American Feed Industry  Associa-
     tion,  Arlington, VA,  to F. Noonan, U.  S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 24, 1987.

18.  Written communication from P. Luther,  Purina Mills,  Inc.,  St.  Louis, MO,
     to G.  LaFlam, PES, Inc., Durham, NC, March 11,  1987.

19.  Written communication from P. Luther,  Purina Mills,  Inc.,  St.  Louis, MO,
     to F.  Noonan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle
     Park,  NC, July 8, 1987.

20.  Emission test data from FPEIS Series No. 229, U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June  1983.

21.  H. J.  Taback, Fine Particle Emissions  from Stationary and  Miscellaneous
     Sources in the South Coast Air Basin,  KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA, for the
     California Air Resources Board, February 1979.

22.  Source Category Survey;  Animal Feed Dryers. EPA-450/3-81-017, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December
     1981.
9/88                    Food And Agricultural Industry                 6.4-15

-------
     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  doloraitic 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 8.19 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.
 1.15-4                         EMISSION FACTORS                        10/86

-------
















RJ
HH

S
u
fa
Z
r:
W
s:

-


P£
o
on
OS
o

u
fa

Z
O
l-H
oo
00
i—i
S


I— t
1
1/1
t
OO

bJ

Cfl

E-















































ffl




o ;
Z j
H
<;

OS
o
H
T^, 4t a

> c ••* ^«
s M o a. 3 ai

u > t; >-> u o
-u 0 U U u 11 > JS
tA S Ob 41 4>J 00
= "3 - o J — -a  "3 w u — 3 >~ «
l-M-3UO>>-'k- ^


3 -* O — * 4t OS ^O4I

M *• Jtf w A ^ ^ "^ O 3 C
uu CD--*— >341-*OO
«— uuu— 441CW— «OOU

3 Q* *J ^ . > y~ r.i > jj ^ ^ ^j
u o
u a:

< < < <






< < < <
z z z z



^ ^ 4 ^
35 35 Z Z




< z Z Z



•< rg rg c^
OOO





< — -
o o' o





GO O ^ ^C
in z





^ in f*^ * "^


je o u o 41 w

— -. j -< "ars
n e M c •- =
C^ O BS O *J 0
— u - u — « u
— » C U _s 3 U


^ QJ

< 00 00 00
Z 41 4l 4<
Z Z Z




< 00 00 00

z z z


< 00 00 00
Z 41 41 41
Z Z Z



< 00 00 00
z z z


< oo oo oo
Z 41 ft* li
Z Z Z





«C oo oo oo
Z z z z



o

E O O O
*»




in
o
in o
S ~= o' =










-^
a. =

o u

U s
(A 41 (Q
C .= —
— 3.
••* (A -
JC M O S
1- -3 S U 4.

41 — — « js
^ o — « ^ ^ u

•? U U 10 u {A
41 u w 0 - 3
N -J = O M V. o
•• ^ O *^ 41 —
?3 3 U ffi ** « 00
— "33 w i, in T
3 0 = -= 3 3 =Q

I! a. = -j

00 00 00 00
&< 11 g. ft;
z z z z




OC 00 00 00
11 41 41 41
Z Z Z Z


SO 00 00 00
41 4i 41 41
Z Z Z Z



00 OO OO 00
z z z z


ao ao oo ac
z z z z





00 00 OC 00
z z z z


=0
c
O in i-~ ~1
o — o o





o -
O LI ac in
o — o c:










?5
_,

(•]
o J=

3

CJ *J
- Jtf
»- ^ -o

U U Ul


U OJ — C -J r? 0
U « — O 4.
^ - o *j c w i
WC W M It C
-. "So si C*u 1

C -£ -^ « i_j

u. £
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
,.15-5

-------
              I  =
                                  •Sf
                3 OS
                  •j
                b JB
                U •
                o) —
                • X

                JB "S.
                e -M
                                  J *9
                                  o e
                                  e s
                                  U hM
                                  b 3
                                  3 CO



                                  *s "oo
          o
          u
           I
          in
          oo

          w

          BQ
u -5 u   u
« c —   e


2*5   I


°ll   *
T       00
D ••J U   ~
b tl O   JS
3 u 6   "
—   tl
ta. — JB
 0 i-a
Ail  •*«
••« .W *•*

 §*|?


 *-'«

 si-
         O


        CM
        •B
        e
        *

                            M
                            S
                            ti
                            .  "I
                        t   3
               ! §
                a R  •
                b b b

                «J -O O
                —• >, -J

                  ~ 
                — u o
                o  • u  • s
                <-. B «• a o

                co ••• V II •»
                b M i   «
          i"i2 "°
               §ii
            - CO
             a. E
           co u £
           s u •
          — M
          — II
  — 3
  — 10

  "> —

  b 3
  3 W

 . — o
x 3 j:
- .-


•fs
                                bW C
                                it o ja

                                ^^"
                    -0,2-.,  .si
                  o *£*
                  M 4J   •
                    •M b tl

                  1515.5
                  •U   U
           x e
          • b b
           • «J
           •J B
             2O
             U


           •O II

           b •
                155 S
                                    U   W     I
                                    II   0)   • O
                                    •*   JB   «J b
                                    9   W   eg b
                            II   (V   U       ^*
                            •   —   —   m
                            00   W   *l   O
                            It   b   b   b



                            "   -;   3i

                                        §   "hM
                                3
                                U
                                Oh

                                §
                                                              V


                                                       «.  .J b
                                            5  JS
                                            II  .9
                            M   ••»   U
                                    |



                                    U
                                    II
                                                    •
                                                    V

                                                    s
                                            e
                                            o
                        >

                        CO
                        B
                        O

                        00
                        at



                       &
                                            8  =
                3

                u

                It
                u
                            0   B
                            «l   O
                            •9   U
                            tl   JS
                            JS


                            b   >

                            a  "i



                            S   «
                            O   b


                            -   1


                            „   *
               U — 0

              JS8--
              — ti e
               o  —
               u — —

              - £-
               u «i e
               3 C •-
              •c o
                 o -w
              •o   ti
               u t; o>
              U JS 3
                                                            U
                                                            n CM
                                            X
                                            It X
                                                           W K

                                                           52
  C It



  8J!




  SI

  10 00
  b b
  O O
  4J> *J
  •9 It
  b b
  ^ 7S
  U V
  -«4 U
  b 3
  u to
  J= U

  a ti
                                      b —   *,
                  — a. c
                  O O tl U
                  b • "M -M
                  »   u a.
                        uux  •-

                        UN—  a
                                        tow OM *•

                                        £3 g
                                        w ^ tl
                     i PM b b 8  II
                     •  U O O — JB m
                     I  3 W *< •*  U b
                     I hM U U    '
                                    •j e 3
                                    • O 01
                   I — tl JU

                   i JH   e
                   '--S
                           • o

                          ^^s .
                          —" 00 O 00
                          M B -M b
                            •MOO
                          O ^ BO *i
                          W • -M U
                     O    —
                     — II II O
                     u a a u
                     >, n m
                     u v+ — *J
                     tl 3 3 tl
                     b U U 5
 •   tl U, O
 ti ti a  <•*
 us   s
 B O 01 O 00
 U U b -M b
 b a o 10 e


 « •- a • <•
 at — *- w u.
n     j3 u i
          M. S O

             ° -S


           8? *
           (J * 3


           O O "3
          Ed X eo
          3 tl 
-------
8.19.2  CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING

8.19.2.1  Process Description1

     Major rock types processed by the rock and crushed stone industry include
limestone, dolomite, granite, traprock, sandstone, quartz and quartzite.  Minor
types include calcareous marl, marble, shell and slate.  Industry classifica-
tions vary considerably and, in many cases, do not reflect actual geological
definitions.

     Rock and crushed stone products generally are loosened by drilling and
blasting, then are loaded by power shovel or front end loader and transported
by heavy earth moving equipment.  Techniques used for extraction vary with the
nature and location of the deposit.  Further processing may include crushing,
screening, size classification, material handling, and storage operations.  All
of these processes can be significant sources of dust emissions if uncontrolled.
Some processing operations also include washing, depending on rock type and
desired product.

     Quarried stone normally is delivered to the processing plant by truck and
is dumped into a hoppered feeder, usually a vibrating grizzly type, or onto
screens, as illustrated in Figure 8.19.2-1.  These screens separate or scalp
large boulders from finer rocks that do not require primary crushing, thus
reducing the load to the primary crusher.  Jaw, or gyratory, crushers are
usually used for initial reduction.  The crusher product, normally 7.5 to 30
centimeters (3 to 12 inches) in diameter, and the grizzly throughs (undersize
material) are discharged onto a belt conveyor and usually are transported either
to secondary screens and crushers or to a surge pile for temporary storage.

     Further screening generally separates the process flow into either two
or three fractions (oversize, undersize and throughs) ahead of the secondary
crusher.  The oversize is discharged to the secondary crusher for further
reduction, and the undersize usually bypasses the secondary crusher.  The
throughs sometimes are separated, because they contain unwanted fines, and are
stockpiled as crusher run material.  Gyratory crushers or cone crushers are
commonly used for secondary crushing, although impact crushers are sometimes
found.

     The product of the secondary crushing stage, usually 2.5 centimeters (1
inch) diameter or less, is transported to secondary screens for further sizing.
Oversize material is sent back for recrushing.  Depending on rock type and
desired product, tertiary crushing or grinding may be necessary, usually using
cone crushers or hammermills.  (Rod mills, ball mills and hammer mills normally
are used in milling operations, which are not considered a part of the construc-
tion aggregate industry.)  The product from tertiary crushing may be conveyed
to a classifier, such as a dry vibrating screen system, or to an air separator.
Any oversize is returned to the tertiary crusher for further reduction.  At this
point, end products of the desired grade are conveyed or trucked directly to
finished product bins or to open area stockpiles.

 9/88                      Mineral Products Industry                 8.19.2-1

-------
               FIGURE 8.19.2-1.  Typical stone processing plant.
8.19.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         9/88

-------
     In certain cases, stone washing is required to meet particular end product
specifications or demands, as with concrete aggregate processing.  Crushed and
broken stone normally are not milled but are screened and shipped to the con-
sumer after secondary or tertiary crushing.

8.19.2.2  Emissions And Controls1"3

     Dust emissions occur from many operations in stone quarrying and pro-
cessing.  A substantial portion of these emissions consists of heavy particles
that may settle out within the plant.  As in other operations, crushed stone
emission sources may be categorized as either process sources or fugitive dust
sources.  Process sources include those for which emissions are amenable to
capture and subsequent control.  Fugitive dust sources generally involve the
reentrainment of settled dust by wind or machine movement.  Factors affecting
emissions from either source category include the type, quantity and surface
moisture content of the stone processed; the type of equipment and operating
practices employed; and topographical and climatic factors.

     Of geographic and seasonal factors, the primary variables affecting uncon-
trolled particulate emissions are wind and material moisture content.  Wind
parameters vary with geographical location, season and weather.  It can be
expected that the level of emissions from unenclosed sources (principally fugi-
tive dust sources) will be greater during periods of high winds.  The material
moisture content also varies with geographic location, season and weather.
Therefore, the levels of uncontrolled emissions from both process emission
sources and fugitive dust sources generally will be greater in arid regions
of the country than in temperate ones, and greater during the summer months
because of a higher evaporation rate.

     The moisture content of the material processed can have a substantial
effect on uncontrolled emissions.  This is especially evident during mining,
initial material handling, and initial plant process operations such as primary
crushing.  Surface wetness causes fine particles to agglomerate on, or to adhere
to, the faces of larger stones, with a resulting dust suppression effect.  How-
ever, as new fine particles are created by crushing and attrition, and as the
moisture content is reduced by evaporation, this suppressive effect diminishes
and may disappear.  Depending on the geographic and climatic conditions, the
moisture content of mined rock may range from nearly zero to several percent.
Since moisture content is usually expressed on a basis of overall weight per-
cent, the actual moisture amount per unit area will vary with the size of the
rock being handled.  On a constant mass fraction basis, the per unit area mois-
ture content varies inversely with the diameter of the rock.  Therefore, the
suppressive effect of the moisture depends on both the absolute mass water con-
tent and the size of the rock product.  Typically, a wet material will contain
1.5 to 4 percent water or more.

     There are a large number of material, equipment and operating factors
which can influence emissions from crushing.  These include:  (1) rock type,
(2) feed size and distribution, (3) moisture content, (4) throughput rate, (5)
crusher type, (6) size reduction ratio, and (7) fines content.   Insufficient
data are available to present a matrix of rock crushing emission factors
detailing the above classifications and variables.  Data available from which
to prepare emission factors also vary considerably, for both extractive testing
and plume profiling.  Emission factors from extractive testing are generally

9/88                      Mineral Products Industry                    8.19.2-3

-------
higher than those based upon plume profiling tests, but they have a greater
degree of reliability.  Some test data for primary crushing indicate higher
emissions than from secondary crushing, although factors affecting emission
rates and visual observations suggest that the secondary crushing emission
factor, on a throughput basis, should be higher.  Table 8.19.2-1 shows single
factors for either primary or secondary crushing reflecting a combined data
base.  An emission factor for tertiary crushing is given, but it is based on
extremely limited data.  All factors are rated low because of the limited and
highly variable data base.
           TABLE 8.19.2-1.
UNCONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CRUSHING OPERATIONS3
Type of crushing'5
Primary or secondary
Dry material
Wet material0
Tertiary dry materiald
Particulate
< 30 urn
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
0.14 (0.28)
0.009 (0.018)
0.93 (1.85)
< 10 urn
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
0.0085 (0.017)
-
-
Emission
Factor
Rating
D
D
E
aBased on actual feed rate of raw material entering the particular operation.
 Emissions will vary by rock type, but data available are insufficient to
 characterize these phenomena.  Dash = no data.
^References 4-5.  Typical control efficiencies for cyclone, 70 - 80%;
 fabric filter, 99%; wet spray systems, 70 - 90%.
°References 5-6.  Refers to crushing of rock either naturally wet or
 moistened to 1.5 - 4 weight % with wet suppression techniques.
^Range of values used to calculate emission factor is 0.0008 - 1.38 kg/Mg.

     Emission factor estimates for stone quarry blasting operations are not
presented here because of the sparsity and unreliability of available test
data.  While a procedure for estimating blasting emissions is presented in
Section 8.24, Western Surface Coal Mines, that procedure should not be applied
to stone quarries because of dissimilarities in blasting techniques, material
blasted and size of blast areas.

     There are no screening emission factors presented in this Section.  How-
ever, the screening emission factors given in Section 8.19.1, Sand and Gravel
Processing, should be similar to those expected from screening crushed rock.
Milling of fines is also not included in this Section as this operation is
normally associated with non construction aggregate end uses and will be covered
elsewhere in the future when information is adequate.

      Open dust source (fugitive dust) emission factors for stone quarrying and
processing are presented in Table 8.19.2-2.  These factors have been determined
8.19.2-4
   EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
CN
 I
CN
00

r4

53
H
d
o LI bo
•H o d
CO 4J -H
CO O 4-1
|£c2












cu
bO
d

Li
1 cu /-N

1! *iH CU
1 CO 4J
J 
CO
4-1
•H
a
£3








a
0 3
i— i
^ O
p i 1—4

V|










S

CO
H 0
co

\/ [











! i-H
CO
•H
t-J
CU
1 4-1
Cfl
S

!
i
'1







d
o
•H
4J
CO
CU
O.
o








W





^^
£j
O
4-1

XI
i-H
^x

bD

-•N^
bD


/-^
i — 1
0
0
0
•
0
^«/


o
•
o




s~\
00
o
0
0
•
0
^**


^"
.
o



o
cu
d
o
4J
CO

-a
cu
3
4J
CJ
cfl
Ll
14.4
d












>> bO
LI d
Ll -rl
CO rH
3 rH
cr -H
l-i
4-1 TD
CU




Q





^N
d
0
4-1

o
r-l
x_^

bO

— ^
bO

/-x
CM
O
O
o
o
•
0
•^^

00
o
o
•
0




s~^
co
0
O
O
*
0
^^

^
1 — I
•
o





o
cu
d
o
4J
CO

cu
I-l
3
4-1
O
CO
(^
fe




bO
d
•H
•o
CO
0
rH
Plj C
O 3
l-i
T) 4*:
CJ
x; 3
O l-i
4J H
cfl
pa




w w





X~N X"N
d d
0 0
4J 4J

|f^ ^Q
rH i-H


bO bO

••^ — „
bO bO


^-^
i — i
0
0
o
•
0 <•



o
•
o




y^X
P")
O /-%
c^ ^o
O 0
• •
O 0
•*~s *^s

p^»
— < o
. •
o cr.
CM






•a cu
cu cu
d d
0 0
4-1 4-1
CO CO
•a T3
cu cu
x: x;
CO CO
3 3

O U

l_l
cu
•a

0
bO r-l
d
•rl *r}
T3 Ll (2
CO O CU
0 >>
i— 1 d) 4-1
> d
*t d o
CJ O Ll
3 O PL,
^4
H





W





x~\
d
o
4-1
^*.
^
i— 1
\^s

bO

*-%^
bO


x~s
CM
O
O
O
•
o m W)
>*-x


Zn
•
O




x-s
^^
CO
O
0
•
0 >4H bO
N-X


r*-
•
i — i







CJ CO
co d
d o
O 4J
4J CO
CO
'O cu
CU -H
XI Ll
CO I-l
3 cfl
Li 3
o o-



CO
""O
cfl
O
)^i
4-1
rH rH
CU 3
bO XI
S rH bO
•rH cu -a d
>~> d co TH
cu d > 4-1
> 3 co co
d H cx to
O C rH
O £D PQ

.
x^
CM
« co d
— I Li O
r-l O -H
4J 4-1
d cj cs
0 « 3
4J 0)
o
cu • d
co cu cu
rH J=
CU XI IS
CU CO
CO E-l CO
v_x £3
CO O
Ll TH TH
CU X! CO
i-H 4J CO
OH CJ
rrt T-I (^
ly n tj
CO
CO Ll
CO Li O
B O >4H
3 4J
i-H CJ U
O cfl o
> M-f ~--
T3
rd CU f5
bO 3 CO
•H rH
x; co co
> d
Tj O
J-l CO -rl .
cfl i-H 4J CO
d d s xi
CO -H -iH CO
4J CO X rH
CO O -rl
O Ll tfl
CO W CX >
CX CO
^i *O CO
X> CU 4J
Ll ^1 O
TJ Ll CJ d
CU CO -H
Ll 14H 3 II
3 CU a"
co LI  4J
cx d co
s~^ CO O Q)
PJ XI cj
CO O >,
H Ll rH
v-x d O Xt
•rl IH tfl
0) d
4-1 CO T) O
co d co co
i-H O T3 tfl
3 iH lH CU
Oil t^ ( .
+-* r* W
•rl CO O
4J 3 Li CU
LI cr cxxi
cfl CU
a,  -H >
Cfl


CO
•rl

x:
CJ
•H
XI

A
bO
d
•H
"O
tfl
0
i-H

rrj
C
0)


o

*4-l

0
14-1

4-1
CX
co
o
X
cu

M
(-1
x:
CO
3
l-i
CJ

^
^1


•H
Ul
cx

X!
bO
3

X!
4-1

i-H •
CO TJ
•rl CU
Li l-i
CU Ll
4-1 CU
B CO
d
M-l Cfl
0 Li
4-1
^~\
d rH
O to
4J -rl
XI CU
•H 4-1
**— ^ Cfl
S
bC

•^. o
bO
x-^
co d . *
CO O CM CO
4J
•a ~^. cu cu
cu xi o o
CO rH d d
CO ^-s CU CU
CO Ll U
Li bO CU 01
CXS 4H >H
><) ' — b} co
Xl 0 TJ


































•
Cfl
4-1
CO
73
4J
CO
01
4J

<4H
o

^
4J
•rl
i-H
•rl
XI
CO
•H
^J
cu
• Li
CO d
d 3
o
•H 73
4-1 d
cfl cfl
3
o- ^
CU 4J
•rl
rH CO
CO I-l
O CO
•rl CX
Ll CO
•H
§•"8
cu
cu
Li CO
O 3
4-1 CO
O
CM CU
« X>

«—* *^
. cu
v£> d 4J
o d
CU iH CU
O 4-1 CO
d U CU
CU CU Li
Ll CO CX
0)
MH CU 4J
cu cu o
Prf CO Z
0) 14H bO
9/88
Mineral Products  Industry
8.19.2-5

-------
through tests at various quarries and processing plants.""'  The single valued
open dust emission factors given in Table 8.19.2-2 may be used when no other
information exists.  Empirically derived emission factor equations presented
in Section 11.2 of this document are preferred and should be used when possible.
Because these predictive equations allow the adjustment of emission factors for
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., e t a1., Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
     Sources, EPA-450/3-74-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

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                         9/88

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

8.2A.1  General1

      There  are  12  major  coal fields in  the  western  states  (excluding the
Pacific Coast and  Alaskan fields),  as  shown in Figure 8.24-1.   Together,
they  account for more than  64 percent  of the surface minable  coal  reserves
            COAL TYPE
            LIGNITE
            SUBBITUMINOUSC3
            BITUMINOUS
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    it
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    9
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    12
                Coal  field

            Fore Union
            Powder River
            North Central
            Bighorn Basin
            Wind River
            Bams Fork
            Uinta
            Southwestern Utah
            San Juan River
            Raton Mesa
            Denver
            Green River
Strippable reserves
    CIO6  tons)	

     23,529
     56,727
  All underground
j  All underground
         3
      1,000
        308
        224
      2,318
  All underground
  All underground
      2,120
 9/88
Figure 8.24-1.   Coal  fields of  the western U.S.3

            Mineral Products Industry
                           8.24-1

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

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

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

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

8.24.2  Emissions

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

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

8.24-2                       EMISSION  FACTORS                           9/88

-------
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       CD
                                                                                       C
                                                                                       •H
                                                                                       6
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       o

                                                                                       0)
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       tt)
                                                                                        3
                                                                                        CO

                                                                                        C
                                                                                        M
                                                                                        OJ
                                                                                        4-1
                                                                                        CO
                                                                                        
-------











H

CO
1
o
CO
HcO
CO ^>
tD CO
O H
r«3 3
W &
O U
r- 1
O PS
W H

t-J S
o -^
H CO
a w
o a
U M
§ ^
p^ __(
1
CM
oo

tJ
I_J
S3
H




C
C

Cf

E


















.0
Ut
0)
4J
0)

•o

^
s
s
•o
o
91
•^
I
41
M
•H
CO
0)
(J
•H
4J
Ul
CO
e

B
a
o
•H
a
a

1







M
kl
0)
4J
S







C
0
•H
4J
ra
u
u
s


o c
> > > wrt
bOtObObObO bObObflbO u
*"-^




CT\ fM in r>, vO^^Of^-
- ** *^* m x-s CM /-N O O *~N O ^!
z«x-*x-*xox CMO ^zo z
°^eoS'^OS-'^N^ CM o ^^0
O
CM
«-*,
> CN
N^ o
*— 1 \^r
m CM . CM fi
•-H ^- • /-% i eo tk
CM -^r-^ 3
°. ^"X^g^JoS sDO 2j® °°
^^ rn (N • o%O O "^

d
cu

t_< V U
3 "O "O
Ui ^ Ui Ui
0 S J 5
,H > ^H ,_) U V4 t-<
ro o co co a) cu •)
3 3 3 S <§ 6



U 11 -O
3 rH 6
•° -g."
s*. U B B ^>
0) -H 3 0) O •>
M -0 "H -rl 60-H 0
C O MH TJ (0 to B
" S W Jj J; 0 «
T^bO bB^OUMVX M *OB
•H O M OiaBrHM 4J ID C -J
4-> JM TJ rH O.i4^OT*9
(& U rH bO 034J*rJ^' 3w^x
rHtnrl t«Ubial 03U
aaHKI QCAO> EC<






















s>
B
a

V
N
0)
•8 §
Q m

5" *^ Vl
S ^ «
(0 CM W
*^ • s
S « /-^ B
MJS -H <0 .
1 B SC 0. -O g '-•
O ^^ irf « 43 O ^
CM -H O rH O -H 1
SO IJ U Q) r-( A •»
IH u j: V HI « N
11 be U f u v4 •
• CA -^ m » rH . B 00
> o u S. -^ •> S
"*3o) *O O«>B
OJ0309 OJoj o>^nB«l
c-^V^ fofoojaj2'S»n
Q)03i4  N o • 2
4J T> £ VI w W •
* rH 5 ** ^
IT > * a 5 -H w
03 *^ OJ • 4J •£•
rH 4J CO U 09 fl
"cLoj1" B°C^. £.£*


BOWOO ""jj "^ 5 «

uin rHUHBM UUM
oo * o v ^ S
u -; x u fc, 3 •
B-rt^J *OJBU *Srj!
j^ jj u o B v a.
'•oj'S "t £ " u^~- o » £
•HOB «"«3oos-^co'-'C
u^o no" ~iB3°s1
ovoj**t4i1Haijtj \^ CT ^H X

o. JS -H 'o ¥ ^ u w 9 a

tl £ W N »*H V< W V|H 03
?«>H OJOJ-OO, U
0 rH 0 1 lllltr.rN«
O 3 B n rH rH
«IUv<-*< Z 00 3 -o O. & W)
U -H -rj Q 
-------
S3
CO
w
c?
o
CO
  fl)
H /-^
W W
E> H
O M
rH 33
O co
   M

« rJ
W O
hJ r5
h-3 W
o ^
p^
H W


O r5
P H
(XS !<
O O
Pn U

co U

§3
^^ CiU
H 2

g,S

fd 2

Pd H
O H
H CO
U W
^ri r^
PH


§
M
CO
CO
CN

>*
cs
 •
oo
c
o
f4

to















0
.0
s
4J
i
•ri
•e
o
•H
1
0
Jj


!
N
«H
•

«
^H]
0
•H
4J
g

_
§

0)
19








rH
CO
U
01
4J
x




s
j Operatic

U DO
O C
4J — t
y *j



w)

•H
c

&
H

s
5
m
e-j


1

o
»~4
Vl









§
m










§
o
Si
(Xi
M
H




















O W PQ •» >>> > ,£. jOrQXl JO O
r~\ •—* r—f i—* i— * ""• ••" 1 rH i— * OJ


(j> oj IA p-» ^ •-* o I****
r* es O -* Mco-a- — «
O o -* O OOO O
2:0000 ooo o z



c*j m 10 m m ooo o
in r** r^- r*** r^ vD sC* ^ ^o
cJc3OC5*^
rH^-« «rj L^^ f""1 ^
OS ^-^ • rH *(f S.X fl O 00 • *^
O>O^''>»J-HrHO CM -H
rH^x X»-'<~>CM^S K-HI<.X ^0XxgX cMcSco^ 0 <
ZCD^^oo • • •• ^ • Z
rH «H O ^O O O


* CM
(->
CO /"*
• i-3

•— t o> m •*
tr> cs • **-* • •
• » CM rn CM m
< ^S r^ -O 1 CO >
O * *— ' • CO • • rH •
^^ac^aci^:coS K S ^iljc o <&
O ^H ^_/ 00 *-* • *— ' O ^^ ' f^- • tO 1 ^— ' O •
R m • .0 . r-
O  rH rH M tM rH
co o co co cu cu rt
O o o > > o
o o o o o u


^x
4j  bp oi x: C -oe
•H o -H oioe^txiwoiC-H
u A: "e IH o, w -H o TH >Y<9
» 0 •-! » COWTJ-rtrH rH-rl^i
O 3 rH O K ^ O -C ^ 3U<^
rH i4*J rlCJirfdJ flO
MH.fi Q tn u > »•<





















QJ
c°
to
01
N
»

"S 3
B m
OI •
a CM
• ^N V|
« B oi
• — * 4=
rH ^-. M U
a CM w
O rH CD 00 -H
JJ rH B ^** B
Of .rl • >
R B 4J O. -O B -TV
o «-^ B a co o  tO 1« 0) C T5
01 O O 01 B
oi go oioi oj ,-, c to
O . ^- rHrHhOaM
CO) oooiMnllm
OlrHkl vH^HrQUH^rll
bfcU J= J= B ^ B 01 -»
OICOrH 01 41 3 3 01 *J >B» 01.
OI *H B 01 T9 00

>co to to to « ^ o to
• O UCUQ)OBWOI
o oi a 6 B K E -H
HUB • oi C -a
 O "° O 01
IH r« o *o 0)
U < .C Vl u IH 10
§Z bo IH >-/
•H £ B
er js " o » >
01 > CX ,-, -H w
Ol'S'S T3.S OW-0
rH rH O o CO O
•HOITJ MB Ht"«I

o a -n ,0 M IH
CO 4J CO to CO «H O
O CO 4J s~* X -H •>
fHCOO rHlHBr4 4JWM
o oi .COD--- o
CO*H.a ^0)C4J rQCTOI
B <-> o o e oi ex
»H TJ "H O O 41 C fc^
OrnS ""'OIB'O 5>
•rlCO OcB^CCO^Or'Ci
u x to o>ou — inao^t
B hO^N~/w OIO
a. ^«4O> ii to s o.
01 M U U rHrHOI^I 01
OjCtJOCrlOOD.4linft.r-l
• f cr N IH ki h S/IH «
llOI-rl Oj I) -Q (X 0
W OIOUSZ 1 •^•Cuij'lV
0 rH 0 1 1111X^0
• O C CO rH rH
• Gt»rH< z co p Tj a cx oo
U -H ^ 0 •* •* t!
£ " flu " W "*
*«•«£•< "3 "3 o
H CXM cn X X ft?
a A o -e oi IH
9/88
Mineral  Products  Industry
                                                                                        8.24-5

-------
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
ii ii
Moisture
Silt
Weight
Speed
Moisture
Wheels
Silt loading
7

3
3
8
8
19
7
10
15
7
7
2,9
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
%

%
%
%
%
m
ft
%
Mg
ton
kph
mph
%
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
8.24-6
            EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

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

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

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

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

     Because the predictive  equations allow  emission  factor  adjustment to
specific source conditions,  the equations should be used in place of  the
factors in Table 8.24-4 for the sources  identified above, if  emission esti-
mates for a  specific western surface coal mine are  needed.  However,  the
generally higher quality ratings  assigned to the equations are  applicable
only  if  1)  reliable  values  of correction  parameters have been determined
for the specific sources of interest  and 2) the correction parameter values
lie within  the  ranges tested in developing  the  equations.   Table 8.24-3
lists measured properties of aggregate materials which can be used to esti-
mate  correction parameter values  for the  predictive emission factor equa-
tions in Chapter 11,  in the event that site specific values are not  avail-
able.   Use of  mean  correction parameter values from Table 8.24-3 reduces
the quality  ratings  of  the  emission  factor equations  in  Chapter 11 by one
level.
9/88                     Mineral Products Industry                    8.24-7

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



Topsoil removal by
scraper


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


Bottom dump truck
unloading
(batch drop)










End dump truck
unloading
(batch drop)
Scraper unloading
(batch drop)
Wind erosion of
expoted area>

Material Mine
location
Overburden

Coal

Topsoil



Overburden

Overburden


Coal



Overburden


Coal









Coal


Topaoil
Seeded land,
(tripped over-
burden, graded
overburden
Any

V

Any

IV

Any

V


Any

III

V


IV

III

II

I

Any

V


IV
Any

TSP
emission
factor
1.3
0.59
0.22
0.10
0.058
C.029
0.44
0.22
0.012
0.0060
0,037
0.018

0.028
0.014
0.0002
0.0001
0.002
0.001

0.027
0.014
0.005
0.002
0.020
0.010
0.0)4
0.0070
0.066
0.033
0.007
0.004

0.04
0.02
0.38
0.85
Emission
Units Factor
Rating
Ib/hole
kg/bole
Ib/hole
kg/hole
Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg -
Ik/T
kg/Kg

Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/T

Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg
Ib/T
kg/Hg

Ib/T
kg/Hg
T
(acreKyr)
Hfr
*1K
(oectareHyr)
B
B
E
E
I
I
D
0
C
c
C
c

D
D
D
D
E
E

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

C
C
C
c
                Roman nuaterals I through V refer  to specific nine  locations for whicfc the
                corresponding emission factors were developed (Reference 4).  Table* 8.24-4
                and 8.24-5 present characteristics of each of these nines.  See text for
                correct use of these "mine specific" emission factors.  The other factors
                (from Reference 5 except for overburden drilling from Reference 1) can be
                applied to any western surface coal mine.
                Total suspended particulate (TSP) denotes what is  measured by i standard high
                volume sampler (see Section 11.2).
                Predictive emission factor equations, which generally provide more accurate
                estimates of emissions, are presented in Chapter 11.
8.24-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                 9/88

-------















(0
1
%J
CN

00

Cd
J
ca
^J
H
Z
1—1
O
H

a

tt*
QM
Ed
!u
Cd
Q£

CO
td
Z
S

vJ

q


a
u

^
as
CO

u.
o

CO
u

H
CO

a:

1
^
M
CJ

«2
^
as

s:
g

.
m

^f
CM

CO

Cd
^j
35
£^



e •
-HOC
CO -H -H
3 *J
e co
c n
co -i-i
a
C -H
!0 U
01 01
2 I- E
aJ o




JS
•o a.
e s

'* W
01
C C.
CO to M
OI >«.
s: E



P^
•p^ ^\
O T3 iJ
W C •*
CO i-l M
01 •* «
u u .n -c
<0 Q,--l C

Wi jj o
3 1-
co o>



01

•H U
4-1 OI
CO >
*J O
01 U
00
OI






a

CO

Wi
01




U-i
0 t3
— * 0)

iO ^f
•^ «•*








ao vO
cn cn




*H< **J
• •
10 f>
(•^



c^ o
• •
es vO

JS
AJ
/•^ *H
^•4 5 ^
r* -o o
>- ' f-i e
•rt CO -i^
• >> O -H
>> g W >> CO
OI CO CO Jtf
>% O T3 f* ^
co —4 -i-i u ce
i-l Ul
0 <


jC JS
M M
•> 3 3
01 ^ ^
4j J3 *» jO
> TJ
r^ 01
01 90
4j a oo
CO U 3
U U I-l
01 JJ -H
•O w E
_O OI


E S
3 3
+1 ^
OI co C j •- •••*
O. 0 -H .0 .a
>. u E
E-


—* £
3 3
co co

i



c
o
•H
t 1
CO
u
o



01
e
•^



o
•c oc
CO C
U -i-i


• o • >>
Z U CO *




- s
9/88 Mineral
•"'
1

*•*
1— 1



1— 1
«^

1

00
CM


r-
•
o
r*



eo
•
•»
M
C -H
O u>
•H >> o je
01 jj co a. u
4J CO 1— I O> O
CO r^ U -O S-l
S3 -0
o E > >> 01
JO 3 f-* O S ^ /~>
u o vO f-i co r~
co u eo i— i o e -*
Cl co <>-x <0 f-t O *-*
J=
CO


•o
V C
j-l 0) eg
CO -rt r-l
- hi u n
OI U -H M
W "O CO *
Wl O U U
J5 E a, ac
^^
W


i -o
f-^ O)
~4 00
O 00
U O =

>t **^
-I 00 S
*J C 01
3 •" SB
01
C5

g
3
4J
•*w
^3
^2
3
C/D






J9
jj
CO
* J-t
Cd C
• o
CO £



•-1
-
Products Industry

!*•* >J
i-^ *••








en \O
^* ^ 2 ^%
E -0 ra S
co >» . e .•— '
ce u *-»
- M /-» - >. >«CM
X — ' >i co 1C O
S O i*» 6 —i ••* "-1
(0 4J ^— ' cs U U >->
o o
*J kJ


TJ J=
e M
• 0! * 3
01 ••* r-* U
jj w w « ja
A3 **^ to ^ ^
u ca a co cc
01 U U U CO
•c a. oo ce M
o o.
r CA


f
,••4
f-J
o oo
l-i >, G
o ^** "^^
^ «J 4^ -^
r- eo c — *
.J 3 J 01 O
e — cs oo >-
O1 p**
U Cai

g
W Z7
^J *J
•« »«J
C J2
eo -=
''^ 3
-3 CO


CO
\
O
^tf
re
— CS 00

»- .s •—
j *j . S
= u td o
u c • >>
U Z Z 2
1



- > 1
















































1
I

































•
^"

01
u
e
0)
u
0)
01
ex

CO
8.24-9

-------





W

k^
S
^j
<; to
0 j
E«
gs
pa
rf) ^»
WJ ^4
CJ H
M
H Z
CO M
M
p£ O
W H
O Q
i §
| £
K W
U fa
W
O OS
^
f*
M
H
as
u
P-I
o


•
vO

<}•
CM
•
CO
W
hJ
«
?s
















II
a
•H
x:















































>


>
»-(
*»<
*-*




M


IH


g>
4J
|
*3










C
o
**4
oJ
1
£
O
«M
c
*^

•o
u
kl
»H
p
cr
4J
tX






ki
b
^j
u
E
a
k<
<>j
c:
j=
o
CM
r«

CO
C*l
m

e>\



o
m


m


b
X
h*
v>
2















*3
C
e
•H
•^
J

CJ
4J
ID
U

e
o
•irf
«j
u
3
•v
o
u
a.


C4

2


(N



<
Z


s

X
•s
u
&,






X
0
c
H
a
ki
a

*j
• ^4

M
>
<

4J
kl
O
f^
VI
e
r;
k<
*j
te
o
u

in
m o < o
n i r» BE i ~
CO N£
•/"••
in «iN o o
>c i  «N X. 01 -"


ft Ch
0 . 0
o »** in in *s o
ce en — _ tM —


§m
en
•« O »o CM CM
CN •» ox m «N m


m
5

— e u c oc o.
J3 tl -™ M. C CJ
*J *O JS U -^ T?
4J -*H Jtf
Ee j= i-i *•>
u E *J 3 •*
T -C 

«j C' ce u o *J
> > o c &. u
6 O o c- w <


o
•*ri
f
b.
e o co

m o
NO O
oo • m
f-l !•-. O 00
m oo
1^ CM
-T • \e
(N 00 O 00


en is
»n r>
OS O • >C
— -. o ex


ve o
•» o
o • —
— eo o —


*J 4J J3
ssc
9
- - 4J
fr^ fr*l ^4 flQ














*J
e
c
*j
u e
w o
D U U
jj S
U9 *«N 4J
•^ * -M H>
O W 3 tt
r < co x


«
•H
M
X
^H
K
e
a ic
4J
l-<  r*. i i

f- O
en < < o <
•-i i i i i i x »» a: f» sc
N
** ** o in so
** n» -  ~ Z "•» O •>» 1

~
O 0
§o
o
o
«•«<•> m »• i »« z «» r> •« CM

J« J¥
* U
SSI
V ti It u i; v
ki kl kl kl kl kl Q Brf kl W M
U U U O O U O CU Ci» «J «J








c
• CJ
v "o
U C k,
•e c ti 3
e w *o jd
a> js u, -. w
*+ ki 3 re v
3 jC O >
•Q fc> w* k. U O
O U « V
A -* « > - -
ki *O 4J O *V ^
3-0 c u
4J4J 0*0 • » *J Jj
w •* T3 ic c ^ x w w
•MCL U -H iJ X «J Cl It €»
•C E CC4J C C — —
vn>^e>H -<-i %>oii£.o
^^>^^iQcyu u T:S
ft<*4**4^HkiO IB JC^CTBtO
4j w o u i. » a, «t,cu
OU&.UCEID n lUUkjb
(- < tn ec ffl < u fa. u- < <


e
o
• H
4J
•H
» oc
av o &> c
tl C. M —
CC K « <*J
V.H — 1 k. U
U -D O C
3 *J — <
W U BO


















.
V

A
»-^
•M
•0
•>.
«
*1
o
G

ii

jr
a
eo
O
•
tl
IHl
JO
c
u
••H
»^
Ck
c.
fB
4J
o
e
U
<
K
»»

tJ •
U C
c w
BJ V
k. K
u •«
•M <->
U E
at ta

• JO
8.24-10
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
 References for Section 8.24

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

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

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

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

 5.    IJ.   L.  Shearer,  et al.,  Coal Mining Emission Factor Development and
      Modeling Study,  Amax Coal  Company,  Carter Mining  Company,  Sunoco
      Energy  Development  Company, Mobil  Oil  Corporation,  and  Atlantic
      Richfield Company,  Denver,  CO, July  1981.
9/88                      Mineral Products  Industry                    8.24-11

-------
                       CHAPTER 11.  MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
     This chapter contains emission factor information on those source cate-
gories that differ substantially from, and hence cannot be grouped with,  the
other "stationary" sources discussed in this publication.  These miscellaneous
emitters, both natural and manmade, are almost exclusively area sources,  with
their pollutant generating process(es) dispersed over large land areas.   Another
characteristic of these sources is the inapplicability, in most cases, of con-
ventional control methods, such as wet/dry equipment, fuel switching,  process
changes, etc.  Instead, control of these emissions,  where possible at  all,  may
include such techniques as modification of agricultural burning practices,
paving with asphalt or concrete, or stabiliation of  dirt roads.  Finally,
miscellaneous sources generally emit pollutants intermittently, when compared
to most stationary point sources.  For example, a wildfire may emit large
quantities of particulate and carbon monoxide for several hours or even days.
But, when measured against a continuous emitter, such as a sulfuric acid  plant,
over a long period of time, its emissions may seem relatively minor.  Effects
on air quality may also be of relatively short duration.
  9/88                       Miscellaneous Sources                         11-1

-------
 11.1  Wildfires And Prescribed Burning

 11.1.1  General1

     A wildfire is a large scale natural combustion process that consumes
 various ages, size and types of flora growing outdoors in a geographical area.
 Consequently, wildfires are potential sources of large amounts of air pollut-
 ants that should be considered when trying to relate emissions to air quality.

     The size and intensity, even the occurrence, of a wildfire depend
 directly on such variables as meteorological conditions, the species of vege-
 tation involved and their moisture content, and the weight of consumable fuel
 per acre (available fuel loading).  Once a fire begins, the dry combustible
 material is consumed first.  If the energy release is large and of sufficient
 duration, the drying of green, live material occurs, with subsequent burning
 of this material as well.  Under proper environmental and fuel conditions,
 this process may initiate a chain reaction that results in a widespread
 conflagration.

     The complete combustion of wildland fuels (forests, grasslands, wetlands)
 require a heat flux (temperature gradient), adequate oxygen supply, and
 sufficient burning time.  The size and quantity of wildland fuels, meteo-
 rological conditions, and topograhic features interact to modify the burning
 behavior as the fire spreads, and the wildfire will attain different degrees
 of combustion efficiency during its lifetime.

     The importance of both fuel type and fuel loading on the fire process
 can not be overemphasized.  To meet the pressing need for this kind of infor-
 mation, the U. S. Forest Service is developing a model of a nationwide fuel
 identification system that will provide estimates of fuel loading by size
 class.  Further, the environmental parameters of wind, slope and expected
 moisture changes have been superimposed on this fuel model and incorporated
 into a National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS).  This system considers
 five classes of fuel, the components of which are selected on the basis of
 combustibility, response of dead fuels to moisture, and whether the living
 fuels are herbaceous (grasses, brush) or woody (trees, shrubs).

     Most fuel loading figures are based on values for "available fuel," that
 is, combustible material that will be consumed in a wildfire under specific
 weather conditions.   Available fuel values must not be confused with corres-
 ponding values for either "total fuel" (all the combustible material that
would burn under the most severe weather and burning conditions)  or "potential
fuel" (the  larger woody material that remains even after an extremely high
 intensity wildfire).   It must be emphasized,  however,  that the various methods
of fuel identification are of value only when they are related to the existing
fuel quantity, the quantity consumed by the fire,  and the geographic area and
conditions  under which the fire  occurs.

     For the sake of conformity  and convenience,  fuel loadings are estimated
for the vegetation in the U.  S.  Forest Service Regions are presented in
Table 11.1-1.   Figure 11.1-1  illustrates these areas and regions.
9/88                         Miscellaneous Sources                        11.1-1

-------
        TABLE 11.1-1.   SUMMARY  OF ESTIMATED FUEL CONSUMED BY WILDFIRES*
National region*5
Rocky Mountain
Region 1: Northern
Region 2: Rocky Mountain
Region 3: Southwestern
Region 4: Intermountain
Pacific
Region 5: California
Region 6: Pacific Northwest
Region 10: Alaska
Coastal
Interior
Southern
Region 8: Southern
Eastern
North central
Region 9: Conifers
Ha rdwo ods
Estimated average fuel loading
Mg /hectare
83
135
67
22
40
43
40
135
36
135
25
20
20
25
25
22
27
ton/acre
37
60
30
10
8
19
18
60
16
60
11
9
9
11
11
10
12
      aReference 1.
           Figure 11.1-1 for region boundaries
11.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
                                                                         co
                                                                         §
                                                                         w
                                                                         o
                                                                         w
                                                                         co
                                                                         H
                                                                         CO
                                                                         CO
                                                                         CO
                                                                          H
                                                                          CO
                                                                          g
                                                                          I
                                                                          t-l
                                                                          o
                                                                          1-1
                                                                          En
9/88
                               Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                            11.1-3

-------
11.1.2  Emissions And Controls*

     It has been hypothesized, but not proven,  that the nature and amounts of
air pollutant emissions are directly related to the intensity and direction
(relative to the wind) of the wildfire,  and are indirectly related to the rate
at which the fire spreads.  The factors  that affect the rate of spread are
(1) weather (wind velocity, ambient temperature, relative humidity);  (2) fuels
(fuel type, fuel bed array, moisture content, fuel size); and (3) topography
(slope and profile).  However, logistical problems (such as size of the burning
area) and difficulties in safely situating personnel and equipment close to the
fire have prevented the collection of any reliable emissions data on actual
wildfires, so that it is not possible to verify or disprove the hypothesis.
Therefore, until such measurements are made, the only available information is
that obtained from burning experiments in the laboratory.  These data, for both
emissions and emission factors, are contained In Table 11.1-2.  It must be
emphasized that the factors presented here are  adequate for laboratory scale
emissions estimates, but that substantial errors may result if they are used to
calculate actual wildfire emissions.

     The emissions and emission factors displayed in Table 11.1-2 are calculated
using the following formulas:

        Ft  -  PjL                                                          (1)

        E±  -  F-tA - Pi LA                                                   (2)

where:  F^  =  Emission factor (mass of pollutant/unit area of
               forest consumed)

        P!  =  Yield for pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant/unit
               mass of forest fuel consumed)

            =  8.5 kg/Mg (17 Ib/ton) for total  particulate

               70 kg/Mg (140 Ib/ton) for carbon monoxide

            =  12 kg/Mg (24 Ib/ton) for total hydrocarbon (as Cfy)

            =  2 kg/Mg (4 Ib/ton) for nitrogen oxides (NOX)

            =  Negligible for sulfur oxides (SOX)

        L   -  Fuel loading consumed (mass of forest fuel/unit land
               area burned)

        A   =  Land area burned

        Ej  -  Total emissions of pollutant "i" (mass pollutant)

     For example, suppose that is is necessary to estimate the total particu-
late emissions from a 10,000 hectare wildfire in the Southern area (Region 8).
From Table 11.1-1, it is seen that the average fuel loading is 20 megagrams per
hectare (9 tons per acre).  Further, the pollutant yield for particulates is
8.5 kilograms per megagram (17 Ib/ton).   Therefore, the emissions are:
11.1-4                          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                        9/88

-------
CM









^^
bo
p£

oj
c
O
CO
en
•H








^^
4)

«
4J
»j
V
Jj
^^
5


^
b
Q
4J
O

^
§
M
•K




41
hi
•H
3
iH
•H
*
•O
CO |
41 9
<3 c
o
o




e
o
bo  X
•PH O
z
at oo
!-< O
•H T
*•* C
n) 10
rH b

> o

Q
C t
o I*
•s g
c3g
..
O 01
•H 4.
t. J-
<« a
Pu
e
41 a
M 4
o -c
hi •£
4J K
•H 5
z
.0
4) 01
rH O
•H v
•J C
« «
•H H
O hi
> 0
e •§
j<| -jj
hi e
3 o
I 0)
•H 4J
hi H
C <-s
0 tl
•H hi
w (d
rl O. 4J
0 g 0
334)
IH » ,fi
a • —
O H
0 SB
N^
4, 7
hi 01
14 hi
-O •0 J_l
^1* ^J **
iH O

*£

o
Georgraphi
area


oo m o m o
rv \o vO CO fv
CJN CM 00 tv. |v.
A M » »
-H oo oo co
in ro

O~N CM rv. ro o
vO ON in CO CM
oo m i— in \o
— < ON CO CM .»
— < tM in rM
ro CM

rv co \O rv, ro
co oo oo -^ in
CM CM O v» ON
ON ON O — ' NO
»H co i—* ro CM
oo co co — i
•H *-*<
fv 00 vf ^v CO
o ^o m m rv.
ON CM vO ON CM
o CM rv in co
CM sO CO <-<
CM •-!


vo ON in in NO
NO »o co ^ co
^^ C'J ^~*





NO o oo ON in
ON CM O NO 1-1
ON vO OO CM CM

^H


o o o o o
00 •* rv, in CM
m ON •» -H -4
NO ^ CM ,H CO
O «tf rvi ON in
-




co in r» CM o
00 CO \O CM •«
p^



r» NO CM in m
ON rv oo NO rv
CO CM 00 f— ^
co CM in co r-<
"> vT so OO CM
CO PH

C
•H C!
B ^^ (0 *-^^ C «-^H ^^ ^^
•H — 1 iJ CM tl CO OS 
-------
     E - (8.5 kg/Mg of fuel) (20 Mg of fuel hectare) (10,000 hectares)

     E - 1.700,000 kg - 1,700 Mg

     The most effective method of controlling wildfire emissions is,  of course,
to prevent the occurrence of wildfires, by various means at the land  manager's
disposal.  A frequently used technique for reducing wildfire occurrence is
"prescribed" or "hazard reduction" burning.  This type of managed burn involves
combustion of litter and underbrush to prevent fuel buildup under controlled
conditions, thus reducing the danger of a wildfire.  Although some air pollution
is generated by this preventive burning, the net amount is believed to be a
relatively smaller quantity than that produced by wildfires.

11.1.3  Prescribed Burning1

     Prescribed burning is a land treatment, used under controlled conditions,
to accomplish natural resource management objectives.  It is one of several
land treatments, used individually or in combination, including chemical and
mechanical methods.  Prescribed fires are conducted within the limits of a fire
plan and prescription which describes both the acceptable range of weather,
moisture, fuel and fire behavior parameters and the ignition method to achieve
the desired effects.  Prescribed fire is a cost effective and ecologically
sound tool for forest, range and wetland management.  Its use reduces the
potential for destructive wildfires and thus maintains long term air quality.
Also, the practice removes logging residues, controls insects and disease,
improves wildlife habitat and forage production, increases water yield, main-
tains natural succession of plant communities, and reduces the need for pes-
ticides and herbicides.  The major air pollutant concern is the smoke produced.

     Smoke from prescribed fires is a complex mixture of carbon, tars, liquids
and different gases.  This open combustion source produces particles of widely
ranging size, depending to some extent on the rate of energy release  of the
fire.  For example, total particulate and particulate less than 2.5 micrometers
mean mass cutpoint diameter are produced in different proportions, depending on
rates of heat release by the fire.^  This difference is greatest for the highest
intensity fires, and particle volume distribution is bimodal, with peaks near
0.3 micrometers and exceeding 10 micrometers.-'  Particles over about  10 microns,
probably of ash and partially burned plant matter, are extrained by the turbu-
lent nature of high intensity fires.

     Burning methods differ with fire objectives and with fuel and weather
conditions.   For example, the various ignition techniques used to burn under
standing trees include 1) heading fire, a line of fire that runs with the wind;
2) backing fire, a line of fire that moves into the wind; 3) spot fires, which
burn from a number of fires ignited along a line or in a pattern; and 4) flank
fire, a line of fire that is lit into the wind, to spread laterally to the
direction of the wind.  Methods of igniting the fires depend on forest manage-
ment objectives and the size of the area.  Often, on areas of 50 or more acres,
helicopters with aerial ignition devices are used to light broadcast burns.
Broadcast fires may involve many lines of fire in a pattern that allows the
strips of fire to burn together over a sizeable area.
11.1-6                          EMISSION FACTORS                         9/88

-------
     In discussing prescribed burning, the combustion process is divided into
preheating, flaming, glowing and smoldering phases.   The different phases of
combustion greatly affect the amount of emissions produced. 5~7  The preheating
phase seldom releases significant quantities of material to the atmosphere.
Glowing combustion is usually associated with burning of large concentrations
of woody fuels such as logging residue piles.  The smoldering combustion phase
is a very inefficient and incomplete combustion process that emits pollutants
at a much higher ratio to the quantity of fuel consumed than does the flaming
combustion of similar materials.
     The amount of fuel consumed depends on the moisture content of the
For most fuel types, consumption during the smoldering phase is much greatest
when the fuel is driest.  When lower layers of the fuel are moist, the fire
usually is extinguished rapidly. 10

     The major pollutants from wildland burning are particulate, carbon monoxide
and volatile organics.  Nitrogen oxides are emitted at rates of from 1 to 4
grams per kilogram burned, depending on combustion temperatures.  Emissions of
sulfur oxides are negligible.   ^

     Particulate emissions depend on the mix of combustion phase, the rate of
energy release, and the type of fuel consumed.  All of these elements must be
considered in selecting the appropriate emission factor for a given fire and
fuel situation.  In some cases, models developed by the U. S. Forest Service
have been used to predict particulate emission factors and source strength. *• •*
These models address fire behavior, fuel chemistry, and ignition technique, and
they predict the mix of combustion products.  There is insufficient knowledge
at this time to describe the effect of fuel chemistry on emissions.

     Table 11.1-3 presents emission factors from various pollutants, by fire
and fuel configuration.  Table 11.1-4 gives emission factors for prescribed
burning, by geographical area within the United States.  Estimates of the
percent of total fuel consumed by region were compiled by polling experts
from the Forest Service.  The emission factors are averages and can vary by
as much as 50 percent with fuel and fire conditions.  To use these factors,
multiply the mass of fuel consumed per hectare by the emission factor for the
appropriate fuel type.  The mass of fuel consumed by a fire is defined as the
available fuel.  Local forestry officials often compile information on fuel
consumption for prescribed fires and have techniques for estimating fuel
consumption under local conditions.  The Southern Forestry Smoke Management
Guidebook-* and the Prescribed Fire Smoke Management Guide *^ should be consulted
when using these emission factors.
     The regional emission factors in Table 11.1-4 should be used only for
general planning purposes.  Regional averages are based on estimates of the
acreage and vegetation type burned and may not reflect prescribed burning
activities in a given state.   Also, the regions identified are broadly defined,
and the mix of vegetation and acres burned within a given state may vary
considerably from the regional averages provided.  Table 11.1-4 should not be
used to develop emission inventories and control strategies.

     To develop state emission inventories, the user is strongly urged to con-
tact that state's federal land management agencies and state forestry agencies
that conduct prescribed burning to obtain the best information on such activities.

Q/88
                             Miscellaneous Sources                       11.1-7

-------
O
3
H
M
Pi
U
CO
PH

Pi
O
CO
Pi
o
H
O
ss
o
M
CO
CO
g





















*•»
bo
^^
u
B
u
g
i-i
(2























c
O b
•H O
« U
m u
•ri «

U
,
a.' X
£1

CD
O
i-l

bO
O

r-l
•H

0)
O



5
h
5




4)
0
r-l
O
1-1
4J
M
tt




4>
CD
a



c
o
•rl

40
ki
•-I S
01 bO
3 -rl
U-1 M-4
•^ B
01 O
ki 0
•rl
PM



bO
C
•H
4J
n



"^
J5
01
e
a

4)
|
O
z
41
B

4J
£
4)
•O
•H
K
O
B
0
^
09
u
.5

o
e
in
g



















< < < -<<;<; CO CQ CO CO 03 CO Q Q QOQQQOQ




m r>. m r- mi-* OO
fOsD msDfn^D (Tv-H















552 ?!*!C3SS S2?ioS oSSoiSI^
_ — N-H — — —I Csl (M ts -H — —




_N_ rt_^ MN _ CM n in  « -rl 4> -r4
PMWPH P^MPuPwcow PMMPMCOCO QBPQDdmmpdw

JS •-*
09 1-1 /->
a u o 4i 4) bo
r-l 09 4I-O 09 rt _B Js
* U U4liH IM
60 "Oi-l fH B >H p4 •-! 09
to 01 TJ .C T> 03 i-lB T) 03 -O
O 4) 41 B 41 Ui £«J OlbdfB
rHJ3 B 41 OJi-H4l M 01 -^ IH03
•a B .HI-IB t4kt BO m r-t
U 6 Wl 4J 09 O.iH O O 41 Ui 4J kl 09
a o 01 l-i bO B m I-i 41 bo *J I- os
o3 1" ^ »!* "N S I 2 6°
kl O 1H
(0 ,J J








4)
N
09
4)
fc4
O
* «
—I 4-1
10

09 O
•H 1
IM
 41 4J
ub bo • • O »
01 CJ O O 3
•O u .* ,5
So 	 *J 8
fc O bo bO ao o
^ 01 B B P O
4i "S £"5 « § &•
JJ AJ «d K U O O
•5 2 TJ iJ
•O be 09 ki u X «
•H (2 O O U Ui
• 11 u U O O
•e S ki y o 44 jo
41 o oj a o) a)
O O 9
B 41 oj B B £ bO
U £ 0 0 03 6
B to (3 09 09 09
,J 0 » 0 JO 3
f i-l -H -H B
C • 09 • B -H T»
O hi H • • -O "3
4> r- r- OJ C
09 T> • • B 41
09 iH . n CO •H 4J
41 O r- B 41
r-l a 09 09 ki O
ti S 41 41 41 41
O u O O U
1 B B 6 41 >
01 41 41 O •»
. in u, ki ki r<
OO 0) 41 41 1
••• • !S 5 !s ^ *•*
09 B 09
O | O O OO O
B 8 -> — -IB B
41 01 41
41 O O O 41 4j
09 « o"^ 41 >M
                                                                                    41 41
 11.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                 9/88

-------
       TABLE 11.1-4.
 EMISSION FACTORS FOR  PRESCRIBED BURNING
     BY  U.  S. REGION
Regional
configuration and
fuel type8
Pacific Northwest
Logging slash
Piled slash
Douglas fir/
Western hemlock
Mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Ha rdwo od
Underburning pine
Average for region
Pacific Southwest
Sagebrush
Chaparral
Pi nyon/ Juniper
Underburing pine
Grassland
Average for region
Southeast
Palme t to/ gal Iberry
Underburning pine
Logging slash
Grassland
Other
Average for region
Rocky Mountain
Logging slash
Underburning pine
Grassland
Other
Average for region
North Central and Eastern
Logging slash
Grassland
Underburning pine
Other
Average for region
Percent
of fuelb


42

24
19
6
4
5
100

35
20
20
15
10
100

35
30
20
'10
5
100

50
20
20
10
100

50
30
10
10
100
Pollutant0
Part icul ate
(g/k«)
PM2.5


4

12
12
13
11
30
9.4


8























PM10


5

13
13
13
12
30
10.3

9
9
13
30
10
13.0

15
30
13
10
17
4 18.8

4
30
10
17
11.9

13
10
30
17
14
PM


6

17
17
20
18
35
13.3

15
15
17
35
10
17.8

16
35
20
10
17
21.9

6
35
10
17
13.7

17
10
35
17
16.5
CO


37

175
175
126
112
163
111.1

62
62
175
163
75
101.0

125
163
126
75
175
134

37
163
75
175
83.4

175
75
163
175
143.8
  aRegional areas  are generalized, e.  g.,  the  Pacific Northwest includes
   Oregon,  Washington and parts of Idaho and California. Fuel types
   generally reflect the ecosystems of a region, but users should seek
   advice on fuel  type mix for a given season  of the year.  An average
   factor for Northern California could be more accurately described  as
   chaparral, 25%; underburning pine,  15%; sagebrush, 15%; grassland,
   5%; mixed conifer, 25%*, and Douglas fir/Western hemlock, 15%.
   Dash • no data.
  ''Based on the judgment of forestry experts.
  cAdapted from Table 11.1-3 for the dominant  fuel types burned.
9/88
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                          11.1-9

-------
References for Section 11.1

 1.  Development Of Emission Factors For Estimating Atmospheric  Emissions  From
     Forest Fires, EPA-450/3-73-009, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  October 1973.

 2.  D. E. Ward and C. C. Hardy,  Advances In The Characterization And  Control
     Of Emissions From Prescribed Broadcast Fires Of Coniferous  Species  Logging
     Slash On Clearcut Units, EPA DW12930110-01-3/DOE DE-A179-83BP12869, U.  S.
     Forest Service, Seattle, WA, January 1986.

 3.  L. F. Radke, et al., Airborne Monitoring And Smoke Characterization Of
     Prescribed Fires On Forest Lands In Western Washington and  Oregon,
     EPA-600/X-83-047, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH,
     July 1983.

 4.  H. E. Mobley, et al., A Guide For Prescribed Fire In Southern Forests,
     U. S. Forest Service, Atlanta, GA,  1973.

 5.  Southern Forestry Smoke Management  Guidebook, SE-10, U. S.  Forest Service,
     Asheville, NC, 1976.

 6.  D. E. Ward and C. C. Hardy,  "Advances In The Characterization And Control
     Of Emissions From Prescribed Fires", Presented at the 77th  Annual Meeting
     of the Air Pollution Control Association,  San Francisco,  CA, June 1984.

 7.  C. C. Hardy and D. E. Ward,  "Emission Factors For Particulate Matter  By
     Phase Of Combustion From Prescribed Burning", Presented at  the Annual
     Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association Pacific  Northwest
     International Section, Eugene, OR,  November 19-21,  1986.

 8.  D. V. Sandberg and R. D. Ottmar, "Slash Burning And Fuel  Consumption  In
     The Douglas Fir Subregion",  Presented at the 7th Conference On Fire And
     Forest Meteorology, Fort Collins, CO,  April 1983.

 9.  D. V. Sandberg, "Progress In Reducing Emissions From Prescribed Forest
     Burning In Western Washington And Western Oregon",  Presented at the Annual
     Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association Pacific  Northwest
     International Section, Eugene, OR,  November 19-21,  1986.

10.  R. D. Ottmar and D. V. Sandberg, "Estimating 1000-hour Fuel Moistures In
     The Douglas Fir Subregion",  Presented at the 7th Conference On Fire And
     Forest Meteorology, Fort Collins, CO,  April 25-28,  1983.

11.  D. V. Sandberg, et al. , Effects Of  Fire On Air - A State  Of Knowledge
     Review, WO-9, U. S. Forest Service, Washington, DC, 1978. -

12.  C. K. McMahon, "Characteristics Of  Forest Fuels, Fires, And Emissions",
     Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
     Association, Atlanta, GA, June 1983.

13.  D. E. Ward, "Source Strength Modeling Of Particulate Matter Emissions From
     Forest Fires", Presented at  the 76th Annual Meeting of the  Air Pollution
     Control Association, Atlanta, GA, June 1983.

11.1-10                         EMISSION FACTORS                        9/88

-------
14.  D.  E.  Ward,  et  al.,  "Particulate  Source  Strength Determination For Low-
     intensity Prescribed Fires",  Presented at  the  Agricultural Air Pollutants
     Specialty Conference,  Air  Pollution  Control Association, Memphis, TN,
     March  18-19, 1974.

15.  Prescribed Fire Smoke  Management  Guide,  420-1,  BIFC-BLM Warehouse, 3905
     Vista  Avenue, Boise, ID, February 1985.
9/88                        Miscellaneous Sources                      11.1-11

-------
11.2.1  UNPAVED ROADS

11.2.1.1  General

     Dust plumes trailing behind vehicles traveling on unpaved roads are a
familiar sight in rural areas of the United States.  When a vehicle travels an
unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the road surface causes pulverization
of surface material.  Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels,
and the road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with
the surface.  The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the
road surface after the vehicle has passed.

11.2.1.2  Emissions Calculation And Correction Parameters

     The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of unpaved road varies
linearly with the volume of traffic.  Also, field investigations have shown
that emissions depend on correction parameters (average vehicle speed, average
vehicle weight, average number of wheels per vehicle, road surface texture and
road surface moisture) that characterize the condition of a particular road and
the associated vehicle traffic.1~~^

     Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary in direct
proportion to the fraction of silt (particles smaller than 75 micrometers in
diameter) in the road surface materials.^  The 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.  Table 11.2.1-1 summarizes measured silt
values for industrial and rural unpaved roads.

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

     Unpaved roads have a hard, generally nonporous surface that usually dries
quickly after a rainfall.  The temporary reduction in emissions caused by
precipitation may be accounted for by not considering emissions on "wet" days
(more than 0.254 millimeters [0.01 inches] of precipitation).

     The following empirical expression may be used to estimate the quantity of
size specific particulate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle kilometer
traveled (VKT) or vehicle mile traveled (VMT), with a rating of A:
     E=k(1.7)    —    —    —       —       	      (kg/VKT)
                                                                (Ib/VMT)
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                       11.2.1-1

-------
  w
  o
     O

     O
  CO o
  td W
  2
  W
  H
  2
  o
  a
   I
  •—•t
   •
  CN
  PQ
  
H

4J
d
CO
i-H
Pn


U
O

01
CO
3

'O
CO
O































a
CO
Ol



01
00
a
tS

CO
0)
1-1
ft
S
CO
CO
CO
0)
4J
•H
CO
i-4
•2
VJ
0)
4-1
CO
g

0)
CJ
<0

3
CO











>^
JH
4J
CO
3
•^
d
M










O

f-X,

-H
CTx
r-H

i
ON
in
i — i






1—4






13
CO
0
k-i

4-1
d
CO
•-I
Pu















00
d
•r-i
4->
iH
01
s
CO

(H
Ol
ft
ft
o
o
o

oo

o
\o
i— 4

1
o
"*
o
CN




ON






T3
CO
O
t-i

4J
d
cO
i-H





r<
0
•r-l
4J
O
3
*rj
0
l_l
ft

r-l
CU
01
^J
CO

TJ
d
CO

d
o
1-1
H
00

»^

O

vO

1
f— |
~*
CO





1— (






T3
CO
O
(-i

4-1
d
CO
•-I
Pw




00
d
•H
CO
CO
CD
CJ
o

ft

1-1
0)
^
CO
^)
00

•o
d
CO

*X3
d
CO
co
1— 1
.
*^

vO
to
••H

l
m
o
m





r- i






T^
CO
o


4->
d
CO
•— 1

w>
d
*tH
w
CO
o>
CJ
o
S-i
ft

*^
d
co

bO
d
•H
^^
^
^j
CO
3
CT

CU
d
o
4-1
co
00

in


.
o\

1
r-
ro
CN
f—4




*—4







•o
cfl
0
IH

i— 1
3


00
d
•rH
CO
CO
o>
o
o
^_)
ft

•0
d
CO

00
d
•r^
d
•H
s

Ol
4_)
•H
d
o
o
cfl
H
(O

 tn oo
CN -H




CN CO fO CN -H £N CN


d
0
CO
T3 OJ
T3 cfl S
CO O >i^"> -H
O 'O Ul ^ rH Tj i — 1
IH cfl CO JZ 0>
O IH O CO ^d T3
CO IH 0) IH Ol CO rH Ol
CO ft h IH (U -C
D i-t CO r-l>4HbO > J-> CD
O 3 IH 3 '**' CO IH 3
O cfl CJ cs) IH .H SH

-------
where:  E = emission factor
        k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
        s = silt content of road surface material (%)
        S = mean vehicle speed, km/hr (mph)
        W = mean vehicle weight, Mg (ton)
        w = mean number of wheels
        p = number of days with at least 0.254 mm
            (0.01 in.) of precipitation per year

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

               Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier For Equation
<30 uma
1.0
<30 urn
0.80
£15 urn
0.50
<10 urn
0.36
_<5um
0.20
<2.5 urn
0.095
        a Stokes diameter

     The number of wet days per year, p, for the geographical area of interest
should be determined from local climatic data.  Figure 11.2.1-1 gives the
geographical distribution of the mean annual number of wet days per year in the
United States.

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

                    Ranges Of Source Conditions For Equation
Road silt
content
(wgt. %)
4.3 - 20
Mean vehicle weight
Mg
2.7 - 142
ton
3 - 157
Mean vehicle speed
km/hr
21 - 64
mph
13 - 40
mean no.
of wheels
4-13
Also, to retain the quality rating of the equation when addressing a specific
unpaved road, it is necessary that reliable correction parameter values be
determined for the road in question.  The field and laboratory procedures for
determining road surface silt content are given in Reference 4.  In the event
that site specific values for correction parameters cannot be. obtained, the
appropriate mean values from Table 11.2.1-1 may be used, but the quality rating
of the equation is reduced to B.

     The equation was developed for calculating annual average emissions, and
thus, is to be multiplied by annual vehicle distance traveled (VDT).  Annual
average values for each of the correction parameters are to be substituted for
the equation.  Worst case emissions, corresponding to dry road conditions, may
be calculated by setting p = 0 in the equation (equivalent to dropping the last
9/88
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.1-3

-------
                                                                                       0)
                                                                                       4-J
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       4-1
                                                                                       in

                                                                                       •o
                                                                                       OJ
*•
1
§.
f*»
I


i
c
0
•H
4-J
CO
V> 4J
« -H
I 5-
o
0)
ex
U-l
^1
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       e
                                                                                       f.
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       o

                                                                                       d

                                                                                       J2
                                                                                       4-1
                                                                                       •H
                                                                                       S

                                                                                       CO

                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       T3
s



JE
wi
to\
f^L>
XC
o
t-l
§1 5

f»*
'
k. O'
e
P
CO
01
k a
                                                                                        60
                                                                                        •H
11.2.1-4
                                     EMISSION  FACTORS
9/88

-------
terra from the equation).  A separate set of nonclimatic correction parameters
and a higher than normal VDT value may also be justified for the worst case
average period (usually 24 hours).  Similarly, in using the equation to calcu-
late emissions for a 91 day season of the year, replace the term (365-p)/365
with the terra (91-p)/91, and set p equal to the number of wet days in the 91 day
period.  Also, use appropriate seasonal values for the nonclimatic correction
parameters and for VDT.

11.2.1.3  Controls

     Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treating
with penetration chemicals, working into the roadbed of stabilization chemicals,
watering, and traffic control regulations.  Chemical stabilizers work either by
binding the surface material or by enhancing moisture retention.  Paving, as a
control technique, is often not economically practical.  Surface chemical treat-
ment and watering can be accomplished with moderate to low costs, but frequent
retreatments are required.  Traffic controls, such as speed limits and traffic
volume restrictions, provide moderate emission reductions but may be difficult
to enforce.  The control efficiency obtained by speed reduction can be calcu-
lated using the predictive emission factor equation given above.

     The control efficiencies achievable by paving can be estimated by comparing
emission factors for unpaved and paved road conditions, relative to airborne
particle size range of interest.  The predictive emission factor equation for
paved roads, given in Section 11.2.6, requires estimation of the silt loading
on the traveled portion of the paved surface, which in turn depends on whether
the pavement is periodically cleaned.  Unless curbing is to be installed, the
effects of vehicle excursion onto shoulders (berms) also must be taken into
account in estimating control efficiency.

     The control efficiencies afforded by the periodic use of road stabilization
chemicals are much more difficult to estimate.  The application parameters
which determine control efficiency include dilution ratio, application intensity
(mass of diluted chemical per road area) and application frequency.  Other
factors that affect the performance of chemical stabilizers include vehicle
characteristics (e. g., traffic volume, average weight) and road characteristics
(e. g., bearing strength).

     Besides water, petroleum resin products have historically been the dust
suppressants most widely used on industrial unpaved roads.  Figure 11.2.1-2
presents a method to estimate average control efficiencies associated with
petroleum resins applied to unpaved roads.  Several items should be noted:

     1.  The term "ground inventory" represents the total volume (per
         unit area) of petroleum resin concentrate (not solution)
         applied since the start of the dust control season.

     2.   Because petroleum resin products must be periodically reapplied
         to unpaved roads, the use of a time-averaged control efficiency
         value is appropriate.  Figure 11.2.1-2 presents control effi-
         ciency values averaged over two common application intervals,
         two weeks and one month.   Other application intervals will
         require interpolation.


 9/88                        Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.1-5

-------
     in
^_    *n
> ^ 
   4->

zl

> S>
z I °
2 -
O Q>
CC ~
O ^
      m
      r>.
      CJ
     in
                                        >
                                                  0>

                                                  (0
                                                  D
                                                           Q
                                                  c  ^
                                                  O  13

                                                 !§
                            m
                            o
                                                                M
                                                               rH
                                                                 CJ
                                                                 •H



                                                                 O
                                                                 •H
                                                                 4J

                                                                 0)
                                                                 O
                                        0,
                                        ex
                                        (fl

                                        e

                                        1
                                        o
                                        u
                                        CO
                                        0)
                                        •H
                                        U


                                        0)
                                        •H
                                        O
                                        M-l
                                        0)
                                        c
                                        o
                                        o

                                        a)
                                        bO
                                        n)
                                        V-l
                                        0)
                                                               cs
                                                                I
                                                                bO
                                                                •H
o
o
               O
               00
o
CD
                                          o
                                          CM
                                                  O
         (%) AON3IOIdd3 lOdlNOO 3OVU3AV
11.2.1-6
    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               9/88

-------
     3.  Note that zero efficiency is assigned until the ground inventory
         reaches 0.2 liters per square meter (0.05 gallons per square yard).

     As an example of the use of Figure 11.2.1-2, suppose that the equation has
been used to estimate an emission factor of 2.0 kilograms per vehicle kilometer
traveled for particles equal to or less than 10 microns from a particular road.
Also, suppose that, starting on May 1, the road is treated with 1 liter per
square meter of a (1 part petroleum resin to 5 parts water) solution on the
first of each month until October.  Then, the following average controlled
emission factors are found:

Period

May
June
July
August
September
Ground
Inventory
(L/m2)
0.17
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.83
Average Control
Efficiency3
(%)
0
62
68
74
80
Average Controlled
Emission Factor
(kg/VKT)
2.0
0.76
0.64
0.52
0.40
    aFrom Figure 11.2.1-2, j£ 10 urn.  Zero efficiency assigned if ground
     inventory is less than 0.2 L/m2 (0.05 gal/yd2).

     Newer dust suppressants have been successful in controlling emissions from
unpaved roads.  Specific test results for those chemicals, as well as for petro-
leum resins, are provided in References 14 through 16.


References for Section 11.2.1

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

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

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

 4.  C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive
     Emission Evaluation, EPA-600/2-79-013, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

 5.  R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
     EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
     March 1978.
 9/88                        Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.1-7

-------
 6.  R. Bohn,  Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources  In The Vicinity Of Buffalo,  New
     York,  EPA Contract No. 68-02-2545,  Midwest  Research Institute,  Kansas
     City,  MO, March 1979.

 7.  C. Cowherd,  Jr.,  and T. Cuscino, Jr.,  Fugitive Emissions Evaluation,
     MRI-4343-L,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO, February 1977.

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

 9.  K. Axetell and C. Cowherd,  Jr.,  Improved  Emission Factors For  Fugitive
     Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining  Sources, 2 Volumes, EPA  Contract
     No. 68-03-2924, PEI, Inc.,  Kansas City, MO, July 1981.

10.  T. Cuscino,  Jr.,  et al.,  Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emis-
     sion Control Evaluation,  EPA-600/2-83-110,  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October  1983.

11.  J. Patrick Reider, Size Specific Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Indus-
     trial  and Rural Roads, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research
     Institute, Kansas City, MO, September  1983.

12.  C. Cowherd,  Jr.,  and P. Englehart,  Size Specific Particulate Emission
     Factors For Industrial And Rural Roads. EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, September 1985.

13. .Climatic Atlas Of The  United States, U. S.  Department Of Commerce,
     Washington,  DC, June 1968.

14.  G. E.  Muleski, et al., Extended  Evaluation Of Unpaved Road Dust Suppres-
     sants  In The Iron And Steel Industry,  EPA-600/2-84-027, U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  February 1984.

15.  C. Cowherd,  Jr.,  and J. S.  Kinsey, Identification, Assessment  And Control
     Of Fugitive Particulate Emissions, EPA-600/8-86-023, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  August 1986.

16.  G. E.  Muleski and C. Cowherd, Jr., Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of
     Chemical Dust Suppressants On Unpaved  Roads, EPA-600/X-XX-XXX, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1986.
11.2.1-8                        EMISSION FACTORS                        9/88

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

 11.2.3.1  General

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

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

 11.2.3.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

      The quantity of dust emissions from aggregate storage operations varies
 with the volume of aggregate passing through the storage cycle.  Also, emis-
 sions depend on three parameters of the condition of a particular storage pile:
 age  of Che pile, moisture content and proportion of aggregate fines.

      When freshly processed aggregate is loaded onto a storage pile, its
 potential for  dust emissions is at a maximum.  Fines are easily disaggregated
 and  released to the atmosphere upon exposure to air currents, either from aggre-
 gate transfer  itself or from high winds.  As the aggregate weathers, however,
 potential for  dust emissions is greatly reduced.  Moisture causes aggregation
 and  cementation of fines to the surfaces of larger particles.  Any significant
 rainfall soaks the interior of the pile, and the drying process is very slow.

      Silt (particles equal to or less than 75 microns in diameter) content is
 determined by  measuring the portion of dry aggregate material that passes
 through a 200  mesh screen, using ASTM-C-136 method.  Table 11.2.3-1 summarizes
 measured silt  and moisture values for industrial aggregate materials.

 11.2.3.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

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

     Adding aggregate material to a storage pile or removing it both usually
involve dropping the material onto a receiving surface.   Truck dumping on the
pile or loading out from the pile to a truck with a front end loader are exam-
ples of batch drop operations.   Adding material  to  the pile by a  conveyor
stacker is an example of a continuous drop operation.


 9/88                        Miscellaneous Sources                      11.2.3-1

-------
co
w
H
Z
O
W ptS
P^ H
!3 CO
H 3
CO Q
I-1 Z
O M
£
   CO
O 3
Z o
-! Ce5
H W
   H
co o
 •
CM
W

B
CO


^•N
&"S
s^ CU
bO
CU B
l-i CO
3 Ps
^j
CO
•H
4->
CO
01 CO
4-> l-l
01

M-l rH
O ft
S
i CO
O cfl



r-l
CO
•H
l-l
Ol

i









^
U
1 1
CO
3
"0
B
M

CM
*~^ **dr co O*N *^C *^ ^o **^ ^^
C^J tO "*^ ^^ ^O ^O
m —< CM
• •!—<•
CO 00 — 1 CM
^ ^ *^
1 1 1 1 Z Z Z

- . . CM
• —1 CM •
0 O





00 **O vO CO O »— l *— I O CD





crs in co CD ^ co (**- *^"
«3>cT\ininoominoo
CO ON • • CO
i — t i — i r-» i — , CM

1 1 1 1 1

-3- 00 CM CO •*
-H CM




OO>l"^COCM^Hi— I^Hi— 1
1 — 1





CU 0)
CU N )J
(-1 4-1 01 O Ol
O 0) CO 0) B
S-i 3 l-i T3 O
4J O "O .£> 0) l-l 4-1
CU TJ 01 CO
!-Hftr-IOOO)O>B4->a>
iH0COCfl3^CUfig
CU 3 OrHi-l Or-l-iH-H
pM^jutofnOpacoHa



r-l
CU (0
0) B
4J O
CD -H
4J
TJ a
B 3
CO TJ
0
B VJ
O ft
^
H

r-.
o
r-H
•
r-H

I

CO
•
o






CM





VO
r— I
°:
f— t

i

CO
1 — 1




CM






O)
e
o
4->
•O CO
0) 0)
js e
CO -r-l
3 r-l
CJ

bO
bO B
C »r-(
•H CO
>-, CO
(-1 CU
U 0
cfl O

cr ft

CU 13
B B
O CO
) t
CO
in
CT* CO
CD 0
CO
•
csl

1

LO
o
•
o





r-» -H





 CM









CO
co bO
4-1 B
01 -H
r-l i-l
r-l -H
Ol CO
P-, H
O
bO
bO B
E -H
•i-l CO
B co
•H 0)
e o
O
CU l-l
4-> ft
•rH
B *O
O C
O 03
CO
H

O"» 
• . •
CM O CM






r^- o co o>
m




CM V O CM
v£> r*» in CM
oo
vo m t— i .
•— 1 •— 1 CM  X O
U O W

l-i
CU CU
o-o S
cfl bO O 0)
14H B ft B
l-l -H O
3 B -a -H
Cfl •!-! CU 4-1
£ l-i cfl
B -H Ul
U r-l 14-1 01
Ol CO B
4-1 O rH CU
CO CJ <0 DO
Ol O
IS O
                                                                                                           CO
                                                                                                           O
                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                           CO
                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                           C
                                                                r-l
                                                                CU
                                                                o
                                                                ft
                                                                c*

                                                               •H
                                                                CO
                                                                CO

                                                                g
                                                               •H
                                                               T3

                                                               g
                                                               O
                                                               ID
                                                               Q)

                                                               •H
                                                               01
                                                               O
                                                               Ol
                                                               t-l

                                                               to
                                                               co
                                                                                                                        CO
                                                                                                                        OJ
                                                   1J-1
                                                    I
                                                   CM   .
                                                      i—I v:
                                                   CO
                                                   CU  Q)  0) O>  CD
                                                   O  U  CJ O  CJ
                                                   B  B  E E  C
                                                   Ol  0)  O) Ol  Ol

                                                   cu  cu  01 cu  0)

                                                   Ol  0)  Ol Ol  0)
                                                                                                                       oo
                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                CJ T3  01
          11.2.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                                     9/88

-------
     The quantity of particulate emissions generated by either type of drop
operation, per ton of material transferred, may be estimated, with a rating of
A, using the following empirical expression^:
          E = k(0.0016)
       (kg/Mg)
          E = k(0.0032)
       (Ib/ton)
where:  E = emission factor
        k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
        U = mean wind speed, m/s (mph)
        M = material moisture content (%)

The particle size multiplier, k, varies with aerodynamic particle diameter, as
shown in Table 11.2.3-2.
           TABLE 11.2.3-2.  AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE MULTIPLIER (k)
<30 urn
0.74
<15 urn
0.48
<10 urn
0.35
<5 urn
0.20
<2.5 urn
0.11
     The equation retains the assigned quality rating if applied within the
ranges of source conditions that were tested in developing the equation,  as
given in Table 11.2.3-3.   Note that silt content is included in Table 11.2.3-3,
even though silt content does not appear as a correction parameter in the equa-
tion.  While it is reasonable to expect that silt content and emission factors
are interrelated, no significant correlation between the two was found during
the derivation of the equation, probably because most tests with high silt
contents were conducted under lower winds,  and vice versa.  It is recommended
that estimates from the equation be reduced one quality rating level, if  the
silt content used in a particular application falls outside the range given in
Table 11.2.3-3.
9/88
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.3-3

-------
          TABLE 11.2.3-3.   RANGES OF SOURCE CONDITIONS FOR EQUATION 1
Silt
Content
0.44 - 19
Moisture
Content
0.25 - 4.8
Wind Speed
(m/s) (mph)
0.6 - 6.7 1.3 - 15
     Also, to retain the equation's  quality rating when  applied  to  a  specific
facility, it is necessary that reliable correction parameters  be determined for
the specific sources of interest.   The field and  laboratory  procedures  for
aggregate sampling are given in Reference 3.  In  the event that  site  specific
values for correction parameters cannot be obtained, the appropriate  mean
values from Table 11.2.3-1 may be used, but, in that case, the quality  rating
of the equation is reduced by one level.

     For emissions from equipment traffic (trucks, front end loaders, dozers,
etc.) traveling between or on piles, it is recommended that  the  equations  for
vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces be used (see  Section 11.2.1).  For  vehicle
travel between storage piles, the silt value(s) for the  areas  among the piles
(which may differ from the silt values for the stored materials) should be used.

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

11.2.3.4  Controls

     Watering and chemical wetting agents are the principal means for control
of aggregate storage pile emissions.  Enclosure or covering of inactive piles
to reduce wind erosion can also reduce emissions.  Watering is useful mainly to
reduce emissions from vehicle traffic in the storage pile area.   Watering  of
the storage piles themselves typically has only a very  temporary slight effect
on total emissions.  A much more effective technique is  to apply chemical  wet-
ting agents for better wetting of fines and longer retention of  the moisture
film.  Continuous chemical treatment of material  loaded  onto piles, coupled
with watering or treatment of roadways, can reduce total particulate  emissions
from aggregate storage operations by up to 90 percent.9


References for Section 11.2.3

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


11.2.3-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                            9/88

-------
2.  R. Bohn, e t al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
    EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
    March 1978.

3.  C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive
    Emission Evaluation, EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency,  Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

4.  R. Bohn, Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo,
    New York, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
    City, MO, March 1979,

5.  C. Cowherd, Jr., and T. Cuscino, Jr., Fugitive Emissions Evaluation,
    MRI-4343-L, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO,  February 1977.

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

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

8.  E. T. Brookman, et al., Determination of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions From
    Rotary Railcar Dumping. 1956-L81-00, TRC, Hartford, CT, May 1984.

9.  G. A. Jutze, et al., Investigation Of Fugitive Dust Sources Emissions And
    Control, EPA-450/3-74-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
    Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.
 9/88                        Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.3-5

-------
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 road-
way 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 open truck bodies.

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 asso-
ciated vehicle traffic.

     Dust emissions from industrial paved roads have been found to vary in
direct proportion to the fraction of silt (particles equal to or less than 75
microns in diameter) in the road surface material.  The silt fraction is deter-
mined by measuring the proportion of loose dry surface dust that passes a 200
mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method.  In addition, it has also been found
that emissions vary in direct proportion to the surface dust loading.  The 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 = 0.022 I  (	| \	|\	H	1       (kg/VKT)                  (1)
                               V280
                                 L  \ /W \0-7
         0.0771  [	| (	](  	    	|       (Ib/VMT)
                                1000 I \  3

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)
11/88                        Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.6-1

-------
CO
w
 O cfl
 2 CO
 M W
 O CO
 O p

 f ^ >y;

 ^J M
.M
 CO H


 3*
 < CO
 u p
 M <:
 (Vi O
   a
   w
 w
 !J
 PQ
 <
 H
c
fij
a>
a
"cOCN?
0 0
• — ( ~\
bO 1)
4-1 N^ bQ
.H c:
•H td
cn M

jco
4-1
CO -H
1 C
o sa
X

bC C
C CO
•H CU
« S
O
<~l
i-H
CO CU
4-1 bO
O C
H .3




O CU CO
> ^
1-1
4-)
co
3
•a
£j
M
CNl
CTv
CM

0
O
~3~

t

oo
oo

0 -H
A; a
' — ^ ~-«x.
bOX>
A: •-!


o\ .3-
• •
m m
*H m

m CM
• •
c^ ON
i-H \O

1 1
ON OO
• - •
CM m
-H -*
CNl O
-H CXI
. — 1

CO
CT* ON
r^ • — *

1 1

ON vO
O r^
O
0 -H a -H
AS 0 A: a
"*""-* "*--. "*" 	 *^-v.
W) *jQ bO .^
Ai r-H Ai ^
m
cy\ in
*^ 1^ O> OO
• • • •
O --i  CJ
U 4-1 CO O
o a) -a *-< »-i
c xi c t>o a.
o co
t_> co






































CO
1-1
ti


*ri
CU
4-1
cO
4J
CO

C!
*r4
cfl
4J
XI
o

o
1 1

o
0
o
*»
«-H

•°
CO
• CU
m -H
, ^ Jj
(S
CO CU
CU
0 >>

cu a.
t_( •,-(
CU 4->
M-4 i — 1
CU 3
CtJ S
rfl _Q
11.2.6-2
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
     The industrial road augmentation factor (I) in Equation 1 takes into account
higher emissions from industrial roads than from urban roads.  I = 7.0 for a
paved 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 on-e set of wheels on the shoulder.  I = 1.0
for cases in which traffic travels only on paved 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 Ib/mile
42.0 - 2000 149 - 7100
No. of
lanes
2-4
Vehicle weight
Mg tons
2.7 - 12 3-13
If I is less than 1.0, the rating of the equation drops to D, because of the
subjectivity in the guidelines for estimating I.

     The quantity of particle emissions in the finer size ranges 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 equation:
                   0.3
         k(3.5)
                                 (kg/VKT)
    (Ib/VMT)
                                               (2)
where:   E  = emission factor
         sL = road surface silt loading, g/m^ (oz/yd^)

     The particle size multiplier (k) above varies with aerodynamic size range
as follows:
                           Aerodynamic Particle Size
                         Multiplier (k) For Equation 2
                                (Dimensionless)
                          <15 urn
       <10 urn
<2.5 urn
                           0.28
        0.22
 0.081
9/88
Miscellaneous Sources
                         11.2.6-3

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

     The equation retains the  quality rating of A, if applied within the range
of source conditions that were tested in developing the equation as  follows:

     silt loading, 2 - 240 g/m2 (0.06 - 7.1 oz/yd2)

     mean vehicle weight, 6-42 Mg (7 - 46 tons)

     The following single valued emission factors^ may be used in lieu  of
Equation 2 to estimate particle emissions in the finer size ranges generated  by
light duty vehicles on dry, heavily loaded industrial roads, with a  rating of C:
                        Emission Factors For Light Duty
                        Vehicles On Heavily Loaded Roads
                             <15 urn
                                        <10 urn
                          0.12 kg/VKT
                         (0.41 Ib/VMT)
                                     0.093 kg/VKT
                                    (0.33 Ib/VMT)
These emission factors retain the assigned quality rating,  if applied within
the range of source conditions that were tested in developing the factors,  as
follows:

     silt loading, 15 - 400 g/m2 (0.44 - 12 oz/yd2)
mean vehicle weight, 
-------
     Although there are relatively few quantitative data on emissions from
controlled paved roads, those that are available indicate that adequate esti-
mates generally may be obtained by substituting controlled loading values into
Equations 1 and 2.  The major exception to this is water flushing combined
with broom sweeping.  In that case, the equations tend to overestimate emis-
sions substantially (by an average factor of 4 or more).

     On a paved road with moderate traffic (500 vehicles per day), to achieve
control efficiencies on the order of 50 percent, requires cleaning of the
surface at least twice per week.^  This is because of the characteristically
rapid buildup of road surface material from spillage and the tracking and depo-
sition of material from adjacent unpaved surfaces, including the shoulders
(berms) of the paved road.  Because industrial paved roads usually do not have
curbs, it is important that the width of the paved road surface be sufficient
for vehicles to pass without excursion onto unpaved shoulders.  Equation 1
indicates that eliminating vehicle travel on unpaved or untreated shoulders
would effect a major reduction in particulate emissions.  An even greater
effect, by a factor of 7, would result from preventing travel from unpaved
roads or parking lots onto the paved road of interest.


References for Section 11.2.6

1.  R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Oron And Steel Plants,
    EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
    March 1978.

2.  C. Cowherd, Jr. , et__al^_> Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive
    Emission Evaluation, EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

3.  R. Bohn, Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo,
    New York, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
    City, MO, March, 1979.

4.  T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission
    Control Evaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Cincinnati, OH, October 1983.

5.  J. Patrick Reider, Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Uncon-
    trolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest
    Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.

6.  C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. Englehart, Size Specific Particulate Emission
    Factors For Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environ-
    mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September 1985.
9/88                         Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.6-5

-------
11.2.7  INDUSTRIAL WIND EROSION

11.2.7.1  General1"3

     Dust emissions may be generated by wind erosion of open aggregate storage
piles and exposed areas within an industrial facility.  These sources typically
are characterized by nonhomogeneous surfaces impregnated with nonerodible ele-
ments (particles larger than approximately 1 cm in diameter).  Field testing of
coal piles and other exposed materials using a portable wind tunnel has shown
that (a) threshold wind speeds exceed 5 m/s (11 mph) at 15 cm above the surface
or 10 m/s (22 mph) at 7 m above the surface, and (b) particulate emission rates
tend to decay rapidly (half life of a few minutes) during an erosion event.   In
other words, these aggregate material surfaces are characterized by finite
availability of erodible material (mass/area) referred to as the erosion
potential.  Any natural crusting of the surface binds the erodible material,
thereby reducing the erosion potential.

11.2.7.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

     If typical values for threshold wind speed at 15 cm are corrected to
typical wind sensor height (7-10 m), the resulting values exceed the upper
extremes of hourly mean wind speeds observed in most areas of the country.  In
other words, mean atmospheric wind speeds are not sufficient to sustain wind
erosion from flat surfaces of the type tested.  However, wind gusts may quickly
deplete a substantial portion of the erosion potential.  Because erosion poten-
tial has been found to increase rapidly with increasing wind speed, estimated
emissions should be related to the gusts of highest magnitude.

     The routinely measured meteorological variable which best reflects the
magnitude of wind gusts is the fastest mile-  This quantity represents the wind
speed corresponding to the whole mile of wind movement which has passed by the
1 mile contact anemometer in the least amount of time.  Daily measurements of
the fastest mile are presented in the monthly Local Climatological Data (LCD)
summaries.  The duration of the fastest mile, typically about 2 min (for a
fastest mile of 30 mph), matches well with the half life of the erosion
process, which ranges between 1 and 4 min.  It should be noted, however, that
peak winds can significantly exceed the daily fastest mile.

     The wind speed profile in the surface boundary layer is found to follow a
logarithmic distribution:

                             u(z) = u*  In z_  (z > z0)          (1)
                                    0.4    ZQ

where u   = wind speed, cm/sec
      u*  = friction velocity, cm/sec
      z   = height above test surface, cm
      zo  = roughness height, cm
      0.4 = von Karman's constant, dimensionless

The friction velocity (u*) is a measure of wind shear stress on the erodible
surface, as determined from the slope of the logarithmic velocity profile.  The
roughness height (zo) is a measure of the roughness of the exposed surface as
determined from the y intercept of the velocity profile, i.e. ,  the height at

9/88                         Miscellaneous Sources                    '^1.2.7-1

-------
which the wind speed is zero.  These parameters are illustrated in Figure
11.2.7-1 for a roughness height of 0.1 cm.

     Emissions generated by wind erosion are also dependent on the frequency of
disturbance of the erodible surface because each time that  a surface is dis-
turbed, its erosion potential is restored.   A disturbance is defined as an
action which results in the exposure of fresh surface material.  On a storage
pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material is either added to or
removed from the old surface.  A disturbance of an exposed  area may also result
from the turning of surface material to a depth exceeding the size of the
largest pieces of material present.

11.2.7.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equation4

     The emission factor for wind generated particulate emissions from mixtures
of erodible and nonerodible surface material subject to disturbance may be
expressed in units of g/or-yr as follows:

                                             N

                       Emission factor - k        P          (2)
                                                  i
where k  = particle size multiplier
      N  = number of disturbances per year
      Pi = erosion potential corresponding to the observed (or probable)
           fastest mile of wind for the ith period between disturbances,
           g/m2

The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 2 varies with aerodynamic
particle size, as follows:

             AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE MULTIPLIERS FOR EQUATION 2

                   <30 um    <15 urn    <10 urn    <2.5 urn
                     1.0       0.6       0.5        0.2

This distribution of particle size within the <30um fraction is comparable
to the distributions reported for other fugitive dust sources where wind speed
is a factor.  This is illustrated, for example, in the distributions for batch
and continuous drop operations encompassing a number of test aggregate materials
(see Section 11.2.3).

In calculating emission factors, each area of an erodible surface that is sub-
ject to a different frequency of disturbance should be treated separately.  For
a surface disturbed daily, N = 365/yr, and for a surface disturbance once
every 6 months, N = 2/yr.

Equations 2 and 3 apply only to dry, exposed materials with limited erosion
potential.  The resulting calculation is valid only for a time period as long
or longer than the period between disturbances.  Calculated emissions repre-
sent intermittent events and should not be input directly into dispersion
models that assume steady state emission rates.

11.2.7-2                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
             °

             V)  $
            I
             K
             ki
9/88
Figure 11.2.7-1.  Illustration of logarithmic velocity profile.


                     Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.7-3

-------
The erosion potential function for a dry, exposed surface is:

                 P = 58 (u* - u*)2 25 (u* - u*)
                               fc             t           (3)
                 P - 0 for u* < u*
                              ~ t

where u* = friction velocity (m/s)
      ut = threshold friction velocity (m/s)

Because of the nonlinear form of the erosion potential function, each erosion
event must be treated separately.

For uncrusted surfaces, the threshold friction velocity is best estimated from
the dry aggregate structure of the soil.   A simple hand sieving test of surface
soil (adapted from a laboratory procedure published by W. S. Chepil) can be
used to determine the mode of the surface aggregate size distribution by
inspection of relative sieve catch amounts, following the procedure described
below.  Alternatively, the threshold friction velocity for erosion can be
determined from the mode of the aggregate size distribution, as described by
Gillette. 5~6

Threshold friction velocities for several surface types have been determined
by field measurements with a portable wind tunnel.  These values are presented
in Table 11.2.7-1.

         TABLE 11.2.7-1.  FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINTION OF THRESHOLD
                               FRICTION VELOCITY
Tyler
sieve no.
5

9

16

32

60
Opening
(mm)
4

2

1

0.5

0.25
Midpoint
(mm)

3

1.5

0.75

0.375

u* (cm/sec)
t

100

72

58

43

        FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY
          (from a 1952 laboratory procedure published by W. S. Chepil)

1.  Prepare a nest of sieves with the following openings:  4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm,
    0.5 mm, 0.25 mm.  Place a collector pan below tti  crhhrj-ftaga  *5M36
2.  Collect a sample representing the surface layer of loose particles
    (approximately 1 cm in depth, for an encrusted surface), removing any rocks

11.2.7-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
    larger than about 1 cm in average physical diameter.
    sampled should be not less than 30 cm.
                             The area to be
3.  Pour the sample into the top sieve (4 mm opening),  and place a lid on the
    top.

4.  Move the covered sieve/pan unit by hand, using a broad circular arm motion
    in the horizontal plane.  Complete 20 circular movements at a speed just
    necessary to achieve some relative horizontal motion between the sieve and
    the particles.

5.  Inspect the relative quantities of catch within each sieve, and determine
    where the mode  in the aggregate size distribution lies, i. e., between the
    opening size of the sieve with the largest catch and the opening size of
    the next largest sieve.

6.  Determine the threshold friction velocity from Figure 1.

The fastest mile of wind for the periods between disturbances may be obtained
from the monthly LCD summaries for the nearest reporting weather station that
is representative of the site in question.    These summaries report actual
fastest mile values for each day of a given month.  Because the erosion
potential is a highly nonlinear function of the fastest mile, mean values of
the fastest mile are inappropriate.  The anemometer heights of reporting
weather stations are found in Reference 8,  and should be corrected to a 10 m
reference height using Equation 1.
                TABLE 11.2.7-2.  THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES



Material
Overburden3
Scoria (roadbed
material)3
Ground coal3
(surrounding coal
pile)
Uncrusted coal pilea
Scraper tracks on
coal pilea»b
Fine coal dust on
concrete padc
a Western surface coal
b Lightly crusted.
c Eastern power plant.
Threshold
friction
velocity
(m/s)
1.02
1.33

0.55


1.12
0.62

0.54

mine.



Roughness
height
(cm)
0.3
0.3

0.01


0.3
0.06

0.2







Threshold wind
velocity at 10
zo = Actual zo
21
27

16


23
15

11




m (m/s)
= 0.5 cm
19
25

10


21
12

10





Ref.
2
2

2


2
2

3




9/88
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.7-5

-------
To convert the fastest mile of wind (u+) from a reference anemometer height of
10 m to the equivalent friction velocity (u*),  the logarithmic wind speed
profile may be used to yield the following equation:

                                u* = 0.053 u+10          (4)

where u*   = friction velocity (m/s)

      u iQ = fastest mile of reference anemometer for period between
               disturbances (m/s)

This assumes a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm for open terrain.
Equation 4 is restricted to large relatively flat piles or exposed areas with
little penetration into the surface wind layer.

If the pile significantly penetrates the surface wind layer (i.e., with a
height-to-base ratio exceeding 0.2), it is necessary to divide the pile area
into subareas representing different degrees of exposure to wind.   The results
of physical modeling show that the frontal face of an elevated pile is exposed
to wind speeds of the same order as the approach wind speed at the top of the
pile.

For two representative pile shapes (conical and oval with flattop, 37 degree
side slope), the ratios of surface wind speed (ug) to approach wind speed (ur)
have been derived from wind tunnel studies.^  The results are shown in
Figure 11.2.7-2 corresponding to an actual pile height of 11 m, a  reference
(upwind) anemometer height of 10 m, and a pile surface roughness height (zo)
of 0.5 cm.  The measured surface winds correspond to a height of 25 cm above
the surface.  The area fraction within each contour pair is specified in
Table 11.2.7-3.

The profiles of us/ur in Figure 11.2.7-2 can be used to estimate  the surface
friction velocity distribution around similarly shaped piles, using the
following procedure:

1.   Correct the fastest mile value (u+) for the period of interest from the
     anemometer height (z) to a reference height of 10 m (u ^Q) using a
     variation of Equation 1:

                  u+1Q = u+ In (10/0.005)         (5)
                            In  (z/0.005)

     where a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm (0.005 m) has been assumed.
     If a site specific roughness height is available, it should  be used.

2.   Use the appropriate part of Figure 11.2.7-2 based on the pile shape and
     orientation to the fastest mile of wind, to obtain the corresponding sur-
     face wind speed distribution (u  ):
                                     »3

                   u+  = (M u+             (6)
11.2.7-6                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
  Flow
Direction
                    Pile A
                               Pile B1
                     Pile B2
                                                              Pile B3
        Figure 11.2.7-2.  Contours of Normalized Surface Wind Speeds, us/ur
  9/88
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.7-7

-------
3.   For any subarea of the pile surface having a narrow range of  surface wind
     speed, use a variation of Equation 1 to  calculate  the  equivalent  friction
     velocity (u*):

                       0.4 u+
                  u* =        =0.10 u+
                                       s
                           _
                        Im0.5
From this point on, the procedure is identical to that used for a flat  pile,
as described above.

Implementation of the above procedure is carried out  in the following steps:

1.   Determine threshold friction velocity  for erodible material of  interest
     (see Table 11.2.7-2 or determine from mode of aggregate size
     distribution).

2.   Divide the exposed surface area into subareas of constant  frequency of
     disturbance (N).
           TABLE 11.2.7-2.  SUBAREA DISTRIBUTION FOR REGIMES OF us/ur
Percent of pile surface area (Figure
Pile subarea
0.2a
0.2b
0.2c
0.6a
0.6b
0.9
1.1
Pile A
5
35
-
48
-
12
™
Pile Bl
5
2
29
26
24
14
~
Pile B2
3
28
-
29
22
15
3
11.2.7-2)
Pile B3
3
25
-
28
26
14
4
3.   Tabulate fastest mile values (u+) for each frequency of  disturbance and
     correct them to 10 m (U+IQ) using Equation 5.

4.   Convert fastest mile values (U+IQ) to equivalent friction velocities (u*),
     taking into account (a) the uniform wind exposure of nonelevated surfaces,
     using Equation 4, or (b) the nonuniform wind exposure of elevated surfaces
     (piles), using Equations 6 and 7.

5.   For elevated surfaces (piles), subdivide areas of constant N into sub-
     areas of constant u* (i.e., within the isopleth values of ug/ur in Figure
     11.2.7-2 and Table 11.2.7-3) and determine the size  of each subarea.

6.   Treating each subarea (of constant N and u*) as a separate source,
     calculate the erosion potential (P^) for each  period between disturbances
     using Equation 3 and the emission factor using Equation 2.

11.2.7-8                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
7.   Multiply the resulting emission factor for each subarea by the size of
     the subarea, and add the emission contributions of all subareas.  Note
     that the highest 24-hr emissions would be expected to occur on the
     windiest day of the year.  Maximum emissions are calculated assuming a
     single event with the highest fastest mile value for the annual period.

The recommended emission factor equation presented above assumes that all of
the erosion potential corresponding to the fastest mile of wind is lost during
the period between disturbances.  Because the fastest mile event typically
lasts only about 2 min, which corresponds roughly to the halflife for the
decay of actual erosion potential, it could be argued that the emission factor
overestimates particulate emissions.  However, there are other aspects of the
wind erosion process which offset this apparent conservatism:

1.   The fastest mile event contains peak winds which substantially exceed the
     mean value for the event.

2.   Whenever the fastest mile event occurs, there are usually a number of
     periods of slightly lower mean wind speed which contain peak gusts of the
     same order as the fastest mile wind speed.

Of greater concern is the likelihood of overprediction of wind erosion
emissions in the case of surfaces disturbed infrequently in comparison to the
rate of crust formation.

11.2.7.4  Example calculation for wind erosion emissions from conically shaped
          coal pile

A coal burning facility maintains a conically shaped surge pile 11 m in height
and 29.2 m in base diameter, containing about 2000 Mg of coal, with a bulk
density of 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3).  The total exposed surface area of the pile
is calculated as follows:

          S =  r  r2 + h2

            = 3.14(14.6)  (14.6)2 + (11.O)2

            = 838 m2

Coal is added to the pile by means of a fixed stacker and reclaimed by front-
end loaders operating at the base of the pile on the downwind side.  In addi-
tion, every 3 days 250 Mg (12.5% of the stored capacity of coal) is added back
to the pile by a topping off operation, thereby restoring the full capacity of
the pile.  It is assumed that (a) the reclaiming operation disturbs only a
limited portion of the surface area where the daily activity is occurring,
such that the remainder of the pile surface remains intact, and (b) the top-
ping off operation creates a fresh surface on the entire pile while restoring
its original shape in the area depleted by daily reclaiming activity.

Because of the high frequency of disturbance of the pile, a large number of
calculations must be made to determine each contribution to the total annual
wind erosion emissions.  This illustration will use a single month as an
example.


9/88                         Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.7-9

-------
 Prevailing
 Wind
 Direction
                                       Circled  values
                                       refer  to us/ur
  * A portion of C£ is disturbed daily by reclaiming activities.
m ea
ID
A
B
Ci + C?
us
"uT
0.9
0.6
0.2
%
12
48
40
Area (m^)
101
402
335
                                                  838
Figure 11.2.7-3.   Example 1:   Pile  surface areas within each wind speed regime.
11.2.7-10
EMISSION FACTORS
9/88

-------
Step 1:  In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold friction
velocity, a value of 1.12 m/s is obtained from Table 11.2.7-2.

Step 2:  Except for a small area near the base of the pile (see
Figure 11.2.7-3), the entire pile surface is disturbed every 3 days, corre-
sponding to a value of N - 120/yr.  It will be shown that the contribution of
the area where daily activity occurs is negligible so that it does not need to
be treated separately in the calculations.

Step 3:  The calculation procedure involves determination of the fastest mile
for each period of disturbance.  Figure 11.2.7-4 shows, a representative set of
values (for a 1 month period) that are assumed to be applicable to the geographic
area of the pile location.  The values have been separated into 3 day periods,
and the highest value in each period is indicated.  In this example, the
anemometer height is 7 m, so that a height correction to 10 m is needed for the
fastest mile values.  From Equation 5,

                                   In (10/0.005)
                        u+io = u+7 In (7.0.005)

                        u+io = 1*05 u+7

Step 4:  The next step is to convert the fastest mile value for each 3 day
period into the equivalent friction velocities for each surface wind regime
(i. e., us/ur ratio) of the pile, using Equations 6 and 7.  Figure 11.2.7-3
shows the surface wind speed pattern (expressed as a fraction of the approach
wind speed at a height of 10 m).  The surface areas lying within each wind
speed regime are tabulated below the figure.

The calculated friction velocities are presented in Table 11.2.7-4.  As
indicated, only three of the periods contain a friction velocity which exceeds
the threshold value of 1.12 m/s for an uncrusted coal pile.  These three values
all occur within the Ug/ur =0.9 regime of the pile surface.

Step 5:  This step is not necessary because there is only one frequency of
disturbance used in the calculations.  It is clear that the small area of
daily disturbance (which lies entirely within the Ug/ur =0.2 regime) is never
subject to wind speeds exceeding the threshold value.
9/88                         Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.7-11

-------
                  Local Climatological  Data
                           MONTHLY SUMMARY
WIND
ex
o
3
V
a
\
30
0
10
13
12
20
29
29
22
1 4
29
I 7
2 1
10
10
0 1
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
31
30
30
33
34
29
_»
_J O
9 UJ
cn UJ
UJ Q.
ec en
14
5.3
10.5
2.4
1 1 .0
11.3
M.l
19.6
10.9
3.0
14.6
22.3
7.9
7.7
4.5
6.7
3.7
1 .2
4.3
9.3
7.5
0.3
7. 1
2.4
5.9
1 .3
2. 1
8.3
8.2
5.0
3. 1
4.9
0
UJ
a
en
o 3
a: o.
UJ
>. je
15
6.9
10.6
6.0
11.4
1 1 .9
19.0
19.8
1 1 .2
8. 1
5. 1
23.3
3.5
5.5
9.6
8.8
3.8
1 .5
5.8
0.2
7.8
0.6
7.3
8.5
8.8
1 . 7
2.2
8.5
8.3
6.6
5.2
5.5
FASTEST
MILE

o ~"
UJO.
a. z
in
16
Q
(H
10
16
1C
6j
q^
1 7
15
23
v^
23
18
^y
13
Qj
T"5
12
1 4
©
1 6
5^
TA
i 5
\J>
16
16
1J)
10
9
8
o
o
cr
o
17
36
01
02
13
1 1
30
30
30
13
12
29
1 7
18
1 3
1 1
35
34
31
35
24
20
32
13
02
32
32
26
32
32
31
25
FOR THE MONTH:
30
—
3.3
^•HMk*. t
1 . 1
	 [
31
29
)*TE: 1 1

o
22
i
2
3
5
6
7
g
9
f,
I
12
3
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
'19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
25
29
30
3'.

    Figure 11.2.7-4.   Daily fastest miles of wind for periods of interest.
11.2.7-12
                           EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               9/88

-------
        TABLE 11.2.7-4.  EXAMPLE 1:  CALCULATION OF FRICTION VELOCITIES
u+7
3 Day
period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(mph)
14
29
30
31
22
21
16
25
17
13

(m/s)
6.3
13.0
13.4
13.9
9.8
9.4
7.2
11.2
7.6
5.8
u+10

(mph)
15
31
32
33
23
22
17
26
18
14

(m/s) Us/ur
6.6
13.7
14.1
14.6
10.3
9.9
7.6
11.8
8.0
6.1
u* -

0.2
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.12
0.1 u+8

0.6
0.40
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.62
0.59
0.46
0.71
0.48
0.37
(m/s)

0.9
0.59
1.23
1.27
1.31
0.93
0.89
0.68
1.06
0.72
0.55
Steps 6 and 7:  The final set of calculations (shown in Table 11.2.7-5)
involves the tabulation and summation of emissions for each disturbance period
and for the affected subarea.  The erosion potential (P) is calculated from
Equation 3.
         TABLE 11.2.7-5.  EXAMPLE 1:  CALCULATION OF PM10 EMISSIONS3
Pile Surface
3 Day
period
2
3
4

u* (m/s)
1.23
1.27
1.31

u* - u*fc (m/s)
0.11
0.15
0.19

P (g/m2)
3.45
5.06
6.84

ID
A
A
A
Total PMjo
Area
(m2)
101
101
101
emissions
kPA
(g)
170
260
350
. 780
 where u*t = 1.12 m/s for uncrusted coal and k • 0.5 for

For example, the calculation for the second 3 day period is:

          P2 - 58(1.23 - 1.12)2 + 25(1.23 - 1.12)

             - 0.70 + 2.75 - 3.45 g/m2

The PM].o emissions generated by each event are found as the product of the
PMio multiplier (k - 0.5), the erosion potential (P), and the affected area
of the pile (A).


9/88                         Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.7-13

-------
As shown in Table 11.2.7-5, the results of these calculations indicate a
monthly PM^Q emission total of 780 g.

11.2.7.5  Example calculation for wind erosion from flat area covered with coal
          dust

A flat circular area of 29.2 m in diameter is covered with coal dust left over
from the total reclaiming of a conical coal pile described in the  example
above.  The total exposed surface area is calculated as follows:


             S = _ d2 = 0.785 (29. 2)2 = 670 m2
                 4

This area will remain exposed for a period of 1 month when a new pile will be
formed.

Step 1:  In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold friction
velocity, a value of 0.54 m/s is obtained from Table 11.2.7-2.

Step 2:  The entire surface area is exposed for a period of 1 month after
removal of a pile and N = 1/yr.

Step 3:  From Figure 11.2.7-5, the highest value of fastest mile for the
30 day period (31 mph) occurs on the llth day of the period.  In this example,
the reference anemometer height is 7 m, so that a height correction is needed
for the fastest mile value.  From Step 3 of the previous example,  U+IQ = 1.05
u+7, so that u+io = 33 mph.
Step 4:  Equation 4 is used to convert the fastest mile value of 33 mph
(14.6 m/s) to an equivalent friction velocity of 0.77 m/s.  This value exceeds
the threshold friction velocity from Step 1 so that erosion does occur.

Step 5:  This step is not necessary because there is only one frequency of
disturbance for the entire source area.
Steps 6 and 7:  The PM^Q emissions generated by the erosion event are
calculated as the product of the PM^Q multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion
potential (P) and the source area (A).  The erosion potential is calculated
from Equation 3 as follows:

               P = 58(0.77 - 0.54)2 + 25(0.77 - 0.54)
                 = 3.07 + 5.75
                 = 8.82 g/m2

Thus the PM^Q emissions for the 1 month period are found to be:

               E = (0.5X8.82 g/m2)(670 m2)
                 = 3.0 kg
11.2.7-14                       EMISSION FACTORS                           9/88

-------
References for Section 11.2.7

1.  C. Cowherd Jr., "A New Approach to Estimating Wind Generated Emissions
    from Coal Storage Piles", Presented at the APCA Specialty Conference on
    Fugitive Dust Issues in the Coal Use Cycle, Pittsburgh, PA, April 1983.

2.  K. Axtell and C. Cowherd, Jr., Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
    from Surface Coal Mining Sources, EA-600/7-84-048, U. S.  Environmental
    Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OK, March 1984.

3.  G. E. Muleski, "Coal Yard Wind Erosion Measurement", Midwest Research
    Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1985.

4.  Update of Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors in AP-42 Section 11.2 - Wind
    Erosion, MRI No. 8985-K, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, 1988.

5.  W. S. Chepil, "Improved Rotary Sieve for Measuring State and Stability
    of Dry Soil Structure", Soil Science Society of America Proceedings,
    16_: 113-117, 1952.

6.  D. A. Gillette, e t al., "Threshold Velocities for Input of Soil
    Particles Into the Air By Desert Soils", Journal of Geophysical Research,
    85_(C10):5621-5630.

7.  Local Climatological Data, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.

8.  M. J. Changery, National Wind Data Index Final Report, HCO/T1041-01 UC-60,
    National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC, December 1978.

9.  B. J. B. Stunder and S. P. S. Arya, "Windbreak Effectiveness for Storage
    Pile Fugitive Dust Control:  A Wind Tunnel Study", Journal of the Air
    Pollution Control Association. 38:135-143, 1988.
9/88                         Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.7-15

-------
                                  APPENDIX C.3

                            SILT ANALYSIS  PROCEDURES
  1.  Select  the appropriate 8  inch diameter  2  inch  deep  sieve  sizes.
     Recommended standard series sizes are 3/8  inch No.  4,  No.  20, No.  40,
     No. 100, No. 140, No. 200, and a pan.  .The No. 20 and  the  No. 200  are
     mandatory.  Comparable Tyler Series  sizes  can  also  be  used.

  2.  Obtain  a mechanical sieving device such as a vibratory shaker or a
     Roto-Tap (without the tapping function).

  3.  Clean the sieves with compressed air and/or a  soft  brush.  Material  lodged
     in the  sieve openings or  adhering to the sides of the  sieve should be
     removed without handling  the screen  roughly, if possible.

  4.  Obtain  a scale with capacity of at least  1600  grams, and record its  make,
     capacity, smallest increment, date of last calibration, and accuracy.

  5.  Record  the tare weight of sieves and pan, and  check the zero before  every
     .weighing.

  6.  After nesting the sieves  in decreasing  order of hole size, and with  the
     pan at  the bottom, dump dried laboratory sample into the top sieve,
     preferably immediately after moisture analysis.  The sample should weigh
     between 800 and 1600 grams (1.8 and  3.5 pounds).  Brush fine material
     adhering to the sides of  the container  into the top sieve, and cover the
     top sieve with a special  lid normally purchased with the pan.

  7.  Place nested sieves into  the mechanical device, and sieve  for 10 minutes.
     Remove  pan containing minus No. 200 and weigh  its contents.  Repeat  the
     sieving in 10 minute intervals until the difference between two successive
     pan sample weights is less than 3.0 percent when the tare  of the pan has
     been substracted.  Do not sieve longer  than 40 minutes.
 8.  Weigh each sieve and its contents, and record the weight.
     check the zero before every weighing.
                              Remember to
 9.  Collect the laboratory sample, and place it in a separate container if
     further analysis is expected.

10.  Calculate the percent of mass less than the 200 mesh screen (75 micro-
     meters).  This is the silt content.
  u. s. ocwEHwan1 ttasnsa OFFICE i988/526-090/87oos
9/88
Appendix C.3
C.3-1

-------

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 AP  42, Supplement B
                              2.
                                                             3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Supplement B to Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emission
    Factors, AP-42, Fourth Edition
              5. REPORT DATE
                September 1988
              6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Air And Radiation
 Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
 Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711
                                                             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 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; Residential  Wood Stoves; Waste Oil Combustion;  Refuse Combustion;  Sewage
 Sludge Incineration;  Surface Coating;  Polyester Resin Plastics Product Fabrication;
 Soap And Detergents;  Grain Elevators And  Processing Plants;  Lime Manufacturing; Crushec
 Stone Processing; Western Surface Coal Mining; Wildfires  And Prescribed  Burning;
 Unpaved Roads; Aggregate Handling And  Storage Piles; Industrial Paved Roads;  Industrial
 Wind Erosion; and Appendix C.3, "Silt  Analysis Procedures".
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  c.  COSATI F;ield/Group
  Stationary Sources
  Point Sources
  Area Sources
  Emission Factors
  Emissions
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                            21. NO. OF PAGES

                                182
                                               20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)    PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------