-------
EPA-450/3-78-107
Assessment of Fugitive Particulate
Emission Factors
for Industrial Processes
by
John Zoller, Thomas Sertke, and Thomas Janszen
PEDCo Environmental
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-2585
EPA Project Officer: Charles C. Masser
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1978 "nv
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to
report technical data of interest to a limited number of readers
Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited
quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35) U S Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
i OI/D f ?e/ °m the National Technical Information Service
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
^ W3S furnisned to the Environmental Protection Agency
-o *Environmental, 11499 Chester Road, Cincinnati, Ohio
45246, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2585. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from PEDCo Environ-
mental The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of compandor product names is not
Agen C°ns'dered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Publication No. EPA-450/3-78-107
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Priority Listing 1-1
1.3 Fugitive Particulate Emissions by Process
Type 1-4
1.4 Ongoing Fugitive Emission Projects 1-9
2.0 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS FOR THE PRIORITY LISTING 2-1
2.1 Iron and Steel Production 2-1
2.1.1 Coke Manufacturing 2-1
2.1.2 Iron Production 2-10
2.1.3 Steel Production 2-16
2.2 Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry 2-24
2.2.1 Primary Aluminum Production 2-24
2.2.2 Primary Copper Smelters 2-31
2.2.3 Primary Lead Smelters 2-38
2.2.4 Primary Zinc Production 2-45
2.3 Secondary Nonferrous Industries 2-52
2.3.1 Secondary Aluminum Smelters 2-52
2.3.2 Secondary Lead Smelting 2-58
2.3.3 Secondary Zinc Production 2-64
2.3.4 Secondary Brass/Bronze (Copper Alloy)
Production 2-71
2.4 Foundries 2-77
2.4.1 Emissions 2-77
2.4.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-77
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.5 Minerals Extraction and Beneficiation 2-86
2.5.1 Emissions 2-86
2.5.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-86
2.6 Grain Elevators 2-95
2.6.1 Emissions 2-95
2.6.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-95
2.7 Portland Cement Manufacturing • 2-102
2.7.1 Emissions 2-102
2.7.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-102
2.8 Lime Manufacturing 2-110
2.8.1 Emissions 2-110
2.8.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-110
2.9 Concrete Batching 2-116
2.9.1 Emissions 2-116
2.9.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-116
2.10 Asphaltic Concrete Production 2-120
2.10.1 Emissions 2-120
2.10.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-120
2.11 Lumber and Furniture Industry 2-125
2.11.1 Emissions 2-125
2.12.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data 2-125
APPENDIX A A-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
2-1 Process Flow Diagram for Coke Manufacturing
Showing Origin of Uncontrolled Fugitive Indus-
trial Process Particulate Emissions
2-2 Process Flow Diagram for Iron Production, Showing 2-11
Origin of Uncontrolled Fugitive Industrial
Process and Point Source Particulate Emissions
2-3 Process Flow Diagram for Steel Production 2-17
Showing Origin of Fugitive Industryal Process
and Point Source Particulate Emissions
2-4 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Aluminum Pro- 2-25
duction showing origin of Uncontrolled Fugitive
Industrial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emissions
2-5 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Copper Smelting 2-32
Showing Origins of Fugitive Industrial Process
and Point Source Emissions
2-6 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Lead Smelting 2-39
Showing Origins of Uncontrolled Fugitive
Industrial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emissions
2-7 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Zinc Production 2-46
Showing Origins of Uncontrolled Fugitive Indus-
trial Process and Point Source Emissions
2-8 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Aluminum 2-53
Production Showing Origins of Uncontrolled
Fugitive Industrial Process and Point Source
Particulate Emissions
2-9 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Lead Smelting 2-59
Showing Origin of Uncontrolled Fugitive Indus-
trial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emissions
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
No.
2-10 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Zinc Produc-
tion Showing Origins of Uncontrolled Fugitive
Industrial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emission
2-11 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Brass/Bronze 2-72
Production Showing Origins of Uncontrolled
Fugitive Industrial Process and Point Source
Particulate Emissions
2-12 Process Flow Diagram for Foundries Showing 2-78
Origins of Uncontrolled Fugitive Industrial
Process and Point Source Particulate Emissions
2-13 Process Flow Diagram for Material Extraction 2-87
and Beneficiation Showing Origin of Uncontrolled
Fugitive Industrial Process and Point Source
Particulate Emissions
2-14 Process Flow Diagram for Country and Terminal 2-96
Grain Elevators, Showing Origins of Fugitive
Industrial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emissions
2-15 Process Flow Diagram for Portland Cement Manu- 2-103
facturing Showing Origin of Uncontrolled Fugi-
tive Industrial Process and Point Source Particu-
late Emissions
2-16 Process Flow Diagram for Lime Manufacturing 2-111
Showing Origin of Uncontrolled Fugitive
Industrial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emissions
2-17 Process Flow Diagram for Concrete Batching 2-117
Showing Origin of Uncontrolled Fugitive Indus-
trial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emissions
2-18 Process Flow Diagram for Asphaltic Concrete Manu- 2-121
facturing Showing Uncontrolled Fugitive Indus-
trial Process and Point Source Particulate
Emissions
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
2-19 Process Flow Diagram for Lumber and Furniture 2-126
Production Showing Origin of Uncontrolled
Fugitive Industrial Process and Point Source
Particulate Emissions
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. page
1-1 Priority Listing of Industrial Categories 1-2
1-2 Major Sources of Fugitive Particulate Emissions 1-5
1-3 Listing of Ongoing Projects Concerned with the 1-10
Quantification of Fugitive Emissions from
Industrial Processes
2-1 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-3
Coke Manufacturing Process Flow Diagram
2-2 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-4
Emissions from the Metallurgical Coke Industry
2-3 Pushing Emission Factors 2-6
2-4 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on 2-12
the Iron Production Process Flow Diagram
2-5 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-13
Emissions from the Iron Production Industry
2-6 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-18
Steel Production Process Flow Diagram
2-7 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-19
Emissions from the Steel Industry
2-8 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-26
Primary Aluminum Production Process Flow Diagram
2-9 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-27
Emissions from the Primary Aluminum Industry
2-10 Uncontrolled Particulate Emissions from Primary 2-28
Aluminum Reduction Cells
2-11 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-33
Primary Copper Smelting Process Flow Diagram
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
No.
2-12 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-34
Emissions from the Primary Copper Smelting
Industry
2-13 identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-40
Primary Lead Smelting Process Flow Diagram
2-14 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-41-
Emissions from the Primary Lead Industry
2-15 Primary Lead Smelting Process Points Where 2-42
Fugitive Particulate Emission Measurements
have been Conducted
2-16 Identification of Emissions Sources Shown on 2-47
the Primary Zinc Production Process Flow Diagram
2-17 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-48
Emissions from Primary Zinc Production
2-18 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on 2-54
the Secondary Aluminum Production Process Flow
Diagram
2-19 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-55
Emissions from the Secondary Aluminum Smelting
Industry
2-20 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the
Secondary Lead Smelting Process Flow Diagram
2-21 Estimated Uncotnrolled Fugitive Particulate
Emissions from the Secondary Lead Smelting
Industry
2-23 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate
Emissions from Secondary Zinc Production
2-60
2-61
2-22 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-66
Secondary Zinc Production Process Flow Diagram
2-67
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
No. —2—
2-24 Secondary Zinc Production Fugitive Particulate 2-68
Sources and Estimated Emission Factors
2-25 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-73
Secondary Brass/Bronze Production Process Flow
Diagram
2-26 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-74
Emissions from 1976 Brass and Bronze Ingot
Production
2-27 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-79
Foundries Process Flow Diagram
2-28 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-80
Emissions for Foundries
2-29 Fugitive Particulate Emission Factors Derived 2-81
from AP-42
2-30 Fugitive Particulate Emission Factors Derived 2-83
from Sources Other than AP-42
2-31 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-88
Material Extraction and Beneficiation Process
Flow Diagram
2-32 Estimated Uncontrolled Particulate Fugitive 2-89
Emissions for the Surface Coal Mining Industry
2-33 Estimated Uncontrolled Particulate Fugitive 2-90
Emissions in the Crushed Stone Industry
2-34 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-97
Grain Elevator Industry Process Flow Diagram
2-35 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-98
Emissions from Domestic Feed and Grain Elevators
2-36 Particulate Emission Factors for Grain Elevators 2-99
Based on Amount of Grain Received or Shipped
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
No.
2-37 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on 2-104
the Portland Cement Process Flow Diagram
2-38 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-105
Emissions from Portland Cement Manufacturing
2-39 Raw Materials Used in Producing Portland Cement 2-106
in the United States
2-40 Fugitive Particulate Sources and Emission Rates 2-108
Determined from Observations
2-41 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-112
Lime Manufacturing Process Flow Diagram
2-42 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-113
Emissions from the Manufacture of Lime
2-43 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-118
Concrete Batching Process Flow Diagram
2-44 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-122
Asphaltic Concrete Manufacturing Process Flow
Diagram
2-45 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-123
Emissions from Asphaltic Concrete Production
2-46 Identification of Emission Sources Shown on the 2-127
Lumber and Furniture Production Process Flow
Diagram
2-47 Estimated Uncontrolled Fugitive Particulate 2-128
Emissions from the Lumber and Furniture Industry
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has called
for revisions of State Implementation Plans (SIP's) in areas
where the total suspended participate (TSP) standard is being
exceeded. An integral part of the SIP's is the TSP emission
inventory, which is necessary to identify areas requiring emis-
sion control. Deficiencies in some state inventories must be
corrected before strategies can be developed. One of these
deficiencies is the lack of reliable emission factor data for TSP
resulting from fugitive emissions from industrial processes.
The purpose of this assessment is to develop a priority
listing of fugitive industrial processes on which source sampling
is needed and to provide EPA with recommendations and support
documentation for the development of fugitive TSP emission fac-
tors for industrial processes.
The industries covered are those whose processes contribute
to fugitive particulate emissions. This study also includes an
update of data found in the manual, Technical Guidance for
Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions.
Fugitive dust sources such as storage piles, vehicular traffic,
and windblown dust are not included in this study.
1.2 PRIORITY LISTING
Two criteria were used for the priority listing of indus-
trial categories that require source sampling of fugitive process
emissions: 1) adequacy of currently available fugitive emission
factor data, and 2) total potential uncontrolled fugitive partic-
ulate emissions (industrywide). The priority listing is pre-
sented in Table 1-1.
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. PRIORITY LISTING OF INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
I
NJ
Industrial category
1. Foundries
2. Portland cement
3. Minerals extraction
and benef iclation
4. Iron production
5. Secondary lead
6. Primary aluminum
7. Asphaltic concrete
8. Lime manufacturing
9. Coke manufacturing
10. Secondary aluminum
11. Secondary brass/bronze
12. Secondary zinc
13. Lumber and furniture
14. concrete batching
15. Primary copper
16. Grain elevators
17. Primary zinc
18, Primary lead
19. Steel manufacturing
Adequacy
of emission
data ranking"
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
5
5
5
4
3
3
1
4
3
2
particulate emissions'' r
ng/yr
106,719
697,589
648,401
99,450
4,250
52,470
46,845
44,824
131,700
1,808
766
429
8,665
31,026
19,977
1,238,129
1,806
11,742
61,520
(tons/yr )
(117,872)
(768,961)
(714,096)
(110,070)
(4,684)
(57,890)
(51,638)
(49,410)
(145,400)
(1,995)
(842)
(472)
(9,549)
(34,200)
(22,024)
(1,364,803)
(1,991)
(12,945)
(68,250)
rankings
4
5
5
4
2
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
2
3
3
5
1
2
3
plant uncontrolled
particulate emissions
50.3
5.7
100.0
0.9
6.2
24.4
0.7
1.3
100.0
5.6
10.9
6.9
52.9
100.0
22.0
100.0
2.1
6. 1
2. 8
priority
ranking^
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
ft®
D
5
5
t;e
D
-Ranking definitions, 5 - very poor, 4 - poor, 3 - fair, 2 - good, and 1 - very good.
bsee Section 2 for detailed descriptions of potential emission sources, their respective emission factors, and emission
estimates within each industry.
csources with the highest emission* receive the highest ranking.
dSource categories with greatest total ranking deserve highest priority for emission sampling.
"Since emission factor ranking is good or very good, sampling for emission factor development Is not required.
-------
1.2.1 Rating Criteria
The detailed supporting data and analysis of the rating
criteria are contained in Section 2 of this report. The emission
calculations represent the total uncontrolled fugitive particu-
late emissions from industrial processes. These calculations
were used as a rating criterion since they indicate the potential
fugitive emission levels of each industrial category. Actual
fugitive emissions cannot readily be calculated because indus-
trywide fugitive control levels have not been documented.
Table 1-1 also presents the adequacy of currently available
fugitive emission factor data. The sources of available factors
(or estimates) are given in Section 2, along with the method used
to develop the factors. Thus, a factor based on an estimate of 5
percent of the uncontrolled process emission rate found in the
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) is less
adequate than a fugitive emission rate based on sampling.
1.2.2 Ranking System
The emission estimates and adequacy of the emission factor
analysis are numerically ranked by industrial category. The
emission estimates are ranked from one to five, with one repre-
senting the lowest fugitive emission rate and five the highest.
The adequacy of the fugitive emission factors also are
ranked from one to five. The industrial categories with the
least adequate data are assigned a ranking of five, whereas the
categories with the best data are assigned a one. The adequacy
of emission factor rankings is defined as follows:
5 Very poor. Based only on estimates or assumed values,
or the development is unknown.
4 Poor. Based on engineering judgment, related factors
from other industries, or material balance.
3 Fair. Based on engineering judgment and limited
tests.
2 -Good. Based on incomplete test data.
1 Very good. Based on complete test data.
1-3
-------
A material balance is much less accurate for use in arriving at
a fugitive particulate emission factor than it is for other
applications, such as determining the sulfur emissions from a
boiler based on fuel flow rate and sulfur content. Hence it is
considered a "poor" rating for developing fugitive emission
factors. All emission factors for each industry were considered
in determining the overall adequacy ranking, which represents the
status of emission factor development for that industry.
The rankings for both criteria are summed for each indus-
trial category and listed in numerical order. The sources with
the highest ranking totals have top priority in a sampling pro-
gram to measure the fugitive particulate emissions from indus-
trial processes. The industries with lower ranking totals have a
corresponding lower priority of fugitive emission factor develop-
ment. As can be seen from Table 1-1, the industries with equal
total priority rankings are rated based on the adequacy of emis-
sion data rankings. When the adequacy rankings are equal, the
industry with the highest annual fugitive emissions is given
highest priority.
1.3, FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS BY PROCESS TYPE
Industries that produce or manufacture completely unrelated
products will often have several very similar processes that have
the potential to generate fugitive emissions. Approximately 39
types of processes have been identified as contributors to fugi-
tive emissions from the industries covered in this report.
Table 1-2 presents the major sources of fugitive particulate
emissions within each industry.
About 80 percent of the potential uncontrolled fugitive
emissions result from the following five process types that,
except for the grain elevator headhouse, are common to several
industries:
1. Loading and unloading, 800,900 Mg/yr (882,900 tons/yr)
2. Headhouse operations, 602,400 Mg/yr (664,000 tons/yr)
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-2. MAJOR SOURCES OF FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
i
m
Industry and total
uncontrolled fugitive
particulate emissions,
Mg/yr (tons/yr)
1. Foundries
106,719
(117,872)
2. Portland cement
697,589
(768,961)
3. Minerals extraction
and beneficiation
648, 401
(714,096)
4. Iron production
99,450
(110,070)
5. Secondary lead
4250
(4684)
$_ Primary aluminum
*•* A_ •• v» « * r-\ /H A
Major sources of
fugitive particulate
emissions
Hot metal and slag
transfer, casting.
and refining
Metal melting opera-
tions
Core preparation
Loading, unloading
and storage
Crushing, grinding,
and screening
Crushing, grinding
and screening
Transfer and conveying
Drilling and blasting
Overburden removal
Sintering
Hot metal and slag,
transfer, casting,
and refining
Hot metal and slag,
transfer, casting,
and refining
Reverberatory furnace
Reduction cells
Transfer and conveying
Crushing, grinding,
and screening
Uncontrolled fugitive
particulate emissions
by source category,
Mq/yr
68,856
22,436
11,425
538,937
127,421
359,013
97,206
76,956
56,903
67,100
31,600
3,384
595
24,620
19,000
5,310
(tons/yr)
(76,152)
(24,710)
(12,584)
(594,077)
(142,078)
(395,387)
(107,056)
(84,752)
(62,668)
(74,000)
(35,200)
(3,730)
(656)
(27,140)
(21,000)
(5,850)
Percent of annual
uncontrolled par-
ticulate emissions
65
21
11
77
18
55
15
12
9
67
32
79
14
47
36
10
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
Industry and total
uncontrolled fugitive
particulate emissions,
Mg/yr (tons/yr)
7. Asphaltic concrete
46,845
(51,638)
8. Limestone manufac-
turing
44,824
(49,410)
9. Coke manufacturing
131,700
(145,400)
10. Secondary aluminum
1808
(1,995)
11. Secondary brass/
bronze
766
(842)
12. Secondary zinc
429
(472)
13. Lumber and
furniture
8,665
(9,549)
Major sources of
fugitive particulate
emissions
Transfer and conveying
Loading, unloading and
storage
Crushing, grinding, and
screening
Transfer and conveying
Charging
Quenching
Pushing
Fluxing (chlorination)
Chip (rotary) dryer
Metal melting
Insulation burning
Rotary dryer
Metal melting
Crushing, grinding, and
screening
Sawing
Log debarking
Wood waste storage and
and unloading
Uncontrolled fugitive
particulate emissions
by source category,
Mg/yr
28,740
14,370
36,388
7,653
63,800
38,200
25,500
1,425
223
358
275
69
290
138
7,078
544
425
(tons/yr)
(31,680)
(15,840)
(40,111)
(8,436)
(70,400)
(42,200)
(28,100)
(1,575)
(245)
(393)
(303)
(76)
(319)
(152)
(7,802)
(599)
(468)
Percent of annual
uncontrolled par-
ticulate emissions
61
31
81
17
48
29
19
79
12
47
36
9
66
32
82
6
5
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
Indu»try and total
uncontrolled fugitive
particulate emissions,
Mg/yr (tons/yr)
14. Concrete batching
31,026
(34,200)
15. Primary copper
19,977
(22,024)
16. Grain elevators
1,238,127
(1,364,803)
17. Primary zinc
1806
(1991)
18. Primary lead
11,742
(12,945)
19. Steel manufacturing
61 ,520
(68,250)
Major sources of
fugitive particulate
emissions
Loading, unloading,
and storage
Metal melting
Headhouse (legs)
Transfer and conveying,
Loading, unloading, and
and storage
Hot metal and slag
transfer, casting, and
refining
Sintering
Sintering
Metal melting
Crushing, grinding, and
screening
Silver retort building
Metal melting
Hot metal and slag
transfer, casting, and
refining
Uncontrolled fugitive
particulate emissions
by source category,
Mg/yr
31,026
18,153
602,368
378,868
177,704
1,198
608
6,978
2,326
692
551
51,600
9,600
(tons/yr)
(34,200)
(20,675)
(663,996)
(417,631)
(195,887)
(1,321)
(670)
(7,689)
(2,566)
(763)
(608)
(57,300)
(10,600)
Percent of annual
uncontrolled par-
ticulate emissions
100
94
49
31
14
66
34
59
20
6
5
84
15
-------
3. Crushing, grinding, and screening, 569,300 Mg/yr
(627,600 tons/yr)
4. Transfer and conveying, 468,000 Mg/yr (515,900 tons/yr)
5. Metal melting operations, 246,200 Mg/yr (271,400
tons/yr)
It should be noted that these are uncontrolled emission
estimates, and in cases where emissions are controlled, the rates
would be reduced substantially.
Fugitive emissions from loading and unloading are generated
by such operations as loading haul trucks with raw materials at
the quarry or mine site, dumping these materials into a primary
crusher or storage area, and loading partially processed mate-
rials into interim storage prior to loadout for further process-
ing. The portland cement industry is a major contributor of such
emissions, primarily because of the large volume of materials
(both raw and partially processed) loaded and unloaded. Loading
and unloading of raw materials from the quarry and clinker from
clinker storage are the major potential fugitive sources within
this industry. Although the lime manufacturing, coal mining, and
crushed stone industries have similar processes, either the
volumes handled or the number of. actual loading and unloading
operations are on a smaller scale, thereby lessening the total
potential fugitive emissions from loading and unloading.
Headhouses at grain elevators are a potentially large
source of fugitive particulate emissions. The headhouse is the
distribution center of a grain elevator, where the grain is
distributed, possibly weighed, and loaded in storage silos.
Actual total annual emissions from this source, however, are
probably much lower than indicated in this report because emis-
sion controls are often used on headhouse operations.
Crushing, grinding, and screening processes, as well as
transfer and conveying, are common in industries where raw mate-
rials must undergo size reduction at some point to attain the
desired product. This is particularly the case in industries
involved in the extraction of limestone, dolomite, crushed stone,
1-8
-------
metallic ores, and other minerals. The mined raw materials are
often in large pieces that must be reduced by crushers. Crushing
can involve up to three steps, each successive step further
reducing the material size, and screening usually takes place
between each crushing operation. The crushing steps often occur
at different locations within the facility. Primary crushing may
take place at the quarry or mine site, and the product may sub-
sequently be transferred to secondary and tertiary crushing and
screening operations at another location within the plant. The
transfer process can generate fugitive emissions particularly if
there are numerous transfer points along the way. Most indus-
tries do not control the emissions generated by these operations.
The amount of uncontrolled emissions depends somewhat on the
moisture content of the raw material, which can vary greatly
within an industry and from one season to another.
A smaller potential source of fugit've emissions is the
metals melting industries (ferrous and nonferrous). The major
potential source is the melting furnace, particularly the charg-
ing and tapping operations, although furnace leakage contributes
some emissions. The principal furnace types are reverberatory,
blast, electric, basic oxygen, and pot. These furnaces are used
in the production of many different metals. Emissions from any
one furnace type will vary, depending on the type of metal pro-
duced .
1.4 ONGOING FUGITIVE EMISSION PROJECTS
Currently several ongoing or recently completed studies are
concerned with the quantification of fugitive emissions from
industrial processes. These projects will supply additional
information for the development of fugitive emission factors.
Table 1-3 lists these projects as well as other pertinent infor-
mation, such as anticipated completion dates for each project
given (so that appropriate personnel can be contacted and infor-
mation obtained from the particular report).
1-9
-------
I
M
o
TABLE 1-3. LISTING OF ONGOING PROJECTS CONCERNED WITH THE QUANTIFICATION OF
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
w
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
t.
9.
1 |
Project title
Survey of Fugitive Dust
from Coal Mines
Coke Quench Tower Emis-
sion Testing Program
Study of Fugitive Emis-
sions in the Iron and
Steel Industry
Emissions from Iron Ore
Mining, Benef iciation ,
and Pelletizing
Dust from Western Coal
Strip Mines
Fugitive Dust from Oil
Shale Extraction
Iron and Steel Plant
Open Source Fugitive
Emission Evaluation
Coal Refuse Piles and
Slurry Ponds
Coal Mine Transfer
Points
Contractor
PEDCo Environmental,
Inc.
York Research
Midwest Research
Institute
Midwest Research
Institute
Mathematica, Inc.
TRW
Midwest Research
Institute
W. A. Wahler
Not Determined
EPA
contract no.
68-01-4489
68-02-1401
68-01-4138
68-02-2120
68-02-2113
68-03-2226
68-03-2560
Task T-5002
68-02-2609
Task 3
68-03-2344
68-03-2431
Not deter-
mined
EPA Project Officer or contact
E.A. Rachal (Region VIII, Air Planning
and Operations Section)
B. Bloom (OE, DSSE)
R. Hendriks (IERL-RTP, Metallurgical
Processes Branch)
N. Plaks (IERL-RTP, Metallurgical
Processes Branch)
E. Bates (IERL-CI, Mining and Extraction
Division)
E. Bates (IERL-CI, Mining and Extraction
Division)
R. Hendriks (IERL-RTP, Metallurgical
Processes Branch)
E. Bates (IERL-CI, Mining and Extraction
Division)
E. Bates (IERL-CI, Mining and Extraction
Division)
Scheduled
completion
date or
report number
EPA-908/
1-78-003
9/78
EPA-600/
2-78-050 -
11/78
2/79
1/79
9/7i
Not deter-
mined
-------
The numbers preceding the following brief descriptions of
these projects correspond with those in Table 1-3.
1. Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines - The purpose
of this study was to quantify the suspended particulate
air pollution emissions from surface coal mining in the
West. Five such coal mines were sampled, and fugitive
emission factors for the following processes were
developed:
0 Dragline
0 Haul roads
0 Shovel/truck loading
0 Blasting
coal
Overburden
0 Truck dumping
0 Storage pile
2. Coke Quench Tower Emission Testing Program - This
sampling and analysis program will determine the nature
and amounts of organic pollutants that are emitted
during wet quenching of coke and will identify in-
dividual compounds.
3. Study of Fugitive Emissions in the Iron and Steel
Industry - This report identifies and quantifies
fugitive emissions in the iron and steel and gray iron
foundry industries and contains original test data for
six open dust sources. Control technologies for fugi-
tive sources are described, and a research program is
outlined to develop and demonstrate technology for the
most important sources.
4. Emissions from Iron Ore Mining, Beneficiation, and
Pelletizing - This project is to accomplish the follow-
ing: to determine the available data regarding atmos-
pheric emissions from the iron ore mining, beneficia-
tion, and palletizing industries; to perform limited
sampling to help complete the emission data picture;
and to make recommendations for future projects in
those industries. The pollutants to be measured are
particulates, S0x, NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons. Parti-
culates will be analyzed for asbestos and metallics.
5. Dust from Western Coal Strip Mines - This project is
specifically designed to evaluate the surface mining
methods currently employed in the mining of coals in
arid and semiarid regions of the West and to evaluate
their effect on the environment.
1-11
-------
6. Fugitive Dust from Oil Shale Extraction - The objec-
tive of this study is to sample fugitive emissions from
the following processes at an oil shale extraction
site:
0 Crushers
0 Haul roads
0 Mine adits
0 Spent tailings shale transfer
7. Iron and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission
Evaluation - This sampling and analysis project is
conducting active field testing of the following open
sources at three iron and steel plants:
0 Unpaved roads
0 Paved roads
0 Coal stacking
0 Ore unloading
It is anticipated that emission factors will be gen-
erated from this study.
8. Pollution Control Guidelines for Coal Refuse Disposal
Sites and Slurry Ponds - This project involves the
investigation of acid and heavy metal ion concentra-
tions in water passing through refuse piles, suspended
solids in waters from refuse piles and slurry ponds,
noxious gases from oxidation and fires in refuse piles,
and airborne particulates from dry exposed refuse
surfaces.
9. Coal Mine Transfer Points - This project, which is
still in the early planning stage, involves the deter-
mination of emissions from coal mine transfer points.
The contractor has not yet been selected, and the
project schedule and target completion date have not
been determined.
1-12
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Technical Guidance for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. Prepared
for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. EPA-450/3-77-010. March 1977.
1-13
-------
2.0 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS FOR THE PRIORITY LISTING
This section contains the supporting data and analysis used
to determine the priority ranking. The emission estimates of the
uncontrolled fugitive particulate emission potential of each
industry and the origin or derivation of all available fugitive
particulate emission estimates are presented in the appropriate
subsections.
2.1 IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION
This section reflects data available at the time this
report was prepared. Forthcoming new and revised fugitive emis-
sion factors from the American Iron and Steel Institute and EPA
Joint Committee on Fugitive Emissions (AISI-EPA Committee) should
be available in early 1978. Therefore, emission rates and con-
clusions contained in this section are not final.
2.1.1 Coke Manufacturing
Emissions - Figure 2-1 depicts the general process flow in the
metellurgical coke industry, and Table 2-1 lists the emission
sources noted in the process flow diagram. Table 2-2 shows
potential uncontrolled fugitive particulate emission totals for
the metallurgical coke industry. These rates were calculated
using the emission factors from AP-42. As shown, potential
fugitive particulate emissions are 131,700 Mg/yr (145,500 tons/
yr).
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - The uncontrolled emission
factor for charging metallurgical coke ovens is reported in
AP-42 as 0.75 kg/Mg (1.5 Ib/ton) coal charged.1 The early
version of the emission factor document reports that this factor
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
2-1
-------
OIL
OR *
WATER
V
AIR S*
Of"
WATER — »-
RAILROAD
COAL CAR
~ ©>"'<- ®f
RAW COAL STORAGE
PILES
G)^ *
PULVERIZER
(A)^!
[PREPARED COAL]
(STORAGE BINS!
X/ \> v/
COAL BLENDING
AND MIXING
(A/ t
COAL BUNKER
CO "*** '
LARRY CAR H_
fc^ t.^ XX
COKF OVFN
\
(7>**"l
HOT COKE
CAR
1
T
QUENCH
TOWER
1
COKE WHARF
(9)*']
mw ^rRFFWTMP 1
\ '
\ '
©
LEGEND •
—^-POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
)
A .r-^-TAR
1UU riQ ' /
'» Hi— rRODUCTS
N SYSTEM
1
COKE OVEN MISCELLANEOUS
rUEL GAS rUEL USAGES
®
_>»s. — ^JIU BLAoT rUKNACE
/*( 9)
•• Vjy
"1 CRUSHING 1
" ^ 10 MISCELLANEOUS
FUEL USAGE
Figure 2-1. Process flow diagram for coke manufacturing
showing-origin of uncontrolled fugitive industrial process
particulate emissions.
-------
Table 2-1. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN
ON THE COKE MANUFACTURING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
Coal unloading
Coal conveying and
transfer
Coal charging
Pushing
Coke handling
2. Coal storage
4. Coal pulverizing and
screening
6. Coking (door leakage)
8 . Quenching
Numeral and letter demotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-3
-------
Table 2-2
to
I
ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
THE METALLURGICAL COKE INDUSTRY
Fmission source
Charging
Coking
Pushing
Quenching
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive particulate
emission factor3'"
kg/Mg
0.75
0.05
0.3
0.45
Ib/ton
1.5
0.1
0.6
0.9
Coal charged
to coke ovens
in 1976C
1000 Mg
85,000
85,000
85,000
85,000
1000 tons
93,800
93,800
93,800
93,800
Estimated
uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
63,800
4,200
25,500
38,200
131,700
tons/yr
70,400
4,700
28,100
42,200
145,400
a Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of coal charged.
Reference 1. 66
c Iron and steel industry coke production was reported as 55.2 x 10 Mg (60.9 x 10 tons)
in 1976 (Reference 2). Assuming 1.54 units of coal are required to produce 1.0 unit
of coke (Reference 3), 85 x 10* Mg (93.8 x 10* tons) coal were charged to c- ^ ovens
in 1976.
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
-------
was selected from a range of 0.055 to 2.15 kg/Mg (0.11 to 4.3
Ib/ton) coal charged and was based on United Nations (U.N.) and
4
unpublished data. The AISI-EPA, committee is considering a
charging emission factor of 0.5 kg/Mg (1.0 Ib/ton) coal charged
based on a range of 0.04 to 1.15 kg/Mg (0.08 to 2.3 Ib/ton) coal
charged (from AISI and U.N. data). Two other references have
reported the U.N. data lists the range as 0.045 to 1.38 kg/Mg
(0.09 to 2.76 Ib/ton) coal charged. ' Because the U.N. report
was prepared in 1968 and changes and improvements in charging
techniques have occurred since then, additional test data are
needed to update this factor.
Uncontrolled emissions from the coking cycle are reported in
AP-42 (based on U.N. data) as 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) coal
charged. The AISI-EPA committee is also considering this factor
on the basis of a range of 0.013 to 0.15 kg/Mg (0.026 to 0.3
Ib/ton) coal charged (from U.N. and AISI data confirmed by EPA).
Some additional data may be found in Reference 8.
Table 2-3 shows pushing emission factors based on the degree
of greenness and control level. In addition, a general emission
factor contained in AP-42 is 0.3 kg/Mg (0.6 Ib/ton) coal charged.
This was based on a range of 0.07 to 0.68 kg/Mg (0.14 to 1.37
Ib/ton) coal charged from the U.N. data. In addition, a factor
of 0.25 kg/Mg (0.5 Ib/ton) is being considered by the AISI-EPA
joint committee. This was based on a range of 0.13 to 0.35
kg/Mg (0.26 to 0.70 Ib/ton) coal charged.17
Quenching emissions are reported in AP-42 a 0.45 kg/Mg (0.9
Ib/ton) coal charged. This value is based on a range of 0.25 to
0.7 kg/Mg (0.5 to 1.4 Ib/ton) coal charged reported in the U.N.
A
data. The AISI-EPA committee is considering an emission factor
of 0.25 + 0.00028 TDS kg/Mg (0.5 + 0.00056 TDS Ib/ton) coal
charged where TDS (total dissolved solids) is in ppm.5 Tests
show that TDS range from 5 to 12,000 ppm on dirty water with
5,000 ppm typical. Additional information shows that in quench
towers with baffles, quenching with clean water generates 0.6
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
2-5
-------
Table 2-3. PUSHING EMISSION FACTORS
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal charged]
Degree of
greenness
Green coke
Moderately
green
Cleanly pushed
coke
Shed3
0.32C - 0.5d
(0.65 - 1.0)
0.28C
(0.57)
0.17g'h
(0.35)
Travelling hood
1.0d - 1.8e
(2.1 - 3.5)
1.65e
(2.3)
0.75e
(1.5)
Direct, uncaptured
plumeb
1.5 - 2.0f
(3 - 4)
i.of
(2.1)
0.191 - 0.26f
(0.38 - 0.52)
Includes most of travel emissions.
Does not include travel emissions.
Reference 9 and 10. Testing and analysis by Clayton Environmental Consultants,
1975 and 1976.
Reference 11. Data reported by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 1975.
Reference 12. Testing of Ford/Koppers smokeless coke pushing system by Clayton
Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1976.
Based on emission measurements as reported by Robert Jacko, 1976.
Data reported by Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 1975.
Reference 15. Test results reported by U.S. Steel Corp., 1975.
Reference 16. Testing of CF&I Steel Corporation coke plant by York Research, 1976
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
Reference 13.
Reference 14.
-------
kg/Mg (1.2 Ib/ton) coke produced, and quenching with highly con-
taminated water generates 1.0 to 3.0 kg/Mg (2.0 to 6.0 Ib/ton)
18
coke produced.
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1
2-7
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.1
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No.
AP-42, Second Edition with Supplements 1-7. April 1977.
2. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Processes.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for Industrial Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No.
68-02-2120. Draft final report. August 25, 1977.
3. The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel. United States
Steel Corporation. McGannon, H.E. ed. Pittsburgh, Pa.
Ninth Edition. 1971.
4. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources
Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Con-
tract No. CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
5. Iversen, R.E. Personal Communication, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North .Carolina.
December 8, 1976.
6. Barnes, T.M., A.O. Hoffman, and H.W. Lownie, Jr. Evaluation
of Process Alternatives to Improve Control of Air Pollution
from Production of Coke. Battelle Memorial Institute.
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for the Dept. of HEW, Contract No.
PH 22-68-65. January 1970.
7. Background Information for Establishment of National Stan-
dards of Performance for New Sources, Iron and Steel In-
dustry. Prepared by Environmental Engineering, Inc., and
Herrick Associates. Gainesville, Florida. March 1971.
8. Purdy, J.B., and R.B. Iden. Sampling of Coke Oven Door
Emissions. Preliminary Report. Prepared by Battelle
Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-1409, Task 34. May
1976.
2-8
-------
9. Study of Coke-Side Coke Oven Emissions. Draft report
prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc. for
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02- 1408,
Task No. 14, Volume 1. January 16, 1976.
10. Source Testing of a Stationary Coke Side Enclosure, Draft
report prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
for the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No.
68-02-1408, Task No. 10, Volume 1 (November 5, 1975).
11. Memo. Gas Cleaning Requirements for Coke Pushing Emissions -
Burns Harbor Coke Side Shed. From C.R. Symons, Bethlehem
Steel Corp., to P.O. Kostenbader, Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
January 17, 1975.
12. Emission Testing and Evaluation of Ford/Koppers Smokeless
Coke Pushing System. Prepared by Clayton Environmental
Consultants, Inc., for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0630, Volume I, Table 8.0-1 (May
5, 1976).
13. Jacko, R. Coke Oven Emission Measurement During Pushing.
Paper presented at Symposium on Fugitive Emissions, Hart-
ford, Connecticut. EPA 600/2-76-246. September 1976.
14. Appendix III to letter from Edward Roe, Great Lakes Carbon
Corp., to Don Goodwin, Environmental Protection Agency.
April 14, 1975.
15. U.S. Steel Corp. Clairton Works. Emission Tests of Shed on
Number 17 Coke Oven Battery. 1975.
16. Measurement of Coke Pushing Particulate Emissions at CF&I
Steel Corporation Coke Plant. Prepared by York Research for
CF&I Steel Corporation, Report No. 7-9167. October 4, 1976.
17. An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reductions
for Pushing Operation on By-product Coke Ovens. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. July 1976.
18. Personal communication with Carl Edlund, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Stationary Source Enforce-
ment, Washington, D.C. March 11, 1977.
2-9
-------
2.1.2 Iron Production
Emissions - Figure 2-2 depicts the general process flow in the
iron production industry, and Table 2-4 lists the emission
sources noted in the process flow diagram. Table 2-5, which
presents the estimated potential uncontrolled fugitive particu-
late emissions from the iron production industry, shows that the
potential fugitive emissions from sintering (discharge and cooler)
and blast furnace (upsets and tapping) are 99,450 Mg/yr (110,070
tons/yr) .
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - Fugitive particulate emissions
from sinter strand windbox leakage were considered to be negli-
gible by the AISI-EPA committee. This appraisal was confirmed
by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) estimates.
The fugitive particulate emission factor for the sinter
strand discharge and breaker considered by the AISI-EPA committee
is 0.35 kg/Mg (0.7 Ib/ton) sinter produced. This is based on an
assumption of 10 percent of the uncontrolled discharge and
1 4
breaker emissions measured and reported by AISI. ' Another
estimate, 0.55 kg/Mg (1.1 Ib/ton) sinter produced, made by MRI,
is based on 5 percent of an uncontrolled discharge emission
estimate of 11.2 kg/Mg (22.4 Ib/ton) reported by Schuenemoh. '
One of the particulate emission factors for sinter cooling
is reported as 1.5 kg/Mg (3.0 Ib/ton) sinter produced. The
method by which this factor was developed is unknown. The other
sinter cooler emission factor is 8.4 kg/Mg (16.8 Ib/ton) sinter
produced. This factor was developed from measurements of un-
controlled emissions in England.
The AISI-EPA committee is considering an emission factor of
0.01 kg/Mg (0.021 Ib/ton) iron produced for blast furnace slips,
based on a range of 0.0019 to 0.019 kg/Mg (0.0038 to 0.038
Ib/ton) in a Battelle report to EPA. Blast furnace tapping
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
2-10
-------
LUMP IRON ORE
IRON ORE FINES LIMESTONE MOW ORE FELLTTS
An
OR SHIP/BARGE
HOLTTN
PIG IRON
LEGEND:
^•POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
"-POINT SOURCE
FLUE GAS
(CO)
GAS CLEANING
STSTEM
Figure 2-2. Process flow diagram for iron production
showing origin of uncontrolled fugitive industrial
process and point source particulate emissions.
2-11
-------
Table 2-4. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE IRON PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
11.
13.
15.
17.
19.
21.
Ship or railroad car
unloading
Iron ore handling and
transfer
Limestone handling and
transfer
Coke handling and transfer
Blast furnace flue dust
handling and transfer
Sinter machine discharge
and screens
Sinter storage
Blast furnace charging
Blast furnace tapping -
iron
Slag handling
Slag crushing
2.
4.
6.
8.
10.
12.
14.
16.
18.
20.
Iron ore storage
Limestone storage
Coke storage
Blast furnace flue dust
storage
Sinter machine windbox
discharge
Sinter cooler
Sinter handling and
transfer
Blast furnace upsets
(slips)
Blast furnace tapping -
slag
Slag storage
Point sources
A.
Sintering
B.
Blast furnace
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources on
the previous figure.
2-12
-------
Table 2-5. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM THE IRON PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
Emission source
Sintering
Discharge
Cooler
Blast furnace
Upsets (slips)
Tapping
(cast house)
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor
kg/Mg
0.353
1.5a
o.oib
0.42b
Ib/ton
0.73
3.0a
0.021b
0.85b
1976 U.S. iron
production throughput
1000 Mg
36,300°
36,300°
75,200d
75,200d
1000 tons
40,000°
40,000°
82,900d
82,900d
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
12,700
54 ,400
750
31,600
99,450
tons/yr
14 ,000
60,000
870
35,200
110,070
KJ
I
M
U)
Recommended best available emission factor, Reference 1. Emissions per unit of
sinter produced.
Reference 2. Average of the range of given valves. Emissions per unit of iron
produced.
Amount of sinter produced. Reference 1.
Amount of hot metal (iron) produced. Reference 1.
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
-------
emissions are emitted through the cast house roof monitor. A
factor of 0.15 kg/Mg (0.3 Ib/ton) iron produced has been reported
by AISI test data and confirmed by EPA. Additional test data
show an emission range of 0.39 to 0.46 kg/Mg (0.78 to 0.92
Ib/ton) iron produced from the blast furnace cast house.
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
2-14
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.2
1. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Processes.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for Industrial Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park under Contract No. 68-02-2120.
Draft final report. August 25, 1977.
2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-010. March
1977.
3. Iversen, R. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
to PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. December
13, 1976.
4. Varga, J. , and H.W. Lownie. Final Technological Report on
a System Analysis of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 1969. p V-13
and 111-44.
5. Lindau, L. , L. Hansson, and B. Mansson. Fugitive Dust from
Steel Works. Solna. June 1976. p. 11.
6. Speight, G.E. Best Practicable Means in the Iron and Steel
Industry. The Chemical Engineer. March 1973.
7. McCrillis, R.C. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Labor-
atory. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to PEDCo
Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. January 12, 1977.
2-15
-------
2.1.3 Steel Production
Emissions - Figure 2-3 depicts the general process flow in the
steel production industry, and Table 2-6 lists the emission
sources noted in the process flow diagram. Table 2-7, which
presents estimated potential total uncontrolled fugitive parti-
culate emissions from steel production, shows the total uncon-
trolled fugitive potential to be 61,520 Mg/yr (68,250 tons/yr).
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - An estimate of 0.12 kg/Mg
(0.25 Ib/ton) hot metal has been made for the particulate emis-
sions from hot metal (iron) reladling (i.e., transfer)3; however,
no testing was done in the development of this factor.1 Another
estimate for emissions from hot metal transfer indicated 0.028
kg/Mg (0.056 Ib/ton) steel.1 This represents an average of eight
measurements taken at one plant by AISI, and the method of
sampling was not reported. Midwest Research Institute obtained
an estimate of 0.08 kg/Mg (0.16 Ib/ton) steel from an industrial
source (sampling methodology unknown).1'4 MRI also reports an
estimate by B. Bloom (no testing involved) of 0.1 kg/Mg (0.2
Ib/ton) steel.1
Fugitive particulate emissions from basic oxygen furnace
(BOF) charging and tapping has been estimated at 0.15 to 0.2
kg/Mg (0.3 to 0.4 Ib/ton) hot metal poured and 0.075 to 0.1 kg/Mg
(0.15 to 0.2 Ib/ton) steel produced, respectively.3 The method
by which these factors were developed is unknown. AISI has
reported an average of 15 measurements at one plant (test method
unspecified) for both charging and tapping to be 0.07 kg/Mg (0.14
-Ib/ton) steel and 0.14 kg/Mg (0.29 Ib/ton) steel, respectively.1
The AISI-EPA committee is considering a particulate emission
factor of 0.25 kg/Mg (0.5 Ib/ton) steel produced for fugitive
emissions from 'the BOF building monitor.5 This was based on AISI
data submitted to EPA. Another factor of unknown derivation is
0.6 kg/Mg (1.2 Ib/ton) steel produced for emissions from the BOF
building monitor. An AISI average of six measurements at dif-
ferent plants (test methods unspecified) for total BOF fugitive
rote; -tefer to sFatement of caution under Section 2.1.
2-16
-------
RAILCAK
FLUX
STORAGE
BINS
MOLTEN
?IG IRON IN
TORPEDOS
SCRAP STEEL
SCRAP STEEL
FLUX MATERIALS
) MOLTEN ('
PIG IRON
OXYGEN
BASIC
OXYGEN
FURNACE
(4)
SLAG
ALLOYING
MATERIALS
SCRAP STEEL
\
FLUX (5a)>.
MATERIALS ^ ;
MOLTEN (5a)
PIG IRON
OPEN-
HEARTH
FURNACE
(5)
LIQUID
STEEL
FURTHER
•LAC
--^-POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
—»-POINT SOURCE
Figure 2-3. Process flow diagram for steel production
showing origin of fugitive industrial process and point
source particulate emissions.
9-1 7
-------
Table 2-6. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE STEEL PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1. Scrap steel unloading,
transfer and storage
3. Molten pig iron transfer
from torpedos to charge
ladles (hot metal
reladling)
5. Open hearth furnace
5a. Charging
5b. Leakage
5c. Tapping-steel
5d. Tapping-slag
7. Ingot casting
9. Scarfing
2. Flux material unloading,
transfer, and storage
4. Basic oxygen furnace
4a. Charging
4b. Leakage
4c. Tapping-steel
4d. Tapping-slag
6. Electric arc furnace
6a. Charging
6b. Leakage
6c. Tapping-steel
6d. Tapping-slag
8. Molten steel reladling
Point sources
A. Basic oxygen furnace
C. Electric arc furnace
B. Open hearth furnace
D. Scarfing
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources on
the previous figure.
2-18
-------
Table 2-7. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM THE STEEL INDUSTRY
Emission source
Hot metal transfer
Basic oxygen furnace
Open hearth furnace
Electric arc furnace
alloy
carbon
Steel reladling or
casting
Scarfing
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor3
kg/Mg
O.lb
0.24b
0.084b
0.725b
1.85b
0.037C
0.0055°
Ib/ton
0.2b
0.49b
0.168b
1.45b
3.7b
0.074°
0.011°
1976 steel
production13
1000 Mg
75,200
72,500
21,300
5,400
15,400
57,300e
57,300e
1000 tons
82,900
79,900
23,500
5,900
17,000
63,200e
63,200e
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
7,500
17,400
1.800
3,900
28,500
2,100
320
61,520
tons/yr
8,300
19,600
2,000
4,300
31,400
2,300
350
68,250
Emission factors per unit weight of metal or steel processed or produced.
^ Best uncontrolled fugitive particulate emission factor as reported by Reference 1.
^ Reference 2. An average of any range presented in that document was used.
Production data from Reference 1, except as noted.
is reladled or cast in ingots and
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
-------
emissions is 0.16 kg/Mg (0.32 Ib/ton) steel produced. MRI
reported an estimate by B. Bloom for BOF fugitive emissions of
0.5 kg/Mg (1.0 Ib/ton) steel produced. MRI also reported a
total BOF fugitive emission range of 0.21 to 0.44 kg/Mg (0.42 to
0.88 Ib/ton) steel produced based on detailed skylight (monitor)
measurements in Sweden. ' These BOF's have primary hoods but it
is not clear if they were the open or closed type. Test data
for roof monitors in Sweden above the Kaldo process resulted in
an emission factor of 0.5 to 0.8 kg/Mg (1.0 to 1.6 Ib/ton) steel
produced. ' For both Swedish test series, the methodology was
not reported. Another relationship representing BOF fugitive
emissions has been developed based on multiple test data. This
relationship is E, kg/Mg = 0.545e°*00915P, where P = BOF capac-
ity, Mg (E, Ib/ton = 1.09e •0083p/ wnere p = BOF capacity,
tons).8
The AISI-EPA committee is considering an emission factor of
0.14 kg/Mg (0.29 Ib/ton) steel produced for fugitive particulate
emission from open hearth furnaces. This is based on AISI data
and confirmed by EPA. MRI reported a value of 0.084 kg/Mg (0.168
Ib/ton) steel produced based on AISI measurements in the roof
monitor at one plant. This is an average emission factor for
the entire cycle of one furnace. The device used to measure the
concentration is unknown, but the flow rate was attained by
velocity measurements through given areas of the roof monitor.
MRI cited a value of 0.055 kg/Mg (0.11 Ib/ton) steel produced, as
reported by an Ontario, Canada, control agency. The method by
which this factor was obtained is unknown. MRI also reported a
value of 0.44 kg/Mg (0.87 Ib/ton) steel produced, an estimate
based on 5 percent of the AP-42 uncontrolled stack (primary)
emission factor, assuming oxygen lancing. Measured roof monitor
values in Sweden for open hearth furnaces with primary controls
were reported as 0.23 to 0.3 kg/Mg (0.46 to 0.6 Ib/ton) steel
produced. The measurement techniques were not reported.
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1.
2-20
-------
Total fugitive particulate emissions from an alloy steel
electric arc furnace were measured by AISI as 0.725 kg/Mg (1.45
Ib/ton) steel produced. The measurement technique was not
reported. G. McCutchen estimated that fugitive emissions equal
10 percent of the uncontrolled total emission rate reported in
1 9
the electric arc furnace background document. ' This resulted
in an emission rate of 0.75 kg/Mg (1.5 Ib/ton) steel produced for
alloy steel and 1.5 kg/Mg (3.0 Ib/ton) steel produced for carbon
steel. Measurements of the canopy hood catch resulted in un-
controlled fugitive emission estimates of 0.45 to 0.75 kg/Mg (0.9
to 1.5 Ib/ton) steel produced. The method used to measure and
develop these factors was not presented. Measurement of a direct
shell evacuation system resulted in a fugitive emission factor of
1.8 kg/Mg (3.7 Ib/ton) steel produced. Full explanation of the
development of the emission factor was not available. In addi-
tion, several measurements of roof monitor emissions were made
for electric arc furnaces in Sweden, but the measurement tech-
niques were not explained. These measurements were 0.25 to 0.5
kg/Mg (0.5 to 1.0 Ib/ton) steel produced for furnaces with direct
shell evacuation and canopy hoods; 0.55 to 1.8 kg/Mg (1.1 to 3.7
Ib/ton) steel produced for furnaces with direct shell evacuation
only; 0.45 kg/Mg (0.9 Ib/ton) steel produced for furnaces with
only a canopy hood; and 14 to 16 kg/Mg (28 to 32 Ib/ton) for
furnaces with no primary or secondary controls. '
An emission factor for molten steel reladling or ingot
casting was estimated at 0.014 to 0.06 kg/Mg (0.028 to 0.12
2
Ib/ton) steel. This factor was estimated by assuming 50 percent
of the hot metal transfer emission factor range, because of the
2
lower carbon content of steel.
The AISI-EPA committee is considering an emission factor of
0.0055 kg/Mg (0.011 Ib/ton) steel processed for machine scarf-
ing. This factor is based on 10 percent of the uncontrolled
emissions reported by AISI.1'5 A factor of 0.0025 kg/Mg (0.005
Note: Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1
2-21
-------
Ib/ton) steel processed was estimated based on 5 percent of an
average of nine tests of uncontrolled emissions. The tests were
conducted by AISI. The measurement method is unknown in most
cases. An estimate of 0.025 kg/Mg (0.05 Ib/ton) steel processed
was made by G. McCutchen, based on 5 percent of the AP-42 stack
emissions. An estimate of 0.055 kg/Mg (0.11 Ib/ton) steel
processed for hand scarfing is based on an average of eight tests
performed on uncontrolled ducted emissions from machine scarfers.
Refer to statement of caution under Section 2.1,
2-22
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.3
1. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Processes.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for Industrial Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Under
Contract No. 68-02-2120. Draft final.' August 25, 1977.
2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-010.
March 1977.
3. Nicola, G. Fugitive Emissions Control in the Steel Ir.
dustry. Iron and Steel Engineer. July 1976.
4. Cowherd, C., Jr., and C.M. Guenther. Development of a
Methodology and Emission Inventory for Fugitive Dust for the
Regional Air Pollution Study. EPA-450/3-76-003, 1976. 84
pp.
5. Iversen, R. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. December 3, 1976.
6. Notes prepared by G. McCutchen. U.S. Environmental Protec-
'tion Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1976.
7. Midwest Research Institute. Particulate Pollutant System
Study, Volume III: Handbook of Emission Properties, 1971.
p. 163.
8. Mattis, R.P. An Evaluation of Charging and Tapping Emission
for the Basic Oxygen Process. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (Presented at 68th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollu-
tion Control Association. Boston, Massachusetts. June
15-20, 1975. Publication No. 75-15.1)'.
9. Background Information of Standards of Performance: Electric
Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry. Volume 1: Proposed
Standards. Emission Standards and Engineering Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-017a
October 1974.
-------
2.2 PRIMARY NON-FERROUS SMELTING INDUSTRY
2.2.1 Primary Aluminum Production
Emissions - Figure 2-4 depicts the general process flow in the
primary aluminum production industry, and Table 2-8 lists the
emission sources noted in the process flow diagram. Fugitive
emission rates for bauxite grinding, material handling, and anode
baking have been reported in AP-42. Fugitive emission rates
from prebake, horizontal-stud Soderberg (HSS), and vertical-stud
Soderberg (VSS) electrolytic reduction cells have been estimated
2
based on response to industry questionnaires. Table 2-9, which
presents uncontrolled fugitive emission estimates for the primary
aluminum industry, shows the potential fugitive particulate
emissions to be 52,470 Mg/yr (57,890 tons/yr).
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - The uncontrolled particulate
emission factors for bauxite grinding [3.0 kg/Mg bauxite proc-
essed (6.0 lb/ton)] and materials handling [5.0 kg/Mg aluminum
produced (10.0 lb/ton)] are contained in AP-42.1'3 The bauxite
grinding emission factor was developed by assuming it to be
equivalent to the emission factor for pulverizing phosphate rock
for the manufacture of wet-process phosphoric acid. The mate-
rials handling emission factor was assumed to be the same as the
materials handling emission factor in the copper industry.
Hence, although these emission factors are included in AP-42,
additional sampling would be helpful to substantiate them.
The uncontrolled anode baking furnace particulate emission
factor of [1.5 kg/Mg (3.0 lb/ton) aluminum produced] is also from
1 2
AP-42. ' This value, however, is based on a very limited
amount of testing and was supplied by a multiplant aluminum
2
producer. Again, additional testing would improve the relia-
bility of the factor.
The uncontrolled emission factors in AP-42 for the electro-
lytic reduction cells (prebaked, HSS, and VSS) include both
primary and fugitive emissions.1'2 Table 2-10 presents the'data
used to develop the AP-42 factors. The main data source was
"Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry."2 The
2-24
-------
SHIP AND BARGE
UNLOADING
LEGEND:
-^•POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
—HPOINT SOURCE
CRUSHER
AND SCREEN
1
CRUSHER
AND SCREEN
XD
[ MIXER
MOLDING
PRESS
®S
GREEN
ANODE
PIT
BAKING
FURNACE
i
©
(A1203)
1 '
9
•
•
(Na A1F )
FLUORSPAR VCaF,),
AND A1F3
UNLOADING i
STORAGE
V
LIQUID
PATCH
//
STEAM
CALCINED
PETROLEUM
COKE
\l
. I«*. ,
CRUSH-
ER
AND
srRFFK
.©
-------
Table 2-8. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Fugitive emission sources
1.
2.
Material handling
Electrolytic reduction cell
3a. Prebaked
3b. VSS Soderberg
3c. HSS Soderberg
2. Anode baking
4. Refining
Point sources
A.
Prebake electrolytic
reduction cell
B. Horizontal or vertical
stud Soderberg electro-
lytic reduction cell
a Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources on
the previous figure.
2-26
-------
Table 2-9. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
THE PRIMARY ALUMINUM INDUSTRY
•N)
Emission source
Bauxite grinding
Materials handling
Anode baking
furnace
Reduction cells
Prebake
HSS
VSS
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor*
fcg/Mg '
3.0b
5.0b
.1.5b
4.0C
10. lc
11. 2C
ID/ ton
6.0b
10. Ob
3.0b
8.0C
20. 2C
22. 4C
U.S. primary
aluminum throughput
1000 Mg
l,770d
3,800e
2,360f
2,360f
9709
480h
1000 tons
l,950d
4,200e
2,600f
2,600f
l,070g
530h
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
5,310
19,000
3,540
9,440
9,800
5,380
52,470
tons/yr
5,850
21,000
3,900
10,400
10,800
5,940
57,890
* Bauxite grinding expressed as kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of bauxite processed. All other factors
in terms of Mg (tons) of molten aluminum produced.
Reference 1 .
Reference 2.
In 1970, 11,800,000 Mg (13,000,000 tons) of bauxite were processed. Of this
^ approximately 85 percent was ground overseas before shipment to the U.S.
f .
Approximately 61.9 percent of the aluminum produced is by prebake cells
Reference 1.
* Approximately 25.5 percent of the aluminum produced is by HSS cells. Reference 1.
Approximately 12.6 percent of the aluminum produced is by VSS cells. Reference 1.
-------
Table 2-10. UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY
ALUMINUM REDUCTION CELLS
NJ
I
to
oo
Cell type
Prebake
ttss
VSS
Emission source
Total
Primary
Fugitive
Total
Primary
Fugitive
Total
Primary
Fugitive
Uncontrolled
AP-42*
kg/Mg
40.65
49.2
39.2
Ib/ton
81.3
98.4
78.4
Particulate
emission air pollution
in the primary aluminum
industry13
kg/Mg
47.2
43.8
4.0
49.2
39.1
10.1
39.2
22.0
11.2
Ib/ton
94.4
87.6
8.0
98.4
78.2
20.2
78.4
44.0
22.4
Factors
source test t
kg/Mg
5.95
Ib/ton
11.9
Reference 1.
Reference 2.
Reference 5.
-------
emission factors in this reference were derived from responses to
a questionnaire sent to the industry. It is not known how the
industry determined the emission rates reported on the question-
naires .
The AP-42 uncontrolled particulate emission factor for the
prebake cells is a weighted average of the factors presented in
References 2 and 5. The prebake factors in Reference 2 for
total, primary, and fugitive emissions represent a response from
60, 83, and 65 percent respectively, of the prebake production.
Because of this difference in data bases, the primary and fugi-
tive factors do not equal the total emission rate. Also, since
it is not known if the test data from Reference 5 separate the
primary and fugitive emissions, the AP-42 total uncontrolled
emission factor cannot be readily separated into primary and
fugitive emission rates.
The AP-42 HSS uncontrolled particulate emission factor was
taken directly from Reference 2. The factors in Reference 2 are
based on questionnaire responses representing 93 percent of the
HSS production. For this cell type, the sum of the primary and
fugitive factors equal the total emission rate; therefore -the
AP-42 uncontrolled particulate factor could be easily separated
into primary and fugitive emission rates.
The AP-42 VSS uncontrolled particulate emission factor was
also taken directly from Reference 2. The VSS factors in Refer-
ence 2 are based on less than three questionnaire responses, and
it is not known what percentage of the VSS production they repre-
sent. As in the case of the data for the prebake cells, the
primary and fugitive emission rates do not equal the total emis-
sion rate. Therefore, the AP-42 total uncontrolled particulate
emission rate cannot be readily separated into primary and fugi-
tive emission rates.
The controlled potline emission rates in AP-42 were calcu-
lated by applying the percent control efficiency to the total
uncontrolled emission rate. Hence the controlled emission fac-
tors appear to be those emissions that result from passing the
total (primary and fugitive) emissions through the control device.
2-29
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2.1
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No.
AP-42, Second Edition with Supplements 1-7. April 1977.
2. Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry,
Volume I. Prepared by Singmaster & Breyer, New York, New
York for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Publication
No. EPA-450/3-73-004. July 1973.
3. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. 1. Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. May 1971.
4. Commodity Data Summaries, 1977. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines. January 1977.
5. Source Testing Report: Emissions from Primary Aluminum
Smelting Plant. York Research Corp., Stamford, Conn.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number
Y-7730-B. June 1972.
2-30
-------
2.2.2 Primary Copper _S_me_lters_
Emissions - Figure 2-5 depicts the general process flow for
primary copper smelting and Table 2-11 lists the emission sources
noted in the process flow diagram. Table 2-12 presents the 1976
estimated fugitive particulate emissions from primary copper
smelting for the four principal process operations: roasting,
smelting, converting, and refining. This table also presents
U.S. domestic mine production of refined copper, from which an
estimated 19,977 Mg (22,024 tons) of particulates was generated.
Principal operations contributing fugitive particulates (and
taken into consideration in the fugitive emission factors)
include unit charging, leaking, tapping, and materials handling.
All fugitive emission factors listed in Table 2-12 have been
obtained from the document entitled "Technical Guidance for
2
Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions"
whereby an arithmetic average was normally made of any factor
presented as a range.
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - The only factor available to
estimate fugitive roaster emissions is 11.50 kg (23 Ib) particu-
lates per Mg (ton) of primary copper produced. The factor was
developed by material balance, using the same percentage (of the
total dust generated) that was used in estimating sulfur dioxide
fugitive emissions (13.6%). Actual fugitive particulate test
data are not available. This factor should be given a low reli-
ability rating, insufficient to be considered for AP-42 without
further test support verification.
An emission range of 4.15 to 4.35 kg (8.3 to 8.7 Ib) partic-
4
ulates per Mg (ton) of copper produced was established to
quantify reverberatory furnace charging, leakage, tapping, and
slag tapping emissions. The lower rate represents smelters that
use roasting to preheat the ore prior to smelter furnace charg-
ing; the higher rate represents smelters that do not use roast-
ing. Both are based on measurements reported by Kennecott
Copper Corporation, and it is not known if they were determined by
actual test or by material balance. Kennecott also reported a
2-31
-------
ze-z
H-
O ^Q
l"t C*
H- ht
3 M
CO 1
Ul
O •
HI
Hi 'y
C* ^
M C
rt •"
2 H- 30
33 3
cn 2
cn CD 3
H- a- s
§ i n
? 5- *
a
G 3E
33 S
1-1 a
3
i
i
^
3
;
S
°3
3QONV
5
m
•»
•« —
X
Kl
O
'VPN1
^
0
g"
«
-SI
i =
^ a
• a
W1
M
&
P
JO P
•fl p» f
r^ -^1 *•
> i-l 31
^ 1-1 r
a:
^
f
1 t
"B
5
g n •-!
n
H)>-'l
rWlTTICALLT
!
|
}
2
i
4
1
t.-
i
.gv
fa
— ©
/ta
—^-POTENTIAL
— ^POINT SOU
n e
H
nl
Si
\
)
LEGEND:
r
5
i — ""
i
90
a
i-i
i ^
3 u>
1 !_
^
_
f
p.
"7^
vs* f\
Of)/
g ^
^^
C/l
G « ^
XO
>•
^3 o58
3 3
•^
« 3 ^
sis
SS2
1 1 ©
— 1 -^
V
s
«
3 \g
§ S
^ a
90
§33
2
30 cn H
~* 2
3
•' '*• /^~
•* ll ^
Si 3
C M
7(?
n
30
R
"•^
>
/5jg|0
"VAE^r
Qi)
"Z®
)
)
« OJ^^^f..
-• — (5 E § = o 3
S > w
N
( 30
-j^=S S
*"*\s) 5
~»(m)
\
;
)
-0
—"•(a/
BLISTER COPPEK (981 Cu)
-------
Table 2-11. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
a
THE PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
11.
13.
15.
17.
19.
Unloading and handling of
ore concentrate
Limestone flux unloading
and handling
Roaster charging
Calcine transfer
Tapping of reverberatory
Slag tapping
Converter leakage
Blister copper tapping
Charging blister copper
to fire refining furnace
Slag tapping and handling
2.
4.
6.
8.
10.
12.
14.
16.
18.
Ore concentrate storage
Limestone flux storage
Roaster leakage
Charging reverberatory
furnace
Reverberatory furnace
leakage
Converter charging
Slag tapping from con-
verter
Blister copper transfer
Copper tapping and
casting
Point sources
A.
C.
Roaster
Converter
B.
D.
Reverberatory furnace
Refining
a Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources on
the previous figure.
2-33
-------
KJ
I
w
Table 2-12. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING INDUSTRY
Emission source
Roasting
Reverberatory smelting
furnace
Converter
Fire refining furnace
(anode furnace and
casting)
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor8
kg/Mg
11.50
4.25
5.25
0.95
Ib/ton
23.00
8.50
10.50
1.90
1976
U.S. primary cooper
production 1
1000 Mg
567b
1,288
1,288
1,288
1000 tons
625b
1,420
1,420
1,420
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
6,517
5,474
6,762
1,224
19,977
tons/yr
7,185
6,035
7,455
1,349
22,024
a Factors ware obtained from Reference 3, and are expressed in units per end product
copper produced.
Estimated on the assumption that 44 percent of industry uses roaster processing.
Reference 2
-------
factor of 1.26 kg/Mg (2.52 Ib/ton) of copper produced for esti-
mating fugitive emissions from fire-refining (anode) furnace
tapping and anode casting. Again, the measurement methodology
was not revealed. These factors are not believed to be adequate
for input to AP-42 at this time; however, if the test methods and
extent of testing can be verified, they may be considered accept-
able for AP-42 (with a low rating).
Phelps Dodge Corporation reports that baghouses installed to
capture particulates generated during the anode furnace cycle
collect anywhere from 0.45 to 0.68 kg/Mg (1 to 1.5 Ib/ton) of
copper cast.5 Inspectors from the New York City Air Resources
Department observed an emission rate (on a day basis) of about
0.57 kg/Mg (1.25 Ib/ton) of copper cast during tests conducted at
a specific Phelps Dodge facility in 1975. These factors must be
validated and clarified before being included in AP-42. Clari-
fication is needed regarding method and extent of testing and the
specific operations included in these emission factors. Addi-
tional data are also needed to substantiate these values.
The results of a 1-day test by the American Smelting and
Refining Company (ASARCO) of emissions from the anode furnaces at
their Tacoma copper smelter showed a particulate generation of
1.27 kg/Mg (2.8 Ib/ton) of copper input. Here again, extensive
information regarding how this measurement was derived is lack-
ing, and additional test results are necessary to support this
value. In addition, the Tacoma copper smelter is a custom-
designed facility and, for the most part, is not truly repre-
sentative for emission factor characterization.
An emission range of 1.6 to 8.85 kg (3.3 to 17.7 Ib) partic-
ulates per Mg (ton) of copper produced has been established to
quantify particulate emissions generated by converter charging,
leaking, tapping, slag tapping, and blister copper transfer. '
The lower rate, based on engineering judgment, represents an
estimate of the fugitive emisisons generated by converter opera-
tions at ASARCO's Tacoma copper smelter. The higher rate is
2-35
-------
based upon measurements reported by Kennecott Copper Corporation,
but the method of determination has not been clearly revealed.
Neither is felt to be adequate for incorporation into AP-42
without being justified by further testing.
2-36
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2.2
1. Schroeder, H.J. Copper - 1977. In: Mineral Commodity
Profiles (MCP-3). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Bureau of
Mines. June 1977. 19 p.
2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Number 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977.
3. Shannon, L.J. and P.G. Gorman. Particulate Pollutant System
Study, Vol. Ill - Emissions Characteristics. Midwest Re-
search Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Contract No. 22-69-104.
4. Personal communication from R.J. Heaney (Kennecott Copper
Smelters) to R.D. Rovang. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November
22, 1974.
5. Personal Communication from Phelps Dodge Corp., New York,
New York, to Don Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 21, 1977.
6. Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide and Arsenic Control Techniques
for ASARCO - Tacoma Copper Smelter. PEDCo Environmental,
Inc. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task Order No. 35. Cincin-
nati, Ohio. July 1976.
7. Evaluation of the Controllability of Copper Smelters in the
United States, Fugitive Emissions Section, Final Report
Draft. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-
1354, Task Order No. 8. November 1974.
2-37
-------
2.2.3 Primary Lead Smelters
Emissions - Figure 2-6 depicts the general process flow for
primary lead smelting, and Table 2-13 lists the emission sources
noted in the process flow diagram. Table 2-14 presents estimated
fugitive particulate emissions from the principal process opera-
tions in primary lead smelting. Based on estimated 1976 domestic
primary lead production of 612,000 Mg (675,000 tons) and a ratio
of 2 unit weights of concentrated ore to 1 unit weight of lead
metal, approximately 1,225,000 Mg (1,350,000 tons) is the assumed
quantity of concentrated ore (sintered material) on which sinter-
ing emissions are based. Hence, total annual particulate fugitive
emissions generated are determined to be 11,742 Mg (12,945 tons).
The greatest amount of processing fugitive emissions (almost
47%) results from the return handling of large amounts of re-
cycled sinter from the sinter machine for repelletizing and
mixing with fluxes, etc. prior to refeeding. Other major parti-
culate sources are the sinter machine discharge and sinter
crushing/screening, zinc fuming furnace vents, and reverberatory
furnace leakage, which contribute 8, 12, and 8 percent of total
fugitive emissions, respectively.
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - Primary lead smelting involves
essentially three steps: sintering, reduction (blast furnace),
and refining. Fugitive particulate emissions have been -quanti-
fied by limited test measurements at several processing points
within these three operations. Table 2-15 lists these processes
and the emission ranges, which have been determined by various
sampling devices over incremental periods of time. Further
support testing should be considered for verification of these
values.
Fugitive emission factors determined by engineering judgment
(using steel sinter machine leakage emission factors) are as
follows:
Sinter machine 0.12-0.55 kg/Mg (0.25-1.1
Ib/ton) of
2-38
-------
NJ
I
LO
— ^-POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
— *-POINT SOURCE
Figure 2-6. Process flow diagram for primary lead smelting showing origins
of uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point source particulate emissions,
-------
Table 2-13. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING PROCESS FLOW
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
11.
13.
15.
17.
18.
20.
22.
24.
Railroad car and truck
unloading
Limestone
3a. Storage
3b. Handling and transfer
Lead ore concentrate
5a. Storage
5b. Handling and transfer
Coke
7a. Storage
7b. Handling and transfer
Sinter machine
Sinter machine discharge
and screens
Sinter transfer to dump
area
Charge car or conveyor
loading and transfer of
sinter
Lead pouring to ladle
and transfer
Slag pouring
Slag granulator and slag
piling
Dross kettle
Silver retort building
2. Blast furnace flue dust
2a. Storage
2b. Handling and transfer
4. Silica sand
4a. Storage
4b. Handling and transfer
6. Iron ore
6a. Storage
6b. Handling and transfer
8. Mixing and pelletizing
10. Sinter return handling
12. Sinter crushing
14 . Sinter product dump area
16. Blast furnace - monitor
16a. Charging
16b. Blow condition
16c. Upset
16d. Tapping
19. Slag cooling
21. Zinc fuming furnace vents
23. Reverberatory furnace
leakage
25. Lead casting
Point sources
A.
C.
Sintering
Drpss reverberatory furnace
B. Blast furnace
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-40
-------
Table 2-14, ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM THE PRIMARY LEAD INDUSTRY
Emission source
Ore mixing and pelletiiing
(crushing)
Sinter machine leakage
Sinter return handling
Sinter machine discharge,
sinter crushing * sc-een-
ing
Sinter transfer to dump
area
Sinter product dump area
Car charging (conveyor
loading and transfer) of
•inter
Blast furnace (charging.
blow condition, tapping)
Lead pouring to ladle.
transferring, and slag
pouring emissions
Slag cooling
Zinc fuming furnace vents
Dross kettle
Reverberatory furnace
leakage ,(
Silver retort building
Lead casting
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor0
k«/Hg
1.13
0.3«b
4.50
X
0.75D
0.10
0.005
0.25
0.0775
ri
0.465°
0.2356
2.3
0.24
1.5
0.9
0.435
Ib/ton
2.26
0.68b
9.00
K
1.50°
0. 20
0.010
0.50
0.1550
J
0.930d
0.4706
4.6
0.48
3.0
1.8
0.870
Estimated 1976
U.S. primary
lead production^
1000 Mg
£12
1225C
1225C
1225C
1225°
1225C
1225C
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
1000 tons
675
1350C
1350°
1350C
1350°
1350C
1350C
675
675
675
675
675
675
675
675
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
692
417
5513
919
123
6
306
47
285
144
1408
147
918
551
266
11,742
tons/yr
763
459
6075
1013
135
7
338
52
314
159
1553
162
1013
608
294
12,945
Average of teat data prevented in Reference 1. All factor* are expressed in unit* per
end product lead produced, except sinter operations, which are expressed in units per sinter
or sinter handled/transferred/charged.
Average based on engineering judgment, using steel sinter machine leakage emission factor.*'5
Approximately 2 unit weights of concentrated ore input. Therefore, 1,225,000 Mg (1,350,000
tons) is assumed to be the quantity of concentrated ore input. The emission factor is ex-
pressed as units per unit weight of concentrated ore processed.
Reference 3.
Engineering judgment; estimated to be half the magnitude of lead pouring and ladling operation
emissions.*
2-41
-------
Table 2-15. PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING PROCESS POINTS
WHERE FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS HAVE
BEEN CONDUCTED
Source
Uncontrolled fugitive
emission factor
Ore mixing and pelletizing
Sinter return handling
Sinter transfer to storage
dumping area
Sinter storage dump area
Car charging (or conveyor
loading and transfer) of
sinter
Blast furnace (charging,
blow condition, tapping)
Zinc fuming furnace vents
Dross kettle
Reverberatory furnace
leakage
Silver retort building
Lead casting
0.57-1.70 kg/Mg (1.13-3.39
Ib/ton) of lead product
2.25-6.75 kg/Mg (4.5-13.5
Ib/ton) of sinter
0.05-0.15 kg/Mg (0.10-0.30
Ib/ton) of sinter
0.0025-0.0075 kg/Mg (0.005-0.015
Ib/ton) of sinter
0.13-0.38 kg/Mg (0.25-0.75
Ib/ton) of sinter
0.04-0.12 kg/Mg (0.08-0.23
Ib/ton) of lead product
1.15-3.45 kg/Mg (2.3-6.9
Ib/ton) of lead product
0.12-0 36 kg/Mg (0.24-0.72
Ib/ton) of lead product
0.75-2.25 kg/Mg (1.5-4.5
Ib/ton) of lead product
0.45-1.35 kg/Mg (0.9-2.7
(Ib/ton) of lead product
0.22-0.66 kg/Mg (0.43-1.30
Ib/ton) of lead product
2-42
-------
Sinter machine discharge, 0.28-1.22 kg/Mg (0.55-2.45
sinter crushing and Ib/ton) of sinter*'3
screening
Midwest Research, Inc., has assessed a fugitive particulate
emission rate of 0.47 kg/Mg (0.93 Ib/ton) of lead product as
being generated from lead pouring to ladle, transferring, and
slag pouring.3 Slag cooling fugitive particulates have been
estimated as 0.24 kg/Mg (0.47 Ib/ton) of lead product, based
solely on the former. All of the factors reported for lead
smelting/refining should be supported by initial or more exten-
sive test data before being submitted for AP-42 documentation.
2-43
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2.3
February 1975.
1077 n S Dept. of the Interior.
2. Commodity Data Summaries 1977. U.S. Dept.
Bureau of Mines. 1977.
Shannon. Handbook of Emissions,
Sources. 'Midwest Research In^ltu^' ractPNo? CPA 22-69-104
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract NO.
November 1, 1970.
' +-h u S Environmental Protection
A T\rgI*s6n/ R• t»• MSc t. A i * y ** ^ ( . ^ /•* Yi TJ'^^t'f^irs J\PITi 1
if 2nd l¥. 1976.0nu?S?eEnvironmental1|rotection Agency
Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
5. "
6. compilation of £*£%£ ^^^^.^c. of
Edition.^ U.S^Environmentaice ^ ^ Quality Planning and
?-42. Research Triangle ParK,
ouanucii JJ° • *• »^*-'-1-*-' 0-70
North Carolina. February 1972
2-44
-------
2.2.4 Primary Zinc Production
Emissions - Figure 2-7 depicts the general process flow for
primary zinc production, and Table 2-16 lists the emission
sources noted in the process flow diagram. Industrywide fugitive
particulate emissions from primary zinc production (1976) have
been estimated to be 1551 Mg (1710 tons). Table 2-17 presents
the sources of these emissions, along with emission factors used,
domestic primary zinc production (1976), and the estimated source
total emissions. These emissions are generated by only 58 per-
cent of total industry production. The remaining 42 percent, or
201,939 Mg (222,600 tons), of U.S. primary zinc is produced at
electrolytic plants, where the roasted ore concentrate is leached
with sulfuric acid rather than sintered, and no fugitive parti-
o
culates are generated.
The sources of fugitive emissions from pyrometallurgical
processing are sintering, mixing of coke with pelletized clinker
(before charging it into the retort furnace), charging, and
casting of molten zinc. Casting produces the major portion of
these emissions (nearly 34 percent of total fugitive particulates
generated), however, this percentage includes emissions from both
electrolytic and pyrometallurgical zinc processing.
Adequacy of Emissions Factor Data - Ore roasting, which almost
always precedes the numerous processes in primary zinc production
that involve ore concentrate zinc extraction, is generally not a
source of fugitive particulate emissions.1 Forty-two percent of
domestic zinc production is accomplished by electrolytic recovery,
which does not generate fugitive particulate emissions.8 The
pyrometallurgical method of producing zinc is the most signifi-
cant in terms of fugitive losses that occur in the industry.
This encompasses sintering, mixing coke with the pelletized
clinker (prior to charging into a retort furnace), charging, and
casting molten zinc. Fugitive particulates generated by sinter
machine windbox discharging are estimated to vary from 0.12 to
0.55 kg/Mg (0.25 to 1.1 Ib/ton) of sinter.3 Collectively, sinter
machine discharge, screening, and coke-sinter mixing emissions
2-45
-------
DILUTE
SULFURIC
ACID
LEACH
SOLUTION
COMCDmATED ;
J °^
CONCENTRATEL
©
(STORAGE J
^V .,<^ _, /r~\
ROASTER *
SAND
ZINC OXIDE ^'t'"' ~
CALCINE (ZnO)
ELECTROLYTIC PYROMETAL- ^
PROCESS R LURGICAL ~*
PROCESS _
T
I
.
4
5
RAILCAR TRUCK
^ , ^ ^7°
•
^RECYCLED
COKE j JGROUND SINTER
L 11 JOR ZINC SOLUTION
X^-^^s^X'sULFATE
"
XER
j
SINTERING
MACHINES
ZINC SULFATE
SOLUTION
BY-
PRODUCT
LEAD,
COPPER. SOLUTION
COLD * ' PUR1F1-
SILVER. CATION
CADMIUM,
, f
ELECTROL-
YSIS
SHEET ZINC
[MELTING FURNACE
®<
)
©
COKE
PELLETIZED
CLINKER 1
_L
• ZINC OXIDE MIXER
? 4®
1 ^ *
RETORTS
©
I *-• •-. 1
~ MOLTEN ZINC
_ ZINC CASTING *
SLAB ZIIIC
-
LEGEND:
— ^POTEMTIAL rociTIVI SOURCE
— ^POIMT SOURCE
Figure 2-1. Process flow diagram for primary zinc
production showing origins of uncontrolled fugitive
industrial process and point source emissions.
2-46
-------
Table 2-16. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSIONS SOURCES SHOWN
ON THE PRIMARY ZINC PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
6.
8.
Railroad car or truck
unloading
Sand
3a. Storage
3b. Handling and transfer
Sinter machine windbox
discharge
Sinter machine discharge
and screens
Retort furnace building
8a. Retort furnace tapping
8b. Retort furnace residue
discharge and cooling
8c. Retort furnace upset
2. Zinc ore concentrate
2a. Storage
2b. Handling and transfer
4 . Coke
*4a. Storage
4b. Handling and
7. Coke-sinter mixer
9. Zinc casting
transfer
Point sources
A.
C.
Roaster
Retort
B. Sinter machine
D. Electrolysis
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-47
-------
I
Ok
00
Table 2-17. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS PROM
PRIMARY ZINC PRODUCTION
Bnission source
Sinter machine wlndbox
discharge
Sinter machine discharge.
•creens, and coke-sinter
mixer
Retort furnace building
leakage and tapping
Retort furnace residue
discharge and cooling
line casting
Total
factors are expressed as
••-^ — . —
Uncontrolled 1
fugitive partic- Estimated H7K
ulate emission
factor*
Jcg/Mg
• ••!!•. . —
0.34b
0.75b
1.5d
0.625f
1.269
•MMWWWBMHM
unita pe
ID/ ton
0.68b
1.50b
3.0d
1.250f
2.52'
U.S. primary
_ zinc production9
1000 Mg
557. 7C
557.7°
278. 9e
278.9*
480.8
r end product tine pro<
Estimated uncontrolled
1000 tons 1 Mg/yr
614.8°
614.8°
307. 4e
307. 4e
530
., , -
190
418
418
174
606
1806
1 i •
a» noted.
tons/yr
— — — — — — — — —
209
461
461
192
668
1991
•
metal.
factor, are expressed as "its
"
unit
zinc
that fu^ltlve
or 530,000 tons,' was
^ich is similar to the
*inc casting are eoual to that from copper
-------
have been determined to range from 0.28 to 1.22 kg/Mg (0.55 to
2,45 Ib/ton) of sinter. ' These fugitive emission factors
actually represent sintering emissions from iron production and
are only assumed to be similar for zinc. Retort furnace building
leakage and tapping emissions are estimated to vary from 1 to 2
kg/Mg (2 to 4 Ib/ton) of zinc. Here again, this estimate
assumes that zinc retort building emissions are similar to the
primary lead smelting emissions on which it is based. Retort
furnace residue discharge and cooling emissions of 0.25 to 1
kg/Mg (0.5 to 2 Ib/ton) of zinc are based on observations at a
secondary zinc smelter, and therefore not entirely representative
of primary production. Zinc casting fugitive emissions are
estimated to be 1.26 kg/Mg (2.52 Ib/ton) of zinc, and again, are
not based on actual test emissions from the zinc operation, but
on emissions from copper casting.
Because they are based on engineering judgment and similar
operations, all of the emission factors reported require exten-
sive test support data before they are incorporated into AP-42.
2-49
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2.4
1. Personal communication from Mr. James C. Caraway of Texas
Air Control Board to R. Amick, PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,
during a meeting with the Texas Air Control Board. Austin,
Texas. October 6, 1976.
2. Personal communication from Mr. S. Norman Kesten, Assistant
to^the Vice-President, Environmental Affairs, ASARCO, to Mr.
Donald R. Goodwin, Director, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 17, 1977.
3. Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and AISI on Steel Facility Emission Factors, April 14
and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memoran-
dum. June 1, 1976.
4. Scheuneman, J.J., M.D. High, and W.E. Bye. Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Division of Air Pollution.
June 1963.
5. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investi-
gation, Interim Report. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. Con-
tract No. 68-02-1343. Seattle, Washington. February 1975.
6. Plant visit to the W.J. Bullock secondary zinc facilities,
Birmingham, Alabama. September 29, 1976.
7. Personal communication from R.J. Kearney (Kennecott Copper
Smelters) to R.D. Rovany, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. November 22, 1974.
8. Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary Copper,
Lead, and Zinc Industries. Executive Summary. PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Labor-
atory. Contract No. 68-02-1321. Cincinnati, Ohio. Novem-
ber 1976.
9. Comodity Data Summaries 1977. U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
Bureau of Mines. 1977.
2-50
-------
10. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Programs, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. February 1972.
11. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task No. 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977.
2-51
-------
2.3 SECONDARY NONFERROUS INDUSTRIES
2.3.1 Secondary Aluminum Smelters
Emissions - Secondary aluminum production involves scrap pretreat-
ment, smelting, fluxing, alloying, degassing, and demagging
(removal of magnesium). Chip (rotary) drying may be done -to
pretreat scrap containing large amounts of paint, oil, grease,
and other contaminants prior to loading into the smelting fur-
nace. Scrap rich in iron content is processed in a sweating
furnace before it is smelted. Fluxing, alloying, degassing, and
demagging can all take place within the reverberatory smelting
furnace, but this does not necessarily occur. Figure 2-8 depicts
the general process flow in secondary aluminum smelting, and
Table 2-18 lists the emission sources noted in the process flow
diagram. In 1973 fugitive particulate emissions from the in-
dustry were estimated to be approximately 1808 Mg (1995 tons),
based on total domestic scrap consumed (Table 2-19). This table
also presents the fugitive particulate factors used and the
estimated annual emissions per process source.
Production sources of significant fugitive emissions are
chlorine (most commonly used) fluxing and chip (rotary) drying.
The latter processes the bulk of the throughput of industry
scrap. Fluxing generates nearly 80 percent of the total fugitive
particulates in the industry, and chip drying generates about 12
percent.
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - The available fugitive par-
ticulate emission factors are not based on actual test data, but
are assumed, for the most part, to be 5 percent of the total
2
uncontrolled primary emissions. This is true for fugitive
emission factors shown for the following processes:
Sweating 0.36 kg/Mg of metal processed
(0.72 Ib/ton of metal processed)
Smelting (reverberatory) 0.11 kg/Mg of metal processed
(0.22 Ib/ton of metal processed)
2-52
-------
I
Ul
RAW MATERIALS
(SCRAP
ALUMINUM)
©
SWEATING
FURNACE
SCRAP ALUMINUM -
PIGS-
ALLOYING COMPOUNDS -
<
CHIP (ROTARY)
DRYER
SMELTING FURNACE
(REVERBERATORY OR
CRUCIBLE OR
INDUCTION)
SHIPPING
LEGEND:
^-POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
»-POINT SOURCE
Figure 2-8. Process flow diagram for secondary aluminum production showing
origins of uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point source
particulate emissions.
-------
Table 2-18. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
4.
6.
8.
Sweating furnace
la. Charging
Ib. Tapping
Smelting (reverberatory)
furnace
Smelting (induction) furnace
6a. Charging
6b. Tapping
Hot dross handling and
cooling
2. Crushing and screening
scrap metal
3. Chip (rotary) dryer
5. Smelting (crucible) furnace
5a. Charging
5b. Tapping
7. Fluxing (chlorination)
9. Pouring hot metal into
crucible
Point source
A.
C.
Sweating furnace
Crucible smelting furnace
B. Reverberatory smelting
furnace
D. Chlorination (fluxing)
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-54
-------
Table 2-19. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE
SECONDARY ALUMINUM SMELTING INDUSTRY
I
U1
Emission source
Sweating furnace
Chip (rotary) dryer
Reverberator/ furnace
Crucible smelting furnace
Electric induction furnace
Rot dross handling and
cooling
fluxing (chlorination)
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor3
kg/Mg
0.36^
0.36°
O.ll^
0.045^
0.045f '
O.llg
25. Oh
Ib/ton
0.72^
0.72C
0.22^
0.090^
^ o.ovo*'!
0.22^
50. Oh
1973 U.S. total
scrap consumed*
1000 Mg
51b
619d
569e
67e
34e
669
571
1000 tons
56b
682d
626e
74e
37e
737
631
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
18
223
63
3
2
74
1425
1808
tons/yr
20
245
69
3
2
81
1575
1995
Reference 4. All factors are expressed as units per unit of metal scrap processed.
1973 U.S. sweated pig consumption for secondary aluminum smelting.1
Assumed to be the same as fugitive emission rate from sweating furnace.
1973 total U.S. new and old scrap consumed, excluding sweated pig.1
Percentage of 1973 U.S. total scrap consumed by reverberatory, crucible, and electric induc-
tion smelting furnaces was assumed to be 85, 10, and 5 percent, respectively.
Assumed to be the same as fugitive emission rate from crucible furnace.
Assumed to be the same as fugitive emission loss from reverberatory furnace.
Factors are expressed as units per volume of chlorine used.
Since fluxing emission factor is based upon quantity of chlorine used, this volume is
assumed at 10 percent of the weight of metal processed in the reverberatory furnace.3
' Included are charging and tapping emissions.
-------
Smelting (crucible) 0.55 kg/Mg of metal processed
(0.09 Ib/ton of metal processed)
Fluxing (chlorination) 25 kg/Mg of chlorine used
(50 Ib/ton of chlorine used)
Emissions from chip (rotary) drying are assumed to be equal to
the uncontrolled emissions from a sweating furnace [i.e., 0.36
kg/Mg (0.72 Ib/ton) of metal processed]. Fugitive particulates
from a smelting (induction) furnace are assumed to be ^gual to
those from crucible furnaces [i.e., 0.05 kg/Mg (0.09 Ib/ton) of
metal processed]. Fugitive emissions from hot dross handling and
cooling are assumed to be equal to those from a reverberatory
furnace [i.e., 0.11 kg/Mg (0.22 Ib/ton) of metal processed].
None of these factors is believed to be significant or accurate
enough to justify incorporation into AP-42.
2-56
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3.1
1. Stamper, J.W. Aluminum. Preprint. 1973 Mineral Yearbook.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1975.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. April 1977.
3. Danielson, J.A. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. AP-40. May 1973.
4. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task No. 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977.
2-57
-------
2.3.2 Secondary Lead Smelting
Emissions - Figure 2-9 depicts the general process flow for
secondary lead smelting, and Table 2-20 lists the emission
sources noted in the process flow diagram. In 1973, 593,558 Mg
(654,286 tons) of lead were recovered from scrap processed in
the United States. Uncontrolled fugitive particulates were
estimated to be 4,250 Mg (4,684 tons) (Table 2-21). Table 2-21
also presents the uncontrolled fugitive emission factors used,
total domestic scrap consumed in 1973, and estimated annual
uncontrolled fugitive emissions by specific process source.
Approximately 75 percent of the fugitive emissions emanate
from blast furnace smelting and holding pot tapping because they
have the largest processed lead throughput. About 15 percent of
the total fugitive emissions result from reverberatory furnace
smelting of battery plates, drosses, and the like.
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - Three types of furnaces are
commonly used in secondary lead smelting: the reverberatory
furnace, blast furnace or cupola, and pot furnace. Two-thirds of
the output of secondary lead is processed in blast furnaces or
cupolas, and the balance is processed in reverberatory and pot
furnaces. Pretreatment of scrap before it is charged into the
reverberatory furnace involves burning (of wood, rubber, paper,
and plastics) and sweating (within a rotary or the reverberatory
furnace). A fugitive particulate emission factor of 0.8 kg/Mg
(1.6 Ib/ton) of scrap burned can be estimated for lead and iron
scrap burning/ • based on secondary zinc residual scrap processing
and 5 percent of the uncontrolled particulate emissions. An
emission factor range of 0.8 to 1.75 kg/Mg (1.6 to 3.5 Ib/ton) of
scrap charged has been determined for sweating (rotary or reverber-
atory) furnace fugitive particulates,3 also based on 5 percent of
the uncontrolled primary emissions from similar processes.
Reverberatory smelting furnace fugitive emissions may vary be-
tween 1.4 to 7.85 kg/Mg (2.8 to 15.7 lb/ ton) of scrap charged as
estimated from values reported by Radian Corporation.3 The
2-58
-------
RUCK
to
I
Ul
VD
LEGEND:
—••POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
—•••POINT SOURCE
I BURN CUT
I (OF WOOD,
RUBBER, PAPER,
[mo PLASTICS)
LEAD INGOTS,
ALLOYING
ELEMENTS
CLEARED
POT (KETTLE)
FURNACE
LEAD
LEAD
SWEATING
FURNACE
(ROTARY OR
REVERBERATORY)
' '
©
BLAST OR
CUPOLA
PURNACE
TO SHIPPING
Figure 2-9. Process flow diagram for secondary lead smelting showing origin of
uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point source particulate
emissions.
-------
Table 2-20. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1. Railroad car and truck
unloading
3. Limestone
3a. Storage
3b. Handling and transfer
5. Iron scrap
5a. Storage
5b. Handling and transfer
7. Sweating furnace
7a. Charging
7b. Tapping
9. Blast or cupola furnace
9a. Charging
9b. Lead tapping to
holding pot
9c. Slag tapping
12. Casting
2. Coke
2a. Storage
2b. Handling and transfer
4. Lead scrap
4a. Storage
4b. Handling and transfer
6. Lead and iron scrap burn-
ing
8. Reverberatory furnace
8a. Charging
8b. Tapping
10. Tapping of holding pot
11. Pot (kettle) furnace
lla. Charging
lib. Tapping
Point sources
A. Pot (kettle) furnace
C. Reverberatory furnace
B. Blast or cupola furnace
a Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-60
-------
Table 2-21. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING INDUSTRY
ro
Emission source
Lead and iron scrap
burning
Sweating furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Blast (cupola) furnace
and tapping of holding
pot
Pot (kettle) furnace
Casting
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor8
kg/Mg
0.8
1.275C
' 4.615d
6.0e
0.02g
0.435h
Ib/ton
1.6
2.550°
9.230d
12.06
0.04g
O.B70h
1973 total U.S.
scrap consumption^
1000 Mg
129b
129b
129b
521f
129b
5941
1000 tons
142b
142b
142b
574f
142b
6541
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
103
165
595
3126
3
258
4250
tons/yr
114
181
656
3445
3
285
4684
Reference 5. Factors are expressed as units per volume of scrap processed.
Processed is an assumed 16.5 percent of the total (1973) domestic scrap consumed.
Average based on 5 percent of the uncontrolled emission factors determined. Included
are emissions from charging and tapping.
Average based on 5 percent of the uncontrolled emission factors determined. Included
are emissions from charging and tapping.
Included are emissions from charging, lead tapping to holding pot, slag tapping, and
tapping of holding pot.
Processed is an assumed 67 percent of the total (1973) domestic scrap consumed.
Included are emissions from charging and tapping.
Factors are expressed as units per end product lead cast.
Domestic secondary lead supply (1973) recovered from scrap.
-------
factors, 6 kg/Mg (12 Ib/ton) and 0.02 kg/Mg (0.04 Ib/ton) of
metal charged are respectively attributed to blast (or cupola)
smelting furnace and pot (kettle) furnace fugitive emissions.4'3
Here again, these values are based on 5 percent of the total
uncontrolled primary particulate emission. Secondary lead cast-
ing losses are assumed to be equal to primary lead casting emis-
sions at 0.435 kg/Mg (0.87 Ib/ton) of lead cast.6 Without sup-
portive fugitive emission testing, these reported factors are
insufficiently reliable for inclusion in AP-42.
2-62
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3.2
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. February, 1976.
2. Ryan, J.P. Lead. 1973 Minerals Yearbook. U.S. Bureau of
Mines. 1973.
3. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary Nonfer-
rous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Profile. Radian
Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319, Task No. 49. Austin,
Texas. June 21, 1976.
4. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, Draft Final
Report - PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02- 1375,
Task Order No. 32. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
October 1976.
5. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task No. 33. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March
1977.
6. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investiga-
tion, Interim Report. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No.
68-02-1343, Task Order No. 8. Region X, Seattle, Washina-
ton. February 1975.
2-63
-------
•2.3.3 Secondary Zinc Production
Elnission-g " Fi*ure 2-10 depicts the general process flow in
secondary zinc production, and Table 2-22 lists the emission
sources noted in the process flow diagram. Uncontrolled fugitive
'particulate emissions generated from secondary zinc industry ^
production are estimated to have been potentially 429 Mg (472
tons) in 1973. Because information is not available as to what
proportion of scrap was consumed throughout the various process
schemes in zinc production, these values represent the maximum
uncontrolled emissions possible so as to present a "worst case"
condition.
Table 2-23 lists process sources, emission factors, 1973
domestic secondary zinc production, and estimated annual uncon-
trolled fugitive particulates generated. As indicated in the
table, the major source of fugitive emissions is distillation
processing, which accounts for approximately 47 percent of total
industry emissions.
Adequacy of Emission Factor Data - The three distinct processes
in the secondary zinc industry are pretreatment (i.e., sweating),
melting, and distillation. Zinc-bearing scrap may be sweat-
processed in reverberatory, kettle (pot), rotary, muffle, or
electric resistance furnaces, or not at all, depending upon the
degree of zinc purity. Clean scrap (high zinc content) and
residue skimmings (substances that form on the molten metal bath
surface) have been estimated to constitute approximately 25 and
35 percent, respectively, of the total zinc-based scrap consumed
in 1973. it has been estimated that emissions from skimmings,
which range between 0.5 and 3.75 kg/Mg (1.0 and 7.5 Ib/ton) of
residue processed, are generated during the pulverizing and
screening process stages.1 At small plants, zinc recovery from
clean scrap only is commonly done by electric resistence furnace
sweating. A particulate fugitive emission factor of 0.25 kg/ Mg
(0.50 Ib/ton) of scrap charged to the electric furnace has been
determined, based on estimated primary emission data1 and calcu-
lated as 5 percent of the total particulate generated. Table 2-24
2-64
-------
8ACNOUSE DUST
(ZINC OXIDE)
hJ
I
cn
tn
MM (SCRAP]
MATERIAL
CLEAN
SCRAP
f.
l«
W
*>
< "S
£)
*•)
\
V
\
->
'•)
-v
"•4
— *
?
REVERBERATOR!
SWEAT
FURNACE
KETTLE (POT)
SWEAT
FURNACE
ROT ART
SWEAT
MUFFLE
SVFAT
FURNACE
T
1
ELECTRIC
RESISTANCE
SWEAT
PURNACE
./
IX
f*b)
.'",
/.
/
e — «J
J>
V
1
,
\
(7)
/ ,
^
^
;J
^^
V*V
%.
(T^
\
CRUCIBLE
MFLTtHG
FURNACE
©
KETTLE (POT)
MF1 TTIIT
FURNACE
REVERBERATOR!
HELTIWG
FURNACE
ELECTRIC
INDUCTION
MELTING
FURNACE
/ „
f--\
®
r
' ^
S~\
^
f ^_
/
— »•
1^.2
i
\
#*
3«
^
iff,
ll
-i
•*«
*
S
9
«.
t (
1
DISTILLATION
RETORT
DISTILLATION i
1
©
•
•
ALLOTING
1 »<7l7>
• LJ£.(J«,
CASTING
LEGEND:
~*-POTENTIA
CONDENSOR
o
CONDENSOR
CASTING
Figure 2-10. Process flow diagram for secondary zinc production showing origins of
uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point source particulate emissions.
-------
Table 2-22. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1. Crushing/screening of
residue skimmings
3. Kettle (Pot) sweat furnace
3a. Charging
3b. Tapping
5. Muffle sweat furnace
5a. Charging
5b. Tapping
7. Hot metal transfer to melt-
ing furnaces
8. Crucible metling furnace
8a. Charging
fib. Tapping
10. Reverberatory melting
furnace
lOa. Charging
lOb. Tapping
12. Hot metal transfer to
retort or alloying
14. Muffle distillation
furnace and condenser
14a. Charging muffle dis-
tillation furnace
14b. leakage between furnace
and condenser
14c. Upset in condenser
14d. Tapping
Reverberatory sweat furnace
2a. Charging
2b. Tapping
4. Rotary sweat furnace
4a. Charging
4b. Tapping
6. Electric resistance sweat
furnace
6a. Charging
6b. Tapping
9. Kettle (pot) melting
furnace
9a. Charging
9b. Tapping
1. Electric induction
melting
lla. Charging
lib. Tapping
3. Distillation retort and
condenser
13a. Charging distilla-
tion retort
!3b. leakage between retort
and condenser
13c. Upset in condenser
13d. Tapping
5.
6.
Alloying
Casting
Point sources
A. Reverberatory sweat furnace B. Kettle (pot) sweat furnace
C. Rotary sweat furnace
E. Electric resistance sweat
furnace
G. Kettle (pot) melting
furnace
I. Electric induction melting
furnace
K. Muffle distinction furnace
D. Muffle sweat furnace
F. Crucible melting furnace
H. Reverberatory melting
furnace
J. Distillation retort
Humeral and letter denotations refer to
on the previous figure.
lission sources
2-66
-------
KJ
I
Table 2-23. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION
Emission source
Crushing/screening of
residue skimmings
Rotary sweat furnace
Electric resistence
sweat furnace
*«verberatory melting
furnace
Distillation retort
•nd condenser
Casting
Total
•••••MMMHHMi^NH^MM^^^MM!^^^
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
factora
kg/Mg
2.125b
0.45b'd
0.25d
0.0025d
1.18*
0.0075g
ID/ ton
4.250b
0.90b'd
0.50d
0.0050d
2.36f
0.0150g
1973 U.S.
secondary .
zinc production
1000 Mg
65°
171
46e
171
171
171
1000 tons
71C
188
51e
188
188
188
Estimated controlled
entiss ion«:
Mg/yr
138
77
12
^1
201
1
429
tons/yr
1
-------
Table 2-24. SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE SOURCES AND ESTIMATED EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Uncontrolled fugitive
emission factor
Sweating
Reverberatory furnace '
Kettle (pot) furnace1'3
Rotary furnace
Muffle furnace
Melting
Crucible furnace1'3
Kettle (pot) furnace1'3
Reverberatory furnace1
Electric induction
furnace1
Distillation
Distillation retort and
and condenser^
Muffle distillation 3
furnace and condenser
Casting
Neg. - 0.63 kg/Mg of zinc product
(Neg. - 1.3 Ib/ton of zinc product)
0.28 kg/Mg of zinc product
(0.56 Ib/ton of zinc product)
0.28 - 0.63 kg/Mg of zinc product
(0.56 - 1.26 Ib/ton of zinc product)
0.27 - 0.80 kg/Mg of zinc scrap
charged (0.54 - 1.6 Ib/ton of zinc
scrap charged)
0.0025 kg/Mg of zinc product
(0.005 Ib/ton of. zinc product)
0.0025 kg/Mg of zinc product
(0.005 Ib/ton of zinc product)
0.0025 kg/Mg of zinc product
(0.005 Ib/ton of zinc product)
0.0025 kg/Mg of zinc product
(0.005 Ib/ton of zinc product)
1.18 kg/Mg of zinc product
(2.36 Ib/ton of zinc product)
1.18 kg/Mg of zinc product
(2.36 Ib/ton of zinc product)
0.005 - 0.01 kg/Mg of zinc cast
(0.01 - 0.02 Ib/ton of zinc cast)
2-68
-------
lists pretreatment, melting,"and distillation process fugitive
emission factors and ranges, all of which are estimated as 5
percent of the total primary participate emission. In the
determination of total industry fugitive emissions, only those
^factors for selected processes (Table 2-23) were considered so as
to present a maximum uncontrolled emission as a worst case
situation. Actual particulate fugitive emission .test data have
not been reported for -secondary zinc processing operations.
2-69
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3.3
1. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of -the Secondary Nonfer-
rous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Profile. Radian
Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319, Task Order No. 49.
Austin, Texas. June 21, 1976.
2. Minerals Yearbook 1973, Volume I. Metal, Minerals, and
Fuels. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Mines
1973.
3. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Programs, Office of Air Quality Planning
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park
North Carolina. April 1977.
4. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task No. 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977.
2-70
-------
2 • 3 • 4 Secondar^Jrass/Bronze_jCogger_AlloY) Production'
Emissions - Figure 2-11 depicts the general process flow in
secondary brass/bronze production, and Table 2-25 lists the
emission sources noted in the process flow diagram. Fugitive
particulate emissions from secondary brass/bronze ingot produc-
tion have been determined for the pretreatment, smelting, and
refining of copper-based scrap. Table 2-26 presents these esti-
mated 1976 emissions. Total domestic fugitive particulate
generation in 1976 is estimated to have been approximately 766 Mg
{842 tons).
Production operations that contribute the greatest volume of
fugitive particulates are burning of insulation off copper wire
and reverberatory or rotary furnace smelting/refining. Of the
total scrap used for brass/bronze ingot production, 50 percent
is assumed to be pretreated. Of that 50 percent, insulation
burning is assumed to constitute about 20 percent. Reverberatory
smelting furnaces are assumed to process 40 percent of the total
scrap, and rotary smelting furnaces, 30 percent. Annual fugitive
particulates from the operations are estimated to be 275, 213
and 134 Mg (303, 235, and 148 tons) respectively.
^3Hac2L^LBSi«8ion_J^ctc^_D^ - Preparation of copper-based
scrap iron before it is smelted and refined for brass/bronze
ingot production may involve any of the following: sweating
xnsulation (wire) burning, rotary drying, and cupola furnace'
melting. The alternative is no preparation at all. Fugitive
particulate emission factors are unavailable for these processes
but factors are based upon 5 percent of the factor for uncon-
trolled stack emissions. The factor, 7.5 kg/Mg (15 Ib/ton) of
scrap sweated, was established by Midwest Research, Inc., for
controlled sweating furnace stacK emissions based on particulate
generated from aluminum and zinc sweating furnace operations 3
Mxdwest Research, Inc., also estimated that 138 kg/Mg (275 Ib/ton)
of w.re burned can be assumed as an uncontrolled particulate
erosion resulting from the burning of insulation of copper
2-71
-------
FLUXES OF
CHARCOAL,
BORAX SAND,
LIMESTONE,
CAUSTIC SODA
SCRAP
COPPER
K)
DRYING
(REMOVING OIL
AND ORCANICS)
/(
BURNING
yr INSULATION
FROM WIRE
D
LOW MELTING
TEMPERATURE
ELEMENTS
TIN AND
LEAD
COPPER
AND
COPPER
ALLOYS
LEGEND:
-^•POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
—»-POINT SOURCE
ALLOYING
ELEMENTS
OF LEAD,
TIN, ZINC
MELTING AND
SMELTING FURNACES
ELECTRIC
INDUCTION
FURNACE
REVERBERATOR?
FURNACE
ROTARY
FURNACE
CRUCIBLE
FURNACE
COKE
I
CUPOLA
FURNACE
P
®
©
MOLDS
CASTING OF
COPPER.
BRONZE,
AND BRASS
COPPER,
BRONZE,
AND BRASS
INGOTS
AND
CASTINGS
Figure 2-11. Process flow diagram for secondary brass/bronze (copper alloy)
production showing origins of uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point
source particulate emissions.
-------
Table 2-25. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE SECONDARY BRASS/BRONZE PRODUCTION PROCESS
FLOW DIAGRAMa
Fugitive emission sources
1. Sweating furnace
la. Charging
Ib. Tapping
3. Insulation burning
5 . Reverberatory furnace
5a. Charging
5b. Tapping
7. Crucible furnace
7a. Charging
7b. Tapping
9. Casting
2 . Drying
2a. Charging
2b. Discharging
4. Electric induction furnace
4a. Charging
4b. Tapping
6. Rotary furnace
6a. Charging
6b. Tapping
8. Cupola (blast) furnace
8a. Charging
8b. Tapping
Point sources
A. Electric induction furnace
C. Rotary furnace
E. Cupola furnace
B. Reverberatory furnace
D. Crucible furnace
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-73
-------
Table 2-26. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM 1976 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION
to
emissions source
Raw material preparation
Sweating furnace
Rotary dryer
Insulation burning
Cupola furnace
Smelting t Refining
Reverberatory furnace
Rotary furnace
Crucible furnace
Electric induction
furnace
Casting
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
factor"
kg/Mg
0.3Bc'h
6.88c'h
«.88d
1.83*'h
2.64f'h
2.22f'h
0.25f'h
0.07*'"
0.008C
Ib/ton
0.75c'h
13.75c'h
13.75d
3.66e'h
5.27f'h
4.43f'h
0.49f'h
0.14*'"
0.015C
1976
Brass/bronie ingot
•crap consumption'
percentb
10
5
20
15
40
30
15
15
100
1000 Mg
20
10
40
30
81
61
30
30
193g
1000 tons
22
11
44
33
89
67
33
33
213*
Estimated controlled
•missions
Mg/yr
7
69
275
55
214
135
7
2
2
766
Factors are expressed as units per volume of scrap processed, except casting which
expressed as units per volume cast.
tons/yr
e
76
303
60
235
148
8
2
2
842
is
b .
• — * — —re- — - ——•• »« — ..*•.-y «*%,* wf «.*^VK L.IIJL wuyu vet* j.vu0 px. uucSB incj • TnC pyronw tttl1*
lurgical processes for scrap preparation being; sweating, drying, burning, or cupola furnace
melting are assumed to pretreat approximately 50 percent of the total industry scrap. The
mechanical and hydrometallurgical methods are assumed to pretreatment the balance of the total
industry scrap. These methods are not considered since they involve little or no air pollution.
Assumption was made that fugitive particulate emission factor is equal to 5 percent of uncon-
trolled primary emission factor given in Reference 1.
Assumption was made that fugitive particulate emission factor is equal to 5 percent of uncon-
trolled primary emission factor given in Reference 3.
Average made assuming that the fugitive particulate emission factor is equal to 5 percent of
uncontrolled primary emission factor given in Reference 4.
Average of two sets of test data, assuming fugitive emissions being equal to 5 percent of
primary emission factor average given in Reference 4.
1976 actual quantity of brass/bronze ingot production.2
Include* emission from charging and tapping.
-------
wire. No emission test data are presented to substantiate the
latter value, nor are there any data to establish an uncontrolled
particulate emission factor from the rotary drying of scrap.
Some tests were conducted towards the quantification of particu-
late emissions from cupola furnace operations, and an uncon-
trolled primary emission factor of 36.6 kg/Mg (73.2 lb/ ton) of
scrap charged was determined.4
Melting, smelting, refining, and alloying of the processed
scrap material take place in reverberatory, rotary, crucible, and
electric induction furnaces. Here again, fugitive particulate
emission factors are unavailable, but factors can be estimated at
5 percent of the uncontrolled stack emission factor. Two sets of
1968 test data are available for measurement of primary partic-
ulate emissions from reverberatory furnaces.4 Test 1 revealed a
controlled (97.7% collection efficiency) furnace emission of 0.62
kg/Mg (1.24 Ib/ton) of material charged, whereas Test 2 indicated
a controlled (99.6% collection efficiency) emission of 0.32 kg/Mg
(0.63 Ib/ton) of material charged. Two sets of 1968 test data
have also been reported for rotary furnace particulate emissions.4
Results of these tests show a controlled {94.8% collection effi-
ciency) furnace emission of 0.78 kg/Mg (1.56 Ib/ton) of material
charged and an uncontrolled emission of 73.5 kg/Mg (147 Ib/ton)
of material charged. Test data for controlled gas crucible
furnace emissions have established factors of 0.12 kg/Mg (0.24
Ib/ton) of material charged and 0.42 kg/Mg (0.83 Ib/ton) of
material charged.4 These data are not directly applicable to
ingot production; rather, they refer to the brass and bronze
foundry industry, as does the controlled emission (test) factor
of 0.055 kg/Mg (0.11 Ib/ton) of material charged for an electric
induction furnace. The only particulate emission factor found
for casting [0.0075 kg/Mg (0.015 Ib/ton) of material cast] was
for zinc, and is not entirely representative of brass and bronze
ingot casting.
2-75
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3.4
r^n^MdiaiE?Vir0nmental Assessme*t of the Secondary Nonfer
reous Metal Industry, Volume II/III. Radian Corporation.
l! ^6f8-°2-1319' Task ^der No. 49. Austin, Texas.
2. Personal Communication between W. Maudlin and J.Thomas
Bertke, PEDCo Environmental, Inc. September 1977. Infor-
mation obtained from Copper, 1976 Annual Statistical
~~- of
3* F^ntr1^6 Pollutant Syst«m Study, Volume III - Handbook of
^ CPA 22r69eiLieSV MidWe^ Research Institute. Contract
NO. CPA 22-69-104. Kansas City, Missouri. May 1, 1971.
4. Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and Bronze Smelting and
^S1?? Industry- U.S. Department of Health, Education
MelaBealth S
2-76
-------
2.4 FOUNDRIES
2.4.1 Emissions
The foundry industry encompasses various metal industries.
Figure 2-12 depicts the general process flow in the foundry
industries, and Table 2-27 lists the emission sources noted in
the process flow diagram. Fugitive particulate emissions from
most furnace operations have been estimated as a percentage of
uncontrolled primary emissions as listed in AP-42.1 Fugitive
particulate emissions from subsequent operations have been re-
ported in various individual reports (as noted in Section 2.4.2).
Table 2-28 presents estimated uncontrolled fugitive particulate
emission from the gray iron foundry industry. Emissions are
calculated for the gray iron foundry industry only, because this
industry accounts for approximately 85 percent of the foundry
production. The potential uncontrolled fugitive particulate
emissions are estimated to be 106,719 Mg/yr (117,872 tons/yr).
2.4.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
Data concerning uncontrolled particulate fugitive emission
factors for the gray iron foundry industry will be forthcoming
from Midwest Research Institute under EPA Contract No. 68-02-2120.
This report will also include the sources and methods from which
the factors were derived.
Currently, the methods by which many of the factors were
obtained are unknown. Emission factors for the cupola, crucible,
open hearth, electric induction, pot, and reverberatory furnaces'
(shown in Table 2-29) were derived mostly from a percentage of
the uncontrolled primary emissions as listed in Reference 3.
Most of these factors were derived as 5 percent of the uncon-
trolled primary emission rate. Though this is a common practice
extensive testing will be necessary before these fugitive emis- '
sion factors can be considered adequate for incorporation into
AP-42. Several of the other factors listed in Table 2-29 were
derived from other sources (References 5,6,7, and 8), and the
methods by which they were obtained is unknown. Hence, these
factors also are not considered adequate for input into AP-42.
2-77
-------
/^
^CHARCIMC
^PREHEATING
RAW MATERIAL STORACE
(SCRAP METAL, METAL
DKOTS. ALLOTIHC ACEJTI,
run., con, ETC.)
LEGEND:
— «-POIKT SOURCE
na toaua
Figure 2-12. Process flow diagram for foundries
showing origins of uncontrolled fugitive industrial
process and point-source particulate emissions.
2-78
-------
Table 2-27. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE FOUNDRIES PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM**
10,
12.
14.
16.
18.
Fugitive emission sources
Raw material receiving and
storage
la. Unloading
Ib. Storage
Electric arc furnace
operation
Electric induction furnace
operational
Reverberatory furnace
operation
Pouring molten metal into
molds
Cooling and cleaning
castings
Core sand and core binder
receiving and storage
Core waking
Mold sand and binder
receiving and storage
20. Mold makeup
2. Cupola furnace operation
(charging, tapping, etc.)
3. Crucible furnace operation
(charging, tapping, etc.)
5. Open hearth furnace
operation
7. Pot furnace operation
9. Ductible iron innoculation
11. Casting shakeout
13. Finishing.castings
15. Core sand and binder
nixing
17. Core baking
19. Sand preparation
Point sources
A. Cupola furnace
C. Electric arc furnace
E. Electric induction furnace
^. Reverberatory furnace
B. Crucible furnace
D. Open hearth furnace
F. Pot furnace
2-79
-------
Table 2-28.
ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITTVE PANICULATE EMISSIONS FOR FOUNDRIES
I
00
o
Bmiasion source
— _
Cupola furnace operation
electric arc furnace
operation
Electric induction
furnace operation
*«verberatory furnace
operation
Pouring molten metal
into molds
Casting shakeout
Cooling and cleaning
castings
finishing castings
Core sand and binder
mixing
Core making
Core baking
Mold makeup
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
I factor8
*g/Mg Ib/ton
0.525
3.75
1.0
4.25
1.06
3.5
0.24
0.005
0.15
0.18
1.36
0.02
1
1.05
7.5
2.0
8.5
2.12
7.0
0.48
0.01
0.30
0.35
2.71
0.04
: L
1 " T
1
19
iron
J 1000 Mg~
"T ' • ' '• ' «
10,540b
2,982C
1,086°
l,090b
15,100b
15,lOOb
15,100b
15,lOOb
6,760d
6,760d
6,760d
L5,100b
h
76 U.S.
production
Estimated uncontrolled
- emissions
10°° ton9 J Mg/yr FTons/vr
ll,645b
3,280C
1,196°
l,200b
16,700b
16,700b
16,700b
16,700b
7,446d
7,446d
7,446d
16,700b
— -J_
— ' h -
5.534 j 6,114
11,183
1,086
4,633
16,006
52,850
3,624
76
1,014
1,217
9,194
302
I
12,300
1,196
5,100
17,702
58,450
4,008
84
1,117
1,340
10,127
334
1 ' 1- I | 106,719 1 117,872
b Reference 1. Mean value for any range given.
^ Tons of metal produced in 1976. Reference 2.
^ Tons of metal charged in 1976. Reference 2.
Ton. of .and used for molding In-1973. Reference 3.
-------
Table 2-29. FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
DERIVED FROM AP-42
Type of furnace
Emission factor
Cupola furnace
Crucible furnace
Electric arc furnace
Open hearth furnace
Electric induction furnace
Pot furnace
Reverberatory furnace
0.05-1 kg/Mg iron3
(0.1-2 Ib/ton iron)
0.05-0.3 kg/Mg of metal processed3
(0.1-0.6 Ib/ton of metal processed)
2.5-5 kg/Mg of metal charged
(5.0-10.0 Ib/ton of metal charged)
0.53-1.74 kg/Mg of steeled
(1.05-3.48 Ib/ton of steel)
0.05-0.45 kg/Mg of metal charged3'e
(0.1-0.9 Ib/ton of metal charged)
1.0 kg/Mg of metal charged3
(2.0 Ib/ton of metal charged)
0.75 kg/Mg of ironb .
(1.5 Ib/ton of iron)
0.2 kg/Mgf
(0.4 Ib/ton)
4.15-4.35 kg/Mg of copper3
(8.3-8.7 Ib/ton of copper)
Engineering judgment, assumed 5% of uncontrolled primary
emissions as reported in Reference 4.
Reference 5.
Reference 6.
Reference 7.
Reference 8.
Engineering judgment, assumed 50% of uncontrolled primary
emissions as reported in Reference 4.
2-81
-------
Table 2-30 contains emission factors that were obtained from
sources other than AP-42, but as the footnotes indicate, in most
cases their derivation is unknown. The source of these factors
must be verified before they can be considered for input into
AP-42. Emission factors based on limited testing and engineering
judgment must also undergo more extensive testing before being
considered adequate for inclusion in AP-42.
2-82
-------
Table 2-30. FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
DERIVED FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN AP-42
Source of emission
Emission factor
Ductile iron innoculation
Pouring molten metal
into molds
Casting shakeout
Cooling and cleaning
castings
Finishing castings
Core sand and binder nixing
Core waking
Core baking
Mold makeup
1.65-2.3 kg/Mg of irona'b'c
(3.3-4.5 Ib/ton of iron)
0.05-2.07 kg/Mg of gray iron
(0.1-4.13 Ib/ton of gray iron)
1.26 kg/Mg of copper6
(2.52 Ib/ton of copper)
0.47 kg/Mg of lead®
(0.93 Ib/ton of lead)
0.6-6.4 kg/Mg of irona'f
(1.2-12.8 Ib/ton of iron)
a,c,d
a,f
0.08-0.4 kg/Mg of iron castings
(0.16-0.8 Ib/ton of iron castings)
0.005 kg/Mg iron castings5
(0.01 Ib/ton iron castings)
0.15 kg/Mg of »andg
(0.3 Ib/ton of «and) _
0.38-4.12 kg/Mg of iron*'1
(0.75-8.24 Ib/ton of iron)
0.18 kg/Mg of cores9
(0.35 Ib/ton of cores)
0.015-2.7 kg/Mg of coresf'h
(0.03-5.4 Ib/ton of cores)
0.02 kg/Mg iron castings
0.04 Ib/ton iron castings)
Reference 6. Derivation of emission factor is unknown.
Reference 7. Derivation of emission factor is unknown.
Reference 9. Limited testing including loelting, pouring,
and innoculation.
Reference 10. Derivation of emission factor is unknown.
Reference 11. Derivation of emission factor is unknown.
Reference 12. Derivation of emission factor is unknown.
* Reference 5. Derivation of emission factor is unknown.
Engineering judgment, assumed all uncontrolled emissions as
reported in Reference 13, as fugitive.
2-83
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4
°f Industrial Process Fugi-
Environmental, Inc.
cnMat. «™ , c.
January 1977.
3.
ss
April 1977. ^search Triangle Park, North Carolina
h
Carolina. May 1971. --104. Durham, North
Modern
nyrepredorS ' ''
Agency. PB 204 172? ?eb?ufry ^^_Envlr°™»™tal Protection
ac
and 15 3 q?c » c * aciiy Emission Factors, April
19 S Protection Ag.ioyP
2-84
-------
9. Maillard, Michael. Roof Ventilation Emission Study at a
Foundry. Wayne County Department of Health, Air Pollution
Control Division. Detroit. October 1976.
10. Kalika, P.W. Development of Procedures for Measurement of
Fugitive Emissions. The Research Corporation of New England.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. 68-02-1815. July 1975.
11. Systems Study for Control of Emissions, Primary Nonferrous
Smelting Industry. Arthur G. McKee and Company. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Division
of Process Control Engineering. Contract PH 86-65-85. June
1969.
12. Scott, William D. and Charles E. Bates. Measurement of Iron
Foundry Fugitive Emissions. Presented at Symposium on
Fugitive Emissions: Measurement and Control. Hartford
Connecticut. May 18, 1976. '
13. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition. Danielson,
J.A. (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
-Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1973.
2-85
-------
2.5 MINERALS EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION
2.5.1 Emissions
Figure 2-13 depicts the general process flow in the minerals
extraction industry, and Table 2-31 lists the emission sources
noted in the process flow diagram. The minerals extraction
industry encompasses a multitude of different mining operations.
In this report, however, emissions are calculated for surface
coal mining and crushed stone extraction only, and Tables 2-32
and 2-33 present estimates of uncontrolled fugitive emissions
from the surface coal and crushed stone industries. Potential
fugitive particulate emissions generated by the surface mining of
251,194,000 Mg (276,645 tons) of coal in 1973 are estimated to be
119,381 Mg (131,475 tons). Potential uncontrolled fugitive
particulate emissions generated by the extraction of 961,155,000
Mg (1,058,541 tons) of stone in 1973 are estimated to be 529,020
Mg (582,621 tons).
2.5.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
The emission factor for overburden removal of 0.0004 and
0.225 kg/Mg (0.0008 and 0.45 Ib/ton) of ore are derived from
separate sources. The lower emission rate is an estimate for an
open pit copper mine, whereas the higher rate is derived from a
comparison with tests conducted around construction sites and
aggregate handling systems.2 Neither factor is now acceptable
for inclusion in AP-42. Comparison with construction site or
aggregate handling is not acceptable as a source, the emission
factor for open pit copper mining will have to be substantiated
further as to the extent and type of testing performed.
The emission factor of 0.0005 kg/Mg (0.001 Ib/ton) for
drilling and blasting is based on a personnel observation5 and
is therefore not adequate to be included in AP-42. The drilling
and blasting emission factor of 0.08 kg/Mg (0.16 Ib/ton) is
derived from limited testing at a granite quarry.6 with more
extensive testing this factor may be substantiated as a factor
for AP-42, in reference to granite quarries.
2-86
-------
OVERBURDEN
REMOVAL
DRILLING
AND
BLASTING
DUMPING OF DRAGLINE
BUCKETS OR SHOVELS
OPERATION OF SCRAPERS
AND BULLDOZERS
-
ORE
LOADING
HAUL ROAD
TRUCK
TRANSPORT
SCOOPING OF LOADING SHOVEL
DUMPING SHOVEL
TRUCK MOVEMENT
i
m
Xs) A
TRUCK
DUMPING
PRIMARY
CRUSHING
\' •'
yf<
SECONDARY
CRUSHING/
SCREENING
» ^
00
HEATING, COOLDKJ,
-J AND/OR I—
CHEMICAL PROCESSES
ORE
LOADING
-RAIL
L-TRUCK
LSHIP OR
BARGE
STORAGE
LAND
RECLAMATION
WASTE
DISPOSAL
LEGEND:
-^POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
-TAILINGS
-LOW GRADE ORE
-SLACK COAL
-COAL SLURRY
Figure 2-13. Process flow diagram for material extraction and beneficiation
showing origin of uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point
source particulate emissions.
-------
Table 2-31. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE MATERIAL EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION PROCESS FLOW
DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1. Overburden removal
3. Ore loading
5. Truck dumping
7. Transfer and conveying
9. Waste disposal
11. Land reclamation
2.
4.
6.
8.
Drilling and blasting
Haul road truck transport
Primary crushing
Secondary crushing/
screening
10. Storage
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
.2-88
-------
to
I
00
Table 2-32. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
FOR THE SURFACE COAL MINING INDUSTRY
Emission source
Overburden removal
Drilling and blasting
Coal loading
Coal unloading
Primary crushing
Transfer and conveying
Secondary crushing/
•creening
Waste disposal
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission*
kg/Mg
0.225°
0.0005d
0.05°
0.01f
o.oig
o.ih
0.089
i
Ib/ton
0.45°
0.001d
0.10C
0.02f
0.029
0.2h
0.16g
i
1973
Bituminous and lignite
coal production"
1000 Mg
251,194
125,597e
251,194
251,194
251,194
251,194
251,194
1000 tons
276,645
138,323s
276,645
276,645
276,645
276,645
276,645
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
56,519
63
12,560
2,512
2,512
25,119
20,096
119,381
tons/yr
62,245
69
13,832
2,766
2,766
27,665
22,132
131,475
Reference 11.
Strip mined coal only, Reference 1.
Emission factor is on a per ton of coal mined basis, Reference 2.
Reference 5. Estimate based on visual observation at open pit copper mine.
Assume only 50% of coal is blasted.
Reference 2. Estimated by reducing the EPA published emission factor for unloading crushed
rock to account for the larger size of coal and its higher moisture content.
Reference 3. Estimate based on total loss of 0.02 percent for rock crushing operation.
Reference 4. Proportioned from a total fugitive emission factor of 0.22 kg/Mg (0.44 Ib/ton)
for western surface coal mines.
Site •pacific problem, emissions cannot be quantified for the industry as a whole.
-------
Table 2-33. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE FUGITIVE EMISSIONS IN THE
CRUSHED STONE INDUSTRY
N)
I
Emission source
Overburden removal
Drilling and blasting
Rock loading
Truck unloading
Primary crushing
Transfer and conveying
Secondary crushing/
screening
Waste disposal
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission8
kg/Mg
0.0004°
0.08d
0.0256
0.02f
0.25g
0.0751
1
Ib/ton
0.0008°
0.16d
0.05*
0.04f
0.59
0.151
...
1
1973
total crushed stone
^production**
1000 Mg
961,155
961,155
961,155
961,155
961,155
961,155
961,155
-
1000 tons
1,058,541
1,058,541
1,058,541
1,058,541
1,058,541
1,058,541
1,058,541
-
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
384
76,892
24,029
19,223
48,058h
72,087
L
288,347*
-
529,020
tons/yr
423
84,683
26,464
21,171
52,927h
79,391
L.
317,562K
-
582,621
Reference 11.
Reference 1.
Reference 5.
Reference 6. Estimate for granite drilling of 0.0004 kg/Mg (0.0008 Ib/ton) and 0.08 kg/Mg
(0.16 Ib/ton) for granite blasting.
Reference 7. Estimate from sampling of crushed rock by plant end loader.
Reference 8. Estimate for dumping crushed rock onto storage piles.
Reference 9. Includes both stack and fugitive emissions, 80% of which falls out on plant
property.
Represents a 80% fall out on plant property.
References 2 and 10.
90% control.
Based on reported industry estimates of 0.075 kg/Mg (0.15 Ib/ton) with
Reference 9. Includes stack and fugitive emissions, 60% of which falls out on plant property.
Represents a 60% fall out on plant property.
Site specific, cannot be estimated for the industry as a whole.
-------
Both emission factors for ore loading, negligible to 0.05
kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton), were obtained from limited testing at a
f\ *)
granite quarry and a coal mine. Only with more extensive
testing can these factors be considered adequate for inclusion in
• AP-42. The emission factor listed for loading of rock, 0.025
kg/Mg (0.05 Ib/ton) is derived from limited source testing. More
extensive testing is needed to substantiate this factor before it
is incorporated into AP-42.
Neither of the emission factors given for truck dumping is
acceptable for AP-42. The lower factor, 0.00017 kg/Mg (0.00034
Ib/ton) of ore dumped, is derived from limited testing at a
granite quarry. The higher factor, 0.02 kg/Mg (0.04 Ib/ton) of
ore dumped, represents a percentage (12%) of the estimated total
emissions given in Reference 4. Only further testing can sub-
stantiate these factors. The lower emission factors for coal and
copper also require detailed testing before their value can be
determined. The emission factor listed for truck dumping of
copper ore and coal is estimated from limited testing at a rock
quarry. This emission factor is therefore not considered ade-
quate for AP-42 for either copper or a coal dumping.
Fugitive emission rates for primary crushing were obtained
from two sources. The factor of 0.25 kg/Mg (0.5 Ib/ton) is now
listed under stone crushing in AP-429 and has a rating of C.
Further testing is needed to improve this rating. The factor
listed for coal crushing3 is not adequate for AP-42 inclusion
because the type and extent of testing used to derive this factor
are unknown.
All emission factors listed for transfer and conveying were
derived from limited testing at a granite quarry6 and coal mine.4
It is now believed that these sources were not sufficiently
tested for the emission factors to be included in AP-42. More
extensive testing is suggested to substantiate these factors.
2-91
-------
The emission factor of 0.75 kg/Mg (1.5 Ib/ton) of rock
crushed now contained in AP-42 has a rating of C.9 Limited
testing at a granite quarry indicated emissions to be 0.022 kg/Mg
(0.044 Ib/ton). More extensive testing could improve the pre-
vious rating of the AP-42 factor and further substantiate the
factor for secondary granite crushing and screening. The emis-
sion factor for secondary crushing and screening of coal [0.08
kg/Mg (0.16 Ib/ton) of coal crushed] is derived from .a material
balance. Extensive testing would be required before its incor-
poration into AP-42.
The emission factor of negligible to 3.23 Mg/1000 m2 per
year (14.4 ton/acre per year) for waste disposal is derived from
a factor listed in AP-42 for a heavy construction site.9 This is
not considered adequate for waste disposal emissions. Extensive
testing will be required to develop a specific emission factor
for each type of waste disposal.
2-92
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.5
1. Minerals Yearbook 1973, Volume I, Metals, Minerals, and
Fuels. Bureau of Mines, United States -Department of the
Interio. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.
1975.
2. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory/REDHD, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract
No. 68-02-1321, Task No. 36. June 1976.
3. Air Emission Sources from a Lurgi Dry-Ash Gasification
Facility Using Lignite Coal. In: North Dakota Air Quality
Maintenance Area Analysis. Appendix B. PEDCo Environmen-
tal, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order
19. Denver, Colorado. March 1976.
4. Air Pollutant Emissions in the Northwest Colorado Coal
Development Area. Environmental Research and Technology.
Westlake Village, California. 1975.
5. Emissions Estimates for the Berkeley Pit Operations of
Anaconda Company. PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Montana Air Quality Bureau. Helena,
Montana. September 1975.
6. Chalekode, P.K. and J.A. Peters, Assessment of Open Sources.
Monsanto Research Corporation. Dayton, Ohio. (Presented at
Third National Conference on Energy and the Environment.
College Corner, Ohio. October 1, 1975.) 9 p.
7. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Publication Number EPA-450/3-74-037
June 1974.
8. Supplement No. 5 for Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions
Factors. Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April 1975
2-93
-------
9. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. February 1976.
10. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations—Appendix, Final
Report, Task No. 10. Monsanto Research Corporation.
Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1975.
11. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial"Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management and Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Contract No. 68-02-
1375, Task No. 33. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
March 1977.
2-94
-------
2.6 GRAIN ELEVATORS
2.6.1 Emissions
Figure 2-14 depicts the general process flow in the grain
.elevator industry, and Table 2-34 lists the emission sources
noted in the process flow diagram. Uncontrolled particulate
emission rates reported for country, terminal, and export grain
elevators in AP-42 were used to estimate the 1973 total uncon-
trolled fugitive industry emission [1,238,127 Mg (1,364,803
tons)] shown in Table 2-35. Presented within this table are the
emission factors, the total domestic grain production (1973), and
the estimated particulate generated by specific process (e.g.,
unloading, loading, drying) operations. Headhouse emissions
contribute the bulk of the grain industry elevator uncontrolled
emissions (nearly 50 percent), followed by those (nearly 25
percent) generated by grain removal from the bins by tunnel belt.
2.6.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
Grain elevators are classified as country, terminal, and
export, according to their purpose and location. Country ele-
vators operate principally during harvest season and hold grain
only till a market is found to sell to terminals, exporters,
and/or processors. Terminal elevators are large elevators that
operate the year round. Export elevators are similar to term-
inals except that their main function is to load grain onto ships
for export. Grain elevator particulate emissions (considered
wholly fugitive) can occur from many different operations within
any of the three elevator types described, including unloading
(receiving), loading (shipping), drying, cleaning, headhouse
(bagsj^tunnel belt, gallery belt, and belt trippers. Emission
factors determined for these operations are presented in Table
2-36, along with the incorporated multipliers that were used to
represent a typical ratio of throughput to the amount of grain
2-95
-------
TRUCK
I KAIL CAR]
CEIVING
GRAIN
DISTRIBUTOR
AND TRIPPERS
LEGEND:
—^-POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
—**PINT SOURCE
LOADING ' GRAIN
Figure 2-14. Process flow diagram for country and terminal
grain elevators, showing origins of fugitive industrial
process and point source particulate emissions.
2-96
-------
Table 2-34. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE GRAIN ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
3,
4.
5,
3
4,
5.
I. Terminal Elevators
Receiving
Truck unloading
Railcar unloading
Barge unloading
Screening and cleaning
Drying
Shipping
Receiving
2. Transferring and conveying
2a. Receiving elevator leg
and elevator head
2b. Garner and scale vents
2c. Distributor, trippers
2d. Storage bin vents
2e. Turning
II. Country Elevators
Truck unloading
Railcar unloading
Barge unloading
Screening and cleaning
Drying
Shipping
Truck loading
Railcar loading
Barge loading
2. Transferring and conveying
which includes following:
2a. Receiving elevator leg
and head
2b. Garner and scale vents
2c. Distributor, trippers
and spouting
2d. Storage bin vents
2e. Turning
Point sources
A. Screens and cleaners
B. Dryers
a
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-97
-------
I
U>
00
Table 2-35. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM DOMESTIC FEED AND GRAIN ELEVATORS
End. SB ion source
Terminal elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
(tunnel belt)
Drying
Cleaning
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
Drying
Cleaning
Headhouse (legs)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
(tunnel belt)
Drying
Cleaning
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partlc-
ulate emission
factor*
kg/Mg
0.5
0.15
1.4
0.05
0.3
2.25
0.85
0.3
0.15
1.05
0.1
0.15
2.35
0.5
0.5
0.85
0.005
0.3
1.65
0.55
Ib/ton
1.0
0.30
2.8
0.10
0.6
4.50
1.70
0.6
0.30
2.10
0.2
0.30
4.70
1.0
1.0
1.70
0.010
0.6
3.30
1.10
1973 U.S.
grain fa
production
1000 Mg
47,762
47,762
47,762
47,762
47,762
47,762
47,762
157,335
157,335
157,335
157,335
157,335
157,335
75,858
75,858
75,858
75,858
75,858
75,858
75,858
1000 tons
52,649
52,649
52,649
52,649
52,649
52,649
52,649
173,432
173,432
173,432
173,432
173,432
173,432
83,619
83,619
83,619
83,619
83,619
83,619
83,619
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
23,881
7,164
66,867
2,388
14,329
107,465
40,598
47,201
23,600
165,202
15,734
23,600
369,737
37,929
37,929
64,479
379
22,757
125,166
41,722
1,238,127
tons/yr
26,325
7,897
73,709
2,632
15,795
118,460
44,752
52,030
26,015
182,104
17,343
26,015
407,565
41,810
41,810
71,076
418
25,086
137,971
45,990
1,364,803
Reference 3. Factors are expressed as units per weight of grain received or shipped.
Of the 280,955,114 Mg (309,700,000 tons) total domestic grain produced (1973), 56, 17, and
27 percent was handled by country elevators, inland terminals, and port (or export) terminals,
respectively.1• 2
-------
Table 2-36. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAIN ELEVATORS BASED ON AMOUNT
OF GRAIN RECEIVED OR SHIPPED3
I
vo
Type of source
Terminal elevators
Unloading (receiving
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
(tunnel belt)
Drying
Cleaning
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery
belt)
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
Dryingb
Cleaning
Headhouse (bags)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
(tunnal belt)
Dryingb
Cleaning
Headhouse (lags)
Tripper (gallery
belt)
Emission factor Typical ratio of tons processed Emission factor.
Ib/ton processed x to tons received or shipped^ x Ib/ton received or shipped
1.0
0.3
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.7
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
0. 1
0.2
3.0
1.7
1.0
1.0
7 1
* • J.
0. 3
0. 1
3.1
1.0
1.0
17
. £
0.01
0. 2
2.2
1.1
1f\
. u
0-1
• J
2.8
01
. 1
Of
• D
4e
. J
1.7
Of
* o
0-»
, J
2.1
O'J
. *
0.3
4.7
1/1
. y
In
• u
1.7
0.01
Of"
. D
3 •i
. J
l.l
Assume that over a long term the amount received ig approximately equal to amount shipped.3
vrnr K ? "?"ed,on 1-9 lb/ton for rack dryers and 0.3 Ib/ton for column
dryers prorated on the basis of distribution of these two tyoes of dryers in each elevator category.
rmtssion factor of 3.0 for cleaning is an average w,iuo which mnv rnnne from
-------
shipped or received at each operation. These factors (exten-
sively developed through source test evaluation by Midwest Re-
search institute) are quite reliable for each of the individual
operations, and no further emissions investigation should be
necessary for revision to AP-42.
2-100
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.6
Grain Handling and Milling Industry, Background Information
for Establishment of National Standards of Performance for
New Sources. Environmental Engineering, Inc. EPA Contract
No. CPA 70-142. Task Order No. 4. July 15, 1971. Draft.
60 p.
Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement: Stan-
dards of Performance for the Grain Elevator Industry.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Waste
Management. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Emission Standards and Engineering Division. July 1976.
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Programs, Office of Air Quality Planning
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. April 1977.
2-101
-------
2.7 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
2.7.1 Emissions
Figure 2-15 depicts the general process flow for portland
cement manufacturing, and Table 2-37 lists the emission sources
noted in the process flow diagram. Sources of fugitive dust in
Portland cement processing are (1) raw material handling and
storage, (2) crushing and screening, (3) grinding and blending
(dry process only), (4) clinker/gypsum finish grinding, and (5)
loading and packaging. Table 2-38 shows that estimated uncon-
trolled total fugitive particulate emissions from these processes
in 1973 was 697,589- Mg (768,961 tons). Also shown are emission
factors, total U.S. raw material consumption in 1973, and the
estimated uncontrolled emissions determined for specific process
operations. Table 2-39 provides a breakdown of the raw materials
used in the 1973 domestic production of portland cement.3 The
principal process sources of fugitive emissions are (1) loading,
storage, and load-out of clinker/gypsum; (2) raw material load-
ing, storage, and transferring to conveyer (via clam shell); and
(3) vibrating screen and secondary crushing. These operations
generate 40, 35, and 15 percent, respectively, of the total
estimated uncontrolled fugitive emissions from the industry.
2.7.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
The fugitive emission factor range for initial unloading of
limestone, gypsum, iron ore, clay, and sand was based on an
emission range of 0.015 to 0.2 kg/Mg (0.03 to 0.4 Ib/ton) of raw
material, which was established for taconite and coal railcar/barge
unloading. These factors were derived from data presented in
References 1 and 2. Factors for raw material charging (via truck
dumping) to primary crusher were obtained from Reference 4 and
are based on limited test data and engineering judgment. As
reported in that reference:
2-102
-------
I
M
O
U)
TRUCK BARGE
RAW MATERIAL
UNLOADING
COAL, LIMESTONE, CLAT
GYPSUM, SAND, IRON ORE
LIMESTONE, CUT
SAND, IRON ORE
®- \FINES
.x \ ©.
>.
AIR
10)
HOT AlRl
FURNACE!
QO UO
t jr *f
BLENDING
SILOS
.<
GROUND
STORAGE
LEGEND:
••POINT
tAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
cnunrir
f+ ...
.®
\
WATER
.
„
3)
I r~
r.RINDIN(1_
MILL I
SLURRY
^| 1 BLENDING 1
1 TANK f— '
7=K
STORAGE
BASIN
,,
FUEL FOR HEATING KILN
TO
TRUCK,"
BOX CAR
TRUCK BARGE
Figure 2-15. Process flow diagram for portland cement manufacturing showing
origin of uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point source
particulate emissions.
-------
Table 2-37. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON
THE PORTLAND CEMENT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
11.
13.
15.
17.
19.
21.
Raw material unloading
(rail, barge, truck) gyp-
sum, iron ore, clay,
limestone, sand, coal
Primary crusher
Vibrating screen
Unloading outfall to stor-
age
Transfer to conveyor via
clamshell
Raw blending
Coal storage
Leakage from coal grind-
ing mills
Clinker/gypsum storage
Finish grinding with leaks
from mill and from feed/
discharge exhaust systems
Cement loading
2.
4.
6.
8.
10.
12.
14.
16.
18.
20.
22.
Raw material charging to
primary crusher
Transfer points and
associated conveying
Secondary crusher
Raw material storage
Raw grinding mill and feed/
discharge exhaust systems
Blended material storage
Transfer of coal to grind-
ing mills
Unload ing-c linker /gypsum
outfall to storage
Clinker/gypsum load-out
Cement silo vents
Cement packaging
Point sources
A.
Grinders
B.
Cement kilns
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-104
-------
Table 2-38. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
Emission source
• Raw material unloading
(gypsum, iron ore, clay,
limestone, sand)
• Raw material charging to
primary crusher
• Primary crusher
• Transfer points and
associated conveying
Vibrating screen and
secondary crushing
.Raw material loading,
storage, and transferr-
ing to conveyor
(via clam shell)
'Raw grinding mill and
feed/discharge exhaust
systems
' Raw blending and blended
material storage
Loading, storage, and
loading out of clinker/
gypsum
Finish grinding with
leaks from mill and
feed/discharge exhaust
system
Cement loading
Cement packaging
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor8
kg/Mg
0.1075
o.of
0.25
0.15
0.75
2.0
0.05
0.025
3.75
0.05e
0.118e
0.005e
Ib/ton
0.2150
0.02
0.50
0.30
1.50
4.0
0.10
1973 domestic
raw material
consumption3
1000 Mg
126,269
122,411b
122,411b
126,269
122,411b
122,411b
53,861C
0.050 j 53,861C
7.50
o.ioe
0.2366
0.010e
74,811d
75,728f
69.6709
6,0585
1000 tons
139,188
134,935b
134,935b
139,186
134,935b
134,935b
59,371°
59,371C
82,465d
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
13,574
1,224
30,603
18,940
91,808
244,822
2,693
ton/yr
14,963
1,349
33,734
20,878
101,201
269,870
2,969
1,347 '' 1,484
280,541 309,244
i
83,476f ; 3,786
76,7989
6,6789
8,221
4,174
9,062
30 33
697,589
768,961
Reference 8. Some factors consist as arithmetic averages of emission factor ranges
presented. Emission rates are expressed as units per unit weight of raw material processed.
Excludes the weight of gypsum (and anhydrite) from the annual tonnage of raw materials
consumed.
Considers 44 percent of the industry's raw material is processed by these dry methods
(grinding, air separation, etc.) prior to calcination.3
Reference 3. Considers both the 70,952,733 Mg (78,212,000 tons) weight of clinker »nd
3,858,257 Mg (4,253,000 tons) of gypsum.
Factors are expressed as units per unit weight of end product Portland cement produced.
1973 production of finished cement (Portland).3
'considers that bulk cement shipments consisted of 92 percent of th* total 1973 production,
whereas bag cement shipment/packaging was 8 percent.3
2-105
-------
Table 2-39. RAW MATERIALS USED IN PRODUCING PORTLAND
CEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES3'b
Raw materials
Calcareous:
Limestone (include aragonite)
Cement rock (includes marl)
Oystershell
Argillaceous :
Clay
Shale
Other (includes staurolite,
bauxite, aluminum dross,
pumice, and volcanic mate-
rial)
Siliceous :
Sand
Sandstone and quartz
Ferrous :
Iron ore, pyrites, millscale,
and other iron-bearing
material
Other:
Gypsum and anhydrite
Blast furnace slag
Fly ash
Other
Total
1973 raw materials
usage ,
1000 Mg
78,652
23,647
4,667
7,195
3,719
218
1,862
679
878
3,858
619
271
4
126,269
1000 tons
86,699
26,067
5,144
7,931
4,099
240
2,053
748
968
4,253
682
299
5
139,188
a Includes Puerto Rico.
Reference 3.
2-106
-------
"Midwest Research Institute, in a sampling study of aggre-
gate handling operations, estimated that dumping of crushed
rock or gravel onto storage piles accounted for about 12
percent of the total emissions of 0.16 kg/Mg (0.33 Ib/ton)
from handling, or 0.02 kg/Mg (0.04 Ib/ton). The truck
dumping operation was not sampled in isolation from the
other handling operations and the estimate of 12 percent was
partially subjective. This emission factor for dumping of
aggregate onto storage piles was recently published in
Supplement 5 of EPA's Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
Factors.5
Monsanto Research determined an emission rate of 0.00017
kg/Mg (0.00034 Ib/ton) for truck unloading at the hopper of
a primary crusher.^ The material being handled was quarried
granite with very little fine material present."
The factors of 0.1 to 0.2 kg/Mg (0.2 to 0.4 Ib/ton) of
material handled for transfer points and associated conveying
were also obtained from Reference 4. These factors represent
total transfer and conveying operations at coal mines and are
assumed to be the same for portland cement manufacture. None of
the factors presented are founded on emission testing at cement
production facilities.
Emission factors for the primary crusher [0.25 kg/Mg (0.5
Ib/ton) of rock crushed] and the vibrating screen and secondary
crusher [0.75 kg/Mg (1.5 Ib/ton) screened] were taken from AP-42.5
These factors represent uncontrolled fugitive emissions for stone
crushing facilities and are not specific to portland cement. The
particulate emission factor for cement loading [0.118 kg/Mg
(0.236 Ib/ton) of cement loaded] was obtained from Reference 6.
This was based on tests of mechanical unloading of cement to a
hopper and subsequent transport of cement by enclosed bucket
elevator to elevated bins with a fabric sock over the bin vent.
This emission rate was estimated to approximate truck, rail, or
barge loadout, and is not regarded as reliable for inclusion in
AP-42.
Emission rates for the remaining sources listed in Table
2-40 were determined by engineering judgment and based on obser-
vations made during specific plant visits. These emission factors
also should not be regarded as reliable for documentation in
AP-42.
2-107
-------
Table 2-40. FUGITIVE PARTICULATE SOURCES AND EMISSION RATES
DETERMINED FROM OBSERVATIONS9
Source
Uncontrolled fugitive
emission factor
Raw material loading, storage,
and transfer to conveyor (via
clamshell)
Raw material grinding mill
and feed/discharge exhaust
system
Raw blending and blended
of raw
material storage
Loading, storage, and load-
out of clinker/gypsum
Finish grinding with leakage
from mill and feed/discharge
exhaust systems
Cement packaging
1.5-2.5 kg/Mg (3.0-5.0 Ib/ton)
of raw material handled
0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) of raw
material milled
0.02 kg/Mg (0.05 Ib/ton)
material blended
2.5-5.0 kg/Mg (5.0-10.0 Ib/ton)
of clinker and gypsum handled
0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) of
cement produced
Negligible - 0.005 kg/Mg
(negligible - 0.01 Ib/ton) of
cement packaged
2-108
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.7
1. Cross, F.L. Jr. and Forehand, G.D. Air Pollution Emissions
from Bulk Loading Facilities, Volume 6, Environmental Nomo-
graph Series. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Westport,
Connecticut, 1975. pp. 3-4.
2. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation. PEDCo
Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task 40
October 15, 1976. pp. 4-28 and 4-51.
3. Ela, R.E. Cement. Mineral Yearbook, 1973. Volume I
Metals, Minerals, and Fuels. U.S. Department of the In-
terior. Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. 1975.
4. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory/REHD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No. 36, June 1976.
5. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42. U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste*
Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
6. Personal communication to John M. Zoller, PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc., from T.R. Blackwood, Monsanto Research Corpor-
Nich°las Road' Dayton, Ohio.
8.
J.A. Peters, Assessment of Open Sources
Th^-r-/? M ^ efroh JorP°ration, Dayton, Ohio. (Presented at
Third National Conference on Energy and the Environment.
College Corner, Ohio. October 1, 1975.) 9 p.
Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task No 33
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977
2-109
-------
2.8 LIME MANUFACTURING
2.8.1 Emissions
Figure 2-16 depicts the general process flow in lime manu-
facturing, and Table 2-41 lists the emission sources noted in
the process flow diagram. An assessment has been made of uncon-
trolled fugitive particulate emissions from the principal lime
manufacturing sources listed in Table 2-42. This table also
presents uncontrolled fugitive emission factors, total domestic
lime produced in 1973, and the estimated uncontrolled emissions
per processing source. The total potential fugitive emissions
from the industry was determined to be 44,824 Mg (49,410 tons),
approximately 60 percent of which occur from secondary crushing
and screening. Primary crushing/screening and associated con-
veying/transferring points contribute 19 and 17 percent, respec-
tively.
2.8.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
Lime manufacture entails the calcination of limestone to
cause the release of carbon dioxide and formation of calcium
oxide (or quicklime). Major fugitive particulate emission
sources are the primary and secondary crushing/screening of ore
and various conveying/transferring points. An emission factor
range of 0.00017 kg/Mg (0.00034 Ib/ton) (Monsanto Research Corpor-
ation) to 0.02 kg/Mg (0.04 Ib/ton) (Midwest Research Institute)
of rock charged was determined for limestone (dolomite) charging
to primary crushers. This was based on the truck dumping of
quarried granite (with very little fines present) and crushed
rock (gravel), rather than on actual limestone handling at a lime
manufacturing facility. Uncontrolled particulate emissions from
primary and secondary crushing/screening [0.25 and 0.75 kg/Mg
(0.5 and 1.5 Ib/ton) of limestone entering the primary crusher]
are listed in AP-42 under overall rock-handling processes.4 It
is unknown what type of stone quarrying operation this refers to
or what (if any) emission testing was conducted. An emission
2-110
-------
aerm cu
—«-WTDrr!Ai ruciiivt fauici
•otic saoci
Figure 2-16. Process flow diagram for lime manufacturing
showing origin of uncontrolled fugitive industrial process
and point source particulate emissions.
2-111
-------
Table 2-41. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON THE
LIME MANUFACTURING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
11.
Limestone/dolomite charg-
ing to primary crusher
Transfer points and
associated conveying
Secondary crushing
Crushed limestone storage
Quicklime and hydrated
lime crushing and pul-
verizing with leaks from
mill and feed/discharge
exhaust systems
Truck, rail, ship/barge
loading of quicklime
and hydrated lime
2. Primary crushing
4. Primary screening
6. Secondary screening
8. Quicklime screening
10. Lime product silo vents
12. Packaging quicklime and
hydrated lime
Point sources
A.
Lime kiln
B. Cooler
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-112
-------
Table 2-42. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM THE MANUFACTURE OF LIME
to
I
Emission source
Limestone/dolomite charg-
ing to primary crusher
Primary crushing and
screening
Transfer points and
associated conveying
Secondary crushing and
screening
Quicklime and hydrated
lime crushing/pulveriz-
ing/screening with leaks
from mill and from feed/
discharge exhaust
systems
Truck, rail, ship/barge
loading of quicklime
and hydrated lime
(including lime product
• ilo vents)
Packaged quicklime and
hydrated lime
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor3
kg/Mg
0.02b
0.25b
0.4
0.75b
0.05
0.118
0.005
Ib/ton
0.01b
0.50b
0.8
1.50b
0.10
0.236
0.010
1973 total
U.S. 1 ime -
manufactured
1000 Mg
35,431C
35,431C
19,133
35,431°
19,133
6,314d
6,314d
1000 tons
39,056C
39,056C
21,090
39,056°
21,090
6,960d
6,960d
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
355
8,858
7,653
26,573
957
745
32
44,824
tons/yr
390
9,764
8,436
29,292
1,055
821
35
49,410
Reference 7. Factors are expressed as units per unit weight of lime (quicklime, hydrated
lime, dead-burned dolomite) produced.
Factors are expressed as units per unit weight of raw material handled.
Reference 2. Annual end product lime is theoretically 54 percent of the input rock weight.
Reference 2. Approximately 33 per'cent of the total domestic lime production (1973) is bulk
loaded while 33 percent is packaged and the remaining 34 percent is contained for captive
usage.
-------
factor of 0.4 kg/Mg (0.8 Ib/ton) of lime produced is available to
quantify associated conveying and transfer point losses, but it
is substaniated solely by emissions generated in the handling of
dry phosphate rock. Fugitive emissions occurring as leaks from
the mill and feed/discharge exhaust systems and those from quick-
lime (and hydrated lime) crushing/pulverizing and screening have
been determined to be 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) of quicklime (and
hydrated lime) produced. This value is based on engineering
judgment regarding their similarities to controlled emissions
from cement milling. Similarly, the determined emission factor
of 0.118 kg/Mg (0.236 Ib/ton) of lime products loaded encompasses
truck, rail, and ship/barge loading of quicklime (and hydrated
lime), as well as lime product silo vents, and are based on
hydraulic cement loading. The estimated emission factor for
quicklime (and hydrated lime) [negligible to 0.005 kg/Mg (0.01
Ib/ton) of lime products packaged] is based on field observation
at particular lime facilities and various emission tests made of
similar controlled sources. None of these factors are believed
to be reliable enough for documentation in AP-42. Only actual
source testing will produce such reliable factors.
2-114
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.8
1. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory/REDH, U.S.S Environmental Protection Agency, Cincin-
nati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No. 36, June
1976.
2. Personal Communication Between J.W. Pressler, Bureau of
Mines, and J. Thomas Bertke, PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
October 1977.
3. Minerals Yearbook 1973, Volume I, Metals, Minerals, and
Fuels. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Mines.
Washington, D.C. 1975.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. February 1976.
5. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations - Appendix Final
Report, Task No. 10. Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton,
Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1975.
6. Personal Communication to John M. Zoller, PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc. from T.R. Blackwood of Monsanto Research
Corporation. Dayton Laboratory. 1515 Nicholas Road,
Dayton, Ohio. October 18, 1976.
7. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task No. 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977.
2-115
-------
2.9 CONCRETE BATCHING
2.9.1 Emissions
Uncontrolled fugitive particulate emissions from concrete
production are most significant during the handling of cement and
sand and gravel. Potential sources of dust emissions are the
unloading/conveying of end product concrete (and aggregates) and
the loading of dry-batched concrete mix. Figure 2-17 depicts the
general process flow for concrete batching, and Table 2-43 lists
the emission sources noted in the process flow diagram. The
total uncontrolled fugitive particulate emissions from the
industry were determined to be approximately 31,026 Mg (34,200)
tons) in 1973. This estimation was based on a 1973 poured con-
crete volume of 261,000,000 m3 (342,000,000 yd3).1 The emission
factor used in this calculation was 0.12 kg/m3 (0.2 lb/yd3) from
AP-42.2'3
2-9.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
Batching operations involve the storing, conveying, and
blending of cement and sand and gravel into concrete. Materials
processing is conducted via elevators and weigh hoppers, then
discharged into transport equipment (mixer trucks). Generated
particulates consist principally of cement dust. A limited
quantity of dust also occurs from sand and aggregate handling.
An uncontrolled particulate emission factor of 0.12 kg/m3 (0.2
Ib per/yd ) of concrete is available from AP-42, and although it
carries an average reliability ranking of C, it is based on 1952
or earlier data. Therefore, a current and more extensive test-
ing should be performed to arrive at an uncontrolled (fugitive)
particulate emissions figure that accurately represents concrete
batching operations.
2-116
-------
NJ
I
SAND AND
AGGREGATE
STORAGE
ELEVATED
STORAGE
BINS
SAND
AGGREGATE
^
ELEVATED
CEMENT
SILO
f
«
s
1-J
LEGEND:
-•"POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
WATER (WET-BATCH)
TRANSIT
MIXER
(WET BATCH)
FLAT-BED TRUCK (DRY BATCH)
DUMP TRUCK
(CENTRAL MIX)
PNEUHATIC
C RAILCARj
O
TRUCK
CT
Figure 2-17. Process flow diagram for concrete batching showing origin of
uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point source particulate emissions,
-------
Table 2-43. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON THE
CONCRETE BATCHING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1. Sand aggregate storage
3. Cement unloading to
elevated storage silos
5. Mixer loading of cement,
sand and aggregate
(central mix plant)
7. Loading of dry-batch truck
2. Transfer of sand and
aggregate to elevated
bins
4. Weigh hopper loading of
cement, sand, and aggre-
gate
6. Loading of transit mix
(wet-batching) truck
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-118
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.9
1. Brown, B.C. Cement. Chapter from Mineral Facts and Prob-
lems, 1975 Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Bureau of Mines. 1975. 12 p.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. April, 1977.
3. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task No. 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977.
2-119
-------
2.10 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PRODUCTION
2.10.1 Emissions
Figure 2-18 depicts the general process flow in asphaltic
concrete production, and Table 2-44 lists the emission sources
noted in the process flow diagram. Table 2-45 shows that poten-
tial uncontrolled fugitive particulate emissions from the asphal-
tic concrete industry were quantified to be 46,845 Mg (51,638
tons) in 1974. This table also presents uncontrolled fugitive
emission factors, 1974 total domestic aggregate consumed by
asphaltic concrete production, and estimated uncontrolled emis-
sions per specific process source. The principal particulate
emission sources concern aggregate-conveying elevators and the
transfer of aggregate into cold storage bins. These separately
comprise 60 and 30 percent of the total industry emissions.
2-10.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
Asphaltic concrete production involves the transfer/conveying
of fine (sand) and coarse (e.g., gravel, crushed stone, crushed
steel mill slag, or glass) aggregates to be heated and dried
before uniform mixing/coating with hot asphalt and discharging to
transport trucks. An uncontrolled fugitive particulate factor of
negligible to 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) of aggregate handled has
been determined (Monsanto Research and Environmental Research
Technology) for losses from unloading coarse/fine aggregate to
storage bins and a factor of negligible to 0.1 kg/Mg (0.2 Ib/ton)
for elevator conveying of cold and dried (hot) aggregate. These
determinations are based on similar processing at granite quar-
ries and coal mining operations. An uncontrolled fugitive
emission rate ranging from negligible to 0.013 kg/Mg (0.026
Ib/ton) of aggregate handled has been determined for the screen-
ing of hot aggregate, based on Monsanto Research Corporation test
values for crushed granite processing.3 Extensive particulate
fugitive emission test sampling data from asphalt concrete batch-
irfg plants are needed to obtain representative data for documen-
tation in AP-42.
2-120
-------
NO
I
COLD
AGGREGATE
BINS
COLD
AGGREGATE
BINS
w
HOT
SCREENS
ASPHALT
STORAGE
BATCH PLANT
TRUCK
LOA&-OUT
CONTINUOUS PLANT
LEGEND:
POTEHTIAL rUGITIVE SOURCE
POINT SOURCE
Figure 2-18.
uncontroledfn c Concrete manufacturing showing
uncontrolled fugitive industrial process and point
source particulate emissions.
-------
Table 2-44. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON THE
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
Storage of coarse and fine
aggregate
Cold aggregate elevator
Screening hot aggregate
2. Unloading coarse and fine
aggregate to storage bins
4. Dried aggregate elevator
6. Hot aggregate elevator
(continuous mix plant)
Point sources
A.
Rotary dryer
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-122
-------
Table 2-45. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PRODUCTION
to
I
to
LO
Emission source
Unloading coarse and fine
aggregate to cold stor-
age bins
Cold and dried (hot)
aggregate elevators
Screening hot aggregate
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor3
kg/Mg
0.05
0.10
0.013
Ib/ton
0.10
0.20
0.026
1974 U.S.
aggregate consump-
tion for asphaltic^
concrete production
1000 Mg
287,396
287,396
287,396
1000 tons
316,800
316,800
316,800
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
14,370
28,740
3,736
46,845
tons/yr
15,840
31,680
4,118
51,638
Reference 4. Factors are expressed as units per unit weight of aggregate processed.
Reference 2. In 1974, asphalt paving hot mix plants produced 319,329,029 Mg (352,000,000 tons)
of hot mix. Aggregate constitutes approximately 90 percent of this hot mix or 287,396,000
Mg (316,800,000 tons).
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.10
1. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory/REHD, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract
No. 68-02-1321, Task No. 36. June, 1976.
2. Khan, Z.S. and T.W. Hughes. Source Assessment: Asphalt
Paving Hot Mix. Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton,
Ohio. Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1874*
March 1976.
3. Chalekode, P.K., and J.A. Peters, Assessment of Open Sources,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio. Presented at
Third National Conference on Energy and the Environment,
College Corner, Ohio. October 1, 1975). 9 p.
4. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task No. 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1977.
2-124
-------
2.11 LUMBER AND FURNITURE INDUSTRY
2.11.1 Emissions
Specific fugitive particulate emission sources at the saw-
mill are debarking, sawing, and sawdust handling operations. Log
handling and bucking (log length shortening) are normally negli-
gible sources of fugitive emissions. Emissions from furniture
manufacturing occur principally from wood waste handling and
storage. Figure 2-19 depicts the general process flow for the
lumber and furniture industry, and Table 2-46 lists the emission
sources noted in the process flow diagram. Table 2-47 indicates
that potential uncontrolled emissions from these sources are
8,665 Mg (9,549 tons). This table also presents process source
fugitive emission factors, 1976 domestic consumption of logs for
lumber and lumber for furniture, and estimated total uncontrolled
fugitive particulate emissions. The largest single source
appears to be the sawing of logs for lumber, which accounts for
nearly 80 percent of the total.
2.11.2 Adequacy of Emission Factor Data
Processing of logs for lumber and subsequent further proc-
essing for furniture manufacture begins at the sawmill. Princi-
pal operations to be considered as sources of fugitive emissions
are log debarking; sawing; and sawdust pile loading, unloading,
and storage. The respective emission factors are estimated to be
0.012 kg/Mg (0.024 Ib/ton) of logs debarked, 0.175 kg/Mg (0.35
lb/ton) of logs sawed, and 0.5 kg/Mg (1.0 Ib/ton) of sawdust
handled. Furniture manufacture fugitive emissions are assessed
as emanating principally from the wood waste storage bin via
venting and loadout. Fugitive particulate emission factors have
been estimated at 0.5 kg/Mg (1.0 lb/ton) of wood waste stored and
1.0 kg/Mg (2.0 lb/ton) of wood waste loaded out.2 All values
noted are based either on material balance of waste produced
2-125
-------
SAWMILL
to
i
FURNITURE
FLANT
1
LUMBER
UNLOADING
L.
WOOD WASTE
STORAGE
BIN
LEGEND:
~^POTENTIAL FUGITIVE SOURCE
-»-POINT SOURCE
emissions.
-------
Table 2-46. IDENTIFICATION OF EMISSION SOURCES SHOWN ON THE
LUMBER AND FURNITURE PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM3
Fugitive emission sources
1.
3.
5.
Debarking
Sawdust pile
Wood waste storage bin
loadout
2. Sawing
4. Wood waste storage bin
vent
Point sources
A.
' C.
Sawing (cyclone exhaust)
Sander (cyclone exhaust)
B. Planing and trimming
(cyclone exhaust)
Numeral and letter denotations refer to emission sources
on the previous figure.
2-127
-------
Table 2-47. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE
LUMBER AND FURNITURE INDUSTRY
Emission source
Sawmill
Log debarking
Sawing
Sawdust pile loading, unloading
and storage
Furniture manufacturing
Hood waste storage bin vent
Wood waste storage bin loadout
Total
Uncontrolled
fugitive partic-
ulate emission
factor3
kg/Mg
0.012
0.175
0.5d
0.5
1.0
Ib/ton
0.024
0.350
1.0d
1.0
2.0
1976 U.S.
consumption of logs
for lumber13
1000 Mg
45,299°
40,444
809e
-
-
1000 tons
.49,933°
44,582
892e
-
-
1976 U.S.
lumber consumption
for furnitureb
1000 Mg
-
-
-
425f
425f
1000 tons
-
-
-
468
468f
Estimated uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
544
7,078
405
213
425
8,665
tons/yr
599
7,802
446
234
468
9,549
I
H
M
00
* Reference 2. Sawmill emission factors are expressed as units per unit weight of logs processed. Furniture manufacture
emission factors are expressed as units per unit weight of wood waste handled.
b Reference 1. Estimations.
c Consider* an additional (assumed) weight of 12 percent for bark.
d Factors are expressed as units per unit weight of sawdust handled.
* Assuming sawdust to constitute 8 percent in which 25 percent of that generated is stockpiled.
f Assuming wood waste to approximate 30 percent of the total 1,415,208 Mg (1,560,000 tons) of lumber consumed in furniture
manufacture.
-------
followed by judgment as to the airborne participates or on obser-
vations made of specific plant operations during industry visits.
None are based on actual test information and therefore do not
qualify as having sufficient support for incorporation into AP-42,
2-129
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.11
1. Personal communication made between Dr. Muench, National
Forest Products Association and J. Thomas Bertke, PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. October 1977.
2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. U S
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1375
Task No 33. March 1977.
2-130
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION INTO AP-42
A-l
-------
This appendix contains fugitive emission factors and
particle characteristics in formats suitable for inclusion
into AP-42. These are for the same industries as presented
in this document with the exception of the following:
Coke manufacturing
Iron production
Steel production
Minerals extraction and beneficiation
Grain elevators
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation
with the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) are pre-
sently performing studies to determine fugitive emission
factors for coke manufacturing and iron and steel production.
Since the factors resulting from their studies will be more
reliable than those presently available, the presently
available factors are not included in this appendix. The
minerals extraction and beneficiation industry fugitive
emission factors have not been entered into the appendix
since AP-42 does not presently contain sections for these
industries.
Since recently developed fugitive emission factors for
grain elevators have already been entered into AP-42, they
are not placed in this appendix.
For each revised AP-42 section, there is a listing of
A-2
-------
sources of potential uncontrolled fugitive emissions and the
corresponding emission factor for each source. Included
also is a short description of emission size characteristics
when such information is available.
It is imperative to understand the limitations and
applicability of the emission factors. Most of the emission
factors were derived from one or a combination of the fol-
lowing methods:
1. Engineering judgement, assuming fugitive emissions
to be equal to 5 percent of the stack emissions.
2. Comparison of fugitive emission source to an
emission factor from a similar operation (who's
derivation could be one of the described methods).
3. Engineering judgement based on observation of the
process or similar processes.
4. Literature containing emission factors derived
from very limited test data.
Therefore, the accuracy of most emission factors is con-
sidered extremely low and at best are order of magnitude
estimates. It is therefore believed that these factors
should not be entered into AP-42 because of the wide misuse
they may receive. Additional fugitive particulate emission
factors development is needed before entries can be made to
AP-42.
A-3
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions in
the primary aluminum industry are bauxite grinding, mate-
rials handling, anode baking (see Table 7.1-3), and the
prebake, horizontal soderberg, and vertical soderberg re-
duction cells (see Table 7.1-4). Size distribution of
fugitive particulate emissions from reduction cells are
assumed to be the same as presented in Table 7.1-2.
Table 7.1-4. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION PROCESSES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Reduction cells
Prebake
Horizontal Soderberg
Vertical Soderberg
Total uncontrolled fugitive
particulatesb
Ib/ton
8.0
20.2
22.4
kg/MT
4.0
10.1
11.2
Emission factors represent that portion of the emission
factor in Table 7.1-3 which is fugitive. Total inventories
should therefore be based only on factors shown in Table
7.1-3.
Reference 2.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.1
No additional references.
A-4
-------
7.3 COPPER SMELTERS
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions in
the copper industry are roasting, smelting, converting, and
fire refining. Table 7.3-2 shows the potential uncontrolled
fugitive emission factors from these sources.
Fifteen percent of the particulate emissions from
roasting are less than 10 ym and 50 percent of reverberatory
furnace emissions are less than 37 ym. ' The mean partic-
ulate diameter of converter emissions is 44 ym. Sixteen
percent of pouring and casting emissions are less than 10 ym
and 46 percent are less than 74 ym.
Table 7.3-2. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Roasting
Reverberatory smelting furnace
Converter
Fire refining furnace (anode
furnace and casting)
Particulates
Ib/ton
23.00b
8.50C
10.50b'd
1.90d'e
kg/MT
11.5
4.25
5.25
0.95
Factors are expressed in units per units of end product
copper produced.
Based on material balance using same percentage as estimated
for S02 from reference 7.
Reference 8.
Reference 9.
Reference 10.
A-5
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.3
5. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions. PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. Contract No. 68-02-1375. Final
Report. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication No. 450/2-77-
012. January 1978.
6. Shannon, L.J. and P.G. Gorman. Particulate Pollutant
System Study, Vol. Ill - Emissions Characteristics.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Contract No. 22-69-104.
1971.
7. Evaluation of the Controllability of Copper Smelter in
the United States, Fugitive Emissions Section, Final
Report Draft. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Contract No. 68-02-1354, Task Order No. 8. Noveml
1974.
8. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Proc-
esses. Midwest Research Institute. Contract No. 68-
02-2120. Monthly Progress Report No. 4. Kansas City,
Missouri. November 20, 1975.
9. Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide and Arsenic Control Tech-
niques for ASARCO - Tacoma Copper Smelter. PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. Prepared under Contract No.
68-02-1321, Task Order No. 35. Cincinnati, Ohio.
September, 1976.
10. Personal communication from Phelps Dodge Corporation,
New York, New York to Don Goodwin, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
January 21, 1977.
A-6
-------
7.6 LEAD SMELTING
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions in
the primary copper smelting processes are listed in Table
7.6-2 along with the emission factors for each source.
The following is a listing of size distributions of
2
flue dust from updraft sintering machine effluent. Though
these are not fugitive emissions, the size distributions may
closely resemble those of the fugitive emissions.
Size (vim)
20-40
10-20
5-10
<5
Percent by weight
15-45
9-30
4-19
1-10
Particulate fugitive emissions from the blast furnace consist
basically of lead oxides, 92 percent of which are less than
o
4 ym in size. Uncontrolled emissions from a lead dross
reverberatory are mostly less than 1 ym and this may also be
the case for the fugitive emission."
A-7
-------
Table 7.6-2. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY
LEAD SMELTING PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Process
Ore mixing and pelletizing (crushing)
Sinter machine leakage
Sinter return handling
Sinter machine discharge, sinter
crushing and screening
Sinter transfer to dump area
Sinter product dump area
Car charging (conveyor loading and
transfer) of sinter
Blast furnace (charging, blow condi-
tion, tapping)
Lead pouring to ladle, transferring,
and slag pouring
Slag cooling
Zinc fuming furnace vents
Dross kettle
Reverberatory furnace leakage
Silver retort building
Lead Casting
Particulatesa'b
kg/MT
1.13
0.34C
4.50
0.75°
0.10
0.005
0.25
0.0775
0.465d
0.235e
2.3
0.24
1.5
0.9
0.435
Ib/ton
2.26
0.68
9.00
1 ^f)
X * — J \J
0.20
0.01
0.50
0.1550
0.930
0.470
4.6
0.48
3.0
1.8
0.870
All factors are expressed in units per end product lead pro-
duced, except sinter operations which are expressed in units
per sinter or sinter handled/transferred/charged.
All emission factors are derived from Reference 8 except
where noted.
Engineering judgement using steel sinter machine leakage
emission factor, References 9 and 10.
Reference 2.
Engineering judgement, estimated to be half the magnitude of
lead pouring.and ladling operations, Reference 2.
A-8
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.6
8. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investi-
gation, Interim Report. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Contract No. 68-02-1343, Task Order No. 8. Cincinnati,
Ohio. February 1975.
9. Iverson, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and AISI on Steel Facility Emission Factors.
April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
10. Spreight, G.E. Best Practicable Means in the Iron and
Steel Industry. The Chemical Engineer. March 1973.
11. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division. Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task
Order No. 32. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication No. EPA 450/2-77-012. January 1978.
A-9
-------
7.7 ZINC SMELTING
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions in
the primary zinc smelting process are sintering, retort
furnaces, and zinc casting. Table 7.7-2 shows a breakdown
of these processes and the potential uncontrolled fugitive
emission factors.
Particulate size data for fugitive emissions is unavail-
able. However, flue gas emission from sinter machines are
mostly less than 10 ym in size and this may be similar to
Q
the size of fugitive emissions.
A-10
-------
Table 7.7-2. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PRIMARY ZINC SMELTING WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Sinter machine windbox discharge
Sinter machine discharge, screens,
and coke-sinter mixer
Retort furnace building leakage and
tapping
Retort furnace residue discharge
and cooling
Zinc casting
a
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.68b
1.50C
3.00d
1.256
2.52f
kg/MT
0.34
0.75
1.50
0.625
1.26
Factors are expressed as units per end product zinc produced,
except as noted.
Engineering judgement average assuming 5 percent of stack
emissions for sintering machine in iron production (Section
7.5), and Reference 5.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emission factor
qiven for sintering machine in iron production (Reference 5)
is similar for sintering in zinc production and Reference 6.
Engineering judgement made assuming that emissions from
retort building in primary lead smelting would be similar
for primary zinc (Reference 7).
Value based on observations made at a secondary zinc smelter
which is similar to the primary zinc production operation.
Engineering judgement assuming fugitive emissions from zinc
casting equal to fugitive emissions from copper casting given
in Reference 8.
A-ll
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.7
5. Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and AISI on Steel Facility Emission Factors.
April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
6. Scheuneman, J.J., M.D. High, and W.E. Bye. Air Pollu-
tion Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Division
of Air Pollution. June 1963.
7. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investi-
gation, Interim Report. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X. Contract No. 68-02-1343. Seattle, Washington.
February 1975.
8. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Proc-
esses. Midwest Research Institute, Contract No. 68-
02-2120. Monthly Progress Report No. 4. Kansas City,
Missouri. November 20, 1975.
9. Jones, H.R. Pollution Control in the Nonferrous Metals
Industry. Noyes Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New
Jersey. 1972.
A-12
-------
7.8 SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions in
secondary aluminum operations are the sweating furnace, chip
dryer, reverberatory, crucible, and electric induction
furnaces, hot dross handling and cooling, and fluxing.
Table 7.8-2 shows the potential uncontrolled emission factors
for these sources.
Ninety-five percent of particulates from sweating
furnaces are less than 39 pm. The maximum particulate size
from fluxing and chlorinating is 2 ym.
Table 7.8-2. POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Sweating furnace
Chip (rotary) dryer
Reverberatory furnace
Crucible smelting furnace
Electric induction furnace
Hot dross handling and cooling
Fluxing (chlorination)
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.72b
0.72C
0.22b
0.09b
0.09d
0.22e
50.0b'f
kg/MT
0.36
0.36
0.11
0.045
0.045
0.11
25.0
a All factors are expressed as units per unit of metal scrap
processed.
Engineering judgement assuming 5 percent of uncontrolled
stack emissions from Table 7.8-1.
Engineering judgement, assumed equal to sweat furnace.
Engineering judgement, assumed equal to crucible furnace.
e Engineering judgement, assumed equal to reverberatory furnace,
Factor expressed as units per units of chlorine used.
A-13
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.8
6. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Industry, Vol. II. Final Draft.
Radian Corporation. Austin, Texas. June 1976.
7. Particle Pollutant System Study. Vol. III. Handbook
of Emissions Properties. Midwest Research Institute.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. Durham, North Carolina.
A-14
-------
7.9 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOTS (COPPER ALLOYS)
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions
from brass/bronze operations are sweating, drying, insulation
burning, smelting furnaces, and casting. Table 7.9-2
shows these sources and their corresponding emission factors.
No data is presently available concerning size charac-
teristics of the fugitive emissions.
Table 7.9-2. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR BRASS AND BRONZE PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS
/- EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
/
Type of operation
Sweating furnace
Rotary dryer
Insulation burning
Electric induction furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Rotary furnace
Crucible furnace
Cupola (blast) furnace
Casting
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.75b
13.75b
13.75°
0.14d
5.27e
4.43d
0.49e
3.66e
0.015b
kg/MT
0.38
6.88
6.88
0.07
2.64
2.22
0.25
1.83
0.008
Factors are expressed as units per volume of scrap processed,
except casting which is expressed as units per volume cast.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are
equal to 5 percent of stack emissions shown in Reference 2.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are
equal to 5 percent of stack emission factor shown in Reference
3.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are
equal to 5 percent of stack emission factor shown in Reference
1.
Engineering judgement, average of two sets of data, assuming
that fugitive emissions are equal to 5 percent of stack emis-
sion factors shown in References 1 and 3.
A-15
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7. 9
2.
3.
Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Profile
Radian Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319 Task
Order No. 49. Austin, Texas. June 21, 1976.
Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Hand-
book of Emission Properties. Midwest Research In-
stitute. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. Kansas City,
Missouri. May 1, 1971
A-16
-------
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRY
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions
from the foundry processes are shown in Table 7.10-2 along
with corresponding emission factors.
The particulate size of dust from various foundry
operations will vary considerably. Table 7.10-3 lists
various foundry operations and corresponding particulate
size ranges.
A-17
-------
Table 7.10-2. POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Cupola furnace operation
Crucible furnace operation
Electric arc furnace operation
Open hearth furnace operation
Electric induction furnace operation
Pot furnace operation
Reverberatory furnace operation
Ductile iron innoculation
Pouring molten metal into molds
Casting shakeout
Cooling and cleaning castings
Finishing castings
Core sand and binder mixing
Core making
Core baking
Mold makeup
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.85a'b
0.35a'C
7.5a'd
0.5e'f
2.0a'd
0.4a/g
o.ia'b
3.9e'h
2.12e'1
7.0e'j
0.48e'^
o.oie'h
0.3d'1
0.35d'1
2.71d'm
0.04d'k
kg/MT
1.7
0.18
3.75
0.25
1.0
0.2
0.05
1.98
1.06
3.5
0.24
0.005
0.15
0.18
1.36
0.02
f Factor expressed in units per unit of metal charged.
d
e
f
h
i
j
k
1
m
equal to 5 percent of uncontrolled stack emission as shown
in Table 7.10-1.
Engineering judgement, averaging 5 percent of the uncontrolled
stack emissions from Tables 7.8-1 and 7.9-1.
Reference 7.
Factor expressed in units per unit of metal produced.
Average of 5 percent of stack emission factor shown in Table
7.5-1 and factor shown in Reference 8.
Engineering judgement, assuming 50 percent of uncontrolled
emission factor as shown in Table 7.11-1.
References 6 and 9.
References 9 and 10.
References 9 and 11.
Reference 11.
Factor expressed in units per unit of sand used.
References 1 and 11.
A-18
-------
Table 7.10-3. EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS FOR VARIOUS
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
Foundry operation
Type
Particle size (ym)
Raw material storage
and charge makeup
Melting
Cupola furnace
Electric furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Inoculation
Molding
Pouring
Shakeout
Cleaning
Grinding
Sand storage
Sand handling
Screening, mixing
Sand drying and
reclamation
Core sand storage
Core making
Coke dust
Limestone and
sand dust
Fly ash
Coke breeze
Metallic oxides
Metallic oxides
Metallic oxides
Fly ash
Metal oxides
Sand
Metallic oxides
Sand fines, dust
Dust
Metal dust
Sand fines
Abrasives
Fines
Fines
Fines
Dust
Sand fines
Sand fines, dust
Fine to coarse
30 to 1,000
8 to 20
Fine to coarse
up to 0.7
up to 0.7
up to 0.7
8 to 20
up to 0.7
Coarse
Fine to medium
50% - 2 to 15
50% - 2 to 15
above 7
Fine to medium
50% - 2 to 7
50%
50%
50%
50%
2 to 15
2 to 15
2 to 15
2 to 15
Fine
Fine to medium
A-19
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.10
7. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. III. Handbook
of Emission Properties. Midwest Research Institute.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Pollution Control Office. Contract No. CPA 22-69-
104. Durham, North Carolina. May 1971.
8. Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency with AISI on Steel Facility Emission Factors
April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
9. Gutow, B.S. An Inventory of Iron Foundry Emission.
Modern Casting. January 1972.
10. Kalika, P.W. Development of Procedures for Measurement
of Fugitive Emissions. The Research Corporation of New
England. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1815. July 1975.
11. Scott, William D. and Charles E. Bates. Measurement or
Iron Foundry Fugitive Emissions. Presented at Sym-
posium on Fugitive Emissions: Measurement and Control.
Hartford, Connecticut. May 18, 1976.
12. Greenberg, J.M. and R.E. Conover. Report on Systems
Analysis of Emissions and Emission Control in the Iron
Foundry Industry in the U.S.A. A.T. Kearney & Co.,
Inc. Chicago. December 1970.
A-20
-------
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions
from secondary lead smelting are scrap burning, sweating,
melting furnaces, and casting. Table 7.11-4 shows these
potential sources and the corresponding emission factors.
Data concerning size characteristics of fugitive emis-
sions is unavailable. However emissions from point sources
may be similar to the fugitive emissions. Emissions from
sweating furnaces have a mean particulate diameter of 0.3 ym
with a size range of 0.07 to 0.4 ym. Table 7.11-3 list
the size distribution of emissions from a blast (cupola)
furnace.
Table 7.11-4. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Lead and iron scrap buring
Sweating furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Blast (cupola) furnace and tapping of
holding pot
Pot (kettle) furnace
Casting
Particulates
kg/MT
0.8b
1.275°
4.615C
6.0°
0.02C
0.435d
Ib/ton
1.6
2.550
9.230
12.0
0.04
0.870
f Factors are expressed as units per volume of scrap processed.
Engineering judgement assuming 5 percent residual zinc scrap
processing, Table 7.14-1.
c Based on any average of 5 percent of the lead smelting emission
factors in References 10 and 11.
Reference 12; fugitive emissions for primary lead casting
assumed equal to fugitive emissions for secondary lead casting.
A-21
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.11
10. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Profile.
Radian Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319, Task No
49. Austin, Texas. June 21, 1976.
11. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1375
Task Order No. 32. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Publication No. EPA 450/2-77-012. January
1978.
12. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investi-
gation, Interim Report. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-02-1343, Task Order No. 8. Region X,
Seattle, Washington. February 1975.
A-22
-------
7.14 SECONDARY ZINC PROCESSING
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions
from secondary zinc processes are shown in Table 7.14-2
along with corresponding emission factors.
Data concerning size distribution of fugitive emissions
is not presently available. However, the limited data
concerning stack emissions may be quite similar to fugitive
emissions. Particulates from sweating furnaces range from 1
ym to greater than 20 ym, but typically they are less than 2
m.6 Particulates from retorts range from 0.05 to 1.0 ym.
A-23
-------
Table 7.14-2. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE PARTICULATE UNCONTROLLED
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Crushing/screening of residue skimmings
Reverberatory sweat furnace
Kettle (pot) sweat furnace
Rotary sweat furnace
Muffle sweat furnace
Electric resistance sweat furnace
Crucible melting furnace
Kettle (pot) melting furnace
Reverberatory melting furnace
Electric induction melting
Distillation retort and condenser
Muffle distillation furnace and condenser
Casting
Particulate
Ib/ton
4.250b
1.30C
0.56C
0.90d
1.07d
0.50d
0.005e
0.005C
0.005d
0.005d
2.36f
2.36f
0.015d
kg/MT
2.125
0.63
0.28
0.45
0.535
0.25
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
1.18
1.18
0.0075
a Factors are expressed as units per end product zinc except
factors for crushing/screening of residue skimmings and elec-
tric resistence furnaces which are expressed as units per
, volume of scrap processed.
Reference 6. Average of reported emission factors.
c Reference 6 and Table 7.14-1, average of factors appearing in
stated references assuming 5 percent of the stack emissions.
Engineering judgement based on stack emission factor given in
Reference 6, assuming fugitive emissions to be equal to 5
percent of stack emissions.
e Engineering judgement assuming fugitive emissions from crucible
melting furnace to be equal to fugitive emissions from kettle
,. (pot) melting furnace.
Engineering judgement based on emission factor shown in Table
7.14-1, assuming fugitive emissions to be equal to 5 percent
of stack emissions.
A-24
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.14
6. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Profile
Radian Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319, Task
Order No. 49. Austin, Texas. June 21, 1976.
A-25
-------
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS
Potential fugitive particulate emission sources from
asphaltic concrete plants are unloading of aggregate, elevators,
and screening operations. Table 8.1-2 shows these emission
sources as well as the corresponding emission factors.
Fugitive particulate emissions from hot mix asphalt
plants consist basically of dust from aggregate storage,
handling, and transfer. Stone dust may range from 0.1 ym to
more than 300 ym. On the average, 5 percent of cold aggre-
gate feed is <4 ym (minus 200 mesh). Dust which may escape
before reaching primary dust collection generally is 50-70
12
percent <4 ym (minus 200 mesh).
Table 8.1-2. POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Unloading coarse and fine aggregate to
storage bins
Cold and dried (and hot) aggregate
elevator
Screening hot aggregate
Particulates3
Ib/ton
0.10b
0.20b
0.026°
kg/MT
0.05
0.10
0.013
Factors are expressed as units per unit weight of aggregate
processed.
Reference 11, assumed equal to similar sources.
Q
Reference 12, assumed equal to similar crushed granite process
A-26
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.1
11. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/REHD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No.
36. June 1976.
12. Chalekode, P.K., and J.A. Peters, Assessment of Open
Sources. Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.
Presented at Third National Conference on Energy and
the Environment, College Corner, Ohio. October 1,
1975. 9 p.
A-27
-------
8.6 PORTLANT CEMENT MANUFACTURING
Potential sources of fugitive emissions from portland
cement manufacturing process are shown in Table 8.6-3
along with corresponding uncontrolled fugitive emission
factors.
Information concerning particulate size distribution is
presently unavailable.
A-28
-------
Table 8.6-3. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CEMENT
MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Raw material unloading
Raw material charging to primary crusher
Primary crushing
Transfer points and associated conveying
Vibrating screen and secondary crusher
Raw material unloading to storage, storage,
and transfer (via clamshell)
Raw grinding mill and feed/discharge
exhaust systems
Raw blending and blended material storage
Loading, storage, and loadout of clinker
and gypsum
Finish grinding with leaks from mill
and from feed discharge exhaust systems
Cement loading
Cement packaging
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.2150b
0.02C
0.5d
0.3e
1.5d
4.0f
O.lf
0.05f
7.5f'9
o.if'h
0.236*'*
o.oif/i
kg/MT
0.1075
0.01
0.25
0.15
0.75
2.0
0.05
0.025
3.75
0.05
0.118
0.005
a Factors expressed as units per unit weight of raw material
. except as noted.
•"^ -r- i ._ j_ ^ — _ j_ «. l__ «.«._. .«Z) *+. __ _. * •.*•>. «• —i j^ f*. f^ C f*.w\ •» «^i r^ ^ ^i-v, -P ^* /^ ^ f~\ *• ^- ^- f^t. it* ^*^\ ^1 i tv\ __
,
,
.
loading in Reference 7 and taconite unloading in Reference 8.
Reference 9.
Table 8.20-1.
Engineering judgement assuming emissions equal to that of
transferring sand, Reference 10.
Engineering judgement based on visual observation at various
plant visits.
Based on partially enclosed structure; open at both ends
with roof. Factor expressed in units per unit of clinker
and gypsum.
Factor expressed in units per unit of cement.
Reference 11. Based on tests of mechanical unloading of
cement to hopper and subsequent transport of cement by
enclosed bucket elevator to elevated bins with a fabric
sock over the bin vent.
A-29
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.6
7. Cross, F.L., Jr. and G.D. Forehand. Air Pollution
Emissions from Bulk Loading Facilities, Volume 6,
Environmental Nomograph Series. Technomic Publishing
Co., Inc. Westgate, Connecticut. 1975. pp 3-4.
8. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation.
PEDCo-Environinental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No.
68-02-1321, Task 40. Publication No. EPA 600/7-78-081.
May 1978. pp 4-38 and 4-51.
9. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Prepared for
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory/REHD, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No. 36. June 1976.
10. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Proc-
esses. Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Monthly
Progress Report No. 11. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. June 17, 1976.
11. Personal communication from T.R. Blackwood, Monsanto
Research Corporation, Dayton Laboratory. Dayton, Ohio.
October 18, 1976.
A-30
-------
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions
from concrete batching are shown in Table 8.10-2 along with
the corresponding emission factors.
Particle size characteristics of the dust vary accord-
ing to the grade of cement. A range of 10 to 20 percent by
weight <5 ym is typical for the various grades of cement.
The dust generated from dry concrete batching plants has
characteristics similar to those of the cement dust dis-
cussed for wet concrete batching plants.
Table 8.10-2. POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE EMISSION
FACTORS FROM CONCRETE BATCHING PROCESSES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Transfer of sand and aggregate to elevated
bins
Cement unloading to elevated storage silos
Weight hopper loading of cement, sand, and
aggregate
Mixer loading of cement, sand, and aggregate
(central mix plant)
Loading of transit mix (wet-batching) truck
Loading of dry-batch truck
Particulates3
Ib/ton
0.04b
0.236C
0.02b
0.04b
0.02b
0.04b
kg/MT
0.02
0.118
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
Factors expressed in units per unit of material handled.
Engineering judgement based on observations and emission
tests on controlled similar sources.
Reference 5. From testing of mechanical unloading to hopper
and subsequent transport of cement by enclosed bucket eleva-
tor to elevator bins with a fabric sock over the bin vent.
A-31
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.10
5. Personal communication from T.R. Blackwood of Monsanto
Research Corporation, Dayton Laboratory. Dayton, Ohio
October 18, 1976.
A-32
-------
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING
Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions
from lime manufacturing operations are crushing and screen-
ing, transfer and conveying, loading, and packaging operations,
Table 8.15-2 shows these potential sources and their corres-
ponding emission factors.
Fugitive particulate emissions from limestone storage,
handling, and transfer typically have a mean particulate
diameter of 3-6 ym, 45-70 percent of which are less than 5
10
ym.
The following information pertaining to stack emission
characteristics is presented since they most likely closely
11 12
parallel those of fugitive emissions. '
Operation
Particle size
distribution
Hammer mill (crusher)
Screening
Bagging house
30% < 3 ym, 47% < 5 ym, 60% < 10 ym
74% < 20 ym, 86% < 40 ym
46% < 3 ym, 72% < 5 ym, 85% < 10 ym
95.5% < 20 yra, 98.8% < 40 ym
71% < 5 ym, 87.3% < 10 ym
96% < 20 ym, 98.8% < 40 ym
A-33
-------
Table 8.15-2. POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Limestone/dolomite charing to primary
crusher
Primary crushing and screening
Transfer points and associated conveying
Secondary crushing and screening
Quicklime and hydrated lime crushing/
pulverizing/screening with leaks from
mill and from feed/discharge exhaust
Truck, rail, ship/barge loading of
quicklime and hydrated lime (including
lime product silo vents)
Packaged quikclime and hydrated lime
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.02a'b
0.5a'c
0.8a'd
1.5a'C
O.le'f
0.236e'g
0.01e'h
kg/MT
0.01
0.25
0.4
0.75
0.05
0.118
0.005
Factor expressed in units per unit weight of raw material
handled.
Reference 7.
C Table 8.20-1.
Engineering judgement, assumed approximately same as emis-
sion factor for dry phosphate rock. Reference 8.
Factor expressed as units per unit weight of lime.
Engineering judgement based on controlled cement milling
emissions reported by a cement manufacturing company.
g
Engineering judgement, assumed the same as for loading of
hydraulic cement obtained from Reference 9.
Engineering judgement, assumed equal to packaging of cement.
Table 7.10-2.
A-34
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.15
7. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/ REDH, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No.
36. June 1976.
8. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations — Appendix Final
Report, Task No. 10. Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
May 1975.
9. Personal communication from T.R. Blackwood of Monsanto
Research Corporation, Dayton Laboratory. Dayton, Ohio.
October 18, 1976.
10. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical
Processes. Midwest Research Institute. Contract No.
68-02-2120. Monthly Progress Report No. 8. Kansas
City, Missouri. March 8, 1976.
11. Particulate Pollutant System Study. Volume III- Hand-
book of Emissions Properties. Midwest Research Insti-
tute. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. Kansas City,
Missouri. May 1, 1971.
12. Shannon, L.J., P.G. Gorman, and M. Reichel. Particulate
Pollutant System Study, Volume II - Fine Particulate
Emissions. Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution
Control Office. Contract No. 22-69-104. Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. August 1, 1971.
A-35
-------
10.4 WOODWORKING OPERATIONS
Since most woodworking operations control emissions out
of necessity, fugitive emissions are seldom a problem.
However, the wood waste storage bins are a common source of
fugitive emissions. Table 10.4-2 shows these emission
sources and their corresponding emission factors.
Information concerning size characteristics is very
limited. Data collected in a western red cedar furniture
factory equipped with exhaust ventilation on most wood
working equipment showed most suspended particulates in the
working environment to be less than 2 ym in diameter.7
Table 10.4-2. POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSION FACTOR FROM WOODWORKING OPERATIONS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Wood waste storage bin vent
Wood waste storage bin loadout
Particulates3
Ib/ton
1.0b
2.0b
kg/MT
0.5
1.0
Factors expressed as units per unit weight of wood waste
handled.
Engineering judgement based on observations on plant visits
A-36
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR SECTION 10.4
7. Industrial Environmental Health, The Worker and the
Community. Academic Press. New York and London.
1972.
A-37
-------
1 REPORT NO
EPA-450/^-78^107
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(t'tease read Instructions on the reverse before completing;
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
L^C MIMLJ buti TITLE —
Assessment of Fugitive Particulate Emission Factors
for Industrial Processes
John M. ~Zoner,~"j7
Thomas A. Janszen
Fhomas Bertke, and
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS '
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
U. S. EPA Project Officer - Charles C. Masser
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
3327-A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-02-2585
Task No. 1
J
3. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
-Final
4. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. ABSTRACT
DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
Air Pollution Control
Dust
Industrial Processes
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT"
Unlimited
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
b.lDENTIFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Emission Factors,
State Implementation
Plans
Fugitive Dust, Particle
Size
Airborne Wastes
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
A-38
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
11G
13H
21. NO. OF PAGES
197
22. PRICE
-------