CORPORATION
 DCN 203-012-07-05
                              SOURCES AND EMISSIONS
                                        OF
                        POLYCYCLIC  ORGANIC MATTER (POM)
                           EPA CONTRACT NO.  68-02-3818
                                Work  Assignment 7
                                  Prepared for:

                               Ray Morrison (MD-12)
                               EPA Project Officer
                           Pollutant Assessment Branch
                  Office  of  Air Quality Planning and Standards
                       U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                           Research Triangle Park* NC
                                   Prepared by:

                                  Mary E.  Kelly
                                Radian Corporation
                                8501 Mo-Pac Blvd.
                                  Austin,  Texas
                      U.S.  Environ nt'iu,,l rroieci.'ja Agency
                      Region V, library
                      230  Soutn Dearborn  Street
                      Chicago,  Illinois  60604
                                December 13, 1983
          8501 Mo-Pac Blvd. / P.O. Box 9948 / Austin, Texas 78766 / (512)454-4797

-------
13,5 EmJfrunmBHta? Protection Agency

-------
RADIAN
CORIHMUtTIOM
                                  DISCLAIMER
     This  report was  furnished  to  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  by
Radian Corporation,  8501 MoPac Blvd., Austin, Texas, 78766,  in fulfillment  of
Contract No. 68-02-3818, Work  Assignment  No.  7.   The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed  herein are  those of the  authors and not necessarily
those of the Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Mention of company or product
names should not be  considered  an  endorsement  of  same by the  Agency.
                                      ii

-------
RADIAN
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.0  Introduction	1-1

2.0  Summary of National Total POM Emission Estimates	2-1

3.0  Reliability of Emission Estimates 	 3-1
     3.1  Developing Total POM Estimates 	 3-2
     3.2  Quality of Reported Emissions Data	3-10
     3.3  References	3-11

4.0  Natural Sources of POM	4-1
     4.1  References	4-3

5.0  Man-Made Sources and Emission Estimates 	 5-1
     5.1  Introduction	5-1
     5.2  Burning Coal Refuse and Other Open Burning	5-3
     5.3  Combustion of Solid* Liquid and Gaseous Fuels for Heat and
          Power Generation	5-9
     5.4  Coke Production	5-46
     5.5  Iron and Steel Processes	5-57
     5.6  Asphalt Production - Paving and Roofing	5-62
     5.7  Catalytic Cracking in Petroleum Production 	 5-72
     5.8  Combustion of Municipal* Industrial* and Commercial Wastes . . 5-75
     5.9  Carbon Black Production	5-85
     5.10 Wood Charcoal Production	5-89
     5.11 Vehicle Disposal 	 5-93
     5.12 Mobile Sources	5-95
     5.13 References	5-103

Appendix A - Additional Calculations for Estimating POM Emissions
             from Combustion Sources 	 A-l
                                     ill

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES

Table Number                            Title                          Page

     1-1       POM Source Categories Examined 	 1-2

     2-1       Summary of 1980 National POM Estimates	2-2

     3-1       Comparison of POM and PAH Compounds	3-3

     3-2       BaP/POM and BSO/POM Ratios Calculated from Readily
               Available Data	3-6

     4-1       Emission Factors for Laboratory Forest Fires 	 4-2

     5-1       POM Source Categories Examined 	 5-2

     5-2       POM Compounds Identified in Particulate Emissions from
               Burning Coal  Refuse Piles	5-7

     5-3       Breakdown of Fossil Fuel Use In Combustion Source
               Categories	5-12

     5-4       Summary of Emission Controls and Regulations for
               Combustion Sources 	 5-15

     5-5       1980 Installed Utility Capacity by State and Fuel
               Type	5-24

     5-6       1980 Existing Utility Capacity by EPA Region and Fuel
               Type	5-27

     5-7       1977 Regional Shares of Industrial Energy Use	 5-28

     5-8       1981 Wood Consumption in Fireplaces and Stoves by State
               and EPA Region	5-30

     5-9       Total POM Emisson Factors for Combustion Source
               Categories		5-31

     5-10      1980 National Total POM Emissions Estimates for
               Combustion Sources 	 5-35

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES
                                 (Continued)
Table Number                            Title                          Page

     5-11      Comparison of Total  POM Emission Estimates with  Those
               Reported in Previous Studies 	  5-38

     5-12      Emission Controls Applicable to By-product Coke
               Plants	    5-49

     5-13      Emission Factor Data for Coke Production	5-52

     5-14      POM Compounds Measured in Uncontrolled Coke Oven Door
               Leak Samples	5-53

     5-15      POM Compounds Measured in Controlled Door Leak
               Samples	5-54

     5-16      POM Compounds Identified in Coke Quench Tower Emissions
               Internal EPA Data	5-55

     5-17      Selected POM Compounds in Coke Quench Tower Samples
               Published Data	5-56

     5-18      POM Emissions in Ferroalloy Electric Arc Furnace
               Exhaust	5-61

     5-19      POM Compounds Identified in Stack Exhaust Emissions from
               a Controlled Asphalt Hot Mix Plant 	  5-68

     5-20      POM Compounds Identified in Samples from Asphalt Air
               Blowing and Felt Saturation	5-70

     5-21      PAH Emission Factors for MSW and Commercial
               Incinerators 	  5-82

     5-22      POM Compounds in Samples from Oil-Furnace Carbon Black
               Plant	5-88

     5-23      PAH Emission Factors for Gasoline and Diesel  Vehichles  .  5-98

     5-24      PAH Compounds Included in Derived Mobile Source  Emission
               Factors	5-99

     5-25      National 1979 PAH Emissions from Mobile Sources	5-100
                                      v

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                               Title                          Page

  5-1       POM Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion by
            Month, 1981	   5-40

  5-2       Industrial  Wood Consumption Trends 	   5-43

  5-3       Trends in Residential Wood Combustion (Stoves) ....   5-45

  5-4       By-Product Coking Process	   5-47

  5-5a      Block Flow Diagram of Batch Hot Mix Production ....   5-64

  5-5b      Block Flow Diagram of Shearer Type Dryer - Drum Hot
            Asphalt Plant	   5-65
                                   vi

-------
                            SOURCES AND EMISSIONS
                                      OF
                       POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER (POM)

1.0  INTRODUCTION

     The purpose of this report 1s to provide updated estimates of national
polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions for the man-made source categories
listed In Table 1-1.

     These estimates will allow EPA to identify major POM source categories
based on current information and to assess the potential  for achieving signif-
icant POM reductions within the established regulatory framework.  Background
information provided for each category will also allow EPA to make preliminary
evaluations regarding the current regulatory status of the category*  emission
controls currently used, geographical distribution of sources, and future
trends which may impact POM emission levels.  Information provided for each
source category, as available, is listed below:

          o    brief source category or process description including
               potential POM emission points,
          o    emission control  methods (for pollutants other than POM)
               currently used, their effect on POM, and a brief discus-
               sion of NSPS, NESHAPs, or SIP air pollution regulations
               (if they are applicable),
          o    geographical  locations of sources,
          o    available POM emission factors,
          o    national  POM emission estimates for a baseline year,  and
                                     1-f

-------
        TABLE 1-1.  POM SOURCE CATEGORIES EXAMINED
     Burning Coal Refuse and Other Open Burning
o    Combustion of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Fuels for Heat
     and Power Generation

     - Utility coal, oil, and gas combustion
     - Industrial coal, oil, and gas combustion
     - Industrial wood combustion
     - Commercial/Institutional coal, oil, and gas combustion
     - Residential coal, oil, and gas combustion
     - Residential wood combustion

o    Coke Production

o    Iron and Steel Processes
o    Asphalt Production

     - Hot Mix for Paving
     - Saturated Felt for Roofing

o    Catalytic Cracking In Petroleum Production

o    Combustion of Municipal, Industrial, and Commercial
     Wastes

o    Carbon Black Production

o    Wood Charcoal Production

o    Vehicle Disposal
o    Mobile Sources

     - Gasoline autos
     - Diesel autos
     - Diesel trucks
     - Tire wear
                         1-2

-------
RADIAN
          o    readily identifiable trends likely to influence POM
               emissions from the categories.

     The report has been organized into four sections.  Section 2.0 summarizes
the national emission estimates for the source categories studied.  A
discussion of factors affecting data quality and the methodologies used to
develop national estimates of total POM emissions is presented in Section
3.0.  Natural sources of POM and man-made (anthropogenic) sources are
described in detail in Sections 4.0 and 5.0, respectively.

     The POM emission estimates presented are based on existing published
information.  No source tests or site visits were conducted.  In most cases,
the project scope and time constraints precluded a thorough examination of the
source characteristics and emission test methods used to develop the published
emission data.  In some cases such information was not available.  However,
every effort has been made to use representative and well-documented emission
factors available in the published literature.  Questionable data and areas
where additional information would be useful have been identified to facili-
tate further assessments in this area.

     A fairly substantial  amount of information has been published on specific
types of POM emissions (most notably benzo(a)pyrene) from the source cate-
gories examined in this study.   However, data were particularly scarce for
forest fires and open burning,  vehicle disposal, and burning coal refuse
piles.  Unfortunately, reporting of total  POM emissions is not common.  For
some source categories emission factors were available only for a specific POM
compound, for example benzo(a)pyrene (BaP),  for benzene soluble organics
(BSD), or for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).  Polynuclear aromatics
are a subset of total  POM.  This distinction is discussed further in Section
3.1.1.  While PAH emission factors were considered appropriate for developing
total  POM estimates, BaP and BSO were not used because there are no well-
established correlations relating the amount of these compounds to the total
POM emitted.  (See Section 3.0).  Thus,  for  a few source categories develop-
ment of total POM emission estimates was not possible.
                                      1-3

-------
     An important consideration involved in making relative comparisons  be-
tween the total  POM emission estimates developed here is that different  pub-
lished emission  factors are very often inconsistent with respect  to what POM
compounds are included* even if the emission factor is defined as representa-
tive of "total  POM".  No attempt was made to resolve the differences in  the
bases of reported emission factors* but in each  case the compounds included in
the emission factor data used are identified (see Section 5.0).

     There are three other areas of uncertainty  or inaccuracy which can  poten-
tially influence the reliability of the emission estimates provided:
          o    sampling and analytical  problems*
          o    accurate characterization of the  emission control  status
               of source categories, and,
          o    the accuracy of production or fuel  consumption data used
               in calculating total POM emission estimates.

     Pertinent factors in each of these areas are discussed in Section 3.0.
                                      1-4

-------
CORPORATION
2.0  SUMMARY OF NATIONAL TOTAL POM EMISSION ESTIMATES

     In this section national emission estimates for the source categories
evaluated are summarized.  The methodologies used to develop the estimates and
factors which affect reliability of the estimates are discussed in Section 3.

     Table 2-1 presents a summary of the 1980 national POM emission estimates
for man-made source categories.  These estimates generally reflect some degree
of POM control resulting from application of particulate matter or other emis-
sion control technologies applied to facilities within the source category.
Development of these estimates is discussed in detail in Section 5.0.  Natural
POM sources are discussed in Section 4.0.  An effort has been made in Table
2-1 to provide a rough qualitative assessment of the relative reliability
of the estimates.  Relative reliability judgments were based primarily on the
extent of data upon which emission factors were based* the estimated quality
of the production or fuel consumption figures used to calculate national emis-
sions, and the degree to which the emission control  status of the source cate-
gory could be reliably determined.  The quality of the sampling and analytical
techniques used to gather the published emission data was not considered in
formulating the relative reliability estimates.

     Table 2-1 also summarizes information on possible trends which may
influence POM emissions from the source categories.   The expected effect of
the trends in increasing or decreasing emissions is  noted where such a judg-
ment was possible based on available information.

     Table 2-1 shows that the most significant categories of POM emissions are
(1) the combustion of wood in residential stoves and (2) mobile sources.  The
high level of POM emissions from residential  wood combustion is due primarily
                                    2-]

-------
RADIAN































01

J

h-
07
UJ

 £
0 O
0) CL

M- C
UJ O











O)
C
i- Ul

(D *r-
3 01
r- 01
**- f
c £
I-H UJ
01 Z
•o O
§°-
i_
i—


«
> T- «
-- i- e
•H — ^

r— ,
in \
U\ f- in ^
— I £ C t-
LU O ^
<» Z "ui
•M O O C
re a_ -^ o
E i- -f
— ,— -H -^
•P <0 ID
LU P






>»
1




Ul (0

t- u
0 0
0) 0)
(D O) O)
01 C C
« « «
O J= -C
I- O O
O
(U O O
o z z
1
Sr—
c o
«— L. O l-
,0 o v 4J
in ui ^ 4-* c
O 0) C (0 O
Q. t- 0) *— O
Ul t- 3
_ t*_ 4J 0) 0) S
•O C  -r- t- CD 0)
t- -M »— C "O L>
fl t- *O C > T3
4-» X i- O  . O E 
2 = Sit-
i- C — <
Q. S- C Ul
QI 3 HH X
Z 0) CD —
< tn o> a
3 C C "- - C
Z3Z ^0) O L.O) ~- — «— -Q fl) W5 U

2O I- T3 fl U. Ll_
_ CD U » ^ 0)CO
OZ O)Q.^ ^E ZZ
OUJ CO 3 U OO
Q_ t-^ O OO) HHLU
CDO CO •«- Oil- Ho1
Z l-4-t t-  c 5 ui u. ui
j= 0) C O +»
O) O) Q. Ul Ul
•*- C L. 30)
.— ••- O (D TJ Ul
a) t, <*- in c T)
4^ (O T- (D
t- Ul r- 0)1- T3
O O L. C O
>*- L. O •*- C
<0 O 4J C i-
O) C i-O)
C 0) O Ul 01 •
TJ Ul O 4-» 3 *- y*>
J= 3 f 1 0) i—
U  i- r- o o |(ft O) » ffl Ul J3 O L.
«*- O O)i- fl i- O t- fO 3 O
•» i— O ,(O>» ^.^.fl^-07 (_ CLQ_
4J O O 4-» O. 3t-CL (tj 0 HH

3 i— O -^  CO ^ TD L. C l_ •» CO
4-» C I- CL •»- C O)f- 3 U) (X >. Ul
CC«*T3  i- C O 0) — L. 4JJ31-L.I—
O7 Q_ r— 0) S ^3 O *^i C 4J 2 T3 0) 3
CL O 0) r- O CL. O O C O t-H C -C O)
z o « "+- fl u» CL 4- o a. 4-» u CD o a. o u







§i-"§ ^-^i-^ 000
v w^'^^^ *~" *-*'—'
co \o r^ o ^

O^CMCM r-4 O •-* ift OOO

-V,
o
(—
fO
c
c o
Zl O -r-
t-H C 4^ 3
1— O U) V

oc £ -a v
LU U) E t/t

!O » — i — C
O£ O « rtJ O
LLJ t- -r- i-
XX*— I-i— -004^*—

^OOCD 3OOCDX EJ3OOCJ
O f "O E S
Z 4-> C O O
^rsooo i-tooooooooo
                         2-2

-------
RADIAN




























•o
o
3
C
•P
8

CO
LU
h-

s
1—
LU

1
g
o
fe
2

s
GO
rH

O
1
1
CO
s
r— 1
1
CM

LU
_J
a






























ui in
•D C
c o

c
*- in
0 C
C O
Q) ^»
3 Ul
r- Ul

C E
HH LU

Ul Z
C Q_
j|[
1—


03
>» (D
0) -P P
> ••- (O
^P C^ J^
« -O -P
r— fl Ul
o: )^
C£ O
U}
g
§U1 >,
Ul X,
CT* i- in *-»
*-4 E c i-
LU O >x
•a -p x.
(D E Ul
P O U C
fl CL •*- O
e t- •*-»

P nl 0>
Ul 3 S
LU C
c








o
a>
p
(O
o

(U
u
L.

o
CO





Ul =

0) (.
-ML- (D
c u -a
13 C
(j ••- • (D
•r- C Ul
**- O O fl
•^ +J •*- O
c -P i-
Ol 0> Q. U
i- 3 E 0>
Ul *O 3 TJ
in
>i (D C (D
i— Ul O r-


Ul L. T3 Ul
Ul U O l/l
O C O O
CL T- * a.

1 •- 1
05 -0 C
l- O O
a. o u L.
* as
•p c a>
3 **- O C CO
.00 — a.
in a) <
r— a> in .C ^
fl U> •*- +J CO
o = E LU
u 35 c z
c •»-
*4- f- 4- C
o O >, a>


Ul 19 Ul -^
3 ffi 3 T- q>
O) (J "D C
•F- •*- 0) O
Ul I- C CT
n3 "O O. Q) c
U -P Q »— 3 ~Q
O (J "O O P C
0) •«- -^ L. 3 0)
0 -0 * -M M- CL

0) **-
L. L. I-

tJ (O T
«*- <4- M-
o o o
•p p -p

"5 «J 10 O O C
U_ U. U_ Q_ Q_ Q-


*-. ^,
CM ^f
x-. « . CM --* — *




r- CM
CM CO • CM CM m

^ rn i— * r* in rn








§

•p
in ui
^ 0)
-O U

O  a> t—
r- 0 I- U
•0 P -^ Z)

•P C
C r- "O -O CC
— (O O O
•^ O O CD S S LU
S g
c: o o o o o u
c


Ul

"x
0)


c

^
CD
C


in


X ui
CO 0)
LU U
Z i-
3
*- o
O m

^
&9
en
o
P
?^
O *" >,
L. J= U
£ -P 4-»
-H * (A
0 ^g

*O 0) C

+J ® "~
C -P ^
O « 
 o
J 3 E 0
C -P
P Ul "O
c a. o
O CO -P




























CO
LL
V.
CO
u.

§
Q_

ul
Lu
CO



•z.
t-H











in
o
a.


O

(D
0) (D
C Ul

£ 
a. g P
C Ul i—
•o u
^ c —

H) •» ns CO
-P — O Q_
ta K t- co
i- m i- z
Q) (D
•o o *f- o
§*" 0)*"
rH C P
S*— T- (_)
•P 0
§01 -r-}
— .a
0 — X 3
_J -P 0) Ul








I V
1 LL.









< <

0 O






e
o
+•» Ul
0 (D
3 CJ
tJ (O 0) Z
O C ® O
I_ I_ (J »-H
a. 3 iu t—
»^£ a
O) O "O 3 Q
c — CD 14- e
L. *O 3J C Q_

P t- O Q. h-
C U U O — J
— 0) <
CO U. 1 1 X
CO
O 0 *-
(— O C Q)
3 Q) O Ul
O Ul +J «j
•^ 3 O Ul Q)

>4- U **- O U
T- C) •*- J- 0)
Q .O 0) -P Q


X P
<0 C •» CO r- Ul
C- (_ C
(Jr~CO(J O O"OO
-0^0)Z3 H_^^_
CH->XJ «t-(D o+J
«3 •»- (D — O O I- CO r—  •* "o i- o co-^:x^
UlOPL. 1- IU O 0) Q
d) 4* i- ui i- /a /o
§C Q. 3 t- Q. U 1- 0) L.
«J "O O O U E CJ
Ulr-CC1*- l-O O
L. Ul C i-
O X Ul O)i— 6? P Q) T3 P
«*--r-a)coin mu^-css
CO C Ul P C O -^->'^ ID
CL-PflSCrtJ -P^1*-*^
COO^OOf— 3**-(D
c
o
o

cn L. zj
c £ *"• z

S « iP
CX «— HH O



x P ° Q"

6 t. ^ =
3 h- LU
4-> +^ >- 	 i
O f _j O
x co < a:
H- 1—
^ LU
o o 0} a.
^


c

-P
c
o
o














































































                          2-3

-------
RADIAN





























^
0>
3
C

P
C
o
o

to
LU
H


1—
to




	 1

§
SE
z
o


U_
0

1
§
CO

.

1
CM
UJ

O3
<
t—

























in in
•o c
c O
CD —
L. in
t- in
4- g
O LU

•P Z
o o
^  *-
o; o

in
c
o
Sin >»
in -^
C7» •'*• in ^*-
^ § i
"O P **«x
(D E in
•p O u c
fl CL •*" O
E t- -P

•P rt) 0?
in r E
UJ C





8.
CD
P
U
CD
U

o
to






 «*• in in

r- » O H


•a co x x t. in a.^r m > -o to t.
C-PZ O -P ® *- L.3 
 •OCDCTE-*-+J"OO C
3OCO-«- C3Q>OO-^C(D C






CD
L. L. L.
^ o •«-
 o:
z in o o in i- o_
S< ^_ ,- ^. t,
i— p « p r— CD ^:

z^ CLL-ui-CLin i 01 <
O*^ -^ ® U-CD -^ L, CD L-
i-Ht-t UC <»C U*- (D
+-» O t-
(J
(DC ••-
r- O **-

>0 P 0
iCD (j Q
E -^ 1_

1
P L. CD
3 0) C
«J C i-
•«- C
•o o t-
CD C 3
•o -^ n
•o
(D >. C
L. I- CD
in P o
0
C E O 0)
0> ^
u -o
o o -e i-
E c P to
C 3
§•»- C 01
•^ c
i- i— -P O
* * +J OJ C -^
L./— L, Pl_PU-r-
<0 O CD
t. TJ
P P -P C
(O C C CD
£ O «3 L.
P 0 O K








1













Q







_

CO
o
0_

o

UJ
	 1
CJ

X
LU

o> in ji

t- >, Ul JZ
U T3 L. O
C O O 1-
f- J3 -p a.









































•o
CD
3
c

p
c
o
o



















































































                         2-4

-------
RADIAN
CORfKMUmOM


in in
TD C
c o
0 —
t- (/i
t— tn

n- "i
O LU

P £
U O
0 CL

**- c
LU O

















O)
c
— in
(J C
c o
,^)
0 -P -P

— ^ E
P — —
fl _Q P
r- (O U>
0 T- LU
CC r—
0 «*-
ec o


c
o
i- !_
o m >i
CO U) -^
O\ t— ui ^*
r- £ C L.
LU O >%
•o +J ,
t_
o
o>
CD
p
<0
O
0
O
{_
3
O
CO









0
UJ

O  > t.
HH CD TO TO (J U
CQ
o
E O







0
in
(O
0
t-
o
c

^
"CD

0

5







c


CD tn
in i—
3 O
t_
-— -P
Sc
o
0 (J
•o c
O

0 UJ
UJ UJ *D
fl T- flj
0 E UJ
t- 0 3
g 0 x
f- C f—
1 ^

0 in L.
UJ O 0
0 -P C
— 3 0
O TO OJ



































































0
OJ
C
(D

» «t-
1- *-
01


£ %
•p
T3
0 Q.
P O
(0 L.
•»• T)
O 0
in i-
UJ 3
IQ UJ
UJ
M- 0
O f-
O.

'o -c
f- O}

o
in
- 0


t— 3
3 L,
UJ O
0 UJ
p
r- 0


C
L. (O
0
•p »
-p ~
gz
0 0
•P C
OJ T-

3
U L.
f- O
•P **-
U

CL C
0
C (J

M-
>% 0

fl «
— m
u i-
0 0
CL-P
UJ i—
0 1-
S (j


O 
P tn f—
•P (P O

ED O O
P uj u
iTJ
i— * O
3 CD UJ

c
(O


o
•o

df















0>







ID
(D
U
O




(O
•o
E

^
u

X


o
*•
U)
c
o


»
o.
o
UI
UI
0>
8
L.
CL

o
+J

CD
J=
•p
c •
O t)
tn (O
UJ TJ

E C
0 O

L. P
0 in
0 J
41 §
O) (J
c
f- 0
-C -P
O uj

0 %
3
cr -a
c
•O (0
c
tJ L,
O
UI V
^ U
0 4-
c
fe °
O in
-o in

c E
O 0
>« o
i— P

O 3
a°
T3 0
0 13
tfl fl
UJ C
4- CD
.CJ

0
3




tn

.c


OJ
c

^*
Q.

p

3
E

UJ TJ
V P
UJ -^ UJ
i- UJ 0
U C
0O C
Q.P O
UJ •—
*- P E
0 0
tn E
t- E
O O O
P O CL
U O

**- O» L,
C 0
O II >>

mm uj
1/1 C
t- X O
E P
0 ^0
|S S


00 (O
TD • CD


C UJ

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
to the inefficient combustion conditions in wood stoves.   Also,  the level  of
wood consumption in residential  stoves has increased significantly in the last
few years (see Section 5.3.4).  However* it should be noted that a wide range
of POM emission factors for this category was found in the literature.   Re-
ported emissions factors varied  between 0.05 and 0.37 gm  POM per kg of  wood
burned.  Thus* national POM estimates for this category could vary from 1300
to 9600 metric tons/yr.  (A 0.27 gm/kg factor was used to calculate the esti-
mate reported in Table 2-1.  This value is an average of  six well-documented
emissions tests of representative wood stoves.)   Emissions from  this category
are projected to increase due to increased wood  consumption and  the lack of
emission controls on residential  stoves.

     The value for the mobile sources category represents total  mobile  source
emissions of 27 specific PAH compounds.  (As discussed in Section  1, when  no
total POM emission data were located* estimates  of PAH emissions were used.)
The authors of the report from which the estimate in Table 2-1 was obtained
suggest that this value should be multiplied by  three to  estimate "total  PAH"
emissions for this category* resulting in an annual  emission estimate of
19>000 metric tons.  However* the authors also note that  their emission fac-
tors, which are based on very limited available  emission  data for  certain  PAH
compounds "extrapolated" to estimate total  PAH emissions  from different types
of mobile sources, are uncertain by at least a factor of  2.  The more con-
servative estimate has been included in Table 2-1 since little information was
provided to support tripling this value to obtain total PAH.

     Other source categories for which the estimated POM  emissions are  rela-
tively significant include prescribed burning for forest  fire management*
industrial wood combustion, residential  coal  combustion,  wood fireplaces,  coke
production* ferroalloy production* and commerical  and industrial  incineration.
Of these categories* emissions from industrial wood  combustion and industrial
incineration may potentially increase in the next few years.
                                      2-6

-------
RADIAN
     Development of total  POM estimates was not possible for agricultural  open
burning/ iron and steel  sintering* waste-fired boilers* or vehicle disposal.
Generally,  the only POM-related emission factor data available for these cate-
gories were in terms of  benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).
                                    2-8

-------
RADIAN
COKPfMMTIOM
3.0  RELIABILITY OF EMISSION ESTIMATES

     The purposes of this section are to briefly explain some of the problems
associated with developing total POM emission estimates from available data
(Section 3.1) and to give the reader a general  picture of the quality of total
POM data contained in available publications (Section 3.2).

     In categories for which adequate data were available, national  total  POM
estimates were generally developed by multiplying a POM emission factor (in
terms of POM per unit of production or consumption) by national  production or
consumption values for the baseline year" of 1980.

     Emission factors used in developing national POM estimates  were obtained
from published literature.  No source tests were conducted.   The general  sam-
pling and analytical  techniques used in the original  tests were  noted where
such information was readily available.  In addition, the specific POM com-
pounds included in the reported emission factors were listed (when that infor-
mation was available).  As previously stated, a thorough examination of source
characteristics and emission test methods used  in collecting the reported
emission data was not possible within the scope and time frame of this study.

     National production or fuel consumption data were obtained  from
published sources for the baseline year of 1980.  For categories in  which  no
1980 production or consumption data were readily available,  estimates were
developed by extrapolating the most recent data located.

     The specific methodology used to estimate  emissions for each man-made
source category is documented in the text (Section 5.0).  Additional  informa-
tion on the development of national  estimates for utility, Industrial,  commer-
cial, and residential combustion sources is provided  1n Appendix A.
                                    3-1

-------
RADIAN
3.1  DEVELOPING TOTAL POM ESTIMATES

3.1.1  Emission Factors for POM

     The emission factors used in Section 5.0 to develop national  total  POM
estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty.   This section  discusses
some of the problems associated with using available published  emission  factor
data for total POM.

     Table 3-1 lists some of the POM compounds identified in  air  emission
samples.  The list was compiled from three references (1,2,3) and thus does
not represent an extensive search of the literature.   However,  all  the major
POM compounds are included (although all  their isomers may not  be listed).
Reported POM emission factors for the various source categories vary  with res-
pect to what compounds are actually included in the emission  data.  This is an
important consideration when comparing the POM emission estimates developed
for various source categories.

     Many of the past emission data gathering efforts have focused  on one par-
ticular POM compound:  benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).  This  compound has been  targeted
primarily because it is a known animal  carcinogen and because it  is relatively
easy to separate and identify.  However,  BaP data cannot reliably be  used to
develop total POM emission estimates because (1)  there is no  well-established
data base on BaP/POM ratios and (2) BaP/POM ratios  appear to  be a function of
source type and, in some cases, operating conditions of the source.   Table 3-2
shows POM ratios calculated from the most recent comprehensive  report on POM
emission sources (4).  The ratios shown in Table 3-2 are based  on the interme-
diate weighted average emission factors given in  Reference 4.  However,  all
the emission factors in the referenced report are based on fairly limited data
and are of questionable value due to significant variations in  sampling  and
analytical  techniques.  Because of these  concerns about the reliability  of any
BaP/POM ratios they were not used to develop total  POM estimates.
                                       3-2

-------
CORPORATION
               TABLE 3-1.  COMPARISON OF POM AND PAH COMPOUNDS3
          POM Compoundb
                                           Included 1n
                                               PAH?C
     Anthracene
     Benz(a)anthracene
     7,12-dimethylbenzanthracene
     D1benzanth racenes
     Methyl anthracene
     Ethyl anthracene
     Methy1-benzoCa]anth racene

     Aceanthrylene
     Benz(j)aceanthrylene
     3-Methylcholanthrene

     AcrMdine

     Anthanthrene
     Methy1anth anth rene

     Benzidene

     Benziquinoline
     Biphenyl
     MethyIbiphenyl
     Polychlorinated
biphenyls
     Chrysene
     Methylchrysene
     Dimethylchrysene
     Benzo(b)chrysene
     Methylbenzo(b)chrysene

     Coronene

     Fluorene
     Methylf1uorenes
     Fluorene carbonItrlle
     Benzofluorenes
     Dibenzofluorenes
                                                Yes
                                                 Y
                                                 Y
                                                 Y
                                                 Y
                                                 Y
                                                 Y

                                                 Y
                                                 Y
                                                 Y
Y
Y

N

N

Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
                                                 Y
                                                 Y
                                                 N
                                                 Y
                                                 Y
                                                                   (Continued)
                                    3-3

-------
RADIAN
         TABLE 3-1.  COMPARISON OF POM AND PAH COMPOUNDS3  (Continued)
          POM Compound13
Included In
    PAH?C
     Fluoranthene
     Methylf1uoranthene
     Tn'methyl fl uoranthene
     Benzo(g,h,i)fluoranthene
     Methylbenzo(g,h»i)fluoranthene
     Benzfluoranthenes
     0-phenylene-fluoranthene
     Methyl-o-phenylene-fluoranthene

     Napthene
     Naptho(2»3-a)pyrene
     B,B'-B1napthyl

     Perylene
     Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
     Methylbenzo(g,h»1)perylene

     Phenanthrene
     Methylphenanthrene
     Ethy1pnenanth rene
     Dimethylphenanthrene
     Benzophenanthrenes

     Picene

     Pyrene
     Benzo(a)pyrene
     Benzo(e)pyrene
     Dlbenzopyrenes
     Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
     Methylpyrene
     Tn'methyl pyrene
     Methylbenzopyrenes
     Di methy1benzopy renes
     Methyl Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene

     Benzo(c)tetraphene
     Methylbenzo(c)tetraphene

     Triphenylene
     Methyl tri phenyl ene
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y

      Y
      Y
      N

      Y
      Y
      Y

      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y
      Y

      Y
      Y

      Y
      Y
                                                                   (Continued)
                                       3-4

-------
RADIAN
         TABLE 3-1.   COMPARISON OF POM AND PAH COMPOUNDS3  (Continued)
          POM Compound13
Included in
    PAH?C
     Others
       Carbazole
       Benzo(a)carbazole
       Di benzocarbazoles

     Polychl on' ated di benzo-p-dioxi ns

     Polychlorinated dibenzofurans

     Imino arenes
       e.g.,  aromatic HC with ring
       N with a H

     Carbonyl arenes
       e.g.,  aromatic HC with one
       ring carbonyl group

     Dicarbonyl  arenes (quinones)
       e.g.,  two ring carbonyl  groups

     Hydroxy  carbonyl arenes
       e.g.,  ring carbonyl  aromatic HC
       with hydroxy groups and possibly
       alkoxy or acyloxy group

     Oxa-arenes
       e.g.,  aromatic HC with ring 0 atom

     Thia arenes
       e.g.,  aromatic HC with ring S atom
      N
      N
      N

      N

      N

      N
      N


      N
      N
aBased on limited sources of information.

bRefs 1, 2, and 3.  Not all  synonyms shown.

CPAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as defined  in  Reference  1.
                                      3-5

-------
RADIAN








5
i-
f*i

LU
_J
2
^»
I_H
^
<
HH
§
LU
cc:
^E
^^
o:
LL.

Q
LU
1-

	 1
§
O
CO
O
HH
o:
o
Q_
«s^
0
CO
CO

Q
Z


«£
o
Cu

OL
*O
CD


•
f\J
1
en
LU
i
%
\-








^r
o
Q.

0
CO
CO



o
Q-
0-
ttf
CD


!__
O
s_
1 *
c
cS

c
o
ff—
(I)

LU




















0
U

3
O
co















oo o
• •
o m cc cc: i-t oo cc:
oo z z un z
r-i Q Q Q


VO
1
o
oooomvoo^fc-ioocsiLn ^-LfiLoCNvocnr-iri- on LO CM r-~ t— i •— i "sr
ooor-Hceor-ioooceoooooooo cc a: xcncrcsjooocrccoo
OOOOQOOOOOQOOOOOOOO QQmOQOOOOQQOO
m

on

0
8
-p
= S = E
O 00/00
i— t- i— i— t- r—
i— 0 i— i— Q. r—
Q- o •— oo0tno
CO Q- S- i- t_!_Ct-
LU CO -P O -P-PO°d-P
0^x LU C0000000000CD CCr— CD 0) C CD
CT3 Q.-^ Q. OCCCCCCCCCC OOU0CCOC
OOCOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO>^COOOO
"u
0*



T-,
O -Q
•at. .a t— .a
0 *F™ r~~ IO _^v ^^ ^^
"O "O t— ^f- O) fO +^ r™* ^~ (O
00i-ic -po (O(«-p
t- t_ t- >,T- J3 O -P -P -P O
i- •!- 1 r— J- C-PI OO-P
1-M-r-r— -r-t-OlW -P-PI ^3
III— <0 M- 0 i- W t- 1 1 O) Q) jQ^
r— i— iOi-s_r- -ps_0 inincc r— 0

•P-PCOTOO Q-O -QJ3 i- -r- 0 r- 0 i— r- 1- D5-PI
t- L. O C O--Q >, O J3 OT-Q O O -C i— -C  ^> 1 1 ^— ttD >^ *^ 'O 0^0 "O ^> "O O O 0 /O J— ^ O
•Pr— r— 0t-OU"O'O0 0-P-P O)-P 0 O-P
T--r-(at_-i--p(O00t--ot-ll inlO -P -Pio
^^ r~ -P -P °i~ *+~ (0 r— f t_ •?- 0 T- O) O7 ^ * 3 O X X 0 ^ C *^
1 I-.pi- i— r— r- <— Oil— (JOO-CC-Ci— t--Pr-i-'i--PO-r-
L. i— tnOr— fOfOlOr— «(O fl3 3 U i— U 0(O.QEE*n'0 i —
0 H— ^3 (0 *r~ 'i~ "^ (O -P *r- r— •*— O CJ "O r~ ^ j -P (/) r— r~* /O
r— ^~ it- •^-p-p-pT-in-pio-pi-i-o-Pin0o-P t_-p+j-DJ3io-r-
i-r— 00>,t_CCCJ_CCi-C-P-PL.033OlO-P'i-OOC: O.O
O*O c ID -P +J 000 4^ HH 0 t- 0 >> >^ n Tg n ^( /*" \ fin j— - ^^ T^ T* /0 cr t— f
m o O (O *^ in X3 "o *o in ^s* "o in "o r— r— *o O O 0
i Q--P C000co0c0
-------
CORPORATION
^
0
C
•f—
-fj
c
o
O
^
^f
s^

«^
r-
^C
Q

LU
i
3
_j
HH
§
LU
CC

^
C^
ry
U.

Q
LU
^™
_J
=5
O
^
O
co
0
1— 1
r-

OL

^r
2
•s^
o
CO
CO

Q
Z


^>"
o
Q_
^s^
0.
rO
CO


•
CN
1
ro
LU
i
rf)
^c
H-

O
0.
0
CO
CQ






1ST
O
Q.
•^

rO
m


L.
<§

C
0
*,_
10
0)
•r-
E
LU






















0
O
t
3
0
CO























m
ro >
1 O
0 rH
CN *fr rH r-l rH CN
^H^Hr-IO OCCCCX
• • • «x «zz
OOOO OQQCN
00 •
• r— 1
m





0
c
o
000r-00 00
CCCUCC CC
ooo>,oo oo
zzzozzu zz















in
U) 0
^^ f*-
c u
0 C
C rO
0 I-
0 CL-0
in E
3 O « O
>*- O U) O) D)i—
0^0) c C ra U
t- in > -r- •?- -p ,—
0 ro "O Ji O ro
r— i- 0 rO O -P -P
rO "O ^~ in 0 ro 1 O
a. O s_ x: -Q in -p
i- £i •> 0 o i in
o>u in r— tn -P«^

•f" c -P ^0 O S— fO +•* 3
Ss^a"0^ 0roi>
3 0 C
-Q 1 1 1  P T- r— r-
W U) r- 0 0
c to 0 O in to
0 a> t- in 0 0
Q. 
0 ro
^
p- "O
3 0
Q. P
-C
0)

o 0
a. 3
































.
c
o
•r-
ra
1—
a.
o
CL

O
•P
3
«J
VO

O^
r— 1

C
o

•o
0
01
ra


0
O)

!_
0
>
(O

T3
0
-p
.c
0)
•^
0
u

















































•
£_
o
4->
u
0
pH.
1—
o
o

f.—
to
o
•r-
c

JC
8
E


• •
o
•a



















































•
"O
0
p
{_
o
a.
0


±)
o
c

(O
•p
ro
Q


• •
CC
Q
0
                                              3-7

-------
RADIAN
     Another "indicator" of POM emissions, often used in reporting coke  oven
emissions, is benzene soluble organics (BSD).   Although most POM compounds
(including BaP) are soluble in benzene,  BSD is not necessarily  equivalent to
POM because it includes compounds other  than POM (6).  It has been established
that BaP is generally about 1 percent of BSD in coke oven emissions (7).   How-
ever, since this correlation applies only to coke ovens and since BSO includes
compounds that are not POM, the correlation was not considered  useful  for
developing total POM estimates.

     More recently, techniques have evolved for sampling and analysis of  poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).  These compounds are a subset of total
POM as indicated by Table 3-1.  Measurements of PAH do not include such  POM
groups as aza arenes,.imino arenes, carbonyl and dicarbonyl  arenes, hydroxy
carbonyl arenes, oxa-and thia-arenes, and polychlorinated polycyclic com-
pounds.  However, PAH does include most  of the major POM compounds and,  as
such, PAH emission factors were considered to be appropriate for use in
developing total POM estimates where no  other data were available.

     Some total POM emission factors have been reported in the  literature,
although most of these data were collected in  two or three studies in  the late
60's and early 70's.  These initial studies have been cited repeatedly in more
recent reports, but not much new total POM emission data have been collected.

     The general emission test method used in  collecting the reported  data,
the compounds included in the measurement(s),  and the key characteristics of
the source(s) tested have been reported  here when such information was readily
available in the literature sources used in this study.

3.1.2  National Emission Estimates

     The most uncertain aspect of developing national  emission  estimates  for a
source category is the assumption that an emission factor based on limited
te.st data for a narrow range of sources  can be considered representative  of
                                       3-8

-------
RADIAN
the entire source category.  In reality*  POM emissions from specific sources
will vary with:

          o    raw materials used,
          o    process design and operating conditions, and
          o    emission control technology applied.

     Most of the emission factor data used was reported to have been obtained
from "representative sources" with respect to raw materials and process design
and operating conditions.  In some cases,  emission factors for a weighted
average source population had been developed in the literature.  Variations in
raw material and process conditions tend  to be averaged out over the source
category population and thus should not interfere greatly with the development
of useful national emission estimates.

     The impact of emission control technology application is more difficult
to assess.  Emission factors reported in  the literature vary with respect to
whether they were measured before or after the emission control device.
Additionally, there is a significant lack of data regarding the effect of
technologies designed to control other pollutants (particulate, NOX, S02» CO,
or hydrocarbons) on POM emissions.  Finally, "controlled" emission factors in
the literature may not be representative  of the emission control  technologies
currently used in the source category.

     During the course of developing national  emission estimates, applicable
Federal air pollution regulations (NSPS,  NESHAPs) were briefly reviewed to
determine the emission controls required  for sources subject to such regula-
tions.  Also, readily available published information on the current use of
emission controls in the source category  was assembled.  Engineering judg-
ments were made in some cases to use emission factors representative of the
application of a particular technology to the entire source category.  Despite
these efforts, however, the national  impact of current non-POM emission con-
trol technology requirements on POM emissions is difficult to assess (even
                                      3-9

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
qualitatively) and is likely to be a major factor in the usefulness of the
national POM estimates developed in this study.

     National production or fuel consumption estimates inherently  contain
some inaccuracies associated with the collection and documentation of such
data.  For the following source categories the data used to develop national
estimates were considered particularly susceptible to inaccuracies:

          o    tonnages of material  burned in forest fires and  other open
               burning,
          o    tonnages in burning coal  refuse piles,  outcrops,  and
               abandoned mines,
          o    residential wood consumption, and
          o    the amounts of refuse combusted in municipal,  industrial,
               and commercial incinerators.

3.2  QUALITY OF REPORTED EMISSIONS DATA

     Much of the POM emitted is associated with small  particles entrained  in
the exhaust gases from the source (i.e.  plant or process equipment).   There-
fore, high small particle collection efficiency is an  important consideration
in the accuracy of the sampling apparatus used in measuring POM emissions.
EPA Method 5, which has been adopted as  a standard method for measuring par-
ticulate matter emissions, is the method most commonly employed to measure POM
from stationary emission sources.

     Some POM compounds from certain sources are emitted as vapor.   The vapor-
phase POM emissions are not totally  captured by the typical  Method  5  particu-
late sampling apparatus used to measure  POM.  Depending on the  temperature of
the source stream and the sampling apparatus temperature,  undetected  emissions
of POM may be significant (8).

     Another problem with typical  POM measurements is  the potential  for loss
of POM already trapped on the sampling train filter.   Such losses  are reported
                                    3-10

-------
CORPORATION
to increase with increasing gas velocity and increasing gas temperature.  POM
losses can also occur through chemical rearrangement of the collected sub-
stances on the filter surface.  One source has reported that POM emission
measurements based on conventional Method 5 particulate sampling techniques
are low by a factor of 2 to 200 (8).  Modified Method 5 techniques using
Impingers and solvent-filled bubble trains have been shown to substantially
reduce POM losses.  Advanced techniques using sorbent resins to capture vapor
phase POM can result in much more accurate results* but these techniques do
not appear to generally have been used in collecting the available data
reported in much of the published literature.

     A variety of analytical methods have been and are being used to analyze
the collected samples for POM.  Apparently* agreement between POM concentra-
tions obtained with different analytical techniques can be "expected to be no
more than an order of magnitude (9)."

     In summary* the uncertainty and variability associated with POM sampling
and analysis techniques cast substantial doubt upon the accuracy of POM emis-
sion factors reported in the literature.  Virtually all of the literature
sources reviewed have included such a caveat in cautioning readers about
usefulness of the data reported.

3.3  REFERENCES

1.   Merrill, Ray (IERL-RTP), Process Measurements Branch.  Telephone conver-
     sation with Mary Kelly (Radian Corp.). March 16. 1983.

2.   National Academy of Sciences.  Particulate Polvcvclic Organic Matter.
     Washington, DC, pp. 4-12, 1972.

3.   White, J. B., and R. R. Vanderslice (Research Triangle Institute, Inc.).
     POM Source and Ambient Concentration Data;   Review and Analysis.   EPA-
     600/7-80-044, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, p. 52, March 1980.
                                    3-11

-------
4.   Haro, J. T.  (Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.) Preliminary
     Assessment of the Sources, Control and Population Exposure to Airborne
     Polvcvclic Organic Matter (POM) as Indicated by BaP.   Final Report,
     Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Par,
     NC, pp. 22-35, November 10, 1978.

5.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Scientific and Technical Assess-
     ment Report on Participate Polycyclic Organic Matter.   EPA-600/75-001,
     Washington, DC, March 1975.

6.   Emission Standards and Engineering Division.  Coke Oven Emissions from
     Bv-Product Coke Production - Background Information for Proposed
     Standards.   Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, pp. 3-17, March 1981.

7.   Reference 6, p. 3-19.

8.   Reference 3, Chapters 2 and 4.

9.   Reference 3, p. 27.
                                     3-12

-------
CORPORATION
4.0  NATURAL SOURCES OF POM

     Natural sources of POM emissions are basically natural combustion sources
such as forest fires and volcanoes.  Data on total POM emissions from natural
sources are scarce.  The only readily available emission factors located were
from laboratory tests of burning pine needles.  These emission factors and
corresponding national estimates are discussed below.

     Table 4-1 shows POM emission factors reported for the laboratory forest
fires (1).  As indicated, the emission factors vary by up to three orders of
magnitude depending on the type of fire.  Other variables that significantly
impact emissions from forest fires are:

          o    the type of vegetation burned,
          o    burning conditions, and
          o    weather conditions.

     In 1980, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that 1.8 x 1010 m2 (4.43
million acres) were burned in wildfires (2).  This figure includes all types
of wildfires, from grasslands to forests.  At an average of 2.3 kg/m^ (10.4
tons/acre burned), this amounts to approximately 41.2 million metric tons/yr
(45.3 million tons/yr) of vegetation burned in 1980 (2).

     The average intermediate POM emission factor for all types of fires
included in the lab study results is 20 mg/kg burned.  Multiplying this
emission factor by the total  estimate tonnage burned in 1980 yields a rough
estimate of national  POM emissions from wildfires of:
                                     4-1

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
        TABLE 4-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LABORATORY  FOREST FIRES  (l)a
Type of Forest Fire
Heading (flaming)
Heading (smoldering)
Heading (overall)
Backing (overall)

Minimum
3.46
21.8
7.63
10.2
POM Emission Factor^ (ma/ka
Intermediate
5.3
26
14
36
burned)
Maxi mum
8.39
31.5
22.8
172
aTests involved burning pine needles  in  a  controlled  environment  burning  room.
 A modified "hi-vol" sampler was  used to collect  particulate  samples.  Samples
 were extracted with methylene chloride, separated  by liquid  chromotography
 and analyzed by GC/MS.

^Compounds measured:  anthracene,  phenanthrene, methyl anthracene,
 fluoranthene,  pyrene,  methyl  pyrene,  benzo(c)phenanthrene, chrysene,
 benzo(a)anthracene, methyl  crysene,  benzofluoranthenes,  benzo(a)pyrene,
 benzo(e)pyrene, perylene,  methylbenzopyrenes, Indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene,  and
 benzo(g,h,i)perylene.
                                     4-2

-------
RADIAN
   [41.2 million metric tons A   [ ;
   \            yr         /   V
                                 20    am	 \   I metric ton
                 yr         J   \.   metric ton/   \10  gm  /
          = 824 metric tons/yr (906 tons/yr)
It should be noted that this estimate is very rough  for two reasons:

          o    Very limited emission factor data  were available,  and
               those data were from laboratory fires burning only one
               type of vegetation.
          o    Estimates of acreage and tonnage burned in  wildfires are
               uncertain and widely varied.

4.1  REFERENCES

1.   Energy and Environmental  Analysis, Inc.   Preliminary  Assessment of the
     Sources, Control  and Population Exposure to  Airborne  Polycvclic Organic
     Matter (POM) as Indicated bv Benzo (A) Pvrene (BaP).    Final  Report,
     Prepared for U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research  Triangle
     Park, North Carolina, p.  29, November 10, 1978.

2.   Yamate, George (IIT Research Institute).  Emissions Inventory from
     Forest Wildfires, Forest Managed Burns,  and  Agricultural Burns,
     EPA-450/3-74-062, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research  Triangle
     Park, North Carolina, p.  7,  November 1974.
                                    4-3

-------
CORPORATION
5.0  MAN-MADE SOURCES AND EMISSION ESTIMATES


5.1 INTRODUCTION


     This section presents the development of national  total  POM emission

estimates for the source categories shown in Table 5-1.  The following sec-

tions discuss each of the following items for each source category:


          o    a brief source category or process description with
               identification of POM emission points and the key factors
               influencing emissions,

          o    emission control  methods (for compounds  other than POM)
               currently used in the source category, their effect on POM
               emissions and a brief discussion of applicable NSPS,
               NESHAPs, and SIP air pollution regulations,

          o    geographical locations of sources,

          o    available emission factor data,

          o    national emission estimates for a baseline year,  and

          o    readily identifiable trends in technology, source category
               growth, or emission regulations that are likely to
               influence POM emissions.

     The baseline year for emission estimates was chosen as 1980.  In addition

to providing relatively recent information, this year required a minimum of
extrapolation of production and  fuel  consumption data used to calculate
national emissions.


     A summary of national  emission estimates for the various source cate-
gories is contained in Section 2.0.
                                     5-1

-------
RADIAN
coniKMumOM
                  TABLE 5-1.  POM SOURCE CATEGORIES EXAMINED
Section No.
                   Category
   5.2


   5.3
   5.4

   5.5

   5.6
o

o

0
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
0
0
0
o
o
0
     Burning Coal Refuse and Other Open Burning
Combustion of Solid* Liquid, and Gaseous Fuels for Heat
and Power Generation

- Utility coal, oil, and gas combustion
- Industrial coal, oil, and gas combustion
- Industrial wood combustion
- Commercial/Institutional coal, oil, and gas combustion
- Residential coal, oil, and gas combustion
- Residential wood combustion

Coke Production

Iron and Steel Processes

Asphalt Production

- Hot Mix for Paving
- Saturated Felt for Roofing

Catalytic Cracking in Petroleum Production

Combustion of Municipal, Industrial, and Commercial
Wastes

Carbon Black Production

Wood Charcoal Production

Vehicle Disposal
Mobile Sources

- Gasoline autos
- Diesel autos
- Diesel trucks
- Tire wear
                                      5-2

-------
RADIAN
5.2  BURNING COAL REFUSE AND OTHER OPEN BURNING

     The section discusses three sources of POM emissions:

          o    burning coal refuse piles* outcrops* and mines
          o    agricultural open burning* and
          o    prescribed open burning (forest fires).

     Unprescribed burning of leaves, grass, and other materials was not con-
sidered because of (1) the difficulty of obtaining meaningful  data on emission
factors and tonnage burned and (2) the widespread prohibition of unprescribed
open burning (1).

5.2.1  Source Category Description

5.2.1.1  Process Description

     Coal Refuse Piles, Outcrops, and Mines — Waste material  separated from
coal is often piled into banks near coal  mines or coal preparation plants.  The
waste material  is referred to as coal refuse, gob, culm,  or reject material.
Indiscriminant dumping and poor maintenance of refuse piles are two practices
that can result in spontaneous combustion of refuse piles (2).   Spontaneous
combustion of coal  can also result in fires in abandoned  mines, outcrops,  and
impoundments.  Emissions of POM from these sources are influenced by oxygen
concentration,  type of coal and refuse, relative humidity of the ambient air,
and moisture content and temperature of the burning material  (3).

     Agricultural Open Burning — Open burning is performed in  some rural
areas as a means of controlling agricultural  wastes.  The burning is carried
out in open drums or baskets,  large-scale open dumps,  or  pits  (4).  The rela-
tively low burning temperatures and inefficient combustion typical  of agri-
cultural open burning make it a potential source of POM.   Emissions will  vary
widely with the type of waste burned and  burning conditions.
                                    5-3

-------
RADIAN
coftpaiunoM
     Prescribed Open Burning — Prescribed open burning of forests is prac-
ticed to reduce the chances of wildfires.   Prescribed burning is usually well-
controlled and occurs at a lower intensity than wildfires.  However,  combus-
tion tends to be incomplete due to the high moisture content and varying
composition of the materials burned (5).   Thus, prescribed burning is a  source
of POM emissions.  Emissions of POM will  vary widely with  the material  being
burned, burning conditions, and weather conditions.

5.2.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     Coal Refuse Piles, Outcrops,  and Mines — Various techniques exist  to
control particulate and gaseous emissions  from burning coal  refuse piles,
outcrops, and abandoned mines.  These techniques are based on cutting off the
oxygen source to extinguish the fire and  on preventing the fire from  spread-
ing.  The control techniques for coal  refuse piles include quenching  the pile
with water and blanketing it with  an incombustible material.  Control  tech-
niques for outcrops and abandoned  mines include the use of fire barriers, sur-
face sealing, and flushing void spaces with water or an incombustible material
(6).

     No data were available on the use of  these control  techniques for exist-
ing fires.  However, in 1975 the U.S.  Department of the Interior promulgated
regulations that require coal  companies to dispose of coal  refuse in  a manner
that prevents or minimizes the chances for spontaneous combustion (6).

     Agricultural Open Burning —  Most states have regulations that prohibit
open burning.  However, agricultural  burning is not specifically restricted in
any of the states (4).  Some states do require the farmer  to obtain a  permit
and also give local  air pollution  control  authorities discretion over when
burns can occur (4).

-------
     Prescribed Open Burning — POM emissions from prescribed open burning
can be reduced somewhat by attempting to maintain well-controlled and effi-
cient burning.  No data were available, however* to characterize POM emissions
as a function of burning conditions.

5.2.1.3  Source Locations

     Coal Refuse Piles* Outcrops* and Mines — Locations of these sources
are, of course, linked to mining locations.  Kentucky, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania accounted for about 63 percent of burning coal refuse and im-
poundments in 1972.  Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico accounted for
about 66 percent of burning abandoned mines and outcrops.  Other states in
which these sources are located include Alabama, Ohio, and Virginia (2).

     Agricultural Open Burning — Limited data indicate that agricultural
burning (in terms of total acres burned) is prevalent in California, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, and
Washington all of which have significant levels of agricultural activity (4).

     Prescribed Burning — Data on the acreage of prescribed burns by state
were not located.  However, based on state-specific particulate estimates from
prescribed burning, the states where prescribed burning is used to a rela-
tively larger extent (than in other states) are Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and
West Virginia (7).

5.2.2  Emission Factors

     Coal Refuse Piles, Outcrops, and Mines — Preliminary sampling of
emissions from a burning coal refuse pile was conducted by Monsanto Research
Corp. (2).  Particulate matter collected from a representative coal  refuse
pile using "hi-vol" sampling equipment was analyzed for POM.  A total  POM
emission rate of 0.019 mg/m^-hour of burning coal  refuse was reported.  Based
on an average density of 1.5 metric tons/m^ for refuse piles, this translates
                                      a-b

-------
into 0.013 mg/hour-metric ton of refuse burned.  The POM compounds measured
are shown in Table 5-2.

     Agricultural Open Burning — No POM emission factor data were available
for agricultural open burning.

     Prescribed Burning - No POM emission data were available specifically
for prescribed burning.  Therefore* the emission factors presented in Section
4.0 for laboratory forest fires were used to develop the estimates.

5.2.3  National Emissions Estimates

     Coal Refuse Piles* Outcrops* and Mines — Estimates of the amounts of
burning coal refuse in piles* outcrops* and mines are difficult to develop.
Reference 2 reports that in 1968 there were about 250 x 106 metric tons (275
million tons) of coal refuse in piles* but no estimates were given for
impoundments* outcrops, or abandoned mines.  A representative coal refuse pile
was defined as having the following characteristics (2):
          o    volume:  1.7 x
          o    dry density:  1.5 metric tons/m3
          o    percent of pile burning:  21

     The total number of active piles in 1972 was estimated at 206 (2).   Based
on "typical pile" characteristics and the number of piles the estimated  amount
of burning coal refuse in piles is:

     (206 piles)(1.7 x lO^/pile) (1.5 metric tons/m3) ( .21)
          = 110 million metric tons (121 million tons)

This is less than half the total tonnage estimate given  in Reference 2 which
was based on a Bureau of Mines estimate of "refuse material contained in coal
piles." Because not all  the material  is likely to be burning,  the 110 million
metric ton figure calculated above is more suitable for  use in calculating
                                    5-6

-------
TABLE 5-2.  POM COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM BURNING
            COAL REFUSE PILES (2)
             Dibenzothlophene

             Anth racene/phenanth rene

             Methylanthracenes/phenanthrenes

             9-Methy1anth racene

             Fluoranthene

             Pyrene

             Benzo(c)phenanthrene

             Ch rysene/benz (a)anth racene

             Dimethylbenzoanthracenes

             Benzo(k or b)fluoranthene

             Benzo(a)pyrene/Benzo(e)pyrene/pyrene

             3-Methylcholanthrene

             Dibenz(a»h or a»c)anthracene

             Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene

             9H-Dibenzo(c»g)carbazole

             Dibenzo(a>h or a,i)pyrene
                                   5-7

-------
RADIAN
national  emission estimates  from  coal  refuse piles.  Due to a lack of more
recent data*  the number of piles  was assumed to be the same in 1980 as for
1972.

     Thus, national  POM emissions from coal refuse piles were estimated to be:
    (-
    \metr
         013 mg  \ /HO million metric tons\ /8760 hr\  /metric  ton1
      letric ton/h/ V                       / \   yr  / V  106  gm
              12.2 metric tons/yr (13.4 tons/yr)

     Estimates of national POM emissions from burning outcrops and abandoned
mines could not be developed since no emission factor or  "tonnage burning"
data were available.

     Prescribed Burning — Limited data indicate  that in  1976  approximately
15 million metric tons (17 million tons) of forest vegetation  was consumed in
prescribed burns (1).   The acreage was assumed to be  the  same  for 1980.
Multiplying this figure by the 20 gm/metric ton average emission factor for
wild fires presented in Section 4 results in a national POM estimate of 300
metric tons/yr (330 tons/yr).

5.2.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     Coal Refuse Piles, Outcrops, and Mines — Proper enforcement of
existing regulations requiring preventative disposal  measures  and extinguish-
ing existing fires could substantially reduce POM emissions from coal
refuse piles.  However, indications are that extinguishing existing fires is
difficult and costly and, as a result, has  proceeded  somewhat  slowly (8).
Also, in 1971 there were about 40 burning piles and about 160  inactive piles
for which information  on owners was not available.  Debate over responsibility
for extinguishing existing burning piles of unknown ownership  could preclude
quick action on these  sources.
                                     5-3

-------
RADIAN
     Agricultural Open Burning — No Information was located on trends  in
agricultural open burning.  It can be hypothesized that more diligent enforce-
ment of open burning regulations and public awareness of obvious pollution
problems will tend to limit agricultural  open burning to current or lower
levels.

     Prescribed Open Burning — Because of its use as a wild fire prevention
technique* the level of prescribed open burning is not likely to change in  the
near future.  In the long term, continued research on fire control  techniques
may provide for some reduction in POM from prescribed burning.

5.3  COMBUSTION OF SOLID, LIQUID AND GASEOUS FUELS FOR HEAT AND POWER
     GENERATION

     This section examines total POM emissions from the following combustion
categories:

          o    utility coal, oil, and gas combustion,
          o    industrial coal, oil, and  gas combustion,
          o    industrial wood combustion,
          o    commercial/institutional coal, oil, and gas combustion,
          o    residential coal, oil, and gas combustion,  and
          o    residential wood combustion.

Combustion of municipal solid waste and industial  waste is covered in Section
5.8.  Only combustion in boilers and residential  furnaces, stoves and fire-
places is included in this study.  Process heat sources were not covered due
to a lack of readily available POM emission factor data.  However,  coal- and
oil-fired process heaters are a potential  source of POM.

     A general  principal applicable to all these combustion sources is  that
more efficient combustion reduces POM formation (9).  Therefore,  as discussed
in detail later in this section, POM emission factors (POM emitted per  unit
                                       5-9

-------
RADIAN
heat input of fuel) are significantly less for utility  combustion  sources than
for less efficient residential  stoves.

     The following factors act  to increase POM formation  in  combustion  sources
(10):

          o    high carbon to hydrogen  ratio and  high concentrations of
               oxygen and aromatics in  the fuel,
          o    low temperatures in the  combustion and post-combustion
               zone,
          o    short residence  time of  combustion gases in the combus-
               tion chamber,
          o    inefficient fuel/air mixing and lower air/fuel ratios,
          o    high frequency of start-up  and shut-down, and
          o    larger (solid  fuel) feed size.

POM emission rates from combustion sources are highly variable and, as  indi-
cated by the factors listed above, are  tied directly to fuel type  and the
design and operation of the combustor.

5.3.1  Source Category Description

5.3.1.1  Process Description

     POM compounds are formed in the gaseous  phase in the combustion zone.  As
the combustion off-gases cool,  some POM compounds condense onto particles
present in the gas stream. POM is more likely to condense onto the smaller
particles in the gas stream because of  the larger surface area-to-volume
ratios of small  particles (11).   At normal  flue gas Stack temperatures  of
about -150eC (300°F),  significant amounts  of  POM  reportedly exists as vapor
(9,11).
                                        5-10

-------
RADIAN
COKMMUmOM
     Utility Combustion

     Utility coal-fired power plants burn crushed or pulverized coal  to
generate steam> which is in turn used to generate electric power.   The common
utility boiler types are:

          o    pulverized dry bottom (vertically-* front wall-* or tan-
               gential! y-fi red ),
          o    pulverized wet bottom (opposed-fired),
          o    cyclone (crushed coal),  and
          o    spreader stokers (generally used at smaller,  older
               utilities),

Pulverized dry bottom boilers are the most commonly used,  accounting  for  about
76 percent of bituminous coal consumption by utilities in  1978 (12).   Reported
POM emission factors vary somewhat between these boiler types (13).

     In 1980, utilities firing coal, oil, and gas together accounted  for
approximately 69 percent of the installed nameplate capacity of electric
utilities (14).  On a heat input basis, the 1980 distribution of utility
consumption of these fuels is shown in  Table 5-3.

The figure for coal includes consumption of lignite and anthracite.

     Industrial Combustion

     Boilers are used in industry primarily to generate process steam and to
provide for space heating.  Some industrial boilers are also used  for elec-
tricity generation.  Industrial  boilers are widely used in the manufacturing,
processing, mining, and refining sectors.

     Coal-fired industrial boilers are  generally watertube designs.   Firing
mechanisms include pulverized coal  and  stoker (spreader,  underfeed and over-
feed stoker).  Most industrial  boilers  are front-wall  fired  (16).   Large
                                    5-11

-------
   TABLE 5-3.  BREAKDOWN OF FOSSIL FUEL USE IN COMBUSTION SOURCE CATEGORIES
               1981 DATA
Percent of Total Fossil Fuel Consumed in
Cateaorv Accounted for bvc:
Category
Utility Boilers
Industrial Boilers
Commerci al /Insti tuti onal
Goal3
66
18
3
Oil"
13
17
17
Natural Gas
21
65
80
Reference
15
17
18
  Boilers

Residential Furnaces
  and Stoves
21
78
21
aCoal figure includes lignite and anthracite.

bOil consumed in utility and industrial  boilers is primarily No.  6 residual
 oil; distillate oil  is primarily burned in residential  furnaces.

cHeat input basis.
                                     5-12

-------
RADIAN
industrial boilers are commonly pulverized coal-fired»  while underfeed  and
overfeed stokers are usually smaller units.  Spreader  stokers are  found across
the entire industrial  boiler size range.

     Oil and natural gas are also burned  in industrial  boilers.  Both water
tube and firetube designs are common for  combustion  of  oil  and gas.

     The estimated 1980 distribution of coal,  oil, and  gas  consumption  in
industrial boilers is shown in Table 5-3.

     These data indicate that coal  accounts for  a much  smaller percentage of
boiler fossil fuel consumption in the industrial boiler category than in
utility boilers.

     Dry or wet wood can be burned  in stoker-fired industrial  boilers.  Often
these boilers are equipped with multi cyclones (mechanical  collectors)  which
are used to capture large* partially burned particulate for reinjection to the
boiler.

     Commercial/Institutional  Combustion

     Boilers and furnaces at commercial and institutional facilities are used
primarily to provide space heat.  The commercial/institutional category is
defined to include such facilities  as hospitals, schools, office buildings,
and apartment buildings.  The boilers are generally  smaller firetube and cast
iron designs.  Coal-fired units are small  stokers.   The 1980  distribution of
coal, oil, and gas consumed in this sector is  shown  in  Table  5-3.
     These data indicate that coal  consumption is low relative to oil and gas
use in the commercial/institutional  category.
                                       5-13

-------
     Residential Combustion

     Goal-* oil-, and gas-fired furnaces*  coal- and wood-fired  stoves  and
fireplaces are all  used to heat homes.  Combustion of coal  and  wood  in domes-
tic stoves is a slow* low temperature* inefficient process  (19).   As discussed
above* inefficient combustion generally leads to higher POM emissions  on a
heat input basis.

     Residential coal-fired furnaces are usually underfeed  or hand-stoked
units; oil-fired home furnaces use pressure or vaporization to  atomize the
fuel; and air is premixed with the gas before the burner in residential gas
furnaces (20).  Some types of wood stoves  are more efficient than  others due
to differences in sealing of the chamber and control  of the intake and exhaust
systems.

     The estimated 1980 distribution of residential  coal* oil*  and gas con-
sumption is shown in Table 5-3.

     Wood consumption in residential units is discussed in  Section 5.3.3.

5.3.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     This subsection provides a brief overview of the particulate* S02» and
NOX emission controls typically applied to utility,  industrial, commercial/
institutional, and residential combustion  sources.   Available qualitative
information on the indirect effect of these emission  control  technologies on
POM emissions is also presented.   Little quantitative data  were located, but
some qualitative assessments can  be made.   In addition, a simplified discus-
sion of air emission regulations  applicable to these  combustion sources is
provided.  Table 5-4 summarizes the controls and regulations for the various
combustion categories being considered. A detailed  analysis of the  current
use of emission controls on combustion sources and applicable regulatory
requirements is beyond the scope  of this study.
                                     5-14

-------
COMPORimOl














en
0
1
CO

z
o
HH
1-
to






g
0.

01

2
i—
CD
^

a


£


2
8

§
CO
CO
LiJ
O

1



CO


^
Ul

UJ
$






















•P
I
1
z



















Ul
^- o
.a f~
CJ (O

r— 3
a. co
GL (D









o


CD


_l Ul
Ul
r— CD
0 J3


C
O
o













(A
-P
0
C

Ul
X
LU













Ul
£. o

03 -P
CJ fl
r— 3
a. co
Q. CD
< tr








Ul

O
t.
C-Q
O "O
o CD
U)

u



CD
CL
CD
O

1
CO






<*-
to
QL
CO
z
OS
OS
i-H





CL
CO
I- LU
O

Ul U
L. c
CD CD
-P •*-
r- CJ
•*- 4-

Cj CD


JD 0)
Ll_ .C






i-H
r-



in co
o_ a.
HH CO
CO Z


Ul
L.
CD
3
t_
CJ

Ul
•P t-
a> CD

•o •»-
U1
CL CJ
CO •*-
LU t-

U l*-
3p I-
ftj Q

•P f—

^ O
1 °






**-
CO
a.
to
z
r-

^











Ul

•P
in

at1

ca
u.


CD
CO
Q_
CO
Z

J^
OS
i-H

Ul
Q_
HH
CO





§


•o o
CD


23
£
O 0
o o
c c
3 ra u)
^ §
.. Q.4J












t-
to
a.
C/l
z
01

<-H






85
LU

t.
O



°

in


g
— i



CO
Q_
to


j-4
r-



in
a.
HH
CO




Ul
8;
UJ


0

-o
CD

L.
•P
C
O
CJ
C


Q




0






4_
CO
Q_
CO
Z
CD
r*.

^










o -a
CD
L. r-
3 *—
4- O
r— L.
3 4->
Ul C
O
§ C
—1 3


CD
CO
Q_
CO
Z

<— 1
OS O)


Ul
Q_
HH
to





•o


•o o
CD r- t-


1- CD U
•P CJ C
C C 3
O fl
O T-
C r— «
•^ CL. CN


«t d
(C
-P
in ui
(O Z
>— i
to
Q_
CO
z
O)
c
•a
c

Cu

Ul Ul

to co



Ul
I. » o c -P
(. r- 4J (0 Ul
O -Q (O •»- X
i~l- r- Ul
in in »
LU CJ t. t- Ul
CD CD i—
ri- 4-> » Q. ?
..,_,_ CN g CD
S3 O i- OI O **-
5^ o M- cnf u -^

^
'fl
o
o
CO
Q_

z
O)
c
•o
c
CD
Q-

£

CO


"o

.c
Ul
1






'o
L.
•P
c
o
CJ
c











Ul
Q_
HH
CO










•a

^
o
L.
-P
c
o
CJ
c


a




o
CO
CL
CO
z
O)
c
•o
c
CD
CL

Ul
0-
HH
CO










0

CD
CJ
c.
a


CL

0










in
a.
HH
CO





t.
o

-a
CD


O r—
•P "3
C
O CD
O U
C C

•• a.
CN E
SIS





CO
a.
CO
z
CO
c
•o
c
CD
CL

Ul
Q_

CO




Ul
L.
CD
3
t_
O
Ul
•o
CD V
•— CD
"o *
L. t.
•P O
C
O in
CJ CL
C CO
13 LU







01


U)
Q_
HH
CO




ui in
t- u
-0 (DO
CD .a -P
r- ^ (J
r- 3 CD
O S- <—
t- tj »—
•p in o
c o

~^ y

U) C
Q_ fl
CN co jz
O( LU CJ
c/3 CD

^n yi ^
CL) £LJ O

T3
in o

-------
















CD
3
C

C
O
o

«o
CO

Qj
CO



1—
CO

8
ce
£

CO
g
v-t
h-


3
UJ
a:
1
V)
	 1
o
1
i
o
CO
(/I
1— 1
£
LU

U_
O

^


3
CO


1
Ul
UJ
_J
§
i-






























Ul
+J
c
=
3
z




















Ul
•P
_c
o
c
•V

X
UJ





























tn

r- CD
0 £1
L.
•P
C
O
o






Ul
II
•0 +*
O  r- •— •— i—
U I- O O O O
•r- +J L. t_ L. L.
(O C C C C
JT CD o i— o o o
o "o cj m y y o
a> T- c o c c c
Z u) Z3 U 3 3 3







•^•> •"—>• "^"i
Ul (/> Ul CD
Q_ Q_ OL C
CO CO CO CO Z


Ul
o
u
CD "O "O
r- CD 0)

O "O r— r—
y CD O C
i— t_ t_
*— .— -P -P
«J O C C
O I- O O
— -P U 0 Tg
!i o 5 5 i—
£ O r—
U c •* •* O
CD ID CN CN L.
S O 6j -P
CO COJ C

^O Sj, to| Q_| CE| Z)
•P
^
•P
Ul
c


n- *0 f- T3
> CD ^

Ul E 01 -r- -PC
0 -^ U >» DQ O
a o >a r—
O -P a. i— c *o
U. » U iQ fl O CD
— - 4J at u u •*• in
X Q. 0 i— fl •

4J 4J ^- 3 QO 0T-U)
c a. r- 01 E ui u

u^Jzc " ""* o U*)CD£
,— T3f— ® -P • '-C — > O
i— CD S -
CD -^ -^ in j= S  Ul CO CN  O i^ ^ 4J (D J 3 TJ 4-
"a) * HJ 3 xi a -^.to-pc
OOino- 01 « -r- -P T)
f— X 3 r— *O CU1 *0cDoi, * — i CD  O C -^ 3 L.>-H 3 r- O O O O >» Ul
2) 0 * 01 f— O t. O > $ r— fa'ro
ra-pyo -^-1-1 o 4- ougf— ^
OOC-CO) O 4- E Oi-rOC. O) -P (-O4- O£m
a.f- ui -p >*i-4 -P c N- co o f- -P JT
Q.T3 Ul r- Ol -P •»- -^- (J CN UlLn+J-^
flCCO-^ •»- +J O r- 3 R) O-PC CN 3 * Ul
-^ot-x n- u> fl « i— o a. coco — +j L.
f— L. "ui c +3oioy*O'— +jy*in ^^CD-P
i— O 01 O 4- 33 O « CL.U1 i Ul 01 H3
iO4-i-yO • < « t_ t_ 4- O CDCDt- ZCOt.
T-E ^-* t. o O O CNyo.e •»- o. IB
c'*oa.+J (D4-CD x: •• CDO r-r— I-CD«
•P -P O "O t- fl Ol**- -P^-t- f- O 4- i- 4-
OCOLCO CDCidf-EEUl E O*Oco O U CD e O
4->C "*? Ol "» "O •»- i— »— t- (— fl-O >. o •»- oo UICD
•^•py o o 3 o i— i- CD i- o o in iou*o N
tn 01 «j H- M4-L.>r-(nuii- ui r~- L. a. OCD-P-
* E E Q) CJ^CDUlUl i— "^ ^^ «^- "OOr— UC31*—
"O t— +J tn ^^ <~ C •*" E E Ul E C 4— T-  O4-O i- (D 1- •«• 3 3 i- 3 3+J-O C-»-inJ3I_
OOU1®(- ^ t. CD 3 -P -P O -P -P CO CD f-l_ CD
«-PO -PgrcD c c >, c cO4~ ns 3 

•*- »— O4- W ft— t — i — i — r— r— rtj •f-'PCNO
U13trtJ-P COOOr--r--r--P -^ -^E t--PQCD
•*- E» m CN «CN CDW1i--ac
« r— t- t- ^ CD 3 +J *-l • • »— O «OO U1Z 3
,— f- o cD-Puicoca«r-ioc • ^-i^^to O cow
34-4-r->-P-»ui «-3 "N. c ZLUO
•P*r-CE CCC-r-^j'-v^g) ,-, •xsOlfl COCO
I- L. O 01 OCDOU.I— *^.O1 O)-^ "^s. O1C UCCD1-O
fl ^ -r- -P 4-* •^- O i— Ol C C i— Ol C Z »•— -^OEOOQ. O^1 UlO t->i
•a y r-34*-^ mCN^-fl en cNro4- t-r— (D»—


CL-^- -PCOCN CO Ul^-(DCD-«-rtJ
CNCO •o-o-ot_4-a.i^»«" CL •• •- c o~o-P4-
OUJOCDCUflOCO CNCO CN OJ3 flV
CO £ -P X3 Q. Z -PS O Z S O i-« U1CDOO
•. yc CD XQ-CO OL co UJ-OCD-^I--^C
>% 01 C CD CD COr-4S C\ U10O1 Oil.
*— SOQ.-P-cr«. r* f -p f- < xi >i

TJ XI U "O CD 4- Ol-Ci— T-)
5-16

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
     Unfortunately, without detailed information on the application of emis-
sion control technologies and quantitative data describing indirect effect of
particulate, SC>2» or NOX controls on POM emissions, the accuracy of national
emission estimates developed in Section 5.3.3 is questionable.   However,  an
effort has been made to use published emission factors that were judged to be
fairly representative of the current population of combustion sources, includ-
ing the type of emission controls used.  The estimated accuracy of the
national emission estimates 1s discussed further in Section 5.3.3,

     Utility Combustion

     Utility coal-fired boilers constructed in the last 10 to 12 years are
required to use control measures to limit S02» particulate matter, and NOX
emissions.  Older coal-fired utilities are generally equipped only with parti-
culate control  devices.  POM emissions are likely to be affected to some
degree by particulate, S02» and NOX control systems.

     Some POM compounds condense onto particulate matter at normal  flue gas
temperatures encountered in utility boilers.  As discussed above, the  com-
pounds tend to condense on smaller (fine) particles.  Therefore,  par-
ticulate emission control  devices that are efficient collectors of fine par-
ticles will provide a significant degree of control of the POM  associated  with
particulate matter.  Fabric filters and ESPs are high efficiency particulate
control techniques applied to the current population of utility boilers.
(Fabric filters are used only on relatively new utility boilers.) The  fine
particle collection efficiencies of ESPs currently in use will  often depend on
the age of the boiler.  Older boilers are generally subject to  less stringent
air emission regulations,  and ESPs applied to these units are likely to exhi-
bit lower fine particle collection efficiencies.

     Wet scrubbers and multicylcones are also used on some existing utility
boilers for particulate control.  Low-energy wet scrubbers (low pressure drop)
have lower fine particulate collection efficiencies than high-energy venturi-
type scrubbers.  However,  it should be noted that wet scrubbers may be more
                                       5-17

-------
CORPORjmOM
effective in reducing POM emissions than "dry" control systems because those
POM compounds existing as vapors would be condensed and collected as the gas
is saturated in the scrubber.

     Multicyclones, which may still be in use as the sole particul ate control
device on a few old utility boilers, are not efficient collectors of fine
particles, and are therefore not expected to significantly reduce POM emis-
sions.

     The most common S02 control technology currently used on utility coal-
fired boilers is 1ime/limestone flue gas desulfurization (FGD).  This techni-
que employs a wet scrubber, which is often proceeded by an ESP.  The ESP
collects the particulate before the flue gas enters the FGD system.   Wet
FGD/ESP systems, while providing for control of POM condensed on particulate
at the entrance to the ESP, are not likely to achieve significant control  of
vapor phase POM (22).  Condensation of vapor phase POM compounds will occur in
the wet scrubber, but significant collection of particles remaining  in the gas
flow through the scrubber is not likely to occur.  Systems equipped  with mist
eliminators may exhibit a slight reduction in particulate before the stack.
There were 94 operating utility wet FGD systems as of January 1982 (about 13%
of installed coal-fired capacity) (23).

     A more recently applied utility S02 control  technique is spray  drying.
In this process, the gas is cooled in the spray dryer but remains above the
saturation temperature.  A fabric filter or an  ESP is located down-
stream of the spray dryer.  Thus, this system would provide for significant
control of both particulate and vapor phase POM because the vapor phase com-
pounds are condensed before they reach the high efficiency particulate control
device.  One source (22) estimated that over 90 percent of the benzo(a)pyrene
emitted from a representative utility boiler would be controlled by  a spray
dryer FGD system.  As of early 1983, there were five utility spray drying
systems, all applied to new units in the initial  phases of commercial opera-
tion (24).
                                    5-18

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
     Nitrogen oxide control techniques applied to newer coal-fired boilers
include low-excess air firing and staged combustion.   The principle of these
control techniques is to limit the oxygen available for NOX formation  in the
combustion zone.  However, as discussed in Section 5.3.1.1, lower air  to fuel
ratios may lead to Increased POM formation (other conditions remaining con-
stant).  Data regarding the effects of "low-NOx" operating conditions  on POM
formation is conflicting and very limited (25).

     The POM emission factors that have been reported for utility boilers
have either been based on data from uncontrolled boilers or on  measurements
made downstream of an emission control  device.  No emission data  were  located
that included simultaneous POM measurement both before and after  the control
device.  Thus, it is difficult to quantify the Impact of the technology on POM
emissions.

     Air emission regulations applicable to existing  coal-fired utility
boilers include SIP emission limits and the 1971 and  1979 NSPS  (Subparts D
and Da, respectively, of 40 CFR 60).   The 1971 NSPS applies to  boilers con-
structed after August 1971.  That standard specifies  a 520 ng/J (1.2 Ib/mil-
lion Btu) S02 emission limit and a 43  ng/J (0.1 Ib/m1llion Btu) particulate
matter emission limit.  The 1979 NSPS,  which applies  only to units constructed
after September 1979, is more stringent, requiring 70 to 90 percent S02
removal and a specifying a 13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/million Btu)  particulate emission
limit (26).  Under this NSPS, new coal-fired utility  boilers will  generally be
required to be equipped with fabric filters or high efficiency  ESPs and FGD
systems.  The 1979 NSPS also requires  the use of NOX  control  techniques.

     Existing oil-fired utility boilers are generally either uncontrolled or
are equipped with ESPs for particulate emission control.   The same consider-
ations discussed above for ESPs applied to coal-fired utility boilers  apply to
oil-fired units.  S02 control for existing oil-fired  boilers  is most often
achieved by the use of lower sulfur oils.
                                       5-19

-------
RADIAN
     Air emission regulations applicable to oil-fired utilities include the
1971 and 1979 NSPS and SIP requirements.

     Gas-fired utility boilers are not equipped with emission controls since
S02» particulate, and NOX emissions from these units are relatively low.

     Industrial Combustion Sources

     Emission control techniques for industrial coal-fired boilers are similar
to those described for utility coal-fired units.  However, application of S02
and particulate control technologies to the current population of industrial
boilers differs substantially with the application of these controls to util-
ity boilers.  There are very few industrial boilers equipped with FGD systems
for S02 control.  Fewer than 15 1ime/limestone or double alkali systems are
operating on industrial coal-fired boilers.  There are about 12 sodium-based
FGD systems operating on coal-fired boilers, primarily at paper mills and
textile plants (27).  Five spray drying FGD systems have begun operation in
the last few years (28).  However, most existing coal-fired industrial  boilers
meet applicable SC>2 regulations by burning low or medium sulfur coal.

     The use of particulate control on industrial boilers is more common.
Existing industrial  coal-fired units are subject to SIP particulate matter
emission limits. For a 44 MW-^ boiler, these limits vary from 22 ng/J (0.05
Ib/million Btu) in California to 344 ng/J (0.8 Ib/million Btu) in Iowa (24).
Most SIPs fall  in the 86 to 172 ng/J (0.2 to 0.4 Ib/million Btu)  range,  which
generally requires the use of a low-efficiency ESP or a multicyclone collec-
tor.  SIP emission limits for larger industrial boilers (>73MW-t)  are more
stringent, often specifying a 43 to 86 ng/J (0.1 to 0.2 Ib/million Btu)  emis-
sion limit.  Medium- and high-efficiency ESPs are required to comply with such
regulations.  Finally, unless the SIP is more stringent,  large industrial  coal-
fired boilers (>73 MW-fc) constructed after August 1971 are subject to an
existing NSPS which  specifies a 43 ng/J (0.1 Ib/million Btu)  particulate
matter emission limit.  Fabric filters or ESPs are commonly used  to meet
this standard.
                                       b-20

-------
CORPORATION
     As of December 1979, 104 Industrial boilers were using or planning to use
fabric filters (30).  No comparable data were located on the number of ESPs,
wet scrubbers* or multicyclones applied to industrial units, although the use
of ESPs on existing boilers is considered to be substantially more widespread
than the use of fabric filters (29).  Wet scrubbers are not generally used for
particulate control on coal-fired boilers because they result in a liquid
waste stream that must be disposed of properly (29).

     A relatively new particulate control technology, applicable to stoker-
fired industrial  boilers, is the side stream separator.  This device is a
multicyclone modified to treat part of the gas in a small fabric filter.  The
fabric filter enhances the overall collection efficiency of the multicyclone
by removing a portion of the fine particulate (31).  To date, side stream
separators have been retrofitted to only a few existing stoker-fired boilers
(31).

     An NSPS currently being developed by EPA may require that fabric filters
or ESPs be applied to all new coal-fired industrial boilers above about 29 MW
(100 x 106 Btu/hr).  At a minimum, the NSPS will  require use of side stream
separators.  The NSPS is also likely to require low excess air or staged
combustion for control of NOX emissions.  At this time, the standard being
developed contains no provision for S02 control.   The NSPS may be proposed as
early as the summer of 1983.

     Particulate emissions from oil-fired industrial boilers are generally not
controlled under current regulations.  However, oil sulfur content restric-
tions do apply to some existing units.  New oil-fired boilers will be subject
to the NSPS being developed by EPA, which may require some degree of particu-
late emission control.

     Mul ticyclones followed by venturi or impingment-type wet scrubbers are
the most common type of particulate matter control  devices applied to wood-
fired boilers (32).  The same considerations discussed above for wet scrubbers
used on coal-fired boilers apply to the use of the technology on wood-fired
                                       5-21

-------
RADIAN
CORPOnOTtOM
boilers.  However, the use of wet scrubbers is more common for wood-fired
units than for coal because wood-fired units are often located at paper mills
or other facilities with existing equipment that can be used to dispose of the
liquid waste stream from the scrubber.  ESPs are also used to some extent on
wood-fired boilers.  The use of fabric filters, however, is restricted to
those boilers firing a salt-laden type of wood because of potential  fabric
filter fire hazards associated with combustion of other types of wood (32).

     Wood-fired boilers are currently subject only to SIP emission limits.
Forty-three states have SIP limits for particulate emissions from wood-fired
boilers (40).  These emission limits are about the same as those in  SIPs
applicable to coal-fired units.

     Commercial/Institutional Combustion

     Commercial and institutional  boilers are generally uncontrolled or equip-
ped only with multicyclones (mechanical  collectors) for particulate  matter
control.  As previously discussed, multicycl ones are not efficient collectors
of the fine particles with which POM compounds are generally associated.

     Commercial and institutional  units  may be subject to SIP particulate
emission limits in states that do not specifically define their regulations as
applicable only to industrial  boilers.  Most SIP particulate emission limits
are a function of boiler size and regulations are significantly less stringent
for small  sources.  New commercial/institutional  boilers with greater than
14.7 MWt (50 million Btu/hr) heat input  capacity will  be subject to  the NSPS
currently being developed for industrial  boilers (33).

     Residential  Combustion

     Residential  combustion sources are  not equipped with add-on particulate
matter control  devices.  Combustion modifications designed to improve the
efficiency of coal- and wood-fired residential  stoves have not been  exten-
sively applied to commercially available stoves (25).   Most of the combustion
                                      5-22

-------
CORPORATION
modifications applicable to residential  stoves are in the form of stove design

changes and include modified combustion air flow control* better thermal

control and heat storage* and the use of catalytic combustors.


     The sulfur content of the coal  burned in residential units is regulated

in some areas, but in general residential  combustion units are not subject to

Federal or state air emission regulations.


5.3.1.3  Source Locations


     Utility Combustion


     Table 5-5 shows the existing utility  capacity by fuel  type for each of

the 50 states.  Existing capacity for specific fuels is expressed in MW elec-

trical output and as a percentage of the total  existing capacity for that

fuel.


     These data indicate several  well-established trends:


          o    Coal-fired units are  concentrated in the states of Ohio,
               Indiana, Pennsylvania, and  Illinois.  Other states with
               substantial  coal-fired capacity are Alabama, Georgia,
               Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri,  North Carolina, Tennessee,
               Texas (lignite), and  West Virginia.

          o    Residual oil-fired units  are found primarily in Califor-
               nia,  Florida, and  New York. It should be noted that in
               contrast to the installed capacity data in Table 5-4, 1980
               fuel  consumption data for utilities show that in several
               states, little or  no  residual  oil  was burned by utilities
               (15).  States which reported no oil consumption by utili-
               ties  included Alabama, Indiana,  Kentucky, Montana, North
               Dakota, Oklahoma,  Vermont,  West Virginia, and Wyoming.
               The decrease in residual  oil use is likely the result of
               units with dual-fuel  capabilities being fired with coal  or
               natural gas as a result of  the sharply increasing residual
               oil  prices in recent  years.

          o    Natural gas-fired  units are highly concentrated in Texas
               (over half the installed  capacity) and Louisiana.
                                     b-23

-------
CO
to
LLJ
CL
LL.

Q
LU
co

CD
Q-

O


t
CO
o
CO
>
3 -P
•P i-
(O O
Z to
a.
• to
CO O
ID in
(O
6? 0



^g
T5*

r— XI
i- >>
0 -P
•r-
co to
• a.
^ to
o
6?



s


1 —
«J -Q
o >,
0 -P

• TJ
t/} flj
• a.
0 "



gE
^T




0}
•p
to
-p
CO








** LO 0* CO CO
VO VO ^ CM vO CO
O O O CM O O O





O •-! CM CM O P- O
CO O\ I — vO i— 4 CO
^•f ^1" CO VO LO CM
1—4


O CM Tf •«*
r-H CO CM CO VO LO LO
CO CO CM CO vO CO CM
.-4





co oo r*^ c^ oo co ^o
*?f p**1* ^i* ^^ vo ^^ G3
CO «-H ^ CO
CM



CM CO
cj\ ^D r*^ r** r^1
ro o 1-1 o o •— i o



LO T LO CM 0 CM 0
co to co i— i •— i
LO r- .-i LO
o ** CM ^r
r-4

•p
10 3
i- U
U) C O i-
tO to to t- "O 4->
E to c in o to o
iO x O C v^ L Q)
jQ W) N to i— O C
to to i- .*: i— f— c






ON i — I p*1 O\ CO O^ CO C7^ i— I CM ^f CO
COO O CN| •-( i— 1 CO i-4 CO i— IOCMCMr--LOOVOLO
OOOOOOOO^OtOOO^-IOCOi-HOOi-lO





CO r-4 LO CO CO O^ CO i—l CM O^ CO CO *^ C7* LO CM CO C3\ CO O^ CO ^3
CO LO rH O^ *^ r^4 CO CO **f CJ^ VO CO LO CO CO VO
co CM 1-4 vo i— i r-i i— i co i— i r-» r-< LO i— i
CO r— 4 CM i—4 i— 4
r-l


vo i— i oo co co co i*~ oo"»otMr~
COLO^J-OOOCOO^tr-ICJvr-CJiO^COOvOCMOLOi— I**
OTj-i-ir-io^'Oi-4OOOocM'«a-cO'-4Oi-ioooo
•-4





vo LO r** co co co f-H vo P*** *^ »~H o^ o^ o\ o^ ^^ CM ^^ ^f r~4 CM o^
CJ\ CO LO LO ^2 CM CM ^f CT^ f^*- ^f CO OO VO ^f CO OS CO LO CO CO
i— 1 i— 1 CM I— 1 VO i— 4 i— 4 I— 4i— l^tl — *3"r-4 i— t
CM



1 — i—4 C7» LO CO P-
CMCOCM 'S' O i— 1 LO CO 'S' i—4 CMO\OOLOCO'— 4COi— 1
OrH^OOvOvOCMi— iLOOOi— IO**i— lO^-Oi— IOO



i--cr»oo^r^--^-oo-*coo^-oo>vococoi7iLncoo^
'icLor^ i— 4 vo •— i co co •— i co CMr—CMcocoLO'3'Lo
r— co »sr coi— ivoo^i— 4 o coo^ocftocM**
^t i— 1 1 — \O LT> f f <— 1 CO i— 1 LO CM CM COCM
i— 4 i— 1 i—l i— 4 i—4i—4
in 
 a. x:
to ID to a. tn
0) U) >tCX>3C-Pi-i- tO CX
c-tota i-to ^10 cjrroouis-rcijj: E
to T3 1-1- oc tnui- foocnifltnacuiioto
^ i— D) "^" O C rO to 3 in 0) r— tO t~ Q) i— O to (O T3 T"
to J^ L. to ^~ »r- «^- to tn 4^ *^~ c >> in *~ c in in ^ t ^
i — oosfOi—"O5cc3'F-t_(nocintncxi>s
CDi — (DtO'Oi— cOiO° ^r "y TF ^r ^r ^r ^* ^^ ^^ ^^
^^ ^l/ ^. r^ ^^ r~I f~~I J^ ^C. «vj ^^ «£^ ^^ ^^ rf^ ^^ ^^ ^£, ^^ ,^. ^^
^
0)
13
C
•r™
-p
c
o
—















































                                                  5-24

-------





*-N
0
3
C
•r—
^J
C
0
o
^-s
m
v^x

rt3
LU
Q-
t

	 i
LU
ID
U.
Q

1 1 1
LU)
^
CO

>-
CD
t
H~t
O

QL
^^
o

t
t— i
_l
1— 1
1
t^

o
LU
—1
5;
^—
CO
z
i— i
o
co
CTi
i— 1

•
in
I
in

LU
_i
3
H-










U)
CD
r—
(0
L.
3
.)-)
Z










r—
O

"(0
T3
U)
0
ce














f__
fQ
o
o
























"ro
t- >.
3 -P
-P T-
0} (J
Z (O
Q.
CO O
•
ID U)
ro
6? CD


i







i- >>
0 -P

• O
CO i
O -P

• "o
• Q.
^3 — • i — •
O CN r-l O *5t Tt i— 1
r-l VO CN 00
CO






oo inr-- CTVO CT> •-< coo vor-i •— i
OOCNCNvOi— ICOinmOi-lvOCN CNOr-lTtr-IOr-IO
mocoooi-HOOinoi-ioocNoocNOOi-io
r-i




§vo r*^ CN vo r** CN r-~ i— i c^ vo m in ^^ vo o^ r^* in
m co oo LO ^f oo CTi CN vo ^f m CN *sf r-n CD i— i
r-~^-vocT>CNvoflor— ^tcNcoco CN I-HLOCN r~
OOCTi CN r-CN CO CO r-l
rH








rH i— 1 OO LTl i-l CT>
vocor-i'tcNooLncNi— i mi-ir--cj\oooco'a-'i'r-CTi
Or- ii—i's-r-iooi— ior-Oi— lOco'S-oor-ioincNi— i






<~>
in co r^ rH co r— i c^ r— i i— i ro vo r*" r— i CD m CD oo CD o^ co co
vo r** r** CN co co ^" vo cr* CN c^ CN i— i r— i co co co r** co CN
vo^to^cocNoomcN i-H'S'Ococo ^fcor^CNo
i— i co CN i— i co "f ^~ cy» ^f OCOCN co i— i ^f P- in
r-l CN r-l i— 1 r- 1 i-H






fO fO
c c >a
•r— rO fO "O *r— ,OOO C(OOO CT-
!_"xt_OQ E r-MOQW +J-»- O>T- In 0)
000 oc>< in c c c > c c
^"3 J* ^-~ .f^ ^^ <^ Q (fl QJ _£! ^^ Q) (/) O "r™ *i""™ O "*^
•f_) ^J Q fl|J ^Jj (^ ^^ ^J >|^ ^ (0 ^ C ^J ^^ -^J ^ C
SS3Bj-*-'i-r— ®CO33CXrOS-S_l/)(ninO
zzzzzoooa.o:cocoi— HZ3>>ssss












^
1— 1
CO
*
m
p-











^

00
oo
i— i
^
0
r~H














^
s*

CO
CN
r--
•t
rH
p*»
CN








"TO
0
1-

•
co
3




















•
-P*
•r"
o
•r™
£_
-P
U
0
"0
0
+J
rO
U
0
C
0
O)
•p
ro r—
J= 0
-P 3
M-
U)
+J -P
C ro
(O .C
r- -P
a.
r
(- O
0 Ir-

o >%
a. -p
r- U
rO ra
i- Q.
1— ro
•P U
in
3 >,
•o -P
C -r-
•r- 1 —
0 -P
a> 3
£_
rO "O
r— 0
f—
0 r—
•0 ro
3 -P
r— U)
U C
•r-
*4—
>, 0
rO
^r b^3
^- OS
fO X)

-------
RADIAN
Table 5-6 shows existing capacity data for coal-, oil-, and gas-fired utili-
ties aggregated by EPA region.

     Industrial Boilers

     Industrial boilers are located throughout the United States.   Boiler
locations tend to follow industry and population location trends.   Table 5-7
shows regional industrial energy use for six major industrial  sectors.   Al-
though these data represent total industrial energy consumption (i.e.*  elec-
tricity, raw materials* boilers* and process heat sources,  they are indicative
of industrial boiler geographical concentrations.  Most of the coal-fired
industrial boilers are in the Great Lakes, Great Plains,  Appalachian,  and
Southeast regions.  Oil-fired boilers are common 1n the New England,  South-
east, and Upper Atlantic regions, while the highest concentration  of  natural-
gas-fired units is found in the Gulf Coast and Pacific Southwest regions (35).

     Wood-fired boilers tend to be located almost exclusively  at pulp  and
paper, lumber products and furniture industry facilities.  These industries
are concentrated in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, Appalachian, and Pacific
Northwest regions (35).

     Commercial/Institutional Boilers

     These sources are also spread throughout the United  States and their
concentrations are tied directly to population centers.  Fuel  use  patterns  for
commercial/institutional  boilers are likely to parallel those  described above
for industrial boilers, since fuel choice decisions in both categories  are
made on the basis of fuel availability and prices (including transportation).

     Residential  Combustion

     Locations of residential combustion sources will  also  be  directly  tied
to population trends, with one exception:  wood-fired  stoves and fireplaces.
Wood-fired residential  combustion sources are concentrated  in  heavily  forested
                                      b-26

-------
  TABLE 5-6.  1980 EXISTING UTILITY CAPACITY BY EPA REGION AND FUEL TYPE
EPA








U.S.
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Exi
Coal -Fired
489
4,642
41,335
69,751
81,147
24,062
24,845
16,524
6,983
1,945
271,723
stlna Capacity
Oil -Fired
13,489
28,409
16,595
28,483
18,174
7,298
4,718
1,584
29,950
1,488
150,188
(MW)
Gas-Fired
9
179
205
5,760
1,751
58,544
5,421
358
2,042
1,045
75,314
Aggregated from data in Table 5-5.
                                   5-27

-------
RADIAN
                                m



                                LU
                                5<
                                Z
                                o

                                3
                                LU
                                o:
                                       •-,**
                                      
Ct-eoo
                                                              m    U

                                                              3£-O
                                                      5-28

-------
areas of the U.S.  This pattern again reflects fuel  selection based on avail-
ability and price (36).

     Table 5-8 shows the percent of total  U.S. wood  consumption in fireplaces
and stoves by state and by EPA region.

5.3.2  Emission Factors

     Table 5-9 presents total  POM emission factors for the various combustion
source categories being considered in this study.  Appendix A contains more
detail on the bases of the emission factors shown in the table.

     As noted earlier, there are several  cautions that apply to the use of
these emission factors as representative of POM emissions from specific
boilers.  The emission factors used here are intended to represent only the
best available estimates of POM emission factors for the particular combustion
source population as a whole and generally will not apply to specific units
with a high degree of accuracy.  The most important cautions regarding the
emission factors presented in this section are summarized below.

     Much of the data used in developing the reported emission factors was
collected in the late 60's and early 70's using modified Method 5 sampling
techniques.  As discussed in Section 3, a reportedly significant amount of POM
is present in the vapor phase at temperatures typical of utility and indus-
trial boiler stacks.  These POM compounds are unlikely to have been fully
captured with the Method 5 sampling train unless relatively advanced modifica-
tions were incorporated.  Thus* the POM emission factor data may represent
primarily only the POM associated with particulate matter at the sampling
point.  Therefore* the use of these emission factors, with all other assump-
tions being accurate, could result in an underestimate of nationwide POM
emissions from combustion sources.  No useful  quantitative data were found in
published literature to allow estimation of how much vapor-phase POM typically
escapes.
                                       5-29

-------
TABLE 5-8.  1981 WOOD CONSUMPTION IN FIREPLACES AND STOVES BY STATE AND
            EPA REGION (37)
EPA Region
Region 1






Region 2


Region 3






Region 4








Region 5






State Wood Consumption (% of U.S. Total)3
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Regional Total
New Jersey
New York
Regional Total
Del aware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
District of Columbia
Regional Total
Al abama
Fl ori da
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carol ina
Tennessee
Regional Total
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Regional Total
1.6
1.6
2.3
0.89
0.29
0.82
7.4
2.3
5.6
7.9
0.35
2.3
6.3
4.8
2.0
0.03
15.7
1.5
1.7
2.1
3.1
1.3
5.9
1.3
4,3
21.0
3.8
3.4
4.5
3.0
5.3
3.1
23.1
                                                                (Continued)
                                  5-30

-------
TABLE 5-8.  1981 WOOD CONSUMPTION IN FIREPLACES AND STOVES BY STATE AND
            EPA REGION (37) (Continued)
EPA Region
Region 6





Region 7




Region 8






Region 9




Region 10




State
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regional Total
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Regional Total
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regional Total
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Regional Total
Al aska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Regional Total
Wood Consumption (% of U.S. Total)3
1.2
0.79
0.98
1.8
1.2
6.0
0.36
0.32
3.7
0.19
4.6
1.2
0.83
0.07
0.12
0.49
0.31
3.0
0.57
5.1
<0.01
0.26
6.0
0.39
0.83
2.0
2.3
5.4
of total U.S. wood consumption in fireplaces and stoves.
                                  b-31

-------
CORPORATION
                    TABLE 5-9.   TOTAL  POM EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  COMBUSTION  SOURCE  CATEGORIES3
Source Category
Utmtv Combustlpn
Coal
on
Gas
Reported
Emission Factor11
19 ug/kg
2 x 10"6 lb/106 Btu
DNLf
Converted to Heat
Input Basis0
pg/J 
0.71 (1.65)
0.86 (2.00)1
Emission Control
Level
Represented''
"Controlled" (ESP)
None
Emission
Factor
Basis9
1
3
Industrial Combustion
     Coal
     Oil
     Gas
     Wood

Commercia1/Institutional
	Combustion	
     Coal
     01lJ
     GasJ
                                     41  yg/kg
                                     21  ug/i
                                     11  ug/m3
                                   2059  yg/kg
                                        DNL9
                                     21
                                     11
1.53 (3.57)
0.50 (1.17)
0.30 (0.69)
 105 (242)
0.50 (1.17)
0.30 (0.69)
Multl cyclone
    None
    None
      h
    None
    None
Residential Combustion
Coal
Oil
Gas
Wood Stoves
Wood Fireplaces

67 mg/kg
120 yg/i
65 yg/m3
0.27 g/kgk
0.029 g/kg

2500 (5826)
2.86 (6.67)
1.74 (4.06)
13,472 (31,435)
1447 (3375)

None
None
None
None
None

2
2
2
2
3
  aMore detail  on each  of these emission factors can  be found  1n  Appendix A.   All  emission  factors  are from
   Reference 1, Table III-l  ("Intermediate" factors were used)  except for emissions  for oil-fired utilities
   (Ref 38), wood-fired Industrial  boilers (Ref 39),  and wood-fired residential  units  (Ref  36).
  bUn1ts reported 1n reference cited (Mass of POM emitted per  unit of fuel  burned).
  cSee Appendix A for sample calculation.   Fuel  heating values assumed for conversions:  Coal  =  11,500 Btu/lb;
   Oil = 150,000 Btu/gal; Gas = 35,300 Btu/m } and Wood * 8600 Btu/lb.
  dAs reported  in reference  cited for emission factor.
  el = weighted average reflecting boiler  population.
   2 = arithmetic or geometric average of  boiler types.
   3 = one fadl 1ty.
  fDNL = Data not located.  The emission factor for gas-fired  utilities 1s expected  to be lower  than  for  coal
   or oil  because of the high efficiency combustion achieved in gas-fired utility  boilers.   Notice  that the
   emission factor for  Industrial  boiler gas combustion is significantly  lower than  for Industrial  o1l-f1red
   boilers.
  9The emission factor  for commercial/Institutional coal  combustion is expected to be  higher than for
   utilities due to the larger fuel  feed size and less  efficient  combustion associated with commercial  units.
  ^The emission factor  represents an average of data  for 7 wood-fired Industrial boilers,  3 with mechanical
   collectors and 4 uncontrolled.   On controlled units, emissions were measured downstream  of the collection
   device.
  fThe fact that the estimated emission factor for oil  1s higher  than for coal  may reflect  the fact that  ESPs
   applied to coal-fired units achieve a certain degree of fine particle  (and thus POM) control. The reported
   emission factor for  the oil-fired utility boiler reflects a "no control" situation.
  JThe emission factors reported for industrial  oil-  and gas-fired boilers were used for commercial/1nstu-
  tional oil- and gas-fired  boilers, since the Industrial boilers tested  were relatively small and  represen-
  tative of commercial/institutional units.
  kRange of POM emission factors reported  In literature was 0.05  to .37 g/kg of wood burned.  The emission
   factor selected represents an average of six wel1-documented tests on  representative stoves.
                                                     5-32

-------
RADIAN
     The methods used In past source tests to sample for and analyze POM
compounds from combustion sources have varied considerably with respect to
sample collection, preservation, and preparation, and with respect to compo-
nent analysis techniques.  Thus, it is difficult to develop valid comparisons
between emission factor data for various source categories.  One must rely to
a large degree on the theoretical principles that describe POM formation in
combustion sources in assessing the relative potential  for various categories
to be significant sources of POM emissions.

     Boiler design and operating parameters (including firing method, combus-
tion zone temperatures, fuel/air mixing parameters, fuel/air ratio, and fuel
properties) influence POM formation and emissions.  Other factors being con-
stant, boilers that are designed and operated in a manner that maximizes
combustion efficiency may have lower POM emission factors than inefficiently
operated units.  However, quantitative data on boiler design and operating
practices for specific boiler categories and the relative effect of these
practices on POM emissions are lacking.  The best emission factors for the
purposes of this study were considered to be those which reflected a "weighted
average" of emission factors for the boiler population.   These factors were
available only for coal-fired utility and industrial  boilers.  Other published
emission factors represented arithmetic or geometric averages of emission
factors for various boiler types within a category.  And, in some instances,
available emission factors were based only on data from  one facility.

     Details on the type of emission control equipment used on the sources
tested and on the design and operating parameters of the control  equipment
were not typically included with the "controlled" emission factor data
reported in the literature.  Clearly, these parameters would be useful  in
determining how representative the sources tested are with respect to the
current boiler population.  Furthermore, quantitative data on the effect of
particulate matter, S02> and NOX control devices on POM  emissions were not
located in the literature reviewed.  Therefore,  it was not feasible to use
uncontrolled POM emission factors combined with  estimated POM removal effi-
ciencies of the control  devices currently in use to develop total  emissions.
                                     5-33

-------
     Despite these caveats* the national  emission estimates presented in the
next section should be useful for preliminary evaluations of POM source cate-
gories.  They will be most useful in pinpointing combustion source categories
with the greatest potential for POM emissions.  They are also appropriate for
providing an idea of the amount of POM that could be controlled by regulating
various categories.

5.3.3  National Emission Estimates

     Table 5-10 shows 1980 national  estimated POM emissions from the various
combustion source categories considered in this study.  The emission factors
and fuel consumption data used to calculate the national  emissions are also
shown.

     Estimated total POM emissions from wood-fired stoves account for 90
percent of annual POM emissions from all  combustion sources.  The emission
factor for wood stoves is four to five orders of magnitude higher than those
for virtually all other combustion sources except coal-fired stoves and wood
fireplaces.  The higher POM emission factor is attributable to highly ineffi-
cient combustion in wood stoves.

     The next most significant combustion source categories of POM are resi-
dential coal stoves and wood-burning fireplaces* which together account for
8.6 percent of the toal estimated POM from combustion sources.  Thus, resi-
dential sources are estimated to account for 99 percent of POM emissions from
fuel combustion.

     In terms of absolute magnitude of emissions* the other significant com-
bustion source category is wood-fired industrial boilers.  However, emissions
from this category may be over-estimated  somewhat because they are based on a
POM emission factor that represents only  the application of mechanical  collec-
tor particulate emission controls.  Many  of the larger wood-fired boilers are
equipped with ESP or wet scrubbers which  could provide significantly more POM
control than mechanical collectors.   These same cautions about overstating
                                       b-34

-------
               TABLE 5-10.  1980 NATIONAL TOTAL POM EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR COMBUSTION SOURCES
     Source Category
                              Estimated 1980
                            U.S. Fuel Consumption
                              101SJ  (1012
                        Emission Factor
                       pg/J CIb/1012 Btu)
                      National
                      Emissions
                     Mg/yr (tpy)
                   % of Total
                 from Combustion
                     Sources
Utility Combustion
     Coal
     011
     Gas
           Combustion
Industrial
     Coal
     011
     Gas
     Wood
Commercial/Institutional
	Combustion	
     Coal
     011
     Gas
12,855 (12,150)
  2592 (2450)
  4031 (3810)
  1009 (954)e
   959 (906)e
  3555 (3360)e
   579 (547)f
   100 (94.7)9
   599 (566)
  2825 (2670)
0.71 (1.65)
0.86 (2.00)
0.52 (1.2) est.b
1.53 (3.57)
0.50 (1.17)
0.30 (0.69)
103 (237)
1.7 (4.0) est.c
0.50 (1.17)
0.30 (0.69)
 9.1 (10.0)
 2.2 (2.4)
 2.1 (2.3)
 1.5 (1.7)
 0.48 (0.53)
 1.1 (1.2)
59.6 (65.6)
 0.17 (0.19)
 0.30 (0.33)
 0.84 (0.92)
 0.12
 0.03
 0.03
(0.18)
 0.02
 0.01
 0.01
 0.76
(0.80)
 rfeg
 neg
 neg
 neg
Residential Combustion
Coal
011
Gas
Wood Stoves
Wood Fireplaces

TOTAL

68.8 (65.0)
1310 (1241)
5152 (4870)
520 (492)"
346 (328)n



2500 (5826)
2.86 (6.67)
1.74 (4.06)
13,500 (31,400)d
1450 (3370)d



172 (189)
3.8 (4.2)
14.7 (16.2)
7022 (7733)
502 (553)

7792 (8581)

2.2
0.05
0.19
90.1
—£u±-
(99.0)
100.0
Reference 15, pp. 5-9, except as noted.  More data on fuel consumption estimates can be found 1n Appendix
 A.
''Estimated based on the difference between reported emission factors for oil- and gas-fired Industrial
 boilers.
GEs1mated to be slightly higher than emission factor for coal-fired Industrial boilers.
dRounded to 3 significant figures from Table 5-9.
eTotal Industrial fuel consumption values from Reference 15 adjusted to reflect only amount used 1n boilers.
 (See Reference 17 note.)  Adjustment factors (% total consumption used 1n boilers):  Coal - 30!5j Oil - 67!5;
 and Gas - 40%.
^Reference 40.  Total estimated heat Input capacity for wood-fired boilers multiplied by 60/5 load factor to
 determine annual Btu consumption.
9A11 reported commercial/Institutional combustion assumed to be in boilers.
Reference 37.
                                                    5-35

-------
emissions also apply to those estimates presented in Table 5-10 for industrial
coal-fired boilers.  However, as discussed previously, the published POM
emission factor data used may not reflect that portion of POM emitted as vapor
at typical stack temperatures, thus underestimating actual POM emissions
from a single boiler.

     The estimates in Table 5-10 indicate that utility boilers account for
only about 0.2 percent of total POM emissions from the combustion source cate-
gories examined.  There is, however, substantial uncertainty related to (1)
the POM emission factor data, (2) the (indirect) effect of particulate and S02
controls on POM emissions, and (3) the fuel consumption data used in develop-
ing the national estimates.  Thus, it is appropriate to conduct a sensitivity
analysis using the extremes of reported data and making some "worst-case"
assumptions.  For example, one recently debated topic is the potential  impact
on POM emissions of existing oil- and gas-fired utilities converting to coal.
These concerns are related to the fact that combustion of coal  results in
higher POM emissions per unit heat input than combustion of oil or gas in
similar units.

     In the "worst case", assume that all 1980 fuel  consumption by utilities
was in the form of coal (about 19,500 x 1015J based on Table 5-10).  By multi-
plying this consumption by the highest POM emission factor for pulverized coal
combustion in utility units (controlled with an ESP, since coal conversions
would likely be subject to at least SIP particulate emission limits), a "worst
case" estimate can be developed:

    A.o Pq   POM	Vl9,500 x io15J\ (metric ton] , ig>5        tons pQM
    V     J C0al burnedA    Yr      J VlO18 pg J              Yr

[This emission factor is the "maximum" reported in Reference 1, Table III-l,
converted to pg/J using a coal heating value of 26,800 kJ/kg (11,500 Btu/lb)].
Even with these worst case assumptions,  emissions from the utility category
would be only about 0.26 percent of the estimated total  for combustion cate-
gories.
                                       5-36

-------
     Another category where a sensitivity analysis is appropriate is combus-
tion of wood in residential stoves.  Emission factors for POM reported in the
literature ranged from 0.05 to 0.37 g/kg wood burned (References 42 and 36,
respectively).  Using these emission factors and the fuel  consumption data
shown in Table 5-10, a range of estimates between 1300 and 9600 metric tons
per year can be developed [based on a wood heating value of about 20*041 kJ/kg
(8600 Btu/lb of dry wood.)] The fact that such a range exists is clearly
indicative of the variability and uncertainty of POM emission factors and the
associated impact on the relative significance of various source categories.

     Table 5-11 presents a limited comparison of national  emission estimates
developed in this study with previously published estimates.  It is beyond the
scope of this study to investigate the differences between these estimates in
detail.  However, the estimates appear to" be relatively consistent with two
exceptions.  Reference 36 reports significantly higher emissions from coal-
fired industrial boilers.  The estimate was based on a 56 pg/J emission fac-
tor, versus 1.5 pg/J reported in Reference 1, and was representative only of a
pulverized dry bottom industrial boiler.  The 1.5 pg/J factor appears to be
more representative.  It is about twice the emission factor reported for
utility pulverized coal units, reflecting primarily the difference in emission
control device application between the utility and industrial sectors.  Anoth-
er indication that emissions from coal-fired utility and industrial  boilers
are similar is benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) emission data reported in Reference 2.
The BaP factor for utility coal  combustion was reported to be about 0.05 pg/J
and for industrial units it was reported to be about 0.03 pg/J.

     The other discrepancy observed in Table 5-11 is the difference in esti-
mates for wood stoves.  However, this difference can be accounted for by the
differences in fuel  consumption  data used to develop the estimates.   Reference
36 estimated 1976 residential wood combustion at about 16 million metric tons.
However, recent data for 1980 indicate that that figure has increased to about
26 million metric tons (37).  More information on trends in residential wood
combustion is presented in Section 5.3.4.
                                    5-37

-------
       TABLE 5-11.  COMPARISON OF TOTAL POM EMISSION ESTIMATES WITH THOSE
                    REPORTED IN PREVIOUS STUDIES

Combustion
Source
Category
Utility
Coal
Oil
Gas
Industrial
Coal
Oil
Gas
Wood
Estimate in
Current Study
1980
(metric tons/yr)

9.1
2.2
2.1

1.5
0.48
1.1
59.6

Reference 36
-1976
(metric tons/yr)

12.9
0.3
0.3

69. Oa
1.3
2.1
1.2

Reference 41
-1976
(metric tons/yr)

9.5
0.3
0.3

15.7
1.2
2.0
DNR
  Commercial/
Institutional
    Coal
    Oil
    Gas
0.17
0.30
0.84
                      DNR
3.1
1.8
1.2
Residential
Coal
Oil
Gas
Wood Stoves
Wood Fireplaces
Total

172
7.2
14.7
7022
502
7795

102
7.4
9.8
3759°
78
4042

3664b
4.7
5.7
69.8

3779d
a
  Emissions reported in Ref.  36 based solely  on pulverized coal  dry  bottom
  boiler, emission factor of  56 pg/J  versus 1.5 pg/J  as reported in  Reference 1
  as an average for all boiler types.  The 1.5  pg/J  emission  factor  is about
  twice that reported for coal-fired  utility  units,  reflecting primarily  the
  difference in control devices (See  Table 5-9).
 ^No documentation of emission factor or production  data used to calculate
  emissions
 cBased on about 16 million metric tons of wood consumed in 1976,  vs.  1980
  consumption which was about 26 million metric tons.
     documentation of emission factor or production  data accompanied report.
                                    5-38

-------
CORPCMMTIOM
     One final consideration that should be kept 1n mind when reviewing the
national estimates 1s that emissions from residential combustion sources used
for heating vary considerably with respect to the season.  An example of this
variation is shown in Figure 5-1 for wood consumption in fireplaces and
stoves.  These data show the difference in wood consumption and estimated POM
emisions between winter and summer months.  Similar trends can be expected for
emissions from residential coal, oil, and gas combustion sources used primar-
ily for heating.

5.3.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     Utility Combustion - POM emissions from utility combustion will be
influenced primarily by three factors:  the type of fuel burned, emission  ,
controls used, and growth in new plant construction.

     With respect to the type of fuel burned, the brief sensitivity analysis
described above indicates that even if all existing oil- and gas-fired utility
capacity were converted to coal, POM emissions from utilities would still
comprise only a small fraction of the total  POM emissions from combustion
source categories.  And, although many new utility plants will be designed to
burn coal, those plants will be subject to the relatively stringent particu-
late emission limit [13 ng/J (0.03 lb/106 Btu)] specified in the 1979 NSPS
applicable to coal-fired utilities.  Compliance with this standard will  re-
quire the use of a high-efficiency ESP or a fabric filter, both of which
provide over 90 percent control  of fine particles (43).  As discussed above
control of fine particles will  result in substantial control of POM emissions.

     Projections for new utility construction have generally been revised
downward in recent years because conservation has reduced the need for new
electrical generating capacity.
                                        5-39

-------






*;










,


















•
C
C
C
f






0)
o
CO
1— 1
0.
01
•H
Pm
^










D
3
^


















0
1-4







-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
     Industrial Combustion

     Industrial growth will  be accompanied by the need for additional  indus-
trial boiler capacity.  The same factors influencing POM emisions from utility
combustion are applicable to this category:  type of fuel  burned* emission
controls used* and projected growth rates.

     Despite possible economic advantages of using coal  rather than oil  or
natural gas, there are several potential impediments in  the current regulatory
environment to a widespread or vigorous increase in industrial  coal  use.   One
recent study (44) found that about 70 percent of industrial  facilities are
located in non-attainment areas.  The authors noted that obtaining permits for
construction of new coal-fired boilers (or conversion of existing units to
coal) in these areas will be difficult because of an "apparent unwillingness
of existing industries" to provide emission offsets to competing firms.   In
addition, the concentration of industries-in urban areas makes coal  burning
subject to strong local opposition if efficient emission controls are  not
applied.  The capital investment required for the emission control  systems,
combined with the relatively large capital investment for the boiler itself,
may, in many cases, make coal  less economically attractive to the industrial
user.

     When these economic factors are combined with traditional  uncertainties
in securing an uninterrupted supply of coal (e.g. strikes, bad weather),  there
appears to be only certain cases where industrial coal  use would be favored.
Using specific case studies, the report cited above (44) concluded that  coal
use appears most economical  for energy-intensive industries,  such as petroleum
refining and primary metals, that are located near suitable coal  supplies.
The study also concluded that the use of coal  in large energy-intensive indus-
tries located along the Gulf Coast (e.g., chemicals and  primary aluminum
plants) is less likely to be cost-effective in the near  term.   For smaller,
less energy-intensive industries, capital requirements may be unjustifiable,
regardless of location.
                                       5-41

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
     Future fuel choice decisions for industrial  boilers will  be significantly
affected by oil and gas prices* federal  energy policies* coal  transportation
costs, technology developments and environmental  regulations.   It 1s difficult
to assess what emission control requirements will  be applicable to new  indus-
trial boilers, since the NSPS for that category has yet to be  proposed.
However, the NSPS will  likely require a higher degree of particulate emission
control  than current state regulations.   Also, as  discussed above,  local  air
quality considerations, especially in non-attainment areas, are likely  to
require the use of efficient emission controls on  new boilers.

     Figure 5-2 shows the growth in industrial wood consumption over the  past
30 years.  (The consumption values in Figure 5-2 include wood  fired  in  process
heaters, which was not included in the calculation of national  POM emissions
from wood combustion presented in the previous section.) Figure 5-2  shows that
industrial wood consumption has been fairly steady for the last four years.
The pulp and paper and lumber and wood products industries* major users of
wood-fired boilers, are tied directly to the housing industry.   Process tech-
nology changes, energy conservation, and a shift away from the  most  energy
intensive products may result in some reduction in energy consumption in  the
pulp and paper and related industries (37).  One source predicts that 1950 MW
(6.65 x 10^ Btu/hr) of new wood-fired boiler capacity will  be  installed
between 1982 and 1990 (45).  The added capacity is foreseen as  a result of
growth in the pulp and paper and lumber  industries and trends  in these  indus-
tries toward replacement of fossil fuel-fired boilers with wood units.
Replacement of older existing wood-fired boilers will  also account for some of
the new capacity installed.

     An NSPS for wood-fired industrial  boilers has not been developed.  The
same local air quality considerations discussed above for coal-fired boilers
would apply to construction and regulation of new  wood-fired units.
                                     5-42

-------
                         1970  '71   '72 '73  '74  '75  '76  '77  '73 '79  '80 '81
30'
1950
1960
                  Figure 5-2.  Industrial Wood Consumption Trends (37)
   *Includes consumption in boilers and process heaters.
                                5-43

-------
     Commercial/Institutional Combustion

     No quantitative data were located on the expected growth 1n commercial/
institutional combustion.  However* some qualitative assessments are possible.
Continued population growth in urban areas will  result in construction of new
commercial and institutional  boilers.  Fuel  choice decisions for these boilers
will be driven by the same factors that affect industrial  fuel  choices:
regional location, oil  and gas prices* energy policies* coal  transportation
costs* technology developments* and environmental  regulations.   However*
development of alternate energy sources, such as solar heating,  and energy
conservation practices may reduce the growth in  this category*  however.

     New commercial/Institutional boilers with heat input capacities of great-
er than 14.7 MW (50 x 106 Btu/hr) will likely be required to use the same
particulate control systems specified for industrial boilers under the NSPS
being developed (33).  However* many commercial  boilers are smaller than  14.7
MW and will likely be subject only to SIP emission limits.  In  most states*
particulate emission limits are significantly less stringent for small boil-
ers.

     Residential Combustion

     Because of the potential for significant POM emissions*  the predicted
growth of wood-fired stoves is of particular concern.  Figure 5-3 shows 30-yr
trends for residential  wood combustion in stoves.   These data support the
analysis that although residential wood consumption dropped sharply in the
50's and 60's increasing oil  and gas prices resulted in a significant increase
in the use of wood in the residential sector during the last decade.

     It seems likely* that if oil* gas* and electricity prices  continue to
increase* residential wood consumption will  increase* especially as more
efficient stoves are introduced.  However* the use of alternate energy sources
such as solar heating could become competitive with wood.
                                     5-44

-------
    35
    30
    25
    20
w
0)

o
(0  >>
•H ^»

   =15
§  §
H £10

li
03
c
o
T3
0    =;

     5
     0   1
        1950
1960
1970  '71   '72 '73  '74   '75   '76   '77  '78   '79   '80   '81
                 Figure 5-3.  Trends 1n Residential  Wood Consumption (Stoves)  (37)
                                      5-45

-------
RADIAN
     Because of the uncertainty associated with predicting residential  fuel
prices and fuel choice decisions it is difficult to estimate future levels of
residential wood consumption.  To provide an idea of the potential  increase in
POM from residential wood combustion in stoves* it can be assumed that  the
consumption levels will grow at annual rate equal to that demonstrated  between
1980 and 1981 (about 1.4 percent).  Assuming that no significant changes occur
in control of POM from wood stoves, annual emissions by 1990 could  potentially
reach 8160 metr1c/tons/yr (assuming 0.27 gm POM emitted per kg of wood
burned).

5.4  COKE PRODUCTION

     This section deals with POM emissions from by-product coke production.

5.4.1  Source Category Description

5.4.1.1  Process Description*

     Coke production is an integral part of iron and steel  manufacturing.
Coke provides the heat and carbon for the smelting and reduction reactions
that occur in furnaces.  About 93 percent of the coke produced is used  to
convert iron ore into iron.  Iron foundries, nonferrous smelters* and chemi-
cals plants account for the remainder of coke consumption.

     By-product coke production is carried out in enclosed slot-type ovens.
There can be 10 to 100 ovens per coke battery and there are usually  several
batteries located at each plant.  Figure 5-4 depicts a typical  plant.   The
major components of the by-product coke process (a batch-type process)  are:

          o    charging the ovens with pulverized coal  that has been
               blended to the desired size and composition*
*The material  presented in this subsection is summarized  from  References
 46 and 47.
                                    5-46

-------
RADIAN
                                               CAMVCVM Ml IS
                          T    0,;;    T
                          |   IflMAfir   I

                          L-rmJ
                             CAM WHM*f
                   rtUSHMK IKMMM
                    r~i^—
         SIMIACC       I
          ^'"J "1       lofllVONAIlM

             -H±l
        run riMiHtn
         MUttSlWM
        on roA ruiL
       tM*H AUttOMI*

         LlOUOO

        Sf I tin

         IAHNS
                            Flow sheet showing the major steps in the by-product coking process.

                              (copyright 1971 by United States Steel Corporation)
                 Figure  5-4.   By-Product Coking  Process  (46)
                                               5-47

-------
RADIAN
comxxumoM
          o    coking reaction (coking time varies between 16 and 20
               hours),
          o    pushing (after coking is complete,  the coke is mechani-
               cally pushed into quench cars for transport to the next
               process step),
          o    quenching the hot coke with water,  and
          o    recovery of by-products such as tar,  ammonium sulfate,
               benzene, and naphthalene

With the exception of by-product recovery, existing data  indicate that  each  of
the process operations listed above is a source of POM emissions.

     Fugitive emissions are associated with charging and  leaks from  coke  oven
door, lids, and offtakes.  (Leaks from lids and offtakes  are often grouped
together under the category of topside leaks.)  Battery stacks are located on
the ovens to provide a natural draft for the combustion gas that  is  used  to
heat the battery.  Oven gases leak through the oven  walls and are emitted
through these stacks.  Pushing results in fugitive emissions.  In the quench
tower, emissions are carried up and out of the tower by the steam produced
during quenching of the hot coke.  Finally, although by-product recovery  is  a
potential source of POM, very little data are available on this portion of the
process.

5.4.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     Table 5-12 shows the emission controls applicable to by-product coke pro-
duction.  No quantitative date were located on the use of these systems on ex-
isting sources.  However, between 80 and 90 percent  of the existing  capacity
is subject to some type of control  requirements,  either under SIPs or by  spe-
cial consent decrees (49).  The SIP and consent decree requirements  vary  from
being relatively stringent for new and some existing sources to no control
required (50).
                                    5-48

-------
CORPORATION









x-s
oo
^^
•^
co
1-

^^
i
CL

LU

O
O

1—
0

Q
O
or
Q.
i
^-
03
O
1-

LU

CO
^£
o
1— 1
_J
CL
Q.


co
_J
o

"Z,
8
z
o
1— 1
CO
CO
i— i
2
LU


•
IN
i— 1
1
LT>
LU
wJ
<£
1-











c
o >^
0 U
C

0 -r-
-P 0

E £
t- >4-
•P LU
in
LU
















in
0

Q-
•^
C
u
0
h-

r—
O
s_
-p
c
o
o








•»
1- t-
CL 0
in -p
<0 -P'
 x>
O)
c o
i- -P
O) c
i_ i-
.c in
u c
o

0 In
O) in
-PS
CO 0





-P
c
0

c
•1—
(O
-p
c
o
o









i— 0)
 c 0
t- 10 O
4— "O *r—
o c in >
n J_ 0
0) 0-0
o xj
C • XJ i—
(O >> 3 O
C i— i_ I-
0 -P U -P
•p x: in c
CO) O
I- 1- -P O
03 -P 0
E 30
0 -P
-o in 10
CO • T3
(O i— in i-
o t_ -o
0 o c
in o o 10
ZD -P T3 O


0
i_
3
-P -P i-
c a. o
0 IO £-
S 0 -P
c cm
T- t_ O 0
« o o o
-P -v T-
c -a -o >
o c c 0
O (O (O Q







in

(O
0


t-
§
Q
X)
O
LO

O
-P

LO
m
i











0
•p

in
•o
c
3
0
CL


O

O)
C
•r™
r«
IO
0
in

M-
o

c
O
-p
(O
u •
i- in
t— -*
CL (O
CL 0
< i—





•P
C
0
E
c
n—
IO
•P
C
o
o




in
^
fO
0
1

0
-^
i^
in
CL

0


o
•p

o
LO
1








lf_
o
in
= Q.
0 co
•0 LU
•r*
in -p
0 •
0 * in
.* 0
O T3 U
U C i-
s (0 >
0
t_ in -a
0 t-
> 0 i—
0 XI 0
^"^ t.
U) 3 -P
•o s_ c
0 O O
x: in u
in
•p 0
0 -P
•• S *
in xj
0 1-
!_ • -0
3 >, C
in i. to
o 0 u
i— -P
u -P 0
c 10 t-
LU XI (O





"U
c
(0

0 r- U)
t- O 0
3 t. O
•p -p 1-
CL C >

in , 0
XJ i— 4->
C i—
0 O 
..- 0

o
C i—
0 O
3 ^
0--P
c
>> o
i. U
•o
•o
•P c
3 (O
<*%
0
•> i.
O) 3
c -p
•i- Q.
O O
c
0 0
3 i.
O" "^^
3
t-ff
TO U





































^c
•z.
Q





O)
c

^j
(O
0 £-
J- O
-P

t- in
o co
0.
tn LU
i —
f— ^
10 in
f t-
0
C -Q
0 X)
> 3
O J-
o
c in
•i—
c
in i- •
jif in
u in i_
IO 0 (D
i- in -p
O IO r—
cn t-
C -P
i- in o
XI 3 •*—
O iO J-
-P x: xj
•0 X 10
a. 0 4-


r~>
o
£_
-P -P
C C
0 O
E 0
c in
t- s- 
O C (D
0 10 Q



in
.*:
u

•p
co

>^
L.
0
^J
-P
iO
m







^c
•z.
o












M-
O

in


0


m
3
0

H
IO
>

0
-Q

0
•p

>» ^J
*0 0
-* E
i- C
1 »r-
»-- IO
-P
< C
•z. o
o u













^c
o







•p
u
3 >,

O 0

fl Q
^•> 0
CD CC






















































.
OO


0
u
c.
0
L.
0

0
a:
c

0
N
•^ • •
S- OO LO
0 ^t LO
-P
U 0 0
iO O O
S- C C
IO 0 0
x: L. L.
u 0 0

in 0 0
< a: a:
iO XJ O































































•
0

XJ
IO
'Io
IO

-p
o
c

IO
•p
*o
Q

II

Q
                                          5-49

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
     There 1s currently a program underway at EPA to develop a  NESHAPs  for
coke ovens.  The alternatives being considered for the NESHAPs,  which would
apply to both existing and new sources, range from achieving 35  to 80 percent
reduction over current estimated levels of BSO emissions (51) from charging,
door leaks, and topside leaks (51).

     The existing and developing regulations for coke ovens are generally  in
the form of work practice standards because of the extreme difficulties
associated with measuring mass emissions from these sources.  Typical
regulations for charging specify the amount of time that visible emissions can
occur during charging.  Other regulations specify the allowable percent of
leaking doors (PLD), of leaking lids (PLL), and of leaking offtakes (PLO)
(50).  Regulations for quench towers do, in some cases,  specify  mass emission
levels, but many just restrict the quality of water that can be  used in
quenching (52).

     The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has developed
and is enforcing regulations related to worker safety.  These regulations
dictate certain work practice procedures (50).

5.4.1.3  Source Locations

     By-product coke plants are located in 18 states.   Most of the plants
are located near steel plants and coal  supply points.   Forty-seven of the
estimated 60 plants are owned by or affiliated with iron and steel  firms (53).

     In 1976, 57 percent of total  U.S.  coke was produced in Pennsylvania.
Ohio and Indiana were the next largest  producers.   Other states  with signifi-
cant coke production capacity include Alabama, West Virginia, Maryland,  New
York, and Michigan.  The relative amount of coke produced in various states
has been fairly stable (53).
                                      5-50

-------
RADIAN
5.4.2  Emission Factors

     Most of the emission data reported for coke ovens are based  on  emissions
of BaP or benzene soluble organics (BSD).   Very little total  POM  data  are
available.  Table 5-13 summarizes emission factor data from references
reviewed in this study.  Total POM data were located  only  for door leaks
(uncontrolled and controlled)  and quenching operations.  Comparison  of BSD
data available for the various process operations shows that charging* door
leaks» and quenching (with contaminated water)  are the largest potential
emission sources.

     Tables 5-14 through 5-17  show the type of  POM compounds included  in the
total POM data reported in Table 5-13.

5.4.3  National Emission Estimates

     Development of national total  POM emission estimates  for coke production
is difficult and uncertain due to the lack of total POM data and  the wide
variability of the limited data published.  However*  a very rough estimate of
the lower end of the range of  national emissions can  be developed by assuming
that POM emissions are at least equal  to those  from door leaks and quenching.

     An emission factor of 4 gm/metric ton of coal  charged is representative
of door leaks without an add-on control  device.  For  quenching* an emission
factor of 2 gm/metric ton of coal  charged  was assumed.  Thus*  an  estimated
total POM emission factor of 6 gm/metr1c ton of coal  was used to  calculate
national  emissions.  This factor is based  on the use  of  relatively clean water
for quenching.  Most states limit particulate emissions  from quenching to 1.24
kg/metric ton of coal  charged  or less  (54).   However*  compliance with  such
limits is based on the use of  clean water  since emissions  from these sources
are very difficult to measure  accurately (55).
                                      5-51

-------




















ZT
0
1— 1
1
o
r>
Q
o
a:
CL
LiJ
8
ce:
o
1 1

^£
h"~
^£
Q

o:
o

o
i^

^*
o
1— 1
CO
co
i— t
?s*
LU


•
m
r-i
i
in

LU
_j
CD
«dt
h-














0
U
c

!_
0
t.
*^
0
cc









(/)
-p
c
0

E
O










^— v
•^J
0
0
L.
<0
JZ
O
U) r—
S- 
LT>















u












p**.
l—<

o
•p

oo

































OT
c
•1—
J=
Ul
CL



O^
in















o











o
o
oo
CN

O
-P

i-H
r— 1






in
0
o
o
•
o


0
a\
o
Ol
•
o

CN
O
O
O




O)
c
•r-
JZ
o
c
0
<§



r— f
VO




JZ
o
£Z
0
3
CT

1_
O
t|_

!_
0
•P
rO
*
C
>
(_
0
4J
-P
ro
CO















•
•o
0
1

>
0
t-
U)
0
u
c
0
L.
0
0
s_

c
•r-

•^
0
•P
ra
8


0
{-
0
X

ra
•p
ra
•o

s_
o
•p
O
rO
t^
c
0
In
in
1
0

o
c

-P
ra
JC
-p
0
•p
ro
U
•r—
T3
C
•r-

in
\r
C
rO
r—
CD











































•
^~
i-H
1
in

0
r—~
JO
rO


C
T-

c
8
JZ
in
Ul
(0
Ul

c
3
0
Q.


U
^T
CL

m
i— i

in
0
•o
3
I —
U
c
1— 1
n

-p
c
0
E
Ul
Ul
0
Ul
Ul
"*••

•
\*
u
0
CD

•
_l

0
0
-1
T5
C
ra

•
cc

rl
t-
"Q
C
<

^
E

*o

0
s_
1-

• •
Ul
ra

c
0
>
i—


%
E
ra
JZ
I_
3
Q

-P
I_
O
CL
0
cr

^^
CL
LU

^_
ra
c
s_
0
•p
c
1— 1

«^
Ul
0
!„
0
-p
•p
ra
CO

c
0
o

0

o
0
0
a

H
|
+J
O
O)i—

in
•^

ra
•p
rO
"°
0
Ul
0
_c
-p

s_
o
4-

0
U
c
0
L.
0
4-
0
L.

l»
ro
C
•^
CO



J_
M-

m
c
o
Ul
Ul

g
LU

U

C
ro
D
L.
O
Ul
3
O
•a
£_
(O
N
ro
D1X
«r-
t-
0
u
M-
O



















•
in
^-i
I
in

0












































•
VO
.— I

in

0

JO
ro


in

T3
o
<•
-p

Z
<
CL
LU

T3
0
•r-
l^K
T3
O
E

ro
5
•i—
^

•o
0
-P
U
3
•o
c
o
o

Q)
C
•1—
"o.
E
rO
CO

•
0

O
U

c
0
0
J_
p-

1


0
1—
JO
rO
H

•
Ul
"O
c
3
O
CL
S
u

2jT
2
L.
rO
^_
0
CL.

CO
i— I

•^
C
rO

in
•a
c
3
O
Q.


O

i
CL

PO
m

t_
0
«4-








^*
^^
CL
^
^_
rO

C
O

ro
•P
ra
•o

Ul
-p
c
0
in
0
£_
CL

in
in
0
u
c
0
£_
0
t|_
0
cc:

•
in
-p
c
3
o
E
rO

i.
0
J=
01
•r-
JZ






















































i— h- roco
(-1
ra
h-
c
••"
c
8
x:
in

in

c
• 3
00 0
r- a.
i-H O
o
VO S!
^£

o ui
£_ 0
ro T3
2 3
» "u
O C
•Z. I-l
-o

c.

c
8
-C
Ul
Ul
•o
c
3
o
CL


U
•s.
£

o
1— 1

Ul
0
T3
3
13
c
1— 1
0 '
1
c
0
c

T3
C
ra
c
0
0
i-
01

t_
o
i^
Ul
•p
in
0
-p
4-
o

0
0)
ra
i-
0
>
<
4-
^T
V^
O

>^
JO

•a
0
N
>,

ro
C
rO

Ul
0
"cu
i
Ul
• •«
Ul
3
-P
ro
£_
ra
Q.
CL
rO

>%

"0
•f—
-P
rO
f—
0
U

c
•^

•^
c
3
O
**"
in
c
3
O
Q.


U

U)
g
JZ
Ul








•
in
-p
Ul
0
•P

0
5

c

L.
O
M-

T3
0
r"—
Q.

-------
TABLE 5-14.  POM COMPOUNDS MEASURED IN UNCONTROLLED COKE OVEN DOOR LEAK SAMPLES
             (59)
               Benzo(a)phenanthrene

               Benzo(e)pyrene

               Benzofluoranthenes

               Benzo(k)f1uoranthene

               Chrysene

               Dlbenzanthracenes

               Dibenzpyrene

               D1methy1benz(a)anthracene

               FT uoranthene

               Indeno(l,2»3-c,d)pyrene

               Naphthalene

               Pyrene

               Benzo(a)pyrene
                                     5-53

-------
CORPORATION
   TABLE 5-15.  POM COMPOUNDS MEASURED IN CONTROLLED DOOR LEAK SAMPLES  (60)








               Naphthalene



               FTuoranthene



               Pyrene



               Benz(c)phenanthrene



               Chrysene



               Benz(a)anth racene



               7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anth racene



               Benzof1uoranthenes



               Benzo(a)pyrene



               Benzo(e)pyrene



               Choianthrene



               Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene



               Dibenz(a,h)anthracene



               Dibenzacridines



               Di benz(c,g)carbazole



               Dibenzpyrenes



               3-Methyl cholanthrene
                                      5-54

-------
TABLE 5-16.  POM COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN COKE QUENCH TOWER EMISSIONS
             INTERNAL EPA DATA (59)
           Anthracene and phenanthrene

           Methyl anthracenes

           Fluoranthene

           Pyrene

           Methyl pyrene and fluoranthene

           Benzo(c)phenanthrene

           Chrysene and benz(a)anthracene

           Methyl chyrsenes

           Di methylbenz(a)anth racene

           Benzo(a)pyrene
                                5-bo

-------
TABLE 5-17.  SELECTED POM COMPOUNDS IN COKE QUENCH TOWER SAMPLES
             PUBLISHED DATA (61)
         Benzo(a)pyrene

         3-Methyl cholanthrene

         7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene

         Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

         Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene

         Dibenzo(a»i)pyrene

         Benz(a)anth racenes

         Pyri dine

         Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene

         Phenanthrene

         Phenol

         Cresol

         Quinoline
                               6-56

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
     The emission factor was then multiplied by the 1980 coke production
level of 41.8 million metric tons (56) and a typical yield of coke from coal
of 69 percent (57) to yield a national estimate:
/	6gm POM	\  /ton coal charged  |  | 41.8 x 10   metric tons cokej
^metric ton coal charged!  I  0.69 ton coke  J  \^            yr              J
Jjneiric_iojiJ   = 3fi3 m@trfc tons POM/yr (400 tons/yr)
v  iou gm  j

     This estimate is likely to represent the low end of the estimated range
of national POM emissions from by-product coke production because only door
leaks and quenching tower emissions are included and it was assumed that clean
water was used in quenching.

5.4.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     The two major factors that will influence POM emissions from by-product
coke production are:

          o    proposal/promulgation of coke oven NESHAPs and
          o    coke production levels.

     Published alternatives being considered for the coke oven NESHAPs are
expected to require between 35 to 80 percent reduction of BSO emissions over
current levels, depending on the emissions source and the alternative selected
(51).  These standards would apply to both new and existing coke ovens.

     Production levels are related to the iron and steel  industry which, as
discussed in Section 5.5.4 1s expected to experience only moderate growth in
the next few years (1 to 3 percent annually).

5.5  IRON AND STEEL PROCESSES

     This section describes, in general, some iron and steel processes that
potentially emit POM.  The discussion focuses on iron and steel  sintering and
                                     5-57

-------
CORPORATION
ferroalloy production* two categories for which at least some Information on
POM emissions was located.  Because there were Insufficient published total
POM emission data* the development of national emission estimates for iron and
steel sintering was not feasible.

5.5.1  Source Category Description

5.5.1.1  Process Description

     Several  iron and steel  processes may potentially emit POM.   Specific
information was located for iron and steel  sintering and ferroalloy produc-
tion.  The POM emissions from non-ferrous alloy production and other metals
manufacturing may be similar to those described for ferroalloy production.

     Sintering—Sintering is the process by which pulverized ore is agglo-
merated before it is used in a blast furnace.  A traveling grate moves the ore
over a series of wind boxes where air is pulled through the grate and the ore
is ignited with a burner (62).  The ore contains coke and oil  scrap and POM
compounds are generated from the burning of this material.  Also* coke and
scrap particles with absorbed POM can escape at several points in the process
(62).  Much of the POM may be emitted as vapor at sintering process tempera-
tures (62).

     Ferroalloy Production—In production of ferroalloys, reducing materials
such as coal  or coke and ores are charged to a furnace on a continuous or
cyclic basis.  Furnace operation is continuous.  In the most commonly used
process (electric arc furnaces) reactions occur in the zones surrounding large
electrodes.  Burning of the coal  or coke generates carbon monoxide,  particu-
late matter,  vaporous metallic compounds, and POM (63) which are emitted
through the furnace exhaust.  Electric arc  furnaces which can  be open, closed,
or semi-sealed are also used in ferrous foundries, specialty and alloy steel
production, and nonferrous alloy production.
                                     5-58

-------
5.5.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     Sintering—In 1976, two-thirds of the existing Iron and steel  sintering
process factilities had no emission controls (62). Possible control  technol-
ogies include ESPs, fabric filters, and wet scrubber, all of which  would
capture significant amounts of POM.  Wet scrubbers would likely be  the most
efficient in reducing the total POM because vapor phase compounds would be
condensed in the scrubber.  No federal NSPS exists for iron and steel  sinter-
ing.

     Ferroalloy Production—Exhaust gases from the electric arc furnaces are
typically vented to wet scrubbers or fabric filters, both of which  should
provide significant POM control.  Fabric filters are used at 26 of  the 31
ferroalloy plants in the United States (63).  A 1974 NSPS limits particulate
emissions, opacity, and carbon monoxide emissions from "new" electric  arc
furnaces producing silicon-, manganese-, and chrome-based alloys.  Federal
NSPS also exist for electric arc furnaces in iron and steel  producion  facil-
ities and non-ferrous alloy manufacture and an NSPS is being developed for
electric arc furnaces used in ferrous foundries (64).  Most states  also have
particulate emissions regulations applicable to existing metal  production
facilities that have required the use of emission control equipment.

5.5.1.3  Source Locations

     Sintering—Sintering occurs in conjunction with operation  of large
blast furnaces.  These plants are concentrated in Ohio, Pennsylvania,  and
Indiana (62).

     Ferroalloy Production—Production of ferroalloys is concentrated  in the
same states as sintering (Ohio, Pennsylvania,  and Indiana)  as well  as  in West
Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  There are also large facilities
located in Colorado and California (65).
                                      b-59

-------
RADIAN
5.5.2  Emission Factors

     Sintering—Only BaP data were available for the sintering process (62).
The BaP emission estimates ranged from 0.66 to 1.1 gm per metric ton of
sinter feed.

     Ferroalloy Production—POM emission data were collected from a semi-
sealed and a closed electric arc furnace in a recent study supporting review
of the ferroalloy NSPS (66).  POM emissions from the semi-sealed furnace
(producing 50 percent FeSi) were 91.0 gm/Mw-h.  This facility was controlled
with a 1ow energy wet scrubber followed by a flare.  Emissions were measured
before the flare.  Tests on the closed furnace (producing SiMn)  showed con-
trolled POM emissions of 1.0 gm/Mw-h.  The closed furnace was controlled by a
high pressure drop wet scrubber.  Emissions from the closed furnace measured
before the scrubber were 156 gm/Mw-h when the furnace was producing FeMn.
Table 5-18 shows the compounds "detected in the furnace exhausts sampled.

     No emission factor data were presented for open furnaces*  which are used
1n the large majority of ferroalloy plants (65).  However* one report reviewed
did present an annual nationwide POM estimate for open furnaces (see Section
5.5.3).

5.5.3  National Emission Estimates

     As stated above* no useful  total POM emission factors were available for
the iron and steel  sintering.  Therefore* development of  a national  POM emis-
sion estimates for this category was not feasible.

     Reference 67 presented total  uncontrolled POM emission estimates for
electric submerged-arc furnaces  used in ferroalloy production:
                                        5-60

-------
                 TABLE 5-18.  POM EMISSIONS IN FERROALLOY ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE  EXHAUST  (66)


Semi sea led
Test C-2,
Furnace
during
50% FeS1 Production

FT uorene
Carbazole
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Cycl openta ( def ) phenanth rene
Methyl anth racenes
FT uoranthene
Pyrene
Me thy Ipy rene
Benzo ( gh 1) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a) and benzo(b)f1 uorene
Chrysene
Benz(a) anthracene
Methylchrysenes
7,l2-d1methylbenz(a)anthracene
Benzotelpyrene
Benzofl uoranthene
Benzot 1 ) fl uoranthene
Benzo ( k ) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(e)acephenanthylene
Perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Methyl benzopyrenes
3 -methy 1 chol anth rene
Indeno(l»2»3-c,d)pyrene
Benzo(gh1 )perylene
Anthanthrene
01benzo(ath)anthracene
D1benzo(c,g)carbazole
D1benzo(a1+ah)pyrenes
Coronene
TOTAL
mg/Nm3
75.0
b
18.3
18.3
10.7
1.5
27.4
28.5
0.07
8.9
1.24
8.1
10.5


0.81

3.5
0.16
3.5
0.43
1.64


1.10
3.2
0.83



1.0

g/MW-h
45.9

11.2
11.2
6.5
0.92
16.7
17.4
0.04
5.4
0.75
4.9
6.4


0.49

2.1
0.10
2.1
0.26
1.00


0.67
1.9
0.51



0.61
91.0
Cl c^e,^ Furnace
Test D-2, during Test D-l,

during
S1Mn Production FeMn Production3
mg/Nm3 g/MW-h mg/Nm3
1.5 0.36 16.0
9.6
2.1 0.51 220.0


0.070 0.017 24.0
0.24 0.058 220.0
0.22 0.053 2.3
0.005 0.0012 14.0


0.016 0.0039 49.0

5.2
0.58
51.0




3.1

1.2
0.39
6.0
1.4

0.90
0.079
O.S4
0.51
1.0
g/MW-h
4.0
2.4
54.9


6.0
54.9
0.57
3.5


12.0

1.3
0.14
13.0




0.77

0.30
0.10
1.5
0.35

0.22
0.020
0.13
0.13
156.0
aBefore scrubber.



bBlanks Indicate compound not detected.
                                                   5-61

-------
RADIAN
                                        Estimated POM Emissions
     Furnace Type                          (metric tons/vr)
     Covered furnaces                         209 to 1879
     Open furnaces                            135 to 1211

     These calculations were based on actual  emission factor data measured
upstream of emission control devices such as scrubbers and fabric filters.
However* it is likely that such control  devices would substantially reduce the
amount of POM emitted to the atmosphere (67).  Reported "organic" collection
efficiencies of the scrubbers on five furnaces tested ranged from 16 to 97
percent (67).  As noted elsewhere in this report* fabric filters are expected
to achieve significant reductions in POM since the fine particulate onto which
POM is typically adsorbed is efficiently collected by fabric filters.

     POM emissions were reportedly significantly higher for closed furnaces
than for open furnaces on the basis of POM emitted (uncontrolled) per unit of
furnace capacity.

5.5.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     Only low to moderate growth (1 to 3 percent annually) is foreseen for the
iron and steel  Industry (68).  Increased metals imports* high capital outlays
required for modernization expenditures to meet environmental regulations, and
the slow growth of steel-intensive industries are the major factors contribut-
ing to sluggish growth in this industry.

     Any new capacity will be subject to the NSPS which generally requires the
use of fabric filters or high pressure drop wet scrubbers.

5.6  ASPHALT PRODUCTION - PAVING AND ROOFING

     This section describes two asphalt-related sources of POM emissions:
manufacture of asphalt hot mix used in paving and air blowing of asphalt and
subsequent saturation of felt for asphalt roofing products.
                                      5-62

-------
5.6.1  Source Category Description

5.6.1.1  Process Descriptions

     Asphalt Hot Mix—Production of asphalt hot mix involves mixing  asphalt
aggregates with hot liquid asphalt cement in a  batch  or  continous  process.  A
large percentage of the hot mix is produced in  existing  plants  using the  batch
process shown in Figure 5-5a (71).  The drum-mix  process,  in which wet aggre-
gate is dried and mixed with hot liquid asphalt cement as  it is simultaneously
dried in a rotary dryer, has been used in most  new  plant designs (132).   This
process is shown in Figure 5-5b.  Drum-mix plants are also being used to  re-
cycle salvaged asphalt pavement.  Most asphalt  mix  plants  are relatively
small:  the average production rate is 160 metric tons/hr  (176  tons/hr) (69).
POM compounds are emitted from combustion of gas  or oil  in the  direct-feed
rotary dryer and from the mixer.  Because the drum-mix process  is based on a
parallel flow design (i.e., hot gases and aggregate flow through the dryer in
the same direction), particulate emissions from this  process are less than
from a conventional process.  However, because  the  asphalt is heated to a
higher temperature for a longer time, the drum-mix  process may  result in
greater POM emissions.

     Fugitive emissions of POM may result from  asphalt loading  and handling.
As with most batch processes, emissions are highly  variable.

     In recent years, virtually all  new plants  are  drum-mix operations in
which mixing and drying of the aggregates occurs  within  the same vessel (132).

     Asphalt Roofing Products—The two major steps  in the  production of
asphalt-based roofing products are air blowing  of the asphalt and saturating a
felt with the air blown material.

     Although the processes are not always carried  out at  the same plant, air
blowing is an integral  part of felt production.   Air  blowing involves accom-
plishing oxidation by bubbling air through liquid asphalt  at 220 to  260°C (428
                                     5-63

-------
          <£ O  .
          o <:  *
          UJ Q* LU
          OS O on
          O I	 Q£
          o <^<:
          <    o
                o
                                                             (3
                                                             O
                                                              O
                                                              •3
                                                             O
                                                             (-J
                                                             PH
                                                             •H
                                                             S
                                                              O
                                                             sa
                                                              o
                                                             +J
                                                              ctf
                                                             PQ

                                                             4-1
                                                              o

                                                              B
                                                              tfl
                                                              M
                                                              M
                                                              rt
                                                              O
                                                              O
                                                             pq
                                                              cfl

                                                             LO

                                                              I
oo
•H
5-64

-------
                                    S
                                    m
                                    td
                                    ,c
                                    P.
                                    co
                                    S



                                    3
                                    OJ
                                    a
                                    a)
                                    S-i

                                    cd
                                    M-l

                                    O
                                     00
                                     o
                                     O

                                     O
                                    r-H

                                    M
                                     3

                                     00
5-65

-------
RADIAN
to 500°F) for 1 to 4 hours.   Emissions are highly  variable due  to the cyclic
nature of the process (70).

     Saturating the felt involves dipping it in  airblown  asphalt*  spraying  it
with the asphalt, or, in some cases,  a combination of both techniques.   The
final felt product, with controlled thickness coating of  asphalt,  is made into
rolls or shingles (70).

5.6.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     Asphalt Hot Mix—Wet scrubbers and fabric filters are typically used at
asphalt hot mix plants (74).  No data were located on the effect  of these
devices on POM emissions from the hot mix process.  However,  it can be
expected that both types of  control  equipment will provide a  significant
degree of control of process emissions of POM because of  their  relatively high
fine particle collection efficiencies.  Fugitive emissions from hot mix
production, on the other hand, are largely uncontrolled.

     An NSPS for asphalt hot mix production was  proposed  in June  of 1973.   The
NSPS limits particulate  matter emissions and the opacity  of outlet stack gases
from plants (75).  The NSPS  applies to facilities  constructed after June 1973.
The NSPS is currently being  reviewed  by EPA (132).

     Asphalt Roofing Products—Typically, controls for air blowing of as-
phalt consist of a primary cyclone (to catch larger particulate matter)  fol-
lowed by a fume incinerator  (70).  No data were  located regarding  the effect
of such a control system on  POM emissions.

     Saturating operations are generally enclosed  by fume hoods which are
vented to emission control devices.   The control devices  used on various
plants include low voltage ESPs,  afterburners, and high energy  air filter
(HEAP) systems.  Limited data showed  HEAP systems  reduced total POM by about
70 percent, while direct-fired afterburners had  no effect on POM  (70).
                                      0-66

-------
RADIAN
eomxMumoi
     An NSPS limits participate emissions and opacity from saturators and
blowing operations used in manufacturing roofing products and constructed
after November 1980 (75).  ESPs, high velocity air filters and afterburners
are expected to be used to meet this NSPS (75).

5.6.1.3  Source Locations

     Asphalt Hot Mix—About 20 percent of the 4300 operating asphalt hot mix
plants are mobile (71).  Most permanently installed plants are located in
urban areas.  As of 1974, states with 5 percent or more of the national
asphalt hot mix capacity were California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio (72).

     Asphalt Roofing Products—The majority of asphalt roofing product
plants are also located in urban areas.  Six large plants (out of an estimated
200 total plants) were reported to account for 20 percent of production  in
1973 (73).  Four states were reported to have 15 or more roofing product
plants:  California, Illinois, Texas, and New Jersey (73).

5.6.2.  Emission Factors

     The limited emission factor data located for these categories are
presented below.  In both cases, published data were limited to one or two
emission tests conducted at what were considered to be representative
facilities.

     Asphalt Hot Mix—Controlled emissions from the stack exhaust and mixer
at a batch production facility were reported to be 13.0 mg per metric ton of
hot mix produced (76).  The plant was equipped with a primary cyclone followed
by a wet scrubber.  No information was provided on the emission test method
used.  Table 5-19 shows the POM compounds identified in the stack exhaust.
Reported analytical  errors ranged from 6 to 144 percent for the different
compounds.  No fugitive emission factor data were located,  nor were data
                                      b-67

-------
TABLE 5-19.  POM COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN STACK EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM A
             CONTROLLED ASPHALT HOT MIX PLANT (76)
            Dlbenzothiophene

            Anthracene/phenanthrene

            Methyl anthracenes and phenanthrenes

            9-Methy1anth racene

            Fluoranthene

            Pyrene

            Benz(c)phenanth rene

            Chrysene/benz(a)anthracene

            7»12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene

            3,4-Benzofluoranthene

            Benzo(a)pyrene

            Benzo(e)pyrene

            Perylene

            3-Methylcholanthrene

            Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

            Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene

            7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole

            Dibenzo(a»h and a»i)pyrene
                                   5-68

-------
RADIAN
available for the newer drum-mix facilities.   [In the course of its NSPS
review* EPA plans to conduct emission tests at drum-mix facilities  (132).]

     Asphalt Roofing Products—Controlled POM emissions from air blowing and
saturator operations were reported as (77):

     Air blowing:  2.1 mg POM/metric ton felt produced
     Saturators:   4.3 mg POM/metric ton felt produced

     These data represent the average emissions from two representative facil-
ities.  The air blowing operations tested were equipped with fume incinera-
tors.  At one air blowing operation, POM compounds were reduced by  about 80
percent across the fume incinerator, but at the other facility  POM  increased
by a factor of two across the incinerator (77).

     One of the saturators tested was equipped with a HEAP  system which  showed
70 percent reduction of POM.  The other saturator tested was equipped with a
fume incinerator which reportedly had no effect on POM emissions (77).

     The data were collected using a Method 5 sampling train modified by
placing the filter after a series of impingers.  Table 5-20 shows the POM
compounds identified in samples from the air  blowing operations tested.

5.6.3  National Emission Estimates

     The emission estimates for these categories were calculated by
multiplying estimated 1980 national  production levels by the emission factors
presented above.

     Asphalt Hot Mix—Annual production of hot mix in 1980  was  reported  to
be 22.1 x 106 metric tons (24.3 x 106 tons) (78).   This figure  agrees rela-
tively well with a 1976 production level  of 20 x 10^ metric tons used in an
earlier study (79),  but is an order  of magnitude lower than a 1975  estimated
production level of 300 x 106 metric tons attributed to the National
                                   b-69

-------
        TABLE 5-20.   POM COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN SAMPLES FROM ASPHALT
                     AIR BLOWING AND FELT SATURATION (77)a
                             Benz(c)phenanthrene

                          7,12-01methyl(a)anthracene

                                Benzo(a)pyrene

                                Benzo(e)pyrene

                             3-Methylcholanthrene

                              D1benz(a»h)pyrene

                              Dibenz(a,1)pyrene



aSample extracted with methylene chloride and analyzed by GC/MS.
                                    b-70

-------
Asphalt Pavement Association (80).  Since the 1980 estimate was more recent
and since the original  reference for the higher estimate was not readily
available* the 1980 estimate was used in calculating national  emissions:
    |22.1 x 1Q6  metric tons hot mixj  /13.0 x
    I             yr                J  ^metric
                                               10 "3 am PONM  /metric ton!
                                         metric ton hot mixy  \  10° gm
                  = 0.29 metric ton/yr (0.32 ton/yr)

These estimates are based on the emission factors for batch plants and do not
reflect emissions from newer drum-mix plants.

     Asphalt Roofing Products—In 1980, an estimated 5.3 x 10& metric tons
(5.8 x 106 tons) of asphalt roofing products were manufactured (78).
Based on the controlled emission estimates presented above national  POM
emissions were calculated as follows:

A.  01  4    /5.3 x 106 metric tons fe1t\ [2.1 x 10"3 am POM) /metric ton]
Air Blowing: ^   ^^j ^etrlc ton felt j (  lO* gm  )
           =  0.011 metric ton/yr (0.025 ton/yr)

04.   4.     /5.3 x 106 metric tons fe1t\ (4.3 x 1Q"3 gm POM ) /metric ton |
Saturators: ^        yp               J ^  metric ton feu;^l()6gm  )
          = 0.023 metric ton/yr (0.012 ton/yr)
     Total= 0.011 + 0.023 = 0.034 metric ton/yr (0.037 ton/yr)

5.6.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     Asphalt Hot Mix—Asphalt hot mix production levels are related  directly
to the paving industry.  Production levels are likely to remain relatively
steady (79).  New or modified plants will  be covered by the existing NSPS
which requires particulate emission control.  Also, as mentioned  above, newer
facilities are likely to be drum-mix designs.
                                      5-71

-------
CORPORATION
     Asphalt Roofing Products—Production levels of roofing materials are
dependent on the housing industry and there is also a large replacement market
for these products.  The 1980 U.S. Industrial  Outlook (81)  predicts a 2 per-
cent growth in new construction through 1984,  although the  growth in this
industry is highly dependent on the general  state of the economy and on mort-
gage loan interest rates.  No information was  located regarding the capability
of existing roofing materials production facilities to keep pace with the
anticipated housing industry growth.  New or modified plants will  be subject
to the NSPS for this category.

5.7  CATALYTIC CRACKING IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTION

     This section deals with POM emissions from catalytic cracking as used in
petroleum refining.  Catalytic cracking is used to upgrade  heavy petroleum
fractions to produce high octane gasoline and  distillate fuels.

5.7.1  Source Category Description

5.7.1.1  Process Descriptions

     There are three basic types of catalytic  cracking techniques currently
used in the petroleum industry:

          o    fluidized catalytic cracking,
          o    thermofor catalytic cracking, and
          o    houdriflow catalytic cracking.

     Fluidized catalytic cracking accounted for about 94 percent of the total
refinery catalytic cracking in 1977 (82).  The basic process involves heating
a mixture of gas and oil to about 480°C over a silica alumina catalyst and
then fractionating the mixture (82).  The spent catalyst is regenerated in a
kiln by burning off the coke that has coated the catalyst particles during
cracking.  The regeneration process in carried out about 540°C.  Venting of
                                    5-72

-------
CORPORATION
the exhaust gases from the regeneration kiln is a potential source of POM
emissions.

5.7.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     In many cases, exhaust gases from the regenerator are vented directly to
a carbon monoxide (CO) waste heat boiler to recover the useful  energy in the
gases.  CO boilers which are fired with auxiliary fuel  or contain a catalyst
have been reported to be 99 percent efficient in reducing PAH emissions (82).
Direct-fired afterburners (plume burners) are reportedly not efficient con-
trols for POM.

     Catalytic cracking units constructed after June 1973 are subject to an
NSPS that limits CO and particulate matter emission limits (83).  The NSPS
generally requires the use of a CO waste heat boiler and an ESP.  State
requirements applicable to new and existing catalytic cracking  units also
generally require some degree of particulate matter and CO control  (84).

5.7.1.3  Source Locations

     Refining capacity is centered in Texas, Louisiana, and California, but
most states have at least one refinery (82).

5.7.2  Emission Factors

     The most representative POM emission factor would  appear to be one that
represents the use of a CO waste heat boiler.  A weighted average of the
controlled emission factor data for the three types of  catalytic cracking
techniques was reported to be 930 yg POM per cubic meter of oil  cracked
(intermediate value in Reference 85).  No information was provided  regarding
the emission test method or the POM compounds included  in the sample.
                                      t>-73

-------
 RADIAN
 5.7.3  National  Emission Estimates

      National  POM emission  estimates  for  catalytic cracking were  derived  by
 multiplying the emission factor given above  by  the reported quantity of oil
 subject to catalytic cracking in 1980.

      The Oil  and Gas Journal  (86)  reports that  as of  January  1981, U.S.
 catalytic cracking levels totaled  1,017,891  m3/stream-day  (6,401,833
 bbl/stream day).  This figure includes  fresh and recycle streams.  A stream
 day is defined as operation at full capacity for short periods.   Catalytic
 cracking units generally operate at stream-day  capacity about 90  percent  of
 the time (86).

      Based on  this information,  national  POM emissions from catalytic cracking
 were estimated as follows:

^1,017.891 m3 cracked\ L9 stream-dav\  /365days\ 1930  x 1Q~6 am  Wrnetrictgnl
U
"A1
I    stream day        I \     day      I  \   yr   J  \m^ oil cracked J\ 106 gm
      = 0.31  metric  tons/yr  (0.34 tons/yr)
 5.7.4  Trends  Influencing POM Emissions

      Two factors  will  influence future POM emissions from catalytic cracking:
 oil  production levels  subject to cracking and recent technology developments
 in the cracking process  itself.

      Estimates of oil  production levels fluctuate widely with changes in the
 U.S.  and world economic  situations, but many forecasters predict a drop in
 motor gasoline and  distillate fuel  production as a result of conservation
 induced by price  increases, more fuel efficient  cars, and a switch from dis-
 tillate oil  to natural gas  for home heating.  The Oil and Gas Journal pre-
 dicted a 2 to  3 percent  drop in the amount of oil subject to cracking between
 1981  and 1982  (87).
                                       5-74

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
     More complete combustion of CO to C02 in  the catalytic cracking process
could lead to reduced POM emissions.  Recent developments  in  this  regard
include the UOP hot regeneration and the Amoco Ultracat  process.   The  rela-
tively higher temperature for regeneration used in the UOP process improves
combustion efficiency and thus could reduce POM emissions.  However* the high
temperatures require special  materials of construction making the  UOP  process
more suitable for new units than retrofits. The Amoco process, however, is
based on improving the catalytic reactor efficiency,  allowing more complete
combustion to occur in the regenerator without having to operate at high
temperatures (88).  Thus, the technology similar to the  Amoco process  may be
suitable for retrofit to existing units.

5.8  COMBUSTION OF MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND  COMMERCIAL WASTES

     Combustion of waste can  be carried out in boilers or  incinerators.  Waste
fuel-fired boilers recover the heat from combustion to generate steam  (or, in
rare cases, electricity).  The primary purposes of incinerators, on the other
hand, are to:

          o    reduce the volume of waste to be disposed of,
          o    reduce the toxicity of waste, or
          o    recover valuable resources from the waste.

     Although POM emission data were located only for municipal solid  waste
(MSW) and commercial  incinerators, several  other categories are discussed
below because of their similar potential  for POM emissions.   The categories
discussed here include:

          o    municipal  solid waste combustion (incinerators  and
               boilers),
          o    industrial  solid and liquid waste combustion (incinerators
               and boilers),  and
          o    commercial  solid waste combustion.
                                     s-75

-------
RADIAN
     Hazardous waste Incinerators were not reviewed 1n this study because of
their extensive coverage under the current RCRA programs (89).

5.8.1  Source Category Description

5.8.1.1  Process Descriptions

     POM emissions from waste combustion will  be a function of  waste composi-
tion and Incinerator or boiler design and operation.

     Municipal Waste Combustion—Municipal  waste is generally a heterogenous
mixture of wood, paper, metal, glass, and refuse.  However, municipal  waste
can contain industrial  wastes, combustion of which may result 1n relatively
higher POM emissions (90).  One source (91) estimates that in 1980  municipal
solid waste contained 5 percent plastics by weight, 20 percent  of which  was
polyvinyl chloride (PVC).  Combustion of plastics may potentially increase POM
emissions.  Increasing utilization of plastic products would result in even
higher concentrations.   Another factor that may result in  relatively higher
POM emissions from municipal  waste combustion  is the expected higher percent-
ages of organic matter, such  as leaves and tree clippings,  that is  likely to
be present during the Fall.

     There are several  types  of municipal  incinerators (90).  The waste  can be
combusted on a moving belt, in drum-type rolling chambers,  or on various types
of grates.  Waste can be fed  continuously,  as  is the case  for all larger,
modern facilities, or it can  be fed in batches, sometimes  manually.   Batch
operations are typical  of older,  smaller municipal  incinerators many of  which
have been shutdown (see following sections).   About 150 to 200  percent excess
air is supplied to the incinerator [compared  with the 30 to 50  percent excess
air typical  of industrial  coal-fired boilers  (92)].  The large  volumes of
combustible exhaust gases generated are sometimes burned in secondary  chambers
(multichamber units).  The exhaust gases,  which contain POM resulting  from  the
incomplete combustion of organic material  in the waste, exit through stacks to
the atmosphere.  Large  units  operating continuously at high temperatures
                                     5-76

-------
achieve more efficient combustion than smaller units and thus produce less POM
per mass of waste material combusted (90).

     The average MSW incinerator can process about 16,000 kg/hr [385 metric
tons/day (424 tons/day)] of solid waste (90).  At most large facilities, the
waste is burned as received with an effort made only to separate out very
large non-combustible items.

     Boilers fired with MSW also burn the waste as received, with only minor
separation.  Typical new MSW boilers can process about 181-2720 metric tons/
day (200 to 3000 tons/day) of refuse (133).  Heat input capacities of exist-
ing units range from 1.3 to 85 MW (4.5 x 106 to 290 x 106 Btu/hr) (93).  [85
MW is approximately equal to 545 metric tons/day of waste burned for these
units.]

     Industrial Waste Combustion—Industrial wastes combusted in incinera-
tors consist primarily of processing wastes and plant refuse and contain
paper, plastic, rubber, textiles, and wood.  Because of the variety of manu-
facturing operations, waste compositions are highly variable between plants,
but may be fairly consistent within a plant.  Also, existing industrial
boilers are used to burn refuse-derived fuel (RDF), either alone or with coal.

     In addition, a recenty published paper (89) reports that as much as 18
million metric tons (20 million tons) of hazardous wastes are burned annually
in existing industrial  boilers.

     Industrial incinerators are basically the same design as municipal
incinerators.  Available data (based on a sample of over 300 units) indicate
that 91 percent of the units were multichamber designs, 8 percent were single
chamber designs, and 1  percent were rotary kiln or fluidized bed designs (94).
About 1500 of the estimated 3800 industrial incinerators are used for volume
reduction, 640 units (largely in the petroleum and chemical  industries)  are
used for toxidty reduction, and the remaining 1700 units are used for re-
source recovery, primarily at copper wire and electric motor plants.  Some
                                   5-77

-------
RADIAN
Industrial boilers are specifically designed to fire waste fuels.   There are
about 50 of these units, ranging up to about 7.6 MW (26 x 106 Btu/hr)  heat
input capacity (93).

     Refuse-derived fuel is a solid waste fuel  that has been processed or
classified to remove non-combustible materials.  RDF can be co-fired with coal
in existing boilers or in boilers designed specifically for RDF.   There are an
estimated six facilities either operational  or under construction  that will
fire only RDF (93).

     Apparently some existing coal- and oil-fired industrial  boilers are being
used to burn hazardous wastes (89).  Characteristics of these boilers  were
discussed in Section 5.3.

     Commercial Waste Combustion—Incinerators are used to reduce  the  volume
of wastes from medical"facilities, large office complexes, schools, and com-
mercial facilities.  Small  multichamber incinerators are typically used and
over 90 percent of the units require firing of an auxiliary fuel.   Because of
the inefficient combustion  in these units, they can be  a potentially signifi-
cant source of POM (95).  Operating skills of commercial  and industrial
incinerator operators are usually limited.

5.8.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     This section presents  a summary of the emission controls typically  used
on existing waste combustion sources and general  information on the air emis-
sion regulations applicable to these sources.

     No quantitative data on the effect of emission controls on POM emissions
were located,  but the general  principles described in Section 5.3  apply  here:

          o    particulate  matter control  technologies  designed to col-
               lect fine particles (ESPs,  fabric filters)  will be  effec-
               tive in controlling POM compounds which  preferentially
               condense on  smaller particles,  and
                                      5-78

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
          o    wet scrubbers can be effective in reducing POM emissions
               that are 1n the vapor phase* because those compounds are
               condensed as the gas Is cooled In the scrubber.

     Highlights of the emission regulations applicable to existing and new
waste combustion sources are discussed below.

     Municipal Waste Combustion—MSW incinerators and boilers firing MSW
with a capacity of 45 metric ton/day (50 tons/day) or greater and constructed
after August 1971 are subject to an NSPS (96) that requires about 93 percent
control of particulate emissions (97).  Boilers and incinerators burning
municipal wastes are also subject to SIP emission and opacity limits in most
states.  These are sometimes regulated together under the designation of "fuel-
burning equipment" (98).

     New MSW-fired boilers will also be regulated under the industrial  boiler
NSPS currently being developed by EPA.  The proposed standard will  likely
require the use of ESPs.

     Industrial Waste Combustion—Industrial  incinerators are subject to SIP
particulate and opacity standards in all 50 states.  The typical  standard
requires that outlet partlculate emissions be controlled to about 0.45
gr/Nm3 (0.2 gr/dscf) at 12 percent (X>2 (99),  or slightly greater than 80
percent control (100).  Opacity limits generally range between 10 and 30
percent (99).  Most industrial  incinerators are currently equipped  with after-
burners, but new units may be required to have scrubbers or ESPs (101).

     New industrial  boilers firing waste or RDF will  be subject to  the  NSPS
being developed by EPA, which will  likely require the use of scrubbers  or
ESPs.  Existing industrial  boilers are subject to SIP emission limits
depending on location, size, and fuel  type.  As discussed in Section 5.3.1.2,
emission controls used on existing sources vary from relatively inefficient
mechanical  collectors to high efficiency ESPS and fabric filters.  At least  40
                                     5-79

-------
RADIAN
percent of the existing RDF and RDF/coal  capacity is controlled  with  ESPs
(102).

     Commercial Waste Combustion—No specific information  was  located for
these sources* but they may be subject to SIP particulate  and/or opacity
levels.  However* they are unlikely to be equipped with  efficient emission
controls.  Reference 95 reports that most "commercial" incinerators are
equipped with afterburners* but includes  industrial  incinerators in their
definition.

5.8.1.3  Source Locations

     Municipal Waste Combustion—MSW incineration without  heat recovery has
been declining in recent years due to the inability of older units to comply
with applicable air emission regulations.   As of 1979-1980* there were slight-
ly more than 100 operating MSW incinerators spread over  19 states* most
located in the eastern and middle portions of the country  (103).   The highest
concentrations of these sources were in New York City and  Chicago.

     Most of the MSW-fired boilers are also located near urban population
centers (104).

     Industrial Waste Combustion—No specific location data were available
for industrial incinerators or waste-fired boilers.   However,  the locations of
these units will  obviously parallel  those  of the industries that rely  on them.
The lumber and wood products,  primary metal, and printing  industries  are
expected to be the major users of large incinerators.  The lumber and  wood
products industry is located primarily in  the Southeast  and Northwest.  Pri-
mary metals are concentrated in the Appalachian  and  Great  Lakes  regions.

     Commercial Waste Combustion—Concentration  of these units will follow
urban population  patterns.
                                     5-80

-------
5.8.2  Emission Factors

     Emission factors for total POM from waste combustion were available only
for MSW incinerators and commercial incinerators, and even these data were
quite limited.  Most of the available data were originally reported in a 1967
study (105).  No information was provided on the composition of the waste
fired during the tests, a major factor influencing POM emissions.

     Table 5-21 shows available PAH emission data for four MSW incinerators
and a commercial incinerator.  The PAH compounds reported are indicated in the
footnotes.  Two previously described trends are supported by these data:

          o    Uncontrolled emission factors were highest for the commer-
               cial incinerator, followed by the smaller MSW unit.  The
               larger MSW unit had the lowest uncontrolled emission
               factor.  These data, although very limited, tend to sup-
               port the trend of less POM per unit of refuse burned'for
               larger, more efficient incinerators.
          o    The scrubber and scrubber/ESP combination both showed
               significant reduction of PAH relative to uncontrolled.

     Emissions of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (a subset of POM not
included in PAH) have been reported to be between 0.10 to 0.16 gm/metric ton
of municipal solid waste incinerated (based on two studies) (106).

5.8.3  National Emission Estimates

     Development of national  POM estimates was possible only for MSW  incinera-
tors and commercial and industrial  incinerators.  Due to a lack of data re-
garding the amounts of waste combusted, emissions were developed by multiply-
ing the average unit capacity by the estimated number of units, an average
annual  capacity factor, and an emission factor.

     The average MSW incinerator capacity has been reported to be 385 metric
tons/day (424 tons/day) and there are an estimated 104 units nationwide (95).
A 70 percent average annual capacity factor was assumed in lieu of specific
                                       5-81

-------
RADIAN












co
cr
o
l-

o:
LU
z
i— i
o
i— i
_,
^C
o
t—l
a:
LU
^r
^5»*
O
O

Q
"^
^c

^»
CO
2

o:
o
Lu

CO
cr
o
i-
o
^c
LJ_

z
o
I— 1
CO
co
r-l
2
LU

5
0.


•
r-l
CN
1
LT)
LU
I
CQ
*5f
1-












in c «-*
c o ~o
O -P 0
•r- -P
in u ro
in i- t-
•r- t. CD
E -P C
LU 0 T-
E U
$ S "r-
Q- CO






c
O r—
•r- O
in L.
i- C
E 0
LU O








^•x
>^
ro
"u
>^
>> c
-P 0
1- +J
o
rO O
d. *r-
ro L.
0 -P
0
E






















<**.
0
O
0
J^
0
H-
0
Q£
**•»»

0
ex
£"

0
u

o
co




fO fl3 iO
O VO CN
r-l r— 1 Kj"
moo
• • •
o o o






>^
ro
t_
CL
0 CO 0
§ I §
Z 0 Z
"(0
•^














LO in
** CN
CN


















^— x
vO
O
{- r-l
rj) —

E 0
rO -P
CO _c ro
C O U.

"+> +J ^
rO r— CO
CJ 3 C
O 2 i-
t_ i—
CL in 0
j£ *r~ 3 >
CO O O rO
20 31.
S- C -P
J= 1 i-l
O t- ~ -P t-
•P O vO CO
ro -P 0 O -P
CD (O •— 1 O -- 1_
» 0 * 0
r— C 0 0 C
r— -i— -P CO i—
(O O (O t_ U
ECS- ro C
CO 1— 1 CO _l 1— 1




_Q
^f
r— 1
0
•
o


0.
co
LU
•s^
i.
0
_Q
f^
3
t_
o
in
-p
0














vO
r-l
CN





















L
o
-p
rO
£_
0
C ^
•r- VO
O 0
C r-l
HH s-^

in 0
3 -P
o *o
3 U
C O)
*^-
-P S-
C ro
O .0
O
CO
» C
0 f-
co JK:
rO O
_J t-






, E -c o
+J ro -P r-l
I— *r- ^-*
t- O U S
OS -»
-P -P 0 t- CO
(O i— 0 C
J_ M- COJ3 i-
0 O C E S-
C •*— rO *^
•r- C W .C >t-
O ro O
C 0 ro "i— in
f-H E -P ro
0 r- CO
r- U C 3
i- El S-
U -P 1 ra «J
S- 0 r—
0 £ in I- r—
§5 -fJ 0 T-
0 T- -C X
CO C -P 3
O «-* 3 O ^
•> L.
0 0
c a.
0

^> *
a. 0
c
«. 0
0 t-
C j=
0 -P
C- C
>% ro
CL C
^ o
lO f"
+^s C^
o
N •>
C 0
0 C
CQ 0

•p •
" C TJ
0) rO CD
r— L. -P
CL O U
£ 3 0
rO r- -P
in >*- 0

C »
•r- 0 -P
C O
•o 0 c
0 r—

3 t- 3
in 0 .a
ra CL
0 '-- i.
e T- o
•> 4-
in -c
C CO 0
3 — • N
o o >>
CL N r—
JC ro
0 C
-Q ra
ra


















•rj
C
(0

CD
0

^^
c
0
CL

•i
in
0
c
0
JC
•p
c
rO
L.
O

p.
4-
O
N
C
0


A
0
c
0
in

t
r~
O

^
0
c
0
o
rO
£_
JZ
•P
C •
ra 0
*-* c
ro 0
N >•
C CL
0 ^

^
in u
0 rn
^3 •*
3 CN
r— •*
U r-l
C *~-
i- O
C
O 0
in T3
r— C
< -r-

































•
t.
O
•p
o
rO
4-

c
0

in
U)
•r—
E
0

c
M—

•o
0
•rj
3
r—
U
c
i—

in
•a
c
3
O
CL


O

2E!
£

c
o

c
o

'-p
rO

O
M-
c
•r-

O
z
u
                         5-82

-------
 RADIAN
 CORPORATION
 data for MSW incinerators.   This assumption was based on a reported average
 commercial  incinerator  capacity utilization of 71 percent  (95).  The PAH
 emission factor  presented  in Section 5.8.2 for large MSW incinerators
 controlled  with  the  scrubber/ESP system was selected as representative of the
 current population.   The size of the unit tested was similar to the average
 size MSW incinerator.   The emission factor reported for PCB was not included
 because of  the relatively  small size of the incinerator tested (0.11 metric
 tons/day).   Thus,  the PAH  emission factor may result in a low estimate of
 total  POM.   National  PAH estimates for MSW incinerators were calculated as:

     (365 days) [385 metric  tons incinerated] /O. 7 capacity f actoA /104 unitsNx
        yr              day-unit

      0.014 om  PAH]  metric ton
      metric ton     \106 gm
                =  0.14 metric tons/yr  (0.16 tons/yr)

      A similar  method was  used to calculate PAH emissions from commercial and
 industrial  incinerators:

p65  davs| /0.71 capacity factoA 12.5  metric tons] /100,000 units\ |6.8 gm PAHjx
I  yr   J \                    I \~  unit day    I \             I I metric ton/
     (metric ton]    =   440 metric tons/yr (485 tons/yr)
 Average  capacity,  capacity  utilization, and the number of units were obtained
 from Reference  95.   Industrial  incinerators were included with commercial
 incinerators  in the  available data on capacity and number of units.  In lieu
 of  other data being  available,  the emission factor for commercial units was
 assumed  to  apply to  industrial  incinerators.

      It  should  be  emphasized that these emission estimates are highly uncer-
 tain.  They are based on a  very limited data; they may not reflect total POM
 emissions (i.e., polychlorinated biphenyls); and they do not reflect the
                                       5-83

-------
RADIAN
actual composition and amounts of waste combusted.   Also*  no data  were  avail-
able to develop accurate POM emission estimates for MSW-fired boilers,  indus-
trial incinerators or industrial  boilers burning solid  waste, hazardous waste-
s, or RDF.  Of these sources, industrial  incinerators may  potentially be the
most significant because of their relatively  lower  combustion efficiencies and
lack of controls.

5.8.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     Municipal Waste Combustion—The trend is toward larger,  more  efficient
MSW incinerators due to air emission regulations (90).   These larger units
will generally be equipped with ESPs.  One reference reports that  the trend in
emission control selection for MSW incinerators has been forced  away from
scrubbers because of the failure of some earlier poorly designed impingement
scrubbers (108).

     Reported growth projections for MSW incineration are  that about 5  new
units will be built by 1985, each at about 2270 metric  tons/day  (2,400  tons/
day) capacity.  Six large MSW-fired boilers are expected to  be built by 1990
(93).  These new units will  likely be controlled with ESPs or wet  scrubbers.

     Industrial  Waste Combustion—Industrial  incineration  is expected to
decline, especially for use in volume reduction purposes (109).  This trend is
reportedly due to land disposal  techniques becoming more economical as  a
result of more stringent air emission regulations (109).  Exceptions to the
decline in industrial  incinerators include (109):

          o    incineration  with  heat recovery (especially in the  lumber,
               pulp, and paper,  and other industries with  combustible
               wastes), and
          o    resource recovery  from copper  wire and electric motor
               incineration.
                                       5-84

-------
     One study has suggested that the complications of RCRA rules and the
associated recordkeeping requirements may lead to increased (and unregulated)
combustion of hazardous wastes in existing boilers (89).  This could be a
significant source of POM emissions depending on the types of waste
incinerated, existing emission controls, and regulatory development related to
RCRA.

     Six new RDF-fired units with a total heat input capacity of about 380 MW
are expected to be build by 1990 (93).  The co-firing of RDF in existing coal-
fired boilers may increase due to general incentives to reduce fuel-related
costs.

     Commercial Waste Combustion—No significant changes in capacity or
types of wastes incinerated are expected in this category.

5.9  CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION

5.9.1  Source Category Description

5.9.1.1  Process Description

     Carbon black is produced by pyrolysis of an atomized liquid hydrocarbon
mixture.  One of its main uses is as a reinforcing agent in rubber tires.
About 90 percent of U.S. carbon black is produced by the oil-furnace process.
Temperatures in the refractory-lined steel  furnaces vary between 1320 and
1540°C.  The heat for the decomposition reaction is supplied by combustion of
natural gas.  The pyrolysis reaction is a source of POM emissions (110).

     Hot furnace gas, containing carbon black particles, is cooled to about
230°C and then passed through a fabric filter for recovery of the carbon  black
(110).  Exhaust gas from the fabric filter is vented to the atmosphere or  sent
to an emission control device.  The main process vent is the major source  of
POM emissions in a carbon black plant.  Emissions may depend to some degree
                                       5-db

-------
on the type of carbon black produced due to required differences in furnace
operation as a function of product specifications.

5.9.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     About two-thirds of U.S. carbon black plants use a combustion device
(flare, CO boiler, or thermal incinerator) on the main process vent (110).  No
quantitative data were available on the effect of these systems on POM emis-
sions.  Although the use of a combustion device might be expected to reduce
POM emissions, "high temperatures" (in the combustion devices) could report-
edly lead to formation of additional  POM (110).  No temperatures were speci-
fied in the reference reviewed.

     However, in addition to the combustion control device,  most carbon black
furnaces are equipped with fabrip filters for product recovery.  Thus, POM
condensed on the captured carbon black particles will be removed from the
exhaust gas stream.

     Existing carbon black plants are generally subject to SIP particulate
emission limits.  New plants would be covered by prevention  of significant
deterioration (PSD) requirements, but no NSPS exists for this source category.

5.9.1.3  Source Locations

     Carbon black plants are located in Louisiana, California, West Virginia,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Jersey (111).  As of 1977, about 60 percent of the
U.S. production capacity was located in Louisiana.

5.9.2  Emission Factors

     Total  uncontrolled POM emissions from an oil-furnace carbon black plant
were measured in a previous study using a modified Method 5  sampling train
(110).  Samples were extracted, separated by liquid chromatography,  and
                                      5-86

-------
analyzed by GC/MS.  A total  POM emission factor of 1.9 gm/metric ton (3.8 x
10~3 ib/ton) of carbon black produced was reported.  Acenaphthylene accounted
for about 46 percent by weight of the POM in the samples collected.  Table
5-22 lists the POM compounds detected in the collected samples.

5.9.3  National Emission Estimates

     Reference 110 puts the U.S. carbon black production capacity at 1.72 x
10^ metric tons (1.9 x 10^ tons/yr).  In 1980, the value of carbon black ship-
ments was $540 million (112).  At about $0.50/bulk kg of carbon  black (113),
this translates into approximately 1.08 x 10^ metric tons/yr (1.19 x 10^
tons/yr), or 57 percent of capacity.  Thus,  national  POM emisisons from carbon
black production can be estimated as:

     (1.08 x 10  metric tons carbon black | f   1.9 gm POM	j /metric tonj
                      yr                J Uetric ton produced/ ^  106 gm  J
          = 2.05 metric tons/yr (2.26 tons/yr)

This estimate may be somewhat high since it  is based on an  uncontrolled POM
emission factor (110) and, as stated above,  about two-thirds of  the plants
currently have combustion devices for emission control.  However,  no data were
available to quantify the effect of such combustion-type controls on POM emis-
sions.

5.9.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     A two to three percent annual growth rate has been projected for the car-
bon black industry (114).  Some of this growth appears possible  without con-
struction of new facilities as indicated by  the 57 percent  capacity utiliza-
tion figure presented above.  New plants will  likely be subject  to PSD permit-
ting requirements that require some form of  emission control.
                                    5-87

-------
RADIAN
            TABLE 5-22.  POM COMPOUNDS IN SAMPLES FROM OIL-FURNACE
                         CARBON BLACK PLANT (110)
                        Acenaphthylene (46% of total)

                           Anth racene/phenanth rene

                              Benzof1uoranthenes

                           Benzo(g,h»1)fluoranthene

                      Benzo(g»h,1)perylene/anthanthrene

                              Di benzanth i ocenes

                            D1benzo(c,g)carbazole

                                Dibenzopyrenes

                               Dibenzothlophene

                      Dimethyl anthracenes/phenanthrenesa

                        7,12 Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene

                                 Fluoranthene

                           Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene

                       Methylanthracenes/phenanthrenes3

                              Methy1cholanth rene

                          Methylfluoranthene/pyrene

                            Pyrene (26% of total)



aTogether these groups accounted for 12% of total.
                                     5-88

-------
RADIAN
5.10  WOOD CHARCOAL PRODUCTION

5.10.1  Source Category Description

5.10.1.1  Process Description*

     Charcoal* primarily used for outdoor cooking*  is manufactured by  the
pyrolysis of carbonaceous raw materials.  The raw materials used are primarily
medium to dense hardwoods.  Softwoods*  sawmill  residue*  nutshells* fruit pits
and vegetable wastes can also be used.   (This study was  limited to examining
charcoal production from wood.)  There are two major types of techniques  used
in wood charcoal  manufacture:

          o    Missouri-type batch kiln, and
          o    Continuous Herreshoff furnace.

     The batch process accounts  for about 45 percent of  the national  produc-
tion (a small  portion of this capacity  is accounted for  by older beehive
kilns).  Continuous furnaces, which generally have  a much larger capacity than
batch kilns, account for the remainder for production capacity.  The kiln or
furnace products are sold directly or made into briquettes.

     A Missouri-type batch kiln  normally processes  about 45 to 50 cords  of
wood in a 10- to 25-day cycle.  Kiln temperatures are in the 450 to 510°C
range and pyrolysis of the wood  products is a source of  POM emissions.
Missouri-type kilns have exhaust stacks along the side walls.   The required
burn time and resulting emissions from  the batch kiln vary with kiln  capacity,
operational  practices* wood species, and wood moisture content.
*The information presented in this subsection  is summarized  from  References
 115 and 116.
                                      5-89

-------
RADIAN
     Continuous charcoal production is accomplished in Herreshoff multiple
hearth furnaces.  Furnace temperatures range between 480° and 650"C.   The
off-gases exit through the stacks located on top of the furnace or are used as
a heat source (e.g. predrying of feed, drying of briquettes produced  at an
adjacent location, or combustion in a waste heat boiler to produce steam.) Use
of continuous Herreshoff furnaces requires a large and steady source  of raw
materials.  The typical continuous furnace capacity is 2.5 metric tons/hr
(2.75 tons/hr).

5.10.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     Emission control of batch kilns is complicated by the cyclic nature of
the process.  Direct-fired afterburners are probably the most feasible control
system, but auxiliary fuel use is required with these devices.   If fuels other
than natural gas are used as the auxiliary fuel there is a potential  for
additional POM emissions.  No data were located on the percentage of  batch
kilns equipped with afterburners.  No data were located on the effect of
afterburners on POM.  Natural  gas would likely have to be used  as the auxil-
iary fuel  to avoid additional  POM emissions.

     Many of the batch kilns are older and relatively small  batch kilns are
likely to be uncontrolled (115,116).

     Continuous furnaces can also be controlled by direct-fired afterburners.
Auxilliary fuel  firing is required only during start-up or process upsets on
continuous units because of the higher heating value of the exhaust gases.   An
incinerator is used to control  emissions in at least one continuous furnace
plant, but afterburners are reportedly used on most continuous  furnaces (117).

     There is no NSPS for charcoal  manufacturing,  although the  feasibility of
developing a standard was investigated (115).   Charcoal  manufacturing facili-
ties are generally subject to SIP particulate emission limits and opacity
regulations.  Some plants may be subject to CO standards.
                                      5-90

-------
COKMMUmOM
5.10.1.3  Source Locations

     Charcoal manufacturing facilities are located primarily in Missouri,
Arkansas, and other Southeastern states (118).  Missouri accounts for a large
share of the national production, although about 24 states have a wood
charcoal industry.

5.10.2  Emission Factors

     POM emission factor data were available only for a Missouri-type batch
kiln (119).  An average of five sampling runs showed total POM uncontrolled
emissions of 0.35 gm/hr (770 x 10~6 Ib/hr).  Based on limited production
da-ta provided in Reference 119, this translates into about 3.5 gm/metric ton
of charcoal produced (0.007 Ib/ton).  The authors report that the samples,
collected with a modified Method 5 apparatus and analyzed by gas chromato-
graph, contained benz(c)phenanthrene, benzo(a)pyrene, and "POM-like" material.
Four POM compounds were analyzed for, but not detected:  dibenz(a,h)anthra-
cene, 3-dimethylcholanthrene, 7,12 dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, and 3,4,5,6-
dibenzocarbazole.

     It should be noted that the emission tests were considered of question-
able value due to the difficulty of sampling the kiln and "the improvisational
sampling techniques" used.  No estimate of the accuracy was provided.  Also,
no emission data were reported for the initial ignition process during which
gas can escape from the kiln.

5.10.3  National Emission Estimates

     The estimated 1978 charcoal production capacity was 376,340 metric tons
(414,000 tons) distributed as follows (120).
                                     5-91

-------
       Process                   Production            % Total

     Missouri-type               198,180                 52.7
        batch kiln

     Beehive kiln                  2,730                  0.73

     Continuing Herreshoff       175,460                 46.6
        furnace
                                 376,370
Charcoal production in 1980 was assumed to be about the same since there has

been no indication of growth in the industry (121).


     Based on these data, national POM emissions from Missouri-type kilns were

calculated as:
                                ii\  (Lj
                                J  \rnei
r!98,180 metric tons charcoal]   [3.5 gm POM]  [metric ton^
I            yr               /   Imetric tony  V 106 gmJ
           =  0.69 metric ton/yr (0.76 ton/yr)



     Although an emission factor was not available for continuous furnace

production, is is expected that POM emissions will be substantially less (on a

mass per mass of charcoal produced basis) than for batch kilns.   This is

because of the capability of the continuous furnace to use non-direct fired
afterburners or incinerators or to recover the heating value of  the exhaust
gases through other combustion devices.  These techniques should reduce POM
emissions.  Thus, at a maximum, total  POM emissions from this category should

be:
     198,180 + 175,460 metric tons charcoal] [3.5 am POM]  /metric ton]
                  yr                         \metr1c ton    106 gm
                                     1\ [3.5 am POM] /m
                                      J ynetric tony V
          =1.3 metric tons/yr (1.4 tons/yr)
                                     5-92

-------
RADIAN
This is a "worst-case" estimate since it is  based  on  the  higher  emission
factor of the Missouri-kiln.

5.10.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     There is a general  trend in the industry  toward  fewer  but larger plants
that are more amenable to emission control than  many  of the existing small
plants.  In addition,  small  plants have been forced to close in  some states
(Florida* Illinois,  Ohio, and Oklahoma) because  of problems in complying with
state emission regulations (121).   Also,  the level of charcoal production has
remained relatively  stable in recent years.  There are no indications of
future growth in the industry, as briquettes are increasingly being manufac-
tured from other materials such as lignite.  Thus, POM emissions from this
category are not expected to increase in the future.

5.11  VEHICLE DISPOSAL

5.11.1  Source Category Description

5.11.1.1  Process Description

     Three types of  techniques are used to remove  the organic material  from
auto bodies before they are used as scrap by the steel industry  (usually in
electric arc furnaces).   The organic material  can  be  removed by  (122):

          o    open  burning of whole auto bodies
          o    incineration  of whole auto bodies,  or
          o    shredding of auto bodies and  incineration  of the  shredded
               steel.

Incineration of shredded steel  is generally  accomplished  in rotary kilns.
The combustion efficiency of  the kilns is relatively  high,  reducing the
potential for POM emissions  (122).  Open  burning has  a considerably higher
                                     5-93

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION


potential for POM emissions than incineration because of the low  combustion
efficiency typical of open burning.

5.11.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     Open burning is generally prohibited especially  in  most metropolitan
areas, but may still occur either illegally  or outside restricted areas.

     Incineration of whole auto bodies would likely be subject  to SIP  particu-
late matter emission limits applicable to incinerators.   Mechanical col-
lectors, wet scrubbers,  and ESPs are candidate control  technologies for incin-
erators.  No specific information was located with  regard to the  application
of controls to incineration of auto bodies.

5.11.1.3  Source Locations

     No source location  data were readily available.   However,  incineration of
auto bodies would be expected to coincide with steel  industry locations.

5.11.2  Emission Factor  Data

     No POM emission factors for vehicle disposal were located.

5.11.3  National Emission Estimates

     No emission factor  or consumption data  were located.

5.11.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     The demand for auto scrap by the steel  industry  is  increasing due to an
increase in the use of electric arc furnaces.  These  furnaces can accomodate a
high proportion of scrap in the furnace feed (122).   Concurrently, the in-
crease in demand has made shredding and subsequent  incineration of auto body
steel  in rotary kilns more economically attractive  (122).  The trend toward
                                    5-94

-------
RADIAN
this higher combustion efficiency technique*  combined with  continued  enforce-
ment of open burning prohibitions, may result in steady or  decreased  POM
emissions even, as the demand for auto body scrap is increased.

5.12  MOBILE SOURCES

     This section discusses the following mobile source categories  with
potential for POM emissions:

          o    gasoline-fueled autos and trucks,
          o    diesel  autos and trucks, and
          o    rubber tire wear.

5.12.1  Source Category Description

5.12.1.1  Process Descriptions

     Gasoline Autos and Trucks—Emissions of  POM from combustion  of gasoline
in autos and light-duty trucks are dependent  on  several  factors,  including
(123):

          o    inefficient combustion because of less than  stoichiometric
               air to fuel ratios,
          o    driver operation techniques that  lower fuel  efficiency,
          o    engine deterioration and combustion chamber  deposits,
          o    aromatic content of the gasoline  and presence  of lead
               additives.

     The pyrolysis of motor oil deposits built up on the engine may also be a
potential source of POM emissions (123).

     Diesel Autos and Trucks—The primary causes of POM emissions from
diesel combustion in autos and trucks are overloading and poor engine main-
tenance (124).  However,  even under normal  operating conditions,  diesel  autos
                                      b-95

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
tend to emit more POM than their gasoline-fueled counterparts.   The higher
emissions of POM may be due to the relatively lower combustion-chamber temper-
atures typical  of diesel  engines (124).   Diesel  autos emit 30 to 100 times
more particulate matter per mile than gasoline autos equipped with  catalytic
converters.  Diesel  particulates are usually less than 1  pro in diameter and
consist of a carbonaceous core.  Many different soluble organic compounds  are
absorbed on these particles, some of which are POM (125).

     Rubber Tire Wear—Carbon black and  other tire materials possibly con-
taining POM are released to the atmosphere through oxidation and normal  wear
of rubber tires (124).

5.12.1.2  Emission Controls/Regulations

     Gasoline Autos and Trucks—The control  devices used  on recent  model
autos have the capability to reduce POM  emissions.  Exhaust gas recirculation,
which was introduced in 1968, has been reported to reduce PAH emissions by 65
to 80 percent over uncontrolled (123).  Catalytic converters, which generally
are used on post-1975 models, have been  reported to reduce PAH emissions by  up
to 99 percent (123).

     Federal and state mobile source emission regulations generally require
the use of unleaded gasoline and catalytic converters for recent year models.
The regulations also limit emissions of  NOX, CO, and hydrocarbons (HO and
evaporative losses.   Some states have implemented regular inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs for autos.

     Diesel Autos and Trucks—Exhaust controls are not commonly used on
diesel-fueled vehicles.  However, proper loading, fueling, and maintenance of
diesel  engines can reduce their POM emissions (124).

     Federal and California state regulations limit HC, NOX, CO, and evapora-
tive losses from diesel autos and light  duty trucks.  States have the option
                                      5-96

-------
of implementing either the Federal  or California standards,  but are restricted
from implementing more stringent standards for diesel-fired  vehicles (126).

     Rubber Tire Wear—Emission controls or regulations are  not applicable
to this source.

5.12.1.3  Source Locations

     Source locations data is not applicable to mobile sources, although  thei.r
concentrations are obviously higher in urban areas.

5.12.2  Emission Factors

     Reference 131 provided emission factors for several  PAH compounds  emitted
from gasoline and diesel vehicles (Table 5-23).  These values were based  on
measured emission data and "derived emission factors." The emission factors
were then multiplied by estimated 1979 fuel consumption data for the various
types of mobile sources to develop the total  estimates presented in the next
section.  The PAH compounds included are listed in Table 5-24.

     The authors note that the derived emission factors are  quite uncertain
and may vary by a factor of two or more.  The two major assumptions used  in
developing the emission factors in Table 5-23 were (131):

          o    that the "PAH distributions" for both  gasoline and diesel
               vehicles are the same as the distribution  for average
               light-duty gasoline vehicles not equipped  with catalytic
               converters, and
          o    that all PAH emissions are reduced by  catalytic  converters
               as much as BaP emissions are reduced  by such  devices.

5.12.3  National Emission Estimates

     Table 5-25 shows the 1979 estimated PAH emissions from  several  mobile
source categories including gasoline and diesel  autos and  trucks,  buses,
                                      5-97

-------

^-%
r-l
m
^1

CO
LU
_l
O
I— I
1 1 1
LLl
>•
_J
LU
CO
LU
1— i
Q
•z.
^C
LU
•z.
HH
_l
O
CO
<
o

cc
0
LU

CO
o:
o
l-
0
<
LU
O
i— i
CO
CO
1— 1
LU

5
Q_


•
CM1
1
IT)

LU
_l
3
H-



ra La
L. i-
O E
-P -^
O C7)
LL° ^
LU
C
o
•w-
in
U)
^ "rO
LU O)
^.
X 0)
^ 3.
<£|








0
Q.
>,
1-

f__
0
3
Lu













0
a.
>,
&

0
"u
•i—
jr
0
>


un
8
,
-P
3
•a
-P
jC










































^
0
-P
(_
0
>
C
o
U

U
•r—
4->
>>
ra
O)-P
•r~
_J
ra
U


CO
.— I
^t







r-
m
"S-
r-





0
c
•f—
f—
O
in
ra
CD

•o
0
•a
ra
0

c
Z)




c
o
tf_
•P
,
-P
3 +>
T3 0)
^^
JI ro
CD-P
•^ ro
—1 U


in
f







r-l
CO
co






0
c
•r-
r^*
O
in
ra
CD

T3
0
TJ
ra
0

c
r?




>,
ra
i
0
L.
.c
-P
«
>,
-P
3 -P
•o in
I >-,
•P r—
x: ro
CO-P
i- ro
_l O


CM
LO
O
CJ»






CM
TJ-
CM
LO
•^~






0
C
•r—
^_
O
in
ro
CD

T3
0
•o
ro
0
_l









O
C
*
>,
•P
3
T3
>,
>
ra
0
X










































L.
CD
4->
L.
CD
>
C
o
o

U
•^
-P
>>
ra
•P
ra
o


LO
CM
CTv
1— 1






CTi
tO
CM
CO
•^~










^_
0
3
LU

^_
0
in
0
•^
Q












X,
-P
3
T3
i
.c
U)
•^
_i


CO
t







c*
to
CM
CO
•«t










^_
0
3
LU

^_
0
in
0
•r-
Q












>,
-P
3
•a
>^
>
ro
0
X




















•
-o
CD
•o
3
r—
U
C.
•1—

in
•o
c
3
O
CL
U

z
2
CD
.C
-P
in
•P
in
•r—
r—
"d-
CM
1
IT)

CD
_Q
ra
h-
ro




































x-x
lo
0)
*•».
•r™
E

•1 •
r—
(O
O)
-•»
O)
3.
^^

11

•r-
E
^
O)
3.
-Q
5-98

-------
TABLE 5-24.  POM COMPOUNDS INCLUDED IN DERIVED MOBILE SOURCE
             EMISSION FACTORS (131)
                         Anthracene
                        Phenanthrene
                     Methylphenanthrene
                      Dimethylfl uorene
                    Dimethylphenanthrene
                        Fluoranthene
                           Pyrene
                       Benzof1uorene
                      Benzoanthracene
                        Trlphenylene
                      Cyclopentapyrene
                          Chrysene
                     Indenofluoranthene
                        Idenopyrene
                       Methylchrysene
                       1-Nitropyrene
                     Benzof1uoranthene
                       Benzo(e)pyrene
                       Benzo(a)pyrene
                          Perylene
                   Cyclopentabenzopyrene
                       Benzochrysene
                        Anthanthrene
                      Di benzanthracene
                       Benzoperylene
                          Coronene
                  Cyclopentabenzoperylene
                            5-99

-------
    TABLE 5-25.  NATIONAL 1979 PAH EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES3'b (131)
                 (metric tons)
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Methylphenanthrene
Dimethylfluorene
Dimethylphenanthrene

Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzof1uorene
Benzoanthracene
Triphenylene

Cyclopentapyrene
Chrysene
Indenofluoranthene
Indenopyrene
Methylchrysene

1-Nitropyrene
Benzofl uoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene

Cyclopentabenzopyrene
Benzochrysene
Anthanthrene
Dibenzanthracene
Benzoperylene

Coronene
Cyclopentabenzoperylene
  350
1,400
  900
  470
  320

  750
  950
  120
   37
   30

  390
  150
   19
   30
    6

   17
  110
   52
   43
    4

   26
    1
   22
   13
  110

   80
	18

6,400
aTotal for all PAHs:  about (3)(6,400) = about 19,000 metric tons.

blncludes autos, trucks, motorcycles, railroads, aircraft, ships, and farm
 and military mobile sources.
                                     5-100

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
motorcycles, railroads, ships, aircraft,  and farm and military mobile sources.
The emission factors for heavy-duty gasoline and diesel  vehicles  were used  to
estimate emissions for the categories other than gasoline and diesel  autos  and
trucks.

     The largest portion of PAH emissions from the various mobile source
categories is attributable to older gasoline autos not equipped with  catalytic
converters (131).  However, emissions from this category are expected to
decrease as these older vehicles are taken out of service.

5.12.4  Trends Influencing POM Emissions

     Gasoline Autos and Trucks—Consumption of gasoline in autos  and  trucks
is expected to decrease in future years due primarily to the use  of more
fuel-efficient vehicles, conservation of  fuel  induced by increasing prices,
and the increased use of diesel autos.  Between 1978 and 1982, gasoline demand
dropped by slightly less than 12 percent  (128).  Combined with continued
emission control  requirements and I/M programs, the trend of decreasing
gasoline consumption may result in decreased POM emissions from this  category.

     Diesel Autos and Trucks—A wide range of estimates exist regarding the
projected increase of diesel  fuel  in autos.  However, it is likely that at
least 20 percent of light duty vehicles will be diesel-fueled by  1995 (129).
Total distillate fuel demand is projected to increase at least 2  percent
between 1982 and 1983, with the majority  of the increase attributed to diesel
fuel consumption in autos and trucks (128).

     This trend could result in increased POM emissions from diesel-fueled
vehicles if emission control  technologies continue not to be used. Potential
control techniques for diesel  engines include turbocharging and modification
of the combustion chamber and fuel  injection system (130).  These modifica-
tions should improve combustion efficiencies and in turn reduce the POM
emitted per unit of fuel consumed.
                                      5-101

-------
     Rubber Tire Wear—No significant changes are  foreseen  in POM emissions
from rubber tire wear other than  increases  associated with  total miles
traveled by the vehicle-operating population.
                                   5-102

-------
RADIAN
5.13  REFERENCES

1.   Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Preliminary Assessment of the
     Sources, Control and Population Exposure to Airborne Polvcvcllc Organic
     Matter (POM) as Indicated bv Benzo (A) Pvrene (BaP).  Final Report,
     Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, North Carolina, p. 95, November 10, 1978.

2.   Chalekode, P.K. and T.R. Blackwood.  Source Assessment;   Coal Refuse
     Piles, Abandoned Mines, and Outcrops - State of the Art.  EPA-600/
     2-78-004v, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July
     1978.

3.   Reference 2, p. 2-11.

4.   Formica, Peter N. (TRC).  Controlled and Uncontrolled Emission Rates and
     Applicable Limitations for 80 Processes.  EPA-340/1-78-004, U.S. Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, pp. II-l to
     II-2, April 1978.

5.   Reference 1, p. 99-100.

6.   Reference 2, Section 5.

7.   Evans, John S. and Douglas W. Cooper.  "An Inventory of Particulate Emis-
     sions from Open Sources," Journal  of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
     tion, 30(12), pp. 1298-1303, December 1980.

8.   Reference 1, p. 98-99.

9.   Shih, Chris, et al.  (TRW, Inc.).  POM Emissions from Stationary Conven-
     tional Combustion Processes.  CCEA Issue Paper, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,  p.  15, January 1980.
                                     5-103

-------
10.  Reference 9, p. 3.

11.  Reference 1, pp. 43-44.

12.  Baig, S., et al (TRW) and Hurley, T. et al.  (Radian Corporation) Con-
     ventional Combustion Environmental Assessment Final Report.  EPA Con-
     tract No. 68-02-3138, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, p. 4-8, July 1981.

13.  Reference 1, p. 22.

14.  U.S. Department of Energy.  Electric Power Annual.  DOE/EIA-0348(81),
     Washington D.C., p. 13, November 1982.

15.  U.S. Department of Energy.  State Energy Data Report;  1960 through
     1980.  DOE/EIA-0214(80), Washington, DC, p. 9,  July 1982.

16.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division.  (U.S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency.) Fossil Fuel-Fired Industrial Boilers-Background Infor-
     mation Volume 1;  Chapters 1-9.  EPA-450/3-82-006a, p. 3-2, March 1982.

17.  Reference 15, p. 7.  Total adjusted to reflect only the fuel consumed by
     boilers.  Adjustment factors (1974 data) were obtained from:  Energy and
     Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Fossil Fuel-Fired Industrial Boilers -
     Background Information for Proposed Standards,  Appendices F and G.  Pre-
     pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, p.F-12, March 9, 1981.  Adjustment factors  (% of total energy con-
     sumption used in boilers): Coal-30%; Oil-67%; and Gas-'
18.  Reference 15, p 6.  All  consumption reported assumed to be in boilers and
     furnaces.

19.  Reference 1, p. 55.
                                      5-104

-------
20.  Reference 1, p. 51.

21.  Reference 5, p. 5.

22.  Reference 12, p. 5-57, 5-52.

23.  Laseke, B.A., M.T. Mella, and N.G. Bruck.  (Red Co. Environmental Inc.)
     "Trends in Commercial Application of FGD Technology." Presented at the
     EPA/EPRI Seventh Symposium on Flue Gas Desulfurization, Hollywood,
     Florida, May 17-20, 1982, p. 2-1.  The % capacity figures shown in the
     table are based on 275,000 MW installed coal-fired capacity as reported
     in:  U.S. Department of Energy.  Inventory of Power Plants in the United
     States - 1981 Annual.  DOE/EIA-0095(81), Washington DC, p. 19, September
     1982.  (Assumes all FGD capacity reported applied to coal units since no
     other data were readily available).

24.  Kelly, M.E. and M.A. Palazollo.  Status of Dry SCb Control Systems—Fall
     1982.  Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3171, Task 58, U.S. Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, p. 19, January
     1982.

25.  Reference 2, p. 5-58.

26.  Code of Federal Regulations.  40 CFR 60, Part 30, Subparts D and Da, pp.
     234-261, Revised July 1, 1982.

27.  Reference 16, pp. 4-66 to 4-81.

28.  Reference 24, p. 23.

29.  Reference 16, Chapter 3.

30.  Reference 16, p. 4-16.

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
31.  Reference 16, p. 4-39.

32.  Foster, Kathye L., et al.  "Permitting a Wood-Burning Boiler in a Major
     Metropolitan Area," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Assoc. 32(8),
     pp. 872-877, August, 1982.

33.  Jones, Larry (EPA-OAQPS).  Personal communication with M.E. Kelly, Radian
     Corporation, regarding regulatory status of commercial/institutional
     boilers.  April  21, 1983.

34.  U.S. Department of Energy.  Inventory of Power Plants in the United
     States-1981 Annual.  DOE/EIA-0095(81), Washington, D.C., September 1982.

35.  Bergman, Michael K. and Robert M. Dykes.  (U.S. Environmental  Protection
     Agency).  Prospects for Increasing the Direct Use of Coal in Industrial
     Boilers.  Draft Report, Research Triangle Park, NC, p. 68-80.

36.  DeAngelis, D.G.  et al.  (Monsanto Research Corporation).  Source Assess-
     ment:  Residential Combustion of Wood.  EPA-600/2-80-024b, U.S. Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, p. 21, March
     1980.

37.  Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy).  Esti-
     mates of U.S. Wood Energy Consumption from 1949 to 1981, DOE/EIA-0341,
     August 1982.

38.  Piper, B.F., S.  Hersh, and W. Nazimowitz (KVB, Inc).  Combustion Demon-
     stration of SRC II Fuel Oil in a Tangentially Fired Boiler.  EPRI Final
     Report, FP-1029, Palo Alto, California, pp. 7-22 to 7-23, May  1979.

39.  Wainwright, Phyliss B. et al.  (NC Dept. of Natural Resources).  A POM
     Emissions Study for Industrial Wood-Fired Boilers.  Department of
     Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, April 1982.
                                       5-lOb

-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
40.  Radian Corporation.  Background Information Document for Non-Fossil Fuel-
     F1red Boilers.  Draft Report (EPA-450/3-82-007), EPA Contract No. 68-02-
     3058, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     Chapter 3 and p. 6-18, March 1982.

41.  Eimutis, E.G. and R.P. Quill (Monsanto Research Corporation).  Source
     Assessment;  Non-Criteria Pollutant Emissions.  EPA-600/2-77-107e,
     p. 78, July 1977.

42.  Peters, J.A. and D.G. DeAngells (Monsanto Research Corporation).  High
     Altitude Testing of Residential Wood-Fired Combustion Equipment.  Pre-
     pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, September, 1981.

43.  Reference 16, pp. 4-58 to 4-60.

44.  Reference 35, Chapter 1.

45.  Reference 40, p. 3-6.

46.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division (U.S. Environmental  Protec-
     tion Agency).  Coke Oven Emissions from Bv-Product Coke Oven Charging,
     Door Leaks, and Topside Leaks on Wet Coal-Charged Batteries—Background
     Information for Proposed Standards.  Draft Report, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,  March 1981.

47.  Suta, Benjamin E. (SRI International).  Human Population Exposure to
     Coke Oven Atmospheric Emissions.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-2835, Final
     Report, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     Revised May 1979.

48.  Reference 1, p. 68.
                                     5-107

-------
RADIAN
49.  Reference 46, pp. 3-60, 3-61.

50.  Reference 46, pp. 3-54, 3-62.

51.  Reference 46, p.7-7.

52.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division (U.S. Environmental  Protec-
     tion Agency).  Coke Wet Quenching—Background Information for Proposed
     Standards.  Draft Report, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC, March 25, 1982.

53.  Reference 46, pp. 3-1, 3-2.

54.  Reference 52, p. 3-38.

55.  Laube, A.M. and B.A. Drummond (York Research  Corporation).   Coke Quench
     Tower Emission Testing Program.   EPA-600/2-79-082,  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,  p. 7,  April  1979.

56.  Berry, Kent (U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency).  Personal  communica-
     tion with Mary Kelly, Radian Corporation,  March 3,  1983 (through Ray
     Morrison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

57.  Reference 46, p. 3-2.

58.  Reference 46, p. 3-18.

59.  Reference 1, p. 26.
                                   »
60.  Reference 46, pp. 3-41, 3-42.

61.  Reference 55, p. 3-4.

62.  Reference 1, p. 78-79.
                                     5-108

-------
RADIAN
63.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division (U.S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency).  A Review of Standards of Performance for New Stationary
     Sources - Ferroalloy Production Facilities.  EPA-450/3-80-041, U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December
     1980.

64.  Pan!, Dale (EPA-OAQPS).  Personal  communications with Mary E. Kelly,
     Radian Corporation, regarding regulatory status of various iron and steel
     source categories, April 13 and April 21, 1983.

65.  Reference 63, p. 25-29.

66.  Reference 63, pp. 47-50.

67.  Industrial Environmental Research  Laboratory (U.S. EPA).  Level 1 Envi-
     ronmental Assessment of Electric Submerged-Arc Furnaces Producing Ferro-
     alloys.  EPA-600/2-81-038, pp. 6-7, 15, March 1981.

68.  Industry and Trade Administration  (U.S. Department of Commerce).  1980
     U.S. Industrial Outlook for 200 Industries with Projections for 1984.
     U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, Chapter 16, January 1980.

69.  Kahn, Z.S. and T.W. Hughes.  (Monsanto Research Corporation) Source
     Assessment!  Asphalt Hot Mix.  EPA-600/2-77-107n, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, p. 93, December 1977.

70.  Gerstle, R.W. (PedCo Environmental, Inc.) Atmoshperic Emissions from
     Asphalt Roofing Processes.  EPA-600/2-74-101,  U.S. Environmental  Pro-
     tection Agency, Washington, DC, Chapter 4, October 1974.

71.  Reference 69, p 8.

72.  Reference 69, pp 34-36.
                                         5-109

-------
73.  Reference 70, pp 19-20.

74.  Reference 1, p 73.

75.  NSPS for asphalt hot mix.  40CFR60, Subpart I.  NSPS for asphalt
     roofing products:  40CFR60, Subpart UU.

76.  Reference 69, pp. 50-52.

77.  Reference 70, p. 2 and pp. 43-45.

78.  Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy).  DOE
     Energy Data Reports:  "Sales of Asphalt in 1980".  DOE/EIA-0112(80),
     U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, June 8, 1981.

79.  Reference 1, pp. 72-78.

80.  Reference 69, p. 7.

81.  Reference 68, p. 7.

82.  Reference 1, pp. 60-62.

83.  Reference 26, Subpart J.

84.  Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.  Inspection Manual  for Enforcement
     of New Source Performance Standards;  Catalytic Cracking Regenerators.
     EPA-340/1-77-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, DC,
     pp. 2-1, 2-2, April 1977.

85.  Reference 1, pp 25-26.

86.  Oil and Gas Journal.  Refinery Forecast Issue.  March 30,  1981.
                                     5-no

-------
RADIAN
87.  Oil  and Gas Journal.   Forecast Review Issue,  pp  132-133.   January  2,
     1982.

88.  Reference 84, pp. 3-3.

89.  Coyle, J.J. and E. J.  Potenta (Fred C.  Hart Associates,  Inc.).   "Popula-
     tion Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants from Waste  Combustion  In  Indus-
     trial Boilers and RCRA Regulated Incinerators".   Presented at the  APCA
     Specialty Conference  on Measurement and Monitoring of Non-Criteria
     (Toxic) Contaminants  in Air,  Chicago, IL, March  1983.

90.  Reference 1, pp. 85-87.

91.  Mcllvaine Company.  U.S. Incinerator Air Pollution Control  Equipment
     Market.  Mcllvaine Company, Northbrook, IL, p. 3,  October 1981.

92.  Reference 16, p. 6-17.

93.  Reference 40, pp. 3-6 to 3-9.

94.  Reference 91, p. 8.

95.  Reference 1, pp. 87-89.

96.  Reference 26, Subpart E.

97.  Reference 91, p. 21.

98.  Reference 40, p. 3-59.

99.  Reference 91, pp. 18-19.

100. Estimated from MSW incinerator control  level  and corresponding efficiency
     (Reference 97).
                                      S5-111

-------
RADIAN
101. Reference 91, pp. 39-41.

102. Reference 40, p. 4-2.

103. Reference 1» Appendix F and p. 86.

104. Reference 40, p. 3-6.

105. Hangebrauck, P.P., D.J. vonLehmden, and J.E. Meeker.  Sources of Poly-
     nuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere.  AP-33, NTIS PB 174-706.  U.S.
     Public Health Service, Washington, DC, 1967.

106. Sh1h, C. et al.  (TRW, Inc.) POM Emissions from Stationary Combustion
     Sources with Emphasis on Polvchlorinated Compounds of Dlbenzo-p-Dloxin,
     Blphenvls, and Dibenzofuran.  CCEA Issue Paper, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
     3138, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     pp 17-21, January 1980.

107. Reference 1, p. 28.

108. Reference 91, p. 37.

109. Reference 91, pp. 52-53.

110. Serth, R.W.  and T.W. Hughes.  "Polycycllc Organic Matter (POM) and Trace
     Elements Contents of Carbon Black Vent Gas", Environmental  Science and
     Technology,  14(3), pp. 298-300, March 1980.

111. Reference 1, Appendix E.

112. Reference 68, p. 112.

113. Chemical Marketing Reporter.  December 1, 1980.
                                      5-112

-------
114. Reference 1» p. 81.

115. Hulman» P.B. et al (Radian Corporation).  Screening Study on Feasibility
     of Standards of Performance for Wood Charcoal Manufacturing* Final
     Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608, Task 32.  Prepared for U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1978.

116. Moscowitz, C.W. (Monsanto Research Corporation).  Source Assessment;
     Charcoal Manufacturing - State-of-the-Art.  EPA-600/2-78-004z, U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, December, 1978.

117. Reference 115, p. 42.

118. Reference 116, pp. 19-20.

119. Maxwell, W.H. (Midwest Research Institute).  Stationary Source Testing
     of a Missouri-Type Charcoal Kiln.  NTIS PB-258695, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Kansas City, MO, pp 10-17, August 3, 1976.  (Average
     of runs 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10).

120. Reference 115, p. 20.

121. Reference  115, pp. 21-22.

122. Reference 1, p. 96-97.

123. Reference 1, p. 103-107.

124. Reference 1, p. 108-113.

125. Klausmeier,  Rob (Radian Corporation).  A Study of the Impact of Light
     Duty Vehicle Growth on Colorado's Air Quality, Draft Report, Prepared
     for Colorado Department of Health, Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas,
     pp. 2-5, November 3,  1981.
                                    5-113

-------
RADIAN
126. Reference 125, p. 6-17.

127. Reference 1, p. 30.

128. Buck, Robert, "Demand, Imports to Rise in '83;  Production to Slip."  011
     and Gas Journal 81(4), pp. 71-103, January 31,  1983.

129. Reference 125, p. vi.

130. Reference 125, p. 111.

131. National  Research Council.  Polycycllc Aromatic Hydrocarbons:   Evaluation
     of Sources and Effects.  National  Academy Press.  Washington,  D.C.,
     Chapter 1, 1983.

132. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Supplement 12 for Compilation of
     A1r Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42.  NTIS PB 82-101213.  Research
     Triangle Park, NC,  pp. 8.1-3 to 8.1-5, April  1981.

133. Meyer, Ron (U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency).  Personal  communica-
     tion with Ray Morrison, EPA Project Officer,  August 29, 1983.
                                     5-114

-------
                  APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS FOR ESTIMATING POM EMISSIONS
               FROM COMBUSTION SOURCES

-------
                                APPENDIX A

                  Additional Calculations for Estimating
                               POM Emissions
                                   from
                            Combustion Sources
          Section
            A.I            Conversion of Reported Emission Factors
                           to consistent units
                                      /
            A.2            Wood consumption in industrial boilers

            A.3            Wood consumption in residential stoves
A.I       Conversion of Reported Emission Factors
               (Common unit basis  [=*] Ib POM/1012 Btu heat input)

A.1.1     Coal Combustion

          Emission factors were provided in terms of Ug or mg per kg of coal
burned (1).  Assume a coal heating value of 11,500 Btu/lb, which is represen-
tative of several bituminous and subbituminous coals (2,3).
                  T«vM«.a.  A9xlO"6gm POM\/  Ib coal  W0.454 kgw  Ib
                  boilers:  (	^-^j	K11)500 Btu)l	Ib

                                        12
                           =  1.65 lb/10  Btu
                                    A-l

-------
          T j  *.  • -, u  -i       /41x10  °gm POM\/   lb  coal W0.454 kg\/   lb  \
          Industrial boilers:   I	;	°-^	)(.,  cnn  „—)(	,.   6)(~rn	)
                                \   kg  coal   AH,500  Btu/\    lb   /\454  gm'

                             -  3.57  lb/1012Btu
_  ,,  „. ,   /67xlO"3gm POM\/ lb coal   W.454
Residential:  (   kg ^1   )(11>5QO Btu )(~lb
                                             coal   W.454  kg\/   lb
                                                    ~
                        5826 lb/1012Btu
A. 1.2     Oil Combustion

          Emission factors were provided  in  terms  of  Ug  POM per liter of oil
burned  (1).  Assume an oil heating value  (#6 Resid) of about 150,000  Btu/gal
(4).

          Utility:  [already in terms of  Ib/Btu— (5)] -  2.0 lb/1012Btu
T A      i    /21xlO~6gm POMw  liter   \/    gal     \/  lb   \
industrial:  ^  Uter Q±[  ^0>2642 gal/U50,000 Btu/V454 gm/
                                               gal/U50,000  Btu/V454  gm

                       1.17 lb/1012Btu
                               -.-6.
          o  jj  tJ i   /120xlO "gm POM\/  liter    \/     gal     \/   lb   \
          Residential:  ^  llter Q±1    A0.2642 gal A150,000  Btu>/U54 gm/

                      =6.67 lb/1012Btu
A.1.3     Natural Gas Combustion

          Emission factors were provided in terms of yg or mg per m3  of  gas
burned (1).  Assume a natural gas heating value of 35,300 Btu/m3[1000 Btu/ft3]
(6).
                                     A-2

-------
          Industrial:
                        /11x10
                             -s.
                           W    «'

                           A35,30
                        V   m3 gas     A35,300  Btu/\454  gm






                        0.69 lb/1012Btu
          D   -j  «~, i    /65xlO"6gm POM\/    m3     \/   lb   \
          Reszdential:   { - 5 — ° - )( ,-  ...      )(TT/ - )
                         V   m3gas      A35,300  Btu/\454  gm/





                      =  4.06  lb/1012Btu
A.1.4     Wood Combustion






          Emission factors provided  in  terms  of  yg  or mg per kg of dry wood


burned (7).  Assume a  (dry) wood heating value of 8600 Btu/lb (8).
_ ,   _ .  ,    /2.1xlO~3gm POMV 0.454 kg\/   lb

Industrial:  (   kg WOQ^ - A   lb  §)(8600
                                                               lb
                           kg






                       237 lb/1012Btu
          Residential   /0.27 gm POMW0.454 kg\/    lb    W   lb   \

          Stoves:       \  kg wood   A   lb    A 8600 Btu/Us4 gm/






                      - 31,400 lb/1012Btu








          Residential  /0.029 gm POM\/.454 kgw    lb    W   lb  \

          Fireplaces:  V  kg wood    A  lb    A8600 Btu/\454 gm/






                     = 3370 lb/1012Btu
                                     A-3

-------
A.2       Wood Consumption in Industrial Boilers

          Reference 9 reports 1600 wood-fired industrial boilers with a total
capacity of 1.04x10** Btu/hr      in operation in 1978.  At an average capac-
ity factor of 60% (10), this translates into an annual wood consumption of
         (^
This was the most recent consumption data for wood-fired boilers, and no
trend data (specific to boilers) were available to allow extrapolation  to
1980.  Therefore, 1978 consumption figures were used to estimate national
POM emissions from this category.
A.3       Wood Consumption in Residential Stoves and Fireplaces

          Reference 8 puts annual wood use in stoves at 26 million metric
tons (dry basis).  Using the estimated 8600 Btu/lb dry wood heating value
(8) yields:
          Reference 8 reports 1980 wood consumption in fireplaces as 17.3
million metric tons:
                                    A-4

-------
A.4       References

          1.   Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.  Preliminary Assess-
ment of the Sources, Control, and Population Exposure Co Airborne Polycyclic
Organic Matter (POM) as Indicated by Benzo(a)pyrene.  Final Report, prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, Table III-l (intermediate factors for POM), November 10, 1978.

          2.   Emission Standards and Engineering Division (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency).  Fossil Fuel-Fired Industrial Boilers-Background
Information Volume 1: Chapters 1-9.  EPA-450/3-82-006a, Chapter 3, March 1982.

          3.   Babcock and Wilcox.  Steam; Its Generation and Use.  39th
edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, Chapter 5, 1978.

          4.   Reference 2, Table 6-5.  Divide heat input rate to boiler by
fuel rate to calculate Btu/gal oil.

          5.   Piper, B.F., S. Hersh, and W. Nazimowitz (KVB, Inc.).
Combustion Demonstration of SRC II Fuel Oil in a Tangentially Fired Boiler.
EPRI Final Report, FP-1029, Palo Alto, California, pp. 7-22 to 7-23, May
1979.

          6.   Reference 2, Table 6-5.  Divide heat input rate by fuel rate
to calculate Btu/m3 of gas.

          7.   Industrial:  Wainwright, Phyliss B. et al.   (NC Dept. of
Natural Resources).  A POM Emission Study for Industrial Wood-Fired Boilers.
Department of Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, April 1982.

               Residential:  DeAngelis, D.G. et al.  (Monsanto Research
Corporation).  Source Assessment;  Residential Combustion of Wood.  EPA-600/
2-80-024b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
p. 21, March 1980.
                                    A-5

-------
          8.   Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy).
Estimates of U.S. Wood Energy Consumption from 1949 to 1981.  DOE/EIA-0341,
August 1982.

          9.   Radian Corporation.  Background Information Document for Non-
Fossil Fuel-Fired Boilers.  Draft Report (EPA-450/3-82-007), EPA Contract No.
68-02-3058, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
p. 3-3, March 1982.

         10.   Reference 9, model wood-fired boiler in Chapter 6.
                                     A-6

-------
U.S. Cnv»«mm*ntal Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn  Street   ^./
Chicago, Illinois  60604   _,^

-------