AP-42
Supplement 10
C.I
SUPPLEMENT NO. 10
FOR
COMPILATION
OF AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS,
THIRD EDITION (INCLUDING)
SUPPLEMENTS 1-7)
i.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management . ,,_-,
Offiee of Air Quality Planning and Standards -p^.-t-v-.^-r• " ' ;
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 ^
FehrnarN 1980 ' '
-------
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSERTING SUPPLEMENT 10
xtntO
AP-42
Paged 1 thuough 3 iep£ace pp. 7 and 2. New
Paged -cc-t XJnA.ou.Qk v-i A.e.ptace. pp. ^6c thA.ou.gh. vi. New Content*.
Add page* v/u. tkn.ou.gh vLLL. Pu.bLLcouU.onA in Set/ted.
Page* 1.11-1 and 1.11-2 tep£ace pp. 1.11-1 and 1.11-2. EditoA^ai
Chang QA.
Page* 2.1-1 through 2.1-5 A.e.p£ace. pp. 2.1-1 thA.ou.gk 2.1-5. Editorial
Changed .
Page. 3.0 A.e.p£aceA p. 3.0. Notice..
Page* 3.2.1-1 through 3.2.1-16 /iep£ace pp. 3.2.1-1 thA.ou.gh 3.2.1-9.
Page6 4.4-9 and 4.4-10 iep£ace pp. 4.4-9 and 4.4-10. HUnoi
Add page4 4.7-7 through 4.7-8. New Sec£con.
Add pagei 4.^-7 through 4.S-4. New Section.
Page* 5.5-7 and 5.5-2 /tep&zce pp. 5.5-7 and 5.5-2. Editosual Change*.
Page6 5.S-7 through 5.B-4 Aep£ace pp. 5.B-1 and 5.S-2. MajoA. Rev^ti-ton.
Pagei 5.77-7 th/wugh 5.77-5 /tep&zce pp. 5.77-7 and 5.11-2. Majo*.
Re.v4A4.on.
Page* 5.18-1 through 5.18-5 Aep£ace pp. 5.7^-7 and 5.18-2. MajoA.
Rev-ci-con.
Page4 6.5-7 and 6.5-2 iep£aee pp. 6.5-7 and 6.5-2. Notice..
Add page4 6.5.2-7 thA.ou.gh 6.5.2-3. New Sec^con.
Paged 6.9-3 and 6.9-4 iep£ace pp. 6.9-3 and 6.9-4. Mouvi Re.viAion.
Add paged 6.77-7 through 6.17-3. New Section.
Paged 7.6-7 thAough 7.6-9 A.ep£ace pp. 7.6-7 thAaugh. 7.6-5. Ma/oi
Rev-cd^con.
Paged 7.7^-7 and 7.7S-2 A.ep£ace pp. 7.7X-J and 7.18-2.
Change^.
Page* 8.9-1 thAaugh 8.9-4 A.ep£ace pp. £.9-7 and 8.9-2. MajoA. Re.vion.
Paged S.J7-7 tknough 8.11-6 A.e.place. pp. £.77-1 thnough 8.11-4.
Re.v-it>ion.
Page* 8.18-1 through 8.18-5 A.e,place, pp. 8.18-1 and 8.18-2. MajoA.
(OVER]
-------
Add pagu 8.21-1 tknougk 8.21-14. New Section.
Add pagu 8.22-1 through 8.22-6. New Section.
70.3-7 thtough 10.3-5 ie.pla.ce. pp. 10.3-1 and 10.3-2. Maj'oi
Pagei 10.4-1 and 10.4-2 Aep£ace pp. 10.4-1 and 10.4-2. Ma/o/i Reac6x.on.
Add page* 77.3-7 tknough 11.3-5. New Sec-teen.
Page4 A- 1 and A-2 /Lep£ace pp. A- 7 and A-2. Majoti Reu-ci/con.
Page4 A- 5 thA.ou.gk A-9 /tep£ace pp. A- 5 and A-6. Additional Material.
Page. C-77 ^.ep£ace4 p. C-77. Editorial CkangeA.
Page* E-I and E-2 A.ep£ace pp. E-T and E-2. M-cmw. Reu^4xcon.
Page4 a- 7 and a-2 ^tep£ace pp. a- 7 and a-2. Te.c.hyu.c,al Re.poKt Vata. She,e£.
xx.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION [[[ 1
1. EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES ......................................... 1-1-1
1.1 BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION ................................... 1.1-1
1.2 ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION ................................... 1.2-1
1.3 FUEL OIL COMBUSTION ........................................... 1.3-1
1.4 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ....................................... 1.4-1
1.5 LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS COMBUSTION
1.6 WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS
1.7 LIGNITE COMBUSTION
1.8 BAGASSE COMBUSTION IN SUGAR MILLS
.9 RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACES
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
1.10 WOOD STOVES .................................................. 1.10-1
1.11 WASTE OIL DISPOSAL ............................................ 1.11-1
2. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ................................................ 2.0-1
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION ........................................... 2.1-1
2.2 AUTOMOBILE BODY INCINERATION ................................. 2.2-1
2.3 CONICAL BURNERS .............................................. 2.3-1
2.4 OPEN BURNING ................................................. 2.4-1
2.5 SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION .................................... 2.5-1
3. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES .................................. 3-
GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................. 3-
3.1 HIGHWAY VEHICLES ............................................. 3.1-
3.2 OFF-HIGHWAY MOBILE SOURCES .................................... 3.2-
3.3 OFF-HIGHWAY STATIONARY SOURCES ............................... 3.3-
4. EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES ........................................... 4.1-1
4.1 DRY CLEANING ................................................. 4.1-1
4.2 SURFACE COATING .............................................. 4.2-1
4.3 STORAGE OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS .................................. 4.3-1
4.4 TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS ............. 4.4-1
4.5 CUTBACK ASPHALT, EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AND ASPHALT CEMENT ......... 4.5-1
4.6 SOLVENT DECREASING ........................................... 4.6-1
4.7 WASTE SOLVENT RECLAMATION .................................... 4.7-1
4.8 TANK AND DRUM CLEANING ....................................... 4.8-1
5. CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY ........................................... 5.1-1
5.1 ADIPIC ACID [[[ 5.1-1
5.2 SYNTHETIC AMMONIA ............................................ 5.2-1
5.3 CARBON BLACK ................................................ 5.3-1
5.4 CHARCOAL [[[ 5.4-1
5.5 CHLOR-ALKALI ................................................. 5.5-1
5.6 EXPLOSIVES [[[ 5.6-1
5.7 HYDROCHLORIC ACID ................... ......................... 5.7-1
5.8 HYDROFLUORIC ACID ............................................ 5.8-1
5.9 NITRIC ACID [[[ 5.9-1
5.10 PAINT AND VARNISH ............................................. 5.10-1
5.11 PHOSPHORIC ACID ............................................... 5.1 1-1
5.12 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE ........................................... 5.12-1
5.13 PLASTICS [[[ 5.13-1
5.14 PRINTING INK .................................................. 5.14-1
5.15 SOAP AND DETERGENTS .......................................... 5.15-1
5.16 SODIUM CARBONATE ............................................ 5.16-1
5.17 SULFURIC ACID ................................................. 5.17-1
5.18 SULFUR RECOVERY ............................................. 5.18-1
-------
Page
6. FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 6.1-1
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING 6.1-1
6.2 COFFEE ROASTING 6.2-1
6.3 COTTON GINNING 6.3-1
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS 6.4-1
6.5 FERMENTATION 6.5-1
6.6 FISH PROCESSING 6.6-1
6.7 MEAT SMOKEHOUSES 6.7-1
6.8 AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZERS 6.8-1
6.9 ORCHARD HEATERS 6.9-1
6.10 PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS 6.10-1
6.11 STARCH MANUFACTURING 6.11-1
6.12 SUGAR CANE PROCESSING 6.12-1
6.13 BREAD BAKING 6.13-1
6.14 UREA 6.14-1
6.15 BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOTS 6.15-1
6.16 DEFOLIATION AND HARVESTING OF COTTON 6.16-1
6.17 HARVESTING OF GRAIN 6.17-1
7. METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY 7.1-1
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION 7.1-1
7.2 METALLURGICAL COKE PRODUCTION 7.2-1
7.3 PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING 7.3-1
7.4 FERROALLOY PRODUCTION 7.4-1
7.5 IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION 7.5-1
7.6 PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING 7.6-1
7.7 ZINC SMELTING 7.7-1
7.8 SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS 7.8-1
7.9 SECONDARY COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING 7.9-1
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES 7.10-1
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING 7.11-1
7.12 SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING 7.12-1
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES 7.13-1
7.14 SECONDARY ZINC PROCESSING 7.14-1
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION 7.15-1
7.16 LEAD OXIDE AND PIGMENT PRODUCTION 7.16-1
7.17 MISCELLANEOUS LEAD PRODUCTS 7.17-1
7.18 LEADBEARING ORE CRUSHING AND GRINDING 7.18-1
8. MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 8.1-1
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS 8.1-1
8.2 ASPHALT ROOFING 8.2-1
8.3 BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS 8.3-1
8.4 CALCIUM CARBIDE MANUFACTURING 8.4-1
8.5 CASTABLE REFRACTORIES 8.5-1
8.6 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING 8.6-1
8.7 CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING 8.7-1
8.8 CLAY AND FLY ASH SINTERING 8.8-1
8.9 COAL CLEANING 8.9-1
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING 8.10-1
8.11 GLASS FIBER MANUFACTURING 8.11-1
8.12 FRIT MANUFACTURING 8.12-1
8.13 GLASS MANUFACTURING 8.13-1
8.14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING 8.14-1
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING 8.15-1
8.16 MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING 8.16-1
8.17 PERLITE MANUFACTURING 8.17-1
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING 8.18-1
8.19 SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING 8.19-1
8.20 STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING 8.20-1
8.21 COAL CONVERSION 8.21-1
8.22 TACONITE ORE PROCESSING 8.22-1
9. PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 9.1-1
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING 9.1-1
9.2 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING 9.2-1
iv
-------
Page
10. WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 10-1-1
10.1 CHEMICAL WOOD PULPING 10.1-1
10.2 PULPBOARD 10.2-1
10.3 PLYWOOD VENEER AND LAYOUT OPERATIONS 10.3-1
10.4 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS 10.4-1
11. MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES 11.1-1
11.1 FOREST WILDFIRES 11.1-1
11.2 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES 11.2-1
11.3 EXPLOSIVES DETONATION 11.3-1
APPENDIX A. MISCELLANEOUS DATA AND CONVERSION FACTORS A-l
APPENDIX B. EMISSION FACTORS AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES B-l
APPENDIX C. NEDS SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES AND EMISSION
FACTOR LISTING C-l
APPENDIX D. PROJECTED EMISSION FACTORS FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES D-l
APPENDIX E. TABLE OF LEAD EMISSION FACTORS E-l
-------
VI
-------
PUBLICATIONS EM SERIES
Issuance
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition
(Including Supplements 1-7)
Supplement No. 8
Introduction
Section 1.10 Wood Stoves
Section 2.1 Refuse Incineration
Section 2.4 Open Burning
Section 3.0 Internal Combustion Engine Sources; Notice
Section 3.3 Off-Highway Stationary Sources
Section 6.3 Cotton Ginning
Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers
Section 7.3 Primary Copper Smelting
Section 7.9 Secondary Copper Smelting and Alloying
Section 8.1 Asphaltic Concrete Plants
Section 8.2 Asphalt Roofing
Section 8.13 Glass Manufacturing
Section 9.1 Petroleum Refining
Section 11.2.1 Unpaved Roads (Dirt and Gravel)
Section 11.2.5 Paved Roads
Release Date
8/77
Supplement No. 9
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section 10.4
Section 11.2.5
Appendix C
Appendix E
1.11
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.2
5.3
5.17
5.22
6.9
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
7.3
7.9
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
8.10
7/79
Bituminous Coal Combustion
Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids
Cutback Asphalt, Emulsified Asphalt and Asphalt Cements
Solvent Degreasing
Synthetic Ammonia
Carbon Black
Sulfuric Acid
Lead Alkyl
Orchard Heaters
Bread Baking
Urea
Beef Cattle Feedlots
Defoliation and Harvesting of Cotton
Primary Copper Smelting
Secondary Copper Smelting and Alloying
Storage Battery Production
Lead Oxide and Pigment Production
Miscellaneous Lead Products
Leadbearing Ore Crushing and Grinding
Concrete Batching
Woodworking Waste Collection Operations
Fugitive Dust - Paved Roads
NEDS Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing
Table of Lead Emission Factors
Vll
-------
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section 10.3
Section 10.4
Section 11.3
Appendix A
3.2.1
4.7
4.8
5.8
5.11
5.18
6.5.2
6.17
7.6
8.9
8.11
8.18
8.21
8.22
PUBLICATIONS IN SERIES (CONT'D)
Issuance
Supplement No. 10
Release Date
2/80
Introduction
Internal Combustion Engine Sources - Aircraft
Waste Solvent Reclamation
Tank and Drum Cleaning
Hydrofluoric Acid
Phosphoric Acid
Sulfur Recovery
Fermentation - Wine Making
Harvesting of Grain
Primary Lead Smelting
Coal Cleaning
Glass Fiber Manufacturing
Phosphate Rock Processing
Coal Conversion
Taconite Ore Processing
Plywood Veneer and Layout Operations
Woodworking Waste Collection Operations
Explosives Detonation
Miscellaneous Data and Conversion Factors
Vlll
-------
COMPILATION
OF
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
In the assessment and control of air pollution, there is a critical
need for reliable and consistent data on the quantity and characteristics
of emissions from the numerous sources that contribute to the problem.
The large number of individual sources and the diversity of source types
make conducting field measurements of emissions impractical source by
source, at each point of release. The only feasible method of determin-
ing pollutant emissions for a given community or area is to make general
emission estimates typical of each of the source types.
One of the most useful tools for estimating typical emissions is
the "emission factor". This is an estimate of the rate at which a
pollutant is released to the atmosphere as a result of some activity
(such as combustion or industrial production) divided by the level of
that activity (also expressed in terms of a temporal rate). In most
cases, these factors are simply given as statistical or estimated
averages, with no empirical information on the various process para-
meters (temperature, reactant concentrations, etc.) being considered in
their calculation. However, for a few cases, such as in the estimation
of volatile organic emissions from petroleum storage tanks, empirical
formulas have been developed which relate emissions to such variables as
tank diameter, liquid storage temperature, and wind velocity. Because
of their superior precision, emission factors obtained from empirical
formulas are more desirable and can usually be given higher accuracy
ratings. Factors derived from statistical averages, however, if based
on an adequate number of field measurements ("source tests"), also can
be both precise and accurate within practical and useful limits.
Average or "typical" emission factors are obtained from a wide
range of data of varying degrees of accuracy. The reader must be cau-
tioned not to use these emission factors indiscriminately. That is, the
general factors may not yield precise emission estimates for an individual
installation. Only an onsite source test can provide data sufficiently
accurate and precise to determine actual emissions for that source.
Emission factors are most appropriate when used in air quality manage-
ment applications and in diffusion models, for estimating the impact of
proposed new sources upon ambient air quality and for community or
nationwide air pollutant emission estimates.
Although emission factors may find use in the estimation of emissions
expected from new or proposed sources, the user should review the
literature and latest technology to determine if such sources are likely
to exhibit emission characteristics different from those for a typical
2/80
-------
existing source. This document does not address RACT (Reasonably Avail-
able Control Technology), BACT (Best Available Control Technology), LAER
(Lowest Achievable Emission Rate), NSPS (New Source Performance Standards),
etc. Controlled emission factors and the general control device infor-
mation presented herein are very limited and applicable to typical
existing situations which are constantly changing. When determining the
effect of various control device applications, the user should also
consider the age, level of maintenance, and other considerations of
effectiveness.
An example illustrates how the factors are used:
Suppose a sulfuric acid plant, with a production rate of 200 tons/day
of 100 percent acid, operates at an overall S02 to 803 conversion
efficiency of 97 percent. Using the formula given in Table 5.17-1 of
this publication, the uncontrolled sulfur dioxide emissions can be
calculated:
S02 emissions = [-13.65 (% conversion efficiency) + 1365] x
production rate
= [-13.65 (97%) + 1365] Ib/ton acid x 200 tons acid/day
= 40 Ib/ton acid x 200 tons acid/day
= 8000 Ib/day (3632 kg/day)
The emission factors presented in AP-42 have been estimated using a
wide spectrum of available techniques. The preparation/revision of each
Section in this book involves, first of all, locating and obtaining
information on that source category from available literature (including
emission test reports). After the available data are reviewed, organized
and analyzed, the process descriptions, process flowsheets and other
background portions of the Section are prepared. Then, using the compiled
information, representative emission factors are developed for each
criteria pollutant emitted by each point source of the process category
for which information is available. As stated above, these factors are
usually obtained by simply averaging the respective numerical data
obtained. When feasible, expected ranges or statistical confidence
intervals are presented for further clarity. Occasionally, enough data
exist to permit the development of empirical formulas or graphs relating
emission factors to various process parameters such as stream temperature,
sulfur content, catalysts, etc. In these cases, representative values
of these process parameters are selected and substituted into the formulas
or graphs to obtain representative emission factors, which are then
tabulated. The pertinent formulas and graphical daita are also included
in the Section, to allow estimation of emission factors when process
conditions differ from those selected as representative.
After a Section is drafted, it is circulated for technical review
to personnel routinely familiar with the emission aspects of the particular
activity. After these review comments are obtained and evaluated, the
2/80
-------
final Section is written, edited and published. To reflect an ever
expanding data base, Sections may be revised at any time, and any review
comments or data appropriate to this process are encouraged and requested.
The limited applicability of emission factors must be understood.
To give some notion of the accuracy of the factors for a specific process,
each set of factors has been ranked according to the amount of data upon
which it is based. In the past, Sections have been rated only as a
whole. Future updates, to the degree possible, will include ratings by
pollutant for each process. Each rating has been based on the weighting
of various information categories used to obtain the factor(s). These
categories and associated numerical values are:
Measured emission data: 20 points maximum.
Process data: 10 points maximum.
Engineering analysis: 10 points maximum.
The emission data category rates the amount of measured source test data
available for the development of the factor(s). The process data
category involves such considerations as variability of the process and
resultant effect on emissions, as well as the amount of data available
on these variables. Finally, the engineering analysis category is
concerned with data upon which a material balance or related calculation
can be made. Depending on which information categories are employed to
develop it, each set of factors is assigned a numerical score of from 5
to 40 points. Each numerical score is, in turn, converted to letter
ratings which are presented throughout this publication as follows:
Numerical Rating Letter Rating
5 or less E (Poor)
6 to 15 D (Below average)
16 to 25 C (Average)
26 to 35 B (Above average)
36 to 40 A (Excellent)
2/80 3
-------
-------
1.11 WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
1.11.1 General
by Jake Summers, EPA
and Pacific Environmental Services
The largest source of waste oil is-used automotive crankcase oil, originating mostly from automo-
bile service stations, and usually being found with small amounts of other automotive fluids. Other
sources of waste oil include metal working lubricants, heavy hydrocarbon fuels, animal and vegetable
oils and fats, and industrial oil materials.
In 1975, 57 percent of waste crankcase oil was consumed as alternative fuel in conventional boiler
equipment (Section 1.3). The remainder was refined (15 percent), blended into road oil or asphalt
(15 percent), or used for other nonfuel purposes (13 percent).1
1.11.2 Emissions and Controls
Lead emissions from burning waste oil depend on the lead content of the oil and on operating
conditions. Lead content may vary from 800 to 11,200 ppm.2 Average concentrations have been sug-
gested as 6,000' and as 10,000 ppm3. During normal operation, about 50 percent of the lead is emitted
as particulate with flue gas.2»4 Combustion of fuel containing 10 percent waste oil gives particulate
ranging from 14 to 19 percent lead. Ash content from combustion of fuels containing waste oil is higher
than that for distillate or residual fuel oil, ranging from 0.03 to 3.78 weight percent, and lead accounts
for about 35 percent of the ash produced in such combustion.2
Currently, controls are not usually applied to oil fired combustion sources. An exception is utility
boilers, especially in the northeastern United States. Pretreatment by vacuum distillation, solvent
extraction, settling and/or centrifuging minimizes lead emissions but may make waste oil use uneco-
nomical.2 High efficiency particulate control by means of properly operated and maintained fabric
filters is 99 percent effective for 0.5-1 urn diameter lead and other submicron-sized particulate, but
such a degree of control is infrequently used.2
Table 1.11-1. WASTE OIL COMBUSTION EMISSION FACTORS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulate3
Leadb
Emission factor
(kg/m3)
9.0 (A)
9.0 (P)
(lb/103 gal)
75 (A)
75 (P)
References
5
1.2,3
letter A is for weight % of ash in the waste oil. To calculate the
particulate emission factor, multiply the ash in the oil by 9.0 to get
kilograms of particulate emitted per m3 waste oil burned. Example: •
ash of waste oil is 0.5% the emission factor is 0.5 x 9.0 = 4.5 kg
particulate per m3 waste oil burned.
"The letter P indicates that the percent lead in the waste oil being pro-
cessed should be multiplied by the value given in the table in order to
obtain the emission factor. Average P= 1.0% (10,000 ppm). Refer to
Reference 5.
7/79
External Combustion Sources
1.11-1
-------
References for Section 1.11
1. S. Wyatt, et al., Preferred Standards Path Analysis on Lead Emissions from Stationary Sources,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, September 1974.
2. S. Chansky, et al., Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil Reuse as a Fuel, EPA-600/5-74-032, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1974.
3. Final Report of the API Task Force on Oil Disposal, American Petroleum Institute, New York,
NY, May 1970.
4. Background Information in Support of the Development of Performance Standards for the
Lead Additive Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2085, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH, January 1976
5. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.
1.11-2 EMISSION FACTORS 7/79
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION Revised by Robert Rosensteel
2.1.1 Process Description1 "4
The most common types of incinerators consist of a refractory-lined chamber with a grate upon which refuse
is burned. In some newer incinerators water-walled furnaces are used. Combustion products are formed by
heating and burning of refuse on the grate. In most cases, since insufficient underfire (undergrate) air is provided
to enable complete combustion, additional over-fire air is admitted above the burning waste to promote complete
gas-phase combustion. In multiple-chamber incinerators, gases from the primary chamber flow to a small
secondary mixing chamber where more air is admitted, and more complete oxidation occurs. As much as 300
percent excess air may be supplied in order to promote oxidation of combustibles. Auxiliary burners are
sometimes installed in the mixing chamber to increase the combustion temperature. Many small-size incinerators
are single-chamber units in which gases are vented from the primary combustion chamber directly into the
exhaust stack. Single-chamber incinerators of this type do not meet modern air pollution codes.
2.1.2 Definitions of Incinerator Categories1
No exact definitions of incinerator size categories exist, but for this report the following general categories and
descriptions have been selected:
1. Municipal incinerators — Multiple-chamber units often have capacities greater than 50 tons (45.3 MT)
per day and are usually equipped with automatic charging mechanisms, temperature controls, and
movable grate systems. Municipal incinerators are also usually equipped with some type of paniculate
control device, such as a spray chamber or electrostatic precipitator.
2. Industrial!commercial incinerators — The capacities of these units cover a wide range, generally between
50 and 4,000 pounds (22.7 and 1,800 kilograms) per hour. Of either single- or multiple-chamber design,
these units are often manually charged and intermittently operated. Some industrial incinerators are
similar to municipal incinerators in size and design. Better designed emission control systems include
gas-fired afterburners or scrubbing, or both.
3. Trench incinerators •- A trench incinerator is designed for the combustion of wastes having relatively high
heat content and low ash content. The design of the unit is simple: a U-shaped combustion chamber is
formed by the sides and bottom of the pit and air is supplied from nozzles along the top of the pit. The
nozzles are directed at an angle below the horizontal to provide a curtain of air across the top of the pit
and to provide air for combustion in the pit. The trench incinerator is not as efficient for burning wastes
as the municipal multiple-chamber unit, except where careful precautions are taken to use it for disposal
of low-ash, high-heat-content refuse, and where special attention is paid to proper operation. Low
construction and operating costs have resulted in the use of this incinerator to dispose of materials other
than those for which it was originally designed. Emission factors for trench incinerators used to burn
three such materials7 are included in Table 2.1-1.
4. Domestic incinerators — This category includes incinerators marketed for residential use. Fairly simple in
design, they may have single or multiple chambers and usually are equipped with an auxiliary burner to
aid combustion.
2.1-1 Solid Waste Disposal 4/73
-------
CO
O
CC
h-
o
I-
I
CO
CC
UJ CC
3o
LL U
LU <
CC li-
CC Z
8. -
co eo
CC =
° B
o
g
co
CO
CM
0)
Z
1=
•0 r-
0) ^
^O Ol
'x -^
o
c
01 c
° 2
2 £
o ^
en ^
b.
|g
"T "^*
-
O^r-
0 _§•
O
E
||
fi *^
.u ^>
tf) &
® oi
'x
i_
*^ C
3 o
i-
w ^
% *
3~
S. |
—
Incinerator type
LO LO
r_' ,_'
CO CO
LO LO
PS. PS.
o' d
LO LO
r-' I—'
LO LO
PS.' PS.'
LO in
CO CO
LO LO
CM CM
*— «~
LO LO
CM' CM'
LO fs.
0 *
13
"o
*= -D
C C
O ro
unicipal6
Multiple chamber, unc
With settling chamber
water spray system*
5
LO
r-' ,_
00 CM
LO LO
"'"'
CO LO
LO O
O O
«- CM
LO LO
CM CM
"~ "~
JC. £.
LO LO
CM CM
LO LO
CO' ps.'
PS. LO
i—
idustrial/commercial
Multiple chambers
Single chamber1
l_
LO LO If)
CM < < LO <-' LO O <- T-'
2 2
<* < < O CO O <- CM CO
2 Z *- <-
LO LO
<<< 01 PS.' r-' O<- 0>
•^ -7 -7. 0) in 4>
Z Z Z z m z
<<< 01 LO CO OCM 0!
2 2 2 ^ - 0 1
<<OLO 00,g>
<<< g1 O O O 01 01
222 | CM ^ o « »
LO LO lO LO LO LO LO
C) CM PS. CM CM CM CM
d - C w,
*- V U u.
tn J3 • p .Q C
f 8. -M JH T3 "S)'£cu
OJ 'u 15 OT 0 cap«.
"O .Q -— — • C P *M -M •— ro
I111 II ill! I
— — O to
LL U- Q O.
«
C
01
(U
"to
CC
for wood combustion in conical burni
CO
CD
•o
C
o
QJ
v>
03
CO
_oj
>
o
Z
CD
CJ
C
CD
CD
CU
rr
E
CD
c
CD
in"
CO
o"
*~
co"
•&
u
C
O
0)
"w
CC
c
ers and draft controls.
c
IS
-Q
0)
CD
.c
o1
•o
c
ro
*~"
co"
(U
CJ
C
CD
CD
CC
a
6
TJ
c
CD
in
a>
o
c
CD
CU
CD
CC
CT
Lfi
a>
u
c
CD
Q>
0)
CC
O)
c
CD
CO
a>
u
c
0)
0)
(D
CC
c
CJ
c
o
CD
1
CJ
0
a
OL
LU
C
O
-g
tn
CD
A
C.
factors give
verage
-------
5. Flue-fed incinerators - These units, commonly found in large apartment houses, are characterized by
the charging method of dropping refuse down the incinerator flue and into the combustion chamber.
Modified flue-fed incinerators utilize afterburners and draft controls to improve combustion efficiency
and reduce emissions.
6. Pathological incinerators — These are incinerators used to dispose of animal remains and other organic
material of high moisture content. Generally, these units are in a size range of 50 to 100 pounds (22.7 to
45.4 kilograms) per hour. Wastes are burned on a hearth in the combustion chamber. The units are
equipped with combustion controls and afterburners to ensure good combustion and minimal emissions.
7. Controlled air incinerators - These units operate on a controlled combustion principle in which the
waste is burned in the absence of sufficient oxygen for complete combustion in the main chamber. This
process generates a highly combustible gas mixture that is then burned with excess air in a secondary
chamber, resulting in efficient combustion. These units are usually equipped with automatic charging
mechanisms and are characterized by the high effluent temperatures reached at the exit of the
incinerators.
2.1.3 Emissions and Controls1
Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design have a pronounced effect on
emissions. The manner in which air is supplied to the combustion chamber or chambers has, among all the
parameters, the greatest effect on the quantity of particulate emissions. Air may be introduced from beneath the
chamber, from the side, or from the top of the combustion area. As underfire air is increased, an increase in
fly-ash emissions occurs. Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the combustion bed and a subsequent
release of large quantities of particulates. Large quantities of uncombusted particulate matter and carbon
monoxide are also emitted for an extended period after charging of batch-fed units because of interruptions in
the combustion process. In continuously fed units, furnace particulate emissions are strongly dependent upon
grate type. The use of rotary kiln and reciprocating grates results in higher particulate emissions than the use of
rocking or traveling grates.14 Emissions of oxides of sulfur are dependent on the sulfur content of the refuse.
Carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbon emissions may be significant and are caused by poor combustion
resulting from improper incinerator design or operating conditions. Nitrogen oxide emissions increase with an
increase in the temperature of the combustion zone, an increase in the residence time in the combustion zone
before quenching, and an increase in the excess air rates to the point where dilution cooling overcomes the effect
of increased oxygen concentration.'4
Table 2.1-2 lists the relative collection efficiencies of particulate control equipment used for municipal
incinerators. This control equipment has little effect on gaseous emissions. Table 2.1-1 summarizes the
uncontrolled emission factors for the various types of incinerators previously discussed.
Table 2.1-2. COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS8
Type of system
Settling chamber
Settling chamber and water spray
Wetted baffles
Mechanical collector
Scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Efficiency, %
Oto 30
30 to 60
60
30 to 80
80 to 95
90 to 96
97 to 99
aReferences 3,5, 6, and 17 through 21.
2.1-3 Solid Waste Disposal 4/73
-------
References for Section 2.1
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Incorporated, Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-65. March 1970.
3. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). Air Pollution Engineering Manual. U.S. DHEW, PHS National Center for Air Pollution
Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 413-503.
4. De Marco, J. et al. Incinerator Guidelines 1969. U.S. DHEW, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio.
SW-13TS. 1969. p. 176.
5. Kanter, C. V., R. G. Lunche, and A.P. Fururich. Techniques for Testing for Air Contaminants from
Combustion Sources. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 6(4): 191-199. February 1957.
6. Jens. W. and F.R. Rehm. Municipal Incineration and Air Pollution Control. 1966 National Incinerator
Conference, American Society of Mechnical Engineers. New York, May 1966.
7. Burkle, J.O., J. A. Dorsey, and B. T. Riley. The Effects of Operating Variables and Refuse Types on
Emissions from a Pilot-Scale Trench Incinerator. Proceedings of the 1968 Incinerator Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p. 34-41.
8. Fernandes, J. H. Incinerator Air Pollution Control. Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p. 111.
9. Unpublished data on incinerator testing. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Durham, N.C. 1970.
10. Stear, J. L. Municipal Incineration: A Review of Literature. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. GAP Publication Number AP-79. June 1971.
11. Kaiser, E.R. et al. Modifications to Reduce Emissions from a Flue-fed Incinerator. New York University.
College of Engineering. Report Number 552.2. June 1959. p. 40 and 49.
12. Unpublished data on incinerator emissions. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1969.
13. Kaiser, E.R. Refuse Reduction Processes in Proceedings of Surgeon General's Conference on Solid Waste
Management. Public Health Service. Washington, D.C. PHS Report Number 1729. July 10-20, 1967.
14. Nissen, Walter R. Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract
Number CPA-22-69-23. March 1970.
4/73 EMISSION FACTORS 2.1-4
-------
15. Unpublished source test data on incinerators. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
1966-1969.
16. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and Maryland State
Department of Health, Division of Air Quality Control, Baltimore, Md. 1969.
17. Rehm, F.R. Incinerator Testing and Test Results. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 6:199-204. February 1957.
13. Stenburg, R.L. et al. Field Evaluation of Combustion Air Effects on Atmospheric Emissions from Municipal
Incinerations. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 72:83-89. February 1962.
19. Smauder, E.E. Problems of Municipal Incineration. (Presented at First Meeting of Air Pollution Control
Association, West Coast Section, Los Angeles, California. March 1957.)
20. Gerstle, R. W. Unpublished data: revision of emission factors based on recent stack tests. U.S. DHEW, PHS,
National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967.
21. A Field Study of Performance of Three Municipal Incinerators. University of California, Berkeley, Technical
Bulletin. 6:41, November 1957.
2.1-5 Solid Waste Disposal 4/73
-------
-------
3.0 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES
NOTICE
Emission factors for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxides and oxides of nitrogen presented in
Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.1.5 and 3.1.7, and in Appendix D, have been superseded by
factors in Mobile Source Emission Factors, EPA-400/9-78-005, Office of Mobile Source Air
Pollution Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor,
MI 48105, March 1978. Factors appearing in the cited Sections for sulfur oxides and particu-
lates have not been superseded and are still applicable.
AP-42 will be revised at some future date to reflect the factors in the document cited above.
In the interim, copies of Mobile Source Emission Factors and related computer programs may
be obtained from the Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control at the above address.
2/80 3-1
-------
-------
3.2 OFF-HIGHWAY MOBILE SOURCES
The off-highway category of internal combustion engines embraces a
wide range of mobile and semimobile sources. Emission data are reported
in this section on the following sources: aircraft, locomotives, water-
borne vessels (inboard and outboard), small general utility engines such
as on lawnmowers and minibikes, agricultural equipment, heavy duty
construction equipment, and snowmobiles.
3.2.1 AIRCRAFT
3.2.1.1 General
Aircraft engines are of two major categories, reciprocating piston
and gas turbine.
In the piston engine, the basic element is the combustion chamber,
or cylinder, in which mixtures of fuel and air are burned and from which
energy is extracted by a piston and crank mechanism driving a propeller.
The majority of aircraft piston engines have two or more cylinders and
are generally classified according to their cylinder arrangement -
either "opposed" or "radial". Opposed engines are installed in most
light or utility aircraft, and radial engines are used mainly in large
transport aircraft. Almost no singlerow inline or V-engines are used in
current aircraft.
The gas turbine engine usually consists of a compressor, a combus-
tion chamber and a turbine. Air entering the forward end of the engine
is compressed and then heated by burning fuel in the combustion chamber.
The major portion of the energy in the heated air stream is used for
aircraft propulsion. Part of the energy is expended in driving the
turbine, which in turn drives the compressor. Turbofan and turboprop
(or turboshaft) engines use energy from the turbine for propulsion, and
turbojet engines use only the expanding exhaust stream for propulsion.
The terms "propjet" and "fanjet" are sometimes used for turboprop and
turbofan, respectively.
The aircraft in the following tables include only those believed to
be significant at present or over the next few years.
Few piston engine aircraft data appear here. Military fixed wing
piston aircraft, even trainers, are being phased out. One piston
engine helicopter, the TH-55A "Osage", sees extensive use at one train-
ing base at Ft. Rucker, AL (EPA Region IV), but engine emissions data
are not available. Most civil piston engine aircraft are in general
aviation service.
The fact that a particular aircraft brand is not listed in the
following tables does not mean the emission factors cannot be calculated.
It is the engine emissions and the time-in-mode (TIM) category which
2/80 Internal Combustion Engine Sourees 3.2.1-1
-------
determine emissions. If these are known, emission factors can be
calculated in the same way that the following tables are developed.
The civil and military aircraft classification system used is shown
in Tables 3.2.1-1 and 3.2.1-2. Aircraft have been classified by kind of
aircraft and the most commonly used engine for that kind. Jumbo jets
normally have a miximum of about 40,000 pounds thrust per engine, and
medium range jets about 14,000 pounds thrust per engine. Small piston
engines develop less than 500 horsepower.
3.2.1.2 The Landing/Takeoff Cycle and Times-in-Mode
A landing/takeoff (LTO) cycle incorporates all of the normal
flight and ground operation modes (at their respective times-in-mode),
including: descent/approach from approximately 3000 feet (915 m) above
ground level (AGL), touchdown, landing run, taxi in, idle and shutdown,
startup and idle, checkout, taxi out, takeoff, and climbout to 3000 feet
(915m) AGL.
In order to make the available data manageable, and to facilitate
comparisons, all of these operations are conventionally grouped into
five standard modes: approach, taxi/idle in, taxi/idle out, takeoff and
climbout. There are exceptions. The supersonic transport (SST) has a
descent mode preceding approach. Helicopters omit the takeoff mode.
Training exercises involve "touch and go" practice. These omit the
taxi/idle modes, and the maximum altitude reached is much lower. Hence,
the duration (TIM) of the approach and climbout modes will be shorter.
Each class of aircraft has its own typical LTO cycle (set of TIMs).
For major classes of aircraft, these are shown in Tables 3.2.1-3 and
3.2.1-4. The TIM data appearing in these tables should be used for
guidance only and in the absence of specific observations. The military
data are inappropriate to primary training. The civil data apply to
large, congested fields at times of heavy activity.
All of the data assume a 3000 foot AGL inversion height and an
average U.S. mixing depth. This may be inappropriate at specific
localities and times, for which specific site and time inversion height
data should be sought. Aircraft emissions of concern here are those
released to the atmosphere below the inversion. If local conditions
suggest higher or lower inversions, the duration (TIM) of the approach
and climbout modes must be adjusted correspondingly.
A more detailed discussion of the assumptions and limitations
implicit in these data appears in Reference 1.
Emission factors in Tables 3.2.1-9 and 3.2.1-10 were determined
using the times-in-mode presented in Tables 3.2.1-3 and 3.2.1-4, and
generally for the engine power settings given in Tables 3.2.1-5 and
3.2.1-6.
3.2.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
Table 3.2.1-1. CIVIL AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION3
Aircraft
No.
Mfg.
Engine
Type Model/Series
Supersonic transport
BAC/Aerospatiale Concorde 4
Short, medium, long range
and jumbo jets
BAC 111-400
Boeing 707-320B
Boeing 727-200
Boeing 737-200
Boeing 747-200B
Boeing 747-200B
Boeing 747-200B
Lockheed L1011-200
Lockheed L1011-100
McDonnell-Douglas DC8-63
McDonnell-Douglas DC9-50
McDonnell-Douglas DC10-30
Air carrier turboprops -
commuter, feeder line and
freighters
Beech 99
GD/Convair 580
DeHavilland Twin Otter
Fairchild F27 and FH227
Grumman Goose
Lockheed L188 Electra
Lockhead L100 Hercules
Swearingen Metro-2
Business jets
Cessna Citation
Dassault Falcon 20
Gates Learjet 24D
Gates Learjet 35, 36
Rockwell International
Shoreliner 75A
Business turboprops
(EPA Class P2)
Beech B99 Airliner
DeHavilland Twin Otter
Shorts Skyvan-3
Swearingen Merlin IIIA
General aviation piston
(EPA Class PI)
Cessna 150
Piper Warrior
Cessna Pressurized
Skymaster
Piper Navajo Chieftain
RR
P&W
GE
GE
GE
GE
PWC
PWC
GA
GA
Con
Lye
Con
Lyn
TF
TF
TF
TJ
TF
TF
TP
TP
TP
TP
Olymp. 593-610
2
4
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
RR
P&W
P&W
P&W
P&W
P&W
RR
RR
RR
P&W
P&W
GE
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Spey 511
JT3D-7
JT8D-17
JT8D-17
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
RB211-524
RB211-524
RB211-22B
JT3D-7
JT8D-17
CF6-50C
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
PWC
All
PWC
RR
PWC
All
All
GA
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
PT6A-28
501
PT6A-27
R. Da. 7
PT6A-27
501
501
TPE 331-3
JT15D-1
CF700-2D
CJ610-6
TPE 731-2
CF 700
PT6A-27
PT6A-27
TPE-331-2
TPE-331-3
0-200
0-320
TS10-360C
T10-540
.References 1 and 2.
Abbreviations: TJ - tubojet, TF - turbofan, TP - turboprop, R -
reciprocating piston, 0 - opposed piston. All - Detroit Diesel Allison
Division of General Motors, Con - Teledyne/Continental, GA - Garrett
AiResearch, GE - General Electric, Lye - Avco/Lycoming, P&W - Pratt &
Whitney, PWC - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada, RR - Rolls Royce.
2/80
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-3
-------
03
O
H
.^t
y
E
55
1/3
^<
-J
N^
H
^"2
^r
c*
u
e*
J"j2
^^<
i
r^^
CM
.^^
tn
j
^?
.
r^
(N
u>
»""H
A
c
0
•rl
CO
C
00
•H
CO
4>
O
•M
c .0
m
rH 60
a g
a
3
0
ex.
o
01
P.
i^)
o
ss
0)
o
*rH
IH
CJ
cd
3
C
J£
0)
p
CO
rH
3
d
o
pj
o
•rl
Q S
§ S
P iH
CO
a)
P
4J
UH C /-N
CO O CO
rl -H CO
cj co ed
M CO r-l
•H -H CJ
-}
- rH
CM ^ eJ^ in
in to r^ co
>-> H ID >-)
£2
p ,
IS rH
^S rH Id U
PL, < O O
r-J to r-j »~]
H H H H
rH rH CM CM
CJ Z
£ en
CO P
p
en en en en
P P P P
00 00 ex
3 30
O w O ^
o j: P .c
E l> E 55
01
4J
_r;
00
•H
CN CM to
^ ^ e e
3 -H 0 0
CO CO 4J -O
^ M CO dJ
J«! O J2 rl
M CJ CL, ti,
1 1 1 1
<; < to to
4J
CO
B
0
ej
r~(
O
-3-
to
O O O
en 0 0
E-i fn r%
3 3 3
t-"3 <-# <-3
P., p- P.,
H H H
CM CM rH
S3 < <
P p P
oo
C 3
CO O
M CJ P
O XI U
CM
0) -U
00 CO dl
•H CJ rH
H B 00 1
O CO
H W
to
H
M
P
00
to
en
P
00
C
•H
01
O
m
CO
dJ
^
4J
rl
O
UH
O
4J
CO
CO
CN
1
ca
^
CD
J3
a
o
r,
to *
00 CJ t",
m >H tu
H EC
CQ -U
O^ (*! ^3" ^
er-H <^)
nj
t-i
* • O P-i
rHSSrH CJ O CJ P
HrH<£i£rHU 3 W X to >, II
O o o oo
CJ CJ CJ 0 3
CO CO CO J O
p p p p
1 1
• " p
S= 0 dl cj o
P CO P rl (J
P 0 < -
* * to cj oo
to to to to to • to C
<3, > -rl CO
O Ai - MH 00 O
00 rl COOOCOOIHXI
cjoecjejcj & f »j c P. o u
<- d) eo
•H "H X^ E~ *
H Q ^
CO CJ -
ECO D.
>^ O vJ O
P>M-I U -CO IH
M H CUi-HC CO-HI-O.
Q) O 3OHJ -i-HCOO
J«iM 4-" 33>-),H PrHCJ-O.0
ecu (3 -^-^o <j
COCOU 01 CO 00 _ 1 J C 3
XrH O -H 00 OiHCUQ CJCUOCJ
X 3 u rH c C o c 3 n; o E«> I
COCJCOVlO'rl ^O C74 ^C CAd)Ml4_|
rHrlrieOlHAi V4rH O CO U 1-1 P'HCJOCU
codluuM-H 3 <0 Men f. O -H H
^ *J 4J I4H "
> -H ej co C
CO O d> rl CO
^ IH rH O IM
U1 4J W U O
OfOrH CJ 33 1— -dJ-rlja
^3 Cn rH ^ tj ^J ^ 00 rH Cn -^ CO P r— 1 ^ Vl
IIUIII II 3= 33 X P 1 U >, H
U O tOH
CXrH 01 O rl d) 3 |
no c cj di b i
C rl -rl -r( 14H ja • CJ
C04-I CO t-H dl^*-ir2>~J
IH CO M d) fyj ^ to P i E-i
H Pn H 3J CO J3 CJ
3.2.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
Table 3.2.1-3. TYPICAL DURATION FOR CIVIL LTO CYCLES
AT LARGE CONGESTED METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS3
Aircraft
Commercial
carrier
Jumbo , long
and medium
range jet"
c
Turboprop
Transport-
piston
General
aviation
Business jet
c
Turboprop
Piston
Helicopter
Taxi/ Takeoff
Idle out
19.0 0.7
19.0 0.5
6.5 0.6
6.5 0.4
19.0 0.5
12.0 0.3
3.5
Mode
Climb out
2.2
2.5
5.0
0.5
2.5
5.0
6.5
Approach
4.0
4.5
4.6
1.6
4.5
6.0
6.5
Taxi/
Idle in
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.5
7.0
4.0
3.5
Total
32.9
33.5
23.2
15.5
33.5
27.3
20.0
Reference 3. Data given in minutes.
Same times as EPA Classes T2, T3 and T4 (Note b, Table 3.2.1-5).
Same times as EPA Classes Tl and P2 (Note b, Table 3.2.1-5).
Same times as EPA Class PI (Note b, Table 3.2.1-5).
2/80
Internal Combustion Engine Sourees
3.2.1-5
-------
Table 3.2.1-4. TYPICAL DURATION FOR MILITARY LTO CYCLES5
Aircraft
£
Combat
USAF
USNd
Trainer -
Turbine
USAF T-38
USAF general
USNd
Transport -
Turbine6
USAF general
USNf
USAF B-52
and KC-135
Military -
Piston
Military -
Helicopter
TIMb
Code
1
2
3
4
2
5
6
7
8
9
Taxi/
Idle out
18.5
6.5
12.8
6.8
6.5
9.2
19.0
32.8
6.5
8.0
Takeoff
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
Mode
Climbout
0.8
0.5
0.9
1.4
0.5
1.2
2.5
1.6
5.0
6.8
Approach
3.5
1.6
3.8
4.0
1.6
5.1
4.5
5.2
4.6
6.8
Taxi/
Idle in
11.3
6.5
6.4
4.4
6.5
6.7
7.0
14.9
6.5
7.0
Total
34.5
15.5
24.3
17.1
15.5
22.6
33.5
55.2
23.2
28.6
Reference 1. Data given in minutes. USAF - U.S. Air Force, USN - U.S.
, Navy.
TIM Code defined in Table 3.2.1-5.
^Fighters and attack craft only.
Time-in-mode is highly variable. Taxi/idle out and in times as high as
25 and 17 minutes, respectively, have been noted. Use local data base if
possible.
Includes all turbine craft not specified elsewhere, (i.e., transport,
fcargo, observation, patrol, antisubmarine, early warning, and utility).
Same as EPA Class P2 for civil turboprops.
3.2.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
Table 3.2.1-5. ENGINE POWER SETTINGS FOR TYPICAL EPA
I.TO COMMERCIAL CYCLES3
Mode
Taxi/Idle (out)
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Taxi/Idle (in)
Power
Class Tl,
Idle
100
90
30
Idle
setting (% thrust
P2b Class T2,T3
Idle
100
85
30
Idle
or horsepower)
, T4b Class Plb
Idle
100
75 - 100
40
Idle
Helicopter
Undefined
References 1 and 3.
As defined by EPA (Reference 3):
Class Tl is all aircraft turbofan or turbojet engines except Class T5
of rated power less than 8000 Ibs thrust.
Class T2 is all turbofan or turbojet aircraft engines except Classes
T3, T4 and T5 of rated power of 8000 Ibs thrust or greater.
Class T3 is all aircraft gas turbine engines of the JT3D model family.
Class T4 is all aircraft gas turbine engines of the JT8D model family.
Class T5 is all aircraft gas turbine engines on aircraft designed to
operate at supersonic speeds.
Class PI is all aircraft piston engines, except radial.
Class P2 is all aircraft turboprop engines.
Table 3.2.1-6. ENGINE POWER SETTINGS FOR A TYPICAL LTO
MILITARY CYCLE3
Mode
Taxi/Idle (out)
Takeoff
Power setting
Military
transport
Idle
Military
(% thrust or
Military
jet
Idle
Military
horsepower)
Military
piston
5-10
or
Military
helicopter
Idle
Afterburner 100
Climbout
Approach
Taxi/ Idle (in)
90 - 100
30
Idle
Military
84 - 86
Idle
75
30
5-10
60 - 75
45 - 50
Idle
Reference 1.
2/80
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-7
-------
ra
co
O
a;
o
HH
U
I
co
e
CO
CO
Q
O
m
s
33
•o«*
to
v
I
« .a
.2 8.
(0 IM — *
O -. _ 0
o o o o
NO t~ m 0s
O IM IM O
0000
NO IM — i O
r- m TC o
in o o IM
o o o o
IM O O *
— o o o
o r-NO O
O 0 O O
o r- -t ~
0 -• ~ 0
OX
r* o o oo
IM O -i —
~< O IM -<
NO IM IM •*!«
00 NO
in IM ~« m
00 O — ' 00
(M IM -H ro
ro in in in
NO NO -Nf OO
IM IM
«3«
I-2!
250B17B
All. TP
CO CO 0 M
ro O O in
O ~ — o
^00 0 •«•
O*)
ro oo -^ in
NO 0 0 10
vO r~ ^— oo
522^
0 0 O 0
in to rg o
O O Is- rg
— ^- ro rg
e
keoff
imbout
proach
2 HU<
TPE331-3
GA TP
CO O CO 7f
o r- xo rg
O 0 O O
oo m o rg
o -* ^- o
^* vo in co
00 O O sO
— o o o
in •* rg •-«
O «-H •— i m
^ O O -^
m
•*»• rg ^ ro
O fO O -H
m co sfl m
rg rg
•**>
O cO CO ro
in o o Tj"
*-« v£) O fO
*-* co co m
£ ^ ^ °^
— « o rg PO
co o rg ro
o o o o
^-« rg in •-«
oo in co rg
i—» in f*^ in
e
keoff
imbout
proach
rg
HO
ro s£ o ^
N (M ^H ^*
0 ** ~ 0
— H oo 10 ro
O IM IM —
f~ rM
NO IM IM NO
-H ^* IM IM
•* O O -H
oo oo o^ r^
O O O M
CT* 00
IM ro O NO
o m ^r o
^» NO o^ in
O -i 00 -<
co o t^- O^
in ^ o o
in NO »-< o
O O NO IM
?SiS °
ro o 0(7-
ro'CSo'S
-1 -H
o o o o
o o o in
in r~ *f o
rg IM ^^
e
keoff
imbout
proach
O
SH
»-. w
00
— « oo in IM
IM -H 0 •*
O ^< -H O
^NOrXc?
O IM IM O
eo * in
NO •"* O 00
fN- **• ** in
-0000
rg rvj rg rg
CO O O "-«
2SS.I
o NO rr o
—i o oo in
o 2°"-
P^* O PO oO
rg \o so in
PO rg rg rg
O m m co
••"* 1s— '00 sfi
r- m 'in IT
r- CT-
o oo in -^
_ ...
O r~ 1*0 O"*
NO O 1*0 •—"
INJ IM
e
keoff
imbout
proach
2 HO<
' 1*4
O r_.
O
uo
DO
IM ^t Tt O
O IM IM IM
o d d d
CD in m ^
o' o d d
oo -Nf ^i in
Tf CM -. r-
o NO in —
SICrolS
"2 ™ ^
oo ^r oo NO
oo r- o **
ONrororo
o^ in o ^
r- rg oo CT^
•—' 00 ^O sO
rg
S^^S
IM IM O 00
IM -.
oo in IM in
NO O
-------
Q
W
^~i
Z
p
i
u
r^
i
r™*1
H
f>
s
r9
•
X
>
M
X
>
jj
j:
(4
-C
>
kl
^
x^
t>0
^
xi
X.
J3
O
U
V
K
«
3
b,
h
X
^
-i
1^
X
X.
.£
M
jq
^2
JK
»4
X
^"
V
•o
o
2
*J3
J> H
V ^J .
"O ofl
o a
S 2
°Mr-^^
0 CO CO
in m
^r rj in O
O 00 00 CO
O —
o o o o
IMCO O IM
O O O O
w9 ro
eg o o o
r- i—
r- <•
in o o o
*— in IM oo
00 IM O O
eg ro oo oo
0 CO IM «
in oo
co *-i rg rg
CO O O «J
MO co oo in
r- o o •*
SO IM
*-* oo •* in
tf.OOOO
in m o in
--• rg o <— •
Idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
"? H
0,0,
oSSS
O O O O
m ~4 r- t-
— in t rg
o o o o
^ m
00 O CO ^H
r*. * •* co
sO O O fM
^ O^xO O
<* o o %o
rg so
co m o m
rg o in rg
O ^ co *-»
0s 00 O1* »•"»
C- ~* 1-4 ^>
in o r*- o
Ch «d o IA
>O O
^f ~*
o m m co
v3 CMM ^"
00 fsl -^
r- in rO (M r» N
•--• 0s 00 O
o-o -,
r- o o oo
r^ oo o in
(M in o oo
CO wO O ^
00 CO
i— I O fM O^
ON r- NO r-
in ^» --
O 43 O
V g h
^ l« S a
"in
in
m
m m
co K
r-
r- co
O co in NO
o r- •+ o
r-
— o o in
o -o o —
CO 0 -H 0
^< O CO (M If*
o eg m co
co eg
CO NO O O
IM eg co IM
in ro ^i -fl*
CO 00 00 NO
sO •"• ^ Ifl
in f^ o co
in in
q 0
^7 rM t*) oti
so o o r-
ro in ^^ o
CO CO ^
Idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
^
o
w •**
11
Iss
2/80
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-9
-------
(N
fO
S
03
t.
&
o
O
u
V
1
2
r- r- in o»
o vo m -•
PJ a-.— CO
r» r- P-J PO
"2DJ"
sO CM \O O**
ro CM r- m
in fo co ^t1
2°,^
O CT* 00 CM
O CM CO
— « CO
rf r- o1* o
CM 00 \O f
fM CO — '
CM — '
CO — « O CM
m TP •-< CM
o o co
m co
CM in in ^*
^f m t- in
"V fM -*O fM
xO XJ«
-oSSS
r^ m -w co
CO *-« O1-
CO
o^ o vo m
r- o co oo
r- r*- in cr>
o in ~*
oo «-• m \o
—> O" o f-
Is- r- (M co
^ ^> eg TT
« A
*4 O flJ
O ,O O
0) p h
41 J* C On
'"«
PJ
PJ
J.U,
-« H
PJ
1
W K
K K
o o r- r«-
00 — < sO ^
O OO sO fM
r~ in a* m
r- co so ^
— * r*- -^ m
o* r-
s£ 00 CO ^«
^ 00 -< fM
CM O •-* O
in
ro xO O ^
in ~H CM o
in co
•~* xo fM in
fM CT* CO OO
C* •— ' CM
CM CM
f- **T O 00
•f O O CM
vO ^ oo in
r- oo so ^p
--• r~ rf in
^H r-4
•*-» J3
aSS
O XI O
W Ji 5 Q,
"^r
CM
(_l
r-i [n
i
PQ rt
0! «
« 0 CT-PO
O — O O
PO O PO 00
PO *)• — r-
O PJ PJ O
O"1 ^* 0^ O
^^ m ^* P-
T|" O O O
o o o o
^* o r~- in
PJ PJ o in
o o o o
•*
C^ F-H (M \O
ro \o 0s r-
O PO o ^-*
in
rM r~ oo
00 O O OO
O O ^» ro
PO i"0
m o M rg
^* r-) ,— t f\J
r- o r- Tf
O ^ r- o
O vO — '
^f oo s£ in
^^
o o o m
co ^j? •— * r—
rg CM
•«-* p-C
oj t3 U
*n o rt
o & o
« C3 h
« j^ C CX
SHU<:
o
' t)
o H
•*
|
CP &
XX
-•xO U1 fM
o o o o
??££
O ^ -H O
in
00 P» t—
in o*^ 'J1- o
~« fO O O
fM m m
m oo O
*O CT> %O CM
OO CO -^ CT*1
*~* ^£) in M
i~* O^ 00 IT)
•^t ^ (\J ^Q
•M -G
^30
C! O nj
0 & 0
(U g h
2HCJ<
r*-
(4
Q Pi
« H
S as
Q P4
rg o f>m
0 -« O O
rg r*- o** o
O fM fM ^
-* ~* O^ fsj
o co --H rg
ro ~* -^ ^
ro h- co oo
-O rg CM rg
xO
•-« o t oo
rg ro -f o
o rg -. xp
r~
r- -4 ro o
o r- m (7^
o m
O ^}* CO fO
in >n vn »"•
oo o o un
r— rg rg ro
oo in r-
O xO rg \o
rg o o '^i
•^ r*- co CT^
\O ro --* O
rg rg — <
J-» rC
^H O nj
0 A 0
-P4
H «
nt-o>-» •*
^i ro 00 N ^ ,
(M
-O O PJ
OPJ r- •» oo
m -*
•* O OJ
^ r* ro o co
5S2S3 l
CM O
ro ^* in co ro
0V*H OH fM CO
^- m ro co O1*
^H rJ. ^
"^* CM OO -^ !>• '
^4* xO xO 00 CO
xp r- ^
fM QtQQ •>-(
m — <
^p m —< m o^
xTi sO \r> <jQ 00
^r »-* r^- CM m
CO ro vO 0s- m
oo r- co •tp tn
f~* CO 00 CM ^
CM
oo oo ~*
%O O O O CM
o CM r- ^ oo
in •-«
^
3 *» O
•S o c «
o xi 01 o
t> R 0 h
V ^ ^ m CX
SHUQ<:
CO ^-^
K 0
s "
^ O h
fiso £
_2-g PS >.,
0 «H
O 0 O O
o o o o
o o o o
p- r- r- m
O PO PJ 00
o o o o
O* O O 1—
o o o o
*O O O ro
0 O O —
0 -i -. 0
o o o o
mooa-
•-< PJ PJ PJ
O PJ PJ O
o o o o
PJ in
t o o r-
PJ O 0 ro
PJ PJ —
"1 O O PJ
«J" •* ro
r*- in in in
PO O O •-«
PJ PJ —i
•* r- r- o
rM „ „ i/1
oo in in in
•** •«(« PJ
** r<
^ 3u
Son)
0 XI O
u C n
4? '»!*"' f*
O
o
*Y o
oU
o o o o
o o o o
CO (M ,-t
o o o o
o o o o
fO
rg xn co ~*
r- m ^" co
o o o o
O"* r\l in ffs
-.-100
0-
O vO O O
O — • rg --
0 O O O
rg
rg so co m
O CO i* fM
d d o" d
0s-
o co rf m
ro in co r*"
vD-* PJ
1—*
rg co -* r~
m o m r-
\O ^ fM
m mo
•-H rO CT*- «~*
—i CO 0s- %O
**43
u, 3 (J
»H O rtt
0 rQ 0
ft) C M
V ^ ** Q*
SHU<
u
vO O
CO
o 0-
ro
^O rg o in
CM, m -< oo
POOV-oO
O ro *i) cfi
O Cf^ rg r-
«-* xo m ro
(M
--< o o in
S S5 S
i— 4 »-H
^ 3 "5
vi O rd
0 XI 0
0) rJ LJ
V .£ C
-------
Q
w
1
u
z
o
o
'•w
r-
i
^•"H
(N
H
J
^
L«|
1
9
U
S
£
"o*
ia
•o
U
X
»•*
n
H
M
J3
>
£
*
M
^
>
5
>
h
J3
~N^
M
JC
f^
,J3
>
"0^
z
t-t
A
^
j:
i^
A
^
0
u
a
4
K
u
£
H
X
*X..
>
h
J3
^
(4
A
^
U
A
\
&
5
i^
2 2
0 0 O O
O 0 O O
(M ~ «
0 O O 0
0 O O 0
ON m in NO
m IN- r- o
o o o o
o NO in
in in (M ON
**1 O CO 00
o — ' o o
IM
r4 00 O O
O 00 fM ro
O 0 f* O
0 O O 0
ON
Sin m *
O- NO *"
O — O*N in
fNJ o O 00
ONONONO
o
"SSS
00
00 -£> •*
sail
0 "§ c
JS-2.S o
o
o
(O o
1 >.
0 J
0 0 O O
o o o o
rj — ~
0 O O O
0 O O O
co m FN- oo
INJ r- NO o
~i Tf IM IM
O O O O
t* IN, 03 o
00 •* 00 NO
PN! O IA -Nf
0 -• O O
^" in NO oo
o r^- in m
O 0 — O
o o o o
ON 1- ^t CO
O NO •*" AJ
o o o o
iNj m [N- (-,
""**-
NO m r-
co **^ in in
-NT ON •vf m
NO f- in oo
m m oo o
•«• fNl «
-Nt" r- ro [N-
ON NO rO
ta o 111
° 'e °
0 S 5 a
:* a £ a.
3HU<
Q
9o
0
/M
CO •
2$
O O O O
o o o o
0 0 O 0
O 0 O 0
o o m --'
o o o o
oo tn tn
0 -H O 0
o o •«*« NO
oo -< -«
00 O O
o o — t o ^r
^>
(NJ m o ij*
.„ 3 0
NH O lU
O J5 O
HI C h
« j<: S i
^^ rd ^? O.
I
in
1 (M .
O« o
I— t ^J ?•
^ *~1 J
lison Division of General Motors; Con — Teledyne/Continental; GA — Garrett AiResearch; GE - General Electric;
Whitney; PWC - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada; RR — Rolls Royce; TJ - Turbojet; TF - Turbofan;
.ston) Opposed.
References 1,2.
t Diesel Al
11 — Octroi'
4 ft
fir
O-'rt
1 0
•a
0,
1
.§•
u
V
O
Abbreviations: A
Lye —Avco/Lyco
TP — Turboprop;
IN)
O
2
eported as
Nitrogen oxides r
ding unburned hydrocarbons and organic pyrolysis products.
d as SO>. Calculated from fuel rate and 0.05 wt% sulfur in Jet A and Jet B fuel, or 0.01 wt% sulfur in aviation _
iversion is therefore SOX (Ib/hr) = ID'3 (fuel rate), and for piston engines, the conversion is SOX (Ib/hr) = Z x 10
_a
u
.§
. Volatile or
DTotal hydrocarbons
s§
»4 U
M
•O
S
fAU particulate data
4
i
.2
V
CO
U
8.
a
8
aa
erence doe
'"The indicated ref
1
U
a
'oo
B
V
f
3
in
!
00
H
i
s
a"
.2
1
«
"S
B
«
i
i
f
"o
3
Q
00
H
1-1
V
I
S
H
a
"Diluted smokele
rary 1% idle, which does not reflect the actual situation. In reality, Rolls Royce engines will idle at 5-67o
•ence 2).
pon an arbit
isions (Refei
« o>
"§)
JAB Rolls Royce dati
with correspondingl
le SST has a unique 6-mode LTO cycle.
the Concorc
.S
"8
§
u
•|
V
m
a
O
V
a
JH
2/80
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-11
-------
OS
wa
O
Z
tu
H
H
3
***
%
I
Z
2
to
WJ
IwH
a
<
Q
o
5S
00
(S
iri
W
-1
CO
Model-Serien Mode Fuel Rat(, co NQb Total HCC so<| Particulars*'
Li
C
X
Ix
_c
M
JC
k«
bO
kl
^
00
J3
i
L,
J2
4;
k
= H&
»
00 -t "V
^ O 0
OO (Nj ">J
in a) oo oo
— CO CO —
r^ rt ft o
A4 rtt O0 ™*
Is" oO 00 f
J57-P-22 Idle H
(JT3C) Takeoff 8."
P&W TJ Climbout 8,
Approach l€
m o o o
r- o o co
o « ^-« r-
rsi rg «,
^ — • — ' O
"Q J3 0
4> J! £ 0.
™ m — tx
2 HU<
0
fsj cr »NJ ^f
I"
0
5.
co r- t- O
r-* cr r- t-
(Sj
NO
CT* m co o
o o o o
J79-GE-10 Idle 1 1
GE TJ Takeoff 353
Climbout 9fc
Approach 61
r**i o ^* ^J"
r- o o o
*
rg -T 00 0
*t o r- co
J85-GE-5F Idle 5
GE TJ for T38 Takeoff 8-3
Climbout 1 <:
Approach 1C
o ^r — o
m •—
m
oo (^ vn T
0 0 O O
J85-CE-21 Idle ^
GE TJ for F-5 Takeoff 1 06
Climbout 3t
Approach \2
CO CO i*^
— 00 —
cy- »n >n o
TF30-P-6B Idle t
(JFT 10) Takeoff 68
PS.W TF Climbout 61
for A-7 Approach 35
0 f 0 >vj
— . .-• r\j rv]
I
O
0 0 *"*>
r*- co o —
CO O O "J
—
r-~ i\j -^
M
*
in ^}" in r-
co (*i «
O^ O ^ 00
TF3C-F-412A Idle c
(JFT 10A) Takeoff 40C
P&.-W TJ Chmbout 7
for F-14 Approach 25
fl If f*J
if oo m "*
r~ o m
CO O fO CO
r- -^
^•04"^
OO ^J *^J ^«J
„„.
TF33-P-3/5/7 Idle £
(JT3D) Takeoff V
PfcW TJ Climbout 7-
Approach 3"
in a> aD <»\
^ o o o
1^ -• — O
**! m i/> in
O O 0* tf
-O 0- O~ O
0 0 O O
ftj **J -"•
T* *NJ Aj oo
0 i~J ^J (0
r-o-o^>
TF34-GE-400 Idle 4
GE TJ Takeoff 3"
Climbout 3"
Approach li
3.2.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
Q
U
°p
S
~
V
0.
•0 X
o
l/>
u
•JJ
"o
H
JO
O
Z
O
u
*
A
V
3
b.
S
n
b
V
2
4)
1
M
X
X
V,
14
X
*
u
JS
\
Jfi
b
X
ec
.*
£
"Jf
ea
• £
•H
-*.
a*
^COsD^)
O h- *o ro
oo oeoo ao
ro -* oo
o r* oo oo
in IM >o so
O tA nj *J
*- •-« in m
oo o m in
— — 00
o *o —• ~+
IM
"if r- r~
rf> .-,*»•
^vo oo oo
(V
— t- O O
i/> »NJ ro
O O O O
lO -* •» -*
— -* m m
+* JS
O -O O
2nG£
i
j?j[p
U^W
H O
m — -« ^
o « -r 9s m
-^•*0-
fM o o
O O OO'-'
m or- *«•
00»-
^^ ^« o -• m f
5?SS
IS 8
n ^ 5 a.
r-0.
^
O O 0
0 O 0
--_
» 0 0
0 IM IM
O-O 0
ONO-0.
3So
5?;?:
— •O-O
'"s-g
58
0 6 Q.
2u<
a
3Gjj
?,"'•£.
H~ J
co ^ ^*
— o o
o s
H J
o •* *
O O 0
_00 00
O 0 0
0 f •*
O O 0
— a-o
b o'd
O-OCO
in o o
o- r~ r--
IM 0 0
0.0 -a
Mmw
01 0 O
"
* -v
m oo oo
— « 00 CO
5 S
a § c.
2o <
Ul
O ">
i H
in U
HO
8 Reference 1.
0~
"o
s.
Q
w
^^
1
itions, see footno'
"For abbrevis
M
8
for helicopt
lode is undefined
^"Takeoff" m
2/80
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-13
-------
TABLE 3.2.1-9. EMISSION FACTORS PER AIRCRAFT PER LANDING/TAKEOFF CYCLE-CIVIL AIRCRAFT3
Power Plant5 CO NO^ Total He" SO^ Particulates
^""T^raft"1111" No. Mfg. Model-Series Ib kg Ib kg Ib kg Ib kg Ib kg
3SSSS3 SS2
orof-oooo r- oo ~H
.— t ^" <— i O iTl u"l •— • O O
0. <*«.<>«.*.»«.-. .
*2»**«+0*0««
o33?#S5S.S523*t
CT.-.rOIM^oOOMCT-^rO-.^
Oco-.mo.r-^Nr-.v-o.o
^^^^ VOJD
m -r -r Cfl
O (M rj fM
y^,-, r-r- ouiinrj r-vj
ssSsSaassssss
wj ^ pn 0 *»
U L, -£> i/t (
do * i o
rt o co a* ^
06 c DUO
! S a BBJ?333
£« « (MOOOOO^oOOO
3 >-« ^*2 ,,,,,^H^HQQQ
••^ ajO' ' i i i i i j i 7 7
•^Q o^^^^^''^^'-^'-^'^
3 ^-HWOCOOOOQOM)U4'CCC
£4 «£QtS«iS(Sffl«J^22S
INJ
o'
o'
O-^OfMOooaOO
o' o o' o d o' o' o
OOOOO-- — O
ra -H —
NIOfO'tf'iM— •— «OO
^-.(^^.^S^f^r^J^
r\j f*i tf> ij<
oo t— r- J-
-------
^•s
Q
M
Q
P
J
O
z
o
u,
2
ci
CO
S
CO
•<
H
«
£
J3
3
o
•rt
+j
M
0<
^H
n
V
Model-S
I
0
X
Aircraft
co trt co M in
•-« <*> ro ^< to
00000
O GO •<• *| QO
^« f" CO -
o o o — • o
O 00 CO ^ CO
o <4> in r- o
|SJ -4 *H CO »-»
ul if^o ~< <#
co if) *M "^ un
CO ^f O ul ^
M -^ co
O ^* s£> N0 ^f
tf> -< r- « *-<
-, a. («
i-,UU HU
J W W WW
cuoooo
(NJ /M tsj N (M
Business Jets
Cessna Citation
Dassault Falcon 20
Gates Learjet 24D
Gates Learjet 35, 36
Rockwell International
Shoreliner 75A
IM m
0 O
**
d o*
co co r- r-
O 0 0 O
o d d d
CO CO O vO
o* d d d
o o ** o
m ro co in
fj fj f> f»
CO CO O — «
o o ^ r*.
in in oo Is-
o
d d d o*
m
fs| isj oO ift
o* d o* »-I
ui in rtj tn
rg M o^ oo
ci* i*> di rxj
MS NO •* oo
^« *-« ^1 (M
r-' ^-' *o* so
M fO
1 1
r- K -. -.
i i co r^i
<£<•''
5^5 W M
HHCXD,
(X&.HH
UU
?e><:<;
cuaoo
rg rg IM (\i
Business Turboprops
(EPA Class P2)
Beech B99 Airliner
DeHavilland Twin Otter
Shorts Skyvan-3
Swearingen Merlin II1A
o o o o
d o* o* d
o o o o
odd d
O M N O
rH •-* lf> 00
d d d d
fl vO IO <4)
(N) r\) -< r-*
d d -I —
r-l r-> sO ft
o o o o
odd o
t>J (M m rO
o o M o
odd d
^ M — . i/>
f- tft O ^O
M so m M
— i ij"
r*j r- o ^
rO (O •-* IM
00 ^ ^ \D
^ m o*
8
^o o
s ^
§Si ^
•?7S 2
o o H H
fl U 0 O
O >. 0 >••
0 JU J
-* •-! ra fvj
.N.
General Aviation Pistol
(EPA Class PI)
Cessna ISO
Piper Warrior
Cessna Pressurized
Sky master
Piper Navajo Chieftain
i
U
Jg
M
it
14
V
d
v
O
1
M
O
i"
u
A}
v
go
V
S
<
s
V
h
In •
<« 4)
(3 o
T **
t 0
ft*
<*
°s
A'1?
3 K
S i
s«
'ea
o •- «
"•3 1
>1 •§
i-rt 1
^U ft
JS's -a
H« S
M °
i 2 fc
B " &
O ^ y
°< 1
• • s, g,
ss s
•3 .- T)
•i£ S
5* §
« -a i
h „ Jo
u S t<
S 8 S
oo. £
"rt
o 1 |
C U f
ok ^
•^ s **
.s0- | .
If is"
|s I-
^ u ^4)
~s 1 *
« S . n u
« n i» u S
a*S!5
15 3 s s
h eB U U
•" a, •« sa •"
*«>•** Lj
Q •- " M S
aRefeience 2.
bAbbreviaUons: All - 1
Lye — Avco/Lycoming
cNitrogen oxides repor
QTotal hydrocarbons. Vol
Sulfur oxides and sulfi
2/80
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-15
-------
w
W
U
£
§
£-
O
S
O
^3
rJ
£^
-
CO
01
X
O
C/J
CJ
rH
CO
4J
H
o
X
O
iz
o
CJ
.Q
S3 '
M
H
4J
JS-
& r
CU
> ,
o
4-t
4H
cO
V4
CJ
•H
<;
M
-^
J3
rH
J2
rH
Of
rH
Gfl
rO
rH
d(
A!
,0
u
§
u
CO
0)
H
U
/J
•v,
H
CU
a
g
.
o
z
r**-o^ ooor-^oocMi — oo
\OfO OCMrHCOCJhCNCTi O
CMm rHOOrHrH-xT CM-TCMrHcnroO ro
^•cn - co CM ro co
cMrHcMvovo o-)ioOin^r^<3-coooJr^^-
OOO-d-O OOrHOrHOCMrHOOOO
^•cnincM^r rvCNcOrHco^ocooo\cvoo
O O O O rH O rH CN rH CO rH in CO O O rH rH
rH
CM rH CO CO
HrnSSS ocnScnoSSSKSSS
rHO rHrH CMCMOOOO rHCM
m rH
Ocj\rHOo> a\sJ-mr--rHrorHr^Oincooo
CM rH CO rH
rHOOOOOO rH'OavChsOvOvOcNrHCMVOO
CMCM-^COO CMr~-o^sj-O"io^
in iH CM rH f-*. CM rH
^- fT) Q \f) f\j \Q o\ co "^ in co <~H rH en CT* oo o
inor^vOvo r^OusmcM^ocMo^r^-O^otn
r-m.-Hco^j' sd-co^rcMr-.-^rOr-tOcMi-^'xn
rHCMrH COrHCMrHmrHO-^r COrHH
^rHr^QCM yDcoHoofocn
in CM
CM CM C*J (*•*• CM rH CM rH rH in vO P*- in CM fO ^D \D
00
m •&$ o o *"». o
-**. CM o o m o
O^DCMlrH CM-sTllI CsICO m |
CMI Ifijl 1 !5:3Wr*eM|r->ir-W
SI ICOO Ol 1 1 | PH fa fa r- cofarHrHfammfaHcoinfa
ca cu
a> 01 oo
f3 (U -H r» M
J^ CMCMr-lCMJJ CiCUCl
S o a> w nJ -u U
Hr^MJ-I^SS-P (U*JMHS
S-H-HOOO^W >,rHO'H 00
00 f>> r-ir-(r-tCT)(l)faSt1OI rH M ^ 03 M rH i-( ^A
•H COCJCJCOpLifa f-it] OH!c/3C/3&-iEHOt>
3t
•XJ EC <3 O CO rH CJ
-H Illlll IllllCJIiliro
CO
rH
o
o
o
O CM
o o
o -*
CM ^J-
o o'
m co tn
•H O 0>
rH CO O
en oo o
m rv rH
CM MD CM
•>
a XrH 4J
•H (U rH C
& :3 o co
r* X *-) -rl
3 ^-^0
H CO 00
•H C C -^
1 O -H
•H
CO
rH
o
H
p.
CJ
-H
d
CO
o
i-rj
(0
c
o
J3
M
a
0
M
"S.
4^
T3
CU
c
r(
3
1
00
a •
•H CM
•a o
3 CO
rH
CJ CO
C co
•H
'O
CO 4-1
CJ M
•H O
C3 a.
CO cu
en H
CM O TJ
a oi o
rH CO
CO vH
co u cj
CO iH
m T3 rH 14
1 01 O 3
rH 4J t> LH
CM O 3
• o, • to
CO 01 01
rl (3 TJ
oi o c
rH 01 ,0 CO
43 01 ^1
CO T3 CO CO
• H -H o cu
rH X O TJ
C O ^1 •H
01 -rl -OX
ci c x o
C -a cu ,c
01 01 60 IH
M C O rH 3
0) -tH IH CO UH
14H *4H 4J 4J rH
a) cu *H o 3
B< O Z H CO
CO XI CJ TJ 01
3.2.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
3.2.1.3 Modal Emission Rates and Emission Factors per LTD Cycle
The first step in the calculation of aircraft emission factors is
the development of a set of modal emission rates. These represent the
quantity of pollutant released per unit time in each of the standard
modes. Each mode is characterized by an engine power setting (given in
Tables 3.2.1-5 and 3.2.1-6) and a fuel rate (the quantity of fuel
consumed per unit time) .
The following procedure is for calculation of aircraft emission
factors per LTD cycle, starting with engine modal emission rates:
1) For a specific aircraft, determine the number and model of
engines, using for example, Tables 3.2.1-1 or 3.2.1-2.
2) Using Table 3.2.1-7 or 3.2.1-8, locate the appropriate engine
data, and prepare a list of modal emission rates for each mode
m and pollutant p :
m,p
3) Using known military assignment and mission, or civil aircraft
type and application, use Table 3.2.1-3 or 3.2.1-4 to select
an appropriate set of times- in-mode (TIM) .
4) For each mode m and pollutant p, multiply the modal emission
rate and TIM data for each mode and the sum over all modes.
This will yield an emission factor per engine , which must be
multiplied by the number of engines, N, to produce the emission
factor per LTO cycle, E , for an aircraft:
Ep = N E (£f) . (TIM)m
m,p
On a conveniently laid out work sheet, this calculation can be set up
easily on a hand calculator with one storage location.
Emission factors calculated in exactly this way are presented in
Tables 3.2.1-9 and 3.2.1-10.
References for Section 3.2.1
1. D. R. Sears, Air Pollutant Emission Factors for Military and Civil
Aircraft, EPA-450/3-78-117, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 1978.
2. R. G. Pace, "Technical Support Report - Aircraft Emission Factors",
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI, March 1977.
2/80 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.2.1-17
-------
3. Control of Air Pollution for Aircraft and Aircraft Engines,
38 FR 19088, July 17, 1973.
4. M. Platt, et al., The Potential Impact of Aircraft Emissions upon Air
Quality, APTD-1085, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.
3.2.1-18 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
Emissions from gasoline trucks have been studied by a combination of theoretical and experimental
techniques, and typical emission values are presented in Table 4.4-3.^ Emissions depend upon the extent
of venting from the tank truck during transit, which in turn depends on the tightness of the truck, the pres-
sure relief valve settings, the pressure in the tank at the start of the trip, the vapor pressure of the fuel being
transported, and the degreeof saturation (with fuel vapor) of the vapor space in the tank. The emissions are
not directly proportional to the time spent in transit. As the leakage rate of the truck increases, emissions
increase up to a point and then level off as other factors take over in determining the rate. Tank trucks
in dedicated vapor balance service typically contain saturated vapors, and this leads to lower emissions
during transit, because no additional fuel evaporates to raise the pressure in the tank to cause venting.
Table 4.4-3 lists "typical" values for emissions and "extreme" values which could occur in the unlikely
event that all determining factors combined to cause maximum emissions.
Table 4.4-3. HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUID
TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING SOURCES
Emission source
Tank cars/trucks
Submerged loading - normal
service
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Splash loading - normal
service
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Submerged loading - balance
service
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Splash loading - balance service
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Transit - loaded with fuel
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Product emission factors3
Gasolineb
5
0.6
12
1.4
8
1.0
8
1.0
0-0.01
typical
0-0.08
extreme
0-0.001
typical
0-0.009
extreme
Crude
oilc
3
0.4
7
0.8
5
0.6
5
0.6
e
e
e
e
Jet
naphtha
(JP-4)
1.5
0.18
4
0.5
2.5
0.3
2.5
0.3
e
e
e
e
Jet
kerosene
0.02
0.002
0.04
0.005
d
d
e
e
e
e
Distillate
oil
No. 2
0.01
0.001
0.03
0.004
d
d
e
e
e
e
Residual
oil
No. 6
0.0001
0.00001
0.0003
0.00004
d
d
e
e
e
e
7/79
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-9
-------
Table 4.4-3 (continued). HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUID
TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING SOURCES
Emission source
Transit - return with vapor
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Marine vessels
Loading tankers
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Loading barges
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Tanker ballasting
lb/103 gal cargo capacity
kg/103 liters cargo capacity
Transit
Ib/week - 1 03 gal transported
kg/week - 103 liters
transported
Product emission factors3
Gasolineb
0-0.11
typical
0-0.37
extreme
0-0.013
typical
0-0.44
extreme
f
f
f
0.8
0.10
3
0.4
Crude
oilc
e
e
e
e
0.7
0.08
1.7
0.20
0.6
0.07
1.0
0.1
Jet
naphtha
(JP-4)
e
e
e
e
0.5
0.06
1.2
0.14
e
0.7
0.08
Jet
kerosene
e
e
e
e
0.005
0.0006
0.0013
0.0016
e
0.005
0.0006
Distillate
oil
No. 2
e
e
e
e
0.005
0.0006
0.012
0.0014
e
0.005
0.0006
Residual
oil
No. 6
e
e
e
e
0.00004
5 x 10~6
0.00009
1.1 x10~5
e
3 x 10~5
4 x 10~6
aEmission factors are calculated for dispensed fuel temperature of 60°F.
"The example gasoline has an RVP of 10 psia.
The example crude oil has an RVP of 5 psia.
dNot normally used.
"Not available.
'See Table 4 4-2 for these emission factors.
4.4.2.3 Service Stations - Another major source of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions is the filling of
underground gasoline storage tanks at service stations. Normally, gasoline is delivered to service stations
in large (8000 gallon) tank trucks. Emissions are generated when hydrocarbon vapors in the underground
storage tank are displaced to the atmosphere by the gasoline being loaded into the tank. As with other
4.4-10
EMISSION FACTORS
7/79
-------
4.7 WASTE SOLVENT RECLAMATION
1-4
4.7 .1 Process Description
Waste solvents are organic dissolving agents that are contaminated
with suspended and dissolved solids, organics, water, other solvents,
and/or any substance not added to the solvent during its manufacture.
Reclamation is the process of restoring a waste solvent to a condition
that permits its reuse, either for its original purpose or for other
industrial needs. All waste solvent is not reclaimed, because the cost
of reclamation may exceed the value of the recovered solvent.
Industries that produce waste solvents include solvent refining,
polymerization processes, vegetable oil extraction, metallurgical
operations, pharmaceutical manufacture, surface coating, and cleaning
operations (dry cleaning and solvent degreasing). The amount of solvent
recovered from the waste varies from about 40 to 99 percent, depending
on the extent and characterization of the contamination and on the
recovery process employed.
Design parameters and economic factors determine whether solvent
reclamation is accomplished as a main process by a private contractor,
as an integral part of a main process (such as solvent refining), or as
an added process (as in the surface coating and cleaning industries).
Most contract solvent reprocessing operations recover halogenated hydro-
carbons (e.g., methylene chloride, trichlorotrifluoroethane, and trich-
loroethylene) from degreasing, and/or aliphatic, aromatic, and naphthenic
solvents such as those used in the paint and coatings industry. They
may also reclaim small quantities of numerous specialty solvents such as
phenols, nitriles, and oils.
The general reclamation scheme for solvent reuse is illustrated in
Figure 4.7-1. Industrial operations may not incorporate all of these
steps. For instance, initial treatment is necessary only when liquid
waste solvents contain dissolved contaminants.
4.7.1.1 Solvent Storage and Handling - Solvents are stored before and
after reclamation in containers ranging in size from 55 gallon (0.2 m3)
drums to tanks with capacities of 20,000 gallons (75 m3) or more.
Storage tanks are of fixed or floating roof design. Venting systems
prevent solvent vapors from creating excessive pressure or vacuum inside
fixed roof tanks.
Handling includes loading waste solvent into process equipment and
filling drums and tanks prior to transport and storage. The filling is
most often done through submerged or bottom loading.
2/80 K\aporalion Loss Sourros 4.7-1
-------
STORAGE FUGITIVE FUGITIVE
TANK VENT EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS
CONDENSER FUGITIVE FUGITIVE STORAGE
VENT A EMISSIONS EMISSIONS TANK VENT
I A if /n
FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
o
DISTILLATION
[
PURIFI-
CATION
RECLAIMED
_3SOLVENT
^INCINERATOR STACK
»FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Figure 4.7-1. General waste solvent reclamation scheme and emission points.
PROCESS OLOWER
CONTAMINATED AIR
/AMBIENT AIR
DRYING AIR
BLOWER
(OPTIONAL)
CLEAN AIR
EXHAUST
.-ACTIVATED CARSON •
:-. •' ACTIVATED CARSON .
LOW PRESSURE STEAM
I COOLING WATER IN
•WATER OUT
WASTE
WATER
RECOVERED
SOLVENT
Figure 4.7-2. Typical fixed bed activated carbon solvent recovery system.6
4.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
Table 4.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOLVENT RECLAIMING0
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Storage tank
b
vent
Condenser
vent
Incinerator
stack
Incinerator
stack
Fugitive
emissions
Spillage
Loading
Leaks
Open
sources
Criteria
pollutant
Volatile
organics
Volatile
organics
Volatile
organics
Particulates
Volatile
organics
Volatile
organics
Volatile
organics
Volatile
organics
Emission
Ib/ton
0.02
(0.004-0.09)
3.30
(0.52-8.34)
0.02
1.44
(1.1-2.0)
0.20
0.72
(0.00024-1.42)
NA
NA
factor average
kg/MT
0.01
(0.002-0.04)
1.65
(0.26-4.17)
0.01
0.72
(0.55-1.0)
0.10
0.36
(0.00012-0.71)
NA
NA
Reference 1. Data obtained from state air pollution control agencies
and presurvey sampling. All emission factors are for uncontrolled
process equipment, except those for the incinerator stack. (Reference
1 does not, however, specify what the control is on this stack.)
Average factors are derived from the range of data points available.
Factors for these sources are given in terms of pounds per ton and
kilograms per metric ton of reclaimed solvent. Ranges in parentheses.
NA - not available.
Storage tank is of fixed roof design.
Only one value available.
4.7 .1.2 Initial Treatment - Waste solvents are initially treated by
vapor recovery or mechanical separation. Vapor recovery entails removal
of solvent vapors from a gas stream in preparation for further reclaim-
ing operations. In mechanical separation, undissolved solid contaminants
are removed from liquid solvents.
2/80
FXapnrulinn
Sourco
4.7-3
-------
Vapor recovery or collection methods employed include condensation,
adsorption and absorption. Technical feasibility of the method chosen
depends on the solvent's miscibility, vapor composition and concentration,
boiling point, reactivity, and solubility, as well as several other
factors.
Condensation of solvent vapors is accomplished by water cooled
condensers and refrigeration units. For adequate recovery, a solvent
vapor concentration well above 0.009 grains per cubic foot (20 mg/m3) is
required. To avoid explosive mixtures of a flammable solvent and air in
the process gas stream, air is replaced with an inert gas, such as
nitrogen. Solvent vapors that escape condensation are recycled through
the main process stream or recovered by adsorption or absorption.
Activated carbon adsorption is the most common method of capturing
solvent emissions. Adsorption systems are capable of recovering solvent
vapors in concentrations below 0.002 grains per cubic foot (4 mg/m3) of
air. Solvents with boiling points of 290°F (200°C) or more do not
desorb effectively with the low pressure steam commonly used to regen-
erate the carbon beds. Figure 4.7-2 shows a flow diagram of a typical
fixed bed activated carbon solvent recovery system. The mixture of
steam and solvent vapor passes to a water cooled condenser. Water
immiscible solvents are simply decanted to separate the solvent, but
water miscible solvents must be distilled, and solvent mixtures must be
both decanted and distilled. Fluidized bed operations are also in use.
Absorption of solvent vapors is accomplished by passing the waste
gas stream through a liquid in scrubbing towers or spray chambers.
Recovery by condensation and adsorption results in a mixture of water
and liquid solvent, while absorption recovery results in an oil and
solvent mixture. Further reclaiming procedures are required, if solvent
vapors are collected by any of these three methods.
Initial treatment of liquid waste solvents is accomplished by
mechanical separation methods. This includes both removing water by
decanting and removing undissolved solids by filtering, draining,
settling, and/or centrifuging. A combination of initial treatment
methods may be necessary to prepare waste solvents for further
processing.
4.7.1.3 Distillation - After initial treatment, waste solvents are
distilled to remove dissolved impurities and to separate solvent mix-
tures. Separation of dissolved impurities is accomplished by simple
batch, simple continuous, or steam distillation. Mixed solvents are
separated by multiple simple distillation methods, such as batch or
continuous rectification. These processes are shown in Figure 4.7-3.
In simple distillation, waste solvent is charged to an evaporator.
Vapors are then continuously removed and condensed, and the resulting
sludge or still bottoms are drawn off. In steam distillation, solvents
4.7-4 EMISSION FACTORS 2/«0
-------
are vaporized by direct contact with steam which ±s injected into the
evaporator. Simple batch, continuous, and steam distillations follow
Path I in Figure 4.7-3.
The separation of mixed solvents requires multiple simple distil-
lation or rectification. Batch and continuous rectification are repre-
sented by Path II in Figure 4.7-3. In batch rectification, solvent
vapors pass through a fractionating column, where they contact condensed
solvent (reflux) entering at the top of the column. Solvent not returned
as reflux is drawn off as overhead product. In continuous rectification,
the waste solvent feed enters continuously at an intermediate point in
the column. The more volatile solvents are drawn off at the top, while
those with higher boiling points collect at the bottom.
Design criteria for evaporating vessels depend on waste solvent
composition. Scraped surface stills or agitated thin film evaporators
are the most suitable for heat sensitive or viscous materials. Conden-
sation is accomplished by barometric or shell and tube condensers.
Azeotropic solvent mixtures are separated by the addition of a third
solvent component, while solvents with higher boiling points, e.g., in
the range of high flash naphthas (310°F, 155°C), are most effectively
distilled under vacuum. Purity requirements for the reclaimed solvent
determine the number of distillations, reflux ratios and processing time
needed.
WASTE SOLVENT
STREAM _
EVAPORATION
J
SOLVENT VAPOR
SOLVENT
VAPOR
I
1
REFLUX
1
1
"""*"! FRACTIONATION i *
II I I
CONDENSATION
T
SLUDGE
DISTILLED SOLVENT
Figure 4.7-3. Distillation process for solvent reclaiming.
4.7.1.4 Purification - After distillation, water is removed from
solvent by decanting or salting. Decanting is accomplished with immis-
cible solvent and water which, when condensed, form separate liquid
layers, one or the other of which can be drawn off mechanically. Addi-
tional cooling of the solvent/water mix before decanting increases the
separation of the two components by reducing their solubility. In
salting, solvent is passed through a calcium chloride bed, and water is
removed by absorption.
2/80
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.7-5
-------
During purification, reclaimed solvents are stabilized, if neces-
sary. Buffers are added to virgin solvents to ensure that pH level is
kept constant during use. To renew it, special additives are used
during purification. The composition of these additives is considered
proprietary.
4.7.1.5 Waste Disposal - Waste materials separated from solvents during
initial treatment and distillation are disposed of by incineration,
landfilling or deep well injection. The composition of such waste
varies, depending on the original use of the solvent. But up to 50
percent is unreclaimed solvent, which keeps the waste product viscous
yet liquid, thus facilitating pumping and handling procedures. The
remainder consists of components such as oils, greases, waxes, deter-
gents, pigments, metal fines, dissolved metals, organics, vegetable
fibers, and resins.
About 80 percent of the waste from solvent reclaiming by private
contractors is disposed of in liquid waste incinerators. About 14
percent is deposited in sanitary landfills, usually in 55 gallon drums.
Deep well injection is the pumping of wastes between impermeable geologic
strata. Viscous wastes may have to be diluted for pumping into the
desired stratum level.
1 3-5
4.7.2 Emissions and Controls '
Volatile organic and particulate emissions result from waste solvent
reclamation. Emission points include storage tank vents [1], condenser
vents [2], incinerator stacks [3], and fugitive losses (numbers refer to
Figures 4.7-1 and -3). Emission factors for these sources are given in
Table 4.7-1.
Solvent storage results in volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from solvent evaporation (Figure 4.7-1, emission point 1).
The condensation of solvent vapors during distillation (Figure 4.7-3)
also involves VOC emissions, and if steam ejectors are used, emission of
steam and noncondensables as well (Figures 4.7-1 and -3, point 2).
Incinerator stack emissions consist of solid contaminants that are
oxidized and released as particulates, unburned organics, and combustion
stack gases (Figure 4.7-1, point 3).
VOC emissions from equipment leaks, open solvent sources (sludge
drawoff and storage from distillation and initial treatment operations),
solvent loading, and solvent spills are classifed as fugitive. The
former two sources are continuously released, and the latter two,
intermittently.
Solvent reclamation is viewed by industry as a form of control in
itself. Carbon adsorption systems can remove up to 95 percent of the
solvent vapors from an air stream. It is estimated that less than 50
percent of reclamation plants run by private contractors use any control
technology.
4.7-6 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
Volatile organic emissions from the storage of solvents can be
reduced by as much as 98 percent by converting from fixed to floating
roof tanks, although the exact percent reduction also depends on solvent
evaporation rate, ambient temperature, loading rate, and tank capacity.
Tanks may also be refrigerated or equipped with conservation vents which
prevent air inflow and vapor escape until some preset vacuum or pressure
develops.
Solvent vapors vented during distillation are controlled by scrub-
bers and condensers. Direct flame and catalytic afterburners can also
be used to control noncondensables and solvent vapors not condensed
during distillation. The time required for complete combustion depends
on the flammability of the solvent. Carbon or oil adsorption may be
employed also, as in the case of vent gases from the manufacture of
vegetable oils.
Wet scrubbers are used to remove particulates from sludge incin-
erator exhaust gases, although they do not effectively control submicron
particles.
Submerged rather than splash filling of storage tanks and tank cars
can reduce solvent emissions from this source by more than 50 percent.
Proper plant maintenance and loading procedures reduce emissions from
leaks and spills. Open solvent sources can be covered to reduce these
fugitive emissions.
References for Section 4.7
1. D. R. Tierney and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment; Reclaiming of
Waste Solvents - State of the Art. EPA-600/2-78/004f, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, April 1978.
2. J. E. Levin and F. Scofield, "An Assessment of the Solvent
Reclaiming Industry". Proceedings of the 170th Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, Chicago, IL, 35(2):416-418,
August 25-29, 1975.
3. H. M. Rowson, "Design Considerations in Solvent Recovery".
Proceedings of the Metropolitan Engineers' Council on Air Resouces
(MECAR) Symposium on New Developments in Air Pollutant Control, New
York, NY, October 23, 1961, pp. 110-128.
4. J. C. Cooper and F. T. Cuniff, "Control of Solvent Emissions".
Proceedings of the Metropolitan Engineers' Council on Air Resources
(MECAR) Symposium on New Developments in Air Pollution Control, New
York, NY, October 23, 1961, pp. 30-41.
K'vaporation Lot** Sonrrtvs 4.7-7
-------
5. W. R. Meyer, "Solvent Broke", Proceedings of TAPPI Testing Paper
Synthetics Conference, Boston, MA, October 7-9, 1974, pp. 109-115.
6. Nathan R. Shaw, "Vapor Adsorption Technology for Recovery of
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Other Solvents", Presented at the 80th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Boston,
MA, June 15-20, 1975.
4.7-8 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
4.8 TANK AND DRUM CLEANING
4.8.1 General
Rail tank cars, tank trucks and drums are used to transport about
700 different commodities. Hail tank cars and most tank trucks and
drums are in dedicated service (carrying one commodity only) and, unless
contaminated, are cleaned only prior to repair or testing. Nondedicated
tank trucks (about 20,000, or 22 percent of the total in service) and
drums (approximately 5.6 million, or 12.5 percent of the total) are
cleaned after every trip.
4.8.1.1 Rail Tank Cars - Most rail tank cars are privately owned. Some
cars, like those owned by the railroads, are operated for hire. The
commodities hauled are 35 percent petroleum products, 20 percent organic
chemicals, 25 percent inorganic chemicals, 15 percent compressed gases,
and 5 percent food products. Petroleum products considered in this
study are glycols, vinyls, acetones, benzenes, creosote, etc. Not
included in these figures are gasoline, diesel oil, fuel oils, jet
fuels, and motor oils, the greatest portion of these being transported
in dedicated service.
Much tank car cleaning is conducted at shipping and receiving
terminals, where the wastes go to the manufacturers' treatment systems.
However, 30 to 40 percent is done at service stations operated by tank
car owner/lessors. These installations clean waste of a wide variety of
commodities, many of which require special cleaning methods.
A typical tank car cleaning facility cleans 4 to 10 cars per day.
Car capacity varies from 10,000 to 34,000 gallons (40 - 130 m3). Clean-
ing agents include steam, water, detergents and solvents, which are
applied using steam hoses, pressure wands, or rotating spray heads
placed through the opening in the top of the car. Scraping of hardened
or crystallized products is often necessary. Cars carrying gases and
volatile materials, and those needing to be pressure tested, must be
filled or flushed with water. The average amount of residual material
cleaned from each car is estimated to be 550 Ib (250 kg). Vapors from
car cleaning not flared or dissolved in water are dissipated to the
atmosphere.
4.8.1.2 Tank Trucks - Two thirds of the tank trucks in service in the
United States are operated for hire. Of these, 80 percent are used to
haul bulk liquids. Most companies operate fleets of five trucks or
less, and whenever possible, these trucks are assigned to dedicated
service. Commodities hauled and cleaned are 15 percent petroleum pro-
ducts (except as noted in 4.8.1.1), 35 percent organic chemicals, 5
percent food products, and 10 percent other products.
Interior washing is carried out at many tank truck dispatch ter-
minals. Cleaning agents include water, steam, detergents, bases, acids
and solvents, which are applied with hand-held pressure wands or by
2/80 E>aporalion Loss Sources 4.8-1
-------
Turco or Butterworth-.'rotating spray nozzles. Detergent, acidic or basic
solutions are usually used until spent and then sent to treatment facil-
ities. Solvents are recycled in a closed system, with sludges either
incinerated or landfilled. The average amount of material cleaned from
each trailer is 220 Ib (100 kg). Vapors from volatile material are
flared at a few terminals but most commonly are dissipated to the atmos-
sphere. Approximately 60 gallons (0.23 m3) of liquid are used per tank
truck steam cleaning and 5500 gallons (20.9 m3) for full flushing.
Table 4.8-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR RAIL TANK CAR CLEANING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Chemical Class
Compound
Ethylene glycol
Chlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Creosote
Vapor
pressure
low
medium
low
low
Total
Viscosity
high
medium
medium
high
emissions
Ib/car
0.0007
0.0346
0.1662
5.1808
g/car
0.3
15.7
75.4
2350
Reference 1. Emission factors are in terms of average weight of
, pollutant released per car cleaned.
Two hour test duration.
£
Eight hour test duration.
4.8.1.3 Drums - Both 55 and 30 gallon (0.2 and 0.11 m3) drums are used
to ship a vast variety of commodities, with organic chemicals (including
solvents) accounting for 50 percent. The remaining 50 percent includes
inorganic chemicals, asphaltic materials, elastromeric materials, printing
inks, paints, food additives, fuel oils and other products.
Drums made entirely of 18 gauge steel have an average life, with
total cleaning, of eight trips. Those with 20 gauge bodies and 18 gauge
heads have an average life of three trips. Not all drums are cleaned,
especially those of thinner construction.
Tighthead drums which have carried materials that are easy to clean
are steamed or washed with base. Steam cleaning is done by inserting a
nozzle into the drum, with vapors going to the atmosphere. Base washing
is done by tumbling the drum with a charge of hot caustic solution and
some pieces of chain.
Drums used to carry materials that are difficult to clean are
burned out, either in a furnace or in the open. Those with tightheads
have the tops cut out and are reconditioned as open head drums. Drum
burning furnaces may be batch or continuous. Several gas burners bathe
the drum in flame, burning away the contents, lining and outside paint
in a nominal 4 minute period and at a temperature of at least 900° but
1,8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
not more than 1000°F (480 - 540°C) to prevent warping of the drum.
Emissions are vented to an afterburner or secondary combustion chamber,
where the gases are raised to at least 1500°F (760°C) for a minimum of
0.5 seconds. The average amount of material removed from each drum is
4.4 Ib (2 kg).
Table 4.8-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TANK TRUCK CLEANING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Chemical Class
Compound
Acetone
Perchloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
Phenol
Propylene glycol
Vapor
pressure
high
high
medium
low
low
Viscosity
low
low
medium
low
high
Total
emissions
Ib/truck
0.686
0.474
0.071
0.012
0.002
g/ truck
311
215
32.4
5.5
1.07
o
Reference 1. One hour test duration.
4.8.2 Emissions and Controls
4.8.2.1 Rail Tank Cars and Tank Trucks - Atmospheric emissions from
tank car and truck cleaning are predominantly volatile organic chemical
vapors. To achieve a practical but representative picture of these
emissions, the organic chemicals hauled by the carriers must be broken
down into classes of high, medium and low viscosities and high, medium
and low vapor pressures. This is because high viscosity materials do
not drain readily, affecting the quantity of material remaining in the
tank, and high vapor pressure materials volatilize more readily during
cleaning and tend to lead to greater emissions.
Practical and economically feasible controls of atmospheric
emissions from tank car and truck cleaning do not exist, except for
containers transporting commodities that produce combustible gases and
water soluble vapors (such as ammonia and chlorine). Gases which are
displaced as tanks are filled are sent to a flare and burned. Water
soluble vapors are absorbed in water and sent to the wastewater system.
Any other emissions are vented to the atmosphere.
Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 give emission factors for representative
organic chemicals hauled by tank cars and trucks.
4.8.2.2 Drums - There is no control for emissions from steaming of
drums. Solution or caustic washing yields negligible air emissions,
because the drum is closed during the wash cycle. Atmospheric emissions
from steaming or washing drums are predominantly organic chemical vapors.
2/80 Evaporation Loss Sources* 1.8-3
-------
Air emissions from drum burning furnaces are controlled by proper
operation of the afterburner or secondary combustion chamber, where
gases are raised to at least 1500°F (760°C) for a minimum of 0.5 seconds.
This normally ensures complete combustion of organic materials and
prevents the formation, and subsequent release, of large quantities of
NOX, CO and particulates. In open burning, however, there is no fea-
sible way of controlling the release of incomplete combustion products
to the atmosphere. Converting open cleaning operations to closed cycle
cleaning and eliminating open air drum burning seem to be the only
control alternatives immediately available.
Table 4.8-3 gives emission factors for representative criteria
pollutants emitted from drum burning and cleaning.
Table 4.8-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM BURNING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Total Emissions
Pollutant Controlled Uncontrolled
Ib/drum g/drum Ib/drum g/drum
Particulate 0.02646 12b 0.035 16
NOX 0.00004 0.018 0.002 0.89
VOC negligible ___ negligible
Si
Reference 1. Emission factors are in terms of weight of pollutant
released per drum burned, except for 1
Reference 1, Table 17 and Appendix A.
Reference for Section 4.8
released per drum burned, except for VOC, which are per drum washed.
1. T. R. Blackwood, e t al., Source Assessment: Rail Tank Car, Tank
Truck, and Drum Cleaning, State of the Art, EPA-600/2-78-004g,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
April 1978.
4.8-1 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
5.5 CHLOR-ALKALI
5.5.1 Process Description1
Chlorine and caustic are produced concurrently by the electrolysis of brine in either the diaphragm or mercury
cell. In the diaphragm cell, hydrogen is liberated at the cathode and a diaphragm is used to prevent contact of the
chlorine produced at the anode with either the alkali hydroxide formed or the hydrogen. In the mercury cell,
liquid mercury is used as the cathode and forms an amalgam with the alkali metal. The amalgam is removed from
the cell and is allowed to react with water in a separate chamber, called a denuder, to form the alkali hydroxide
and hydrogen.
Chlorine gas leaving the cells is saturated with water vapor and then cooled to condense some of the water.
The gas is further dried by direct contact with strong sulfuric acid. The dry chlorine gas is then compressed for
in-plant use or is cooled further by refrigeration to liquefy the chlorine.
Caustic as produced in a diaphragm-cell plant leaves the cell as a dilute solution along with unreacted brine.
The solution is evaporated to increase the concentration to a range of 50 to 73 percent; evaporation also
precipitates most of the residual salt, which is then removed by filtration. In mercury-cell plants, high-purity
caustic can be produced in any desired strength and needs no concentration.
5.5.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions from diaphragm- and mercury-cell chlorine plants include chlorine gas, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and hydrogen. Gaseous chlorine is present in the blow gas from liquefaction, from vents in tank cars
and tank containers during loading and unloading, and from storage tanks and process transfer tanks. Other
emissions include mercury vapor from mercury cathode cells and chlorine from compressor seals, header seals,
and the air blowing of depleted brine in mercury-cell plants.
Chlorine emissions from chlor-alkali plants may be controlled by one of three general methods: (1) use of the
gas in other plant processes, (2) neutralization in alkaline scrubbers, and (3) recovery of chlorine from effluent gas
streams. The effect of specific control practices is shown to some extent in the table on emission factors (Table
5.5-1).
References for Section 5.5
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Manufacture. U.S. EPA, Air Pollution Control Office. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-80. January 1971.
2. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 49.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.5-1
-------
Table 5.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of source
Liquefaction blow gases
Diaphragm cell
Mercury cell'1
Water absorber0
Caustic or lime scrubberc
Loading of chlorine
Tank car vents
Storage tank vents
Air blowing of mercury cell brine
Chlorine gas
lb/100tons
2,000 to 10,000
4,000 to 16,000
25 to 1,000
1
450
1,200
500
kg/100MT
1,000 to 5, 000
2,000 to 8,000
12.5 to 500
0.5
225
600
250
References 1 and 2.
bMercury cells lose about 1.5 pounds mercury per 100 tons (0.75 kg/100 MT) of chlorine liquefied.
cControl devices.
5.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.8 HYDROFLUORIC ACID
1-3
5.8.1 Process Description
Nearly all of the hydrofluoric acid, or hydrogen fluoride, currently
produced in the United States is manufactured by the reaction of acid-
grade fluorospar with sulfuric acid in the reaction:
CaF2 + E2SOk > CaSOit + 2 HF
Calcium Sulfuric Calcium Hydrogen
Fluoride Acid Sulfate Fluoride
(Fluorospar) (Anhydrite) (Hydrofluoric
Acid)
The fluorospar typically contains 97.5 percent or more calcium fluoride,
1 percent or less silicon dioxide (Si02), and 0.05 percent or less
sulfur, with calcium carbonate (CaC03) as the principal remainder. See
Figure 5.8-1 for a typical process flow diagram.
The reaction to produce the acid is endothermic and is usually
carried out in externally heated horizontal rotary kilns for 30 to 60
minutes at 390 to 480°F (200-250°C). Dry fluorospar and a slight excess
of sulfuric acid are fed continuously to the front end of the kiln.
Anhydrite is removed through an air lock at the opposite end. The
gaseous reaction products - hydrogen fluoride, excess sulfuric acid from
the primary reaction, silicon tetrafluoride, sulfur dioxide, carbon
dioxide, and water produced in secondary reactions - are removed from
the front end of the kiln with entrained particulate materials. The
particulates are removed from the gas stream by a dust separator, and
the sulfuric acid and water are removed by a precondenser. The hydrogen
fluoride vapors are condensed in refrigerant condensers and are delivered
to an intermediate storage tank. The uncondensed gases are passed
through a sulfuric acid absorption tower to remove most of the remaining
hydrogen fluoride, which is also delivered with the residual sulfuric
acid to the intermediate storage tank. The remaining gases are passed
through water scrubbers, where the silicon tetrafluoride and remaining
hydrogen fluoride are recovered as fluosilicic acid (H2SiFg). The
hydrogen fluoride and sulfuric acid are delivered to distillation
columns, where the hydrofluoric acid is extracted at 99.98 percent
purity. Weaker concentrations (typically 70-80 percent) are prepared by
dilution with water.
124
5.8.2 Emissions and Controls ' '
Air polluting emissions are suppressed to a great extent by the
condensing, scrubbing and absorption equipment used in the recovery and
purification of the hydrofluoric and fluosilicic acid products. Partic-
ulate material in the process gas stream is controlled by a dust separator
near the outlet of the kiln and is recycled to the kiln for further
2/80 Chemical Process Indiistr\ 5.8-1
-------
c
O
'o
ca
O
o
•o
o
O
E
en
CO
O
en
O)
o
o
CO
uri
O)
i_
0>
5.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
H
u.
3
Z
<
s
Q
D
41
•H -rl XI
l-l Vj 4J 4-1 x>
1301 T3CUtdT3-rl 13 3
CU 4-1 60014-1 tJ 0) T3 01 )H
CdrHrH BrHrH 01rHT3 rH O
60 rH -H -rl i— 1 -H O, rH td rH CO
BOMHt-H OMH OO O
•rllH 'Op VJ*«O|H U
^<-»y CtQ -M y j-14-ico co4-i -H
VJd-ri tdcoB-H cudu tdB -u
T3OI-I X!OO>H MHOO) 60O CO
ux> rHuxi cou> y 3
PBtd U-HBtd BBO rHC cd
tdt-^P1! tdCOP^P^I tdPU 'Hr-1 CJ
a. o. t-i td
co co H H
13
0)
4-1
n)
rH
3
CJ
rH
cd
y
4->
3
&
S
•H
M
cd
P.
co
O
O
3
rH
MH
^
rH
^
3
O
HI
•
CO
4J
td
T-H
p.
^
3
O
P*"*
pO
13
t»
•rl
O
P.
B
O
•rl
4J
frt
0
p
O
MH
B
•rl
g
O
M
4-1
13
CU
00
rt
M
0)
^
•>
i — i
}_i
3
o
ffi
,
^
cd
p.
co
o
^
0
3
rH
MH
B
•H
4J
B
CU
4-1
B
O
y
..
01
i-i
cu
|3
13
01
60
td
)-i
cu
s>
td
CO
cu
3
rH
cd
>
CO
o
•rl
4-1
cfl
M
CU
Pu
O
i-t
Ol
MH
CO
B
cd
t-l
4-J
t-i
td
P.
co
O
o
3
rH
fn
B
O
H
^
rH
CO
C
O
•H
CO
CO
•H
6
w
t-J
o
MH
CO
4-1
B
td
rH
P.
0
4-1
vO O CM O
O CO <}• CO •*
rH rH CO
B
O
•rl
CO
CO
•H
B
0)
O
rH
•H
co
M
0
13
01
>\
4-1
•rl
U
td
PJ
td
y
m
[^
CTN
rH
fti bj ft, pL( 60
PC ffi PS PC td
B B B B 0)
O O O O >
4-J 4-1 4-1 4-1 Cd
O O O O CO
O O O O -P
0 0 O 0 B
m O O rH rH
rH CM in rH O,
^4
3
O
•
td
4-1
B
td
rH
P-t
01
4-1
rH CM CO -* O
B
•H
CO
td
B
0
•H
4J
td
f|
g-i
o
MH
B
H
.
CO
B
O
•rl
CO
CO
•rl
a
0)
formation
B
•H
>>
XI
13
CU
•H
MH
•rl
M
01
J>
CO
(-1
o
4-1
U
cd
M-4
B
O
•H
co
co
•rl
e
Ol
J-
fn
•H
CO
T3
B
cd
pL<
PC
•
*rj
01
00
td
(H
cu
cd
co
4-1
B
n)
rH
p,
CU
cu
V4
r!
^H
.
cd
cu
4-1
O
B
•H
co
cd
B
0
•rl
4-1
cd
O
<4H
B
H
.
^^-
01
y
d
01
cu
MH
01
B
•H
2/80
Chemiral Process Industry
5.8-3
-------
processing. The precondenser removes water vapor and sulfuric acid
mist, and the condenser, acid scrubber and water scrubbers remove all
but small amounts of hydrogen fluoride, silicon tetrafluoride, sulfur
dioxide and carbon dioxide from the tail gas. A caustic scrubber is
employed to reduce further the levels of these pollutants in the tail
gas.
Dust emissions result from the handling and drying of the fluorospar,
and they are controlled with bag filters at the spar storage silos and
drying kilns, their principal emission points.
Hydrogen fluoride emissions are minimized by maintaining a slight
negative pressure in the kiln during normal operations. Under upset
conditions, a standby caustic scrubber or a bypass to the tail gas
caustic scrubber are used to control hydrogen fluoride emissions from
the kiln.
Fugitive dust emissions from spar handling and storage are con-
trolled with flexible coverings and chemical additives.
Table 5.8-1 lists the emission factors for the various process
operations. The principal emission locations are shown in the process
flow diagram, Figure 5.8-1.
References for Section 5.8
1. Screening Study on Feasibility of Standards of Performance for
Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture, EPA-450/3-78-109, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1978.
2. "Hydrofluoric Acid", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, Vol. 9, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1965.
3. W. R. Rogers and K. Muller, "Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture",
Chemical Engineering Progress, 59:5:85-8, May 1963.
4. J. M. Robinson, et al., Engineering and Cost Effectiveness Study
of Fluoride Emissions Control, Vol. 1, PB 207 506, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1972.
5.8-4 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
5.11 PHOSPHORIC ACID
Phosphoric acid is produced by two principal methods, the wet
process and the thermal process . The wet process is employed when the
acid is to be used for fertilizer production. Thermal process phos-
phoric acid is of higher purity and is used in the manufacture of high
grade chemical and food products.
1 2
5.11.1 Process Description '
5.11.1.1 Wet Process Acid Production - In modern wet process phosphoric
acid plants, as shown in Figure 5.11-1, finely ground phosphate rock,
which contains 31 to 35.5 percent phosphorus pentoxide (P20s)j is
continuously fed into a reactor with sulfuric acid which decomposes the
phosphate rock. In order to msfke. the strongest phosphoric acid possible
and to decrease later evaporation costs, 93 or 98 percent sulfuric acids
are normally used. Because the proper ratio of acid to rock in the
reactor must be maintained as closely as possible, precise automatic
process control equipment is employed in the regulation of these two
feed streams.
Gypsum crystals (CaSOi^ . 2^0) are precipitated by the phosphate
rock and sulfuric acid reaction. There is little market for the gypsum,
so it is handled as waste, filtered out of the acid and sent to settling
ponds. Approximately 0.7 acres of cooling and settling pond are required
for every ton of daily P20$ production.
Considerable heat is generated in the reactor, which must be
removed. In older plants, this is done by blowing air over the hot
slurry surface. Modern plants use vacuum flash cooling of part of the
slurry, then sending it back into the reactor.
The reaction slurry is held in the reactor for periods of up to
eight hours, depending on the rock and reactor design, and is then sent
to be filtered. This produces a 32 percent acid solution, which gener-
ally needs concentrating for further use. Current practice is to
concentrate it in two or three vacuum evaporators to about 54 percent
5.11.1.2 Thermal Process Acid Production - Raw materials for the
production of phosphoric acid by the thermal process are elemental
(yellow) phosphorus, air and water. Thermal process phosphoric acid
manufacture, as shown in Figure 5.11-2, typically involves three steps.
First, the liquid elemental phosphorus is burned (oxidized) in a
combustion chamber at temperatures of 3000 to 5000°F (1650 - 2760°C) to
form phosphorus pentoxide. Then, the phosphorus pentoxide is hydrated
with dilute acid or water to produce phosphoric acid liquid and mist.
The final step is to remove the phosphoric acid mist from the gas
stream.
2/80 Chcmiral Proress Industry 5.11-1
-------
GYPSUM SLURRY
TO POND
•TO SCRUBBER
HYDROFLUQSILICIC ACID
Figure 5.11-1. Flow diagram of wet process phosphoric acid plant.
AIR
STACK
EFFLUENT
(AIR + H,PO. MIST)
ACID TREATING PLANT
STACK EFFLUENT
(AIR + H2S)
HYDROGEN SULFIDE,
SODIUM HYDROSULFIDE.
OR SODIUM SULFIDE
EQUIPMENT rV,ATER RAW «ID TO STORAGE
HYDRATOR- I
ABSORBER COOLING WATER
AIR TO
SPARGER
BURNING AND HYDRATION SECTION
BLOWER PUMP
ACID TREATING SECTION
(USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ACID
FOR FOOD AND SPECIAL USES)
Figure 5.11-2. Flow diagram of thermal process phosphoric acid plant.
5.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
The reactions involved are:
Pit + 5 02 •*• PI+OIQ
+ 6 H20 -> 4 H3POJ|
Thermal process acid normally contains 75 to 85 percent phosphoric
acid (HsPOtt). In efficient plants, about 99.9 percent of the phosphorus
burned is recovered as acid.
1-3
5.11.2 Emissions and Controls
5.11.2.1 Wet Process Emissions and Controls - Gaseous fluorides, mostly
silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen fluoride, are the major emissions
from wet process acid. Phosphate rock contains 3.5 to 4.0 percent
fluorine, and the final distribution of this fluorine in wet process
acid manufacture varies widely. In general, part of the fluorine goes
with the gypsum, part with the phosphoric acid product, and the rest is
vaporized in the reactor or evaporator. The proportions and amounts
going with the gypsum and acid depend on the nature of the rock and
process conditions. Disposition of the volatilized fluorine depends on
the design and operation of the plant. Substantial amounts can pass off
into the air, unless effective scrubbers are used. Some of the fluorine
which is carried to the settling ponds with the gypsum will get into the
atmosphere, once the pond water is saturated with fluorides.
The reactor, where phosphate rock is decomposed by sulfuric acid,
is the main source of atmospheric contaminants. Fluoride emissions
accompany the air used to cool the reactor slurry. Vacuum flash cooling
has replaced the air cooling method to a large extent, since emissions
are minimized in the closed system.
Acid concentration by evaporation provides another source of
fluoride emissions. It has been estimated that 20 to 40 percent of the
fluorine originally present in the rock vaporizes in this operation.
Total particulate emissions directly from process equipment were
measured for one digester and for one filter. As much as 11 pounds of
particulates per ton of 1?2^5 were produced by the digester, and approxi-
mately 0.2 pounds per ton of P20g were released by the filter. Of this
particulate, 3 to 6 percent was fluorides.
Particulate emissions occurring from phosphate rock handling are
covered in Section 8.18.
5.11.2.2 Thermal Process Emissions and Controls - The principal
atmospheric emission from the thermal process is phosphoric acid mist
(HsPO^) contained in the gas stream from the hydrator. The particle
size of the acid mist ranges from 0.4 to 2.6 micrometers. It is not
uncommon for as much as half of the total phosphorus pentoxide to be
present as liquid phosphoric acid particles suspended in the gas stream.
2/80 Chemical Process Industry 5.11-3
-------
Economical operation of the process demands that this potential loss be
controlled, so all plants are equipped with some type of emission
control equipment,
Control equipment commonly used in thermal process phosphoric acid
plants includes venturi scrubbers, cyclonic separators with wire mesh
mist eliminators, fiber mist eliminators, high energy wire mesh contactors,
and electrostatic precipitators.
Table 5.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHORIC
ACID PRODUCTION
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source
Wet Process
Reactor, uncontrolled
£t
Particulates
Ib/ton kg/MT
Fluorine
Ib/ton
56.4
kg/MT
28.2
Gypsum settling and
£
cooling ponds - - 1.12 0.56
Condenser, uncontrolled - - 61.2 30.6
Typical controlled
emissions - - .02-.07 .01-.04
e f
Thermal Process '
Packed tower (95,5%)
Venturi scrubber (97.5%)
Glass fiber mist
eliminator
(96.0 - 99.9%)
Wire mesh mist eliminator
(95.0%)
High pressure drop mist
eliminator (99.9%)
Electrostatic precipitator
(98 - 99%)
2.14
2.53
0.69
5.46
0.11
1.66
1.07
1.27
0.35
2.73
0.06
0.83
-
_
_
_
-
- -
,Acid mist particulates (0.4 - 2.6 ym).
References 1 and 3. Pounds of fluorine (as gaseous fluorides) per
ton of P2C>5 produced. Based on a material balance of fluorine from
phosphate rock of 3.9% fluorine and 33% P205.
Approximately 0.7 acres (0.3 hectares) of cooling and settling pond are
required to produce 1 ton of ^2®$ daily. Emissions in terms of pond
,area would be 1.60 Ib/acre per day (1.79 kg/hectare per day).
Reference 5.
eReference 3. Pounds of particulate per ton of P20s-
Numbers in parentheses indicate the control efficiency associated with
each device.
5.11-1 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
References for Section 5.11
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Wet Process Phosphoric Acid
Manufacture, AP-57, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
Raleigh, NC, April 1970.
2. Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal Process Phosphoric Acid
Manufacture, AP-48, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
Durham, NC, October 1968.
3. Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions, Unpublished, U.S. Public
Health Service, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1970.
4. W.R. King, "Fluorine Air Pollution from Wet Process Phosphoric Acid
Plants - Water Ponds", Doctoral Thesis, Supported by EPA Research
Grant No. R-800950, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
1974.
5. Final Guideline Document: Control of Fluoride Emlssions_from
Existing Phosphate Fertilizer Plants, EPA-450/2-77-005, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
1977.
2/80 Chemical Process Indusir\ 5.11-5
-------
-------
5.18 SULFUR RECOVERY
1 2
5.18.1 Process Description '
Most of the elemental sulfur produced from hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
is made by the modified Glaus process. A simplified flow diagram of
this process is shown in Figure 5.18-1. The process consists of the
multistage catalytic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide according to the
following overall Reaction:
2H2S + 02 ->- 2S + 2H20
In the first step, one third of the H2S is reacted with air in a furnace
and combusted to S02 according to Reaction (2):
H2S + 1.502 -»- S02 + H20 (2)
The heat of the reaction is recovered in a waste heat boiler or sulfur
condenser.
For gas streams with low concentrations of H2S (20 - 60%), approxi-
mately one third of the gas stream is fed to the furnace and the H2S is
nearly completely combusted to S02, while the remainder of the gas is
bypassed around the furnace. This is the "split stream" configuration.
For gas streams with higher H2S concentrations, the entire gas stream is
fed to the furnace with just enough air to combust one third of the H2S
to S02. This is the "partial combustion" configuration. In this
configuration, as much as 50 to 60 percent conversion of the hydrogen
sulfide to elemental sulfur takes place in the initial reaction chamber
by Reaction (1). In extremely low concentrations of H2S (<25 - 30%), a
Glaus process variation known as "sulfur recycle" may be used, where
product sulfur is recycled to the furnace and burned, raising the
effective sulfur level where flame stability may be maintained in the
furnaces.
After the reaction furnace, the gases are cooled to remove
elemental sulfur and then reheated. The remaining H2S in the gas stream
is then reacted with the S02 over a bauxite catalyst at 500 - 600°F
(260 - 316CC) to produce elemental sulfur according to Reaction 3:
2H2S + S02 + 3S + 2H20 (3)
Because this is a reversible reaction, equilibrium requirements limit
the conversion. Lower temperatures favor elemental sulfur formation,
but at too low a temperature, elemental sulfur fouls the catalyst.
Because the reaction is exothermic, the conversion attainable in one
stage is limited. Therefore, two or more stages are used in series,
with interstage cooling to remove the heat of reaction and to condense
the sulfur.
2/80 Clicmiral Process Indiisto 5.18-1
-------
v>
<
a
GU
o
o
CD
8
e
Q.
_
O
E
CD
l_
D5
oo
in
2?
3
. 18-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
Carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) are formed in the
reaction furnace in the presence of carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons:
C02 + H2S J H20 + COS (4)
COS + H2S £ H20 + CS2 (5)
+ AS CS2 + 2H2S (6)
About 0.25 to 2.5 percent of the sulfur fed may be lost in this way.
Additional sulfur may be lost as vapor, mist or droplets.
5.18.2 Emissions and Controls
Tail gas from a Glaus sulfur recovery unit contains a variety of
pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, other reduced
sulfur compounds (such as COS and CS2) , carbon monoxide, and volatile
organic compounds. If no other controls are used, the tail gas is
incinerated, so that the emissions consist mostly of sulfur dioxide.
Smaller amounts of carbon monoxide are also emitted.
The emissions of S02 (along with H2S and sulfur vapor) depend
directly on the sulfur recovery efficiency of the Glaus plant. This
efficiency is dependent upon many factors, including the following:
- Number of catalytic conversion stages
- Inlet feed stream composition
- Operating temperatures and catalyst maintenance
- Maintenance of the proper stoichiometric ratio of H2S/S02
- Operating capacity factor
Recovery efficiency increases with the number of catalytic stages
used. For example, for a Glaus plant fed with 90 percent H2S, sulfur
recovery is approximately 85 percent for one catalytic stage and 95
percent for two or three stages.
Recovery efficiency also depends on the inlet feed stream compo-
sition. Sulfur recovery increases with increasing H2S concentration in
the feed stream. For example, a plant having two or three catalytic
stages would have a sulfur recovery efficiency of approximately 90
percent when treating a 15 mole percent H2S feed stream, 93 percent for
a 50 mole percent H2S stream, and 95 percent for a 90 mole percent H2S
stream. Various contaminants in the feed gas reduce Glaus sulfur
recovery efficiency. Organic compounds in the feed require extra air
for combustion, and added water and inert gas from burning these organics
decrease sulfur concentrations and thus lower sulfur recovery. Higher
molecular weight organics also reduce efficiencies because of soot
formation on the catalyst. High concentrations of C02 in the feed gas
reduce catalyst life.
2/80 Chemical Process Industry 5.18-3
-------
Since the Glaus reactions are exothermic, sulfur recovery is
enhanced by removing heat and operating the reactors at as low a tem-
perature as practicable without condensing sulfur on the catalyst.
Recovery efficiency also depends on catalyst performance. One to 2
percent loss in recovery efficiency over the period of catalyst life has
been reported. Maintenance of the 2:1 stoichiometric ratio of I^S and
SC>2 is essential for efficient sulfur recovery. Deviation above or
below this ratio results in a loss of efficiency. Operation of a Glaus
plant below capacity may also impair Glaus efficiency somewhat.
Removal of sulfur compounds from Glaus plant tail gas is possible
by three general schemes:
1) Extension of the Glaus reaction to increase overall sulfur
recovery,
2) Conversion of sulfur gases to S02 , followed by S02 removal
technology,
3) Conversion of sulfur gases to F^S, followed by H^S removal
technology.
Processes in the first scheme remove additional sulfur compounds by
carrying out the Glaus reaction at lower temperatures to shift equi-
librium of the Glaus reactions toward formation of additional sulfur.
The IFP-1, BSR/Selectox, Sulfreen, and Amoco CBA processes use this
technique to reduce the concentration of tail gas sulfur compounds to
1500 - 2500 ppffl, thus increasing the sulfur recovery of the Glaus plant
to 99 percent.
In the second class of processes, the tail gas is incinerated to
convert all sulfur compounds to SC-2 . The S02 is then recovered by one
of several processes, such as the Wellman-Lord. tn the Wellman-Lord and
certain other processes, the S02 absorbed from the tail gas is recycled
to the Glaus plant to recover additional sulfur. Processes in this
class can reduce the concentration of sulfur compounds in the tail gas
to 200 - 300 ppm or less, for an overall sulfur recovery efficiency
(including the Glaus plant) of 99.9+ percent.
The third method for removal of sulfur compounds from Glaus tail
gas involves converting the sulfur compounds to H2 S by mixing the tail
gas with a reducing gas and passing it over a reducing catalyst. The
f^S is then removed, by the Stretford process (in the Beavon and Clean
Air processes) or by an amine absorption system (SCOT process) . The
Beavon and Clean Air processes recover the I^S as elemental sulfur, and
the SCOT process produces a concentrated l^S stream which is recycled to
the Glaus process. These processes reduce the concentration of sulfur
compounds in the tail gas to 200 - 300 ppm or less and increase the
overall recovery efficiency of the Glaus plant to 99.9+ percent.
.1.18-1 EMISSI01N FACTORS 2/80
-------
A New Source Performance Standard for Glaus sulfur recovery plants
in petroleum refineries was promulgated in March 1978. This standard
limits emissions to 0.025 percent by volume (250 ppm) of S02 on a dry
basis and at zero percent oxygen, or 0.001 percent by volume of H2S and
0.03 percent by volume of H2S, COS, and CS2 on a dry basis and at zero
percent oxygen.
Table 5.18-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODIFIED GLAUS SULFUR RECOVERY
PLANTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Number of Catalytic Stages
Two , uncontrolled
Three, uncontrolled
Four, uncontrolled
Controlled
Typical
Recovery
of Sulfur, %
92 to 95
95 to 97.5
96 to 99
99 to 99.9
SO,, Emissions
Ib/ton
348 to 211
211 to 167
167 to 124
40 to 4
kg/MT
174 to 105
106 to 84
84 to 62
20 to 2
a
Efficiencies are for feed gas streams with high H2S concentrations.
Gases with lower H2S concentrations would have lower efficiencies.
For example, a 2 or 3 stage plant could have a recovery efficiency of
b95% for a 90% H2S stream, 93% for 50% H2S, and 90% for 15% H2S.
Based on net weight of pure sulfur produced. The range in emission
fractors corresponds to the range in percentage recovery of sulfur.
S02 emissions calculated from percentage sulfur recovery by following
equation:
S02 emissions (kg/MT) = (10°-% x 2000
z & % recovery
c
Lower percent recovery is for control by extended Claus, and higher
percent is for conversion to and removal of H2S or S02 .
References for Section 5.18
1. E. C. Cavanaugh, et al. , Environmental Assessment Data Base for
Low/Medium Btu Gasification Technology, Volume II, EPA Contract No.
68-02-2147, Radian Corporation, Austin, TX, September 1977.
2 . Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1:
Proposed Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refinery Sulfur
Recovery Plants. EPA-450/2-76-016a, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1976.
3. B. Goar and T. Arrington, "Guidelines for Handling Sour Gas",
Oil and Gas Journal, 76(26) : 160-164, June 26, 1978.
2/80 ( hcniical l'rnrc*> lmln>lr\ .>. !{{-,">
-------
-------
6.5 FERMENTATION
6.5.1 Process Description1
For the purpose of this report only the fermentation industries associated with food will be considered. This
includes the production of beer, whiskey, and wine.
The manufacturing process for each of these is similar. The four main brewing production stages and their
respective sub-stages are: (1) brewhouse operations, which include (a) malting of the barley, (b) addition of
adjuncts (corn, grits, and rice) to barley mash, (c) conversion of starch in barley and adjuncts to maltose sugar by
enzymatic processes, (d) separation of wort from grain by straining, and (e) hopping and boiling of the wort; (2)
fermentation, which includes (a) cooling of the wort, (b) additional yeast cultures, (c) fermentation for 7 to 10
days, (d) removal of settled yeast, and (e) filtration and carbonation; (3) aging, which lasts from 1 to 2 months
under refrigeration; and (4) packaging, which includes (a) botUing-pasteurization, and (b) racking draft beer.
The major differences between beer production and whiskey production are the purification and distillation
necessary to obtain distilled liquors and the longer period of aging. The primary difference between wine making
and beer making is that grapes are used as the initial raw material in wine rather than grains.
6.5.2 Emissions1
Emissions from fermentation processes are nearly all gases and primarily consist of carbon dioxide, hydrogen,
oxygen, and water vapor, none of which present an air pollution problem. Emissions of particulates, however, can
occur in the handling of the grain for the manufacture of beer and whiskey. Gaseous hydrocarbons are also
emitted from the drying of spent grains and yeast in beer and from the whiskey-aging warehouses. No significant
emissions have been reported for the production of wine. Emission factors for the various operations associated
with beer, wine, and whiskey production are shown in Table 6.5-1.
As the following Subsection 6.5.2, Wine Making, implies, the
FERMENTATION Section is being expanded as new informa-
tion is obtained.
Except for the Wine Making information,
mains valid until further notice.
2/80
Table 6.5-1 re-
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.5-1
-------
Table 6.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FERMENTATION PROCESSES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of product
Beer
Grain handling8
Drying spent grains, etc.8
Whiskey
Grain handling8
Drying spent grains, etc.8
Aging
Wine
Particulates
Ib/ton
3
5
3
5
-
kg/MT
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
-
Hydrocarbons
Ib/ton
—
NAb
-
NA
10°
kg/MT
—
NA
-
NA
0.024d
aBased on section on grain processing.
bNo emission factor available, but emissions do occur.
cPounds per year per barrel of whiskey stored.
Kilograms per year per liter of whiskey stored.
eNo significant emissions.
References for Section 6.5
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
591-608.
6.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
6.5.2 WINE MAKING
1-4
6.5.2.1 General
Wine is made by the fermentation of the juice of certain fruits,
chiefly grapes. The grapes are harvested when the sugar content is
right for the desired product, generally around 20 percent sugar by
weight. The industry term for grape sugar content is Degrees Brix, with
1 °Brix equal to 1 gram of sugar per 100 grams of juice.
The harvested grapes are stemmed and crushed, and the juice is
extracted. Sulfurous acid, potassium metabisulfite or liquefied S02 is
used to produce 50 to 200 mg of S0£, which is added to inhibit the
growth of undesirable bacteria and yeasts. For the making of a white
wine, the skins and solids are removed from the juice before fermen-
tation. For a red wine, the skins and solids, which color the wine, are
left in the juice through the fermentation stage. The pulpy mixture of
juice, skins and solids is called a "must".
White wine is generally fermented at about 52°F (11°C), and red
wine at about 80°F (27°C). Fermentation takes a week to ten days for
white wine and about two weeks for red. Fermentation is conducted in
tanks ranging in size from several thousand gallons to larger than
500,000 gallons.
The sugar of the fruit juice is converted into ethanol by the
reaction:
C6Hi206 -> 2 C2H5OH + 2 C02
(sugar) (ethanol)
This process takes place in the presence of a specially cultivated
yeast. Theoretically, the yield of ethanol should be 51.1 percent by
weight of the initial sugar. The actual yield is found to be around 47
percent. The remaining sugar is lost as alcohol or byproducts of complex
chemical mechanisms, or it remains in the wine as the result of incomplete
fermentation.
When fermentation is complete, the wine goes through a finishing
process for clarification. Common clarification procedures are filtr-
ation, fining refrigeration, pasteurization and aging. The wine is then
bottled, corked or capped, labeled and cased. The finer red and white
table wines are aged in the bottle.
1 2
6.5.2.2 Emissions and Controls '
Large amounts of C02 gas are liberated by the fermentation process.
The gas is passed into the atmosphere through a vent in the top of the
tank. Ethanol losses occur chiefly as a result of entrainment in the
2/80 Pood and Agricultural Industry 6.5.2-1
-------
CC>2. Factors which affect the amount of ethanol lost during fermen-
tation are temperature of fermentation, initial sugar content, and
whether a juice or a must is being fermented (i.e., a white or red wine
being made).
Emission factors for wine making are given in Table 6.5.2-1.
These emission factors are for juice fermentation (white wine) with an
initial sugar content of 20 °Brix. Emission factors are given for two
temperatures commonly used for fermentation.
Table 6.5.2-1. ETHANOL EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED WINE
FERMENTATION
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Ethanol Emissions '
Fermentation
temperature
52°F (11.1°C)C
80°F (26.7°C)C>d
Other conditions
lb/103 gal
fermented
1.06
4.79
e
g/kl
fermented
127.03
574.04
e
Due primarily to entrainment in C02, not evaporation. H2S, mercaptans
and other componments may be emitted in limited quantities, but no
, test or other information is available.
C2H50H lost in production.
,References 1 and 2. For white wine with initial 20° Brix.
For red wine, add correction term for must fermentation (2.4 lb/103 gal
or 287.62 g/kl).
See Equation 1.
Emission factors for wines produced under other conditions can be
approximated with the following equation:
EF = [0.136T - 5.91] + [(B - 20.4)(T - 15.21)(0.00685)] + [C] (1)
where: EF = emission factor, pounds of ethanol lost per
thousand gallons of wine made
T = fermentation temperature, °F
B = initial sugar content, °Brix
C = correction term, 0 (zero) for white wine or
2.4 lb/103 gal for red wine
Although no testing has been done on emissions from wine fermen-
tation without grapes, it is expected that ethanol is also emitted from
these operations.
6.5.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
There is potential alcohol loss at various working and storage
stages in the production process. Also, fugitive alcohol emissions
could occur from disposal of fermentation solids. Ethanol is considered
to be a reactive precursor of photochemical oxidants (ozone). Emissions
would be highest during the middle of the fermentation season and would
taper off towards the end. Since wine facilities are concentrated in
certain areas, these areas would be more affected.
Currently, the wine industry uses no means to control the ethanol
lost during fermentation.
References for Section 6.5.2
1. Source Test Report and Evaluation on Emissions from a
Fermentation Tank at E. & J. Gallo Winery, C-8-050, California Air
Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, October 31, 1978.
2. H. W. Zimmerman, et al., "Alcohol Losses from Entrainment in
Carbon Dioxide Evolved during Fermentation", American Journal
of Enology, 15_: 63-68, 1964.
3. R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed.,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1967, pp. 591-608.
4. M. A. Amerine, "Wine", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, Volume 22, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1^70,
pp. 307-334.
2/80 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.5.2-3
-------
-------
CD
co"
2
£
08
£
•g
ca
o
C
o
tn
CD
s
_
u. 3
o
CO
(X
04
O>
CD
0)
3
o>
il
§
0001-^/QI 'SNOISSIW3
12/75
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.9-3
-------
Table 6.9-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORCHARD HEATERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Part icu late
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Sulfur oxidesc
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Carbon monoxide
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Hydrocarbons*
Ib/htr-yr
kg/htr-yr
Nitrogen oxidesh
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Type of heater
Pipeline
b
b
0.1 3Sd
0.06S
6.2
2.8
Neg9
Neg
Neg
Neg
Lazy
flame
b
b
0.1 1S
0.05S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Return
stack
b
b
0.1 4S
0.06S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Cone
b
b
0.1 4S
0.06S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Solid
fuel
0.05
0.023
NAe
NA
NA
NA
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
aReferences 1,3,4, and 6.
"Paniculate emissions for pipeline, lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters are
shown in Figure 6.9-2.
cBased on emission factors for fuel oil combustion in Section 1.3.
S - sulfur content.
eNot available.
Reference 1. Evaporative losses only. Hydrocarbon emissions from combustion
are considered negligible. Evaporative hydrocarbon losses for units that are
part of a pipeline system are negligible.
9 Negligible.
"Little nitrogen oxide is formed because of the relatively low combustion
temperatures.
References for Section 6.9
1. Air Pollution in Ventura County. County of Ventura Health Department, Santa Paula, CA, June 1966.
2. Frost Protection in Citrus. Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, Ventura, CA, November
1967.
3. Personal communication with Mr. Wesley Snowden. Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Consulting Engineers,
Seattle, WA, May 1971.
4. Communication with the Smith Energy Company, Los Angeles, CA, January 1968.
5. Communication with Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, Ventura, CA, October 1969.
6. Personal communication with Mr. Ted Wakai. Air Pollution Control District, County of Ventura, Ojai, CA,
May 1972.
6.9-4
EMISSION FACTORS
7/79
-------
6.17 HARVESTING OF GRAIN
6.17.1 General
Harvesting of grain refers to the activities performed to obtain
the cereal kernels of the plant for grain or the entire plant for forage
and/or silage uses. These activities are accomplished by machines that
cut, thresh, screen, clean, bind, pick, and shell the crops in the
field. Harvesting also includes loading harvested crops into trucks and
transporting crops on the grain field.
Crops harvested for their cereal kernels are cut as close as
possible to the inflorescence (the flowering portion containing the
kernels). This portion is threshed, screened and cleaned to separate
the kernels. The grain is stored in the harvest machine while the
remainder of the plant is discharged back onto the field.
Combines perform all of the above activities in one operation.
Binder machines only cut the grain plants and tie them into bundles or
leave them in a row in the field (called a windrow). The bundles are
allowed to dry for threshing later by a combine with a pickup
attachment.
Corn harvesting requires the only exception to the above
procedures. Corn is harvested by mechanical pickers, picker/shellers,
and combines with corn head attachments. These machines cut and husk
the ears from the standing stalk. The sheller unit also removes the
kernels from the ear. After husking, a binder is sometimes used to
bundle entire plants into piles (called shocks) to dry.
For forage and/or silage, mowers, crushers, windrowers, field
choppers, binders, and similar cutting machines are used to harvest
grasses, stalks and cereal kernels. These machines cut the plants as
close to the ground as possible and leave them in a windrow. The plants
are later picked up and tied by a baler.
Harvested crops are loaded onto trucks in the field. Grain kernels
are loaded through a spout from the combine, and forage and silage bales
are manually or mechanically placed in the trucks. The harvested crop
is then transported from the field to a storage facility.
6.17.2 Emissions and Controls
Emissions are generated by three grain harvesting operations,
(1) crop handling by the harvest machine, (2) loading of the harvested
crop into trucks, and (3) transport by trucks on the field. Particulate
matter, composed of soil dust and plant tissue fragments (chaff) may be
entrained by wind. Particulate emissions from these operations (<7ym
mean aerodynamic diameter) are developed in Reference 1. For this
study, collection stations with air samplers were located downwind
(leeward) from the harvesting operations, and dust concentrations were
2/80 Food and X^riciilturul Indiihlr) 6.1 7-1
-------
measured at the visible plume centerline and at a constant distance
behind the combines. For product loading, since the trailer is station-
ary while being loaded, it was necessary only to take measurements a
fixed distance downwind from the trailer while the plume or puff passed
over. The concentration measured for harvesting and loading was applied
to a point source atmospheric diffusion model to calculate the source
emission rate. For field transport, the air samplers were again placed
a fixed distance downwind from the path of the truck, but this time the
concentration measured was applied to a line source diffusion model.
Readings taken upwind of all field activity gave background concen-
trations. Particulate emission factors for wheat and sorghum harvesting
operations are shown in Table 6.17-1.
There are no control techniques specifically implemented for the
reduction of air pollution emissions from grain harvesting. However,
several practices and occurences do affect emission rates and concen-
tration. The use of terraces, contouring, and stripcropping to inhibit
soil erosion will suppress the entrainment of harvested crop fragments
in the wind. Shelterbelts, positioned perpendicular to the prevailing
wind, will lower emissions by reducing the wind velocity across the
field. By minimizing tillage and avoiding residue burning, the soil
will remain consolidated and less prone to disturbance from transport
activities.
Table 6.17-1. EMISSION RATES/FACTORS FROM THE HARVESTING
GRAIN3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Operation
Harvest
machine
Truck
loading
Field
transport
Emission rate
Wheat Sorghum
Ib/hr
0.027
0.014
0.37
mg/sec
3.4
1.8
47.0
Ib/hr mg/sec
0.18 23.0
0.014 1.8
0.37 47.0
Emission factor
Wheat Sorghum
2 2
Ib/mi g/km
0.96 170.0
0.07 12.0
0.65 110.0
2 2
Ib/mi g/km
6.5 1100.0
0.13 22.0
1.2 200.0
Reference 1.
Assumptions from Reference 1 are an average combine speed of 3.36
meters per second, combine swath width of 6.07 meters, and a field
transport speed of 4.48 meters per second.
In addition to Note b, assumptions are a truck loading time of six
minutes, a truck capacity of .052 km2 for wheat and .029 km2 for
sorghum, and a filed truck travel time of 125 seconds per load.
6.17-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
Reference for Section 1.14
1. R. A. Wachten and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Harvesting
of Grain, State of the Art, EPA-600/2-79-107f, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1977.
2/80 Food UIH! Airriculliiral Iii(lii>
-------
-------
7.6 PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING
1-3
7.6.1 Process Description
Lead is usually found naturally as a sulfide ore containing small
amounts of copper, iron, zinc and other trace elements. It is normally
concentrated at the mine from an ore of 3 to 8 percent lead to an ore
concentrate of 55 to 70 percent lead, containing from 13 to 19 percent,
by weight, free and uncombined sulfur. A typical flow sheet for the
production of lead metal from ore concentrate is shown in Figure 7.6-1.
Processing involves three major steps:
- Sintering, in which the concentrated lead and sulfur are
oxidized to produce lead oxide and sulfur dioxide. (Simulta-
neously, the charge concentrates, recycled sinter, sand and other
inert materials are agglomerated to form a dense, permeable
substance called sinter.)
- Reducing the lead oxide contained in the sinter to produce
molten lead bullion.
- Refining the lead bullion to eliminate any impurities.
7.6.1.1 Sintering - Sinter is produced by a sinter machine, a contin-
uous steel pallet conveyor belt moved by gears and sprockets. Each
pallet consists of perforated or slotted grates, beneath which are
windboxes connected to fans that provide a draft through the moving
sinter charge. Depending on the direction of this draft, the sinter
machine is either of the updraft or downdraft type. Except for the
draft direction, however, all machines are similar in design,
construction and operation.
The sintering reaction is autogenous, occuring at a temperature of
approximately 1800°F (1000°C):
2PbS + 302 -> 2PbO + 2S02 (1)
Operating experience has shown that system operation and product quality
are optimum when the sulfur content of the sinter charge is between 5
and 7 percent by weight. To maintain this desired sulfur content,
sulfide-free fluxes such as silica and limestone, plus large amounts of
recycled sinter and smelter residues, are added to the mix. The quality
of the product sinter is usually determined by its Ritter Index hardness,
which is inversely proportional to the sulfur content. Hard quality
sinter (low sulfur content) is preferred, because it resists crushing
during discharge from the sinter machine. Undersized sinter usually
results from insufficient desulfurization and is recycled for further
processing.
2/80 Metallurgical Indii*tn> 7.6-1
-------
Of the two kinds of sintering machines used, the updraft design is
superior for many reasons. First, the sinter bed thickness is more
permeable (and hence can be larger), thereby permitting a higher pro-
duction rate than that of a downdraft machine of similar dimensions.
Secondly, the small amounts of elemental lead that form during sintering
will solidify at their point of formation in updraft machines, whereas,
in downdraft operation, the metal tends to flow downward and collect on
the grates or at the bottom of the sinter charge, thus causing increased
pressure drop and attendant reduced blower capacity. In addition, the
updraft system exhibits the capability of producing sinter of higher
lead content and requires less maintenance than the downdraft machine.
Finally, and most important from an air pollution control standpoint,
updraft sintering can produce a single strong S02 effluent stream from
the operation, by use of weak gas recirculation. This, in turn, permits
more efficient and economical use of control methods such as sulfuric
acid recovery devices.
7.6.1.2 Reduction - Lead reduction is carried out in a blast furnace,
basically a water jacketed shaft furnace supported by a refractory base.
Tuyeres, through which combustion air is admitted under pressure, are
located near the bottom and are evenly spaced on either side of the
furnace.
The furnace is charged with a mixture of sinter (80 - 90 percent of
charge), metallurgical coke (8 - 14 percent of charge), and other
materials, such as limestone, silica, litharge, slag-forming constit-
uents, and various recycled and cleanup materials. In the furnace, the
sinter is reduced to lead bullion by reactions (2) through (6).
PbO + CO -> Pb + C02 (2)
(3)
(4)
S02 (5)
PbSO. + PbS + 2Pb + 2S00 (6)
4 /
Carbon monoxide and heat required for reduction are supplied by the
combustion of coke. Most of the impurities are eliminated in the slag.
Solid products from the blast furnace generally separate into four
layers: speiss, the lightest material (basically arsenic and antimony),
matte (copper sulfide and other metal sulfides), slag (primarily
silicates), and lead bullion. The first three layers are combined as
slag, which is continually collected from the furnace and either processed
at the smelter for its metal content or shipped to treatment facilities.
C
C +
2PbO +
2 "*"
co2 H-
PbS -»•
co2
2 CO
3Pb
7.6-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
Sulfur oxides are also generated in blast furnaces from small
quantities of residual lead sulfide and lead sulfates in the sinter
feed. The quantity of these emissions is a function not only of the
residual sulfur content in the sinter, but also of the amount of sulfur
that is captured by copper and other impurities in the slag.
Rough lead bullion from the blast furnace usually requires pre-
liminary treatment (dressing) in kettles before undergoing refining
operations. First, the bullion is cooled to 700 to 800°F (370 - 430°C).
Copper and small amounts of sulfur, arsenic, antimony and nickel are
removed from solution, collecting on the surface as a dross. This
dross, in turn, is treated in a reverberatory furnace where the copper
and other metal impurities are further concentrated before being routed
to copper smelters for their eventual recovery. Drossed lead bullion is
treated for further copper removal by the addition of sulfurbearing
material and zinc, and/or aluminum, to lower the copper content to
approximately 0.01 percent.
7.6.1.3 Refining - The third and final phase of smelting, the refining
of the bullion in cast iron kettles, occurs in five steps:
- Removal of antimony, tin and arsenic.
- Removal of precious metals by Parke's Process, in which zinc
combines with gold and silver to form an insoluble intermetallic at
operating temperatures.
- Vacuum removal of zinc.
- Removal of bismuth using the Betterson Process, which is the
addition of calcium and magnesium to form an insoluble compound
with the bismuth that is skimmed from the kettle.
- Removal of remaining traces of metal impurities by addition
of NaOH and NaN03.
The final refined lead, commonly of 99.990 to 99.999 percent purity,
is then cast into 100 pound pigs for shipment.
1 2
7.6.2 Emissions and Controls '
Each of the three major lead smelting process steps generates
substantial quantities of particulates and/or sulfur dioxide.
Nearly 85 percent of the sulfur present in the lead ore concentrate
is eliminated in the sintering operation. In handling process offgases,
either a single weak stream is taken from the machine hood at less than
2 percent S02, or two streams are taken, one strong stream (5-7
percent 802) from the feed end of the machine and one weak stream (<0.5
percent 802) from the discharge end. Single stream operation has been
2/80 Metallurgical Industry 7.6-3
-------
used when there is little or no market for recovered sulfur, so that the
uncontrolled weak SC>2 stream is emitted to the atmosphere. When sulfur
removal is required, however, dual stream operation is preferred. The
strong stream is sent to a sulfuric acid plant, and the weak stream is
vented to the atmosphere after removal of particulates.
Table 7.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING
PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Particulates
Process
Ore crushing
Sintering (updraft)
Blast furnace
Ib/ton
2.0
213.0
361.0
kg/MT
1.0
106.5
180.5
Sulfur
Ib/ton
-
550.0
45.0
dioxide
kg/MT
-
275.0
22.5
Dross reverberatory
furnaceb 20.0 10.0 Neg Neg
Materials handlingb 5.0 2.5 - -
Ore crushing emission factors expressed as Ib/ton (kg/MT) of crushed
ore. All other emission factors expressed as Ib/ton (kg/MT) of lead
product.
Reference 2.
c
References 1, 4, 5 and 6.
References 1, 2 and 7.
When dual gas stream operation is used with updraft sinter machines,
the weak gas stream can be recirculated through the bed to mix with the
strong gas steam, resulting in a single stream with an S02 concentration
of about 6 percent. This technique has the overall effect of decreasing
machine production capacity, but it does permit a more convenient and
economical recovery of the S02 by sulfuric acid plants and other control
methods.
Without weak gas recirculation, the latter portion of the sinter
machine acts as a cooling zone for the sinter and,, consequently, assists
in the reduction of dust formation during product discharge and screen-
ing. However, when recirculation is used, the sinter is usually dis-
charged in a relatively hot state, 745 to 950°F (400 - 500°C), with an
attendant increase in particulates. Methods for reducing these dust
quantities include recirculation of offgases through the sinter bed,
relying upon the filtering effect of the bed, or the ducting of gases
from the discharge through a particulate collection device and then to
the atmosphere. Because reaction activity has ceased in the discharge
area, these latter gases contain little S02.
r.6-i
EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
The particulate emissions from sinter machines range from 5 to 20
percent of the concentrated ore feed. When expressed in terms of
product weight, a typical emission is estimated to be 213 Ib/ton (106.5
kg/MT) of lead produced. This value, along with other particulate and
SC>2 factors, appears in Table 7.6-1.
Table 7.6-2. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FLUE DUST
FROM UPDRAFT SINTERING MACHINES
Size (ym)
20 - 40
10 - 20
5-10
<5
Percent by weight
15 - 45
9-30
4-19
1-10
Typical material balances from domestic lead smelters indicate that
about 15 percent of the sulfur in the ore concentrate fed to the sinter
machine is eliminated in the blast furnace. However, only half of this
amount (about 7 percent of the total sulfur in the ore) is emitted as
SOg. The remainder is captured by the slag. The concentration of this
S02 stream can vary from 500 to 2500 ppm, by volume (1.4 - 7.2 g/m3),
depending on the amount of dilution air injected to oxidize the carbon
monoxide and to cool the stream before baghouse particulate removal.
Particulate emissions from blast furnaces contain many different
kinds of material, including a range of lead oxides, quartz, limestone,
iron pyrites, iron-lime-silicate slag, arsenic, and other metal-containing
compounds associated with lead ores. These particles readily agglom-
erate and are primarily submicron in size, difficult to wet, and cohesive.
They will bridge and arch in hoppers. On the average, this dust loading
is quite substantial (see Table 7.6-1).
Virtually no sulfur dioxide emissions are associated with the
various refining operations. However, a small amount of particulate is
generated by the dross reverberatory furnace, about 20 Ib/ton (10 kg/MT)
of lead.
Finally, minor quantities of particulates are generated by ore
crushing and materials handling operations. These emission factors are
also presented in Table 7.6-1.
Table 7.6-2 is a listing of size distributions of flue dust from
updraft sintering machine effluent. Though these are not fugitive
emissions, the size distributions may closely resemble those of the
fugitive emissions. Particulate fugitive emissions from the blast
furnace consist basically of lead oxides, 92 percent of which are less
than 4 urn in size. Uncontrolled emissions from a lead dross rever-
beratory furnace are mostly less than 1 ym, and this may also be the
case with the fugitive emissions.
2/80 Metallurgical Imliixlrv 7.6-5
-------
£fi
£-f
H
IS
P
W
C/}
£=>
C/)
W
u
t-H
t>
Pd
P
.J
O C/2
w ja
H O
i-^ i i
^-i r— 1
O H
CM
w w
> P-,
H O
H
t-J
PH ,Ei
PH CO
w
P^ Q
H
w «:
M <]
^) ^r|
t5 i i
JV] p£j
H PL,
CJ
H
FK
Pn
W
•
ro
1
•
Is"*
OJ
rH
&
cd
H
01
-d
•H
X
O
•H
i-Q
^
j3
M-4
rH
,3
&s2 W
*
OJ
W)
a
cd
M
^"l
O
ti
0)
*H
u
•H
14-1
MH
W
CO
0)
4J
cd
r-*l
3
•H
4J
M
cd
P"H
-d
o
4J
1
i—4
0
t-l
cs
o
1 1
O ON
ON ON
o o
o in
oo o\
cd
o
4-1
cd
Cd 4J
M -H
O &
4J -H
0 0
0) 01
i — i M
H O,
O
0 0
•H
rH 4-1
cd cd
bO 4J
3 co
<4H O
•H M
^1 ) \
4-1 O
C 0)
0> rH
u w
1
ON
ON
o
in
ON
cd
01
4J
rH
•H
UH
o
•H
M
tp
cd
1
CD
oo
o
0
f^.
CO
s~\
^
(1)
rH
•H
O
,£1
4-1
cd
J2
Q)
4J
CO
cd
S
.e
4J
•H
^
^O
0)
4-1
cd
•H
CJ
O
CO
CO
cd
^-s
M
01
rH
O
o
CJ
^
cd
rH
3
's
t--.
ON
O
4J
vr>
ON
ON
•
ON
ON
O
in
•
ON
ON
U
«l
,n
X-N
4-J
O
cd
4-1
C
O
CJ
CU
i-H
60
C
•H
CO
4-1
C
cd
rH
O.
T3
•H
o
cd
o
^,
3
rH
3
o**
•
ON
ON
o
4J
SO
ON
ON
•
ON
ON
o
m
ON
ON
U
«v
rO
4-1
a
c8
4J
C
o
rH
rj
T3
4-1
C
cd
rH
O,
•T3
•H
0
ctf
O
S-l
3
"4H
, — |
3
O
ON
-a
f\
^3
4-1
C
cd
rH
>,
t-t
QJ
>
O
0)
JH
M
3
4H
rH
3
to
(—1
cd
C
£3
01
H
ON in
ON ON
O O
4-1 4-1
in CN
ON ON
II
1
OJ
«t
r-Q
en
CO
01
o
o
JH,
Py,
C
o
•H
4J MH
O. «
O CO
CO CO
f> 0)
cd a
o
^^ O
5±H
P C
•H
01 4-1
G O
•H M
rH O
•H CO
C rO
rH
rC -H
4J C
0) O
0)
CM O
O 0
CO
M
C OJ o
O rH '4H
bO
•d C oo
0) -H H
cc en
cd m
PQ M
o c
MH o
•H
S '-v 4J
0)cn O
4-1 a a)
co ^ co
>, 60
CO O
r^. *-*
bo •
C 10 M
•H ^ 0)
C <4H
cd B a)
0) O, &t
H O.
O
O
CO O 4J
cd o c
MCN cd
H
C )H
cd cd cu
rH O<
am *^»»
UJ p^
rH 4-1
TJ CU
•H > W
00) 3
cd rH cd
rH
4HC U
O O
•H 13
CM 0)
O CO • rH
•H iH 4J rH
4J B O 0
O 0) cd IH
Cd 4J 4-1
4-1 C C
O 0) O O
4J rH O O
4-> C
0) 3 rH 3
3 O cd
-O 30)
rH T3 bO
>> cd cd
O O M 4J
C -H O CO
Q) O.HH
•H >, 0
O 4-1 /— . &
•H co 4-1
MH B*-xi £5
M-i r^*- ""^ oj
0) 1 &0
m v-i
rH *^" O
O *-M • 4-1
J_| Q ,-~|
4J ^x >-,
C w a
o a d a
"H pi -H
Q) 4J O
4-1 Cd O 'H
cd M O MH
rH 4-J m MH
. . 3 C cu
CN rH O 0> T)
•H 0 C C
0) Q) 4J C Cd O
O O >H O -H
C C cd O 4-1 4J
o> o> o, o o
v-i i-t 4J cd o)
0) 01 J2 C1J 4J rH
MH 14H 60rH C rH
0) 0) -H C O O
Pi pe! W -rl o U
Cd r£> O T)
B
o
M
14H
0)
bO
0
ca
i-1
CO
rH
0)
>
0)
H
P!
o
•H
CO
•H
B
4-1
o>
rH
4J
3
o
rH
cd
o
•H
o.
f^i
4J
n
&"•?
vD
1
4H
o
CO
pi
o
•H
4J
cd
^
4J
fl
o
(Zj
o
o
4_t
OJ
1 — 1
C!
•H
• Csl
c o
o w
•H
4-1 C
cd o
B
^1 f^J
O Q)
m co
C cd
•H pd
CU
w
•H
rH
0)
>
01
rH
c
o
•H
CO
CO
•H
B
fl 1
01
rH
4-1
3
o
rH
cd
o
•H
a.
4J
*
&*s
in
•
CN
1
in
f— ^
14-,
o
w
c
0
•H
4J
• cd
s"^v M
r> 4J
B a
bO O
c
. O .
00 ^
\ 4-1 CO
«
-------
Table 7.6-4. POTENTIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY
LEAD SMELTING PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS3'
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particulates
Process Ib/ton kg/MT
Ore mixing and palletizing (crushing) 2.26 1.13
Car charging (conveyor loading and
transfer) of sinter 0.50 0.25
Q
Sinter machine leakage 0.68 0.34
Sinter return handling 9.00 4.50
Sinter machine discharge, sinter crushing
£
and screening 1.50 0.75
Sinter transfer to dump area 0.20 0.10
Sinter product dump area 0.01 0.005
Blast furnace (charging, blow condition,
tapping) 0.16 0.08
Lead pouring to ladle, transferring, and
slag pouring
Slag cooling
Zinc fuming furnace vents
Dross kettle
Reverberatory furnace leakage
Silver retort building
Lead casting
0.93
0.47
4.60
0.48
3.00
1.80
0.87
0.47
0.24
2.30
0.24
1.50
0.90
0.44
»a
All factors are expressed in units per end product lead produced,
except sinter operations, which are expressed in units per sinter or
sinter handled/transferred/charged.
Reference 8, except where noted.
References 9 and 10. Engineering judgement using steel sinter machine
leakage emission factor.
Reference 2.
£
Reference 2. Engineering judgement, estimated to be half the magnitude
of lead pouring and ladling operations.
2/80 Mclallurgiral Industry 7.6-7
-------
Emission controls on lead smelter operations are for particulates
and sulfur dioxide. The most commonly employed high efficiency parti-
culate control devices are fabric filters and electrostatic precip-
itators, which often follow centrifugal collectors and tubular coolers
(pseudogravity collectors). Three of the 6 lead smelters presently
operating in the United States use single absorption sulfuric acid
plants for control of sulfur dioxide emissions from sinter machines and,
occasionally, from blast furnaces. Single stage plants can attain SO
levels of 2000 ppm (5.7 g/m3), and dual stage plants can attain levels
of 550 ppm (1.6 g/m3). Typical efficiencies of dual stage sulfuric acid
plants in removing sulfur oxides can exceed 99 percent. Other techni-
cally feasible S02 control methods are elemental sulfur recovery plants
and dimethylaniline (DMA) and ammonia absorption processes. These
methods and their representative control efficiencies are listed in
Table 7.6-3.
References for Section 7.6
1. Charles Darvin and Fredrick Porter, Background Information for New
Source Peformance Standards: Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead
Smelters, Volume I, EPA-450/2-74-002a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.
2. A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Handbook of Emissions, Effluents, and
Control Practices for Stationary Particulate Pollution Sources,
Three volumes, HEW Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO, November 1970 - May 1971.
3. A. Worcester and D. H. Beilstein, "The State of the Art: Lead
Recovery", Presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the Metallurgical
Society, AIME, New York, March 1971.
4. T. J. Jacobs, "Visit to St. Joe Minerals Corporation Lead Smelter,
Herculaneum, MO", Memorandum to Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 21, 1971.
5. T. J. Jacobs, "Visit to Amax Lead Company, Boss, MO", Memorandum to
Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, October 28, 1971.
6. Written Communication from R. B. Paul, American Smelting and
Refining Co., Glover, MO, to Regional Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, MO, April 3, 1973.
7.6-8 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
7. Emission Test No. 72-MM-14, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, May 1972.
8. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investigation
(Interim Report), EPA Contract No. 68-02-1343, PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., Cincinnati, OH, February 1975.
9. R. E. Iversen, "Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and AISI on Steel Facility Emission Factors", Memorandum, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 7, 1976.
10. G. E. Spreight, "Best Practicable Means in the Iron and Steel
Industry", The Chemical Engineer, London, 271;132-139, March 1973.
11. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
January 1978.
2/80 Metallurgical Industry 7.6-9
-------
-------
7.18 LEADBEARING ORE CRUSHING by Jake Summers, EPA,
AND GRINDING and Pacific Environmental Services
7.18.1 Process Description
Lead and zinc ores are normally deep mined, whereas copper ores are open pit mined. Lead, zinc and
copper are usually found together (in varying percentages) in combination with sulfur and/or oxygen.
In underground mines, the ore is disintegrated by percussive drilling machines, run through a primary
crusher, and then conveyed to the surface. In open pit mines, ore and gangue are loosened and pulverized
by explosives, scooped up by mechanical equipment, and transported to the concentrator.
Standard crushers, screens, and rod and ball mills classify and reduce the ore to powders in the 65 to 325
mesh range. The finely divided particles are separated from the gangue and are concentrated in a liquid
medium by gravity and/or selective flotation, then cleaned, thickened and filtered. The concentrate is dried
prior to shipment to the smelter.
7.18.2 Emissions and Controls
Lead emissions are basically fugitive, caused by drilling, blasting, loading, conveying, screening,
unloading, crushing and grinding. The primary means of control are good mining techniques and equip-
ment maintenance. These practices include enclosing the truck loading operation, wetting or covering
truck loads and stored concentrates, paving the road from mine to concentrator, sprinkling the unloading
area, and preventing leaks in the crushing and griding enclosures. Cyclones and fabric filters can be used
in the milling operations.
Inarticulate and lead emission factors for lead ore crushing and materials handling operations
are given in Table 7.18-1. Lead emissions from the mining and milling of copper ores are
negligible.
7/79 Metallurgical Industry 7.18-1
-------
Table 7.18-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORE CRUSHING AND
GRINDING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of
ore
Pbc
Zn
Cu
Pb-Zn
Cu-Pb
Cu-Zn
Cu-Pb-Zn
Participate
emission factor3
Ib/ton
processed
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.0
6.4
6.4
6.4
kg/103 kg
processed
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
Lead
emission factorb
Ib/ton
processed
0.3
0.012
0.012
0.12
0.12
0.012
0.12
kg/103 kg
processed
0.15
0.006
0.006
0.06
0.06
0.006
0.06
aReference 1, pp. 4-39
References 1-5
cRefer to Section 7.6
References for Section 7.18
1. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.
2. W. E. Davis, Emissions Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0271,
W. E. Davis and Associates, Leawood, KS, April 1973.
3. Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary Copper, Lead, and Zinc Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
1321, PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, September 1976.
4. Communication with Mr. J. Patrick Ryan, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC,
September 9, 1976.
5. B. G. Wixson and J. C. Jennett, "The New Lead Belt in the Forested Ozarks of Missouri", Environmental
Science and Technology, 9(13): 1128-1133, December 1975.
7.18-2
EMISSION FACTORS
7/79
-------
8.9 COAL CLEANING
1 2
8.9.1 Process Description '
Coal cleaning is a process by which impurities such as sulfur, ash
and rock are removed from coal to upgrade its value. Coal cleaning
processes are categorized as either physical cleaning or chemical clean-
ing. Physical coal cleaning processes, the mechanical separation of
coal from its contaminants using differences in density, are by far the
major processes in use today. Chemical coal cleaning processes are not
commercially practical and are therefore not included in this discussion.
The scheme used in physical coal cleaning processes varies among
coal cleaning plants but can generally be divided into four basic phases:
initial preparation, fine coal processing, coarse coal processing, and
final preparation. A sample process flow diagram for a physical coal
cleaning plant is presented in Figure 8.9-1.
In the initial preparation phase of coal cleaning, the raw coal is
unloaded, stored, conveyed, crushed, and classified by screening into
coarse and fine coal fractions. The size fractions are then conveyed to
their respective cleaning processes.
Fine coal processing and coarse coal processing use very similar
operations and equipment to separate the contaminants. The primary
differences are the severity of operating parameters. The majority of
coal cleaning processes use upward currents or pulses of a fluid such as
water to fluidize a bed of crushed coal and impurities. The lighter
coal particles rise and are removed from the top of the bed. The
heavier impurities are removed from the bottom. Coal cleaned in the wet
processes then must be dried in the final preparation processes.
Final preparation processes are used to remove moisture from coal,
thereby reducing freezing problems and weight, and raising the heating
value. The first processing step is dewatering, in which a major por-
tion of the water is removed by the use of screens, thickeners and
cyclones. The second step is normally thermal drying, achieved by any
one of three dryer types: fluidized bed, flash and multilouvered. In
the fluidized bed dryer, the coal is suspended and dried above a per-
forated plate by rising hot gases. In the flash dryer, coal is fed into
a stream of hot gases, for instantaneous drying. The dried coal and wet
gases are drawn up a drying column and into a cyclone for separation.
In the multilouvered dryer, hot gases are passed through a falling
curtain of coal. The coal is raised by flights of a specially designed
conveyor.
1 2
8.9.2 Emissions and Controls '
Emissions from the initial coal preparation phase of either wet or
dry processes consist primarily of fugitive particulates, as coal dust,
from roadways, stock piles, refuse areas, loaded railroad cars, conveyor
2/80 Mineral Product* Industry 8.9-1
-------
E
CO
l_
en
co
'-a
o
o
O
_co
a
c
CO
CD
n:
O
o
"ro
o
"o.
>»
CD
00
O)
)«
3
cn
8.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
belt pouroffs, crushers, and classifiers. The major control technique
used to reduce these emissions is water wetting. Another technique
applicable to unloading, conveying, crushing, and screening operations
involves enclosing the process area and circulating air from the area
through fabric filters.
Table 8.9-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL CLEANING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
-- — __0£er a t ion
Pollutant • — -~-__i
Particulates
Before Cyclone
After Cyclone
After Scrubber
so28
After Cyclone
After Scrubber
NO ^
X
After Scrubber
vock
After Scrubber
Fluidized
Ib/ton
20b
12e
0.09e
0.43h
0.25
0.14
0.10
Bed Flash Multilouvered
kg/MT
iob
6e
0.05e
0.22h
0.13
0.07
0.05
Ib/ton kg/MT
16b 8b
10f 5f
0.4f 0.2f
i
-
-
- -
Ib/ton kg/MT
25C 13°
8C 4C
O.lf 0.05°
.
-
-
_
, Emission factors expressed as units per weight of coal dried.
References 3 and 4.
Q
,Reference 5.
Cyclones are standard pieces of process equipment for product collection.
^References 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Reference 1.
Cr
References 7 and 8. The control efficiency of venturi scrubbers
on S02 emissions depends on the inlet S02 loading, ranging from 70 to
80% removal for low sulfur coals (.7% S) down to 40 to 50% removal for
high sulfur coals (3% S).
.References 7, 8 and 9.
.Not available.
•^Reference 8. The control efficiency of venturi scrubbers on NO^
emissions is approximately 10 to 25%.
volatile organic compounds as Ibs of carbon/ton of coal dried.
The major emission source in the fine or coarse coal processing
phases is the air exhaust from the air separation processes. For the
dry cleaning process, this is where the coal is stratified by pulses of
air. Particulate emissions from this source are normally controlled
with cyclones followed by fabric filters. Potential emissions from wet
cleaning processes are very low.
Jx
2/80
Mineral Product* Indu.slrv
8.9-3
-------
The major source of emissions from the final preparation phase is
the thermal dryer exhaust. This emission stream contains coal particles
entrained in the drying gases, in addition to the standard products of
coal combustion resulting from burning coal to generate the hot gases.
Factors for these emissions are presented in Table 8.9-1. The most
common technologies used to control this source are venturi scrubbers
and mist eliminators downstream from the product recovery cyclones. The
particulate control efficiency of these technologies ranges from 98 to
99.9 percent. The venturi scrubbbers also have an NOX removal efficiency
of 10 to 25 percent, and an S02 removal efficiency ranging from 70 to 80
percent for low sulfur coals to 40 to 50 percent for high sulfur coals.
References for Section 8.9
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources: Coal Cleaning Industry, Environmental
Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, EPA Contract No. CPA-70-142,
July 1971.
2. Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Contract No. CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research
Inc., Reston, VA, April 1970.
3. Stack Test Results on Thermal Coal Dryers (Unpublished), Bureau of
Air Pollution Control, Pennsylvania Department of Health,
Harrisburg, PA.
4. "Amherst's Answer to Air Pollution Laws", Coal Mining and
Processing, 7(2):26-29, February 1970.
5. D. W. Jones, "Dust Collection at Moss No. 3", Mining Congress
Journal, 55(7);53-56, July 1969.
6. Elliott Northcott, "Dust Abatement at Bird Coal", Mining Congress
Journal, _53:26-29, November 1967.
7. Richard W. Kling, Emissions from the Island Creek Coal Company Coal
Processing Plant, York Research Corporation, Stamford, CT,
February 14, 1972.
8. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Consolidation Coal Company,
Bishop, West Virginia, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0233, Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA, November 1972.
9. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Westmoreland Coal Company,
Wentz Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0233, Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA, April 1972.
10. Background Information for Standards of Performance; Coal
Preparation Plants, Volume 2: Test Data Summary,
EPA-450/2-74-021b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.
«.<>-1 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
8.11 GLASS FIBER MANUFACTURING
8.11.1 General
Glass fiber manufacturing is the high temperature conversion of
various raw materials (predominantly borosilicates) into a homogeneous
melt, followed by the fabrication of this melt into glass fibers. The
two basic types of glass fiber products, textile and wool, are manu-
factured by similar processes. Typical flow diagrams are shown in
Figure 8.11-1. Glass fiber production can be segmented into three
phases: raw materials handling, glass melting and refining, and fiber
forming and finishing, this last phase being slightly different in the
textile and the wool glass fiber product types.
8.11.1.1 Raw Materials Handling - The primary component of glass fiber
is sand, but it also includes varying quantities of feldspar, sodium
sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. The
bulk supplies are received by rail car and truck, and the lesser volume
supplies are received in drums and packages. These raw materials are
unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems
and vibrator/gravity systems. Conveying to and from storage piles and
silos is accomplished by belts, screws and bucket elevators. From
storage, the materials are measured by weight according to the desired
product recipe, and then blended well prior to their introduction into
the melting unit. The weighing, mixing and charging operations may be
conducted in either batch or continuous mode.
8.11.1.2 Glass Melting and Refining - In the glass melting furnace, the
raw materials are heated to temperatures ranging from 2700 to 3100°F
(1500 - 1700°C) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical
reactions to molten glass. Although there are many furnace designs,
furnaces are generally large, shallow and well insulated vessels which
are heated from above. In operation, raw materials are introduced
continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where they slowly mix and
dissolve. Mixing is effected by natural convection, gases rising from
chemical reactions, and in some operations, by air injection into the
bottom of the bed.
Glass melting furnaces can be categorized, by their fuel source and
method of heat application, into four types: recuperative, regenerative,
electric, and unit melter. The recuperative, regenerative, and unit
melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil. The current trend
is shifting from gas fired to oil fired. Recuperative furnaces use a
steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from the exhaust gases by exchange
with the combustion air. Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brick-
work to recover waste heat from exhaust gases. In the initial mode of
operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a chamber containing a
brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passing through
2/80 Mineral Proclm-t* In
-------
Raw materials
receiving and handling
Raw materials storage
Raw
material
handling
Crushing, weighing, mixing
Forming
I
Binder addition
Compression
Oven curing
Cooling
Fabrication
Packaging
Melting and refining
Direct
process
Wool glass fiber
Indirect
process
Marble forming
Annealing
Marble storage, shipment
Marble melting
Textile glass fiber
Forming
Sizing, 'binding addition
Winding
Oven drying
Oven curing
Fabrication
Packaging
Glass
melting
and
forming
Fiber
forming
and
finishing
Figure 8.11-1. Typical flow diagram of the glass fiber production process.
».I 1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
another corresponding brickwork lattice. About every twenty minutes,
the air flow is reversed, so that the combustion air is always being
passed through hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
Electric furnaces melt glass by the passage of an electric current
through the melt. Electric furnaces are subcategorized as either hot
top or cold top. The hot top electric furnaces use gas for auxiliary
heating, and the cold top furnaces use only the electric current.
Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber produc-
tion, because of the electrical properties of the glass formulation.
Unit melters are used only for the "indirect" marble melting process.
Raw materials are fed to unit melters by a continuous screw at the back
of the furnace adjacent to the exhaust air discharge. There are no
provisions for heat recovery with the unit melter.
In the "indirect" melting process, molten glass passes to a fore-
hearth, where it is drawn off, sheared into globs, and formed into
marbles by roll forming. The marbles are then stress relieved in
annealing ovens, cooled, and conveyed to storage or transported to other
plants for later use. In the "direct" glass fiber process, molten glass
passes from the furnace into a refining unit, where bubbles and particles
are removed by settling, and the melt is allowed to cool to the proper
viscosity for the forming operation.
8.11.1.3 Wool Glass Fiber Forming and Finishing - The two processes
used to form wool glass fibers are rotary spinning and flame attenuation/
marble melting. In a rotary spinning process, molten glass from the
furnace is continuously forced through small holes in the outer edge of
a rotating cylinder or spinner. The emerging fibers are entrained in a
high velocity air stream and, as they cool, are sprayed with a water
soluble phenolic binder. The flame attenuation process, used in con-
junction with the marble melting process, involves forcing molten glass
through numerous very small orifices in the bottom of the marble remelt-
ing furnace. The emerging glass fibers are entrained in a very hot gas
stream, which serves to break up and to attenuate the glass fibers into
a fine discontinuous fiber mass. The fibers are then sprayed with a
highly diluted phenol-formaldehyde water solution which, when cured,
becomes a binder. In both fiber forming processes, the binder coated
glass fibers are collected on a conveyor belt, compressed by a set of
rollers, and conveyed to a binder curing oven. After curing, the
continuous fiber batt is cooled in circulating air, attached to an
appropriate backing, and prepared for shipping.
8.11.1.4 Textile Glass Fiber Forming and Finishing - Molten glass from
either the direct melting furnace or the indirect marble melting furnace
is temperature regulated to a precise viscosity and delivered to forming
stations. At the forming stations, the molten glass is forced through
heated platinum bushings containing numerous very small orifices. The
continuous fibers emerging from the orifices are drawn over a roller
applicator which applies a coating of water soluble sizing and/or
2/80 Mineral Product- lndustr\ ft. | (.3
-------
coupling agent. The coated fibers are gathered and wound onto a spindle.
The spindles of glass fibers are next conveyed to a drying oven, where
moisture is removed from the sizing and coupling agents. The spindles
are then sent to an oven to cure the coatings. The final fabrication
includes twisting, chopping, weaving and packaging of the fiber.
8.11.2 Emissions and Controls
Emissions and controls for glass fiber manufacturing can be
categorized by the three production phases with which they are asso-
ciated. Emission factors for the glass fiber manufacturing industry are
summarized in Table 8.11-1.
8.11.2.1 Raw Materials Handling - The major emissions from the raw
materials handling phase are fugitive dust and raw material particles
generated at each of the material transfer points. Such a point would
be where sand pours off a conveyor belt and into a storage silo. The
two major control techniques are wet or very moist handling and fabric
filters. When fabric filters are used, the transfer points are enclosed,
and air from the transfer area is continuously circulated through the
fabric filters.
8.11.2.2 Glass Melting and Refining - The emissions from glass melting
and refining include volatile organic compounds evolving from the melt,
raw material particulates entrained in the furnace flue gas, and if
furnaces are heated with fossil fuels, combustion products. The vari-
ations in emission rates among furnaces are attributable to variations
in operating temperature, raw material composition,, fuels, and flue gas
flow rates. Electric furnaces generally have the lowest emission rates,
because of the lack of combustion products and of the lower temperature
of the melt surface due to bottom heating. Emission control for furnaces
consists primarily of fabric filtration. Fabric filters are effective
on particulates and SOX and, to a lesser extent, on CO, NOX and fluorides.
This effectiveness on these compounds is attributable both to condensation
on filterable particulates and to chemical reaction with particulates
trapped on the filters. Reported fabric filter efficiencies on regene-
rative and recuperative wool furnaces are for particulates, 95+ percent;
SO , 99+ percent; CO, 30 percent; fluoride, 91 to 99 percent. Efficiencies
on other furnaces are lower because of lower emission loading and pollutant
characteristics.
8.11.2.3 Fiber Forming and Finishing - Emissions from the forming and
finishing processes include glass fiber particles, resin particles,
hydrocarbons (primarily phenols and aldehydes), and combustion products
from dryers and ovens. Emissions are generally lower in the textile
fiber glass process, due to the lower turbulence in the forming step,
the roller application of coatings, and the use of much less coating per
ton of fiber produced. Because of the higher emission rates, control
technology is most effective on the wool fiber segment of the industry.
}{. I I -1 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
cd
CO
O
H
JF
O
U
H
P
O
a
H
o
z
2
«~
b
P
r^j '
*£
^i
os
u
ca
HH
UH
CO
CO
o
B£
O
CO
CeJ
O
H
CJ
•^
U.
O
53
CO
s
M
I
00
3
w
H
BQ
d
jZ,
NH
H
^^
P^
O
^
-^
U.
Z
O
taH
to
CO
I-H
5
M
CO
0)
T)
•H
§
Pn
CO
C
O
V4
rt
a
o
(-1
0*
o
o
CO
<1)
4-1
rH
U
4J
rt
H
5
o
4-)
,0
JJ£
01
^
d
o
4J
rH
s
J2
c
o
4J
-Q
.s
01
•^
§
•u
,£!
|
B
0
H
^
^!
g
4-1
rH
iH
O O O O
O O O O
CM
O CM rH CM CM CM CM OJ CU M-l QJOJ
14-I4-I<44 4H OrHrHrH
O O O O
m
u-, ^_i oc in Ln
H_( U-I 14~| IH QJ QJ U (D 4-I4-IM-4 •• OJ ••
<4_<4_lU-4 >4-l (D QJ QJ CU UH U-I U-I • CU
O C
-j-inin ooo in I-H
iHinOOrH iHrHrH in
O CM O O O
r** in OOO CN
CM r-^ CO CM CM CM "H
O rH O -H
m
OrHrHrH CNin h-m
OOOO O i-H co
O CO uO rH
d d H
sf O O co O
O rH rH <£> CO
o o
mrH^I rHOOCO ONrH CO
LnrHfOOOCMrHrHin CM m in
. . . 0) • 1 - •
rHOOCOcO-^" O-^"
iH
(NOO"> CN'iOvD OOCN rH CTi^D
OCN> CJ rH 4-1
dj GO O X C *O C
>aj:oojcu o) ocurHo
C'rlO? >>rt4J -HCUO'iH
OJ24J iH'iHCU 4JrHO4-l
C_JClO(fll 4-I4-J4-II -d CO'H^CO
*HCQ rtrtrH CUQJ rHS-t-J 3
-OO d) 0) MVJOJ 0)>>vj OCC X ICC!
£033^ O CUO)S O'rH'HCU O30) OJ 30)
OOP3C CM'rHbOCJiH M ri )-< (U 1 ^ Mp--,
t300tiO-HJ-i Ulll 3Ci)4J CrtS C Ort0
rttoc^itoco ojcowco COOOO-H -HWCO -H 4->co
OH'HCOJ^COi— IfOrtcO COCUQJC! fiOrH g CO^H
rHO^3OtO WOOO cOPiPti!Z3 Cp^tLj fi OJaJt^
C4-l-HHrH --( O O>
E3 W S U O O PM fn O
^ 4^
CM
o w
d S
Soo
0)
T-H CO
O rH
O CN
m
r-
cu
0
m
rH
OJ 4-(
«
o d
CO CM
0)
o rt X
C 5 00 4-J
P, io -H OC
« d tj c
X rH U rH
VJ O O
4-1 CJ 0) U
o >
Pd 0
T)
CU
ocess
P-
"rt
•H
aw mater
4H
O
x:
00
•H
cu
3
•r<
c
a
cu
a
4_t
C
CO
rt
cu
CO
U)
cu
8*
OJ
CO
o
o
rt
4-1
C!
0
•H
CO
CO
•H
a
rt x
0)
rt
4J
CU
B
01
0)
00
0)
on
CO
cu
o
4-t
-o
rt
CO
0)
J2
T3
rt
"O
rt
o
c
cu
^J QJ
d- rH
>> rt
rH ,-H
H 'rH
M CO •
rt > cu
•H * • X)
S-i iH CN OJ CO
a n a
OJ CU rt --H
01 O U rH
cu d d rt ex
TJ cu OJ 4-i a.
d M !- rt co
rH 0) CU T3
O U-I 4-4 4J
d OJ OJ O O
M Pi cd a Z
CJ T3 OJ 4-4
2/80
Mim-ral Prodiicls Indiislrx
H. I I -5
-------
Emission controls for the wool fiber forming process include wet scrub-
bing, electrostatic precipitation, filtration, use of lower temperatures,
and use of partially cured binders. Emission controls for curing ovens
include incineration, afterburners and high energy filters. Controls
applicable to the cooling process include wet scrubbers and high energy
filters. The control efficiencies of afterburners on hydrocarbon
emissions from wool rotary spinning facilities are reported to be 93
percent on forming equipment and 77 percent on the curing oven. Control
efficiency of scrubbers on hydrocarbon emissions from wool rotary spinning
cooling operations is 90 percent.
Reference for Section 8.11
1. J. R. Schorr, et al., Source Assessment; Pressed and Blown
Glass Manufacturing Plants, EPA-600/2-77-005, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1977.
8.11-6 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
8.18.1 General
The processing of phosphate rock for use In fertilizer manufacture
consists of beneficiation, drying or calcining, and grinding stages.
Since the primary use of phosphate rock is in the manufacture of phos-
phatic fertilizer, only those phosphate rock processing operations
associated with fertilizer manufacture are discussed here. A flow
diagram of these operations is shown in Figure 8.18-1.
Phosphate rock from the mines is first sent to beneficiation units
to remove impurities. Steps used in beneficiation depend on the type of
rock. A typical beneficiation unit for processing phosphate rock mined
in Florida (about 78 percent of United States plant capacity in 1978)
begins with wet screening to separate pebble rock (smaller than 1/4 inch
and larger than 14 mesh) from the balance of the rock. The pebble rock
is sent to the rock dryer, and the fraction smaller than 14 mesh is
slurried and treated by two-stage flotation. The flotation process uses
hydrophilic or hydrophobic chemical reagents with aeration to separate
suspended particles. Phosphate rock mined in North Carolina (about 8
percent of United States capacity in 1978) does not contain pebble rock.
In processing this type of phosphate, the fraction larger than 1/4 inch
is sent to a hammer mill and then recycled to the screens, and the
fraction less than 14 mesh is treated by two-stage floation, like
Florida rock. The sequence of beneficiation steps at plants processing
Western hard phosphate rock (about 10 percent of United States capacity
in 1978) typically includes crushing, classification and filtration.
The size reduction is carried out in several steps, the last of which is
a slurry grinding process using a wet rod mill to reduce the rock to
particles about the size of beach sand. The slurry is then classified
by size in hydroclones to separate tailings (clay and particles smaller
than about 100 mesh), and the rock is then filtered from the slurry.
Beneficiated rock is commonly stored in open wet piles. It is reclaimed
from these piles by one of several methods (including skip loaders,
underground conveyor belts, and aboveground reclaim trolleys) and is
then conveyed to the next processing step.
The wet beneficiated phosphate rock is then dried or calcined,
depending on its organic content. Florida rock is relatively free of
organics and is dried in direct fired dryers at about 250°F (120°C),
where the moisture content of the rock falls from 10-15 percent to 1-3
percent. Both rotary and fluidized bed dryers are used, but rotary
dryers are more common. Most dryers are fired with natural gas or fuel
oil (No. 2 or No. 6), with many equipped to burn more than one type of
fuel. Unlike Florida rock, phosphate rock mined from other reserves
contains organics and must be heated to 1400° - 1600°F (760°C - 870°C)
to remove them. Fluidized bed calciners are most commonly used for this
purpose, but rotary calciners are also used. After drying, the rock is
usually conveyed to storage silos on weather protected conveyors and,
from there, to grinding mills.
2/80 Mineral Product* lndii.slr\ «.!«-!
-------
Table 8.18-1. UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of Source
Drying
Calcining
Grinding
Transfer and storage
Open storage piles
Ib/ton
5.7
(1.4 - 14.0)
15.4
(3.8 - 38.0)
1.5
(0.4 - 4.0)
2
40
Emissions
kg/MT
2.9
(0.7 - 7.
7.7
(1.9 - 19
0.8
(0.2 - 2.
1
20
0)
.0)
0)
f\
Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of processed
,phosphate rock. Ranges in parentheses.
Reference 1.
Q
..Reference 3.
Reference 4.
Dried or calcined rock is ground in roll or ball mills to a fine
powder, typically specified as 60 percent by weight passing a 200 mesh
sieve. Rock is fed into the mill by a rotary valve, and ground rock is
swept from the mill by a circulating air stream. Product size classi-
fication is provided by "revolving whizzers" and by an air classifier.
Oversize particles are recycled to the mill, and product size particles
are separated from the carrying air stream by a cyclone.
8.18.2 Emissions and Controls
The major emission sources for phosphate rock processing are
dryers, calciners and grinders. These sources emit particulates in the
form of fine rock dust. Emission factors for these sources are pre-
sented in Table 8.18-1. Beneficiation has no significant emission
potential, since the operations involve slurries of rock and water.
Emissions from dryers depend on several factors, including fuel
types, air flow rates, product moisture content, speed of rotation, and
the type of rock. The pebble portion of Florida rock receives much less
washing than the concentrate rock from the floation processes. It has a
higher clay content and generates more emissions when dried. No signi-
ficant differences have been noted in gas volume or emissions from fluid
bed or rotary dryers. A typical dryer processing 250 tons per hour (230
metric tons per hour) of rock will discharge between 70,000 and 100,000
dscfm (31 - 45 dry nm3/sec) of gas, with a particulate loading of 0.5 to
«.l«-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
oo
a
n -H
0) l-l
N 3
1-1 4->
O iH CJ
H -H cfl
4J 4-i
t-( 3
a) C
U
O
t-i
a
w
o
00
•H
tn
CO
0)
o
o
4J
0)
0)
CO
O
t-t
14-1
aj
o
eu
>.
H
i
oo
oo
01
3
oo
•H
2/80
Mineral l'ro lii(lustr\
-------
5 grams/dscf (1.2 - 12 grams/dry nm3). A particle size distribution of
the uncontrolled dust emissions is given in Table 8.18-2.
Scrubbers are most commonly used to control emissions from phosphate
rock dryers, but electrostatic precipitators are also used. Fabric
filters are not currently being used to control emissions from dryers.
Venturi scrubbers with a relatively low pressure loss (12 inches of
water, or 3000 Pa) may remove 80 to 99 percent of particulates 1 to 10
micrometers in diameter, and 10 to 80 percent of particulates less than
1 micrometer. High pressure drop scrubbers (30 inches of water, or 7500
Pa) may have collection efficiencies of 96 to 99.9 percent for 1-10
micrometer particulates and 80 to 86 percent for particles less than 1
micrometer. Electrostatic precipitators may remove 90 to 99 percent of
all particulates. Another control technique for phosphate rock dryers
is use of the wet grinding process, in which the drying step is
eliminated.
A typical 50 ton per hour (45 MT/hour) calciner will discharge
about 30,000 to 60,000 dscfm (13 - 27 dry nm3/sec) of exhaust gas, with
a particulate loading of 0.5 to 5 g/dscf (1.2 - 12 g/dry nm3). As
shown in Table 8.18-2, the size distribution of the uncontrolled calciner
emissions is very similar to that of the dryer emissions. As with
dryers, scrubbers are the most common control devices used for calciners.
At least one operating calciner is equipped with a precipitator. Fabric
filters could also be applied.
Oil fired dryers and calciners have a potential to emit sulfur
oxides when high sulfur residual fuel oils are burned. However, phos-
phate rock typically contains about 55 percent CaO, which reacts with
the SOX to form calcium sulfites and sulfates and thus reduces SOX
emissions.
Low levels of gaseous fluoride emissions (0.002 Ib/ton or 0.001
kg/MT) of rock processed from calciners have been reported, although
other reports indicate that the calcination temperature is too low to
drive off gaseous fluorides. Fluoride emissions from dryers are
negligible.
A typical grinder of 50 tons per hour (45 MT/hr) capacity will
discharge about 3500 to 5500 dscfm (1.6 - 2.5 dry nm3/sec) of air
containing 0.5 to 5.0 gr/dscf (1.2 - 12 g/dry nm3) of particulates. The
air discharged is "tramp air" which infiltrates the circulating streams.
To avoid fugitive emissions of rock dust, these streams are operated at
negative pressure. Fabric filters, and sometimes scrubbers, are used to
control grinder emissions. Substituting wet grinding for conventional
grinding would reduce the potential for particulate emissions.
Emissions from material handling systems are difficult to quantify,
since several different systems are employed to convey rock. Moreover,
a large part of the emission potential for these operations is fugitives.
Conveyor belts moving dried rock are usually covered and sometimes
8.18-4 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
enclosed. Transfer points are sometimes hooded and evacuated. Bucket
elevators are usually enclosed and evacuated to a control device, and
ground rock is generally conveyed in totally enclosed systems with well
defined and easily controlled discharge points. Dry rock is normally
stored in enclosed bins or silos which are vented to the atmosphere,
with fabric filters frequently used to control emissions.
Table 8.18-2. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS
FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK DRYERS AND CALCINERS&
Diameter (ym)
10.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
Percent Less
Dryers
82
60
27
11
7
3
Than Size
Calciners
96
81
52
26
10
5
o
Reference 1.
References for Section 8.18
1. Background Information: Proposed Standards for Phosphate Rock
Plants (Draft), EPA-450/3-79-017, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.
2. "Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control", Air Pollution,
Volume III, 2nd Ed., Arthur Stern, ed., New York, Academic Press,
1968, pp. 221-222.
3. Unpublished data from phosphate rock preparation plants in Florida,
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, June 1970.
4. Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions, Internal document,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, pp. 4-34, 4-36 and
4-46.
2/80 Mineral Product* Industry 8.18-5
-------
-------
8.21 COAL CONVERSION
In addition to its direct use for combustion, coal can be converted
to organic gases and liquids, thus allowing the continued use of conven-
tial oil and gas fired processes when oil and gas supplies are not
available. Currently, there is little commercial coal conversion in the
United States. Consequently, it is very difficult to determine which of
the many conversion processes will be commercialized in the future. The
following sections provide general process descriptions and general
emission discussions for high-, medium- and low-Btu gasification (gasi-
faction) processes and for catalytic and solvent extraction liquefaction
processes.
1-2
8.21.1 Process Description
8.21.1.1 Gasification - One means of converting coal to an alternate
form of energy is gasification. In this process, coal is combined with
oxygen and steam to produce a combustible gas, waste gases, char and
ash. The more than 70 coal gasification systems currently available or
being developed (1979) can be classified by the heating value of the gas
produced and by the type of gasification reactor used. High-Btu gasi-
fication systems produce a gas with a heating value greater than 900
Btu/scf (33,000 J/m3). Medium-Btu gasifiers produce a gas having a
heating value between 250 - 500 Btu/scf (9,000 - 19,000 J/m3). Low-Btu
gasifiers produce a gas having a heating value of less than 250 Btu/scf
(9,000 J/m3).
The majority of the gasification systems consist of four operations:
coal pretreatment, coal gasification, raw gas cleaning and gas beneficia-
tion. Each of these operations consists of several steps. Figure
8.21-1 is a flow diagram for an example coal gasification facility.
Generally, any coal can be gasified if properly pretreated. High
moisture coals may require drying. Some caking coals may require
partial oxidation to simplify gasifier operation. Other pretreatment
operations include crushing, sizing, and briqueting of fines for feed to
fixed bed gasifiers. The coal feed is pulverized for fluid or entrained
bed gasifiers.
After pretreatment, the coal enters the gasification reactor, where
it reacts with oxygen and steam to produce a combustible gas. Air is
used as the oxygen source for making low-Btu gas, and pure oxygen is
used for making medium- and high-Btu gas (inert nitrogen in the air
dilutes the heating value of the product). Gasification reactors are
classified by type of reaction bed (fixed, entrained or fluidized), the
operating pressure (pressurized or atmospheric), the method of ash
removal (as molten slag or dry ash), and the number of stages in the
gasifier (one or two). Within each class, gasifiers have similar
emissions.
Mineral Product- Imhi.slr> 8.2 I-J
-------
The raw gas from the gasifier contains varying concentrations of
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, methane, other organics,
hydrogen sulfide, miscellaneous acid gases, nitrogen (if air was used as
the oxygen source), particulates and water. Four gas purification proc-
esses may be required to prepare the gas for combustion or further
benef iciation: particulate removal, tar and oil removal, gas quenching
and cooling, and acid gas removal. The primary function of the partic-
ulate removal process is the removal of coal dust, ash and tar aerosols
in the raw product gas. During tar and oil removal and gas quenching
and cooling, tars and oils are condensed, and other impurities such as
ammonia are scrubbed from raw product gas using either aqueous or
organic scrubbing liquors. Acid gases such as H2S, COS, CS2 , mercap-
tans, and CQ^ can be removed from gas by an acid gas removal process.
Acid gas removal processes generally absorb the acid gases in a solvent,
from which they are subsequently stripped, forming a nearly pure acid
gas waste stream with some hydrocarbon carryover. At this point, the
raw gas is classified as either a low-Btu or medium-Btu gas.
To produce high-Btu gas, the heating value of the medium-Btu gas is
raised by shift conversion and methanation. In the shift conversion
process, H20 and a portion of the CO are catalytically reacted to form
C02 and H2 . After passing through an absorber for C02 removal, the
remaining CO and Hj in the product gas are reacted in a methanation
reactor to yield CHi± and
There are also many auxiliary processes accompanying a coal gasi-
fication facility, which provide various support functions. Among the
typical auxiliary processes are oxygen plant, power and steam plant,
sulfur recovery unit, water treatment plant, and cooling towers.
8.21.1.2 Liquefaction - Liquefaction is a conversion process designed
to produce synthetic organic liquids from coal. This conversion is
achieved by reducing the level of impurities and increasing the hydrogen
to carbon ratio of coal to the point that is becomes fluid. Currently,
there are over 20 coal liquefaction processes in various stages of
development by both industry and Federal agencies (1979). These
processes can be grouped into four basic liquefaction techniques:
- Indirect liquefaction
- Pyrolysis
- Solvent extraction
- Catalytic liquefaction
Indirect liquefaction involves the gasification of coal followed by the
catalytic conversion of the product gas to a liquid. Pyrolysis lique-
faction involves heating coal to very high temperatures, thereby crack-
ing the coal into liquid and gaseous products. Solvent extraction uses
a solvent generated within the process to dissolve the coal and to
transfer externally produced hydrogen to the coal molecules. Catalytic
liquefaction resembles solvent extraction, except that hydrogen is added
to the coal with the aid of a catalyst.
8.21-2 EMISSION[FACTORS 2/80
-------
Steam
Oxygen or
Air
Coal Preparation
Drying
Crushing
Partial Oxidatic)n
Briquet ing
Coal
preparation
Coal Hopper Gas
Tar
•Tail Gas
Sulfur
Gasification
Raw gas
' cleaning
Gas
benef i elation
product gas
High-Btu
Product Gas
Figure 8.21-1. Flow diagram of typical coal gasification plant.
2/80
Mineral Product Industry
H.21 -3
-------
Figure 8.21-2 presents the flow diagram of a typical solvent extrac-
tion or catalytic liquefaction plant. These coal liquefaction processes
consist of four basic operations: coal pretreatment, dissolution and
liquefaction, product separation and purification, and residue
gasification.
Coal pretreatment generally consists of coal pulverizing and
drying. The dissolution of coal is best effected if the coal is dry and
finely ground. The heater used to dry coal is typically coal fired, but
it may also combust low-BTU value product streams or may use waste heat
from other sources.
The dissolution and liquefaction operations are conducted in a
series of pressure vessels. In these processes, the coal is mixed with
hydrogen and recycled solvent, heated to high temperatures, dissolved
and hydrogenated. The order in which these operations occur varies
among the liquefaction processes and, in the case of catalytic liquefac-
tion, involves contact with a catalyst. Pressures in these processes
range up to 2000 psig (14,000 Pa), and temperatures range up to 900°F
(480°C). During the dissolution and liquefaction process, the coal is
hydrogenated to liquids and some gases, and the oxygen and sulfur in the
coal are hydrogenated to H20 and H2S.
After hydrogenation, the liquefaction products are separated,
through a series of flash separators, condensers, and distillation
units, into a gaseous stream, various product liquids, recycle solvent,
and mineral residue. The gases from the separation process are separ-
ated further by absorption into a product gas stream and a waste acid
gas stream. The recycle solvent is returned to the dissolution/lique-
faction process, and the mineral residue of char, undissolved coal and
ash is used in a conventional gasification plant to produce hydrogen.
The residue gasification plant closely resembles a convential high-
Btu coal gasifaction plant. The residue is gasified in the presence of
oxygen and steam to produce CO, H2, H20, other waste gases, and partic-
ulates. After treatment for removal of the waste gases and particulates,
the CO and H20 go into a shift reactor to produce C02 and additional H2.
The H2 enriched product gas from the residue gasifier is used subsequently
in the hydrogenation of the coal.
There are also many auxiliary processes accompanying a coal lique-
faction facility which provide various support functions. Among the
typical auxiliary processes are oxygen plant, power and steam plant,
sulfur recovery unit, water treatment plant, cooling towers, and sour
water strippers.
1-3
8.21.2 Emissions and Controls
Although characterization data are availabe for some of the many
developing coal conversion processes, describing these data in detail
would require a more extensive discussion than possible here. So, this
8.21-1 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
tu to
4J QJ
to to
3 to
•a
t-i
fo
icn
CD
o
o
D.
E
CD
X
CD
C
CD
E
CD
L_
cn
CD
_O
U_
CN
00
0}
2/80
Mineral Pnxhicls Indiislr\
-------
co
I
rH
C/0
H
^
j_J
CM
J2J
o
M
H
•^E
^^
H
[V|
H
O
i "I
^
O
CJ
a
o
erf
Pn
CO
^
O
H
CO
CO
H
a
W
pn
o
K1"1
|*X
|
CO
*
rH
1
rH
CN
•
oo
cu
rH
43
cd
H
CO
01
a
•H
o
43
CJ
rH
o
r)
4-1
a
o
u
c
o
•rl
CO
CO
•H
B
w
MH
O
^"1
rl
cd
Fj
s
2
C/D
G
O
•H
CO
CO
•H
B
w
MH
O
£3
o
•H
4J
cd
N
•rt
£_l
01
4J
O
cd
rl
cd
43
CJ
B
cd
01
j-i
4-1
CO
cu
a
^_i
~j
o
C/}
C3
O
•H
CO
CO
•H
B
w
C3
0
•rl
4J
cd
rl
01
CX
O
CD
M
C
•rl
4-1
CO
O
a
rl
01
1
rH
0
CX
13
a
cd
CO
cd
CX
CO
J_l
cu
4-1
cd
ts
*t
01
M
cd
J-l
o
4J
CO
rH
cd
o
o
B
0
rl
4H
CD
a
0
•H
CD
CO
•H
B
w
M
c
•H
43
CO
3
rl
o
T)
C
cd
M
£3
4-1 -H
C3 H
0) 13
S f3
4J Cd
flj tJL~!
d)
M
4J 01
CU M
j-f cd
CM rl
o
rH 4-1
cd co
O
CJ
CO
£3
O
•H rl
CO 01
CO 4-1
•rH Cd
B DS
01
4-1 •
CO CO
3 CU
*"O rH
•H
rH CX
o
rl 01
4-1 M
C cd
O J-l
o o
4J
o co
4-1
rH
13 cd
cu o
CO CJ
3
s
cu o
rl rl
cd M-<
bO •
£3 4-1
•H CD
N 3
•H t>
CD
•^ rH
M cd
c o
•rH CJ
43
CD 4-1
3 O
J-l
CJ 4-1
CD
""O 'PI
C3 CD
cd (3
o
bO O
rj
•H P*-»
rH rH
-d £3
£3 -rl
co cd
CO
c
0
•H
CO
en
•H
B
01
4J
co
3
1
M
•H
N
•rH
CO
CU J-i
rl 0
cd
01 rH
4-1 O CO
£3 3 O
CU 13 CJ
B cu
cx j-i E
•H O
3 O J-l
CT1 4J «4H
01
0) CO
13 CD CU
0) 3 4-1
co o cd
O 43 rH
rH M 3
a cd o
13 43 -H
CU 4-1
CO rl
T3 Cd
£3 O CX
Cd 4-1
01
CO 13 J-l
>, cu 3
Cd 4-1 4-1
rl £3 CX
cx cu cd
CO > 0
pj
fi O *O
0 C
rl M Cd
4-1 £3
•H rH
>~,i3 cd
rl £3 O
cd cu a
f> cx
cu •>
CO 13 CO
C 0)
O •> iH
•H 01 4-1
CD 4-1 -rl
CD -H O
•rl CO O
B rH
0) O CU
4J >
CU
CO 01 13
ai 4-1 C
43 -H -H
H CO £
- — co
M
(3 0
•H 4-1
r~]
CO 13
3 0)
M 4-1
0 £3
CU
B >
0
4H rH
rH
CD Cd
£5 3
o co
•H 3
CO
CO O
•H CO
B rH
W cd
0)
• rl
M CO
c
•rl bO
H {3
T) -rH
£3 N
cd -H
43 CO
rl
01
4-1
cd
£j
*"O
£3
cd
*l
0)
N •
•H 4-1
co C
cu
CU 4J
rH £3
•H 0
CX CJ
01
4-1
cd
i-H
3
o
•H
4J
J-l
cd
cx
rl
cu
4J
o
rl
o
01
CO
3
O
rC
M
cd
•
cu
u
•H
CU
rH
O
J-l
4-1
C
O
0
13
i-H CU
O 13
rl 01
4J 01
£3 C
0
a 01
CU
^j ^
cd cd
cx co
B 3
0 43
o B
o
CD O
c
0 T)
•H £3
CD Cd
CO
•H 4J
B co
CU 3
13
0)
CD rH
cu cd
43 0
H 0
CO
0)
C CD
O CO
•H bO
4-1
Cd 4J
T3 C3
-H Q)
X ^
o
1
rH
cd M
•rH C
4-1 -H
rl 4J
cd cu
CX 3
-> "d
J-i £3
P cd
•
co
CU
•H
a
01
cx
co
o
•H
(3
cd
M
J-l
O
>-,
o
rl
4J
CO
CU
13
O
1
cd
4-1 O
CU >
•H 01
J-l T3
cd
> CO
T)
cd £3
3
43 O
4J CX
•H B
U o
a
W)
C3 0
0 -H
rH C
cd cd
bO
CO M
0) O
CO
Cd <4H
M O
•
rH
Cd
O
O
0)
43
B
0
M
<4H
T3
01
N
•H
rH
vpj
4-1
4J
O
£3
01
cd
43
CO 13
01 0)
•H C
CJ -H
CU B
CX J-l
CD CU
4-1
a oi
•H T3
C
cd £3
bO 0)
J-l 01
0 43
(3
o
•H
4-1
cd
a
•rl
MH
•H
co
cd
O
cd
O
u
a
bO
•rl
CO
cd
4J
£3
CU
co
cu
rl
g
i-H
43
O
rl
CX
CXrH
01
J-l
""O
r-^
^
o
a
B
cd
cd
4-1
£3
cu
C
O
•H
>
£3
01
M
O
bO
fi
43
43
3
rl
O
CO
01
T3
3
rH
a
d
•H
•0
rH
3
O
0
destroy
^|
O
0)
rl
4-1
cx
cd
0
o
4-1
****
(3
O
•H
4-1
O
^^
CO
cu
•H
a
01
cx
CO
CO
3
O
13
rl
cd
N
cd
43
rl
o
CO
cd
bO
4-1
a
3
13
o
j-i
CX
*j
cd
M
0)
43
4J
O
4-1
T3
CU
J-l
•H
CO
01
13
Q)
£
•
^i
•H
cd
4-J
cu
rH
ti
01
N
•H
CO
1
01
cx
•t-1
cu
43
4-1
a
o
co
13
c
01
CX
01
Screw
•
^»
4J
•rl
H
•H
O
cd
<4H
(3
O
•H
4-J
cd
O
•H
4H
O
T)
cd
0)
4-1
CO
(3
•rl
13
CO
01
43
fl
cd
CJ
en
J^
o
J>Sj
cu
•
CO
rl
CU
CX
CO £3 O
CO O 4-1
•H -H £3
43 14-1 O
H -H O
CO bO Q> rH
o a -H o
B -H MH JH
4J -H 4J
0) £3 CO (3
43 CU cd O
4-J > 00 CJ
(II
43 C
4J -H
cd
§
O
(3 M-l
•H
cd co
4-1 CU
a -H
O O
cj cu
CX
co co
cu
oo co
cd 3
M O
13
(U l-l
co cd
OJ N
M CO
13 J-i CO -H
oo cd 00 CO
B CX
O CU
CO 0) H
i-H O
•H cd
O J-l •
•» (M T3
O £3 13 -H
CO cd £3 (3
& CO
cd cd
rl 60
cu cu
43 43
4J 4J
r, CD
CM M "
co cd co
CJ 4-1 OJ
4-1
• •> cd
U 3 q!
53 O cd
> ex
•H C O
CO O 43
cd O
00 ^
•a cj
<4H CU O
O UH rH
13
a)
CU -H
CXT3
CO >>-H
•H 4J 3
43 rH
4J 0) 4-1
43
MH 4J •>
O
C bO
£3 O •
O 0)
•H *d
4J (3 -
•H 0) JH
co cx cu
O 0) -H
CXT3 UH
B -H
o S co
O CO cd
01 00
13 }-!
CO O
co
co
60
I
M
•S
•d
cu
0)
8.21 -6
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
CO
1
rH
CO
H
£2
3
h-3
PL)
a
0
H
H
3
H
pLj
H
^3
o
XI
CO
d
o
•rl
CO
CO
•H
CU
CU
CO
a)
_f|
E-*
d
o
•H
CO
CO
•rl
B
w
<4H
O
d
o
•H
cd
N
•H
rl
CU
4-1
O
cd
1-1
a
B
cd
cu
rl
4-J
CO
^-^.
CU
o
rl
3
O
CO
PJ
O
•H
co
ca
•H
B
w
"*^.
d
o
•H
4-1
cd
rl
CU
ft
O
1
4-1
d rH
cd co • cd
4-J rH CO >
CO -H M O
XI O Q) B
3 iH CU
CO T) MH S-l
d -H
4J cd co xl
•H cd co
B co oo cd
cu 1-1
cd 13 6
CO 4-J CU O
rl XI rl
CU M MH
•H CU TJ
MH JS CU CO
•rl CU X d
CO 14-1 'H O
Cd MH -rl
00 >-, CO
rH C CO
*CJ rH Cd *rl
CU Cd XI B
Xl vH 4J W
CO
CU
ca
cd
00
4-J
d
CU
i
rH
cd
O
d)
rl
r]
CO
<£
cu cu
1 4J XI
B cd
O rH T3
CJ 3 rH
CU CJ 3
rl 1H O
4-1 O
O rl
4J Cd CO
ft-> rH
13 O
CU 1-1
N • 4-J
•H co d
rl rH 0
cu o a
4-1 1-1
cj 4-1 d
Cd d O
1-1 O -rl
cd cj co
Xl CO
0 >, -H
n B
^ cd cu
rH CO
4J ca u
d cu -H
cu o d
•H CU cd
o d oo
•H rl
MH T3 O
MH d
to e o
4J
CU CO
X> 3 rH
4-1 13 rH
cd
d xi
o co B
< 0
13 H
d MH
cu •
ft I"! rO
cu cu cu
13 -H CO
rH -H CU
Cd CO rH
co cd cu
O 00 rl
ft
CO MH CU
•H 0 Xi
T3
CU rH
*"O fLi fH
Cd 4J >
•H
rl d
o cd
14-1 00
rl
13 rH O
cu cd
CO -H CU
3 4J rH
d -rl
CU CU 4-J
XI 4-1 Cd
O rH
>i ft O
cd >
B cu
xl co
rl 4-1 3
CU O
4J rg r^
Cd -H M
is o cd
> N
d cd cd
cd xi
01 O
rH 4-1 4-1
U O
00
d d
• -H O
13 XI -H
CU CJ CD
13 d CO
CU CU vH
cu 3 S
d cr cu
*O
cu
00 4-1
d Cd
•H d
4-J 4-1 -H
o cd B
d rl Cd
Q) -M
cu B d
rl O O
00
4-> 00 MH
cd cd HH
XI
4-* J-l
o •
ca co
rl 00 4J
CU d -rl
•H -H d
M-I 00 3
•H 00
co cd xl
00 CO Cd
•
CO
cu
•rl
{J
cu
ft
co
o
•rl
d
cd
00
rl
O
c
•H
13
cd
1
CJ
d
CU "O
3 d cu xi
O"* Ctf pO U
p]
XI 0 >, CU
co -H cd 3
cd d B cr
cd
1-1 oo co cu
O M Q) XI
MH O iH 4J
o
T3 CU CU fi
CU H ft 0
CO -H CO l-i
3 4J MH
cd a
CO rH vH 13
•H O d cd co s-i
i-i oo cd o
CU •> M V 3
4-J oo o rH cr
cd d d cu -H
£ -rl -H 1-1 rH
rH
Xl 4-)
•H 3
4-J Xl
CO
3 «
xi co
fi cd
O 00
CJ
ft
CU 3
XI -U
4J M
cd
CU 4-J
4-1 CO
cd
l-i cu
CU X!
d 4J
•H
0 d
d -H
•H
CO
d -u
cd d
CJ CU
3
CU 4-1
1-1 -H
cd 4-J
rH CO
MH d
o
, CO
rH 3
rH XI
cd B
•H 0
4-J 0
•rl
d H
•H cd
O
CO CJ
cd
oo cd
4-1 CO
d cu
CU rH
> X
B
co cu
•H CO
xl cu
H rl
CO
cu
CO
cd
00
4-1
d
CU
1
ft
3
4-1
1-1
cd
4-J
CO
rH
rH •
•r! CU
& 1-1
cd
CO rH T3
CU MH d
4-1 Cd
Cd 0)
rH XI CO
3 4-1 }-l
a cd
•H MH 4-1
4-1 O
S-l X!
Cd CU 4J
& a -H
d ^
rH Ctj
cd B co
O rl fi
o o cu
M-J r— I
13 H X
d cu o
cd ft P
ft
CO CU
cd 4-J cd
4-1 -rl
4-J 4-J
t*. o d
> cu cu
Cd MH 4-J
a) M-I o
X! cd CM
CU
4-1
MH
co o
<: cu
0) XI
rl 4-1
• 3
Pi 4-1 «
o cd co
•H rl CU
4-1 0) CO
•H ft cd
co S cu
o cu M
ft 4J 0
B d
O 00 -H
o d
•H CO
d 4-> cd
•H cd 00
1-1
CO CU CU
cd ft xl
00 O 4-1
«
00 rH
d cu
•H 3
CO M-l
3
ft
r^ 3
rQ 4-J
V-J
13 CO
0) 4-J
T3 CO
•H
0 CU
> XI
Cd 4J
cu co
r\ eg
d CU
cd rM
a o
CJ
CO
cu v-i
4J O
cd
rH rH
3 cd
a o
•rl O
4-1 1-1
)-i cd
cd xi
ft 0
4-J
U
3
O 13
4-J O
S-l
CO ft
d
•H &
oo cd
cu s-i
Q)
co xl
Cd 4J
00
ai
ft rH
3 o
4-J B
i-i cu •
cd co co
4-J CU Cd
CO VH 00
•
13 CO
O 0)
o a
00 -H
4-1
cu a
> cd
rH 1-1
O ft
d oo
*iH C
•rl
>i 4-J
H CO
d rl
•H CU
cd ft
S 0
CO T3
13 d
o cd
X!
4-1 01
CU 0
B d
cd
rH d
O CU
S-l 4-J
4-1 d
d -H
O rt
u g
^
CU
4J
4-1
O 4J
d 3
CU
CO 13
XI CU
N
CO -H
d 1-1
o a)
•H 4J
ca o
co cd
•H S-i
B cd
cu xl
o
cu
ca d
cu cu
XI CU
EH X
CO
0)
•H
4-1
•H
00
fin
CO
CU
•H
O
CU
ft
CO
CD
3
O
T3
cd
N
cd
cu
ca
•H
j^
ft
B
o
a
CO
cd
00 «
O
4J U
o
3 "
T3 c\l
O CO •
s-i u co
ft S-l
« CU
^ co x
cd O 4-1
S-l U O
Q) ft r^3
xl co d
4-J CM ed
w
•rl CO 5!
cd u
rrj
d X* **
3 0 S
O 3 O
MH co K
2/80
Mineral Products Iinlu>lr\
8.21-7
-------
CO
1
rH
CO
H
<*
i ~]
P-i
£5
O
H
H
U
M
H
CO
O
j_J
5]
o
U
g
0
Pi
CO
£r
o
M
CO
CO
HI
g
W
pT|
o
SH
P^
«3
S
r§
f— 1
w
~
4J
G
O
CJ
rH
1
rH
CM
00
CU
rH
43
cd
H
CO
CU
a
•H
o
43
CJ
rH
O
rl
4-1
C
O
CJ
C
O
•H
CO
en
•H
B
W
<4H
0
K*"l
rl'
cd
B
H
3
CO
G
O
•H
to
CO
•H
B
pj
M-j
O
a
o
•rl
4-J
cd
N
•H
CU
4-1
a
cd
cd
43
o
cd
cu
£-1
4-J
CO
cu
o
rl
o
CO
c
0
•H
CO
en
•H
B
fd
O
•H
1 1
cd
rl
CU
O
C
O
•H
4-J
cd
•H
O
•H
CU
G
eu
PQ
60
G
•H
C
cd
cu
rH
°
CO
cd
O
[J
cd
Pi
'O
o
o
60
CU
rH
0
C
•H
f^>
rH
G
•H
cd
B
CO
T3
O
43
4-1
O>
rH
O
rl
4-1
C
o
CJ
4-1
0
G
Q)
^
cd
43
CO
G
0
•rl
CO
CO
•H
B
cu
cu
CO
cu
43
H
CD
CU
•H
4-1
•H
6C
3
.
en
cu
a
•H
4-J
o
cd
ft
60
C
•H
4-J
cd
01
ft
o
'O
G
cd
CU
o
G
cd
C
01
4-1
C
•H
cd
B
£*•»
QJ
_c~]
4-1
4-1
3
n
T3
0)
N
•H
l-i
01
4-J
O
cd
cd
r\
CJ
G
01
01
"°
CO
CU
•H
O
0)
ft
CO
CO
3
O
Vi
cd
N
cd
CD
CO
•rH
ft
O
CJ
CO
cd
60
CO
3
o
•H
Vi
cd
cu
f~]
4-J
c
•rl
"T3
c
3
O
4H
CO
rj
O
•H
CO
CO
•H
e
CU
J^
CU
_(•"{
4J
0
•
CO
B
nJ
CU
4J
CO
ft
B
3
ft
B
o
J_)
M-l
CO
jjyj
cd
CU
rH
B
0
4-1
4J
rH
3
CO
CU
Vl
1
^
^
'"O
G
cd
CO
0)
60
c
cd
rH
4-t
*
CO
cu
>
rH
Cd
^
A
CO
rH
cd
cu
CO
•
CD
^
C
cd
4J
CU
bO
cd
^_l
o
4J
CO
4J
o
3
^rj
O
>-l
ft
* (U
CU (U "T3 B 0 rl
j_i co CU O CU cd 3
CdO)NCOM43CUM "4H
43'H'OI4-I-P CJ4-1 CUrH
CU^NHUCU cd 433
43cu cucucocut-i "4-icn
4JrH 4-lGCUt-lHCO
ft • 0 co -H a 4-1 >,
B6cocd>,cd3 -HOJ-I
ocd3M6060cr.ccucd
MXOcdO CUCOCdM-l-H
M-l CUrd43rHrH Vl QJ 60U-(rH
•^ Vl O O -H -H M cd -rl
Vied ccdcooo X
CDONC43H>-,CU C03
BM-icdoia cdftcocucd
cd 43OIQ) ^COCd'O
CU « 43 4-1 • rH -H Q) •
VtCO^i *CJCdVi43G43cO
4JCOV44-JrHCU 3CJCd4-JCU
^0)0)004-1^4-^3^ CO
O>CVlCdCUrHCOO4HCO
COO 4JV4C03 OCU
CdVl4-)CUG4JCOCOCQTJ O
60ftO>OCOCU 4JGOJO
rH-X) 43 OOOCU Gft
•HVI>J cuBVi 3cocd
Cd O rH CO > 0) ftrH 4-1 4J B r-t
4-*4-f43BcdT3 Cd'rIGrlCd
4JCdCS43 rl>4JCUO>
Q,) QJ ,-Q QJ C QJ O W 6 M-J O
BViOViViCU43BCcUriB
O4-)M4-IOO)4JOIOrHa)CU
cocoft|eoG43OVicJO)ftVi
/-^
CU rH CO
43 cd CO 1
4-1 > eu C
O 0 -H
CrH BViftOcdcol cd
cooed cu3cuvi4J|i!o
•rl p> Vl 4-1 4-J ft G j^*i V 60
43COO rHCO OPu C
4-1T3BC04-I3 T3O4-4 13 -rl
CcuaJcjcoeuvi o C43
mcuvicflcu rHoco .cdvi
Oft COVi4-l604HCUCOCfl O
0)COCU-HOG4JC04-leU60CO
CTJedOta •HcucdC-HGeU
O ^0 O Cl Cfl J— j bO 3 O *rH T3
•H>-, VlCUO 4-1 O0)43
4-lrHT3P-l43'H CdCOrH S ftVl >i
•H 43 -H 4J CO -H cd CO O H
eobou viCoicd C04J
O-Hcd •60CU-H434JrHVi43C
ft43 T3G> 4-1 HCUcSCU
B 4HCU-rlGCO Q)Cd43 3
o B o ^t Viocu «*oB4-)^ &*
aco O3o-ri .pcoocueu
CUT3rH4-J 06013 COCO
0)V(CftcdT3CU «O 60T3 CO 43
434-l-HBCUGftCUrlCGCU3
HCQ4*!CU4-ICdCO*-'ft-rlCdCJCO
CO
cu
Cfl
cd
60
rH
•H
cd
H
1
rH
ccj
£>
o
S
0)
Pi
CO
cd
o
-d
•rl
o
<3
CO
cd
00
rtJ
•H
CJ
tJ
CU
4J
cd
M
4J
rt
a)
CJ
o
CJ
Vi
3
4H
rH
3
CO
cd
cu
•H
3
O"1
cu
Vl
3
ctj
cu
Vi
4-1
CO
TD
•H
o
cd
o
4-1
CO
co
cu
o
o
V4
ft
>^
Vi
0)
>
o
o
eu
M
•
CO
CM
0 53
•H
X M-l
o o
4-1
co
>, eu
rH -H
43 4J
60 vH
•H 4J
43 C
cd
4-1 3
o cr
G 60
0 G
•H -H
co >
co cd
•H 43
cu co
0)
CU CO
rfl Cd
4-> bO
oo
co
c
o
•H
4J
cd
Vl
cu
p-<
o
V?
cd
•r)
1 — 1
•rl
*
c
o
•H
4-1
o
01
W
cu
0)
CO
^*>
)»4
0)
^
o
0
cu
rl
3
rH
3
CO
c
o
•H
4-J
o
cu
CO
cu
cu
CO
c
5
4J
cd
cu
c
cu
60
B
cd
CU
4-J
CO
*rj
G
cd
Vl
eu
o
PM
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
ro
I
O
a
rH
rH
CN
00
CU
cfl
H
CO
cu
0
•H
O
U
rH
O
VJ
4-1
C
o
o
a
o
•H
CO
CO
•H
a
>4-l
O
p*!
rl
Cfl
p
^
01
C
O
•rl
CO
CO
•rl
a
w
I4_l
O
c
o
•H
4-1
CO
N
•H
^1
cu
4-1
O
cfl
cfl
ft
U
B
cO
01
4-1
-^
01
o
^_l
3
O
GO
C
O
•H
CO
co
•H
a
W
a
O
•H
4-1
cfl
M
CU
ft
O
4-t
C
cfl
O
•rl
MH
•H
C
60
•rl
CO
01
CO
O
ft
rrj
H
3
o
a
TO
cfl
CU
4J
CO
01
TO
01
trj
H
cu
CO
•H
S-l
ft
a
o
0
TO
a
cfl
Q)
4J
TO
0)
TO
" 0)
^£1
H
I
4_j
c
0)
B
4-1
CO
CU
H
r-l
cu
4J
tfl
cu
4-1
co
CO
rH 60
cfl O C
•rl 4-1 -rl
4J T3
C rl 01
cu co cu
4-1 rH 4H
O -rl
P^ B rH
•H Cfl
CO O
a
cn ^-i
B rH 4-1
Q) rH Cfl
rH CO CU
& rl ^1
O CU 4-1
IH C
ft 0) O
60 4->
rH
cfl 01 13
4-1 S-l 0) •
C cfl 73 cn
0) 0) Q)
B TO CU CO
S rH C Cfl
O O 60
rl rl 01
•H 4-1 TO 4-1
> c o c
C O J3 CU
0) CJ 4-1 >
1
rCl 4-1
rl C
O 0)
i cn 4-i
C 01 O
•H T3 60 ft
C 0)
13 4-1 -rl TO JS
a Cfl rH B 4J
CO rU O Cfl
4J O 0) rH
O O I-l rH
•H TO ^ 4-1 Cfl
PI 01 60 TO
cfl -H G QJ
60 CJ -H 0) T3
M 0) ,C ,fl 3
O ft O H rH
TO C 0
Q) CU C
rH 0 3 • -H
•H vH CT tH
4J C o >^
CO Cfl B 3 rH
rH 60 0 CT rH
0 M S-l -rl CO
> O UH H -H
TO
cu
TO
cfl
60
C
O
•H
CO
C
cfl
ft
X
W
C
•H
TJ
C
3
O
[5
o
H
60
C
•rl
rH
O
O
CO
01
, 1
rn
0 )-l
01 CU
ft 4J
CO Cfl
[5
a
•H a
C cfl
cfl CU
60 rH
M CJ
O
C 60
•H C
•H
T3 CO
C 3
CO
^"°i
a ^2
•H
C T)
cfl (U
60 *rj
M 'rl
0 0
(U Cfl
rH
•rl 0)
4-1 ,0
Cfl
o cd
> a
•
M T3
O 0)
C 4-1
•rl Cfl
a C
•H
^» E
rH Cfl
rH 4-1
tfl C
3 0
CO O
3
M-l
CU -rl
S-l
nj #i
rl
CO 01
rl >
01 01
J5 [5
o o
j-i W
•
60
C
•rl
rH
O
0
a
^
o
14-4
60
C!
•H
rH
o
o
O
CO
CO
^3
0)
CO
3
CO
•H
rl
cu
4J
CO
*
0)
rH
4->
Cfl
rH
O
>
«*
ft
3
0)
**\
CO
t-i
CU
4-1
Cfl
*
o
•H
C
cfl
60
O
C
•H
T3
C
Cfl
O
•H
a
Cfl
60
M
o
CU
,n
1 *"O
C rH
0 3
a o
o
cu
4-1 CU
4-1
B tfl
0 &
rl
UH TJ
CU
CO 4-1
CU cfl
•H C
0 -H
01 B
ft cfl
CO 4-1
•
T)
CU
CO
cO
-------
Section will cover emissions and controls for coal conversion processes
on a qualitative level only.
8.21.2.1 Gasification - All of the major operations associated with
low-, medium- and high-Btu gasification technology (coal pretreatment,
gasification, raw gas cleaning, and gas beneficiation) can produce
potentially hazardous air emissions. Auxiliary operations, such as
sulfur recovery and combustion of fuel for electricity and steam genera-
tion, could account for a major portion of the emissions from a gasifica-
tion plant. Discharges to the air from both major and auxiliary operations
are summarized and discussed in Table 8.21-1.
Dust emissions from coal storage, handling and crushing/sizing can
be controlled with available techniques. Controlling air emissions from
coal drying, briqueting and partial oxidation processes is more difficult
because of the volatile organics and possible trace metals liberated as
the coal is heated.
The coal gasification process itself appears to be the most serious
potential source of air emissions. The feeding of coal and the with-
drawal of ash release emissions of coal or ash dust and organic and
inorganic gases that are potentially toxic and carcinogenic. Because of
their reduced production of tars and condensable organics, slagging
gasifiers pose less severe emission problems at the coal inlet and ash
outlet.
Gasifiers and associated equipment also will be sources of potenti-
ally hazardous fugitive leaks. These leaks may be more severe from
pressurized gasifiers and/or gasifiers operating at high temperatures.
Raw gas cleaning and gas beneficiation operations appear to be
smaller sources of potential air emissions. Fugitive emissions have not
been characterized but are potentially large. Emissions from the acid
gas removal process depend on the kind of removal process employed at a
plant. Processes used for acid gas removal may remove both sulfur
compounds and carbon dioxide or may be operated selectively to remove
only the sulfur compounds. Typically, the acid gases are stripped from
the solvent and processed in a sulfur plant. Some processes, however,
directly convert the absorbed hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur.
Emissions from these direct conversion processes (e.g., the Stretford
process) have not been characterized but are probably minor, consisting
of C02, air, moisture and small amounts of NH3.
Emission controls for two auxiliary processes (power and steam
generation and sulfur recovery) are discussed elsewhere in this document
(Sections 1.1 and 5.18, respectively). Gases stripped or desorbed from
process wastewaters are potentially hazardous, since they contain many
of the components found in the product gas. These include sulfur and
nitrogen species, organics, and other species that are toxic and potenti-
ally carcinogenic. Possible controls for these gases include incinera-
tion, byproduct recovery, or venting to the raw product gas or inlet
8.21 -10 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
H
S-i
|— i
M
i_J
H
u
•^
pL|
Js
0
M
H
CJ
-,
5-4
CO
£3
S
3
CO
G
O
•H
co
CO
•H
g
W
MH
O
C
O
•H
4-1
CO
N
•H
5-1
CU
4-1
O
CO
5-1
CO
6
6
CO
CU
5-1
4-J
CO
CU
CJ
}_j
3
O
CO
G
O
•H
co
cn
•H
B
w
--^
C
o
•H
4-1
CO
^_)
cu
ft
o
cO co
CO CU
bO bO
C cd
•H 5-1
4-> O
Cfl 4-1
O cn
a
B
S-i 0
0) 5-1
^
rH 4-1
0 CO
ft 3
13
13
G rH
cfl O
}_j
CO 4-1
K**l G
co O
5-1 a
ft
CO O
4-1
5-1
CU Tj
4J 01
cfl CO
13 3
4J
cn I
•H G
Cfl 01
G bO
O
CJ 4-1
CO
^> 3
rH 13
•H
rl iH
CO Cfl
B o
•H CJ
5-i
ft CU
CO -rl
C 4-1
0 -rl
•H 00
cn 3
cn MH
I'g
13
G
cfl
bo
G
•rl bO
G rH G
O 13 -H
•H G N
4-1 CO -H
cfl j3 cn
5-1 — —
cfl - bO
ft 0) C
CU 00 -H
H cfl ,G
PH 5-1 Cfl
O 3
rH 4J 5-1
cfl CO O
O
CJ
0
4-1
13
CU
4-1
C
CU
CO
cu
5-1
3
CO
o
rH
0
G
•H
4J
CJ
CU
MH
MH
CU
CU
CO
CO
a;
cn
3
o
rC
bO
cfl
13
cfl
B
o
5-1
MH
W
4-1
CJ
3
13
O
ft
G
O
•rH
4-1
cn
3
O
o
cn
cu
)-i
3
4J
cfl
5-1
CU
P*
S
cu
4J
bO
G
•H
^i
5-1
13
[5
O
rJ
•
CO
rH
O
rl
4J
C
o
CJ
cn
CJ
•H
C
bo
5-1
o
13
C
cfl
*
5-1
CU
4J
1
•
£
O
4-1
Cfl
O
MH
CO
a
•H
G
cO
bO
O
01
a
3
13
01
5-1
•
rH
cfl
o
O
CU
t~!
4-1
a
o
5-1
MH
13
0)
N
•H
rH
•H
4-1
CO
rH
o
4-1
G
cO
CJ
•H
MH
•H •
C ^ cn
rH
rH CU
CO 4-1
•H CO
4J rH
G 3
CU CJ
4-1 -H
O 4J
f^, ^
flj
rH
O
CO
Cfl
•H
13
MH
O
C
o
•H
4-1
3
H
O
W
r^
C
CO
U
X
•H
a
K*"l
j^J
5H
3
rH
CO
4-1
G
CU
£>
rH
O
cn
CU
rH
a
^>
CJ
CU
M
B
o
rl
MH
CO
CJ
•H
G
cfl
00
J_4
O
«\
CO
CU
CO
cO
00
*T3
•H
O
CO
0)
5-1
cfl
a co
•H 4J
M G
01 Cfl
ft 4J
ft 3
CO rH
O rH
B o
4-1 ft
cfl
^ cu
B
cu o
5-1 OO
3
CO
CO .
o> ^
5-1 G
ft cfl
4-1
^
O MH
H 0
quantities.
rH
r-H
Cfl
B
CO
G
•rl
G
cu
^
CU
o
•H
X
0
4-J
g acids Venting to tail gas treatment plant,
NH3 and or operating sulfur recovery plant a
higher ef f ic iency .
G
•rl
G
•H
CO
4-1
G
o
0
cn
CU
Cfl
cfl
bO
rH
•H
cfl
H
13
G
CO
G
O
•H
4-1
Cfl
rl
Ctf
ft
0)
CO
4J
0
3
"d
0
^_l
P-I
*
CM'— N
CO 5-1
u 3
MH
«r-H
co 3
o w
CJ
CU
*\ 4-1
-rl
W 4-1
CM 5-1
CC cfl
^^/ p.
M
0)
O
a
0)
rl
3
rH
3
CO
1
G
O
•H
4->
0
cfl
MH
CU 4J
3 G
a1 cfl
•H rH
hJ ft
2/80
Mineral Products
8.21-1 J
-------
H
^~*
£H
M
M
CJ
•^
fe
g!
0
M
£-1
cj
<^
pn
H
o-
H
i_J]
i_j
B
cu
4-J
en
r**>
en
^i
OI
4-1
Cfl
cu
4-1
cn
cd
0
4J
B
cu
4-1
en •
>. cn
to M
0
B •*->
o cd
r-l !-(
UH CU
C
cn -H
cu a
cn c
CO -H
60
^4
&o o
c
•H en
4J (-1
(3 01
0) XI
!> Xi
3
13 M
(3 0
cd en
*
CO
0)
13 cn
•H 3
(3 0
cd -H
>•> ^
o cd
>
C S
cd o
^j
Cd 4H
•H
C cu
o >
@ "-1
B O
cO t>
CU
^
co xJ
OI O
CO -H
cd X!
60 £
1J
c
cd
(3
o
•H
4J
CJ
01
rH
rH
o
o
^_l
cu
4-1
cd
0)
4-1
CO
§
•
en
B
cu
4-1
en
en
60
C
•H
4-J
cd
cu
4J
n3 -H
(3 rH
cd cd
cu cr
o
cd cu
a 4J
cu cd
4J S
ti
•H 60
cd a
B -H
•H
^ o
01 O
00 0
0
3*2
a
X CO
0) O
c
4-1 Cd
CO rH
CU rH
rCj *H
cu
13 >
O ^-i
0 3
CJ CO
>.
4-1
•H
rH >-l
•H CU 4->
O 4J Cd
CO Cd 0)
4-1 £ XI
CU 60 00
f, 13 C
4-1 -H -H
rH ^
C O cd
•H O CU
CJ rH
rH
cd o B
cj 4J o
•H )-i
B ^i 4-1
OJ Cfl
rC 01 B
O rH CU
>, C co
c cd £*•>
< u to
en
j^
0)
[5
o
4-1
60
C
•H
rH
o
O
0
C
•H
01
01
&
ft
cu en
XJ O
B
C 4J •
cd CO M
O 01
01 S
'^ rC O
C 4-1 4-1
cO
O 60
en 4-1 n
)-l -H
CU 13 rH
60 CU 0
G CX O
cd a, o
,C -H
a j-i cu
X 4J XI
cu en 4-J
I
C cu
•H rH
B cd
W rH
4-1 3 O
C 13 V-l
0) 4-1
3 4-1 (3
cr o o
O) O
M C
4H O >-i
•H 0
•> 4-1 •!—)
60 O crj
c ai e
•H rH
ft CU 0)
cu en r-i
0) CO
cu C co en
en cd 4-i cu
3 C 3
o cu oi cr
rC CJ C -H
Cod
13 cd ft *C
o c 6 o
o cu o o)
O 4-1 O 4-1
1
S en >~,
O rH Cd
o cd B
Ai CU 4H
en cd co co o
3 CU -H
O rH •> X! OI
cu en H o
co c cu M
cd cd oo 3
00 CJ (3 • O
cd en en
13 4-1 rH 4-1
C C 4H V-l 4J
cd cd o to
i — i *v p< cu
o PH en oo
•H 01 CU !-i
C C t> rH Cd
Cd -H rH P, rH
60 CO B
>-i en > co oi
O 13 CO XI
C B 4-J
rH 3 O 13
rH O !-i C CU
<3 &, 4-1 cd xi
en
cu
^
•H
4-1
•H
60
[J-I
•
en
o
•H
c
cd
60
o
en
3
O
T)
cd
N
cd
8.21-12
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
air. Cooling towers are usually minor emission sources, unless the
cooling water is contaminated.
8.21.2.2 Liquefaction - The potential exists for generation of signifi-
cant levels of atmospheric pollutants from every major operation in a
coal liquefaction facility. These pollutants include coal dust, combust-
ion products, fugitive organics and fugitive gases. The fugitive
organics and gases could include carcinogenic polynuclear organics and
toxic gases such as metal carbonyls, hydrogen sulfides, ammonia, sulfu-
rous gases, and cyanides. Many studies are currently underway to charac-
terize these emissions and to establish effective control methods.
Table 8.21-2 presents information now available on liquefaction emissions,
Emissions from coal preparation include coal dust from the many
handling operations and combustion products from the drying operation.
The most significant pollutant from these operations is the coal dust
from crushing, screening and drying activities. Wetting down the surface
of the coal, enclosing the operations, and venting effluents to a
scrubber or fabric filter are effective means of particulate control.
A major source of emissions from the coal dissolution and lique-
faction operation is the atmospheric vent on the slurry mix tank. The
slurry mix tank is used for mixing feed coal and recycle solvent. Gases
dissolved in the recycle solvent stream under pressure will flash from
the solvent as it enters the unpressurized slurry mix tank. These gases
can contain hazardous volatile organics and acid gases. Control tech-
niques proposed for this source include scrubbing, incineration or
venting to the combustion air supply for either a power plant or a
process heater.
Emissions from process heaters fired with waste process gas or
waste liquids will consist of standard combustion products. Industrial
combustion emission sources and available controls are discussed in
Section 1.1.
The major emission source in the product separation and purifi-
cation operations is the sulfur recovery plant tail gas. This can
contain significant levels of acid or sulfurous gases. Emission factors
and control techniques for sulfur recovery tail gases are discussed in
Section 5.18.
Emissions from the residue gasifier used to supply hydrogen to the
system are very similar to those for coal gasifiers previously discussed
in this Section.
Emissions from auxiliary processes include combustion products from
onsite steam/electric power plant and volatile emissions from the
wastewater system, cooling towers and fugitive emission sources.
Volatile emissions from cooling towers, wastewater systems and fugitive
emission sources possibly can include every chemical compound present in
the plant. These sources will be the most significant and most difficult
2/80 Mineral Products Industry 8.21-13
-------
to control in a coal liquefaction facility. Compounds which can be
present include hazardous organics, metal carbonyls, trace elements such
as mercury, and toxic gases such as CO, H2S, HCN, NH3, COS and CS2.
Emission controls for wastewater systems involve minimizing the
contamination of water with hazardous compounds, enclosing the waste
water systems, and venting the wastewater systems to a scrubbing or
incineration system. Cooling tower controls focus on good heat exchanger
maintenance, to prevent chemical leaks into the system, and on surveil-
lance of cooling water quality. Fugitive emissions from various valves,
seals, flanges and sampling ports are individually small but collec-
tively very significant. Diligent housekeeping and frequent maintenance,
combined with a monitoring program, are the best controls for fugitive
sources. The selection of durable low leakage components, such as
double mechanical seals, is also effective.
References for Section 8.21
1. C. E. Burklin and W. J. Moltz, Energy Resource Development System,
EPA Contract No. 68-01-1916, Radian Corporation and The University
of Oklahoma, Austin, TX, September 1978.
2. E. C. Cavanaugh, et al., Environmental Assessment Data Base for
Low/Medium-BTU Gasification Technology, Volume 1,
EPA-600/7-77-125a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1977.
3. P. W. Spaite and G. C. Page, Technology Overview: Low- and Medium-
BTU Coal Gasification Systems, EPA-600/7-78-061, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1978.
K.21 -1 1 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
8.22 TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
8.22.1 General1'2
More than two thirds of the iron ore produced in the United States
for making iron consists of taconite concentrate pellets. Taconite is
a low grade iron ore, largely from deposits in Minnesota and Michigan,
but from other areas as well. Processing of taconite consists of
crushing and grinding the ore to liberate ironbearing particles, con-
centrating the ore by separating the particles from the waste material
(gangue), and pelletizing the iron ore concentrate. A simplified flow
diagram of these processing steps is shown in Figure 8.22-1.
Liberation - The first step in processing crude taconite ore is
crushing and grinding. The ore must be ground to a particle size
sufficently close to the grain size of the ironbearing mineral, to allow
for a high degree of mineral liberation. Most of the taconite used
today requires very fine grinding. The grinding is normally performed
in three or four stages of dry crushing, followed by wet grinding in rod
mills and ball mills. Gyratory crushers are generally used for primary
crushing, and cone crushers are used for secondary and tertiary fine
crushing. Intermediate vibrating screens remove undersize material from
the feed to the next crusher and allow for closed circuit operation of
the fine crushers. The rod and ball mills are also in closed circuit
with classification systems such as cyclones. An alternative is to feed
some coarse ores directly to wet or dry semiautogenous or autogenous
grinding mills, then to pebble or ball mills. Ideally, the liberated
particles of iron minerals and barren gangue should be removed from the
grinding circuits as soon as they are formed, with larger particles
returned for further grinding.
Concentration - As the iron ore minerals are liberated by the
crushing steps, the ironbearing particles must be concentrated. Since
only about 33 percent of the crude taconite becomes a shipable product
for iron making, a large amount of gangue is generated. Magnetic sepa-
ration and flotation are most commonly used for concentration of the
taconite ore.
Crude ores in which most of the recoverable iron is magnetite (or,
in rare cases, maghemite) are normally concentrated by magnetic sepa-
ration. The crude ore may contain 30 to 35 percent total iron by assay,
but theoretically only about 75 percent of this is recoverable magnetite.
The remaining iron becomes part of the gangue.
Nonmagnetic taconite ores are concentrated by froth flotation or a
combination of selective flocculation and flotation. The method is
determined by the differences in surface activity between the iron and
gangue particles. Sharp separation is often difficult.
2/80 Mineral Product* Indiislr\ 8.22-1
-------
CO
0)
L_
O
E
o
£
S
CO
CO
0)
X
+J O
C -Q
.2 c
Q. CU
§•1
S
o
--
a g
Q) .=
"
. CO
1.1
Q en
. UJ
CN '
csi ««-
00 >
Q) -Q
.
u. g
TD
_C
cu
c
O
E
0>
0)
o
tt.22-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
In the vertical shaft furnace, the wet green balls are distributed
evenly over the top of the slowly descending bed of pellets. A rising
stream of gas of controlled temperature and composition flows counter to
the descending bed of pellets. Auxiliary fuel combustion chambers
supply hot gases midway between the top and bottom of the furnace. In
the straight grate apparatus, a continuous bed of agglomerated green
pellets is carried through various up and down flows of gases at different
temperatures. The grate/kiln apparatus consists of a continuous travel-
ing grate followed by a rotary kiln. Pellets indurated by the straight
grate apparatus are cooled on an extension of the grate or in a separate
cooler. The grate/kiln product must be cooled in a separate cooler,
usually an annular cooler with countercurrent airflow.
8.22.2 Emissions and Controls1'
Emission sources from processing operations are indicated in Figure
8.22-1. Particulate emissions also arise from ore transfer operations.
Uncontrolled emission factors for the major sources are presented in
Table 8.22-1, and control efficiences in Table 8.22-2.
The taconite ore is handled dry through the crushing stages. All
crushers, size classification screens and conveyor transfer points are
major points of particulate emissions. Crushed ore is normally ground
in wet rod and ball mills. A few plants, however, use dry autogenous or
semiautogenous grinding and have higher emissions than do conventional
plants. The ore remains wet through the rest of the beneficiation
process, so particulate emissions after crushing are generally
insignificant.
The first source of emissions in the pelletizing process is the
transfer and blending of bentonite. There are no other significant
emissions in the balling section, since the iron ore concentrate is
normally too wet to cause appreciable dusting. Additional emission
points in the pelletizing process include the main waste gas stream from
the indurating furnace, pellet handling, furnace transfer points (grate
feed and discharge), and, for plants using the grate/kiln furnace,
annular coolers. In addition, tailings basins and unpaved roadways can
be sources of fugitive emissions.
Fuel used to fire the indurating furnace generates low levels of
SC-2 emissions. For a natural gas fired furnace, these emissions are
about 0.06 pounds of S02 per ton of pellets produced (0.03 kg/MT).
Higher S02 emissions (about 0.12 - 0.14 Ib/ton, or 0.6 - 0.7 kg/MT)
would result from an oil or coal fired furnace.
Particulate emissions from taconite ore processing plants are
controlled by a variety of devices, including cyclones, multiclones,
rotoclones, scrubbers, baghouses and electrostatic precipitators. Water
sprays are also used to suppress dusting. Annular coolers are generally
left uncontrolled, because their mass loadings of particulates are
small, typically less than 0.05 gram/scf (0.11 g/m3).
2/80 Mineral Product* Industry 8.22-3
-------
Various combinations of magnetic separation and flotation may be
used to concentrate ores containing various iron minerals (magnetite and
hematite, or maghemite) or wide ranges of mineral grain sizes. Flota-
tion is also often used as a final polishing operation on magnetic
concentrates.
Pelletization - Iron ore concentrates must be coarser than about
No. 10 mesh to be acceptable as blast furnace feed without further
treatment. The finer concentrates are agglomerated into small "green"
pellets. This is normally accomplished by tumbling; moistened concen-
trate with a balling drum or balling disc. A binder additive, usually
powdered bentonite, may be added to the concentrate to improve ball
formation and the physical qualities of the "green" balls. The bentonite
is lightly mixed with the carefully moistened feed at 10 to 20 pounds
per ton (4.5 - 9 kg/MT).
The pellets are hardened by a procedure called induration, the
drying and heating of the green balls in an oxidizing atmosphere at
incipient fusion temperature (2350 - 2550°F [1290 - 1400°C] depending on
the composition of the balls) for several minutes and then cooling.
Four general types of indurating apparatuses are currently used. These
are the vertical shaft furnace, the straight grate, the circular grate
and the grate/kiln. Most of the large plants and new plants use the
grate/kiln. Natural gas is most commonly used for pellet induration
now, but probably not in the future. Heavy oil is being used at a few
plants, and coal may be used at future plants.
Table 8.22-1. UNCONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSINGa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Fine crushing
Waste gas
Pellet handling
Grate discharge
Grate feed
Bentonite blending
Coarse crushing
Ore transfer
Bentonite transfer
b c
Emissions '
Ib/ton
79.8
29.2
3.4
1.32
0.64
0.22
0.20
0.10
0.04
kg/MT
39.9
14.6
1.7
0.66
0.32
0.11
0.10
0.05
0.02
Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of pellets produced.
Median values.
Reference 1.
«.22-1
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
UH
O
1/3
z
S
O
u
s
O
2
H
z
o
oo
00
u C
OJ -H
i-t T3
o) C
4J VI
tfi tr]
CO 00
&
aj
00
0) M
4-j cO
co ,n
M U
O to
•H
13
4-) -O
co 01
H 01
o)
4-1 00
•H C
C -H
O Tt
C 0)
O> rH
CQ ,£>
0)
•H 0)
C 4-(
O CO
C CO
0) M
PQ 4-1
00
C
01 -H
c j:
•H CO
fcu 3
tj
0>
OJ 4-1
M cn
0 €
1-1
4-1
00
C
Ol -H
M CO
O l-i
O QJ
H 0
4J -H
C >
O 01
O -a
4-14-1 0)
Ci ct X, ci
"] ^. C ^
^^^^
0)
rH 0)
CO CTv
O> CO
CN aj oi
fl in rH
O> &\ 00
4H
2 E
I-t rH
r- ro
CO O>
C* ON
rH
CO
0,
4-1 4-H
^>^s e 01
in so f~ s ^>
^^ ^^ o o\
LA ^D i-H rH
ON o> r-^ r^
ON ON 0> CT> ON
£ ;* J3
ON ON ON
)H
01
43
M
U
C/l
4-1
in
CO
ON
1
ON
0)
s_^
ON
4-1
in
CO
0)
C
0
rH
O
o
CN
CO
I
m
XX
CN CN
fN CO
0)
g
—1
o
1-t
4-1
rH
3
S
01
^
00
r* c*i
ON" QjJ
ON ON
UH
^
00
ON
4-1
-d-
rH
01
C
O
a
o
•M
O
C'
4-1 rH
ON ON
0)
CO
ON
ON
B 0)
B CN QJ (N
ON ON ON
00
4-1 V
rH r.
H
m
CO
4-1
rH
m
CO
rH
3V-
0
•H 4-*
C U
co a>
X rH
U rH
§o
u
Q
OJ
4-. rH
rH -*
CO ON
01
4-1 QJ rH
rH rH -tf
CO 00 O>
CO ON ON
rH J-l
00 4-1
3 u
4-1 0)
•H rH
rJ r-4
•w o
c o
S
2/80
Mineral Products Iiultislrv
8.22-5
-------
References for Section 8,22
1. John P. Pilney and Gordon V. Jorgensen, Emissions from Iron Ore
Mining, Beneficiation and Pelletization, Volume 1, EPA Contract No.
68-02-2113, Midwest Research Institute, Minnetonka, MN, June 1978.
2. A. K. Reed, Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement for
the Iron Ore Beneficiation Industry (Draft), EPA Contract No.
68-02-1323, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH, December
1976.
8.22-6 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
10.3 PLYWOOD VENEER AND LAYOUT OPERATIONS
10.3.1 General1"3
Plywood is a building material consisting of veneers (thin wood
layers or plies) bonded with an adhesive. The outer layers (faces)
surround a core which is usually lumber, veneer or particle board.
Plywood uses are many, including wall siding, sheathing, roof decking,
concrete formboards, floors, and containers. Most plywood is made from
Douglas Fir or other softwoods, and the majority of plants are in the
Pacific Northwest. Hardwood veneers make up only a very small portion
of total production.
In the manufacture of plywood, logs are sawed to the desired
length, debarked and peeled into veneers of uniform thickness. Veneer
thicknesses of less than one half inch or one centimeter are common.
These veneers are then transported to veneer dryers with one or more
decks, to reduce their moisture content. Dryer temperatures are held
between about 300 and 400°F (150 - 200°C). After drying, the plies go
through the veneer layout operation, where the veneers are sorted,
patched and assembled in perpendicular layers, and a thermosetting resin
adhesive applied. The veneer assembly is then transferred to a hot
press where, under pressure and steam heat, the product is formed.
Subsequently, all that remains is trimming, face sanding, and possibly
some finishing treatment to enhance the usefulness of the product.
Plywood veneer and layout operations are shown in Figure 10.3-1.
2-8
10.3.2 Emissions and Controls
Emissions from the manufacture of plywood include particulate
matter and organic compounds. The main source of emissions is the
veneer dryer, with other sources producing negligible amounts of organic
compound emissions or fugitive emissions. The log steaming and veneer
drying operations produce combustion products, and these emissions
depend entirely on the type of fuel and equipment used.
Uncontrolled fugitive particulate matter, in the form of sawdust
and other small wood particles, comes primarily from the plywood cutting
and sanding operations. To be considered additional sources of fugitive
particulate emissions are log debarking, log sawing and sawdust handling.
The dust that escapes into the air from sanding, sawing and other wood-
working operations may be controlled by collection in an exhaust system
and transport through duct work to a sized cyclone. Section 10.4
discusses emissions from such woodworking waste collection operations.
Estimates of uncontrolled particulate emission factors for log debarking
and sawing, sawdust pile handling, and plywood sanding and cutting are
given in Table 10.3-1. From the veneer dryer, and at stack temperatures,
the only particulate emissions are small amounts of wood fiber particles
in concentrations of less than 0.002 grams per dry standard cubic foot.
2/80 Wood Products Indiislr\ 10.3-1
-------
fugitive
particulate
LOG
STORAGE
LOG
DEBARKING
AND
SAWING
LOG
STEAMING
fugitive
particulate
organic
compounds
VENEER
LAYOUT
AND
;LUE SPREADING
organic
compounds
fugitive
particulate
fugitive
particulate
1
PLYWOOD
•PRESSING
PLYWOOD
CUTTING
^_
PLYWOOD
SANDING
Figure 10.3-1. Plywood veneer and layout operations.
4,5
10.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
Table 10.3-1. UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR PLYWOOD VENEER AND LAYOUT OPERATONS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Log debarking
Log sawing
Sawdust handling
Veneer lathing
Plywood cutting and
sanding
0.024 Ib/ton
0.350 Ib/ton
1.0 Ib/ton
NA
0.1 lb/ft2
Particulates
0.012 kg/MT
0.175 kg/MT
0.5 kg/MT
NA
0.05 kg/m2
Reference 7. Emission factors are expressed as units per unit weight
of logs processed.
Reference 7. Emission factors are expressed as units per unit weight
of sawdust handled, including sawdust pile loading, unloading and
storage.
.Estimates not available.
Reference 5. Emission factors are expressed as units per surface area
of plywood produced. These factors are expressed as representative
values for estimated values ranging from 0.066 to 0.132 lb/ft2
(0.322 to 0.644 kg/m2).
The major pollutants emitted from veneer dryers are organic compounds,
The quantity and type of organics emitted vary, depending on the wood
species and on the dryer type and its method of operation. There are
two discernable fractions which are released, condensibles and volatiles.
The condensible organic compounds consist largely of wood resins, resin
acids and wood sugars, which cool outside the stack to temperatures
below 70°F (21°C) and combine with water vapor to form a blue haze, a
water plume or both. This blue haze may be eliminated by condensing the
organic vapors in a finned tube matrix heat exhanger condenser. The
other fraction, volatile organic compounds, is comprised of terpenes and
natural gas components (such as unburned methane), the latter occurring
only when gas fired dryers are used. The amounts of organic compounds
released because of adhesive use during the plywood pressing operation
are negligible. Uncontrolled organic process emission factors are given
in Table 10.3-2.
2/80 Wood Products Industry 10.3-3
-------
Table 10.3-2. UNCONTROLLED ORGANIC COMPOUND PROCESS EMISSION
FACTORS FOR PLYWOOD VENEER DRYERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Volatile
Species
Douglas Fir
sapwood
steam fired
gas fired
heartwood
Larch
Southern pine
Otherb
Organic
lb/104 ft2
0.45
7.53
1.30
0.19
2.94
0.03-3.00
Compounds
kg/104 m2
2.3
38.6
6.7
1.0
15.1
0.15-15.4
Condensible
Organic
4 ?
lb/10 ft
4.64
2.37
3.18
4.14
3.70
0.5-8.00
Compounds
4 ?
kg/10 m
23.8
12.1
16.3
21.2
18.9
2.56-41.0
*3
Emission factors are expressed in pounds of pollutant
per 10,000 square feet of 3/8 inch thick veneer dried, and kilograms
of pollutant per 10,000 square meters of 1 centimeter thick veneer
dried. All dryers are steam fired unless otherwise specified.
These ranges of factors represent results from one source test for
each of the following species (in order from least to greatest
emissions): Western Fir, Hemlock, Spruce, Western Pine and
Ponderosa Pine.
References for Section 10.3
1. C.B. Hemming, "Plywood", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, Second Edition, Volume 15, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, NY, 1968, pp. 896-907.
2. F. L. Monroe, et al., Investigation of Emissions from Plywood
Veneer Dryers, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, February
1972.
3. Theodore Baumeister, ed., "Plywood", Standard Handbook for
Mechanical Engineers, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
1967, pp. 6-162 - 6-169.
4. Allen Mick and Dean McCargar, Air Pollution Problems in Plywood,
Particleboard, and Hardboard Mills in the Mid-Willamette Valley,
Mid-Willamette Valley Air Pollution Authority, Salem, OR,
March 24, 1969.
10.3-1
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
5. Controlled and Uncontrolled Emission Rates and Applicable
Limitations for Eighty Processes, Second Printing,
EPA-340/1-78-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, April 1978, pp. X-l - X-6.
6. John A. Danielson, ed., Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
AP-40, Second Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973, pp. 372-374.
7. Assessment of Fugitive Particulate Emission Factors for
Industrial Processes, EPA-450/3-78-107, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1978.
8. C. Ted Van Decar, "Plywood Veneer Dryer Control Device",
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 22 ;968,
December 1972.
2/80 Wood Products Indii.slr> 10.3-3
-------
-------
10.4 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS
10.4.1 General1-5
Woodworking, as defined in this section, includes any operation that involves the generation of small wood
waste particles (shavings, sanderdust, sawdust, etc.) by any kind of mechanical manipulation of wood, bark, or
wood byproducts. Common woodworking operations include sawing, planing, chipping, shaping, moulding,
hogging, lathing, and sanding. Woodworking operations are found in numerous industries, such as sawmills,
plywood, particleboard, and hardboard plants, and furniture manufacturing plants.
Most plants engaged in woodworking employ pneumatic transfer systems to remove the generated wood waste
from the immediate proximity of each woodworking operation. These systems are necessary as a housekeeping
measure to eliminate the vast quantity of waste material that would otherwise accumulate. They are also a
convenient means of transporting the waste material to common collection points for ultimate disposal. Large
diameter cyclones have historically been the primary means of separating the waste material from the airstreams
in the pneumatic transfer systems, although baghouses have recently been installed in some plants for this
purpose.
The waste material collected in the cyclones or baghouses may be burned in wood waste boilers, utilized in the
manufacture of other products (such as pulp or particleboard), or incinerated in conical (teepee/wigwam)
burners. The latter practice is declining with the advent of more stringent air pollution control regulations and
because of the economic attractiveness of utilizing wood waste as a resource.
10.4.2 Emissions1'6
The only pollutant of concern in woodworking waste collection operations is particulate matter. The major
emission points are the cyclones utilized in the pneumatic transfer systems. The quantity of particulate emis-
sions from a given cyclone will depend on the dimensions of the cyclone, the velocity of the airstream, and the
nature of the operation generating the waste. Typical large diameter cyclones found in the industry will only
effectively collect particles greater than 40 micrometers in diameter. Baghouses, when employed, collect essen-
tially all of the waste material in the airstream. The wastes from numerous pieces of equipment often feed into
the same cyclone, and it is common for the material collected in one or several cyclones to be conveyed to
another cyclone. It is also possible for portions of the waste generated by a single operation to be directed to
different cyclones.
Because of this complexity, it is useful when evaluating emissions from a given facility to consider the waste
handling cyclones as air pollution sources instead of the various woodworking operations that actually generate
the particulate matter. Emission factors for typical large diameter cyclones utilized for waste collection in
woodworking operations are given in Table 10.4-1.
Emission factors for wood waste boilers, conical burners, and various drying operations—often found in
facilities employing woodworking operations-are given in Sections 1.6, 2.3, 10.2, and 10.3.
2/«0 Wood Products Indus.tr> 10.4-1
-------
Table 10.4.1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE DIAMETER
CYCLONES IN WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEMS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Types of waste handled
Sanderdustd
Other6
Particulate emissions'3'0
gr/scf
0.055
(0.005-0.16)
0.03
(0.001-0.16)
g/Nm3
0.126
(0.0114-0.37)
0.07
(0.002-0.37)
Ib/hr
5
(0.2-30.0)
2
(0.03-24.0)
kg/hr
2.3
(0.09-13.6)
0.91
(0.014-10.9)
aTypical waste collection cyclones range from 4 to 16 feet (1.2 to 4.9 meters) in diameter
and employ airflows ranging from 2,000 to 26,000 standard cubic feet (57 to 740 normal
cubic meters) per minute. Note: if baghouses are used for waste collection, paniculate
emissions will be negligible.
References 1 through 3.
cObserved value ranges are in parentheses.
These factors should be used whenever waste from sanding operations is fed directly into
the cyclone in question.
eThese factors should be used for cyclones handling waste from all operations other than
sanding. This includes cyclones that handle waste (including sanderdust) already collected
by another cyclone.
References for Section 10.4
1. Source test data supplied by Robert Harris, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR,
September 1975.
2. J.W. Walton, et al, "Air Pollution in the Woodworking Industry", Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association, Boston, MA, June 1975.
3. J.D. Patton and J.W. Walton, "Applying the High Volume Stack Sampler To Measure Emissions from Cotton
Gins, Woodworking Operations, and Feed and Grain Mills", Presented at 3rd Annual Industrial Air Pollution
Control Conference, Knoxville, TN, March 29-30, 1973.
4. C.F. Sexton, "Control of Atmospheric Emissions from the Manufacturing of Furniture", Presented at 2nd
Annual Industrial Air Pollution Control Conference, Knoxville, TN, April 20-21,1972.
5. A. Mick and D. McCargar, "Air Pollution Problems in Plywood, Particleboard, and Hardboard Mills in the
Mid-Willamette Valley", Mid-Williamette Valley Air Pollution Authority, Salem, OR, March 24,1969.
6. Information supplied by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Raleigh, NC,
December 1975.
10.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
11.3 EXPLOSIVES DETONATION
11.3.1 General 1~5
This section deals mainly with pollutants resulting from the
detonation of industrial explosives and firing of small arms. Military
applications are excluded from this discussion. Emissions associated
with the manufacture of explosives are treated in Section 5.6,
Explosives.
An explosive is a chemical material that is capable of extremely
rapid combustion resulting in an explosion or detonation. Since an
adequate supply of oxygen cannot be drawn from the air, a source of
oxygen must be incorporated into the explosive mixture. Some explo-
sives, such as trinitrotoluene (TNT), are single chemical species, but
most explosives are mixtures of several ingredients. "Low explosive"
and "high explosive" classifications are based on the velocity of
explosion, which is directly related to the type of work the explosive
can perform. There appears to be no direct relationship between the
velocity of explosions and the end products of explosive reactions.
These end products are determined primarily by the oxygen balance of the
explosive. As in other combustion reactions, a deficiency of oxygen
favors the formation of carbon monoxide and unburned organic compounds
and produces little, if any, nitrogen oxides. An excess of oxygen
causes more nitrogen oxides and less carbon monoxide and other unburned
organics. For ammonium nitrate and fuel oil mixtures (ANFO), a fuel oil
content of more than 5.5 percent creates a deficiency of oxygen.
There are hundreds of different explosives, with no universally
accepted system for classifying them. The classification used in Table
11.3-1 is based on the chemical composition of the explosives, without
regard to other to other properties, such as rate of detonation, which
relate to the applications of explosives but not to their specific end
products. Most explosives are used in two-, three-, or four-step trains
that are shown schematically in Figure 11.3-1. The simple removal of a
tree stump might be done with a two-step train made up of an electric
blasting cap and a stick of dynamite. The detonation wave from the
blasting cap would cause detonation of the dynamite. To make a large
hole in the earth, an inexpensive explosive such as ammonium nitrate and
fuel oil (ANFO) might be used.' In this case, the detonation wave from
the blasting cap is not powerful enough to cause detonation, so a
booster must be used in a three- or four-step train. Emissions from the
blasting caps and safety fuses used in these trains are usually small
compared to those from the main charge, because the emissions are
roughly proportional to the weight of explosive used, and the main
charge makes up most of the total weight. No factors are given for
computing emissions from blasting caps or fuses, because these have not
been measured, and because the uncertainties are so great in estimating
emissions from the main and booster charges that a precise estimate of
all emissions is not practical.
2/80 Miscellaneous Sources I I ..'i-1
-------
i DYNAMITE
1 ELECTRIC
BLASTING CAP
PRIMARY
HIGH EXPLOSIVE
SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
a. Two-step explosive train
3 DYNAMITE
2 NONELECTRIC
BLASTING CAP
1 SAFETY FUSE
LOW EXPLOSIVE PRIMARY
(BLACK POWDER) HIGH
EXPLOSIVE
SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
b. Three-step explosive train
3, DYNAMITE
BOOSTER
1. SAFETY
FUSE
BLASTING CAP
LOW PRIMARY
. EXPLOSIVE HIGH EXPLOSIVE SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE y
c. Four-step explosive train
Figure 11.3-1. Two-, three-, and four-step explosive trains.
I 1.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/80
-------
1/3
o
X
W l±
QO
^-
§1
H c«
cn
1/3
1
Ji
3
t.
o
JD
at
c
f
0)
•a
X
o
a>
cr
g
z
«
-o
X
o
1
1_
o
c
o
**
**~
t
r— C
0 IT)
a. v
§
^
;£
£
"^
c
o
H-
}f
§
•*-)
"
t—
«
at
in
C
O
Compos 1t
"v>
O
"a.
X
UJ
_
m
CM 1
o
'"""'
r-
CM ro
"~ 0
on
CO
~
CM cn
9 10
o
"• •*
sr
f— *J
CM m
O
Z
z
o
O CO
r-.
«f
co T
CO
m
4)
3
V-
X
4)
•o
E
lu
•^•1*-
13
15/10; potassi
rate/charcoal/
u?^-
f^. C
CO
t.
J
o.
«
CD
f—
CO 1 U
o
CM
^
O •—
(— 1 U
0
—
»- "oi
r- O-
II
I/I
I
^ *-^
I'*
rocellulose (s
h other materi
£ £
c *.
SCO
t-
i°
^
in
O
O
£
^c
in m
cv to
O
CO
f*l CM
i— CO
0
z
z
CO
f— in
CO I
CO
CM
^ CO
»
"8
3
Qj
t.
^^
O.
t DL
c
SOt nitroglyce
ium nitrate/wo
cium carbonate
t T3 . —
O 0 ft)
CM 1A (J
CM
at -c
o ^
I--
C
~
cn
tn
CM
3:
^
f> CO
r-^J>
0
-
f^. 1-^
O M
O
Z
Z
CO*
CO
\£)
CM *£>
CM
C
U '*J
X ID
U Q.
51
O"4->
E
O) •!-
C T3
t- in
60* nitroglyce
onium nitrate/
rate/wood pulp
o I ^
CO (D C
•CM
OJ -0
•«- C
E o
£
I1
— «>
O —
m oo"
LO CM
CM O
^ l/l
^>
r-^
O ro
C
CO
m o
O r-
O
CTi
in i
CO
f~^
CM 1
CO
CO
"o
CO r—
in •—
-
c
O •*->
IT) "~
"c 'a;
E «+-
C CO
i co-
m
O
LX.
Z
O co
CM 1 CM * CM .
f^. CM i— t—
CM CM
? ?
^- f— O
CO Z C\H£)
§U IX
I Coco
O t_)
^
u-i
^" CM
*~ ro
c.
•J^
CO f«^
f-^ tA
s
z
z
10?
—
CO
GO ^~
cr, i
CO
ro
C t •
f O Wi
3
t. X - 0
(0 I- 1-
-cr «> a;
•S 'ii U t o
SI- OJ 0 40
m "-t E a>
QJ
=>
o
1
c
L.
fVJ
CJ
CO
CM
TJ S
CO 1
CO CO
' — '
r**>
^
z
rf
z
z
z
m
in
-D r-
CD CM
CC
CO
o
^
Z
^
z
1
2
2
I
r--. i
co r-%
O
57
~ CO
m
0)
o
5
at
t.
c
£
o
CMC
O i-
(_> •*->
C
&
UJ
1 '
5 S
O
0
I I
II
V) ** ^
5 S
O ~
'£ o
a «
S E
o. o
CO •«-
<" t}
X '
o o S u
o 01 ,_ 5
"s * a
« re g »
O h
m H >,
2/80
Sourco
11 .;i-:i
-------
2 4-6
11.3.3 Emissions and Controls '
Carbon monoxide is the pollutant produced in greatest quantity from
explosives detonation. TNT, an oxygen deficient explosive, produces
more CO than most dynamites, which are oxygen balanced. But all explo-
sives produce measurable amounts of CO. Particulates are produced as
well, but such large quantities of particulate are generated in the
shattering of the rock and earth by the explosive that the quantity of
particulates from the explosive charge cannot be distinguished. Nitrogen
oxides (both NO and N02) are formed, but only limited data are available
on these emissions. Oxygen deficient explosives are said to produce
little or no nitrogen oxides, but there is only a small body of data to
confirm this. Unburned hydrocarbons also result from explosions, but in
most instances, methane is the only species that has been reported.
Hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia all have been
reported as products of explosives use. Lead is emitted from the firing
of small arms ammunition with lead projectiles and/or lead primers, but
the explosive charge does not contribute to the lead emissions.
The emissions from explosives detonation are influenced by many
factors such as explosive composition, product expansion, method of
priming, length of charge, and confinement. These factors are difficult
to measure and control in the field and are almost impossible to duplicate
in a laboratory test facility. With the exception of a few studies in
underground mines, most studies have been performed in laboratory test
chambers that differ substantially from the actual environment. Any
estimates of emissions from explosives use must be regarded as approxi-
mations that cannot be made more precise, because explosives are not
used in a precise, reproducible manner.
To a certain extent, emissions can be altered by changing the
composition of the explosive mixture. This has been practiced for many
years to safeguard miners who must use explosives. The U. S. Bureau of
Mines has a continuing program to study the products from explosives and
to identify explosives that can be used safely underground. Lead
emissions from small arms use can be controlled by using jacketed soft
point projectiles and special leadfree primers.
Emission factors are given in Table 11.3-1.
References for Section 11.3
1. C. R. Newhouser, Introduction to Explosives., National Bomb Data
Center, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Gaithersburg,
MD (undated).
2. Roy V. Carter, "Emissions from the Open Burning or Detonation of
Explosives", Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Houston, TX, June 1978.
11.3-4 EMISSION FACTORS 2/80
-------
3. Melvin A. Cook, The Science of High Explosives, Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, New York, 1958.
4. R. F. Chaiken, et al., Toxic Fumes from Explosives; Ammonium
Nitrate Fuel Oil Mixtures, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations
7867, U. S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC, 1974.
5. Sheridan J. Rogers, Analysis of Noncoal Mine Atmospheres; Toxic
Fumes from Explosives, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of Interior,
Washington, DC, May 1976.
6. A. A. Juhasz, "A Reduction of Airborne Lead in Indoor Firing
Ranges by Using Modified Ammunition", Special Publication 480-26,
Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC,
November 1977.
2/80 MiM-ollaiieoiis Soiirrrs 11.3-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
MISCELLANEOUS DATA
Note: Previous editions of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors presented a table en-
titled Percentage Distribution by Size of Particles from Selected Sources without Control
Equipment. Many of the data have become obsolete with the development of new information.
As soon as the new information is sufficiently refined, a new table, complete with references,
will be published for addition to this document.
9/73 A-l
-------
o o
o o
o o
C3
00
t*-
o
-^
g
C/3
^^
o
C/3
C/3
NM
*CH
LxJ
Q
^£
^F
^-H
^^
^H
UH
•^^
2
^^
.^^
^s
i
^
&
X
eu
5
-o
c
*
M
•o
c
OJ
J3
o
E
x
Ll
c
0
«
EC
3
0
01
c
a
w
»
£
ei,
T3
«
EC
J)
U
o
a.
c
o
«
0
c
0
^
Ul
3
J3
g
^
n
;
O
IX
p^
c
o
b
1
u
-^
J1
>1
c
o
"
,
>•
^
•K
^
o
L.
"5
E
Li
>,
"c
o
^
^
^c
E
o
o"
o
CO
8
o
§
0
0
•o
§
0
o
0
o
0
o
o
CO
vO
o
o
o
0
,
*
o
§
1
_r
®.
o
o
^
0
.
0
0
(NJ
.
o
o
o
o
o
oO
o
o
o
o
°,
o
o
oT
o
o
o
-T
^
o
o
o
o
o
0) OJ
oo -a
o -^
Ll X
-J O
z
0
iO
"
o
o
o
o
o
-3-
-;
o
8
o^
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
—
o
•£J
M
o
8
o
o
no
o
o
°.
o"
o
ro
o
o
o
8"
f-1
'"'en
c
o
^
o
L,
-o
>,
z
5
o
0
^J
.
o
0
m"
o
o
o
o
!-
o
c-
o
o
o
f-
^
o
3
oO
o
o
o
o
•£>
o
o
o
3
u
c
Hi
>
o
01
^
c.
1C
o
^
w
3
•o
c
c
o
c
T3
c
(0
u
^
m
3
u
£
EO
00
c
c
L>
3
-°
-1
2
3
3
^
00
T3
c
aj
(t>
s
eo
V
•a
3
c
J3
1
o
a
•f.
~3
OJ
i
T3 O
C r->
3
0.00
c >,
3
U
C — <
"c <~^
to
GiC
c
E ft
^ E
ra a,
-o 6
TJ 3
3
u ra
M
LJ
• O
U 01
Eii
en -5
"§:£
3
O tw
a. o
O ,-t
•-" C
c o
B u
DO
Li C
o o
w >-.
Ij ^
fl O
i-H Qj
o
> T3
01 -o
> c
tj i
to o
Ll 11
c o;
c
C £
tfl
to
•a -i
LI LI
a. c
x o
-d C
A-2
Appendix
2/80
-------
Table A-5. GENERAL CONVERSION FACTORS
Type of substance
Conversion factors
Fuel
Oil
Natural gas
Agricultural products
Corn
Milo
Oats
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Concrete
Mobile sources
Gasoline-powered motor vehicle
Diesel-powered motor vehicle
Steamship
Motorship
Other substances
Paint
Varnish
Whiskey
Water
Miscellaneous factors
1 bbl = 42gal= 159 liters
1 therm = 100,000 Btu = 95 ft3
1 therm = 25,000 kcal = 2.7 m3
1 bu = 56 Ib = 25.4 kg
1 bu = 56 Ib = 25.4 kg
1 bu = 32lb= 14.5kg
1 bu = 48lb = 21.8kg
1 bu = 60 Ib = 27.2 kg
1 bale = 500 Ib = 226 kg
1 brick = 6.5 Ib = 2.95 kg
1 bbl = 375 Ib = 170 kg
1 yd3 = 2SOOIb= 1130kg
1 yd3 = 4000lb= 1820kg
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1 gal = 10 to 15 Ib = 4.5 to 6.82 kg
1gal = 7 lb = 3.18kg
1 bbl = 50 gal = 188 liters
1 gal = 8.3 lb= 3.81 kg
1 Ib = 7000 grains = 453.6 grams
1 ft3 = 7.48 gal = 28.32 liters
2/72
EMISSION FACTORS
A-5
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX
1. Unpublished data file of nationwide emissions for 1970. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
2. Stairmand, C.J. The Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning Equipment. J. Inst. Fuel. 29:58-80.
1956.
3. Stairmand, C.J. Removal of Grit, Dust, and Fume from Exhaust Gases from Chemical Engineering Processes.
London. Chem. Eng. p. 310-326, December 1965.
A-6 Appendix 2/72
-------
ENGLISH TO METRIC FACTORS
To convert from
acre
barrel (for petroleum, 42 gal).
board foot
British thermal unit
(International Table)
British thermal unit (60°F) ...
bushel (U.S.)
calorie (International Table) .
calorie (20°C)
fluid ounce (U.S.)
foot3/second
foot3
foot2
foot/minute
foot/second
gallon (U.S.
gallon (U.S.
gallon (U.S.
grain
horsepower (550 ft.lbf/s)
horsepower (boiler)
horsepower (electric)
horsepower (metric)
inch2
inch3
kilometre/hour
kilowatt-hour
knot
mile (U.S. statute)
mile2 (U.S. statute)
mile/hour (U.S. statute)
mile/hour (U.S. statute)
ounce-mass (avoirdupois)
ounce-mass (troy or apothecary)
dry)
, liquid)
dry)
liquid)
liquid)/minute
(U.S.
(U.S.
quart
quart
rod
section
statute mile (U.S.)
ton (long)
ton (metric)
ton (short)
township
yard
yard2
yard3 ,
to
metre2 (m2)
metre3 (m3)
metre3 (m3)
joule (J)
joule (J)
metre3 (m3)
joule (J)
joule (J)
metre3 (m3)
metre3/second (m3/s) ..
metre2 (m2)
metre/second (m/s) ....
metre/second (m/s) ....
metre3 (m3)
metre3 (m3)
metre3 /second (m3/s) . .
kilogram (kg)
watt (W)
watt (W)
watt (W)
watt (W)
metre2 (m2)
metre3 (m3)
metre/second (m/s) ....
joule (J)
metre/second (m/s) ....
metre (m)
metre2 (m2)
metre/second (m/s) ....
kilometre/hour
kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg)
metre3 (m3)
metre3 (m3 )
metre (m)
metre2 (m2 )
metre (m)
kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg)
metre2 (m2)
metre3 (m3)
Multiply by
4.046 856 E+03
1.589 873 E-01
2.359 737 E-03
1.055 056 E+03
1.054 68 E+03
3.523 907 E-02
4.186 800 E+00
4.181 90 E+00
2.957 353 E-05
2.831 685 E-02
2.831 685 E-02
9.290 304 E-02
5.080 000 E-03
3.048 000 E-01
4.404 884 E-03
3.785 412 E-03
6.309 020 E-05
6.479 891 E-05
7.456 999 E+02
9.809 50 E+03
7.460 000 E+02
7.354 99 E+02
6.451 600 E-04
1.638 706 E-05
2.777 778 E-01
3.600 000 E+06
5.144 444 E-01
1.609 344 E+03
2.589 988 E+06
2.682 240 E+01
1.609 344 E+00
2.834 952 E-02
3.110 348 E-02
1.101 221 E-03
9.463 529 E-04
5.029 200 E+00
2.589 988 E+06
1.609 344 E+03
1.016 047 E+03
1.000 000 E+03
9.071 847 E+02
9.323 957 E+07
9.144 000 E-01
8.361 274 E-01
7.645 549 E-01
2/80
Appendix
A-7
-------
CONVERSIONS
Temperature
Degrees Centigrade (Celsius) = 5/9 (°F
Degrees Farenheit = 9/5 (°C) + 32
- 32)
Pressure
PSI
PSI 1.0
Inch
mercury 0.491
Bar 14.5
Atmosphere 14.7
Foot water 0.434
Length
Milli-
meter
(mm)
Millimeter 1.00
Centimeter 10 . 0
Meter 1000.0
Inch 25.4
Foot 304.8
Area
Sq . mm
Sq. mm 1.0
Sq. cm 100.0
Sq. M 1 x 106
Sq.
inch 645.2
Sq.
foot 92,903.0
Volume
Cu. Ft.
Cu. Ft. 1.0
Quart 0.0334
Gallon 0.1337
Liter 0.0316
Inches
mercury
2.04
1.0
29.51
29.92
0.884
Centi-
meter
(cm)
0.01
1.00
100.0
2.54
30.48
Sq. cm
0.1
1.0
1 x lO4
6.452
929.03
Quart
29.92
1.0
4.0
1.057
Bar
0.69
0.0339
1.0
1.014
0.030
Meter
(M)
0.001
0.01
1.00
0.0254
0.3048
Sq. M
1 x 10-6
1 x W-k
1.0
0.0006
0.0929
Gallon
7.481
0.250
1.0
2.64
Atmosphere
0.68
0.0334
0.986
1.0
0.0295
Inch
0.0394
0.3937
39.37
1,00
12 ,,0
Sq. inch
0.0016
0.1550
1550.0
1.0
144.0
Liter
28.32
0.946
3.784
1.0
Foot
water
2.31
1.13
33.41
33.87
1.0
Foot
0.0033
0.0328
3.281
0.083
1.00
Sq. foot
1.1 x 10-5
0.0011
10.764
0.0069
1.0
A-8
Appendix
2/80
-------
SOME USEFUL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
grain
gram
ounce
kilogram
pound
0.002
0.04
28.35
2.21
0.45
ounces
ounces
grams
pounds
kilograms
pound (troy)
ton (short)
ton (long)
ton (metric)
ton (shipping)
12 ounces
2000 pounds
2240 pounds
2200 pounds
40 feet3
centimeter
inch
foot
meter
yard
mile
0.39 inches
2.54 centimeters
30.48 centimeters
1.09 yards
0.91 meters
1.61 kilometers
centimeter2 0.16 inches2
inch2
foot2^
meter2
yard2
mile2
6.45 centimeters2
0.09 meters2
1.2 yards2
0.84 meters2
2.59 kilometers2
centimeter3
inch3
foot3
foot3
meter3
yard3
0.061 inches3
16.39 centimeters3
283.17 centimeters3
1728 inches3
1.31 yards3
0.77 meters3
cord
cord
peck
bushel
bushel
128 feet3
4 meters3
8 quarts
(dry) 4 pecks
2150.4 inches3
gallon (U.S.)
barrel
hogshead
township
hectare
231 inches3
31.5 gallons
2 barrels
36 miles2
2.5 acres
MISCELLANEOUS DATA
One cubic foot of anthracite coal weighs about 53 pounds.
One cubic foot of bituminous coal weighs from 47 to 50 pounds.
One ton of coal is equivalent to two cords of wood for steam purposes.
A gallon of water (U.S. Standard) weighs 8.33 Ibs. and contains 231
cubic inches.
There are 9 square feet of heating surface to each square foot of grate
surface.
A cubic foot of water contains 7.5 gallons and 1728 cubic inches, and
weighs 62.5 Ibs.
Each nominal horsepower of a boiler requires 30 to 35 Ibs. of water per
hour.
A horsepower is equivalent to raising 33,000 pounds one foot per minute,
or 550 pounds one foot per second.
To find the pressure in pounds per square inch of column of water,
multiply the height of the column in feet by 0.434.
2/80
Appendix
A-9
-------
-------
MAJOR GROUP 72 - PERSONAL SERVICES
NATIONAL EMISSION DATA SYSTEM
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES AND EMISSION FACTOR LISTING
POUNDS EMITTED PER UNIT
SCC PROCESS PART SOX NOX HC CO UNITS
MAJOR GROUP 72 - PERSONAL SERVICES
Dry Cleaning - 7216
4-01-001-03 Perchloroethylene 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000. 0.00 Tons solvent consumed
4-01-001-04 Stoddard 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000. 0.00 Tons solvent consumed
4-01-001-05 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000. 0.00 Tons solvent consumed
EMISSION FACTORS
M/78 c.77
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
COMPILATION OF LEAD EMISSION FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
Lead was not involved as a specific pollutant in the earlier editions and supplements of AP-42. Since
a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead has been issued, it has become necessary to determine
emission factors for lead, and these are given in Table E-l. The AP-42 Section number given in this table
for each process corresponds to the pertinant section in the body of the document.
Lead emission factors for combustion and evaporation from mobile sources require a totally different
treatment, and they are not included in this Appendix.
Table E-1. UNCONTROLLED LEAD EMISSION FACTORS
AP-42
Section
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.11
2.1
2.5
Process
Bituminous coal combustion
(all furnace types)
Anthracite coal combustion
(all furnace types)
Residual fuel oil combustion
(all boiler types)
Distillate fuel oil combustion
(all boiler types)
Lignite combustion
(all boiler types)
Waste oil combustion
Refuse incineration
(municipal incinerator)
Sewage sludge incineration
(wet scrubber controlled)
Multiple hearth
Fluidized bed
Emission
Metric
0.8 (L) kg/106 kg
(Average L
0.8 (L) kg/106 kg
(Average L
0.5 (L) kg/103m3
(Average L
0.5 (L) kg/103m3
(Average L
5-6 kg/106 kg
9 (P) kg/m3
(Average P -
0.2 kg/MT chgd
.01-.02kg/MTchgd
.0005-.002 kg/MT chgd
factor3'"
English
1.6(L)lb/103ton
= 8.3 ppm)
1.6 (L) lb/103 ton
= 8.1 ppm)
4.2 (L) lb/106 gal
= 10 ppm)
4.2 (L) lb/106 gal
= 0.1 ppm)
10-11 lb/103 tons
75 (P) lb/103 gal
1.0 percent)
0.4 Ib/ton chgd
.02-.03 Ib/ton chgd
001 -.003 Ib/ton
References
1,4-6
1,4-6
1,7
1,7
2
18,51,52
1,3,9-11
3,12
3,12
7/79
Appendix E
E-l
-------
Table E-1 (continued). UNCONTROLLED LEAD EMISSION FACTORS
AP-42
Section
5.22
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.5
Process
Lead alkyl production
Electrolytic process
Sodium-lead alloy process
Recovery furnace
Process vents, TEL
Process vents, TML
Sludge pits
Metallurgical coke
manufacturing
Primary copper smelting
Roasting
Smelting (reverberatory
furnace)
Converting
Ferroalloy production -
electric arc furnace (open)
Ferrosilicon (50%); FeSi
Silicon metal
Silico-manganese
Ferro-manganese (standard)
Ferrochrome-silicon
High carbon ferrochrome
Ferroalloy production -
blast furnace
Iron and steel production
Sintering
(wmdbox + vent
discharges
Blast furnace
for mixed charge)
Emission
Metric
0.5 kg/MT prod
28 kg/MT prod
2 kg/MT prod
75 kg/MT prod
0.6 kg/MT prod
.00018 kg/MT
coal chgd
1.2 (P) kg/MT cone
(Average P
0.8 kg/MT cone
1.3 kg/MT cone
0.15 kg/MT prod
00015 kg/MT prod
0 29 kg/MT prod
0 06 kg/MT prod
0.04 kg/MT prod
0.17 kg/MT prod
1 9 kg/MT prod
0.0067 kg/MT sinter
0.062 kg/MT Fe
factor3'13
English
1.0 Ib/ton prod
55 Ib/ton prod
4 Ib/ton prod
150 Ib/ton prod
1.2 ton/ton prod
00035 Ib/ton
coal chgd
2 3 (P) Ib/ton cone
- 0.3 percent)
1.7 Ib/ton cone
2.6 Ib/ton cone
0.29 Ib/ton prod
00031 Ib/ton prod
0 57 Ib/ton prod
0 11 Ib/ton prod
0.08 Ib/ton prod
0.34 Ib/ton prod
3 7 Ib/ton prod
0 013 Ib/ton sinter
0.124 Ib/ton Fe
References
1,3,53
1,53,54
1
1
1
1,13,14
1
1,15,17
1,15,16,18
20
1,19
1,21
1,3
20
20
1,3
1,23,24
1,23
E-2
EMISSION FACTORS
7/79
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO
AP-42, Supplement 10
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Supplement No. 10 for Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Third Edition, AP-42
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5 REPORT DATE
February 1980
7 AUTHOR(S)
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANT MO.
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Supplement
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
In this Supplement to AP-42, new, revised and updated emissions data are presented
for mobile sources; aircraft; transportation and marketing of petroleum liquids;
waste solvent reclamation; tank and drum cleaning; hydrofluoric acid; phosphoric
acid; sulfur recovery; wine making; harvesting of grain; primary lead smelting; coal
cleaning; glass fiber manufacturing; phosphate rock processing; coal conversion;
taconite ore processing; plywood veneer and layout operations; woodworking waste
collection operations; and explosives detonation. There is also an expansion and
revision of the Appendix A, miscellaneous data and conversion factors.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Emissions
Emission factors
Fuel combustion
Stationary sources
Mobile sources
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
8 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
_J46
'if
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
a-2
-------
------- |