c.v
                                           AP-42
                                    Supplement 14
       SUPPLEMENT NO.  14
                   FOR

           COMPILATION
       OF AIR POLLUTANT
       EMISSION FACTORS,
          THIRD EDITION
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTS 1-7)
     C.
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
         Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                  May 1983

-------
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products is rot intended
to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                         AP-42

                     Supplement 14
     Ije
                           ii

-------
                  INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSERTING SUPPLEMENT  14


                                    INTO

                                   AP-42
Pages ill  through v replace same.   New Contents.
Page ix replaces same.   New Publications In Series.
Pages 1.2-1  through 1.2-4 replace  same.   Major Revision.
Pages 1.6-3 and 1.6-4 replace same.   Editorial  Changes.
Pages 1.9-1 through  1.9-4 replace  pp.  1.9-1 and  1.9-2.
Pages 1.10-1 through 1.10-7 replace pp.  1.10-1  and  1.10-2,
Pages 2.4-1 through 2.4-6 replace  same.   Minor Revision.
Add pages 4.2.2.11-1 through 4.2.2.11-6.  New Subsection.
Add pages 4.2.2.12-1 through 4.2.2.12-6.  New Subsection.
Pages 5.0 and 5.1-1 through 5.1-5  replace pp. 5.1-1  through  5.1-4.
Pages 5.2-1 through 5.2-4 replace  pp. 5.2-1 through  5.2-3.
Pages 5.3-1 through 5.3-8 replace  same.   Minor Revision.
Pages 5.4-1 through 5.4-4 replace  p. 5.4-1.  Minor  Revision.
Pages 5.6-1 through 5.6-7 replace  pp. 5.6-1 through  5.6-6.
Pages 5.10-1 through 5.10-3 replace pp.  5.10-1 and  5.10-2.
Pages 5.12-1 through 5.12-5 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pages 5.14-1 and 5.14-2 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pages 5.15-1 through 5.15-4 replace pp.  5.15-1  and  5.15-2.
Pages 5.21-1 through 5.21-5 replace p. 5.21-1.   Minor Revision.
Pages 5.24-1 through 5.24-5 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pages 7.1-1 through 7.1-9 replace  same.   Technical  Clarification.
Pages 7.5-1 through 7.5-9 replace  pp. 7.5-1 through 7.5-12.   Major Revision.
Pages 8.14-1 through 8.14-7 replace pp.  8.14-1  and  8.14-2.   Major Revision.
Page 8.19-1 replaces same.  Major  Revision.
Add pages 8.19.1-1 through 8.19.1-4.  New Subsection.
Pages 8.22-1 through 8.22-7 replace pp.  8.22-1  through  8.22-6.   Major  Revision.
Add pages 8.24-1 through 8.24-11.   New Section.
Pages 11.2-1  and  11.2-2,  and  pages  11.2.1-1  through  11.2.1-6,  replace
  pp. 11.2-1  through  11.2-4.   Major  Revision  (Section  and  Subsection).
Pages 11.2.2-1 and 11.2.2-2 replace pp.  11.2.2-1 through  11.2.2-3.   Major  Revision.
Pages 11.2.3-1 through 11.2.3-6 replace pp. 11.2.3-1 and  11.2.3-2.   Major  Revision.
Add pages 11.2.6-1 through 11.2.6-3.  New Subsection.
Add pages A-10 through A-17.   More of Appendix  A.
Major  Revision.
 Major  Revision.
       Minor  Revision.
 Minor  Revision.
 Minor Revision.
 Minor Revision.
 Minor  Revision.

-------
                              CONTENTS

                                                               Page

INTRODUCTION  	      1
1.   EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES  	    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   Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion 	  1.5-1
     1.6   Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers	1.6-1
     1.7   Lignite Combustion 	  1.7-1
     1.8   Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills  	  1.8-1
     1.9   Residential Fireplaces 	  1.9-1
     1.10  Wood Stoves	1.10-1
     1.11  Waste Oil Disposal 	 1.11-1
2.   SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL   	  2.0-1
     2.1   Refuse Incineration  	  2.1-1
     2.2   Automobile Body Incineration 	  2.2-1
     2.3   Conical Burners	2.3-1
     2.4   Open Burning	2.4-1
     2.5   Sewage Sludge Incineration 	  2.5-1
3.   INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES 	    3-1
     GLOSSARY OF TERMS	    3-1
     3.1   Highway Vehicles 	  3.1-1
     3.2   Off Highway Mobile Sources 	  3.2-1
     3.3   Off Highway Stationary Sources 	  3.3-1
4.   EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES	4.1-1
     4.1   Dry Cleaning	4.1-1
     4.2   Surface Coating	4.2-1
     4.3   Storage Of 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 Degreasing	4.6-1
     4.7   Waste Solvent Reclamation  	  4.7-1
     4.8   Tank And Drum Cleaning	4.8-1
     4.9   Graphic Arts	4.9-1
     4.10  Commercial/consumer Solvent Use  	 4.10-1
     4.11  Textile Fabric Printing  	 4.11-1
5.   CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY  	  5.1-1
     5.1   Adipic Acid	5.1-1
     5.2   Synthetic Ammonia  	  5.2-1
     5.3   Carbon Black	5.3-1
     5.4   Charcoal	5.4-1
     5.5   Chlor-Alkali	5.5-1
     5.6   Explosives	5.6-1
     5.7   Hydrochloric Acid	5.7-1
     5.8   Hydrofluoric Acid	5.8-1
     5.9   Nitric Acid	5.9-1

                                iii

-------
                                                          Page

5.10  Paint And Varnish 	   5.10-1
5.11  Phosphoric Acid 	   5.11-1
5.12  Phthalic Anhydride  	   5.12-1
5.13  Plastics  	   5.13-1
5.14  Printing Ink	5.14-1
5.15  Soap And Detergents	5.15-1
5.16  Sodium Carbonate  	   5.16-1
5.17  Sulfuric Acid	5.17-1
5.18  Sulfur Recovery 	   5.18-1
5.19  Synthetic Fibers  	   5.19-1
5.20  Synthetic Rubber  	   5.20-1
5.21  Terephthalic Acid 	   5.21-1
5.22  Lead Alkyl	5.22-1
5.23  Pharmaceuticals Production  	   5.23-1
5.24  Maleic Anhydride  	   5.24-1
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
6.18  Ammonium Sulfate  	   6.18-1
METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY  	    7.1-1
7.1   Primary Aluminum Production	    7.1-1
7.2   Coke Production	,.    7.2-1
7.3   Primary Copper Smelting 	  „    7.3-1
7.4   Ferroalloy Production	„    7.4-1
7.5   Iron And Steel Production	„    7.5-1
7.6   Primary Lead Smelting	,,    7.6-1
7.7   Zinc Smelting	„    7.7-1
7.8   Secondary Aluminum Operations	,.    7.8-1
7.9   Secondary Copper Smelting And Alloying  ......    7.9-1
7.10  Gray Iron Foundries	7.10-1
7.11  Secondary Lead Smelting 	  .   7.11-1
7.12  Secondary Magnesium Smelting  	  »   7.12-1
7.13  Steel Foundries 	  „   7.13-1
7.14  Secondary Zinc Processing	  .  .  «   7.14-1
7.15  Storage Battery Production  	  „   7.15-1
7.16  Lead Oxide And Pigment Production 	   7.16-1

                            iv

-------
                                                                     Page

     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
     8.23   Metallic Minerals Processing  	  8.23-1
     8.24   Western Surface Coal Mining 	  8.24-1
9.   PETROLEUM INDUSTRY	   9.1-1
     9.1    Petroleum Refining	   9.1-1
     9.2    Natural Gas Processing	   9.2-1
10.  WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 	  10.1-1
     10.1   Chemical Wood Pulping 	  10.1-1
     10.2   Pulpboard 	  10.2-1
     10.3   Plywood Veneeer 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

-------
                       PUBLICATIONS  IN  SERIES
                              Issuance
Supplement No.  13
                                                                Release  Date

                                                                     8/82
 Section 1.1
 Section 1.3
 Section 1.4
 Section 1.5
 Section 1.6
 Section 1.7
 Section 3.3.4
 Section 4.2.2.8
 Section 4.2.2.9
 Section 4.2.2.10
 Section 4.11
 Section 5.16
 Section 5.20
 Section 7.15
 Section 8.23
Bituminous and Subbituminous  Coal Combustion
Fuel Oil Combustion
Natural Gas Combustion
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion
Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers
Lignite Combustion
Stationary Large Bore Diesel  and Dual Fuel Engines
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
Pressure Sensitive Tapes and  Labels
Metal Coil Surface Coating
Textile Fabric Printing
Sodium Carbonate
Synthetic Rubber
Storage Battery Production
Metallic Minerals Processing
Supplement No. 14
                                                                      5/83
Section 1.2       Anthracite Coal  Combustion
Section 1.6       Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers
Section 1.9       Residential Fireplaces
Section 1.10      Wood Stoves
Section 2.4       Open Burning
Section 4.2.2.11  Large Appliance  Surface Coating
Section 4.2.2.12  Metal Furniture  Surface Coating
Section 5.1       Adipic Acid
Section 5.2       Synthetic  Ammonia
Section 5.3       Carbon Black
Section 5.4       Charcoal
Section 5.6       Explosives
Section 5.10      Paint And  Varnish
Section 5.12      Phthalic Anhydride
Section 5.14      Printing Ink
Section 5.15      Soap And Detergents
Section 5.21      Terephthalic Acid
Section 5.24      Maleic Anhydride
Section 7.1       Primary Aluminum Production
Section 7.5       Iron And Steel Production
Section 8.14      Gypsum Manufacturing
Section 8.19      Construction Aggregate Processing
Section 8.19.1    Sand And Gravel  Processing
Section 8.22      Taconite Ore Processing
Section 8.24      Western Surface  Coal Mining
Section 11.2      Fugitive Dust Sources
Section 11.2.1    Unpaved Roads
Section 11.2.2    Agricultural Tilling
Section 11.2.3    Aggregate  Handling And Storage
Section 11.2.6    Industrial Paved Roads
                                               IX

-------
1.2  ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION

1.2.1  General1"2

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

     In the United States, all anthracite is mined in Northeastern Pennsylvania
and is consumed mostly in Pennsylvania and several surrounding states.  The
largest use of anthracite is for space heating.  Lesser amounts are employed
for steam/electric production; coke manufacturing, sintering and palletizing;
and other industrial uses.  Anthracite combustion currently is only a small
fraction of the total quantity of coal combusted in the United States.
                             2-14
1.2.2  Emissions and Controls

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

     Limited data are available on the emission of gaseous pollutants from
anthracite combustion.  It is assumed from bituminous coal combustion data
that a large fraction of the fuel sulfur is emitted as sulfur oxides.  Also,
because combustion equipment, excess air rates, combustion temperatures, etc.,
are similar between anthracite and bituminous coal combustion, nitrogen oxide
and carbon monoxide emissions are assumed to be similar, too.  Volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions, however, are expected to be considerably lower
because the volatile matter content of anthracite is significantly less than
that of bituminous coal.
 5/83                      External Combustion Sources                     1.2-1

-------

















cfl
S5
O
rH
H

PQ
s
8
o

w
H
H
O
«3l
p2
EC
£_(
r25
"3

04
g

CO
pi
o
H
0
<
Pn

§
M
in
cn
H
yj
S

o
w
•J
rJ
0
P4
g
O
o

^5

.
,_4
i
CN
•
r-l

3

^
H




















































































































0)
d
cS
pC-
4J
0)


o
o
£>

cu
c
CO
J3
4J
CU
g
8
o





Q)
4)
C "O
O -H
JQ X
M O
cfl C

J5j







rt
ore
00 CO
o cu

4-> -H

rS 0








0^

3 D
>4H 13
i-H -H
3 £
t/3 O






JD
CO
CU
4-1
CO
rH
CJ
•H
4-1
(.4
Cfl
CU


























rj
O
4-1
•x^.
43
rH



60
S

60



C
O
4J
^^,
t-l
rH



60
•5.
60




d
o
4-1
^«.
f>
rH


60

^•^
60



C!
o

^s».
JO
rH


60
S!

~60





CU
Pu

H

M
CU
rH
•H
O
pa




lj_1 14_| (4^












t4_l 14_{ (4^








VO
<4H • UH
O





ro
M-t • M-l
o





00 O CO
1— 1 rH





in
•
ON to •— '







W W CO
0^ 0^ o^
f^) CO cO



CO CO CO

• • *
O\ ON ON
r-4 r-t t-H


60
t— (
• ,r^
M-i C5N O
^H


60
vO
* .^
WH  CO
O Cfl 4->
0 M -iH
60 C
13 3
CU 60
N CM T3
•H T3 -H CU CU
MO) rH ,*! 14H
CU M CU O
> -H > 4J id
rH MH CO CO C
3 J-i cfl
CM H M
cn 3 cn
co M O cfl
cfl o c:

T3 rH O T3 6 C
CUUH cfl tfCD ;)^icfl
4J T3 O O fX4 N 4-1 CJ
4J 0) CJ i-l -i-l CO /-.
•H )J 4-> (.J ^ 4J C
B'H(3 CO «CU COO
cu >4n cu 3 T; > T-' 4-1
CJ O CU rH c! T3 ^
COCUM C C3 cc CjD
•rt 4-1 CD -iH -r-l Cl, tO rH
• -H a g cc a;
*O MO 3 4->M 4J COO
01 3C04J 4-> Co T-I Min
tH U-t M J2 -rl ->H 14-1 O 0)
•H rH,J360fjQ CO CO J3I
•4H 34->lH gC/1 M g
co ecu o MX com
CD Cfl5 4-* MO 4-* ^ ^"^
CO rH O 4-1 £3 "B
CU T3 CU M O CO 60
C3 3 CU .?* CO T3 CC 4J ^
O UH N 4-* r-1 CU Pi* 'i ' 3 ^~-
•iH T-l -H 4J O O 60
4-> CU M 4-1 g Cfl rH ^
O, JS CU CO T-l M • >-, rH
E *J>jS cn aioo *-> com
3 rH 4-> PL, -H 14H CN
CO 14-1 3 CU O 0) M
d OCXCOJ2 O cfl Cl
O CU ^ C rH -H
O 4JM4-" O rHCU T-l in
MOCO 4-i MM g M«
rH OUHO CO CU • T-l 3CN
co e in 13 a,>4H-*co o
O C'O CU'OO)rH CJ0
CJ *OC grHJjpi CU OO
CiH-H 3^0. OljS M
O O4-> CO CCJ4J >-,l4H
4-> -H CXW3 CO T3 4-> T-l d Cfl
*-> B coco cud So)
13 C03 cOtfdMO 60
oi3co« •• oo) 4->d
•H jacom-cooocOTHMHij coed
rH gcflOC'l-' i-l *J CU 0) J2M
ex o cocuf-ico cflaicn 4-j
a, o co >co)Mg co >->
CO -HS~5T-l3cJCUMd43 4JCO
rHjrcO60 c3rHO-H 3g
J3 O ICUCUMOCcOl3 I-HCO
CJ ^\ 3 14H CU .*^ *|H 4-^ CU rH M
13 14H--H rH <4H CO CO Cfl CU
rH COlH C6T3ajCOn3T33 H-lrH.
3 3MjS>CCrf CU -H60
O OOI4J Cfl <4H4JrHCJ TfOC
J2 d > -H 0) J= CU -H T-l CO J2 0) J3 i-l
CO-iH ?J3 CU gd *-> &
gm 4->i3cocuiHO>> T-irHO
T3 3 • C T3rH.rC
OCfl4->CUMiHrHOCdO> • 14HT3
•HO'H«4HCC)rHlH-t-'gC05^rH CM
CO &0) P^OCO cfl43 CO-HC
0514H PdcOiHjQ KH43 CU 4-> -H
T-lrHCO C4J (DO tJrH CMM
gcflcflCOrH'a+J CUCUJD 3O3
- COgMMMcOcOH CJ
T34-i4J(OCO T-I60CU -H O CO /— ••
CUCCfl4J-H ^HH.jr-l
o 4J-Hj3jr;McgaJ coo mco
OT3cxg4-'cojrM>cu ex rHom
COg T-l 4-J 4H il) 4-J CO CU TH ^-^
3j33h-3l4HrHC3 COCOMM ^CO
4JCO OiHCOM M0> COC060
MCUCO O O >, 60 i-H M ^-HS
O S C£ • 4H -rj [£4 i*i iiH O Ig **^-
14H COCOCUO) &OO4J CNW60
^ti ^ 03 O f^ JO 0} Cj Q tJ ^~H r1^ •
CUa,^3T3S4->-H.CO-H' CO CM
MtiH4-JiH MCcOi — i'Oiw cr»in
cfl X C CU O CU CU V 01 60 CN 0)
CCC--H>-HM>MC oc o
COOO CO rH4->OCO-rJO C-HCOC
M MMMncOCSM^t-iT-l CU-CCOCU
OT3t33CU3a,3-iH4J CO «MO M
4->CUCUt4-lrHU-l o , — ICOr-lCUCU^CU
OCOCOrH-HrHMg>iM SJ-rHCflllHO) 60>4-l
cflcflcO 3O3OOcflOOgOOIM'HCD
fupqpq cOrQ coptn CJS'+H cjcfl O pd J3 J3 04
1.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

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

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

     Emission factors for  anthracite combustion are presented in Table 1.2.1,
and emission factor ratings  in Table 1.2-2.

       TABLE 1.2-2.  ANTHRACITE COAL EMISSION FACTOR RATING&

                            Sulfur  Nitrogen  Carbon           VOC
    Furnace Type     Particulates  Oxides  Oxides Monoxide  Nonmethane    Methane
Pulverized coal
Traveling grate
Hand fed units
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
D
C
C
D
    The emission factor rating is explained in the Introduction to this volume.

References for Section  1.2

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

2.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  HEW Contract  No. CPA-22-69-119, TRW Inc.,
     Reston, VA, April  1970.

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

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

5.   R. W. Cass and R. M. Bradway,  Fractional  Efficiency of a Utility Boiler
     Baghouse;  Sunbury  Steam Electric Station,  EPA-600/2-76-077a, U. S. Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency,  Research  Triangle Park,  NC,  March 1976.
5/83                      External  Combustion Sources                     1.2-3

-------
6.   R. P. Janaso, "Baghouse Dust Collectors on a Low Sulfur Coal Fired Utility
     Boiler", Presented at the 67th Ann
     Association, Denver, CO, June 1974
Boiler", Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control     M
7,   J. H. Phelan, et al.,  Design and Operation Experience with Baghouse Dust
     Collectors for Pulverized Coal Fired Utility Boilers - Sunbury Station,
     Holtwood Station, Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Denver,
     CO, 1976.

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

9.   Source and Emissions  Information on Anthracite Tired Boilers, Pennsylvania
     Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA, September 27, 1974.

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

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

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

13.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Shippensburg State
     College, Shippensburg,  Pennsylvania, Final Report,  Scott Environmental
     Technology, Inc., PIurnsteadville, PA, May 1975.

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

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

16.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Norristown State
     Hospital, Norristovm,  Pennsylvania, Final Report, Pennsylvania Department
     of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA, January 29, 1980.

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

18.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, West Chester State,
     West Chester, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Roy Weston, Inc., West Chester,
     PA, April 4, 1977.
1.2-4                         EMISSION FACTORS                             5/83

-------
to
to
rH
•H
0
hi
O
to
tg
60
60
B
iH
B
hi
M
to
hi
01
rH
•H
O
X
hi
£

a
00
rH
1
r-.
rH
•t
ON
M
-9
, J4
CD rH X
p. 01
3 01

rH X
a o -H
U CO
.COB
rH 0) 01
01 S "O
3 B
<4J T3 O
O 0
>> P
hi » 01
« -0
•H >» 3
rH rH H
•HBO
K O 6
3 -rl
« e
S !>-,
s*J
O
2

S
0
hi
IH
X
IH
to
§

ft
to
hi
at
4J


B
tf W^
O -5f
a
2
01

pci
B
• 010 B
•H4J iH CX XO 3 •> *J TJ X "O O T3 "»
B rrj 00 Ji rHPIU-i toB B H 01 u-l 01 to
O B 4J rg „) rH OI60O tgtOCO 0101
•H iH tg tg i* m to 1 -a X BO 3 IH to hi M
4-1 O 0>r»30>4-l-HC04j.oX 33
000*0 rH > co in > u ! o> o> " 4J
oi eg toi 3 o 4J uhiv4tgo>hiXo>o> otoco
rH tj O X 01 -^ v-' S hi 3 33BB4->tg Shi BhiiH
rH B rH CO X O O (XX O4J3-HBX'OrHtg OIOIO
OCO tg 4J CON OT hi S COiHOrHtg 3Q.B
O 4->X hi hi IH iH • COiHrHOO603>tO r-IB
r- CO rH CO 11 a 01 CO 01 O rH U BO hi I4H 01 rH
01 SIHOI ,ii O J.SCO-04J •DXgaihi-HXOoo 64JOI
60 "O B OH OOlB-rt 3 H t_J 3 B CO B 4J -H 3
tg-9- X-H 4-1IH 4J hi tO B rH CO IHhl -HO « IH
hi 0) O hi co cos 3 O* X rH 3 <-^ 4J tg BOi
Oicoxo co coco B^B4JSXtoa)iH « a -
> 0) 4J rH CM hi 01 hi CO 4J 01 -HhlOhltO 0101 O O CO
too *a>hi oioiCB a) o cocoxoi NO
Bcooio »< rrj 3 TJ hi o> o o> x -o SB rH rH oi x a o
BoioirHu en ea to co a S co 4j ai 01 t-i X < H n B TH
« hi CO iH CO 0> CO 01 4-1 CO 4J CO T3 3 -H 4-1 O O 4J
i) to x m MOI bXcoB atotOB>HBB w -H -H
OOm 0) 9 • 4-i a, hi O. 4-1 3 O » C CO tO oi*. O 4J -O
BOIhl r-1 O CO O. COlH1-l >Hhlhl^T3 01C06
•HpeJO*1 >tJ*G TJ4J ^O3tghlQ) IH3O
§BtOt) *J T3 B -D CO 01 OS'hi O O. ffl S J3 O
B-HOitg c E to B* co o X 4j o co u-i X 9 rHB
coo BO oitdoi al'-NhiS S X>-iu B co co o oo
trjiH*«o!tg^-'Oa*a> •*
•H 4) OB a^- M 01 • CX CJ 0) 4J IH |H>604J
- co 4J m x otux oiBrHoi4->t^v4a!s coal cooivBtg
4J4J0.4J > 4-1 >e03»cgCNX B0C«CO-H3Ca-Hhl
BtgOlrH OIO-H OOIIH rH OXBOOBOI COh>rHXIH«rHO
•rt 4J to C 4J O ^- O tg-Hi-liHC3»4x^OICO COrHOvOO
•H . 01 10 O CO 4-1 hi 4J 00 CJ hi CO O hi CO -H OJ > — CM C hi
3MhicMU-H-H3X S M •HO)- u-l X CO S X 3 4J I n 01
ero •hi4JO'Ox~'tJ IHXt'llJ ^.POtV4JhiHX-4- rH
OlOOXrHOOB B'~^ in • rHCOIB 01 P3 OO CM - iH
to a oi aiegiHrHr^/-x*a4Jl3 a OIne[|u-Hi-iiH60oicOfHOr-iBou
hi rl rH d i-l 3 CO CO B V ft, 0 tdBCOCMS4JXO CO -
U»M4HBOOIHjiiO"a-r(C -OOBeJ
OOIOOIOUOO O -H CM 4-1 CO Q ffl B iHtOOO BO
•HlTlBOIS OI 4J tg4-IOI60l»OOIhl ^iOIOI-HCO
hlO O-rlO'Ot3»r> -OWI hiOhiCCUOUSM •»«. X hi CO CO
OI-HUrHaXOIOIltOOIhl 0)OIOI-r-(ClOOOI<4-IOI'drH4JalCOOI
4^tHtQU*H4JCOCO •>-4-0)0>mO«M-4<4H>ClmlHrHJ>Otg *H

a oi
•e o
B B
9 01
£hi
01
B <

ganic compounds, varied from
u
Q

01
rH
•H
4-)
0)
>>rH
hi O
01 >
>
to
•H
X
O
«H
X
»

m
o
•H
4J
CO
hi
tH •
eg M
4J
O 4J
u-a
IH iH
O 01
>
4J
(3 -cr
01 r-
O
hi 1
01
O.O
o
o
01
Pfc
B
O
•H
to
CO
iH


60
C
•H
S

B
O
4-1
rH
§































01
R
H

rH
Pu
4J
B
to
3
rH
rH
0





pa pa M









in

r^ *^ <^
{S|


X
to
eg

CO rH
eg >H
rH 4-1

O
XX 01
4-1 4J CU
•H-O -HX) hi
> B » B 3
O O t3 *J
«1H • -rl 01 X
X 01 4-1 01 4J rH IH
- B 0 B 0  O X
3O rHhlrHhl O-^
O^3 3 B T)
•H hi X X BO
4J tg 0
hi CQ 3
to
PL,




O U U UK)


€r) p«| t)0 rH
VO W| f-* 00 O




u-1

r^ MO ^ o

r> «M to -sr o





eg

to rH
to 'H
rH 4J
UH 3
0

4J M 4J »
•HTI -H-O
> C » B 60
O 0 -O T)
-•H - iH 01 01 -H
01 U 01 4-1 rH rH 01
B O B O rH rH rg
O 01 O 01 O O IH
rH i-l rH -ri H W X
O C O C 4J U O
•H H -H iH B B TH
U 01 U 01 O O O
rH hi rH hi O X U
3 3 B -O B hi
X X 9 093
O UH
a rH
3
C/3







•»
d
CM
o
o
CM
•
O



rH
0
«>

























pa pa o


oo
do T





^
•if er) «tf
• « pa
rH O 1

-------
a tenfold increase in the dust loadings of some systems,  although
increases of 1.2 to 2 times are more typical for  boilers  using  50
to 100 percent reinjection.  A major factor affecting  this  dust
loading increase is the extent to which the sand  and other  noncom-
bustibles can successfully be separated from the  flyash before
reinjection to the furnace.

     Although reinjection increases boiler efficiency  from  1  to
4 percent and minimizes the emissions of uncombusted carbon,  it
also increases boiler maintenance requirements, decreases average
flyash particle size and makes collection more difficult.   Properly
designed reinjection systems should separate sand and  char  from the
exhaust gases, to reinject the larger carbon particles to the
furnace and to divert the fine sand particles to  the ash  disposal
system.

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

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

     Emission factors for wood waste boilers are  presented  in
Table 1.6-1.

References for Section 1.6

1.   Steam,  38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, NY,  1972.

2.   Atmospheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
     Industry, EPA-450/1-73-002, U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September L973.

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

4.   A. Barron, Jr., "Studies on the Collection of Bark Char  throughout
     the Industry", Journal of the Technical Association  of  the Pulp
     and Paper Industry, 53(8);1441-1448, August  1970.

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

1.6-4                    EMISSION FACTORS                       8/82

-------
1.9  RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACES

1.9.1  General1"2

     Fireplaces are used mainly in homes, lodges, etc.,  for  supplemental
heating and for aesthetic effects.  Wood is the most common  fuel  for
fireplaces, but, coal, compacted wood waste "logs", paper and  rubbish may
also be burned.  Fuel is intermittently added to the fire by hand.

     Fireplaces can be divided into two broad categories, 1) masonry,
generally brick fireplaces, assembled on site integral  to a  structure and
2) prefabricated, usually metal, fireplaces installed on site  as  a package
with appropriate ductwork.

     Masonry fireplaces typically have large fixed openings  to the firebed
and dampers above the combustion area in the chimney to  limit  room air  and
heat losses when the fireplace is not being used.  Some  masonry fireplaces
are designed or retrofitted with doors and louvers to reduce the  intake of
combustion air during use.

     Many varieties of prefabricated fireplaces are now  available on the
market.  One general class is the freestanding fireplace.  The most common
freestanding fireplace models consist of an inverted sheet metal  funnel and
stovepipe directly above the fire bed.  Another class is the "zero clearance"
fireplace, an iron or heavy gauge steel firebox lined with firebrick on the
inside and surrounded by multiple steel walls spaced for air circulation.
Zero clearance fireplaces can be inserted into existing  masonry fireplace
openings, thus they are sometimes called "inserts".  Some of these units are
equipped with close fitting doors and have operating and combustion character-
istics similar to wood stoves (see Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves).
Prefabricated fireplaces are commonly equipped witn louvers  and glass doors
to reduce the intake of combustion air, and some are surrounded by ducts
through which floor level air is drawn by natural convection and  is heated
and returned to the room.

     Masonry fireplaces usually heat a room by radiation, with a  significant
fraction of the combustion heat lost in the exhaust gases or through the
fireplace walls.  Moreover, some of the radiant heat entering  the room  must
go toward warming the air that is pulled into the residence  to make up  for
the air drawn up the chimney.  The net effect is that masonry  fireplaces are
usually inefficient heating devices.  Indeed, in cases where combustion is
poor, where the outside air is cold, or where the fire  is allowed to smolder
(thus drawing air into a residence without producing appreciable  radiant
heat energy), a net heat loss may occur in a residence  from  use of a fireplace,
Fireplace heating efficiency may be improved by a number of  measures that
either reduce the excess air rate or transfer some of the heat back into  the
residence that would normally be lost in the exhaust gases or  through the
fireplace walls.  As noted above, such measures are commonly incorporated
into prefabricated units.  As a result, the energy efficiencies of prefabri-
cated fireplaces are slightly higher than those of masonry fireplaces.


5/83                     External Combustion Sources                    1.9-1

-------
1.9.2  Emissions

     The major pollutants of concern from fireplaces are unburnt  combustibles,
including carbon monoxide, gaseous organics and particulate matter  (i.e.,
smoke).  Significant quantities of unburnt combustibles; are produced  because
fireplaces are inefficient combustion devices, because of high uncontrolled
excess air rates and the absence of any sort of secondary combustion.   The
latter is especially important in wood burning because of its high  volatile
matter content, typically 80 percent on a dry weight basis.   In additon to
unburnt combustibles, lesser amounts of nitrogen oxides and sulfur  oxides
are emitted.

     Polycyclic organic material (POM), a minor but potentially important
component of wood smoke, is a group of organic compounds which includes
potential carcinogens such as benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).  POM results  from the
combination of free radical species formed in the flame zone, primarily as a
consequence of incomplete combustion.  Under reducing conditions, radical
chain propagation is enhanced, allowing the buildup of complex organic
material such as POM.  POM is generally found in or on smoke  particles,
although some sublimation into the vapor phase is probable.

     Another important constituent of wood smoke is creosote.  This tar-like
substance will burn if the fire is sufficiently hot, but at lower tempera-
tures, it may deposit on cool surfaces in the exhaust system.  Creosote
deposits are a fire hazard in the flue, but they can be reduced if  the
exhaust ductwork is insulated to prevent creosote condensation or the exhaus
system is cleaned regularly to remove any buildup.

     Fireplace emissions are highly variable and are a function of  many wood
characteristics and operating practices.  In general, conditions which
promote a fast burn rate and a higher flame intensity will enhance  secondary
combustion and thereby lower emissions.  Conversely, higher emissions will
result from a slow burn rate and a lower flame intensity.  Such generali-
zations apply particularly to the earlier stages of the burning cycle,  when
significant quantities of combustible volatile matter are being driven  out
of the wood.  Later in the burning cycle, when all of the volatile  matter
has been driven out of the wood, the charcoal that remains burns with
relatively few emissions.
1.9-2                         EMISSION F\CTOHS                           5/83

-------
     Emission factors and corresponding factor  ratings  for  wood  combustion
in residential fireplaces are given in Table  1.9-1.


              TABLE 1.9-1.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  RESIDENTIAL  FIREPLACES
Pollutant
Particulate
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Wood
g/kg
14
0.2
1.7
85

Ib/ton
28
0.4
3.4
170
Emission
Factor
Ratings
C
A
C
C
           voc

             Methane                 -              -

             Nonmethane             13             26
        o
         Based on tests burning primarily oak, fir  or  pine, with  moisture
        .content ranging from 15 - 35%.
         References 1, 3-4, 8-10.  Includes condensible organics  (back
         half catch of EPA Method 5 or similar test method), which  alone
         accounts for 54 - 76% of the total mass collected by  both  the
         front and back half catches (Reference 4).  POM is carried by
         suspended particulate matter and has been  found to range from
         0.017 - 0.044 g/kg (References 1, 4) which may include BaP of up
         to 1.7 mg/kg (Reference 1).
        .References 2, 4.
         Expressed as N02-  References 3-4, 8, 10.
        ^References 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10.
         References 1, 3-4, 6, 10.  Dash = no data  available.

References for Section 1.9

 1.  W. D. Snowden, et al., Source Sampling of Residential Fireplaces
     for Emission Factor Development, EPA-450/3-76-010, U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.

 2.  D. G. DeAngelis, et al., Source Assessment; Residential Combustion
     of Wood, EPA-600/2-80-042b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington,  DC, March 1980.

 3.  P. Kosel, et al., "Emissions from Residential  Fireplaces", CARB Report
     C-80-027, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, April 1980.
 5/83                    Extnnial Combustion Sources                    1.9-3

-------
 4.   D.  G, DeAngelis,  et al.,  Preliminary Characterization of Emissions from
     Wood Fired Residential Combustion Equipment, EPA-600/7-80-040, U. S.      U
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1980.

 5.   H.  I. Lips and K.  J.  Lim, Assessment of Emissions from Residential and
     Industrial Wood Combustion, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188, Acurex
     Corporation,  Mountain View, CA, April 1981.

 6.   A.  C. S.  Hayden and R. W. Braaten, "Performance of Domestic Wood Fired
     Appliances",  Presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
     Control Association,  Montreal, Canada, June 1980.

 7.   J.  A. Peters, POM Emissions from Residential Woodburning; An Environmental
     Assessment, Monsanto  Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, May 1981.

 8.   L.  Clayton, et al., "Emissions from Residential Type Fireplaces", Source
     Tests 24C67,  26C,  29C67,  40C67, 41C67, 65C67 and 66C67, Bay Area Air
     Pollution Control District, San Francisco, CA, January 31, 1968.

 9.   Source Testing for Fireplaces, Stoves, and Restaurant Grills in Vail,
     Colorado (Draft),  EPA Contract No. 68-01-1999, Pedco Environmental, Inc.,
     December 1977.

10.   J.  L. Muhlbaier,  "Gaseous and Particulate Emissions from Residential
     Fireplaces," Publication GMR-3588, General Motors Research Laboratories,
     Warren, MI, March 1981.
1.9-4                         EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83

-------
 1.10  RESIDENTIAL WOOD  STOVES

 1.10.1  General1"2

     Wood stoves are used primarily as domestic  space heaters  to  supplement
 conventional heating systems.  The two basic designs for  wood  stoves  are
 radiating and circulating.   Common construction materials  include  cast
 iron, heavy gauge sheet metal and stainless steel.  Radiating  type  stoves
 transfer heat to the room by radiation from the  hot stove walls.   Circulating
 type stoves have double wall construction with louvers  on the  exterior  wall
 to permit the conversion of radiant energy to warm convection  air.   Properly
 designed, these stoves  range in heating efficiency from 50  to  70  percent.
 Radiant stoves have proven  to be somewhat more efficient  than  the circulating
 type.

     The thoroughness of combustion and the amount of heat  transferred  from  a
 stove, regardless of whether it is a radiating or circulatory  model,  depend
 heavily on firebox temperature, residence time and turbulence  (mixing).  The
 "three Ts"  (temperature, time and turbulence) are affected by air  flow
 patterns through the stove  and by the mode of stove operation.  Many  stove
 designs have internal baffles that increase the  residence time of flue
 gases, thus promoting heat  transfer.  The use of  baffles  and secondary
 combustion air may also help to reduce emissions  by promoting  mixing  and
 more thorough combustion.   Unless the secondary  air is  adequately preheated,
 it may serve to quench  the  flue gas, thus retarding, rather than  enhancing,
 secondary combustion.   Secondary combustion air  systems should be designed
 to deliver the proper amount of secondary air at  the right  location with
 adequate turbulence and sufficient temperature to promote true secondary
 combustion.

     Stoves are further categorized by the air flow pattern through the
burning wood within the stoves.  Example generic  designs  -  updraft, downdraft,
 crossdraft and "S-flow" - are shown schematically in Figure 1.10-1.

     In the updraft air flow type of stove, air  enters  at the  base  of the
 stove and passes through the wood to the stovepipe at the top.  Secondary
 air enters above the wood to assist in igniting  unburned  volatiles  in the
 combustion gases.  Updraft  stoves provide very little gas phase residence
 time, which is needed for efficient transfer of  heat from the  gases to  the
 walls of the stove and/or stovepipe.

     The downdraft air  flow type of stove initially behaves like  an updraft.
 A vertical damper is opened at the top rear to promote  rapid combustion.
 When a hot bed of coals is  developed, the damper  is closed, and the flue
 gases are then forced back down through the bed  of coals  before going out
 the flue exit.

     The side or cross draft is equipped wit'i a  vertical  baffle (open at the
 bottom) and an adjustable damper at the top, similar to the downdraft.  The
 damper is open when combustion is initiated, to  generate  hot coals  and
 adequate draft.   The damper is then closed.   The  gases  must then  move down
5/83
                         External Combustion Sources                  1.10-L

-------
under the vertical baffle,  the flame is developed horizontally  to  the fuel
bed, and ideally  the  gases  and flame come in contact at the baffle  point
before passing  out the  flue exit.
                       sc
                        B   B
1
rrP
CJJ ~T
W V
/)B B B J

\
SC
f
                     UndwflraAIr
                     Or Up Draft
                                                    Down Draft
                                  f - PrlMMy Air Supply
                                  S-SKMdiry Air Supply
                                  E - ExhMMt lo Suck
                                  B - Prhmry Bunrtof
                                 SC- Smnrtev Comtxntfon

^c\
o
§'


j
)
\
. B . J
V

\
SC
/
                                             J
                                            BH
                                             •v
                   Side or Cross Drift
                                                      S-Fkn.
     Figure  1.10-1.  Generic  designs of wood stoves based on flow paths

     The S-flow, or horizontal  baffle, stove is equipped with both  a  primary
and a secondary air inlet,  like the updraft stove.  Retention time  within
the stove is a function  of  both the rate of burn and the length  of  the smoke
path.  To lengthen the retention time, gases are kept from exiting  directly
up the flue by a metal baffle plate located several inches above the  burning
wood.  The baffle plate  absorbs a considerable amount of heat and reflects
and radiates much of it  back  to the firebox.  The longer gas phase  residence
time results in improved combustion when the proper amounts of air  are
provided, and it enhances heat  transfer from the gas phase.

     Softwoods and hardwoods  are the most common fuels  for residential
stoves.  Coal and waste  fuels,  which burn at significantly higher temperature
than cordwood, are not included in computing emission factors because of  the
relative scarcity of test data  available.  The performance of various heaters
within a given type will vary,  depending on how a particular design uses  its
potential performance advantages.   Much of the available emissions  data came
from studies conducted on stoves designed for woodburning.
1.10.2  Emissions and  Controls
                               3-25
     Residential  combustion of wood produces atmospheric emissions  of
particulates, sulfur oxides,  nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,  organic
materials  including polycyclic organic matter (POM), and mineral  constituents.
Organic species,  carbon  monoxide and, to a large extent, the particulate
1.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
matter emissions result from incomplete combustion  of  the  fuel.   Efficient
combustion tends to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile  organic
compounds by oxidizing these compounds to  carbon  dioxide and  water.   Sulfur
oxides arise from oxidation of fuel sulfur, while nitrogen oxides are  formed
both from fuel nitrogen and by the combination of atmospheric nitrogen with
oxygen in the combustion zone.  Mineral constituents in the particulate
emissions result from minerals released from the wood matrix  during  combustion
and entrained in the combustion gases.

     Wood smoke is composed of unburned fuel - combustible gases, droplets
and solid particulates.  Part of the organic compounds in smoke often  condenses
in the chimney or flue pipe.  This tar-like substance is called creosote.
If the combustion zone temperature is sufficiently  high, creosote burns with
the other organic compounds in the wood.  However,  creosote burns at a
higher temperature than other chemicals in the wood, so there are times when
it is not burned with the other products.  Creosote deposits  are  a fire
hazard, but they can be reduced if the exhaust ductwork is insulated to
prevent creosote condensation, or the exhaust system is cleaned regularly to
remove any buildup.

     Polycyclic organic material (POM), a minor but potentially important
component of wood smoke, is a group of organic compounds which includes
potential carcinogens such as benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).  POM results  from  the
combination of free radical species formed in the flame zone,  primarily as a
consequence of incomplete combustion.  Under reducing conditions, radical
chain propagation is enhanced, allowing the buildup of complex organic
material such as POM.  POM is generally found in or on smoke  particles,
although some sublimation into the vapor phase is probable.

     Emissions from any one stove are highly variable, and they correspond
directly to different stages in the burning cycle.  A new  charge  of  wood
produces a quick drop in firebox temperature and a  dramatic increase in
emissions, primarily organic matter.  When all of the volatiles have been
driven off, the charcoal stage of the burn is characterized by relatively
clean emissions.

     Emissions of particulate, carbon monoxide and  volatile organic  compounds
were found to depend on burn rate.  Emissions increase as burn rates decrease,
for the great majority of the closed combustion devices currently on the
market.  A burn rate of approximately three kilograms per hour has been
determined representative of actual woodstove operation.

     Wood is a complex fuel, and the combined processes of combustion  and
pyrolysis which occur in a wood heater are affected by changes in the
composition of the fuel, moisture content and the effective burning  surface
area.  The moisture content of wood depends on the  type of wood and  the
amount of time it has been dried (seasoned).  The water in the wood  increases
the amount of heat required to raise the wood to  its combustion point, thus
reducing the rate of pyrolysis until moisture is released.  Wood moisture
has been found to have little affect on emissions.  Dry wood  (less than
15 percent moisture content) may produce slightly higher emissions than the
commonly occurring 30 to 40 percent moisture wood.  However,  firing  very wet
wood may produce higher emissions due to smoldering and reduced burn rate.
The size of the wood also has a large effect on the rate of pyrolysis. For

 5/83                    External Combustion Sources                  1.10—3

-------
smaller pieces of wood, there is a shorter distance for  the pyrolysis  products
to diffuse, a larger surface area-to-mass ratio, and a reduction  in  the  time
required to heat the entire piece of wood.  One effect of log  size is  to
change the distribution of organics among the different  effluents  (creosote,
particulate matter and condensible organics) for a given burn  rate.  These
results also indicate that the distribution of the total organic  effluent
among creosote, particulate matter and condensibles is a function of firebox
and sample probe temperatures.

     Results of ultimate analysis (for carbon, hydrogen  and oxygen)  of dry
wood types are within one to two percent for the majority of all  species.
The inherent difference between softwood and hardwood is the greater amount
of resins in softwoods, which increases their heating value by weight.

     Several combustion modification techniques are available  to  reduce
emissions from wood stoves, with varying degrees of effectiveness.   Some
techniques relate to modified stove design and others to operator practices.
Proper modifications of stove design (1) will reduce pollutant formation in
the fuel magazine or in the primary combustion zone or (?.) will cause
previously formed emissions to be destroyed in the primary or  secondary
combustion zones.

     A recent wood stove emission control development is the catalytic
converter, a transfer technology from the automobile.  The catalytic converter
is a noble metal catalyst, such as palladium, coated on  ceramic honeycomb
substrates and placed directly in the exhaust gas flow,  where  it  reduces the
ignition temperature (flash point) of the unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide.  Retrofit catalysts tend to be installed in the; flue pipe  farther
downstream of the woodstove firebox than built-in catalysts.   Thus,  adequate
catalyst operating temperatures may not be achieved with the add  on  type,
resulting in potential flue gas blockage and fire hazards.  Limited  testing
of built-in designs indicates that carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon
emissions are reduced considerably, and efficiency is improved, by the
catalyst effect.  Some initial findings also indicate that emissions of
nitrogen oxides may be increased by as much as a factor  of three.
Additionally, there is concern that combustion temperatures achieved in
stoves operating at representative burn rates (approximately 3 kilograms per
hour or less) are not adequate to "light off" the catalyst.  Thus, the
catalytic unit might reduce emissions but not under all  burning conditions.
V.10-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

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

        TABLE 1.10-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR  RESIDENTIAL  WOOD  STOVES

Pollutant
b c
Particulate '
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
VOC8'°
Methane
No nme thane
Based on tests
content ranging
Wood

gAg
21
0.2
1.4
'C 130

0.5
51
burning primarily oak,
from 15 - 35%.
O 1 n TOT/. 1"7 OT


Ib/ton
42
0.4
2.8
260

1.0
100
fir or pine,
o /. o c -T -\ . . .
Emission
Factor
Ratings
C
A
C
C

D
D
with moisturi
       organics (back half catch of EPA Method  5  or  similar  test
       method), which alone account for 54 -  76%  of  the  total  mass
       collected by both front and back half  catches  (Reference 4).
       POM is carried by suspended particulate  matter  and has  been
       found to range from 0.19 - 0.37 g/kg (References  4, 14-15,
       22-23) which may include BaP of up to  1.4  mg/kg (Reference 15).
       Emissions were determined at burn rates  of  3  kg/hr or less.   If
       >3 kg/hr, emissions may decrease by as much as  55 - 60% for
       .particulates and VOC, and 25% for carbon monoxide.
       References 2, 4.
      ^Expressed as NO .  References 3-4, 15, 17,  22-23.
       References 3-4, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, 22-23.
      References 3-4, 11, 15, 17, 22-23.

References for Section 1.10
1.   H. I. Lips and K. J. Lim, Assessment of Emissions  from Residential  and
     Industrial Wood Combustion, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188, Acurex
     Corporation, Mountain View, CA, April 1981.

2.   D. G. DeAngelis, et al., Source Assessment:  Residential Combustion of
     Wood, EPA-600/2-80-042b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, March 1980.

3.   J. A. Cooper, "Environmental Impact of Residential Wood Combustion
     Emissions and Its Implications", Journal of the Air  Pollution  Control
     Association, 30(8):855-861, August  1980.
5/83
                         External Combustion Sources
1.10-5

-------
4.   D. G. DeAngelis, et alL, Preliminary Characterization of Emissions from
     Wood-fired Residential Combustion Equipment, EPA-600/7-80-040, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1980.

5.   S. S. Butcher and D. I. Buckley, "A Preliminary Study of Particulate
     Emissions from Small Wood Stoves", Journal of the Air Pollution Control
     Association, _27_(4) -.346-348, April 1977.

6.   S. S. Butcher and E. M. Sorenson, "A Study of Wood Stove Particulate
     Emissions", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
     _24_(9): 724-728, July 1979.

7.   J. W. Shelton, et al., "Wood Stove Testing Methods and Some Preliminary
     Experimental Results", Presented at the American Society of Heating,
     Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Symposium, Atlanta,
     GA, January 1978.

8.   D. Rossman, et al., "Evaluation of Wood Stove Emissions", Oregon
     Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR, December 1980.

9.   P. Tiegs, et al., "Emission Test Report on Four Selected Wood Burning
     Home Heating Devices", Oregon Department of Energy, Portland, OR,
     January 1981.

10.  J. A. Peters and D. G. DeAngelis, High Altitude Testing of Residential
     Wood-fired Combustion Equipment, EPA-600/2-81-127, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1981.

11.  A. C. S. Hayden and R. W. Braaten, "Performance of Domestic Wood-fired
     Appliances", Presented at 73rd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
     Control Association, Montreal, Canada, June 1980.

12.  R. J. Brandon, "An Assessment of the Efficiency and Emissions of Ten
     Wood-fired Furnaces", Presented at the Conference on Wood Combustion
     Environmental Assessment, New Orleans, LA, February 1981.

13.  B. R. Hubble and J. B. L. Harkness, "Results of Laboratory Tests on
     Wood-stove Emissions and Efficiencies", Presented at the Conference on
     Wood Combustion Environmental Assessment, New Orleans, LA, February
     1981.

14.  B. R. Hubble, et al., "Experimental Measurements of Emissions from
     Residential Wood-burning Stoves", Presented at the International
     Conference on Residential Solid Fuels, Portland, OR, June 1981.

15.  J. M. Allen and W. M. Cooke, "Control of Emissions from Residential
     Wood Burning by Combustion Modification", EPA Contract No. 68-02-2686,
     Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH, November 1980.

16.  J. R. Duncan, et al., "Air Quality Impact Potential from Residential
     Wood-burning Stoves", TVA Report 80-7.2, Tennessee Valley Authority,
     Muscle  Shoals, AL, March 1980.
 1.10-6                        EMISSION  FACTORS                         5/83

-------
 17.  P. Kosel, et al., "Emissions from Residential Fireplaces", GARB Report
      C-80-027, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, April 1980.

 18.  S. G. Barnett and D. Shea, "Effects of Wood Burning Stove Design on
      Particulate Pollution", Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
      Portland, OR, July 1980.

 19.  J. A. Peters, POM Emissions from Residential Wood-burning:  An Environ-
      mental Assessment, Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, May 1981.

 20.  Source Testing for Fireplaces, Stoves, and Restaurant Grills in Vail,
      Colorado (Draft), EPA Contract No. 68-01-1999, Pedco Environmental,
      Inc., December 1977.

 21.  A. C. S. Hayden and R. W. Braaten, "Effects of Firing Rate and Design
      on Domestic Wood Stove Performance", Presented at the Residential Wood
      and Coal Combustion Specialty Conference, Louisville, KY, March 1982.

 22.  C. V. Knight and M. S. Graham, "Emissions and Thermal Performance
      Mapping for an Unbaffled, Airtight Wood Appliance and a Box Type Catalytic
      Applicance", Proceedings of 1981 International Conference on Residential
      Solid Fuels, Oregon Graduate Center, Portland, OR, June 1981.

 23.  C. V. Knight et a^., "Tennessee Valley Authority Residential Wood
      Heater Test Report:  Phase I Testing", Tennessee Valley Authority,
      Chattanooga, TN,  November 1982.

 24.  Richard L.  Poirot and Cedric R. Sanborn, "Improved Combustion Efficiency
      of Residential Wood Stoves", U. S. Department of Energy, Washington,
      DC, September 1981.

 25.  Cedric R. Sanborn, etal., "Waterbury, Vermont:  A Case Study of
      Residential Woodburning", Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation,
      Montpelier, VT, August 1981.
5/83                      External Combustion Sources                  1.10-7

-------
2.4  OPEN BURNING

2.4.1   General1

     Open burning can be done in open drums or baskets, in fields and yards, and in large open dumps or pits.
Materials commonly disposed of in this manner are municipal waste, auto body components, landscape refuse,
agricultural field refuse, wood refuse, bulky industrial refuse, and leaves.

2.4.2   Emissions1'19

     Ground-level open burning is affected by many variables including wind, ambient temperature, composition
and  moisture  content of the debris burned, and compactness  of  the pile. In general, the relatively low
temperatures associated with open  burning  increase the emission  of particulates, carbon  monoxide, and
hydrocarbons and suppress the emission of nitrogen oxides. Sulfur oxide emissions are a direct function of the
sulfur content of the refuse. Emission factors are presented in Table 2.4-1 for the open burning of municipal
refuse and automobile components.

     Table 2.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING OF NONAGRICULTURAL MATERIAL
                                EMISSION FACTOR  RATING: B
Source
Municipal refuse*5
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Automobile
components0
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Particulate

8
16


50
100
Sulfur
oxides

0.5
1


Neg.
Neg.
Carbon
monoxide

42
85


62
125
voca
methane nonmethane

6.5 15
13 30


5 16
10 32
Nitrogen
oxides

3
6


2
4
 aData indicate  that VOC  emissions are  approximately 25% methane, 8%  other saturates,
  18% olefins, 42% others (oxygenates,  acetylene,  aromatics,  trace  formaldehyde).
 bReferences  2,  7.
 cReferences  2.   Upholstery,  belts, hoses and  tires burned  together.

     Emissions from agricultural refuse burning are dependent mamlv on the moisture content of the refuse and,
 in the case of the field crops, on whether the refuse is burned in a headfire or a backfire. (Headfires are started at
 the upwind side of a field and allowed to progress in the direct ion of the wind, whereas backfires are star ted at the
 downwind edge and forced to progress in a direction opposing the wind.) Other \ anables such as fuel loading (how
 much refuse material is burned per unit of land area) and how the refuse is arranged (that is, in piles, rows, or
 spread out) are also important in certain instances. Emission factors for open agricultural burmngare presented
 in Table 2.4-2 as a function of refuse  t\pe and also, in certain instances, as a function of burning techniques
 and/or moisture content when these  variables are known to Mgmficanth affect  emissions. lable 2.4-2 also
 presents tvpical fuel loading \aluesassociated with each t\pe of refuse. These \aluescan be used, along with the
 corresponding emission factors, to estimate  emission'- from certain categories of agricultural burning when the
 specific fuel loadings for a gi\en  area are not known

     Emissions from leaf burning are dependent upon the moisture content, densits. and ignition location of the
 leaf  piles.  Increasing the moisture content of  the lea\es generally increase.-,  the amount of  carbon monoxide.
 5/83
Solid ^ a*te Disposal
2.1-1

-------
o
z
z
CC
D
CO
UJ
Q.
O
DC
CTORS FO
.S"
B
OADING FA
. MATERIAL
R RATING:
JCC°
2j2
z O O
< CC a)
cc 2.4-2. EMISSION
_
S
UD
O C
J-> O
(J -H
Loading F;
ste produc
r-l (0
0) 2

)CC
Nonmethane
VC
Methane
0)
Carbot
Monoxic

^
-ticulat<
fd
cu


OJ
CO
;ctare ton
w
c
o
4J
r-l
U
00
e
o
.a
^H
00
r
00
e
o
^H
00
•*
c
o
rH
00
00
Category
Refuse
c*>.
vD

CM
o. R^^«^o^ 22^22^
00
. . . . (^ . .
CM CM — 1
f»- CM r^ CM cs CM r-i in in in
O
5 S-§SS^S5^T So1S?;5S
5
CO
-
m
ro
,— t CM^-i m CM CM ^^ CM i— ' •— i
CM
O
C
CC
cu ••->
3 ^0
^ C U_i OO u I- ^-s /—i
T3^Qjy3 i-^ OJ tT-C CJi—H
to^-iij—  *zr ro -3 O O
m co oo u" CM CM
i— i -^ in co o u^ ocofO

^

CM »— i ^H CM — — ' CM
~ "
•o
0)
1
at
3
4J ^"^
^ "C — 'CO
00 0) T3
C C. 01 
-------
^^r^oOinOCOeNOfNinsCCNCN

m

CNI — < ~^ —*
in in in r*-. m c^jr^ ^ cxi fl

— '— £f-i(r-f-(ii'— <3'C;J-fc OJCGJO
v- o
terial burned-
e
X
OL>
U-j
u
-C
ao
0)
•"-^
jj
AJ
e
0)
AJ
e
CO
4J
3
O
c
'Ji
u
kg
U-
at
o
s
3
to
at
c
c
iJ
c
5
"-U
C
OJ
0)
tn
CO
.c
c
c
u
3
-O
CU
w
at
I-.
rfl
Li
D
O
ki
00
en
O
S
e
o
u
4-1
e
a>
rt
o
V-
tr
O-
CN
GJ
UJ CC
CT -c
ther saturates, 17% olefins, 15% acetylene, 18.5?
hydes, ketones, aromatics, cycloparaf f ins.
loading factors.
?rage 22% methane,- 7.5% a
expected to include aide
"s , Reference 14 for fuel
at VOC emissions ave
nidentified VOC are
for emission fncto
ringp.
nd irate tf
tified. L
aces 12-i:
CU l_
i ~. *r -.
-i cr c i
f c 3 r^
between emissions from headfiring or backfiring.
itions. If ferns are dried to <15% moisture, particulate
f icant difference exists
c
00
•H
CC
0
c
en
OJ
i
0)
tn
D
0>
v^
OJ
cn
U
"
c
s represent emissions under typical high moisture cond
ons will be reduced by 30%, CO emissions 23%, VOC 74%.
O T
u 'I
~ ?
ture, as it usually is, firing technique is not important.
ncrease to 11.5 kg/Mg (23 Ib/ton) and VOC will increase to
nee 11. When pineapple is allowed to dry to <20% raois
eadfired at 20% moisture, particulate emissions will J
\r „
-o
er moisture levels, particulate emissions
), and VOC emissions to 11.5 kg/Mg
00 O
RJ
•O 00
HI ^
c ---
3 M
f S
in M
•** ^
/Mg (13 Ib/ton).
s .jr.? for dry (15% moisture) rice straw. If rice stra
ncrease to 14.5 kg/Mg (29 Ib/ton), CO emissions to 80.
/ton) .
•* 1 ~ ~
^/•;^.
owing fuel loading factors are to be
re); Florida, 11 - 19 Mg/hectare
as, values generally increase with length
oading factors.
f-< (0 1-
O *-. flJ ^
4-< e a)
O LI 3
0) -P 0> O
FH in 4J
o i-<
1 0
* t~l M-J
60 n o
•H 60
CO) C
Vj V-i • CO
3 CO /~v 1-.
,O 4J CD
O l-i !-<
C X CO •*->
U 60 C CO
3? O ^
fl3 \D C
00 * f**» O
tn i— i tn
l tn
U-j ) f-»
o -* e
oc 1-1 o>
c *—/
o * 01
•M co a> x
tn c u .u
tn to (C
Section 8.12 for disci
>onding states: Louis
await, 30 - 48 Mg/hecl
Use the larger end o
tion of headfirtng.
(u 'j> • c:
LJ i) tn a>
O !-• CO T3
• o cj at
c «j en tj
rs) 1' •**. O
,C C 00 4-J
0) 1-1 O C
d C 3 X
0) T3 1 OO
^j cn  )0 ft) inters
c
•H >, Q
3 text for de
sd occasional
-id at 100 ~ 2C
(U tf: "-J
nces tn emissions between burning a
e embers of a preceding fire.
te will be produced.
significant differe
e bulldozed onto th
30 ton/acre) of was
Lies. There are no
:, where prunings ar
irn, 66 Mg/hectare (
, 2 kg/Mg (4 Ib/ton)
'e usually burned in p
ng a roll-on technique
is the purpose of a bi
emissions estimated a
:hard prunings at
}ld pllf" and us1
orchard removal
ference 10. NOX
"«rence 15.
'erence 16.
p O u- OJ 3J CJ
^ E tr (^ tr
5/83
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-3

-------
hydrocarbon, and participate emissions. Increasing the density of the piles increases the amount of hydrocarbon
and particulate emissions, but has a variable effect on carbon monoxide emissions. Arranging the leaves in
conical piles and igniting around the periphery of the bottom proves to the least desirable method of burning.
Igniting a  single spot on the  top  of the pile decreases the hydrocarbon and  paiticulate emissions.  Carbon
monoxide emissions with top ignition decreases if moisture content is high but increases if moisture content is
low. Particulate, hydrocarbon, and carbon monoxide emissions from windrow ignition (piling the leaves into a
long ro\v and igniting one end, allowing it to burn toward the other end) are intermediate between top and bottom
ignition. Emission factors for leaf burning are presented in Table 2.4-3.
     For more detailed information on this subject, the reader should consult the references cited at the end of
this section.
                     Table 2.4-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LEAF BURNING18-19
                                   EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Leaf Species
Black Ash
Modesto Ash
White Ash
Catalpa
Horse Chestnut
Cottonwood
American Elra
Eucalyptus
Sweet Gum
Black Locust
Magnolia
Silver Maple
American Sycamore
California Sycamore
Tulip
Red Oak
Sugar Maple
Unspecified
Particulateb
kg/Mg Ib/ton
18 36
16 32
21.5 43
8.5 17
27 54
19 38
13 26
18 36
16.5 33
35 70
6.5 13
33 66
7.5 15
5 10
10 20
46 92
26.5 53
19 38
Carbon monoxide
kg/Mg Ib/ton
63.5 127
81.5 163
57 113
44.5 89
73.5 147
45 90
59.5 119
45 90
70 140
65 130
27.5 55
51 102
57.5 115
52 104
38.5 77
68.5 137
54 108
56 112
VOCC
Methane
kg/Mg Ib/ton
5.5 11
5 10
6.5 13
2.5 5
8 17
6 12
4 8
5.5 11
5 10
11 22
2 4
10 20
2.5 5
Nonmethane
kg/Mg Ib/ton
13.5 27
12 24
16 32
6.5 13
20 40
14 28
9.5 19
13.5 27
12.5 25
26 52
5 10
24.5 49
5.5 11
1.5 3 j 3.5 7
3 6
14 28
8 16
6 12
7.5 15
34 69
20 40
14 28
aReferences 18-19.  Factors are an arithmetic average  of results obtained by burning  high and low moisture
 content  conical piles,  ignited either  at the top or around the periphery of the bottom.  The windrow
 arrangement was only tested on Modesto Ash, Catalpa,  American Elra,  Sweet Guru, silver Maple and Tulip,  and
 results  are included in the averages for these species.
''The majority of particulate Is subraicron in size.
°Tests  indicate  that VOC emissions average 29% methane, HZ other saturates, 33% oleftns, 27% other
 (aromatlcs, acetylene,  oxygenates).
 References for Section 2.4

  1.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc.. Reston, \ a. Prepared for National
     Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham. N.C. under Contract Number CPA-22-69-1 19. April 1970.

  2.  Gerstle, R. U . and D. A. Kemnitz. Atmospheric Emissions from Open Burning!. L \\r Pol. Control Assoc.
     72:324-327. Mav  1967.
 2.4-1
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

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

 4.  Weisburd, M.  I.  and S. S. Gnswold (eds.). Air Pollution Control Field Operations Guide: A Guide for
     Inspection and Control. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution, Washington, D.C..PHS Publication
     No. 937.  1962.

 5.  Unpublished data on estimated major air contaminant emissions. State of New York Department of Health.
     Albany. April 1,  1968.

 6.  Darley, E. F. et al. Contribution of Burning of Agricultural Wastes to Photochemical Air Pollution J. Air
     Pol. Control Assoc. 76:685-690, December 1966.

 7.  Feldstem, M. et al. The Contribution of the Open Burning of Land Clearing Debris to Air Pollution. J. Air
     Pol. Control Assoc. 73:542-545, November 1963.

 8.  Boubel, R. W., E. F. Darley, and E. A. Schuck. Emissions from BurningGrass Stubble and Straw. J. Air Pol.
     Control Assoc. 79:497-500, July 1969.

 9.  Waste Problems  of Agriculture and Forestry. Environ. Sci.  and Tech. 2:498, July 1968.

10.  Yamate, G. et al. An Inventory of Emissions from Forest Wildfires, Forest Managed Burns, and Agricultural
     Burns and Development of Emission Factors  for Estimating Atmospheric Emissions from Forest fires.
     (Presented at 68th Annual Meeting Air Pollution Control Association. Boston. June 1975.)

11.  Darley, E. F. Air  Pollution Emissions from Burning Sugar Cane and Pineapple from Hawaii. University of
     California, Riverside, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agencv, Research Triangle Park, N. C.
     as amendment  to Research Grant No. R800711. August  1974.

12.  Darley, E. F. et al. Air Pollution  from Forest and Agricultural  Burning. California  Air Resources Board
     Project 2-017-1, University of California. Davis, Calif. California Air Resources Board Project No. 2-017-1.
     April 1974.

13.  Darley, E. F. Progress Report on Emissions from Agricultural Burning. California Air Resources Board
     Project 4-011. University of California, Riverside. Calif.  Private communication with permission of Air
     Resources Board, June 1975.

14.  Private communication  on estimated waste production from agricultural burning activities. California Air
     Resources Board, Sacramento, Calif. September 1975.

15.  Fritschen, L. et al. Flash Fire Atmospheric Pollution. L .S. Department of Agriculture, \X aslmigton. D.C
     Service Research Paper PNW-97. 1970.

16.  Sandberg, D. V ., S. G. Pickford, and E. F. Darlev. Emissions from Slash Burning and the Influence of Flame
     Retardant Chemicals. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 2.) :278. 1975.

17.  \Ea\ne, I.. G and M.  L  McOuearv. Calculation of Emission Factors for Agricultural Burning  \rtivilics.
     Pacific Em ironmental Serv ices. Inc.. Santa Monica. Calif.  Prepared for Env ironmental Protection Agencv.
     Research Triangle Park.  \. C  , under Contract  No. 68-02-1001. Task  Order No.  J. Publication No. KPV
     450/3-75-087. November 1975.
5/83                                 Solid Vka>t<>  I)i:-|>o>al                                 2.1-5

-------
18.  Darlev. E.F. Emission Factor Development for Leaf Burning. I niversitv of California. Riverside.
    Calif.  Prepared for En\ ironmental Protection  Vgencv. Research Triangle Park. N.C.. under
    Purchase Order No. 5-02-6876-1. September 1976.

19.  Darlev, E.F.  Evaluation of the Impact of Leaf Burning - Phase I: Emission Factors for Illinois
    Leaves. I niversitv  of California. Riverside. Calif. Prepared for State of Illinois. Institute for
    Environmental Oualitv.  \ugusl 1975.

20.  Southerland, J.H. and A. McBath. Emission Factors and Field Loading for Sugar Cane Burning.
    MDAD, OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. January
    1978.
2.4-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                              5/83

-------
4.2.2.11  LARGE APPLIANCE SURFACE COATING

General* - Large appliance surface  coating  is  the  application  of  protective  or
decorative organic coatings to preformed large appliance  parts.   For  this
discussion, large appliances are defined as any metal  range, oven,  microwave
oven, refrigerator, freezer, washing machine, dryer, dishwasher,  water  heater
or trash compactor.

     Regardless of the appliance, similar manufacturing operations  are
involved.  Coiled or sheet metal is cut and stamped  into  the proper shapes,
and the major parts welded together.  The welded parts are  cleaned  with
organic degreasers or a caustic detergent (or both)  to remove  grease  and mill
scale accumulated during handling,  and the  parts are then rinsed  in one or
more water rinses.  This is often followed  by a process to  improve  the  grain
of the metal before treatment in a  phosphate bath.   Iron  or zinc  phosphate  is
commonly used to deposit a microscopic matrix of crystalline phosphate  on  the
surface of the metal.  This process provides corrosion resistance and
increases the surface area of the part, thereby allowing  superior coating
adhesion.  Often the highly reactive metal  is protected with a rust inhibitor
to prevent rusting prior to painting.

     Two separate coatings have traditionally been applied  to  these prepared
appliance parts, a protective prime coating that also  covers surface
imperfections and contributes to total coating thickness, and  a final,
decorative top coat.  Single coat systems,  where only  a prime  coat  or only  a
top coat is applied, are becoming more common.  For  parts not  exposed to
customer view, a prime coat alone may suffice.  For  exposed parts,  a
protective coating may be formulated and applied so  as to act  as  the  top coat.
There are many different application techniques in the large appliance
industry, including manual, automatic and electrostatic spray  operations,  and
several dipping methods.  Selection of a particular  method  depends  largely
upon the geometry and use of the part, the  production  rate, and the type of
coating being used.  Typical application of these  coating methods is  shown  in
Figure 4.2.2.11-1.

     A wide variety of coating formulations is used  by the  large  appliance
industry.  The prevalent coating types include epoxies, epoxy/acrylics,
acrylics and polyester enamels.  Liquid coatings may use  either an  organic
solvent or water as the main carrier for the paint solids.

     Waterborne coatings are of three major classes, water  solutions, water
emulsions and water dispersions.  All of the waterborne coatings, however,
contain a small amount (up to 20 volume percent) of  organic solvent that acts
as a stabilizing, dispersing or emulsifying agent.   Waterborne systems  offer
some advantages over organic solvent systems.  They  do not  exhibit  as great  an
increase in viscosity with increasing molecular weight of solids, they  are
nonflammable, and they have limited toxicity.  But because  of  the relatively
slow evaporation rate of water, it  is difficult to achieve  a  smooth finish
with waterborne coatings.  A bumpy  "orange  peel" surface  often results. For
this reason, their main use in the  large appliance industry is as prime coats.


5/83                       Evaporation Loss Sources                 4.2.2.11-1

-------
                                                                                  en
                                                                                  05
                                                                                  O

                                                                                 .2
                                                                                 "5.

                                                                                  &

                                                                                   »
                                                                                  Q)



                                                                                  g
                                                                                 '+3
                                                                                  (0
                                                                                   .
                                                                                 a
                                                                                 ra
                                                                                 o>

                                                                                 +3

                                                                                 8
                                                                                 o

                                                                                 1
                                                                                 a
                                                                                 CM

                                                                                 CNj

                                                                                 t'
                                                                                 0)


                                                                                 O)

                                                                                 il
4.2.2.11-2
From Sheet Metal Manufacturing

    EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
     While conventional organic solventborne coatings also are used for prime
coats, they predominate as top coats.  This is  due in large part to the
controllability of the finish and the amenability of these materials to
application by electrostatic spray techniques.  The most common organic
solvents are ketones, esters, ethers, aromatics and alcohols.  To obtain or
maintain certain application characteristics, solvents are often added to
coatings at the plant.  The use of powder coatings for top coats is gaining
acceptance in the industry.  These coatings, which are applied as a dry powder
and then fused into a continuous coating film through the use of heat, yield
negligible emissions.

Emissions and Controls^~2 _ volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the major
pollutants emitted from large appliance surface coating operations.  VOC from
evaporation of organic solvents contained in the coating are emitted in the
application station, the flashoff area and the oven.  An estimated 80 percent
of total VOC emissions is given off in the application station and flashoff
area.  The remaining 20 percent occurs in the oven.  Because the emissions are
widely dispersed, the use of capture systems and control devices is not an
economically attractive means of controlling emissions.  While both
incinerators and carbon adsorbers are technically feasible, none is known to
be used in production, and none is expected.  Improvements in coating
formulation and application efficiency are the major means of reducing
emissions.

     Factors that affect the emission rate include the volume of coating used,
the coating's solids content, the coating's VOC content, and the VOC density.
The volume of coating used is a function of three additional variables, 1) the
area coated, 2) the coating thickness and 3) the application efficiency.

     While a reduction in coating VOC content will reduce emissions, the
transfer efficiency with which the coating is applied (i.e., the volume
required to coat a given surface area) also has a direct bearing on the
emissions.  A. transfer efficiency of 60 percent means that 60 percent of the
coating solids consumed is deposited usefully onto appliance parts.  The other
40 percent is wasted overspray.  With a specified VOC content, an application
system with a high transfer efficiency will have lower emission levels than
will a system with a low transfer efficiency, because a smaller volume of
coating will coat the same surface area.  Since not every application method
can be used with all parts and types of coating, transfer efficiencies in this
industry range from 40 to over 95 percent.

     Although waterborne prime coats are becoming common, the trend for top
coats appears to be toward use of "high solids" solventborne material,
generally 60 volume percent or greater solids.  As different types of coatings
are required to meet different performance specifications, a combination of
reduced coating VOC content and improved transfer efficiency is the most
common means of emission reduction.

     In the absence of control systems that remove or destroy a known fraction
of the VOC prior to emission to the atmosphere, a material balance provides
the quickest and most accurate emissions estimate.  An equation to calculate

5/83                       Evaporation Loss Sources                4.2.2.11-3

-------
emissions is presented below.  To the extent that the parameters  of  this
equation are known or can be determined, its use is encouraged.   In  the event
that both a prime coat and a top coat are used, the emissions  from each must
be calculated separately and added to estimate total emissions.   Because  of
the diversity of product mix and plant sizes, it is difficult  to  provide
emission factors for "typical" facilities.  Approximate values for several of
the variables in the equation are provided, however.


                      (6.234 x 10-*) P A t V0 DQ
                  E =	 + Ld Dd
                                 VST


where

     E = mass of VOC emissions per unit time (Ib/unit time)
     P = units of production per unit time
     A = area coated per unit of production (ft^)
     t = dry coating thickness (mils)
     V0 = proportion of VOC in the coating (volume fraction),  as  received*
     DQ = density of VOC solvent in the coating (Ib/gal), as received*
     Vg = proportion of solids in the coating (volume fraction),  as  received*
     T  = transfer efficiency (fraction - the ratio of coating solids
          deposited onto appliance parts to the total amount of coating solids
          used.  See Table 4.2.2.11-1).
     Ld = volume of VOC solvent added to the coating per unit  time  (gal/unit
          time).
     Dd = density of VOC solvent added  (Ib/gal).

The constant 6.234 x 10~~* is the product of two conversion  factors:

                       8.333 x 10-5 ft       7.48i gal
                       	 and	.
                           mil                 ft3

     If all the data are not available  to complete the above equation, the
following may be used as approximations:

     VQ = 0.38
     DQ = 7.36 Ib/gal
     Vs = 0.62
     Ld = 0 (assumes no solvent added at the plant).
*If known, Vo, DQ and Vs  for  the  coating as  applied (i.e.,  diluted) may be
 used  in  lieu of the values for the  coating  as  received,  and the term L^D^
 deleted.

4.2.2.11-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                            5/83

-------
              TABLE 4.2.2.11-1.  TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES
                                                     Transfer
               Application Method                  Efficiency (T)
Air atomized spray                                    0.40
Airless spray                                         0.45
Manual electrostatic spray                            0.60
Flow coat                                             0.85
Dip coat                                              0.85
Nonrotational automatic electrostatic spray           0.85
Rotating head automatic electrostatic spray           0.90
Electrodeposition                                     0.95
Powder                                                0.95
       TABLE 4.2.2.11-2.  AREAS COATED AND COATING THICKNESS
Appliance
Compactor
Dishwasher
Dryer
Freezer
Microwave oven
Range
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Water heater
Prime
A(ft2)
20
10
90
75
8
20
75
70
20
Coat
t(mils)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
Top
A(ft2)
20
10
30
75
8
30
75
25
20
Coat
t(mils)
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.8
5/83                  Evaporation Loss Sources                4.2.2.11-5

-------
     In the absence of all operating data, an emission estimate of 49.9 Mg  (55
tons) of VOC per year may be used for the average appliance plant.   Because  of
the large variation in emissions among plants (from less than  10 to  more  than
225 Mg [10 to 250 tons] per year), caution is advised when this estimate  is
used for anything except approximations for a large geographical area.  Most
of the known large appliance plants are in localities considered nonattainment
areas for achieving the national ambient air quality standard  (NAAQS)  for
ozone.  The 49.9-Mg-per-year average is based on an emission limit of  2.8
Ib/VOC per gallon of coating (minus water), which is the limit recommended  by
the Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) applicable in those areas.  For a  plant
operating in an area where there are no emission limits, the emissions may  be
four times greater than from an identical plant subject to the CTG recommended
limit.

References for Section 4.2.2.11

1.   Industrial Surface Coating;  Appliances - Background Information  for
     Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-80-037a, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1980.

2.   Industrial Surface Coating:  Large Appliances - Background Information
     for Promulgated Standards, EPA 450/3-80-037b, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, October 1982.
4.2.2.11-6                     EMISSION FACTORS

-------
 4.2.2.12   METAL  FURNITURE  SURFACE  COATING

 4.2.2.12.1  General


      The  metal furniture surface coating process  is  a multistep  operation
 consisting of surface  cleaning  and coatings  application  and  curing.   Items
 such  as desks, chairs,  tables,  cabinets, bookcases and lockers are normally
 fabricated from  raw  material  to finished product  in  the  same facility.  The
 industry  uses primarily solventborne  coatings,  applied by  spray,  dip  or flow
 coating processes.   Spray  coating  is  the most  common application technique
 used.  The components  of spray  coating  lines vary from plant to  plant but
 generally consist of the following:

                         Three  to  five  stage washer
                         Dryoff oven
                         Spray  booth
                         Flashoff  area
                         Bake oven


      Items to be coated are first  cleaned  in the  washer  to remove any grease,
 oil or dirt from the surface.   The washer  generally  consists of  an alkaline
 cleaning  solution, a phosphate  treatment to  improve  surface  adhesion  charac-
 teristics,  and a hot water rinse.   The  items are  then dried  in an oven and
 conveyed  to the  spray booth,  where the  surface  coating is  applied.  After this
 application, the items  are conveyed through  the flashoff area to  the  bake
 oven, where the  surface coating is cured.  A diagram of  these consecutive
 steps is  presented in Figure  4.2.2.12-1.   Although most  metal furniture products
 receive only one coat of paint, some  facilities apply a  prime coat before the
 top coating to improve  the corrosion  resistance of the product.   In these
 cases, a  separate spray booth and  bake  oven  for application  of the prime coat
 are added to the line,  following the  dryoff oven.


     The  coatings used  in the industry  are primarily solventborne resins,
 including acrylics,  amines, vinyls and  cellulosics.  Some metallic coatings
 are also  used on office furniture.  The solvents  used are mixtures of aliphatics,
 xylene, toluene  and  other aromatics.  Typical coatings that  have been used in
 the industry contain 65 volume  percent  solvent  and 35 volume percent  solids.
 Other types of coatings now being  used  in  the industry are waterborne, powder
 and solventborne high solids  coatings.


 4.2.2.12.2   Emissions and Controls

     Volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the  evaporation of organic solvents
 in the coatings  are  the major pollutants from metal  furniture surface coating
 operations.  Specific operations that emit VOC  are the coating application
 process,  the flashoff area and  the bake oven.  The percentage of total VOC
 emissions  given  off  at  each emission point varies from one installation to
 another,  but on  the  average spray  coating  line, about 40 percent is given off
 at the application station. 30  percent  in  the flashoff area, and 30 percent in
 the bake  oven.

5/83                    Evaporation Loss Sources              4.2.2.12-1

-------
            o
            o
            -



     «o



     0)
     en
     0>

     2
                                                                           0)
                                                                           0)
                                                                           JM:

                                                                           10
                                                                           CD
                                        0)
                                                                     o
                                                                     3

                                                                     O
                                                                                     
-------
     Factors affecting the quantity of VOC emitted from metal furniture surface
coating operations are the VOC content of the coatings applied, the solids
content of coatings as applied and the transfer efficiency.  Knowledge of both
the VOC content and solids content of coatings is necessary in cases where the
coating contains other components, such as water.

     The transfer efficiency (volume fraction of the solids in the total
consumed coating that remains on the part) varies with the application technique.
Transfer efficiency for standard (or ordinary) spraying ranges from 25 to
50 percent.  The range for electrostatic spraying, a method that uses an
electrical potential to increase transfer efficiency of the coating solids, is
from 50 to 95 percent, depending on part size and shape.  Powder coating
systems normally capture and recirculate overspray material and, therefore,
are considered in terms of a "utilization rate" rather than a transfer efficiency.
Most facilities achieve a powder utilization rate of 90 to 95 percent.

     Typical values for transfer efficiency with various application devices
are in Table 4.2.2.12-1.

     Two types of control techniques are available to reduce VOC emissions
from metal furniture surface coating operations.   The first technique makes
use of control devices such as carbon adsorbers and thermal or catalytic
incinerators to recover or destroy VOC before it is discharged into the ambient
air.  These control methods are seldom used in the industry, however, because
the large volume of exhaust air and low concentrations of VOC in the exhaust
reduce their efficiency.  The more prevalent control technique involves reducing
the total amount of VOC likely to be evaporated and emitted.  This is accomplished
by use of low VOC content coatings and by improvements in transfer efficiency.
New coatings with relatively low VOC levels can be used instead of the traditional
high VOC content coatings.   Examples of these new systems include waterborne
coatings, powder coatings,  and higher solids coatings.  Improvements in coating
transfer efficiency decrease the amount that must be used to achieve a given
film thickness, thereby reducing emissions of VOC to the ambient air.  By
using a system with increased transfer efficiency (such as electrostatic
spraying) and lower VOC content coatings, VOC emission reductions can approach
those achieved with control devices.

     The data presented in Tables 4.2.2.12-2 and 4.2.2.12-3 are representative
of values which might be obtained from existing plants with similar operating
characteristics.  Each plant has its own combination of coating formulations,
application equipment and operating parameters.  It is recommended that,
whenever possible, plant specific values be obtained for all variables when
calculating emission estimates.

     Another method that also may be used to estimate emissions for metal
furniture coating operations involves a material balance approach.  By assuming
that all VOC in the coatings applied are evaporated at the plant site, an
estimate of emissions can be calculated using only the coating formulation and
data on the total quantity of coatings used in a given time period.  The
percentage of VOC solvent in the coating, multiplied by the quantity of coatings
used yields the total emissions.  This method of emissions estimation avoids
the requirement to use variables such as coating thickness and transfer
efficiency, which are often difficult to define precisely.
5/83                     .  Evaporation Loss Sources                 4.2.2.12-3

-------
            TABLE 4.2.2.12-1.   COATING METHOD TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES
               Application Methods              Transfer Efficiency
                                                        (Te)
           Air atomized spray                           0.25

           Airless spray                                0.25

           Manual electrostatic spray                   0.60

           Nonrotational automatic                      n  n
             electrostatic spray

           Rotating head electrostatic                  0 „.
             spray (manual and automatic)

           Dip coat and flow coat                       0.90

           Electrodeposition                            0.95
        TABLE 4.2.2.12-2.   OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR COATING OPERATIONS
 Plant   Operating   Number of lines  Line speed   Surface area    Liters of ,
 size     schedule                      (m/min)       coated/yr   coating used
          (hr/yr)                                      (m2)
Small 2,000
Medium 2,000
Large 2,000
1 2.5
(1 spray booth)
2 2.4
(3 booths/line)
10 4.6
(3 booths/line)
45,000
780,000
4,000,000
5,000
87,100
446,600
rs
 Line speed is not used to calculate emissions,  only to characterize
 plant operations.

5Using 35 volume %
 65 % transfer efficiency.
Using 35 volume % solids coating, applied by electrostatic spray at
4.2.2.12-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                        5/83

-------
                   TABLE 4.2.2.12-3.  EMISSION FACTORS
               FOR VOC FROM SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS*
Plant Size and Control Techniques
                                VOC Emissions
                                      kg/m2 coated    kg/year    kg/hour
Small
Uncontrolled emissions
65 volume % high solids coating
Waterborne coating

.064
.019
.012

2,875
835
520

1.44
.42
.26
Medium
  Uncontrolled emissions
  65 volume % high solids coating
  Waterborne coating

Large
  Uncontrolled emissions
  65 volume % high solids coating
  Waterborne coating
                          .064
                          .019
                          .012
                          .064
                          .019
                          .012
 49,815
 14,445
  8,970
255,450
 74,080
 46,000
 24.90
  7.22
  4.48
127.74
 37.04
 23.00
 Calculated using the parameters given in Table 4.2.2.12-2 and the
   following equation.  Values have been rounded off.
            E =
0.0254 A T V D
     S Te
      where E  = Mass of VOC emitted per hour (kg)
            A  = Surface area coated per hour (m2)
            T  = Dry film thickness of coating applied (mils)
            V  = VOC content of coating; including dilution
                   solvents added at the plant (fraction by volume)
            D  = VOC density (assumed to be 0.88 kg/1)
            S  = Solids content of coating (fraction by volume)
            Te = Transfer efficiency (fraction)

  The constant 0.0254 converts the volume of dry film applied per m2
  to liters.

     Example:  The VOC emission from a medium size plant applying 35
               volume % solids coatings and the  parameters given in
               Table 4.2.2.12-3.
     ^Kilograms  of VOC/hr =
                          _ 0.0254(390m2/hr)(l mil)(0.65)(0.88 kg/1)
                                         (0.35)(0.65)
                          = 24.9  kilograms of VOC per hour

Nominal  values  of  T,  V,  S and Te:

     T = 1  mil  (for all  cases)
     V =0.65  (uncontrolled),  0.35  (65  volume % solids),  0.117 (waterborne)
     S = 0.35  (uncontrolled,  0.65  (65 volume % solids),  0.35  (waterborne)
     Te = 0.65  (for all  cases)
5/83
        Evaporation Loss  Sources
           4.2.2.12-5

-------
Reference for Section 4.2.2.12

1.   Surface Coating of Metal Furniture - Background Information for Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-80-007a, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, September 1980.
4.2.2.12-6                     EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83

-------
                  5.0  CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY

     This Chapter deals with emissions from the manufacture and use of chemicals
or chemical products.  Potential emissions from many of these processes are
high, but because of economic necessity, they are usually recovered.  In some
cases, the manufacturing operation is run as a closed system, allowing little
or no emissions to escape to the atmosphere.

     The emissions that reach the atmosphere from chemical processes are
generally gaseous and are controlled by incineration, adsorption or absorption.
Particulate emissions may also be a problem, since the particulates emitted
are usually extremely small, requiring very efficient treatment for removal.
Emissions data from chemical processes are sparse.  It has been, therefore,
frequently necessary to make estimates of emission factors on the basis of
material balances, yields or similar processes.
 5/83                      Chemical Process Industry                       5.0-1

-------
5.1  ADIPIC ACID
              1-2
5.1.1  General

     Adipic acid, HOOC(CH2>4 COOH, is a white crystalline solid used in the
manufacture of synthetic fibers, coatings, plastics, urethane foams, elastomers
and synthetic lubricants.  Ninety percent of all adipic acid produced in the
United States is used in manufacturing Nylon 6,6.  Cyclohexane is the basic
raw material generally used to produce adipic acid, however, one plant uses
cyclohexanone, a byproduct of another process.  Phenol has also been used but
has proven to be more expensive and less readily available than cyclohexane.

                          1-4
5.1.2  Process Description

     During adipic acid production, the raw material, cyclohexane or
cyclohexanone, is transferred to a reactor, where it is oxidized at 130
to 170°C (260 - 330°F) to form a cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone mixture.  The
mixture is then transferred to a second reactor and is oxidized with nitric
acid and a catalyst (usually a mixture of cupric nitrate and ammonium
metavanadate) at 70 to 100°C (160 - 220°F) to form adipic acid.  The chemistry
of these reactions is shown below.
           0
                    + (a) HNO,
              H0C - CH0 - COOH
               2,     2

              H C - CH2 - COOH
 (c)H20
      Cyclohexanone + Nitric acid 	—-Adipic acid + Nitrogen oxides + Water

           HOH
         HC C H
           C C
                    + (x) HNO,
              H0C - CH_ - COOH
             .  2,     2

              H C - CH  - COOH
+(z)H2o
      Cyclohexanol  +  Nitric acid
             -Adipic acid + Nitrogen oxides + Water
     An alternate route for synthesizing adipic acid from cyclohexane (I. G.
Farben process) involves two air oxidation steps:  cyclohexane is oxidized to
cyclohexanol and cyclohexanone; cyclohexanone and cyclohexanol are then oxidized
to adipic acid, with a mixed manganese/barium acetate used as the catalyst.
5/83
Chemical Process Industry
       5.1-1

-------
UJ
1-
cc
<
0.

UJ
<
3 —
u ^*
p
cc
<
0.

UJ
u/2
fc x
o. 3°
> E o
is
2 t
z

LJJ
Q
x cc
O ui
Z xgi
$ "* z° ^
O m
cc <
z
UJ
en-1
i>
? u
I UJ
cc



O
X ^
i £
o g o ^ _
O 5 ^'" O Q ^
•=* z > o
O uj
CO CC
cc
<

0

1- UJ
0 O
2 <
9 °c
0 o
CC 1-
o. &o
1
Si
i§
1
c? ~-
MJ UI
N 0 (-
-j 3 0 _,
di = ^
?P|S
?g^
EC U
O
4

CC
UJ
a.
cc
l-
co

1

cc
0N
O O
2Z
cc

1
cc
0 _

                                                          cc <
                                                          K- UJ
                                                                       Q)
                                                                       c:
                                                                       a>
                                                                       in

                                                                       L_.
                                                                       3


                                                                       il
                                                          UJ 1-
                                                          I <
                                                          o o
                                                          I- <
                                                          < cc

                                                          1°
                                                          3 «
                                                          <
                                                          cc
5.1-2
Chemical Process Industry
5/83

-------
Another possible synthesis method is a direct one stage air oxidation of
cyclohexane to adipic acid with a cobaltous acetate catalyst.

     The product from the second reactor enters a bleacher, in which the
dissolved nitrogen oxides are stripped from the adipic acid/nitric acid solution
with air and steam.  Various organic acid byproducts, namely acetic acid,
glutaric acid and succinic acid, are also formed and may be recovered and sold
by some plants.

     The adipic acid/nitric acid solution is chilled and sent to a vacuum
crystallizer, where adipic acid crystals are formed, and the solution is
then centrifuged to separate the crystals.  The remaining solution is sent to
another vacuum crystallizer, where any residual adipic acid is crystallized
and centrifugally separated.  Wet adipic acid from the last crystallization
stage is dried and cooled and then is transferred to a storage bin.  The
remaining solution is distilled to recover nitric acid, which is routed back
to the second reactor for reuse.  Figure 5.1-1 presents a general  scheme of
the adipic acid manufacturing process.

5.1.3  Emissions and Controls '

     Nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon
monoxide (CO) are the major pollutants from adipic acid production.  The
cyclohexane reactor is the largest source of CO and VOC, and the nitric acid
reactor is the dominant source of NOX.  Drying and cooling of the adipic acid
product create particulate emissions, which are generally low because baghouses
and/or wet scrubbers are employed for maximum product recovery and air pollution
control.  Process pumps and valves are potential sources of fugitive VOC
emissions.  Secondary emissions occur only from aqueous effluent discharged
from the plant by pipeline to a holding pond.  Aqueous effluent from the
adipic acid manufacturing process contains dibasic organic acids, such as
succinic and glutaric.  Since these compounds are not volatile, air emissions
are negligible compared to other emissions of VOC from the plant.  Figure
5.1-1 shows the points of emission of all process pollutants.

     The most significant emissions of VOC and CO come from the cyclohexane
oxidation unit, which is equipped with high and low pressure scrubbers.
Scrubbers have a 90 percent collection efficiency of VOC and are used for
economic reasons, to recover expensive volatile organic compounds as well as
for pollution control.  Thermal incinerators, flaring and carbon adsorbers can
all be used to limit VOC emissions from the cyclohexane oxidation unit with a
greater than 90 percent efficiency.  CO boilers control CO emissions with
99.99 percent efficiency and VOC emissions with practically 100 percent efficiency.
The combined use of a CO boiler and a pressure scrubber results in nearly
complete VOC and CO control.

     Three methods are presently used to control emissions from the NOX absorber:
water scrubbing, thermal reduction, and flaring or combustion in a powerhouse
boiler.  Water scrubbers have a low collection efficiency, approximately
70 percent, because of the extensive time needed to remove insoluble NO in the
absorber offgas stream.  Thermal reduction, in which offgases containing NO
are heated to high temperatures and are reacted with excess fuel in a reducing
atmosphere, operates at up to 97.5 percent efficiency and is believed to be


5/83                      EMISSION FACTORS                               5.1-3

-------
the most  effective system of  control.   Burning  offgas  in  a powerhouse  or
flaring has an estimated  efficiency  of 70 percent.
            TABLE 5.1-1.   EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR ADIPIC ACID MANUFACTURE

                                  EMISSION  FACTOR  RATING:   B

Process
Adipic acid
particulate
Nitrogen
oxides6
Nonme thane
volatile organic
compounds
Carbon monoxide
kg/Mg    Ib/ton   kg/Mg     Ib/ton   kg/Mg
                                                                        Ib/ton
kg/Mg   Lb/ton
  Raw material  storage
     Uncontrolled               0        0        0        0        1.1        2.2        0        0

  Cyclohexane oxidation
     Uncontrolled0              0        0        0        0       20         40         58      115
     W/boiler            ,      0        0        0        0       Neg        Neg         0.5      1
     W/thermal  Incinerator      0000       Neg        Neg        Neg     Neg
     W/flaringe      ,00002          4          6       12
     W/carbon absorber          0        0        0        0        I          2         58      115
     W/scrubber plus boiler      0000       Neg        Neg        Neg     Neg

  Nitric acid reaction
     Uncontrolled8              00       27       53        0          0          00
     W/water scrubber           0        0        816        0          0          0        0
     W/thermal  reduction        0        0        0.51        0          O'O        0
     W/flaring  or combustion    008       16        0          0          00

  Adipic acid refining^           .         ,
     Uncontrolled               0.1K     0.1K     0.3      0.6      0.3        0.5        0        0

  Adipic acid drying, cooling     ,         .
    and storage                0.4      0.8      0        0        0          0          0        0

  aReference 1. Factors are in Ib of pollutant/ton  and kg of pollutant/Mg of adipic acid produced.
  bNeg = Negligible.
   NOX is in the form of NO and NO-.  Although large quantities of N^O are also produced, NjO is
   not a criteria pollutant and is not, therefore, included here.
   Factors are  after scrubber processing, since hydrocarbon recovery using scrubbers is an
   .integral part of adipic acid manufacturing.
   A thermal Incinerator Is assumed to reduce VOC and CO emissions by approximately 99.99%.
  ?A flaring system is assumed to reduce VOC and CO  emissions by 90%.
   A carbon adsorber is assumed to reduce VOC emissions by 94% and to be  ineffective in reducing
   CO emissions.
  Uncontrolled emission factors are after NOX absorber, since nitric acid recovery is .an integral
  .part of adipic acid manufacturing.
   Estimated 70% control.
   .Estimated 97.5% control.
   , U0 I.JL1UE* h*KU Jl • ^ f« V-WH.b^v.L*
   •'includes chilling, crystallization and centrifuging.
   ractors are after baghouse control device.
 5.1-4
       Chemical Process Industry
       5/83

-------
References  for  Section  5.1

1.    Screening  Study To Determine Need  for  Standards  of  Performance  for
      New Adipic Acid Plants,  EPA Contract No.  68-02-1316,  GCA/Technology
      Division,  Bedford, MA, July 1976.

2.    Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia  of Chemical Technology,  "Adipic Acid",   Vol.  1,
      2nd Ed, New York,  Interscience Encyclopedia,  Inc,  1967.

3.    M. E.  O'Leary, "CEH Marketing Research Report on  Adipic Acid",
      Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford  Research Institute, Menlo  Park,  CA,
      January 1974.

4.    K. Tanaka, "Adipic Acid  by Single  Stage",  Hydrocarbon Processing, 55(11),
      November 1974.

5.    H. S.  Bosdekis, Adipic Acid in Organic Chemical Manufacturing^, Volume  6,
      EPA-450/3-80-028a, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park,  NC,  December 1980.
5/83                           EMISSION FACTORS                      5.1-5

-------
5.2 SYNTHETIC AMMONIA

5.2.1  General

     Anhydrous ammonia  is  synthesized by reacting hydrogen with nitrogen at a
molar ratio of 3:1,  then compressing the gas and cooling it to -33°C.   Nitrogen
is obtained from  the air,  while hydrogen is obtained from either  the  catalytic
steam reforming of natural gas  (methane) or naphtha, or the electrolysis of
brine at chlorine plants.   In  the United States, about 98 percent  of  synthetic
ammonia is produced  by  catalytic steam reforming of natural gas (Figure 5.2-1).
         NATURAL GAS-
                   FEEDSTOCK
                DESULFURIZATION
                                                         EMISSIONS DURING
                                                           REGENERATION
                       FUEL
               STEAM -
                                PRIMARY REFORMER
                                         FUEL COMBUSTION
                                            EMISSIONS
                                        	I
                    AIR-
              SECONDARY REFORMER
          EMISSIONS
  PROCESS
CONDENSATE
               Jt
STEAM
STRIPPER
STEAM
i

                HIGH TEMPERATURE
                     SHIFT
                                 LOW TEMPERATURE
                                      SHIFT
                                                            EMISSIONS
                                  C02 ABSORBER
                                         CO2 SOLUTION
                                         REGENERATION
                                  METHANATION
                                                               I
                                                             STEAM
              EFFLUENT
                                AMMONIA SYNTHESIS
                                        PURGE GAS VENTED TO
                                         PRIMARY REFORMER
                                             FOR FUEL
                                      NH-:
               Figure 5.2-1. General process flow diagram of a typical ammonia plant.
5/83
          Chemical Process  Industry
5.2-1

-------
     Seven process steps are required to produce synthetic anvmonia by  the
catalytic steam reforming method:

     Natural gas desulfurization
     Primary reforming with steam
     Secondary reforming with air
     Carbon monoxide shift
     Carbon dioxide removal
     Methanation
     Ammonia synthesis

The first, fourth, fifth and sixth steps are to remove impurities such as
sulfur, CO, C02 and water from the feedstock, hydrogen and synthesis gas
streams.  In the second step, hydrogen is manufactured, and in  the third step,
additional hydrogen is manufactured and nitrogen is introduced  into the process.
The seventh step produces anhydrous ammonia from the synthetic  gas.  While  all
ammonia plants use this basic process, details such as pressures, temperatures
and quantities of feedstock will vary from plant to plant.

5.2.2  Emissions

     Pollutants from the manufacture of synthetic anhydrous ammonia are emitted
from four process steps:

     Regeneration of the desulfurization bed
     Heating of the primary reformer
     Regeneration of carbon dioxide scrubbing solution
     Steam stripping of process condensate                                              ^

More than 95 percent of the ammonia plants in the U. S. use activated  carbon
fortified with metallic oxide additives for feedstock desulfurization.  The
desulfurization bed must be regenerated about once every 30 days for a 10-hour
period.  Vented regeneration steam contains sulfur oxides and/or hydrogen
sulfide, depending on the amount of oxygen in the steam.  Regeneration also
emits volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon monoxide.  The primary
reformer, heated with natural gas or fuel oil, emits the combustion products
NO , CO, SO , VOC and particulates.
  X        X.
     Carbon dioxide is removed from the synthesis gas by scrubbing with
monoethanolamine or hot potassium carbonate solution.  Regeneration of this C02
scrubbing solution with steam produces emissions of VOC, NH3, CO, C02  and
monoethanolamine.

     Cooling the synthesis gas after low temperature shift conversion  forms a
condensate containing quantities of NH3, C02, methanol and trace metals.
Condensate steam strippers are used to remove NH3 and methanol  from the water,
and steam from this is vented to the atmosphere, emitting NH3,  C02 and methanol.
5.2-2                          EMISSION FACTORS                            5/83

-------
     Table 5.2-1 presents emission factors  for the typical ammonia  plant.
Control  devices are  not used at  such plants,  so the values in Table  5.2-1
represent uncontrolled  emissions.

5.2.3  Controls

     Add-on air pollution control  devices are not used  at synthetic  ammonia
plants,  because their  emissions  are below state standards.  Some processes
have been modified  to  reduce emissions and  to improve utility of raw materials
and energy.  Some plants are considering techniques to  eliminate emissions
from the condensate  steam stripper, one such  being the  injection of  the
overheads into the  reformer stack  along with  the combustion gases.

   TABLE 5.2-1.  UNCONTROLLED  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TYPICAL AMMONIA  PLANT3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A
Emission Point
Desulf urization unit regeneration


Primary reformer, heater fuel combustion
Natural gas





Distillate oil





Carbon dioxide regenerator




Condensate steam stripper


Pollutant
Total sulfur0'
CO
Nonme thane VOCe

NO
so*
cox
Particulates
Methane
Nonmethane VOC
NO
sox
cox
Particulates
Methane
Nonmethane VOC
Ammonia
CO
CO.,
2 f
Nonmethane VOC
Ammonia
C°2
Nonmethane VOC°
kg/Mg
0.0096
6.9
3.6

2.7
0.0024
0.068
0.072
0.0063
0.0061
2.7
1.3
0.12
0.45
0.03
0.19
1.0
1.0
1220

0.52
1.1
3.4
0.6
Ib/ton
0.019
13.8
7.2

5.4
0.0048
0.136
0.144
0.0125
0.0122
5.4
2.6
0.24
0.90
0.06
0.38
2.0
2.0
2440

1.04
2.2
6.8
1.2
  Emission factors are expressed in weight of emissions per unit weight of ammonia produced.

  Intermittent source, average 10 hours once every 30 days.

  Worst case assumption,  that all sulfur entering tank is emitted during regeneration.

  Normalized to a 24 hour emission factor.
 e
  Reference 2.
 f0.05 kg/MT (0.1 Ib/ton) is monoethanolamine.

 Mostly raethanol.
5/83
Chemical  Process  Industry
5.2-3

-------
References for Section 5.2

1.   G. D. Rawlings and R. B. Reznik, Source Assessment;  Synthetic Ammonia
     Production, EPA-600/2-77-107m, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1977.

2.   Source Category Survey:  Ammonia Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-80-014,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August
     1980.
5.2-4                          EMISSION FACTORS                             5/83

-------
5.3  CARBON BLACK

5.3.1  Process Description

     Carbon black is produced by the reaction of a hydrocarbon fuel  such  as
oil or gas with a limited supply of combustion air at  temperatures of  1320
to 1540°C  (2400 to 2800°F).  The unburned carbon is collected as an  extremely
fine black fluffy particle, 10 to 500 ran diameter.  The principal uses of
carbon black are as a reinforcing agent in rubber compounds  (especially
tires) and as a black pigment in printing inks, surface coatings, paper and
plastics.  Two major processes are presently used in the United States to
manufacture carbon black, the oil furnace process and  the thermal process.
The oil furnace process accounts for about 90 percent  of production, and  the
thermal about 10 percent.  Two others, the lamp process for  production of
lamp black and the cracking of acetylene to produce acetylene black, are
each used at one plant in the U. S.  However, these are small volume specialty
black operations which constitute less than 1 percent  of total production in
this country.  The gas furnace process is being phased out,  and the  last
channel black plant in the U. S. was closed in 1976.

5.3.1.1  Oil Furnace Process - In the oil furnace process (Figure 5.3-1 and
Table 5.3-1), an aromatic liquid hydrocarbon feedstock is heated and injected
continuously into the combustion zone of a natural gas fired furnace, where
it is decomposed to form carbon black.  Primary quench water cools the gases
to 500°C (1000°F) to stop the cracking.  The exhaust gases entraining  the
carbon particles are further cooled to about 230°C (450°F) by passage  through
heat exchangers and direct water sprays.  The black is then  separated  from
the gas stream, usually by a fabric filter.  A cyclone for primary collection
and particle agglomeration may precede the filter.  A  single collection
system often serves several manifolded furnaces.

     The recovered carbon black is finished to a marketable  product  by
pulverizing and wet pelletizing to increase bulk density.  Water from  the
wet pelletizer is driven off in a gas fired rotary dryer.  Oil or process
gas can be used.  From 35 to 70 percent of the dryer combustion gas  is
charged directly to the interior of the dryer, and the remainder acts as an
indirect heat source for the dryer.  The dried pellets are then conveyed  to
bulk storage.  Process yields range from 35 to 65 percent, depending on the
feed composition and the grade of black produced.  Furnace designs and
operating conditions determine the particle size and the other physical and
chemical properties of the black.  Generally, yields are highest for large
particle blacks and lowest for small particle blacks.

5.3.1.2  Thermal Process - The thermal process is a cyclic operation in
which natural gas is thermally decomposed (cracked) into carbon particles,
hydrogen and a mixture of other organics.  Two furnaces are  used in  normal
operation.  The first cracks natural gas and makes carbon black and  hydrogen.
The effluent gas from the first reactor is cooled by water sprays to about
125°C (250°F), and the black is collected in a fabric  filter.  The filtered
gas (90 percent hydrogen, 6 percent methane and 4 percent higher hydrocarbons)
 5/83                   Chemical Process Industry                     5.3-1

-------
                                                                      y,
                                                                      9)


                                                                      2
                                                                      a.
                                                                      o
                                                                      3

                                                                      8
                                                                      CD
                                                                      O

                                                                      V
                                                                      i
                                                                      o
                                                                     CO

                                                                     in

5.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
              TABLE  5.3-1.   STREAM IDENTIFICATION FOR THE
                     OIL FURNACE PROCESS (Figure 5.3-1)
      Stream                    Identification
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Oil feed
Natural gas feed
Air to reactor
Quench water
Reactor effluent
Gas to oil preheater
Water to quench tower
Quench tower effluent
Bag filter effluent
Vent gas purge for dryer fuel
Main process vent gas
Vent gas to incinerator
Incinerator stack gas
Recovered carbon black
Carbon black to micropulverizer
Pneumatic conveyor system
Cyclone vent gas recycle
Cyclone vent gas
Pneumatic system vent gas
Carbon black from bag filter
Carbon black from cyclone
Surge bin vent
Carbon black to pelletizer
Water to pelletizer
Pelletizer effluent
Dryer direct heat source vent
Dryer heat exhaust after bag filter
Carbon black from dryer bag filter
Dryer indirect heat source vent
Hot gases to dryer
Dried carbon black
Screened carbon black
Carbon black recycle
Storage bin vent gas
Bagging system vent gas
Vacuum cleanup system vent gas
Combined dryer vent gas
Fugitive emissions
Oil storage tank vent gas
5/83                Chemical Process  Industry                     5.3-3

-------
is used as a fuel to heat a second reactor.  When  the  first  reactor  becomes
too cool to crack the natural gas feed, the positions  of  the  reactors  are
reversed, and the second reactor is used to crack  the  gas while  the  first is
heated.  Normally, more than enough hydrogen is produced  to  make  the thermal
black process self-sustaining, and the surplus hydrogen is used  to fire
boilers that supply process steam and electric power.

     The collected thermal black is pulverized and pelletized  to  a final
product in much the same manner as is furnace black.   Thermal  process  yields
are generally high (35 to 60 percent), but the relatively coarse  particles
produced, 180 to 470 nm, do not have the strong reinforcing  properties
required for rubber products.

5.3.2  Emissions and Controls

5.3.2.1  Oil Furnace Process - Emissions from carbon black manufacture
include particulate matter, carbon monoxide, organics, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur compounds, polycyclic organic matter (POM) and  trace  elements.

     The principal source of emissions in the oil furnace process is the
main process vent.  The vent stream consists of the reactor  effluent and  the
quench water vapor vented from the carbon black recovery system.  Gaseous
emissions may vary considerably, according to the grade of carbon black
being produced.   Organic and CO emissions tend to be higher  for small  particle
production, corresponding with the lower yields obtained.  Sulfur compound
emissions are a function of the feed sulfur content.   Tables  5.3-2 and 5.3-3
show the normal emission ranges to be expected, with typical  average values.

     The combined dryer vent (stream 37 in Figure 5.3-1) emits carbon black
from the dryer bag filter and contaminants from the use of the main  process
vent gas if the gas is used as a supplementary fuel for the dryer.   It also
emits contaminants from the combustion of impurities in the natural  gas fuel
for the dryer,  These contaminants include sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
and the unburned portion of each of the species present in the main  process
vent gas (see Table 5.3-2).  The otl feedstock storage tanks are  a source of
organic emissions.  Carbon black emissions also occur  from the pneumatic
transport system vent, the plantwide vacuum cleanup system vent,  and from
cleaning, spills and leaks (fugitive emissions).

     Gaseous emissions from the main process vent may  be controlled  with  CO
boilers, incinerators or flares.  The pellet dryer combustion  furnace, which
is, in essence,  a thermal incinerator, may also be employed in a  control
system.  CO boilers, thermal incinerators or combinations of  these devices
can achieve essentially complete oxidation of organics and can oxidize
sulfur compounds in the process flue gas.  Combustion  efficiencies of
99.6 percent for hydrogen sulfide and 99.8 percent for carbon  monoxide have
been measured for a flare on a carbon black plant.  Particulate emissions
may also be reduced by combustion of some of the carbon black  particles,  but
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are thereby  increased.

     5.3.2.2  Thermal Process - Emissions from the furnaces  in this  process
are very low because the offgas is recycled and burned in the  next furnace
to provide heat for cracking, or sent to a boiler as fuel.  The carbon black
is recovered in a bag filter between the two furnaces.

5.3-4                       EMISSION FACTORS                             5/83

-------
The rest is recycled in the offgas.  Some adheres to  the  surface  of  the
checkerbrick where it is burned off in each firing cycle.

     Emissions from the dryer vent, the pneumatic transport system vent,  the
vacuum cleanup system vent, and fugitive sources are  similar  to those  for
the oil furnace process, since the operations which give  rise  to  these
emissions in the two processes are similar.  There is no  emission point in
the thermal process which corresponds to the oil storage  tank  vents  in the
oil furnace process.  Also in the thermal process, sulfur compounds, POM,
trace elements and organic compound emissions are negligible,  because  low
sulfur natural gas is used, and the process offgas is burned as fuel.

                 TABLE 5.3-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHEMICAL
                       SUBSTANCES FROM OIL FURNACE CARBON
                               BLACK MANUFACTURE3


                                           Main process vent gas
      Chemical substance
                                            kg/Mg          Ib/ton
Carbon disulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Methane

Nonme thane VOC
Acetylene

Ethane
Ethylene
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
n-Pentane
POM
Trace elements
30
10
25
(10-60)

45
(5-130)
oc
1.6
c
0
0.23
0.10
0.27
oc
0.002
<0.25
60
20
50
(20-120)

90
(10-260)
Oc
V
0
0.46
0.20
0.54
oc
0.004
<0.50
       Expressed in terras of weight of emissions per unit weight of
      .carbon black produced.
       These chemical substances are emitted only from  the main process
       vent.  Average values are based on six sampling  runs made at a
       representative plant  (Reference 1).  Ranges given in parentheses
       are based on results of a survey of operating plants (Reference 4)
      ,Below detection limit of 1 ppm.
       Beryllium, lead, mercury, among several others.
 5/83                   Chemical Process Industry                     5.3-5

-------
                                                                   TABLt  5.3-3.   EMISSION FACTORS

                                                                                         EMISSION  FACTOR
Particulate Carbon Monoxide
Process
Oil furnace process
Main process vent
Flare
CO boiler and incinerator
Combined Dryer vent
Bag filter11
Scrubber
Pneumatic system vent
Bag filter
kg/Mg
3.27d
(0.1-5)
1.35
(1.2-1.5)
1.04
0.12
(0.01-0.40)
0.36
(0.01-0.70)

0.29
(0.06-0.70)
Ib/ton kg/Mg Ib/ton
6.53d l,400e 2,800e
(0.2-10) (700-2,200) (1,400-4,400)
2.70 122 245
(2.4-3) (108-137) (216-274)
2.07 0.88 1.75
0.24
(0.02-0.80)
0.71
(0.02-1.40)

0.58
(0.12-1.40)
Nitrogen
kg/Mg
0.286
(1-2.8)
NA
4.65
0.36
(0.12-0.61)
1.10


Oxides
Ib/ton
0,.56e
(2-5.6)
NA
9.3
0.73
(0.24-1.22)
2.20


     Oil storage tank vent

       Uncontrolled

     Vacuum, cleanup  system
       vent
       Bag filter
     Fugitive emissions

     Solid waste incinerator-'
                  k
    Thermal process
 0.03
(0.01-0.05)

 0.10

 0.12

 Neg
 0.06
(0.02-0.10)

 0.20

 0.24

 Neg
0.01

Neg
0.02

Neg
                            0.04
                                         0.08
Unknown      Unknown
aExpressed  in  terms of weight of  emissions per unit weight of  carbon black produced.   Blanks  indicate no emissions.
 Most plants use bag filters on all process trains for product recovery except solid  waste  incineration.  Some
 plants may use scrubbers on at least  one process train.   NA » not available.

 The particulate matter is carbon black.
cEmission factors do not include  organic sulfur compounds  which are reported separately in  Table 5.3-2.  Individual
 organic species comprising the nonmethane VOC emissions  are included in Table 5.3-.2

 Average values based on surveys  of plants (References 4-5).
eAverage values based on results  of 6  sampling runs conducted  at a representative  plant with  a mean production
 rate of 5.1 x 10  Mg/yr (5.6 x 10 ton/yr).  Ranges of values are based on a survey  of 15  plants  (Reference 4).
 Controlled by bag filter.
 Not detected  at detection limit  of 1  ppm.
  5.3-6
            EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                        5/83

-------
FOR  CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURE

RATING:    C
Sulfur
kg/Mg
oe-£
(0-12)
25
(21.9-23)
Oxides
Ib/ton
Oe,f
(0-24)
50
(44-56)
Methane
kg/Mg Ib/ton
25e 50e
(10-60) (20-120)

Nonme thane
kg/Mg
50e
(10-159)
1.85
(1.7-2)
vocc
Ib/ton
iooe
(20-300)
3.7
(3.4-4)
Hydrogen
kg/Mg
30e
5S-13S8
1
Sulflde
Ib/ton
60e
10S-26S8
2
   17.5
                 35.2
                                                          0.99
                                                                         1.98
                                                                                                      0.22
    0.26           0.52
 (0.03-0.54)    (0.06-1.08)
    0.20
                  0.40
                                                          0.72
                                                                         1.44
    0.01

    Neg
0.02

Neg
0.01

Neg
0.02

Neg
Neg
Neg
   S is the weight  percent sulfur in the  feed.

   Average values and corresponding ranges of values are based on a survey of plants  (Reference 4) and  on  the
   public files  of  Louisiana Air Control  Commission.

   Emission factor  calculated using empirical correlations  for petrochemical losses from storage tanks  (vapor
   pressure » 0.7 kPa).  Emissions are  mostly aromatic oils.
   Based on emission rates obtained from  the National Emissions Data System.  All  plants do not use solid  waste
   incineration. See Section 2.1.
   emissions from the furnaces are negligible.  Emissions from the dryer vent, pneumatic system vent and vacuum
   cleanup system and fugitive sources  are similar to those for the oil furnace process.
   Data are not available.
  5/83
                                   Chemical Process  Industry
                                                                                5.3-7

-------
References for Section 5.3

1.   R. W. Serth and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment;  Carbon Black
     Manufacture, EPA-600/2-77-107k, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1977.

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

3.   I. Drogin, "Carbon Black", Journal of the Air Pollution Control
     Association, _l_8:216-228, April 1968.

4.   Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the
     Petrochemical Industry, Vol. 1:  Carbon Black Manufacture by the
     Furnace Process, EPA-450/3-73-006a, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

5.   K. C. Hustvedt and L. B. Evans, Standards Support and Emission Impact
     Statement:  An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction
     for Furnace Process Carbon Black Plants in the Carbon Black Industry
     (Draft), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, April 1976.

6.   Source Testing of a Waste Heat Boiler, EPA-75-CBK-3, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1975.

7.   R. W. Gerstle and J. R. Richards, Industrial Process Profiles for
     Environmental Use, Chapter 4;  Carbon Black Industry,  EPA-600-2-77-023d,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1977.

8.   G. D. Rawlings and T. W. Hughes, "Emission Inventory Data for
     Acrylonitrile, Phthalic Anhydride, Carbon Black, Synthetic Ammonia,
     and Ammonium Nitrate", Proceedings of APCA Specialty Conference on
     Emission Factors and Inventories, Anaheim, CA, November 13-16, 1978.
5.3-8                         EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
5.4  CHARCOAL
                           1-3
5.4.1  Process Description

     Charcoal is the solid carbon residue  following  the  pyrolysis
(carbonization or destructive distillation) of carbonaceous raw  materials.
Principal raw materials are medium  to dense hardwoods  such as  beech,  birch,
hard maple, hickory and oak.  Others are softwoods (primarily  long  leaf  and
slash pine), nutshells, fruit pits, coal,  vegetable  wastes and paper  mill
residues.  Charcoal is used primarily as a fuel for  outdoor cooking.   In
some instances, its manufacture may be considered as a solid waste  disposal
technique.  Many raw materials for charcoal manufacture  are wastes, as
noted, and charcoal manufacture is also used in forest management for disposal
of refuse.

     Recovery of acetic acid and methanol  byproducts was initially  responsible
for stimulation of the charcoal industry.  As synthetic  production  of these
chemicals became commercialized, recovery  of acetic  acid and methanol became
uneconomical.

     Charcoal manufacturing can be generally classified  into either batch
(45 percent) or continuous operations (55  percent).  Batch units such as the
Missouri type charcoal kiln (Figure 5.4-1) are small manually  loaded  and
unloaded kilns producing typically 16 megagrams (17.6  tons) of charcoal
during a three week cycle.  Continuous units (i.e.,  multiple hearth furnaces)
produce an average of 2.5 megagrams (2.75  tons) per  hour of charcoal.
During the manufacturing process, the wood is heated,  driving  off water  and
highly volatile organic compounds (VOC).   Wood temperature rises to approxi-
mately 275°C (527°F), and VOC distillate yield increases.  At  this  point,
external application of heat is no longer  required,  since the  carbonization
reactions become exothermic.  At 350°C (662°F), exothermic pyrolysis  ends,
and heat is again applied to remove the less volatile  tarry materials from
the product charcoal.

     Fabrication of briquets from raw material may be  either an  integral
part of a charcoal producing facility, or  an independent operation, with
charcoal being received as raw material.   Charcoal is  crushed, mixed  with a
binder solution, pressed and dried to produce a briquet  of approximately
90 percent charcoal.

                             3-9
5.4.2  Emissions and Controls

     There are five types of charcoal products, charcoal; noncondensible
gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and  ethane); pyroacids
(primarily acetic acid and methanol); tars and heavy oils; and water.
Products and product distribution are varied, depending  on raw materials and
carbonization parameters.  The extent to which organics  and carbon  monoxide
are naturally combusted before leaving the retort varies from  plant to
plant.  If uncombusted, tars may solidify  to form particulate  emissions, and
pyroacids may form aerosol emissions.
 5/83                      Chemical Process Industry                     5.4-1

-------
                                                                                          Oi

                                                                                          si
                                                                                          QJ
                                                                                          CJ
                                                                                          
5.4-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                 5/83

-------
     Control of emissions from batch type charcoal kilns is difficult because
of the cyclic nature of the process and, therefore, its emissions.  Throughout
a cycle, both the emission composition and flow rate change.  Batch kilns do
not typically have emission control devices, but some may use afterburners.
Continuous production of charcoal is more amenable to emission control than
are batch kilns, since emission composition and flow rate are relatively
constant.  Afterburning is estimated to reduce emissions of particulates,
carbon monoxide and VOC by at least 80 percent.

     Briquetting operations can control particulate emissions with centrifugal
collection (65 percent control) or fabric filtration (99 percent control).

     Uncontrolled emission factors for the manufacture of charcoal are shown
in Table 5.4-1.
                  TABLE 5.4-1.  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS
                         FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
       Pollutant       Charcoal Manufacturing           Briquetting

                          kg/Mg     Ib/ton            kg/Mg     Ib/ton

      Particulateb         133        266              28         56
                     £
      Carbon monoxide      172        344               -          -

      Nitrogen oxides       12         24

      VOC

        Methane6            52        104

        Nonmethane         157        314               -

      f\
      Expressed as weight per unit charcoal produced.  Dash = not
      applicable.  Reference 3.   Afterburning is estimated to reduce
      emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide and VOC >80%.  Briquetting
      operations can control particulate emissions with centrifugal
      , collection (65% control) or fabric filtration  (99% control).
      Includes tars and heavy oils (References 1, 5-9).   Polycyclic
      organic matter (POM) carried by suspended particulates was deter-
      mined to average 4.0 rag/kg (Reference 6).
      .References 1, 5, 9.
      Reference 3 (Based on 0.14% wood nitrogen content).
      ..References 1, 5, 7, 9.
      References 1, 3, 5, 7.  Consists of both noncondensibles (ethane,
      formaldehyde, unsaturated  hydrocarbons) and condensibles (methanol,
      acetic acid, pyroacids).
 5/83                      Chemical  Process Industry                    5.4-3

-------
References for Section 5.4

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

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

3.   C. M. Moscowitz, Source Assessment;  Charcoal Manufacturing State  of
     the Art, EPA-600/2-78-004z,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Cincinnati, OH, December 1978.

4.   Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry, Seventh Edition, J.  A.  Kent,
     ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1974.

5.   J. R. Hartwig, "Control of Emissions from Batch-type Charcoal Kilns",
     Forest Products Journal, _21_(9): 49-50, April 1971.

6.   W. H. Maxwell, Stationary Source Testing of a Missouri-type Charcoal Kiln,
     EPA-907/9-76-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City,
     MO, August 1976.

7.   R. W. Rolke, et al., Afterburner Systems Study,  EPA-RZ-72-062, U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August
     1972.

8.   B. F. Keeling, Emission Testing the Missouri-type Charcoal Kiln, Paper
     76-37.1, Presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
     Control Association, Portland, OR, June 1976.

9.   P. B. Hulman, et al., Screening Study on Feasibility of Standards of
     Performance for Wood Charcoal Manufacturing, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608,
     Radian Corporation,  Austin,  TX, August 1978.
5.4-4                         EMISSION FACTORS                            5/83

-------
5.6  EXPLOSIVES

5.6.1  General

     An explosive is a material  that, under  the  influence of  thermal  or
mechanical shock, decomposes rapidly and spontaneously  with the  evolution of
large amounts of heat and gas.   There are  two major  categories,  high
explosives and low explosives.   High explosives  are  further divided into
initiating, or primary, high explosives and  secondary high explosives.
Initiating high explosives are very sensitive and  are generally  used  in small
quantities in detonators and percussion caps to  set  off larger quantities of
secondary high explosives.  Secondary high explosives,  chiefly nitrates,  nitro
compounds and nitramines, are much less sensitive  to mechanical  or  thermal
shock, but they explode with great violence  when set off  by an initiating
explosive.  The chief secondary  high explosives  manufactured  for commercial
and military use are ammonium nitrate blasting agents and 2,A,6,-trinitro-
toluene (TNT).  Low explosives,  such as black powder and  nitrocellulose,
undergo relatively slow autocombustion when  set  off  and evolve large  volumes
of gas in a definite and controllable manner.  Many  different types of
explosives are manufactured.  As examples of high  and low explosives, the
production of TNT and nitrocellulose (NC) are discussed below.
5.6.2  TNT Production
                     1-3,6
     TNT may be prepared by either a  continuous or  a  batch  process,  using
toluene, nitric acid and sulfuric acid as raw materials.  The  production  of
TNT follows the same chemical process, regardless of  whether batch or
continuous method is used.  The flow  chart  for TNT  production  is  shown in
Figure 5.6-1.  The overall chemical reaction may be expressed  as:
                3HON0
      Toluene  Nitric
                Acid
 Sulfuric
  Acid
TNT
Water
Sulfuric
 Acid
The production of TNT by nitration of  toluene  is a  three  stage  process
performed in a series of reactors, as  shown  in Figure  5.6-2.  The mixed  acid
stream is shown to flow counter current  to the flow of  the  organic  stream.
Toluene and spent acid fortified with  a  60 percent  HN03 solution are  fed into
the first reactor.  The organic layer  formed in the first reactor is  pumped
into the second reactor, where it is subjected to further nitration with acid
from the third reactor fortified with  additional HN03.  The product from the
second nitration step, a mixture of all  possible isomers  of dinitrotoluene
(DNT), is pumped to the third reactor.   In the final reaction,  the  DNT is
treated with a fresh feed of nitric acid and oleum  (a  solution  of S03[sulfur
trioxide] in anhydrous sulfuric acid).   The  crude TNT  from  this third
nitration consists primarily of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene.  The crude TNT is
5/83
Chemical Process Industry
                               5.6-1

-------





Jc
S?
x
0
z




UJ
Z
X
LU
. S
- QJ O
s§!
X -I —
0 0 DC
z 5r 5r










o
- H«
5 H- •


Z
O
U
LL.
K
Q.

LU
0 1-
OC H-
o
i

^^
o

OC
t-

Ili gJJ
LU if
=3 <
-i a
O LU




^
c
3
J
/j
















\






















_j
o
LU
OC




z
x
21
LL.



1



"x
LU O
-1 S/J
" x
U 0
UJ Z
OC — '
1 c
If to


z °
LU U
S; <
_1







^



















111
^^ ^™
5 i-
LL.


5 =
S **

OC
2"
oc|


1-
u
3 •

^^ ^>
H- 0
LU LU
a. OC
00
a z
U 0
< p
X <{
o J
QC
OO
1-
_l
CO
o
Q.
o ;
o J
i
«!C '
O C
^^«o <
0 S
o •
t- <
•**-

_ 0
0
o
1--
CC 01
o -«
«• o
If-


5? m

(0 *

0 ***
S- "*





s 1
Is
2 <
5- QJ
^
1J QQ
S 2
3 -I
U U
/9 LU
a Z
^X_— i




»> z
o E
•* oc
^ ^ HH
ac z
t 0
0
u




                                                                        c
                                                                        o
                                                                        •o
                                                                        o

                                                                        a

                                                                        H
                                                                        CO

                                                                        IT)

                                                                        CD
                                                                        L


                                                                        g>

                                                                        u_
5.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       5/83

-------
washed  to  remove free acid, and  the  wash water (yellow water)  is recycled to
the early  nitration stages.  The washed TNT is then neutralized  with soda ash
and treated  with a 16 percent aqueous  sodium sulfite  (Sellite)  solution to
remove  contaminating isomers.  The Sellite waste solution  (red  water) from the
purification process is discharged directly as a liquid waste  stream, is
collected  and  sold, or is concentrated to a slurry and incinerated.   Finally,
the TNT crystals are melted and  passed through hot air dryers,  where most of
the water  is evaporated.  The dehydrated product is solidified,  and  the TNT
flakes  packaged  for transfer to  a storage or loading  area.
TOLUENE

SPENT ACID

1st
NITRATION

NITRO-
TOLUENE

*
60%HN03
OLEUM
t
2nd
NITRATION

ONT

1
60% HMO 3
3rd
NITRATION
1

PRODUCT
                                                          97% HN03

                  Figure 5.6-2. Nitration of toluene to form trinitrotoluene.
5.6.3  Nitrocellulose Production
                                  1,6
     Nitrocellulose is commonly prepared  by the batch  type  mechanical dipper
process.  A newly  developed continuous  nitration processing method is also
being used.   In batch production,  cellulose in the form  of  cotton linters,
fibers or specially prepared wood  pulp  is purified by  boiling  and bleaching.
The dry and  purified cotton linters  or  wood pulp are added  to  mixed nitric and
sulfuric acid  in metal reaction vessels known as dipping pots.   The reaction
is represented  by:
Cellulose
»•  3HONO,
        j.

 Nitric
 Acid
                                                                 3H2°
                                 Sulfuric  Nitrocellulose
                                   Acid
                  Water
                Sulfuric
                  Acid
Following nitration,  the crude NC is  centrifuged to remove  most  of  the spent
nitrating acids  and  is put through a  series of water washing  and boiling
treatments  to  purify  the final product.
         TABLE  5.6-1.
                  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR THE OPEN BURNING  OF TNT
                          (Ib pollution/ton TNT burned)
                                                                      a,b


Type of
Explosive

Participates Nitrogen
Oxides

Carbon
Monoxide
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
               TNT
                        180.0
150.0
56.0
                                        1.1
            Reference 7.  Paniculate emissions are soot.  VOC is nonmethane.
            The burns were made on very small quantities of TNT, with test
            apparatus designed to simulate open burning conditions.  Since
            such test simulations can never replicate actual open burning,  it
            is advisable to use the factors in this Table with caution.
   5/83
                      Chemical  Process Industry
                                                                            5.6-3

-------
                                                            TABLE  5.6-2.
                                        EMISSION  FACTORS   FOR

                                                EMISSION  FACTOR
        Process
                                             Particulates
kg/Mg
                                                        Ib/ton
                                              Sulfur oxides
                                                 (S02)
                                                                                                    Ib/ton
   TNT -  Batch Process
     Nitration reactors
      Fume  recovery

      Acid  recovery

      Nitric acid concentrators

     Sulfuric acid concentrators
      Electrostatic
         precipator (exit)
      Electrostatic precipitator
         w/scrubber
                                   (2 - 20)
                                     Neg.
                                                               14
                                                               (4 - 40)
                                                                 Neg.
     Red  water  incinerator
       Uncontrolled

       Wet scrubber8
     Sellite exhaust


   TNT -  Continuous Process
     Nitration  reactors
       Fume  recovery

       Acid  recovery

     Red  water  incinerator


   Nitrocellulose11
     Nitration  reactors

     Nitric  acid concentrator

     Sulfuric acid concentrator

     Boiling tubs
12.5
(0.015  -  63)
 0.5
            25
            (0.03  -  L26)
             1
 0.13             0.25
(0.015  - 0.25)    (0.03 - 0.5)
                                        (0.025 - 1.75)
                                         1
                                        (0.025 - 1.75)

                                        29.5
                                        (0.005 - 88)
                                    0. 12
                                   (0.025 - 0.22)
                                    0.7
                                   (0.4 - 1)
                                   34
                                   (0.2 - 67)
(0.05 - 3.5)
 2
(0.05 - 3.5)

59
(0.01 - 177)
                                                             0.24
                                                             (0.05 - 0.43)
                                                             1.4
                                                             (0.8 - 2)
                                                            68
                                                            (0.4-135)
   aFor  some  processes, considerable variations  in  emissions have been reported.   Average  of  reported values
    is shown  first, ranges in parentheses.   Where only one number is given,  only  one source  test was
    available.   Emission factors are in units  of kg of pollutant per Mg and  pounds of pollutanl per  ton of TNT
   ,or Nitrocellulose produced.
    Significant  emissions of volatile organic  compounds have not been reported for the explosives  industr/.
    However,  negligible emissions of toluene and trinitromethane (TNM) from  nitration
    reactors  have been reported in TNT manufacture.   Also, fugitive VOC emissions may result  from
    various solvent recovery operations.   See  Reference 6.

    Reference 5.
   dAcid mist emissions influenced by nitrobody  levels and type of furnace fuel.
   6No data available for NO  emissions after  scrubber.  NO  emissions are assumed unaffected  by scrubber.
5.6-4
  EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               5/R'l

-------
EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING3'b

RATING:    C
Nitrogen oxides
(NO )
kg/Mg Ib/ton
Nitric acid mist
(100% HNO )
kg/Mg Ib/ton
Sulfuric acid mist
(100% H S04)
kg/ ton Ib/ton
 12.5             25          0.5                  1                   -             -
(3 - 19)           (6 - 38)     (0.15 - 0.95)          (0.3 - 1.9)
 27.5             55          46                    92                   -             -
(0.5 - 68)         (1 - 136)    (0.005 - 137)         (0.02 - 275)
 18.5             37           -                   -                  4.5           9
(8 - 36)          (16 - 72)                                            (0.15 - 13.5)   (0.3 - 27)

 20               40           -                   -                 32.5           65
(1 - 40)           (2 - 80)                                            (0.5 - 94)      (1 - 188)
 20                 40         -                   -                  2.5           5
(1 - 40)           (2 - 80)                                            (2 -3)        (4 - 6)


 13               26           -                   -                   -
(0.75 - 50)        (1.5 - 101)
  2.5              5           -                   -                   -             -


   -                -          -                   -                  36
                                                                     (0.3 - 8)       (0.6 - 16)
  4               8             0.5                1                   -             -
 (3.35 - 5)        (6.7 - 10)      (0.15 - 0.95        (0.3 - 1.9)
  1.5             3             0.01               0.02                -             —
 (0.5 - 2.25)       (1 - 4.5)     (0.005 - 0.015)      (0.01 - 0.03)
  3.5              7
 (3 - 4.2)          (6.1 - 8.4)    -


  7               14            9.5               19                    -             -
 (1.85 - 17)        (3.7 - 34)     (0.25 - 18)        (0.5 - 36)
  7               14             -                 -                   -             -
 (5 - 9)          (10 - 18)
   -                -            -                 -                  0.3           0.6
 Use low end  of range for modern efficient units,  high end for less  efficient units.
 Apparent reductions in NO  and particulate after  control may not  be significant,  because these values  are
.based on only one test result.
.Reference 4.
 For product  with low nitrogen content (12%),  use  high end of range.  For products with higher
 nitrogen content, use lower end of range.
5/83                                Chemical  Process  Industry                    5.6-5

-------
                             2-3 5-7
3.6.4  Emissions and Controls"  '

     Oxides of nitrogen (NUX) and sulfur  (SOX) are  the major  emissions  from
the processes involving the manufacture, concentration and  recovery  of  acids
in the nitration process of explosives manufacturing.  Emissions  from the
manufacture of nitric and sulfuric acid are discussed in other  Sections of
this publication.  Trinitromethane (TNM) is a gaseous byproduct of  the
nitration process of TNT manufacture.  Volatile organic compound  emissions
result primarily from fugitive vapors from various  solvent  recovery
operations.  Explosive wastes and contaminated packaging material are
regularly disposed of by open burning, and such results in  uncontrolled
emissions, mainly of NOX and particulate matter.  Experimental  burns  of
several explosives  to determine "typical" emission  factors  for  the  open
burning of TNT are presented in Table 5.6-1.
     In the manufacture of TNT, emissions from  the  nitrators  containing NO,
N02, N20, trinitromethane (TNM) and some  toluene are passed through  a fume
recovery system  to extract NOX as nitric acid, and  then are vented  through
scrubbers to the atmosphere.  Final emissions contain quantities  of  unabsorbed
NOX and TNM.  Emissions may also come from the production of  Sellite  solution
and the incineration of red water.  Red water incineration  results  in
atmospheric emissions of NO , SO  and ash (primarily Na SO..)
                           X    ^                      *—  T1

     In the manufacture of nitrocellulose, emissions from reactor pots  and
centrifuge are vented to an NOX water absorber.  The weak UNO3  solution is
transferred to the acid concentration system.  Absorber emissions are mainly
NOX.  Another possible source of emissions is the boiling  tubs, where steam
and acid vapors  vent to the absorber.

     The most important fact affecting emissions from explosives  ruanufacture
is the type and  efficiency of the manufacturing process.  The efficiency of
the acid and fume recovery systems for TNT manufacture will directly affect
the atmospheric  emissions.  In addition,  the degree to which  acids  are  exposed
to the atmosphere during the manufacturing process  affects  the  NOX  and  SOX
emissions.  For  nitrocellulose production, emissions are influenced  by  the
nitrogen content and the desired product quality.   Operating  conditions will
also affect emissions.  Both TNT and nitrocellulose can be  produced  in  batch
processes.  Such processes may never reach steady state, and  emission
concentrations may vary considerably with time, and fluctuations  in  emissions
will influence the efficiency of control methods.

     Several measures may be taken to reduce emissions from explosive
manufacturing.   The effects of various control devices and  process  changes,
along with emission factors for explosives manufacturing, are shown  in
Table 5.6-2.  The emission factors are all related  to  the amount  of  product
produced and are appropriate either  for estimating  long  term  emissions  or  for
evaluating plant operation at full production conditions.   For  short time
periods, or for  plants with intermittent operating  schedules, the emission
 5.6-6                          LMISSION  FACTORS

-------
factors in Table 5.6-2 should be used with caution, because processes not
associated with the nitration step are often not in operation at the same  time
as the nitration reactor.

References for Section 5.6

1.   R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill Book
     Company, New York, 1967.

2.   Unpublished data on emissions from explosives manufacturing, Office of
     Criteria and Standards, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
     Durham, NC, June 1970.

3.   F. B. Higgins, Jr., et al._,  "Control of Air Pollution From TNT
     Manufacturing", Presented at 60th annual meeting of Air Pollution Control
     Association, Cleveland, OH, June 1967.

4.   Air Pollution Engineering Source Sampling Surveys, Radford Army
     Ammunition Plant, U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood
     Arsenal, MD, July 1967, July 1968.

-*•   Air Pollution Engineering Source Sampling Surveys, Volunteer Army
     Ammunition Plant and Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, U. S. Army Environmental
     Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, MD, July 1967, July 1968.

6.   Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use:  The Explosives Industry,
     EPA-600/2-77-0231, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, February 1977.

7.   Specific Air Pollutants from Munitions Processing and Their Atmospheric^
     Behavior, Volume 4;  Open Burning and Incineration of Waste Munitions,
     Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.
  5/83
                           Chemical Process Industry                     5.6-7

-------
5.10 PAINT AND VARNISH

5.10.1  Paint Manufacturing

     The manufacture of paint involves  the dispersion of a  colored  oil  or
pigment in a vehicle, usually an oil or resin, followed by  the addition of  an
organic solvent for viscosity adjustment.  Only the physical processes  of
weighing, mixing, grinding, tinting, thinning and packaging take place.  No
chemical reactions are involved.

     These processes take place in large mixing tanks at approximately  room
temperature.

     The primary factors affecting emissions from paint manufacture are care
in handling dry pigments, types of solvents used and mixing temperature.
About 1 or 2 percent of the solvent is  lost even under well controlled
conditions.  Particulate emissions amount to 0.5 to 1.0 percent of  the  pigment
handled.

     Afterburners can reduce emitted volatile organic compounds (VOC) by
99 percent and particulates by about 90 percent.  A water spray and oil filter
system can reduce particulate emissions from paint blending by 90 percent.

5.10.2  Varnish Manufacturing   '

     The manufacture of varnish also involves the mixing and blending of
various ingredients to produce a wide range of products.  However in this
case, chemical reactions are initiated  by heating.  Varnish is cooked in
either open or enclosed gas fired kettles for periods of 4  to 16 hours  at
temperatures of 93 to 340°C (200 to 650°F).

     Varnish cooking emissions, largely in the form of volatile organic
compounds, depend on the cooking temperatures and times, the solvent used,  the
degree of tank enclosure and the type of air pollution controls used.
Emissions from varnish cooking range from 1 to 6 percent of the raw material.

     To reduce organic compound emissions from the manufacture of paint and
varnish, control techniques include condensers and/or adsorbers on  solvent
handling operations, and scrubbers and  afterburners on cooking operations.
Afterburners can reduce volatile organic compounds by 99 percent.   Emission
factors for paint and varnish are shown in Table 5.10-1.
 5/83                     Chemical Process  Industry                       5.10-1

-------
          TABLE 5.10-1.   UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAINT AND
                           VARNISH MANUFACTURING3'

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Particulate
Type of
product
Paintd
Varnish
Bodying oil
Oleoresinous
Alkyd
Acrylic
kg/Mg
pigment
10

-
-
-
—
Ib/ton
pigment
20

-
-
-
—
No nme thane VOC
kg/Mg
of product
15

20
75
80
10
Ib/ton
of product
30

40
150
160
20
      References 2, 4-8.
       Afterburners can reduce VOC emissions by 99% and
       particulates by about 90%.  A water spray and oil filter
       system can reduce particulates by about 90%.
      /^
       Expressed as undefined organic compounds whose composition depends
       upon the type of solvents used in the manfacture of paint and
       varnish.
       Reference 4.  Particulate matter (0.5 - 1.0 %) is emitted from
       pigment handling.

References for Section 5.10

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

2.   R. L. Stenburg, "Controlling Atmospheric Emissions from Paint and Varnish
     Operations, Part I", Paint and Varnish Production, September 1959.

3.   Private Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and
     National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, Washington, DC.,
     September 1969.

4.   Unpublished engineering estimates based on plant visits in Washington,
     DC, Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, October 1969.

5.   Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.

6.   E. G. Lunche, et al., "Distribution Survey of Products Emitting Organic
     Vapors in Los Angeles County",  Chemical Engineering Progress,
     53(8):371-376, August 1957.
5.10-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                           5/33

-------
7.   Communication on emissions from paint and varnish operations between
     Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and G. Sallee, Midwest Research
     Institute, Kansas City, MO, December 17, 1969.

8.   Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and Roger
     Higgins, Benjamin Moore Paint Company, June 25, 1968.
5/83                     Chemical Process Industry                     5.10-3

-------
5.12  PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE

5.12.1   General1

   Phthalic anhydride (PAN) production in the United States in 1972 was 0.9 billion pounds per year;
this total is estimated to increase to 2.2 billion pounds per year by 1985. Of the current production, 50
percent is used for plasticizers, 25 percent for alkyd resins, 20 percent for unsaturated polyester resins,
and 5 percent for miscellaneous and exports. PAN is produced by catalytic oxidation of either ortho-
xylene or naphthalene. Since naphthalene is a higher priced feedstock and has a lower feed utilization
(about 1.0 Ib PAN/lb o-xylene versus 0.97 Ib PAN/lb naphthalene), future production  growth is pre-
dicted to utilize o-xylene. Because emission factors are intended for future as well as present applica-
tion, this report will focus mainly on PAN production utilizing o-xylene as the main  feedstock.

   The  processes for producing PAN by o-xylene or naphthalene are the same except for reactors,
catalyst handling, and recovery facilities required for fluid bed reactors.

   In PAN production using o-xylene as the basic feedstock, filtered air is preheated, compressed, and
mixed with vaporized o-xylene and fed into the fixed-bed tubular reactors. The reactors contain the
catalyst, vanadium pentoxide, and are operated at 650  to 725°F (340  to 385°C). Small amounts of
sulfur dioxide are added to the reactor feed to maintain catalyst activity. Exothermic heat is removed
by a molten salt bath circulated around the reactor tubes and transferred to a steam generation system.

   Naphthalene-based feedstock is made up of vaporized naphthalene and  compressed air.  It is
transferred to the fluidized bed reactor and oxidized in the presence of a catalyst, vanadium pent-
oxide, at 650'  to 725° F (340 to 385° C). Cooling tubes located in the catalyst bed remove the exothermic
heat which is used to produce high-pressure steam. The reactor effluent consists of PAN vapors, en-
trained catalyst, and various by-products and non-reactant gas. The catalyst is removed by filtering and
returned to the reactor.

   The  chemical  reactions for air oxidation of o-xylene and naphthalene are as follows.
302
                                                                  3H20
             o-xylene  +  oxygen
                       phthalic
                       anhydride
water
                               4% 02
             naphthalene    -t-    oxygen<
                                               2C02
5/83
    Chemical Process Industry
                                                                           dioxide
                                                                                     5.12,1

-------
The reactor effluent containing crude PAN plus products from side reactions and excess oxygen passes
to a series of switch condensers where the crude PAN cools and crystallizes. The condensers are alter-
nately cooled and then heated, allowing PAN crystals to form and then melt from the condenser tube             m
fins.                                                                                                     ™

   The crude liquid is transferred to a pretreatment section in which phthalic acid is dehydrated to
anhydride. Water, maleic anhydride, and benzoic acid are partially evaporated. The liquid then goes
to a vacuum distillation section where pure PAN (99.8 wt. percent pure) is recovered. The product can
be stored and shipped either as a liquid or a solid (in which case it is dried, flaked, and packaged in
multi-wall paper bags). Tanks for holding liquid PAN are kept at 300°F (150° C) and blanketed with
dry nitrogen to prevent the entry of oxygen (fire) or water vapor (hydrolysis to phthalic acid).

   Maleic anhydride is currently the only by-product being recovered.

   Figures 1 and 2 show the process flow for air oxidation of o-xylene and naphthalene, respectively.

5.12.2  Emissions and Controls1

   Emissions from o-xylene and naphthalene storage are small and presently are not controlled.

   The major contributor of emissions is the reactor and condenser effluent which is vented from the
condenser unit.  Paniculate, sulfur oxides (for o-xylene-based production), and carbon monoxide
make up the emissions, with carbon monoxide comprising over half the total. The most efficient (96
percent) system of control  is the  combined usage of a  water scrubber  and  thermal incinerator. A
thermal incinerator alone is approximately 95 percent  efficient in combustion of pollutants for o-
xylene-based production, and 80 percent efficient for naphthalene-based production. Thermal incin-
erators with steam generation show the same efficiencies as  thermal incinerators alone. Scrubbers
have a 99 percent efficiency in collecting particulates, but are practically ineffective: in reducing car-            ^B
bon monoxide emissions. In naphthalene-based production, cyclones can be used to control catalyst            ^
dust emissions with 90 to 98 percent efficiency.

   Pretreatment and distillation emissions—particulates and hydrocarbons—are normally processed
through the water scrubber and/or incinerator used for the  main process stream (reactor and con-
denser) or scrubbers alone, with the same efficiency percentages applying.

   Product storage in the  liquid phase results in small amounts of gaseous emissions. These gas
streams can either be sent to the  main process vent gas control devices or first processed through
sublimation boxes or devices used to recover escaped PAN. Flaking and bagging emissions are negli-
gible, but can be sent to a cyclone for recovery of PAN dust. Exhaust from the cyclone presents no
problem.

    Table 5.12-1 gives emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled emissions from the production
of PAJV.
5.12-2                           EMISSION FACTORS                            5/83

-------
ULATE
OXIDE
ONOXIDE
i
PARTIC
SULFUR
CARBON M
J

s
o5S £
S-g|
«?>&;«
SE^S"
, rl O •— ^,,i. ,,.
* " n < <
I
CRUDE
PRODUCT
STORAGE

SWITCH
CONDENSERS
i
                                                     l
                                                     Z
                                                     K
                                                     LU
                                                                                   O

                                                                                   '(O
                                                                                   tn
                                                                                   (D

                                                                                   0)
                                                                                   X

                                                                                   6

                                                                                   o>
                                                                                    0)
                                                                                   •
                                                          C
                                                          CO

                                                          o
                                                                                    Q.
                                                          E
                                                          n>
                                                          i_
                                                          o>
                                                          (O

                                                         TJ


                                                          O
                                                                                   CM


                                                                                   uri

                                                                                    CD
                                                                                    t_
                                                                                    3
                                                                                    O)
                                                     cc z
                                                     h- LU

                                                     S5
5/83
Chemical Process Industry
                                                    5.12-3

-------
5.12-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                5/83

-------
                TABLE  5.12-1.    EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  PHTHALIC  ANHYDRIDE'
                                      EMISSION  FACTOR  RATING:  B
                                 Particulate
                                                      SO
                                                                   Nonmethane VOC
                                                                                           CO
             Process
                               kg/Mg
     Ib/ton   kg/Mg     Ib/ton
         kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
                                                                                             Ib/ton
  Oxidation of o-xylene

     Main process stream
       Uncontrolled                69e     138e
       W/scrubber and thermal
         incinerator                3       6
       W/thermal incinerator         4       7
       W/incinerator with
         steam generator            4       7

     Pretreatment
       Uncontrolled                 6.48    138
       W/scrubber and thermal
              4.7
              4.7
              4.7
              4.7
9.41

9.4
9.4

9.4
                                                    151

                                                     6
                    301

                     12
                     15

                     15
incinerator
W/ thermal incinerator
Distillation
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/ thermal incinerator
Oxidation of naphthalene
Main process s tream
Uncontrolled
W/ thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Pretreatment
Uncontrolled
W/ thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Distillation
Uncontrol led
W/ thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
0.3
0.4

45e

2
2


28 '
6
0.3

2.5
0.5
<0.1
j
191
4
0.2
0.5
0.7

89e

4
4

i k
561'
11
0.6

5^
1
<0.1
J
381
8
0.4
0
0

0

0
0


0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0


0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1.2e'h

<0.1
<0.1


0
0
0

0
0
0
hj
., >i
1
<0.1
0
0

2.4e'h

< 0.1
0.1


0
0
0

0
0
0

10
2
0.1
0
0

0

0
0


50
10
50

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0


100
20
100

0
0
0

0
0
0
   Reference 1.  Factors are in kg  of pollutant/Mg (Ib/ton) of phthalic anhydride produced.

   Emissions contain no methane.

   Control devices listed are those currently being used by phthalic anhydride plants.

  Tlain process stream includes reactor and multiple switch condensers as vented through condenser unit.

   Consists of phthalic anhydride,  raalelc anhydride, benzole acid.

   Value shown corresponds to relatively fresh catalyst, which can change with catalyst age.  Can be 9.5 - 13 kg/Mg
   (19 - 25 Ib/ton) for aged catalyst.
  o
  "Consists of phthalic anhydride and maleic anhydride.

   Normally a vapor, but can be present as a paniculate at low temperature.

   Consists of phthalic anhydride,  maleic anhydride, naphthaquinone.

  •'Particulate is phthalic anhydride.
  ^
   Does not include catalyst dust,  controlled by cyclones with efficiency of 90 - 98%.
Reference for Section  5.12

1.     Engineering and Cost  Study  of  Air  Pollution  Control for  the
       Petrochemical  Industry,   Vol.  7;   Phthalic Anhydride Manufacture
       from Ortho-xylene,  EPA-450/3-73-006g,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection
       Agency,  Research  Triangle Park,  NC, July  1975.
 5/83
Chemical  Process Industry
                               5.12-5

-------
5.14 PRINTING INK
5.14.1  Process Description1

   There are four major classes of printing ink: letterpress and lithographic inks, commonly called oil or paste
inks; and flexographic and rotogravure inks, which are referred to as solvent inks. These inks vary considerably in
physical appearance, composition, method of application, and drying mechanism. Flexographic and rotogravure
inks have many elements in common with the paste inks but differ in that they are of very low viscosity, and they
almost always dry by evaporation of highly volatile solvents.2


   There are three general processes in the manufacture of printing inks: (1) cooking the vehicle and adding dyes,
(2) grinding of a pigment into the vehicle using a roller mill, and (3) replacing water in the wet pigment pulp by
an ink vehicle (commonly known as the flushing process).3 The ink "varnish" or vehicle is generally cooked in
large kettles at  200° to  600°F (93° to 315°C) for an average of 8 to 12 hours in much the same way that regular
varnish is made. Mixing  of the pigment and vehicle is  done in dough mixers or in large agitated tanks. Grinding is
most often carried out in three-roller or five-roller horizontal or vertical mills.


5.14.2  Emissions and Controls1'4

   Varnish or vehicle preparation by heating is by far the largest source of ink manufacturing emissions. Cooling
the varnish components - resins, drying oils, petroleum oils, and  solvents - produces odorous emissions. At
about 350°F (175°C) the products begin to decompose, resulting  in the emission of decomposition products
from the cooking vessel. Emissions continue throughout the cooking process with the maximum rate of emissions
occuring just after the  maximum temperature has been reached.  Emissions from the cooking phase can be
reduced by more than 90 percent with the use of scrubbers or condensers followed by afterburners.4'5


   Compounds  emitted from the cooking of oleoresinous varnish (resin plus varnish) include water vapor, fatty
acids, glycerine, acrolein, phenols, aldehydes, ketones, terpene  oils, terpenes, and carbon dioxide. Emissions of
thinning solvents used in flexographic and rotogravure inks may also occur.


   The quantity, composition, and  rate  of emissions  from  ink  manufacturing depend  upon  the cooking
temperature and time, the ingredients, the method of introducing additives, the degree of stirring, and the extent
of air or inert gas blowing.  Particulate emissions  resulting from the addition of pigments to  the vehicle  are
affected by  the type of pigment and its particle size. Emission factors for the  manufacture  of printing ink  are
presented in Table 5.14-1.
 5/83                                Chemical Process Industry                              5.14-1

-------
             TABLE 5.14-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRINTING INK
                              MANUFACTURING3

                        EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

Nontne thane ,
volatile organic compounds

Type of process
Vehicle cooking
General
Oils
Oleoresinous
Alkyds
Pigment mixing
kg/Mg
of product

60
20
75
80
NA
Ib/ton
of product

120
40
150
160
NA
Particulates
kg/Mg
of pigment

NA
NA
NA
NA
1
Ib/ton
of pigment

NA
NA
NA
NA
2
 Based on data from Section 5.10, Paint and Varnish.  NA = not applicable.

 The nonmethane VOC emissions are a mix of volatilized vehicle components,
 cooking decomposition products and ink solvent.

References for Section 5.14

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

2.   R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed., New York, McGraw
     Hill Book Co., 1967.

3.   L. M. Larsen, Industrial Printing Inks, New York, Reinhold Publishing
     Company, 1962.

4.   Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Edition, AP-40, U. 3. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.

5,   Private communication with Ink Division of Interchemical Corporation,
     Cincinnati, Ohio, November 10, 1969.
5.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                          5/83

-------
5.15  SOAP AND  DETERGENTS

5.15.1   Soap Manufacture

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

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

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

     Blending,  mixing,  drying, packaging  and other physical operations are
subject  to dust  emissions.  The production of soap powder by spray  drying  is
the largest  single source  of dust  in  the  manufacture of soap.  Dust emissions
from finishing  operations  other than  spray drying can  be controlled by dry
filters  and  baghouses.  The large  size of  the particulates in soap  drying
means that high  efficiency cyclones installed in  series can be satisfactory in
controlling  emissions.

5.15.2   Detergent Manufacture
                   i 7_Q
Process  Description  '    - The manufacture of spray  dried detergent has three
main processing  steps, slurry  preparation, spray  drying and granule handling.
Figure 5.15-1 illustrates  the  various operations.  Detergent slurry is produced
by blending  liquid surfactant  with powdered  and liquid materials (builders and
other additives) in  a closed mixing tank  called a crutcher.  Liquid surfactant
used in  making  the detergent slurry is produced by the sulfonation  or sulfation
by sulfuric  acid of  a linear alkylate or  a fatty  acid, which is then neutralized
with caustic solution (NaOH).  The blended slurry is held in a surge vessel
for continuous  pumping  to  the  spray dryer.   The slurry is sprayed at high
pressure  through nozzles into  a vertical  drying tower  having a stream of hot
air of from 315° to  400°C  (600° to 750°F).   Most  towers designed for detergent
production are  countercurrent, with slurry introduced  at the top and heated

5/83                        Chemical Process  Industry                    5.15-1

-------
      e>
   C3
   cc
   a.
   CO
   cc
   
O)

a3
+-•
a>
0)

'l_
-o

>
CO

Q.
CO

M—
O

(U
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 ca
 CD






IT)


LO

 
-------
air introduced at the bottom.  A few towers are concurrent and have  both  hot
air and slurry introduced at the top.  The detergent granules are mechanically
or air conveyed from the tower to a mixer  to incorporate additional  dry or
liquid ingredients and finally sent to packaging and storage.
                      7—ft
Emissions and Controls    - In the batching and mixing of fine dry ingredients
to form slurry, dust emissions are generated at scale hoppers, mixers and the
crutcher.  Baghouses and/or fabric filters are used not only to  reduce or to
eliminate the dust emissions but to recover raw materials.  The  spray drying
operation is the major source of particulate emissions from detergent manu-
facturing.  Particulate emissions from spray drying operations are shown  in
Table 5,15-1.  There is also a minor source of volatile organics when the
product being sprayed contains organic materials with low vapor  pressures.
These vaporized organic materials condense in the tower exhaust  air  stream
into droplets or particles.  Dry cyclones and cyclonic impingement scrubbers
are the primary collection equipment employed to capture the detergent dust in
the spray dryer exhaust for return to process.  Dry cyclones are used in
parallel or in series, to collect particulate (detergent dust) and to recycle
the dry product back to the crutcher.  Cyclonic impinged scrubbers are used in
parallel to collect the particulate in a scrubbing slurry which  is recycled
back to the crutcher.  Secondary collection equipment is used to collect  the
fine particulates that have escaped from the primary devices.  Cyclonic
impingement scrubbers are often followed by mist eliminators, and dry cyclones
are followed by fabric filters or scrubber/electrostatic precipitator units.
Conveying, mixing and packaging of detergent granules can cause  dust emissions.
Usually baghouses and/or fabric filters provide the best control.
         TABLE 5.15-1.
PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPRAY DRYING
          DETERGENTS3

   EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B


Control
Device
Uncontrolled
Cyclone
Cyclone
w/Spray chamber
w/Packed scrubber
w/Venturi scrubber

Overall
Efficiency, %
_
85

92
95
97
Particulate
kg/Mg of
product
45
7

3.5
2.5
1.5
Emissions
Ib/ton of
product
90
14

7
5
3
       References  2-6.   Emissions data for volatile organic compounds has
      .not  been  reported in the literature.
       Some type of  primary collector, such as a cyclone, is considered
       an integral part  of  the spray drying system.
5/83
   Chemical  Process Industry
5.15-3

-------
References for Section 5.15

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

2.   A. H. Phelps, "Air Pollution Aspects of Soap and Detergent Manufacture",
     Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 17_(8): 505-507, August
     1967.

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

4.   G. P. Larsen, et al., "Evaluating Sources of Air Pollution", Industrial
     and Engineering Chemistry, 45_: 1070-1074, May 1953.

5.   P. Y. McCormick, et al., "Gas-solid Systems", Chemical Engineer's Handbook,
     J. H. Perry (ed.), New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963.

6.   Communication with Maryland State Department of Health, Baltimore, MD,
     November 1969.

7.   J. A. Danielson, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, May 1973.

8.   Source Category Survey; Detergent Industry, EPA-450/3-80-030,  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NG, June 1980.
5.15-4                         EMISSION FACTORS                              5/83

-------
5.21  Terephthalic Acid

5.21.1  Process Description

     Terephthalic acid  (TPA)  is made by air oxidation of j>-xylene and requires
purification for use  in  polyester  fiber manufacture.   A typical continuous
process for the manufacture  of  crude terephthalic acid (C-TPA) is shown in
Figure 5.21-1.  The oxidation and  product recovery portion essentially
consists of the Mid-Century  oxidation process,  whereas the recovery and
recycle of acetic acid and recovery  of methyl acetate are essentially as
practiced by dimethyl terephthalate  (DMT) technology.  The purpose of the
DMT process is to convert the terephthalic acid contained in G-TPA to a form
that will permit its  separation from impurities.   C-TPA is extremely insoluble
in both water and most common organic solvents.  Additionally, it does not
melt, it sublimes.  Some products  of partial oxidation of p-xylene, such as
£-toluic acid and £-formyl benzoic acid,  appear as impurities in TPA.
Methyl acetate is also formed in significant amounts  in the reaction.
(AktllbHUU
 SOLVENT)
O
                        CH3  +  302

                  (p-XYLENE)      (AIR)
                     0       0
            CAT      H  / — \  I'
                  HO-C-/   Y-C— OH

                        ^ - '
                  (TEREPHTHALIC ACID)

                  CO      +    C02
                                                                 2H20

                                                                 (WATER)

                                                                +     H20
C-TPA Production

Oxidation of £-xylene - £-xylene  (stream 1  of  Figure 5.21-1), fresh acetic
acid (2), a catalyst system,  such  as  manganese or  cobalt acetate and sodium
bromide  (3), and recovered acetic  acid  are  combined into the liquid feed
entering the reactor (5).  Air  (6), compressed to  a reaction pressure of
about 2000 kPa (290 psi) , is  fed  to the reactor.   The temperature of the
exothermic reaction is maintained  at  about  200°C  (392°F) by controlling the
pressure at which the reaction  mixture  is permitted to boil and form the
vapor stream leaving the reactor  (7).

     Inert gases, excess oxygen,  CO,  C02, and  volatile organic compounds
(VOC) (8) leave the gas/liquid  separator and are sent to the high pressure
absorber.  This stream is scrubbed with water  under pressure, resulting in a
gas stream (9) of reduced VOC content.   Part of the discharge from the
high pressure absorber is dried and is  used as a source of inert gas (IG) ,
and the remainder is passed through a pressure control valve and a noise
silencer before being discharged  to the atmosphere through process vent A.
The underflow (23) from the absorber  is sent to the azeotrope still for
recovery of acetic acid.

Crystallization and Separation  -  The  reactor liquid containing TPA (10)
flows to a series of crystallizers, where the  pressure is relieved and the
5/83
Chemical Process Industry
                                                                        5.21-1

-------
r
*



. ! <
T
_l-

                                                                                      to
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                      Q)
                                                                                      U
                                                                                      O
                                                                                      t-t
                                                                                      PH
                                                                                      u
                                                                                      •H
                                                                                      rH
                                                                                      CO

                                                                                      4-1

                                                                                      IX
                                                                                      
-------
 liquid  is cooled  by  the  vaporization and  return of  condensed VOC and water.
 The partially oxidized impurities  are more  soluble  in acetic acid and tend
 to remain in solution, while  TPA crystallizes  from  the liquor.  The inert
 gas that was dissolved and  entrained in the liquid  under pressure is
 released when the pressure  is relieved and  is  subsequently vented to the
 atmosphere along  with the contained  VOC  (B).   The slurry (11) fron the
 crystallizers is  sent to solid/liquid separators, where the TPA is recovered
 as a wet cake (14).  The mother  liquor (12) from the solid/liquid separators
 is sent to the  distillation section, while  the vent gas (13) is discharged
 to the  atmosphere (B).

 Drying, Handling  and Storage  - The wet cake (14) from solid/liquid
 separation is sent  to dryers,  where  with  the use of heat and IG, the
 moisture, predominately  acetic acid, is removed, leaving the product, C-TPA,
 as dry  free flowing  crystals  (19).   IG is used to convey the product (19) to
 storage silos.  The  transporting gas (21) is vented from the silos to bag
 dust collectors to reduce its particulate loading,  then is discharged to the
 atmosphere (D).   The solids (S)  from the  bag filter can be forwarded to
 purification or can  be incinerated.

     Hot VOC laden IG from  the drying operation is  cooled to condense and
 recover VOC (18).  The cooled IG (16)  is  vented to  the atmosphere (B),  and
 the condensate  (stream 18)  is sent to the azeotrope still for recovery of
 acetic acid.

 Distillation and  Recovery - The  mother liquor  (12)  from solid/liquid
 separation flows  to  the  residue  still, where acetic acid, methyl acetate and
water are recovered  overhead  (26)  and product  residues are discarded.  The
 overhead (26)  is  sent to the  azeotrope still where  dry acetic acid is
 obtained by using ji-propyl  acetate as  the water removing agent.

The aqueous phase (28)  contains  saturation  amounts  of ri-propyl acetate  and
methyl acetate,  which are stripped from the aqueous matter in the wastewater
still.   Part of  the bottoms product  is used as process water in absorption,
and the remainder (N) is sent  to wastewater treatment.  A purge stream of
 the organic phase (30)  goes to the methyl acetate still,  where methyl
acetate and saturation amounts of  water are recovered as an overhead product
 (31) and are disposed of as a  fuel (M).  jn-propyl acetate,  obtained as  the
bottoms product (32), is returned  to the  azeotrope  still.  Process losses of
_n-propyl acetate  are made up  from  storage (33).   A  small amount of inert
 gas, which is used for blanketing  and  instrument purging, is emitted to the
 atmosphere through vent  C.

 C-TPA Purification

     The purification portion  of the Mid-Century oxidation process involves
 the hydrogenation of C-TPA  over  a  palladium containing catalyst at about
232°C (450°F).  High purity TPA  is recrystallized from a high pressure water
solution of the  hydrogenated  material.

     The Olin-Mathieson  manufacturing  process  is similar to the Mid-Century
process except  the former uses 95  percent oxygen, rather than air, as the
oxidizing agent.  The final purification  step  consists essentially of a

 5/83                      Chemical Process  Industry                    5.21-3

-------
continuous sublimation and condensation procedure.  The C-TPA  is  combined
with small quantities of hydrogen and a solid catalyst, dispersed in  steam,
and transported to a furnace.  There the C-TPA is vaporized  and certain of              •
the contained impurities are catalytically destroyed.  Catalyst and non-
volatile impurities are removed in a series of filters, after  which the pure
TPA is condensed and transported to storage silos.

5.21.2  Emissions and Controls

     A general characterization of the atmospheric emissions from the
production of C-TPA is difficult, because of the variety of  processes.
Emissions vary considerably, both qualitatively and quantitatively.   The
Mid-Century oxidation process appears to be one of the lowest  polluters,  and
its predicted preeminence will suppress future emissions totals.

     The reactor gas at vent A normally contains nitrogen  (from air oxidation);
unreacted oxygen; unreacted _p_-xylene; acetic acid (reaction  solvent); carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methyl acetate from oxidation  of p--xylene and
acetic acid not recovered by the high pressure absorber; and water.   The;
quantity of VOC emitted at vent A can vary with absorber pressure and the
temperature of exiting vent gases.  During crystallization of  terephthalic
acid and separation of crystalized solids from the solvent (by centrifuge or
filters), noncondensible gases carrying VOC are released.  These  vented
gases and the C-TPA dryer vent gas are combined and released to the atmosphere
at vent B.  Different methods used in this process can affect  the amounts of
noncondensible gases and accompanying VOC emitted from this vent.

     Gases released from the distillation section at vent  C are the small
amount of gases dissolved in the feed stream to distillation;  the  inert gas
used in inert blanketing, instrument purging pressure control; and the VOC
vapors carried by the noncondensable gases.  The quantity  of this  discharge
is usually small.

     The gas vented from the bag filters on the product storage tanks (silos)
(D) is dry, reaction generated inert gas containing the VOC  not absorbed in
the high pressure absorber.  The vented gas stream contains  a  small quantity
of TPA particulate that is not removed by the bag filters.

     Performance of carbon adsorption control technology for a VOC gas
stream similar to the reactor vent gas (A) and product transfer vent  gas (D)
has been demonstrated, but, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions will not be
reduced.  An alternative to the carbon adsorption system is a  thermal oxidizer
which provides reduction of both CO and VOC.

     Emission sources and factors for the C-TPA process are presented in
Table 5.21-1.
5.21-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                             5/83

-------
               TABLE 5.21-1.  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                      CRUDE TEREPHTHALIC ACID MANUFACTURE3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C


                                  Stream      	Emissions  (g/kg)
                                Designation                 ,
      Emission Source         (Figure 5.21-1) Nonmethane VOC  'C    C0°
Reactor vent
Crystallization,
separation, drying vent
Distillation and
recovery vent
Product transfer
vent
A
B
C
D
15
1.9
1.1
1.8
17
-
-
2
       Factors are expressed as g of pollutant/kg of product produced.
      .Dash = not applicable.
       Reference 1.  VOC gas stream consists of methyl acetate, _p_-xylene,
       and acetic acid.  No methane was found.
       Reference 1.  Typically, thermal oxidation results in >99% reduction
       of VOC and CO.  Carbon adsorption gives a 97% reduction of VOC
       .only (Reference 1).
       Stream contains 0.7 g of TPA particulates/kg.  VOC and CO emissions
       originated in reactor offgas (IG) used for transfer.

References for Section 5.21

1.   S. W. Dylewski, Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Volume 7;  Selected
     Processes, EPA-450/3-80-028b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1981.

2.   D. F. Durocher, et al., Screening Study To Determine Need for Standards
     of Performance for New Sources of Dimethyl Terephthalate and Terephthalic
     Acid Manufacturing, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1316, Radian Corporation,
     Austin, TX, July 1976.

3.   J. W. Pervier, et al., Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the
     Petrochemical Industry, Volume II, EPA-450/3-73-005b, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1974.
 5/83                     Chemical Process Industry                     5.21-5

-------

-------
 5.24 MALE1C  ANHYDRIDE

 5.24.1  General1

     The dominant end use  of maleic  anhydride  (MA)  is  in the production of
 unsaturated  polyester resins.   These laminating  resins,  which have high
 structural strength  and  good dielectric  properties,  have a variety of
 applications  in automobile  bodies, building  panels,  molded boats,  chemical
 storage tanks, lightweight  pipe, machinery housings,  furniture,  radar
 domes, luggage and bathtubs.   Other  end  products are  fumaric acid,
 agricultural  chemicals,  alkyd  resins,  lubricants,  copolymers, plastics,
 succinic acid, surface active  agents,  and more.   In  the  United States,  one
 plant uses only n-butane and another uses n-butane  for 20 percent  of its
 feedstock, but the primary  raw material  used in  the  production of  MA is
 benzene.  The MA industry  is converting  old  benzene  plants and building new
 plants to use n-butane.  MA also is  a  byproduct  of  the production  of
 phthalic anhydride.  It  is  a solid at  room temperature but is a liquid  or
 gas during production.   It  is  a strong irritant  to  skin, eyes and  mucous
 membranes of  the upper respiratory system.

     The model MA plant, as described  in this  Section, has a benzene to MA
 conversion rate of 94.5  percent, has a capacity  of  22,700 megagrams
 (25,000 tons) of MA  produced per year, and runs  8000 hours per year.

     Because of a lack of data on the  n-butane process,  this discussion
 covers only  the benzene  oxidation process.
                            2
 5.24.2  Process Description

     Maleic anhydride is produced by the controlled  air  oxidation  of
benzene,  illustrated by  the following  chemical reaction:


                             V2°5
     2 C,H,   +  9 09             »      2 C.H0CL  +   H00  +   4  CO,
        DO          L        -u n           4 Z j        Z           2
                             MoO

     Benzene   Oxygen                    Maleic      Water      Carbon
                                         anhydride                dioxide

     Vaporized benzene and  air are mixed and heated  before entering the
 tubular reactor.   Inside the reactor,  the benzene/air  mixture is reacted in
 the presence of a catalyst which contains approximately  70 percent vanadium
pentoxide (V90S),  with usually 25 to 30  percent  molybdenum trioxide (Mo03),
forming a vapor of MA, water and carbon  dioxide.  The  vapor,  which may  also
contain oxygen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, benzene, maleic acid,
 formaldehyde, formic acid and  other  compounds  from side  reactions, leaves
 the reactor and is cooled and  partially  condensed so that about  40 percent
of the MA is recovered in a crude liquid state.  The effluent is then passed
through a separator which directs the  liquid to  storage  and the  remaining
vapor to the product recovery  absorber.  The absorber  contacts the vapor
with water, producing a  liquid  of about  40 percent maleic acid.  The

 5/83                      Chemical Process Industry                     5.24-1

-------
                                                                                  ta
                                                                                  "a.


                                                                                  I
                                                                                  o

                                                                                  E
                                                                                  I
                                                                             55   E
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  u
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  S
                                                                                  a
                                                                                  CD
                       CO V}
5.24-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
5/83

-------
40 percent mixture is converted  to MA, usually  by  azeotropic  distillation
with xylene.  Some processes may use a double effect  vacuum evaporator  at
this point.  The effluent  then flows to  the  xylene stripping  column  where
the xylene is extracted.   This MA is then combined in storage with that from
the separator.  The molten product is aged to allow color  forming impurities
to polymerize.  These are  then removed in a  fractionation  column, leaving
the finished product.  Figure 5.24-1 represents a  typical  process.

     MA product is usually stored in liquid  form,  although it is sometimes
flaked and pelletized into briquets and  bagged.
                              2
5.24.3  Emissions and Controls

     Nearly all emissions  from MA production are from the  main  process  vent
of the product recovery absorber, the largest vent in the  process.   The
predominant pollutant is unreacted benzene,  ranging from 3 to 10 percent of
the total benzene feed.  The refining vacuum system vent,  the only other
exit for process emissions, produces 0.28 kilograms (0.62  Ib) per hour  of MA
and xylene.

     Fugitive emissions of benzene, xylene,  MA  and maleic  acid  also  arise
from the storage (see Section 4.3) and handling (see  Section  9.1.3)  of
benzene, xylene and MA.  Dust from the briquetting operations can contain
MA, but no data are available on the quantity of such emissions.
     TABLE 5.24-1.
COMPOSITION OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM PRODUCT
         RECOVERY ABSORBER3
Component
Wt.%
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Water
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Maleic acid
Formic acid
Total
73.37
16.67
4.00
3.33
2.33
0.33
0.05
0.01
0.01

21,406.0
4,863.0
1,167.0
972.0
680.0
67.0
14.4
2.8
2.8
29,175.0
42,812.0
9,726.0
2,334.0
1,944.0
1,360.0
134.0
28.8
5.6
5.6
58,350.0
 Reference 2.

     Potential sources of secondary emissions are  spent  reactor  catalyst,
excess water from the dehydration column, vacuum system  water, and
fractionation column residues.  The small amount of  residual  organics  in  the
spent catalyst after washing has low vapor pressure  and  produces a  small
percentage of total emissions.  Xylene  is the principal  organic  contaminant
in the excess water from the dehydration column and  in the  vacuum system
water.  The residues from the fractionation  column are relatively heavy
 5/83
      Chemical Process Industry
                                                                    5.24-3

-------
organics, with a molecular weight greater than 116, and they produce
a small percentage of total emissions.                                                  j

     Benzene oxidation process emissions can be controlled at the main vent
by means of carbon adsorption, thermal incineration or catalytic incineration.
Benzene emissions can be eliminated by conversion to the n-butane process.
Catalytic incineration and conversion from the benzene process to the n-butane
process are not discussed for lack of data.  The vent from the refining
vacuum system is combined with that of the main process, as a control for
refining vacuum system emissions.  A carbon adsorption system or an incine-
ration system can be designed and operated at a 99.5 percent removal
efficiency for benzene and volatile organic compounds with the operating
parameters given in Appendix D of Reference 2.

      TABLE 5.24-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MALEIC ANHYDRIDE PRODUCTION3
                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C


                              Nonmethane VOC               Benzene
     Source                   kg/Mg     Ib/ton         kg/Mg      Ib/ton


Product vents
  (recovery absorber and
  refining vacuum system
  combined  vent)
  Uncontrolled               87         174            67.0      134.0
  With carbon adsorption0     0.34        0.68         0.34        0.68
  With incineration           0.43        0.86         0.34        0.68
Storage and handling
  emissions                    -           -             -          -
                  Q
Fugitive emissions             -           -             -          -

Secondary emissions           N/A         N/A           N/A        N/A

 No data are available for catalytic incineration or for plants  producing MA
 from n-butane.  Dash:  see footnote.  N/A:  not available.
 VOC also includes the benzene.  For recovery absorber and refining vacuum,
 VOC can be MA and xylene; for storage and handling, MA, xylene  and dust
 from briquetting operations; for secondary emissions, residual  organics
 from spent catalyst, excess water from dehydration column, vacuum system
 water, and fractionation column residues.  VOC contains no methane.
 Before exhaust gas stream goes into carbon adsorber, it is scrubbed with
 caustic to remove organic acids and water soluble organics.   Benzene  is  the
 only likely VOC remaining.

 See Section 4.3.

eSee Section 9.1.3.
 Secondary emission sources are excess water from dehydration  column,  vacuum
 system water, and organics from fractionation column.  No data  are available
 on the quantity of these emissions.
 5.24-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                            5/83

-------
     Fugitive emissions from pumps and valves may be controlled by an
appropriate leak detection system and maintenance program.  No control
devices are presently being used for secondary emissions.

References for Section 5.24

1.   B. Dmuchovsky and J. E. Franz, "Maleic Anhydride", Kirk-Qthmer
     Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 12, John Wiley and
     Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1967, pp. 819-837.

2.   J. F. Lawson, Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic
     Chemicals Manufacturing Industry;  Maleic Anhydride Product Report,
     EPA Contract No. 68-02-2577, Hydroscience, Inc., Knoxville, TN,
     March 1978.
 5/83                     Chemical Process Industry                   5.24-5

-------
7.1  PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION

7.1.1  Process Description^"^

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

     In the Bayer process, the ore is dried, ground in ball mills and mixed
with sodium hydroxide to yield aluminum hydroxide.  Iron oxide, silica and
other impurities are removed by settling, dilution and filtration.  Aluminum
hydroxide is precipitated from the solution by cooling and is then calcined
to produce pure alumina, as in the reaction:

            2A1(OH>3            Heat    3H20 + A1203               (1)
        Aluminum hydroxide     	   Water   Alumina

     Aluminum metal is manufactured by the Hall-Heroult process, which
involves the the electrolytic reduction of alumina dissolved in a molten salt
bath of cryolite (Na3AlFg) and various salt additives:

           2Al2<>3       Electrolysis            4A1 + 302          (2)
           Alumina       	        Aluminum  Oxygen

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

     Aluminum reduction cells are distinguished by the anode configuration
used in the pots.  Three types of pots are currently used, prebaked (PB),
horizontal stud Soderberg (HSS), and vertical stud Soderberg (VSS).  Most
of the aluminum produced in the U. S. is processed in PB cells.  These cells
use anodes that are press formed from a carbon paste and baked in a direct
fired ring furnace or indirect fired tunnel kiln.  Volatile organic vapors
from the coke and pitch paste in the anodes are emitted, and most are
destroyed in the baking furnace.  The baked anodes, typically 14 to 24 per
cell, are attached to metal rods and serve as replaceable anodes.

4/81                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.1-1

-------
                                                      SODIUM
                                                    HYDROXIDE
          BAUXITE
                                   TO CONTROL DEVICE
                                             I
                                                                 SETTLING
                                                                 CHAMBER
                                                     DILUTION
                                                      WATER
                                                            RED MUD
                                                           (IMPURITIES)
I
                                                         DILUTE
                                                         SODIUM
                                                       HYDROXIDE
                                                          i
I
ALUMINUM
HYDROXIDE
                                                              CRYSTALLIZER
                                                                                AQUEOUS SODIUM
                                                                                 ALUMINATE
          TO CONTROL
            DEVICE
SHtNl 1
CALCINER ELECTRODES TQ CQNTROL DFV|CE

AI IIUINA ANODE 1
ALUMINA pASTE f
ELECTROLYTE
1 ,


ANODE PASTE
BAKING
FURNACE
BAKED
ANODES A
f TO CONTROL DEVICE
PREBAKE
REDUCTION "^^
CELL \
i \MOLTEN _^
TO CONTROL DEVICE /ALUmNUM
.. • ., /
HORIZONTAL /
OR VERTICAL 	 /
SODERBERG """^
REDUCTION CELL
                   Figure 7.1-1.  Schematic diagram of primary aluminum production process.
         7.1-2
                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                            4/81

-------
  TABLE 7.1-1.  RAW MATERIAL AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALUMINUM PRODUCTION

  	Parameter	Typical value	

  Cell operating temperature                      950°C (   1740°F)
  Current through pot line                   60,000 - 125,000 amperes
  Voltage drop per cell                               4.3 - 5.2
  Current efficiency                                    85 - 90%
  Energy required                            13.2 - 18.7 kwh/kg aluminum
                                             (6.0 - 8.5) kwh/lb aluminum)
  Weight alumina consumed            1.89 - 1.92 kg(lb) AL203/kg(lb) aluminum
  Weight electrolyte
    fluoride consumed             0.03 - 0.10 kg(lb) fluoride/kg(lb) aluminum
  Weight carbon electrode
    consumed                     0.45 - 0.55 kg(lb) electrode/kg(lb) aluminum
     In reduction, the carbon anodes are lowered into the cell and consumed
at a rate of about 2.5 cm (1 in.) per day.  Prebaked cells are preferred
over Soderberg cells for their lower power requirements, reduced generation
of volatile pitch vapors from the carbon anodes, and provision for better
cell hooding to capture emissions.

     The second most commonly used reduction cell is the horizontal stud
Soderberg.  This type of cell uses a "continuous" carbon anode.  A green
anode paste of pitch and coke is periodically added at the top of the
superstructure and is baked by the heat of the cell to a solid mass as the
material moves down the casing.  The cell casing consists of aluminum sheet-
ing and perforated steel channels, through which electrode connections or
studs are inserted horizontally into the anode paste.  During reduction, as
the baking anode is lowered, the lower row of studs and the bottom channel
are removed, and the flexible electrical connectors are moved to a higher
row.  Heavy organics from the anode paste are added to the cell emissions.
The heavy tars can cause plugging of ducts, fans and emission control
e qui pment.

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

7.1.2  Emissions and Controls1"3>9

     Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for sulfur oxides,
fluorides and total particulates are presented in Table 7.1-2.  Fugitive
particulate and fluoride emission factors for reduction cells are also
presented in this Table.
4/81                      Metallurgical Industry                        7.1-3

-------
     Emissions from aluminum reduction processes consist primarily of gaseous
hydrogen fluoride and particulate fluorides, alumina, carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons or organics, and sulfur dioxide from the reduction cells and the anode
baking furnaces.  Large amounts of particulates are also generated during the
calcining of aluminum hydroxide, but the economic value of this dust is such
that extensive controls have been employed to reduce emissions to relatively
small quantities.  Small amounts of particulates are emitted from the bauxite
grinding and materials handling processes.

     The source of fluoride emissions from reduction cells is the fluoride
electrolyte, which contains cryolite, aluminum fluoride (A.LF3),, and fluorspar
(CaF2).  For normal operation, the weight, or "bath", ratio has the effect of
decreasing total fluoride effluents.  Cell fluoride emissions are also
decreased by lowering the operating temperature and increasing the alumina
content in the bath.  Specifically, the ratio of gaseous (mainly hydrogen
fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride) to particulate fluorides varies from 1.2
to 1.7 with PB and HSS cells, but attains a value of approximately 3.0 with
VSS cells.

     Particulate emissions from reduction cells consist of alumina and carbon
from anode dusting, cryolite, aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite
(Na5Al3F^4) and ferric oxide.  Representative size distributions for partic-
ulate emissions from PB cells and HSS cells are presented in Table 7.1-3.
Particulates less than 1 micron in diameter represent the largest fraction
(35 - 44 percent) for uncontrolled emissions.  Uncontrolled particulate emis-
sions from one HSS cell had a mass mean particle diameter of 5.5 microns.
Thirty percent by mass of the particles were submicron, and 16 percent were
less than 0.2^ in diameter.'

   TABLE 7.1-3.  REPRESENTATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS OF UNCONTROLLED
         EMISSIONS FROM PREBAKED AND HORIZONTAL STUD SODERBERG CELLS3
Size range (,,)
< 1
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 44
> 44
Particles
PB
35
25
8
5
5

(wt %)
HSS
44
26
8
6
4

              aReference

     Emissions from reduction cells also include hydrocarbons or organics,
carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.   Small amounts of hydrocarbons are
released by PB pots, and larger amounts are emitted  from HSS  and VSS pots.
In vertical cells, these organics are incinerated in integral gas burners.
Sulfur oxides originate from sulfur in the anode coke and pitch.  The concen-
trations of sulfur oxides in VSS cell emissions range from 200 to 300 ppm.
Emissions from PB plants usually have S02 concentrations ranging from 20 to
30 ppm.


7.1-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                       4/81

-------
  C/2
  w
  en
  w
  w
  o
  o
  pi
  §
  H
  H
  O
  !3

  §
  1-1


  Pi
  o
  o
  H
  U
  to
  CO
  M


  §
  CM

   1
  r^-


  W
      C
      53
       o
       H
O
M

C/2

CO
M

S
W

eg
U
8
01
£
13
S
rtJS^
££«

j<
^ 6
SCu O
v^ *->
* >
rH 0) .O
9 TJ H
0 -H
•H U
*> a
14 3 OC
^ rH J&
S

s*. a
fe S
* S-il
3 .0
O 01 rH
8"0
•H
•A ^4
9 *?
H "••"
A a
*J U
iH CO ~-
3 3 rH
o a
H *J M
**c
o! oc
M


c
Opera clo





CO CO CO CO CO
« • <• M M


ZS5Z SB Z


ggg 5 si


Z S SB Z Z



3>UCI)W
•H i-i 5 o a u TI
M O O 00 *J «D (X
60 h « B X o -H
u ^ x a M o
•HO^OIUMOIO.
SB (XrH 3 rH
S3  fe O1 H




CO CO (O CO CO


22222


z z z z z



Z Z SS SB SB



z z z z z


00 00 00 00 00
z z z z z



00 00 60 00 00
Z^S^
o o o o o
§O sO ^ ^
*o m co
M

o o o o o
0 0 oo r- CM
rH


Ji
•§
01 b
3 ,i
M
o *o *o *-«
S5S^2-S
c a o o) « c
•H rH O h O Oj PL.
SMd CLrH 3 O5
9 t> S m PM Sfv>
%


o
rH
A A
CM OS CM CM

U Z Z Z Z


0 85 Z Z Z


CO CO Q
rH O O O
o z o o o

m in rH
in rH rH O
O O O O
o z o o o
Os

O> O O O
o z o o o

m
•sf
m CM CM o
<* o o o
o z o o o
m in so
O f^ r*- O
CO Z O O O
m m

in co co o
rH Z 0 O 0



M
V ^
U JQ
a 3
a w
""S h a
UrH 01 B
C rH 3 «H
•H O 01 O fl
^ m > u 9
rSSS >, -3
o in a
0) O 00 rJ CM >,
rd B 9 O.M U
O 9 b< CA H Q
o
rH
•>
°J,
CM OS O> O<


OZZZZZZ


U Z Z Z Z Z Z


00 0 *M-*sf 00
CM rH


O m in rH CM r>. ot
O O OS CM O rH rH
rH


O CM 00 00 CM >» •*
CM CM CM




CM O rH rH O O O
rH rH rH
O O O SO 00 in CO
3 00 rH rH

m

t-, CM ^ OS 0 CM CO


U
SWl
h  o oi a oi a o
Clr4>OrH3CXlU
fe







Z Z Z Z


z z z z


00 ^sOCO
CO O u-> o


m
OS CM OO rH
rH O CM O


in •* ^- •*
0 C0>00



in m
CM r*. CM CM
O rH CO O
co co co r-
I— rH VO O
rH CM

in m

co O co O
^


rJ >* -SS rJ
4) M U Ot
-B »rt ,U .B
•§x ^-§
h oi 3 M
o •" 5 o
CO rH O 0)
•H CO
3-* °-s
18 «S % 8
M£ i rH 01
B .0 U-i 5
CD w o eg
rH Q K t
fc O O Q
4/81
                            Metallurgical  Industry
7.1-5

-------
ffl
 co
 w
 CO
 CO
 w
 u
 O
 Pi
 P-.

 js
 o
 M
 H
 CJ
 E3
 P
 O
 Pi
 P^
    M
 rJ

  0\ CM  rH 00 CM rH
                                                            OOOOO
                                                             2M>OWfl4)O<9
                                                             U i-l i-l   -H XI tO iH
                                •HOM-rtMOi
                                                 XMCn
                                                       o o -H to eg  eg 3
                                                       N u oo-H MOM
                                                      •rt 0 3 S O-r-t U
                                                       Mat,
                                                                           CO i


                                                                           XI >t
                         01
                        s
                         M
                         s§

                        ll

                         Sr!
                         0 eg
                        1-1
                         S 0
                        Is
                         ""3
                        •ss
                           >H
                         00 O

                         B 0
                        •H O
                         O *J  •
                        •3^5
                         ".SP-S
                         kl   rH
                         O h -H
                                                                                       «  «
                                                                                       &
                                                                                  • 01
                                                                                 T3 Vl
                                                                                 0 eg
                                                                                 _    §
                                                                                 09 CO
                                                                                 « Wl I
                                                                                 O O
                                                                                 o & <

                                                                                 a « K
                                                                                   

                                                                                   iH 1.1
                                                                                 >M H
                                                                                 O < O
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                               0
                                                                                               O
                                                                                              •rt
                                                                                               00
                                                                                               a
                                                                                            SB"
                                                                                            XI Q
                                                                                            S s
                                                                                            O *^-
                                                                                            O .0
                                                                                          »    3
                                                                                                 l«!
                                  oi o
                                  u  •

                                  S.H

                                  i X
                                  "« in


                                  «°G
                                  •rt %-<
                                                                                               MM)
                                                                                               OI IB
                                                                                              O
                                                                                               •
                                                                                               i
                                  O^N
                                  CO  CO

                                  •s^
H -a 01
•^ S TJ


£&g


^5S

 B s 5
 eg r-l 3   01 O
   tg a   IH v.^
•o      • >t o
 01  s^    -H 0
 M 0 00 M O

 a° o8|



          01
        - O
  i op a tg g
•g as o H d
 O »«. "H 3 t-l
•H 00 00 O 3
 h M CO i-l 
-------
     Emissions from anode bake ovens include the products of fuel
combustion; high boiling organics from the cracking, distillation and oxid-
ation of paste binder pitch; sulfur dioxide from the carbon paste; fluorides
from recycled anode butts; and other particulate matter.  The concentrations
of uncontrolled S(>2 emissions from anode baking furnaces range from 5 to 47
ppm (based on 3 percent sulfur in coke.)

     Casting emissions are mainly fumes of aluminum chloride, which may
hydro lyze  to HC1 and
     A variety of control devices has been used to abate emissions from
reduction cells and anode baking furnaces.  To control gaseous and partic-
ulate fluorides and particulate emissions, one or more types of wet scrub-
bers (spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds,
Venturis, and self induced sprays) have been applied to all three types of
reduction cells and to anode baking furnaces.  Also, particulate control
methods such as electrostatic precipitators (wet and dry), multiple
cyclones and dry alumina scrubbers (fluid bed, injected, and coated filter
types) have been employed with baking furnaces and on all three cell types.
Also, the alumina adsorption systems are being used on all three cell types
to control both gaseous and particulate fluorides by passing the pot off-
gases through the entering alumina feed, on which the fluorides are absored .
This technique has an overall control efficiency of 98 to 99 percent.  Bag-
houses are then used to collect residual fluorides entrained in the alumina
and to recycle them to the reduction cells.  Wet electrostatic precipitators
approach adsorption in particulate removal efficiency but must be coupled to
a wet scrubber or coated baghouse to catch hydrogen fluoride.

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

     In the aluminum hydroxide calcining, bauxite grinding and materials
handling operations, various dry dust collection devices (centrifugal
collectors, multiple cyclones, or electrostatic precipitators and/or wet
scrubbers) have been used.

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

References for Section 7.1

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

2.   Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume I,
     EPA-450/3-73-004a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, July 1973.
4/81                     Metallurgical Industry                          7.1-7

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

4.   Emissions from Wet Scrubbing System,  Report Number  Y-7730-E, York
     Research Corp., Stamford,  CT,  May  1972.

5.   Emissions from Primary Aluminum Smelting Plant, Report Number Y-7730-B,
     York Research Corp.,  Stamford,  CT, June 1972.

6.   Emissions from the Wet Scrubber System, Report Number Y-7730-F, York
     Research Corp., Stamford,  CT,  June 1972.

7.   T. R. Hanna and M. J. Pilat, "Size Distribution of  Particulates Emitted
     from a Horizontal Spike Soderberg  Aluminum  Reduction Cell", Journal of
     the Air Pollution Control  Association, 22_:533-536,  July 1972.

8.   Background Information for Standards  of Performance;  Primary Aluminum
     Industry, Volume 1;  Proposed  Standards, EPA-450/2-74-020a, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle  Park, MC, October
     1974.

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

10.  Written communication from T.  F. Albee, Reynolds Aluminum, Richmond, VA,
     to A. A. MacQueen, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, October 20,  1982.
7.1-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                        4/81

-------
7.5  IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION

                                        1-2
7.5.1  Process Description and Emissions

     Iron and steel manufacturing may be grouped into eight generic process
operations:  1) coke production, 2)  sinter production, 3) iron production,
4) steel production, 5) semifinished product preparation, 6) finished prod-
uct preparation,  7) heat  and electricity supply and 8) handling and trans-
port of  raw,  intermediate and waste materials.  Figure  7.5-1,  a  general
flow diagram of the iron and steel industry, interrelates these categories.
Coke production is  discussed in detail  in Section 7.2 of this publication,
and more information on the handling and transport of materials is found in
Chapter 11.

Sinter Production - The sintering process converts fine  raw materials like
fine iron ore, coke breeze, fluxstone,  mill scale and flue dust into an ag-
glomerated product of suitable size for charging into a blast furnace.  The
materials are mixed with water to provide cohesion in a mixing mill and are
placed on  a  continuous  moving grate called the  sinter  strand.   A burner
hood above the  front  third of the  sinter  strand  ignites the coke in the
mixture.  Once  ignited,  combustion  is  self supporting and provides suffi-
cient heat,  1300  to 1480°C (2400 to 2700°F),  to cause surface melting and
agglomeration of the mix.  On the underside of the sinter machine lie wind-
boxes that draw the combusted air  through  the material  bed into  a common
duct to  a  particulate  control device.   The fused sinter is discharged  at
the end  of  the  sinter machine, where  it is crushed and  screened,  and any
undersize portion  is recycled  to the mixing mill.  The remaining  sinter is
cooled in open air by water spray or by mechanical fan to draw off the heat
from the sinter.   The  cooled sinter is  screened  a  final time, with  the
fines being  recycled and  the  rest being sent  to  charge the  blast  furnaces.

     Emissions occur at several points in the sintering process.  Points of
particulate generation  are  the windbox, the discharge (sinter crusher and
hot screen), the cooler and the cold screen.  In addition, inplant transfer
stations generate  emissions  which  can  be controlled by  local enclosures.
All the  above  sources  except the cooler normally are vented to one or two
control systems.

Iron Production -  Iron  is produced  in blast furnaces, which are large re-
fractory lined  chambers  into which  iron (as natural ore  or  as agglomerated
products such as  pellets  or  sinter, coke and  limestone)  is  charged and  al-
lowed to react  with large amounts of hot air  to produce  molten  iron.  Slag
and blast  furnace gases  are byproducts of this operation.  The  average
charge to produce one unit weight of iron requires 1.7 unit weights of iron
bearing  charge, 0.55 unit weights  of coke, 0.2 unit weights of limestone,
and 1.9  unit  weights  of air.  Average blast furnace byproducts consist of
0.3 unit weights  of slag, 0.05 unit weights  of flue dust, and 3.0 unit
weights of gas per unit of iron produced.  The flue dust and other iron ore
fines from the  process  are converted  into  useful blast  furnace charge  by
the sintering operation.
 5/83                      Metallurgical Industry                      7.5-1

-------
                                                                             CO
                                                                             3
                                                                             4J
                                                                             CO

                                                                             13
                                                                             c
                                                                             ct)

                                                                             c
                                                                             o
                                                                             cu
                                                                             f:
                                                                             4J


                                                                             VJ
                                                                             o
                                                                             4-1
                                                                             60
                                                                             0)
                                                                             •H
                                                                             T)
                                                                             0)

                                                                             01
                                                                             o
                                                                              I
                                                                             in
                                                                             cu
                                                                             Vi
                                                                             3
                                                                             60
                                                                             •H
7.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
     Because of  its  high carbon monoxide content,  this blast  furnace  gas
has a  low heating value, about 2790 to 3350 joules per cubic liter (75 to
90 BTU/ft3) and  is used as a fuel within the steel plant.  Before it can be
efficiently  oxidized,  however, the  gas  must be cleaned of particulate.
Initially, the  gases pass through  a  settling chamber  or dry cyclone to re-
move about 60 percent of the particulate.  Next, the gases undergo a one or
two stage cleaning operation.  The primary cleaner is normally a wet scrub-
ber, which removes about 90 percent of the remaining particulate.  The sec-
ondary  cleaner  is a  high energy wet  scrubber  (usually a venturi) or  an
electrostatic precipitator,  either of which  can remove up  to 90  percent of
the particulate  that  eludes  the primary cleaner.   Together these  control
devices provide  a clean fuel of less than 0.05 grams per cubic meter (0.02
gr/ft3) for use  in the steel plant.

     Emissions occur during  the production of  iron when there is  a blast
furnace "slip"  and during hot  metal  transfer operations in the cast house.
All gas generated in the blast furnace  is normally cleaned and used  for
fuel.   Conditions  such as "slips", however,  can cause  instant  emissions of
carbon  monoxide  and particulates.  Slips occur  when a  stratum  of the mate-
rial charged to  a blast furnace does not settle with the material below it,
thus leaving a  gas  filled space between the two portions  of the charge.
When this unsettled stratum of charge  collapses,  the displaced gas may
cause the top gas pressure to  increase above the safety limit,  thus opening
a counter weighted bleeder valve to the atmosphere.

Steel Production (Basic  Oxygen Furnace)  - The basic oxygen process is  used
to produce steel from  a  furnace charge  typically  composed of  70 percent
molten blast furnace metal and 30 percent scrap metal by use of a stream of
commercially pure oxygen to  oxidize  the  impurities, principally  carbon and
silicon.  Most of the basic oxygen furnaces  (BOF) in the United States have
oxygen  blown  through a  lance  in  the top of the  furnace.   However,  the
Quelle Basic Oxygen Process  (QBOP),  which is growing  in  use,  has oxygen
blown through tuyeres  in the bottom of  the  furnace.   Cycle times  for  the
basic oxygen process range from 25 to 45 minutes.

     The large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO) produced by the reactions
in the  BOF can be combusted  at the mouth of  the  furnace and then vented to
gas cleaning devices,  as  with open hoods, or  the  combustion can be sup-
pressed at the furnace mouth, as with closed hoods.  The term "closed  hood"
is actually a misnomer,  since the opening at  the  furnace  mouth is large
enough  to allow  approximately  10 percent of  theoretical air to enter.  Al-
though most furnaces  installed before 1975  are  of  the open hood design,
nearly  all the  QBOPs  in  the United States have  closed hoods,  and  most of
the new top blown furnaces are being designed with closed hoods.

     There are several sources of emissions in  the basic  oxygen furnace
steel making process,  1)  the furnace mouth during refining - with collec-
tion by local full  (open)  or suppressed (closed) combustion hoods, 2) hot
metal transfer to charging ladle,  3)  charging scrap and hot metal, 4)   dump-
ing slag and 5)  tapping steel.

Steel Production  (Electric Arc  Furnaces) - Electric arc furnaces  (EAF) are
used to produce  carbon  and  alloy  steels.  The  charge  to an EAF  is nearly

5/83                      Metallurgical Industry                       7.5-3

-------
always 100 percent scrap.  Direct  arc  electrodes through the  roof of the
furnace melt the  scrap.   An  oxygen lance may or may not be used to speed              A
the melting and  refining  process.   Cycles range from 1-1/2 to 5 hours for             "
carbon steel and from 5 to 10 hours for alloy steel.

     Sources of emissions in the electric arc furnace steel making process
are 1) emissions  from melting and  refining, often vented through a hole in
the furnace roof, 2) charging scrap, 3) dumping slag and 4) tapping steel.
In interpreting and  using emission factors for EAFs, it  is  important to
know what configuration one is dealing with.  For example, if an EAF has a
building evacuation  system,  the  emission  factor before  the control device
would represent all melting,  refining,  charging, tapping and slagging emis-
sions which ascend to  the building roof.   Reference  2 has more details  on
various configurations used to control  electric arc furnaces.

Steel Production (Open Hearth Furnaces) -  In the open hearth furnace (OHF),
a mixture of iron and steel scrap  and hot metal  (molten iron) is melted in
a shallow rectangular basin  or  "hearth".   Burners producing a flame above
the charge provide the  heat  necessary for melting.  The mixture of scrap
and hot metal can vary from all scrap to all hot metal,  but a half and half
mixture is a  reasonable  industry average.  The process may or may not be
oxygen lanced, with process cycle times approximately 8 hours arid 10 hours,
respectively.

     Sources of emissions  in  the open hearth furnace steel making process
are 1) transferring  hot metal, 2)  melting and refining the heat, 3) chairg-
ing of scrap and/or hot metal, 4) dumping slag and 5) tapping steel.

Semifinished Product Preparation - After  the steel has been  tapped,  the
molten metal  is  teemed  into  ingots which are later heated to form blooms,
billets or slabs.  (In a continuous casting operation, the molten metal  may
bypass this entire process.)   The  product next goes through a process of
surface preparation  of  semifinished steel (scarfing).  A scarfing machine
removes surface defects before  shaping or rolling of the  steel billets,
blooms and slabs  by  applying jets   of  oxygen to the surface of the steel,
which is at orange  heat,  thus removing a thin layer of the metal by rapid
oxidation.   Scarfing  can  be performed by machine on hot semifinished steel
or by hand on  cold or slightly heated  semifinished steel.  Emissions occur
during teeming  as  the molten metal is poured,  and when the semifinished
steel products  are manually  or machine scarfed to remove surface defects.

Miscellaneous  Combustion  Sources - Iron and steel plants  require energy
(heat or electricity) for every plant operation.  Some energy operations on
plant property  that  produce  emissions  are boilers, soaking pits and slab
furnaces which  burn  coal, No.  2 fuel oil, natural gas,  coke oven gas or
blast furnace  gas.   In soaking pits, ingots are heated until the tempera-
ture distribution over  the  cross  section of the ingots is acceptable and
the surface temperature  is  uniform for further  rolling into semifinished
products (blooms, billets and slabs).   In slab furnaces, a slab is heated
before being rolled  into  finished products (plates, sheets or strips).  The
emissions from  the combustion of natural  gas,  fuel oil or coal  for boilers
 7.5-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                         5/83

-------
can be found in Chapter 1 of this document.  Estimated emissions from these
same fuels used  in soaking pits or slab furnaces can be the same as those
for boilers, but  since it is estimation,  the  factor rating drops to D.

     Emission factor data  for  blast furnace gas and coke oven gas are not
available and must be  estimated.  There  are three facts available for mak-
ing the  estimation.   First, the gas exiting  the  blast furnace passes
through primary and secondary cleaners and can be cleaned to less than 0.05
grams per cubic meter  (0.02  gr/ft3).  Second,  nearly one third  of the coke
oven gas is  methane.   Third, there are  no blast furnace gas constituents
that generate  particulate when  burned.   The  combustible constituent of
blast furnace gas  is CO, which burns  clean.  Based on facts one and three,
the emission factor  for combustion of blast furnace gas  is equal to the
particulate loading of  that  fuel,  0.05 grams  per cubic meter (2.9 lb/106
ft3).

     Emissions for combustion of coke oven gas can be estimated  in the same
fashion.  Assume  that  cleaned  coke oven  gas has  as  much particulate as
cleaned blast furnace  gas.   Since  one third of the coke oven gas is meth-
ane, the main  component of natural gas, it is assumed that the  combustion
of this methane in coke oven gas generates 0.06 grams per cubic  meter (3.3
lb/106 ft3)  of particulate.  Thus,  the emission factor for the  combustion
of coke oven  gas  is  the sum of the particulate loading and that generated
by the methane combustion,  or  0.1  grams per cubic meter (6.2 lb/106 ft3).

Open Dust Sources  -  Like  process emission sources,  open dust sources con-
tribute to the atmospheric particulate burden.  Open dust sources include
1) vehicle traffic on  paved and unpaved  roads,  2)  raw material handling
outside of buildings and  3)  wind erosion  from storage  piles and exposed
terrain.  Vehicle traffic consists  of plant personnel and visitor vehicles;
plant service vehicles;  and  trucks handling raw materials, plant deliver-
ables, steel products  and waste materials.  Raw materials  are  handled by
clamshell buckets, bucket/ladder conveyors,  rotary  railroad dumps,  bottom
railroad dumps, front  end  loaders,  truck dumps,  and  conveyor transfer sta-
tions, all of which  disturb  the  raw material and expose fines to the wind.
Even fine materials  resting  on flat areas or in storage piles are exposed
and are subject to wind erosion.  It is not unusual to have several  million
tons of raw  materials  stored at a  plant and to have in the range of 10 to
100 acres of exposed area there.

     Open dust source  emission factors for iron and steel  production are
presented in  Table 7.5-1.  These factors  were determined  through source
testing at various integrated iron and steel plants.

     As an  alternative to the  single valued  open dust emission factors
given  in  Table 7.5-1,  empirically  derived emission  factor equations are
presented in Chapter 11 of this  document.  Each equation was developed for
a source operation defined on  the basis  of a single  dust generating mecha-
nism which  crosses industry lines,  such  as vehicle traffic on unpaved
roads.  The  predictive  equation explains much of the observed variance in
measured emission  factors by relating emissions to parameters which charac-
terize source conditions.  These parameters may be grouped into three cate-
gories:  1) measures of source  activity or energy expended  (e.g., the speed

5/83                      Metallurgical  Industry                      7.5-5

-------
        TABLE  7.5-1.  UNCONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         OPEN DUST SOURCES  AT IRON AND  STEEL MILLS3
  Operation
Emissions by particle size range (aerodynamic diameter)
"       < 15 M">    < 10 po     < 5 Mm   < 2.5 |jm
                       < 30 pm
                                                                   Units
Emission
 Factor
 Rating
 Continuous drop
   Conveyor transfer station
Sinter

Pile formation -
stacker
Pellet orec

Lump ore

Coal"

Batch drop
Front end loader/truck
High silt slag

Low silt slag

Vehicle travel on
unpaved roads ,
Light duty vehicle

Medium duty vehicle
u
Heavy duty vehicle

Vehicle travel on
paved roads
Light/heavy vehicle mix

13
0.026


1.2
0.0024
0.15
0.00030
0.055
0.00011


13
0.026
4.4
0.0088


0.51
1.8
2.1
7.3
3.9
14


0.22
0.78
9.0
0.018


0.75
0.0015
0.095
0.00019
0.034
0.000069


8.5
0.017
2.9
0.0058


0.37
1.3
1.5
5.2
2.7
9.7


0.16
0.56
6.5
0.013


0.55
0.0011
0.075
0.00015
0.026
0.000052


6.5
0.013
2.2
0.0043


0.28
1.0
1.2
4.1
2.1
7.6


0.12
0.44
4.2
0.0084


0.32
0.00064
0.040
0.000081
0.014
0.000029


4.0
0.0080
1.4
0.0028


0.18
0.64
0.70
2.5
1.4
4.8


0.079
.0.28
2.3
0.0046


0.17
0.00034
0.022
0.000043
0.0075
0.000015


2.3
0.0046
0.80
0.0016


0.10
0.37
0.42
1.5
0.76
2.7


0.042
0.15
g/Mg
Ib/T


g/Mg
lo/T
g/Mg

g/Mg
11)/T


g/Mg
lli/T
g/Mg
Ib/T


kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT


kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
D
D


B
B
C
C
E
E


C
C
c
c


c
c
c
c
B
B


C
C
   Predictive emission factor equations, which generally provide more accurate estimates of
   sented in Chapter 11.
   Units/unit of material transferred. Units/unit of distance traveled.
   Reference 3.  Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
   Reference 4.  Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
                                          emissions, are pre-
and weight of a vehicle  traveling on  an unpaved road),  2) properties of the
material  being  disturbed  (e.g.,  the  content of  suspendible  fines  in the
surface material on an unpaved road)  and 3) climatic  parameters  (e.g.,  num-
ber of precipitation  free days per year, when emissions tend to  a  maximum).

     Because the predictive equations allow  for  emission  factor adjustment
to specific source conditions, the equations should be  used in place of the
factors  in Table  7.5-1,  if emission  estimates  for sources in a specific
iron and  steel  facility are needed.   However,  the generally higher quality
ratings assigned to the  equations are applicable  only if 1) reliable values
of correction parameters  have been determined for the  specific  sources of
interest  and  2) the  correction parameter values lie  within  the  ranges
tested  in developing  the  equations.   Chapter 11  lists  measured  properties
of aggregate process  materials and road surface  materials in the  iron and
steel  industry, which can be  used to estimate correction parameter values
for the  predictive emission  factor equations, in the event that site spe-
cific  values are  not available.  Use of mean  correction  parameter values
from Chapter 11 reduces  the quality ratings of the emission factor equation
by one level.
7.5-6
       EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                             5/83

-------
     Particulate  emission factors  for iron  and steel plant processes are  in
Table  7.5-2.   These  emission  factors are  a  result  of an extensive investi-
gation by EPA and the  American  Iron and Steel Institute.2   Carbon monoxide
emission factors  are in  Table 7.5-S.5

   TABLE 7.5-2.   PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS3

Source
Blast furnaces
Slips
Uncontrolled cast house emissions
Monitor
Tap hole and trough (not runners)
Sintering
Windbox emissions
Uncontrolled
Leaving grate
After coarse particulate removal
Controlled by dry ESP
Controlled by wet ESP
Controlled by scrubber
Controlled by cyclone
Sinter discharge (breaker and hot
screens)
Uncontrolled
Controlled by baghouse
Controlled by orifice scrubber
Windbox and discharge
Controlled by baghouse
Basic oxygen furnaces
Top blown furnace melting and refining
Uncontrolled
Controlled by open hood vented to:
ESP
Scrubber
Controlled by closed hood vented to:
Scrubber
QBOP melting and refining
Controlled by scrubber
Charging
At source
At building monitor
Tapping
At source
At building monitor
Hot metal transfer
At source
At building monitor
BOF monitor (all sources)
Electric arc furnaces
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled
Carbon steel
Charging, tapping and slagging
Uncontrolled emissions escaping
monitor
Melting, refining, charging, tapping
and slagging
Uncontrolled
Alloy steel
Carbon steel
Units



kg (lb)/slip
kg/Mg



kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)



(Ib/ton)
hot metal



finished

39

0
0


Emissions Emission Factor
Rating

.5

.3
.15



(87)

(0.6)
(0.3)



D

B
B


sinter






kg/Mg






(Ib/ton)






finished
5
4
0
0
0
0

.56
.35
.8
.085
.235
.5

(11.1)
(8.7)
(1.6)
(0.17)
(0.47)
(1)

B
A
B
B
B
B

sinter



kg/Mg



(Ib/ton)



finished
sinter

kg/Mg






kg/Mg

kg/Mg


kg/Mg


kg/Mg


kg/Mg

kg/Mg


kg/Mg


kg/Mg





(Ib/ton)






(Ib/ton)

(Ib/ton)


(Ib/ton)


(Ib/ton)


(Ib/ton)

(Ib/ton)


(Ib/ton)


(Ib/ton)





steel






steel

hot metal


steel


hot metal


steel

steel


steel


steel




3
0
0

0


14

0
0

0

0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0



19

0




5
25
.It
.05
.295

.15


.25

.065
.045

.0034

.028

.3
.071

.46
.145

.095
.028
.25





.7




.65

(6.8)
(0.1)
(0.59)

(0.3)


(28.5)

(0.13)
(0.09)

(0.0068)

(0.056)

(0.6)
(0.142)

(0.92)
(0.29)

(0.19)
(0.056)
(0.5)



(38)

(1.4)




(11.3)
(50)
B
B
A

A


B

A
B

A

A

A
B

A
B

A
B
B



C

C




A
C
      Controlled by:
       Configuration 1
         (building evacuation to baghouse
          for alloy steel)
       Configuration 2
         (DSE plus charging hood vented
          to common baghouse for carbon
          steel)
                          0.15   (0.3)


                          0.0215 (0.043)
                                     (continued)
 5/83
Metallurgical  Industry
7.5-7

-------
           TABLE 7.5-2.
PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR  IRON AND
       STEEL MILLS3  (continued)

Source Units
Open hearth furnaces
Melting and refining kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
Uncontrolled
Controlled by ESP
Roof monitor emissions
Teeming
Leaded steel kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
Uncontrolled (as measured at the
source)
Controlled by side draft hood vented
to baghouse
Unleaded steel
Uncontrolled (as measured at the
source)
Controlled by side draft hood vented
to baghouse
Machine scarfing
Uncontrolled kg/Mg (Ib/ton) metal
through scarfer
Controlled by ESP
Miscellaneous combustion sources
Boilers, soaking pits and slab reheat kg/109 J (lb/106 BTU)
furnaces
Blast furnace gas
Coke oven gas
Emissions Emission Factor
Rating


10.55
0.16
0.084


0.405

0.0019


0.035

0.0008


0.05

0.0115



0.015
0.0052


(21.1)
(0.28)
(0.166)


(0.81)

(0.0038)


(0.07)

(0.0016)


(0.1)

(0.023)



(0.035)
(0.012]


A
A
C


A

A


A

A


B

A



D
D
      Reference 2.  ESP = electrostatic precipitator.  DSE = direct shell evacuation.
      For fuels such as coal, fuel oil and natural gas, use the emission factors presented in Chapter 1 of
      this document.  The factor rating for these fuels in boilers is A, and in soaking pits anil slab re-
      heat furnaces is D.
                  TABLE  7.5-3.   UNCONTROLLED CARBON MONOXIDE
                                     EMISSION  FACTORS FOR  IRON
                                          AND STEEL MILLS3
                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
                 Source
                      kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Sintering windbox
Basic oxygen furnace
Electric arc furnace
22
69
9
44
138
18

, Reference 5.
                     of finished sinter.
7.5-8
       EMISSION FACTORS
                                                      5/83

-------
References for Section 7.5

1.   H. E. McGannon, ed., The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, U. S.
     Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA,  1971.

2.   T. A.  Cuscino,  Jr., Particulate Emission Factors Applicable to the
     Iron and Steel Industry, EPA-450/4-79-029,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protec-
     tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  September 1979.

3.   R. Bohn,  et al^,  Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel
     Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  March 1978.

4.   C. Cowherd,  Jr.,  et al., Iron and  Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive
     Emission Evaluation, EPA-600/2-79-103,  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  May 1979.

5.   Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide  Emissions  from Stationary
     Sources, AP-65, U.  S.  Department of Health, Education and  Welfare,
     Washington, DC,  March 1970.
 5/83                      Metallurgical Industry                      7.5-5

-------
8.14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING

                           1-2
8.14.1  Process Description

     Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO • 2H 0) , a white or gray
naturally occurring mineral.  Raw gypsum ore is processed into a variety of
products such as a Portland cement additive, soil conditioner, industrial
and building plasters, and gypsum wallboard.  To produce plasters or
wallboard, gypsum must first be partially dehydrated or calcined to produce
calcium sulfate hemihydrate (CaSO,• ijH 0), commonly called stucco.

     A flow diagram for a typical gypsum process producing both crude and
finished gypsum products is shown in Figure 8.14-1.  In this process, gypsum
is crushed, dried, ground and calcined.  Some of the operations shown in
Figure 8.14-1 are not performed at all gypsum plants.  Some plants produce
only wallboard, and many plants do not produce soil conditioner.

     Gypsum ore, from quarries and/or underground mines, is crushed and
stockpiled near a plant.  As needed, the stockpiled ore is further crushed
and screened to about 50 millimeters (2 inches) in diameter.  If the
moisture content of the mined ore is greater than about 0.5 weight percent,
the ore must be dried in a rotary dryer or a heated roller mill.  Ore dried
in a rotary dryer is conveyed to a roller mill where it is ground to
90 percent less 149 micrometers (100 mesh).  The ground gypsum exits the
mill in a gas stream and is collected in a product cyclone.  Ore is
sometimes dried in the roller mill by heating the gas stream, so that drying
and grinding are accomplished simultaneously and no rotary dryer is needed.
The finely ground gypsum ore is known as landplaster, which may be used as
soil conditioner.

     In most plants, landplaster is fed to kettle calciners or flash
calciners, where it is heated to remove three quarters of the chemically
bound water to form stucco.  Calcination occurs at approximately 120 to
150°C (250 to 300°F) , and 0.908 megagrams (Mg) (one ton) of gypsum calcines
to  about 0.77 Mg (0.85 ton) of stucco.

     In kettle calciners, the gypsum is indirectly heated by hot combustion
gas passed through flues in the kettle, and the stucco product is discharged
into a "hot pit" located below the kettle.  Kettle calciners may be operated
in either batch or continuous modes.  In flash calciners, the gypsum is
directly contacted with hot gases, and the stucco product is collected at
the bottom of the calciner.  A major gypsum manufacturer holds a patent on
the design of the flash calciner.

     At some gypsum plants, drying, grinding and calcining are performed in
heated impact mills.  In these mills, hot gas contacts gypsum as it is
ground.  The gas dries and calcines the ore and then conveys the stucco to a
product cyclone for collection.  The use of heated impact mills eliminates
the need for rotary dryers, calciners and roller mills.
 5/83
                         Mineral Products  Industry                     8.14-1

-------
                                                                                         t-l
                                                                                         60
                                                                                        •H
                                                                                        TJ
                                                                                         0)
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         (-1
                                                                                         a.

                                                                                         60
                                                                                         c
                                                                                         3
                                                                                         AJ
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         m

                                                                                         C
                                                                                         tfl
                                                                                         e

                                                                                         e

                                                                                         w
                                                                                         (X
                                                                                         >>
                                                                                         60
                                                                                         Cfl
                                                                                         V-i
                                                                                         OJ
                                                                                         I

                                                                                         1—I

                                                                                         00
                                                                                         60
8.14-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
5/83

-------
     Gypsum and stucco usually are transferred from one process to another
in screw conveyors or bucket elevators.  Storage bins or silos are normally
located downstream of roller mills and calciners but may also be used
elsewhere.

     In the manufacture of plasters, stucco is ground further in a tube or
ball mill and then batch mixed with retarders and stabilizers to produce
plasters with specific setting rates.   The thoroughly mixed plaster is fed
continuously from intermediate storage bins to a bagging operation.

     In the manufacture of wallboard,  stucco from storage is first mixed
with dry additives such as perlite, starch, fiberglass or vermiculite.  This
dry mix is combined with water, soap foam, accelerators and shredded paper
or pulpwood in a pin mixer at the head of a board forming line.  The slurry
is then spread between two paper sheets that serve as a mold.  The edges of
the paper are scored, and sometimes chamfered, to allow precise folding of
the paper to form the edges of the board.  As the wet board travels the
length of a conveying line, the calcium sulfate hemihydrate combines with
the water in the slurry to form solid calcium sulfate dihydrate or gypsum,
resulting in rigid board.  The board is rough cut to length, and it enters a
multideck kiln dryer where it is dried by direct contact with hot combustion
gases or by indirect steam heating.  The dried board is conveyed to the
board end sawing area and is trimmed and bundled for shipment.

                              2
8.14.2  Emissions and Controls

     Potential emission sources in gypsum manufacturing plants are shown in
Figure 8.14-1.  Although several sources may emit gaseous pollutants,
particulate emissions are of greatest concern.  The major sources of
particulate emissions include rotary ore dryers, grinding mills, calciners
and board end sawing operations.  Particulate emission factors for these
operations are shown in Table 8.14-1.  All these factors are based on output
production rates.  Particle size data for ore dryers, calciners and board
end sawing operations are shown in Tables 8.14-2 and 8.14-3.

     The uncontrolled emission factors presented in Table 8.14-1 represent
the process dust entering the emission control device.  It is important to
note that emission control devices are frequently needed to collect the
product from some gypsum processes and, thus, are commonly thought of by the
industry as process equipment and not added control devices.

     Emissions sources in gypsum plants are most often controlled with
fabric filters.  These sources include:

       -  rotary ore dryers             - board end sawing
       -  roller mills                  - scoring and chamfering
       -  impact mills                  - plaster mixing and bagging
       -  kettle calciners              - conveying systems
       -  flash calciners               - storage bins

Uncontrolled emissions from scoring and chamfering, plaster mixing and
bagging, conveying systems, and storage bins are not well quantified.
5/83                      Mineral Products  Industry                    8.14-3

-------
      TABLE 8.14-1.    PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING*

                                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:    B
Process Uncontrolled
kg/Mg Ib/ton
Crushers, screens,
stockpiles, roads d d
Rotary ore dryerse>f>g 0.0042 (FTP)1'77 0.16(FFF)1-77
Roller mills1 1.3* 2.^
,Impact mills6'1 50glj 1008'3
Flash calcinerse>m 19 37
Continuous kettle
calcines" 21P 41P
With
fabric
filter0
kg/Mg Ib/ton
.
0.02h 0.04h
0.06 0.12
0.01 0.02
0.02 0.04
0.003P 0.006P
With
electrostatic
precipitator
kg/Mg Ib/ton
.
NA
0.05k 0.09k
NA
NA
O.OS-' 0.09^
kg/a.
                                              lb/100 ft
                         kg/106 m2  lb/106 ft2
Board end sawing
2.4 m (8 ft) boards
3.7 m (12 ft) boards

0.04
0.03

0.8
0.5
j
36
36

7.5
7.5
       on process output production rate.  Rating applies  to  all factors  except where othei-wise  noted.
 Dash * not applicable.   NA - not available.
 Factors represent any dust entering the emission control  device.

 References 3-6, 8-11.  Factors  for sources controlled with fabric'filters are based on pul«e  jet fabric
 filters with actual air/cloth ratios ranging from 2.3:1 - 7.0:1, mechanical shaker fabric filters with
 ratios from 1.5:1 - 4.6:1, and  a reverse flow,fabric filter  with a ratio of 2.3:1.

 Factors for these operations are in Sections 8.19 and 11.2.
 elncludes particulate matter from fuel combustion.
 References 3-4, 8, 11-12.   Equation is for emission rate  upstream of any process cyclones sind is
 applicable only to concurrent rotary ore dryers with flowrates of 7.5 m Is (16,000 acfm)  or less.
 FFF in the uncontrolled emission factor equation is "flow feed factor", the ratio of gas  mass
 rate per unit dryer cross  sectional area to the dry mass  feed rate, in the following units:
              2                           2
     kg/hr - m  of gas flow     Ib/hr - ft  of gas flow
        Mg/hr dry feedton/hr dry feed

 Measured uncontrolled emission  factors for 4.2 and 5.7 m/a  (9000 and 12,000 acfm) range  from 5  -
 60 kg/Mg (10 - 120 Ib/ton).
 8EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
 Applicable to rotary dryers with and without process cyclones upstream of the fabric filter.

 References 11-14.  Factors apply to both heated and unheated roller mills.
 ^Factors represent emissions downstream of the product cyclone.
 k
 Factor is for combined emissions from roller mills and kettle calciners, based on the sum of  the roller
 mill and kettle calciner output production rates.
 References 9,15.  As used  here, an impact mill is a process  unit with process cyclones and is
 used to dry, grind and calcine  gypsum simultaneously.

 References 3, 6, 10.  A flash calciner is a process unit  used to calcine gypsum through direct contact
 with hot gas.  No grinding is performed in this unit.

 "References 4-5, 11, 13-14.

 pBased on emissions from both the kettle and the hot pit.   Not applicable to batch kettle  calciners.
 ^References 4-5, 16.  Based on 13 mm (% in.) board thickness  and 1.2 m (4 ft)
 board width.  For other board thicknesses, multiply the appropriate emission factor by 0.079  times
 board thickness in millimeters, or by 2 times board thickness in inches.
8.14-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                    5/83

-------
               TABLE  8.14-2.  UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE DATA
                               FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING
   Process                                         Weight Percent
                                                10 ym          2 ym

   Rotary ore dryer                                ,               ,
     with cyclones                               45             12
     without cyclones                             8              1
                              d                    e              e
   Continuous kettle calciners                   63             17

   Flash calcinersf                              38b            10b
o
.Reference 4.
 Aerodynamic diameter, Andersen analysis.
,Reference 3.
 References 4-5.
£
..Equivalent diameter, Bahco and Sedigraph analyses.
 References3, 6.
         TABLE 8.14-3.  PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING
                        OPERATIONS CONTROLLED WITH FABRIC FILTERS3
   Process                                         Weight Percent
                                                10 ym          2 ym
Rotary ore dryer,
with cyclones ,
without cyclones
Flash calciners
Board end sawing
c
26
84
76
9
9
52
49
o
.Aerodynamic diameters, Andersen analysis.
 Reference 4.
£
,Not available
 Reference 3.
g
..References 3, 6.
 References 4-5.


5/83                     Mineral Products Industry                    8.14-5

-------
     Emissions  from  some gypsum sources are also controlled with
 electrostatic precipitators  (ESP).  These sources include rotary ore dryers,
 roller mills, kettle calciners and conveying systems.  Although rotary ore
 dryers may be controlled separately, emissions from roller mills and
 conveying systems are usually controlled jointly with kettle calciner
 emissions.  Moisture in the  kettle calciner exit gas?improves the ESP
 performance by  lowering the  resistivity of the dust.

     Other sources of particulate emissions in gypsum plants are primary and
 secondary crushers,  screens, stockpiles and roads.  If quarrying is part of
 the mining operation, particulate emissions may also result from drilling
 and blasting.   Emission factors for some of these sources are presented in
 Sections 8.19 and 11.2.

     Gaseous emissions from  gypsum processes result from fuel combustion and
 may include nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.  Processes
 using fuel include rotary ore dryers, heated roller mills, impact mills,
 calciners and board drying kilns.  Although some plants use residual fuel
 oil, the majority of ..the industry uses clean fuels such as natural gas or
 distillate fuel oil.    Emissions from fuel combustion may be estimated
 using emission  factors presented in Sections 1.3 and 1.4.

 References for  Section 8.14

 1.   Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 4, John Wiley &
     Sons, Inc., New York, 1978.

 2.   Gypsum Industry - Background Information for Proposed Standards
     (Draft), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, April  1981.

 3.   Source Emissions Test Report, Gold Bond Building Products, EMB-80-
     GYP-1, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, November 1980.

 4.   Source Emissions Test Report, United States Gypsum Company,, EMB-80-
     GYP-2, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, November 1980.

 5.   Source Emission Tests,  United States Gypsum Company Wallboard Plant,
     EMB-80-GYP-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC,  January 1981.

 6.   Source Emission Tests,  Gold Bond Building Products, EMB-80-GYP-5, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     December 1980.

 7.   S. Oglesby and G. B. Nichols, A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitation
     Technology, Part II: Application Areas, APTD-0611, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, August 25, 1970.

 8.   Official Air Pollution  Emission Tests Conducted on the Rock Dryer
     and #3 Calcidyne Unit,  Gold Bond Building Products, Report No. 5767,
     Rosnagel and Associates, Medford, NJ, August 3, 1979.


8.14-6                         EMISSION  FACTORS                           5/83

-------
9.   Particulate Analysis of Calcinator Exhaust at Western Gypsum Company,
     Kramer, Callahan and Associates,  Rosario,  NM, April 1979.   Unpublished.

10.  Official Air Pollution Tests Conducted on  the #1  Calcidyner Baghouse
     Exhaust at the National Gypsum Company, Report No.  2966, Rossnagel  and
     Associates, Atlanta, GA, April 10, 1978.

11.  Report to United States Gypsum Company on  Particulate Emission
     Compliance Testing,  Environmental Instrument  Systems,  Inc.,  South
     Bend, IN, November 1975.  Unpublished.

12.  Particulate Emission Sampling and Analysis, United  States Gypsum
     Company, Environmental Instrument Systems, Inc.,  South Bend,  IN,
     July 1973.  Unpublished.

13.  Written communication from Wyoming Air Quality Division, Cheyenne,  WY,
     to Michael Palazzolo, Radian Corporation,  Durham, NC,  1980.

14.  Written communication from V. J.  Tretter,  Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
     Atlanta, GA, to M. E. Kelly, Radian Corporation,  Durham, NC,
     November 14, 1979.

15.  Telephone communication between Michael Palazzolo,  Radian Corporation,
     Durham, NC, and D. Louis, C. E. Raymond Company,  Chicago, IL,  April 23,
     1981.

16.  Written communication from Michael Palazzolo, Radian Corporation,
     Durham, NC, to B.  L. Jackson, Weston Consultants, West Chester, PA,
     June 19,
     1980.

17.  Telephone communication between P. J.  Murin,  Radian Corporation,
     Durham, NC, and J. W. Pressler, U. S.  Department  of the Interior,
     Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC,  November  6,  1979.
 5/83                     Mineral Products Industry                    8.14-7

-------
  8.19  CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE PROCESSING

  General^-

       The processing of construction aggregate (crushed stone, sand and gravel,
  etc.) usually involves a series of distinct yet interdependent operations.
  These include quarrying or mining operations (drilling, blasting, loading and
  hauling) and plant process operations (crushing, grinding, conveying and other
  material handling and transfer operations).  Many kinds of construction aggre-
  gate require additional processing (washing, drying, etc.) depending on rock
  type and consumer requirements.  Some of the individual operations take place
  with high moisture, such as wet crushing and grinding, washing, screening
  and dredging.  These wet processes do not generate appreciable particulate
  emissions.  Although such operations may be a severe nuisance problem, with
  local violations of ambient particulate standards, their generally large
  particles can usually be controlled quite readily and satisfactorily to
  prevent such problems.

       The construction aggregate industry can be broken into various categories,
  depending on source, mineral type or form, physical characteristics, wet versus
  dry, washed or unwashed, and end uses, to name but a few.  The industry is
  categorized here into Section 8.19.1, Sand and Gravel Processing, and Section
  8.19.2, Crushed Stone Processing.  Sand and gravel generally are mined wet and
  consist of discrete particles or stones, while crushed stone normally origin-
  ates from solid strata which are broken by blasting and which will require
  substantial crushing to be a useful consumer product.  Further Sections will be
  published when data on other processes become available.

  Reference for Section 8.19

  1.   Air Pollution Control Techniques for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry,
       EPA-450/3-82-014,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC,  August 1982.
           Notice:  Work is being done on emission factors for 8.19.2,
                    Crushed Stone Processing, and these factors will
                    be presented in a future Supplement to AP-42.

                    This new work will replace the present 8.20, Stone
                    Quarrying and Processing.
5/83                      Mineral Products Industry                        8.19-1

-------
8.19.1  SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING
                             1-2
8.19.1.1  Process Description

     Deposits of sand  and  gravel,  the consolidated granular materials re-
sulting from the natural  disintegration of rock or  stone,  are  generally
found in banks  and pits and  in  subterranean and subaqueous beds.  Sand and
gravel  are  products  of the  weathering of rocks and  are  mostly silica.
Often, varied amounts of iron oxides, mica, feldspar and other minerals are
present.  Deposits  are common throughout the country.

     Depending upon  the location of the deposit,  the materials are exca-
vated with  power shovels,  draglines, cableways, suction  dredge pumps or
other apparatus.   Lightcharge blasting may occasionally  be  necessary to
loosen  the  deposit.  The materials  are  transported to the processing plant
by suction  pump, earth mover, barge, truck or other means.  The processing
of sand and gravel for a specific market involves the use of different com-
binations of washers,  screens and classifiers to segregate particle sizes;
crushers to  reduce oversize  material;  and storage and loading facilities.

8.19.1.2  Emissions and Controls

     Dust emissions occur during conveying, screening, crushing  and storing
operations.  Generally, these materials are wet or moist  when handled, and
process emissions  are  often  negligible.   (If processing  is dry, expected
emissions  could  be  similar  to  those  shown  in Section 8.19.2,  Crushed
Stone.)  Considerable  emissions may occur from vehicles hauling materials
to and  from a  site.   Open dust source  emission factors  for such sand  and
gravel processing operations have been  determined through source testing at
various sand and gravel  plants  and, in some instances, through additional
extrapolations, and are presented in Table 8.19.1-1.

     As an alternative to the single valued emission factors given in Table
8.19.1-1, empirically  derived emission factor equations  are presented in
Chapter 11  of  this document.   Each equation  was  developed for  a single
source operation or dust generating mechanism which crosses industry lines,
such as vehicular  traffic  on unpaved roads.  The  predictive equation  ex-
plains much of the observed variance in measured emission factors by relat-
ing  emissions  to different  source  parameters.   These parameters may  be
grouped as  1)  measures of source activity or  expended energy (e.g.,  the
speed and  weight of  a  vehicle traveling on an unpaved road); 2) properties
of the  material being  disturbed (e.g.,  the content of suspendable fines  in
the  surface  material on  an unpaved road); and 3) climate (e.g., number of
precipitation free days per year, when  emissions tend to a maximum).

     Because predictive equations  allow for emission factor adjustment to
specific conditions,  they  should be used  instead  of the  factors given in
Table 8.19.1-1 whenever emission estimates are needed for sources in a spe-
cific sand  and  gravel processing facility.  However, the generally higher
quality ratings  assigned  to  the equations are applicable only if 1) reli-
able values  of  correction  parameters have  been  determined for the  specific

5/83                    Mineral Products  Industry                 8.19.1-1

-------
t/J
Ed

S
       H
       CO
      O
Ed  Q


1°
H  C/J
a
Ed
,J
,J
§
H
§
o
§
00

Id
hJ
                        § .H 00
                       •ri o e
                          CO O
                          Hen
                    eg  3
                    4J  U
                    O fH
                          •o
                          01 B
                          fH O
                          fH -H
                          O 4J
                          hi CO
                          4-1 hi
                          B 01
                          o a.
                          CJ O
                          B
w w

















B B
0 0
4J 4J
JO* JO
f— 1 f— 1


oo oo
z Z
"oo"oo







•o

\D
0

0
^
z

en
o

o




en
f™*
o

SB
m
NO
o

o




^•^

CM
0

d


^f
t— 1
O

o


















t-l
Q>

y
CO
4J
CO

B 1
o
CJ -H B
O.4J O
O eg fH
IH 4J 4J

g
CO Id U
3 Ol O
O UH UH
3 CO
B C 0>
•fH eg f-l
4J l-l -iH
B H Oi
O

«

















'B
o
4J
j3
,—4


00
y^
00
Jtt




01

?
CM
0
o

o

CM

O
o

o

01

NO
m
o
d


00
CM
o

0







CM

0



CM
f— i































00
B
•H
(J -0
D, eg
o o
14 ,-1
•o
Jtf
-a f-H

4J CO
CO
00
o o a





•H -r4 *H

X X >>
a n eg
TJ -O -C
CU CU 01
IH IH U
U U (J


J2 JO JO
f-H f-H f-H
XXX
co co eg
•o TJ -o
0) CD CU
U IH IH
co eg co
4J 4J 4J
CJ U U
01 01 01
JS JS JS
oo oo oo








^"•»/— ><— N
en r*> o

\o -H en
^^


f-H ON NO

r— fH in




/—N >—*/—•»
CM m •»
en en o

~_- *-_ j

00 0\NO

•I en f-i
fH fH











XXX









^,

CO
•o

01
^ >
fH 4J
B U
O CO
B
B -H
O
•HT3
JS co B
* O eg
00 IH
Ol 01
UH >
CO *O fH
CU B 4J
f-H -H CJ
•H in
e. •£•
UH
01 X 0
60 eg
eg x*o X
IH CO «H
O TJ CU E
4J >
CO CU *H rH
> 4J CO
01 -H 0 6
> 4J eg C
•fH O B O
•U < tH X
CJ

u

















P
J2
1>
^o
f._f^


t~*
Sf^
•^
00







tl

f-l

en



oo

o



01

o
en
en


en

9*







O

CM
ID




f>*


•H











y
•o
CO
O


•0
01

CO
B.
B
3 OJ
f-H
B CJ
O fH
J2
U U

UH X
CO 4J

4J -0

01 X
f-H 5>
u n
•H 01

01


01
•H IH
4J HI
U f-l
•H a,
•D E
01 CO
IH 10
a.
01
. §
•0 fH
01 O
fH >
01
> • J3
CO f-i 00
4J £,
CO 01 -a
01 4J U
•fH CO TJ
e JS e
U CO
01 4-1
fH B CO
O -rt
•fH CO
J2 -0
01 01 X
> 4-1 JO
e
II 11 -O
CO 01
H 01 IH
z: u 3
> & CO
CO
01 U
• >H E
•O eg
V CO
OJ ca
> C 4J
CO O CO
4J B >
CO
CO fH CO
£ g'H
O UH CO
BOH
O
fH CO
fH 01 •

01 1 §
f-t -H fH
U 4J O.
•H U
J3 01 Ol
oi C
> CU tl
4-1 3
II CO O
U CO
H 3
X o oi
> o us-
CO 4-1

• Ol B
Ol IH f-l
4J o
co e B
fH tl
3 01 N
tl tj fH
•H *H CO
4-* ^
IH o tH
CO h4 fH
a, o, co
*O XUH
tl f-l O
•O i-H
B eg co
Ol IH Ol
0, 01 rH
CO B CJ
3 O) -fH
CO 00 4J
14
fH J3 CO
m u o.
4J fH
O J3 01


II - 0
01 fO
BH B U
CO 0 fH
H -H CO
4J
CO CO
• 3 -H •
01 CP1 »— «
fH 01 Ol CM
JO 4-1 •
CO ki CO rl
tH O f-H fH
•fH 4J 3
CO  eg -rt O
CO UH 4J -fH
IH 4J
4J B CO CJ
O O O, 01
S -H CO
CO f-H
II CO eg Ol
•H 4-1 Ol
< E o en
S5 tl OH — '


re jo c
 IH
 tl
 Oi
 CO
S

•I
 hi
                                                                                              B
                                                                                              O
                                                                                              fH
                                                                                              4J
                                                                                              CO
                                                                                              IH
                                                                                              Ol

                                                                                              §•
                                                                                                       CA
                                                                                                       3
                                                                                                       C *J
                                                                                                       3 3
                                                                                                       C O
                                                                                                      •r4 -O
                                                                                                      4J CO
                                                                                                       u sr
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                         •D
                                                                                                      JZ B
                                                                                                       CJ CO
                                                                                                      4J
                                                                                                       CO  •
                                                                                                      JO CO
                                                                                                oo eg
                                                                                                n
                                                                                                V4  CO
                                                                                                o  co
                                                                                                4J  II
                                                                                                Id  IH
                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                o
                                                                                                4J -O  •
                                                                                                C  B f~>
                                                                                                O  3 CO
                                                                                                   O B
                                                                                                01  IH O
                                                                                                4J  00-fH
                                                                                                eg    4J
                                                                                                OOT3 CO
                                                                                                Ol  B IH
                                                                                                IH  10 01
                                                                                                oo   a,
                                                                                                00 B O
                                                                                                CO  01
                                                                                                   u a.
                                                                                                <4H  CO O
                                                                                                O MH 14
                                                                                                   IH -O
                                                                                                00 3
                                                                                                B  CO CO
                                                                                                fH    3
                                                                                                •O  01 O
                                                                                                CO f-H 3
                                                                                                O -H B
                                                                                                f-H  O*fH
                                                                                                     4J
                                                                                                /-^MH B
                                                                                                —i  O O
                                                                                                     u

                                                                                                ..  §_.
                                                                                                01 fH O
                                                                                                f-H  CO
                                                                                                u  o js
                                                                                                >, 14 O
                                                                                                CJ  Ol 4J
                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                u -a .a
                                                                                                oo B ^
                                                                                                eg -H
                                                                                                use
                                                                                                O    CO
                                                                                                4J /-N 01
                                                                                                co en u
                                                                                                oj   -
                                                                                                J=  CO
                                                                                                4J  CO
                                                                                                   V
                                                                                                B  M
                                                                                                •H  CO
                                                                                                       CO Ol
                                                                                                       B 00
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                       01
                                                                                                       a. c
                                                                                                       IH *4H
                                                                                                       3 UH
                                                                                                       O CO
                                                                                                       IB U
                                                                                                       —'  Ol
              01 fH     01
              E >  01  »
              B,iH  00
              •H 4J  eg J*
              £ U  hi  hi
              tt> «  O  O
                                                                                       UH  O    1-4 /—s  hi UH CO
                                                                                        o  e    o  HCOO,hl3     00   T)E
                                                                                     tihi    0)fHO
-------
sources of interest  and  2)  the correction parameter values lie within the
ranges tested in developing the equations.  Chapter 11 lists measured prop-
erties of aggregate  materials  used in industries relating to the sand and
gravel industry, which can be used to approximate correction parameter val-
ues for the  predictive  emission factor equations,  in the event that  site
specific values ar>e not available.  Use of mean correction parameter values
from Chapter 11  reduces  the  quality ratings of  the emission factor equa-
tions by at least one level.

     Since emissions  from  sand and gravel operations are usually  in the
form of  fugitive dust,  control techniques applicable  to  fugitive dust
sources are  appropriate.   Control techniques  most successfully used1 for
haul roads are  application  of dust suppressants, paving, route modifica-
tions, soil  stabilization, etc.;  for  conveyors,  covering and wet dust sup-
pression;  for  storage piles,  wet dust suppression, windbreaks, enclosure
and soil  stabilizers; and for  conveyor and batch transfer points (loading,
unloading, etc.), wet  suppression and various methods  to reduce freefall
distances (e.g., telescopic  chutes,  stone ladders and hinged boom stacker
conveyors).

     Wet  suppression  techniques  include application of  water,  chemicals  or
foam, usually at conveyor feed and discharge points.  Such spray systems at
transfer points and on material handling operations are estimated to reduce
emissions 70 to  95 percent.5   Spray systems can  also  reduce  loading and
wind erosion emissions  from  storage piles of various materials 80 to 90
percent.6  Control  efficiencies  depend upon  local climatic conditions,
source properties and  duration of control effectiveness.   Table 11.2.1-2
contains  estimates of  control  efficiency  for various emission suppressant
methods for haul roads.

References for Section 8.19.1

1.    Air Pollution Control Techniques for  Nonmetallic Minerals Industry,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     August 1982.

2.    S. Walker,  "Production  of Sand and  Gravel", Circular  Number  57, Na-
     tional Sand and Gravel Association,  Washington, DC, 1954.

3.    Fugitive Dust Assessment at Rock and  Sand Facilities in the South
     Coast Air Basin, Southern California Rock  Products  Association and
     Southern California Ready Mix  Concrete Association, Santa Monica,  CA,
     November 1979.

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

5.    R. Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive  Emissions  from Integrated Iron and Steel
     Plants,  EPA-600/2-78-050, U.  S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Washington, DC,  March 1978.
5/33                     Mineral Products Industry                 8.19.1-3

-------
6.   G. A.  Jutze, and K.  Axetell,  Investigation of Fugitive Dust,  Volume I:
     Sources, Emissions and Control,  EPA-450/3-74-036a,  U.  S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1974.
8.19.1-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                         5/83

-------
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, concentrating the ore
by separating the particles from the waste material (gangue),  and  pelletiz-
ing the  iron ore  concentrate.  A simplified  flow diagram of these process-
ing steps is shown in Figure 8.22-1.

Liberation - The  first  step in processing crude taconite ore is crushing
and grinding.  The ore must be ground to a particle size sufficiently close
to the grain size of the ironbearing mineral, to allow for a high  degree of
mineral  liberation.   Most  of the taconite used today  requires  very fine
grinding.  The grinding is normally performed in  three or  four stages of
dry crushing,  followed  by  wet grinding in rod mills and ball mills.   Gy-
ratory 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 al-
low for  closed circuit  operation of the  fine crushers.  The rod and ball
mills are also in closed circuit with classification  systems such  as  cy-
clones .   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 shippable  product for iron  making,
a large  amount of gangue is generated.   Magnetic separation and flotation
are most commonly used  for concentration of the taconite ore.

     Crude ores  in which most of the recoverable iron  is magnetite  (or, in
rare cases,  maghemite)  are normally concentrated by magnetic separation.
The crude ore  may contain 30 to 35 percent total iron by assay, but theo-
retically only about  75 percent  of  this is recoverable magnetite.   The re-
maining iron becomes part of the gangue.

     Nonmagnetic  taconite  ores are  concentrated by froth flotation  or  by  a
combination  of selective flocculation and flotation.   The method is deter-
mined by the differences in surface activity between  the iron  and  gangue
particles.   Sharp  separation is  often difficult.

     Various  combinations  of magnetic separation and  flotation  may  be  used
to concentrate ores  containing various iron minerals  (magnetite and hema-
tite, or maghemite)  or  wide ranges  of mineral  grain  sizes.  Flotation is
also often used  as a final  polishing operation on magnetic concentrates.

 5/83                    Mineral Products Industry                   8.22-1

-------
                                                                                            T)
                                                                                            OJ
                                                                                            4J
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            u
                                                                                            •H
                                                                                             Q)


                                                                                             CO

                                                                                             CO


                                                                                             O
                                                                                            •H
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                            •H

                                                                                             §


                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             QJ
                                                                                             O
                                                                                             O
                                                                                             C
                                                                                             cd
                                                                                             00
                                                                                             C
                                                                                             •H
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             cu
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             5-1
                                                                                             •H
                                                                                             C
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             H
                                                                                             CN
                                                                                             CS
                                                                                              •

                                                                                             00


                                                                                             QJ
                                                                                             M


                                                                                             t>0
                                                                                             •H
                                                                                             fn
8.22-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                         5/83

-------
Pallatization - Iron  ore  concentrates must be coarser  than  about No.  10
mesh to be acceptable as blast furnace feed without further treatment.   The
finer concentrates are  agglomerated  into small "green" pellets.  This is
normally accomplished by tumbling moistened concentrate with a balling drum
or balling disc.   A  binder additive, usually powdered  bentonite,  may  be
added to  the  concentrate  to improve  ball formation and  the physical quali-
ties of the  "green"  balls.  The bentonite is lightly mixed with the care-
fully moistened feed  at 4.5 to 9 kilograms per megagram (10 to 20 Ib/ton).

     The pellets are  hardened by a procedure called induration, the drying
and heating of the green  balls in an oxidizing atmosphere at  incipient fu-
sion temperature [1290  to 1400°C (2350 to 2550°F), depending  on the compo-
sition of the  balls]  for several minutes and then cooling.   Four general
types of  indurating  apparatus  are  currently used.  These  are the vertical
shaft furnace, the straight grate,  the circular grate and  grate/kiln.   Most
of the large plants and new plants  use the grate/kiln.  Natural gas is most
commonly used  for  pellet  induration now, but probably  not in the future.
Heavy oil is  being used at a few plants,  and  coal may be used at future
plants.

     In the vertical  shaft furnace,  the wet green balls  are distributed
evenly over the top  of the slowly descending  bed of pellets.  A rising
stream of 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  tempera-
tures .  The grate/kiln  apparatus  consists of a continuous traveling grate
followed by a rotary kiln.  Pellets  indurated by the  straight grate appara-
tus 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.

                              1-3
8.22.2  Emissions and Controls

     Emission sources  in  taconite  ore processing plants are  indicated  in
Figure 8.22-1.  Particulate  emissions also arise from  ore  mining opera-
tions.  Uncontrolled  emission  factors for  the  major processing sources  are
presented in Table 8.22-1, and control efficiencies 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 ma-
jor points of particulate emissions.  Crushed ore is  normally ground in wet
rod and ball  mills.   A few plants,  however, use dry autogenous or semi-
autogenous grinding  and have higher  emissions  than do conventional  plants.
The ore remains wet  through the  rest of  the  beneficiation process,  so par-
ticulate emissions after  crushing are generally insignificant.

     The first source of  emissions in the pelletizing process is the trans-
fer and blending of bentonite.  There are no other significant emissions in
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,

5/83                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.22-3

-------
             TABLE 8.22-1.   UNCONTROLLED PARTICIPATE  EMISSION                        |
                                FACTORS FOR TACONITE  ORE                             ™
                                      PROCESSING3

                        EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

Source

Fine crushing
Waste gas
Pellet handling
Grate discharge
Grate feed
Bentonite blending
Coarse crushing
Ore transfer
Bentonite transfer

kg/Mg
39.9
14.6
1.7
0.66
0.32
0.11
0.10
0.05
0.02
Emissions
Ib/ton
79.8
29.2
3.4
1.32
0.64
0.22
0.20
0.10
0.04

Q
, Reference 1. Median
values.

                produced.

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 sul-
fur dioxide emissions.   For  a natural gas fired furnace, these emissions
are about 0.03  kilograms  of S02 per megagram of pellets produced  (0.06 lb/
ton).   Higher S02 emissions  (about 0.6 to 0.7 kg/Mg, or 0.12  to  0.14 lb/
ton) would result from an oil or coal fired furnace.

     Particulate emissions  from taconite  ore processing plants  are  con-
trolled by  a  variety of  devices,  including cyclones,  multiclones,  roto-
clones, scrubbers, baghouses and electrostatic precipitators.   Water sprays
are also used to suppress dusting.  Annular coolers are geaeraily left un-
controlled,  because  their mass  loadings  of particulates are small,  typi-
cally less than 0.11 grams per cubic meter (0.05 g/scf).

     The largest source  of  particulate  emissions in taconite ore mines is
traffic on  unpaved haul  roads.3  Table 8.22-3 presents size specific emis-
sion factors for this source determined through source testing at one taco-
nite mine.   Other significant  particulate  emission sources at taconite
mines are wind erosion and blasting.3

     As an  alternative to the single valued emission factors for  open dust
sources given  in Tables 8.22-1 and 8.22-3, empirically  derived emission

8.22-4                   Mineral Products  Industry                     5/83

-------




















Fn
O

CO

8«
H CO
< W
25 O
H C*H
PQ S3
S O
O CO
o
Q
O *-S
En
oo
CO W
Pc3 O
hH 1 — (
O >
£3 W
ptj £3
M
O tJ
H O
PM PS
Pf M
w z
o
hJ O
q
P^
H

o
o



*
C"N|
i
cs
cs

eo
W
h-J

^1
H


















00
4J C
01 -H
i-l T!
0) C
CM eg






QJ
4J 10
U (Q
re oo





01
00
01 t-i
*J re
re js
^ u
U ifi
•e

QJ
JJ -O
2 £
U m


01
4J 00
•H d
C -H
c oi
01 i-l


QJ
*J t-i
•rt OJ
C n
•u d
e n
01 U
0 -J
00
d

•^ VI
lh S
h
U




^
OJ
^ in
O C

1-1

00
4J d
n -H
n tA
O 3
V w
u









f— j
o

^)
c
o
u
M-i IM 0;

CM i-t **-i ft
f"> r*- CM in
ON ON ON f--
ON ON ON ON




QJ

"-1 QJ

m ^

CO O>
ON OO


U-
^— v
M flj QJ
fi m •—

ON ON QO
^
S->*
CM E OJ
r^Crin
* N— / Xw-
00 00 ON
ON ON ON

MH IM
^-S /-s
cc
00 ON
ON ON




«*-«
N— ^
00
ON
^^
/^\ ^-N fg QJ
i2S o^ST

. . ^^/ .^^
ON ON ON ON



i*-i

00

io in  -*~*
w^ >w eg *-i
CO 00 s-/ w/
ON ON ON 00
II • •
m m oo oo
ON ON ON ON


0-
/-N
U-l t-H
CTS'

CO ON
00 ON
QJ

M-l QJ T-H
C^^*5"
S.w' >>w' •
00 00 ON
00 ON ON

U-t

M-l i-i
CM f^
Ch ON
ON ON




y— s
00
*~>
ON
^^
*«4 y~\
t^ •&
f*^ CO

ON €0
ON ON






(i) IM **•!
fNj 1— t f— (

m oo m
ON ON 00

^ E CJ

>*J MM •*•( sj E CM QJ CM **i
^ eMr7 v eMar?^ ^

CO ON CO ON ON ON ON ON 00



i-i i— *
W U O C]
O -H 4J LJ
4J 4_t TO -r4 k- t-H Ul
Q> U TO 4J C O « O
C QJ QJ 4J -H TO *J OC -4J
o c <-^ w a, j; u 3 u
C U i— 1 O k. O QJ ^i -i-^ »— 1
o -H u u 4-» Q; £ i— i u i— '
r*-44J O U W O J-* O
U — jj 00 C, CX >> LJ C U
>, 3 O «3 t-> W flj
u r: a CQ w Q o



o
w
U QJ
JS U M-t
§d o o
a> c
C -H >,
U 4J U
QJ -H re e
JS +4 JC CJ
4J IM 4J « «J «
•H 10 -^
•U - QJ X
U g 01
3 b
•O w O O
o; l-i +J
*J /-s C
4J 4J kH ^
d QJ ^* O
u oo Se
1- t) C
a j: -H u
u a
{0 OJ
>i 00
•D U -O O
OJ d 1-1 -H
(0 QJ QJ O
10 *H -*H d
OJ U W .C
U *H U

" " 3-1
OJ •D O


re .H d

01 u re u
•*4 W
U QJ "C
C -C K C •
QJ 4-> - re oj
•H W i— 1
u j: 01 OJ A
•H 4^ t* (j a
t! 'S 3 s 5
QJ u o n
u re w f>
** d w re
O O S >"
u *H B O OJ
*J *-> re w
d re E « «
o d d
U -H d 0 d
.a o -H o
E a. jj -rf

— o en
ti -rt d
OJ "W OJ tC *H
D QJ CO E «O
S 4J re O E
01 re ^ u o
k* tJ W
OJ -H QJ £

-------
       TABLE 8.22-3.   UNCONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                       HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON HAUL ROADS AT
                                    TACONITE MINES3

Surface
material
Crushed rock
and gla-
cial till
Crushed
taconite
and waste
Emission factor by aerodynamic diameter
< 30 pm
3.1
11.0
2.6
9.3

< 15
2.
7.
1.
6.

pm
2
9
9
6

< 10
1.
6.
1.
5.

pm
7
2
5
2

< 5 pm < 2
1.1 0
3.9 2
0.90 0
3.2 1

.5 pm
.62
.2
.54
.9

Units
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT

Emission
Factor
Rating
C
C
D
D

   Reference 3.   Predictive emission factor equations,  which generally pro-
   vide more accurate estimates of emissions, are presented in Chapter 11.
   VKT = Vehicle kilometers traveled.   VMT = Vehicle miles traveled.

factor equations are presented in Chapter  11 of this document.  Each equa-
tion was developed for a source operation  defined on the basis of a single
dust generating  mechanism  which  crosses industry lines,  such  as  vehicle
traffic on unpaved roads.   The predictive equation explains much of the ob-
served variance  in measured  emission  factors by relating emissions to pa-
rameters which  characterize  source conditions.  These parameters  may be
grouped into three categories:   1)  measures of source activity or energy
expended (e.g.,  the  speed  and weight  of a vehicle traveling on an unpaved
road),  2) properties of the material being disturbed (e.g., the content of
suspendable fines in the surface material  on an unpaved road), 3) climatic
parameters (e.g., number of  precipitation free days per year, when emis-
sions tend to a maximum).

     Because the predictive equations allow  for emission factor adjustment
to specific source conditions, the equations should be used  in place of
the  single  valued factors for  open dust  sources,  in  Tables  8.22-1  and
8.22-3, if emission  estimates for sources in a specific taconite ore mine
or processing facility are needed.  However, the generally higher quality
ratings assigned to the equations are  applicable only if 1) reliable values
of correction parameters have been determined for the  specific sources of
interest and  2) the  correction  parameter values lie  within  the  ranges
tested in developing  the  equations.   Chapter 11 lists  measured properties
of aggregate process  materials and road surface materials found in taconite
mining and processing facilities, which  can  be used to estimate correction
parameter values for the predictive emission factor equations,  in the event
that site specific values are not available.  Use of mean correction param-
eter values from Chapter  11  reduces  the quality ratings  of the emission
factor equations by one level.
8.22-6
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
References for Section 8.22

1.   J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions from Iron Ore Mining, Ben-
     ficiation 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.

3.   T.  A.   Cuscino,  et al.,  Taconite Mining Fugitive  Emissions Study,
     Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville,  MN,  June 1979.
5/83                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.22-7

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

8.24.1  General1

      There  are  12  major  coal  fields  in the  western states  (excluding the
Pacific Coast  and  Alaskan fields), as  shown in Figure 8.24-1.   Together,
they  account  for more than  64 percent of the surface minable  coal  reserves
           COAL TYPE
           LIGNITE     ESS
           SUBBITUMINOUSdJ
           BITUMINOUS
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    3
                    9
                   10
                   11
                   12
                Coal field

            Fort Union
            Powder River
            North Central
            Bighorn Basin
            Wind River
            Hams Fork
            Uinta
            Southwestern Utah
            San Juan River
            Raton Mesa
            Denver
            Green River
Strippable reserves
    (1Q6 tons)

     23,529
     56,727
  All underground
  All underground
         3
      1,000
        308
        224
      2,318
  All underground
  All underground
      2,120
5/83
Figure 8.24-1.   Coal  fields  of the western U.S.3

            Mineral Products  Industry
                                                                             8.24-1

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

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

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

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

8.24.2  Emissions

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

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

8.24-2                       EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83

-------
                                                                                        U)
                                                                                        0)
                                                                                        C
                                                                                        cfl
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o

                                                                                        0)
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        cfl
                                                                                        14-1
                                                                                        S-i

                                                                                        en

                                                                                        C
                                                                                        t-i
                                                                                        0)
                                                                                         cfl
                                                                                         a
                                                                                         cfl

                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         C
                                                                                         O
                                                                                        •H
                                                                                        4-1
                                                                                         cfl
                                                                                         M
                                                                                         0)
                                                                                         CX
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        CN
                                                                                         I
                                                                                        
-------




H
*^

en
w
rj
S
3
O
en
p en
Q H


Z Z
W 3
O.
O U


^j OS
W H
"] M
rJ S
O ^

H W
Z U
O Z




,J

o o
ft, CJ

en W
Z U
0 <

<: 3

o-
OS W
0 H
H en

£
>*4


O
en
en
i — \
2
Cd


rH
1

CM
00

W

PQ

H








c
o
•r4
W
•r*
%*




4
.








U
j£


fti
4)
E
•H
•0
U
•H
e




£

00
c
hi
N
•H
(0

i-H
U

U
o
.0
(1}
a
o
•H
to
"g










•
1
<
4i
(
X











.


c
_ oc
D C
T W
M OS




A
J

3


•0
CO


I
m
CM

V













E
a.
m

v






1

o
en
j

V
cu
12






4
a
^

j
j
5









3
•4
J
0
4
u
X


w en CQ as ca < ea ca < u

JS
4J 41
(A Ofi hi

<-HOO hi hi ci £• itf _rf x •*->
* E x: .« E >!>!>!> u
0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 X!
M jc jc j£ A: jd J^






C5O O — OOOOO
oo o o o o o o o a:






m
CM
5

™1'
10 • BO • O r-

^ "X ^ ® ** S *" £ ° "^ ° °r^ °
e°S'^:c •s-' -"^ °> ™ °--ac°<
>-* O ^^ OO O O CM O 1 '•-' O Z




CM
d
**? ^
e^ r- 'w in N»
00 v-^
• ~* CM r- CM fn
rf* N-^ /— % co <-* m ^-* • o "*-/ •«— '
^^ N^-^ *** ^-v ^

•^ • oo • ''^ ^^ <•""•* »tf Ex en fnj • ^^3
fl y-^ • ^s « N— ' \D ^-^ O VO O 'I •*** O CO
^^ v^ f) CM O ^ O 1 N**' O ^




c
•o d c
hi 41 ftl
3 -O "O
hi X> hi hi
0 hi 33
4> X) Xl

0 ° 0 0 > > 0
U U U O O O
^.^
4J* ft) T)
3 ^H d
*D -H re
CL
^> U e d /^
ftj >H 3 4) O ft)
00 T3 Uw -H OO-H U
c o w-i "o re w d
•H g reoitflhion
T3 00 UE-^Ohid

OC O -H 4ICOOJ 4-I3U4J

4J ^fi T) -H CUhi-HU-H > /-N -H
O X> T-H N
hi n E w •
•HO OO O ^O

•H 10 tJ 60 CO CM
jj (j /-N,^ e -H .
« 4J c/j oo x: -H B eo
3 O E O. "C ft)
ft) U N-/ -H O 41 d
ii u 4J 41 FH a  Ol T3 00
f0ft)ttj 4J ^ ^H U U
hi (— IBJ X3UU4IO)OCA
oft) OO-H -H ^j »*H 4J a*
hi § X! >• > B M O «
re *c> o. c c c T3 4J

uh> h. aj a> 41 o « at
^D^ •ofieE*-^^
^ ft) -FJ II H H II H


4J i— < ti x;
4) Jtf (11 C
u T5 >> re
x QJ e: ^ xi
41 i— I «1 >* (— i
u 4-1 •-— ' d •— i
-•HO) O
•"• Xj 4J £J -H -
4) > 4) *— ' (0
U >•> *J 30)
d ii Xi d 4-i cr 4)
41 o e a) a,
hi H *Ci U 4) >>
4t K 41  3 C4hi Oftl-t-lft)
OS Ki E3 U CO 4-1 d
• R. W 4J /~v ^. U -H
ST I «T,.S3^.£^ =
hlrH CftlO -H 4)O
I > ••-' >H 00 4J 4> O.
£re 4-> (D <-H OurH 4* ftl
hi 4. « i-H (5 4> (0 &CM •— 1
« 4J (C 3 XI — * "H -H W W X)
1' WO)'34T«S4)£'tJ£~'S
Qft) 4* 4-» i-f 4J C QJ -H

*-> E 4J IM a.
re c MM II 11 II >> ffi
3 4J C U rH
a 4J -H
— i x: Q. e ^ 4j
f-t 4> tn >. 3 re
< > E- CO E OS

re xs u *c 4)
8.24-4
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------




H

CO
CJ
os
3
O
CO
n)
E~* /-x
CO CO
D H
Q H
55 5
H
O< X
O CO


a J
w u


§~
H CO
2 M
O 25
O M

K
J
O O
fa CJ

CO [d
JJ«


H OS
»
•o
o

ft)
Ol
00
d
«
M

O)
N
"ifi

O1
U
Ui
CO
10
d
o
•H
»
n
•H












(

1
t
*
(
3






(
.


c
U 00
D d
> 4-*
M CC


in
j

3





•c
CO
H
i
m
•

v











i
V






i
o
en



V
o-
w
H





4
a
^

u
j
0







5
H
J
0

;
31

ft)
COM CD CQ ca < ca ea < cj

1*
*J .C
to ^-'
2 fr- ' .£ i *>, ? i i> i ^ si









cn«-« CM O .-• CM co •»»«-»
00 0 -• OOOOO
oo o o ooooox






CM

*
**
— t
\O CO r*- *K If)

o CM m o -m
.—•. s~*. • m *-* *D CM '"*>
U *— i . O •"> "— '
0 in Ch ON """"%, ^2-^ (N 3? K ^ CM **? In
./-v"^/-s .%_^ O *— ' O CM O • •— v O
tNOoSZeo • • • •coE-<





^
CM
£ ^
o
oo ^ m
- i— CM t— m
o *-> -CM /-^ m CM ^*

<" ^— "^m ~ m 3-*^ 'o so >^

oo CM ^'--t (o*-4 •- 1 /-N lor-
— i • \D • /^s_/^» CM3CX O ON) • v* 3
^Q1^^ oo*^ r"!s""' °. rt * in 3^ * *
%— wr- m o CM ol^-'O —




d
o>
•o d o
S •£ -S
fa ja fa M
0 fa 33

f-l > r-l ^H "fa "fa «
CO O CO CO D Ol CO
O O Q > > O
U U U O O W

^
*J 01 *O
3 -id
•O -H fl
/^  o o>
OO "D *« -iH OO*H Cj
c o **-i *c « to d
•f« SWOIWfaOtC
•o oc fagjdofad
«o e -— i *j --^ u *j a< ft;
c — i N d fa>ooo)£fa*od
•1-1 o -H o>«Jd— i oo *J ai e -M


•-Hlu 3 UUfaftlflU



£
!
*j
ca
—i
3
•*
t-i
(fl

•o
ftl
•o
d
41
O,
(0
3
CO
^H
CO 4)
4-» 00
o d
4J M
II
ft)
b N
[2 "S
&

in
o>
U 

OS • CM
ft) • C
o 3 n cT"H
fa fl £ « •
14-. ^H C < d^
•HO oc o \£>
C W -H *- ' • -H 1
O > *J /•-* tfl **
•H CO U CO OO CO CM

fl^Jcn o j= --. e co
SO *J O. T3 41
0) 4) •— / r-i O 4) d
H to *J ft* — i d «

>H< 00 4) £ 4J E ID
•H 5E fa ^-v -H ftl S i-H fa 1
Clj ft) JJ ft) ^ i-l 4) -^
O) • On •*-• O 0) •
00 T3 £ 0) 01 Ot -0 00
(BftlCO *J r-l — 1 fa U
J-»>0) -H JS J3 B fa i-H
COflE 4! 4J ft) 3 3 d ^
fa3 ^>>dUOfl
co o c^dcd'o-u
O M > O « « « *0 O ft)
Ufa fa ft) ftl ft! O « ftl
h 4-> 00 **- >— '
O ft) -pf II I) H II M
M-. E J= ca >
O T3 U CO > *4 -H t— t
4J 1— 1 -O ^
(X>H fa JJ TT
ft) Jrf « C
U "O >» *8
X ft) C /-N A

(J 4J ^-- d HH
-•^H 10 O
ft) ffl C 9*. *J HH
41 > 41 w n
u >» +J 3 eo
a it *a c *J o* tv
»
1) btf ftt r-v jJ /-s ft) M
m •> kj M fti d o >
O> 3 iJ fa O 4> -H 4)
OS U **-< 3 ^-v U » *J d

E" iou4*JE*Hx:
o o) E co *o .H ^ —i >— ' -e
fa*-H CftlO iH DO
MH ft) n O *J B JS « "W fa^
^  ft) ON
fti ca *J ra — i o<— i u u
t^ fa *> (fl •— i«00)fl D*CU i— I
« *J fl 3A-H> fl
3 ftl C « — I
O4— * 01 I-H *S 33 Q W 3 &4 00
ft) u *o o -H d
•- .O 4J -H
r-l J3 D- E ^H 4J
f-H ft) W >> 3 fl
< > H « 2 OS

CO ,O U *O ft)
5/83
Mineral Products Industry
                                                                     8.24-5

-------
The equations were developed through field sampling various western surface
mine types and are thus applicable to any of the surface coal mines located
in the western United States.

     In Tables 8.24-1 and 8.24-2, the assigned quality ratings apply within
the ranges of  source conditions that were tested in developing the equa-
tions, given in Table  8.24-3.   However, the equations are  derated  one  let-
ter value (e.g., A to B) if applied to eastern surface coal mines.
  TABLE 8.24-3.
TYPICAL VALUES FOR CORRECTION FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE
        PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS3

Source
Blasting




Coal loading
Bulldozers
Coal

Overburden

Dragline


Scraper


Grader

Light/medium
duty vehicles
Haul truck


Correction Number
factor of test
samples
Moisture
Depth

Area

Moisture

Moisture
Silt
Moisture
Silt
Drop distance

Moisture
Silt
Weight

Speed


Moisture
Wheels
Silt loading

5
18

18

7

3
3
8
8
19

7
10
15

7


7
29
26

Range
7.2 -
6 -
20 -
90 -
1,000 -
6.6 -

4.0 -
6.0 -
2.2 -
3.8 -
1.5 -
5 -
0.2 -
7.2 -
33 -
36 -
8.0 -
5.0 -

0.9 -
6.1 -
3.8 -
34 -
38
41
135
9,000
100,000
38

22:0
11.3
16.8
15.1
30
100
16.3
25.2
64
70
19.0
11.8

1.7
10.0
254
2,270
Geometric
mean Units
17.2
7.9
25 . 9
1,800
19,000
17.8

10.4
8.6
7.9
6.9
8.6
28.1
3.2
16.4
43.8
53.8
11.4
7.1

i.2
8.1
40.8
364
<>/
h
m
ft
m2
ft2
%

%
%
I
°L
h
m
ft
%
%
Mg
tons
kph
mph

%
number
8/m2
Ib/acre

   Reference 1.

     In using  the  equations to estimate emissions  from  sources  in  a  spe-
cific western  surface  coal mine, it is necessary that reliable values for
correction parameters  be  determined for the specific sources of interest,
if the  assigned quality ratings of the equations are to apply.  For exam-
ple,  actual  silt  content  of coal or overburden measured  at a facility
 8.24-6
            EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

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

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

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

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

     Because  the  predictive  equations  allow emission factor adjustment to
specific source conditions,  the equations should be used in place of  the
factors in Table 8.24-4 for the sources identified above, if emission esti-
mates for a specific  western surface coal mine are needed.  However,  the
generally higher  quality  ratings  assigned to the equations are applicable
only if 1)  reliable  values  of  correction parameters have been determined
for the specific sources of interest and 2) the correction parameter values
lie within  the  ranges  tested in developing  the equations.   Table 8.24-3
lists measured properties of aggregate materials which can be used to esti-
mate correction parameter values  for the predictive emission factor equa-
tions in Chapter  11, in the event that  site  specific values are  not  avail-
able.  Use  of mean  correction parameter values from Table 8.24-3 reduces
the quality ratings  of the emission factor equations in Chapter 11 by one
level.
5/33                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.24-7

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



Topsoil removal by
scraper


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


Bottom dump truck
unloading c
(batch drop)










End dump truck
unloading
(batch drop)
Scraper unloading
(batch drop)
Wind erosion of
exposed areas

Material Mine
location
Overburden Any

Coal V

Topsoil Any

IV

Overburden Any

Overburden V


Coal Any

III

Overburden V


Coal IV

III

II

I

Any

Coal V


Topsoil IV
Seeded land, Any
stripped over-
burden, grades
overburden
TSP
emission
factor
1.3
0.59
0.22
0.10
0.058
0.029
0.44
0.22
0.012
0.0060
0.037
0.018

0.028
0.014
0.0002
0.0001
0.002
0.001

0.027
0.014
0.005
0.002
0.020
0.010
0.014
0.0070
0.066
0.033
0.007
0.004

0.04
0.02
0.38
0.85

Emission
Units Factor
Rating
Ib/hole
kg/hole
Ib/hole
kg/hole
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg

Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/T

Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg

Ib/T
kg/Mg
	 T
(acre)(yr)
Mg
(hectare) (yr)
li
!!
E
E
K
E
I)
I)
C
C
C
c

D
D
D
D
E
E

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

C
C
C

                Roman numerals I through V refer to specific mine locations for which the
                corresponding emission factors were developed (Reference 4).  Tables 8.24-4
                and 8.24-5 present characteristics of each of these mines.  See text for
                correct use of these "mine specific" emission factors.  The other factors
                (from Reference 5 except for overburden drilling from Reference 1) can be
                applied to any western surface coal mine.
                Total suspended particulate (TSF) denotes what is measured by a standard high
                volume sampler (see Section 11.2).
                Predictive emission factor equations, which generally provide more accurate
                estimates of emissions, are presented in Chapter 11.
8.24-8
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
















03
1
^3"
CM
•
00

W
— ]
CO
^
H
Z

o


Q
»jJ
OS
OS
u
£&4
LtJ
as

co
•^r
l£~
2

t— •
^
o
CJ

M
C_3
^
g
=

fi,
o

C/3
U
— -•
£— «
C/3
w_t
—i
S
CJ
5
«
u

«
<£
as
rU
z
Jj

•
1
>4"
CM
•
00 ;

a
^*
20
^C

d •
-H o d
OS -H -rl
3 4-1
d 03
d 4-1
03 -H
a.
d -.-4
03 U
01 01
2 n £
&J o




J=
t) Oi
d £
•r4 T3
3 Ol
01
d &
03 01 (fl
0) ~-,
2 E



r— 1
•r4 ^i
OT!_l
M d -H
03 r-l X
0) -H 0)
u 01 ,a -o
03 O* '** d
U^ ^\ T^ -H
1_ _i O
3 >-
00 




d
< -H
03
t.
la
01
H



vO
^
in ^ i r- ^t
T-t r-H r- 1 ^H
1— t
t-H



r-4
•^

oo *^3 i co \o
CO CO  d 03
^r-4.d 03r-l O-OV-I OT3 03->O
•H03-t-ld3 13 -— • C W >» r-4
•- >> O T— I O E 3>>OI 03 01 /"N
>i S W >> 03 -O 3 / — v O E ,fl / — > •> W /— v •> >> >% CM
0103 OJJdS-lUvO i—4 (8 r— >» rH >»03OSO
>• O 13 T— 1 rH OS U 00 rHOd^T £Or~ E r— IT— 1 r-t
03^1 •i-IU03On3^-' OSr^O^ 034J>-^ OS U O *— '
r-4 !-l _C O O
CJ < CO n4 hj
J3 J2 TJ T3 J3
w 7i oi d d M
-3 3 4-JOI03-OI03 3
OI*-| Wi OS'Ht— tOI'HrH >J
4-I.C M^O n^4UX 4->^ICO Mf^
OJOJ-OJO) OJOI'HCO 03-rltO 01O)
V400 MOO C/3T30303 V40S03 WOO
0)03 i-IOS V4OS-II. 0)l-lr4 S-IOS
"OW OJM ojEcuoO^JiOO osw
o &« cii o a.
2 W 00 2 00

1 T-J 1
r-l (U r-4
>» T3 r-4 00 i— 1
r-t 01 o oo o oo
oioo V4O3S-I >>d
4-IO.OO 4-IVH Or- 1-1-4
030)3 >, .„ >, 4J4-»rH
1-10)1-1 T— IOCS T— 100 drH
D 4-1 -rl 4JdOI <-> C 4-»0)O
•o w s d-«M d-r-i osooij
O 01 01 Ol r-l
A. CV3 C3 CJ fcti

^ E E S E
O "3 3 3 3 01 3
-^ OJ | * 4.J | L ^J | t
01 03 d ' -H -H -H >r4 -r-l
a.O-r4J3^J ^J C J-J
>> U E
H


42 42 J 00 42
33 3-1-13
cn oo co >-3 oo

I


C
c
•H
+J
CO
CJ
o
r«


03
0
0 03
•C OC 03 r-l Q 00
os d d os d
i-4 -i-l 03 V4 4; -i-t
• O • S • -U 4-1 4-1 • £
ISr-tlso wd ds-i wo
• O • >. • O OJ O • >>
ZU003 002 UZ Z3


5— i
CU !
2 r- £ iU rt >
















































































<
^3-

01
CJ
d
01

01
14-1
0)
as
m
5/83
Mineral Products Industry
                                                                   8.24-9

-------









en
w
M

JH rrj
^j Ml
CJ 1
W «N
£ QO

fe W
O »-3
cq
to 


o
in


m
~



ki
«
P^


















73
U
B
•H
E
(0
o
u
cu

(0
kt

e
o
•H

U
9
•a
o

a.



CM




*


CM


^
Z



§


h^
CO
•o
Ll
a







5*
B
01
9
0<
V


B
a


•H
B
9
OC
<

^j
U
o
o.
n
B
n
k>
4-1
1— 1
CO
O
u

m
m e> < o
en i f^ SB i i-i
00 VO

S^ K
m -CM o o
VO 1 CM CO CM 00
0
o •»
o o **• < in *•*
os eo CM te, CM 1-1

m o
0 - O
O f^ in in *» o



o in
o en
•f 0 -O CM CN
CM sr os in CM in



CO











a I*
ID CJ O
U « H 4J
01 >^ W 0) U
c ij 41 w ca
o "« £ S ** 5
•rt C U C 00 Q,
XI 01 -H Jki B «)
i) -o J3 O -H tJ

SB JB i-l 4->
01 E 4J 9 -H
T5 -0 CCJ J5 D,
M kt 01 tXI
9 3 « C a 01
A JZ 1-1 i-i >
01 0) co Li O 4J
> > o re o. u
O O !-> B- t/3 <


U
•H
JS
0.
CO

M
•H CO
CO CO
W -0

CO

oo o
0 "*. 0
m vo o oo

m o
SO O
oo • in
en r— o oo
in oo
r- CM
CM eo o oo

CT> CM
in en
00 O • VO
— i-i O Os

O
vo O
•4* O
O • i-
11 CO o 1-1



9
- -*J

















4J
B
oi a
ki 0
3 k> O
4J 9
	 , f- 	 , JM
:g-S3£


n
•H
10

1-4
CO
C
co n
4J
IH a
«0 T)
0
u

c» O 0
•-i —i O O SO
CM r^ ^ 1-1 I s^

in


^ i i i i i
CM
1-1 *3- o in so
CM 00 i-t OS -» ^^•

o
en CM vo i-* so
O O CM CM O 00
•- CM en CM en 1-1


00 O
VO *3* 1** O CM
1-1 en in 1-1 i -H



01 01 U 01 01 tl
u u u u u u
co « co n a co








n
01
U
TJ B
B a
a .a
J-l kl
9
0> u
ki -D
3 -0
U 1H i
•HO. OI i-H 4J
•a E ce
01 CO MH B iH
rt > I-H CO 0) U
4J 4-1 O U kl CO
H < » i

O 0
O 0
o o
< vo 0
as ** en 1-4 CM

j*j j^
01 01
Sii
B hi k>« 
!-t kl O O
CO 01
o :> - -


X >t M CA
$K u u n eo
4J B B M 1-4
U 99
O, Ol 0.  A
8.24-10
EMISSION FACTORS
                                         5/83

-------
References for Section 8.24

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

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

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

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

5.   J.  L.  Shearer, et al.,  Coal  Mining Emission  Factor Development  and
     Modeling Study,  Amax Coal Company, Carter Mining  Company,  Sunoco
     Energy  Development  Company,  Mobil Oil  Corporation,  and Atlantic
     Richfield Company, Denver, CO, July 1981.
5/83                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.24-11

-------
11.2  FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES

     Significant atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of
granular material  exposed to  the  air.  Dust generated  from  these open
sources is termed "fugitive" because it is not discharged to the atmosphere
in a confined flow stream.  Common sources of fugitive dust include unpaved
roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and heavy
construction operations.

     For the above categories of fugitive dust sources, the dust generation
process is caused by two basic physical phenomena:

     1.  Pulverization  and abrasion of surface materials by application of
mechanical force through implements (wheels, blades, etc.).

     2.  Entrainment of dust particles by the action  of  turbulent  air cur-
rents, such  as  wind  erosion of an exposed surface by wind speeds over 19
kilometers per hour (12 miles/hr).

     The air pollution impact of a fugitive  dust source depends on the
quantity and  drift potential of  the dust particles  injected into the atmo-
sphere.  In  addition to  large dust particles that settle  out  near the
source (often creating  a  local nuisance problem), considerable amounts  of
fine particles  are also emitted and dispersed over much greater distances
from the source.

     The potential drift  distance  of  particles is governed by the initial
injection height of  the particle,  the particle's terminal settling veloc-
ity,  and  the degree of atmospheric  turbulence.   Theoretical drift dis-
tances, as a function  of particle diameter and mean wind speed, have been
computed for  fugitive  dust emissions.1 These results indicate  that, for  a
typical mean  wind  speed of 16  kilometers per hour  (10 miles/hr), particles
larger than  about  100  micrometers  are likely to settle out within 6 to  9
meters (20 to  30  ft)  from the edge of the road.   Particles that are 30  to
100 micrometers in diameter are  likely to undergo impeded  settling.  These
particles, depending upon the  extent  of atmospheric turbulence,  are likely
to settle within a few hundred feet from the road.  Smaller particles, par-
ticularly those less than  10  to 15 micrometers  in diameter,  have much
slower gravitational settling  velocities  and are much more likely to have
their settling rate retarded by atmospheric turbulence.  Thus, based on  the
presently available data, it appears  appropriate  to report  only those par-
ticles smaller  than  30 micrometers.   Future updates  to  this  document are
expected to define appropriate factors for other particle sizes.

     Several  of the  emission  factors  presented  in  this Section are ex-
pressed in terms  of  total suspended particulate  (TSP).  TSP  denotes what
is measured  by  a standard high volume  sampler.  Recent wind tunnel studies
have shown that the  particle mass capture  efficiency curve for the high
volume sampler  is  very  broad,  extending from  100  percent capture of parti-
cles smaller  than  10 micrometers to a few percent capture of particles  as
large as  100 micrometers.   Also, the   capture efficiency curve varies with

5/83                       Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2-1

-------
wind speed and  wind  direction,  relative to roof ridge orientation.  Thus,
high volume samplers  do  not provide definitive particle size information
for emission  factors.  However, an effective  cutpoint  of  30 micrometers
aerodynamic diameter  is  frequently assigned to the  standard  high volume
sampler.

     Control techniques  for  fugitive dust  sources generally involve water-
ing, chemical stabilization, or reduction  of surface wind speed with wind-
breaks or source enclosures.  Watering, the most common arid generally least
expensive method, provides  only temporary  dust  control.  The use  of chemi-
cals to  treat exposed surfaces  provides longer  dust  suppression but may  be
costly,  have adverse  effects on plant and animal life,  or contaminate the
treated  material.  Windbreaks  and  source  enclosures are often impractical
because  of the size of fugitive dust sources.
 11.2-2                       EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
11.2.1  UNPAVED ROADS

11.2.1.1  General

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

11.2.1.2  Emissions and Correction Parameters

     The quantity of dust  emissions from a given segment  of unpaved road
varies  linearly  with the  volume of  traffic.  Also,  field investigations
have shown  that  emissions depend on  correction  parameters  (average vehicle
speed,  average vehicle weight,  average number of wheels per vehicle,  road
surface texture  and  road surface moisture) that characterize the condition
of a particular road and the associated vehicle traffic.1"4

     Dust emissions  from unpaved  roads have been  found  to vary in direct
proportion  to  the  fraction  of silt  (particles smaller than 75 micrometers
in diameter)  in  the  road  surface material.1  The  silt fraction is deter-
mined by measuring  the proportion of loose dry surface dust that passes a
200 mesh screen,  using the ASTM-C-136 method.   Table 11.2.1-1 summarizes
measured silt values for industrial and rural unpaved roads.
 TABLE 11.2.1-1.
TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIALS ON
       INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADS3

Industry
Road use or
surface material
No. of test
samples
Silt (%)
Range Mean
Iron and steel
  production
Taconite mining and
     Plant road
   References 1-9,

 5/83
13
         Miscellaneous Sources
4.3 - 13
7.3
processing

Western surface coal
mining




Rural roads

Haul road
Service road

Access road
Haul road
Scraper road
Haul road
(freshly graded)
Gravel
Dirt
12
8

2
21
10
5

2
1
3.7
2.4

4.9
2.8
7.2
18

12

- 9.7
- 7.1

- 5.3
- 18
- 25
- 29

- 13

5.8
4.3

5.1
8.4
17
24

12
68

                   11.2.1-1

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

     Unpaved roads have  a hard nonporous surface that usually dries quickly
after a rainfall.  The temporary reduction in emissions because of precipi-
tation may be accounted  for  by neglecting emissions on  "wet"  days [more
than 0.254 mm (0.01 in.)  of precipitation].

11.2.1.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

     The following  empirical  expression may be used to estimate the quan-
tity of size specific particulate  emissions from an unpaved road, per ve-
hicle unit of travel, with a  rating of A:

                    ,,,„,,.,,  0.7   , ,0.5
        E = k(1.7)  jf
          = «5.9) fel) (J)  (I)   '    a)     (3«p)   Ub/lKT)
                        V30/

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

The particle size multiplier (k) in Equation 1 varies with aerodynamic par-
ticle size range as follows:

                     Aerodynamic Particle Size Multipler
                               for Equation 1
         < 30 |Jm    < 15 (Jm    < 10 |jm    < 5 (Jm    < 2.5
           0.80       0.57       0.45      0.28       0.16

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

     Equation 1 retains the  assigned quality rating if applied within the
ranges of source conditions that were tested in developing the equation,  as
follows:

11.2.1-2                     EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83

-------
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 0)
T3
CU
4-1
•H
c
p
n
ll

§
§
«•»
g
N

f.
i
»J
•H
a
o
•H
4-1
tfl
M 4-1
- o
s f1*
S -H
C
CU
M
a,
<4_l
O
CU
                                                                                 O
                                                                                 e
                                                                                 O
                                                                                 C
                                                                                 •H
                                                                                 O
                                                                                  •
                                                                                 o

                                                                                 f,
                                                                                 4-1
                                                                                 •H
                                                                                 &

                                                                                 co
                                                                                 ^
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 C
                                                                                 n)
                                                                                 a)
                                                                                 I
                                                                                 r-l
                                                                                 cu
                                                                                 h
                                                                                 3
5/83
Miscellaneous  Sources
11.2.1-3

-------
                 Range of Source Conditions for Equation 1

Road
surface
silt
content
(%)

Mean vehicle Mean vehicle Mean
weight speed No. of
Mg tons km/hr mph wheels
      4.3-20    2.7-142     3-157    21-64   13 - 40   4 - 13
Also, to retain the quality rating of Equation 1 applied to a specific un-
paved road, it  is  necessary that reliable correction parameter values for
the specific road in question be determined.   The field and laboratory pro-
cedures for determining road surface silt content are given in Reference 4.
In the event that  site specific values for correction parameters cannot be
obtained, the appropriate mean values from Table 11.2.1-1 may be used, but
the quality rating of the equation is reduced to  B.

     Equation 1 was developed for calculation of annual average emissions,
and thus, is to  be multiplied by annual source extent in vehicle distance
traveled (VDT).  Annual  average  values  for each of  the correction param-
eters are to be substituted into the equation.  Worst case emissions, cor-
responding to dry  road conditions,  may be calculated by setting p =  0 in
Equation 1  (which  is  equivalent  to  dropping the last term from the equa-
tion) .  A separate set of nonclimatic correction parameters and a higher
than  normal VDT value may also be justified for the worst case averaging
period (usually 24 hours).  Similarly, to calculate  emissions for a 91 day
season of the year using Equation 1, replace the term  (365-p)/365 with the
term  (91-p)/91, and set p equal to the number of wet days in the 91 day pe-
riod.  Also, use appropriate seasonal values for the nonclimatic correction
parameters and for VDT.

11.2.1.4  Control Methods

      Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving,  surface treat-
ing with penetration  chemicals,  working soil stabilization chemicals into
the  roadbed, watering, and  traffic  control regulations.  Paving, as a con-
trol  technique,  is often  not economically practical.  Surface chemical
treatment and watering can  be accomplished with moderate to low costs, but
frequent retreatments  are  required.  Traffic controls  such as speed limits
and  traffic volume restrictions  provide moderate emission reductions but
may be difficult  to enforce.  Table  11.2.1-3 shows  approximate  control ef-
ficiencies  achievable  for  each method.   Watering, because of the frequency
of treatments  required,  is  generally not feasible for public roads and is
effectively used  only where water and watering equipment are available and
where roads are confined to a single site, such as a construction location.
 11.2.1-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
            TABLE 11.2.1-3.  CONTROL METHODS FOR UNPAVED ROADS11
                                                      Approximate
                                                        control
          Control method                              efficiency
          Paving                                          85
          Treating surface with penetrating
            chemicals                                     50
          Working soil stabilizing chemicals
            into roadbed                                  50
                       Q
          Speed control
            48 kph .(30 mph)                               25
            32 kph (20 mph)                               50
            24 kph (15 mph)                               63
             Based on the assumption that "uncontrolled" speed is
             typically 64 kph (40 mph).   Between 21 and 64 kph
             (13 and 40 mph), emissions  are linearly proportional
             to vehicle speed (see Equation 1).

References for Section 11.2.1

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

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

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

 4.  C.  Cowherd, Jr. ,  et al. ,  Iron and  Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugi-
     tive Emission Evaluation,  EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S.  Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,  May 1979.

 5.  R.  Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive Emissions  from Integrated  Iron and Steel
     Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC,  March 1978.

 6.  R.  Bohn, Evaluation of Open Dust Sources in the Vicinity of Buffalo,
     New York, U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, New York,  NY,  March
     1979.
 5/83                      Miscellaneous Sources                   11.2.1-5

-------
 7.   C.  Cowherd, Jr., and T.  Cuscino,  Jr.,  Fugitive  Emissions Evaluation,
     Equitable Environmental  Health,  Inc.,  Elmhurst, IL, February  1977.

 8.   T.   Cuscino,   et al. ,   Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study,
     Minnesota Pollution Control  Agency,  Roseville, MM,  June  1979.

 9.   K.  Axetell and C.  Cowherd, Jr.,  Improved  Emission Factors  for Fugitive
     Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining'Sources, 2 Volumes, EPA Contract
     NCK68-03-2924,PEDCoEnvironmental^Inc.,  Kansas City,  MO,
     July 1981.

10.   Climatic Atlas of the  United States,  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce,
     Washington, DC,  June 1968.

11.   G.  A.  Jutze, et al., Investigation of Fugitive Dust Sources Emissions
     and Control, EPA-450/3-74-036a,  U.  S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1974.
11.2.1-6                     EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
11.2.2  AGRICULTURAL TILLING

11.2.2.1  General

     The two universal objectives of agricultural tilling are the creation
of the desired soil structure to be used as the crop seedbed and the eradi-
cation of weeds.   Plowing,  the most common method of tillage,  consists of
some form of cutting loose, granulating and inverting the soil,  and turning
under the organic  litter.   Implements  that  loosen the soil and cut off the
weeds but leave  the  surface  trash in place  have recently become more popu-
lar for tilling in dryland farming areas.

     During a tilling operation, dust particles from the loosening and pul-
verization of  the  soil  are injected into the  atmosphere  as  the soil is
dropped to the surface.  Dust  emissions  are greatest during periods of dry
soil and during final seedbed preparation.

11.2.2.2  Emissions and Correction Parameters

     The quantity  of dust  from agricultural tilling is proportional to the
area of land  tilled.   Also, emissions depend  on surface soil texture and
surface soil  moisture  content,  conditions  of a particular  field being
tilled.

     Dust emissions  from  agricultural  tilling have been found to vary di-
rectly with the  silt content (defined  as particles < 75 micrometers in di-
ameter) of the surface soil depth (0 to  10  cm  [0 to 4 in.]).   The soil silt
content is determined by measuring the proportion of dry soil that passes a
200 mesh screen,  using ASTM-C-136 method.  Note that  this  definition of
silt differs  from  that customarily used by soil scientists, for whom silt
is particles from 2 to 50 micrometers in diameter.

     Field measurements2  indicate that  dust  emissions  from agricultural
tilling are not  significantly related to surface soil moisture,  although
limited earlier  data had  suggested such  a  dependence.1   This  is now be-
lieved to reflect  the  fact that most  tilling  is performed under  dry  soil
conditions,  as were the majority of the  field tests.1"2

     Available test data indicate no substantial dependence of emissions on
the type of  tillage  implement, if operating at a typical speed (for exam-
ple, 8 to 10 km/hr [5 to 6 mpti]).1"2

11.2.2.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equation

     The quantity  of dust  emissions  from agricultural tilling, per acre  of
land tilled, may be estimated with a rating of A or B (see below) using the
following empirical expression2:

                        E = k(604)(s)°'6    (kg/hectare)               (1)

                        E = k(538)(s)°-6    (Ib/acre)

5/83                       Miscellaneous Sources                   11.2.2-1

-------
     where:   E = emission factor
             k = particle size multipler (dimensionless)
             s = silt content of surface soil (%)

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

             Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier  for Equation 1
Total
particulate
1.0
< 30 (Jm
0.33
< 15 Mm
0.25
< 10 Mm
0.21
< 5 Mm
0.15
< 2.5 Mm
0.10
     Equation 1 is rated A if used to estimate total particulate emissions,
and B if used for a specific particle size range.   The equation retains its
assigned quality  rating  if applied within the range  of surface soil silt
content  (1.7 to  88 percent)  that was tested  in developing  the equation.
Also, to retain  the quality  rating of Equation 1 applied to a  specific ag-
ricultural field, it  is  necessary to obtain  a reliable silt value(s) for
that field.  The  sampling  and analysis procedures for determining agricul-
tural silt content are given in Reference 2.   In the event that a site spe-
cific value  for  silt  content cannot be obtained, the mean value of  18 per-
cent may be  used, but the  quality  rating of the equation is reduced by one
level.

11.2.2.4  Control Methods3

     In  general,  control methods are not applied to reduce emissions from
agricultural tilling.   Irrigation of  fields  before plowing will reduce
emissions, but in many cases, this practice would make the  soil unworkable
and  would  adversely  affect  the plowed soil's characteristics.  Control
methods  for  agricultural activities are aimed primarily  at reduction of
emissions from wind erosion  through  such practices  as continuous cropping,
stubble  mulching,  strip cropping, applying limited irrigation to  fallow
fields,  building  windbreaks, and using chemical stabilizers.   No data are
available  to indicate the effects of  these or  other control  methods  on
agricultural tilling, but as a practical matter, it  may  be assumed that
emission reductions are  not  significant.

References for Section 11.2.2

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

2.   T.  A.  Cuscino,  Jr.,  et al.,  The Role of Agricultural Practices in
     Fugitive Dust Emissions, California Air  Resources  Board,  Sacramento,
     CA, June 1981.

3.   G. A Jutze, et al., Investigation of Fugitive Dust - Sources Emissions
     And Control, EPA-450/3-74-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

11.2.2-2                      EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83

-------
11.2.3  AGGREGATE HANDLING AND STORAGE PILES

11.2.3.1  General

     Inherent  in operations that use minerals  in aggregate form is  the
maintenance of  outdoor storage piles.   Storage piles are usually left un-
covered, partially  because  of  the need  for  frequent  material transfer into
or out of storage.

     Dust emissions  occur  at several points in  the  storage cycle,  during
material loading onto  the  pile, during disturbances by  strong wind  cur-
rents, and  during loadout  from the  pile.  The movement of trucks  and  load-
ing equipment  in the storage pile  area is  also a substantial source of
dust.

11.2.3.2  Emissions and Correction Parameters

     The quantity of dust  emissions from  aggregate storage  operations var-
ies with the volume of aggregate passing  through the storage cycle.   Also,
emissions depend on three  correction parameters  that characterize the con-
dition of a particular storage pile:  age of the pile,  moisture content and
proportion of aggregate fines.

     When freshly processed  aggregate  is  loaded  onto a  storage pile, its
potential for  dust  emissions is at a maximum.   Fines are easily disaggre-
gated and released to the atmosphere upon exposure to air currents from ag-
gregate transfer itself  or high winds.   As  the  aggregate  weathers,  how-
ever, potential  for dust emissions is greatly reduced.   Moisture causes ag-
gregation and  cementation  of fines  to the  surfaces  of  larger  particles.
Any significant  rainfall soaks the  interior of  the  pile,  and  the drying
process is  very  slow.

     Field investigations have shown that emissions  from aggregate  storage
operations  vary  in  direct  proportion to the percentage of silt (particles
< 75 |Jm in diameter) in the aggregate material.1 3  The silt content  is de-
termined by measuring  the proportion of dry aggregate material that passes
through a 200 mesh  screen, using ASTM-C-136 method.  Table  11.2.3-1 summa-
rizes measured silt and moisture values for industrial  aggregate materials.

11.2.3.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

     Total dust  emissions from aggregate storage piles  are contributions of
several distinct source activities within the storage cycle:
     1.   Loading of aggregate onto storage piles (batch or continuous drop
          operations).
     2.   Equipment traffic in storage area.
     3.   Wind  erosion of  pile surfaces  and ground  areas around piles.
     4.   Loadout of aggregate for  shipment or  for  return  to  the process
          stream  (batch or continuous drop operations).
5/33                       Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.3-1

-------












CO
w
!=>

\o o oo \£>m
in r-c CM — CO -31
. . r- . . . 0 •
mOOrHCM rH CM CMv£

1 1 1 1 < << 1 1 1 < 1
z z z z

\4^ • • CM • O • •
• -H CM • O • CM O
00 O





WvCvCCOO-rHOO CM -,- r-OC-,





^ if) f") O ^ O r** >? ^ '"tf" O CN LO O
-a- o> in m oo in in o o -- en— vo r- in


r^ co &• *^

rHrHr^r^CM rH y-) rHr-CM
I I I I I I i Z III
^COCMcn-tf CO CM «*COrH
rn CM «— i CM co c*> in






o cr\ P^ fn CN ^ *^ rH ITH CM ON (N m m t*n
rH rH rH




0.
B
O
4-J TJ
CO B
OJ 3
Oi CU E O
01 N 1* -H C t.
b 4JCUOO>rH 0100
o cu w oj c: to *o
k- 3U-OO -o 1000 IH-O
4JO •o^aj-'4-> B 301
OJ *73O>CO X OI'H ^CO
rH CbrH OOO)QJC4-)0' CO rHrH rHr>lO
rHEnnS-KILlCE 3 -H -H TO OJ O,
0;3OrHrHOrH-H'H U QJ<5 O>X


J5 O
00 00
oo B oo a oj
rH C -rt B -H U -O
oia -H co -H co « oo
DC ^.COBCOMHB
4J O U 01 >H 0) kj -H
10 -H MUEU 3B
4J re o o co -H
•o u 3 >-i u .4 E
B 3 0- C. 4J 0. C
re -O -H U rH
O 0" -O B -O 0) »
CW BBOB4JO
o&4 O(5Uco cau
ii 4J re 01
rH tV3 H S














































.
01
r— 1
£
a
u
«H

a*

ID

o
e
II
§
in
1
CM • • •

CO
cy o> o> u
u u u u
B B B B
01 01 01 OJ
IH U l-i h
OI O> OJ OJ

0) O> 0) 0)
B: K a: os


m £, u 13
11.2.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
     Adding aggregate material to a storage pile or removing it usually in-
volves dropping the  material  onto a receiving  surface.  Truck dumping on
the pile or  loading  out from the pile to  a truck with a front end  loader
are examples of batch drop operations.   Adding material to the pile by a
conveyor stacker is an example of a continuous drop operation.

     The quantity of particulate emissions generated by a batch drop opera-
tion, per  ton  of  material transferred,  may be estimated, with a rating of
C, using the following empirical expression2:
                                                                      (D
E
E
— Irf fl
— K^U .
= k(0.
00090)
0018)
(
(|
/»«
S
5
(
r \
)
M
2
2
( U
\2.
f(
(!)
/\7\
\
2)
Y
(I
0.
(
\
)
33
H \
1.57
0.33
(Ib
(kg/Mg)
/ton)
     where:
E
k
s
U
H
M
Y
emission factor
particle size multipler (dimensionless)
material silt content (%)
mean wind speed, m/s (mph)
drop height, m (ft)
material moisture content (%)
dumping device capacity, m3 (yd3)
The particle size multipler (k) for Equation 1 varies with aerodynamic par-
ticle size, shown in Table 11.2.3-2.
                TABLE 11.2.3-2.
                    AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE
                        MULTIPLIER (k) FOR
                        EQUATIONS 1 AND 2
            Equation      < 30    < 15    < 10    < 5    < 2.5
                           (Jm      |Jm      |Jm      (Jm      |jm


            Batch drop    0.73    0.48    0.36    0.23   0.13

            Continuous
              drop        0.77    0.49    0.37    0.21   0.11
     The  quantity  of particulate emissions generated by a continuous drop
operation, per ton of material transferred, may be estimated, with a rating
of C, using the following empirical expression3:
5/83
              Miscellaneous Sources
                                                    11.2.3-3

-------
              E = k(0.00090)
                /i\  /JL\
                \57  \2.27
                                         3.0
              E = k(0.0018)
                     (I)
              (I) (g)  (ig
                 (I)2
                                  (kg/Mg)
                          (2)
(lb/ton)
     where:  E = emission factor
             k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
             s = material silt content (%)
             U = mean wind speed, m/s (mph)
             H = drop height, m (ft)
             M = material moisture content (%)

The particle  size  multiplier (k) for Equation 2 varies  with aerodynamic
particle size, as shown in Table 11.2.3-2.

     Equations 1 and 2 retain the assigned quality rating if applied within
the ranges of  source  conditions that were tested in developing the equa-
tions, as  given  in Table  11.2.3-3.  Also, to  retain the  quality ratings  of
Equations 1 or 2 applied to a specific facility,  it is necessary that reli-
able correction parameters be determined for the specific sources of inter-
est.  The  field  and laboratory  procedures  for aggregate  sampling are given
in Reference 3.  In the event that  site  specific values  for  correction pa-
rameters  cannot  be obtained,  the appropriate mean  values  from Table
11.2.3-1 may be  used,  but in that  case,  the  quality ratings of the equa-
tions are reduced by one level.
               TABLE 11.2.3-3.
                  RANGES OF SOURCE  CONDITIONS FOR
                        EQUATIONS 1 AND 2a

Silt Moisture
Equation content content

Dumping capacity
~OF yd3

Drop height
m ft
Batch drop
1.3 - 7.3  0.25 - 0.70  2.10 -  7.6  2.75 - 10
                    NA
NA
Continuous
drop
1.4 - 19
0.64 - 4.8 NA
NA 1.5 - 12 4.8
- 39

   NA = not applicable.

     For  emissions  from equipment  traffic  (trucks,  front  end  loaders,  doz-
ers, etc.)  traveling  between or  on piles,  it  is  recommended that  the  equa-
tions for vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces be used (see Section 11.2.1).
For vehicle  travel  between storage piles, the silt value(s)  for the areas
 11.2.3-4
                EMISSION FACTORS
                             5/83

-------
among the piles (which may differ from the silt values for the stored mate-
rials) should be used.

     For emissions from wind erosion of active storage piles, the following
total suspended particulate  (TSP) emission factor equation is recommended:
E = 1.9  (^j) (^g^)  (jf)  (kg/day/hectare)      (3)

                     \
                     )
                       . _        /365-p\ / f
                     = 1'7         "
     where:  E = total suspended particulate emission factor
             s = silt content of aggregate (%)
             p = number of days with ^ 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation
                 per year
             f = percentage of time that the unobstructed wind speed ex-
                 ceeds 5.4 m/s (12 mph) at the mean pile height

     The coefficient in Equation 3 is taken from Reference 1, based on sam-
pling of emissions  from a  sand and gravel  storage pile  area  during periods
when transfer and maintenance equipment was not operating.  The factor from
Test Report 1,  expressed  in mass per unit area per  day,  is  more reliable
than the factor expressed in mass per unit mass of material placed in stor-
age, for reasons stated in that report.  Note that the coefficient has been
halved to  adjust for the estimate tnat the wind speed through  the emission
layer at the  test site was  one half  of the value measured above the top of
the piles.  The  other  terms in this equation  were  added to correct  for
silt, precipitation and frequency  of high winds, as  discussed in  Refer-
ence 2.   Equation 3 is rated  C  for  application in the sand and gravel in-
dustry and D for other industries.

     Worst case emissions  from  storage pile areas occur  under dry windy
conditions.  Worst  case emissions  from materials handling (batch and con-
tinuous  drop)  operations  may be calculated by substituting into Equations 1
and 2 appropriate values  for aggregate material moisture content and for
anticipated wind speeds  during the worst  case  averaging period,  usually
24 hours.  The  treatment  of dry conditions for vehicle  traffic  (Section
11.2.1)  and for wind  erosion (Equation 3), centering around parameter p,
follows  the methodology described in Section  11.2.1.  Also,  a  separate set
of nonclimatic correction parameters and source extent values corresponding
to higher  than  normal storage pile activity may be justified for the  worst
case averaging period.

11.2.3.4  Control Methods

     Watering and chemical  wetting agents  are  the principal  means for con-
trol of  aggregate storage  pile emissions.  Enclosure or  covering  of in-
active piles to reduce wind erosion can also reduce emissions.   Watering is
useful mainly to reduce emissions from vehicle traffic  in the  storage pile
area.  Watering of  the  storage piles themselves typically has only a very
temporary  slight effect on total emissions.   A much more effective tech-
nique is to apply  chemical wetting agents for better wetting of fines and

5/83                       Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.3-5

-------
longer retention of  the  moisture  film.   Continuous chemical treatment of
material loaded onto piles, coupled with watering or treatment  of roadways,
can reduce total particulate emissions from aggregate storage operations  by
up to 90 percent.8

References for Section 11.2.3

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

2.   R.  Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel
     Plants,  EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  March 1978.

3.   C.  Cowherd, Jr.,  et al.,  Iron and Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugi-
     tive Emission Evaluation,  EPA-600/2-79-103, U.  S.  Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.

4.   R.  Bohn,  Evaluation  of Open Dust Sources in the Vicinity of Buffalo,
     New York, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  New York,  NY, March
     1979.

5.   C.  Cowherd, Jr.,  and T.  Cuscino, Jr.,  Fugitive Emissions  Evaluation,
     Equitable Environmental  Health, Inc., Elmhurst,  IL,  February 1977.

6.   T.   Cuscino,   et al. ,  Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study,
     Minnesota Pollution Control  Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.

7.   K. Axetell and C. Cowherd, Jr., Improved Emission Factors  for Fugitive
     Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, 2 Volumes,  EPA Contract
     No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,  Kansas  City, MO,  July 1981.

8.   G. A. Jutze, et al., Investigation of Fugitive Dust Sources  Emissions
     and Control, EPA-450/3-74-036a, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1974.
11.2.3-6                      EMISSION FACTORS                         5/83

-------
11.2.6  INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROADS

11.2.6.1  General

     Various field  studies  have  indicated that dust emissions from indus-
trial paved  roads  are  a major component of atmospheric particulate matter
in the vicinity of industrial operations.  Industrial traffic dust has been
found to  consist  primarily  of mineral matter, mostly tracked or deposited
onto the  roadway  by vehicle  traffic  itself when vehicles enter  from an un-
paved area  or travel on  the shoulder of the road,  or  when  material  is
spilled onto the paved surface from haul truck traffic.

11.2.6.2  Emissions and Correction Parameters

     The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of paved road var-
ies linearly with the volume of traffic.  In addition, field investigations
have shown  that emissions depend on  correction parameters  (road surface
silt content,  surface  dust  loading and average vehicle weight)  of a par-
ticular road and associated vehicle traffic.1"2

     Dust emissions from  industrial  paved roads have been found to vary  in
direct proportion  to  the  fraction of silt (particles < 75 |Jm in diameter)
in the  road  surface material.1"2  The silt fraction is determined by mea-
suring the proportion  of  loose dry  surface  dust  that passes a  200 mesh
screen, using  the ASTM-C-136 method.  In addition,  it has also been found
that emissions  vary in direct proportion to  the  surface dust  loading.1"2
The road surface dust loading is that loose material which can be collected
by vacuuming and  broom sweeping the  traveled portion of  the paved road.
Table 11.2.6-1  summarizes measured  silt and loading values for  industrial
paved roads.

       TABLE 11.2.6-1.  TYPICAL SILT  CONTENT AND LOADING VALUES  FOR
                          PAVED ROADS AT  IRON AND STEEL PLANTS3
                         Silt (%)       	Loading	
              Travel                    	Range	         Mean
Industry       lanes   Range    Mean    kg/km        Ib/mi     kg/km  Ib/mi
Iron and
  steel
  production     2    1.1 - 13   5.9  18 - 4,800  65 - 17,000   760   2,700


o
   References 1-3.  Based on nine test samples.
 5/33                       Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.6-1

-------
11.2.6.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equation

     The quantity of particulate emissions generated by vehicle traffic  on          "
dry industrial paved roads,  per vehicle mile traveled, may be estimated,
with a  rating of B  or D  (see below), using the following empirical expres-
sion:


           E = k(0.025)1  (£) (^) (^} (A)  '     (kg/VKT)          (1)
           E = k(0.090)I             -              (Ib/VMT)
     where:  E = emission factor
             k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless) (see below)
             I = industrial augmentation factor (dimensionless) (see below)
             n = number of traffic lanes
             s = surface material silt content (%)
             L = surface dust loading, kg/km (Ib/mile) (see below)
             W = average vehicle weight, Mg (tons)

The particle size multipler (k) above varies with aerodynamic size range as
follows:

                  Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier (k)
                                for Equation 1
             < 30 pro    < 15 Mm    < 10 Mm    < 5 Mm    < 2.5
               0.86       0.64       0.51      0.32       0.17

To determine  particulate  emissions  for  a  specific particle  size  range,  use
the appropriate value of k shown above.

     The industrial road augmentation factor (I) in the equation takes  into
account higher  emissions  from industrial  roads  than  from  urban  roads.   I  =
7.0 for an industrial roadway which traffic enters from unpaved areas.  I =
3.5 for an industrial roadway with unpaved shoulders.  I = 1.0 for cases in
which traffic does  not  travel unpaved  areas.  A value  of  I  between  1.0  and
7.0 should be used  in the equation which best  represents conditions for
paved roads at a certain industrial facility.

     The equation retains  the quality rating of B if  applied to vehicles
traveling entirely  on paved  surfaces  (I = 1.0) and  if applied  within the
range of  source conditions that were tested in developing the equation as
follows:
 11.2.6-2                      EMISSION FACTORS                         5/83

-------
Silt
content
(%)
Surface
kg/km
loading
Ib/mile
No. of
lanes
Vehicle weight
Mg tons
  5.1 - 92    42.0 - 2,000    149 - 7,100    2-4     2.7-12    3-13

If I > 1.0, the rating of the equation drops to D because of the arbitrari-
ness in the guidelines for estimating I.

     Also, to  retain  the quality ratings of Equation 1 applied to a spe-
cific industrial paved  road,  it is necessary that reliable correction pa-
rameter values  for  the  specific  road  in question be determined.  The field
and laboratory procedures for determining surface material silt content and
surface dust loading are given in Reference 2.   In the event that site spe-
cific values  for correction parameters  cannot be obtained, the appropriate
mean values from Table 11.2.6-1 may be used, but the quality ratings  of the
equation are reduced by one level.

References for Section 11.2.6

1.   R.   Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive  Emissions from  Integrated  Iron and Steel
     Plants,  EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC, March 1978.

2.   C.  Cowherd, Jr.,  et al.,  Iron and Steel Plant Open Dust Source  Fugi-
     tive Emission Evaluation,  EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S.  Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.

3.   R.  Bohn,  Evaluation of  Open Dust Sources  in the  Vicinity of Buffalo,
     New York, U. S. Environmental  Protection  Agency, New York,  NY,  March
     1979.
 5/83                      Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.6-3

-------
                          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^
   meter^
   yard2
   mile2
      6.45 centimeters2
      0.09 meters2
      1.2   yards2
      0.84 meters2
      2.59 kilometers2
centimeter3
inch3
foot3
foot3
meter3
yard3
0.06
16.39
283.17
1728
1.31
0.77
                            centimeters3
                            centimeters3
                            inches3
                            yards3
                            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

-------


















cct
CO

W

fa

CO
D
O
M

•3
fa
o
CO
as
W
H
§

SO
d
"rH
4-1
CO
01
X




























4-1
oo
•H
CU
*

^
X)
•—'
9-S
x:
oo
•H
§1

^
,O
^-s

8*$











H










rH
U

















rH
(U
3
fa
14-1
0
Si
f^
H
O
O
O vO XI •
CM r-l CM CO CN CO in
II • 1 1 1 1
-* o vo 1-1 i— i 1-1 m
• •
r-» O



-* O O

in rH F-~ r-l
II • Z Z Z 1
so in o m
• • •
o o o













^ X) XI X> X> XI X>
0 0 0 Q 0 0 0
o o o o o o o
O CO CM CM O in CO
co CM r>. in -* sr co
1-4 rH r-4







oo oo oo oo oo oo oo

§O O O O CM O
r-l CT> OO CM O1 00
CN 00 ON CO CN -* CO
r^ NO co CN CM CM P--






^•\ X— \
CU 01

3 _.— ^ ~-
4J 0) 4-1 0)
CO rJ CO iH
•H 3 IH 3
8 co S co
r-l rH TH -H 4-1
 ^-^ CO N-x
fa S M -H CO -
3 x: fl TS 
r- 4




fO cO
Q g
s s
"^*. ^^^
rH <^
C^) CN
as (t
ON in
















CO
co a
CO
o c
CU
rH f>
CO O
4J ^
CO O
Z U






z








z















fa
o
o
o
r-l





co

(3
•*•*.
o
CTi
00















CO
cS
CU
U
a
rl
3
fa
4-1
co
n)
1— 1
CO



















•
4»J
c
01
co
01
^4
a

CU
14
(8

•
*J
(U
•t
tJ
•rH
13
.
•^
(0
ca

c
CU
•s
t»
'U
(i
J-
r'-l
X)
CO
l-l
CU
T3
•H
m
c
0
U

XI
CU Cfl
-H a
XI
•H 4-1
M C
"*•! 1J
rH 4J
do C
CU O
C 0
II ff.
£5 ^^
eg x>
A-IO
Appendix
5/83

-------
*       t
                                       DENSITIES OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES
Substance
Fuels
Crude Oil
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Gasoline
Natural Gas
Butane
Propane
Wood (Air dried)
Elm
Fir, Douglas
Fir, Balsam
Hemlock
Hickory
Maple , Sugar
Maple, White
Oak, Red
Oak, White
Pine, Southern
Agricultural Products
Corn
Milo
Oats
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral Products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Concrete
Glass , Common
Gravel, Dry Packed
Gravel, Wet
Gypsum, Calcined
Lime, Pebble
Sand, Gravel (Dry, loose)
Density

874 kg/m3
944 kg/m3
845 kg/m3
739 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
579 kg/m3
507 kg/m3

561 kg/m3
513 kg/m3
400 kg/m3
465 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
689 kg/m3
529 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
641 kg/m3

25.4 kg/bu
25.4 kg/bu
14.5 kg/bu
21.8 kg/bu
27.2 kg/bu
226 kg/bale

2.95 kg/brick
170 kg/bbl
1483 kg/m3
2373 kg/m3
2595 kg/m3
1600-1920 kg/m3
2020 kg/m3
880-960 kg/m3
850-1025 kg/m3
1440-1680 kg/m3

7.3 Ib/gal
7.88 Ib/gal
7.05 Ib/gal
6.17 Ib/gal
1 lb/23.8
4.84 Ib/gal
4.24 Ib/gal

35 lb/ft3
32 lb/ft3
25 lb/ft3
29 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
43 lb/ft3
33 lb/ft3
42 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
40 lb/ft3

56 Ib/bu
56 Ib/bu
32 Ib/bu
48 Ib/bu
60 Ib/bu
500 Ib/bale






ft3
(liquid)
(liquid)



















6.5 Ib/brick
375 Ib/bbl
2500 lb/yd3
4000 lb/yd3
162 lb/ft3
100-120 lb/ft3
126 lb/ft3
55-60 lb/ft3
53-64 lb/ft3
90-105 lb/ft3









    5/83
Appendix
A-l!

-------
                    CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS

                                  AIRBORNE PARTICULATE MATTER
To convert from
Milligrams/cu m




Grams/cu ft




Grams/cu m




Mlcrograms/cu m




Mlcrograms/cu ft




Pounds/1000 cu ft




To
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Mlcrograms/cu ra
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milllgrams/cu m
Grams/cu m
Mlcrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milllgrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milllgrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Mllligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Multiply by
283.2 x 10-6
0.001 >
1000.0
28.32
62.43 x 10-6
35.3145 x 103
35.314
35.314 x 106
1.0 x 106
2.2046
1000.0
0.02832
1.0 x 106
28.317 x 103
0.06243
0.001
28.317 x 10~9
1.0 x 10-6
0.02832
62.43 x 10-9
35.314 x ID"3
1.0 x 10-6
35.314 x 10-6
35.314
2.2046 x 10-6
16.018 x 103
0.35314
16.0L8 x 106
16.018
353.14 x lO3
                To convert from
                                        SAMPLING PRESSURE
          To
Multiply by
            Millimeters of mercury
              (0°C)

            Inches of mercury
              (0°C)

            Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60°F)

Millimeters of mercury
  (0°C)
Inches of mercury (0°C)
  0.5358
 13.609
                                                                       1.8663
                                                                      73.48  x  10~3
A-12
       Appendix
                      5/83

-------
                   CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS

                                      ATMOSPHERIC  GASES
              To convert from
                                 To
 Multiply by
           Milligrams/cu m
           Micrograms/cu m
           Micrograms/liter
           Ppm by volume (20°C)
           Ppm by weight
           Pounds/cu ft
                         Micrograms/cu m
                         Micrograms/liter
                         Ppm by volume (20°C)

                         Ppm by weight
                         Pounds/cu ft

                         Milligrams/cu m
                         Micrograms/liter
                         Ppm by volume (20°C)

                         Ppm by weight
                         Pounds/cu ft

                         Milligrams/cu m
                         Micrograms/cu m
                         Ppm by volume (20°C)

                         Ppm by weight
                         Pounds/cu ft

                         Milligrams/cu m
                                      Micrograms/cu m


                                      Micrograms/liter


                                      Ppm by weight


                                      Pounds/cu ft
                         Milligrams/cu m
                         Micrograms/cu m
                         Micrograms/liter
                         Ppm by volume (20°C)

                         Pounds/cu ft

                         Milligrams/cu m
                         Micrograms/cu m
                         Micrograms/liter
                         Ppm by volume (20°C)

                         Ppm by weight
1000.0
   1.0
  24.04
    M
   0.8347
  62.43 x 10~9

   0.001
   0.001
   0.02404
      M
 834.7 x 10-6
  62.43 x 10-

   1.0
1000.0
  24.04
    M
   0.8347
  62.43 x 10-9

    M
                                                       24.04

                                                           M
                                                        0.02404

                                                         M
  24.04

    M
  28.8

      M
 385.1 x 106

   1.198
   1.198 x 10-3
   1.198
  28.8
    M
   7.48 x 10-6

  16.018 x 106
  16.018 x 109
  16.018 x 106
 385.1 x 1Q6
      M
 133.7 x 103
         M
Molecular weight of gas.
5/83
                             Appendix
                    A-13

-------
                 CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON  AIR  POLLUTION  MEASUREMENTS




                                         VELOCITY
To convert from
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Feet/ sec
Miles/hr
To
Kilometers/hr
Feet/ sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Feet/sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Feet/sec
Multiply by
3.6
3.281
2.237
0.2778
0.9113
0.6214
0.3048
1.09728
0.6818
0.4470
1.6093
1.4667
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
To convert from
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
Millibars
To
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
Multiply by
760.0
29.92
1013.2
1.316 x ID'3
39.37 x 10~3
1.333
0.03333
25.4005
33.35
0.00987
0.75
0.30
VOLUME EMISSIONS
To convert from
Cubic ra/min
Cubic ft/min
To
Cubic ft/min
Cubic m/min
Multiply by
35.314
0.0283
A-14
Appendix
5/83

-------
                  BOILER CONVERSION FACTORS
           I Megawatt = 10.5 x 106 BTU/hr
                       (8 to 14 x 106 BTU/hr)

           1 Megawatt -  8 x 103 Ib steam/hr
                       (6 to 11 x 103 Ib steam/hr)
          1 BHP
                      • 34.5 Ib steam/hr
          1 BHP      = 45 x 103 BTU/hr
                       (40 to 50 x 103 BT0/hr)

       1 Ib steam/hr - 1.4 x 103 BTU/hr
                       (1.2 to 1.7 x 103 BTU/hr)
      NOTES:   In the  relationships,

            Megawatt  Is  the  net  electric  power production of a steam
            electric  power plant.

            BHP is boiler horsepower.

            Lb steam/hr  is the steam production rate of the boiler.

            BTU/hr is the heat input rate  to the boiler (based on the
            gross or  high heating  value of  the fuel burned).

For less efficient (generally older and/or  smaller) boiler operations,
use the higher values expressed.   For more  efficient operations
(generally newer and/or  larger), use the  lower vlaues.
VOLUME
Cubic inches 	
Milliliters 	
Liters 	
Ounces (U. S. £1.)
Gallons (U. S.)*..
Barrels (U. S.)...
Cubic feet 	
cu. in.

0.061024
61.024
1 .80469
231
7276.5
1728
• 	 	 ' 	 1
ml.
16.3868

1000
29.5729
3785.3
1.1924xl05
2.8316x10*
— — --
liters
.0163868
0.001

0.029573
3.7853
119.2369
28.316
ounces
(U. S. fl.)
0.5541
0.03381
33.8147

128
4032.0
957.568
gallons
(U. S.)
4.3290xlO~3
2.6418x10-*
0.26418
7.8125xlO-3

31.5
7.481
barrels
(U. S.)
1.37429xlO-4
8.387x10-6
8.387xlO-3
2.48x10-*
0.031746

0.23743
cu. ft.
5.78704x10-*
3.5316x10-5
0.035316
1 .0443xlO-3
0.13368
4.2109

         l\l. S. gallon of water at 16.7°C (62°F)  weighs  3.780 kg. or 8.337 pounds (avoir.)
MASS
Grains 	

Ounces (avoir.)...
Pounds (avoir.)*..
Grains 	
Tons (U. S.) 	
Milligrams 	
grams

1000
28.350
453.59
0.06480
9.072xl05
0.001
kilograms
0.001

0.028350
0.45359
6.480x10-5
907.19
IxlO-6
ounces
(avoir.)
3.527x10-2
35.274

16.0
2.286X10'3
3.200x10*
3.527x10-5
pounds
(avoir.)
2.205xlQ-3
2.2046
0.0625

1 .429x10-*
2000
2.205xlO-6
grains
15.432
15432
437.5
7000

1.4xl07
0.015432
tons
(U. S.)
1.102x10-6
1.102xlQ-3
3.125x10-5
5.0x10-*
7.142xlO-8

1.102xlO-9
milligrams
1000
IxlO6
2.8350x10*
4.5359xl05
64.799
9.0718xl08

         *Mass of 27.692 cubic inches  water  weighed  in air at 4.0°C, 760 mm mercury pressure.
5/83
   Appendix
A-15

-------
i
u:

m
(8
•a
&
w
NM
w
IH
O
X
o,
X

a
u
<
1
,-]

S
^
8
o

1
Gram Calories
00
CM
•£>
.1628xlO"3

-ar
en
ON

en
O
X
en
i
-
en
-3-

CO
CM
-3-
00
S
o
CO
NO
Oi
en
NO
00
-T
o
"5
NO
«
•*




a
a
t-
c
i
c_
E
s I
t.
1 0
i 4
U
2.7778xlO'll
-*
V
o
X
00
r^
tN
ND
O
o
en
en
CM

CO
CO
f
CM
O>
CO
00
c*
C
a
a
r-
0 :
c
-
o
en
ON
CM
0
~^-
1
0
X
o
en
O>
CM

o
•3-
o
NO
^

CO
o>
1^.

CO
-3-
in
O
O
O
1 .0548x1
CO
en
CN
o
CO
ON
i/
CM
/-
1
5 i
3.7662xlO-4
7662xlO-7
rn
-*
^
en
O
X
in
in
in
0.013381

CM
00
•-I
o

1.2854xlO-3
00
m
in
O
CM
00
en
t
O
'>
ON
OO
en
en
ON
00
tN
C*
O
a
* i
-
£
C
!c
t
2.7241xlO~3
7241xlO~6
tN

CM
CM
ND
1
O
X
O*
m
en
0.096781



o
en
CM
r*
9.2967xlO-3
NO
NO
o
CO
Oi
o
X
NO
CO
ON
en
I
O
1
r-
CM
^J-
CM
r-
^a
p"
ev
D
1-
1
!
E
i
t
0
* c
> r-
> 1-
i-
l
O
X
>a
NO
00
8164X10'5
CM
in
-3-
O
CM
1
O
X
in
£
en


en
en
o
m
^»
o
o
CO
CM
*n
O
ON
O
X
en
O
I
C
"5
NO
O
CM
-3-
CM
NO
CM
-3
tN
OJ

•

3.5529x10^
Wl
0
X
ON
O
NO
en
2.6552x106
0
m
•&
NO
o
g
NO
en
en
O
M
NO
en
O
o

m
O
")«
00
CO
(H
3
S
4J
i
C
11—1
1-
^

1
o
o
o

0
"x
en
-a
CO
en
o
X
o
-a
^
en
o
x
ON
CM
m
in
en
ON
o
r*
NO

en
m
m
NO
CM
S
-*
en
8
NO
en
O
O
X
o
8
NO
en
O
S
00

0
00
«
s
o
K
4-1
*-•
ft
3
A-16
Appendix
                                                                                       5/83

-------
                                         o

                                         o
                                            o

                                            •3
                                                     ID


                                                     O
                                                  1
                                                  O
                                                  u

                                                  s
                                                         &
         Is
         t-
         00 h

         5 S^
x10
xlO
                                                                 o

                                                                 •s
x10-^
5/83
Appendix
A-17

-------
           our
V/u U'W'T.

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPQRT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
  AP-42, Supplement  14	
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Supplement 14 for  Compilation of Air Pollutant
  Emission  Factors,  AP-42
7 AUTHOR(S)
  Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5 REPORT DATE
  May 1983
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency
  Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
  Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards
  Research Triangle, North Carolina  27711
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CON'i riACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  EPA Editor:  Whitmel M.  Joyner
16. ABSTRACT
  In this Supplement for AP-42,  new or revised emissions  data are presented for
  Anthracite Coal Combustion;  Wood Waste Combustion  In  Boilers;  Residential Fireplaces;
  Wood Stoves; Open Burning;  Large Appliance Surface  Coating; Metal Furniture Surface
  Coating; Adipic Acid; Synthetic Ammonia; Carbon Black;  Charcoal; Explosives; Paint
  and Varnish; Phthalic Anhydride; Printing Ink; Soap and Detergents; Terephthalic
  Acid; Maleic Anhydride;  Primary Aluminum Production;  Iron and  Steel Production;
  Gypsum Manufacturing; Construction Aggregate Processing;  Sand  and Gravel Processing;
  Taconite Ore Processing;  Western Surface Coal Mining; Fugitive Dust Sources; Unpaved
  Roads; Agricultural Tilling; Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles; and Industrial
  Paved Roads.
7.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                 DESCRIPTORS
  Fuel  Combustion
  Emissions
  Emission Factors
  Stationary Sources
                                              b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
              c.  COSATl l-ield/Group
  DISTR!b:jTK>\ STATEMEN
                                                                        , 21 NO OF PAGES

                                                                        •	_ l_90
                                                                        T22. PRICE
                              - T C N iS OeSOLETL

-------