AP-42
Supplement 8
SUPPLEMENT NO. 8
FOR
COMPILATION
OF AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS
THIRD EDITION (INCLUDING
SUPPLEMENTS 1-7)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
1978
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
FOR INSERTING SUPPLEMENT NO. 8
INTO
COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS
Replace pages v through xxii with new pages v through xxii.
Add pages 1 and 2 following page xxii .
Replace pages 1.1-3 and 1.1-4 dated 4/76 with nen pages 1.1-3 and 1.1-4 dated 12/77.
Add pages 1.10-1 ami 1.10-2 following page 1.9-2.
Replace pages, 2.1-1 through 2.1-6 dated 4/73 with new pages 2-1 and 2.1-1 through 2.1-5 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 2.4-1 through 2.4-5 dated 4/77 with new pages 2.4-1 through 2.4-6 dated 12/77.
Add page 3.0-1 preceeding page 3.1.1-1.
Replace pages 3.3.1-1 through 3.3.1-3 dated 1/75 with new pages 3.3.1-1 through 3.3.1-4 dated 12/77.
Replace page 6.3-1 dated 2/72 with new pages 6.3-1 through 6.3-6 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 6.8-1 and 6.8-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 6.8-1 through 6.8-4 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 7.3-1 and 7.3-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 7.3-1 through 7.3-6 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 7.9-1 and 7.9-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 7.9-1 through 7.9-6 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 8.1-1 through 8.1-5 dated 4/73 with new pages 8.1-1 through 8.1-8 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 8.2-1 and 8.2-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 8.2-1 through 8.2-6 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 8.13-1 and 8.13-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 8.13-1 through 8.13-6 dated 12/77.
Replace pages 9.1-1 through 9.1-8 dated 4/73 and 4/76 with new pages 91-1 through 9.1-13 dated
, 12/77.
Replace pages 11.2-1 through 11.2-4 dated 12/75 with new pages 11.2.1-1 through 11.2.1-5 dated
12/77.
Add pages 11.2.5-1 through 11.2.5-4 following page 11.2.4-1.
Replace page C-I undated \vith new page C-l dated 12/77.
Replace Form 2220-1 (Technical Report Data) with new pages E-l and F-l.
11
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
•
4. TITLE ANDSUSTITLE
Supplement No. 8 for Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Third Edition (Including Supplements
t 1-7)
NO.
P-42, Supplement 8
2.
3.' RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
* AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
5. REPORT DATE
May 1978
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
,'.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GFIANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Supplement
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
t
16. ABSTRACT
In this supplement for compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), revised
and updated emissions data are presented for wood stoves, refiise incineration, open
burning, off-highway stationary sources, primary copper smelting, secondary copper
smelting and alloying, cotton ginning, ammonium nitrate fertilizer manufacturing,
asphaltic concrete plants, asphalt roofing manufacturing, glass manufacturing,
petroleum refining, unpaved roads, and paved roads.
,7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Emissions
' Emission factors
1 Pollutants
L
^R UISI RIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COS AT l Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
108
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
F-l
-------
«
<
-------
PUBLICATIONS IN SERIES
Issuance
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition
(Including Supplements 1-7)
Supplement No. 8
Introduction
Section 1.10 Wood Stoves
Section 2.1 Refuse Incineration
Section 2.4 Open Burning
Section 3.0 Internal Combustion Engine Sources; Notice
Section 3.3 Off-Highway Stationary Sources
Section 6.3 Cotton Ginning
Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers
Section 7.3 Primary Copper Smelting
Section 7.9 Secondary Copper Smelting and Alloying
Section 8.1 Asphaltic Concrete Plants
Section 8.2 Asphalt Roofing
Section 8.13 Class Manufacturing
Section 9.1 Petroleum Refining
Section 11.2.1 Unpaved Roads (Dirt and Gravel)
Section 11.2.5 Paved Roads
Release Date
8/77
12/77
-------
IT
f
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES xvi
LIST OF FIGURES xxi
ABSTRACT xxiii
INTRODUCTION 1
1. EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES 1.1-1
1.1 BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION 1.1-1
1.1.1 General 1.1-1
1.1.2 Emissions and Controls 1.1-1
References for Section 1.1 1.1-4
1.2 ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION 1.2-1
1.2.1 General 1.2-1
1.2.2 Emissions and Controls 1.2-4
References for Section 1.2 1.2-1
1.3 FUEL OIL COMBUSTION 1.3-1
1.3.1 General 1.3-1
1.3.2 Emissions 1.3-1
1.3.3 Controls 1.3-3
References for Section 1.3 1.3-4
1.4 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION 1.4-1
1.4.1 General 1.4-1
1.4.2 Emissions and Controls 1.4-1
References for Section 1.4 1.4-3
1.5 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS COMBUSTION 1.5-1
1.5.1 General 1.5-1
1.5.2 Emissions 1.5-1
References for Section 1.5 1.5-1
1.6 WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS 1.6-1
1.6.1 General 1.6-1
1.6.2 Firing Practices 1.6-1
1.6.3 Emissions 1.6-1
References for Section 1.6 1.6-2
1.7 LIGNITE COMBUSTION 1.7-1
1.7.1 General 1.7-1
1.7.2 Emissions and Controls 1.7-1
References for Section 1.7 1.7-2
1.8 BAGASSE COMBUSTION IN SUGAR MILLS 1.8-1
1.8.1 General 1.8-1
1.8.2 Emissions and Controls 1.8-1
Reference for Section 1.8 1.8-2
1.9 RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACES 1.9-1
1.9.1 General 1.9-1
1.9.2 Emissions 1.9-1
References for Section 1.9 1.9-2
1.10 WOOD STOVES 1.10-1
1.10.1 General 1.10-1
1.10.2 Process Description 1.10-1
1.10.3 Emissions 1.10-1
References for Section 1.10 1.10-2
vn
-------
Page
2. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 2-1
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION 2.1-1
2.1.1 Process Description 2.1-1
2.1.2 Definitions of Incinerator Categories 2.1-1
2.1.3 Emissions and Controls 2.1-3
References for Section 2.1 2.1-4
2.2 AUTOMOBILE BODY INCINERATION 2.2-1
2.2.1 Process Description 2.2-1
2.2.2 Emissions and Controls 2.2-1
References for Section 2.2 2.2-2
2.3 CONICAL BURNERS 1.3-1
2.3.1 Process Description 2.3-1
2.3.2 Emissions and Controls 2.3-1
References for Section 2.3 2.3-3
2.4 OPEN BURNING 2.4-1
2.4.1 General 2.4-1
2.4.2 Emissions 2.4-1
References for Section 2.4 2.4-4
2.5 SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION 2.5-1
2.5.1 Process Description 2.5-1
2.5.2 Emissions and Controls 2.5-1
References for Section 2.5 , 2.5-2
3. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES 3.0-1
DEFINITIONS USED IN CHAPTER 3 3.1.1-1
3.1 HIGHWAY VEHICLES 3.1.1-2
3.1.1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles 3.1.1-3
3.1.2 Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles (Automobiles) 3.1.2-1
3.1.3 Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 3.1.3-1
3.1.4 Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks and
Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles 3.1.4-1
3.1.5 Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 3.1.5-1
3.1.6 Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles 3.1.6-1
3.1.7 Motorcycles 3.1.7-1
3.2 OFF-HIGHWAY MOBILE SOURCES 3.2.1-1
3.2.1 Aircraft 3.2.1-1
3.2.2 Locomotives 3.2.2-1
3.2.3 Inboard-Powered Vessels 3.2.3-1
3.2.4 Outboard-Powered Vessels 3.2.4-1
3.2.5 Small, General Utility Engines 3.2.5-1
3.2.6 Agricultural Equipment 3.2.6-1
3.2.7 Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment 3.2.7-1
3.2.8 Snowmobiles 3.2.8-1
3.3 OFF-HIGHWAY STATIONARY SOURCES 3.3.1-1
3.3.1 Stationary Gas Turbines for Electric Utility Power Plants 3.3.1-1
3.3.2 Heavy-Duty, Natural-Gas-Fired Pipeline Compressor Engines 3.3.2-1
3.3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines 3.3.3-1
4. EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES 4.1-1
4.1 DRY CLEANING 4.1-1
4.1.1 General 4.1-1
4.1.2 Emissions and Controls 4.1-3
References for Section 4.1 4.1-4
viii
-------
Page
4.2 SURFACE COATING [[[ 4.2-1
4,2.1 Process Description .................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 4.2-1
References for Section 4.2 ............................................ 4.2-2
4.3 STORAGE OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS ...................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Process Description .................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 4.3-5
4.3.3 Emission Factors [[[ 4.3-14
References for Section 4.3 ............................................ 4.3-17
4.4 TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS ......... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Process Description .................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 4.4-1
References for Section 4.4 ............................................ 4.4-12
5. CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY .............................................. 5.1-1
5.1 ADIPICACID [[[ 5.1-1
5.1.1 General [[[ 5.1-1
5.1.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 5.1-2
References for Section 5.1 ............................................ 5.1-4
5.2 AMMONIA [[[ 5.2-1
5.2.1 Process Description .................................................. 5.2-1
5.2.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 5.2-1
References for Section 5.2 ............................................ 5.2-2
5.3 CARBON BLACK [[[ 5.3-1
5.3.1 Process Description .................................................. 5.3-1
5.3.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 5.3-3
References for Section 5.3 ............................................ 5.3-5
5.4 CHARCOAL [[[ 5.4-1
5.4.1 Process Description .................................................. 5.4-1
5.4.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 5.4-1
References for Section 5.4 ............................................ 5.4-1
5.5 CHLOR-ALKALI [[[ 5.5-1
5.5.1 Process Description .................................................. 5.5-1
5.5.2 Emissions and Controls ............................................... 5.5-1
References for Section 5.5 ............................................ 5.5-1
5.6 EXPLOSIVES [[[ 5.6-1
5.6.1 General [[[ 5.6-1
5.6.2 TNT Production [[[ 5.6-1
5.6.3 Nitrocellulose Production ............................................ 5.6-1
5.6.4 Emissions [[[ 5.6-1
References for Section 5.6 ............................................ 5.6-2
5.7 HYDROCHLORIC ACID [[[ 5.7-1
5.7.1 Process Description .................................................. 5.7-1
-------
Page
5.9.2 Emissions and Controls 5.9-3
References for Section 5.9 5.9-4
5.10 PAINT AND VARNISH 5.10-1
5.10-1 Paint Manufacturing 5.10-1
5.10.2 Varnish Manufacturing 5.10-1
References for Section 5.10 5.10-2
5.11 PHOSPHORIC ACID 5.11-2
5.11.1 Wet Process 5.11-1
5.11.2 Thermal Process 5.11-1
References for Section 5.11 5.11-2
5.12 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE 5.12-1
5.12.1 General 5.12-1
5.12.2 Emissions and Controls 5.12-2
References for Section 5.12 5.12-5
5.13 PLASTICS 5.13-1
5.13.1 Process Description 5.13-1
5.13.2 Emissions and Controls 5.13-1
References for Section 5.13 5.13-2
5.14 PRINTING INK 5.14-1
5.14.1 Process Description 5.14-1
5.14.2 Emissions and Controls 5.14-2
References for Section 5.14 5.14-2
5.15 SOAP AND DETERGENTS 5.15-1
5.15.1 Soap Manufacture 5.15-1
5.15.2 Detergent Manufacture 5.15-1
References for Section 5.15 5.15-2
5.16 SODIUM CARBONATE 5.16-1
5.16.1 Process Description 5.16-1
5.16.2 Emissions 5.16-1
References for Section 5.16 5.16-2
5.17 SULFURIC ACID 5.17-1
5.17.1 Process Description 5.17-1
5.17.2 Emissions and Controls 5.17-4
References for Section 5.17 5.17-8
5.18 SULFUR 5.18-1
5.18.1 Process Description 5.18-1
5.18.2 Emissions and Controls 5.18-1
References for Section 5.18 5.18-2
5.19 SYNTHETIC FIBERS 5.19-1
5.19.1 Process Description 5.19-1
5.19.2 Emissions and Controls 5.19-1
References for Section 5.19 5.19-2
5.20 SYNTHETIC RUBBER 5.20-1
5.20.1 Process Description 5.20-1
5.20.2 Emissions and Controls 5.20-1
References for Section 5.20 5.20-2
5.21 TEREPHTHALIC ACID 5.21-1
5.21.1 Process Description 5.21-1
5.21.2 Emissions 5.21-1
References for Section 5.21 , 5.21-1
-------
Page
6. FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 6.1-1
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING 6.1-1
6.1.1 General 6.1-1
6.1.2 Emissions and Controls 6.1-1
References for Section 6.1 6.1-2
6.2 COFFEE ROASTING 6.2-1
6.2.1 Process Description 6.2-1
6.2.2 Emissions 6.2-1
References for Section 6.2 6.2-2
6.3 COTTON GINNING 6.3-1
6.3.1 General 6.3-1
6.3.2 Process Description 6.3-1
6.3.3 Emissions and Controls 6.3-3
References for Section 6.3 6.3-6
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS 6.4-1
6.4.1 General 6.4-1
6.4.2 Emissions and Controls 6.4-1
References for Section 6.4 6.4-6
6.5 FERMENTATION 6.5-1
6.5.1 Process Description 6.5-1
6.5.2 Emissions 6.5-1
References for Section 6.5 6.5-2
6.6 FISH PROCESSING 6.6-1
6.6.1 Process Description 6.6-1
6.6.2 Emissions and Controls 6.6-1
References for Section 6.6 6.6-3
6.7 MEAT SMOKEHOUSES 6.7-1
6.7.1 Process Description 6.7-1
6.7.2 Emissions and Controls 6.7-1
References for Section 6.7 6.7-2
6.8 AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZERS 6.8-1
6.8.1 General 6.8-1
6.8.2 Emissions 6.8-1
6.8.3 Controls 6.8-4
References for Section 6.8 . 6.8-4
6.9 ORCHARD HEATERS 6.9-1
6.9.1 General 6.9-1
6.9.2 Emissions 6.9-1
References for Section 6.9 6.9-4
6.10 PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS 6.10-1
6.10.1 Normal Superphosphate 6.10-1
6.10.2 Triple Superphosphate 6.10-2
6.10.3 Ammonium Phosphate 6.10-2
References for Section 6.10 6.10-3
6.11 STARCH MANUFACTURING 6.11-1
6.11.1 Process Description 6.11-1
6.11.2 Emissions 6.11-1
References for Section 6.11 6.11-1
6.12 SUGAR CANE PROCESSING 6.12-1
6.12.1 General 6.12-1
xi
-------
Page
6.12.2 Emissions 6.12-1
References for Section 6.12 6.12-1
7. METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY 7.1-1
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION 7.1-1
7.1.1 Process Description 7.1-1
7.1.2 Emissions and Controls 7.1-2
References for Section 7.1 7.1-8
7.2 METALLURGICAL COKE MANUFACTURING 7.2-1
7.2.1 Process Description 7.2-1
7.2.2 Emissions 7.2-1
References tor Section 7.2 7.2-3
7.3 PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS 7.3-1
7.3.1 Process Description 7.3-1
7.3.2 Emissions and Controls 7.3-3
References for Section 7.3 7.3-6
7.4 FERROALLOY PRODUCTION 7.4-1
7.4.1 Process Description 7.4-1
7.4.2 Emissions 7.4-1
References for Section 7.4 7.4-2
7.5 IRON AND STEEL MILLS 7.5-1
7.5.1 General 7.5-1
References for Section 7.5 7.5-6
7.6 LEAD SMELTING 7.6-1
7.6.1 Process Description 7.6-1
7.6.2 Emissions and Controls 7.6-3
References for Section 7.6 7.6-5
7.7 ZINC SMELTING 7.7-1
7.7.1 Process Description 7.7-1
7.7.2 Emissions and Controls 7.7-1
References for Section 7.7 7.7-2
7.8 SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS 7.8-1
7.8.1 Process Description 7.8-1
7.8.2 Emissions 7.8-1
References for Section 7.8 7.8-2
7.9 SECONDARY COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING 7.9-1
7.9.1 Process Description 7.9-1
7.9.2 Emissions and Controls 7.9-4
References for Section 7.9 7.9-6
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRY 7.10-1
7.10.1 Process Description 7.10-1
7.10.2 Emissions 7.10-1
References for Section 7.10 7.10-2
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING 7.11-1
7.11.1 Process Description 7.11-1
7.11.2 Emissions and Controls 7.11-1
References for Section 7.11 7.11-1
7.12 SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING 7.12-1
7.12.1 Process Description 7.12-1
7.12.2 Emissions 7.12-1
References for Section 7.12 ".12-2
xu
-------
Page
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES 7.13-1
7.13.1 Process Description 7.13-1
7.13.2 Emissions 7.13-1
References for Section 7.13 7.13-3
7.14 SECONDARY ZINC PROCESSING 7.J4-1
7.14.1 Process Description 7.14-1
7.14.2 Emissions 7.14-1
References for Section 7.14 7.14-2
8. MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 8.1-1
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS 8.1-1
8.1.1 General 8.1-1
8.1.2 Process Description 8.1-1
8.1.3 Emissions and Controls 8.1-5
References for Section 8.1 8.1-7
8.2 ASPHALT ROOFING 8.2-1
8.2.1 General 8.2-1
8.2.2 Process Description 8.2-1
8.2.3 Emissions and Controls 8.2-4
References for Section 8.2 8.2-6
8.3 BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS 8.3-1
8.3.1 Process Description 8.3-1
8.3.2 Emissions and Controls 8.3-1
References for Section 8.3 8.3-4
8.4 CALCIUM CARBIDE MANUFACTURING 8.4-1
8.4.1 Process Description 8.4-1
8.4.2 Emissions and Controls 8.4-1
References for Section 8.4 8.4-2
8.5 CASTABLE REFRACTORIES 8.5-1
8.5.1 Process Description 8.5-1
8.5.2 Emissions and Controls 8.5-1
References for Section 8.5 8.5-2
8.6 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING 8.6-1
8.6.1 Process Description 8.6-1
8.6.2 References for Section 8.6 8.6-2
8.7 CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING 8.7-1
8.7.1 Process Description 8.7-1
8.7.2 Emissions and Controls 8.7-1
References for Section 8.6 8.6-2
8.8 CLAY AND FLY-ASH SINTERING 8.8-1
8.8.1 Process Description 8.8-1
8.8.2 Emissions and Controls 8.8-1
References for Section 8.8 8.8-2
8.9 COAL CLEANING 8.9-1
8.9.1 Process Description 8.9-1
8.9.2 Emissions and Controls 8.9-1
References for Section 8.9 8.9-2
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING 8.10-1
8.10.1 Process Description 8.10-1
8.10.2 Emissions and Controls 8.10-1
References for Section 8.10 8.10-2
xiii
-------
Page
8.11 FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING 8.11-1
8.11.1 Process Description 8.11-1
8.11.2 Emissions and Controls 8.11-1
References for Section 8.11 8.11-4
8.12 FRIT MANUFACTURING 8.12-1
8.12.1 Process Description 8.12-1
8.12.2 Emissions and Controls 8.12-1
References for Section 8.12 8.12-2
8.13 GLASS MANUFACTURING 8.13-1
8.13.1 General 8.13-1
8.13.2 Emissions and Controls 8.13-2
References for Section 8.13 8.13-4
8.14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING 8.14-1
8.14.1 Process Description 8.14-1
8.14.2 Emissions 8.14-1
References for Section 8.14 8.14-2
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING 8.15-1
8.15.1 General 8.15-1
8.15.2 Emissions and Controls 8.15-3
References for Section 8.15 8.15-5
8.16 MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING 8.16-1
8.16.1 Process Description 8.16-1
8il6.2 Emissions and Controls 8.16-1
References for Section 8.16 8.16-2
8.17 PERLITE MANUFACTURING 8.17-1
8.17.1 Process Description 8.17-1
8.17.2 Emissions and Controls 8.17-1
References for Section 8.17 8.17-2
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING 8.18-1
8.18.1 Process Description 8.18-1
8.18.2 Emissions and Controls 8.18-1
References for Section 8.18 8.18-2
8.19 SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING 8.19-1
8.19.1 Process Description 8.19-1
8.19.2 Emissions 8.19-1
References for Section 8.19 8.19-1
8.20 STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING 8.20-1
8.20.1 Process Description 8.20-1
8.20.2 Emissions 8.20-1
References for Section 8.20 8.20-2
9. PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 9.1-1
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING 9.1-1
9.1.1 General 9.1-1
9.1.2 Process Emission Sources and Control Technology 9.1-3
9.1.3 Fugitive Emission Sources and Control Equipment 9.1-9
References for Section 9.1 9.1-12
9.2 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING 9.2-1
9.2.1 General 9.2-1
9.2.2 Process Description 9.2-1
9.2.3 Emissions 9.2-1
References for Section 9.2 9.2-5
xiv
-------
Page
10. WOOD PROCESSING 10.1-1
10.1 CHEMICAL WOOD PULPING 10.1-1
10.1.1 General 10.1-1
10.1.2 Kraft Pulping 10.1-1
10.1.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping 10.1-4
10.1.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping 10.1-7
References for Section 10.1 10.1-9
10.2 PULPBOARD 10.2-1
10.2.1 General 10.2-1
10.2.2 Process Description 10.2-1
10.2.3 Emissions 10.2-1
References for Section 10.2 10.2-1
10.3 PLYWOOD VENEER AND LAYOUT OPERATIONS 10.3-1
10.3.1 Process Description 10.3-1
10.3.2 Emissions 10.3-2
References for Section 10.3 10.3-2
10.4 WOODWORKING SOURCES 10.4-1
10.4.1 General 10.4-1
10.4.2 Emissions 10.4-1
References for Section 10.4 10.4-2
11. MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES 11.1-1
11.1 FOREST WILDFIRES 11.1-1
11.1.1 General 11.1-1
11.1.2 Emissions and Controls 11.1-2
11.2 FUGITVIE DUST SOURCES 11.2.1-1
11.2.1 Unpaved Roads (Dirt and Gravel) 11.2.1-1
11.2.2 Agricultural Tilling 11.2.2-1
11.2.3 Aggregate Storage Piles 11.2.3-1
11.2.4 Heavy Construction Operations 11.2.4-1
11.2.5 Paved Roads 11.2.5-1
APPENDIX A. MISCELLANEOUS DATA 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
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1-1 Range of Collection Efficiencies for Common Types of Fly-Ash Control Equipment 1.1-2
1.1-2 Emission Factors for Bituminous Coal Combustion without Control Equipment .. 1.1-3
1.2-1 Emission Factors for Anthracite Combustion, Before Controls 1.2-3
1.3-1 Emission Factors for Fuel Oil Combustion t 1.3-2
1.4-1 Emission Factors for Natural-Gas Combustion ,. 1.4-2
1.5-1 Emission Factors for LPG Combustion 1.5-2
1.6-1 Emission Factors for Wood and Bark Combustion in Boilers with No Reinjection 1.6-2
1.7-1 Emissions from Lignite Combustion without Control Equipment 1.7-2
1.8-1 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Bagasse Boilers 1.8-2
1.9-1 Emission Factors for Residential Fireplaces 1.9-2
1.10-1 Emission Factors for Small Wood Stoves 1.10-2
2.1-1 Emission Factors for Refuse Incinerators without Controls 2.1-2
2.1-2 Collection Efficiencies for Various Types of Municipal Incineration Particulate
Control Systems 2.1-3
2.2-1 Emission Factors for Auto Body Incineration „ 2.2-1
2.3-1 Emission Factors for Waste Incineration in Conical Burners without Controls .... 2.3-2
2.4-1 Emission Factors for Open Burning of Nonagricultural Material 2.4-1
2.4-2 Emission Factors and Fuel Loading Factors for Open Burning of Agricultural
Materials 2.4-2
2.4-3 Emission Factors for Leaf Burning 2.4-4
2.5-1 Emission Factors for Sewage Sludge Incinerators 2.5-2
3.1.1-1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles, Calendar Year 1972 3.1.1-4
3.1.2-1 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors
for Light-Duty Vehicles - Excluding California - for Calendar Year 1971 3.1.2-2
3.1.2-2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors
for Light-Duty Vehicles - State of California Only - for Calendar year 1971 3.1.2-3
3.1.2-3 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors
for Light-Duty Vehicles - Excluding California - for Calendar Year 1972 3.1.2-3
3.1.2-4 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors
for Light-Duty Vehicles - State of California Only - for Calendar Year 1972 3.1.2-4
3.1.2-5 Sample Calculation of Fraction of Light-Duty Vehicle Annual Travel by Model Year 3.1.2-4
3.1.2-6 Coefficients for Speed Correction Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-5
3.1.2-7 Low Average Speed Correction Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-6
3.1.2-8 Light-Duty Vehicle Temperature Correction Factors and Hot/Cold Vehicle
Operation Correction Factors for FTP Emission Factors 3.1.2-6
3.1.2-9 Light-Duty Vehicle Modal Emission Model Correction Factors for Temperature
and Cold/Hot Start Weighting 3.1.2-10
3.1.2-10 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Emission Factors for
Light-Duty Vehicles in Warmed-Up Idle Mode 3.1.2-11
3.1.2-11 Crankcase Hydrocarbon Emissions by Model Year for Light-Out) Vehicles 3.1.2-12
3.1.2-12 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors by Model Year for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-13
3.1.2-13 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emission Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-14
3.1.3-1 ' Emission Factors for Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles _ 3.1.3-1
xvi
-------
Table Page
3.1.4-1 Exhaust Emission Factors for Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks for
Calendar Year 1972 3.1.4-2
3.1.4-2 Coefficients for Speed Adjustment Curves for Light-Duty Trucks 3.1.1-2
3.1.4-3 Low Average Speed Correction Factors for Light-Duty Trucks 3.1.4-3
3.1.4-4 Sample Calculation of Fraction of Annual Light-Duty Truck Travel by Model Year 3.1.4-3
3.1.4-5 Light-Duty Truck Temperature Correction Factors and Hot/Cold Vehicle
Operation Correction Factors for FTP Emission Factors 3.1.4-4
3.1.4-6 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Light-Duty,
Gasoline-Powered Trucks 3.1.4-6
3.1.4-7 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emissions Factors
for Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks 3.1.4-6
3.1.4-8 Exhaust Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks for
Calendar Year 1972 3.1.4-7
3.1.4-9 Sample Calculation of Fraction of Gasoline-Powered, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Annual
Travel by Model Year 3.1.4-8
3.1.4-10 Speed Correction Factors for Heavy-Duty Vehicles 3.1.4-9
3.1.4-11 Low Average Speed Correction Factors for Heavy-Duty Vehicles 3.1.4-10
3.1.4-12 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty,
Gasoline-Powered Vehicles 3.1.4-10
3.1.4-13 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered
Vehicles 3.1.4-11
3.1.5-1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles (All Pre-1973 Model
Years) for Calendar Year 1972 3.1.5-2
3.1.5-2 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles under Different
Operating Conditions 3.1.5-3
3.1.6-1 Emission Factors by Model Year for Light-Duty Vehicles Using LPG, LPG/Dual
Fuel, or CNG/Dual Fuel 3.1.6-2
3.1.6-2 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty Vehicles Using LPG or CNG/Dual Fuel 3.1.6-2
3.1.7-1 Emission Factors for Motorcycles 3.1.7-2
3.2.1-1 Aircraft Classification 3.2,1-2
3.2.1-2 Typical Time in Mode for Landing-Takeoff Cycle 3.2.1-3
3.2.1-3 Emission Factors per Aircraft Landing-Takeoff Cycle 3.2.1-4
3.2.1-4 Modal Emission Factors 3.2.1-6
3.2.2-1 Average Locomotive Emission Factors Based on Nationwide Statistics 3.2.2-1
3.2.2-2 Emission Factors by Locomotive Engine Category 3.2.2-2
3.2.3-1 Average Emission Factors for Commercial Motorships by Waterway Classification . 3.2.3-2
3.2.3-2 Emission Factors for Commercial Steamships - All Geographic Areas 3.2.3-3
3.2.3-3 Diesel Vessel Emission Factors by Operating Mode 3.2.3-4
3.2.3-4 Average Emission Factors for Diesel-Powered Electrical Generators in Vessels .... 3.2.3-5
3.2.3-5 Average Emission Factors for Inboard Pleasure Craft 3.2.3-6
3.2.4-1 Average Emission Factors for Outboard Motors 3.2.4-1
3.2.5-1 Emission Factors for Small, General Utility Engines 3.2.5-2
3.2.6-1 Service Characteristics of Farm Equipment (Other than Tractors) 3.2.6-1
3.2.6-2 Emission Factors for Wheeled Farm Tractors and Non-Tractor Agricultural
Equipment 3.2.6-2
3.2.7-1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment 3.2.7-2
3.2.7-2 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Construction Equipment .... 3.2.7-4
3.2.8-1 Emission Factors for Snowmobiles 3.2.8-2
3.3.1-1 Typical Operating Cycle for Electric Utility Turbines 3.3.1-2
3.3.1-2 Composite Emission Factors for 1971 Population of Electric Utility Turbines ..... 3.3.1-3
3.3.1-3 Percent Reduction of NOX Emissions from Water or Steam Injection 3.3.1-3
xvii
-------
Table Page
3.3.2-1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Natural-Gas-Fired Pipeline Compressor Engines 3.3.2-2
3.3.3-1 Emission Factors for Gasoline- and Diesel-Powered Industrial Equipment 3.3.3-1
4.1-1 Solvent Loss Emission Factors for Dry Cleaning Operations 4.1-4
4.2-1 Gaseous Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Surface-Coating Applications 4.2-1
4.3-1 Physical Properties of Hydrocarbons 4.3-7
4.3-2 Paint Factors for Fixed Roof Tanks 4.3-10
4.3-3 Tank, Type, Seal, and Paint Factors for Floating Roof Tanks 4.3-13
4.3-4 Evaporative Emission Factors for Storage Tanks 4.3-15
4.4-1 S Factors for Calculating Petroleum Loading Losses 4.4-6
4.4-2 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Gasoline Loading Operations 4.4-7
4.4-3 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Petroleum Liquid Transportation and
Marketing Sources 4.4-8
4.4-4 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Service Station Operations 4.4-11
5.1-1 Emission Factors for Adipic Acid Manufacture 5.1-4
5.2-1 Emission Factors for Ammonia Manufacturing without Control Equipment 5.2-2
5.3-1 Emission Factors for Carbon Black Manufacturing 5.3-4
5.4-1 Emission Factors for Charcoal Manufacturing 5.4-1
5.5-1 Emission Factors for Chlor-Alkali Plants 5.5-2
5.6-1 Emission Factors for Explosives Manufacturing 5.6-4
5.7-1 Emission Factors for Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing 5.7-1
5.8-1 Emission Factors for Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacturing 5.8-1
5.9-1 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Nitric Acid Plants 5.9-3
5.10-1 Emission Factors for Paint and Varnish Manufacturing without Control Equipment 5.10-2
5.11-1 Emission Factors for Phosphoric Acid Production 5.11-2
5.12-1 Emission Factors for Phthalic Anhydride 5.12-5
5.13-1 Emission Factors for Plastics Manufacturing without Controls 5.13-1
5.14-1 Emission Factors for Printing Ink Manufacturing 5.14-2
5.15-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Spray-Drying Detergents 5.15-1
5.16-1 Emission Factors for Soda-Ash Plants without Controls 5.16-1
5.17-1 Emission Factors for Sulfuric Acid Plants 5.17-5
5.17-2 Acid Mist Emission Factors for Sulfuric Acid Plants without Controls 5.17-7
5.17-3 Collection Efficiency and Emissions Comparison of Typical Electrostatic
Precipitator and Fiber Mist Eliminator 5.17-8
5.18-1 Emission Factors for Modified Glaus Sulfur Plants 5.18-2
5.19-1 Emission Factors for Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing 5-19-1
5.20-1 Emission Factors for Synthetic Rubber Plants: Butadiene-Acrylonitrile and
Butadiene-Styrene 5.20-1
5.21-1 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Factors for Terephthalic 4cid Plants 5.21-1
6.1-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Alfalfa Dehydrating Plants 6.1-2
6.2-1 Emission Factors for Coffee Roasting Processes without Controls 6.2-1
6.3-1 Emission Factors for Cotton Ginning Operations without Controls 6.3-5
6.3-2 Particulate Emission Factors for Cotton Gins with Controls 6.3-5
6.4-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Grain Elevators 6.4-2
6.4-2 Particulate Emission Factors for Grain Elevators Based on Amount of' Grain
Received or Shipped 6.4-3
6.4-3 Particulate Emission Factors for Grain Processing Operations 6.4-4
6.5-1 Emission Factors for Fermentation Processes 6.5-2
6.6-1 Emission Factors for Fish Processing Plants 6.6-3
6.7-1 Emission Factors for Meat Smoking 6.7-1
XVlll
-------
Table
6.8-1 Emission Factors for Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer Manufacturing 6.8-3
6.8-2 Emission Factors for Granular Nitrate Fertilizer Manufacturing without Controls • 6.8-3
6.9-1 Emission Factors for Orchard Heaters 6.9-4
6.10-1 Emission Factors for Production of Phosphate Fertilizers 6.10-1
6.11-1 Emission Factors for Starch Manufacturing 6.11-1
7.1-1 Raw Materia1 and Energy Requirements for Aluminum Production 7.1-2
7.1-2 Representative Particle Size Distributions of Uncontrolled Effluents from Prebake
and Horizontal-Stud Soderberg Cells 7.1-4
7.1-3 Emission Factors for Primary Aluminum Production Processes 7.1-5
7.2-1 Emission Factors for Metallurgical Coke Manufacture without Controls 7.2-2
7.3-1 Average Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations in Offgases from Primary Copper Smelting
Sources 7.3-4
7.3-2 Emission Factors for Primary Copper Smelters 7.3-5
7.4-1 Emission Factors for Ferroalloy Production in Electric Smelting Furnaces 7.4-2
7.5-1 Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Mills 7.5-4
7.6-1 Emission Factors for Primary Lead Smelting Processes without Controls 7.6-4
7.6-2 Efficiencies of Representative Control Devices Used with Primary Lead Smelting
Operations 7.6-5
7.7-1 Emission Factors for Primary Zinc Smelting without Controls 7.7-1
7.8-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Secondary Aluminum Operations 7.8-1
7.9-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Furnaces Used in Secondary Copper Smelting and
Alloying Processes 7.9-5
7.10-jl Elmission Factors for Gray Iron Foundries 7.10-1
7.11-1 Emission Factors for Secondary Lead Smelting Furnaces without Controls 7.11-2
7.11-2 Efficiencies of Particulate Control Equipment Associated with Secondary Lead
Smelting Furnaces 7.11-3
7.11-3 Representative Particle Size Distribution from Combined Blast and Reverberatory
Furnace Gas Stream 7.11-3
7.12-1 Emission Factors for Magnesium Smelting 7.12-1
7.13-1 Emission Factors for Steel Foundries 7.13-2
7.14-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Secondary Zinc Smelting 7.14-2
8.1-1 Particulate Emission ^actors for Conventional Asphaltic Concrete Plants 8.1-6
8.1-2 Participate Emission Factors for Dryer-Drum Hot Asphalt Plants 8.1-7
8.2-1 Emission Factors for Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing without Controls 8.2-5
8.2-2 Emission Factors for Controlled Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 8.2-5
8.3-1 Elmission Factors for Brick Manufacturing without Controls 8.3-3
8.4-1 Emission Factors for Calcium Carbide Plants 8.4-1
8.5-1 Parliculate Emission Factors for Castable Refractories Manufacturing 8.5-1
8.6-1 Emission Factors for Cement Manufacturing without Controls 8.6-3
8.6-2 Size Distribution of Dust Emitted from Kiln Operations without Controls 8.6-4
8.7-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Ceramic Clav Manufacturing 8.7-1
8.8-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Sintering Operations 8.8-2
8.9-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Thermal Coal Dryers 8.9-1
8.10-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Concrete Batching 8.10-1
8.11-1 Emission Factors for Fiber Glass Manufacturing without Controls 8.11-3
8.12-1 Emission Factors for Frit Smellers without Controls 8.12-2
8.13-1 Emission Factors for Glass Manufacturing 8.13-4
8-14-1 Particulate Emission Factors lor Gypsum Processing 8.14-1
8.15-1 Emission Factors for Lime Manufacturing 8.15-4
8.16-1 Emission Factors for Mineral Wool Processing without Controls 8.16-2
XIX
-------
Table Page
8.17-1 Participate Emission Factors for Perlite Expansion Furnaces without Controls . . . 8.17-1
8.18-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Phosphate Rock Processing without Controls . . . 8.18-1
8.20-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Rock-Handling Processes 8.20-1
9.1-1 Emission Factors for Petroleum Refineries 9.1-6
9.1-2 Fugitive Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Petroleum Refineries 9.1-11
9.2-1 Emission Factors for Gas Sweetening Plants 9.2-3
9.2-2 Average Hydrogen Sulfide Concentrations in Natural Gas by Air Quality Control
Region 9.2-4
10.1.2-1 Emission Factors for Sulfate Pulping 10.1-5
10.1.3-1 Emission Factors for Sulfite Pulping 10.1-8
10.2-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Pulpboard Manufacturing 10.2-1
10.3-1 Emission Factors for Plywood Manufacturing 10.3-1
10.4-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Large Diameter Cyclones in Woodworking Industry 10.4-2
11.1-1 Summary of Estimated Fuel Consumed by Forest Fires 11.1-2
11.1-2 Summary of Emissions and Emission Factors for Forest Wildfires 11.1-4
11.2.1-1 Control Methods for Unpaved Roads 11.2.1-4
11.2.3-1 Aggregate Storage Emissions 11.2.3-1
11.2.5-1 Measured Emission Factors for Dust Entrainment from Paved Roadways 11.2.5-3
A-l Nationwide Emissions for 1971 A-2
A-2 Distribution by Particle Size of Average Collection Efficiencies for Various
Particulate Control Equipment A-3
A-3 Thermal Equivalents for Various Fuels A-4
A-4 Weights of Selected Substances A-4
A-5 General Conversion Factors A-5
B-l Promulgated New Source Performance Standards B-2
B-2 Promulgated New Source Performance Standards B-4
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.4-1 Load Reduction Coefficient as Function of Boiler Load 1.4-2
1.10-1 Small Wood Stove 1.10-1
3.3.2-1 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 3.3.2-2
4.1-1 Percloroethylene Dry Cleaning Plant Flow Diagram 4.1-2
4.3-1 Flowsheet of Petroleum Production, Refining, and Distribution Systems 4.3-2
4.3-2 Fixed Roof Storage Tank ' 4.3-3
4.3-3 Pan Type Floating Roof Storage Tank 4.3-3
4.3-4 Double Deck Floating Roof Storage Tank 4.3-3
4.3-5 Covered Floating Roof Storage Tank : 4.3-4
4.3-6 Lifter Roof Storage Tank 4.3-4
4.3-7 Flexible Diaphragm Tank 4.3-5
4.3-8 Vapor Pressures of Gasolines and Finished Petroleum Products 4.3-8
4.3-9 Vapor Pressures of Crude Oil 4.3-9
4.3-10 Adjustment Factor (C) for Small Diameter Tanks 4.3-10
4.3-11 Turnover Factor (KN) for Fixed Roof Tanks 4.3-11
4.4-1 Flowsheet of Petroleum Production, Refining, and Distribution Systems 4.4-2
4.4-2 Splash Loading Method 4.4-3
4.4-3 Submerged Fill Pipe 4.4-3
4.4-4 Bottom Loading 4.4-4
4.4-5 Tanktruck Unloading Into an Underground Service Station Storage Tank 4.4-5
4.4-6 Tanktruck Loading with Vapor Recovery 4.4-9
4.4-7 Automobile Refueling Vapor Recovery System 4.4-12
5.1.1 General Flow Diagram of Adipic Acid Manufacturing Process 5.1-3
5.3-1 Simplified Flow Diagram of Carbon Black Production by the Oil-Fired Furnace
Process 5.3-2
5.6-1 Flow Diagram of Typical Batch Process TNT Plant 5.6-2
5.9-1 Flow Diagram of Typical Nitric Acid Plant using Pressure Process 5.9-2
5.12-1 Flow Diagram for Phthalic Anhydride using O-Xylene as Basic Feedstock 5.12-3
5.12-2 Flow Diagram for Phthalic Anhydride using Naphthalene as Basic Feedstock 5.12-4
5.17-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Contact-Process Sulfuric Acid Plant Burning Elemental Sulfur 5.17-2
5.17-2 Basic Flow Diagram of Contact-Process Sulf uric Acid Plant Burning Spent Acid . . 5.17-3
5.17-3 Sulfuric Acid Plant Feedstock Sulfur Conversion Versus Volumetric and Mass S0£
Emissions at Various Inlet SO2 Concentrations by Volume 5.17-6
5.18-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Modified Glaus Process with Two Converter Stages Used
in Manufacturing Sulfur 5.18-2
6.1-1 Generalized Flow Diagram for Alfalfa Dehydration Plant 6.1-3
6.3-1 Flow Diagram of Cotton Ginning Process 6.3-2
6.3-2 Emissions from a Typical Ginning Operation 6.3-4
6.6-1 A Generalized Fish Processing Flow Diagram 6.6-2
6.8-1 Prilling Process Flow Diagram 6.8-2
6.9-1 Types of Orchard Heaters 6.9-2
6.9-2 Particulate Emissions from Orchard Heaters 6.9-3
7.1-1 Schematic Diagram of Primary Aluminum Production Process 7.1-3
7.3-1 Typical Primary Copper Smelter Flowsheet 7.3-2
xxi
-------
Figure Page
7.5-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Iron and Steel Processes 7.5-2
7.6-1 Typical Flowsheet of Pyrometallurgical Lead Smelting 7.6-2
7.9-1 Low-Grade Copper Recovery 7.9-2
7.9-2 High-Grade Brass and Bronze Alloying 7.9-3
7.11-1 Secondary Lead Smelter Processes 7.11-2
8.1-1 Batch Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant 8.1-2
8.1-2 Continuous Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant 8.1-3
8.1-3 Sherer Type Dryer-Drum Hot Asphalt Plant 8.1-4
8.2-1 Air Blowing of Asphalt 8.2-1
8.2-2 Schematic of Line for Manufacturing Asphalt-Saturated Felt 8.2-2
8.2-3 Schematic of Line for Manufacturing Asphalt Shingles, Mineral-Surfaced Rolls,
and Smooth Rolls 8.2-3
8.3-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Brick Manufacturing Process 8.3-2
8.6-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Portland Cement Manufacturing Process 8.6-2
8.11-1 Typical Flow Diagram of Textile-Type Glass Fiber Production Process 8.11-2
8.11-2 Typical Flow Diagram of Wool-Type Glass Fiber Production Process 8.11-2
8.13-1 Flow Diagram for Glass Manufacturing 8.13-1
8.13-2 Flow Diagram of a Batch Plant 8.13-2
8.13-3 Side-Port Continuous Regenerative Furnace 8.13-3
8.13-4 End-Port Continuous Regenerative Furnace 8.13-3
8.15-1 Generalized Lime Manufacturing Plant 8.15-2
9.1-1 Schematic of an Example Integrated Petroleum Refinery 9.1-2
9.2-1 Generalized Flow Diagram of the Natural Gas Industry 9.2-2
9.2-2 Flow Diagram of the Amine Process Gas Sweetening 9.2-3
10.1.2-1 Typical Kraft Sulfate Pulping and Recovery Process 10.1-2
10.1.3-1 Simplified Process Flow Diagram of Magnesium-Base Process Employing Chemical
and Heat Recovery 10.1-6
11.1-1 Forest Areas and U.S. Forest Service Regions 11.1-3
11.2-1 Mean Number of Days with 0.01 inch or More of Annual Precipitation in United States. 11.2-3
11.2-2 Map of Thornthwaites Precipitation-Evaporation Index Values for State Climatic
Divisions 11.2.2-3
11.2-3 Deposition and Removal Processes 11.2.5-2
XXll
-------
COMPILATION
OF
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
In the assessment of community air pollution, there is a critical need for accurate data on the
quantity and characteristics of emissions from the numerous sources that contribute to the problem.
The large number of individual sources and the diversity of source types make conducting field
measurements of emissions on a source-by-source basis at the point of release impractical. The only
feasible method of determining pollutant emissions for a given community is to make generalized
estimates of typical emissions from each of the source types.
One of the most useful (and logical) tools for estimating typical emissions is the "emission factor,"
which is an estimate of the rate at which a pollutant is released to the atmosphere as a result of some
activity, such as combustion or industrial production, divided by the level of that activity (also
expressed in terms of a temporal rate). In other words, the emission factor relates the quantity of
pollutants emitted to some indicator (activity level) such as production capacity, quantity of fuel
burned, or vehicle miles traveled. In most cases, these factors are simply given as statistical or estimated
averages; that is, no empirical information on the various process parameters (temperature, reactant
concentrations, etc.) is considered in their calculation. However, for a few cases, such as in the
estimation of hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum storage tanks, precise empirical formulas
relating emissions to such variables as tank diameter, liquid storage temperature, and wind velocity
have been developed. Because of their superior precision, emission factors based on empirical formulas
are more desirable to obtain and can usually be given the highest accuracy rating. Factors derived from
statistical averages, however, if based on an adequate number of field measurements ("source tests"),
can also be both precise and accurate within practical and useful limits.
An example should illustrate how the factors are to be used:
Suppose a sulfuric acid plant, with a production rate of 200 tons/day of 100 percent acid, operates at
an overall SO2 to SO 3 conversion efficiency of 97 percent. Using the formula given as a footnote to Table
5.17-1 of this publication, the uncontrolled sulfur dioxide emissions can be calculated:
SO emissions = [-13.65 (%conversion efficiency) + 1365] x production rate
= [-13.65 (97%) + 1365] Ib/ton acid * 200 tons acid/day
= 40 Ib/ton acid x 200 tons acid/day
= 8000 Ib/day (3632 kg/day)
The emission factors presented in this report have been estimated using a wide spectrum of
techniques available for their determination. The preparation/revision of each factor section involves,
first of all, locating and obtaining all the known written information on that source category from such
sources as available literature, Environmental Protection Agency technical reports (including emission
test reports), and the National Emissions Data System point source file. After these data are reviewed,
organized, and analyzed, the process descriptions, process flowsheets, and other background portions
of the section are prepared. Then, using the compiled information, representative emission factors are
12/77 1
-------
developed for each pollutant emitted by each point source of the process category. As stated above,
these factors are usually obtained by simply averaging the respective numerical data obtained. When
feasible, the ranges in the factors are presented for further clarity. Occasionally, enough data exist to
permit the development of either empirical or theoretical formulas (or graphs) relating emissions
factors to various process parameters such as stream temperature, sulfur content, or catalyst. In these
cases, representative values of these process parameters are selected and substituted into the formulas
or graphs to obtain representative emission factors, which are then tabulated. The pertinent formulas
and graphical data are also included in the section to allow the estimation of emission factors when the
process conditions differ from those selected as representative.
After the draft of a section is completed, it is circulated for technical review to various personnel
routinely familiar with the emission aspects of the particular activity. After these review comments are
obtained and evaluated, the final draft is written and submitted for editing and publication.
The limitations and applicability of emission factors must be understood. To gi ve some notion of the
accuracy of the factors for a specific process, each set of factors has been ranked according to the
available data upon which it was based. Each rank was based on the weighting of the various
information categories used to obtain the factor(s). These categories and associated numerical values
were:
Measured emission data: 20 points; maximum.
Process data: 10 points; maximum.
Engineering analysis: 10 points; maximum.
The emission data category rated the amount of measured (source lest) data available for the
development of the factor. The process data category involved such considerations as the variability of
the process and its resultant effect on emissions, as well as the amount of data available on these
variables. Finally, the engineering analysis category was concerned with the data available upon which
a material balance or related calculation could be made.
Depending on which information categories were employed to develop it, each set of factors was
assigned a numerical score, ranging from 5 to 40. For example, if the factors developed for a certain
process were based on a large number of source tests, a moderate amount of process data, and no
engi' eering analysis work, the assigned score would be 20 + 5 = 25.
Each numerical score was, in turn, converted to a letter rank as follows:
Numerical Rank Letter Rank
5 or less E(Poor)
6 to 15 D(Below average)
16 to 25 C(Average)
26 to 35 B(Above average)
36 to 40 A(Excellent)
These rankings are presented below the table titles throughout this publication.
The reader must be cautioned not to used these emission factors indiscriminately. That is, the
factors generally will not permit the calculation of accurate emissions measurements from an
individual installation. Only an on-site source test can provide data sufficiently accurate and precise to
use in such undertakings as design and purchase of control equipment or initiation of a legal action.
Factors are more valid when applied to a large number of processes, as, for example, when emission
inventories are conducted as part of community or nationwide air pollution studies.
2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
z
UJ
o
o
a:
i-
z
O
o
I-
o
I
o
w ^f
3 <
CO ..
5 C3
O Z
cc
O
U-
00
cc
o
<
LL
Z
o
eo
c
0)
0)
Q
2
c
0
CD
0
13
4-
I!
CO
VI
cu
-o
.C
0)
2
CD
X
o
1
c
CO
O)
O
cu
X
o
c
o
E
"co
cu
X
O
•%
cu
•5
o
k-
co
Q_
i
r-
5|
5*
^
o
5
I-
-^
2
c
o
^^
—
O)
c
o
_Q
2
ra
c
o
i
H
^~
01
c
0
o
~~
1—
^^
01
-*
0
~i^
JO
Furnace size,
__
CO
O
Q
CD
O
"CD
O
CJ
"CD
O
o
"CD
"CD
O
CJ
^_
CO
o
o
"CD
o
8
"CD
O
CJ
"CD
O
o
~m
O
o
"co
o
CJ
.c
CQ
(0
O
-Q
CD
C
_Q
"8
c
-Q
1
i_
jO
T3
CU
c
D
XI
T3
cu
C
D
-g
C
D
-°
T3
CU
C
k-
.0
T3
cu
C
D
C
i_
D
1
^
ID
TJ
cu
^
J3
T3
cu
C
^
.O
CO
CL
c
CO
cu
.c
m
CM
8
o
in
8
d
en
CO
in
d
CO
d
in
d
T—
to
O}
'
CO
CO
gf
00
<^
co
eater than 100e
(Utility and large
industrial boilers)
Pulverized
General
4-
(D
in
CM
o
o
o
in
8
d
in
o
CO
in
d
CO
d
in
d
CO
01
CO
CO
«£
in
CD
"<£
CO
Wet bottom
in
CM
8
d
in
o
o
d
CD
CO
* —
in
d
CO
d
in
d
CO
O5
*~
CO
CO
CO
^
in
00
<£
1 —
T —
Dry bottom
in
CM
8
d
in
8
d
in
P^.'
CM
in
in
in
d
CO
d
in
d
CO
*
cS
CO
^
^
(f
CM
Cyclone
to 1009 (large
commercial and
o
in
CM
o
o
d
in
o
o
d
in
P^
in
* —
in
d
t—
•-
CM
CO
0}
T""~
CO
CO
CO
<£
in
CO
^
CO
general industrial
boilers)
Spreader stokerh
ssthan 101
cu
_J
in
CM
o
o
d
in
o
o
d
CO
CO
in
"~
CO
in
o
CO
O5
'
CO
00
CO
<]•
, —
<£
CN
(commercial and
domestic furnaces)
Underfeed stoker
in
CM
8
d
m
o
o
d
in
r—
CO
o
o
CM
in
o
CD
CO
o>
8
CO
o
o
CM
4->
'c
CU
u.
CO
X
O) CO
0) «-
3 l_
O
f*
i!
OJ O
•° s
"D *J
II
O CT
O 03
c -Q —
8gg
QJ O CJ
Q. £ *-
^ !2 O
c
u>
Q.
5
CT
0)
O
fc
C
o
.c
CM
in
CM
CJ
i
f
CD
CO .
cu
CO
u
•o
c
c
cu
"D
c
CO
.c
CO
JC
cu
_c
o
c
0
<
cu
Cl)
.c
a
cu
£
c
0)
CJ
1
o
a>
CJ
V)
CO
c
ro
(O
^
Example If the factor i
CO
a
0
O)
^
o
o
o
c
O
e footnote b above).
cu
c
pounds of partlculate pe
S equals the sulfur conte
o •
oi
ir partlculate emission factor.
,-.• o>£ g
^ . 3 *r
Expressed as methane.
D
CT
References 1 and 3 throi
0) ^
c
0
u
—
c"
OJ
>.
3
0
.c
1
u
r"
References 1.4. and 7 tl
o>
in
For all other stokers use
.c
C
0
Without fly-ash reinjecti
_
References 7, 9, and 10.
^
12/77
External Combustion Sources
1.1-3
-------
References for Section 1.1
1. Smith, W. S. Atmospheric Emissions from Coal Combustion. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-24. April 1966.
2. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration Washington, D.C. Publicationi Number AP-51. January 1969.
3. Perry, H. and J. H. Field. Air Pollution and the Coal Industry. Transactions of the Society of Mining
Engineers. 238:337-345, December 1967.
4. Heller, A. W. and D. F. Walters. Impact of Changing Patterns of Energy Use on Community Air Quality. J.
Air Pol. Control Assoc. 75:426, September 1965.
5. Cuffe, S. T. and R. W. Gerstle. Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants: A Comprehensive Summary. U.S.
DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleigh, N. C. PHS Publication Number
999-AP-35. 1967. p. 15.
6. Austin, H. C. Atmospheric Pollution Problems of the Public Utility Industry. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
70(4):292-294, August 1960.
7. Hangebrauck, R. P., D. S. Von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker. Emissions of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and
Other Pollutants from Heat Generation and Incineration Processes. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 74:267-278,
July 1964.
8. Hovey, H. H., A. Risman, and J. F. Cunnan. The Development of Air Contaminant Emission Tables for
Nonprocess Emissions. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 76:362-366, July 1966.
9. Anderson, D. M., J. Lieben, and V. H. Sussman. Pure Air for Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of
Health. Harrisburg, Pa. November 1961. p. 91-95.
10. Communication with National Coal Association. Washington, D. C. September 1969.
11. Private communication with R.D. Stern, Control Systems Division, Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. June 21, 1972.
12. Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-52. January 1969. p. xviii and xxii.
13. Air Pollution Aspects of Emission Sources: Electric Power Production. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-96. May 1971.
1.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
1.10 WOOD STOVES
1.10.1 General1
Small wood stoves are used primarily as domestic space heaters to supplement conventional heating systems,
particularly in the Northeastern United States. The common availability of wood and the increased cost of
conventional heating fuels has led to wider use of this type of residential heating unit. Wood combustion
produces significant emissions of particulates and carbon monoxide and an array of chemicals, aerosols, and tar,
depending upon the type of wood burned.
1.10.2 Process Description
Small wood stoves are usually box-shaped, made of cast iron, and have a flue that carries smoke from the
room. An adjustable intake vent controls the quantity of air available for combustion. Exhaust gases are removed
via the exhaust flue, which contains an adjustable damper. The rate of combustion is controlled by both the
damper and the intake vent. Wood is supported on grates, and ashes collect below for easy removal. Figure 1.10-1
illustrates a typical small wood stove.
EXHAUST FLUE
DAMPER
WOOD CHANGING DOOR
AIR INTAKE VENT
ASH REMOVAL DOOR
1.10-1. Small wood stove.
1.10.3 Emissions
Particulate emissions from wood are very sensitive to the amount of fuel added at one time, draft setting, fuel
moisture, and type of stove. Emission factors for wood stoves are presented in Table 1.10-1.
12/77
External Combustion Sources
1.10-1
-------
Table 1.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SMALL WOOD STOVES"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Pollutant
Paniculate0
Carbon monoxide d
Emission factors"
Ib/ton
4-30
260
kg/MT
2-15
130
aSmall wood stoves burning oak, pine, and birch wood.
^Emission factors expressed as pounds (kilograms) of pollutant per
ton [metric ton (MT)] of wood burned. Wood tested ranged from 8 to
48% moisture content.
c Figures at the low end of this range are appropriate for small loads of
dry wood with abundant air. Figures at the upper end of the range re-
present common firing practices. Based on References 1 and 3.
dBased on References 2 and 4.
References for Section 1.10
1. Butcher, S. S. and D. I. Buckley. A. Preliminary Study of Particulate Emissions from Small Wood Stoves.
J. Air Pollut. Contr. Ass. 27: 346-348, April 1977.
2. Shelton, J. W., T. Black, M. Chaffee, and M. Schwartz. Williams College, Williamstown, Ma. Wood Stove
Testing Methods and So;.ie Preliminary Experimental Results. (Presented at American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Symposium, Atlanta, Ga. January 1978.)
3. Butcher, S. S. Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me. Private communication to Pacific Environmental Services,
Santa Monica, Ca. December 9, 1977.
4. Shelton, J. W. Williams College, Williamstown, Ma. Private communication to Pacific Environmental
Services, Santa Monica, Ca. December 8, 1977.
1.10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
2. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
As defined in the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the term "solid waste" means garbage, refuse, and other
discarded solid materials, including solid-waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities. It includes both combustibles and noncombustibles.
Solid wastes may be classified into four general categories: urban, industrial, mineral, and agricultural.
Although urban wastes represent only a relatively small part of the total solid wastes produced, this category has
a large potential for air pollution since in heavily populated areas solid waste is often burned to reduce the bulk
of material requiring final disposalJ The following discussion will be limited to the urban and industrial waste
categories.
An average of 5.5 pounds (2.5 kilograms) of urban refuse and garbage is collected per capita per day in the
United States.2 This figure does not include uncollected urban and industrial wastes that are disposed of by other
means. Together, uncollected urban and industrial wastes contribute at least 4.5 pounds (2.0 kilograms) per
capita per day. The total gives a conservative per capita generation rate of 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) per day of
urban'and industrial wastes. Approximately 50 percent of all the urban and industrial waste generated in the
United States is burned, using a wide variety of combustion methods with both enclosed and open
burning3. Atmospheric emissions, both gaseous and particulate, result from refuse disposal operations that use
combustion to reduce the quantity of refuse. Emissions from these combustion processes cover a wide range
because of their dependence upon the refuse burned, the method of combustion or incineration, and other
factors. Because of the large number of variables involved, it is not possible, in general, to delineate when a higher
or lower emission factor, or an intermediate value should be used. For this reason, an average emission factor has
been presented.
References
1. Solid Waste - It Will Not Go Away. League of Women Voters of the United States. Publication Number 675.
April 1971.
2. Black, R.J., H.L. Hickman, Jr., A.J. Klee, A.J. Muchick, and R.D. Vaughan. The National Solid Waste
Survey: An Interim Report. Public Health Service, Environmental Control Administration. Rockville, Md.
1968.
3. Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions, 1968. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution
Control Administration. Raleigh, N.C. Publication Number AP-73. August 1970.
12/77 2-1
-------
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION
2.1.1 Process Description1"4
The most common types of incinerators consist of a refractory-lined chamber with a grate upon which refuse
is burned. In some newer incinerators water-walled furnaces are used. Combustion products are formed by
heating and burning of refuse on the grate. In most cases, since insufficient underfire (undergrate) air is provided
to enable complete combustion, additional over-fire air is admitted above the burning waste to promote complete
gas-phase combustion. In multiple-chamber incinerators, gases from the primary chamber flow to a small
secondary mixing chamber where more air is admitted, and more complete oxidation occurs. As much as 300
percent excess air may be supplied in order to promote oxidation of combustibles. Auxiliary burners are
sometimes installed in the mixing chamber to increase the combustion temperature. Many small-size incinerators
are single-chamber units in which gases are vented from the primary combustion chamber directly into the
exhaust stack. Single-chamber incinerators of this type do not meet modern air pollution codes.
2.1.2 Definitions of Incinerator Categories1
No exact definitions of incinerator size categories exist, but for this report the following general categories
and descriptions have been selected:
1. Municipal incinerators — Multiple-chamber units often have capacities greater than 50 tons (45.3 MT) per
day and are usually equipped with automatic charging mechanisms, temperature controls, and movable
grate systems. Municipal incinerators are also usually equipped with some type of particulate control
device, such as a spray chamber or electrostatic precipitator.
2. Industrial/commercial incinerators — The capacities of these units cover a wide range, generally between
50 and 4,000 pounds (22.7 and 1,800 kilograms) per hour. Of either single- or multiple-chamber design,
these units are often manually charged and intermittently operated. Some industrial incinerators are
similar to municipal incinerators in size and design. Better designed emission control systems include gas -
fired afterburners or scrubbing, or both.
3. Trench incinerators— A trench incinerator is designed for the combustion of wastes having relatively high
heat content and low ash content. The design of the unit is simple: a U-shaped combustion chamber is
formed by the sides and bottom of the pit and air is supplied from nozzles along the top of the pit. The
nozzles are directed at an angle below the horizontal to provide a curtain of air across the top of the pit and
to provide air for combustion in the pit. The trench incinerator is not as efficient for burning wastes as the
municipal multiple-cha.r.btr unit, excey* UQ>-e carefu1 precautions are taken to use it for disposal of low-
ash, high-heat-content refuse, and wheiv. sjj^v-.dl audition is paid to proper operation. Low construction
and operating costs have resulted in the use of this incinerator to dispose of materials other than those for
which it was originally designed. Emission factors for trench incinerators used to burn three such
materials7 are included in Table 2.1-1.
4. Dompstic incinerators — This category includes incinerators marketed for residential use. Fairly simple in
design, they may have single or multiple chambers and usually are equipped with an auxiliary burner to
aid combustion.
5. Flue-fed incinerators — These units, commonly found in large apartment houses, are characterized by the
charging method of dropping refuse down the incinerator flue and into the combustion chamber. Modified
flue-fed incinerators utili7p afterburners and draft controls to improve combustion efficiency and reduce
emissions.
12/77 Solid Waste Disposal 2.1-1
-------
CO
-I
O
CC
o
o
h-
D
O
co
o:
CC CD
UJ z
p
2 CC
LU CC
co O
UJ <
CC U.
CC Z
O O
"• S5
CO CO
cc ^
u
co
co
co
T> ^
0) \
2 °>
X "*
O
c
o>
01 c
O o
t -t;
Z —
J^
^
O O>
"?
09
0)
O §
-t^
.0
CD r-
1!
o
E
||
u —
^
*~"
k_
o
ro
i_
o>
c
'u
c
LO LO
T— ' t— '
CO CO
LO LO
r^ r*^
d o
LO LO
r-' ^-'
LO LO
r~ r--'
LO LO
CO CO
LO LO
CN CN
r— t~
LO LO
csi CN
LO r~-
o ^r
CO i-
-o
0)
"o
£ 1
O CO
C o>
^ _Q '•—
*• P £
CD co aj
_O -C to
ro 01 ">"
o — ro
~ro O. 81 "
Q. .P _£; 5
!y => --to
|S ^ S
LO
i— i r-
• ,f.
CO CN
LO LO
<— •* r^-'
CO LO
LO O
O O
«- CN
LO LO
CN CN
r- f
jc s:
LO in
CN CM'
LO LO
co r--.'
r^- LO
~ra 01
'0 o!
S E »
ill
0 o to
-^ -5 -g
CO .9- <1)
'S - o>
« 3 .E
|S OT
LO
CM «cX ^ lO <~ LO
z z
i" <£ * 3
•il fe
•« +-• ~ "g
^ o ^ '01
tt -^ -^ °
a; .— .t± "Q
Q (£
£
ai
c
h-
3
J3
c
O
tfi
D
J3
•O
O
O
ID v>
*~ O
!l
- TJ 73 .
*~ S c °
«— CO CO .—
cT *- ^-" "o
" 0) ^ C
. P . ra
rs o o co o
co c c *; c c
> tu cu t5 o> t»
CO Jjr Jr ^ *-
*- n_ H_ •£ %£ ^
O OJ QJ • —
<£
03
0)
"a
'x
o
15
3
V)
TO
T3
cu
to
0)
a
X
tu
n
0)
c
TO
_c
O
CO
aj
c
0
c
"ro
CL
O
'c
I
o
^
*4-
Fficiencies for other control
Q)
CD
CO
Q.
0
Q.
a.
CO
^
CN
^
oi
iri
•a
c
CO
ro"
"~^
a
«—
in"
co"
(^
cu
u
c
CU
cu
cu
CC
CD
inerator data.
u
.E
Q.
n munic
o
-o
cu
CO
CQ
.c
LCI
C
CO
o"
in"
co"
V)
CU
u
c
cu
cu
cu
OC
2.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
6. Pathological incinerators — These are incinerators used to dispose of animal remains and other organic
material of high moisture content. Generally, these units are in a size range of 50 to 100 pounds (22.7 to
45.4 kilograms) per hour. Wastes are burned on the hearth in the combustion chamber. The units are
equipped with combustion controls and afterburners to ensure good combustion and minimal emissions.
7. Controlled air incinerators — These units operate on a controlled combustion principle in which the waste
is burned in the absence of sufficient oxygen for complete combustion in the main chamber. This process
generates a highly combustible gas mixture that is then burned with excess air in a secondary chamber,
resulting in efficient combustion. These units are usually equipped with automatic charging mechanisms
and are characterized by the high effluent temperatures reached at the exit of the incinerators.
2.1.3 Emissions and Controls1
Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design have a pronounced effect on
emissions. The manner in which air is supplied to the combustion chamber or chambers has, among all the
parameters, the greatest effect on the quantity of particulate emissions. Air may be introduced from beneath the
chamber, from the side, or from the top of the combustion area. As underfire air is increased, and increase in fly-
ash emissions occurs. Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the combustion bed and a subsequent release
of large quantities of particulates. Large quantities of uncombusted particulate matter and carbon monoxide are
also emitted for an extended period after charging of batch-fed units because of interruptions in the combustion
process. In continuously fed units, furnace particulate emissions are strongly dependent upon grate type. The use
of rotary kiln and reciprocating grates results in higher particulate emissions than the use of rocking or traveling
grates.14 Emissions of oxides of sulfur are dependent on the sulfur content of the refuse. Carbon monoxide and
unburned hydrocarbon emissions may be significant and are caused by poor combustion resulting from improper
incinerator design or operating conditions. Nitrogen oxide emissions increase with an increase in the temperature
of the combustion zone, an increase in the residence time in the combustion zone before quenching, and an
increase in the excess air rates to the point where dilution cooling overcomes the effect of increased oxygen
concentration.14
Hydrochloric acid emissions were found to approximate 1.0 Ib/ton of feed in early work14 and 1.8 Ib/ton in
more recent work.23 The level can be sharply increased in areas where large quantities of plastics are consumed.
Methane levels found in recent work22 range from 0.04 to 0.4 Ib/ton of feed.
Table 2.1-2 lists the relative collection efficiencies of particulate control equipment used for municipal
incinerators. This control equipment has little effect on gaseous emissions. Table 2.1-1 summarizes the
uncontrolled emission factors for the various types of incinerators previously discussed.
Table 2.1-2. COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS3
Type of system
Settling chamber
Settling chamber and water spray
Wetted baffles
Mechanical collector
Scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Efficiency, %
OtoSO
30 to 60
60
30 to 80
80 to 95
90 to 96
97 to 99
References 3, 5, 6, and 1 7 through 21
12/77 Solid Waste Disposal 2.1-3
-------
References for Section 2.1
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Incorporated, E eston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-65. March 1970.
3. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). Air Pollution Engineering Manual. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio, Publication Number 999-AP-40. J967. p. 4-13-503.
4. De Marco, J. et al. Incinerator Guidelines 1969. U.S. DHEW. Public Heai th Service. Cincinnati, Ohio. SW-
13TS. 1969. p. 176.
5. Kanter, C. V., R. G. Lunche, and A. P. Fururich. Techniques for Testing 4ir Contaminants, from
Combustion Sources. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 6(4): 191-199. Februaiy 1957,
6. Jens, W. and F.R. Rehm. Municipal Incineration and Air Pollution Control. 1966 National Incinerator
Conference, American Society of Mechnical Engineers. New York, May 1966.
7. Burkle, J.O., J.A. Dorsey, and B. T. Riley. The Effects of Operating Variables and Refuse Types on
Emissions from a Pilot-Scale Trench Incinerator. Proceedings of the 1968 Incinerator Conference,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p. 34-41.
8. Fernandes, J. H. Incinerator Air Pollution Control. Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p. 111.
9. Unpublished data on incinerator testing. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Durham, N. C. 1970.
10. Stear, J. L. Municipal Incineration: A Review of Literature. Environmental Protect! an Agency, Office of Air
Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. GAP Publication Number AP-79. June 1971.
11. Kaiser, E.R. et al. Modifications to Reduce Emissions from a Flue-fed Incinerator. New York University.
College of Engineering. Report Number 552,2. June 1959. p. 40 and 49.
12. Unpublished data on incinerator emissions. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1969.
13. Kaiser, E. R. Refuse Reduction Processes in Proceedings of Surgeon General's Conference on Solid Waste
Management. Public Health Service. Washington, D.C. PHS Report Number 1729. July 10-20, 1967.
14. Nissen, Walter R. Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under the
Contract Number CPA-22-69-23. March 1970.
15. Unpublished source test data on incinerators. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. 1966-
1969.
2.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
16. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and Maryland State
Department of Health, Division of Air Quality Control, Baltimore, Md. 1969.
17. Rehm, F. R. Incinerator Testing and Test Results. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 6:199-204. February 1957.
18. Stenburg, R. L. et al. Field Evaluation of Combustion Air Effects on Atmospheric Emissions from Municipal
Incinerations. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 72:83-89. February 1962.
19. Smauder, E. E. Problems of Municipal Incineration. (Presented at First Meeting of Air Pollution Control
Association, West Coast Section, Los Angeles, California. March 1957.)
20. Gerstle, R. W. Unpublished data: revision of emission factors based on recent stack tests. U.S. DHEW,
PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967.
21. A Field Study of Performance of Three Municipal Incinerators. University of California, Berkeley,
Technical Bulletin. 6:41, November 1957.
22. Driscol, J. et al. Evaluation of Monitoring Methods and Instrumation for Hydrocarbons and Carbon
Monoxide in Stationary Source Emissions. Publication No. EPA-R2-72-106. November 1977.
23. Jahnke, J. A., J. L. Chancy, R. Rollins, and C. R. Fortune. A Reasearch Study of Gaseous Emissions from a
Municipal Incinerator. J. Air Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 27:747-753, August 1977.
12/77 Solid Waste Disposal 2.1-5
-------
-------
2.4 OPEN BURNING
2.4.1 General1
Revised by Tom Lahre
and Pam Canova
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
Municipal refuse
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Automobile
b c
components '
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Particulates
16
8
100
50
Sulfur
oxides
1
0.5
Meg.
Neg.
Carbon
monoxide
85
42
125
62
Organics
(CH4)
30
15
30
15
Nitrogen oxides
6
3
4
2
References 2 through 6
"Upholstery, belts, hoses, and tires burned in common
cReference 2
Emissions from agricultural refuse burning are dependent mainly 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 direction of the wind, whereas backfires are started at the
downwind edge and forced to progress in a direction opposing the wind.) Other variables 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 burning are presented
in Table 2.4-2 as a function of refuse type and also, in certain instances, as a function of burning techniques
and/or moisture content when these variables are known to significantly affect emissions. Table 2.4-2 also
presents typical fuel loading values associated with each type of refuse. These values can be used, along with the
corresponding emission factors, to estimate emissions from certain categories of agricultural burning when the
specific fuel loadings for a given area are not known.
Emissions from leaf burning are dependent upon the moisture content, density, and ignition location of the
leaf piles. Increasing the moisture content of the leaves generally increases the amount of carbon monoxide,
12/77
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-1
-------
Table 2.4-2. EMISSION FACTORS AND FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING
OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Refuse category
Field crops c
Unspecified
Burning techni-
que not signifi-
cant d
Asparagus e
Barley
Corn
Cotton
Grasses
Pineapple'
Rice s
Safflower
Sorghum
Sugar caneh
Headfire burning1
Alfalfa
Bean (red)
Hay (wild)
Oats
Pea
Wheat
Backfire burning'
Alfalfa
Bean (red), pea
Hay (wild)
Oats
Wheat
Vine crops
Weeds
Unspecified
Russian thistle
(tumbleweed)
Tules (wild
reeds)
Orchard crops ckj
Unspecified
Almond
Apple
Apricot
Avocado
Cherry
Citrus (orange
lemon)
Emissions factors
Particulate"
Ib/ton
21
40
22
14
8
16
8
9
18
18
6-8.4
45
43
32
44
31
22
29
14
17
21
13
5
15
22
5
6
6
4
6
21
8
6
kg/MT
11
20
11
7
4
8
4
4
9
9
2.5-3.5
23
22
16
22
16
11
14
7
8
11
6
3
8
11
3
3
3
2
3
10
4
3
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/ton
117
150
157
108
176
101
112
83
144
77
60-81
106
186
139
137
147
128
119
148
150
136
108
51
85
309
34
52
46
42
49
116
44
81
kg/MT
58
75
78
54
88
50
56
41
72
38
25-33
53
93
70
68
74
64
60
72
75
68
54
26
42
154
17
26
23
21
24
58
22
40
Organics
(asCeHu)
Ib/ton
23
85
19
16
6
19
8
10
26
9
5-16
36
46
22
33
38
17
37
25
17
18
11
7
12
2
27
10
8
4
8
32
10
12
kg/MT
12
42
10
8
3
10
4
5
13
4
2-6.6
18
23
11
16
19
9
18
12
8
9
6
4
6
1
14
5
4
2
4
16
5
6
Fuel loading factors
(waste production)
ton/acre
2.0
1.5
1.7
4.2
1.7
3.0
1.3
2.9
3-17
0.8
2.5
1.0
1.6
2.5
1.9
0.8
2.5
1.0
1.6
1.9
2.5
3.2
0.1
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.0
MT/hectare
4.5
3.4
3.8
9.4
3.8
6.7
2.9
6.5
8-46
1.8
5.6
2.2
3.6
5.6
4.3
1.8
5.6
2.2
3.6
4.3
5.6
7.2
0.2
3.6
3.6
5.2
4.0
3.4
2.2
2.2
2.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
Table 2.4-2 (continued). EMISSION FACTORS AND FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOR OPEN
BURNING OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Refuse category
Orchard crops010
(continued)
Date palm
Fig
Nectarine
Olive
Peach
Pear
Prune
Walnut
Forest residues
Unspecified""
Hemlock, Doug-
las fir, cedar"
Ponderosa pine0
Emission factors
Particulateb
Ib/ton
10
7
4
12
6
9
3
6
17
4
12
kg/MT
5
4
2
6
3
4
2
3
8
2
6
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/ton
56
57
33
114
42
57
42
47
140
90
195
kg/MT
28
28
16
57
21
28
21
24
70
45
98
Organics
(as C6Hi4 )
Ib/ton
7
10
4
18
5
9
3
8
24
5
14
kg/MT
4
5
2
9
2
4
2
4
12
2
7
Fuel loading factors
(waste production)
ton/acre
1.0
2.2
2.0
1.2
2.5
2.6
1.2
1.2
70
MT/hectare
2.2
4.9
4.5
2.7
5.6
5.8
2.7
2.7
157
aFactors expressed as weight of pollutant emitted per weight of refuse material burned.
bParticulate matter from most agricultural refuse burning has been found to be in the submicrometer size range.12
cReferences 12 and 13 for emission factors; Reference 14 for fuel loading factors.
dFor these refuse materials, no significant difference exists between emissions resulting from headfiring or backfiring.
eThese factors represent emissions under typical high moisture conditions. If ferns are dried to less than 15 percent
moisture, particulate emissions will be reduced by 30 percent, CO emission by 23 percent, and HC by 74 percent.
' When pineapple is allowed to dry to less than 20 percent moisture, as it usually is, the firing technique is not important.
When headfired above 20 percent moisture, particulate emission will increase to 23 Ib/ton (11.5 kg/MT) and HC will in-
crease to 12 Ib/ton (6 kg/MT). See Reference 11.
9This factor is for dry (<15 percent moisture) rice straw. If rice straw is burned at higher moisture levels, particulate emis-
sion will increase to 29 Ib/ton (145 kg/MT), CO emission to 161 Ib/ton (80.5 kg/MT), and HC emission to 21 Ib/ton (10.5
kg/MT).
h See Section 6.12 for discussion of sugarcane burning. The following fuel loading factors are to be used in the correspond-
ing states: Louisiana, 3-5 ton/acre (8-13 6 MT/hectare); Florida, 4-7 ton/acre (11-19 MT/hectare), Hawaii, 11-17 ton/acre
(30-46 MT/hectare). For other areas, values generally increase with length of growing season. Use the larger end of the
emission factor range for lower loading factors.^°
' See accompanying text for definition of headfiring.
] See accompanying text for definition of backfiring. This category, for emission estimation purposes, includes another
technique used occasionally for limiting emissions, called into-the-wind striplighting, which involves lighting fields in
strips into the wind at 100-200 m (300-600 ft) intervals.
kOrchard prumngs are usually burned in piles No significant difference in emission results from burning a "cold pile" as
opposed to using a roll-on technique, where prunings are bulldozed onto a bed of embers from a preceding fire.
' If orchard removal is the purpose of a burn, 30 ton/acre (66 MT/hectare) of waste will be produced.
mReference 10 Nitrogen oxide emissions estimated at 4 Ib/ton (2 kg/MT).
"Reference 15.
0 Reference 16.
12/77
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 I he least desirable method of burning.
Igniting a single spot on the top of the pile decreases the hydrocarbon and particulate 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 row 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 Elm
Eucalyptus
Sweet Gum
Black Locust
Magnolia
Silver Maple
American Sycamore
California Sycamore
Tulip
Red Oak
Sugar Maple
Unspecified
Patticulatea-b
Ib/ton
36
32
43
17
54
38
26
36
33
70
13
66
15
10
20
92
53
38
kg/MT
18
16
21.5
8.5
27
19
13
18
16.5
35
6.5
33
7.5
5
10
46
26.5
19
Carbon monoxide3
Ib/ton
127
163
113
89
147
90
119
90
140
130
55
102
115
104
77
137
108
112
kg/MT
63.5
81.5
57
44.5
73.5
45
59.5
45
70
65
27.5
51
57,5
52
38.5
685
54
56
Organicsa'c
Ib/ton
41
25
21
15
39
32
29
26
27
62
10
25
8
5
16
34
27
26
kg/MT
20.5
12.5
10.5
7.5
19.5
16
14.5
13
13.5
31
5
12 5
4
2.5
8
17
13.5
13
"These factors are an arithmetic average of the 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 Elm, Sweet Gum, Silver Maple, and Tulip, and the results are included in the averages for these species.
The majority of particulates are submicron in size.
cTests indicate organics consist, on the average, of 42% olefins, 32% methane, 8% acetylene and 13% other saturates.
References for Section 2.4
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Gerstle, R. W. and D. A. Kemnitz. Atmospheric Emissions from Open Burning. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
12:324-327. May 1967.
2.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
3. Burkle, 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. Griswold (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. 16:685-690, December 1966.
7. Feldstein, M. et al. The Contribution of the Open Burning of Land Clearing Debris to Air Pollution. J. Air
Pol. Control Assoc. 13:542-545, November 1963.
8. Boubel, R. W., E. F. Darley, and E. A. Schuck. Emissions from Burning Grass Stubble and Straw. J. Air Pol.
Control Assoc. 19:497-500, 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 ^missions 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 Agency, 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. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Service Research Paper PNW-97. 1970.
16. Sandberg, D. V., S. G. Pickford, and E. F. Darley. Emissions from Slash Burning and the Influence of Flame
Retardant Chemicals. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 25:278, 1975.
17. Wayne, L. G. and M. L. McQueary. Calculation of Emission Factors for Agricultural Burning Activities.
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Santa Monica, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N. C., under Contract No. 68-02-1004, Task Order No. 4. Publication No. EPA-
450/3-75-087. November 1975.
12/77 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-5
-------
18. Darley, E.F. Emission Factor Development for Leaf Burning. University of California, Riverside,
Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Purchase Order No. 5-02-6876-1. September 1976.
19. Darley, E.F. Evaluation of the Impact of Leaf Burning - Phase I: Emission Factors for Illinois
Leaves. University of California, Riverside, Calif. Prepared for State of Illinois, Institute for
Environmental Quality. August 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 12/77
-------
3.0 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES
NOTICE
Emission factors for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxides, and oxides of nitrogen presented in Sections 3.1.1,
3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.7, and in Appendix D have been superseded by factors in "Mobile Source
Emission Factors," Final Document, January 1978. Factors appearing in these sections for sulfur oxides and
particulates have not been superseded and are still applicable.
AP-42 will be revised to reflect the factors in the above document at some future date. In the interim, copies
of "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and related computer programs may be obtained from the Office of
Transportation and Land Use Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code AW 445,401 M Street
SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
12/77 3.0-1
-------
-------
3.3 OFF-HIGHWAY STATIONARY SOURCES
In general, engines included in this category are internal combustion engines used in applications similar to
those associated with external combustion sources (see Chapter 1). The major engines within this category are
gas turbines and large, heavy-duty, general utility reciprocating engines. Emission data currently available for
these engines are limited to gas turbines and natural-gas-fired, heavy-duty, general utility engines. Most
stationary internal combustion engines are used to generate electric power, to pump gas or other fluids, or to
compress air for pneumatic machinery.
3.3.1 Stationary Gas Turbines for Electric Utility Power Plants
3.3.1.1 General — Stationary gas turbines find application in electric power generators, in gas pipeline pump and
compressor drives, and in various process industries. The majority of these engines are used in electrical
generation for continuous, peaking, or standby power.' The primary fuels used are natural gas and No. 2
(distillate) fuel oil, although residual oil is used in a few applications.
3.3.1.2 Emissions— Data on gas turbines were gathered and summarized under an EPA contract.2 The contractor
found that several investigators had reported data on emissions from gas turbines used in electrical generation
but that little agreement existed among the investigators regarding the terms in which the emissions were
expressed. The efforts represented by this section include acquisition of the data and their conversion to uniform
terms. Because many sets of measurements reported by the contractor were not complete, this conversion often
involved assumptions on engine air flow or fuel flow rates (based on manufacturers' data). Another shortcoming
of the available information was that relatively few data were obtained at loads below maximum rated (or base)
load.
Available data on the population and usage of gas turbines in electric utility power plants are fairly extensive,
and information from the various sources appears to be in substantial agreement. The source providing the
most complete information is the Federal Power Commission, which requres major utilities (electric revenues of
$1 million or more) to submit operating and financial data on an annual basis. Sawyer and Farmer3 employed
these data to develop statistics on the use of gas turbines for electric generation in 1971. Although their report
involved only the major, publicly owned utilities (not the private or investor-owned companies), the statistics do
appear to include about 87 percent of the gas turbine power used for electric generation in 1971.
Of the 253 generating stations listed by Sawyer and Farmer, 137 have more than one turbine-generator unit.
From the available data, it is not possible to know how many hours each turbine was operated during 1971 for
these multiple-turbine plants. The remaining 116 (single-turbine) units, however, were operated an average of
1196 hours during 1971 (or 13.7 percent of the time), and their average load factor (percent of rated load) during
operation was 86.8 percent. This information alone is not adequate for determining a representative operating
pattern for electric utility turbines, but it should help prevent serious errors.
Using 1196 hours of operation per year and 250 starts per year as normal, the resulting average operating day
is about 4.8 hours long. One hour of no-load time per day would represent about 21 percent of operating time,
which is considered somewhat excessive. For economy considerations, turbines are not run at off-design
conditions any longer than necessary, so time spent at intermediate power points is probably minimal. The bulk of
turbine operation must be at base or peak load to achieve the high load factor already mentioned.
If it is assumed that time spent at off-design conditions includes 15 percent at zero load and 2 percent each at
25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent load, then the percentages of operating time at rated load (100 percent) and
peak load (assumed to be 125 percent of rated) can be calculated to produce an 86.8 percent load factor. These
percentages turn out to be 19 percent at peak load and 60 percent at rated load; the postulated cycle based on this
line of reasoning is summarized in Table 3.3.1-1.
12/77 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.3.1-1
-------
Table 3.3.1-1. TYPICAL OPERATING CYCLE FOR ELECTRIC
UTILITY TURBINES
Condition,
% of rated
power
0
25
50
75
100 (base)
125 (peak)
Percent operating
time spent
at condition
15
2
2
2
60
19
Time at condition
based on 4.8-hr day
hours
0.72
0.10
0.10
0.10
2.88
0.91
4.81
minutes
43
6
6
6
173
55
289
Contribution to load
factor at condition
0.00x0.15 = 0.0
0.25 x 0.02 = 0.005
0.50 x 0.02 = 0.010
0.75x0.02 = 0.015
1.0 x 0.60 = 0.60
1.25x0.19 = 0.238
Load factor = 0.868
The operating cycle in Table 3.3.1-1 is used to compute emission factors, although it is only an estimate of
actual operating patterns.
The operating cycle in Table 3.3.1-1 is used to compute emission factors, although it is only an estimate of
actual operating patterns. Table 3.3.1-2 is the resultant composite emission factors based on the operating cycle
of Table 3.3.1-1 and the 1971 population of electri^ utility turbines.
Different values for time at base and peak loads are obtained by changing the total time at lower loads (0
through 75 percent) or by changing the distribution of time spent at lower loads. The cycle given in Table 3.3.1 -1
seems reasonable, however, considering the fixed load factor and the economies of turbine operation. Note that
the cycle determines only the importance of each load condition in computing composite emission factors for
each type of turbine, not overall operating hours.
The top portion of Table 3.3.1-2 gives separate factors for gas-fired and oil-fired units, and the bottom
portion gives fuel-based factors that can be used to estimate emission rates when overall fuel consumption data
are available. Fuel-based emission factors on a mode basis would also be useful, but present fuel consumption data
are not adequate for this purpose.
3.3.1.3 Nitrogen Oxide Control4'5-Nitrogen oxide emissions from gas turbines are reduced by injecting water
or steam into the primary flame zone of the combustion system. Moisture is added to the fuel or combustion air,
or is injected directly into the combustion chamber. The addition of water limi ts the combustion temperature and
thereby controls the formation of nitrogen oxide.
Water and steam injection rates, commonly expressed as a water-to-fuel ratio (by weight), have an effect on
turbine efficiency. Injection of water and fuel with a ratio of 1 reduces gas turbine efficiency by approximately 1
percent. Injection of steam at the same ratio increases efficiency by 1 percent. For a combined-cycle turbine using
steam from the waste-heat boiler, there is an overall reduction in efficiency of 1 percent at a steam/fuel injection
ratio of 1. The incremental effectiveness of injecting either steam or water is sharply reduced at water/fuel ratios
above 1. Table 3.3.1-3 gives average percentages of nitrogen oxide emission reduction for various water-to-fuel
ratios.
Another possible means of controlling nitrogen oxide emissions is the modification of operations and system
designs to include catalysts in the combustion and catalytic cleaning in the exhaust stream. These
improvements, still in the experimental stage, would be used in addition to the water-injection methods.
3.3.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
Table 3.3.1-2. COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR 1971
POPULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITY TURBINES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Time basis
Entire population
Ib/hr rated loada
kg/hr rated load
Gas-fired only
Ib/hr rated load
kg/hr rated load
Oil-fired only
Ib/hr rated load
kg/hr rated load
Fuel basis
Gas-fired only
Ib/106ft3gas
kg/106m3 gas
Oil-fired only
lb/103 gal oil
kg/103 liter oil
Nitrogen
oxides
8.84
4.01
7.81
3.54
9.60
4.35
413.
6615.
67.8
8.13
Organics
(CH«)
0.79
0.36
0.79
0.36
0.79
0.36
42.
673.
5.57
0.668
Carbon
Monoxide
2.18
0.99
2.18
0.99
2.18
0.99
115.
1842.
15.4
1.85
Partic-
ulate
0.52
ti.24
0.27
0.12
0.71
0.32
14.
224.
5.0
0.60
Sulfur
oxides
0.33
0.15
0.098
0.044
0.50
0.23
940Sb
15,0005
140S
16.8S
Rated Ifcad expressed in megawatts.
bS is the percentage sulfur. Example. If the factor is 940 and the sulfur content is 0.01 percent, the sulfur oxides emitted would
be 940 times 0.01, or 9.4 lb/106 ft3 gas.
Table 3.3.1-3. PERCENT REDUCTION OF NOX
EMISSIONS FROM WATER OR
STEAM INJECTION*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Percent reduction of
Water-to-fuel ratio
NOX emissions
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
28
48
63
73
79
84
88
90
92
92
aNot corrected for efficiency variations.
12/77
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.3.1-3
-------
References for Section 3.3.1
1. O'Keefe, W. and R. G. Schwieger. Prime Movers, 115:522-531, November 1971.
2. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines, Final Report, Part 6: Gas Turbine Electric Utility Power Plants. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Tx. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108. February 1974.
3. Sawyer, V. W. andR.C. Farmer. Gas Turbines in U.S. Electric Utilities. Gas Turbine International. January-
April 1973.
4. Durkee, K. R., E. A. Noble, andR. Jenkins. An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for
Stationary Gas Turbines — Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/2-77-017a. 1977.
5. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources. Acurex Corporation, Aero-
therm Division. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Contract No. 68-02-2611. Publication No. EPA-450/1-78-001.
January 1978.
3.3.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
6.3 COTTON GINNING
6.3.1 General1
The primary function of a cotton gin is to separate seed from the lint of raw seed cotton. Approximately one
500-pound bale of cotton can be produced from 1 ton of seed cotton. During ginning, lint dust, fine leaves, and
other trash are emitted into the air. The degree of pollution depends on the seed cotton trash content, which
depends on the method used to harvest the cotton. Handpicked cotton has a lower trash content than machine-
stripped cotton.
6.3.2 Process Description2
Figure 6.3-1 is a flow diagram of the typical cotton ginning process. Each of the five ginning steps and
associated equipment is described in the following sections.
6.3.2.1 Unloading System — Trucks and trailers transport seed cotton from the field to the gin. Pneumatic
systems convey the seed cotton from the vehicles or storage houses to a separator and feed control unit. (Some
gins utilize a stone and green boll trap for preliminary trash removal.) The screen assembly in the separator
collects the seed cotton and allows it to fall into the feed control unit. The conveying air flows from the separator
to a cyclone system where it is cleaned and discharged to the atmosphere.
6.3.2.2 Seed Cotton Cleaning System — Seed cotton is subjected to three rjasic conditioning processes — drying,
cleaning, and extracting — before it enters the gin stand for separation of lint from seed. To ensure adequate
conditioning, cotton gins typically use two conditioning systems in series (see Figure 6.3-1).
Cotton dryers are designed to reduce the moisture content of the seed cotton to an optimum level of 6.5 to 8.0
percent. A push-pull high-pressure fan system conveys seed cotton through the tower dryer to the cleaner, which
loosens the cotton and removes fine particles of foreign matter such as leaf trash, sand, and dirt. Large pieces of
foreign matter (e.g., sticks, stems, and burrs) are removed from the seed cotton by a different process, referred to
as "extracting." Several types of extractors are used at cotton gins: burr machines, stick machines, stick and burr
machines, stick and green leaf extractors, and extractor-feeders. The burr machine removes burrs and
pneumatically conveys them to the trash storage area. The seed cotton then enters a stick (or a stick and green
leaf) machine, which removes sticks, leaves, and stems. Afterwards, the seed cotton is pneumatically conveyed to
the next processing step.
6.3.2.3 Overflow System — From the final conditioning unit, the seed cotton enters a screw conveyor distributor,
which apportions the seed cotton to the extractor-feeders at a controlled rate. When the flow of seed cotton
exceeds the limit of the extractor-feeders, the excess seed cotton flows into the overflow hopper. A pneumatic
system transfers seed cotton from the overflow hopper back to the extractor-feeder as required.
6.3.2.4 Lint Cotton Handling System — Cotton enters the gin stand through a "huller front," which performs
some cleaning. A saw grasps the locks of cotton and draws them through a widely spaced set of "huller ribs,"
which strip off hulls and sticks. The cotton locks are then drawn into the roll box, where seeds are separated from
the fibers. As the seeds are removed, they slide down the face of the ginning ribs and fall to the bottom of the gin
stand for subsequent removal to storage. Cotton lint is removed from the saw by a brush or a blast of air and
conveyed pneumatically to the lint cleaning system for final cleaning and combing. The lint cotton is separated
from the conveying air stream by a separator that forms the lint into a batt. This batt is fed into the first set of lint
cleaners, where saws comb the lint cotton and remove leaf particles, grass, and motes.
12/77 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.3-1
-------
I
O)
c
'c
c
c
o
4~»
+-J
O
o
4—
O
E
_
O)
ro
CO
CD
-------
6.3.2.5 Battery Condenser and Baling System — Lint cotton is pneumatically transported from the lint cleaning
system to a battery condenser, which consists of drums equipped with screens that separate the lint cotton from
the conveying air. The conveying air is then discharged through an in-line filter or cyclones before being
exhausted to the atmosphere. The batt of lint cotton is then fed into the baling press, which packs it into uniform
bales of cotton.
6.3.3 Emissions and Controls
The major source^ of particulates from cotton ginning can be arranged into 10 emission source
categories based on specific ginning operations (Figure 6.3-2). Three primary methods of particulate
control are in use: (1) high efficiency cyclones on the high-pressure fan discharges with collection
efficiencies greater than 99 percent,2 (2) in-line filters on low-pressure fan exhaust vents with
efficiencies of approximately 80 percent, and (3) fine screen coverings on condenser drums in the low-
pressure systems with efficiencies of approximately 50 percent.**4 The unifilter is a new concept for
collecting all wastes from cotton gins. It is designed to replace all cyclones, in-line filters, and covered
condenser drums, and has a collection efficiency of up to 99 percent.5
Table 6.3-1 presents emission factors from uncontrolled cotton ginning operations.1
Table 6.3-2 presents emission factors for a typical cotton gin equipped with available control
devices; the data base involved cotton gins with a variety of different control devices, including
cyclones, in-line filters, screen coverings, and unifilters.2'6"9 The total emission factor can be expected
to vary by roughly a factor of two, depending on the type of seed cotton, the trash content of the seed
cotton, the maintenance of control devices, and the plant operation procedures.
12/77 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.3-3
-------
UNLOADING
SYSTEM
SEED COTTON
CLEANING
SYSTEM
N0.1 DRYER AMD
CLEANER
EXTRACTOR
(REMISSIONS-
NO. 2 DRYER AMD
(8) EMISSIONS
,J
in in ZULU
[LINT COTTON
HANDLING
SYSTEM
MOTE FAN U
L
• B«MMI
CLEANER
\
CYTDArTflD/CCCriCD
::=:t:~-ii
HIM QTAlUn
1
N0.1 LINT
CLEANER
4
N0.2LINT
CLEANER
*
BATTERY CONDENSER
AM n
BALING PRESS
OVERFLOW
" * DISTRIBUTOR "
«f- SEPARATOR
•»
^ ' .
'
R EMISSIONS (1)
REMISSIONS (2)
REMISSIONS (3)
-EMISSIONS (5)
REMISSIONS (6)
REMISSIONS (7)
REMISSIONS (9)
(10)£MISSIONS-*-
MASTER
TRASH
FAN
TRASH STORAGE
6.3-4
Figure 6.3-2. Emissions from a typical ginning operation.
EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
Table 6.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COTTON GINNING
OPERATIONS WITHOUT CONTROL8'"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Process
Unloading fan
Seed cotton
cleaning system
Cleaners
and dryersd
Stick and burr
machine
Miscellaneous6
Total
Estimated total
particulate
Ib/bale
5
1
3
3
12
kg/bale
2.27
0.45
1.36
1.36
5.44
Particulates
>100fxm
settled out, %c
0
70
95
50
—
Estimated emission
factor (released
to atmosphere)
Ib/bale
5.0
0.3
0.2
1.5
7.0
kg/bale
2.27
0.14
0.09
0.68
3.2
aReference 1.
'-'One bale weighs 500 pounds (226 kilograms).
Percentage of the particles that settle out in the plant.
dCorresponds to items 1 and 2 in Table 6.3-2.
Corresponds to items 4 through 9 in Table 6.3-2
Table 6.3-2. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR COTTON GINS WITH CONTROLS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emission sourceb
1. Unloading fan
2. No. 1 dryer and cleaner
3. No. 2 dryer and cleaner
4. Trash fan
5. Overflow fan
6. No. 1 lint cleaner condenser
7. No. 2 lint cleaner condenser
8. Mote fan
9. Battery condenser
10. Master trash fan
Total
Emission factor
lb/balec
0.32
0.18
0.10
0.04
0.08
0.81
0.15
0.20
0.19
0.17
2.24
g/kg
0.64
0.36
0.20
0.08
0.16
1.62
0.30
0.40
0.38
0.34
4.48
^References 2,6-9.
Numbers correspond to those in Figure 6.3-2.
CA bale of cotton weighs 500 pounds (227 Kilograms).
12/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.3-5
-------
References for Section 6.3
1. Air-borne Participate Emission* from Cotton Ginning Operations. U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Taft Sanitary Engineering Center. Cincinnati,
Oh. 1960.
2. Source Assessment Document No. 27, Cotton Gins. Monsanto Research Corporation. Dayton, Oh.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication
No. EPA-600/2-78-004a. December 1975.
3. McCaskill, O.L. and R. A. Wesley. The Latest in Pollution Control. Texas Cotton Ginners' Journal
and Yearbook. 1974.
4. Baker, Roy. F. and,Calvin B. Parnell, Jr. Three Types of Condenser Filters for Fly Lint and Dust
Control at Cotton Gins. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. Beltsville,
Md. ARS-42-192. September 1971.
5. McCaskill, O.L. and R.A. Wesley. Unifilter Collecting System for Cotton-gin Waste Materials.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. New Orleans, La. ARS-S-144.
September 1976.
6. Parnell, C.B., Jr. and Roy V. Baker. Particulate Emissions of a Cotton Gin in the Texas Stripper
Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. Washington, D.C.
Production Research Report No. 149. May 1973.
7. Kirk, I. W., T.E. Wright, and K.H. Read. Particulate Emissions from Commercial Cotton Ginning
Operations. Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Laboraory, Mesilla Park, New Mexico.
Presented at ASAE 1976 Winter Meeting, Chicago, Illinois. December 1976.
8. Cotton Gin Emission Tests, Marana Gin, Producers Cotton ,Oil Company, Marana, Arizona.
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, Colo, and EPA Region IX. Publication No.
EPA-330/2-78-008. May 1978.
9. Emission Test Report, Westside Farmers' Cooperative Gin .#5, Tranquility, California. PEDCo
Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. EPA Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement, Contract No. 68-01-4147, Task No. 47, PN 3370-2-D. February 1978.
6.3-6 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
6.8 AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZERS
6.8.1 General »,'
Ammonium nitrate fertiliyert- arc piodu< ed In Beading n:tnc acid and ammonia to !,nni tli,- ^t!i:ii'>i'!'i,i
nitrate solutions or solids. Essentially four -.leps are invohed in producing solid ammonium nitrate.
neutralization, evaporation/concentration, «t>!;dincation, and final particle character* tahoii and h;>;?!vr!^
(Figure 6.8-1).
Anhydrous ammonia and 55 percent nitric acid are combined in a neutralizer to [roducv a ol peK-er.
ammonium nitrate solution, with the heat of reaction concentrating that solution to approximately 83 jx i.-c-it
ammonium nitrate before it leaves the neutralizes The solution is. then further >,o.i]c<',ntr? H-JV ,1 is*;,
prills can be produced, depending on the feed solution concentration High-density prills jre ;-,;, ft-:if •' • :•
fertilizers because of their excellent blending and spreading charac teii.stirs and their Song siorape Inf. "i ,<_>*-,.-
density prills, while used for fertilizer, are primarily good for blast ing agents because of their high JJOTC- i' •.'*•' >;
fertilizer production by granulation uses ordinary granulator processes mM«ad oi a prilling rown i> • -J ><•.
achieve the desired solid product.
An adjusting tank is used in conjunction \vith the neutralizes- to ^to-'e ihe83 percent anim-T.jc,:. !.;'-..'<-
solution from the neutralizer, receive the overflow from a head t'
the evaporator/concentrator on a demand basis. A lump-dis->olvmg tank i^ used tc recycle subsfariC-'.r ! >fi,ji • >s'
(undersize or oversize). The oversize and/or fine mate rials enter the tank, dissolve, and are sent to t!u- r^- -!.,,1'.,. ,
as a weak (~60 percent) recycle liquor.
Final particle characterization and finishing may include sizing, cooling, drving. coating, and prepa; '.li')u !•>.
shipment. The actual operations used at a particular plant depend on the product manufactured ;nn: ih-?
solidification process employed.
6.8.2 Emissions3
Emissions from the manufacture of ammonium nitrate consist of particulates and of either ammonia or
nitric acid from the neutralizer, depending upon which reactant is added in excess to the process. Normally,
ammonia is added in excess because it reduces the particulate loading and opacity of the exhaust stream.
Table 6.8-1 presents emission factors for the different emission points in the prilling process. Except for 'he
dryer and cooler, uncontrolled emission factors are given because most plants operate without controls on the
neutralizer, evaporator/concentrator, and prill tower. Coolers and dryers are normally equipped with high-
efficiency scrubbers to recover valuable products and recycle them in the process.
In addition to the emissions indicated in Table 6.8-1, particulate matter may escape from coating/bulk
loading operations. Emissions from coating operations are estimated to be <6 g/kg under the assumption that a
maximum of 10 percent of the coating material used is lost to the atmosphere. Particulates from bulk loading
operations are estimated to have an emission factor of <0.01 g/kg of material loaded.
Solid fertilizer produced by granulation or graining amounts to less than 9 percent of the solid fertilizer
produced and emissions are only fugitive losses.3 Table 6.8-2 presents emissions from the granulation process.
12/77 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.8-1
-------
E
(13
1_
O)
cn
'-a
OJ
o
o
en
C
a.
oq
to
0)
1_
O)
6.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
Table 6.8-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING *
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Neutralizer"
Evaporator/
concentrator
Prilling
tower
Dryer and
cooler6'*
Coatings-*1
Bulk loading9
Hig
Particulate
Ib/ton
3.3C
0.94C
2.7C
0.10
s 4.0
SL0.02
kg/MT
1.6C
0.47C
1.4°
0.05
^2.0
^0.01
h-density prilling
Ammonia
Ib/ton
0.86d
kg/MT
0.43d
Nitric acid
Ib/ton
=0.52
kg/MT
<0.26
Low-density prilling
Particulate
Ib/ton
0.08C
0.1 8C
1.00°
0.08
s.6.0
sO.02
kg/Mt
0.04C
0.09C
0.50 c
0.04
<3.0
sO.01
Ammonia
Ib/ton
0.86d
kg/Mt
0.43d
Nitric acid
Ib/ton
sO.52
kg/Mt
sO.26
a Emission factor expressed as Ib (kg) per ton [metric ton (MT)] of ammonium nitrate fertilizer produced.
b Ammonia or nitric acid released during production is assumed to come from the neutralizer. Available data are insufficient
to provide further breakdown of the emissions.
c Data are for uncontrolled operations.
d Emission ranges of 0.052 to 6.3 Ib/ton (0.26 to 3.1 kg/MT) result from variations in plant operation.
e Data are for controlled operations using a wet scrubber with an efficiency of 95 percent.
f Dryer is not used in high-density prilling.
9 Fugitive participate emissions escape from coating and bulk loading operations.
h Coating increases the particle emission level of low-density prills. Coatings are not normally applied to high density prills
(~3 percent are coated).
Table 6.8-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRANULAR NITRATE FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS8-"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Emission point0
Neutralizer de
Grandulator*
Dryers & coolers f'9
Particulate
Ib/ton
0.4
7
kg/MT
0.2
3.5
Nitrogen oxides (NOX )
Ib/ton
0.9
3
kg/MT
0.45
1.5
Ammonia
Ib/ton
2
0.5
1.3
kg/MT
1
0.25
0.65
a Emission factor expressed as Ib (kg) per ton [metric ton (MT)] of fertilizer produced.
b Solid formulation by granulation accounts for less than 9 percent of fertilizer production (Reference 3).
c Reference 1.
a Reference 2.
e Controlled factor based on 95 percent recovery in recycle scrubber.
f Use of wet cyclones can reduce emissions by 70 percent.
9 Use of wet-screen scrubber following cyclone can reduce emissions by 95 percent.
12/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.8-3
-------
6.8.3 Controls3
Several systems have been developed for the control of emissions from the prilling tower and the neutralizer.
A system using a modified neutralizer may have a 10- to 20-fold reduction in emissions. Wet scrubbing systems
for prill towers have been shown to achieve a 90 percent reduction (by weight) in prill tower emissions. Another
system, using a special cone in the prill tower and a mist eliminator, has achieved 98.6 percent removal
efficiencies on combined exhausts from the prill tower, neutralizer, and evaporator/concentrator.
High-efficiency wet scrubbers are used on cooler and dryer exhausts to recover entrained particulates. The
weak ammonium nitrate scrubbing liquor is recycled to the lump-dissolving tank and ultimately back to the
system. Removal efficiencies,of 95 to 97 percent are standard for these scrubbers due to the large (10 tolOOO//m)
size of the particulate. Controlled emission factors are given for dryers and coolers in Table 6.8-1 since the use of
controls is standard industry practice.
References for Section 6.8
1. Unpublished source sampling data. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Va.
2. Private communication with personnel from Gulf Design Corporation. Lakeland, Fl.
3. Search, W.J. and R.B. Reznik. Source Assessment: Ammonium Nitrate Production. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-600/2-77-107i. September 1977.
6.8-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
7.3 PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING
7.3.1 Process Description1*3'7
Pyrometallurgical smelting methods are utilized extensively in the United States to produce copper from
sulfide ores. These ores usually contain less than 1 percent copper and therefore must be concentrated before
being transported to the smelter. Concentration to 15 to 35 percent copper is accomplished by crushing, grinding,
and flotation at the mine site. Sulfur content of the concentrate is generally 25 to 35 percent. Most of the
remaining concentrate is iron (25 percent) and water (10 percent). Some concentrates also contain significant
quantities of arsenic, cadmium, lead, boron, antimony, and other heavy metals.
The most common configuration of operations for pyrometallurgical smelters in the United States includes
roasting, reverberatory or electric furnace smelting, and converting to produce blister copper (99+ percent pure
copper) from concentrate. The remaining impurities are usually'.removed by fire refining and electrolytic
refining. Figure 7.3-1 is a generalized flowsheet for this combination of operations. About half of the smelters in
the United States do not use the roasting step and instead feed wet or "green" charge directly to the smelting
furnace.
In roasting, concentrate is heated in air, eliminating 20 to 50 percent of the sulfur as sulfur dioxide (S02).
Relatively volatile impurities such as antimony, arsenic, and bismuth are also driven off, and some of the iron is
coi-verted to oxides, which combine with slag in ensuing processes. Concentrate is mixed with a siliceous flux
(often a low-grade ore) to produce the roaster charge material. The roasted product, called calcine, serves as a
dried and preheated charge for the smelting furnace. Either multiple-hearth or fluidized-bed roaster furnaces are
used for roasting copper concentrate. Because there is less air dilution, higher SO2 concentrations are present in
fluidized-bed roaster gases than in multiple-hearth roaster gases.
The second step is smelting. In this process, hot calcines from the roaster or raw unroasted concentrate are
fused with limestone and siliceous flux in reverberatory or electric-arc furnaces to produce copper matte. Copper
matte is primarily miscible liquid sulfides and some heavy metals. In reverberatory furnace operation, heat is
supplied by combustion of oil, gas, or pulverized coal, and is reflected from the roof of the furnace onto the
charge. As the charge is melted, copper, iron, and sulfur form cuprous sulfide (Cu2S) and ferrous sulfide (FeS).
Other minerals combine with fluxes, forming slag. Slag floats on top of the molten bath and is removed
continuously. Copper matte remains in the furnace until poured. Normal smelting furnace operations produce a
matte that contains 40 to 45 percent copper.
For smelting in electric-arc furnaces, heat is generated by an electric current passing through carbon
electrodes that are lowered into the slag layer of the molten bath. Electric furnaces do not produce fuel
combustion gases; therefore, gas flow rates are lower and S02 concentrations are higher in electric furnace
effluent streams than in reverberatory furnace gases.
The final step in the production of blister copper is converting. Converting is normally performed in Peirce-
Smith converters, which consist of a cylindrical steel shell mounted on trunnions at either end and rotated about
its major axis. An opening in one side of the converter functions as a mouth through which molten matte,
siliceous flux, and scrap copper are charged to the converter and gaseous products are vented. Air or oxygen-
enriched air is blown through the metal; FeS is oxidized and combined with the flux to form a slag, which floats on
the surface. Relatively pure Cu2S (called "white metal") is collected in the bottom of the converter. After
removal of slag, a renewed air blast oxidizes the sulfide sulfur to S02 leaving blister copper in the converter.
Hoboken converters have recently been installed at one U.S. smelter to replace the standard Peirce-Smith
converters. The metallurgical operations of the Hoboken unit are the same as those of the Peirce-Smith unit;
however, to prevent dilution air from entering the exhaust gas stream, the Hoboken converter is fitted with a
stationary side flue instead of a movable hood.
12/77 Metallurgical Industry 7.3-1
-------
ENTERING THE SYSTEM
LEAVING THE SYSTEM
RAW CONCENTRATES.
FUEL
AIR
SILICEOUS FLUX-
AIR
MISCELLANEOUS-
MATERIAL HIGH
IN COPPER
REDUCING GAS/FUEL-
AIR T-
ROASTER
(MULTIPLE-HEARTH
OR FLUIDIZED BED)
CALCINES
MATTE
SLAG
CONVERTER
BLISTER
COPPER
*
-••
FIRE-REFINING FURNACE
ANODE
COPPER
CASTING WHEEL
ANODES
. GASES, DUST AND VOLATILE OXIDES
TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND STACK
^
SMELTING FURNACE
(REVERBERATORY
OR ELECTRIC-ARC)
BOILERS, CONTF
^
AND STACK
»-SLAG TO DUMP
HP»-GASESTO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
AND STACK
-»- GASES TO STACK
•SLAG TO CONVERTER
ELECTROLYTIC REFINING
H»- COPPER TO FABRICATION
Figure 7.3-1. Typical primary copper smelter flowsheet.
7.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
In a newer process, roasting and smelting are combined in one operation to produce a high-grade copper
matte from concentrates and fluxes using a flash furnace. Fuel is supplied to sustain combustion reactions, but
most of the heat necessary for smelting is generated autogenously by the oxidation of the sulfides in the
concentrate. The flash smelting operation has also been applied to the oxidation of matte to blister copper in the
continuous smelting process. Continuous smelting systems that have been operated at foreign smelters include
the Noranda, WORCRA, Mitsubishi, and TBRC (top-blown rotary converter) processes.
Blister copper usually contains from 98.5 to 99.5 percent pure copper. Impurities may include gold, silver,
antimony,'arsenic, bismuth, iron, lead, nickel, selenium, sulfur, tellurium, and zinc. To further purify the blister
copper, fire refining and electrolytic refining are used. In fire refining, air is blown through the metal to oxidize
remaining impurities; these are removed as a slag, and the remaining metal bath is subjected to a reducing
atmosphere to reconvert cuprous oxide to copper. The fire-refined copper is cast into anodes and further refined
electrolytically.
Electrolytic refining involves separation of copper from impurities by electrolysis in a solution containing
copper sulfate and sulfuric acid. Metallic impurities precipitate from the solution and form a sludge that is
removed and treated for recovery of precious metals. The copper produced is 99.95 to 99.97 percent pure.
Hydrometallurgical processes are usually applied to recovery of copper from oxide ores, but their application
in U.S. plants is limited.
7.3.2 Emissions and Controls
Particulates and sulfur dioxide are the principal air contaminants emitted at primary smelters. In some
cases, these emissions are generated directly as a result of the processes involved, as in the liberation of S02 from
the ore or the volatilization of trace elements to oxide fumes. Significant quantities of fugitive emissions are
generated during material handling operations and charging and tapping of furnaces.
Mutiple-hearth and fluidized-bed roasters are sources of both particulates and sulfur oxides. Particulates
consist of oxides of the metals that are found in the concentrate. Copper and iron oxides are the primary
constituents, but other oxides such as those of arsenic, antimony, cadmium, lead, mercury, and zinc may also be
present with metallic sulfates and sulfuric acid. Combustion products from fuel burning also contribute to the
particulate emissions from multiple-hearth roasters. Control of particulates from roaster gases is standard
practice because of the value of the recovered copper in the dust and because of the presence of toxic particulates
such as arsenic. Cyclones and scrubbers may be used for coarse paniculate removal and are usually followed by
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or fabric filters for collection of fines.
Smelting furnaces also emit significant quantities of oxidized metal particulates and S0£. Particulate
collection systems for smelting furnaces are similar to those used for roasters. Reverberatory furnace offgases are
usually routed through low-velocity balloon flues and waste heat boilers to recover large particles and heat, then
routed through electrostatic precipitators. Overall collection efficiencies of 95 to 99 percent for ESP systems are
normal for these applications. Efficiencies as high as 99.7 percent have been reported.
Converter flue gases also contain particulates and S0£. In the standard Peirce-Smith converter, flue gases
are captured during the blowing phase by movable hooding covering the converter mouth opening.To prevent the
hood freezing to the converter due to splashing of molten metal, there is a gap between the hood and the vessel.
Sophisticated draft control devices that maintain a negative pressure at the gap to draw air in for cooling and to
prevent fugitive emissions have been developed. During charging and pouring operations, significant fugitive
emissions may occur when the hooding is removed to allow crane access.
12/77 Metallurgical Industry 7.3-3
-------
Rtfi'tHiriiiif; smelter processes handle material that eonldn.s \erv iittle -,ulfur: h=rice SC)2 emissions from
these pr u:esses are relatively insignificant. Particul.ite emission^ from fire-Defining operations, however, may
•itill be o! - "ncern Electrolytic refining does not produce emission', unless the associated sulfuric acid tanks are
OPf-p to 'he atmosphere. Oushmg and grinding sv«terns used in ore. flux, and slag processing also contribute to
t'jgitive 'lust problems.
L-'/ntrol ot SO;7 emissions from -welter sources i-. most commonly performed in a single or double-contact
sulfiiric acid manufacturing plant. Use of a sulfuric acid plant on ,:opper smelter effluent gas streams requires that
gas he free from partictdaO matter arid that a certain iniuimum S(>2 concentration be maintained. Table 7.3-1
sSiows tvpical average SO? concentrations foj the •• arious smelter unit offgases. These offgas streams may be
treated individually, or weak and strong concentraii'.u streams may be blended. Typically, single-contact acid
plants achieve 96.5 to 97 percent conversion of SO 2 to acid with approximately 2000 pprn S02 remaining in the acid
plant effluent gas. Double-contact acid plants collect 98 percent of the SC>2 arld emit about 500 pprri St>2
Absorption o! the S0~2 in diniethvlaruhne (DMA.) solution has also been used in U.S. smelters for production of
liquid SOg.
Table 7.3-1. AVERAGE SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
OFFGASES FROM PRIMARY POPPER SMELTING SOURCES
Unit
Multiple-hearth roaster
Fluidized-bed roaster
Reverberatory furnace
Electric-arc furnace
Flash-smelting furnace
Continuous smelting furnace
Peirce-Srnith converter
Hoboken converter
Single-contact H2SC>4 plant
Double-contact HaSO* plant
Sulfur dioxide
concentration, percent
1.5-3
10-12
0.5-1.5
4-8
10-20
5-15
4-7
8
0.2
0.05
Emission? from hydrometalhirgical smelting plants are geneially small in quantity and easily controlled. In
the Arbiter process, ammonia gas escapes from ihe leach reactors, mixer-settlers, thickeners, and tanks. For
control, all of these units are covered and vented to a packed-tov
-------
Table 7.3-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS'"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Smelter
configuration
Reverberatory furnace
followed by
converters
Multiple-hearth roaster
followed by reverber-
ator/ furnace and
converters
Fluidized-bed roaster
followed by reverber-
atory furnace and
converters
Fluidized-bed roaster
followed by electric
furnace and
converters
Total uncontrolled smelter
Unit
Reverb
Converter
Roaster
Roaster and
reverb6
Converter
Roaster
Reverb
Converter
Roaster
Furnace
Converter
Control
None
ESP
None
ESP
ESP + SCAP
None
Baghouse
None
ESP
Spray
Chamber +
ESP
None
ESP
ESP + SCAP
ESP +DCAP
None
Baghouse +
SCAP
ESP
ESP + SCAP
None
Baghouse +
SCAP
None
None
None
Particulatesd
1b/ton
36
22
42
2.5
0.28
45
02
48
1 4
42
2.9
038
038
55
01
24
1 1
55
01
135
kg/MT
18
11
21
1.3
0.14
225
01
2.4
07
21
1.5
0.19
0 19
28
' 0.05
1.2
0.55
28
005
665
S02d
Ib/ton
390
860
27
410
450
540
61
062
540
2
66
540
2
131
444
1,254
kg/MT
195
430
14
205
230
270
31
031
270
1
33
270
1
66
222
627
SO (as H2SO4)0
Ib/ton
0.81
0.06
1.5
0.14
022
kg/MT
0.41
0.03
075
0.07
0.11
NOx(as NO2)d
Ib/ton
009
0.05
kg/MT
0.045
0.025
"Emission factors are expressed as units per unit weight of concentrated ore processed by the smelter. Approximately
4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of copper metal.
bOther potential emission sources include (1) ore storage, crushing, and handling, (2) flux crushing and handling, (3) con-
centrate drying and handling, (4) slag dumping, (5) fire refining, and (6) copper casting, but emission rates have not been
quantified.
CESP = electrostatic precipitator
SCAP = single-contact acid plant
DCAP = double-contact acid plant
dReferences 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Additional information was furnished by the following agencies.
Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix, Arizona
Montana State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena, Montana
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control District, Seattle, Washington
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency, Santa Fe, New Mexico
"Roaster and reverberatory furnace emissions are combined and therefore a single set of emission factors is provided.
12/77
Metallurgical Industry
7.3-5
-------
References for Section 7.3
1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.). John A. Danielson, Air Pollution Control District, County of
Los Angeles (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication
No. AP-40. May 1973.
2. Weisenberg, I. J. and G. E. Umlauf. Evaluation of the Controllability of S02 Emissions from Copper
Smelters in the State of Arizona. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-1354, Task Order No. 8 June 1975.
3. Field Surveillance and Enforcement Guide for Primary Metallurgical Industries. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/3-73-002. December 1973.
4. Background Information for New Source Performance Standards: Primary Copper, Zinc and Lead Smelters,
Volume 1: Proposed Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-002a. October 1974.
5. Billings, Carl H. First Annual Report on Arizona Copper bmelter Pollution Control Technology. Arizona
Department of Health Services, Phoenix, Az. April 1977.
6. Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in Copper, Lead, and Zinc Smelting. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washing-
ton, D. C. Information Circular 8527. 1971.
7. Extraction Metallurgy of Copper, Volume I: Pyrometallurgy and Electrolytic Refining, and Volume II:
Hydrometallurgy and Electrowinning. The Metallurgical Society of A [ME, New York, N. Y. 1976.
8. Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes. U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, Oh. NAPCA Publication No.
999-1.3. J966.
9. Emission Factors and Emission Source Information for Primary and Secondary Copper Smelters. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-051.
December 1977.
EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
7.9 SECONDARY COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING
7.9.1 Process Description1'2
The secondary copper industry processes scrap metals for the recovery of copper. Products include
refined copper or copper alloys in forms such as ingots, wirebar, anodes, and shot. Copper alloys are combinations
of copper with other materials, notably, tin. zinc, and lead. Also, for special applications, combinations include
such metals as cobalt, manganese, iron, nickel, cadmium, and beryllium and nonmetals such as arsenic and
silicon.
The principal processess involved in copper recovery are scrap metal pretreatment and smelting.
Pretreatment includes cleaning and concentration to prepare the material for the smelting furnace. Smelting
involves heating and treating the scrap to achieve separation and purification of specific metals.
The feed material used in the recovery process can be any metallic scrap containing a useful amount of
copper, bronze (copper and tin), or brass (copper and zinc). Traditional forms are punchings, turnings and
borings, defective or surplus goods, metallurgical residues such as slags, skimmings, and drosses, and obsolete,
worn out, or damaged articles including automobile radiators, pipe, wire, bushings, and bearings.
The type and quality of the feed material determines the processes the smelter will use. Due to the large
variety of possible feed materials available, the method of operation varies greatly between plants. Generally, a
secondary copper facility deals with less pure raw materials and produces a more refined product, whereas brass
and bronze alloy processors take cleaner scrap and do less purification and refining. Figure 7.9-1 is a flowsheet
depicting the major processes that can be expected in a secondary copper smelting operation. A brass and bronze
alloying operation is shown in Figure 7.9-2.
Pretreatment of the feed material can be accomplished using several different procedures, either
separately or in combination. Feed scrap is concentrated by manual and mechanical methods such as sorting,
stripping, shredding, and magnetic separation. Feed scrap is sometimes briquetted in a hydraulic press.
Pyrometallurgical pretreatment may include sweating, burning of insulation (especially from wire scrap), and
drying (burning off oil and volatiles) in rotary kilns. Hydrometallurgical methods include flotation and leaching,
with chemical recovery.
In smelting, low-grade scrap is melted in a cupola furnace, producing "black copper" (70 to 80 percent Cu)
and slag; these are often separated in a reverberatory furnace, from which the melt is transferred to a converter or
electric furnace to produce "blister" copper, which is 90 to 99 percent Cu.
Blister copper may be poured to produce shot or castings, but is often further refined electrolytically or by
fire refining. The fire-refining process is essentially the same as that described for the primary copper smelting
industry (Section 7.3.1). The sequence of events in fire-refining is (1) charging, (2) melting in an oxidizing
atmosphere, (3) skimming the slag, (4) blowing with air or oxygen, (5) adding fluxes, (6) "poling" or otherwise
providing a reducing atmosphere, (7) reskimming, and (8) pouring.
To produce bronze or brass rather than copper, an alloying operation is required. Clean, selected bronze
and brass scrap is charged to a melting furnace with alloys to bring the resulting mixture to the desired final
composition. Fluxes are added to remove impurities and to protect the melt against oxidation by air. Air or oxygen
may be blown through the melt to adjust the composition by oxidizing excess zinc.
With zinc-rich feed such as brass, the zinc oxide concentration in the exhaust gas is sometimes high
enough to make recovery for its metal value desirable. This process is accomplished by vaporizing the zinc from
the melt at high temperature and capturing the oxide downstream in a process baghouse.
12/77 Metallurgical Industry 7.9-1
-------
ENTERING THE SYSTEM
LEAVING THE SYSTEM
LOW-GRADE SCRAP
(SLAGS, SKIMMINGS,
DROSSES. CHIPS.
BORINGS)
AIR *-
FLUX ^
FUELi fc
CIICI -^
PYROMETALLURGICAL
PRETREATMENT
(DRYING)
TREATED
SCRAP
t
CUPOLA
BLACK i
COPPER T
jf SLAG
SMELTING FURNACE
(REVERBERATORY)
SEPARATED i
COPPER T
GASES, DUST, METAL OXIDES
*" IUCUNIHUL EQUIPMENT
CARBON MONOXIDE, PARTICULATE DUST,
•»- METAL OXIDES, TO AFTERBURNER AND
PARTICULATE CONTROL
GASES AND METAL OXIDES
TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
FLUX-
FUEL-
AIR-
t
SLAG
CONVERTER
BLISTER ,
COPPER
AIR.
FUEL-
REDUCING MEDIUM,
(POLING)
GASES AND METAL OXIDES
' TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
BLISTER
COPPER
t
PRODUCTION
SLAG
FIRE REFINING
j
T
OR PLANT ENVIRONMENT
GASES, METAL DUST,
"TO CONTROL DEVICE
7.9-2
REFINED
COPPER
7.9-1. Low-grade copper recovery.
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
ENTERING THE SYSTEM
LEAVING THE SYSTEM
HIGH-GRADE SCRAP
(WIRE, PIPE, BEARINGS,
PUNCHINGS, RADIATORS)
MANUAL AND MECHANICAL
PRETREATMENT
(SORTING)
DESIRED
COPPER SCRAP
FUEL
AIR
FLUX-
FUEL-
ALLOY MATERIAL -
(ZINC, TIN, ETC)
COPPER
-*. FUGITIVE DUST TO ATMOSPHERE
-+-UNDESIRED SCRAP TO SALE
DESIRED BRASS
AND BRONZE SCRAP
WIREBl
FUEL * SWE
AIR *-
BRA
BR
»- GASES, METAL OXIDES TO
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
• LEAD, SOLDER, BABBITT METAL
MELTING AND
ALLOYING FURNACE
ALLOY
MATERIAL
• PARTICULATES, HYDROCARBONS,
ALDEHYDES, FLUORIDES. AND
CHLORIDES TO AFTERBURNER
AND PARTICULATE CONTROL
—»-METAL OXIDES TO
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
-*-SLAG TO DISPOSAL
CASTING
-FUGITIVE METAL OXIDES GENERATED
DURING PUUKIIMG TO EITHER PLANT
ENVIRONMENT OR HOODING
12/77
7.9-2. High-grade brass and bronze alloying.
Metallurgical Industry
7.9-3
-------
The final step is always casting of the suitably alloyed or refined metal into a desired form, i.e, shot, wirebar,
anodes, cathodes, ingots, or other cast shapes. The metal from the melt is usually poured into a ladle or a small
pot, which serves the functions of a surge hopper and a flow regulator, then into a mold.
7.9.2 Emissions and Controls
The principal pollutants emitted from secondary copper smelting activities are particulate matter in
various forms. Removal of insulation from wire by burning causes particulate emissions of metal oxides and
unburned insulation. Drying of chips and borings to remove excess oils and cutting fluids can cause discharges of
large amounts of dense smoke consisting of soot and unburned hydrocarbons. Particulate emissions from the top
of a cupola furnace consist of metal oxide fumes, dirt, and dust from limestone and coke.
The smelting process utilizes large volumes of air to oxidize sulfides, zinc, and other undesirable consti-
tuents of the feed. This procedure generates much particulate matter in the exit gas stream. The wide variation
among furnace types, charge types, quality, extent of pretreatment, and size of charge is reflected in a broad spec-
trum of particle sizes and variable grain loadings in the escaping gases. One major factor contributing to differ-
ences in emission rates is the amount of zinc present in scrap feed materials; the low-boiling zinc evaporates and
combines with air oxygen to give copious fumes of zinc oxide.
Metal oxide fumes from furnaces used in secondary smelters have been controlled by baghouses,
electrostatic precipitators, or wet scrubbers. Efficiency of control by baghouses may be better than 99 percent,
but cooling systems are needed to prevent the hot exhaust gases from damaging or destroying the bag filters. A
two-stage system employing both water jacketing and radiant cooling is common. Electrostatic precipitators are
not as well suited to this application, having a low collection efficiency for dense particulates such as oxides of
lead and zinc. Wet scrubber installations are also relatively ineffective in the secondary copper industry.
Scrubbers are useful mainly for particles larger than 1 micron, (/jm) but the metal oxide fumes generated are
generally submicron in size.
Particulate emissions associated with drying kilns can be similarly controlled. Drying temperatures up to
150° C (300° F) produce relatively cool exhaust gases, requiring no precooling for control by baghouses.
Wire burning generates much particulate matter, largely unburned combustibles. These emissions can be
effectively controlled by direct-flame afterburners, with an efficiency of 90 percent or better if the afterburner
combustion temperature is maintained above 1000° C (1800° F). If the insulation contains chlorinated organics
such as polyvinyl chloride, hydrogen chloride gas will be generated and will not be controlled by the afterburner.
One source of fugitive emissions in secondary smelter operations is charging of scrap into furnaces
containing molten metals. This often occurs when the scrap being processed is not sufficiently compact to allow a
full charge to fit into the furnace prior to heating. The introduction of additional material onto the liquid metal
surface produces significant amounts of volatile and combustible materials and smoke, which can escape through
the charging door. Briquetting the charge offers a possible means of avoiding the necessity of such fractional
charges. When fractional charging cannot be eliminated, fugitive emissions are reduced by turning off the
furnace burners during charging. This reduces the flow of exhaust gases and enhances the ability of the exhaust
control system to handle the emissions.
Metal oxide fumes are generated not only during melting, but also during pouring of the molten metal into
the molds. Other dusts may be generated by the charcoal, or other lining, used in association with the mold.
Covering the metal surface with ground charcoal is a method used to make "smooth-top" ingots. This process
creates a shower or sparks, releasing emissions into the plant environment at the vicinity of the furnace top and
the molds being filled.
Emission factor averages and ranges for six different types of furnaces are presented in Table 7.9-1.
7.9-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
Table 7.9-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR FURNACES USED IN SECONDARY
COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING PROCESSES'"
EMtSSION FACTOR RATING: B
Furnace and
charge type
Cupola
Scrap copper
Insulated copper wire
Scrap copper and brass
Reverberatory
Copper
Brass and bronze
Rotary
Brass and bronze
Crucible and pot
Brass and bronze
Electric arc
Copper
Brass and bronze
Electric induction
Copper
Brass and bronze
Control
equipment0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
Emissions
Avg
kg/MT
0.002
120
5
35
1.2
2.6
0.2
18
1.3
150
7
11
0.5
2.5
0.5
5.5
3
3.5
0.25
10
0.35
Range
kg/MT
-
-
-
30-40
1.0-1.4
0.4-15
0.1-0.3
0.3-35
0.3-2.5
50-250
3-10
1-20
0.1-1
1-4
0.02-1.0
2-9
-
-
-
0.3-20
0.01-0.65
Avg
Ib/ton
0.003
230
10
70
2.4
5.1
0.4
36
2.6
300
13
21
1
5
1
11
6
7
0.5
20
0.7
Range
Ib/ton
-
-
-
60-80
2.0-2.8
0.8-30
0.3-0.6
0.6-70
0.05-5
100-500
6-19
2-40
0.1-2
2-8
0.04-2
4-18
-
-
-
0.5-40
0.01-1.3
a All factors given in terms of raw materials charged to unit.
b The information for Table 7.9-1 was based on unpublished data furnished by the following:
Philadelphia Air Management Services, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Metro Field Office, Springfield, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Newark Field Office, Newark, New Jersey.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York, New York.
The City of New York Department of Air Resources, New York, New York.
Cook County Department of Environmental Control, Maywood, Illinois.
Wayne County Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, Detroit, Michigan.
City of Cleveland Department of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Air Pollution Control, Cleveland, Ohio.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio.
City of Chicago Department of Environmental Control, Chicago, Illinois.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles, California.
cControl equipment: 0 signifies none operated
1 indicates electrostatic precipitator
2 indicates baghouse filter system
12/77
Metallurgical Industry
7.9-5
-------
References for Section 7.9
1. Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and Bronze Smelting and Refining Industry. U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Raleigh, N. C. Publication No. AP-
58. November 1969.
2. Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.). John A. Danielson, Air Pollution Control District, County of
Los Angeles (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No.
AP-40. May 1973.
3. Emission Factors and Emission Source Information for Primary and Secondary Copper Smelters. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-051.
December 1977.
7.9-6 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
8. MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
This section involves the processing and production of various minerals. Mineral processing is characterized
by particulate emissions in the form of dust. Frequently, as in the case of crushing and screening, this dust is
identical to the material being handled. Emissions also occur through handling and storing the finished product
because this material is often dry and fine. Particulate emissions from some of the processes such as quarrying,
yard storage, and dust from transport are difficult to control. Most of the emissions from the manufacturing pro-
cesses discussed in this section, however, can be reduced by conventional particulate control equipment such as
cyclones, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Because of the wide variety in processing equipment and final product,
emissions cover a wide range; however, average emission factors have been presented for general use.
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS
8.1.1 General
Asphaltic concrete is a paving material consisting of a combination of aggregate that has been dried, heated,
and then evenly coated with hot asphalt.
8.1.2 Process Description
Selecting and handling the raw material is the first step in the production of asphaltic concrete. Different
applications of asphaltic concrete require different aggregate size distributions and the raw aggregates are crushed
and screened at the quarries. The coarse aggregate usually consists of crushed stone and gravel, but waste
materials, such as slag from steel mills or crushed glass, can be used as raw material. Asphaltic concrete is pro-
duced by one of three major processes: batch, continuous, and drum-mix.
8.1.2.1 Conventional Plants l<2—Conventional plants produce finished asphaltic concrete through either batch
(Figure 8.1-1) or continuous (Figure 8.1-2) aggregate mixing operations. The raw aggregate is normally stock-
piled near the plant at a location where the moisture content will stabilize between 3 and 5 percent by weight.
As processing for either type of operation begins, the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and placed in
the appropriate hoppers of the cold-feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor belt and
is transported into a gas- or oil-fired rotary dryer. Because a substantial portion of the heat is transferred by
radiation, dryers are equipped with flights that are designed to tumble the aggregate and promote drying.
As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of vibrating
screens where it is classified by size into as many as four different grades. The classified hot materials then enter
the mixing operation.
In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into one of four large bins. The operator controls the
aggregate size distribution by opening individual bins and allowing the classified aggregate to drop into a weigh
hopper until the desired weight is obtained. After all the material is weighed, the sized aggregates are dropped into
a mixer and mixed dry for about 30 seconds. The asphalt, which is a solid at ambient temperatures, is pumped
from heated storage tanks, weighed, and then injected into the mixer. The hot mixed batch is then dropped into a
truck and hauled to the job site.
In a continous plant, the classified aggregate drops into a set of small bins that collect and meter the classified
aggregate to the mixer. From the hot bins, the aggregate is metered through a set of feeder conveyors to another
bucket elevator and into the mixer. Asphalt is metered into the inlet end of the mixer and retention time in the
mixer is controlled by an adjustable dam at the end of the mixer. The mix flows out of the mixer into a hopper
from which the trucks are loaded.
12/77 8.1-1
-------
I
'6
Q.
o
'w
0)
g
r
(0
Q.
CO
0)
•I— i
O
0)
c
m
CL
*-•
-------
CO
+-•
c
"o
Q.
c.
g
'to
en
0)
O
t
(0
Q.
(O
0)
•+-'
O
c
0)
T3
c
.50
a.
"co
Q.
CO
co
X
E
±
o
JC
co
O
O
c\i
00
12/77
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-3
-------
8.1.2.2 Dryer-drum Hot Asphalt Plants H'12'1*—Dryer-drum plants produce asphaltic concrete through a drum-
mix process. In this process, the aggregate is dried, heated, and mixed with asphalt in the same vessel—a specially
designed rotary drum dryer. This eliminates the need for a separate mixing tower with screens, weigh hoppers,
and mixers as in a "conventional" plant, thereby reducing plant capital costs and improving portability.
The typical dryer-drum plant shown in Figure 8.1-3 consists of conventional cold-feed equipment, a
continous belt weighing device, a rotary drum dryer that combines the drying and mixing functions, a product
storage silo, and an asphalt storage tank.
AGGREGATE STORAGE BINS
ASPHALT
STORAGE
TANK
ASPHALT
PUMP
i 1
VARIABLE SPEED
CONVEYOR
-HQJJ/UX
CONVEY.OR
BURNER AND
TURBO-COMPRESSOR
HEATED
STORAGE
SILO
FINISHED
PRODUCT TO
JTRUCKS^
rH
DHO
8.1-3. Shearer type dryer-drum hot asphalt plant.
The sized-aggregate is fed from three to four storage bins by means of a variable speed conveyer into a main
conveyer where the aggregate weight is monitored. The belt weigh unit conveys the proper amount into the rotary
drum dryer. The required amount of liquid asphalt is then injected into the drum-dryer and mixed with the dry
aggregate. As the coated aggregate passes through the dryer, the flight design causes the mixing action to take pkce
in an atmosphere of hot gases. The drying, coating, and mixing continues as the material is conveyed through the
drum. The residence time of the mix in the dryer is 5 to 7 minutes. The finished mix is discharged at the end of the
drum dryer onto a conveyer where it is transferred into a heated storage silo for delivery onto a truck.
The different versions of the drum-mix process can be classified in two ways: (1) the manner in which the
material flows in the dryer-drum with respect to the flow of gases and (2) the point at which the asphalt is
introduced into the drum-dryer.
8.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
The majority (90 percent) of the drum-mix systems, currently marketed utilize a parallel-flow rotary dryer-
drum in which the flow of material and hot gases is in the same direction. The alternative is the counter-flow
dryer. In paralle !-flow, the hot-test flame and gases exist at the charging end of the drum where the aggregate is at
the lowest temperature. In the parallel-flow method, the asphalt is protected from oxidation by moisture being
vaporized from the aggregate.
Parallel-flow rotary dryer-drum mixing can be divided into two general types based on the point of
introduction of the asphalt. One is the Shearer process illustrated in Figure 8.1-3, where the aggregate and hot
asphalt are added to the dryer-drum at the same time. The other process introduces the aggregate into the dryer-
drum first, where the bulk of the moisture is driven off. The aggregate is then released to the next section of the
drum, where adjustable spray bars coat the aggregate with hot asphalt. This reduces the direct contact between
the liquid asphalt and the burner flame and tends to reduce hydrocarbon emissions.
8.1.3 Emissions and Controls
8.1.3.1 Conventional Plants3'4 Dust sources from the conventional plants are: rotary dryers, hot aggregate
elevators, vibrating screens, hot aggregate storage bins, weigh hoppers, mixers, and transfer points. The largest
dust emission source is the rotary dryer. In some plants, the dust from the dryer is handled separately. More
commonly, the dryer, its vent lines, and other fugitive sources are treated in combination by a single collector and
fan system.
The choice of applicable control equipment ranges from dry mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric
collectors. Attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have met with little success. Practically all plants use
primary dust collection equipment, such as large diameter cyclones, skimmers, or settling chambers. These
chambers are often used as classifiers where the collected material is returned to the hot aggregate elevator and is
combined with the dryer aggregate load. The air discharge from the primary collector is seldom vented to the
atmosphere because high emission levels would result. The primary collector effluent is therefore ducted to a
secondary collection device.
Particulate emission factors for conventional asphaltic concrete plants are presented in Table8.1-1. Particle
size information has not been included because the particle size distribution varies with the aggregate being used,
the mix being made, and the type of plant operation.
8.1.3.2 Dryer-drum Hot Asphalt Plants n'I4>I5>16—Sources of air pollution from dryer-drum hot asphalt plants
include both fugitive and stack emissions. In both instances, the source, nature, and magnitude of the emissions
are considerably different from their counterparts in the conventional process. This difference is attributable to
the difference in the processing techniques.
Stack emissions represent the major air pollution source from the drum-mix process. Both particulate and
gaseous contaminants are present in the stack emissions. The particulate emissions generally include mineral,
hydrocarbon, and carbonaceous matter. Mineral particulates consist mainly of aggregate dust entrained during
the drying-mixing action in the drum, while the hydrocarbon and carbonaceous matter result primarily from the
exposure of asphalt to various degrees of oxidation in the drum. Lower molecular weight asphalt oxidation
products and fuel combustion contaminants account for the gaseous emissions in the stack.
Asphalt-related emissions from the drum-mix process are generally found to be greater than those from
conventional plants. In dryer-drum plants, the asphalt is exposed to the total exhaust in a turbulent fashion,
which tends to increase the entrainment of asphaltic products. In conventional plants, this type of emission is
vented into the exhaust from an enclosed mixer at low airflow rates.
12/77 Mineral Products Industry 8.1-5
-------
Table 8.1-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
CONVENTIONAL ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS'
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of control
Uncontrolled0
Precleaner
High-efficiency cyclone
Spray tower
Multiple centrifugal scrubber"
Baffle spray tower
Orifice-type scrubber
Venturi scrubber8
Baghouse'
Emissions
Ib/ton"
45.0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.07
0.3
0.04
0.04
0.02
kg/MTb
22.5
7.5
0.85
0.20
0.04
0.15
0.02
0.02
0.01
aReferences 1, 2, and 5 through 10.
b Factors expressed in terms of emissions per unit weight of asphalt concrete produced.
0 Almost all plants have at least a precleaner following the rotary dryer.
dThe average emission from a properly designed, installed, operated, and maintained
scrubber based on a study to develop new source performance standards. Reference 15.
8 References 14 and 15.
f Emissions from a properly designed, installed, operated, and maintained baghouse based
on a study to develop new source performance standards. References 14 and 15.
The uncontrolled mineral dust is generally less in a dryer-drum plant compared with a conventional plant.
The emission quantities from a dryer-drum plant are a function of process design and operating parameters. This
results in a significant variation in emissions from different dryer-drum plants.
The following factors have a direct relation to the amount of emissions from a dryer-drum plant:
1. Mix temperature.
2. Asphalt injection point.
3. Coarseness of the mix.
4. Air velocity in the rotary drum.
5. Flight arrangement.
6. Aggregate moisture content.
7. Drum rotation speed.
8. Rate of production.
9. Type of asphalt.
The dust from the rotary drum dryer is generally exhausted to a primary collector and then to a secondary
collector. The choice of applicable control equipment is similar to those of conventional plants, with two
exceptions:
1. A baghouse presents a problem with respect to sticking and binding of the filter medium because of
asphaltic emissions and mineral particles coated with asphalt. However, some manufacturers claim that
this problem has been solved.
8.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
2. Electrostatic precipitators are not practical because the power required is not usually available for
portable operations and the plates become coated with oily particulates that significantly reduce
collection efficiency.
The venturi scrubber shows the best degree of control of particulate material while also partially controlling
hydrocarbon emissions. This type of scrubber is generally capable of reducing emission concentrations below the
Federal New Source Performance Standard of 0.04 g/dscf.
Emission factors for dryer-drum plants are presented in Table 8.1-2. Particle size information has not been
included for the reasons cited for conventional plants (8.1.3.1). Emission factors for particulates in an
uncontrolled plant can vary by a factor of 10 depending upon the percent of fine particles in the aggregate.
Table 8.1-2. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRYER-DRUM HOT
ASPHALT PLANTS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of control
Uncontrolled
Cyclone or multicyclone
Low-energy wet scrubber0
Venturi scrubber
Emission
lb/tonb
4.9
0.67
0.07
0.04
kg/MTb
2.45
0.34
0.04
0.02
a Reference 11.
bFactors expressed in terms of emissions per unit weight of asphalt concrete produced.
0 Either stack sprays where water droplets are injected into the exit stack or a dynamic
scrubber that incorporates a wet fan.
References for Section 8.1
1. Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study. Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Consulting
Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., under Contract Number 68-02-0076. November 1971.
2. Guide for Air Pollution Control of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. National Asphalt Pavement Association, River-
dale, Md. Information Series 17.
3. Danielson, J.A. Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in Los Angeles County. J. Air Pollut. Contr.
Ass. I0(2):29-33, 1960.
4. Friedrich, H. E. Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants. J. Air
Pollut. Contr. Ass. 19(12): 924-928, December 1969.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.). John A. Danielson , Air Pollution Control District,
County of Los Angeles (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publi-
cation No. AP-40. May 1973.
12/77 Mineral Products Industry 8.1-7
-------
6. Allen, G. L, F. H. Vicks, and I. C. McCabe. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes in Los
Angeles County, California. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. Information
Circular 7627. April 1952.
7. Kenline, P. A. Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chemical process industries. Robert A.
Taft Engineering Center. Cincinnati, Oh. May 1959.
8. Sallee, G. Private communication on particulate pollutant study between Midwest Research Institute and
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. Prepared under Contract Number 22-69-104.
June 1970.
9. Danielson, J. A. Unpublished test data from asphalt batching plants, Los Angeles County Air Pollution Con-
trol District. (Presented at Air Pollution Control Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
November 1966.)
10. Fogel, M. E. et al. Comprehensive Economic Study of Air Pollution Control Costs for Selected Industries
and Selected Regions. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
under Final Report Number R-OU-455. February 1970.
11. Preliminary Evaluation of Air Pollution Aspects of the Drum-Mix Process. JACACorp.,Fort Washington,
Pa. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Final Report
No. EPA-340/1-77-004. March 1976.
12. Beaty, R. W. and B.M. Bunnell. The Manufacture of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures in the Dryer-Drum. JACA
Corp., Fort Washington, Pa. (Presented at the CTAA annual meeting, November 19-21, 1973.)
13. Kinsey, J. S. An Evaluation of Control Systems and Mass Emission Rates from Dryer-Drum Hot Asphalt
Plants. Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. December 1976.
14. Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Numbers
1353a and 1352b. 1973.
15. Background Information for New Source Performance Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-450/2-74-003 (APTIO
1352c). February 1974.
16. Source Assessment: Asphalt Paving Hot Mix. Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Oh. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-600/2-77-
107. 1977.
8.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
8.2 ASPHALT ROOFING
8.2.1 General1
The asphalt roofing industry manufactures asphalt-saturated felt rolls, shingles, rolls with mineral granules
on the surface, and smooth rolls that may contain a small amount of mineral dust or mica on the surface. While
most of these products are used in the construction of roofs, a relatively small quantity is used in walls and in
other building applications.
8.2.2 Process Description
The manufacturing of asphalt felt, roofing, and shingles involves saturation of felt (fiber media) with heated
asphalt (asphalt saturant) by means of dipping and/or spraying.2 The entire process can be divided as (1) asphalt
blowing, (2) felt saturation, and (3) mineral surfacing.
Although the processes are not always done at the same site, preparation of the asphalt saturant is an integral
part of asphalt roofing. This preparation is called "blowing" and oxidizes the asphalt by bubbling air through
liquid asphalt at 220° to 260° C for 1 to 4 hours depending on the desired melting point.2 Blowing may be done
either in vertical tanks or in horizontal chambers. Figure 8.2-1 illustrates an asphalt blowing operation.
NONCONDENSIBLES
TO CONTROL DEVICE
AND VENT
ASPHALT
FLUX
j^. BLOWN ASPHALT
TO STORAGE
Figure 8.2-1. Air blowing of asphalt.^
Figure 8.2-2 shows a typical line for the manufacture of asphalt-saturated felt, which consists of a paper feed
roll, a dry looper section, a saturator spray section (if used), a saturator dipping section, steam-heated drying-in
drums, a wet looper, water-cooled rolls, a finish floating looper, and a roll winder. A typical line for
manufacturing asphalt shingles, mineral-surfaced rolls, and smooth rolls is illustrated in Figure 8.2-3. This
includes, after the wet looper: a coaler, a granule applicator, a press section, water-cooled rolls, a finish floating
looper, and either a roll winder or a shingle cutter and stacker, depending upon the product being made.
12/77
Mineral Products Industry
8.2-1
-------
VENT TO CONTROL
f EQUIPMENT
DRY LOOPER
BURNER
PUMP
8.2-2. Schematic of line for manufacturing asphalt-saturated felt.1
8.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
TANK
TRUCK
TANK
TRUCK
GRANULES
STORAGE
TO CONTROL
EQUIPMENT GAS
BURNER
ROTARY KILN
VENT
VENT TO SCREW | AAAAXX-
CONTROL CONVEYOR
EQUIPMENT
t
VENT TO CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
ASPHALT
SATURATOR
VENT TO
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
RANULES
APPLICATOR
VENT TO
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
ROLLS TO STORAGE
SHINGLE BUNDLES
TO STORAGE ""
SHINGLE CUTTER
SHINGLE STACKER
8.2-3. Schematic of line for manufacturing asphalt shingles, mineral-surfaced rolls, and smooth
rolls.1
12/77
Mineral Products Industry
8.2-3
-------
The felt, usually made of heavy paper, may weigh from 15 to 75 pounds per 480 square feet (a common unit
in paper industry). The felt is unrolled from the unwind stand into the dry looper, which maintains a constant
tension on the material. From the dry looper, the felt passes into the spray section of the saturator where asphalt
at 200° to 230° C is sprayed onto one side of the felt through several nozzles. 1 n the saturator dip section, the felt is
drawn over a series of rollers, with the bottom rollers completely submerged in hot asphalt at 200° to 230° C. At
the next step, steam-heated drying-in drums and the wet looper provide heat and time, respectively, for the asphalt
to penetrate the felt web. The web then passes through water-cooled rolls and onto the finish floating looper and
then is rolled and cut on the roll winder to product size. Two common weights of asphalt felt are 15 and 30 pounds
per 108 square feet (108 square feet of felt covers exactly 100 square feet of roof, which is a roofer's square).
After leaving the wet looper, a web to be made into shingles, mineral-surfaced rolls, or smooth rolls passes
through the coaler (see Figure 8.2-3). Filled asphalt coating at .180° to 205° C is released through a valve onto the
web just as it passes into the coater.1 Heated squeeze rolls in the coaler distribute the coaling evenly upon ihe web
surface lo form a ihick base coaling lo which rock granules, sand, laic, or mica can adhere. Filled asphall is
prepared by mixing coaling asphall al 205° C >vilh a mineral slabilizer (filler) in approximalely equal proporlion to
form the filled asphalt coating thai is piped lo the coater. Sometimes the mineral stabilizer is prehealed to about
120° C in a rotary kiln (filler dryer) before mixing, to lower ils moislure conlent and produce a higher
lemperalure coaling asphall. After leaving ihe coater, a web to be made into shingles or mineral-surfaced rolls
passes through the granules applicator where granules are fed onto the hot, coated surface. The granules are
pressed into the coaling by passing ihe coaled web through squeeze rolls. Sand, laic, or mica is applied lo the back
or opposile side of the web and is also pressed into the web surface. Following ihe application of the granules, the
web is cooled rapidly and is transferred through the finish floaling looper to a roll winder or shingle cutler (see
Figure 8.2-3).
8.2.3 Emission and Controls
Almospheric emissions from asphall roofing manufacluring can be divided inlo Iwo categories:
1. Gaseous and particulale organic compounds from ihe blowing and salurating processes, which include
small amounts of particulale polycyclic organic malter (PPOM).
2. Particulale emissions from filler drying and applicalion of mineral coaling agenls.
Emission faclors for parliculale, PPOM, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and aldehydes from an
unconlrolled blowing and saluraling process are summarized in Table 8.2-1. In addilion, emissions of hydrogen
sulfide also occur during an unconlrolled blowing operation.
A common melhod of emissions conlrol at asphalt saturaling plants is to completely enclose the salurator,
wet looper, and coaler and venl the emissions to one or more collection devices (see Figures 8.2-2 and 8.2-3).
These devices include afterburners, high-energy air filters, or low-vollage eleclroslalic precipilalors. Wei
scrubbers have also been used al some planls. Blowing operations are controlled by afterburners. Table 8.2-2
presents emission factors for a controlled blowing and saturating process.
Particulale emissions associaled with filler drying and application of mineral coating agenls are caplured by
enclosures, hoods, or pickup pipes and controlled by using fabric fillers with removal efficiency beller lhan 99
percent
8.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
Table 8.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING
MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Operation
Asphalt blowing0
Felt saturationd
Participates
Ib/ton
7.3e
6.3
kg/MT
3.65e
3.15
PPOMb
%of
particulate
x 10-3
0.26e
0.3
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)
Ib/ton
0.27'
2.9
kg/MT
0.14f
1.45
Organics
(asCHU)
Ib/ton
1.19'
0.48
kg/MT
0.60f
0.24
Aldehydes
(as CHOH)
Ib/ton
x 10-3
2.9'
25.0
kg/MT
x 10'3
1.45'
12.5
a Reference 2.
b Particulate polycyclic organic matter.
cEmission factors expressed as pounds (kilograms) per ton (metric ton) of asphalt processed.
dEmission factors expressed as pounds (kilograms) per ton (metric ton) of saturated felt produced.
Approximately 0.62 ton of asphalt is required to produce 1 ton of saturated felt.
eBased on blowing required for high-melt-point (220° F) asphalt saturant.
' Based on 2.2 hours blowing time.
Table 8.2-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED
ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING^
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Operation
Asphalt blowing0
Felt saturation11
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.58
2.7
kg/MT
0.29
1.35
PPOMb
%of
particulate
x 10-3
2.3
0.3
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)
Ib/ton
3.66e
3.3e
kg/MT
1.83e
1.65e
Organics
(as CH4)
Ib/ton
0.65e
0.36e
kg/MT
0.33e
0.1 8e
Aldehydes
(as CHOH)
Ib/ton
x 10-3
0.02e
0.02e
kg/MT
x 10"3
o.of
o.of
"Reference 2.
Particulate polycyclic organic matter.
°Emission factors expressed as pounds (kilograms) per ton (metric ton) of asphalt processed.
dEmission factors expressed as pounds (kilograms) per ton (metric ton) of saturated felt produced
Approximately 0.62 ton of asphalt is required to produce 1 ton of saturated felt.
eAfterburner is used as control device.
12/77
Mineral Products Industry
8.2-5
-------
References for Section 8.2
1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.)- John A. Danielson, Air Pollution Control District, County
of Los Angeles (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication
No. AP-40. May 1973.
2. Atmospheric Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Processes. PEDCo - Environmental Specialist, Inc. Cincin-
nati, Oh. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C., under Contract 68-02-1321 (Task 15). October 1974.
8.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
8.13 GLASS MANUFACTURING
8.13.1 General *-*
Revised by Pom Canova
Commercially produced glass can be classified as either soda-lime, lead, fused silica, borosilicate, or 96
percent silica. Soda-lime glass, which constitutes 77 percent of total glass production, will be discussed in this
section. Soda-lime glass consists of sand, limestone, soda ash, and cullet (broken glass). The manufacture of glass
can be broken down into four phases: (1) preparation of raw material, (2) melting in a furnace, (3) forming, and
(4) finishing. Figure 8.13-1 shows an overall flow diagram for glass manufacturing.
The products of the glass manufacturing industry are flat glass, container glass, or pressed and blown glass.
The procedure for manufacturing glass is the same for all three categories except for forming and finishing. Flat
glass, which comprises 24 percent of total glass production, is formed by either the float, drawing, or rolling
process. Container glass and pressed and blown glass, which comprise 51 and 25 percent, respectively, of total
glass production, utilize either pressing, blowing, or pressing and blowing to form the desired product.
As raw materials are received, they are crushed and stored in separate elevated bine.. The raw materials are
transferred through a gravity feed system to the weigher and mixer, where the material and cullet are mixed to
ensure homogeneous melting. The mixture is then transferred by conveyor to the batch storage bin where it
remains until being dropped into the furnace feeder, which supplies the raw material to the melting furnace. All
equipment used in handling and preparing the raw material is housed separately from the furnace and is usually
referred to as the batch plant. Figure 8.13-2 shows a flow diagram of a batch plant.
The furnace most commonly utilized is a continuous regenerative furnace capable of producing between 50
and 300 tons (45 and 272 metric tons) of glass per day. A furnace may have either side or end ports connecting
brick checkers to the inside of the melter. The purpose of the checkers is to conserve fuel by utilizing the heat of
the combustion products in one side of the furnace to preheat combustion air in the other side. As material enters
the melting furnace through the feeder, it floats on the top of the molten glass already in the furnace. As it melts,
it passes to the front of the melter and eventually flows through a throat connecting the melter and the refiner. In
the refiner, the molten glass is heat conditioned for delivery to the forming process. Figures 8.13-3 and 8.13-4
show side-port and end-port regenerative furnaces.
FINISHING
RAW
MATERIAL
MELTING
FURNACE
GLASS
FORMING
w
FINISHING
ANNEALING
1
INSPECTION
AND
TESTING
CULLET
CRUSHING
RECYCLE UNDESIRABLE
GLASS
L
PACKING
STORAGE
OR
SHIPPING
12/77
8.13-1. Flow diagram for glass manufacturing.
Mineral Products Industry
8.13-1
-------
GULLET
RAH MATERIALS
RECEIVING
HOPPER
v_
SCREK
CONVEYOR
FILTER
VENTS
STORAGE BINS
MAJOR RA* MATERIALS
MINOR
INGREDIENT
STORAGE
BINS
BELT CONVEYOR
BATCH
STORAGE
BIN
FURNACE
FEEDER
GLASS-
MELTING
FURNACE
8.13-2. Flow diagram of a batch plant.1
After refining, the molten glass leaves the furnace through forehearths (except for the float process in which
molten glass goes directly to the tin bath) and goes to be shaped by either pressing, blowing, pressing and blowing,
drawing, rolling, or floating, depending upon the desired product. Pressing and blowing are preformed
mechanically using blank molds and glass cut into sections (gobs) by a set of shears. In the drawing process,
molten glass is drawn upward through rollers that guide the sheet glass. The thickness of the sheet is determined
by the speed of the draw and the configuration of the draw bar. The rolling process is similar to the drawing
process except that the glass is drawn horizontally by plain or patterned rollers and, for plate glass, requires
grinding and polishing. The float process utilizes a molten tin bath over which the glass is drawn and formed into a
finely finished surface requiring no grinding or polishing. The product undergoes finishing (decorating or
coating) and annealing (removing unwanted stress areas in the glass), and is then inspected and prepared for
shipment to market. Any damaged or undersirable glass is transferred back to the batch plant to be used as cullet.
8.13.2 Emissions and Controls1-5
Table 8.13-1 lists controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for glass manufacturing.
The main pollutant emitted by the batch plant is particulates in the form of dust. This can be controlled, with
99 to 100 percent efficiency, by enclosing all possible dust sources and using baghouses or cloth filters. Another
way to control dust emissions, also with an efficiency approaching 100 percent, is to treat the batch to reduce the
amount of fine particles present. Forms of preparation are presintering, briquetting, pelletizing, or liquid alkali
treatment.
8.13-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
REFINER SIDE I»ALLV
THROAT.
- GLASS SURFACE IN REFINER
RIDER ARCHES
8.13-3. Side-port continuous regenerative furnace.1
EFINER SIDE WALL
GLASS SURFACE IN REFINER
INDUCED DRAFT FAN
12/77
8.13-4. End-port continuous regenerative furnace.1
MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
8.13-3
-------
»:
«
N
0
z
oc
u
u.
D
2
S
3
o
oc
0
u.
CO
oc
o
o
z
o
CO
CO
CO
o
z
^
r™
oc
re
O
U
u.
Z
O
CO
CO
i
111
111
00
.2
•§
X
o
c
o
c
o
J3
3
tf)
"E
CO
E>
O
8
•o
x
o
^
0>
o>
2
•o
X
o
o
CO
J5
u
c
(0
H
2
•*
5
!_
•*
C
Q
—
1-
O)
c
-Q
H-
2
S
c
o
s
S
7i
c
o
^
•ocedure
0-
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
C7>
Q)
0
Ol
0}
z
-o
O)
c
^ ~in
c w
S «
-c 01
« -*r
ra °
r- (0
£ &
™ >•
E
1*
DC
CM"
9, o o d o
d
5?
9 CM CM CM CM
2. d d o d
CM
o
CM"
9 ,- T- T- ,-
2. o o d d
^~
_^
o
^. d d d d
CM
°
j__
c.rt ™ " ™
S
^
o>
S2S22
CD
CM
o cn ^— r^ r~~
pr
I—
l^CM^^
C^ r- 0 CO CO
^
CO
o _.
^ ^- i— O) —
o o ° z 2
r-. v
o?
^ r^ T- O) o)
~ z z
-
0>
JD
n -C
•D il - 1
« -g g c g o
? u
5
o o
V V
o d
v v
o d
v v
d d
v v
V q
si
*
^
Q
T- O
CD CO
ccT
f
^ °°
K"
T—
i ^
CN_
co"
.2
s
o
2 ^ i
Q:
o
V
d
V
d
v
d
v
o
"*
o
CO
"-
CM
°
O)
Z
O)
z
J.
n
3
3
1
o
V
d
v
d
v
o
v
p
^
o
00
«
q
CO
-5)
Z
O)
z
§
"§>
1
o
V
o
V
d
v
o
v
q
*
o
00
^
q
CO
~5>
Z
O)
z
o
1
•5
1
JM
9
d o o
o
??
A CM -^
d o i o
c\T
d
co"
9
o ^ l"H
v o o
c\r
d
o~
rf
d d o
co"
d
^
TJ-
O
CM
I ID to
g CO CO
S
5
^ T— d
2.
5"
CM
d
^ CM 0
IcT
10
CM
T CM U)
d ^ °
c5
^~
Jj "^ Ol
c.
r-
ot
_Q -C
i >• £'
J- g Ol O
°- ? 's > if
it
0 O
CM CM
d d
o d
0 0
CM CM
CM ^
10 10
CO CO
00 S
CO CD
10 10
T— t-
o d
CM CM
O
g S fe
-g, o §-
|||
8.13-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
o
z
E
D
U
O
oc
O
u.
(O
oc
o
o
(0
to
i
UJ
a
m
..
O
z
K
oc
oc
o
u
^t
u.
z
o
U)
to
UJ
CD
'x
o
c
o
c
o
.0
3
0
'c
CO
o
CD
•g
X
0
ID
Ol
g
z
13
X
o
3
CO
o>
3
o
CO
D_
t-
0)
^
o
I
1-
5
Ol
c
o
i
1
Ol
§
1
1-
S
c
0
1
1-
5
5"
c
o
—
(A
CO
O
o
a.
O) O) O>
z z z
-
O) O) O)
Z Z Z
•. O) O
00 7 O>
O) O) O)
CD CD 0}
Z Z Z
D) O) CD
s
CO .0
were reported.
CO
CD
O>
C
CO
o
c
.c
o
s:
5
.0
CO
•£<
£
to
CD
"o
averages
le emission factors are
en
c
to
ass produced since batch preparation is the same for all types. Parti-
•>
CD
N
CO
c
culates are submicron
S
o
O>
"o
CO
0)
a
o
.5
T3
CD
to
CO
CO
t3
£
CO
O)
c
erials han
sion factors for raw mat
CO
E
UJ
of control (i.e. baghouses, scrubbers, or centrifugal collectors).
E
Q)
o
CO
CD
N
"^
UJ
C
CO
a
To
to
0
E
CO
CD
CO
3
CO
o
CD
.Q
CD
JD
e emissions are negligi
CO
O
emission factor.
s emissions. Effect on nitrogen oxides is unknown.
s emissions. Effect on nitrogen oxides is unknown.
CD CD CD
O> "O T3
2 'x 'x
CD O O
CO
CD
0
^>
C
0
•D
CD
"5.
a
CO
£
CO
CO
(D
0
various d€
igible.
rol efficiencies for the
D) C
CD O
Z O
0) —
h_ V.
3 "5
CO CO
T3 T3
C C
CO CO
® S
CO CO
3 3
o o
r r
CO CO
D. Q.
Ol Ol
C C
O O
T3 T3
£ £
C C
C C
CD CD
O O
oximately 52 percent e
•oximately 95 percent e
Q. Q.
Q. Q.
O) -C
soda lime and lead glasses. No data were available for borosilicateoi
O)
c
75
ssions.
ices mi
.^ CO
E E
CD 3
to £
3t1
I5
a?
J? CO
C 3
0 -o
CD j?
^- — *
fficient in
werecalci
oximately 99 percent e
culate emission factors
Q. co
< Q.
are from the decorating process. Emissions can be controlled by
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
01
To
Q.
o
CO
CO
CO
0)
c
o
-O
T3
CO
T^
V
CD
£
Q.
•o
c
CO
CD
c
5
"c
o
o
_o
2?
o
•ocarbon emission facti
>.
I
c
5
o
c
o
c
£
CO
.2
CJ
c
CD
'o
'ever.effi
o
0
condensa
leration, absorption, or
d
0
c
Je, and hydrogen chloride are also emitted during the surface treat-
0
.c
o
c
CD o
1 8
^ cr
- \
ss>
le
c
z: c
CO S
8£
Ol ,-
ld
1 CO
.Q .C
~? «
C CO
:ontainer and pressed a
t process at a rate of le
. c
0 »
u. E
12/77
Mineral Products Industry
8.13-5
-------
The melting furnace contributes over 99 percent of the total emissions from the glass plant. In the furnace,
both particulates and gaseous pollutants are emitted. Particulates result from volatilization of materials in the
melt that combine with gases to form condensates. These are either collected in the checker-work and gas passages
or escape to the atmosphere. Serious problems arise when the checkers are not properly cleaned in that slag can
form, clogging the passages and eventually deteriorating the condition and efficiency of the furnace. Nitrogen
oxides form when nitrogen and oxygen react in the high temperatures of the furnace. Sulfur oxides result from
the decomposition of the sulfates in the batch and the fuel. Proper maintenance and firing of the furnace can
control emissions and also add to the efficiency of the furnace and reduce operational costs. Low-pressure wet
centrifugal scrubbers have been used to control particulates and sulfur oxides, but their low efficiency
(approximately 50 percent) indicates their inability to collect particulates of submicron size. High-energy venturi
scrubbers are approximately 95 percent effective in reducing particulate and sulfur oxide emissions; their effect
on nitrogen oxide emissions is unknown. Baghouses, which have up to 99 percent particulate collection
efficiency, have been used on small regenerative furnaces, but, due to fabric corrosion, require careful
temperature control. Electrostatic precipitators have an efficiency of up to 99 percent in the collection of
particulates.
Emissions from the forming and finishing phase depend upon the type of glass being manufactured. For
container, press, and blow machines, the majority of emissions result from the gob coming into contact with the
machine lubricant. Emissions in the form of a dense white cloud, which can exceed 40 percent opacity, are
generated by flash vaporization of hydrocarbon greases and oils. Grease and oil lubricants are being replaced by
silicone emulsions and water-soluble oils, which may virtually eliminate the smoke. For flat glass, the only
contributor to air pollutant emissions is gas combustion in the annealing lehr, which is totally enclosed except for
entry and exit openings. Since emissions are small and operational procedures are efficient, no controls are
utilized.
References for Section 8.13
1. Netzley, A. B. and J. L. McGinnity. Glass Manufacture. In: Air Pollution Manual. J. A. Danielson (ed.).
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Center for Air Pol-
lution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number AP-40. May 1973. p. 765-782.
2. Reznik, Richard B. Source Assessment: Flat Glass Manufacturing Plants. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number EPA-600/2-76-032b. March 1976.
3. Schorr, J. R., D. T. Hooie, P. R. Sticksel, and Clifford Brockway. Source Assessment: Glass Container
Manufacturing Plants. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication Number EPA-600/2-76-269. October 1976.
4. Tripler, A. B., Jr. and G. R. Smithson, Jr. A Review of Air Pollution Problems and Control in the Ceramic
Industries. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Presented at 72nd Annual Meeting American
Ceramic Society. May 1970.
5. Schorr, J. R., D. T. Hooie, M. C. Brockway, P. R. Sticksel, and D. E. Niesz. Source Assessment: Pressed and
Blown Glass Manufacturing Plants. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C. Publication Number EPA-600/2-77-005. January 1977.
8.13-6 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING1 Revised by Charles C. Master
9.1.1 General Description
The petroleum refining industry converts crude oil into more than 2500 refined products, including liquefied
petroleum gas, gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, fuel oils, lubricating oils, and feedstocks for the
petrochemical industry. Petroleum refinery activities start with receipt of crude for storage at the refinery,
include all petroleum handling and refining operations, and terminate with storage preparatory to shipping the
refined products from the refinery.
The petroleum refining industry employs a wide variety of processes. A refinery's processing flow
scheme is largely determined by the composition of the crude oil feedstock and the chosen slate of petroleum
products. The example refinery flow scheme presented in Figure 9.1-1 shows the general processing arrangement
used by refineries in the United States for major refinery processes. The arrangement of these processes will vary
among refineries, and few, if any, employ all of these processes. Petroleum refining processes having direct
emission sources are presented in bold-line boxes on the figure.
Listed below are five categories of general refinery processes and associated operations:
1. Separation processes
a. atmospheric distillation
b. vacuum distillation
c. light ends recovery (gas processing)
2. Petroleum conversion processes
a. cracking (thermal and catalytic)
b. reforming
c. alkylation
d. polymerization
e. isomerization
f. coking
g. visbreaking
3. Petroleum treating processes
a. hydrodesulfurization
b. hydrotreating
c. chemical sweetening
d. acid gas removal
e. deasphalting
4. Feedstock and product handling
a. storage
b. blending
c. loading
d. unloading
5. Auxiliary facilities
a. boilers
b. wastewater treatment
c. hydrogen production
12/77 9.1-1
-------
« " I »
ilif 8t
s
i.ss
ro
fl
SKSKJOO. miu COtl 1MCT1 unos
rr
rsrl
SiSVD NU3TO
II-
SCMl 1H(
Mt 133M6
GAS
PROCESSING
Jt
I |» || ^
"1
| »«»1/H-N
S3SS3DOyd nOMJ SQN3 IHOII 133MS
soa iwn unof
5 1— fc-
*
*
i
?1
T, 'w iN»ld
*• — pHiMon iia»g
li J
g
i
w
5ff
fif
>- 2
fs
3S
(?
'
uvuanosi
iivnbOjSH
souvnowv
U- LU
^"
I u S
i s
... ... .
i i
NJOOttQAH
SON3 1HGI1 dDOS
"I
Is
110 asm aaivatuObOAn
i|
*(T
oazwnjmsao j.33»s f x *
. 5S
110 Twiaisia < g
E
Q.
T3
£
£
D)
(1)
.
Q.
CO
X
Q)
C
CO
o
"•«•-•
CO
0>
jr
o
CO
CT>
9.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
d. sulfur recovery plant
e. cooling towers
f. blowdown system
g. compressor engines
These refinery processes are defined in the following section and their emission characteristics and applicable
emission control technology are discussed.
9.1.1.1. Separation Processes — The first phase in petroleum refining operations is the separation of crude oil into
its major constituents using three petroleum separation processes: atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation,
and light ends recovery (gas processing). Crude oil consists of a mixture of hydrocarbon compounds including
paraffinic, naphthenic, and aromatic hydrocarbons plus small amounts of impurities including sulfur, nitrogen,
oxygen, and metals. Refinery separation processes separate these crude oil constituents into common-boiling-
point fractions.
9.1.1.2. Conversion Processes—To meet the demands for high-octane gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel,
components such as residual oils, fuel oils, and light ends are converted to gasolines and other light fractions.
Cracking, coking, and visbreaking processes are used to break large petroleum molecules into smaller petroleum
molecules. Polymerization and alkylation processes are used to combine small petroleum molecules into larger
ones. Isomerization and reforming processes are applied to rearrange the structure of petroleum molecules to
produce higher-value molecules of a similar molecular size.
9.1.1.3. Treating Processes—Petroleum treating processes stabilize and upgrade petroleum products by
separating them from less desirable products and by removing objectionable elements. Undesirable elements
such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen are removed by hydrodesulfurization,hydrotreating,chemicalsweetening
and acid gas removal. Treating processes employed primarily for the separation of petroleum products include
such processes as deasphalting. Desalting is used to remove salt, minerals, grit, and water from crude oil feed
stocks prior to refining. Asphalt blowing is used for polymerizing and stabilizing asphalt to improve its weathering
characteristics.
9.1.1.4. Feedstock and Product Handling—The refinery feedstock and product handling operations consist of
unloading, storage, blending, and loading activities.
9.1.1.5. Auxiliary Facilities—A wide assortment of processes and equipment not directly involved in the refining
of crude oil are used in functions vital to the operation of the refinery. Examples are boilers, wastewater treatment
facilities, hydrogen plants, cooling towers, and sulfur recovery units. Products from auxiliary facilities (clean
water, steam, and process heat) are required by most refinery process units throughout the refinery.
9.1.2 Process Emission Sources and Control Technology
This section presents descriptions of those refining processes that are significant air pollutant contributors.
Process flow schemes, emission characteristics, and emission control technology are discussed for each process.
Table 9.1-1 lists the emission factors for direct-process emissions in petroleum refineries. The following process
emission sources are discussed in this section on petroleum refining emissions:
1. Vacuum distillation.
2. Catalytic cracking.
3. Thermal cracking processes.
4. Utility boilers.
5. Heaters.
12/77 Petroleum Industry 9.1-3
-------
6. Compressor engines.
7. Blowdown systems.
8. Sulfur recovery.
9.1.2.1. Vacuum Distillation—Topped crude withdrawn from the bottom of the atmospheric distillation column
is composed of high-boiling-point hydrocarbons. When distilled at atmospheric pressures, the crude oil
decomposes and polymerizes to foul equipment. To separal e topped cijucle into components, it must be distilled in a
vacuum column at a very low pressure and in a steam atmosphere.
In the vacuum distillation unit, topped crude is heated with a process heater to temperatures ranging from
700 to 800° F (370 to 425° C). The heated topped crude is flashed into a multi-tray vacuum distillation <^'umn
operating at vacuums ranging from 0.5 to 2 psia (350 to 1400 kg/m2). In the vacuum column, the topped crude is
separated into common-boiling-point fractions by vaporization and condensation. Stripping steam is normally
injected into the bottom of the vacuum distillation column to assist in the separation by lowering the effective
partial pressures of the components. Standard petroleum fractions withdrawn from the vacuum distillation
column include lube distillates, vacuum oil, asphalt stocks, and residual oils. The vacuum in the vacuum
distillation column is normally maintained by the use of steam ejectors but may be maintained by the use of
vacuum pumps.
The major sources of atmospheric emissions from the vacuum distillation column are associated with the
steam ejectors or vacuum pumps. A major portion of the vapors withdrawn from the column by the ejectors or
pumps are recovered in condensers. Historically, the noncondensable portion of the vapors has been vented to the
atmosphere from the condensers. There are approximately 50 pounds (23 kg) of noncondensable hydrocarbons
per 1000 barrels of topped crude processed in the vacuum distillation column.2'12*13 A second source of
atmospheric emissions from vacuum distillation columns is combustion products from the process heater.
Process heater requirements for the vacuum distillation column are approximately 37,000 Btu per barrel (245
Joules/cm3) of topped crude processed in the vacuum column. Process heater emissions and their control are
discussed later in this section. Fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from leaking seals and fittings are also associated
with the vacuum distillation unit, but these are minimized by the low operating pressures and low vapor pressures
in the unit. Fugitive emission sources are also discussed later in this section.
Control technology applicable to the noncondensable emissions vented from the vacuum ejectors or pumps
include venting into blowdown systems or fuel gas systems, and incineration in furnaces or waste heat
boilers.2'12'13 These control techniques are generally greater than 99 percent efficient in the control of
hydrocarbon emissions, but they also contribute to the emission of combustion products.
9.1.2.2. Catalytic Cracking—Catalytic cracking, using heat, pressure, and catalysts, converts heavy oils into
lighter products with product distributions favoring the more valuable gasoline and distillate blending
components. Feedstocks are usually gas oils from atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation, coking, and
deasphalting processes. These feedstocks typically have a boiling range of 650 to 1000° F (340 to 540° C). All of the
catalytic cracking processes in use today can be classified as either fluidized-bed or moving-bed units.
Fluidized-bed Catalytic Cracking (FCC) — The FCC process uses a catalyst in the form of very fine particles
that act as a fluid when aerated with a vapor. Fresh feed is preheated in a process heater and introduced into the
bottom of a vertical transfer line or riser with hot regenerated catalyst. The dot catalyst vaporizes the feed
bringing both to the desired reaction temperature,880 to 980° F (470 to 525° Q.The high activity of modern
catalysts causes most of the cracking reactions to take place in the riser as the catalyst and oil mixture flows
upward into the reactor. The hydrocarbon vapors are separated from the catalvst particles by cyclones in the
reactor. The reaction products are sent to a fractionator for separation.
9.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
The spent catalyst falls to the bottom of the reactoi and r<- ^tvici stupped as it exists the reactoi bottom to
remove absorbed hydrocarbons. The spent catalyst is then < omeved to a regenerator. In the regenerator, coke
deposited on the catalyst asa result of the cracking reactions i<- bin DPI! off in a controlled combustion process with
preheated air. Regenerator temperature is usually 1 100 to l/!r>n"I' (.'i^O to tV5° C) The catalyst is then recycled to
be mixed with fresh hydrocarbon feed.
Moving-bed Catalytic Cracking (TCC)-— In theTCC process, catalyst beads ( ~0.5 cm) flow by gravity into the
top of the reactor where they contact a mixed-phase hydrocarbon feed. Cracking reactions take place as the
catalyst and hydrocarbons move concurrently downward through the reactoi to a zone where the catalyst is
separated from the vapors. The gaseous reaction products flow out of the reactor to the fract'onation section of
the unit. The catalyst is steam stripped to remove any adsorbed hylroc arbons 11 then falls into the regenerator
where coke is burned from the catalyst with air. The regenerated catalvst is separated from the flup gases anj
recycled to be mixed with fresh hydrocarbon feed. The opeiatutg ifmpi'rnhuf". •>' \\\>~ lev.tov oiid r(;gtin<-i;itor m
the TCC process are comparable to those in the FCC process
Air emissions from catalytic cracking processes are (1) combustion products from process heaters and (2)
flue gas from catalyst regeneration. Emissions from process heaters are discussed later in this section. Emissions
from the catalyst regenerator include hydrocarbons, oxides of sulfur, ammonia, aldehydes, oxides of nitrogen,
cyanides, carbon monoxide, and participates (Table 9.1-1) The participate emissions from FCC units are much
greater than those from TCC units because of the higher catalyst circulation rales u«ed.''i'l>
FCC particulate emissions are controlled by cyclones and/or electrostatic precipitators. Paniculate control
efficiencies are as high as 80 to 85 percent.3'5 Carbon monoxide wasteheat boilers reduce the carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon emissions from FCC units to negligible levels.s TCC catalyst regeneration produces similar
pollutants to FCC units but in much smaller quantities (Table 9.1-1). The particulate emissions from'a TCC unit
are normally controlled by high-efficiency cyclones. Carbon monoxide arid hydrocarbon emissions from a TCC
unit are incinerated to negligible levels by passing the flue gases through a process heater fire-box or smoke plume
burner. In some installations, sulfur oxides are removed by passing the regenerator flue gases through a water or
caustic scrubber.2'3'5
9.1.2.3 Thermal Cracking — Thermal cracking processes include vi^breaking and coking, which break heavy oil
molecules by exposing them to high temperatures.
Visbreaking — Topped crude or vacuum residuals are heated and thermally cracked (850 to 900° F, 50 to 250
psig) (455 to 480° C, 3.5 to 17.6 kg/cm2) in the visbreaker furnace to reduce the viscosity or pour point of the
charge. The cracked products are quenched with gas oil and flashed into a fractionator. The vapor overhead from
the fractionator is separated into light distillate products. A heaw distillate recovered from the fiactionatoi
liquid can be used as a fuel oil blending component or used as raipKiir cracking feed
Coking — Coking is a thermal cracking process used to convert low value residual fuel oil to higher value gas
oil and petroleum coke. Vacuum residuals and thermal tars are cracked in the coking process at high temperature
and low pressure. Products are petroleum coke, gas oris. and lighter petroleum -locks. Delayed coking is the most
widely used process today, but fluid coking is expected to become an irnporian! process in the future.
In the delayed coking process, heated charge stock is fed into the bottom section of a fractionator where light
ends are stripped from the feed. The stripped feed is then combined vvrih i ecyele pi oduc Is from the coke drum and
rapidly heated in the coking heater to a temperature of 900 to 1100C F (480 to 590° C). Steam injection is used to
control the residence time in the heater. The vapor-liquid feed leaves the heater, passing to a coke drum where,
with controlled residence time, pressure (25 to 30 psig) (1.8 to 2.1 kg/crn'). and temperature (750° F) (400° C), it
is cracked to form coke and vapors. Vapors f, m the drum reti'rn to (tie ba--fionator where the thermal cracking
products are recovered.
12/77 Petroleum Industry 9.1-5
-------
(0
1 REFINERIE
ETROLEUM
Q.
CC
O
U.
CO
JION FACTOR
I
UJ
^
o>
£
n
H
c
° " 01
8 ° ™
ill
UJ
CO
"c
-O"
E
Aldehydes
§ „ 5
9 3 i
1 s a
(O
III
Carbon
monoxide
5 8 S
s= -a w
3 v
« 0 8
Particulates
/
mm mm mm OO oo mmmm
JJT! , '- •
J.-J 1 p _j*
m n-
•» " I"-? »5 Z $ ^Sz CM CM < <
ft 0 ZZ o ^ Z ZZ 0 co Z Z
?0 ZZ ?g ZZ ZZZ 5!?ZZ
0 W 0 »
s ? s i -o ? s i „ s < < < * , » K
T— ^ I— 1^- *"
" s. ~ s
§ 1 °
11 o? aTS1 i^ 8 << SSI ^»s|
Dcz cyO 22 »o ZZ ZZ i-^-o
I <3
OS
*3 Qcy'" 0 COCMCNM-
2 1 g 8 II g g zl I I z S°5?
c *~
II
co « 5? JJ
1 $ I"8 I"S f:
^ I * « So*. 8d ZZ ZZZ ^S^S
r- * i- cS
" o "9.
^ f*" ^
0^°* °^co^ a. ^
CNjQ^S ^n 0 ^ ° t° m^ »OZ *)J'J)2)
^iio,^ !§"oo *^o w'" *~ W y "*~«^ t^t"£i **~?'*-'t''O)3E D_Q
o „ "TJ£ S S|^ 2 IratiJE-a^S^-cB^S ra i??S>;8loS,°>
S. « ^Sr S 1^25 S Sas2^«s2S6SS|*J0raS,gf»c
S = ° fig i I 8 & i I§&&II&&sIa&8lg=E|f|
— u ^ w c >O Wt^Jiic (OpflJo)™
5 -D OCD D^ UJco -QJQCC^O
CD u_ 5 o u. Q O
9.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77
-------
CO
HI
E
UJ
z
iZ
ui
oc
S
3
111
O
OC
111
a.
oc
O
u.
CO
oc
o
O •?
= CO a
iS ""
CO
E
E
<
S
1
CD
5
•<
£ to "CM
MS
1 ° t
, £ s
1 ?. €
H ^ g
CD
C "C
0 |
E
D CD n1
1 R 8
OT 0 »
0 c
~
4
1
c
i
0 (J 00 0000"
«?« g>$? g'g'g'S'S1
ZZ ^| Z2ZZZ
s1! §>§• g'g'g'g'g1
zZ |^ zzzzz
_ s
II s s Iflf I
i 8 s !5 -
• 00 O ° J '" gj
Z2 -*d ZZ2ZZ
00
in
^ c
0)^ 0>O O)0)t3)O)O)O
IS S° 1 1 1 2 1 i
CD
CD
s1! g-g1 s'g'g'S'g1
Z2 §g 22Z2Z
a
1 TI 1 TJ 1 P 1 1
£ jS CD**"" t
£-!•££- a t « E 8
-, r n n ss Hii i
1,1 B J3 £S i | £g5g 1
£Ss S5ras" iS^sSB^T, s
»o^ =$¥*>- sc = o-a-£ ~
l^o^e^i&e ^Sg&o&o-g ^
fjsl>}p» !il"J>! J
m > o u
T3
CD
_CD
1
5
n
0
jO
at
c
CO
JC
$
w
c
O
£
E
f §8
5 ™ c
S a> «
*- F
>. CO £
^3 0 o
~ -D t
S E £
^ to « „
**i §
ill!
" 03 3 C
O CC Z D
CO -Q 0 T3
s
CO
Q
£
"5
to
"o
C
o
«
D
ja
tz
o
"c
fl)
o
CD
Q.
8
C
O
.a
2
« o
c "5
O CO
E "-
E —
CO ~
c o
O i-
« J3
D —
JQ *-
1 I
I I
o S
is «•„ »
8 ' fi ° S -
1 1 - - 1 i ? ~
^IgS<8gS
5S £ S | | S |
-&>.£* --s^s
<5 CO CD CP ^ CD II 4)
z 2 a: cc z cr w cc
a>«_ 01 jz - _ .* _>
CO
CM"
CM"
V)
-------
(n the thud poking pi ocess. t\ pified b\ I lexicokmg, residual oil feeds are injected into the reactor where they
are therrnalh ciacked, \ielding coke and a wide range of vapor products. Vapors leave the reactor and are
quenched in a scrubber w here entrained coke ikies are reinc \ ed. The vapors are then fractionated. Coke from the
reactor enters a heatei and is de1 olatili/ed The \ olatiles from the heater are treated for fines and sulfur removal
to yield a participate fref, low-bullui tucl ga>-. I l,e de\olalilized coke is circulated from the heater to a gasifier
where ()5 percent of the reactor coke is gasified at high temperature with steam and air or oxygen. The gaseous
products and coke from Tie gasifier aie i elm nul to the heatci to supplv beat for tl'e de volatilization. These gases
exit the heater with the heatei volatile.- through the same lines and sulfur removal processes.
From available bleiatme. il is uncleai what erins-ionb are released and where they are released. Air
emissions from thermal i lacking pioce--.es include coke du:,i from decoking operations, combustion gases from
the visbreaking and coking process heatei-, anil fugitive emissions. Emissions from the process heaters are
discussed later in tin-, section I' ugitn e ( nn-sion.-, troni iin.-eelJaneous leaks are significant because of the high
temperature.- mvoheu, and aie. dependent iij on equipment l\peand configuration, operating conditions, and
general maintenance practices, i' ugitne emissions are also discussed later in this section. Paniculate emissions
from delayed coking ope rat ions a re potential!*, \ervsignificatil. These emissions are associated with removing the
coke from the coke drum and subsequent handling and storage operations. Hydrocarbon emissions are also
associated with cooling and \enting the coke drum prior to coke removal. However, comprehensive data for
delayed coking emissions have not been UK hided m available literature 4'5
Participate emission contiol is accomplished in the decoking operation by wetting down the coke.5
Generally, there is no control of hydrocarbon emissions from delayed coking. However, some facililies are now
collecting coke drum emissions in an enclosed system and routing them to a refinery flare.4'5
9.1.2.4 Utilities Plant — The utilities plant supplies the steam necessary for the refinery. Although the steam can
be used to produce electricity bv throttling through a turbine, it is primarily used for heating and separating
hydrocarbon streams. When used for heating, the steam usually heats the petroleum indirectly in heat
exchangers and returns to the boiler. In direct contact operations, the steam can serve as a stripping medium or a
process fluid. Steam may also be used in vacuum ejectors to produce a vacuum. Emissions from boilers and
applicable emission control technology are discussed in much greater detail in Chapter 1.0.
9.1.2.5 Sulfur Recoveiy Plant — Sulfui recovery plants are used in petroleum refineries to convert hydrogen
sulfide (HjS) separated from refinery gas streams into the more disposable byproduct, elemental sulfur.
Emissions from sulfur recovery plants and their control are discussed in Section 5.18.
9.1.2.6 Blowdown System — The blowdown system provides for the safe disposal of hydrocarbons (vapor and
liquid) discharged from pressuie relief devices.
Most refining processing units and equipment subject to planned or unplanned hydrocarbon discharges are
manifolded into a collection unit, called the blowdnwn system. By using a series of flash drums and condensers
arranged in decreasing pressure, the blowdown is separated into vapor and liquid cuts. The separated liquid is
recycled into the refinery. The gaseous cuts can either be smokelessly flared or recycled.
Uncontrolled blowdown emissions primarily consist of hydrocarbons, but can also include any of the other
criteria pollutants. The emission rate in a blow-down system is a function of the amount of equipment manifolded
into the system, the frequency of equipment discharges, ami the blowdown system controls.
Emissions from the blowdown svstem can beetlectively controlled by combustion of thenoncondensables in
a flare. To obtain complete combustion or smokeless burning (as required by most states), steam is injected in the
combustion zone of the flai e to pro\ide turbulence and to inspirate air. Steam injection also reduces emissions of
nitrogen oxides by lowering the flame temperature. Controlled emissions are listed in Table 9.1-l.2>n
9.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
9.1.2.7 Process Heaters — Process heaters (furnaces) are used extensively in refineries to supply the heat
necessary to raise the temperature of feed materials to reaction or distillation temperature. They are designed to
raise petroleum fluid temperatures to a maximum of about 950° F (510° C). The fuel burned may be refinery gas,
natural gas, residual fuel oils, or combinations, depending on economics, operating conditions, and pollution
requirements. The process heaters may also use carbon monoxide-rich regenerator flue gas as fuel.
All the criteria pollutants are emitted from process heaters. The quantity of these emissions is a. function of
the type of fuel burned, the nature of the contaminants in the fuel, and the heat duty of the furnace. Emission of
sulfur oxide can be controlled by fuel desulfurization or flue gas treatment. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons
can be limited by better combustion efficiency. Currently, four general techniques or modifications for the
control of nitrogen oxides are being investigated: combustion modification, fuel modification, alternate furnace
design, and flue gas treatment. Several of these techniques are presently being applied to large utility boilers, but
their applicability to process heaters has not been established.2'14
9.1.2.8 Compressor Engines — Many older refineries use reciprocating and gas turbine engines fired with natural
gas to run high-pressure compressors. Natural gas has traditionally been a cheap, abundant source of energy.
Examples of refining units operating at high pressure include hydrodesulfurization, isomerization, reforming,
and hydrocracking units. Internal combustion engines are less reliable and harder to maintain than steam engines
or electric motors. For this reason and because of increasing natural gas costs, very few such units have been
installed in the last few years.
The major source of emissions from compressor engines is combustion products in the exhaust gas. These
emissions include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, aldehydes, and ammonia. Sulfur oxides may
also be present depending on the sulfur content of the natural gas. All of these emissions are significantly higher
in exhaust trom reciprocating engines than from turbine engines.
The major emission control technique applied to compressor engines is carburetion adjustment similar to
that applied on automobiles. Catalyst systems similar to those applied to automobiles may also be effective in
reducing emissions, but their use has not been reported.
9.1.3 Fugitive Emission Sources and Control Equipment
This section presents descriptions of refinery processes and operations that are significant sources of
fugitive emissions. Process flow schemes, emission characteristics, and emission control technology are
discussed for each process. Emission factors for both uncontrolled and controlled fugitive emission sources are
listed in Table 9.1-2. The following fugitive emission sources are discussed in this section on petroleum refining
emissions:
1- Wastewater systems.
2. Cooling towers.
3. Pipeline fittings.
4. Relief valves.
5. Pump and compressor seals.
6. Asphalt blowing.
7. Blind changing.
8. Sweetening.
9. Storage.
10. Transfer operations.
9.1.3.1 Sweetening — Sweetening of distillates is accomplished by the conversion of mercaptans to alkyl-
disulfides in the presence of a catalyst. The conversion process may be followed by an extraction step for the
removal of the alkyl-disulfides.
12/77 Petroleum Industry 9.1-9
-------
In the conversion process, sulfur is added to the sour distillate with a small amount of caustic and air. This
mixture is then passed upward through a fixed-bed catalyst counter-current to a flew of caustic entering at the top
of the vessel.
In the conversion and extraction process the sour distillate is prewashed with caustic and then is contacted
with a solution of catalyst and caustic in the extractor. The extracted distillate is then contacted with air to
convert mercaptans to disulfides. After oxidation, the distillate is settled, inhibitors are added, and the distillate is
sent to storage. Regeneration is accomplished by mixing caustic from the bottom of the extractor with air and
separating the disulfides and excess air.
The major source of air emissions are fugitive hydrocarbon emissions generated when the distillate product
is contacted with air in the "air blowing" step. These emissions are dependent upon equipment type and
configuration as well as on operating conditions and maintenance practices.4
9.1.3.2 Asphalt Blowing — The asphalt blowing process polymerizes asphaltic residual oils by oxidation,
increasing their melting temperature and hardness to achieve an increased resistance to weathering. The oils,
containing a large quantity of polycyclic aromatic compounds (asphaltic oils), are oxidized by blowing heated air
through a preheated batch mixture or, in the continuous process, by passing hot air countercurrent to the oil
flow. The reaction is exothermic, and quench steam is sometimes needed for temperature control. In some cases
ferric chloride or phosphorus pentoxide is used as a catalyst to increase the reaction rate and impart special
characteristics to the asphalt.
Air emissions from asphalt blowing are primarily fugitive hydrocarbon vapors vented with the blowing air.
The quantities of emissions are small because of the prior removal of volatile hydrocarbons in the distillation
units, but the emissions may contain hazardous polynuclear organics. 2,4,13,15 Emissions from asphalt blowing
can be controlled to negligible levels by vapor scrubbing, incineration, or both.*'13
9.1.3.3 Storage — All refineries have a feedstock and product storage area, termed a "tank farm," which provides
surge storage capacity to ensure smooth, uninterrupted refinery operations. Individual storage tank capacities
range from less than 1000 barrels to more than 500,000 barrels, and total tank farm storage capacities commonly
range from several days to several weeks. Storage tank designs, emissions, and emission control technologies are
discussed in detail in Section 4.3.
9.1.3.4 Transfer Operations — Although most refinery feedstocks and products are transported by pipeline,
some are transported by trucks, rail cars, and marine vessels. They are transferred to and from these transport
vehicles in the refinery tank farm area using specialized pumps and piping systems. The emissions from transfer
operations and applicable emission control technology are discussed in much greater detail in Section 4.4.
9.1.3.5 Wastewater Treatment Plant — All refineries employ some form of wastewater treatment to upgrade the
quality of water effluents such that they can be safely returned to the environment or reused within the refinery.
The design of wastewater treatment plants is complicated by the diversity of refinery pollutants, including oil,
phenols, sulfides, dissolved solids, suspended solids, and toxic chemcials. Although the wastewater treatment
processes employed by refineries vary greatly, they generally include neutralizers, oil-water separators, settling
chambers, clarifiers, dissolved air flotation systems, coagulators, aerated lagoons, and activated sludge ponds.
Refinery water effluents are collected from various processing units and conveyed through sewers and ditches to
the wastewater treatment plant. Most of the wastewater treatment processing occurs in open ponds and tanks.
The main components of atmospheric emissions from wastewater treatment plants are fugitive
hydrocarbons and dissolved gases that evaporate from the surfaces of wastewaters residing in open process
9.1-10 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
Table 9.1-2. FUGITIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIES ab
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Emission source
Process drains
and waste water
separators
Cooling towers
Pipeline valves
and flanges
Vessel relief
valves
Pump seals
Compressor
seals
Asphalt blowing
Blind.changing
Miscellaneous:
sampling, non-
asphalt blowing,
(sweetening),
purging, etc.
Storage
Loading
Emission factor units
lb/103 gal. wastewater
kg/103 liters wastewater
lb/103 bbl refinery feed c
kg/103 liters refinery feed
lb/106 gal. cooling water
kg/106 liters cooling water
lb/103 bbl refinery feed
kg/103 liters refinery feed
Ib/day-valve
kg/day-valve
lb/103 bbl refinery feed
kg/103 liters refinery feed
Ib/day-valve
kg/day-valve
lb/103 bbl refinery feed
kg/103 liters refinery feed
Ib/day-seal
kg/day-seal
lb/103 bbl refinery feed
kg/103 liters refinery feed
Ib/day-seal
kg/day-seal
lb/103 bbl refinery feed
kg/103 liters refinery feed
Ib/ton of asphalt
kg/metric ton of asphalt
lb/103 bbl refinery feed
kg/103 liters refinery feed
lb/103 bbl refinery feed
kg/103 liters refinery feed
See Section 4.3
See Section 4.4
Uncontrolled
emissions
5
0.6
200
0.6
6
0.7
10
0.03
0.15
0.07
28
0.08
2.4
1.1
11
0.03
5
2.3
17
0.05
9
4
5
0.014
60
30
0.3
0.001
10
0.03
Controlled
emissions
0.2
0.024
10
0.03
NAd
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
3
1.4
10
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
NA
NA
Applicable
control technology
Vapor recovery systems
and/or separator covers
Minimization of oil
leaks into cooling
water system through
good housekeeping and
maintenance
Good housekeeping and
maintenance
Rupture discs up stream
of relief valves and/or
vent to bfowdown system
Mechanical seals, dual
seals, purged seals
Mechanical seals, dual
seals, purged seals
Scrubber, incinerator
Line flushing, use of
"line" blinds, blind
insulation with gate
valves
Good housekeeping and
maintenance
References 2, 4, 12. 13
b Overall, less than 1 percent by weight of total hydrocarbon emissions are methane
c Refinery feed is defined as the crude oil feed rate to the atmospheric distillation column
d NA - These factors are not available
12/77
Petroleum Industry
9.1-11
-------
drains, wastewater separators, and wastewater ponds (Table 9.1-2). Treatment processes that involve extensive
contact of wastewater with air, such as aeration ponds and dissolved air flotation, create an even greater potential
for atmospheric emissions.
The control of wastewater treatment plant emissions involves covering wastewater systems where emission
generation is greatest (such as covering American Petroleum Institute separators and settling basins) and
removing dissolved gases from wastewater streams with sour water strippers and phenol recovery units prior to
their contact with the atmosphere. These control techniques can potentially achieve greater than 90 percent
reduction of wastewater system emissions.13
9.1.3.6 Cooling Towers — Cooling towers are used extensively in refinery cooling water systems to transfer waste
heat from the cooling water to the atmosphere. The only refineries not employing cooling towers are those with
once-through cooling. The increasing scarcity of large water supplies required by once-through cooling is
contributing to the disappearance of that form of refinery cooling. In the cooling tower, warm cooling water
returning from refinery processes is contacted with air by cascading through packing. Cooling water circulation
rates for refineries commonly range from 0.3 to 3.0 gal./min per barrel per day of refinery capacity.2'16
Atmospheric emissions from the cooling tower consist of fugitive hydrocarbons and gases stripped from the
cooling water as the air and water come into contact. These ccri*aminants enter the cooling water system from
leaking heat exchangers and condensers. Although the predominant contaminant in cooling water is
hydrocarbons, dissolved gases such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may also be found (Table 9.1-2).2'4
Control of cooling tower emissions is accomplished by reducing contamination of cooling water through the
proper maintenance of heat exchangers and condensers. The effectiveness of cooling tower controls is highly
variable, depending on refinery configuration and existing maintenance practices.4
9.1.3.7 Miscellaneous Fugitive — Miscellaneous fugitive emission sources are generally defined as hydrocarbon
emission sources that are not associated with a particular refining process but are scattered throughout the
refinery. Fugitive emission sources include valves, flanges, pipe fittings, pump and compressor seals, blind
changing, and sample line purging. Hydrocarbon emissions from fugitive emission sources are attributable to the
evaporation of leaked or spilled petroleum liquids and gases. Normally the control of fugitive emissions involves
the minimization of leaks and spills through equipment changes, procedural changes, and improved
housekeeping and maintenance practices. Localized fugitive emissions can often be controlled by incineration or
vapor recovery systems.
References for Section 9.1
1. Burklin, C. E., R. L. Sugarek, and F. C. Knopf. Revision of Emission Factors for Petroleum Refining. Radian
Corporation, Austin, Tx. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Report No. EPA-450/3-77-030. October 1977.
2. Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries: A Guide for Measurement and Control. U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service. Washington, D.C. PHS No. 763. 1960.
3. Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards: Asphalt Concrete Plants, Petroleum Refiner-
ies, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron
and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants. Vol. 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Tri-
angle Park; N.C. EPA Report No. APTD-1352a. 1973.
4. Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.). John A. Danielson (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA Publication No. AP-40. 1973.
9.1-12 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
5. Jones, Ben G. Refinery Improves Participate Control. Oil Gas J. 69(26): 60-62, June 28, 1971.
6. Impurities in Petroleum. In: Petreco Manual. Petrolite Corp., Long Beach, Ca. 1958.
7. Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide in Air Pollutants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. EPA Publication No. AP-52. January 1969.
8. Olson, H. N. and K. E. Hutchinson. How Feasible Are Giant, One-train Refineries? Oil Gas J. 70(1): 39-43,
January 3, 1972.
9. Urban, C. M. and K. J. Springer. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Natural Gas Pipeline Compressor En-
gines. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tx. Prepared for American Gas Association, Arlington,
Va. February 1975.
10. Dietzmann, H. E. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Piston and Gas Turbine Engines Used in Nat-
ural Gas Transmission. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tx. Prepared for American Gas Associa-
tion, Arlington, Va. January 1974.
11. Klett, M. G. and J. B. Galeski. Flare Systems Study. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Huntsville, Al.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report No. EPA-
600/2-76-079. March 1976.
12. Evaporation Loss in the Petroleum Industry, Causes and Control. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, B.C. API Bull. 2513. 1959.
13. Hydrocarbon Emissions from Refineries. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. API Publication
No. 928. 1973.
14. Brown, R. A., H. B. Mason, and R. J. Schreiber. Systems Analysis Requirements for Nitrogen Oxide Control
of Stationary Sources. Aerotherm/Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, Ca. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report No. EPA-650/2-74-091. 1974.
15. Hangebrauck, R. P., D. J. Von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker. Sources of Polynudear Hydrocarbons in the
Atmosphere. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
Publication No. 999-AP-33. 1967.
16. Crumlish, W. S. Texas Water Quality Board. Review of Thermal Pollution Problems, Standards, and Con-
trols at the State Government Level. (Presented at the Cooling Tower Institute Symposium, New Orleans,
La. January 30, 1966.)
12/77 Petroleum Industry 9.1-13
-------
-------
11.2 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES by Charles O. Mann, EPA,
and Chatten C. Cowherd, Jr.,
Midwest Research Institute
Significant sources of atmospheric dust arise 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: (1) unpaved roads, (2)
agricultural tilling operations, (3) aggregate storage piles, and (4) 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 currents. Airborne dust may also be generated
independently by wind erosion of an exposed surface if the wind speed exceeds about 12 mi/hr (19
km/hr).
The air pollution impact of a fugitive dust source depends on the quantity and drift potential of the dust
particles injected into the atmosphere. In addition to large dust particles that settle out near the source (often
creating a localized nuisance problem), considerable amounts of fine particles are also emitted and dispersed over
much greater distances from the source.
Control techniques for fugitive dust sources generally involve watering, chemical stabilization, or reduction
of surface wind speed using windbreaks or source enclosures. Watering, the most common and generally least
expensive method, provides only temporary dubt control. The use of chemicals to treat exposed surfaces provides
longer term dust suppression but may be costly, have adverse impacts 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. At present, too few data are available to permit estimation of the control efficiencies of these methods.
11.2.1 Unpaved Roads (Dirt and Gravel)
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 over an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the road
surface causes pulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels, and the
road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The turbulent wake behind the
vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle has passed.
11.2.1.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters — The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of
unpaved road varies linearly with the volume of traffic. In addition, emissions depend on correction parameters
(average vehicle speed, vehicle mix, surface texture, and surface moisture) that characterize the condition of a
particular road and the associated vehicular traffic.
In the typical speed range on unpaved roads, that is, 30 to 50 mi/hr (48 to 80 km/hr), field measurements
indicate that emissions are directly proportional to vehicle speed.1'3 Limited field measurements further indicate
that vehicles produce dust from an unpaved road in proportion to the number of wheels.1 For roads with a
significant volume of vehicles with six or more wheels, the traffic volume should be adjusted to the equivalent
volume of four-wheeled vehicles.
12/77 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.1-1
-------
Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary in direc' proportion to the fraction of silt (that
is, particles smaller than 75 //m in diameter—as defined by American Association of State Highway Officials) in
the road surface material.1 The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of loose, dry, surface dust
that passes a 200-mesh screen using the ASTM-C-136 method. The silt content of gravel roads averages about 12
percent.1 The silt content of a dirt road will vary with location and should be measured. As a conservative
approximation, the silt content of the parent soil in the area can be used; however, tests show the road silt content
is lower than the surrounding parent soil. This is due to the fines being continually removed by the vehicle traffic,
leaving a higher percentage of course particles.
Unpaved roads have a hard, nonporous surface that dries quickly after a rainfall. The temporary reduction in
emissions because of rainfall may be accounted for by neglecting emissions on "wet" days, that is, days with more
than 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) of rainfall.
11.2.1.3 Corrected Emission Factor — The quantity of fugitive dust emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle-
mile of travel, may be estimated (within ± 20 percent) using the following empirical expression:1
A ' (1)
3Q7 V 365
where: E = Emission factor, pounds per vehicle-mile
s = Silt content of road surface material, percent
S = Average vehicle speed, miles per hour
w = Mean annual number of days with 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) or more of rainfall (see Figure 11.2-1)
The equation is valid for vehicle speeds in the range of 30 to 50 mi/hr (48 lo 80 km/hr).
On the average, dust emissions from unpaved roads, as given by Equation 1, have the following particle size
characteristics:6
Gravel roads Dirt roads
Particle size,,am Weight percent Particle size, /urn Weight percent
<5 23 <5 8
5-30 39 5-30 24
30-100 38 30-100 68
The effective aerodynamic cutoff diameter for the capture of road dust by a standard high-volume filtration
sampler, based on a particle density of 2.0 to 2.5 g/cm3 is 30/um. On this basis, road dust emissions of particles
larger than 30 to 40 //m in diameter are not likely to be captured by high-volume samplers remote from unpaved
roads. Furthermore, the potential drift distance of particles is governed by the initial injection height of the
particle, the particle's terminal settling velocity, and the degree of atmospheric turbulence. Theoretical drift
distances, as a function of particle diameter and mean wind speed, have been computed for unpaved road
emissions.1 These results indicate that, for a typical mean wind speed of 10 mi/hr (16 km/hr), particles larger than
about 100 m are likely to settle out within 20 to 30 feet (6 to 9 m) from the edge of the road. Dust that settles
within this distance is not included in Equation 1. Particles that are 30 to 100 fim 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, particularly those less than 10 to 15 /urn in
diameter, have much slower gravitational settling velocities and are much more likely to have their settling rate
11.2.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
CO
o>
to
C
D
c
o
"•£•
CD
*J
'5.
'o
£
Q.
**—
O
£
o
o
c
5
C/)
CD
.a
E
D
C
m
0
CM
12/77
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.1-3
-------
retarded by atmospheric turbulence. Thus, based on the presently available data, it appears appropriate to report
only those particles smaller than 30 ju m (62 percent of the emissions predicted by Equation 1 for gravel roads and
32 percent for dirt roads) as emissions that may remain indefinitely suspended.
11.2.1.4 Control Methods — Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treating with
penetration chemicals, working of sqil stabilization chemicals into the roadbed, watering, and traffic control
regulations. Paving as a control technique is often not practical because of its high cost. Surface chemical
treatments and watering can be accomplished with moderate to low costs, but frequent retreatments are required
for such techniques to be effective. Traffic controls, such as speed limits and traffic volume restrictions, provide
moderate emission reductions, but such regulations may be difficult to enforce. Table 11.2.1-1 shows
approximate control efficiencies achievable for each method. Watering,because of the frequency of trealments
required, is generally not feasible for public roads and is effectively used only where watering equipment is
readily available and roads are confined to a single site, such as a construction location.
Table 11.2.1-1 CONTROL METHODS FOR UNPAVED ROADS
Control method
Paving
Treating surface with penetrating
chemicals
Working soil stabilizing chemicals into
roadbed
Speed control8
30 mi/hr
20 mi/hr
15 mi/hr
Approximate control efficiency. %
85
50
50
25
65
80
"Based on the assumption that "uncontrolled" speed is typically 40 mi/hr. Between 30 and 50 mi/hr, emissions
are linearly proportional to vehicle speed. Below 30 mi/hr, however, emissions appear to be proportional to the
square of the vehicle speed.1
References for Section 11.2.1
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, andG. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for Fugi-
tive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA-450/
3-74-037. June 1974.
2. Roberts, J. W., A. T. Rossano,P. T. Bosserman,G.C. Hofer.andH. A. Wallers. The Measurement, Cost and
Control of Traffic Dust and Gravel Roads in Seattle's Duwamish Valley. (Presented at Annual Meeting of
Pacific Northwest International Section of Air Pollution Control Association. Eugene, Or., November ] 972.
Paper No. AP-72-5.)
3. Sehmel, G. A. Particle Resuspension from an Asphalt Road Caused by Car and Truck Traffic. Atmos.
Environ. 7:291-309, July 1973.
4. Climatic Atlas of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Sciences Services Ad-
ministration, Environmental Data Service, Washington, D.C. June 1968.
11.2.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
5. Jutze, G. A., K. Axetell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control.
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Oh. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under contract No. 68-02-0044, Task No. 4. Publication No. EPA-
450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
6. Cowherd, C., Jr.,C. M. Maxwell, and D. W. Nelson. Quantification of Dust Entrainment from Paved Road-
ways. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N. C. Publication No. EPA450/3-77-027. July 1977.
12/77 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.1-5
-------
-------
11.2.5 Paved Roads
11.2.5.1 General—Various field studies indicated that dust emissions from paved streets are a major component
of the material collected by high-volume samplers.1 Reentrained traffic dust has been found to consist primarily
of mineral matter similar to common sand and soil, mostly tracked or deposited onto the roadway by vehicular
traffic itself. Other particulate matter is emitted directly by the vehicles, for example, from engine exhaust, from
wear of bearings and brake linings, and from abrasion of tires against the road surface. Some of these direct
emissions may settle to the street surface and become subsequently reentrained. Although emissions from paved
streets are generated primarily by vehicle traffic, appreciable emissions are added by wind erosion when the wind
velocity exceeds a threshold value of about 20 km/hr (13 mi/hr).2 Figure 11.2-3 illustrates particulate transfer
processes occurring on urban streets.
11.2.5.2 Emission Factors and Correction Parameters — Table 11.2.5-1 presents measured emission factors
resulting from two studies of reentrained street dust in the Kansas City area. Despite differences in sampling
procedures, the results given in Table 11.2.5-1 seem to be fairly consistent. An average emission factor resulting
from the two studies is shown. This appears to be the most representative emission factor for dust emissions from
paved roadways.
Dust emission rates may vary according to a number of factors. The most important are thought to be traffic
volume and speed, quantity and particle size of loose surface material on the street, and wind speed. As shown in
Figure 11.2-5, various activities take place that add or remove street surface material. On a normal paved street,
an equilibrium condition is reached whereby the accumulated street deposits are maintained at a relatively
constant level. On the average, vehicular carry-out from unpaved areas may be the largest source of street
deposit. Accidental spills, street cleaning, and rainfall are activities that disrupt the normal equilibrium street
loading for a relatively short duration in most circumstances.
Mathematical relationships for estimating the effects of these variables on emissions would be desirable.
Research conducted to date has not produced conclusive results, however. References 3 and 4 describe details of
investigations made to date.
11.2.5.3 Particle Size Data — From Reference 3, measured average particle size data for entrained street dust
were found to be:
Particle size, Urn Weight percent
>30 10
<30 90
< 5 50
The 30- [j,m value has been determined5 to be the effective aerodynamic cutoff diameter for capture of airborne
dust by a standard high-volume sampler, based on a particle density of 2.0 to 2.5 g/cm3. It is probable that the
above data are biased toward small particle sizes since the particle size measurements taken downwind from the
street edge contain a significant urban background concentration that would be predominantly particles smaller
than 30 pm. Therefore, a true particle size distribution for entrained street dust may have smaller fractions of
particles less than 30 JJL m and 5 fi m than shown. Particle size measurements taken both upwind and downwind
of the street would be needed to resolve this problem. Microscopic analysis indicated the origin of material
collected on high-volume sampler filters to be about 40 percent by weight from combustion products and 59
percent mineral matter with traces of biological matter and rubber tire particles.4 The small particulate was
identified as mainly combustion products, while most of the large material was of mineral origin.
12/77 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.5-1
-------
©(5)©©©©©©©
Q CC co
00000
11.2.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/78
-------
Table 11.2.5-1. MEASURED EMISSION FACTORS
FOR DUST ENTRAINMENT
FROM PAVED ROADWAYS
Study
Reference 3°
Reference 4d
Average6
Emission factorsa'b
(range and average)
g/vehicle-km
(2.8-5.6)4.3
(0.26-10.4)2.6
3.5
Ib/vehicle-mile
(0.01-0.02)0.015
(0.0009-0.037)0.009
0.012
aTable 3.1.4-7 indicates 0.33 g/km of participate emissions from exhaust
and tire wear, which have not been excluded from the measured results
given in Table 11.2.5-1. Average emissions of entrained dust, excluding
exhaust and tire wear, would therefore be approximately 3.2 g/km.
bEmission factors reflect average "dry day" conditions. During periods of
rainfall, reentrainment of dust should be negligible. However, after rain
ends emissions may be temporarily increased as a result of deposition of
mud on street surfaces. When this material dries, it may become entrained
by vehicle action.
cThese measurements relate to the amount of material passing through a
vertical plane located approximately 5 meters downwind from the nearest
edge of the street. Thus, these measured results exclude any particles that
settle within 5 meters from the edge of the street. In Reference 3,
measured emission factors were also obtained for a case where streets
were artificially loaded with very high (10,000 kg/km) amounts of dirt and
gravel. Very high emissions were observed for a short period of time (up to
9.8 kg/vehicle-km), but emission factors decreased rapidly as street
loadings were decreased by vehicle traffic.
dThese measurements were based on high-volume sampler data taken 10
meters down wind from the street. Thus, particles settling within 10 meters
of the edge of the street are excluded from the emission factor.
Measurements were also taken 20 and 30 meters downwind. These
measurements show that apparent emission rates decrease with
increasing distance from the source, presumably due to particle settling.
On the average, the emission rate calculated 20 meters downwind was 86
percent of the 10-meter value, and the emission rate 30 meters downwind
was 77 percent of the 10-meter value.
eAverage determined from average results of References 3 and 4, with each
study weighted equally
12/77
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.5-3
-------
References for Section 11.2.5
*
1. Dunbar, D. R. Resuspension of Particulate Matter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reasearch
Triangle Park, N.C. March 1976.
2. Abel, M. P. The Impact of Refloatation on Chicago's Total Suspended Particulate Levels. Master's Thesis,
Purdue University. August 1974.
3. Cowherd, C., Jr., C. M. Maxwell, and D. W. Nelson. Quantification of Dust Entrainment from Paved Road-
ways. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-1403, Task Order 25. Publication No. EPA-
450/3-77-027. July 1977.
4. Axetell, K. and J. Zell. Control of Reentrained Dust from Paved Streets. PEDCo Environmental Specialists,
Inc., Cincinnati. Oh. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Kansas City, Mo.,
under Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order No. 35. July 1977.
5. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for Fugi-
tive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA-
450/3-74-037. June 1974.
11.2.5-4 EMISSION FACTORS 12/77
-------
u
APPENDIX C
NEDS SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES
AND
EMISSION FACTOR LISTING
The Source Classification Codes (SCC's) presented herein comprise the basic "building blocks" upon which the
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) is structured. Each SCC represents a process or function within a source
category logically associated with a point of air pollution emissions. In NEDS, any operation that causes air
pollution can be represented by one or more of these SCC's.
Also presented herein are emission factors for the five NEDS pollutants (particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide) that correspond to each SCC. These factors are utilized in NEDS to
automatically compute estimates of air pollutant emissions associated with a process when a more accurate
estimate is not supplied to the system. These factors are, for the most part, taken directly from AP-42. In certain
cases, however, they may be derived from better information not yet incorporated into AP-42 or be based merely
on the similarity of one process to another for which emissions information does exist.
Because these emission factors are merely single representative values taken, in many cases, from a broad range
of possible values and because they do not reflect all of the variables affecting emissions that are described in detail
in this document, the user is cautioned not to use the factors listed in Appendix C out of context to estimate the
emissions from any given source. Instead, if emission factors must be used to estimate emissions, the appropriate
section of this document should be consulted to obtain the most applicable factor for the source in question. The
factors presented in Appendix C are reliable only when applied to numerous sources as they are in NEDS.
NOTE: The Source Classification Code and emission factor listing presented in Appendix C was created on Octo-
ber 21, 1975, to replace the listing dated June 20, 1974. The listing has been updated to include several new
Source Classification Codes as well as several new or revised emission factors that are considered necessary for the
improvement of NEDS. The listing will be updated periodically as better source and emission factor information
becomes available. Any comments regarding this listing, especially those pertaining to the need for additional
SCC's, should be directed to:
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
12/77
C-l
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before cofnpleting)
1. REPORT NO.
AP-42
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third
Edition (Including Supplements 1-7)
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
* Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Emission data obtained from source tests, material balance studies, engineering
estimates, etc., have been compiled for use by individuals and groups responsible for
conducting air pollution emission inventories. Emission factors given in this docu-
ment, the result of the expansion and continuation of earlier work, cover most of the
common emission categories: fuel combustion by stationary and mobile sources; com-
bustion of solid wastes; evaporation of fuels, solvents, and other volatile sub-
stances; various industrial processes; and miscellaneous sources. When no specific
source-test data are available, these factors can be used to estimate the quantities
of primary pollutants (particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen, and hydrocarbons) being released from a source or source group.
117.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Fuel combustion
Emissions
Emission factors
Mobile sources
Stationary sources
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport}
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
477
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
E-l
-------
------- |