905R85013
FINE PARTICULATE MATTER
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS-SIZE
CONSIST EVALUATION AND CONTROL TECHNO IDGY SUMMARY
Prepared by the
Air Compliance Branch
Air Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Larry F. Kertcher, Chief
Lucien Torrez, Project Officer
Roche!le A. Marceiliars, Typist
April, 1985
77 West c06o4-3590
Chicago, »t ow
-------
U.S. Environment Pra
-------
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Overview 1-4
Control Technology., « 4-7
New Fuel s 1
Various Tables Collection Efficiencies 8-9
Efficiency Curves 10 - 13
Mesh, Micron, Screen Sizes 14
Mesh Comparison Tables 15 - 17
Measurement Methods 18 - 22
Size-Fractionating Source Samplers.. 23 - 24
Particulate Size-Pretest and Sampling Procedures 25 - 26
Compliance Determination 26
(a) PMiQ-Specific Emission Regulations 27
(b) Control Strategy Transition 27
(c) Source Assessment 27 - 28
(d) Data Evaluation 28 - 31
(e) Visible Emi ssion Observation 31
(f) PMiQ Information Sources 32
Attachments
Particle Size Distribution Tests
Plants A-B-C-D-E and F
Inhalable Particulate Literature Bibliography by MRI
MRI Testing Programs - Fugitive Dust Source
Inhalable Matter Emission Factor Program Status Report (July, 1984)
Draft AP-42 Section - Pedco Contract #68-02-3512
Draft AP-42 Section - PEI Contract #68-02-3512
-------
FOREWORD
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of
establishing a PMig standard that will allow the states to follow with changes
in their respective state implementation plans.
Once the emission limitations are established and are a matter of record,
sources in each state will be expected to comply with these new emission
limitations. Since these actions will occur sometime in the future, the
Air Compliance Branch, also looking into the future, is developing this
manual with the hope that it will be useful to all those concerned with the
PMiQ standards. Since the PM^g theory is still in its infancy regarding
application, standards, rule development and enforcement, Region V is preparing
this manual with the thought that others will add and improve it to develop
a practical manual useful to the agency.
Larry F. Kertcher, Chief
Air Compliance Branch
Air Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
-------
Introduction
The 1977 Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
review each National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) at least every five
years and to develop for each pollutant air quality criteria that reflects the
latest scientific knowledge about the pollutant's effect upon man and his
environment. Based on this requirement, EPA revised the particulate matter
standard and published it in the Federal Register on March 20, 1984. It replaces
the thirteen year-old standard for total suspended particulates. The revised
standard represents the primary step in the chain of events that will lead to
the development of regulations and rules to be included in State Implementation
Plans, resulting in enforceable standards applicable to existing sources. In
anticipation of these future enforcement actions, Region V is developing guide-
lines designed to assist the Compliance Branch engineers in assessing data
submitted by sources for compliance demonstrations. The guidelines will include
summaries on control technology, stack testing including particle size consist
analysis, measurement methods and other information designed to enhance the
engineers ability to make a sound compliance determination of a source. The
information presented is based on Region V's experience and on ideas supplied
by various investigators in Chemical Engineering and Power Plant magazines.
The overall objectives of the guidelines are to evaluate the various technologies
available and their applicability in controlling particulate matter in the
lower micron levels. _
Overview
The Clean Air Act makes EPA responsible for periodically reviewing the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and revising them as necessary.
The act requires that NAAQS be set, and eventually be met, for any air pollutant
that may reasonably be expected to pose a threat to public health or welfare
and that has many or diverse sources. These standards, representing a principal
objective of the act, have been set for the following pollutants: ozone, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead.
The 1977 Clean Air Act requires EPA to review each NAAQS at least every 5 years
and to develop for each pollutant air quality criteria that reflect the latest
scientific knowledge about the pollutant's effect upon man and his environment.
The Act also requires EPA to review and revise, as necessary, all NAAQS1s
established before 1977. This process is still ongoing.
EPA is improving the standard setting process, partly by using risk analysis
techniques to deal with uncertainties not resolved by scientific analysis.
Risk assessment allows the Agency to evaluate the probabilities of adverse
health effects, their severity, and the numbers of people affected. The use of
these new techniques can help decision-makers set ambient air standards that
allow an adequate margin of safety.
-------
Among the pollutants EPA regulates are total suspended particles (TSP) soot,
dust, fly ash, and any other particles in the air. The Agency is now proposing
to change both the particulate standards and the way it measures particulates.
There are now primary and secondary standards for TSP. The primary standards of
75 micrograms per cubic meter of air on an hour period, are health-based. The
secondary standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air is set to protect
public welfare, property, visibility, etc.
Instead of measuring all particulates for the primary standard, the Agency is
proposing to measure only those with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or
less. This has been proposed because research shows that while particulates are
bothersome, not all have health impact. Many-health officials and medical au-
thorities now believe that it is not quantity alone, but also particle size that
impacts health. The smaller the size of the particle, the greater the real
threat to health. Particle size has also been pegged to opacity or stack-plume
visibility. It is expected that the linkage between the control of opacity and
the control of sub-10-micron particles may be much greater thah that experienced
for total suspended particulate. Many regional environmental authorities are
concerned about opacity problems, especially where high sulfur fuel is combusted
since the sulfate formed presents a difficult opacity problem. Another problem
that has surfaced is that different boilers, fuels and fuel-preparation techniques
have a definite effect on the size of particles in the flue-gas fly ash. The
Agency's interest in developing an inhalable particulate ambient standard will
require that all future stack testing carried out in Region V includes particle-
size consist (fractionation) analysis to enable the Region to develop an enforce-
ment program necessary to bring the sources into compliance.
The revision to this particulate matter standard was published in the Federal
Register on March 20, 1984. It replaces the 13-year-old standard for total
suspended particulates (TSP). The new levels are expected to be a 24-hour
average of 150-250 micrograms per cubic meter and an annual arithmetic average
of 50-65 micrograms per cubic meter.
This information will be valuable in assessing the appropriateness and impact of
a change in the ambient standards, as well as in diagnosing remedies for any
source to meet current particulate limitations.
The amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1977 required that size distribution data
be included as part of any air pollution abatement strategy, since health impact
research had revealed that verv fine particles were the most damaging to human
health.
The requirement triggered research into particle sizing, chemical composition,
and control effectiveness for particulate matter in flue gases. This research
has been difficult, since most methods for determining size consist are for the
laboratory and are not too practical for field use or in-situ application.
However, both commercial and Government research have developed the cascade impact
sampler and other devices. The cascade impact sampler appears to be the most
-------
practical for obtaining size-consistency testing that can be reproduced with some
precision. With the cascade impactor, size fractionation from approximately 1
micron upwards is possible, and the device can sample stack atmosphere directly,
thereby minimizing the potential detrimental effects of transportation and storage.
Cyclone samplers also have been used for obtaining particle size cuts, primarily
where participate loading is heavy.
Control of fine particulate emissions to the atmosphere is very important from
the standpoints of human health, materials damage, and visibility impairment.
The development of air pollution control devices had this objective in mind, and
progress in research and development of such devices continues to be geared
toward meeting certain standards.
Information on particle-size distribution in flue gas streams is important in the
selection of gas cleaning equipment and in developing continuous emission monitoring
systems. These types of data will reveal the micron sizes to be controlled and
the efficiency of the specific control device used. Existing collection equipment
may be inadequate to comply with the proposed rules. Older electrostatic precipi-
tators are usually more efficient in collecting larger particles than they are in
removing smaller ones, especially submicron range particles. This is the reason
for visible plume emissions when an electrostatic precipitator is used to control
particulate matter from a boiler combusting a high sulfur coal. A detached plume
usually results from the fine sulfate particles formed when the sulfur trioxide
content of the flue-gas is presented to the electrostatic precipitator. Mechanical
cyclone collectors, which may be the only control device for fly ash on many
industrial boilers, and venturi particulate scrubbers are also sensitive to
particle size. Some oil-fired boilers (depending on the type and grade of oil
combusted) also present particle size problems since the ratio of fine to coarse
particulates is greater in the oil-fired boilers than coal-fired ones. Due to
these deficiencies in the above control devices, upgrading and/or retrofitting
may be necessary. Quantity and particle-size distribution of ash in a flue-gas
stream depend on the fines of the pulverized coal, coal quality, type of boiler
and emphasis on the mode of operation. The choice between a fabric filter and an
electrostatic precipitator as a control device may some times be influenced by
the specific collection efficiency of the various size fractions. Fabric-filter
performance is known to be more immune to particle-size effects than that of
electrostatic precipitators. Fly ash/502 removal systems such as spray-dryers,
wet electrostatic precipitators present more difficult problems since evaporation
and condensation effects in the flue-gas stream tend to make particle size and
mass measurements highly variable.
Particulate matter in the atmosphere comes from both natural and manmade sources.
Natural sources include wind blown soil, sea spray, volcanos and forest fires.
Manmade particulate emissions originate from automobile exhausts, power plants,
and activities like construction and tilling of the soil that stir up dust and
dirt. The first standard for particulate matter the F.PA had established, back in
1971, covered total suspended particulater matter. Total suspended measurements
carried out at that time using the hi-vol sampling system included anything that
-------
could enter the sampler. Extensive studies and evaluation of collected data
eventually led to the shift in standards from emphasis on total particles to the
proposed fine-particle inhalable particulate standard. It is part of the job
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as a regulatory body, to set new
environmental standards and reevaulate old ones. EPA is well aware of the
costs involved and the potential health impact on the public of any changes to
the standards. Any one of these standard changes may affect the health nf mil-
lions of people and compliance may cost industry millions of dollars. The impact
on health and cost is reason enough for EPA to base its revisions on the best
available science. On March 9, 1984, EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus
proposed major revisions of national ambient air quality standards for particulate
matter, changing the pollutant regulated from total particles in the air irres-
pective of size to inhalable particles, which are widely acknowledged to be more
damaging to human health. The process for revising a national ambient air quality
standard includes five major steps: 1) compilation of relevant scientific infor-
mation into a criteria document, 2) evaluation of criteria document information
in a staff paper, 3) recommendation by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Com-
mit tee, 4) publication of the proposed standard in the Federal Register, and
5) promulgation of the final standard. Revision of the particulate matter stan-
dard involved the majority of EPA offices, laboratories, scientists and thousands
of studies. The above effort culminated_with the proposal calling for the
replacement of the current primary health-related standards for total suspended
particulate matter with a new indicator that includes only particles 10 micro-
meters or smaller. The Agency is also proposing that: 1) The new 24-hour ,
primary standard be a number selected from a range of 150-250 micrograms per
cubic meter of air, 2) The annual primary standard be a number selected from a
range of 50-65 micrograms per cubic meter of air, and 3) The new secondary
welfare-related standard replace the current hourly total suspended particulate
standard by selecting a number from a range of 70-90 micrograms per cubic meter
of air. Since these standards were proposed in March of 1984, the review of
all comments, assessment of any new information and development and promulgation
of the final standard should occur in the late eighties.
Control Technology
Control technology is self-defeating if it creates undesirable side-effects in
meeting objectives. Air pollution control must be considered in terms of both
total technological systems (equipment and processes) and ecological consequences,
such as the problems of treatment and disposal of collected pollutants.
To eliminate or reduce emissions from a polluting operation, four major options
are available: 1) eliminating the operation entirely or in part; 2) relocating
the operation; 3) modifying the operation (for example, fuel and raw material
substitutions) and 4) applying control equipment.
Control equipment must be designed to comply with regulatory emission limitations
on a continuous basis. Interruptions can lead to severe penalties. This require-
ment places heavy emphasis on equipment operation and maintenance procedures.
-------
The rapidly escalating costs of energy, labor and materials also add to the
importance of these procedures. It is not unusual for equipment having higher
capital cost to be selected because of more favorable operation and maintenance
characteristics.
In addition, industries in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) categories
must regularly submit reports to EPA on emission violations and production rates.
Monitoring and surveillance inspections by EPA personnel can be expected to
increase significantly over the next few years.
In general, the factors to be considered in equipment selection can be grouped
into three categories: environmental, engineering and economic. The final
choice will usually be the equipment that is capable of achieving compliance with
regulatory codes at the lowest life-cycle cost or uniform annual cost (amortized
capital investment plus operation and maintenance costs).
In the 1980's, EPA will place greater emphasis on control of particulates less
than 10 microns in size (inhalable particulates) and especially on those less
than 2-3 microns (fine particulates).
Fine particulates have been found to be a. health hazard because, in contrast to
coarse ones, they can bypass the body's respiratory filters and penetrate deeply
into the lungs. Toxic substances, such as certain sulfates, sulfites, nitrates,
heavy metals and polycyclic organic matter are carried predominantly by particu-
lates in this submicron size range.
Present EPA standards do not differentiate with regard to either chemical com-
position or particle size. The approach favored by EPA has been to place
increased emphasis on the development of specific controls for selected pollu-
tants, such as sulfates and lead, while relying on the present generic particulate
standard for overall control purposes.
The effectiveness of conventional air pollution control equipment-baghouses,
electrostatic precipitators (ESP), and scrubbers-for fine particulate emissions
is compared in Figure 1. These fractional efficiency curves clearly indicate
that the equipment is least efficient in removing particulates in the critical
0.1 - 1.0 micron range. For wet scrubbers and fabric filters, the very small
particles (< 0.2 urn) can be efficiently removed by Brownian diffusion. Brownian
motion increases proportionately with increasing gas temperature (absolute) and
is only significant for particles below 0.2 urn diameter.
The smaller the particles, the more intense their Brownian motion and the easier
their collection by diffusion forces. Larger particles (1 urn) are collected
principally by impaction; removal efficiency increases with particle size. The
minimum in the fractional efficiency curve for scrubbers and filters occurs in
the transition range between removal by Brownian motion and removal by impac-
tion.
-------
A somewhat similar situation exists for electrostatic precipitators. Particles
larger than about 1 urn have high mobilities because they are highly charged.
Those smaller than a few tenths of a micron can achieve moderate mobilities even
with a small charge because of aerodynamic slip. A minimum in collection ef-
ficiency usually occurs in the transition range between 0.1 - 1.0 urn. The sit-
uation is further complicated because not all particles smaller than about
0.1 urn acquire charges in an ion field. Hence, the removal efficiency for very
small particles decreases after reaching a maximum in the submicron range (see
Figure 1).
The general trend in industry is toward baghouses for particulate emission control,
They provide extremely high collection efficiency, are dry collection svstems, and
are relatively easy to operate and maintain-a key to success in control equipment
design.
Generally, industry strongly resists sophisticated, highly complex control equip-
ment. An additional attraction is that the cleaned gas stream exhausted from the
baghouse can be returned to the plant, reducing makeup-air/heating requirements.
Improvement in existing control technology for fine particulates and development
of advanced techniques are top-prioritv goals. As indicated, the three conven-
tional control devices have certain limitations. Precipitators, for example,
are limited by the magnitude of charge oja the particles, by the electric field
and by dust reentrainment. Also, high resistivity of fly ash adversely affects
both particle charge and electric field. Advances are needed to overcome resis-
tivity, and extend the performance of precipitators not limited by resistivity.
Significant design developments that have improved precipitator performance
include: pulse energization, electron beam ionization, wide plate-spacing and
two-stage units (based on the precharger concept).
Fabric filters are limited by physical size and bag-life considerations. Some
sacrifices in efficiency might be tolerated if higher air/cloth ratios could be
achieved without reducing bag life (for example, the use of pulse-jet systems).
improvements in fabric filtration may also be possible by enhancing electro-
static effects that contribute to rapid formation of filter cake after cleaning.
Future success in particulate control will probably be as heavily influenced
by innovative applications of conventional technology as by development of
novel systems. An example in point is industrial coal-fired boilers. For
these, there has always been a need for development of a dry, relatively in-
expensive particulate collector capable of 90-95% efficiency. Multicyclone
mechanical collectors have generally performed satisfactorily up to approxi-
mately 90% efficiency. Baghouses and electrostatic precipitators can unques-
tionably achieve 95 + %. Unfortunately, the cost associated with the
higher-efficiency devices are considerable. However, by applying a little
imagination, a compromise can be reached. In view of the extremely high
efficiency of baghouses, a hybrid mechanical collector-baghouse svstem is
possible. Such a system would treat the major part of the gas stream by
using a mechanical collector and the remainder by using a baghouse, so as to
-------
comply with a code requiring collection efficiency in the 90-95% range. For
example, by treating 80% of the boiler exhaust in a multicyclone collector
and 20% in a baghouse, a net overall efficiency of 92% is possible. The cost
of this alternative would be considerable less than that of using a baghouse
or electrostatic precipitator alone.
New Fuels for Tomorrow
Potential future shortages of natural liquid and gaseous fuels and environmental
regulations restricting the combustion of readily available alternatives - such
as coal - in populated areas have contributed to the development of processes
for the production of synthetic fuels. Though prices of premium fossil fuels
have moderated in the last year and the government has withdrawn its support
from many synthetic-fuels projects, several new fuels could appear on the
market in commercial quantities before the next century.
Gases - At the top of the list are low, medium and high-BTU gas from coal.
Gasification of coal is a proven and viable technology for producing an environ-
mentally acceptable fuel for power-generation and process applications. The
processes and equipment required to gasify coal are commercially available.
Though they have been applied sparingly in the United States during the last
40 years, these processes have performed well in other parts of the world.
Hydrogen, virtually an ideal fuel in many respects - easy ignition, rapid
burning, combustion products limited to NOX and water vapor - has been produced
and distributed in the United States and in other countries as an industrial
gas for more than 75 years. Its widespread use, however, is many years off,
because the technology available today for making large quantities of the gas
is not attractive economically.
Clean coal liquids, like hydrogen, some day may be an important element in the
United States energy-supply picture, but the processes for making them - direct
and indirect liquefaction and pyrolysis - also are many years away from commer-
cial significance.
Methanol is perhaps the most versatile and clean-burning of all the fuels
derived from coal and biomass. Certainly, it is the clean-coal liquid
that's closest to commercialization, with several plants in the planning
or construction phase. Commonly known as wood alcohol or methyl alcohol,
methanol has superior combustion and emission characteristics.
Shale oil, though not a synthetic fuel, commonly is classified as such. Oil
shale is a sedimentary rock containing varying amounts of a solid organic
material called kerogen, which when heated, decomposes into hydrocarbons and
a carbonaceous residue. A petroleum-like liquid can be produced by condensing
the hydrocarbon fraction.
Shale oil has been made commercially for various periods of time, in 11 coun-
tries, ever since a production plant was started up in France more than 140
years ago. Today, however, the only commercial facilities are in Russia and
China. Commercial development here hinges on the availability of government
loan gurantees and/or production subsidies.
-------
z
33
1
Z
0
-s
fD
•a
o
-s
fD
CL
•
to
•^
0
3
I*
rt-
fD
<
CU
.^
r-
fD
O
CU
3
cr
fD
CU
i/i
to
c
3
fD
CL
rt-
0
cr
fD
CU
{-^
_^
fD
CU
to
rt
CU
I/)
^T
~j*
aa
3"
CU
rt
fD
,
CU
to
rt
-5
fD
T3
O
-5
fD
CL
<
CU
— j
r-
fD
-h
0
-s
rt
CU
rt
CL
fD
-^»
O
fD
•
to
C
^«
CL
CU
3
O
fD
-h
O
-s
fD
f*^
.w.
3
CU
(-J>
-J»
3
(0
O
O
3
rt
•^
O
— j
fD
jQ
C
•^«
T3
3
fD
3
rt
-a
ro
-s
.4.
^*1
O
-5
3
cu
3
O
fD
^
3
fD
3
to
-"•
fD
1
to
T3
fD
O
~j.
-h
-j«
O
CL
cu
rt
Cu
CU
-s
fD
3
O
rt
CU
<
CU
-J«
— J
CU
cr
-j
fD
•
S
fD
-s
fD
3
O
CL
cu
CL
-s
O
73
to
CU
O
-5
O
to
t/t
to
o
-s
cr
cr
fD
-s
to
w
3
HI
—i*
3
rt
0>
3
CU
3
0
fD
O
-h
fD
-Q
C
•^*
13
3
3
rt
•*^i
^
^,
.^
—j
CU
-h
-h
fD
O
rt
rt
3-
fD
O
O
—i
«^
fD
0
rt
0
3
fD
-h
-h
o'
~j.
fD
3
O
— j.
fD
to
to
3"
O
s:
3
cu
-5
fD
_,.
3
rt
fD
3
CL
fD
CL
S.
fD
— -i
_^
1
O
-o
fD
-s
CU
0+
fD
CL
O
O
3
rt
-s
0
— «J
fD
.O
c
— •*
*o
3
fD
3
rt
•
co
-^*
rt-
fD
to
•o
fD
O
^j«
-h
O
-b
CU
O
^-^
O
-5
(/)
*-^
fD
•
10
•
{-(•
v<
-a
fD
0
-h
T3
O>
-s
rt-
•^*
O
c
— J
cu
rt
fD
U"
fD
-j»
3
1O
O
O
-^
^^
fD
O
rt
fD
CL
"
<
CU
-s
^<
— !•
3
10
-o
QJ
—1
3*
fD
CL
Cu
rt
CU
to
3-
O
^
3
-s
fD
T3
-s
fD
in
fD
3
rt
CU
3
EU
<
fD
-i
CU
(0.
fD
O
-h
CU
O
rt-
C
cu
— '
fD
-h
-h
o'
^*
fD
3
n
•u.
fD
to
•
1
^^
3
fD
fD
-h
-h
-^*
O
—1.
fD
3
O
~^u
fD
CU
-s
fD
-5
fD
•a
-s
fD
(/>
fD
3
rt
CU
rt
•^.
^
fD
O
~h
^
tt>
— *
•^
1
CL
fD
to
-^»
rt <-t -S <0
CU
O
CU T3
-s
fD
-s
O
~J,
CL
fD
fD
to
to
r-
-s
fD
3
fD
CL
cu
3
CL
-n
Cu
cr
-s
—i.
o
-t>
_J
rt
fD
10 10
10 10
• •
10 CO
10 10
to -p>
1
10 10
10 ya
• •
10 F"
1
10 10
10 10
• *
10 en
10 10
10 i0
• •
10 CO
1
s
fD
rt
i
3'
^*
3
CO
fD
fD
3
rt
to
O
-5
C
cr
cr
fD
-s
10
o
o
CO
CO
en
rv>
CO
en
8
10
o
10
CO
8
1
10
CO
fD
3
rt
-s
to
o
-s
r-
cr
Cr
fD
-s
10
1
10
en
0
10
CO
10
^h
10
^b
I
10
cn
10 10
co en
CO -P»
10 10
co en
co en
1
10 10
co en
• •
eo CD
i
10 10
10 CO
• •
O Co
1
-o
CU
o
j^
fD
CL
cr
fD
CL
in
0
-5
C
cr
cr
fD
-s
8
i
10
en
8
10
CO
10
O
10
CO
•
en
10
CO
1
10
10
en
i
m ;E
—i — i.
*— ^ fD 3 (0-
mo c 3-
CO rt — ' 1
~O "5 rt fD
- — O -"• -ti
to T3 -h
rt ~^ —i'
CU fD O
rt -••
-•• O fD
O *< 3
O O
T3 — '<<
-s o
o> 3 eu
O fD 3
_|. (/) CL
-a
rt
CU
rt
O
-5
to 10
10 O
• |
en 10
10 10 O
co en i
• . CO
[s i—*
i
1O 10
• • f"i
~vi en
i
10 10
1O CO
• • — 10
co co en
i
10 10
10 CO 1O
. . en
~vl CO
10
-h
-Ml
fD
CL
(/)
fD
(-(•
{-t»
— • J
-^<
3
(a
n
3"
CU
3
cr
n>
-s
,
i
i
73
Z.
73
~zr
73
r\>
_p^
en
en
ro
0
ro
0
i
en
en
en
en
i
0
— -\
*•<
•a
fD
o
-h
o
o
—*
-^
fD
O
r+
O
-s
o
fD
-s
CU
-1
A
1— '
I—*
rs^
CO
^
ai
en
i
i — >
0
0
1
h- •
en
r\s
0
i
-p»
V
w
CU
-s
^^*
o
fD
CO
N
fD
cu
to
fD
3
o
m
73
CD
m
o
o
m
o
o
z.
m
o
i — i
m
m
co
•<;
:>
O
CO
-a
—I
i—i
o
c:
r—
>
O
O
a
m
o
CO
CU
CO
-------
oo
o
c
o
fD
a
fD
fD
o
to
0
-s
o
3
.— ^
I—
fD
O»
O.
oo
.^,
3
rt
fD
-S
— j.
3
to.
to
10
CT)
to
to
•
-p.
10
to
•
CJ1
0
3
fD
X
*—*.
t— 1
3
0.
c
(/>
rt
-S
o>
-•J
03
0
-«J
fD
-s
to
00
to
tn
in
in
~r\
a>
cr
-s
o
-~^
~^3
O
^
fD
-s
"O
—^
OF
3
to
to
to
to
to
—1
fD
-h
0
3
O
0
o>
f^
fD
a.
c^
^^
ai
t/i
to
-n
cr
-s
n'
. — .
~o
0
s
fD
-s
T3
^u
01
3
rt
q
to
to
to
oo
to
to
o
CT
~ji
^^
fD
CO
2L
*— *»
-H
O
^>
N«X
oo
0
-s
c
cr
cr
fD
-J
-o
0
^
fD
-s
-a
—*
fa
3
p|»
-*.^
§
OO
o
to
o
rt
1
m
00
-o
o
fD
3
fD
3
rt
*^~
V
to
00
V
to
00
to
o
V
to
oo
m
oo
-o
_^
-o
o
^
fD
-s
^Q
_^
ai
3
rt
to
to
to
to
ai
o
to
to
o
Q
—1
—i
CO
o
rt
O
-5
fa
3
a.
^>
•a
•o
— j
•^*
o
O)
rt
•^*
O
3
C t-»
3 0
c: ro
3
C H->
3
c o
3 •
c o
3 •
C O
3 •
en
C O
c 0
3 •
oo
c o
3 •
o
o
'
o
rt
O
3
m
o'
-i.
fD
3
0
^
73
m
o
>
o
to
o
m
o
o
o
m
m
oo
-------
FIGURE 1
10
99.99 ^
99.9-
99.8-
99
38'
95-
90-
80-
O
c
.2 60-
= 50-
40
30
20 —
10-
5 -
2 —
1 —
0.5-
0.2-
0.1 -
O.OS.
0.01
Venturi scrubber —
(100-m W G API
Multi-cylone
mechanical collector
High efficiency cyclone
mechanical collector
Low-efficiency cyclone
mechanical collector
W G -- Water Gage
0.01
0.02
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
-r
0.2
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
6 8 10
Particulate dia., pm
-------
11
FIGURE 2
99.99 -I
0.01
0.01
0.02
I I F I
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
V
0.4
0.2
Particulate dia., pm
r i i
0.6 0.8 1.0
I I I
8 10
-------
FIGURE 3
PC-FIRED BOILER DRY-BOTTOM
98
§80
«
a
« 50
I 30
E
o 10
90% confidence interval
Mean distribution
10
Stokes diameter, microns
100
98
I
80
5 50
I 30
u 10
5
1
CYCLONE-FIRED BOILER
10
Stokes diameter, microns
100
90
80
g. 40
.1 60
O
20
10
STOKER-FIRED BOILER
0.4 0.6 1.0 2 4 6 8 10
Aerodynamic diameter, microns
20
Size distributions for flyach from dry-bottom. PC-fired boiler, cyclone-fired boiler, and stoker-fired
boiler assuming particle density of 2 5 gm cm > in all three cases Average diameter is read from the
50% mark on the ordmate
-------
13
FIGURE 4
10
1.0
a
Q.
0.1
0.01
Average of
eight precipitators
\
Average of five
fabric filters
Precipitator with
SO 3 conditioning
I
90
99.0
99.9
u
o
£
o
I
u
*
U
99.99
0.1 1 10 100
Particle diameter, microns
Fabric filters here show an advantage over
ESPs m collecting fine particles
Note case with flue-gas conditioning
100
10
c
o
1.0
«
0.
0.1
0.01
Cold-sided ESP at
George Neal Station
Hot-side ESP at
San Juan station
90
99.0
99.9
u
o
o
u
it
e
.0
'£
u
JJ
"5
U
99.99
0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0
Actual diameter, microns
Collection efficiency for fines in higher for
hot-side ESP. according to this set of limited
data for two units
Comparison — Fabric Filters vs ESPs
Cold-side vs Hot-side ESPs
-------
14
Mesh, Microns and Screen Sizes
The terms mesh, microns and screen sizes are used in particle size analysis.
Applications of these terms include grading the various sizes of matter, from
coarse particles to very minute ones. In general, a mesh consists of wire of
a fixed diameter that is woven into square openings of equal size. The mesh
size determines the diameter of the wire used and the openings in the mesh
per square inch (325 mesh screen indicates 325 openings in the mesh per square
inch). Coarse screens require rigid wire while the lower micron screens require
small flexible diameter wire woven into the desired mesh cloth. The screen
cloth (rigid and flexible) can be placed into metal frames for use in screening
operations. Screens can be used to separate a material into its various sizes.
Materials are physically separated into their various size components by
passing them through screening equipment using screens designed to retain the
desired sizes and passing the sizes too small to be retained. The separations
are usually carried out to support civil engineering projects. This type of
operation is directed toward recovering coarse fractions and not fine material.
The various coarse sizes recovered are used in the production of concrete,
ballast, structural fill, filtering media and many other uses too many to enu-
merate. However, when the process involves chemical reactions, the material
stream is passed through crushing and grinding circuits to produce the particle
size desired. -
The above description is for sizing material from coarse to very fine particles
(from 1" to 325-400 mesh sizes). Because of these unit processes and to maintain
quality control, industry developed screen sizes, mesh and micron designations to
be used in particle size determination. These determinations cover size ranges
from inches to microns and it is for the micron sizes that air pollution control
equipment is designed. A comparison of these measurement designations is pre-
sented in the following table. The table notes the various terms used and compares
the sizing terms. This comparison illustrates the minute particle sizes to be
controlled by
Measurement at the micron level requires special methods such as the Blaine and
Wagner methods or one of the various micron sampling systems developed recently-
impactors, cyclones and others.
-------
15
PARTICLE SIZES
MICRON VS. MESH
EQUIVALENT
Microns
1
2
5
10
15
20
25
33
38
41
45
50
53
56
63
66
71
75
76
80
90
106
125
147
150
152
160
175
180
200
208
212
246
250
251
259
300
315
350
400
Inches
.0000 6
.00008
.0002
.0004
.0006
.0008
.0010
.0013
.0015
.0016
.0017
.0020
.0021
.0022
.0025
.0026
.0028
.0029
.0030
.0032
.0035
.0041
.0049
.0058
.0059
.0060
.0063
.0069
.0070
0079
.0082
.0083
.0097
.0098
.0099
.0116
.0117
.0124
.0139
.0158
EQUIVALENT SCREEN SIZES - MESH/INCH
U.S. Standard
12,500
6,250
2,500
1,250
800
625
500
(425)
400
325
270
230
200
170
140
120
100
80
70
60
50
45
Tyler
12,500
6,250
2,500
1,250
800
625
500
(325)
(270)
(250)
200
170
150
115
100
80
65
60
48
42
R n i *• -i c h
u/ i i u i _i i i
12,500
6,250
2,500
1,250
800
625
500
(300)
240
200
170
150
120
100
R5
72
60
44
-------
16
PARTICLE SIZES
MICRON VS. MESH
EQUIVALENT
Microns
417
420
495
500
600
630
699
701
710
800
833
850
853
991
1000
1003
1168
1180
1204
1250
1397
1400
1600
1651
1676
1700
1981
2000
2057
2360
2411
2500
2794
2800
3150
3327
3350
3962
4000
4699
Inches
.0158
.0164
.0195
.0197
.0234
.0248
.0275
.0276
.0278
.0315
.0328
.0331
.0336
.0390
.0394
.0395
.0460
.0469
.0474
.0492
.0550
.0555
.0630
.0650
.0660
.0661
.0780
.0787
.0810
.0937
.0949
.0985
.1100
.1110
.1240
.1310
.1320
.1560
.1570
EQUIVALENT SCREEN SIZES - MESH/INCH
U.S. Standard
40
35
30
25
20
_
18
16
14
12
10
8
7
6
5
.1850
Tyler
35
32
28
24
20
16
British
30
25
22
18
16
14 |
1 14
12 |
1 12
10
9
8
10
8
7
|
7
6
5
4
6
-------
17
PARTICLE SIZES
MICRON VS. MESH
EQUIVALENT
EQUIVALENT SCREEN SIZES - MESH/INCH
Microns
Inches
U.S. Standard
Tyler
British
4750
5000
5660
6300
6680
6700
.1870
.1970
.2230
.2480
.2630
.2650
4
3.5
3.5
3
30
-------
18
Measurement Methods
Participates from fossil-fired boilers can range in size over several orders of
magnitude. For the most part, no single measurement technique can be used over
the entire range. Selection depends on many factors. Among them are gas
temperature, duct static pressure, presence of corrosive elements, particu-
late-matter concentration, anticipated size classification, available space at
the proposed sampling site, and size and geometry of the duct and test ports.
In practice, complete characterization of a boiler flue gas or collection device
will require more than one of the devices described below.
Impactors and cyclones in series are the traditional particle-size measurement
devices. Both employ inertial properties to separate the particles from the gas
stream within appropriate size classifications.
Here's the principle: Velocity of a particle moving with a gas stream is approx-
imately equal to the gas velocity, until an outside force is applied. Changing
the direction of the gas stream is one way to impart this force.
When a gas jet hits a flat surface perpendicularly, the gas spreads radially.
But since particles have a greater ratio of inertia to viscous drag - the force
that keeps them within the gas streamlines - particles fall out of the flowlines
and impact on the surface. Substrates a-pe provided to collect these particles.
Impactors are made up of several stages, each characterized by a jet velocity,
space between a gas jet and the substrate surface, and a minimum particle size
that can be captured by that stage. When the dust-laden gas sample passes through
these stages successively, the result is a series of mass loadings on each stage.
Each stage has a characteristic diameter used to develop the size distribution
determined later from laboratory weighing procedures.
Field use of impactors is full of pitfalls. First of all, the impactor must be
properly calibrated, and the correct sample flow must be maintained at all times
(to keep the characteristic velocity of each stage constant). Particle bouncing,
or re-entrainment from one stage to another, is also a problem that can skew the
results. Finally, storage, handling, and weighing of the samples are extremely
precise operations which must be carried out according to strict procedures. In
many cases, very small weights are being dealt with, and one drop of moisture or
a minute quantity of fugitive dust will invalidate the results.
The principles behind cyclone devices are very similar to those behind impactors,
and the above discussion applies to them as well.
Another major group of particle-size-measurement devices use optics. When a
particle passes through a beam of light, it causes scattering of the light. The
distribution of the scattered light is a function of the wave length of the light,
the refractive index, and the diameter of the particle. Optical devices can be
purchased for in-situ measurements or for extractive ones; the former is a more
recent development. While extractive systems show promise, their long-term
reliability has yet to be established.
-------
19
Since particles from fossil fired boilers range in several orders of magnitude
in size, the following factors influence the selection of measurement techni-
ques:
1. Mode of operation
(a) Reduced loads tend to decrease the amount of coarse particles
due to low velocity of flue gases allowing coarse particles to
settle easier.
(b) Increased loads increase flue gas velocity and thus increase
entrainment of settled coarse ash particles. Load changing
will generally affect the fly ash particle size formation from
coarse to fine soot.
2. Fines of coal delivered by pulverizing mills will affect the particle
size of the ash. The finer the size consist of the coal grind, the
finer the ash particle.
3. Cyclone fired boilers tend to produce finer size fly ash then the
boilers fired with pulverized coal.
4. Stoker fired boilers generally pcoduce coarse size fly ash.
5. Flue-gas temperature.
6. Duct static pressure.
7. Presence of corrosive elements.
8. Anticipated size classification.
9. Particulate-matter concentration.
10. Available space at proposed sampling site.
11. Size and geometry of duct and test ports.
The selection of the proper sampler for a particular test situation is primarily
dependent upon the mass loading of the gas stream and its effect on sampling
time. There are three major criteria to be met to match a sampler to a particulate
stream:
1. The sampling period must be long enough to provide a reasonable
averaging of transient conditions in the stack.
2. The loading on a given sampler stage must be low enough to
prevent re-entrainment.
-------
20
3. The sampling rate through the sampler must be low enough to
prevent scouring of impacted particles by high gas velocities.
For these reasons, a sampler with a comparatively low sample rate must be used
in a gas stream with a high mass loading. The low sample rate allows a longer
sampling time, although in some situations it will still be undesirably short.
Conversely, in a low mass loading situation such as a control device outlet,
a high sample rate device must be used if a significant amount of sample is to
be gathered -in a reasonable amount of time.
Listed in the following charts are techniques that are available for making par-
ticle size distribution measurements. Be aware that no one technique is uni-
versal and as such some cases may require a combination of the known techniques
to collect the necessary particle size distribution information. Also the
selection of the measuring technique will depend on the influences of the factors
listed above.
The procedures presented should yield good quality data at most sampling sites.
Situations will occur where the information gathered will not be applicable and
a suitable procedure will have to be worked out. The key to performing a suc-
cessful fractional control efficiency evaluation is thorough planning that is
based on a complete pretest site survey. In general, the presurvey work should
be done using the techniques available f«r stack-testing. Decisions should be made
for each testing device as shown (for an impactor) in the following table:
IMPACTOR DECISION MAKING
Item
Basis of Decision
Criteria
Impactor
Loading and size estimate
Sampling rate
Loading and gas velocity
a.
b.
If concentration of particles
smaller than 5.0 urn is less
than 0.46 gm/am3 (0.2 grain/
acf), use high flow rate
impactor (= 0.5 acfm).
If concentration of particles
smaller than 5.0 urn is greater
than 0.46 gm/am3 (0.2 grain/
acf), use low flow rate
impactor (= 0.05 acfm).
Fixed, near isokinetic.
Limit so last jet velocity
does not exceed:
- 60 m/sec greased.
- 35 m/sec without grease.
-------
21
Nozzle
Pre-cutter
Sampling time
Collection
substrates
Number of
sample points
0 Mentation
of impactor
Heating
Gas velocity
Size andloading
Loading and flow rate
Temperature and gas
composition
Velocity distribution
and duct configuration
Duct size, port con-
figuration and size
Temperature and presence
of condensible vapor
Probe
Port not accessible
using normal temperature
a. Near isokinetic, +_ 10%.
b. Sharp edged; minimum 1.4 mm
ID.
If pre-cutter loading is compar-
able to first stage loading, use
pre-cutter.
a. No stage loading greater than
10 mg.
a. Use metallic foil or fiber
substrates whenever possible.
b. Use adhesive coatings whenever
possible.
a. At least two points per station.
b. At least two samples per point.
Vertical impactor axis wherever
possible.
a. If flue is above 350°F, sample
at process temperature.
b. If flue is below 350°F, sample
at 84°F above process tempera-
ture at impactor exit external
heaters.
a. Only if absolutely necessary.
b. Pre-cutter on end in duct.
c. Minimim length and bends
possible.
-------
!L
fD
n
rt
-s
0
3
3
—4.
O
-s
o
CO
o
o
-o
fD
CO
O
Ol
3
3
-j*
3
CQ
fD
fD
O
rt
-5
0
3
3
O
-S
0
co
0
0
T3
fD
— 1
-s
Ol
3
CO
3
CO
co
O
3
O
-a
rt
O*
fli
-^
3
—4.
O
-s
o
CO
o
o
73
fD
O
fD
-^
—4
0
0
c
3
rt
fD
-S
CO
o
—^
01
CO
CO
_4.
-h
~J.
n>
-s
o
fD
3
rt
-$
—i.
-h
C
to
Ol
— • J
8-
fll
3
Ol
N
fD
-S
cr
Ol
rt
rt
fD
O
•o
rt
O
O>
O
O
rt
fD
-5
O
•a
rt
—4.
O
eo
o
o
c
fD
-S
O
<<
o
o
3
fD
fD -a
VI Oi
co o
c rt
-s o
fD -S
o
s.
•a
a>
o
rt
o
-s
o
m
co m
o — >
3) fD
rl- O
rt rt
n> -s
-s o
-*• 3
3
CO CT
fD
01
3
01 m
n- — '
rt- fD
fD <">
3 rt
c -s
a, o
rt 3
>-l>
o o-
3 fD
O)
3
•< m
«j« ^^
en fD
C 0
O> rt
— ' -S
—*•
o
Ol
-J
fD
CO
«J«
l/l
rt
CU
3
O
fD
i — i
3
fD
-s
rt
_j.
a>
— j
fD
o
o
Ol
o
cr
CO
O
£
3
3
a.
-h
-h
c
co
(JO
co
o
Ol
rt
rt
fD
CO
o
Cu
rt
rt
fD
3
03
1 — 1
3
fD
-s
rt
fli
—i
t — i
3
fD
-s
rt
«!•
fll
^J
1 — 1
3
ro
-s
rt
_i.
a>
^j
o -o
-a -s
ro -••
-s 3
01 o
rt- -••
-i. -O
o — •
3 fD
O
-s
-h
fD
O
-h
-h
I
3
fD
3
fD
O
-t»
-h
I
3
ro
fD
m
x
rt
01
O
<
fD
m
x
rt
-S
a>
o
rt
fD
m
x
rt
-$
Ol
O
rt
fD
CO
—t,
rt
n 1—1
X 3
rt
-S co
O rt
rt C
—••'—.
<
fD
3
CO
rt-
o :s
-a o
fo a.
-s fo
Ol
rt O
IN3
ro
o
o
o
ro
O
O
•
ro
o
•
-J!
ro
O
o
rt
O
en
O
o
o
co
rt
O
O
o
CO
o
CO
rt
O
O
•
ro
t\3
O
ro
O
o
CO
no
o
CO
rt
O
rs)
o
73
Ol -••
3 N
ca -••
ro 3
Ol
3
Ol
3
Ol
3
!£>
I A
O
CJ1
oa o
3~ C
co
rl-
o
o
^5
O
O
0
•
o
0
h- *
rt
O
t— '
0
•
0
o
•
o
^
1— »
rt
0
1— •
0
«
0
73 O i— •
Ol O 3
3 3 — '
to o ro
fD fD rt
" 3
rt
tO "^
^-. Ol
3 rt
CO-i.
m
^>
CO
c:
^Q
m
~^
m
"^
— i
CO
o
3
.o
c:
m
co
m
-n
o
O
M
m
o
i — i
C/)
— t
73
H-l
03
ro
ro
^o
0
c
rt
•^«
3
fD
-^
Ol
cr
c
CO
m
;o
o
c
rt
—*•
3
fD
— J
Ol
cr
c
CO
fD
^Q
O
C
rt
—4*
3
ID
— ^
Ol
cr
C
to
fD
po
o
c
rt
-^»
3
fD
— •*
Ol
cr
c
CO
fD
73
0
c~
rt
•^f
3
fD
^^
Ol
cr
c"
CO
fD
0
•o
fD
•^
Ol
rt
O
-s
cr .z
^< 0
3
CO 1
?*" -S
_.. o
— ' C
— • rt
fD -••
Q. 3
fD
£1
CO
0)
O
•o
fD
-s
Oi
rt
O
CT Z
<<. 0
3
CO 1
^" -^
-"• O
— J g^
— • rt
fD -••
Q. 3
fD
C
CO
fD
O
-a
fD
-j
o>
rt
0
-s
cr "Z.
<< 0
3
CO 1
7^ -^
_i. o
— « e
— • rt
fD -••
a. 3
fD
c
CO
fD
-t. CO
3 O
co 3
rt fD
-s
c n
3 0
fD 3
3 3
rt fD
-s
-"• O
3 -*
Ol
C — J
CO
CO 73
7f O
-•• C
— • rt
fD 3
Q. fD
O C
-a co
fD fD
Qjt QT
rt"<
O
-s
-Q
-s
o
rt-
O
(^
-a
fD
CO 73
7T O
-"• C
^ rt
fD 3'
0. fD
O C
~O CO
fD fD
co o
rt -a
Ol (D
i: ai
co rt
_i.
O
3
Ol
-s
01 cr
rt^
O
-s
-------
23
Size-Fractionating Source Samplers
Because the PM^g standard is one based on aerodynamic behavior of particles,
inertia! classification is the appropriate technique to use. The likely
occurrence of irreversible agglomeration or coalescence upon contact of par-
ticles with one another precludes the use of laboratory particle sizing methods
to determine PM^g emissions from industrial sources. Rather, particle clas-
sification on an aerodynamic size basis must be accomplished while the sample
is being taken. This can be done using either of two types of inertial clas-
sifiers, cascade impactors or cyclones. If PM^g emissions only (not detailed
size distributions) are to be measured, a single stage classifier would be the
most desirable device to use.
Size fractionating source samplers have been produced with as few as one and
as many as twenty-five stages, with each stage of the multistage devices having
a different cutoff diameter. The samplers having the greater number of stages
provide more detailed information on the aerosol size distribution, generally
have higher capital costs, and cost more to operate. Impaction type size clas-
sifiers are much more prone to errors due to overload and particle bounce than
are cyclones, consequently multi-stage operation is virtually mandatory with
them in order to insure data reliability. A sound theoretical basis exists
for predicting the performance of cascade impactors. Cyclone samplers perform
well as single stage collectors; however^ no adequate theory exists at present
to predict their behavior over a wide range of operating conditions. This
limits the use of cyclones to those which have been demonstrated by empirical
calibration procedures to produce the necessary particle size cutoff. Cyclones
with acceptable sharpness of cut have been developed and are available for 10
urn cuts but have not yet been calibrated well enough over the range of operating
conditions required for the present application to be immediately useful.
Cascade impactors are preferred for sampling of the tvpe under discussion here.
The protocol described above is generally applicable to both impactor and cyclone
sampling with details that are pertinent to only one of the methods noted as
they arise.
SAMPLING INFORMATION REQUIRED
Date
Time
Run Code Number
Sampler Type and Identification Number
0 perator
Port Number/Sampling Location
Ambient Temperature
Ambient Pressure
-------
24
SAMPLING INFORMATION REQUIRED (Con't.)
Sampler In-Stack or Out-of-Stack
Sampler Orientation
o
o
° Number of Traverse Points
0 Stack Pressure
o
o
o
o
Stack Temperature
Nozzle Diameter/Type
Probe Depth, if used
Stack Pitot Tube Delta P/Stack Gas Velocity
0 Desired Sampler Flow Rate for Isokinetic Sampling
0 Metering Orifice Identification Number
0 Metering Orifice Delta P
0 Sampler Temperature
0 Scalping Cyclone in Use? Identification
0 Prefilter Identification
0 Postfilter Identification
0 Substrate Set Identification
0 Pressure Drop Across Sampler
0 Test Start/End Time: Duration of Test
0 Gas Meter Start/End Readings: Gas Meter Volume
0 Agreement Between Meter and Orifice
0 Volume of Condensible H;?0 in Flue Gas
0 Gas Meter Temperature
-------
25
STACK SAMPLING
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Pretest Procedures
1. Method 1 - Determine traverse point locations at test site.
2. Method 2 - Determine velocity profile at test location; pick sampling
point which is the closest to the average pressure drop of the velocity
traverse. (,AP)
3. Method 5 - Determine grain/dscf of particulate in the effluent stream;
calculate sampling time and rate as follows:
a) Sampling time = Total optimum sample catch *
(grains/dscf) (dscfm)
*(350 mg)
b) Sampling rate (cfm) = k ./( AP) Pressure drop
K = 0.327 (Temp, meter) Vs (Nozzle Dia.)2 (Pressure stack)(1-%H20)(Meter )
(Temp, stack) - (Pressure meter)( Calib.)
Vs = 85.49 (CPITOT) / Temp, stack
V Pressure x mol. wt. ofgrs
stack (wet)
In performing the pretest procedures be sure to adhere to quality control
procedures to insure the validity of the test results.
-------
26
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
1. Assemble impactor and mark probe to sample at average velocity point
determined in pretest procedures.
2. Attach sample line to impactor probe and meter box and conduct leak
check.
3. Place impactor in gas stream and monitor impactor shell temperature.
Sampling shall not begin until impactor temperature has reached gas
stream temperature.
4. Begin sampling at rate determined in pretest procedure and end sampling
and time determined in pretest procedures.
5. Remove impactor and leak check at high vacumn recorded during test.
6. Dissemble impactor and weigh the stages.
During the assembly and disassembly of the sampling train be sure to follow
good quality control procedures to assure validity of test results.
Compliance Determination
With the Clean Air Act, EPA established National Standards for air quality.
The States are to achieve these standards, expressed in pollutant concentrations,
through State Implementation Plans (SIPs). These plans include emission limita-
tions for stationary sources and permit programs for new sources. With respect
to Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) matter, the emission limitations are in place
nationally and all states have in place through their respective SIPs TSP emis-
sion limitations as required by the Act. However, standards for particulate
matter with diameters of 10 microns or less are in the process of being estab-
lished. The proposed PM^g particulate matter standards are to be a 24-hour
average of 150-250 micrograms per cubic meter and an annual arithmetic average
of 50-65 micrograms per cubic meter. Also, the current 24 hour secondary TSP
standard is to be replaced by an annual TSP standard selected from a range of
70 to 90 micrograms per cubic meter. After public comments on the above
standards are evaluated, EPA will set the final standard levels for PM^Q.
The states will need to set PM^o emission limitations through their respective
implementation plans. During the interim, SIPs remain in effect-notwithstanding
the proposal of revised ambient standards. Until revised ambient standards are
promulgated and SIP revisions modifying existing emission limitations are
approved by the Agency, the existing limitations remain fully enforceable for
purposes of federal, state and citizen suits.
-------
27
- Specific Emission Regulations
It would be difficult, and perhaps technically infeasible, to develop a method
for measuring precisely that exhausted material which would contribute to ambient
levels of particulate matter caught by an ambient PM^g sampler. Stack particles
are subject to agglomeration and de-agglomeration after they reach the ambient
air, both of which affect their inclusion or exclusion in ambient PM^g . Additional
complications arise due to the presence in emissions of condensables and various
precursors of secondarily formed particulate matter. Regulations specifying
emission limits as part of PM^g control strategies, therefore, cannot be directed
toward exactly that exhausted material that contributes to ambient PM^g . Hue to the
necessity of having an enforcement mechanism, the emission limits must address
only the material caught by a compliance test method. The discrepancy between
exhausted materials that can be measured and regulated and that which actually
contributes to ambient PM^g will be minimized in the future as measurement method-
ology is improved.
In order to determine appropriate emission limits expressed as PMjg, states must
use PMio emissions data as input to dispersion or receptor modelling. The ac-
ceptable emission limit found through modelling can then become the PM^g emission
limit regulation. The terms of a PM^g regulation, such as mass of particulate
matter per heat input, per time period, per product input or output, etc., would
apply to the PM^g test method rather than" to particulate matter emissions in general,
Control Strategy Transition
Many particulate matter sources are in compliance with particulate matter emission
regulations as part of TSP control programs. States will no doubt want to minimize
any unnecessary disruption caused by going from these control programs to PMjg
programs. In some cases, the existing control strategy in a SIP will be adequate
to serve as the basis for a PM^g program sufficient to attain and maintain PM}g
NAAQS.
EPA does not believe that states will always find it necessary to model each source
or complex of sources, and prepare a whole new control strategy. EPA expects states
to build on the current control strategies to whatever degree necessary to demon-
strate attainment and maintenance of PM^g NAAQS. This may include adopting the
current control strategy in full, if it can be shown to be sufficient for PM^g
purposes, or adopting it in part. Depending on circumstances, the resulting control
strategy could contain either particulate matter emission limits or PM^g emission
limits, or it could contain a combination of both.
Source Assessment
The emission limitations have not been established for PM^g in Region V. Using
the assumption that EPA expects states to build on the current control strategies
to whatever degree necessary to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of PMjg
NAAQS, the following protocol was developed to assess a source's compliance status.
-------
28
1. A possible PM^Q emitter can be any source requiring stack-testing
to determine its emissions into the atmosphere: Potential categories
of sources which fall in this area are industrial stack and process
fugitive sources.
2. Non-process fugitive emission generators requiring an ambient monitoring
technique to determine PM^Q emissions into the atmosphere. This group
includes agriculture, construction sites, airports, etc. to name a
few .
3. Once the source has been identified and categorized a §114 letter
should be sent to the source requesting:
a. Plant process information including O&M program for
air pollution control devices.
b. Type of air pollution control device(s) installed and
its design parameters (air flow-efficiency, etc.).
c. Stack-test information including particle size distri-
bution. If no stack-test has been performed require
that one be done as soon as possible.
d. Any other information related to PM}Q emissions.
4. In the case of non-process fugitive emission generators a §114 letter
could be sent requesting:
a. The tvpe of non-process fugitive source (paved/unpaved
roads, raw material piles, etc.)
b. Outline of ambient air monitoring system and control
plan for fugitive emissions.
c. Data on PM^g particle size matter generated by monitor-
ing system.
d. Any other information pertinent to
5. Some sources may have both industrial stack and process fugitive and
non-process fugitives. In this case, use your judgement and combine
above requests.
6. Make use of your judgement and experience in all cases to supplement
the above list.
Data Evaluation
When the compliance engineer evaluates data submitted for compliance determin-
ation by a source, the engineer should consider the above "Control Strategy
Transition" discussion, and acertain the state's pertinent source category and
then proceed with the evaluation:
1. Existing control strategy satisfies the SIP PM^g requirements.
The specific state may have adopted its existing control program
to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of PM limits.
-------
29
2. The state's control strategy may contain participate matter
limits, PMiQ emission limits, or a combination of both.
Ambient PM^g standards will be nationwide, while PM^g emission
limitations for each state may vary as they do for the existing
TSP emission limitations. The source may be in compliance
with the specific state's TSP limitations but regardless of status,
would have to be evaluated for its PM^g emissions.
Evaluate the control device(s) used by the source and compare to
those devices discussed in the "Control Technology" section, to
those listed in AP-42 (when updated for PMio) and RTP research
summaries. The operating and maintenance program should enable
the engineer to determine whether the source can maintain contin-
uous compliance. Operating and maintenance manuals for ESPs,
baghouses, and other control devices have been developed by RTP
for use to support any compl iance/ non-compliance decisions. Use
these manuals in conjunction with personal judgement and experience.
The stack test should be evaluated to see if it complies with
EPA requirements. Since this is a PM^g evaluation, the stack
test data should include particle size distribution information.
If it does, the PM^g portion of tJie size consist is compared to
the specific state s PMig emission limitation and a compliance/
non-compliance decision s made.
6. If the stack test does not contain a PM^g S1ze consist, then the
generalized particle size distribution method developed by RTP
is used to calculate the PM^g size portion of the stack test
mass emission into the atmosphere using the methodology presented
below:
Example
FACT SHEET
Information Source:
June 1984 - PEDCO Draft AP-42 (Section Generalized Particle Size Distribution)
Table A -4 - Generic Category Descriptions (Pg-A-15)
Category Number 1
Process: Combustion
Material : Coal
Rating: 6
Control Device: Electrostatic Separator
Cumulative % Micron Particle Size
<_ 2.5 <_ 6 £ 10 6 to 10 Micron Size
13 25 41 16 (41-25)
-------
30
Actual Test Information
Stack Test: Test performed 9/28/83
Before Control (Inlet)(3) Test Avg. = 13,929 Ibs/hr
After Control (Outlet)(3) Test Avg. = 69.6 Ibs/hr
Average % 10 Micron Size =6
Average % 6 to 10 Micron Size = 17
Actual Cumulative % Micron Particle Size
<_ 2.5 £6 £10 6 to 10 Micron Size
17 29 36 7 (36-29)
Electrostatic Precipitator Efficiency: 3 Test Ave. = 99.6
Calculations for (6 to 10) Micron Fraction Only
Before Control (Inlet)
Average of (3) tests - Ibs/hr = 13,929 Ibs/hr (Inlet)
Table A-4 (Pg. A-15) 6-10 Micron Fraction % = 16
(6-10) Micron Fraction before Control (13,929) (.16) = 2229 Ibs/hr
(6-10) Micron ESP Efficiency (Pg. A-14)(A-3) = 99.5%
After Control (6-10) Micron Emissions Expected:
Calculated (6-10) Micron Emissions (l-.995)(2,229) = 11.1 Ibs/hr
These emissions could be expressed in Ibs/l66 BTU or other
units as required.
Using Actual Stack Test Particle Size Distribution
(3) Test Average = 69.6 Ibs/hr
(3) Test Average (6-10) Micron % Fraction = 17
Actual 6-10 Micron Emissions = (69.6)(.17) = 11.8 Ibs/hr
Cumulative Method (RTP)
Before Control (Inlet)
Average of (3) Tests - Ibs/hr = 13,929 Ibs/hr (Inlet)
0-10 Micron Cumulative % Fraction = 41
0-10 Micron Cumulative Emissions = (13,929)( .44) = 5711 Ibs/hr.
0-10 Micron ESP Efficiency = 99.55
After control (0-10) Micron Cumulative Emissions Expected:
Calculated (0-10) Micron Emissions = (1-.995)(5711) = 25.7 Ibs/hr
Using Actual Stack Test Particle Size Distribution
(3) Test Average = 69.6 Ibs/hr
(3) Test Average 0-10 Micron Cumulative % Fraction = 36
Cumulative 0-10 Micron Emissions = (69.6)(.36) = 25.1 Ibs/hr
Note that the first method calculates the PMio (6-10) fraction only of both
inlet and outlet flue gas mass concentrations while the RTP method calculates the
sum of all the low microns levels up to and including 10 microns. The emission
numbers will vary depending on the operating and maintenance procedures established
at the source, especially on those used on the controlling device. Also, the
operating collecting efficiency of the control device will affect the final
emission numbers.
-------
31
The above comparisons are based on research data gathered by RTP. Since the
calculations are empirical it is best to use the results to identify and describe
trends of possible violators of PM^g standards. Once this is established, more
information from a source can be obtained from §114 letters to develop compliance/
noncompliance decisions as to issuance of a Notice of Violation.
7. Evaluate the data submitted by a non-process fugitive emission source
by first examining the source's permit to operate and identifying the
control plan that the source has developed to comply with the PM-^o
requirements. The control plan may be designed to abate dusts that
can be airborne and thus become part of the fine particulate emissions.
The control plan should have as a minimum the following:
a. The non-process fugitive dust regulation requirements.
b. A map locating the fugitive dust points.
c. Schedule of spraying.
d. Resources to execute plan.
e. Listing and location of stationary spraying systems
amenable to wet suppression for large storage piles.
f. Diagram and location of air monitoring stations if
size of storage area warrants.
g. List of essential equipment needed to carry out plan.
h. Operating and maintenance procedures.
i. Recordkeeping procedures.
j. Program for inspection to ensure continuous compliance
including the taking and recording of visible emission
readi ngs.
Note that fugitive dust control of piled material and control of unpaved roads
or lots will differ so use your judgement in arriving at conclusions. The
compliance engineer should become familiar with the non-process fugitive emis-
sions inspection manual developed by the Region V Air Compliance Branch.
Visible Emission Observations
In any PM^g investigation be sure to include requests for visible emission
observations, since the correlation between opacity and fine particulate matter
appears to be strong. It is possible that a visible emission standard may be
established for PM^g in combination with stack testing procedures including
particle size distribution to cover the lower micron levels.
-------
32
Information Sources
The Air Compliance Branch Region V is establishing a stack test library (includ-
ing particle size distribution data) for a variety of sources within the Region.
The library is being established to support the branch in its PM^Q enforcement
efforts. The following sources are included in this manual for the use of the
compliance engineer if a need for further research is necessary.
1. Fine Particle Measurement Book (Region V Library)
2. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (Stack-Test)
3. "Inhalable Particulate" Literature by MRI
4. Fugitive Dust Source Testing Programs by MRI
5. Inhalable Particulate Matter Emission Factor Status Report
by OAQPS and ORD
6. Draft AP-42 Section - Generalized Particle Size Distributions
PEDCO (6/84) Contract No. 68-02-3512
7. An Inspector's Guide for Fugitiv£ Dust Emission Sources
Region V Air Compliance Branch
-------
PLANT A
• eion limit of 6.2 Ib/h. The flow rate measured during
t t")G ©Itl-LSSl^"*
concurrent particulate runs were used to calculate these
emission rates.
2.3 ELECTROSCRUBBERR OUTLET PARTICLE SIZE RESULTS
On October 12, a particle size determination was conducted
at the Electroscrubber outlet. As shown in Figure 2-1, approxi-
mately 38 percent by weight of the particles had aerodynamic
diameters greater than 10 micrometers, and 12 percent by weight
of the particles had diameters between 1 and 10 micrometers. The
remaining 50 percent by weight of the particles had diameters
less than 1 micrometer. _
The particle size determination was conducted using a cas-
cade impactor. Aerodynamic diameters were calculated by computer
programs contained in "A Computer-Based Cascade Impactor Data
Reduction System."* All particle size results are based on a
particle density of 1 gm/cc. The particle size data are pre-
sented in Appendix A.
2.4 MEDIA BAGHOUSE OUTLET PARTICULATE RESULTS
Triplicate particulate tests were conducted at the media
baghouse on October 12, 1983. The results of these tests are
presented in Table 2-6. The overall average emission rate of
0.0027 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) is well below
Developed for EPA by Southern Research Institute, March 1978.
2-8
-------
i;c::::;r::::
•••»*•*»«••«
• «••&• i to&»**a
• •••••• ••••••
S S S £ S 2 * I 2 S
32IS 03J.V3ION1 NVH1 SS31 IHt)I3M IB lN3D«3d
i.
Q.
-(->
u
O)
I
CM
(U
2-9
-------
train consisted of a heated glass-lined probe with a plug of
glass wool for a filter, and a series of Greenburg-Smith imping-
ers. The first impinger contained 80 percent isopropanol. A
glass wool plug separated the first impinger from the second and
third impingers which contained 3 percent hydrogen peroxide.
After the 20 minute constant rate sample was obtained, the train
was removed from the vicinity of the stack and purged with ambi-
ent air for at least 15 minutes. The contents of the hydrogen
peroxide impingers were returned to the laboratory for analysis.
3.7 PARTICLE SIZE
An Andersen Mark III cascade impactor with eight stages was
used to determine particle size distribution. The impactor,
probe, and condenser were assembled and leak checked prior to
sampling. The gas stream was sampled at a constant rate in order
to maintain a flow rate of approximately 0.6 acfm through the
impactor. The impactor was not leak checked after the run to
avoid dislodging particles. After the impactor was disassembled,
the acetone nozzle rinse and the filters were each placed in a
sealed container for gravimetric analysis. The aerodynamic
diameters were calculated by computer programs.
3-6
-------
OTALS
VERAGE
•o
m
o ov
m e
-4 0
••«
CA
X
••4
rn
•H
*4
o
ru
***
V*
•
M
Cf
M
a
j,
a
•
M
(M
•
M
*rf
»4
Z
**
•4
ooocooooo
oeoeeeee
oooooooo
oooooeoo
owAgioeooo
•^
T» «
Z O »
O •< <
• z m
-4 a
CA
X -* »
• m r-
r- a •* t~
3 1 -• 0
0 Z Z 0
x « m x
A
<-» JO »
n m «A
• 0 Z
-4 2 -
»« m
ZIP1
f\t O *^
o -•
0 O
m n
SA 0 «
JB S -n —
o • m m
z a
AI m ^i
o z «
n M CA
•» 8
O (A
(-»•-.-«
• z n
Vpr
M O
•Z 3D
r* •<
r^\ **
0 I CA
O • t)
c -^ z
-< 9
— » ^
z n e
• c z
Z C -D
**
O «—
m z
f. -> -0
• m »
m Z P)
~ Tl -4
O
*
o z
m -< •«
• Z Z
9
orn9cx)Ort-4«4* — ^ D
»• O* ADO^QZ^rvi
o m ^ M m ^ o
r*i p- O C» W C X ^ -* -<
•n m o -« <-.« A
o » •*! -• s« •- x o
-< ^ • • • <— n
» o •» z «
m z o —
9
e • • z -o o z
• .£G • AC7«« a-«O
Z o CA m CA
•• o o m c/i m
Z -n z CA z
C Z
_, ^
CA •
O
Ul 0
e
»O -<-isia
Z X w o r-
3 ^ ^ O 35 ^1 W
M -• o «« 3 — n
m z ~ — -«
U> V OCZCAfVlZ
m — z C -4 ••
_ CA •" O> Z C *
-* m ^ pfl a x **
•^ ^ • JD m m • ^
si — • "fl
z m
El
kfl Ji • 9 a •
o o 4 a • — •*!
• • — o a -*
ni
CA
m
m
p-
CA TJ
Z »
•o z
z
P-
o
p>
o
z
V O
Jt
•n
0 0
CD S
-^ m
c ao
X
si
m
m
Z
9
Z
» C
Z -4
m
z
c
3)
a
?-6d9d
C0/2I/OI
-------
o
o
o
5 5
2 n
r> o
o o
x i->
rn o
-< z
m «•
a
w »>
a
m iv
o
o
» o
-« z
PI O
o
-x
X S-
ci o
x x
o
o
3
-4
X
a
o
c
o
ci
n
U)
o
z
r-
o
o
MS
Z
o
•
T
X
i«*
n
r-
Cl
Ul
X
C7
Ul
o
X
o
X
r
0
m
o
*•*
X
n
x
o
(A
r>
X
c
X
^
z
o
l"4
)k
•
^
X
o
a
o
x
CI
•+
CI
a
s*
c
X
^
a
^
o
(0
o
Tl
w
«A
X
r
r
CI
a
•4
X
^
z
o
Ml
O
e
x
^
n
^
>
o
"11
w
X
r-
CI
a
-t
^
z
o
Ml
O
c
x
^
X
X
o
u>
n
^
s«rf
a,
X
r-
r-
Cl
a
X
»
z
o
Ml
e
e
X
^
x
>.
^
n
X
M
X
»
f-
Cl
a
•H
»
z
o
Ml
O
C
^
m
30
CI
Z
-4
O
•*
TC.
Ul
Ul
Ul
X
»
f-
r"
m
a
-4
x
O >» Ml
X Ul O
O#A
W
(A —
0 /"» X
^ « O
o» r- a
-4, r- o
> >-> X
(O A PI
ci a -4
» m
X a
gj, (j|
^ s«
(A
•4
y)
**
^
0
x
2
C
£
CI
a
l"4
x n
'O »
n n
•4 •
O
9 f
*f A
»
Cfl Ul
"^ (ifl
»
SI f~
CI O
o
«•"
z
u
VM
•
••
o
«
«
CI
1
o
CI
•4
a
x
CI
a
o
•M
•n
•
•
VM
Z
o
IM
f-
m
••
*-*
•
0
•
J«^
•"
z
•
«^
•
••
Ul
-4
»
X
T)
CI
Ul
•
•*
z
•
X
q^
IV
.0
• MO
> -4 •«
a » ci
a -«
CI -4 O
u ci a
Ul X
• •»
^^ •
z
*
X
^
et
rv> VM
« a> -4
a O M
C » »
Z jji X
z r"
c >—
x z
CI
a r*
o
r>
»
O
O
e
e
o
e
e
VM
IV
CI
a
m
t
e
ru
-4
CI
O
o
-J
CI
4>
0
o
VM
Ml
e
o
ru
•
m
»
o
IV
CI
0
o
0
CI
o
o
a
o
CI
e
o
ru
Of
-4
m
*
0
o
Ml
CI
O
O
0»
ru
o
a
m
0
ru
•
Ul
CI
1
o
VM
a
m
o
a
m
0
VM
CI
1
o
VM
Ml
Ml
CI
1
O
ru
49
CI
1
O
o
a
t
o
VM
ru
CI
e
VM
ru
a
CI
i
o
VM
Ml
CI
1
O
w
Ml
CI
O
VM
VM
CI
1
O
VM
•a
o
CI
e
VM
CI
1
o
VM
ru
CI
t
o
a
•e
CI
o
b»
VM
ru
CI
i
o
VM
0
a
m
4>
O
0
Or
a
CI
o
o
ru
CI
o
o
«
«•
ru
CI
4>
e
o
-4
Ml
VM
m
0
o
4)
Ml
m
0
o
VM
CI
e
o
Ml
9
VM
CI
»
O
o
a
*t> 00*39»
CI
0
o
a
a
ru
ct
»
o
o
a
VM
a
CI
*
o
o
a
o
VM
CI
4>
O
O
VM
•*
O
4>
O
O
VM
a
o
CI
o
o
VM
O
CI
«
o
o
0
Ml
O
er
ru
a
ru
a
t
e
e
-0
•o
Ml
Ml
Ml
ru
ru
0
a
-4
o
a
ru
VM
a o> o
9-00
CI
4>
O
O
o a
O O Ml
0 O VM
CI
O
o
ru «. —
o o a
CI
i
o
ru
«" VM
a ru -a
y o —
CI
i
o
MI ru
91 • —
s ° e
1
O
Ml
» O» «
VM O «
CI
O
Ul
« o> »
VM 0 4)
CI
O
ru o VM
« 0 »
CI
1
o
0V «4
— 0
CI
o
o
a
»
o
•n
— (a
ru ui MI
ru •
ru
CI
1
o
VM Ul
M m
a
Q
(A
r»
a ui
a
VJI Ul
Ml ^
»•
9-
CI
» Ul 0
CI
•x
o
X
" *
t.330fE*01 MG/OS
58 FILTER
• 9
Ul
X
r-
CI
s
('NlH)NOl
Ml
O
O
o
x -o
a u
m «
M iv
u>
n
o
a
c
u>
-*
a
X T "» »
K X •«
•• n x
n -« T
r- o >
ci a r
X
(M
O
O
r\j
Z O
t\> s
3 »
X X
^ ^
-j> n
-. r-
M (A T r
o o — . :
Z — -4 ;
•o x -N •
^ • o
» i x
r> •• x, '
m o n
Z x o
-« O —
x CD
O
o
M
—
-------
o
o
z
>
X
o
e
x
m
^
m
2
5
m
r>
»
o
r-
»
m
o
x
m
a
m
»
o
O
a
o
•••
z
n
•^
o
X
m
o
m
a
•
z
0
a
e
o
a
z
•«
M4
a
z
^
a
m
ru
o
o
«
»
o
•«*
&>
o
X
X
X
n
•
z
X
1-
o
f^
zg
o
*
a
»
a
»••
o
m
CA
0
CA
o
*
ru
ru
m
4>
o
wn
e
o
e
m
o
e
—
vn
m
4>
e
c^
••
_
X
x
r
a
^^
35
S>
a
^
o
X
**
m
*
o
o
e
e
o
m
e
e
M
a
m
1
o
•»
•^
o-
m
O
x
»
z
o
••
•
**
X
n
a
2
m
m
a
CA
"•
fc-
m
»
o
«*
•™
e
^
m
o
»•
••*
^
m
+
o
o
HI
o
c
X
_
a
X
CJ
CA
"
M
(A
X
1-
f~
21
X
»
Z
,^1
O
•*
a
m
i
o
1^4
U4
9
a
m
o
\M
K«
»
m
i
e
M
U*
IT
C
X
^
a
X
^
o
""
a
X
»
r-
m
*
^
^
Z
0
o
•*
m
i
o
M
—
^)
\J\
m
e
M
•"
.0
m
l
e
ut
••
41
C
X
_
CI
X
o
QI
r>
3
(A
X
r-
r~
„
X
»
z
o
Ul
e
a
a
m
+
o
0
a
^
a
m
o
0
a
ru
m
+
e
e
a
_
e
x
„
o
X
^
o
X
tf
X
»
r
m
-4
Ik
Z
O
o
a
m
*
e
e
a
a
o^
m
o
o
a
a
m
4\
e
o
a
M
C
X
^
a
o
m
jg
•*
0
^
X
CA
z
2 ? 5 I 2 2 2
a x m K n • o
^ a r" x ^ ?t
CA CA m a
•4 CA x •• ^ m ^
» m « a • —
n -n • z
. — . x
X «-
M G^
• <^
^
O
^
m
e M •• * * *
— e * — o "
^ M 91 a
a ^
x
»
o
^ •*
a
f
» r>
(A I/I
ru t
a
J£
ru
m
i
o
M
CA
M 3)
a
x
0
CA
n —
- f
T
X f!
o »
x x r c » =
-^ ^ m s o «
e «« -«
t/> n o -< o T
•< f m m T i~
-• m z x =
— 01 -e n *
3 g « • = «
»
m
»
O
x
•fl X —
w I fl
»xi
n — x
m n n
z » o
en
z ""
e
i
i
f O
ru ru
o
Z f» O
ru a o
ru
i
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
ru M
n
i
e
*
o
o
o
•c
X
o
X
o
CA
n
X
i
-------
se-v
X
to
n
o
o
M
r>
o
IV
o
X X
-4
o
O
-o
o
a
o
•n
to
«
to
9
g
m
gl
M
r»
^
a
n»
co
c*
c
a
I
f
e
^
a
x
i
^
^
n
*
o
(A
X
o
r
c
y
a
x
i
o
a
to
v
n
JK
»
C*
m
a
z
z
IV
o
•4
«g
o
r-
•
o
a
•<
•o
z
ri
o
OD
^
«J
O
r
•
o
a
•K
m
a
z
o
IV
O)
^
^
o
r-
•
e
a
•*
m
Z
n
0
IV
09
t
«;
a
r-
•
o
*
"*
X
o
1-
J
»
o
«4
tort
0
z
o
a
-t
9
c*
•o
m
a
m
Z
X
o
to*
to
«4
C
a
m
o>
4;
o
I-
c
X
m
-• o
i-
» m
o o
» •<<
a
0 X
^
o -^
a m
z a
o
** <
-4 »
O 0
z a
to
•
-• O
C
w ff*
O O
a
z i
o
o »
a <
o f
x e -o a
01 x »
-< m ei
^^ ^^
a o
o ^v o
> o a
M o o «
Z » -n
X O •* —
r^ M n
-* -< ei m
o
o
•M oa a
o
z
tn
•e
O to
Z
pn
o
•o
a
a
c*
X
o
m
o
X
m
X Z -H -«
m m » M
-< -« XX
•fl
to
I
•« •»
•» r-
n »
O I
X Z
a x
M m
E
I
>. M
M
u> o
-< -• z
X
a -<
m m
to »
en x
I
\
i
iv M rv ru -«
IV
ui
Jl » Ut
e ui in
IV
o
a
»
M
IV M
x r>
X X
X X
t I
X X
C0
r>
x
t»
n
X
i
5
X
t
X
I
I
-------
Z M »
-« u
o
•* !•
»
«
O
M P*I »
v » » «•
o o r>
m at x M
z »
-< J» o x
i o -a
rv»
z o
01 TI
D—
-* r>
r>
n
m
CA
o r» ~«
o -«
z
C*
rvi
en
a
s
c/i
a
«
n
z
-------
a-v
I
•a
r-
— o
9- c
o
c
z
^
o
0)
X
o
m
» x JB
-4 m n
-« m
CA i" z
ei -< o
m I m
z a —
r»
e -•
* o
w r-
•e
O X
Z
d
C X
wn •»
— a
z
o c»
o
(A
X
>*
CA
en •»
m o
X
»
M
C0
X
c/t
O
CA
o
I
x
X
x
m
X
(0
-. f-
» o
z »
a o
» <-<
30 Z
O 0)
n •»!
c o
X O
m x
o o
a «
» z
o «
X -«
m r"
~ z
o m
to
n x
Z •"
x r-
ot f-
en a
m »
— X
O
X
en
-4
»
en
o
-4
m
o
o -<
O X
m CA
n —
o
z o
•n X
— m
r>
— •«
m »
z a
r> ^H
•< <^
n
o r-
rn f*
•n CA
»*
z o
a »
z o
n o
X X
o
X
o
X
o
X
o
CA
n
M
X
n
»
r~
o
•
X
»
CA
o
x
*•. n
en >
n
c
o
z
CA ffl
o o i
» » Z
e J» z n
x o -«
— tn o
ro so o *
x m —
— x
• CA
o
(A
r»
X
ru
M
O
(A
Ul
•4
II
CA
CA
L/l
O
T)
o
CA
O
X
o
X
x
O
CA
O
n x » -*
c » r> a
CB r1 -« ^
«.r- e »
o •• » r-
*i r
x x • x
m » »
-» X O (A
m (A C CA
30 a
-. -B -> a
x •*» •«
e » a »
CA r> o »
n ^ ^ -<
x c »« —
• » n n
— r- » i-
x r«
O » CA
C r>
a —
m z
X (A V
*» X
x -e
si f »
x X
» <
n o o
X vr-
~ -« c
X
»
» o <
I c m
-• « z
O
O 3 71
I — 3D
z
•n
r-
m
-* CO
m ^ r>
CA m e
CA » I"
f *•
m o
» Z
O (A
•o r
c c
TJ Z
CA
I Z
ru e
99 'Jl
» »
r x
n m
f i~
a a
c o
CA »
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(A JO Z
-4 X CA
» O
z CA -a
o n m
» •* JB
3D •-
O»
I
I
I
i
-------
9- • •
01 »
•n n rt
z » »
O >4 <4
o a
45 •* -H
iv
M (•
-• -* ^
Z » »
o z o
z o x
m »
CA a o
o o
o z
•n o o
o *•
I2-<
o o —
«• •- a> iv
a- o M
e z J<
u> -o
I
SI
o
z
o
SI
o
o
f
o
r*
a
o
ei
o
o
z
X
o
o
si
o
x
O
a
n
o
0)
x
(0
o
•x
O
•
z
e>
m
O
•
z
Jl
•
IV
Jl
.O
m
i
o
SI
c
o
o
z
x
o
z
X
o
o
SI
c
C
a
z
x
•
n
m
o
•
m
»
Z
o
at
o
Jl
^1
M
m
CO
•D
m
JO
c
z
o
r
c
o
19
•n -n o o
e c ji z
s r e
Jl » » •— Z
eon si
m m x x
c z o
•n .e » m (0
a o
c0 ^s ^ m z
-» 3 Z X
» » m c. («
si o -H
m x z •• »
e » to e>
a -w » m
• •» ^ f
I .1 -0 O
m r- e «>
m z o
o o
ji a •- —
e « 2 <•
(/> fn u o
-i -• f>
» m » ••
u> » « e
CA t*\ r*
C — O
Z 0) Z Jl
m ce
3 e z ->
CD O <_
» 1*1 ro i
O)
c
n
c*
c
a
•4
^^
O
Jl
o
fc.
•
a
o
Z
ca
C X
•o o
> Z
— X
n M
r n
r
» z
(A Z
.^
> 3
T. —
m »
• z
si
x
IV)
n
s
o
X
o
X
c
z
o »
z -«
en
(A
CA
Crt
n
C
la
(A
X
e
m
C0
a
z -• ->
si r T
x » m
•3 Z
Cfl O
o -. c
x o »
X C -*
» * —
o r <
•^1 m rri
« CA
r -o z
r r »
x •*. -j>
ecu
si o
»
3 O
Jl "
e z
z s
» n
UI
UI T
X »
< a
(A
C
2 CA
— Z
z z
r>
x o
o »
z z
-------
PLANT B
Orsat Sampling Procedure - Boiler No. 5
During the course of the particulate and sulfur oxide sampling,
a portion of the metered gas was continuously withdrawn at a
constant rate from the discharge side of the meter orifice into
a Mylar bag to obtain an integrated Orsat sample.
Particle Size Determination - Boiler No. 5
A single particle size determination was conducted on the Boiler
flue gases using an Andersen Cascade Impactor. This impactor
contained a cyclone preimpac-tor followed by preweighed fiber-
glass media which served as a substrate for each stage of eight
total impaction stages. All sampling was performed isokinet-
ically at a single point until a minimum of 1/2-inch of mercury
increase in sampling vacuum occurs. At the completion of each
test the Andersen unit was carefully removed from the sampling
site and returned to the field laboratory where the particulate
transfer was made upon cooling the unit to ambient temperature.
After disassembly of the impactor components, the nozzle,
cyclonic preseparator, and stage zero were carefully brushed and
flushed with acetone into a labeled container. The fiberglass
substrates were placed in their sample containers and the filter
stages were brushed and flushed with acetone. The acetone
flushings were placed in a separate labeled container for each
stage.
-9-
-------
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
115 mm and Particle Size Filters
The preweighed fiberglass filters used in this study were dried
in a desiccator for 16 hours, weighed and then desiccated for
16 hours prior to final weighing. The used filters followed
the same drying procedure. The initial and final weights deter-
mined on the same analytical balance accurate to 0.01 milligram.
Acetone Rinses
All acetone flushing solutions were placed in individual pre-
weighed dishes and evaporated at 70°F. The evaporation dishes
were desiccated for 2 hours, weighed and desiccated for 16 hours
prior to final weighing. The initial and final weights were
determined on the same analytical balance.
i
Sulfur Oxides Analysis
The hydrogen peroxide impinger solutions and water rinses were
diluted to 1000 cc with distilled water and titrated with barium
perchlorate. The complete analytical procedure is found in
USEPA Method 6 and 8.
-10-
-------
m
OJ
U
CQ
S
3
Z
tag
U
r-J
r-l
O
«
05
o
En
CO
H >*
rJ Z
3 <
CO Cn
EU 2
DC O
O
H
CO CJ
U r-l
H 05
Z H
zoo
O t-i U
r-l H r-l Z
CO < W t-l
CO H CO
rH CO Q Z
r-l S Z O
En1 H < O CM
O5 W COCO
CU U W CO r-4 ON
03 H 05 < ST-I
S< HO
3 J CO •> "
Z O Z ZO
U H O OfO
W r-l Z CO CO
rJ H 3 rH t-1 U]
P3 Oi O Q O Z
«_) i E 5-i CO
CO M O Q
Cn
3*
0*
rH Z
En En
O
in co
CO Q
O
3
O*
f-i 5-i
En X
•^^
E w
CO X)
Q) r-l
4-1
CO
4_)
W •
(U O
HZ
VD CO CM -3-
r>. co m m
ON ON ON O>
• • • •
r-l TH iH TH
ON 00 T-l CO
• • • •
-3" T-l \O . r» r^
.M
i
T-l
%^ CM oo m
ON <)• r^ o
CO 00 vO CO
»» »S M M
r^ co T-I <}•
OO 00 00 OO
>>
o o o o
O 0 0 O
m o o m
MAMA
vO Kt ON vO
^o r^ oo r^
T-l TH TH T-l
(U
60
CO
V-i
TH CM CO 0)
>
<
En
O
0
I--
w
CM
ON En
•O
ON O
CM f^
•» A
CO CM
4-1 ON
3 •
CON
}-l -r-4 CM
OS
U •«
CO 5-i 4_)
5-i
5-14-15-1
En CO a
# * X
* *
•is
-12-
-------
6
m
«•
a
in
PS
CO
32
*"">
Z
p^
to
t— 1
o
pa >-
•^
OS <
O P-"
ft, 2
o
CO O
10
H 0
< >— *
^ZH
ZOO
O 1-1 CO
t-i H .-I Z
to < u >-i
to H to
1-4 CO Q Z
CN S Z O
CO H < O CM
OS u to co
tO CO tO CO t-l ON
tt HDS <3r-<
Sj e 3 ^ co
cd CO O ***•* ^U
a. P^SI
0)
iJ V*
CO C
3-H V4
U U) M 3
i-l W "O O
JJ-H CX
VJ 6 3
CO tO O
P^ P-.
-X
3 -i
"0 3
.-I C 0
CO 31
0 0
o a*
JJ
« •
V O
HZ
• ^> )
•^ r>. O •••>•»
ON QN ON ON
CN CM CM CM
.
(U
60
co
V4
T-l CM CO 0)
>
<;
E
CO
CO •
O (U
T3 -^
O 4)
•H O
}J 0)
0) W
CL
V)
4J CO
Q)
UTJ
C
ej 3
JC. O
•U P,
fcOV.
C o
•i-4 CX
3 3
•°s
V4 ON
3 «
O O
u
ox
en eg
O C
H O
CM T3
. QJ
v£> V)
T-l CO
T-l PQ
* -X
-13-
-------
Company:
Application:.
3 * Particle Size Distribution Data:
1. Source:
Ma-
2. Method of Determination:
3.
Particle Diameter
(Microns)
3.e I -
2.40 -
- 2..4O
-0.7*
•< o.ffo
g
0.7
Percent In SizRange
0'3-i
I.ZS
Cumulative Percent
Less Than
7 14
40.13
I *?. ft,
3. S"?
-------
J
TABLE NUMBER 4
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION RESULTS FROM BOILER NUMBER 5
BLOUNT STREET STATION
MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.
MADISON, WISCONSIN
JUNE 30, 1982
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
m
m
M
M
Test
1
2
3
Average
Pounds Per
Dry Standard
Cubic Foot
0.0001386
0.0001575
0.0001585
0.0001515
Parts
Per
Million
833.6
946.7
952.6
* 911.0
Pounds
Per
Hour
726.8
792.3
776.8
766.3
Pounds Per
Million Btu
Heat Input
2.091
2.280
2.235
2.202
1
1
m
j
I. 7li(7}/0
'.">$ 3 v/o
777.7
-15-
-------
Table No. 3 presents the particle size distribution for Boiler
No. 5. Fifty percent of the particles were larger than 8.7
micron in size. The 5, 10 and 15 micron size distribution was
determined to be:
31.57. less than 5 micron
55.07o less than 10 micron
69.07o less than 15 micron
Table No. 4 gives the sulfur dioxide emission test results in
terms of pounds per dry standard cubic foot, parts per million
pounds per hour and pounds per million Btu heat input. The
sulfur dioxide emission concentration averaged 0.0001515 pounds
862 per dry standard cubic foot and 2.202 pounds S02 per million
Btu heat input.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The average particulate emission rate for the tests on Boiler
No. 5 was 2.084 pounds particulate matter per million Btu input.
The average S02 emission rate for Boiler No. 5 was 2.202 pounds
S(>2 per million Btu heat input.
Report prepared by:
Victor W. Hanson
Director of Air Emission Studies
-16-
-------
PARTICULATE SAMPLING DATA AND CALCULATIONS
>nt n&J>/-*o*> (:?/)&%•££&•
'JTZ/c.Co. Source £>a/t-&'& fl/i> O
£ate &/3O/82. Clock Time O82t- &?• '&?
A. Test Number
B. Stack Dimensions
C. Stack Area, Sq. Ft.
D. No. of Points Sampled
E . Total Sample Time, Min.
F. Nozzle Diameter, In.
G. Nozzle Area, Sq. Ft.
H. Calibration Factors:
1) PitotTube, C
2) Gas Meter, y p
I. Barometric Pressure
In. Hg.
J. Stack Static Pressure,
In. H2O
K. Stack Gas Temp. , °F
L. Avg. Sq. Rt. Vel. Head
M. Avg. Meter Temp. , °F
N. Avg. Meter Press., "H20
O. . Meter Vol., Actual
Cu. Ft.
P. Meter Vol. @ STP,
Q. Liquid Vol., H2O Cond. ,
Ml.'
R. Vapor Vol. , H2O Cond. ,
@ STP, Cu. Ft.
S. Total Gas Sampled,
@ STP, Cu. Ft.
T. % Moisture in Exhaust Gas
1) At Test Location
2) Before Collector
U. Dry Gas Comp. % O2
%C02
%CO
%N2
P-/
6S.£"*/3l"
00 6/.66I J
4Z
01 &4.
jfc/2LZ«>
02 4, 000346,+ f
03 /). 8225-
04 *T- S&Z*
P-Z
Jo
Jo
Jo
Jo
4/0
^
Jef
29. 3 'S
*
*f7d.4
0.&6?
//*.&
07743
44.77
40.3S
76,3
J.Ct
43.37
&.Z
&
&.£
•&8
-3o/>0tf
&/*£
W-/+*
P-3
J*
do
J*
J0:
-------
SWAISSUJN t,iN V
PART1CULATE SAMPLING DATA AND CALCULATIONS
Plant }lAOtso/J
Test Number
V. Density & Mol. Wt. - Stack Gas:
1) Dry, @ STP, Lbs/Cu. Ft. __
2) .Wet, @ »,"/"" __
3) Wet, @ Stack, " / " " _
4) Mol.Wt., @STP,Lb/Mole _
- BLOW^ST" Source
PI
a, 04 &l
1|| W. Weight of Gas Sampled:
1) Dry Gas, Lbs.
2) Wet Gas, Lbs.
3./7S
X. Total Wt Particulate Collected, 18 <£
Grams
Y. Avg. Gas Velocity, FPM.
Z. Stack Gas Flow Rate
1) At Stack, Qa, ACFM
2)AtStd., Qstd, SCFM
3) Std. Dry, Q^, SCFM
AA. Percent Excess Air
9
ft 7. 3 94
BB. Concentration Conversion Factors:
1) 50% E.A., After Collector lt_L43_
2) 50% E.A., Before Collector ^
3) Moisture Before Collector \
CC. Particulate Concentration: Total Particulate
1) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Actual /• 7^8
2) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Dry* S.82.1-
3) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Wet**,
@50%E.A.
4) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Dry*,
@50%E.A.
5) Grains / DSCF***
6) Lbs/Hour
DD. Percent Isokinetic
^./co
734.9
M,
PZ-
O.0773
0.0748
. 3
S3. 041-
/.099
/.as-?
2,048
* Dry = process moisture included, moisture added by collector excluded, if ap
**Wet = actual moisture as measured after collector.
***DSCF = is under totally dry conditions, all moisture removed.
NOTE: STP =29.92 "Hg., 70 °F. Sheet 2
-------
PLANT C
IK/
1
N V
, _-»
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Stack Number 15
Boilers 4, 5, 6 and 7 Operating
Run Number
Stack Flow Rate - ACFM
Stack Flow Rate - DSCFM*
\ Water Vapor - % Vol.
% C02 - % Vol.
% 02 - % Vol.
% Excess Air @ Sampling Point
Particulates
Probe, Cyclone 5 Filter Catch
grains/dscf*
grains/cf @ Stack Conditions
Ibs/hr
Emission Rate calculated using an
F factor of 9780 dscf/million Btu
- Ibs/million Btu
Emission Rate calculated using an
Fc factor of 1800 scf/C02 million
Btu - Ibs/million Btu
1
385,058
225,644
9.3
11.1
7.8
57
0.1028
0.0600
198.8
0.229
0.238
2
381,032
222,814
9.3
11.8
7.5
54
0.0871
0.0507
166.2
0.190
0.190
3**
389,211
224,935
10.4
11.7
7.6
55
0.0996
0.0574
192.1
0.219
0.219
* 29.92 "Hg, 68°F (760 mm Hg, 20°C)
** Soot blowing occurred during test.
83-79
-3-
MULUNS ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING CO.. INC.-
-------
C
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Stack Number 15
Boilers 4, 5 and 6 Operating
Run Number
Stack Flow Rate - ACFM
Stack Flow Rate - DSCFM*
% Water Vapor - % Vol.
% C02 - % Vol.
% 02 - % Vol.
% Excess Air @ Sampling Point
Particulates
Probe, Cyclone § Filter Catch
grains/dscf*
grains/cf @ Stack Conditions
Ibs/hr
Emission Rate calculated using an
F factor of 9780 dscf/million Btu
- Ibs/million Btu
Emission Rate calculated using an
Fc factor of 1800 scf/C02 million
Btu - Ibs/million Btu
4
309,077
176,635
6.8
9.6
9.6
81
0.3137
0.1786
474.8
0.811
0.840
6
304,943
177,349
7.2
10.2
9.0
72
0.2733
0.1584
415.3
0.671
0.689
7**
308,691
177,773
7.9
10.4
8.7
68
0.3236
0.1857
493.1
0.775
0.800
* 29.92 "Hg, 68°F (760 mm Hg, 20°C)
* Soot blowing occurred during test.
83-79
-4-
• MULLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING CO., INC.-
-------
Particulate emissions were calculated from gravimetric analysis using
only the "front-half" collections from the EPA-type sampling train.
The particle size samples were taken using an Andersen In-Stack Particle
Sizer utilizing fiberglass substrates.
83-79
-9-
> MULLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING CO., INC.-
-------
PARTICLE SIZE DATA
Run No.: 1
Date: 8/19/83
Time: 1510-1525
Location: Stack Number 15
Plate Filter
Number Number
1 11-416
2 I -318
3 11-415
4 I -317
5 11-414
6 I -316
7 11-413
8 I -315
F 10
Particle Density*:
Velocity Head:
Stack Temperature:
Molecular Weight:
Stack Pressure:
Nozzle Diameter:
Orifice Head:
Sample Volume:
Meter Temperature:
Sampling Rate:
%I:
* Assumed Particle
83-79
Initial
Weight (g)
0.1586
0.1412
0.1576
0.1420
0.1589
0.1404
0.1581
0.1408
0.1857
1.00
0.90
343
29.05
29.09
0.183
0.60
6.327
101
0.728
102.9
Density of 1
Final Increase % of
Weight (g) (g) Total
0.1612 0.0026 17.5
0.1430 0.0018 12.2
0.1611- 0.0035 23.6
0.1438 0.0018 12.2
0.1613 0.0024 16.2
0.1406 0.0002 1.4
0.1586 0.0005 3.4
0.1411 0.0003 2.0
0.1874 0.0017 11.5
TOTAL 0.0148 100.0
gm/cnr*
"H20
°F
Ib/lb-mole
"Hg
inches
"H20
scf
°F
cfm @ stack conditions
.00 gm/cm .
Mill 1 INS ENVIRONMENTAL TPS1
Effective
Cut-off
Cum. Diameter*
% (microns)
100 0 >12 6
82.5 12.6
70.3 7.8
46.7 5.3
34.5 3.6
18.3 2.3
16.9 1.1
13.5 0.71
11.5 0.48
0.0 <0.48
-------
Cumu]ati\c Percent Less Than
1
9.
8
7
6
2%
10 15 20
PlRCfNTAGE
40 50 60 70
IE
80 85 90
95
98%
i
. 9
8
. 7
. 6
5.0
PROBITS
-------
Job No.
Job
PARTICLE SIZE SAMPLE DATA
r-^J?'**?'
Run No. /
Location
Unit Tested ^J^
•r?
MZL-
MW:
P :
Plate Filter No.
F
8
7 7T-4I3
5"
o^K Ib/lb mole
T-3/f
"Hg
AP:
V-
V-
V-
V-
mm.
in.
"Hg
End
Start
V :
m
Date:
Port f4
Point No. 21
PJ_ate_ Filter No.
6 :x
s j£-
4 J ~?/7
» is
Plate Filter No.
3
2
1
X-3/2
fpm
in.= 100
Vs Tt
x 1 x
D
1039 x ( 74.3 +460)
Ts
scfm
AH; 0.7O
Meter Temp.
Dry Gas Meter IN OUT
AH
0.70
Time
Avg:
ft
m
Calibration Factor
m
17.65 x
13.6
'std
scf
46°
m
std s
x ( 34-3 +460) x 29.92 x
13
cf
stack
Particle Size
(528) ( -Z3.CA )
Ps
V /j
Flow Rate: mstack= /Q,JJv> = ^
T
1039 x 6,32-7 x <&>^
d
?, 72^? =cfm @ stack
SoZ'9 \
/ -7 .«_
7 O -1 " i^
conditions
/
%
-------
PARTICLE SIZE DATA
jn No.: 2
ite: 8/21/83
me: 1350-1405
scation: Stack Number 15
late Filter
mber Number
1 11-420
2 I -322
3 11-419
1 I -321
5 11-418
b I -320
11-417
I -319
; 9
tide Density*:
ocity Head:
ck Temperature:
ecular Weight:
;k Pressure:
zle Diameter:
rice Head:
sle Volume:
^T Temperature:
">ling Rate:
;sumed Particle
83-79
Initial
Weight (g)
0.1592
0.1423
0.1604
0.1417
0.1594
0.1425
0.1591
0.1407
0.1870
1.00
0.78
367
29.13
29.07
0.183
0.50
6.009
72
0.696
104.2
Density of 1
Final Increase % of
Weight (g) (g) Total
0.1640 0.0048 11.3
0.1500 0.0077 18.1
0.1711 - 0.0107 25.1
0.1472 0.0055 12.9
0.1620 0.0026 6.1
0.1451 0.0026 6.1
0.1602 0.0011 2.6
0.1421 0.0014 3.3
0.1932 0.0062 14.5
TOTAL 0.0426 100.0
gm/cm3
"H90
°F
Ib/lb-mole
"Hg
inches
"H^O
scf
°F
cfm @ stack conditions
.00 gm/cm .
Effective
Cut-off
Cum. Diameter*
% (microns)
100 0 >12 8
88.7 12.8
70.6 8.0
45.5 5.4
32.6 3.7
26.5 2.4
20.4 1.2
17.8 0.73
14.5 0.49
0.0 <0.49
i«j/-» r*n I..1J-. ^
-------
1
9
8
7
6
2-
10
9.
8
7.
-> 6
n
§ 5.
_
r4±
9
S
7.
6
4_
o.i
Cumulative Percent less Than
PtKCENTAGE
10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 90
Eaznii-Jii:
j_
d-4 4-1
4-4-
•i-
w-
[.!-._
95
98%
Hr
71
11
p'4-
_UlJl_
iiiili
*:
ff
•lit
trzr rnn
,
IT!
fr
"4!
M
^JIl
i
nn
la
•rrtrtzi:
,,—4
Pdi
Pa
ill
I •
in :.
irr
—r~~~7 TT T
?ffn:
Sfft
i-rr^
Size
^- -I- -r
- —| 1
"Lir
-|-T
:f$
r-
:1^
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
PROBITS
5.5
6.0
I
. 9
. 8
-... 7
.....6
. 3
1
— 9
-..8
— 7
.-6
...5
-4
— 2
— 1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
-1
6.5
7.0
-------
PARTICLE S'ZE SAMPLE DATA
Job No.
Job Name /^f.
Location
P
•f\ j^xy *
No. De-
port Q_
Point No. Z-
Hate: £
Filter No.
Unit Tested S*4^.^ >t/o. /.T
Plate
F
8
7
' /X lb/lb mole
Hg
MW:
V-
Cp:
V-
V-
Pb:-
"H20
mm.
in.
"Hg
Plate
6
5
4
Filter No.
-2*i
m ^ , I . =
std/ mm. -
V,
AH:
Plate
3
2
1
Filter No.
3.3
fpra
Md Ps
Vs rt
1039 x
+460)
End
Start
Dry Gas Meter
m
V = 17.65 x
Calibration Factor
• ZZ5
/ 0-So
ttoL + 13T
\ It. + 46°
Meter Temp.
IN OUT
ft
AH
, OOj scf
m
stack
"std 's
x ( 76 7 +460) x 29.92 x 1
(528)
m
Particle Size Flow Rate: stack
MJ
Time
/36""0
c£
=cfm 8 stack conditions
1039 x
-------
PLANT D
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
AVERAGE
INLET
OUTLET
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE,°F
HEAT INPUT,MMBTU
STEAM FLOW, POUND/HOUR
GAS VOLUME FLOW RATES
ACFM
SCFM
POUND/HOUR
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
GRAIN/DSCF
POUND/HOUR
POUND/MMBTU
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY,%
OPACITY,%
335 333
96.42
82,555
60,336
40,283
183,882
60,986
40,853
186,190
0.1679
54.43
0.56
0.0264
8.69
0.09
84.28
< 5
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
il Copy Watermarked
Your Protection
-------
F. TRACE METALS
Determined by Atomic Absorption Method
G.PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Determined by the use of Cascade Impactor in the outlet
stack. At the inlet section the particles were collect-
ed isokinetically and analyzed for particle size distri-
bution by an electroni sizing device.
H. MOLECULAR WEIGHTS OF GASES
Integrated gas samples were taken during each test using
an integrated gas sampling train. The samples were ana-
lyzed for its composition by Gas Chromatography. To check
the gas composition on site, grab samples were taken at
regular intervals and were analyzed using Fyrites and
Draeger tubes. Oxygen was "continuously monitored using
a Lynn Oxygen Analyzer.
'u, DISCUSSION
The averaged test results are summarized on the first page
of the report.
During the testing period the Boiler steam flow was main-
tained at approximately 82,000 Lb./Hour (See Steam Flow
Chart). The average coal burning rate per hour are as
follows:
POUND/HOUR HEAT INPUT
MMBTU
Test 1 8,046 101.87
Test 2 7,579 . 95.96
Test 3 7,594 91.43
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
-------
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
•Us
TEST NUMBER
OUTLET
MICRON SIZE
13.6
8.6
5.6
4.0
2.5
1.3
0.8
0.54
0.30
INLET
MICRON SIZE
13.6
8.6
5.6
4.0
2.5
1.3
0.80
0.54
0.30
COMMERCIAL
PERCENT
Test 1
18.94
30.69
54.62
72.42
85.24
90.45
-93.58
97.52
100.00
70.28
76.11
86.55
92.40
95.20
97.05
98.50
99.41
100.00
ABOVE STATED MICRON
(BY WEIGHT)
Test 2
19.41
42.62
57.39
68.78
76.37
81.01
83.96
88.18
100.00
68.02
75.25
85.40
90.05
94.11
97.85
98.75
99.50
100.00
Test 3
20.33
42.32
58.91
75.92
82.76
88.98
91.26
92.96
100.00
76.10
83.20
88.05
90.75
94.25
97.15
98.01
99.10
100.00
TESTING & ENGINEERING CO.
ial Copy Watermarked
>r Your Protection
-------
PLANT E
sample probe was brushed and flushed with isopropyl aiconoi ana
the flushings placed in a separate labeled container.
Orsat Sampling Procedure - Boiler No. 6
During the course of the particulate and sulfur oxide sampling,
a portion of the metered gas was continuously withdrawn at a
constant rate from the discharge side of the meter orifice into
a Mylar bag to obtain an integrated Orsat sample.
Particle Size Determination - Boiler No. 6
A single particle size determination was conducted on the Boiler
flue gases using an Andersen Cascade Impactor. This impactor
contained a cyclone preimpactor followed by preweighed fiber-
glass media which served as a substrate for each stage of eight
total impaction stages. All sampling was performed isokinet-
ically at a single point until a minimum of 1/2-inch of mercury
increase in sampling vacuum occurs. At the completion of each
test the Andersen unit was carefully removed from the sampling
site and returned to the field laboratory where the particulate
transfer was made upon cooling the unit to ambient temperature.
After disassembly of the impactor components, the nozzle,
cyclonic preseparator, and stage zero were carefully brushed and
flushed with acetone into a labeled container. The fiberglass
substrates were placed in their sample containers and the filter
stages were brushed and flushed w.ith acetone. The acetone
-9-
-------
flushings were placed in a separate labeled container for each
stage.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
115 mm and Particle Size Filters
The preweighed fiberglass filters used in this study were dried
in a desiccator for 16 hours, weighed and then desiccated for
16 hours prior to final weighing. The used filters followed
the same drying procedure. The initial and final weights were
determined on the same analytical balance accurate to 0.01
milligram. ~~
Acetone Rinses
All acetone flushing solutions were placed in individual pre-
weighed dishes and evaporated at 70°F. The evaporation dishes
were desiccated for 2 hours, weighed and desiccated for 16 hours
prior to final weighing. The initial and final weights were
determined on the same analytical balance.
Sulfur Oxides Analysis
The hydrogen peroxide impinger solutions and water rinses were
diluted to 1000 cc with distilled water and titrated with barium
-10-
-------
NO
w
CO
2
£3
z
OS
to
,_]
4-H
O
CO
oS
0
ft,
CO
f— t >-l
•-J Z
3 <
CO 0-
to s
OS 0
u
H
CO CJ
tO t-H
r^ fuj
ZH
zoo
O •— i to
HHH JZ
CO < W 1-1
CO H CO
I-H CO Q Z
TH 3E Z O
U H < CJCM
OS U COOO
CO tU U CO i-l ON
CQ H P* ^ 3 TH
S ^ H C3
13 i-J CO •. •.
Z3 ZZCN
O HOOCNl
W hH Z CO CO
*] C_4 ^ j^ ^^ [J
CQ OSO Q Q Z
« J < O
H P-« W S S *~J
w •
Oi i-H W
4-»
tO C O8-S
^H OOO
3 -r-lOm
O W TH (§;
•H yi^~~
4J ••-! • 4J
V4 E (A CU
0)
4J !H
(0 C 0)
r-l O Pi
3-H >-i
O W W 3
••H in -O O
4J -r^ COS
V. E 3
to w o
Pu P-,
0)
JJ
CO C
t-H O"*^ •?*
3 ••-( w *
O 05 C -X
•H 05 -H tt.
4J -rH CO CJ
^ E 5-i CO
co tO U Q
PH
3
O -Js
r-l -i«
[t, 22
(A,
w C_>
CO CO
U Q
3
0
t-4 W
J2
E "^o-
co W
flj .O
4J rH
CO
4-1
cn .
(U O
HZ
ON O O O
ON ON "^ TH
CM > r^ r^- r^
*
NO 00 ON <^t
ON TH r~» vO
TH CO CM CM
r • • t
TH TH TH TH
TH TH ON r>-
TH CM OO O
CM O TH 00
«*»•*%*>
Q% OO O^ 00
\O ^O ^O ^O
o o o o
O O O O
m o o m
»»•%«.
o m CM CM
ON ON ON ON
TH TH TH TH
0)
00
CO
TH CM CO
U.
O
O
r^"
r>
CM
ON Cn
•0
ON O
CM r^
*> »<
o; CM
4J ON
3 •
C ON
rJ -i-l CM
OS
J-l
CO V-l 4->
rJ 0> O
GOP-. O
0) tl4
4.) 4-J
C 0) 0
fr, X3
3 3
O O O
I-H -r-l
tl-( rd ~O
3 >-•
EO CO
CO "O
u -o c
4J )-i CO
CO CO 4-1
T3 CO
E C
O CO S*»
V-l 4J rJ
b CO Q
* •!« *
•£ •)«
•K
-12-
-------
vO
U
«
s
OS
U
OS
o
CO
U
H
CU
s
o
o
z
o
I—I
CO
CO
OS
U U
s <
o
J H
« as
HCU
a:
§s
r-l U
H -J
< W
CO Q
z
H<
UJ
w co
OS <
HO
CO
z
HO
Z CO
OQ
-3 <
PQ S
CO
z
o
OCM
cooo
Z Ov
O CN
CO
rH U
az
3
o
0) 3
4-1 >-l 4-1 4-»
CO C OH
4J
CO «
cu o
E-i Z
TH vo r^ co
TH CO O>
• • • •
TH TH TH TH
vO vO vO vO
CM CM CM CM
^
CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO
• • • •
co co co co
co co co co
iH rH TH TH
•>•«•••<
CO CO CO CO
CM CM CM CN
(U
00
CO
TH CM CO 0)
>
S
•
E
a.
NO
o
4-1
E
CO
0>
14-1
O
"O •
o -^
l-i CU
CU >
Q.-I
CU
4J (J
CO 0)
0) 1*
(0
CU CO
f* ^^
4-1
•o
CO C
C 3
•H O
5-i Cu
3
•a >j
0)
-a a.
(U
C 3
V-i 4J
3 03
m
ClJ TH
VH CO
-------
higher heating value of 11,315 Btu per pounds of coal, as
received.
Table No. 3 presents the particle size distribution for Boiler
No. 6. Fifty percent of the particles were larger than 9.7
micron in size. The 5, 10 and 15 micron size distribution was
determined to be :
29.57, less than 5 micron
50.27. less than 10 micron
65.0% less than 15 micron
Table No. 4 gives the sulfur dioxide emission results in
terms of pounds per dry standard cubic foot, parts per million
pounds per hour and pounds per million Btu heat input. The
sulfur dioxide emission concentration averaged 0.0001575 pounds
S02 per dry standard cubic foot and 2.256 pounds S02 per million
Btu heat input.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The average particulate emission rate for the tests on Boiler
No. 6 was 2.848 pounds particulate matter per million Btu input.
The average S02 emission rate for Boiler No. 6 was 2.256 pounds
S02 per million Btu heat input.
Report prepared by:
Victor W. Hanson
Director of Air Emission Studies
-14-
-------
Application:
1
i
Particle Size Distribution Data:
1. Source:
2. Method of Determination:
Particle Diameter
(Microns)
Percent Ir. Size Range
4.83-7.23
3,31 -4.83
2 JO- 3.31
7.63
Cumulative Percent
Less Than
44.35
3L.7Z.
Q.-7I
'
13. 77
4,34
O.tff-j.07
1,17
0.31
0.30
-------
*c
us
Test
Pounds per
—. Standard
Foot
1
2
3
Average
0.0001667
0.0001502
0.0001556
0.0001575
j
-4
1
1
i
pounds
Parts ?er
Per Hour
753-"
Pounds Per
Million Bt
Heat Input
__- — - — •
1002.2
903.1
935.6
«/. i r\
__ — •
691.8
613.2
646.0
650.3
2.643
2.343
2.468
2.256
-16-
-------
Clock Time jOlS^l!!
A Test Number
Barometric Pressure^
^k Static Press -
. stack Gas Temp-,
Avg.S
-------
o »r^-vj.>owi>i 11,11 v
PARTICULATE SAMPLING DATA AND CALCULATIONS
plant
£Lgg
Source
1) l)ry Gas, Lbs/
2) Wet Gas, Lbs.
X. Total Wt Particulate Collected, 18_
. Grams
Y. Avg. Gas Velocity, FPM.
Z. Stack Gas Flow Rate
1) At Stack, Qa, ACFM
2)AtStd., Qstd, SCFM
3) Std. Dry, Q^, SCFM
„ AA. Percent Excess Air
BB. Concentration Conversion Factors:
1) 50% E.A., After Collector
2) 50% E.A., Before Collector"£"
3) Moisture Before Collector
1) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Actual
2) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Dry*
3) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Wet**,
@50%E.A.
4) Lbs/1000 Lbs., Dry*,
@50%E.A.
5) Grains / DSCF***
6) Lbs/Hour
DD. Percent Isokinetic
p-l
s:
0.077*
A. 0-7 52.
6.0+3 +
2.9.36
4..003
4,19+
rs:
//C7Z.
r /. ISO
/. 04-6
tal Particulate
2. fte
2.ZCS
2.ZL99
2. 4&0
I.I 96
70 &• L
1 03. -S3
P-Z
0,0775"
a.e?S'/
0. 0493
29.99
4,031
4.Z33
4>+4&od
/fflC.4-
meats'
-73, 7ZO
4>8,02./
6Z.&3
f
1<07C
/. 135"
f.OSO
2.313
2.1-30
2.490
2.. &ZS
I.3I&
~768.&
/0&.03
?-3
G'O77z
4.075"
A. 019
SL9.9/
3, 9?t
4. 1 £6
4.2803
18 S3. 1
) 14, £4;
*74j St>.
A 9. Ifi
™ /- T-
7s:/ 6
/,/s-/
/,£f7
/.01-9
ZZS/
2.34Z
2.tt/
2. ,740
Ii2.79
7£"ff.Z
/03.4**
* Dry = process moisture included, moisture added by collector excluded, if applic;
**Wet SB actual moisture as measured after collector.
***DSCF = is under totally dry conditions, all moisture removed.
NOTE: STP =29.92 "Hg., 70 °F. Sheet 2 of'
-------
I I
OJ
3
CO
Ol
s
o
o
o
IO
10
-
2
XI
£
0
cn
cn
00
X|
O
t—f
»»
D
M
cn
,~
4k
•—I
ro
cn
3
A)
4k
•xl
ft
cn
cn
4k
co
O
CO
to
ro
o
CO
XI
4k
O
cn
cn
ro
O
jt
xl
o
£
to
cn
CO
4k
O
5
In
O
Z
O
—
t— •
ro
t-»
o
ro
to
•VJ
O
ro
to
ro
o
ro
to
O
cn
\>
3
ro
30
00
o
ro
00
to
4k
n
3
9
4k
ro
ro
cn
cn
O
00
N>
00
CO
00
00
4k
CO
CO
cn
co
CD
cn
4k
O
CO
to
CO
CO
cn
00
^j
^j
*•
to
to
00
03
ro
4k
OJ
O
IO
cn
co
to
^
^t
ro
to
iro
ro
4k
ro
w
ro
ro
4k
cn
ro
*"
"en
cn
»_>
cn
4k
XI
IO
—
4k
cn
Jl
^h
•
m
2
o
ro
ro
co
4k
00
cn
i— «
O3
cn
to
CO
o
-g
»— i
ro
§
o
ro
cn
CO
cn
ro
ro
V.J
cn
«o
to
p
t—*
O
s
cn
i— i
p
to
i— i
to
o
to
ro
o
o
cn
ro
Ek
1
Ck
U1
3
I
J\
JO
tk
O
J1
cn
«k
1
XI
1
oo
Jj
•N3
XI
03
CO
vo
1
ro
x»
1
03
CO
to
ro
03
CO
CO
ro
03
CO
.
1
=>'
rt>
00
1
3*
n
r*
<
UD
•
^*
••^
to
**
B*
*"
-
_,
•™*
~
0)
§
ta
CO
•
i
i
t
i
i
-------
T Z
H*
•
O
i
o
b
co
ro
4k
fe
jtV
5
O
•
CD
en
vo
CO
BACK-UP]
FILTER 1
o
ro
o
o
00
o
ro
i— >
CO
00
p
o
0
o
00
en
O
o
o
0
p
o
o
o
1
0
CO
4k
en
i
o
oo
en
VO
oo
-*
p
ro
ro
4k
O
O
ro
CO
o
en
0
*
o
o
O)
en
•vj
CO
10
CO
•
en
O
p
Lj
4k
en
i
O
•
en
VO
00
o
•
CO
en
p
Oo
en
vo
00
0*
p
ro
ro
|»»^
"
o
ro
ro
00
oo
o
*
o
o
t— >
00
Cn
ro
~
CO
vo
o
en
i
o
VO
en
en
O
en
O
p
CO
en
00
v,
0
ro
ro
CO
vo
p
ro
CO
CO
p
o
o
vo
oo
*-
00
vo
ro
en
o
1—*
p
vo
en
en
i
t— •
3
o
•
VO
in
en
p
CO
en
vo
00
~
O
ro
ro
VO
p
ro
CO
ro
CO
o
*
o
g
ro
en
ro
CO
en
s
^
"f,.
%^
ro
i
ro
•
i— •
en
i^
•
ro
p
CD
en
vo
00
w
o
ro
ro
*
o
ro
CO
0
o
1— «
ro
oo
—
en
in
co
vo
en
ro
ro
*fs.
^^
en
i
CO
VO
en
ro
t
in
o
CO
en
vo
00
*
0
ro
ro
ro
vo
p
ro
CO
CO
p
o
•— i
o
ro
vo
vo
o\
en
o
en
CO
^
vo
in
i
CTt
O
VO
CO
vo
en
O
&
VO
CD
H
0
ro
ro
ro
ro
p
ro
CO
p
b
i— •
•— •
ro
CO
en
vo
00
2
en
O
vo
en
i
vo
en
en
en
o
UD
o
CO
en
vo
CO
PREIH.
FACTOR
_
CO
^.\
oo
^
CO
vo
o
p
o
vo
CO
CO
•^
vo
t-t
CO
VO
in
en
vo i-k
en g
4k •
en »^
>§
o 2
3C 9^
a
0)
i
^**>1
— »2
M m
"?
i*
M H
^
90
S|
»g
• O
B M
CO
-»S
i
8
a M
^k^ (kJ
|§q
" §
CO
(SI
c
cr
r
£
I
V3
sj
I
bo
-------
-------
^
CO
co
ro
*—•
cn
cn
V
VO
vo
4k
O
^J
cn
CO
ro
,_
cn
cn
CO
to
to
to
~
tn
ro
ro
cn
to
00
o
b
0
tn
to
p
o
o
VO
O
b
VO
VO
VO
tn
cn
v» £^L»
t^ CD CD
^ to CO
CO CO CO
4k 4k 4k
Cn ^ 4k
-
ro »— •_>
* W f*
O O 0
•sj ro 4>
tn -j oo
oo cn ro
- tn to )—•
i— • tn cn
O o o
\y\ o^ ^fi
ro co ta-
tn to co
Co *- cn
r* ^ r*
co oo co
to cn «—
CO O -»J
co ro Co
OJ
«— •
V
cn
•— >
vo
p-
4k
to
O
b
o
•ft*
*
p
b
o
0
b
^^
VO
vO
tn
CD
^ SpS>>
•^j CD CO
co CD co
4k tn 4>
vo •— > cn
ro •—>•—•
V V W
ro H- o
O ro >j
O cn tn
Cn 4k O
1— * VO 1— >
Co cn ^j
pop
cn cn cn
f*. oj y)
co ro 4k
4* VO 4k
r* r* r^
CO CO VO
vo tn co
^- O cn
cn co 4k
Co
ro
00
1— •
tn
ro
ro
to
tn
cn
O
8
tn
•**
0
8
VO
4k
0
O
VO
VO
VO
tn
0
vo vo
"ilk ro«~ ro —
^^ Co co
co to
CO CD 00
to co ro
4k CO VO
ro *- •-•
no H- O
ro ro vo
4k vo cn
cn ro to
ro ro vo
4k ^
0 O H-
VO VO O
^j *- ro
H- ^j cn
ro vo *-
ro ro ro
~-J CTv VO
cn co o
vo cn «»j
vo ro o
CO
to
cn
£
ff
•
£
W
Dl
$1
a
f\ W
Ql **
^3
g
P ff
""V W
81^
^J<
rti O
an
o tf
•
tf
cn
ro
cn
H—
i— >
tn
O
8
cn
ro
O
b
0
VO
O
b
ro
ro
VO
vO
cn
P
u)
CU
M» $
3 I—*
Q p
Srt
O ^^
H,b
pi
£*
W* H-
a o
*0
H-
o
ff
ff
M
H
(D
rr
fl?
8
M-
tJ
ff
Ft
o
*^
cn
c
0
30
><
o
"J
5
M
2
r
>
n
*"3
W
J
^"3
s
c
t*
cn
p
?
c
«
r
/
cr
o
O -J
H-T
IE
• I/I I/I
rt O
O O
i 3 3
3 -O
rt C
cr
co
m
-------
Z I
II
rt ft
-o
3
I
r-o
•-•
s
t— >
o
en
t-t
§
ro
o
4>
0>
O
1— >
•VJ
en
00
o
vo
CO
ro
CO
o
en
4k
4k
4k
co
o
2
co
co
co
O
^
^k
a\
4k
CO
0
CO
ro
O
O
CO
co
CO
en
o
o
en
CO
o
1— >
en
en
o
i— •
4k
O
I— >
ro
CO
o
co
*-
i— •
oo
t-f
t— •
^
ro
vo
ro
en
ro
to
ro
en
ro
vo
0
ro
CO
CO
ro
CO
CO
1-^
ro
CO
\D
4k
4k
en
•vj
00
,_,
en
^4
ro
fi\
Wl
t— '
to
CO
4k
(T\
V/1
00
en
^•4
00
4k
VO
eo
ro
f.\
\AJ
4k
CO
CO
co
00
^L
•*••
lO
r*
<
tO
*
-t.
s
••4
r*
CO
^^
O*
ro
ro
• >^
ro
-
ro
CO
o
c
W
co
-------
\i
i
i
I
i
i
i
I
-------
*
I
H-
n
ST
S*
g
i
s
J
1
o
o
VJ
4k
^
M
§
0
\0
0
ro
BACK-UP)
FILTER |
o
ro
H«*
CO
4k
O
ro
ro
ro
0
b
o
00
VJ
t— i
VJ
4k
O
8
o
b
0
o
i
o
•
CO
co
1
o
\D
O
ro
-4
O
ro
ro
VJ
"
p
ro
CO
VJ
ro
o
o
o
<^>
en
ro
00
ro
*
VJ
4k
p
CO
CO
M-A
O
•
en
00
ro
O
A>
A)
0
VO
O
ro
Ot
O
ro
ro
ro
en
O
ro
CO
ro
<^>
O
b
0
CO
CO
*
vo
0
ro
4k
en
O>
O
*
en
8
•
o
VO
ro
en
O
en
00
ro
O
•
VO
o
ro
~
o
ro
ro
VJ
00
O
ro
eo
•vl
0.
O
b
o
VO
00
eo
ro
ro
co
00
4k
p
VO
ro
en
i
i— •
•
p*-
ro
00
p
vo
ro
en
O
•
VO
0
ro
g
co
ro
vo
ro
CO
•vl
en
i
CO
VJ
CO
ro
CO
VJ
en
O
•
vo
O
ro
M
O
ro
ro
en
O
p
ro
CO
CO
p
§*
i— »
o
vo
co
VJ
en
i— •
•vJ
CO
VJ
co
1
en
vo
CO
03
CO
*
•vl
CO
4k
0
VO
0
ro
H
o
ro
ro
en
4k
O
ro
CO
co
4k
O
b
o
00
0
o
00
0
00
o
en
vo
CO
O3
1
VO
^^
en
O
en
vo
CO
00
O
VO
o
ro
PREIH-
FACTOR
»-«
4k
t-f
t— •
4k
CO
t— '
O
b
ro
CO
CO
I—I
0
vo
C*
8
VO
ro
en
O
vo C*
roS
en *~
o
> o
o c
3
2
9
i
^* 4
~3
Pi 9K
c
-»CD
MM
|l
rs
H S
M
H
i8
^?
^E
8
3 3
& 9
a 2 S
*5 ^9 ^*
H M
O
c.
co
y
n
L/>
T
n"
ro
oo
i
00
CO
ro
MPACTO
V?
\
N
KJ
co
ro
co
i
i
1
I
L
-------
X
CO
OJ
ro
VO
VO
O
^
f*-
en
CO
ro
i— >
en
en
CO
OJ
OJ
OJ
~
tn
ro
ro
w
en
OJ
CO
o
o
o
tn
u>
o
b
o
vO
£»
o
b
vo
vo
vO
tn
o>
^M* MJ
( 1 1 1
^ g£sU gg£*
ra oo oo
«*>«*>
09 00 00
4> 4k 4k
en -vj A
"
ro >— >-
bob
•>j ro 4k
tn ->j oo
00 en "ro
; tn oo >—
i— tn en
o o o
en en en
ro co i— i
tn to CD
Co ^- en
• • a
00 CO CO
u> en i—
Co ro oo
oo
OO
~
tn
?
oo
O
b
o
o
8
00
p
b
VO
1°
tn
00
<^nj *° *°
•^ w» co>^
•fn oo oo
^^ to oo
00 CO 00
•*" ** d5
vo *— • en
ro •_ H-
ro T- b
gro -vj
tn tn
tn 4» o
t— • VO 1— •
co en ^j
pop
O** CT> CT^
*h u> tn
cj Ni ^
^^ WD *^^
r' r* t^
CO CO VO
vo tn co
i— o tn
en oo 4»
Oo
ro
CO
;-
tn
ro
ro
00
tn
on
O
8
tn
O
1
*
O
b
VO
vO
VO
tn
O
VD VO
^^S™" ' '
^C» ro— ro —
^ CO CO
oo u>
CO 00 00
oo Co ro
4k CO VO
ro i— >—
* * *
ro K- o
ro ro vo
-tk vo tn
cn ro to
ro ro vo
•— • 4» ->J
P P *"*
vo VO O
->/ M- ro
>— -vi en
ro vo ^-
ro ro ro
•>j en vo
cn oo o
vo tn >j
vo ro o
OO
OJ
,
t?
IB
-°|
•
0
n
B>
a^
P
n tn
^^ i »
0<
H» O
S
ff CT
\ Bl
rti O
A3
•
.^
^*-
tn
ro
en
w
1— 1
tn
O
. 8
cn
ro
O
b
o
VO
P
to
ll
i
o p
ft*
5ft
tn o*
O rr
sz
•0
n
•Q
**-
ET
M
(D
rt
•o
03
O
H-
XJ
ff
pr
n
g
cn
c
j|
»
><
O
V
M
0
C
r
*^ >
pj
1 -
v
c
cn
$
-J. ISI
* et o
to 3 3
O
O
ro
ro
VO
vO
cn
>-> vt
o* 22 S'
^ 3-0
O rr C
en cr
"^ n
C
-j
"o "
H-O
«P O -5
8«
-------
i
«*-
Ol
3
c-t-
I
oo
4k
1— •
1— •
ro
O
£
i
i
i
i—1
4?
ro
V£>
00
en
en
O
4*
CO
o
o
ro
4k
CO
o
VO
ro
O
CO
o
co
4k
§
co
ro
4k
4k
(O
O
^,
>— •
O
s
o
00
4k
CO
en
ro
V£>
O
i— •
ro
0
i— •
ro
en
O
t— »
M
ro
en
ro
10
ro
en
"
ro
V£>
0
ro
00
00
ro
00
00
ro
00
UD
en
ro
3
t— >
CO
ro
en
lO
en
CO
00
00
eo
eo
eo
en
»-**
00
eo
CO
^j
o
eo
i— •
CO
CD
cn
•— *
0
ro
<*
t— •
O
ro
m
eo
en
ro
o
en
00
en
*— *
»-*
en
4k
eo
eo
00
eo
O
eo
ro
o
eo
p
en
en
CO
_^
en
en
CTI
>— •
i— •
^•t
eo
4k
en
00
ro
CO
CO
CO
01
o
ro
i— •
CO
eo
§
O
o
00
o
l-w
o
eo
eo
i— >
0
0>
ro
en
CO
p
o
4>
4k
CO
CO
ro
1
in
0
1— •
eo
eo
o
i
•— i
en
0
ro
co
eo
en
i
en
0
eo
vo
i
ro
CO
i
00
eo
ro
00
00
eo
CO
i
ro
00
I
03
eo
vo
i
ro
03
1
co
eo
eo
ro
00
*
^
i
3
ft
00
3
n
•39
•^
CO
^*
3
fO
rt
eo
o
eo
eo
co
eo
01
§
R
W
co
I
"I
-------
1
o
o
en
vo
^
^
«.
O
--
o
•
CD
VO
BACK-UP
FILTER |
0
•
ro
i— •
O
to
p
ro
i— >
ro
O
§
t— <
00
ro
en
VO
o
o
o
o
8
o
,
o
•
eo
eo
VO
i
o
00
VO
-4
O
•
ro
vo
4k
O
*
ro
ro
in
to
O
8
in
vo
00
00
ro
ro
en
vo
P
ttJ
vo 1
i
0
•
tn
S
0
eo
eo
vo
0
*
CD
VO
OV
o
•
ro
ro
ro
O
ro
ro
vo
0
o
o
o
en
vo
o
to
»— •
fc»j
i—*
tn
O
en
CD
CO
i
O
«
VO
to
en
o
en
00
CO
o
CD
vo
VI
o
•
ro
ro
tn
O
ro
to
VO
O
o
0
vo
4k
O
tn
ro
*•*
00
ro
o
vo
CO
en
i
t— <
•
^-
4k
en
0
VO
to
en
o
•
CD
VO
-
0
•
ro
ro
ro
to
O
ro
eo
ro
4k
O
O
0
1— •
en
»-»
o
eo
en
CD
4k
4k
en
i
ro
•
to
VO
VO
4k
4k
en
o
CD
vo
t*
o
•
ro
ro
i— •
i— •
O
ro
eo
ro
en
O
O
t— •
tn
-
•^1
^
vo
n
o
o
ro
vo
vo
.%
•^j
en
en
rv>
co
vo
UD
0
CD
vo
M
O
•
ro
ro
4k
tn
0
ro
to
to
to
o
8
00
eo
i— <
tn
en
00
•
en
eo
en
i
in
vo
CO
t— «
to
•vj
tn
O
•
CD
VO
>-
O
•
ro
ro
to
p
ro
ro
vo
4k
0
0
O
CO
1— •
ro
,_.
•-
00
to
K- >
en
CO
1
Lf^
•
JJ
T>
CO
in
VD
o
CD
VO
PREIM-
PACTOB
t— '
•
4k
O
ro
en
4k
O
O
o
o
o
4k
4k
en
tn
CD
VO
to
ro
vo
Jj
c
vo
to JT*
en g
co «,
> Q
n C
3 >B
S
••
l
^^ *%
-S
-a
-p
£3
M
o K
SB
Q 5
I8
MM
*O N
ii
«•«
M
es
i
8
fc 3
•t ^) M
3 M
» <
to
to
•o
0|
MJ*
O
to
VO
I
ro
oo
oo
eo
to
-------
-------
V4^ VJJ
s^
N*i^
^
CD
co
ro
on
9
vo
VO
4k
O
"•4
4k
on
00
rvj
l^
on
on
00
CO
CO
co
K-i
en
ro
ro
CO
CO
0
b
o
en
OJ
O
b
o
VO
4k
0
b
t-1
VO
vo
VO
en
on
V» f^ ^t»
J-^ °*ti\ ®°^i
Vc, 00 00
^ eo co
03 00 03
4k 4k 4k
ro *- t—
o o o
en ->j oo
« • w
oo on ro
: en co •->
O O O
Cn On en.
ro co ^*
en ' • * oo
03 •— • On
k- k- »~
00 00 03
co on t-*
» O ^J
co ro CD
CO
CO
en
i— •
VO
^b
CO
O
1
*
o
b
o
GO
p
b
VO
VO
en
CO
_ \n u^
Vj^ft 1 1
f ' ^ v ^ »^^3
Tf" &*&* ^°^i
^Q C0 °°
^O* ^^ (^j
CD co co
4k Cn 4k
vo k~* On
ro i-> •-•
ro *- o
O rs> -^»
O en en
<• * *
en 4k o
fc— VO 1— •
^*^ O^ ^J
0 O O
on on on
4k eo en
i .\ f\^ ^^
4k VO 4k
t— k-> i—
03 CO VO
vo en co
>— o en
on co 4k
CO
ro
00 —
i— *
en
ro
ro
co
en
en
O
8
en
4k
O
b
o
**
p
o
H"
VO
VO
VO
en
O
VO VD
"^ rs>— ro*-
~r ^tSi'jJ^
^ 00 OO
co co
00 OO 00
co co ro
4k 03 VO
ro *- >-
ro »— o
ro ro vo
4k vo en
on ro eo
ro ro vo
k-> 4k ««4
O O •—
vo vo O
««j »— ro
(—• >j on
ro vo >-
ro ro ro
»-j on vo
on co O
vo en «»j
vo ro o
CO
co
On
B
16
o ffl
^5 '*!
8?
in
Fl<
3 J*-*
C
s
a
V. S-
ft^
g* -_
n o
1
pi
\ 3
Vt |T
H» O
a s
o 2
pM
T^
\n
ro
on
*J_
*— *
en
8
o ^»«
ffg.
c
1
O
8
on
ro
p
b
O
vo
__
o g
ft r^
«
pi
^s
S|
1
o
ff
5
i-j
M
"
*n
^
(0
O
H-
O
5
H
CO
G
|
*<
O
•0
V
J
M
n
G
f1
H
W ^
\
^
cn
en
*
s
cn
c
5
(n
g
n
rr
3 ^ "*"
H^» W VI
v+ f* f^
0 O
CO 3 3
O
O
ro
ro
h- VI
CT 25'
H- 3 -V
0 p* C
on er
"3 n'
C
i/i
Ms
*tf
-j
vO
VO
on
W= 1
r**^ ^
Jjl o
*» 0 -J
s're
3 o
-------
i
J. .
00 O
rf C
fD in
fD rf
^^
OO
<—< c
3 TJ
O-TJ
c -s
rf in
•s in
>< W
3
rf
in
Mri,
3
r*
3-
fD
t«H
-5
O
3
QJ
3
Q.
1-^
1— >
m
X
r* 0)
fD 3
3 O.
0.
fD 73
0. C
-s
m oi
Oi
•^ 73
C O
0) O>
n- o.
— '• (/)
o
3
O
-tl
er
3
•o
<
fD
O.
30
O
o>
o.
m
-o
c
3
fD
1— '
ID
00
ro
-n
fD
r/"
-s
c
o>
-!
><
I—"
00
^^
o
00
*n N o>
0> fD rf
0 ->•
rt- OO O
O -0 3
-S fD
in n
^.
— tl — t)
o —
-i n
c -o
3 0<
n -5
o rf
3 —
rf n
-5 C
o —
— ' Of
_- rt-
fP fD
O.
m
•-t 3
3 _.
O. in
C m
in -<•
rf O
-5 3
O>
— '
m
T3
C
IO
c
in
cf
t— i
IX!
00
t— '
00
^j
P^
fD
3
0-
fD
•5
j_j
**&
CO
CO
WD
*— i
-5
C 3 3
f<">
— *» Oi ^"
n- 3 c
< — i
fD OO rf
rf — -
m fD *c
3 fD fD
^« •— »
in O
in -o c
a«J* «^ •
rf fO m
— ? 3 — •*•
O O
— ' 00 3
O in
m c
< -5
01 n
— ' fp
c
i
m
2
rp
in
O
c
-s
n
n
co
o
0)
-5
Q.
C
.*— 1
«<
1— '
ID
00
O
O
n
r+
O
CT
fP
"^
t— '
05
CD
OJ
00 -»J
— t -D
3- O)
f^
5O O>
O
— J 70
OJ
-tl
"X?
-fr Oi
CO -3
•w* .^.
n n
c c
^f Q;
c <•*
-5 rp
— < pn
3
^? <«^*
-5 in
O>
-5
T3 fD
-5 cr
->• -5
^•^ C
Ol
1— > -5
ID ''^
00
O 1— '
ID
CD
O
C- D
C fD
3 ("*)
fD fD
3
t— ' CT
ip f^
CO -5
|— J
1—
^D
00
ro
en
_
3
0 -i. -5
— i fD <
fD
•™l* C
•3 yl ^1
— rf S
3 — J'
,O ™" h V*
-5 l/>
V^ O ^*
030
C 3
-s s:
o rp -n
fD in o?
in cf n
rp cf
-s o
3 -5
in
oo
c -*>
1 O
-ti "5
Oi
n -n
fp C
(Q
1
m
•n
o
3
cf
-s
O
•^
>
to
fD
3
n
c
•^
(— '
IX)
ID
Z
O
fD
3
o-
-5
1— i
ID
00
t— '
cn 4k
— I t— i
OJ -5
oo n -n o
f* O C 3
C 3 CO
*< f^- f^ 5
m --• a.
<
jg n? ^^
--. r»-
zs m fp
~-* 3 ft>
3 w .
CO in
in -o
-n -i. — '
c o cu
CO 3 3
cf m
--• < O
fD — ' (t
c^ 3
m o>
3 cf Vi
_«. _.. O
in O C
in 3 -s
_. o
O fD
3
in
2 m
_.. -a
O 3
— ' fD
— ' in
C O
cf cf
->• Oi
O
3
C C
3 3
fD fD
f-> 1—'
tD IX)
CO OO
c- 3
C Of
3 *<
fD
(-J
f— ' WD
i o ^j
^*J ID
vD
OJ
C
"1 •"'*
O c*"
3 -<•
<
a> rp
3
^s1
^^ CO
fP Vt
n -•
— o
3
m*~t
Cu ""^»
r» i
r*- o
^»<
3
Cf
fD
CO
-5
a
cf
fD
a.
m
"O
**
•o
-5
_«i
t— i
VD
*^j
3
0'
-5
n
3-
»— •
«^j
00
ro
0
c
-ti O)
O rf
3 -••
-*i
^D ^«
QJ n
^ Oi
fD rf
O> "•'*
O
0
a* o
a. -*i
cu o
<< c
in in
cf
m
3
rf
-5
Oi
w.
3
3
rp
3
rf
m
**
fp
•c
cf
fD
3
D-
fp
f-j
ID
•xj
tn
^
f^
M»J
«<
(— '
IX>
**J
-0
,__,
0
rp
-n <
C fD
O — ^
_i. o
rf -O
-• 3
< ro
rf
C3
C 0
cf
m
oo 3
C m
Pi -i.
fD 0
~n
a
n
r*
O
-s
in
-h
O
-5
m
•o
**
•c
-5
_/
t— '
ID
OJ
^
f~
3
fD
f-1
IX>
«^j
^&
•o
o
CO
-5
QJ
3
— M
«i.
ft-
.w^
fD
OO
•o
O
3
in
O
-5
rf oo
fD cf
in O>
rt- -5
3
IO 0
-n
«j.
3
QJ
Q. —
rf *i
fD fD
T3
O
^
rf
oo
r/"
33
O
-n
3C
C,
O
5D
3
i-^
•^
m
oo
•H
z
£75
-D
SO
O
CD
5
*^r
OO
-n
O
-n
C
t—t
—t
m
o
c
OO
—1
l/i
0
c
f-}
m
00
o
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF INHALABLE PARTICULATE LITERATURE
PREPARED BY MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Shannon, L. J., P. G. Gorman, and W. Park. Feasibility of Emission Stan-
dards Based on Particle Size. EPA-600/5-74-007, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
March 1974.
Cobb, George R., M. D. Hansen, M. K. Small, T. M. Walker, F. J. Bergman, and
H. K. Wilcox. Characterization of Inhalable Particulate Matter Emissions
from a Lime Plant - Volume I. Final Report for U.S. EPA Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1983.
Cowherd, C. Introduction and Overview for the Proceedings of the APCA Spe-
cialty Conference on the Technical Basis for a Size-Specific Particulate
Standard. March-April, 1980.
Shannon, L. J., J. P. Reider, and C. Cowherd. Emission Factors for Inhal-
able and Fine Participates. In: Proceedings of the APCA Specialty Con-
ference on the Technical Basis for a Size-Specific Particulate Standard.
March-April, 1980.
Bergman, F. J., and H. K. Wilcox. Inhalable Particulate Emissions from
Cement and Lime Plants. Third Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of
Particulate Control Technology, Orlando, Florida. March 1981.
Bergman, F. J., and H. K. Wilcox. Inhalable Particulate Testing at Cement
and Lime Plants. 75th APCA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana. June
1982.
Reider, J. P. Size-Specific Particulate Emission Factors for Uncontrolled
Industrial and Rural Roads. Final Report for U.S. EPA Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
September 1983.
Walker, T. M., G. R. Cobb, M. 0. Hansen, and J. S. Kinsey. Characterization
of Inhalable Particulate Matter Emissions from a Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant -
Volume I. U.S. EPA Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio. February 1983.
Hansen, M. D., and J. S. Kinsey. Characterization of Inhalable Particulate
Matter Emissions from a Dry Process Cement Plant. U.S. EPA Industrial En-
vironmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
February 1983.
Hansen, M. D. , et al. Characterization of Inhalable Particulate Matter
Emissions from a Wet Process Cement Plant. U.S. EPA Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July
1983.
Kinsey, J. S. , T. Walker, and H. K. Wilcox. A Determination of Fine Par-
ticulate Emissions from a Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant. Presented at the 75th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana. June 20-25, 1982.
-------
INUALABLE PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
(July 1984)
PURPOSE
The Inhalable Particulace (IP) emission factor development program is a.
joint effort of the Office of Mr Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to obtain stack and fugitive
particulace matter test data to support development of particle size emission
factors. These emission factors will be used by States in developing size
specific emission inventories for use in revising State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) for particulate matter. The goal of the IP emission factor program is
to have particle size emission factors available to the Regions and the States
by the time the revised particulate matter standard is promulgated.
The IP emission factor program is managed by the IP Emission Factor Work
Group, which is chaired by Norman Plaks. The work group comprises represent-
atives of OAQPS and ORD. The primary members are James Southerland , Monitoring
and Data Analysis Division (MDAD); Joseph Sableski, Control Programs Development
Division (CPDD); George Walsh, Emission Standards and Engineering Division
(ESED); Kirk Foster, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE); and
Dale Harmon, Robert McCrillis and Bruce Harris, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (IERL/RTP). —
BACKGROUND:
ORD recommended in July 1978 that a size specific particulate matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) be considered. Soon thereafter, a
program was intitiated by ORD and OAQPS to obtain particle size emissions data.
A task force composed of representatives of ORD and OAQPS was formed to plan and
execute a program, primarily involving source testing, to develop size specific
particulate matter emission factors for the most significant source categories.
A priority list was prepared of the fugitive and process emission source cate-
gories expected to contribute a significant amount of small size particle emis-
sions. This priority listing was necessary, since the extent of source testing
which could be done was limited by budget constraints. The full program, includ-
ing testing of all sources on the list, was estimated to cost about S50 million.
A more limited program including source testing for selected high priority
sources has cost to date almost $4 million. The selected source categories are
listed in Table 1.
The IP emission factor development program was directed toward obtaining
emission factors for particles ranging in size from equal to or less than (<_)
2.5 up to <_ 15 micrometers (urn) aerodynamic equivalent diameter. Recently
EPA has proposed a particulate matter standard that includes particles <_ lOum
EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
In the IP program, source testing is followed by the preparation of source
test reports which are reviewed and approved by IERL/ORD and OAQPS. Following
the review of each of the test reports on a particular source category, a. draft
-------
source category report is prepared. Draft source category reports which contain
the source test data collected under this program, as well as other data avail-
able in the literature, are reviewed for accuracy and are then submitted for
formal internal and external peer-review initiated by ORD. Once these technical
reviews are complete, the report is submitted to ORD for administrative review.
After this review process, the documents, containing the recommended particle
size emission factors, are submitted to OAQPS for publication in future Supple-
ments to Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42 , and are used by
States in the SIP development process.
Current Status
Individual source category reports are now being prepared for the eleven
selected source categories. These source categories are believed to be major
emitters of particulate matter £ 10 urn. Each of these reports will incor-
porate both data collected for the source category during the IP emission factor
development program and other data from EPA's Fine Particle Emission Information
System (FPEIS) and the open literature, where available.
Table 2 summarizes the status of the program as of July L984,
progress that has been made over the past 18 months.
TABLE 2. IP STATUS REPORT AND PROGRESS SUMMARY*
and the
SOURCE CATEGORY
Source Tests Planned
Source Tests Completed
Source Category Reports
Planned
Draft Source Category
Reports in Preliminary
Review (or beyond)
Source Category Reports in
Internal Peer Review
Process (or beyond)
Source Category Reports in
External Peer Review
Process (or beyond)
Source Category Reports - in
ORD Administrative Review
(or beyond)
Source Category Reports
Available for Publication
in AP-42
February
1981
Status
43
43 (100%)
11
7 (64%)
2 (18%)
0
0
0
July
1983
Status
43
43 (100%)
11
8 (73%)
3 (27%)
1 (9%)
0
0
January
1984
Status
July
1984
Status
«
i
43 (100%) 43 (100%)
11 11
10 (91%)
8 (73%)
1 (9%)
0
0
10 (91%)
9 (82%)
4 (36%)
1 (9%)
1 (92)
aPercents in parentheses.
-------
TABLE 1
INHALABLE PARTICIPATE PROGRAM SELECTED SOURCE CATEGORIES
Paved Roads
Industrial and Unpaved Roads
Iron and Steel
Metallurgical Coke
Iron Foundries
Ferroalloy
Primary and Secondary Monfarrous Metals
i
Cement and Lime
Asphaltic Concrete
Kraft Pulp Mills
Combustion
-------
-4-
Scatus Of Industrial Source Category Testing And Reports
The following presents information on the current status of each of the
eleven (11) source category reports. Target dates were supplied by IERL and
are shown in Table 3.
1. PAVED ROADS
Testing of this source category is complete. A source category report
has been prepared which presents particulate emission factors for urban roadway
categories (local streets, collector streets 5 major streets/highways, freeways/
expressways). An empirical expression is developed which relates the quantity
of particulate matter emissions (emission factors in grams per vehicle kilo-
meter traveled) to a base emission factor for a desired particle size fraction
and roadway surface silt loading. This report completed ORD administrative
review as of June 30, 1984 and is available for publication in AP-42.
2. UNPAVED/INDUSTRIAL ROADS
Testing of this source category is complete. This report has been
revised to reflect internal peer review recommendations. It was sent for ORD
external review June 15, 1984. The report presents 4 predictive emission
factor equations for estimating emissions from various types of unpaved roads.
Industrial road types for which emission factors may be estimated are copper
smelting plants, iron and steel production, sand and gravel processing, stone
quarrying and processing, taconite mining and processing, Western surface coal
mining haul roads, and rural (gravel, dirt, crushed limestone) roads. Two
industrial paved road predictive emission factor equations are presented, one
for total suspended particulate (TSP) and the other for PM]^, PM]_g and PM2.5-
3. IRON AND STEEL
The source category report for iron and steel presents particle size
emission factors for the following:
"Sinter plant windbox - uncontrolled, and controlled with
cyclone, scrubber, electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and
baghouse
"Sinter breakers - controlled with baghouse
"Blast furnace casthouse - uncontrolled
"Basic oxygen furnace (BOF) charging and tapping - uncontrolled ,
and controlled with baghouse
"Basic oxygen furnace (BOF) refining (0£ blow) - controlled with
scrubber
"Open hearth - uncontrolled, and controlled with ESP
-------
r*J
z
o
CJ
a
o.
c
a
u.
H
j— .
eo
<
z
as
£
^
T:
*— *
a
E- a
as >
o o
a- os
cd a.
2?
Cd
< 3
as a
H i-i
en >
SS
i
3
as cd
rjj ^^
tf^ Ed
as
3
OS jj
** oE
H
Cd
_J
o>
X
S
5
a-
id
5
CJ
u,
a
0,
g
CJ
oo
>^
in
*M
^^
O
00
f*^
0
00
-X.
o
£
I-J
i
CJ
co
• —
o
<->
^^
o
oo
^
0
co
**v.
in
CTv
0
a
a
a.
i
a
00
in
•~*
-•^.
o
00
in
^4
^
00
*x.
in
^
"•
oo
00
0
CO
"^n.
o
<->
^^
o
^
oo
in
,•*
0
oo
•x.
ul
-v.
O
CM
a
c.
S
CJ
CO
*x.
O
r->
^»
O
1— t
00
vA
»M
0
00
^x
m
0-T
0
a
a
«M
o
CJ
oo
"x.
0
(*•)
^*
«^
^H
00
(MM
^
SO
*x.
in
O
00
"-»
.M
oo
O
co
-^
in
,•*
^«*
r>4
••4
oo
O
fO
o
00
^x
in
0^
o
a
a
a.
r3
CJ
oo
"V»
.— *
("^
***«
3D
O
00
t/1
•w
30
m
^^
m
rx
O
CM
a
a.
%
CJ
00
\
in
•M
^S^
30
0
oo
o
txi
1
o
0
a
si
o
oo
"^H
U^
*^
"^x.
o
00
o
("^ I
30 |
•"X.
oo
«vi !
0 .
oo
^b
•^
il — CB iU I— 1
^ z H c- a
cj o z as
o *-<
5 j csS 3
c H a a
ic „ i-1 a >-t
: z a. >
a so a
E- =3 c ai
a en H
^
5 H
3 a S3
? as 3
o ' a a M
•— M ^^
i. H >
•-•s , Z en a
** -^ «srf
^- ,, >^ — 2£
:— CJ >— *
- !i ^
a i'
3 | E- H E-
a: — en ct.
< S a< <
H S i— I OB
3 -. a
en
!
&••
ctf
1 °
&.
a
0,
g
CJ
M
c_
id
^
a.
S
o
CJ
U
r^
^£H
^
ZH
g
CJ
r.-,
^
1&2
j
3^
z
o
CJ
en
a
0
PAVED R
Mi
1
CJ
a
r**
M
•J
2u
z
o
CJ
i3
i-
td
^J
3-
z
^_J
a
E-
^ J
o>
2
^
CJ
o
1
a.
•z.
3
a
2
^
j
INDUSTR
ROADS
_
a.
i
CJ
a
e-
J
M>
Z
O
CJ
Cx2
^«
«J
_J
i,
z
^J
a
CM
id
a.
Z
o
CJ
_J
Jjj
**•]
E-
en
a
as
ID
00
0
^
30
*^«.
*n
.^
•x*.
r*»
^^
Ci2
e-
M
^
§
^
a
^-i
Cd
Qrt
2^
Q
0
a
^
o
a
J
^
a
5
ai
METALLU
a.
a
CJ
a
fi— i
Id
.j
a.
O
CJ
^3
^
id
J
^
5
CJ
a
E-
a
0.
z
o
CJ
en
a
H"t
OS
a
0
Cb
1
o
CJ
a
— H
a
^
a*
Z
O
CJ
a
^*
id
^
a.
C
CJ
,f.
H
Cd
Cu
Z
O
5-
S
FERROAL
_J_)
CO
o
^
cc
^^»
u^
^^
**^.
r**
0
llj
£«l
jj
_J
^
Z
^
a
a
_:
a.
Z
0
CJ
en
^
E-
U
Z
en
O
NONFERR
a.
§
CJ
._,
CM
•d
*
2-
Z
c
CJ
ts*
^M
U
J
^
r
a
M
£_•
i:
~*
z
o
CJ
a
z
1—4
^J
a
z
CEMENT
a.
i
CJ
a
r™
•••
—3
^N
Z
3
'? ^
c«
•d
^ 2
^
o
CJ
a
H
a
^4
Z
o
CJ
£x!
H
S
U
^
a
o
ASPHALT
E
o
a
.-4
*
_'
a.
Z
q
Cd
^-1
Sd
_ J
^,
i
CJ
a
&•*
^d
L_^
i-
2^
^
CJ
_!
^
Z
Cu
=3
a.
H
as
9
^b
"^
^ %
•** M ^sj
^^* ' ^
O ', _l
"**» ' 5
o
1 ~*
.' s
L.
i.
41
U
X
O
01
O ^3
—i i a
COMBUST
aSource
-------
-6-
"Quelle-Basic Oxygen Process (Q-BOP) - uncontrolled, and
controlled refining cycle with scrubber
"Electric arc furnace - uncontrolled, and controlled with
baghouse
"Hot metal desulfurization - uncontrolled, and controlled with
baghouse
The report is being revised and is expected to be sent for external peer
review in mid July 1984.
4. METALLURGICAL COKE
Testing of this source category is complete. A draft source category
report is presently being revised. It is expected that the revised report will
be submitted for internal peer review in mid-July 1984.
The report presents particle size emission factors for the following:
"Coal preheating - uncontrolled, and controlled with scrubber
"Coal charging (sequential)
"Coke pushing - uncontrolled, and controlled with scrubber
"Push cars in both travel and push modes - controlled with
scrubber '
"Coke quenching - uncontrolled (with dirty and clean water), and
controlled with baffle
°Coke oven combustion stacks - uncontrolled
5. IRON FOUNDRIES
Testing and internal peer review of the source category report are
complete. The revised report is scheduled to be submitted for external peer
review in early August 1984. The report presents particle size emission factors
for the following:
"Cupola - uncontrolled, and controlled with baghouse and scrubber
"Metal pouring and cooling - uncontrolled
"Shakeout process - uncontrolled
-------
-7-
6. FERROALLOY
Testing and internal peer review of the source category report are
complete. The revised source category report is scheduled for the external peer
review process in late July 1984. The report presents particle size emission
factors for the following:
"50 percent FeSi open furnace - uncontrolled, and controlled with
baghouse
°80 percent FeMn open furnace - uncontrolled, and controlled with
baghouse
°Si metal open furnace - uncontrolled, and controlled with
baghouse
"SiMn open furnace - uncontrolled, and controlled with scrubber
"FeCr open furnace - uncontrolled, and controlled with ESP.
7. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY NONFERROUS METALS
Testing of this source category is complete. The draft report
presents particle size distribution information for the following operations in
the primary aluninua, copper, lead smelling, and secondary lead smelting indus-
tries. The revised source category report is scheduled for completion of
internal review by mid-August 1984.
'Primary aluminum
Fugitive emissions from a prebake plant
Fugitive emissions from a horizontal Soderberg plant
Prebake reduction cells - uncontrolled
Horizontal Soderberg reduction cells - uncontrolled
°Primary copper
Multihearth roaster and reverberatory smelter operations -
uncontrolled
Reverberatory smelter operations - uncontrolled
Reverberatory smelter operations - controlled with ESP
Converter operations - uncontrolled
Reverberatory furnace matte tapping operation fugitives -
uncontrolled
Reverberatory furnace slag tapping operation fugitives -
uncontrolled
Converter slag and copper blow operations fugitives -
uncontrolled
"Primary lead
Blast furnace - controlled with baghouse
Blast furnace fugitives - uncontrolled
Ore storage fugitives - uncontrolled
Sinter machine fugitives - uncontrolled
Reverberatory furnace fugitives - uncontrolled
Dross kettle fugitives - uncontrolled
-------
-8-
"Secondary lead
Blase furnace - controlled with baghouse
Blast furnace (ventilation system fugitives from charging
hood, metal and slag tapping hoods) - uncontrolled
Blast furnace (ventilation system as above) - controlled
wi th baghouse
8. CEMENT AND LIME
Testing of this source category is complete. Internal peer
review comments on the source category report were completed June 15, 198A-. A
revised report is scheduled for external peer review in late July L984. Particle
size distribution and related emission factors are presented as follows:
"Portland cement
Wet kiln - uncontrolled, and controlled with ESP
Dry kiln - uncontrolled, and controlled with multiclone
and baghouse
Clinker cooler - uncontrolled, and controlled with
gravel bed filter
"Lime
Rotary kiln - uncontrolled
Rotary kiln - controlled with cyclone, multiclone, ESP
and baghouse _
Product loading fugitives - limestone into open trucks
and enclosed trucks, and lime into enclosed trucks
9. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
Testing and internal peer review of the source category reports
are complete. The revised report is presently being externally peer reviewed.
The report presents particle size emission factors for the following:
"Conventional asphalt plant
Stack emissions - uncontrolled, and controlled with
cyclone collector, multiple centifugal scrubber, gravity
spray tower and baghouse
"Drum mix plants - uncontrolled, and controlled with baghouse
10. KRAFT PULP MILLS
Testing and internal and external peer review of the source category
report are complete. The report is scheduled for ORD administrative review in
July 1984. The report presents particle size emission factors for the following:
"Direct contact evaporator (DCS) recovery boiler - uncontrolled,
and controlled with ESP
-------
-9-
"Nondirect contact evaporator recovery boiler - uncontrolled ,
and controlled with ESP
"Lime kiln - uncontrolled, and controlled with venturi scrubber
or ESP
"Smelt dissolve tank vent - uncontrolled, and controlled with
packed tower or venturi scrubber
11. COMBUSTION
Testing of this source category is complete. Two source test reports
have been reviewed internally. A draft source category report is scheduled for
late August 1984. Particle size emission factors for the following are presented
in the test report:
"Utility boiler 350 mw output - oil fired, uncontrolled
"Industrial boiler - 2.5 million BTU - oil fired, uncontrolled
The source category report is expected to include particle size emis-
sion factors for the following:
"Pulverized coal fired boiler - wet and dry bottom
"Cyclone furnace
"Spreader stoker
"Overfired stoker
"Lignite coal combustion
"Other fuels
SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCE CATEGORY PMm EMISSION FACTORS
Particle size emission factors for some additional source categories not
tested in the IP Emission Factor Program have been developed by the \ir Man-
agement Technology Branch (AMTB), MDAD. Table 4 is a list of additional source
categories for which some usable particle size information has been identified
in the open literature and FPEIS . These emission factors are scheduled to be
available by the Spring 1985.
In another ongoing AMTB effort, work is proceeding in developing
eric emission factor estimates applicable to sources that have not been sampled
adequately to evaluate particle size distributions. The generic ''approach of
this work is based on the grouping of source categories by similarities of pro-
cesses and material handling operations, so that, by application of the generic
particle size distribution for the source category, an emission factor can be
estimated. A report describing the development of generic emission factors is
scheduled to be sent to selected external reviewers in the Fall of 1984.
-------
-10-
TABLE 4
ADDITIONAL SOURCE CATEGORIES FOR WHICH SOME PARTICLE SIZE
DATA ARE AVAILABLE
Automobile Spray Booth
Boric Acid Dryer
Brick Kiln
Carob Kibble Dryer
Coal/Bark Boiler
Coke/Gas Mixture Boiler
Glass Manufacturing
Iron Ore Beneficiation
Lead Battery Manufacturing
Lightweight Aggregate Industry
Phosphate Rock Processing
Rice Dryer
Secondary Aluminum Reverberatory Furnace
Secondary Aluminum Reverberatory Furnace Demagging
Steel Foundry
Wood Waste Boiler
-------
-11-
Addition Infonnation and Feedback
Further information on the status of the IP program can be obtained from
Frank Noonan, 629-5585 or Dale Harmon 629-2429. AMTB is also interested in
obtaining information from the Regions and the States concerning other source
categories and processes for which particle size emission factors will be needed
in PM10 SIP development. Source categories will be prioritized and emission
factors developed as resources and data become available.
-------
'y,
DRAFT AP-42 SECTION
GENERALIZED PARTICLE
SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
- By
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
14062 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Contract No. 68-02-3512
Work Assignment No. 67
PN 3525-67
Project Officer
James H. Southerland
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Air Monitoring Technology Branch
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING STANDARDS
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
June 1984
-------
APPENDIX A
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
A.I INTRODUCTION
The preparation of size-specific particulate emission inven-
tories requires size distribution information for each process/
emission source. Particle size distributions for many sources
are contained in appropriate chapters of this document. Particle
size information for many sources that will be of local impact
and concern are unavailable.
The purpose of this appendix is to provide "generic" par-
ticle size distributions applicable to sources that have not been
sampled adequately to calculate a size distribution. The generic
particle size distributions were grouped and extrapolated using
measured sized distributions of about 400 sources. Generic
particle size distributions are approximations and should only be
used in the absence of source-specific particle size distribu-
tions.
This appendix contains:
(1) An explanation of how to use the generic particle size
distributions.
(2) A table containing assignment of a generic particle
size distribution to particulate sources with no mea-
sured particle size distributions listed in the main
text of AP-42.
(3) A table of average collection efficiencies of various
particle control devices by particle size distribution.
(4) An evaluation of the procedure.
(5) Data on each generic particle size distribution.
A-l
-------
A. 2 HOW TO USE THESE GENERIC PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
Table A-l contains a calculation sheet to assist the ana-
lyst.
A.2.1 Uncontrolled Sources
The following instructions apply to each particulate emis-
sion source for which a particle size distribution is desired and
for which no source specific particle size information is given
elsewhere in this document:
1. Identify and review the AP-42 section dealing with the
source.
2. Obtain the uncontrolled emission factor from the main text
of AP-42 and calculate uncontrolled total particulate emis-
sions.
3. To develop the size distribution, for sources which do not
have source specific elsewhere in this document, obtain the
generic particle size distribution from Table A-2 and apply
it to the uncontrolled particulate emissions.
A.2.2 Controlled Sources
To calculate the size distribution for a source with a
particulate control device, the yser should first calculate the
uncontrolled size distribution as explained in Section A.2.1.
Next, the fractional control efficiency for the control device
should be estimated using Table A-3. The Calculation Sheet
(Table A-l) allows the user to record the type of control device
and the collection efficiency from Table A-3, the mass in the
size range before and after control, and the cumulative mass.
The user should note that the uncontrolled size data is expressed
in cumulative fraction less than the stated size. The control
efficiency data applies only to the size range indicated and is
not cumulative.
A.3 EVALUATION OF PROCEDURE
To assist the analyst in the use of the generic distribu-
tion, an evaluation system was derived based on the following
factors:
1. Integrity of the data forming the generic distribution
category.
2. Integrity of the assignment of the generic distribution
category to a specific particulate emission source in
AP-42.
A-2
-------
Although both factors were combined into a «ingle oualitv
rating, the basis for the quality rating is the intJoJiS of «,.
data forming the generic distribution cltegory (FactSr 1? TE*
generic particle size distribution, as well as the rSSL ?
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR DETERMINING UNCONTROLLED
AND CONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS.
Source name and address:
Process description:
AP-42 category:
Uncontrolled AP-42 emis-
sion factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
UNCONTROLLED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
_(units)
_(units)
(units)
Particle size, ytn
Reference
AP-42
Generic distribution,* Cunula-
tive percent less than
Mass in size range,
(units s tons/year)
1
None
—
2
3
4
5
10
Category name
Category nunber
Category evaluation
CONTROLLED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Type of control device
Collection efficiency
Table II
flcss in size range*
before control
(units* tons/jear)
flass in size range
after control
Cunulative mass
Particle size raroe, urn
Overall
1
2
3
4
5
5-10
r
* Note that unccr.trolled size data is cumulative percent less than.
Control cffici?rry dsta applies only to size range and is not cumulative.
A-4
-------
CD m o eo o o eo «_>
CM
I
a.
i
CM
I
A-5
-------
Ol
3
b
u
CM
I
-O
."B
§
4-1
J3
*U
4->
l/»
•o
0)
A)
Generic partic
u
Ol
+>
IB
Of
E
4-> 3
IB e
u
c
CM O
«• ••-
«£ Oi
to
>>
o
O)
o>
*J
IB
U
O)
e
o
«o
o
O O O O CS «C CD O O O O CD
O *n *n — • tn coco in OOOO r*.
^r r-» r^ os r*» otoi r^ in m in in 01
in o O o o Oi Q.
•*-> in c
C IB •«- •—
0 X Oi S
W «" C E
Oi -O QJ C
• U C •— O Ol
eciBOiBOc c f
O O •— f trt Z O O *» Oi
^- •*- a. *-» o — ' •*- •*- *e «_--o
*-< <-> O> VI tt *J«/1 j/»^»-^. -»-0!
I^IOL.3l^l^l^OI I/IUUOI "O t. *J
33-^^-^i.3^- O»3"BC -»-nSiB
JD J2 >«_ E O Oi^D U 0 "O Ol— U >-, C -O
§E o e E *^ oouc^- IB j= o — •
O — i« U Ol t- O J= >> t- I- — -^ -O C ^ U
U UlBOl 4^ 3 U OIIB O. Q. 1- >> C W. U «L.IB
•»->•— t/> .fl >X OL.>OliB W- VI O f f
C 4- IB C IB •— U O ^ 1- 1- C ^ ^^ — • E t-
U •*- "O Ol "D U L. S£ — UOlBlBCLi/liB33
a; c — -o «j •>- v o> £> E uua.a.i-cfift.e-'-tt-
*- 9>wiOtn »- C •«•» O««- Ol !B'OtOlOh--»-OOi*'T3^-
X f-OlOiB O O C — K. JC JC 3s iBfU.CO3
uj _/ a: 3 OB to u •— • z O cj t_> x a. a. a.io«o
A-6
-------
^^
•o
o>
3
C
13
C
o
u
^•*
CM
1
^c
0)
^^
J>3
•2
u
t
Of
e
3
I "E
+j a
•*• O
TJ •
0
CW •-»
IM V |
~z> >*
u
L.
S. WE
u
•»• in
4) (M
Of
CJ K
O ^
CTi^D
* §
10 e
c
CM O
"*£
>,
o
Ol
u
ft!
u
i.
S
c
yj ^5 ^j Q ^ Q o O O O U W ^J C& O
•
o m o m o m in in in m o in in m o
f> v0 f) to c*> «0 to to vo P»> in <-» «— • vo in
CT* C CT O O> O O O O O tf) O O O in
CMCMCM CM CM CM in ~4 CM -*
-
co ^^ CD o^ CD ^^ OR o^ c^ ^* A) ^n ^» f^ ^^ ^R
»n
^ O cs «-j
ic icieio voio«3 tf»wo ic
L.
0
^
^B C^^
O» QJ -O 10 C
C Ol C C U •*-
O C O <« Ol M
— r— O ^- «»«•»-
IS U •— O I/I U L. C7> W1
fc. O> >, U >) •— V Q G
3 C U >> U »— C3» KJO;*-'^-'-
*j-^a)w -^i«c •^•4->icJ^— *-*!)•»- co^c 4->i/> inio *-* a. o ^ w n
*^* ^? ^^ ^^ ^^ W *^ C *^" (Q ^^ ^9 ^ ^^ ^^ E ^^ 'B ^^
^ ^s ^^ ^J ^^ ^^ ^^ *^* (B ^ ^^ C C^ *^^ V^ ^ji c^ P ^^ W* (f}
C71 ^Z W ^^ OCU^)C^ CPOO ^» "*** I" *^ ^£ 'DOSE
•c >> o o •«- v. oi Q.W .« NOI s- o
C CC*JS3»^iB3*Ji- 3
IB ^* E ^BB ^"^ ^~ CP C IB (B *^" "^ C ^) *^ "*"M ^Z *** W C^ JC ^9
§C4->^C>Q>%UO
^^ ^D ^ w CD ^^ ^* ^*» ^*
IB E fl i ^j EC flc C5 IO ^^*
^3 ^^ C5 ^3 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^? ^^ «C K ^^
u. «t «_>uu. u_ ac «2 o. «
t. U. ^ "— C7>IBC71O
0) 3 C -0 ECO.
tA O O O C7^^? C
C T! C ^^ ^* CT *P *?
« **- o c u at"- o u
U 3-i- O U O C *->.— *-»
fQ (Q *^ ^~ ^ ^> ft^ j^ ^3
^O E *^ O *^ C ^i ^ o ^^
C ^ O «O W CU ^ 3 OJ
|Q(OO WL»^f0W •+*
ft^ ^* *^* ^^ ^^ ^ ZC H" jrii_
u. cy O
-------
*^^
•0
4-
3
C
•^
4^
C
o
u
^•1*
esj
i
0)
^™
JS
H-
O
3
.O
r
V)
•M
4)
wt
L.
Q.
U
J-
0>
c
4)
U
e
ee
"E
o
*
0
'I
u->
cv
v |
**
O ^
o>^
4) E
*-> 3
C
cw o
1 4"J
o. u
« 4>
WO
^^
u
o
en
u
10
u
t>
u
L.
3
O
UJUJ
m m
0 0
f"-. P*»
CO
*•*
•
VO
4J
c
o
u
*
•— • i.
IQ Qn &l
i. «•- >.
3 E »-
4-> T3
*•» ^
3 4J -O
O 41
-— •«- OJ -O
l» *••• >% 1
CT 3 U T3
Kl
C 3 i. -5
"c 4J 3
T3 0 O i—
O E OC U.
° 5
CO U W UJ CD
o O in tr» ?si
wn m m m o
«w •— • m m eo
m |A ^^ MI ^^ Al AJ AJ AJ ^^
%i^ w • *^~ w - v^ W 9f 9J W^
^^ ^W F^ ^3F tf)
• • • • •
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
C
C *C
o —
•^ V C
u 10 en •»-
>J 3 U OJ O> C 4-t
U t> U 1. «*- C U
4^ Q. (^ flQ (^ ^ ^1 Q ^J
V> k ^3 CT h, ,^5 ^» «w^ ^3
•O CX3 JO4ICEUV.
c E •- o **- i. -o — m 3 ex
*^» 3 ^ ^ 4> O ^ ^ 4)
c c T3 cn-— "O ,C—O 4->4lU.4i<0
§W Jf^ •*• ^ ^O ^—* O CX OL ^ C
(^ ^>£ W (Q 'O QB ^* &»
— »— Et) »-4-»V-O>»lrt3
en 3.a4>
(B E'O'— Ck.MO4iE'-C>—
4-> — eo««a.>s^— t-oeo
41 L. O t- 41 fc.
2 O. C> O. U- —
C» 0
u^ c\j
CO C^
tr> o
V CO
C C •— 3 W
J- U U 41 C 10
« 3 3 E •<- C
4> J= ««- v_ in Et.
wi u en 3 3
3 in C U "O C — W-
O •** f ^ *O **" fC
enx >, '-—^cc
4-» C O U X W 4i S_ — —
l« i. -O 4-> t. W U1 -O IB i—
<_) 41 C e U 4J 10 C 4) 41
4J -^ — -^- u E o O X E
T-
-------
*^^
•o
V
3
^»
«fc^
C
c
u
^M^
CNI
i
4(
41
s
h-
C
IB
cc
e
1C E
^j «^
1/1
— O
•o •
0
N V |
ft)
U
IB IB
& 1
W
"C "!
O> CM
c v|
C9 M
L. V.
O 4)
CD XI
w E
IB C
O
e
CM O
1 *•>
O. U
< 41
1/5
2h^
^
O
V
•a
u
flJ
^
3
U)
U fP CO
in (M w>
f^ GTt 00
IT) O ID
4f) CO «•
-
•— O 4> 4> ft) ft) 0) SO
••< ^^
o *^ CM n v oo
<-> c
C IB
o
u e e e
>i e 4>> * c JK
t. t. •— 4rt •*- »rt
^^ SI ^J ^^ ^W ^^ ^3
wn ««- 6 OJ U E — t.
3 ^ •»- O 3 Ol U
•0 >» fc. i. t- E
C t. t- iBCLl/l (/I (/) OJ
•«- O OJ T3 Ol ft) t.
4->O. C*OC v 0 O
IB L.OCOOIIB IB <^>Ol
O Cf ^ *^* ^^ ^^ E ^3 ^ C
*- ^s >. c •*-
Ol ^ ^s O C ^S *^ C7^ Z9 CT* ^s ^* CD
&. O»l-«— Oi-UCOCUiOC
3 > (C *~* t» iO *O *»~ ^» •*• *O ftj •»*
^^ CU TS? *O "^ T3 T5 ^^ ** T3 ^S ^D
•— eec ec«— — »-c e
IB oT?>tOocua'a>ov-^
*•> UCiBUU£O<£U'BL.
4> a/ UJ CD O O O
•
*
O O CD •— • O O
«•> — * en o> * if>
m CM «T O wf> tn
*^ en r^ ^^ ^^
o"
^ Q9 C ^^ C"^ C^ C*W **•* tf)
O «-i
^
u
cv
^^^
^ » en a< •—
IB IB C —
^•0 • ^^ *^ • ^£ ^
CX i/l U r- M 0) L.
e -o 4. w — a»
O> O T3 C O) — J- >.
*J •»- 41 IB -O -D O l-
i/> 41 t/l *-" JZ C O *-" T5
*-> t. (/> IB -^ . -^ U
(j u •<- •— »-fc.-t. -OIB —
3 C E CP IB O) 4> ^ *O ft) L. IB
^ O ft* U •» Q. 41 4) W >*-•»-
O U U»4»-^t.U.— 4> i-
CL (J«/i> Cin*'t.1*-1»-l *J
•^1/1*^ « 4-1 (B CV V- C I 1 ^- ft) »B
^•» ^^ cv ^* w E ^^ o c ^i ^* IB ^** E
IB »•— C>*«* (/I3 fc>4->3O^
^ IB O C^ ^C ^3 !k Cid ^^ ^^ ^5 CS ^^ IB 3fc
4) JT I- 3 U O
-------
^^
•o
0)
a
+J
c
o
u
— _- -
cv
1
^t,
0>
^"
JS
IB
^~
§
.0
in
j2
^2
£
"*
o>
u
4-*
i.
IB
Q.
U
^
C
Ol
u
e
ce
*E
o
0
*v|
M
IB
E
2k
in
:'
II
ie c
c
CNJ O
1 «->
o. u
^^
u
o
Ol
IB
^
^
U
u
6
CO
^•^
•
4-1
C
o
u
l/»
4-*
u
3
•o
o
a
^»
IB
i-
0)
C
*
O 09 O
C CM O
m o> wo
in o m
_•• ^ri «M
•••» QW ^^
m o m a>
WO
CO*
Ol
c
•o •*•
c t.
IB
•*- c •*•
JC — S
l« 4J C
3 — IB
u w E
^>
t— 0 C
IB i- c at i/i
•** Ol *B flJ E ^
t- c > a> a>
ov -^ u o u u
4J C •«- O 1^
IB OJ i. Oi-O U C
E * 4J C C Q.—
U U v- IB "-
IB in "- 3 4J t.
Od (jj O L. O
O
a.
O3 CD 4J 03 CJ O O O OU UUO
tn uo o in o o o o oo ooo
co ao wn ao m in tn in in wo wn wo m
wo m wn in in ir) m in m in in in in
wo aj vo m wo in in wn in wo wo wo wo wo
o «-<
• « » • •
00 CD 00 CO CO
• a>
o» o>
c « -o -a
— k C C
• • O> OI.C O IB IB
U U C Cl/l4-> OIO)
4-» 4J— •»- 3 Irt • • CC
A) O> L. U L. Ol Ol •+-•*-
3 aiUT90)C C L.. >>
* • ^^ 4^ j^ j^ *^v «^» ^ ^> ^n
tn «/iu C*IBOC c 4->>c
U t. « — Cn >, U CU 4> U C —
ttJ (U **• V> C fl^ tt^ *O O J»
tJ ^13 -^tjx:uew u a> o>»*- u 01
C CC fUC4^uOIUO>C3 "-
•^ *^ IB ^ ^ IQ *V* V) fQ (^ fO *^* C *O U
u u E *c +•* JE ^ >s t. ^ fQ c CA x
C7) uo O^ 1C* *O
Q^ l» C & O^ *** CD ^5 ^ft>E^WfO(^&w^ ^ •'• "O O^ C7)
2h^ (^v^ ^k tj C TJ3 (Q C fO & 3fQS»3'O '^ <^ **• W IB C
Li •*• t» **•• •*• C L» *O 1 &» ^^ t fl^ 17 i* 2*^ f CU O W *P*
O4->^Og>fr>O X U IB tJ 4rf(_) i. 1^ »— OX
CV IB 1* t* ^^ ^^^^ ^ *^ *B ^-* C' ^ C 4^ *^
"3t 1. O C3 I/I C
(U •— O O *-
(_, (_> (_>(_» O
A-10
-------
*^^
-o
&>
3
C
*•»
C
O
u
^•^*
CM
1
0*
^*
^}
*u
^—
0
3
k.
l/i
M
Nl
l/t
o>
u
Q.
•*•»
U
C
o>
0.
u
en
+•»
ec
*E
o
0
V
»•
(O
E
««
CM
V |
*
O ft>
en ^3
Oi E
s«
e
CNJ O
^* •*•
I •*->
0. U
< CSJ fSI t>» O O U"> O O
O^ O^ ^O CO CO O^ 6^ 6^ VO ^O CO 1^^ ^^
O o i£inm o O c\* m tn mm LO
CD CO *— < ^ V COCOCO^^^* ^'^•^ «
-
ooo> to vo ^D o> a* o o csj m in vartei*) m a; a> a/ a;
*^ *^ *^ »•* "^
«
en ^T if) \£) CO C^ C?
^* ^«^ *^ «^ ^^ ^«^ CSJ
• • • • * * •
CO CD CD CD CD CO CD
c
u J. •»-
^J Qj ^)
c en en j^ ^ v>
at -^ c en c o ai a;
^^ ^ *^ c *^* ^ ^ o
• -^ r*»b,Qj »- t/1 +J c Q.
ooaien uc a> « u c i •— 3
^ X 4^ Cn C O''Oi» U L*OO *^ ^?
C H- L. »— C7»**- 3 O O U -^ C Q. * C
* 1 1 -*- V. 0V -*^ C 3 V- &. W Q. Q.*J O (J (D
^ L» 3 ^"j ^ 4J «*~ C CX W O (O *^"* QJ **""
^j Qv QV 3 *^ ^ QV Qy ^ id ?s *"* ^* ^^ **^ CT*^1* C7*
U W U -^ U "^ C ^: 3 g &.U J^ "O OJ "O wo /o ie*+- C
^O C C *C *^ QV ^** ^"* O *" (J ^"" *** "^ QJ O "B *O ^ ^ C CX O I- ^>
O k.U^2L.-*-*^^-3fOO /C E > U CTi i- 3 OJ O O *^ ^*-» U
U 333COEE*CO**-O U«O CC^UCDOt*-'*.t.on u
CX *^» *^ C (O O 3 3 JIE QJ -C QV *^" C QV 3 4/> 17 QV ^ J» 4^ C C *O ^ O 0) i» *-* O^ C '^ **• X9 C C QJ Qj *•• 5
(O irt tA S *O ^" *O OL.OCX >»^" *^fO Cf— Q.*J*J^O QT CD *!_^ t^ O C2 ^P ^D ^" CT f_j^ CD *^ Z&* O
"^ ^* ^» *^> *^b ^Z (O ^^
2CC0C9 — J X CV (/) (/)
A-n
-------
^
^5
Ol
3
C
•^
C
o
u
(V
1
4f
o>
JB
*o
*~
o
.0
4-*
I/I
•o
O)
Ol
L.
*o
^^
u
r
u
CS
O
oc
*1
o
o*
V*
v|
IB
E
A
^
*?l
18
O Q^
p>.r>
fti S
ic e
(SJ 0
T «3
^^ ^j
< o>
/ ^>
o
o>
w
Oi
u
u
5
«/>
OO O tn tft O to O O O O O O O O
u^ to to to to 10 tototototovntomu*)
—
to to to vo to to v£>toir>tOkOtotototoa)O>a>
.
fVJ ffn flPV
VNf **! ^T
rsi CM CM
• • •
CO CO CO
en en
c -D c en
X» •*- C i- C
e TB e 10 —
, t/i c QJ n. -o
•^•t«jCT3O;O) -^ •»- O
• £3 i/i c > u enai^cTif) o
1/1 t. 3 1C C O C CTl C C C i—
•u 3 u u o ucn-~-b. o>*^ njiniav en
u en L. en u en cn«— u a. c f— >a »— f L. L. t3 L. o c
3 c u >, c c c — — -o .c ^^ai4-> u
^ E o i* ^> i» ^ ^ c **• 01 w +•* c 01 ^ c 01 w o
^^ ^J *^* ft ^^ j^ ii ii i" AI ^n +j ^y ^u ^j ^^ ^5 ^) ^^ C5 ^ •'^ If ^
fO ^» ^^ i/) ^U i/) ^^ *^* ^^ ^Z *^* CU 4^ ^^ 4*^ ^^ ^^ L» 4^ fB ^^ It* ^^
c o fX^ 8tZ5c?a5(J CB s5o«3 2 tJ "o
•r- to Ol 0) O
£ ^ z 3t at
Oi
"^
o
o>
c
*o.
3
O.
o
§
^»
*o
u
1
u
A-12
-------
9)
U
4^
U
IB
a
U
o
•
o
E
in
*•> 3
O
CM O
^^ ***•
I 4-1
O. U
JNJ
o
U
CVl
«c
0)
J3
IB
^^
£
o
O)
At
4-»
IB
U
O)
U
a
c
CO
v>
a
d
c
3
O
ai
IB
*4»
U
I/I
4->
I/I
3
•o
ai
>
4-*
o>
U.
A-13
-------
cj
>
UJ
o
ce
I
UJ
<
_j
u
Q£
S
e-
m o>
UJ U
a:
UJ
i
v> v> o
CD —V OS *>
I I • • I
O 0> <
k
e
k
I
v> k e k .ok
i £ 5r* * 2 £
Z ^ ££ i S •§
«• 9 •- W •* k
«< •> e
— w *« •• •• •
• •» v •»
T?l.e
c w •
«»• •> w
•e'S-5
— •— U
«* e ii •>
•> u e f
£c w
— •- .
k * e
. <» — e
•» o.w
c> e «i •
— iv « *. «
w e — * w
c u —
«•»»•»
— a."— ~ »
w »»» <• v
•
*Hsl
c S.^ c w
o *« * •»
k e Ck>c
•>•'§•'
k c & e «•
ty — »• <•
' §- vZ §.
« o »» •<
• •» k
«<•—«/•-•
5 ? g ?- e
A-14
-------
TABLE A-4. GENERIC CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS
Category Number: 1
Process: Combustion
Material: Coal
Rating: C
Category 1 contains boilers combusting coal only, regardless
of specific coal or boiler classification. Both utility and in-
dustrial boilers are included in this category without consider-
ing the sulfur or ash content of the coal. All emissions are
generated from the combustion of coal.
80
UJ
2 70
*
/i~13 *
*3-15 7-
A*-- 19 4-
/9-22 3
3X-25 -3
^i'-41 /t
Min.
value
4
10
29
Max.
value
26
36
57
Standard
deviation
6
9
e
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
4
5
5
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 pro.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values
A-15
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 1
Process: Combustion
Material: Coal
Rating: B
AP-42
Source description section
Util. boiler-pulv. 1.1
bit. coal
Util. boiler-pulv. 1.1
bit. coal
Util. boiler-coal 1.1
Util. boiler-coal 1.1
Util. boiler-coal 1.1
Util. boiler-coal 1.1
Util. boiler-coal 1.1
Ind. boiler-LS coal 1.1
Ind. boiler-LS coal l.-l
Ind. boiler-coal 1.1
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
2.5 pm 6.0 um 10.0 ym Ref,
10 22 29 1
4 16 44 1
11
12
5
17
13
26
11
IB
36
23
10
34
27
34
19
30
44
57
42
32
44
44
40
33
4C
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
A-16
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 2
Process: Combustion
Material: Residual Oil
Rating: B
Category 2 contains utility and industrial boilers firing
either residual or crude oils. The emissions are generated from
the combustion of fuel oil.
98
95
5» 90
v
£ 80
£
£70
2 60
§50
40
1
3 4 56789 10
DIAMETER, un
Particle
size, um
1.0a
2.0a
2.5,
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
50
65
70
73
79
82
85
91
Win.
value
48
75
80
Max.
value
92
96
97
Standard
deviation
.
14
7
6
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
10
5
4
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 um.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-17
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 2
Process: Combustion
Material: Residual Oil
Rating: B
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
Source description
Util. boiler-resid. oil
Util. boiler-fuel oil 6
Util. boiler-resid. oil
Ind. boiler-crude/resid,
Ind. boiler-resid. oil
Ind. boiler-resid. oil
Ind. boiler-resid. oil
AP-42
section
1.3
1.3
2.5
6.0 vm 10.0 ym Ref,
1,
1,
1,
1,
3
3
3
3
1.3
70
71
92
76
48
74
6
75
89
96
83
81
89
81
80
95
97
87.
92
95
92
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
A-18
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 3
Process: Combustion
Material: Gas (Natural Gas and Gasoline)
Rating: A
Category 3 contains equipment firing relatively clean fuels
such as natural gas, gasoline/ and diesel fuels. The equipment
includes industrial boilers and internal combustion engines.
Particulate emissions are produced from the combustion of "clean
fuels.
99.99
UJ
»s!
5 99.9
£ 99.8
98
K
90
00
2 3 4 S 6 7 6 910
MSTJCIE DIAttTE*. m
Particle
size, urn
1.0*
2.0*
2.5,
3.0*
4.0*
5.0*
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
91
93
94
94
95
96
96
98
Min.
value
75
87
95
Max.
value
99
99
99
Standard
deviation
9
4
2
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
7
3
1
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-19
-------
Table A-4 (continued) •
Category Number: 3
Process: Combustion
Material: Gas (Natural Gas and Gasoline)
Rating: A
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
Source description
Ind. boiler nat. gas
Res. natural gas
1C engine-diesel fuel
1C engine-diesel fuel
1C engine-gasoline
1C engine-unleaded
gasoline
1C engine-leaded
gasoline
AP-42
section
2.5 pro 6.0
10.0 vit\ Kef,
99
99
94
99
99
91
75
99
99
95
99
99
96
87
99
99
96
99
99
97
95
4
4
4
3
4
3
A-20
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 4
Process: Combustion
Material: Mixed Fuels (Wood and Other Fuel)
Rating: C
Category 4 contains boilers firing a mixture of fuels re-
gardless of the fuel combination. The fuels include wood waste/
natural gas, coke, and petroleum. Particulate emissions are
generated as the result of firing these miscellaneous fuels.
95
90
K 70
V
5 60
<_)
2 50
i<°
•—
i 30
"20
10'
2 3 « 56789 10
MRTICLE DIAMETER. \m
Particle
size, ym
i-°a
2.0*
2.5,
3.0*
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
30
44
48
52
58
62
66
74
Min.
value
31
40
47
Max.
value
66
82
87
Standard
deviation
13
13
14
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
7
7
7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 vm.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-21
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 4
Process: Combustion
Material: Mixed Fuels
Rating: C
(Wood and Other Fuel)
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
Source description
Util. boiler-bark/oil
Util. boiler-801 coal/
20% coke
Util. boiler-petroleum/
coke
Util. boiler-101 gas/
90% coal
Util. boiler-25% gas/
75% coal
Fireplaces
Ind. boiler-petroleum/
coke
Util. boiler-petroleum/
coke
Util. boiler-75% coke/
25% gas
Ind. boiler-wood bark
Ind. boiler-wood
Ind. boiler-hog fuel
AP-42
section
.
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.5 ym
66
32
31
70
50
46
35
38
63
47
51
57
6.0 um
78
65
40
82
68
56
78
49
77
58
76
62
10.0 ym
87
81
47
86
76
62
87
55
87
65
87
72
Re
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-22
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 5
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Aggregate, unprocessed Ore
Rating: B
Category 5 covers material handling and processing of aggre-
gate and unprocessed ore. This broad category includes emissions
from crushing, screening, and drying of the material as well as
kiln processing and fugitive emissions from mining and industrial
roads. Emissions are generated through either the movement of
the material or the interaction of the material with mechanical
devices.
70
40
10
I 5
2
1
2 3 « 5 6 7 8 910
MKT1CLE DIAMETER, un
Particle
size, urn
1.0a
2.0*
2.5,
3.0*
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
5
13
16
19
25
31
35
50
Min.
value
2
9
14
Max.
value
42
74
84
Standard
deviation
10
13
14
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
2
3
3
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 vm.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-23
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 5
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Aggregate, Unprocessed Ore
Rating: B
Sou re* description
Phosphoric acid calcinex
Gypsum calciner
Asphalt concrete-dryer
Asphalt concrete-drum mix
Asphalt concrete vent line
Asphalt batch-dry/screen. /mix.
Phosphate rock-rotary dryer
Brick »fg. -kiln/dry
Brick mfg. -kiln/dry
Portland out. mf 9. -kiln-wet
Portland cmt. mtg.-kiln
Cement Bifg.-kiln
Cement mf 9. -rotary kiln
Gypsur— cont. kettle calciner
Gypsum-f lash calciners
Line Mf g. -rotary kiln
Lime Mfg. -rotary kiln
Lime Mfg. -rotary kiln
Lime Kfg. -rotary kiln
Lime Mfg. -rotary kiln
Stone quarry-crushing
Stone quarry-conveying/screening
Taconite proc. -preheat
Copper ore-conveying
Copper ore-crushing
Copper ore-crushing
Copper ore-crushing
Copper ore-loadout
Gold or e-crusjoing /convey ing /storagi
Molybdenum screening
Molybdenum screening
Vanadium ore-drying/grinding
Vanadium ore-dryer
Zinc ore-crushing/screening/con-
veying
Zinc ore-crushing
Zinc ore-dryer
Zinc ore-screening
Zinc ore-acreening /conveying
Pulp/paper-line recovery kiln
Unpaved road
Unpaved road-trine /heavy-duty veh.
Unpaved road-mine/light-duty veh.
Unpaved road-mine/heavy-duty veh.
Unpaved road-iron i steel prod.
Paved road
Paved road-industrial
Paved road-iron t steel prod.
Unpaved road-iron 4 steel prod.
Rock screening
Rotary kiln
Aggregate plant-rotary kiln
Potash dryer
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
AP-42
section
.11
.1
.1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.6
.14
.14
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.20
.20
.22
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
.23
10.1
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
0
0
0
0
2.5 urn
21
1
1
21
24
15
24
25
21
27
12
42
IS
22
13
3
27
12
13
11
7
15
4
1
It
12
11
5
16
21
27
13
12
7
3
35
26
7
23
3
2
4
2
16
31
2
38
16
15
14
3
11
6.0 wn
45
3
24
52
31
21
41
5
44
51
3
74
38
47
27
09
56
22
24
37
17
35
14
31
34
25
22
27
37
46
55
36
31
3
19
41
52
22
34
39
41
24
13
3
55
32
5
32
36
29
13
4
10.0 HRI
62
4
47
66
53
44
55
63
62
61
41
• 4
57
63
38
14
67
3
31
55
24
5
45
53
42
5
43
43
62
7
72
58
6
48
38
62
64
29
49
46
56
45
28
4
-69
51
57
45
5
42
25
56
Rcf.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
7
6
1
1
5
1
5
4
2
2
1
A-24
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 6
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Uranium, Processed Ores
Rating: A
Category 6 covers material handling and processing of urani-
um and processed ores. While similar to Category 5, uranium and
processed ores can be expected to have a greater size consistency
than unprocessed ores. Particulate emissions are generated as a
result of agitating the materials by screening or transfer, and
during size reduction of the materials by crushing and grinding.
98
an
90
VI
V
580
£
* 70
taJ
| 60
i 5o
° 40
30
2 3 4
MRTICIE DIAKTHR.
56789 10
Particle
size, um
l-°I
2.0*
2.5,
3.0a
4.0*
5.0*
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
17
37
44
50
60
67
73
87
Min.
value
27
52
79
Max.
value
51
80
92
Standard
deviation
7
8
4
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
4
4
2
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 wm.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-25
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 6
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Uranium, Processed Ores
Rating: A
AP-42
Source description section
Muriate prod.-compacting
Muriate prod.-screening
Clay mfg.-Raymond mill 8
Lime mfg.-Raymond mill 8
Lime mfg.-screenhouse 8
Uranium ore-crusher/ 8
Grizzly
Uranium ore-crusher 8.23
transfer
Uranium ore-crusher 8.23
Uranium ore-crusher 8~23
Uranium ore-loading 8.23
Uranium ore-loading 8.23
7
15
15
23
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
2.5 urn 6.0 \tm 10.0 ym Ref,
51
48
5
27
38
47
45
45
43
45
49
77
8
52
72
73
68
71
77
76
77
8
87
91
85
92
85
79
82
88
85
88
91
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-26
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 7
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Coal, Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer
Rating: £
Category 7 covers material handling and processing of coal
and ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The processes include drying,
cooling/ and dumping of the applicable materials. The materials
in this category are generally more friable than those included
in Categories 5 and 6.
20
a 10
8 5
tft
0.1
0.05
0.01
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, un
Particle
size, VJRI
1.0a
2.0a
2 5
3.0a
4 0
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
14
Kin.
value
0
1
4
Max.
value
0
9
27
Standard
deviation
0
3
8
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
0
2
4
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 urn.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-27
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 7
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Coal, Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer
Rating: £
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
Source description
Amm. nit. fert.-prill
dry
Anun. nit. fert.-
dryer/cooler
Amm. nit. fert.-
granulator
Amm. nit. fert.- prill
cooler
Amm. nit. fert.- dryer
Anun. nit. fert.-
rotary cooler
Coal mine-truck dump
Coal mine-load/shovel
truck
AP-42
section
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
11.2
11.2
2.5 ym
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
6.0 ym
4
2
9
1
4
3
3
8
10.0 ym
15
4
27
15
9
7
15
22
Ref .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-28
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 8
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Grain Drying
Rating: £
Category 8 contains the material handling and processing of
grains, particularly drying operations. Particulate emissions
from this category are generally produced during forced-air
drying instead of the mechanical movement or agitation of the
grain.
so
40
30
8 20
5?
a
£ 10
0.51-
0.1
0.05 -
0.01
I 3 4S67B910
PARTICLE DIAMETER, i*
Particle
size, um
i.oa
2.0a
2-5,
3-°!
4.0*
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
4
7
9
10
13
15
17
27
Win.
value
1
3
11
Max.
value
34
48
56
Standard
deviation
14
18
18
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
13
17
17
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 .
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
. A-29
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 8
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Grain Drying
Rating: E
Source description
Feed grain operations
Rice dryer
Rice dryer
Rice dryer
Cereal dryer
AP-42
section
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
2.5 pm 6.0 urn 10.0 vxn Ref,
1
2
1
9
34
12
12
3
10
48
29
25
13
11
56
4
1
1
4
2
A-30
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 9
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Grain Processing
Rating: C
Category 9 contains grain processing operations other than
drying (Category 8). These processes could include material
transfer, ginning, and other miscellaneous handling of grain.
The particulate emissions from these processes are generated dur-
ing mechanical agitation of the applicable agricultural products.
80
§60
£ 50
V
£ 40
u<
£ 30
2 20
*-
2 3 4 5
ARTICLE DIAHTTERS. \»
6789 10
Particle
size, urn
1.0a
2.0*
2-5»
3- Of
4.0*
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
8
29
23
27
34
40
45
65
Min.
value
17
35
61
Max.
value
34
53
68
/
Standard
deviation
9
9
4
90%
confidence
interval/
i mean
15
15
6
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-31
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 9
Process: Material Handling and Processing
Material: Grain Processing
Rating: C
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
AP-42
Source description section 2.5 ym 6.0 ym 10.0 ym Ref
Cotton gin 6.4 17 35 61 1
Feed processing 6.4 19 46 65 1
Grain processing 6.4 34 53 68 1
A-32
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 10
Process: Melting, Smelting/ Refining
Material: Metals, except aluminum
Rating: A
Category 10 includes the melting, smelting, and refining of
metals (including glass) other than aluminum. All primary and
secondary production processes for these materials which involve
a physical or chemical change are included in this category.
Materials handling and transfer are not included. Particulate
emissions are generated as a result of high-temperature melting,
smelting, and refining of all materials except aluminum minerals
and metals.
99.
? 96
«
*•
*»
Z 95
x
UJ
(_>
£ 90
5 80
60
so
2 3 4 56789 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, m
Particle
size, ym
1.0a
2.0a
2-5.
3.0*
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
67
77
80
82
85
87
89
92
Min.
value
53
68
73
Max.
value
99
99
99
Standard
deviation
13
9
8
90%
confidence
interval/
± mean
4
2
2
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-33
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 10
Process: Melting, Smelting, Befining
Material: Metals, except aluminum
Ratincr: A
Source description
Copper smelter
Ferroalloy-EAF
Fe. prod.-ferrocromium
Fe. prod. -misc. alloys
Fe. prod.-ferroscilicon
Fe. prod.-ferroreanganese
Iron & steel prod.-BOF
Iron & steel prod.-BOF
Iron & steel prod.-EAF
Iron fc steel prod.-
open hearth
Iron & steel prod.-
open hearth
Iron & steel prod. -iron
wet cupola.
Iron & steel prod.-
iron cupola
Zinc vert, retort coker
Zinc roaster
Zinc smelter-sintering
Zinc retort furnace
Gray iron-cupola
Gray iron-innoculation
Gray iron-cupola
Gray iron-scrap cupola
Steel foundry-EAF
Steel foundry-EAF
Steel foundry-EAF
Steel foundry-EAF
oxygen decarb.
Steel foundry-EAF
oxygen decarb.
Steel foundry-open
hearth
Steel foundry-open
hearth
Steel foundry-open
hearth
Glass manufacturing
Glass manufacturing
Mineral wool cupola
Molybdenum dryer
Brass furnace
Borax fusing furnace
AP-42
section
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5-
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.13
8.13
8.13
8.16
8.23
0
0
Cumulative percent less
than stated sire
2.5 urn
95
83
71
84
97
85
99
95
53
76
64
89
92
75
95
92
82
93
59
76
95
69
69
6
69
67
73
8
76
91
85
67
59
95
88
6.0 ym
99
84
87
95
99
99
99
99
68
86
8
96
96
77
99
98
97
98
75
80
99
79
84
75
79
76
77
83
86
93
89
82
93
98
98
10.0 pm
99
94
93
98
99
99
99
99
73
92
85
98
98
86
99
98
99
99
8
81
99
82
90
83
81
80
80
85
- 92
95
90
91
95
98
99
Kef.
1
1
1
1
r
i
i
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-34
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 11
Process: Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material: Aluminum
Rating: D
Category 11 consists of primary and secondary aluminum
melting/ smelting/ and refining processes. These aluminum
processes are separated from other metallurgical operations be-
cause of process differences. Particulate emissions are gener-
ated as a result of these high-temperature operations.
95
Ul
r*i
Z 90
80
V
60
*»* >.
>. 50
|,0
0 30
20
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
MUTICLE DIAMETER. u*
Particle
size, wm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5, '
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative I
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
41
52
56
59
64
67
70
77
Min.
value
42
54
60
Max.
value
78
83
91
Standard
deviation
14
12
13
90%
confidence
interval/
i mean
13
11
13
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-35
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 11
Process: Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material: Aluminum
Rating: D
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
Source description
Prim. alum.-reduction
cell vent
Prim. alum.-nor.
Soderberg cell
Prim. alum.-nor.
Soderberg cell
Prim, alum.-prebake
cell
Sec. alum.-reverb.
furnace
AP-42
section
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.8
2.5 wm
42
78
5
61
51
6.0 ym
78
83
54
72
62
10.0 um
89
91
6
78
68
Ref
1
1
1
1
1
A-36
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 12
Process: Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling,
Distillation
Material: All
Rating: A
Category 12 includes condensation, hydration, absorption,
prilling/ and distillation of all materials. These processes
involve the physical separation or combination of a vide variety
of materials such as sulfuric acid and ammonium nitrate ferti-
lizer. Coke ovens are included since they can be considered a
distillation process which separates the volatile matter from
coal to produce coke. Emissions from these processes are
generally considered process fugitive emissions since they
usually are not emitted from a stack.
19
90
80
70
60
50
40
I
2 3 4 5
PARTICLE DIAMTTCft. UP
6 7 B 910
Particle
size, um
1.0*
2.0*
2.5,
3.0*
4.0*
5.0*
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
59
77
82
65
90
92
94
97
Min.
value
59
87
93
Max.
value
99.
99
99
Standard
deviation
13
5
2
90%
confidence
interval/
i mean
7
3
1
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 w».
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-37
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Material: All
Rating: A
, Xb.orption, Prilling. Di.till.t
Cumulative percent less
than stated sire
Source description
Sul. acid absorb.
(32% 0)
Sul. acid absorb.
(20% 0)
Sul. acid absorb.
Aim. nit.fert-urea
prilling
Arm. nit.fert-rotary
prilling
Aim. nit.fert-urea
prilling
Aim. nit.fert-urea
prilling
Aim. nit.fert-urea
prilling
Coke prod.-oven push
Iron i steel prod.-
coke oven
Pulp mill-sulfate pulp
AP-42
section
5.17
5.17
5.17
6.8
6.8
6* 8
6.8
6.8
7.2
7.5
2.5 ym
99
97
59
93
83
7
73
97
75
77
6.0 ym
99
99
98
95
89
89
89
99
93
96
10.0 y»
99
99
99
96
96
94
93
99
96
98
Ref,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.1
77
87
A-38
-------
Table A-4 (continued)
Category Number: 13
Process: Wind Erosion
Material: All
Rating: E
Category 13 contains vind erosion sources for all materials.
These include storage piles and other exposed areas with both
disturbed and undisturbed materials. Particles are entrained and
carried by the wind to create area fugitive emission sources.
10
5
!; 0.5
0.01
2 345
MHT1CLE DIAMETER. UR
6 78910
Particle
size, ym
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
na
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than stated
size
(uncontrolled)
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
11
Min.
value
0
2
4
Max.
value
4
8
15
Standard
deviation
2
7
2
4
90%
confidence
interval/
i mean
2
2
3
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym.
No statistical parameters are given for the calculated values.
A-39
-------
Table A—4 (continued)
Category Number: 13
Process: Kind Erosion
Material: All
Rating: E
Cumulative percent less
than stated size
AP-42
Source description section 2.5 ym '6.0 ym 10.0 vra Ref
Iron fc steel coal pile- 11.2 3 6 10 1
disturbed
Iron l steel dolomite- 11.2 4 8 13 1
undisturbed
Iron ( steel coal pile- 11.2 1 2 4 1
undisturbed
Coal mine-storage area 11.2 0 4 13 1
Coal mine-exposed area 11.2 14 15 1
Erosion-disturbed soil 11.2 3 7 10 1
A-40
-------
REFERENCES
Rosbury, K. D. and Ziiraner, R. A. Generic Particle S
Distributions for Use in Preparing Particle-Size-Spe
Emission Inventories. PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Go
Colorado. Prepared for Environmental Protection Age
Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-
Work Assignment No. 47. February 1984.
A-41
-------
DRAFT AP-42 SECTION
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTIONS
PEI Associates, Inc.
14062 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 278-3505
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Air Monitoring Technology Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING STANDARDS
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
May 1985
-------
FOREWARD
The purpose of this appendix is to provide "generic" particle size
distributions applicable to processes for which a particle size distribution
does not appear in the main tgxt or in Appendix C.I. These data are to be
used for preparation of regiona-1 emission inventories only, and should not be
used for individual source compliance purposes.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Appendix C.2 Generalized Particle Size Distributions C.2-1
C.2.1 Rationale for Developing Generalized Particle
Distributions C.2-1
C.2.2 How to Use the Generalized Particle Size
Distributions for Uncontrolled Processes C.2-1
C.2.3 How to Use the Generalized Particle Size
Distributions for Controlled Processes C.2-23
C.2.4 Example Calculation C.2-23
References C.2-26
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number . Page
C.2.1 Example Calculation for Determining Uncontrolled
and Controlled Particle Size-Specific Emissions C.2-2
C.2.2 Calculation Sheet C.2-25
TABLES
C.2.1 Particle Size Category By AP-42 Section C.2-3
C.2.2 Description of Particle Size Categories C.2-5
C.2.3 Average Collection Efficiencies of Various Particulate
Control Devices ' C.2-24
iv
-------
APPENDIX C.2
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
C.2.1 Rationale for Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions
The preparation of size-specific particulate emission inventories
requires size distribution information for each process. Particle size
distributions for many processes are contained in appropriate industry
sections of this document. However, particle size information for many
processes that are of local impact and concern are unavailable. The purpose
of this appendix is to provide "generic" particle size distributions
applicable to processes that have not been sampled adequately to calculate a
size distribution. The generic particle size distributions were developed
using sampled size distributions from about 200 sources.
Generic particle size distributions are approximations and should only be
used in the absence of source-spjacj.fic particle size distributions. Further,
the data should be used for regional emission inventories only, and should not
be used for individual source compliance purposes.
C.2.2 Hov to Use the Generalized Particle Size Distributions for
Uncontrolled Processes
Figure C.2.1 is a calculation sheet^to assist the analyst in preparing
particle size-specific emission estimates.
The following instructions apply to each particulate emission source for
which a particle size distribution is desired and for which no source specific
particle size information is give elsewhere in this document:
A
1. Identify and review the AP-42 section dealing with the process.
l*r ''.<- ff~ * -
2. Obtain the uncontrolled emission factor, from the main text of AP-42
and calculate uncontrolled total particulate emissions.
3. Obtain the generic particle size distribution category number from
Table C.2.1.
4. Obtain the particle size distribution for the appropriate category
from Table C.2.2. Apply the particle size distribution to the
uncontrolled particulate emissions.
Appendix C C.2-1
-------
FIGURE C.2.1 EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR DETERMINING UNCONTROLLED
AND CONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address: ABC Brick Manufacturing
Process description:
AP-42 category:
Uncontrolled AP-42
emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
24 Dusty Way
Anywhere, USA
Dryers/Grinders
8.3 Bricks and Related Clay Products
96 Ibs/ton
63,700 tons/year
3057.6 tons/year
_(units)
_(units)
(units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Category name: Mechanically Generated/Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category number: 3
Particle size, ym
Generic distribution, Cumulative
percent less than or equal to:
Mass in size range, (units « tons/year):
_ <. 2.5
15
458.6
< 6
34
1039.6
1 10
{7
51
1559.4
CONTROLLED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Type of control device: Fabric Filter
Collection efficiency Table C.2.2:
*
Mass in size range before control
(units*tons/year):
Mass in size range after control:
Cumulative mass:
Particle size, um
0-2.5 2.5-6 6-10
99.6 99.8 99.9
458.6 581.0 519.8
1.83 1.16 0.52
i.*/i 2.99 3.51
Note that uncontrolled size data is cumulative percent less than.
Control efficiency data applies only to size range and is not cumulative.
C.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.1 PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORY BY AP-42 SECTION
A/-*:
Section
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.10
1.11
2.3
3.1
3.2
}.*
5.8
5.10
5.11
5.12
5. 16
5. 17
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Source Category
External combustion
Bituminous coal combustion
Anthracite coal combustion
Fuel oil combustion
Utility, residual ell
Industrial, residual ell
Utility, distillate oil
Commercial, residual oil
Commercial, distillate
Residential, diatillate
Natural ga* combustion
Liquefied petroleum gas
production
Weed waste combustion in
boilers
Lignite, combustion
Residential fireplaces
Wood stoves
Waate ell combustion
Solid waste disposal
Conical burner* (wood wests)
Internal eembuetlon engine
Highway vehicle*
Off-highway
Chemical process
Charcoal production
Hydrofluoric acid
Spar drying
Spar handling
Transfsr
Paint
Phosphoric acid (thermal
process)
Phchallc anhydride
Sodium carbonate
Sulfurlc acid
Food end agricultural
Alfalfa dehydrating
Primary cyclone
Heal collector cyclone;
Pellet cooler cyclone
Pellet regrlnd cyclone
Coffee roasting
Cot tea ginning
Feed and grain mill* and
elevater*
Unloading
Grain elevator*
Grain processing
a. Categories with particls six* data
b. Categories with particle size data
cv Ban fut nhh isMfmj-aM ^leUIT'll
Category A»-42
Number Section
b
2
2
2
2
2
ci$
1
2
3
3
3
3
a
9
s<
a
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
7
specific
specific
i Tiuir C
6.5
6.7
i.g
6.10
6.10.3
6.11
6.i4
6.16
6.17
6.18
^t —
7.1
1
g.l
7.3
7.4
7.5
Z-
7.6
7.7
7.S
7.9
7.10
to process Included
to process Included
Category
Source Category Number
Food and atricultural (cent.)
Fermentation
Heat smokehouses
Aanonvum nitrate fertlllters
Phosphate fertilizers
Ammenium phosphetes
Raactor/ammeniator-
granulator
Dryer/cooler
Starch manufacturing
Product material siting
and transfer
Urss manufacturing
Defoliation and harvesting
of cotton
Trailer loading
Transport
Harvesting of grain
Harvesting machine
Truck loading
Field transport
Ammonium sulfate manufacturing
Rotary dryer
Fluldlsed-bed dryer
Metallurtgteel Industry
Primary aluminum production
Bauxite grinding
Aluminum hydroxide calcining
Anode baking fumaci
Prebek* cell
Vertical Soderberg
Horitontal Soderberg
Coke manufacturing
Primary copper smelting
Ferroalloy production
Iron and steel production
Blast furnace
Slip*
Cast house
Sintering
Vlndbox
Sinter discharge
Basic oxygen furnace
Electric ere furnace
Primary lead smelting
Zinc smelting
Secondary aluminum
Sweating furnace
Smelting
Crucible furnace
leverberatory furnace
Secondary copper smelting
and alloying
Cray Iron foundarie*
In the main body of the text.
in Appendix C.I.
,
•>
J *
3
3
3
7
3
jj? b
"*
7
7
7
7
/•3"fc
/$ *
4
5
8
a
8
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
st%
I
I
a
8
a
Appendix C
C.2-3
-------
TABLE C.2.1 (continued)
AJ-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number
AJ-42
Section
Souret Category
Category
Number
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.}
8.10
8.11
Metallurgical Industry (cont.)
7.11 Secondary lead processing
*.12 Secondary magnesium smelting
".11 Steel foundarles
7.U
7. 18
8.1
Secondary ttnc smelting
Lead bearing ore crushing and
(rinding
Miners! products
Asphaltlc concrete plants
Proem
Bricks end related clay
produces
R*v materiala handling
Dryers, grinders, etc.
Tunnel/periodic kilns
Cas-fired
Oil-fired
Coal-fired
Caacabla refractories
Kav material dryer
Raw Material crushing and
•creeninc
Electric arc Belting
Curing oven
Portland ceaent kanufacturlng
Dry proceia
tilni
Drytrf, grinder*, etc.
Wet proceaa
Kilaa
Dryers, grinders, etc.
Ceraalc clay manufacturing
Crying
Grinding
Storage
Clay and fly-aah sintering
Fly-aah sintering, crushing,
screening and yard storage
Clay mixed with coke
Crushing, screening, and
yard storage
Coal cleaning
Concrete batching
Class fiber manufacturing
Unloading and conveying
Storage bina
Mixing and velghlng
Class furnace - wooi
Class furnace - teitlle
Clas* manufacturing
Cypsu* manufacturing
Rotary ore dryer
Roller mill
Impact mill
Flash calciner
Continuous kettle calciner
a
/t
3
3
3
3
3
JH
8
a
.30*
4
4
^'*
JK ^
11.2
Mineral products (cont.)
8.15 Lime manufacturing a
8.16 Mineral wool manufacturing
Cupola 8
Reverberator? furnace 8
How chamber 9
Curing oven 3
Cooler 3
8.18 ?bosphatt rock processing
Drying jej
Calcining Jtj
Grinding .tr-j
Transfer and storage 3
8.19.1 Sand an4 gravel processing
Continuous drop
Tranafer station 3
file formation - stacker a
latch drop a
Active storage piles a
.9,'4.2 Vehicle traffic unpaved road a
Hfrtt Stone qmrrslsg emd ptecess+ng c *•.<.**»*
Dry crushing
frlmary crushing ,3"*
Secondary crushing ,f a.
and screening
Tertiary crushing ftf
and screening
Recrushing and screening 4
fines mill 4
Screening, conveying, 3
and handling
8.22 Taconlte ore processing
fine crushing 4
Vssts gas Jf Q.
Fellet handling 3
Crate discharge 3
Crate feed 3
lentonlte blending 3
Coarse crushing 3
Ore transfer 3
lentonlte transfer 3
Onpared roads a
8.23 Metallic minerals processing s
8.24 Western surface coal mining a
tfood processing
10.1 Chemical wood pulping s
Mlscellaneoua sources
Fugitive dust
a. Categories with particle site data specific to process Included in the main body of the text.
b. Categories with particle size data specific to process Included in Appendix C.I.
*_ Bets fur esth rarsiorr ire shewn 1n Tible C.rVT'
C.2-A
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORIES
Category: 1
Process: Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Material: Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Category 1 describes emissions from stationary internal combustion
engines. The particulate emissions are generated-from fuel combustion.
UJ 77
f~*t
£ 98
o
S 95
^
1/1
v 90
£ 80
UJ
2 70
S 60
=j 50
r? an
1
-
-
-
r i if
~ t i i ~ -
^,^^-"'
.
-
_ -~ __
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, O& t-> f"
Particle
size, urn
1.0°
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.03
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative 2
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
82- "i^-
88 - ^
90 - -•
90- «>
92 -~ i~
93 - \
93 —
96 -
_ /f>
Minimum
Value
78
86
92
Maximum
Value
99
99
99
Standard
Deviation
11
7
4
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 um.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C
C.2-5
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 1
Process: Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Material: Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
Source description 2.5 ym 6.0 ym 10.0 ym Ref,
Stationary 1C engine-//2 diesel oil 94 95 96 9
Stationary 1C engine-digester gas 99 99 99 9
Stationary 1C engine-#2 fuel oil 78 86 92 1/165*
a Reference 1, FPEIS Test Series 165
C.2-6 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 2
Process: Combustion
Material: Mixed Fuels
Category 2 contains boilers firing a mixture of fuels regardless of the
fuel combination. The fuels include gas, coal, coke, and petroleum.
Particulate emissions are generated as the result of firing these
miscellaneous fuels.
<
-J
3
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
I I \ T I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I
2345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle
s iz e, y m
i.oa
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than, or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
Minimum
Value
23 -
40 "
45 —
50 -
58 —
64 ~
70 -
79 -
2. ?
I 7
5 - V" -"
5
2
U — "* °
f - V ;/
32
49
56
Maximum
Value
70
84
87
Standard
Deviation
17
14
12
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 urn.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
No
Appendix C
C.2-7
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 2
Process: Combustion
Material: Mixed Fuels
Source description
Ind. boiler-petroleum/coke
Util. boiler-80% coal/20% coke
Util. boiler-75% coke/252 gas
Util. boiler-10% gas/90% coal
Util. boiler-petroleum/coke
Util. boiler-petroleum/coke
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
2.5 ym
35
32
63
70
34
38
6.0 urn
78
65
84
82
63
49
10.0 ym
87
81
87
86
78
56
Ref.
1/163
1/73
1/108
1/82
1/75
1/100
C.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category:
Process:
Material:
Mechanically Generated
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category 3 covers material handling and processing of aggregate and
unprocessed ore. This broad category includes emissions from milling,
grinding, crushing, screening, conveying, cooling, and drying of material.
Emissions are generated through either the movement of the material or the
interaction of the material with mechanical devices.
<
~1
=>
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
\ T 1 IT ITl
2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, yn
Particle
size, ym
1.0°
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
4-4
11- 7
15- *- '
18- 3
25-7
30- $
34- *-
Minimum
Value
15
23
Maximum
Value
35
65
81
Standard
Deviation
13
14
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C
C.2-9
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category:
Process:
Material:
Mechanically Generated
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ore
Source description
Asphalt batch-dry/screen./mix.
Asphalt concrete-drum mix
Cement-clinker cooler
Clay aggregate-clinker cooler
Clay aggregate-clinker cooler
Copper ore-conveying
Copper ore-crushing
Copper ore-crushing
Copper ore-crushing
Copper ore-loadout
Copper ore-truck dump
Feldspar milling
Fluorspar processing-rotary drum
dryer
Gold-ore crushing/conveying/storage
Gypsuia-rock dryer
Molybdenum-screening
Molybdenum-screening
Phosphate rock-dryer
Sodium carbonate-drying
Sodium carbonate-drying
Talc-grinding
Vanadium ore-dryer
Vanadium ore-dryer
Vanadium ore-drying/grinding
Zinc ore-crushing
Zinc ore-crushing/screening/conveying
Zinc ore-dryer
Zinc ore-screening
Zinc ore-screw conveying
2.5 urn
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
6.0
10.0 \a.
Ref.
15
21
8
16
15
10
18
12
11
5
14
11
10
16
10
21
27
20
22
10
18
12
12
13
3
7
35
26
7
21
52
17
30
26
31
34
25
22
27
49
23
30
37
30
46
55
41
65
15
43
33
31
36
19
30
41
52
22
44
66
32
40
38
53
42
50
43
43
81
37
48
62
39
70
72
60
69
23
60
44
60
58
38
48
62
64
29
1/41
1/299
1/86
7
2
1/310
1/310
1/309
1/329
1/345
1/339
4
2
1/335
1/358
-360
1/334
1/333
1/94
1/376
1/378
4
1/290
1/337
1/338
l/344b
l/334a
1/343
l/344c
l/344d
C.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 4
Process: Mechanically Generated
Material: Uranium/ Processed Ores
Category 4 covers material handling and processing of uranium and
processed ores. While similar to Category 3, uranium and processed ores can
be expected to have a greater size consistency than unprocessed ores.
Particulate emissions are generated as a result of agitating the materials by
screening or transfer, during size reduction of the materials by crushing and
grinding, or by drying.
95
90
80
1*4
Z 70
2 60
£ 50
v 40
5 30
o
£ 20
UJ
>
H 10
i *h
0.5
Particle
size, ym
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative 2
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
6
21
30
36
48
58
62
85
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Minimum
Value
17
70
10
Maximum
Value
51
83
93
Standard
Deviation
19
17
7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C
C.2-11
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 4
Process: Mechanically Generated
Material: Uranium, Processed Ores
Source description
Ammonium sulfate-dryer
Ammonium sulfate-dryer
Clay-dryer
Clay mfg.-milling
Clay mfg.-milling
Clay mfg.-Raymond mill
Potassium chloride-dryer
Potassium chloride-dryer
Salt-dryer
Salt-dryer
Uranium ore-crusher, grizzly and
transfer points
T'ranium ore-fine ore bin exhaust
(,
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category:
Process:
Material:
Calcining and other Heat Reaction Processes
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category 5 covers the use of calciners and kilns in processing a variety
of aggregates and unprocessed ores. Emissions are generated as a result of
these high temperature operations.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 -
5 -
2
I
j_
I i 1 I i i
1
2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, ym
Particle
size, ym
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
6
13
17
20
26
31
35
50
Minimum
Value
9
14
Maximum
Value
42
74
84
Standard
Deviation
11
19
19
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 urn.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
No
Appendix C
C.2-13
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category:
Process:
Material:
Calcining and Other Heat Reaction Processes
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ore
Source description 2.5 ym
Brick mfg.-kiln/dry 25
Brick mfg.-kiln/dry 21
Cement mfg.-kiln 42
Cement mfg.-rotary kiln 18
Clay aggregate-rotary kiln 14
Gypsum-flash calciners 23
Iron ore benefication-grate kiln 18
system
Lime mfg.-rotary kiln 3
Lime mfg.-rotary kiln 27
Lime mfg.-rotary kiln - 3
Pulp/paper-lime recovery kiln 23
ihale aggregate plant-rotary kiln 3
jodium carbonate-calcining 23
Sodium carbonate-calcining 19
faconite proc.-preheat 4
vanadium ore-kiln drying 3
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
6.0 ym
50
44
74
38
29
57
28
9
56
14
34
13
40
39
14
21
10.0 urn
Ref.
70
62
84
57
42
75
35
14
67
35
49
25
53
50
45
43
1/354
1/33
1/298
1/80
2
1/295
8
1/330
1/294
1/295
1/104
-107
2
1/375
1/377
1/348
1/289
C.2-14
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 6
Process: Grain Handling
Material: Grain
Category 6 contains various grain handling (versus grain processing)
operations. These processes could include material transfer, ginning and
other miscellaneous handling of grain. Emissions are generated by mechanical
agitation of the material.
30
3 20
W*»
2 10
2
1
0.5
«X
U
&
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.01
i i t I r IT
2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, (jit
Particle
size, ym
1.0a
2.0a
2'5a
3.0
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
.07
.60
l
2
3
5
7
15
Minimum
Value
3
6
Maximum
Value
12
25
Standard
Deviation
3
7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
No
Appendix C
C.2-15
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 6
Process: Grain Handling
Material: Grain
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
Source description 2.5 ym
Cotton ginning-roller gin, bale 1
press
Cotton ginning-roller gin, gin stand 1
Cotton ginning-saw gin, bale press 1
Cotton ginning-sav gin, gin stand 0
Rice-dryer 2
6.0 yo
6
7
3
5
12
10.0 ym
13
17
6
14
25
Ref.
5
5
5
5
1/228
C.2-16
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 7
Process: Grain Processing
Material: Grain
Category 7 includes grain processing operations such as drying,
screening, grinding and separation. The particulate emissions are generated
during forced-air flow, separation or size reduction.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
T I IITi
I I I I I I
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER, pm
10
Particle
size, pm
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0a
6.0
10.0
a
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum
(uncontrolled) Value
8
18
23 17
27
34
40
43 35
61 56
Maximum
Value
34
48
65
Standard
Deviation
7
5
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
No
Appendix C
C.2-17
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 7
Process: Grain Processing
Material: Grain
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
Source description
Agricultural feed-production
Cereal-dryer
Cotton gin-battery condenser
effluent
2.5
19
34
17
6.0 \sn
46
48
35
10.0 ym
65
56
61
Ref.
1/154
2
1/27
C.2-18
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 8
Process: Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material: Metals, except Aluminum
Category 8 includes the melting, smelting, and refining of metals
(including glass) other than aluminum. All primary and secondary production
processes for these materials which involve a physical or chemical change are
included in this category. Materials handling and transfer are not included.
Particulate emissions are generated as a result of high-temperature melting,
smelting, and refining.
u 77
l-sl
* 98
o
1 9S
v 90
1 80
UJ
w 70
~ 60
2 50
| «0
\
-
-
t
-
-
i [ I
^"^
^^
• I 1 i *
~~ "
-
-
-
•
-
-
i i i i i i i 1
-
1 2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Particle
size, ym
1.0a
2.0*
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative 2
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum
(uncontrolled) Value
72
80
82 63
84
86
88
89 75
92 80
Maximum
Value
99
99
99
Standard
Deviation
12
9
7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 um. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C
C.2-19
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 8
Process: Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material: Metals, except aluminum
Source description
Borax-fusing furnace
Copper-smelter
FE. prod.-ferroscilicon
Ferroalloy-EAF
Glass-manufacturing
Gray iron-cupola
Gray iron-scrap cupola
Iron & steel prod.-iron cupola
Mineral wool-cupola
Steel foundry-EAF
Steel foundry-EAF
Steel foundry-EAF oxygen decarb.
Steel foundry-EAF oxygen decarb.
Steel foundry-open hearth
Steel foundry-open hearth
Steel foundry-open hearth
Zinc-fuming furnace
Zinc-retort furnace
Zinc-roaster
Zinc-smelter-sintering
Zinc-vert, retort
2.5 urn
88
96
97
83
91
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
6.0 Um
98
99
99
84
93
93
95
92
67
69
69
69
67
68
80
82
63
82
99
92
75
98
99
96
82
79
84
79
76
86
83
88
75
97
99
99
77
10.0 urn
Ref.
99
99
99
94
95
99
99
98
91
82
90
81
80
92
85
92
82
99
99
99
86
1/90
1/2
1/51
1/280
1/219,
223,
224
1/54
1/55
1/42
1/123
1/308
1/76
2
2
1/83
1/233
1/45
2
1/44
1/1
1/3
1/43
C.2-20
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category:
Process:
Material:
Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling and Distillation
All
Category 9 includes condensation, hydration, absorption, prilling, and
distillation of all materials. These processes involve the physical
separation or combination of a wide variety of materials such as sulfuric acid
and ammonium nitrate fertilizer. (Coke ovens are included since they can be
considered a distillation process which separates the volatile matter from
coal to produce coke.)
s "
S 98
o
Ul
5 95
V
h-
JE
90
80
70
60
50
40
i i i t
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle
size, ym
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.03
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum
(uncontrolled) Value
60
74
78 59
81
85
88
91 61
94 71
Maximum
Value
99
99
99
Standard
Deviation
17
12
9
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 vm. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C
C.2-21
-------
TABLE C.2.2 (continued)
Category: 9
Process: Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling, Distillation
Material: All
Source description
Amm, nit. fert.-rotary prilling
Amm. nit. fert.-urea prilling
Amm. nit. fert.-urea prilling
Ann. nit. fert.-urea prilling
Amm. nit. fert.-urea prilling
Iron & steel prod.-coke oven
Pulp mill-sulfate pulp
Sul. acid-absorb
Sul. acid-absorb. (20% 0)
Sul. acid-absorb. (322 0)
2.5 urn
83
70
73
97
47
77
77
59
97
99
Cumulative percent less
than or equal to
stated size
6.0 ym
89
89
89
99
61
96
87
98
99
99
10.0
96
94
93
99
71
98
94
99
99
99
Ref.
1/336
1/362
1/355
1/48
1/372,
380
1/142
1/83-
84
3
3
3
C.2-22
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
C.2.3 How co Use the Generalized Particle Size Distributions for
Controlled Processes
To calculate the size distribution for & source with a particulate
control device, the user should first calculate the uncontrolled size
distribution. Next, the fractional control efficiency for the control device
should be estimated using Table C.2.3. The Calculation Sheet (Figure C.2.1)
allows the user to record the type of control device and the collection
efficiency from Table C.2.3, the mass in the size-range before and after
control, and the cumulative mass. The user should note that the uncontrolled
size data is expressed in cumulative fraction less than the stated size. The
control efficiency data applies only to the size range indicated and is not
cumulative.
C.2.4 Example Calculation
An example calculation is shown on Figure C.2.1. Uncontrolled total
particulate emissions, uncontrolled size-specific emissions, and controlled
size specific emission are calculated. A blank Calculation Sheet is
in Figure C.2.2.
Appendix C C.2-23
-------
TABLE C.2.3 AVERAGE COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS
PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES.8
(percent)
Particle size, urn
Type of collector
Baffled settling chamber
Simple (high-throughput) cyclone
High-efficiency and
multiple cyclones
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
Packed-bed scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet-impingement scrubber
Fabric filter
0 - 2.5
NR
50-70
80-95
96.1-99.5
90-99.6
93-97
8-74
~99.3-99.9
2.5 - 6
0-6
70-83
95-98
99.7
98-99.6
94.0-98.3
74-98
99.7-99.9
6-10
6-20
83-90
99
99.3-99.
98-99.6
98.3-99.
90-98
99.8-99.
8
0
9
NR
The data shown represent an average of actual efficiencies. The
efficiencies are representative of well designed and well operated
^pontrol equipment. Site-specific factors (e.g., type of particulate
being collected, varying pressure drops across scrubbers, maintenance of
equipment, etc.) will affect the collection efficiencies. The
efficiencies shown are intended to provide guidance for estimating
control equipment performance when site-specific data are not available.
Not reported.
C.2-24
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
FIGURE C.2.2 CALCULATION SHEET
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address:
Process description:
AP-42 category:
Uncontrolled AP-42
emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
_(units)
_(units)
(units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Category name:
Category number:
Particle size, urn
< 2.5 < 6
Generic distribution, Cumulative
percent less than or equal to:
Mass in size range, (units - tons/year)
CONTROLLED SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Type of control device:
Particle size, pm
0-2.5 2.5-6
< 10
6-10
Collection efficiency Table C.2.2:
*
Mass in size range before control
(units-tons/year):
Mass in size range after control:
Cumulative mass:
Note that uncontrolled size data is cumulative percent less than.
Control efficiency data applies only to size range and is not cumulative.
Appendix C
C.2-25
-------
REFERENCES
1. Fine Particle Emission Inventory System, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development -, Research Triangle Park, NC,
1965.
2. Confidential Test Data from Various Sources, PEI Associates, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH, 1985.
3. Final Guideline Document; Control of Sulfuric Acid Production Units,
EPA-450/2-77-019, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1977.
4. Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corp., Eestrehan, La., EMB-74-GRN-7,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.
5. I. W. Kirk, "Air Quality in Saw and Roller Gin Plants", Transactions of
the ASAE, Volume 20, No. 5, 1977.-
6, Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corp.,
EKB-80-LWA-6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1982.
Air Pollution Emission Test, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas
Industries, Inc., EMB-80-LWA-3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.
8. Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, Michigan,
EMB-76-IOB-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1975.
9. H. Taback, et. al., Fine Particulate Emission from Stationary Sources in
the South Coast Air Basin, KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA, 1979.
10. K. Rosbury, Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Use in Preparing
Particle Size Specific Emission Inventories, Contract No. 68-02-3890, PEI
Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, 1985.
C.2-26 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
°n Ag
rd 12thFloor
Chicago,
-------
I'll
-------
iP''r .
Bit1- !
• ;N:i •;>*fri'' : iij
. itfi :|!rrf l|l|
: iH'ir • I i r.fc'i;»i M
------- |