-------
processing differs somewhat for wet- and dry-process.  At
facilities where the dry process is used, the moisture content in
the raw material, which can range from less than 1 percent to
greater than 50 percent, is reduced to less than 1 percent.
Mercury emissions can occur during this drying process but are
anticipated to be very low because the drying temperature is much
below the boiling point of mercury.  At some facilities, heat for
drying is provided by the exhaust gases from the pyroprocessor.
At facilities where the wet process is used, water is added to
the raw material during the grinding step, thereby producing a
pumpable slurry containing approximately 65 percent solids.

     Pyroprocessing (thermal treatment) of the raw material is
carried out in the kiln, which is the heart of the portland
cement manufacturing process.  During pyroprocessing, the raw
material is transformed into clinkers, which are gray, glass -
hard, spherically-shaped nodules that range from 0.32 to 5.1 cm
(0.125 to 2.0 in.) in diameter.  The chemical reactions and
physical processes that take place during pyroprocessing include:

     1.  Evaporation of uncombined water from raw materials as
material temperature increases to 100°C  (212°F),

     2.  Dehydration as the material temperature increases from
100°C to approximately 430°C  (800°F) to form the oxides of
silicon, aluminum, and iron,

     3.  Calcination, during which carbon dioxide  (C02) is
evolved, between 900°C  (1650'F) and 982°C  (1800°F) to form
calcium oxide,

     4.  Reaction of the oxides in the burning zone of the rotary
kiln to form cement clinker at temperatures about 1510°C
(2750°F) .
                                7-4

-------
The rotary kiln is a long, cylindrical, slightly inclined,
refractory-lined furnace.  The raw material mix is introduced
into the kiln at the elevated end, and the combustion fuels are
usually introduced into the kiln at the lower end, in a
countercurrent manner.  The rotary motion of the kiln transports
the raw material from the elevated end to the lower end.  Fuel
such as coal or natural gas, or occasional^ oil, is used to
provide energy for calcination.  Mercury is present in coal and
oil.  Tables 6-4 and 6-11 presented data pertaining to mercury
content in coal and oil, respectively. ' Use of other fuels, such
as chipped rubber, petroleum coke, and waste solvents, is
becoming increasingly popular.  Combustion of fuel during the
pyroprocessing step contributes to potential mercury emissions.
Mercury may also be present in the waste-derived fuel mentioned
above.  Because mercury evaporates at approximately 350°C
(660°F) ,  most of the mercury present in the raw materials can be
expected to be volatilized during the pyroprocessing step.  Since
temperature at the inlet to the air pollution control device
generally do not exceed this temperature, at least a portion of
the condensed mercury should be captured with the particulate
emissions.

     Pyroprocessing can be carried out using one of five
different processes:  wet process, semi-dry, dry process, dry
process with a preheater, and dry process with a
preheater/precalciner.  These processes essentially accomplish
the same physical and chemical steps described above.  The last
step in the pyroprocessing is the cooling of the clinker.  This
process step recoups up to 30 percent of the heat input to the
kiln system, locks in desirable product qualities by freezing
mineralogy, and makes it possible to handle the cooled clinker
with conventional conveying equipment.  Finally, after the cement
clinker is cooled, a sequence of blending arid grinding operations
is carried out to transform the clinker into finished portland
cement.
                               7-5

-------
7.1.2  Emission Control Measures

     With the exception of the pyroprocessing operations, the
emission sources in the portland cement industry can be
classified as either process emissions or fugitive emissions.
The primary pollutants resulting from these fugitive sources are
PM.  The control measures used for ^hese fugitive dust sources
are comparable to those used throughout the mineral products
industries.

     Methods used to reduce particulate levels in the ambient air
due to vehicular traffic include paving and road wetting.
Additional methods that are applied to other open dust sources
include water sprays with and without surfactants, chemical dust
suppressants, wind screens, and process modifications to reduce
drop heights or enclose storage operations.

     Process fugitive emission sources include materials handling
and transfer, raw milling operations in dry process facilities,
and finish milling operations.  Potential mercury emission
sources are indicated in Figure 7-1 by solid circles.  Typically,
particulate emissions from these processes are captured by a
ventilation system with a fabric filters.  Because the dust from
these units is returned to the process, they are considered to be
process units as well as air pollution control devices.  The
industry uses shaker, reverse air, and pulse jet filters, as well
as some cartridge units, but most newer facilities use pulse jet
filters.  For process fugitive operations, the different systems
are reported to achieve typical outlet PM loadings of
45 milligrams per cubic meter mg/m3  (0.02 grains per actual cubic
foot  [gr/acf]).  Because the mercury is in particle form, the
performance of these systems relative to mercury control is
expected to be equivalent to this overall particulate
performance.  However, no data are available on mercury
performance of fugitive control measures.
                               7-6

-------
     In the pyroprocessing units, PM emissions are controlled by
fabric filters (reverse air, pulse jet, or pulse plenum) and
ESP's.  The reverse air fabric filters and ESP's typically used
to control kiln exhausts are reported to achieve outlet PM
loadings of 45 mg/m3 (0.02 gr/acf).   Clinker cooler systems are
controlled most frequently with pulse jet or pulse plenum fabric
filters.  A few gravel bed  (GB) filters have been used on clinker
coolers.

     According to MacMann, limited data indicate that ESP's
capture about 25 percent and baghouses capture up to 50 percent
of the potential mercury emissions as particulate.    If this
cement kiln dust (CKD)  is returned to the process, the mercury or
mercury compounds in the dust are volatilized again and therefore
essentially all of the mercury input to the process eventually
leaves as a vapor in the kiln stack.  If the dust is wasted,
25 to 50 percent of the mercury input to the process escapes as a
solid in the CKD with the remaining 50 to 75 percent escaping as
a vapor in the kiln stack.77  Some levels of mercury have been
detected in the portland cement product.76

7.1.3  Emissions

     The principal sources of mercury emissions are expected to
be from the kiln and preheating/precalcining steps.  Negligible
quantities of emissions would be expected in the raw material
processing and mixing steps because the only source of mercury
would be fugitive dust containing naturally occurring quantities
of mercury compounds in the limestone.  Processing steps that
occur after the calcining process in the kiln would be expected
to be a much smaller source of emissions than the kiln.
Potential mercury emission sources are denoted by solid circles
in Figure 7-1.  Emissions resulting from all processing steps
include particulate matter.  Additionally, emissions from the
pyroprocessing step include other products of fuel combustion
such as sulfur dioxide (S02),  nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon
                               7-7

-------
dioxide (C02),  and carbon monoxide  (CO).  Carbon dioxide from the
calcination of limestone will also be present in the flue gas.

     Cement kiln test reports were reviewed for facilities
performing Certification of Compliance (COC) tests required of
all kilns burning waste derived fuel (WDF).  Fifteen of the test
reports contained sufficient process information to allow
calculation of mercury emission factors for the kiln stack; these
data are shown in Appendix C, Table C-2.  The results from these
15 kilns showed a range in average emission factors from
2.23 x 10 ~3 g/Mg of clinker  (4.5 x 10"6 Ib/ton of clinker) to
0.49 g/Mg of clinker  (9.7 x 10"4 Ib/ton of clinker).  The average
emission factor for all 15 facilities was 8.7 x 10"2 g/Mg of
clinker (1.7 x 10"4 Ib/ton of clinker).  These data are based on
the average of all test runs.

7.2  LIME MANUFACTURING

     Lime is produced in various forms, with the bulk of
production yielding either hydrated lime or quicklime.  In 1992,
producers sold or used 16.4 x 106 Mg (18 x 106 tons) of lime
produced at 113 plants in 32 States and Puerto Rico.  The 1992
production represented a 4 percent increase over 1991 production.
In 1989, there were 116 lime production operations in the U.S.
with a annual production of 15.56 x 106 Mg  (17.15 x 106 tons).78
The leading domestic uses for lime include steelmaking, flue gas
desulfurization, pulp and paper manufacturing, water
                                     *7fl
purification, and soil stabilization.

     Appendix C provides a list of the active lime plants in the
United States in 1991.  The list includes company headquarters'
locations, plant locations by State, and the type of lime
produced at each plant.  The geographical locations by State of
the lime operations are shown in Table 7-1.
                               7-8

-------
            TABLE 7-1. LIME PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1989
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma
California
Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming
Hawaii, Oregon, Washington
Idaho
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri
Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota
Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia
Massachusetts
No. of
Plants
5
3
3a
11
9a
4a
3
8a
4a
5a
2
State
Michigan
Minnesota,
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin

Puerto Rico
No. of
Plants
8
7a
3
9
10
8
4
5
4

1
Source: Reference 78.



aTotal for States listed.
                                    7-9

-------
7.2.1  Process Description73

     Lime is produced by calcining  (removal of C02) limestone at
a high temperature.  The product of the calcining operation is
quicklime; this material can be hydrated with water to produce
hydrated lime or slaked lime (Ca(OH)2).  Figure 7-2 presents a
flow diagram for the lime manufacturing process.  Lime
manufacturing is carried out in five major steps.  These are:

     l.   Quarrying raw limestone,
     2.   Preparing the limestone for calcination,
     3.   Calcining the limestone,
     4.   Processing the lime by hydrating, and
     5.   Miscellaneous transfer, storage, and handling
          processes.

     The manufacturing steps in lime production are very similar
to that of the dry portland cement process, which was discussed
in the previous section.  The most important process step with
respect to emissions of mercury and other air pollutants is the
calcination.  During calcination, kiln temperature may reach
1820°C (3300°F).  Approximately 90 percent of the lime produced
in the United States is manufactured by calcining limestone in a
rotary kiln.  Other types of lime kilns include the vertical or
shaft kiln, rotary hearth, and fluidized bed kilns.  Fuel, such
as coal,  oil, petroleum coke, or natural gas, may be used to
provide energy for calcination.  Petroleum coke is usually used
in combination with coal.  Auxiliary fuels such as chipped rubber
and waste solvents may potentially be used; at the present time,
however,  no lime kilns use these auxiliary fuels.

     Mercury is expected to be present in very small quantities
in the limestone and in coal and oil used as fuel.  Tables 6-4
and 6-11 present data pertaining to the mercury content in coal
and oil,  respectively.  The predominant fuel sources for lime
kilns are coal, coal/petroleum coke, and natural gas; oil is
rarely used as a fuel source.  As with the production of portland
cement, any mercury present in the raw materials can be expected
                               7-10

-------
.,,
                         RAW MATMM. STOMMi
                    (TOM


1
i 	 tMNCAbCM
MBOOiOMn
OM.T
WATM
f
HTnMTOH
1
1
                               MAX. «ao.«« •!.*•*
           Figure 7-2.  Process flow diagram for lime manufacturing
                                 process.7^
                                   7-11

-------
to be emitted in the lime kiln.  Combustion of fuel in the lime
kiln is the major contributor to mercury emissions.

7.2.2  Emission Control Measures

     With the exception of the lime kiln, the emission sources in
the lime manufacturing industry can be classified as either
process emissions or fugitive emissions.  The primary pollutants
resulting from these fugitive sources are PM.  No specific
control measures for the lime industry are reported in the
literature for the fugitive sources.  The reduction measures used
for fugitive dust sources at portland cement manufacturing
facilities may also be applicable at lime manufacturing
industries.

     Air pollution control-devices for lime kilns are primarily
used to recover product or control fugitive dust and PM
emissions.  Calcination kiln exhaust is typically routed to a
cyclone for product recovery, and then routed through a fabric
filter or ESP's to collect fine particulate emissions.  Other
emission controls found at lime kilns include wet scrubbers
(typically venturi scrubbers).   How well these various air
pollution control devices perform, relative to vapor phase
mercury emissions in lime production, is not well documented.
The control efficiencies are expected to be similar to those
observed in the production of portland cement because of the
similarities in the process and control devices.

7.2.3  Emissions

     Mercury emissions from fuel combustion will occur from the
lime kiln  (calcination) as shown in Figure 7-2 by a solid circle.
Mercury that may be present in the limestone can potentially also
be emitted from the kiln.  All other potential emission sources
in the process are expected to be very minor contributors to
overall mercury emissions.  Emissions resulting from all five
                               7-12

-------
processing steps include particulate matter.  Additionally,
emissions from the lime kiln include other products of fuel
combustion such as SC^, NOX, and CO.

     Representative estimates of mercury emissions from lime
manufacturing are not possible based on the available data from
lime kilns in the U.S.  An ongoing EPA study to update AP-42,
Section 8.15, on lime manufacturing emission factors has reviewed
and summarized test data for lime calcining at 93 kilns.79
Pollutants identified and noted in a summary of the test data did
not indicate any mercury emissions and gave little or no
indication that emissions tests at lime kilns have sampled and
analyzed for trace metals.  However, one previous study provided
1983 mercury emission test data from five Wisconsin lime plants.

     Emission estimates, based on mass balances generated from
information for mercury content in limestone from the five
operating lime kilns in Wisconsin in 1983, revealed mercury
emission estimates of 18 kg/yr (39 Ib/yr) for all the kilns
         Q (-1
combined. u  In 1983, these five lime plants produced
0.29 x 106 Mg (0.32 x 106 tons) of lime.81  Assuming uniform
emissions for each ton of production suggests that 5.5 x 10"2 g
(1.2 x 10"4 Ib)  of mercury were emitted for each Mg (ton) of lime
produced.  These data do not account for any differences in fuel
used to heat the kilns or any differences in raw materials used.
However, because one-third of the lime kilns are fired with
natural gas, which contains no mercury, estimated annual
emissions should be reduced to reflect the differences in fuels
(see Appendix A).

     In the previous section, an emission factor for mercury
emissions from the production of portland cement was estimated
using the results of emission testing at 15 cement kilns.  This
estimated emission factor was 8.7 x 10"2 g (1.7 x 10"4 Ib) of
mercury emitted for each Mg  (ton) of clinker produced.  In the
production of portland cement and in lime production,  the major
                               7-13

-------
source of any mercury emissions is from the kiln during the
calcination process.  In addition, the basic raw material
(limestone) is the same for both products; the fuels are
generally the same, although over one-third of the lime kilns use
natural gas and oil may be used to a greater extent in portland
cement production than in lime manufacture; and the emission
controls are very similar, if not the same.

     The mercury emission factor of 5.5 x 10"2 g/Mg of lime
produced (1.2 x 10"4 Ib/ton)  based on the five lime kilns in
Wisconsin has a high level of uncertainty.  The material
composition could vary significantly across the country, and the
fuel type(s) used in Wisconsin may not be representative of these
used nationwide.  However, based on the overall similarity of the
calcining process in lime manufacture with portland cement
production and the similarities in the two emission factors, the
emission factor based on the five Wisconsin kilns may be useful
to provide an order of magnitude estimate of mercury emissions
from lime manufacture.

7.3  CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION

     Carbon black is produced by pyrolizing petrochemical oil
feedstock.  A compilation of facilities, location, type of
process, and annual capacity is presented in Table 7-2.  A
description of the process used to manufacture carbon black and
the emissions resulting from the various operations is presented
below.
                          82
7.3.1  Process Description
     Carbon black is produced by partial combustion of
hydrocarbons.  The most predominantly used process  (which
accounts for more than 98 percent of carbon black produced) is
based on a feedstock consisting of a highly aromatic
petrochemical or carbo chemical heavy oil.  Mercury can be
                               7-14

-------
                     TABLE 7-2. CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Company
Cabot Corporation
North American Rubber Black Division
Chevron Corporation
Chevron Chemical Company, subsidiary
Olevins and Derivatives Division
Degussa Corporation
Ebonex Corporation
General Carbon Company
Hoover Color Corporation
J.M. Huber Corporation
Phelps Dodge Corporation
Colombian Chemical Company, subsidiary
Sir Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Company
Witco Corporation
Continental Carbon Company, subsidiary
Location-
Franklin, Louisiana
Pampa, Texas
Villa PI att e, Louisiana
Waverly, West Virginia
Cedar Bayou, Texas
Aransas Pass, Texas
Belpre, Ohio
New Iberia, Louisiana
Melvindale, Michigan
Los Angeles, California
Hiwassee, Virginia
Baytown, Texas
Borger, Texas
Orange, Texas
El Dorado, Arkansas
Moundsviile, West Virginia
North Bend, Louisiana
Ulysses, Kansas
Addis, Louisiana
Big Spring, Texas
Borger, Texas
Phenix City, Alabama
Ponca City, Oklahoma
Sunray, Texas
Type of
process*
F
F
F
F
A
F
F
F
C
C
C
F
F and T
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
TOTAL
Annual capacity*1
103 Mg
141
32
127
82
9
57
59
91
4
0.5
0.5
102
79
61
50
77
109
36
66
52
98
27
66
45
1,471
106lbs
310
70
280
180
20
125
130
200
8
1
1
225
175
135
110
170
240
80
145
115
215
60
145
100
3,240
Source: Reference 1 6.

*A = acetylene decomposition
 C m combustion
 F = furnace
 T = thermal
bCapacities are variable and based on SRI estimates as of January 1, 1991
                                             7-15

-------
expected to be present in the feedstock.  Although the mercury
content in the feedstock used to manufacture carbon black is not
known, mercury content in petroleum crude is reported to range
between 0.023 and 30 parts per million  (ppm) by weight.83
Figure 7-3 contains a flow diagram of this process.

     Three primary raw materials used in this process are,
preheated feedstock (either the petrochemical oil or
carbochemical oil), which is preheated to a temperature between
150 and 250°C (302 and 482°F), preheated air, and an auxiliary
fuel such as natural gas.  A turbulent, high-temperature zone is
created in the reactor by combusting the auxiliary fuel, and the
preheated oil feedstock is introduced in this zone as an atomized
spray.  In this zone of the reactor, most of the oxygen would be
used to burn the auxiliary fuel resulting in insufficient oxygen
to combust the oil feedstock.  Thus, pyrolysis  (partial
combustion) of the feedstock is achieved, and carbon black is
produced.  Most of the mercury present in the feedstock will be
emitted in the hot exhaust gas from the reactor.

     The product stream from the reactor is quenched with water,
and any residual heat in the product stream is used to preheat
the oil feedstock and combustion air before recovering the carbon
in a fabric filter.  Carbon recovered in the fabric filter is in
a fluffy form.  The* fluffy carbon black may be ground in a
grinder, if desired.  Depending on the end use, carbon black may
be shipped in a fluffy form or in the form of pellets.
Pelletizing is done by a wet process in which carbon black is
mixed with water along with a binder and fed into a pelletizer.
The pellets are subsequently dried and bagged prior to shipping.

7.3.2  Emission Control Measures                •-
             •                                   •

     High-performance fabric filters are reported to be used to
control PM emissions from main process  streams- during the
manufacture of carbon black.  It is reported that the fabric
                               7-16

-------
                                                                ATMOSPHERIC EMISSlru,-
                                                                  Tad Gai
                                                                    -V«,t
                                                                    -Flor.
                                                                    -StraR/Pow G*ti,r,tk»
                                                                    -Ory«- Fu.1      *tlwi
                                                                    -r**etatock Mistin
                                                                  
-------
filters can reduce PM emissions to levels as low as 6 mg/m^
(normal- m3).  Mercury emissions from the reactor are primarily in
the vapor phase and not as particulate.  These emissions will
proceed through the main process streams to the fabric filters.
If the mercury remains in the vapor phase, the mercury control
efficiency by the fabric filters is expected to be low.  If the
product gas stream i's cooled to below 170°C (325°F) ,  the fabric
filter may capture a significant fraction of the condensed
mercury, thus providing a high degree of emission control.

7.3.3  Emissions

     The processing unit with the greatest potential to emit
mercury'is the reactor.  Mercury emission sources are indicated
in Figure 7-3 by solid circles.  Mercury, which is present in the
oil feedstock, can potentially be emitted during the pyrolysis
step.  However, no data are available on the performance of the
fabric filter control systems for mercury emissions.   The only
available data are for emissions from the oil-furnace process.
These data show mercury emission to be 0.15 g/Mg (3 x 10"4 lb/
ton) from the main process vent.®4  The source of these data
could not be obtained in order to verify the validity of the
emission factors.  Because the factors are not verified, they
should be used with extreme caution.

7.4  BYPRODUCT COKE PRODUCTION

     Byproduct coke, also referred to as metallurgical coke, is
so named because it is produced as a byproduct when coal is
distilled  (in the absence of oxygen) to recover volatiles.  These
volatiles are refined to produce clean coke-oven gas, tar,
sulfur, ammonium sulfate, and light oil.  Table 7-3 contains a
list of byproduct coke oven facilities reported to be in
operation in 1991.85  A description of the process used to
manufacture byproduct coke and the emissions resulting from the
various operations is presented below.
                               7-18
-------
                   TABLE 7-3. BYPRODUCT COKE PRODUCERS IN
                          THE UNITED STATES IN 1991
Facility
Acme Steel, Chicago, IL
Armco, Inc., Ashland, KY
Armco, Inc., Middleton, OH
Bethlehem Steel, Bethlehem, PA
Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor, IN
Bethlehem Steel, Lackawanna, NY
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD
Geneva Steel, Orem, UT
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL
Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel, Pittsburgh, PA
LTV Steel, Chicago, IL
LTV Steel, Cleveland, OH
LTV Steel, Warren, OH
National Steel, Granite City, IL
National Steel, Ecorse, Ml
USS, Div. of USX Corp., Clairton, PA
USS, Div. of USX Corp., Gary, IN
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, East Steubenville,
WV
Number of
batteries
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
T
2
6
5
1
2
1
2
1
12
6
4
Total
number of
ovens
100
146
203
284
164
152
210
208
130
446
315
60
126
85
90
78
816
422
224
Total
capacity,
tons per day
1,600
2,700
4,535
•3,944
4,380
1,872
4,069
2,250
2,800
5,775
5,404
1,600
3,200
1,500
1,520
925
12,640
7,135
3,800
Source:  Reference 85.
                                    7-19
-------
7.4.1  Process Description73'86

     Coke is currently produced in two types of coke oven
batteries:  the slot oven byproduct battery and the nonrecovery
battery.  The slot oven byproduct type is the most commonly used
battery.  Over 99 percent of coke produced in 1990 was produced
in this type of battery.  The nonrecovery battery, as the name
suggests, is one where the products of distillation are not
recovered and are immediately combusted to provide energy within
the plant.  The nonrecovery battery is currently 'used at only one
location; however, it is expected to be a more popular choice
when existing plants are reconstructed.  Figures 7-4 and 7-5
present the general layout and the emission points of a typical
byproduct coke oven battery.

     The byproduct coke oven battery consists of a series
(ranging from 10 to 100) of narrow ovens, 400- to 600-mm-  (16- to
24-inch) wide, and 12- to 18-meter (40- to 60-foot) long.  The
height of the ovens may range between 3 and 6 meters (10 and
20 feet).  Depending on the dimensions, the production capacity
may range between 7.5 and 39 tons of coke per batch.  A heating
flue is located between each oven pair.

     Pulverized coal  (which is the feedstock) is fed through
ports located on the top, by a car (referred to as a larry car in
the industry) that travels on tracks along the top of each
battery.  The ports are sealed upon charging, and gaseous fuel
(usually cleaned coke oven gas) is combusted in the flues located
between the ovens to provide the energy for the pyrolysis.  The
coking process takes place for between 12 and 20 hours, at the
end of which almost all the volatile matter produced from the
coal is  driven off--thus forming coke.  The coke is then
unloaded from the ovens through vertical doors on each end of the
oven into a rail car where it is quenched by spraying several
thousand gallons of water.  At the end of the- coking cycle, the
maximum temperature at the center of the coke mass could be as
                               7-20
-------
                                          00

                                          Is*


                                            >

                                            03
                                            *-
                                            *-
                                            re
                                           J3


                                            C
                                            05


                                            o
                                           o
                                           u
                                           u
                                           a

                                           .a
                                           re


                                           a>

                                           u
                                           OD

                                          LE
7-21
-------
(T) Pulling •minions
(2) Charging tmmions
d)0oor emissions
0 Topsidt emissions
(§) Bantry undwf ire wnitskNis
                        Figure 7-5.  Types of air pollution emissions from coke
                                         oven batteries.7**

                                              7-22
-------
high as 1150°C  (2100°F); therefore, the quenching is performed to
cool down the coke and to prevent complete combustion of the coke
upon exposure to air.  The rail car then unloads the coke in a
separate area where the coke is allowed to cool further.

     Mercury is present in coal in appreciable quantities.
Table 6-4 presented data pertaining to mercury levels in various
types of U.S. coals.  Depending on the type of coal used, the
mercury content can be as high as 8 ppm by weight; however,
values of about 1 ppm are more typical.  The volatiles recovered
from the coking operation will, therefore, contain mercury.

                                Q /•
7.4.2  Emission Control Measures00

     The PM emissions resulting from coal preparation
(pulverizing, screening, and blending) are controlled by
cyclones.  Oven charging produces PM and VOC emissions. • The PM
emissions are reduced by process modifications such as staged or
sequential charging of coal into the coke oven.

     Leaks of VOC through doors are reduced by door cleaning and
maintenance, rebuilding of doors, and manual application of lute
(seal)  material.  Charge lid and offtake leaks are reduced by an
effective patching and luting program.

     Pushing coke into the quench car produces PM, VOC, and other
products of fuel combustion.  Emission control devices used to
control the emissions during quenching include ESP's, fabric
filters, and wet scrubbers.  These control devices are effective
                      \
mainly for PM control.  No data are available for the performance
of these control systems for mercury emissions.  However, because
they typically operate at elevated temperatures [>170°C  (325°F)]
or greater, mercury removal is anticipated to be limited.

     Fugitive PM generated from material handling operations such
as, unloading, storing, and grinding of coal; screening,
                               7-23
-------
crushing, storing, and loading  of  coke.   Information pertaining
to methods of control of fugitive  emissions  resulting from
material handling operations is not  available.

7.4.3  Emissions

     Mercury, which is present  in  the  coal,  will  be primarily
emitted during the coking process.   During the  coking cycle,
mercury emissions leak into the atmosphere through poorly sealed
doors, charge lids, and offtake caps,  and through cracks which
may develop in oven brickwork,  the offtakes,  and  collector mains.
No documentation is available pertaining  to  mercury emissions
resulting from the pyrolysis step.   Emissions resulting from the
various process steps during the manufacture of byproduct coke
will also include PM, VOC, and  CO.

7.5  PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING

     Lead is recovered from a sulfide  ore, primarily galena (lead
sulfide--PbS), which also contains small  amounts  of copper, iron,
zinc, and other trace elements  such  as mercury.  A list of
primary lead smelters currently in operation within the United
States  (U.S.) is given in Table 7-4.87 A description of the
process used to manufacture lead and the  emissions resulting from
the various operations are presented below.

          TABLE 7-4. DOMESTIC PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES
Smelter
ASARCO, East Helena, MT
ASARCO, Glover, MO
Doe Run (formerly St. Joe),
Herculaneum, MO
Refinery
ASARCO, Omaha, NE
Same site
Same site
1 990 Production, Mg (tons)
65,800 (72,500)
112,000 (123,200)
231,000(254,100)
Source: Reference 87.
                               7-24
-------
                          Ti QQ
7.5.1  Process Description'J'°°

     Figure 7-6 contains a process flow diagram of primary lead
smelting.  The recovery of lead from the lead ore consists of
three main steps:  sintering, reduction, and refining.

     Sintering is carried out in a sintering machine, which is a
continuous steel pallet conveyor belt.  Each pallet consists of
perforated grates, beneath which are wind boxes connected to fans
to provide a draft through the moving sinter charge.  The
sintering reactions take place at about 1000°C (1832°F) during
which lead sulfide is converted to lead oxide.  Since mercury and
its compounds vaporize below this temperature, most of the
mercury present in the ore can be expected to be emitted during
sintering either as elemental mercury or as mercuric oxide.

     Reduction of the sintered lead is carried out in a blast
furnace at a temperature of 1600°C (2920°F).  The furnace is
charged with a mixture of sinter (80 to 90 percent of charge),
metallurgical coke (8 to 14 percent of charge), and other
materials, such as limestone, silica, litharge, and other
constituents, which are balanced to form a fluid slag.  In the
blast furnace, the sinter is reduced to lead.  The heat for the
reaction is supplied by the combustion of coke.  Slag, consisting
of impurities, flows from the furnace and is either land
deposited or is further processed to recover zinc.  The
impurities include arsenic,  antimony, copper and other metal
sulfides, iron, and silicates.  Lead bullion, which is the
primary product, undergoes a preliminary, treatment to remove
impurities, such as copper,  sulfur, arsenic, antimony, and
nickel.   Residual mercury can be expected to be emitted during
the reduction step.  Further refining of the lead bullion is
carried out in cast iron kettles.  Refined lead,  which is 99.99
to 99.999 percent pure, is cast into pigs for shipment.
                               7-25
-------
                   "8
                    0>
 



 3
 to


Q
              O>
in
tn
                              
                                                                                        a


                                                                                        I
                                                                                        E ;= o 3 o .
                                                                                        _J C/) CO CO CO N O
                                                                                                   n

                                                                                                     o>



                                                                                                     u
                                                                                                     
                                                    7-26
-------
7.5.2  Emission Control Measures73

     Emission controls on lead smelter operations are employed
for controlling PM and S02 emissions resulting from the blast
furnace and sintering machines^  Centrifugal collectors
(cyclones) may be used in conjunction with fabric filters or
ESP's for PM control.  The blast furnace and the sintering
machine operate at very high temperatures  (in excess of 1000°C
[1832°F]), and as a result, mercury would be emitted from these
sources in vapor form.  Therefore, particulate control devices
would have little effect on mercury emissions from the sintering
machine and blast furnace.  However, no collection efficiency
data are available for mercury using these systems.

     Control of S02 emissions is achieved by absorption to form
sulfuric acid in the sulfuric acid plants, which are commonly
part of lead smelting plants.

7.5.3  Emissions

     Mercury, which may be present in the ore, may be emitted
during the sintering and blast furnace steps and in the dressing
area because these processes take place at high temperatures.
Mercury emission sources are indicated on Figure 7-6 by solid
circles.

     The most recent emission factor data available for mercury
emissions from primary lead smelting are presented in
          op
Table 7-5. °  These data represent emission factors for a custom
smelter operated by ASARCO in El Paso, Texas; this facility
ceased operating in 1985.  No recent mercury emission factors are
available for the three current primary lead smelters.  The
custom smelter in El Paso obtained lead ore from several sources
both within and outside the United States.  These ores had a
variable mercury content depending upon the source of the ore.
Two of the three current smelters are not custom smelters; they
                               7-27
-------
         TABLE 7-5. MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING

Process
Materials Handling:
Ore crushing
Materials Handling:
Sinter charge
mixing
Sintering Machine
leakage
Blast furnace
Slag fuming furnace
Slag pouring
Dross reverberatory
furnace
Emission factor
g/Mg
1.2a
6.5°
0.7b
1.9C
1.7*
0.45d
0.08°
Ib/ton
0.00243
0.01 3C
0.0014
0.0038°
0.0034d
0.0009d
0.00016°

Notes
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Baghouse sampling
data
Baghouse sampling
data
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
sampling data
Source: Reference 88.




aPer ton (or Mg) of raw materials.




"Per ton (or Mg) of sinter.




°Per ton (or Mg) of concentrated ore.




dPer ton (or Mg) of lead product.
                                        7-28
-------
typically process ore from the vicinity of the smelter.  The two
smelters in Missouri use ore only from southeast Missouri; these
ores have a very low mercury content.  The ASARCO-East Helena
plant, although a custom smelter, processes low mercury
concentrates.  None of the three primary lead smelters reported
mercury emission data in the 1990 TRI, indicating that emissions
from the sources are estimated to be below the TRI reporting
threshold.

     Because the data in Table 7-5 were based on ores with a
variable mercury content and the current sources of lead ore have
a low mercury content, the emission factors in Table 7-5 probably
would lead to an overestimation of current emissions.  Extreme
caution should be exercised in the use of these emission factors
to predict precise current emissions; however, the factors may
provide an order of magnitude estimate.  An alternative
estimating method may be to use the actual mercury content of the
ore and estimate emissions based on those data.

7.6  PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING

     Copper is recovered from a sulfide ore principally by
pyrometallurgical smelting methods.   Copper ores contain small
quantities of arsenic, cadmium, lead, antimony, and other heavy
metals including mercury.  Data pertaining to mercury content in
the ore are not available.

     A list of primary copper smelters currently in operation
within the U.S. is given in Table 7-6."  A description of the
process used to manufacture copper and the emissions resulting
from the various operations is presented below.
                               7-29
-------
         TABLE 7-6. DOMESTIC PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS AND REFINERIES
Smelter
ASARCO Inc., Hayden, A2
Cyprus Miami Mining Co., Globe, AZ
MAGMA Copper Co., San Manuel, AZ
Copper Range Co., White Pine, Ml
Phelps Dodge, Hidalgo, NM
Chino Mines Co., Hurley, NM
ASARCO Inc., El Paso, TX
Kennecott, Garfield, UT
ASARCO Inc., Amarillo, TX
Phelps Dodge, El Paso, TX
1 992 Capacity, Mg (tons)
191,000 (210,000)
180,000 (198,000)
290,000 (319,000)
60,000 (66,000)
1 90,000 (209,000)
170,000 (187,000)
100,000 (110,000)
210,000(231,000)
Unknown
Unknown
Source: Reference 89.
7.6.1  Process Description
                          73
     The pyrometallurgical copper smelting process  is  illustrated
in Figure 7-7.  The traditionally used process  includes  roasting
of ore concentrates to produce calcine,  smelting  of roasted
(calcine feed) or unroasted  (green  feed)  ore  concentrates to
produce matte, and converting of the matte to yield blister
copper product (about 99 percent pure).   Typically,  the  blister
copper is fire refined in an anode  furnace, cast  into  "anodes"
and sent to an electrolytic refinery for further  impurity
elimination.  The currently used copper  smelters  process ore
concentrates by drying them in fluidized bed  dryers and  then
converting and refining the dried product in  the  same  manner as
the traditionally used process.

     In roasting, charge material of copper concentrate  mixed
with a siliceous flux  (often a low  grade ore) is  heated  in air to
about 650°C  (1200°F), eliminating 20 to  50 percent  of  the sulfur
as S02.  Portions of such impurities as  antimony, arsenic, and
lead are driven off, and some iron  is  converted to  oxide.  The
                               7-30
-------
                    Ore Concentrates with Silica Fluxes
                      Fuel

                      Air
                ROASTINGa
               OR DRYINGb
           3
           o
           CM

           O>
           OJ
           >

           o
           O
                      Fuel

                      Air
                 OFF GAS
                  FLASH
                SMELTING
            f
      Slag to Dump
       (0.5% Cu)
Air
                 OFF GAS
MATTE (-40% Cu)
             CONVERTING
   Natural or Reformulated Gas
   Green Poles or Logs

                      Fuel

                      Air
           Slag to Converter
                 OFF GAS
                                             Blister Copper (98.5% Cu)
             FIRE REFINING
          J
                                         OFF GAS
• Denotes potential

  mercury emission source
         Anode Copper (99.5% Cu)

      To Electrolytic Refinery
   aFirst step in the traditionally used copper-smelting process.
   bFirst step in the currently used copper-smelting process.
               Figure 7-7. Typical primary copper smelter process.


                                   7-31
-------
roasted product, calcine, serves as a dried and heated charge for
the smelting furnace.  Either multiple hearth or fluidized bed
roasters are used for roasting copper concentrate.  Multiple
hearth roasters accept moist concentrate, whereas fluid bed
roasters are fed finely ground material  (60 percent minus
200 mesh).  With both of these types, the roasting is autogenous.
Because there is less air dilution, higher S02 concentrations are
present in fluidized bed roaster gases than in multiple hearth
roaster gases.  Because mercury has a boiling point of 350°C
(660°F),  most of the mercury in the ore may be emitted as an air
pollutant during roasting.

     In the smelting process, either hot calcines from the
roaster or raw unroasted or dried concentrate is melted with
siliceous flux in a flash smelting furnace to produce copper
matte, a molten mixture of cuprous sulfide (Cu2S), ferrous
sulfide (FeS), and some heavy metals.  The required heat comes
from partial oxidation of the sulfide charge and from burning
external fuel.  Most of the iron and some of the impurities in
the charge oxidize with the fluxes to form a slag atop the molten
bath, which is periodically removed and discarded.  Copper matte
remains in the furnace until tapped.  Mattes produced by the
domestic industry range from 35 to 65 percent copper, with
45 percent the most common.  The copper content percentage is
referred to as the matte grade.  Currently, five smelting furnace
technologies are used in the U.S., reverberatory, electric,
Noranda,  Outokumpu  (flash), and Inco (flash).  Reverberatory
furnace may operate at temperatures as high as 1500°C  (2730°F).
Flash furnaces may operate at temperatures as high as 1200° .
to 1300°C  (2200° to 2300°F).  Even though the exact temperatures
at which the other two furnace technologies (electric and
Noranda)  operate are not known, it is probable that they operate
at temperatures higher than the boiling point of mercury.
Therefore, any residual mercury that remains in the calcine may
be emitted as an air pollutant during the smelting step.
                               7-32
-------
     Reverberatory furnace operation is a continuous process,
with frequent charging of input materials and periodic tapping of
matte and skimming of slag.  Heat is supplied by combustion of
oil, gas or pulverized coal, and furnace temperature may exceed
1500°C  (2730°F).  Currently, a reverberatory furnace used at
ASARCO, El Paso and an Isamelt furnace at Cyprus are being
replaced with ConTop cyclone reactors (another type of flash
smelting).

     For smelting in electric arc furnaces, heat is generated by
the flow of an electric current in carbon electrodes lowered
through the furnace roof and submerged in the slag layer of the
molten bath.  The feed generally consists of dried concentrates
or calcines, and charging wet concentrates is avoided.  The
chemical and physical changes occurring in the molten bath are
similar to those occurring in the molten bath of a reverberatory
furnace.  Also, the matte and slag tapping practices are similar
at both furnaces.  Electric furnaces do not produce fuel
combustion gases, so flow rates are lower and S02 concentrations
higher in the effluent gas than in that of reverberatory
furnaces.

     Flash furnace smelting combines the operations of roasting
and smelting to produce a high grade copper matte from
concentrates and flux.  In flash smelting, dried ore concentrates
and finely ground fluxes are injected, together with oxygen,
preheated air, or a mixture of both, into a furnace of special
design, where temperature is maintained at approximately 1200
to 1300°C (2200 to 2300°F).  Most flash furnaces, in contrast to
reverberatory and electric furnaces, use the heat generated from
partial oxidation of their sulfide charge to provide much or all
of the energy  (heat)  required for smelting.  They also produce
offgas streams containing high concentrations of S02.   Other
flash furnaces, such as ConTop cyclone reactors, use oxyfuel
combustion to generate the heat required for oxidation.
                               7-33
-------
     Slag produced by flash furnace operations typically contains
higher amounts of copper than does that from reverberatory or
electric furnace operations.  As a result, the flash furnace and
converter slags are treated in a slag cleaning furnace to recover
the copper (not conducted at the ASARCO, Hayden facility).   Slag
cleaning furnaces usually are small electric furnaces.  The flash
furnace and converter slags are charged to a slag cleaning
furnace and are allowed to settle under reducing conditions, with
the addition of coke or iron sulfide.  The copper, which is in
oxide form in the slag, is converted to copper sulfide, is
subsequently removed from the furnace and is charged to a
converter with regular matte.  If the slag's copper content is
low, the slag is discarded.

     The Noranda process, as originally designed, allowed the
continuous production of blister copper in a single vessel by
effectively combining roasting, smelting, and converting into one
operation.  Metallurgical problems, however, led to the operation
of these reactors for the production of copper matte.  As in
flash smelting, the Noranda process takes advantage of the heat
energy available from the copper ore.  The remaining thermal
energy required is supplied by oil burners, or by coal mixed with
the ore concentrates.

     The final step in the production of blister copper is
converting, with the purposes of eliminating the remaining iron
and sulfur present in the matte and leaving molten "blister"
copper.  All but one U. S. smelter uses Fierce-Smith converters,
which are refractory lined cylindrical steel shells mounted on
trunnions at either end, and rotated about the major axis for
charging and pouring.  An opening in the center of the converter
functions as a mouth through which molten matte, siliceous flux,
and scrap copper are charged and gaseous products are vented.
Air or oxygen-rich air is blown through the molten matte.  Iron
sulfide  (FeS) is oxidized to iron oxide  (FeO) and S02/ and the
FeO blowing and slag skimming are repeated until an adequate
                               7-34
-------
amount of relatively pure Cu2S, called "white metal", accumulates
in the bottom of the converter.  A renewed air blast oxidizes the
copper sulfide to S02,  leaving blister copper in the converter.
The blister copper is subsequently removed and transferred to
refining facilities.•  This segment of converter operation is
termed the finish blow.  The S02 produced throughout the
operation is vented to pollution control devices.

     One domestic smelter uses Hoboken converters.  The Hoboken
converter is essentially like a conventional Pierce-Smith
converter, except that this vessel is fitted with a side flue at
one end shaped as an inverted U.  This flue arrangement permits
siphoning of gases from the interior of the converter directly to
the offgas collection system, leaving the converter mouth under a
slight vacuum.  The Hoboken converters are also equipped with
secondary hoods to further control emissions.

     Blister copper usually contains from 98.5 to 99.5 percent
pure copper.  Impurities may include gold, silver, antimony,
arsenic, bismuth, iron, lead, nickel, selenium, sulfur,
tellurium, and zinc.  To purify blister copper further, fire
refining and electrolytic refining are used.  In fire refining,
blister copper is placed in an anode furnace, a flux is usually
added, and air is blown through the molten mixture to oxidize
remaining impurities,  which are removed as a slag.  The remaining
metal bath is subjected to a reducing atmosphere to reconvert
cuprous oxide to copper.  Temperature in the furnace is around
1100°C  (2010°F).   The fire-refined copper is cast into anodes.
Further refining separates the copper from impurities by
electrolysis in a solution containing copper sulfate and sulfuric
acid.  Metallic impurities precipitate from the solution and form
a sludge that is removed and treated to recover precious metals.
Copper is dissolved from the anode and deposited at the cathode.
Cathode copper is remelted and cast into bars, rods, ingots, or
slabs for marketing purposes.  The copper produced is 99.95 to
                               7-35
-------
99.97 percent pure.  Any mercury emission during the refining
step will only be minimal.

7.6.2  Emission Control Measures

     Emission controls on copper smelters are employed for
controlling PM and S02 emissions resulting from roasters,
smelting furnaces, and converters.  Electrostatic precipitators
are the common PM control devices employed at copper smeltering
facilities.

     Control of S02 emissions is achieved by absorption to
sulfuric acid in the sulfuric acid plants, which are commonly
part of copper smelting plants.

7.6.3  Emissions

     The main source of mercury will be during the roasting step
and in the smelting furnace.  Converters and refining furnaces
may emit any residual mercury left in the calcine.  These sources
are denoted by solid circles in Figure 7-7.  Data pertaining to
mercury emissions from copper primary copper smelting facilities
are limited.  One emission test report at Copper Range Company
located in White Pine, MI, containing results of metals analysis
was reviewed during this study.90   This facility operates a
reverberatory furnace which is controlled by an ESP.  The exhaust
stream from the converter  (which is uncontrolled) is mixed with
the exhaust from the ESP outlet and is routed through the main
stack and discharged into the atmosphere.  Testing for metals was
done at the main stack after the two exhaust streams  (from the
ESP outlet and the converter) are mixed.  Mercury emissions were
measured for three modes of converter operation, slag-blow,
copper-blow and converter idle  (no blow) cycles.  Mercury level
during the converter idle cycle was measured to be the highest,
corresponding to a mercury emission rate of 0.1661 Ib/hr.
Additionally, the plant capacity was reported to be approximately
                               7-36
-------
42 tons/hr of feed which consists of mill concentrate, limestone,
iron pyrites, and recycled material.  The actual process rate
during the test is not known.  Since the feed mix varies from
facility to facility, the mercury emissions measured at Copper
Range Company, cannot be used to estimate a general mercury
emission factor that would be valid industrywide.  Additionally,
Copper Range Company, is the only facility in the U. S. which
operates a reverberatory furnace.  All other copper smelting
furnaces use flash furnaces which inherently produce less
emissions.

7.7  PETROLEUM REFINING

     Petroleum refining involves the conversion of crude
petroleum oil into refined products, including liquified
petroleum gas, gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel, diesel fuel,
fuel oils, lubricating oils, and feedstocks for the petroleum
industry.

     As of January 1992, there were 32 oil companies in the
United States with operable atmospheric crude oil distillation
capacities in excess of 100,000 barrels per calendar day.  These
oil companies operated refiners at a total of 110 different
locations.  In addition, there were 72 companies with
distillation capacities of less than 100,000 barrels per calendar
day.  A listing of all companies, specific'refinery locations,
and distillation capacities is presented in Appendix D.^1

     Mercury is reported to be present in petroleum crude, and
its content in petroleum crude is reported to range between 0.023
and 30 parts per million (ppm) by weight. ^  A description of the
processes used in petroleum refining and emissions resulting from
the various operations is'presented below.         "         '
                               7-37
-------
7.7.1  Process Description73'92>93

     Figure 7-8 presents a schematic of an integrated petroleum
refinery.  The processes and operations shown in Figure 7-8 show
a general processing arrangement.  However, it may vary among
refineries depending upon the specific products produced.  The
operations at petroleum refineries are classified into five
general categories, as listed below:
     1.   Separation processes,
     2.   Petroleum conversion processes,
     3.   Petroleum treating processes,
     4.   Feedstock and product handling, and
     5.   Auxiliary facilities.
Separation processes--
     Constituents of crude oil include paraffinic, naphthenic,
and aromatic hydrocarbon compounds.  Impurities may include
sulfur, nitrogen, and metals.  Three separation processes used to
separate these constituents include: atmospheric distillation,
vacuum distillation, and recovery of light ends  (gas processing).

     Atmospheric distillation results in the formation of bottoms
consisting of high-boiling-point hydrocarbons.  Topped crude
withdrawn from the bottoms of atmospheric distillation can be
separated further by vacuum distillation.

     In vacuum distillation, the topped crude is heated in a
process heater to temperatures ranging from 370° to 425°C
(700° to 800°F) and subsequently flashed in a multi-tray vacuum
distillation column, operating at vacuums ranging from 350 to
1,400 kg/m2 (0.5 to 2.0 psia).  Standard petroleum fractions
withdrawn from the vacuum distillation include lube distillates,
vacuum oil, asphalt stocks, and residual oils.

     Distillation' is carried out at temperatures higher than the
boiling point of mercury.  Therefore, the distillation step can
be expected to be the primary source of mercury emissions.
                               7-38
-------
                                                    n
                                                    en
                                                      V


                                                     "w


                                                      I

                                                     _«


                                                      2
                                                      0)
                                                      Q.

                                                     T3
                                                      03

                                                      2
                                                      cb
                                                      a


                                                      ta
                                                      X
                                                      
                                                      k-

                                                      CB
7-39
-------
Conversion processes--
     Conversion processes include cracking, coking, and
visbreaking, which break large molecules into smaller molecules;
isomerization and reforming processes to rearrange the structures
of molecules; and polymerization and alkylation to combine small
molecules into larger ones.  Residual mercury from the separation
processes is probably emitted during the conversion processes.

     Catalytic cracking--using- heat, pressure, and catalysts--
converts heavy oils into lighter products.  Feedstocks are
usually gas oils from atmospheric distillation, vacuum
distillation, coking, and deasphalting processes, and they have a
boiling range of 340° to 540°C (650° to 1000°F) .  Two types of
cracking units, the fluidized catalytic cracking  (FCC) unit and
the moving-bed catalytic cracking unit, are used in the
refineries.  Figure 7-9 presents a schematic of a fluid catalytic
              QO
cracking unit. *

     Visbreaking is a thermal cracking process used to reduce the
viscosity of the topped crude or vacuum distillation residues.
The feedstock is heated and thermally cracked at a temperature
ranging between 455° and 480°C (850° and 900°F) and pressure
ranging between 3.5 and 17.6 kg/cm2  (50 and 250 psia).  The
cracked products are quenched with gas oil and flashed into a
fractionator.  The vapor overhead from the fractionator is
separated into light distillate products.  A heavy distillate is
recovered from the fractionator liquid.

     Coking is also a thermal cracking process used to convert
low value residual fuel oil to higher value gas oil and petroleum
coke.  This process is carried out at high temperature and low
pressure, and the resulting products include petroleum coke, gas
oils, and lighter petroleum stocks.           -

     Equipment commonly used during conversion includes process
heaters and reformers.  Process heaters are used to raise the
                               7-40
-------
Rgure 7-9. Schematic of fluidized bed catalytic
               cracking unit."

                   7-41
-------
temperature of petroleum feedstocks to a maximum of 510°C
(950°F).  Fuels burned include refinery gas, natural gas,
residual fuel oils, or combinations.  Reformers are reactors
where the heat for the reaction is supplied by burning fuel.  For
example, the reforming of natural gas by steam takes place in a
reformer equipped with tubes.  The natural gas and steam are
introduced through the tubes, and the energy for the reaction is
supplied by burning fuel in burners located outside the tubes.
     The conversion steps, cracking, coking, and visbreaking,
described above can be expected to be the secondary sources of
mercury emissions.

Treatment processes--
     Petroleum treatment processes, include hydrodesulfurization,,
hydrotreating, chemical sweetening, acid gas removal, and
deasphalting.  These treatment methods are used to stabilize and
upgrade petroleum products.  Removal of undesirable elements,
such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen, is accomplished by
hydrodesulfurization, hydrotreating, chemical sweetening, and
acid gas removal.  Deasphalting is carried out to separate
asphaltic and resinous materials from petroleum products.
Hydrotreating is a process in which the oil feed is treated by
mixing with hydrogen in a fixed-bed catalyst reactor.  Removal of
acid gas involves controlling emissions of SO2.  Elemental sulfur
is recovered as a byproduct.

     Asphalt blowing is carried out by blowing air through the
vacuum distillation residue to polymerize asphalt by oxidation.
Feed is preheated to a temperature ranging between 200° and 320°C
(400° and 600°F) prior to blowing air.  The off gases  (asphalt
fumes) are commonly treated  (for VOC control) in an incinerator
prior to being released into the atmosphere.

     Distillate sweetening is a catalytic process carried out in
a fixed-bed catalytic reactor in which sulfur is introduced in
                               7-42
-------
the sour distillate along with small quantities of caustic and
air.

     Any residual mercury left over in the feedstock after the
separation and conversion steps can be expected to be emitted
during the treatment step.

Feedstock and product handling--
     This includes storage, blending, loading, and unloading of
petroleum crude and products.  No mercury emissions are expected
during these steps.

Auxiliary facilities--
     Auxiliary facilities include boilers, gas turbines,
wastewater treatment facilities, hydrogen plants, cooling towers,
and sulfur recovery units.  Boilers and gas turbines cogeneration
units within petroleum refineries may burn refinery gas.

7.7.2  Emission Control Measures

     Control of VOC  (and in some instances, CO) emissions from
distillation, catalytic cracking, coking, blowdown system,
sweetening,  and asphalt blowing is achieved by flares.  In some
instances, the VOC-laden gas stream is also used as fuel in
process heaters.

     Control of PM emissions from catalytic cracking is achieved
by using cyclones in conjunction with ESP's.

7.7.3  Emissions

     Emissions of mercury can be expected during the process
steps where petroleum crude is processed at high temperatures,
such as the distillation, cracking, visbreaking, and other
conversion steps.  Potential mercury emission sources are
identified in Figures 7-8 and 7-9 by solid circles.  Other
                               7-43
-------
emissions from petroleum refining  operations include mainly PM,
VOC, and products of fuel combustion.  An emission factor for
uncontrolled emissions from  the  fluid  coking unit in the
conversion step was cited in SPECIATE  to  be  3 x 10"5 g/liter
(0.0105 lb/ 1,000 barrels) of  fresh  feed.94   The source of these
data could not be obtained in  order  to verify the validity of the
emission factors.  Because the factors are not verified, they
should be used with extreme  caution.   The only additional data
available pertaining to mercury  emissions are those documented
for process heaters and reformers.   Based on a series of emission
tests carried out in California, emission estimates for mercury
are available for refinery gas-fired process heaters, boilers,
gas turbine cogeneration units,  and  asphalt  fume incinerators.95
Table 7-7 contains emission  factors  for mercury from the above
mentioned sources.
      TABLE 7-7. MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS FOR MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
                    AT PETROLEUM REFINING FACILITIES.
Process Unit
Process heater (refinery gas-fired)
Boiler (refinery gas-fired)
Gas-fired cogeneration unit (refinery gas-fired)
Asphalt fume incinerator (this is an emission control
device to treat the fumes resulting from asphalt
blowing operation)
- Blow cycle
• No blow cycle
Mercury emission factor
kg/1015J
0.09
6.0
2.8
3.4
3.7
lb/1012 Btu
0.2
14
6.6
8
8.5
Source: Reference 95.
     The emission  factors  in Table 7-7 were derived based on an
emission test.  Details  pertaining to the process conditions
during the test are  not  known.   Additionally,  the emission factor
for the asphalt fume incinerator is based on measurements taken
at the outlet of the fume  incinerator, which is an emission
control device for the asphalt  blowing process.  Details
                               7-44
-------
pertaining to any auxiliary fuel used in the fume incinerator are
not known.  Therefore, it is not possible to estimate how much of
the mercury measured is contributed by the fuel used in the fume
incinerator as opposed to that created by the asphalt blowing
process.  Additionally, since the asphalt fume incinerator is
employed primarily for VOC control, the emission factors for
mercury given in Table 7-7 represent uncontrolled emission
factors.

7.8  OIL SHALE RETORTING

     Oil shale is a marlstone-type sedimentary inorganic material
containing complex organic polymers.  These complex organic
polymers are high-molecular-weight solids.  Mercury may be
expected to be present in.oil shale.  However, no data are
available pertaining to mercury content in oil shale.  The
composition of inorganic and organic constituents of oil shale is
completely dependent on deposit location.96

     Thermal decomposition of oil shale is referred to"as oil
shale retorting.  A description of the processes used in oil
shale retorting and emissions resulting from the various
operations is presented below.

7.8.1  Process Description96'97

     The retorting process breaks down the high molecular weight
complex organic polymers contained in oil shale (referred to as
kerogen) into liquid, gaseous, and solid products.  The oil shale
pyrolysis process is carried out approximately at a temperature
of 480°C (900°F).  Pyrolysis reduces the kerogen into coke, gas,
and liquid.  Additional details pertaining to the composition of
the oil and gaseous products are not available.

     Processing of oil shale involves four steps:  feed
preparation, retorting, product recovery, and waste disposal.
                               7-45
-------
There are three general classes of oil shale feed preparation and
retort technology:   (i) mining, followed by surface retorting,
(2) true in situ  (TIS), and (3) modified in situ (MIS).  In
surface retorting, oil shale is mined by conventional underground
or open pit methods, and the oil is recovered in an above-ground
retort. With TIS technology, the retorting takes place
underground in the oil shale deposit.  Modified in situ
technology is a cross between surface and TIS technologies where
the initial 15 to 40 percent of the oil shale is mined and
retorted in a surface facility, and the remaining 60 to
85 percent of the shale is retorted in-place underground.

     The retorting step may be expected to be the primary source
of mercury emissions.

7.8.2  Emission Control Measures

     Flares are reported to be used to control VOC emissions
resulting from the retorting process.  No other details are
available pertaining to air pollution devices used in oil shale
processing operations.

7.8.3  Emissions

     At this time, there are no commercial oil shale retorting
operations being conducted in the United States.

7.9  GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS98
                  \
     Geothermal power plants are either dry-steam or water-
dominated and emitted an estimated 1.3 Mg  (1.4 tons) of mercury
in 1992.  For dry-steam plants, steam is pumped from geothermal
reservoirs to turbines at a temperature of about 180°C  (360°F)
and a pressure of 7.9 bars absolute.  For water-dominated plants,
water exists in the producing strata at a temperature of
approximately 270°C  (520°F) and at a pressure slightly higher
                               7-46
-------
than hydrostatic.  As the water flows towards the surface,
pressure decreases and steam is formed, which is used to operate
the turbines.  There are currently 18 geothermal power plants
operating in the United States."  Table 7-8 lists the names,
locations, and capacities of these facilities.

     Mercury can be expected to be present in the steam and water
because it is recovered from beneath the earth's surface.
However, no data on the mercury content of steam or water cycled
through geothermal facilities are available.

7.9.1  Emission Control Measures

     No information is available pertaining to air pollution
              •
control systems used in geothermal power plants.

7.9.2  Emissions

     Mercury emissions at geothermal power plants are documented
to result from two sources:  off-gas ejectors, and cooling
towers.  Table 7-9 contains the mercury emission factors for
these two sources.  These data are based on measurements taken in
     Q Q
1977. °  No process data are given in the documentation
containing the test results and the primary source of these data
could not be obtained in order to verify the validity of the
emission factors.  If significant process modifications or
changes in control strategies have been incorporated since 1977,
the emission factors reported in Table 7-9 may no longer be
valid.
                               7-47
-------
            TABLE 7-8. CURRENT OPERATING GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS
                         IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1992
Facility
The Geysers, CA
Salton Sea, CA
Heber, CA
East Mesa, CA
Coso, CA
Casa Diablo, CA
Amedee, CA
Wendel, CA
Dixie Valley, NV
Steamboat Hot Springs, NV
Beowawe Hot Springs, NV
Desert Peak, NV
Wabuska Hot Springs, NV
Soda Lake, NV
Still water, NV
Empire and San Emidio, NV
Roosevelt Hot Springs, UT
Cove Fort, UT
Type
Dry-steam
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Net capacity (MW)
1,805.7
218.3
47.0
106.0
247.5
34.0
2.0
0.7
57.0
19.3
16.7
9.0
1.7
15.7
12.5
3.2
20.0
12.1
Total 2,628.4
Source:  Reference 99.
             TABLE 7-9.  MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS FOR GEOTHERMAL
                                POWER PLANTS
Source
Off-gas ejectors
Cooling tower exhaust
Emission factor range,
g/Mwe/hr
0.00075 - 0.02
0.026 - 0.072
Average emission factor
g/Mwe/hr
0.00725
0.05
Ib/Mwe/hr
0.00002
0.0001
Source: Reference 98.
                                    7-48
-------
                            SECTION 8
      EMISSIONS  FROM MISCELLANEOUS FUGITIVE AND AREA SOURCES

8.1  MERCURY CATALYSTS

     Mercury catalysts are used in the production of polyurethane
and vinyl chloride.  According to 1991 data, U.S. consumption of
refined mercury for  "other chemical and allied products" includes
catalysts for plastics and miscellaneous catalysts.  This entire
category was reported to have consumed 18 Mg (20 tons) of mercury
metal in 1991, which represents about four percent of the total
mercury consumed in the U.S.  "

8.1.1  Process Description

     Catalysts involved in the production of polyurethane have
been composed of the phenylmercuric compounds  (CgH^Hg"1") , but few
facilities currently use this catalyst.  The location of these
facilities is unknown.

     Two processes can be used to manufacture vinyl chloride:
one process based on acetylene uses mercuric chloride on carbon
pellets as a catalyst, and the other is based on the
oxychlorination of ethylene.  Vinyl chloride is always produced
by oxychlorination except at Borden Chemical and Plastics
Corporation.  Borden Chemical and Plastics produces about
136,000 Mg  (149,600 tons) of vinyl chloride using mercuric
chloride as a catalyst with acetylene.  This represents
approximately 2.5 percent of the total U.S. production.16
Figure 8-1 shows a flow diagram for this manufacturing process.
To produce 136,000 Mg (149,600 tons) of vinyl chloride requires
57,500 Mg (63,000 tons)  acetylene, 79,000 Mg (87,000 tons)
                               8-1
-------
                                        I
                                        I
                                        p
                                        at

                                       t
                      t
              U3ONVHOX3
                 1V3H
                 J
                                                                          re
                                                                          u
                                                                          U
1
09
E
re
CD
 M
 U)
 9)
 O
 O
0)
 o

 c
>
              aoiovaw
                                        g
                                        s
CO

 0)
                                  ai
I
                              8-2
-------
anhydrous hydrogen chloride, and 131 Mg  (144 tons) of mercuric
chloride impregnated carbon pellets.  The yield is 80 to
85 percent vinyl chloride.101  This reaction occurs when the
anhydrous hydrogen chloride and acetylene are mixed in a reactor
vessel with the mercuric chloride catalyst contained on carbon
pellets.  Sin'ce the reaction is exothermic, the effluent gases
are cooled by heat exchange, and then condensed and fractionated
in a refrigerated column.  Further fractionation in another
refrigerated column will remove the vinyl chloride for
stabilization with phenol and storage.101

8.1.2  Emission Control Measures

     No specific information was found in the literature
concerning specific control measures for mercury emissions.  The
use of a heat exchange and refrigeration column in the production
process will provide for a significant reduction in mercury
emissions, particularly in the refrigerated column.

8.1.3  Emissions

     In Figure 8-1, if the heat exchanger is operated at a low
temperature, mercury condensation will occur and eventually be
found in the bottoms.  However, if the temperature is not
sufficient to provide for condensation, an appreciable quantity
of the mercury from the reactor will be entrained with the
acetylene and HC1.

     No emission factors were found in the literature, and no
test data that could be used to calculate emission factors was
found.  In the 1990 TRI inventory, Borden Chemical and Plastics
reported no mercury emissions at the Louisiana production
facility.5
                               8-3
-------
8.2  DENTAL ALLOYS

     Dental amalgams used to fill cavities in teeth-include an
appreciable quantity of mercury.  The amalgamation process is
fairly generic industrywide, although some dental facilities use
ready-made dental capsules to reduce worker exposure to elemental
mercury.15

     Dental fillings contain mixtures of metals, usually silver
(67 to 70 percent), tin  (25 to 28 percent), copper  (0 to
5 percent), and zinc (0 to 2 percent), which are blended with
mercury in a 5:8 proportion to form an amalgam.15

8.2.1  Process Description

     The dental alloy and mercury are placed inside a two-part
plastic capsule that contains a pestle.  Mercury is added with a
dispenser that delivers a drop  (or "spill") when a button is
pressed.  Usually, only one or two drops are necessary to mix the
amalgam.  The plastic capsule is then closed and placed in an
agitator where the contents are mixed for approximately
15 seconds.  Once mixing is completed, the capsule is opened to
remove the amalgam, which is then placed in a container for
immediate application in the cavity.15

8.2.2  Emission Control Measures

     There are no emission controls noted for handling mercury
used in amalgam production.  One work practice is the use of
ready-made dental capsules that already contain a pestle and
premeasured amounts of mercury and alloy.15  This would eliminate
any unnecessary handling and accidental spilling of mercury.
                               8-4
-------
8.2.3  Emissions

     According to the Bureau of Mines  (1991), industrial
consumption of mercury for dental equipment and supplies was
27 Mg  (30 tons).100  A study in 1980 estimated that approximately
2 percent of the mercury used in dental preparations would be
emitted due to spills and scrap.102  This corresponds to an
emission factor of 20 kg/Mg  (40 Ib/ton) of mercury used.  The
percentage of the total quantity of mercury in dental equipment
and supplies that is used for dental alloys is not known.

8.3  MOBILE SOURCES

     Gasoline-powered motor, on-roadr light-duty vehicles
comprise the most significant mobile emission sources.  According
to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), the total
distance travelled for all vehicles in the U.S. in 1990 was
3,457,478 million kilometers (2,147,501 million miles).103

8.3.1  Emissions

     Historically, the major emissions measured from mobile
sources are CO, NOX/ and hydrocarbons  (HC); AP-42, Volume II
compiles emission factors for these specific pollutants among the
different motor vehicle classes.  A 1983 study indicated an
estimated mercury emission factor of 1.3 x 10"3 milligram (mg)
per kilometer  (km)  (4.6 x 10"^ Ib/mile) for motor vehicles
without resolution of emission rates into vehicle types.104  The
population of vehicles studied was 81.9 percent gasoline-powered
passenger cars, 2.4 percent gasoline-powered trucks, and
15.7 percent diesel trucks.  This emission factor should be used
cautiously as it was based on a 1977 ambient sampling study,
which was before the widespread use of catalytic converters and
unleaded gasoline, and before State-regulated inspection and
maintenance programs were widely mandated.  In 1977,
                               8-5
-------
diesel-powered vehicles had not yet been regulated for emission
controls, especially for particulates.

     A 1979 study characterized regulated and unregulated exhaust
emissions from catalyst and non-catalyst equipped light-duty
gasoline operated automobiles operating under malfunction
conditions.105  An analysis for mercury was included in the study
but no mercury was detected.  The analytical minimum detection
limit was not stated.

     A more recent 1989 study measured the exhaust emission rates
of selected toxic substances for two late model gasoline-powered
               i n f\
passenger cars. UD  The two vehicles were operated over the
Federal Test Procedure  (FTP) ,- the Highway Fuel Economy Test
(HFET), and the New York City Cycle  (NYCC).  Mercury was among
the group of metals analyzed but was not present in detectable
quantities.  The analytical minimum detection limits for mercury
in the three test procedures were:  FTP 0.025 mg/km (8.9 x
10"8 Ib/mile) HFET 0.019 mg/km  (6.7 x 10'8 Ib/mi), and NYCC
0.15 mg/km  (53.2 x 10"8 Ib/mi).107  These minimum detection
limits are over ten times higher than the estimated emission
factor presented in the 1983 study.

8.4  CREMATORIES

     Mercury resulting from the thermal instability of mercury
alloys of amalgam tooth fillings during cremation of human bodies
may potentially be a source of mercury air emissions.  In 1991,
there were about 400,500 cremations in the slightly more than
1,000 crematories located throughout the United States.108
Table 8-1 lists the number of crematories located in each State
and the estimated number of cremations performed in each State.
No information was available on the location of individual
crematories.
                               8-6
-------
               TABLE 8-1. 1991 U.S. CREMATORY LOCATIONS BY STATE
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
No. of
crematories
6
7
26
13
141
28
10
4
1
95
14
10
12
44
21
15
10
5
6
4
' 17
13
38
18
4
19
No. of
cremations3
1,138
790
10,189
1,787
86,374
7,432
4,260
1,165
b
46,775
2,684
3,495
1,949
12,083
3,636
2,241
1,559
1,192
1,853
2,656
5,587
8,104
13,431
5,662
450
4,637
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

No. of
crematories
12
6
11
6
16
9
40
24
1
41
9
34
44
5
10
4
8
36
5
5
25
46
6
29
2

No. of
cremations
2,502
1,139
5,009
1,842
14,427
2,134
23,946
4,749
b
12,552
1,372
9,020
12,153
1,842
1,764
b
1,712
9,340
769
1,570
6,097
15,673
582
5,541
b

a1990 data. 1991 data unavailable.
"No information available.
Source: Reference 108.
                                     8-7
-------
     No data are available for the average quantity of mercury
emitted for a cremation in the United States.  Only three
estimated levels have been cited for European countries
(Switzerland, Germany, and the UK)  with an estimated emission of
one gram of mercury per cremation recommended as a typical
value.110  This emission factor is not considered to be
applicable to cremations in the United States.  There is a
substantial difference in the frequency of cremations in Europe
compared to the United States.  In addition, there is a
considerable variation in the overall dental care programs in the
United States compared to Europe which may result in a difference
in the average number of mercury amalgam fillings per person.
The average number of fillings per person and the average mercury
content per filling have a direct impact on the estimated mercury
emissions.  The considerable potential differences between the
United States and Europe precludes an accurate estimate of
mercury emissions from this source.

8.5  PAINT-USE

     Four mercury compounds--phenylmercuric acetate,
3-(chloromethoxy) propylmercuric acetate, di(phenylmercury)
dodecenylsuccinate, and phenylmercuric oleate--have been
registered as biocides for interior and exterior paint.111
Surface application of paints using these compounds resulted in
an estimated 13.2 Mg  (14.6 tons) of mercury emissions into the
atmosphere in 1990 and 4 Mg (5 tons) in 1991.

     Mercury compounds are added to paints to preserve the paint
in the can by controlling microbial growth and to preserve the
paint film from mildew attack after it is applied to a surface.
During and after application of paint, these mercury compounds
can be emitted into the atmosphere.  One source estimates that
66 percent of the mercury used in paints is emitted into the
atmosphere; however, this emission rate, which was derived using
engineering judgement, is based on a 1975 study performed when
                               8-8
-------
the demand for mercury in paint was high.10  The age of the data
and the method by which the emission factor was calculated limit
the reliability of the factor, making emission estimates
generated from it quite uncertain.  Furthermore, no conclusive
information is available regarding the time frame over which
mercury in paint is emitted into the atmosphere -after it is
applied to a surface.  However, limited information suggests that
emissions could occur for as long as 7 years after initial
application, although the distribution of emissions over this
time period is unknown.112

     As of May 1991, all registrations for mercury biocides used
in paints were voluntarily canceled by the registrants, thus
causing a drastic decrease in the use of mercury in paint.113
For example, the paint industry's demand for mercury in 1989 was
192 Mg (211 tons) but fell to 6 Mg (7 tons) in 1991.10°  Note
that emission estimates presume that all mercury emissions are
generated from paint application in the year that the paint is
produced.

8.6  SOIL DUST

     Mercury levels in soil dust have been measured at a few
locations in the western United States.^4  The mercury level in
soil dust near a phosphate fertilizer operation in Pocatello,
Idaho was found to be 0.002 (20 ppm)  weight percent and levels in
dust from an unpaved road near the same facility were at
0.001 weight percent.  This reference also cited mercury levels
to be about 0.001 weight percent in soil dust near a courthouse
in Medford, Oregon; at a school in Bend, Oregon; near the
downtown area of Grant's Pass, Oregon; and near Key Back in
Eugene, Oregon.  Samples taken near a silicone manufacturing
plant in Springfield, Oregon,  showed mercury levels at
0.004 weight percent in the soil dust.  Tests at LaGrande dock in
LaGrande, Oregon, showed mercury in the soil dust at levels of
0.003 weight percent.
                               8-9
-------
     The validity of these levels cannot be verified because the
original references could not be located to evaluate the test
methods and procedures used in these studies.  In addition, the
mercury levels found in the soils of these areas probably are not
indicative of soil levels in other areas of the country.  The
soils in the Idaho and Oregon areas are primarily volcanic in
geologic origin and have higher soil mercury levels than other
areas of the U.S.

8.7  NATURAL SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS

     Mercury is emitted from natural sources (rock, soils, water
and biota) primarily as elemental mercury vapor and to a lesser
degree as particulate and vaporous oxides, sulfides and halides
of mercury.  Organomercurie compounds  (methylmercury vapors) are
also a significant component of natural emissions  (some evidence
of dimethyl-mercury emissions also exists).11   However, few
direct .measurements of mercury flux and speciation from natural
sources are available in the literature.  There is general
agreement that the principal natural sources of mercury emissions
include, in order of probable importance, volatilization in
marine and other aquatic environments, volatilization from
vegetation, degassing of geologic materials, particulate matter
(PM) and vapor emissions during volcanic and geothermal activity,
wind-blown dust, and PM and vapor emissions during forest and
brush fires.  Recent studies strongly emphasize the importance of
the air-water exchange of mercury as well as biologically
mediated volatilization in both marine and terrestrial
environments.114"117  These sources represent a relatively
constant flux to the atmosphere and may comprise 30 to 50 percent
of total natural emissions.117  In contrast, volcanic,
geothermal, and burning biomass activities are widely variable
temporally and spatially.  Volcanic eruptions, in particular, can
cause massive perturbations in atmospheric trace metal cycles.
Volcanic activity alone may comprise 40 to 50 percent of total
natural mercury emissions at times.117
                               8-10
-------
     Published estimates of total global emissions of mercury
from natural sources range widely from 100 to 30,000 megagrams
(Mg) (110 to 33,000 tons) per year.  However, the more recent
estimates cluster in the 2,000 to 3,000 Mg per year range.114"117
Lindqvist, citing work done in 1988, estimated natural emissions
to be 3,000 Mg (3,300 tons) per year or approximately 40 percent
of total global emissions from all sources.114  The supporting
data for individual source categories are limited for each of
these estimates,  and it is clear that any quantitative
understanding of natural mercury flux is lacking.

     As a result of reemission, current levels of mercury emitted
to the atmosphere by natural processes are elevated relative to
preindustrial levels.  More than two thirds of world mercury
production has occurred since 1900, and mercury emissions have
been widely dispersed and recycled.  In other words, present day
emissions from natural sources are comprised of a yesterday's
anthropogenic emissions, in part.  It is not possible to quantify
the contribution of recycled mercury to the natural emissions
estimates and, therefore, the estimates cited above must be
viewed with even greater uncertainty.
                               8-11
-------
                            SECTION 9
                      SOURCE  TEST PROCEDURES

9.1  INTRODUCTION

     A number of methods exist to determine mercury emissions
from stationary sources.  Several EPA offices and some State
agencies have developed source specific or dedicated sampling
methods for Hg.  Other industry sampling methods do exist, but
none of these methods have been validated and will not be
discussed in this section.

     Subsequent parts of this section discuss EPA reference or
equivalent sampling methods for Hg.  Sampling methods fall into
one of two categories:  (1) dedicated Hg methods for specific
sources or, (2) multiple metals sampling trains that include Hg
for multiple sources.  Each category of methods will be
described, differences among the methods will be discussed, and a
citation provided for more detailed information about the
methods.  A summary of methods is presented in Table 9-1.

     Sampling methods included in this section were selected from
EPA reference methods, draft methods, or State methods.  To be a
reference method, a sampling method must undergo a validation
process and be published.   To qualify as an equivalent method,.a
sampling method must be demonstrated to the EPA Administrator,
under specific conditions, as an acceptable alternative to the
normally used reference methods.  Also included in this section
is a draft method, which is under development.
                               9-1
-------
CO
a
o
x

LU
e?
z

0.


CO


or
D
U
QC
LU
CQ
<
1
.0
'*3
O
ffl

Q
09
U
C
09
v2
09
_C
"re
.0
09
(J




09
CD
C
DC







09
CD
C
'5.
E






09
LIT




•o
o
n\
w



•o
09
.22
s
Z










CM
O

E
•gj
X
CO
^
O
CM
*~
O
x
LO
d




"33
CD
re
0
y 1
X X
n —






09
0


o
^
0.
LU

•o
aj
o
Z
09

re
E
u
"c
re c >
2° 1
o £ "a
Q) Q. •£
S 5 5
CO ^ _
« CD o
w +* .3
3> a
O 5 o

_
.E
"cb
X
CD
C
o
o

6
CM




—
OO°
III
^ ^ '(0
XXX
t- CM »-



•_
5 T5
•*- C
 ^co> O °
II 111
X X X X X
•- CM »- CM «-
CO

re
CD
0
N
^ w
CO m
8$


O)
CM *;
ct o
LU ^.
g
"S
CO
CM
d










09
O
Z
1
"tab
X
CD
a.
o
~
E
•^»

T.
CO
c
^5 ^^
c 0
O CM CO
•g^ O CM
3 x" ^ "33
> ^cb > O °
aO a. c ™
» X 09 ^ "3
X X X X X
i- CM •- CM ^
CO
CO
re
CD
O
N

II
CM
O
o
CO
oo
1
£
CO
^^
CD
X
CD
CM
d










09
O
•z
\
"cb
X
CD

0
**
.E


X
CO


6^
CM CO
O CM
^ 5 —
> "co > O °
lilii
09 X 09 ^ CO
X X X X X
«- CM r- CM »-
CO
CO
_re
CD
0
N

(§1


LU
m
^
CO
O
^
CO
I
CO
CM
d










09
O
Z
E
"cb
X
CD
5.
O
*^
.E


X
CO


O
CMCO
O CM
I*5 -5
> "Too °
So c «
E z 5 =
09 X ^ CO
X X X X
^ CM CM t-
co
CO
re
CO
o
N
C ,_
a i§

CO
CO
CO
oc

(J
                                                9-2
-------
9.2  DEDICATED MERCURY SAMPLING METHODS

9.2.1  EPA Method 101-Determination of Particulate and Gaseous
       Mercury Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Plants11^

     This method applies to the determination of particulate and
gaseous Hg emissions from chlor-alkali plants and other sources
(as specified in the regulations), where the carrier-gas stream
in the duct or stack is principally air.  Particulate and gaseous
Hg emissions are withdrawn isokinetically from the source and
collected in an acidic iodine monochloride (IC1) solution.  The
Hg collected (in the mercuric form) is reduced to elemental Hg
and then aerated and precipitated from the solution into an
optical cell and measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometry
(AAS).   A diagram of a sampling train typical of dedicated Hg
sampling trains is presented in Figure 9-1.

     After initial dilution, the range of this method is 0.5 to
120 micrograms of Hg per milliliter (/xg Hg/ml) .  The upper limit
can be extended by further dilution of the sample.  The
sensitivity of this method depends on the selected
recorder/spectrophotometer combination.

     Analytical interferences include S02 which reduces IC1 and
causes premature depletion of the IC1 solution. Also,
concentrations of IC1 greater than 10"4 molar inhibit the
reduction of the Hg(II)  ion in the aeration cell.  Condensation
of water vapor on the optical cell windows of the AAS causes a
positive interference.

     Estimates of precision and accuracy were based on
collaborative tests,  wherein 13 laboratories performed duplicate
analyses on two Hg-containing samples from a chlor-alkali plant
and on one laboratory-prepared sample of known Hg concentration.
                               9-3
-------
                                                  CD
                                                 _c

                                                 "a


                                                  ID
                                                  O

                                                  CD

                                                  £

                                                  •o
                                                  0)

                                                  (O
                                                  o

                                                  '•6
                                                  0)
                                                  •a

                                                  "c5
                                                  o

                                                  'a
                                                  OT

                                                  0)



                                                  O
9-4
-------
The estimated within-laboratory and between-laboratory standard
deviations are 1.6 and 1.8 /*g Hg/ml, respectively.

9.2.2  EPA Method IQlA-Determination of Particulate and Gaseous
       Mercury Emissions from Sewacre Sludge Incinerators

     This method is similar to Method 101, except acidic
potassium permanganate (KMn04) solution is used for collection
instead of acidic IC1.  This method applies to the determination
of particulate and gaseous Hg emissions from sewage sludge
incinerators and other sources as specified in the regulations.

     Particulate and gaseous Hg emissions are withdrawn
isokinetically from the source and collected in acidic KMn04
solution.  The Hg collected (in the mercuric form) is reduced to
elemental Hg, which is then aerated from the solution into an
optical cell and measured by AAS.

     After initial dilution, the range of this method is 20 to
800 nanograms of Hg per milliliter (ng Hg/ml).  The upper limit
can be extended by further dilution of the sample.  The
sensitivity of the method depends on the selected
recorder/spectrophotometer combination.

     Analytical interferences include excessive oxidizable
organic matter in the stack gas,  which prematurely depletes the
KMn04 solution, and thereby prevents further collection of Hg.
Condensation of water vapor on the optical cell windows of the
AAS causes a positive interference.

     Based on eight paired-train tests, the within-laboratory
standard deviation was estimated to be 4.8 /tg Hg/ml in the
concentration range of 50 to 130  micrograms of Hg per cubic meter
    Hg/m3).
                               9-5
-------
9.2.3  EPA Method 102-Determination of Particulate and Gaseous

       Streams120

     Although similar to Method 101, Method 102 requires changes
to accommodate the sample being extracted from a hydrogen stream.
Sampling is conducted according to Method 101, except:

     1.  Operate only the vacuum pump during the test.  The other
electrical equipment, e.g., heaters, fans, and timers, normally
are not essential to the success of a hydrogen stream test.

     2.  Calibrate the orifice meter at flow conditions that
simulate the conditions at the source as described in APTD-0576
(see Citation 9 in Section 10 of Method 101).   Calibration should
either be done with hydrogen or with some other gas having a
similar Reynolds Number so that there is a similarity between the
Reynolds Numbers during calibration and during sampling.

9.3  MULTIPLE METALS SAMPLING TRAINS

9.3.1  Method 0012-Methodology for the Determination of Metals
       Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Hazardous Waste
       Incineration and Similar Combustion Sources

     Two other multiple metals sampling methods developed by EPA
exist that can be used to collect Hg.  These methods are the
Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions in Exhaust
Gases from Hazardous Waste Incineration and Similar Combustion
Sources and EPA Method 29-Methodology for the Determination of
Metals Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Incineration and Similar
Combustion Sources  (Draft).122'123  Both methods are virtually
identical to Method 0012 in sampling approach and analytical
requirements.
                               9-6
-------
     This method was developed for the determination of a total
of 16 metals, including Hg, from stack emissions of hazardous
waste incinerators and similar combustion processes.  Method 0012
allows for the determination of particulate emissions from these
sources; however, the filter heating/desiccation modifications to
the sample recovery and analysis procedures described in this
protocol for the purpose of determining particulate emissions may
potentially impact the front-half Hg determination.  A diagram of
a sampling train typical of a multiple metals sampling train is
presented in Figure 9-2.

     The stack sample is withdrawn isokinetically from the
source.  Particulate emissions are collected in the probe and on
a heated filter; gaseous emissions are collected in a series of
moisture knockout traps, chilled impingers, and silica gel traps.
Of the four solution charged impingers, two contain an aqueous
solution of dilute nitric acid (HN03) combined with dilute
hydrogen peroxide (H202) and two contain acidic potassium
permanganate (KMn04)  solution.  Materials collected in the
sampling train are digested with acid solutions using
conventional Parr® Bomb, or microwave digestion techniques to
dissolve inorganics and to remove organic constituents that may
create analytical interferences.   As many as six separate samples
can be recovered from the sampling train.  The HN03/H202 impinger
solution, the acidic KMn04 impinger solution, the hydrochloric
acid (HC1)  rinse solution, the acid probe rinse, the acetone
probe rinse, and digested filter solutions can be analyzed for Hg
by cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS).   As few as
three sample fractions can be analyzed for Hg;  the combined probe
rinse and filter, the combined HN03/H202 impinger solutions, and
the combined KMn04 impinger and rinse solutions.  The detection
limit for Hg by CVAAS is approximately 0.2 ng Hg/ml.

     The corresponding in-stack method detection limit can be
calculated by using (l)  the procedures described in this method,
(2)  the analytical detection limits described in the previous
                               9-7
-------
                                                       as
                                                       _c

                                                       "a,

                                                       E
                                                       n>
                                                       t/j

                                                       _w
                                                       (O
                                                       **
                                                       v
                                                       3



                                                      15
                                                       o

                                                      'a
                                                      OJ

                                                      03
                                                      w>
                                                      3
                                                      CD
9-8
-------
paragraph,  (3) a volume of 300 ml for the front-half and  150 ml
for the back-half samples, and  (4) a stack gas sample volume of
1.25 m3:
where:    A = analytical detection limit, /*g Hg/ml
          B* = volume of sample prior to aliquot for analysis, ml
          C - sample volume, dry standard cubic meter  (dscm)
          D = in- stack detection limit, /xg Hg/m3

     The in- stack method detection limit for Hg using CVAAS based
on this equation is 0.07 /*g Hg/m3 for the total sampling train.
A similar determination using AAS is 5.6 j*g Hg/m3.
                  •
9.3.2  GARB Method 436 -Determination of Multiple Metals Emissions
       from Stationary Sources124

       This method is applicable for determining the emissions of
metals, including Hg, from stationary sources.  This method is
similar to SW-846 Method 0012 in sampling approach and analytical
requirements.  Method 436 suggests that the concentrations of
target metals in the analytical solutions be at least 10 times
the analytical detection limits.  This method may be used in lieu
of Air Resource Board Methods 12, 101, 104, 423, 424, and 433.

9.4  ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF MERCURY125'126

       This section contains brief descriptions of two analytical
techniques generally used for Hg determinations.

       The two Hg analysis methods are Method 7470 and 7471, from
SW-846.  Both methods are cold-vapor atomic absorption methods,
based on the absorption of radiation at the 253.7-nm wavelength
by mercury vapor.  Mercury in the sample is reduced to the
elemental state and aerated from solution in a closed system.

                               9-9
-------
The Hg vapor passes through a cell positioned in the light path
of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer.  Absorbance  (peak
height) is measured as a function of mercury concentration.
Cold-Vapor AA  (CVAA) uses a chemical reduction to selectively
reduce Hg.  The procedure is extremely sensitive but is subject
to interferences from some volatile organics, chlorine, and
sulfur compounds.  The typical detection limit for these methods
is 0.0002 mg/L.

       The two methods differ in that Method 7470 is approved for
analysis of Hg in mobility-procedure extracts, aqueous wastes,
and ground waters.  Method 7471 is approved for analysis of Hg in
soils, sediments, bottom deposits, and sludge-type materials.
Analysis of samples containing high amounts of organic present
          *
special problems:   (1) likely to foam during the reduction step
and block the flow of sample to the absorption cell and (2) have
high reducing capability and can reduce Hg(II) to Hg before
addition of stannous chloride (SnCl2).

       Two analytical considerations are common to both methods.
stannous chloride should be added immediately prior to analysis
to ensure the reduction of Hg(II) to Hg occurs in the
vaporization cell only.  Second, moisture in the absorption cell
can reduce the reliability of the method and should be eliminated
or minimized.  Finally, a closed-loop system may provide a more
reliable system than an open-loop system for introduction of the
sample to the reaction flask.

9.5  SUMMARY

       All of the above source sampling methods collect a sample
for analysis of multiple metals, including Hg, or a sample for Hg
analysis alone.  Significant criteria and characteristics of each
method are presented in Table 9-1.  This table is a summary of
information presented in various methods.  The major differences
between the methods involve:  (1) the type of impinger solutions,
                              9-10
-------
 (2) the amount or concentration of impinger solutions,  (3) the
sequence and types of sample train recovery solutions, and
 (4) the use and/or type of particulate filter.

       In assessing Hg emissions from test reports, the age or
revision number of the method indicates the level of precision
and accuracy of the method.  Older methods are sometimes less
precise or accurate than those that have undergone more extensive
validation.  Currently, EPA Method 301 from 40 CFR Part 63,
Appendix A can be used to validate or prove the equivalency of
new methods.
                              9-11
-------
                          SECTION  10

                          REFERENCES
 1.  Toxic Chemical Release Reporting:  Community Right-To-Know.
     Federal Register 52(107):  21152-21208.  June 4, 1987.

 2.  Drake,  H. J.,  Mercury, (In)  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of
     Technology.  Volume 15.  3rd ed. M. Grayson, exec. ed.
     John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.  1981.

 3.  Kleinberg, J., W. J. Argersinger, Jr., and Ernest Griswold.
     Inorganic Chemistry.  D.  C.  Heath and Company, Boston, MA.
     1960.

 4.  Staff,  Branch of Nonferrous Metals.  Mercury.  In Minerals
     Yearbook--1991 Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of
     Interior, Washington, D.C.  1992.

 5.  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1990 Toxics Release
     Inventory.  Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.
     December 1992.

 6.  XATEF.   Crosswalk/Air Toxic Emission Factor Data Base.
     Version 1.2. for October 1991 update.  Office of Air
     Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  October
     1991.

 7.  Staff,  Branch of Nonferrous Metals, Division of Mineral
     Commodities.  Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the
     Interior, Washington, DC.  1992.

 8.  Coleman, R. B.  Roasting of Refractory Gold Ore and
     Concentrates.   (In) Proceedings of the Gold '90 Symposium--
     Gold '90, Salt Lake City, UT.  February 26-March 1, 1990.
     Society of Mining Engineers of AIME.  Littleton, CO. 1990.

 9.  Anderson, D.  Emission Factors for Trace Substances.
     EPA-450/2-72-001.  U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.   December 1973.
                                              »
10.  Van Horn, W.  Materials Balance and Technology Assessment
     of Mercury and Its Compounds on National and Regional
     Bases.   EPA-560/3-75-007  (NTIS PB-247 000/3).  Office of
     Toxic Substance,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC.  October 1975.

                              10-1
-------
11.  Bartlett,  P. T. and T. L. Muldoon.  Propose and Evaluate
     Methods of Controlling Mercury Vapor Emissions in a
     Processing Mill Furnace Room.  BUMINES-OFR-44-83
     (NTIS PB 83-171751).   National Technical Information
     Service.  Springfield, VA.  July 1982.

12.  Staff, Branch of Nonferrous Metals.  Mercury.  (In)
     Minerals Yearbook--1989, Volume I.  Metals and Minerals.
     Bureau of Mines.  U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
     Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.  1991.

13.  Cammarota, V.A., Jr.   Mercury.  (In) Mineral Facts and
     Problems.   1975 ed.  Bureau of Mines Bulletin 657.  U.S.
     Department of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office,
     Washington,  DC.

14.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Review of National
     Emission Standards for Mercury.  EPA-450/3-84-004.
     Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Research
     Triangle Park, NC.  March 1984.

15.  Reisdorf,  R. P. and D. C. D'Orlando.  Survey of Health
     Hazard Control Systems for Mercury Use and Processing.
     NTIS PB85-107241.  National Technical Information Service,
     Springfield, VA.  February 1984.

16.  SRI International.  1991 Directory of Chemical Producers:
     United States of America.  SRI International, Menlo Park,
     CA.  1991.

17.  Dynamac Corporation.   Mercury Control Technology Assessment
     Study:  Troy Chemical Corporation, Newark, NJ.  Preliminary
     Survey Report for the Site Visit of October 15, 1981.
     ECTB-109-32A  (NTIS PB89-130256).  National Technical
     Information Service,  Springfield, VA.  June 1982.

18.  Rauh, F. Alkali and Chlorine Products:  Mercury Cell
     Process.  (In) Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
     Technology.   Volume 1.  4th ed.  J,I. Kroschivitz,
     exec. ed.   John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.  1991.

19.  Bureau of Air Management.  Mercury Emissions to the
     Atmosphere in Wisconsin.  Publication Number PUBL-AM-014.
     Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison,  WI.
     June 1986.

20.  Gu, H., and D. N. Bennion.  Batteries and Electric Cells,
     Primary:  Primary Cells.   (In) Kirk-Othmer Concise
     Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  Grayson, M., and
     D. Eckroth,  eds.  A Wiley-Interscience Publication,  John
     Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.  1985.
                              10-2
-------
21.  Dynamac Corporation.  Mercury Control Technology Assessment
     Study.  Ray-0-Vac Corporation, Portage, WI.  Preliminary
     Survey Report for the Site Visit of September 22, 1981.
     ECTB-109-34A (NTIS PB89-'130777) .  National Technical
     Information Service, Springfield, VA.  September 1982.

22.  Dynamac Corporation.  Mercury Control Technology Assessment
     Study:  Ray-0-Vac Corporation, Madison, WI.  Preliminary
     Survey Report for the Site Visit of September 23, 1981.
     ECTB-109-27A (NTIS PB89-130181).  National Technical
     Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
     September 1982.

23.  Little (A.D.),  Inc.  Exposure and Risk Assessment for
     Mercury.   EPA Contract 68-01-3957.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, 1980.

24.  NATICH (National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse Data
     Base).  Emissions Standards Division, Office of Air Quality
     Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  1992.

25.  U.S. Department of Energy.  State Energy Data Report,
     Consumption Estimates, 1960-1990.  Report
     No. DOE/EIA-0214(90).   Energy Information Administration,
     Office of Energy Needs and End Use, U.S. Department of
     Energy,  Washington, DC.  May 1992.

26.  Brooks, Garry.   Estimating Air Toxic Emissions from Coal
     and Oil Combustion Sources.  EPA-450/2-89-001.  Prepared by
     Radian Corporation for U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  April 1989.

27.  White, D.M. L.O. Edwards, A.G. Eklund, D.A. DuBose, and
     F.D. Skinner.  Correlation of Coal Properties with
     Environmental Control Technology Needs for Sulfur and Trace
     Elements.  EPA-600/7-84-066.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  1984.

28.  Swanson,  V.E.,  J.H. Medlin, J.R. Hatch, S.L. Coleman,
     G.H. Wood, S.D. Woodruff, and R.T. Hildebrand.  Collection,
     Chemical Analysis, and Evaluation of Coal Samples in 1975.
     USGS Report No. 76-468.  U.S. Department of the Interior,
     Geological Survey. Washington, DC.  1976.

29.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Compilation of Air
     Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fourth Edition,
     Supplement B.  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  September 1988.

30.  Babcock and Wilcox Company.  Steam:  Its Generation and
     Use.  Babcock and Wilcox, New York, NY.  1978.
                              10-3
-------
31.  Letter from R.B. Finkelman, U.S. Department of the
     Interior, to D.D. Wallace, Midwest Research Institute.
     February 8, 1993.  Metal concentrations in coal.

32.  Buonicore, A.J. and W.T. Davis, eds.   Air Pollution
     Engineering Manual.  Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
     NY, 1992.

33.  Radian Corporation.  Evaluation of Emissions Information in
     the PISCES Data Base.  Prepared for Utility Air Regulatory
     Group.  Final Report.  March 5, 1992.

34.  Boron, D.J.  Controlling Toxic Emissions.  Coal.
     June 1990.

35.  Osborne, W.E. and M.D. McDannel.  Emissions of Air Toxic
     Species:  Test Conducted Under AB2588 for the Western
     States Petroleum Association.  Report No. CA 72600-2601.
     CARNOT, Tustin, CA.  May 1990.

36.  Pape & Steiner Environmental Services.  AB2588 Testing at
     Texaco Trading and Transportation, Inc.  Panoche
     Station-Heater, June 18 through June 29, 1990.  Report
     PS-90-2187.  Pape & Steiner Environmental Services
     Bakersfield, CA.  September 1990.

37.  Hopkins, K.C. and L.A. Green.  Air Toxics Testing at Morro
     Bay Unit 3.  March 1-5, 1990 CARNOT,  Tustin, CA.  May 1990.

38.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Compilation of Air
     Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fourth Edition,
     Supplement E.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  October 1992.

39.  Ackerman, D.G., et al.  Health Impacts, Emissions, and
     Emission Factors of Noncriteria Pollutants Subject to De
     Minimis Guidelines and Emitted from Stationary Conventional
     Combustion Processes.  EPA-450/2-80-074.  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC.  June 1980.

40.  National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
     Improvement, Inc.  Current Status of Nonrecyclable Paper
     Burning in the Forest Products Industry.  NCASI Technical
     Bulletin No. 615.  September 1991.

41.  Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 1.6, Wood
     Waste Combustion in Boilers.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  1992.
                              10-4
-------
42.  DeAngelis, D.G., D.S. Ruffin, J.A. Peters, and R.B. Reznik,
     Source Assessment:  Residential Wood Combustion.
     EPA-600/2-80-426.   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  1980.

43.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Emission Factor
     Documentation for AP-42, Section 2.1, Refuse Combustion.
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC.  May 1993.

44.  Radian Corporation.  Municipal Waste Combustion Study.
     Characterization of the Municipal Waste Combustion
     Industry.  EPA-530-SW-87-021h.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Washington, DC.  June 1987.

45.  Franklin Associates, Ltd.  Characterization of Products
     Containing Mercury in Municipal Solid Waste in the
     United States, 1970 to 2000.  EPA-530/SW-89-015A.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
     January 1989.

46.  Solid Waste Association of North America.  Mercury
     Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Combustors, An
     Assessment of the Current Situation in the United States
     and Forecast of Future Emissions.  National Renewable
     Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.  May 1993.

47.  Radian Corporation.  Locating and Estimating Air Toxics
     Emissions from Municipal Waste Combustors.
     EPA-450/2-89-006.   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  April 1989.

48.  Nebel, K.L. and D.M. White.  A Summary of Mercury Emissions
     and Applicable Control Technologies for Municipal Waste
     Combustors.  Prepared by Radian Corporation for the U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC.  September 1991.

49.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Emission Factor
     Documentation for AP-42, Section 2.5, Sewage Sludge
     Incineration.  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  September 1992.

50.  Radian Corporation.  Locating and Estimating Air Toxics
     Emissions from Sewage Sludge Incinerators.
     EPA-450/2-90-009.   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  May 1990.
                              10-5
-------
51.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Background
     Information on National Emission Standards for Hazardous
     Air Pollutants--Proposed Amendments to Standards for
     Asbestos and Mercury.  EPA-450/2-74-009A.  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC.  October 1974.

52.  Midwest Research Institute.  Medical Waste Incinerators-
     Background Information for Proposed Standards and
     Guidelines:  Industry Profile Report for New and Existing
     Facilities.  Draft Report.  Gary, NC.  April 1992.

53.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Medical Waste
     Incinerators-Background Paper for New and Existing
     Facilities, Draft.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  June 1992.

54.  Amos, K.  Getting Ready for the Mercury Challenge at
     Municipal Waste Incinerator.  Solid Waste and Power.
     April 1991.

55.  Radian Corporation.  -Hospital Waste Combustion Study:  Data
     Gathering Phase.  EPA-450/3-88-017.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
     December 1988.

56.  Neulicht, R.,  M. Turner, L. Chaput, D. Wallace, and
     S. Smith..  Operation and Maintenance of Hospital Waste
     Incinerators.   EPA-450/3-89-002.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  March 1989.

57.  Neulicht, R.,  L. Chaput, D. Wallace, M. Turner, and
     So Smith.  Hospital Incinerator Operator Training Course:
     Volume I Student Handbook.  EPA-450/3-89-003.
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC.  March 1989.

58.  Midwest Research Institute.  Medical Waste Incinerators-
     Background Information for Proposed Standards and
     Guidelines:  Control Technology Performance Report for New
     and Existing Facilities.  Draft Report.  Gary, NC.
     July 1992.

59.  Bumbaco, M. J.  Report on Stack Sampling Program to Measure
     the Emissions of Selected Trace Organic Compounds,
     Particulates,  Heavy Metals and HC1 from the Royal Jubilee
     Hospital Incinerator, Victoria, BC.  Environment Canada.
     April 1983.

60.  McCormack, J., P. Ouchida, and G. Lew.  Evaluation Test on
     a Small Hospital Refuse Incinerator, Saint Bernadines
     Hospital, San Bernadino, California, ARB/ML-89-028.
     California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.  July 1989.


                              10-6
-------
61.  England, G.,  D. Hansell, J. Newhall, and N. Soelberg.
     Michigan Hospital Incinerator Emissions Test Program,
     Volume II:  Site Summary Report Borgess Medical Center
     •Incinerator.   Energy and Environmental Research
     Corporation,  Irvine, CA.  August 1991.

62.  England, G.,  D. Hansell, J. Newhall, and N. Soelberg.
     Michigan Hospital Incinerator Emissions Test Program,
     Volume III:  Site Summary Report University of Michigan
     Medical Center Incinerator, Energy and Environmental
     Research Corporation, Irvine, CA.  August 1991.

63.  Radian Corporation.  Medical Waste Incineration Emission
     Test Report,  Lenoir Memorial Hospital, Kinston, North
     Carolina, EMB Report 90-MWI-3.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  May 1990.

64.  Radian Corporation.  Medical Waste Incineration Emission
     Test Report,  Cape Fear Memorial Hospital, Wilmington, North
     Carolina.  EMB Report 90-MWI-4.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
     November 1990.

65.  Radian Corporation.  Medical Waste Incineration Emission
     Test Report,  AMI Central Carolina Hospital, Sanford, North
     Carolina.  EMB Report 90-MWI-5.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
     December 1990.

66.  Radian Corporation.  Medical Waste Incineration Emission
     Test Report,  Borgess Medical Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
     EMB Report 91-MWI-9.  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  December 1991.

67.  Radian Corporation.  Medical Waste Incineration Emission
     Test Report,  Morristown Memorial Hospital, Morristown, New
     Jersey.  EMB Report 91-MWI-8.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
     December 1991.

68.  ETS, Inc.  Compliance Testing for Southland Exchange Joint
     Venture, Hampton, South Carolina.  ETS, Inc., Roanoke, VA.
     July 1989.

69.  Source Test Report, MEGA of Kentucky.  August 1988.

70.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Emission Factor
     Documentation for AP-42, Section 2.6, Medical Waste
     Incineration.  U. S. Environmental Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC.  September 1992.

71.  AirNova, Inc.  Emission Compliance Test Program for
     Nazareth Hospital.  Philadelphia, PA.  September 1989.


                              10-7
-------
72.  Air Management Services.  Emissions Test Report for
     Fox-Chase Cancer Center.  Philadelphia, PA.  February 1989.

73.  Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume I:
     Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42), Fourth Edition.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle
     Park, NC.

74.  Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 8.6,
     Portland Cement Manufacturing—Draft.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
     Standards, Emission Inventory Branch, Research Triangle
     Park, NC.  August 1992.

75.  U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry Plant
     Information Summary.  Portland Cement Association.
     Washington, DC.  August 1991.  Pp. 18-21.

76.  Greer, W. L., Ash Grove Cement Company, Overland Park, KS,
     Information and data submitted through PSM International,
     Inc., Dallas, TX, to Anne Pope, Technical Support Division,
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC.  Submission dated February 21, 1993.

77.  MacMann, R. S., Penta Engineering Corporation, St. Louis,
     MO.  Information and data submitted through PSM
     International, Inc., Dallas, TX, to Anne Pope, Technical
     Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
     Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC.  Submission dated February 22, 1993.

78.  Staff, Branch of Nonferrous Metals.  Lime.   (In) Minerals
     Yearbook --1989, Volume I.  Metals and Minerals.  Bureau of
     Mines.  Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1991.

79.  Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 8.15, Lime
     Manufacturing--Draft.  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  August 1992.

80.  Mercury Emissions to the Atmosphere in Wisconsin.
     PUBL-AM-014.  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
     Bureau of Air Management.  June 1986.

81.  Personal Communication.  Miller, M., U.S. Department of
     Interior, Bureau of Mines with Campbell, T.f Midwest
     Research Institute.  Wisconsin lime production 1983.
     March 4, 1993.                               	
                •

82.  Taylor, B. R., Section 12.  Carbon Black.  Air Pollution
     Engineering Manual.  Air and Waste Management Association,
     Pittsburgh, PA.
                              10-8
-------
83.  Yen, T. F.  The Role of Trace Metals in Petroleum. -
     Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.  Ann Arbor, MI.  1975.

84.  Serth, R. W.,  and T. W. Hughes.  Polycyclic Organic Matter
     (POM) and Trace Element Contents of Carbon Black Vent Gas.
     Environ. Sci.  Technol., 14 (3) .-298-301.  1980.

85.  Huskonen, W.D.  Adding the Final Touches.  33 Metal
     Producing. 29:  26-28.  May 1991.

86.  Easterly, T. W.,  P. E. Stefan,  P. Shoup, and D. P. Kaegi,
     Section 15.  Metallurgical Coke.  Air Pollution Engineering
     Manual.  Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh,
     PA.

87.  Woodbury, W. D. Lead-Annual Report 19'90.  Bureau of Mines,
     U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Government Printing
     Office, Washington, D.C.  April 1992.

88.  Facsimile from Richardson, J.,  ASARCO, Inc.,  Salt Lake
     City, Utah, to Midwest Research Institute.  August 24,
     1993.  Primary lead smelting process information and
     mercury emission factors.

89.  Facsimile from Jolly, J., Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department
     of the Interior,  Washington, DC., to Midwest Research
     Institute.  January 23, 1993.  Capacities of U.S. Copper
     Smelters.

90.  TRC Environmental Corporation.   Emission Characterization
     Program.  Prepared for Copper Range Company, White Pine,
     Michigan.  October 15, 1992.

91.  United States Refining Capacity.  National Petroleum
     Refiners Association.  Washington, D.C.  January l, 1992.
     Pp 31-34.

92.  Rucker, J. E., and R. P. Streiter.  Section 17.  The
     Petroleum Industry.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  Air
     and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA.

93.  Shreve, R. N., and J. A. Brink, Jr.  Chemical Process
     Industries.  New York.  McGraw-Hill Book Company.  1977.

94.  SPECIATE.  Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)/Particulate
     Matter  (PM) Speciation Data System, Version 1.4.  Office of
     Air and Radiation,. Office of Air Quality Planning and
     Standards, U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC.  October 1991.
                              10-9
-------
 95.  AB2588 Pooled Source Emission Test Program, The Almega
      Corporation Project 16551, The Almega Corporation Report
      16551-4.  Volume I.  Prepared for Western States Petroleum
      Association,  Glendale,  Ca.  July 1990.

 96.  Dickson, P. F.  Oil Shale.  (In)  Kirk-Othmer Concise
      Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  3rd ed.  M. Grayson,
      executive ed.  A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley
      and Sons, New York, NY.  1985.

 97.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division.  Source
      Category Survey:  Oil Shale Industry.  EPA-450/3-81-010.
      Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation,  Office of Air Quality
      Planning and Standards,  U.S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency,  Research Triangle Park,   North Carolina.
      August 1981.

 98.  Robertson, D. E., E. A. Crecelius, J. S. Fruchter, and
      J.  D. Ludwick.  Mercury Emissions from Geothennal Power
      Plants.  Science, 196(4294):  1094-1097.  1977.

 99.  Facsimile.  Marshal, R., Department of Energy, Geothermal
      Division, to Campbell,  T., Midwest Research Institute.
      Location and capacity information on U.S. geothermal power
      plants.  February 1993.

100.  Bureau of Mines, Division of Mineral Commodities, U. S.
      Department of. the Interior, Washington DC.  Mercury
      Statistics.  1991

101.  Lowenheim, F. A., and M. K. Moran.  Vinyl Chloride.   (In)
      Faith, Keyes, and Clark's Industrial Chemicals.  4th ed.
      Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley and Sons, New
      York, NY.  1975.

102.  A.  D. Little, Inc.  Exposure and Risk Assessment for
      Mercury.  EPA Contract 68-01-3957.  U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency.  1980.

103.  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association  (MVMA).  MVMA Motor
      Vehicle Facts and Figures '92.  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
      Association,  Detroit, Michigan.
                                        s
104.  Pierson, W. R., and W.  W. Brachaczek.  Particulate Matter
      Associated with Vehicles on the Road.  II.  Aerosol Science
      and Technology 2:1-40   (1983).

105.  Urban, C.M. and R.J. Garbe.  Regulated and Unregulated
      Exhaust Emissions from Malfunctioning Automobiles.
      Presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers  (SAE)
      Passenger Car Meeting,  Dearborn, Michigan.  June 1979.
                              10-10
-------
106.  Warner-Selph, M.A. and J. DeVita.  Measurements of Toxic
      Exhaust Emissions from Gasoline-Powered Light-Duty
      Vehicles.  Presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers
      (SAE)  International Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and
      Exposition, Baltimore, Maryland.   September 1989.

107.  Personal communication.  M.A. Warner-Selph, U.  S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Air Quality
      Planning and Standards with T. Lapp, Midwest Research
      Institute.  Analytical ^detection limits for mercury in the
      1989 study.  April 1993.

108.  Cremation Association of North American (CANA).  Cremation
      Statistics from Cremationist Journal.  Compiled by CANA.
      1992.

109.  Facsimile, Springer, J., Cremation Association of North
      American, to T. Campbell, Midwest Research Institute.
      Number of Crematories by State, 1991.  February 1993.

110.  Vander Most, P.F.J. and C. Veldt.  Emission Factors Manual:
      Emission Factors for Air Pollutants 1992.   Report Reference
      Number 92-235.  TNO Environmental and Energy Research, The
      Netherlands.  September 1992.

111.  U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
      Programs.  Environmental Fact Sheet-Mercury Biocides in
      Paint.  July 1990.

112.  U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
      Waste.  Characterization of Products Containing Mercury in
      Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000.
      April  1992.

113.  Agocs, M. M., et al.  Mercury Exposure from Interior Latex
      Paint.  The New England Journal of Medicine.  October 18,
      1990.   pp. 1096-1101.

114.  Lindqvist, 0., K. Johansson, M. Aatrup,- A. Andersson,
      L. Bringmark, G. Hovsenius, L. Hakanson, A. Iverfeldt,
      M. Meili, and B. Timm.  Mercury in the Swedish Environment:
      Recent Research on .Causes, Consequences and Corrective
      Methods.  Water Air Soil Pollut.   55(1-2):  26-30, 38-39,
      65-70.  1991.

115.  Environmental Health Criteria 1.   Mercury.  World Health
      Organization.  Geneva.  1976.

116.  Klein, D. H.  Some Estimates of Natural Levels of Mercury
      in the Environment.  In:  Environmental Mercury
      Contamination, R. Hartung and B.  D. Dinman, eds.  Ann Arbor
      Science Publishers, Inc.  Ann Arbor, Michigan.   1972.
                              10-11
-------
117.  Nriagu,  J. 0.  A Global Assessment of Natural Sources of
      Atmospheric Trace Metals.  Nature.  Vol. 338.  March 2,
      1989.

118.  EPA Method 101, Determination of Particulate and Gaseous
      Mercury Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Plants.  40 Code of
      Federal Regulations,  Part 61, Appendix B.  Washington,  B.C.
      U.S. Government Printing Office.  1992.

119.  EPA Method 101A, Determination of Particulate and Gaseous
      Mercury Emissions from Sewage Sludge Incineration.  40 Code
      of Federal Regulations, Part 61, Appendix B.  Washington,
      D.C.  U.S. Government Printing Office.  1992.

120.  EPA Method 102, Determination of Particulate and Gaseous
      Mercury Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Plants - Hydrogen
      Streams.  40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61,
      Appendix B.  Washington, D.C.  U.S. Government Printing
      Office.   1992.

121.  EPA Method 0012, Methodology for the Determination of
      Metals Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Hazardous Waste
      Incineration and Similar Combustion Sources, Test Methods
      for Evaluating Solid Waste;  Physical/Chemical Methods.
      SW-846,  Third Edition.  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
      Response.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D.C.  September 1988.

122.  Methodology for the Determination of Metals Emissions in
      Exhaust Gases from Hazardous Waste Incineration and Similar
      Combustion Sources, Methods Manual for Compliance with the
      BIF Regulations Burning Hazardous Waste in Boilers and
      Industrial Furnaces.  E.P.A./530-SW-91-010.  Office of Solid
      Waste and Emergency Response.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.  December 1990.

123.  EPA Method 29, Methodology for the Determination of Metals
      Emissions in Exhaust Gases from Incineration and Similar
      Combustion Sources (Draft).  40 Code of Federal
      Regulations, Part 60, Appendix A.  Washington, D.C.  1992.

124.  CARS Method 436, Determination of Multiple Metals Emissions
      from Stationary Sources.  State of California Air Resources
      Board, Sacramento, CA.

125.  EPA Method 7470, Mercury in Solid or Semisolid Waste
      (Manual Cold-Vapor Technique), Test Methods for Evaluating
      Solid Waste;  Physical/Chemical Methods.  SW-846, Third
      Edition.  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
      September 1988.
                              10-12
-------
126.  EPA Method 7471, Mercury in Solid or Semisolid Waste
      (Manual Cold-Vapor Technique),  Test Methods for Evaluating
      Solid Waste:  Physical/Chemical Methods.  SW-846, Third
      Edition.  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, B.C.
      September 1988.
                              10-13
-------
         APPENDIX A.




NATIONWIDE EMISSION ESTIMATES
-------
EMISSIONS FROM MERCURY PRODUCTION

Secondary Mercury Production

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   Emission factor of 20 kg of Hg/Mg Hg produced.1

     2.   1990 production from industrial and governmental
          sources was 286 Mg.2

     3.   Emissions from secondary mercury production are
          uncontrolled.

     4.   Emissions due to chemical and thermal treatment are
          equal.

     Calculation
     Annual emission = 20 kg/Mg * 286 Mg = 5.7 Mg/yr =
       6.3 tons/yr
                               A-l
-------
EMISSIONS FROM MAJOR USES OF MERCURY

Chlor-Alkali Production

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   In 1990 TRI summary, 17 of the 18 mercury cell
          facilities reported air emissions of mercury.3

     2.   The total quantity of mercury emissions from
          17 facilities was 8.74 Mg (9.6 tons).

     3.   Emission data were prorated for the remaining facility,

     Calculation

     Annual emissions = 18/17 * 8.74 Mg/yr =9.3 Mg/yr =
       10.2 tons/yr

Battery Manufacture

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   The 1990 consumption of mercury in the production of
          primary batteries was 106 Mg  (117 tons).

     2.   A mercury emission factor of 1.0 kg/Mg used
          (2.0 Ib/ton) was obtained from a Wisconsin study of a
          mercury oxide battery plant, which is the only type of
          battery using mercury.

     3.   Another mercury emission factor of 5.6 kg/Mg
          (11.2 Ib/ton) has been cited but the source and
          reliability of this factor could not be verified.5

     4.   The emission factor based on TRI data may give
          abnormally high values because the TRI data includes
          abnormal and accidental releases.

     Calculation

     Wisconsin study - -

     Annual emissions = 1.0 kg/Mg * 106 Mg = 106 kg/yr =
       0.11 Mg/yr =0.12 ton/yr
                               A-2
-------
Electrical Uses

Electric lighting --

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   The 1990 consumption of mercury was 33 Mg (36 tons).2

     2.   No emission factor is available for the manufacture of
          electric lamps.

     3.   The only mercury emission information available is due
          to lamp breakage of outdoor and indoor lamps.

     4.   It is assumed that 50 percent of the mercury used in
          lamps was for outdoor lamps and 50 percent for indoor
          lamps.

     5,   Of the mercury used in outdoor lamps, 33 percent will
          be released to the atmosphere and 22 percent from the
          indoor lamps. ^

     Calculation

     Outdoor lamps - -

     Annual emission = 33 Mg * 0.5 * 0.33 = 5.4 Mg/yr =
       6.0 tons/yr

     Indoor lamps - -

     Annual emissions = 33 Mg * 0.5 * 0.22 = 3.6 Mg/yr =
       4 tons/yr

EMISSIONS FROM COMBUSTION SOURCES

Coal Combustion

Coal-Fired Utility Boilers--

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   From Table 6-8, emission factor for bituminous coal
        •  combustion = 7.0 x 10"^ kg/J and for anthracite coal
          combustion = 7.6 x 10~15 kg/J.

     2.   Bituminous coal combustion systems controlled by ESP's
          with an average mercury control efficiency of
          25 percent.

     3.   Anthracite coal combustion systems uncontrolled.


                               A-3
-------
     4.   Energy from coal combustion in utility sector from
          Table 6-1.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions = 7.0 x 10~15 kg/J * 16.939 x 1018 J/yr *
                           0.75
                         + 7.6 x 10'15 kg/J * 0.018 x 1018 J/yr
                      •- 89.07 Mg/yr » 97.98 tons/yr

Coal-Fired Industrial Boilers--

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   From Table 6-8, emission factor for bituminous coal
          combustion = 7.0 x 10 "^ kg/J and for anthracite coal
          combustion = 7.6 x 10~15 kg/J

     2.   No control of emissions from industrial boilers was
          assumed.

     3.   Energy from coal combustion in industrial sector from
          Table 6-1.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions = 7.0 x 10°15 kg/J * 2.892 x 1018 J/yr
                         + 7.6 x 10"15 kg/J * 0.009 x 1018 J/yr
                      = 20.31 Mg/yr = 22.34 ton/yr

Coal-Fired Commercial and Residential Boilers- -

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   From Table 6-8, emission factor for bituminous coal
          combustion = 7.0 x 10~15 kg/J and for anthracite coal
          combustion = 7.6 x 10-1^ kg/J

     2.   No control of emissions from commercial/residential
          boilers was assumed.

     3.   Energy from coal combustion in commercial/residential
          sectors from Table 6-1.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions « 7.0 x 10"15kg/J * 0.130 x 1018 J/yr
                         + 7.6 x 10"I5kg/J * 0.032 x 10l8J/yr
                      =1.15 Mg/yr - 1.27 tons/yr
                               A-4
-------
Oil Combusion

Oil-Fired Utility Boilers--

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   From Table 6-15,  emission factor for distillate oil
          combustion = 2.9 x 10"— kg/J and for residual oil
          combustion = 3.0 x 10~15 kg/J

     2.   Air pollution control measures assumed to provide no
          mercury emission reduction.

     3.   Energy consumption from fuel oil combustion from
          Table 6-1.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions = 2.9 x 10~15 kg/J * 1.201 x 1018 J/yr
                         + 3.0 x 10"15 kg/J * 0.091 x 1018 J/yr
                      =3.76 Mg/yr =4.14 tons/yr

Oil-Fired Industrial Boilers--

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   From Table 6-15,  emission factor for distillate oil
          combustion = 2.9 x 10~15^ kg/J and for residual oil
          combustion = 3.0 x 10~15 kg/J

     2.   Air pollution control measures assumed to provide no
          mercury emission reduction.

     3.   Energy consumption from fuel oil combustion from
          Table 6-1.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions » 2.9 x 10~15 kg/J * 1.245 x 1018 J/yr
                         + 3.0 x 10'15 kg/J * 0.436 x 1018 J/yr
                      =4.92 Mg/yr =5.42 tons/yr

Oil-Fired Commercial/Residential Boilers--

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   From Table 6-15,  emission factor for distillate oil
          combustion = 2.9  x 10"1^ kg/J and for residual oil
          combustion = 3.0  x 10~15 kg/J

     2.   Air pollution control measures assumed to provide no
          mercury emission reduction.

                               A-5
-------
     3.   Energy consumption from fuel oil combustion from
          Table 6-1.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions = 2.9 x 10~15 kg/J * 1.395 * 1018 J/yr
                         + 3.0 x 10'15 kg/J * 0.255 x 1018 J/yr
                      - 4.81 Mg - 5.30 tons/yr

Wood Combustion in Boilers--

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   Wood combustion rate in boilers is 1.0 x 1011 Btu/hr,
          which is the same rate as 1980 given on p. 6-37.
          Boilers assumed to operate at capacity, 8,760 hr/yr.

     2.   Heating value of wood is 4,500 Btu/lb based on midpoint
          of range presented on p. 6-37.

    .3.   Emission factor of 6.5 x 10"6 Ib/ton of wood burned.

     4.   No control of mercury emissions.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions

     = 1.0 x 1011 Btu/hr * 8.760 hr/yr * 6.5 x 10'6 Ib/tons wood
       4,500 Btu/lb * 2,000 Ib wood/ton wood * 2,000 Ib Hg/ton Hg
     =0.32 ton/yr =0.29 Mg/yr

Municipal Waste Combustors--

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   Under the assumption that ESP's provide essentially no
          control, the facility-average concentrations at
          7 percent oxygen for uncontrolled and ESP-controlled
          mass burn (including modular) and RDF systems contained
          in Table B-2 were averaged to obtain the following
          "typical" concentrations:

                    Mass Burn - 696 /ig/dscm
                    RDF       - 561 pig/dscm

     2.   The F-factor for municipal waste combustors was assumed
          to be 0.257 x 10"° dscm/J at 0 percent oxygen and the
          heating values were assumed to be 4,500 Btu/lb for MSW
          and 5,500 Btu/lb for RDF  (see p. 6-53).  The F-factor
          was converted from 0 percent oxygen to 7 percent oxygen


                               A-6
-------
      (at which concentrations are based)  using a factor of
     1.5.

3.   Based on a meeting with the EPA MWC project team, all
     modular MWC's  are  assumed to be controlled with ESP's.

4.   Spray dryer or duct sorbent injection systems combined
     with fabric filters or ESP's and wet scrubber systems
     achieve 50 percent" removal.  No other control measures
     achieve appreciable mercury control.

5.   The 1990 MWC processing rates are assumed to be equal
     to those presented in Waste Age. November 1991, and
     tabulated in the calculation table below.6

Calculations

Uncontrolled Emission Factors

     •  Mass burn/modular  -  670 ;xg/dscm *  0.257 x 10"6 dscm/J *
        10,500 J/g *  1.5 = 2.71 g/Mg

     •  RDF - 527 jtg/dscm  *  0.257 x 10~6 dson/J * 12,800 J/g *
        1.5 = 2.60 g/Mg

Controlled Emissions

Annual Emissions

     =  Process rate *  emission factor * (100-efficiency)
                                                 100
     The calculated  emissions are tabulated below:
Combust or
type
Mass Burn
Mass Burn
Mass Burn
Mass Burn
RDF
Modular
Total
Control
status3
U
SD
DSI
ESP
SD
ESP

Process
rate,
10 Mg/yr
0.517
7.190
1.077
13.806
2.809
0.630

Uncontrolled
emission
factor, g/Mg
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8

Control
efficiency,
X
0
50
50
0
50
0

Annual Emissions
Mg/yr
1.45
10.07
1.51
38.66
3.93
2.25
57.87
ton/yr
1.60
11.10
1.66
42.61
4.34
2.48
63.79
aSD = Spray dryer with either ESP or fabric filter
ESP = Electrostatic precipitator
DSI = Duct sorbent injection with either ESP or fabric filter
U = Uncontrolled
                           A-7
-------
Sewage Sludge Incinerators - -

     Basis for Input Data

     1.   Total sludge processed annually is 1.5 x 106 Mg
          (see p. 6-54)

     2.   From the Draft AP-42, Section 2.5, Sewage Sludge
          Incineration, an average emission factor for units with
          a venturi control device was 0.018 g/Mg
          (3.5 x 10"5 Ib/ton).   For other control devices, the
          average emission factor was 1.6 g/Mg
          (3.2 x 10'3 Ib/ton).

     3.   In the U.S., there are 210 sewage sludge incinerators;
          of this population,  47 use venturi control devices,
          97 use other control devices, and no information was
          available for 66 units.8  Of the 144 units for which
          data are available,  47/144 or 33 percent use venturi
          controls and 97/144 or 67 percent use other controls.
          This percentage distribution is assumed to be
          representative for all 210 units.

     Calculations

     Annual Emissions - 1.5 x 10^ Mg/yr * 0.33 * 0.018 g/Mg +
                        1.5 x 106 x 0.67 x 1.6 g/Mg =1.62 Mg/yr
                        =1.79 tons/yr

Medical Waste Incinerators - -

     Basis of Input Data

     l.   The annual emission estimates are based on a model
          plant calculation procedure employed in developing the
          environmental impacts for the New Source Performance
          Standard for medical waste incinerators.   Uncontrolled
          Hg concentrations are assumed to be 3,100 /tg/dscm at
          7 percent 02 for continuous and intermittent MWI's,
          2,300 /ig/dscm at 7 percent 02 for batch MWI's, and
          50 ftg/dscm at 7 percent 02 for pathological MWI's.

     2.   No appreciable control of Hg emissions is achieved by
          existing facilities.
                               A-8
-------
     3.
The operating characteristics and numbers of units
associated with  existing MWl's are:
Model
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Type
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Batch
Pathological
Flow rate, dscftn
at 14% O2
4,747
3,165
4,747
1,899
633
455
730
Operating
hours, hr/yr
7,760
3,564
4,212
4,212
3,588
3,520
2,964
No. of units
154
182
171
742
2,097
335
1,305
     Calculations

     1.   Example  for Model 1
Annual  emissions

» 154 units * 7'760 to * S
         unityr
hi
                . 4,747 ft3 ,   im3
                   man    35.31 ft3
                                            3,100
                                             m3
           = 14.94 Mg/yr = 16.47 ton/yr


     2 .   Total emissions

     Annual  emissions
                          emissions for Model i
     = 14.94 + 5.41  +  9.01 + 15.63 + 12.55 + 1.05 + 0.12
     =58.7 Mg/yr  =64.7  tons/yr

EMISSIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Portland Cement Production

     Basis of Input  Data

     1.   The 1990 total  production of cement was 70.6 x  106  Mg
          (77.8 x  10°  tons)  of which 95.7 percent was portland
          cement.  Total  production of portland cement was
          67.5 x 106Mg (74.5 x 106 tons).2  Portland cement is
          •96% clinker.
                                A-9
-------
     2.   From Table C-2, the average emission factor is
          8.7 x 10 ~2 g/Mg (1.7 x 10"4 Ib/ton) of clinker
          produced.  This emission factor is based on the average
          of all test runs in Table C-2.

     Calculations

     Annual emissions:
     67.5 x 106 Mg * 8.7 x 10"2 g/Mg * 0.96 = 5.6 Mg/yr =
     6.2 tons/yr

Lime Manufacture

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   Based on the total production of lime in 1989 and 1992
          cited in the discussion of Lime Manufacturing (see
          p. 7-8), the estimated 1990 total production of lime
          was 15.6 x 10° Mg (17.2 x 106 tons)

     2.   An emission factor of 5.5 x 10~2 g/Mg of lime produced
          (1.1 x 10 ~4 Ib/ton)  is used.  This figure is based on a
          study of mercury emissions from five kilns in Wisconsin
          and kiln production quantities cited on p. 7-13.10

     3.   Natural gas, which contains no mercury, is used to fire
          33 percent of the lime kilns and thus would result in
          no mercury emissions from the fuel source.

     Calculations

     Annual emissions:
     15.6 x 106 Mg * 5.5 x 10"2 g/Mg * 0.67 = 0.57 Mg/yr =
     0.63 tons/yr

Carbon Black Production

     Basis of Input Data

     l.   The 1990 total capacity for carbon black production was
          1.47 x 106 Mg  (1.62 x 106 tons).11  No data were
          available for actual production of carbon black in
          1990.


     2.   An emission factor of 1.5 x 10 ~4 kg of Hg/Mg of carbon
          black  (3 x 10'4 Ib/ton) is used.12

     3.   The emission factor is based only on the oil-furnace
          process which accounts for 99 percent of all carbon
          black production.


                               A-10
-------
     4.   Mercury emissions are based on production capacity and
          not actual production.  Use of actual production data
          would show a lower value for mercury emissions.

     Calculations

     Annual emissions = 1.5 x 10"4 kg/Mg * 1.47 x 106 Mg =
                           0.22 Mg/yr =0.24 ton/yr

Byproduct Coke Production

     No emission factors are available for mercury emissions from
this process.

Primary Lead Smelting

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   Based on background information in the NSPS for lead
          smelters, 100 units of ore yields 10 units of ore
          concentrate, 9 units of sinter, and 4.5 units of
          refined lead.13

              ore -* ore concentrate -* sinter •* refined lead
          100 units    10 units      9 units     4.5 units

     2.   Using 1989 lead ore consumption levels with previous
          years data, the estimated 1990 lead ore utilization
          quantity was 3.74 x 10  Mg (4.11 x 10° tons).

     3.   The mercury emission factors from Table 7-5 for five
          emission sources in the process are:

          a.   materials handling:  ore crushing = 0.0012 kg/Mg
               (0.0024 Ib/ton) of raw material

          fa.   materials handling:  sinter charge
               mixing = 0.0065 kg/Mg (0.013 Ib/ton)  of ore
               concentrate

          c.   sinter machine leaks = 0.0007 kg/Mg
               (0.0014 Ib/ton) of sinter

          d.   blast furnace = 0.0019 kg/Mg (0.0038  Ib/ton)  of
               ore concentrate

          e.   slag furnace + slag pouring = 0.0021  kg/Mg
               (0.0042 Ib/ton) of lead product
                              A-11
-------
     Calculations

     Annual emission from material handling (ore crushing):
     0.0012 kg/Mg * 3.74 x 106 Mg = 4.5 Mg/yr =5.0 tons/yr

     Annual emission from material handling (sinter charge
     mixing):   0.0065 kg/Mg * 3.74 x 10s Mg - 2.4 Mg/yr «
     2.6 tons/yr

     Annual emissions from sintering:
     0.0007 kg/Mg * 3.36 x 10s Mg = 0.24 Mg/yr =0.26 tons/yr
     Annual emission from blast furnace:
     0.0019 kg/Mg * 3.74 x 10s Mg = 0.71 Mg/yr
0.78 tons/yr
     Annual emissions from slag furnace + slag pouring:
     0.0021 kg/Mg * 1.87 x 10s Mg = 0.39 Mg/yr =0.43 tons/yr

     Total annual emissions:
     4.5 Mg/yr +2.4 Mg/yr +0.24 Mg/yr +0.71 Mg/yr +0.39 Mg/yr
     8.2 Mg/yr =9.0 tons/yr

Petroleum Refining

     A mercury emission factor for the fluid caking unit in the
conversion step was obtained from SPECIATE but the original
references could not be obtained to confirm the emission data.
Therefore, the data from SPECIATE were judged unacceptable for
use.  Mercury emission data were obtained from the CARS Air
Toxics Emission Inventory Report for selected processes in
petroleum refining using refinery gas as the fuel.  No data could
be located for the nationwide volume of refining gas used for
these selected processes.  Therefore, no mercury emissions could
be calculated for the petroleum refining industry.

Oil Shale Retorting

     Because there are no commercial oil shale retort facilities
in operation in the U.S., a mercury emission value of zero has
been assumed.

Geothermal Power Plants- -

     Basis of Input Data

     1.   Only three States report production of electric power
          by geothermal.means, California, Nevada, and Utah.

     2.   A mercury emission factor, based on a 1977 report, was
          stated to be  0.05 g/MW-hr from the cooling tower
          exhaust and 0.0073 g/MW-hr from the off-gas ejectors.14
                               A-12
-------
     3.   It was assumed that the net capacity of the gee-thermal
          power plants stated in Table 7-8 was valid for 1990.

     4.   It was assumed that the mercury emission factors
          developed in 1977 for the California power facility are
          valid for all California, Nevada, and Utah facilities
          in 1990.

     5.   It was assumed that geothermal power plants operate
          24 hr/d, 365 d/yr (8,760 hr/yr).       %

     Calculations

     Off-gas ejectors:  8,760 hr/yr * 0.0073 g/MW-hr *
     2,628.4 MW/yr = 0.17 x 106 g/yr =0.17 Mg/yr

     Cooling tower exhaust:  8.760 hr/yr * 0.05 g/MW-hr *
     2,628.4 MW/yr = 1.15 x 106 g/yr =1.15 Mg/yr

     Total annual emissions = 0.17 Mg/yr + 1.15 Mg/yr =
     1.3 Mg/yr = 1.4 tons/yr

EMISSIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS FUGITIVE AND AREA SOURCES

Mercury Catalysts

     There is only one facility in the U.S. that may be using
small quantities of mercury catalysts.  Because no emission
factors are available and only one facility, zero emissions have
been assumed.

Dental Alloys

     Basis for Input Data

     l.   In 1990, the total usage of mercury in dental equipment
          and supplies was 27 Mg (30 tons).

     2.   It has been -estimated that 2 percent of the mercury
          used in dental applications is emitted to the
          atmosphere.1  This figure would correspond to an
          emission factor of 20 kg/Mg (40 Ib/ton) of mercury
          used.

     3.   This emission factor is based on information
          approximately 15 years old so it should be viewed with
          caution because dental practices have changed
          considerably in the interim.
                              A-13
-------
     Calculation

     Annual emissions - 20 kg/Mg * 27 Mg = 0.54 Mg/yr =
     0.59 ton/yr

Mobile Sources

     Basis for Input Data

     1.   An emission factor of 1.3 x 10"^ mg/km traveled
          (4.6 x 10~9 Ib/mile) was obtained from a 1983 study.15

     2.   This emission factor should be interpreted with caution
          since it was based on a 1977. ambient sampling study,
          which was before the use of catalytic converters,
          unleaded gasoline, and state-regulated I/M programs.

     3.   In 1990, the total miles traveled in the U.S was
          2,147,501 million miles  (3,457,478 x 10s km).16

     Calculation

     Annual emissions = 3.4575 x 1012 km * 1.3 x 10"3 mg/km =
       4.5 x 109 mg = 4.5 Mg/yr = 5 tons\yr

Crematories

     Basis for Input Data

     1.   In 1991, there were 400,500 crematories in the U.S.17

     2.   No data are available for the average quantity of
          mercury emitted for a cremation in the U.S.  An
          estimated emission of 1 g of mercury per cremation has
          been recommended as a typical value in Europe."  This
          emission factor will be used for estimations for the
          U.S.

     3.   There is a considerable variation in the overall dental
          care programs between the U.S. and Europe which may
          result in differences in the average number of mercury
          amalgam fillings per person.

     Calculations

     Annual emissions:
     400,500 cremations * 1 g/cremation = 0.4 Mg/yr = 0.44 ton/yr
                               A-14
-------
Paint Application

     Basis for Input Data

     1.   In 1990, the total usage of mercury in paints was 20 Mg
          (22 tons).

     2.   It is estimated that 66 percent of the mercury used in
          paints is emitted into the atmosphere. ^

     3.   This estimate presumes that all mercury emissions are
          generated from paint application in the year that the
          paint is produced.

     Calculation

     Annual emissions:
     20 Mg * 0.66 = 13.2 Mg = 14.6 tons/yr
                              A-15
-------
TABLE A-l.  SUMMARY OF MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS AND SCC
SCC number
3-03-999-99
3-04-999-99
3-99-999-94
1-01-001
1-01-002
1-02-001
1-02-002
1-03-001
1-03-002
1-01-004
1-01-005
1-02-004
1-02-005
1-03-004
1-03-005
1-02-009
5-01-001-02
5-01-001-02
5-01-001-03
5-01-001
5-01-005-15
5-01-005-16
5-01-005-16
Source description
Primary mercury production
Secondary mercury production
Battery manufacture
(mercuric oxide)
Coal combustion: Utility boilers
Coal combustion: Utility boilers
Coal combustion: Industrial boilers
Coal combustion: Industrial boilers
Coal combustion: Commercial &
residential
Coal combustion: Commercial &
residential
Oil combustion: Utility boilers
Oil combustion: Utility boilers
Oil combustion: Industrial boilers
Oil combustion: Industrial boilers
Oil combustion: Commercial &
residential
Oil combustion: Commercial &
residential
Wood combustion: Boilers
Municipal waste combustors: Mass
bum
Municipal waste combustors: Mass
bum
Municipal waste combustors: RDF
Municipal waste combustors:
Modular
Sewage sludge incinerators
Sewage sludge incinerators
Sewage sludge incinerators
Control
status2
C
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C
C
U
C
U
C
Mercury emission factor
0. 13 kg/Mg produced
20 kg/Mg produced
1.0 kg/Mg used
7. 6xlO'15kg/J produced
7.0xlO'15 kg/J produced
7.6xlO'15 kg/J produced
7.0xlO'15Mg/J produced
7.6xlO'15 kg/J produced
7. 0x10' l5 kg/J produced
3.0xlO"15 kg/J produced
2.9xlO"15 kg/J produced
3.0xlO'15 kg/J produced
2.9xlQ-15 kg/J produced
3. Ox 10' l5 kg/J produced
2.9xlO'15 kg/J produced
3.4X1Q-6 kg/Mg burned
2.8 g/Mg waste
1.4 g/Mg waste
1.4 g/Mg waste
2.8 g/Mg waste
0.018 g/Mg sludge
5.0 g/Mg sludge
1.6 g/Mg sludge
                          A-16
-------
                          TABLE A-i.   (continued)
SCC number
5-01-005-05
5-01-005-05
5-01-005-05
3-05-006-06
3-05-007-06
3-05-016-04
3-01-005-04
3-03-010-02
3-03-010-08
3-03-010-04
3-03-010-15
3-03-010-25
1-01-015-01
1-01-015-02
3-15-021-01
Source description
Medical waste incinerators: mixed
waste
Medical waste incinerators: red bag
Medical waste incinerators:
Pathological waste
Portland cement production: Dry
process
Portland cement production: Wet
process
Lime manufacture: rotary kiln
Carbon black production: Oil
furnace
Primary lead smelting: Blast
furnace
Primary lead smelting: Slag fume
furnace (including slag pouring)
Primary lead smelting: ore
crushing
Primary lead smelting: Sinter
crushing
Primary lead smelting: Sinter
leakage
Geothermal power plant: Off-gas
ejectors
Geothermal power plant: Cooling
tower
Crematories
Control
status4
U
U
U
C
C
C
C
C
C
U
U
U
U
U
U
Mercury emission factor
20 g/Mg burned
16 g/Mg burned
0.5 g/Mg burned
8.7xlO~2 g/Mg produced
8.7xlO~2 g/Mg produced
5.5xlO"2 g/Mg produced
UxlO"4 kg/Mg produced
1.9xlO"3 kg/Mg ore concentrate
2. IxlO'3 kg/Mg lead
1.2xlO~3 kg/Mg raw material
6.5xl03 kg/Mg ore
7X10"4 kg/Mg sinter
7.3xlO'3 g/MW-hr produced
0.05 g/MW-hr produced
1.0 g/human body
aU = uncontrolled; C = controlled.
                                     A-17
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A

 1.  Little (A.D.), Inc.  Exposure and Risk Assessment for
     Mercury.   EPA Contract 68-01-3957.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  1980

 2.  Bureau of Mines, Division of Mineral Commodities, U. S.
     Department of the Interior, Washington DC. 1991.

 3.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1990 Toxics Release
     Inventory.  Office of Toxic Substances, Washington DC.
     December 1992.

 4.  Bureau of Air Management.  Mercury Emissions to the
     Atmosphere in Wisconsin.  Publication Number PUBL-AM-014.
     Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison,
     Wisconsin.  June 1986.  pp. 19-32.

 5.  Cole, H.S., A.L. Hitchcock, and R. Collins.  Mercury
     Warning:  The Fish You Catch May Be Unsafe To Eat; A Study of
     Mercury Contamination in the United States.  Clean Water
     Fund/Clean Water Action, Washington DC; August 1992.

 6.  Kiser, J. V. L., and D. B. Sussman, Municipal Waste
     Combustion and Mercury: The Real Story.  Waste Age, November
     1991, Pp. 41-44.

 7.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Emission Factor
     Documentation for AP-42 Section 2.5, Sewage Sludge
     Incineration.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC.  July 1993.

 8.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Locating and
     Estimating Air Emissions From Sewage Sludge Combustors.  EPA
     Report No. EPA-450/2-90-009.  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  May 1990.

 9.  Midwest Research Institute.  Medical Waste Incinerators--
     Background Information for Proposed Standards and
     Guidelines:  Environmental Impacts Report for New and
     Existing Facilities.  Draft Report.  Prepared for U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
   x  July 1992.

10.  Mercury Emissions to the Atmosphere in Wisconsin.
     PUBL-AM-014  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
     Bureau of Air Management, Madison, WI.  June 1986.

11.  SRI International.  1991 Directory of Chemical Producers:
     United States of America.  SRI International, Menlo Park,
     California.  1991.
                               A-18
-------
12.  Serth, R. W.,  and T. W. Hughes.  Polycyclic Organic Matter
     (POM)  and Trace Element Contents of Carbon Black Vent Gas.
     Environ. Sci.  Technol., 14(3): 298-301. 1980.

13.  Background Information for New Source Performance Standards:
     Primary Copper, Zinc and Lead Smelters.  Volume I:  Proposed
     Standards, Report No. EPA-450/2-74-002a.  Office of Air
     Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, Research Triangle Park,
     NC.  October 1974.

14.  Robertson, D.  E., E. A. Crecelius, J. S. Fruchter, and
     J. D.  Ludwick.  Mercury Emissions from Geothermal Power
     Plants.  Science, 196(4294): 1094-1097. 1977.

15.  Pierson, W.R., and W.W. Brachazek, Particulate Matter
     Associated with Vehicles on The Road.  II.  Aerosol Science
     and Technology 2:1-40  (1983).

16.  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA).  MVMA Motor
     Vehicle Facts and Figures '92.  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
     Association, Detroit, Michigan.

17.  Cremation Association of North American (CANA).  Cremation
     Statistics from Cremationist Journal.  Compiled by CANA.
     1992.

18.  vander Most, P.F.J. and C. Veldt.  Emission Factors Manual:
     Emission Factors for Air Pollutants 1992.   Report Reference
     Number 92-235.  TNO Environmental and Energy Research, The
     Netherlands.  September 1992.

19.  Van Horn, W. Materials Balance and Technology Assessment of
     Mercury and Its Compounds on National and Regional Bases.
     EPA 560/3-75/007.   (NTIS PB-247 00/3).  Office of Toxic
     Substances, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, D.C.  October 1975.
                              A-19
-------
                    APPENDIX B




SUMMARY OF COMBUSTION SOURCE MERCURY EMISSION DATA
-------
TABLE B-1. SUMMARY OF COAL COMBUSTION EMISSION DATA
Industry
sector3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Facility
type"
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/WB
PC/WB
PC/WB
PC/WB
PC/WB
PC/WB
Control
status0
ESP
WS
MP/ESP
MP/ESP
MP/ESP
ESP
UN
UN
ESP
UN
UN
UN
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
MP
MP/ESP
MP/ESP
MP/ESP
ESP
ESP
VS
ESP
ESP
Coal
typed
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor6
kg/1015 J
Mean
4.7
bd
9.5
9.6
2.5
2.5
31
9.9
7.7
4.3
1.7
6.9
0.65
1.1
0.86
1.3
3.7
0.32
0.086
2.3
1.1
1.8
0.069
2.2
2.7
Range
-
-
—
~
1.5-3.5
0.56-4.2
4.9-130
-
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
-
1.6-9.1
0.18-0.86
< 0.0047-0.24
—
--
—
—
-
-
lb/1012 Btu
Mean
11
bd
22
22
5.9
5.8
72
23
18
10
3.9
16
1.5
2.6
2.0
3.1
8.5
0.75
0.20
5.3
2.6
4.2
0.16
5.1
6.3
Range
-
-
—
--
3.6-8.2
1.3-9.7
11-310
-
-
—
—
.-
--
-
--
-
3.7-21
0.41-2.0
<0.01 1-0.56
..
—
—
--
- .
-
                      B-1
-------
TABLE B-1.  (continued)
Industry
sector3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1
1
Facility
type"
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
S
S
S
CY
CY
PC
PC
NA
NA
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/DB
CY
CY
SS
SS
PC/DB
PC/DB
Control
status0
WS
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
MP
MC
UN
WS
VS
ESP
ESP
ESP
MC
MC
ESP
ESP
CY
MC
ESP
ESP
ESP*
Coal
typed
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
B
B
Emission factor6
kg/1015 J
Mean
2.1
1.7
2.2
4.1
7.6
4.3
2.6
2.0
11
1.1
35
2.1
4.7
1.8
0.86
0.73
1.9
2.8
< 0.099
.020
9.5
2.4
0.23
1.8
1.9
Range
—
—
—
-
—
—
_
~
~
—
„
—
—
—
„
~
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
lb/1012 Btu
Mean
4.9
4.0
5.1
9.5
18
10
6,1
4.6
26
2.5
81
4.9
11
4.1
2.0
1.7
4.4
6.5
<0.23
0.46
22
5.6
0.53
4.2
4.4
Range
-
—
..
-
..
..
..
—
..
—
—
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
..
—
—
e
        B-2
-------
TABLE B-1.  (continued)
Industry
sector3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Facility
type5
PC/DB
PC/DB
PC/WB
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Control
status0
MC
MOWS
MC
MC/ESP
MC
MC
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
MP
UN
MP/ESP
UN
MP/ESP
UN
UN
MP/ESP
UN
Coal
typed
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
SB
SB
SB
SB
Emission factor6
kg/1015 J
Mean
77
37
2.9
1.8
2.5
11
0.33
1.7
0.99
0.69
1.4
1.7
0.047
0.73
0.56
0.90
0.34
1.8
1.0
5.2
0.43
3.8
0.28
0.28
0.39
Range
-
—
-
-
-
-
0.33-0.34
1.1-2.2
-
0.56-0.86
1.1-1.7
0.69-2.8
-
--
0.32-0.82
-
0.17-0.52
—
—
—
—
0.37-7.3
—
—
-
lb/1012 Btu
Mean
180
86
6.7
4.2
5.8
25
0.77
3.9
2.3
1.6
3.2
4.0
0.11
1.7
1.3
2.1
0.80
4.1
2.4
12
1.0
8.9
0.64
0.64
0.91
Range
--
-
-
-
-
-
0.76-0.78
2.5-5.1
--
1.3-2.0
2.5-3.9
1.6-6.5
—
-
0.74-1.9
--
0.39-1.2
-
-
-
-
0.86-17
—
—
--
        B-3
-------
                                        TABLE B-1. (continued)
Industry
sector3
I
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
Facility
typeb
SS
PC/DB
PC/DB
US
SS
OS
s •
S
S
—
~
-
-
Control
status0
MP/ESP
UN
MC/WS
UN
MP
MP
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
Coal
typed.
SB
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
Emission factor6
kg/1015 J
Mean
0.16
2.5
0.47
0.18
0.60
5.6
3.0
1.5
2.3
3.3
10
11
<0.39
Range
—
—
—
— *:•
-
-
-
..
..
—
—
-
-
lb/1012 Btu
Mean
0.37
5.8
1.1
0.42
1.4
13
7.0
3.5
5.3
7.7
23
27
<0.9
Range
—
—
..
..
—
«
-
-
..
..
_
- --
--
aU  = utility, I  = industrial, C = commercial, R = residential

kpc = pulverized coal, DB = dry bottom, WB = wet bottom, CY  = cyclone, NA = not available,
 SS = spreader stoker, OS = overfeed stoker, US =  underfeed stoker, S = stoker

CESP = electrostatic precipitator, WS  = wet scrubber, MP  = mechanical precipitation device,
 UN = uncontrolled, VS  = verrturi scrubber,  FF  = fabric filter, MC  = multiclone,
 CY = cyclone

dB  = bituminous,  SB = subbituminous, L = lignite,  A = anthracite

ebd = below detection limit
                                                 B-4
-------
TABLE B-2.  SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSION DATA
Facility name
Adirondack (Boiler A)
Adirondack (Boiler B)
Adirondack (Boiler B)
Adirondack average
Camden (Unit 1)
Commerce
Commerce
Commerce
Commerce average
Quebec City - Pilot
Quebec City - Pilot
Quebec City - Riot
Quebec City - Pilot
Quebec City - Pilot
Quebec City - Pilot
Quebec City average
Vancouver (11/88)
Vancouver (3/89)
Vancouver (4/89)
Vancouver (8/89)
Vancouver averaae
Babylon
Bristol
Bristol
Bristol
Bristol
Bristol average
Commerce (1987)
Commerce (1988)
Commerce (1988)
Commerce average
Fairfax
Fairfax
Fairfax
Fairfax
Fairfax average
Combustor
type3
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
Control
technology"
U
U
U
U
U
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN .
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
Concentration
jug/dscm @ 7% 02
328
659
439
475
710
450
453
261
388
445
360
451
320
480
187
374
527
1,200
1,360
661
937
323
99.0
10
64.0
399
167
570
68.0
39.0
226
331
406
466
514
429
                            B-5
-------
TABLE B-2. (continued)
Facility name
Hempstead, Unit 1(9/89)
Hempstead, Unit 2(9/89)
Hempstead, Unit 3(10/89)
Hempstead average
Huntsville
Huntsville
Huntsville average
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Indianapolis, Unit 1
Indianapolis average
Kent
Kent
Kent average
Long Beach
Marion Countv
Stanislaus County
Stanislaus County
Stanislaus County
Stanislaus County, Unit 1
Stanislaus County, Unit 2
Stanislaus Countv averaae
Adirondack (Boiler A)
Adirondack (Boiler B)
Adirondack (Boiler B)
Adirondack average
Camden (Unit 1)
Charleston (Units A & B)
Charleston (Unit A)
Charleston (Unit B)
Charleston average
Haverill, Unit A (6/89)
Haverill, Unit B (3/90)
Haverill, Unit B (6/89)
Haverill averaae
Combustor
type3
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
Control
technology1*
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
Concentration
//g/dscm @ 7% 02
9.28
25.5
25.0
19.9 «
463
1,280
869
200
277
283
253
166
248
207
180
239
427
508
481
499
462
475
574
74.8
131
87.7
217
723
457
498
559
247
567
208
341
        B-6
-------
TABLE B-2. (continued)
Facility name
Millbury, Unit 1
Millbury, Unit 2
Millbury average
Portland, Unit 1 (12/89)
Portland, Unit 2 (12/89)
Portland averaae
Hillsborough
Pinedas County
Quebec City
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa average
Vancouver (12/89)
Vancouver (12/89)
Vancouver (12/89)
Vancouver (3/89)
Vancouver (4/89)
Vancouver (8/89)
Vancouver, Unit 1 (9/89)
Vancouver, Unit 2 (9/89)
Vancouver, Unit 3 (1 1/88)
Vancouver, Unit 3 (9/89)
Vancouver, Unit 3 (9/89)
Vancouver average
Delaware (Unit 1 )
Delaware (Unit 2)
Delaware (Unit 3)
Delaware (Unit 4)
Delaware (Unit 5)
Delaware (Unit 6)
Combustor
type3
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
Control
technology13
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
DSI/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
Concentration
fjg/dscm @ 7% 02
565
954
760
550
382
466
823
847
685
746
466
711
600
418
1,000
97.0
577
156
117
127
456
632
95.0
470
368
485
1,080
1,090
461
40.6
22.6
30.5
27.3
54.3
84.1
       B-7
-------
TABLE B-2. (continued)
Facility name
Delaware (Unit 1)
Delaware (Unit 2)
Delaware (Unit 3)
Delaware (Unit 4)
Delaware (Unit 5)
Delaware (Unit 6)
Delaware average
York (Unit 1)
York (Unit 2)
York (Unit 3)
York (Unit 1)
York (Unit 2)
York (Unit 3)
York (Unit 1 )
York (Unit 2)
York (Unit 3)
York (Unit 1 )
York (Unit 2)
York (Unit 3)
York (Unit 1 )
York (Unit 1 )
York (Unit 2)
York (Unit 3)
York (Unit 1 )
York (Unit 2)
York (Unit 3)
York average
AVERAGE
Dayton
Dayton
Dayton
Dayton
Dayton
Average
Combustor
type3
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/RC
MB/REF
MB/REF
MB/REF
MB/REF
MB/REF
MB/REF
Control
technology13
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
Concentration
j;g/dscm @ 7% C>2
30.1
50.2
57.6
87.0
41.0
42.8
47.4
158
105
79.3
151
167
136
155
167
136
36.1
53.0
120
48.4
54.0
55.4
40.1
153
79.2
150
110
70.6
716
907
962
973
1,060
923
        B-8
-------
                                         TABLE B-2. (continued)
Facility name
Dayton
Dayton
Averaqe
Davton
Biddeford
Mid-Connecticut (2/89)
Mid-Connecticut (7/88)
Mid-Connecticut (7/88)
Mid-Connecticut Averaae
Mid-Connecticut (2/89)
Mid-Connecticut (7/88)
Mid-Connecticut Average
Honolulu, Unit 1
Honolulu, Unit 2
Average
Semass, Unit 1
Semass, Unit 2
Average
West Palm Beach, Unit 1
West Palm Beach, Unit 2
Averaae
Detroit (3/90)
Detroit (7/89)
Average
Albanv
Pigeon Point
Pooe/Douqlas
Dversbura
Oneida County
Combustor
type3
MB/REF
MB/REF
MB/REF
MB/REF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
Control
technology"
ESP
ESP
ESP
DSI/ESP
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/FF
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
SD/ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
UN
ESP
Concentration
(jg/dscm  7% O2
1,020
1,150
1,080
491
389
668
1,010
884
853
9.20
50.0
29.6
5.28
7.25
6.27
59.3
105
82.2
55.6
23.2
39.4
194
653
424
441
363
133
130
2,060
aMB =
 MOD
 mass burn, WW = water wall, REF
= modular, SA  = starved air, EA  =
"UN = uncontrolled, SD = spray dryer, FF
 DSI = duct sorbent injection.
 = refractory wall, RDF = refuse-derived fuel-fired,
excess air.

   fabric filter,  ESP = electrostatic precipitator,
                                                 B-9
-------
TABLE B-3. SL
Incinerator
type3
MH
FB
MH
NA
FB
FB
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
NA
MH
MH
FB
Control
status13
IS
SC
IS
NA
VS/IS
VS/IS
NA
VS/IS
NA
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
IS
> VS/IS
JMMARY OF S
Method0
T
T
T
T
T
NA
T
T
NA
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
T
T
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATOR EMISSION DATA
Emissic
g/Mg dry sludge
0.35
24
0.90
1.5
1.6-3.1
0.026
0.83 - 14
1.1
3.0
0.54 - 0.84
0.66
4.6
3.4 - 4.0
1.2 - 2.1
0.32
0.58
0.97
0.030
n factor
10"3 Ib/ton dry sludge
0.70
48
1.8
3.0
3.2-6.2
0.051
1.7-27
2.1
6.0
1.1 - 1.7
1.3
9.2
6.8 - 8.0
2.4-4.2
0.64
1.2
1.9
0.060
Ref.
51
51
51
51
51
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
49
49
aMH = multiple hearth, FB = fluidized-bed, NA = not available.
bIS = impingement scrubber, SC = spray chamber,  NA = not available, VS = venturi scrubber,
 UN  = uncontrolled.
CT = source test, NA  = not  available, MB =  mass balance.
                                               B-10
-------
           TABLE B-4.  SUMMARY OF MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATOR EMISSION DATA
Facility
Fox Chase
Southland
Royal „
Jubilee0
Meaa
Nazareth
St.
Bernadines
Kaiser
use
Borge«s
University
of Michiaan
Lenoir
Caoe Fear
AMI
Central
Carolina
Mornstown
Waste
type3
M
M
M
NA
M
M
M
M
GSOO
RB
G100
M
M
M
M
P
M
Control
status13
VS/PB
DSI/ESP
UN
VS/PB
VS/PB
UN
WS
UN
UN
DI/FF .
DI/FF + Cd
DI/FF + Ce
UN
DI/FF
UN
UN
VS/PB
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
SD/FF
SD/FF + C
No. of
runs
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
14
9
2
3
10
9
2
3
3
9
9
3
6
6
3
3
Emission factor
a/Ma of waste
Averaoe
0.72
9.0
0.0129
3.22
14
9.7
15.8
317
66.2
50.0
5.S4
2.48
16.2
26.2
1.13
4.03
3.66
7. 15
11.6
0.043
0.5
37.1
23.9
3.98
Range
_
2.73-16.7
0.0124-0.0134
2.08-4.24
8.1-2.0
8.4-12.2
0.41-33.4
9.92-914
20.3-165
19.5-109
5.25-6.42
0.739-4.18
0.922-630
2.61-84.2
0.240-2.01
1.98-5.35
0.74-7.26
1.05-510
0.58-560
< 0.00055-0.081
<0.0005-1.5
8.11-6S.4
8.29-49.2
1.51-6.12
10~3 Ib/ton of waste
Average
1.44
18.0
0.0259
6.45
28
19.4
31.7
634
132
100
11.7
4.97
32.3
52.4
2.25
8.06
7.33
14.3
23.3
0.086
1.0
74.3
47.8
7.96
Ranae
„
5.46-33.4
0.0248-0.0269
4.17-9.49
16-40
16.8-24.5
0.82-66.8
19.8-1. 830
40.6-329
39.0-218
10.5-12.8
1.48-8.36
1.84-126
5.22-168
0.480-4.02
3.95-10.7
1.49-14.5
2.10-1,020
1.16-1.120
<0.0011-0.162
< 0.00 10-3.0
16.2-131
16.6-98.4
3.02-12.2
aM = mixed medical waste, NA = not available, GSOO = mixed waste from 500-bed hospital, RB = red bag waste,
 G100 = mixed waste from 100-bed hospital, P  = pathological waste.
 VS = ventun scrubber, PB = packed bed, DSI » duct sorbent injection, ESP = electrostatic precipitator,
 UN = uncontrolled, WS = wet scrubber, Dl  = dry injection, FF = fabric filter, C = carbon addition,
 SD = spray dryer.
cSamplmg method suspect, results biased low.
 Carbon injection at 1 Ib/hr rate.
8Carbon injection at 2.5 Ib/hr rate.
                                                 B-ll
-------
                     APPENDIX C.

SELECTED INFORMATION FOR CEMENT KILNS AND  LIME  PLANTS

         C.I - UNITED STATES PORTLAND CEMENT
               KILN CAPACITIES--1990

         C.2 - SUMMARY OF PORTLAND CEMENT
               EMISSION FACTORS

         C.3 - LIME PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
               IN 1991
-------
TABLE C-1.  PORTLAND CEMENT PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Company and location
Alamo Cement Co.
San Antonio, TX
Allentown Cement Co., Inc.
Blandon, PA
Armstrong Cement & Sup. Co.
Cabot, PA
Ash Grove Cement Co.
Nephi, UT
Louisville, NE
Durkee, OR
Foreman, AR
Montana City, MT
Chanute, KS
Inkom, ID
Blue Circle Inc.
Ravens, NY
Atlanta, GA
Tulsa, OK
Calera, AL
Boxcrow Cement
Midlothian, TX
Calaveras Cement Co.
Redding, CA
Tehachapi, CA
California Portland Cement
Mojave, CA
Colton, CA
Rillito, AZ
Capitol Cement Corporation
Martmsburg, WV
Capitol Aggregates, Inc.
San Antonio, TX
Carlow Group
Zanssville, OH
Centex
Laramie, WY
La Sa/le, IL
Fernley, NV
Continental Cement Co., Inc.
Hannibal, MO
Oixon-Marquetta
Dixon, IL
Dragon Products Company
Thomaston, ME
Essroc Materials
Nazareth, PA
Speed, IN
Bessemer, PA
Fredenck, MD
Logansport, IN
No. /type of kiln
1 -Dry
2- Dry
2 -Wet
1 -Dry
2 -Dry
1 • Dry
3 - Wet
1 -Wet
2 -Wet
2 -Wet
2 -Wet
2 -Dry
2 -Dry
2- Dry
1 - Dry
1 -Dry
1 -Wet
1 -Dry
2 -Dry
4- Dry
3 -Wet
1 -Dry/1 -Wet
2- Wet
1 -Dry
1 -Dry
2 -Dry
1 • Wet
4 -Dry
1 -Wet
1 -Dry
2 -Dry
1 -Dry/1 -Wet
2- Wet
2 -Wet
Clinker capacity,6
10 tons/year
750
930
^ 310
600
961
500
945
280
496
210
1,532
612
600
600
1,000
651
425
1,039
750
1,065
S22
503/352
603
461
410
415
600
524
455
963
951
. 325/21 1
370
404
                     C-1
-------
TABLE C-1. (continued)
Company and location
Florida Crushed Stona
Brooksville, FL
Giant Cement Company
Harleyville, SC
Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc.
Harleyville, SC
Oro Grande, CA
Riverside, CA
Glens Falls Cement Co.
Glen* Falls, NY
Hawaiian Cement Company
Ewa Beach, HI
Heartland Cement Company
Independence, KS
Hercules Cement Company
Stockertown, PA
Holnam, Inc.
Theodore, AL
Clarksville, MO
Holly Hill, SC
Mason City, IA
Florence, CO
Fort Collins, CO
Dundee, Ml
Artesia, MS
Seattle, WA
Three Forks, MT
Ada, OK
Tijeras, NM
Saratoga, AR
Morgan, UT
Independent Cement Corp.
Catskill, NY
Hagerstown, MO
Kaiser Cement Corp.
Permanente, CA
Keystone Cement Company
Bath, PA
Kosmos Cement Co.
Louisville, KY
Pittsburgh, PA
LaFarge Corporation
New Breunfels, TX
Buffalo, IA
Demopolis, AL
Grand Chain, IL
Alpena, Ml
Whitehall, PA
Sugar Creek, MO
Paulding, OH
Fredoma, KS
No. /type of kiln
1 -Orv
4- Wet
1 -Dry
7 -Dry
2 -Dry
1 -Dry
1 -Dry
4 -Dry
3- Dry
1 -Dry
1 -Wet
2- Wet
2 -Dry
3- Wet
1 -Dry
2 -Wet
1 -Wet
1 -Wet
1 -Wet
2 -Wet
2 -Dry
2 -Wet
2- Wet
1 -Wet
1 -Dry
1 -Dry
2- Wet
1 -Dry
1 -Wet
1 -Dry
1 -Dry
1 -Dry
2 -Dry
5 -Dry
3- Dry
2 - Dry
2 -Wet
2- Wet
Clinker capacity,9
10 tons/year
571
870
617
1 , 1 48
110
495
263
336
723
*
1,442
1,312
1,092
888
860
494
970
504
473
312
600
494
369
328
512
498
1,600
602
724
394
954
858
722
1,186
1,954
760
482
490
382
         C-2
-------
TABLE C-1. (continued)
Company and location
Lehigh Portland Cement
Mason City, IA
Leeds, AL
Camenton, NY
Union Bridge, MO
Mitchell, IN
York, PA
Waco, TX
Lone Star Industries
Cape Girardoau, MO
Greencastle, IN
Oglesby, IL
Pryor, OK
Nazareth, PA
Sweetwater, TX
Medusa Cement Co.
Charievoix, Ml
Clinchfield, GA
Wampum, PA
Mitsubishi Cement Corp. '
Lucerne Valley, CA
Monarch Cement Company
Humboldt, KS
D«« Moines, IA
National Cement Company
Ragland, AL
Nat). Cement Co. of Califonpa
Lebec, CA
North Texas Cement
Midlothian, TX
Phoenix Cement Company
Clarkdale, AZ
Rinker Portland Cement Corp.
Miami, FL
River Cement Company
Festus, MO
RMC Loneetar
Davenport, CA
Roanoke Cement Company
Cloverdale, VA
Signal Mountain Cement Co.
Chattanooga, TN
South Dakota Cement
Rapid City, SD
Southdown, Inc.
Victorviile, CA
Brooksville, FL
Knoxville, TN
Fairborn, OH
Lyons, CO
Odessa, TX
No. /type of kiln
1 -Dry
1 - Dry
1 - Wet
4 -Dry
3 -Dry
1 -Wet
1 -Wet
1 - Dry
1 -Wet
1 -Dry
3 -Dry
4 -Dry
3 -Dry
1 - Dry
1 -Dry/ 1- Wet
3 -Dry
1 - Dry
3 -Dry
2- Wet
1 - Dry
1 - Dry
3- Wet
3 - Dry
2- Wet
2 -Dry
1 - Dry
5 -Dry
2 -Wet
1-Dry/2-Wet
2 -Dry
2 • Dry
1 - Dry
1 -Dry
1 - Dry
2 -Dry
Clinker capacity,3
10^ tons/year
760
651
558
992
760
99
31
1,104
715
465
687
623
495
1,364
560/206
703
1,669
674
300
845
650
900
705
564
1,179
800
1,117
450
450/316
1,550
1,200
600
610
450
550
        C-3
-------
                                        TABLE C-1. (continued)
Company and location
St. Mary's Peerless Cement Co.
Detroit, Ml
Tarmac Florida, Inc.
Medley, FL
Texas Industries
New Braunfels, TX
Midlothian, TX
Texas-lehigh Cement Co.
Buda, TX
Total capacity reported
No. /type of kiln
1 -Wet
3- Wet
1 -Dry
4- Wet
1 -Dry
135 -Dry/79 -Wet
Clinker csodcity,3
103 tons/year
610
1,028
759
1,256
987
81,056
Source:  U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information Summary.  December 31, 1990.  Portland Cement
        Association, Skokie, Illinois.  July 1991.
aNote:

  Kilns reported as inactive in 1990
 Ash Grove Cement
 California Portland Cement
 Holnam, Inc.
 Lone Star Industries
 Medusa Cement Company
 Monarch Cement Company
 Tarmac Florida

 Total active capacity
Foreman, AR
Rillito, AZ
Florence, CO
Sweetwater, TX
Clinchfield, GA
Des Moines, IA
Medby, FL
1 kiln
2 kilns
2 kilns
1 kiln
1 kiln
2 kilns
2 kilns
Clinker capacity, 103
      tons/yr
       271
       •270
       368
       165
       206
       300
       368

    79,108
                                                   C-4
-------
u
3
a
o
ce
a.
UJ
U

O

<


CC
o
Q.

CC
o
u.


cc


o
en
V)
cc.

CJ
cc
UJ
u.
O
>
cc
<


2
13
UJ

evj

6
UJ

CQ
<




0
o
en
e
0
a
UJ



h.
a
.*
c
"
I
§
<



















£
"o
"o
o
d




9
73
"o

i
d
0
2
§
1 0
1
a
d
Z
"o
c
o
u














e
a
to
ce

Average




a
a
CC

Average

€
c
o
"a
2
to
c
3

a
 o
o c
co s
X

„


IU




V
 z
^ **
LO S
H

CM


in
LU




_J
1
"5
0





to
3
•a
c
W
O

o
o
d
CM
0
d

CO
CM
0
d




o
CM
o
d
to
8
d

o
d

CM
O d
S I
t-

co


in
IU




_j
Oglesby, 1


0


a
3
•o
c
a
10
0

CM
d
CM
r-
O
d

en
O
d




to
o
d
to
CO
o
d

en
q
d

—
00
CO
to

CO


w
IU



Q

Clarksville






o
c
I
0
                                                                                                    II  II
                                                           C-5
-------
TABLE C-3.  LIME PLANTS ACTIVE IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1991a
              (Source: National Lime Association)
Company/headquarters location
Alabama
Allied Lima Company (HQ)
Birmingham, AL
Blue Circle, Inc.
Calera, AL
Cheney Lime & Cement Company
Allgood, AL
Oravo Lime Company
Sagmaw, AL
Arizona
Chemstar Lime, Inc. (HQ)
Phoenix, AZ
Magma Cooper Company (C)
San Manuel, AZ
Arkansas
Arkansas Lime Company
Batesviile, AR
California
Spreckles Sugar Company, Inc. (C)
Woodland. CA
Chemstar Lima, Inc. (HQ)
Phoenix, AZ
Delta Sugar Corp. (C)
Clarksburg, CA
Holly Sugar Corp. (C)
Colorado Springs, CO

Marine Magnesium Company (C)
S. San Francisco, CA
National Refractories & Minerals Corp.
Moss Landing, CA
Union Sugar Division of Holly Sugar Corp. (C)
Santa Mana, CA
Colorado
Calco, Inc.
Salida, CO
Western Sugar Company
Fort Morgan, CO
Greeley, CO
Idaho
The Amalgamated Sugar Company (C)
Nampa, ID
Paul, ID
Twin Falls, ID
Phoenix, AZ
Illinois
Martalehead Lime Company (HQ)
Chicago, IL

Vulcan Materials Company
Countryside, IL
Inland Steel Company (C)
E. Chicago, IN
Iowa
Unwood Mining & Minerals Corp.
Davenport, IA
Plant location/name
•
Alabaster
Montavallo

Roberta
Landmark
Allgood"

Longview Div.

Douglas
Nelson

San Manuel


Batesville


Woodland
City of Industry1'
Stockton"

Clarksburg
Hamilton City
Brawley
Tracy

Sonora

Natividad

Betteravia


Salida

Fort Morgan
Greeley


Nampa
Mini-Cassia
Twin Falls
Ten Mile0

South Chicago
Thornton
Buffington
McCook

Indiana Harbor


LJnwood (UG)

Type of lime produced

Q
Q, H

Q, H
Q, H
H

Q. H

Q
Q, H

H

Q. H



Q
H
H

H
Q
Q
Q

Q

DL

Q


Q

Q
a


Q
Q
Q
Q

Q, H
DL, DH, DB
Q
DL

a


Q, H

                           C-6
-------
TABLE C-3. (continued)
Company/headquarters location
Kentucky
Oravo Lime Company (HO)
Pittsburgh, PA
Louisiana
Dravo Lime Company (HQ)
Pittsburgh, PA
USG Corp. (HQ)
Chicago, IL
Massachusetts
Lae Lima Corp.
loo, MA
Pfizer, Inc.
Adams, MA
Michigan
Detroit Lime Company
Detroit, Ml
The Dow Chemical Company (C)
Ludington, Ml
Marblehead Lime Company (HQ)
Chicago, IL
Michigan Sugar Company (C)
Saginaw, Ml
Monitor Sugar Company (C)
Bay City, Ml
Minnesota
American Crystal Sugar Company (C)
Moorhead, MN
Southern Minn. Sugar Corp. (C)
Renville, MN
Missouri
Ash Grove Cement Company
Springfield, MO
Mississippi Lime Company (HQ)
Alton, IL
Resco Products of Missouri, Inc. (HQ)
Clearfiald. PA
Montana
Continental Lime, Inc.
Townsend, MT
Holly Sugar Corp. (C)
Colorado Springs, CO
Western Sugar Company
Billings, MT
Nebraska
Western Sugar Company (C)
Bayard, NE
Mitchell, NE
Scottsbluff, NE
Nevada
Chemstar Lime, Inc. (HQ)
Phoenix, AZ
Continental Lime, Inc.
Wendover, NV
Plant location/name
Black River Div. (UG)
Maysville Div. (HG)
Pelican5
New Orleans
Lae
Adams
River Rouge
Ludington
River Rouge
Brennan
Sebawaing
Carollton
Crosswell
Caro
Bay City
Moorhead
Crookston
East Grand Forks
Renville
Springfield
Ste. Genevieve (UG)
Bonne Terre
Indian Creek
Sidney
Billings
Bayard
Mitchell
Scottsbluff
Apex
Henderson
Riot Peak
Type of lime produced
Q, H
Q
« H
Q, H
DL, OH
Q
Q
DL
Q
Q, H
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q, H
Q, H
DL, Q, DB
Q
Q
a
Q
Q
Q
Q, H
DL, OH
Q
        C-7
-------
TABLE C-3. (continued)
Company/headquarters location
North Dakota
American Crystal Sugar Company (C)
Drayton, NO
Hillsboro, NO
Minn-Oak Farmers Corp. (C)
Wahpeton, NO
Ohio
Elkem Metals Company (C)
Astabula, OH
GenLima Group LP
Genoa, OH
The Great Lakes Sugar Company (C)
Fremont, OH
Huron Lime Company
Huron, OH
LTV Steel (C&S)
Grand River, OH
Martin Marietta (C&S)
Woodville, OH
National Lime & Stone Company
Findlay, OH
Ohio Lime Company
Woodville, OH
Oklahoma
St. Clair Lima Company
Oklahoma City, OK
Oregon
The Amalgamated Sugar Company (C)
Nyssa, OR
Ash Grove Cement Company
Portland, OR
Pennsylvania
J.E. Baker Company (C&S)
York, PA
Bellefonte Lime Company
Bellefonte, PA
Centre Lime & Stone Company
Pleasant Gap, PA
Con Lime Company
Bellefonte, PA
Corson Lime Company
Plymouth Meeting, PA
Mercer Lime & Stone Company
Pittsburgh, PA
Warner Company
Oevauit, PA
Wimpey Minerals PA, Inc.
Annvtlle, PA
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rican Cement Company, Inc.
Ponce, PR
South Dakota
Pete Lien & Sons, Inc.
Rapid City, SO
Plant location/name


Drayton
Hillsboro

Minn-Dak


Ashtabula

Genoa

Fremont

Huron

Grand River

Woodville

Carey
Woodville
Millersville

Marble City (UG)



Nyssa

Portland


York

Bellefonte

Pleasant Gap

Bellefonte (UG)

Plymouth Meeting

Branchton

Cedar Hollow
Hanover
Annville

Ponce


Rapid City

"ype of lime produced


Q
Q

Q

4
Q

DL, DH

Q

Q

Q

DL. OB

DL, DH
DL
DL

Q, H



Q

Q, H


DB

Q, H

Q, H

Q, H

DL, DH

Q, H

DL, DH
DL, Q
O, H

Q, H


Q, H

         C-8
-------
TABLE C-3. (continued)
Company/headquarters location
Tennessee
Sowater Southern Papar Corp. (C)
Calhoun, TN
Tann Luttrall Company
Luttrell. TN
Texas
APG Lime Corp.
New Braunfele, TX
Austin White Lime Company
Austin, TX
Chemical Lima, Inc.
Clifton, TX
Holly Sugar Corp. (C)
Colorado Springe, CO
Redland Stone Products Company
San Antonio, TX
Texas Lime Company
Cleburne, TX
Utah
Chemstar Lime, Inc. (HQ)
Phoenix, AZ
Continental Lime, Inc.
Delta, UT
M.E.R.R. Corp.
Grantsvilla, UT
Virginia
APG Lime Corp
Ripplemead, VA
Chemstone Corp.
Strasburg, VA
W.S. Frey Company, Inc.
York, PA
Riverton Corp. (C)
Riverton, VA
Shenvalley Lima Corp.
Stephens City, VA
Virginia Lime Company
Ripplemaad, VA
Washington
Northwest Alloys, Inc. (C)
Addy, WA
Continental Lime, Inc.
Tacoma, WA
West Virginia
Germany Valley Limestone Company
Riverton, WV
Wisconsin
CLM Corp. (HQ)
Duluth, MN
Rockwell Lime Company
Manitowoc, Wl
Western Lime & Cement Company
West Bend, Wl
Plant location/name
Calhoun
Luttrell (UG)
Naw Braunfels
McNeil
Cliefton
Marble Falls
Hereford
San Antonio
No. 1
Round Rock"
Dolomite
Cricket Mountain
Marblehead Mt.a
Kimballton (UG)
Dominion
Clearbrook
Riverton
Stepens City13
Kimballton (UG)
Addy
Tacoma
Riverton
Superior
Manitowoc
Green Bay
Eden
Type of lime produced
Q
Q, H
Q, H, DL, DH
Q, H
Q, H
DL
Q
Q, H
Q, H
Q, H
DL, DH
Q
DL
Q, H
Q, H
Q
H
H
Q, H
DL
Q, H
Q, H
Q, H
DL, DH
Q, H
DL, DH
        C-9
-------
                                         TABLE C-3.  (continued)
Company/headquarters location
Wvomino
Holly Sugar Company (C)
Colorado Springs, CO
The Western Sugar Company (C)
Lovell, WY
Plant location/name
Torrington
Worland
Lowell
Type of lime produced
Q
Q
Q
KEY:

   C
c&s
  DB
  DH
  DL
   H
  HQ
   Q
  UG
=»  Ume plant is operated predominantly for captive consumption.
»  Captive and sales-captive consumption with significant commercial sales.
»  Refractory, dead-burned dolomite.
=  Oolomitic hydrate.
=  Oolomitic quicklime.
=  Hydrated lime.
=  Headquarters address.
=  Quicklime.
3  Underground mine.
8Excludes regenerated lime.

 Hydratmg plant only.

°New plant, scheduled to come on-line August 1992.

dPlant did not operate in 1991; it has been mothballed.

eClosed December 1991, last shipments made May 1992.
                                                   C-10
-------
          APPENDIX D.




CRUDE OIL DISTILLATION CAPACITY
-------
            R«fliwn' Op«»M* «mo«pft«rte Crudo 00 OMltMUn Capacity •» at January 1,
                                                                                             CiUnair 0«r
   El Pn». T«ii.	"
   SMUMCay Uoft.

 EMU C«. USA	
         i. T«
  LjndM (fiflywy). NHw Jonwy -
                                       I.SOJ.708
                                        11S.MO
                                        2M.OOO
                                        2S4.000
                                        220.000
                                        179.000
                                         •0000
                                         (4.000
                                         si.«oo
                                         41000

                                       1.1(7.000
                                        421.000
                                        3M.OOO
                                        170.000
                                           42.000
imocoOiCo. ..
  Tftm C
  SMLMCi*. UMl.
                                          370.000
                                           M.OOO
                                           U.OOO
                                           40.000
DMT tak. T>
 IP Anwne* Inc		
  BPCMCan}.
                                          9W.IOO
                                          274.000
                                          21I.MO
                                          2IS.OOO
                                          144,100
                                           MJOO
                                           M.MO

                                          IM.OOO
                                          27S.OOO
                                          1M.OOO
                                          110.000
                                          121.000
                                          100.000

                                          741.400

                                          111.000
                                          1M.OOO
                                          141.000
                                          121.100
USX Cap. •	
        nonce.

                                          (M.OOO

                                          2M.OOO
                                          179.000
                                           70,000
                                           70.000
                                           50.000

                                          (U.OOO
                                          290.000
                                          229.000
                                          14
                                                             TulM.
                                                           Sun Mm* 4 MMutnf
                                                                      i C«ip
                                                             LJMCKMlM.
                                                           CHM«M MHnni ( CKMOl In*.
                                                             C4KM CMU. T.M. ....... -----

                                                           *!• <»•>• Me.
                                                      AHMMOIIne. .
  C«DMCMtt.T<

TuMMning A UnkMng li
  4***e>rwi (Pupvl teuntf). W
  BC
Son Co me
                                          I U.OOO
                                          179.000
                                           129.000
                                            M.OOO

                                           1»000

                                           47*400

                                           30*000

                                           1»000

                                            44400

                                           424.SOO

                                           223.000
                                           174.900

                                            '9.000
                                            12.000

                                           412.000

                                           1(4.000
                                           140.000
                                            40.HO
                                            44.0OO
                                            *.900

                                           144.900
                                           113.400
                                           (7.100
                                           (4.000

                                           341.100
                                                                                                 71. tOO
                                                                                                 40.000
                                                                                                1 M.OOO

                                                                                                124.000
                                                                                                112.000
                                                                                                 (0.000
                                                                                                 (4.000
                                                                                                 a.ooo

                                                                                                309.000

                                                                                                179.000
                                                                                                109.000
                                                                                                 29.000
                                                                                                300.000

                                                                                                210900

                                                                                                119*90
                                                                                                 70*00
                                                                                                 (0.000
                                                                                                 40.000
                                                    D-l
-------
                 *' OptmMo ACmMpfMric Ciud« Oil DtttUttton capacity M of Januwy t, 19*2
          (ContlniMd)
  C04«M fMnna «. Mvutna t
    C«pu» Chntt. T«M	
    Q Oomato. Ktnui '	
    warn. Kmu !	
  CavM £«o» PMMO9 Co.
                   I Co.
L>un<<«9 P»u«(»iinal Co
  HouMon. T«E«	
Fin*Oi«awmalCa	
  fan Ant*. T*u* ...	
  »« Senn*. TUM—	
TOM P«MMm inc..
    Aittiwm. OkWM
    Artww &iy. Kw«a.
    Coawi Vetof. LMMWM
Crawn C«mnl Pijg*«im Corp
    PHMOT*. TUM	
  UOkWBCMIOuCo
  L
                                                      CMi Ol •
TMrt.
                                                                     Cor»
  121.900

   94,900
   (7009

13.1M.4M
                                                                            r.
                                         *2900
                                         59.500
                                         29.409
   90.000


   71.900


   72.000

   99.909

   49.100
   15.700
   1.000



   99.000

   93.700

   57.009

   1.700


   90.000



   55.000



   55.009


   50.000


   49.500


   49.000
                                               D-2
-------
           Rafinara* Oparaeta AtmoapharrC Cnida Oil OUUIUiloo Capacity M of January 1.
           (ContbiiMd)           	   	
                                                                                        CWMvOar
  rirtdin Wm fWlnnq m
                                                    SMJawun Mimna Co. me
                • Cor*.
                mCm.

                                         45.000
Ci4o flranm Oi Co.
  Cfr» PMUHMII Pmduai me.
    llnnr. Now York __.._....-,
  Lwrat MMM

FRWW (MMnf Co.
Hunt ComoMM** me,
  Hui^ A.AI.M GO.
   Tniiann.. ft*t*
TkwOICa.
  U.S. 01 4 PMnhf C&
41.MO


41.410


3U7D



33.500




32,400
       H«« Ccf*.
                                         30,000
Hondo Co
  FKWWOilftoinmg Co.
   Conan. CoMwno ,.

GaM Uw IMMi« LM.'
  UMCIunom. LOIMHM .
   C««w ChiM. T*
  CrrMn Ro4nnf Ma.

  laun
    T»
27.000


23,000

24.400
                                         11.100
                                                              IUM.UM..

                                                    KomOltlMmntC*.
                             I ma*
             MMMVwnon, Mm


             T«m Ui^M (MMng Catp."
                                                   Ergon me.
           OaK mrfcina. 01 Artrono fc»
             OtartfWMnfCa
               3A«NowM«M,...	

           Bonw Atfcwa Car*.	
             Thonwi (CuaW). OkMMM..
             VMlMMB. IH«IIIMHII'.	

           O«T wHim Co.
                                                   VQS Conj.
                                                     SouMnd 01 Co.
                                                       Dutaoh.
                                                          •tmeCais.
                                                   CASn.fa.no Co.
                                                         >Ao*nm«<
               oaMMnaCo.
                                                    24.300

                                                    24.100
                                                     «.«00
                                                     5.SOO

                                                    10.000
24.000


21400


21200




20.MO


20*00




20.000

17,500
10.500
 7.000




1MOO

1«.«00

11.000
 s.too

1«.000

 8.500
 7.500


14.200


13.500


13.300


1*555
                                                 D-3
-------
           Hcfliwrf Opmbi* AtmotpiMrte Crud* Oil OisiHMIon Capacity u of January 1, 1992
                                    CatodvOar
TrmwwM 01 U AA. toe.
        ii fliflrnni Co.
         I   W3OP •man IP
              
WarttCflCa.
  SuM
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before eomriietinfl
EPA-454/R-93-023
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From
Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds
7. AUTHOR(S)
Ms. Robin Jones, Dr. Tom Lapp,
and Dr. Dennis Wallace
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard, Suite 350
Gary, North Carolina 27513
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Technical Support Division
OAR, OAQPS, TSD, EFMS (MD-14)
Emission Inventory Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3. REC!PI€NT'S ACCESSION NO
5. REPORT DATE
September 1993
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D2-0159
13. TYP6.OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  EPA Project Officer:   Anne A. Pope
16. ABSTRACT                             ———————————_____—_—————
  To  assist groups  interested in inventorying air emissions of various
  potentially toxic substances, EPA is preparing a series of documents
  such as this to compile available information on sources and emission
  of  these substances.   This document deals specifically with mercury
  and mercury compounds.  Its intended audience includes Federal, State
  and local air pollution personnel and  others  interested in locating
  potential emitters of mercury and  in making gross estimates of air
  emissions therefrom.

  This document presents information on  (1)  the  types o-f sources that
  may emit  mercury and  mercury compounds,  (2) process variations and
  release  points that  may be  emitted within  these  sources,  and (3)
  available emissions information indicating the potential for mercury
  and mercury compound releases into the air from each operation.
-
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Mercury
Mercury Compounds
Air Emissions Sources
Locating Air Emissions Sources
Toxic Substances
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited


b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS

19. SECURITY CLASS ( Ttia Reponi
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (TJlitpagf/
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Croup

21. NO. OF PAGES
314
22. PRICE
EPA Fwm 2220-1 (R.«. 4-77)
                  previous COITION is oasoiCTC
-------