Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Fifth Edition Volume 1

OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000CEW\tiff\20013OCP.tif): Unspecified error

-------
9.2.2 Pesticide Application

9.2.2.1 General1'2

Pesticides are substances or mixtures used to control plant and animal life for the purposes of
increasing and improving agricultural production, protecting public health from pest-borne disease and
discomfort, reducing property damage caused by pests, and improving the aesthetic quality of outdoor
or indoor surroundings. Pesticides are used widely in agriculture, by homeowners, by industry, and
by government agencies. The largest usage of chemicals with pesticidal activity, by weight of "active
ingredient" (AI), is in agriculture. Agricultural pesticides are used for cost-effective control of
weeds, insects, mites, fungi, nematodes, and other threats to the yield, quality, or safety of food.
The annual U. S. usage of pesticide AIs (i. e., insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) is over
800 million pounds.

Air emissions from pesticide use arise because of the volatile nature of many AIs, solvents,
and other additives used in formulations, and of the dusty nature of some formulations. Most modern
pesticides are organic compounds. Emissions can result directly during application or as the AI or
solvent volatilizes over time from soil and vegetation. This discussion will focus on emission factors
for volatilization. There are insufficient data available on paniculate emissions to permit emission
factor development.

9.2.2.2 Process Description3"*5

Application Methods -
Pesticide application methods vary according to the target pest and to the crop or other value
to be protected. In some cases, the pesticide is applied directly to the pest, and in others to the host
plant. In still others, it is used on the soil or in an enclosed air space. Pesticide manufacturers have
developed various formulations of AIs to meet both the pest control needs and the preferred
application methods (or available equipment) of users. The types of formulations are dry, liquid, and
aerosol.

Dry formulations can be dusts, granules, wettable and soluble powders, water dispersible
granules, or baits. Dusts contain small particles and are subject to wind drift. Dusts also may
present an efficacy problem if they do not remain on the target plant surfaces. Granular formulations
are larger, from about 100 to 2,500 micrometers (jan), and are usually intended for soil application.
Wettable powders and water-dispersible granules both form suspensions when mixed with water
before application. Baits, which are about the same size as granules, contain the AI mixed with a
food source for the target pest (e. g., bran or sawdust).

Liquid formulations may be solutions, emulsions (emulsifiable concentrates), aerosols, or
fumigants. In a liquid solution, the AI is solubilized hi either water or organic solvent. True
solutions are formed when miscible liquids or soluble powders are dissolved in either water or
organic liquids. Emulsifiable concentrates are made up of the AI, an organic solvent, and an
emulsifier, which permits the pesticide to be mixed with water in the field. A flowable formulation
contains an AI that is not amenable to the formation of a solution. Therefore, the AI is mixed with a
liquid petroleum base and emulsifiers to make a creamy or powdery suspension that can be readily
field-mixed with water.
1/95 Food And Agricultural Industries 9.2.2-1

-------
Aerosols, which are liquids with an AI in solution with a solvent and a propellant, are used
for fog or mist applications. The ranges of optimum droplet size, by target, are 10 to 50 /*m for
flying insects, 30 to 50 /tm for foliage insects, 40 to 100 jim for foliage, and 250 to 500 /xm for soil
with drift avoidance.

Herbicides are usually applied as granules to the surface of the soil or are incorporated into
the soil for field crops, but are applied directly to plant foliage to control brush and noxious weeds.
Dusts or fine aerosols are often used for insecticides but not for herbicides. Fumigant use is limited
to confined spaces. Some fumigants are soil-injected, and then sealed below the soil surface with a
plastic sheeting cover to minimize vapor loss.

Several types of pesticide application equipment are used, including liquid pumps (manual and
power operated), liquid atomizers (hydraulic energy, gaseous energy, and centrifugal energy), dry
application, and soil application (liquid injection application).

9.2.2.3 Emissions And Controls1'7"14

Organic compounds and paniculate matter are the principal air emissions from pesticide
application. The active ingredients of most types of synthetic pesticides used hi agriculture have some
degree of volatility. Most are considered to be essentially nonvolatile or semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC) for analytical purposes, but a few are volatile (e. g., fumigants). Many widely
used pesticide formulations are liquids and emulsifiable concentrates, which contain volatile organic
solvents (e. g., xylene), emulsifiers, diluents, and other organics. In this discussion, all organics
other than the AI that are liquid under ambient conditions, are considered to have the potential to
volatilize from the formulation. Paniculate matter emissions with adsorbed active ingredients can
occur during application of dusts used as pesticide carriers, or from subsequent wind erosion.
Emissions also may contain pesticide degradation products, which may or may not be volatile. Most
pesticides, however, are sufficiently long lived to allow some volatilization before degradation occurs.

Processes affecting emissions through volatilization of agricultural pesticides applied to soils
or plants have been studied in numerous laboratory and field research investigations. The 3 major
parameters that influence the rate of volatilization are the nature of the AI, the meteorological
conditions, and soil adsorption.

Of these 3 major parameters, the nature of the AI probably has the greatest effect. The
nature of the AI encompasses physical properties, such as vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, and
water solubility; and chemical properties, including soil particle adsorption and hydrolysis or other
degradative mechanisms. At a given temperature, every AI has a characteristic Henry's law constant
and vapor pressure. The evaporation rate of an AI is determined hi large part by its vapor pressure,
and the vapor pressure increases with temperature and decreases with adsorption of the AI to soil.
The extent of volatilization depends hi part on air and soil temperature. Temperature has a different
effect on each component relative to its vapor pressure. An increase hi temperature can increase or
decrease volatilization because of its influence on other factors such as diffusion of the AI toward or
away from the soil surface, and movement of the water in the soil. Usually, an increase hi
temperature enhances volatilization because the vapor pressure of the AI increases. Wind conditions
also can affect the rate of AI volatilization. Increased wind and turbulence decrease the stagnant
layers above a soil surface and increase the mixing of air components near the surface, thus
increasing volatilization. The effects of the third major parameter, soil adsorption, depend not only
on the chemical reactivity of the AI but to a great extent on the characteristics of the soil. Increased
amounts of organic matter or clay hi soils can increase adsorption and decrease the volatilization rate
of many AIs, particularly the more volatile AIs that are nonionic, weakly polar molecules. The soil

9.2.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

-------
moisture content can also influence the rate of vaporization of the weakly polar AIs. When soil is
very dry, the volatility of the AI is lowered significantly, resulting in a decrease in emissions. The
presence of water in the soil can accelerate the evaporation of pesticides because, as water evaporates
from the soil surface, the AI present in the soil will be transported to the surface, either in solution or
by codistillation or convection effects. This action is called the "wick effect" because the soil acts as
a wick for movement of the AI.

Many materials used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations are organic compounds that
are volatile liquids or gases at ambient conditions. All of these compounds are considered to be
volatile organic compounds (VOC). During the application of the pesticides and for a subsequent
period of time, these organic compounds are volatilized into the atmosphere. Most of the liquid inert
ingredients in agriculture pesticide formulations have higher vapor pressures than the AIs. However,
not all inert ingredients are VOCs. Some liquid formulations may contain water, and solid
formulations typically contain nonvolatile (solid) inert ingredients. Solid formulations contain small
quantities of liquid organic compounds in their matrix. These compounds are often incorporated as
carriers, stabilizers, surfactants, or emulsifiers, and after field application are susceptible to
volatilization from the formulation. The VOC inert ingredients are the major contributors to
emissions that occur within 30 days after application. It is assumed that 100 percent of these VOC
inert ingredients volatilize within that time.

Two important mechanisms that increase emissions are diffusion and volatilization from plant
surfaces. Pesticides in the soil diffuse upward to the surface as the pesticide at the soil surface
volatilizes. A pesticide concentration gradient is thus formed between the depleted surface and the
more concentrated subsurface. Temperature, pesticide concentration, and soil composition influence
the rate of diffusion. The rate of volatilization from plant surfaces depends on the manner in which
the pesticide covers the plant structure. Higher volatilization losses can occur from plant surfaces
when the pesticide is present as droplets on the surface. Volatilization slows when the remaining
pesticide is either left in the regions of the plant structure less exposed to air circulation or is
adsorbed onto the plant material.

Alternative techniques for pesticide application or usage are not widely used, and those that
are used are often intended to increase cost effectiveness. These techniques include (1) use of
application equipment that increases the ratio of amount of pesticide on target plants or soil to that
applied; (2) application using soil incorporation; (3) increased usage of water-soluble pesticides in
place of solvent-based pesticides; (4) reformulation of pesticides to reduce volatility; and (5) use of
integrated pest management (IPM) techniques to reduce the amount of pesticide needed.
Microencapsulation is another technique in which the active ingredient is contained in various
materials that slowly degrade to allow for timed release of pesticides.

9.2.2.4 Emission Factors1'15'21

The variety in pesticide AIs, formulations, application methods, and field conditions, and the
limited data base on these aspects combine to preclude the development of single-value emission
factors. Modeling approaches have been, therefore, adopted to derive emission factors from readily
available data, and algorithms have been developed to calculate emissions for surface application and
soil incorporation from product-specific data, supplemented, as necessary, by default values.
Emission factors for pesticide AIs, derived through modeling approaches, are given in Table 9.2.2-4.
Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton). No
emission factors are estimated beyond 30 days because after that time degradation processes (e. g.,
hydrolysis or microbial degradation) and surface runoff can have major effects on the loss of AIs, and
volatilization after that time may not be the primary loss mechanism. The emission factors calculated

1/95 Food And Agricultural Industries 9.2.2-3

-------
using the model are rated "E" because the estimates are derived from mathematical equations using
physical properties of the AIs. Because the factors were developed from a very limited data base,
resulting emission estimates should be considered approximations. As additional data become
available, the algorithm and emission factors will be revised, when appropriate, to incorporate the
new data.

This modeling approach estimates emissions from volatilized organic material. No emission
estimates were developed for paniculate because the available data were inadequate to establish
reliable emission factors. The modeled emission factors also address only surface-applied and
soil-incorporated pesticides. In aerial application, drift effects predominate over volatilization, and
insufficient data are currently available to develop emission factors for this application method.

The model covers the 2 key types of volatilization emissions, (1) those of active (pesticidal)
ingredients, and (2) those VOC constituents of the inert (nonpesticidal) ingredients. For some
formulations (e. g., liquids and emulsifiable concentrates), emissions of inert VOCs may be an order
of magnitude or more higher than those of the AIs, but for other formulations (e. g., granules) the
VOC emissions are either relatively less important or unimportant. Thus, both parts of the model are
essential, and both depend on the fact that volatilization rates depend in large measure on the vapor
pressure of specific ingredients, whether AIs or inerts. Use of the model, therefore, requires the
collection of certain information for each pesticide application.

Both the nature of the pesticide and the method by which it is applied must either be known
or estimated. Pesticide formulations contain both an AI and inert ingredients, and the pesticide
volatilization algorithm is used to estimate their emissions separately. Ideally, the information
available for the algorithm calculation will match closely the actual conditions. The following
information is necessary to use the algorithm.

- Total quantity of formulation applied;

- Method by which the formulation was applied (the algorithm cannot be used for aerially
applied pesticide formulations);

- Name of the specific AI(s) in the formulation;

- Vapor pressure of the AI(s);

- Type of formulation (e. g., emulsifiable concentrate, granules, microcapsules, powder);

- Percentage of inert ingredients; and

- Quantity or percentage of VOC in the inerts.

9.2.2.5 UseOf The Algorithm1'18'20

The algorithm for estimating volatilization emissions is applied in a 6-step procedure, as
follows:

1. Determine both the application method and the quantity of pesticide product applied.
2. Determine the type of formulation used.
3. Determine the specific AI(s) in the formulation and its vapor pressure(s).
4. Determine the percentage of the AI (or each AI) present.

9.2.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

-------
5. Determine the VOC content of the formulation.
6. Perform calculations of emissions.

Information for these steps can be found as follows:

- Item 1 — The quantity can be found either directly from the weight purchased or used for
a given application or, alternately, by multiplying the application rate (e. g., kg/acre)
times the number of units (acres) treated. The algorithm cannot be used for aerial
application.

- Items 2, 3, and 4 — This information is presented on the labels of all pesticide containers.
Alternatively, it can be obtained from either the manufacturer, end-use formulator, or
local distributor. Table 9.2.2-1 provides vapor pressure data for selected AIs. If the
trade name of the pesticide and the type of formulation are known, the specific AI in the
formulation can be obtained from Reference 2 or similar sources. Table 9.2.2-2 presents
the specific AIs found in several common trade name formulations. Assistance in
determining the various formulations for specific AIs applied may be available from the
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U. S. Department Of Agriculture, Washington,
DC.

- Item 5 — The percent VOC content of the inert ingredient portion of the formulation can
be requested from either the manufacturer or end-use formulator. Alternatively, the
estimated average VOC content of the inert portions of several common types of
formulations is given in Table 9.2.2-3.

- Item 6 — Emissions estimates are calculated separately for the AI using Table 9.2.2-4,
and for the VOC inert ingredients as described below and illustrated in the example
calculation.

Emissions Of Active Ingredients -
First, the total quantity of AI applied to the crop is calculated by multiplying the percent
content of the AI in the formulation by the total quantity of applied formulation. Second, the vapor
pressure of the specific AI(s) at 20 to 25°C is determined from Table 9.2.2-1, Reference 20, or other
sources. Third, the vapor pressure range that corresponds to the vapor pressure of the specific AI is
found in Table 9.2.2-4. Then the emission factor for the AI(s) is calculated. Finally, the total
quantity of applied AI(s) is multiplied by the emission factor(s) to determine the total quantity of AI
emissions within 30 days after application. Table 9.2.2-4 is not applicable to emissions from
fumigant usage, because these gaseous or liquid products are highly volatile and would be rapidly
discharged to the atmosphere.

Emissions Of VOC Inert Ingredients -
The total quantity of emissions because of VOCs in the inert ingredient portion of the
formulation can be obtained by using the percent of the inert portion contained in the formulated
product, the percent of the VOCs contained in the inert portion, and the total quantity of formulation
applied to the crop. First, multiply the percentage of inerts in the formulation by the total quantity of
applied formulation to obtain the total quantity of inert ingredients applied. Second, multiply the
percentage of VOCs in the inert portion by the total quantity of inert ingredient applied to obtain the
total quantity of VOC inert ingredients. If the VOC content is not known, use a default value from
Table 9.2.2-3 appropriate to the formulation. Emissions of VOC inert ingredients are assumed to be
100 percent by 30 days after application.
1/95 Food And Agricultural Industries 9.2.2-5

-------
Total Emissions -
Add the total quantity of VOC inert ingredients volatilized to the total quantity of emissions
from the AI. The sum of these quantities represents the total emissions from the application of the
pesticide formulation within 30 days after application.

Example Calculation -
3,629 kg, or 8,000 Ib, of Spectracide® have been surface applied to cropland, and an estimate
is desired of the total quantity of emissions within 30 days after application.

1. The active ingredient in Spectracide* is diazinon (Reference 2, or Table 9.2.2-2). The
pesticide container states that the formulation is an emulsifiable concentrate containing
58 percent active ingredient and 42 percent inert ingredient.

2. Total quantity of AI applied:

0.58 * 3,629 kg = 2,105 kg (4,640 Ib) of diazinon applied

= 2.105 Mg

2.105 Mg * 1.1 ton/Mg = 2.32 tons of diazinon applied

From Table 9.2.2-1, the vapor pressure of diazinon is 6 x 10"5 millimeters (mm) mercury at
about 25°C. From Table 9.2.2-4, the emission factor for AIs with vapor pressures between 1 x 10"6
and 1 x 10"4 during a 30-day interval after application is 350 kg/Mg (700 Ib/ton) applied. This
corresponds to a total quantity of diazinon volatilized of 737 kg (1,624 Ib) over the 30-day interval.

3. From the pesticide container label, it is determined that the inert ingredient content of the
formulation is 42 percent and, from Table 9.2.2.3, it can be determined that the average
VOC content of the inert portion of emulsifiable concentrates is 56 percent.

Total quantity of emissions from inert ingredients:

0.42 * 3,629 kg * 0.56 = 854 kg (1,882 Ib) of VOC inert ingredients

One hundred percent of the VOC inert ingredients is assumed to volatilize within 30 days.

4. The total quantity of emissions during this 30-day interval is the sum of the emissions
from inert ingredients and from the AI. In this example, the emissions are 854 kg
(1,882 Ib) of VOC plus 737 kg (1,624 Ib) of AI, or 1,591 kg (3,506 Ib).
9.2.2-6 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

-------
         Table 9.2.2-1. VAPOR PRESSURES OF SELECTED ACTIVE INGREDIENTS*
                Active Ingredient
                               Vapor Pressure
                            (mm Hg at 20 to 25°C)
  1,3-Dichloropropene
  2,4-D acid
  Acephate
  Alachlor
  Aldicarb
  Aldoxycarb
  Amitraz
  Amitrole (aminotriazole)
  Atrazine
  Azinphos-methyl
  Benefin (benfluralin)
  Benomyl
  Bifenox
  Bromacil acid
  Bromoxynil butyrate ester
  Butylate
  Captan
  Carbaryl
  Carbofuran
  Chlorobenzilate
  Chloroneb
  Chloropicrin
  Chlorothalonil
  Chlorpyrifos
  Clomazone (dimethazone)
  Cyanazine
  Cyromazine
  DCNA (dicloran)
  DCPA (chlorthal-dimethyl; Dacthal*)
  Diazinon
  Dichlobenil
  Dicofol
  Dicrotofos
  Dimethoate
  Dinocap
                                 29
                                  8.0 x 10-6
                                  1.7 x 10-6
                                  1.4x 10'5
                                  3.0 x 10'5
                                  9 x 10'5
                                  2.6 x 10^
                                  4.4 x 10'7
                                  2.9 x ID'7
                                  2.0 x 10-7
                                  6.6 x 10'5
                               <  1.0 x lO"10
                                  2.4 x 10-6
                                  S.lxlO'7
                                  l.OxlO-4
                                  1.3 x 10-2
                                  8.0 x lO'8
                                  1.2 x ID"6
                                  6.0 x 10-7
                                  6.8 x 10-6
                                  3.0 x 10-3
                                 18
                                  1.0 x 10'3 (estimated)
                                  1.7 x 10'5
                                  1.4 x 10-4
                                  1.6 x 10-9
                                  3.4 x 10-9
                                  1.3 x 10-6
                                  2.5 x 10-*
                                  6.0 x 10'5
                                  1.0 x 10'3
                                  4.0 x 10'7
                                  1.6x 10^
                                  2.5 x 10-5
                                  4.0 x 10-*
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-7

-------
                                     Table 9.2.2-1 (cont.).
                Active Ingredient
                           Vapor Pressure
                       (mm Hg at 20 to 25°C)
 Disulfoton
 Diuron
 Endosulfan
 EPTC
 Ethalfluralin
 Ethion
 Ethoprop (ethoprophos)
 Fenamiphos
 Fenthion
 Fluometuron
 Fonofos
 Isofenphos
 Lindane
 Linuron
 Malathion
 Methamidophos
 Methazole
 Methiocarb  (mercaptodimethur)
 Methomyl
 Methyl parathion
 Metolachlor
 Metribuzin
 Mevinphos
 Molinate
 Naled
 Norflurazon
 Oxamyl
 Oxyfluorfen
 Parathion (ethyl  parathion)
 PCNB
 Pendimethalin
 Permethrin
 Phorate
 Phosmet
 Profenofos
                             1.5 x
                             6.9 x ID'8
                             1.7 x 10'7
                             3.4 x 10'2
                             8.8 x 1(T5
                             2.4 x KT6
                             3.8 x 10-4
                             l.Ox ID"6
                             2.8 x 1Q-6
                             9.4 x 10'7
                             3.4 x 10^
                             3.0 x 10-6
                             3.3 x 1Q-5
                             1.7x 10'5
                             8.0 x 10-6
                             8.0 x 10-4
                             l.OxlO-6
                             1.2 x 10^
                             5.0 x 10-5
                             l.SxlO'5
                             3.1 x lO'5
                           < 1.0 x 1Q-5
                             1.3 x 10-4
                             5.6 x lO'3
                             2.0 x 10-4
                             2.0 x 10'8
                             2.3 x 10^
                             2.0 x 10'7
                             5.0 x 10-6
                             1.1 x 1Q-4
                             9.4 x lO"6
                             1.3 x 10'8
                             6.4 x 10-4
                             4.9 x 10-7
                             9.0 x 10-7
9.2.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                   Table 9.2.2-1 (cont.).
Active Ingredient
Prometon
Prometryn
Propachlor
Propanil
Propargite
Propazine
Propoxur
Siduron
Simazine
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
Terbufos
Thiobencarb
Thiodicarb
Toxaphene
Triallate
Tribufos
Trichlorfon
Trifluralin
Triforine
Vapor Pressure
(mm Hg at 20 to 25 °C)
7.7 x 10^
1.2 x 1Q-6
2.3 x 10^
4.0 x 10"5
3.0 x 10-3
1.3 x 10'7
9.7 x 10"6
4.0 x 10'9
2.2 x 10'8
2.0 x 1Q-6
3.1 x 10'7
3.2 x 1Q-4
2.2 x 10'5
l.Ox 1Q-7
4.0 x 1Q-6
1.1 x 10-4
1.6x 10-6
2.0 x 10-6
1.1 x lO"4
2.0 x 10'7
  Reference 20.  Vapor pressures of other pesticide active ingredients can also be found there.
          Table 9.2.2-2. TRADE NAMES FOR SELECTED ACTIVE INGREDIENTS1
Trade Namesb
Insecticides
AC 8911
Acephate-met
Alkron*
Aileron*
Aphamite®
Bay 17147
Bay 19639
Bay 70143
Active Ingredient0

Phorate
Methamidophos
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Azinphos-methyl
Disulfoton
Carbofuran
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-9

-------
                                  Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Bay 71628
Benzoepin
Beosit®
Brodan*
BugMaster®
BW-21-Z
Carbamine*
Carfene®
Cekubaryl®
Cekudifol®
Cekuthoate®
CGA-15324
Chlorpyrifos 99%
Chlorthiepin®
Comite®
Corothion®
Crisulfan®
Crunch*
Curacron
Curaterr®
Cyclodan®
Cygon 400*
D1221
Daphene®
Dazzel*
Denapon®
Devicarb*
Devigon®
Devisulphan®
Devithion*
Diagran®
Dianon®
Diaterr-Fos®
Diazajet®
Diazatol®
Diazide®
Dicarbam*
Active Ingredient0
Methamidophos
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Chlorpyrifos
Carbaryl
Pennethryn
Carbaryl
Azinphos-methyl
Carbaryl
Dicofol
Dimethoate
Profenofos
Chlorpyrifos
Endosulfan
Propargite
Ethyl Parathion
Endosulfan
Carbaryl
Profenofos
Carbofuran
Endosulfan
Dimethoate
Carbofuran
Dimethoate
Diazinon
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Dimethoate
Endosulfan
Methyl Parathion
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Carbaryl
9.2.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                     Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
                Trade Namesb
                             Active Ingredient0
        Dicomite®
        Dimethogen®
        Dimet*
        Dizinon®
        DPX 1410
        Dyzol®
        E-605
        Ectiban®
        Endocide®
        Endosol®
        ENT 27226
        ENT27164
        Eradex®
        Ethoprop
        Ethoprophos
        Ethylthiodemeton
        Etilon®
        Fezudin
        FMC-5462
        FMC-33297
        Fonofos
        Force®
        Fosfamid
        Furacarb*
        G-24480
        Gardentox®
        Gearphos®
        Golden Leaf Tobacco Spray®
        Hexavin®
        Hoe 2671
        Indothrin*
        Insectophene*
        Insyst-D®
        Karbaspray*
        Kayazinon®
        Kayazol®
        Kryocide®
                     Dicofol
                     Dimethoate
                     Dimethoate
                     Diazinon
                     Oxamyl
                     Diazinon
                     Ethyl Parathion
                     Permethryn
                     Endosulfan
                     Endosulfan
                     Propargite
                     Carbofuran
                     Chlorpyrifos
                     Ethoprop
                     Ethoprop
                     Disulfoton
                     Ethyl Parathion
                     Diazinon
                     Endosulfan
                     Permethryn
                     Dyfonate
                     Tefluthrin
                     Dimethoate
                     Carbofuran
                     Diazinon
                     Diazinon
                     Methyl Parathion
                     Endosulfan
                     Carbaryl
                     Endosulfan
                     Permethryn
                     Endosulfan
                     Disulfoton
                     Carbaryl
                    Diazinon
                    Diazinon
                     Cryolite
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-11

-------
                                 Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Lannate® LV
Larvin®
Metafos
Metaphos®
Methomex®
Methyl
Metiltriazotion
Nipsan®
Niran®
Nivral®
NRDC 143
Ortho 124120
Orthophos®
Panihion®
Paramar®
Paraphos*
Parathene®
Parathion
Parathion
Parawet*
Partron M®
Penncap-M®
PhoskU®
Piridane®
Polycron®
PP557
Pramex®
Prokil®
PT265®
Qamlin*
Rampart®
Rhodiatox®
S276
SD 8530
Septene®
Sevin 5 Pellets®
Soprathion®
Active Ingredient0
Methomyl
Thiodicarb
Methyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Methomyl
Methyl Parathion
Azinphos-methyl
Diazinon
Ethyl Parathion
Thiodicarb
Permethryn
Acephate
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Chlorpyrifos
Profenofos
Permethryn
Permethryn
Cryolite
Diazinon
Pennethryn
Phorate
Ethyl Parathion
Disulfoton
Trimethacarb
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Ethyl Parathion
9.2.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                        Table 9.2.2-2 (oont.).
Trade Namesb
Spectracide®
SRA 5172
Stathion®
Tekwaisa®
Temik*
Tercyl*
Thimul*
Thiodan
Thiofor*
Thiophos
Tricarnam*
Trimetion®
UC 51762
UC 27867
Uniroyal D014
Yaltox®
None listed
None listed
Herbicides
A-4D
AC 92553
Acclaim
Acme MCPA Amine 4®
Aljaden®
Amiben®
Amilon®-WP
Amine*
Aqua-Kleen®
Arrhenal®
Arsinyl*
Assure*
Avadex® BW
Banlene Plus®
Banvel®
Barrage®
Basagran
Bay 30130
Active Ingredient0
Diazinon
Methamidophos
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Aldicarb
Carbaryl
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Ethyl Parathion
Carbaryl
Dimethoate
Thiodicarb
Trimethacarb
Propargite
Carbofuran
Dicrotophos
Terbufos

2,4-D
Pendimethalin
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
MCPA
Sethoxydim
Chloramben
Chloramben
MCPA
2,4-D
DSMA
DSMA
Quizalofop-ethyl
Triallate
MCPA
Dicamba
2,4-D
Bentazon
Propanil
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-13

-------
                                 Tabla 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Bay DIG 1468
Bay 94337
Benefex*
Benfluralin
Bentazon
Bethrodine
BH* MCPA
Bioxone*
Blazer*
Bolero*
Border-Master*
Brominex*
C-2059
Cekuiron*
Cekuquat*
Cekusima*
CGA-24705
Checkmate*
Chloroxone*
Classic*
Clomazone
Command*
CP50144
Crisuron®
Croprider*
Dacthal*
Dailon*
Depon*
Dextrone*
Di-Tac*
Diater*
DMA
DMA-100»
DPA
DPX-Y6202
EL-110
EL-161
Active Ingredient*5
Metribuzin
Metribuzin
Benefin
Benefin
Bentazon
Benefin
MCPA
Methazole
Aciflurofen
Thiobencarb
MCPA
Bromoxynil
Fluometuron
Diuron
Paraquat
Simazine
Metolachlor
Sethoxydim
2,4-D
Chlorimuron-ethyl
Clomazone
Clomazone
Alachlor
Diuron
2,4-D
DCPA
Diuron
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
Paraquat
DSMA
Diuron
DSMA
DSMA
Propanil
Quizalofop-ethyl
Benefin
Ethalfluralin
9.2.2-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                    Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
                Trade Namesb
                             Active Ingredient0
        Emulsamine*
        Esgram*
        Excel*
        EXP-3864
        Expand*
        Far-Go*
        Farmco Diuron*
        Fannco Atrazine Gesaprim*
        Fervinal*
        Ferxone*
        Furore*
        Fusilade 2000
        G-30027
        G-34161
        G-34162
        Gamit*
        Genate Plus*
        Glyphosate Isopropylamine Salt
        Goldquat* 276
        Grasidim*
        HerbAll*
        Herbaxon*
        Herbixol*
        Higalcoton*
        Hoe 002810
        Hoe-023408
        Hoe-Grass*
        Hoelon*
        Illoxan*
        Kilsem*
        Lasso*
        Lazo*
        Legumex Extra*
        Lexone* 4L
        Lexone* DF*
        Linorox*
        LS 801213
                     2,4-D
                     Paraquat
                     Fenoxaprop-ethyl
                     Quizalofop-ethyl
                     Sethoxydim
                     Triallate
                     Diuron
                     Atrazine
                     Sethoxydim
                     2,4-D
                     Fenoxaprop-ethyl
                     Fluazifop-p-butyl
                     Atrazine
                     Prometryn
                     Ametryn
                     Clomazone
                     Butylate
                     Glyphosate
                     Paraquat
                     Sethoxydim
                     MSMA
                     Paraquat
                     Diuron
                     Fluometuron
                     Linuron
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     MCPA
                     Alachlor
                     Alachlor
                     MCPA
                     Metribuzin
                     Metribuzin
                     Linuron
                     Aciflurofen
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-15

-------
                                 Table 9.2.2-2 (cont).
Trade Namesb
M.T.F.*
Magister*
Mephanac*
Merge 823*
Methar*30
Mezopur*
Monosodium methane arsenate
Nabu*
Option*
Oxydiazol
Paxilon® ,
Pillarquat*
Pillarxone*
Pillarzo*
Pilot*
Plantgard®
Pledge*
PP005
Primatol Q*
Probe
Prop-Job*
Propachlor
Prowl*
Rattler*
RH-6201
Rodeo*
Roundup*
S 10145
Sarclex*
Saturno®
Saturn*
Scepter*
SD 15418
Sencor* 4
Sencor* DF
Shamrox*
Sodar*
Active Ingredient0
Trifluralin
Clomazone
MCPA
MSMA
DSMA
Metbazole
MSMA
Sethoxydim
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
Methazole
Methazole
Paraquat
Paraquat
Alachlor
Quizalofop-ethyl
2,4-D
Bentazon
Fluazifop-p-butyl
Prometryn
Methazole
Propanil
Propachlor
Pendimethalin
Glyphosate
Aciflurofen
Glyphosate
Glyphosate
Propanil
Linuron
Thiobencarb
Thiobencarb
Imazaquin
Cyanazine
Metribuzin
Metribuzin
MCPA
DSMA
9.2.2-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                       Table 9.2.2-2 (cont).
Trade Namesb
Sonalan*
Squadron*
Squadron*
Strel*
Surpass*
Targa*
Target MSMA*
Telok*
Tigrex*
Total*
Toxer*
Trans-Vert*
Tri^*
Tri-Scept*
Tributon*
Trifluralina 600*
Trinatox D*
Tritex-Extra®
Tunic*
Unidron*
VCS 438
Vegiben*
Vernam 10G
Vernam 7E
Vonduron*
Weed-Rhap*
Weed-B-Gon*
Weedatul*
Weedtrine-n*
Whip*
WL 19805
Zeaphos*
Zelan*
None listed
None listed
None listed
None listed
Active Ingredient0
Ethalfluralin
Imazaquin
Pendimethalin
Propanil
Vernolate
Quizalofop-ethyl
MSMA
Norflurazon
Diuron
Paraquat
Paraquat
MSMA
Trifluralin
Imazaquin
2,4-D
Trifluralin
Ametryn
Sethoxydim
Methazole
Diuron
Methazole
Chloramben
Vernolate
Vernolate
Diuron
MCPA
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
Cyanazine
Atrazine
MCPA
EPTC
Fomesafen
Molinate
Tridiphane
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-17

-------
                                  Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
               Trade Namesb
                       Active Ingredient0
 Other Active Ingredients
       A7 Vapam*
       Aquacide®
       Avicol®
       Carbarn (MAP)
       Clortocaf Ramato®
       Clortosip®
       Cotton Aide HC®
       De-Green*
       DBF*
       Deiquat
       Dextrone®
       E-Z-OffD®
       Earthcide®
       Exotherm Termil*
       Folex®
       Folosan®
       Fos-Fall A®
       Karbation®
       Kobutol®
       Kobu®
       Kypman® 80
       M-Diphar®
       Mancozin®
       Maneba®
       Manebe
       Manzate® 200
       Manzeb
       Manzin*
       Maposol*
       Metam for the Acid
       Moncide*
       Montar®
       Nemispor®
       Pentagon®
       Quintozene
       Rad-E-Cate* 25
               Metam Sodium
               Diquat
               PCNB
               Metam Sodium
               Chlorothalonil
               Chlorothalonil
               Cacodylic
               Tribufos
               Tribufos
               Diquat
               piquat
               Tribufos
               PCNB
               Chlorothalonil
               Tribufos
               PCNB
               Tribufos
               Metam Sodium
               PCNB
               PCNB
               Maneb
               Maneb
               Mancozeb
               Maneb
               Maneb
               Mancozeb
               Mancozeb
               Mancozeb
               Metam Sodium
               Metam Sodium
               Cacodylic
               Cacodylic
               Mancozeb
               PCNB
               PCNB
               Cacodylic
9.2.2-18
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                   Table 9.2.2-2 (cont).
               Trade Namesb
                            Active Ingredient0
       Region
       Riozeb®
       RTU* PCNB
       Sectagon* n
       SMDC
       Soil-Prep*
       Sopranebe*
       Superman* Maneb F
       Terrazan*
       Tersan 1991*
       TriPCNB*
       Tubotbane*
       Weedtrine-D*
       Ziman-Dithane®
       None listed
       None listed
       None listed
                   Diquat
                   Mancozeb
                   PCNB
                   Metam Sodium
                   Metam Sodium
                   Metam Sodium
                   Maneb
                   Maneb
                   PCNB
                   Benomyl
                   PCNB
                   Maneb
                   Diquat
                   Mancozeb
                   Dimethipin
                   Ethephon
                   Thiadiazuron
a Reference 2.  See Reference 22 for selected pesticides used on major field crops.
b Reference 2.
c Common names. See Reference 2 for chemical names.
       Table 9.2.2-3. AVERAGE VOC CONTENT OF PESTICIDE INERT INGREDIENT
                          PORTION, BY FORMULATION TYPE*
              Formulation Type
                   Average VOC Content Of Inert Position
                                (wt. %)
 Oils
 Solution/liquid (ready to use)
 Emulsifiable concentrate
 Aqueous concentrate
 Gel, paste, cream
 Pressurized gas
 Flowable (aqueous) concentrate
 Microencapsulated
 Pressurized liquid/sprays/foggers
 Soluble powder
 Impregnated material
                                   66
                                   20
                                   56
                                   21
                                   40
                                   29
                                   21
                                   23
                                   39
                                   12
                                   38
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-19

-------
                                   Table 9.2.2-3 (cont.).
               Formulation Type
              Average VOC Content Of Inert Position
                             (wt. %)
 Pellet/tablet/cake/briquette
 Wettable powder
 Dust/powder
 Dry flowable
 Granule/flake
 Suspension
 Paint/coatings
                               27
                               25
                               21
                               28
                               25
                               15
                               64
a Reference 21.
                         Table 9.2.2-4 (Metric And English Units).
     UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS4

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Vapor Pressure Range
(mm Hg at 20 to 25°C)b
Surface application
(SCC 24-61-800-001)
1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6
> 1 x 1Q-4
Soil incorporation
(SCC 24-61-800-002)
< 1 x KT6
1 x 10^ to 1 x 10-6
> 1 x 10-4
Emission Factor0
kg/Mg
350
580
2.7
21
52
Ib/ton
700
1,160
5.4
42
104
a Factors are functions of application method and vapor pressure.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b See Reference 20 for vapor pressures of specific active ingredients.
c References 1,15-18.  Expressed as equivalent weight of active ingredients volatilized/unit weight of
  active ingredients applied.
References For Section 9.2.2

 1.     Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 9.2.2, Pesticide Application, EPA
       Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1994.

 2.     Farm Chemicals Handbook -1992, Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, OH, 1992.
9.2.2-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
 4.     L. E. Bode, et al., eds., Pesticide Formulations And Applications Systems, Volume 10,
       American Society For Testing And Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA, 1990.

 5.     T. S. Colvin and J. H. Turner, Applying Pesticides, 3rd Edition, American Association Of
       Vocational Materials, Athens, Georgia,  1988.

 6.     G. A. Matthews, Pesticide Application Methods, Longham Groups Limited, New York, 1979.

 7.     D. J. Arnold, "Fate Of Pesticides In Soil: Predictive And Practical Aspects", Environmental
       Fate Of Pesticides, Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990.

 8.     A. W. White, et al., "Trifluralin Losses From A Soybean Field", Journal Of Environmental
       Quality, 6(1): 105-110, 1977.

 9.     D. E. Glotfelty, "Pathways Of Pesticide Dispersion In The Environment", Agricultural
       Chemicals Of The Future, Rowman And Allanheld, Totowa, NJ, 1985.

10.    J. W. Hamaker, "Diffusion And Volatilization", Organic  Chemicals In The Soil Environment,
       Dekker, New York, 1972.

11.    R. Mayer, et al., "Models For Predicting Volatilization Of Soil-incorporated Pesticides",
       Proceedings Of The American Soil Scientists, 35:563-568, 1974.

12.    G. S. Hartley, "Evaporation Of Pesticides",  Pesticidal Formulations Research Advances In
       Chemistry, Series 86, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1969.

13.    A. W. Taylor, et al., "Volatilization Of Dieldrin And Heptachlor From A Maize Field",
       Journal Of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 24(3):625-631, 1976.

14.    A. W. Taylor, "Post-application Volatilization Of Pesticides Under Field Conditions", Journal
       Of Air Pollution Control Association, 28(9):922-927, 1978.

15.    W. A. Jury, et al., "Use Of Models For Assessing Relative Volatility, Mobility, And
       Persistence Of Pesticides And Other Trace Organics In Soil Systems", Hazard Assessment Of
       Chemicals:   Current Developments, 2:1-43, 1983.

16.     W. A. Jury, et al., "Behavior Assessment Model For Trace Organics In Soil: I. Model
       Description", Journal Of Environmental Quality, 72(4):558-564,  1983.

17.     W. A. Jury, et al., "Behavior Assessment Model For Trace Organics In Soil: EL Chemical
       Classification And Parameter Sensitivity", Journal Of Environmental Quality, 73(4):567-572,
       1984.

18.     W. A. Jury,  et al., "Behavior Assessment Model For Trace Organics In Soil: HI.  Application
       Of Screening Model", Journal Of Environmental Quality,  J3(4):573-579, 1984.

19.     Alternative Control Technology Document: Control Of VOC Emissions From The Application
       Of Agricultural Pesticides, EPA-453/R-92-011, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, March  1993.
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.2.2-21

-------
20.    R. D. Wauchope, et al., "The SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database For
       Environmental Decision-making", Reviews Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology,
       Springer-Verlag, New York,  1992.

21.    Written communication from California Environmental Protection Agency, Department Of
       Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA, to D. Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 6, 1993.

22.    Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1991 Field Crops Summary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
       Washington, DC, March 1992.
9.2.2-22                           EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

-------
9.23  Orchard Heaters

9.2.3.1  General1-6

        Orchard heaters are commonly used in various areas of the United States to prevent frost
damage to fruit and fruit trees.  The 5 common types of orchard heaters—pipeline, lazy flame, return
stack,  cone, and solid fuel—are shown in Figure 9.2.3-1.  The pipeline heater system is operated
from a central control and fuel is distributed by a piping system from a centrally located tank. Lazy
flame, return stack, and cone heaters contain integral fuel reservoirs, but can be converted to a
pipeline system.  Solid fuel heaters usually consist only of solid briquettes, which are placed on the
ground and ignited.

        The ambient temperature at  which orchard heaters are required is determined primarily by the
type of fruit and stage of maturity, by the daytime temperatures, and by the moisture content of the
soil and air.

        During a heavy thermal inversion, both convective and radiant heating methods are useful in
preventing frost damage; there is little difference in the effectiveness of the various heaters.  The
temperature response for a given fuel rate is about the same for each type of heater as long as the
heater is clean and does not leak.  When there is little or no thermal inversion, radiant heat provided
by pipeline, return stack, or cone heaters is the most effective method for preventing damage.

        Proper location of the heaters is essential to the uniformity of the radiant heat distributed
among the trees.  Heaters are usually located in the center space between 4 trees and are staggered
from 1 row to the next.  Extra heaters are used on the borders of the orchard.

9.2.3  Emissions1'6

        Emissions from orchard heaters are dependent on the  fuel usage rate and the type of heater.
Pipeline heaters have the lowest particulate emission rates of all orchard heaters. Hydrocarbon
emissions are negligible in the pipeline heaters and in lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters that
have been converted to a pipeline system.  Nearly all of the hydrocarbon losses are evaporative losses
from fuel contained in the heater reservoir. Because of the low burning temperatures used, nitrogen
oxide emissions are negligible.

        Emission factors for the different types of orchard heaters are presented hi Table 9.2.3-1 and
Figure 9.2.3-2.  Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per heater-hour (kg/htr-hr) and pounds
per heater-hour (Ib/htr-hr).
4/73 (Reformatted 1/95)              Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.2.3-1

-------
    PIPELINE HEATER
LAZY FLAME
                                                               RETURN STACK
                                               SOLID FUEL
                 CONE STACK
                        Figure 9.2.3-1. Types of orchard heaters.6
9.2.3-2
  EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/73

-------
                                                                                           tr.
                                                                                           UJ
                                                                                           =3

                                                                                                     •s
                                                                                                      cfl
                                                                                                      c

                                                                                                     r

                                                                                                     o\
                                                                                                      D


                                                                                                      I
4/73 (Reformatted 1/95)
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.3-3

-------
Table 9.2.3-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORCHARD HEATERSa

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Particulate
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
Sulfur oxides0
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
Carbon monoxide
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
VOCse
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
Nitrogen oxidesf
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
Type Of Heater
Pipeline
_b
_b
0.06Sd
0.13S

2.8
6.2

Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Lazy Flame
__b
_b
0.05S
0.11S

ND
ND

7.3
16.0
Neg
Neg
Return Stack
__b
_b
0.06S
0.14S

ND
ND

7.3
16.0
Neg
Neg
Cone
_J>
__b
0.06S
0.14S

ND
ND

7.3
16.0
Neg
Neg
Solid Fuel
0.023
0.05
ND
ND

ND
ND

Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
a References 1,3-4, and 6. ND = no data. Neg = negligible.
b Particulate emissions for pipeline, lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters are shown in
Figure 9.2.3-2.
c Based on emission factors for fuel oil combustion in Section 1.3.
d S = sulfur content.
e Reference 1. Evaporative losses only. Hydrocarbon emissions from combustion are considered
negligible. Evaporative hydrocarbon losses for units that are part of a pipeline system are
negligible.
f Little nitrogen oxides are formed because of the relatively low combustion temperatures.
References For Section 9.2.3

1. Air Pollution In Ventura County, County Of Ventura Health Department, Santa Paula, CA,
June 1966.

2. Frost Protection In Citrus, Agricultural Extension Service, University Of California, Ventura,
CA, November 1967.

3. Personal communication with Mr. Wesley Snowden, Valentine, Fisher, And Tomlinson,
Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA, May 1971.

4. Communication with the Smith Energy Company, Los Angeles, CA, January 1968.

5. Communication with Agricultural Extension Service, University Of California, Ventura, CA,
October 1969.

6. Personal communication with Mr. Ted Wakai, Air Pollution Control District, County Of
Ventura, Ojai, CA, May 1972.
9.2.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/73

-------
9.3 Harvesting Operations




9.3.1  Cotton Harvesting




9.3.2 Grain Harvesting




9.3.3  Rice Harvesting




9.3.4 Cane Sugar Harvesting
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                            9.3-1

-------
9.3.1 Cotton Harvesting

9.3.1.1 General

Wherever it is grown in the U. S., cotton is defoliated or desiccated prior to harvest.
Defoliants are used on the taller varieties of cotton that are machine picked for lint and seed cotton,
and desiccants usually are used on short, stormproof cotton varieties of lower yield that are harvested
by mechanical stripper equipment. More than 99 percent of the national cotton area is harvested
mechanically. The 2 principal harvest methods are machine picking, with 70 percent of the harvest
from 61 percent of the area, and machine stripping, with 29 percent of the harvest from 39 percent of
the area. Picking is practiced throughout the cotton regions of the U. S., and stripping is limited
chiefly to the dry plains of Texas and Oklahoma.

Defoliation may be defined as the process by which leaves are abscised from the plant. The
process may be initiated by drought stress, low temperatures, or disease, or it may be chemically
induced by topically applied defoliant agents or by overfertilization. The process helps lodged plants
to return to an erect position, removes the leaves that can clog the spindles of the picking machine
and stain the fiber, accelerates the opening of mature bolls, and reduces boll rots. Desiccation by
chemicals is the drying or rapid killing of the leaf blades and petioles, with the leaves remaining in a
withered state on the plant. Harvest-aid chemicals are applied to cotton as water-based spray, either
by aircraft or by a ground machine.

Mechanical cotton pickers, as the name implies, pick locks of seed cotton from open cotton
bolls and leave the empty burs and unopened bolls on the plant. Requiring only 1 operator, typical
modern pickers are self-propelled and can simultaneously harvest 2 rows of cotton at a speed of 1.1 to
1.6 meters per second (m/s) (2.5 - 3.6 miles per hour [mph]). When the picker basket gets filled
with seed cotton, the machine is driven to a cotton trailer at the edge of the field. As the basket is
hydraulically raised and tilted, the top swings open allowing the cotton to fall into the trailer. When
the trailer is full, it is pulled from the field, usually by pickup truck, and taken to a cotton gin.

Mechanical cotton strippers remove open and unopened bolls, along with burs, leaves, and
stems from cotton plants, leaving only bare branches. Tractor-mounted, tractor-pulled, or
self-propelled strippers require only 1 operator. They harvest from 1 to 4 rows of cotton at speeds of
1.8 to 2.7 m/s (4.0 - 6.0 mph). After the cotton is stripped, it enters a conveying system that carries
it from the stripping unit to an elevator. Most conveyers utilize either augers or a series of rotating
spike-toothed cylinders to move the cotton, accomplishing some cleaning by moving the cotton over
perforated, slotted, or wire mesh screen. Dry plant material (burs, stems, and leaves) is crushed and
dropped through openings to the ground. Blown air is sometimes used to assist cleaning.

9.3.1.2 Emissions And Controls

Emission factors for the drifting of major chemicals applied to cotton were compiled from
literature and reported in Reference 1. In addition, drift losses from arsenic acid spraying were
developed by field testing. Two off-target collection stations, with 6 air samplers each, were located
downwind from the ground spraying operations. The measured concentration was applied to an
infinite line source atmosphere diffusion model (in reverse) to calculate the drift emission rate. This
was in turn used for the final emission factor calculation. The emissions occur from July to October,
preceding by 2 weeks the period of harvest in each cotton producing region. The drift emission

7/79 (Reformatted 1/95) Food And Agricultural Industries 9.3.1-1

-------
factor for arsenic acid is 8 times lower than previously estimated, since Reference 1 used a ground rig
rather than an airplane, and because of the low volatility of arsenic acid. Various methods of
controlling drop size, proper timing of application, and modification of equipment are practices that
can reduce drift hazards. Fluid additives have been used that increase the viscosity of the spray
formulation, and thus decrease the number of fine droplets (< 100 micrometers [/nn]). Spray nozzle
design and orientation also control the droplet size spectrum. Drift emission factors for the
defoliation or desiccation of cotton are listed hi Table 9.3.1-1. Factors are expressed in units of
grams per kilogram (g/kg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton).
Table 9.3.1-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR DEFOLIATION
OR DESICCATION OF COTTON*

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Pollutant
Sodium chlorate
DBF*0
Arsenic acid
Paraquat
Emission Factor1*
g/kg
10.0
10.0
6.1
10.0
Ib/ton
20.0
20.0
12.2
20.0
a Reference 1.
b Factor is in terms of quantity of drift per quantity applied.
c Pesticide trade name.
Three unit operations are involved in mechanical harvesting of cotton: harvesting, trailer
loading (basket dumping), and transport of trailers hi the field. Emissions from these operations are
in the form of solid participates. Paniculate emissions (<7 /on mean aerodynamic diameter) from
these operations were developed hi Reference 2. The particulates are composed mainly of raw cotton
dust and solid dust, which contains free silica. Minor emissions include small quantities of pesticide,
defoliant, and desiccant residues that are present hi the emitted particulates. Dust concentrations from
harvesting were measured by following each harvesting machine through the field at a constant
distance directly downwind from the machine while staying hi the visible plume centerline. The
procedure for trailer loading was the same, but since the trailer is stationary while being loaded, it
was necessary only to stand a fixed distance directly downwind from the trailer while the plume or
puff passed over. Readings were taken upwind of all field activity to get background concentrations.
Paniculate emission factors for the principal types of cotton harvesting operations hi the U. S. are
shown in Table 9.3.1-2. The factors are based on average machine speed of 1.34 m/s (3.0 mph) for
pickers, and 2.25 m/s (5.03 mph) for strippers, on a basket capacity of 109 kg (240 Ib), on a trailer
capacity of 6 baskets, on a lint cotton yield of 63.0 megagrams per square kilometer (Mg/km2)
(1.17 bales/acre) for pickers and 41.2 Mg/km2 (0.77 bale/acre) for strippers, and on a transport speed
of 4.47 m/s (10.0 mph). Factors are expressed hi units of kg/km2 and pounds per square mile
(lb/mi2). Analysis of paniculate samples showed average free silica content of 7.9 percent for
mechanical cotton picking and 2.3 percent for mechanical cotton stripping. Estimated maximum
percentages for pesticides, defoliants, and desiccants from harvesting are also noted in Table 9.3.1-2.
No current cotton harvesting equipment or practices provide for control of emissions. In fact,
9.3.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/79

-------
        Table 9.3.1-2 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS*
                         FOR COTTON HARVESTING OPERATIONS

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of Harvester
Picker1"
Two-row, with basket
Stripper0
Two-row, pulled trailer
Two-row, with basket
Four-row, with basket
Weighted average"1
Harvesting
kg/km2

0.46

7.4
2.3
2.3
4.3
lb/mi2

2.6

42
13
13
24
Trailer Loading
kg/km2

0.070

NA
0.092
0.092
0.056
lb/mi2

0.40

NA
0.52
0.52
0.32
Transport
kg/km2

0.43

0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
lb/mi2

2.5

1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Total
kg/km2

0.96

7.7
2.7
2.7
4.6
lb/mi2

5.4

44
15
15
26
 a Emission factors are from Reference 2 for paniculate of <7 fim mean aerodynamic diameter.
  NA = not applicable.
 b Free silica content is 7.9% maximum content of pesticides and defoliants is 0.02%.
 c Free silica content is 2.3%; maximum content of pesticides and desiccants is 0.2%.
 d The weighted average stripping factors are based on estimates that 2% of all strippers are 4-row
  models with baskets and, of the remainder, 40% are 2-row models pulling trailers and 60% are
  2-row models with mounted baskets.
 equipment design and operating practices tend to maximize emissions.  Preharvest treatment
 (defoliation and desiccation) and harvest practices are tuned to minimize moisture and trash content,
 so they also tend to maximize emissions.  Soil dust emissions from field transport can be reduced by
 lowering vehicle speed.

 References For Section 9.3,1

 1.     J. A. Peters and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Defoliation Of Cotton—State Of The
       Art, EPA-600/2-77-107g, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       July 1977.

 2.     J. W. Snyder and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Mechanical Harvesting Of Cotton—
       State Of The Art, EPA-600/2-77-107d, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, July 1977.
7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.3.1-3

-------
932 Grain Harvesting

9.3.2.1 General1

Harvesting of grain refers to the activities performed to obtain the cereal kernels of the plant
for grain, or the entire plant for forage and/or silage uses. These activities are accomplished by
machines that cut, thresh, screen, clean, bind, pick, and shell the crops in the field. Harvesting also
includes loading harvested crops into trucks and transporting crops in the grain field.

Crops harvested for their cereal kernels are cut as close as possible to the inflorescence (the
flowering portion containing the kernels). This portion is threshed, screened, and cleaned to separate
the kernels. The grain is stored hi the harvest machine while the remainder of the plant is discharged
back onto the field.

Combines perform all of the above activities hi 1 operation. Binder machines only cut the
gram plants and tie them into bundles, or leave them hi a row hi the field (called a windrow). The
bundles are allowed to dry for threshing later by a combine with a pickup attachment.

Corn harvesting requires the only exception to the above procedures. Corn is harvested by
mechanical pickers, picker/shellers, and combines with corn head attachments. These machines cut
and husk the ears from the standing stalk. The sheller unit also removes the kernels from the ear.
After husking, a binder is sometimes used to bundle entire plants into piles (called shocks) to dry.

For forage and/or silage, mowers, crushers, windrowers, field choppers, binders, and similar
cutting machines are used to harvest grasses, stalks, and cereal kernels. These machines cut the
plants as close to the ground as possible and leave them in a windrow. The plants are later picked up
and tied by a baler.

Harvested crops are loaded onto trucks in the field. Grain kernels are loaded through a spout
from the combine, and forage and silage bales are manually or mechanically placed hi the trucks.
The harvested crop is then transported from the field to a storage facility.

9.3.2.2 Emissions And Controls1

Emissions are generated by 3 gram harvesting operations: (1) crop handling by the harvest
machine, (2) loading of the harvested crop into trucks, and (3) transport by trucks hi the field.
Paniculate matter, composed of soil dust and plant tissue fragments (chaff), may be entrained by
wind. Particulate emissions from these operations (<7 micrometers [/im] mean aerodynamic
diameter) were developed in Reference 1. For this study, collection stations with ah* samplers were
located downwind (leeward) from the harvesting operations, and dust concentrations were measured at
the visible plume centerline and at a constant distance behind the combines. For product loading,
since the trailer is stationary while being loaded, it was necessary only to take measurements a fixed
distance downwind from the trailer while the plume or puff passed over. The concentration measured
for harvesting and loading was applied to a point source atmospheric diffusion model to calculate the
source emission rate. For field transport, the air samplers were again placed a fixed distance
downwind from the path of the truck, but this time the concentration measured was applied to a line
source diffusion model. Readings taken upwind of all field activity gave background concentrations.
Particulate emission factors for wheat and sorghum harvesting operations are shown hi Table 9.3.2-1.

2/80 (Reformatted 1/93) Food And Agricultural Industries 9.3.2-1

-------
Table 9.3.2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION RATES/FACTORS FROM
GRAIN HARVESTING4

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Operation
Harvest machine
Truck loading
Field transport
Emission Rateb
Wheat
mg/s
3.4
1.8
47.0
Ib/hr
0.027
0.014
0.37
Sorghum
mg/s
23.0
1.8
47.0
Ib/hr
0.18
0.014
0.37
Emission Factor0
Wheat
g/km2
170.0
12.0
110.0
lb/mi2
0.96
0.07
0.65
Sorghum
g/km2
1110.0
22.0
200.0
lb/mi2
6.5
0.13
1.2
a Reference 1.
b Assumptions from References 1 are an average combine speed of 3.36 meters per second, combine
swath width of 6.07 meters, and a field transport speed of 4.48 meters per second.
c In addition to footnote b, assumptions are a truck loading time of 6 minutes, a truck capacity of
0.052 km2 for wheat and 0.029 km2 for sorghum, and a filled truck travel time of 125 seconds per
load.
Emission rates are expressed hi units of milligrams per second (mg/s) and pounds per hour (Ib/hr);
factors are expressed hi units of grams per square kilometer (g/km2) and pounds per square mile
(lb/mi2).

There are no control techniques specifically implemented for the reduction of air pollution
emissions from gram harvesting. However, several practices and occurrences do affect emission rates
and concentration. The use of terraces, contouring, and stripcropping to inhibit soil erosion will
suppress the entrainment of harvested crop fragments hi the wind. Shelterbelts, positioned
perpendicular to the prevailing wind, will lower emissions by reducing the wind velocity across the
field. By minimizing tillage and avoiding residue burning, the soil will remain consolidated and less
prone to disturbance from transport activities.

Reference For Section 9.3.2

1. R. A. Wachten and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Harvesting Of Grain—State Of The
Art, EPA-600/2-79-107f, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1977.
9.3.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Refoimatted 1/95) 2/80

-------
9.3.3 Rice Harvesting



                                       [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.3.3-1

-------
9.3.4 Cane Sugar Harvesting




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.3.4-1

-------
 9.4 Livestock And Poultry Feed Operations



 9.4.1  Cattle Feedlots




 9.4.2  Swine Feedlots




 9.4.3  Poultry Houses




 9.4.4  Dairy Farms
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.4-1

-------
9.4.1 Cattle Feedlots



                                       [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.4.1-1

-------
9.4.2 Swine Feedlots




                                      [Work In Progress]
 1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.4.2-1

-------
9.43 Poultry Houses




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.4.3-1

-------
9.4.4 Dairy Farms



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.4.4-1

-------
9.5 Animal And Meat Products Preparation




9.5.1 Meat Packing Plants




9.5.2 Meat Smokehouses




9.5.3 Meat Rendering Plants




9.5.4 Manure Processing




9.5.5 Poultry Slaughtering
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.5-1

-------
9.5.1 Meat Packing Plants

9.5.1.1 General1'2

The meat packing industry is made up of establishments primarily engaged in the slaughtering, for
their own account or on a contract basis for the trade, of cattle, hogs, sheep, lambs, calves, and vealers for
meat to be sold or to be used on the same premises in canning, cooking, curing, and freezing, and in making
sausage, lard, and other products. Also included in this industry are establishments primarily engaged in
slaughtering horses for human consumption.
,3-7
9.5.1.2 Process Description

The following sections describe the operations involved in beef processing, pork processing, and
other meat processing. Figure 9.5.1-1 provides a generic process flow diagram for meat packing operations.

9.5.1.2.1 Beef Processing3'7 -
Animals are delivered from the market or farm to the meat plant and are placed in holding areas.
These holding areas should have adequate facilities for the inspection of livestock, including walkways over
pens, crushes, and other facilities. Sick animals and those unfit for human consumption are identified and
removed from the normal processing flow. Plants should have separate isolation and holding pens for these
animals, and may have separate processing facilities. The live beef animals are weighed prior to processing
so that yield can be accurately determined.

The animals are led from the holding area to the immobilization, or stunning, area where they are
rendered unconscious. Stunning of cattle in the U.S. is usually carried out by means of a penetrating or
nonpenetrating captive bolt pistol. Livestock for Kosher markets are not immobilized prior to
exsanguination.

The anesthetized animals are then shackled and hoisted, hind quarters up, for exsanguination
(sticking), which should be carried out as soon as possible after stunning. In cattle, exsanguination is effected
by severing the carotid artery and the jugular vein. Blood is collected through a special floor drain or
collected in large funneled vats or barrels and sent to a rendering facility for further processing. More
information on rendering operations can be found in AP-42 Section 9.5.3, Meat Rendering Plants. Blood can
be used in human food only if it is kept completely sterile by removal from the animals through tubes or
syringes.

In some plants, electrical stimulation (ES) is applied to the carcasses to improve lean color, firmness,
texture, and marbling score; to improve bleeding of carcasses; and to make removal of the hides easier.
Electrical stimulation also permits rapid chilling by hastening the onset of rigor before temperatures drop to
the cold shortening range. If muscles re ach temperatures below 15° to 16°C(59°to61°F) before they have
attained rigor, a contraction known as cold shortening occurs, which results in much less tender meat. In
some cases ES is applied to control the fall of pH value. Meat with a low pH value will be pale, soft, and
exudative (PSE meat). Meat with a high pH value may be dark, firm, and dry (DFD meat). It has been
claimed that ES enhances tenderness, primarily through the hastening of the onset of rigor and prevention of
cold shortening. Both high-voltage (>500 volts) and low-voltage (30 to 90 volts) ES systems can be used.
6/97 Food And Agricultural Industry 9.5.1-1

-------
                                                                              VOC EMISSIONS
                                                                               PM EMISSIONS
                                                                                    4
                              BLOOD
      IMMOBILIZING
         AND
    EXSANGUINATKDN
                                                               PORK ONLY
                                                                               SCALDING OR
                                                                                 SINGEING
                                             HEADING AND
                                              SHANKING
                                                                                LEATHER
                                                                                TANNING
    SIDING, OPENING
      AND BACKING
                                             EVISCERATING
                                             AND SPLITTING
                                              WASHING
                                            WEIGHING, AND   	" VOC EMISSIONS
                                              SANITIZING


                                                  1


                                               CHILLING







                                             BREAKDOWN


                                                                       T


                                                                       SMOKING, CURING,
                                                                       PROCESSING FOR
                                                                      SPECIFIC PRODUCTS






                                              PACKAGING     U
9.5.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
6/97

-------
After exsanguination, the actual "dressing", or cleaning, of the carcasses begins. The first step is to
separate the esophagus from the trachea, called "rodding the weasand". Alternatively, this can be done after
the chest cavity has been opened. This separation aids in evisceration. After separation, a knot is made in the
esophagus, or a band is put around it to prevent the contents of the rumen (first stomach) from spilling and
contaminating the carcass.

Next, the skin is removed from the head, and the head is removed from the carcass by cutting through
the Adam's apple and the atlas joint (heading). The fore and hind feet are then removed to prevent
contamination of the carcass with manure and dirt dropped from the hooves (shanking or legging). Each of
the legs is then skinned.

The hide is then opened down the middle of the ventral side over the entire length of the carcass. The
hide is removed from the middle down over the sides (siding). Air or electrically powered rotary skinning
knives are often used to make skinning easier. Care is taken to avoid cutting or scoring the hide, as this
decreases its value for leather.

After siding, the carcass is opened (opening). First, a cut is made through the fat and muscle at the
center of the brisket with a knife. Then a saw is used to cut through the sternum. The hind quarters are
separated with a saw or knife. The tail is skinned and then removed two joints from the body. After
removing the tail, the hide is completely removed (backing). Hides are collected, intermediate preserving
operations performed, and the preserved hides sent to tanners for processing into leather. More information
on leather tanning processes can be found in AP-42 Section 9.15, Leather Tanning.

After the hide is removed, the carcass is eviscerated. With a knife, the abdomen of the carcass is
opened from top to bottom. The fat and membranes that hold the intestines and bladder in place are
loosened, and the ureters connecting the bladder and the kidneys are cut. The liver is removed for inspection.
The previously loosened esophagus is pulled up through the diaphragm to allow the abdominal organs to fall
freely into an inspection cart. The diaphragm membrane is cut and the thoracic organs are removed.

A handsaw or electric saw is used to cut through the exact center of the backbone to split the beef
carcass into sides (halving or splitting). Inedible material is collected and sent to a rendering plant for further
processing. More information on meat rendering processes can be found in AP-42 Section 9.5.3, Meat
Rendering Plants.

After dressing, the carcasses are washed to remove any remaining blood or bone dust. The carcasses
may also be physically or chemically decontaminated. The simplest physical decontamination method
involves spraying the carcass with high pressure hot water or steam. A variety of chemical decontaminants
may be used as well; acetic and lactic acids are the most widely used and appear to be the most effective. In
addition, the following may be used: the organic acids, adipic, ascorbic, citric, fumaric, malic, propionic, and
sorbic; aqueous solutions of chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, beta-propiolactone, and glutaraldehyde; and
inorganic acids, including hydrochloric and phosphoric.

After the carcasses are dressed and washed, they are weighed and chilled. A thorough chilling during
the first 24 hours is essential, otherwise the carcasses may sour. Air chillers are most common for beef sides.
A desirable temperature for chilling warm beef carcasses is 0°C (32°F). Because a group of warm carcasses
will raise the temperature of a chill room considerably, it is good practice to lower the temperature of the
room to 5 ° below freezing (-3 °C [27°F]) before the carcasses are moved in. Temperatures more severe than
this can cause cold shortening, an intense shortening of muscle fibers, which brings about toughening.
6/97 Food And Agricultural Industry 9.5.1-3

-------
Beef undergoes maturation and should be held for at least a week (preferably longer) at 0°C (32°F)
before butchery into retail joints. In the past, sides remained intact up to the point of butchery, but it is now
common practice to break down the carcasses into primal joints (wholesale cuts), which are then vacuum
packed. Preparation of primal joints in packing plants reduces refrigeration and transport costs, and is a
convenient pre-packing operation for retailers.

Some meat products are smoked or cured prior to market. More information on smoking and curing
processes can be found in AP-42 Section 9.5.2, Meat Smokehouses.

In the manufacture of frankfurters (hot dogs) and other beef sausages, a mix of ground lean meat and
ground fat are blended together; then spices, preservatives, extenders, and other ingredients are blended with
the mixture. The mix is transferred to the hopper of the filling machine and fed to a nozzle by a piston pump.
The casing, either natural or artificial, is filled from the nozzle on a continuous basis and linked, either
manually or mechanically, to form a string of individual frankfurters or sausages.

9.5.1.2.2 Pork Processing3'7 -
Animals are delivered from the market or farm to the meat plant and are placed in holding areas.
These holding areas should have adequate facilities for the inspection of livestock, including walkways over
pens, crushes, and other facilities. Sick animals and those unfit for human consumption are identified and
removed from the normal processing flow. Plants should have separate isolation and holding pens for these
animals, and may have separate processing facilities. The live animals are weighed prior to processing so
that yield can be accurately determined.

Hogs must be rendered completely unconscious, in a state of surgical anesthesia, prior to being
shackled and hoisted for exsanguination. In large commercial operations, a series of chutes and restrainer
conveyers move the hogs into position for stunning. The V restrainer/conveyer, or similar system, is used in
most large hog processing operations. Hogs must be stunned with a federally acceptable device (mechanical,
chemical, or electrical). Mechanical stunning involves the use of a compression bolt with either a mushroom
head or a penetrating head. The force may be provided with compressed air or with a cartridge. Mechanical
stunning is largely confined to smaller operations. Chemical stunning involves the use of CO2, which reduces
blood oxygen levels, causing the animals to become anesthetized. Electrical stunning involves the use of an
electric current and two electrodes placed on the head.

Deep stunning, which was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Safety
Inspection Service in 1985, requires more amperage and voltage and a third electrode attached to the back or
a foot. Stunning causes the heart to stop beating (cardiac arrest). The stunned animals undergo
exsanguination (sticking) and blood collection in the same manner as described for cattle.

Hog carcasses, unlike cattle carcasses, generally are not skinned after exsanguination. Instead, the
carcasses are dropped into scalding water which loosens the hair for subsequent removal. The carcasses
should be kept under water and continually moved and turned for uniform scalding. In large plants, carcasses
enter the scalding tub and are carried through the tub by a conveyer moving at the proper speed to allow the
proper scalding time. During the hard-hair season (September-November), the water temperature should be
59° to 60°C (139° to 140°F) and the immersion period 4 to 4-1/2 minutes, while in the easy-hair season
(February-March), a temperature of 58°C (136°F) for 4 minutes is preferable. In small plants without
automation, hair condition is checked periodically during the scalding period. Some plants use an alternative
to scalding that involves passing the carcass through gas flames to singe the hair. The hair is then removed
by rotating brushes and water sprays, and the carcass is rinsed.
9.5.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 6/97

-------
Various dehairing machines, sometimes called "polishers", are manufactured to remove hair from the
scalded pork carcasses. The dehairing process is begun with a dehairing machine, which uses one or more
cylinders with metal tipped rubber beaters to scour the outside of the carcasses. Hot water (60°C [ 140°F]) is
sprayed on the carcasses as they pass through the dehairer moving toward the discharge end. The carcasses
are removed from this machine, hand scraped, then hoisted again, hind quarters up. The carcasses are hand-
scraped again from the top (hind quarters) down. Any remaining hairs can be removed by singeing with a
propane or similar torch. Once the remaining hairs have been singed, the carcasses are scraped a final time
and washed thoroughly from the hind feet to the head. Some plants pass the carcasses through a singeing
machine, which singes any remaining hairs from the carcasses.

Atone time, it was popular to dip dehaired carcasses into a hot solution (121° to 149°C [250° to
300°F]) of rosin and cottonseed oil for a period of six to eight seconds. When the rosin coating plasticized
after cooling, it was stripped by pull-rolling it down the carcass, taking with it the remaining hair, stubble,
and roots. However, in recent years, many packers have discontinued its use, turning instead to mechanical
brushes and torches to completely clean dehaired pork carcasses.

In some plants, hogs are skinned after exsanguination. The head and belly of the carcass are hand-
skinned, and the legs are either hand-skinned or removed. Then the carcass is hoisted, hind quarters up, and
placed under tension. A second hoist is connected to the loose head and leg skin and tightened to pull the
remaining skin from the carcass. The removed pigskins are trimmed, salted, folded, and stored in 50-gallon
drums.

After scalding and dehairing, singeing, or skinning, the head is severed from the backbone at the atlas
joint, and the cut is continued through the windpipe and esophagus. The head is inspected, the tongue is
dropped, and the head is removed from the carcass. The head is cleaned, washed, and an inspection stamp is
applied.

Following heading, the carcass is eviscerated. The hams are separated, the sternum is split, the
ventral side is opened down the entire length of the carcass, and the abdominal organs are removed. The
thoracic organs are then freed. All of the internal organs are inspected, those intended for human
consumption are separated, and the remainder are discarded into a barrel to be shipped to the rendering plant.
As mentioned previously, more information on meat rendering can be found in AP-42 Section 9.5.3, Meat
Rendering Plants.

After evisceration, the carcass is split precisely in half. Glands and blood clots in the neck region are
removed, the leaf fat and kidneys are removed, and the hams are faced (a strip of skin and fat is removed to
improve appearance).

The carcass is then washed from the top down to remove any bone dust, blood, or bacterial
contamination. A mild salt solution (0.1 M KC1) weakens bacterial attachment to the carcass and makes the
bacteria more susceptible to the sanitization procedure, especially if the sanitizing solution is applied
promptly. Dilute organic acids (2 percent lactic acid and 3 percent acetic acid) are good sanitizers. In large
operations, carcass washing is automated. As the carcass passes through booths on the slaughter line, the
proper solutions are applied at the most effective pressure.

After washing and sanitizing, the carcass is inspected one final time, weighed, and the inspection
stamp is applied to each wholesale cut. The carcass is then placed in a cooler at 0° to 1 °C (32° to 34 °F)
with air velocity typically 5 to 15 mph, equating to -5 ° C (23 ° F) wind chill, for a 24-hour chill period. For
thorough chilling, the inside temperature of the ham should reach at least 3 °C (37°F). With accelerated (hot)
processing, the carcass may be held (tempered) at an intermediate temperature of 16°C (60°F) for several

6/97 Food And Agricultural Industry 9.5.1-5

-------
hours, or be boned immediately. When large numbers of warm carcasses are handled, the chill room is
normally precooled to a temperature several degrees below freezing -3°C (27 °F), bringing the wind chill to
-9°C (16°F) to compensate for the heat from the carcasses.

Spray chilling is permitted by the U.S.D.A. to reduce cooler shrink. Spray chilling solutions may
contain up to 5 ppm available chlorine, which acts a sanitizer. At least one plant sends carcasses directly
from the kill floor through a freezer, to produce a brightly colored pork with reduced carcass shrink.
Following cooling, pork carcasses are often divided into deboned primal joints for distribution. The primal
joints may be vacuum packed. To manufacture pork sausages, ground lean meat and ground fat are blended
together and processed in the same manner as that described for beef sausages in Section 9.5.1.2.1.

9.5.1.2.3 Other Meat Processing-
Other meats undergo processes similar to those described above for beef and pork processing. These
other meats include veal, lamb, mutton, goat, horse (generally for export), and farm-raised large game
animals.

9.5.1.3 Emissions And Controls

No emission data quantifying VOC, HAP, or PM emissions from the meat packing industry were
identified during the development of this report. However, engineering judgment and comparison of meat
packing plant processes with similar processes in other industries may provide an estimation of the types of
emissions that might be expected from meat packing plant operations.

Animal holding areas, feed storage, singeing operations, and other heat sources (including boilers)
may be sources of PM and PM-10 emissions. Carbon dioxide stunning operations may be sources of CO2
emissions. Animal holding areas, scalding tanks, singeing operations, rosin dipping (where still used),
sanitizing operations, wastewater systems, and heat sources may be sources of VOC, HAP, and other criteria
pollutant emissions.

Potential emissions from boilers are addressed in AP-42 Sections 1.1 through 1.4 (Combustion).
Meat smokehouses, meat rendering operations, and leather tanning may be sources of air pollutant emissions,
but these sources are included in other sections of AP-42 and are not addressed in this section.

A number of VOC and particulate emission control techniques are potentially available to the meat
packing industry. These options include the traditional approaches of wet scrubbers, dry sorbants, and
cyclones. Other options include condensation and chemical reaction. No information is available for the
actual controls used at meat packing plants. The controls presented in this section are ones that theoretically
could be used. The specific type of control device or combination of devices would vary from facility to
facility depending upon the particular nature of the emissions and the pollutant loading in the gas stream.
The VOC emissions from meat packing operations are likely to be very low and associated with a high
moisture content.

Control of VOC from a gas stream can be accomplished using one of several techniques, but the
most common methods are absorption, adsorption, and afterburners. Absorptive methods encompass all
types of wet scrubbers using aqueous solutions to absorb the VOC. The most common scrubber systems are
packed columns or beds, plate columns, spray towers, or other types of towers. Most scrubber systems
require a mist eliminator downstream of the scrubber.

Gas adsorption is a relatively expensive technique and may not be applicable to a wide variety of
pollutants. Adsorptive methods usually include one of four main adsorbents: activated carbon, activated

9.5.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 6/97

-------
alumina, silica gel, or molecular sieves. Of these four, activated carbon is the most widely used for VOC
control, and the remaining three are used for applications other than pollution control.

Afterburners, or thermal incinerators, are add-on combustion control devices in which VOC's are
oxidized to CO2, water, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. The destruction efficiency of an afterburner is
primarily a function of the operating temperature and residence time at that temperature. A temperature
above 816°C (1,500°F) will destroy most organic vapors and aerosols.

Particulate control commonly employs methods such as venturi scrubbers, dry cyclones, wet or dry
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or dry filter systems. The most common controls are likely to be the
venturi scrubbers or dry cyclones. Wet or dry ESPs are used depending upon the particulate loading of the
gas stream.

Condensation methods and scrubbing by chemical reaction may be applicable techniques depending
upon the type of emissions. Condensation methods may be either direct contact or indirect contact. The shell
and tube indirect method is the most common technique. Chemical reactive scrubbing may be used for odor
control in selective applications.

References for Section 9.5.1

1. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census Of Manufactures, Industry
Series, MC92-I-20A, Meat Products, Industries 2011, 2013, and 2015, Washington, D.C., U. S.
Government Printing Office, June 1995.

2. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, 1995 Livestock
Slaughter Annual Summary, March 14,1996.

3. J. R. Romans, et al., The Meat We Eat, Thirteenth Edition, Interstate Publishers, Inc., Danville, IL,
1994.

4. M. D. Judge, et al., Principles Of Meat Science, Second Edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
Dubuque, IA, 1989.

5. A. H. Varnam and J. P. Sutherland, Meat And Meat Products, Technology, Chemistry, And
Microbiology, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, 1995.

6. R. A. Lawrie, Meat Science, Fifth Edition, Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 1991.

7. N. R. P. Wilson, ed., Meat And Meat Products, Factors Affecting Quality Control, Applied Science
Publishers, Inc., Englewood, NJ, 1981.
6/97 Food And Agricultural Industry 9.5.1-7

-------
9.5.2 Meat Smokehouses

9.5.2.1 General1'3'7'9

Meat smokehouses are used to add flavor, color, and aroma to various meats, including pork,
beef, poultry, and fish. Smokehouses were at one time used to smoke food for preservation, but
refrigeration systems have effectively eliminated this use.

Four operations are typically involved in the production of smoked meat: (1) tempering or
drying, (2) smoking, (3) cooking, and (4) chilling. However, not all smoked foods are cooked, thus
eliminating the cooking and chilling processes from some operations. Important process parameters
include cooking/smoking time, smoke generation temperature, humidity, smoke density, type of wood
or liquid smoke, and product type.

The two types of smokehouses that are almost exclusively used are batch and continuous
smokehouses. Figures 9.5.2-1 and 9.5.2-2 show typical batch and continuous smokehouses,
respectively. Both types of systems circulate air at the desired process conditions (temperature,
humidity, and smoke density) over the surface of the meat. In batch smokehouses, the meat is placed
on stationary racks for the entire smoking process. In continuous smokehouses, the meat is hung on
sticks or hangers and then conveyed through the various zones (smoking, heating, and chilling) within
the smokehouse. Following processing in the smokehouse, the product is packaged and stored for
shipment.

Several methods are used to produce the smoke used in smokehouses. The most common
method is to pyrolyze hardwood chips or sawdust using smoke generators. In a typical smoke
generator, hardwood chips or sawdust are fed onto a gas- or electrically-heated metal surface at 350°
to 400°C (662° to 752°F). Smoke is then ducted by a smoke tube into the air recirculation system in
the smokehouse. Smoke produced by this process is called natural smoke.

Liquid smoke (or artificial smoke), which is a washed and concentrated natural smoke, is also
used in smokehouses. This type of smoke (as a fine aerosol) can be introduced into a smokehouse
through the air recirculation system, can be mixed or injected into the meat, or can be applied by
drenching, spraying, or dipping.

9.5.2.2 Emissions And Controls1"2'4

Paniculate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), organic acids, acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and
nitrogen oxides have been identified as pollutants associated with meat smokehouses. The primary
source of these pollutants is the smoke used in the smokehouses. Studies cited in Reference 1 show
that almost all PM from smoke has an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.0 micrometers (jum).
Acetic acid has been identified as the most prevalent organic acid present in smoke, followed by
formic, propionic, butyric, and other acids. Also, acetaldehyde concentrations have been shown to be
about five times greater than formaldehyde concentrations in smoke. Heating zones in continuous
smokehouses (and the cooking cycle in batch smokehouses) are a source of odor that includes small
amounts of VOC. The VOC are a result of the volatilization of organic compounds contained in the
meat or the smoke previously applied to the meat. Heating zones are typically heated with ambient
air that is passed over electrically-heated or steam-heated coils (steam from boilers used elsewhere at
the facility). Therefore, heating zones are not a source of combustion products. Factors that may

9/95 Food And Agricultural Industry 9.5.2-1

-------










i
&
^\






LJ ty
Oz
?
9

oS
LU.J
I
z

C03
z
E

J
III '
0 CONTROL DEVICE
OR ATMOSPHERE
l-

	





1
LU





f
S
?>
















o°
coS
X
m


I





CD
•—
u_
LL
Jr
m
52.







CD
z

s
O
OT ^
t°
S|













^^^
*^^




























	








j



CC
II 1
LI
Q
I


1
CO 2
1— <
^ CC
TS 1 	
I W
2 o
cc 2
£ 1
< Q-
i i
i I




	 ^^




LU
5
o
LU
Z
1
X
i
0*3
QQ
I1
OGC
^o
-'-
1


{
CC
*^
CC
in
Z
:~^« LU
1^* a
i m
: i
T «





"^




CC
>
3
m

i




CC
LU
mm*
LU
2
CO
O
CO
tr\ CO
2 jg
O LU
CO CO
CO 3
S °
UJ ^
Q. O
0©


tch smokehouse.1
} in parentheses.)
"* T3
*^ O
130
0 JH
'cx.o
t"H C3
y
~y" 'on
CS ctf
V-i ^3
^Q r2
E x~'










9.5.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95

-------
                  0
                              ill
                              III
CO
0.


^
n
ON
0)
3
bO
UH






parentheses.)
c

D
T3
0
O
_o
c^
O
s
c/3
O
o
J3
0
^-





                                                                   LU
                                                                   CD
9/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.5.2-3

-------
effect smokehouse emissions include the amount and type of wood or liquid smoke used, the type of
meat processed, the processing time, humidity, and the temperature maintained in the smoke
generators.

Control technologies used at meat smokehouses include afterburners, wet scrubbers, and
modular electrostatic precipitators (ESP). Emissions can also be reduced by controlling important
process parameters. An example of this type of process control is maintaining a temperature not
higher than about 400°C (752°F) in the smoke generator, to minimize the formation of PAH.

Afterburners are an effective control technology for PM, organic gases, and CO from
smokehouses, but energy requirements may be costly for continuous smokehouse operations. Also,
the additional air pollution resulting from afterburner fuel combustion makes afterburners a less
desirable option for controlling smokehouse emissions.

Wet scrubbers are another effective control technology for both PM and gaseous emissions.
Different types of scrubbers used include mist scrubbers, packed bed scrubbers, and vortex scrubbers.
Mist scrubbers introduce a water fog into a chamber, and exhaust gases are then fed into the chamber
and are absorbed. Packed bed scrubbers introduce the exhaust gases into a wetted column containing
an inert packing material in which liquid/gas contact occurs. Vortex scrubbers use a whirling flow
pattern to shear water into droplets, which then contact the exhaust gases. Limited test data (from
Reference 4) show a vortex scrubber (followed by a demister) achieving about 51 percent
formaldehyde removal, 85 percent total organic compound removal, 39 percent acetic acid removal,
and 69 percent PM removal. Particulate matter removal efficiencies for scrubbers can be increased
through the use of surfactants, which may enhance the capture of smoke particles that do not combine
with the scrubber water.

Elecrostatic precipitators are effective for controlling PM emissions. Combined control
technologies, such as a wet scrubber for gaseous emission control followed by an ESP for PM
removal, may also be used to control emissions from smokehouses.

Smokehouse control devices are operated during the smoking cycle and are sometimes
bypassed during the cooking and cooling cycles. Continuous smokehouses may include separate vents
for exhaust streams from the different zones, thus minimizing the air flow through the control device.

The average emission factors for meat smokehouses are shown in Tables 9.5.2-1 and 9.5.2-2.
These emission factors are presented in units of mass of pollutant emitted per mass of wood used to
generate smoke. Normally, emission factors are based on either units of raw material or units of
product. In this industry, the amount of smoke flavor applied to the meats varies; consequently the
emissions are dependent on the quantity of wood (or liquid smoke) used, rather than the quantity of
meat processed. The emission factors presented in Tables 9.5.2-1 and 9.5.2-2 were developed using
data from only two facilities and, consequently, may not be representative of the entire industry.
9.5.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS 9/95

-------
           Table 9.5.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH AND CONTINUOUS
                                  MEAT SMOKEHOUSES2

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Batch smokehouse, smoking
cycleb
(SCC 3-02-013-02)
Continuous smokehouse, smoke
zone
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
Continuous smokehouse, smoke
zone, with vortex wet scrubber
and demisterd
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
Filterable PM
PM
23
66
13
PM-10
NDC
ND°
NDC
Condensible PM
Inorganic
11
36
9.8
Organic
19
39
6.0
Total
30
75
16
Total PM
PM
53
140
29
PM-10
ND°
NDC
NDC
a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of wood or sawdust used.  ND = no data available. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b Reference 5.
c Although data are not directly available, Reference 1 states that all PM from smoke is less than
  2 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter.
d References 4-6.

                  Table 9.5.2-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH AND
                          CONTINUOUS MEAT SMOKEHOUSES51
Process
Batch smokehouse, smoking
cycle*5
(SCC 3-02-013-02)
Batch smokehouse, cooking
cycle
(SCC 3-02-013-03)
Continuous smokehouse,
smoke zonec
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
Continuous smokehouse,
smoke zone, with vortex
wet scrubber and demisterd
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
Continuous smokehouse,
heat zone
(SCC 3-02-013-05)
VOC

44


ND


17



4.4


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


NA


D



E


NA

Formaldehyde

ND


ND


1.3



0.62


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA


NA


E



E


NA

Acetic
Acid

ND


ND


4.5



2.8


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA


NA


E



E


NA

a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of wood or sawdust used, unless noted.  ND = no data available. NA = not
  applicable.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  Reference 5. VOC, measured as methane.
c References 5-6. VOC, measured as methane.
d Reference 4. VOC, measured as methane.  VOCs were measured on a gas chromatograph calibrated against
  acetaldehyde, and the results were converted to a methane basis.
9/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.5.2-5

-------
References For Section 9.5.2

1.      J. R. Blandford, "Meat Smokehouses", in Chapter 13, Food And Agriculture Industry, Air
       Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand Reinhold Press, 1992.

2.      Written communication from J. M. Jaeckels, Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation, Madison, WI,
       to S. Lindem, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, April 1, 1992.

3.      Joseph A. Maga, Smoke In Food Processing, CRC Press, Incorporated, Boca Raton, FL,
       1988.

4.      KSI-2 & KSI-3 Continuous Smokehouses Stack Emissions Testing, Hillshire Farm & Kahn's,
       New London, WI, September 19-20, 1991.

5.      Report On Diagnostic Testing, Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation, Madison, WI, January 13,
       1994.

6.      Written correspondence from D. Sellers, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
       Madison, WI, to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Files, Madison, WI, June 17,
       1994.

7.      Written communication  from J. M. Jaeckels, BT2, Inc., Madison, WI, to D. Safriet,  U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 15, 1994.

8.      Telephone communication between B. L. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, and
       J.M. Jaeckels, BT2, Inc., Madison, WI, March 16 and 17, 1995.

9.      Emission Factor Documentation, AP-42 Section 9.5.2, Meat Smokehouses, EPA Contract
       No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute,  Cary, NC, September  1995.
 9.5.2-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                               9/95

-------
9.5.3 Meat Rendering Plants

9.5.3.1 General1

Meat rendering plants process animal by-product materials for the production of tallow,
grease, and high-protein meat and bone meal. Plants that operate in conjunction with animal
slaughterhouses or poultry processing plants are called integrated rendering plants. Plants that collect
their raw materials from a variety of offsite sources are called independent rendering plants.
Independent plants obtain animal by-product materials, including grease, blood, feathers, offal, and
entire animal carcasses, from the following sources: butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants,
fast-food chains, poultry processors, slaughterhouses, farms, ranches, feedlots, and animal shelters.

The two types of animal rendering processes are edible and inedible rendering. Edible
rendering plants process fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The plants are normally
operated in conjunction with meat packing plants under U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety
and Inspection Services (USDA/FSIS) inspection and processing standards. Inedible rendering plants
are operated by independent Tenderers or are part of integrated rendering operations. These plants
produce inedible tallow and grease, which are used in livestock and poultry feed, soap, and
production of fatty-acids.

9.5.3.2 Process Description1"3

Raw Materials —
Integrated rendering plants normally process only one type of raw material, whereas
independent rendering plants often handle several raw materials that require either multiple rendering
systems or significant modifications in the operating conditions for a single system.

Edible Rendering —
A typical edible rendering process is shown in Figure 9.5.3-1. Fat trimmings, usually
consisting of 14 to 16 percent fat, 60 to 64 percent moisture, and 22 to 24 percent protein, are
ground and then belt conveyed to a melt tank. The melt tank heats the materials to about 43 °C
(110°F), and the melted fatty tissue is pumped to a disintegrator, which ruptures the fat cells. The
proteinaceous solids are separated from the melted fat and water by a centrifuge. The melted fat and
water are then heated with steam to about 93°C (200°F) by a shell and tube heat exchanger. A
second-stage centrifuge then separates the edible fat from the water, which also contains any
remaining protein fines. The water is discharged as sludge, and the "polished" fat is pumped to
storage. Throughout the process, direct heat contact with the edible fat is minimal and no cooking
vapors are emitted. For this reason, no emission points are designated in Figure 9.5.3-1.

Inedible Rendering —
There are two processes for inedible rendering: the wet process and the dry process. Wet
rendering is a process that separates fat from raw material by boiling in water. The process involves
addition of water to the raw material and the use of live steam to cook the raw material and
accomplish separation of the fat. Dry rendering is a batch or continuous process that dehydrates raw
material in order to release fat. Following dehydration in batch or continuous cookers, the melted fat
and protein solids are separated. At present, only dry rendering is used in the United States. The
wet rendering process is no longer used because of the high cost of energy and of an adverse effect
9/95 Food And Agriculture 9.5.3-1

-------
Disintegrator
, L


Centrifuge
Ifc 1


i_
0 W
o> o
CO Q.
P

                                                                   I
                                                                    21




                                                                    °'i

                                                                    o).i
                I-
                ±i
                o
                                    s
                                              (D

                                              w
                 CO
                T3
                i
Centrifuge
1

CO w
ll
ol
CD
O)
TJ

1
To Inedible
Rendering or
Wastewater
Treatment
                                                  s
                                                  o
                                                  o
                                                  tH
                                                  Q.

                                                  W)


                                                  'S
                                                  T3


                                                  I

                                                  —
                                                  3
                                                                                    ro

                 (0
                 O)
                 C

                 E

                 E
                                     o
9.5.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95

-------
on the fat quality. Table 9.5.3-1 shows the fat, protein, and moisture contents for several raw
materials processed by inedible rendering plants.

Batch Rendering Process —
In the batch process, the raw material from the receiving bin is screw conveyed to a crusher
where it is reduced to 2.5 to 5 centimeters (cm) (1 to 2 inches [in.]) in size to improve cooking
efficiency. Cooking normally requires 1.5 to 2.5 hr, but adjustments in the cooking time and
temperature may be required to process the various materials. A typical batch cooker is a horizontal,
cylindrical vessel equipped with a steam jacket and an agitator. To begin the cooking process the
cooker is charged with raw material, and the material is heated to a final temperature ranging from
121° to 135°C (250° to 275 °F). Following the cooking cycle, the contents are discharged to the
percolator drain pan. Vapor emissions from the cooker pass through a condenser where the water
vapor is condensed and noncondensibles are emitted as VOC emissions.

The percolator drain pan contains a screen that separates the liquid fat from the protein solids.
From the percolator drain pan, the protein solids, which still contain about 25 percent fat, are
conveyed to the screw press. The screw press completes the separation of fat from solids, and yields
protein solids that have a residual fat content of about 10 percent. These solids, called cracklings, are
then ground and screened to produce protein meal. The fat from both the screw press and the
percolator drain pan is pumped to the crude animal fat tank, centrifuged or filtered to remove any
remaining protein solids, and stored in the animal fat storage tank.

Continuous Rendering Process —
Since the 1960, continuous rendering systems have been installed to replace batch systems at
some plants. Figure 9.5.3-2 shows the basic inedible rendering process using the continuous process.
The system is similar to a batch system except that a single, continuous cooker is used rather than
several parallel batch cookers. A typical continuous cooker is a horizontal, steam-jacketed cylindrical
vessel equipped with a mechanism that continuously moves the material horizontally through the
cooker. Continuous cookers cook the material faster than batch cookers, and typically produce a
higher quality fat product. From the cooker, the material is discharged to the drainer, which serves
the same function as the percolator drain pan in the batch process. The remaining operations are
generally the same as the batch process operations.

Current continuous systems may employ evaporators operated under vacuum to remove
moisture from liquid fat obtained using a preheater and a press. In this system, liquid fat is obtained
by precooking and pressing raw material and then dewatered using a heated evaporator under
vacuum. The heat source for the evaporator is hot vapors from the cooker/dryer. The dewatered fat
is then recombined with the solids from the press prior to entry into the cooker/dryer.

Blood Processing And Drying —
Whole blood from animal slaughterhouses, containing 16 to 18 percent total protein solids, is
processed and dried to recover protein as blood meal. At the present time, less than 10 percent of the
independent rendering plants in the U. S. process whole animal blood. The blood meal is a valuable
ingredient in animal feed because it has a high lysine content. Continuous cookers have replaced
batch cookers that were originally used in the industry because of the improved energy efficiency and
product quality provided by continuous cookers. In the continuous process, whole blood is
introduced into a steam-injected, inclined tubular vessel in which the blood solids coagulate. The
coagulated blood solids and liquid (serum water) are then separated in a centrifuge, and the blood
solids dried in either a continuous gas-fired, direct-contact ring dryer or a steam tube, rotary dryer.
9/95 Food And Agriculture 9.5.3-3

-------
               Table 9.5.3-1. COMPOSITION OF RAW MATERIALS FOR
                              INEDIBLE RENDERING"
Source
Tallow/Grease,
wt %
Protein Solids,
wt %
Moisture,
wt %
Packing house offalb and bone
Steers
Cows
Calves
Sheep
Hogs
Poultry offal
Poultry feathers
30-35
10-20
10-15
25-30
25-30
10
None
15-20
20-30
15-20
20-25
10-15
25
33
45-55
50-70
65-75
45-55
55-65
65
67
Dead stock (whole animals)
Cattle
Calves
Sheep
Hogs
Butcher shop fat and bone
Blood
Restaurant grease
12
10
22
30
31
None
65
25
22
25
28
32
16-18
10
63
68
53
42
37
82-84
25
* Reference 1.
b Waste parts; especially the entrails and similar parts from a butchered animal.
9.5.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95

-------
                           a
                           o
                          I
                          LU
                          in

                          o
                          HI
                          O
                          s
                   2
                   Q.
                                           _c
                                           °U-
                                           CD
CO
o
8
£ ^-
LU
§

i_

(D
•o
I
                          V)

                          O
                          "co
                          _co

                          LU



                          §
 o

 I
 Q
t

                                                                                              0)
                                                                                              N
                                                                                              s
                                                                                              §J
                                                                                              o
                      (C

2
u
W
                                                                                  T
                                       c o
                                      8°

                                                 (A

                                                 g
                                                "co
                                                 v>
         O
                                                               9
«§
                                          co a.
                                          ID a.
                                                                                 •s*
                                                                                  CD Oi
                                        (D

                                        co


                                       O
                                       t
                     "5 o>
                                                                                                         o
                                                                  00
                                                                                                         T3
                                                                  O
                                                                  3
                       c
                       o
                      U

                      tN
                                                                                                        ON

                                                                                                         C1J
                                                                                                         W)
m
O)

1
-------
Poultry Feathers And Hog Hair Processing —
       The raw material is introduced into a batch cooker, and is processed for 30 to 45 minutes at
temperatures ranging from  138° to 149°C (280° to 300°F) and pressures ranging from (40
to 50 psig). This process converts keratin, the principal component of feathers and hog hair, into
amino  acids. The moist meal product, containing the amino acids, is passed either through a hot air,
ring-type dryer or over steam-heated tubes to remove the moisture from the meal.  If the hot air dryer
is used, the dried product is separated from the exhaust by cyclone collectors.  In the steam-heated
tube system, fresh air is passed countercurrent to the flow of the meal to remove the moisture. The
dried meal is transferred to storage.  The exhaust gases are passed through controls prior to discharge
to the atmosphere.

Grease Processing —
       Grease from restaurants is recycled as another raw feed material processed by rendering
plants. The grease  is bulk loaded into vehicles, transported to the rendering plant, and discharged
directly to the grease processing system.  During processing, the melted grease is first screened to
remove coarse solids, and then heated to about 93°C (200°F) in vertical processing tanks. The
material is then stored in the processing tank for 36 to 48 hr to allow for gravity separation of the
grease, water, and fine solids. Separation normally results in four phases:  (1) solids, (2) water,
(3) emulsion layer,  and (4)  grease product. The solids settle to the bottom and are separated from the
water layer above.  The emulsion is then processed through a centrifuge to remove solids and another
centrifuge to remove water and any remaining fines;  the grease product is skimmed off the top.

9.5.3.3 Emissions  And Controls1"5

Emissions —
       Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the primary air pollutants emitted from rendering
operations.  The major constituents that have been qualitatively identified as potential  emissions
include organic sulfides, disulfides, C-4 to C-7 aldehydes, trimethylamine, C-4 amines, quinoline,
dimethyl pyrazine, other pyrazines, and C-3 to C-6 organic acids.  In addition, lesser  amounts  of C-4
to C-7 alcohols, ketones, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and aromatic compounds are potentially emitted.
No quantitative emission data were presented. Historically, the VOCs are considered  an odor
nuisance in residential areas in close proximity to rendering plants, and emission controls are directed
toward odor elimination. The odor detection threshold for many of these compounds  is low; some as
low as 1  part per billion (ppb).   Of the specific constituents listed, only  quinoline is classified as  a
hazardous air pollutant (HAP).  In addition to emissions from rendering operations, VOCs may be
emitted from the  boilers used to generate steam for the operation.

       Emissions from the edible rendering process are not considered to be significant because  no
cooking vapors are  emitted and direct heat contact with the edible fat is  minimal.  Therefore, these
emissions are not discussed further.

       For inedible rendering operations, the primary sources of VOC emissions are  the cookers and
the screw press.  Other sources of VOC emissions include blood and feather processing operations,
dryers, centrifuges, tallow processing tanks, and percolator pans that are not enclosed. Raw material
may also be a source of VOC emissions, but if the material is processed in a timely manner, these
emissions are minimal.

       In addition  to VOC emissions, paniculate matter (PM) is emitted from grinding and screening
of the  solids (cracklings) from the screw press and other rendering operations such as dryers
processing blood and feathers.  No emission data quantifying VOC, HAP, or PM emissions from the


9.5.3-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 9/95
-------
rendering process are available for use in developing emission factors.  Only test data for a blood
dryer operation were identified.

Controls —
        Emissions control at rendering plants is based primarily on the elimination of odor. These
controls are divided  into two categories:  (1) those controlling high intensity odor emissions from the
rendering process, and (2) those controlling plant ventilating air emissions.  The control technologies
that are typically used for high intensity odors from rendering plant process emissions are waste heat
boilers  (incinerators) and multistage wet scrubbers.

        Boiler incinerators are a common control technology because boilers can be used not only as
control  devices but also to generate steam for cooking and drying operations.  In waste heat boilers,
the waste stream can be  introduced into the boiler as primary or secondary combustion air.  Primary
combustion air is mixed  with fuel before ignition to allow for complete combustion, and secondary
combustion air is mixed  with the burner flame  to complete combustion.  Gaseous waste streams that
contain  noncondensibles  are typically "cleaned" in a combination scrubber and entrainment separator
before use as combustion air.

        Multistage wet scrubbers are equally as effective as  incineration for  high intensity odor
control  and are used to about the same extent as incinerators. Sodium hypochlorite is considered to
be the most effective scrubbing agent for odor removal, although other oxidants can be used.
Recently, chlorine dioxide has been used as an  effective scrubbing agent.  Venturi scrubbers are often
used to  remove PM  from waste streams before treatment by the multistage wet scrubbers.  Plants that
are located near residential or commercial areas may treat process  and fugitive emissions by ducting
the plant ventilation  air through a single-stage wet scrubbing system to minimize odorous emissions.

        In addition to the conventional scrubber control technology, activated carbon  adsorption and
catalytic oxidation potentially could be used to  control odor; however, no rendering plants currently
use these technologies.  Recently, some plants have installed biofilters to control emissions.

        No data are  currently available for VOC or particulate emissions from rendering plants. The
only available data are for emissions from blood dryers,  which is an auxiliary process in meat
rendering operations. Less  than  10 percent of the independent rendering plants  in the U. S. process
whole blood.  Table 9.5.3-2 provides controlled emission factors in English units for particulate
matter (filterable and condensible),  hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia from natural gas, direct-fired
blood dryers.  The filterable PM was found to  be 100 percent PM-10. Emission factors are
calculated on the basis of the weight of dried blood meal product.   In addition to natural gas, direct-
fired dryers, steam-coil,  indirect  blood dryers (SCC 3-02-038-12) are also used  in meat rendering
plants.  No emission data were found for  this type of dryer.  The emission control system in
Reference 4 consisted of a cyclone separator for collection of the blood meal product followed by a
venturi  wet scrubber and three packed bed scrubbers in series.  The scrubbing medium for the three
packed  bed  scrubbers was a sodium hypochlorite solution.  The emission control system in
Reference 5 was a mechanical centrifugal  separator.
9/95                                  Food And Agriculture                               9.5.3-7
-------
         Table 9.5.3-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED BLOOD DRYERS

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
                        Pollutant
Emissions, lb/tona
 Filterable PM-10b (SCC 3-02-038-11)

 Condensible PMb (SCC 3-02-038-11)

 Hydrogen sulfide0 (SCC 3-02-038-11)

 Ammonia0 (SCC 3-02-038-11)
          0.76

          0.46

          0.08

          0.60
" Emission factors based on weight of dried blood meal product.  Emissions are for natural gas,
  direct-fired dryers.
b References 4-5.
c Reference 4.

References For Section 9.5.3

1.     W.H. Prokop, Section on rendering plants, in Chapter 13, "Food And Agriculture Industry",
       Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand Reinhold Press, 1992.

2.     H.J.  Rafson, Odor Emission Control For The Food Industry, Food And Technology,
       June 1977.

3.     Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9,5.3, Meat Rendering Plants,
       EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute , Kansas City, MO,
       September 1995.

4.     Blood Dryer Operation Stack Emissions Testing, Environmental Technology and Engineering
       Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 1989.

5.     Blood Dryer Paniculate Emission Compliance Test, Interpoll Report No. 7-2325, Interpoll
       Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, January 1987.
9.5.3-8                            EMISSION FACTORS                               9/95
-------
9.5.4 Manure Processing



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.5.4-1
-------
9.5.5 Poultry Slaughtering




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.5.5-1
-------
9.6.1  Natural And Processed Cheese

9.6.1.1  General1'3

        The United States is one of the largest producers of cheese in the world.  The total number of
industry establishments in the United States in 1995 was 432. In 1995, total natural cheese production in the
U. S., excluding cottage cheeses, was 6.9 billion pounds, and total processed cheese production was
2.3 billion pounds. Wisconsin is the leading producer of cheese in the United States, accounting for over 30
percent of all cheese production in the country.

        Popular types of natural cheeses include unripened (e. g., cottage cheese, cream cheese), soft (e. g.,
Brie, Camembert), semi-hard (e. g., Brick, Muenster, Roquefort, Stilton), hard (e. g., Colby, Cheddar), blue
veined (e. g., Blue, Gorgonzola), cooked hard cheeses (e. g., Swiss, Parmesan), and pasta filata (stretched
curd, e. g., Mozzarella, Provolone). Examples of processed cheeses include American cheese and various
cheese spreads, which are made by blending two or more varieties of cheese or blending portions of the same
type of cheese that are in different stages of ripeness.

9.6.1.2  Process Description4'9

        The modern manufacture of natural cheese consists of four basic steps: coagulating, draining, salting,
and ripening. Processed cheese manufacture incorporates extra steps, including cleaning, blending, and
melting. No two cheese varieties are produced by the same method. However, manufacturing different
cheeses does not require widely different procedures but rather the same steps with variations during each
step, the same steps with a variation in their order, special applications, or different ripening practices.  Table
9.6.1-1 presents variations in the cheesemaking process characteristic of particular cheese varieties.  This
section includes a generic process description; steps specific to a single cheese variety are mentioned but are
not discussed in detail.

9.6.1.2.1 Natural Cheese Manufacture -
        The following  sections describe the steps in the manufacture of natural cheese.  Figure  9.6.1-1
presents a general process diagram.

Milk Preparation -
        Cow's milk is the most widely used milk in cheese processing.  First, the milk is homogenized to
ensure a constant fat level. A standardizing centrifuge, which skims off the surplus fat as cream, is often used
to obtain the fat levels appropriate  for different varieties of cheese. Following homogenization, the milk is
ready for pasteurization, which is necessary to destroy harmful micro-organisms and bacteria.

Coagulation -
        Coagulation, or clotting of the milk, is the basis of cheese production. Coagulation is brought about
by physical and chemical modifications to the constituents of milk and  leads to the separation of the solid part
of milk (the curd) from the liquid part (the whey).  To initiate coagulation, milk is mixed with a starter, which
is a culture of harmless, active bacteria. The enzyme rennin is also used in coagulation. Most of the fat and
protein from the milk are retained in the curd, but nearly  all of the lactose and some of the minerals, protein,
and vitamins  escape into the whey. Table  9.6.1-1  provides the primary coagulating agents and the
coagulating times necessary for different varieties  of cheese.
7/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                             9.6.1 -1
-------









Ripening Period


in
OH
E
E— i OD
o |
s
^> e
w 1?
oo «
W °«
W M
ffi
O
Q »
« 5
CJ
u
? 9
S c
on S
W Q
O jjj>-g
^^j w -•

te,
(JU
s f^
1— « *"" 0
~ .f o
vo •» °
IS
H
00
c
3

o B
^ .£
£^> ^
II
OH <;
Type of Cheese
3
CO
3

O
S

rA 0
:_r cct
60 days minimurr
9 mos for more fl

W
In molds, no
surface weight

o"
Q

Q


^
>/S




e
'a
•o
1


gT
rZ
$




G

O

c
1

u
3
S









*u
00
•4
u
o
In molds, surfi
weights
,_,
^
u
e
CQ


^
r\
^
^^
Q


(S
w-i




e
'2
•a
1


|
00
si




-p
•g
I/}
\^r
B

(2
Cheddar









Unripened


o
8.
"ed

p
O
.^
Q


VO





s
'S
T3
1


8
O
00
Tf






^*\
J--
»o
T3
'3
<
U
I
O









Unripened


00
c
a.
SP

o
^,
-
Q


VO







o«
1


w-T"
I-H
n
si






/— \
.c
•Ti
•o
'3
•<
|
O







5
0
Unripened to 2 m


Bag packing
/— V
o_
u

m


m
•ri




B
2
T3
1


f
fS
si




-^
•g
o
c.
_B

M
1 Mozzarella









en
1
2;
VO


Vat packing


u
c
ffl


ro
uS




B
'2
T3
1


0?
00
^




^
'g
O
Ci
B

(2
1 Provolone









Unripened


Can packing

>r\
S

Q


o
•n






D.
1


I-H
O
o
oo





-B-
§

f/)
•o
•3
•<
a
c
00

Q

M
j:
c


c
'g
1
o
u

1
CO
w"
•o «
11
£ ^

o
uS
^^
Q


ro
•n







Q.
Q


2"
f^
vd




^
'g
o
Ci
B
1

Romano
3
01
3

c*
^

g
Q\
cs
c
"E
I
(N
O
3
Vertical hydra
press
^—^
;
u

m


fS
vb







o.
s


0?
f^T
>o




^
'g
o

^
•5
(2
on
                                                       I
                                                       g
9.6.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
7/97
-------
           MILK PREPARATION
            (HOMEGENIZING,

            PASTEURIZING)
                 i
             COAGULATING
                 I
              PRESSING
                 1
               RIPENING
              PACKAGING
                                         VOC
CURD TREATMENT
1
CURD DRAINING
1
CURD KNITTING
t
SALTING

WHEY



POSSIBLE VOC
DISPOSAL OR
FURTHER
PROCESSING
t
WHEY DRYER
(3-02-030-10)

                                         VOC
                                               I
                                               PM
                                                                 A, POSSIBLE VOC
I
L
r


^^


GRINDING,
GRATING OR
cLjppnniMf^


^^


CHEESE

DRYER
(3-02-030-20)
                                                                                 • PM, POSSIBLE VOC
                              Figure 9.6.1-1. Natural cheese manufacture.

                              (Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
7/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
                                                                                             9.6.1-3
-------
Curd Treatment -
        After the curd is formed, it is cut into small pieces to speed whey expulsion and increase the surface
area. The curd particles are cut into various sizes, depending on the variety of cheese being made. Cutting
the curd into small cubes reduces the moisture content of the curd, whereas creating larger cubes increases the
moisture content.

        Following the cutting step, the curd is cooked, which contracts the curd particles and acts to remove
whey, develop texture, and establish moisture control.  The cut curds and whey are heated  and agitated.
Table 9.6.1-1 provides the cooking temperatures required  to produce typical varieties of cheeses.

Curd Drainage -
        The next step in cheese manufacture, drainage, involves separating the whey from the curd.  Drainage
can be accelerated by either heat treatment or mechanical treatment, such as cutting, stirring, oscillating, or
pressing. After the curd is dry, it is cut into blocks which can then be filled into cheese hoops for further
draining and pressing. Table 9.6.1-1 gives the primary draining methods for a variety of cheeses.

        For some cheeses, special applications and procedures occur immediately before, during, or after the
draining stage.  For example, internally ripened, or blue veined, cheeses (e. g., Blue, Roquefort) are usually
seeded with penicillium powder prior to drainage. Cooked hard cheeses (e. g., Parmesan) are stirred and
warmed to accelerate and complete the separation of the whey.  The separated whey may be treated and
disposed of; shipped offsite in liquid or concentrated form for use as animal feed; used to make whey cheese;
dried for lactose, mineral, or protein recovery; or dried for use as a food additive or use in the manufacture of
processed cheese.

Curd Knitting -
        Knitting, or transforming, the curd allows the accumulating lactic acid to chemically change the curd;
knitting also includes salting and pressing. This step leads to the characteristic texture of different cheeses.
During the curd knitting stage, Provolone and Mozzarella  cheeses are pulled and processed (these cheeses are
then kneaded, drawn, shaped, and smoothed); a bean gum  or some other type of gum is added to cream cheese
to stabilize and  stiffen it; and a creaming agent (cream and/or milk) is added to cottage cheese.  During this
period, specific  pH levels are controlled to produce different varieties of cheese (see Table 9.6.1-1).

        To salt the cheese, coarse  salt is spread over the surface of the cheese or the pressed cheese is
immersed in a salt solution. Salting further completes the  drainage of the cheese and also affects rind
formation, growth of microorganisms, and enzyme activity.  Table  9.6.1-1 provides the salting method and
salt percentage necessary to produce a particular variety of cheese.

        Pressing determines the characteristic shape of the cheese by compacting the texture, extruding free
whey from the curds, and completing the curd knitting. Pressing involves confining the wet, warm curds in a
form or cloth bag. With some cheeses, vertical pressing is used; others require vacuum pressing to remove
occluded air and give a close-knit body. See Table 9.6.1-1 for the different pressing practices for various
cheeses.

Ripening -
        During the ripening or curing stage, varieties of cheeses acquire their own unique  textures, aromas,
appearances, and tastes through complex physical and chemical changes that are controlled as much as
possible by adjusting temperature, humidity, and duration of ripening. For all cheeses, the purpose of
ripening is to allow beneficial bacteria and enzymes to transform the fresh curd into a cheese of a specific
flavor, texture, and appearance.  Cottage and cream cheeses are not ripened, and usually have a bland flavor
and soft body.


9.6.1-4                                 EMISSION FACTORS                                   7/97
-------
        Some cheeses require the application of a special ripening agent to create a particular taste or texture.
For example, some cheeses rely wholly on surface bacteria and yeast applied to their exteriors for curing and
ripening (e. g., Brick, Brie, Camembert); others require injection of particular bacteria and molds (e. g., Blue)
or gas-forming microorganisms (e. g., Swiss). It is during the ripening stage that the rind or crust forms on
the cheese's surface. The rind controls the loss of moisture from the internal part of the cheese and regulates
the escape of gases released during ripening.

Preserving And Packaging -
        Modern cheese packaging protects the food from microorganisms and prevents moisture loss.
Ripened cheeses must undergo special procedures during packaging for preservative reasons.  Unripened
cheeses are packaged immediately after the curd is collected and must be immediately refrigerated.

        Many ripened cheeses are coated in wax to protect them from mold contamination and to reduce the
rate of moisture loss. Cheeses that naturally develop a thick, tightly woven rind, such as Swiss, do not require
waxing. A second method of ripened cheese packaging involves applying laminated cellophane films to
unwaxed cheese surfaces. The most common packaging film consists of two laminated cellophane sheets and
a brown paper overlay necessary for shipping. A variation includes a metal foil wrap.

9.6.1.2.2 Processed Cheese Manufacture -
        Nearly one-third of all cheese produced in the United States consists of processed cheese and
processed cheese products. There are many different types of final products in processed cheese manufacture.
These cheeses are distinguished from one another not only by their composition but by their presentation as
individual portions, individual slices, rectangular blocks, or special presentation as cylinders or tubes.

        Processed cheese is made by pasteurizing, emulsifying, and blending natural cheese. Processed
cheese foods, spreads, and cold pack cheeses contain additional ingredients, such as nonfat milk solids and
condiments.  Several varieties of natural cheeses may be mixed, and powdered milk, whey, cream or butter,
and water may be added. The following section describes the basic steps necessary for producing pasteurized
process  cheese, the most common processed cheese.

Pasteurized Process Cheese -
        Cheeses are selected to be processed from both mild and sharp cheeses. For example, American
cheese is made from Cheddar and Colby cheeses.  Once selected, the  cheeses must be analyzed for their fat
and moisture contents to determine the proper amount of emulsifiers  and salts to be added.  Cheese surfaces
are cleaned by scraping and trimming, and the rinds are removed. After cleaning, the cheese blocks are
ground in massive grinders, combined, and the cheese mixture is heated. At this point, the melted cheese
separates into a fat and serum. Emulsifiers are added to disperse the fat, and create a uniform, homogenous
mass.

        The molten cheese is removed quickly from the cookers and  is  pumped or dropped into packaging
hoppers. The cheese is packaged in the absence of oxygen to inhibit the growth of mold.  The cheese is
usually wrapped in lacquered aluminum foil or in aluminum foil-lined cardboard or plastic boxes. For sliced
processed cheese, the molten cheese is spread uniformly by chilled steel rollers and cut by rotary knives to
consumer size.
7/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.6.1 -5
-------
Processed Cheese Foods -
        Other processed cheeses that are similar to the above in manufacturing are also commonly produced.
For example, to produce pasteurized process cheese food, one or more of the following optional dairy
ingredients are added:  cream, milk, skim milk, buttermilk, and/or cheese whey. The result is a processed
cheese food that is higher in moisture and lower in fat than pasteurized process cheese. After heating,
processed cheese intended for spreading undergoes a creaming step, which includes mechanical kneading of
the hot cheese and addition of various dairy products and other additives.  Other processed cheese products
include cold-packed cheese, cold-packed cheese food, and reduced fat cheeses. All processed cheeses may be
enhanced with salt, artificial colorings, spices or flavorings, fruits, vegetables, and meats.

        Grated and powdered cheeses are produced by removing the moisture from one or more varieties of
cheeses  and grinding, grating, or shredding the cheese(s). Mold-inhibiting ingredients and anti-caking agents
may be added as well.  Dehydration takes such forms as tray drying, spray or atomized drying, and freeze
drying.  Popular types of grated cheese include Parmesan, Romano, Mozzarella, and Cheddar.  Cheese
powders, such as those made from Cheddar cheese, may be used to flavor pasta, or added to bread dough,
potato chips, or dips.

9.6.1.3  Emissions And Controls

        Particulate emissions from cheese manufacture occur during cheese or whey drying, and may occur
when the cheese is grated or ground before drying. C02 emissions from direct-fired dryers are primarily from
the combustion of fuel, natural gas. Cheese dryers are used in the manufacture of grated or powdered
cheeses.  Whey dryers are used in some facilities to dry the whey after it has been separated from the curd
following coagulation. VOC emissions may occur in the coagulation and/or ripening stages. Particulate
emissions from cheese and whey dryers are controlled by wet scrubbers, cyclones, or fabric filters. Cyclones
are also  used for product recovery. Emission factors for cheese drying and whey drying in natural and
processed cheese manufacture are shown in Table 9.6.1-2.
              Table 9.6.1-2. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR NATURAL AND
                              PROCESSED CHEESE MANUFACTURE3
Source
Cheese dryer
(SCC 3-02-030-20)
Whey dryer
(SCC 3-02-030-10)
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensible inorganic PM
Condensible organic PM
Filterable PM
Condensible PM
Average emission factor'
Ib/ton
2.5
0.29
0.44
1.24
0.31
Rating
D
D
D
D
D
Ref.
1,2,3
2,3
1,2,3
4,6,7
4,6,7
   Emission factor units are Ib/ton of dry product. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.  SCC = Source
   Classification Code.
 b Emission factors for cheese dryers represent average values for controlled emissions based on wet scrubbers or
   venturi scrubbers.  Factors for whey dryers are average values for controlled emissions based on cyclones, wet
   scrubbers, or fabric filters.
9.6.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
7/97
-------
References For Section 9.6.1

1.      1992 Census Of Manufactures: Dairy Products, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
        Washington, DC, 1994.

2.      U. S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Dairy Products 1995
        Summary, Washington, DC, April 1996. http://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/reports

3.      B. Battistotti, et al., Cheese: A Guide To The World Of Cheese And Cheesemaking, Facts On File
        Publications, NY, 1984.

4.      A. Eck, ed., Cheesemaking: Science And Technology, Lavoisier Publishing, New York, 1987.

5.      A. Meyer, Processed Cheese Manufacture, Food Trade Press Ltd., London, 1973.

6.      Newer Knowledge Of Cheese And Other Cheese Products, National Dairy Council, Rosemont, IL,
        1992.

7.      M.E. Schwartz, Cheesemaking Technology, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ, 1973.

8.      F. Kosikowski, Cheese And Fermented Milk Foods, Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, MI, 1977.

9.      New Standard Encyclopedia, Vol.4, "Cheese", Standard Educational Corporation, Chicago, IL,
        pp. 238-240.
7/97                             Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.6.1-7
-------
9.7  Cotton Ginning

9.7.1 General1'8

       Cotton ginning takes place throughout the' area of the United States known as the Sunbelt.
Four main production regions can be designated:

       • Southeast—Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida
       • Mid-South—Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana
       • Southwest—Texas and Oklahoma
       • West—New Mexico, Arizona, and California

The majority of the ginning facilities are located in Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, California, and
Louisiana.

       The industry trend is toward fewer gins with higher processing capacity.  In 1979,
2,332 active gins in the United States produced 14,161,000 bales of cotton.  By the 1994/1995
season, the number of cotton gins in the United States dropped to 1,306, but about 19,122,000 bales
were produced.  The average volume processed per gin in 1994/1995 was 14,642 bales.

       Cotton ginning is seasonal.  It begins with the maturing of the cotton crop,  which varies by
region, and ends when the crop is finished.  Each year the cotton ginning season starts in the lower
Southwest region in midsummer, continues through the south central and other geographical regions
in late summer  and early autumn, and ends in the upper Southwest region in late autumn and early
winter.  Overall, U. S. cotton is ginned between October 1  and December 31, with the bulk of the
crop from each geographical region being  ginned in 6 to 8 weeks.  During the remainder of the year,
the gin is idle.

       All U. S. cotton in commercial production is now harvested by machines of two types,
picking and  stripping.  Machine-picked cotton accounts normally for 70 to 80 percent of the total
cotton harvested, while the rest is machine stripped. Machine picking differs from machine stripping
mainly in the method  by which the cotton  lint and seed  are removed from the plant.  Machine picking
is done by a spindle picker machine that selectively separates the exposed seed cotton from the open
capsules, or bolls.  In contrast, the mechanical stripper removes the entire capsule,  with lint plus
bract, leaf, and stem components in the harvested  material.

       Strippers collect up to six times  more leaves, burs, sticks, and trash than the spindle picker
machines. This higher ratio of trash to lint requires additional  equipment for cleaning and trash
extraction. Stripper-harvested cotton may  produce 1,000 pounds of trash per 500-pound  bale of lint,
compared to 150 pounds of trash per 500-pound bale from spindle picking.

       The modular system of seed cotton storage and handling has been rapidly adopted. This
system stores seed cotton in the field after harvesting until the gin is ready to process it.  Modules can
also be transported longer distances, allowing gins to increase productivity.  In 1994, 78 percent of
the U.S.  crop was  handled in modules.
6/96                             Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.7-1
-------
9.7.2 Process Description2'5'7

       Figure 9.7-1 is a flow diagram of a typical cotton-ginning process. Each of the five ginning
steps and associated equipment is described below.

9.7.2.1  Unloading System -
       Module trucks and trailers transport cotton from the field to the gin.  A pneumatic system
removes the cotton from the trailers, and either a pneumatic system or a module feeder  removes the
cotton from modules.  A combination conveyer and pneumatic system conveys the cotton  to a
separator and feed control unit.  Prior to this first separator point, some gins use a stone and green
boll trap for preliminary trash removal.  The screen assembly in the separator allows air to escape but
collects the cotton and allows it to fall  into the feed control unit.  The conveying air flows from the
separator to a cyclone system, where it is cleaned and discharged to the atmosphere.

9.7.2.2 Seed Cotton  Cleaning  System  -
       Cotton is subjected to three basic conditioning processes-drying, cleaning, and
extracting-before it is processed for separation of lint and seed.  To ensure adequate conditioning,
cotton gins typically use two conditioning systems (drying, cleaning, and extracting) in  series.

       Seed cotton dryers are designed to reduce lint cotton  moisture content to 5 to 8  percent to
facilitate cleaning and fiber/seed separation.  A high-pressure fan conveys seed cotton through the
drying system to  the first seed cotton cleaner, which loosens  the cotton and removes fine particles of
foreign matter (e. g., leaf trash, sand, and dirt).  In the second cleaner, large pieces (e.  g., sticks,
stems,  and burs)  are removed from the cotton by a different process, referred to as  "extracting".
Different types of extractors may be used, including bur machines, stick machines, stick and bur
machines, stick and green leaf extractors, and extractor/feeders.  These machines remove  burs, sticks,
stems,  and large  leaves, pneumatically  conveying them to the trash storage area.  The cotton is
pneumatically  conveyed to the next processing step.  Typically, all conveying air is cleaned by a
cyclone before being released to the atmosphere.

9.7.2.3 Overflow System -
        After cleaning, the cotton enters a screw conveyor distributor, which apportions the cotton to
the extractor/feeders at a controlled rate.  The extractor/feeders drop the cotton into the gin stands at
the recommended processing rates. If the flow of cotton exceeds the limit of the extractor/feeder
systems, the excess cotton flows into the overflow hopper.  A pneumatic system (overflow separator)
then returns this  cotton back to the screw conveyor distributor,  as required.  Typically,  the air from
this system is routed through a cyclone and cleaned before being exhausted to the atmosphere.

9.7.2.4 Ginning and Lint Handling System -
       Cotton enters the gin stand through a "huller front",  which performs some cleaning.  Saws
grasp the locks of cotton and draw them through a widely spaced set of "huller ribs" that  strip off
hulls and sticks.  (New gin stands do not have huller ribs.)  The cotton locks are then drawn into the
roll box, where fibers are separated from the seeds.  After all the fibers are removed, the seeds slide
down the face of the ginning ribs and fall to  the bottom of the gin stand for subsequent  removal to
storage.  Cotton  lint is removed from the saws by a rotating  brush, or a blast of air, and is conveyed
pneumatically to  the lint cleaning system for final cleaning and  combing.  The lint cotton  is removed
from the conveying airstream by a condenser that forms the lint into a batt.  The lint batt is fed into
the first lint cleaner, where saws comb the lint cotton again and remove part of the remaining leaf
particles, grass,  and motes.  Most condensers are covered with fine mesh wire or fine perforated
metal,  which acts to filter short lint fibers and some dust from the conveying air.


9.7-2                                 EMISSION FACTORS                                  6/96
-------
                           UNLOADING
                            SYSTEM
                         NO. 1 DRYER AND
                            CLEANER
                            EMISSIONS
                            (3-02-004-01)
                            EMISSIONS
                            (3-02-004-20)
                             STICK
                            MACHINE
                         NO 2 DRYER AND                        PM,oo,nK,o
                            CLEANER                            EMISSIONS
                         (NO. 3 DRYER AND	~ (3-02-004-21)
                            CLEANER
                           OPTIONAL)	|	- (3-02-004-22)


                                                               EMISSIONS
                          DISTRIBUTOR  I	1 OVERFLOW	.- (3-02-004-25)
                                                 SYSTEM

                              _!	                           i	~" i    - OPTIONAL PROCESS
                          EXTRACTOR/                                 "    -TRASH
                            FEEDER
                                                                           • EXHAUST STREAM
                                                                           • PRODUCT STREAM
          SYSTEM         o,,., OTA MOO   I	^  COTTON"!           „       - LOW PRESSURE SIDE
                     -—   GIN STANDS	   SEED                      COMPONENTS
                                   	         STORAGE


                           NO. 1 LINT
                           CLEANER*
                                                               EMISSIONS
                                                               (3-02-004-07)
                                   	1 I
                           NO. 2 LINT
                           CLEANER*

                                                               EMISSIONS
                                               MOTE FAN [     •" (3-02-004-35)

                                                ___!	   I  MOTE TRASH     DEMISSIONS
                                                  MOTE    P^i      FAN      "" (3-02-004-36)
                                                CLEANER   i    	
                        	         	L_^ BALED MOTES

                         CONDENSER AND	 EMISSIONS
                         BALING SYSTEM*      	     (3-02-004-08)

                                   _[__	^   MASTER       EMISSIONS
                                               TRASH FAN      (3-02-004-03)


                          BALE STORAGE            1 j	»• SOLID WASTE
                                             ""CYCLONE'1
                                                ROBBER             - EMISSIONS
                                                SYSTEM                (3-02-004-30)
                       Figure 9.7-1.  Flow diagram of cotton ginning process.
                            (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
6/96
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.7-3
-------
9.7.2.5 Battery Condenser And Baling System -
       Lint cotton is pneumatically transported from the lint cleaning system to a battery condenser,
which  is a drum covered with fine mesh screen or fine perforated metal that separates the lint cotton
from the conveying air.  The lint cotton is formed into batts and fed into a baling press, which
compresses the cotton into uniform bales.

       Most gins use a double-press box for packaging the cotton into bales.  The lint  drops into one
press box and fills it while a bale is being pressed and strapped in the other box. Approximately
480 Ib (217 kilograms  [kg])  of cotton is pressed into a bale before it is wrapped with a  cover and
strapped.  Modern gins are presently equipped with higher-tonnage bale presses that produce the more
compact universal density cotton bales.  In 1995,  96 percent of the U.S.  crop was pressed into
universal density bales at the gins. The finished cotton bale is transported to the textile mill for
processing  into yarn.  Motes are sometimes cleaned and baled also.

9.7.3   Emissions And Controls1'24

       Paniculate matter (PM) is the primary  air pollutant emitted from cotton ginning.  Available
data indicate that about 37 percent of the total  PM emitted (following control systems) from cotton
ginning is PM less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10).  The PM is
composed of fly lint, dust, fine leaves, and other trash.  Figure 9.7-1 shows the typical PM emission
points  in the ginning process.  Paniculate  matter emissions are typically greater at gins processing
stripper-harvested cotton than at gins processing picker-harvested cotton.  Also, PM emissions from
the first cotton harvest at a given facility are typically lower than emissions from subsequent harvests.

       Control devices used to control PM emissions from cotton ginning operations include
cyclones, fine screen coverings, and perforated metal drums.  Cyclones may be used to control the
sources with high pressure exhaust or all of the operations at a gin.  Two types of cyclones that are
used are 2D-2D and 1D-3D  cyclones.  Both the body and the cone of a 2D-2D cyclone are twice as
long as the cyclone diameter.  The body of a 1D-3D cyclone is the same length as the diameter, and
the cone length is three times the diameter.  In many cases,  1D-3D cyclones display slightly higher
PM control efficiencies than 2D-2D cyclones.

       Screen coverings and perforated drums may be used to control PM  emissions from sources
with low-pressure exhaust, including the battery condenser and lint cleaners.

       Table 9.7-1 presents PM and PM-10 emission factors for cotton gins controlled primarily by
1D-3D or 2D-2D cyclones.  Emission factors for  lint cleaners and battery condensers with screened
drums or cages are also presented. Emission factors for  total gin emissions are shown  for two
different gin configurations.  The emission factors for "Total No.l" represent total PM and PM-10
emissions from gins with all exhaust streams controlled by high-efficiency cyclones.  The emission
factors for  "Total No.  2" represent total PM and PM-10 emissions from gins with screened drums or
cages controlling the lint cleaner and battery condenser exhausts and high-efficiency cyclones
controlling all other exhaust streams.  The emission factors for the No. 3 dryer and cleaner, cyclone
robber system, and mote trash fan are not included in either total because these processes are not used
at most cotton gins.  However, these factors should be added into the total  for a particular gin if these
processes are used at that gin.
9.7-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 6/96
-------
                    Table 9.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COTTON GINS
                    CONTROLLED WITH HIGH-EFFICIENCY CYCLONES"

Source
Unloading fan (SCC 3-02-004-01)
No. 1 dryer and cleaner (SCC 3-02-004-20)
No. 2 dryer and cleaner (SCC 3-02-004-21)
No. 3 dryer and cleaner" (SCC 3-02-004-22)
Overflow fan1 (SCC 3-02-004-25)
Lint cleaners (SCC 3-02-004-07)
with high-efficiency cyclonesk
with screened drums or cages™
Cyclone robber system" (SCC 3-02-004-30)
Mote fan (SCC 3-02-004-35)
Mote trash fanr (SCC 3-02-004-36)
Battery condenser (SCC 3-02-004-08)
with high-efficiency cyclones*
with screened drums or cages01
Master trash fan (SCC 3-02-004-03)
Cotton gin total No. lv (SCC 3-02-004-10)
Cotton gin total No. 2W (SCC 3-02-004-10)

Total PM,
Ib/bale
0.29"
0.36"
0.24f
0.095
0.071
0.58
1.1
0.18
0.28"
0.077
0.039
0.17
0.54*
2.4
3.1
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
E

PM-10,
Ib/bale
0.12°
0.12e
0.0938
0.033
0.026
0.24
ND
0.052
0.13"
0.021
0.014
ND
0.074"
0.82
1.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
NA
D
D
D
D
NA
D
D
E
    Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per bale of cotton processed.  Emissions are controlled
    by 1D-3D or 2D-2D high-efficiency cyclones unless noted. SCC = source classification code.
    ND = no data available. To convert from Ib/bale to kg/bale, multiply by 0.45.
    References 13-15,17,19-20,22,24.
    References 13-14,17,22,24.
    References 12-14,17,19,21.
    References 12-14,17,21.
    References 9,12,14,17,19,24.
    References 9,12,14,17,24.
    References 10,16.  Most gins do not include this source, and these emission factors are not
    included in the total gin emission factors shown.  However, these factors should be added into
    the total for a particular gin if this source is part of that gin.
    References 10,14,17,24.
    References 13-14,17,21-23.  Emission factors are included in Total No.  1, but are not  included
    in Total No. 2.
    References 18-20.  Emission factors are not included in Total No. 1, but are included in Total
    No. 2.
    Reference 22. Most gins do not include this source, and these emission  factors are not included
    in the total gin emission factors shown. However, these factors should be added into the total for
    a particular gin  if this source is part of that gin.
    References 11-14,17,19-20,23-24.
    References 11-14,17,24.
    References 10-11,22.  Many gins do not include this source, and these emission factors are not
    included in the total gin emission factors shown.  However, these factors should be added into
    the total for a particular gin if these sources are part of that gin.
    References 14,16-17,23-24.  Emission factors are included in Total No.  1, but are not  included
    in Total No. 2.
    References 15,19,22.
6/96
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.7-5
-------
                                       Table 9.7-1  (cont.).
u   References 15,22.
v   Total for gins with high-efficiency cyclones on all exhaust streams.  Does not include emission
    factors for the No. 3 dryer and cleaner, cyclone robber system, mote trash fan, lint cleaners with
    screened drums  or cages, and battery condenser with screened drums or cages.
w   Total for gins with screened drums or cages on the lint cleaners and battery condenser and high-
    efficiency cyclones on all other exhaust streams.  Does not include emission factors for the No.  3
    dryer and cleaner, cyclone robber system, mote trash fan, lint cleaners with high-efficiency
    cyclones, and battery condenser with high-efficiency cyclones.  PM-10 emissions from lint
    cleaners and battery condensers with screened drums or cages are estimated as 50 percent of the
    total PM emissions from these sources.

9.7.4 Summary of Terminology

        Bale — A compressed and bound package of cotton lint, typically weighing about 480 Ib.

        Batt — Matted lint cotton.

        Boll — The capsule or pod of the cotton plant.

        Bur (or burr) — The rough casing of the boll.  Often referred to as hulls after separation from
the cotton.

        Condenser — A perforated or screened drum device designed to collect lint cotton from the
conveying airstream, at times into a batt.

        Cotton — General term used variously to refer to the cotton plant (genus Gossypiuni);
agricultural  crop; harvest product; white fibers (lint) ginned (separated) from the seed; baled produce;
and yarn or fabric products.  Cotton is classified as upland or extra long staple depending on fiber
length.

        Cottonseed — The seed of the cotton plant, separated from its fibers.  The seeds constitute
40  percent to 55 percent of the seed cotton (depending on the amount of trash) and are processed into
oil  meal, linters, and hulls, or are fed directly to cattle.

        Cyclone — A centrifugal air pollution control device for separating solid particles from an
airstream.

        Cyclone robber system - A secondary cyclone trash handling system.  These systems are not
used at most cotton gins.

        Cylinder cleaner — A machine with rotating spiked drums that open the locks and clean the
cotton by removing dirt and small trash.

        Extractor — Equipment for removing large trash pieces (sticks, stems, burs, and leaves). The
equipment may include one or more devices, including a stick machine, bur machine, green-leaf
machine,  and a combination machine.

        Extractor-feeder — A device  that gives seed cotton a final light extraction/cleaning and then
feeds it at a controlled rate to the  gin stand.

        Fly lint (or lint fly) — Short  (less than 50 pm) cotton fibers, usually emitted from condensers
and mote fan.
9.7-6                                 EMISSION FACTORS                                  6/96
-------
        Gin stand — The heart of the ginning plant where gin saws (usually several in parallel)
separate the cotton lint from the seeds.

        High pressure side — The portion of the process preceding the gin stand (including unloading,
drying, extracting, cleaning, and overflow handling systems) in which material is conveyed by a
higher pressure air, and exhausts are typically controlled by cyclones.

        Lint cleaner — A machine for removing foreign material from lint cotton.

        Lint cotton — Cotton fibers from which the trash and seeds have been removed by the gin.

        Low pressure side — The portion of the process following the gin stand  (including lint cotton
cleaning and batt formation process) in which material is conveyed by low pressure air, and exhausts
are typically  controlled by condensers.

        Mote — A small group of short fibers attached to a piece of the seed or to an immature seed.
Motes may be cleaned and baled.

        Picker harvester — A machine that removes cotton lint and seeds from open bolls with
rotating spindles, leaving unopened  bolls on  the plant. "First pick" cotton is obtained from the initial
harvest of the season.  It usually contains less trash than  "second pick" cotton, obtained later in the
harvest season.  "Ground cotton"  is obtained by picking up between the rows at  season's end and has
a high trash content.

        Seed cotton — Raw cotton,  containing lint, seed, and some waste material, as it comes from
the field.

        Separator — A mechanical device (e.g., wire  screen with rotary rake) that separates seed
cotton from conveying air.

        Stripper harvester  — A machine that strips all bolls — opened (mature) and unopened
(immature or green) — from the plant;  strippers are used on  short cotton plants, grown in arid areas
of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.  They collect larger amounts of trash (leaves, stems, and
sticks) than picker harvesters.

References For Section 9.7

1.     Airborne Paniculate Emissions From Cotton Ginning Operations, A60-5, U. S. Department
       Of Health,  Education And Welfare, Cincinnati, OH,  1960.

2.     Source Assessment: Cotton  Gins, EPA-600/2-78-004a, U.  S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, January 1978.

3.     A. C. Griffin And E. P. Columbus, Dust In Cotton Gins:  An Overview, U. S. Cotton
       Ginning Laboratory, Stoneville, MS,  1982.

4.     W. J. Roddy, "Controlling Cotton Gin Emissions", Journal Of The Air Pollution  Control
       Association, 2S(6):637, June 1978.

5.     Written Communication From Phillip J. Wakelyn And Fred Johnson, National Cotton Council
       Of America, Washington, DC, To David Reisdorph,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
       City, MO, December 30,  1992.

6.     Cotton Ginners Handbook, Agricultural Handbook  No. 503, Agricultural Research Service,
       U. S. Department  Of Agriculture, 1977, U.S. Government Printing Office,  Stock
       No.  001-000-03678-5.


6/96                             Food And Agricultural  Industry                            9.7-7
-------
7.      Written Communication From Fred Johnson And Phillip J. Wakelyn, National Cotton Council
       Of America, Memphis, TN, To Dallas Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, October 31, 1995.

8.      Emission Factor Documentation, AP-42 Section 9.7, Cotton Ginning, EPA Contract
       No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, June 1996.

9.      Westfield Gin-PMW & Total Paniculate Testing-Main  Trash Stock Piler Cyclone, #2 Incline
       Cyclone, Gin Feed Trash  Cyclone, ETC Environmental,  Inc., Ventura, CA, November 14-15,
       1991.

10.    Airways Gin-PMW &  Total Paniculate Testing-Motes Trash Cyclone, #3 Incline Cyclone,
       Overflow Separator Cyclone, BTC Environmental, Inc.,  Ventura, CA, November 21-22,
       1991.

11.    Source Emission Testing-Mount Whitney Cotton Gin, BTC Environmental, Inc., Ventura,
       CA,  November 29-30,  1990.

12.    Source Emission Testing—Stratford Growers, BTC Environmental, Inc., Ventura, CA,
       November 27-28, 1990.

13.    Source Emission Testing—County Line Gin, BTC Environmental, Inc., Ventura, CA,
       December  3-4, 1990.

14.    County Line Gin—PMlO & Total Paniculate Testing—Motes, Suction, Lint  Cleaner, Overflow,
       #1 Drying, Gin Stand Trash, Battery Condenser, And #2 Drying Cyclones, BTC
       Environmental, Inc., Ventura, CA, December 8-11, 1991.

15.    Westfield Gin-PMW & Total Paniculate Testing-Trash Cyclone, BTC Environmental, Inc.,
       Ventura, CA, November  12, 1992.

16.    West Valley Cotton  Growers-PMW & Total Paniculate Testing-Battery Condenser And #3
       Dryer/Cleaner Cyclones,  BTC Environmental, Inc., Ventura, CA, October 28,  1993.

17.    Dos  Palos Cooperative-PMW & Total Paniculate Testing-Motes, Suction, Lint Cleaner,
       Overflow,  #/ Drying, Battery Condenser, And #2 Drying Cyclones, BTC Environmental, Inc.,
       Ventura, CA, November  27-29, 1992.

18.    Halls Gin  Company-Paniculate Emissions From Cotton Gin Exhausts, State Of Tennessee
       Department Of Health  And Environment Division Of Air Pollution Control, Nashville, TN,
       October 25-27, 1988.

19.    Cotton Gin Emission Tests, Marana Gin, Producers Cotton Oil Company,  Marana, Arizona,
       EPA-330/2-78-008, National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, CO, And
       EPA Region IX, San Francisco, CA,  May 1978.

20.    Emission Test Report, Westside Farmers' Cooperative Gin #5, Tranquility, California,
       Prepared For U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency Division Of Stationary Source
       Enforcement, Washington, D.C., PEDCo Environmental,  Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
       February 1978.

21.    Elbow Enterprises-PM-W And Total  Paniculate Testing, Lint Cleaner And Dryer #7
       Cyclones,  AIRx Testing,  Ventura, CA, November 7-8, 1994.
9.7-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                               6/96
-------
22.    Stratford Growers, Inc.-PM-lO And Total Paniculate Testing, Unloading, Hull Trash, Feeder
       Trash, Lint Cleaner, Cyclone Robber System, & Motes Trash Cyclones, AIRx Testing,
       Ventura, CA, October 26-28, 1994.

23.    Alta Vista Gin-PM-10 And Total Paniculate Testing,  Battery Condenser, Lint Cleaner, &
       Motes Trash Cyclones, AIRx Testing, Ventura, CA, November 3-4, 1994.

24.    Dos Palos Coop Gin—PM-10 And Total Paniculate Testing, Unloading, Dryer #2, Overflow,
       Battery Condenser, & Motes Cyclones, AIRx Testing,  Ventura, CA, October 31 Through
       November 2, 1994.
6/96                            Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.7-9
-------
9.8.1 Canned Fruits And Vegetables

9.8.1.1  General1-2

       The canning of fruits and vegetables is a growing, competitive industry, especially the
international export portion.  The industry is made up of establishments primarily engaged in canning
fruits, vegetables, fruit and vegetable juices; processing ketchup and other tomato sauces; and
producing natural and imitation preserves, jams, and jellies.

9.8.1.2  Process Description3'6

       The primary objective of food processing is the preservation of perishable foods in a stable
form that can be  stored and shipped to distant markets during all months of the year.  Processing also
can change foods into new or more usable forms and make foods more convenient to prepare.

       The goal  of the canning process is to destroy any microorganisms in the food and prevent
recontamination by microorganisms.  Heat is the most common agent used to destroy
microorganisms.   Removal of oxygen can be used in  conjunction with other methods to prevent the
growth of oxygen-requiring microorganisms.

       In the conventional canning of fruits and vegetables, there are basic process  steps that are
similar for both types of products.  However, there is a great diversity among all  plants and even
those plants processing the same commodity.  The differences include the inclusion  of certain
operations for some  fruits or vegetables, the sequence of the process steps used in the  operations, and
the cooking or blanching steps.  Production of fruit or vegetable juices occurs by a different sequence
of operations and there is a wide diversity among these plants.  Typical canned products include beans
(cut and whole), beets, carrots, corn, peas,  spinach, tomatoes, apples, peaches, pineapple, pears,
apricots, and cranberries. Typical juices  are orange,  pineapple, grapefruit, tomato,  and cranberry.
Generic process flow diagrams for the canning of fruits, vegetables, and fruit juices are shown in
Figures 9.8.1-1, 9.8.1-2, and 9.8.1-3. The steps outlined in these figures are intended to the basic
processes in production. A typical commercial canning operation may employ the following general
processes:  washing, sorting/grading, preparation, container filling, exhausting, container sealing, heat
sterilization, cooling, labeling/casing, and storage  for shipment. In these diagrams, no attempt has
been made to be product specific and include all process steps that would be used for all products.
Figures 9.8.1-1 and  9.8.1-2 show optional operations, as dotted line steps, that are often used but are
not used for all products. One of the major differences in the sequence of operations between fruit
and  vegetable canning  is the blanching operation.  Most of the fruits are not blanched prior to  can
filling whereas many of the vegetables undergo this step. Canned vegetables  generally require more
severe processing than do fruits because the vegetables have much lower acidity and contain more
heat-resistant soil organisms.  Many vegetables also require more cooking than fruits to develop their
most desirable flavor and texture.  The methods used in the cooking step vary widely among
facilities.  With many fruits, preliminary  treatment steps (e. g.,  peeling,  coring, halving, pitting)
occur prior  to any heating or cooking step but  with vegetables, these treatment steps often occur after
the vegetable has been blanched.  For both  fruits and vegetables, peeling  is done either by a
mechanical peeler, steam peeling, or  lye peeling.  The choice depends upon the type of fruit or
vegetable or the choice of the company.
8/95                              Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.8.1-1
-------



[ *~
CO i
^ I

HI UJ
Q. g
Q O
5 T
	

1
1
cc
°cc
UJCC
UjO
a.

i






CO

i ,
UJ
1
fti
E<
co:
t
g
Q;
C
J


%

1



Q
<
1L
8


i
0
<
:


RECEIVING
j
j






IT
B
^
G





0


r
•


LL
—
/





















STEAM
EXHAUSTINQ
j
j
i

oS
r
o
[jj 23
^ JS
CO
r

COOLER
i


i
a
z
ii
*o
1
i
ui
s
2
i








CD
1

g
H
:D
cc
LL












                                                                             c
                                                                            'S
                                                                             I
                                                                            T3
                                                                             «


                                                                             §

                                                                             S
                                                                             D.

                                                                             O
                                                                            <§

9.8.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
                     CO
                     UJ





X
f/» ^
1
i

i
oc
3
UJ
SI

*
|

[ *"

i
o

i




(0
o
or
CO
'
STEAM
EXHAUSTING
A
T
cc
3
E
Z
3





°8
£ /)
cog




Q
ZUJ
^ O
OC3
CO

j
1
'
RECEIVING
AND
STORAGE
-^


























HEAT
•ERIUZATION
W

1

Kg
|§



' '

Q
||



,

m
STORA<
















0
z

•z.
o
LU
<
&
CD
UJ









                                                                                                 C3

                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 •s
                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                 o

                                                                                                 ex

                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                 O



                                                                                                 CN
                                                                                                 §
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.1-3
-------
                     CO


                     O
                     Ul
                    H
                     w

                     g
                     LU
                           s
                           UJ
                           O
                                                                                  4)
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  .2
                                                                                  •3
                                                                                   4)
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   o
_o



O)

o


ro


od
9.8.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
       Some citrus fruit processors produce dry citrus peel, citrus molasses and D-limonene from the
peels and pulp residue collected from the canning and juice  operations.  Other juice processing
facilities use concentrates and raw commodity processing does not occur at the facility.  The peels and
residue are collected and ground in a  hammermill, lime is added to neutralize the acids, and the
product pressed to remove excess moisture.  The liquid from the press is screened to remove large
particles, which are recycled back to the press, and the liquid is concentrated to molasses  in an
evaporator.  The pressed peel is sent to a direct-fired hot-air drier.  After passing through a condenser
to remove the D-limonene, the  exhaust gases from the drier are used as the heat source for the
molasses evaporator.

       Equipment for conventional canning has been converting from batch to continuous units.  In
continuous retorts, the cans are fed through an air lock, then rotated through the pressurized heating
chamber, and subsequently cooled through a second section of the retort in a separate cold-water
cooler. Commercial methods for sterilization of canned  foods with a pH of 4.5 or lower include use
of static  retorts, which are similar to large pressure cookers. A newer unit is the agitating retort,
which  mechanically moves the  can and the food, providing quicker heat penetration.  In the aseptic
packaging process, the problem with slow heat penetration in the in-container process are avoided by
sterilizing and cooling the food separate from the container. Presterilized containers are then filled
with the sterilized and cooled product and are sealed in a sterile atmosphere.

       To provide a closer insight into the actual processes that occur during a canning operation, a
description of the canning of whole tomatoes is presented in the following paragraphs. This
description provides more detail for each of the operations than is presented in the generic process
flow diagrams in Figures 9.8.1-1, 9.8.1-2, and 9.8.1-3.

Preparation -
       The principal  preparation steps are washing and sorting. Mechanically harvested tomatoes are
usually thoroughly washed by high-pressure sprays or by strong-flowing streams of water while being
passed along a moving belt or on agitating or revolving screens.  The raw produce may need to be
sorted  for size and maturity. Sorting for size is accomplished by passing the raw tomatoes through a
series of moving screens with different mesh sizes or over differently spaced rollers.  Separation into
groups according to degree of ripeness or perfection of shape is done by hand;  trimming is also done
by hand.

Peeling And Coring -
       Formerly, tomatoes were initially scalded followed by hand peeling, but steam peeling and lye
peeling have also become widely used.  With steam peeling, the tomatoes are treated with steam  to
loosen the skin, which is then removed by mechanical means.   In lye peeling, the fruit is immersed in
a hot lye bath or sprayed with a boiling solution of 10 to 20 percent lye. The excess lye is then
drained and any lye that adheres to the tomatoes is removed with the peel by thorough washing.

       Coring is done by a water-powered device with  a small turbine wheel.  A special blade
mounted on the turbine wheel spins and removes the tomato cores.

Filling -
       After peeling and coring, the  tomatoes are conveyed by automatic runways, through washers,
to the point of filling.  Before being filled, the can or glass  containers are cleaned by hot water,
steam,  or air blast.  Most filling is done by machine. The containers are filled with the solid product
and then usually topped with a  light puree of tomato juice.  Acidification of canned whole tomatoes
with 0.1  to 0.2 percent citric acid has been suggested as  a means of increasing  acidity to a safer and


8/95                              Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.8.1-5
-------
more desirable level.  Because of the increased sourness of the acidified product, the addition of 2 to
3 percent sucrose is used to balance the taste.  The addition of salt is important for palatability.

Exhausting -
       The objective of exhausting containers is to remove air so that the pressure inside the
container following heat treatment and cooling will be less than atmospheric.  The reduced  internal
pressure  (vacuum) helps to keep the can ends drawn in, reduces strain on the containers during
processing, and minimizes  the level of oxygen remaining in the headspace. It also helps to extend the
shelf life of food products and prevents bulging of the container at high altitudes.

       Vacuum in the can may be obtained by the use of heat or by mechanical means.  The
tomatoes may be preheated before filling and sealed hot. For products that cannot be preheated
before filling, it may be necessary to pass the filled containers through a steam  chamber or tunnel
prior to the sealing machine to expel gases from the food and raise the temperature.  Vacuum also
may be produced mechanically by sealing containers in a chamber  under a high vacuum.

Sealing -
       In sealing  lids on metal cans,  a double seam is created by interlocking the curl of the lid and
flange of the can.  Many closing machines are equipped to create vacuum in the headspace  either
mechanically or by steam-flow before lids are sealed.

Heat Sterilization -
       During processing, microorganisms that can cause spoilage are destroyed by heat.  The
temperature and processing time vary with the nature of the product and the size of the container.

       Acidic products, such as tomatoes, are readily preserved at 100°C (212°F).  The containers
holding these products are  processed in atmospheric steam or hot-water cookers.  The rotary
continuous cookers, which operate at  100°C (212°F), have largely replaced retorts and open-still
cookers for processing canned tomatoes.  Some plants use hydrostatic cookers and others use
continuous-pressure cookers.

Cooling  -
       After heat sterilization, containers are quickly cooled to prevent overcooking.  Containers may
be quick cooled by adding  water to the cooker under air pressure or by conveying the containers from
the cooker to a rotary cooler equipped with a cold-water spray.

Labeling And Casing -
       After the heat sterilization, cooling, and drying operations, the containers are ready for
labeling.  Labeling machines apply glue and labels in one high-speed operation. The labeled cans or
jars are the packed into shipping cartons.

9.8.1.3  Emissions And Controls4-6"9

        Air emissions may arise from  a variety of sources in the canning of fruits and vegetables.
Particulate matter (PM) emissions result mainly from solids handling, solids size reduction, drying
(e.  g., citrus peel  driers).  Some of the particles are dusts,  but others (particularly those from thermal
processing operations) are  produced by condensation of vapors and may be in the low-micrometer or
submicrometer particle-size range.
9.8.1-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 8/95
-------
       The VOC emissions may potentially occur at almost any stage of processing, but most usually
are associated with thermal processing steps, such as cooking, and evaporative concentration.  The
cooking technologies in canning processes are very high moisture processes so the predominant
emissions will be steam or water vapor.  The waste gases from these operations may contain PM or,
perhaps, condensable vapors, as well as malodorous VOC. Particulate matter, condensable materials,
and the high moisture content of the emissions may  interfere with the collection or destruction of
these VOC. The condensable materials  also may be malodorous.

       Wastewater treatment ponds may be another source of odors, even from processing of
materials that are not otherwise particularly objectionable.  Details on the processes and technologies
used in waste water collection, treatment, and storage are presented in AP-42 Section 4.3; that section
should be consulted for detailed information on the subject.

       No emission data quantifying VOC, HAP, or PM emissions  from the canned fruits and
vegetable industry are available for use in the development of emission factors.  Data on emissions
from fruit and vegetable canning are extremely limited.  Woodroof and Luh discussed the presence of
VOC in apricots, cranberry juice, and cherry juice.  Van Langenhove, et al., identified volatile
compounds emitted  during the blanching process of Brussels  sprouts and cauliflower under laboratory
and industrial conditions.  Buttery, et al., studied emissions of volatile aroma compounds from tomato
paste.

       A number of emission control approaches are potentially available to the canning industry.
These  include wet scrubbers, dry sorbants, and cyclones. No information is available on controls
actually used at canning facilities.

       Control of VOC from a gas stream can be accomplished using one of several techniques  but
the most common methods are absorption, adsorption, and afterburners.  Absorptive methods
encompass all types of wet scrubbers using aqueous solutions to absorb the VOC.  Most scrubber
systems require a mist eliminator downstream of the scrubber.

       Adsorptive methods could include one of four main adsorbents:  activated carbon, activated
alumina, silica gel,  or molecular sieves.  Of these four, activated carbon is the most widely used for
VOC control while  the remaining three are used for applications other than pollution control.  Gas
adsorption is a relatively expensive technique and may not be applicable to a wide variety of
pollutants.

       Particulate control commonly employs methods such  as venturi scrubbers,  dry cyclones,  wet
or dry  electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or dry filter systems. The most common controls are likely
to be the venturi scrubbers or dry cyclones.  Wet or dry ESPs could be used depending upon the
particulate loading of the gas stream.

       Condensation methods and scrubbing by chemical reaction may be applicable techniques
depending upon the type of emissions.  Condensation methods may be either direct contact or indirect
contact with the shell and  tube indirect method being the most common  technique.  Chemical reactive
scrubbing may be used for odor control in selective applications.
8/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.8.1-7
-------
References for Section 9.8.1

1.     U. S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U. S. Industrial Outlook
       1992-Food and Beverages.

2.     1987 Census of Manufacturers, MC87-1-20-C, Industries Series, Preserved Fruits and
       Vegetables.

3.     B. S.  Luh and J. G. Woodroof, ed., Commercial Vegetable Processing, 2nd edition, Van
       Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1988.

4.     J. L. Jones, et al., Overview Of Environmental Control Measures And Problems In The Food
       Processing Industries.  Industrial Environmental  Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
       Kenneth Dostal, Food  and Wood Products Branch.  Grant No. R804642-01, January  1979.

5.     N. W. Deroiser, The Technology Of Food Preservation, 3rd edition, The Avi Publishing
       Company, Inc., Westport, CT, 1970.

6.     J. G.  Woodroof and B. S. Luh, ed., Commercial Fruit Processing, The Avi Publishing
       Company, Westport, CT, 1986.

7.     H. J.  Van Langenhove, et al., Identification Of Volatiles Emitted During The Blanching
       Process Of Brussels Sprouts And Cauliflower,  Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
       55:483-487, 1991.

8.     R. G. Buttery, et al., Identification Of Additional Tomato Paste Volatiles, Journal of
       Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 38(3):792-795, 1990.

9.     H. J.  Rafson, Odor Emission Control For The Food Industry, Food Technology, June 1977.
 9.8.1-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                               8/95
-------
9.8.2 Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables

9.8.2.1  General1'2

        Dehydration of fruit and vegetables is one of the oldest forms of food preservation techniques
known to man and  consists primarily of establishments engaged in sun drying or artificially
dehydrating fruits and vegetables.  Although food preservation is the primary reason for dehydration,
dehydration of fruits and vegetables  also lowers the cost of packaging, storing, and transportation by
reducing both the weight and volume of the final product.  Given the improvement in the quality of
dehydrated foods, along with the increased focus on instant and convenience foods, the potential of
dehydrated fruits and vegetables is greater than ever.

9.8.2.2 Process Description1'2

        Dried or  dehydrated fruits and vegetables can be produced by a variety of processes.  These
processes differ primarily by the type of drying method used, which depends on the type of food and
the type of characteristics of the final product. In general, dried or dehydrated fruits and vegetables
undergo the following process steps: predrying treatments, such as size selection, peeling, and color
preservation; drying or dehydration, using natural or artificial methods; and postdehydration
treatments, such as sweating, inspection, and packaging.

Predrying Treatments  -
        Predrying treatments prepare the raw product for drying or dehydration and include raw
product preparation and color preservation.  Raw product preparation includes selection and sorting,
washing, peeling (some fruits and vegetables), cutting  into the appropriate form, and blanching (for
some fruits and most vegetables).  Fruits and vegetables are selected; sorted according to size,
maturity,  and soundness; and then washed to remove dust, dirt, insect matter, mold spores, plant
parts, and other  material that might  contaminate or affect the color, aroma, or flavor of the fruit or
vegetable.  Peeling or removal of any undesirable parts follows  washing.   The raw product can be
peeled by hand (generally not used in the United States due to high labor costs), with lye or alkali
solution, with dry caustic and mild abrasion, with steam pressure, with high-pressure washers, or
with flame peelers.  For fruits, only apples, pears, bananas, and pineapples are usually peeled before
dehydration.  Vegetables normally peeled include beets, carrots, parsnips, potatoes, onions, and
garlic.  Prunes and grapes are dipped in an alkali solution to remove the natural waxy surface coating
which enhances the drying process.  Next, the product is cut into  the appropriate shape or form  (i. e.,
halves,  wedges,  slices, cubes, nuggets,  etc.), although some items, such as cherries and corn, may
by-pass this operation.  Some fruits  and vegetables are blanched by immersion in hot water (95° to
100°C [203° to 212°F]) or exposure to steam.

        The final step  in the predehydration treatment  is color preservation, also known as sulfuring.
The majority of fruits  are treated with sulfur dioxide (SO2) for its antioxidant and preservative effects.
The presence of SO2 is very effective in retarding the browning of fruits, which occurs when  the
enzymes are not inactivated by the sufficiently high heat normally used in drying.  In addition to
preventing browning, SO2 treatment reduces the destruction of carotene and ascorbic acid, which are
the important nutrients for fruits. Sulfuring dried fruits must be closely controlled so that enough
sulfur is present to  maintain the physical and nutritional properties of the product throughout  its
expected shelf life,  but not so large that it  adversely affects flavor. Some fruits, such as apples, are
treated with solutions of sulfite (sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite in approximately equal

9/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.8.2-1
-------
proportions) before dehydration.  Sulfite solutions are less suitable for fruits than burning sulfur (SO2
gas), however, because the solution penetrates the fruit poorly and can leach natural sugar, flavor,
and other components from the fruit.

       Although dried fruits commonly use SO2 gas to prevent browning, this treatment is not
practical for vegetables.  Instead, most vegetables (potatoes, cabbage, and carrots) are treated with
sulfite solutions to retard enzymatic browning.  In addition to color preservation, the presence of a
small amount of sulfite in blanched, cut vegetables improves storage stability and makes it possible to
increase the drying temperature during dehydration, thus decreasing drying time and increasing the
drier capacity  without exceeding the tolerance for heat damage.

Drying Or Dehydration -
       Drying or dehydration is the removal of the majority of water contained in the fruit or
vegetable and  is the primary stage in the production of dehydrated fruits and vegetables. Several
drying methods are commercially available and the selection of the optimal method is determined by
quality requirements, raw material characteristics, and economic factors.  There are three types of
drying processes:  sun and solar drying; atmospheric  dehydration  including stationary or batch
processes (kiln, tower, and cabinet driers) and continuous processes (tunnel, continuous belt, belt-
trough, fluidized-bed, explosion puffing, foam-mat, spray, drum,  and microwave-heated driers); and
subatmospheric dehydration (vacuum shelf, vacuum belt, vacuum  drum, and freeze driers).

       Sun drying (used almost exclusively for fruit) and solar drying (used for fruit and vegetables)
of foods  use the power of the sun to remove the moisture from the product. Sun drying of fruit crops
is limited to climates with hot sun and dry atmosphere,  and to certain fruits, such as prunes, grapes,
dates,  figs, apricots, and pears.  These crops are processed in substantial quantities without  much
technical aid by simply spreading the fruit on the ground, racks, trays, or roofs and exposing them to
the sun until dry.  Advantages of this process  are its simplicity and its small capital investment.
Disadvantages  include complete dependence on the elements and moisture  levels no lower than 15 to
20 percent (corresponding to a limited shelf life). Solar drying utilizes black-painted trays,  solar
trays,  collectors, and mirrors to increase solar energy and accelerate drying.

       Atmospheric forced-air driers artificially dry fruits and vegetables  by passing heated  air with
controlled relative humidity over the food to be dried, or by passing the food to be dried through the
heated air, and is the most widely used method of fruit  and  vegetable dehydration. Various devices
are used to control air circulation and recirculation.  Stationary or batch processes include kiln, tower
(or stack), and cabinet driers.  Continuous processes are used mainly for vegetable dehydration and
include tunnel, continuous belt, belt-trough, fluidized-bed, explosion puffing, foam-mat, spray, drum,
and microwave-heated driers.  Tunnel driers are the most flexible, efficient, and widely used
dehydration system available commercially.

       Subatmospheric (or vacuum) dehydration occurs at low air pressures and includes vacuum
shelf,  vacuum  drum, vacuum belt, and  freeze  driers.  The main purpose of vacuum drying is to
enable the removal of moisture at  less than the boiling point under ambient conditions.  Because of
the high  installation and operating costs of vacuum driers, this process is used  for drying raw material
that may deteriorate as a result of oxidation or may be modified chemically as  a result of exposure to
air at elevated  temperatures.  There are two categories of vacuum driers.  In the first category,
moisture in the food is evaporated from the liquid to  the vapor stage, and  includes vacuum shelf,
vacuum drum, and vacuum belt driers.   In the second category of vacuum driers,  the moisture of the
food is removed from the product by sublimination, which is converting ice directly into water vapor.
The advantages of freeze drying are high flavor retention, maximum  retention  of nutritional  value,


9.8.2-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  9/95
-------
minimal damage to the product texture and structure, little change in product shape and color, and a
finished product with an open structure that allows fast and complete rehydration.  Disadvantages
include high capital investment, high processing costs,  and the need for special packing to avoid
oxidation and moisture gain in the finished product.

Postdehydration Treatments -
       Treatments of the dehydrated product vary according to the type of fruit or vegetable and the
intended use of the product.  These treatments may include sweating, screening, inspection,
instantization treatments, and packaging.  Sweating involves holding the dehydrated product in bins
or boxes to equalize the moisture content.  Screening removes dehydrated pieces of unwanted size,
usually called  "fines". The dried product is inspected to remove foreign materials, discolored pieces,
or other imperfections such as skin, carpel, or stem particles.  Instantization treatments are used to
improve the rehydration rate of the low-moisture product. Packaging is common to most all
dehydrated products and has a great deal of influence on the shelf life of the dried product.
Packaging of dehydrated fruits and vegetables must protect the product against moisture, light, air,
dust, microflora, foreign odor, insects, and rodents; provide strength and stability to maintain original
product size, shape, and appearance throughout storage, handling, and  marketing;  and consist of
materials that are approved for contact with food.  Cost is also an important factor in packaging.
Package types include cans, plastic bags, drums, bins, and cartons, and depend on the end-use of the
product.

9.8.2.3 Emissions And Controls1-3"6

        Air emissions may arise from a variety of sources in the dehydration of fruits and  vegetables.
Particulate matter (PM) emissions may result mainly from solids handling, solids size reduction, and
drying. Some of the particles are dusts, but other are produced by condensation of vapors and may
be in the low-micrometer  or submicrometer particle-size range.

       The VOC emissions may potentially occur at almost any stage of processing, but most usually
are associated with thermal processing steps, such as blanching, drying or dehydration,  and  sweating.
Particulate matter and condensable materials may interfere with the collection or destruction of these
VOC.  The condensable materials also may be malodorous.  The color preservation (sulfuring) stage
can produce SO2 emissions as the fruits and vegetables are treated with SO2 gas or sulfide solution to
prevent discoloration or browning.

       Wastewater treatment ponds may be another source of VOC, even from processing of
materials that are not otherwise particularly objectionable. Details on the  processes and technologies
used in wastewater collection, treatment, and storage are presented in AP-42  Section 4.3.  That
section should be consulted for detailed information on the subject.

       No emission data  quantifying VOC, HAP,  or PM emissions from the dehydrated fruit and
vegetable industry are available for use in the development of emission factors.  However, some data
have been published on VOC emitted during the blanching process for  two vegetables and for
volatiles from fresh tomatoes. Van Langenhove, et al., identified volatiles emitted during the
blanching  process of Brussels  sprouts and cauliflower under  laboratory and industrial conditions.  In
addition, Buttery, et al., performed a quantitative study on aroma volatiles emitted from fresh
tomatoes.

       A  number of VOC and paniculate emission control techniques are available to the dehydrated
fruit and vegetable industry.  No information is available on the actual  usage of emission control


9/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.8.2-3
-------
devices in this industry.  Potential options include the traditional approaches of wet scrubbers, dry
sorbents, and cyclones.

       Control of VOC from a gas stream can be accomplished using one of several techniques but
the most common methods are absorption and  adsorption.  Absorptive methods encompass all types of
wet scrubbers using aqueous solutions to absorb the VOC. Most scrubber systems require a mist
eliminator downstream of the scrubber.

       Adsorptive methods could include one of four main adsorbents:  activated carbon, activated
alumina, silica gel, or molecular sieves.  Of these four, activated carbon is the most widely used for
VOC control while the remaining three are used for applications other than pollution control.  Gas
adsorption is a relatively expensive technique and may not be applicable to a wide variety of
pollutants.

       Particulate control commonly employs methods such as venturi scrubbers, dry cyclones, wet
or dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or dry filter systems.  The most common controls are likely
to be the venturi scrubbers or dry cyclones. Wet or dry ESPs could be used depending upon the
particulate loading of the gas stream.

       Condensation methods and scrubbing by chemical reaction may be applicable techniques
depending upon the type of emissions.  Condensation methods may be either direct contact or indirect
contact with the shell and tube indirect method being the most common technique.  Chemical reactive
scrubbing may be used for odor control in selective applications.

References For Section 9.8.2

1.     L. P. Somogyi and  B. S. Luh, "Dehydration Of Fruits", Commercial Fruit
       Processing, Second  Ed., J. G. Woodroof and B. S. Luh, Editors.  AVI Publishing
       Company, Inc.,  1986.

2.     L. P. Somogyi and  B. S. Luh, "Vegetable Dehydration", Commercial Vegetable
       Processing, Second  Ed., B. S. Luh and J. G. Woodroof, Editors, An AVI Book
       Published by Van Nostrand Reinhold,  1988.

3.     J. L. Jones, et al,  "Overview Of Environmental Control Measures And Problems In The
       Food Processing Industries", Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
       K. Dostal, Food and Wood Products Branch, Grant No. R804642-01, January 1979.

4.     H. J. Van Langenhove, et al.,  "Identification Of Volatiles Emitted During The Blanching
       Process Of Brussels Sprouts And Cauliflower", Journal Of The Science Of Food And
       Agriculture, 55:483-487, 1991.

5.     R. G.  Buttery, et al., "Fresh Tomato Aroma Volatiles:  A Quantitative Study", /. Agric.
       Food Chem., 35:540-544, 1987.

6.     H. J. Rafson, "Odor Emission Control For The Food Industry", Food Technology, June 1977.
 9.8.2-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                9/95
-------
9.8.3 Pickles, Sauces, and Salad Dressings

9.8.3.1  General1

        This industry includes facilities that produce pickled fruits and vegetables, salad dressings,
relishes, various sauces, and seasonings. The two vegetables that account for the highest production
volume in the U. S. are cucumbers (pickles)  and cabbage (sauerkraut).  Sauces entail a wide diversity
of products  but two of the more common types are Worcestershire sauce and hot pepper  sauces.
Salad dressings are generally considered to be products added to and eaten with salads. In 1987,
21,500 thousand people were employed in the industry.  California, Georgia, Michigan,  and
Pennsylvania are the leading employment States in the industry.

9.8.3.2 Process Description2"3

Pickled Vegetables —
        In the U. S.,  vegetables are pickled commercially using one of two general processes:
brining  or direct acidification (with or without pasteurization), or various combinations of these
processes.  For sodium chloride brining, fresh vegetables are placed in a salt solution or  dry salt is
added to cut or whole vegetables whereupon  the vegetables undergo a microbial fermentation process
activated by the lactic acid bacteria, yeasts, and other microorganisms.  Direct  acidification of fresh
or brined vegetables,  through the addition of vinegar, is a major component of  commercial pickling.
This process may be accompanied by pasteurization, addition of preservatives,  refrigeration, or a
combination of these treatments.  While cucumbers, cabbage,  and olives constitute the largest volume
of vegetables brined or pickled in the U. S.,  other vegetables include peppers, onions, beans,
cauliflower, and carrots.

        In the United States, the term "pickles" generally refers to pickled  cucumbers. Three
methods currently are used to produce pickles from cucumbers: brine stock, fresh pack, and
refrigerated. Smaller quantities are preserved by specialized brining methods to produce pickles for
delicatessens and other special grades of pickles. Pickling cucumbers are harvested and transported to
the processing plants.  The cucumbers may be field graded and cooled, if necessitated by the
temperature, prior to  transport to the plants.

        The brine stock process begins with brining the cucumbers through the  addition of salt or a
sodium  chloride brining solution.  The cucumbers undergo a fermentation process  in which lactic acid
is formed.  During fermentation, the cucumbers are held in 5 to 8 percent salt;  after fermentation, the
salt content is  increased weekly in 0.25 to 0.5 percent increments until the  final holding strength is 8
to  16 percent salt.   The cucumbers, called brine stock, are then graded and cut (optional), before
being desalted by washing in an open tank with water at ambient temperature to obtain the desired salt
level and processed into dill, sour, sweet, or  other pickle products.  Containers are filled with the cut
or whole pickles, and sugar and vinegars are added. Preservatives are also added  if the product is not
pasteurized. The containers are then vacuum sealed and pasteurized (optional) until the  temperature
at the center of the cucumbers reaches about  74°C (165°F) for about 15 minutes.  The product is then
cooled,  and  the containers are labeled, packaged, and stored.

        The fresh pack process begins with grading of the pickling cucumbers,  followed by washing
with water.  The cucumbers are then either cut and inspected before packaging,  or are sometimes
"blanched" if they are to be packaged whole.  The "blanching" consists of  rinsing  the cucumber with

8/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.8.3-1
-------
warm water to make it more pliable and easier to pack in the container.  It is not a true blanching
process.  Containers are filled with the cut or whole cucumbers, and then salt, spices, and vinegars
are added.  The containers are then vacuum sealed and heated (pasteurized) until the temperature at
the center of the cucumbers reaches about 74°C (165°F) for about 15 minutes.  The product is then
cooled, and the containers are labeled, packaged, and stored.

       The refrigerated process begins with grading of the pickling cucumbers, followed by washing
with water.  The washed cucumbers are packed into containers, and then salt, spices, vinegars, and
preservatives (primarily sodium benzoate) are added.  The containers are then vacuum sealed,  labeled,
and refrigerated at 34° to 40°F.  In this process, the cucumbers are not heat-processed before  or after
packing.

       In the sauerkraut process the cabbage is harvested, transported to the processing plant,
washed, and prepared for the fermentation by coring, trimming, and shredding.  The shredded
cabbage is conveyed to  a fermentation tank where salt is added up to a final concentration of 2 to
3 percent (preferably 2.25 percent), by weight. After salt addition, the mixture is allowed to ferment
at ambient temperature in a closed tank.  If insufficient salt is added or air is allowed to contact the
surface of the cabbage,  yeast and mold will grow on the surface and result in a softening of the final
sauerkraut product. When fermentation is complete, the sauerkraut contains 1.7 to 2.3 percent acid,
as lactic acid.  Following fermentation, the sauerkraut is packaged in cans, plastic bags, or glass
containers; cans are the most prevalent method.  In the canning process, the sauerkraut, containing
the original  or diluted fermentation liquor, is heated to 85° to  88 °C (185° to 190°F) by steam
injection in a thermal screw and then  packed into cans.  The cans are steam exhausted, sealed, and
cooled. After cooling, the cans are labeled, packed, and stored for shipment.  In the plastic bag
process, the sauerkraut, containing the fermentation liquor, is placed in plastic bags and chemical
additives (benzoic acid, sorbic acid, and sodium bisulfite) introduced as preservatives.  The bags are
sealed  and refrigerated. Small quantities, approximately 10 percent of the production, are packaged
in glass containers, which may be preserved by heating or using chemical additives.

Sauces —
       A typical sauce production operation involves the mixture of several ingredients, often
including salts, vinegars, sugar, vegetables, and various spices.  The mixture is allowed to ferment
for a period of time, sealed in containers, and  pasteurized to prevent further fermentation.  The
production processes for Worcestershire sauce and hot pepper  sauces are briefly described as
examples of sauce production.

       The name "Worcestershire Sauce"  is now a generic term for a type of food condiment that
originated in India.  In the preparation of the true sauce, a mixture of vinegar, molasses, sugar, soy,
anchovies, tamarinds, eschalots, garlic, onions, and salt is prepared and well mixed.  Spices,
flavorings, and water are added and the mixture transferred to an aging tank, sealed, and allowed to
mature and ferment over a period of time.  The fermenting mixture is occasionally agitated to  ensure
proper blending.  After fermentation is complete, the mixture is processed by filtration through a
mesh screen which allows the finer particles of the mixture to  remain in the liquid. The product is
then pasteurized prior to bottling to prevent further fermentation. Following bottling, the product is
cooled, labeled, and packaged.

       Hot sauce or pepper sauce is a generic name given to a large array of bottled condiments
produced by several manufacturers in the U. S.  The hot peppers, usually varieties of Capsicum
annum and Capsicum frutescens,  give the products their heat and characteristic flavor; vinegar is the
usual liquid medium.  Manufacturing  processes vary by producer; however, in most, the harvested


9.8.3-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 8/95
-------
hot peppers are washed and either ground for immediate use or stored whole in brine for several
months until processed.  In processing, the whole peppers are ground, salt and vinegar added, and the
mixture passed through a filter to remove seeds and skin.  The end-product, a stable suspension of the
pulp from the pepper, vinegar, and salt, is then bottled, labeled, and stored for shipment.

Salad Dressings —
        Salad dressings (except products modified in calories, fat, or cholesterol) are typically made
up of oil, vinegar, spices, and other food ingredients to develop the desired taste.  These dressings
are added to many types of foods to enhance flavor. There are U. S. FDA Standards of Identity for
three general classifications of salad dressings:  mayonnaise, spoonable (semisolid) salad dressing, and
French dressing. All other dressings are nonstandardized and are typically referred to as "pourable".

        Mayonnaise is a semisolid emulsion of edible vegetable oil, egg yolk or whole egg, acidifying
ingredients (vinegar, lemon or lime juice), seasonings  (e. g., salt, sweeteners, mustard,  paprika),
citric acid, malic acid, crystallization inhibitors, and sequestrants to preserve color and flavor.
Mayonnaise  is an oil-in-water type emulsion where egg is the emulsifying agent and vinegar and salt
are the principal bacteriological preservatives.  The production process begins with mixing water,
egg, and dry ingredients and slowly adding oil while agitating the mixture.  Vinegar is then added to
the mixture and,  after mixing is complete, containers are filled, capped, labeled,  and stored or
shipped. Improved texture and uniformity of the final product is achieved through the use of
colloidalizing or homogenizing machines.

        Salad dressing is a spoonable (semisolid) combination of oil, cooked starch paste base, and
other ingredients. During salad dressing production, the starch paste base is prepared by mixing
starch (e. g., food starch, tapioca, wheat or rye flours) with water and vinegar.  Optional ingredients
include salt,  nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners  (e. g., sugar, dextrose, corn syrup, honey), any spice
(except saffron and turneric) or natural flavoring, monosodium glutamate, stabilizers and thickeners,
citric and/or malic acid, sequestrants, and crystallization inhibitors. To prepare the salad dressing, a
portion of the starch paste and other optional ingredients, except the oil, are blended and then the oil
is slowly added to form a "preemulsion". When one-half of the oil is incorporated, the  remainder of
the starch paste is added at the same rate as the oil.  After all of the starch paste and oil have been
added, the mixture continues to blend until the ingredients are thoroughly mixed and then the mixture
is milled to  a uniform consistency.  The salad dressing is placed into containers that are subsequently
capped, labeled, and stored or shipped.

        Liquid dressings, except  French dressing, do not have a FDA Standard of Identity.  They are
pourable products that contain vegetable oil as  a basic  ingredient. Dressings may also contain catsup,
tomato paste, vinegars, cheese, sherry,  spices, and other natural ingredients. Liquid dressings are
packaged either as separable products with distinct proportions of oil and aqueous phases or as
homogenized dressings that are produced by  the addition of stabilizers and emulsifiers.   The
homogenized dressings are then passed  through a homogenizer or colloidalizing machine prior to
bottling.

9.8.3.3 Emissions And Controls4

        No source tests have been performed to quantify emissions resulting from the production of
pickles, sauerkraut, sauces, or salad dressings.  For  most of these industries, processes are conducted
in closed tanks or other vessels and would not be expected to produce significant emissions.  For
some products, in certain instances, the potential exists for emissions of paniculate matter (PM) or
odor (VOC).


8/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.8.3-3
-------
       Emissions of PM potentially could result from solids handling, solids size reduction, and
cooking. If raw vegetables are transported directly from the field, the unloading of these vegetables
could result in emissions of dust or vegetative matter. For those products that involve cooking or
evaporative condensation in open vessels, PM emissions may be produced by condensation of vapors
and may be in the low-micrometer or submicrometer particle-size range.

       The VOC emissions are most usually associated with thermal processing steps (e. g., cooking
or evaporative condensation) or other processing steps performed in open vessels. Thermal
processing  steps conducted in closed vessels generally do not result in VOC emissions.  Gaseous
compounds emitted from those steps conducted in open vessels may contain malodorous VOC.

       Because no emission data are available that quantify any VOC, HAP, or PM emissions from
any of these industries, emission factors cannot be developed.

       A number of VOC and particulate emission control techniques are potentially available to
these industries. These include the traditional approaches of wet scrubbers, dry sorbants, and
cyclones.  No information is available on controls  actually used in these industries. The controls
discussed in this section are ones that theoretically could be used.  The applicability of controls and
the specific type of control device or combination of devices would vary from facility to facility
depending upon the particular nature of the emissions and the pollutant concentration in the gas
stream.

       For general industrial processes,  control of VOC from a gas stream can be accomplished
using one of several techniques but the most common methods are absorption, adsorption, and
afterburners.  Absorptive methods encompass  all types of wet scrubbers using aqueous solutions to
absorb the  VOC. The most common scrubber systems are packed columns or beds,  plate columns,
spray towers, or other types of towers.  Adsorptive methods could include one of four main
adsorbents: activated carbon, activated alumina, silica gel, or molecular sieves; activated carbon is the
most widely used for VOC control.  Afterburners may be either thermal incinerators or catalytic
combustors.

       Particulate control commonly employs methods such as venturi scrubbers, dry cyclones, wet
or dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs),  or dry filter systems.  The most common controls are likely
to be the venturi scrubbers or dry cyclones. Wet or  dry ESPs could be used depending upon the
particulate  loading of the gas stream.

References  For Section 9.8.3

1.      1987 Census of Manufacturers, MC87-1-20-C,  Industries Series, Preserved Fruits And
       Vegetables.

2.     G.  Fuller and G.  G. Dull, "Processing Of  Horticultural Crops In The United States", in
       Handbook Of Processing And Utilization In Agriculture, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL,
        1983.

3.     N.W. Desrosier, Elements Of Food Technology, AVI Publishing Company, Westport, CT,
        1977.

4.     H.  J. Rafson, Odor Emission Control For  The Food Industry, Food  Technology, June 1977.
9.8.3-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                8/95
-------
9.9  Grain Processing




9.9.1 Grain Elevators And Processes



9.9.2 Cereal Breakfast Food




9.9.3 Pet Food




9.9.4 Alfalfa Dehydration




9.9.5 Pasta Manufacturing




9.9.6 Bread Baking




9.9.7 Corn Wet Milling
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                           9.9-1
-------
9.9.1 Grain Elevators And Processes

                                      [Work In Progress]

       The recommended interim AP-42 Section on Grain Elevators And Processes is available either
through the Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTN BBS) of EPA's Office Of Air
Quality Planning And Standards or from the Emission Factor And Inventory Group's Fax CHIEF
service.

       The BBS can be accessed with a computer and modem at (919) 541-5407.  The interim
Section is found on the BBS in the "Q&A's/Policies/Recommendations" area under the "AP-42/EF
Guidance" area of the "Clearinghouse For Emission Inventories And Factors" technical area.

       The interim Section can be obtained also from the Fax CHIEF service by calling (919)
541-0548 or -5626 from the telephone handset of a facsimile machine and following the directions
provided to request a document.

       For assistance with either of these procedures, call the Info CHIEF help desk, (919)
541-5285, between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm Eastern time, Tuesday through Friday.

       The interim emission factors for Grain Elevators And Processes are subject to change pending
completion of emission source testing being conducted in early 1996.
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.9.1-1
-------
 9.9.2  Cereal Breakfast Food

 9.9.2,1 General1

        Breakfast cereal products were originally sold as milled grains of wheat and oats that required
 further cooking in the home prior to consumption.  In this century, due to efforts to reduce the amount
 of in-home preparation time, breakfast cereal technology has evolved from the simple procedure of
 milling grains for cereal products that require cooking to the manufacturing of highly sophisticated
 ready-to-eat products that are convenient and quickly prepared.

 9.9.2.2 Process Description1"3

        Breakfast cereals can be categorized into traditional  (hot) cereals that require further  cooking
 or heating before  consumption and ready-to-eat (cold) cereals that can be consumed from the box  or
 with the addition  of milk.  The process descriptions in this section were adapted primarily from
 reference 3 and represent generic processing steps.  Actual processes may vary considerably between
 plants, even those manufacturing the same type of cereal.

 Traditional Cereals -
        Traditional cereals are those requiring cooking or heating prior to consumption and are made
 from oats, farina (wheat), rice, and corn.  Almost all (99 percent) of the traditional cereal market are
 products produced from oats (over 81 percent) and farina (approximately 18 percent).  Cereals  made
 from rice, corn (excluding corn grits), and wheat (other  than farina) make up less than 1 percent of
 traditional cereals.

        Oat cereals. The three types of oat cereals are old-fashioned oatmeal, quick oatmeal, and
 instant oatmeal.  Old-fashioned oatmeal is made of rolled oat groats (dehulled oat kernels) and is
 prepared by adding water and boiling for up to  30  minutes.  Quick oat cereal consists of thinner flakes
 made by rolling cut groats and is  prepared by cooking for 1  to  15 minutes.  Instant oatmeal is similar
 to quick oats but with additional treatments, such as the incorporation of gum to improve hydration;
 hot water is added but no other cooking is required.  The major steps in the production of traditional
 oat cereal include grain receiving, cleaning, drying, hulling,  groat processing, steaming, and flaking.
 Figure 9.9.2-1 is a generic process flow diagram for traditional oat cereal production.

        Oats arrive at the mill via bulk railcar or truck and are sampled to ensure suitable quality for
 milling.  Once the grain is deemed acceptable, it is passed over a receiving separator to remove coarse
 and fine material and binned according to milling criteria. Raw grain handling and processing  is
 discussed in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.

        Cleaning removes foreign material,  such as dust, stems, and weed seeds, and oats that are
 unsuitable for milling. The cleaning process utilizes  several devices to take advantage of particular
 physical properties of the grain.  For example, screens utilize the overall  size of the grain, aspirators
 and gravity tables utilize grain density, and discs with indent pockets and/or indent cylinders  utilize the
 grain length or shape.  After completing the cleaning process, the grain is called clean milling oats or
green oats.

        In the hulling process, most facilities use the impact huller, which separates the hull from the
groat by impact, rather than traditional stone hulling. The groat is the portion of the oat that remains

8/95                              Food  And Agricultural Industry                            9.9.2-1
-------
                 GRAIN RECEIVING
                           PM
                    CLEANING
                           PM
   HULLING
                                              PM
                      GROAT
                   PROCESSING
  STEAMING
                                              VOC
   FLAKING
                                              PM
                    PACKAGING
9.9.2-2
Figure 9.9.2-1. Traditional oat cereal production.

         EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
after the hull has been removed and is the part processed for human consumption.  In impact hulling,
the oats are fed through a rotating disc and flung out to strike the wall of the cylindrical housing
tangentially, which separates the hull from the groat. The mixed  material then falls to the bottom of
the huller and is subjected to aspiration to separate the hulls from the groats.  Impact hulling does not
require predrying of the oats, although some facilities still use the traditional dry-pan process to
impart a more nutty and less raw or green flavor to the final product.  In the traditional dry-pan
process, the green oats are dried in a stack of circular pans heated indirectly by steam to a surface
temperature of 93° to  100°C (200° to 212°F).  However, most facilities utilize enclosed vertical or
horizontal grain conditioners or kilns to dry the groat after it has been separated from the hull because
of the inefficiency of drying hulls.  The grain conditioners have both direct (sparging) steam and
indirect steam to heat the oats and impart flavor to the groats  comparable to that resulting from the
pan drying process.

        After the groats are hulled, they are sized to separate the largest groats from the average-sized
groats.  The large groats are used  to make the so-called old-fashioned oats and the other groats are
cut using steel cutters to make quick oats. After groat processing, the groats (either whole or cut
pieces, depending on the end product) typically pass through an atmospheric steamer located above
the rollers.  The groats must remain in contact with the live steam long enough to  achieve a moisture
content increase from 8 to 10 percent up to  10 to  12 percent,  which is sufficient to provide
satisfactory flakes when the whole or steel-cut groats are rolled.

        The production of old-fashioned oat and quick oat flakes is the same, except for the starting
material (old-fashioned oats start with whole groats and quick oats start with steel-cut groats).  Both
products are rolled between two cast iron equal-speed rolls in rigid end frames.  Quick-oat  products
are rolled thinner than old-fashioned oats. Following rolling, the flakes are typically cooled and
directed to packaging bins for holding.

        Instant oatmeal is processed similarly to quick oatmeal through the  steaming stage.  After the
groats  are steamed, they are rolled thinner than those of quick oatmeal.  The final product,  along with
specific amounts of hydrocolloid gum, salt, and other additives, is packaged into premeasured
individual servings. The most important difference between instant oatmeal and other oatmeal
products is  the addition of hydrocolloid gum, which replaces the natural oat gums that would be
leached from the flakes during traditional cooking, thus accelerating hydration  of the flakes.

        The standard package for old-fashioned and quick oatmeal is the spirally wound two-ply fiber
tube with a paper label.  Folded cartons  are also used to package old-fashioned and quick oatmeal.
Most of the instant hot cereals are packed in individual,  single-serving pouches.

        Farina cereals.  Cereals made from farina are the second largest segment of the traditional hot
cereal market, making up 18 percent.  Farina is essentially wheat endosperm in granular form that is
free from bran and germ. The preferred  wheat for producing farina is hard red or winter wheat
because the granules of endosperm for these types of wheat stay intact when hot cereals are prepared
at home.  As shown in Figure 9.9.2-2, farina cereal production begins with the receiving and milling
of wheat.  Information on wheat receiving, handling, and milling  can be found in AP-42
Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.  After milling,  traditional farina cereals are packaged.
Quick cook farina cereals are prepared primarily by the addition of disodium phosphate, with or
without the further addition of a protcolytic enzyme. An instant (cook-in-the-bowl) product may be
made by wetting and pressure-cooking the farina,  then flaking and redrying prior to portion
packaging.

        Wheat, rice, and corn cereals. Other traditional cereals include whole  wheat cereals, rice
products, and corn products.  These cereals make up less than 1 percent of the traditional cereal

8/95                              Food  And Agricultural Industry                            9.9.2-3
-------
                                GRAIN RECEIVING  f	^  PM




                                   MILLING       	^-  PM



                                 T:
                                  STEAMING8     I-	^~ VOC




                                   FLAKING*


                               m
                                HEAT TREATMENT  j-	^~  VOC




                                  PACKAGING     [	-^-  PM
    aNot required for traditional or quick-cooking farina cereals.
9.9.2-4
Figure 9.9.2-2. Typical instant cook farina cereal production.



             EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
market.  Whole wheat traditional cereals include milled, rolled, and cracked wheat products. Milled
cereals are made in a hard wheat flour mill by drawing off medium-grind milled streams. Rice
products have yet to find acceptance as a hot cereal, although rice can be ground into particles about
the size of farina and cooked into a hot cereal resembling farina.  Corn products include corn grits,
cornmeal, corn flour, and corn bran.  Corn grits are served primarily as a vegetable accompaniment
to the main breakfast item and are not usually classified as a breakfast cereal although they can be
consumed as  such.  Cornmeal, corn flour, and corn bran are used primarily as ingredients in the
preparation of other foods and are not classified as breakfast cereals.

Ready-To-Eat Cereals -
        In the United States, the word "cereal"  is typically synonymous with a processed product that
is suitable for human consumption with or without further cooking at home and is usually eaten at
breakfast.  Ready-to-eat cereals are typically grouped by cereal form rather than the type of grain
used. These  groups are flaked cereals, extruded flaked cereals, gun-puffed whole grains, extruded
gun-puffed cereals, oven-puffed cereals, shredded whole grains, extruded shredded cereals, and
granola cereals.

        Flaked cereals. Flaked cereals are made directly from whole grain kernels or parts of kernels
of corn, wheat, or rice and are processed in such a way as to obtain particles, called flaking grits,
that form one flake each.  The production of flaked cereals involves preprocessing,  mixing,  cooking,
delumping, drying, cooling  and tempering, flaking, toasting, and packaging.  A general process flow
diagram for cereal flake production is presented in Figure 9.9.2-3.  Grain preparation, including
receiving, handling, cleaning, and hulling, for flaked cereal production is similar to that discussed
under traditional cereal production and in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.
Before the grains can be cooked and made into  flakes, they must  undergo certain preprocessing steps.
For corn, this entails dry  milling regular field corn to remove the germ and the bran from the kernel,
leaving chunks of endosperm. Wheat is preprocessed by steaming the kernels lightly and running
them through a pair of rolls to break open the kernels. Care is taken not to produce flour or fine
material.  Rice does not require any special preprocessing steps for the production of rice flakes other
than those  steps involved  in milling rough rice to form the polished head rice that is the normal
starting material.

        The corn, wheat, or rice grits are mixed with a flavor solution that includes sugar,  malt, salt,
and water.  Weighed  amounts of raw  grits and flavor solution are then charged into rotating batch
cookers. After the grits are evenly coated with the flavor syrup,  steam is released into the rotating
cooker to begin the cooking process.  The cooking is complete when each kernel or kernel  part has
been changed from a  hard, chalky white to a soft, translucent, golden brown.  When the cooking  is
complete, rotation stops, the steam is turned off,  and vents located on the cooker are opened to
reduce the  pressure inside the cooker to ambient conditions and to cool its contents.  The exhaust
from these vents may be connected to a vacuum system for more rapid cooling.  After pressure is
relieved, the  cooker is uncapped and the rotation  restarted. The cooked grits are then dumped onto
moving conveyor belts located under the cooker discharge. The conveyors then pass through
delumping equipment to break and size the loosely held-together grits into mostly single grit particles.
Large volumes of air are typically drawn through the delumping equipment to help cool the product.
It may be necessary to perform delumping and cooling in different steps to get proper separation of
the grits so that they are the optimum size for drying; in this case, cooling is typically performed first
to stop the cooking action and to eliminate stickiness from the grit surface.  After cooking and
delumping, the grits are metered  in a uniform flow to the dryer.  Drying is typically performed at
temperatures  below 121 °C (250°F) and under controlled humidity, which prevents case hardening of
the grit and greatly decreases the time needed for drying to the desired moisture level.  After drying,
the grits are cooled to ambient temperature,  usually in an unheated section of the dryer.  After they
are cooled, the grits are tempered by holding them in large accumulating bins to allow the moisture

8/95                             Food And Agricultural  Industry                          9.9.2-5
-------
                              PREPROCESSING
                                            PM
          ADDITIVES-
                  MIXER
                                      BLENDED GRITS
                                 COOKER
                                                             VOC
                                      COOKED LUMPS
                                        OF GRITS
                                 DELUMPER
                                      INDIVIDUAL COOKED
                                         GRIT PIECES
                                   DRYER
                                        DRY GRIT
                                        PIECES
                                COOLING AND
                                 TEMPERING
                                         COOL/DRY
                                       GRIT PROCESS
                                            FLAKER

                                       FLAKED PIECES
                                   DRYER/
                                  TOASTER
                                 PACKAGING
                                             VOC
                                            VOC
                                             VOC
                                                              PM
                                              VOC




                                              PM

                                              VOC
9.9.2-6
Figure 9.9.2-3.  Process diagram for cereal flake production.1

                EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
content to equilibrate between the grit particles as well as from the center of the individual particles to
the surface.  After tempering, the grits pass between pairs of very large metal rolls that press them
into very thin flakes. Flakes are toasted by suspending them in a hot air stream, rather than by laying
them onto a flat baking surface.  The ovens, sloped from feed end to discharge  end, are perforated on
the inside to  allow air flow.  These perforations are as large as possible for good air flow but small
enough so that flakes cannot catch in them. The toasted flakes are then cooled  and sent to packaging.

        Extruded flake cereals.  Extruded flakes differ from traditional  flakes in that the grit for
flaking is formed by extruding mixed ingredients through a die and cutting pellets of the  dough into
the desired size.  The steps in extruded flake production are preprocessing,  mixing, extruding, drying,
cooling and tempering,  flaking, toasting, and packaging.  Figure 9.9.2-4 presents a generic process
flow diagram for the production of extruded flake cereals. The primary difference between extruded
flake production and traditional flake production is that extruded flakes replace  the cooking and
delumping steps used in traditional flake production with an extruding step.  The extruder is a long,
barrel-like apparatus that performs several operations along its length.  The first part of the barrel
kneads or crushes the grain and mixes the ingredients  together.  The flavor solution may be added
directly to the barrel  of the extruder by means of a metering pump.  Heat input to the barrel of the
extruder near the feed point is  kept low to allow the ingredients to  mix properly before any cooking
or gelatinization starts.  Heat is applied to the center section of the extruder barrel to cook the
ingredients.  The die is located at the end of the last section, which is generally cooler than the rest of
the barrel.  The dough remains in a compact form as it extrudes through the die and a rotating knife
slices it into  properly-sized pellets.  The remaining  steps for extruded flakes (drying, cooling, flaking,
toasting, and packaging) are the same as for traditional flake production.

        Gun-puffed whole  grain cereals. Gun-puffed whole grains are formed by cooking the grains
and then subjecting them to a sudden large pressure drop.  As steam under pressure in the interior of
the grain seeks to equilibrate with the surrounding lower-pressure atmosphere,  it forces the grains to
expand quickly or "puff."  Rice and wheat are the only types of grain used in gun-puffed whole grain
production, which involves pretreatment,  puffing, screening, drying,  and cooling.  A general process
flow diagram is shown  in Figure 9.9.2-5.  Wheat requires pretreating to prevent the bran from
loosening from the grain in a ragged, haphazard manner, in which  some of the  bran adheres to the
kernels and other parts to be blown partially off the kernels. One form of pretreatment is to add
4 percent, by weight, of a  saturated  brine solution (26 percent salt) to the wheat.  Another form of
pretreatment, called pearling, removes part of the bran altogether before puffing.  The only
pretreatment required for rice is normal milling to produce head rice.  Puffing can be performed with
manual single-shot guns, automatic single-shot, automatic multiple-shot guns, or continuous guns.  In
manual single-shot guns, grain is loaded into the opening of the gun and the lid is closed and sealed.
As the gun begins to  rotate, gas burners heat the sides of the gun body causing  the moisture in the
grain to convert to steam.  When the lid is opened,  the sudden change in pressure causes the grain to
puff.  Automatic single-shot guns operate on the same principle, except that steam is injected directly
into the gun body.  Multiple-shot guns have several barrels mounted on a slowly rotating wheel so
that each barrel passes the  load and fire positions at the correct time. The load, steam, and fire
process for any one barrel  is identical to that of the single-shot gun.  After the grain is puffed, it is
screened and dried before it is  packaged.  The final  product is very porous and  absorbs moisture
rapidly and easily so  it must be packaged in materials  that possess good moisture barrier  qualities.

        Extruded gun-puffed cereals. Extruded gun-puffed cereals use a meal or flour  as the starting
ingredient instead of whole grains. The dough cooks in the extruders and is then formed into the
desired shape when extruded through a die. The extrusion process for  gun-puffed cereals is similar to
that for extruded flake production.  After the dough is extruded, it  is dried and  tempered. It then
undergoes the same puffing and final processing steps  as described  for whole grain gun-puffed
cereals.

8/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.9.2-7
-------
             ADDITIVES
9.9.2-8
Figure 9.9.2-4.  Process diagram for extruded flake production.1




                  EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
                              PRETREATMENT
8/95
Figure 9.9.2-5.  Gun-puffed whole grain production.1




         Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.2-9
-------
       Oven-puffed cereals. Oven-puffed cereals are made almost exclusively using whole-grain rice
or corn, or mixtures of these two grains, because rice and corn inherently puff in the presence of high
heat and the proper moisture content.  The grains are mixed with sugar, salt, water, and malt and
then pressure-cooked.  After cooking, the grain is conveyed through a cooling and sizing operation.
After cooling and sizing, the kernels are dried and tempered.  The kernels are then passed through
flaking rolls to flatten them slightly. The kernels are dried again and then oven-puffed, which
requires a proper balance between kernel moisture content and oven temperature.  After puffing, the
cereal is cooled, fortified with vitamins (if necessary), and frequently treated with  antioxidants to
preserve freshness.  The final product is then packaged.

       Whole-grain shredded cereals.  Wheat (white wheat) is primarily used to produce shredded
whole grains.  The steps involved in producing whole-grain shredded cereal are grain cleaning,
cooking, cooling and tempering, shredding, biscuit formation, biscuit baking, and  packaging.  A
generic process flow diagram for shredded cereal production is presented in Figure 9.9.2-6.  Cooking
is typically performed in batches with excess water at temperatures slightly below  the boiling point at
atmospheric pressure.  Cooking vessels usually have horizontal baskets big enough to hold 50 bushels
of raw wheat.  Steam is injected directly into the water to heat the grain.  After the cooking cycle is
completed, the water is drained from the vessel and the cooked wheat is dumped and conveyed to
cooling units, which surface-dry the wheat and reduce the temperature to ambient  levels, thus
stopping the cooking process.  After the grain is cooled, it is placed  in large holding bins and allowed
to temper.  The shredding  process squeezes the wheat kernels  between one roll with a smooth surface
and another roll with a grooved surface. A comb is positioned against the grooved roll and the comb
teeth pick the wheat shred  from the groove.  There are many variations in the grooved roll.  After the
shreds are produced, they fall in layers onto a conveyer moving under the rolls.  After the web of
many layers of shreds reaches the end  of the shredder, it is fed through  a cutting device to form the
individual biscuits.  The edges  of the cutting device are dull, rather than sharp, so that the cutting
action compresses the edges of the biscuit together to form a crimped joint,  which holds the shreds
together in biscuit form. After the individual biscuits are formed, they are baked  in a band or
continuous conveyor-belt oven. After  the biscuits are baked and dried, they  are ready for packaging.

       Extruded shredded cereals. Extruded shredded cereals are made in much the same way as
whole-grain shredded cereals except that extruded shredded cereals use a meal or flour as a raw
material instead of  whole grains.   Raw grains include wheat, corn, rice, and oats,  and, because the
grains are used in flour form, they can be used alone or in mixtures.  The steps  involved in extruded
shredded cereal production are grain preprocessing (including  grain receiving, handling,  and milling),
mixing, extruding,  cooling and tempering, shredding, biscuit formation,  baking, drying, and
packaging.  The preprocessing, mixing, extruding, and cooling and tempering steps are the same as
those discussed for other types of cereal.  Shredding, biscuit formation, baking,  drying, and
packaging are the same as  for whole-grain shredded cereal.  Extruded shredded cereals are typically
made into small, bite-size  biscuits, instead of the larger biscuits of whole-grain shredded wheat.

       Granola cereals. Granola cereals are ready-to-eat cereals that are prepared by taking regular,
old-fashioned whole-rolled oats or quick-cooking oats and mixing them  with other ingredients,  such  as
nut pieces, coconut, brown sugar, honey, malt extract, dried milk, dried fruits, water, cinnamon,
nutmeg,  and vegetable oil. This  mixture is then spread in a uniform layer onto the band of a
continuous dryer or oven.   The toasted layer is then broken into chunks.

Packaging -
       The package materials  for ready-to-eat breakfast cereals include printed paperboard cartons,
protective liners, and the necessary adhesives.  The cartons are  printed and  produced by carton
suppliers and are delivered, unfolded and stacked on pallets, to the breakfast cereal manufacturers.

9.9.2-10                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 8/95
-------
                                GRAIN
                               CLEANING
                                      PM
                               COOKING
                                 T
                              COOKING AND
                              TEMPERING
                                 i
                                                          voc
                                     VOC

                                      PM
        (   V    ) SHREDDING-
                                                               VOC
                                  »
                                BISCUIT
                               FORMATION
                                BAKING
                                                          VOC
                                DRYING
                                                          VOC
                              PACKAGING
                                     VOC
8/95
Figure 9.9.2-6.  Whole grain shredded cereal production.

            Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.2-11
-------
The liners, also supplied by outside sources, must be durable and impermeable to moisture or
moisture vapor.  However, cereals that are not hygroscopic and/or retain satisfactory texture in
moisture equilibrium with ambient atmosphere do not require moisture-proof liners. The most
common type of liners used today are made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) film.  The
adhesives used in cereal packaging are water-based emulsions and hot melts.  The cereal industry is
the second largest user of adhesives for consumer products.  Several variations of packaging lines
may be used in the ready-to-eat breakfast cereal industry, including lines that fill the liners either
before or after they have been inserted into the carton and lines that utilize more manual labor and
less automated equipment.

9.9.2.3  Emissions And Controls

        Air emissions may  arise from a variety of sources in breakfast cereal manufacturing.
Paniculate matter (PM) emissions result mainly from solids handling and mixing.  For breakfast
cereal manufacturing, PM emissions occur during the milling and processing of grain, as the raw
ingredients are dumped, weighed, and mixed, as the grains are hulled, and possibly during screening,
drying, and packaging.  Emission sources associated  with grain milling and processing include grain
receiving, precleaning and handling, cleaning house separators, milling, and bulk loading.  Applicable
emission factors for these processes are presented in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and
Processes. There are no data on PM emissions from mixing of ingredients or packaging for breakfast
cereal production.

        Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions  may potentially occur at almost any stage in the
production of breakfast cereal, but most usually are associated  with thermal processing steps, such as
drying, steaming, heat treatment, cooking, toasting, extruding, and puffing.  Adhesives used during
packaging of the final product may also be a source of VOC emissions. No information is available,
however, on any  VOC emissions resulting from these processes of breakfast cereal  manufacturing.

        Control technology to control PM emissions from breakfast cereal manufacturing is similar to
that discussed  in AP-42 Section  9.9.1, Grain Elevators  and Processes.  Because of the operational
similarities, emission control methods are similar in most grain milling and processing plants.
Cyclones or fabric filters are often used to control emissions from grain handling operations
(e. g., unloading, legs, cleaners, etc.) and also from other processing operations. Fabric filters are
used extensively in flour mills.  However, certain operations within milling operations are not
amenable to the use of these  devices and  alternatives  are needed. Wet scrubbers, for example, are
applied where the effluent gas stream  has a high moisture content.  No information exists for VOC
emission control technology for  breakfast cereal manufacturing.

References For Section 9.9.2

1.      R. E. Tribelhorn,  "Breakfast Cereals", Handbook Of Cereal Science And Technology,
        K. J. Lorenz and K.  Kulp, Editors.  Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1991.

2.      1987 Census Of Manufactures: Grain Mill Products, Industry Series.  U. S.
        Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.  Issued April 1990.

3.      R. B. Fast, "Manufacturing Technology Of Ready-To-Eat Cereals", Breakfast Cereals
        And How They Are Made,  R.  B.  Fast and E.  F. Caldwell, Editors. American
        Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., 1990.

4.      D. L.  Maxwell and J. L. Holohan, "Breakfast Cereals", Elements Of Food
        Technology, N. W. Desrosier, Editor.  AVI Publishing Company, Inc., 1977.

9.9.2-12                            EMISSION FACTORS                                 8/95
-------
9.9.3 Pet Food



                                     [Work In Progress]
 1/95                          Food And Agricultural Industries                         993-1
-------
9.9.4 Alfalfa Dehydrating

9.9.4.1  General1"2

        Dehydrated alfalfa is a meal product resulting from the rapid drying of alfalfa by artificial
means.  Alfalfa meal is processed into pellets for use in chicken rations, cattle feed, hog rations, sheep
feed, turkey mash, and other formula feeds. It is important for its protein content, growth and
reproductive factors, pigmenting xanthophylls, and vitamin contributions.

9.9.4.2  Process Description1"5

        A schematic of a generalized alfalfa dehydrator plant is given in Figure 9.9.4-1. Standing
alfalfa is windrowed in the field to allow wilting to reduce moisture to an acceptable level balancing
energy requirements, trucking requirements, and dehydrator capacity while maintaining the alfalfa
quality and leaf quantity. The windrowed alfalfa is then chopped and hauled to the dehydration plant.
The truck dumps the chopped alfalfa (wet chops) onto  a self-feeder, which carries it into a direct-fired
rotary drum. Within the drum, the wet chops  are dried from an initial moisture content of about 30 to
70 percent (by weight, wet basis) to about 6 to 12 percent. Typical combustion gas temperatures
within the gas-fired drum range from 154° to 816°C (300° to 1500°F) at the inlet to 60° to 95°C (140°
to 21()°F) at the outlet.

        From the drying drum, the dry chops are pneumatically conveyed  into a primary cyclone that
separates them from the  high-moisture, high-temperature exhaust stream.   From the primary cyclone,
the chops are fed into a hammermill, which grinds the  dry chops into  a meal.  The meal is
pneumatically conveyed  from the hammermill into a meal collector cyclone in which the meal is
separated from the airstream and  discharged into a holding bin. The exhaust is recycled to a  bag filter
(baghouse). The meal is then fed into a pellet mill where it is steam conditioned  and extruded into
pellets.

        From the pellet mill, the pellets are either pneumatically or mechanically conveyed to a cooler,
through which  air is drawn to cool the pellets and, in some cases, remove fines. Fines are more
commonly  removed using shaker screens located ahead of or following the cooler, with the fines being
conveyed back into the meal collector cyclone, meal bin, or pellet  mill.  Cyclone  separators may be
employed to  separate entrained fines in the cooler exhaust and to collect pellets when the pellets are
pneumatically conveyed from the pellet mill to the cooler.

        Following cooling and screening, the pellets are transferred to bulk storage. Dehydrated alfalfa
is most  often stored and  shipped in pellet form, although the pellets may also be ground in a
hammermill and shipped in  meal  form.  When the finished or ground pellets are pneumatically or
mechanically transferred to storage or loadout, additional cyclones  may be used for product airstream
separation.

9.9.4.3  Emissions And Controls1"3'5"7

       Particulate matter (PM) is the primary pollutant emitted from alfalfa dehydrating plants,
although some  odors may arise from the organic volatiles  driven off during drying and  pellet
formation.  The major source of PM emissions  is the primary cyclone following the dryer drum.
9/96                             Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.9.4-1
-------
                                            yOA3ANOO OIlWinBNd *>
9.9.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/96
-------
 Lesser emission sources include the downstream cyclone separators and the bagging and loading
 operations.

        Emission factors for various dryer types utilized in alfalfa dehydrating plants are given in
 Table 9.9.4-1.  Note that, although these sources are common to many plants, there will be
 considerable variation from the generalized flow diagram in Figure 9.9.4-1 depending on the desired
 nature of the product, the physical layout of the plant, and the modifications made for air pollution
 control.

             Table 9.9.4-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALFALFA DEHYDRATION3

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Triple-pass dryer cyclone
- Gas-fired
(SCC 3-02-001-11)
- Coal-firedb
(SCC 3-02-001-12)
Single-pass dryer cyclone
- Gas-fired
(SCC 3-02-001-15)
- Wood-fired
(SCC 3-02-001 -17)
Meal collector cyclone
(SCC 3-02-001-03)
- Bag filter
Pellet collector cyclone
(SCC 3-02-001-07)
Pellet cooler cyclone
(SCC 3-02-001-04)
Storage bin cyclone
(SCC 3-02-001-20)
Paniculate (PM)
Filterable

4.8
7.5

4.1
3.1
ND

ND
ND
ND
Condensible

1.0
ND

0.65
1.3
ND

ND
ND
ND
VOC

ND
ND

ND
ND
NA

ND
NA
NA
Ref.

8-9
13

10-11
12,14





   a  Emission factor units are Ib/ton of finished pellet produced, unless noted.  To convert from
     Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = No data.
     NA = Not applicable.
     Emission factor based on quantity of dried alfalfa to hammermill.

       Air pollution control (and product recovery) is  accomplished in alfalfa dehydrating plants in a
variety of ways. A simple, yet effective technique is the proper maintenance and operation of the
alfalfa dehydrating equipment.  Paniculate emissions can be reduced significantly if the feeder
discharge rates  are uniform, if the dryer furnace is operated properly, if proper  airflows are employed
in the cyclone collectors, and if the hammermill is well maintained and not overloaded. It is
especially important in this regard not to overdry  and possibly burn the chops as this results  in the
generation of smoke and increased fines in the grinding and pelletizing operations.

       Equipment modification provides another  means of paniculate control.  Existing cyclones can
be replaced with more efficient cyclones and concomitant air flow systems. In addition, the  furnace
and burners can be modified or replaced to minimize flame impingement on the incoming green chops.
9/96
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.4-3
-------
In plants where the hammermill is a production bottleneck, a tendency exists to overdry the chops to
increase throughput, which results in increased emissions. Adequate hammermill capacity can reduce
this practice. Recent improvements in process technique and emission control technology have
reduced paniculate emissions from dehydration facilities.  Future technology should contribute to
further reductions in paniculate emissions.

       Secondary control devices can be employed on the cyclone collector exhaust streams.
Generally, this practice has been  limited to the installation of secondary cyclones or fabric filters on
the meal collector, pellet collector or pellet cooler cyclones.  Primary cyclones are not controlled by
fabric filters because of the high  moisture content in the resulting exhaust stream.  Medium  energy wet
scrubbers are effective in reducing paniculate emissions from the primary cyclones, but have only
been installed at a few plants.

       Some plants employ  cyclone effluent recycle systems for paniculate control.  One system
skims off the particulate-laden portion of the primary cyclone exhaust and returns it to the alfalfa
dryer.  Another system recycles a large portion of the meal collector cyclone exhaust  back to the
hammermill. Both systems can be effective in controlling particulates but may result in operating
problems, such as condensation in the recycle lines and plugging or overheating of the hammermill.

References  For Section 9.9.4

 1.     Air Pollution From Alfalfa  Dehydrating Mills, Technical Report A 60-4, Robert A. Taft
       Sanitary  Engineering Center, U.S.P.H.S.,  Department Of Health, Education, And Welfare,
       Cincinnati, OH.

 2.     Schafer,  R.D., "How Ohio Is Solving The Alfalfa Dust Problem", A.M.A. Archives Of
       Industrial Health, 17:61-69, January 1958.

 3.     Source information supplied by Ken Smith of the American Dehydrators Association, Mission,
       KS, December  1975.

 4.     Written correspondence from W. Cobb, American Alfalfa Processors Association,  to
       T. Campbell, Midwest Research Institute, Updated alfalfa dehydration process diagram,
       May 18, 1995.

 5.     Telephone conversation with D. Burkholder,  Shofstall Alfalfa, and  T. Lapp and T. Campbell,
       Midwest Research Institute, Clarification  of alfalfa dehydration process, June  13, 1995.

 6.     Emission Factor Development For The Feed And Grain Industry, EPA-450/3-75-054, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

 7.     Paniculate Emissions From Alfalfa Dehydrating  Plants - Control Costs And Effectiveness,
       EPA 650/2-74-007, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       January  1974.

 8.     Source Emissions Report For Gothenburg Feed Products Co.,  Gothenburg, NE, AirSource
       Technologies, Lenexa, KS, October 8, 1993.

 9.     Source Emissions Report For Shofstall Alfalfa, Alfalfa Dehydrating Facility, Odessa, NE,
       AirSource Technologies,  Lenexa, KS, October 15, 1993.


9.9.4-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 9/96
-------
 10.     Source Emissions Report For Morrison & Quirk, Inc., Alfalfa Dehydrating Facility, Lyons, NE,
        AirSource Technologies, Lenexa, KS, October 15, 1993.

 11.     Source Emissions Report For Lexington Alfalfa Dehydrators, Inc., Alfalfa Dehydrating
        Facility, Dan, NE, AirSource Technologies, Lenexa, KS, October 15, 1993.

 12.     Stack Paniculate Samples Collected At Verhoff Alfalfa, Hoytville, OH, Affiliated
        Environmental Services, Inc., Sandusky, OH, September 25, 1992.

 13.     Emission Test Report For Toledo Alfalfa, Oregon, OH, Owens-Illinois Analytical Services,
        Toledo, OH, June 4, 1987.

 14.     Stack Paniculate Samples Collected At Verhoff Alfalfa, Ottawa, OH, Affiliated Environmental
        Services, Inc., Sandusky, OH, June 28, 1995.
9/96                             Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.9.4-5
-------
9.9.5 Pasta Manufacturing

9.9.5.1  General1-2

       Although pasta products were first introduced in Italy in the 13th century, efficient
manufacturing equipment and high-quality ingredients have been available only since the 20th century.
Prior to the industrial revolution, most pasta products were made by hand in small shops.  Today,
most pasta is manufactured by continuous, high capacity extruders, which operate on the auger
extrusion principle in which kneading and extrusion are performed in a single operation. The
manufacture of pasta includes dry macaroni, noodle, and spaghetti production.

9.9.5.2 Process Description1'2

       Pasta products are produced by mixing milled wheat, water, eggs (for egg noodles or egg
spaghetti),  and sometimes optional ingredients. These ingredients are typically added to a continuous,
high capacity auger extruder, which can be equipped with a variety of dies that determine the shape
of the pasta.  The pasta is then dried and packaged for market.

Raw Materials  —
       Pasta products contain milled  wheat, water, and occasionally eggs and/or optional  ingredients.
Pasta manufacturers typically use milled durum wheat (semolina, durum granulars, and  durum flour)
in pasta production, although farina and flour from common wheat are occasionally used.  Most pasta
manufacturers prefer semolina, which consists of fine particles of uniform size and produces the
highest quality pasta product.  The water used in  pasta production should be pure, free from off-
flavors, and suitable for drinking.  Also, since pasta is produced below pasteurization temperatures,
water should be used of low bacterial  count.  Eggs (fresh eggs, frozen eggs, dry eggs, egg yolks, or
dried egg solids) are added to pasta to make egg noodles or egg spaghetti and to improve the
nutritional  quality and richness of the pasta. Small  amounts of optional ingredients, such as salt,
celery, garlic, and bay leafs, may also be  added to pasta to enhance flavor.  Disodium phosphate may
be used to  shorten cooking time.  Other ingredients, such as gum gluten, glyceryl monostearate, and
egg whites, may also be added.  All optional ingredients must be clearly labeled on the  package.

Wheat Milling —
       Durum wheat is milled into semolina,  durum granular, or durum flour using roll mills.
Semolina milling is unique in that the objective is to prepare granular middlings with  a minimum of
flour production. Grain milling is discussed in AP-42 Section 9.9,1, Grain Elevators and Processes.
After the wheat is milled, it is mixed  with water, eggs,, and any other optional ingredients.

Mixing —
       In the mixing operation, water is added to the milled wheat in a mixing trough to produce
dough with a moisture content of approximately 31  percent. Eggs and any optional ingredients may
also  be added.  Most modern pasta presses are equipped with a vacuum chamber to remove air
bubbles from the pasta before extruding.  If the air is not removed prior to extruding, small bubbles
8/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.9.5-1
-------
will form in the pasta which diminish the mechanical strength and give the finished product a white,
chalky appearance.

Extruding —
       After the dough is mixed, it is transferred to the extruder. The extrusion auger not only
forces the dough through the die, but it also kneads the dough into a homogeneous mass, controls the
rate of production, and influences the overall quality of the finished product.  Although construction
and dimension of extrusion augers vary by equipment manufacturers, most modern presses have
sharp-edged augers that have a uniform pitch over their entire length.  The auger fits into a grooved
extrusion barrel, which helps the dough move forward and reduces friction between  the auger and the
inside of the barrel.  Extrusion barrels are equipped  with a water cooling jacket to dissipate the heat
generated during the extrusion process. The cooling jacket also helps to maintain a  constant extrusion
temperature, which should be approximately  51 °C (124°F).  If the dough is too hot  (above 74°C
[165°F]), the pasta will be damaged.

       Uniform flow rate of the dough through the extruder is also important. Variances  in the flow
rate of the dough through the die cause the pasta to be extruded at different rates.  Products of
nonuniform size must be discarded  or reprocessed, which adds to the unit cost of the product.  The
inside surface of the die also influences the product appearance. Until recently, most dies were made
of bronze, which was relatively soft and required repair or periodic replacement.  Recently, dies have
been improved  by fitting the extruding surface of the die with Teflon® inserts to extend the life of the
dies and  improve the quality of the pasta.

Drying —
       Drying is the most difficult and critical step  to control in the pasta production process.  The
objective of drying is to lower the moisture content of the pasta from approximately  31 percent to 12
to 13 percent so that the finished product  will be hard, retain its shape, and store without spoiling.
Most pasta drying operations use a preliminary drier immediately  after extrusion to prevent the pasta
from sticking together.  Predrying hardens the outside surface of the pasta while keeping the inside
soft and  plastic.  A final drier is then used to remove most of the moisture from the product.

       Drying temperature  and relative humidity increments are important factors in drying.  Since
the outside surface of the pasta dries more rapidly than the inside, moisture gradients develop across
the surface to the interior of the pasta.  If dried too quickly, the pasta will crack, giving the product a
poor appearance and very low mechanical strength.  Cracking can occur during the drying process or
as long as several weeks after the product has left the drier.  If the pasta is dried too slowly, it tends
to spoil or become moldy during the drying process. Therefore, it is essential that the drying cycle
be tailored to meet the requirements of each  type of product.  If the drying cycle has been  successful,
the pasta will be firm but also flexible enough so that it can bend to  a considerable degree  before
breaking.

Packaging —
       Packaging keeps the product free  from contamination, protects the pasta from damage during
shipment and storage, and displays the product favorably.  The principal packaging  material for
noodles is the cellophane bag, which provides moisture-proof protection for the product and is used
easily on automatic packaging machines,  but is difficult to stack on grocery shelves.  Many
manufacturers utilize boxes  instead of bags to package pasta because boxes are easy  to stack, provide
good protection for fragile pasta products, and offer the opportunity to print advertising that is easier
to read than on  bags.
9.9.5-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  8/95
-------
9.9.5.3 Emissions and Controls

       Air emissions may arise from a variety of sources in pasta manufacturing.  Particulate
matter (PM) emissions result mainly from solids handling and mixing.  For pasta manufacturing, PM
emissions occur during the wheat milling process, as the raw ingredients are mixed, and possibly
during packaging. Emission sources associated with wheat milling include grain receiving,
precleaning/handling, cleaning house, milling, and bulk loading.  Applicable emission factors for
these processes are presented in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.  There are no
data for PM emissions from mixing of ingredients or packaging for pasta production.

       Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions may potentially occur at almost any stage in the
production of pasta, but most usually are associated with thermal processing steps,  such as pasta
extruding or drying.   No information is available on any VOC emissions due to the heat generated
during pasta extrusion or drying.

       Control of PM emissions from pasta manufacturing is similar to that discussed in AP-42
Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.  Because of the operational similarities, emission
control methods used in grain milling and processing plants are similar to those in  grain elevators.
Cyclones or fabric filters are often used to control emissions from the grain handling operations
(e. g., unloading, legs, cleaners, etc.) and also from other processing operations.  Fabric filters are
used extensively in flour mills.  However, certain operations within milling operations are not
amenable to the use of these devices and alternatives are needed.  Wet scrubbers, for example, may
be applied where  the effluent gas stream has a high  moisture content.

References for Section 9.9.5

1.     D. E. Walsh and K. A. Gilles, "Pasta Technology", Elements Of Food Technology,
       N. W. Desrosier, Editor, AVI  Publishing Company, Inc., 1977.

2.     1992 Census Of Manufactures: Miscellaneous Food And Kindred Products,
       Preliminary Report Industry Series, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
       Census, Issued August  1994.
8/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.9.5-3
-------
9.9.6 Bread Baking




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.9.6-1
-------
 9.9.6 Bread Baking

    USEPA Recommendation for Estimating VOC Emissions from Bread Bakeries

    The Emissions Inventory Branch recommends the equation given in "Alternative Control
 Technology Document for Bakery Oven Emissions" (EPA 453/R-92-017, December 1992) for
 estimating VOC emissions from yeast-raised bread baking point sources.  The
 equation is:

    VOC E.F.  = 0.95Yi+0.195ti-0.51S-0.86ts+1.90

 where
    VOC E.F.  = pounds VOC per ton of baked bread
    Yi         = initial baker's percent of yeast
    ti          = total yeast action time in hours
    S          = final (spike) baker's percent of yeast
    ts          = spiking time in hours

    This equation will be incorporated into a future revision of AP-42 section 9.9.6. Full details on
 the derivation and use of the equation are  contained in the ACT document cited above.  Copies of
 the ACT document are available - as supplies permit - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.  It is also
 available for $27.00 (stock number PB93-157618) from the National Technical Information Service,
 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, phone (800) 553-6847.
2/97                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         996-1
-------
9.9.7  Corn Wet Milling

9.9.7.1  General1

        Establishments in corn wet milling are engaged primarily in producing starch, syrup, oil,
sugar, and byproducts such as gluten feed and meal, from wet milling of corn and sorghum. These
facilities may  also produce starch from other vegetables and grains, such as potatoes and wheat.  In
1994, 27 corn wet milling facilities were reported to be operating in the United States.

9.9.7.2  Process Description1"4

        The corn wet milling industry has grown in its 150 years of existence into the most diversified
and integrated of the grain processing industries.  The corn refining industry produces hundreds of
products and byproducts, such as high fructose com syrup (HFCS), corn syrup,  starches, animal feed,
oil, and alcohol.

        In the corn wet milling process, the corn kernel (see Figure 9.9.7-1)  is separated into
3 principal parts:  (1) the outer skin, called the bran or hull; (2) the germ,  containing most of the oil;
and (3) the endosperm (gluten and starch). From an average bushel of corn weighing 25 kilograms
(kg) (56 pounds [lb]), approximately 14 kg (32 Ib) of starch is produced, about 6.6 kg (14.5 Ib) of
feed and feed  products, about 0.9 kg (2 lb) of oil, and the remainder is water. The overall corn wet
milling process consists of numerous steps or stages,  as shown schematically in Figure 9.9.7-2.

        Shelled corn is delivered to the wet milling plant primarily by rail and truck and is unloaded
into a receiving pit. The corn is then elevated  to temporary storage bins and scale hoppers for
weighing and  sampling.  The corn then passes through mechanical cleaners designed to remove
unwanted material, such as pieces of cobs, sticks, and husks, as well as meal and stones.  The
cleaners agitate the kernels over a series of perforated metal sheets through which the smaller  foreign
materials drop. A blast of air blows away chaff and dust, and electromagnets remove bits of metal.
Coming out of storage bins,  the corn is given a second cleaning before going into "steep" tanks.

        Steeping, the first step in the process, conditions the grain for subsequent milling and
recovery of corn constituents.  Steeping softens the kernel for milling, helps break down the protein
holding the starch particles, and removes certain  soluble constituents.  Steeping takes place in a series
of tanks, usually referred to  as steeps, which are operated in continuous-batch process.  Steep tanks
may hold from 70.5 to 458  cubic meters (m3) (2,000 to 13,000 bushels  [bu]) of corn, which is then
submerged in  a current of dilute  sulfurous acid solution at a temperature of about 52°C  (125°F).
Total steeping time ranges from 28 to 48 hours.  Each tank in the series holds corn that has been
steeping for a different length of time.

        Corn that has steeped for the desired length of time is discharged from its tank for further
processing, and the tank is filled with fresh corn.  New steeping liquid is added, along with recycled
water from other mill operations, to the tank with the "oldest" corn (in steep time).  The liquid is
then passed through a series  of tanks, moving each time to the tank holding the next "oldest" batch of
corn until the  liquid reaches  the newest batch of corn.

        Water drained from the newest corn steep is discharged to evaporators as so-called "light
steepwater" containing about 6 percent of the original dry weight of grain.  By dry-weight, the solids


1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.9.7-1
-------
                      ENDOSPERM
            c
            Feed
                     RAW STARCH
CORN SYRUP**
Mixed Table
Syrups
Candles
Confectionery
IceCream
Shoe Polishes








CORN SUGAR
Infant Feeding
Diabetic Diet
Caramel Coloring






EDIBLE STARCH
Com Starch
Jeues
Candles

DEXTRIN
Mucilage
Glue
Textile Sizing
Food Sauces
Fireworks
                                                                        GERM
                                                                          I
                                                                             OIL CAKE
                                                                             (OR MEAL)
                                                                             Cattle Feed
                                                                    CRUDE CORN OIL


PLA

bsOAP
CERIN
SOLUBLE
STIC CORN OIL
RESIN Textile Sizing
Rubber ctoth Coloring
Substitutes
Erasers
Elastic
Heels REFINED CORN O
             Tanning Mixtures
             Brewing
             Artificial Silk
                                                  BRAN
                                                   Cattle
                                                   Feed
                             INDUSTRIAL STARCH                          Salad Oils
                              Laundry Starch                                 Cooking Oils
                              Textile Sizing Manufacture                          Medicinal Oils
                              Filler in Paper
                              Cosmetics
                              Explosives

                               Figure 9.9.7-1.  Various uses of corn.

in the steepwater contain 35 to 45 percent protein and are worth recovering as feed supplements.  The
steepwater is concentrated to 30 to 55 percent solids in multiple-effect evaporators.  The resulting
steeping liquor, or heavy steepwater,  is usually added to the fibrous milling residue, which is sold as
animal feed. Some steepwater may also be sold for use as a nutrient  in fermentation processes.

        The steeped corn passes through degerminating mills,  which tear the kernel apart to free both
the germ and about half of the starch and gluten.  The resultant pulpy material is pumped through
liquid cyclones to extract the germ from the mixture of fiber, starch,  and gluten. The germ is
subsequently washed, dewatered, and dried; the oil extracted;  and the spent germ sold as corn oil
meal or as part of corn gluten feed.  More details on corn oil production are contained in
Section 9.11.1,  "Vegetable  Oil Processing".

        The product slurry passes through a series of washing, grinding, and screening operations to
separate the starch and gluten from the fibrous material.  The  hulls are discharged to the feed house,
where they are dried for use in animal feeds.

        At this point, the main product stream contains starch, gluten, and soluble organic materials.
The lower density gluten is  separated from the starch by centrifugation, generally in 2 stages.  A
high-quality gluten, of 60 to 70 percent protein and  1.0 to 1.5 percent solids, is  then centrifuged,
dewatered, and dried for adding to animal feed.  The centrifuge underflow containing the starch is
passed to starch washing filters to remove any residual gluten  and solubles.

        The pure starch slurry is now directed into 1 of 3  basic finishing operations, namely,  ordinary
dry starch, modified starches, and corn syrup and sugar. In the production of ordinary dry starch,
the starch slurry is dewatered with vacuum filters or basket centrifuges. The discharged starch cake
has a moisture content of 35 to 42 percent and is further dewatered thermally in 1 of several types of
dryers.  The dry starch is then packaged or shipped  in bulk, or a portion may be kept  for use in
making dextrin.
9.9.7-2
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                    STEEPWATER


                       LIGHT STEEPWATER
 PM-<-
            >' (STARCH, GLUTEN, AND FIBROUS MATERIAL)
                                                                                                  voc,
                                                                                                  PM
                                                                                                   A
                                    HEAVY
                                  STEEPWATER
                                                        CORN STEEP
                                                          LIQUOR
                                                        VOC,
                                                         PM
                                                         A
                                                     voc
                                                      A
                                                                          GLUTEN
                                                                        FEED DRYING
                                                                                           (SCO 3^2-007-63,-64)
                                                                                            CORN GL
                                                                                                   UTEN
                                                                                                       FEED
                            CORN OIL
                             MEAL
                                  CRUDE
                                   OIL
                                                                      ^.CORN OIL
                                                                          MEAL
                                                                                              TO CORN OIL
                                                                                                REFINING
                                                                                              OPERATIONS
             SLURRY
             (STARCH, GLUTEN, AND SOLUBLE ORGANIC MATERIAL)
                                                                       CORN GLUTEN MEAL
              STARCH
              SLURRY  PURE
                    STARCH
                    SLURRY
   ENZYMES
                 FINISHING OPERATIONS
 HCI OR_,
ENZYME!  ir
           ETHANOL
CHEMICALS-n

         Y
                           CORN SYRUP.
                          HIGH FRUCTOSE
                           CORN SYRUP
                                             DEXTROSE


oc
PM
A
PM
A
FILTERS
>
t *•
MODIFIED STARCH
DRYING
(SCC 3-02-01 4-10, -11)
>
UNMOC
STAR
DRY
(SCC 302-0
VOC.
PM
A
' PM 1
MODIFIED *
CORN STARCH '
STORAGE
(SCC 3-02-01 4-07)
IFIED
CH
NG
14-12, -13)
PM
*
k UNMODIFIED
CORN STARCH
STORAGE
(SCC 3-02-01 4-07)
V
STARCH BULKLOADOUT
(SCC 3-02-01 4-08)

rc
DEXTRIN
COOKERS
J
DEXTRINS
PM
A
r -
STARCH BULK LOADOUT
(SCC 3-02-O1 4-08)
                       Figure 9.9.7-2.  Corn wet milling process flow diagram.1"4
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
1/95
               Food And Agricultural Industry
                                              9.9.7-3
-------
        Modified starches are manufactured for various food and trade industries for which
unmodified starches are not suitable.  For example, large quantities of modified starches go into the
manufacture of paper products as binding for the fiber.  Modifying is accomplished in tanks that treat
the starch slurry with selected chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, to produce acid-modified starch;
sodium hypochlorite, to produce oxidized starch; and ethylene oxide, to produce hydroxyethyl
starches.  The treated starch is then washed, dried, and packaged for distribution.

        Across the corn wet milling industry, about 80 percent of starch slurry goes to corn syrup,
sugar, and alcohol production.  The relative amounts of starch slurry used for corn syrup, sugar, and
alcohol production vary widely among plants. Syrups and sugars are formed by hydrolyzing the
starch — partial hydrolysis resulting in corn syrup, and complete hydrolysis producing corn sugar.
The hydrolysis step can be accomplished using mineral acids, enzymes, or a combination of both.
The hydrblyzed product is then refined, which is the decolorization with activated  carbon and the
removal of inorganic salt impurities with ion exchange resins.  The refined syrup is concentrated to
the desired level in evaporators and is cooled for storage and shipping.

        Dextrose production is quite similar to corn syrup production,  the major difference being that
the hydrolysis process is allowed to go to completion. The hydrolyzed liquor is refined with activated
carbon and ion exchange resins, to remove color and inorganic salts, and the product stream is
concentrated by evaporation to the 70 to 75 percent solids range.  After cooling, the liquor is
transferred to crystallizing vessels, where it  is seeded with sugar crystals from previous batches.  The
solution is held for several days while the contents are further  cooled and the dextrose crystallizes.
After about 60 percent of the dextrose solids crystallize, they are removed from the liquid by
centrifuges, are dried, and are packed for shipment.

        A smaller portion of the syrup refinery is devoted to the production of corn syrup solids.  In
this operation, refined corn syrup is further concentrated by evaporation to a high  dry substance level.
The syrup is then solidified by rapid cooling and subsequently milled to form  an amorphous
crystalline product.

        Ethanol  is produced by the addition of enzymes to the  pure starch slurry to hydrolyze the
starch to fermentable sugars. Following hydrolysis,  yeast is added to initiate the fermentation
process. After about 2 days, approximately 90 percent of the starch is converted to ethanol. The
fermentation broth is transferred to a still where the ethanol (about 50 vol%) is distilled. Subsequent
distillation and treatment steps produce 95 percent, absolute, or denatured ethanol.  More details on
this ethanol production process,  emissions, and emission factors is contained in Section 6.21,
"Ethanol".

9.9.7.3 Emissions And Controls1'2'4"8

        The diversity of operations in corn wet milling results  in numerous and varied potential
sources of air pollution.  It has been reported that the number  of process emission points at a typical
plant is well over 100.  The main pollutant of concern in grain storage and handling operations in
corn wet milling facilities is paniculate matter (PM).  Organic emissions (e. g., hexane) from certain
operations at corn oil extraction facilities may also be significant.  These organic emissions  (and
related emissions from soybean processing) are discussed in Section 9.11.1, "Vegetable Oil
Processing".  Other possible pollutants of concern are volatile organic  compounds (VOC) and
combustion products from grain drying, sulfur dioxide (SO2) from corn wet milling operations, and
organic materials from starch production. The focus here is primarily on PM sources for grain
handling operations. Sources of VOC and SO2 are identified,  although no data are available to
quantify emissions.

9.9.7-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
        Emission sources associated with grain receiving, cleaning, and storage are similar in
character to those involved in all other grain elevator operations, and other PM sources are
comparable to those found in other grain processing plants as described in Section 9.9.1, "Grain
Elevators And Processes". However, corn wet milling operations differ from other processes in that
they are also sources of SO2 and VOC emissions, as described below.

        The corn wet milling process uses  about  1.1 to 2.0 kg of SO2 per megagram (Mg) of corn
(0.06 to 0.11 Ib/bu). The SO2 is dissolved in process waters, but its pungent odor is present in the
slurries, necessitating the enclosing and venting of the process equipment.  Vents can be wet-scrubbed
with an alkaline solution to recover the SO2 before the exhaust gas is discharged to the atmosphere.
The most significant source of VOC emissions, and also a source of PM emissions, from corn wet
milling is the exhaust from the different drying processes. The starch modification procedures  also
may be sources of acid mists and VOC emissions, but data are insufficient to characterize or to
quantify these emissions.

        Dryer exhausts exhibit problems with odor and blue haze (opacity).  Germ dryers  emit  a
toasted smell that  is not considered objectionable in most areas. Gluten dryer exhausts do not create
odor or visible emission problems if the drying temperature does not exceed 427°C (800°F).  Higher
temperatures promote hot smoldering areas in the drying equipment, creating a burnt odor and  a blue-
brown haze.  Feed drying, where steepwater is present, results in environmentally unacceptable odor
if the drying temperature exceeds 427°C (800°F).  Blue haze formation is a concern when drying
temperatures are elevated.  These exhausts contain VOC with acrid odors, such as acetic acid and
acetaldehyde.  Rancid odors  can  come from butyric and valeric acids, and fruity smells emanate from
many of the aldehydes present.

        The objectionable odors indicative  of VOC emissions from process dryers have been reduced
to commercially acceptable levels with ionizing wet-collectors,  in which particles are charged
electrostatically with up to 30,000 volts. An alkaline wash is necessary before and after the ionizing
sections. Another approach to odor/VOC control is thermal  oxidation at approximately 750°C
(1382°F) for 0.5 seconds,  followed by some form of heat recovery. This  hot exhaust can be used as
the heat source for other dryers or for generating steam in a boiler specifically designed for this type
of operation. Incineration can be accomplished in conventional boilers by routing the dryer exhaust
gases to the primary air intake.  The limitations of incineration are potential fouling of the boiler air
intake system with PM and derated boiler capacity because of low oxygen content.  These limitations
severely restrict this practice. At least 1 facility has attempted  to use a regenerative system, in  which
dampers divert the gases across ceramic fill where exhaust heats the fumes to be incinerated.
Incinerator size can be reduced 20 to 40 percent when some of the dryer exhaust is fed back into the
dryer furnace. From 60 to 80 percent of the dryer exhaust may be recycled by chilling it to condense
the water before recycling.

       The PM emissions generated from  grain receiving, handling, and processing operations  at
corn wet milling facilities can be controlled either by process modifications designed to prevent or
inhibit emissions  or by application of capture collection systems.

       The fugitive emissions from grain handling operations generated by mechanical energy
imparted to the dust, both by the operations themselves and by local air currents in the vicinity  of the
operations, can be controlled by modifying the process or facility to limit the generation of fugitive
dust.  The  primary preventive measures used by facilities are construction and sealing practices  that
limit the effect of air currents, and minimizing  grain free fall distances and grain velocities during
handling and transfer.   Some recommended construction and  sealing practices that minimize emissions
are:  (1) enclosing the receiving area to the extent practicable; (2) specifying dust-tight cleaning and

1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.9.7-5
-------
processing equipment; (3) using lip-type shaft seals at bearings on conveyor and other equipment
housings; (4) using flanged inlets and outlets on all spouting, transitions, and miscellaneous hoppers;
and (5) fully enclosing and sealing all areas in contact with products handled.

        While preventive measures can reduce emissions, most facilities also require ventilation or
capture/collection systems to reduce emissions to acceptable levels.  Milling operations generally are
ventilated, and some facilities use hood systems on all handling and transfer operations. The control
devices typically used in conjunction with capture systems for grain handling and processing
operations are cyclones (or mechanical collectors) and fabric filters.  Both of these systems can
achieve acceptable levels of control for many grain handling and processing sources.  However, even
though cyclone collectors can achieve acceptable performance  in some scenarios, and fabric filters are
highly efficient, both devices are subject to failure if not properly operated and maintained.
Ventilation system malfunction, of course, can  lead to increased emissions at the source.

        Table 9.9.7-1 shows the filterable PM emission factors developed from the available data on
several source/control combinations.  Table 9.9.7-2 shows potential sources of VOC and SO2,
although no data are available to characterize these emissions.
9.9.7-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
  Table 9.9.7-1 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION FACTORS
                     FOR CORN WET MILLING OPERATIONS4

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Emission Source
Grain receiving0 (trucks)
(SCC 3-02-007-51)
Grain handling0 (legs, belts, etc.)
(SCC 3-02-007-52)
Grain cleaning**
(SCC 3-02-007-53)
Grain cleaningd
(SCC 3-02-007-53)
Starch storage bine
(SCC 3-02-014-07)
Starch bulk loadoutf
(SCC 3-02-014-08)
Gluten feed drying
Direct-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-63)
Indirect-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-64)
Starch drying
Flash dryers^
(SCC 3-02-014-10, -12)
Spray dryersk
(SCC 3-02-014-11, -13)
Gluten drying
Direct-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-68)
Indirect-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-69)
Fiber drying
(SCC 3-02-007-67)
Germ drying
(SCC 3-02-007-66)
Dextrose drying
(SCC 3-02-007-70)
Degerminating mills
(SCC 3-02-007-65)
Milling
(SCC 3-O2-007-56)
Type Of Control
Fabric filter

None

None

Cyclone

Fabric filter

Fabric filter


Product recovery
cyclone
Product recovery
cycloneh

Wet scrubber

Fabric filter


Product recovery
cyclone
Product recovery
cyclone
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Filterable PMb
kg/Mg
0.016

0.43

0.82

0.086

0.0007

0.00025


0.13

0.25


0.29

0.080


0.13

0.25

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Ib/ton
0.033

0.87

1.6

0.17

0.0014

0.00049


0.27

0.49


0.59

0.16


0.27

0.49

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.7-7
-------
                                     Table 9.9.7-1 (cont.).

a For grain transfer and handling operations,  factors are for an aspirated collection system of 1 or
  more capture hoods ducted to a paniculate collection device. Because of natural removal processes,
  uncontrolled emissions may be overestimated.  ND = no data.  SCC =  Source Classification Code.
b Emission factors based on weight of PM, regardless of size, per unit weight of corn throughput
  unless noted.
c Assumed to be similar to country grain elevators (see Section 9.9.1).
d Assumed to be similar to country grain elevators (see Section 9.9.1). If 2 cleaning stages are used,
  emission factor should be doubled.
e Reference 9.
f Reference 9.  Emission factor based on weight of PM per unit weight of starch loaded.
g Reference 10. Type of material dried not specified, but expected to be gluten meal or gluten feed.
  Emission factor based on weight of PM, regardless of size, per unit weight of gluten meal or gluten
  feed produced.
h Includes data for 4 (out of 9) dryers known to be vented through product recovery cyclones, and
  other systems are expected to have such cyclones.  Emission factor based on weight of PM,
  regardless of size, per unit weight of gluten meal or gluten feed produced.
j  References  11-13.  EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  D.  Type of material dried is starch, but
  whether the starch is modified or unmodified is not known. Emission factor based on weight of
  PM, regardless of size, per unit weight of starch produced.
k Reference 14. Type of material dried is starch, but whether the starch is modified or unmodified  is
  not known.  Emission factor based on weight of PM, regardless of size,  per unit weight of starch
  produced.
   Table 9.9.7-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR CORN WET MILLING
                                        OPERATIONS
Emission Source
Steeping
(SCC 3-02-007-61)
Evaporators
(SCC 3-02-007-62)
Gluten feed drying
(SCC 3-02-007-63, -64)
Germ drying
(SCC 3-02-O07-66)
Fiber drying
(SCC 3-02-007-67)
Gluten drying
(SCC 3-02-007-68, -69)
Starch drying
(SCC 3-02-014-10, -11,
-12, -13)
Dextrose drying
(SCC 3-02-007-70)
Oil expelling/extraction
(SCC 3-02-019-16)
Type Of
Control
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
VOC
kg/Mg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SO2
kg/Mg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
9.9.7-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
References For Section 9.9.7

 1.    Written communication from M. Kosse, Corn Refiners Association, Inc., Alexandria, VA, to
       D. Safriet, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 18,
       1994.

 2.    L. J. Shannon, et al., Emissions Control In The Grain And Feed Industry, Volume I:
       Engineering And Cost Study, EPA-450/3-73-003a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1973.

 3.    G. F. Spraque and J. W. Dudley, Corn And Corn Improvement, Third Edition, American
       Society Of Agronomy, Crop Science Society Of America, and Soil Science Society Of
       America, Madison, WI, 1988.

 4.    S. A. Watson and P. E. Ramstad, Corn Chemistry And Technology, American Association of
       Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 1987.

 5.    American Feed Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA, Feed Technology,  1985.

 6.    D. Wallace, "Grain  Handling And Processing", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van
       Nostrand Reinhold,  NY, 1992.

 7.    H. D. Wardlaw, Jr., et al., Dust Suppression Results With Mineral Oil Applications For Corn
       And Milo, Transactions Of The American Society Of Agricultural Engineers, Saint Joseph,
       MS,  1989.

 8.    A. V. Myasnihora, et al., Handbook Of Food Products — Grain And Its Products, Israel
       Program  for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, Israel, 1969.

 9.    Starch Storage Bin And Loading System, Report No. 33402,  prepared by Beling Consultants,
       Moline, IL, November 1992.

10.    Source Category Survey: Animal Feed Dryers,  EPA-450/3-81-017, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December  1981.

11.    Starch Flash Dryer,  Report No. 33405, prepared  by Beling Consultants, Moline, IL,
       February  1993.

12.    No. 4 Starch Flash Dryer, Report No. 1-7231-1, prepared by The Almega Corporation,
       Bensenville, IL, May 1993.

13.    No. 1 Starch Flash Dryer, Report No. 86-177-3, prepared by Burns & McDonnell, Kansas
       City, MO, August 1986.

14.    Starch Spray Dryer,  Report No. 21511, prepared  by Mostardi-PIatt Associates, Inc.,
       Bensenville, IL, August 1992.
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.9.7-9
-------
9.10  Confectionery Products




9.10.1  Sugar Processing




9.10.2  Salted And Roasted Nuts and Seeds
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.10-1
-------
9.10.1 Sugar Processing




9.10.1.1  Cane Sugar Processing




9.10.1.2  Beet Sugar Processing
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.10.1-1
-------
9.10.1.1  Cane Sugar Processing

9.10.1.1.1  General1'3

        Sugar cane is burned in the field prior to harvesting to remove unwanted foliage as well as to
control rodents and insects.  Harvesting  is done  by hand or, where possible, by mechanical means.

        After harvesting, the cane goes through  a series of processing steps for conversion to the final
sugar product.  It is first washed to remove dirt and trash, then crushed and shredded to reduce the
size of the stalks.  The juice is next extracted by 1 of 2 methods, milling or diffusion.  In milling, the
cane is pressed between heavy rollers to squeeze out the juice; in diffusion, the sugar is leached out by
water and thin juices. The raw sugar then goes through a series of operations including clarification,
evaporation, and crystallization in order  to produce the final product.  The fibrous residue remaining
after sugar extraction is called bagasse.

        All mills fire some or all of their bagasse in boilers to provide power necessary in their milling
operation.  Some, having more bagasse than can be utilized internally, sell the remainder for use in the
manufacture of various chemicals such as furfural.

9.10.1.1.2  Emissions2'3

        The largest sources of emissions from sugar cane processing are the openfield burning in the
harvesting of the crop,  and the burning of bagasse as  fuel.  In the various processes of crushing,
evaporation, and crystallization, relatively small quantities of particulates are emitted.  Emission factors
for sugar cane field burning are shown in Table 2.5-2. Emission factors for bagasse firing in boilers
are included in Section 1.8.

References For Section 9.10.1.1

1.      "Sugar Cane,"  In:  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Vol. IX, New York,
       John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

2.     E. F. Darley, "Air Pollution Emissions From Burning Sugar Cane And Pineapple From
       Hawaii", In:  Air Pollution From Forest And Agricultural Burning, Statewide Air Pollution
       Research Center, University of California, Riverside, California, Prepared for the U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, under Grant No. R800711,
       August 1974.

3.     Background Information For  Establishment Of National Standards Of Performance For New
       Sources, Raw Cane Sugar Industry, Environmental  Engineering, Inc.,  Gainesville, FL, Prepared
       for the U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, under Contract
       No. CPA 70-142, Task Order 9c, July 15, 1971.
4/76 (Reformatted 1/95)             Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.10.1.1-1
-------
9.10.1.2 Sugarbeet Processing

9.10.1.2.1  General1'2

        Sugarbeet processing is the production of sugar (sucrose) from sugarbeets. Byproducts of
sugarbeet processing include pulp and molasses. Most of the molasses produced is processed further to
remove the remaining sucrose.  The pulp and most of the remaining molasses are mixed together, dried,
and sold as livestock feed.

9.10.1.2.2  Process Description1-4

        Figures 9.10.1.2-1 and 9.10.1.2-2 are flow diagrams for a typical sugarbeet processing plant.
Figure 9.10.1.2-1 shows preprocessing and livestock feed production operations, and Figure 9.10.1.2-2
shows the beet sugar production operations. Mechanically harvested sugarbeets are shipped to processing
plants, where they are typically received by high-speed conveying and screening systems.  The screening
systems remove loose dirt from the beets and pinch the beet tops and leaves from the beet roots.  The
conveyors transport the beets to storage areas and then to the final cleaning and trash removal operations
that precede the processing operations.  The beets are usually conveyed to the final cleaning phase using
flumes, which use water to both move and clean the beets.  Although most plants use flumes, some plants
use dry conveyors in the final cleaning stage.  The disadvantage of flume conveying is that some sugar
leaches into the flume water from damaged surfaces of the beets.  The  flumes carry the beets to the beet
feeder, which regulates the flow of beets through the system and prevents stoppages in the system.  From
the feeder,  the flumes carry the beets through several cleaning devices, which may include rock catchers,
sand separators, magnetic metal separators, water spray nozzles, and trash catchers.  After cleaning,  the
beets are separated from the water, usually with a beet wheel, and are transported by drag chain, chain
and bucket elevator, inclined belt conveyor, or beet pump to the processing operations.

        Sugarbeet processing operations comprise several steps, including diffusion, juice purification,
evaporation,  crystallization, dried-pulp manufacture, and sugar recovery from molasses. Descriptions of
these operations are presented in the following paragraphs.

        Prior to removal of the sucrose from the beet by diffusion, the  cleaned and washed beets are sliced
into long, thin strips, called cossettes.  The cossettes are conveyed to continuous diffusers,  in which hot
water is used to extract sucrose from the cossettes.  In one diffuser design, the diffuser is slanted upwards
and conveys the cossettes up the slope as water is introduced at the top  of the diffuser and flows
countercurrent to  the cossettes.  The water temperature in the diffuser is typically maintained between 50°
and 80°C (122° and 176°F). This temperature is dependant on several factors, including the
denaturization temperature of the cossettes, the thermal behavior of the beet cell wall, potential enzymatic
reactions, bacterial activity, and pressability of the beet pulp.  Formalin, a 40 percent solution of
formaldehyde, was sometimes added to the diffuser water as a disinfectant but is not used at the present
time.  Sulfur dioxide, chlorine,  ammonium bisulfite, or commercial FDA-approved biocides are used as
disinfectants.  The sugar-enriched water that flows from the outlet of the diffuser is called raw juice and
contains between  10 and 15 percent sugar.  This raw juice proceeds to the juice purification operations.
The processed cossettes, or pulp, leaving the diffuser are conveyed to the dried-pulp manufacture
operations.
3/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.10.1.2-1
-------
                0-

FINAL CLEANING
AND
TRASH REMOVAL
11
STORAGE
/ 1
CONVEYING
AND
SCREENING
1 '
CD
Q.
Q.
CO
1 i
Z
HARVESTI

G
G
-^
)
)

LIVESTOCK FEED
STORAGE AND
SHIPPING
ii
PELLET COOLER
(3-02-016-16)
1 1
PELLETIZING
(3-02-016-12)
1 1
°9o5

I
I

•4-J
,, u
SUCERS
sugarbeet processing
03
" I 1
DIFFUSER
i
1
* 1 1
PULP
PRESSES

J ,
:
RAW JUICE TO SLK
1 PRODUCTION
T OPERATIONS
feed production operat
ode in parentheses.)
BEET PULP
.10.1.2-1. Preprocessing and livestock
(Source Classification C
z *°
50 3
1|§ S
	 UJ11-^
I1S
-------
                                                                                                  c,

                                                                                                  t»o


                                                                                                  '55
                                                                                                  f>
                                                                                                  

3/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
                                                                                            9.10.1.2-3
-------
        In the juice purification stage, non-sucrose impurities in the raw juice are removed so that the pure
sucrose can  be crystallized.  First, the juice passes through screens to remove any small cossette particles.
Then the mixture is heated to 80° to 85°C (176° to 185°F) and proceeds  to the first carbonation tank. In
some processes, the juice from the screen passes through a pre-limer, heater, and main limer prior to the
first carbonation tank.  In the first carbonation tank, milk of lime [Ca(OH)2] is added to the mixture to
adsorb or adhere  to the impurities in the mixture, and carbon dioxide (C02) gas is bubbled through the
mixture to precipitate the lime as insoluble calcium carbonate crystals.  Lime kilns are used to produce the
C02 and lime used in carbonation; the lime is converted to milk of lime in a lime slaker. The small,
insoluble crystals (produced during carbonation) settle out in a clarifier, after which  the juice is again
treated with C02  (in the second carbonation tank) to remove the remaining lime and impurities.  The pH
of the juice is lower during this second carbonation, causing large,  easily  filterable,  calcium carbonate
crystals to form.  After filtration, a small amount of sulfur dioxide  (S02)  is added to the juice to inhibit
reactions that lead to darkening of the juice.  Most facilities purchase S02 as a  liquid but a few facilities
produce S02 by burning  elemental sulfur in a sulfur stove.  Following the addition of S02, the juice
(known as thin juice) proceeds  to the evaporators.

        The evaporation  process, which increases the sucrose concentration in  the juice  by removing
water,  is typically performed in a series of five evaporators. Steam from large boilers is used to heat the
first evaporator, and the  steam  from the water evaporated  in the first evaporator is used  to heat the second
evaporator.  This transfer of heat continues through the five evaporators,  and as the  temperature decreases
(due to heat loss)  from evaporator to evaporator, the pressure inside each evaporator is also decreased,
allowing the juice to boil at the lower  temperatures provided in each subsequent evaporator.  Some steam
is released from the first  three evaporators, and this steam is used as a heat source for various process
heaters throughout the plant.  After evaporation, the percentage of sucrose in the "thick juice" is
50-65 percent.  Crystalline sugars, produced later in the process, are added to the juice and dissolved in
the high melter. This mixture is then filtered, yielding a clear liquid known as standard liquor, which
proceeds to the crystallization operation.

        Sugar is crystallized by low-temperature pan boiling. The standard liquor is boiled in vacuum
pans until it becomes supersaturated.  To begin crystal formation, the liquor is  either "shocked"  using a
small quantity of  powdered sugar or is "seeded" by adding a mixture of finely milled sugar and isopropyl
alcohol.  The seed crystals are  carefully grown through control of the vacuum, temperature, feed-liquor
additions, and steam. When the crystals reach the desired size, the mixture of  liquor and crystals, known
as massecuite or fillmass, is discharged to the mixer.  From the mixer, the massecuite is poured into high-
speed centrifugals, in which the liquid is centrifuged into the outer shell, and the  crystals are left in the
inner centrifugal  basket.  The sugar crystals are then washed with pure hot water and are sent to the
granulator, which is a combination rotary drum dryer and cooler. Some facilities have separate sugar
dryers  and coolers, which are collectively called granulators. The wash water, which contains a small
quantity of sucrose, is pumped  to the vacuum pans for processing.  After  cooling, the sugar is screened
and then either packaged or  stored in large bins for future packaging.

        The liquid that was separated  from the sugar crystals in the centrifugals is called syrup.  This
syrup serves as feed liquor for  the "second boiling" and is introduced back into the vacuum pans along
with standard liquor and  recycled wash water.  The process is repeated once again, resulting in the
production of molasses, which  can be further desugarized  using an  ion  exchange process called deep
molasses desugarization.   Molasses that is not desugarized can be used  in  the production of livestock feed
or for other purposes.

        Wet pulp from the diffusion process is another product of sugarbeet processing.  The pulp is first
pressed, typically in horizontal double-screw presses, to reduce the moisture content from about 95 percent


9.10.1.2-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                                   3/97
-------
 to about 75 percent.  The water removed by the presses is collected and used as diffusion water. After
 pressing, molasses is added to the pulp, which is then dried in a direct-fired horizontal rotating drum
 known as a pulp dryer.  The pulp dryer, which can be fired by oil, natural gas, or coal, typically provides
 entrance temperatures between 482° and 927°C (900° and 1700°F). As the pulp is dried,  the gas
 temperature decreases and the pulp temperature increases. The exit temperature of the flue gas is typically
 between 88°  and  138°C (190° and 280°F). The resulting product is usually pelletized, cooled, and sold as
 livestock feed.

 9.10.1.2.3 Emissions And Controlsl • 3~4

        Particulate matter (PM), combustion products, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the
 primary pollutants emitted from the sugarbeet processing industry. The pulp dryers, sugar granulators and
 coolers,  sugar conveying and sacking equipment, lime kilns and handling equipment, carbonation tanks,
 sulfur stoves, evaporators, and boilers, as well as several fugitive sources are potential emission sources.
 Potential emissions from boilers are addressed in AP-42 Sections 1.1 through 1.4 (Combustion) and those
 from lime kilns are addressed in AP-42 Section  11.17, Lime Manufacturing. Potential sources of PM
 emissions include the pulp dryer, sugar granulators and coolers, sugar conveying and sacking equipment,
 sulfur stove,  and fugitive sources.  Fugitive sources include unpaved roads, coal handling, and pulp
 loading operations.  Although most facilities purchase S02, a few facilities still use sulfur stoves.  The
 sulfur stove is a potential source of SO2 emissions, and the pulp dryers may be a potential source of
 nitrogen oxides (NOX), S02, C02, carbon monoxide (CO), and VOC.  Evaporators may be a potential
 source of C02, ammonia (NH^, S02, and VOC emissions from the juice.  However, only the first three
 of five evaporators (in a typical five-stage system)  release exhaust gases, and the gases are used as a heat
 source for various process heaters before release to the atmosphere.  Emissions from carbonation tanks are
 primarily water vapor but contain small quantities of NH3, VOC, and may also include C02 and other
 combustion gases from the lime kiln. There are no emission test data available for ammonia emissions
 from carbonation tanks.

        Particulate matter emissions from pulp dryers are typically controlled by a cyclone or multiclone
 system, sometimes followed by a secondary device such as a wet scrubber or fabric filter.  Particulate
 matter emissions from granulators are typically controlled with wet scrubbers, and PM emissions from
 sugar conveying and sacking as well as lime dust handling operations are controlled by hood systems that
 duct the emissions to fabric filtration systems. Emissions from carbonation tanks and evaporators are not
 typically controlled.

        Table 9.10.1.2-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM, PM-10, and condensible PM
 emissions from sugarbeet processing operations. Table 9.10.1.2-2 presents emission factors for volatile
 organic  compounds (VOC), methane, NOX, S02, CO, and CO2 emissions from sugarbeet processing
 operations, and Tables 9.10.1.2-3 and  9.10.1.2-4 present emission factors for organic pollutants emitted
 from coal-fired dryers, carbonation tanks, and first evaporators.
3/97                              Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.10.1.2-5
-------
 C/3
 2
 O
 I—H
 H
 W
 OH
 O

 O
 g
 OO
 C/}
 W
 O
 o
 (^
 O-,


 fe
 W
 m
 «
 <
 o
 D
 ^

 Di
 O
 UH
 cn
 K
 O
 H
 O
 <
 IX

 2
 O
 t—I
 GO
 oo
 w
 Pi
 W

 |

 w
 H

 5
 D
 O
 H
 Pi
 <
 OH
  CN]




  O






J
jQ
"3
o;
1







a.
,2



2o
co H
§ <
W tL*
0
P
<
tt

3
£/} f_4 i— i
co F) E~^
(-U ^
6
lg
$0
w ^
O
P
a
CO
D£
||1
O
a-
|||
o.
^^ i — i
o o
H O






CD
<_>
S
O
00















* *
o



•a
Q S
O




Q Q
2 2

Q


DO

Q



CO
O

Q

c*_
o
LO
o
d





P P
2 2




P P
2 2


P

00
P 0
2 d

U



CNJ
d
O



CO
o
o

U

c
CNJ
d





P




P
2


O


T
CsJ
d






















P P P
22 2
P P



i i i
o o




P P P
22 2

Q


oo
1 s
P



CN
S Q
9 2
0

P

l>-
s- i
o Z





P P P
222




P P P
222





P P P
222
Q
Q Q
2 2

D CQ
„ S
•«• o
None
Multiclone


CD ^
T3 CO
Q«f~^
a.g
"S CO
 OH ^5 CD C
*£ ^ CJ C/l !> (X5 ^ CJ (/


So" LO*
LO UO
U CO CO
** o o
"3 M CD ?=i
c 9 "^9
2 CO § CO
DDr^j (J ^_)

occ/3 boc/o
^ ~" SJ
00 00
P P
2 2

P
LO
<& -~
o P
d 2
(- ffi
•S "UP
*£ il y
,5 I1 c •§ S
^1 a, £ b ^
3 J> W5 *> V) U-i


1
00
.5
^
§'


oc ^
3 "
CO
P P P
222


P P P
222
a* 
C C C
£ 2 i


CO CO — UQ
CD CO tO CO
O 0 O 0
C\J QJ, C\J ^j CM U, CNJ
spco Q co o c^ CTco
3 O , O ^ O — O

o oo S ^ ^ ^ Sb^
00 OH 00
9-10.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97
-------



















c
o
o
CM
0
1 — 1
O5
cu
3
CO























cu
J5
-C
"B
•s
e
o
u









1
_OJ
2
Si
S3
PH




1§§
"o£
C— .*f ^
l^s


'n
£


Isg
s&!
53 < <
*£ r rv
W fc

(_

1
O

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

.y
J

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

o
i
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


a.




<+-. , — r
S|
>•> o
H O




1
o
CO




P








Q





p




P



P




g
o


rCj'
CO
9
9
cu ^
IH
^^
cS
f\
H
•o
cu

o
8
>
.9*
~3
e
d>
2
"ob
M
/~J
S
c
o
f~\
i-l— '
i-
S CU
c*-*  ,
C t"-'
o cu
8 04
^2
















S
2
1
£
S3
T3
1o
I
^^
CO
cu
&
00
1
1
C
O
•a
CO
1
'u
2
S3
GO
CU
N
.i3
4=1
3
00
_O)
%— »
'cj
J2
M— i
CU
01
*
1—^ ^H
CNI • 0
• •—" .-.
C35 CV) -5
"i 0>~ 2 ir>
t- rt -0 CV1
"V t-~" co • cvf
co «-i e>o CM cvj ^-i .
i — i JL i — i i t— i i CO
- CO . • CO i ^ i
t~- •— lCY5c^'CNICX5'-i-q<
» — ' CO
OO OO 00 OO 00 OO 00
CUCDCUCUCUCUCUCUCU
CJOOOtJOOCJO
cucucucucucucuScu
i_t-,l_t-.l-Hl^l_t-,t_.
0) CU CU CU CD CD ,CD CU CD
<4-H C4-H <4-H C4_| C4-I Ct_i C4_4 C4_i <4_4
CUCUCDCDCUCDCDCUCD
DiDiDiDiDiDi^Ce;^
(JT3 0><4_ DDJ3._^S E
T3
§
( .
fc
J3
J3
t-t
CJ
00
^
T3
CO
>,
^
T3
_cu

"o
J3

e
CD
^>
-a
•a
§
i
_o
"o
fr
£
s

o
!
o
00
!-,
cu
§

o
43
«
to
T3
2
cu
o
Si
£?
o
_cu
3
'oo
g
"O
§
CJ
00
CD
T3
CJ
G
t_;
-*r
CD
erences 4-1
<4-H
CU
04
c


































C
o
•a
CO

3
8
S
_0
"o
>,
CJ






















00
cu
s
'o
«2
^s
o
_a
-*^
CO
•o
CU
3
00
g
s
£
00
§
•J3
2
'B-
00
CO
00
CO
00
CD
c2
w
OJ

^£
^ s
0 0
g §
,£ fe
*S ^
Cci «
a. o-























f
o
^
g>
oo
<4-l
O
c
o
<
JD
a>
CO
.•S

3
t-i
%
c2

O
• f-H
.8
w

CO
CV1
cu

Pi
U























*-J
1"
o
%
2?
oo
(kH
O
c
o
<
.3
a>
i-.
CO
.3

3
t— 1
0
o
c2

O
• ^H
.2
w

cxi
cu
u
1
CD
-------
       Table 9.10.1.2-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR VOC, METHANE, AND INORGANIC
         POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM SUGARBEET PROCESSING OPERATIONS3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Coal-fired pulp dryerc
(SCC 3-02-016-01)
Natural gas-fired pulp dryerc
(SCC 3-02-016-08)
Fuel oil-fired pulp dryerc
(SCC 3-02-016-05)
First evaporator
(SCC 3-02-016-41)
Sulfur stove
(SCC 3-02-0 16-31)
First carbonation tank
(SCC 3-02-016-21)
Second carbonation tank
(SCC 3-02-01 6-22)
Ib/ton
vocb
1.2d
ND
0.1 lJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
Methane
ND
ND
0.028J
ND
ND
ND
ND
NOY
0.66e
ND
0.60J
ND
ND
ND
ND
S0?
0.79f
ND
1.0k
ND
ND
ND
ND
CO
2.3d
ND
l.OJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
CO,
3708
156h
430m
ND
ND
ND
ND
a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of pressed wet pulp to the dryer, unless noted. Factors represent
  uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Volatile organic compounds as methane.
c Data for pulp dryers equipped with cyclones, multiclones, wet scrubbers, or a combination of these
  control technologies are averaged together because these control technologies are not specifically
  designed to control VOC, methane, NOX, SO2, CO, or C02 emissions.
d Reference 19.
e References 16,19.
f References 7,19.
8 References 7,13,16-17,19,21. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B.
h References 8-12,22-23,25. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C.
J Reference 4.
k References 14-15.
m References 4-6,14,24. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C.
9.10.1.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97
-------
       Table 9.10.1.2-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
                                 FROM PULP DRYERS3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Source
Coal-fired pulp dryer with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-02-016-01)



















Pollutant
CASRN
75-07-0
107-02-8
123-73-9
50-00-0
91-57-6
88-75-5
95-48-7
105-67-9
106-44-5
100-02-7
208-96-8
100-52-7
65-85-0
100-51-6
117-81-7
84-74-2
132-64-9
84-66-2
91-20-3
98-95-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
Name
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2-methylnaphthalene
2-nitrophenol
2-methylphenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4-methylphenol
4-nitrophenol
Acenaphthylene
Benzaldehyde
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Emission
Factor,
Ib/ton
0.015
0.0076
0.0020
0.0071
1.7xlO-5
0.00018
3.4xlO-5
2.5xlO-5
0.00013
0.00014
1.7xlO'6
0.0014
0.0028
7.1xlQ-5
0.0015
5.2xlO-5
l.lxlO'5
9.8xlQ-6
0.00011
1.9xlO-5
1.2xlO-5
0.00032
a Reference 3. Emission factor units are Ib/ton of pressed wet pulp to the dryer.  To convert from Ib/ton
 to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.  SCC = Source Classification Code. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service
 Registry Number.
3/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.10.1.2-9
-------
       Table 9.10.1.2-4.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
                  FROM CARBONATION TANKS AND EVAPORATORS3
Source
First carbonation tankb
(SCC 3-02-016-21)









Second carbonation tankb
(SCC 3-02-016-22)


First evaporator0
(SCC 3-02-016-41)















Pollutant
CASRN
91-57-6
51-28-5
106-44-5
83-32-9
100-52-7
65-85-0
100-51-6
117-81-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
75-07-0
107-02-8
123-73-9
50-00-0
75-07-0
107-02-8
123-73-9
50-00-0
106-44-5
100-52-7
65-85-0
100-51-6
117-81-7
84-74-2
132-64-9
84-66-2
78-59-1
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
110-86-1
Name
2-methylnaphthalene
2,4-dinitrophenol
4-methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Benzaldehyde
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
4-methylphenol
Benzaldehyde
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyridine
Emission Factor,
Ih/l.OOOgal
5.1xlO-7
ND
6.6xlO-7
ND
l.lxlO'4
8.4xlO-6
5.0xlO-6
1.2xlQ-5
2.0xlO-6
1.4xlQ-6
1.3xlO-6
0.0043
2.4xlO'4
3.0xlO~5
1.6xlQ-5
6.7xlO-5
4.2xlO-7
1.4xlQ-7
7.0xlO-7
ND
2.2xlO-6
ND
l.SxlO'7
3.7xlO-7
1.1 xlO-9
ND
ND
ND
2.5xlQ-8
1.6xlO-8
1.2xlQ-8
3.4xlO-8
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
a Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry
 Number. ND = no data.
b Emission factor units are Ib per 1,000 gallons of raw juice produced.
c Emission factor units are Ib per 1,000 gallons of thin juice produced.
9.10.1.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9.10.1.2

 1.     R.A. McGinnis, Beet-Sugar Technology, Third Edition, Beet Sugar Development Foundation, Fort
       Collins, CO, 1982.

 2.     The Beet Sugar Story, United States Beet Sugar Association, Washington, D.C., 1959.

 3.     Particulate,  Aldehyde, And Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) Testing Report For The Pulp
       Dryer Stacks, 1st And 2nd Carbonation Tank Vents, And The Evaporator Heater Vents, The
       Amalgamated Sugar Company, Nampa, ID, May 14, 1993.

 4.     Emission Performance Testing Of Four Boilers, Three Dryers, And One Cooler-Holly Sugar
       Corporation, Santa Maria,  California, Western Environmental Services, Redondo Beach, CA,
       June 1991.

 5.     Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test At Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative,
       Renville, Minnesota, MMT Environmental, Inc., St. Paul, MN, January 21, 1988.

 6.     Results Of An Emission  Compliance Test On The North Dryer #2 At Southern Minnesota Beet
       Sugar Cooperative, Renville, Minnesota, MMT Environmental, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
       December 14, 1988.

 7.     Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test At Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative,  Wahpeton,
       North Dakota, MMT Environmental, Inc., St. Paul, MN, November 1, 1983.

 8.     Particulate Emission Testing Performed For Monitor Bay Sugar Company, Bay City, Michigan, On
       The Pulp Dryer 3 Exhaust, Network Environmental, Inc., Grand Rapids, MI, October 12, 1992.

 9.     Particulate Emission Testing Performed For Monitor Bay Sugar Company, Bay City, Michigan, On
       The Pulp Dryer 2 Exhaust, Network Environmental, Inc., Grand Rapids, MI, October 13, 1992.

10.     Particulate Emission Testing Performed For Monitor Bay Sugar Company, Bay City, Michigan, On
       The Pulp Dryer 1 Exhaust, Network Environmental, Inc., Grand Rapids, MI, October 14, 1992.

11.     Emissions Survey Conducted At Western Sugar Company's Billings, Montana, Production Facility,
       American Environmental Testing Company, Inc., December 1988.

12.     EPA Method 5 Particulate Emissions Tests Conducted On Western Sugar's Boiler And Pulp Dryer
       Stacks Located In Billings, Montana, American Environmental  Testing Company, Inc.,
       January 1990.

13.     .Report On Compliance Testing Performed At Western Sugar Company Pulp Dryer, Scottsbluff, NE,
       Clean Air Engineering,  Palatine, IL, January 12, 1990.
3/97                             Food And Agricultural Industry                      9.10.1.2-11
-------
14.     Emission Measurement Test Report Of C.E. Boilers, Union Boilers, And Pulp Dryers-Permit
       Compliance ForSO2, Particulate, And PM-10 With Back-Half Emissions-Holly Sugar
       Corporation, Montana Division, The Emission Measurement Group, Inc., Englewood, CO,
       November  16, 1993.

15.     .Report To Great Lakes Sugar Company On Stack Particulate Samples Collected On The Pulp Drier
       At Fremont, Ohio, Affiliated Environmental Services, Inc., Sandusky, OH, December 8, 1992.

16.     Results Of The February 22-24, 1994, Air Emission Compliance Testing Of Process Sources At The
       American Crystal Sugar East Grand Forks Plant, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
       March 21,  1994.

17.     Results Of The January 28-31, 1992, Particulate Emission Tests, South Pulp Dryer-American
       Crystal Sugar Company, Moorehead, Minnesota, Bay West, Inc., St. Paul, MN, March 26,  1992.

18.     Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On The Sugar Cooler Stack At American Crystal
       Sugar Company, Crookston, Minnesota, March 11, 1993, Twin City Testing Corporation,
       St. Paul, MN, April 16, 1993.

19.     Results Of The November 9-11, 1993, Air Emission Testing Of Process Sources At The American
       Crystal Sugar East Grand Forks Plant, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
       December 3,  1993.

20.     Results Of The November 14 And 15, 1990, State Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The
       Sugar Cooler And Sugar Granulator At The ACS Moorehead Plant, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
       Circle Pines, MN, December 11,  1990.

21.     Unit Nos. 1 And 2 Pulp Dryer Stacks Emission Testing Results For The February 22-26, 1993,
       Testing Of Particulate Conducted At The American  Crystal Sugar Company, Crookston,
       Minnesota, Bay West, Inc., St. Paul, MN, April 15, 1993.

22.     Particulate Emission Study For Michigan Sugar Company, Caro, Michigan, Swanson
       Environmental, Inc.,  Farmington Hills, MI, December 14, 1989.

23.     Particulate Emission Study For Michigan Sugar Company, Carrollton, Michigan, Swanson
       Environmental, Inc.,  Farmington Hills, MI, November 1989.

24.     Particulate Emission Study-Michigan Sugar Company, CrosweU, Michigan, Swanson
       Environmental, Inc.,  Farmington Hills, MI, November 19, 1990.

25.     Emissions Survey Conducted At Western Sugar Company, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, American
       Environmental Testing, Inc. Spanish Fork, UT, January 10, 1995.
9.10.1.2-12                           EMISSION FACTORS                                 3/97
-------
9.10.2  Salted And Roasted Nuts And Seeds

        This industry encompasses a range of edible nuts and seeds processed primarily for human
consumption.  The salted and roasted nuts and seeds industry primarily includes establishments that
produce salted, roasted, dried, cooked, or canned nuts, or that process grains and seeds for snack use.
This industry does not encompass facilities that manufacture candy-coated nuts or those that
manufacture peanut butter.  The overall production of finished salted and roasted nuts and seeds has
two primary components.  Typically, nuts undergo post harvest processing such as hulling and
shelling, either by the farmer on the farm, or by contractor companies either on the farm or at
facilities near the farm, called crop preparation service facilities.  The shelled nuts or seeds are
shipped to food processing plants to produce the final product.

        Many  of the post-harvest operations and processes are common to most of the nuts and seeds,
including field harvesting and loading, unloading, precleaning, drying, screening, and hulling.  Other
operations specific to individual nuts and seeds include sizing, grading, skinning, and oil or  dry
roasting. The processing of harvested nuts and seeds can produce paniculate emissions primarily from
the unloading, precleaning, hulling or shelling, and screening operations.  In almond processing, all
of the operations,  except for unloading, are usually controlled to reduce the level of ambient
paniculate.  The emissions from the unloading operation are usually uncontrolled.

        In this document, the industry is divided into Section 9.10.2.1, "Almond Processing", and
Section 9.10.2.2,  "Peanut Processing".  Sections on other nuts and seeds may be published in later
editions if sufficient data on the processes are available.
1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.10.2-1
-------
9.10.2.1  Almond Processing

9.10.2.1.1  General1'2

        Almonds are edible tree nuts, grown principally in California.  The nuts are harvested from
orchards and transported to almond processing facilities, where the almonds are hulled and shelled.
The function of an almond huller/sheller is to remove the hull and shell of the almond from the nut,
or meat.  Orchard debris, soil, and pebbles represent 10 to 25 percent of the field weight of material
brought to the almond processing facility.  Clean almond meats are obtained as about 20 percent of
the field weight. Processes for removing the debris  and almond hulls and shells are potential sources
of air emissions.

9.10.2.1.2  Process Description1'7

        After  almonds are collected from the field, they undergo two processing phases, post-harvest
processing and finish processing.  These phases are typically conducted at two different facilities.
There are two basic types of almond post-harvest processing facilities:  those that produce hulled, in-
shell almonds as a final product (known as hullers),  and those that produce hulled, shelled, almond
meats as a final product (known as huller/shellers).   Almond precleaning, hulling, and separating
operations are common to both types of facilities.  The huller/sheller includes additional steps to
remove the almond meats from their shells.  A typical almond hulling operation is shown in
Figure 9.10.2.1-1.  A typical almond huller/sheller is depicted in Figure 9.10.2.1-2.  The hulled,
shelled  almond meats are shipped to large production facilities where the almonds may undergo
further processing into various end products.  Almond harvesting, along with precleaning, hulling,
shelling, separating, and final processing operations, is discussed in more detail below.

        Almond harvesting and processing are a seasonal industry, typically beginning in August and
running from  two to four months. .However, the beginning  and duration of the season vary with the
weather and with the size of the crop.  The almonds  are harvested either manually, by knocking the
nuts from the tree limbs with a long pole, or mechanically, by shaking them from the tree.  Typically
the almonds remain on the ground for 7 to 10 days to dry.  The fallen almonds are then swept into
rows. Mechanical pickers gather the rows for transport to the almond huller or huller/sheller.  Some
portion of the material in the gathered rows includes orchard debris, such as leaves, grass,  twigs,
pebbles, and soil. The fraction of debris is a function of farming practices  (tilled versus untilled),
field soil characteristics, and age of the orchard, and it can range from less  than 5 to 60 percent of
the material collected.  On average, field weight yields 13 percent debris, 50 percent hulls, 14 percent
shells, and 23 percent clean almond meats and pieces, but these ratios can vary substantially from
farm to farm.

        The almonds are delivered to the processing  facility  and are dumped into a receiving pit. The
almonds are transported by screw conveyors  and bucket elevators to a series of vibrating screens.
The screens selectively remove orchard debris, including leaves, soil, and pebbles. A destoner
removes stones, dirt clods, and other larger debris.   A detwigger removes twigs and  small sticks.
The air streams from the various screens, destoners,  and detwiggers are ducted to cyclones or fabric
filters for paniculate matter removal. The recovered soil and fine debris, such as leaves and grass,
are disposed of by spreading on surrounding  farmland.   The recovered twigs may be chipped  and
used as  fuel for co-generation plants.  The precleaned almonds are transferred from the precleaner
area by  another series of conveyors and elevators to  storage  bins to await further processing.  (In


1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.10.2.1-1
-------
                                    CYCLONE OR
                                     BAGHOUSE
                               LEAVES, STICKS, STONES,
                                  DIRT, AND ORCHARD
                                       TRASH
        UNLOADING ALMONDS
         TO RECEIVING PIT
          (SCC 3-02-017-11)
          PRECLEANING
        ORCHARD DEBRIS
         FROM ALMONDS
         (SCC 3-02-017-12)
  DRYING
             = PM EMISSIONS
                                                             TEMPORARY
                                                              STORAGE
         IN-SHELL
           NUTS
   GRAVITY SEPARATOR/
    CLASSIFIER SCREEN
          DECK
     (SCC 3-02-017-15)
    AIR LEG
(SCC 3-02-017-16)
    RECYCLE TO HULLERS
        AND SCREENS
            MEATS
     HULLS
       •
                                               HULL REMOVAL AND
                                                SEPARATION OF
                                               IN-SHELL ALMONDS
                                                (SCC 3-02-017-13)
                                    HULLING
                                   CYLINDER
      GRAVITY SEPARATOR/
      CLASSIFIER SCREEN
             DECK
        (SCC 3-02-017-15)
            AIR LEG
        (SCC 3-02-017-16)
                                                               SCREEN
                                                                     FINE
                                                                    TRASH
CYCLONE OR
 BAGHOUSE
                                       HULLS
                                         •
      RECYCLE TO HULLERS
          AND SCREENS
                                  COLLECTION
           Figure 9.10.2.1-1. Representative almond hulling process flow diagram.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.10.2.1-2
   EMISSION FACTORS
             1/95
-------
                                 CYCLONE OR
                                 BAGHOUSE
                           LEAVES, STICKS, STONES,
                              DIRT, AND ORCHARD
                                   TRASH
       UNLOADING
       ALMONDS TO
      RECEIVING PIT
     (SCC 3-02-017-11)
      PRECLEANING
     ORCHARD DEBRIS
     FROM ALMONDS
     (SCC 3-02-017-12)
      = PM EMISSIONS
      = POTENTIAL VOC EMISSION
  DRYING
                              TEMPORARY
                                STORAGE
                                       HULL
                                    ASPIRATION
                                SHEAR
                                ROLLS
         SCREENS
                                          HULLING/SHELLING
                                           (SCC 3-02-017-14)
        SHEAR
        ROLLS
 SCREENS
            v
         SHELL
       ASPIRATION
        SHELL
      ASPIRATION
   HULL
ASPIRATION

AIR 1

i
SHI
4
.EGS
ELLS
»


t
GRAVITY SEPARATORS/
CLASSIFIER SCREEN
DECK (SCC 3-02-01 7-1 5)
i
REO
r
'CLE TO
MEATS ROASTER
(SCC 3-02-01 7-1 7)

                                SHEAR ROLLS AND
                                    SCREENS
         Figure 9.10.2.1-2. Representative almond huller/sheller process flow diagram.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
              9.10.2.1-3
-------
some instances, the precleaned almonds may be conveyed to a dryer before storage.  However, field
drying is used in most operations.)

       Almonds are conveyed on belt and bucket conveyors to a series of hulling cylinders or shear
rolls, which crack the almond hulls.  Hulling cylinders are typically used in almond huller facilities.
Series of shear rolls are generally used in huller/shellers.  The hulling cylinders have no integral
provision for aspiration of shell pieces.  Shear rolls, on the other hand, do have integral aspiration to
remove shell fragments from loose hulls and almond meats.  The cracked almonds are then
discharged to a series of vibrating screens or a gravity table, which separates hulls and unhulled
almonds from the in-shell almonds, almond meats, and fine trash.  The remaining unhulled almonds
pass through additional hulling cylinders or shear rolls and screen separators.  The number of passes
and the combinations of equipment vary among facilities.  The hulls are conveyed to storage and sold
as an ingredient in the manufacture of cattle feed.  The fine trash is ducted to a cyclone or fabric
filter for collection and disposal.

       In a hulling facility, the hulled,  in-shell almonds are separated from  any remaining hull pieces
in a  series of air legs (counter-flow forced air gravity  separators) and are then graded, collected, and
sold as finished product, along with an inevitable small percentage of almond meats.  In
huller/shellers, the in-shell almonds continue through  more shear rolls and screen separators.

       As the in-shell almonds make additional passes through sets of shear rolls, the almond shells
are cracked or sheared away from the meat.  More sets of vibrating screens  separate the shells from
the meats and small shell pieces.  The separated shells are aspirated and collected in a fabric filter or
cyclone, and then conveyed to storage for sale as fuel for  co-generation plants. The almond meats
and small  shell pieces are conveyed on vibrating conveyor belts and bucket elevators to air classifiers
or air legs that separate the small shell pieces from the meats.  The number  of these air separators
varies among facilities. The shell pieces removed by  these air classifiers are also collected and stored
for sale as fuel for co-generation plants.  The revenues generated from the sale of hulls and shells are
generally sufficient to offset the costs of operating the almond processing facility.

       The almond meats are then conveyed to a series of gravity tables or  separators (classifier
screen decks), which sort the meats by lights, middlings, goods, and heavies.  Lights, middlings,  and
heavies, which still contain hulls and shells, are returned to various points in the process.  Goods are
conveyed to the finished meats box for storage.  Any  remaining shell pieces are aspirated and sent to
shell storage.

       The almond meats are now ready either for sales as raw product or for further processing,
typically at a separate facility. The meats may be blanched, sliced, diced, roasted, salted,  or smoked.
Small meat pieces may be ground into meal or pastes  for bakery products. Almonds are roasted by
gradual heating in a rotating drum.  They are heated slowly to prevent the skins and outer layers from
burning.  Roasting time develops the flavor and affects the color of the meats.  To obtain almonds
with a light brown color and a medium  roast requires a 500-pound roaster fueled with natural gas
about 1.25 hours at 118°C (245°F).

9.10.2.1.3  Emissions And Controls1'3'5'9

       Paniculate matter (PM) is the primary air pollutant emitted from almond post-harvest
processing operations.  All operations in an almond processing facility involve dust generation from
the movement of trash, hulls, shells, and meats.  The quantity of PM emissions varies depending  on
the type of facility, harvest method, trash content,  climate, production rate,  and the type and number
of controls used by the facility.  Fugitive PM emissions are attributable primarily to unloading

9.10.2.1-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
operations, but some fugitive emissions are generated from precleaning operations and subsequent
screening operations.

        Because farm products collected during harvest typically contain some residual dirt, which
includes trace amounts of metals, it stands to reason that some amount of these metals will be emitted
from the various operations along with the dust. California Air Resources Board (CARB) data
indicate that metals emitted from almond processing include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper,
lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel in quantities on the order of 5 x 10"11 to 5 x 10"4 kilograms
(kg) of metal per kg of PM emissions (5 x 10"11 to  5 x 10"4 pounds [Ib] of metal  per Ib of PM
emissions).  It has been suggested that sources of these metals other than the inherent trace metal
content of soil may include fertilizers, other agricultural sprays, and groundwater.

        In the final processing operations, almond roasting is a potential source of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions. However, no chemical characterization data are available to hypothesize
what compounds might be emitted, and no emission source test data are available to quantify these
potential emissions.

        Emission control systems at almond post-harvest processing facilities include both ventilation
systems to capture the dust generated during handling and processing of almonds, shells, and hulls,
and an air pollution control device to collect the captured PM.   Cyclones formerly served as the
principal air pollution control devices for PM emissions from almond post harvest processing
operations.  However, fabric filters,  or a combination of fabric filters and cyclones, are becoming
common.  Practices of combining and controlling specific exhaust streams from various operations
vary considerably among facilities.  The exhaust stream from a  single operation may be split and
ducted to  two or more control devices.  Conversely, exhaust streams from several operations may be
combined and ducted to a single control device.  According to one source within the almond
processing industry, out of approximately 350 almond hullers and huller/shellers, no two are alike.

        Emission factors for almond  processing sources are presented in Table 9.10.2.1-1.
1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.10.2.1-5
-------
      Table 9.10.2.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALMOND
                                      PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Unloading0
(SCC 3-02-017-11)
Precleaning cycloned
(SCC 3-02-017-12)
Precleaning baghouse6
(SCC 3-02-017-12)
Hulling/separating cycloned
(SCC 3-02-017-13)
Hulling/separating baghousee
(SCC 3-02-017-13)
Hulling/shelling baghousef
(SCC 3-02-017-14)
Classifier screen deck
cycloned
(SCC 3-02-017-15)
Air legd
(SCC 3-02-017-16)
Roaster8
(SCC 3-02-017-17)
Filterable PM
kg/Mg
0.030
0.48
0.0084
0.57
0.0078
0.026
0.20
0.26
ND
Ib/ton
0.060
0.95
0.017
1.1
0.016
0.051
0.40
<
0.51
ND
Condensable Inorganic
PM
kg/Mg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0068
ND
ND
ND
Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.014
ND
ND
ND
PM-10b
kg/Mg
ND
0.41
0.0075
0.41
0.0065
ND
0.16
ND
ND
Ib/ton
ND
0.82
0.015
0.81
0.013
ND
0.31
ND
ND
a Process weights used to calculate emission factors include nuts and orchard debris as taken from the
  field, unless noted.  ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b PM-10 factors are based on particle size fractions found in Reference 1 applied to the filterable PM
  emission factor for that source.  See Reference 3 for a detailed discussion of how these emission
  factors were developed.
c References 1-3,10-11.
d Reference 1.  Emission factor is for a single air leg/classifier screen  deck cyclone.  Facilities may
  contain multiple cyclones.
e References 1,9.
f Reference 10.
g Factors are based on finished product throughputs.
9.10.2.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
References For Section 9.10.2.1

 1.     Report On Tests Of Emissions From Almond Hullers In The San Joaquin Valley, File
       No. C-4-0249, California Air Resources Board, Division Of Implementation And
       Enforcement, Sacramento, CA, 1974.

 2.     Proposal To Almond Hullers And Processors Association For Pooled Source Test, Eckley
       Engineering, Fresno, CA, December 1990.

 3.     Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 9.10.2, Salted And Roasted Nuts And
       Seeds, EPA  Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, May 1994.

 4.     Jasper Guy Woodroof, Tree Nuts:  Production, Processing Product, Avi Publishing, Inc.,
       Westport, CT, 1967.

 5.     Written communication from Darin Lundquist, Central California Almond Growers
       Association, Sanger, CA, to Dallas Safriet, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 9, 1993.

 6.     Written communication from Jim Ryals, Almond Hullers and Processors Association,
       Bakersfield,  CA, to Dallas Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 7, 1993.

 7.     Written communication from Wendy Eckley, Eckley Engineering,  Fresno, CA, to Dallas
       Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 7, 1993.

 8.     Private communications between Wendy Eckley, Eckley Engineering, Fresno, CA,  and Lance
       Henning, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO, August-September 1992, March
       1993.

 9.     Almond Huller Baghouse Emissions Tests, Superior  Farms, Truesdail Laboratories,  Los
       Angeles,  CA, November 5,  1980.

10.    Emission Testing On Two Baghouses At Harris Woolf California Almonds, Steiner
       Environmental, Inc., Bakersfield, CA, October 1991.

11.    Emission Testing On One Baghouse At Harris Woolf California Almonds, Steiner
       Environmental, Inc., Bakersfield, CA, October 1992.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industry                      9.10.2.1-7
-------
9.10.2.2  Peanut Processing

9.10.2.2.1  General

        Peanuts (Arachis hypogaed), also known as groundnuts or goobers, are an annual leguminous
herb native to South America.  The peanut peduncle, or peg (the stalk that holds the flower),
elongates after flower fertilization and bends down into the ground, where the peanut seed matures.
Peanuts have a growing period of approximately 5 months. Seeding typically occurs mid-April to
mid-May, and harvesting during August in the United States.

        Light, sandy loam soils are preferred for peanut production.  Moderate rainfall of between
51 and  102 centimeters (cm) (20 and 40 inches [in.]) annually is also necessary. The leading peanut
producing states are Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Florida, and Oklahoma.

9.10.2.2.2  Process Description

        The initial step in processing is harvesting, which typically begins with the mowing of mature
peanut plants.  Then die peanut plants are inverted by specialized machines, peanut inverters, that dig,
shake, and place the peanut plants, with the peanut pods on top, into windrows for field curing.
After open-air drying,  mature peanuts are picked up from the windrow with combines that separate
the peanut pods from the plant using various thrashing operations.  The peanut plants are deposited
back onto the fields and the pods are accumulated  in hoppers.  Some combines dig and separate the
vines and stems from the peanut pods in  1 step, and peanuts harvested by this method are cured in
storage. Some small producers still use traditional harvesting methods, plowing the  plants from the
ground  and manually stacking them for field curing.

        Harvesting is normally followed by mechanical drying.  Moisture in peanuts is usually kept
below 12 percent, to prevent aflatoxin molds from growing.  This low moisture content is difficult to
achieve under field conditions without overdrying  vines and stems, which reduces  combine efficiency
(less foreign material is separated  from the pods).  On-farm dryers usually consist of either storage
trailers  with air channels along the floor or storage bins with air vents. Fans blow heated air
(approximately 35 °C [95 °F]) through the air channels and up through  the peanuts. Peanuts are dried
to moistures of roughly 7 to 10 percent.

        Local peanut mills take peanuts from the farm to be further cured (if necessary), cleaned,
stored, and processed for various uses (oil production, roasting, peanut butter production, etc.).
Major process steps include processing peanuts for in-shell consumption  and shelling peanuts for other
uses.

9.10.2.2.2.1 In-shell Processing -
        Some peanuts are processed for in-shell roasting.  Figure 9.10.2.2-1 presents a typical flow
diagram for in-shell peanut processing. Processing begins with separating foreign material  (primarily
soil, vines,  stems, and leaves) from the peanut pods using a series of screens and blowers.  The pods
are then washed in  wet, coarse sand that removes  stains and discoloration. The sand is then screened
from the peanuts for reuse. The nuts are then dried and powdered with talc or kaolin to whiten the
shells.  Excess  talc/kaolin is shaken from the peanut shells.
1/95                              Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.10.2.2-1
-------
                                               LEAVES, STEMS, VINES,
                                             STONES, AND OTHER TRASH
  UNLOADING
    DRYING
  POWDERING
   DRYING
   SCREENING
PRECLEANING
                                           SAND
IN-SHELL PEANUT
  PACKAGING
    TALC OR
    KAOLIN
                                   = PM EMISSIONS
            Figure 9.10.2.2-1. Typical in-shell peanut processing flow diagram.
9.10.2.2-2
 EMISSION FACTORS
                1/95
-------
9.10.2.2.2.2  Shelling -
        A typical shelled peanut processing flow diagram is shown in Figure 9.10.2.2-2.  Shelling
begins with separating the foreign material with a series of screens, blowers, and magnets.  The
cleaned peanuts are then sized with screens (size graders).  Sizing is required so that peanut pods can
be crushed without also crushing the peanut kernels.

        Next, shells of the sized peanuts are crushed, typically by passing the peanuts between rollers
that have been adjusted for peanut size. The gap between rollers must be narrow enough to crack the
peanut hulls, but wide enough to prevent damage to the kernels. A horizontal drum, with a
perforated and ridged bottom and a rotating  beater, is also used to hull  peanuts.  The rotating beater
crushes the peanuts against the bottom ridges, pushing both the shells and peanuts through the
perforations.  The beater can be adjusted for different sizes of peanuts,  to avoid damaging the peanut
kernels. Shells are aspirated from the peanut kernels as they fall from  the drum.  The crushed shells
and peanut kernels are then separated with oscillating shaker screens and air separators.  The
separation process also removes undersized kernels and split kernels.

        Following crushing and hull/kernel separation, peanut kernels are sized and graded.  Sizing
and grading can be done by hand, but most mills use screens to size kernels and electric eye sorters
for grading.  Electric eye sorters can detect discoloration and can separate peanuts by color grades.
The sized and graded peanuts are bagged in  45.4-kg (100-lb) bags for shipment to end users, such as
peanut butter plants and nut  roasters.  Some peanuts are shipped in bulk in  rail hopper cars.

9.10.2.2.2.3  Roasting-
        Roasting imparts the typical flavor many people associate with  peanuts. During roasting,
amino acids and carbohydrates react to produce tetrahydrofuran derivatives. Roasting also dries the
peanuts further  and causes them to turn brown as peanut oil stains the peanut cell walls. Following
roasting, peanuts are prepared for packaging or for further  processing into candies or peanut butter.
Typical peanut roasting processes are shown in Figure 9.10-2.2-3.  There are 2 primary methods for
roasting peanuts, dry roasting and oil roasting.

Dry Roasting -
        Dry roasting is either a batch or continuous process.  Batch roasters offer the advantage of
adjusting for different moisture contents of peanut  lots from storage. Batch roasters are typically
natural  gas-fired revolving ovens (drum-shaped).  The  rotation of the oven continuously stirs the
peanuts to produce an even roast. Oven temperatures are approximately 430°C (800°F), and peanut
temperature is raised to approximately 160°C  (320°F)  for 40 to 60 min.  Actual roasting temperatures
and times vary with the condition of the peanut batch and the desired end characteristics.

        Continuous dry roasters vary considerably  in type.  Continuous roasting reduces labor,
ensures a steady flow of peanuts for other processes (packaging, candy  production, peanut butter
production,  etc.), and decreases spillage.  Continuous roasters may move peanuts through an oven on
a conveyor or by gravity feed.  In one type of roaster,  peanuts are fed by a conveyor into a stream of
countercurrent hot air that roasts the peanuts.  In this system, the peanuts are agitated to ensure that
air passes around the individual kernels to promote an  even roast.

        Dry roasted peanuts  are cooled and blanched.  Cooling occurs in cooling boxes or on
conveyors where large quantities of air are blown over the peanuts  immediately following roasting.
Cooling is necessary  to stop  the roasting process and maintain a uniform quality.  Blanching removes
the skin of the peanut as well as dust, molds, and other foreign material.  There are several blanching
methods including dry, water, spin,  and air impact.
1/95                              Food And Agricultural Industry                        9.10.2.2-3
-------
  UNLOADING
SHELL ASPIRATION
       I
   SCREENING
                                               LEAVES, STEMS, VINES,
                                             STONES, AND OTHER TRASH
  DRYING
     ROLL
  CRUSHING
                                \
                          SHELL ASPIRATION
      AIR
  SEPARATING
KERNEL SIZING
 AND GRADING
SHELLED PEANUT
-   BAGGING OR
  BULK SHIPPING
 SHELL ASPIRATION
                                    = PM EMISSIONS
            Figure 9.10.2.2-2. Typical shelled peanut processing flow diagram.
9.10.2.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
              1/95
-------
                   w O «o
                   a: m
t



I

•^
^
3
O
< ^

?
5
m









p
a

Q,
C5
i
o
z

CD
t
o

x£
op
             O '
             o
             o
                     t
              t£
              o
              X K

              §>

              ii

              gs
              o
              o
            > k
 tn


 §
             O
                    O)
                    <
                    cl
        '<.
        z
                                  UJ
                      o
                      z

                      £
                      <
                      o
                      (X
                                                                m
                                                   t
                                        cc
                                        o
                                        X K
                                        go

                                        ">£

                                        il
                                        ~ o
                                          o
                                                    O
                                                    O
                                                                                    tn
                                                                                    w
                                                            K

                                                            O

                                                            x <£
                                                            o°

                                                            m >


                                                            il
                                                            Zi O
                                                            O O
                                                            O
                                                            O
                                                                            CO


                                                                            O

                                                                            CO
                                                                            CO


                                                                            UJ

                                                                            o
                                                                                        "!
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        a.
                                                                                        u
                                        ZO

                                        00=
                                        o

                                                                         o:
                                                                         UJ
                                                                         o
                                                                         cc
                                                                         I
                                                                         CO
                                                               cc
                                                               Q
                                                               O
                                                               3
                                                               CO
k
CO
CO
UJ
o
O
X.
CL



J
O
z
t—
§
o

k
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
ct
Q.

!_
>



^ ^-
	 ^ r^"
o
JK tn

o
-li
                                                                                   I
                                                                                   Ul
                                                                                   00
                                                                                   .2
                                                                                   •3


                                                                                   o
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                       bD
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           Ul

                                                                                           4*-*




                                                                                           1
                                                                                           O.



                                                                                          3

                                                                                          13
                                                                                   Cu
                                                                                   >>

                                                                                   H


                                                                                   on

                                                                                   cs

                                                                                   CN

                                                                                   O


                                                                                   o\


                                                                                   1
                                 o <
                                   o
                                               D tn
                                               St
                                              S
                                              a:
1/95
                        Food And Agricultural Industry
                                                                                  9.10.2.2-5
-------
       Dry blanching is used primarily in peanut butter production, because it removes the kernel
hearts which affect peanut butter flavor. Dry blanching heats the peanuts to approximately 138 °C
(280°F) for 25 minutes  to crack and loosen the skins.  The heated peanuts are then cooled and passed
through either brushes or ribbed rubber belting to rub off the skins.  Screening is used to separate the
hearts from the cotyledons (peanut halves).

       Water blanching passes the peanuts  on conveyors through stationary blades that slit the peanut
skins.  The skins are then loosened with hot water sprayers and removed by passing the peanuts under
oscillating canvas-covered pads on knobbed conveyor belts.  Water blanching requires drying the
peanuts back to a moisture content of 6 to 12 percent.

       Spin blanching uses  steam to loosen the skins of the peanuts.  Steaming is followed by
spinning the peanuts on revolving spindles as the peanuts move, single file, down a grooved
conveyor.  The spinning unwraps the peanut skins.

       Air impact blanching uses a horizontal drum (cylinder) in which the peanuts are placed and
rotated. The inner surface of the drum has  an abrasive surface that aids in the removal of the skins as
the drum rotates.  Inside the drum are air jets that blow the peanuts counter to the rotation of the
drum creating air impact which loosens the  skin.  The combination of air impacts and the abrasive
surface of the drum results in skin removal.  Either batch or continuous air impact blanching can be
conducted.

Oil Roasting -
       Oil roasting is also done on a batch or continuous basis.  Before roasting, the peanuts are
blanched to remove the  skins. Continuous roasters move the peanuts on a conveyor through a long
tank of heated oil. In both batch and continuous roasters, oil is heated to temperatures of 138 to
143°C (280 to 290°F),  and  roasting times vary from 3 to 10 minutes depending on desired
characteristics and peanut quality.  Oil  roaster tanks have heating elements on the sides to prevent
charring the peanuts on the bottom. Oil is constantly monitored for  quality, and frequent filtration,
neutralization, and replacement are necessary to maintain quality.  Coconut oil  is preferred,  but oils
such as peanut and cottonseed are frequently used.

       Cooling also follows oil roasting, so that a uniform roast can be achieved.  Cooling  is
achieved by blowing large quantities of-air over the peanuts either on conveyors or in cooling boxes.

9.10.2.2.3  Emissions And Controls

       No  information is currently available on emissions or emission control  devices for the peanut
processing industry.  However, the similarities of some of the processes to those in the almond
processing industry make it  is reasonable to assume that emissions would be comparable. No data are
available, however, to make any comparisons about relative quantities of these emissions.

Reference For Section 9.10.2.2

1.     Jasper Guy Woodroof, Peanuts:  Production, Processing, Products, 3rd Edition, Avi
       Publishing Company, Westport, CT, 1983.
9.10.2.2-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
9.11 Fats And Oils
                                     [Work In Progress]
  1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.11-1
-------
9.11.1  Vegetable Oil Processing

9.11.1.1  General1'5

        The industry group producing fats and oils includes cottonseed oil mills, soybean oil mills,
vegetable oil mills (other than corn, cottonseed, and soybean), and other mills.  Wet corn mills are
the primary producers of corn oil.  Approximately 137 vegetable oil plants operate in the United
States.  Soybean processing,  which dominates the industry, produces approximately 80 percent of the
volume of vegetable oil and is concentrated in the states of Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana,
and Minnesota, but also  found across the nation.  Likewise, wet corn  mills are concentrated in Corn
Belt states.  Cottonseed oil mills are found in southern states and California.
                            ,6-9
9.11.1.2  Process Description

        The following process description discusses only soybean oil manufacture, because emission
factors are available only for that activity.  Corn, cottonseed, and peanut oil processing are similar to
soybean processing, except for differences in the soybean preparation for oil extraction.  The process
for soybeans typically consists of five steps:  oilseed handling/elevator operations, preparation of
soybeans for solvent extraction, solvent extraction and oil desolventizing, flake desolventizing,  and oil
refining.

Oilseed Handling/Elevator Operations -
        Figure 9.11.1-1 is a schematic diagram of a typical soybean handling/elevator operation that
precedes the preparation of soybeans for the  solvent extraction process.

        Soybeans received at the facility by truck or rail are sampled and analyzed for moisture
content, foreign matter, and damaged seeds.  Then the beans are weighed and  conveyed to large
concrete silos or metal tanks for storage prior to processing.  When the facility is ready to process the
soybeans, the beans are removed from the silo or tank and cleaned of foreign materials and loose
hulls.  Screens typically are used to remove foreign materials such as sticks, stems, pods, tramp
metal, sand,  and dirt.  An aspiration system  is used to remove loose hulls from the soybeans; these
hulls  may be combined later with hulls from the dehulling aspiration step.  The beans are passed
through dryers to reduce their moisture content to approximately  10 to  11 percent by weight and then
are conveyed to process bins for temporary storage and tempering for 1  to 5 days in order to facilitate
dehulling.

Preparation Of Soybeans For Solvent Extraction -
        Figure 9.11.1-2 is a schematic diagram of the process used to prepare  soybeans for the
solvent extraction process.  The process, which is fairly well standardized,  consists of four principal
operations:  cracking, dehulling/hull  removal, conditioning,  and flaking.

        Soybeans are conveyed from the process bins to the  mill by means of belts or mass flow
conveyors and bucket elevators.  In the mill, the beans  may  be aspirated again, weighed, cleaned of
tramp metal by magnets, and fed into corrugated cracking rolls.  The cracking rolls "crack" each
bean into four to six particles, which are passed through aspirators to remove the hulls (processed
separately after the removal of residual bean chips). These hulls may be combined  with the hulls
from  the grain cleaning step.
11/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.11.1-1
-------
                  Sampling
                Raw Soybean
                  Receiving
                (3-02-007-81)
              Handling/Storage
                (3-02-007-82)
               Grain Cleaning
                (3-02-007-83)
                 Grain Drying
                (3-02-007-84)
                 Process Bins
                     T
           Soybeans To Preparation
             (see Figure 9.11.1-2)
                Paniculate Emissions
                Paniculate Emissions
               Trash
            Hulls (may be combined with hulls
               from dehulling aspiration)
                 (see Figure 9.11.1-2)

           -**•  Paniculate Emissions
        Figure 9.11.1-1. Flow diagram of typical soybean handling/elevator operations.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.11.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
                                Soybeans from
                               Handling/Elevator
                                 Operations
                             (see Figure 9.11.1-1)
                       OPTIONAL PROCESS
                                                           Aspiration
           Paniculate^
           Emissions"
            Paniculate^
            Emissions"
            Paniculate^
            Emissions"
                                  Cracking
                                (3-02-007-85)
                                                     Paniculate
                                                     Emissions
Dehulling Aspiration
   (3-02-007-85)
Hulls with Beans
                                         Bean Return
   Cracked Bean
   Conditioning
   (3-02-007-87)
                         Dehulling Aspiration
                            (3-02-007-85)
      Flaking
   (3-02-007-88)
                                                                               Paniculate
                                                                               Emissions
                                                                   Hulls

                                                                      Hulls from Grain
                                                                  	  Cleaning
                                                                    (see Figure 9.11.1-1)
    Hulls to Sizing, Grinding,
         and Loadout
     (see Figure 9.11.1-4)
                          Flakes to Solvent Extraction
                             (see Figure 9.11.1-3)
 Figure 9.11.1-2.  Flow diagram of the typical process for preparing soybeans for solvent extraction.
                           (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11/95
    Food And Agricultural Industry
                                       9.11.1-3
-------
       Next, the cracked beans and bean chips are conveyed to the conditioning area, where they are
put either into a rotary steam tubed device or into  a stacked cooker and are heated to "condition"
them (i. e., make them pliable and keep them hydrated). Conditioning is necessary to permit the
flaking of the chips and to prevent their being broken into smaller particles. Finally, the heated,
cracked beans are conveyed and fed to smooth, cylindrical rolls that press the particles into smooth
"flakes", which vary in thickness from approximately 0.25 to 0.51 millimeters (0.010 to
0.020 inches).  Flaking allows the soybean oil cells to be exposed and the oil to be more easily
extracted.

Solvent Extraction and Oil Desolventizing -
       The extraction process consists of "washing" the oil from the soybean flakes with hexane
solvent in a countercurrent extractor. Then the solvent  is evaporated (i. e., desolventized) from both
the solvent/oil mixture (micella) and the solvent-laden, defatted flakes (see Figure 9.11.1-3).  The oil
is desolventized  by exposing the solvent/oil  mixture to steam (contact and noncontact).  Then the
solvent is condensed, separated from the steam condensate, and reused. Residual hexane not
condensed is removed with mineral oil scrubbers.  The  desolventized oil, called "crude" soybean oil,
is stored for further processing or loadout.

Desolventizing Flakes -
       The flakes leaving the extractor contain up to 35 to 40 percent solvent and must be
desolventized before use.  Flakes are desolventized in one of two ways: either "conventional"
desolventizing or specialty or "flash" desolventizing.  The method used depends upon the end use of
the flakes. Flakes that are flash desolventized are  typically used for human foods, while
conventionally desolventized flakes are used primarily in animal feeds.

        Conventional desolventizing takes place in a desolventizer-toaster (DT), where both contact
and noncontact steam are used to evaporate  the hexane.  In addition, the contact steam "toasts"  the
flakes, making them more usable for animal feeds. The desolventized and toasted flakes then pass to
a dryer, where excess moisture is removed by heat, and then to a cooler, where ambient air is used to
reduce the temperature of the dried flakes.   The desolventized, defatted flakes are then ground for use
as soybean meal (see Figure 9.11.1-4).
        Flash desolventizing is a special process that accounts for less than 5 percent by volume of the
annual nationwide soybean crush.  The production offtakes for human consumption generally follows
the flow diagram in Figure 9.11.1-3 for the "conventional" process, except for the desolventizing
step.  In this step, the flakes from the oil extraction step are "flash" desolventized in a vacuum with
noncontact steam or superheated hexane.  This step is followed by a final solvent stripping step using
steam.  Both the hexane vapor from the flash/vacuum desolventizer and the hexane  and steam vapors
from the stripper are directed  to a condenser.  From the condenser, hexane vapors pass to the mineral
oil  scrubber and the hexane-water condensate goes to the separator, as shown in Figure 9.11.1-3.
The flakes produced by the flash process are termed "white flakes". A process flow diagram for the
flash desolventizing portion of the soybean process is shown in Figure 9.11.1-5.  From the stripper,
the white flakes pass through  a cooker (an optional step) and a cooler prior to further processing steps
similar to the "conventional" process. A plant that uses specialty or "flash" desolventizing requires
different equipment and is far less efficient in  energy consumption and solvent recovery than a plant
that uses conventional desolventizing. Given these facts, solvent emissions are considerably  higher
for a specialty desolventizing  process than for a similar-sized conventional desolventizing process.
 9.11.1-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 11195
-------
                      Flakes from
                      Preparation
                   (seeRgure9.11.1-2)
                                                          Hexane and Steam Vapors
                                                                                           	 Water
                                                                     Hexane
                                                                      and
                                                                     Water
                                                              Hexane and Steam Vapors.
                                                                     Hexane Vapor to
                                                                    Mineral Oil Scrubber
                         Hexane-Water
                          Condensate
                                                                                          Mineral Oil
                                                                                       Scrubber System
                                             Hexane-Steam
                                              Condensing
                                     Hexane-Steam
                                      Condensing
                                                                                          Main Vent
                                                                                        (3-02-019-16)
                                            Hexane and
                                           Steam Vapors
Figure 9.11.1-5)
                    Extracted
                   Rakes and
                    Hexane
                                                                    Oil/Hexane
                                                                    Distillation
                                                                                       Hexane Emissions
                                       Hexane and
                                      Steam Vapors
                                                                    Crude OH
                                                                     Storage
Desolventlzed and
                                          Hexane and
                                           Pardculate
                                           Emissions
                                   Further Processing
                                      or Loadout
                                          Hexane and
                                           Paniculate
                                           Emissions
                              Cooled Meal
                    Cooled Dried Meal to
                      Sizing. Grinding,
                       and Loadout
                    (see Figure 9.11.1 -4)
                  L	
                            Soybean Extraction Facility—Total Hexane Losses
                                               (3-02-019-97)
                                               (3-02-019-98)


           Figure 9.11.1-3.  Flow diagram of the "conventional" solvent extraction process.
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11/95
        Food And Agricultural Industry
                                                                                                9.11.1-5
-------
     Paniculate,
     Emissions
                   Cooled Dried Meal from
                     Solvent Extraction
                      (Figure 9.11.1-3)
Meal Grinding
 and Sizing
(3-02-007-93)
                       Meal Storage
                       (High Protein)
                       48% Protein*
                                   Hulls from
                               Dehulling Aspiration
                                (Figure 9.11.1-2)
                                        Meal-Millfeed
                                          Blending
                                      44% Protein Meal
                                         Sampling
                                          Loadout
                                      (Rail, Truck, Barge)
                                        (3-02-007-91)
Hull Grinding
 and Sizing
(3-02-007-86)
Paniculate
Emissions

OPTIONAL PROCESS
                                  Toasted Hull
                                (Millfeed) Storage
                                  10% Protein*
Meal Storage
(Low Protein)

I J

I *
                                                                                 Hull Toasting
                                                                       Typical or nominal values;
                                                                        actual values may vary.
                                     . Paniculate
                                      Emissions
     Figure 9.11.1-4.  Flow diagram for "conventional" process of dry material sizing, grinding,
                                               and loadout.
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.11.1-6
                  EMISSION FACTORS
                                            11/95
-------
                                      Solvent Laden Flakes
                                      From Oil Extraction
                                      (see (Figure 9.11.1-3)
                      Super-W
                        Hexane
                                                       Hexane Vapor
                     Stripping Stei
                                                          P articulate
                                                          Emissions
                                     Defatted, Desolventlzed
                                       Flakes to Further
                                         Processing
                Figure 9.11.1-5.  Flow diagram of the flash desolventi/ing process.
                           (Source Classification Code in parentheses.)

Vegetable Oil Refining -
        Crude oil is typically shipped for refining to establishments engaged in the production of
edible vegetable oils, shortening, and margarine.  Crude vegetable oils contain small amounts of
naturally occurring materials  such as proteinaceous material,  free fatty acids, and phosphatides.
Phosphatides are removed for lecithin recovery or to prepare the crude oil for export.  The most
common method of refining oil is by reacting it with an alkali solution which neutralizes the free fatty
acids and reacts with the phosphatides.  These reacted products and the proteinaceous materials are
then removed by centrifuge.  Following alkali refining, the oil is washed with water to remove
residual soap, caused by saponification  of small amounts of the triglycerides (oil). Color-producing
substances within an oil (i. e., carotenoids, chlorophyll) are removed by a bleaching process, which
employs the use of adsorbents such as acid-activated clays.  Volatile components  are removed by
deodorization, which uses steam injection under a high vacuum and temperature.  The refined oil is
then filtered and stored until used or transported.
11/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.11.1-7
-------
9.11.1.3 Emissions And Controls6'10-20

Emissions -
        Paniculate matter and volatile organic compounds are the principal emissions from vegetable
oil processing.  Particulate matter (PM) results from the transfer, handling,  and processing of raw
seed.  VOC emissions are the oil extraction solvent, hexane, which is classified as a hazardous air
pollutant. Particulate emissions from grain handling are discussed in the Interim AP-42
Section 9.9.1, "Grain Elevators And Processes".

        Solvent emissions arise from several sources within vegetable oil processing plants.  There are
potential solvent emissions from the transfer and storage of hexane on site as well as potential leaks
from piping and vents.  Small quantities of solvent (up to 0.2 percent by volume of oil) are present in
the crude vegetable oil after the solvent is recovered by film evaporators and the distillation stripper.
This hexane may volatilize during the oil-refining  process; however, no emission data are available.
Trace quantities of solvent are present and available for volatilization in waste water collected from
the condensation of steam used in the distillation stripper and desolventizer-toaster.  Emission data
from waste water also are not available.

        Vents are another source of emissions.  Solvent is discharged from three vents: the main vent
from the solvent recovery section, the vent from the meal dryer, and the vent from the meal cooler.
The main vent receives gases  from the oil extractor, the film evaporator and distillation stripper, and
the desolventizer-toaster.  Vents for the meal dryer and meal cooler  typically vent to atmosphere.

Hexane Emissions -
        The recommended method for estimating annual hexane emissions from soybean solvent
extraction facilities is to obtain the annual hexane  usage from the specific plant's records, and to
assume that all hexane make-up is due to losses to the air (SCC 3-02-019-97).  (Some hexane leaves
the facilities as a small  fraction of the oil or meal  products, but this  amount has not been quantified.)
If the hexane usage is determined from  purchase records and the purchased  amount accounts for any
change  in quantities stored on-site, then storage tank losses  would already be accounted for in the loss
estimate.  If the usage is determined from the amount metered out of the storage tanks, then the
storage tank losses should be calculated separately, and in addition to, the usage losses, using the
equations in AP-42 Chapter 7 or in the TANKS software.  Careful application  of such a material
balance approach should produce emission estimates comparable in quality to those derived from a B-
rated emission factor.

        The mean total hexane loss reported by the plants in References 11 through 19 was 3.3  L/Mg
(0.89 gal/ton [4.9 lb/ton]) of raw soybeans  processed (SCC 3-02-019-98).  This represents an overall
total loss factor for soybean oil  processing, encompassing all sources of vented and fugitive emissions
(and storage tanks), as well as any hexane leaving the facility as part of the oil or meal products. For
a new facility or if plant-specific usage data are unavailable, this factor, rated D, can be used as a
default  value until the relevant data for the facility become available. The default value should  be
used only until the facility can compile the  data needed to develop a plant-specific hexane loss for the
period of interest.

Particulate Emissions -
        Table 9.11.1-1  presents emission factors for total PM emissions resulting from handling and
processing soybeans in vegetable oil manufacturing.  Emission factors are provided for PM-generating
processes for the meal production process,  including meal drying and cooling.
9.11.1-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 11/95
-------
   Table 9.11.1-1.  TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOYBEAN MILLING-

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Process
Receiving0 (SCC 3-02-007-81)
Handling (SCC 3-02-007-82)
Cleaning (SCC 3-02-007-83)
Drying (SCC 3-02-007-84)
Cracking/dehulling (SCC 3-02-007-85)
Hull grinding (SCC 3-02-007-86)
Bean conditioning (SCC 3-02-007-87)
Flaking rolls (SCC 3-02-007-88)
White flake cooler (SCC 3-02-007-92)
Meal cooler (SCC 3-02-007-90)
Meal dryer (SCC 3-02-007-89)
Meal grinder/sizing (SCC 3-02-007-93)
Meal loadoutd (SCC 3-02-007-91)
Control Device
None
ND
ND
ND
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
Cyclone
None
Emission Factor
(lb/ton)b
0.15
ND
ND
ND
0.36
0.20
0.010
0.037
0.95
0.19
0.18
0.34
0.27
     Emission factors are based on pounds per ton of soybeans processed by the unit. Factors
     represent controlled emissions, except as noted. Divide the Ib/ton factor by two to obtain
     kg/Mg.  SCC = Source Classification Code, ND = No Data.
     Reference 21.  These data were obtained from unpublished emission test data and from
     industry questionnaires.  Because these are secondary data, the test data and the questionnaire
     results were weighed equally and the emission factors were calculated as  arithmetic means of
     the data.  The emission factor rating is a reflection of the source of the data.
     See Interim AP-42 Section 9.9.1, "Grain Elevators And Processes".
     Reference 22.
Controls -
       Hexane is recovered and reused in the oil-extraction process because of its cost.  The steam
and hexane exhausts from the solvent extractor, desolventizer-toaster, and oil/hexane stripping are
passed through condensers to recover hexane.  Residual hexane from the condensers is captured by
mineral oil scrubbers. The most efficient recovery or control device is a mineral  oil scrubber (MOS),
which is approximately 95 percent efficient. The meal dryer and cooler vents are typically exhausted
to the atmosphere with only cyclone control to reduce particulate matter.  Process controls to reduce
breakdowns and leaks can be used effectively to reduce emissions.  Quantities of hexane may be lost
through storage tanks, leaks, shutdowns, or breakdowns.  These losses are included in the material
balance.
11/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.11.1-9
-------
References for Section 9.11.1

 1.     P. T. Bartlett, et al., National Vegetable Oil Processing Plant Inventory, TRC Environmental
       Consultants Inc., Wethersfield, CT, April 1980.

 2.     J. M. Farren, et al., U. S. Industrial Outlook '92, U. S. Department Of Commerce,
       Washington, DC, 1992.

 3.     1987 Census Of Manufactures: Fats And Oils, U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of
       Census, Washington, DC, 1988.

 4.     Corn Annual  1992, Corn Refiners Association Inc., Washington, DC, 1992.

 5.     95-96 Soya Bluebook Plus - Annual Directory Of The World Oilseed Industry, Soyatech, Inc.,
       Bar Harbor, ME; data supplied by the National Oilseed Processors Association,
       September 1995.

 6.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Manufacture Of Vegetable Oils,
       EPA-450/2-78-035, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 1978.

 7.     Test Method For Evaluation QfHexane Emissions From Vegetable Oil Manufacturing, PEDCo
       Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, April 1979.

 8.     Written communication from D. C. Ailor,  Director Of Regulatory Affairs, National Oilseed
       Processors Association, Washington, DC, to D. Reisdorph, Midwest Research Institute,
       Kansas City,  MO, September 20, 1992.

 9.     Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42, Section 9.11.1, Vegetable Oil Processing,
       Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, November 1995.

 10.    R. L. Chessin, "Investigating Sources Of Hexane Emissions", Oil Mill Gazetteer, 86(2):35-
       36, 38-39, August 1981.

 11.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated (East
       Plant), Cedar Rapids,  Iowa, PEDCo Environmental  Inc.,  Cincinnati,  OH, June 1979.

 12.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated (West
       Plant), Cedar Rapids,  Iowa, PEDCo Environmental  Inc.,  Cincinnati,  OH, June 1979.

 13.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, AGR1 Industries, Mason
       City, Iowa, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati,  OH, June 1979.

 14.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated,
       Fayetteville, North Carolina, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, July 1979.

 15.    Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Emission Test Report, Central Soya Inc., Delphos, Ohio, EMB
       Report 78-VEG-4, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, July 1979.
9.11.1-10                           EMISSION FACTORS                               11/95
-------
16.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, MFA Soybeans, Mexico,
       Missouri, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, July 1979.

17.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Car gill Incorporated,
       Sidney, Ohio, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, July 1979.

18.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Ralston Purina Company,
       Memphis, Tennessee, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, August 1979.

19.    Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Ralston Purina Company,
       Bloomington, Illinois, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, August 1979.

20.    "Liquid Storage Tanks", in Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I:
       Stationary Point And Area Sources, AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, January 1995.

21.    Emissions Control In The Grain And Feed Industry, Volume I - Engineering And Cost Study,
       EPA-450/3-73-003a, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1973.

22.    "Grain Elevators And Processing Plants", in Supplement B To Compilation Of Air Pollutant
       Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources, AP-42, U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
11 /95                          Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.11.1-11
-------
9.12 Beverages




9.12.1  Malt Beverages




9.12.2  Wines And Brandy




9.12.3  Distilled And Blended Liquors
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.12-1
-------
9.12.1  Malt Beverages

9.12.1.1  Process Description1"4

        The production of malt beverages, or beer, comprises four main stages:  brewhouse
operations, fermentation,  aging or secondary fermentation, and packaging.  Figures 9.12.1-1,
9.12.1-2, 9.12.1-3, and 9.12.1-4 show the various stages of a typical brewing process, including
potential emission points.

        Breweries typically purchase malted grain (malt) from malting  operations.  In the malting
process, grain is first soaked in water-filled steeping tanks for softening. After softening, the grain is
transferred to germination tanks,  in which the grain germinates, typically over a 1-week period.
From the germination tanks, the grain enters a kiln, which halts germination by drying the grain.  To
begin the brewing process, malt (usually barley malt) is transported by truck or rail to a brewery and
is conveyed to storage silos.  The malt is then ground into malt flour by malt mills and transferred to
milled malt hoppers.  Many small breweries purchase malt flour (malted and milled grain)  from
facilities with malt mills.  Malt provides the starch-splitting and protein-splitting enzymes that are
necessary to convert grain starches into fermentable sugars.

        From the milled malt hoppers, the malt, along with hot water,  is fed to the mash tun and
heated to convert grain starches to fermentable sugars.  Some large facilities use high-temperature
mashing, which reduces the time required to convert the starches to sugars, but lowers the  quantity of
fermentable sugars produced. Most breweries use one of the three principal mashing processes; these
are: double mashing, decoction,  and  infusion.  Double mashing uses grains other  than barley
(typically corn and rice) as starch adjuncts.  Before being added to the  mash tun, the adjunct grains
are broken down through cooking in a cereal cooker for about  1 hour at temperatures ranging from
40° to 100°C (104° to 212°F).  Some plants do not use cereal cookers, but use additives such  as
corn syrup that function as adjunct grains. The malt  and adjuncts are then mixed and heated in the
mash tun.  Decoction is a method of boiling portions  of the mixture (mash) and adding the boiling
portions to the mash tun to raise the overall temperature to about 75°C (167°F).  The infusion
process mixes the malt with hot water to maintain a uniform temperature (65° to 75°C [149° to
167°F]) until starch conversion is complete.  Mixing, heating times, and temperatures vary among
breweries. The finished product  of mashing is a grain slurry, called mash.

        From the mash  tun, the mash is pumped to a  straining tank called a lauter  tun, which
separates insoluble grain residues from the mash.  The mash enters the lauter tun through a false
bottom where the insoluble grain residues are allowed to settle.  The grain sediment acts as a filter for
the mash as it enters the tank. Various other filter agents, such as polypropylene fibers,  are also
used. Some large breweries use strainmasters, which are a variation of lauter tuns.  The spent  grain
(brewers grain) from the lauter tun or strainmaster is  conveyed to holding tanks, dried (by  some
breweries), and sold as animal feed.   Brewers grain dryers are typically fired with  natural gas or fuel
oil.  The product of the lauter tun is called wort.

        The strained wort from the lauter tun is transferred to the brew kettle and  is  boiled, typically
for about 90 to 120 minutes. Boiling stops the starch-to-sugar conversion, sterilizes the wort,
precipitates hydrolyzed proteins, concentrates the wort by evaporating  excess water,  and facilitates
chemical changes that affect beer flavor.  Hops are added to the wort during the boiling process.
Hops are high in iso-a acids, which impart the characteristic bitter flavor to beer.  Some breweries

10/96                            Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.12.1-1
-------
                                  000© f f
                                                      o
                                                     1
                                                      
-------
                                                           LU
          ,-J
                    >•-'


                    ©
             L
                                                         s;
                                                         £E'
                                                         W.
                            !   b
                            L	




V _^^_ 	
IE
1

6

L. 	 ..
1
w
T
ll


A











oc
LAUTERTUN
RSTRAINMAST
(3-02-009-23)
u

t 1

5
o
t
S
09






!:«:
BREWERS GRA
HOLDING TAN

A
A
A
f
r 	 a 	
f z -
£ §
Jg| |
I






SHIPPING







operations
entheses.)
*> J3
3 M<
.§.s
                o
                                                                 $

                                                              $  z
                                                              z  111

                                                              7=  ">
                                                        z  o  s
                                                        O  5  ffi
                                        LU  LU

                                        is
                                                           I
                                  <  HI  <  Q O

                                  fE  P  I  g £
                                  LU  O  LU  a. O
                                                       0000ft
                                               e-.s
                                               c^
                                                                           (N '5

                                                                           ^  %

                                                                           (N 0


                                                                           O\  O
10/96
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.12.1-3
-------
                                            000© 4 f
                                                                3
                                                                O



                                                                1
                                                                G 4>
                                                                .2 8
                                                                a £
                                                                § g
                                                                



                                                                1 |






                                                                rn
                                                                i
                                                                *—i

                                                                CN



                                                                ON







                                                                E
9.12.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
10/96
-------
             0000ft
            ©^~L
           s.<
                         1 i
                         '"or
 it
                                            JL
                                             iSs*
                        f
                     I
                     |||
                                            ffifcj
                                            m QC *
                                            ffir-
                    \J2/

                    W
  3g?








  lit
                          T
                                Q

                                li
                                8s1
t
                      t
                          (0
                                             ig
I
                                 S;

                                 !pl
                                                                 11
                                                                 fc £
                                                                 g-1
                                                                 •™ o


10/96
Food And Agricultural Industry
                                                               9.12.1-5
-------
add only hop extracts (that contain the desired iso-ce acids), and some breweries add hop extracts
during or after the fermentation process.  After brewing, the hops are strained from the hot wort, and
the hot wort is pumped to a large settling tank, where it is held to allow the remaining insoluble
material  (trub) to settle.  The trub is transferred to the spent grain holding tanks.  After settling, the
hot wort is pumped to a cooling system (typically a closed system), which cools the liquid to
temperatures ranging from about 7° to  12°C (44° to 54°F).  Following cooling, yeast is added to the
cooled wort as it is pumped to the fermenters.

       Fermentation takes place in large tanks (fermenters-typically with capacities _>.1,000 barrels
for medium to large breweries) that can be either open or closed to the atmosphere.  Most closed-tank
fermenters include CO2 collection systems, which recover CO2 for internal use and remove organic
impurities from the CO2; water scrubbers  and activated carbon adsorption systems are used to recover
impurities. These closed tank fermenters typically vent emissions to the atmosphere (for a specified
period of time) until the CO2 is pure enough to collect.  The scrubber water is commonly discharged
as process wastewater, and the activated carbon is typically recharged (regenerated) on-site (the
impurities are typically vented to the atmosphere).

       Fermentation is a biological process in which yeast converts sugars into ethyl alcohol
(ethanol), carbon dioxide (CO2), and water.  Yeasts can ferment at either the bottom or the top of the
fermenter.  Saccharomyces carlsbergensis are common bottom-fermenting yeasts used to produce
lager beers. Bottom-fermenting yeasts  initially rise to the top of the fermenter, but then flocculate to
the bottom during  rapid fermentation.  When fermentation moderates, the beer is run off the top of
the fermenter, leaving the bottom-fermenting  yeasts at the bottom of the tank.  Saccharomyces
cerevisiae are  top-fermenting yeasts commonly used to produce ales, porters, and stout beers.  Top-
fermenting yeasts rise to  the top of the  fermenter during rapid  fermentation and are skimmed or
centrifuged off the top when fermentation moderates.  The type of yeast used  and the length of the
fermentation process vary among breweries and types of beer.   Most pilsner beers ferment at
temperatures varying from 6° to 20°C  (43° to 68°F).

       After primary fermentation, waste yeast is typically removed from the liquid (by centrifuges
or other  means), and the  liquid proceeds to a secondary fermentation or  aging process.  The liquid is
pumped to aging tanks, a small quantity of freshly fermenting  wort is added (at some breweries), and
the mixture is stored at low temperatures (below about 5°C [41 °F]).

       Several methods  are used for the disposal of yeast, including:  recovery of viable yeast for
reuse in the fermentation process, sale to animal feed processors, distillation to recover residual
ethanol,  and disposal as process wastewater.

       After the beer is  aged, solids are typically removed by centrifugation or filtration with
diatomaceous  earth filters, and the beer is pumped to final storage (beer storage tanks). From final
storage,  the beer is pumped to the packaging  (canning and bottling) facility.

       Packaging facilities  typically include several canning and bottling lines, as well as a keg filling
operation.  Most facilities pasteurize beer after canning or bottling, although some facilities package
nonpasteurized products using sterile filling lines.  Beer that spills during packaging is typically
collected by a drainage system, and can be processed to remove or recover ethanol before discharge
as process wastewater. Damaged and partially filled cans and  bottles are typically collected, crushed,
and recycled.  Beer from the damaged cans and bottles can be  processed to remove or recover ethanol
before discharge as industrial sewage.  The final steps in the process are labeling, packaging for
distribution, and shipping.


9.12.1-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                                10/96
-------
       Microbreweries typically produce beer for on-site consumption, although some have limited
local keg distribution.  The beer production process is similar to that of large breweries, although
several processes may be excluded or combined. Most microbreweries purchase bags of either malted
barley or malt flour for use in beer making.  Malt flour requires no processing and is added directly
to the mash tun.  The facilities that use malted barley typically have a small "cracker" that cracks the
grain prior to mashing.  Brewhouse operations (mashing, brewers  grain settling, brewing, and trub
settling) may be combined to decrease the number of tanks required.  Fermentation tanks and storage
tanks are much smaller than large brewery tanks, with capacities as small as a few barrels.  Many
microbrews are held in fermentation tanks for three to four weeks  (far longer than most mass-
produced beers).  Canning and bottling operations typically are not found in microbreweries.

9.12.1.2 Emissions  And Controls1'4

       Ethanol is the primary volatile organic compound (VOC) emitted from the production of malt
beverages.  Aldehydes, ethyl acetate, other VOCs,  CO2, and particulate matter (PM) are also
generated and potentially emitted.

       Potential VOC emission sources include mash tuns, cereal  cookers, lauter tuns or
strainmasters, brew kettles, hot wort settling tanks, yeast storage and propagation (see AP-42
Section 9.13.4), fermenters, spent grain holding tanks,  activated charcoal  regeneration systems  (at
breweries with CO2 recovery), aging tanks (sometimes  referred  to as "rub." storage tanks), other
storage tanks, and packaging operations.  The operations that precede fermentation are sources  of
various species of VOC. Post-fermentation operations emit primarily ethanol; however, small
quantities of ethyl acetate and various aldehydes may also be emitted from fermenters and post-
fermentation operations.  Other VOC that are emitted from cooking processes (mash tuns, hot wort
tanks, and brew kettles) may include dimethyl sulfide, C5-aldehydes, and myrcene (a hop oil emitted
from brew  kettles).

       Fermenters are a source of ethanol, other VOC, and CO2;  large breweries typically recover
CO2 for internal use. However, smaller breweries and microbreweries typically vent CO2 to the
atmosphere.

       Potential sources of PM emissions from breweries include  grain malting, grain handling and
processing  operations (see AP-42 Section 9.9,1), brewhouse operations, and spent-grain drying.

       Emissions from microbreweries consist of the same pollutants as large brewery emissions.
No test data are available to quantify these emissions, but they are expected to be negligible based on
the amount of beer produced in these facilities.  Emission control devices are not typically used by
microbreweries.

       Process loss controls are used to reduce emissions from  malt beverage production.  Add-on
emission controls are used to recover CO2 in the fermentation process and to control PM emissions
from grain  handling and brewers grain drying. Large breweries typically use CO2 recovery systems,
which can include water scrubbers  or activated carbon beds to remove impurities from the CO2. The
scrubber water is typically discharged as process wastewater, and organic impurities collected by the
activated carbon beds are typically  released to the atmosphere.

       Water scrubbers could potentially be used to control ethanol emissions.  However, scrubber
efficiency is based, in part, on the pollutant concentration (200 to 300 parts per million by volume
[ppmv] is needed for minimal efficiency), and the ethanol concentrations in fermentation rooms are


10/96                            Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.12.1-7
-------
typically very low (about 100 ppmv).  Incineration is also an inefficient control measure if pollutant
concentrations are low.  Recovery of ethanol vapor by carbon adsorption or other methods is another
control alternative, although the cost of recovery may be high.

       Grain handling and processing operations (unloading, conveying, milling, and storage) are
typically controlled by fabric filters. Many smaller breweries purchase malt flour, and do not have
milling operations.

       Each brewery is unique, and source to source variations can significantly affect emissions.
These variations result from differences in the brewing process, the type and age of equipment used,
and total production.  Brewery emissions  are also affected by the unique recipes and time and
temperature differences during various stages of production.

       Emission factors for malt beverage production operations are shown in Tables 9.12.1-1 and
9.12.1-2.

                Table 9.12.1-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MALT BEVERAGES*


Source/control
Brew kettleb
(SCC 3-02-009-07)
Brewers grain dryer
(SCC 3-02-009-30.-32)
Brewers grain dryer with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-02-009-30,-32)
Filterable PM


PM
0.41

26C
0.42°

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

D
D



PM-10
ND

0.33d
0.1 ld

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D
D



PM-2.5
ND

0.09 ld
0.060d

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D
D

a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per 1,000 bbl of beer packaged unless noted.
  1 bbl = 31 U.S. gallons.  ND = no data available.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 9.
c References 11,13,17. Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of dried grain produced.
d Reference 11.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of dried grain produced.
9.12.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
10/96
-------
            Table 9.12.1-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MALT BEVERAGES*




                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Process
Activated carbon regeneration0
(SCC 3-02-009-39)
Aging tank—filling*1
(SCC 3-02-009-08)
Bottle crusher6
(SCC 3-02-009-61)
Bottle crusher with water sprays6
(SCC 3-02-009-61)
Bottle filling linef
(SCC 3-02-009-53)
Bottle soaker and cleaner8
(SCC 3-02-009-60)
Brew kettleh
(SCC 3-02-009-07)
Brewers grain dryer—natural gas-fired
(SCC 3-02-009-30)
Brewers grain dryer-steam-heated
(SCC 3-02-009-32)
Can crusher with pneumatic conveyor"
(SCC 3-02-009-62)
Can filling linef
(SCC 3-02-009-51)
Cereal cookerp
(SCC 3-02-009-22)
Fermenter venting: closed fermenterq
(SCC 3-02-009-35)
Hot wort settling tankr
(SCC 3-02-009-24)
Keg filling line8
(SCC 3-02-009-55)
Lauter tunp
(SCC 3-02-009-23)
Mash tunp
(SCC 3-02-009-21)
Open wort cooler1"
(SCC 3-02-009-25)
Sterilized bottle filling line
(SCC 3-02-009-54)
Sterilized can filling line
(SCC 3-02-009-52)
CO
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
0.22m
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
CO2
ND
26
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND

840
53m
ND
ND
ND

2,100
ND
46
ND

ND

ND
4,300l
1,900*
vocb
0.035
0.57
0.48

0.13
17
0.20

0.64

0.73k
0.73k
0.088
14
0.0075

2.0
0.075
0.69
0.0055

0.054

0.022
40U
35U
Hydrogen
Sulfide
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.015
ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
10/96
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.12.1-9
-------
                                  Table9.12.1-2(cont.).
Process
Trub vessel—filling1"
(SCC 3-02-009-26)
Waste beer storage tanks
(SCC 3-02-009-65)
CO
ND
ND
CO2
ND
ND
vocb
0.25
ND
Hydrogen
Sulfide
ND
ND
m
Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per 1,000 bbl of beer packaged unless noted.
1 bbl = 31 U.S. gallons. ND = no data available. SCC =  Source Classification Code.
Total organic compounds measured using EPA Method 25A,  unless noted otherwise.
Pre-fermentation factors are presented as VOC as propane; post-fermentation factors are presented
as VOC as ethanol because the emissions have been shown to be primarily ethanol.
Reference 19.  From CO2 recovery and purification system on a closed fermenter.
Reference 6. VOC as ethanol.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D.
Reference 15.  VOC as ethanol.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per batch of bottles
crushed.  Crusher averages about 34 crushes per day.
Reference 20.  Emission factor represents ethanol emissions measured using both EPA Method 18
and an FTIR analyzer.  Factor is reported as VOC because ethanol is essentially the only VOC
emitted from filling operations.
Reference 14.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per 1000 cases of bottles washed.
Emission factor represents ethanol emissions measured by GC/FID. Factor  is reported as VOC
because ethanol is essentially the only VOC emitted from this operation. EMISSION FACTOR
RATING: D.
References 9,19.  VOC  as propane.
Reference 17.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of dried grain produced.  Emission
factor includes data from dryers  controlled by wet  scrubbers, which do not control CO2 emissions.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
References 11-13.  VOC as propane.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of dried
grain produced. Emission factor includes data from dryers controlled by wet scrubbers, which do
not control VOC emissions.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D.
Reference 11.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of dried grain produced.  Emission
factor includes data from dryers  controlled by wet  scrubbers, which do not control CO or CO2
emissions.  EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  D.
Reference 16.  VOC as  ethanol.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per gallon of beer
recovered.  EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  D.
Reference 19.  VOC as  propane.
Reference 10.  VOC as  ethanol.  Emission factors  are based on a 24-hour venting period prior to
CO2 collection.
Reference 5.  VOC as propane.
Reference 5.  VOC as ethanol.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
References.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
References 5,7-8,18.  VOC as ethanol. Emission factor includes measurements of VOC as ethanol
measured using EPA Method 25A and ethanol measured using both EPA Method 18 and an FTIR
analyzer.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
9.12.1-10
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
10/96
-------
References For Section 9.12.1

1.      Written communication from Brian Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to
       Dallas Safriet, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 5,
       1994.

2.      Richard D. Rapoport et al., Characterization Of Fermentation Emissions From California
       Breweries, Science Applications, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, October 26, 1983.

3.      Written communication from Jere Zimmerman,  Adolph Coors  Company, Golden, CO, to
       David Reisdorph, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 11, 1993.

4.      Written communication from Arthur J. DeCelle, Beer Institute, Washington, D.C., to
       Dallas Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 15, 1995.

5.      Report On Compliance Testing Performed For Coors Brewing Company, Clean Air
       Engineering, Palatine, IL, November 25, 1992.

6.      Report On Diagnostic Testing Performed For Coors Brewing Company, Revision 1, Clean Air
       Engineering, Palatine, IL, April 6,  1994.

7.      Can And Bottle Fitter Vent Volatile Organic Compound Test For Coors Brewing Company,
       Air Pollution Testing, Inc., Westminster, CO, October 1992.

8.      Filler Rooms Diagnostic VOC Test Report For Coors Brewing Company, Air Pollution
       Testing, Inc., Westminster, CO, December 1992.

9.      Stack Emissions Survey, Adolph Coors Company Brewery Complex, Golden, Colorado,
       Western Environmental Services and Testing, Inc., Casper, WY, November,  1990.

10.    Stack Emissions Survey, Adolph Coors Company Fermentation  - Aging Facilities, Golden,
       Colorado, Western Environmental Services and Testing, Inc., Casper, WY, November 1990.

11.    Stack Emissions Survey, Adolph Coors Company Brewery Complex, Golden, Colorado,
       Western Environmental Services and Testing, Inc., Casper, WY, February 1991.

12.    Grain Dryer Diagnostic VOC Report For Coors Brewing Company, Air Pollution Testing,
       Inc., Westminster, CO, November  1992.

13.    Report On Compliance Testing Performed For Coors Brewing Company, Clean Air
       Engineering, Palatine, IL, November 25, 1992.

14.    Bottle Wash Soaker Area Ethanol Emissions Source Test Report Performed For Coors Brewing
       Company, Acurex Environmental Corporation, Anaheim, CA,  July 12, 1993.

15.    Volatile Organic  Compound Emissions Source Test Report For Coors Brewing Company,  Air
       Pollution Testing, Inc., Lakewood, CO, August 1993.
10/96                          Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.12.1-11
-------
16.     Crushed Can Conveyor Unit Compliance VOC Test Report For Coors Brewing Company, Air
       Pollution Testing, Inc., Lakewood, CO, October 21, 1993.

17.     Emission Test Report, Dryers #1 And #4, Anheuser Busch, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, Pollution
       Control Science, Miamisburg, OH, December 20,  1983.

18.     Source Emissions Testing Report For Coors Brewing Company:  Golden, Colorado Facility,
       FID/FTIR Ethanol Measurements-Can And Bottle Line Ducts, Air Pollution Testing, Inc.,
       Lakewood, CO, April 3-4,  1995.

19.     Air Emissions Investigation Report, Miller Brewing Company, Fulton, New York, RTP
       Environmental  Associates, Inc., Westbury,  NY, February 1994.

20.     Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 21691, Anheuser-Busch Brewery, Fort
       Collins,  Colorado, Filling Room Vents, Entropy, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC,
       July 26-28,  1994.

21.     Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42  Section 9.12.1, Malt Beverages, Midwest
       Research Institute, Gary, NC, October 1996.
9.12.1-12                          EMISSION FACTORS                              10/96
-------
9.12.2 Wines And Brandy

9.12.2.1  General

       Wine is an alcoholic beverage produced by the fermentation of sugars in fruit juices,
primarily grape juice.  In general, wines are classified into two types  based on alcohol content:  table
wines (7 percent to 14 percent, by volume)  and dessert wines (14 percent to 24 percent, by volume).
Table wines are further subdivided into still and sparkling categories, depending upon the carbon
dioxide (CO;,) content retained in the bottled wine.  Still table wines are divided into three groups:
red, rose" (blush), and white, based on the color of the wine.
                            1-4
9.12.2.2 Process Description

       The production of still table wines is discussed in the following paragraphs, followed by more
concise discussions of the production of sweet table wines, sparkling wines, dessert wines, and
brandy.

Still Table Wines -
       The basic steps in vinification (wine production) include harvesting, crushing, pressing,
fermentation, clarification, aging, finishing, and bottling. A simplified process diagram outlining the
basic steps in the production of still table wines is shown in Figure 9.12.2-1.

       Harvesting of grapes is usually  conducted during the cooler periods of the day to prevent or
retard heat buildup and flavor deterioration in the grape.  Most wineries transport the whole grapes
but some crush the grapes in the vineyard and transport the crushed fruit to the winery.  Stemming
and crushing are commonly conducted as soon as possible after harvest. These two steps are
currently done separately using a crusher-stemmer, which contains an outer perforated cylinder to
allow the grapes to pass  through but prevents the passage of stems, leaves, and stalks.  Crushing the
grapes after stemming is accomplished by any one of many  procedures. The three processes
generally favored are: (1) pressing grapes against a perforated wall; (2) passing grapes through a set
of rollers; or (3) using centrifugal force.  Generally, 25 to 100 milligrams  (mg) of liquified sulfur
dioxide (SO2) are added per liter of the crushed grape mass  to control oxidation, wild yeast
contamination, and spoilage bacteria.

       Maceration is the breakdown of grape solids following crushing of the grapes.  The major
share of the breakdown results from the mechanical crushing but a small share results from enzymatic
breakdown. In red and rose" wine production, the slurry of juice, skins, seeds, and pulp is termed the
"must".  In white wine production, the skins, seeds, and pulp are separated from the juice before
inoculation with yeast and only the juice is fermented.  A fermenting batch of juice is also called
"must".  Thus, the term  "must" can refer to either the mixture of juice, seeds, skins,  and pulp for red
or rose wines or only the juice for white wines.  Maceration is always involved in the initial phase of
red wine fermentation.  The juice from the grapes may be extracted from the  "must" in a press.
Additionally, gravity flow juicers may be used initially to separate the majority of the juice from the
crushed grapes and the press used to extract the juice remaining  in the mass of pulp, skins, and seeds
(pomace).  There are many designs of dejuicers but, generally, they consist of a tank fitted with a
perforated basket at the exit end.  After gravity dejuicing has occurred, the pomace is placed in a
press and the remaining juice extracted.  There are three major types of presses.  The horizonal press
is  used for either crushed or  uncrushed grapes.  A pneumatic press can be  used for either crushed or

10/95                            Food And Agricultural Products                          9.12.2-1
-------
                                               U.CO
                                                                 0 £
                                                                 Z o
Nig
8i>-
                                      g
                                      OC '
                                                 is
                                                 9 8
                                                 §3
                                                                p
 II
 LL
8
                                     g
NG
SCR
                                                LU  T-
                                                  UJ
                                         8
                                           CO
                                                   O
                                                           LU
                                                           y
                           o
                           <
C3 ^.


Lu w
LU 9
a: w
                               a
                                      LU
                                                      S18'
                                       LU
                                              I J
                                  LU
                                  £

          E
                                                     QUJ

                                                     ccO
                                                CC
                                                O
                                                                            §
                                                                            1
                                             •96
                                             II
                                             «
                                                                              a
                                                                            I
                                                                            i-L,
             9.12.2-2
         EMISSION FACTORS
                10/95
-------
uncrushed grapes as well as for fermented "must".  In the continuous screw press, the "must" is
pumped into the press and forced in the pressing chamber where perforated walls allow the juice to
escape.  After pressing, white "must" is typically clarified and/or filtered prior to fermentation to
retain the fruity character.  The white juice is commonly allowed to settle for up to 12 hours but may
be centrifuged to speed the clarification.

       Fermentation is the process whereby the sugars (glucose and fructose)  present in the "must"
undergo reaction  by yeast activity to form ethyl alcohol  (ethanol) and CO2 according to the equation:

                                 C6H12O6 -» 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2

       In the U. S., the sugar content of the juice is commonly measured with a hydrometer in units
of degree Brix (°B), which is grams  (g) of sugar per 100 grams of liquid. Fermentation may be
initiated by the addition of yeast inoculation to the "must".  The fermentation process takes place in
tanks, barrels, and vats  of a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and technical designs.  Tanks are different
from vats in that  tanks are enclosed,  whereas vats have open tops. In most of the larger wineries,
tanks have almost completely replaced vats.   Since the 1950s, the move has been away from the use
of wooden tanks, primarily to stainless steel tanks.  Lined concrete tanks are also used, and fiberglass
tanks are becoming more popular because of  their light weight and lower cost.

       The fermentation process is an exothermic reaction and requires temperature control of the
fermenting  "must". Red wines are typically fermented at 25° to 28°C (70° to 82°F) and white wines
at 8° to 15°C (46°  to 59°F).  Almost all of the fermentation is conducted by the batch process and
continuous fermentors are rarely used in the U. S.  Size of the fermentors is based primarily on the
volume of "must" to be fermented. During fermentation of red wines, the CO2 released by the yeast
metabolism becomes entrapped in the pomace (layer of skins and seeds) and causes it to rise to the
top of the tank where it forms a cap.  The pomace cap is periodically covered  with the "must" to
increase color removal,  aerate the fermenting "must", limit growth of spoilage organisms in the cap,
and help equalize the temperature in  the fermenting "must". For white wines, the main technical
requirement is efficient temperature control.  Temperature is one of the most influential factors
affecting the fermentation process. During fermentation of both white  and red "must",  the CO2,
water vapor,  and ethanol are released through a vent in the top  of the tank. Malolactic fermentation
sometimes follows the primary fermentation and results  in a reduction in acidity and increased pH.
There are very diverse opinions about this step because the fermentation, to varying degrees, can
improve or reduce wine quality.

       After fermentation, all wines undergo a period of adjustment (maturation) and clarification
prior to bottling.  The process of maturation  involves the precipitation of paniculate and colloidal
material from the wine as well as a complex range of physical,  chemical, and biological  changes that
tend to maintain and/or improve the  sensory characteristics of the wine. The major adjustments are
acidity modification, sweetening,  dealcoholization, color adjustment, and blending.  Following the
fermentation process,  a  preliminary clarification step is commonly accomplished by decanting the
wine from one vessel to another, called racking, in order to separate the sediment (lees) from the
wine.  Current racking practices range from manually decanting wine from barrel to barrel to highly
sophisticated,  automated, tank-to-tank transfers.  In all cases, separation occurs with minimal agitation
to avoid resuspending the particulate matter.  The residue from racking may be filtered to  recover
wine otherwise lost with the lees or may be used  "as is" for brandy production.

       Stabilization and further clarification  steps follow maturation and initial clarification to
produce a permanently clear wine with no flavor faults.  The steps entail various stabilization


10/95                            Food And Agricultural Products                 ,        9.12.2-3
-------
procedures, additional clarification (fining), and a final filtration prior to bottling.  The most common
stabilization technique used for many red wines and some white wines  is aging the wine for a period
of months or years.  Vessels used to store and  age wine, termed cooperage, are produced in a wide
range of sizes, depending on their intended use.  White oak has traditionally been used for the barrels
to age wine, but currently its usage is reserved primarily for the production of premium white and red
wines and some fortified wines.  Water and ethanol are lost through the barrel surfaces and a partial
vacuum develops in the space created by this loss. Each barrel is periodically opened and topped off
with wine to fill the void created by the ethanol and water loss.  Cooperage constructed from
materials other than wood has many advantages and is less expensive to maintain.  Stainless steel is
often preferred,  but fiberglass and concrete are also used. In addition to aging, other stabilization
procedures are used to prevent formation of potassium bitartrate or calcium tartrate crystals, haziness
(casse) resulting from protein coalescence,  casse resulting from oxidation of tannins present in the
wine, and haziness due to metal ions such as iron and copper.  Enzyme mixtures are used to remove
polysaccharides  which can cause filtration problems and haze formation.  Most wines contain viable
but dormant microorganisms. Racking is used as an initial step in microbial stabilization but long-
term stability frequently requires use of sulfur dioxide as the antimicrobial  agent. Other methods
include pasteurization and filter sterilization. Sulfur dioxide may be added at  various stages in wine
production to prevent microbial growth and oxidation.  Finishing (fining) agents are commonly added
to accelerate the precipitation of suspended material in wine. Prior to bottling, a final clarification
step is used to remove any remaining suspended material and microbes in the  wine.  This step
involves only physical methods of clarification, generally a filtration procedure.

        Glass bottles are the  container of choice for premium quality wines and for sparkling wines.
Because of disadvantages  such as weight and breakage, glass bottles are sometimes being replaced by
new containers, such as bag-in-box,  for many standard quality, high volume wines. To protect the
wine against microbial spoilage, and to limit oxidation, the SO2 content in the wine is adjusted to a
final level of 50 mg/L before filling. Precaution is taken to minimize contact  with air during filling
and thereby to reduce oxidation. This is done  by either flushing the bottle with inert  gas before
filling or flushing the headspace with inert gas after filling.

Sweet Table Wines -
        The most famous of  the sweet wines are those made from noble-rotted, Botrytis-infected
grapes.  These wines are produced to a limited extent in the United States. The Botrytis mold acts to
loosen the grape's skin so moisture loss occurs rapidly and the sugar concentration  increases in the
grape.  The grapes are then selectively picked, followed by pressing, and fermentation.  Fermentation
is a slow process, however, because of the high sugar content and the use of SO2 to retard the growth
of undesirable molds and microorganisms.   Nonbotrytized sweet wines are also produced by drying
the grapes.  Drying involves allowing the grapes to dehydrate on mats or trays in the shade for weeks
or months and then crushing the grapes and fermenting the concentrated juice. Heating, boiling, or
freezing is also used to concentrate juice for semisweet wines.

Sparkling Wines -
        Most sparkling wines obtain CO2 supersaturation using a second alcoholic fermentation,
typically induced by adding yeast and sugar to dry white wine.  There are three principal methods of
sparkling wine production:  the methode champagnoise, the transfer method, and the bulk method.  In
the methode champagnoise, both red and white grapes may  be used, but most sparkling wines are
white.  The grapes are harvested earlier than those used for still table wines and pressed whole
without prior stemming or crushing to extract the juice with a minimum of pigment and tannin
extraction.  This is important for producing white sparkling wines from  red-skinned grapes.  Primary
fermentation is carried out at approximately  15°C (59°F) and bentonite and/or casein may be added


9.12.2-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 10/95
-------
to aid the process and improve clarity.  The blending of wines produced from different sites,
varieties,  and vintages distinguishes the traditional method.  Before preparing the blend (cuvee), the
individual base wines are clarified and stabilized.  Aging typically takes place in stainless steel tanks
but occasionally takes place in oak cooperage.  The secondary fermentation requires inoculation of the
cuv&e wine with a special yeast strain.  A concentrated sucrose solution is added to the cuv&e just
prior to the yeast inoculation. The wine is then bottled, capped, and stacked horizontally at a stable
temperature, preferably between 10° to 15°C (50° to 59°F), for the second fermentation. After
fermentation, the bottles are transferred to a new site for maturation and stored at about 10°C (50°F).

        Riddling is the technique used to remove the yeast sediment (lees). The process involves
loosening and suspending the cells by manual or mechanical shaking and turning, and positioning the
bottle to move the lees toward the neck. Disgorging takes place about 1 or 2 years after bottling.
The bottles are cooled and  the necks immersed  in an ice/CaC!2 or ice/glycol solution to freeze the
sediment. The disgorging  machine rapidly removes the cap on the bottle, allowing for ejection of the
frozen yeast plug. The mouth of the bottle is quickly covered and the fluid level is adjusted.  Small
quantities of SO2 or ascorbic acid may be added to prevent subsequent in-bottle fermentation and limit
oxidation. Once the volume adjustment and other additions are complete, the bottles are sealed with
special corks, the wire hoods added, and the bottles agitated to disperse the additions.  The bottles are
then decorated with their capsule and  labels  and stored for about 3 months to allow the corks to set in
the necks. The transfer method is identical to the methode champagnoise  up  to the riddling stage.
During aging, the bottles are stored neck down.  When the aging process  is complete,  the bottles are
chilled below 0°C (32°F) before discharge into a transfer machine and passage to pressurized
receiving tanks.  The wine is usually sweetened, sulfited,  clarified by filtration, and sterile filtered
just before bottling.

        In the bulk method, fermentation of the juice for the base wine may proceed until all the
sugar is consumed or it may be prematurely terminated to retain sugars for the second fermentation.
The yeast is removed by centrifugation  and/or filtration.  Once the  cuvle is formulated, the wines are
combined with yeast additives and, if necessary, sugar.  The second fermentation takes place in
stainless steel  tanks similar to those used in  the transfer process.  Removal of the lees takes  place at
the end of the second fermentation by centrifugation and/or filtration. The sugar and SO2 contents are
adjusted just before sterile  filtration and bottling.

        Other methods of production of sparkling wine include the  "rural" method and carbonation.
The rural method involves  prematurely  terminating the primary fermentation prior to a second in-
bottle fermentation.  The injection of CO2 (carbonation) under pressure  at low temperatures  is the
least expensive and the least prestigious method of producing sparkling  wines.

Dessert Wines -
        Dessert wines are classified together because of their elevated alcohol content.  The  most
common dessert wines are  sherries and  ports.

        Baking is the most  popular technique for producing sherries in the United States.  Grapes are
crushed and stemmed and SO2 added as soon as possible to control bacteria and oxidation.  The
maximum amount of juice  is separated from the skins and the juice is transferred to fermentors. The
juice is inoculated with  starter and fermented at temperatures of 25° to 30°C (77° to 86°F).  The new
wine is then pumped from  the fermentor or settling tank to the fortification tank.  High proof spirits
are added to the sherry material, or shermat, to raise the alcohol content to 17 to 18 percent by
volume and then the wine is thoroughly mixed, clarified,  and filtered  before baking. Slow baking
occurs when the wine is stored in barrels exposed to the sun.  More rapid baking is achieved through


10/95                            Food And Agricultural Products                          9.12.2-5
-------
the use of artificially heated storage rooms or heating coils in barrels or tanks.  After baking, the
sherry is cooled, clarified,  and filtered.  Maturation is then required and is usually carried out in oak
barrels.   Aging can last from 6 months to 3 years or more.

       Port wines are produced by the premature termination of fermentation by addition of brandy.
When the fermenting must is separated from the pomace by gravity, it is fortified with wine spirits
containing about 77 percent alcohol, by volume. Most white ports are fortified when half the original
sugar content has been fermented, except for semidry and dry white ports  which are fortified later.
The type and duration  of aging depend on the desired style of wine.  Blending is used to achieve the
desired properties of the wine.  The final blend is left to mature in oak cooperage for several months
prior to fining, filtration, stabilization, and bottling.

Brandy Production —
       Brandy is an alcoholic distillate or mixture of distillates obtained from the fermented juice,
mash, or wine from grapes or other fruit (e. g., apples, apricots, peaches, blackberries, or
boysenberries).  Brandy is  produced at less than 190° proof and bottled at a minimum of 80° proof.
(In the United States, "proof" denotes the ethyl alcohol  content of a liquid at 15.6°C (60°F), stated as
twice the percent ethyl alcohol by volume.)  Two types of spirits are produced from wine or wine
residue:  beverage brandy and "wine spirits".

       In brandy production, the grapes are pressed immediately after crushing.  There are major
differences in the fermentation process between wine and brandy production. Pure  yeast cultures are
not used in the fermentation process for brandy. Brandy can be made solely from the fermentation of
fruit or can be distilled either from the lees leftover from the racking process in still wine production
or from the pomace cap that is leftover from still red  wine fermentations.

       In the United States, distillation is commenced immediately after the fermentation step,
generally using continuous column distillation,  usually with an aldehyde section, instead  of pot stills.
For a detailed discussion of the distillation and aging of distilled spirits, which  include brandy and
brandy spirits, refer to AP-42 Section 9.12.3,  "Distilled And Blended Liquors".  After distillation,  the
brandy is aged in oak casks for 3 to 15  years or more.  During aging, some of the ethanol and water
seep through the oak and evaporate, so brandy  is added periodically to compensate  for this loss.
Caramel coloring is added  to give the brandy a characteristic dark  brown color. After aging, the
brandy may be blended and/or flavored, and then chilled, filtered,  and bottled.

9.12.2.3 Emissions And Controls5'11

        Ethanol and carbon dioxide are the primary compounds emitted during  the fermentation step
in the production of wines and brandy.  Acetaldehyde, methyl alcohol (methanol), n-propyl  alcohol,
n-butyl  alcohol, sec-butyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, isoamyl alcohol, and hydrogen  sulfide also are
emitted but in much smaller quantities compared to ethanol emissions. In addition, a large number of
other compounds are formed during the fermentation  and  aging process.  Selected examples of other
types of compounds formed and potentially emitted during the fermentation process include a variety
of acetates, monoterpenes, higher alcohols,  higher acids, aldehydes and ketones, and organosulfides.
During  the fermentation step, large quantities of CO2 are also formed and emitted.

        Fugitive ethanol emissions also occur during the screening of the red wine, pressing of the
pomace cap,  aging in oak cooperage, and the bottling process.  In addition, as  a preservative,  small
amounts of liquified SO2 are often added to the grapes after harvest, to the "must" prior to
9.12.2-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                10/95
-------
fermentation, or to the wine after the fermentation is completed; SO2 emissions can occur during these
steps.  There is little potential for VOC emissions before the fermentation step in wine production.

       Except for harvesting the grapes and possibly unloading the grapes at the winery, there is
essentially no potential for particulate (PM) emissions from this industry.

       Emission controls are not currently used during the production of wines  or brandy.  Five
potential control systems have been considered and three have been the subject of pilot-scale emission
test studies at wineries or universities in California.  The five systems are (1) carbon adsorption,
(2) water scrubbers,  (3) catalytic incineration,  (4) condensation, and (5) temperature control.  All of
the systems have disadvantages in either low control efficiency, cost effectiveness, or overall
applicability to the wide variety of wineries.

       Emission factors for VOC and hydrogen sulfide emissions from the fermentation step in wine
production are shown in Table  9.12.2-1.  The emission factors for controlled ethanol emissions  and
the uncontrolled emissions of hydrogen sulfide and other VOCs from the fermentation step should be
used with caution because the factors are based on a small number of tests and fermentation
conditions vary considerably from one winery to  another

       The only emission factors for wine production processes other than fermentation,  were
obtained from a 1982 test.7 These factors  represent uncontrolled fugitive ethanol emissions during
handling processes.  The factor for fugitive emissions from the pomace screening for red wine
(SCC 3-02-011-11) is 0.5 lb/1,000 gal of juice.  An ethanol emission factor for the pomace press is
applicable only to red wine because the juice for white wine goes through the pomace press before the
fermentation step. The emission factor for red wine (SCC 3-02-011-12) is 0.02  Ib/ton of pomace.
Although fugitive emissions occur during the bottling of both red and white wines,  an emission  factor
is  available only for the bottling of white wine.  The factor for white wine bottling
(SCC 3-02-011-21) is 0.1  lb/1,000 gal of wine.  All  of these factors are rated E.  These emission
factors should be used with extreme  caution because they are based on a limited  number of tests
conducted at one winery.  There is no  emission factor for fugitive emissions from the finishing and
stabilization step (aging).

       There are no available data that can be used to estimate emission factors for the production of
sweet table wines, dessert wines, sparkling wines, or brandy.
10/95                            Food And Agricultural Products                         9.12.2-7
-------
  w
  PH

  U
  tn
  OS
  O

  U

  It,

  Z
  o
  (N
  a\
       o
OS
o
PL,
       on
       on
  £    2
  S    H
c
!
a

1

03
~~
1
o
"5*
1


t
%
U


•8
a
?r

n
-a
1
-a
o
o
<3
1
o
„
J3
o
o
•a


'd
1
•a
„
d
|
«

J3
O
•3


n
d
0
•a
•a
60
o
*
•a
61)
0
4S
2
XI
•a
CO
o
•a
2
i— »
•a
T— 1
£
•a
**"i
o
.e
•a
61)
p"i
O
a
•a
on
(O
o
.Q
1
o
o
o
n
s

ITl
tiJ
in
vn

^
d

s
o
o



o
^>







o
Z






£

Q


Q

Q

Q

Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z



i-H
O



c
o
•a
&
3
"3
e
o
XI
!3
U
o
9
tM
9
f)
U
u

Q
Z


Q
Z

Q
Z

Q

Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z



~H
'-

"c
o
1

1
o
•a

U








Q
Z


Q

Q
Z

Q
Z

Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z

VO
vr>
O
O





scrubber"

a
£








o
o
d


W
fS

o
q
d

t
U
ON

Q
Z


Q
Z

f>
8
d

3
^*
vO



00
T-^







O





i
i

Q
Z


Q

Q
Z

Q
Z

Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z

£4
o\
o
o



o

1
to
•3
e
o

U
9
9

9
m
O
U

Q


Q
Z

Q
Z

Q

Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z


m

0

"c
o
1

1
1

O








Q
Z


Q
Z

Q
Z

Q
Z

Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z

«
00
o
o





scrubber"

1







                                                 CS
                                                 -O

                                                 O
                                                 Q
                                                 Z
                                           
                                          T3
                                           O
                                          U


                                           O


                                          1

                                          £
                                           to

                                           3

                                          U

                                           8
                                           *H

                                           O
                                          C/3
O
U
CO
                                          T3
                                           O
                                          .§
                                          _3
                                          i
                                           I
                                          .s
                                           o

                                          13
                                           bO
                                                 .£


                                                   Z -
                                                  _  X 4) O
                                                  e o w cj o
                                                  Q C « - JH
                                                    oo
                                           S"" 1C *T|
                                             (U ^

                                           UJ Qi PJ
                                                           
-------
References For Section 9.12.2

 1.     R. S. Jackson, Wine Science: Principles And Application, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
       1994.

 2.     M. A. Amerine,  "Wine", in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology,  Third
       Edition, Volume 24, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984.

 3.     J. A. Heredia, "Technical Assessment Document On Ethanol Emissions And Control From
       California Wineries",  Master of Science Dissertation, California Polytechnic State
       University, San Luis Obispo, CA, June 1993.

 4.     M. A. Amerine,  et al., Technology Of Wine Making, Fourth Edition, AVI Publishing
       Company, Westport, CT, 1980.

 5.     G. C. Miller, et al., "Loss Of Aroma Compounds In Carbon Dioxide Effluent  During White
       Wine Fermentation", Food Technol. Aust., 39(5}:246-249,  1987.

 6.     Written communication from Dean C. Simeroth, California Air Resources Board,  Sacramento,
       CA, to Mark Boese, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, CA,
       November 1, 1994.

 7.     EAL Corporation, "Characterization Of Ethanol Emissions From Wineries", Final Report,
       California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, July,  1982.

 8.     Ethanol Emissions And Control For Wine Fermentation And Tanks, Report # ARB/ML-88-
       027, California Air Resources Board, April  1988.

 9.     D.F. Todd, et al., "Ethanol Emissions Control From Wine  Fermentation Tanks Using
       Charcoal  Adsorption: A Pilot Study", California Air Resources Board, published by
       California Agricultural Technology Institute, March 1990.

10.     Ethanol Emissions Control  From Wine Fermentation Tanks Utilizing Carbon Adsorption
       Technology, Akton Associates, Martinez, CA, June 1991.

11.     Written communication from Arthur Caputi, Jr., E&J Gallo Winery, Modesto, CA, to Maria
       Lima, San Joaquin  Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, CA,  December 14,
       1992.
10/95                          Food And Agricultural Products                        9.12.2-9
-------
9.12.3 Distilled And Blended Liquors



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.12.3-1
-------
9.12.3  Distilled Spirits

9.12.3.1  General1'2

        The distilled spirits industry includes the production of whisky, gin, vodka, rum, and brandy.  The
production of brandy is discussed in AP-42 Section 9.12.2, "Wines and Brandy".  Distilled spirits
production also may include the production of secondary products such as distillers dried grains used for
livestock feed and other feed/food components.

        Distilled spirits, including grain spirits and neutral spirits, are produced throughout the United
States.1 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) has established "standards of identity"
for distilled spirits products.2

9.12.3.2  Process Description3-4

        Distilled spirits can be produced by a variety of processes.  Typically, in whisky production,
grains are mashed and fermented to produce an alcohol/water solution, that is distilled to concentrate the
alcohol.  For whiskies, the distilled product is aged to provide flavor, color, and aroma.  This discussion
will be limited to the production of Bourbon whisky.  Figure 9.12.3-1 is a simple diagram of a typical
whisky production process.  Emission data are available only for the fermentation and aging steps of
whisky production.

9.12.3.2.1 Grain Handling And Preparation -
        Distilleries utilize premium cereal grains, such  as hybrid corn, rye, barley, and wheat, to produce
the various types of whisky and other distilled spirits. Grain is received at a distillery from a grain-
handling facility and is prepared for fermentation by milling or by malting  (soaking the grains to induce
germination).  All U.S. distillers purchase malted grain instead of performing the malting process onsite.

9.12.3.2.2 Grain Mashing -
        Mashing consists of cooking the grain to solubilize the starch from the kernels and to convert the
soluble starch to grain sugars with barley malt and/or enzymes.  Small quantities of malted barley are
sometimes added prior to grain cooking.  The mash then passes through a noncontact cooler to cool the
converted mash prior to entering the fermenter.

9.12.3.2.3 Fermentation-
        The converted mash enters the fermenter and is inoculated with yeast.  The fermentation process,
which usually lasts  3 to 5 days for whisky, uses yeast to convert the grain sugars into ethanol and carbon
dioxide.  Congeners are flavor compounds which are produced during fermentation as well as during the
barrel aging process.   The final fermented grain alcohol mixture, called  "beer", is transferred to a "beer
well" for holding.  From the beer well, the beer passes  through a preheater, where it is warmed by the
alcohol vapors leaving the still, and then to the distillation unit. The beer still vapors condensed in the
preheater generally are returned to the beer still as reflux.
3/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.12.3-1
-------
                                    Grain Receding
                                    (Malted Grains)
                  PM Emissions
                                    Grain Handing
                                     (3-02-010-01)
                                        Milling
                                     (3-02-01005)
                 Barley Mat.
                 or Enzymes
                                    Grain Mashing
                            (Conversion of Starches to Sugars)
                                     (302-010-13)
                      Yeast-
                                     Fermentation
                             (Conversion of Sugars to Alcohol)
                                     (302-010-14)
                        Backset Stillage
                  PM Emissions

                          OPTIONAL PROCESS
                                                                   Grain Cleaning
                                                                    (3-02-010-01)
                                             „ PM Emissions  j
             •-•*• PM Emissions
                  -VOC Emisstonsa
                    Ethanol and COj Emissions'9
                                                           Backset Stillage
                                             Whole Stillage
                                                                Dryer House Operations
                                                                 (Distillers Dried Grains)
                                         	». PM Emissions3
                                      Distillation
                                     (3-02-010-15)
                                  Intermediate Storage
                                                                  VOC Emissions; Noncondensed Off-Gases3
                                                                  Ethanol Emissions (Breathing)
                                  Warehousing/Aging
                                     (302010-17)
                                  Intermediate Storage
                  Ethanol Emissions
                                                                  Ethanol Emissions (Breathing)
                                    Btending/Bottling
                                     (34)2-010-18)
                  Ethanol Emissions
        Processes require heat. Emissions generated (e.g., CO, CC>2, NOX, SO2, PM, and VOCs) will depend on the source of fuel.
      5 Other compounds can be generated in trace quantities during fermentation including ethyl acetate, fusel oil, furfural,
        acetaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sutfide. Acetaldehyde is a hazardous air pollutant (HAP).
                                   Figure 9.12.3-1.  Whisky production process.
                                   (Source Classification Codes in parentheses).
9.12.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97
-------
9,12.3.2.4 Distillation -
        The distillation process separates and concentrates the alcohol from the fermented grain mash.
Whisky stills are usually made of copper, especially in the rectifying section, although stainless steel may
be used in some stills. Following distillation, the distilled alcohol spirits are pumped to stainless steel tanks
and diluted with demineralized water to the desired alcohol concentration prior to filling into oak barrels
and aging. Tennessee whisky utilizes a different process from Bourbon in that the distillate  is passed
through sugar maple charcoal in mellowing vats prior to dilution with demineralized water.

9.12.3.2.5 Grain And Liquid Stillage ("Dryer House Operations") -
        In most distilleries, after the removal of alcohol, still bottoms  (called whole stillage), are pumped
from the distillation column to a dryer house. Whole stillage may be sold,  land applied (with permitting),
sold as liquid feed,  or processed and dried to produce distillers dried grains (DDG) and other secondary
products. Solids in the whole stillage are separated using centrifuges or screens; the liquid portion (thin
stillage) may be used as a backset or concentrated by vacuum evaporation.  The concentrated liquid may
be recombined with the solids or dried. Drying is typically accomplished using either steam-heated or
flash dryers.

9.12.3.2.6 Warehousing/Aging -
        Aging practices differ from distiller to distiller, and even for the same distiller. Variations in the
aging process are integral to producing the characteristic taste of a particular brand of distilled spirit.  The
aging process, which typically ranges from 4 to 8 years or more, consists of storing the new whisky
distillate in oak barrels to encourage chemical reactions and extractions between the whisky  and the wood.
The constituents of the barrel  produce the whisky's characteristic color and distinctive flavor and aroma.
White oak is used because it is one  of the few woods that holds liquids while allowing breathing (gas
exchange) through the wood.  Federal law requires all Bourbon whisky to be aged in charred new white
oak barrels.

        The oak barrels and the barrel environment are key to producing distilled spirits of desired quality.
The new whisky distillate undergoes many types of physical and chemical changes during the aging process
that removes the harshness of the new distillate. As whisky ages, it extracts and reacts with constituents in
the wood of the barrel, producing certain trace substances, called congeners, which give whisky its
distinctive color,  taste, and aroma.

        Barrel environment is extremely critical in whisky aging and varies considerably by distillery,
warehouse, and even location  in the warehouse. Ambient atmospheric conditions, such as seasonal and
diurnal variations in temperature and  humidity, have a great affect on the aging process, causing changes
in the equilibrium rate of extraction, rate of transfer by diffusion, and rate of reaction.   As a result,
distillers may expose the barrels to  atmospheric conditions during certain months, promoting maturation
through the selective opening of windows and doors and by other means.

        Distillers often utilize various warehouse designs, including single- or multistory buildings
constructed of metal,  wood, brick,  or masonry.  Warehouses generally rely upon natural ambient
temperature and humidity changes to  drive the aging process.  In a few warehouses, temperature is
adjusted during the  winter.  However, whisky warehouses do not have the capability to control humidity,
which varies with natural climate conditions.

9.12.3.2.7 Blending/Bottling  -
        Once the whisky has completed its desired aging period, it is transferred from the barrels into
tanks and reduced in proof to the desired final alcohol concentration by adding demineralized water.
3/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.12.3-3
-------
Following a filtration process that renders it free of any solids, the whisky is pumped to a tank in the
bottling house, bottled, and readied for shipment to the distributors.

9.12.3.3 Emissions And Controls3'6

9.12.3.3.1  Emissions -
        The principal emissions from whisky production are volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
principally ethanol, and occur primarily during the aging/warehousing stage.  In addition to ethanol, other
volatile compounds, including acetaldehyde (a HAP), ethyl acetate, glycerol, fusel oil, and furfural, may
be produced in trace amounts during aging.  A comparatively small source of ethanol emissions may result
from the fermentation stage.  Smaller quantities of ethyl acetate, isobutyl alcohol, and isoamyl alcohol are
generated as well; carbon dioxide is also produced during fermentation.  Particulate matter (PM) emissions
are generated by the grain receiving, handling, drying, and cleaning processes and are discussed in more
detail in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes. Other emissions, including S02, C02, CO,
NOX, and PM may be generated  by fuel combustion from power production facilities located at most
distilled spirits plant.

        Ethanol and water vapor emissions result  from the breathing phenomenon of the oak barrels during
the aging process. This phenomenon of wood acting as a semipermeable membrane is complex and not
well understood.  The emissions from evaporation from the barrel during aging are not constant. During
the first 6 to 18 months, the evaporation rate from a new barrel is low because the wood must  become
saturated (known as "soakage") before evaporation occurs.  After saturation, the evaporation rate is
greatest, but then decreases as evaporation lowers the liquid level in the barrel.   The  lower liquid level
decreases the surface area of the liquid in contact with the wood and thus reduces the surface area subject
to evaporation.  The rate of extraction of wood constituents, transfer, and reaction depend upon ambient
conditions, such as temperature and humidity, and the  concentrations of the various whisky constituents.
Higher temperatures increase the rate of extraction,  transfer by diffusion, and reaction. Diurnal and
seasonal temperature changes cause convection currents in the liquid. The rate  of diffusion will depend
upon the differences in concentrations of constituents in the wood, liquid, and air blanketing the barrel.
The rates of reaction will increase or decrease with the concentration of constituents.  The equilibrium
concentrations of the various whisky components depend upon the humidity and air flow around the barrel.

        Minor emissions are generated when the whisky is drained from the barrels for blending and
bottling. Residual whisky remains in the used barrels both as a surface film ("heel")  and within the wood
("soakage").  For economic reasons, many distillers attempt to recover as much residual whisky as
possible by methods such as rinsing the barrel with water and vacuuming.  Generally, barrels are refilled
and reentered into the aging process for other distilled  spirits at the particular distiller or sealed with a
closure (bung) and shipped offsite for reuse with other distilled spirits. Emissions may also be generated
during blending and bottle filling, but no data are available.

9.12.3.3.2  Controls-
        With the  exception of devices for controlling PM emissions, there are very few emission controls
at distilleries.  Grain handling and processing emissions are controlled through the use of cyclones,
baghouses, and other PM control devices (see AP-42 Section 9.9.1). There are currently no current
control technologies for VOC emissions from fermenters because the significant amount of grain solids
that would  be carried out of the fermenters by air  entrainment could quickly render systems, such as
carbon adsorption, inoperable. Add-on air pollution control devices for whisky aging warehouses are not
used because of potential adverse impact on product quality.  Distillers ensure that barrel construction is of
high quality to minimize leakage, thus reducing ethanol emissions.  Ethanol recovery would require the use
9.12.3-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                   3/97
-------
of a collection system to capture gaseous emissions in the warehouse and to process the gases through a
recovery system prior to venting them to the atmosphere.

9.12.3.3.3 Emission Factors-
        Table 9.12.3-1 provides uncontrolled emission factors for emissions of VOCs from fermentation
vats and for emissions of ethanol from aging due to evaporation.  Because ethanol is the principal VOC
emission from aging, the ethanol emissions factors are reasonable estimates of VOC emissions for these
processes.  Emission factors for grain receiving, handling,  and cleaning may be found in
AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes. Emission factors are unavailable for grain mashing,
distillation, blending/bottling, and spent grain drying. An emission factor for carbon dioxide from
fermentation vats is also unavailable, although carbon dioxide and ethanol are theoretically generated in
equal molecular quantities during the fermentation process.

                 Table 9.12.3-1.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS3

                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  E
Sourceb
Grain mashing
(SCC 3-02-010-13)
Fermentation vats
(SCC 3-02-010-14)
Distillation
(SCC 3-02-010-15)
Aging
(SCC 3-02-010-17)
Evaporation lossd
Blending/bottling
(SCC 3-02-010-18)
Dryer house operations
(SCC 3-02-010-02)
Ethanol
NA
14. 2C

ND


6.9e
ND
ND
Ethyl acetate
NA
0.046C

ND


ND
ND
ND
Isoamyl
Alcohol
NA
0.013C

ND


ND
ND
ND
Isobutyl .
Alcohol
NA
0.004C

ND


ND
ND
ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data
  available.  To convert from Ib to kg, divide  by 2.2. NA = not applicable.
b Emission factors for grain receiving, handling, and cleaning processes are available in
  AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.
c Reference 5 (paper).  In units of pounds per 1,000 bushels of grain input.
d Evaporation losses during whisky aging do not include losses due to soakage.
e References 6-7.  In units of Ib/bbl/yr; barrels have a capacity of approximately 53 gallons.

        Recognizing that aging practices may  differ from  distiller to distiller,  and even for different
products of the same distiller, a method may be  used to  estimate total ethanol  emissions from barrels
during aging.  An ethanol emission factor for aging (total  loss emission factor) can be calculated based on
annual emissions per barrel in proof gallons (PG). The  term "proof gallon" refers to a U.S. gallon of
proof spirits, or the alcoholic equivalent thereof,  containing 50 percent of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) by
volume.  This calculation method is derived from the gauging of product and measures the difference in
the amount of product when the barrel was filled and when the barrel was emptied.  Fugitive evaporative
3/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.12.3-5
-------
emissions, however, are not the sole difference between these two amounts.  During the aging period,
product soaks into the barrel, test samples are drawn, and other losses (e. g., spillage, leakage)  may occur.
Estimates of ethanol loss due to evaporation during aging based only on the gauging of product will
produce an overestimate unless soakage and sampling losses (very small losses) are subtracted.  The
emission factor for evaporation loss in Table 9.12.3-1 represents an overestimate because only data for
soakage losses could be calculated; data for other losses were not available.

References for Section 9.12.3

1.     Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, And Firearms (BATF), "Monthly Statistical Release-Distilled
       Spirits", Department Of The Treasury, Washington, DC, January 1995 through December 1995.

2.      "Standards Of Identity For Distilled Spirits", 27 CFR Part 1, Subpart C, Office Of The Federal
       Register, National Archives And Records Administration, Washington, D.C., April 1,  1996.

3.     Bujake, J.  E., "Beverage Spirits, Distilled", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology,
       4th. Ed., Volume No. 4, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.

4.      Cost And Engineering Study Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Whiskey Warehousing,
       EPA-450/2-78-013, Emissions Standards Division, Chemical and Petroleum Branch, Office Of
       Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, April 1978.

5.     Carter, R.  V., and B. Linsky, "Gaseous Emissions From Whiskey Fermentation Units",
       Atmospheric Environment, 8:57-62, January 1974; also a preliminary paper of the same title by
       these authors (undated).

6.     Written communication from R. J. Garcia,  Seagrams Americas, Louisville,  KY, to T. Lapp,
       Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, March 3, 1997. RTGs versus age for 1993  standards.

7.     Written communication from L. J. Omlie, Distilled Spirits Council Of The United States,
       Washington,  D.C., to T. Lapp, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, February 6,  1997.
       Ethanol emissions data from Jim Beam Brands Co.
9.12.3-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  3/97
-------
9.13 Miscellaneous Food And Kindred Products




9.13.1  Fish Processing




9.13.2  Coffee Roasting




9.13.3  Snack Chip  Deep Fat Frying




9.13.4  Yeast Production
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.13-1
-------
9.13.1  Fish Processing

9.13.1.1  General

        Fish canning and byproduct manufacturing are conducted in 136 plants in 12 states.  The
majority of these plants are in Washington, Alaska, Maine, Louisiana, and California.  Some
processing occurs in Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. The industry
experienced an 18 percent increase in the quantity of fish processed in 1990, and additional increases
were expected hi 1992 as well.  Exports of canned fish and fish meal also are increasing because of
diminishing supply  hi other countries.

9.13.1.2  Process Description

        Fish processing includes both the canning of fish for human consumption and the production
of fish byproducts such as meal  and oil.  Either a precooking method or a raw pack method can be
used hi canning.  In the precooking method, the raw fish are cleaned and cooked before the canning
step. In the raw pack method, the raw fish are cleaned and placed hi cans before cooking. The
precooking  method  is used typically for larger fish such as tuna, while the raw pack method is used
for smaller fish such as sardines.

        The byproduct manufacture segment of the fish industry uses canning or filleting wastes and
fish that are not suitable for human consumption to produce fish meal and fish oil.

Canning -
        The precooking method of canning (Figure 9.13.1-1) begins with thawing the fish, if
necessary.  The fish are eviscerated and washed, then cooked.  Cooking is accomplished using steam,
oil, hot air, or smoke for 1.5 to 10 hours, depending on fish size.  Precooking removes the fish oils
and coagulates the protein hi the fish to loosen the meat.  The fish are then cooled,  which may take
several hours. Refrigeration may be used to reduce the cooling time. After cooling, the head, fins,
bones, and undesirable meat are removed, and the remainder is cut or chopped to be put hi cans.
Oil, brine, and/or water are added to the  cans, which are sealed and pressure cooked before shipment.

        The raw pack method of canning (Figure 9.13.1-2) also begins with thawing and weighing the
fish.  They  are then washed and possibly brined, or "nobbed", which is removing the heads, viscera,
and tails. The fish  are placed hi cans and then cooked, drained,  and dried.  After drying,  liquid,
which may be oil, brine, water,  sauce, or other liquids, is added to the cans.  Finally, the cans are
sealed, washed, and sterilized with steam or hot water.

Byproduct Manufacture -
       The only process used in the U. S. to extract oil from the fish is the wet steam process.  Fish
byproduct manufacturing (Figure 9.13.1-3) begins with cooking the fish at 100°C (lower for some
species) hi a continuous cooker.  This process coagulates the protein and ruptures the cell  walls to
release the water and oil.  The mixture may be strained with an auger hi a perforated casing before
pressing with a screw press. As the fish are moved along the screw press, the pressure is increased
and the volume is decreased.  The liquid from the mixture, known as pressing liquor, is squeezed out
through a perforated casing.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.13.1-1
-------
                                                        VOC Emissions
       Thawed
      Whole Fish
Evisceration
and Washing
                                                              t
 Precooking with
Steam, Hot Air, Oil,
 Water, or Smoke
(SCC 3-02-012-04)
Refrigeration



In Air


                                                                             1
                                                                       Removal of Heads,
                                                                        Fins, Bones, etc.
        Sealing and
          Retorting
  Addition of Oil
 Brine, or Water
   Placement in
      Cans
                                                                             i
Cutting or
Chopping
                      Figure 9.13.1-1.  Flow diagram of precooking method.
                           (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.13.1-2
         EMISSION FACTORS
                                         1/95
-------
                              o>
                   CO

                   g
                   '
                  o
                  5
                                             "F 09
                                             .5 co
                                              tO 03

                                             OS
                                                UJ
                                                               O)
Cooking
(SCC 3-02-012-04)
i
c
0>
t

to
(0
go
CO
o_
i


k
O D)
OV^
|S
.? 0
mz
                                                                              = CD
                                                                              (0
                              o>

                              «o
                                                               ^


                                                            ll

                                                            11
                                                                                                *-1
                                                                                                o  8
                              00
                                                                              O
                                                                                               cs
                                                              »
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
                                                                                               9.13.1-3
-------
                                 voc
                              Emissions (1)
      Raw Fish
    and Fish Parts
                                 t
    Cooker
(SCC 3-02-012-01)
(SCC 3-02-012-02)
  VOC and Participate
     Emissions (2)
                                        VOC and
                                       Participate
                                      Emissions (3)
                                                         , but no particulates
                                               (1)  VOC emissions consist of H2S and

                                               (2)  Large odor source, as well as smoke

                                               (3)  Slightly less odor than direct fired dryers, and no smoke
              Figure 9.13.1-3. Flow diagram of fish meal and crude fish oil processing.
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.13.1^
             EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
        The pressing liquor, which consists of water, oil, and some solids, is transported to a
 centrifuge or desludger where the solids are removed.  These solids are later returned to the press
 cake in the drying step.  The oil and water are separated using a disc-type centrifuge in the oil
 separator. The oil is "polished" by using hot water washes and centrifugation and is then sent to an
 oft-refining operation.  The water removed from the oil (stickwater) goes to an evaporator to
 concentrate the solids.

        The press cake, stickwater, and solids are mixed and sent to either a direct-fired or an
 indirect-fired dryer (steam tube dryer). A direct-fired dryer consists of a slowly rotating cylinder
 through which air, heated to about 600 °C by an open flame, passes through the meal to evaporate the
 liquid.  An indirect-fired dryer consists of a fixed cylinder with rotating scrapers that heat the meal
 with steam or hot fluids flowing through  discs, tubes, coils, or the dryer casing itself.  Air also passes
 through this apparatus, but it is not heated and flows in the opposite direction to the meal to entrain
 the evaporated water.  Indirect-fired dryers require twice as much tune to dry the meal as direct-fired
 dryers.

        The dried meal is cooled, ground to a size that passes through a U. S. No. 7 standard screen,
 and transferred by pneumatic conveyor to storage.  The ground meal is stored in bulk or in paper,
 burlap, or woven plastic bags.   This meal is used in animal and pet feed because of its high protein
 content.

        The "polished  oil" is further purified by a process called "hardening" (Figure 9.13.1-4).
 First, the polished oil is refined by mixing the oil with an alkaline solution in a large stirred vat.  The
 alkaline solution reacts with the free fatty acids in the oil to form insoluble soaps.  The mixture is
 allowed to settle overnight, and the cleared oil is extracted off the top.  The oil is then washed with
 hot water to remove any remaining soaps.
Crude Oil

>.
•
Refining
Vat1

>.
Bleaching
                                                                  Hardened Oil
                                                               Bottling and Storage
                             Figure 9.13.1-4. Oil hardening process.

       Bleaching occurs hi the next step by mixing the oil with natural clays to remove oil pigments
and colored matter.  This process proceeds at temperatures between 80 and 116°C, in either a batch
or continuous mode.  After bleaching, hydrogenation of the unsaturated fatty acid chains is the next
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.1-5
-------
step.  A nickel catalyst, at a concentration of 0.05 to 0.1 percent by weight, is added to a vat of oil,
the mixture is heated and stirred, and hydrogen is injected into the mixture to react with the
unsaturated fatty acid chains. After the hydrogenation is completed, the oil is cooled and filtered to
remove the nickel.

        The hydrogenated oil is refined again before the deodorization step, which removes odor and
flavor-producing chemicals. Deodorization occurs in a vacuum chamber where dry, oxygen-free
steam is bubbled through the oil to remove the undesirable chemicals.  Volatilization of the
undesirable chemicals occurs at temperatures between 170 to 230°C. The oil is then cooled to about
38°C before exposure to air to prevent formation of undesirable chemicals.

9.13.1.2 Emissions And Controls

        Although smoke and paniculate may be a problem, odors are the most objectionable emissions
from fish processing plants. The fish byproducts segment results in more  of these odorous
contaminants than canning, because the fish are often in a further state of decomposition, which
usually results in greater concentrations of odors.

        The largest odor source in the fish byproducts segment is the fish meal driers.  Usually,
direct-fired driers emit more odors than steam-tube driers.  Direct-fired driers also emit smoke and
paniculate.

        Odorous gases  from reduction cookers  consist primarily of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and
trimethylamine [(CH3)3N] but are emitted from this stage in appreciably smaller volumes than from
fish meal driers.  There are virtually no paniculate emissions from reduction cookers.

        Some odors are produced by the canning processes.  Generally, the precooked method emits
fewer odorous gases than the raw pack method. In the precooked process, the odorous exhaust gases
are trapped in the cookers, whereas hi the raw  pack process, the steam and odorous gases typically
are vented  directly to the atmosphere.

        Fish cannery and fish byproduct processing odors can be controlled with afterburners,
chlorinator-scrubbers, or condensers.  Afterburners are most effective, providing virtually 100 percent
odor control, but they are costly from a fuel-use standpoint. Chlorinator scrubbers have been found
to be 95 to 99 percent effective in controlling odors from cookers and driers. Condensers are the
least effective control device.

        Paniculate emissions from the fish meal process are usually limited to the dryers, primarily
the direct-fired dryers, and to the grinding and conveying of the dried fish meal.  Because there is a
relatively small quantity of fines in the ground fish meal, paniculate emissions from the grinding,
pneumatic conveyors and bagging operations are expected to be very low.   Generally, cyclones have
been found to be  an effective means to collect paniculate from the dryers,  grinders and conveyors,
and from the bagging of the ground fish meal.

        Emission factors for fish processing are presented in Table 9.13.1-1.  Factors are expressed hi
units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and  pounds per ton (Ib/ton).
9.13.1-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
      Table 9.13.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS
                FOR FISH CANNING AND BYPRODUCT MANUFACTURE8

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Process
Cookers, canning
(SCC 3-02-012-04)
Cookers, scrap
Fresh fish (SCC 3-02-012-01)
Stale fish (SCC 3-02-012-02)
Steam tube dryer
(SCC 3-02-012-05)
Direct-fired dryer
(SCC 3-02-012-06)
Paniculate
kg/Mg
Neg


Neg
Neg
2.5

4

Ib/ton
Neg


Neg
Neg
5

8

Trimethylamine
[(CH3)3N]
kg/Mg
	 c


0.15C
1.75C
_b

_b

lb/ton
	 c


0.3°
3.5C
_b

_b

Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S)
kg/Mg
	 c


0.005C
0.10°
__b

_b

lb/ton
	 c


0.01C
0.2C
__b

_b

a Reference 1.  Factors are in terms of raw fish processed. SCC = Source Classification Code.
  Neg = negligible.
b Emissions suspected, but data are not available for quantification.
c Reference 2.
References For Section 9.13.1

1.     W. H. Prokop, "Fish Processing11, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
       Reinhold, New York, 1992.
                                                        *

2.     W. Summer, Methods Of Air Deodorization, Elsevier Publishing, New York City, 1963.

3.     M. T. Gillies,  Seafood Processing, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ, 1971.

4.     F. W. Wheaton and T. B. Lawson, Processing Aquatic Food Products, John Wiley and Sons,
       New York, 1985.

5.     M. Windsor and S. Barlow, Introduction To Fishery Byproducts, Fishing News Books, Ltd.,
       Surrey, England, 1981.

6.     D. Warne, Manual On Fish Canning, Food And Agricultural Organization Of The United
       Nations, Rome, Italy, 1988.
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.1-7
-------
9.13.2  Coffee Roasting

9.13.2.1 General

        The coffee roasting industry involves the processing of green coffee beans into roasted coffee
products, including whole and ground beans and soluble coffee products.  The Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code for coffee roasting is 2095.

9.13.2.2 Process Description1'6

        The coffee roasting process consists essentially of cleaning, roasting, cooling, grinding,  and
packaging operations.  Figure 9.13.2-1 shows a process flow diagram for a typical coffee roasting
operation.  Bags of green coffee beans are hand- or machine-opened, dumped into a hopper, and
screened to remove debris.  The green beans are then weighed  and transferred by belt or pneumatic
conveyor to storage hoppers.  From the storage hoppers, the green beans  are conveyed to the  roaster.
Roasters typically operate at temperatures between 370°  and 540 °C (698° and 1004°F), and the beans
are roasted for a period of time ranging from a few minutes to  about 30 minutes.  Roasters are
typically horizontal rotating drums that tumble the green coffee beans in a current of hot combustion
gases; the roasters operate in either batch or continuous modes  and can be indirect- or direct-fired.
Indirect-fired roasters are roasters in which the burner flame does  not contact the coffee beans,
although the combustion gases  from the burner do contact the beans.  Direct-fired roasters contact the
beans with the burner flame and the combustion gases.  At the  end of the roasting cycle, water sprays
are used to "quench" the beans. Following roasting, the beans are cooled and run through a
"destoner".  Destoners are air classifiers that remove  stones,  metal fragments, and other waste not
removed during initial screening from the beans. The destoners pneumatically convey the beans to a
hopper, where the beans are stabilize and dry (small amounts of water from quenching exist on the
surface  of the beans).  This stabilization process is called equilibration. Following equilibration, the
roasted  beans are ground, usually by multi-stage grinders.  Some roasted  beans are packaged and
shipped as whole beans.  Finally, the ground coffee is vacuum  sealed and shipped.

        Additional operations associated with processing green  coffee beans include decaffeination and
instant (soluble) coffee production.  Decaffeination is  the process of extracting caffeine from green
coffee beans prior to roasting.  The most common decaffeination process  used in the United States  is
supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) extraction.  In this process,  moistened  green coffee beans are
contacted with large quantities  of supercritical CO2 (CO2 maintained  at a pressure of about
4,000 pounds per square inch  and temperatures between  90°  and 100°C [194° and 212°F]), which
removes about 97 percent of the caffeine from the beans. The  caffeine is then recovered from the
CO2,  typically using an activated carbon adsorption system.  Another commonly used method is
solvent  extraction, typically using oil (extracted from  roasted coffee) or ethyl  acetate as  a  solvent.  In
this process, solvent is added to moistened green coffee beans to extract most of the caffeine from the
beans.  After the beans are removed from the solvent, they are steam-stripped to  remove any residual
solvent. The caffeine is then recovered from the solvent, and the solvent is re-used.  Water extraction
is also used for decaffeination, but little information on this process is available.  Decaffeinated  coffee
beans have a residual caffeine content of about 0.1 percent on a dry basis. Not all facilities have
decaffeination operations, and decaffeinated green coffee beans  are purchased  by many facilities  that
produce decaffeinated coffee.
9/95                              Food and Agricultural Products                          9.13.2-1
-------
1
GREEN COFFEE BEAN
STORAGE AND
HANDLING
(SCO 3-02-002-08)



DECAFFEINATION

— o
t
( 1 ^
CAFFEINE EXTRACTS
(SCC!W>2-002-10,-11)
i
STEAM OR HOT AIR
DRYING
(SCC 3-02-002-1 8)

                   BATCH-(SCC 3-02-002-20.-24)
                 CONTINUOUS--(SCC 3-02-002-21 ,-2fc)
                                                                 	*• PRODUCT STREAM
                                                                 	«. EXHAUST STREAM
                                                                 	OPTIONAL PROCESS
                                                                     PM EMISSIONS
                                                                     VOC EMISSIONS
                                                                     OTHER GASEOUS EMISSIONS
                                                                     (CO, ttfe , METHANE, NO }
                           Figure 9.13.2-1.  Typical coffee roasting operation.
                               (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.13.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
       In the manufacture of instant coffee, extraction follows the roasting and grinding operations.
The soluble solids and volatile compounds that provide aroma and flavor are extracted from the coffee
beans using water.  Water heated to about 175°C (347°F) under pressurized conditions (to maintain
the water as liquid) is used to extract all of the necessary solubles from the coffee beans.
Manufacturers use both batch and continuous extractors.  Following extraction, evaporation or freeze-
concentration is used to increase the solubles concentration of the  extract.  The concentrated extracts
are then dried in either spray dryers or freeze dryers.  Information on the spray drying and freeze
drying processes is not available.

9.13.2.3 Emissions And Controls

       Paniculate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC), organic acids, and combustion
products are the principal emissions from coffee processing.  Several operations are sources of PM
emissions,  including the cleaning and destoning equipment, roaster, cooler, and instant coffee drying
equipment.  The roaster is the main source of gaseous pollutants,  including alcohols, aldehydes,
organic acids, and nitrogen and sulfur compounds.  Because roasters are typically natural gas-fired,
carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO^) emissions are expected as a result of fuel
combustion.  Decaffeination and instant coffee extraction and drying operations may also be sources
of small  amounts of VOC.  Emissions from the grinding and packaging operations typically are not
vented to the atmosphere.

       Paniculate matter emissions from the receiving, storage, cleaning, roasting, cooling,  and
stoning operations are typically ducted to cyclones before being emitted to the  atmosphere.  Gaseous
emissions from roasting operations are typically ducted to a thermal oxidizer or thermal catalytic
oxidizer following PM removal by a cyclone.  Some facilities use the burners that heat the roaster as
thermal oxidizers.  However, separate thermal oxidizers are more efficient because the desired
operating temperature is typically between 650°C and 816°C (1200°F and 1500°F), which is 93°C to
260°C (200°F to 500°F) more than the maximum temperature of  most roasters.  Some facilities use
thermal catalytic oxidizers, which require lower operating temperatures to achieve control efficiencies
that are equivalent to standard thermal oxidizers.  Catalysts are also used to improve the control
efficiency of systems in which the roaster exhaust is ducted to the burners that heat the roaster.
Emissions from spray dryers are typically controlled by a cyclone followed by a wet  scrubber.

       Table 9.13.2-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM and condensible PM emissions
from coffee roasting operations. Table 9.13.2-2 presents emission factors for volatile organic
compounds (VOC), methane, CO, and CO2 emissions from roasting operations. Emissions from
batch and continuous roasters are shown separately, but with the exception of CO emissions, the
emissions from these two types of roasters appear to be similar.
9/95                             Food and Agricultural Products                          9.13.2-3
-------
       Table 9.13.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COFFEE ROASTING OPERATIONS"

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Batch roaster with thermal oxidizerb
(SCC 3-02-002-20)
Continuous cooler with cyclone0
(SCC 3-02-002-28)
Continuous roaster*
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
Continuous roaster with thermal oxidizer
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
Green coffee bean screening, handling, and
storage system with fabric filter'
(SCC 3-02-002-08)
Destoner
(SCC 3-02-002-30)
Equilibration
(SCC 3-02-002-34)
Filterable PM,
Ib/ton
0.12

0.028
0.66

0.092°

0.059
ND

ND
Condensible PM
Ib/ton
ND

ND
ND

0.10C

ND
ND

ND
  "  Emission factors are based on green coffee bean feed.  Factors represent uncontrolled
    emissions unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data. D-rated and
    E-rated emission factors are based on limited test data; these factors may not be representative
    of the industry.
  b  References 12,14.
  c  Reference 15.
  d  References 8-9.
  e  References 7-9,11,15.  Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.
  f  Reference 16. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
9.13.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
       Table 9.13.2-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COFFEE ROASTING OPERATIONS"

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Batch roaster"
(SCC 3-02-002-20)
Batch roaster with
thermal oxidizer
(SCC 3-02-002-20)
Continuous roaster
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
Continuous roaster
with thermal
oxidizer
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
Decaffeination: solvent or
supercritical CO2 extraction
(SCC 3-02-002-10,-! 1)
Steam or hot air dryer
(SCC 3-02-002-16)
Spray drying
(SCC 3-02-003-01)
Freeze drying
(SCC 3-02-003-06)
vocb,
Ib/ton
0.86


0.047d

1.4f



0.16k


ND
ND
ND
ND
Methane,
Ib/ton
ND


ND

0.26g



0.15m


ND
ND
ND
ND
CO,
Ib/ton
ND


0.55d

1.5"



0.098k


ND
ND
ND
ND
C02!
Ib/ton
180


530e

120>



200"


ND
ND
ND
ND
  "  Emission factors are based on green coffee bean feed.  Factors represent uncontrolled
     emissions unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data. D-rated and
     E-rated emission factors are based on limited test data; these factors may not be representative
     of the industry.
  b  Volatile organic compounds as methane.  Measured using GC/FID.
  c  Reference 14.
  d  References  12-14.
  e  References  12,14.
  f  References  8-9,11,15.
  g  References  8-9,11,15.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
  h  References  8-9,15.
  j   References  8-9,11,15.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
  k  References  8-9,11,15.  Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.
  m  References  8-9,11,15.  Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.  EMISSION FACTOR
     RATING:  E.
  n  References  9,11,15. Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.
9/95
Food and Agricultural Products
9.13.2-5
-------
References For Section 9.13.2

 1.     M. N. Clifford and K. C. Willson, COFFEE-Botany, Biochemistry And Production Of Beans
       And Beverage, The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, CT, 1985.

 2.     R. G. Ostendorf (ed.), "Coffee Processing", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
       Reinhold, New York, NY, 1992.

 3.     J. M. L. Penninger, Supercritical Fluid Technology-Potential In The Fine Chemicals And
       Pharmaceutical Industry, Presented at the Workshop on Prevention of Waste and Emissions in
       the Fine Chemicals/Pharmaceutical Industry, Cork, Ireland, October 1993.

 4.     Telephone communication between B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, and
       M. Wood, Tetley's Corporation, Palisades Park, NJ, December 20, 1994.

 5.     R. J. Clarke and R. MacRae, editors, Coffee, Volume 2: Technology, Elsevier Science
       Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1987.

 6.     G. Wasserman et al, "Coffee", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, 4th. Ed.,
       Volume No. 6, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.

 7.     Source Test Report, Paniculate Emissions, Premium Coffee, Wall, New Jersey, Princeton
       Testing Lab, Princeton, NJ, January 1987.

 8.     Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Hills Brothers Coffee, Inc., Edgewater, New Jersey,
       Ambient Engineering, Inc.,  Parlin, NJ, September  23, 1988.

 9.     Stack Sampling Report For Hills Brothers Coffee, Inc., Edgewater, New Jersey, On Thermal
       Oxidizer #22 Inlet/Outlet, Ambient Engineering, Inc., Parlin, NJ, October 5, 1988.

 10.    Compliance Stack Sampling Report For General Foods Corporation, Maxwell House Division,
       Hoboken, New Jersey, On Thermal Oxidizer Met And Outlet, Recon Systems, Inc., Three
       Bridges, NJ, March 13, 1989.

 11.    Nestle Foods Corporation Compliance Emission Testing Report, AirNova, Inc.,
       Pennsauken, NJ, October 1990.

 12.    Source Test Report For Paniculate, Volatile Organic Compounds, And Carbon Monoxide
       Emissions From The Coffee Roaster 7D Thermal Oxidizer At General Foods-Maxwell House
       Division, Hoboken, New Jersey, Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL,
       December 20, 1990.

 13.    Source Test Repon For Volatile Organic Compounds And Carbon Monoxide Emissions From
       The  Coffee Roaster 7D Thermal Oxidizer At General Foods-Maxwell House Division,
       Hoboken, New Jersey, Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, May 9,  1991.

 14.    Melitta USA, Inc., Blaw Knox Roaster Emission Compliance Test Program, AirNova, Inc,
       Pennsauken, NJ, February 1992.
9.13.2-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                               9/95
-------
15.    Nestle Beverage Co. Source Test Report, Coffee Roaster And Cooler, Best Environmental,
       Inc., San Leandro, CA, October 1, 1992.

16.    Summary Of Source Test Results, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco,
       CA, January 1991.
9/95                            Food and Agricultural Products                         9.13.2-7
-------
9.133  Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying

9.13.3.1  General1'3

        The production of potato chips, tortilla chips, and other related snack foods is a growing,
competitive industry. Sales of such snack chips in the United States are projected to grow 5.7 percent
between 1991 and 1995.  Between 1987 and 1991, potato chip sales increased from
649 x 106 kilograms (kg) to 712 x 106 kg (1,430 x 106 pounds [Ib] to 1,570 x 106 Ib), an increase of
63 x 106 kg (140 x 106 Ib) (10 percent). Snack chip plants are widely dispersed across the country,
with the highest concentrations in California and Texas.

        New products and processes are being developed to create a more health-conscious image for
snack chips.  Examples include the recent introduction of multigrain chips and the use of vegetable
oils (noncholesterol) hi frying.  Health concerns are also encouraging the promotion and introduction
of nonfried snack products like pretzels, popcorn, and crackers.

9.13.3.2  Process Description1

        Vegetables and other raw foods are cooked by industrial deep fat frying and are packaged for
later use by consumers.  The batch frying process consists of immersing the food in the cooking oil
until it is cooked and then removing it from the oil.  When the raw food is immersed in hot cooking
oil, the oil replaces the naturally occurring moisture in the food as it cooks. Batch  and continuous
processes may be used for deep fat frying.  In the continuous frying method, the food is moved
through the cooking oil on a conveyor.  Potato chips are one example of a food prepared by deep fat
frying.  Other examples include corn chips, tortilla  corn chips, and multigrain chips.

        Figure 9.13.3-1 provides general diagrams for the deep fat frying process for potato chips and
other snack chips.  The differences between the potato chip process and other snack chip processing
operations are also shown.  Some snack food processes (e. g., tortilla chips) include a toasting step.
Because the potato chip processes represent the largest industry segment,  they  are discussed here as a
representative example.

        In the initial potato preparation, dirt, decayed potatoes, and other debris are first removed in
cleaning hoppers.  The potatoes go next to washers, then to abrasion, steam, or lye  peelers.  Abrasion
is the most popular method.  Preparation is either batch or continuous, depending on the number of
potatoes to be peeled.

        The  next step is slicing, which is performed by a rotary slicer.  Potato slice widths will vary
with the condition of the  potatoes and with the type of chips being made.  The potato slices move
through rotating reels where high-pressure water separates the slices and removes starch from the cut
surfaces.  The slices are then transferred to the rinse tank for final rinsing.

       Next, the surface moisture  is removed by 1  or more of the following methods:  perforated
revolving drum, sponge rubber-covered squeeze roller, compressed air systems, vibrating mesh belt,
heated air, or centrifugal  extraction.

       The partially dried chips are then fried.  Most producers use a continuous process, in which
the slices are automatically moved  through the fryer on a mesh belt.  Batch frying, which is used for


1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.13.3-1
-------
        POTATO CHIP
                   OTHER SNACK CHIPS
 RAW MATERIAL PREPARATION

       • Cleaning
       • Slicing
       • Starch removal
       • Moisture reduction
                      RAW MATERIAL
                       PREPARATION

                        • Extruder
                        • Die/Cutter
                                  NOX AND VOC
                           EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE
                                      t
                          GAS FIRED
                          TOASTER
                       (SCC 3-02-036-04)
                              PARTICULATE MATTER
                              AND VOC EMISSIONS
                                TO ATMOSPHERE
i
            HOT OIL
        DEEP FAT FRYING
        (SCC 3-02-036-01)
        (SCC 3-02-036-03)
                            HOT OIL
                        DEEP FAT FRYING
                        (SCC 3-02-036-02)
           SEASONING
              and
           PACKAGING
                          SEASONING
                              and
                          PACKAGING
             Figure 9.13.3-1.  Generalized deep fat frying process for snack foods.
                       (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.13.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
        1/95
-------
a smaller quantity of chips, involves placing the chips hi a frying kettle for a period of tune and then
removing them.  A variety of oils may be used for frying chips, with cottonseed, corn, and peanut
oils being the most popular.  Canola and soybean oils also are used.  Animal fats are rarely used in
this industry.

        As indicated in Figure 9.13.3-1, the process for other snack chips is similar to that for potato
chip frying.  Typically, the raw material is extruded and cut before entering the fryer.  In some cases,
the chips may be toasted before frying.

9.13.3.2  Emissions And Controls2'3

Emissions -
        Paniculate matter is the major air pollutant emitted from the  deep fat frying process.
Emissions are released when moist foodstuff, such as potatoes, is introduced into hot oil.  The rapid
vaporization of the moisture hi the foodstuff results in violent bubbling, and cooking oil droplets, and
possibly vapors, become entrained in the water vapor stream.  The emissions are exhausted from the
cooking vat and into the ventilation system.  Where emission controls are employed, condensed water
and oil droplets in the exhaust stream are collected by control devices before the exhaust is routed to
the atmosphere.  The amount of paniculate matter emitted depends on process throughput, oil
temperature, moisture content of the feed material, equipment design, and stack emission controls.

        Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are also  produced in deep fat frying, but they are not a
significant percentage of total frying emissions because of the low vapor pressure of the vegetable oils
used.  However, when the oil is entrained into the water vapor produced  during frying, the oil may
break down into volatile products. Small amounts of VOC and combustion products may also be
emitted from toasters, but quantities are expected to  be negligible.

        Tables 9.13.3-1 and 9.13.3-2 provide uncontrolled and controlled paniculate matter emission
factors, in metric and English units, for snack chip frying. Table 9.13.3-3 provides VOC emission
factors, in metric and English units, for snack chip frying without controls.  Emission factors are
calculated as the weight of paniculate matter or VOC per ton of finished product, including salt and
seasonings.

Controls -
        Paniculate matter emission control equipment is typically installed on potato chip fryer
exhaust streams because of the elevated paniculate loadings caused by the high volume of water
contained hi potatoes.  Examples of control devices are mist  eliminators,  impingement devices, and
wet scrubbers. One manufacturer has indicated that catalytic and thermal incinerators are not
practical because of the high moisture content of the exhaust stream.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.13.3-3
-------
     Table 9.13.3-1 (Metric Units). PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SNACK CHIP DEEP FAT FRYING*

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E (except as noted)
Process
Continuous deep fat fryer- potato
chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer— other
snack chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-42)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist eliminator-
potato chips0
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
high-efficiency mesh pad mist
eliminator— potato chips6
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist eliminator-
other snack chips*
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
Batch deep fat fryer with hood
scrubber— potato chips8
(SCC 3-02-036-03)
Filterable PM
PM
0.83
0.28
0.35d
0.12
0.1 ld
0.89d
PM-10
ND
ND
0.30
ND
0.088
ND
Condensable PM
Inorganic Organic J Total
ND ND 0.19
ND ND 0.12
0.0040d 0.19d 0.19
0.12 0.064 0.18
0.017 0.022 0.039
0.66d 0.17 0.83
Total
PM-10
ND
ND
0.49
ND
0.13
ND
a Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, except as noted.  All emission factors in kg/Mg of chips
 produced.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Reference 3.
c References 6, 10-11.  The standard mesh pad mist eliminator, upon which these emission factors
 are based, includes a single, 6-inch, 2-layer mist pad that operates with a pressure drop of about
 0.5-inch water column (when clean).
d EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
e References 4-5. The high-efficiency mesh pad eliminator, upon which these emission factors are
 based, includes a coarse-weave 4-inch mist pad and  a 6-inch fine weave pad, and operates with a
 2.5- to 3-inch water column pressure drop (when clean).
f References 6-7.
g References 8-9.
9.13.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
      Table 9.13.3-2 (English Units).  PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SNACK CHIP DEEP FAT FRYING*

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E  (except as noted)
Process
Continuous deep fat fryer-potato
chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer-other
snack chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist
eliminator-potato chips0
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with high-
efficiency mesh pad mist
eliminator— potato chips0
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist
eliminator-other snack chipsf
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
Batch deep fat fryer with hood
scrubber— potato chips8
(SCC 3-02-036-03)
Filterable PM
PM PM-10
1.6 ND
0.56 ND
O.TO41 0.60
0.24 ND
0.22d 0.18
1.8d ND
Condensable PM
Inorganic Organic Total
ND ND 0.39
ND ND 0.24
O.OOSO*1 0.37d 0.38
0.23 0.13 0.36
0.034 0.044 0.078
1.3d 0.33 1.6
Total
PM-10
ND
ND
0.98
ND
0.26
ND
a Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, except as noted. All emission factors in Ib/ton of chips
  produced.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Reference 3.
c References 6, 10-11.  The standard mesh pad mist eliminator, upon which these emission factors
  are based, includes a single, 6-inch, 2-layer mist pad that operates with a pressure drop of about
  0.5 inch water column (when clean).
d EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
e References 4-5.  The high-efficiency mesh pad eliminator, upon which these emission factors are
  based, includes  a coarse-weave 4-inch mist pad and a 6-inch fine weave pad and operates with a
  2.5- to 3-inch water column pressure drop (when clean).
f References 6-7.
g References 8-9.
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.3-5
-------
         Table 9.13.3-3 (Metric Units). UNCONTROLLED VOC EMISSION FACTORS
                         FOR SNACK CHIP DEEP FAT FRYINGa'b

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Process
Deep fat fryer— potato chips
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Deep fat fryer— other snack chips
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
VOC
kg/Mg
0.0099
0.043
Ib/ton
0.020
0.085
a Reference 3.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Expressed as equivalent weight of methane (CH^/unit weight of product.
References For Section 9.13.3

 1.     O. Smith, Potatoes: Production, Storing, Processing, Avi Publishing, Westport, CT, 1977.

 2.     Background Document For AP-42 Section 9.13.3, Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying, Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August 1994.

 3.     Characterization Of Industrial Deep Fat Fryer Air Emissions, Frito-Lay Inc., Piano, TX,
       1991.

 4.     Emission Performance Testing For Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services,
       Redondo Beach, CA, November 19,  20, and 21, 1991.

 5.     Emission Performance Testing On One Continuous Fryer, Western Environmental Services,
       Redondo Beach, CA, January 26, 1993.

 6.     Emission Performance Testing Of Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, November 1990.

 7.     Emission Performance Testing Of One Tortilla Continuous Frying Line, Western
       Environmental Services, Redondo Beach, CA, October 20-21, 1992.

 8.     Emission Performance Testing Of Fryer No. 5, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, February 4-5, 1992.

 9.     Emission Performance Testing Of Fryer No. 8, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, February 3-4, 1992.

10.     Emission Performance Testing Of Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, November 1989.

11.     Emission Performance Testing Of Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, June 1989.
9.13.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
9.13.4  Yeast Production

9.13.4.1  General1

        Baker's yeast is currently manufactured in the United States at 13 plants owned by 6 major
companies.  Two main types of baker's yeast are produced, compressed (cream) yeast and dry yeast.
The total U. S. production of baker's yeast in 1989 was 223,500 megagrams (Mg) (245,000 tons).
Of the total production, approximately 85 percent of the yeast is compressed (cream) yeast, and the
remaining 15 percent is dry yeast.  Compressed yeast is sold mainly to wholesale bakeries, and dry
yeast is sold mainly to consumers for home baking needs.  Compressed and dry yeasts are produced
in a similar manner, but dry yeasts are developed from a different yeast strain and are dried after
processing.  Two types of dry yeast are produced, active dry yeast (ADY) and instant dry yeast
(IDY).  Instant dry yeast is produced  from a faster-reacting yeast strain than that used for ADY.  The
main difference between ADY and IDY is that ADY has to be dissolved  in warm water before usage,
but IDY does  not.

9.13.4.2 Process Description1

        Figure 9.13.4-1 is a process flow diagram for the production of baker's yeast.  The first stage
of yeast production consists of growing the yeast from the pure yeast culture in a series of
fermentation vessels.  The yeast is recovered  from the final fermentor by using centrifugal action to
concentrate  the yeast solids.  The yeast solids are subsequently filtered by a filter press or a rotary
vacuum filter to concentrate the yeast further.  Next, the yeast filter cake is  blended in mixers with
small amounts of water, emulsifiers, and cutting oils.  After this, the mixed press cake is extruded
and cut.  The yeast cakes are then either wrapped for shipment or dried to form dry yeast.

Raw Materials1"3 -
       The principal raw materials used in producing baker's yeast are the pure yeast culture and
molasses. The yeast strain used in producing compressed yeast is Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Other
yeast strains are required to produce each of the 2 dry yeast products, ADY and IDY.  Cane molasses
and beet molasses  are the principal carbon sources to promote yeast growth.  Molasses contains 45 to
55 weight percent  fermentable sugars, in the forms of sucrose, glucose, and fructose.

       The amount and type of cane and beet molasses used depend on the  availability of the
molasses types, costs, and the presence of inhibitors and toxins.   Usually, a blend consisting of both
cane and beet molasses is used in the fermentations.  Once the molasses mixture is blended, the pH is
adjusted to between 4.5 and 5.0 because an alkaline mixture promotes bacteria growth.  Bacteria
growth occurs under the same conditions as yeast growth, making pH monitoring very important.
The molasses mixture is clarified to remove any sludge and is then sterilized with high-pressure
steam.  After sterilization, it is diluted with water and held in holding tanks until it is needed for the
fermentation process.

       A variety of essential nutrients and vitamins is also required in yeast production. The nutrient
and mineral requirements  include nitrogen, potassium, phosphate,  magnesium, and calcium, with
traces of iron, zinc, copper, manganese, and molybdenum.  Normally, nitrogen is supplied by adding
ammonium salts, aqueous ammonia, or anhydrous ammonia to the feedstock. Phosphates and
magnesium are added, in the form of phosphoric acid or phosphate salts and magnesium salts.
Vitamins are also required for yeast growth (biotin, inositol, pantothenic acid, and thiamine).


1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.13.4-1
-------
                                                 RAW MATERIALS
                                                                           VOC, CO2
                                               FERMENTATION STAGES
                                               Flask Fermentation (F1)
                                             Pure Culture Fermentation (F2/F3)
                                             Intermediate Fermentation (F4)
                                                    3-02-034-04
                                                Stock Fermentation (F5)
                                                    3-02-034-05
                                                Pitch Fermentation (F6)
                                                    3-02-034-06
                                               Trade Fermentation (F7)
                                                    3-02-034-07
                                                                                t
           VOC
           VOC
                                                  EXTRUSION AND CUTTING
                                                SHIPMENT OF PACKAGED YEAST
 Figure 9.13.4-1.  Typical process flow diagram for the seven-stage production of baker's yeast, with
Source Classification Codes shown for compressed yeast.  Use 3-02-035-XX for compressed yeast.
Thiamine is added to the feedstock.  Most other vitamins and nutrients are already present in
sufficient amounts in the molasses malt.

Fermentation1"3 -
        Yeast cells are grown in a series of fermentation vessels.  Yeast fermentation vessels are
operated under aerobic conditions (free oxygen or excess air present) because under anaerobic
conditions (limited or no oxygen) the fermentable sugars are consumed in the formation of ethanol
and carbon dioxide,  which results in low yeast yields.
9.13.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                              1/95
-------
        The initial stage of yeast growth takes place in the laboratory.  A portion of the pure yeast
culture is mixed with molasses malt in a sterilized flask, and the yeast is allowed to grow for
2 to 4 days.  The entire contents of this flask are used to inoculate the first fermentor in the pure
culture stage. Pure culture fermentations are batch fermentations, where the yeast is allowed to grow
for 13 to 24 hours.  Typically, 1 to 2 fermentors are used  in this stage of the process. The pure
culture fermentations are basically  a continuation of the flask fermentation, except that they have
provisions for sterile aeration and aseptic transfer to the next stage.

        Following the pure culture fermentations, the yeast mixture is transferred to an intermediate
fermentor that is either batch or fed-batch.  The next fermentation stage is a stock fermentation.  The
contents from the intermediate fermentor  are pumped into the stock fermentor,  which is equipped for
incremental feeding with good aeration. This stage is called stock fermentation, because after
fermentation is complete, the yeast is separated from the bulk of the fermentor  liquid by centrifuging,
which produces a stock, or pitch, of yeast for the next stage.  The next stage, pitch fermentation,  also
produces a stock, or pitch, of yeast.  Aeration is vigorous, and molasses and other nutrients are fed
incrementally.  The liquor from this fermentor is usually divided into several parts for pitching the
final trade fermentations (adding the yeast to start fermentation). Alternately, the yeast may be
separated by centrifuging and stored for several days before its use in the final  trade fermentations.

        The final trade  fermentation has the highest degree of aeration, and molasses and other
nutrients are fed incrementally. Large air supplies are required during the final trade fermentations,
so these vessels are often started in a staggered fashion to reduce the size of the air compressors.  The
duration of the final fermentation stages ranges from 11 to 15 hours.  After  all  of the required
molasses has been fed into the fermentor, the liquid  is aerated for an additional 0.5 to 1.5 hours to
permit further maturing of the yeast,  making it more stable for refrigerated storage.

        The amount  of  yeast growth in the main fermentation  stages described above increases with
each stage.  Yeast growth is  typically 120 kilograms (270 pounds) in the intermediate fermentor,
420 kilograms (930 pounds)  in the stock fermentor,  2,500  kilograms (5,500 pounds) in the pitch
fermentor, and 15,000 to 100,000 kilograms (33,000 to 220,000 pounds)  in the trade fermentor.

        The sequence of the main fermentation stages varies among manufacturers.  About half of
existing yeast operations are  2-stage processes, and the remaining are 4-stage processes.  When the
2-stage final fermentation series is used, the only fermentations  following the pure culture stage are
the stock and trade fermentations.  When the 4-stage fermentation series is used, the pure culture
stage is followed by  intermediate, stock, pitch, and trade fermentations.

Harvesting And Packaging1"2 -
        Once an optimum quantity  of yeast has been grown, the yeast cells are  recovered from the
final trade fermentor by centrifugal yeast  separators.  The centrifuged yeast solids are further
concentrated by a filter press or rotary vacuum filter.  A filter press forms a filler cake containing
27 to 32 percent solids.  A rotary vacuum filter forms cakes containing approximately 33  percent
solids.  This filter cake is then blended in mixers with small amounts of water, emulsifiers, and
cutting oils to form the end product.  The final packaging steps, as described below, vary depending
on the type of yeast product.

        In compressed yeast production (SCC 3-02-035-XX), emulsifiers are added to give the yeast a
white, creamy appearance and to inhibit water spotting of the  yeast cakes. A small amount of oil,
usually soybean or cottonseed oil, is added to help extrude the yeast through nozzles to form
continuous ribbons of yeast cake.  The ribbons are cut, and the yeast cakes are  wrapped and cooled to
below 8°C (46°F), at which  time they are ready for shipment in refrigerated trucks.

1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.13.4-3
                                            >&
-------
       In dry yeast production (SCC 3-02-034-XX), the product is sent to an extruder after filtration,
where emulsifiers and oils (different from those used for compressed yeast) are added to texturize the
yeast and to aid in extruding it. After the yeast is extruded in thin ribbons, it is cut and dried in
either a batch or a continuous drying system.  Following drying, the yeast is  vacuum packed or
packed under nitrogen gas before heat sealing.  The shelf life of ADY and IDY at ambient
temperature is 1 to 2 years.

9.13.4.3  Emissions1'4-5

       Volatile organic compound (VOC)  emissions are generated as byproducts of the fermentation
process.  The 2 major VOCs emitted are ethanol and acetaldehyde. Other byproducts consist of other
alcohols, such as butanol,  isopropyl alcohol, 2,3-butanediol, organic acids, and acetates. Based on
emission test data, approximately 80 to 90  percent of total  VOC emissions is ethanol, and the
remaining 10 to 20 percent consists of other alcohols and acetaldehyde.  Acetaldehyde is a hazardous
air pollutant as defined under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

       Volatile byproducts form as a result of either excess sugar (molasses) present in the fermentor
or an insufficient oxygen supply to it.  Under these conditions, anaerobic  fermentation occurs,
breaking down the excess sugar into alcohols and carbon dioxide. When anaerobic fermentation
occurs, 2 moles of ethanol and 2 moles of  carbon dioxide are formed from 1  mole of glucose. Under
anaerobic conditions, the ethanol yield is increased, and yeast yields are decreased.  Therefore, in
producing baker's yeast, it is essential to suppress ethanol formation in the final fermentation stages
by incremental feeding of the molasses mixture with sufficient oxygen to the  fermentor.

       The rate of ethanol formation is higher in the earlier stages (pure culture stages) than in the
final stages of the fermentation process.  The earlier fermentation stages are batch fermentors,  where
excess sugars are present and less aeration  is used during the fermentation process.  These
fermentations are not controlled to the degree that the final fermentations are controlled because the
majority of yeast growth occurs in the final fermentation stages.  Therefore, there is no economical
reason for manufacturers to equip the earlier fermentation stages  with process control equipment.

       Another potential emission source at yeast manufacturing facilities is  the system used to treat
process waste  waters.  If the facility does not use an anaerobic biological treatment  system,  significant
quantities of VOCs could be emitted from this  stage of the process.  For more information on
waste water treatment systems as an emission source of VOCs^ please refer to EPA's Control
Technology Center document on industrial waste water treatment systems, Industrial Wastewater
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions - Background Information For BACT/LAER,  or see Section 4.3
of AP-42.  At facilities manufacturing dry  yeast, VOCs may also be emitted from the yeast dryers,
but no information is available on the relative quantity of VOC emissions from this source.

9.13.4.4 Controls6

       Only 1 yeast manufacturing facility uses an add-on pollution control system to reduce VOC
emissions from the fermentation process.  However, all yeast manufacturers suppress ethanol
formation through varying degrees of process control,  such as incrementally feeding the molasses
mixture to the fermentors so that excess sugars are not present, or supplying  sufficient oxygen to the
fermentors  to optimize the dissolved oxygen content of the liquid in the fermentor.  The adequacy of
oxygen distribution depends upon the proper design and  operation of the aeration and mechanical
agitation systems of the fermentor.  The distribution of oxygen by the air sparger system to the malt
mixture is critical. If oxygen is not being  transferred uniformly throughout the malt, then ethanol
9.13.4-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
 will be produced in the oxygen-deficient areas of the fermentor.  The type and position of baffles
 and/or a highly effective mechanical agitation system can ensure proper distribution of oxygen.

        A more sophisticated form of process control involves using a continuous monitoring system
 and feedback control. In such a system, process parameters are monitored,  and the information is
 sent to a  computer. The computer is then used to calculate sugar consumption rates through material
 balance techniques. Based on the calculated data, the computer continuously controls the addition of
 molasses. This type of system is feasible, but it is difficult to design and implement.  Such enhanced
 process control measures can suppress ethanol formation from 75 to 95 percent.

        The 1 facility with add-on control  uses a wet scrubber followed by a biological filter.
 Performance data from this unit suggest an emission control efficiency of better than 90 percent.

 9.13.4.5  Emission Factors1'6"9

        Table 9.13.4-1 provides emission factors for a typical yeast fermentation process with  a
 moderate degree of process control.  The process emission factors in Table 9.13.4-1 were developed
 from 4 test reports from 3 yeast manufacturing facilities.  Separate emission factors are given for
 intermediate, stock/pitch, and trade fermentations.  The emission factors in Table 9.13.4-1  are
 expressed in units of VOC emitted per fermentor per unit of yeast produced in that fermentor.

        In order to use the emission factors for each fermentor, the amount of yeast produced in each
 fermentor must be  known.  The following is an example calculation  for a typical facility:
Fermentation
Stage
Intermediate
Stock
Pitch
Trade
TOTAL
Yeast Yield Per
Batch, Ib (A)
265
930
5,510
33,070
—
No. Of Batches
Processed Per
Year, #/yr (B)
156
208
208
1,040
—
Total Yeast
Production Per
Stage, tons/yr
(C = Ax
B/2,000)
21
97
573
17,196
—
Emission
Factor, Ib/ton
(D)
36
5
5
5
—
Emissions, Ib
(E = C x D)
756
485
2,865
85,980
90,086
Percent of Total
Emissions
0.84
0.54
3.18
95.44
100
In most cases, the annual yeast production per stage will not be available. However, a reasonable
estimate can be determined based on the emission factor for the trade fermentor and the total yeast
production for the facility. Trade fermentors produce the majority of all VOCs emitted from the
facility because of the number of batches processed per year and of the amount of yeast grown in
these fermentors.  Based on emission test data and process data regarding the number of batches
processed per year, 80 to 90 percent of VOCs emitted from fermentation operations are a result of the
trade fermentors.

        Using either a 2-stage or 4-stage fermentation process has no significant effect on the
overall emissions for the facility.  Facilities that use the 2-stage process may have larger fermentors
or may produce more batches per year than facilities that use a 4-stage process. The main factors
affecting emissions are the total yeast production for a facility and the degree of process control used.
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.4-5
-------
     Table 9.13.4-1 (Metric And English Units). VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC)
                  EMISSION FACTORS FOR YEAST MANUFACTURING3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
 Emission Pointb
                                                       VOCC
VOC Emitted Per Stage Per
Amount Of Yeast Produced
       In A Stage,
    kg VOC/Mg Yeast
VOC Emitted Per Stage Per
Amount Of Yeast Produced
       In A Stage,
    Ib VOC/ton Yeast
 Fermentation stages
   Flask (Fl)
   Pure culture (F2/F3)
   Intermediate (F4)
    (SCC 3-02-034-04)
   Stock (F5)
    (SCC 3-02-034-05)
   Pitch (F6)
    (SCC 3-02-034-06)
   Trade (F7)
    (SCC 3-02-034-07)
 Waste treatment
   (SCC 3-02-034-10)
 Drying
   (SCC 3-02-034-20)
          ND
          ND
          18

          2.5

          2.5

          2.5
           ND
           ND
          36

           5.0

           5.0

           5.0
                 See Section 4.3 of AP-42
          ND
           ND
a References 1,6-10. Total VOC as ethanol.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
  F numbers refer to fermentation stages (see Figure 9.13.4-1).
b Factors are for both dry yeast (SCC 3-02-034-XX) and compressed yeast (SCC 3-02-035-XX).
c Factors should be used only when plant-specific emission data are not available because of the high
  degree of emissions variability among facilities and among batches within a facility.
d Some yeast manufacturing facilities use a 2-stage final fermentation process, and others use a
  4-stage final fermentation process. Factors for each stage cannot be summed to determine an
  overall  emission factor for a facility, since they are based on yeast yields in each fermentor rather
  than total yeast production.  Total yeast production for a facility equals only the yeast yield from
  the trade fermentations.  Note that CO2 is also a byproduct of fermentation,  but no data are
  available on the amount emitted.
References For Section 9.13.4

1.     Assessment Of VOC Emissions And Their Control From Baker's Yeast Manufacturing
       Facilities, EPA-450/3-91-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, January 1992.

2.     S. L. Chen and M. Chigar, "Production Of Baker's Yeast", Comprehensive Biotechnology,
       Volume 20, Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 1985.

3.     G. Reed and H. Peppier, Yeast Technology, Avi Publishing Company, Westport, CT, 1973.
9.13.4-6
     EMISSION FACTORS
                         1/95
-------
4.     H. Y. Wang, et al., "Computer Control Of Baker's Yeast Production", Biotechnology And
       Bioengineering, Cambridge, MA, Volume 21, 1979.

5.     Industrial Wastewater VOC Emissions - Background For BACT/LAER, EPA-450/3-90-004,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1990.

6.     Written communication from R. Jones, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to the project
       file, April 28, 1993.

7.     Fermentor Emissions Test Report, Gannet Fleming, Inc., Baltimore, MD, October 1990.

8.     Final Test Report For Fermentor No. 5,  Gannett Fleming, Inc., Baltimore,  MD, August 1990.

9.     Written communication from J. Leatherdale, Trace Technologies, Bridgewater, NJ, to J.
       Hogan,  Gist-brocades Food Ingredients,  Inc., East Brunswick, NJ, April 7, 1989.

10.    Fermentor Emissions Test Report, Universal Foods, Inc., Baltimore, MD, Universal Foods,
       Inc., Milwaukee, WI, 1990.
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.13.4-7
-------
9.14  Tobacco Products




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.14-1
-------
9.15 Leather Tanning




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.15-1
-------
9.15 Leather Tanning

9.15.1  General1'4

        Leather tanning is the process of converting raw hides or skins into leather. Hides and skins have the
ability to absorb tannic acid and other chemical substances that prevent them from decaying, make them
resistant to wetting, and keep them supple and durable.  The surface of hides and skins contains the hair and
oil glands and is known as the grain side. The flesh side of the hide or skin is much thicker and softer. The
three types of hides and skins most often used in leather manufacture are from cattle, sheep, and pigs.

        Tanning is essentially the reaction of collagen fibers in the hide with tannins, chromium, alum, or
other chemical agents. The most common tanning agents used in the U. S. are trivalent chromium and
vegetable tannins extracted from specific tree barks. Alum, syntans (man-made chemicals), formaldehyde,
glutaraldehyde, and heavy oils are other tanning agents.

        There are approximately 111 leather tanning facilities in the United States. However, not every
facility may perform the entire tanning or finishing process.  Leather tanning and finishing facilities are most
prevalent in the northeast and midwest states; Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin
account for almost half of the facilities.  The number of tanneries in the United States has significantly
decreased in the last 40 years due to the  development of synthetic substitutes for leather, increased leather
imports, and environmental regulation.

9.15.2 Process Description1 ~2-5-6

        Although the title of this section is "Leather Tanning", the  entire leathermaking process is considered
here, not just the actual tanning step. "Leather tanning" is a general term for the numerous processing steps
involved in converting animal hides or skins into finished leather. Production of leather by both vegetable
tanning and chrome tanning is described below. Chrome tanning accounts for approximately 90 percent of U.
S. tanning production. Figure 9.15-1 presents a general flow diagram for the leather tanning and finishing
process.  Trimming, soaking, fleshing, and unhairing, the first steps of the process, are  referred to  as the
beamhouse operations. Bating, pickling, tanning, wringing,  and splitting are referred to as tanyard processes.
Finishing processes include conditioning, staking, dry milling, buffing, spray finishing, and plating.

9.15.2.1  Vegetable Tanning -
        Heavy leathers and sole leathers are produced by the vegetable tanning process, the oldest of any
process  in use in the leather tanning industry. The hides are first trimmed and soaked to remove salt and
other solids and to restore moisture lost during curing.  Following the soaking, the hides are fleshed to remove
the excess tissue, to impart uniform thickness, and to remove muscles or fat adhering to the hide. Hides are
then dehaired to ensure that the grain is clean and the hair follicles are free of hair roots. Liming is the most
common method of hair removal, but thermal, oxidative, and chemical methods also exist The normal
procedure for liming is to use a series of pits or drums containing lime liquors (calcium hydroxide) and
sharpening agents.  Following liming, the hides are  dehaired  by scraping or by machine. Deliming is then
performed to  make the skins receptive to the vegetable tanning. Bating, an enzymatic action for the removal
of unwanted hide components after liming, is performed to impart softness, stretch, and flexibility to the
leather.  Bating and deliming are usually performed together by placing the hides in an  aqueous solution of an
ammonium salt and proteolytic
6/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                             9.15-1
-------
                      BEAMHOUSE
                          TANYARD
                 Chrome Tanning
                      RETAN, COLOR,
                         FATLIQUOR
                         FINISHING
                                            Deceiving and Stonng Hides|
                                                   Trimming
                               Soaking and Washing

                              :::::::*"::::;:
                                   Fleshing
                                                  ---I---

                                                   Unhainng
                                                    Bating
                                                     _L
                                                    Pickling
                                                 Wringing/Siding
                                                    Spliting
                                             Grain
                                 portion!
                                                    Shaving
                                                   Retanning
                                              Bleaching and Colonng
                                  FatUquonng
                                (Chrome tanning)
                                                     ±.
                                                   Setting Out
                                                     ±.
                                                    Drying
                                                  Conditioning
                                                Staking. Dry Milling
                                                    Buffing
                                               Finishing and Plating
                                                                            • Sulfides, NH3
                                                               Vegetable Tanning
                                                                  Flesh portion
                                                                           »• To split tannery, retanning
                                                         --*• PM
• Possible VOC



 Possible VOC
                                                     	». Possible PM, VOC, orNH 3
                                                       	*• PM



                                                       	*• VOC
9.15-2
Figure 9.15-1. General flow diagram for leather tanning and finishing process.


                             EMISSION FACTORS
                                 6/97
-------
enzymes at 27° to 32°C (80° to 90°F). Pickling may also be performed by treating the hide with a brine
solution and sulfuric acid to adjust the acidity for preservation or tanning.

        In the vegetable tanning process, the concentration of the tanning materials starts out low and is
gradually increased as the tannage proceeds. It usually takes 3 weeks for the tanning material to penetrate to
the center of the hide.  The skins or hides are then wrung and may be cropped or split; heavy hides may be
retanned and scrubbed. For sole leather, the hides are commonly dipped in vats or drums containing sodium
bicarbonate or sulfuric acid for bleaching and removal of surface tannins.  Materials such as lignosulfate,
com sugar, oils, and specialty chemicals may be added to the leather. The leather is then set out to smooth
and dry and may then undergo further finishing steps.  However, a high percentage of vegetable-tanned
leathers do not undergo retanning, coloring, fatliquoring, or finishing.

        Leather may be dried by any of five common methods. Air drying is the simplest method. The
leather is hung or placed on racks and dried by the natural circulation of air around it. A toggling unit
consists of a number of screens placed in a dryer that has controlled temperature and humidity.  In a pasting
unit, leathers are pasted on large sheets of plate glass, porcelain, or metal and sent through a tunnel dryer with
several controlled temperature and humidity zones. In vacuum drying, the leather is spread out, grain down,
on a smooth surface to which heat is applied. A vacuum hood is placed over the surface, and a vacuum is
applied to aid in drying the leather. High-frequency drying involves the use of a high frequency
electromagnetic field to dry the leather.

9.15.2.2  Chrome Tanning-
        Chrome-tanned leather tends  to be softer and more pliable than vegetable-tanned leather, has higher
thermal stability, is very stable in water, and takes less time to produce than vegetable-tanned leather.
Almost all leather made from lighter-weight cattle hides and from the skin of sheep, lambs, goats, and pigs is
chrome tanned. The first steps of the process (soaking, fleshing, liming/dehairing, deliming, bating, and
pickling) and the drying/finishing steps are essentially the same as in vegetable tanning. However, in chrome
tanning, the additional processes of retanning, dyeing, and fatliquoring are usually performed to produce
usable leathers and a preliminary degreasing step may be necessary when using animal skins, such as
sheepskin.

        Chrome tanning in the United States is performed using a one-bath process that is based on the
reaction between the hide and a trivalent chromium salt, usually a basic chromium sulfate. In the typical one-
bath process, the hides are in a pickled state at a pH of 3 or lower, the chrome tanning materials are
introduced, and the pH is raised. Following tanning, the chrome tanned leather is piled down, wrung, and
graded for the thickness and quality, split into flesh and grain layers, and shaved to the desired thickness.  The
grain leathers from the shaving machine are then separated for retanning, dyeing, and fatliquoring. Leather
that is not subject to scuffs and scratches can be dyed on the surface only. For other types of leather (i. e.,
shoe leather) the dye must penetrate further into the leather.  Typical dyestuffs are aniline-based compounds
that combine with the skin to form an  insoluble compound.

        Fatliquoring is the process of introducing oil into the skin before the leather is dried to replace the
natural oils lost in beamhouse and tanyard processes. Fatliquoring is usually performed in a drum using an
oil emulsion at temperatures of about  60° to 66°C  (140° to 150°F) for 30 to 40 minutes. After fatliquoring,
the leather is wrung, set out, dried, and finished.  The finishing process refers to all the steps that are carried
out after drying.
6/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                             9.15-3
-------
9.15.2.3 Leather Finishing
       Leathers may be finished in a variety of ways: buffed with fine abrasives to produce a suede finish;
waxed, shellacked, or treated with pigments, dyes, and resins to achieve a smooth, polished surface and the
desired color; or lacquered with urethane for a glossy patent leather.  Water-based or solvent-based finishes
may also be applied to the leather. Plating is then used to smooth the surface of the coating materials and
bond them to the grain.  Hides may also be embossed.

9.15.3  Emissions  and Controls2-4-6
       There are  several potential sources of air emissions in the leather tanning and finishing industry.
Emissions of VOC may occur during finishing processes, if organic solvents are used, and during other
processes, such as  fatliquoring and drying. If organic degreasing solvents are used during soaking in suede
leather manufacture, these VOC may also evaporate to the atmosphere. Many tanneries are implementing
water-based coatings to reduce VOC emissions. Control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, are used less
frequently to reduce VOC  emissions.  Ammonia emissions may occur during some of the wet processing
steps, such as  deliming and unhairing, or during drying if ammonia is used to aid dye penetration during
coloring.  Emissions of sulfides may occur during liming/unhairing and subsequent processes.  Also, alkaline
sulfides in tannery wastewater can be converted to hydrogen sulfide if the pH is less than 8.0, resulting in
release of this gas. Particulate emissions may occur during shaving, drying, and buffing; they are controlled
by dust collectors or scrubbers.

       Chromium emissions may occur from chromate reduction, handling of basic chromic sulfate powder,
and from the buffing process. No air emissions of chromium occur during soaking or drying.  At plants that
purchase chromic sulfate in powder form, dust containing bivalent chromium may be emitted during storage,
handling, and mixing of the dry chromic sulfate.  The buffing operation also releases particulates, which may
contain chromium. Leather tanning facilities, however, have not been viewed as sources of chromium
emissions by the States in which they are located.

References for Section 9.15

1.     K. Bienkiewicz, Physical Chemistry Of Leathermaking, Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL, 1983.

2.     Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines And Standards For The Leather
       Tanning And Finishing Point Source Category, EPA-440/1-82-016, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November, 1982.

3.     1992 Census Of Manufactures, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Washington,
       DC, April 1995.

4.     Telecon, A. Marshall, Midwest Research Institute, with F. Rutland, Environmental Consultant,
       Leather Industries of America, August 7,1996.

5.     1996 Membership Directory, Leather Industries of America Inc.

6.     M. T. Roberts and D. Etherington, Bookbinding And The Conservation Of Books, A Dictionary Of
       Descriptive Terminology.

7.     T. C.  Thorstensen, Practical Leather Technology, 4th Ed., Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL,
       1993.
9.15-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                  6/97
-------
        Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Chromium, EPA-450/4-84-007g, U. S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1984.
6/97                             Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.15-5
-------
9.16 Agricultural Wind Erosion



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.16-1
-------
                     10.  WOOD PRODUCTS  INDUSTRY
       Wood processing in this industry involves the conversion of trees into useful consumer products
and/or building materials such as paper, charcoal, treated and untreated lumber, plywood, particle board,
wafer board, and medium density fiber board. During the conversion processes, the major pollutants of
concern are particulate, PM-10, and volatile organic compounds. There also may be speciated organic
compounds that may be toxic or hazardous.
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                           10.0-1
-------
10.0-2                        EMISSION FACTORS                          1/95
-------
10.1 Lumber




                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                            10.1-1
-------
 10.2 Chemical Wood Pulping

 10.2.1  General

        Chemical wood pulping involves the extraction of cellulose from wood by dissolving the
 lignin that binds the cellulose fibers together.  The 4 processes principally used in chemical pulping
 are kraft, sulfite, neutral sulfite semichemical (NSSC), and soda.  The first 3 display the greatest
 potential for causing ah- pollution. The kraft process alone accounts for over 80 percent of the
 chemical pulp produced in the United States.  The choice of pulping process is determined by the
 desired product, by the wood species available, and by economic considerations.

 10.2.2  Kraft Pulping

 10.2.2.1  Process Description1 -
        The kraft pulping process (see Figure 10.2-1) involves the digesting of wood chips at elevated
 temperature and pressure in "white liquor", which is a water solution of sodium sulfide and sodium
 hydroxide.  The white liquor chemically dissolves the lignin that binds the cellulose fibers together.

        There are 2 types of digester systems, batch and continuous.  Most kraft pulping is done hi
 batch digesters, although the more recent installations are of continuous digesters.  In a batch
 digester, when cooking is complete, the contents of the digester are transferred to an atmospheric tank
 usually referred to as a blow tank. The entire contents of the blow tank are sent to pulp washers,
 where the spent cooking liquor is separated from the pulp.  The pulp then proceeds through various
 stages of washing, and possibly bleaching, after which it is pressed and dried into the finished
 product. The "blow" of the digester does not apply to  continuous digester systems.

        The balance of the kraft process is designed to recover the cooking chemicals and heat.  Spent
 cooking liquor and the pulp wash water are combined to form a weak black liquor which is
 concentrated hi a multiple-effect evaporator system to about 55 percent solids.  The black liquor is
 then further concentrated to 65 percent solids in a direct-contact evaporator, by bringing the liquor
 into contact with the flue gases from the recovery furnace, or hi an indirect-contact concentrator. The
 strong black liquor is then fired hi a recovery furnace.  Combustion of the organics dissolved hi the
 black liquor provides heat for generating process steam and for converting sodium sulfate to sodium
 sulfide.  Inorganic chemicals present hi the black liquor collect as a molten smelt at the bottom of the
 furnace.

        The smelt is dissolved  hi water to form green liquor, which is transferred to a causticizing
tank where  quicklime (calcium oxide) is added to  convert the solution back to white liquor for return
to the digester system.  A lime mud precipitates from the causticizing tank, after which it is calcined
hi a lime kiln to regenerate quicklime.

        For process heating, for driving equipment, for providing electric power, etc., many mills
need more steam than can be provided by the recovery furnace alone. Thus, conventional industrial
boilers that burn  coal, oil, natural gas, or bark and wood are commonly used.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Wood Products Industry                              10.2-1
-------
                                                                                    01

                                                                                    s
                                                                                    s
                                                                                    o.


                                                                                    I
                                                                                    a,


                                                                                   .1
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   T-N
10.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
 10.2.2.2 Emissions And Controls1"7 -
        Paniculate emissions from the kraft process occur largely from the recovery furnace, the lime
 kiln and the smelt dissolving tank. These emissions are mainly sodium salts, with some calcium salts
 from the lime kiln.  They are caused mostly by carryover of solids and sublimation and condensation
 of the inorganic chemicals.

        Paniculate control is provided on recovery furnaces hi a variety of ways. In mills with either
 cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator as the direct-contact evaporator, further control is necessary,
 as these devices are generally only 20 to 50 percent efficient for particulates. Most often in these
 cases, an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is employed after the direct-contact evaporator, for an overall
 paniculate control efficiency of from 85 to more than 99 percent.  Auxiliary scrubbers may be added
 at existing mills after a precipitator or a venturi scrubber to supplement older and less efficient
 primary paniculate control devices.

        Paniculate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers.  Electrostatic
 precipitators have been used in a few mills.  Smelt dissolving tanks usually are controlled by mesh
 pads, but scrubbers can provide further control.

        The characteristic odor of the kraft mill is caused by the emission of reduced sulfur
 compounds, the most common of which are hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide,
 and dimethyl disulfide, all with extremely  low odor thresholds.  The major source of hydrogen sulfide
 is the direct contact evaporator, hi  which the sodium sulfide in the black liquor reacts with the carbon
 dioxide hi the furnace exhaust.  Indirect contact evaporators can significantly reduce the emission of
 hydrogen sulfide.  The lime  kiln can also be a potential source of odor, as a similar reaction occurs
 with residual sodium sulfide hi the lime mud.  Lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide are emitted with
 the noncondensables of offgases from the digesters and multiple-effect evaporators.

        Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with the wood component,
 lignin.  Dimethyl  disulfide is formed through the oxidation of mercaptan groups derived from the
 lignin.  These compounds are emitted from many points within a mill, but the main sources are the
 digester/blow tank systems and the direct contact evaporator.

        Although odor control devices, per se, are not generally found hi kraft mills, emitted sulfur
 compounds  can be reduced by process modifications and improved operating conditions.  For
 example, black liquor oxidation systems, which oxidize sulfides into less reactive thiosulfates, can
 considerably reduce odorous sulfur emissions from the direct contact evaporator, although the vent
 gases from such systems become minor odor sources themselves. Also, noncondensable odorous
 gases vented from the digester/blow tank system and multiple effect evaporators can be destroyed by
 thermal oxidation, usually by passing them through the lime kiln.  Efficient operation of the recovery
 furnace, by  avoiding overloading and by maintaining  sufficient oxygen, residence time, and
 turbulence, significantly reduces emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from this source as well.
 The use of fresh water instead of contaminated condensates in the scrubbers and pulp washers further
 reduces odorous emissions.

        Several new mills have incorporated recovery systems that eliminate the conventional direct-
 contact evaporators. In one system, heated combustion ah", rather than fuel gas, provides direct-
contact evaporation. In another, the multiple-effect evaporator system is  extended to replace the
direct-contact evaporator altogether. In both systems, sulfur emissions from the recovery
furnace/direct-contact evaporator can be reduced by more than 99 percent.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Wood Products Industry                               10.2-3
-------
        Sulfur dioxide is emitted mainly from oxidation of reduced sulfur compounds in the recovery
furnace.  It is reported that the direct contact evaporator absorbs about 75 percent of these emissions,
and further scrubbing can provide additional control.

        Potential sources of carbon monoxide emissions from the kraft process include the recovery
furnace and lime kilns. The major cause of carbon monoxide emissions is furnace operation well
above rated capacity, making it impossible to maintain oxidizing conditions.

        Some nitrogen oxides also are emitted from the recovery furnace and lime kilns, although
amounts are relatively small. Indications are that nitrogen oxide emissions  are on the order of 0.5 to
1.0 kilograms per air-dried megagram (kg/Mg)  (1 to 2 pounds per air-dried ton pb/ton]) of pulp
produced from the lime kiln and recovery furnace, respectively.5"6

        A major source of emissions in a kraft mill is  the boiler for generating auxiliary steam and
power.  The fuels are coal, oil, natural gas, or bark/wood waste. See Chapter 1, "External
Combustion Sources", for emission factors for boilers.

        Table 10.2-1 presents emission factors for a conventional kraft mill. The most widely used
paniculate control devices are shown, along with the odor reductions through black liquor oxidation
and incineration of noncondensable offgases.  Tables 10.2-2, 10.2-3,  10.2-4, 10.2-5, 10.2-6, and
10.2-7 present cumulative size  distribution data and size-specific emission factors for paniculate
emissions from sources within a conventional kraft mill.  Uncontrolled and  controlled size-specific
emission factors7 are presented in Figure 10.2-2, Figure 10.2-3,  Figure 10.2-4, Figure 10.2-5,
Figure 10.2-6, and Figure 10.2-7.  The particle sizes are expressed in terms of the aerodynamic
diameter in micrometers (pm).

10.2.3  Acid Sulfite Pulping

10.2.3.1  Process Description -
        The production of acid  sulfite pulp proceeds similarly to  kraft pulping, except that different
chemicals are used hi the cooking liquor.  In place of the caustic solution used to dissolve the lignin
in the wood, sulfurous acid is employed.   To buffer the cooking  solution, a bisulfite of sodium,
magnesium, calcium, or ammonium is used.  A diagram of a typical magnesium-base process is
shown in Figure  10.2-8.

        Digestion is carried out under high pressure and high temperature, in either batch mode or
continuous digesters, and in the presence of a sulfurous acid/bisulfite cooking liquid. When cooking
is completed,  either  the digester is discharged at high pressure into a blow pit, or its contents are
pumped into a dump tank at lower pressure. The spent sulfite liquor (also called red liquor) then
drains through the bottom of the tank and is treated and discarded,  incinerated, or sent to a plant for
recovery of heat and chemicals. The pulp is then washed and processed through screens and
centrifuges to remove knots, bundles of fibers, and other material.  It subsequently may be bleached,
pressed, and dried in papermaking operations.

        Because of the variety of cooking liquor bases  used, numerous schemes have evolved for heat
and/or chemical recovery. In calcium base systems, found mostly in older mills, chemical recovery is
not practical, and the spent liquor is usually discharged Or incinerated. In ammonium base
operations, heat can be recovered by combusting the spent liquor, but the ammonium base is thereby
consumed.  In sodium or magnesium base operations,  the heat, sulfur, and base all may be feasibly
recovered.
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
   •s
   H
        i
   KJ   Qi
   2   O

   i   y

   x-^   CJU
   .S   'z.
   D   2
   J5   V5

   I   §
   "H

to
g?r
Oi "-'
1
•8
S
M»_
•o
X
o
TO
o
e
Jo
* U
c ^
o
•e
S
°
U
•a
3^
1^
3


u
03
"3
o
tt
ctf


C
J

60
!
e
£
60

I



60
2
•a
M
c
o
£

00
1
e
2




U)
S
"So

0 "S
goj





O

3
0



ts


VO
d
S
d
d

Q
Z



Q
Z

Q
Z


a
z

a
z




a

Untreatedb

£
J3
.O
"g
«

.2
'"§
0 "^


d


d
S
d
o
d

Q
Z



Q
Z

Q
Z


Q
Z

Q
Z




Q
Z

Untreatedb



0
_c
V3
C3

^
O
2
Cfl
I
03


• o o o o
^3 C*^ CO f*} C*V


go o o o
in >n >n in

- - - - -
• o o o o
O vo VO vo vo

Q
Z — ' -* ^



Q in in in
Z in in in

Q
Z t- r~ r-


^ in >n in
cn en m
M
Q o oo r< .2
z oo *
fr>

oo
in
Q o -t ~ r^
^ ON CS i
Wl
JD •« **1- )_
5 5 . -^ « JO
S 3 3 p ;s 3
1 1 " 8 1 4 g
o u
« !a
2 -3
a -a
> rt
U (^

1 o .
5- £ o
1 £l
.s- > §.
M O 4i


Q


Q
ja
d
8
d


^



>n
m

Q
Z


Q
Z

o
(N




S

Untreated
Ui
'5 «_,
-D U
>> n
O o
> 0
o ^
U O
§ § .
Noncontact
without di
evaporate


Q
Z


0
J3
d
"1
d


-^



V)
in

Q
Z


Q
Z

(N





— '

Q.
U











odd


odd
R
odd
odd

Q Q Q
Z Z Z



Q Q Q
Z Z Z

«1 « Q
o o Z


_ _ Q
do*
ts
r- — i d




vri m -*
C*l O O

Untreated
Mesh pad
Scrubber



c
3
ao

•>
8
.a
T3
1
to

g
-------
  cs
  o
  T-H
   . ^
SC 2 is'Ea
      fi
                O  -O
10.2-6
._  S    c


 EMISSION FACTORS
                                                           (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
      Table 10.2-2 (Metric Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
         SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITH A
                    DIRECT-CONTACT EVAPORATOR AND AN ESP*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Paniculate Size
Gim)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <,
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
95.0
93.5
92.2
83.5
56.5
45.3
26.5
100
Controlled
ND
ND
68.2
53.8
40.5
34.2
22.2
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
86
84
83
75
51
41
24
90
Controlled
ND
ND
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0
Reference 7.  ND = no data.
   100

   90

   SO


i-s 70
:|
:- SO
            ff
            Si  jo
                20


                10
                         Uncontrolled
                                              Controlled
                      l   l  I  l i  t 111
                                           A 1 111 II
                 0.1
                     1.0
                      Partlclt dlMMter
                                                  10
  1.0

   .9

 Ho.a




  0.6
                                                                       2»
                                                                       *i
                                                                       §1
                                                       0.4 .r
                                                          23
                                                       0.3 |^

                                                       0.2

                                                       0.1

                                                       0
100
          Figure 10.2-2. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission
               factors for recovery boiler with direct-contact evaporator and ESP.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                   Wood Products Industry
              10.2-7
-------
      Table 10.2-3 (Metric Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
      SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITHOUT A
                 DIRECT-CONTACT EVAPORATOR BUT WITH AN ESP*


                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Paniculate Size
Gtm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <•
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
ND
ND
ND
78.0
40.0
30.0
17.0
100
Controlled
78.8
74.8
71.9
67.3
51.3
42.4
29.6
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
ND
ND
ND
90
46
35
20
115
Controlled
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.0
"Reference 7. ND = no data.
              ISO
           s-s
           Si
                           Controlled
                                           Uncontrolled
                0
                 0.1
                      '   i  i  I I Mil
                                      I   I  I  I I III!
                      I   I  I I  I III
                                  1.0

                                  0.9

                                  o.g



                                  " II
                                  0.6 gS
                                    «£
                                  0.5  i
                                                                  "'
                                                                  0.3


                                                                  0.2


                                                                  0.1
1.0
                10
                                100
                                   Particle diameter
     Figure 10.2-3. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                recovery boiler without direct-contact evaporator but with ESP.
10.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
      Table 10.2-4 (Metric Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
   SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH A VENTURI SCRUBBER*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Paniculate Size
0*m)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <.
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
27.7
16.8
13.4
10.5
8.2
7.1
3.9
100
Controlled
98.9
98.3
98.2
96.0
85.0
78.9
54.3
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
7.8
4.7
3.8
2.9
2.3
2.0
1.1
28.0
Controlled
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.14
0.25
aReference 7.
                30

            Zl
            5
                         Cm trailed
      Uncontrolled
                         I  1 I
                                               I I III
                                                            I  I I I 11
                 0.1
  1.0                10
    Particle dtuwtir (in)
                                                                     0.3
                                                                        si

                                                                   100
      Figure 10.2-4.  Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                             lime kiln with venturi scrubber.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Wood Products Industry
10.2-9
-------
      Table 10.2-5 (Metric Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
          SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH AN ESP*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Paniculate Size
Otm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
27.7
16.8
13.4
10.5
8.2
7.1
3.9
100
Controlled
91.2
88.5
86.5
83.0
70.2
62.9
46.9
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
7.8
4.7
3.8
2.9
2.3
2.0
1.1
28.0
Controlled
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.12
0.25
Reference 7.
               30
             l,
                          ControilM
                                      Uncontrolled
                                                            i  i i i r 11 Q
                                                                    0.3
                                                                    0.2
                                    0.1
                 0.1
                                 1.0
                                                  10
                                                                  100
                                    Pwtlcli
     Figure 10.2-5. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                                  lime kiln with ESP.
10.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
       Table 10.2-6 (Metric Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
      SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
                                   PACKED TOWER*


                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Paniculate Size
(tan)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
90.0
88.5
87.0
73.0
47.5
40.0
25.5
100
Controlled
95.3
95.3
94.3
85.2
63.8
54.2
34.2
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
1.7
1.4
0.9
3.5
Controlled
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.43
0.32
0.27
0.17
0.50
 "Reference 7.
             o_
             -.£•
             5i *

              ?
             li  3
             J O
                          Controll
                                                                    0.6
                                                                     O.S
                                    0.4
                                                     Uncontrolled
                      '    •  ' i  i mi
                                        1 - 1   I I  I I II I - 1 - 1   I '  I I I I
                                       Si
                                    0.3 ii
                                                                     0-2 i2
                                                                     0.1
                 0.1
 1.0               10
    Pirtlclt dluetcr (in)
                                                                   100
      Figure 10.2-6. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                          smelt dissolving tank with packed tower.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Wood Products Industry
10.2-11
-------
      Table 10.2-7 (Metric Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
     SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
                                VENTURI SCRUBBER*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Particulate Size
G*m)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <,
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
90.0
88.5
87.0
73.0
47.5
40.0
25.5
100
Controlled
89.9
89.5
88.4
81.3
63.5
54.7
38.7
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
1.7
1.4
0.9
3.5
Controlled
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.09
Reference 7.
           If
           l
               0.1
                        CMtrol ltd
                                               Uncontrolled
i.o
                                                 ao
                                   1.0


                                   0.9

                                   0.8

                                   0.7

100
                                   0.4 £«


                                   0-3 j!

                                   0.2


                                   0.1

                                   0
                                   Ptrtlclt dlMw
     Figure 10.2-7. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                        smelt dissolving tank with venturi scrubber.
10.2-12
 EMISSION FACTORS
   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                                                                                                    f
                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                   •a
                                                                                                    CJ

                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                   •S
                                                                                                    bO
                                                                                                     ,
                                                                                                    2
                                                                                                    a.
                                                                                                   1


                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    2
                                                                                                    o

                                                                                                   53
                                                                                                    S
                                                                                                    CM


                                                                                                   •8
                                                                                                     «
                                                                                                   op

                                                                                                   (S

                                                                                                   o


                                                                                                    
-------
        If recovery is practiced, the spent (weak) red liquor (which contains more than half of the raw
materials as dissolved organic solids) is concentrated in a multiple-effect evaporator and a direct-
contact evaporator to 55 to 60 percent solids.  This strong liquor is sprayed into a furnace and
burned, producing steam to operate the digesters, evaporators, etc. and to meet other power
requirements.

        When magnesium base liquor is burned, a flue gas is produced from which magnesium oxide
is recovered in a multiple cyclone as fine white power. The magnesium oxide is then water slaked
and is used as circulating liquor in a series of venturi scrubbers, which are designed to absorb sulfur
dioxide from the flue gas and to form a bisulfite solution for use in the cook cycle.  When sodium
base liquor is burned, the inorganic compounds are recovered as a molten smelt containing sodium
sulfide and sodium carbonate.  This smelt may be processed further and used to absorb sulfur dioxide
from the flue gas and sulfur burner.  In some sodium base mills, however, the smelt may be sold to a
nearby kraft mill as raw material for producing green liquor.

        If liquor recovery is not practiced,  an acid plant is necessary of sufficient capacity to fulfill
the mill's total sulfite requirement. Normally, sulfur is burned hi a rotary or spray burner.  The gas
produced is then cooled by heat exchangers and a water spray and is then absorbed in a variety of
different scrubbers  containing either limestone or a solution of the base chemical. Where recovery is
practiced, fortification is accomplished similarly, although a much smaller amount of sulfur dioxide
must be produced to make up for that lost in the process.

10.2.3.2  Emissions And Controls11 -
        Sulfur dioxide (SO^  is generally considered the major pollutant of concern from sulfite pulp
mills. The characteristic "kraft" odor is  not emitted because volatile reduced sulfur compounds are
not products of the lignin/bisulfite reaction.

        A major SO2 source is  the digester and blow pit (dump tank) system. Sulfur dioxide is
present hi the intermittent digester relief gases, as well as hi the gases  given off at the end of the cook
when the digester contents are discharged into the blow pit. The quantity of sulfur dioxide evolved
and emitted to the atmosphere hi these gas  streams depends on the pH  of the cooking liquor,  the
pressure at which the digester contents are  discharged,  and the effectiveness of the absorption systems
employed for SO2 recovery.  Scrubbers can be installed that reduce SO2 from this source by  as much
as 99 percent.

        Another source of sulfur dioxide emissions is the recovery system.  Since magnesium,
sodium, and ammonium  base recovery systems all use absorption systems to recover SO2 generated hi
recovery furnaces, acid fortification towers, multiple effect evaporators, etc., the magnitude of SO2
emissions depends on the desired efficiency of these systems.  Generally, such absorption systems
recover better than  95 percent of the sulfur so it can be reused.

       The various pulp washing, screening, and cleaning operations are also potential sources of
SO2.  These operations are numerous and may account for a significant fraction of a mill's SO2
emissions if not controlled.

       The only significant paniculate source hi the pulping and recovery process is the absorption
system handling the recovery furnace exhaust. Ammonium base systems generate less particulate than
do magnesium  or sodium base systems.  The combustion productions are mostly nitrogen, water
vapor, and sulfur dioxide.
10.2-14                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
        Auxiliary power boilers also produce emissions in the sulfite pulp mill, and emission factors
 for these boilers are presented hi Chapter 1,  "External Combustion Sources". Table 10.2-8 contains
 emission factors for the various sulfite pulping operations.

 10.2.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping

 10.2.4.1  Process Description9-12'14 -
        In this method, wood chips are cooked hi a neutral solution of sodium sulfite and sodium
 carbonate.  Sulfite ions react with the lignin in wood, and the sodium bicarbonate acts as a buffer to
 maintain a neutral solution. The major difference between all semichemical techniques and those of
 kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only a portion of the lignin is removed during the cook, after
 which the pulp is further reduced by mechanical disintegration.  This method achieves yields as high
 as 60 to 80 percent, as opposed to 50 to 55 percent for other chemical processes.

        The NSSC process varies from mill to mill.  Some mills dispose of their spent liquor, some
 mills recover the cooking chemicals, and some, when operated in conjunction with kraft mills, mix
 then: spent liquor with the kraft liquor as a source of makeup chemicals. When recovery is practiced,
 the involved steps parallel those of the sulfite process.

 10.2.4.2 Emissions And  Controls9-12'14 -
        Paniculate emissions are a potential problem only when recovery systems are involved. Mills
 that do practice recovery but are not operated in conjunction with kraft operations often utilize
 fluidized bed reactors to burn then: spent liquor.  Because the flue gas contains sodium sulfate and
 sodium carbonate dust, efficient particulate collection may be included for chemical recovery.

        A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. Absorbing towers, digester/blower tank
 systems, and recovery furnaces are the mam sources of SO2, with amounts emitted dependent upon
 the capability of the scrubbing devices installed for control and recovery.

        Hydrogen sulfide can also be emitted from NSSC mills which use kraft type recovery
 furnaces.  The mam potential source is the absorbing tower, where  a significant quantity of hydrogen
 sulfite is liberated as the cooking liquor is made.  Other possible sources, depending on the operating
 conditions, include the recovery furnace, and in mills where some green liquor is used hi the cooking
 process, the digester/blow tank system. Where green liquor is used, it is also possible that significant
 quantities of mercaptans will be produced.  Hydrogen sulfide emissions can be eliminated if burned to
 sulfur dioxide before the absorbing system.

        Because the NSSC process differs greatly from mill to mill, and because of the scarcity of
 adequate data, no emission factors are presented for this process.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Wood Products Industry                              10.2-15
-------
  g
  5
  £
  tu,
  J
  p
  &0
  (^
  o
  PH
  CO


  g
  O
  I
  OJ
  I

  1
  oo

  ts

  O

l||
1^





^

3
PL,
•i
00
1








4)
I
O
(5
£
1






«
J
o
1
(X


B
j5


00
|

M


S
^
£


BD
D
^
S





Control






05
S
0







u
lH
{5



U U 05 03 < Q CQ U U < 03 O U Q U Q
O
*t "* (s)  IH
>. 4)
0 * „
UH 2« IH V^ C *"
a) 4) 42 O *rt
x> .a ^ ^> » B jj
^O 64) ^ ^D •—(--! _G
! 1 I 1 1 1 1
' 1 § "3 I I I
1 Iflll a 1 1 1
"» *- "S 1 "S1" . 1 i i-|-5a'i:l'i-is«
^O utO*H3SOlHl-1 lH»^l5?^*-3*t>l^§'y
z a,&o(x,<; &,fr,OHi3^ic»Eo *,

^™* ^^ ^* ^^ ^^ HH NI"* Ctf 0$ *"ft ^T^ ^0 *T^ fltf Ctf ^7**
5 ^ ^ ^ *5P §9 55U^S ^cjziu^
|^^ ^^ ^fe ^^ X-* X-< ^^ ^!H XM




0,
S
•o
0 o
•s. |
£ «* <-
"g fr 1
** ^ "S. ^
5 ft! "^ O


s
H
D
Q
^

i
i>
V
a
"8
V
•S
JJ
1
3
•8
'C
•?
<
ii
60
•
Q •§*
<3
0.
tj j
a £
2 ^
's? <§
'S M
S s
» 1
s -g
> RS
ca o>
g 1
S P
t3
60 S
s *c
5 "3
cj nj *zzs
^ ™5

cS ^2 "£
tM w) c3
-------
  I
  oo
  cs
  O
  9
        0>
        •g "**
        « "8
        $ G
          «
ep
Factors
M — =
.s •§ §. s
•g 8
     O o
     co o>
          «3
  .a 53
   2? "5  o
SS33
uT ^
Iff
si
g"0
.ii co
•S C
a-2
S 2
tt '5
o c
>.co  E

co 2 *o
8 £•!
9> O  O
Z o £
9/90 (Refoimatted 1/95)
                      Wood Products Industry
                                                                                    10.2-17
-------
References For Section 10.2

1.     Review Of New Source Performance Standards For Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA^50/3-83-017,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1983.

2.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I:  Proposed Standards Of
       Performance For Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/2-76-014a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1976.

3.     Kraft Pulping - Control Of TRS Emissions From Existing Mills, EPA-450/78-003b,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1979.

4.     Environmental Pollution Control, Pulp And Paper Industry, Pan I: Air, EPA-625/7-76-001,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October  1976.

5.     A Study Of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Lime Kilns, Technical Bulletin Number 107,
       National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY,
       April 1980.

6.     A Study Of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Large Kraft Recovery Furnaces, Technical
       Bulletin Number 111, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
       Improvement, New York, NY, January 1981.

7.     Source Category Report For The Kraft Pulp Industry, EPA Contract  Number 68-02-3156,
       Acurex Corporation,  Mountain View, CA, January 1983.

8.      Source test data, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U.  S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972.

9.      Atmospheric Emissions From The Pulp And Paper Manufacturing Industry,
       EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1973.

10.    Carbon Monoxide Emissions From Selected Combustion Sources Based On Short-Term
       Monitoring Records, Technical Bulletin Number 416, National Council of the Paper Industry
       for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY, January 1984.

11.    Background Document: Acid Sulfite Pulping, EPA-450/3-77-005, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1977.

12.    E. R. Hendrickson, et al., Control Of Atmospheric Emissions In The Wood Pulping Industry,
       Volume I, HEW Contract Number CPA-22-69-18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, March 15, 1970.

13.    M. Benjamin, et al.,  "A  General Description of Commercial Wood Pulping And Bleaching
       Processes", Journal Of The Ah- Pollution Control Association, 19(3): 155-161, March 1969.

14.    S. F. Caleano and B. M. Dillard,  "Process Modifications For Air Pollution Control In Neutral
       Sulfite Semi-chemical Mills", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association,
       22(3): 195-199, March 1972.
10.2-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
103 Pulp Bleaching



                                     [Work In Progress]
 1/95                               Wood Products Industry                              10.3-1
-------
10.4 Paper-making




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                             10.4-1
-------
10.5 Plywood



                                     [Work In Progress]
 1/95                               Wood Products Industry                             10.5-1
-------
10.6 Reconstituted Wood Products




10.6.1  Waferboard And Oriented Strand Board




10.6.2  Particleboard




10.6.3  Medium Density Fiberboard
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                              10.6-1
-------
10.6.1  Waferboard And Oriented Strand Board




                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                          10.6.1-1
-------
10.6.2 Particleboard



                                      [Work In Progress]
 1/95                               Wood Products Industry                           10.6.2-1
-------
10.6.3  Medium Density Fiberboard




                                     [Work In Progess]
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                           10.6.3-1
-------
10.7  Charcoal

10.7.1 Process Description1"4

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

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

       Charcoal manufacturing kilns generally can be classified as either batch or continuous multiple
hearth kilns; continuous multiple hearth kilns are more commonly used than are batch kilns.  Batch
units such as the Missouri-type charcoal kiln (Figure 10.7-1) are small manually-loaded and  -unloaded
kilns producing typically 16 megagrams (Mg)  (17.6 tons)  of charcoal  during a 3-week cycle.
Continuous units (Figure 10.7-2) produce an average of 2.5  Mg per hour (Mg/hr)  (2.75 tons  per hour
[tons/hr]) of charcoal.  During the manufacturing process, the wood is heated, driving off water and
highly volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Wood temperature rises to approximately 275°C (527°F),
and the VOC distillate yield increases. At this point, external application  of heat is no longer
required because the carbonization reactions become  exothermic.  At 350°C (662°F), exothermic
pyrolysis ends, and heat is  again applied to remove the less volatile tarry materials from the product
charcoal.

       Fabrication of briquettes from raw material may be either an integral part of a charcoal
producing facility, or an independent operation,  with charcoal being received as raw material.
Figure 10.7-3  presents a flow diagram for charcoal briquette production.   Raw  charcoal is first
crushed to pass through an approximately 3 millimeter (0.12 inch) screen  aperture and  then stored for
briquetting.  The charcoal is then mixed with a binder to form a 65 to 70  percent charcoal mixture.
Typical binder solutions are 9 to 10 percent by weight solutions of cornstarch, milostarch, or
wheatstarch.  Sawdust or other materials may  be added to obtain faster burning or higher
temperatures.  Briquettes are then formed in a press  and dried at approximately  135°C (275°F) for
3 to 4 hours, resulting in a product with  a 5 percent  moisture content. This process generates a
briquette of approximately  90 percent pyrolysis product.

10.7.2 Emissions And Controls3'12

       There  are five types of products and byproducts from charcoal production  operations:
charcoal, noncondensible gases (carbon monoxide  [CO], carbon dioxide [COJ,  methane, and ethane),
pyroacids (primarily acetic acid and methanol), tars and heavy oils, and water.  With the exception of
charcoal, all of these materials are emitted with the kiln exhaust.  Product constituents  and the
distribution of these constituents vary, depending on raw materials and carbonization parameters.
Organics and CO are naturally combusted to CO2 and water before leaving the retort.  Because the
extent of this combustion varies from plant to  plant,  emission levels are quite variable. Some of the

9/95                                 Wood Products Industry                               10.7-1
-------
                              ROOF VENTILATION
                                    PORTS
             CLAY PIPE STACKS
    AIR
PIPK
                  STEEL DOORS
                                    CONCRETE WALLS
                                       AND ROOF
                  Figure 10.7-1. The Missouri-type charcoal kiln.7
                    (Source Classification Code:  3-01-006-03.)
10.7-2
                   EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
        POM EMISSIONS
       COMBUSTION
          ZONE
        COOLING
         ZONE
     CHARCOAL
     PRODUCT
        COOLING AIR FAN
                                                 COOLING AIR DISCHARGE
                                                  FLOATING DAMPER
                                            ///////////V
                                                                   FEED MATERIAL
                                                                     RABBLE ARM AT
                                                                      EACH HEARTH
                                                                       COMBUSTION
                                                                       "AIR RETURN
                                                                  RABBLE ARM
                                                                     DRIVE
           Figure 10.7-2. The continuous multiple hearth kiln for charcoal production.4
                         (Source Classification Code:  3-01-006-04.)
9/95
Wood Products Industry
10.7-3
-------
                       ELEVATOR
         LUMP
       CHARCOAL
        STORAGE
                     CHARCOAL
                      FEEDER
        SCREEN
                                       GROUND
                                      CHARCOAL
                                       STORAGE
                                                                      STACK
                                                  STARCH
                                                  STORAGE
                                                      AND
                                                     FEEDER
                                         COOLING ELEVATOR
              Figure 10.7-3.  Flow diagram for charcoal briquette production.3
                       (Source Classification Code:  3-01-006-05.)
10.7-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
specific organic compounds that may be found in charcoal kiln emissions include ethane, methane,
ethanol, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). If uncombusted, tars may solidify to form PM
emissions, and pyroacids may form aerosol emissions.

       The charcoal briquetting process is also a potential source of emissions. The crushing,
screening, and handling of the dry raw charcoal may produce PM and PM-10 emissions. Briquette
pressing and drying may be a source of VOC emissions, depending on the type of binder and other
additives used.

       Continuous production of charcoal is more amenable to emission control than batch
production because emission composition and flow rate are relatively constant. Emissions from
continuous multiple hearth charcoal kilns generally are controlled with afterburners.  Cyclones, which
commonly are used for product recovery, also reduce PM emissions from continuous kilns.
Afterburning is estimated to reduce emissions of PM, CO, and VOC by at least 80 percent.  Control
of emissions from batch-type charcoal kilns is difficult because the process and, consequently, the
emissions are cyclic.  Throughout a cycle, both the emission composition and flow rate change.
Batch kilns do not typically have emission control devices, but some may use after-burners.

       Particulate  matter emissions from briquetting operations  can be controlled with a centrifugal
collector (65 percent control) or fabric filter (99 percent control).

       Emission factors for criteria pollutant emissions from the manufacture of charcoal are shown
in Table  10.7-1. Table 10.7-2 presents factors for emission of organic pollutants from charcoal
manufacturing.

          Table 10.7-1  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING-
                             CRITERIA POLLUTANTS  AND CO2a

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

Source
Charcoal kilnc (SCC 3-01-006-03, -04)
Briquetting11 (SCC 3-01-006-05)
Ib/ton
Total PMb
310"
56f
NOX
24°
ND
CO
290f
ND
VOC
270s
ND
CO2
l,100f
ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
  Emission factors units are Ib/ton of product. One Ib/ton = 0.5 kg/Mg.
b Includes condensibles and consists primarily of tars and oils.
c Applicable to both batch and continuous kilns.
d References 2,6-7.
e Reference 3.  Based on 0.14 percent  nitrogen content of wood.
f References 2,6-7,11.
g References 2-3,6.
h For entire briquetting process.
9/95
Wood Products Industry
10.7-5
-------
         Table 10.7-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING-
                       MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC POLLUTANTS"

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Source
Charcoal kilnb (SCC 3-01-006-3, -04)



Pollutant
Methane0
Ethaned
Methanol6
POMf
Emission factor, Ib/ton
110
52
150
0.0095
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions.  SCC = Source Classification Code. Emission factors
  units are Ib/ton of product.  One Ib/ton = 0.5 kg/Mg.
b Applicable to both batch and continuous kilns.
c References 2,6.
d References 3,6.
e Reference 2.
f Reference 7.

References For Section 10.7

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

 2.     R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1967.

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

 4.     Radian Corporation, Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources OfPolycyclic
       Organic Matter (POM), EPA-450/4-84-007p, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1988.

 5.     Riegel's Handbook Of Industrial Chemistry, Seventh Edition, J. A. Kent, ed., Van Nostrand
       Reinhold, NY, 1974.

 6.     J. R. Hartwig, "Control of Emissions from Batch-Type Charcoal Kilns", Forest Products
       Journal, 27(9):49-50, April 1971.

 7.     W. H.  Maxwell,  Stationary Source Testing Of A Missouri-Type Charcoal Kiln,
       EPA-907/9-76-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, MO, August 1976.

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

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


 10.7-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                               9/95
-------
10.    P. B. Hulman, et al, Screening Study On Feasibility Of Standards Of Performance For Wood
       Charcoal Manufacturing, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608,  Radian Corporation, Austin, TX,
       August 1978.

11.    Emission Test Report, Kingsford Charcoal, Bumside, Kentucky, prepared by Monsanto
       Research Corporation for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, August 1980.

12.    Written communication from J. Swiskow, Barbecue Industry Association, Naperville, IL, to
       D. Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 11, 1994.
9/95                               Wood Products Industry                              10.7-7
-------
 10.8  Wood Preserving




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                             10.8-1
-------
                   11.  MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
       The production, processing, and use of various minerals are characterized by paniculate
emissions in the form of dust.  Frequently, as in the case of crushing and screening, this dust is
identical in composition to the material being handled. Emissions occur also from handling and
storing the finished product because this material is often dry and fine. Paniculate emissions from
some of the processes such as quarrying, yard storage, and dust from transport are difficult to
control, but most can be reduced by conventional paniculate control equipment such as cyclones,
scrubbers, and fabric filters. Because of the wide variety in processing equipment and final products,
emission levels will range widely.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.0-1
-------
11.1  Hot Mix Asphalt Plants

11.1.1  General1'2'23'42-43

        Hot mix asphalt (HMA) paving materials are a mixture of well-graded, high-quality aggregate
(which  can include reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP]) and liquid asphalt cement, which is heated and
mixed in measured quantities to produce HMA. Aggregate and RAP (if used) constitute over
92 percent by weight of the total mixture.  Aside from the amount and grade of asphalt cement used,
mix characteristics are determined by the relative amounts and types of aggregate and RAP used.  A
certain  percentage of fine aggregate (less than 74 micrometers [/im] in physical diameter) is required
for the  production of good quality HMA.

        Hot mix asphalt paving materials can be manufactured by:  (1) batch mix plants,
(2) continuous mix (mix outside drum) plants, (3) parallel flow drum mix plants, and (4) counterflow
drum mix plants.  This order of listing generally reflects the  chronological order of development and
use within the HMA industry.

        There are approximately 3,600 active asphalt plants in the United States.  Of these,
approximately 2,300 are batch plants, 1,000 are parallel flow drum mix plants, and 300 are
counterflow drum mix plants.  About 85 percent of plants being manufactured today are of the
counterflow drum mix design, while batch plants and parallel flow drum mix plants account for
10 percent and 5 percent, respectively.  Continuous mix plants represent a very small fraction of the
plants in use (<0.5 percent) and, therefore, are not discussed further.

        An HMA plant can be constructed  as a permanent plant, a skid-mounted (easily relocated)
plant, or a portable plant.  All plants can have RAP processing capabilities.  Virtually all plants being
manufactured today have RAP processing capability.

Batch Mix Plants -
        Figure 11.1-1 shows the batch mix HMA production  process. Raw  aggregate normally is
stockpiled near the plant.  The bulk aggregate moisture content typically stabilizes between 3 to
5 percent by weight.

        Processing  begins as the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the
appropriate hoppers of the cold feed unit.  The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyer
belt and is transported into a rotary dryer (typically gas- or oil-fired). Dryers are equipped with
flights designed to shower the aggregate inside the drum to promote drying efficiency.

        As the hot aggregate leaves the dryer,  it drops  into a  bucket elevator and is transferred to a
set of vibrating screens where it is classified into as many as  4 different grades (sizes), and is dropped
into individual "hot" bins according to size. To control aggregate size distribution in the final batch
mix, the operator opens various hot bins over  a weigh hopper until  the desired mix and weight are
obtained. Reclaimed asphalt pavement may be added at this point, also.  Concurrent with the
aggregate being weighed,  liquid asphalt cement is pumped from a heated storage tank to  an asphalt
bucket, where it is  weighed to achieve the desired aggregate-to-asphalt cement ratio in the final mix.

        The aggregate from the weigh hopper is dropped into the mixer (pug mill) and dry-mixed for
6 to 10  seconds.  The liquid  asphalt is then dropped into the pug mill where it is mixed for an


1795                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.1-1
-------
                                                                 a:9

                                                                 I!

                                                                                    a>


                                                                                    cx

                                                                                    c
                                                                                    •o

                                                                                    a

                                                                                    o
                                                                                    '
                                                   8


                                                   o
                                                   CO
                                                                                    i
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    73
                                                                                    x;

                                                                                    's

                                                                                    J=

                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    X)
                                                                                    1—

                                                                                    £

                                                                                    |

                                                                                    u«

                                                                                    .2
                                                                                    •3


                                                                                    o
                                                                                    S
                                                                                    a,


                                                                                    2
                                                                                    u


                                                                                    a
                                                                                    3
                                                                                    bfl
11.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
additional period of time. Total mixing time is usually less than 60 seconds.  Then the hot mix is
conveyed to a hot storage silo or is dropped directly into a truck and hauled to the job site.

Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants -
        Figure 11.1-2 shows the parallel flow drum mix process.  This process is a continuous mixing
type process, using proportioning cold feed controls for the process materials.  The major difference
between this process and the batch process is that the dryer is used not only to dry the material but
also to mix the heated and dried aggregates with the liquid asphalt cement.  Aggregate, which has
been proportioned by size gradations, is introduced to the drum at the burner end.  As the drum
rotates, the aggregates, as well as the combustion products, move toward the other end of the drum  in
parallel. Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump electronically linked to the
new (virgin) aggregate and RAP weigh scales.  The asphalt cement is introduced in the mixing zone
midway down the drum in a lower temperature zone, along with any RAP and paniculate matter
(PM) from collectors.

        The mixture is discharged at the end of the drum and is conveyed to either a surge bin or
HMA storage silos.  The exhaust gases also exit the end of the drum and pass on to the collection
system.

        Parallel flow drum mixers have an advantage, in that mixing in the discharge end of the drum
captures a substantial portion of the aggregate dust, therefore lowering the load on the downstream
collection equipment. For this reason, most parallel flow drum mixers are followed only by primary
collection equipment (usually a baghouse or venturi scrubber).  However, because the mixing of
aggregate and liquid asphalt cement occurs in the hot combustion product flow, organic emissions
(gaseous and liquid aerosol) may be greater than in other processes.

Counterflow Drum Mix Plants -
        Figure 11.1-3 shows a counterflow drum mix plant.  In this type of plant, the material flow  in
the drum is opposite or counterflow to the direction of exhaust gases. In addition, the liquid asphalt
cement  mixing zone is located behind the burner flame zone so as to remove the  materials from direct
contact  with hot exhaust gases.

        Liquid asphalt cement flow  is controlled by a variable flow pump which is electronically
linked to the virgin aggregate  and RAP weigh scales. It is injected into the mixing zone along with
any RAP and particulate matter from primary and secondary collectors.

        Because the liquid asphalt cement, virgin aggregate, and RAP are mixed  in a zone removed
from the exhaust gas stream, counterflow drum mix plants will likely have organic emissions (gaseous
and liquid aerosol) that are lower than parallel flow drum  mix plants. A counterflow drum mix plant
can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with  little or no observed  effect upon emissions.
Today's counterflow drum mix plants are designed for improved thermal efficiencies.

Recycle Processes -
        In recent years, die use of RAP has been initiated  in the HMA industry.  Reclaimed asphalt
pavement significantly reduces the amount of virgin rock and asphalt cement needed to produce
HMA.

        In the reclamation process, old asphalt pavement is removed from the road base.  This
material  is then transported to the plant, and is crushed and screened to the appropriate size for
further processing.  The paving material is then heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable),
and the  proper amount  of new asphalt cement is added to produce a high-quality grade of HMA.

1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                              11.1-3
-------


LEGEND




1
O
Q_
C
8
'F
UI


Emissions
•o
3
o
o
TS
%
Fugitive Em
i
u
p
Q.

w
ust Emission
o
c

                                                                                    p.
                                                                                    c
                                                                                   a
                                                                                    §
                                                                                   U

                                                                                    cu
                                                                                   CO
                                                                                   13
                                                                                   •a
                                                                                    2
                                                                                   •o
                                                                                    CO


                                                                                    I
                                                                                   '•B

                                                                                    I
                                                                                   53
                                                                                    o

                                                                                    8
                                                                                   *«

                                                                                    

                                                                                    S
                                                                                   o

11.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                                                                                     1
                                                                                                     S3
                                                                                                     •o
                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                     U


                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                     §
                                                                                                     C/5
                                                                                                     f
                                                                                                     X
                                                                                                     'E
                                                                                                     E
                                                                                                     s
                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                     T3

                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                     O

                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                     to
                                                                                                     Ui
                                                                                                     1>

                                                                                                     g
                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                      ^
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-5
-------
11.1.2  Emissions And Controls23-42"43

        Emission points discussed below refer to Figure 11.1-1 for batch mix asphalt plants, and to
Figure 11.1-2 and Figure 11.1-3 for drum mix plants.

Batch Mix Plants -
        As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, batch mix HMA plants have 2 major
categories of emissions:  ducted sources (those vented to the atmosphere through some type of stack,
vent, or pipe), and fugitive sources  (those not confined to ducts and vents but emitted directly from
the source to the ambient air).  Ducted emissions are usually collected and transported by an
industrial ventilation system having 1 or more fans or air movers, eventually to be emitted to the
atmosphere through some type of stack. Fugitive emissions result from process and open sources and
consist of a combination  of gaseous pollutants and PM.

        The most significant source of ducted emissions from batch mix HMA plants is the rotary
drum dryer.  Emissions from the dryer consist of water as steam evaporated from the aggregate, PM,
and small amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOC) of various species (including hazardous air
pollutants [HAP]) derived from combustion exhaust gases.

        Other potential process sources include the hot-side conveying, classifying, and mixing
equipment, which are vented to either the primary dust collector (along with the dryer gas) or to a
separate dust collection system.  The vents and enclosures that  collect emissions from these sources
are commonly called "fugitive air" or "scavenger" systems. The scavenger system may or may not
have its own separate ah* mover device, depending  on the particular facility. The emissions captured
and transported by the scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain gaseous
VOCs and a fine aerosol of condensed liquid particles.  This liquid aerosol is created by the
condensation of gas into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement
in the mixer (pug mill).  The amount of liquid aerosol produced depends to a large extent on the
temperature of the asphalt cement and aggregate entering the pug mill. Organic vapor and its
associated aerosol are also emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck
loadout, from the bed of the truck itself during transport to the job site, and from the asphalt storage
tank. In addition to low  molecular weight VOCs, these organic emission streams may contain small
amounts of polycyclic compounds.  Both the low molecular weight VOCs and the polycyclic organic
compounds can include HAPs.  The ducted emissions from the heated asphalt storage tanks may
include  VOCs and combustion products from the tank heater.

        The choice of applicable control equipment for the dryer exhaust and vent line ranges from
dry mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric collectors.  Attempts to apply electrostatic
precipitators have met with little success.  Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment
with large diameter cyclones, skimmers, or settling chambers.  These chambers are often used as
classifiers to return collected material to the hot elevator and to combine it with the drier aggregate.
To capture remaining PM, the primary collector effluent is ducted to a secondary collection device.
Most plants use either a baghouse or a venturi scrubber for secondary emissions control.

        There are also a number of fugitive dust sources associated with batch mix HMA plants,
including vehicular traffic generating fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate material
handling,  and other aggregate processing operations.  Fugitive  dust may range from 0.1 /zm to more
than 300 /zm in aerodynamic diameter.   On average, 5 percent  of cold aggregate feed  is less than
74 /tm (minus 200 mesh). Fugitive dust that may escape collection before primary control generally
consists of PM with 50 to 70 percent of the total mass less than 74 /on.   Uncontrolled PM emission
11.1-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
factors for various types of fugitive sources in HMA plants are addressed in Section 13.2.3, "Heavy
Construction Operations".

Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants -
       The most significant ducted source of emissions is the rotary drum dryer. Emissions from the
drum consist of water as steam evaporated from the aggregate, PM, and small amounts of VOCs of
various species (including HAPs) derived from combustion exhaust gases, liquid asphalt cement, and
RAP, if utilized.  The VOCs result from incomplete combustion and from the heating and mixing of
liquid asphalt cement inside the drum.  The processing of RAP materials may increase VOC
emissions because of an increase in mixing zone temperature during processing.

       Once the VOCs cool after discharge from the process stack, some condense to form a fine
liquid aerosol or "blue smoke" plume.  A number of process modifications or restrictions have been
introduced to reduce blue smoke including installation of flame shields, rearrangement of flights
inside the drum, adjustments of the asphalt injection point, and other design  changes.

Counterflow Drum Mix Plants -
       The most significant ducted source of emissions is the rotary drum dryer in a counterflow
drum mix plant. Emissions from the drum consist of water as steam evaporated from the aggregate,
PM, and small  amounts of VOCs of various species (including HAPs) derived from combustion
exhaust gases, liquid asphalt cement,  and RAP, if used.

       Because liquid  asphalt cement, aggregate, and sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in
contact with the hot exhaust gas stream, counterflow drum mix plants will likely have lower VOC
emissions than parallel flow drum mix plants. The organic compounds that are emitted from
counterflow drum mix  plants are likely to be products of a slight inefficient combustion and can
include HAP.

Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants -
       Process fugitive emissions associated with batch plant hot screens, elevators, and the mixer
(pug mill) are not present in the drum mix processes. However, there may be slight fugitive VOC
emissions from transport and handling of the hot mix from the drum mixer to the storage silo and
also from the load-out operations to the delivery trucks.  Since the drum process is continuous, these
plants must have surge bins or storage silos.  The fugitive dust sources associated with drum mix
plants are similar to those of batch mix plants with regard to truck traffic and to aggregate material
feed and  handling operations.

       Tables 11.1-1  and 11.1-2 present emission factors for filterable PM and PM-10,  condensable
PM, and  total PM for batch mix HMA plants. The emission factors are based on both the type of
control technology employed and the type of fuel used to fire the dryer.  Particle size data for batch
mix HMA plants, also based on the control technology used, are shown in Table 11.1-3.
Tables 11.1-4 and 11.1-5 present filterable PM and PM-10, condensable PM, and total PM emission
factors for drum mix HMA plants. The emission factors are based on both the type of control
technology employed and the type of fuel used to fire the dryer.  Particle size data for drum mix
HMA plants, also based on  the control technology used, are shown in Table  11.1-6. Tables 11.1-7
and 11.1-8 present emission factors for carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen
oxides  (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and total organic compounds  (TOC) from batch and drum mix
plants. Table 11.1-9 presents organic pollutant emission factors for batch plants.  Tables 11.1-10 and
11.1-11 present organic pollutant emission factors for drum mix plants.  Tables 11.1-12  and 11.1-13
present metal emission  factors for batch and drum mix plants, respectively.
1195                               Mineral Products Industry                             11.1-7
-------
  D-
  X
  g
  X
  s
  1
  1X3
  g
  tin
  Z
  O
  .S
  9)

  I




s
5
tO













s
K
JO
1
1
1
U









g
ja
1
£







EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


2
O
CO
«4
a
O
1
^
O ^
C H
^ T
U, «
*
i
CO
S3
u

ei o
a *y
§
U, CE

I
ill




i
CO
5
w
o
'I
§>
O
o °
U H
< ^

o
'5
MISSION |
S
ACTOR 1
:ATING |
tt. K
is
§
35
2

m
W
0 °
CH
O ^
tu P^

*
09
«
U
H)



_. DO
% Z Z


ia


Q Q
>e Z Z


Q



*>N
S Q a
d

Q


•a
§m O D
Z Z
d

Q a



i 1 g
d d
«

Q O
°1 Z Z


U Q W



O NO
S S
Sb o <=>


o -L
^ § , 1
l g i h i
J? « 1 |S 'i
JlljJU
^
Q


eo
0


Q


1


Q



"to
8
d

Q


.a


d

Q



8
d
Q

d


Q



•->
S
d


&
i£
o
.0
£

u



ci


U)


2


a



•a
S
d





Q
Z


Q



1
d
U

ri


U





U


)il-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01;
Uncontrolled
w




Q
Z





Q
Z







Z






Q
Z


H)



d


a


u)



>0
o
d


Venturi scrubber*

O



i
o


Q


1
d


a



jj
«S
S
d





Q
Z






Q
Z
Q

g
8
d


Q



8s
g
d


u
£
|
1

CO
73


1
S
^3
73
*v
^
CO
.•s
•o
2
O)
^—

^3
C
o
1
g

tb
1

73
^
•S
2
!>
£
2
0
42
_o
CO
CU
D-
1
?n
MM
4*J
tj
•a
o


































4-»
O
II
i
•o
o
O
.2
4-»
CQ










c*
o
co
CO

<*H

e
o
'S3
.2

e
"E"
g
c
i
3
CD
ts
O
0)
^Ili
*±j
Uc C_) ti,
cx tj^
^4-^ cfi
o
Ml
^
bO
£
«
e§
Q
«
o
I_
3
II
O
&o

g
«§
CO
CB
•a
Particle size i
Reference 5.
^ 0

0}

73
I
"o
Uc
O
U
g
1
X
03
g
4>
2
73
3

1}
(U
2
•s
2
3
i
o>
CQ
CO
3
"S3
2"
0,
a>
"^
i
•g
8
I
1
o
o
3
i_i
*«
1 '

'S3
> — •
« rr
co
u. O
S ^f O
to cs  4) «> a
O ^ V-« UN UH U
2 52 fl\ a\ a\ ;
•S ^ ^ ^ ^ C4-
— 2 3> W -------
   Z

   _)


   S

   X
   OH
   CO

   X
   i


   I
   X



   o


   ca

   g
   u,
   O
   <
   tu

   Z
   O
   >—M
   CO
   to
    SO

   '5
   W






s
£
H












O
3
3
c
c
o
U











0
2
2
E







Z
Q
53
s
H


g
<
u.


s
^
*
o
I
1 FACTOR
H
i
I!!
I
z
1
§





0!
§
U.





0
|
o£


a
E?
O
2 o z



ISSION
§



o:
0
u.
u
•2
a
00
g
O
os
i
1
CO
M
a
0
£
<

z
H
«
c.
cu










M
m
ti
e
0.


u


vo Q O
^ z z

u
Q a



o




3 a o
| z z

Q


•o
00
§""0 o
z z
d

o a


•a
S £2
S So
9 ° z
0 0
u

"1 Q Q
•» Z Z

u Q a


t- 
o
d

O


£,
S
d




1
u.





09
*9>
a
•g

,_,
S
•*
1



Wri
^
T3
O
•*-*
S
S
o
*
•W4
S
0,
o
*Q>
>
§

en
O
•S
o
t!3
^+-1
_0
O>
OH
3
t_i
E
o
^j
-a
g
a.
o

S
4_»
£

3
o
II











,
e
o
4=
Ml
O
•*_*
%
«S
°t/5
1
OH
JJJ
s
Is
2
*£•
»
5
>
c
.2
•5
c
1
c
a>
fe
?4

                                 "8



                                  t/3

                                  CO

                                  £
                                  CO
                                 CO



                                 s"
                                 OH
                                 X2
                                 CO


                                 1

                                 "S
                                 O
                                 o


                                 "8
                                                                             O
                                                                             o

                                                                             3
                                   3  fa
V-  O  =
                                                                                      fN
                                                                                            ON
                                                                                   CD
                                                     o

                                                     ci>
                                                     u.
                                                                         l>3MO>a>cUQ>4>

                                                                         ^^  1^^^^^

                                                                         a> i«  o>  d> Q>  Q>  
-------
               Table 11.1-3. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                      FOR BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*
Particle
Size, fimb
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Less Than Or Equal To Stated Size (%)c
Uncontrolled
0.83
3.5
14
23
30
Cyclone
Collectors
5.0
11
21
29
36
Multiple Centrifugal
Scrubbers
67
74
80
83
84
Gravity Spray
Towers
21
27
37
39
41
Fabric
Filters
33
36
40
47
54
a Reference 23, Table 3-36.  Rounded to two significant figures.
b Aerodynamic diameter.
c Applies only to the mass of filterable PM.
        Table 11.1-4 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM MIX HOT MIX
                                   ASPHALT PLANTS3

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D  (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Filterable PM
PM | PM-10C
9.4d 2.2
0.01 7« ND
0.007011 0.0022
9.4d 2.2
0.0178 ND
O.OOlCf1 0.0022
Condensable PM
Inorganic
0.0146
ND
ND
0.012e
ND
0.012k
Organic
0.027f
0.010f
ND
0.0013e
ND
0.0013k
Total
0.041
ND
0.0019J
0.0136
ND
0.013k
Total PMb
PM | PM-10
9.4 2.2
ND ND
0.0089 0.0041
9.4 2.2
ND ND
0.020 0.015
a Factors are kg/Mg of product. Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt
  pavement (RAP). Because of the limited data available, the effect of RAP processing on emissions
  could not be determined.  Filterable PM emission factors were developed from tests on dryers firing
  several different fuels.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Total PM emission factors are the sum of filterable PM and total condensable PM emission factors.
  Total PM-10 emission factors are the sum of filterable PM-10 and total condensable PM emission
  factors.
c Particle size data from Reference 23 were used in conjunction with the filterable PM emission
  factors shown.
d References 31,36-38.
^ Although no emission test data are available for uncontrolled condensible PM, values are assumed
  to be equal to the maximum controlled value measured.
  References 36-37.
$ References 29,32,36-37,40.
h References 25-28,31,33,40.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
J Reference 39.
k References 25,39.
f
11.1-10
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
        Table 11.1-5 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM MIX HOT MIX
                                   ASPHALT PLANTSa

                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Dryer (oil-fired)
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Filterable PM
PM

19d
0.033S
0.014h

19d
0.033B
0.014h
PM-10C

4.3
ND
0.0045

4.3
ND
0.0045
Condensable PM
Inorganic | Organic

0.0276 0.054f
ND 0.020f
ND ND

0.0236 0.0026e
ND ND
0.023k 0.0026k
Total

0.081
ND
0.00371

0.026e
ND
0.026k
Total
PM

19
ND
0.018

19
ND
0.040
PMb
PM-10

4.4
ND
0.0082

4.3
ND
0.031
a Factors are Ib/ton of product.  Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt
  pavement (RAP). Because of the limited data available, the effect of RAP processing on emissions
  could not be determined.  Filterable PM emission factors were developed from tests on dryers firing
  several different fuels.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Total PM emission factors are the sum of filterable PM and total condensable PM emission factors.
  Total PM-10 emission factors are the sum of filterable PM-10 and total condensable PM emission
  factors.
c Particle size data from Reference 23 were used in conjunction with the filterable PM emission
  factors shown.
d References 31,36-38.
e Although no emission test data are available for uncontrolled condensable PM, values are assumed
  to be equal to the maximum controlled value measured.
f References 36-37.
S References 29,32,36-37,40.
h References 25-28,31,33,40. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C.
J Reference 39.
k References 25,39.
               Table 11.1-6.  SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                      FOR DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS'1
Particle Size, /xmb
2.5
10.0
15.0
Cumulative Mass Less Than Or Equal To Stated Size (%)c
Uncontrolled
5.5
23
27
Fabric Filters'1
11
32
35
a Reference 23, Table 3-35.  Rounded to two significant figures.
b Aerodynamic diameter.
c Applies only to the mass of filterable PM.
d Includes data from two out of eight tests where about 30% reclaimed asphalt pavement was
  processed using a split feed process.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-11
-------
       Table 11.1-7 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH MIX
                              HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
CO
kg/Mg
0.17°
0.035°
Ib/ton
0.34°
0.069e
C02
kg/Mg
17"
198
Ib/ton
35d
398
NOX
kg/Mg | Ib/ton
0.013° 0.025C
o.os4e o.ir
SO2
kg/Mg | Ib/ton
0.00256 0.00506
0.12e 0.24e
TOCb
kg/Mg J^ Ib/ton
0.0084f 0.017f
0.023f 0.046f
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of product.  Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Factors represent TOC as methane, based on EPA Method 25A test data.
c References 24,34,39.
d References 15,24,39.
e Reference 39.  Dryer tested was fired with #6 fuel oil.  Dryers fired with other fuel oils will have
  different S02 emission factors.
f References 24,39.
g References 15,39.
       Table 11.1-8 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM MIX
                              HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
CO
kg/Mg
0.028C
0.0186
Ib/ton
0.056C
0.0366
CO2
kg/Mg | Ib/ton
14d 27d
19f 37f
NOX
kg/Mg
0.015C
0.0388
Ib/ton
0.030C
0.0758
S02
kg/Mg
0.0017C
0.0288
Ib/ton
0.0033C
0.0568
TOCb
kg/Mg | Ib/ton
0.025C 0.051C
0.0358 0.0698
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of product.  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.
  Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP).  Because of limited
  data, the effect of RAP processing on emissions could not be determined.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Factors represent TOC as methane, based on EPA Method 25A test data.
c Reference 39.  Includes data from both parallel flow and counterflow drum mix dryers.  Organic
  compound emissions from counterflow systems are expected to be smaller than from parallel flow
  systems. However, the available data are insufficient to accurately quantify the difference in these
  emissions.
d References 30,39.
e Reference 25.
f References 25-27,29,32-33,39.
8 References 25,39.  Includes data from both parallel flow and counterflow drum mix dryers.
  Organic compound emissions from counterflow systems are expected to  be smaller than from
  parallel flow systems.  However, the available data are insufficient to  accurately quantify the
  difference in these emissions.  One of the dryers tested was fired with #2 fuel oil (0.003 kg/Mg
  [0.006 Ib/ton]) and the other dryer was fired with waste oil (0.05 kg/Mg [0.1 Ib/ton]).  Dryers fired
  with other fuel oils will have different SO2 emission factors.
11.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
  Table 11.1-9 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
              EMISSIONS FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)

























Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)






CASRN
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
75-07-0
67-64-1
120-12-7
100-52-7
71-43-2
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
78-84-2

218-01-9
4170-30-3
100-41-4
206-44-0
86-73-7
50-00-0
66-25-1
74-82-8
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
106-51-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-57-6
206-44-0
50-00-0

91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
Pollutant
Name
2-Methylnaphthaleneb
Acenaphtheneb
Acenaphthyleneb
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Anthracene1*
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthraceneb
Benzo(b)fluorantheneb
Benzo(k)fluorantheneb'c
Butyraldehyde/
Isobutyraldehyde
Chryseneb
Crotonaldehyde
Ethyl benzene
Fluorantheneb
Fluoreneb
Formaldehyde
Hexanal
Methane
Naphthaleneb
Phenanthreneb
Pyreneb
Quinone
Toluene
Xylene
2-Methyhiaphthaleneb
Fluorantheneb
Formaldehyde0
Methane
Naphthalene15
Phenanthreneb'°
Pyreneb
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
3.8x10-5
6.2X10'7
4.3xlO-7
0.00032
0.0032
l.SxlO'7
6.4xlO-5
0.00017
2.3xlO'9
2.3xlO-9
1.2xlO-8
l.SxlO-5

3.1xlO-9
l.SxlO-5
0.0016
1.6xlO-7
9.8xlO-7
0.00043
1.2xlO-5
0.0060
2.1xlO-5
1.6X10-6
3.1x10-8
0.00014
0.00088
0.0021
3.0x10-5
1.2x10-5
0.0016
0.0022
2.2x10-5
l.SxlO-5
2.7xlO-5
Ib/ton
7.7x10-5
1.2X10-6
8.6xlO-7
0.00064
0.0064
3.1xlO-7
0.00013
0.00035
4.5xlO'9
4.5xlO'9
2.4x10-8
3.0xlO-5

6.1xlO-9
2.9xlO-5
0.0033
S.lxlO'7
2.0X10"6
0.00086
2.4xlO-5
0.012
4.2xlO-5
3.3X10-6
6.2x10-8
0.00027
0.0018
0.0043
6.0xlO-5
2.4xlO-5
0.0032
0.0043
4.5x10-5
3.7xlO-5
5.5x10-5
Ref.
Nos.
24,39
34,39
34,39
24
24
34,39
24
24,39
39
39
34
24

39
24
24,39
34,39
34,39
24,39
24
39
34,39
34,39
34,39
24
24,39
24,39
39
39
39,40
39
39
39
39
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced. Factors represent uncontrolled
  emissions, unless noted. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Controlled by a fabric filter.  Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter (POM), as
  defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-13
-------
Table 11.1-10 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
            EMISSIONS FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*

                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas- or
propane-fired dryer1*
(SCC 3-05-002-05)

























Oil-fired dryer0
(SCC 3-05-002-05)



CASRN
91-58-7
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
71-43-2
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
192-97-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
100^1-4
206-44-0
86-73-7
50-00-0
50-00-0
193-39-5
74-82-8
71-55-6
91-20-3
198-55-0
85-01-8
129-00-0
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-57-6
208-96-8
75-07-0
67-64-1
Pollutant
Name
2-Chloronaphthalenec
2-Methylnaphthalene°
Acenaphthenec
Acenaphthylene0
Anthracene0
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracenec
Benzo(a)pyrenec
Benzo(b)fluoranthenec
Benzo(e)pyrene°
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenec
Benzo(k)fluoranthenec
Chrysene0
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenec>e
Ethylbenzene6
Fluoranthenec
Fluorenec
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyded'e
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrenec
Methane
Methyl chloroform6
Naphthalene0
Perylenec>e
Phenanthrene0
Pyrene0
Toluene
Xylene
2-Methylnaphthalenec
Acenaphthylene0
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
8.9xlO'7
3.7xlO'5
6.4X10'7
4.2x10-*
l.OxlO'7
0.00060
l.OxlO'7
4.6xlO'9
S.lxlO'8
5.2xlO'8
1.9xlO-8
2.6xlO-8
l.SxlO-7
1.3xlO-9
0.00015
3.0xlO'7
2.7X10-6
0.0018
0.00079
3.6xlO'9
0.010
2.4X10'5
2.4xlO'5
6.2xlO'9
4.2xlO'6
2.3xlO'7
0.00010
0.00020
8.5xlO-5
l.lxlO'5
0.00065
0.00042
Ib/ton
l.SxlO"6
7.4xlO'5
1.3X10-6
8.4X10-6
2.1xlO'7
0.0012
2.0xlO-7
9.2xlO-9
l.OxlO'7
l.OxlO'7
3.9xlO-8
5.3xlO-8
3.5xlO-7
2.7X10'9
0.00029
5.9xlO-7
5.3X10"6
0.0036
0.0016
7.3xlO'9
0.021
4.8xlO-5
4.8xlO-5
1.2xlO-8
8.4X10-6
4.6X10'7
0.00020
0.00040
0.00017
2.2X10'5
0.0013
0.00083
Ref.
Nos.
39
39
35,39
35,39
35,39
39
39
39
35,39
39
39
39
39
39
39
35,39
35,39
35,39
40
39
39
35
35,39
39
35,39
35,39
35,39
39
39
39
25
25
11.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       1/95
-------
                                     Table 11.1-10 (cont.).
Process























CASRN
107-02-8
120-12-7
100-52-7
71-43-2
78-84-2
4170-30-3
100-41-4
86-73-7
50-00-0
50-00-0
66-25-1
590-86-3
74-82-8
78-93-3
91-20-3
85-01-8
123-38-6
129-00-0
106-51-4
Pollutant
Name
Acrolein
Anthracene0
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Butyraldehyde/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene0
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde4-6
Hexanal
Isovaleraldehyde
Methane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene6
Phenanthrene6
Propionaldehyde
Pyrenec>e
Quinone
108-88-3 Toluene
110-62-3
Valeraldehyde
1330-20-7 Xylene
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
1.3xlO-5
l.SxKr6
5.5xlO-5
0.00020
S.OxlO'5
4.3xlO'5
0.00019
S.SxlO-6
0.0012
0.00026
5.5xlO"5
1.6xlO-5
0.0096
LOxlO'5
0.00016
2.8xlO'5
6.5xlO'5
l.SxlO-6
S.OxlO'5
0.00037
3.4xlO'5
8.2X10'5
Ib/ton
2.6xlO'5
3.6X10-6
0.00011
0.00041
0.00016
8.6xlO'5
0.00038
1.7xlO-5
0.0024
0.00052
0.00011
3.2xlO-5
0.020
2.0xlO'5
0.00031
5.5xlO'5
0.00013
3-OxlO-6
0.00016
0.00075
6.7xlO'5
0.00016
Ref.
Nos.
25
39
25
25
25
25
25
39
25,39
40
25
25
25,39
25
25,39
39
25
39
25
25
25
25
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced.  Table includes data from both parallel
  flow and counterflow drum mix dryers.  Organic compound emissions from counterflow systems
  are expected to be less than from parallel flow systems, but the available data are insufficient to
  quantify accurately the difference in these emissions. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service
  Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). Because of limited
  data, the effect of RAP processing on emissions  could not be determined.
c Controlled by a fabric filter.  Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter (POM), as
  defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments  (CAAA).
d Controlled by a wet scrubber.
e EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-15
-------
 Table U.l-11 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
               EMISSIONS FROM HOT MIX ASPHALT HOT OIL HEATERS*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

Process
Hot oil heater fired
with No.2 fuel oil
(SCC 3-05-002-08)














CASRN
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
205-99-2
206-44-0
86-73-7
50-00-0
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
19408-74-3
39227-28-6

35822-46-9
3268-87-9



67562-39-4
39001-02-0
Pollutant
Name
Acenaphtheneb
Acenaphthyleneb
Anthraceneb
Benzo(b)fluorantheneb
Fluorantheneb
Fluoreneb
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene15
Phenanthreneb
Pyreneb
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDFb
PeCDFb
HxCDFb
HpCDFb
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
OCDF
Emissior
kg/L
6.4xlO'8
2.4xlO'8
2.2xlO'8
1.2xlO-8
5.3xlO-9
3.8xlO'9
0.0032
2-OxlQ-6
5.9xlO-7
3.8xlO'9
9.1xlO'14
8.3xlO-14
7.4xlO'13
l.SxlO'12
2.4xlO'12
1.9xl(Tn
4-OxlO'13
5.8xlO'14
2.4xlO'13
1.2xlO-12
4.2xlO'13
1.4xlO-12
i Factor
Ib/gal
5.3xlO'7
2.0xlO'7
l.SxlO'7
l.OxlO-7
4.4xlO'8
3.2xlO'8
0.027
1.7X10'5
4.9X10-6
3.2xlO'8
7.6xlO-13
6.9xlO-13
6.2xlO'12
l.SxlO-11
2.0xlO-n
1.6xlO-10
3.3xlO-12
4.8xlO'13
2.0xlO-12
9.7xlO'12
3.5xlO-12
1.2xlO-n
a Reference 34.  Factors are kg/L and Ib/gal of fuel consumed.  Table includes data from both
  parallel flow and counterflow drum mix dryers.  Organic compound emissions from counterflow
  systems are expected to be less than from parallel flow systems, but available data are insufficient to
  quantify accurately the difference in these emissions. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service
  Registry Number.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter (POM), as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act
  Amendments (CAAA).
11.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
   Table 11.1-12 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS
                   FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)











Pollutant
Arsenicb
Barium
Berylliumb
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Hexavalent chromiumb
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Seleniumb
Zinc
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
3.3xlO-7
7.3X10'7
l.lxlO"7
4.2xlQ-7
4.5xlO'7
1.8xlO-6
4.9xlO-9
3.7xlQ-7
S.OxlQ-6
2.3xlO"7
2.1xlO-6
4.6xlO'8
3.4xlQ-6
Ib/ton
6.6xlO-7
l.SxlO-6
2.2xlO'7
8.4xlO-7
8.9xlO'7
3.7X10"6
9.7xlO-9
7.4xlO'7
9.9xlO-6
4.5xlO'7
4,2xlO-6
9.2xlO'8
6.8xlO-6
Ref. Nos.
34,40
24
34
24,34
24
24,34
34
24,34
24,34
34
24,34
34
24,34
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
                   Emissions controlled by a fabric filter.
   Table 11.1-13 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS
                    FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Dryerb
(SCC 3-05-002-05)










Pollutant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Zinc
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
5.5xl(T7
2.4xlQ-6
2.2xlO-7
6.0xlO-6
3.1xlQ-6
1.7xlQ-6
5.5xlO-6
3.7xlO-9
7.5xlQ-6
2.8xlO-5
7.0xlO'7
2.1xlO'5
Ib/ton
l.lxlO-6
4.8xlO-6
4.4X1Q'7
1.2xlQ-5
6.1xlQ-6
3.3xlO-6
l.lxlO'5
7.3xlO-9
l.SxlO-5
5.5xlO-5
1.4xlO'6
4.2xlQ-5
Ref. Nos.
25,35
25
25,35
25
25
25,35
25
35
25
25
25
25,35
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Feed material includes RAP.
                   Emissions controlled by a fabric filter.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-17
-------
References For Section 11.1

 1.     Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0076,
       Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Seattle, WA,  November 1971.

 2.     Guide For Air Pollution Control Of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Information Series 17, National
       Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.
 •
 3.     R. M. Ingels, et al., "Control Of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants In Los Angeles
       County", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 70(l):29-33, January 1960.

 4.     H. E. Friedrich, "Air Pollution Control Practices And Criteria For Hot Mix Asphalt Paving
       Batch Plants", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 7P(12):924-928,
       December 1969.

 5.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, 1973. Out of Print.

 6.     G. L. Allen, et al., "Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dust And Fumes In Los Angeles
       County, California", Information Circular 7627,  U. S. Department Of The Interior,
      , Washington, DC, April 1952.

 7.     P. A. Kenline, Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chemical process
       industries, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May  1959.

 8.     Private communication between G. Sallee, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, and
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1970.

 9.     J. A. Danielson, "Unpublished Test Data From Asphalt Batching Plants, Los Angeles County
       Air Pollution Control District", presented at Air  Pollution Control Institute,  University Of
       Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, November  1966.

10.     M. E. Fogel, et al., Comprehensive Economic Study Of Air Pollution  Control Costs For
       Selected Industries And Selected Regions, R-OU-455, U.  S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February  1970.

11.     Preliminary Evaluation Of Air Pollution Aspects  Of The Drum Mix Process,
       EPA-340/1-77-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1976.

12.     R. W. Beaty and B. M. Bunnell, "The Manufacture Of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures In The
       Dryer Drum", presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Technical Asphalt
       Association, Quebec City, Quebec, November 19-21, 1973.

13.     J. S.  Kinsey, "An Evaluation Of Control Systems And Mass Emission Rates From Dryer
       Drum Hot Asphalt Plants", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association,
       26(12): 1163-1165, December 1976.

14.     Background Information For Proposed New Source Performance Standards, APTD-1352A and
       B, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.
11.1-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
15.    Background Information For New Source Performance Standards, EPA 450/2-74-003,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1974.

16.    Z. S. Kahn and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Asphalt Paving Hot Mix,
       EPA-600/2~77-107n, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, December
       1977.

17.    V. P. Puzinauskas and L.  W. Corbett, Report On Emissions From Asphalt Hot Mixes,
       RR-75-1A, The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD, May 1975.

18.    Evaluation Of Fugitive Dust From Mining, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, PEDCo
       Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1976.

19.    J. A. Peters and P. K. Chalekode, "Assessment Of Open Sources", Presented at the Third
       National Conference On Energy And The Environment, College Corner,  OH, October 1,
       1975.

20.    Illustration of Dryer Drum Hot Mix Asphalt Plant, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
       Santa Monica, CA, 1978.

21.    Herman H. Forsten, "Applications Of Fabric Filters  To Asphalt Plants",  presented at the 71st
       Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston, TX, June 1978.

22.    Emission Of Volatile Organic Compounds From Drum Mix Asphalt Plants,
       EPA-600/2-81-026, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, February 1981.

23.    J. S. Kinsey, Asphaltic Concrete Industry - Source Category Report, EPA-600/7-86-038,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1986.

24.    Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #6, LaCrosse,  Wisconsin,
       EMB-No. 91-ASP-ll, Emission Assessment Branch,  Office  Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  February
       1992.
                                                             *
25.    Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #26, New Richmond, Wisconsin,
       EMB-No. 91-ASP-10, Emission Assessment Branch,  Office  Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  April 1992.

26.    Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill,
       North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, February  1988.

27.    Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lee Paving Company, Aberdeen, North Carolina,
       RAMCON Environmental  Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1989.

28.    Stationary Source Sampling Report, S. T. Wooten Company, Drugstore, North Carolina,
       Entropy Environmentalists Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1989.

29.    Source Sampling Report For Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill, North Carolina,
       Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, October 1988.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                           11.1-19
-------
30.    Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Of Shelby, Inc., King's Mountain,
       North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.

31.    Emission Test Report, Western Engineering Company, Lincoln, Nebraska, EMB-83-ASP-5,
       Emission Measurement Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1984.

32.    Source Sampling Report For Smith And Sons Paving Company, Pineola, North Carolina,
       Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, June 1988.

33.    Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Superior Paving Company, Statesville, North
       Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.

34.    Report OfAB2588 Air Pollution Source Testing At Industrial Asphalt, Invindale, California,
       Engineering-Science, Inc., Pasadena, CA, September 1990.

35.    A Comprehensive Emission Inventory Report As Required Under The Air Toxics  "Hot Spots "
       Information And Assessment Act Of 1987, Calmat Co., Fresno II Facility, Fresno California,
       Engineering-Science, Inc., Pasadena, CA, September 1990.

36.    Emission Test Report, Sloan Company, Cocoa, Florida, EMB-84-ASP-8, Emission
       Measurement Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1984.

37.    Emission Test Report, T. J.  Campbell Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, EMB-83-ASP-4,
       Emission Measurement Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1984.

38.    Characterization Oflnhalable Particulate Matter Emissions From A Drum-mix Asphalt Plant,
       Final Report, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental  Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  February  1983.

39.    Kathryn O'C.  Gunkel, NAPA Stack Emissions Program, Interim Status Report, National
       Asphalt Pavement Association, Baltimore, MD, February 1993.

40.    Written communication from L. M. Weise, Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources, to
       B. L. Strong,  Midwest Research Institute, Cary, NC, May 15, 1992.

41.    Stationary Source Sampling Report, Alliance Contracting Corporation, Durham, North
       Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1988.

42.    Katherine O'C. Gunkel, Hot Mix Asphalt Mixing Facilities, Wildwood Environmental
       Engineering Consultants,  Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1992.

43.    Written communication from R. Gary Fore, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham,
       MD, to Ronald Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 1, 1994.
11.1-20                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
11.2  Asphalt Roofing

11.2.1  General1"2

        The asphalt roofing industry manufactures asphalt-saturated felt rolls, fiberglass and organic
(felt-based) shingles, and surfaced and smooth roll roofing.  Most of these products are used in roof
construction, but small quantities are used in walls and other building applications.

11.2.2  Process Description1^

        The production of asphalt roofing products consists of six major operations:   (1) felt
saturation, (2) coating, (3)  mineral surfacing (top and bottom),  (4) cooling and drying, (5) product
finishing (seal-down strip application, cutting and trimming, and laminating of laminated shingles),
and (6) packaging.  There are six major production support operations:  (1)  asphalt storage,
(2) asphalt blowing, (3) back surfacing and granule storage,  (4) filler storage,  (5) filler heating, and
(6) filler and coating asphalt mixing.  There are two  primary roofing substrates:  organic (paper felt)
and fiberglass.   Production of roofing products from the two substrates  differ mainly  in the
elimination of the saturation process when using fiberglass.

        Preparation of the asphalt is an integral part of the production of asphalt roofing.  This
preparation, called "blowing," involves the oxidation of asphalt flux by bubbling air through liquid
asphalt flux at 260°C (500°F) for 1 to  10 hours.  The amount of time depends on the desired
characteristics of the roofing asphalt, such as softening point and  penetration rate. Blowing results in
an exothermic reaction that requires cooling.  Water  sprays are applied  either internally or externally
to the shell of the blowing  vessel.  A typical plant blows four to six batches per 24-hour day.
Blowing may be done  in either vertical vessels or in  horizontal  chambers (both are frequently referred
to as  "blowing  stills").  Inorganic salts such as ferric chloride (FeCl3) may be used as catalysts to
achieve desired properties and to increase the rate of reaction in the blowing still, decreasing the time
required for each blow.  Blowing operations may be  located at oil refineries, asphalt processing
plants, or asphalt roofing plants. Figure 11.2-1 illustrates an asphalt blowing operation.

        The most basic asphalt roofing product is asphalt-saturated felt.  Figure 11.2-2 shows a
typical line for the manufacture  of asphalt-saturated felt.  It consists of a dry felt feed roll, a dry
looper section,  a saturator spray section (seldom used today), a saturator dipping section, heated
drying-in drums, a wet looper, cooling drums, a finish floating looper,  and a roll winder.

        Organic felt may weigh  from approximately 20 to 55 pounds (Ib) per 480 square feet (ft2) (a
common unit in the paper industry), depending upon the intended product. The felt is unrolled from
the unwind stand onto  the dry looper, which maintains a constant tension on the material.  From the
dry looper, the felt may pass into the spray section of the saturator  (not used in all plants), where
asphalt at 205 to 250°C (400 to  480 °F) is sprayed onto one side of the felt through several nozzles.
In the saturator dip section, the  saturated felt is drawn over a series of rollers, with the bottom rollers
submerged in hot asphalt at 205 to 250°C (400 to 480°F).  During  the next  step, heated  drying-in
drums and the wet looper provide the heat and time,  respectively, for the asphalt to penetrate the felt.
The saturated felt then passes through water-cooled rolls onto the finish floating looper, and then is
rolled and cut to product size on the roll winder.  Three common weights  of asphalt felt are
approximately 12, 15,  and 30 Ib per 108 ft2 (108 ft2  of felt covers exactly 100 ft2 of roof).
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                               11.2-1
-------
EMISSION SOURCE
ASPHALT BLOWING: SATURANT
ASPHALT BLOWING. COATING
ASPHALT BLOWING: (GENERAL)
FIXED ROOF ASPHALT
STORAGE TANKS
FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT
STORAGE TANKS
sec
3-05-001-01
3-05-001-02
3-05-001-10
3-05-001 -30, -31
3-05-001 -32, -33
                                                              KNOCKOUT BOX
                                                               OR CYCLONE
                                             AIR, WATER VAPOR, OIL.
                                                VOC's. AND PM
   ASPHALT
     FLUX
                                           BLOWING
                                            STILL
                                          CONTAINING
                                           ASPHALT
                                         A A A A
                                                      TO
                                   AIR. WATER VAPOR,   CONTRnl
                                     VOC's. AND PM  * DEVICE
                                                                RECOVERED OIL
                                                                -WATER
                                                         AIR
               ASPHALT HEATER
                              ~l
          VENT TO
         CONTROL OR
        ATMOSPHERE
                                                           AIR BLOWER
                    BLOWN ASPHALT
   VENT TO
 ATMOSPHERE
                            HEATER
                ASPHALT FLUX
                STORAGE TANK
                      Figure 11.2-1.  Asphalt blowing process flow diagram.1'4
                                (SCC = Source Classification Code)
11.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
EMISSION SOURCE
DIPPING ONLY
SPRAYING ONLY
DIPPING/SPRAYING
DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM. WET LOOPS! AND COATER
DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM, AND COATER
DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM. ANO WET LOOPER
SPRAY/DIP SATURATOR, DRYINQ-IN DRUM, WET LOOPER.
COATER, ANO STORAGE TANKS
ffXED ROOF ASPHALT STORAOE TANKS
FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
sec
3-05-001-11
3-05-001-12
3-054101-13
3-05-001-18
3^»O01-17
3-05-001-18
3-OS001-19
J05-001-30.-31
3-05401-32, -33
                                                VENT TO CONTROL
                                                   EQUIPMENT
                                                t
                                                              SATURATOR ENCLOSURE -|
                                                                                         ,  . FINISH .
                                                                                        FLOATING LOOPER
   VENT TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
        OR ATMOSPHERE
 BURNER
         SATURATOR DIP
         SECTION GATES
                                                                                      ROLL WINDER
                                                                                      FOR ASPHALT
                                                                                          FELT
                      _  	 	 ___	 __	 ___ J
                   Figure 11.2-2. Asphalt-saturated felt manufacturing process.1'2
                                (SCC = Source Classification Code)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.2-3
-------
        The typical process arrangement for manufacturing asphalt shingles, mineral-surfaced rolls,
and smooth rolls is illustrated in Figure 11.2-3. For organic products, the initial production steps  are
similar to the asphalt-saturated felt line.  For fiberglass (polyester) products, the initial saturation
operation is eliminated although the dry looper is utilized.  A process flow diagram for fiberglass
shingle and roll manufacturing is presented in Figure 11.2-4.  After the saturation process, both
organic and fiberglass (polyester) products follow essentially the same production steps,  which include
a coater, a granule and sand or backing surface applicator, a press section, water-cooled rollers
and/or water spray cooling, finish floating looper, and a roll winder (for roll products),  or a
seal-down applicator and a shingle cutter (for shingles), or a laminating applicator and laminating
operation (for laminated shingles), a shingle stacker, and a packaging station.

        Saturated felt (from the saturator) or base fiberglass (polyester) substrate enters the coater.
Filled  asphalt coating at 180 to 205 °C (355 to 425 °F) is released through a valve onto the top of the
mat just as it passes into the coater. Squeeze rollers in the coater apply filled coating to the backside
and distribute it evenly to form a thick base coating to which surfacing materials will adhere.  Filled
asphalt coating is prepared by mixing coating asphalt or modified asphalt at approximately 250°C
(480°F) and a mineral stabilizer (filler) in approximately equal proportions. Typically, the filler is
dried and preheated at about 120°C (250°F) in a filler heater before mixing with the coating asphalt.
Asphalt modifiers can include rubber polymers or olefin polymers.  When modified asphalt is used to
produce fiberglass roll roofing, the process is similar to the process depicted in Figure 11.2-4 with
the following exception: instead of a coater, an impregnation vat is used, and preceding this  vat,
asphalt, polymers, and mineral stabilizers are combined in mixing tanks.

        After leaving the coater, the coated sheet to be made into shingles or mineral-surfaced rolls
passes through the granule applicator where granules are fed onto the hot, coated surface.  The
granules are pressed into the coating as the mat passes around a press roll where it is reversed,
exposing the bottom side.  Sand, talc,  or mica  is applied to the back surface and is also  pressed into
the coating.

        After application of the mineral surfacing, the mat is cooled rapidly by water-cooled rolls
and/or water sprays and is passed through air pressure-operated press rolls used to embed the
granules firmly into the filled coating. The mat then passes through a drying section where it is air
dried.   After drying, a strip of adhesive (normally asphalt) is applied to the roofing surface.   The strip
will  act to seal the loose edge of the roofing after application to a roof.  A finish looper in the line
allows continuous movement of the sheet through the preceding operations and serves to further  cool
and dry the roofing sheet.  Roll roofing is completed at this point is and moves to a winder where
rolls are formed.  Shingles are passed  through  a cutter, which cuts  the sheet into  individual shingles.
(Some shingles are formed into laminated products by layering the  shingle pieces and binding them
together with a laminating material, normally a modified asphalt.  The laminant is  applied in  narrow
strips to the backside of the sheet.) The finished shingles are stacked and packaged for shipment.

        There are several operations that support the asphalt roofing production line.  Asphalt (coating
and saturant) is normally delivered to the facility by truck and rail and stored in heated storage tanks.
Filler (finely divided mineral) is delivered by truck and normally is pneumatically conveyed to storage
bins that supply the filler heater.  Granules and back surfacing material  are brought in by  truck or  rail
and mechanically or pneumatically conveyed to storage bins.

11.2.3  Emissions And Controls

        Emissions from the asphalt roofing industry consist primarily of paniculate matter (PM)  and
volatile organic compounds (VOC). Both are emitted from asphalt storage tanks, blowing stills,

11.2-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
                                                          EMISSION SOURCE	

                                                          Far SATURATION- DIPPING ONLY
                                                          FELT SATURATION- DIPPING/SPRAYING
                                                          DIPPING ONLY
                                                          SPRAYING ONLY
                                                          DIPPING/SPRAYING
                                                          DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM, WET LOOPER AND COATER
                                                          DIP SATURATOR. DRYING-IN DRUM, AND COATER
                                                          DIP SATURATOR. DRYING-IN DRUM. AND YICT LOOPER
                                                          SPRAY/DIP SATURATOR. DRYING-IN DRUM, WET LOOPER,
                                                           COATER, AND STORAGE TANKS
                                                          FIXED ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                          FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                             SCC	

                                                             345-001-03
                                                             3-O5-OO1-O4
                                                             305-001-11
                                                             3-05-OO1-12
                                                             105-001-13
                                                             3-05-001-16
                                                             3-05-001-17
                                                             3-05-OO1-18
                                                             3-05-001-19

                                                             345-001-30.31
                                                             105-001-32. -33
 l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
             TANK TRUCK
                                             CONTROL    CONVEYOR
                                            EQUIPMENT

                                                 t
                                                                                                          u
                                                                                                               USE TANK
                                                                 STORAGE
                                                                   TANK
                                                                              LAM WANT
                                                                            STORAGE TANK
             Figure 11.2-3.  Organic shingle and roll manufacturing process flow diagram.1'2
                                        (SCC =  Source Classification Code)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.2-5
-------
                                                          EMISSION SOURCE

                                                          FELT SATURATION: DIPPING ONLY
                                                          FELT SATURATION' DIPPING/SPRAYING
                                                          DIPPING ONLY
                                                          SPRAYING ONLY
                                                          DIPPING/SPRAYING
                                                          CMP SATURATOR. DRYING-IN DRUM. WET LOOPER. AND COATER
                                                          DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM, AND COATER
                                                          DIP SATURATOR. DRYING-IN DRUM, AND WET LOOPS!
                                                          SPRAY/DP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM. WET LOOPER.
                                                           COATER, AND STORAGE TANKS
                                                          FIXED ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                          FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                            SCO	

                                                            3-05-001 -03
                                                            3-O5-OO1-04
                                                            3-05-001-11
                                                            3-OS-001-12
                                                            345-001-13
                                                            3-OS-001-18
                                                            3-O5-001-17
                                                            3-05-OO1-18
                                                            3-05-001-18

                                                            3-05-001-30-31
                                                            3-O5-001-32, 33

                                                                                                   LJ
                                                           STORAGE
                                                            TANK
                                                                          LAMINANT
                                                                        STORAGE TANK
           Figure 11.2-4.  Fiberglass shingle and  roll  manufacturing process flow diagram.1*2
                                      (SCC =  Source Classification Code)
11.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                                   1/95
-------
saturators, coater-mixer tanks, and craters.  The PM from these operations is primarily recondensed
asphalt fume.  Sealant strip and laminant applicators are also sources of small amounts of PM and
VOCs.  Mineral surfacing operations and materials handling are additional sources of PM.  Small
amounts of polycyclic organic matter (POM) are also emitted from blowing stills and  saturators.
Asphalt and filler heaters are sources of typical products of combustion from natural gas or the fuel in
use.

        A common method for controlling emissions from the saturator, including the wet looper, is
to enclose them completely and vent the enclosure to a control device.  The coater may be partially
enclosed, normally with a canopy-type hood that is vented to a control device. Full enclosure is  not
always practical  due to operating constraints.  Fugitive emissions from the saturator or coater may
pass through roof vents and other building openings if not captured by enclosures or hoods.  Control
devices  for saturator/coater emissions  include low-voltage electrostatic precipitators (ESP),
high-energy air filters (HEAP), coalescing filters (mist eliminators), afterburners (thermal oxidation),
fabric filters, and wet scrubbers.  Blowing operations are controlled by thermal oxidation
(afterburners).

        Emission factors for filterable PM from the blowing and saturation processes are summarized
in Tables 11.2-1 and 11.2-2.  Emission factors for total organic compounds (TOC) and carbon
monoxide (CO) are shown in Tables 11.2-3 and 11.2-4.

        Paniculate matter associated with mineral handling and storage operations is captured by
enclosures, hoods, or pickup pipes and controlled by fabric filtration (baghouses) with removal
efficiencies of approximately 95 to 99 percent.  Other control devices that may be used with mineral
handling and storage operations are wet scrubbers and cyclones.

        In the  industry,  closed silos and bins are used for mineral  storage, so  open storage piles are
not an emission source. To protect the minerals from moisture pickup, all conveyors  that  are outside
the buildings are covered or enclosed.  Fugitive mineral emissions may occur at unloading points
depending on the type of equipment used and the mineral handled. The discharge from the conveyor
to the silos and bins is normally controlled by a fabric filter  (baghouse).
1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                              11.2-7
-------
        Table 11.2-1  (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING8
                            Process
                            Filterable
                              PMb
EMISSION
 FACTOR
 RATING
   Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt6
    (SCC 3-05-001-01)

   Asphalt blowing: coating asphaltd
     (SCC 3-05-001-02)

   Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with afterburner6
     (SCC 3-05-001-01)

   Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburnerd
     (SCC 3-05-001-02)

   Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section,
     wet looper, and coatere
     (SCC 3-05-001-16)

   Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, wet
     looper, and coater with ESPf
     (SCC 3-05-001-16)

   Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, and
     wet looper with HEAFg
     (SCC 3-05-001-18)

   Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in drum
     section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanksh
     (SCC 3-05-001-19)

   Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in drum
     section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanks with HEAFh
     (SCC 3-05-001-19)
                              3.3


                             12


                              0.14


                              0.41



                              0.60



                              0.016



                              0.035



                               1.6


                              0.027
     E


     E


     D


     D



     D



     D



     D



     D



     D
  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  Emission factors in kg/Mg of shingles
    produced unless noted.  Polycyclic organic matter emissions comprise approximately 0.03% of
    PM for blowing stills and 1.1% of PM for sarurators. SCC = Source Classification Code.
    ESP = electrostatic precipitator.  HEAP = high-energy air filter.
  b As measured using EPA Method 5A.  Filterable PM  is that PM collected on or prior to the
    filter, which is heated to 42.2°C (108°F).
  c Reference 10.  Saturant blow of 1.5 hours. Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
  d Reference 10.  Coating blow of 4.5 hours. Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
  e References 6-7,9.
  f Reference 6.
  g Reference 9.
  h Reference 8.
11.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
           1/95
-------
         Table 11.2-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING"
                             Process
                              Filterable
                                PMb
EMISSION
 FACTOR
 RATING
    Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt0
      (SCC 3-05-001-01)

    Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt*1
      (SCC 3-05-001-02)

    Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with afterburner0
      (SCC 3-05-001-01)

    Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburnerd
      (SCC 3-05-001-02)

    Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, wet
      looper,  and coater6
      (SCC 3-05-001-16)

    Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, wet
      looper,  and coater with ESPf
      (SCC 3-05-001-16)

    Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, and
      wet looper with HEAPS
      (SCC 3-05-001-18)

    Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in drum
      section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanksh
      (SCC 3-05-001-19)

    Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in drum
      section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanks with HEAFh
      (SCC 3-05-001-19)
                                 6.6
                                24
                                 0.27
                                 0.81
                                 1.2
                                 0.032
                                 0.071
                                 3.2
                                 0.053
    D
    D
    D
    D
    D
    D
  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  Emission factors in Ib/ton of shingles
    produced unless noted. Polycyclic organic matter emissions comprise approximately 0.03% of
    PM for blowing stills and  1.1% of PM for saturators.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
    ESP = electrostatic precipitator. HEAP = high-energy air filter.
  b As measured using EPA Method 5A.  Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the
    filter, which is heated to 42.2°C (108°F).
  c Reference 10.  Saturant blow of 1.5 hours.  Expressed  as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
  d Reference 10.  Coating blow of 4.5 hours.  Expressed as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
  e References 6-7,9.
  f Reference 6.
  g Reference 9.
  h Reference 8.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
         11.2-9
-------
        Table 11.2-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING4
Process
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt*1
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt flowing: coating asphalt11
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with
afterburner0
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburner11
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coaler6
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coaler with ESF^
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and coaler5
(SCC 3-05-001-17)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and wet looper with HEAP
(SCC 3-05-001-18)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coaler, and storage
tanks'
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coaler, and storage
tanks with HEAP
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Asphalt blowing^
(SCC 3-05-001-10)
Asphalt blowing with afterburner*
(SCC 3-05-001-10)
TOCb
0.66

1.7


0.0022

0.085


0.046


0.049


ND


0.047



0.13



0.16

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

E


D

D


D


D





D



D



D





CO
ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


0.0095


ND



ND



ND

0.14

1.9

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
















D












E

E

  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. Emission factors in kg/Mg
    of shingles produced unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
    ESP = electrostatic precipitator. HEAP = high-energy air filter.
  b Total organic compounds as measured with an EPA Method 25A (or equivalent) sampling
    train.
  c Reference 10.  Saturant blow  of 1.5 hours. Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
  d Reference 10.  Coating blow of 4.5 hours. Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
  e References 6-7.
  f Reference 6.
  g Reference 7.
  h Reference 9.
  J  Reference 8.
  k Reference 3.  Emission factors in kg/Mg of saturated felt produced.
11.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
         Table 11.2-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING3
Process
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt0
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with
afterburner*1
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburner11
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coatere
(SCC 3-05-O01-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coaler with ESP*
(SCC 3-O5-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and coaler8
(SCC 3-05-O01-17)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and wet looper with HEAP1*
(SCC 3-05-001-18)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coaler, and storage
tank^
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Shingle saturation: spray /dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coaler, and storage
tanks with HEAP"
(SCC 3-O5-001-19)
Asphalt blowing^
(SCC 3-O5-001-10)
Asphalt blowing with afterburner1'
(SCC 3-05-001-10)
TOCb
1.3

3.4


0.0043

0.017


0.091


0.098


ND


0.094



0.26



0.32

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

E


D

D


D


D





D



D



D





CO
ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


0.0019


ND



ND



ND

0.27

3.7

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
















D












E

E

  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Emission factors in Ib/ton of
    shingles produced unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
    ESP = electrostatic precipitator. HEAP = high-energy air filter.
  b Total organic compounds as measured with an EPA Method 25A (or equivalent) sampling
    train.
  c Reference 10.  Saturant blow of 1.5 hours.  Expressed as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
  d Reference 10.  Coating blow of 4.5 hours.  Expressed as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
  e References 6-7.
  f Reference 6.
  8 Reference 7.
  h Reference 9.
  J  Reference 8.
  k Reference 3.  Emission factors in Ib/ton of saturated felt produced.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.2-11
-------
References For Section 11.2

1.     Written communication from Russel Snyder, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association,
       Rockville, MD, to Richard Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, May 2, 1994.

2.     J.  A. Danielson, Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.), AP-40, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of print.

3.     Atmospheric Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Processes, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, Pedco
       Environmental, Cincinnati, OH, October 1974.

4.     L. W. Corbett, "Manufacture of Petroleum Asphalt," Bituminous Materials: Asphalts, Tars,
       and Pitches, 2(1),  Interscience Publishers, New York, 1965.

5.     Background Information for Proposed Standards Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Industry,
       EPA 450/3-80-02la, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 1980.

6.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Celotex Corporation, Fairfield, Alabama, EMB Report
       No. 76-ARM-13,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1976.

7.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Certain-Teed Products, Shahopee, Minnesota, EMB Report
       No. 76-ARM-12,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
       1977.

8.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Celotex Corporation, Los Angeles, California, EMB Report
       No. 75-ARM-8, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
       August  1976.

9.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Johns Manville Corporation, Waukegan, Illinois, EMB Report
       No. 76-ARM-13,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       August 1976.

10.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Elk Roofing Company, Stephens, Arkansas, EMB  Report
       No. 76-ARM-ll,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park; NC, May
       1977.
11.2-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
11.3 Brick And Structural Clay Product Manufacturing

11.3.1  General1'2

        The brick and structural clay products industry is made up primarily of facilities that manufacture
structural brick from clay, shale, or a combination of the two. These facilities are classified under standard
industrial classification (SIC) code 3251, brick and structural clay tile. Facilities that manufacture structural
clay products, such as clay pipe, adobe brick, chimney pipe, flue liners, drain tiles, roofing tiles, and sewer
tiles are classified under SIC code 3259, structural clay products, not elsewhere classified.

11.3.2 Process Description3"6

        The manufacture of brick and structural clay products involves mining, grinding, screening and
blending of the raw materials followed by forming, cutting or shaping, drying, firing, cooling, storage, and
shipping of the final product. A typical brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 11.3-1.

        The raw materials used in the manufacture of brick and structural clay products include surface clays
and shales, which are mined in open pits. The moisture content of the raw materials ranges from a low of
about 3 percent at some plants to a high of about 15 percent at other plants.  Some facilities have onsite
mining operations, while others bring in raw material by truck or rail. The raw material is typically loaded by
truck or front-end loader into a primary crusher for initial size reduction.  The material is then conveyed to a
grinding room, which houses several grinding mills and banks of screens that produce a fine material that is
suitable for forming brick or other products.  Types of grinding mills typically used include dry pan grinders,
roller mills, and hammermills.  From the grinding room, the material is conveyed to storage silos or piles,
which typically are enclosed. The material is then either conveyed to the mill room for brick forming or
conveyed to a storage area.

        Most brick are formed by the stiff mud extrusion process, although brick are also formed using the
soft mud and dry press processes (there may be no plants in the U.S. currently using the dry press process).
A typical stiff mud extrusion line begins with a pug mill, which mixes the ground material with water and
discharges the mixture into a vacuum chamber.  Some facilities mix additives such as barium carbonate,
which prevents sulfates from rising to the surface of the brick, with the raw material prior to extrusion. The
moisture content of the material entering the vacuum chamber is typically between 14 and 18 percent. The
vacuum chamber removes air from the material, which is then continuously augered or extruded through dies.
The resulting continuous "column" is lubricated with oil or other lubricant to reduce friction during extrusion.
If specified, various surface  treatments, such as manganese dioxide, iron oxide, and iron chromite can be
applied at this point.  These  treatments are used to add color or texture to the product. A wire-cutting
machine is used to cut the column into individual bricks, and then the bricks are mechanically or hand set onto
kiln cars. All structural tile  and most brick are formed by this process. Prior to stacking, some facilities
mechanically process the unfired bricks to create rounded imperfect edges that give the  appearance of older
worn brick.

        The soft mud process is usually used with clay that is too wet for stiff mud extrusion. In a pug mill,
the clay is mixed with water to  a moisture content of 15 to 28 percent, and the bricks  are formed in molds and
are dried before being mechanically stacked onto kiln cars.  In the dry press process, clay is mixed with a
small amount of water and formed in steel molds by applying pressure of 500 to 1,500 pounds per square
inch (3.43 to 10.28 megapascals).
8/97                                     Mineral Products                                    11.3-1
-------
                                                                           u
                                                                           •B.8

                                                                           I 8
                                                                             1
                                                                           ro u
                                                                             O
                                                                             oo
11.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97
-------
        Following forming and stacking, the brick-laden kiln cars enter a predryer or a holding area and are
then loaded into the dryer.  Dryers typically are heated to about 400°F (204°C) using waste heat from the
cooling zone of the kiln. However, some plants heat dryers with gas or other fuels. Dryers may be in-line or
totally separate from the kiln. From the dryer, the bricks enter the kiln.  The most common type of kiln used
for firing brick is the tunnel kiln, although some facilities operate downdraft periodic kilns or other types of
kilns.  A typical tunnel kiln ranges from about 340 feet (ft) (104 meters [m]) to 500 ft (152 m) in length and
includes a preheat zone, a firing zone, and a cooling zone. The firing zone typically is maintained at a
maximum temperature of about 2000°F (1090°C).  During firing, small amounts of excess fuel are
sometimes introduced to the kiln atmosphere, creating a reducing atmosphere that adds color to the surface of
the bricks.  This process is called flashing.  After firing, the bricks enter the cooling zone, where they are
cooled to near ambient temperatures before leaving the tunnel kiln. The bricks are then stored and shipped.

        A periodic kiln is a permanent brick structure with a number of fireholes through which fuel enters
the furnace. Hot gases from the fuel are first drawn up over the bricks, then down through them by
underground flues, and  then out of the kiln to the stack.

        In all kilns, firing takes place in six steps:  evaporation of free water, dehydration, oxidation,
vitrification, flashing, and cooling. Natural gas is the fuel most commonly used for firing, followed by coal
and sawdust.  Some plants have fuel oil available as a backup fuel. Most natural gas-fired plants that have a
backup fuel use vaporized propane as the backup fuel. For most types of brick, the entire drying, firing, and
cooling process takes between 20 and 50 hours.

        Flashing is used to impart color to bricks by adding uncombusted fuel (other materials such as zinc,
used tires, or used motor oil are also reportedly used) to the kiln to create a reducing atmosphere. Typically,
flashing takes place in a "flashing zone" that follows the firing zone, and the bricks are rapidly cooled
following flashing. In tunnel kilns, the uncombusted fuel or other material typically is drawn into the firing
zone of the kiln and is burned.

11.3.3 Emissions And Controls3'7-11-22'24'29-30

        Emissions from brick manufacturing facilities include particulate matter (PM), PM less than or equal
to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10), PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic
diameter (PM-2.5) sulfur dioxide (S02), sulfur trioxide (S03), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide
(CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), metals, total organic compounds (TOC) (including methane, ethane, volatile
organic compounds [VOC], and some hazardous air pollutants [HAP]), hydrochloric acid (HC1), and fluoride
compounds. Factors that may affect emissions include raw material composition and moisture content, kiln
fuel type, kiln  operating parameters, and plant design. The pollutants emitted from the manufacture of other
structural clay products are expected to be similar to the pollutants emitted from brick manufacturing,
although emissions from the manufacture of glazed products may differ significantly.

        The primary sources of PM, PM-10, and PM-2.5 emissions are the raw material grinding and
screening operations and the kilns. Other sources of PM emissions include sawdust dryers used by plants
with sawdust-fired kilns, coal crushing systems used by plants with coal-fired kilns, and fugitive dust sources
such as paved roads, unpaved roads, and storage piles.

        Combustion products, including SO2, NOX, CO, and CO2, are emitted from fuel combustion in brick
kilns and some brick dryers. Brick dryers that are heated with waste heat from the kiln cooling zone are not
usually a source of combustion products because kilns are designed to prevent combustion gases from
entering the cooling zone.  Some brick dryers have supplemental gas burners that produce small amounts of
NOX, CO, and  C02 emissions. These emissions are sensitive to the condition of the burners.  The primary


8/97                                     Mineral Products                                   11.3-3
-------
source of S02 emissions from most brick kilns is the raw material, which sometimes contain sulfur
compounds. Some facilities use raw material with a high sulfur content, and have higher S02 emissions than
facilities that use low-sulfur raw material.  In addition, some facilities use additives that contain sulfates, and
these additives may contribute to S02 emissions. Data are available that indicate that sulfur contents of
surface soils are highly variable, and it is likely that sulfur contents of brick raw materials are also highly
variable.

        Organic compounds, including methane, ethane, VOC, and some HAP, are emitted from both brick
dryers and kilns. These compounds also are emitted from sawdust dryers used by facilities that fire sawdust
as the primary kiln fuel. Organic compound emissions from brick dryers may include contributions from the
following sources: (1) petroleum-based or other products in those plants that use petroleum-based or other
lubricants in extrusion, (2) light hydrocarbons within the raw material that vaporize at the temperatures
encountered in the dryer, and (3) incomplete fuel combustion in dryers that use supplemental burners in
addition to waste heat from the kiln cooling zone. Organic compound emissions from kilns are the result of
volatilization of organic matter contained in the raw material and kiln fuel.

        Hydrogen fluoride (HF) and other fluoride compounds are emitted from kilns as a result of the
release of the fluorine compounds contained in the raw material. Fluorine typically is present in brick raw
materials in the range of 0.01 to 0.06 percent. As the green bricks reach temperatures of 930° to 1110°F,
(500° to 600 °C), the fluorine in the raw material forms HF and other fluorine compounds. Much of the
fluorine is released as HF.  Because fluorine content in clays and shales is highly variable, emissions of HF
and other fluoride compounds vary considerably depending on the raw material used.

        A variety of control systems may be used to reduce PM emissions from brick manufacturing
operations.  Grinding and screening operations are sometimes controlled by fabric filtration systems, although
many facilities process raw material with a relatively high moisture content (greater than 10 percent) and do
not use add-on control systems.  Most tunnel kilns are not equipped with control devices, although fabric
filters or wet scrubbers are sometimes used for PM removal. Paniculate matter emissions from fugitive
sources such as paved roads, unpaved roads, and storage piles can be controlled using wet suppression
techniques.

        Gaseous emissions from brick dryers and kilns typically are not controlled using add-on control
devices. However, dry scrubbers that use limestone as a sorption medium may be used to control HF
emissions; control efficiencies of 95 percent or higher have been reported at one plant operating this type of
scrubber. Also, wet scrubbers are used at one facility. These scrubbers, which use a soda ash and water
solution as the  scrubbing liquid, provide effective control of HF and SO2 emissions.  Test data show that the
only high-efficiency packed tower wet scrubber operating in the U.S. (at brick plants) achieves control
efficiencies greater than 99 percent for SO2 and total fluorides. A unique "medium-efficiency" wet scrubber
operating at the same plant has demonstrated an 82 percent S02 control efficiency.

        Process controls are also an effective means of controlling kiln emissions. For example, facilities
with coal-fired kilns typically use a low-sulfur, low-ash coal to minimize SO2 and PM emissions. In addition,
research is being performed on the use of additives (such as lime) to reduce HF and SO2 emissions.

        Table  11.3-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM, filterable PM-10, condensible inorganic
PM, and condensible organic PM emissions from brick and structural clay product manufacturing operations.
Two emission factors for uncontrolled grinding and screening operations are presented; one for operations
processing relatively dry material (about 4 percent moisture) and the other for operations processing wet
material (about 13 percent moisture). Table 11.3-2 presents total PM, total PM-10, and total PM-2.5
emission factors for brick and structural clay product manufacturing. Table 11.3-3 presents emission factors
11.3-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 8/97
-------
for S02, S03, NOX, CO, and C02 emissions from brick dryers, kilns (fired with natural gas, coal, and
sawdust), and from a combined source—sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer. To estimate emissions of NOX,
and CO from fuel oil-fired kilns, refer to the AP-42 section addressing oil combustion. Table 11.3-4 presents
emission factors for HF, total fluorides, and HC1 emissions from brick kilns and from a combined source--
sawdust-fired kilns and sawdust drying. Table 11.3-5 presents emission factors for TOC as propane,
methane, and VOC from brick dryers, kilns, and from a combined source—sawdust-fired kilns and sawdust
drying.  Tables 11.3-6 and 11.3-7 present emission factors for speciated organic compounds and metals,
respectively.  Table 11.3-8 presents particle size distribution data for sawdust- and coal-fired kilns.  Although
many of the emission factors presented in the tables are assigned lower ratings than emission factors in
previous editions of AP-42, the new factors are based on higher quality data than the old factors.
8/97                                     Mineral Products                                    11.3-5
-------


M
00
§
r1
NG OPERA1
S
s
o
1
o
2
QQ
.^
0
PL,
>N FACTOR;
<^
c«
on
m
a!
w
g
u
H
J
O
H
ex
i

u
1


1
Condensi









1
s








2 o g

o
CD
CO
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

I
§
k— f
S5 H S
on o f-'
S

w>
fS
,r
PL,
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
o
i


s ^ ^
K H S
W CJ H
Sfc

2





u
1
C/3

^
^
-

$
s






„
»Ai
O
8
d



2


g



H.
S
1 Primary crusher with fabric
(SCC 3-05-003-40)

3333
3333
3333

33S3
^ 0! ^ ^



§A M
g g

w w w w
m . i Q
P oo o Z
0 d


I ^

Grinding and screening oper
(SCC 3-05-003-02)
processing wet material
processing dry material"
with fabric filter8
Extrusion line with fabric fil
(SCC 3-05-003-42)

1 o
d
W Q

«34 O«
— 00
d d
3 3



§A
g

^ W
Q oo
^ d



W O


"P- |>
0 0




Brick dryer
(SCC 3-05-003-50, -51)
Natural gas-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-11)

Q
o"
d
Q

a
oo
d
Q



00
-------
 0
 u

                         ^ 13 -a  S  a
                         §  c  S  o,  S


03
-s
>
T3
_U
1
§
U
e
3
a
I
1
1
1
t— i
O-'
ro
NO
ro
(N
o"
rn
o\
•"!
VD"
(N
>n
(N
ri
fN
rn "^
vo rsf

^^ ^^ oo
Reference 2
Reference 2
References






»/•>'
Reference 2
rn
o"
O\
3-
ON"
i

References


o
S;
r-H
O\"
1
OO
References


°i
oo"
1
r-
^
1— H
1
ro

Os
References


(N^
oo"
r^-
Tf"
1— H
1
m

ON
References






,_— i
Reference 2
mtrol condensible PM emissions. Therefore, the uncontrolled Condensible PM emission factors an
°*j
u
2
T3
s
8
9
1
GO

a
3
u
1
H-,






ON
Reference 1




ro

C/3
1
C3 OO
on (N
• r~
"—i r-J
Reference 1
References :
                                                           IH  a>  <-  3
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3.-7
-------
     Table 11.3-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL PM, TOTAL PM-10, AND TOTAL PM-2.5
                        FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS3
Source
Primary crusher with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-003-40)
Grinding and screening operations
(SCC 3-05-003-02)
processing dry material0
processing wet material*1
with fabric filter6
Extrusion line with fabric filte/
(SCC 3-05-003-42)
Natural gas-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-11)
Coal-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-1 3)
uncontrolled
with fabric filter
Sawdust-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-10)
Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer8
(SCC 3-05-003-61)
Total PM6
PM
ND

8.5
0.025
0.0062
ND

0.96


1.8
0.63
0.93

1.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA

E
E
E
NA

D


B
E
D

E
PM-10
0.00059

0.53
0.0023
0.0032
0.0036

0.87


1.4
ND
0.85

0.31
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

E
E
E
E

D


C
NA
D

E
PM-2.5
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


0.87
ND
0.75

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA


D
NA
D

NA
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired bricks produced unless noted. Factors represent
  uncontrolled emissions unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data. NA = not
  applicable. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
b Total PM emission factors are the sum of filterable PM and condensible inorganic and organic PM
  emission factors from Table 11.3-1.  Total PM-10 emission factors are the sum of filterable PM-10 and
  condensible inorganic and organic PM emission factors from Table 11.3-1. Total PM-2.5 emission factors
  are the sum of filterable PM-2.5 and condensible inorganic and organic PM emission factors from Table
  11.3-1.
c Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of raw material processed. Grinding and screening
  operations are typically housed in large buildings that can be fully or partially enclosed.  Factor is based on
  measurements at the inlet to a fabric filter and does not take into account the effect of the building
  enclosure. Based on a raw material moisture content of 4 percent.
d Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of raw material processed. Based on a raw material
  moisture content of 13 percent. Grinding and screening operations are typically housed  in large buildings
  that can be fully or partially enclosed.
e Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of raw material processed. Grinding and screening
  operations are typically housed in large buildings that can be fully or partially enclosed.
f This emission factor is not applicable to typical extrusion lines. Extrusion line with several conveyor drop
  points processing material with a 5-9 percent moisture content.
8 Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
11.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97
-------





a
I>0
O
I— <
H
^
W
PH
O
\CTURTNG
B
^

0
2
CQ
O
on
OH
O

CJ
UH
O
1— H
oo
on
^j
UJ
i
^H

H


iff
N
o
x P^ rh
2 o ;z
W H p
on cj H


O
^


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

o
2
Z a>
So « O
-- - t_
OO t^) r-<
1^^


O


55 H 3
i<5
2 S «
w

(N
O
00



3
O
on
W OQ
^ 1
r~ o

W O


1> ^
m <^
o' rt


W O
*o
Q\ jrl
d o


^ Q





o
^ 0



t— I r— ^ O '*"*


O O O Q W

^ ^ "^ In ^
O O O O o


izi iz !Z !Z Q





^ ^ f-> f-> o
Q 0 O Q O


^ ^ 1 ?, 5
•^ - P - d
o
OB
•g
«<= C H
c "3  •— ' •— '
||s f, |1 § |s
1^1 1 11 1-s is Is
Si"3 rA £ "u 3 oo"? 'g (A "V rA
14| 1 j! 5| IB |8
1 ^ a § n || g a gs
Z O &o
                                                               ^
                                                            13 p
                                                            1> •" •
                                                                            <«•>*
                                                                  s -a
                                                                 •i«;
                                                                 .52 00:
8                                                                  en"

                                                                 "73
                                                            rtj 03

                                                            t. U
                                                            S,
                             e  8 S
                         i ra "^  3 u
                         : "- .2 -6 &

                         t-S -a  S S
                         ^ -n  S i

                         !S |t3

                         !|i|^


                         ! « 11 I
                                                                       Si
                                                                  s s
                                                                  P
                                                                       (N 00
                                                                 "Si 5
                                                                              c/) •"

                                                                              a  s
                                                            .2 a
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3.-9
-------
            3
O
en

en
H
References
           S I 8 § S

          ££ !<$£
           
-------
   Table 11.3-4. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, TOTAL FLUORIDES, AND
            HYDROGEN CHLORIDE FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS'1
Source
Sawdust- or natural gas-fired tunnel kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-10,-! 1)
uncontrolled
with dry scrubber11
with medium-efficiency wet scrubber1
with high-efficiency packed-bed
scrubber*4
Coal-fired tunnel kiln"1
(SCC 3-05-003- 13)
Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer11
(SCC 3-05-003-61)
HFb

0.37e
ND
ND
ND
0.17
0.18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C
NA
NA
NA
D
E
Total
fluorides0

0.59f
0.028
0.18
0.0013
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

E
C
C
C
NA
NA
HCld

0.178
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
   Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired product. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions
   unless noted. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND
   = no data. NA = not applicable.
   Hydrogen fluoride measured using an EPA Method 26A or equivalent sampling train.
   Total fluorides measured using an EPA Method 13B or equivalent sampling train.
   Hydrogen chloride measured using an EPA Method 26A or equivalent sampling train.
   References 8,11,26-27,32,34. Factor includes data from kilns firing structural clay tile. Data from kilns
   firing natural gas and sawdust are averaged together because fuel type (except for coal) does not appear to
   affect HF emissions. However, the raw material fluoride content does effect HF emissions. A mass
   balance on fluoride will provide a better estimate of emissions for individual facilities.  Assuming that all
   of the fluorine in the raw material is released as HF, each Ib of fluorine will result in  1.05 Ib of HF
   emissions.
   Reference 26. Factor is 1.6 times the HF factor.
   References 8,26.
   References 22,33-34. Kiln firing material with a high fluorine content.  Dry scrubber using limestone as a
   sorption medium.
   Reference 29. Medium-efficiency wet scrubber using a soda-ash/water solution (maintained at pH 7) as
   the scrubbing liquid. The design of this scrubber is not typical.  Kiln firing material with a high fluorine
   content.
   Reference 30. High-efficiency packed bed scrubber with soda-ash/water solution circulated through the
   packing section. Kiln firing material with a high fluorine content (uncontrolled emission factor of
   2. lib/ton).
   References 9,26.
   Reference 11. Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3-11
-------
               Table 11.3-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOC, METHANE, AND VOC
                       FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS'1
Source
Brick dryer11
(SCC 3-05-003-50)
Brick dryer w/supplemental gas burner
(SCC 3-05-003-51)
Brick kiln"
(SCC3-05-003-10,-11,-13)
Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer"
(SCC 3-05-003-61)
TOCb
0.05e
0.148
0.062k
0.18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
C
E
Methane
0.02f
0.1 lh
0.037m
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
NA
vocc
0.03
0.03
0.024
0.18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
D
E
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired product. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions
  unless noted. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND
  = no data. ND = not applicable.
b Total organic compounds reported "as propane"; measured using EPA Method 25A, unless noted.
c VOC as propane; calculated as the difference in the TOC and methane emission factors for this source.  If
  no methane factor is available, VOC emissions are estimated using the TOC emission factor. In addition,
  emissions of the non-reactive compounds shown in Table 11.3-6 (brick kiln = 0.00094 Ib/ton) are
  subtracted from the TOC factors to calculate VOC.
d Brick dryer heated with waste heat from the kiln cooling zone.
6 References 9-10.
f Reference 9. Methane value includes methane and ethane emissions.  Most of these emissions are believed
  to be methane.
8 References 8,37.
h Factor is estimated by assuming that VOC emissions from dryers with and without supplemental burners
  are equal.  The VOC factor is subtracted from the TOC factor to estimate methane emissions.
J  Includes natural gas-, coal-, and sawdust-fired tunnel kilns.
k References 8-11,25,32,36-37.  Data from kirns firing natural gas, coal, and sawdust are averaged together
  because the data indicate that the fuel type does not effect TOC emissions.
m References 8-9,25.  Data from kilns firing natural gas, coal, and sawdust are averaged together because the
  data indicate that the fuel type does not effect methane emissions.
n Reference 11. Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
 11.3-12
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97
-------
     Table 11.3-6. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM
                     BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS3

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Coal-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 13)


































Pollutant
CASRN
75-34-3
71-55-6
106-46-7
78-93-3
591-78-6
91-57-6
95-48-7
67-64-1
71-43-2
65-85-0
117-81-7
74-83-9
85-68-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
108-90-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
132-64-9

84-66-2
131-11-3
100-41-4
78-59-1
1330-20-7
75-09-2
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
71-55-6
108-88-3
108-05-4
75-69-4
Name
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,1 -trichloroethaneb *
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
2-butanone
2-hexanoneb
2-methylnaphthalene
2-methylphenolb
Acetone*
Benzene
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Bromomethane
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachlorideb
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroformb
Chloromethane
Dibenzofuran0
Di-n-octylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalateb
Ethylbenzene
Isophorone
M-/p-xylene
Methylene chloride*
Naphthalene
O-xylene
Phenol
Styreneb
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethane *
Toluene
Vinyl acetate
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
5.0xlO'6
BDL(1.7xlO'5)
3.2xlO'6
2.5xlO'4
BDL (9.4x1 0'7)
1.7X10-6
BDL(2.2xlO-6)
6.8X10"4
2.9xlO'4
2.5xlO'4
7.3xlO'5
2.4xlO'5
1.2xlO'6
2.3xlO'6
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
2.1xlO'5
l.lxKT5
BDLCl.OxlO'7)
l.lxlO'4
3.6xlO'7
1.2xlO'5
1.4xlO'6
BDL(7.8xlO'7)
2.1X10'5
3.0xlO'5
1.3xlQ-4
S.OxlO"7
6.9X10'6
4.7xlO'5
3.5xlQ-5
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
BDLO.OxlO'7)
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
2.5X10"4
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
1.4xlO'5
Ref. No.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3-13
-------
                                  Table 11.3-6 (cont.).
Source
Natural gas-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 11)






















Sawdust-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-10)













Pollutant
CASRN
71-55-6
106-46-7
91-57-6
78-93-3
591-78-6
67-64-1
71-43-2
117-81-7
85-68-7
75-15-0
7782-50-5
75-00-3
74-87-3
84-74-2
84-66-2
100-41-4
1330-20-7
74-88-4
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
78-93-3
591-78-6
95-48-7
67-64-1
107-13-1
71-43-2
117-81-7
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
67-66-3
74-87-3
84-74-2
132-64-9
Name
1,1,1-Trichloroethane*
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
2-methylnaphthalene
2-butanone
2-Hexanone
Acetone*
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbon disulfide
Chlorine
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Ethylbenzene
M-/p-Xylene
lodomethane
Naphthalene
o-Xylene
Phenol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
l,l,l-trichloroethaneb*
2-butanoneb
2-hexanoneb
2-methylphenolb
Acetone*
Acrylonitrile0
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachlorideb
Chloroform1"
Chloromethane
Di-n-butylphthalatec
Dibenzofuran
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
4.7X10"6
4.8xlO"5
5.7xlO'5
0.00022
8.5xlO'5
0.0017
0.0029
0.0020
l.SxlO'5
4.3xlO'5
0.0013
0.00057
0.00067
0.00014
0.00024
4.4xWs
6.7xlO'5
9.3xlO'5
6.5xW5
5.8xlO'5
8.6xlO'5
2.0xlO'5
2.8x10-*
0.00016
BDL (3.0xlO'7)
BDL (6.6X10"6)
BDL (3.0xlO'7)
BDL (2.0xlO'9)
3.9x10-*
l.SxlO'5
5.2X10"4
2.9xW5
S.OxlO'5
1.6xlO's
BDL (3.0xlO'7)
BDL (3.0xlO-7)
6.8X10"4
6.1xlO'6
l.SxlO'5
Ref.No.
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11.3-14
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97
-------
                                        Table 11.3-6 (cont).
Source
Sawdust-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 10)












Sawdust-fired kiln
and sawdust dryer
(SCC 3-05-003-61)























Pollutant
CASRN
84-74-2
100-41-4
74-88-4
1330-20-7
75-09-2
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
75-69-4
108-05-4
71-55-6
78-93-3
591-78-6
95-48-7
67-64-1
107-13-1
71-43-2
117-81-7
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
67-66-3
74-87-3
84-74-2
132-64-9
131-11-3
100-41-4
74-88-4
1330-20-7
75-09-2
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
Name
Dimethylphthalate0
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
M-/p-xylene
Methylene chloride*
Naphthalene0
O-xylene0
Phenol
Styreneb
Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroethaneb*
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Vinyl acetateb
1,1 ,l-trichloroethaneb*
2-butanone
2-hexanone
2-methylphenolb
Acetone*
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachlorideb
Chloroformb
Chloromethane
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Dimethylphthalateb
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
M-/p-xylene
Methylene chloride*
Naphthalene*5
O-xylene
Phenol
Styreneb
Tetrachloroethaneb
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
l.OxlO'5
8.5xlO'6
2.0X10"4
2.9xlO'5
7.5xlO'6
3.4X10"4
3.8xlO'6
7.2xlO'5
BDL(4.4xlO'7)
BDL (3.0xlO'7)
l.lxlO"4
BDL(3.0xlO'7)
5.8xlO'6
BDL (3.0xlO'7)
BDL (5.2xlO'7)
2.2xlO'4
BDL(3.8xlO'7)
BDL(2.4xlO'9)
0.0010
1.9xlO'5
5.6xlO'4
1.4xlO'4
4.4xlO'5
l.SxlO'5
BDL (3.8xlO-7)
BDL(3.8xlO'7)
0.0014
1.6xlO-5
BDL(2.4xlO'9)
BDL(2.4xlQ-9)
l.OxlO'5
2.4xlO'4
2.9xlO'5
6.2xlO'5
BDL(2.4xlO'9)
7.3xlO'6
l.OxlO'4
BDL(4.2xlQ-6)
BDL(3.8xlO'7)
Ref. No.
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3-15
-------
                                      Table 11.3-6 (cont).
Source
Sawdust-fired kiln and
sawdust dryer
(SCC 3-05-003-61)


Pollutant
CASRN
108-88-3
71-55-6
75-69-4
108-05-4
Name
Toluene
Trichloroethaneb*
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Vinyl acetate
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
4.3xlO'4
BDL (3.8xlO'7)
l.OxlQ-6
1.9xlO'7
Ref.No.
11
11
11
11
  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired bricks produced. To convert from Ib/ton to
  kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. * = Non-reactive
  compound as designated in 40 CFR 51.100(s), July 1, 1995. BDL = concentration was below the method
  detection limit.
  The emission factor for this pollutant is shown in parentheses and is based on the detection limit.
  Emissions were below the detection limit during two of three test runs. Emission factor is estimated as the
  average of the single measured quantity and one-half of the detection limit for the two nondetect runs.
  These emission factors are based on data from an atypical facility.
  Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
11.3-16
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97
-------
                  Table 11.3-7. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALS EMISSIONS
                        FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS8
Source
Kilnb (SCC 3-05-003-10,-! 1,-13)






Coal-fired kiln (SCC 3-05-003-13)




Natural gas-fired kiln (SCC 3-05-003-1 1)



Sawdust-fired kiln (SCC 3-05-003-10)




Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer*1
(SCC 3-05-003-61)









Pollutant
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
Mercury
Phosphorus
Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
Mercury
Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
Mercury
Phosphorus
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
2.7xlO'5
1.5xlO"5
5.1xlO'5
2.1X10"6
1.5x10^
7.2xlO'5
2.3X10"4
UxlO"4
1.6xlO'5
2.9X10"4
9.6xlO'5
9.8x10^
3.1xlO'5
4.2x1 0'7
2.9x1 0"4
7.5xlO'6
3.1xlO-5
4.2x!0-7
0.013C
7.5X10-6
9.8X10-4
2.8x!0'6
2.1xlO-5
3.1xlO-7
2.2x1 0'5
4.8xlO'5
1.2X1Q-4
4.8X10-4
l.lxlO'5
3.4xlO'5
5.5X10-4
4.7xlO'5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
E
E
D
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Reference
Nos.
8-9,11,25
8-9,11,25
9,11,25
25
8-9,11,25
9,11,25
8-9,11,25
9
9
8-9,25
9
9,11
8,11,25
8,11,25
8-9,25
11,25
8,11,25
8,11,25
11
11,25
9,11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired brick produced. Emission factors for individual
  facilities will vary based on the metal content of the raw material, metallic colorants used on the face of the
  bricks, metallic additives mixed into the bodies of the bricks, and the metal content of the fuels used for
  firing the kilns.
b Coal-, natural gas-, or sawdust-fired tunnel kiln.
0 The facility uses a manganese surface treatment on the bricks. The manganese emission factor for coal-
  and natural gas-fired kilns is a better estimate for sawdust-fired kilns firing bricks that do not have a
  manganese surface treatment.  Conversely, this emission factor should be used to estimate manganese
  emissions from coal- or natural gas-fired kilns firing a product with manganese surface treatment.
d Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3-17
-------
                   Table 11.3.8. AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                      FOR FILTERABLE PM EMISSIONS FROM KILNS3


Source
Sawdust-fired kiln


Coal-fired kiln



Aerodynamic Diameter,
microns
10b
2.5
1
10b
2.5
1
Percent of Filterable PM
Emissions Less Than or Equal
to Stated Particle Size
75
48
44
63
23
9.8


Reference No.
11,20
11,20
11,20
9,21
21
21
a  Particle size distribution based on cascade impactor tests unless noted.
b  Based on cascade impactor particle size distribution and a comparison of PM-10 (measured using EPA
   Method 201A) and filterable PM (measured using EPA Method 5) emissions.

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 11.3

 1.     1992 Census Of Manufactures, Cement And Structural Clay Products, U. S. Department Of
       Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1995.

 2.     Telephone communication between B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, and
       N, Cooney, Brick Institute Of America, Reston, VA, October, 20,1994.

 3.     Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, October 1986.

 4.     Written communication from J. Dowdle, Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc., Madison, NC, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1992.

 5.     Written communication from B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.

 6.     Written communication from B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1993.

 7.     D. A. Brosnan, "Monitoring For Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions", Ceramic Industry, July 1994.

 8.     Emission Testing At A Structural Brick Manufacturing Plant-Final Emission Test Report For
       Testing At Belden Brick Company, Plant 6, Sugarcreek, OH, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1995.

 9.     Final Test Report For U. S. EPA Test Program Conducted At General Shale Brick Plant, Johnson
       City, TN, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1993.

 10.    Flue Gas Characterization Studies Conducted On The SOB Kiln And Dryer Stacks In Atlanta, GA
       For General Shale Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, March 1993.
11.3-18
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97
-------
11.    Final Test Report For U. S. EPA Test Program Conducted A t Pine Hall Brick Plant, Madison, NC,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1993.

12.    Source Emission TestAtBelden Brick,  Inc., Sugarcreek, OH, No. 1 Kiln, Plants, CSA Company,
       Alliance, OH, March 3, 1992.

13.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On The Tunnel Kiln #6B And #28 In Marion, VA, For General
       Shale Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 1990.

14.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On The Tunnel Kiln #21 In Glascow, VA, For General Shale
       Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 16, 1990.

15.    Source Emission TestAtBelden Brick,  Inc., Sugarcreek, OH, No. 1 Kiln, Plant 3, CSA Company,
       Alliance, OH, July 21,1989.

16.    SuJfur Dioxide Emission  Tests Conducted On The #20 Tunnel Kiln In Mooresville, IN, For
       General Shale Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, December 2, 1986.

17.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On The #7B Tunnel Kiln In Knoxville, TN, For General Shale
       Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, April 22, 1986.

18.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On Plant #15 In Kingsport, TN, For General Shale Products
       Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 11, 1983.

19.    Particulate Emission  Tests For General Shale Products Corporation,  Kingsport, TN, Tunnel Kiln
       TK-29And Coal Crusher, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, July 21,1982.

20.    Building Brick And Structural Clay Wood Fired Brick Kiln, Emission  Test Report, Chatham Brick
       And Tile Company, Gulf, NC, EMB Report 80-BRK-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1980.

21.    Building Brick And Structural Clay Industry, Emission Test Report, Lee Brick And Tile Company,
       Sanford, NC, EMB Report 80-BRK-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, April  1980.

22.    Exhaust Emission Sampling, Acme Brick Company, Sealy, TX, Armstrong Environmental Inc.,
       Dallas, TX, June 21, 1991.

23.    Stationary Source Sampling Report: Chatham Brick And Tile Company, Sanford, NC, Kiln No. 2
       Particulate Emissions Compliance  Testing, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle
       Park, NC, July 1979.

24.    D. Brosnan, "Technology And Regulatory Consequences Of Fluorine Emissions In Ceramic
       Manufacturing", American Ceramic Industry Bulletin, 71 (12), pp 1798-1802, The American
       Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, December 1992.
8/97                                   Mineral Products                                 11.3-19
-------
25.    Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 14448, Triangle Brick, Merry Oaks, North
       Carolina, Emissions Testing For: Carbon Monoxide, Condensible Particulate, Metals, Methane,
       Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate, Particulate < 10 Microns, Sulfur Dioxide, Total Hydrocarbons,
       Entropy, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October, 1995.

26.    B1A HF Research Program Stack Testing Results (and Individual Stack Test Data Sheets), Center
       for Engineering Ceramic Manufacturing, Clemson University, Anderson, SC, November, 1995.

27.    Source Emission Tests At Stark Ceramics, Inc., East Canton, OH, No. 3 Kiln Stack, CSA
       Company, Alliance, OH, September 16,1993.

28.    Crescent Brick Stack Test-No. 2 Tunnel Kiln, CSA Company, Alliance, OH, February 29,1988.

29.    Emissions Survey Conducted At Interstate Brick Company, Located In West Jordan, Utah,
       American Environmental Testing, Inc., Spanish Fork, UT, December 22, 1994.

30.    Emissions Survey For SO2, NO^ CO, HF, And PM-10 Emissions Conducted On Interstate Brick
       Company's Kiln No. 3 Scrubber, Located In  West Jordan, Utah, American Environmental Testing,
       Inc., Spanish Fork, UT, November 30,1995.

31.    Stationary Source Sampling Report For Isenhour Brick Company, Salisbury, North Carolina, No.
       6 Kiln Exhausts 1 And 2, Sawdust Dryer Exhaust, Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc., Charlotte,
       NC, October 1995.

32.    Particulate, Fluoride, And CEM Emissions Testing On The #1 And #2 Kiln Exhausts, Boral
       Bricks, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Roswell, GA, September 26,
       1996.

33.    Source Emissions Survey Of Boral Bricks, Inc., Absorber Stack (EPN-K), Henderson, Texas, TACB
       Permit 21012, METCO Environmental, Addison, TX, June 1995.

34.    Source Emissions Survey Of Boral Bricks, Inc., Absorber Stack (EPN-K) And Absorber Inlet Duct,
       Henderson, Texas, METCO Environmental, Addison, TX, February 1996.

35.    Stationary Source Sampling Report For Statesville Brick Company, Statesville, NC, Kiln Exhaust,
       Sawdust Dryer Exhaust, Trigon Engineering  Consultants, Inc., Charlotte, NC, November 1994.

36.    Source Emissions Testing, Marseilles Brick,  Marseilles, Illinois, Fugro Midwest, Inc., St Ann,
       MO, October 13,1994.

37.    Source Emissions Testing, Marseilles Brick,  Marseilles, Illinois, Fugro Midwest, Inc., St. Ann,
       MO, July 1, 1994.

38.    Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.3, Brick and Structural Clay Product
       Manufacturing, Final Report, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, August 1997.
11.3-20                              EMISSION FACTORS                                8/97
-------
11.4  Calcium Carbide Manufacturing

11.4.1 General

       Calcium carbide (CaC2) is manufactured by heating a lime and carbon mixture to 2000 to
2100°C (3632 to 3812CF) in an electric arc furnace.  At those temperatures, the lime is reduced by
carbon to calcium carbide and carbon monoxide (CO), according to the following reaction:

                                   CaO + 3C -» CaC2 + CO

Lime for the reaction is usually made by calcining limestone in a kiln at the plant site.  The sources
of carbon for the reaction are petroleum coke, metallurgical coke, and anthracite coal. Because
impurities in the furnace charge remain in the calcium carbide product, the  lime should contain no
more than 0.5 percent each of magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, and 0.004 percent
phosphorus.  Also, the coke charge should be low in ash and sulfur.  Analyses indicate that 0.2 to
1.0 percent ash and 5 to 6 percent sulfur are typical in petroleum coke.  About 991 kilograms (kg)
(2,185 pounds [lb]) of lime, 683 kg (1,506 Ib) of  coke, and 17 to 20 kg  (37 to 44 Ib) of electrode
paste are required to produce 1 megagram (Mg) (2,205 lb) of calcium carbide.

       The process for manufacturing calcium carbide is illustrated in Figure 11.4-1. Moisture is
removed from coke in a coke dryer, while limestone  is converted to lime in a lime kiln.  Fines from
coke drying and lime operations  are removed and  may be recycled. The two charge materials are
then conveyed to an electric arc furnace, the primary piece of equipment used to produce calcium
carbide.  There are three basic types of electric arc furnaces:  the open furnace, in which the CO
burns to  carbon dioxide (CO2) when  it contacts  the air above the charge; the closed furnace, in which
the gas is collected from the furnace and is either  used as fuel for other processes or flared; and the
semi-covered furnace, in which mix is fed around the electrode openings in the primary furnace cover
resulting in mix  seals.  Electrode paste  composed  of coal tar pitch binder and anthracite coal is fed
into a steel casing where it is baked by  heat from  the electric arc furnace before being introduced into
the furnace. The baked electrode exits the steel casing just inside the furnace cover and is consumed
in the calcium carbide production process. Molten calcium carbide is tapped continuously from the
furnace into chills and is allowed to cool and solidify. Then, the solidified  calcium carbide goes
through primary crushing by jaw crushers, followed by secondary crushing and screening for size.
To prevent explosion hazards from acetylene generated by the reaction of calcium carbide with
ambient moisture, crushing and screening operations  may be performed in either an air-swept
environment before the calcium carbide has completely cooled, or in an inert atmosphere.  The
calcium carbide product is used primarily in generating acetylene and in desulfurizing iron.

11.4.2 Emissions And Controls

       Emissions from calcium carbide manufacturing  include paniculate matter (PM), sulfur oxides
(SOX), CO, CO2, and hydrocarbons.  Paniculate matter is emitted from a variety of equipment and
operations in the production of calcium carbide including the coke dryer, lime kiln, electric furnace,
tap fume vents,  furnace room vents, primary and secondary crushers, and conveying equipment.
(Lime kiln emission factors are presented in Section 11.17).  Paniculate matter emitted  from a
process source such as  an electric furnace is ducted to a PM  control device, usually a fabric filter or
wet scrubber. Fugitive PM from sources such as  tapping operations, the furnace room, and
conveyors is captured and sent to a PM control device.  The composition of the PM varies according


1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                               11.4-1
-------
          PM emissions
          Gaseous emissions
                              Limestone
                        Coke
      To
      Flare
                                          Primary
                                           Fuel
                        Furnace
                         Room
                         Vents

                   SCC 3-05-004-03
                         Tap
                         Fume
                         Vents

                   SCC 3-05-004-04
                                                          Coke
                                                          Dryer
                                                     SCC 3-05-004-02
             Electric
               Arc
             Furnace

         SCC 3-05-004-01
                     (3)
                      A
             Primary
             Crushing
         SCC 3-05-004-05
                                             Secondary
                                              Crushing
                                         SCC 3-05-004-05
                                       Acetylene
                                       Generation
                                          or
                                      Cyanamide
                                       Production
            Figure 11.4-1.  Process flow diagram for calcium carbide manufacturing.
                            (SCC = Source Classification Code).
11.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
to the specific equipment or operation, but the primary components are calcium and carbon
compounds, with significantly smaller amounts of magnesium compounds.

        Sulfur oxides may be emitted both by the electric furnace from volatilization and oxidation of
sulfur in the coke feed, and by the coke dryer and lime kiln from fuel combustion.  These process
sources are not controlled specifically for SOX emissions. Carbon monoxide is a byproduct of
calcium carbide production in the electric furnace.  Carbon monoxide emissions to the atmosphere are
usually negligible.  In open furnaces, CO is oxidized to CO2, thus eliminating CO emissions. In
closed furnaces, a portion of the generated CO is burned in the flames surrounding the furnace charge
holes, and the remaining CO is either used as fuel for other processes or is flared. In semi-covered
furnaces, the CO that is generated is either used as  fuel for the lime kiln or other  processes,  or is
flared.

        The only potential source of hydrocarbon emissions  from the manufacture of calcium carbide
is the coal tar pitch binder in the furnace electrode paste.  Since the maximum volatiles content in the
electrode paste is about 18 percent, the electrode paste represents only a small potential source of
hydrocarbon emissions.  In closed furnaces, actual hydrocarbon emissions  from the consumption of
electrode paste typically are negligible because of high furnace operating temperature and flames
surrounding the furnace charge holes.  In open furnaces, hydrocarbon emissions are expected to be
negligible because of high furnace operating temperatures and the presence of excess oxygen above
the furnace. Hydrocarbon  emissions  from semi-covered  furnaces are also  expected to be negligible
because of high furnace operating temperatures.

        Tables  11.4-1  and 11.4-2 give controlled and uncontrolled emission factors in metric and
English units, respectively, for various processes in the manufacture of calcium carbide. Controlled
factors are based on test data and permitted emissions for operations with the fabric filters and wet
scrubbers that are typically used to control PM emissions in calcium carbide manufacturing.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.4-3
-------
  O
  z
  e
  D
  Z
  2
  o
  u

  g
  s
  o
    w

    d
      Di

      I
      tu
p-
z
o
So   z
2   o

u   ^
 .   s
  c

& 00








3
cct
c
a














S^~.
•a
"O u
'E  *n

£L* ^5
n~i **^
•3 oo
|s

JS A
UH

XT
£
I



Q "Iso
z Z








"^ D
• y




bfi
z S
d






M

*
S S




o
z








Q
Z





a
z






o
I/I

d









•o
^^
9
^
9
CO
O
\J
Q
Electric arc furnace main stack with scrubber




Eoo
Z








Q
Z





Q
Z




^4

w)
C^
o
d






o
c

,CC
^*^

•|
^
Ui
o
1
S
cm
.1?
Electric arc furnace and calcium carbide cool
filter (SCC 3-05-004-_)d




Q
z








^0
~*





D







**•
CD
«

















?T
§
U
lM
4)
i




Q Q
Z Z








•< O
z z





Q Q
Z Z






c
CTI
-H
d ^
*-*














^^
ts
Q
Coke dryer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-004-
Fumace room vents (SCC 3-05-004-03)




Q Q
Z Z








Q Q
Z Z





Q Q
z z






c e
t~~ r~
o o
d d













J^
o
S ^
0 0
>A •t
9 8
CJ O
Q ^
u tJ
0 «
1 E
«S a
- 1
•^  en
I 1
2 *
D E
e ^
C B,
3 5T
u, H




< <
Z Z








< •<
Z Z





Q Q
Z Z





c
»/•> c

o «
d d






^^

0
i
ii y*"s
9 9
en 9
U §
U ^
t^ U
fi U

O -•
^ 1
GS Q
O 00
w 00
ll
^ 1
t£ u

' &
§ *s S S
T3 > '5b ws
S|ll
o ti ca
M n S
E " S
V3 C T3 T3 rv
bM ^" f*J ii.
o o _S E
*j ^3 c -S S
.* w || 5 u ai
^^ ai ^^ ^S -^
. ^ Q < 0, 0

•2 LXJ U_r C
2 ' - - 0 3
e *-  c w oj
s 1 1 2 o a
'^ ^ .a ° t; « -o u
|<3 «s J.s lg
^.gc-CC-^ va P
^ • " } *-^ cS ^ "^
"c jg " i- _E " c (^
Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, i
furnace - coke and lime; coke dryer - co
charging conveyor - coke and lime. NA
Filterable PM is that collected on or bef<
Condensable PM is that collected in the
Emission factors applicable to open furn
Reference 4.
From previous AP-42 section; reference
References 8,13. EMISSION FACTOR
Reference 13.
erf _D O "O O ^— 60 JS
































"8
CJ
3
•o
O
t-l
Q.

MM
IE
S
1
13
o
V.
o
Reference 12; emission factor in kg/Mg
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
-•—j -^














































Reference 12.
Reference 1.
E c
11.4-4
                             EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------

u
S
D
D
_)
u
c*
o
UH
ION FACTORS
2

w
^
'S
D
A
"60
B
w
b
at

O
•&
U
.
O
z
FACTOR RATl
Z
O
l«4
C^l
1/3
§






  CN
/-v
rf^ 2
U i



8
r2 ^
O 2
*" lo
<3 o
1


-2 S
^2 0^ ^^
ij!

° o ^
^ J3

x
ft
C
- 2
2 £
j§ ^
S







en
£

Q





^o
rn






O








<3









-o_^
O
U
1
_g
u
o
ft
a
o
S

"*!» D
Z z




D Q
Z Z






5S, ^
C Q
6 *




W» fl>
fO O
vo 10
o' o






"9^
9 "5^
8 ^
! !
5J ^
w U
~ u
« £<
t£3 IJ
1 1
1 1
O O
2 S
VI U>
.S .S
II
-a .2
o o
A cC
0 0
'£ 'S
fjq rjj

00
Z




Q
Z






Q
Z




»
^^
t*-
O





^

^s
•S
1
1
1
u
13
1
u
10 P
|8
OJ c/5
O ""^
'S «
o **
w

Q
Z




"•Q
CO






Q
Z





• t t
o
CS









cp
w
•o
V

Q
Z




<;
Z






Q
Z




c

CS
o









| Coke dryer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-004-02)

Q
Z




Q
Z






Q
Z







VO
CS









9
u
u
Q
01
I
D
1
tt.

Q
Z




P
Z






Q
Z




c
••t

O









Furnace room vents with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-004-03)

Q <
Z Z




Q <
Z Z






Q Q
Z Z




e e

^H i— i
0 0






§
I
o
S
o
^ u
O ^^
4 S
S j|
PI ^
y S
S 60
•3 -S
O 3
•c c
•i °
S -§
^ §
c K
^ *tD
1 >,
•2 I
s-l
H OH

<;
Z




<;
Z






Q
Z




e
CS
CS
o







^O
s
| Circular charging conveyor with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-004-
o E
'S .2

13 o
•J * §

'i "1 ^
s -^
iT O
•3 .s u
£ ~
c o> .S
_J W "T? CO
T? J3 w
fll Ql «*M ^^
1-^-2? 60
c o *3\ ci
a - s 1
~ = n E
c o> H «s
3 > M ^
•a C 
carbide; charging conveyor - coke and lime. NA = n
Classification Code.
b Filterable PM is that collected on or before the filter o
c Condensable PM is that collected in the impinger porti
d Emission factors applicable to open furnaces using pet
e Reference 4.
f From previous AP-42 section; reference not specified.
g References 8,13. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
h Reference 13.
] Reference 12; emission factor in kg/Mg of calcium cai
k EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.


































m Reference 12.
n Reference 1.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.4-5
-------
References For Section 11.4

1.     Permits To Operate:  Airco Carbide, Louisville, Kentucky, Jefferson County Air Pollution
       Control District, Louisville, KY, December 16, 1980.

2.     Manufacturing Or Processing Operations: Airco Carbide, Louisville, Kentucky, Jefferson
       County Air Pollution Control District, Louisville, KY, September 1975.

3.     Written communication from A. J. Miles, Radian Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC, to
       Douglas Cook, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA, August 20, 1981.

4.     Furnace Offgas Emissions Survey:  Airco Carbide, Louisville, Kentucky, Environmental
       Consultants, Inc., Clarksville, IN,  March 17, 1975.

5.     J. W. Frye, "Calcium Carbide Furnace Operation," Electric Furnace Conference Proceedings,
       American Institute of Mechanical Engineers, NY, December 9-11, 1970.

6.     The Louisville Air Pollution Study, U.  S. Department of Health and Human Services,
       Robert A. Taft Center,  Cincinnati, OH, 1961.

7.     R. N. Shreve and J. A. Brink, Jr., Chemical Process Industries, Fourth Edition,  McGraw-
       Hill Company, NY, 1977.

8.     J. H.  Stuever, Paniculate Emissions -  Electric Carbide Furnace Test Report:  Midwest
       Carbide, Pryor, Oklahoma, Stuever and Associates, Oklahoma City, OK, April 1978.

9.     L. Thomson, Paniculate Emissions Test Repon:  Midwest Carbide, Keokuk, Iowa, Being
       Consultants, Inc., Moline, IL, July 1,  1980.

10.    D. M. Kirkpatrick, "Acetylene from Calcium Carbide Is an Alternate Feedstock Route," Oil
       And Gas Journal, June  7, 1976.

11.    L. Clarke and R. L. Davidson, Manual For Process Engineering Calculations, Second
       Edition, McGraw-Hill Company, NY, 1962.

12.    Test Report:  Paniculate Emissions-Electric Carbide Furnace,  Midwest Carbide Corporation,
       Pryor, Oklahoma," Stuever and Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 1978.

13.    Written communication from C. McPhee, State of Ohio EPA,  Twinsburg, Ohio, to
       R. Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, March  16,  1993.
11.4-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
11.5  Refractory Manufacturing

11.5.1  Process Description1"2

        Refractories are materials that provide linings for high-temperature furnaces and other
processing units.  Refractories must be able to withstand physical wear, high temperatures (above
538°C [1000°F]), and corrosion by chemical  agents. There are two general classifications of
refractories, clay  and nonclay. The six-digit source classification code (SCC) for refractory
manufacturing is 3-05-005.  Clay refractories  are produced from fireclay (hydrous silicates of
aluminum) and alumina (57 to 87.5 percent).  Other clay  minerals used in the production of
refractories include kaolin, bentonite, ball clay,  and common clay.  Nonclay refractories are produced
from a composition of alumina (<87.5 percent), mullite,  chromite, magnesite, silica, silicon carbide,
zircon,  and other nonclays.

        Refractories are produced in two basic forms, formed objects, and unformed granulated or
plastic compositions.  The preformed products are called bricks and shapes.  These products are used
to form the walls, arches, and floor tiles of various high-temperature  process equipment.  Unformed
compositions include mortars, gunning  mixes, castables (refractory concretes), ramming mixes, and
plastics. These products are cured  in place to form a monolithic, internal structure after application.

        Refractory manufacturing involves four  processes: raw material processing, forming, firing,
and final processing.  Figure 11.5-1 illustrates the refractory manufacturing process. Raw material
processing consists  of crushing and grinding raw materials, followed  if necessary by size classification
and raw materials calcining and drying.  The  processed raw material  then may be dry-mixed with
other minerals and chemical compounds, packaged,  and shipped as product.  All of these processes
are not  required for some refractory products.

        Forming consists of mixing the raw materials and forming them into the desired shapes.  This
process frequently occurs under wet or  moist  conditions.  Firing involves heating the refractory
material to high temperatures  in a periodic (batch) or continuous tunnel kiln to form the ceramic bond
that gives the product its refractory properties.  The final processing stage involves milling, grinding,
and sandblasting of the finished product.  This step keeps the product in correct shape and size after
thermal expansion has occurred.  For certain products, final processing may also include product
impregnation with tar and pitch, and final packaging.

        Two other types of refractory processes  also warrant discussion.  The first is production of
fused products. This process  involves using an  electric arc furnace to melt the refractory raw
materials, then pouring the melted materials into sand-forming molds. Another type of refractory
process is ceramic fiber production. In this process, calcined kaolin is melted in an electric arc
furnace. The molten clay is either  fiberized in a blowchamber with a centrifuge device or is dropped
into an  air jet and immediately blown into fine strands. After the blowchamber, the ceramic fiber
may then be conveyed to an oven for curing,  which adds  structural rigidity to the fibers.  During the
curing process, oils are used to lubricate both the fibers and the machinery used to handle and  form
the fibers.  The production of ceramic fiber for  refractory material  is  very similar to the production of
mineral wool.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.5-1
-------

TRANSPORTING

1 9
V T
STORAGE
1 ©
W *
CRUSHING/
GRINDING
(SCC 3-OS-OQ5-02)
1 ©
W *
SCREENING/
CLASSIFYING
1 ©
W ^
STORAGE
1
MIXING
1
FORMING
1 @©
~\lj A A
DRYING
(SCC 3-05-005-01. -08)
I ©0
X A A
FIRING
(SCC 3-05-005-07. -09)
(T) PM EMISSIONS
(j2) GASEOUS EMISSIONS

?
WEATHERING (OPTIONAL)
< 	
? ?
	 *" CALCINING/ ,r,DTIOM4, !
DRYING (OPTIONAL)
•< 	 (SCC 3-05-005-01 . -06)


A A
^ DRY-WIXING/ 	 ». PACKAGING 	 T
X BLENDING * HAGKAOINb 1
(OPTIONAL)





t t i
>rr-u-jiM^ "^ MILLING -^ ~i iirritjr
COOLING ^ FINISHING ^ ^ PINO
11.5-2
Figure 11.5-1. Refractory manufacturing process flow diagram.1
         (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                      1/95
-------
 11.5.2  Emissions And Controls2"6

        The primary pollutant of concern in refractory manufacturing is paniculate matter (PM).
 Paniculate matter emissions occur during the crushing, grinding, screening, calcining, and drying of
 the raw materials;  the drying and firing of the unfired "green" refractory bricks, tar and pitch
 operations; and finishing of the refractories (grinding, milling, and sandblasting).

        Emissions from crushing and grinding operations generally are controlled with fabric filters.
 Product recovery cyclones followed by wet scrubbers are used on calciners and dryers to control PM
 emissions from these sources. The primary sources of PM emissions are the refractory firing kilns
 and electric arc furnaces. Paniculate matter emissions from kilns generally are not controlled.
 However, at least one refractory manufacturer currently  uses a multiple-stage scrubber to control kiln
 emissions. Paniculate matter emissions from electric arc furnaces generally are controlled by a
 baghouse.  Paniculate removal of 87 percent and fluoride removal of greater than 99 percent have
 been reported at one facility that uses an ionizing wet scrubber.

        Pollutants emitted as  a result of combustion in the calcining and kilning processes include
 sulfur dioxide (SO^, nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and
 volatile organic compounds (VOC). The emission of SOX is also a function of the sulfur content of
 certain clays and the plaster added to refractory materials to induce brick setting. Fluoride  emissions
 occur during the kilning process because of fluorides in  the raw materials. Emission factors for
 filterable PM, PM-10, S02, NOX, and CO2 emissions from rotary dryers  and calciners processing fire
 clay are presented  in Tables 11.5-1 and 11.5-2.  Particle size distributions  for filterable paniculate
 emissions from rotary dryers and calciners processing fire clay are presented in Table 11.5-3.

        Volatile organic compounds emitted from tar and pitch operations generally are controlled by
 incineration, when inorganic particulates are not significant. Based on  the expected destruction of
 organic aerosols, a control efficiency in excess of 95 percent can be achieved using incinerators.

        Chromium is used in several types of nonclay refractories, including chrome-magnesite,
 (chromite-magnesite), magnesia-chrome, and chrome-alumina.  Chromium compounds are emitted
 from the ore crushing, grinding, material drying and storage, and brick firing and finishing processes
 used in producing these types of refractories.  Tables 11.5-4 and 11.5-5 present emission factors for
 emissions of filterable PM,  filterable PM-10, hexavalent chromium, and total chromium from the
 drying and firing of chromite-magnesite ore.  The emission factors are  presented in units of kilograms
 of pollutant emitted per  megagram of chromite ore processed (kg/Mg Cr03) (pounds  per ton of
 chromite ore processed [Ib/ton CrO3]). Particle size distributions for the drying and firing of
 chromite-magnesite ore are summarized in Table 11.5-6.

        A number  of elements in trace concentrations including aluminum, beryllium, calcium,
 chromium, iron, lead, mercury, magnesium, manganese, nickel, titanium,  vanadium, and zinc  also
 are emitted in trace amounts by the drying, calcining, and firing operations of all types of refractory
 materials.  However, data are inadequate to develop emission factors for these  elements.

       Emissions of PM from electric arc furnaces producing fused cast refractory material are
 controlled with baghouses.  The efficiency of the fabric filters often exceeds 99.5 percent. Emissions
 of PM from the ceramic fiber process also are controlled with fabric filters, at  an efficiency similar to
that found in the fused cast  refractory process. To control blowchamber emissions, a fabric filter is
used to remove small pieces of fine threads formed in the fiberization stage.  The efficiency of fabric
filters in similar control devices exceeds 99 percent.  Small particles of ceramic fiber are broken off
1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                              11.5-3
-------
or separated during the handling and forming of the fiber blankets in the curing oven.  An oil is used
in this process, and higher molecular weight organics may be emitted.  However, these emissions
generally are controlled with a fabric filter followed by incineration, at an expected overall efficiency
in excess of 95 percent.
            Table 11.5-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY
                             MANUFACTURING:  FIRE CLAYa

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Rotary dryerc
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber0
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
SO2
ND

ND


ND

ND

ND


3.8d

NOX
ND

ND


ND

ND

ND


0.87d

CO2
15

15


15

300C

300C


300C

Filterable13
PM
33

5.6


0.052

62d

31f


0.15d

PM-10
8.1

2.6


ND

14e

ND


0.031s

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.  All emission factors in kg/Mg of raw
  material feed. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train. PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Reference 3.
d References 4-5.
e Reference 4.
f Reference 5.
 11.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
 Table 11.5-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                                      FIRE CLAYa

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Rotary dryer0
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone0
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber6
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
SO2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.6d
NOX
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7d
CO2
30
30
30
600C
600C
ND
Filterable15
PM PM-10
65 16
11 5.1
0.11 ND
120d 30e
61f ND
0.30d 0.062e
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.  All emission factors in Ib/ton of raw
  material feed.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA  Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Reference 3.
d References 4-5.
e Reference 4.
f Reference 5.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.5-5
-------
           Table 11.5-3.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR REFRACTORY
                           MANUFACTURING:  FIRECLAY1

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

Diameter
Om)
Uncontrolled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Multiclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone/Scrubber
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Rotary Dryers (SCC 3-05-005-01)b
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
2.5
10
24
37
51
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
31
46
60
68
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Rotary Calciners (SCC 3-05-005-06)°
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
3.1
4.1
6.9
17
34
50
62
13
14
23
39
50
63
81
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
43
46
55
69
81
91
a For filterable PM only. ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 3.
c References 4-5 (uncontrolled).  Reference 4 (multiclone-controlled).  Reference 5 (cyclone/scrubber-
  controlled).
11.5-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
 Table 11.5-4 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                             CHROMITE-MAGNESITE ORE3

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D (except as noted)
Process
Rotary dryer (SCC 3-05-005-08)
Rotary dryer with
cyclone and fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-005-08)
Tunnel kiln (SCC 3-05-005-09)
Filterableb
PM
0.83
0.15
0.41
PM-10
0.20
ND
0.34
Chromium0
Hexavalent
3.8xlO-5
1.9xlO-5
0.0087
Total
0.035
0.064
0.13
a Reference 6. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions.  Factors for filterable PM are kg/Mg of
  material processed.  Factors for chrominum are kg/Mg of chromite ore processed.
  SCC = Source Classification Code for chromium.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution and
  filterable PM emission factor.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
 Table 11.5-5 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                            CHROMITE-MAGNESITE OREa

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Rotary dryer (SCC 3-05-005-08)
Rotary dryer with
cyclone and fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-005-08)
Tunnel kiln (SCC 3-05-005-09)
Filterable6
PM
1.7
0.30
0.82
PM-10
0.41
ND
0.69
Chromium0
Hexavalent
7.6xlO-5
3.7xlO'5
0.017
Total
0.70
0.13
0.27
a Reference 6. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions.  Factors for filterable PM are Ib/ton of
  material processed.  Factors for chromium are Ib/ton of chromite ore processed.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution and
  filterable PM emission factor.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.5-7
-------
  Table 11.5-6.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                   CHROMTTE-MAGNESITE ORE DRYING AND FIRINGa
Diameter
(fim)
Filterable PMb
Cumulative % Less
Than Diameter
Hexavalent Chromiumc
Cumulative % Less
Than Diameter
Total Chromium0
Cumulative % Less
Than Diameter
Uncontrolled rotary dryer (SCC 3-05-005-01)
1
2
10
1.2
13
24
3.5
39
64
0.8
9
19
Uncontrolled tunnel kiln (SCC 3-05-005-07)
1
5
10
71
78
84
71
81
84
84
91
93
a Reference 6.  For filterable PM only. SCC =  Source Classification Code.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.


or separated during the handling and forming of the fiber blankets in the curing oven.  An oil is used
in this process, and higher molecular weight organics may be emitted.  However, these emissions
generally are controlled with a fabric filter followed by incineration, at an expected overall efficiency
in excess of 95 percent.

References For Section 11.5

1.     Refractories, The Refractories Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1987.

2.     Source Category Survey:  Refractory Industry, EPA-450/3-80-006, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1980.

3.     Calciners And Dryers Emission Test Report, North American Refractories Company, Farber,
       Missouri, EMB Report 84-CDR-14, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, March 1984.

4.     Emission Test Report: Plant A, Document No. C-7-12, Confidential Business Information
       Files, BSD Project No. 81/08, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, June 13, 1983.

5.     Calciners And Dryers Emission Test Report, A. P. Green Company, Mexico, Missouri, EMB
       Report 83-CDR-l, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1983.
 11.5-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
6.     Chromium Screening Study Test Report, Harbison-Walker Refractories, Baltimore, Maryland,
       EMB Report 85-CHM-12, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, June 1985.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.5-9
-------
11.6  Portland Cement Manufacturing

11.6.1  Process Description1"7

        Portland cement is a fine powder, gray or white in color, that consists of a mixture of
hydraulic cement materials comprising primarily calcium silicates, aluminates and aluminoferrites.
More than 30 raw materials are known to be used in the manufacture of portland cement, and these
materials can be divided into four distinct categories:  calcareous, siliceous, argillaceous, and
ferrifrous. These materials are chemically combined through pyroprocessing and subjected to
subsequent mechanical processing operations to form gray and white portland cement. Gray portland
cement is used for structural applications and is the more common type of cement produced. White
portland cement has lower iron and manganese contents than gray portland cement and is used
primarily for decorative purposes. Portland cement manufacturing plants are part of hydraulic cement
manufacturing,  which also includes natural, masonry, and pozzolanic cement. The six-digit Source
Classification Code (SCC) for portland cement plants with wet process kilns is 3-05-006, and the
six-digit SCC for plants with dry process kilns is 3-05-007.

        Portland cement accounts for 95 percent of the hydraulic cement production in the United
States.  The balance of domestic cement production is primarily masonry cement.   Both  of these
materials are produced in  portland cement manufacturing plants.  A diagram of the process, which
encompasses production of both portland and masonry  cement, is shown in Figure 11.6-1. As shown
in the figure, the process can be divided into the following primary components:  raw materials
acquisition and  handling, kiln feed preparation, pyroprocessing, and finished cement grinding.  Each
of these process components is described briefly below. The primary  focus of this discussion is on
pyroprocessing operations, which constitute the core of a portland cement plant.

        The initial production step in portland cement manufacturing is raw materials acquisition.
Calcium, the element of highest concentration in portland cement, is obtained from a variety of
calcareous raw materials,  including limestone, chalk, marl, sea shells, aragonite, and an  impure
limestone known as "natural cement rock".  Typically, these raw materials are obtained from open-
face quarries, but underground mines or dredging operations are also used. Raw materials vary from
facility to facility.  Some quarries produce relatively pure limestone that requires the use of additional
raw materials to provide the correct  chemical blend in the raw mix. In other quarries, all or part of
the noncalcarious constituents are found naturally in the limestone.  Occasionally, pockets of pyrite,
which  can significantly increase emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), are found in deposits  of limestone,
clays, and shales used as raw materials for portland cement.  Because  a large fraction (approximately
one third) of the mass of this primary material is lost as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the kiln, portland
cement plants are located close to  a calcareous raw material source whenever possible. Other
elements included in the raw mix are silicon, aluminum, and iron. These materials are obtained from
ores and minerals such as sand, shale, clay, and iron ore.  Again, these materials are most commonly
from open-pit quarries or  mines, but they may be dredged or excavated from underwater deposits.

        Either gypsum or  natural  anhydrite, both of which are forms of calcium sulfate,  is introduced
to the process during the finish grinding operations described below.  These materials, also excavated
from quarries or mines, are generally purchased from an external source, rather than obtained directly
from a captive operation by the cement plant. The portland cement manufacturing industry is relying
increasingly on replacing virgin materials  with waste materials or byproducts from other
manufacturing operations, to the extent that such replacement can be implemented without adversely


1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.6-1
-------
                                                                          o
                                                                          43
                                                                          3
                                                                          E o>
                                                                          s^
                                                                          •o O

                                                                          S g
                                                                          1-2
                                                                          O CQ
                                                                          C^ ^
                                                                          S -
                                                                          § u
                                                                     05
                                                                     CO
                                                                     UJ
                                                                     O
                                                                     O
                                                                     CL
                                                                     a.
                                                                          g u
                                                                          8 o
                                                                          o>
                                                                          L^
                                                                          3






CO
o
CO
co
UJ
Q.
0*-



co
z
o
co
co
UJ
co
3
GASEO
(CN)-«
Q.
CO
CO
CO
UJ
CJ
O
IE
Q.
^
^
O
p
a.
O
1
I-- 1
1
QUARRYING
RAW
MATERIALS

0-4---

PROCESSING RAW
MATERIALS (PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY
CRUSHING)
®©@©©(5)©(5)
11.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
affecting plant operations, product quality or the environment.  Materials that have been used include
fly ash, mill scale, and metal smelting slags.

        The second step in portland cement manufacture is preparing the raw mix, or kiln feed, for
the pyroprocessing operation.  Raw material preparation includes a variety of blending and sizing
operations that are designed to provide a feed with appropriate chemical and physical properties. The
raw material processing operations differ somewhat for wet and dry processes, as described below.

        Cement raw materials are received with an initial moisture content varying from 1 to more
than 50 percent.  If the facility uses dry process kilns, this moisture is usually reduced to less than
1 percent before or during grinding.  Drying alone can be accomplished in impact dryers, drum
dryers, paddle-equipped rapid dryers, air separators, or autogenous mills.  However, drying can also
be accomplished during grinding in ball-and-tube mills or roller mills. While thermal energy for
drying can be supplied by exhaust gases from separate, direct-fired coal, oil,  or gas burners, the most
efficient and widely used source of heat for drying is the hot exit gases from  the pyroprocessing
system.

        Materials transport associated with dry raw milling systems can be accomplished by a variety
of mechanisms, including screw conveyors, belt conveyors, drag conveyors, bucket elevators, air
slide conveyors, and pneumatic conveying systems.  The dry raw mix is pneumatically blended and
stored in specially constructed silos until it is  fed to the pyroprocessing system.

        In the wet process, water  is added to the raw mill during the grinding of the raw materials in
ball or tube mills, thereby producing a pumpable slurry, or slip, of approximately 65 percent  solids.
The slurry is agitated, blended, and stored in various kinds and sizes of cylindrical tanks or slurry
basins until it is fed to the pyroprocessing system.

        The heart  of the portland cement manufacturing process is the pyroprocessing system.  This
system transforms the raw mix  into clinkers, which are gray, glass-hard, spherically shaped nodules
that range from 0.32 to 5.1 centimeters (cm) (0.125 to 2.0 inches [in.]) in diameter.   The chemical
reactions and physical processes that constitute the transformation are quite complex, but they can be
viewed conceptually as the following sequential events:

        1.  Evaporation of free water;

        2.  Evolution of combined water in the argillaceous components;

        3.  Calcination of the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to calcium oxide (CaO);

        4.  Reaction of CaO  with  silica to form dicalcium silicate;

        5.  Reaction of CaO  with  the aluminum and iron-bearing constituents to form the liquid
           phase;

        6.  Formation  of the clinker nodules;

        7.  Evaporation of volatile constituents (e. g., sodium,  potassium, chlorides, and sulfates);
           and

        8.  Reaction of excess CaO with dicalcium silicate to form tricalcium silicate.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                               11.6-3
-------
       This sequence of events may be conveniently divided into four stages, as a function of
location and temperature of the materials  in the rotary kiln.

       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 oxides of silicon, aluminum, and iron;

       3.  Calcination, during which carbon dioxide (CO2) is evolved, between 900°C (1650°F) and
           982°C (1800°F), to form CaO; and

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

       Rotary kilns are long, cylindrical, slightly inclined furnaces that are lined with refractory to
protect the steel shell and retain heat within the kiln. The raw material mix enters the kiln at the
elevated end, and the combustion fuels generally are introduced into the lower end of the kiln in a
countercurrent manner.  The materials are continuously and slowly moved to the lower end by
rotation of the kiln. As they move down the kiln, the raw materials are changed to cementitious or
hydraulic minerals as a result of the increasing temperature within the kiln. The most commonly used
kiln fuels are coal, natural gas, and occasionally oil. The use of supplemental fuels such as waste
solvents, scrap rubber, and petroleum coke has  expanded in recent years.

       Five different processes are used  in the  portland cement industry to accomplish the
pyroprocessing step: the wet process, the dry process (long dry process),  the semidry process,  the
dry process with a preheater,  and the dry process with  a preheater/precalciner. Each of these
processes accomplishes the physical/chemical steps defined above.  However, the processes vary with
respect to equipment design, method of operation, and  fuel consumption.  Generally, fuel
consumption decreases in the order of the processes listed.  The paragraphs below briefly describe the
process, starting with the wet process and then noting differences in the other processes.

       In the wet process and long dry process, all of the pyroprocessing activity occurs in the rotary
kiln.  Depending on the process type, kilns have length-to-diameter ratios  in the range of 15:1 to
40:1. While some wet process kilns may be as long as 210 m (700 ft), many wet process kilns and
all dry process kilns are shorter.  Wet process and long dry process pyroprocessing systems consist
solely of the simple rotary kiln.  Usually, a system of chains is provided at the feed end of the kiln in
the drying  or preheat zones to improve heat  transfer from the hot gases to the solid materials.  As the
kiln rotates, the chains are raised and exposed to the hot gases. Further kiln rotation causes the hot
chains to fall into the cooler materials at the bottom of the kiln, thereby transferring the heat to the
load.

       Dry process pyroprocessing systems  have been improved in thermal efficiency and productive
capacity through the addition  of one or more cyclone-type preheater vessels in the gas stream exiting
the rotary kiln. This system is called the preheater process.  The vessels are arranged vertically, in
series, and are supported by a structure known  as the preheater tower. Hot exhaust gases from the
rotary kiln pass countercurrently through the downward-moving raw materials in  the preheater
vessels. Compared to the simple rotary kiln, the heat transfer rate is significantly increased, the
degree of heat utilization is greater, and the process time is markedly reduced by  the intimate contact
of the solid particles with the hot gases.  The improved heat transfer allows the length of the  rotary
kiln to be reduced.  The hot gases from the preheater tower  are often used as a source of heat for

11.6-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
drying raw materials in the raw mill.  Because the catch from the mechanical collectors, fabric filters,
and/or electrostatic precipitators (ESP) that follow the raw mill is returned to the process, these
devices are considered to be production machines as well as pollution control devices.

        Additional thermal efficiencies and productivity gains have been achieved by diverting some
fuel to a calciner vessel at the base of the preheater tower. This system is called the
preheater/precalciner process.  While a substantial amount of fuel is used  in the precalciner, at least
40 percent of the thermal energy is required in the rotary kiln. The amount of fuel that is introduced
to the calciner is determined by the availability and source of the oxygen for combustion in the
calciner.  Calciner systems sometimes use lower-quality fuels (e. g., less-volatile matter) as a means
of improving process economics.

        Preheater and precalciner kiln systems often have an  alkali bypass system between the feed
end of the rotary kiln and the preheater tower to remove the  undesirable volatile constituents.
Otherwise, the volatile constituents condense in the preheater tower and subsequently recirculate to
the kiln.  Buildup of these condensed materials can restrict process  and gas flows.  The alkali  content
of portland cement is often limited by product specifications  because excessive alkali metals  (i. e.,
sodium and potassium) can cause deleterious reactions in concrete.  In a bypass system, a portion of
the kiln exit gas stream is withdrawn and quickly cooled by air or water to condense the volatile
constituents to fine particles.  The solid particles, containing  the undesirable volatile constituents, are
removed from the gas stream  and thus the process by fabric filters and ESPs.

        The semidry process is a variation of the dry process. In the semidry process, the water is
added to the dry raw mix in a pelletizer to form moist nodules or pellets.  The pellets then are
conveyed on a moving grate preheater before being fed to the rotary kiln.   The pellets are dried and
partially calcined by hot kiln exhaust gases passing through the moving grate.

        Regardless of the type of pyroprocess used, the last component of the pyroprocessing system
is the clinker cooler. 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.  The more common types of clinker coolers are
(1) reciprocating grate, (2) planetary, and (3) rotary.  In these coolers, the clinker is cooled from
about 1100°C to 93 °C (2000°F to 200°F) by ambient air that passes through the clinker and into the
rotary kiln for use as combustion air.  However, in the reciprocating grate cooler, lower clinker
discharge temperatures are achieved by passing an additional quantity of air through the clinker.
Because this additional air cannot be utilized in the kiln for efficient combustion, it  is vented to the
atmosphere, used for drying coal or raw materials, or used as a  combustion air source for the
precalciner.

        The final step in portland cement manufacturing involves a  sequence of blending and grinding
operations that transforms clinker to finished portland cement.  Up  to 5 percent gypsum or natural
anhydrite is added to the clinker during grinding to control the cement setting time, and other
specialty chemicals are added  as needed to impart specific product properties.  This finish milling is
accomplished almost exclusively in ball or tube mills.  Typically, finishing is conducted in a closed-
circuit system, with product sizing by air separation.

11.6.2  Emissions And Controls1'3"7

        Particulate matter (PM and PM-10), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), and CO2 are the primary  emissions in  the manufacture of portland  cement.  Small
quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), chlorine, and  hydrogen chloride

1/95                                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.6-5
-------
(HC1), also may be emitted. Emissions may also include residual materials from the fuel and raw
materials or products of incomplete combustion that are considered to be hazardous. Because some
facilities burn waste fuels, particularly spent solvents in the kiln, these systems also may emit small
quantities of additional hazardous organic pollutants.  Also, raw material feeds and fuels typically
contain trace amounts of heavy metals that may be emitted as a paniculate or vapor.

        Sources of PM at cement plants include (1) quarrying and crushing, (2) raw material storage,
(3) grinding and blending (in the dry process only), (4) clinker production, (5) finish grinding, and
(6) packaging and loading.  The  largest emission source of PM within cement plants is the
pyroprocessing system that includes the kiln and clinker cooler exhaust stacks. Often,  dust from the
kiln is collected and recycled into the kiln, thereby producing clinker from the dust.  However, if the
alkali content of the raw materials is  too high, some or all of the dust is discarded or leached before
being returned to the kiln.  In many instances, the maximum allowable cement alkali content of
0.6 percent (calculated as sodium oxide) restricts the amount of dust that can  be recycled.  Bypass
systems sometimes have a separate exhaust stack.  Additional sources of PM  are raw material storage
piles, conveyors, storage silos, and unloading facilities.  Emissions from portland cement plants
constructed or modified after August 17, 1971 are regulated to limit PM emissions from portland
cement kilns to 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 Ib/ton) of feed (dry basis), and to limit PM emissions from clinker
coolers to 0.050 kg/Mg (0.10 Ib/ton) of feed (dry basis).

        Oxides of nitrogen are generated during fuel combustion by oxidation of chemically-bound
nitrogen in the fuel and by thermal fixation of nitrogen in the combustion air. As flame temperature
increases, the amount of thermally generated NOX increases.  The amount of NOX generated from fuel
increases with the quantity of nitrogen in the fuel.  In the cement manufacturing process, NOX is
generated in both the burning zone of the kiln and the burning zone of a precalcining vessel.  Fuel
use affects the quantity and type  of NOX generated. For example, in the kiln, natural gas combustion
with a high flame temperature and low fuel nitrogen generates a larger quantity of NOX than does oil
or coal, which have higher fuel nitrogen but which burn with lower flame temperatures.  The
opposite may be true in a precalciner. Types of fuels used vary across the industry. Historically,
some combination of coal, oil, and natural gas was used, but over the last 15 years, most plants have
switched to coal, which generates less NOX than does oil or gas.  However, in recent years a number
of plants have switched to systems that burn a combination of coal and waste fuel.  The effect of
waste fuel use on NOX emissions is not clearly established.

        Sulfur dioxide may be generated both from the sulfur compounds in the raw materials and
from sulfur in the fuel.  The sulfur content of both raw materials and fuels varies from plant to plant
and with geographic location.  However, the alkaline nature of the cement provides for direct
absorption of S02 into the product, thereby mitigating the quantity of S02 emissions in the exhaust
stream. Depending on the process and the source of the sulfur, SO2 absorption ranges from about
70 percent to more than 95 percent.

        The CO2 emissions from portland cement manufacturing are generated by two  mechanisms.
As with most high-temperature,  energy-intensive industrial processes, combusting fuels to generate
process energy  releases substantial quantities of CO2.  Substantial quantities of CO2 also are
generated through calcining of limestone or other calcareous material.  This calcining process
thermally decomposes CaCO3 to CaO and  CO2. Typically, portland cement  contains the equivalent
of about 63.5 percent CaO.  Consequently, about 1.135 units of CaCO3 are required to produce 1
unit of cement, and the amount of CO2 released in the calcining process is about  500 kilograms (kg)
per Mg of portland cement produced (1,000 pounds [Ib] per ton of cement).  Total CO2 emissions
from the pyroprocess  depend on  energy consumption and generally fall  in the range of 0.85 to
1.35 Mg of CO2 per Mg of clinker.

11.6-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
       In addition to CO2 emissions, fuel combustion at portland cement plants can emit a wide
range of pollutants in smaller quantities.  If the combustion reactions do not reach completion, CO
and volatile organic pollutants, typically measured as total organic compounds (TOC), VOC, or
organic condensable particulate, can be emitted.  Incomplete combustion also can lead to emissions of
specific hazardous organic air pollutants, although these pollutants are generally emitted at
substantially lower levels than CO or TOC.

       Emissions of metal compounds from portland cement kilns can be grouped into three general
classes:  volatile metals, including mercury (Hg) and thallium (Tl); semivolatile metals,  including
antimony (Sb), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), zinc (Zn), potassium (K), and sodium (Na);
and refractory or nonvolatile metals, including barium (Ba), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As), nickel (Ni),
vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), and silver (Ag).  Although the partitioning of these
metal groups is affected by kiln operating conditions,  the refractory metals tend to concentrate in the
clinker, while the volatile and semivolatile metals tend to be discharged through the primary exhaust
stack and the bypass stack, respectively.

       Fugitive dust sources in the industry include quarrying and mining operations, vehicle traffic
during mineral extraction  and at the manufacturing site,  raw materials storage piles, and clinker
storage piles. The measures used to control emissions from these fugitive dust sources are
comparable to those used throughout the mineral products industries.  Vehicle traffic controls include
paving and road wetting.  Controls 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. Additional information on these control  measures
can be found in Chapter 13 of AP-42, "Miscellaneous Sources".

       Process fugitive emission sources include materials handling and transfer,  raw milling
operations in dry process facilities, and finish milling operations. Typically, emissions from these
processes are captured by a ventilation system and collected in fabric filters.  Some facilities use an
air pollution control system comprising one or more mechanical  collectors with a fabric  filter in
series. 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]).

       In the pyroprocessing units, PM emissions are controlled by fabric filters (reverse air, pulse
jet, or pulse plenum) and electrostatic precipitators (ESP).  Typical control  measures  for the kiln
exhaust are  reverse air fabric filters with an air-to-clodi ratio of 0.41:1 m3/min/m2 (1.5:1 acfm/ft2)
and ESP with a net surface collection  area of 1,140 to 1,620 m2/l,000 m3 (350 to 500 ft2/l,000 ft3).
These systems  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
filters also have been used to control clinker cooler emissions. Typical outlet PM loadings  are
identical  to those reported for kilns.

       Cement kiln systems have highly alkaline internal environments that can absorb up to
95 percent of potential  SO2 emissions. However,  in systems that have sulfide sulfur  (pyrites) in the
kiln  feed, the sulfur absorption rate may be as low as 70 percent without unique design considerations
or changes in raw materials. The cement kiln system itself has been determined to provide substantial
SO2 control. Fabric filters on cement kilns are also reported to absorb SO2.  Generally, substantial
control is not achieved.  An absorbing reagent (e.  g.,  CaO) must be present in the filter  cake for SO2
capture to occur.  Without the presence of water, which is undesirable in the operation of a fabric

1/95                                 Mineral Products  Industry                              11.6-7
-------
filter, CaCO3 is not an absorbing reagent.  It has been observed that as much as 50 percent of the
SO2 can be removed from the pyroprocessing system exhaust gases when this gas stream is used in a
raw mill for heat recovery and drying. In this case, moisture and calcium carbonate are
simultaneously present for sufficient time to accomplish the chemical reaction with SO2.

        Tables  11.6-1 and 11.6-2 present emission factors for PM emissions from portland cement
manufacturing kilns and clinker coolers.  Tables 11.6-3 and 11.6-4 present emission  factors for PM
emissions from raw material and product processing and handling.  Particle size distributions for
emissions from wet process and dry process kilns are presented in Table 11.6-5, and Table 11.6-6
presents the particle size distributions for emissions from clinker coolers. Emission  factors for SO2,
NOX, CO, CO2, and TOC emissions from portland cement kilns are summarized in Tables 11.6-7 and
11.6-8. Table  11.6-9 summarizes emission factors for other pollutant emissions from portland cement
kilns.

        Because of differences in the sulfur content of the raw material and fuel  and in process
operations, a mass balance for sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific
facility than the SO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.6-7 and 11.6-8.  In addition, CO2
emission factors estimated using a mass balance on carbon may be more  representative for a specific
facility than the CO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.6-7 and  11.6-8.
 11.6-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
  i
  u-
  D
  Z
  U]
  S
  u
  u

  Q a
  Z&5
  < O!
  J^
  i— _1
  So
  O O
  a; o
  Oi Oi
  O U
     o
  23
   c

   o


0
JJ
ca
c
u
g
O









jj
u













2 u 5
o
'£
Ml
O


~,
S: O Z
n H p
<« Cj H
Inorganic
l§i
guP
5 *C ^5
W ""

o

i
S

Hi
w "•


a.





V)
U
0




Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z





Q (I*1 UQ
G 1 '5 ^
Zoo d
Q Q



QR
(O

ft, ® Q G
- Z Z
Q O W U


00 ^t C3
"S-, d d d
.
u, >
£ 0
w oo
O C
§3 ! 1
W «S o
J= £ JSCU
4? "S *^ *£? ^? "S« ?r1 ^^
^b ? o is ^5 ? ^^ 
 c/)
£" £ "

o
z





Q
00
o
d







Q
Z




Q
Z

C
•=
M
VI
U
O
o
Ui
O.
.S4SS
p C o
U O I
Preheater/pr
with PM c-
(SCC 3-05
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-9
-------
   o
   a>

  1
  H

J2
.O
CD
§
•g
o
u






_£,
2

£



|§i
•1
1
O



III
a
1
E?
S
£
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
o

i


§*o
55 H 5
i2 o H

a.



GA
Sfl
8
2
a.







Q
Z



Q
X
00
i
b




Q
Z



Q
X
00
S
0



a.
•£ 2

S 9
§9
O (rj
S u
"d U
U ^"

Q
Z



Q
00
§
b




Q
Z



Q
1
b

u
0
3
•S
.0
JS ^
•£ ^
§'2 ,

1 9
u m
1 °
_C j/j
0 ""

Q



Q
O
I
b

Q
%
o
b



Q
1
b
2
£
1
"o
1
60 ^^

^ -
*-« O
O i
19
o en
S u
•£ u
^ S2,
O
                                      0
                                      CO
                                     u
                                     u
                                     C/5


                                     "8

                                     I
                                      3     «


                                     1     *
                                      I*
                                      n,

                                      fe
                                     ^
                                      o

                                     S
                                                                                                  Ov
      §

     1

      1-1
                                           "   "B.
                                                                                            CS
        • rs  -1
      ON c^ co  i
                                                                                                  o  o
                                                                                                  g  g
                                                                                               4)
                                      s •« <
g  S

w  u
00 .—
                                              O
                                      >->  en
                                     5  S  ^
                                     IS5 -
                                              4-.

                                     lst
                                        00
                                        U
                                            0 —
                                            o
                                            (U

                                                      CO


                                                      oT a\



                                                      >n in
                                                        *s  *s
                                                      — t~-
                                                      in co
                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                     CO

                                                                                                     o"
                                                                                                     CO
                                                                     0\
                                        .ii (X
                                         «
                                     CO


                                     ^ f""' n;
                                        »—i CO
                                                                                      -H r»
                                                                                      in co
      co
      CO

      o"
      CO
                                           —  toOOCJO
                                      O  M •'-'
                                        —
                                                             ooooooooooo
                                                             ccccccccccc

                                                             Wt-U-Uj  —  1-U.U.U.t.Uj
                                                              >  O W O  D
                                                              ; 04 05 OS  0(5

                                                              ._ -x   E   c
                                        as
 0}  O
(V] 04


«-  3
CO
CO

o"

^ °°'
 w -------
  o
  I
  a
  S
  u
  a
  < OS
  J W
  90
  a, u

  O uj
  to tii
  co Z

  oH
   c
   60


°o
3
a
%
G
1
O




•°0
3
£





111
o
'c
a
£?
O


|oi
£2 O B
o
1
J
111
o
i


Igg
Sii

a.







<«
i


QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q
zzzz zzzzz




a u uj a Q a
a -3. -a •& i ^ a a S
^ ~* CM cN en oo •jr •?• o
d d d d d d
Q Q Q
bo p.
>2 —
^- ® Q Q QOQQQ
" Z Z Z Z Z Z


QUUW QQQQO
>— .— . .* », O i- «
p^ vo c> So 'O in
t^ ^" C4 O C-i C^ CM
"Sddd ^dodd
en in
— CN
S

£s M
**-• 60 ^*H O

0. 'C « 0, 'C c
CO -2 o CO ^ 0
uj '.2 o tu <2 a 'C
X-K 5^ •£ ^ •£ *• ^ •£ ^ •£ ^ ^ w ^ li /^
^ *C ^ *5 ^ "^T rri ^ *C SO '"3 *O C^ CS CS
25 ^o ^o ?u^ ^o £o S ^ S •£ M
« i/"i tn in M *A w «r *o w in «i in *^3 m ^"" vn ••• *n
So go go g |S S9 539 -^9 •£«? f 9
kU kO feU fe'SO fcO bO B rj « cj nU
au o u 30 o ao Jo Jo Jo
t>co tSco 'Sco ^3cco j^co &*co n> co o co u co
^— £"- ^^ ^ "- Q^ Q— £•- £- £^

Q
Z





Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
3
00
o
d


&
CO
U
•§

_c
'Si
Preheater/precalcinei
(SCC 3-05-006-23)

Q a
z z




Q
O ^o
Z 1
c>

O O
z z


Q
N Q
d z




.*73 rz:
en en
eo en
-------






o
s
1
o
U





eg
s



^•4 rjj r«
igS
co (j H
|fc 2
'S
§>
o
•^
Hi
"5
OS
£?
o
c
III
o
i


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

°"




tn
o
1










Q
Z


Q
X
>o
r-
8
d

Q


Q
X
d




a.
CO
if
is
O (#•)
o U
•^ u
•~ 52-
U ^




Q
Z


Q
£
q
0

Q
Z


Q

^H
d

Ul
O
IS
u
•c
J>
<2

Is
" en
S o
•* u
•S 55,
O ^




Q
Z


o
8o
Q
d
Q
d


Q
I
d
LH
O
s
•8
^


If
ll
O fo
o 0
•* o
-S CO
O ^
                              o
                              on
                              U
                              U
                              &o



                              "8

                              1
                              •8
                              •o

                              8
                              2

                                  _>
                                  "3
                                  *o  ex



                                  a>  co
                                                                             ON  " ON

                                                                             «s«
                                                                              IH  <-,

" "^ «  eo

s u -a .s
                              sS
                                             o
                                           m \o
                                           ,«*• tN
                                     *3     o  i.

                                     .a   vo «. 2

                                                      CN

                                                      oT
                                                          co
                                                                        row
                                                                        rnm   cs
11.6-12
 EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
        Table 11.6-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
   MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING3
Process
Raw mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-13)
Raw mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-24)
Raw mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-25)
Raw mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-26)
Finish grinding mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-17, 3-05-007-17)
Finish grinding mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-27, 3-05-007-27)
Finish grinding mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-28, 3-05-007-28)
Finish grinding mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-29, 3-05-007-29)
Primary limestone crushing with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-09)h
Primary limestone screening with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-1 l)h
Limestone transfer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006- 12)h
Secondary limestone screening and crushing with
fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-10 + -11, 3-05-007-10 + -ll)h

PM
0.0062C

0.0016d

0.0106

0.016e

0.0042f

0.0012d

0.00476

0.0148

0.00050

0.00011

1.5 x 10-5


0.00016

Filterableb
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E

E

E

D

E

E

D

E

E

E


E

PM-10
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND


ND


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

























a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless otherwise noted.  Factors are kg/Mg of material
  process, unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.

  Filterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling
  train.
c References 15,56-57.
d Reference 57.
e Reference 15.
f References 10,12,15,56-57.
g References 10,15.
h Reference 16.  Alternatively, emission factors from  Section 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing",
  can be used for similar processes and  equipment.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-13
-------
        Table 11.6-4 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
  MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLINGa
Process
Raw mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-13)
Raw mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-24)
Raw mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-25)
Raw mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-26)
Finish grinding mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-17, 3-05-007-17)
Finish grinding mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-27, 3-05-007-27)
Finish grinding mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-28, 3-05-007-28)
Finish grinding mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-29, 3-05-007-29)
Primary limestone crushing with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-09)h
Primary limestone screening with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-1 l)h
Limestone transfer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-12)h
Secondary limestone screening and crushing with
fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-10 + -11, 3-05-007-10 + -ll)h

PM
0.012C

0.003 ld

0.019e
0.0326
0.0080f
0.0024d
0.0094e
0.0288
0.0010
0.00022
2.9 x 10'5
0.00031
Filterableb
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E

E
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
PM-10
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING














a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless otherwise noted.  Factors are Ib/ton of material
  processed, unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling
  train.
c References  15,56-57.
d Reference 57.
e Reference 15.
f References  10,12,15,56-57.
s References  10,15.
h Reference 16.  Alternatively, emission factors from the Section 11.19.2,  "Crushed Stone
  Processing", can be used for similar processes and equipment.
11.6-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
         Table 11.6-5. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                        FOR PORTLAND CEMENT KILNSa
Particle
Size, fim
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Percent Equal To Or Less Than Stated Size
Uncontrolled
Wet process
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
7
20
24
35
57
Dry process
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
18
ND
42
44
ND
Controlled
Wet process
With ESP
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
64
83
85
91
98
Dry process
WithFF
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
45
77
84
89
100
  Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
        Table 11.6-6.  SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                  FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CLINKER COOLERS3
Particle Size, /zm
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Percent Equal To Or Less Than Stated Size
Uncontrolled
(SCC 3-05-006-14, 3-05-007-14)
0.54
1.5
8.6
21
34
With Gravel Bed Filter
(SCC 3-05-006-14, 3-05-007-14)
40
64
76
84
89
a Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-15
-------
  b
  H

  Z
  u

  Q
  Z
  o
  Cu
  C/5
  Crf

  e
  o

  £
  z
  o
  p
  o
  5
  H
0 £ °
y o x
co H ~j
5 ^ ^
i fc K


0
e

Igg
co H s-1
co {j H
S ^* ^
w B.
o
cT
o

o S o
« O z
co H g
eo QJ f-
M ^ ^
Bl B. "
0
U

otf o
y o 21
C/2 £— t M
V3 r) H
12S2S


X
O



ill
co H r3
co rj H
S < 3
^C Brt M*


^
8









CO
8
O


Q




O
d


Q


«>
§

Q


<4-l
d



Q



U Q Q




—H ?£ m Q
o o o z
d o d


Q O B)


@ i. x
8 I 8 o
0? <* os Z

U O Q


"S 5 So Q
do-- <2-



Q C Q


r- "S> TJ- i< Q
t*> pi C) C-4 ^

U




•o
•*'









5 ^
s 8
en ID
V5 (— i
82
IB
u CO
£~

Q Q Q U




Ov CS m V>
•* d d d





•^

d c
•3 [5
5 5 u w
3 * 2 c? JJ rT » t^'
o cs .5 cs .5 cs
CA >O U
wo Jo Jo J S o
o5S g5S g 52, gS-^
J a. & a.

§
S
"2
3
o
3
TD
8
Cu
JB
c
~
'-*-
o
1
£
CS
1
CQ
tL,

"8
0
c
1/5
'!
7
o ^•>
o
c •
.2 *o
e °
§ U
cS C
fe O
§"«
a Factors r
Classifici
_c
i
§
z
a,
52
2
!
_o
'M
,M

*^i
CO
•4-*
C
4)
cS
u,
&
t-


S
a.
U5
|
O
'35
c/5
'i
»
•«_»
"o
.CO
i*-(
o
VC
'i
c.
t«
CO
«e
1
42

o
'Jo
ffi

w

CO
u.
0
CO
•a
!S
^

1
c
o
*s
CO


c
o
CJ
X!
tn
to
CO
o

















>w
o"
3?
1

VO
•4
ro
CO
SO
^\j
i

CN
o'
CN
... 8
this table
Referenc
T3























sS
5
so
en

^>
CO
SO"
CN
en
D
Referenc
O '






























•<*'
SO
o>
Referenc




















S
0
c.
•*
c^"
•4
m
CM

Referenc
M ,
























o >n
Tf SO
Os O


ON OO
^H m
»— < «— 1
en en
D eu
Referenc
Referenc
s: 	 ,


 o>
Referenc
Referenc
Referenc
.* £ c




























O

r~-
•*
en
CO
Referenc
a.




























O

OO
Tj-
en
a>
Referenc
cr






























o\
•*
co
Referenc
IH























sS
o"
t-L
^>

^^
m
TJ-"
CN
en
CO
Referenc
en
11.6-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------

        "
                    e <

                    8 "^
                    <•> rM

  8
                    Ss
  —    o

  es    t§

  *-    I
                     1>
CQ



1

t/3
CO
                     ^S

                    «s«
                    •s
                     c/3
                     (U
         o
         c-


         I
         c


         O.OV

         S1^
              >r^ vq^

              irT oo" ^
              •«t in vD
                * I    *
              r* ^o o
              en n
                ^  *. t
                       in
         <=! O O O —
        •*
         &>
 - oo so e» •<* O
    ,  4)

Oi OL.
                  Oi  OS
                           v


                           §

                          .«
1/95
                                Mineral Products Industry
                                                                                                     11.6-17
-------
  I
  s
  PL,

  Z


  H
  W

  w
  u
OS
O
CL,

g
u.
ClO


I
<
b
Z
O
So
oo
   en
   •«— >
   'S
   en
00

VO
  •s
  H
>~
ill
8


2
III
ON
u
Sg?
s^h
lass

o
u


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


X
O
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

>
8





Process


Q
CO
8
6



Q
i
c,"

Q


"M
0


Q


J
O

„
00°





ocess kiln
3-05-007-06
5B
u 52-

U Q
a
00 ^
(S 00
o o



Q 0
1 i
_r

03 Q


— 00
O
t> S O c5
O X O X
O i O i
b in fc *n
di o P< o
!>. J. Ui .1
£> en 5 n
"° O 'SO
e* O £ U
C tW o 00
O ^-^ C ^
J tX

Q
^J Q
o Z



U
X
8 Q


Q


r- Q
• •??
CO "<


Q


rJ Q
w z
Q U

&
-; —


c c
2 3
Ul , 	 , Ul -^
5> m " en
.S cs .5 js r»
3 \b 4J S vo
b in i; >» *n
^< «3 _O< cs O
S3 
                                                                                 >—i —^ ON  •—'  o r~-
                                                                                              cn en
                                                                                              1) ci>
                                                                                              cj o
                                                                                              C C
                         ON
                         en
                          en
                          0>

                          I
                                                                                                       en     en
                                                                                                       a>  4)  a>
                                                                                                          O  0
                                                                                                          c  c
                                                                                                       a>  a>
                                                                                                          •—,  U-  U.
                                                                                        o  o d> i
                                                                                        <1>  O D 
-------
                  O. *J
                  o, c
                  3 «

                  al

                     '
                  S o
                  CA
                  s <
                  g "^
                  0 ts
   I

   oo

   vi
2 6
 s  «
 88  60


II



il
 CQ  us
 1>  CO

•s  i
 I-  c
                  c«
                  "O
   O
   C-
                  *-» c
                  S3 1
                  *- o



                  I'i
                  S *<>
                  SS >-
                •  4S o
               m  « _-
               \O     «!
              ' oo" -^ §
         ro c'i f^i  Tf  in

         O~ o" o" — <" ro"
         c*% c*^ co  rn  ro

         QO QQ ao  -^r  o
          9>  o>  a>
         o o o  o  o
         C C C  C  C
            a;  a: a: a;
1/95
                      Mineral Products Industry
11.6-19
-------
   Table 11.6-9 (Metric And English Units).  SUMMARY OF NONCRTTERIA POLLUTANT
               EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT KILNSa
                (SCC 3-05-006-06, 3-05-007-06, 3-05-006-22, 3-05-006-23)
Pollutant
Name
Type Of
Control
Average Emission Factor
kg/Mg
Inorganic Pollutants
Silver (Ag)
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Calcium (Ca)
Cadmium (Cd)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chloride (Cl)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium (Cr)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Hydrogen chloride (HC1)
Hydrogen chloride (HC1)
Mercury (Hg)
Mercury (Hg)
Potassium (K)
Manganese (Mn)
Ammonia (NH3)
Ammonium (NH^
Nitrate (NO3)
Sodium (Na)
Lead(Pb)
Lead(Pb)
Sulfur trioxide (SO3)
Sulfur trioxide (SO3)
Sulfate (804)
Sulfate (804)
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
S.lxlO'7
0.0065
6.5x10-*
6.0x10"*
0.00018
0.00023
3.3xlO'7
0.12
4.2x10-*
1.1x10-*
0.34
0.0011
3.9x10-*
7.0xlO'5
0.0026
0.00045
0.0085
0.025
0.073
0.00011
1.2xlQ-5
0.0090
0.00043
0.0051
0.054
0.0023
0.020
0.00036
3.8xlO-5
0.042
0.0073
0.10
0.0036
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
References

6.1xlO'7
0.013
l.SxlO'5
1.2xlO-5
0.00035
0.00046
6.6xlO'7
0.24
8.3x10-*
2.2x10"*
0.68
0.0021
7.7x10-*
0.00014
0.0053
0.00090
0.017
0.049
0.14
0.00022
2.4xlO-5
0.018
0.00086
0.010
0.11
0.0046
0.038
0.00071
7.5xlQ-5
0.086
0.014
0.20
0.0072
D
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
E
D
E
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
63
65
65
63
64
63
63
65
64
63
25,42-44
63
64
63
62
43
65
41,65
59,63
64
11,63
25,42-43
65
59
25,42-W
43
25,42-44
64
63
25
24,30,50
25,42-44
30,33,52
11.6-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                       Table 11.6-9 (cont.).

Pollutant
Name
Selenium (Se)
Selenium (Se)
Thallium (Th)
Titanium (Ti)
Zinc (Zn)
Zinc (Zn)

Type Of
Control
ESP
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
Average Emission Factor


kg/Mg
7.5xlO-5
0.00010
2.7X1Q-6
0.00019
0.00027
0.00017


Ib/ton
0.00015
0.00020
5.4X10"6
0.00037
0.00054
0.00034
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
D
E
D
D


References
65
62
63
65
64
63
Organic Pollutants
CASRNb j Name
35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
C3 benzenes
C4 benzenes
C6 benzenes
208-96-8 acenaphthylene
67-64-1 acetone
100-52-7 benzaldehyde
71-43-2 benzene
71-43-2 benzene
ber.zo(a)anthracene
50-32-8 benzo(a)pyrene
205-99-2 benzo(b)fluoranthene
191-24-2 benzo(g,h,i)perylene
207-08-9 benzo(k)fluoranthene
65-85-0 benzoic acid
95-52-4 biphenyl
117-81-7 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
74-83-9 bromomethane
75-15-0 carbon disulfide
108-90-7 chlorobenzene
74-87-3 chloromethane
218-01-9 chrysene
84-74-2 di-n-butylphthalate
53-70-3 dibenz(a,h)anthracene
101-41-4 ethylbenzene
206-44-0 fluoranthene
86-73-7 fluorene
50-00-0 formaldehyde

FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
FF
FF

l.lxlO-10
1.3xlO'6
S.OxlO"6
4.6xlO'7
5.9xlO"5
0.00019
1.2xlO'5
0.0016
0.0080
2.1xlO'8
6.5xlO'8
2.8xlO'7
3.9xlO'8
7.7X10-8
0.0018
3.1xlO'6
4.8xlO'5
2.2xlO'5
5.5xlO-5
8-OxlO-6
0.00019
S.lxlQ-8
2.1xlO'5
3-lxlO'7
9.5xlO'6
4.4xlO'6
9.4xlO'6
0.00023

2.2x10" 10
2.6x10-*
6.0x10-*
9.2xlO-7
0.00012
0.00037
2.4xlO-5
0.0031
0.016
4.3X10"8
l.SxlO"7
5.6xlO'7
7.8X1Q-8
l.SxlO-7
0.0035
6.1xlO'6
9.5xlO's
4.3xlO'5
0.00011
1.6xlO-5
0.00038
1.6X10'7
4.1xlO'5
6.3xlO'7
1.9xlO'5
S.SxlO-6
1.9xlO"5
0.00046

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

62
65
65
65
62
64
65
64
62
62
62
62
62
62
64
65
64
64
64
64
64
62
64
62
64
62
62
62
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-21
-------
                                    Table 11.6-9 (com.).
Pollutant
CASRNb

193-39-5
78-93-3
75-09-2

91-20-3
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
100-42-5
108-88-3

3268-87-9

132-64-9
132-64-9
1330-20-7
Name
freon 113
indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
methyl ethyl ketone
methylene chloride
methylnaphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
phenanthrene
phenol
pyrene
styrene
toluene
total HpCDD
total OCDD
total PCDD
total PCDF
total TCDF
xylenes
Type Of
Control
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
ESP
Average Emission Factor
kg/Mg
2.5xlO-5
4.3x10-*
l.SxlO'5
0.00025
2.1x10-*
0.00085
0.00011
0.00020
S.SxlO'5
2.2X10-6
7.5x1 0'7
0.00010
2.0xlO-10
l.OxlO-9
1.4xlO-9
1.4x10-'°
1.4X10'10
6.5xlQ-5
Ib/ton
S.OxlO'5
8.7X10-8
3.0xlO'5
0.00049
4.2X10-6
0.0017
0.00022
0.00039
0.00011
4.4X10-6
1.5x10-*
0.00019
3.9xlO-10
2.0xlO-9
2.7xlO-9
2.9X10'10
2.9xlO'10
0.00013
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
D
References
65
62
64-65
65
65
62
64
62
64
62
65
64
62
62
62
62
62
64
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of clinker produced.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ESP = electrostatic precipitator.  FF = fabric filter.
b Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number (organic compounds only).
References For Section 11.6

1.     W. L. Greer, et al., "Portland Cement", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, A. J. Buonicore
       and W. T. Davis (eds.), Von Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1992.

2.     U. S. And Canadian Portland Cement Industry Plant Information Summary, December 31,
       1990, Portland Cement Association, Washington, DC,  August 1991.

3.     J. S. Kinsey, Lime And Cement Industry - Source Category Report, Volume II, EPA-600/7-87-
       007, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1987.

4.     Written communication from Robert W. Crolius, Portland Cement Association, Washington,
       DC, to Ron  Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
       March 11, 1992.

5.     Written communication from Walter Greer, Ash Grove Cement Company,  Overland Park,
       KS, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 30, 1993.
11.6-22
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                       1/95
-------
6.     Written communication from John Wheeler, Capitol Cement, San Antonio, TX, to Ron
       Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 21,
       1993.

7.     Written communication from F. L. Streitman, ESSROC Materials, Incorporated, Nazareth,
       PA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 29, 1993.

8.     Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Clinker Cooler At Maule Industries, Inc., ETB
       Test No.  71-MM-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1972.

9.     Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Clinker Cooler At Ideal Cement Company,
       ETB Test No. 71-MM-03, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March 1972.

10.    Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement Company,
       ETB Test No. 71-MM-04, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March 1972.

11.    Emissions From Dry Process Cement Kiln At Dragon Cement Company, ETB Test No.
       71-MM-05, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1972.

12.    Emissions From Wet Process Clinker Cooler And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement
       Company, ETB Test No. 71-MM-06, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

13.    Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln At Giant Portland Cement, ETB Test No.
       71-MM-07, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1972.

14.    Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln At Oregon Portland Cement, ETB Test No.
       71-MM-15, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1972.

15.    Emissions From Dry Process Raw Mill And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement Company,
       ETB Test No. 71-MM-02, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
       NC, April 1972.

16.    Part I, Air Pollution Emission Test: Arizona Portland Cement, EPA Project Report No.
       74-STN-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

17.    Characterization Oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From A Dry Process Cement
       Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       February  1983.

18.    Characterization Oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From A Wet Process Cement
       Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August
       1983.
1/95                             Mineral Products Industry                           11.6-23
-------
19.    Paniculate Emission Testing At Lone Star Industries'Nazareth Plant, Lone Star Industries,
       Inc., Houston, TX, January  1978.

20.    Participate Emissions Testing At Lone Star Industries' Greencastle Plant, Lone Star
       Industries, Inc., Houston, TX, July  1977.

21.    Gas Process Survey At Lone  Star Cement, Inc. 's Roanoke No. 5 Kiln System, Lone Star
       Cement, Inc., Cloverdale, VA, October 1979.

22.    Test Report: Stack Analysis For Paniculate Emissions:  Clinker Coolers/Gravel Bed Filter,
       Mease Engineering Associates, Port Matilda, PA, January 1993.

23.    Source Emissions Survey Of Oklahoma Cement Company's Kiln Number 3 Stack, Mull ins
       Environmental Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, March 1980.

24.    Source Emissions Survey Of Lone Star Industries, Inc.: Kilns 1, 2, and 3,  Mullins
       Environmental Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, June 1980.

25.    Source Emissions Survey Of Lone Star Industries, Inc., Mullins Environmental Testing  Co.,
       Inc., Addison, TX, November 1981.

26.    Stack Emission Survey And Precipitator Efficiency Testing At Banner Springs Plant, Lone Star
       Industries, Inc., Houston, TX, November 1981.

27.    NSPS Paniculate Emission Compliance Test:  No. 8 Kiln, Interpoll, Inc., Elaine, MN,  March
       1983.

28.    Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant, Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield,
       CA,  May 1983.

29.    Source Emissions Survey OfLehigh Ponland Cement Company, Mullins Environmental
       Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX,  August 1983.

30.    Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant, Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield,
       CA,  May 1984.

31.    Paniculate Compliance Test: Lehigh Ponland Cement Company, CH2M Hill, Montgomery,
       AL,  October 1984.

32.    Compliance Test Results: Paniculate & Sulfur Oxide Emissions At Lehigh Ponland Cement
       Company, KVB, Inc., Irvine, CA, December  1984.

33.    Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant, Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield,
       CA,  May 1985.

34.    Stack Tests for Paniculate, SO2,  NOX And Visible Emissions At Lone Star Florida Holding,
       Inc., South Florida Environmental Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, August 1985.

35.    Compliance Stack Test At Lone Star Florida/Pennsuco, Inc., South Florida Environmental
       Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, July 1981.
11.6-24                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
36.    Preliminary Stack Test At Lone Star Florida/Pennsuco, Inc., South Florida Environmental
       Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, July 1981.

37.    Quarterly Testing For Lone Star Cement At Davensport, California, Pape & Steiner
       Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, September 1985.

38.    Written Communication from David S. Cahn, CalMat Co., El Monte, CA, to Frank Noonan,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2,  1987.

39.    Technical Report On The Demonstration Of The Feasibility OfNOx Emissions Reduction At
       Riverside Cement Company, Crestmore Plant (Parts I-V), Riverside Cement Company,
       Riverside, CA, and Quantitative Applications, Stone Mountain, GA, January 1986.

40.    Emission Study Of The  Cement Kiln No. 20 Baghouse Collector At The Alpena Plant,  Great
       Lakes Division, Lafarge Corporation, Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., Novi, MI,
       March 1989.

41.    Baseline And Solvent Fuels Stack Emissions Test At Alpha Portland Cement Company In
       Cementon, New York, Energy & Resource Recovery Corp., Albany, NY, January  1982.

42.    Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Lone Star Industries, New Orleans, Louisiana, Entropy
       Environmentalists,  Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1982.

43.    Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Lone Star Industries, New Orleans, Louisiana, Entropy
       Environmentalists,  Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1982.

44.    Source Emissions Survey Of Kiln No. 1 At Lone Star Industries, Inc.,  New Orleans,
       Louisiana, Mullins Environmental Testing Company, Inc., Addison, TX, March 1984.

45.    Written Communication from Richard Cooke, Ash Grove Cement West,  Inc., Durkee, OR, to
       Frank Noonan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 13, 1987.

46.    Source Emissions Survey Of Texas Cement Company OfBuda, Texas, Mullins Environmental
       Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, September  1986.

47.    Determination of Paniculate and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From The  Kiln And Alkali
       Baghouse Stacks  At Southwestern Portland Cement Company, Pollution Control Science, Inc.,
       Miamisburg, OH, June 1986.

48.    Written Communication from Douglas Maclver, Southwestern Portland Cement Company,
       Victorville, CA,  to John Croom, Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain,  GA,
       October 23, 1989.

49.    Source Emissions Survey Of Southwestern Portland Cement Company, KOSMOS Cement
       Division, MetCo  Environmental, Dallas, TX, June 1989.

50.    Written Communication from John Mummert, Southwestern Portland Cement Company,
       Amarillo, TX, to Bill Stewart, Texas Air Control Board, Austin, TX, April 14,  1983.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                           11.6-25
-------
51.    Written Communication from Stephen Sheridan, Ash Grove Cement West, Inc., Portland,
       OR, to John Croom, Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, January 15, 1980.

52.    Written Communication from David Cahn, CalMat Co., Los Angeles, CA, to John Croom,
       Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, December 18,  1989.

53.    Source Emissions Compliance Test Report On The Kiln Stack At Marquette Cement
       Manufacturing Company, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Performance Testing & Consultants,
       Inc., Kansas City, MO, February 1982.

54.    Assessment Of Sulfur Levels At Lone Star Industries In Cape Girardeau, Missouri, KVB,
       Ehnsford,  NY, January 1984.

55.    Written Communication from Douglas Maclver, Southwestern Portland Cement Company,
       Nephi, UT, to Brent Bradford, Utah Air Conservation Committee,  Salt Lake City, UT,
       July 13, 1984.

56.    Performance Guarantee Testing At Southwestern Portland Cement, Pape & Steiner
       Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, February  1985.

57.    Compliance Testing At Southwestern Portland Cement, Pape & Steiner Environmental
       Services, Bakersfield, CA, April 1985.

58.    Emission Tests On Quarry Plant No. 2 Kiln At Southwestern Portland Cement,  Pape & Steiner
       Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, March 1987.

59.    Emission Tests On The No. 2 Kiln Baghouse At Southwestern Portland Cement, Pape &
       Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA,  April 1987.

60.    Compliance Stack Test Of Cooler No. 3 At Lone Star Florida,  Inc., South Florida
       Environmental Services, Inc., Belle Glade, FL, July 1980.

61.    Stack Emissions Survey Of Lone Star Industries, Inc., Portland Cement Plant At Maryneal,
       Texas, Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX,  September 1979.

62.    Emissions  Testing Report Conducted At Kaiser Cement,  Coupertino, California, For Kaiser
       Cement, Walnut Creek, California,  TMA Thermo Analytical, Inc., Richmond, CA, April 30,
       1990.

63.    Certification Of Compliance Stack Emission Test Program At Lone Star Industries, Inc., Cape
       Girardeau, Missouri, April & June 1992, Air Pollution  Characterization and Control, Ltd.,
       Tolland, CT, January 1993.

64.    Source Emissions Survey Of EssrockMaterials, Inc., Eastern Division Cement Group, Kilns
       Number I  And 2 Stack, Frederick, Maryland, Volume I  (Draft), Metco Environmental,
       Addison, TX, November 1991.

65.    M. Branscome, et al., Evaluation Of Waste Combustion In A Dry-process Cement Kiln At
       Lone Star  Industries, Oglesby, Illinois, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, December 1984.
11.6-26                            EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
11.7  Ceramic Products Manufacturing

11.7.1 General1'3

       Ceramics are defined as a class of inorganic, nonmetallic solids that are subjected to high
temperature in manufacture and/or use.  The most common ceramics are composed of oxides, carbides,
and nitrides.  Silicides, borides, phosphides, tellurides, and selenides also are used to produce ceramics.
Ceramic  processing generally involves high temperatures,  and the resulting materials are heat resistant
or refractory.

       Traditional ceramics refers to ceramic products that are produced from unrefined  clay and
combinatioas of refined clay and powdered or granulated nonplastic minerals.  Often, traditional
ceramics is used to refer to ceramics in which the clay content exceeds 20 percent.  The general
classifications of traditional ceramics are described below.

       Pottery is sometimes used as a generic term for ceramics that contain clay and are not used for
structural, technical, or refractory purposes.

       Whiteware refers to ceramic ware that is white,  ivory, or light gray in color after tiring.
Whiteware is further classified as earthenware, stoneware, chinaware,  porcelain, and technical
ceramics.

       Earthenware is defined  as glazed or unglazed nonvitreous (porous) clay-based ceramic ware.
Applications for earthenware include artware, kitchenware, ovenware, tableware, and tile.

       Stoneware is vitreous or semivitreous ceramic ware of fine texture, made primarily from
nonrefractory fire clay or some combination of clays, fluxes,  and silica that, when fired, has properties
similar to stoneware made from fire clay.  Applications  for stoneware include artware,  chemicalware,
cookware, drainpipe, kitchenware, tableware, and tile.

       Chinaware is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low absorption after firing that are used for
nontechnical applications. Applications for chinaware include artware, ovenware, sanitaryware, and
tableware.

       Porcelain is defined as glazed or unglazed vitreous ceramic  ware used primarily for technical
purposes. Applications  for porcelain include artware, ball mill balls, ball mill liners, chemicalware,
insulators, and tableware.

       Technical ceramics include  vitreous ceramic whiteware  used for such products  as electrical
insulation, or for chemical, mechanical, structural, or thermal applications.

       Ceramic products that are made from highly refined natural  or synthetic compositions and
designed to have special properties  are referred to as advanced ceramics.  Advanced ceramics can be
classified according to application as electrical, magnetic, optical, chemical, thermal, mechanical,
biological, and nuclear.
7/96                                    Mineral Products                                   11.7-1
-------
        Most ceramic products are clay-based and are made from a single clay or one or more clays
mixed with mineral modifiers such as quartz and feldspar.  The types of commercial clays used for
ceramics are primarily kaolin and ball clay.
11.7.2 Process Description1'3"5

       Figure 11.7-1 presents a general process flow diagram for ceramic products manufacturing.
The basic steps include raw material procurement, beneficiation, mixing, forming, green machining,
drying, presinter thermal processing, glazing, firing, final processing, and packaging.  The following
paragraphs describe these operations in detail.

11.7.2.1  Raw Material Procurement -
       To begin the process, raw materials are transported and stored at the manufacturing facility.
The raw  materials used in the manufacture of ceramics range from relatively impure clay materials
mined from natural deposits to ultrahigh purity powders prepared by chemical synthesis.  Naturally
occurring raw materials used to manufacture ceramics include silica, sand, quartz, flint, silicates, and
aluminosilicates (e. g., clays and feldspar).

11.7.2.2  Beneficiation -
       The next step in the process is beneficiation.  Although chemically synthesized ceramic
powders  also require some beneficiation, the focus of this discussion is on the processes for
beneficiating naturally occurring raw materials.  The basic beneficiation processes include
comminution, purification, sizing,  classification, calcining, liquid dispersion, and granulation.
Naturally occurring raw materials  often undergo some beneficiation at the mining site or at an
intermediate processing facility prior to being transported to the  ceramic manufacturing facility.

       Comminution entails reducing the particle size of the raw material by crushing, grinding, and
milling or fine grinding. The purpose of comminution is to liberate impurities, break up aggregates,
modify particle morphology and size distribution, facilitate mixing and forming, and produce a more
reactive material  for firing.  Primary crushing generally reduces  material up to 0.3 meter (m) (1  foot
[ft]) in diameter down to  1 centimeter (cm) (0.40 inch [in.]) in diameter. Secondary crushing reduces
particle size down to approximately 1 millimeter (mm) (0.04 in.) in diameter.  Fine grinding  or milling
reduces the particle size down to as low as  1.0 micrometer (um) (4 x 10"5 in.) in diameter.  Ball mills
are the most commonly used piece of equipment for milling.  However,  vibratory mills, attrition mills,
and fluid energy  mills also are used.  Crushing and grinding typically are dry processes; milling may
be a wet or dry process. In wet milling, water or alcohol commonly is  used as the milling liquid.

       Several procedures are used to purify the ceramic material.  Water soluble impurities can be
removed by washing with deionized or distilled water and filtering, and organic solvents may be used
for removing water-insoluble impurities.   Acid leaching sometimes is employed to remove metal
contaminants. Magnetic separation is used to extract magnetic impurities from either dry powders or
wet slurries. Froth flotation also is used to separate undesirable materials.

       Sizing and classification separate the material into size ranges.  Sizing is most often
accomplished using fixed or vibrating screens.  Dry screening can be used  to sizes down to 44 um
(0.0017 in., 325 mesh).  Dry forced-air sieving and sonic sizing  can be  used to size dry powders down
to 37 um (0.0015 in., 400 mesh),  and wet sieving can be used for particles down to 25 um
(0.00098  in., 500 mesh).  Air classifiers generally are effective in the range of 420 um to 37 urn
 11.7-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 7/96
-------
                                                   BENEFICIATtON
                        > COMMINUTION-CRUSHING, QRINDINQ. AND MILUNQ OR RNE QRINDINQ (3-05-008-02)
                        » PURIFICATION-WASHING, ACID LEACHING, MAGNETIC SEPARATION, OR FROTH FLOTATION
                        • SIZINQ-VIBRATING SCREENS (3-05-008-10)
                        • CLASSIFICATION-AIR OR LIQUID CLASSIFIERS (3-05-OM-U)
                        > CALCINING (3-05-008-21,-22.-23.-24)
                        • LIQUID DISPERSION
                        • GRANULATION-DIRECT MIXING (3-05-006-05) OR SPRAY DRYING (3-05-008-10)
                                                                             PROCESSING ADDITIVES-BINDERS.
                                                                             PLASTICIZERS, DEFLOCCULANTS.
                                                                             SURFACTANTS, ANTIFOAMING AGENTS
                                                                                                     • EMISSIONS
                 Figure  11.7-1.  Process flow diagram for ceramic products  manufacturing.
                                  (Source  Classification Codes in parentheses.)
7/96
Mineral Products
11.7-3
-------
(0.017 to 0.0015 in., 40 to 400 mesh).  However, special air classifiers are available for isolating
particles down to 10 urn (0.00039 in.).

        Calcining consists of heating a ceramic material to a temperature well below its melting point
to liberate undesirable gases or other material and to bring about structural transformation to produce
the desired composition and phase product.  Calcining typically is carried out in rotary calciners,
heated fluidized beds, or by heating a static bed of ceramic powder in a refractory crucible.

        Liquid dispersion of ceramic powders sometimes is used to make slurries. Slurry processing
facilitates mixing and minimizes particle agglomeration.  The primary disadvantage of slurry
processing is that the liquid must be removed prior to firing the ceramic.

        Dry powders often are granulated to improve flow,  handling, packing, and compaction.
Granulation is accomplished by direct mixing, which consists of introducing a binder solution during
powder mixing, or by spray drying. Spray dryers generally are gas-fired and operate at temperatures
of 110° to  130°C (230° to 270°F).

11.7.2.3 Mixing -
        The purpose of mixing or blunging is to combine the constituents of a ceramic powder to
produce a more chemically and physically homogenous material for forming. Pug mills often are used
for mixing ceramic materials.  Several  processing aids may be added to  the ceramic mix during the
mixing stage.  Binders and plasticizers are used in dry powder and plastic forming; in slurry
processing, deflocculants, surfactants, and  antifoaming agents are added  to improve processing.
Liquids also are added in plastic and slurry processing.

        Binders are polymers or colloids that are used to impart strength to green or unfired ceramic
bodies. For dry forming and extrusion, binders amount to 3 percent by  weight of the ceramic mixture.
Plasticizers and lubricants are used with some types of binders. Plasticizers increase the flexibility of
the ceramic mix.  Lubricants lower frictional forces between particles and reduce wear on equipment.
Water is the most commonly used liquid in plastic and slurry processing. Organic liquids such as
alcohols may also be used in some cases.  Deflocculants also are used in slurry processing to improve
dispersion and dispersion stability.  Surfactants are used in  slurry processing to aid dispersion, and
antifoams are used  to remove trapped gas  bubbles from the slurry.

11.7.2.4 Forming -
        In the forming step, dry powders, plastic bodies,  pastes, or slurries are consolidated and
molded to produce  a cohesive body of the desired shape  and size.  Dry forming consists of the
simultaneous compacting and shaping of dry ceramic powders in a rigid die or flexible mold.  Dry
forming can be accomplished by dry pressing, isostatic compaction, and vibratory compaction.

        Plastic molding is accomplished by extrusion, jiggering, or powder  injection molding.
Extrusion is used in manufacturing structural clay products  and some  refractory products.  Jiggering is
widely used in the  manufacture of small, simple,  axially  symmetrical whiteware ceramic such as
cookware,  fine china, and electrical porcelain.  Powder injection molding is used for making small
complex shapes.

        Paste forming consists of applying a thick film of ceramic paste on a substrate. Ceramic
pastes are used for decorating ceramic tableware, and forming capacitors and dielectric layers on rigid
substrates for microelectronics.
 11.7-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 7/96
-------
        Slurry forming of ceramics generally is accomplished using slip casting, gelcasting, or tape
casting.  In slip casting, a ceramic slurry, which has a moisture content of 20 to 35 percent, is poured
into a porous mold.  Capillary suction of the mold draws the liquid from the mold, thereby
consolidating the cast ceramic material.  After a fixed time the excess slurry is drained, and the cast is
dried.  Slip casting is widely used in the manufacture of sinks and other sanitaryware, figurines,
porous thermal insulation, fine china, and structural ceramics with complex  shapes. Gelcasting uses in
situ polymerization of organic monomers to produce a gel that binds ceramic particles together into
complex shapes such as turbine rotors.  Tape casting consists of forming a thin film of ceramic slurry
of controlled thickness onto a support surface using a knife edge.  Tape casting is used to produce thin
ceramic sheets or tape, which can be cut and stacked to form multilayer ceramics for capacitors and
dielectric insulator substrates.

11.7.2.5  Green Machining -
        After forming, the ceramic shape often is machined to eliminate rough surfaces and seams or
to modify the shape.  The methods used to machine green ceramics include  surface grinding to smooth
surfaces, blanking and punching to cut the shape and create holes or cavities, and laminating for
multilayer ceramics.

11.7.2.6  Drying -
        After forming, ceramics must be dried.  Drying  must be carefully controlled to strike a balance
between minimizing  drying  time  and avoiding differential shrinkage, warping, and distortion.  The
most commonly used method of drying ceramics is by convection, in which heated air is circulated
around the ceramics.  Air drying  often is performed in tunnel kilns, which typically use heat recovered
from the cooling  zone of the kiln. Periodic kilns or dryers operating in batch  mode also are used.
Convection drying also is carried out in divided tunnel dryers, which include separate sections with
independent temperature and humidity controls.  An alternative to air drying is radiation drying in
which microwave or infrared radiation is used to enhance drying.

11.7.2.7  Presinter Thermal  Processing -
        Prior to firing, ceramics often are heat-treated at temperatures well below firing temperatures.
The purpose of this thermal processing is to provide additional drying, to vaporize or decompose
organic additives and other  impurities, and to remove residual, crystalline, and chemically bound
water.  Presinter thermal processing can  be applied as a separate step, which is referred to  as bisque
firing, or by gradually raising and holding the temperature in several stages.

11.7.2.S  Glazing -
        For traditional ceramics, glaze coatings often are applied to dried or bisque-fired ceramic ware
prior to sintering.  Glazes consist primarily of oxides and can be classified as  raw glazes or frit glazes.
In raw glazes, the oxides are in the form of minerals or compounds mat melt readily and act as
solvents  for the other ingredients. Some of the more commonly used raw materials for glazes are
quartz, feldspars, carbonates, borates, and zircon. A frit is a  prereacted glass.  Frit manufacturing is
addressed in AP-42 Section 11.14.

       To prepare glazes, the raw materials are ground in a  ball mill or attrition mill.  Glazes
generally are applied by spraying or dipping.  Depending on  their constituents, glazes mature at
temperatures  of 600° to 1500°C (1110° to 2730°F).

11.7.2.9  Firing -
       Firing is the  process by which ceramics are thermally consolidated into a dense, cohesive body
comprised of tine, uniform grains.  This  process also is  referred to as sintering or densification.  In


7/96                                    Mineral  Products                                   11.7-5
-------
general:  (1) ceramics with fine particle size fire quickly and require lower firing temperatures;
(2) dense unfired ceramics fire quickly and remain dense after firing with lower shrinkage; and
(3) irregular shaped ceramics fire quickly.  Other material properties that affect firing include material
surface energy, diffusion coefficients, fluid viscosity, and bond strength.

       Parameters that affect firing include firing temperature, time, pressure, and atmosphere.  A
short tiring  time results in a product that is porous and has a low density; a short to intermediate firing
time results in fine-grained (i. e., having particles not larger than 0.2 millimeters), high-strength
products; and long firing times result in a coarse-grained products that are more creep resistant.
Applying pressure decreases firing time and makes  it possihle to fire materials that are difficult to fire
using conventional methods.  Oxidizing or inert atmospheres are used to fire oxide ceramics to avoid
reducing transition metals and degrading the finish of the product.

       In addition to conventional  firing, other methods used include pressure firing, hot forging,
plasma firing, microwave firing, and infrared firing.   The following paragraphs describe conventional
and pressure firing, which are the methods used often.

       Conventional firing is accomplished by heating the green ceramic to approximately  two-thirds
of the  melting point of the material at ambient  pressure and holding it for a specified time in a
periodic  or tunnel kiln.  Periodic kilns are heated and cooled according to prescribed schedules. The
heat for periodic  kilns generally is provided by electrical element or by firing with gas or oil.

       Tunnel kilns generally  have separate zones for cooling, firing,  and preheating or drying.  The
kilns may be designed so that (1) the air heated in the cooling zone moves into the firing zone and the
combustion gases in the firing  zone are conveyed to the preheat/drying zone then exhausted, or (2) the
air heated in the cooling zone is conveyed to the preheat/drying zone and the firing  zone gases are
exhausted separately. The most commonly used tunnel kiln design is the roller hearth (roller) kiln.  In
conventional firing, tunnel kilns generally are fired  with  gas, oil, coal, or wood.  Following  firing and
cooling,  ceramics are sometimes  retired after the application of decals,  paint, or ink.

       Advanced ceramics often are fired in electric resistance-heated  furnaces  with controlled
atmospheres.  For some products, separate furnaces may be needed to  eliminate organic lubricants and
binders prior to firing.

       Ceramic products also  are manufactured by pressure firing, which is similar to the forming
process of dry  pressing except that the pressing is conducted at the firing temperature.  Because of its
higher costs, pressure firing is  usually reserved for  manufacturing ceramics  that  are  difficult to tire to
high density by conventional firing.

11.7.2.10 Final Processing-
       Following tiring,  some ceramic products are processed further to enhance their characteristics
or to meet dimensional tolerances.  Ceramics can be machined by abrasive  grinding, chemical
polishing, electrical  discharge machining, or laser machining. Annealing  at high temperature, followed
by gradual cooling can relieve internal stresses within the ceramic and  surface stresses due  to
machining.  In addition, surface coatings are applied to many fired ceramics.  Surface coatings are
applied to traditional clay ceramics to create a  stronger, impermeable surface and  for decoration.
Coatings also may be applied to  improve strength, and resistance to abrasion and corrosion. Coatings
can be applied dry, as slurries, by spraying, or by vapor deposition.
 11.7-6                                EMISSION FACTORS                                  7/96
-------
11.7.3 Emissions And Controls1'3'5'12'31

       The primary pollutants associated with raw material beneficiation are particulate matter (PM)
and PM less than lOum in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10).  Filterable PM and PM-10 are emitted
from comminution,  sizing, classifying, handling, transfer, and storage.  In addition, raw material
calciners emit filterable and condensible PM, which may include metals and other inorganic pollutants.
Calciners also emit  products of combustion such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides  (SOX), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Emissions of SOX are
a function of the sulfur content of the fuel used to fire the calciners and the sulfur content of the raw
materials used to manufacture ceramics. Emissions of VOC result from incomplete combustion and
volatilization of the organic material  associated with the raw material.  Other beneficiation processes
that are associated with emissions include acid leaching  and granulation.  Emissions of hydrochloric
acid (HC1) or other  acids may arise from leaching.  In addition, PM and products of combustion are
emitted from spray  dryers used for granulation.

       Mixing generally is a wet process.  However, VOC emissions from this step may arise from
the volatilization of binders, plasticizers, and lubricants.  Forming generally is performed in  sealed
containers and often is a wet process; emissions from this step in the process are likely to be
negligible.  However, tape casters are a source of VOC emissions.  For ceramic  bodies that  are dry-
formed, PM is likely to be emitted from grinding, punching, and other green machining activities.

       Particulate matter emissions consisting of metal  and mineral oxides also  arise from glaze
preparation, which includes mixing and grinding.  Emissions of PM from glaze application also are
likely, if the glaze is applied by spraying.

       Emissions associated from green ceramic heat treating processes, which include drying,
presinter thermal processing, and firing, include combustion products and filterable and condensible
PM. Particulate matter emissions consist in part of metals and the inorganic minerals associated with
the raw materials.  Emissions of the products of combustion are a function of fuel type, raw material
coastituents, process temperature, and other operating parameters.

       Emissions of fluorine compounds also  are associated with firing.  Fluorine is present in
ceramic raw materials in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 percent.  As the temperature of green ceramic bodies
reaches 500° to 600°C (930°  to 1110°F), the fluorine in the raw material forms hydrogen fluoride (HF)
and other fluorine compounds such as silicon tetrafluoride.  Much of the fluorine is released as HF.
However, if lime is present in the ceramic body, HF reacts with the lime to form calcium fluoride
(CaF2), thereby reducing potential HF emissions.

       Other emission sources associated with ceramics manufacturing include final processing
operations and fugitive dust sources.  The final processing steps include grinding and polishing, which
can emit PM and PM-10, and surface coating,  annealing, and chemical treatment, which can emit
VOC.  Fugitive dust sources, which consist of vehicular traffic, wind erosion of storage piles, and
materials handling and transfer, emit PM and PM-10.

       Several techniques have been used to control PM emissions from  the mechanical processing of
ceramic raw materials and finished products. Fabric filters are the most commonly used  control
device, but wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) also are used.  Fabric filters, wet
scrubbers, and ESPs also are used to control emissions from clay calciners and dryers. Venturi
scrubbers and fabric filters are used to control  emissions from granulation (spray  dryers)  and from
7/96                                    Mineral Products                                  11.7-7
-------
glaze preparation and application.  Afterburners have been used to control VOC emissions from tape
casting operations.  Emissions from kilns generally are uncontrolled.

       Emissions of HF from kilns can be reduced through process modifications such as increasing
the raw material lime content and reducing kiln draft, kiln exhaust temperature, and kiln residence
time. Dry sorption scrubbing also has been used to control HF emissions in the brick and ceramic
industries in Germany and in the brick industry in the United States.  These devices use limestone as a
sorption medium to produce CaF2, which is removed by means of a rotating screen, drum, or fabric
filter. Control efficiencies of 95 to 99 percent have been reported for this type of scrubber.

       Table 11.7-1 presents emission factors for PM and lead emissions from various ceramic
products  manufacturing processes. Table 11.7.2 present emission factors for SO2, NOX, CO, CO2,
VOC, HF, and fluoride  emissions from ceramic kilns and tape  casters.
 11.7-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                                7/96
-------
                Table 11.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CERAMIC PRODUCTS
                              MANUFACTURING  OPERATIONS3
Source
Comminution-raw material crushing and
screening line with fabric filter0
(SCC 3-05-008-02)
Dryerd
(SCC 3-05-008-13)
Coolerd
(SCC 3-05-008-58)
Granulation-natural gas-fired spray dryer
(SCC 3-05-008-10)
with fabric filter6
with venturi scrubbed
Firing-natural gas-fired kilng
(SCC 3-05-008-50)
Retiring-natural gas-fired kilnh
(SCC 3-05-008-56)
Ceramic glaze spray booth
(SCC 3-05-008-45)
uncontrolledJ
with wet scrubber^
Filterable
PM (lb/ton)b

0.12

2.3

0.11



0.060
0.19
0.49

0.067



19
1.8
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D

E

E



E
D
D

E



E
D
Lead
(Ib/ton)

ND

ND

ND



ND
ND
ND

ND



3.0
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA

NA



NA
NA
NA

NA



E
NA
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired ceramic produced, unless noted. To convert
  from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions  unless noted.  SCC
  = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on the  front-half of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling
  train.  Although condensible organic and inorganic PM emissions are expected from dryers and
  kilns,  no data are available to estimate these emissions.
c References 12-13.  Raw material processing for production of quarry tile, which is an unglazed file
  product similar  to structural clay products. Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of
  material processed.
d Reference 15.
e Reference 16. Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of dry material produced.
f References 26-29.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of dry material produced.
8 References 7,9-11,15,23-25.
h Reference 6.  Kiln is used for refiring tile after application of decals, paint, or ink screening.
J  Reference 30. Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of glazed used. Glaze  contains
  about  24 percent lead oxide.
k References 20-22.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of glaze used.
7/96
Mineral Products
11.7-9
-------
     Table 11.7-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR GASEOUS POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM
                        CERAMIC PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Source
Firing— natural gas-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-008-50)
Retiring-natural gas-fired
kilnk
(SCC 3-05-008-56)
Forming—tape casters"1
(SCC 3-05-008-31)
SO2
44 -Se
ND

ND
NOX
0.54f
ND

ND
CO
3.38
ND

ND
C02
780f
97

ND
vocb
0.438
ND

58
HF°
0.46h
ND

ND
Fluoridesd
0.56>
0.019

ND
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of ceramic product produced, unless noted.  To
  convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless
  noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b VOC reported on an "as propane" basis; measured using EPA Method 25A.  Emission factor may
  include nonphotochemically reactive compounds that are not considered VOC. No data are
  available to estimate emissions of these non-VOC compounds.
c Hydrogen fluoride measured using EPA Method 26A.  This compound is listed as a hazardous air
  pollutant under Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in November 1990. A mass
  balance on flouride will provide a better estimate of HF emissions for individual facilities.
d Total fluorides measured during EPA Method 13A or 13B. Measurements include HF and other
  fluorine compounds. A mass balance on flouride will provide a better estimate of fluoride
  emissions for  individual facilities.
e Reference 10.  For facilities using raw material with a sulfur content greater than 0.07 percent.  The
  variable S represents the raw material sulfur content (percent). For facilities using raw material with
  a sulfur content less than or equal to 0.07 percent, use 9.5-S Ib/ton to estimate emissions
  (References 9,11). Emissions of SO2 are dependent on the sulfur content  of the  raw material and
  the fuel used to fire  the kiln.
  References 9,11,15.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D.
  Reference 15.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D.
  Reference 15.
  References 7,9-11, 23-25.
k Reference 6.
m Reference 14.  Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of formed product. Emissions
  controlled by  an afterburner.

References For Section 11.7

 1.     Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Fourth Edition, Volume 5, John Wiley &
       Sons, New York, 1992.

 2.     1987 Census Of Manufactures, U. S.  Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., May 1990.

 3.     Ullman's Encyclopedia Of Industrial  Chemistry, Fifth Edition, Volume A6.
11.7-10
EMISSION FACTORS
7/96
-------
 4.     D. W. Richerson, Modern Ceramic Engineering:  Properties Processing, And Use In Design,
       Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, 1982.

 5.     P. Vincenzini (ed.), Fundamentals Of Ceramic Engineering, Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd.,
       New York, 1991.

 6.     Paniculate Emission Testing For Florida Tile Corporation, Lawrenceburg, Kentucky,
       March 7-8, 1989, Air Systems Testing, Inc., Marietta, GA, April 1989.

 7.     Paniculate Emission Testing For Florida Tile Corporation, Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, April 19,
       1989, Air Systems Testing, Inc., Marietta, GA, May 1989.

 8.     Source Emission Tests At Stark Ceramics, Inc., East Canton, Ohio, No. 3 Kiln Stack,
       September 16, 1993, Custom Stack Analysis Company, Alliance, OH, October 1993.

 9.     Metropolitan  Ceramics, Canton, Ohio, Tunnel Kiln #3 Exhaust Stack, Paniculate, SO2, NOV
       Hydrofluoric Acid Emission Evaluation, Conducted - November 17-18, 1993, Envisage
       Environmental Incorporated, Richfield, OH, December 16, 1993.

10.    Metropolitan  Ceramics, Inc., Canton, Ohio, TK1,  TK2, TK3 Exhausts, Paniculate, Sulfur
       Dioxides, & Fluorides Emission Evaluation, Conducted - March 30 & April 14,  1994,
       Envisage Environmental Incorporated,  Richfield, OH, May 9, 1994.

11.    Source. Evaluation Results, U. S. Ceramic Tile Company, East Sparta, Ohio, August 11, 1993,
       Envisage Environmental Incorporated,  Richfield, OH, September 1,  1993.

12.    Paniculate Emissions Test For American Olean Tile Company, Fayette, AL, Crushing And
       Screening Line #1, October 15, 1991, Pensacola POC, Inc., Pensacola, FL, October 1991.

13.    Paniculate Emissions Test For American Olean Tile Company, Fayette, AL, Crushing And
       Screening Line #2, October 16, 1991, Pensacola POC, Inc., Pensacola, FL, October 1991.

14.    VOC Emission Test Repon For GE Ceramics Tape Casters Fume Oxidizer, Chattanooga,  TN,
       September 13-15, 1989, IT-Air  Quality Services Group, Knoxville, TN, October, 1989.

15.    Exhaust Emission Sampling For Nonon Company, Soddy-Daisy, TN, April 19-20, 1994,
       Armstrong Environmental, Inc., Dallas, TX, April 1994.

16.    Paniculate Emission Evaluation For Steward, Inc., Chattanooga, TN, March 30, 1993, FBT
       Engineering and Environmental Services, Chattanooga, TN, May 1993.

17.    D. Brosnan, "Technology and Regulatory Consequences of Fluorine Emissions in Ceramic
       Manufacturing", American Ceramic Industry Bulletin, 71 (12), pp 1798-1802,  The American
       Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH,  December 1992.

18.     Calciners And Dryers In The Mineral Industries-Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1985.
7/96                                  Mineral Products                                11.7-11
-------
19.     C. Palmonari and G. Timellini, Pollutant Emission Factors For The Ceramic Floor And Wall
       Tile Industry, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 32, No. 10, Pittsburgh,
       PA, October 1982.

20.     Report To American Standard On Stack Paniculate Samples Collected At Tiffin, OH (Test
       Date August 18, 1992), Affiliated Environmental Services, Inc., Sandusky, OH, August 24,
       1992.

21.     Report To American Standard On Stack Paniculate Samples Collected At Tiffin, OH (Test
       Date August 19, 1992), Affiliated Environmental Services, Inc., Sandusky, OH, August 24,
       1992.

22.     Report To American Standard On Stack Paniculate Samples Collected At Tiffin, OH (Test
       Date February 8, 1994), Affiliated Environmental Services, Inc., Sandusky, OH, February 15,
       1994.

23.     Emission Test Report-Plant A, Roller Kiln, May 1994, Document No. 4602-01-02,
       Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S.
       Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 8, 1995.

24.     Emission Test Report (Excerpts)-Plant A, Roller Kiln, June 1993, Document No. 4602-01-02,
       Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S.
       Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 8, 1995.

25.     Emission Test Report (Excerpts)-Plant A, Roller Kiln, February 1992, Document
       No. 4602-01-02, Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159,
       Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 8, 1995.

26.     Emission Test Report-Plant A, Spray Dryer, October 1994, Document No. 4602-01-02,
       Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S.
       Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 8, 1995.

27.     Emission Test Report (Excerpts)-Plant A, Spray Dryer, April 1994, Document
       No. 4602-01-02, Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159,
       Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 8, 1995.

28.     Emission Test Report (Excerpts)-Plant A, Spray Dryer, January 1993, Document
       No. 4602-01-02, Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159,
       Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 8, 1995.

29.     Emission Test Report (Excerpts)-Plant A, Spray Dryer, February 1992, Document
       No. 4602-01-02, Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159,
       Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 8, 1995.
 11.7-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                                7/96
-------
30.    Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 6445, Lead And Paniculate Emissions
       Testing, Spray Booth 2A Stack, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 20, 1989.

31.    Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 11.7, Ceramic Products Manufacturing,
       Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, June
       1996.
7/96                                   Mineral Products                                11.7-13
-------
11.8  Clay And Fly Ash Sintering

        NOTE:         Clay and fly ash sintering operations are no longer conducted in the
                       United States. However, this section is being retained for historical
                       purposes.

11.8.1  Process Description1"3

        Although the process for sintering fly ash and clay are similar, there are some distinctions that
justify a separate discussion of each process.  Fly ash sintering plants are generally located near the
source, with the fly ash delivered to a storage silo at the plant.  The dry fly ash is moistened with a
water solution of lignin and agglomerated into pellets or balls.  This material goes to a traveling-grate
sintering machine where direct contact with hot combustion gases sinters the individual particles of
the pellet and completely burns off the residual  carbon in the fly ash. The product is then crushed,
screened, graded, and stored in yard piles.

        Clay sintering involves the driving off of entrained volatile matter.  It is desirable that the
clay contain a sufficient amount of volatile matter so that the resultant aggregate will not be  too
heavy.  It is thus sometimes necessary to mix the clay with finely pulverized coke (up to 10  percent
coke by weight).   In the sintering process, the clay is first mixed with pulverized coke, if necessary,
and then pelletized. The clay is next sintered in a rotating kiln or  on a traveling grate.  The sintered
pellets are then crushed, screened, and stored, in a procedure similar to that for fly ash pellets.

11.8.2  Emissions And  Controls1

        In fly ash sintering, improper handling of the fly ash creates a dust problem. Adequate
design features, including fly ash wetting systems and paniculate collection  systems on all transfer
points and on crushing  and screening operations, would greatly reduce emissions.  Normally, fabric
filters are used to control emissions from the storage silo,  and emissions are low.  The absence of this
dust collection system,  however, would create a major emission problem.  Moisture is added at the
point of discharge from silo to the agglomerator, and very few emissions occur there. Normally,
there are few emissions from the sintering machine, but if the grate is not properly maintained, a dust
problem is created.  The consequent crushing, screening, handling, and storage of the sintered
product also create dust problems.

        In clay sintering,  the addition of pulverized coke presents an emission problem because the
sintering of coke-impregnated dry pellets produces more particulate emissions than the sintering of
natural clay.  The crushing, screening, handling, and storage of the sintered clay pellets creates dust
problems similar  to those encountered in fly-ash sintering.  Emission factors for both clay and fly-ash
sintering are shown in Tables 11.8-1 and 11.8-2.
2/72 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                               11.8-1
-------







a
O
z
>H SINTERI
*ffj
>H
J
Q
Z
>
J
a

a;
O
PH
1

O
•^
tu
Z
O
en
§

CA
*-»
'5
'—i
»— '
i:
1
oo

.O
c«
0)
•§
o
U










-^
"§
*-•
*-»
• ^M
b








0
1
u?
O




03
bo
§





O
1
Q-







s
a.




o^1^
&2 o H

2 tt, «

60 |3
"bb° 1
M S


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
60 "«
S t*-1 'B
~5b^ te
li^ ^M
*£
2; ^
2 o §
« ° E

UJ

60 .03
|o'l
^

Z ^ .-».
^D ^1 ^^
So E-i 5
w ^

__
!?<-' '1
&JD C3
^£<






^— V
o
o
4)
o
3
0













Q Q Q Q Q
z z z z z





Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z







Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z




tu w w uj u


>o o t^ vo *>
>n (S



b£
bO C Pirt *T3
•| 'c PT S
S " o
•*-* ** ' KA
C 0 S c
^^ C
»^T3 ^ft Kft**^ 1^1 ^
S S -S .S S^ 9 2
•£ 9 s S 9 rA ^v^
1? 1 §9 .c ^9
''lo " ^O ai-^O
IS ^^ •-• ® ••" VnT ^ u O
2 60 E ^ E bO >> >>^

UO-^OJ
•f? CO fj l/S rj ^ CQ 03 cC
;£ 	 , <^ r"5 -iC ^ W" ^- i_!
^•g ^^ S?^ 322
Ew o^O"5 z z"







es
08
•o
§
II .S
Q 2 |
Z so !S
C3 ^
fli "^? C
^5 Cn C
^3 G
O C bO
Q^) ^ C
c ^ S
"•2 
'1 "§ J o csi sj
•a J 1 '^; 2 ^
— • "Q « CO ^J .£
"Q O «5 "y ^H "^
I § | 0 | &
" « -S OS o "^
§ jS .« w ^ >-,
S "" 5 ^ S3 *
is! .s'iH
^ ^^ r^ c/3 T3
£ jj S 8 8 c 8
V2 -0 C C C O C
Q 2 ^ t- U. "O 2n

cd TS c o  as a>
u- u- a ei & oa os
W ,f* O "O O ^ W3
11.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/72
-------
   o

   i
   w

   2
   a
   00
   tu

   Q
   Z
   u

   g
   u-
   co
   tu


   O

   53
   CO
   w
   c



   j2


   I
   oo
 4>

3
o

2
D,
 
                                     0>
                                     u.
                                     CJ
                                     Ml
  Q
  Z
   W

60


v
  C
2 o.
•S E
^ I
                                                                            -
                                                                            co
                                                                            E


                                                                               §•
         g>
                                                                               ca
                                                                               w
                                                                               60
 o _g
 *•« '•?
 «>  fe
<-»  O


 iu  a3

-  g"


!t
 o —
"C  »
 0.£

 S.S

 O  5
    •«_»
•o  o
 o5  a>

                                                                              2 «?'  g
                                                                              OS
                                                                  ,0- S ""
                                                                   .2 S 8
                                                                   ^ c c
                                                                            * r •-  2
                                                                               2  ..
                                                                                  (N
                                                                       -     _
                                                                     ~  o  
-------
References For Section 11.8

1.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, Resources Research, Inc., VA, prepared for
     National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham,  NC, under Contract
     No. PA-22-68-119, April 1970.

2.   Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and a clay sintering firm,
     October 2, 1969.

3.   Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and an anonymous air
     pollution control agency, October  16, 1969.

4.   J. J. Henn, et al., Methods For Producing Alumina From Clay: An Evaluation Of Two Lime
     Sinter Processes, U. S. Bureau Of Mines, Department Of Interior, Washington, DC, Report of
     Investigation No. 7299, September 1969.

5.   F. A.  Peters, et al., Methods For Producing Alumina From Clay: An Evaluation Of The Lime-
     Soda Sinter Process, U.  S. Bureau Of Mines, Department Of Interior, Washington, DC,  Report
     of Investigation No. 6927, 1967.
H.8-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/72
-------
11.9  Western Surface Coal Mining

11.9  General1

        There are  12 major coal fields in the western states (excluding the Pacific Coast and Alaskan
fields),  as shown in Figure 11.9-1. Together, they account for more than 64 percent of the surface
minable coal reserves in the United States.2  The 12 coal fields have varying characteristics that may
influence fugitive dust emission rates from mining operations including overburden and coal seam
thicknesses and structure, mining equipment, operating procedures, terrain, vegetation, precipitation
and surface moisture, wind speeds, and temperatures.  The operations at a typical western surface
mine are shown in Figure  11.9-2.  All operations that involve movement  of soil, coal, or equipment,
or exposure of credible surfaces, generate some amount of fugitive dust.

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

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

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

11.9  Emissions

        Predictive  emission factor equations for open dust sources at western surface coal mines are
presented in Tables 11.9-1  and 11.9-2.  Each equation is for a single dust-generating activity,  such as
vehicle traffic on unpaved roads. The predictive equation explains much of the observed variance in
emission factors by relating emissions to 3 sets of source parameters:  (1) measures  of source activity
or energy expended (e. g.,  speed and weight of a vehicle traveling on an unpaved road);
(2) properties of the material being disturbed (e. g., suspendable fines in the surface material of an
unpaved road); and (3) climate (in this case, mean wind speed).

        The equations may be used to estimate particulate emissions generated per unit of source
extent (e. g., vehicle distance traveled or mass of material transferred). The equations were
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.9-1
-------
             COAL TYPE
             LIGNITE
             SUBBITUMINOUS CZJ
             BITUMINOUS
                       l
                       2
                       3
                       A
                       5
                       6
                       7
                       8
                       9
                      10
                      11
                      12
     Coal field

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

      23,529
      56,727
  All  underground
  Ali  underground
           3
       1,000
         30S
         224
       2,318
  All  underground
  All  underground
       2,120
                     Figure 11.9-1.  Coal fields of the western United States.
11.9-2
        EMISSION FACTORS
                      (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88
-------
                                                                         1
                                                                                                       c

                                                                                                       13

                                                                                                       u
                                                                                                       /5
                                                                                                       O)
                                                                                                       >>

                                                                                                       4_*
                                                                                                       
-------
  CO
  w
  U
  OS

  8
  CO
  H
  CO
  p
  Q

  Z
  Q
  s
  ^*
  oS
  u z
  z a
  £§
  z w
  Oco

  W Z
  **
  O W
  CO
  on
IA
-4-»

'c
  OJ
55 H PS
co (j H
|2S
V)





0^
•£-v
1>
0
E
CS
Q
.H
i
•o
o
1
4J
.y
c/5

^5
.2
(4
Q-
CQ
«
g
.2
«
UJ



1
f^
E
*
vi
cs
VI

___

p
a.
o
•— <
VI


E
a.
v>
VI








E
a.
0
VI
O.
CO



,
.rt
o
"ca
2






C
Q
1
a
o


U 03 03 00 CQ < 00 00 < X>

| s £ £ 1= $ $ $ $ if
-S
ocs>nt— vo-^or-
o o — o oooo
Qdddd dodo Q
Z Z






o
ca»n«n»og-i OOOO ^
v^ r**1 r*^1 ^~ r*~ ^ ^ ^3 ^ tJ
do odd dddd Z

in
f-; C- O ">
_; _^ S- t "^ *?£•
ZPPg^^^Sf^S « "^ — "S— ' ^"
^00^0^9^ 29 ^0
o^o d
X
CS
CS

^
ci r;

-. C- >« 2"
»n cs M ^ ri — '
"^ |G "3^ "i^ S^ -i, S sg ^ =
d " S"^ ^ "" ®" 29 ^2
o o o
X O
vo d
ON

c
o c c
•ta DO
i "H "2
0-6 11
— U ^- -M "C "U —
n > a a a o cs
o o o o > > o
o o o o o o

^.^
3 u ~C
•o ^ a

oo o o S *>„ o "o"
.5 -g S| §>•§ g
"Hbo £ «S-*g2«
C i* O .« O j^ C «— ' 2 ** ^ C ^"
| a S "S> g 2 1 s :» 3 -S '1 1
«5 C 3 >•• S? C- C o d cao^c
03HCQ QcoO> K<
&0
1
"o
1
II
^
•
.2
—
3
O
•g
03
C-
•q
S
"§
a,
i
2
II

co
E-

^
vU
o
C
t^
4>
Qi

a
o
£
.2
4>
_0>
oo
03
UM

M
"c3
(J

f_l
«s

o
X


i
di
(S
                                                                                 tN
                                                                                    o

                                                                                    o>
                                                                                    X)
                                                                               I   S
                                                                               o   y
                                                                               co   ""
                                                                                 0)
                                                                                 g
                                                                                 3    d
                                                                                 "n    C
                                                                                 M   VI

                                                                                 "
                                                                                 -o
                                                                                      CO  C
                                                                                         8
                                                                              -a c g w o
                                                                               o .22 o -^ S
                                                                               C <_> '+1 •*£ —•


                                                                              /^ ^ oj T: *-
                                                                                 O
                                                                                : C
                                                                                 co 5^>
                                                                            OS i: H co
11.9-4
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88
-------
                                 Ml


                                 ra
                                 w

                                 to
                                 S



                                "1
                                ri

                                VI
   o                            2 <*

   X                          • '% -'

   <*                         il-g

   H                         52  a> «
   J>                         g -g

   x;
   CQ
iO                         ,§
                   <-> >~' ** "O  C

           Is    S-sU-i
           •g  55 ^_^ a>  Q^5*-  *j  2 > ^"

           S "s S J  jj 2  ^  §"'5 .1

                   73  o |  8  E '"g S


                        1*8  *• &2

          -2&^>>§=^  a> 4>  fl3       o
              E^^eceOdiO -^
              ?T3B£Bt.^.s-<


           II  H  H  N  II  II  II  >> >> §-


           «=  3-O^CO ^J^'S'c1


                             5 1 'i
                             S S a;
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.9-5
-------
  V)
  w
  8
  00

  H
  CO

  p
  Q
  Q
  W
     on
  O m


  gf

  3 S

  04 _)

  O <
  fc O

  co U
  H

  U

  <
  CO

  CO
  W
   c

  p


   en
  W,
  O\
z
1
1







%
u
eg
5
'manic
^
T3
g
U
^
oo
CS
Oi
flj
N
_O
"o
tt
(X
OQ
C
*c«
W

























SP
£3


cn
*C
1
t!
£
X
"1
VI
•o
£
a.
o
vi




£
a.
^H
VI






£
o
m
VI
a.
H






•c
1
<*




c
.2
1
O






u CQ OQ CO OQ < « CQ < 1y



« c c c <" HHHH ]?
•Sfi 2 2 ">, S22S „ x
•5 "5 •> "^ <* >>>> « P
5££-°-o CCCC h
^ ££££ «

— < CS O — CSM'*'^
oo~nlO>D OOOO _
10 r^ t — r^ r^ *o ^o ^o *o u
b b b b b bbbb Z

v^
r4
§0
in ^ o ,, • ">
»£• *^~ * "i. * 2 m- "^ 5? csP ^
^^ , • *l )S ^^ ^> .^^ ^^ *sj ^J '•"< ^rl ^> ^^ '^i
^ 2" « " § ~ b o o
o - o d

s

^.
^ =L
•0 ^ M 5J „ ^ s
"< >£>£• "^n "^n 25 ^ % osg * =

b ~~ ?S^ ^^ §^ "s3- $
° ' "x ° §
r- b
cs


c
u c c
*o o o
Ui -rj -o
. 3 i! C
.!•§__!!
C3 > 03 « O D «
O O O 0 > > 0
a u u o o u

5 T3
3 O c
"O --^ cj
Wi IT o | o § "a?
r» t3 '• i 5 W) '"^ CJ
^ ° ^ ""P 2 8 =
wi p 2^-^o^-rt
O^" fli •— gO^_*OC

c ^j o t^i ^ > S ^ S *^ ^ c ^*
"3 ^ r3 rt1 S^"«^S--^ 3-j2*S2
^ ui D t-1 Q-ti'i-iOO cdO -C-- C
CDHCQ P&oO> X<

1
1
j§
1

.
Js
"3
p(

•o
4)
0,
V.
~~
•2
o
U
0.
H
^
•
D
o
C
«3
S
£
&
c

a

s
Qi
a>
o
c

a3
*«
05
C8
                                                      o
                                                      c
                                                 c
                                                 o
                                                                                          CJ

                                                                                      e   •£

                                                                                      u-     v^

                                                 £ S2 c3 "S

                                                .2 §-3 s
                                                   *r*l -4-1 v.^
                                                 <-? ±J r? ^3
                                                                                    g §
                                                      II II
                                                                                        CO


                                                                                        U
11.9-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88
-------
                                CD
                                .a
                                va


                                a.

                                IT)

                                IN

                                VI
                              o §
                             '£ g

                              il
                             •o o
                              ,-. «
                                t3

              8
          .2g-^>>e=2a-«

          £•§ g.S3  § §•« vi£l

           g-|2ggg§w«.a
           S^TSCCSS^^-^

           ii  ii  ii  ii  ii  ii  ii >, >,  £r

                             tu CL  b/i
          ««  3T3^C« ^J-S'^C



                             111
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                               11.9-7
-------
developed through field sampling of various western surface mine types and are thus applicable to any
of the surface coal mines located in the western United States.

       In Tables 11.9-1 and 11.9-2, the assigned quality ratings apply within the ranges of source
conditions that were tested in developing the equations given in Table 11.9-3.  However, the
equations should be derated 1 letter value (e. g., A to B) if applied to eastern surface coal mines.

       In using the equations to estimate emissions from sources found in a specific western surface
mine, it is necessary that reliable values for correction parameters be determined for the specific
sources of interest if the assigned quality ranges of the equations are to be applicable.  For example,
actual silt content of coal or overburden measured at a facility should be used instead of estimated
values.  In the event that site-specific values for correction parameters cannot be obtained, the
appropriate geometric mean values from Table 11.9-3 may be used, but the assigned quality rating of
each emission factor equation should be reduced by 1 level  (e. g., A to B).

       Emission factors for open dust sources not covered  in Table  11.9-3 are in Table 11.9-4.
These factors were determined through source testing at various western coal mines.
  Table 11.9-3 (Metric And English Units).  TYPICAL VALUES FOR CORRECTION FACTORS
           APPLICABLE TO THE PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS2
Source
Coal loading
Bulldozers
Coal

Overburden

Dragline


Scraper


Grader

Light/Medium duty
vehicle
Haul truck


Correction Factor
Moisture

Moisture
Silt
Moisture
Silt
Drop distance
Drop distance
Moisture
Silt
Weight
Weight
Speed
Speed
Moisture
Wheels
Silt loading
Silt loading
Number Of
Test
Samples
7

3
3
8
8
19
19
7
10
15
15
7

7
29
26
26
Range
6.6 - 38

4.0 - 22.0
6.0- 11.3
2.2- 16.8
3.8- 15.1
1.5-30
5- 100
0.2 - 16.3
7.2 - 25.2
33 -64
36-70
8.0 - 19.0
5.0- 11.8
0.9- 1.70
6.1 - 10.0
3.8 - 254
34 - 2270
Geometric
Mean
17.8

10.4
8.6
7.9
6.9
8.6
28.1
3.2
16.4
48.8
53.8
11.4
7.1
1.2
8.1
40.8
364
Units
%

%
%
%
%
m
ft
%
%
Mg
ton
kph
mph
%
number
g/m2
Ib/acre
a Reference 1.
11.9-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88
-------
   DH
   O

   g
   tu
   H
   U

   p <
   5
   O
   p
   o

   i
   s

   W
   H
§ X 0
igg
£2 U H;
«
3
cull;
H i 1
IB,
"c
J!
j
•§
s
s













4}
p
3
O
to





mm u u uu Q Q oo
J8.S .S .3 e 60 c00 e O*
J2 j= .§ js 35 .2 S 2 S
^ "Bo "S ^o IB 60 _o 60 IB w)
00 ON tN 8
O\ CNO V> tN -^-tN «O
CTi»Ti CS^^ OO ^C^ OO
— i O OO OO OO OO

1 > 1 £ t



e c
u u
"2 "2
3 rs 3
J5 O X5
^ t— 1 tfl l>4
u at a, u
> O O >
O 0 H O








t*
u
a,
S c
o u
i 1
CO Q*
O w
u U
2 "2
M ra 3
S g -e
•c & SJ
Q £ 0
0 O
Is
.0 u>
r- oo
85
0 O

>



c
u
"2
3
•e
u

O

|

•g
"eS
.£.

*flj
>
O
J=
en
U
O
a.
00
1
_o
^
Q Q
r" W)
Is
""•*
oo •*
So
o o

c







"a
o
O

u
a
|
U3
3
O
3
_C
C
O
u
o
S
e
eo
c
'•3
CO
_O
C
'g
Q Q W W
C «> C C
2 S 22
_D Qfl f^ W)
S5 ^ -S s*«
II §§
o o o o

5 >



c
u
•2
3
-e
o
>
o
u
'S;
2

2
J"i
s— •*
00
_c
a

3
o
fi.
E
3
•o
o
0
m
EQ UJ [IL] til W Cl4
c 00 c 00 c 60
Is Is Is

t^ •<*• »n r^i o o
 S5 S







"3
o
o














9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.9-9
-------

5 OH O
ill
•^ & «




'£
3





c »
o ^H
D" '5 o
H J £


a
C
o _g
2 j








_
o
"3













o
5
0
C/D










QQQQMWOOO U




~ 1£
"••* **-* -^ 4$ ^^ 4£* •«•»» «*£ L, ^T^ ^Jj J^
^2 OJQ T^ cj) !M bO T^"i CuO *•* *^ «3
*^ "* •* rt y
^^ ^



o

^OvpriOOTfrcSoo w^
O O O O O o O O CO 00
O O O O O O O O O O



= > > c
< <



e
u
1
JO
h*
o
>
.si
"•" oil

c S
I I H
U H co o







2
T3
U o
« "S a
e e g
64) "O as
.S J3 "^

5 ^5 o
1 «• £
3 60 U
J^ c •— 1
o -3 °
B J g
X "5 '£
s u 2
= U u
& ^
•o 2 c
c S S
U 60 £

0
u
o
.2 ^
.1 i
35 s wa
o* o ^
•« S ?
1 jL 1*
u i 2
IM Ji •'-'
a^ ^ v?^
^ "E .§
^ = "S.
O & Cu
•*-• ^ RJ
c_> q>
C3 ^{^ Q)
*+* "*-* rC^
c 'o e
•^ a> o
'£ S ^
S o 
"g ° =£
§"« S
t3 S o
O ^""* f XJ
o a>
^ ^ .1°

J2 ' ^
o a> -o
'^ C
? £ 4>
2 § =
e "^ a>
O '*-' >•
•| o o
O ;O <*-
lit
^ 0 0>
o *g .^
*T? Lj 4J
oj a> o
Q, 0 g
«j as 2
o *- s
1- «J Pi
*a3 C S
W 0) =•
un O
^ 2 S£^
•C ^ t«
Wj i/"^ u«
O Os •§
)2 _J CTJ
•S Z. c*-

1—1 T3 S
«3 C J=
2 * o
"^"
c ^j\ p*j
c ^
C yQ V3
I S S
o w y
r^ C~H
cs



en
i_
a>
£}
kM
ca
j=
U
c7^
. S
S2 c

.2 Ui
•4—* O^
C/3 *""*

fll
c« g
o
I4'!
C 4j
cfl <^
1 J§
1 J
*C "5
bj) o>

c5

2
"c "
CO
^ 0
>. s
*o

^ o
1 s.
^ >^
M 2
•— a)
-*-> c
a §
•^ &o
^ JS

t_> -C
§ 3=
QJ »-
Si
on 13
S"
2 ^
^2 o
3 "
"^ ^+2
"^

0. 0
•sl
•o c
§ S
3 >
^ "S
-ill
C r™* P-<
J2 0
11.9-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88
-------
        The factors in Table 11.9-4 for mine locations I through V were developed for specific
 geographical areas. Tables 11.9-5 and 11.9-6 present characteristics of each of these mines (areas).
 A "mine-specific"  emission factor should be used only if the characteristics of the mine for which an
 emissions estimate is needed are very similar to those of the mine for which the emission factor was
 developed.  The other (nonspecific) emission factors were developed at a variety of mine types and
 thus are applicable to any western surface coal mine.

        As  an alternative to the single valued emission factors given in Table  11.9-4 for train or truck
 loading and for truck or scraper unloading, 2 empirically derived emission factor equations are
 presented in Section 13.2.4 of this document.  Each equation was developed for a source operation
 (i. e., batch drop and continuous  drop, respectively) comprising a single dust-generating mechanism
 that crosses industry lines.

        Because the predictive equations allow emission  factor adjustment to specific source
 conditions,  the equations should be used in place of the factors  in Table 11.9-4 for the sources
 identified above if emission estimates for a specific western surface coal mine are needed. However,
 the generally higher quality ratings assigned to the equations are applicable only if:  (1) reliable
 values of correction parameters have been determined for the specific sources of interest, and (2) the
 correction parameter values lie within the ranges tested in developing the equations. Table 11.9-3
 lists measured properties of aggregate materials that can be used to estimate correction parameter
 values for the predictive emission factor equations in Chapter 13, in the event that site-specific values
 are not available.  Use of mean correction parameter values from Table 11.9-3 will reduce the quality
 ratings of the emission factor equations in Chapter 13 by 1 level.
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.9-11
-------
  I
  »••*
  s
  oo
  CO
  y
  H
    CQ
    Q
  'c Pi


  .—

  1
  C7S

~a e
II


f •$
j*

•S'
o

r
E
E
It
111
g w £
11
&0

u
o o
>







.S
1
o
*• ^
o.s











0.**




c
'i
u
,3


c
2

¥1
00
en

«— i
in
en
ts
£
1
J2"
U

Moderate,
sagebrush



Moderately
steep

|
S
3



O
2
"o
U
£
*

2
vo

^
en
O
vd
Arid soil with clay
and alkali or
carbonate
accumulation (86)

CA
5
8"H>
a a
O, *
CO



Semirugged

|
js
.0
3
CO


BO
O
£
CO
VO
1
1— 1
*
oo
r-
0
oo
II
I!
i!§
CO

2 o J
8 -8 :i 1
U* O g g
g, E o. so
CO

-a
Wl Ml
^ tn
I2

|
S
3
CO



03
C
2
e
o
U
CO

r-- •*
*— i <— i
en vo
•* en

es •*
«-> en
o q
5 S1
x ^"o ^
« C^ H "e o
o r*. « « ,— •
*ii C* trt s^-
ft £!!
03 03 rt ^« o
OK O O — S
j _i

* 1 1
« .2 — - i
tw C M ft} •*?
aj .S eo 2n v
-3 ca 03 u Wl
o &.B, g.S
2 co
00
"s
60 >.
o w
SH &0
•=" s
y A
o E

S
u 3
'1 '1

J co
o
.X
Q
r 'S
z 1
"2
c u
U Z
- H 3 > >
                                                                
-------
    Table 11.9-6 (English Units).  OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COAL MINES
                            REFERRED TO IN TABLE 11.9-4a
Parameter
Production rate
Coal transport
Stratigraphic
data





Coal analysis
data



Surface
disposition





Storage
Blasting



Required Information
Coal mined
Avg. unit train frequency
Overburden thickness
Overburden density
Coal seam thicknesses
Parting thicknesses
Spoils bulking factor
Active pit depth
Moisture
Ash
Sulfur
Heat content
Total disturbed land
Active pit
Spoils
Reclaimed
Barren land
Associated disturbances
Capacity
Frequency, total
Frequency, overburden
Area blasted, coal
Area blasted, overburden
Units
106 ton/yr
per day
ft
lb/yd3
ft
ft
%
ft
%
%, wet
%, wet
Btu/lb
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
per week
per week
ft2
ft2

I
1.13
NA
21
4000
9,35
50
22
52
10
8
0.46
11000
168
34
57
100
—
12
NA
4
3
16000
20000

II
5.0
NA
80
3705
15,9
15
24
100
18
10
0.59
9632
1030
202
326
221
30
186
NA
4
0.5
40000
—
Mine
III
9.5
2
90
3000
27
NA
25
114
24
8
0.75
8628
2112
87
144
950
455
476

IV
3.8
NA
65
—
2,4,8
32,16
20
80
38
7
0.65
8500
1975
—
—
—
—
—

V
12.0b
2
35
—
70
NA
—
105
30
6
0.48
8020
217
71
100
100
—
46
— NA 48000
3
3
—
—
7
NA
30000
NA
7b
7b
—
—
a Reference 4.
b Estimate.
NA = not applicable.  Dash = no data.
References For Section 11.9

1.      K. Axetell and C. Cowherd, Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western
       Surface Coal Mining Sources, 2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1981.
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)
                   Mineral Products Industry
11.9-13
-------
2.     Reserve Base Of U. S. Coals By Sulfur Content: Part 2, The Western States, IC8693, Bureau
       Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC,  1975.

3.     Bituminous Coal And Lignite Production And Mine Operations -1978, DOE/EIA-0118(78),
       U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, June 1980.

4.     K. Axetell, Survey Of Fugitive Dust From Coal Mines, EPA-908/1-78-003, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO, February 1978.

5.     D. L. Shearer, et al., Coal Mining Emission Factor Development And Modeling Study, Amax
       Coal Company, Carter Mining Company, Sunoco Energy Development Company, Mobil Oil
       Corporation, and Atlantic Richfield Company, Denver, CO, July 1981.
 H.9-14                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88
-------
11.10 Coal Cleaning

11.10.1  Process Description1"2'9

        Coal cleaning is a process by which impurities such as sulfur, ash, and rock are removed
from coal to upgrade its value.  Coal cleaning processes are categorized as either physical cleaning or
chemical cleaning.  Physical coal cleaning processes, the mechanical  separation of coal from its
contaminants using differences in density, are by far the major processes in use today.  Chemical coal
cleaning processes are currently being developed, but their performance and cost are undetermined at
this time.  Therefore, chemical processes are not included in this discussion.

        The scheme used in physical coal cleaning processes varies among coal cleaning plants but
can generally be divided into four basic phases:  initial preparation, fine coal processing, coarse coal
processing, and final preparation.  A process flow diagram for a typical coal cleaning plant is
presented in Figure  11.10-1.

        In  the initial preparation phase of coal cleaning,  the raw coal  is unloaded, stored, conveyed,
crushed, and classified by screening into coarse and fine coal fractions.  The size fractions are then
conveyed to their respective cleaning processes.

        Fine coal processing and coarse coal processing  use similar operations and equipment to
separate the contaminants.  The primary difference is the severity  of operating parameters.  The
majority of coal cleaning processes use upward currents  or pulses  of a fluid such as  water to fluidize
a bed of crushed coal and impurities.  The lighter coal particles rise and are removed from the top of
the bed. The heavier impurities are removed from the bottom.  Coal cleaned in the  wet processes
then must be dried in the final preparation processes.

        Final preparation processes are used to remove moisture from coal, thereby  reducing freezing
problems and weight and raising the heating value. The first processing step is dewatering, in which
a major portion of the water  is removed by the use of screens,  thickeners, and cyclones.  The second
step is normally thermal drying, achieved by any one of three dryer types:  fluidized bed, flash, and
multilouvered.  In the fluidized bed dryer, the coal is suspended and dried  above a perforated plate by
rising hot gases.  In the flash dryer, coal is fed into a stream of hot gases for instantaneous drying.
The dried coal  and wet  gases are both  drawn up a drying column and into a cyclone for separation.
In the multilouvered dryer, hot gases are passed through a falling curtain of coal, which is then raised
by  flights of a specially designed conveyor.

11.10.2  Emissions And Controls1'2'9'10

        Emissions from the initial coal preparation phase of either  wet or dry processes consist
primarily of fugitive particulate matter (PM) as coal dust from roadways, stock piles, refuse areas,
loaded railroad cars, conveyor belt pouroffs, crushers, and classifiers. The major control technique
used to  reduce these emissions is water wetting.  Another technique that applies to unloading,
conveying, crushing, and screening operations involves enclosing the  process area and circulating air
from the area through fabric filters.  Uncontrolled emission factors for various types of fugitive
sources  in coal  cleaning facilities can be developed from the equations found in Section 13.2,
"Fugitive Dust  Sources".
11/95                                     Coal Cleaning                                   11.10-1
-------
  0
©
           So








G
•
i
j

S
"C
3
g


irS)





)
L

i
cf
i
5
2.
W
J
i
j
i
j







h-




	



©•
I
j

g
2
S
I
i







— 1



n
&
!



—



^.





T


DRYNQ
(3-05-01(M)1.-02.03.
-M,-310-01.-02.-03,-«4)

COAL
DEWATEHMQ
!
^s|
lji|















^^

1







"
f
1
S
2
X
'




S
B
a
j
i
s
3




                                                                           S

                                                                           2

                                                                           S
                                                                           •3

                                                                           S
                                                                           o
                                                                           JJ  C

                                                                           ""  2



                                                                           o|
                                                                           o V.
                                                                           CS
                                                                              00

                                                                              !«
                                                                           3 I
                                                                           o
                                                                           k*
                                                                           3
11.10-2
                    EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
       The major emission source in the fine or coarse coal processing phases is the air exhaust from
the air separation processes (air tables).  For the dry cleaning process, these emissions are generated
when the coal is stratified by pulses of air.  Paniculate matter emissions from this source are
normally controlled with cyclones followed by fabric filters. Potential emissions from wet cleaning
processes are very low.

       The major source of emissions from the final preparation phase is the thermal dryer  exhaust.
This emission stream contains coal particles entrained in the drying gases  and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) released from the coal, in addition to the standard products of coal combustion
resulting from burning coal to generate the hot gases (including carbon monoxide [CO], carbon
dioxide [CO2], VOC,  sulfur dioxide [SO2], and  nitrogen oxides [NOX]).  Table 11.10-1 shows
emission factors  for PM. Emission factors for S02, NOX, VOC, and CO2 are presented in
Table 11.10-2. The most common technology used to control dryer emissions is venturi scrubbers
and mist eliminators downstream from the product recovery cyclones.  The control efficiency of these
techniques for filterable PM ranges from 98 to 99.9 percent.  Scrubbers also may achieve between 0
and 95 percent control of SO2 emissions.  The use of a neutralizing agent (such as NaOH) in the
scrubber water increases the SO2 removal efficiency of the scrubber.

       A number of inorganic hazardous air pollutants are found in trace quantities in coal.  These
include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel,  lead, thorium,
and uranium.  It is likely that many of these are  emitted in trace amounts from crushing, grinding,
and drying operations.

       The  new source performance standards (NSPS) for coal preparation plants were promulgated
in January 1976  (40 CFR Subpart Y). These standards specify emission limits for PM  from coal
cleaning thermal dryers and pneumatic cleaning  equipment sources, and opacity limits for fugitive
emissions from coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems,  and coal transfer and
loading systems.
11/95                                   Coal Cleaning                                  11.10-3
-------
              Table 11.10-1. PM EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL CLEANING*
                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D (except as noted)
Process
Multilouvered dryer
(SCC 3-05-010-03)
Fluidized bed dryer6
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi
scrubber"
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi scrubber
and tray scrubber*
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
Air tables with fabric filter"1
(SCC 3-05-010-13)
Filterable PMb
PM
3.7
26f
0.17

0.025
0.032"

PM-2.5
ND
3.88
ND

ND
ND

PM-1.0
ND
1.1*
ND

ND
ND

Condensible PMC
Inorganic
0.057
0.034h
0.043

ND
0.033P

Organic
0.018
0.0075h
0.0048

ND
0.00261

  a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of coal feed, unless noted.  1 Ib/ton = 2 kg/Mg. SCC =
    Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
  b
    Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or
    equivalent) sampling train.
  0 Condensible PM  is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
  d Reference 11. Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-03, which corresponds to  units of Ib/thousand tons
    of coal feed.  To determine the emission factor for this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in
    this table by 1,000.
  e Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-01, which corresponds to units of Ib/thousand tons of coal feed.
    To determine the emission  factor for this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in this table by
    1,000.
  f References 12,15.
  g References 12,15.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.  Particle size data from Reference  15
    used in conjunction with filterable PM data from References 12 and 15.  Actual cut size of
    PM-2.5 data was 2.7 microns.
  h Reference 12.
  J  References 12-13,15-16,20. See footnote "e" above for alternate SCC.
  k Reference 21.  Tray scrubber using  NaOH as the scrubbing liquid.  See footnote "e" above
    for alternate SCC.
  m Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-13, which corresponds to units of Ib/thousand tons of coal feed.
    To determine the emission  factor for this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in this table by
    1,000.
  " References 18-19.
  p Reference 19.
  q Reference 18.
11.10-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
                Table 1 1 . 10-2.  GASEOUS POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS
                                  FOR COAL CLEANING8
                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D (except as noted)
Process
Multilouvered dryer6
(SCC 3-05-010-03)
Fluidized bed dryerd
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi scrubber11
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi scrubber
and tray scrubber1"
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
vocb
ND
ND
0.098*
ND
SO2
ND
1.4e
k
0.072"
NOX
ND
O.l6f
0.16f
0.16f
CO2
160
308
3QS
30S
                                                         1 Ib/ton = 2 kg/Mg.

                                                                   Measurement may
a  Emission factor units are Ib/ton of coal feed, unless noted.
   SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b  VOC as methane, measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train.
   include compounds designated as nonreactive.
c  Reference 11.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.  Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-03, which
   corresponds to units of Ib/thousand tons of coal feed. To determine the emission factor for
   this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in this table by 1,000.
d  Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-01, which corresponds to units of Ib/thousand tons of coal  feed.
   To determine the emission factor for this alternate, SCC, multiply the factor in this table by
   1,000.
e  References 12,14,17.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.
f  References 12,14,21.
   not expected to provide control of NOX emissions.
g  References 12-16,20.  Includes CO2 measurements before and after control devices that are
   not expected to provide control of CO2 emissions.
h  See footnote "d" above for alternate SCC.
J   References 13-14.
k  Venturi scrubbers may achieve between 0 and 95% control of SO2 emissions. The use of a
   neutralizing agent in the scrubber water increases the SO^ control efficiency.
m  Venturi scrubber followed by tray scrubber using a NaOH solution as the scrubbing liquid.
   See footnote "d" above for alternate SCC.
n  Reference 21.
                         Includes NOX measurements before and after control devices that are
11/95
                                    Coal Cleaning
11.10-5
-------
References For Section 11.10

 1.     Background Information For Establishment Of National Standards Of Performance For New
       Sources: Coal Cleaning Industry, EPA Contract No. CPA-70-142, Environmental
       Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, July 1971.

 2.     Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Contract No. CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research Inc.,
       Reston, VA, April 1970.

 3.     Stack Test Results On Thermal Coal Dryers (Unpublished), Bureau Of Air Pollution Control,
       Pennsylvania Department Of Health, Harrisburg, PA.

 4.     "Amherst's Answer To Air Pollution Laws",  Coal Mining And Processing, 7(2):26-29,
       February 1970.

 5.     D. W. Jones,  "Dust Collection At Moss No. 3", Mining Congress Journal, 55(7):53-56,
       July  1969.

 6.     E. Northcott,  "Dust Abatement At Bird Coal", Mining Congress Journal, 53:26-29,
       November 1967.

 7.     Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants, Volume 2:
       Test Data Summary, EPA-450/2-74-021b, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

 8.     Estimating Air Toxic Emissions From Coal And  Oil Combustion Sources, EPA-450/2-89-001,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1989.

 9.     Second Review Of New Source Performance Standards For Coal Preparation Plants,
       EPA-450/3-88-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 1988.

10.     Estimating Air Toxic Emissions From Coal and Oil Combustion Sources, EPA-450/2-89-001,
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1989.

11.     Emission Testing Report: Bureau Of Mines, Grand Forks, North Dakota, EMB
       Report 73-CCL-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       April 1973.

12.     Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Consolidation Coal Company, Bishop, West Virginia,
       EMB Report 72-CCL-19A, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC,  February 1972.

13.     Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Westmoreland Coal Company, Wentz  Plant, EMB
       Report 72-CCL-22, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       April 1972.

14.     Emission Test Report, U.S.  Steel #50, Pineville, West Virginia, EMB Report 73-CCL-l, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1972.
11.10-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                               11195
-------
 15.    Emission Test Report, Westmoreland Coal Company, Quinwood, West Virginia, EMB
       Report 75-CCL-7, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1976.

 16.    Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests: Consolidation Coal Company, Bishop, West Virginia,
       EMB Report 73-CCL-19, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, November 1972.

 17.    Report By York Research Corporation On Emissions From The Island Creek Coal Company
       Coal Processing Plant,  Vansant, Virginia, EMB Report 72-CCL-6, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1972.

 18.    Report By York Research Corporation On Emissions From The Florence Mining Company
       Coal Processing Plant,  Seward, Pennsylvania, EMB Report 72-CCL-4, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1972.

 19.    Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests: Eastern Associates Coal Company, Keystone, West
       Virginia, EMB Report 72-CCL-13, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, February 1972.

20.    Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests: Island Creek Coal Company,  Vansant, Virginia,
       EMB Report 73-CCL-2, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, September 1972.

21.    Report On Compliance Testing, Performed For Peabody Coal Company,  Ha\vthome Mine,
       Carlisle, Indiana, Clean Air Engineering, Palatine, IL, May 6,  1993.
11/95                                  Coal Cleaning                                 11.10-7
-------
11.11 Coal Conversion

        In addition to its direct use for combustion, coal can be converted to organic gases and
liquids, thus allowing the continued use of conventional oil- and gas-fired processes when oil and gas
supplies are not available.  Currently, there is little commercial coal conversion in the United States.
Consequently, it is very difficult to determine which of the many conversion processes will be
commercialized in the future. The following sections provide general process descriptions and
general emission discussions for high-, medium- and low-Btu gasification (gasifaction) processes and
for catalytic and solvent extraction liquefaction processes.

11.11.1  Process Description1"2

11.11.1.1  Gasification-
        One means of converting coal to an alternate form of energy is gasification.  In this process,
coal is combined with oxygen and steam to produce a combustible gas, waste gases,  char, and ash.
The more than 70 coal gasification systems available or being developed  in 1979 can be classified by
the heating value of the gas produced and by the type of gasification reactor used.  High-Btu
gasification systems produce a gas with a heating value greater than 900 Btu/scf (33,000 J/m3).
Medium-Btu gasifiers produce a gas having a heating value between 250  - 500 Btu/scf
(9,000 - 19,000 J/m3).  Low-Btu gasifiers produce a gas having a heating value of less than
250 Btu/scf (9,000 J/m3).

        The majority of the gasification systems consist of 4  operations:  coal pretreatment, coal
gasification, raw gas cleaning, and gas beneficiation.  Each of these operations  consists of several
steps.  Figure 11.11-1 is a flow diagram for an example coal gasification facility.

        Generally, any coal can  be gasified if properly pretreated. High-moisture coals may require
drying.  Some caking coals may require partial oxidation to simplify gasifier operation.  Other
pretreatment operations include  crushing, sizing, and briqueting of fines for feed to fixed bed
gasifiers. The coal feed is pulverized for fluid or entrained bed gasifiers.

        After pretreatment, the coal enters the gasification reactor where  it reacts with oxygen and
steam to produce a combustible  gas.  Air is used as the oxygen source for making  low-Btu gas, and
pure oxygen is used for making medium- and high-Btu gas (inert  nitrogen in the air dilutes the
heating value of the product). Gasification reactors are classified by type of reaction bed (fixed,
entrained, or fluidized), the operating pressure (pressurized or atmospheric), the method of ash
removal (as molten slag  or dry ash), and the number of stages in  the gasifier (1 or 2).  Within each
class, gasifiers have similar emissions.

        The raw gas from the gasifier contains varying concentrations of  carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen, methane, other organics, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), miscellaneous acid
gases, nitrogen (if air was used as the oxygen source),  particulates,  and water.  Four gas purification
processes may be required to prepare the gas for combustion or further beneficiation: paniculate
removal, tar and oil removal, gas quenching and cooling, and acid gas removal. The primary
function of the particulate removal process is the removal of  coal  dust, ash, and tar aerosols in the
raw product gas. During tar and oil removal and gas quenching and cooling, tars and oils are
condensed, and other impurities such as ammonia are scrubbed from raw product gas using either
aqueous or organic scrubbing liquors.  Acid  gases such as H2S, COS, CS2, mercaptans, and CO2 can


2/80 (Reformatted  1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.11-1
-------
                   Coal  Preparation
                    "Drying
                    "Crushing
                    "Partial Oxidation
                    "Briqueting
                                           Coal
                                           preparation
                                        *Coal Hopper Gas
                                                                       Tar
                                                                       •Tail Gas
                                                                                  Gasif icatior.
                                                                                 Raw gas
                                                                                ' cleaning
                                                                       Sulfur
                                                                                  Gas
                                                                                  beneficiation
                           product gas
                      High-Btu
                      Product Gas
                    Figure 11.11-1. Flow diagram of typical coal gasification plant.
11.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80
-------
be removed from gas by an acid gas removal process.  Acid gas removal processes generally absorb
the acid gases in a solvent, from which they are subsequently stripped, forming a nearly pure acid gas
waste stream with some hydrocarbon carryover.  At this point, the raw gas is classified as either a
low-Btu or medium-Btu gas.

       To produce high-Btu gas, the heating value of the medium-Btu gas is raised by shift
conversion and methanation.  In the shift conversion process, H20 and a portion of the CO are
catalytically reacted to form CO2 and H2. After passing through an absorber for CO2 removal,  the
remaining CO and H2 in the product gas are reacted in a methanation reactor to yield CH4 and H20.

       There are also many auxiliary processes accompanying a coal gasification facility, which
provide various support functions. Among the typical auxiliary processes are oxygen plant, power
and steam plant, sulfur recovery unit,  water treatment plant, and cooling towers.

11.11.1.2  Liquefaction -
       Liquefaction is a conversion process designed to produce synthetic organic  liquids from  coal.
This conversion is achieved by reducing the level of impurities and increasing the hydrogen-to-carbon
ratio of coal to the point that it becomes fluid. There were over 20 coal liquefaction processes in
various stages of development by both industry and Federal agencies  in 1979.  These processes  can be
grouped into 4 basic liquefaction techniques:

       -  Indirect liquefaction
       -  Pyrolysis
       -  Solvent  extraction
       -  Catalytic liquefaction

Indirect liquefaction involves the gasification  of coal followed by the  catalytic conversion of the
product gas to a liquid.  Pyrolysis liquefaction involves heating coal to very high temperatures,
thereby cracking the coal into liquid and gaseous products.  Solvent extraction  uses a solvent
generated within the process to dissolve the coal  and to transfer externally produced hydrogen to the
coal molecules.  Catalytic liquefaction resembles solvent extraction, except that hydrogen is added to
the coal with the aid of a catalyst.

       Figure 11.11-2 presents the flow diagram of a typical solvent extraction or  catalytic
liquefaction plant.  These coal liquefaction processes consist of 4 basic operations:  coal  pretreatment,
dissolution and liquefaction, product separation and purification, and  residue gasification.

       Coal pretreatment generally consists of coal pulverizing and drying.  The dissolution of  coal
is best effected if the coal is dry and finely ground.  The heater used  to dry coal is  typically coal
fired, but it may also combust low-BTU-value product streams or may use waste heat from other
sources.

       The dissolution and liquefaction operations are conducted in a series of pressure  vessels. In
these processes, the coal is mixed with hydrogen and recycled solvent, heated to high temperatures,
dissolved, and hydrogenated.  The order in which these operations occur varies among the
liquefaction processes and, in  the case of catalytic liquefaction, involves  contact widi a catalyst.
Pressures  in these processes range up to 2000 psig (14,000 Pa), and temperatures range up to 900°F
(480°C).  During the dissolution and liquefaction process, the coal is hydrogenated to liquids and
some gases, and the oxygen and sulfur in the coal are hydrogenated to H20 and H2S.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.11-3
-------
                     O 10
                     >j ffl
                     CM CO
                                              CJ -O
                                              3 -H
                                              •O 3
                                              o cr
                        C8
                      CO CJ
                      nj in
                      U >w
        3 «
        CT U
        •H O
        ~ a
          o
                                                            CJ
                                                            3
                                                            •a
                                                            •H
                                                            CO
                                                            01
                                                        I
                                                        13
                                                        ico
                                                        I

                                                                                                  
-------
        After hydrogenation, the liquefaction products are separated through a series of flash
separators, condensers, and distillation units into a gaseous stream, various product liquids, recycle
solvent, and mineral residue.  The gases from the separation process are separated further by
absorption into a product gas stream and a waste acid gas stream. The recycle solvent is returned to
the dissolution/liquefaction process, and the mineral residue of char, undissolved coal, and ash is used
in a conventional gasification plant to produce hydrogen.

        The residue gasification plant closely resembles a conventional high-Btu coal gasifaction plant.
The residue is gasified in the presence of oxygen and steam to produce CO, H2, H2O, other waste
gases, and particulates.  After treatment for removal of the waste gases and particulates, the CO and
H2O go into a shift reactor to produce C02 and additional H2. The H2-enriched product gas from the
residue gasifier is used subsequently in the hydrogenation of the coal.

        There are also many auxiliary processes accompanying a coal liquefaction facility that provide
various support functions. Among the typical auxiliary processes are oxygen plant, power and steam
plant,  sulfur recovery unit, water treatment plant, cooling towers, and sour water  strippers.

11.11.2 Emissions And Controls1"3

        Although characterization data are available for some of the many developing coal conversion
processes, describing these data in detail would require a  more extensive discussion than possible
here.  So, this section will cover emissions  and controls for coal  conversion processes on a qualitative
level only.

11.11.2.1  Gasification -
        All of the major operations associated with low-, medium- and high-Btu gasification
technology (coal pretreatment, gasification,  raw gas cleaning, and gas beneficiation) can produce
potentially hazardous air emissions.  Auxiliary operations, such as sulfur recovery and combustion of
fuel for electricity and steam generation, could account for a major portion  of the emissions from a
gasification plant.  Discharges to the air from both major  and auxiliary operations are summarized
and  discussed in Table 11.11-1.

        Dust emissions from coal storage, handling,  and crushing/sizing can be controlled with
available techniques. Controlling air emissions from coal drying, briqueting, and partial oxidation
processes is more difficult because of the volatile organics and possible trace metals liberated as the
coal is heated.

        The coal gasification process itself appears to be the most serious potential source of air
emissions. The feeding of coal  and the withdrawal of ash release emissions of coal or ash  dust and
organic and inorganic gases that are potentially toxic and carcinogenic.  Because of their reduced
production of tars and condensable organics, slagging gasifiers pose less severe emission problems at
the coal inlet and ash outlet.

        Gasifiers and associated equipment also will be sources of potentially hazardous fugitive leaks.
These  leaks may be more severe from pressurized gasifiers and/or gasifiers operating at high
temperatures.

        Raw gas cleaning and gas beneficiation operations appear to be smaller sources of potential air
emissions. Fugitive emissions have not been characterized but are potentially large.  Emissions from
the acid gas removal process depend on the kind of removal process employed at a plant.  Processes
used for acid gas removal may remove both sulfur compounds and CO2 or may be operated

2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.11-5
-------
  §
  g
  So
  <
  O
  O
  u
  oo
  z
  o

  53
  C/3
  tu
  O

  ><
  oi

  <

  S


Summary Of Emission Control Choices
Characterization Of Emission


S
5
1
2
3
O
V>
e
_2
0)
V>
'§
U
•J5
.2
2
8.
o





at —
S 0 „
Water sprays and polymer coatings are used to
control dust emissions from coal storage piles.
Water sprays and enclosed equipment are vented I
baghouse to reduce or capture particulates from c<
handling. Emissions from crushing/sizing are als<
usually vented to a baghouse or other particulate
control device.
4) -0
s-i .
£ * e
^ c o
° e
c t» BO§
« 3 C °
<»2|$
•s g £g
•o u iT ?
e <« -o -o
S o 0 c
•c »•• 13 M
*12$
l*.ii
•S-iT8-
11 N
u c C! a
Jill
Ifij
.S 1 "1 1
£§§1

1
g
i§
*53
60
J
W
O
1
03

~ ^ w
c .S c
g =3.2
1 S s
8 -Se
S *? 4i
S 1>
£ j?i
•a so
O CO
u


In addition to particulate control devices,
afterburners may be needed to destroy organic
species.
emissions comprise coal dust and combustion
along with a variety of organic compounds
itilized from the coal. Organic species have
en determined.
8 8*5-°
£ & > —
H &•§ i
60
e
1
•c
£
1
03
C
_g
03
•a
'x
o
03
'•e ">
I"
O. a
. oo
60 «j
C C
•r* o
£>
a



This stream could represent a significant
•o
c
1
8
8
a,
CA
«4
3
O
•s
s
03
.e
u
^
"3
e
2
S
8
V)
U
e/)
a
v
V)
u
J=







tf}
S
03
Ofi
1 1
a «•*
o .
S M
•> c
oj .::
60 T3
qj
« U
0 U.
U

o
environmental problem. Control could include
scrubbing or incineration (to capture or destroy th
most hazardous species), or venting to the raw
IB
•02
Ig -a
Is*
Wi
5 «S
»i §
In-
'S8-S
01 . *
SoN8
tS*0 15
1^1
aUJ
> t« a.
sSi
^S'^
.iJl


















2 >,
product gas or gasifier inlet air. The desired cont
depends on the type and size of gasification facilit
Screw fed conveyors can be used instead of lock
nics. The size and composition of this stream
j on the type of gasifier, e. g., fluidized bed
TS emit substantially fewer tars and oils than
CQ ^ U
£?§£
1 fra
.5 T3 60



















i
a.
J
!2
u
G
*sfl
03
60
"8
.O
1?
V
X
G



















These emissions have not been sufficiently
characterized to recommend necessary controls.
§ e
1?<§
!1
fS
2*^
'•3 —
1 ?
05 — .
Cfl
!'
i|
a<
11
E 'S
5 «
>S °°
!«
S3 5t*
w ^>
•g o
w -s






S
vt
SS
60
c
u
>
1
a
>
O
1
C
j^
Crt
<


o
I Particluate or organic emission controls could be
needed. Clean water may be used for quenching
lifters that are not slagging or agglomerating
lits. If contaminated water is used for ash
vj t;
5> =
-- •£
"oS 03



















avoid the potential emission of hazardous volatile
organic and inorganic species.
hing, volatile organic and inorganic species
e released from the quench liquor.
0 -0
c ^
a> s*
3 S
o" S


















en K^

o|
A flare can incinerate the combustible constitutent;
in the startup gas, but heavy tars and coal
particulates will affect the performance of the flan
Potential problems with tars and particulates can b
avoided by using charcoal or coke as the startup f
;ent gas inititally resembles a coal combustion
composition. As the operating temperature of
s increases, the startup gas begins to resemble
?* C 03
„ -5 60
£ « .e
H 60-S








u
CA
a
00
1c
u
>
c.
3
•g
03
CO

C/5
&
o
3
•o
S
G.
^
2
u
^

















  ~
  IS
11.11-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80
-------
   —
   2
   03




ission Control Choices
Summary Of Emi



| Characterization Of Emission
e

bM
55
"55
o
3
O
.2
CO
'£
OJ
"2
2
o









o
u
B
U
.|
1
I
g
1
;rol methods mainly
operating practices.
11


These emissions have not been characterized, but
they comprise hazardous species found in the raw
product gas such as H2S, COS, CS2, CO, HCN,
CH4, and others.





c
"cs
O
u
c
m
"So
_c
J?
1>
«, U
u M
.« OS
••= o
00
= i
U. a
C*


O
o
c
involve good mainten:
irol methods mainly
operating practices.
U§1
»
^ M
These emissions have not been characterized, but
they comprise hazardous species found in the varic
gas streams. Other emissions result from leaks fro
pump seals, valves, flanges, and byproduct storage
tanks.












>
^
00
3
U.

fli M
2r CS
& -T2 -C
» -C 3 U
S K£ So
$ * 8 « "£
O 3 •• * _C *2
S-S-pl o § 31
lilt!!!
•5-= £ o fi §8 £
i£>2E"=°l5
t/3S«u>>oS<3
« > ^ •'o g o 5 •=
^-uc^2oS
ll^1Hl^
£ X11^ w CA eft ^
ilsillll
lil^lli
•s i-11^^^ "<-
9,3§|l£l8
••2 1-lS |« B-| 8
SS*1 — Citsoe1"
uggEcng'SfeS
C4'?!-"U2M^U
ig£§«|£?«S
co
E u >
0 0. o
* o §
f/> ^. ^H
a u Vj
O .2=5
~~ t*~^
"O '^ .3
'3 3 V)
< <

_ 2
3 £
o a
ie significant environm
itrols are generally sim
il feeding vent gases.
8. 8 §
i||
** ^ C
all
oo
c
See Section 1.1
These streams comprise volatile organic and
inorganic species that desorb from quenching/cooli
liquor. The streams potentially include all the
hazardous species found in the product gas.
VI
O
00
c
o
' C/i
C
c I
.2 OJ
i
c "c
u o
oo g
SU
« £
= 1
CC «
^ ^
O
^ J
O t*
O^ «J?
?

O 03
1 13

if hazardous volatile 01
ay be avoided by usinj
potential emission o
inorganic species m
r for cooling.
o -o S
£§0

u
Emissions from cooling towers are usually minor.
However, if contaminated water is used as cooling
water makeup, volatile organic and inorganic speci
from the contaminated water could be released.





CA
So
3
a
X

u
0
H
bO
c

o
o
u
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.11-7
-------
selectively to remove only the sulfur compounds.  Typically, the acid gases are stripped from the
solvent and processed in a sulfur plant.  Some processes, however, directly convert the absorbed
hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur. Emissions from these direct conversion processes (e. g., the
Stretford process) have not been characterized but are probably minor, consisting of CO2, air,
moisture, and small amounts of NH3.

        Emission controls for 2 auxiliary processes (power and steam generation and sulfur recovery)
are discussed elsewhere in this document (Sections 1.1 and 8.13, respectively). Gases stripped or
desorbed from process waste waters are potentially hazardous, since they contain  many of the
components found in  the product gas.  These include sulfur and nitrogen species,  organics, and other
species that are toxic  and potentially carcinogenic.  Possible controls for these gases include
incineration, byproduct recovery, or venting to the raw product gas or inlet air.  Cooling towers are
usually minor emission sources, unless the cooling water is contaminated.

11.11.2.2  Liquefaction- •
        The potential  exists for generation of significant levels of atmospheric pollutants from every
major operation in a coal liquefaction facility.  These pollutants  include coal dust, combustion
products, fugitive organics, and fugitive gases.  The fugitive organics and gases could  include
carcinogenic polynuclear organics, and toxic gases such as metal carbonyls, hydrogen sulfides,
ammonia, sulfurous gases, and cyanides. Many studies are currently underway to characterize these
emissions and to establish effective control methods.  Table 11.11-2 presents  information now
available on liquefaction emissions.

        Emissions from coal preparation include coal dust from the many handling operations and
combustion products from the drying operation. The most significant pollutant from these operations
is the coal dust from crushing, screening, and drying activities.  Wetting down the surface of the
coal, enclosing the operations, and venting effluents to a scrubber or fabric filter are effective means
of particulate control.

        A major source of emissions from the coal  dissolution and liquefaction operation is the
atmospheric vent on the slurry mix tank. The slurry mix  tank is used for mixing feed coal and
recycle solvent.  Gases  dissolved in  the recycle solvent stream under pressure will flash from the
solvent as it enters the unpressurized slurry mix tank.  These gases can contain hazardous volatile
organics and acid gases. Control techniques proposed for this source include scrubbing, incineration,
or venting to the combustion air supply for either a power plant or a process  heater.

        Emissions from process heaters fired with waste process gas or waste liquids will  consist of
standard combustion products.  Industrial combustion emission sources  and available controls are
discussed in Section 1.1.

        The major emission source in the product separation and purification  operations is the sulfur
recovery plant tail gas.  This can contain significant levels of acid  or sulfurous gases.  Emission
factors and control techniques for sulfur recovery tail gases are discussed in Section 8.13.

        Emissions from the residue gasifier used to supply hydrogen to the system are very similar to
those for coal gasifiers previously discussed in this section.

        Emissions from auxiliary processes include combustion products from onsite steam/electric
power plant and volatile emissions from the waste water system, cooling towers,  and fugitive
emission sources. Volatile emissions from  cooling towers, waste water systems,  and fugitive
11.11-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80
-------
   C/3
   CU
   o

   E
   »•*
   00


   O
   o
   u
   1X1



   O
   b
   D
   on


"9
Summary Of Emission Control Choice


Of Emission
Characterization


E
S
55
"S
3
CO
c
en
en

tu
"c
_o
1
a.
O




•g
_ 08 c
2 „ 5
Water sprays and polymer coatings are used
control dust from storage sites. Water sprays
enclosures vented to baghouses are effective


~ -2
V) __
511
S|!
U en C
•^.s§
ta;s
•" -0 60
•*- c ~S
Emissions primarily consist o
generated at transfer points a
wind erosion. A potentially




60
B
"5
1
c
le
en
U
•o
C
a
60
C
1 1
03 «
S -=
fr &
C 60
Q. to
u,
o 55
U



1 crushing and sizing operations.






















„
en
S
O
JZ
Scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and bag
are effective coal dust controls. Low drying
temperatures reduce organics formation.


combustion products
latilized from the coal
culate source.
Emissions include coal dust,
from heater, and organics vo
A potentially significant parti














6fl
C
'E-
Q















c
o
*M
Js
o
3
J
T3
C
CO
c
.2
"o
en
en
5
o
O
c
_o
rs
Fuel desulfurization for SO2 control and com
modifications for reduced CO, HC, and NOX


en
t3 .
•§£?
23=
»-o
.2 S
Emissions consist of combust
(particulates, CO, SO2, NOX,
en
to
60
1
U
-o
CO
S
60
^
S
~
*

1

£
£
en
O
O
2


Ui
o
g^
Controls might include scrubbing, incineratio
venting to heater combustion air supply.


111
S S 0
0 " S
U a »>
hi
E o^
e§i&
Evolution of dissolved gases
(HC, acid gases, organics) di
(atmospheric) of tank. Some
even in small quantities.













1
X
'i
£•
55


60

Sf
+3 C
to .2
C ,_
^ en


rs
CO
U
CO
O
U
CO
T5 <2
'« 1
60 O •g
.5 a o
•11 -£
= -5 —
8 & 
S e
S> o
T3 "-
'3 g
ca ^
- O
- s g
- g «
1 £~
1 s-s
M « 'c
8 o «
CO > 0








c
_o
i
u
c
oo E
E 1
to >•*
O v>
en Ui
= 1
CO £
§ a
1 1







en
I collection and treating systeit



















o
i
^
Good heat exchanger maintenance and survei
of cooling water quality.
u
a
% U
6D~° ^
ecu
5 ra . S
III
lit
III
"" "" J3
111













S
u
o
60
•_S
o
o
U


•o £
e: ?
Good housekeeping, frequent maintenance, ai
selection of durable components are major co
techniques.

1? CO
pounds in plant can le
nd sample ports. Thi
hazardous organics.
C a <«
i-gS
S g§
§s-s
a^s
= « £
to ..a
o S o
'£ >-S
& s u
fe -°
- E >,
s o «
<* E














Cfl
>
'I
u.
2/80 (Reformatted  1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.11-9
-------
emission sources possibly can include every chemical compound present in the plant.  These sources
will be the most significant and most difficult to control in a coal liquefaction facility.  Compounds
that can be present include hazardous organics, metal carbonyls, trace elements such as mercury, and
toxic gases such as CO2, H2S, HCN, NH3, COS, and CS2.

       Emission controls for waste water systems involve minimizing the contamination of water
with hazardous compounds, enclosing the waste water systems, and venting the waste water systems
to a scrubbing or incinerating system.  Cooling tower controls focus on good heat exchanger
maintenance, to prevent chemical leaks into the system, and on surveillance of cooling water quality.
Fugitive emissions from various valves, seals, flanges, and sampling ports are individually small but
collectively very significant. Diligent housekeeping and frequent maintenance, combined with a
monitoring program, are the best controls for fugitive sources.  The selection of durable low leakage
components, such as double mechanical seals,  is also effective.

References for Section  11.11

1.     C.  E. Burklin and W. J. Moltz, Energy Resource Development System, EPA Contract
       No. 68-01-1916, Radian Corporation and The University Of Oklahoma, Austin, TX,
       September 1978.

2.     E.  C. Cavanaugh, et al., Environmental Assessment Data Base For Low/Medium-BTU
       Gasification Technology,  Volume I, EPA-600/7-77-125a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1977.

3.     P. W. Spaite and G. C. Page, Technology Overview: Low- And Medium-BTU Coal
       Gasification Systems, EPA-600/7-78-061, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, March 1978.
11.11-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80
-------
11.12  Concrete Batching

11.12  Process Description1"4

        Concrete is composed essentially of water, cement, sand (fine aggregate), and coarse
aggregate.  Coarse aggregate may consist of gravel, crushed stone, or iron blast furnace slag.  Some
specialty aggregate products could be either heavyweight aggregate (of barite, magnetite, limonite,
ilmenite, iron, or steel) or lightweight aggregate (with sintered clay, shale, slate, diatomaceous shale,
perlite, vermiculite, slag,  pumice, cinders,  or sintered fly ash).  Concrete batching plants store,
convey, measure, and discharge these constituents into trucks for transport to a job site.  In some
cases,  concrete is prepared at a building construction site or for the manufacture  of concrete products
such as pipes and prefabricated construction parts. Figure 11.12-1 is a generalized process diagram
for concrete batching.

        The raw materials can be delivered to a plant by rail, truck, or barge.  The cement is
transferred to elevated storage silos pneumatically or by bucket elevator.  The sand and coarse
aggregate are transferred to elevated bins by front end loader, clam shell crane, belt conveyor, or
bucket elevator.  From these elevated bins, the constituents are fed by gravity or screw conveyor to
weigh  hoppers, which combine the proper amounts of each material.

        Truck mixed (transit mixed) concrete involves approximately 75 percent  of U. S. concrete
batching plants.  At these plants, sand, aggregate, cement, and water are all gravity fed from  the
weigh  hopper into the mixer trucks.  The concrete is mixed on the way to the site where the concrete
is to be poured.  Central mix facilities (including shrink mixed) constitute the other one-fourth of the
industry. With these, concrete is mixed and then transferred to either an  open bed dump truck or an
agitator truck for transport to the job site.  Shrink mixed concrete is concrete that is partially  mixed at
the central  mix plant and then completely mixed in a truck mixer on the way to the job site.  Dry
batching, with concrete mixed and hauled to the construction site in dry form, is seldom, if ever,
used.

11.12-2  Emissions And Controls5"7

        Emission factors for concrete batching are given in Tables 11.12-1 and 11.12-2, with  potential
air pollutant emission points shown. Paniculate matter, consisting primarily of cement dust but
including some aggregate  and sand dust emissions, is the only pollutant of concern.  All but one of
the emission points are fugitive in nature. The only point source is the transfer of cement to  the silo,
and this is  usually  vented  to a fabric filter or "sock".  Fugitive sources  include the transfer of sand
and aggregate, truck loading, mixer loading, vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from sand  and
aggregate storage piles. The amount of fugitive emissions generated during the transfer of sand  and
aggregate depends  primarily on the  surface moisture  content of these  materials.  The  extent of fugitive
emission control varies widely from plant to plant.

        Types  of controls  used may include  water sprays,  enclosures, hoods, curtains, shrouds,
movable and telescoping chutes, and the like.  A  major source of potential emissions,  the movement
of heavy trucks over unpaved  or dusty surfaces in and around the plant, can be controlled by  good
maintenance and wetting of the road surface.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                              11.12-1
-------
                                                                                     8
                                                                                     o.
                                                                                    -
                                                                                    to
                                                                                    .0

                                                                                     es
                                                                                     o
                                                                                     Ml
11.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
       Table 11.12-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONCRETE BATCHING3
Source (SCC)
Sand and aggregate transfer to elevated bin
(3-05-01 l-06)d
Cement unloading to elevated storage silo
Pneumatic0
Bucket elevator (3-05-0 ll-07)f
Weigh hopper loading (3-05-011-8)8
Mixer loading (central mix) (3-05-0 11-09)8
Truck loading (truck mix) (3-05-011-10)8
Vehicle traffic (unpaved roads) (3-05-01 l-_)h
Wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles
(3-05-01 !__)'
Total process emissions (truck mix)(3-05-011-_))

PM
0.014

0.13
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.01
4.5
3.9

0.05
Filterable15
RATING
E

D
E
E
E
E
C
D

E

PM-10
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
Condensable PMC
Inorganic
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
Organic
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  All emission factors are in kg/Mg
  of material mixed unless noted.  Based on a typical yd3 weighing 1.818 kg (4,000 Ib) and
  containing 227 kg (500 Ib) cement, 564 kg (1,240 Ib) sand, 864 kg (1,900 Ib) coarse aggregate, and
  164 kg (360 Ib) water. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 6.
e For uncontrolled  emissions measured before filter.  Based on 2 tests on pneumatic conveying
  controlled by a fabric filter.
f Reference 7. From test of mechanical unloading to hopper and subsequent transport of cement by
  enclosed bucket elevator to elevated bins with fabric socks over bin vent.
g Reference 5. Engineering judgment, based on observations and emissions tests of similar controlled
  sources.
h From Section  13.2-1, with k = 0.8, s =  12, S  = 20, W = 20, w = 14, and p = 100; units of
  kg/vehicle kilometers traveled; based on facility producing 23,100 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr) of
  concrete, with average truck load of 6.2 m3 (8 yd3) and plant road length of 161 meters (0.1 mile).
1  From Section  11.19-1, for emissions <30 micrometers from inactive storage piles; units of
  kg/hectare/day.
J  Based on pneumatic conveying of cement at a truck mix facility.   Does not include vehicle traffic or
  wind erosion from storage piles.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.12-3
-------
     Table 11.12-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONCRETE BATCHINGa'b
Source (SCC)
Sand and aggregate transfer to elevated bin
(3-05-011-06)e
Cement unloading to elevated storage silo
Pneumaticf

Bucket elevator (3-05-011-07)8

Weigh hopper loading (3-05-01 l-08)h

Mixer loading (central mix) (3-05-01 l-09)h

Truck loading (truck mix) (3-05-011-10)h

Vehicle traffic (unpaved roads) (3-05-011- 	 )'

Wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage
piles (3-05-01 l-_Jf
Total process emissions (truck mix)
t3 -05-01 l-_)m
Filterable0
PM
0.029
(0.05)

0.27
(0.07)
0.24
(0.06)
0.02
(0.04)
0.04
(0.07)
0.02
(0.04)
16
(0.02)
3.5k
(O.I)1
0.1
(0.2)
RATING
E


D

E

E

E

E

C

D

E

PM-10
ND


ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Condensable PMd
Inorganic
ND


ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Organic
ND


ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  All emission factors are in Ib/ton
  (lb/yd3) of material mixed unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND  = no data.
b Based on a typical yd3 weighing 1.818 kg (4,000 Ib) and containing 227 kg (500 Ib) cement, 564 kg
  (1,240 Ib) sand, 864 kg (1,900 Ib) coarse aggregate, and 164 kg (360 Ib) water.
c Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
d Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM  sampling train.
e Reference 6.
f For uncontrolled emissions measured before filter.  Based on 2 tests on pneumatic conveying
  controlled by a fabric filter.
g Reference 7.  From test of mechanical unloading to hopper and subsequent transport of cement by
  enclosed bucket elevator to elevated bins with fabric socks over bin vent.
h Reference 5.  Engineering judgment, based on observations and emission tests of similar controlled
  sources.
' From Section 13.2.1, with k  = 0.8,  s = 12, S = 20, W = 20, w =  14, and p =  100; units of
  Ib/vehicle miles traveled; based on facility producing 23,100 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr) of concrete,
  with average truck load of 6.2 m3 (8 yd3) and plant road length of 161 meters (0.1 mile).
J From Section 11.19.1, for emissions <30 micrometers from inactive storage piles.
k Units of Ib/acre/day.
1 Assumes 1,011 m2 (1/4 acre) of sand and aggregate storage at plant with production of
  23,000 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr).
mBased on pneumatic conveying of cement at a truck mix facility; does not include vehicle traffic or
  wind erosion from storage piles.


        Predictive equations that allow for emission factor adjustment based on plant-specific
conditions are given in Chapter 13.  Whenever plant specific data are available, they should be used
in lieu of the fugitive emission  factors  presented in Table 11.12-1.
 11.12-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
References For Section 11.12

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

2.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974. Out of Print.

3.     Telephone and written communication between Edwin A. Pfetzing, PEDCo Environmental,
       Inc., Cincinnati, OH, and Richard Morris and Richard Meininger, National Ready Mix
       Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD, May 1984.

4.     Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines And Standards Of Performance,
       The Concrete Products Industries, Draft, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, August 1975.

5.     Technical Guidance For Control Of Industrial Process Fugitive Paniculate Emissions,
       EPA^50/3-77-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1977.

6.     Fugitive Dust Assessment At Rock And Sand Facilities In The South Coast Air Basin, Southern
       California Rock Products Association and  Southern California Ready Mix Concrete
       Association, Santa Monica, CA, November 1979.

7.     Telephone communication between T.  R. Blackwood, Monsanto Research Corp.,  Dayton,
       OH,  and John Zoller, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, October 18,  1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)               Mineral Products Industry                           11.12-5
-------
11.13  Glass Fiber Manufacturing

11.13.1  General1-4

        Glass fiber manufacturing is the high-temperature conversion of various raw materials
(predominantly borosilicates) into a homogeneous melt, followed by the fabrication of this melt into
glass fibers.  The 2 basic types of glass fiber products, textile and wool, are manufactured by similar
processes.  A typical diagram of these processes is shown in Figure 11.13-1.  Glass fiber production
can be segmented into 3 phases:  raw materials handling, glass melting and refining, and wool glass
fiber forming and finishing, this last phase being slightly different for textile and wool glass fiber
production.

Raw Materials Handling -
        The primary component of glass fiber is sand, but it also includes varying  quantities of
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials.  The bulk supplies
are received by rail car and truck, and the lesser-volume supplies are received in drums and packages.
These raw materials are unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems,
and vibrator/gravity systems.  Conveying to and from storage piles and silos is accomplished by belts,
screws, and bucket elevators.  From storage, the materials are weighed according to the desired
product recipe and then blended well before their introduction into the melting unit.  The weighing,
mixing, and charging operations may be conducted in either batch or continuous mode.

Glass Melting And Refining -
        In the glass melting furnace, the raw materials  are heated to temperatures ranging from
1500 to 1700°C (2700 to 3100°F) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical reactions to
molten glass.  Although there are many furnace designs, furnaces are generally large, shallow, and
well-insulated vessels that are heated from above. In operation, raw  materials are  introduced
continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where  they slowly mix and dissolve.  Mixing is effected
by natural convection, gases rising from chemical reactions, and, in some operations, by air injection
into the bottom of the bed.

        Glass melting furnaces can be categorized by their fuel source and method  of heat application
into 4 types:  recuperative, regenerative, unit, and electric melter.  The recuperative, regenerative,
and unit melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil.  The current trend is from gas-fired to oil-
fired.  Recuperative furnaces use a steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from the exhaust gases by
exchange with the combustion air.  Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brickwork to recover waste
heat from exhaust gases.  In the initial mode of operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a
chamber containing a.brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passage  through another
corresponding brickwork lattice.  About  every 20 minutes, the airflow is reversed, so that the
combustion air is always being passed through  hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
Electric furnaces melt glass by passing an electric current through the melt.  Electric furnaces are
either hot-top or cold-top. The former use gas for auxiliary heating, and the latter use only the
electric current.  Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber production because of
the electrical properties of the glass formulation.  Unit melters are used only for the "indirect" marble
melting process, getting raw materials from a continuous screw at the back of the furnace adjacent to
the exhaust air discharge. There are no provisions for heat recovery with unit melters.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.13-1
-------
                              Raw materials
                           receiving and handling
                                    I
                           Raw materials storage
                          Crushing, weighing, mixing
                            Melting and refining
                            Direct
                            process
                      Wool glass fiber
               Forming
             Binder addition
             Compression
              Oven curing
               Cooling
              Fabrication
              Packaging
                                          Indirect
                                          process
                                                         Marble forming
                                                           Annealing
                                                     Marble storage, shipment
                                                          Marble melting
       Textile glass fiber
                        Forming
                 Sizing, binding addition
                        Winding
                       Oven drying
                       Oven curing
                       Fabrication
                      Packaging
                                                 Raw
                                                material
                                                handling
                                                 Glass
                                                 melting
                                                  and
                                                 forming
         Fiber
        forming
          and
        finishing
             Figure 11.13-1. Typical flow diagram of the glass fiber production process.
11.13-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
        In the "indirect" melting process, molten glass passes to a forehearth, where it is drawn off,
sheared into globs,  and formed into marbles by roll-forming.  The marbles are then stress-relieved in
annealing ovens, cooled, and conveyed to storage or to other plants for later use.  In the "direct"
glass fiber process, molten glass passes from the furnace into a refining unit, where bubbles and
particles are removed by settling, and the melt is allowed to cool to the proper viscosity for the fiber
forming operation.

Wool Glass Fiber Forming And Finishing -
        Wool fiberglass is produced for insulation and is formed into mats that are cut into batts.
(Loose wool is primarily a waste product formed from mat trimming, although some is a primary
product, and is only a small part of the total wool fiberglass produced.  No specific emission data for
loose wool production are available.)  The insulation is used primarily in the construction industry
and is produced to comply with ASTM C167-64, the "Standard Test Method for Thickness and
Density of Blanket- or Batt-Type Thermal Insulating Material".

        Wool fiberglass insulation production  lines usually consist of the following processes:
(1) preparation of molten glass, (2) formation  of fibers into a wool fiberglass mat, (3) curing the
binder-coated fiberglass mat, (4) cooling the mat, and (5) backing, cutting, and packaging the
insulation.  Fiberglass plants contain various sizes, types, and numbers of production lines, although a
typical plant has 3 lines. Backing (gluing a flat flexible material, usually paper, to the mat), cutting,
and packaging operations are not significant sources of emissions to the atmosphere.

        The trimmed  edge waste from the mat and the fibrous dust generated during the cutting and
packaging operations  are collected by a cyclone and either are transported to a hammer  mill to be
chopped into blown wool (loose insulation) and bulk packaged or are recycled to the forming section
and blended with newly formed product.

        During the formation of fibers into a wool fiberglass mat (the process known as "forming" in
the industry), glass  fibers are made from molten glass, and a chemical binder  is simultaneously
sprayed on the fibers  as they are created.  The binder is a thermosetting resin that holds the glass
fibers together. Although the binder composition varies with product type, typically the binder
consists of a solution  of phenol-formaldehyde  resin, water, urea, lignin, silane, and ammonia.
Coloring agents may also be added to the binder.  Two methods of creating fibers are used by the
industry. In the rotary spin process, depicted  in Figure 11.13-2,  centrifugal force causes molten glass
to flow  through small holes in the wall of a rapidly rotating cylinder to create fibers that are broken
into pieces by an air stream.  This is the newer of the 2 processes and dominates the industry today.
In the flame attenuation process, molten glass  flows by gravity from a furnace through numerous
small orifices to create threads  that are then attenuated (stretched to the point of breaking) by high
velocity, hot air, and/or a flame.  After the glass fibers are created (by either process) and sprayed
with the binder solution, they are collected by gravity on a conveyor belt in the form of a mat.

       The conveyor carries the newly formed mat through a large oven to cure the thermosetting
binder and then through a cooling section where ambient air is drawn down through the mat.
Figure 11.13-3 presents a schematic drawing of the curing and cooling sections. The cooled mat
remains on the conveyor for trimming  of the uneven edges.  Then, if product  specifications require it,
a backing is applied with an adhesive to form  a vapor barrier.  The mat is then cut into batts of the
desired dimensions and packaged.

Textile Glass Fiber  Forming And Finishing -
       Molten glass from either the direct melting furnace or the indirect marble melting furnace is
temperature-regulated to a precise viscosity and delivered to forming stations.  At the forming

9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.13-3
-------
     H CO

     *1 «0
                                                                                      s
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      O

                                                                                     "cl
                                                                                      4)
                                                                                      u^
11.13-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                                                                                                       _o
                                                                                                       '•4wt
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       SO


                                                                                                       "o
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                       T3

                                                                                                       CO
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       O)
                                                                                                       •o
                                                                                                       OJ

                                                                                                       O

                                                                                                       ao
                                                                                                       c
                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                       '-!—
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                       ."2
                                                                                                       c/5
9/85  (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
                                                                                                  11.13-5
-------
stations, the molten glass is forced through heated platinum bushings containing numerous very small
openings. The continuous fibers emerging from the openings are drawn over a roller applicator,
which applies a coating of a water-soluble sizing and/or coupling agent. The coated fibers are
gathered and wound into a spindle.  The spindles of glass fibers are next conveyed to a drying oven,
where moisture is removed from the sizing and coupling agents.  The spindles are then sent to an
oven to cure the coatings.  The final fabrication includes twisting, chopping, weaving, and packaging
the fiber.

11.13.2  Emissions And Controls1'3'4

        Emissions and  controls for glass fiber manufacturing can be categorized by the 3 production
phases with  which they are associated.  Emission factors for the glass fiber manufacturing industry
are given in Tables  11.13-1, 11.13-2, and 11.13-3.

Raw Materials Handling -
        The major emissions from the raw materials handling phase are fugitive dust and  raw material
particles generated at each of the material transfer points.  Such a point would be where sand pours
from a conveyor belt into a storage silo.  The 2 major control techniques are wet or moist handling
and fabric filters. When fabric filters are used, the transfer points are enclosed, and air from the
transfer area is continuously circulated through the fabric filters.

Glass Melting And Refining -
        The emissions from glass melting and refining include volatile organic compounds from the
melt, raw material  particles entrained in the furnace flue gas, and, if furnaces are heated with fossil
fuels, combustion products.  The variation in emission rates among  furnaces is attributable to varying
operating temperatures, raw material compositions, fuels, and flue gas flow rates.  Of the various
types of furnaces used, electric furnaces generally have the lowest emission rates, because of the lack
of combustion products and of the lower temperature of the melt surface caused by bottom heating.
Emission control for furnaces is primarily fabric filtration.  Fabric filters are effective on paniculate
matter (PM) and sulfur oxides  (SOX) and, to a lesser extent,  on carbon monoxide  (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and  fluorides. The efficiency of these compounds is  attributable to both condensation
on filterable PM and chemical  reaction  with PM trapped on the filters. Reported  fabric filter
efficiencies on regenerative and recuperative wool furnaces are for PM, 95+ percent; SOX,
99+ percent; CO,  30 percent;  and fluoride, 91 to 99 percent. Efficiencies on other furnaces  are
lower because of lower emission loading and pollutant characteristics.

Wool Fiber  Forming And Finishing -
        Emissions generated during the manufacture of wool fiberglass insulation include solid
particles of glass and binder resin,  droplets of binder, and components of the binder that have
vaporized. Glass particles may be entrained in the exhaust gas stream during forming,  curing, or
cooling operations.  Test data show that approximately 99 percent of the total emissions from the
production line are  emitted from the forming and curing sections. Even though cooling emissions  are
negligible at some plants, cooling emissions  at others may include fugitives from  the curing section.
This commingling of emissions occurs because fugitive emissions from the open terminal end of the
curing oven may be induced into the cooling exhaust ductwork and be discharged into the
atmosphere.  Solid particles of resin may be entrained in the gas stream in either the curing or cooling
sections.  Droplets of organic binder may be entrained in the gas stream in the forming section or
may be a result of condensation of gaseous pollutants as the gas stream is  cooled.  Some  of the liquid
binder used  in the forming section is vaporized by the elevated temperatures in the forming and
curing processes. Much of the vaporized material will condense when the gas stream cools in the
ductwork or in the emission control device.

11.13-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted  1/95) 9/85
-------
C3
o
z
D
H
0
OU
z
c*i
ffl
CO
CO
O
O
u.
FACTORS
Z
0
So
CO









en
0
z
p
<*<
3
FACTOR 1
Z
0
So
CO
   •s
   H
   §    s

o
s
ex
0>
3
CO
S*
C
1






.0
0>
3
k*
 4>

~£b^ 8
^ ex





0.2!
OO *-« «j
S m 8

^ ex
0||

S so °
!sb 5* 2
j^ ex



g - -g
^4 q> ^>
^ *^ o
— >S o






CJ
Ui
3
o











QQQQ QQQQ QQQ Q Q Q Q
ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZ Z Z Z Z







QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZ ZZ ZZ



QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZ ZZ ZZ





m wo
\r> •*- 1 r«-> «N — < «rj ID vo
— OO6O O — ' T* — oor^ —O t*lO
z ""2

tJ O
S ^- 9 S
—i <^> IO ^ — , , — . 	 , — . , — , O_^ O_^

B ? § ^ ^ss| gg| | g | |

c* S y, "& ^BuB Bu^ B^ BM
> _ . C _« O O o> g> *^n o O .N sG' ^H _* o
C NW' '"^ *^ O'^^wX^^t^ O tj

^SS'Sxi 'rjoSe 'aSoje'^a'*-' s «
§ «j ^ "§ oOO5-0- o0*1- §C «* 00G 60
bc-S'e w c boS'^" SobO'^" iS V ^" Si *•"
S^ <*i 5 ^_ £o^^S £^^S CQ "^ co *£
^3 * 60 .S *2 H i i i <3 i i i cc c ^e ^
§ ca.S-§ ^gwtgtg StocSSS'Sci'S G§ C
"3 2 = 2 -2SUUO JSOOO oE o 1 E ^
^CO^UO O U-tlHOO
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.13-7
-------
  s
  H


o
OH
3
CO
«
0)
•o
a





.O
—
3
CO
U-<
•4-*
£







0
1
E?
O





CO
2?
1



o
OH





S
OH





Ocol3
w>'ig g
2 to y
j*S£





kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed



O ]3 "S
60 '5 S
^ "tS O
s>5 2
M "* 0.



O — "S
4?'S i
^* ^rt ^
~5fl 5 2
.S? o.
















o>
{_>

o
on










>r> o\ «n vo
(N| ~ IT) —
^^ CO OO '•^






Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z




Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z





oo vo r~ o\
r-' o\ r-' rt
— — cs





<*-!
^4»
9
CN

O
•O
9
s2-
_c
'C
3
o

=*•<
3
CO
t/3
"ei
i '5
.S "2 S
o, « -a
W3 O .^
U5 ?^

Us ^ , ^ 4 O CO
o Dtf OJ Q 5C
as



aj
S
"£b
J>
c
II _c

Z bo
cct P
0 ^
II §
of
Z-3
CT1
ai "
•o fe -S
o ^ w
O ,_ •k-
§•§1
*J PJ **
^ ^ «
'^ < 5
o u °-
ai e5 ^
ui 53 '*"
3 ri i ^
O 0 C  "*"
5/2 Ui *~* ^0
'g o .S ^
1 §3 3»
"tf ^3 O 	 _.
\^ flj ^ ^3

^ fli O eS

»— * ^1 £f
§ 8 S g-
•o" S *- ...
_s 2 co «
^ « •£ *
g ~ IZ 'c
§ ^  4> a>
w JS ^ o o o
c/: .c c c e e
U. 03 n> O> O) O)
O ^ -m W w Ui
is o> g a> o> a>
m *~^ o a> a) 4>
U, tt. U OS OS1 04"
a x> o t3 o VH
11.13-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
   6
   u

   UM


   Z
   oi
   w
   ffl
   o

   OH

   O
   UN

   on

   OH


   g

   0


   UH




   O
   U
   B
OH



6

z
a;
O

U

UH

Z
o
U
    a?
Q -g o
^ ^^ **"
— O.


^* pm "O
O .2 g

d ai di
O « o
-5 S 2






CL>
O
5
0
C/5




QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz zzzz zzz z z z z






QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz zzzz zzz z z z z


QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz zzzz zzz z z z z




o
^5 C^ ^5 tJD *^"i ^*^ C^
q> • ,
" CN l/^ ^-*
O
-0 CM O
/" N 1 1
S •?-, 9 S
^_4 C"O 1^) — x^ "N y^^» /^^v O O

v vv SSP !U~^r ooo 2?X
V/S ^ f> iir-i ii _J O /~^ O W
9 3 o 22° 22^ ^ 2 r, 5S
u "?? S M °°5 ^^S 92 9 ®
O 
O CJ *rjv *^CJO CJCJr, Oro O '
"1 § ^ 1 S^^^ %%^-g ^ u ^ I
Jill ?olll ?iil ol 1 11 1
1 g | 1 |^||! |||J If 1 ^>| g.
ce W) e *r" * tj *"" ^ "~l P
o 2 -a "f S^SSS SS^SS E § E g S g
"c 0-2 2JSWOOO.2OOO gE o >E >
^Dco^OO O tutinOO
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
                               Mineral Products Industry
11.13-9
-------
  I
  ts
  a>

  ^
  H


IX
.22
*s
•3
CA
C
0>
o
O








1*J
CO
V
UH



o
CO
8?
O






organic
c




0
1
0-



s



o.||
(3 flj fl)
O ±i o
~ S 2






o «!
c=S8
O •£{ o
-*i >2 o
^ S /^*




o -a "S
e 'S i
2 to g

— 0,


<^ ^^^ *rt
O .2 S
s S s
O 'tJ O
< 5 0
~C2 .^t ™
JUJ **^ A^












1

O
on
















5? co p R
oo vo r*- c"4






D Q Q D
z z z z






Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z




— — ts —
CM es •<*• c»
^O ON *O ON



"T-v
0
CO
9
m
U
O
aa
C
1
CO
3
CO
s

jo
e*
"o .^
o z?
— 73 C
.S d «
o, « -a
W5 O ^
X! >>

*"* , ^^ O CO
is i. ' j? ,y
ci

jj
S
Oi
II
bo
•TT
'j£j

.
ca
*
ll
-*-»
II 00
c
Q =3
Z y*
•o ,^
61
C co
.2 .£
•*— ' 3 •
2 CT1 C3
S "2
| ^ M
U ""' —
T; -a a,
1> O C
0 ^ C
3 a3 «
U c "o
on « c
v-< o
_; ° "P
^3 w
S ^ O
o ^ o-
C "C fe
'^ 1 'S. |
VH fli r" ^
3 1- fi T3
-c cS •- o
0 _g ^ 0,
1 s.s 1
3 O 13 'c
C/J —3 o C
.1^1 "o
S — 0 C
'sis <
IwM C^ "^
*rt |)> ^j "~^
^ cu ^ 2J
is 2 «« f5
1 ? '-s «
S •- ** p
§s « . . .
2 ^ S ~ "£ "£
^ — no O O 0
t« Ji C C C C
u, co a) a> a)  a) a>
U- U, U Oi Of, &
c3 -O O "O 4> **-•
11.13-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
   CJ
a!
m
CO
CO
O
04
0
u-
FACTORS
Z
O
to
to


03
a
z

^>
S
FACTOR 1
Z
O
to
to
   S    s
   B



   O

   '«M

   «
   a>

   1
   E-
'C
o S 1
u o §
git
"So

•a
1
X iriS ^
O^S ^-« yj
o_, d>
z o 8
6,0 l-
s
J
1*8
x ^5 M
O C*M CO
co O 8
60 (X

1?












o
o
to


CN f)
o o





•«*•
'"* ""J
o ts









s
O IT)















p

S co .>
Glass furnace - v
Electric (SCC
Gas - regenerat


o o





•n >n
oo — •
C> 0









»o o















S P
c^ 9
S i
S s
* s
^ ^ ^
 ui X
•«< D 0>
1« " "
CQ ^— «
VN W 1
we..
0. « g
3 •*-» irt
« 's I
CA (/} CA
CO CO W5
O o J2
O

m in
0 0 0






222









in Q
-^ «r> Z
1—4














f? ^ ,-^
-r T 2
CS CS i
9 9 i
m m i
p p in
CO CO i
O U ^
U U 0
to^ to, CJ

_> > Ui
'5 "5 -2 ^>
co co w«< ^^
i-i k-i a> o
S- g E |
Z3 cl> ^^ IS
o 60 "*"*
Oj fli C '
u, i_ 3 bfl
i i i C
CO CO CO 2
O O O o
u.

<
Z






Z









z















on (SCC 3-05-012-08)
Flame attenuati

•< 00
Z — '






Z









< Q
Z Z















b (SCC 3-05-012-14)
)0lb
on (SCC 3-05-012-09)
Forming - textile
Oven curing - w(
Flame attenuati


o






CO









1










V}
*"T
9
9
CO
CJ
CJ
to,
Is
-*— »
I
"o
o
o
"S
CO
t
CJ
§
6

«
.«
"B,
o
c
II
Z
*S
•o
o
B
II
Q
Z
D*
T3
O
CJ
B
O
to
CJ
s
'w
0
(U
o
U.
s
0
to
II
CJ
CJ
to
•8
4— »
B
Q\
ntrolled unless otherwis
Factors are unco
Reference 5.
a ^
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.13-11
-------
 O
 Z
o
u-

z
  o:
  u
  CO
  c/3
g
u.

I
S
ib

O
E3
  W


  CD

  1
  H
ffl

6

P
      e
      o
      CO
      §
D
|1
Is
0 s
§*
                 13

                 'S
                 «
                 "S
                 o
                   I
                   o
                  00
                           5
                              wo   >o
                              ts   «s
                                       cs
                                                      o\
                                                              ZZ
                                               o
                                               CN
                                 o
                                 (N
                                                     o
                                                     CS
                                                        <  <
                                                        Z  Z
                          o
                          o  o   o
                                                              <   <
                                                              ZZ
                          o
                          CN

                          9

                       o  ?
                               9
                               cs
                               CJ
                                   95
                                   10   i

                   
                                  «
                                  U*   — S
                        5
                            s   '
                            u   S
                            «^   TO
                            w   o

                                                     8

                                                                             9
                                                                             o
                                                                                 03
                                                               Q
                                                               Z
                                                                c
                                                                o
                                                                «
                                                                o
                                                                s
                                                                'S
                                                                CQ
                                                                0
                                                                
                                                                §
                                                                     §
11.13-12
                  EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                      (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------





a
O
s
3
pi
0
u-
D
Z
S
OS
tu

oo
on

J
O
g
tu
to
OS
e
rj
S^
<
PL,
£
O
00
00
§
W
^
-*£
'S
D
*t_
1
in
—
*
—,
o>

JO
CS
E-























PQ

O
Z
S
OS
o
£
<:
&
z
o
c/o
oo
^H
S
UJ






















*Ui
§
E
(U
•o
J3
•o
13
£
V-,
o
U.

1
a>
O-


Cfl
"o
§


O
o


0||
^ S 0
$*&


*+•"« *rt
°sl
S ta ^
^^* ^3 ^
&o ^?^ ^
^ &*


5*1
^ 3 1
^j ^* d^

O 13 "2
60 'S S
S 'S ^*
J?s<§

Sal
•^ &•












o
u,
o
oo














8SSS
d d o d — — ' —



QQQQ QQQ
ZZZZ ZZZ




QQQQ QQQ
ZZZZ ZZZ



QQQQ QQQ
ZZZZ ZZZ


QQQQ QQQ
ZZZZ ZZZ











s~\ /-~ ^
^H ^ ' 	 ^ iTl^ ^^ ^^
p cp r- 2 ZH ^
99 § 99o
-^99g SSg
C3 fr> ro ro m
• I ^J tj -. C}C)^^
•— ' C_) U ^r C) C)
9 5G-s^ S\ -° oo oo SJ

— ^ *O ^^^ ^j ^^

1 w -s -s 2 « -^ -a S
' u i fe 1 ' S 1 "1
2 ^"^ w> 3 •** 2 o &o-^
uiO?^?^3 ^SSia
«2 '1 , , , £ , , ,
^£>£g£(j^j V3CQCQCQ

5 5
Q
i si T s ^ c •— *— ' "H »
^ '^ ^ '^ ^* fA S "^
.s 1 .s S i S ^uoN-t ^
£rt 2 C;g c c3O<~i*~i3§5

u- u, O O OS ^



««
"ti
•o
o
c


Q
z
ai
•o
o
U
c
o
3
o
s
0
 C
- L
O 4>
-*2 ^'
C
O

*T?

c •§
§ "&
ry "> ^"
w "S « a>
w C3 O O
VH M Q^ Q^
O " >- <-
O -Y" ^J-" c*-<
JS **, a> a>
tu Z OS OS
« JO O
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.13-13
-------
  z
  52

  e
  o

  tu

  z



  a:


  E
  -j
  O


  g
  UH




  I
  O

  u.

  z
  o

  c


Ssl
C oS eS
2 1 g
£ ^
o "^ "8
^^ »»H ^
c S3 §3
o +z S
^ CO Q

£ ^ ix

5 "O
^ W3
|S §

£ £
64-1 1 "^
Q CO ®
e 'S »
O •B o
^^ ^5? 2
•2 cu

S3l
C*— < V!3
^ ^
O *•* o
£ s £











g
w
3
O
on





o rs
d o


QQ
ZZ




QQ
ZZ



QQ
ZZ



QQ
ZZ










f
CM
£j
•9-v>A
o 5
i en
9^
"So «
|en.>
«s| ?
5


— - ts
c>d


QQ
ZZ




QQ
ZZ



QQ
ZZ



QQ
ZZ









^_^
CS /— v
J™^ CM
9 o
o«A
^U
S£-co
I «
W 4i



CM CM CM


QQQ
ZZZ




QQQ
ZZZ



QQQ
ZZZ



QQQ
ZZZ









^--ix— \
CM — < ^-v
CM CM '•^
9 9 o
o o in
1 1 ^™j
SSj
*0^y.y
"£* d> a)
X > > I-
0) •— •— CO
1 U- I— "S
mi
F o> « S
b u. i- 3
J2OOO


Q
Z


Q
Z




Q
Z



Q
Z




0









X
0?
9
CM
9
in
o
en
O
U
^
0
Forming - wool
Flame attenuati


<;
Z


Q
Z




Q
Z



Q
Z



bO
a>
Z










IF
i
cs
O
tn
O
U
D
0>
•4«l
to
1
o
tu


Q
Z


Q
Z




Q
Z



Q
Z




r-









x^
Os
9
CM
9
in
o
1
en
O
U
^
8.1
Oven curing - w
Flame attenuati


Q
Z


Q
Z




Q
Z



Q
Z



W>
4)
Z




IrT
I
CN
9
«S
en
U
U
Nw'
JU
><
f
_c
"o
o
o
•o
S3
(SO
C
'C
0
CU
O


QQQQ
ZZZZ


0^0—^*0
i^l ^^ ^D OO
— H CM en d




(S •* oo •*
O\ OO *O O



o> ^ en r^
VO CM *— ' ^
— CM


QQQQ
ZZZZ








00
c
1
42
3

i
1_i
>
C*n -rt <-;
_ O w 3
'rv i C8 T3
So en o ...
•O
W* r \ . . O CO
CO ^J "p , 30)
o^oJoi QK





•o
g


Q
Z
o
0
e
4O

CO
U
4>
O
S
o
II
U
O

I
o

—
1
o
en
—
"c
3 .
c *3
•i:»
•a "So
S «
§ c
•s "
S bO
O 0)
Ui >~7-
c
§Jj
§1
s.a
Factors represei
NA = not appl
Reference 5.
oj X)







































Reference 4.
o
11.13-14
                            EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
       Particulate matter is the principal pollutant that has been identified and measured at wool
fiberglass insulation manufacturing facilities.  It was known that some fraction of the PM emissions
results from condensation of organic compounds used in the binder.  Therefore, in evaluating
emissions and control device performance for this source,  a sampling method, EPA Reference
Method 5E, was used that permitted collection and measurement of both solid particles and condensed
PM.
       Tests were performed during the production of R-ll building insulation,  R-19 building
insulation, ductboard, and heavy-density insulation. These products, which account for 91 percent of
industry production, had densities ranging from 9.1 to  12.3 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3)
(0.57 to 0.77 pounds per cubic foot [Ib/ft3]) for R-ll, 8.2  to 9.3 kg/m* (0.51 to 0.58 Ib/ft3) for
R-19, and 54.5 to 65.7 kg/m3 (3.4 to 4.1 Ib/ft3) for ductboard.  The heavy-density insulation  had a
density of 118.5 kg/m3 (7.4 Ib/ft3).  (The remaining 9 percent of industry wool fiberglass production
is a variety of specialty products for which  qualitative and  quantitative information is not available.)
The loss on ignition (LOI) of the product is a measure of the amount of binder present. The LOI
values ranged from 3.9 to 6.5 percent, 4.5 to 4.6 percent,  and 14.7 to 17.3 percent for R-ll,  R-19,
and ductboard, respectively. The LOI for heavy-density insulation is 10.6 percent. A production line
may be used to manufacture more than one of these product types because the processes involved do
not differ.  Although the data base did not show sufficient  differences in mass emission levels to
establish separate emission standards for each product,  the uncontrolled emission factors are
sufficiently different to warrant their segregation for AP-42.

       The level of emissions control found in the wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing industry
ranges from uncontrolled to control of forming, curing, and cooling emissions from a line.  The
exhausts from these process operations may be controlled separately or in combination. Control
technologies currently used by the industry  include wet ESPs, low- and high-pressure-drop wet
scrubbers, low- and high-temperature thermal incinerators, high-velocity air filters, and process
modifications.  These added control technologies are available to all firms in the  industry, but the
process modifications  used in this industry are considered  confidential.  Wet ESPs are considered to
be best demonstrated technology for the  control of emissions from wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing lines.  Therefore, it is expected that most new facilities will be controlled in this
manner.

Textile Fiber Forming And Finishing -
       Emissions from the forming and finishing processes include glass fiber particles, resin
particles, hydrocarbons (primarily phenols and aldehydes), and combustion products from dryers and
ovens. Emissions are usually lower in the textile fiber glass process man in the wool fiberglass
process because of lower turbulence in the forming step, roller application of coatings, and use of
much less coating per ton of fiber produced.

References For Section 11.13

1.     J.  R. Schorr et al., Source Assessment:  Pressed And Blown Glass Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/2-77-Q05, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, January 1977.

2.     Annual Book OfASTM Standards, Part 18, ASTM Standard C167-64 (Reapproved 1979),
       American Society For Testing And  Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

3.     Standard Of Performance For Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants, 50 FR 7700,
       February 25, 1985.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                           11.13-15
-------
4.     Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Industry:  Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-83-022a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, December 1983.

5.     Screening Study to Determine Need for Standards of Performance for New Sources in the
       Fiber Glass Manufacturing Industry—Draft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1976.
11.13-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
11.14 Frit Manufacturing

11.14.1 Process Description1"6

        Frit is a homogeneous melted mixture of inorganic materials that is used in enameling iron and steel
and in glazing porcelain and pottery.  Frit renders soluble and hazardous compounds inert by combining them
with silica and other oxides. Frit also is used in bonding grinding wheels, to lower vitrification temperatures,
and as a lubricant in steel casting and metal extrusion. The six digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for
frit manufacturing is 3-05-013.

        Frit is prepared by fusing a variety of minerals in a furnace and then rapidly quenching the molten
material. The constituents of the feed material depend on whether the frit is to be used as a ground coat or as
a cover coat.  For cover coats, the primary constituents of the raw material charge include silica, fluorspar,
soda ash, borax, feldspar, zircon, aluminum oxide, lithium  carbonate, magnesium carbonate, and titanium
oxide.  The constituents of the charge for a ground coat include the same compounds plus smaller amounts of
metal oxides such as cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, copper oxide, and manganese oxide.

        To begin the process, raw materials are shipped to the manufacturing facility by truck or rail and are
stored in bins. Next, the raw materials are carefully weighed in the correct proportions. The raw batch then
is dry mixed and transferred to a hopper prior to being fed into the smelting furnace. Although pot furnaces,
hearth furnaces, and rotary furnaces have been used to produce frit in batch operations, most frit is now
produced in continuous smelting furnaces.  Depending on the application, frit smelting furnaces operate at
temperatures of 930° to 1480°C (1700° to 2700°F).  If a continuous furnace is used, the mixed charge is fed
by screw conveyor directly into the furnace. Continuous furnaces operate at temperatures of 1090c to
1430°C (2000° to 2600°F). When smelting is complete, the molten material is passed between water-cooled
metal rollers that limit the thickness of the material, and then it is quenched with a water spray that shatters
the material into small glass particles called frit.

        After quenching, the frit is milled by either wet or dry grinding.  If the latter, the frit is dried before
grinding. Frit produced in  continuous furnaces generally can be ground without drying, and it is sometimes
packaged for shipping without further processing.  Wet milling of frit is no longer common.  However, if the
frit is wet-milled, it can be  charged directly to the grinding mill without drying. Rotary dryers are the devices
most commonly used for drying frit.  Drying tables and stationary dryers also have been used. After drying,
magnetic separation may be used to remove iron-bearing material. The frit is finely ground in a ball mill, into
which clays and other electrolytes may be added, and then the product is screened and stored. The frit
product then is transported to on-site  ceramic manufacturing processes or is prepared for shipping. In recent
years, the electrostatic deposition spray method has become the preferred method of applying frit glaze to
surfaces. Frit that is to be applied in that manner is mixed during the grinding step with an organic silicon
encapsulating agent, rather than with  clay and electrolytes. Figure 11.14-1 presents a process flow diagram
for frit manufacturing.

11.14.2 Emissions And Controls1-7-10

        Significant emissions of particulate matter (PM) and PM less than 10 micrometers (PM-10) are
created by the frit smelting operation in the form of dust and fumes.  These emissions consist primarily of
condensed metallic oxide fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge.  The emissions also contain
mineral dust and sometimes hydrogen fluoride.  Emissions  from furnaces also include products of
combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO^, and nitrogen oxides (NOJ. Sulfur oxides
(SOX) also may be emitted, but they generally are absorbed by the molten material to form an
6/97                                Mi neral Products Industry                            11.14-1
-------
       CLAYS. OTHER
       ELECTROLYTES
                                    RAW MATERIALS
                                      STORAGE
                                      WEIGHING

                                      (3-05-013-02)
                                       MIXING

                                      (34541343)
                                       FURNACE
                                      CHARGING

                                      (34541344)
                                       SMELTING
                                       FURNACE

                                      (34541344)
                                      QUENCHING

                                      (346413-10)
            PACKAGING
                                     TO CERAMIC
                                   MANUFACTURING
                                      PROCESS
                                                     (l)
                                                      A
                                                     vl/
                                                      A
                                                     *   *
                                                       DRYING
                                                     (345413-11)
                                j)  PM EMISSIONS

                                (2)  GASEOUS EMISSIONS
                                                                     ~  ELECTROLYTES OR
                                                                      ENCAPSULATING AGENT
                      Figure 11.14-1  Process flow diagram for frit manufacturing.
                              (Source Classification Code in parentheses)
11.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
6/97
-------
immiscible sulphate that is eliminated in the quenching operation. Paniculate matter also is emitted from
drying, grinding, and materials handling and transfer operations

        Emissions from the furnace can be minimized by careful control of the rate and duration of raw
material heating, to prevent volatilization of the more fusible charge materials. Emissions from rotary
furnaces also can be reduced with careful control of the rotation speed, to prevent excessive dust carryover.
Venturi scrubbers and fabric filters are the devices most commonly used to control emissions from frit
smelting furnaces, and fabric filters are commonly used to control emissions from grinding operations. No
information is available on the type of emission controls used on quenching, drying, and materials handling
and transfer operations.

        Table 11.14-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM, CO, NOW and CO^ emissions from frit
manufacturing.  Table 11.14-2 presents emission factors for other pollutant emissions from frit
manufacturing.

11.14.3 Updates Since the Fifth Edition

        The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995.  A complete revision of this section was completed
on 11/95.  The emission factor for NOx for Smelting Furnace was revised on 6/97 based upon a review of the
production information that was provided by the manufacturing facility.
                Table 11.14-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT MANUFACTURING2

                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Smelting furnace
(SCC 3-05-0 13-05,06)
Smelting furnace with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-013-05,06)
Smelting furnace with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-0 13-05.-06)
Filterable PMb
16C

1.8f

0.020d

CO
4.8C

g

g

NOX
16d

g

g

C02
1,300°

g

g

* Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. Emission factor units are Ib/ton of
 feed material. ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg,
 multiply by 0.5.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
 sampling train.
c Reference 1.
d Reference 10.
'Reference 7-10.
f References 7-9.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
8 See factor for uncontrolled emissions.
6/97
Mineral Products Industry
11.14-3
-------
              Table 11.14-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT MANUFACTURING--
                                FLUORIDES AND METALS8

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Smelting furnace with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-0 13-05,-06)







Pollutant
fluorides
barium
chromium
cobalt
copper
lead
manganese
nickel
zinc
Emission factor, Ib/ton
0.88
2.8 x lO'5
1.4 xlO'5
4.3 x ID'6
1.9 x ID'5
9.6 x Ifr6
1.4 x 10-5
1.6 x Ifr5
1.2 xlO-4
'Reference 10. Factor units are Ib/ton of material feed.
 SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
References For Section 11.14

1.  J. L. Spinks, "Frit Smelters", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Danielson, J. A. (ed.), PHS Publication
   Number 999-AP-40, U. S. Department Of Health, Education, And Welfare, Cincinnati, OH, 1967.

2.  "Materials Handbook", Ceramic Industry, Troy, MI, January 1994.

3.  Andrew I. Andrews, Enamels: The Preparation, Application, And Properties Of Vitreous Enamels,
   Twin City Printing Company, Champaign, IL, 1935.

4.  Written communication from David Ousley, Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
   Montgomery, AL, to Richard Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, April 1,1993.

5.  Written communication from Bruce Larson, Chi-Vit Corporation, Urbana, OH, to David Ousley,
   Alabama Department Of Environment Management, Montgomery, AL, October 10,1994.

6.  Written communication from John Jozefowski, Miles Industrial Chemicals Division, Baltimore, MD, to
   Ronald E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 22,
   1994.
11.14-4
EMISSION FACTORS
6/97
-------
7.  Particulate Emissions Test Results, No. 2 North Stack, Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg, Alabama,
    ATC, Inc. Auburn, AL, May 1987.

8.  No. I South Stack P articulate Test Report,  Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg, Alabama, April 1989,
    ATC, Inc., Auburn, AL, May 1989.

9.  Frit Unit No. 2, Scrubber No. 2, P articulate Emission Test Report, Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg,
    Alabama, April 1991, ATC, Inc., Auburn, AL, April 1991.

10. Diagnostic Test, Dry Gas Cleaning Exhauster Stack, Miles, Inc., International Technology Corporation,
    Monroeville, PA, February  1994.
6/97                              Mineral Products Industry                           11.14-5
-------
 11.15 Glass Manufacturing

 11.15.1  General1'5

        Commercially produced glass can be classified as soda-lime, lead, fused silica, borosilicate, or
 96 percent silica.  Soda-lime glass, since it constitutes 77 percent of total glass production,  is
 discussed here. Soda-lime glass consists of sand, limestone, soda ash, and cullet (broken glass). The
 manufacture of such glass is in four phases:  (1) preparation of raw material, (2) melting in a furnace,
 (3) forming and (4) finishing.  Figure 11.15-1 is a diagram for .typical glass  manufacturing.

        The products of this industry are flat glass, container glass, and pressed and blown  glass.
 The procedures for  manufacturing glass are the same for all products except forming and finishing.
 Container glass and pressed  and blown glass, 51 and 25 percent respectively of total soda-lime glass
 production, use pressing, blowing or pressing and blowing to form the desired product.  Flat glass,
 which is the remainder, is formed by float, drawing, or rolling processes.

        As the sand, limestone, and soda ash raw materials are received,  they are crushed and stored
 in separate elevated bins.  These materials are then transferred through a  gravity feed system to a
 weigher and mixer, where the material is  mixed with  cullet to ensure homogeneous melting.  The
 mixture  is conveyed to a batch storage bin where it is held until dropped  into the feeder to the melting
 furnace. All  equipment used in handling and preparing the raw material  is housed separately from the
 furnace and is usually referred to  as the batch plant. Figure 11.15-2 is a  flow diagram of a typical
 batch plant.

        The furnace most commonly used is a continuous regenerative furnace capable of producing
 between 45 and 272 megagrams (Mg) (50 and 300 tons) of glass per day.  A furnace may have either
 side or end ports that connect brick checkers to the inside of the melter.   The purpose of brick
 checkers (Figure 11.15-3 and Figure 11.15-4) is to conserve fuel by collecting furnace exhaust gas
 heat that, when the air flow  is revefsed, is used to preheat the furnace combustion air.  As material
 enters the melting furnace through the feeder, it floats on the top of the molten glass already in the
 furnace.  As it melts, it passes to  the front of the melter and eventually flows through a throat leading
 to the refiner. In the refiner, the  molten glass is heat conditioned for delivery to the forming process.
 Figures 11.15-3 and 11.15-4 show side port and end port regenerative furnaces.

        After refining,  the molten glass leaves the furnace through  forehearths (except in the float
process,  with molten glass moving directly to the tin bath) and goes to be shaped by pressing,
blowing, pressing and blowing, drawing, rolling, or floating to produce the desired product.  Pressing
and blowing are performed mechanically,  using blank molds and glass cut into sections (gobs) by a
set of shears.  In the drawing process, molten glass is drawn upward in a sheet through rollers, with
thickness of the sheet determined  by the speed of the draw and the  configuration of the draw bar.
The  rolling process  is  similar to the drawing process except that the glass is  drawn horizontally on
plain or patterned rollers and, for plate glass, requires grinding and polishing.  The float process is
different, having a molten tin bath over which the glass  is drawn and formed into a finely finished
surface requiring no grinding or polishing. The end product undergoes finishing (decorating or
coating) and annealing  (removing  unwanted stress areas  in the glass) as required, and is then
inspected and prepared for shipment to market. Any damaged or undesirable glass is transferred back
to the batch plant to be used as cullet.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.15-1
-------
     RAW
   MATERIAL
                    MELTING
                    FURNACE
                                                FINISHING
                               FINISHING
  .GLASS
 FORMING
ANNEALING
INSPECTION
   AND
 TESTING
                                       GULLET
                                      CRUSHING
                                                        RECYCLE UNDESIRABLE
                        GLASS
                                       PACKING
                     STORAGE
                        OR
                     SHIPfING
                       Figure 11.15-1. Typical glass manufacturing process.
                               STORAGE IINS
                               iltlOR RA1 N4TERIAIS
                                                   MINOR
                                                   INGREDIENT
                                                   STORAGE
                                                   BINS
               SCREI
               CONVET3R
                                          84TCH
                                          STORAGE
                                          BIN
                                                                          FURNACE
                                                                          FEEDER
                                                                                       SI ASS   i
                                                                                       KELTIN;  i
                                                                                       FURNACE
                        Figure 11.15-2.  General diagram of a batch plant.
11.15-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                   (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                     Figure 11.15-3.  Side port continuous regenerative furnace.
                     Figure 11.15-4.  End port continuous regenerative furnace.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.15-3
-------
11.15.2  Emissions And Controls1"5

       The main pollutant emitted by the batch plant is particulates in the form of dust. This can be
controlled with 99 to 100 percent efficiency by enclosing all possible dust sources and using
baghouses or cloth filters.  Another way to control dust emissions,  also with an efficiency
approaching 100 percent, is to treat the batch to reduce the amount of fine particles present, by
presintering, briquetting, pelletizing,  or liquid alkali treatment.

       The melting furnace contributes over 99 percent of the total emissions from a glass plant, both
particulates and gaseous pollutants.  Particulates result from volatilization of materials in the melt that
combine with gases and form condensates. These either are collected in the checker work and gas
passages or are emitted to the atmosphere. Serious problems arise  when the checkers are not properly
cleaned in that slag can form, clog the passages, and eventually deteriorate the condition and
efficiency of the furnace. Nitrogen oxides form when nitrogen and oxygen react in the high
temperatures of the furnace.  Sulfur oxides result from the decomposition of the sulfates in the batch
and sulfur in the fuel.  Proper  maintenance and firing of the furnace can control emissions and also
add to the efficiency of the furnace and reduce operational costs.  Low-pressure wet centrifugal
scrubbers have been used to control paniculate and  sulfur oxides, but their inefficiency
(approximately 50 percent) indicates their inability to collect particulates of submicrometer size.
High-energy venturi scrubbers are approximately  95 percent effective in reducing paniculate and
sulfur oxide emissions.  Their  effect on nitrogen oxide emissions is unknown.  Baghouses, with up to
99 percent paniculate collection efficiency, have been used on small regenerative furnaces, but fabric
corrosion requires careful temperature control.  Electrostatic precipitators have an efficiency  of up to
99 percent in the collection of particulates. Tables  11.15-1 and  11.15-2 list controlled and
uncontrolled emission factors for glass manufacturing. Table  11.15-3 presents particle size
distributions and corresponding emission factors for uncontrolled and controlled glass melting
furnaces, and these are depicted in Figure 11.15-5.

       Emissions from the forming and finishing phases depend upon the type of glass being
manufactured.  For container,  press,  and blow machines, the majority of emissions results from the
gob coming into contact with the machine lubricant.  Emissions, in the form of a dense white cloud
that can  exceed 40 percent opacity, are generated by flash vaporization of hydrocarbon greases and
oils.  Grease and oil lubricants are being replaced by silicone emulsions and  water soluble oils, which
may virtually eliminate this smoke. For  flat  glass,  the only contributor to air pollutant emissions is
gas combustion in the annealing lehr (oven),  which is totally enclosed except for product entry and
exit openings.  Since emissions are small  and operational procedures are efficient, no controls are
used on  flat glass processes.
 11.15-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
O
H
U
Uu
Z
O
So
to
S
w
5X3
Q
X
0
Z
i
OS
fc
Z
Q
<0
5/5 B
w os
Q P
s§
, SULFUR
S MANUF
TICULATE
FOR GLAS
oS




















OQ
6
i
FACTOR
EMISSION

   60
   W
   •o
  I/I
o
i I
X
O
§
60
2 60
S5 5|
"*
o
o ^
."2
O
u.

"So

c
^>
!B
S ""
"3
o
'S
03
(X 60
^
~5b





t/5
o
o
O-





ON
^ . i *; . . .
CO


^^^
"i
o ~*. i "*. ~*. *~! ""!
>^
0?
^-'
O . i ....
CO _ *— < O CO CO
ci

I**- ON ^^ t^" t —

- o d d - -"
^
W) ^^ ^ bft hi)
 CD
^ T-^ Q^ ^ ^ ^i ^
g,



/^^\
OS
^ r~- ^ ^~ S' ^
Z o _». o o Z Z
2 v
C/5
O
c-
•*— • £j)
— . u.
^~j Q
>s™^' ^t ^
1 1 u. f
1 § S &-
5 °a> T3 >^ 2 ^ 'S

— W — «3 "^ «« ti?
CO C 0 C 'C 2 0
I  =5 1 ^
>i^o^ ?^?^^2
CC ^ O PH
04 S
0 0
oo ' oo oo oo oo oo '
\^ QQ
* — ^
v-^ X^

j^*V ^^V
R ®
in °
o t o o o o co *^
. ^f
00 °\
CO ^ »- 1 O CO CO I/S '
ci — '
*— '
2 in

^ ^ o o — i — ^xn
O S-
f? ^
^"% i ^« (y Qi ^ •»._*
^oo^ZZZ "-"(A
2- — '


^
^^ \o
o .
^H' ^
O "^ ?j S' ?? ^1" ^*
— . o Z Z Z od '
2- <=>,


k-r
O
rT5 *^
1 fe t
1 1 II
*O bS o **^ "*'' *S *^
1 1 'g I | 1 1
§ 1 1 "1 1 "8 §
3 ? ? ^ ? £ 3
OH

10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.15-5
-------
  8


flj
V
12
X
o
G
O
g
•farf
Z
£
12
^
0
|
3
C/3



1
c^
1
'€
&


c
.2
3


S
$
1
^
1— ^

3?
s
"Sb
j^
J
is




&o
s
"5b
^





Process




>o
od


CO
•*'
r-
CM*



CO

rt
od




CM
Tt





T3
a3
S
w
C/3
>»
S?




'-J
o
o\
o




wo
o





1,
 g1 Sf Q
Z Z Z Z


g1 g3 g1 Q
Z Z Z Z
60 60 60 /-\
o> 5> D •— I
Z Z Z Z



^ a? w1 O
Z Z Z Z
S1 g» g1 Q
Z Z Z Z




S5 g> g1 Q
Z Z Z Z
1?
W2
W2
a>
u
o
w
c.

C^
fcB
••? 'C
1 1
0 3
X! C
•^ -op
•^ c =
S " VI
•s -g ^§
^5 Qy ^-«
2 « efl
C* it C/3
a E 1 1

V3
V)
J2
"3)
<4-i
0
/— V
1
j5
bo
S
"Sb
M

5
(U
«
0.
c
v>
&.
W)
C3
02
.2J
3
[3)
"bb
!U
11
bfl
D
Z
C13
ts
"O

o
c
II
Q
Z
*O
•s
to
1
CM
4>
O
0)
,J3
"S
Qi
03
                                                              8l
                                                      V5




                                                      0>


                                                      D
                                                      4»4
                                                      _C8


                                                      ~5
                                                         o

                                                       ^ t*
                         -!
                          C
                         60 J>
                                                                       C/3
                                                                       o>

                                                                      °o


                                                                       
•a
                                                                            §
                                                         *3 .22  o c    w -S

                                                         c '3 -S .2    a 2
                                                             •a -a
                                                                           _c
                                                                           "^

                                                                           •s
                                                                            "2 c
                                                                            "C o
                                                                            X! s


                                                                                 S
                                                                            c •* .S
                                                                            5- c

                                                                            _O o cs
                                                                                 g
                                                                            lu  ot-

                                                                            &  2*>

                                                                            •s  ^s
                                                                            w  *-> J>
11.15-6
EMISSION FACTORS
      (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
  00

  §
  O
  |


  00



  W


  Q
  Q
  XS

  i =


  i§

  ^S
  Oz
  ms
  &> S
  O
  •Hfc
   00


  W
  —



  g
cc

d
z
p
g
u
<
tl.
z
o
oo
oo
HM
S
u



•o
8



4>
12
'S
0
c
o
p-
o
•e

u





u
>

















C
2



60
^
"So
|




^?
^5
bo


C
O
f-l


f
"5b






on
O
O
2
0-







Q
Z



Q
Z
0





o





o


o



en
0
C,
~
- — '
JO
_C
C
«
4=
."5
(H
OJ
03
^
2

Q Q
Z Z



Q Q
Z Z
(N d  d
t
o





T3
W

a c S I
60 '3 8 0
S C C ~
*^** ^ ^— ^

s ^

Q Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z Z



Q Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z Z
^ ^ ^ d d d
o o o V V V




*— C ^—4 —
1 rt. ~1 odd
ooo v V V



CS C^ CS ^H ^~" *-*
d d d d o' d
V V V

odd odd
V V V





o
re "0
•s, ^
O r? ^ ^
•^ i. s ^
X3 ** tA X3
i ^ 1 I tf 1
„ S2 « — o> _.
"s 1 § § f 'i
1 f 1 8 o |
? ^' ? ^-2 ? ?
u.

Q Q
Z Z



Q Q
Z Z
d d
V V




— -> i— i
d d
V V



^^ ~H
O 0
V V

d d
V V





o
13
"B.
'i
^ i
.H o
<«-! •*—* *^?
<1> W ^3
•3 S "°
0 S C
111
S? ? ?L
IX

Q
Z



Q
Z
/•— v
cn
o
• i
^^
^^
**~^
^_^
CN
o
^ i
^^
^^
£"

f° "7
d ^
s-
— Sj| 	 '
°1 o
O i
_H

O,








^
"o
o
[~~^

10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
                          Mineral Products Industry
11.15-7
-------
  cs
  4>




  I

c
2

""
t3
nl
^
00
S



•rt ®
'i js
o
^

c
O to
f*. OW
"i ^
U ob

^™




1

g


00
s
^








o
2
(X



Q
Z




Q
Z



d





d






d



cs
d









w/low-energy scrubber*1



O
Z




Q
Z



cs
d





d






d



cs
d









w/venturi scrubber6



Q
Z




Q



cs
d





d






d



CS
d









w/baghousef



Q
Z




Q
Z



d





d






d



d









w/electrostatic precipitator8








































Forming and finishing



Q.
Z




Q
Z



00
Z





00
Z






00



•*'









Container11 -J



Q
Z




Q



00
o>





00
Z






00
Z



00
o>
Z








E



Q
Z




Z



°
Z





oo
n
cs



Q
Z





Q
Z






Q
Z



Q
Z




^
$
VI
Vi
o>
o
o
Lead glass manufacturing, all pr


7 4—*
«J O
c« 4> C
*•"* "^ W^
00 (U S
"S i§ §3
^s .S? • -3
1 •& c - 1-1
II JI S|
1 i !i !*
^ 'S —so o C
OT .52 « ° .0
08 E T3 4> ** "S
« 4J O 'S '" C
Si s S 1 1
S. S So « go
W CO ^ .^2 u g
„• ^ g = c ^2 c

2 • o o e ** —
.2 o^u.'^0 -^P<

C*3 , w_.n -CO r^ (fc > ,**">
*""H j^ ^^ t^*J r»l (Tj CO
h ^ £? S  - « c 'S o -S
i «in! zj
& */) _t~* >. "O *O V3 ^*
1 jil!!^!!
'as s^o'S'S1560'?
SN rti ^ ^^ ^ yj 4i O
*•• JL^. Q "Z3 TV-t *^ »^^ ^"^ PI
05 £"%? ° S § § "e .g
ai •B-c.2S22a)e
w— « ^ *• — — ' rt rt C3 j£ CQ
^D ^Q • p^^ i^-« •— ^ ^— • >•« r \
.2° S ._• **— — — "*
I -^iiiSii
*O ^ rt> W)W)6JObA^
oO^SSc f*i|
I l^lllllf
g? — OTJ Ui Ui U« CC

• «s£5ccc
J3
•o
CO

"SQ.""
c/r oo ^
CQ ^>t r*\
*** ~ob oo
e •* .S
£ — H C

o o ^
known.
For container and pressed and b
treatment process at a rate of <
References 6-7. Particulate com
•— i •&
11.15-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                                          p«tC«t
                                                  — Ealsslon factor
                                                    COHTVOLLD
                                                  -•— u«ifht p«rc*flc
                                      Parclei* 4lM*c«r. »
 Figure 11.15-5.  Particle size distributions and emission factors for glass melting furnace exhaust.
  Table 11.15-3 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND EMISSION FACTORS
             FOR UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED MELTING FURNACES
                              IN GLASS MANUFACTURINGa

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Aerodynamic Particle
Diameter, /un
2.5
6.0
10
Particle Size
Uncontrolled
91
93
95
Distribution15
ESP Controlled*1
53
66
75
Size-Specific Emission
Factor, kg/Mgc
Uncontrolled
0.64
0.65
0.66
a References 8-11.
b Cumulative weight % of particles < corresponding particle size.
c Based on mass particulate emission factor of 0.7 kg/Mg glass produced, from Table 11.15-1. Size-
  specific emission factor = mass particulate emission factor x particle size distribution, %/100.
  After ESP  control, size-specific emission factors are negligible.
d References 8-9. Based on a single test.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.15-9
-------
References For Section 11.15

1.     J. A. Danielson, ed., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Ed., AP-40,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of
       Print.

2.     Richard B. Reznik, Source Assessment: Flat Glass Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/20-76-032b, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1976.

3.     J. R. Schoor, et al., Source Assessment: Glass Container Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/2-76-269, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1976.

4.     A. B. Tripler, Jr. and G. R. Smithson, Jr., A Review Of Air Pollution Problems And Control
       In The  Ceramic Industries, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, presented at the 72nd
       Annual Meeting of the American Ceramic Society, May 1970.

5.     J. R. Schorr, et al.,  Source Assessment: Pressed And Blown Glass Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/77-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, January 1977.

6.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

7.     Confidential test data, Pedco-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.

8.     H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
       South Coast Air Basin, PS-293-923,  National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
       February 1979.

9.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
       Information  System  (FPEIS), Series  Report  No. 219, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC,- June 1983.

10.    Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op.  cit., Series No. 223.

11.    Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op.  cit., Series No. 225.
H.15-10                           EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
11.16  Gypsum Manufacturing

11.16.1  Process Description1"2

        Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4 • 2H2O), a white or gray naturally occurring
mineral. Raw gypsum ore is processed into a variety of products such as a portland cement additive,
soil conditioner, industrial and building plasters, and gypsum wallboard.  To produce plasters or
wallboard, gypsum must be partially dehydrated or calcined to produce calcium sulfate hemihydrate
(CaSO4  • ViH2O), commonly called stucco.

        A flow diagram for a typical gypsum process producing both crude and finished gypsum
products is shown in Figure 11.16-1. In this process gypsum is crushed, dried, ground, and calcined.
Not all of the operations shown in Figure 11.16-1  are performed at all gypsum plants. Some plants
produce only wallboard, and many plants do not produce soil conditioner.

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

        In most plants, landplaster is fed to kettle calciners or flash calciners, where it is heated to
remove three-quarters of the chemically bound water to form stucco.   Calcination occurs at
approximately 120 to 150°C (250 to 300°F), and 0.908 megagrams (Mg) (1 ton) of gypsum calcines
to about 0.77 Mg (0.85 ton) of stucco.

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

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

        Gypsum and stucco are usually transferred from one process to another by means  of screw
conveyors or bucket elevators.  Storage bins or silos are normally located downstream of roller mills
and calciners but may also be used elsewhere.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                            11.16-1
-------
                                                              Crushed Rock
                                                              Storage Bios
                                                                El
                                                                                ©
                                              ©
                                                                                                    Product
                                                                                                    Cyclone
Key ID Source Classification Codes
S3
E
m
m
m
m
m
CD
E
E
3-05-015-05, -06
34)5-015-06
3-05-015-07
3-05-015-09
3-05-015-01
3-05-015-02
3-05-015-04
3-05-015-11, -12
3-05-015-14
3-05-015-18
3-05-015-17
3-05-015-21, -22
/-^




Landplaster
r T
Conveying
El



                                                           Storage ffin
                                                   ©


T T
Conveying
s



                                                                                                    ©
                                                                                         Calciner
                                                                                   Sold as
                                                                                 Prefabricated
                                                                                   Board
                                                                                  Products
                                                                                Key to Emission Sauces

                                                                               (T)    Point Source PM Fmi*"'""*

                                                                                     Combustion Emissions

                                                                               (j)    Fugitive PM Emissions
       w
    Papa Rolls
^
Chamfering j |

Hi \o
Boardhne Conveyor

y
Multi-deck
Board Drying
Kite




i
Board End
Sawing
[2
                Figure 11.16-1.  Overall process flow diagram for gypsum processing.2
11.16-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
        In the manufacture of plasters, stucco is ground further in a tube or ball mill and then batch-
mixed with retarders and stabilizers to produce plasters with specific setting rates. The thoroughly
mixed plaster is fed continuously from intermediate storage bins to a bagging operation.

        In the manufacture of wallboard, stucco from storage is first mixed with dry additives such as
perlite, starch, fiberglass, or vermiculite.  This dry mix is combined with  water, soap foam,
accelerators and shredded paper, or pulpwood in a pin  mixer at the head of a board forming line.
The slurry is then spread between 2 paper sheets that serve as a mold.  The  edges of the paper are
scored, and sometimes chamfered, to  allow precise folding of the paper to form the edges of the
board.  As the wet board travels the length of a conveying line, the  calcium  sulfate hemihydrate
combines with the water in the slurry to form solid calcium sulfate dihydrate, or gypsum, resulting in
rigid board.  The board is rough-cut to length, and it enters a multideck kiln dryer, where it is dried
by direct contact with hot combustion gases or by indirect steam heating.  The dried board is
conveyed to the board end sawing area and is trimmed  and bundled  for shipment.

11.16.2 Emissions And Controls2'7

        Potential emission sources in gypsum processing plants are shown  in Figure 11.16-1. While
paniculate matter (PM)  is the dominant pollutant in gypsum processing plants, several sources may
emit gaseous pollutants  also. The major sources of PM emissions include  rotary ore dryers, grinding
mills, calciners, and board end sawing operations.  Paniculate matter emission factors for these
operations are shown in Table 11.16-1 and 11.16-2. In addition, emission  factors for PM less than or
equal to 10 /un in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10) emissions from selected  processes are presented  in
Tables  11.16-1 and 11.16-2. All of these factors are based on output production rates. Particle size
data for ore dryers, calciners, and board end sawing operations are shown  in Tables 11.16-2 and
11.16-3.

        The uncontrolled emission factors presented in  Table  11.16-1 and  11.16-2 represent the
process dust entering the emission control device.  It is important to note that emission control
devices are frequently needed to collect the product from some gypsum processes and, thus,  are
commonly thought of by the industry  as process equipment and not as added control devices.

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

        -  rotary ore dryers (SCC 3-05-015-01)   - board end sawing (SCC 3-05-015-21,-22)
        -  roller mills (SCC 3-05-015-02)         - scoring and chamfering (SCC 3-05-015-_J
        -  impact mills (SCC 3-05-015-13)        - plaster  mixing and bagging (SCC 3-05-015-16,-17)
        -  kettle calciners (SCC 3-05-015-11)     - conveying systems (SCC 3-05-015-04)
        -  flash calciners (SCC 3-05-015-12)      - storage bins (SCC 3-05-015-09,-10,-14)

Uncontrolled emissions  from scoring and chamfering, plaster  mixing and bagging, conveying systems,
and storage bins are not well quantified.

        Emissions from some gypsum sources are also  controlled with electrostatic precipitators
(ESP).  These sources include rotary ore dryers, roller  mills,  kettle calciners, and conveying systems.
Although  rotary ore dryers may be controlled separately, emissions from roller  mills and conveying
systems are usually controlled jointly with kettle calciner emissions.   Moisture in the kettle calciner
exit gas improves the ESP performance by lowering the resistivity of the dust.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.16-3
-------
      Table 11.16-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING"

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Crushers, screens, stockpiles, and
roads (SCC 3-05-015-05,-06,-07,-08)
Rotary ore dryers (SCC 3-05-015-01)
Rotary ore dryers w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-01)
Roller mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mill and kettle calciner
w/electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-02,-! 1)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
w/fabric filters (SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners w/cyclones
and electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Flash calciners (SCC 3-05-015-12)
Flash calciners w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-12)
Impact mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Impact mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Board end sawing~2.4-m boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21)
Board end sawing— 3. 7-m boards
(SCC 3-05-015-22)
Board end sawing w/fabric filters--
2.4-and 3. 7-m boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21, -22)
Filterable PMb
_d
0.0042(FFF)1-7e
0.0208
1.3h
0.060h

0.050hJ

21k
0.0030k
0.050*
19m
0.020m

50P
0.01QP
0.0401
0.0301
36r

PM-10
_d
0.00034(FFF)L7
0.0052
ND
ND

ND

13
ND
ND
7.2m
0.017m

ND
ND
ND
ND
27r

C02C
NA
12f
NA
NA
NA

ND

ND
NA
NA
55"
ND

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified.  All emission factors are kg/Mg
  of output rate.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  NA = not applicable.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.
11.16-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
                                       Table 11.16-1  (cont.).

c Typical pollution control devices generally have a negligible effect on CO2 emissions.
d Factors for these operations are in Sections 11.19 and 13.2.
e References 3-4,8,11-12. Equation is for the emission rate upstream of any process cyclones and
  applies only to concurrent rotary ore dryers with flow rates of 7.5 cubic meters per second (m3/s)
  or less. FFF in the uncontrolled emission factor equation is "flow feed factor," the ratio of gas
  mass rate per unit dryer cross section area to the dry mass feed rate, in the following units:
  (kg/hr-m2 of gas flow)/(Mg/hr dry feed).  Measured uncontrolled emission factors for 4.2 and
  5.7 m3/s range from 5 to 60 kg/Mg.
f References 3-4.
g References 3-4,8,11-12. Applies to rotary dryers with and without cyclones upstream of fabric
  filter.
h References 11-14.  Applies to both heated and unheated roller mills.
J References 11-14.  Factor is for combined emissions  from roller mills and kettle calciners, based on
  the sum of the roller mill and kettle calciner output rates.
k References 4-5,11,13-14.  Emission factors based on the kettle and the hot pit do not apply to batch
  kettle calciners.
mReferences 3,6,10.
n References 3,6,9.
p References 9,15.  As used here, an impact mill is a process unit used to dry, grind, and calcine
  gypsum simultaneously.
q References 4-5,16. Emission factor units = kg/m2.  Based on 13-mm  board thickness and 1.2 m
  board width.  For other thicknesses, multiply the appropriate emission  factor by 0.079 times board
  thickness in mm.
r References 4-5,16. Emission factor units = kg/106 m2.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.16-5
-------
      Table 11.16-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Crushers, screens, stockpiles, and roads
(SCC S-05-015-05,-06,-07,-08)
Rotary ore dryers (SCC 3-05-015-01)
Rotary ore dryers w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-01)
Roller mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mill and kettle calciner
w/electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-02,-! 1)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
w/fabric filters (SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners w/cyclones
and electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Flash calciners (SCC 3-05-015-12)
Flash calciners w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-12)
Impact mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Impact mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Board end sawing— 8-ft boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21)
Board end sawing— 12-ft boards
(SCC 3-05-015-22)
Board end sawing w/fabric filters-
8- and 12-ft boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21, -22)
Filterable PMb
_d
O.ie^FF)1-776
0.0408
2.6h
0.12h

0.090h«J

41k
0.0060k
0.090k
37m
0.040m

lOOP
0.020?
0.801
0.50^
7.5r

PM-10
_d
0.013(FFF)L7
0.010
ND
ND

ND

26
ND
ND
14m
0.034m

ND
ND
ND
ND
5.7r

C02C
NA
23f
NA
NA
NA

ND

ND
NA
NA
110"
ND

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

 Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified.  All emission
 of output rate.  SCC = Source Classification Codes. NA = not applicable.  ND
                                     factors are Ib/ton
                                     = no data.
11.16-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
                                     Table 11.16-2 (cont.).
f
b Filterable PM is that paniculate collected on or prior to an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling
  train.
c Typical pollution control devices generally have a negligible effect on CO2 emissions.
d Factors for these operations are in Sections 8.19 and 13.2.
e References  3-4,8,11-12.  Equation is for the emission rate upstream of any process cyclones and
  applies only to concurrent rotary ore dryers with flow rates of 16,000 actual cubic feet per minute
  (acfm) or less.  FFF in the uncontrolled emission factor equation is "flow feed factor," the ratio of
  gas mass rate per unit dryer cross section area to the dry mass feed rate, in the following units:
  (lb/hr-ft2 of gas flow)/(ton/hr dry feed).  Measured uncontrolled emission factors for 9,000 and
  12,000 acfm range from 10 to  120 Ib/ton.
  References  3-4.
£ References  3-4,8,11-12.  Applies to rotary dryers with and without cyclones upstream of fabric
  filter.
h References  11-14. Applies to both heated and unheated roller mills.
J  References  11-14. Factor is for combined emissions from roller mills and kettle calciners, based on
  the sum of  the roller mill and kettle calciner output rates.
k References  4-5,11,13-14. Emission factors based on the kettle and the hot pit do not apply to batch
  kettle calciners.
mReferences  3,6,10.
n References  3,6,9.
P References  9,15.  As used here, an impact mill is a process unit used to dry, grind,  and  calcine
  gypsum simultaneously.
q References  4-5,16.  Emission factor units = lb/100 ft2. Based on  1/2-in. board thickness and 4-ft
  board width.  For other thicknesses,  multiply the appropriate emission factor by 2 times  board
  thickness in inches.
r References  4-5,16.  Emission factor units = lb/106 ft2.
          Table 11.16-3.  SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR
              UNCONTROLLED PM EMISSIONS FROM GYPSUM PROCESSINGa

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Diameter
Oxm)
2.0
10.0
Cumulative % Less Than Diameter
Rotary Ore
Dryerb
\
Rotary Ore Dryer
With Cyclone0
Continuous Kettle
Calcinerd
Flash Calciner6
1 12 17 10
8 45 63 38
a Weight % given as filterable PM.  Diameter is given as aerodynamic diameter, except for
  continuous kettle calciner, which is given as equivalent diameter, as determined by Bahco and
  Sedigraph analyses.
b Reference 3.
c Reference 4.
d References 4-5.
e References 3,6.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
                                   Mineral Products Industry
11.16-7
-------
         Table 11.164. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR
   FABRIC FILTER-CONTROLLED PM EMISSIONS FROM GYPSUM MANUFACTURING*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

Diameter
G*m)
2.0
10.0
Cumulative % Less Than Diameter


Rotary Ore Dryer13
9
26


Flash Calcinerc
52
84


Board End Sawingc
49
76
a
  Aerodynamic diameters, Andersen analysis.
b Reference 3.
c Reference 3,6.
       Other sources of PM emissions in gypsum plants are primary and secondary crushers,
screens, stockpiles, and roads. If quarrying is part of the mining operation, PM emissions may also
result from drilling and blasting.  Emission factors for some of these sources are presented in
Sections 11.19 and 13.2. Gaseous emissions from gypsum processes result from fuel combustion and
may include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide (CO^. Processes
using fuel include rotary ore dryers, heated roller mills, impact mills, calciners, and board drying
kilns. Although some plants use residual fuel oil, the majority of the industry uses clean fuels such as
natural gas or distillate fuel oil. Emissions from fuel combustion may be estimated using emission
factors presented in Sections 1.3 and 1.4 and fuel consumption data in addition to those emission
factors presented in Table 11.16-1.

References For Section  11.16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 11.16-8                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
 8.    Official Air Pollution Emission Tests Conducted On The Rock Dryer And No. 3 Calcidyne
       Unit, Gold Bond Building Products, Report No. 5767, Rosnagel and Associates, Medford,
       NJ, August 3, 1979.

 9.    Paniculate Analysis Of Calcinator Exhaust At Western Gypsum Company,  Kramer, Callahan
       and Associates, Rosario, NM, April 1979. Unpublished.

10.    Official Air Pollution Tests Conducted On The #7 Calcidyner Baghouse Exhaust At The
       National Gypsum Company, Report No. 2966, Rossnagel and Associates, Atlanta, GA,
       April 10, 1978.

11.    Report To United States Gypsum Company On Paniculate Emission Compliance Testing,
       Environmental Instrument Systems, Inc., South Bend, IN, November 1975. Unpublished.

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

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

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

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

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

17.    Telephone communication between P. J. Murin, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, and
       J. W. Pressler, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC,
       November 6,  1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                            11.16-9
-------
11.17 Lime Manufacturing

11.17.1  Process Description1"5

        Lime is the high-temperature product of the calcination of limestone.  Although limestone
deposits are found in every state, only a small portion is pure enough for industrial lime
manufacturing.  To be classified as limestone, the rock must contain at least 50 percent calcium
carbonate. When the rock contains 30 to 45 percent magnesium carbonate, it is referred to as
dolomite, or dolomitic limestone.  Lime can also be produced from aragonite, chalk, coral, marble,
and sea shells.   The Standard Industry Classification (SIC) code for lime manufacturing is 3274.  The
six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for lime manufacturing is 3-05-016.

        Lime is manufactured  in various kinds of kilns by 1  of the following reactions:

        CaCO3  + heat -> CO2 +  CaO (high calcium lime)
        CaCO3 • MgCO3 + heat -» 2CO2 + CaO • MgO (dolomitic lime)

In some lime plants, the resulting  lime is reacted (slaked) with  water to form hydrated lime.  The
basic processes  in the production of lime are: (1) quarrying raw limestone; (2) preparing limestone
for the kilns by crushing and sizing; (3) calcining limestone;  (4) processing the lirne further by
hydrating; and  (5) miscellaneous transfer, storage, and handling operations.  A generalized material
flow diagram for a lime manufacturing plant is given in Figure 11.17-1.  Note that some operations
shown may not  be performed in all plants.

        The heart of a lime plant is the kiln. The prevalent type of kiln is the rotary kiln, accounting
for about 90 percent of all lime production in the United States. This kiln is a long, cylindrical,
slightly inclined, refractory-lined furnace, through which the limestone and hot combustion gases pass
countercurrently.  Coal, oil, and natural gas may all be fired in rotary kilns.  Product coolers and kiln
feed preheaters of various types are commonly used to recover  heat from the hot lime product and hot
exhaust gases, respectively.

        The next most common type of kiln in the United States is the vertical, or shaft, kiln.  This
kiln can be described as an upright heavy steel cylinder lined with refractory  material.  The limestone
is charged at the top and is calcined as it descends slowly to discharge at the bottom of the kiln.  A
primary advantage of vertical kilns over rotary kilns is higher average fuel efficiency. The primary
disadvantages of vertical kilns are  their relatively low production rates and the fact that coal cannot be
used without degrading the quality of the lime produced.  There have been few recent vertical kiln
installations in the United States because of high product quality requirements.

        Other, much less common, kiln types include rotary hearth and fluidized bed kilns. Both kiln
types can achieve high production  rates, but neither can operate with coal.  The "calcimatic" kiln, or
rotary hearth kiln, is a circular kiln with a slowly  revolving doughnut-shaped hearth. In fluidized bed
kilns, finely divided limestone  is brought into contact with hot  combustion air in a turbulent zone,
usually  above a perforated grate.   Because of the amount of lime carryover into the exhaust gases,
dust collection equipment must be installed on fluidized bed kilns for process economy.

        Another alternative process that  is beginning to  emerge in the United States is the parallel
flow regenerative (PR) lime kiln.  This process combines 2 advantages.  First, optimum

1 /95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.17-1
-------
                                    I HIGH CALCIUM AND DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE
                          ©
1
r
QUARRY AND MINE OPERATIONS
(DRILLING, BLASTING, AND
CONVEYING BROKEN LIMESTONE)
1
CO
                                           RAW MATERIAL STORAGE
1
, ©
                                             PRIMARY CRUSHING
                                                                               _)= 105/116-01
                                                                              (5)= 105-016.02
                                                                                ) = 105-016-03 TO -06, -1710-23
                                                                                 = 105-016-08
                                                                                )= 105-016-09
                                                                                 = 105-016-10
                                                                                 = 105-016-11
                              = 105-016-13
                               105J316-14
                               3-05-016-15
                            _  '105-016-16
                           © = 105-016.24

                           © = 3-OM16-25
                           © = 105-016-26
                           © =3-05J316-Z7
           DESCRIPTION
        PRIMARY CRUSHING
        SECONDARY CRUSHING/SCREENING
        CALCINING
        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
        RAW MATERIAL UNLOADING
        HYDRATOR: ATMOSPHERIC
        RAW MATERIAL STORAGE PILES
        PRODUCT COOLER
        PRESSURE HYDRATOR
        LIME SILOS
        PACKAGING/SHIPPING
        PRODUCT TRANSFER
        PRIMARY SCREENING
        CONVEYOR TRANSFER PRIMARY
        CRUSHED MATERIAL
        SECONDARY/TERTIARY SCREENING
        PRODUCT LOADING, ENCLOSED TRUCK
        PRODUCT LOADING, OPEN TRUCK
                                        SCREENING AND CLASSIFICATION
                         0.64-6 4 em LIMESTONE .
                          FOR ROTARY KILNS
                                            SECONDARY CRUSHING
                                  -|    SCREENING AND CLASSIFICATION (g
                   084-64011
                 _ LIMESTONE
                   FOR ROTARY
                   KILNS
                                                                                                            FUa
                                                                                                           1
CALCINATION
                                               PULVERIZING
                                                                                                  COOLING
                                    [    SCREENING AND CLASSIFICATION (°
1
. 0
                                             INSPECTION



1 1 1
LIMESTONE PRODUCTS ©j"* 	
0 ,

PULVERIZED
STONE
>
©
•
QUICKLIME

>


rr>



i
, ©
NING
©
'
1 PEBBLE AND LUMP QUICKLIME

1 — sstss>s* — I CRUSHINC *» p*v«™« | 	 augsE'SiY — i
WATER
1
HYDRATOR (^
)



3

— 1 GROU
MAX SIZE
>
©
164-1 3 c
^
ID AND PULVERIZED C
©,
WATER AND/OR
STEAM
, 1
| PRESSURE HYDRATOR Q
\

UICKLIME 1 1
                   SEPARATOR
                                                                                                  MILLING
)

HIGH CALCIUM AND DOLOMITIC Q
NORMAL HYDRATED LIME ^.
STORAGE. PACKAGING. AND SHIPPING (£)
©
©
1
r
DOLOMITIC PRESSURE (j)
HYDRATED LIME STORAGE, /~^
PACKAGING. AND SHIPPING (£)
©
©
                        Figure 11.17-1.   Process  flow diagram for lime manufacturing.4
                                          (SCC  =  Source Classification Code.)
11.17-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                 1/95
-------
heating conditions for lime calcining are achieved by concurrent flow of the charge material and
combustion gases. Second, the multiple-chamber regenerative process uses the charge material as the
heat transfer medium to preheat the combustion air.  The basic PR system has 2 shafts, but 3 shaft
systems are used with small size grains to address the increased flow resistance associated with
smaller feed sizes.

        In the 2-shaft system, the shafts alternate functions, with 1 shaft serving as the heating shaft
and the other as the flue gas shaft.  Limestone is charged alternatively to the 2 shafts  and flows
downward  by gravity flow. Each shaft includes a heating zone, a combustion/burning zone, and a
cooling zone.  The 2 shafts are connected in the middle to allow gas flow between them. In the
heating shaft,  combustion air flows downward through the heated charge material.  After being
preheated by the charge material, the combustion air combines  with the fuel (natural gas or oil), and
the air/fuel mixture is fired downward into the combustion zone.  The hot combustion gases pass
from the combustion zone in the heating shaft to the combustion zone in the flue gas shaft. The
heated exhaust gases flow upward through the flue gas shaft combustion zone and  into the preheating
zone where they heat the charge material. The function of the 2 shafts reverses  on a  12-minute cycle.
The bottom of both shafts  is a cooling zone.  Cooling air flows upward through  the shaft
countercurrently to the flow of the calcined  product. This air mixes with the combustion gases in the
crossover area providing additional combustion air.  The product flows by gravity from the bottom of
both shafts.

        About 15 percent of all lime produced is converted to hydrated (slaked) lime.   There are
2 kinds of hydrators: atmospheric and pressure.  Atmospheric  hydrators, the more prevalent type,
are used in continuous  mode to produce high-calcium and dolomitic hydrates.  Pressure hydrators, on
the other hand, produce only a completely hydrated dolomitic lime and operate only in batch mode.
Generally,  water sprays or  wet scrubbers perform the hydrating process and prevent product loss.
Following hydration, the product may be milled and then conveyed to air separators for further
drying and removal of coarse fractions.

        The major uses of lime are metallurgical (aluminum,  steel, copper, silver, and gold
industries), environmental (flue gas desulfurization, water softening, pH control, sewage-sludge
destabilization, and hazardous  waste treatment), and construction (soil stabilization, asphalt additive,
and masonry lime).

11.17.2  Emissions And Controls1'4'33

        Potential air  pollutant emission points in lime manufacturing plants are indicated by SCC in
Figure 11.17-1.  Except for gaseous pollutants emitted from kilns, paniculate matter (PM)  is the only
dominant pollutant.  Emissions of filterable PM from rotary lime kilns constructed or modified after
May 3, 1977 are regulated to  0.30 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.60 pounds per ton [lb/ton])
of stone feed under 40  CFR Part 60, subpart HH.

        The largest ducted source of paniculate is the kiln.  The properties of the limestone feed and
the ash  content of the coal (in coal-fired kilns) can significantly affect PM emission rates.  Of the
various kiln types, fiuidized beds have the highest levels of uncontrolled PM emissions because of the
very small  feed rate  combined with the high air flow through these kilns.  Fiuidized bed kilns are
well controlled for maximum  product recovery. The rotary kiln is second worst in uncontrolled PM
emissions because of the small feed rate and relatively high air  velocities and because of dust
entrainment caused by the rotating chamber. The  calcimatic (rotary hearth)  kiln ranks third in dust
production  primarily because of the  larger feed rate and the fact that, during calcination, the limestone
remains stationary relative to the hearth. The vertical kiln has the lowest uncontrolled dust emissions

1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                             11.17-3
-------
due to the large lump feed, the relatively low air velocities, and the slow movement of material
through the kiln.  In coal-fired kilns, the properties of the limestone feed and the ash content of the
coal can significantly affect PM emissions.

        Some sort of particulate control is generally applied to most kilns.  Rudimentary fallout
chambers and cyclone separators are commonly used to control the larger particles.  Fabric and
gravel bed  filters, wet (commonly venturi) scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are used for
secondary control.

        Carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO^, sulfur dioxide (S02), and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) are all produced in kilns. Sulfur dioxide emissions are influenced by several factors, including
the sulfur content of the fuel, the sulfur content and mineralogical  form  (pyrite or gypsum) of the
stone feed, the quality of lime being produced, and the type of kiln.  Due to variations in these
factors,  plant-specific SO2 emission factors are likely to vary significantly from the average emission
factors presented  here. The dominant source of sulfur emissions is the kiln's fuel, and the vast
majority of the fuel sulfur is not emitted because of reactions with calcium oxides in the kiln.   Sulfur
dioxide  emissions may be further reduced if the pollution equipment uses a wet process or if it brings
CaO and SO2 into intimate contact.

        Product coolers are emission sources only  when some of their exhaust gases are not recycled
through the kiln for use as combustion air. The trend is away from the venting of product cooler
exhaust, however, to maximize fuel use efficiencies. Cyclones, baghouses, and wet scrubbers have
been used on coolers for particulate control.

        Hydrator  emissions are low because water sprays or wet scrubbers  are usually installed to
prevent  product loss in the exhaust gases. Emissions from pressure hydrators may be higher than
from the more common atmospheric hydrators because the exhaust gases are released intermittently,
making  control more difficult.

        Other particulate sources in lime plants include primary and secondary crushers, mills,
screens, mechanical and pneumatic transfer operations, storage piles, and roads. If quarrying is a
part of the  lime plant operation, particulate emissions may  also result from drilling and blasting.
Emission factors  for some of these operations  are presented in Sections  11.19 and 13.2 of this
document.

        Tables  11.17-1 (metric units) and 11.17-2  (English units) present emission factors for PM
emissions from lime manufacturing calcining,  cooling, and hydrating. Tables 11.17-3  (metric units)
and 11.17-4 (English units) include emission factors for the mechanical  processing (crushing,
screening,  and grinding) of limestone and for some materials handling operations.  Section 11.19,
Construction Aggregate Processing,  also includes stone processing emission factors that are based on
more recent testing,  and, therefore, may be more representative of emissions from stone crushing,
grinding, and screening.  In addition, Section  13.2, Fugitive Dust Sources, includes emission factors
for materials handling that may be more representative of materials handling emissions than the
emission factors in Tables 11.17-3 and 11.17-4.

        Emission factors for emissions of SO2, NOX, CO, and CO2 from lime manufacturing are
presented in Tables 11.17-5 and 11.17-6. Particle size distribution for rotary lime kilns is provided in
Table 11.17-7.
 11.17-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
   O
   Z
   u
   o

   i
   u-
     O

   a: Q

   P z
   H <
   U
  £2


  w



   W5

  "£
   O)

  s
   CO
  H


0
&
JB
1
0
O



.e
IS
2
0



2§1
co H r5
£2 D H
o
'c
k*
O
§*0
co E- —
co o H
organic
B
CO IT"* ""*
CO ri t"*
0
i


2§i
so H r5
22 u H
S
a.










0
a
j3
o
(A




u
U>
O



Q
o

Q
N


Q

-0
oo












•S S?
39
!§
o ^— •
U


QQQQQQQ QQ
zzzzzzz zz


U Q U U Q
Is ?t - ?f ^
QOQOC>dQ OQ
Z Z Z Z
Q Q
r- B
o ts
QOfSQQQQ QQ
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z


QQQQWUU QQ
._ O. VO •> ^3
-5^ O^OOO"^ OO
«

•c
(-" >!—" _J
o u c 2
u ^ - 2 =
1 1 i 1 ! 1
•a T^ ^ ?

g, •£ a, 2 "" ^ ^ £
^oo^ w | w S2 = ii^'2^
*~^ r*_r- °^ \A^*'
•5\o."5 •£ T£ js ^ ^» &*•— "c3^

c' C'^vC^^C'-^'^^-2'^^2w^ Utf^
&* T ^ &* ^*, ^> ,_i ^* ^ ^.^ ^ ^ ^J~ .^ ^^ .^ U i* r)
SH «O ciO «O ?O ?O ,O 'U 8rj
\^ ** 1 *-• i *- i ra i m i c/3 i fn rf\ ,^6 *r
O e/\ O ^1 O VI O 1^1 "5^ t/^ ^r I/") re l/^ CO ci- O ***
'-•-Ci-'-'o ^o uo £o £o w)o w* t> s™^
§0 §^-'O^-'0^^rt^^rt^-'O^^Ocrt Ow
UUOUOOUUU

DU
&
o
Q Q o
Z Z


U U
O X
0 Q 0
z

Q Q Q
Z Z Z


U U U
£ X
C4 OO
Tt
g "8
o -o
S 13 5.

IS*?

4 ^ ^ CS
c c c "*"
5 5 a !
L- VH x-^ 1^
^ ^ C^J J> >~t

-§ — •§ - -g g-^
>,yi3 f^o >, « vo
*-" " *Js t-l > '-H
cs o ^5 ^ eg •* o
o m o o o if m
w o cj c o
ly,ll llg.
u o o
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-5
-------
  I
  —
  03





o
ft*
JO
en
1
T3
e
a















,0
J2
.0
2
.•3
0.















O
CO
CO
W




^
O
CO
S
u







0
8
1






0
co
U














1
U
B.





Q
H
^
tt,







B!
B
o
£






o
o















1
5


•S
1
o

z
p
•<


o
*c

s>
0
c
O
Z
h
£


o
S


1
H



1








o
1
CO







Q
Z



U




^

~H
O






Q
Z


U



OO
•<*



9

9
o
en
O
O
CO,
o
.1
O
1
09
a
O





Q











Q
Z





Q



Q



i
o



j.
'f
c
2
1
sn
O i
g£
£?9
V. I/I
Is
C3 fj
T3 O
rt u
a""





Q Q
Z Z



Q 03




^ *-^

o o
o o*






Q Q
z z


Q U


3
8 >,
C3 ^;
C3 CO





u
1
•s
?
£
1
t-l
•^ >o >c
r\ i— < i-^
-CO S °
•88 1 S3
^cA §S
&o « o
i" •§ u
£ CO, g CO,
< a.


.
S
B

|
1
3
g
cL

"^
<+*
o

o»l
s
S
g
|
C!
o

1
^
^
^
1
1

f
O
VI
_a>
"c

C
_o
1

1
"o
Uri
•4~»
I
2
4^
§
va
§"
c/l
rt






























•
•a
c

'i
o

1
C
a>
o
u-
o
on
II
U
U
05
«
1
II









C
1

I
"o.
E
a]
en

•g
JD
1
^
^
T3
1
a>
,
S
W

"o
i
•*^
*5

m^
o
o
*- — ; ^
_r" f*\^N ^~
.S2 . CN OO"-H" r-" •*"
So?— SdSdScA °"
« o\ ^-"oC • o -^ Tj->r-^T4-~oo'oovtN ^^ j^ oo — vo
_O C/5W5WS c/5V3c«W3c/:c/3 CX2
^5 ^>^>^>^>^>OO^O^Q^OQ>^OOQ^
c^OOOOOOOCJOOOOCJOOOO
ccccccccccceeccecc
4>Cl>cl>fliCl>QiO3iCOfliOOQ^Cl>4>D3iCli
-rt^t-UcUjUjl— U*U*U.U.l-!-,WU-U.tHt-*
2cl>a>d>cl>a>ci)ci>OJO>cuQ>4>^>l>4>^)
OO4>fl^UUO4Jcl>OD^cUci>^fli3^fli
CJ Cc^ DN C^ C^ fvj p^ fv^ pt/ p^ p^ q^j p^ f%^ p^ p^ p^ fv|
0 -O O <— 00 J= — >J?




























"8
0
T3
£
ex
a>
^™*
1

"1,
*
O
60
S
•*
cc
'H
3
C C C C
X >-, N rt
11.17-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
  o

  z
  u
  o
  z
  5
  D

  U
  <
  U.
  2$
  gg
  18
  VI
  4-»

  'c


o
H~
o
'1
§>
O
og§
111
0
'c
es
Ml
^
? OS U
2 o z
PI
o
0.


Z 3;
O f"\ i.
GO H =
to o H

5
(X










o
S
o
CO







U
M
O



Q

!3


Q

•> •* O
z z z z

Q Q
>/-! O
— CO
QO^QQQQ QQ
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z




QQQQUUU QQ
* *
C^ *^1 ^T ^^ O^ OO r**
-oo'od'-o'o''o o'->
cs °°

- B -g |

•K -° 'S = §
£ S o T3 •* j;
.S S M " js .ts

1^1 ft | §5 1 5 Igls
_^ OO *^* UQ ^ *^ UH ^j *gj i *^ fsl
j=Jj= ja j= j. _^ >, >,2 ^yb
Iliso|so|«1s-'^^o2g|l
fr^ frS fri frS ?,S li 1 2 1 o •? o
•2u -S? S^? 2S* S? S^ «» ® «iC/5^y
•^^ HJ-. 1 BVV 1^ •«• 1^ ^ 1^ ^ 1^ 1^ ^* ^
C c o ^^ S ^^ C ^^ ^o ^* *o ^* « ^* ^ /^ M ^
"«g>'e3tO/"3cO/'e3cO, coOT. c/iCO,'«CO,'c8U "3o

UCJUUUUUUU


Q
Z


u
>
00
0



Q
Z




UJ


>J.
oo

u
c
]o

I


•^
S
F^
S3
If?
^2
2 9
|S
"« CO
o • — •
U

«
X
Q <=> Q
Z Z


U (U
K. ^

z


QQQ
ZZZ




u u u

cs -*
— — f5-
Ox

•8
Xi

2 2
00 o

'? '§• -0
£ 5-0
*~^ *~^ ctf
S3 c7 i> >;
S O) M CS C
|s 1 S-~ 3^
Js JlS |S
| CO |^0 -59

"« J« *« p CO^ crt C/3^

u u o
  9>
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-7
-------





















^_^
•£
§
v3-

g"~ ^
H
^ u! K
a
o
'S
a
£?
O
C


O 0 °
55 C*
W5 r \ LH
5 <• 










Q Q Q
Z Z Z





O Q U



N 3^

C^ ~£ >*
O O 00
O o V£>


^
S S3
vO ^>
o o g
|i 1
g .0 -c o S3 S
Cii^.. 'Co O O
"r £, 2 o -o u
cS 12 E 2, o to
U < ^ £ "^

«
•o
8
u
Q
Z
"^
S
o
C c
s "I
"2 60
3 .e
w E
"O «
2 o
G, C
i ^
.s _>
~" '3
o gTe-
C ui *«
O O w
*3 ^^- •*-•
— ^ C
2 ol
ja 2 O<
-S £
« ,2 «

rt ^^ ^^
LL 0^ "
w «
•s «"o
J» ^*4 C
_. VH V^
3) S *-H
•^ ^ °
? 1C
o> o> o>
^ « g>
. 3'S,
w C
CA WH C
*w rt •*"*
"S 'C «
3 Cu^
^ b; c
C O 5
1 -§"1
•g -o "§ g
*> (3 0 =3
"5 {- — " u
— o "o *5
2'^"^
c ,H S *- _; ro
o!t:a«£ moC-
g S^5 oC^l*^ • •
3wii£ • csoO'-< t-~^f
^U"0'^ -2 • oo"*^^ . ^T o
g^.SSSo-r- -oooovom m
t« o — , a, -H ON -^ . o1"" ^H *~ i cs -^ . ^
2 ii 2 D ov ^"oC • o *-< •<*rr-"-4>4)4>4>4)O<1>4)<1>4)<1>4>4)
k-J«5/5cjCJUO!JCJOOOOOOOO
V2II^CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
U«" £34)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)4)
n i_~-,u-t-uu.uuHV-t-u-t.'— t-i-t.
i3ri4) — 4)Dai4)4)4)4>4>4)4)D4>4)4)
o^-w e c; <£ c^ '4z ^ <£. ^ c£; -^ -^ ^ •_£; •*: '.£
p5 O "^3 O4)4)D4)4>4)4>4><1>4)4)4)4>4)
u.^u_cjo:QieiiQici:oioiDioiDioiDia;cii
t« ^3OT3O<«0£)J2._1^£cD-Cr'l-(tn4j

































1
1
&c

.1
•s
«
•p
J=T
C4-H
0
c
2
£
tn
•*-•
"S
o o o o o o o
c c c c c c c
4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4> 4)
4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) <1>
3 > ^ X >> N «
11.17-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
      Table 11.17-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING
             RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLINGa
Source
Primary crusher0
(SCC 3-05-016-01)
Scalping screen and harnmermill (secondary crusher)0
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Primary crusher with fabric filter*1
(SCC 3-05-016-01)
Primary screen with fabric filter6
(SCC 3-05-016-16)
Crushed material conveyor transfer with fabric filter^
(SCC 3-05-016-24)
Secondary and tertiary screen with fabric filter8
(SCC 3-05-016-25)
Product transfer and conveying
(SCC 3-05-016-15)h
Product loading, enclosed truck
(SCC 3-05-016-26)h
Product loading, open truck
(SCC 3-05-016-27)h

PM
0.0083
0.31
0.00021
0.0030
4.4xlO'5
6.5X10'5
1.1
0.31
0.75
Filterable15
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
PM-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING









  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Factors are kg/Mg of
    material processed unless noted. ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
    sampling train.
  c Reference 6; units of kg/Mg of stone processed.
  d Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Includes scalping
    screen, scalping screen discharges, primary crusher, primary crusher discharges, and ore
    discharge.
  e Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Includes primary
    screening, including the screen feed, screen discharge, and surge bin discharge.
  f Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Based on average of
    three runs each of emissions from two conveyor transfer points on the conveyor from the
    primary crusher to the primary stockpile.
  g Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Based on sum of
    emissions from two emission points that include conveyor transfer point for the primary
    stockpile underflow to the secondary screen, secondary screen, tertiary screen, and tertiary
    screen discharge.
  h Reference 10; units of kg/Mg of product loaded.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-9
-------
     Table 11.17-4 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING
            RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING*
Source
Primary crusher0
(SCC 3-05-016-01)
Scalping screen and hammermill (secondary crusher)
(SCC 3-05-016-02)°
Primary crusher with fabric filter*1
(SCC 3-05-016-01)
Primary screen with fabric filter6
(SCC 3-05-016-16)
Crushed material conveyor transfer with fabric filter^
(SCC 3-05-016-24)
Secondary and tertiary screen with fabric filter8
(SCC 3-05-016-25)
Product transfer and conveying
(SCC 3-05-016-15)11
Product loading, enclosed truck
(SCC 3-05-016-26)h
Product loading, open truck
(SCC 3-05-016-27)h
Filterableb
PM
0.017


0.62
0.00043

0.00061

8.8xlO-5

0.00013

2.2

0.61

1.5

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E


E
D

D

D

D

E

D

D

PM-10
ND


ND
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


















  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Factors are Ib/ton of
   material processed unless noted.  ND = no data.  SCC =  Source Classification Code.
  b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
   sampling train.
  c Reference 6;  factors are Ib/ton.
  d Reference 34. Factors are Ib/ton of material processed.  Includes scalping screen, scalping
   screen discharges,  primary crusher, primary crusher discharges, and ore discharge.
  e Reference 34. Factors are Ib/ton of material processed.  Includes primary screening, including
   the screen feed, screen discharge, and surge bin discharge.
  f Reference 34. Factors are Ib/ton of material processed.  Based on average of three runs each
   of emissions  from  two conveyor transfer points on the conveyor from the primary crusher to
   the primary stockpile.
  g Reference 34. Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Based on sum of
   emissions from two emission points that include conveyor  transfer point for the primary
   stockpile underflow to the secondary screen, secondary screen, tertiary screen, and tertiary
   screen discharge.
  h Reference 10; units are Ib/ton of product loaded.
11.17-10
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                        1/95
-------
   O
   H
   U
   <
   tu
   D
   g
   PU
   C/5

   g

   U

   £
   z
   o
   So
  .«

  P
   o
   CO
z
o
co
co
2
w
OS
0
C
^,
u-
a
P
tt

°cT
o
z
1— >
CO
U
*
o
o
ss
0
z
p
2
o
o
z
o
CO
I





0

W5
1

g
^





0

r\
fSS

1
2


X
o
z

a
z

t**
2
cf
CO
Z
0
2
w

o

tt.

z
5
a

If
o
3
0
CO

o



1


Q

o


U



VO
— •






Q
Z

Q




cs







f
1

§
U





Q
Z




Q






Q
Z






Q
Z

Q



fj
00
d


u

c
o
i
j;
'I
^ e ^
232
o 2 o
9 !S
|9
2
t«-i
1
cj
0
u
>r\
9
m
U
U
52.


Q Q UJ



Q o & Q o
Z § g z 8


U Q UJ

'2 I i S Jj


U Q



r- t Q Q Q
- ~ z z z






Q Q Q Q Q
z z z z z

UJ UJ




Q D a * i.
z z z ^ ^


5T
\o °~ •£•""' j= °
9 'I S ^ S '^ •§
8 c9 |9 .§ ^^
CJ fA fc* rA *^ ^ /— v
rj IM ^ *^ *-• >% f^
•*-^ ^ U *^ O J3 "o Jj Q^ \O
2 "| | || | 2 9 I*"
*^ so Q^ O e O
"Q g -^ g •£ y C CO Qj *2 W
§ «s ^StS^otS-S'T
M W O rt W rt '^ tr\ A f« ^^
to o> o> o?ii-occ:
O O U O U

tti



2 Q
o z


Q

Z d


Q Q

on
I — OJ
s -
d d






Q Q
Z Z

Q


-
S
Q O
2 d


^ _

u cs
.> vo
2 o
is

5 ^ O
0 JJ- O CO,
§ ^H ~ ~~
"2 o 2 **"*
S o o. 'C
£ U 8 "*"
1 o 1 .•£
C3 -%_^ C3 ^>
o o

w


M
^




Q






Q
Z








Q
Z




Q
Z




c-
o

o
U
U
52.
Uf
"o
8
o
•b
e
a.
c-j
•o
O
B
11
Q
Z
"8
•*— »
o
c

1
•a
•8
u
•o
0
c.
.1
*0


bo
•^
!U
o
o
CO
U.
0
c
.a
•4— •
o

"3
3
«
C
.2
'«
to
S"


-a

"o
c
o
u
c
represent u
«5
1-
o
o
CO
U,
«
































>*.
                                             o 2
                                             *5 O
                                             ^
                                                                                    .a*
                                                                               U<  CO  P
                                                                               *J  o  C
w
5§
3
!fl
O

CO
CO
C8
S
e
o
.0
b^
CO
O
C
O
a>
o
C
JO
"co
X>
CA
^
S



od
n
O
CO
CD
O
4>
,4)
<4-l
«D
Ce^
en
oC
°i
oo^

•s
n
o\
S
o
O)
<£
eu
Oi


.
IT)
^i
cxT
CO
a)
1
i_<
£
4>
PS!
ON
fN
^f
aT
oo
g
o
33
c£
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-11
-------
  I

      o\            •*
      OQ	V^   .  .  .

       cccceccccc


      .c ._, .* E e  o,cri.  w«



11.17-12                         EMISSION FACTORS                             1/95
-------
  O
  H
  U
  <
  tu
  D
  Z
  O
  u-

  co
  06
  U
  <
  b

  Z
  O
  S5
  on
  .Is
  "5

r-p
2 o
co H
co o
a
1
S1
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
8
o%
co H
jo o


O
P;
X
n
Z
||1
6"
CO
55 H
fO CJ
w fc
|
as
cT
CO
3
O
CO

u
S
IN
«n
Q
S

O
t-
f>
Q
Z

Q


T3

e O
O ^


a
z


o
z


Q
Z
o

Q


.£3
Ut
|
"I
IS 2
C ^
1 1
"§ ^
«= U
U


Q
Z


Q
Z


Q
Z
cs
d
Q


tn
0
with wet scrubber
12 *"
C ^
1 S
^s
<7 U
O ^


Q
Z

.
S
(N

U
S
m
Q
Z




Q
•o
o
9
u
o
CO,
[|
i^
3
2
1
CO
a
O

Q
a
S
tN
CO
Q
0
00
d

Q
c
tN
Q
Z




Q
Z
.cf
li
S 0
^^
rf* n
c« -°
T3 ""
C "C
* 3
CfJ O
U

















'I
_c
2
fc>
3
2
•g
\
>i
o
u
T3
C
eg
"3
o
u

Q
£
S
«

Q
Z


Q
Z
Q
Z




Q
Z
«/"!
cp
en
O
U
CO,
u
fl>
.n
_c
S
•c
3
'c
U
>


W UJ
22
Q o 5
Z t ^

«
Q i- Q
Z 2 z

Q
Q D -
Z Z o
D Q Q
Z Z Z

W UJ


tr v. Q
C*^ ^ ^"
CN 'O
&" c
{ ^ | | I
C ^ C )_,
^3 \O " "^ ^
IS 1 |R 1
| 9 | g-cs .§ ^
a. ^ a.<"S.2''^»
•«-»
'tj
JS
t4»
o
S
'o
to
0.
CA

C8

<2

o
•*-»


c
_o
'S
c/3
'E
CO

CO
_>
03
«-<
C
CO
CA
CO
IM
O.
CO
UH
CO
u<
O

CQ
2
.—
>*>
>~i
re
E
1
"3
e
o
o
c
"3
C/5
C8
S
X


>>
*^
'§
<+-
0
S
'o
CO
Q,
M

C8

Ui

•*-•
2
S
co
S
8-
!-
CO
w
1
ca

2
•^
^
CQ
E _'
e **!
S o
•e n
S 22 .
§-«s
c_> ON ON *•"•
C t^ ^ c«
cc q> q> o>
"T3 O O O
-° 0> D 0>
5 *S *t3 ^S
S ft! Qtf 0j
o -o o <*-•





































3
cs
*>
oo
1
D
U)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-13
-------
  o
  o
      CO
       OOOOOOCJOOO
       cccccccccc
               C  O.tT'
11.17-14                         EMISSION FACTORS                            1/95
-------
          Table 11.17-7. AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR ROTARY
                                        LIME KILNSa
Particle Size
(Mm)
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Percent Less Than Stated Particle Size
Uncontrolled
Rotary Kiln
1.4
2.9
12
31
ND
Rotary Kiln With
Multiclone
6.1
9.8
16
23
31
Rotary Kiln
With ESP
14
ND
50
62
ND
Rotary Kiln With
Fabric Filter
27
ND
55
73
ND
a Reference 4, Table 4-28; based on A- and C-rated particle size data.  Source Classification Codes
  3-05-016-04, and -18 to -21.  ND = no data.
       Because of differences in the sulfur content of the raw material and fuel and in process
operations, a mass balance on sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific
facility than the SO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.17-5 and 11.17-6.  In addition, CO2
emission factors estimated using a mass balance on carbon may be more representative for a specific
facility than the CO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.17-5 and  11.17-6. Additional
information on estimating emission factors for CO2 emissions from lime kilns can be found in the
background report for this AP-42 section.

References For Section 11.17

 1.     Screening Study For Emissions Characterization From Lime Manufacture, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0299,  Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, August 1974.

 2.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement,  Volume I: Proposed Standards Of
       Performance For Lime Manufacturing Plants, EPA-450/2-77-007a, U. S.  Environmental
       Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1977.

 3.     National Lime Association, Lime Manufacturing, Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
       Buonicore, Anthony J. and Wayne T. Davis (eds.), Air and Waste Management Association,
       Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,  1992.

 4.     J. S. Kinsey, Lime And Cement Industry-Source Category Report, Volume I: Lime Industry,
       EPA-600/7-86-031, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September
       1986.

 5.     Written communication from J. Bowers, Chemical Lime Group, Fort Worth, TX, to R.
       Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, October 28, 1992.

 6.     Air Pollution Emission Test, J. M. Brenner Company, Lancaster, PA, EPA Project
       No. 75-STN-7, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office of Air Quality  Planning and
       Standards,  Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1974.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-15
-------
7.     D. Crowell et al., Test Conducted at Marblehead Lime Company, Bellefonte, PA, Report on
       the Paniculate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse, Marblehead, Lime Company, Chicago,
       IL, July 1975.

8.     Stack Sampling Report of Official Air Pollution Emission Tests Conducted on Kiln No. 1 at J.
       E. Baker Company, Millersville, OH, Princeton Chemical Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ,
       March  1975.

9.     W. R. Feairheller, and T. L. Peltier, Air Pollution Emission Test, Virginia Lime Company,
       Ripplemead, VA, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1404,  Task  11, (EPA, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards), Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, May 1975.

10.     G. T. Cobb et  al., Characterization oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions from a Lime
       Plant, Vol. I, EPA-600/X-85-342a, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, May 1983.

11.     W. R. Feairheller et al., Source Test of a Lime Plant, Standard Lime Company, Woodville,
       OH,  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task 12 (EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
       Standards), Monsanto  Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, December 1975.

12.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Dow Chemical, Freepon, TX, Project Report No. 74-LIM-6,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air  Quality Planning and Standards,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1974.

13.     J. B. Schoch, Exhaust Gas Emission Study, J.  E. Baker Company,  Millersville, OH, George
       D. Clayton and Associates, Southfield, MI, June  1974.

14.     Stack Sampling Repon of Official Air Pollution Emission Tests Conducted on Kiln No. 2
       Scrubber at J. E. Baker Company, Millersville, OH, Princeton Chemical Research, Inc.,
       Princeton, NJ,  May 1975.

15.     R. L. Maurice and P.  F. Allard, Stack Emissions on No. 5 Kiln, Paul Lime Plant, Inc.,
       Engineers Testing Laboratories,  Inc., Phoenix, AZ, June 1973.

16.     R. L. Maurice, and P. F. Allard, Stack Emissions Analysis, U.S. Lime Plant, Nelson, AZ,
       Engineers Testing Laboratories,  Inc., Phoenix, AZ, May 1975.

17.     T. L. Peltier, Air Pollution Emission Test, Allied Products Company, Montevallo, AL, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task 20 (EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards),
       Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, September 1975.

18.     T. L. Peltier, Air Pollution Emission Test, Manin-Marietta Corporation, Calera, AL, (Draft),
       EMB Project No. 76-LIM-9, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1975.

19.     Repon on the Paniculate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse (Exhibit 1 supplied by the
       National Lime Association), August 1977.

20.     Repon on the Paniculate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse (Exhibit 2 supplied by the
       National Lime Association), May 1977.
11.17-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
21.    Report on the Participate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse (Exhibit 3 supplied by the
       National Lime Association), May 1977.

22.    Air Pollution Emission Test, U.S. Lime Division, Flintkote Company, City of Industry, CA,
       Report No. 74-LIM-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards,  Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

23.    T. L. Peltier and H. D. Toy, Paniculate and Nitrogen Oxide Emission Measurements from
       Lime Kilns, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task No. 17, (EPA, National Air Data Branch,
       Research Triangle Park,  NC), Monsanto Research  Corporation, Dayton, OH, October 1975.

24.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Kilns 4, 5, and 6, Martin-Marietta Chemical Corporation,
       Woodville, OH, EMB Report No. 76-LIM-12, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.

25.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Kilns 1 and 2, J. E. Baker Company, Millersville, OH, EMB
       Project No. 76-LIM-ll,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards,  Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.

26.    Paniculate Emission Tests Conducted on the Unit #2 Lime Kiln in Alabaster, Alabama, for
       Allied Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 1990.

27.    Paniculate Emission Tests Conducted on #1 Lime Kiln in Alabaster,  Alabama, for Allied
       Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October  1991.

28.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted on the #2 Rotary Lime Kiln in  Saginaw, Alabama, for SI Lime
       Company,  Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 1986.

29.    Flue Gas Characterization Studies Conducted on the #4 Lime Kiln in Saginaw,  Alabama, for
       DravoLime  Company, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, July 1991.

30.    R. D. Rovang, Trip Report, Paul Lime Company, Douglas, AZ, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, January 1973.

31.    T. E. Eggleston, Air Pollution Emission Test, Bethlehem Mines Corporation Annville, PA,
       EMB Test No. 74-LIM-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1974.

32.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Marblehead Lime Company, Gary, Indiana, Report No.
       74-LIM-7, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
       Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.

33.    Written communication from A.  Seeger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental  Protection Agency, RTP, NC, November 3,  1993.

34.    Emissions Survey Conducted at Chemstar Lime Company, Located in Bancroft,  Idaho,
       American Environmental Testing Company, Inc., Spanish Fork, Utah, February 26,  1993.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                           11.17-17
-------
 11.18 Mineral Wool Manufacturing

 11.18.1  General1'2

        Mineral wool often is defined as any fibrous glassy substance made from minerals (typically
 natural rock materials such as basalt or diabase) or mineral products such as slag and glass.  Because
 glass wool production is covered separately in AP-42 (Section 11.13), this section deals only with the
 production of mineral wool from natural rock and slags such as iron blast furnace slag, the primary
 material, and copper, lead, and phosphate slags.  These materials are processed into insulation and
 other fibrous building materials that are used for structural strength and fire resistance. Generally,
 these products take 1 of 4 forms:  "blowing" wool or "pouring" wool, which is put into the structural
 spaces of buildings; batts, which  may be covered with a vapor barrier of paper or foil and are shaped
 to fit between the structural members of buildings; industrial and commercial products such as high-
 density fiber felts and blankets, which are used for insulating boilers, ovens, pipes, refrigerators, and
 other process equipment; and bulk fiber, which is used as  a raw material in manufacturing other
 products, such as ceiling tile, wall board, spray-on insulation, cement, and mortar.

        Mineral wool manufacturing facilities are included in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
 Code 3296, mineral wool.  This SIC code also includes the production of glass wool  insulation
 products, but those facilities  engaged in manufacturing textile glass fibers are included in  SIC
 Code 3229. The 6-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for mineral wool manufacturing is
 3-05-017.

 11.18.2  Process Description1-4'5

        Most mineral wool produced in the United States today is produced from slag or a mixture of
 slag and rock.  Most of the slag used by the industry is generated by  integrated  iron and steel plants
 as a blast furnace byproduct from pig iron production.  Other sources of slag include the copper,
 lead, and phosphate industries. The production process has 3 primary components-molten mineral
 generation  in the cupola, fiber formation and collection, and final product formation.   Figure 11.18-1
 illustrates the mineral wool manufacturing process.

       The first step in the process  involves melting the mineral feed.  The raw material  (slag and
 rock) is loaded into a cupola  in alternating layers with coke at weight ratios of about 5 to  6 parts
 mineral to  1 part coke.  As the coke is ignited and burned, the mineral charge is heated to the molten
 state at a temperature of 1300 to  1650°C (2400 to 3000°F).  Combustion air is supplied through
 tuyeres located near the bottom of the furnace. Process modifications at some plants  include air
 enrichment and the use of natural gas auxiliary burners to reduce coke consumption.  One facility also
 reported using an aluminum flux  byproduct to reduce coke consumption.

       The molten mineral charge exits the bottom of the  cupola in a water-cooled trough and falls
 onto a fiberization device.  Most  of the mineral wool produced  in the United States is made by
variations of 2 fiberization  methods.  The Powell process uses groups of rotors revolving  at a high
 rate of speed to form the fibers.   Molten material is distributed  in a thin film on the surfaces  of the
 rotors and then is thrown off by centrifugal force.  As the  material is  discharged from the rotor, small
globules develop on the rotors and form long, fibrous tails as they travel horizontally. Air or steam
 may be blown around the rotors to assist in fiberizing the material.  A second fiberization method, the
Downey process, uses a spinning  concave rotor with air or steam attenuation. Molten material is


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.18-1
-------
                                                                     From Processing
        Slag, Coke,
         Add 111 v»s
                Figure ll.lS-l.  Mineral wool manufacturing process flow diagram.
                            (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

distributed over the surface of the rotor, from which it flows up and over the edge and is captured
and directed by a high-velocity stream of air or steam.

        During the spinning process, not all globules that develop are converted into fiber.  The
nonfiberized globules that remain are referred to as "shot."  In raw mineral wool, as much as half of
the mass of the product may consist of shot. As shown in Figure ll.lS-l, shot is usually separated
from the wool by gravity immediately following fiberization.

        Depending on the desired product, various chemical agents may be applied to the newly
formed fiber immediately following the rotor.  In almost all cases, an oil is applied to suppress dust
and, to some degree, anneal the fiber.  This oil can be either a proprietary product or a medium-
weight fuel or lubricating oil.  If the fiber is intended for use as loose woo) or bulk products, no
further chemical treatment is necessary. If the mineral wool product is required to have structural
rigidity, as in batts and industrial felt, a binding agent is applied  with or in place of the oil treatment.
This binder is typically a phenol-formaldehyde resin that requires curing at elevated temperatures.
Both the oil and the binder  are applied  by  atomizing the liquids and spraying the agents to coat the
airborne fiber.
U.18-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
        After formation and chemical treatment, the fiber is collected in a blowchamber. Resin-
 and/or oil-coated fibers are drawn down on a wire mesh conveyor by fans located beneath the
 collector.  The speed of the conveyor is set so that a wool blanket of desired thickness can be
 obtained.

        Mineral wool containing the binding agent is carried by conveyor to a curing oven, where the
 wool blanket is compressed to the appropriate density and the binder is baked.  Hot air, at a
 temperature  of 150 to 320°C (300 to 600°F), is forced through the blanket until the binder has set.
 Curing time  and temperature depend on the type of binder used and the mass rate through the oven.
 A cooling section follows the oven, where blowers force air  at ambient temperatures through the wool
 blanket.

        To make batts and industrial felt products, the cooled wool blanket is cut longitudinally and
 transversely  to the desired size.  Some insulation products are then covered with a vapor barrier of
 aluminum foil or asphalt-coated kraft paper on one side and untreated paper on the other side. The
 cutters, vapor barrier applicators, and conveyors are sometimes referred to collectively as a batt
 machine.  Those products that do not require a vapor barrier, such as industrial felt and some
 residential insulation batts, can be packed  for shipment immediately after cutting.

        Loose wool products consist primarily of blowing  wool and bulk fiber. For these products,
 no binding agent is applied, and the curing oven is eliminated. For granulated wool  products, the
 fiber blanket leaving the blowchamber is fed to a shredder and pelletizer.  The pelletizer forms small,
 1-inch diameter pellets and separates shot  from the wool.  A bagging operation completes the
 processes. For other loose wool products, fiber can be transported directly from  the blowchamber to
 a baler or bagger for packaging.

 11.18.3  Emissions And Controls1'13

        The  sources of emissions in the mineral wool manufacturing industry are  the cupola; binder
 storage, mixing, and application; the blow chamber; the curing oven; the mineral wool cooler;
 materials handling and bagging operations; and waste water treatment and storage. With the
 exception of lead, the industry emits the full range of criteria pollutants.  Also, depending on the
 particular types of slag and binding agents used, the facilities may emit both metallic and organic
 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

        The primary source of emissions in the mineral wool manufacturing process is the cupola. It
 is a significant source of paniculate matter (PM) emissions and is likely to be a source of PM less
 than 10 micrometers (fim) in diameter (PM-10) emissions, although  no particle size data are available.
 The  cupola is also a potential source of HAP metal emissions attributable to the coke and slags used
 in the furnace.  Coke combustion in the furnace produces carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
 (CO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. Finally, because blast furnace slags  contain sulfur,  the
 cupola is also a source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions.

        The blowchamber is a source of PM (and probably PM-10) emissions.  Also, the annealing
 oils and binders used in the process can lead to VOC emissions from the process.  Other sources of
VOC emissions include batt application, the curing oven, and waste water storage and treatment.
Finally, fugitive PM emissions can be generated during cooling, handling, and bagging operations.
Tables 11.18-1 and 11.18-2 present emission factors for filterable PM emissions from various mineral
wool  manufacturing processes; Tables 11-18.3 and 11.18-4 show emission factors for CO, CO2, S02,
and sulfates;  and Tables 11.18-5 and 11.18-6 present emission factors for NOX, N2O, H2S and
fluorides.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.18-3
-------
       Mineral wool manufacturers use a variety of air pollution control techniques, but most are
directed toward PM control with minimal  control of other pollutants.  The industry has given greatest
attention to cupola PM control, with two-thirds of the cupolas in operation having fabric filter control
systems.  Some cupola exhausts are controlled by wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs);
cyclones  are also used for cupola PM control either alone or in combination with other control
devices.  About half of the blow chambers in the industry also have some level of PM control, with
the predominant control device being low-energy wet scrubbers.  Cyclones and fabric filters have
been used to a limited degree on blow chambers. Finally, afterburners have been used to control
VOC emissions from blow chambers and curing ovens and CO emissions from cupolas.
          Table 11.18-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                     MANUFACTURING3
Process
Cupola0 (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filterd (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Reverberatory furnace6 (SCC 3-05-017-02)
Batt curing ovene (SCC 3-05-017-04)
Batt curing oven with ESPf (SCC 3-05-017-04)
Blow chamber0 (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Blow chamber with wire mesh filter8 (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler6 (SCC 3-05-017-05)
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg Of
Product
8.2
0.051
2.4
1.8
0.36
6.0
0.45
1.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c References 1,12.  Activity level is assumed to be total feed charged.
d References 6,7,8,10,11.  Activity level is total feed charged.
e Reference 12.
f Reference 9.
8 Reference 7.  Activity level is mass of molten mineral feed charged.
11.18-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
          Table 11.18-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                    MANUFACTURING3



Process
Cupola0 (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filterd (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Reverberatory furnace6 (SCC 3-05-017-02)
Batt curing ovene (SCC 3-05-017-04)
Batt curing oven with ESPf (SCC 3-05-017-04)
Blow chamber0 (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Blow chamber with wire mesh filter8 (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler6 (SCC 3-05-017-05)
Filterable PMb

Ib/ton Of
Product
16
0.10
4.8
3.6
0.72
12
0.91
2.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC  = Source Classification
  Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Reference 1,12. Activity level is  assumed to be total feed charged.
d References 6,7,8,10,11.  Activity level is total feed charged.
c Reference 12.
f Reference 9.
g Reference 7. Activity level is mass of molten mineral feed charged.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.18-5
-------
         Table 11.18-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                 MANUFACTURING*
Source
Cupola
(SCC 3-05-017 01)
Cupola with fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Batt curing oven
(SCC 3-05-017-04)
Blow chamber
(SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler
(SCC 3-05-017-05)
cob
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
125
NA
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D




CO2b
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
260
NA
ND
80e
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D


E

SO2
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
4.0C
NA
0.58d
0.43d
0.034d
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E
E
E
SO3
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
3.2d
0.077b
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E



a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC = Source Classification
  Code.  NA = not applicable. ND = no data.
b Reference 6.
c References 6,10,11.
d Reference 12.
e Reference 9.
11.18-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
          Table 11.18-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                   MANUFACTURING*
Source
Cupola
(SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Batt curing oven
(SCC 3-05-O17-04)
Blow chamber
(SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler
(SCC 3-05-017-05)
cob
Ib/ton
Of Total
Peed
Charged
250
NA
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D




CO2b
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
520
NA
ND
160C
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D


E

SO2
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
8.0s
NA
1.2d
0.087**
0.068d
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E
E
E
SO3
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
6.3d
0.15b
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E



a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC
  Code. NA = not applicable. ND = no data.
b Reference 6.
c References 6,10,11.
d Reference 12.
e Reference 9.
                               = Source Classification
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.18-7
-------
  O
  z
  S
  o
  <
  u.
  3
  Z
  <
  S

  _J
  J
  <
  o^
  u
  z
  a;
  o
  u-



  1
  o
  <
  p-
  z
  o
  £3
  00
  HH
  S
  u
  c
  IT)

  OO
  (U


  I

8
19
Ui
§
E






05
K







O
zT





X
o
z




5 OJ o
2o z
c/3 H £
S2 0 b
S ^ S
^^ UM D^
S'S-a
^ « 5
bob bo
^ 2 1
_MP U


igi
&o H S
oo cj H
122


ol^
bob bo
E -« «
&o o r i
Igg
&o H «
!/3 O H
5 < <
| fc 0!
C^H ^rt
O 5 T3
*— ' a> 5
bO ttc bo
^ 3 J
j^fS u
•7
2§i
S?bP
i^s

<*- T3
0 s "8
botu bo
S is «
^p 6
^" r^




W5

2
ex

Q Q


ON -o
Q S 2
Z d d




W



In Q Q
-; z z






Q Q Q
Z Z Z


w




•oo Q Q
d z z



£V
o u w
' rtj q^
r** 4-* ^^
o ^ C^ ^ CT
IT) ,£i O .0 O
•^^ *~3 »I™H ^5 »™H
S ^9 ^9
u .-sg .-sg
C/5 ^.' ^'
Xi- ? r»"> 5m
e« rt ^j cs QJ
0 0 O 0 U
CX C< 5x5 O. ryj
3 3 ^- 3 O
U O U




Q
Z








Q




tu


Ov
O
d







Q
Z





^
i
e r-
a> —
> O
0 >A
g>9
lg
c ^
CQ ^




2
•o
o
e
II
Q
Z
•o
a
c
-.—
ns
o
1
D
Ur
3
O
II
u
u
C/3

1
§
M
1
•S
o
4>
C
w
C
'S?
's
"S
—
1
|
3
^^
(^
 a>
«• 0
v> C
O ^
T> C+H
« 
u- a;
a _c
















«
ts

•o
1
bO
*^
CA
|
c
"S
"3
T3
g
a>
— — o
a> o
«2 t*-(
c§ c
T3 .2
a> ta
§ C
p* ^^
>>-e
"e £
S 8
O 3
U UH

— ^
i i
0 O
c/3 CA
u a>
o o
c c

t. u.
D 4)
<* a;
0 T3
11.18-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
   4)
   2


S
•o
S
9
E





^
X






°«
z







X
o
z








£N
1
.0






§
*J
.O





C
^
43








O
•*-»
.0















Z
O
*•"*<
C/?
CO
N-ri
fTl
MJ
3
£
5



0
C/3
CO
i

73
g
H
^H
0
z
o
C/3
S2
S
u

73
S
<+-
O


Z
o
1-^
C/3
00
s
W

73
g
r-1
0















|
Cj
<:
2


"8
4>
U.



04
0
O
<
U.

1
4>
FT .
MM

a:
0
CJ
<
h


"8
£


a;
0
(— .
o
<
fT|


•8
4>
QL,















O
z
H
<
02

"8
ff
S



g
g
a;

"8
£P
03
•C
u
o
z
H
2!

"8
e
6


o
MN
H
S


"8
£?
03
U








CA
S
0
1









Q
Z




U

•fe
c*^






Q




U



•fc.








/^~\
9
r>«^
I
9
IT)
9
m
U
U
60,
CS
I
U

Q



o
oo
s
O






Q
Z






Q








D
Z








CD
*•*
^ ^TT
.29
is
1*
> en
^2 U
S <->
° o
i o i
js ID lo
So bOO
£ en .S rn
2 U § U
o U " 0
^ C/3 C C/3
3 1i- SJ £i
U OQ






1
•o
o
c
II
Q
CD
T3
O
U
c
_o
•*•*
ca
0
VM
'S
J
U
o
Ui
0
on
II
U
U
to
•8
•^^
§
9>
CA
'i
CD
O
C/3
CA
CD
"S
CA

_o
"in
CA
's
CD
I
*o
C
O
o
3
s represent
nee 1.
UH CD
O H
*i CD
U <4-i
CS D
u. a;
CD -D



















CA
4—*
U
1
a
>!
JO
.S
•+^
1
CA
S
3
e
e
jj
73
•a
CS
CD
^
"« 8
eg eg
CA °
CO C
•*!
C/3 CQ
3 C
tf
§ 0
W 0
 	 .
J«! 13
o s
U &

*»-4 ^-^
66
CA CA
a> a>
^ H
^ g
<£ JJ
CD CD
C* *
o -o
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.18-9
-------
References For Section 11.18

 1.     Source Category Survey: Mineral Wool Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-80-016, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1980.

 2.     The Facts On Rocks And Slag Wool, Pub. No. N 020, North American Insulation
       Manufacturers Association, Alexandria, VA, Undated.

 3.     ICF Corporation, Supply Response To Residential Insulation Retrofit Demand, Report to the
       Federal Energy Administration, Contract No. P-14-77-5438-0, Washington, DC,  June 1977.

 4.     Personal communication between F. May, U.S.G. Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, and
       R. Marinshaw,  Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, June 5, 1992.

 5.     Memorandum from K. Schuster, N. C. Department Of Environmental Management, to
       M. Aldridge, American Rockwool, April 25, 1988.

 6.     Sulfur Oxide Emission Tests Conducted On The #1 And #2 Cupola Stacks In Leeds, Alabama
       For Rock Wool Company, November 8 & 9, 1988, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL,
       Undated.

 7.     Paniculate Emissions Tests For U. S. Gypsum Company On The Number 4 Dry Filter And
       Cupola Stack Located In Birmingham, Alabama On January 14, 1981, Guardian Systems,
       Inc., Birmingham, AL, Undated.

 8.     Untitled Test Report, Cupolas Nos.  1, 2, and 3, U. S. Gypsum, Birmingham, AL, June 1979.

 9.     Paniculate Emission Tests On Batt Curing Oven For U. S.  Gypsum, Birmingham, Alabama
       On October 31-November 1, 1977, Guardian Systems, Inc., Birmingham, AL, Undated.

10.     J. V. Apicella, Paniculate, Sulfur Dioxide, And Fluoride Emissions From Mineral Wool
       Emission, With Varying Charge Compositions, American Rockwool, Inc.  Spring Hope, NC,
       27882, Alumina Company Of America, Alcoa Center, PA, June 1988.

11.     J. V. Apicella,  Compliance Report On Paniculate, Sulfur Dioxide,  Fluoride, And Visual
       Emissions From Mineral Wool Production, American Rockwool, Inc., Spring Hope, NC,
       27882, Aluminum Company Of America, Alcoa Center, PA, February 1988.

12.     J. L. Spinks, "Mineral Wool Furnaces", In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
       J. A. Danielson, ed., U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center For Air Pollution Control,
       Cincinnati, OH, PHS Publication Number 999-AP-40, 1967, pp. 343-347.

13.     Personal communication between M. Johnson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, and D. Bullock,  Midwest Research Institute,  Gary, NC,
       March 22,  1993.
11.18-10                           EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
11.19  Construction Aggregate Processing1"2

        The construction aggregate industry covers a range of subclassifications of the nonmetallic
minerals industry (see Section 11.24, Metallic Minerals Processing, for information on that similar
activity).  Many operations and processes are common to both groups, including mineral extraction
from the earth, loading, unloading, conveying, crushing, screening, and loadout.  Other operations
are restricted to specific subcategories.  These include wet and dry fine milling or grinding,  air
classification, drying, calcining, mixing, and bagging. The latter group of operations is not generally
associated with the construction aggregate industry but can be conducted on the same raw materials
used to produce aggregate. Two examples are processing of limestone and sandstone.  Both
substances can be used as construction materials and may be processed further for other uses at the
same location.  Limestone is  a common source of construction aggregate, but it can be further milled
and  classified to produce agricultural limestone.  Sandstone  can be processed into construction sand
and  also can be wet and/or dry milled, dried, and air classified into industrial sand.

        The construction aggregate industry can be categorized by source, mineral type or form, wet
versus dry, washed or unwashed, and end uses,  to name but a few.  The industry is divided  in this
document into Section 11.19.1, Sand And Gravel Processing, and Section 11.19.2, Crushed  Stone
Processing.  Sections on other categories of the  industry will be published when data on these
processes become available.

        Uncontrolled construction aggregate processing can produce nuisance problems and can have
an effect upon attainment of ambient paniculate standards.  However, the generally large particles
produced often can be controlled readily.  Some of the individual operations such as  wet crushing and
grinding, washing, screening, and dredging take place with  "high" moisture (more than about 1.5 to
4.0 weight percent). Such wet processes do not generate appreciable paniculate emissions.

References For Section 11.19

1.      Air Pollution Control Techniques For Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-450/3-82-014,
        U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August  1982.

2.      Review Emissions Data Base And Develop Emission  Factors For The Construction Aggregate
        Industry, Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia,  CA, September  1984.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.19-1
-------
 11.19.1  Sand And Gravel Processing

 11.19.1.1  Process Description1"6

        Deposits of sand and gravel, the unconsolidated granular materials resulting from the natural
 disintegration of rock or stone, are generally found in near-surface alluvial deposits and in
 subterranean and subaqueous beds.  Sand and gravel are siliceous and calcareous products of the
 weathering of rocks and unconsolidated or poorly consolidated materials. Such deposits are common
 throughout the country.  The six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for construction sand and
 gravel processing is 3-05-025, and the six-digit SCC for industrial sand and gravel is 3-05-027.

 Construction Sand And Gravel -
        Sand and gravel typically are mined in a moist or wet condition by open pit excavation or by
 dredging.  Open pit excavation is carried out with power shovels, draglines, front end loaders, and
 bucket wheel excavators.  In rare situations, light charge blasting is done to loosen the deposit.
 Mining by dredging involves mounting the equipment on boats or barges and removing the sand and
 gravel from the bottom of the body of water by suction or bucket-type dredges. After  mining, the
 materials are transported to the processing plant by suction pump, earth mover, barge,  truck, belt
 conveyors, or other means.

        Although significant amounts of sand and gravel are used for fill, bedding, subbase, and
 basecourse without processing, most domestic sand and gravel are processed prior to use.  The
 processing of sand and gravel for a specific market involves the use of different combinations of
 washers, screens, and classifiers  to segregate particle sizes; crushers to reduce oversized material; and
 storage and loading facilities.  A process flow diagram for construction sand and gravel processing is
 presented in Figure 11.19.1-1. The following paragraphs describe the process in more detail.

        After being transported to the processing plant, the wet sand and gravel raw feed is stockpiled
 or emptied directly into a hopper, which typically is covered with a "grizzly" of parallel bars to
 screen out large cobbles and boulders.  From the hopper, the material is transported to fixed or
 vibrating scalping screens by gravity, belt conveyors, hydraulic pump, or bucket elevators.  The
 scalping screens separate the oversize material from the smaller,  marketable sizes.  Oversize material
 may be used for erosion control, reclamation, or other uses, or it may be directed to a crusher for
 size reduction, to produce  crushed aggregate, or to produce manufactured sands.  Crushing generally
 is carried out in one or two stages, although three-stage crushing may also be performed.  Following
 crushing, the material is returned to the screening operation for sizing.

       The material that passes through the scalping screen  is fed into a battery of sizing screens,
 which generally consists of either horizontal or sloped, and either single or multideck, vibrating
 screens.  Rotating trommel screens with water sprays are also used to process and wash wet sand and
 gravel.   Screening separates the sand and gravel into different size ranges. Water is sprayed onto the
 material  throughout the screening process. After screening,  the sized  gravel is transported to
stockpiles, storage bins, or, in some cases, to crushers by belt conveyors, bucket elevators, or screw
conveyors.

       The sand is freed from clay and organic impurities by log washers or rotary scrubbers.  After
scrubbing,  the sand typically is sized by water classification.  Wet and dry screening is rarely used to
size the sand.  After classification, the sand is dewatered using screws, separatory cones,  or

 11/95                              Sand And Gravel Processing                          11.19.1-1
-------
Mining


Raw Material
Transport
(3-05-025-04)


Raw Material
Storage
(3-05-025-07)
                                   I	
                       water spray-
               Rodmilling
              (3-05-025-22)
              Rne Screening
              (3-05-025-23)
    Scalping Screening
      (3-05-025-11)
                                        undersize
Washing/scrubbing


                                                Wet
                                              Classifying
       Dewatering
                                             Product Storage
                                                                       |         i  Optional process

                                                                       	*•   PM emissions
                                                              oversize
  Crushing
(3-05-025-10)
Sizing Screening
sand

gravel

                                                                           Product Storage
Rne Screening
(3-05-025-23)
        Figure 11.19.1-1.  Process flow diagram for construction sand and gravel processing.
                            (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.19.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                   11/95
-------
hydroseparators. Material may also be rodmilled to produce smaller sized fractions, although this
practice is not common in the industry. After processing, the sand is transported to storage bins or
stockpiles by belt conveyors, bucket elevators, or screw conveyors.

Industrial Sand And Gravel -
        Industrial sand and gravel typically are mined from open pits of naturally occurring quartz-
rich sand and sandstone.  Mining methods depend primarily on the degree of cementation of the rock.
In some deposits, blasting is required to loosen the material prior to processing.  The material may
undergo primary crushing at the mine site before being transported to the processing plant.
Figure  11.19.1-2 is a flow diagram for industrial sand and gravel processing.

        The mined rock is transported to the processing site and stockpiled.  The material then is
crushed.  Depending on the degree of cementation,  several stages of crushing may be required to
achieve the desired size reduction.  Gyratory crushers, jaw crushers, roll crushers, and impact mills
are used for primary and  secondary crushing.  After crushing, the size of the material is further
reduced to 50 micrometers (/zm) or smaller by grinding, using smooth rolls, media mills, autogenous
mills, hammer  mills, or jet mills.  The ground material then is classified by wet  screening, dry
screening, or air classification. At some plants, after  initial  crushing and screening, a portion of the
sand  may be diverted to construction sand use.

        After initial crushing and screening, industrial sand and gravel are washed to remove
unwanted dust and debris and are then screened and classified again.  The sand (now containing 25 to
30 percent moisture) or gravel then goes to an attrition scrubbing system that removes surface stains
from the material by rubbing in an agitated, high-density pulp.  The scrubbed sand or gravel is
diluted with water to 25 to 30 percent solids and is pumped to a set of cyclones for further desliming.
If the deslimed sand or gravel contains mica, feldspar, and iron bearing minerals, it enters a froth
flotation process to which sodium silicate and sulfuric acid are added. The mixture then enters a
series of spiral  classifiers where the impurities are floated in a froth and diverted to waste.  The
purified sand, which has a moisture content of 15 to 25 percent, is conveyed to drainage bins where
the moisture content is reduced to about 6 percent.  The material is then dried in rotary or fluidized
bed dryers to a moisture content of less than 0.5 percent.  The dryers generally are fired  with natural
gas or oil, although other fuels such as propane or diesel also may be used.  After drying, the
material is cooled and then undergoes final screening and classification prior to being stored and
packaged  for shipment.

11.19.1.2  Emissions And Controls6"14

        Emissions from the production of sand and gravel consist primarily of particulate matter (PM)
and particulate  matter less than 10 micrometers (PM-10) in aerodynamic diameter, which are emitted
by many operations at sand and gravel processing plants, such as conveying, screening, crushing,  and
storing operations.  Generally, these materials are wet or moist when handled, and process emissions
are often negligible.  A substantial portion of these emissions may  consist  of heavy particles that settle
out within the plant.  Other potentially significant sources of PM and PM-10 emissions are haul
roads. Emissions from dryers include PM and PM-10, as well as typical combustion products
including CO, C02,  and NOX.  In addition, dryers may be sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) or sulfur oxides (SOX)  emissions, depending on the type of fuel used to fire the dryer.

        With the exception of drying, emissions from sand and gravel  operations primarily are in the
form  of fugitive dust, and control techniques applicable to fugitive dust sources are appropriate.
Some successful control techniques used for haul roads are dust suppressant application, paving, route


11/95                              Sand And Gravel Processing                          11.19.1-3
-------
                         i ___
                                    Mining
                                            Raw Material
                                              Transport
                                  Raw Material
                                    Storage
                                   Crushing
                               (3-05-027-01, -05)
 *- Emission point

(f) PM emissions

(2) Combustion product emissions

 3  Organic emissions
                  Washing, wet classifying,
                  scrubbing, and desliming
                                   Grinding
                                 (3-OS027-09)
                                   Screening
                                  (3-05-027-13)
                                Wet Processing
                                   Draining
                                 (3-05-027-17)
                                     Drying
                                (3-05-027-20, -21,
                                  -22. -23, -24)
                                    Cooling
                                  (3-05-027-30)
                                 Final Classifying
                                  (3-O5-027-40)
                                                                         For use as construction
                                                                           sand and gravel
                                                                            Ground Material
                                                                               Storage
                                                                                 	I
        Froth Rotation
                                                                            Product Storage
                                                                             (3-05-027-60)
Figure 1 1.19.1-2.  Process flow diagram for industrial sand and gravel processing.
                     (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.19.1-4
                                EMISSION FACTORS
                                   11/95
-------
modifications, and soil stabilization; for conveyors, covering and wet suppression; for storage piles,
wet suppression, windbreaks, enclosure, and soil stabilizers; for conveyor and batch transfer points,
wet suppression and various methods to reduce freefall distances (e. g., telescopic chutes, stone
ladders, and hinged boom stacker conveyors); and for screening and other size classification, covering
and wet suppression.

       Wet suppression techniques include application of water, chemicals and/or foam, usually at
crusher or conveyor feed and/or discharge points.  Such spray systems at transfer points and on
material handling operations have been estimated to reduce emissions 70 to 95 percent. Spray
systems can also reduce loading and wind erosion emissions from storage piles of various materials 80
to 90 percent.  Control efficiencies depend upon local climatic conditions, source properties and
duration of control effectiveness.  Wet suppression has a carryover effect downstream of the point of
application of water  or other wetting agents, as long as the surface  moisture content is high enough to
cause the  fines to adhere to the larger rock particles.

       In addition to fugitive dust control techniques, some facilities use add-on control devices to
reduce emissions of PM  and PM-10 from sand and gravel processing operations. Controls in use
include cyclones, wet scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, and fabric filters.  These types of controls are
rarely used at construction sand and gravel plants, but are more common at industrial sand and gravel
processing facilities.

       Emission factors for criteria pollutant emissions from industrial sand and gravel processing
are presented in Table 11.19.1-1 (metric and English units), and emission factors for  organic pollutant
emissions from industrial sand and gravel processing  are presented  in Table 11.19.1-2 (metric and
English units).  Although no emission factors are presented for construction sand and  gravel
processing,  emission factors for the crushing, screening, and handling and transfer operations
associated with stone crushing can be found in Section  11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing."  In the
absence of other data, the emission factors presented  in Section 11.19.2 can be used to estimate
emissions from corresponding sand and gravel processing sources.  The background report for this
AP-42 section also presents factors for the combined  emissions of total suspended particulate from
construction gravel storage pile wind erosion, material handling, and vehicle traffic.   However,
because the applicability  of those emission factors to other storage piles is questionable, they are not
presented  here.  To estimate emissions from fugitive sources, refer  to AP-42 Chapter 13,
"Miscellaneous Sources".  The emission factors for industrial sand  storage and screening presented in
Table 11.19.1-1 are not recommended as surrogates for construction sand and gravel  processing,
because they are based on emissions from dried  sand  and may result in overestimates  of emissions
from those sources.  Construction sand  and gravel are processed at  much higher moisture contents.
11195                              Sand And Gravel Processing                          11.19.1-5
-------
                         Table 11.19.1-1 (Metric And English Units).
        EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Sand dryer
(SCC 3-05-027-20)
Sand dryer with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-027-20)
Sand dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-027-20)
Sand handling, transfer, and storage
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-027-60)
Sand screening with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-027-13)
Total PM
kg/Mg
0.98b'c
0.019b>f
0.0053b>h
0.00064J

0.0042k
Ib/ton
2.0b>c
0.039b'f
0.010b'h
0.0013J

0.0083k
NOX
kg/Mg
0.016d
g
g
ND

ND
Ib/ton
0.031d
g
g
ND

ND
C02
kg/Mg
14e
g
g
ND

ND
Ib/ton
27e
g
g
ND

ND
a  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Dryer emission factors in units of kg/Mg
   and Ib/ton of dried material produced; other factors in units of kg/Mg and Ib/ton of material stored
   or screened. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b  Factors are for filterable PM only.  Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of
   an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.  Condensible organic and inorganic PM emission
   factors are not available.  Factors presented can be considered a conservative underestimate of total
   PM.
c  Reference 12.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.
d  Reference 10.
e  References  10,13.
   References  5,13. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
8  Control device has no effect on emissions. See factor for uncontrolled emissions.
h  References  7,11.
J  Reference 9.  For dried sand.
k  Reference 14.  Screening of dried sand.
f
11.19.1-6
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
                         Table 11.19.1-2 (Metric And English Units).
        EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING-
                                 ORGANIC POLLUTANTS8

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Diesel-fired rotary sand
dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-027-22)


Pollutant
CASRNb
50-00-0
206-44-0
91-20-3
85-01-8
Name
Formaldehyde
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Emission factor
kg/Mg
0.0021
3.0 x 10'6
2.9 x 10'5
7.5 x 10'6
Ib/ton
0.0043
6.0 x 10'6
5.9 x 10'5
1.5x 10'5
a  Reference 8. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Dryer emission factors in
   units of kg/Mg and Ib/ton of material dried. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b  Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number.
References For Section 11.19.1

 1.     Air Pollution Control Techniques For Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-450/3-82-014,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1982.

 2.     S. Walker, "Production Of Sand And Gravel", Circular Number 57, National Sand And
       Gravel Association, Washington, DC, 1954.

 3.     "Construction Sand And Gravel", U. S. Minerals  Yearbook 1989, Volume I: Metals And
       Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC.

 4.     "Industrial Sand And Gravel", U. S. Minerals Yearbook 1989, Volume I: Metals And
       Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC.

 5.     Caldners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1985.

 6.     Written communication from R. Morris, National  Aggregates Association, Silver Spring,
       MD, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 30, 1994.

 7.     Stack Test Report For Redi-Crete Corporation, Trace Technologies, Inc. Bridgewater, NJ,
       December 19, 1988.

 8.     P. W. Gillebrand Company, Toxic Emissions Testing, Specialty Sand Dryer, ETC
       Environmental,  Inc., Ventura,  CA, November 8, 1991.
11/95
Sand And Gravel Processing
11.19.1-7
-------
9.     U. S. Silica Company, Newport, New Jersey, Emission Compliance Test Program, AirNova,
       Inc., Collingswood, NJ, April 1990.

10.     The Mode Company, Inc., Mauricetown Plant, Emission Compliance Test Program, AirNova,
       Inc., Collingswood, NJ, November 1989.

11.     Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Number Two Sand Dryer, Jesse S. Morie & Son,
       Inc., Mauricetown, New Jersey, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, August 1987.

12.     Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Sand Dryer System, New Jersey Pulverizing
       Company, Bayville, New Jersey, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, January 1988.

13.     Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Richard Ricci Company, Port Norris, NJ, Recon
       Systems, Inc., Three Bridges, NJ, July 31, 1987.

14.     Report To Badger Mining Corporation, Fairwater,  Wisconsin, For Stack Emission Test,
       Paniculate Matter, Sand Rescreening System, St. Marie Plant, April 7, 1987, Environmental
       Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June 17, 1987.
11.19.1-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                              11/95
-------
11.19.2  Crushed Stone Processing

11.19.2.1  Process Description1"2

        Major rock types processed by the rock and crushed stone industry include limestone, granite,
dolomite, traprock, sandstone, quartz, and quartzite. Minor types include calcareous marl, marble,
shell, and slate.  Industry classifications vary considerably and, in many cases, do not reflect actual
geological definitions.

        Rock and crushed stone products generally are loosened by drilling and blasting, then are
loaded by power shovel or front-end loader into large haul trucks that transport the material to the
processing operations.  Techniques used for extraction vary with the nature and location of the
deposit.  Processing operations may include crushing, screening, size classification, material handling,
and storage operations. All of these processes can be significant sources of PM and PM-10 emissions
if uncontrolled.

        Quarried stone normally is delivered to the processing plant by truck and is dumped into a
hoppered feeder, usually a vibrating grizzly type, or onto screens, as  illustrated in Figure 11.19.2-1.
The feeder or screens separate large boulders from finer rocks that do not require primary crushing,
thus reducing the load to the primary crusher. Jaw, impactor, or gyratory crushers are usually used
for initial reduction.  The crusher product, normally 7.5 to 30 centimeters (3 to 12 inches)  in
diameter, and the grizzly throughs (undersize material) are discharged onto a belt conveyor and
usually are conveyed to a surge pile for temporary storage, or are sold  as coarse  aggregates.

        The stone from the surge pile is conveyed to a vibrating inclined screen called the scalping
screen. This unit separates oversized rock from the smaller stone.  The undersize material  from the
scalping screen is considered to be a product stream and is transported  to a storage pile and sold as
base material.  The stone that is too large to pass through die top deck  of the scalping screen is
processed in the secondary crusher. Cone crushers are commonly used for secondary crushing
(although impact crushers are sometimes  used), which typically reduces material to about 2.5 to
10 centimeters (1 to 4 inches).  The material (throughs) from the second level of the screen bypasses
the secondary crusher because it is sufficiently small for the last crushing step. The output from the
secondary crusher and the throughs from the secondary screen are transported by conveyor to the
tertiary circuit, which includes a sizing screen and a tertiary crusher.

        Tertiary crushing is usually performed using cone crushers or other types of impactor
crushers.  Oversize material from the top deck of the sizing screen is fed to the tertiary crusher.  The
tertiary crusher output, which is typically about 0.50 to 2.5 centimeters (3/16th to 1 inch),  is returned
to the sizing screen.  Various product streams with different size gradations are separated in the
screening operation.  The products are  conveyed or trucked directly to  finished product bins, open
area stockpiles, or to other processing systems such as washing,  air separators, and screens and
classifiers (for the production of manufactured sand).

        Some stone crushing plants produce manufactured sand.  This is a small-sized rock product
with a maximum size of 0.50 centimeters (3/16th inch). Crushed stone from the tertiary sizing screen
is sized in a vibrating inclined screen (fines screen) with relatively small mesh  sizes.  Oversized
material is processed in a cone crusher or a hammermill (fines crusher) adjusted to produce small
diameter material.  The output is then returned to the fines screen for resizing.


1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                           11.19.2-1
-------
DRILLING AND
BLASTING
SCC346-020-09.-10



TRUCK LOADING
SCC 349-020-33



HAUL ROADS
SCC3-06O20-11


T>
TRU(
UNLOAD)
GRIZZLY F
SCC3-W
3R1ZZLY
(ROUGHS
:K
EEDER
•020-31


>
<
PRIMARY CRUSHER
SCC 3-05-020-01
                                                                                  SCALPING
                                                                                  SCREEN
                                                                                'SCC 3-03-020-15
                                                                                   SIZING SCREEN
                                                                                 SCC 3-OS020-02, -03 -04
         Note: All processes are potential
         sources of PM emissions.
                                                                                             FINES SCREEN
                                                                                             SCC 3-06-020-21
                                                                                          (-<3/16 Inert)
                                                                                          NUFACTUREO
                                                                                          ,ND STORAGE
                           Figure 11.19.2-1.  Typical stone processing plant.2
                                  (SCC =  Source Classification Code.)
11.19.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
        In certain cases, stone washing is required to meet particular end product specifications or
demands as with concrete aggregate processing.  Crushed and broken stone normally is not milled but
is screened and shipped to the consumer after secondary or tertiary crushing.

11.19.2.2  Emissions And Controls1"8

        Emissions of PM  and PM-10  occur from a number of operations in stone quarrying and
processing.  A substantial portion of these emissions consists of heavy particles that may settle out
within the plant.  As in other operations,  crushed stone emission sources may be categorized  as either
process sources or fugitive dust sources.  Process sources include those for which emissions are
amenable to capture and subsequent control.  Fugitive dust sources generally involve the
reentrainment of settled dust by wind or machine movement.  Emissions  from process sources should
be considered fugitive unless the  sources are vented  to a baghouse or are contained in an enclosure
with a forced-air vent or stack. Factors affecting emissions from either source category include the
stone size distribution and surface moisture content of the stone processed; the process throughput
rate; the type of equipment and operating practices used; and topographical and climatic factors.

        Of geographic and seasonal factors, the primary variables affecting uncontrolled PM
emissions are wind and material moisture content. Wind parameters vary with geographical location,
season, and weather. It can be expected that the level of emissions from unenclosed sources
(principally fugitive dust sources) will be greater during periods of high  winds.   The material
moisture content also varies with geographic location, season, and weather.  Therefore, the levels  of
uncontrolled emissions from both process emission sources and fugitive dust sources generally will be
greater in arid regions of the country  than in temperate ones, and greater during the summer months
because of a higher evaporation rate.

        The moisture content of the material  processed can have  a substantial effect on emissions.
This effect is evident throughout  the processing operations.  Surface wetness causes fine particles to
agglomerate on, or to adhere to, the faces of larger stones, with a resulting dust  suppression effect.
However, as new fine particles are  created by crushing and attrition, and as  the moisture content is
reduced by evaporation, this suppressive effect diminishes and  may disappear.  Plants that use wet
suppression systems (spray nozzles) to maintain relatively high material moisture contents can
effectively control PM emissions  throughout  the process.  Depending on the geographic and climatic
conditions, the moisture content of  mined rock may  range from nearly zero to several percent.
Because moisture content  is usually expressed on a basis of overall weight percent, the actual
moisture amount per unit  area will vary with the size of the rock being handled.  On a constant
mass-fraction basis, the per-unit area moisture content varies inversely with the diameter  of the rock.
Therefore, the suppressive effect  of the moisture  depends on both the absolute mass water content and
the size of the rock product.  Typically, wet  material contains 1.5 to 4 percent water or more.

        A variety of material, equipment,  and operating factors can influence emissions from
crushing.  These factors include (1) stone type, (2) feed size and  distribution, (3) moisture content,
(4) throughput rate, (5)  crusher type,  (6) size reduction ratio, and (7) fines content.  Insufficient data
are available to present  a matrix of  rock crushing emission factors detailing the above classifications
and variables. Available data indicate that PM-10 emissions from limestone and granite processing
operations are similar.  Therefore, the emission factors developed from the emission data gathered at
limestone and granite processing facilities are considered to be representative of typical crushed stone
processing operations.  Emission  factors for filterable PM and PM-10 emissions  from  crushed stone
processing operations are presented  in Tables 11.19-1 (metric units) and  11.19-2 (English units).
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                            11.19.2-3
-------
  Table 11.19.2-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING
                                       OPERATIONS*
Source1*
Screening
(SCC 3-05-020-02.-03)
Screening (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-02(W)2-03)
Primary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-02)
Tertiary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-03)
Primary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-02)
Tertiary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-03)
Fines crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines crushing (controlled))
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines screening1
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Fines screening (controlled)'
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Conveyor transfer point11
(SCC 3-05-020-06)
Conveyor transfer point (controlled)*
(SCC 3-05-020-06)
Wet drilling: unfragmented stonem
(SCC 3-05-020-10)
Truck unloading: fragmented stone™
(SCC 3-05-020-31)
Truck loading— conveyor: crushed stone"
(SCC 3-05-020-32)
Total
Paniculate
Matter
_d

_d

0.00035f

ND

_d

ND

ND

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

ND

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING




E





























Total
PM-100
0.00766

0.000426

NDS

NDS

0.0012h

NDS

NDS

0.0002911

0.0075

0.0010

0.036

0.0011

0.00072

2.4xlO'5

4.0xlO-5

S.OxlO-6

S.OxlO'5

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

C





C





C

E

E

E

E

D

D

E*

E

E

a Emission factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factors in kg/Mg of
  material throughput.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND =  no data.
b Controlled sources (with wet suppression) are those that are part of the processing plant that
  employs current wet suppression technology similar to the study group.  The moisture content of
  the study group without wet suppression systems operating (uncontrolled) ranged from 0.21 to
  1.3 percent and the same facilities operating wet suppression sytems (controlled) ranged from
  0.55 to 2.88 percent. Due to carry over or the small amount of moisture required,  it has been
  shown that each source, with the exception of crushers,  does not need to employ direct water
  sprays.  Although the moisture content was the only variable measured, other process features may
  have as much influence on emissions from a given source.  Visual observations from each source
  under normal operating conditions are probably the best indicator of which emission factor is most
  appropriate.  Plants that employ sub-standard control measures as  indicated by visual observations
  should use the uncontrolled factor with an appropriate control efficiency that best reflects the
  effectiveness of the controls employed.
c Although total suspended paniculate (TSP) is not a measurable property from a process, some states
  may  require estimates of TSP emissions.  No data are available to make these estimates. However,
  relative ratios in AP-42 Sections 13.2.2 and 13.2.4 indicate that TSP emission factors may be
  estimated by multiplying PM-10 by 2.1.
11.19.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                         1/95
-------
                                     Table 11.19.2-1 (cont.).

d Emission factors for total paniculate are not presented pending a re-evaluation of the EPA
  Method 20la test data and/or results of emission testing.  This re-evaluation is expected to be
  completed by July 1995.
e References 9,  11, 15-16.
f Reference 1.
8 No data available, but emission factors for PM-10 emission factors for tertiary crushing can be used
  as an upper limit for primary or secondary crushing.
h References 10-11, 15-16.
J  Reference 12.
k References 13-14.
m Reference 3.
" Reference 4.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                           11.19.2-5
-------
 Table 11.19.2-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING
                                       OPERATIONS8
Source1*
Screening
(SCC 3-05-020-02.-03)
Screening (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-02-03)
Primary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-02)
Tertiary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-03)
Primary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-02)
Tertiary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-03)
Fines crushing1
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines crushing (controlled)1
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines screening1
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Fines screening (controlled)'
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Conveyor transfer point^
(SCC 3-05-020-06)
Conveyor transfer point (controlled)*
(SCC 3-05-020-06)
Wet drilling: un fragmented stonem
(SCC 3-05-020-10)
Truck unloading: fragmented stonem
(SCC 3-05-020-31)
Truck loading— conveyor: crushed stone"
(SCC 3-05-020-32)
Total
Paniculate
Matter
_d

_d

0.00070f

ND

_d

ND

ND
_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

ND

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING




E




























Total PM-10C
0.015e

0.000846

ND«

ND«

0.0024h

ND«

NDg
0.0005911

0.015

0.0020

0.071

0.0021

0.0014

4.8xlO'5

S.OxlO-5

1.6X10'5

0.00010

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

C





C

NA

NA
C

E

E

E

E

D

D

E

E

E

a Emission factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factors in Ib/ton of
  material throughput.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Controlled sources (with wet suppression) are those that are part of the processing plant that
  employs current wet suppression technology similar to the study group.  The moisture content of
  the study group without wet suppression systems operating (uncontrolled) ranged from 0.21 to
  1.3 percent and the same facilities operating wet suppression systems (controlled) ranged from
  0.55 to 2.88 percent. Due to carry over or the small  amount of moisture required,  it has been
  shown that each source, with the exception of crushers,  does not need to employ direct water
  sprays.  Although the moisture content was the only variable measured, other process features may
  have as much influence on emissions from a given source. Visual observations from each source
  under normal operating conditions  are probably the best indicator of which emission factor is most
  appropriate.  Plants that employ sub-standard  control  measures as indicated by visual observations
  should use the uncontrolled factor with an appropriate control efficiency that best reflects the
  effectiveness of the controls employed.
c Although total suspended particulate (TSP) is  not a measurable property from a process, some states
  may require estimates of TSP  emissions.  No  data are available to make these estimates. However,
  relative ratios in AP-42 Sections 13.2.2 and 13.2.4 indicate that TSP emission factors may be
  estimated by multiplying PM-10 by 2.1.
11.19.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                    Table 11.19.2-2 (cont.).

d Emission factors for total paniculate are not presented pending a re-evaluation of the EPA
  Method 201a test data and/or results of emission testing. This re-evaluation is expected to be
  completed by July 1995.
e References 9, 11, 15-16.
f Reference 1.
g No data available, but emission factors for PM-10 emission factors for tertiary crushing can be used
  as an upper limit for primary or secondary crushing.
h References 10-11, 15-16.
J  Reference 12.
k References 13-14.
m Reference 3.
n Reference 4.
       Emission factor estimates for stone quarry blasting operations are not presented here because
of the sparsity and unreliability of available test data.  While a procedure for estimating blasting
emissions is presented in Section 11.9, Western Surface Coal Mining, that procedure should not be
applied to stone quarries because of dissimilarities in blasting techniques, material blasted, and size of
blast areas.  Milling of fines is not included in this section as this operation is  normally associated
with nonconstruction aggregate end uses and will be covered elsewhere when information is adequate.
Emission factors for fugitive dust sources, including paved and unpaved roads, materials handling and
transfer, and wind  erosion of storage piles, can be determined using the predictive emission factor
equations presented in AP-42 Section 13.2.

References For Section 11.19.2

 1.    Air Pollution Control Techniques for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-450/3-82-014,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1982.

 2.    Written communication from J. Richards, Air Control Techniques, P.C., to B. Shrager, MRI.
       March 18,  1994.

 3.    P. K. Chalekode et al., Emissions from the Crushed Granite Industry: State of the Art,
       EPA-600/2-78-021, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February
       1978.

 4.    T. R. Blackwood et al., Source Assessment: Crushed Stone, EPA-600/2-78-004L, U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1978.

 5.     F. Record and W. T. Harnett, Paniculate Emission Factors for the Construction Aggregate
       Industry, Draft Report, GCA-TR-CH-83-02, EPA  Contract No. 68-02-3510, GCA
       Corporation, Chapel Hill, NC,  February 1983.

 6.     Review Emission Data Base and Develop Emission Factors for the Construction Aggregate
       Industry, Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, CA, September 1984.

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


1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                           11.19.2-7
-------
 8.     R. Bohn et al., Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.

 9.     J. Richards, T. Brozell, and W. Kirk, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Deister Vibrating Screen, EPA Contract No. 68-D1-0055, Task 2.84, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1992.

10.     J. Richards, T. Brozell, and W. Kirk, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Tertiary Crusher, EPA Contract No. 68-D1-0055, Task 2.84, U. S.  Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1992.

11.     W. Kirk, T. Brozell, and J. Richards, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Deister Vibrating Screen and Crusher, National Stone Association, Washington DC,
       December 1992.

12.     T. Brozell, J. Richards, and W. Kirk, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Tertiary Crusher and Vibrating Screen, EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0122, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1992.

13.     T. Brozell, PM-10 Emission Factors for Two Transfer Points at a Granite Stone Crushing
       Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0122, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, January 1994.

14.     T. Brozell, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant Transfer Point, EPA Contract
       No. 68-DO-0122, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 1993.

15.     T. Brozell and J. Richards, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Limestone Crushing Plant Vibrating
       Screen and Crusher for Bristol, Tennessee, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0163, U.  S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1993.

16.     T. Brozell and J. Richards, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Limestone Crushing Plant Vibrating
       Screen and Crusher for Mary sville, Tennessee, EPA Contract  No. 68-D2-0163, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1993.
11.19.2-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
11.20 Lightweight Aggregate Manufacturing

11.20.1  Process Description1'2

       Lightweight aggregate is a type of coarse aggregate that is used in the production of
lightweight concrete products such as concrete block, structural concrete, and pavement. The
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for lightweight aggregate manufacturing is 3295; there
currently is no Source Classification Code (SCC) for the industry.

       Most lightweight aggregate is produced from materials such as clay, shale, or slate. Blast
furnace slag, natural pumice, vermiculite, and perlite can be used as substitutes, however.  To
produce lightweight aggregate,  the raw material  (excluding pumice) is expanded to about twice the
original volume of the raw material. The expanded material has properties similar to natural
aggregate,  but is less  dense and therefore yields  a lighter concrete product.

       The production of lightweight aggregate begins with mining or quarrying the raw material.
The material is crushed with cone crushers, jaw crushers, hammermills, or pugmills and is screened
for size.  Oversized material is  returned to the crushers, and the material that passes through the
screens is transferred  to hoppers. From the hoppers, the material  is fed to a rotary kiln, which is
fired with coal, coke, natural gas, or fuel oil, to temperatures  of about 1200°C (2200°F).  As the
material is heated, it liquefies and carbonaceous  compounds in the material form gas bubbles, which
expand the material;  in the process, volatile organic compounds  (VOC) are released.  From the kiln,
the expanded product (clinker) is  transferred by conveyor into the  clinker cooler where it is cooled by
air, forming a porous material.  After cooling, the lightweight aggregate is screened for size, crushed
if necessary,  stockpiled, and shipped.  Figure 11.20-1 illustrates the lightweight aggregate
manufacturing process.

       Although the majority (approximately 90 percent) of plants use rotary kilns,  traveling grates
are also used to heat the raw material.   In addition, a few plants process naturally occurring
lightweight aggregate such as pumice.

11.20.2  Emissions And Controls1

       Emissions from the production of lightweight aggregate consist primarily of paniculate
matter (PM), which is emitted by the rotary kilns, clinker coolers, and crushing, screening, and
material transfer operations. Pollutants emitted as a result of combustion in the rotary kilns include
sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide  (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and
VOCs.  Chromium, lead, and chlorides also are  emitted from  the kilns.  In addition, other metals
including aluminum, copper, manganese, vanadium,  and  zinc are emitted in trace amounts by the
kilns.  However, emission rates for these pollutants have not been quantified.  In addition to PM,
clinker coolers emit CO2 and VOCs.  Emission factors for crushing,  screening, and material transfer
operations can be found in  AP-42 Section 11.19.

       Some lightweight aggregate plants fire kilns with material classified as hazardous waste under
the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act.  Emission  data are available for emissions of hydrogen
chloride, chlorine, and several metals from lightweight aggregate kilns burning hazardous waste.
However, emission factors  developed from these data have not been incorporated in this AP-42
section because the magnitude of emissions of these pollutants  is largely a function of the waste fuel
composition,  which can vary considerably.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.20-1
-------
Oversize
Material
r*

Mining
or
Quarrying
1
Crushing
*
Screening
          Figure 11.20-1. Process flow diagram for lightweight aggregate manufacturing.

       Emissions from rotary kilns generally are controlled with wet scrubbers.  However, fabric
filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP) are also used to control kiln emissions. Multiclones and
settling chambers generally are the only types of controls for clinker cooler emissions.

       Tables 11.20-1 and 11.20-2 summarize uncontrolled and controlled emission factors for PM
emissions (both filterable and condensable) from rotary kilns and clinker coolers. Emission factors
for SOX,  NOX, CO, and CO2 emissions from rotary kilns are presented in Tables 11.20-3 and
11.20-4,  which also include an emission factor for C02 emissions from clinker coolers.
Table 11.20-5 presents emission factors for total VOC (TVOC) emissions from rotary kilns. Size-
specific PM emission factors for rotary kilns and clinker coolers are presented in Table 11.20-6.
11.20-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
           Table 11.20-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                               AGGREGATE PRODUCTION3

Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Rotary kiln with fabric
filter
Rotary kiln with ESP
Clinker cooler with
settling chamber
Clinker coller with
multiclone
Filterableb
PM
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
63d
0.398
0.13'
0.34k
0.141

0.15m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
C
D
D

D
PM-10
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
ND
0.15h
ND
ND
0.0551

0.060m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


D

D
Condensable PMC
Inorganic
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
0.41e
0.1&
0.070J
0.015k
0.00851

0.0013™
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D

D
Organic
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
0.0080f
0.0046h
ND
ND
0.000341

0.0014m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D


D

D
a  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  ND = no data.
b  Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
   sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c  Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d  References 3,7,14. Average of 3 tests that ranged from 6.5 to  170 kg/Mg.
e  References 3,14.
f  References.
«  References 3,5,10,12-14.
h  References 3,5.
1  References 7,14,17-19.
J  Reference 14.
k  References 15,16.
1  References 3,6.
m  Reference 4.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.20-3
-------
          Table 11.20-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                               AGGREGATE PRODUCTION3
Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Rotary kiln with fabric
filter
Rotary kiln with ESP
Clinker cooler with
settling chamber
Clinker cooler with
multiclone
Filterable1"
PM
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
130*
0.78?
0.261
0.67k
0.281
0.30™
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
C
D
D
D
PM-10
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
ND
0.29h
ND
ND
O.ll1
0.12m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


D
D
Condensable PMC
Inorganic
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
0.82e
0.19h
0.14J
0.031k
0.0171
0.0025m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
Organic
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
0.016f
0.0092h
ND
ND
0.000671
0.0027m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D


D
D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d References 3,7,14.  Average of 3 tests that ranged from 13 to 340 Ib/ton.
e References 3,14.
  Reference 3.
f
* References 3,5,10,12-14.
h References 3,5.
j References 7,14,17-19.
J Reference 14.
k References 15,16.
1 References 3,6.
m Reference 4.
 11.20-4
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
          Table 11.20-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                              AGGREGATE PRODUCTION*

Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Clinker cooler with
dry multicyclone

kg/Mg
Of
Feed
2.8b
1.7e

ND
sox
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C


NOX
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
ND
1.0f

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


CO
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
0.29C
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C



C02
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
240d
ND

^
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C


D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. ND = no data.
b References 3,4,5,8.
c References 17,18,19.
d References 3,4,5,12,13,14,17,18,19
e References 3,4,5,9.
f References 3,4,5.
g Reference 4.
          Table 11.20-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                              AGGREGATE PRODUCTIONa
Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Clinker cooler with
dry multicyclone

lb/ton
Of
Feed
5.6b
3.4e
ND
sox
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
c

NOX
lb/ton
Of
Feed
ND
1.9f
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D

CO
lb/ton
Of
Feed
0.59C
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C


C02
lb/ton
Of
Feed
480d
ND
«.
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. ND = no data.
b References 3,4,5,8.
c References 17,18,19.
d References 3,4,5,12,13,14,17,18,19
e References 3,4,5,9.
f References 3,4,5.
g Reference 4.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.20-5
-------
     Table 11.20-5 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                            AGGREGATE PRODUCTION*
Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with scrubber
TVOCs
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND ND D
0.39b 0.78b D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. ND = no data.
b Reference 3.
Table 11.20-6 (Metric And English Units). PARTICULATE MATTER SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
      FACTORS FOR EMISSIONS FROM ROTARY KILNS AND CLINKER COOLERS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D


Diameter, micrometers

Cumulative %
Less Than Diameter
Emission Factor


kg/Mg
Rotary Kiln With Scrubberb
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
35
46
50
55
57
0.10
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.16


Ib/ton

0.20
0.26
0.28
0.31
0.32
Clinker Cooler With Settling Chamber0
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
9
21
35
49
58
0.014
0.032
0.055
0.080
0.095
0.027
0.063
0.11
0.16
0.19
Clinker Cooler With Multicloned
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
19
31
40
48
53
0.029
0.047
0.060
0.072
0.080
0.057
0.093
0.12
0.14
0.16
a Emission factors based on total feed.
b References 3,5.
c References 3,6.
d Reference 4.
11.20-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
References For Section 11.20

1.      Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries-Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-85-025a,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1985.

2.      B. H. Spratt, The Structural Use Of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, Cement And Concrete
       Association, United Kingdom, 1974.

3.      Emission Test Report: Vulcan Materials Company, Bessemer, Alabama, EMB Report.
       80-LWA-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1982.

4.      Emission Test Report: Arkansas Lightweight Aggregate Corporation, West Memphis,
       Arkansas, EMB Report 80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.

5.      Emission Test Report: Plant K6, from Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries -
       Background Information Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1985.

6,      Emission Test Report: Galite Corporation, Rockmart, Georgia, EMB Report 80-LWA-6,
       U.  S. Environmental  Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  February  1982.

7.      Summary Of Emission Measurements On No.  5 Kiln, Carolina Solite Corporation, Aquadale,
       North Carolina, Sholtes & Koogler Environmental Consultants, Inc., Gainesville, FL, April
       1983.

8.      Sulfur Dioxide Emission Measurements, Lightweight Aggregate Kiln No. 5 (Inlet), Carolina
       Solite Corporation, Aquadale, North Carolina, Sholtes & Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Inc., Gainesville, FL, May 1991.

9.      Sulfur Dioxide Emission Measurements, Lightweight Aggregate Kiln No. 5 (Outlet), Carolina
       Solite Corporation, Aquadale, North Carolina, Sholtes & Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Inc., Gainesville, FL, May 1991.

10.    Summary Of Paniculate Matter Emission Measurements,  No. 5 Kiln Outlet, Florida Solite
       Corporation, Green Cove Springs, Florida, Sholtes and Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Gainesville,  FL, June 19, 1981.

11.    Summary Of Paniculate Matter Emission Measurements,  No. 5 Kiln Outlet, Florida Solite
       Corporation, Green Cove Springs, Florida, Sholtes and Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Gainesville,  FL, September 3, 1982.

12.    Paniculate Emission Source Test Conducted On No.  1 Kiln Wet Scrubber At Tombigbee
       Lightweight Aggregate Corporation, Livingston, Alabama, Resource Consultants, Brentwood,
       TN, November 12, 1981.

13.    Paniculate Emission Source Test Conducted On No.  2 Kiln Wet Scrubber At Tombigbee
       Lightweight Aggregate Corporation, Livingston, Alabama, Resource Consultants, Brentwood,
       TN, November 12, 1981.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.20-7
-------
14.     Report Of Simultaneous Efficiency Tests Conducted On The Orange Kiln And Baghouse At
       Carolina Stalite, Gold Hill, N.C., Rossnagel & Associates, Charlotte, NC, May 9, 1980.

15.     Stack Test Report No. 85-1, Lehigh Lightweight Aggregate Plant, Dryer-Kiln No. 2,
       Woodsboro, Maryland, Division Of Stationary Source Enforcement, Maryland Department Of
       Health And Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD, February 1, 1985.

16.     Stack Test Report No. 85-7, Lehigh Lightweight Aggregate Plant, Dryer-Kiln No. 1,
       Woodsboro, Maryland, Division Of Stationary Source Enforcement, Maryland Department Of
       Health And Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD, May 1985.

17.     Emission Test Results For No. 2 And No. 4 Aggregate Kilns,  Solite Corporation, Leaksville
       Plant,  Cascade, Virginia, IEA, Research Triangle Park,  NC, August 8,  1992.

18.     Emission Test Results For No. 2 Aggregate Kiln, Solite Corporation, Hubers Plant, Brooks,
       Kentucky, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 12, 1992.

19.     Emission Test Results For No. 7 And No. 8 Aggregate Kilns,  Solite Corporation, A. F. Old
       Plant, Arvonia, Virginia, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC,  August 8, 1992.
11.20-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
11.21  Phosphate Rock Processing

11.21.1  Process Description1"5

        The separation of phosphate rock from impurities and nonphosphate materials for use in
fertilizer manufacture consists of beneficiation, drying or calcining at some operations, and grinding.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for phosphate rock processing is 1475.  The 6-digit
Source Classification Code (SCC) for phosphate rock processing is 3-05-019.

        Because the primary use of phosphate rock is in the manufacture of phosphatic fertilizer, only
those phosphate rock processing operations associated  with fertilizer manufacture are discussed here.
Florida and North Carolina accounted for 94 percent of the domestic phosphate rock mined and
89 percent of the marketable phosphate rock produced during 1989. Other states in which phosphate
rock is mined and processed include Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Tennessee. Alternative flow
diagrams of these operations are shown in Figure 11.21-1.

        Phosphate rock from the mines is first sent to beneficiation units to separate sand and clay and
to remove  impurities.  Steps used in beneficiation depend on the type of rock.  A typical beneficiation
unit for separating phosphate rock mined in Florida begins with wet screening to separate pebble rock
that is  larger than 1.43  millimeters (mm) (0.056 inch [in.]) or  14 mesh, and smaller than 6.35 mm
(0.25 in.) from the balance of the rock.  The pebble rock is shipped as pebble product.  The  material
that is  larger than 0.85  mm (0.033 in.), or 20 mesh, and smaller than 14 mesh is separated using
hydrocyclones and finer mesh screens and is added to the pebble product.  The fraction smaller man
20 mesh is treated by 2-stage flotation. The flotation process uses hydrophilic or hydrophobic
chemical reagents with  aeration to separate suspended particles.

        Phosphate rock mined in North Carolina does not contain pebble rock. In processing this
type of phosphate, 10-mesh screens are used. Like Florida rock, the fraction that is less than
10 mesh is treated by 2-stage flotation, and the fraction larger than  10 mesh is used for secondary
road building.

        The 2 major western phosphate rock ore deposits are located in southeastern Idaho and
northeastern  Utah, and the beneficiation processes used on materials from these deposits differ
greatly.  In general, southeastern Idaho deposits require crushing, grinding, and classification.
Further processing may include filtration and/or drying, depending on the phosphoric acid plant
requirements. Primary size reduction generally is accomplished by  crushers (impact) and grinding
mills.  Some classification of the primary crushed rock may be necessary before secondary grinding
(rod milling) takes place. The ground material then passes through  hydrocyclones that are oriented in
a 3-stage countercurrent arrangement. Further processing in the form of chemical flotation may be
required.  Most of the processes are wet to facilitate material transport and to  reduce dust.

        Northeastern Utah deposits are a lower grade and harder than the southeastern Idaho  deposits
and require processing similar to that of the Florida deposits.  Extensive crushing and grinding is
necessary to liberate phosphate from the material.  The primary product is classified with 150- to
200-mesh screens, and the finer material is disposed of with the tailings. The coarser fraction is
processed through multiple steps of phosphate flotation and then diluent flotation.  Further processing
may include filtration and/or drying,  depending on the phosphoric acid plant requirements. As is the
case for southeastern Idaho deposits,  most of the  processes are wet to facilitate material transport and
to reduce dust.

7/93 (Reformatted  1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                            11.21-1
-------
                                                                                 0  PM emissions
                                                                                 (2)  Gaseous emissions
              Amber Add Production
          Phosphate rock
            from mine

Benefidation



Rock
Transfer
SCC 3-05-019-03
                          To phosphoric
                         acid manufacturing
            Green Add Production
          Phosphate rock
            from mine

Benefidation



Drying
SCC 3-05-019-01
or
Calcining
SCC 3-05-019-05



Rock
Transfer
SCC 3-05-019-03
                                               To phosphoric
                                               add production
                                                Fuel
                                                        Air
                  Granular Triple Super Phosphate Production (GTSP)
           Phosphate rock
            from mine

Benefidation




Gnnding
SCC 3-05-019-02



Rock
Transfer
SCC 3-05-019-03
                                                   To GTSP
                                                   production
          Figure  11.21-1.  Alternative process flow diagrams for phosphate rock processing.
11.21-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
        The wet beneficiated phosphate rock may be dried or calcined, depending on its organic
content. Florida rock is relatively free of organics and is for the most part no longer dried or
calcined.  The rock is maintained at about 10 percent moisture and is stored in piles at the mine
and/or chemical plant for future use. The rock is slurried in water and wet-ground in ball mills or
rod mills at the chemical plant.  Consequently, there is no significant emission potential from wet
grinding.  The small  amount of rock that is dried in Florida is dried in direct-fired dryers at about
120°C (250°F), where the moisture content of the rock falls from 10 to 15 percent to 1 to 3 percent.
Both rotary and fluidized bed dryers are used, but rotary dryers are more common.  Most dryers are
fired with natural gas or fuel oil (No. 2 or No. 6), with many equipped to burn more than 1 type of
fuel.  Unlike Florida  rock, phosphate rock mined from other reserves contains organics and must be
heated to 760 to 870°C (1400 to 1600°F) to remove them. Fluidized-bed calciners are most
commonly used for this purpose, but rotary calciners are also used. After drying, the rock is usually
conveyed to storage silos on weather-protected conveyors and, from there, to grinding mills.  In
North Carolina, a portion of the beneficiated rock is calcined at temperatures generally between
800 and 825°C (1480 and 1520°F) for  use in "green"  phosphoric acid production, which  is used for
producing super phosphoric acid and as a raw material for purified phosphoric acid manufacturing.
To produce "amber"  phosphoric acid, the calcining step is omitted, and the beneficiated rock is
transferred directly to the phosphoric acid production processes.  Phosphate rock that is to be used for
the production of granular triple super phosphate (GTSP)  is beneficiated, dried, and ground before
being transferred to the GTSP production processes.

        Dried or calcined rock is ground in roll or ball mills  to a fine powder, typically specified as
60 percent by weight passing a 200-mesh sieve. Rock is fed into the mill by a rotary valve, and
ground rock is swept from the mill by a circulating air stream.  Product size classification is provided
by a "revolving whizzer, which is mounted on top of the ball  mill," and by an  air classifier.  Oversize
particles are recycled to the mill, and product size particles are separated from the carrying air  stream
by a cyclone.

11.21.2  Emissions And Controls1'3"9

        The major emission sources, for phosphate rock processing  are dryers, calciners, and grinders.
These sources emit paniculate matter (PM) in the form of fine rock dust and sulfur dioxide (S02).
Beneficiation has no significant emission potential because the operations involve slurries  of rock and
water.  The majority  of mining operations in Florida handle only the beneficiation step at the mine;
all wet grinding is done at the chemical processing facility.

        Emissions from dryers depend on several factors including  fuel types, air flow rates,  product
moisture content, speed of rotation,  and the type of rock.  The pebble portion of Florida rock receives
much less washing than the concentrate rock from the flotation processes.  It has a higher clay content
and generates more emissions when  dried. No significant differences have been noted in gas  volume
or emissions from fluid bed or rotary dryers.  A typical dryer processing 230 megagrams  per hour
(Mg/hr) (250 tons per hour [ton/hr]) of rock will discharge between 31  and 45 dry normal cubic
meters per second (dry normal m3/sec)  (70,000 and 100,000 dry standard cubic feet per minute
[dscftn]) of gas, with  a PM loading of 1,100 to 11,000 milligrams per dry normal cubic meters
(mg/nm3) (0.5 to 5 grains per dry  standard cubic foot  [gr/dscf]).  Emissions from calciners consist of
PM and SO2 and depend on fuel type (coal or oil), air flow rates, product moisture, and grade of
rock.

        Phosphate rock contains radionuclides in concentrations that are 10 to 100 times the
radionuclide concentration found in most natural material.  Most of the radionuclides consist of
uranium and its decay products. Some phosphate rock also contains elevated levels of thorium and its

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.21-3
-------
daughter products. The specific radionuclides of significance include uranium-238, uranium-234,
thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222, lead-210, and polonium-210.

       The radioactivity of phosphate rock varies regionally, and within the same region the
radioactivity of the material may vary widely from deposit to deposit.  Table 11.21-1 summarizes data
on radionuclide concentrations (specific activities) for domestic deposits of phosphate rock in
picocuries per gram (pCi/g).  Materials handling and processing operations can emit radionuclides
either as dust or in the case of radon-222, which is a decay product of uranium-238, as a gas.
Phosphate dust particles generally have the same specific activity as the phosphate rock from which
the dust originates.
  Table 11.21-1.  RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS OF DOMESTIC PHOSPHATE ROCKa
                           Origin
Typical Concentration Values,
            pCi/g
 Florida

 Tennessee

 South Carolina

 North Carolina

 Arkansas, Oklahoma

 Western States
          48 to 143

         5.8 to 12.6

        267

           5.86b

           19 to 22

          80 to 123
a Reference 8, except where indicated otherwise.  Specific activities in units of picocuries per gram.
b Reference 9.
        Scrubbers are most commonly used to control emissions from phosphate rock dryers, but
electrostatic precipitators are also used.  Fabric filters are not currently being used to control
emissions from dryers.  Venturi scrubbers with a relatively low pressure loss (3,000 pascals [Pa]
[12 in. of water]) may remove 80 to 99 percent of PM 1 to 10 micrometers (/zm) in diameter, and
10 to 80 percent of PM less than 1 fan.  High-pressure-drop scrubbers (7,500 Pa [30 in. of water])
may have collection efficiencies of 96 to 99.9 percent for PM in the size range of 1 to 10 pm and
80 to 86 percent for particles less than 1 pm.  Electrostatic precipitators may remove 90 to 99 percent
of all PM. Another control technique for phosphate rock dryers is use of the wet grinding process.
In this process, rock is ground in a wet slurry and then added directly to wet process phosphoric acid
reactors without drying.

        A typical 45 Mg/hr (50 ton/hr)  calciner will discharge about 13 to 27 dry normal m3/sec
(30,000 to 60,000 dscfm) of exhaust gas, with a PM loading of 0.5 to 5 gr/dscf.  As with dryers,
scrubbers are the most common  control devices used for calciners. At least one operating calciner is
equipped with a precipitator.  Fabric filters could also be applied.

        Oil-fired dryers  and calciners have a potential to emit sulfur oxides when high-sulfur residual
fuel oils are burned.  However, phosphate rock typically contains about 55 percent lime (CaO), which
reacts with the SO2 to form calcium sulfites and sulfates and thus reduces SO2 emissions.  Dryers and
calciners also emit fluorides.
 11.21-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
       A typical grinder of 45 Mg/hr (50 ton/hr) capacity will discharge about 1.6 to 2.5 dry normal
m3/sec (3,500 to 5,500 dscfm) of air containing 1.14 to 11.4 g/dry normal m3 (0.5 to 5.0 gr/dscf) of
PM.  The air discharged is "tramp air," which infiltrates the circulating streams.  To avoid fugitive
emissions of rock dust, these grinding processes are operated at negative pressure.  Fabric filters, and
sometimes scrubbers, are used to control grinder emissions.  Substituting wet grinding for
conventional grinding would reduce the potential for PM emissions.

       Emissions from material handling systems are difficult to quantify because several different
systems are  used to convey rock. Moreover, a large part of the emission potential for these
operations is fugitives. Conveyor belts moving dried rock are usually covered and sometimes
enclosed. Transfer points are sometimes hooded and evacuated.  Bucket elevators are usually
enclosed and evacuated to a control device, and ground rock is generally conveyed in totally enclosed
systems with well defined and  easily controlled discharge points. Dry rock is normally stored in
enclosed bins or silos, which are vented to the atmosphere, with fabric filters frequently used to
control emissions.

       Table  11.21-2 summarizes emission factors for controlled emissions of SO2 from phosphate
rock calciners  and for uncontrolled emissions of CO and CO2 from phosphate rock dryers and
calciners. Emission factors for PM emissions from phosphate rock dryers, grinders, and calciners are
presented in Tables 11.21-3 and  11.21-4.  Particle size distribution for uncontrolled filterable PM
emissions from phosphate rock dryers and calciners  are presented in Table 11.21-5, which shows that
the size distribution of the uncontrolled calciner emissions is very similar to that of the  dryer
emissions. Tables 11.21-6 and 11.21-7 summarize emission factors for emissions of water-soluble
and total fluorides from phosphate rock dryers and calciners.  Emission factors for controlled and
uncontrolled radionuclide emissions from phosphate rock grinders also are presented in
Tables 11.21-6 and 11.21-7. Emission factors for PM emissions from phosphate rock ore storage,
handling, and  transfer can be developed using the equations presented in Section 13.2.4.
      Table 11.21-2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE
                                     ROCK PROCESSINGa

                              EMISSIONS FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)
Calciner with scrubber (SCC 3-05-019-05)
SO2
kg/Mg
Of
Total
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Total
Feed
ND ND
0.0034d 0.0069
CO2
kg/Mg
Of
Total
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Total
Feed
43b 86b
115e 230e
CO
kg/Mg
Of
Total
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Total
Feed
0.17C 0.34C
ND ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.  ND = no data.
b References 10,11.
c Reference 10.
d References 13,15.
e References 14-22.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.21-5
-------
 Table 11.21-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING3
Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-Olf
Dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Grinder (SCC 3-05-019-02)d
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02/
Calciner (SCC 3-05-019-05)d
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05)
Transfer and storage
(SCC 3-05-019-_Jd
Filterable PMb
PM
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
2.9.
0.035
0.016
0.8
0.0022
7.7
0.108

2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
C
D
D
C

E
PM-10
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
2.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.4
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E




E



Condensable PMC
Inorganic
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
ND
0.015
0.004
ND
0.0011
ND
0.00798

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
D

D

C


Organic
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.044h

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING






D


a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC = Source Classification
  Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 1.
e References 1,10-11.
f References 1,11-12.
g References 1,14-22.
h References 14-22.
11.21-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
 Table 11.21-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING8

Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-01)6
Dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Grinder (SCC 3-05-0190-2)d
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02)f
Calciner (SCC 3-05-019-05)d
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05)
Transfer and storage
(SCC 3-05-019-_)d
Filterable PMb
PM
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
5.7
0.070
0.033
1.5
0.0043
15
0.206

1
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
C
D
D
C

E
PM-10
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E




E



Condensable PMC
Inorganic
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
ND
0.030
0.008
ND
0.0021
ND
0.16S

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
D

D

C


Organic
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.088h

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING






D


a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC = Source Classification
  Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 1.
e References 8,10-11.
f References 1,11-12.
8 References 1,14-22.
h References 14-22.
      Table 11.21-5.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FILTERABLE PARTICULATE
            EMISSIONS FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK DRYERS AND CALCINERSa

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Diameter, fim
10
5
2
1
0.8
0.5
Percent Less Than Size
Dryers
82
60
27
11
7
3
Calciners
96
81
52
26
10
5
a Reference 1.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.21-7
-------
  Table 11.21-6 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING2
Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)c
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Grinder (SCC 3-05-019-02)°
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02)6
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05)f
Fluoride, H2O-Soluble
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
0.00085
0.00048
ND
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D




Fluoride, Total
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
0.037
0.0048
ND
ND

0.00081
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D



D
Radionuclidesb
pCi/Mg
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND
800R
5.2R

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


E
E


a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC = Source Classification
  Code. ND = no data.
b R is the radionuclide concentration (specific activity) of the phosphate rock. In units of pCi/Mg of
  feed.
c Reference 10,
d References 10-11.
e References 7-8.
f Reference 1.
 Table 11.21-7 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING4
Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)°
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-01 )d
Grinder (SCC 3-05-019-02)6
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02)e
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05/
Fluoride, H2O-Soluble
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
0.0017
0.00095
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D



Fluoride, Total
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
0.073
0.0096
ND
ND
0.0016
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D


D
Radionuclidesb
pCi/ton
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND
730R
4.7R
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


E
E

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code. ND = no data.
b R is the radionuclide concentration (specific activity) of the phosphate rock. In units of pCi/Mg of
  feed.
c Reference 10.
d References 10-11.
e References 7-8.
f Reference 1.
 11.21-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
       The new source performance standard (NSPS) for phosphate rock plants was promulgated in
April 1982 (40 CFR 60 Subpart NN).  This standard limits PM emissions and opacity for phosphate
rock calciners, dryers, and grinders and limits opacity for handling and transfer operations. The
national emission standard for radionuclide emissions from elemental phosphorus plants was
promulgated in December 1989 (40 CFR 61 Subpart K). This standard limits emissions of
polonium-210 from phosphate rock calciners and nodulizing kilns at elemental phosphorus  plants and
requires annual compliance tests.

References For Section 11.21

1.     Background Information: Proposed Standards For Phosphate Rock Plants (Draft),
       EPA-450/3-79-017, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1979.

2.     Minerals Yearbook, Volume I, Metals And Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of
       The Interior, Washington DC,  1991.

3.     Written communication from B. S. Batts, Florida Phosphate Council, to R. Myers, Emission
       Inventory Branch, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 12, 1992.

4.     Written communication from K. T. Johnson, The Fertilizer Institute, to R. Myers,  Emission
       Inventory Branch, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       April 30, 1992.

5.     Written communication for K.  T. Johnson, The Fertilizer Institute to R. Myers, Emission
       Inventory Branch, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 12,  1989.

6.     "Sources Of Air Pollution And Their Control," Air Pollution, Volume III, 2nd Ed., Arthur
       Stem, ed., New York, Academic Press, 1968, pp.  221-222.

7.     Background Information Document: Proposed Standards For Radionuclides,
       EPA 520/1-83-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Radiation Programs,
       Washington, DC,  March 1983.

8.     R. T. Stula et al., Control Technology Alternatives And Costs For Compliance—Elemental
       Phosphorus Plants, Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-6429, Energy Systems Group,
       Science Applications, Incorporated, La Jolla, CA, December 1, 1983.

9.     Telephone communication from B.  Peacock, Texasgulf, Incorporated, to R. Marinshaw,
       Midwest  Research Institute,  Gary, NC, April 4, 1993.

10.    Emission Test Report:  International Minerals And Chemical Corporation, Kingsford, Florida,
       EMB Report 73-ROC-l,  U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, February  1973.

11.    Emission Test Report:  Occidental Chemical Company, White Springs, Florida, EMB
       Report 73-ROC-3, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       January 1973.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                            11.21-9
-------
12.    Emission Test Report:  International Minerals And Chemical Corporation, Noralyn, Florida,
       EMB Report 73-ROC-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, February 1973.

13.    Sulfur Dioxide Emission Rate Test, No. 1  Caldner, Texas gulf, Incorporated, Aurora, North
       Carolina, Texasgulf Environmental Section, Aurora, NC, May 1990.

14.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 4, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 28,  1991, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 25, 1991.

15.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 6, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 5 and 6, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 17, 1992.

16.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 4, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, June 30, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 16, 1992.

17.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 1, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, June 10, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 8, 1992.

18.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 2, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, July 7, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 16, 1992.

19.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 5, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, June 16, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 8, 1992.

20.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 6, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 4 and 5,1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 21, 1992.

21.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 3, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 27,  1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 21, 1992.

22.    Source Performance Test, Caldner Number 2, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 21 and 22, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 20, 1992.
 11.21-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
11.22  Diatomite Processing

11.22.1  Process Description1"2

        Diatomite is a chalky, sedimentary rock consisting mainly of an accumulation of skeletons
remaining from prehistoric diatoms, which are single-celled, microscopic aquatic plants.  The
skeletons are essentially amorphous hydrated or opaline silica occasionally with some alumina.
Diatomite is primarily used to filter food processing products such as beer, whiskey, and fruit juice,
and to filter organic liquids such as solvents and oils.  Diatomite also is often used as a filler in paint,
paper, asphalt products, and  plastic.  The six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for diatomite
processing is 3-05-026.

        Most diatomite  deposits are found at or near the earth's surface and can be mined by open pit
methods or quarrying.  Diatomite mining in the United States is all open pit, normally using some
combination of bulldozers, scraper-carriers, power shovels, and trucks to remove overburden and the
crude material.  In  most cases, fragmentation  by drilling and blasting is not necessary.  The crude
diatomite is loaded  on trucks and transported to the mill or to stockpiles.   Figure 11.22-1 shows a
typical process flow diagram for diatomite processing.

        The processing  of uncalcined or natural-grade diatomite consists of crushing and drying.
Crude diatomite commonly contains as much as 40 percent moisture, in many cases over 60 percent.
Primary crushing to aggregate size (normally  done by a hammermill) is followed by simultaneous
milling-drying, in which suspended particles of diatomite are carried in a stream of hot gases.  Flash
and rotary  dryers are used to dry the material to a powder of approximately 15 percent moisture.
Typical flash dryer operating temperatures range from 70° to 430°C (150° to 800°F).  The
suspended particles exiting the dryer pass through a  series of fans, cyclones, and separators to a
baghouse.  These sequential operations separate the powder into various sizes, remove waste
impurities, and expel the  absorbed water.  These natural-milled diatomite products  are then bagged or
handled in  bulk without additional processing.

        For filtration uses, natural grade diatomite is calcined by heat treatment in gas- or fuel oil-
fired rotary calciners, with or without a fluxing agent. Typical calciner operating temperatures range
from 650°  to 1200°C (1200° to 2200°F).  For straight-calcined grades, the powder is heated in large
rotary calciners  to the point of incipient fusion, and thus, in the strict technical sense, the process is
one of sintering rather than calcining.  The material  exiting the kiln then is further  milled and
classified.  Straight calcining is used for adjusting the particle size distribution for use as a medium
flow rate filter aid.   The product of straight calcining has a pink color from the oxidation of iron in
the raw material, which is more intense with increasing iron  oxide content.

        Further particle size adjustment is brought about by the addition of a flux, usually soda ash,
before the calcining step.  Added fluxing agent sinters the diatomite  particles and increases the
particle size,  thereby allowing increased flow  rate during liquid filtration.  The resulting products are
called "flux-calcined".  Flux-calcining produces a  white product, believed to be colored by the
11/95                                  Diatomite Processing                                11.22-1
-------
                                  PRIMARY CRUSHING
                                T
                                   MILLING/DRYING
                                                             o
                                                             •
                                     CLASSIFICATION
               NATURAL MILLED PRODUCTS
                                              I
                        ©
                                                    CALCINING
                                 	©
                                       ©
                                                     MILLING
                                              T
                                                   CLASSIFICATION
                                      -Q
                                               FINAL PRODUCT SHIPPING
              Figure 11.22-1. Typical process flow diagram for diatomite processing.
11.22-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
conversion of iron to complex sodium-aluminum-iron silicates rather than to the oxide.  Further
milling and classifying follow calcining.

11.22.2        Emissions And Controls1'2

        The primary pollutant of concern in diatomite processing is paniculate matter (PM) and PM
less than 10 micrometers (PM-10).  Particulate matter is emitted from crushing, drying, calcining,
classifying, and materials handling and transfer operations.  Emissions from dryers and calciners
include products of combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX), in addition to filterable and condensible PM.  Table 11.22-1
summarizes the results of a trace element analysis for one type of finished diatomite.  These elements
may constitute a portion of the PM emitted by the sources listed above.

        Wet scrubbers and fabric filters are the most commonly used  devices to control emissions
from diatomite dryers and calciners.  No information is available on the type of emission controls
used on crushing, classifying, and materials handling and transfer operations.

        Because of a lack of available data, no emission factors for diatomite processing are
presented.
11/95                                 Diatomite Processing                               11,22-3
-------
        TABLE 11.22-1.  TRACE ELEMENT CONTENT OF FINISHED DIATOMITE2
Element*
Antimony*
Arsenic*
Barium
Beryllium*
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium*
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium*
Cobalt*
Copper
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Fluorine
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Gold
Hafnium
Holmium
Indium
Iodine
Iridium
Lanthanum
Lead*
Lithium
Lutetium
Manganese*
ppmb
2
5
30
1
<0.5
100
20
2
10
5
400
100
5
40
<1
<0.5
1
50
<1
5
<10
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
1
<0.5
10
2
1
<0.2
60
Element
Mercury*
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel*
Niobium
Osmium
Palladium
Platinum
Praseodymium
Rhenium
Rhodium
Rubidium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium*
Silver
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
ppm
0.3
5
20
120
5
<0.5
<1
<2
2
<0.5
<0.5
10
<1
2
20
10
<0.5
20
20
<2
<0.2
<0.5
5
0.2
<1
<0.5
5
200
<0.5
100
<10
20
  a Listed hazardous air pollutants indicated by an asterisk (*).
  b < indicates below detection limit.
11.22-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
References For Section 11.22

1.     Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC,  October 1985.

2.     F. L. Kadey, "Diatomite", Industrial Rocks And Minerals, Volume I, Society Of Mining
       Engineers, New York,  1983.
11/95                                Diatomite Processing                              11.22-5
-------
11.23  Taconite Ore Processing

11.23.1 General1

        The taconite ore processing industry produces usable concentrations of iron-bearing material by
removing nonferrous rock (gangue) from low-grade ore. The six-digit Source Classification Code
(SCC) for taconite ore processing is 3-03-023. Table  11.23-1 lists the SCCs for taconite ore
processing.

        Taconite is a hard, banded, low-grade ore, and is the predominant iron ore remaining in the
United States. Ninety-nine percent of the crude iron ore produced in the United States is taconite.  If
magnetite is the principal iron mineral, the rock is called magnetic taconite; if hematite is the principal
iron mineral, the rock is called hematic taconite.

        About 98 percent of the  demand for taconite comes from the iron and steel industry.  The
remaining 2 percent comes mostly from the cement industry but also from manufacturers of heavy-
medium materials, pigments, ballast, agricultural products, and specialty chemicals. Ninety-seven
percent of the processed ore shipped to the iron and steel industry is in the form of pellets.  Other
forms of processed ore include sinter and briquettes.  The average iron  content of pellets is 63 percent.

11.23.2 Process Description2'5'41

        Processing of taconite consists of crushing and grinding the ore to  liberate iron-bearing
particles, concentrating the ore by  separating the particles from the waste material (gangue), and
pelletizing the iron ore concentrate. A simplified flow diagram of these processing steps is shown in
Figure 11.23-1.

        Liberation is the first step  in processing crude taconite ore and consists mostly of crushing and
grinding.  The ore must be ground to a particle size sufficiently close to the grain size of the
iron-bearing mineral to allow for a high degree of mineral liberation. Most of the taconite used today
requires very fine grinding.  Prior to grinding, the ore is dry-crushed in up to six stages,  depending on
the hardness of the ore.  One or  two stages of crushing may be performed  at the mine prior to
shipping the raw material to the  processing facility. Gyratory crushers are generally used for primary
crushing, and cone  crushers are used for secondary and tertiary fine crushing. Intermediate vibrating
screens remove undersize material  from the feed to the next crusher and allow for closed-circuit
operation of the fine crushers. After crushing, the size of the material is further reduced by wet
grinding in rod mills or ball mills.   The rod and ball mills are also in closed circuit with classification
systems such as cyclones.  An alternative to  crushing is to feed some coarse ores directly to wet or dry
semiautogenous or autogenous grinding mills (using larger pieces  of the ore to grind/mill the smaller
pieces), then to pebble or ball  mills. Ideally, the liberated particles of iron minerals and  barren gangue
should be removed from the grinding circuits as soon as they are formed, with larger particles returned
for further grinding.

        Concentration is the second step  in taconite ore processing.  As the iron ore minerals are
liberated by the crushing steps, the iron-bearing particles must be concentrated.  Because only about 33
percent of the crude taconite becomes a shippable product for iron making, a large amount of gangue
2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-1
-------
           Table 11.23-1. KEY FOR SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR
                        TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
Keya
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ
AK
AL
AM

Source
Ore storage
Ore transfer
Primary crusher
Primary crusher return conveyor transfer
Secondary crushing line
Secondary crusher return conveyor transfer
Tertiary crushing
Tertiary crushing line
Tertiary crushing line discharge conveyor
Screening
Grinder feed
Primary grinding
Classification
Magnetic separation
Secondary grinding
Conveyor transfer to concentrator
Concentrate storage
Bentonite storage
Bentonite transfer to blending
Bentonite blending
Green pellet screening
Chip regrinding
Grate/kiln furnace feed
Straight grate furnace feed
Vertical shaft furnace feed
Hearth layer feed to furnace
Grate/kiln, gas-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, gas-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coke-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coke-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coal-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coal-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, flux pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, top gas stack, acid
pellets
sec
3-03-023-05
3-03-023-04
3-03-023-01
3-03-023-25
3-03-023-27
3-03-023-28
3-03-023-02
3-03-023-30
3-03-023-31
3-03-023-03
3-03-023-34
3-03-023-06
3-03-023-36
3-03-023-17
3-03-023-38
3-03-023-41
3-03-023-44
3-03-023-07
3-03-023-45
3-03-023-08
3-03-023-47
3-03-023-11
3-03-023-49
3-03-023-79
3-03-023-69
3-03-023-48
3-03-023-51
3-03-023-52
3-03-023-53
3-03-023-54
3-03-023-55
3-03-023-56
3-03-023-57
3-03-023-58
3-03-023-59
3-03-023-60
3-03-023-61
3-03-023-62
3-03-023-71

11.23-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97
-------
                                      Table 11.23-1.  (cont).
Keva
AN

AO

AP

AQ
AR
AS
AT
AU
AV
AW
AX
AY
AZ
BA
BB
BC
BD
BE
BF
BG
BH
b
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Source
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, top gas stack, flux
pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, bottom gas stack, acid
pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, bottom gas stack, flux
pellets
Straight grate, gas-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, gas-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, oil-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, oil-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, coke-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, coke-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln furnace discharge
Vertical shaft furnace discharge
Straight grate furnace discharge
Hearth layer screen
Pellet cooler
Pellet screen
Pellet transfer to storage
Pellet storage bin loading
Secondary storage bin loading
Tertiary storage bin loading
Haul road, rock
Haul road, taconite
Nonmagnetic separation
Tailings basin
Other, not classified
Traveling grate feed
Traveling grate discharge
Indurating furnace: gas-fired
Indurating furnace: oil-fired
Indurating furnace: coal -fired
Kiln
Conveyors, transfer, and loading
sec
3-03-023-72

3-03-023-73

3-03-023-74

3-03-023-81
3-03-023-82
3-03-023-83
3-03-023-84
3-03-023-85
3-03-023-86
3-03-023-87
3-03-023-88
3-03-023-50
3-03-023-70
3-03-023-80
3-03-023-93
3-03-023-15
3-03-023-95
3-03-023-16
3-03-023-96
3-03-023-97
3-03-023-98
3-03-023-21
3-03-023-22
3-03-023-18
3-03-023-40
3-03-023-99
3-03-023-09
3-03-023-10
3-03-023-12
3-03-023-13
3-03-023-14
3-03-023-19
3-03-023-20
         ^Refers to labels in Figure 11.23-1.
         ^Jot shown in Figure 11.23-1.
         clnactive code.
2/97
Taconite Ore Processing
11.23-3
-------
§>r

r
1



TACONITE ORE
STORAGE (A)
i
CD
J PRIMARY CRUSHING (S)

i
I
SECONDARY CRUSHING 0

'
SCREEN
Oversize ,
Undersize ore



TERTIARY CRUSHING @ (H)|
Oversize ore
i


C



Ov<




Jversize
i
,©
ING Q


1 PRIMARY GRINDING Q
1
CLAS$fFfG/l

i
JKJN ©
1
MAGNETIC SEPARATION ®

asire ,
TaHings
SECONDARY GRINDING (o) 1
i
CLASSIRC



5ATION @

©

c
HYDRO-SEPARATOR
I J^
MAGNETIC SEPARATION (NJ j 	 	

CONCENTRATE 1
STORAGE 0 U-
I i
, . Taili"9s FLOTATION
CONCENTRATE
THICKENER •* 	

=
i
DISC FILTERS
~l - =
-
BENTONITE -,. 	
STORAGE (£)
J ~\
(§) | BLENDING @


CHIP ^\
REGRIND Q^)




(

BALLING i
DRUMS i
UndersizB =
SCREENING 
-------
is generated. Magnetic separation and flotation are the most commonly used methods for
concentrating taconite ore.

        Crude ores in which most of the recoverable iron is magnetite (or, in rare cases, maghemite)
are normally concentrated by magnetic separation.  The crude ore may contain 30 to 35 percent total
iron by assay, but theoretically only about 75 percent of this is recoverable magnetite. The remaining
iron is discarded with the gangue.

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

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

        Pelletization is the third major step in taconite ore processing. Iron ore concentrates must be
coarser than about No. 10 mesh to be acceptable  as blast furnace feed without further treatment.  Finer
concentrates are agglomerated into small "green"  pellets, which are classified as either acid pellets or
flux pellets. Acid pellets are produced from iron ore and a binder only, and flux pellets are produced
by adding between 1 and 10 percent limestone  to the ore and binder before pelletization.  Pelletization
generally is accomplished by tumbling moistened concentrate with a balling drum or balling disc.  A
binder, usually powdered bentonite, may be added to the concentrate to improve ball  formation and the
physical qualities of the "green" balls.  The bentonite is mixed with the carefully moistened feed at 5
to 10  kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (10  to  20 pounds per ton [lb/ton]).

        The pellets are hardened by a procedure called induration. The green balls are dried and
heated in an oxidizing atmosphere at incipient fusion temperature of 1290° to  1400°C (2350° to
2550°F), depending on the composition of the balls, for several minutes and then cooled.  The
incipient fusion temperature for acid pellets  falls in the lower region of this temperature range,  and the
fusion temperature for flux pellets falls in the higher region of this temperature range. The three
general types of indurating apparatus currently  used are the vertical shaft furnace, the straight grate,
and the grate/kiln. Most large plants and new plants use the grate/kiln.  Currently, natural gas is the
most  common fuel used for pellet induration, but heavy oil  is used at a few plants, and  coal and coke
may also be used.

        In the vertical shaft furnace, the wet green balls are distributed evenly over the top of the
slowly descending bed of pellets.  A stream of hot gas of controlled temperature and  composition rises
counter to the descending bed of pellets.  Auxiliary fuel combustion chambers supply hot gases
midway between the top and bottom of the furnace.

        The straight grate furnace  consists of a continuously moving grate, onto which a bed of green
pellets is deposited.  The grate passes through a firing zone of alternating up and down  currents of
heated gas.  The fired pellets are cooled either  on an extension of the grate or in a separate cooler.  An
important feature of the straight grate is the  "hearth layer", which consists of a 10- to 15-centimeter (4-
to 6-inch) thick layer of fired pellets that protects the grate. The hearth layer is formed by diverting a
portion of the  fired pellets exiting the firing zone of the furnace to a hearth layer screen, which
removes the fines. These pellets then are conveyed back to the feed end of the straight grate and
deposited on to the bare grate.  The green pellets being fed to the furnace are deposited on the  hearth
layer  prior to the burning zone of the furnace.


2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-5
-------
        The grate/kiln apparatus consists of a continuous traveling grate followed by a rotary kiln.
The grate/kiln product must be cooled in a separate cooler, usually an annular cooler with counter
current airflow.

11.23.3  Emissions And Controls2'7'41

        Paniculate matter (PM) emission sources in taconite ore processing plants are indicated in
Figure 11.23-1.  Taconite ore is handled dry through the initial stages of crushing and screening.  All
crushers, size classification screens, and conveyor transfer points are major points of PM emissions.
Crushed ore is normally wet ground in rod and ball mills.  Because the  ore remains wet, PM emissions
are insignificant for the rest of the process until the drying stage of induration.  A few plants use  dry
autogenous or semi-autogenous grinding and have higher emissions than do conventional plants.

        Emissions from crushing  and  conveying operations are generally controlled by a hood-and-duct
system that leads to a cyclone,  rotoclone, multiclone, scrubber, or fabric filter.  The inlet of the control
device will often be fed by more  than one duct. Water sprays are  also used to control emissions.

        The first source of emissions  in the pelletizing process is the transfer and blending of
bentonite. Additional emission points in the pelletizing process include  the main waste gas stream
from the indurating furnace, pellet handling, furnace transfer points (grate feed and discharge), and
annular coolers for plants using the grate/kiln furnace.

        Induration furnaces generate sulfur dioxide (S02).  The S02 originates both from the fuel and
the raw material  (concentrate, binder, and limestone).   Induration furnaces also emit combustion
products such as nitrogen oxides  (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO).  Because of the additional
heating requirements, emissions of NOX and SO2 generally are higher when flux pellets are produced
than when acid pellets are produced.

        The combination of multicyclones and wet scrubbers is a common configuration for
controlling furnace waste  gas.  The purpose of the multicyclones is to recover material from the drying
gases as they pass from the preheat stage to the drying stage.  The wet scrubber reduces concentrations
of SO2 and PM  in the furnace waste gas. Minor emission sources, such as grate feed and discharge,
are usually controlled by small  wet scrubbers.

        Annular coolers normally operate in stages. The exhaust of the first-stage cooler is vented to
the indurating furnace as preheated combustion gas.  The second and third stages generally are
uncontrolled.

        Paniculate matter emissions also arise from ore mining operations. The largest source of PM
in taconite ore mines is traffic on unpaved haul roads.  Other significant PM emission sources at
taconite mines are tailing basins and wind erosion.  Although blasting is a notable emission source of
the various fractions of PM, it is  a short-term event, and most of the material settles quickly.

        Emissions from taconite ore processing facilities constructed or  modified after August 24, 1982
are regulated under 40 CFR 60, subpart LL, Standards of Performance for Metallic Mineral Processing
Plants. The affected  emission sources include crushers, screens, conveyors, conveyor transfer points,
storage bins, enclosed storage areas, product packaging stations, and truck and rail loading and
unloading stations.  The regulation limits PM stack emissions  from these sources to 0.05 grams per
dry standard cubic meter (0.022 grains per dry standard cubic  foot).  In  addition, the opacity of stack
emissions for these sources is limited to 7 percent unless the stack is equipped with a wet scrubber,


11.23-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 2/97
-------
and process fugitive emissions are limited to 10 percent.  The standard does not affect emissions from
indurating furnaces.

        Table 11.23-2 presents the factors for PM emissions from taconite ore indurating furnaces.
Factors for emissions of PM from taconite ore processing sources other than furnaces are presented in
Table  11.23-3. Factors for emissions of S02, NOX, CO, and C02 from taconite ore processing are
presented in Tables 11.23-4 and 11.23-5 for acid pellet and flux pellet production, respectively.
Table  11.23-6 presents emission factors for other pollutants emitted from taconite ore indurating
furnaces.  Emission factors for fugitive dust sources associated with taconite ore processing can be
estimated using the predictive equations found in Section 13.2 of AP-42, which includes, for the
parameters used in the equations, values based on measurements at taconite ore processing facilities.
2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-7
-------
   Table 11.23-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES3
Source
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-5 1,-52)
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln,
with multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-51, -52)
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-51, -52)
Natural gas/oil-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-53.-54)
Natural gas/oil-fired grate/kiln,
with ESP
(SCC 3-03-023-53,-54)
Coal/oil-fired grate/kiln, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-61, -62)
Coke-fired grate/kiln, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-55,-56)
Coke/coal-fired grate/kiln, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-57,-58)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack
(SCC 3-03-023-71/72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack,
with multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-71.-72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-71, -72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack,
with multiclone and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-71,-72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft bottom gas stack,
with rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-73.-74)
Oil-fired straight grate
(SCC 3-03-023-83,-84)
Coke/gas-fired straight grate,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-83,-84)
Filterable11
PM
7.4d
0.448
0.082J
ND
0.017m
0.19"
0.1QP
0.141
16r
1.4s
0.921
0.66"
0.03 11
1.2V
0.1 lw
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
C

E
E
E
D
D
D
E
D
E
E
D
PM-10
0.63e
0.1 3h
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E













Condensible0
0.022f
NA
0.0055k
0.040™
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0501
ND
0.00861
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

D
D






E

E


11.23-8
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97
-------
                                       Table 11.23-2 (cont).
a  Applicable to both acid pellets and flux pellets. Emission factors in units of Ib/ton of fired pellets
   produced.  One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless
   noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
   Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 sampling train or
   equivalent.
c  Condensible PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d  References 4-5,40.
e  Reference 40.
   References 4,36,39-40. Based on data presented in Reference 40, 84 percent of condensibles
   consists of inorganic material.
g  References 32-36,39,42-43.
h  Reference 39.
J  References 20,27,37.
k  References 4,37.
m Reference 5.
n  Reference 18.
p  Reference 29.
q  References 26-27.
r  References 12-14,24.
s  References 12-13,24.
1  Reference 45.
u  Reference 14.
v  Reference 6.
w  References 30-31.
2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-9
-------
        Table 11.23-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING-
                             OTHER SOURCES3
Source
Primary crasher, with cyclone
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Primary crasher, with cyclone and
multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Primary crusher, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Primary crasher, with fabric filter
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Secondary crushing line, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-27)
Tertiary crusher, with rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-02)
Tertiary crashing line, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-30)
Grinder feed, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-34)
Hearth layer feed, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-48)
Hearth layer screen, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-93)
Grate/kiln feed, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-49)
Grate/kiln discharge
(SCC 3-03-023-50)
Grate/kiln discharge, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-50)
Straight grate feed
(SCC 3-03-023-79)
Straight grate discharge
(SCC 3-03-023-80)
Straight grate discharge, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-80)
Pellet cooler
(SCC 3-03-023-15)
Pellet screen
Filterableb
PM
0.25d
0.060d

0.00 12e

0.00 19f
0.00278

0.0013h
0.00168

0.001 1J

0.0 17k

0.038™

6.6 x 10'5te)

0.82"
0.0019r

0.63s
1.4s
0.012k

0.121

10"
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E

E

E
E

E
D

C

D

E

E

D
E

E
E
D

D

E
PM-10
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING





























Condensible0
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.00035p
9.0 x 10'5 (q)
0.000124

ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



















E
E
E








(SCC 3-03-023-95)
11.23-10
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97
-------
                                       Table 11.23-3 (cont).
Source
Pellet screen, with rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-95)
Primary crusher return conveyor
transfer, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-25)
Pellet transfer to storage, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-16)
Secondary crusher return conveyor
transfer, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-28)
Conveyor transfer to
concentrator, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-41)
Tertiary crushing line discharge
conveyor, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-31)
Bentonite storage bin loading, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-07)
Bentonite transfer
(SCC 3-03-023-45)
Bentonite transfer, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-45)
Bentonite blending
(SCC 3-03-023-08)
Bentonite blending, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-08)
Bentonite blending, with fabric
filter
(SCC 3-03-023-08)
Pellet storage bin loading
(SCC 3-03-023-96)
Pellet storage bin loading, with
rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-96)
Secondary storage bin loading,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-97)
Tertiary storage bin loading, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-98)
Filterable1"
PM
0.037"


0.0003 lf


0.0036"1


0.0057V


0.000288


0.00178


2.4m

3.2s


0.11s

19s


0.25s


0.11s

3.7U


0.071"


0.000198


0.00188

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E


E


E


D


E


E


E

E


E

E


E


E

E


E


E


D

PM-10
ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING












































Condensible0
ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING












































2/97
Taconite Ore Processing
                                                                                         11.23-11
-------
                                      Table 11.23-3 (cont).
a  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  Emission factors for furnace feed, furnace
   discharge, coolers, and product handling are in units of Ib/ton of pellets produced; emission factors
   for other sources are in units of IbAon of material processed or handled.  One Ib/ton is equivalent to
   0.5 kg/Mg. SCC  = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data available.
b  Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
   sampling train.
c  Condensible PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d  References 10-11.
e  Reference 22.
f  Reference 27.
8  Reference 28.
h  Reference 6.
J   References 7,9.
k  References 8-9.
m Reference 8.
n  References 4-5.
p  Reference 5.
q  Reference 4.  Condensible inorganic PM fraction only.
r  Reference 4.
s  Reference 2.
1  References 16-17,27.
u  Reference 23.
v  References 21,28.
 11.23-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 2/97
-------
    Table 11.23-4.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES-
                                ACID PELLET PRODUCTION41
Source
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-51)
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-51)
Coke-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-55)
Coal/coke-fired grate/kiln,
(SCC 3-03-023-57)
Coal/coke-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-57)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top
gas stack
(SCC 3-03-023-71)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top
gas stack, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-71)
Gas-fired straight grate
(SCC 3-03-023-81)
Gas-fired straight grate, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-81)
Coke-fired straight grate,
with multiclone and wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-85)
Coke/gas-fired straight-grate
(SCC 3-03-023-87)
SO2b
0.29d

L
0.053h

1.9k

2.3m


1.5n


ND



0.28P

ND


0.1 Or



0.99s

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D


D

E

E


D






E




E



D



NOX
1.5e


j

ND

ND


ND


0.20p



j

ND


ND



ND

0.44r

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D












E














D

CO
0.014f


j

ND

ND


ND


0.077P



j

0.039r


j



j

0.1 5r

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D












E





E








E

CO2C
998


j

99g

99g


j


941



j

ND


ND



ND

62s

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C




C

C





C














D

   Emission factors in units of Ib/ton of fired pellets produced.  One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg.
   Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND =
   no data.
   Mass balance of sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
   the S02 factors presented in this table.
   Mass balance on carbon may  yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
   the CO2 factors  represented in this table.
   References 4,39-40.
   References 19,27,39.
   Reference 39.
   References 5,18,29,32-34,39-40,42.
   Reference 4.
   See emission factor for uncontrolled emissions.
   Reference 29.
   Reference 15.
   References 15,25,29.
   Reference 44.
   References 12-14,24,44-45.
   Reference 31.
   References 30-31.
2/97
Taconite Ore Processing
11.23-13
-------
   Table 11.23-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES-
                              FLUX PELLET PRODUCTION3
Source
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-52)
Coal/coke-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-58)
Gas-fired straight grate
(SCC 3-03-023-82)
Pellet cooler
(SCC 3-03-023-15)
SO2b

0.14d


1.5h

ND

Neg.

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


D





NOX

1.5e


ND

2.5J

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D




D



CO

0.1 Of


ND

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING










CO2C

1308


130«

ND

6.4f

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C


C



E

  Emission factors in units of Ib/ton of fired pellets produced. One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg.
  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND -
  no data. Neg. = negligible.
  Mass balance of sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
  the SO2 factors presented in this table.
  Mass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
  the CO2 factors represented in this table.
  Reference 20.
  References 19,27,39.
  Reference 27.
  References 20,25-27,36-37.
  References 15,25,29.
  Reference 38.
11.23-14
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97
-------
          Table 11.23-6. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING-
                                 OTHER POLLUTANTS3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Gas-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-5 1,-52)
Gas-fired grate/kiln, with multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-5 1,-52)
Coke-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-55,-56)
Coke-fired grate/kiln, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-55.-56)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack
(SCC 3-03-023-71,-72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft bottom gas stack
(SCC 3-03-023-73,-74)
Gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-81.-82)
Gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-85,-86)
Coke/gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-87,-88)
Coke/gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-87,-88)
Pollutant
VOC

Lead

H2S04

H2S04

VOC

VOC


Lead


Beryllium


Lead


Beryllium

Emission
factor,
Ib/ton
0.0037b
0.075C
0.00050

0.17

0.099

0.013d

0.046d


6.8 x 10-5


2.2 x 10'7


7.6 x 10'5


2.9 x 10'7

References
39
27
39

29

29

44

44


31


31


31


31

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  All emission factors for furnaces in Ib/ton of
  fired pellets produced. One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data available.
b Based on Method 25A data.
c Based on Method 25 data.
d Based on Method 25A data.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 11.23

 1.     C.M. Cvetic and P.H. Kuck, "Iron Ore", in: Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I, U. S. Government
       Printing Office, 1991, pp. 521-547,

 2.     J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions From Iron Ore Mining, Beneficiation And
       Pelletization, Volume 1, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2113, Midwest Research Institute,
       Minnetonka, MN, June 1983.

 3.     A. K. Reed, Standard Support And Environmental Impact Statement For The Iron Ore
       Beneficiation Industry (Draft), EPA Contract No. 68-02- 1323, Battelle Columbus
       Laboratories, Columbus, OH, December 1976.
2/97
      Taconite Ore Processing
11.23-15
-------
 4.     Air Pollution Emissions Test, Eveleth Taconite, Eveleth, MN, EMB 76-IOB-3, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.

 5.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, MI, EMB 76-IOB-2, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.

 6.     Emission Testing Report,  Reserve Mining Company, Silver Bay, MN, EMB 74-HAS-l, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

 7.     Results Of The January 1977 Particulate Emission Testing Of Crusher Feed Mill Scrubbers
       Nos. 2, 3,  5, And 6 Conducted At The Hibbing Taconite Company, Hibbing, MN, Interpoll,
       Inc., St. Paul, MN, June 8, 1977.

 8.     Results Of The June 27-July 1, 1977 Particulate Emission Tests Conducted On Selected
       Sources In The Pelletizer Building At The Hibbing Taconite Company Plant, Hibbing, MN,
       Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, August 16,  1977.

 9.     Phase II Particulate Emissions Compliance Testing, Hibbing Taconite Company, Hibbing,
       MN, September 4-6,  1979.

10.     Results Of The March 15, 1990 Dust Collector Performance Test On The No. 1 Crusher
       Primary Dust Collector At The Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility In Babbitt, MN, Interpoll
       Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April  19, 1990.

11.     Results Of The March 9, 1990 Dust Collector Performance Test On The No. 1 Crusher
       Secondary Collector At The Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility In Babbitt, MN, Interpoll
       Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April  18, 1990.

12.     Results Of The May 22 And 23, 1984, Dust Collection Efficiency Tests  On The D-2 And E-2
       Furnace Top Gas Mechanical Collectors At The Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt
       Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, May 29, 1984.

13.     Results Of The December 17,  1981 Compliance Test On  The D-2 Furnace Dust Control
       System At The Ene Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc.,  St.
       Paul, MN, December 22,  1981.

14.     Results Of The February 20, 1980 Particulate Emission Test On The D-l Furnace Top Gas
       Wet Collector At The Erie Mining Company Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc.,
       St. Paul, MN, March 4, 1980.

15.     Results of the October 12-15,  1987 Air Emission Compliance Tests At The Eveleth Taconite
       Plant in Eveleth, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, December 18, 1987.

16.     Results Of The July 9, 1981 Particulate Emission  Compliance Test On  The Kiln Cooler
       Exhaust Stack At Eveleth Mines, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
       July 22, 1981.

17.     Results Of The March 11, 1980 Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The Kiln Cooler
       Exhaust Stack At Eveleth Mines, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, April 18, 1980.
11.23-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                                2/97
-------
 18.    Results Of The December 13 And 14, 1979 P'articulate Emission Compliance Tests On The
       Kiln Cooler Exhaust And The 2A Waste Gas Stacks At The Eveleth Expansion Company Plant
       Near Eveleth, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, January 22, 1980.

 19.    Results Of The June 12, 1975 Oxides Of Nitrogen Determinations At The Fairlane Plant Pellet
       Furnace Wet Scrubber Inlet And Outlet, Eveleth Taconite Company, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll,
       Inc., St. Paul, MN, June 30, 1975.

 20.    Results Of The March/April 1992 Emission Performance Tests On  The Nos.  4 And 5 Scrubber
       Stacks At The USS Minnesota Ore Operations Facility In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll
       Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April 23, 1992.

 21.    Results Of The February 18 And 19, 1992 Particulate Emission Performance Testing On Two
       SE1 Multiple Throat Venturi Type Wet Scrubber Systems At The  VSS Minnesota Ore
       Operations Facility, Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
       March  11, 1992.

 22.    Crusher Environeering Wet Scrubber Dust Collectors Particulate Emissions  Compliance
       Testing Hibbing Taconite Company, Ribbing, MN, October 18, 1982.

 23.    Results Of The June 25 And 26,  1980 Particulate Emission Compliance Tests On  The No. 2
       Loading Pocket Collector And The Nos. 7 And 8 Pellet Screen Collector At The Erie Mining
       Company Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, July 7,  1980.

 24.    Results Of The June 12-15, 1984, Dust Collection Efficiency Tests  On The D-2 And E-2
       Furnace Top Gas Mechanical Collectors At The Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt
       Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc.,  Circle Pines, MN, June 22, 1984.

 25.    Results Of The August 6, 1991 SO2 Emission Engineering Tests At The USX Minnesota Ore
       Operation Facility In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines,  MN,
       August 15, 1991.

 26.    Results Of The January 25, 1990 Particulate And Sulfur Dioxide Engineering Emission Test
       On The Line 7 Grate Kiln At The USX Minnesota Ore Operation Facility, Mountain Iron, MN,
       Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, March 7,  1990.

 27.    Results Of The March 28-31, 1989 Air Emission Compliance Testing At The USS Plant in
       Mountain Iron, MN,  Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April 21,  1989.

 28.    Results Of The January 8-10, 1980 Particulate Emission Compliance Tests On Emission
       Source Nos. 6.39, 6.40, 6.34, 6.44, 6.41, 6.56, 6.43, 8.43, 8.47, And 8.49 At  The U.S. Steel
       Mmntac Plant In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St.  Paul, MN, February 8, 1980.

 29.    Results Of The May 21 And 22, 1987 Particulate And SO^SO3 Emission Compliance Tests On
       The Line 2 Induration Furnace  Waste Gas Systems At The Eveleth Taconite Plant In Eveleth,
       MN, Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,  MN, June 25,  1987.

 30.    Results Of The August 6-8, 1986, Particulate And SO2 Compliance Tests On The Indurating
       Gas Wet Scrubber Stacks At The Inland Steel Mining Company In  Virginia, MN, Interpoll Inc.,
       Circle Pines,  MN, August 19 1986.


2/97                                Taconite Ore Processing                            11.23-17
-------
31.    Results Of The May 5-7, 1987, Atmospheric Emission Tests On The Induration Furnaces At
       The Hibbing Taconite Company In Hibbing, MN, Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, May 14,
       1987.

32.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2B, June  17, 1992, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, July 17,
       1992.

33.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2A, June  5, 1991,  Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc. Columbia, MO, June 28,
       1991.

34.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2B, May  16, 1990, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, May 30,
       1990.

35.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2A, June  7, 1989,  Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, June 14,
       1989.

36.    Results Of The October 13, 1994 National Steel Pellet Company Particulate And Visible Waste
       Gas Stack 2B Emissions Compliance Test, Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN,
       November 1994.

37.    Results Of The April 28, 1993 State Air Emission Compliance  Testing On The No. 4 And 5
       Pelletizers At The U.S. Steel Plant In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle
       Pines, MN, June 10, 1993.

38.    Results Of The July  31 And August 1, 1990 NOX Emission Compliance Test On The Flux
       Pellet Induration Furnace At The Inland Steel Mining Plant, Interpoll Laboratories,  Inc., Circle
       Pines, MN, October 10, 1990.

39.    Results Of The September 12, 16, 23, And October 12, 1994 National Steel Pellet Company
       Waste Gas Stack 2B Emission Tests, Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN, November
       1994.

40.    Results Of The March 25, 1994 Air Emission Engineering Tests On The No. 3 Waste Gas
       Stack At  The  U.S. Steel Plant In Mountain Iron, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle
       Pines, MN, April  1994.

41.    Written communication from P. O'Neill, Minnesota Pollution Control Association,
       Minneapolis,  MN, to R. E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency,Research Triangle
       Park, NC, June  20,  1996.

42.    Results of the June 22, 1993 Particulate And Opacity Compliance Tests Conducted On The
       No. 2A Waste Gas Stack At The National Steel Pellet Plant In Keewatin, Minnesota, Interpoll
       Laboratories,  Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 26, 1993.
11.23-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                                2/97
-------
43.     Results Of The June 6, 1995 National Steel Pellet Company Particulate Emission Compliance
        Test Waste Gas Stack 2A (Emission Point 30), Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN,
        June  1995.

44.     Written Communication from D. Koschak, LTV Steel Mining Company, Hoyt Lakes, MN, to
        S. Arkley, Minnesota Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, MN.  October 31, 1995.

45.     Results Of The July 11-13,  1995 State Air Emission Performance Testing At The LTV Steel
        Mining Plant Company Pellet Plant In Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota (Permit No. 48B-95-1/O-1),
        Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 28, 1995.
                                                            •&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1998 -628-483

2/97                                Taconite Ore Processing                             11.23-19
-------
11.24 Metallic Minerals Processing

11.24.1  Process Description1"6

        Metallic mineral processing typically involves the mining of ore from either open pit or
underground mines; the crushing and grinding of ore; the separation of valuable minerals from matrix
rock through various concentration steps; and at some operations, the drying, calcining, or palletizing
of concentrates to ease further handling and refining.  Figure 11.24-1 is a general flow diagram for
metallic mineral processing.  Very few metallic mineral processing facilities  will contain all of the
operations depicted in this figure, but all facilities will use at least some of these operations in the
process of separating valued minerals from the matrix rock.

        The number of crushing steps necessary to reduce ore to the proper size vary with the type of
ore.  Hard ores, including some copper, gold, iron, and molybdenum ores, may require as much as a
tertiary crushing.  Softer ores,  such as some uranium, bauxite, and titanium/zirconium ores, require
little or no crushing. Final comminution of both hard and soft ores is often accomplished by  grinding
operations using media such as balls or rods of various materials.  Grinding  is most often performed
with an ore/water slurry, which reduces paniculate matter (PM) emissions to negligible levels.  When
dry grinding processes are used, PM emissions can be considerable.

        After final size reduction, the beneficiation of the ore increases  the concentration of valuable
minerals by separating them from the matrix rock.  A variety of physical  and chemical processes is
used to concentrate the mineral.  Most often, physical or chemical separation is performed in  an
aqueous environment, which eliminates PM emissions, although some ferrous and titaniferous
minerals are separated by magnetic or electrostatic methods in a dry environment.

        The concentrated mineral products may be dried to remove surface moisture.  Drying is most
frequently done in natural gas-fired rotary dryers.  Calcining or pelletizing of some products,  such as
alumina or iron concentrates, is also performed.  Emissions from calcining and pelletizing operations
are not covered in this section.

11.24.2  Process Emissions7"9

       Paniculate matter emissions result from metallic mineral plant operations such as crushing and
dry grinding ore, drying concentrates, storing and reclaiming ores and concentrates from storage bins,
transferring materials, and loading final products  for shipment. Paniculate matter emission factors
are provided in Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 for various metallic mineral process operations including
primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing; dry grinding; drying; and material handling and transfer.
Fugitive emissions are also possible from roads and open stockpiles, factors for which are in
Section 13.2.

       The emission factors in Tables 11.24-1 and  11.24-2 are for the  process operations as a whole.
At most metallic mineral processing plants, each process operation requires several types of
equipment.  A single crushing operation likely includes a hopper or ore dump, screen(s), crusher,
surge bin, apron feeder, and conveyor belt transfer points.  Emissions from these various pieces of
equipment are often  ducted to a single control device. The emission factors provided in
Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 for primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing operations are for process
units that  are typical arrangements of the above equipment.


8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Minerals Products Industry                             11.24-1
-------
                    ORE
                   MINING
               SCC: 3-05-
             PRIMARY CRUSHING
             SCC: 3-03-024-01,05
            SECONDARY CRUSHING
              SCC: 3-03-024-02, 06
                                            STORAGE
                                        SCC:  3-05-
             TERTIARY CRUSHING
             SCC: 3-03-024-03, 07
                                            STORAGE
                                         SCC: 3-05-
                  GRINDING
              SCC: 3-03-024-09,10
                BENEFICIATION
           Tailings
                   DRYING
               SCC: 3-03-024-11
                                 t   t
                                 i   i
                PACKAGING AND
                  SHIPPING
              SCC: 3-05-024-04,08  \
                   KEY
               PM emissions
               Gaseous emissions
           Figure 11.24-1. Process flow diagram for metallic mineral processing.
11.24-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82
-------
             Table 11.24-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALLIC
                                  MINERALS PROCESSING3

               EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS:  (A-E) Follow The Emission Factor
Source
Low-moisture orec
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-01)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-02)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-03)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)°
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-10)e
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024- ll)f
Drying-titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Material handling and transfer— all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-04)8
Material handling and transfer-bauxite/alumina (SCC 3-03-024-04)S'h
High-moisture ore0
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-05)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-06)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-07)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)6
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-10)6
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024- ll)f
Drying-titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Material handling and transfer— all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-08)g
Material handling and transfer— bauxite/alumina
(SCC 3-03-024-08)S'h
Filterableb'c
PM

0.2
0.6
1.4
Neg
14.4
1.2
9.8
0.3
0.06
0.6

0.01
0.03
0.03
Neg
14.4
1.2
9.8
0.3
0.005
ND
RATING

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C
C

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C

PM-10

0.02
ND
0.08
Neg
13
0.16
5.9
ND
0.03
ND

0.004
0.012
0.01
Neg
13
0.16
5.9
ND
0.002
ND
RATING

C

E

C
D
C
C
C


C
D
E

C
D
C

C

a References 9-12; factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted; controlled
  emission factors are discussed in Section 11.24.3. All emission factors are in kg/Mg of material
  processed  unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code. Neg = negligible.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Defined in Section 11.24.2.
d Based on weight of material entering primary crusher.
e Based on weight of material entering grinder; emission factors are the same for both low-moisture
  and high-moisture ore because material is usually dried before entering grinder.
f Based on weight of material exiting dryer; emission factors are the same for both high-moisture and
  low-moisture ores; SOX emissions are fuel dependent  (see Chapter 1); NOX emissions depend on
  burner design and combustion temperature (see Chapter 1).
g Based on weight of material transferred; applies to each loading or unloading operation and to each
  conveyor belt transfer point.
h Bauxite with moisture content as high as 15 to 18% can exhibit the emission characteristics of low-
  moisture ore; use low-moisture ore emission factor for bauxite unless material  exhibits obvious
  sticky, nondusting characteristics.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Minerals Products Industry
11.24-3
-------
            Table 11.24-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALLIC
                                MINERALS PROCESSINGa>b

              EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS:  (A-E) Follow The Emission Factor
Source
Low-moisture orec
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-01)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 303-024-02)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-Q3-024-03)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)c
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air ckssification (SCC 3-03-024- 10)c
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Drying-titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024- ll)f
Material handling and transfer-all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-04)8
Material handling and transfer-bauxite/alumina (SCC 3-03-024-04)g>h
High-moisture ore0
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-05)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-06)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-07)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)e
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024- 10)c
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024-11)'
Drying-titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Material handling and transfer-all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-08)8
Material handling and transfer-bauxite/alumina (SCC 3-03-024-08)S'h
Filterableb'c
PM

0.5
1.2
2.7
Neg
28.8
2.4
19.7
0.5
0.12
1.1

0.02
0.05
0.06
Neg
28.8
2.4
19.7
0.5
0.01
ND
RATING

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C
C

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C

PM-10

0.05
ND
0.16
Neg
26
0.31
12
ND
0.06
ND

0.009
0.02
0.02
Neg
26
0.31
12
ND
0.004
ND
RATING

C

E

C
D
C
C
C


C
D
E

C
D
C

C

a References 9-12; factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted; controlled
  emission factors are discussed in Section 11.24.3. All emission factors are in Ib/ton of material
  processed unless noted. SCC  = Source Classification Code.  Neg = negligible. ND  = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Defined in Section  11.24.2.
d Based on weight of material entering primary crusher.
e Based on weight of material entering grinder; emission factors are the same for both low-moisture
  and high-moisture ore because material is usually dried before entering grinder.
f Based on weight of material exiting dryer; emission factors are the same for both high-moisture and
  low-moisture ores;  SOX emissions are fuel dependent (see Chapter 1);  NOX emissions depend on
  burner design and combustion temperature (see Chapter 1).
g Based on weight of material transferred; applies to each loading or unloading operation and to each
  conveyor belt transfer point.
h Bauxite with moisture content as high as 15 to 18% can exhibit the emission characteristics of low-
  moisture ore; use low-moisture ore emission factor for bauxite unless material  exhibits obvious
  sticky, nondusting characteristics.
11.24-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82
-------
        Emission factors are provided in Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 for two types of dry grinding
operations: those that involve air conveying and/or air classification of material and those that
involve screening of material without air conveying. Grinding operations  that involve air conveying
and air classification usually require dry cyclones for efficient product recovery.  The factors in
Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 are for emissions after product recovery cyclones.  Grinders in closed
circuit with screens usually do not require cyclones.  Emission factors are not provided for wet
grinders because the high-moisture  content in these operations can reduce  emissions to negligible
levels.

        The emission factors for dryers in Tables 11.24-1  and 11.24-2 include transfer points integral
to the drying operation. A separate emission factor is provided for dryers at titanium/zirconium
plants that use dry cyclones for product recovery and for emission control. Titanium/zirconium sand-
type ores do not require crushing or grinding, and the ore is washed to remove humic  and clay
material before concentration and drying operations.

        At some metallic mineral processing plants, material is stored in enclosed bins between
process operations.  The emission factors provided in Tables  11.24-1 and  11.24-2 for the handling
and transfer of material should be applied to the loading of material into storage bins and the
transferring of material from the bin. The emission factor will usually be applied twice to a storage
operation: once for the loading operation and once  for the reclaiming operation.  If material is stored
at multiple points in the plant, the emission factor should be applied to each operation  and should
apply  to the material being stored at each bin.  The  material handling and  transfer factors do not
apply  to small hoppers,  surge bins, or transfer points that are integral with crushing, drying, or
grinding operations.

        At some large metallic mineral processing plants,  extensive material transfer operations with
numerous conveyor belt transfer points may be required.  The emission factors for material handling
and transfer should be applied to each transfer point that is not an integral part of another process
unit.  These emission factors should be applied to each such conveyor transfer point and should be
based  on the amount of material transferred through that point.

        The emission factors for material handling can also be applied to final product loading for
shipment. Again, these factors should  be applied to each transfer point, ore dump, or  other point
where material is allowed  to fall freely.

        Test data collected in the mineral processing industries indicate that the moisture content  of
ore can have a significant  effect on  emissions from several process operations.  High moisture
generally reduces the uncontrolled emission rates, and separate emission rates are provided for
primary  crushers, secondary crushers, tertiary crushers, and material handling and transfer operations
that process high-moisture ore.  Drying and dry grinding operations are assumed to produce or to
involve only low-moisture material.

       For most metallic  minerals covered in this section, high-moisture ore is defined as ore whose
moisture content, as measured at the primary crusher inlet or  at the mine,  is 4 weight percent or
greater.  Ore defined as high-moisture at the primary crusher  is presumed  to be high-moisture ore at
any subsequent operation for which high-moisture factors are  provided unless a drying operation
precedes the operation under consideration.  Ore is defined as low-moisture when a dryer precedes
the operation under consideration or when the ore moisture at the mine or  primary crusher is less than
4 weight percent.
8/82 (Refonnatted 1/95)                 Minerals Products Industry                             11.24-5
-------
        Separate factors are provided for bauxite handling operations because some types of bauxite
with a moisture content as high as 15 to 18 weight percent can still produce relatively high emissions
during material handling procedures. These emissions could be eliminated by adding sufficient
moisture to the ore, but bauxite then becomes so sticky that it is difficult to handle.  Thus, there is
some advantage to keeping bauxite in a relatively dusty state, and the low-moisture emission factors
given represent conditions fairly typical of the industry.

        Paniculate matter size distribution data for some process operations have been obtained for
control device inlet streams.  Since these inlet streams contain PM from several activities,  a
variability has been anticipated in the calculated size-specific emission factors for PM.

        Emission factors for PM equal to or less than 10 /zm in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10) from
a limited number of tests performed to characterize the processes are presented in Table 11.24-1.

        In some plants, PM emissions from multiple pieces of equipment and operations are collected
and ducted to a control device.  Therefore,  examination of reference documents is recommended
before applying the factors to specific plants.

        Emission factors for PM-10 from high-moisture primary crushing operations and material
handling and transfer operations were based on test results usually in the 30 to  40 weight percent
range.  However, high values were obtained for high-moisture  ore at both the primary crushing and
the material handling and transfer operations, and these were included in the average values in the
table.  A similarly wide range occurred in the low-moisture drying operation.

        Several other factors are generally assumed to affect the level of emissions from a  particular
process operation.  These  include ore characteristics such as hardness, crystal and grain structure, and
friability.  Equipment design characteristics, such as crusher type, could also affect the emissions
level.  At this time, data are not sufficient to quantify each of these variables.

11.24.3 Controlled Emissions7"9

        Emissions from metallic mineral processing plants are usually controlled with wet  scrubbers
or baghouses.  For moderate to heavy uncontrolled emission rates from typical dry ore operations,
dryers, and dry grinders, a wet scrubber with pressure drop of 1.5 to 2.5  kilopascals (kPa) (6 to
10 inches of water) will reduce emissions by approximately 95 percent.  With very low uncontrolled
emission rates typical of high-moisture conditions, the percentage reduction will be lower
(approximately 70 percent).

        Over a wide range of inlet mass loadings, a well-designed and maintained baghouse will
reduce emissions to a relatively constant outlet concentration.   Such baghouses  tested in the mineral
processing industry consistently reduce emissions to less than 0.05 gram per dry standard  cubic meter
(g/dscm) (0.02 grains per  dry standard cubic foot [gr/dscf]), with an average concentration of
0.015 g/dscm (0.006 gr/dscf). Under conditions of moderate to high uncontrolled emission rates of
typical dry ore facilities, this level of controlled emissions represents  greater than 99 percent removal
of PM emissions.  Because baghouses reduce emissions to a relatively constant outlet concentration,
percentage emission reductions would be less for baghouses on facilities with a low level of
uncontrolled emissions.
11.24-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 8/82
-------
References For Section 11.24

 1.     D. Kram, "Modern Mineral Processing: Drying, Calcining And Agglomeration",
       Engineering And Mining Journal, 181 (6): 134-151, June 1980.

 2.     A. Lynch, Mineral Crushing And Grinding Circuits, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
       New York, 1977.

 3.     "Modern Mineral Processing:  Grinding", Engineering And Mining Journal,
       757(161): 106-113, June 1980.

 4.     L. Mollick, "Modern Mineral Processing: Crushing", Engineering And Mining Journal,
       787(6):96-103, June 1980.

 5.     R. H. Perry, et al., Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
       1963.

 6.     R. Richards and C. Locke, Textbook Of Ore Dressing, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1940.

 7.     "Modern Mineral Processing:  Air And Water Pollution Controls", Engineering And Mining
       Journal, 757(6):156-171, June 1980.

 8.     W. E.  Horst and R. C. Enochs, "Modern Mineral Processing: Instrumentation And Process
       Control", Engineering And Mining Journal, 7S7(6):70-92, June 1980.

 9.     Metallic Mineral Processing Plants - Background Information For Proposed Standards (Draft).
       EPA Contract  No. 68-02-3063, TRW, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1981.

10.    Telephone communication between E. C. Monnig, TRW, Environmental Division, and R.
       Beale,  Associated Minerals, Inc.,  May 17, 1982.

11.    Written communication from W. R. Chalker, DuPont, Inc., to S. T. Cuffe, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 21, 1981.

12.    Written communication from P. H. Fournet, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, to
       S. T. Cuffe, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 5,
       1982.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                Minerals Products Industry                           11.24-7
-------
11.25  Clay Processing

11.25.1  Process Description1"4

        Clay is defined as a natural, earthy, fine-grained material, largely of a group of crystalline
hydrous silicate minerals known as clay minerals.  Clay minerals are composed mainly of silica,
alumina, and water, but they may also contain appreciable quantities of iron, alkalies,  and alkaline
earths.  Clay is formed by the mechanical and chemical breakdown of rocks.  The six-digit  Source
Classification Codes (SCC) for clay processing are as follows: .SCC 3-05-041 for kaolin processing,
SCC 3-05-042 for ball clay processing, SCC 3-05-043 for fire clay processing, SCC 3-05-044 for
bentonite processing, SCC 3-05-045 for fuller's earth processing, and SCC 3-05-046 for common clay
and shale processing.

        Clays are categorized into six groups by the U. S. Bureau Of Mines.  The categories are
kaolin, ball clay, fire clay, bentonite, fuller's earth, and common clay and shale. Kaolin, or china
clay, is defined as a white, claylike material composed mainly of kaolinite, which is a hydrated
aluminum silicate (Al2O3-2SiO2*2H2O), and other kaolin-group minerals. Kaolin has a wide variety
of industrial applications including paper coating and filling, refractories, fiberglass and insulation,
rubber, paint, ceramics, and chemicals.  Ball clay is  a plastic, white-firing clay that is composed
primarily of kaolinite and is used mainly for bonding in ceramic ware, primarily dinnerware, floor
and wall tile, pottery, and sanitary ware.  Fire clays  are composed primarily of kaolinite, but also
may contain several other materials including diaspore, burley, burley-flint, ball clay,  and bauxitic
clay and shale.  Because of their ability to withstand temperatures of 1500°C (2700°F) or higher, fire
clays generally are used for refractories or to raise vitrification temperatures  in heavy  clay products.
Bentonite is a clay composed primarily of smectite minerals, usually montmorillonite,  and is used
largely in drilling muds, in foundry sands, and in pelletizing taconite iron  ores.  Fuller's earth is
defined as a nonplastic clay or claylike material that typically is high in magnesia and  has specialized
decolorizing and purifying properties. Fuller's earth, which is very similar to bentonite, is  used
mainly as absorbents of pet waste,  oil, and grease.  Common clay is defined as a plastic clay or
claylike material  with a  vitrification point below 1100°C (2000°F).  Shale is a laminated sedimentary
rock that is formed by the consolidation of clay, mud, or silt.  Common clay and shale are  composed
mainly of illite or chlorite, but also may contain kaolin and montmorillonite.

        Most domestic clay is mined  by open-pit methods using various types of equipment, including
draglines, power shovels, front-end loaders, backhoes, scraper-loaders, and shale planers.  In
addition, some kaolin is extracted by hydraulic mining and dredging.  Most underground clay mines
are located  in Pennsylvania, Ohio,  and West Virginia, where  the clays are associated with coal
deposits. A higher percentage of fire clay is mined underground than other clays, because the higher
quality fire  clay deposits are found at depths that make open-pit mining less profitable.

        Clays  usually are transported by truck  from the mine  to the processing plants,  many of which
are located at or near the mine. For most applications, clays  are processed by mechanical methods,
such as crushing, grinding, and screening, that do not appreciably alter the chemical or mineralogical
properties of the material. However, because clays are used in such a wide range of applications, it
is often necessary to use other mechanical and chemical processes, such as drying, calcining,
bleaching, blunging, and extruding to prepare the material for use.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.25-1
-------
       Primary crushing reduces material size from as much as one meter to a few centimeters in
diameter and typically is accomplished using jaw or gyratory crushers.  Rotating pan crushers, cone
crushers, smooth roll crushers, toothed roll crushers, and hammer mills are used for secondary
crushing, which further reduces particle size to 3 mm (0.1 in.) or less.  For some applications,
tertiary size reduction is necessary and is accomplished by means of ball, rod, or pebble mills, which
are often combined with air separators. Screening typically is carried out by means of two or more
multi-deck sloping screens that are mechanically or electromagnetically vibrated. Pug mills are used
for blunging, and rotary, fluid bed, and vibrating grate dryers are used for drying clay materials.  At
most plants that calcine clay, rotary or flash calciners are used.  However, multiple hearth furnaces
often are used to calcine kaolin.

       Material losses through basic mechanical processing generally are insignificant.  However,
material losses for processes such as washing and sizing can reach 30 to 40 percent.  The most
significant  processing losses occur in the processing of kaolin and fuller's earth.  The following
paragraphs describe the steps used to process each of the six categories of clay. Table 11.25-1
summarizes these processes by clay type.

Kaolin -
       Kaolin is both dry- and wet-processed.  The dry process is simpler and produces a lower
quality product than the wet process.  Dry-processed kaolin is used mainly in the rubber industry, and
to a lesser  extent, for paper filling and to produce fiberglass and sanitary ware. Wet-processed kaolin
is used extensively  in the paper manufacturing industry.  A process flow diagram for kaolin mining
and dry processing  is presented in Figure 11.25-1, and Figure 11.25-2 illustrates the wet processing
of kaolin.

       In the dry process,  the raw material  is crushed to  the desired size, dried in rotary dryers,
pulverized  and air-floated to remove most of the coarse grit.  Wet processing of kaolin begins with
blunging to produce a slurry, which then is fractionated into coarse and fine fractions using
centrifuges, hydrocyclones,  or hydroseparators.  At this step in the process, various chemical
methods, such as bleaching, and physical and magnetic methods, may be used to refine the material.
Chemical processing includes leaching with sulfuric acid,  followed by the addition  of a strong
reducing agent such as hydrosulfite.  Before drying, the slurry is filtered and  dewatered by means of
a filter press, centrifuge, rotary vacuum filter, or tube filter.  The filtered dewatered slurry material
may be shipped or further processed by drying in apron, rotary, or spray dryers.  Following the
drying step, the kaolin may be calcined for use as filler or refractory material. Multiple hearth
furnaces are most often used to calcine kaolin.  Flash and rotary calciners also are  used.

Ball Clay -
       Mined ball  clay, which typically has a moisture content of approximately 28 percent,  first is
stored in drying sheds until the moisture content decreases to 20 to 24 percent. The clay then is
shredded in a disintegrator into small  pieces 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters  (cm) (0.5 to 1  in.) in thickness.
The shredded material then is either dried or ground in a  hammer mill.  Material exiting the hammer
mill is mixed with water and bulk loaded as a slurry for shipping.  Figure 11.25-3 depicts the process
flow for ball clay processing.

       Indirect rotary or vibrating grate dryers are used to dry ball clay.  Combustion gases  from the
firebox pass through an air-to-air heat exchanger to heat the drying air to a temperature of
approximately 300°C (570°F). The clay is dried to a moisture content of 8 to 10 percent.  Following
drying, the material is ground in a roller mill and shipped.  The ground ball clay may also be mixed
with water as a slurry for bulk shipping.
11.25-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
                       Table 11.25-1.  CLAY PROCESSING OPERATIONS
Process
Mining
Stockpiling
Crushing
Grinding
Screening
Mixing
Blunging
Air flotation
Slurry ing
Extruding
Drying
Calcining
Packaging
Other


Kaolin
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
Water
fraction-
ation,
magnetic
separation,
acid
treatment,
bleaching
Ball Clay
X
X
X
X

X

X
X



X
Shredding,
pulverizing


Fire Clay
X
X
X
X
X





X
X
X
Weathering,
blending


Bentonite
X
X
X
X






X

X
Cation
exchange,
granulating,
air
classifying

Fuller's
Earth
X
X
X
X
X

X


X
X

X
Dispersing


Common
Clay And
Shale
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X





Fire Clay -
        Figure 11.25-4 illustrates the process flow for fire clay processing.  Mined fire clay first is
transported to the processing plant and stockpiled.  In some cases, the crude clay is weathered for
6 to 12 months, depending on the type of fire clay.  Freezing and thawing break the material up,
resulting in smaller particles and improved plasticity.  The material then is crushed and ground. At
this stage in the process, the clay has a moisture content of 10 to 15 percent.  For certain
applications,  the clay is dried in mechanical dryers to reduce the moisture content of the material to
7 percent or less.  Typically, rotary and  vibrating grate dryers fired with natural gas or fuel oil are
used for drying fire clay.

        To increase the refractoriness of the material, fire clay often is calcined.  Calcining eliminates
moisture and organic material and causes a chemical reaction to occur between the alumina and silica
in the clay, rendering a material (mullite) that is harder, denser, and more easily crushed than
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-3
-------
t
1
OPEN PIT MINING
SCO 3-05-041 -01
Rainwater
Ground Wate
I

>r
SETTLING PONDS
1
                   Truck—^
   RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
        SCC 3-05-041 -03
                                   I
                   RAW MATERIAL STORAGE

                     SCC 3-05-041-02
   RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
       SCC 3-05-041-03
       SCC 3-05-041-03
                         DRYING

                   SCC 3-05-041-30 TO 33,39
      PRODUCT TRANSFER
         SCC 3-05-041 -70
                      SCREENING /
                     CLASSIFICATION
                      SCC 3-05-041-51
      PRODUCT TRANSFER
        SCC 3-05-041-70
                       PACKAGING
                      SCC 3-05-041-72
                   EFFLUENT
CRUSHING
SCC 305041-15
3ANSFER
J?
?®
                                         Solid Waste
                                 KEY
                                emissions
                              aseous emissions
                                          TO ONSITE
                                         REFRACTORY
                                        MANUFACTURING
                      PRODUCT SHIPPING
           Figure 11.25-1. Process flow diagram for kaolin mining and dry processing.
                            (SCC = Source Classification Code.)
11.25-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
        RAW MATERIAL
         TRANSFER
       SCC 03-06-041-03
               RAW MATERIAL
                 STORAGE
              SCC 03-06-041-02
        RAW MATERIAL
         TRANSFER
     SCC 0345441-03  ,
BUJNGMNQ ANDrOR PUQ
MILLING!

*
                                 -Water
               DEGRrrTINQAND
               CLASSIFICATION
              SCC 03-06441-29
        RAW MATERIAL
         TRANSFER
      SCC 03-05-041X13
            ©©
             t  t
 BLEACHING AND/OR
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
   SCC 03-05-041-60
          KEY

 0PM emissions
 (2\ Gaseous emissions
	Optional process
              [  FILTRATION
Pfl
TR
SCC


©d!
i 1
1 1
DRYING
SCC 03-06-041-30 TO 33, 39
ODUCT
ANSFER
03464)41-70
©(E
f t
CALCINING
SCC 03-06-041 -40 TO 42, 4»

BULK
SLURRY
— •- 70% Slurry Product
)
PRODUCT TRANSFER ©
SCC 03-06-041 -70 t

PRODUCT TRANSFER y
SCC 03-05-041-70 t

t
PRODUCT
STORAGE
SCC 03-05-041-71
t
PRODUCT
STORAGE
SCC 0345-041-71

PRODUCT TRANSFER V
SCC 03-05-041 -70 *
S
PRODUCT TRANSFER^
SCC 03-05-041-70 f

t
PACKAGING
SCC 03-06-041 -72
1
HIPPING ©
1
PACKAGING
SCC 0345-041 -72
                                                                                   SHIPPING
        Figure 11.25-2.  Process flow diagram for wet process kaolin for high grade products.
                                  (SCC  =  Source Classification Code.)
1/95
        Mineral Products Industry
                           11.25-5
-------
I
1
MINING
SCC 3-05-042-01

RAW MATERIAL 0
TRANSFER i
SCC 346-042-03 j SHE
SCC

f RAW MATERIAL ©
I TRANSFER A
I) STORAGE SCC 3-05-042-03 |
3-06-042-02
„ *
                                                                       SHIPPING
                              SCC 3-06-042-03
RAWMATERI
SCC 3-
DR1
SCC 34!
(^ THROUG
t
1
PRODUCT TRANSFER
SCC 345442-70
t
1 f
SHREDDING


AL TRANSFER © © RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
0644243 t | SCC34544243
1 	
* t
t
I
r|NG GRINDING
5-042-30 SCC 345442-1 9 ff)
H 33 39 	 - 	 ^^

t I 	
	 I
t
! I Ml>
PRODUCT FINAL GRINDING '
STORAGE
SCC 345442-50
SCC 345442-71 ' 	
t 1
1 T 1
PACKAGING
SCC 346442-72 |~^
1 1
SHIPPING
SUURF
LOA
i
I
PRODUCT TRANSFER
SCC 346442-70
t
I
CING I PRODUCT
	 ' STORAGE
SCC 345442-71
i SLURRY BULK
~ LOADING
PRODUCT TRANSFER /7\
SCC 346442-70 ^
i
3NG~|
PRODUCT
STORAGE
SCC 345442-71
WBULK i
DING
PACKAGING
SCC 345442-72
I
t
I
PACKAGING
SCC 345442-72
SHIP
KEY
(j") PM emissions
(z\ Gaseous emissions
PING

                                          SHIPPING
                  Figure 11.25-3.  Process flow diagram for ball clay processing.
                              (SCC = Source Classification Code.)
11.25-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                         ©
                                          t
                              	I
                                  MINING
                               SCC 3-06-0434)1
                                         ©
                                         t
                                         I
TRANSPORTATION
SCCS06-043-01

©
t
I
                                            KEY

                                    /T)  PM «missions

                                    (2\  Gaseous emissions

                                    	Optional process
STOCKPIUNQ
SCO 3-06-043-02
.TRANSFER
M3-03
© Q
1 *
1


                                                                    ©
                                                                     I
                                                         WEATHERING

                                                         SCC 3-0&O43-02
                                 CRUSHING

                               SCC 3-06-043-15
                RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                    SCC 3-05043-03
 ©  ©
  i    I
t"    I
                                 GRINDING

                               SCC 3-05-043-19
                RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                    SCC 3-06-043-03

                    ©
  ©
                ©
T
\ * I
CALCINING DRYING
SCC 3-05-043-40 SCC 3-05-043-30
THROUGH 4Z 49 THROUGH 33. 39
PRODUCT
SCC MX
PRODUCT
SCC 3-0!

TRANSFER ® ©
WJ43-70 _* 1
FINAL GRINDING
SCC 3-05-043-50
TRANSFER ® ©
!-043-70 ^ f
1 ©
i
FINAL. SCREENING 1
SCC3OfrO43-01 PRODUCT TRANSH
SCC 3-05-043-70


PRODUCT STORAGE
31 SCC 3-05-043-71
? '
T TOONSFTE
PACKAGING MANUFACTURING
5003^43-72 PROCESS
                    Figure 11.25-4.  Process flow diagram for fire clay processing.
                                  (SCC = Source  Classification Code.)
1/95
     Mineral Products Industry
11.25-7
-------
uncalcined fire clay. After the clay is dried and/or calcined, the material is crushed, ground, and
screened.  After screening, the processed fire clay may be blended with other materials, such as
organic binders, before to being formed in the desired shapes and fired.

Bentonite  -
       A flow diagram for bentonite processing is provided in Figure 11.25-5.  Mined bentonite first
is transported to the processing plant and stockpiled.  If the raw clay has a relatively high moisture
content (30 to 35 percent), the stockpiled material may be plowed to facilitate air drying to  a moisture
content of 16 to 18 percent. Stockpiled bentonite may also be blended with other grades of bentonite
to produce a uniform material.  The material then is passed through a grizzly and crusher to reduce
the clay pieces to less than 2.5 cm (1 in.)  in size.  Next, the crushed bentonite is dried in rotary  or
fluid bed dryers fired with natural gas, oil, or coal to reduce the moisture content to 7 to 8  percent.
The temperatures in bentonite dryers generally range from 900°C (1650°F) at the inlet to 100 to
200°C (210 to 390°F) at the outlet.  The dried material then is ground by means of roller or hammer
mills.  At some facilities which produce specialized bentonite products, the material is passed through
an air classifier after being ground. Soda ash also may be added to the processed material to improve
the swelling properties of the clay.

Fuller's Earth -
       A flow diagram for fuller's earth processing is provided in Figure 11.25-6.  After being
mined, fuller's earth is transported to the processing plant, crushed, ground, and stockpiled.  Before
drying, fuller's earth is fed into secondary grinders to reduce further the size of the material. At
some plants, the crushed material is fed into a pug mill, mixed with water, and extruded to improve
the properties needed for certain end products.  The material then is dried in rotary or fluid bed
dryers fired with natural gas or fuel oil.  Drying  reduces the moisture content to 0 to 10  percent from
its initial moisture content of 40 to  50 percent. The temperatures in fuller's earth dryers depend on
the end used of the product.  For colloidal grades of fuller's earth, drying temperatures of
approximately 150°C  (300°F) are used, and for absorbent grades, drying temperatures of 650°C
(1200°F)  are typical.  In some plants, fuller's earth is calcined rather than dried. In these cases, an
operating  temperature of approximately 675°C (1250°F) is used. The dried or calcined material then
is ground  by roller or hammer mills and screened.

Common  Clay And Shale -
       Figure 11.25-7 depicts common clay and  shale processing.  Common clay and shale generally
are mined, processed, formed, and  fired at the same site to produce the end product.  Processing
generally  begins with primary crushing and stockpiling.  The material then is ground and screened.
Oversize material may be further ground to produce particles of the desired size. For some
applications, common clay and shale are dried to  reduce the moisture content to desired levels.
Further processing may include blunging or mixing with water in a pug mill, extruding,  and firing in
a kiln, depending on the type of end product.

11.25.2 Emissions And Controls3'9'10

       The primary pollutants of concern in clay processing operations are paniculate matter (PM)
and PM less than 10 micrometers (PM-10). Paniculate matter is emitted from all dry mechanical
processes, such as crushing, screening, grinding,  and materials handling and transfer operations. The
emissions from dryers and calciners include products of combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX), in addition to filterable and
condensible PM.  Volatile organic compounds associated with the raw materials and the fuel also may
be emitted from drying and calcining.
 11.25-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
                                          MINING
                                       SCC 3-05-044-01
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCC 345-044-03
                                     OPEN STOCKPILING
                                       SCC 3-06-044-02
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCC 3-06-044-03
      i
    	I
                                         CRUSHING
                                       SCC3-05-O44-15
                       RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                           SCC 3-05-044-03
      i
    _J
                                          DRYING
                                      SCC 3-05-044-30
                                      THROUGH 33.39
                           PRODUCT TRANSFER
                              SCC 3-0&044-70
    _J
                                       RNAL GRINDING
                                       SCC 306-044*0
                           PRODUCT TRANSFER
                             SCC 3-05-044-70
                           PRODUCT TRANSFER
                             SCC 3-05044-70
                                      PRODUCT STORAGE
                                       SCC 3-05-044-71
                           PRODUCT TRANSFER
                             SCC 3-05-044-70
      4
    	J
                                         PACKAGING
                                       SCC 3-05-O44-72
         KEY
rt>  PM emissions
(T)  Gaseous emissions
	Optional process step
                                                                 AIR CLASSIFYING
                                                                 SCC 3-05-044-51
                                         SHIPPING
                    Figure 11.25-5.  Process flow diagram for bentonite processing.
                                   (SCC  =  Source Classification Code.)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
                               11.25-9
-------
                          RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                             SCC 3-06-046-03
                              *  4
                                   KEY

                           (T)  PM emissions

                           (T)  Gaseous emissions

                           	Optional process
                LOW/HIGH TEMPERATURE
                      DRYING
                  SCC 3-05-045-30
                  THROUGH 33, 39
      PRODUCT TRANSFER
        SCC 3-05-046-70
FINAL GRINDING
SCC 3-05-045-50
kNSFER
15-70
_t i
' I
FINAL GRINDING
SCC 3-05-045-51
i
PRODUCT TRANSFER
srr aj«_rv45-7n
i
PRODUCT STORAGE
SCC 3-05-045-71
t
PRODUCT TRANSFER
STf! rUVLTWl'UTn
i
I
PACKAGING
SCC 3-05-045-72
                                                                                       SHIPPING
                 Figure 11.25-6.  Process flow diagram for fuller's earth processing.
                                (SCC  = Source Classification Code.)
11.25-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                            MINING

                                         SCO 3-05-046-01
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCC 3-05-046-03
                                      PRIMARY CRUSHING

                                         SCC 3-05-046-15
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCC 3-05-046-03
                                           STORAGE

                                         SCC 3-05-046-02
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                  fD       SCC 3-05-046-03
w
1
1

GRINDING
SCC 3-05-046-1 9
Oversize Malaria

J
vl/
i
I
SCREENING
SCC 34)5-046-29
                            PRODUCT TRANSFER
                              SCC 3-05-046-03
                                                    Undersize
                                                     Material
                                       PRODUCT STORAGE

                                         SCC 3-05-046-71
     DRYING (OPTIONAL)

       SCC 3XJ5-046-30
       THROUGH 33.39
                            PRODUCT TRANSFER
                              SCC 3-05-046-03
                            PRODUCT TRANSFER
                              SCC 3-05-046-03
                                       FINAL PROCESSING:
                                      MIXING, FORMING. AND
                                            FIRING
                                            KEY

                                   fi\  PM emissions

                                   (2~)  Gaseous emissions

                                   	Optional process
           Figure 11.25-7. Process flow diagram for common clay and shale processing.
                              (SCC  = Source Classification Code.)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-11
-------
       Cyclones, wet scrubbers, and fabric filters are the most commonly used devices to control PM
emissions from most clay processing operations.  Cyclones often are used for product recovery from
mechanical processes.  In such cases, the cyclones are not considered to be an air pollution control
device.  Electrostatic precipitators also are used at some facilities to control PM emissions.

       Tables 11.25-2 (metric units) and 11.25-3 (English units) present the emission factors for
kaolin processing, and Table 11.25-4 presents particle size distributions for kaolin processing.
Table 11.25-5 (metric and English units) presents the emission factors for ball clay processing.
Emission factors for fire clay processing are presented in Tables 11.25-6 (metric units) and 11.25-7
(English  units).  Table 11.25-8 presents the particle size distributions for fire clay processing.
Emission factors for bentonite processing are presented in Tables 11.25-9 (metric units) and 11.25-10
(English  units), and Table 11.25-11 presents the particle size distribution for bentonite processing.
Emission factors for processing common clay  and shale to manufacture bricks are presented in AP-42
Section 11.3, "Bricks And Related Clay Products".  No data are available for processing common
clay and  shale for other applications.

       No data are available also for individual sources of emissions from fuller's earth processing
operations.  However, data from one fuller's earth plant indicate the following emission factors for
combined sources controlled with multiclones  and wet scrubbers:  for fuller's earth dried from
approximately 50 percent to approximately 12 percent, 0.69 kg/Mg  (1.4 Ib/ton) for filterable PM and
310 kg/Mg (610 Ib/ton) for CO2 emissions from a rotary dryer, rotary cooler, and packaging
warehouse.  For fuller's earth dried from approximately 12 percent to 1 to 2 percent, assume
0.32 kg/Mg (0.63 Ib/ton) for filterable PM emissions from a rotary  dryer,  rotary cooler, grinding and
screening operations,  and packaging warehouse. It should be noted that the sources tested may not be
representative of current fuller's earth processing operations.
 11.25-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
       Table 11.25-2 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR KAOLIN PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Spray dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-041-31)
Apron dryer
(SCC 3-05-041-32)
Multiple hearth furnace
(SCC 3-05-041-40)
Multiple hearth furnace with
venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-041^0)
Flash calciner
(SCC 3-05-041-42)
Flash calciner with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-04M2)
Filterable PMb
0.12d
0.62f
17*
0.128
5508
0.0288
Filterable PM-100
ND
ND
8.28
ND
280«
0.023«
CO2
81e
140f
140«
NA
2608
NA
  (S(J(J J-U3-U41-4ZJ
a Factors are kg/Mg produced. Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.  SCC = Souro
  Classification Code. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable, control device has negligib
  CO2 emissions.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
d References 3,5.
e Reference 5.
f Reference 6.
g Reference 8.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-13
-------
      Table 11.25-3 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR KAOLIN PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Spray dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-041-31)
Apron dryer
(SCC 3-05-041-32)
Multiple hearth furnace
(SCC 3-05-041-40)
Multiple hearth furnace with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-041-40)
Flash calciner
(SCC 3-05-041-42)
Flash calciner with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-041-42)
Filterable PMb
0.23d
1.2f
34S
0.238
1,1008
0.0558
Filterable PM-10C
ND
ND
16«
ND
5608
0.046«
C02
1606
280f
2808
NA
5108
NA
a Factors are kg/Mg produced. Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable, control device has negligible effects on
  CO2 emissions.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
d References 3,5.
e Reference 5.
f Reference 6.
g Reference 8.
11.25-14
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                    1/95
-------
       Table 11.25-4.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR KAOLIN PROCESSING3
Particle Size, /xm
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10
15
20
Cumulative Percent Less Than
Multiple Hearth
Furnace,
Uncontrolled
(SCC 3-05-041-40)
5.65
8.21
22.99
42.1
47.22
52.02
56.61
Size
Flash Calciner (SCC 3-05-041-42)
Uncontrolled
ND
11.14
25.32
44.65
50.87
55.35
59.45
With Fabric Filter
26.93
31.88
55.29
77.34
88.31
94.77
96.56
a Reference 8. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
      Table 11.25-5 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BALL CLAY
                                    PROCESSING3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Vibrating grate dryer with
(SCC 3-05-042-33)
fabric filter
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg Ib/ton
0.071 0.14
a Reference 3. Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of ball clay processed.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-15
-------
     Table 11.25-6 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR FIRE CLAY PROCESSING1

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Rotary dryerc
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-043-40)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-043-40)
Rotary calciner with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-043^0)
SO2
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
3.8d

NOX
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
0.87d

CO2
15b
ND
ND

300°
ND
ND

Filterableb
PM PM-10
33 8.1
5.6 2.6
0.052 ND

62d 14e
31f ND
0.15d 0.03 le

a Factors are kg/Mg of raw material feed.  Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Reference 11.
d References 12-13.
e Reference 12.
f Reference 13.
 11.25-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
     Table 11.25-7 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR FIRE CLAY PROCESSING3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Rotary dryerc
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber6
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-043^0)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-043^0)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-043-40)
SO2
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
7.6d

NOX
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
1.7d

CO2
30
ND
ND

600°
ND
ND

Filterableb
PM
65
11
0.11

120d
61f
Q.3&

PM-10
16
5.1
ND

30e
ND
0.062e

a Factors are kg/Mg of raw material feed. Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted. SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Reference 11.
d References 12-13.
e Reference 12.
f Reference 13.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-17
-------
      Table 11.25-8. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR FIRE CLAY PROCESSING*1

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Diameter
(/tin)
Uncontrolled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Multiclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone/Scrubber
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Rotary Dryers (SCC 3-05-043-30)b
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
2.5
10
24
37
51
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
31
46
60
68
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Rotary Calciners (SCC 3-05-43-40)c
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
3.1
4.1
6.9
17
34
50
62
13
14
23
39
50
63
81
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
43
46
55
69
81
91
a For filterable PM only. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Reference 11.
c References 12-13 (uncontrolled).  Reference 12 (multiclone-controlled). Reference 13
  (cyclone/scrubber-controlled).
11.25-18
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
     Table 11.25-9 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BENTONITE PROCESSING3
Source
Rotary dryer
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Filterable
PMb
140
0.050
0.016
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
E
PM-10C
10
0.037
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D

a Reference 3. Factors are kg/Mg produced.  Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
    Table 11.25-10 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BENTONITE PROCESSING3
Source
Rotary dryer
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Filterable
PMb
290
0.10
0.033
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
E
PM-10C
20
0.074
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D

a Reference 3. Factors are kg/Mg produced.  Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-19
-------
     Table 11.25-11. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR BENTONITE PROCESSING*
Particle Size, /«n
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Percent Less Than Size
Rotary Dryer, Uncontrolled
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
0.2
0.3
0.8
2.2
7.0
12
25
Rotary Dryer With Fabric Filter
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
2.5
3.0
12
44
74
92
97
a Reference 3.  SCC = Source Classification Code.


References For Section 11.25

 1.     S. H. Patterson and H. H. Murray,  "Clays", Industrial Minerals And Rocks, Volume 1,
       Society Of Mining Engineers, New York, 1983.

 2.     R. L. Virta, Annual Report 1991: Clays (Draft), Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The
       Interior, Washington, DC, September 1992.

 3.     Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1985.

 4.     J. T. Jones and M. F. Berard, Ceramics, Industrial Processing And Testing, Iowa State
       University Press, Ames, IA,  1972.

 5.     Report On Paniculate Emissions From No. 3 Spray Dryer, American Industrial Clay
       Company, Sandersonville, Georgia, July 21, 1975.

 6.     Report On Paniculate Emissions From Apron Dryer, American Industrial Clay Company,
       Sandersonville, Georgia, July 21, 1975.

 7.     Emission Test Report:  Thiele Kaolin, Sandersonville, Georgia, EMB-78-NMM-7, Emission
       Measurement Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March  1979.

 8.     Emission Test Repon:  Plant A, ESD Project No. 81/08, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1983.

 9.     Source Test Report, Plant B, Kiln Number 2 Outlet, Technical Services, Inc., Jacksonville,
       FL, February 1979.
 11.25-20
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                      1/95
-------
10.    Source Test Report, Plant B, Number 1 Kiln Outlet Paniculate Emissions, Technical Services,
       Inc., JacteoRville, FL, February 1979.

11.    Calciners And Dryers Emission Test Report, North American Refractories Company, Farber,
       Missouri, EMB - 84-CDR-14,  Emission Measurement Branch, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March  1984.

12.    Emission Test Report: Plant A, ESD Project No. 81/08, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 13, 1983.

13.    Calciners And Dryers Emission Test Report, A. P. Green Company, Mexico, Missouri,
       EMB-83-CDR-1, Emission Measurement Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1983.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                          11.25-21
-------
11.26 Talc Processing

11.26.1  Process Description1 "9

        Talc, which is a soft, hydrous magnesium silicate (3MgO'4Si02'H20), is used in a wide range
of industries including the manufacture of ceramics, paints, paper, and asphalt roofing.  The end-uses
for talc are determined by variables such as chemical and mineralogical composition, particle size and
shape, specific gravity, hardness, and color.  There is no Source Classification Code (SCC) for the
source category.

        Over 95 percent of the talc ore produced in the United States comes from open-pit mines.
Mining operations usually consist of conventional drilling and blasting methods.

        Figure 11.26-1 is a process  flow diagram for a typical domestic talc plant. Talc ore generally
is hauled to the plant by truck from a nearby  mine.  The ore is crushed, typically in a jaw crusher,
and screened.   The coarse (oversize) material then is returned to the crusher.  Rotary dryers may be
used to dry the material.  Secondary grinding is achieved with pebble mills or roller mills, producing
a product that is 44 to 149 micrometers (/tm)  (325 to 100 mesh)  in size.  Some roller mills are
designed to use heated air to dry the material  as it is being ground.  Hammer mills or steam- or
compressed air-powered jet mills may be used to produce additional final products.  Air classifiers
(separators), generally in closed circuit with the mills, separate the material into coarse, coarse-plus-
fine, and fine fractions.  The coarse and coarse-plus-fme fractions then are stored as products.  The
fines  may be concentrated using a shaking table (tabling process) to separate product containing small
quantities of nickel,  iron, cobalt, or other minerals and then may undergo a one-step flotation process.
The resultant talc slurry is dewatered and filtered prior to passing through a  flash dryer.  The
flash-dried product is then stored for shipment, unless it needs further grinding to meet customer
specifications.  The classified material also may be pelletized prior to packaging for specific
applications.  In the pelletizing step, processed talc is mixed with water to form  a paste and then  is
extruded as pellets.

        Talc deposits mined in the southwestern United States contain organic impurities and must be
calcined prior to additional processing to yield a product with uniform chemical  and physical
properties. Generally, a separate product will be used to produce the calcined talc.  Prior to
calcining, the mined ore passes through a crusher and is ground to a specified screen size.  After
calcining in a rotary kiln, the material passes  through a rotary cooler.  The cooled calcine (0 percent
free water) is then either stored for shipment or further processed.  Calcined talc may be mixed with
dried talc from other product lines and passed through a roller mill prior to bulk shipping.

11.26.2  Emissions And Controls1-2'4-5'7-8'10'13

        The primary pollutants of concern in talc processing are particulate matter (PM) and PM less
than 10 /mi (PM-10).  Particulate matter is emitted from drilling, blasting, crushing, screening,
grinding, drying, calcining, classifying, materials handling and transfer operations, packaging, and
storage.  Although pelletizing is a wet process, PM may be emitted from the transfer and feeding of
processed talc to the pelletizer.  Depending on the purity of the talc ore body, PM emissions may
include trace amounts of several inorganic compounds that are listed hazardous air pollutants (HAP),
including arsenic, cadmium,  chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and phosphorus.
11 /95                                    Mineral Products                                 11.26-1
-------

LEO END
' PROCESS FUOW
VJ PM EMISSIONS
fi\ GASEOUS EMISSIONS
t

©
1 	


*
1
CRUDE ORE DRYER
(W5-088-09. -10)

CRUSHED TALC RAIL
LOADOUT
(3-05-089-12)





TALC MINE
PRODUCTION
t
PLANT YARD
STORAGE
(MS-06M6)
t
CONVEYOR
(3-05-089-08)
t
PRIMARY CRUSHER
(3-0&088-11)
*
CRUSHED TALC
STORAGE BIN
LOADING
(3^5-069-14)
t
SCREEN
(3-05-089-17)
©
©
©
t
— _J
©
	 1

                                                                                       OVERSIZE ORE
                              ROTARY CALCINER
                               (3-05-089-31 ,-33)
                                                                     T
                                                                UNDERSIZE ORE

                                                                      I
                              ROTARY COOLER
                               (3-05-089-41)
                             GRINDING WITH HEATED
                                 MAKEUP AIR
                                 (3-05-089-47)
                                                              GROUND TALC STORAGI
                                                                  BIN LOADING
                                                                  (3-05-089-»9)
                                                                AIRCLASSIRERS
                                                                 (3-O5-089-60)
                                         COARSE
                                                                              CLASSIR!
                                                                                RNES
                                                  PNEUMATIC     COARSE AND RNES
                                              CONVEYOR VENTING        .
                                                  (3-OS-089-58)
                                      TABLING PROCESS
                                         (34)5469-61)
                                                       9
                                         RNAL PRODUCT STORAGE
                                              BIN LOADING
                                              (3-05-06945)
                                                                               FLOTATION. DEWATERING,
                                                                                     FILTRATION
                                                                                   FLASH DRYER
                                                                                   (3-05-069-71 ,-73)
                                                                                 CUSTOM GRINDING
                                                                                   (3-06-089-82)
                                                                                                   ©
                      Figure  11.26-1.  Process flow diagram for talc processing.1'4'6
                                (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.26-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
        The emissions from dryers and calciners include products of combustion, such as carbon
 monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, in addition to filterable and
 condensible PM. Volatile organic compounds also are emitted from the drying and calcining of
 southwestern United States talc deposits, which  generally contain organic impurities.  Products of
 combustion and VOC may also be emitted from roller mills that use heated air and from the furnaces
 that provide the heated air to the mill.

        Emissions from talc dryers and calciners are typically controlled with fabric filters.  Fabric
 filters also are used at some facilities to control  emissions from mechanical processes such as crushing
 and grinding.  Emission factors for emissions from talc processing are presented in Table 11.26-1.
 Particle size distributions for talc processing are summarized in Table  11.26-2 and are depicted
 graphically in Figure 11.26-2.
11/95                                   Mineral Products                                 11.26-3
-------
               Table 11.26-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TALC PROCESSING8

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Natural gas-fired crude ore drying with fabric filter0
(SCC 3-05-089-09)
Primary crushing, with fabric filterd
(SCC 3-05-089-11)
Crushed talc railcar loading6
(SCC 3-05-089-12)
Screening, with fabric filterf
(SCC 3-05-089-17)
Grinding, with fabric filter8
(SCC 3-05-089-45)
Grinding with heated makeup air, with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-089-47)
Classifying, with fabric filter1
(SCC 3-05-089-50)
Pellet drying, with fabric filter*
(SCC 3-05-089-55)
Pneumatic conveyor venting, with fabric filter"1
(SCC 3-05-089-58)
Packaging, with fabric filter"
(SCC 3-05-089-88)
Crushed talc storage bin loading, with fabric filterp
(SCC 3-05-089-14)
Ground talc storage bin loading, with fabric filter*1
(SCC 3-05-089-49)
Final product storage bin loading, with fabric filter?
(SCC 3-05-089-85)
Total PMb
lb/ 1,000 Ib
0.0020

0.00074

0.00049

0.0043

0.022

0.022S

0.00077

0.032

0.0018

0.0090

0.0036

0.0016

0.0035

CO,
lb/ 1,000 lb
ND

NA

NA

NA

NA

9.3h

NA

ND

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

a Units are lb/1,000 lb of production unless noted.  One lb/1,000 lb is equal to 1 kg/Mg.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  NA = not applicable.  ND = no data.
b Total PM includes the PM collected in the front half and the inorganic PM caught in the back half
  (impingers) of a Method 5 sampling train.
c Reference 15.  Filterable PM fraction is 60%, and condensible inorganic fraction is 40%.
d References  10,13,15.
e Reference 14.
f References  10,13. For crushed talc ore.
g References  11,13.
h References  10-11. For roller mill using heated makeup air. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.
J  Reference 13.  For ground talc.
k Reference 13.  Filterable PM fraction is 56%, and condensible inorganic fraction is 44%.
  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.
m Reference 13.  For final product. Units are lb/1,000 lb of material conveyed.
" Reference 10,13.
p Reference 13.  Units are  lb/1,000 lb of material loaded into storage bin.
q Reference 12.  Units are  lb/1,000 lb of material loaded into storage bin.
11.26-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
           Table 11.26-2.  SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
                                   TALC PROCESSING*

Process
Primary crushing
(SCC 3-05-089-11)







Grinding
(SCC 3-05-089-45)








Storage, bagging, air classification
(SCC 3-05-089-85,-88,-50)









Diameter, jim
55.4
34.9
22.0
17.4
11.0
6.9
3.0
2.0
1.0
29.0
18.8
14.9
11.9
9.4
7.5
4.7
3.0
1.9
1.0
43.9
27.7
17.4
13.8
11.0
6.9
4.4
3.0
2.0
1.0
Cumulative Percent Less
Than Diameter
91.3
78.2
56.7
47.2
38.8
21.4
3.0
0.94
0.11
. 100.0
99.7
99.4
97.1
80.8
43.3
7.5
2.1
0.28
0.04
99.9
97.9
86.6
73.2
56.8
24.5
7.4
3.1
0.92
0.10
a Reference 5.  Optical procedures used to determine particle size distribution, rather than inertial
  separators. Data are suspect. SCC = Source Classification Code.
11/95
Mineral Products
11.26-5
-------
       "CD
       re
       '-o
        v
       ^
       >
       £?
       z>
       E
       u
       O
                                                               Crushing

                                                               Grinding

                                                               Packaging and storage
                                                                                    100
                                         Particle diameter,
                  Figure 1 1 .26-2.  Particle size distribution for talc processing.5


References For Section 1 1 .26

 1 .     Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-025a,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1985.

 2.     L. A.  Roe and R.  H. Olson,  "Talc", Industrial Rocks And Minerals ,  Volume /, Society Of
       Mining Engineers, NY, 1983.

 3.     R. L.  Virta, The Talc Industry - An Overview, Information Circular 9220, Bureau Of Mines,
       U. S.  Department  Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.

 4.     Written communication from  B. Virta, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
       Washington, DC, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, March 28, 1994.
11.26-6
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
 5.     Emission Study At A Talc Crushing And Grinding Facility, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company,
       Johnson, Vermont,  October 19-21, 1976, Report No. 76-NMM-4, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, 1977.

 6.     Written communication from S. Harms, Montana Talc  Company,  Three Forks, MT, to
       R. Myers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1994.

 7.     R. A. James and K. Ganesan, Paniculate Emissions From Montana Talc Company,
       Sappington, Montana, December 1986, Whitehall, MT, December 1986.

 8.     Written communication from J. Parks, Barretts Minerals Incorporated, Dillon, MT, to
       R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 23,  1995.

 9.     Written communication from R. Virta, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
       Washington, DC, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, February 13, 1995.

10.     Emission Test Report - Plant A, Test No. 1, July 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01,
       Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01,
       Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2,  1995.

11.     Emission Test Report - Plant A, Test No. 2, September 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01,
       Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01,
       Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2,  1995.

12.     Initial Compliance Test For Paniculate Emissions, Luzenac America,  Three Forks Mill,
       Montana Air Quality Permit #2282-02, January/February 1995, Bison Engineering, Inc.,
       Helena, MT, April  25, 1995.

13.     Paniculate Emissions Compliance Test, Luzenac America, Sappington Mill, Montana Air
       Quality Permit 1996-03, December 1994-March 1995, Bison Engineering,  Inc., Helena, MT,
       March 29, 1995.

14.     Compliance Test For Paniculate Emissions, Luzenac America,  Three Forks Mill,  Montana Air
       Quality Permit # 2282-02,  Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT, May 17, 1995.

15.     Paniculate Emissions And  Visible  Opacity, Rotary Dryer And Crusher/Loadout, Permit 2282,
       Luzenac America, Yellowstone Trail, Three Forks, MT, Bison Engineering, Inc.,  Helena, MT,
       February 15 and 16, 1994.
11/95                                 Mineral Products                                11.26-7
-------
11.27  Feldspar Processing

11.27.1  General1

       Feldspar consists essentially of aluminum silicates combined with varying percentages of
potassium, sodium, and  calcium, and it is the most abundant mineral of the igneous rocks.  The two
types of feldspar are soda feldspar (7 percent or higher Na2O) and potash feldspar (8 percent or
higher K2O).  Feldspar-silica mixtures  can occur naturally, such as in sand deposits, or can be
obtained  from flotation of mined and crushed rock.
 11.27.2  Process Description
                            1-2
        Conventional open-pit mining methods including removal of overburden, drilling and blasting,
loading, and transport by trucks are used to mine ores containing feldspar.  A froth flotation process
is used for most feldspar ore beneficiation. Figure 11.27-1 shows a process flow diagram  of the
flotation process.  The ore is crushed by primary and secondary crushers and ground by jaw crushers,
cone crushers, and rod mills until it is reduced to less than 841 /xm (20 mesh).  Then the ore passes
to a three-stage, acid-circuit flotation process.

        An amine collector  that floats off and removes mica is used in the first flotation step. Also,
sulfuric acid, pine oil, and fuel oil are added.  After the feed  is dewatered in a classifier or cyclone to
remove reagents, sulfuric acid is added to lower the pH.  Petroleum sulfonate (mahogany soap) is
used to  remove iron-bearing minerals.  To finish the flotation process, the discharge from  the second
flotation step is dewatered again, and a cationic amine is used for collection  as the feldspar is floated
away from quartz in an environment of hydrofluoric acid  (pH of 2.5 to 3.0).

        If feldspathic sand is the raw material, no size reduction may be required.  Also, if little or no
mica is  present, the first flotation step may be bypassed.  Sometimes  the final flotation stage is
omitted, leaving a feldspar-silica mixture (often referred to as sandspar), which  is usually used in
glassmaking.

        From the completed flotation process, the feldspar float concentrate is dewatered to 5 to 9
percent  moisture.  A  rotary dryer is then used to reduce the moisture content to 1 percent or less.
Rotary dryers are the most common dryer type used, although fluid bed dryers are  also used. Typical
rotary feldspar dryers are fired with No. 2 oil or natural gas,  operate at about 230°C (450°F),  and
have a retention time of  10  to 15 minutes. Magnetic separation is used as a  backup process to
remove  any iron minerals present.  Following the drying process, dry grinding is sometimes
performed to reduce the  feldspar to less  than 74 /zm (200  mesh) for use in ceramics, paints, and tiles.
Drying and grinding are often performed simultaneously by passing the dewatered cake through a
rotating gas-fired cylinder lined with ceramic blocks and charged with ceramic  grinding balls.
Material processed in this manner must then be screened for size or air classified to ensure proper
particle  size.

11.27.2 Emissions And Controls

       The primary pollutant of concern that is emitted from  feldspar processing is paniculate matter
(PM).  Paniculate matter is  emitted by several feldspar processing operations, including crushing,
grinding, screening, drying, and materials handling and transfer operations.


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.27-1
-------
         AMINE
          HF
                                       CRUSH ING,  GR i NDING
                                              1
                                        VIBRATING SCREEN
                                              I
                                       »20 MESH
                                         HYOROCLASSIFIER
                                              I
                                           CONDITI ONER
                                              I
                                         FLOTATION CELLS
                                              I
                                      . OVERFLOW SLIME
                                           TO *ASTE
                                                                    AMINE,  H 2S04 ,
                                                                  "PINE OIL, FUEL OIL
                                                                 •OVERFLOW
                                             CYCLONE
                                              I
COND IT
IONER
                                                                  •H  SO.,  ,  PETROLEUM SULFONATE
                                                                  OVERFLO* CGARNET}
                              CYCLONE
sec
DRYER
3- 05- 034- 02
CONDITI ONER
                                GLASS PLANTS
                               I
FLOTATION
CELLS
                               i
                              DRYER
                          SCC   3-05-03^-02
              GLASS PLANTS
MAGNET 1 C
SEPARATION
                                               I
PEBBLE
MILLS
                                               T
                                           POTTERY
                             Figure 11.27-1.  Feldspar flotation process.1
11.27-2
            EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
       Emissions from dryers typically are controlled by a combination of a cyclone or a multiclone
and a scrubber system.  Paniculate matter emissions from crushing and grinding generally are
controlled by fabric filters.

       Table 11.27-1 presents controlled emission factors for filterable PM from the drying process.
Table 11.27-2 presents emission factors for CO2 from the drying process.  The controls used in
feldspar processing achieve only incidental control of C02.
      Table 11.27-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FILTERABLE
                                 PARTICIPATE MATTERa
Process
Dryer with scrubber and demisterb (SCC 3-05-034-02)
Dryer with mechanical collector and scrubberc>d
(SCC 3-05-034-02)
Filterable Paniculate
kg/Mg
Feldspar
Dried
Ib/Ton
Feldspar
Dried
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
0.60 1.2 D
0.041 0.081 D
a SCC = Source Classification Code
b Reference 4.
c Reference 3.
d Reference 5.
    Table 11.27-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTOR FOR CARBON DIOXIDE8
Process
Carbon Dioxide
kg/Mg
Feldspar
Dried
Ib/Ton
Feldspar
Dried
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Dryer with multiclone and scrubbed (SCC 3-05-034-02) 51 102 D
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Scrubbers may achieve incidental control of CO2 emissions. Multiclones do not control CO2
  emissions.
References For Section 11.27

1.      Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries-Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1985.

2.      US Minerals Yearbook 1989: Feldspar, Nepheline syenite, and Aplite:  US Minerals
       Yearbook  1989, pp. 389-396.

3.      Source Sampling Report For The Feldspar Corporation: Spruce Pine, NC, Environmental
       Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, May 1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.27-3
-------
4.     Paniculate Emission Test Report For A Scrubber Stack At International Minerals Corporation:
       Spruce Pine, NC, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources & Community
       Development, Division of Environmental Management, September 1981.

5.     Paniculate Emission Test Report For Two Scrubber Stacks At Lawson  United Feldspar &
       Mineral Company:  Spruce Pine, NC, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources &
       Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, October 1978.
 H.27-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
11.28  Vermiculite Processing

11.28.1  Process Description1"9

        Vermiculite is the geological name given to a group of hydrated laminar minerals that are
aluminum-iron-magnesium silicates and that resemble mica in appearance.  The chemical formula for
vermiculite is (Mg,Ca,K,Fe+2)3(Si,Al,Fe+3)4O10(OH)2«4H2O.  When subjected to heat, Vermiculite
has the unusual property of exfoliating, or expanding, due to the interlaminar generation of steam.
Uses of unexpanded vermiculite include muds for oil-well drilling and fillers in fire-resistant
wallboard. The six-digit source classification code (SCC) for vermiculite processing is 3-05-033.

        Vermiculite ore is mined using open-pit methods. Beneficiation includes screening,  flotation,
drying in rotary or fluid bed dryers, and expansion by exposure to high heat.  All mined vermiculite
is dried and sized at the mine site prior to exfoliation.

Crude Ore Processing -
        Figure 11.28-1 is a process flow diagram for vermiculite processing.  Crude ore from open-
pit mines is brought to the mill by truck and is loaded onto outdoor stockpiles. Primary processing
consists of screening the raw material to remove the waste rock greater than 1.6 centimeters (cm)
(5/8 inch [in.]) and returning the raw ore to stockpiles.  Blending is accomplished as material  is
removed from stockpiles and conveyed to the mill feed bin.   The blended ore is fed to the mill, where
it is  separated into fractions by wet screening and then concentrated by gravity.  All concentrates are
collected, dewatered,  and dried in either a fluidized bed or rotary dryer.  Drying reduces the moisture
content of the vermiculite concentrate from approximately 15 to 20 percent to  approximately 2 to
6 percent.  At least one facility uses a hammermill to crush the material exiting the dryer.  However,
at most facilities, the  dryer products are transported by bucket elevators to vibrating screens, where
the material is classified.  The dryer exhaust generally is ducted to a cyclone for recovering the finer
grades of vermiculite concentrate.  The classified concentrate then is stored  in bins or silos for later
shipment or exfoliation.

        The rotary dryer is the more common dryer type used in the industry, although  fluidized bed
dryers also are used.  Drying temperatures are 120°  to 480°C (250° to 900°F), and fuel oil is the
most commonly used  fuel.  Natural gas and propane also are used to fuel dryers.

Exfoliation -
        After being transported to the exfoliation plant, the vermiculite concentrate is stored.  The ore
concentrate then is conveyed by  bucket elevator or other means and is dropped continuously through a
gas-  or oil-fired vertical furnace. Exfoliation occurs after a residence time of less than 8 seconds in
the furnace, and immediate removal of the expanded material from the furnace prevents damage to the
structure of the vermiculite particle. Flame temperatures of more than 540°C (1000°F) are used for
exfoliation.  Proper exfoliation requires both a high rate of heat transfer and a rapid generation of
steam within the vermiculite particles. The expanded product falls through the furnace and is  air
conveyed to a classifier system,  which collects the vermiculite product and removes excessive  fines.
The  furnace exhaust generally is ducted through a product recovery cyclone, followed by an emission
control device. At some facilities, the exfoliated material is ground in a pulverizer prior to being
classified.  Finally, the material  is packaged and stored for shipment.
11/95                               Mineral Products Industry                             11.28-1
-------
                                                     WET SCREENING.
                                                     CONCENTRATING, AND
                                                     DEWATERING
                                                       CONCENTRATE
                                                        CRUSHING
                                                        (3-05-033-31)
EXFOUATINQ
(345-033-51. -52)
I
PRODUCT
CLASSIFYING
(3-05-033-66)



PRODUCT
GRINDING
(3-OS-O33-61)



                 Figure 11.28-1.  Process flow diagram for vermiculite processing.
                           (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.28-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
 11.28.2 Emissions And Controls1'4'11

       The primary pollutants of concern in vermiculite processing are paniculate matter (PM) and
 PM less than 10 micrometers (PM-10).  Particulate matter is emitted from screening, drying,
 exfoliating, and materials handling and transfer operations.  Emissions from dryers and exfoliating
 furnaces, in addition to filterable and condensible PM and PM-10, include products of combustion,
 such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides
 (SOX).

       Wet scrubbers are typically used to control dryer emissions.  The majority of expansion
 furnaces are ducted to fabric filters for emission control.  However, wet scrubbers also are used to
 control the furnace emissions.  Cyclones and fabric filters also are used to control emissions from
 screening, milling, and materials handling and transfer operations.

       Table  11.28-1 summarizes the emission factors for vermiculite processing.

            Table 11.28-1  EMISSION FACTORS FOR VERMICULITE PROCESSING*

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Rotary dryer, with wet collector
(SCC 3-05-033-2 1, -22)
Concentrate screening, with cyclone
(SCC 3-05-033-36)
Concentrate conveyor transfer, with cyclone
(SCC 3-05-033-4 1)
Exfoliation - gas-fired vertical furnace, with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-033-51)
Product grinding, with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-033-61)
Filterable
PMb
kg/Mg
0.29e

0.308

0.0138

0.32h

0.18m

Condensible
organic PMC
kg/Mg
ND

NA

NA

0.1 »i

NA

Total PMd
kg/Mg
ND

0.308

0.0138

0.50*

0.18ra

C02
kg/Mg
50f

NA

NA

ND

NA

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  Emission factor units for drying are kg/Mg
  of material feed; emission factor units for other processes are kg/Mg of product.  1 kg/Mg is
  equivalent to 1 lb/1,000 Ib.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND  = no data. NA = not
  applicable.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Condensible PM is  that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM  sampling train. Condensible
  organic PM is the organic fraction of the condensible PM.
d Total PM equals the sum of the filterable PM, condensible organic PM, and condensible
  inorganic PM.
e Reference 8.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.
f References 8,11.  Factor represents uncontrolled emissions of CO2.
g Reference 11.  For dried ore concentrate.
h Reference 10.
J  Reference 10.  Emissions may be largely from volatilization of oil used in ore beneficiation.
k Sum of factors for filterable PM and condensible organic PM; does not include condensible
  inorganic PM.
m Reference 9.
11/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.28-3
-------
References For Section 11.28

 1.     Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1985.

 2.     P. R. Strand and O. F. Stewart.  "Vermiculite", Industrial Rocks And Minerals, Volume I,
       Society Of Mining Engineers, New York, 1983.

 3.     Vermiculite, Its Properties And Uses, The Vermiculite Association, Incorporated, Chicago,
       IL.

 4.     Written communication from Jeffrey A. Danneker,  W. R. Grace And Company, Cambridge,
       MA, to Ronald E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC,  August 26, 1994.

 5.     W. J. Neuffer, Trip Report For The September 30,  1980, Visit To W. R. Grace And
       Company, Enoree, South Carolina, BSD Project No. 81/08, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 6, 1981.

 6.     Site Visit: Virginia Vermiculite Limited, Trevilians, Virginia, memorandum from A. J.
       Nelson, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to W.  J. Neuffer, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 8, 1983.

 7.     Site Visit: W. R. Grace And Company, Irondale, Alabama, memorandum from A. J. Nelson,
       Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to W. J. Neuffer, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 29, 1983.

 8.     Rotary Dryer Paniculate Emissions Testing, Performed For Virginia Vermiculite Limited,
       Boswell's Tavern, Virginia.  RTP Environmental Associates, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 1979.

 9.     Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On Grinder Baghouse On August 8, 1989 At  W. R.
       Grace And Company Kearney Exfoliating Plant, Enoree, South  Carolina 29335,
       Environmental Engineering Division, PSI, Greenville,  SC,  August 24, 1989.

 10.     Paniculate Emissions Sampling, W.  R.  Grace And Company, Dallas, TX, April 2-4, 1990,
       Turner Engineering, Dallas, TX, April 10, 1990.

 11.     Paniculate Emissions Test Repon For W. R. Grace And Company, August 1991, RTP
       Environmental Associates, Inc, Greer, SC, August  1991.
11.28-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                              11/95
-------
11.29 Alumina Manufacturing




                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.29-1
-------
 11.30 Perlite Processing

 11.30.1  Process Description1'2

        Perlite is a glassy volcanic rock with a pearl-like luster.  It usually exhibits numerous
 concentric cracks that cause it to resemble an onion skin.  A typical perlite sample is composed of
 71 to 75 percent silicon dioxide, 12.5 to 18.0 percent alumina, 4 to 5 percent potassium oxide, 1 to
 4  percent sodium and calcium oxides, and trace amounts of metal oxides.

        Crude perlite ore is mined, crushed, dried in a rotary dryer, ground, screened, and shipped to
 expansion plants.  Horizontal rotary or vertical stationary expansion furnaces are used to expand the
 processed perlite ore.

        The normal size of crude perlite expanded for use in plaster aggregates ranges from plus
 250 micrometers (jim) (60 mesh) to minus 1.4 millimeters (mm) (12 mesh).  Crude perlite expanded
 for use as a concrete aggregate ranges from 1  mm (plus 16 mesh) to  0.2 mm  (plus 100 mesh).
 Ninety percent of the crude perlite ore expanded for horticultural uses is greater  than 841 /*m
 (20 mesh).

        Crude perlite is mined using open-pit methods and then is moved to the plant site where it is
 stockpiled. Figure 11.30-1 is a flow diagram  of crude ore processing.  The first processing step is to
 reduce the diameter of the ore to approximately 1.6 centimeters (cm) (0.6 inch [in.]) in a primary jaw
 crusher.  The crude ore is then passed through a rotary dryer, which reduces the moisture content
 from between 4 and 10 percent to less than 1 percent.

        After drying, secondary grinding takes place in a closed-circuit system using screens, air
 classifiers, hammer mills,  and rod mills.  Oversized material produced  from the  secondary circuit is
 returned to the primary crusher.  Large quantities  of fines, produced throughout  the processing
 stages, are removed by air classification at designated stages.  The desired size processed perlite ore
 is stored until it is shipped to an expansion plant.

        At the expansion plants, the processed ore is either preheated or fed directly to the furnace.
 Preheating the material  to approximately 430 °C (800 °F) reduces the  amount of fines produced in the
 expansion process,  which increases usable output and  controls the uniformity of product density.  In
 the furnace, the perlite ore reaches a temperature of 760 to 980°C (1400 to 1800°F), at which point it
 begins to soften to a plastic state where the entrapped combined water is released as steam. This
 causes the hot perlite particles to expand 4 to 20 times their original size.  A suction fan draws the
 expanded particles out of the furnace and transports them pneumatically to a cyclone classifier system
 to be collected.  The  air-suspended perlite particles are also cooled as they are transported to the
 collection equipment. The cyclone classifier system collects the expanded perlite, removes the
 excessive fines,  and discharges gases to a baghouse or wet scrubber for air pollution control.

       The grades  of expanded perlite produced can also be adjusted by changing the heating cycle,
 altering the cutoff points for size collection, and blending various crude ore sizes.  All processed
products are graded for specific uses and are usually stored before being shipped. Most production
rates are less than 1.8 megagrams  per hour (Mg/hr) (2 tons/hr), and expansion furnace temperatures
 range from 870 to 980°C (1600 to 1800°F).  Natural gas is typically used for fuel, although No. 2
fuel oil and propane are occasionally used. Fuel consumption varies  from 2,800 to 8,960 kilojoules
per kilogram (kJ/kg) (2.4 x 106 to 7.7 x 106 British thermal units per ton [Btu/ton]) of product.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.30-1
-------
                        STORAGE
                                                                 DRYER
                                                                STORAGE
                                                                                         SCREENING
                                                                                         AND SIZING
   BAGHOUS6 OH
   WET SCRUBBER
                        STORAGE
                          BINS
                                                      EXPANSION
                                                      FURNACE
                                                   CSCC  3-05-018-013
         BAGGING
        .AND
         SHIPPING
                                       SHIPPING
                                       TO EXPANSION
                                       PLANT
                        Figure II.30-1. Flow diagram for perlite processing.1
                              (Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
11.30-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
 11.30.2  Emissions And Controls1'3'11

        The major pollutant of concern emitted from perlite processing facilities is paniculate matter
 (PM). The dryers, expansion furnaces,  and handling operations can all be sources of PM emissions.
 Emissions of nitrogen oxides from perlite expansion and drying generally are negligible.  When
 sulfur-containing fuels are used, sulfur dioxide (SO^ emissions may result from combustion sources.
 However, the most common type of fuel used  in perlite expansion furnaces and dryers is natural gas,
 which is not a significant source of SO2 emissions.

        Test data from one perlite plant  indicate that perlite expansion furnaces emit a number of trace
 elements including aluminum, calcium, chromium, fluorine, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
 mercury,  nickel, titanium, and zinc. However, because the data consist of a single test run, emission
 factors were not developed for these elements.  The sample also was analyzed for beryllium, uranium,
 and vanadium, but these elements were not detected.

        To control PM emissions from both dryers and expansion furnaces, the majority of perlite
 plants use baghouses, some  use cyclones either alone or in conjunction with baghouses, and a few use
 scrubbers. Frequently, PM emissions from material handling processes and from the dryers are
 controlled by the same device.  Large plants generally have separate fabric filters for dryer emissions,
 whereas small plants often use a common fabric filter to control emissions from dryers  and materials
 handling operations.  In most plants, fabric filters are preceded by cyclones for product recovery.
 Wet scrubbers are also used in a small number of perlite plants to control emissions from perlite
 milling and expansion sources.

        Table 11.30-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM and CO2 emissions from the
 expanding and drying processes.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.30-3
-------
 Table 11.30-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PERLITE PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D



Process
Expansion furnace (SCC 3-05-018-01)
Expansion furnace with wet cyclone
(SCC 3-05-018-01)
Expansion furnace with cyclone and baghouse
(SCC 3-05-018-01)
Dryer (SCC 3-05-01 8-_J
Dryer with baghouse (SCC 3-05-0 18-_)
Dryer with cyclones and baghouses
(SCC 3-05-01 8-_)
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg
Perlite
Expanded
ND
l.ld

0.15e

ND
0.64f
0.13S

Ib/ton
Perlite
Expanded
ND
2.1d

0.29e

ND
1.3f
0.25^
•
CO2
kg/Mg
Perlite
Expanded
420°
NA

NA

16f
NA
NA

Ib/ton
Perlite
Expanded
850°
NA

NA

31f
NA
NA

a All emission factors represent controlled emissions.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Reference 4.
d Reference 11.
e References 4,8.
f Reference 10.
g References 7,9.
References For Section 11.30

 1.     Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1985.

 2.     Perlite:  US Minerals Yearbook 1989, Volume I: Metals And Minerals, U. S. Department of
       the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, pp. 765 - 767.

 3.     Perlite Industry Source Category Survey, EPA-450/3-80-005, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1980.

 4.     Emission Test Report (Perlite):  W. R. Grace And Company, Irondale, Alabama, EMB Report
       83-CDR-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 1984.

 5.     Paniculate Emission Sampling And Analysis: United States Gypsum Company, East Chicago,
       Indiana, Environmental  Instrument Systems,  Inc., South Bend, IN, July 1973.
11.30-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
 6.    Air Quality Source Sampling Report #216:  Grefco, Inc., Perlite Mill, Socorro, New Mexico,
       State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, Santa Fe, NM, January 1982.

 7.    Air Quality Source Sampling Report #198:  Johns Manville Perlite Plant, No Agua, New
       Mexico, State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, Santa Fe, NM, February
       1981.

 8.    Stack Test Report, Perlite Process: National Gypsum Company, Roll Road, Clarence Center,
       New  York, Buffalo Testing Laboratories, Buffalo, NY, December 1972.

 9.    Paniculate Analyses Of Dryer And Mill Bughouse Exhaust Emissions At Silbrico Perlite Plant,
       No Agua, New Mexico, Kramer, Callahan & Associates, NM, February  1980.

 10.    Stack Emissions Survey For U. S.  Gypsum,  Perlite Mill Dryer Stack, Grants, New Mexico,
       File Number EA  7922-17, Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX, August  1979.

 11.    Sampling Observation And Report Review, Grefco, Incorporated, Perlite Insulation Board
       Plant, Florence, Kentucky, Commonwealth  of Kentucky Department for  Natural Resources
       and Environmental Protection, Bureau of Environmental Protection, Frankfort, KY,  January
       1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.30-5
-------
 11.31 Abrasives Manufacturing

 11.31.1  General1

        The abrasives industry is composed of approximately 400 companies engaged in the following
 separate types of manufacturing: abrasive grain manufacturing, bonded abrasive product
 manufacturing, and coated abrasive product manufacturing.  Abrasive grain manufacturers produce
 materials for use by the other abrasives manufacturers to make abrasive products.  Bonded abrasives
 manufacturing is very diversified and includes the production of grinding stones and wheels, cutoff
 saws for masonry and metals, and other products. Coated abrasive products manufacturers include
 those facilities that produce large rolls of abrasive-coated fabric or paper, known as jumbo rolls, and
 those facilities that manufacture belts and other products from jumbo rolls for end use.

        The six-digit Source Classification Codes (SCC) for the industry are 3-05-035 for abrasive
 grain processing, 3-05-036 for bonded abrasives manufacturing, and 3-05-037 for coated abrasives
 manufacturing.

 11.31.2  Process Description1"7

        The process description is broken into three distinct segments discussed in the following
 sections:  production of the abrasive grains, production of bonded abrasive products, and production
 of coated abrasive products.

 Abrasive Grain Manufacturing -
        The most commonly used abrasive materials are aluminum oxides and silicon carbide.  These
 synthetic materials account for as much as 80 to 90 percent of the total quantity of abrasive grains
 produced domestically. Other materials used for abrasive grains are cubic boron nitride (CBN),
 synthetic diamonds,  and several naturally occurring minerals such as garnet and emery.  The use of
 garnet as an abrasive grain is decreasing. Cubic boron nitride is used for machining the hardest steels
 to precise forms and finishes.  The largest application of synthetic diamonds has been in wheels for
 grinding carbides and ceramics. Natural diamonds are used primarily in diamond-tipped drill bits  and
 saw blades for cutting or shaping rock, concrete, grinding wheels, glass, quartz, gems, and high-
 speed tool steels.  Other naturally occurring abrasive materials  (including garnet, emery, silica  sand,
 and  quartz)  are used in finishing wood, leather, rubber, plastics, glass, and softer metals.

       The following paragraphs describe the production  of aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, CBN,
 and  synthetic diamond.

        1.  Silicon carbide.  Silicon carbide (SiC) is manufactured in a resistance arc furnace charged
with a mixture of approximately 60 percent silica sand and 40 percent finely ground petroleum  coke.
A small amount of sawdust is added to the mix to increase its porosity so that the carbon monoxide
gas formed  during the process can escape freely.  Common salt is added to the mix to promote the
carbon-silicon reaction and to remove impurities in the sand and coke.  During the heating period, the
furnace core reaches approximately 2200°C (4000°F), at which point a large portion of the load
crystallizes. At the end of the run, the furnace contains a  core  of loosely knit silicon carbide crystals
surrounded  by unreacted or partially reacted raw materials.  The silicon carbide crystals are removed
to begin processing into abrasive grains.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.31-1
-------
       2.  Aluminum oxide. Fused aluminum oxide (A12O3) is produced in pot-type, electric-arc
furnaces with capacities of several tons. Before processing, bauxite, the crude raw material, is
calcined at about 950°C (1740°F) to remove both free and combined water. The bauxite is then
mixed with ground coke (about 3 percent) and iron borings (about 2 percent).  An electric current is
applied and the intense heat, on the order of 2000°C (3700°F), melts the bauxite and reduces the
impurities that settle to the bottom of the furnace.  As the fusion process  continues, more bauxite
mixture is added until the  furnace is full.  The furnace is then emptied and the outer impure layer is
stripped off.  The core of  aluminum oxide is then removed to be processed into abrasive grains.

       3.  Cubic boron nitride.  Cubic boron nitride is synthesized in crystal form from hexagonal
boron nitride, which is composed of atoms of boron and  nitrogen. The hexagonal boron nitride is
combined with a catalyst such as metallic lithium at temperatures in the range of 1650°C (3000°F)
and pressures of up to 6,895,000 kilopascals (kPa) (1,000,000 pounds per square inch [psi]).

       4.  Synthetic diamond.  Synthetic diamond is manufactured by subjecting graphite in the
presence of a metal catalyst to pressures in the range of 5,571,000 to 13,100,000 kPa (808,000 to
1,900,000 psi) at temperatures in the range of 1400 to 2500°C (2500 to 4500°F).

Abrasive Grain Processing -
       Abrasive grains for both bonded and coated abrasive products are made by graded crushing
and close sizing  of either natural or synthetic abrasives.   Raw abrasive materials first are crushed by
primary crushers and are then reduced by jaw crushers to manageable size, approximately
19 millimeters (mm) (0.75 inches [in]).  Final  crushing is usually accomplished with roll crushers .that
break up the small pieces into a usable range of sizes. The crushed abrasive grains are then separated
into specific grade sizes by passing  them over a series of screens.  If necessary, the grains are washed
in classifiers to remove slimes, dried, and passed through magnetic separators to remove iron-bearing
material, before  the grains are again closely sized on screens.  This careful sizing is necessary to
prevent contamination of grades by coarser grains. Sizes finer than 0.10  millimeter (mm) (250 grit)
are separated by hydraulic flotation and sedimentation or by air classification.  Figure 11.31-1
presents a process flow diagram for abrasive grain processing.

Bonded Abrasive Products Manufacturing  -
       The grains in bonded abrasive products are held together by one of six types of bonds:
vitrified or ceramic (which account  for more than 50 percent of all grinding wheels), resinoid
(synthetic resin), rubber, shellac,  silicate of soda, or oxychloride of magnesium.  Figure 11.31-2
presents a process flow diagram for the manufacturing of vitrified bonded abrasive products.

       Measured amounts of prepared abrasive grains are moistened and mixed with porosity media
and bond material.  Porosity  media are used for creating voids in the finished wheels and consist of
filler  materials, such as paradichlorobenzene (moth ball crystals) or walnut shells, that are vaporized
during firing.  Feldspar and  clays generally are used as bond materials in vitrified wheels.  The mix
is moistened with water or another temporary binder to make the wheel stick together after it is
pressed.  The mix is then  packed and uniformly distributed into  a steel grinding wheel mold, and
compressed in a hydraulic press under pressures varying from 1,030 to 69,000 kPa (150 to
10,000 psi).  If there is a pore-inducing media in the mix such as paradichlorobenzene, it is removed
in a steam  autoclave. Prior to firing, smaller wheels are dried in continuous dryers; larger wheels are
dried  in humidity-controlled, intermittent dry houses.

       Most vitrified wheels are fired  in continuous tunnel kilns in which the molded wheels ride
through the kiln on a moving belt.  However, large wheels are often fired in bell or periodic kilns.
In the firing process, the wheels are brought slowly to temperatures approaching 1400°C (2500°F)

11.31-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
                                                                   (T)   PM emissions

                                                                   (2)   Gaseous emissions
Abrasives
Material
A A

(Optional)
(SCC 3-05-035-05)


A
V |
Separating
(SCC 3-05-035-08)

> Primary Crushing
(SCC 3-05-035-01)
A
,
^ Screening
^ (SCC 3-05-035-04)


A
;
•^ Screenina
^ (SCC 3-05-035-06)

>„









>_


Secondary Crushing
(SCC 3-05-035-02)
A
v •

Final
Crushing
(SCC 3-05-035-03)


A
r

Classification
(fine sizes)
(SCC 3-05-035-07)

                Figure 11.31-1.  Process flow diagram for abrasive grain processing.
                           (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.31-3
-------
                                                               T) PM emissions

                                                               2) Gaseous emissions
Porosity ]
Media — ^_______^ •


Mixing
(SCC 3-05-036-01)
Water -~

-
i
i
Molding
(SCC 3-05-036-02)

: v
Cooling
(SCC 3-05-036-06)

>„

Final
Machining
(SCC 3-05-036-07)
Firing
or
Curing
(SCC 3-05-036-05)


i i
Drying
(SCC 3-05-036-04)



Steam
Autoclaving
(SCC 3-05-036-03)
 Figure 11.31-2.  Process flow diagram for the manufacturing of vitrified bonded abrasive products.
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.31-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                       1/95
-------
for as long as several days depending on the size of the grinding wheels and the charge.  This slow
temperature ramp fuses the clay bond mixture so that each grain is surrounded by a hard glass-like
bond that has high strength and rigidity.  The wheels are then removed from the kiln and slowly
cooled.

        After cooling, the wheels are checked for distortion, shape, and size.  The wheels are then
machined to final size, balanced, and overspeed tested to ensure operational safety. Occasionally wax
and oil, rosin, or sulfur are applied to improve the cutting effectiveness of the wheel.

        Resin-bonded wheels are produced similarly to vitrified wheels. A thermosetting synthetic
resin, in liquid or powder form, is mixed with the abrasive grain and a plasticizer (catalyst) to allow
the mixture to be molded. The mixture is then hydraulically pressed to size and cured at 150 to
200CC  (300 to 400°F) for a period of from 12 hours to 4 or 5  days depending on  the size of the
wheel.  During the curing period, the mold first  softens and then hardens as the oven reaches curing
temperature.  After cooling, the mold retains its  cured hardness. The remainder of the production
process is  similar to that for vitrified wheels.

        Rubber-bonded wheels are produced by selecting the abrasive grain, sieving it, and kneading
the grain into a natural or synthetic rubber.  Sulfur is added as a vulcanizing agent and then the mix
is rolled between steel calendar rolls to form  a sheet of the  required thickness. The grinding wheels
are cut  out of the rolled sheet to a specified diameter and hole size.  Scraps are kneaded, rolled, and
cut out  again. Then the wheels are vulcanized in molds under  pressure in ovens at approximately
150 to 175°C (300 to 350°F).  The finishing and inspection processes  are similar  to those for other
types of wheels.

        Shellac-bonded wheels represent a small  percentage of the bonded abrasives market.  The
production of these wheels begins by mixing abrasive grain with shellac in a steam-heated mixer,
which thoroughly coats the grain with the bond material (shellac). Wheels 3 mm  (0.125 in.) thick or
less are molded to exact size in heated steel molds.  Thicker wheels are hot-pressed in steel  molds.
After pressing, the wheels are set in quartz sand  and baked  for a few hours at approximately 150°C
(300°F).  The finishing and inspection processes are similar to those for other types of wheels.

        In  addition to grinding wheels, bonded abrasives are formed into blocks, bricks, and sticks for
sharpening and polishing  stones such as oil stones, scythe stones, razor and cylinder hones.  Curved
abrasive blocks and abrasive segments are manufactured for grinding or polishing  curved surfaces.
Abrasive segments can also be combined into large wheels such as pulpstones. Rubber pencil and ink
erasers  contain abrasive grains; similar soft rubber wheels,  sticks, and  other forms are made for
finishing soft metals.

Coated  Abrasive  Products Manufacturing -
        Coated abrasives consist of sized abrasive grains held by a film of adhesive to a flexible
backing. The backing may  be film, cloth, paper, vulcanized fiber, or a combination of these
materials.  Various types  of resins, glues, and varnishes are used as adhesives or bonds.  The glue is
typically animal hide glue.  The resins and varnishes are generally liquid phenolics or ureas, but
depending  on the end use of the abrasive, they may be  modified to yield shorter or longer drying
times, greater strength, more flexibility, or other required properties.  Figure  11.31-3 presents a
process  flow diagram for  the manufacturing of coated abrasive  products.

        The production of coated abrasive products begins with a length of backing, which is passed
through a printing press that imprints the brand name, manufacturer, abrasive, grade number, and
other  identifications on the back. Jumbo rolls typically are  1.3 m (52 in.) wide by 1,372 m

1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.31-5
-------
                                                               PM emissions

                                                               Gaseous emissions
Printing
of
Backing
(SCC 3-05-037-01)

>.
•
"Make" Coat
Application
(SCC 3-05-037-02)
>.

Grain Application
(SCC 3-05-037-03)
1 1
1 1
Final
Drying
and Curing
(SCC 3-05-037-06)


i
"Size" Coat
Application
(SCC 3-05-037-05)


>
f : ;
i >
Drying/Curing
(SCC 3-05-037-04)

          i
            Winding
            of Rolls
       (SCC 3-05-037-07)
        Final
     Production
 (SCC 3-05-037-08)
     Figure 11.31-3.  Process flow diagram for the manufacturing of coated abrasive products.
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.31-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                        1/95
-------
 (1,500 yards [yd]) to 2,744 m (3,000 yd) in length. The shorter lengths are used for fiber-backed
 products, and the longer lengths are used for film-backed abrasives. Then the backing receives the
 first application of adhesive bond, the "make" coat, in a carefully regulated film, varying in
 concentration and quantity according to the particle size of the abrasive to be bonded.  Next, the
 selected abrasive grains are applied either by a mechanical or an electrostatic method.  Virtually all of
 the abrasive grain used for coated abrasive products is either silicon carbide or aluminum oxide,
 augmented by small quantities of natural garnet or emery for woodworking, and minute amounts of
 diamond or CBN.

        In mechanical application, the abrasive grains are poured in a controlled stream onto the
 adhesive-impregnated backing, or the impregnated backing is passed through a tray of abrasive
 thereby picking up the grains. In the electrostatic method, the adhesive-impregnated backing is
 passed adhesive-coated side down over a tray of abrasive grains, while at the same time passing an
 electric current through the abrasive. The electrostatic charge  induced by the current causes the
 grains to imbed upright in the wet bond on the backing.  In effect the sharp cutting edges of the grain
 are bonded perpendicular to the backing.  It also causes the individual grains to be spaced more
 evenly due to individual grain repulsion.  The amount of abrasive grains deposited on the backing can
 be controlled extremely accurately by adjusting  the abrasive stream and manipulating the speed of the
 backing sheet through the abrasive.

        After the abrasive is applied, the product is carried by  a festoon conveyor system through a
 drying chamber to the sizing unit, where a second layer of adhesive, called the size coat or sand size,
 is applied. The size coat unites with the make coat to anchor the abrasive grains securely.  The
 coated material is then carried by another longer festoon conveyor through the final drying and curing
 chamber in which the temperature and humidity are closely controlled to ensure uniform  drying and
 curing. When the bond is properly dried and cured, the coated abrasive is wound into jumbo rolls
 and stored for subsequent conversion into marketable forms of coated abrasives. Finished coated
 abrasives are available as sheets, rolls, belts, discs, bands, cones, and many other specialized forms.

 11.31.3  Emissions And Controls1'7

        Little information is available on emissions from the manufacturing of abrasive grains and
products.  However, based on similar processes in other industries, some assumptions can be made
 about the types of emissions that are  likely to result from abrasives manufacturing.

        Emissions from the production of synthetic abrasive grains, such as  aluminum oxide and
silicon carbide, are likely to consist primarily of paniculate matter (PM), PM less than
 10 micrometers  (PM-10), and carbon monoxide (CO) from the furnaces. The PM and PM-10
emissions are likely to consist of filterable,  inorganic condensable, and organic condensable PM.  The
addition of salt and sawdust to the furnace charge for silicon carbide production is likely  to result in
emissions of chlorides and volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Aluminum oxide processing takes
place in an electric arc furnace and involves temperatures up to 2600 °C (4710°F) with raw materials
of bauxite ore, silica, coke,  iron borings, and a  variety of minerals that include chromium oxide,
cryolite, pyrite,  and silane.  This processing is likely to emit fluorides, sulfides, and metal
constituents  of the feed material. In addition, nitrogen oxides (NOX) are emitted from the Solgel
method of producing  aluminum  oxide.

       The primary emissions from abrasive grain processing  consist of PM and PM-10  from the
crushing, screening, classifying, and drying operations.  Particulate matter also is emitted from
materials handling and transfer operations.  Table 11.31-1  presents emission factors for filterable
PM and CO2 emissions from grain drying operations in metric and English units. Table  11.31-2

1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.31-7
-------
            Table 11.31-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                           ABRASIVE MANUFACTURING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Process
Rotary dryer, sand blasting grit, with wet
scrubber (SCC 3-05-035-05)
Rotary dryer, sand blasting grit, with fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-035-05)
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg
ND
0.0073d
Ib/ton
ND
0.015d
CO2
kg/Mg
22C
ND
Ib/ton
43C
ND
a Emission factors in kg/Mg and Ib/ton of grit fed into dryer.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Reference 9.
d Reference 8.
            Table 11.31-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                           ABRASIVE MANUFACTURING21

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Rotary dryer: sand blasting grit,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-035-05)







Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Mercury
Thallium
Nickel
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
4.0 x 10'5
0.00012
4.1 x icr6
0.0022
0.00048
0.00023
3.1 x 10'5
8.5 x 10'7
4.0 x 10'5
0.0013
Ib/ton
8.1 x 10-5
0.00024
8.2 x 1Q-6
0.0044
0.00096
0.00045
6.1 x 10'5
1.7x 10-6
8.1 x 10'5
0.0026
a Reference 9. Emission factors in kg/Mg and Ib/ton of grit fed into dryer. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
 11.31-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
 presents emission factors developed from the results of a metals analysis conducted on a rotary dryer
 controlled by a wet scrubber.

        Emissions generated in the production of bonded abrasive products may involve a small
 amount of dust generated by handling the loose abrasive, but careful control of sizes of abrasive
 particles limits the amount of fine particulate that can be entrained in the ambient air.  However, for
 products made from finer grit sizes—less than 0.13 mm (200 grit)-PM emissions may be a significant
 problem. The main emissions from production of grinding wheels are generated during the curing of
 the bond structure for wheels.  Heating ovens or kilns emit various types of VOC depending upon the
 composition of the bond system.  Emissions from dryers and kilns also include products of
 combustion, such as CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX), in
 addition to filterable and condensable PM.  Vitrified products produce some emissions as filler
 materials included to provide voids in the wheel structure are vaporized. Curing resins or rubber that
 is used in some types of bond systems  also produce emissions of VOC.  Another small source of
 emissions may be vaporization during curing of portions of the chloride- and sulfur-based materials
 that are included within the bonding structure as grinding aids.

        Emissions that may result from the production of coated abrasive products consist primarily of
 VOC from the curing of the resin bonds and  adhesives used to coat and attach the abrasive grains to
 the fabric or paper backing. Emissions from dryers and curing ovens also may include products of
 combustion, such as CO, CO2, NOX, and SOX, in addition to filterable and condensable PM.
 Emissions that come from conversion of large rolls of coated abrasives into smaller products such as
 sanding belts consist of PM and PM-10. In addition, some VOC may be emitted as a result of the
 volatilization of adhesives used to form joints in those products.

        Fabric filters preceded by cyclones  are used at some facilities to control PM emissions from
 abrasive grain production.  This configuration of control devices can attain controlled emission
 concentrations of 37 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.02 grains per dry standard
 cubic foot) and control efficiencies in excess of 99.9 percent.  Little other information is available on
 the types of controls used by the abrasives industry to control PM emissions.  However, it is assumed
 that other conventional devices such as scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators can be used to control
 PM emissions from abrasives grain and products manufacturing.

        Scrubbers are used at some facilities to  control NOX emissions  from  aluminum oxide
 production.  In addition, thermal oxidizers are often used in the coated abrasives industry to control
 emissions of VOC.

 References For Section  11.31

 1.     Telephone communication between Ted Giese, Abrasive Engineering  Society, and
       R. Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, March 1, 1993.

2.     Stuart C. Salmon, Modern Grinding Process Technology,  McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
        1992.

3.     Richard P. Hight, Abrasives, Industrial Minerals And Rocks, Volume 1, Society of Mining
       Engineers, New York, NY,  1983.

4.     Richard L. McKee, Machining  With Abrasives, Van Nostrand Reinnold Company, New York,
        1982.
1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                            11.31-9
-------
5.     Kenneth B. Lewis, and William F. Schleicher, The Grinding Wheel, 3rd edition, The
       Grinding Wheel Institute, Cleveland, OH, 1976.

6.     Coated Abrasives-Modern Tool of Industry, 1st edition, Coated Abrasives Manufacturers'
       Institute, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1958.

7.     Written communication between Robert Renz, 3M Environmental Engineering and Pollution
       Control, and R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 8, 1994.

8.     Source Sampling Report:  Measurement Of Particulates Rotary Dryer, MDC Corporation,
       Philadelphia, PA, Applied Geotechnical and Environmental Service Corp., Valley Forge,  PA,
       March 18, 1992.

9.     Source Sampling Report for Measurement Of Paniculate And Heavy Metal Emissions, MDC
       Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, November 1988.
 11.31-10                           EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
                      12.  METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY
       The metallurgical industry can be broadly divided into primary and secondary metal production
 operations.  Primary refers to the production of metal from ore.  Secondary refers to production of
 alloys from  ingots and to recovery of metal from scrap and salvage.

       The primary metals industry includes both ferrous and nonferrous operations.  These processes
 are characterized by emission of large quantities of sulfur oxides and paniculate. Secondary
 metallurgical processes are also discussed, and the major air contaminant from such activi,,  is
 particulate in the forms of metallic fumes, smoke, and dust.
1/95                               Metallurgical Industry                              12.0-1
-------
 12.1  Primary Aluminum Production

 12.1.1  General1

        Primary aluminum refers to aluminum produced directly from mined ore. The ore is refined
 and electrolytically reduced to elemental aluminum. There are 13 companies operating 23 primary
 aluminum reduction facilities in the U. S. In 1991, these facilities produced 4.1 million megagrams
 (Mg) (4.5 million tons) of primary aluminum.

 12.1.2  Process Description2"3

        Primary aluminum production begins with the mining of bauxite ore, a hydrated oxide of
 aluminum consisting of 30 to 56 percent alumina  (A12O3) and lesser amounts of iron, silicon, and
 titanium.  The ore is refined into alumina by the Bayer process. The alumina  is then shipped to  a
 primary aluminum plant for electrolytic reduction to aluminum. The refining and reducing processes
 are seldom accomplished at the same facility.  A schematic diagram of primary aluminum production
 is shown in Figure 12.1-1.

 12.1.2.1 Bayer Process Description -
        In the Bayer process, crude bauxite ore is dried, ground in ball mills, and mixed with a
 preheated spent leaching solution of sodium  hydroxide (NaOH). Lime (CaO) is added to control
 phosphorus content and to improve the solubility of alumina.  The resulting slurry is combined with
 sodium hydroxide and pumped  into a pressurized  digester operated at 105 to 290°C  (221  to 554°F).
 After approximately 5 hours, the slurry of sodium aluminate (NaAl2OH) solution and insoluble red
 mud is  cooled to 100°C  (212°F) and sent through either a gravity separator or a wet cyclone to
 remove coarse sand particles.  A flocculent,  such  as starch, is added to increase the settling rate of
 the red  mud.  The overflow from the settling tank contains the alumina in solution, which is further
 clarified by filtration and then cooled.  As the solution cools, it becomes supersaturated with sodium
 aluminate.  Fine crystals of alumina trihydrate (A1203 • 3H2O) are seeded in the solution, causing the
 alumina to precipitate out as alumina trihydrate.  After being washed and filtered, the alumina
 trihydrate is calcined to produce a crystalline form of alumina, which is advantageous for electrolysis.

 12.1.2.2 Hall-Heroult Process  -
        Crystalline A12O3 is used in the Hall-Heroult process to produce aluminum metal.
 Electrolytic reduction of alumina occurs in shallow rectangular cells, or "pots", which are steel shells
 lined with carbon.  Carbon electrodes extending into the pot serve as the anodes, and the  carbon
 lining as the cathode.  Molten cryolite (Na3AlF6)  functions as both the  electrolyte and the solvent for
 the alumina.  The electrolytic reduction of A12O3  by the carbon from the electrode occurs as follows:

                                2A12O3 + 3C  -* 4A1 + 3CO2                              (1)

        Aluminum is deposited  at the cathode, where it remains as molten metal below the surface of
the cryolite bath.  The carbon anodes are continuously depleted by the reaction. The aluminum
product is tapped every 24 to 48 hours beneath the cryolite cover, using a vacuum siphon.  The
 aluminum is then transferred to a reverberatory holding furnace where it is alloyed, fluxed, and
degassed to remove trace impurities.  (Aluminum  reverberatory furnace operations are discussed  in
detail in Section 12.8,  "Secondary Aluminum Operations".) From the holding furnace., the aluminum
is cast or transported to fabricating plants.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.1-1
-------
                                                                                          a>
                                                                                          C-

                                                                                          c
                                                                                         T3
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         c/3

                                                                                         —

                                                                                         U
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         00
                                                                                         0)
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         C
                                                                                         C
                                                                                         _o
                                                                                         "O
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         £
                                                                                         3
                                                                                         S
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         fcO
                                                                                        £
12.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
        Three types of aluminum reduction cells are now in use: prebaked anode cell (PB), horizontal
 stud Soderberg anode cell (HSS), and vertical stud Soderberg anode cell (VSS).  Most of the
 aluminum produced in the U. S. is processed using the prebaked cells.

        All three aluminum cell configurations require a "paste" (petroleum coke mixed with a pitch
 binder). Paste preparation includes crushing, grinding, and screening of coke and blending with a
 pitch binder in a steam jacketed mixer.  For Soderberg anodes, the thick paste mixture  is added
 directly to the anode casings. In contrast, the prebaked ("green") anodes  are produced  as an ancillary
 operation at a reduction plant.

        In prebake anode preparation, the paste mixture is molded into green anode blocks ("butts")
 that are baked in either a direct-fired ring furnace or a Reid Hammer furnace, which is  indirectly
 heated. After baking, steel rods are inserted and sealed with molten iron.  These rods become the
 electrical  connections to the prebaked carbon anode. Prebaked cells are preferred over  Soderberg
 cells because they are electrically more efficient and emit fewer organic compounds.

 12.1.3  Emissions And Controls2"9'12

        Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for total paniculate matter, gaseous fluoride, and
 participate fluoride are given in Tables 12.1-1 and 12.1-2.  Tables 12.1-3 and 12.1-4 give available
 data for size-specific particulate matter emissions for primary aluminum industry processes.

        In bauxite grinding, hydrated aluminum oxide calcining, and materials handling operations,
 various dry dust collection devices (centrifugal collectors,  multiple cyclones, or ESPs and/or wet
 scrubbers) have been used. Large amounts of particulate are generated during the calcining of
 hydrated aluminum oxide, but the economic value of this dust leads to the use of extensive controls
 which reduce emissions to relatively small quantities.

        Emissions from aluminum reduction processes are primarily gaseous hydrogen fluoride and
 particulate fluorides, alumina, carbon monoxide, volatile organics, and sulfur dioxide (S02) from the
 reduction cells.  The source of fluoride emissions from reduction cells is the fluoride electrolyte,
 which contains cryolite, aluminum fluoride (A1F3), and fluorospar (CaF2).

        Particulate emissions from reduction cells include alumina and carbon from anode dusting,
 and cryolite, aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite (Na5Al3F14), and ferric oxide.
 Representative  size distributions for fugitive emissions from PB and HSS plants, and for particulate
 emissions from HSS cells, are presented in Tables 12.1-3 and 12.1-4.

        Emissions from reduction cells also include  hydrocarbons or organics, carbon monoxide, and
 sulfur oxides. These emission factors are not presented here because of a lack of data.  Small
 amounts of hydrocarbons are released by PB pots, and larger amounts are emitted from HSS and VSS
pots.  In vertical cells, these organics are incinerated in integral gas burners. Sulfur oxides originate
from sulfur in the anode coke and pitch, and concentrations of sulfur oxides in VSS cell emissions
range from 200 to 300 parts per million.  Emissions from  PB plants usually have S07 concentrations
ranging from 20 to 30 parts per million.

        Emissions from anode bake ovens include the products of fuel  combustion; high boiling
organics from the cracking, distillation, and oxidation of paste binder pitch; sulfur dioxide from the
sulfur in carbon paste, primarily from the petroleum coke; fluorides from recycled anode butts; and
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.1-3
-------
      Table 12.1-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM
                          PRODUCTION PROCESSES^

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Operation
Bauxite grinding11
(SCC 3-03-000-01)
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower and spray screen
Aluminum hydroxide calcining6
(SCC 3-03-002-01)
Uncontrolledf
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower
ESP
Anode baking furnace
(SCC 3-03-001-05)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-11)
Spray tower
ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Prebake cell
(SCC 3-03-001-01)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-08)
Emissions to collector
Crossflow packed bed
Multiple cyclones
Spray tower
Dry ESP plus spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Dry alumina scrubber
Coated bag filter dry scrubber
Dry plus secondary scrubber
Total
Particulate0


3.0
0.9
0.85
0.5


100.0
30.0
28.0
17.0
2.0


1.5
ND
0.375
0.375
0.03


47.0
2.5
44.5
13.15
9.8
8.9
2.25
8.9
0.9
0.9
0.35
Gaseous
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.45
ND
0.02
0.02
0.004


12.0
0.6
11.4
3.25
11.4
0.7
0.7
0.25
0.1
1.7
0.2
Particulate
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.05
ND
0.015
0.015
0.001


10.0
0.5
9.5
2.8
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.15
References


1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3


1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3


2,10-11
ND
10
2
2,10


1-2,10-11
2,10
2
10
2
2
2,10
2
2,10
2
10
12.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                     Table 12.1-1  (com.)-
Operation
Vertical Soderberg stud cell
(SCC 3-03-001-03)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-10)
Emissions to collector
Multiple cyclones
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Dry alumina scrubber
Scrubber plus ESP plus spray
screen and scrubber
Horizontal Soderberg stud cell
(SCC 3-03-001-02)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 30300109)
Emissions to collector
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Scrubber plus wet ESP
Wet ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Total
Particulatec


39.0
6.0
33.0
16.5
8.25
1.3
0.65

3.85


49.0
5.0
44.0
11.0
9.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
Gaseous
Fluoride


16.5
2.45
14.05
14.05
0.15
0.15
0.15

0.75


11.0
1.1
9.9
3.75
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
Paniculate
Fluoride


5.5
0.85
4.65
2.35
1.15
0.2
0.1

0.65


6.0
0.6
5.4
1.35
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
References


2,10
10
10
2
2
2
2

2


2,10
2,10
2,10
2,10
2
2,10
10
10
a Units are kilograms (kg) of pollutant/Mg of molten aluminum produced.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b Sulfur oxides may be estimated, with an EMISSION FACTOR RATING of C, by the following
  calculations.
               Anode baking furnace, uncontrolled S02 emissions (excluding furnace
               fuel combustion emissions):
                           20(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) kg/Mg  (Metric units)
                     40(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) pounds/ton (Ib/ton)   (English units)
                      Prebake (reduction) cell, uncontrolled SO2 emissions:
                              0.2(C)(S)(K) kg/Mg   (Metric units)
                              0.4(C)(S)(K) Ib/ton    (English units)
               where:
                      C  =  Anode consumption* during electrolysis, Ib anode consumed/lb
                            Al produced (English units)
                      S  =  % sulfur in anode before baking
                      K  =  % of total SO2 emitted by prebake (reduction) cells.

               *Anode consumption weight is weight of anode paste (coke + pitch)
               before baking.

c Includes paniculate fluorides, but does not include condensable organic paniculate.
d For bauxite grinding, units are kg of pollutant/Mg of bauxite processed.
e For aluminum hydroxide calcining,  units are kg of pollutant/Mg of alumina produced.
f After multicyclones.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.1-5
-------
      Table 12.1-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM
                         PRODUCTION PROCESSES4-15

                        EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A
Operation
Bauxite grindingd
(SCC 3-03-000-01)
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower and spray
screen
Aluminum hydroxide calcining6
(SCC 3-03-002-01)
Uncontrolledf
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower
ESP
Anode baking furnace
(SCC 3-03-001-05)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-11)
Spray tower
ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Prebake cell
(SCC 3-03-001-01)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-08)
Emissions to collector
Multiple cyclones
Dry alumina scrubber
Dry ESP plus spray tower
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Coated bag filter dry scrubber
Crossflow packed bed
Dry plus secondary scrubber
Total
Particulate0


6.0
1.8
1.7

1.0


200.0
60.0
56.0
34.0
4.0


3.0
ND
0.75
0.75
0.06


94.0
5.0
89.0
19.6
1.8
4.5
112.8
112.8
1.8
26.3
0.7
Gaseous
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg

Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.9
ND
0.04
0.04
0.009


24.0
1.2
22.8
22.8
0.2
1.4
1.4
0.5
3.4
6.7
0.4
Paniculate
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg

Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.1
ND
0.03
0.03
0.002


20.0
1.0
19.0
4.2
0.4
3.4
3.8
3.8
0.4
5.6
0.3
Reference


1,3
1,3
1,3

1,3


1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3


2,10-11
ND
10
2
2,10


1-2,10-11
2,10
2
2
2,10
2,10
2
2
2
10
10
12.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                      Table ,12.1-2 (cont.).
Operation
Vertical Soderberg stud cell
(SCC 3-03-001-03)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-10)
Emissions to collector
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Multiple cyclones
Dry alumina scrubber
Scrubber plus ESP plus spray
screen and scrubber
Horizontal Soderberg stud cell
(SCC 3-03-001-02)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-09)
Emissions to collector
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Scrubber plus wet ESP
Wet ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Total
Particulate0


78.0
12.0
66.0
16.5
2.6
33.0
1.3

7.7


98.0
10.0
88.0
22.0
19.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
Gaseous
Fluoride


33.0
4.9
28.1
0.3
0.3
28.1
0.3

1.5


22.0
2.2
19.8
7.5
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.4
Particulate
Fluoride


11.0
1.7
9.3
2.3
0.4
4.7
0.2

1.3


12.0
1.2
10.8
2.7
2.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
Reference


2,10
10
10
2
2
2
2

2


2,10
2,10
2,10
2,10
2
2,10
10
10
a Units are Ib of pollutant/ton of molten aluminum produced.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Sulfur oxides may be estimated, with an EMISSION FACTOR RATING of C, by the following
  calculations.
               Anode baking furnace, uncontrolled S02 emissions (excluding furnace fuel
               combustion emissions):
                            20(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) kg/Mg  (Metric units)
                            40(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) Ib/ton   (English units)
               Prebake (reduction) cell, uncontrolled SO-) emissions:
                              0.2(C)(S)(K) kg/Mg   (Metric units)
                              0.4(C)(S)(K) Ib/ton   (English units)
               where:
                      C  = Anode consumption* during electrolysis, Ib anode consumed/lb Al
                            produced
                      S  = % sulfur in anode before baking
                      K  = % of total  SO9 emitted by prebake (reduction) cells.

               *Anode consumption weight is weight of anode paste (coke + pitch)
               before baking.

c Includes paniculate fluorides,  but does not include condensable organic paniculate.
d For bauxite grinding, units are Ib of pollutant/ton of bauxite processed.
e For aluminum hydroxide calcining, units are Ib of pollutant/ton of alumina produced.
f After multicyclones.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.1-7
-------
  N


  W

  U
  H
  Q
  Z
  h u
•S Q


*U(


S

rri




_a>


H
         I
^B
TROLLED EM
N IN ALUMIN
UNCON
JBUTIO
S
• H
^H
..
:TOR RATING
£
z
o
CO
CO
•«-!
         w



tfl
"aJ
v^
C
.0
o

"8
ttS
CO
CO
ac





"3
w
E
3
C
E
_3
C/3
CO
ac






"3
U
c
'g
J3
<
SB
•8
ft.















« B
.> es
« "*
"3 g
S>*H
_ s*
3 03
CJ 'g
W


^ CO
*rt
3^ d5
1 £
CJ ^
IM
o
3* o
_> CTS
1 §
E -s
3 _!£
E
u

CA O
c§ .S
51
'S CO
Ivi
3 _
U fcs


o
> «
1 g
1 1
^J "c
u

vi  "S
.S IS
Ivi
3
u ^


^
_^
u
N

CO

—
"o
t
03
O.



t** f** ^ *^i ^ ON
C^ >O ON *^ OO O ON
^H — . ^H cS  c** c*^ *~* Os O
'"-« *—* C*^ ro P^ O






ro vo O oo in CN
fO ^" t**- CO **J* ^^ V^
o o o ~* ~ — - oi





f*1^ OO OO C'l OO Vs) O







-^

cs m •%:
vo CM in ,0
o" -H cs m o in ^































•8
CJ
3
1
C.
1 s
11
« "pg
-.v.?
^ ^4
jjf rt <
O ^
e3 ** 0«
•52 > g
I'i^
i-1 5 <


Ifl CO i
-------
  N

  So




  O
  0.

  Q

  Z



  «« Z   *?

  §2   1
  Si
  &O v<
  oo ^;

  §g
  w|


  a|

  d^
  o z
  Qi S
  H y

  §1
  U H
  Z D
  S>
  F2
TING:
o
H
O


tu



O

GO
  •Is   2



J2
4}
u
c
.2
o

1
c/o
C/3
EC





t/3
"33
U
£
3
C
£
^
c/5
00
a






u
^
"53
U
£
3
_C
£'""
3
<
1



t-l
2
w £ 1
.> CO
CO
3 Q
£ "&s
3 _»2
'E
w


1 .§
T3
JU flj
•si
Ivi
U fcS
t-l
2
> CO
•-S tu
CO
11
3 W2
u -g
^J

(A 0)
CO .S
>1
3
U £8

0

> CO
*p MI^
CO
"g 5
3 [n
u -g

U
« «
« .a
•s 3
J2 V5
£ VI
3
u fc-

If
3-
.§
GO
_«
'S
CO
cu




«ri TJ- ts p oo r~
(/•j — J Os" Os sO ••" OO
CS P^> f^ **^ V) ^D Os








vo  o





oo ro t1^ rO ^-^ Ov O
O ^ ^ c*i rn r*^ O






OO to I"- rO *"' ON O
^— H ^-H c^ r^ fi O







r* CM o wo o ro

O O -^ ci CN en 
1 1^
1^
ft!
03 .



































t«H
4>
«
£
.2
^3
 r )
'!<
cS "*
_- Z
«! OO
2 oo
*-i >— i

X i^i
U U
o u
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
                       Metallurgical Industry
12.1-9
-------
other particulate matter.  Emission factors for these components are not included in this document due
to insufficient data. Concentrations of uncontrolled SO2 emissions from anode baking furnaces range
from 5 to 47 parts per million (based on 3 percent sulfur in coke).

       High molecular weight organics and other emissions from the anode paste are released from
HSS and VSS cells.  These emissions  can be ducted to gas burners to be oxidized, or they can be
collected and recycled or sold.  If the heavy tars are not properly collected, they can cause plugging
of exhaust ducts, fans, and emission control equipment.

       A variety of control devices has been used to abate emissions from reduction cells and anode
baking furnaces.  To control gaseous and particulate fluorides and particulate emissions,  1 or more
types of wet scrubbers (spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds,
Venturis) have been applied to all 3 types  of reduction cells and to anode baking furnaces. In
addition, particulate control methods such as wet and dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), multiple
cyclones,  and dry alumina scrubbers (fluid bed, injected, and coated filter types) are used on all 3  cell
types and with anode baking furnaces.

       The fluoride adsorption system is becoming more prevalent and is used on all 3 cell types.
This system uses a fluidized bed of alumina, which has a high  affinity for fluoride, to capture gaseous
and particulate fluorides.  The pot offgases  are passed through  the crystalline form of alumina, which
was generated using the Bayer process. A fabric filter is operated downstream from the fluidized bed
to capture the alumina dust entrained in the exhaust gases passing through the fluidized bed. Both the
alumina used in the fluidized bed and that captured by the fabric filter are used as feedstock for the
reduction  cells, thus effectively recycling  the fluorides.  This system has an overall control efficiency
of 99 percent for both gaseous and particulate fluorides.  Wet ESPs approach adsorption in particulate
removal efficiency, but they must be coupled to a wet scrubber or coated baghouse to catch hydrogen
fluoride.

       Scrubber systems also remove a portion of the SO2 emissions. These emissions could be
reduced by wet scrubbing or by reducing  the quantity of sulfur in the anode coke and pitch, i.  e.,
calcining the  coke.

       The molten aluminum may be  batch treated in furnaces to  remove oxide, gaseous impurities,
and active metals such as sodium and magnesium.  One process consists of adding a flux of chloride
and fluoride salts and then bubbling chlorine gas, usually mixed with an inert gas, through the molten
mixture.   Chlorine reacts with the impurities to form HC1, A12O3  and metal chloride emissions.  A
dross forms on the molten aluminum and  is removed before casting.

       Potential sources  of fugitive particulate emissions in the primary aluminum industry are
bauxite grinding, materials handling, anode baking, and  the 3 types of reduction cells (see
Tables 12.1-1 and  12.1-2). These fugitive emissions probably  have particulate size distributions
similar to those presented in Tables  12.1-3 and  12.1-4.

References For Section 12.1

1.     Mineral  Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Bureau Of Mines, Department Of The Interior,
       Washington, DC.

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

12.1-10                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
3.     Air Pollution Control In The Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume I, EPA-450/3-73-004a,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1973.

4.     Paniculate Pollutant System Study,  Volume I, APTD-0743, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1971.

5.     Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Repon For The Nonferrous Industry,
       Contract No. 68-02-3159,  Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, October 1985.

6.     Emissions From Wet Scrubbing System, Y-7730-E, York Research Corporation,
       Stamford, CT, May 1972.

7.     Emissions From Primary Aluminum  Smelting Plant, Y-7730-B, York Research Corporation,
       Stamford, CT, June 1972.

8.     Emissions From The Wet Scrubber System, Y-7730-F, York Research Corporation,
       Stamford, CT, June 1972.

9.     T. R. Hanna and M. J. Pilat, "Size  Distribution Of Particulates Emitted From A Horizontal
       Spike Soderberg Aluminum Reduction Cell", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control
       Association, 22:533-5367,  July 1972.

10.    Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Primary Aluminum Industry: Volume
       I, Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-020a, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

11.    Primary Aluminum: Guidelines For Control Of Fluoride Emissions From Existing Primary
       Aluminum Plants, EPA-450/2-78-049b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1979.

12.    Written communication from T. F. Albee, Reynolds Aluminum,  Richmond, VA, to
       A. A. McQueen, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 20, 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                             12.1-11
-------
12.2  Coke Production

12.2.1  General

        Metallurgical coke is produced by destructive distillation of coal in coke ovens.  Prepared coal
is "coked", or heated in an oxygen-free atmosphere until all volatile components in the coal
evaporate.  The material remaining is  called coke.

        Most metallurgical coke is used in iron and steel industry processes such as blast furnaces,
sinter plants, and foundries to reduce iron ore to iron.  Over 90 percent of the total metallurgical coke
production is dedicated to blast furnace operations.

        Most coke plants are co-located with iron and steel production facilities.  Coke demand is
dependent on the iron and steel industry.  This represents a continuing decline from the about
40 plants that were operating in 1987.

12.2.2  Process Description1-2

        All metallurgical  coke is produced using the "byproduct" method.  Destructive distillation
("coking")  of coal occurs in  coke ovens without contact with air.  Most U. S. coke plants use the
Kopper-Becker byproduct oven. These ovens must remain airtight under the cyclic stress of
expansion and contraction.  Each oven has 3 main parts:  coking chambers, heating chambers, and
regenerative chambers.  All  of the chambers are lined with refractory (silica) brick.  The coking
chamber has ports in the top for charging of the coal.

        A coke oven battery  is a series of 10 to  100 coke ovens operated together.  Figure 12.2-1
illustrates a byproduct coke oven battery. Each oven holds between 9 to 32 megagrams  (Mg) (10 to
35 tons) of coal.  Offtake flues on either end remove gases produced.  Process heat comes from the
combustion of gases between the coke chambers.  Individual coke ovens operate intermittently, with
run times of each oven coordinated to  ensure a consistent flow of collectible gas.  Approximately
40 percent  of cleaned oven gas (after the removal of its byproducts) is used to heat the coke ovens.
The rest is either used in other production processes related to steel production or sold.  Coke oven
gas is the most common fuel for underfiring coke ovens.

        A typical coke manufacturing process is shown schematically in Figure 12.2-2. Coke
manufacturing includes preparing, charging, and heating the coal; removing and cooling the coke
product; and cooling, cleaning, and recycling the oven gas.

        Coal is prepared for  coking by pulverizing so that 80 to 90 percent passes through a
3.2 millimeter (1/8 inch)  screen.  Several types  of coal  may be blended to produce the desired
properties,  or to control the expansion of the coal mixture in the oven.  Water or oil may be added to
adjust the density of the coal to control expansion and prevent damage to the oven.

        Coal may be added to the ovens in either a dry  or wet state. Prepared wet coal is finely
crushed before charging to the oven.  Flash-dried coal  may be transported directly to the ovens by the
hot gases used for moisture removal.  Wall  temperatures should stay above  1100°C (2000°F) during
loading operations and actual coking.  The ports are closed after charging and sealed with luting
("mud") material.


1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.2-1
-------
                                                                                         83
                                                                                         

                                                                                        I
                                                                                        CS
                                                                                        Q.
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        u

                                                                                        o
                                                                                        'i
                                                                                        O



                                                                                        1
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        CO
                                                                                        'o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        §
                                                                                        u
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        a>
                                                                                        4_*

                                                                                        eo
                                                                                        ^2


                                                                                        4)

                                                                                        O
                                                                                        8
                                                                                        3
                                                                                       •a
                                                                                        o
                                                                                       CQ
                                                                                       CN
                                                                                        3
                                                                                        tfl
                                                                                       tz
12.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                                                                                                    "J "2
is

HYDROGEN
SULFIDE
*™

SCRUBBING
TOWER

co
5
t-
X
0
*—

ABSORPTION
TOWER

z
111
_1
<
X
t-
X
o_
<
z

3-
AMMON
SULFA
4—
-

CONDENSER


SATURATOR





                                                                                                                   03


                                                                                                                   C
                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                   U
                                                                                                            03
                                                                                                            G
                                                                                                            4)
                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            on
                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                   OH


                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                   c
                                                                                                                   CTS
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   u
                                                                                                            bo
                                                                                                            C
                                                                                                            *c
                                                                                                            3




                                                                                                            C

                                                                                                            1



                                                                                                            O


                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                   Ofl
                                                                                                                  .2
                                                                                                                  •3
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                  SI
                                                                                                                  (SI
                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                   oo
1/95
                                       Metallurgical  Industry
12.2-3
-------
        The blended coal mass is heated for 12 to 20 hours for metallurgical coke.  Thermal energy
from the walls of the coke chamber heats the coal mass by conduction from the sides to the middle of
the coke chamber.  During the coking process, the charge is in direct contact with the heated wall
surfaces and develops into an aggregate "plastic zone".  As additional thermal energy is absorbed, the
plastic zone thickens and merges toward the middle of the charge.  Volatile gases escape in front of
the developing zone due to heat progression from the side walls.  The maximum temperature attained
at the center of the coke mass is usually 1100 to 1150°C (2000 to 2100°F).  This distills all volatile
matter from the coal mass and forms a high-quality metallurgical coke.

        After coking is completed (no volatiles remain), the coke in the chamber is ready to be
removed. Doors on both  sides of the chamber are opened and a ram is inserted into the chamber.
The coke is pushed out of the oven in less than  1 minute, through the coke guide and into a quench
car. After the coke is pushed from the oven, the doors  are cleaned and repositioned. The oven is
then ready to receive another charge of coal.

        The quench car carrying the hot coke moves along the battery tracks to a quench tower where
approximately 1130 liters  (L) of water per Mg of coke (270 gallons of water per ton) are sprayed
onto the coke mass to cool it from about 1100 to 80°C (2000 to 180°F) and to prevent it from
igniting. The quench car  may rely on a movable hood to collect paniculate emissions, or it may have
a scrubber car attached.  The car then discharges the coke onto a wharf to drain and continue cooling.
Gates on the wharf are opened to allow the coke to fall onto a conveyor that carries it to the crushing
and screening station. After sizing, coke is sent to the blast furnace or to storage.

        The primary purpose of modern coke ovens is the production of quality coke for the iron and
steel industry.  The recovery of coal chemicals is an economical necessity, as they equal
approximately 35 percent of the value of the coal.

        To produce quality metallurgical coke, a high-temperature carbonization process is used.
High-temperature carbonization,  which takes place above 900°C (1650°F), involves  chemical
conversion of coal into a mostly  gaseous product. Gaseous products from high-temperature
carbonization consist of hydrogen,  methane, ethylene, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,  hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia,  and nitrogen.  Liquid products include water, tar, and crude light oil.  The coking
process produces approximately 338,000 L of coke oven gas (COG) per megagram of coal charged
(10,800 standard cubic feet of COG per ton).

        During the coking cycle, volatile matter driven from the coal mass passes upward through
cast iron "goosenecks" into a common horizontal steel pipe (called the collecting main), which
connects all the ovens in series.  This unpurified "foul"  gas contains water vapor, tar, light oils, solid
paniculate of coal  dust, heavy hydrocarbons, and complex carbon compounds.  The  condensable
materials are removed from the exhaust gas to obtain purified coke oven gas.

        As it leaves the coke chamber, coke oven coal gas is initially cleaned with a weak ammonia
spray,  which condenses some tar and ammonia from the gas.  This liquid condensate flows down the
collecting main until it reaches a settling tank.  Collected ammonia is used in the weak ammonia
spray,  while the rest is pumped to an ammonia still.  Collected coal tar is pumped to a storage tank
and sold to tar distillers, or used as fuel.

        The remaining gas is cooled as it passes through a condenser and  then compressed by an
exhauster.  Any remaining coal tar is removed by a tar extractor,  either by impingement  against a
metal surface or collection by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP).  The gas still  contains 75 percent of
original ammonia and 95 percent of the original light oils.  Ammonia is removed by passing the gas

12.2-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
 through a saturator containing a 5 to 10 percent solution of sulfuric acid. In the saturator, ammonia
 reacts with sulfuric acid to form ammonium sulfate.  Ammonium sulfate is then crystallized and
 removed. The gas is further cooled, resulting in the condensation of naphthalene.  The light oils are
 removed in an absorption tower containing water mixed with "straw oil" (a heavy fraction of
 petroleum).  Straw oil acts as an absorbent for the light oils, and is later heated to release the light
 oils for recovery and refinement. The last cleaning step is the removal of hydrogen sulfide from the
 gas.  This is normally done in a scrubbing tower containing a solution of ethanolamine (Girbotol),
 although several other methods have been used in the past.  The clean coke oven coal gas is used as
 fuel for the coke ovens, other plant combustion processes, or sold.

 12.2.3 Emissions And Controls

        Particulate, VOCs, carbon monoxide and other emissions originate from several byproduct
 coking operations:  (1) coal preparation,  (2) coal preheating (if used), (3) coal charging, (4) oven
 leakage during the coking period, (5) coke removal, (6) hot coke quenching and (7) underfire
 combustion stacks.  Gaseous emissions collected from the ovens during the coking process are
 subjected to various operations  for separating ammonia, coke oven gas, tar, phenol,  light oils
 (benzene, toluene, xyiene), and pyridine.  These unit operations are potential sources of VOC
 emissions.   Small emissions may occur when transferring coal between conveyors or from conveyors
 to bunkers.  Figure 12.2-2 portrays major emission points from a typical coke oven  battery.

        The emission factors available for coking operations for total particulate, sulfur dioxide,
 carbon monoxide, VOCs, nitrogen oxides,  and ammonia are given in Tables 12.2-1  and 12.2-2.
 Tables 12.2-3 and 12.2-4 give size-specific emission factors for coking operations.

        A few domestic plants preheat the coal to about 260°C (SOOT) before charging, using a flash
 drying column heated by the combustion of coke oven gas or by natural gas. The air stream that
 conveys coal through the drying column usually passes through conventional wet scrubbers  for
 particulate removal before discharging to the atmosphere. Leaks occasionally occur from charge lids
 and oven doors during pipeline charging  due to the positive pressure. Emissions from the other
 methods are similar to conventional wet charging.

        Oven charging can produce significant emissions of particulate matter and VOCs from coal
 decomposition if not properly controlled.  Charging techniques can draw most charging emissions  into
 the battery collecting main.  Effective control requires that goosenecks and the collecting main
 passages be cleaned frequently to prevent obstructions.

        During the coking cycle, VOC  emissions from the thermal distillation process can occur
 through poorly sealed doors, charge lids, offtake caps, collecting main, and cracks that may develop
 in oven brickwork.  Door leaks may be controlled by diligent door cleaning and maintenance,
 rebuilding doors, and, in some plants, by manual application of lute (seal) material.  Charge lid and
 offtake leaks may be controlled by an effective patching and luting program. Pushing coke  into the
 quench car is another major source of particulate emissions.  If the coke mass is not fully coked,
 VOCs and combustion products will be emitted.  Most facilities control pushing emissions by using
 mobile scrubber cars with hoods, shed enclosures evacuated to a gas cleaning device, or traveling
 hoods with a fixed duct leading to a stationary gas cleaner.

       Coke quenching entrains paniculate from the coke mass.  In addition, dissolved solids from
the quench water may become entrained in the steam plume rising from the tower.  Trace organic
 compounds may also be present.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.2-5
-------
  o
  SS
  D
  o
  u

  Qi

  2
  8
  o
  <;
  tu
  2
  on
  U




  en
  •4—*

  'S
O** otf o
O Jr

1
s
^05 o
2 o z
to o H
s £ S
m fc »

X
O
Z
^ t"^ ^^
^3 r \ C-ri
o"
U
O
o * O
2 o z
co H S
co o H
§ < <
U *

o
O
0
S * 0
2 O 2
co H --
co r_> H
§ < <
U *"
oH
CO
5 QJ o
2 o §

"B
1
'•e




c
o
!
o
0
*


z
^^
z

z


z
z
<
z


z



^
z


z


z


Q
i
o

o

en
8
en
9
en
U
CO,
BO c
C o
IS ~
2 ^*
0 £
"S :>
o !>•
U































in"
' ,4
cn
g
en
en
U
O
co
00
_c
J
1
c.
~a
o
CJ

ZZZ
Q Q Q
ZZZ

ZZZ


Q Q Q
ZZZ
ZZZ
Q Q Q
ZZZ


ZZZ



Q Q Q
ZZZ


ZZZ


Q Q Q
ZZZ


o o o
sSl
— 0 0






2 I u
11"
c =» *
O r- _ff
o •£ •£
c -^r ^
D ^ £


Q < <
0 Z Z
o Q Q
6 Z Z

Q Z Z


S ||
QZZ
eN Q Q
^ z z


Qzz



en Q Q
c» Z Z


Q < <
Q Z Z


o Q Q
o" Z Z


WWW
oo r-
S 88
O O O





2 -|
£?rr- _g
_« o «*
u-^ S *2 *-•
"Tao § T3 '5 2^
•snS 1 | ^
£?9 g =. =
etf -k i3 S O
.C C «» «"
c u § ^ £
^S,D ^^
O

Q
8
o

Q

VI
8
o
Q
V,
o


O



en
O


Q





Q
es
0
§


o
en
O
en
O
0
CO
cfl
IS
ven door
Uncontro
O

Q
8
0

Z


Q
Z
Q

o


Q


v>
en
o
o


Z


Q
Z


PQ
oo
0

en
o
en
o
O
8
en
O
u
Q
^ !§
'•S 2
g.§
c c
s 5
o

z z z
Q Q Q
ZZZ

zzz


Q Q Q
ZZZ
Q Q Q

0 O 0


Q Q Q


>/i vn in
en en en
O O O
O O O


ZZZ


Q Q Q
ZZZ


U Q Q
es o\ rt-
cs o o
o o o





u
"""S
M '§ §
ft = *§>
CO 0) 03
W > ^o
.C J= -C
III


z
Q
Z

Z


Q
Z
Q

0


Q


VI
en
o
o


Z


Q
Z


O
8
o




"E,
u
u
U
1
o
en
*H
1


Z
Q
Z

Z


<
<
Q
Z


Z



Q
Z


Z


z


Q
CN
es



5~
o
i
en
0 j>
8-8^
M 2 *
•| c >-
•s s .-
§1°
o

z
Q
Z

Z


£
<
z
Q
Z


z



Q
Z


z


z


Q
£
o






\
§
U


Z Z
Q Q
Z Z

z z


z z
z z
Q Q
Z Z


z z



Q Q
Z Z


z z


z z


BQ 03
VI I-
VO CS
0 0






11s
JS ^* eg
.•s t: s
£ Q 0

12.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
   O
   r
Z
1



z
1
u




z
o
a




z
%
*g
u
06 0
11
°§
0
S
1
o °
§1
fc »

o
X
o

oi
O z
§§
•*>
y\
o
>
Oi U
o P
"^ *5
U. OS
u
ill
CO
z
o
g
BJ





BJ 0
°p
< <
u. «
ta
"3
_o
**^
rt
0.
C
_o
o"
O
u










































o
0
u
^
li
c C
2 9
•z ™
p
5 52-
j










































f 	 v
a
u.
m
.2
VO
i
en
o
en
U
O
CO


Z Z
Q Q
Z Z


Z Z



Q Q
Z Z



z z

Q Q
Z Z


z z


a a
z z

Q 0

-
C TT
O -H
es d

< <



en en
es c4
0 0


a
o
ed (raw COG)
ed (desulfurized C
1 1
c c
0 O
o o
c c
3 P


Z
Q
Z


Z



Q



Z

Q
Z


Z


Q
Z

Q

cr
>r>
0

<


V-l
00
o
d




5"
U-
CO,
s
1
'c
o
D


Z
Q
Z


Z



Q
Z



Z

Q
Z


z


Q
Z

o

^
en
d

pa


«
o
d




O
P-
O.
CO
U
1


Z
Q
Z


Z



Q
Z



Z

Q
Z


Z


Q
Z

Z


Q
Z

Q



s
d




O
It
CO "^
W ^
II


Z
Q
Z


Z



Q
Z



Z

Q
Z


Z


Q
Z

Z


Q
Z

Q



is
d

















































R
*— t
cn
§
8
en
U
U
co,
00
ig
C
o
U

z
<
z


z



z



z

 It
CD
2 o
c«
2 d
o •*-*
£|
.2 c
CO "
'E Q
a z

O
O
2
o.
Emissions ca
ac .


T3
O
O
M
"CD
CO
Ui
4~*
>-.
43
"S
I
Emissions ca


CO
!2
CD" *o
CO *Q
O CD
•3 £
C 0
CD co
u, .22
co -o
0
42 2
S 2
CD -
g.^
>>T>
43 "*
•88
38
0- Al
Emissions ca
Dirty water ;
-, •*
CO

"o
CO
1
"o
CO
CO
•3
O
"bb
s
VI
CD
1
CO
O)
G
E
UN
lib '^
'53 co
^ bl
«» §
.1!
S o
li
"8s
£?
43 ^
O ^
'S lo"
S S
1 §
8 o
^ 2
^.^
to 5}
c •-+-
o <*>
o .22
CJ ""
P §
'i °
1 2
CD ci5
u. bo
£— . u.
l-
CD
•«-»
O
"8
CO
CO
O
O
t3
CO
tu
Reference 4.
c
•C
"co
O
O
c
u
J§
CO
.2?
"53
4-J
0
43

used in other operations where the rest of the SO2 (3 kilograms/megagrams [6 Ib/ton
erfiring has not been desulfurized.
_co
t£
O
VO
4-»
0
43
CO
•s
CO
r,
O
1
o>
Q,
O
be
'C
G
Ui
CD
•§
3
.1°
Ui
3
T3

"2
i is discharged; (4) gas used in u
, desulfurized COG.
coal charged)
Reference 21
a.


Reference 22
a-

'ushing and screening.
Reference 23
Defined as cr
.-, a,
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-7
-------
  U
  U
  ^
  o
  o

  g
  U.
  c/n
  u
  <
  UH

  Z
  o

  53
  £2
2^ /V rM
2o§
<2 u P
o
'S
o

E
2§g
5/3 t*^ ^^
W r) £**
MrJ *^ ^^
°x
O
? a! o
2 o z
co H S
co rj H
«g < <
•o
o"
O
O
z
^ O ~*7
ill
0
U
III
s < ^

CO
P^?
L^nP
S^^
W ""
""o
CO
3
_o

0.




c
_o
8.
o
O
U
o.


Z Z
< Q
Z Z


Z Z
< Q
Z Z

z z

< Q
Z Z


< <
z z
< Q
Z Z
z z

< Q
Z Z

Q 0



<-i O

O en


^_^
— * ^
o V
8 §
o en
• Q
o en
oal crushing (SCC 3-
With cyclone
oal preheating (SCC
Uncontrolled6
U U

z z
Q Q
Z Z


z z
Q Q
Z Z

z z

Q 0
Z Z


z z
Q a
z z
z z

Q Q
Z Z

tj 0



W"l T~H
cs o
0 0







1?
^ >
crt >
1 1


Q
0
o


Q
8
o

Q

in
ts


Q
«
o
Q

es
O
o

U



OO

o






UH
g
ven charging (larry
(SCC 3-03-003-02)
Uncontrolled
O

Z Z
Q Q
Z Z


z z
Q Q
Z Z

z z

Q Q
Z Z


z z
Q Q
Z Z
z z

Q Q
Z Z

U U



< — 1 *-H
O 0
o o






60
c
With sequential charj
With scrubber


Q
o
o


Q
0
6

Q

o
10
*~(


Q
vo
o
Q

Q
Z

Q



Tl-
V)
o


00
o
en
o
en
o
en
ven door leaks (SCC
Uncontrolled
O

































^^
en
O
en
O
en
O
en
U
O
CO,
60
C
'-C
EA
0.
c
U
>
O

0 Z Z
-: Q Q
o Z Z


z z z
Q Q Q
Z Z Z

Q O Q

es 0*1 eN
000


Q Q Q
t— t— f~-
o o o
o o o
Z Z Z

Q Q Q
Z Z Z

ca o Q



m wi oo

-.00






^
Uncontrolled
With ESPS
With venturi scrubbe


Z Z
Q Q
Z Z


Z Z
Q Q
Z Z

Q Q

CN es
0 0


Q Q
S S
0 0
Z Z

Q Q
Z Z

Q U


es
o\ r~
o o
o o






L*
cc
o
With baghouse*1
With mobile scrubbe




































o
en
8
8
en
U
O
Q
"Be
c
'jH
o
c
0>
3
O

Z Z
Q Q
Z Z


z z
z z

z z

Q Q
z z


z z
Q Q
Z Z
z z

< <
z z

Q Q



•* en

>o —







Uncontrolled
Dirty water1'
Clean water111


Z Z
Q Q
Z Z


Z Z
z z

z z

Q G
Z Z


z z
Q Q
Z Z
z z

< <
z z

co m



o **

— < o







J-TJ!
S B «
."« tJ u
£ 5 o

  cs

  fN
12.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                               1/95
-------


^
0 o
co H
22 u

i tU
[U




Ig
S2 u
*s ^S
u fc
0
Z
H

K

0
1

1
0
z
Hj
*^

u
o
^^
2 o
yj r™<
2 u
s 2
ii)

O


H
C&


b
o
0 *

2 W
u fc



<~^
0 n
^
U ""
0
2
S


b
U

O
1
06
cT
Z o/
2 P
2 o
1 "•
O
z

«
"3
_o









pe Of Operation
H

















































•g
3
3
3
3
U

Z




Q
Z


Z


Q
Z



Z



Q
Z


Z


Q
Z


Q


a
O
-*



<



^
<=>



05-
O tt.
0 » U
o o O
<« VH y
r~" oo* ^
"T* T s
8 8 •i=-
• ' 3
(SCC 3-0:
(scc 3-0:
Uncontrol


Z




Q
Z


Z


Q
Z



Z



Q
Z


Z


Q
Z


o

a.
oo
CN
O



<



^
c>

a
o
u
led (desulfurized
Uncontrol


Z




Q
Z


Z


Q
Z



Z



Q
Z


Z


a
z


o

cr
q



<



^
o




£
m
i
Uncontrol


Z




Q
Z


Z


Q
Z



Z



Q
Z


Z


a
z


u

u
Tfr
>£>
O



CO



Q
Z




o
u.
S
0.
S3
.£
1


Z




Q
Z


Z


Q
Z



z



o
z


z


Q
Z


z


Q
Z



Q


*^
o
o




0
O
O
a.


Z




Q
Z


Z


Q



Z



Q


Z


Q
Z


Z


Q
Z



a



*""*
o




O
0
y,
u
CA
3
O
U)
a
_c
,£














































^
-^
8
o
o
o
u
2-
oo
.S
c
a
.c
o
O

Z




<
Z


z


z



z



z


z


<;
Z


z


z



a


\D
S
o




c
o
g,
u
-C


•M
CO
•o
O
C
II
Q
Z
—
CO
—
a.
a.
o
II

Z

.
T3
O

_O
S
CA
0
o
3
O
||
II
U
u
on
"8
u>
O
•a
o
u,
a,
__y
8
^H
0
o
•*p^
£
.e
1
1
d, CA
s s
Ui O
e S
2<2
£ s
[i, co
c S
Emissio
BFG =
a































































"8
• - e
XS> 1-
6x 3
« Xi
•C CA
WJ.S2
'S «
C
O
•4—*
CA
•o

3
8,







* Sb£,










.
CA
























vw
60






































Reference 1.
c






































•4-*
O
J=
g
<§
CQ
o
o
•q
_S
'u-
T3

.£5
CA
co
53

a>
2
CO
&
CA
0
"8
CA
3
CA
o>
C
O
u
o
>>
i*
CO
•o
c
o
o
4)
CA
•o
c
CO
>>
u.
CO
.£
0.
w-
o
.§
*kH
co
CA
1
References 23.
Expressed as methane.
Exhaust gas discharged
0 -0
u <•





































3
w
•o
0
a>
Xi
4—1
O
CA
CO
"eo
8
•s
U)
l_l
CO
U





































1
CA
4>
12
'CA

^
CO
o
1
CD
cr
Emissions captured by
— > -

































^
CA
12
"o
CA
•3
_>
"o
CA
CA
'•5
15
o
4-*
J
Ml
m
Al
Ui
1
^
5
^

































W3
!2
"o
CA
1
1
CA
*3
•3
•t-'
o
-4—*
jj
"£b
S
IT)
vi
Ui
<1>
«^
CO
£
CO
—
a
E
» e
o 2J
_CA O
"~ «
1 o
0,!
«*M
2 °
4^
•si
£??
CO 4-1
J3 S
o O
•a-S
8^
c*_ ^^
o ••
S 8
C hA
1> °"
e C
5 «U
§ §
<-> »v
3 eU
 |
•s ^
« o
C O
d> -2
e/5
S"S
0. bo
 l-
U CO
«> "0
CA
11
c °
o c
"S S
s 
.S
£
CO
1
2

c^
^^
C4
O
C/3

kw
CO
5-8
2 -S
II
« 1
<= 4$
0 ^
'S C
g 8
8.-°
° 0
Ui C
eu
5 S3
O 4=
c w>
••• c
•o 'C
S«5
3 !s
3 to
.2-g
* a
15
o M
« S§
1^8
e^U
.2 -a ^3
18 8,1
during underfiring oper
coal charged) is dischai
Reference 21, desulfuri
Reference 22.
a. cr









































k%A
1 screening
Reference 23.
Defined as crushing am
1-4 M
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-9
-------
           Table 12.2-3. (Metric Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                        FOR COKE MANUFACTURING3

                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Coal preheating (SCC 3-03-003-13)
Uncontrolled






Controlled with venturi scrubber







Oven charging sequential or stage0






Coke pushing (SCC 3-03-003-03)
Uncontrolled





Particle
Size
Gmi)b
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
44
48.5
55
59.5
79.5
97.5
99.9
100
78
80
83
84
88
94
96.5
100
13.5
25.2
33.6
39.1
45.8
48.9
49.0
100
3.1
7.7
14.8
16.7
26.6
43.3
50.0
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.29
0.58
Reference
Source
Number
8






8







9






10 - 15





12.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                        1/95
-------
                                       Table 12.2-3 (cont.).
Process
Controlled with venturi scrubber






Mobile scrubber car






Quenching (SCC 3-03-003-04)
Uncontrolled (dirty water)




Uncontrolled (clean water)




With baffles (dirty water)




Particle
Size
0*m)b
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
24
47
66.5
73.5
75
87
92
100
28.0
29.5
30.0
30.0
32.0
35.0
100
13.8
19.3
21.4
22.8
26.4
100
4.0
11.1
19.1
30.1
37.4
100
8.5
20.4
24.8
32.3
49.8
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.036
0.36
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.69
2.62
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.57
0.06
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.65
Reference
Source
Number
10, 12






16






17




17




17




1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-11
-------
                                  Table 12.2-3 (com.).
Process
With baffles (clean water)





Combustion stackd
Uncontrolled






Particle
Size
G*m)b
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
1.2
6.0
7.0
9.8
15.1
100

77.4
85.7
93.5
95.8
95.9
96
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.27

0.18
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
Reference
Source
Number
17






18-20






a Emission factors are expressed in kg of pollutant/Mg of material processed.
b fim = micrometers
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
d Material processed is coke.
 12.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
           Table 12.2-4. (English Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                         FOR COKE MANUFACTURING*
                  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Coal preheating (SCC 3-03-003-13)
Uncontrolled



^


Controlled with venturi scrubber







Oven charging sequential or stage0






Coke pushing (SCC 3-03-003-03)
Uncontrolled






Particle
Size
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
44
48.5
55
59.5
79.5
97.5
99.9
100
78
80
83
84
88
94
96.5
100
13.5
25.2
33.6
39.1
45.8
48.9
49.0
100
3.1
7.7
14.8
16.7
26.6
43.3
50.0
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.29
0.58
Reference
Source
Number
8






8







9






10- 15






1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-13
-------
                               Table 12.2-4 (cont.).
Process
Controlled with venturi scrubber







Mobile scrubber car






Quenching (SCC 3-03-003-04)
Uncontrolled (dirty water)





Uncontrolled (clean water)





With baffles (dirty water)





Particle
Size
(Mm)b ,
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
24
47
66.5
73.5
75
87
92
100
4
28.0
29.5
30.0
30.0
32.0
35.0
100

13.8
19.3
21.4
22.8
26.4
100
4.0
11.1
19.1
30.1
37.4
100
8.5
20.4
24.8
32.3
49.8
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.036

0.36
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.69
2.62
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.57
0.06
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.65
Reference
Source
Number
10, 12







16






17






17





17





12.2-14
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                              1/95
-------
                                      Table 12.2-4  (cont.).
Process
With baffles (clean water)





Combustion stackd
Uncontrolled






Particle
Size
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
1.2
6.0
7.0
9.8
15.1
100

77.4
85.7
93.5
95.8
95.9
96
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.27

0.18
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
Reference
Source
Number
17






18-20






a Emission factors are expressed in Ib of pollutant/ton of material processed.
b fim = micrometers.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
d Material processed is coke.
       Combustion of gas in the battery flues produces emissions from the underfire or combustion
stack.  Sulfur dioxide emissions may also occur if the coke oven gas is not desulfurized.  Coal fines
may leak into the waste combustion gases if the oven wall brickwork is damaged.  Conventional gas
cleaning equipment, including electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters, have been installed on
battery combustion stacks.

       Fugitive paniculate emissions are associated with material handling operations. These
operations consist of unloading, storing, grinding and sizing of coal, screening, crushing, storing, and
unloading of coke.

References For Section 12.2

1.     George T. Austin, Shreve's Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Fifth
       Edition, 1984.

2.     Theodore Baumeister, Mark's Standard Handbook For Mechanical Engineers, McGraw-Hill
       Book Company, Eighth Edition, 1978.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-15
-------
3.     John Fitzgerald, et al., Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Report For The Metallurgical
       Coke Industry, TR-83-97-g, Contract No. 68-02-3157, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, July
       i986.

4.     Air Pollution By Coking Plants, United Nations Report:  Economic Commission for Europe,
       ST/ECE/Coal/26,  1986.

5.     R. W. Fullerton, "Impingement Baffles To Reduce Emissions From Coke Quenching",
       Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 17: 807-809, December 1967.

6.     J. Varga and H. W. Lownie, Jr., Final Technological Report On A Systems Analysis Study Of
       The Integrated Iron And Steel Industry, Contract No. PH-22-68-65, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May, 1969.

7.     Paniculate Emissions Factors Applicable To The Iron And Steel Industry, EPA-450/479-028,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September  1979.

8.     Stack Test Report ForJ & L Steel, Aliquippa Works, Betz Environmental Engineers, Plymouth
       Meeting, PA, April 1977.

9.     R. W. Bee, et. al., Coke Oven Charging Emission Control Test Program, Volume I,
       EPA-650/2-74-062-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September
       1977.

10.    Emission Testing And Evaluation Of Ford/Koppers Coke Pushing Control System,
       EPA-600-2-77-187b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September
       1974.

11.    Stack Test Report, Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor, IN, Bethlehem Steel,  Bethlehem, PA,
       September 1974.

12.    Stack Test Report For Inland Steel Corporation, East Chicago, IN Works, Betz Environmental
       Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA, June 1976.

13.    Stack Test Report For Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, St. Louis, MO,  Clayton
       Environmental Services, Southfield, MO, April 1975.

14.    Source Testing Of A Stationary Coke Side Enclosure, Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor Plant,
       EPA-3401-76-012, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1977.

15.    Stack Test Report For Allied Chemical Corporation, Ashland, KY, York  Research
       Corporation, Stamford, CT, April 1979.

16.    Stack Test Report, Republic Steel Company, Cleveland, OH, Republic Steel, Cleveland, OH,
       November 1979.

17.    J. Jeffrey, Wet Coke Quench Tower Emission Factor Development, Dofasco, Ltd.,
       EPA-600/X-85-340, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       August  1982.
12.2-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
 18.     Stack Test Report For Shenango Steel, Inc., Neville Island, PA, Betz Environmental
        Engineers, Plymouth Meeting, PA, July 1976.

 19.     Stack Test Report For J & L Steel  Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Mostardi-Platt Associates,
        Bensenville, IL, June  1980.

 20.     Stack Test Report For J & L Steel  Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Wheelabrator Frye, Inc.,
        Pittsburgh, PA, April  1980.

 21.     R. B. Jacko, et al, Byproduct Coke Oven Pushing Operation: Total And Trace Metal
        Paniculate Emissions, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, June 27, 1976.

 22.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

 23.     Stack Test Report For Republic Steel, Cleveland, OH, PEDCo (Under Contract to
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), weeks of October 26 and November 7, 1981, EMB
        Report 81-CBS-l.

 24.     Stack Test Report, Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD, State Of Maryland, Stack Test
        Report No. 78, June and July 1975.

 25.     Stack Test Report,  Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, Ford Motor Company, November 5-
        6, 1980.

 26.     Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Benzene, EPA-450/4-84-007, U. S.
        Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, DC, March 1988.

 27.     Metallurgical Coke Industry Paniculate Emissions: Source Category Repon,
        EPA-600/7-86-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December
        1986.

 28.     Benzene Emissions From Coke Byproduct Recovery Plants: Background Information For
        Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-83-016a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Washington, DC, May 1984.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                             12.2-17
-------
 12.3 Primary Copper Smelting

 12.3.1  General1

        Copper ore is produced in 13 states. In 1989, Arizona produced 60 percent of the total
 U. S. ore.  Fourteen domestic mines accounted for more than 95 percent of the 1.45 megagrams
 (Mg) (1.6 millon tons) of ore produced in 1991.

        Copper is produced in the U. S. primarily by pyrometallurgical smelting methods.
 Pyrometallurgical techniques use heat to separate copper from copper sulfide ore concentrates.
 Process steps include mining, concentration, roasting, smelting, converting, and finally fire and
 electrolytic  refining.

 12.3.2  Process Description2"4

        Mining produces ores with less than 1 percent copper.  Concentration is accomplished at the
 mine sites by crushing, grinding, and flotation purification, resulting in ore with 15 to 35 percent
 copper.  A  continuous process called floatation, which uses water, various flotation chemicals, and
 compressed air,  separates the ore into fractions.  Depending upon the chemicals used, some minerals
 float to the  surface and are removed in a foam of air bubbles, while others sink and are reprocessed.
 Pine oils, cresylic acid, and long-chain alcohols are used for the flotation of copper ores.  The
 flotation concentrates are then dewatered by clarification and filtration, resulting in 10 to 15 percent
 water, 25 percent sulfur, 25 percent iron, and varying quantities of arsenic, antimony, bismuth,
 cadmium, lead, selenium, magnesium, aluminum, cobalt, tin, nickel, tellurium, silver, gold, and
 palladium.

        A typical pyrornetallurgical copper smelting process, as illustrated  in Figure 12.3-1, includes
 4 steps:  roasting, smelting, concentrating, and fire refining. Ore concentration is roasted to reduce
 impurities, including sulfur, antimony, arsenic, and lead.  The roasted product, calcine, serves as a
 dried and heated charge for the smelting furnace.  Smelting of roasted  (calcine feed) or unroasted
 (green feed) ore concentrate produces matte, a molten mixture of copper sulfide (Cu2S), iron sulfide
 (FeS), and some heavy metals.  Converting the matte yields a high-grade "blister" copper, with
 98.5 to 99.5 percent copper.   Typically, blister copper is then fire-refined in an anode furnace, cast
 into "anodes", and sent to an electrolytic refinery for further impurity elimination.

       Roasting is performed in copper smelters prior to charging reverberatory furnaces. In
roasting, charge material of copper concentrate mixed with a siliceous flux (often a low-grade copper
ore) is heated in air to about  650°C (1200°F), eliminating 20 to 50 percent of the sulfur as sulfur
dioxide (SO2).  Portions of impurities such  as antimony, arsenic, and lead  are driven off,  and some
iron is converted to iron oxide.  Roasters are either multiple hearth or fluidized bed; multiple  hearth
roasters accept moist concentrate, whereas fluidized bed roasters are fed finely ground material.  Both
roaster types have self-generating energy by the exothermic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide, shown in
the reaction  below.

                          H2S  +  O2  -»  SO2 + H2O + Thermal  energy                       (1)

       In the smelting process,  either hot calcine from the roaster or raw unroasted concentrate is
melted with  siliceous flux in a smelting furnace to produce copper matte.  The required heat comes
from partial  oxidation of the sulfide charge and from burning external fuel.  Most of the iron and

 10/86 (Reformatted  1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                 12.3-1
-------
                                    ORE CONCENTRATES WITH SILICA FLUXES
                           FUEL
                             AIR
                                                       ROASTING
                                                    (SCC 3-03-005-02)
                   CONVERTER SLAG (2% Cu)
                           FUEL
                             AIR
                             AIR
              GREEN POLES OR GAS
                           FUEL
                             AIR
               SLAG TO CONVERTER
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                                                             CALCINE
                                                       SMELTING
                                                     (SCC 3-03-005-03)
                                                  1
                                       SLAG TO DUMP
                                       (0.5% Cu)
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                                                             MATTE (*>— 40% Cu)
                                                      CONVERTING
                                                     (SCC 3-03-005-04)
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                                                             BLISTER COPPER (98.5+% Cu)
                                                     RRE REFINING
                                                    (SCC 3-03-005-05)
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                                               ANODE COPPER (99.5% Cu)
                                               TO ELECTROLYTIC REFINERY
                        Figure 12.3-1.  Typical primary copper smelter process.
                              (Source Classification Codes  in parentheses.)
12.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 some of the impurities in the charge oxidize with the fluxes to form a slag on top of the molten bath,
 which is periodically removed and discarded.  Copper matte remains in the furnace until tapped.
 Matte ranges from 35 to 65 percent copper, with 45 percent the most common.  The copper content
 percentage is referred to as the matte grade.  The 4 smelting furnace technologies used  in the
 U. S.  are reverberatory, electric, Noranda, and flash.

        The reverberatory furnace smelting operation is a continuous process, with frequent charging
 and periodic tapping of matte, as well as skimming slag.  Heat is supplied by natural gas, with
 conversion to oil during gas restrictions.  Furnace temperature may exceed J500°C (2730°F), with
 the heat being transmitted by radiation from the burner flame, furnace walls, and roof into the charge
 of roasted and unroasted materials mixed with flux.  Stable copper sulfide (Cu2S) and stable FeS form
 the matte with excess sulfur leaving as sulfur dioxide.

        Electric arc furnace smelters generate heat with carbon  electrodes that are lowered through the
 furnace roof and submerged in the slag layer of the molten bath.  The feed consists of dried
 concentrates or calcine.  The chemical and physical changes occurring in the molten bath are similar
 to those occurring in the molten bath  of a reverberatory furnace.  The matte and slag tapping
 practices are also similar.

        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  1 operation.
 Metallurgical problems, however, led to the operation of these reactors for the production of copper
 matte.  The Noranda process uses heat generated by the exothermic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide.
 Additional heat is supplied by oil burners  or by coal mixed with the ore concentrates. Figure  12.3-2
 illustrates the Noranda process reactor.

        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 and preheated air (or a mixture of both), into  a
 furnace maintained at approximately  1000°C (1830°F). As with the Noranda process reactor, and in
 contrast to reverberatory and electric furnaces, flash  furnaces use the heat generated from partial
 oxidation of their sulfide charge to provide much or all of the required heat.

        Slag produced by flash furnace operations contains  significantly higher amounts  of copper
 than reverberatory or electric furnaces. Flash furnace slag  is treated in a slag cleaning furnace with
 coke or iron sulfide.   Because copper has a higher affinity for sulfur than oxygen, the copper in the
 slag (as copper oxide) is  converted to  copper sulfide.  The copper sulfide is removed and the
 remaining slag is discarded.

        Converting produces blister copper by eliminating the remaining iron and sulfur present in the
 matte.  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 is oxidized to form iron oxide (FeO)  and  S02.
 Blowing and slag skimming continue until an adequate  amount of relatively pure Cu2S, called  "white
metal", accumulates  in the bottom of the converter.  A final air blast ("final blow") oxidizes the
 copper sulfide to SO2, and blister copper forms,  containing 98 to 99 percent coppers.  The blister
copper is removed from the converter for subsequent refining.  The  SO2 produced throughout the
operation is vented to pollution control devices.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.3-3
-------
                                                        SO,  OFF-GAS
       CONCENTRATE AND FLUX
     FEEDER
                      AIR TUYERES
                     Figure 12.3-2.  Schematic of the Noranda process reactor.

        One domestic smelter uses Hoboken converters.  The Hoboken converter, unlike the Fierce-
Smith converter, is fitted with an inverted u-shaped side flue at one end to siphon gases from the
interior of the converter directly to an offgas collection system. The siphon results in a slight vacuum
at the converter mouth.

        Impurities in blister copper may include gold, silver, antimony, arsenic, bismuth, iron, lead,
nickel, selenium, sulfur, tellurium, and zinc.  Fire refining and electrolytic refining are used to purify
blister copper even further. In fire refining, blister copper is usually mixed with flux and charged
into the furnace, which is maintained at 1100°C (2010°F).  Air is blown through the molten mixture
to oxidize the copper and any remaining impurities.  The impurities are removed as slag. The
remaining copper oxide is  then subjected to a reducing atmosphere to form purer copper. The fire-
refined copper is then cast into anodes for even further purification by electrolytic refining.

        Electrolytic refining separates copper from impurities by electrolysis in a solution containing
copper sulfate (Cu2SO4) and sulfuric  acid (H2SO4).  The copper anode is dissolved and deposited at
the cathode.  As the copper anode dissolves, metallic impurities precipitate and form a sludge.
Cathode copper, 99.95  to 99.96 percent pure, is then cast into bars, ingots, or slabs.

12.3.3  Emissions And Controls

        Emissions from primary copper smelters are principally paniculate matter and sulfur oxides
(SOX).  Emissions are generated from the roasters, smelting furnaces, and converters.  Fugitive
emissions are generated during material handling operations.

        Roasters, smelting furnaces, and converters are sources of both paniculate matter
and SOX. Copper and iron oxides are the primary constituents of the paniculate matter, but other
oxides, such as arsenic, antimony, cadmium, lead, mercury, and zinc, may also be present, along
with metallic sulfates and sulfuric acid mist. Fuel combustion products also contribute to the
paniculate emissions from multiple hearth roasters and reverberatory furnaces.

        Gas effluent from roasters usually are sent to an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or spray
chamber/ESP system or are combined with  smelter furnace gas effluent before paniculate collection.
Overall, the hot ESPs remove only 20 to 80 percent of the total paniculate (condensed and vapor)
present in the gas.  Cold ESPs  may remove more than 95 percent of the total paniculate present in
12.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
the gas.  Paniculate collection systems for smelting furnaces are similar to those for roasters.
Reverberatory furnace off-gases are usually routed through waste heat boilers and low-velocity
balloon flues to recover large particles and heat, then are routed through an ESP or spray
chamber/ESP system.

        In the standard Fierce-Smith converter, flue gases are captured during the blowing phase by
the primary hood over the converter mouth.  To prevent the hood from binding to the converter with
splashing molten metal, a gap exists between the hood and the vessel.  During charging and pouring
operations, significant fugitives may be emitted when the hood is removed to allow crane access.
Converter off-gases are treated in ESPs to remove paniculate matter, and in sulfuric acid plants to
remove SO2.

        Remaining smelter operations  process material containing very little sulfur, resulting in
insignificant SO2 emissions.  Paniculate may be emitted from fire refining operations.  Electrolytic
refining does not produce emissions unless the associated sulfuric acid tanks are open to the
atmosphere.  Crushing and grinding systems used in ore, flux, and slag processing also contribute to
fugitive dust problems.

        Control of SO2 from smelters  is commonly performed in a sulfuric acid plant.  Use of a
sulfuric acid plant to treat copper smelter effluent gas streams requires that particulate-free gas
containing minimum SO2 concentrations, usually of at least 3 percent SO2, be maintained.
Table 12.3-1 shows typical average SO2 concentrations from the various  smelter units.  Additional
information on the operation of sulfuric acid plants is discussed in Section 8.10 of this document.
Sulfuric acid plants also treat converter gas effluent.  Some multiple hearth and all fluidized bed
roasters use sulfuric acid plants. Reverberatory furnace effluent contains minimal SO2 and is usually
released directly to the atmosphere with no SO2 reduction. Effluent from the other types of smelter
furnaces contain higher concentrations of S02 and are treated in  sulfuric acid plants before being
vented. Single-contact sulfuric acid plants achieve 92.5 to 98 percent conversion of plant effluent
gas. Double-contact acid plants collect from 98 to more than 99 percent  of the SO2, emitting about
500 parts  per million (ppm)  SO2. Absorption of the SO2 in dimethylaniline  (DMA) solution has also
been used in domestic smelters to produce liquid S02.

       Particular emissions  vary depending upon configuration of the smelting equipment.
Tables 12.3-2 and 12.3-3 give the emission factors for various smelter configurations, and
Tables 12.3^,  12.3-5, 12.3-6, 12.3-7, 12.3-8,  and 12.3-9 give size-specific emission factors for those
copper production processes where information is available.

       Roasting, smelting, converting, fire refining, and slag cleaning are potential fugitive emission
sources.  Tables 12.3-10  and 12.3-11 present fugitive emission factors for these sources.
Tables 12.3-12, 12.3-13, 12.3-14, 12.3-15,  12.3-16,  and 12.3-17 present cumulative size-specific
paniculate emission factors for fugitive emissions from reverberatory furnace matte tapping, slag
tapping, and converter slag and copper blow operations.  The actual quantities of emissions from
these sources depend on the  type and condition of the equipment and  on the smelter operating
techniques.

       Fugitive emissions are generated during the discharge and transfer of hot calcine from
multiple hearth  roasters.  Fluid bed roasting is  a closed loop operation, and has negligible fugitive
emissions.  Matte tapping and slag skimming operations  are sources of fugitive emissions from
smelting furnaces.  Fugitive  emissions can also result from charging of a  smelting furnace or from
leaks, depending upon the furnace type and condition.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.3-5
-------
             Table 12.3-1.  TYPICAL SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
                OFFGAS FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING SOURCES3
                           Unit
                               SO2 Concentration
                                  (Volume %)
 Multiple hearth roaster (SCC 3-03-005-02)
 Fluidized bed roaster (SCC 3-03-005-09)
 Reverberatory furnace (SCC 3-03-005-03)
 Electric arc furnace (SCC 3-03-005-10)
 Flash smelting furnace (SCC 3-03-005-12)
 Continuous smelting furnace (SCC 3-03-005-36)
 Fierce-Smith converter (SCC 3-03-005-37)
 Hoboken converter (SCC 3-03-005-38)
 Single contact H2SO4  plant (SCC 3-03-005-39)
 Double contact H2SO4 plant (SCC 3-03-005-40)
                                    1.5-3
                                    10- 12
                                    0.5 - 1.5
                                     4-8
                                    10-70
                                     5- 15
                                     4-7
                                       8
                                    0.2 - 0.26
                                     0.05
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
       Each of the various converter stages (charging, blowing, slag skimming, blister pouring, and
holding) is a potential source of fugitive emissions. During blowing, the converter mouth is in the
stack (a close-fitting primary hood is over the mouth to capture offgases).  Fugitive emissions escape
from the hood.  During charging, skimming, and pouring, the converter mouth is out of the stack (the
converter mouth is rolled out of its vertical  position, and the primary hood is isolated). Fugitive
emissions are discharged during roll out.
  Table 12.3-2. (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa'b
Configuration0
Reverberatory furnace (RF) followed by
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-OQ5-23)
Multiple hearth roaster (MHR) followed by
reverberatory furnace (RF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-29)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed by
reverberatory furnace (RF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-25)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed by electric
furnace (EF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-27)
Process
RF
C

MHR
RF
C
FBR
RF
C
CD
EF
C
Particulate
25
18

22
25
18
ND
25
18
5
50
18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B
ND
B
B
B
B
B
Sulfur
Dioxided
160
370

140
90
300
180
•30
270
0.5
:?.o
410
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
References
4-10
9,11-15

4-5,16-17
4-9,18-19
8,11-13
20
	 e
	 e
21-22
15
8,11-13,15
 12.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86
-------
                                      Table 12.3-2 (cont.).
Configuration0
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed by electric
furnace (EF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-30)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed by flash
furnace (FF), cleaning furnace (SS) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-26)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed by Noranda
reactors (NR) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-41)
Process
FBR
EF
C
CD
FF
ssf
ce
CD
NR
C
Particulate
ND
50
18
5
70
5
NDS
5
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND
B
B
B
B
B
ND&
B
ND
ND
Sulfur
Dioxided
180
45
300
0.5
410
0.5
120
0.5
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
ND
ND
References
20
15,23
3
21-22
24
22
22
21-22
—
—
a Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter. Approximately
  4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of blister copper.
  SCC  = Source Classification Code.  ND  = no data.
b For paniculate matter removal, gaseous effluents from roasters, smelting furnaces, and converters
  usually are treated in hot ESPs at 200 to 340°C (400 to 650°F) or in cold ESPs with gases cooled
  to about 120°C (250°F before) ESP.  Particulate emissions from copper smelters contain volatile
  metallic oxides that remain in vapor form at higher temperatures, around 120°C (250°F).
  Therefore, overall paniculate removal in hot ESPs may range 20 to 80% and in cold ESPs may be
  99%.  Converter gas effluents and, at some smelters, roaster gas effluents are treated in single
  contact acid plants (SCAP) or double contact acid plants (DCAP) for  SO2 removal. Typical SCAPs
  are about 96% efficient, and DCAPs are up to 99.8% efficient in S02 removal. They also remove
  over 99% of paniculate matter.  Noranda  and flash furnace offgases are also processed through acid
  plants and are subject to the same collection efficiencies as cited for converters and some roasters.
c In addition  to sources indicated, each smelter configuration contains fire refining anode furnaces
  after the converters.  Anode furnaces emit negligible SO2. No paniculate emission data are
  available for anode furnaces.
d Factors for all configurations except reverberatory furnaces followed by converters have been
  developed by normalizing test data for several smelters to represent 30% sulfur content in
  concentrated ore.
e Based on the test data for the configuration multiple hearth roaster followed by reverberatory
  furnaces and converters.
f Used  to recover copper from furnace slag  and converter slag.
g Since converters at flash furnace and Noranda furnace smelters treat high copper content matte,
  converter paniculate emissions from flash  furnace smelters are expected to be  lower than those from
  conventional smelters with multiple hearth roasters,  reverberatory furnaces,  and converters.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-7
-------
                   Table 12.3-3 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                              PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa'b
Configuration0
Reverberatory furnace (RF)
followed by converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-23)
Multiple hearth roaster (MHR)
followed by reverberatory
furnace (RF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-29)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed
by reverberatory furnace (RF)
and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-25)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by electric furnace (EF) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-27)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed
by electric furnace (EF) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-30)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by flash furnace (FF),
cleaning furnace (SS) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-26)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by Noranda reactors (NR) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005^1)
Process
RF
C

MHR
RF
C

FBR
RF
C

CD
EF
C

FBR
EF
C

CD
FF
ssf
Ce

CD
NR
C

Particulate
50
36

45
50
36

ND
50
36

10
100
36

ND
100
36

10
140
10
NDg

10
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B

ND
B
B

B
B
B

ND
B
B

B
B
B
NDS

B
ND
ND

Sulfur
dioxided
320
740

280
180
600

360
180
540

1
240
820

360
90
600

1
820
1
240

1
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B
B

B
ND
ND

References
4-10
9,11-15

4-5,16-17
4-9,18-19
8,11-13

20
	 C
	 e

21-22
15
8,11-13,15

20
15,23
3

21-22
24
22
22

21-22
—
—

a Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter. Approximately 4 unit
  weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of blister copper.  SCC =  Source
  Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b For paniculate matter removal, gaseous effluents from roasters, smelting furnaces and converters
  usually are treated in hot ESPs at 200 to 340 °C (400 to 650 °F) or in cold ESPs with gases cooled
  to about 120°C (250CF before) ESP.  Particulate emissions from copper smelters contain volatile
  metallic oxides which remain in vapor form at higher temperatures,  around  120°C (250°F).
  Therefore, overall paniculate removal in hot ESPs may range 20 to  80% and in cold ESPs may be
  99%.  Converter gas effluents  and, at some smelters, roaster  gas effluents are treated  in single
  contact acid plants (SCAPs) or double contact acid plants (DCAPs) for SO2 removal.  Typical
  SCAPs are about 96% efficient, and DCAPs are up to 99.8% efficient in SO2 removal.  They also
  remove over 99% of paniculate matter.  Noranda and flash furnace  offgases are also processed
  through acid plants and are subject to  the same collection efficiencies as  cited for converters and
  some roasters.
c In addition to sources indicated, each  smelter configuration contains fire refining anode furnaces
  after the converters.  Anode furnaces emit negligible SO2.  No paniculate emission data are
  available for anode furnaces.
12.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                        Table 12.3-3 (cent.).

 d Factors for all configurations except reverberatory furnaces followed by converters have been
   developed by normalizing test data for several smelters to represent 30% sulfur content in
   concentrated ore.
 e Based on the test data for the configuration multiple hearth roaster followed by reverberatory
   furnaces and converters.
 f Used to recover copper from furnaces slag and converter slag.
 8 Since converters at flash  furnaces and Noranda furnace smelters treat high copper content matte,
   converter paniculate emissions from flash furnace smelters are expected to be lower than those from
   conventional smelters  with multiple hearth roasters, reverberatory furnaces, and converters.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.3-9
-------
 Table 12.3-4 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
         FACTORS FOR MULTIPLE HEARTH ROASTER AND REVERBERATORY
                              SMELTER OPERATIONS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
47
47
47
46
31
12
ESP Controlled0
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.40
0.36
0.29
a Reference 26. Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
Table 12.3-5 (English Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
         FACTORS FOR MULTIPLE HEARTH ROASTER AND REVERBERATORY
                             SMELTER OPERATIONS4

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
'10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
95
94
93
80
72
59
ESP Controlled0
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.80
0.72
0.59
a Reference 26.  Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
12.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
             Table 12.3-6 (Metric Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                    FOR REVERBERATORY SMELTER OPERATIONS*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
(/mi)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
6.8
5.8
5.3
4.0
2.3
ESP Controlled0
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.14
0.10
0.08
a Reference 26.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
             Table 12.3-7 (English Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                    FOR REVERBERATORY SMELTER OPERATIONS4

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle Size5
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
13.6
11.6
10.6
8.0
4.6
ESP Controlled0
0.42
0.40
0.36
0.28
0.20
0.16
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal particulate removal efficiency is 99%.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-11
-------
           Table 12.3-8 (Metric Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         COPPER CONVERTER OPERATIONS*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle Sizeb
Gim)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
10.6
5.8
2.2
0.5
0.2
ESP Controlled0
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.05
a Reference 26. Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
          Table 12.3-9 (English Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                      REVERBERATORY SMELTER OPERATIONS4

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
Gtm)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
21.2
11.5
4.3
1.1
0.4
ESP Controlled0
0.36
0.36
0.26
0.20
0.15
0.11
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
0 Nominal particulate removal efficiency is 99%.
12.3-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86
-------
             Table 12.3-10 (Metric Units).  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                              PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source Of Emission
Roaster calcine discharge (SCC 3-03-005-13)
Smelting furnaceb (SCC 3-03-005-14)
Converter (SCC 3-03-005-15)
Converter slag return (SCC 3-03-005-18)
Anode refining furnace (SCC 3-03-005-16)
Slag cleaning furnace0 (SCC 3-03-005-17)
Paniculate
1.3
0.2
2.2
ND
0.25
4
SO2
0.5
2
65
0.05
0.05
3
a References 17,23,26-33. Expressed as mass kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by
  the smelter. Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of
  copper metal.  Factors for flash furnace smelters and Noranda furnace smelters may be lower than
  reported values. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND =  no data.
b Includes fugitive emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations.  About 50% of
  fugitive paniculate emissions and about 90% of total S02 emissions are from matte tapping
  operations, with remainder from slag skimming.
c Used to treat slags from smelting furnaces and converters at the flash furnace smelter.
             Table 12.3-11 (English Units).  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                             PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Source Of Emission
Roaster calcine discharge (SCC 3-03-005-13)
Smelting furnaceb (SCC 3-03-005-14)
Converter (SCC 3-03-005-15)
Converter slag return (SCC 3-03-005-18)
Anode refining furnace (SCC 3-03-005-16)
Slag cleaning furnace0 (SCC 3-03-005-17)
Paniculate
2.6
0.4
4.4
ND
0.5
8
SO2
1
4
130
0.1
0.1
6
a References 17, 23, 26-33. Expressed as mass Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by
  the smelter. Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of
  copper metal.  Factors for flash furnace smelters and Noranda furnace smelters may be lower than
  reported values.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Includes fugitive emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations.  About 50% of
  fugitive paniculate emissions and about 90% of total SO2 emissions are from matte tapping
  operations, with remainder from slag skimming.
c Used to treat slags from smelting furnaces and converters at the flash  furnace smelter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-13
-------
    Table 12.3-12 (Metric Units). UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
   EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                         MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS'1

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
76
74
72
69
67
65
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.069
0.067
0.065
a Reference 26. Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
   Table 12.3-13 (English Units).  UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE SPECIFIC
  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                         MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS'1

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
Oxm)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
76
74
72
69
67
65
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.152
0.148
0.144
0.138
0.134
0.130
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
12.3-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   Table 12.3-14 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE^SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
            FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                           SLAG TAPPING OPERATIONS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
33
28
25
22
20
17
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.033
0.028
0.025
0.022
0.020
0.017
a Reference 26.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
  Table 12.3-15 (English Units). PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
            FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                           SLAG TAPPING OPERATIONS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
33
28
25
22
20
17
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.066
0.056
0.050
0.044
0.040
0.034
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-15
-------
Table 12.3-16 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                   FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM CONVERTER SLAG
                         AND COPPER BLOW OPERATIONS'1

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
98
96
87
60
47
38
Cumulative Emission Factors
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.8
a Reference 26.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg weight of concentrated ore processed by the
 smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
  Table 12.3-17 (English Units).  PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                 FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM CONVERTER SLAG
                         AND COPPER BLOW OPERATIONS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: • D
Particle Sizeb
0*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
98
96
87
60
47
38
Cumulative Emission Factors
4.3
4.2
3.8
2.6
2.1
1.7
a Reference 26.  Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton weight of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
12.3-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                Table 12.3-18 (Metric Units). LEAD EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS3
Operation
Roasting0 (SCC 3-03-005-02)
Smeltingd (SCC 3-03-005-03)
Converting6 (SCC 3-03-005-04)
Refining (SCC 3-03-005-05)
EMISSION FACTORb
0.075
0.036
0.13
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
ND
 a Reference 34.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by smelter.
  Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weights of copper metal.
  Based on test data for several smelters with 0.1 to 0.4%  lead in feed throughput.  SCC =  Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
 b For process and fugitive emissions totals.
 c Based on test data on multihearth roasters.  Includes total of process emissions and calcine transfer
  fugitive emissions.  The latter are about 10% of total process and fugitive emissions.
 d Based on test data on reverberatory furnaces. Includes total process emissions and fugitive
  emissions  from matte tapping and slag skimming operations. Fugitive emissions from matte tapping
  and slag skimming  operations amount to about 35%  and  2%, respectively.
 6 Includes total of process and fugitive emissions.  Fugitives constitute about 50%  of total.
               Table 12.3-19 (English Units).  LEAD EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa
Operation
Roasting0 (SCC 3-03-005-02)
Smeltingd (SCC 3-03-005-03)
Converting6 (SCC 3-03-005-04)
Refining (SCC 3-03-005-05)
EMISSION FACTORb
0.15
0.072
0.27
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
ND
a Reference 34.  Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by smelter.
  Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weights of copper metal.
  Based on test data for several smelters with 0.1 to 0.4% lead in feed throughput.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
b For process and fugitive emissions totals.
c Based on test data on multihearth roasters.  Includes total of process emissions and calcine transfer
  Fugitive emissions.  The latter are about 10% of total process and fugitive emissions.
d Based on test data on reverberatory furnaces.  Includes total process emissions and fugitive
  emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations.  Fugitive emissions from matte tapping
  and slag skimming operations amount to about 35%  and 2%, respectively.
e Includes total of process and fugitive emissions.  Fugitives constitute about 50% of total.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-17
-------
        Occasionally slag or blister copper may not be transferred immediately to the converters from
the smelting furnace.  This holding stage may occur for several reasons, including insufficient matte
in the smelting furnace, unavailability of a crane, and others.  Under these conditions, the converter
is rolled out of its vertical position and remains in a holding position and fugitive emissions may
result.

        At primary copper smelters, both process emissions and fugitive paniculate from various
pieces of equipment contain oxides of many inorganic elements, including lead.  The lead content of
particulate emissions depends upon both the lead content of the smelter feed and the process offgas
temperature.  Lead emissions are effectively removed in particulate control systems operating at low
temperatures, about 120°C (250°F).

        Tables 12.3-18 and 12.3-19 present process and fugitive lead emission factors for various
operations of primary copper smelters.

        Fugitive emissions from primary copper smelters are captured by applying either local
ventilation or general ventilation techniques. Once captured, fugitive emissions may be vented
directly to a collection device or can be combined widi process off-gases before collection. Close-
fitting exhaust hood capture systems are used for multiple hearth  roasters and hood ventilation
systems for smelt matte tapping and slag skimming operations. For converters, secondary hood
systems or building evacuation systems are used.

        A number of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are identified as being present in some copper
concentrates being delivered to primary copper smelters for processing.  They include arsenic,
antimony, cadmium, lead, selenium, and cobalt. Specific emission factors are not presented due to
lack of data.  A part of the reason for roasting the concentrate is to remove certain volatile impurities
including arsenic and antimony. There are HAPs still contained in blister copper, including arsenic,
antimony, lead, and selenium.  After electrolytic refining, copper is 99.95 percent to 99.97 percent
pure.

References For Section 12.3

1.      Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992,  U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.

2.      Background Information For New Source Performance Standards: Primary Copper, Tine And
        Lead Smelters, Volume I, Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-002a, U. S.  Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  October 1974.

3.      Arsenic Emissions From Primary  Copper Smelters - Background Information For Proposed
        Standards, Preliminary Draft, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3060,  Pacific Environmental Services,
        Durham, NC, February 1981.

4.      Background Information Document For Revision Of New Source Performance Standards For
        Primary  Copper Smelters, EPA Contract No.  68-02-3056, Research Triangle Institute,
        Research Triangle Park, NC, March 31, 1982.

5.      Air Pollution Emission Test: Asarco Copper Smelter, El Paso, TX, EMB-77-CUS-6.
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1977.

6.      Written communications from W. F. Cummins, Inc., El Paso, TX, to A. E. Vervaert,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1977.

12.3-18                             EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
7.     AP-42 Background Files, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1978.

8.     Source Emissions Survey OfKennecott Copper Corporation, Copper Smelter Converter Stack
       Inlet And Outlet And Reverberatory Electrostatic Precipitator Inlet And Outlet, Hurley, NM,
       EA-735-09, Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX, April 1973.

9.     Trace Element Study At A Primary Copper Smelter, EPA-600/2-78-065a and 065b,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, March 1978.

10.    Systems Study For Control Of Emissions, Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry, Volume II:
       Appendices A and B, PB 184885, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
       June 1969.

11.    Design And Operating Parameters For Emission Control Studies:  White Pine Copper Smelter,
       EPA-600/2-76-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February
       1976.

12.    R. M. Statnick, Measurements Of Sulfur Dioxide, Paniculate And Trace Elements In Copper
       Smelter Converter And Roaster/Reverberatory Gas Streams, PB 238095, National Technical
       Information Service, Springfield, VA, October 1974.

13.    AP-42 Background Files, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

14.    Design And Operating Parameters For Emission Control Studies, Kennecott-McGill Copper
       Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036c, U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       February 1976.

15.    Emission Test Report (Acid Plant) OfPhelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Ajo, AZ,
       EMB-78-CUS-11, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC
       March 1979.

16.    S. Dayton, "Inspiration's Design  For Clean Air", Engineering And Mining Journal, 175:6,
       June 1974.

17.    Emission Testing OfAsarco Copper Smelter, Tacoma, WA, EMB-78-CUS-12,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, April 1979.

18.    Written communication from A. L. Labbe, Asarco, Inc., Tacoma, WA, to S. T.  Cuffe,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, November 20, 1978.

19.    Design And Operating Parameters For Emission Control Studies: Asarco-Harden Copper
       Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036J, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       February 1976.

20.    Design And Operating Parameters for Emission Control Studies: Kennecott, Hoyden Copper
       Smelter, EPA-600/2/76-036b, U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       February 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Metallurgical Industry                             12.3-19
-------
21.    R. Larkin, Arsenic Emissions At Kennecott Copper Corporation, Hoyden, AZ, EPA-76-NFS-1,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1977.

22.    Emission Compliance Status, Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, Inspiration, AZ,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, 1980.

23.    Written communication from M. P. Scanlon, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Hidalgo, AZ, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October  18, 1978.

24.    Written communication from G. M. McArthur, Anaconda Company,  to D. R. Goodwin,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1977.

25.    Telephone communication from V. Katari, Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC, to
       R. Winslow, Hidalgo Smelter, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Hidalgo, AZ, April 1, 1982.

26.    Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Report For The Nonferrous Industry, Contract
       68-02-3159, Acurex Corp., Mountain View, CA,  August 1986.

27.    Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Douglas, AZ, EMB-78-CUS-8,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1979.

28.    Emission Testing Of Kennecott Copper Smelter, Magna, UT, EMB-78-CUS-13,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.

29.    Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Ajo, AZ, EMB-78-CUS-9,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1979.

30.    Written communication from R. D. Putnam, Asarco, Inc., to M. O. Varner, Asarco, Inc.,
       Salt Lake City, UT, May 12, 1980.

31.    Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Playas, NM, EMB-78-CUS-10,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1979.

32.    Asarco Copper Smelter, El Paso, TX, EMB-78-CUS-7, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, April 25, 1978.

33.    A. D. Church, et al., "Measurement Of Fugitive Paniculate And Sulfur Dioxide Emissions At
       Inco's Copper Cliff Smelter", Paper A-79-51, The Metallurgical Society, American Institute of
       Mining,  Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), New York,  NY.

34.    Copper Smelters, Emission Test Repon—Lead Emissions, EMB-79-CUS-14,  Office of Air
       Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC,  September 1979.
12.3-20                            EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
12.4  Ferroalloy Production

12.4.1  General

        Ferroalloy is an alloy  of iron with some element other than carbon. Ferroalloy is used to
physically introduce or "carry" that element into molten metal, usually during steel manufacture. In
practice, the term ferroalloy is used to include any alloys that introduce reactive elements or alloy
systems, such as nickel and cobalt-based aluminum systems.   Silicon metal is consumed in the
aluminum industry as an alloying agent and in the chemical industry as a raw material in silicon-based
chemical manufacturing.

        The ferroalloy industry is associated with the iron and steel industries, its largest customers.
Ferroalloys  impart distinctive  qualities to steel and cast iron and serve important functions during iron
and steel production cycles. The principal ferroalloys are those of chromium, manganese, and
silicon.  Chromium provides corrosion resistance to stainless steels.   Manganese is essential to
counteract the harmful effects  of sulfur in the production of virtually all steels and cast iron.  Silicon
is used primarily for deoxidation in steel and  as an alloying agent in cast iron.  Boron, cobalt,
columbium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, zirconium, and
the rare earths impart specific characteristics and are usually  added as ferroalloys.

        United States ferroalloy  production in 1989 was approximately 894,000 megagrams (Mg)
(985,000 tons), substantially less than shipments in 1975 of approximately  1,603,000 megagrams
(1,770,000 tons).  In 1989, ferroalloys were produced in the U. S. by 28 companies, although 5 of
those produced only ferrophosphorous as a byproduct of elemental phosphorous production.

12.4.2  Process Description

        A typical ferroalloy plant is illustrated in Figure 12.4-1.  A variety of furnace types, including
submerged electric arc furnaces, exothermic (metallothermic)  reaction furnaces, and electrolytic cells
can be used to produce ferroalloys. Furnace descriptions and their ferroalloy products are given  in
Table 12.4-1.

12.4.2.1 Submerged Electric  Arc Process -
        In most cases, the submerged electric  arc furnace produces the desired product directly.  It
may produce an intermediate product that is subsequently used in  additional processing methods.  The
submerged  arc process is a reduction  smelting operation.  The reactants consist of metallic ores
(ferrous oxides, silicon oxides, manganese oxides, chrome oxides, etc.) and a carbon-source reducing
agent, usually in the form of coke, charcoal, high- and low-volatility coal, or wood chips. Limestone
may also be added as a flux material.  Raw materials are crushed, sized, and, in some cases, dried,
and then conveyed to a mix house for weighing and  blending.  Conveyors, buckets,  skip hoists, or
cars transport the processed material to hoppers above the furnace. The mix is then gravity-fed
through a feed chute either continuously or intermittently, as  needed.  At high temperatures in the
reaction zone, the carbon source reacts with metal oxides to form  carbon monoxide and to reduce the
ores to base metal.  A typical  reaction producing ferrosilicon is shown below:

                           Fe2O3  + 2SiO2  + 7C  -* 2FeSi + 7  CO                         (1)
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.4-1
-------





















LU
t—



a.





























5!
_J -
ID :

o_ *




























LU
[_


1—
£L
1 1




1




a
jj
£
j
^
2
t


















1
1


1
t
t














s>
JJ

c
L.





XI
4.
D
v
=C
X

































£
}&
< **
t o
Ki




































































J

C
c
i-
,


c
^
K
L
^
O

j


X
O
LU




LU
H-



CL


j




O
1—

i




0
z
>
LU
U
LLJ
£±


\

!)
3»
L
r




D
^

u
0





LU
LU
U-













s-


L
w
>


f

5
c/

L





n
z
<

LU
5
u_


J




T
U
>
L
C
0




J
)

>



)
V

1


>



1


3
3

J





UJ
<
_J


CL







































t

o
^
c:
LU
1 —
O
x
LU

t




                                                                                        o.

                                                                                       _e

                                                                                        4)
                                                                                       •a
                                                                                        o


                                                                                        c
                                                                                        o
                                                                                       CJ
                                                                                        a>
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                       -a
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        ca
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        CS
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        00
12.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86
-------
       Table 12.4-1. FERROALLOY PROCESSES AND RESPECTIVE PRODUCT GROUPS
                   Process
                             Product
  Submerged arc furnacea
  Exothermic1*
   Silicon reduction
   Aluminum Reduction


   Mixed aluminothermal/silicotherrnal

  Electrolytic0

  Vacuum furnaced

  Induction furnace0
         Silvery iron (15-22% Si)
         Ferrosilicon (50% Si)
         Ferrosilicon (65-75% Si)
         Silicon metal
         Silicon/manganese/zirconium (SMZ)
         High carbon (HC) ferromanganese
         Siliconmanganese
         HC ferrochrome
         Ferrochrome/silicon
         FeSi (90% Si)
         Low carbon (LC) ferrochrome, LC
         ferromanganese,  medium carbon (MC)
         ferromanganese

         Chromium metal, ferrotitanium,
         ferrocolumbium,  ferovanadium

         Ferromolybdenum,  ferrotungsten

         Chromium metal, manganese metal

         LC ferrochrome

         Ferrotitanium
a Process by which metal is smelted in a refractory-lined cup-shaped steel shell by submerged
  graphite electrodes.
b Process by which molten charge material is reduced, in exothermic reaction, by addition of silicon,
  aluminum, or a combination of the 2.
c Process by which simple  ions of a metal, usually chromium or manganese in an electrolyte, are
  plated on cathodes by direct low-voltage current.
d Process by which carbon  is  removed from solid-state high-carbon ferrochrome within vacuum
  furnaces maintained  at temperatures near melting point of alloy.
e Process that converts electrical energy into heat, without  electrodes, to melt metal  charges in a cup
  or drum-shaped vessel.
       Smelting in an electric arc furnace is accomplished by conversion of electrical energy to heat.
An alternating current applied to the electrodes causes current to flow through the charge between the
electrode tips. This provides a reaction zon? at temperatures up to 2000°C (3632°F).  The tip of
each electrode changes polarity continuously as the alternating current flows between the tips.   To
maintain a uniform electric load, electrode depth is continuously varied automatically by mechanical
or hydraulic means.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-3
-------
        A typical submerged electric arc furnace design is depicted in Figure 12.4-2.  The lower part
of the submerged electric arc furnace is composed of a cylindrical steel shell with a flat bottom or
hearth.  The interior of the shell is lined with 2 or more layers of carbon blocks.  The furnace shell
may be water-cooled to protect it from the heat of the process.  A water-cooled cover and fume
collection hood are mounted over the furnace shell.  Normally, 3 carbon electrodes arranged in a
triangular formation extend through the cover and into the furnace shell opening.  Prebaked or self-
baking (Soderberg) electrodes ranging from 76 to over 100 cm (30 to over 40 inches) in diameter are
typically used.  Raw materials are sometimes charged to the furnace through feed chutes from above
the furnace. The surface of the furnace charge, which contains both molten material and unconverted
charge during operation, is typically maintained near the top of the furnace shell.  The lower ends of
the electrodes are maintained at about 0.9  to  1.5 meters (3 to 5 feet) below the charge surface.
Three-phase electric current arcs from electrode to electrode, passing through the charge material.
The charge material melts and reacts to form the desired product as the electric energy is converted
into heat. The carbonaceous material in the furnace charge reacts with oxygen in the metal oxides  of
the charge and reduces them to base metals.  The reactions produce large quantities of carbon
monoxide (CO) that passes upward through the furnace charge.  The molten metal and slag are
removed (tapped) through 1 or  more tap holes extending through the furnace shell at the hearth  level.
Feed materials may be charged continuously or intermittently. Power is applied continuously.
Tapping can be intermittent or continuous based on production rate of the  furnace.

        Submerged electric arc  furnaces are of 2 basic types,  open and covered.  Most of the
submerged electric arc furnaces in the U. S. are open furnaces.  Open furnaces have a fume collection
hood at least 1 meter (3.3 feet) above the top of the furnace shell.  Moveable panels or screens are
sometimes used to reduce the open area between the furnace and hood, and to improve emissions
capture efficiency. Carbon monoxide rising through the furnace charge burns in the area between the
charge surface and the capture hood. This substantially increases the volume of gas the containment
system must handle.  Additionally, the vigorous open combustion process  entrains finer material in
the charge. Fabric filters are typically used to control  emissions from open furnaces.

        Covered furnaces may have a water-cooled steel cover that fits closely to the furnace shell.
The objective of covered furnaces is to reduce air infiltration into the furnace gases, which reduces
combustion of that gas. This reduces the volume of gas requiring collection and treatment. The
cover has holes for the charge and electrodes to pass through. Covered  furnaces that partially close
these hood openings with charge material are referred to as "mix-sealed" or "semi-enclosed furnaces".
Although these covered furnaces significantly reduce air infiltration, some combustion  still occurs
under the furnace cover.  Covered furnaces that have mechanical seals around the electrodes and
sealing compounds around the outer edges are referred to as "sealed"  or "totally closed". These
furnaces have little, if any, air infiltration and undercover combustion. Water leaks from the cover
into the furnace must be minimized  as this leads to excessive gas production and unstable furnace
operation.  Products prone to highly variable releases of process gases are typically not made in
covered furnaces for safety reasons.  As the degree of enclosure increases, less gas  is produced  for
capture by the hood system and the  concentration of carbon monoxide in the furnace gas increases.
Wet scrubbers are used to control emissions from  covered furnaces.  The scrubbed, high carbon
monoxide content  gas may be used within the plant or flared.

        The molten alloy and slag that accumulate on the furnace hearth are removed at 1 to 5-hour
intervals through the tap hole.  Tapping typically lasts 10 to 15 minutes.  Tap holes are opened with
pellet shot from a  gun, by drilling, or by oxygen lancing.  The molten metal and slag flow from the
tap hole into a carbon-lined trough,  then into a carbon-lined runner that directs the metal and slag into
a reaction ladle, ingot molds, or chills.  (Chills are low, flat iron or steel pans that  provide rapid
12.4-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
            CARBON   ELECTRODES
                 Figure 12.4-2.  Typical submerged arc furnace design.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-5
-------
cooling of the molten metal.) After tapping is completed, the furnace is resealed by inserting a
carbon paste plug into the tap hole.

        Chemistry adjustments may be necessary after furnace smelting to achieve a specified product.
Ladle treatment reactions are batch processes and may include metal and alloy additions.

        During tapping, and/or in the reaction ladle, slag is skimmed from the surface of the molten
metal.  It can be disposed of in landfills, sold as  road ballast, or used as a raw material in a furnace
or reaction ladle to produce a chemically related  ferroalloy product.

        After cooling and solidifying, the large ferroalloy castings may  be broken with drop weights
or hammers. The broken ferroalloy pieces are then crushed, screened (sized), and stored in bins until
shipment. In some instances, the alloys are stored in lump form in inventories prior to sizing for
shipping.

12.4.2.2  Exothermic (Metallothermic) Process -
       The exothermic process is generally used to produce high-grade alloys with low-carbon
content.  The intermediate molten alloy used in the process may come directly from a submerged
electric  arc furnace or from another type of heating device.  Silicon or aluminum combines with
oxygen in the molten alloy, resulting in a sharp temperature rise and strong agitation of the molten
bath.  Low- and  medium-carbon content ferrochromium (FeCr) and ferromanganese (FeMn) are
produced by silicon reduction. Aluminum reduction is used to produce chromium metal,
ferrotitanium, ferrovanadium, and ferrocolumbium.  Mixed alumino/silico thermal processing is used
for producing ferromolybdenum and ferrotungsten.  Although aluminum is more expensive than
carbon or silicon, the products are purer.  Low-carbon (LC) ferrochromium is typically produced by
fusing chromium ore and lime in a furnace. A specified amount is then placed in a ladle (ladle
No. 1).  A known amount of an intermediate grade ferrochromesilicon is then added to the ladle.
The reaction is extremely exothermic and liberates chromium from its ore, producing LC
ferrochromium and a calcium silicate slag. This  slag,  which still contains recoverable chromium
oxide, is reacted in a second ladle (ladle No. 2) with molten high-carbon ferrochromesilicon to
produce the intermediate-grade ferrochromesilicon.  Exothermic processes are generally carried out in
open vessels and may have emissions similar to the submerged  arc process for short periods while the
reduction  is occurring.

12.4.2.3 Electrolytic Processes -
       Electrolytic processes are used to produce high-purity manganese and chromium.  As of 1989,
there were 2 ferroalloy facilities using electrolytic processes.

       Manganese may be produced by the electrolysis of an electrolyte extracted from manganese
ore or manganese-bearing  ferroalloy slag.  Manganese ores contain close to 50 percent manganese;
furnace  slag normally contains about 10 percent manganese.  The process has 5 steps:  (1) roasting
the ore to convert it to  manganese oxide (MnO),  (2) leaching the roasted ore with sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) to solubilize manganese, (3) neutralization and filtration to remove iron and aluminum
hydroxides, (4) purifying the leach liquor by treatment with sulfide and filtration to remove a wide
variety of metals, and (5) electrolysis.

       Electrolytic chromium is  generally produced from high-carbon ferrochromium.  A large
volume  of hydrogen gas is produced by dissolving the alloy in sulfuric acid.  The leachate is  treated
with ammonium  sulfate and conditioned to remove ferrous ammonium sulfate and produce a chrome-
alum for feed to  the electrolysis cells.  The electrolysis cells are well ventilated to reduce ambient
hydrogen  and hexavalent chromium concentrations in the cell rooms.

12.4-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 12.4.3 Emissions And Controls

        Participate is generated from several activities during ferroalloy production, including raw
 material handling, smelting, tapping, and product handling. Organic materials are generated almost
 exclusively from the smelting operation.  The furnaces are the largest potential sources of paniculate
 and organic emissions. The emission factors are given in Tables 12.4-2 and 12.4-3. Size-specific
 emission factors for submerged arc ferroalloy furnaces are given in Tables  12.4-4 and 12.4-5.

        Particulate emissions from electric arc furnaces in the form of fumes account for an estimated
 94 percent of the total particulate  emissions in the ferroalloy industry.  Large amounts of carbon
 monoxide and organic materials also are emitted by submerged electric arc furnaces. Carbon
 monoxide is formed as a byproduct of the chemical reaction between oxygen in the metal oxides of
 the charge and carbon contained in the reducing agent (coke, coal, etc.).  Reduction gases containing
 organic compounds and carbon monoxide continuously rise from the high-temperature reaction zone,
 entraining fine particles and fume precursors. The mass weight of carbon monoxide produced
 sometimes exceeds that of the metallic product.  The  heat-induced fume consists of oxides of the
 products being produced and carbon from the reducing agent.  The fume  is enriched by silicon
 dioxide, calcium oxide, and magnesium oxide, if present in the charge.

        In an open electric arc furnace, virtually all carbon monoxide  and much of the organic matter
 burns  with induced air at the furnace top.  The remaining fume, captured by hooding about 1 meter
 above the furnace, is directed to a gas cleaning device.  Fabric filters are used to control emissions
 from 85 percent of the open furnaces in the U. S.  Scrubbers are used on 13 percent of the furnaces,
 and electrostatic precipitators on 2 percent.

        Two emission capture systems, not usually  connected to the same gas cleaning device, are
 necessary for covered furnaces. A primary capture system withdraws gases from beneath the furnace
 cover.  A secondary system captures fumes released around the electrode seals and during tapping.
 Scrubbers are used almost  exclusively to control exhaust gases from sealed  furnaces. The scrubbers
 capture a substantial percentage of the organic emissions, which are much greater for covered
 furnaces than open furnaces. The gas from sealed and mix-sealed furnaces  is usually flared at the
 exhaust of the scrubber. The carbon monoxide-rich gas is  sometimes  used  as a fuel in kilns  and
 sintering machines.  The efficiency of flares for the control of carbon  monoxide and the reduction of
 VOCs has been estimated to be greater than 98 percent.  A gas  heating reduction of organic and
 carbon monoxide emissions is 98 percent efficient.

        Tapping operations also generate fumes. Tapping is intermittent and is usually conducted
 during 10 to 20 percent of the furnace operating time. Some fumes originate from the carbon lip
 liner, but most are a result of induced heat transfer from the molten metal or slag as it contacts  the
 runners, ladles,  casting beds, and ambient air.  Some  plants capture these emissions to varying
 degrees with a main canopy hood. Other plants employ separate tapping hoods ducted to either the
furnace emission control device or a separate control device.  Emission factors for tapping emissions
 are unavailable due to lack of data.

        After furnace tapping is completed,  a reaction ladle may be used to  adjust the metallurgy by
chlorination, oxidation, gas mixing,  and slag metal  reactions. Ladle reactions are an intermittent
process, and emissions have not been quantified.  Reaction ladle emissions are often captured by the
tapping emissions  control system.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.4-7
-------
s

i
ttH
<:
j

Is
So
2£
oi^
th
  [i,
^fe
es O
OH
H ^
5^
< Q
S w
On,

^3 ^
M P^
s<
W Q
 . u
^o
.•« Oti
c PQ

^2
o CQ

"S D
o> oo
S


^
Tt
CN
CO
§ g 0
« O z
85P
i£2
S
l|l
111
«|3
u
•o.
o
0
S
Q
S
S
o
O
5 BJ a
IN
a**
H
«J o 15
i*!
<> C ~
'•S -2 §
ca » o
ex .2 c
E D
u
8.
>^
H
o
o
a
3
UH






O
•o
2
a.





OQ U U CU ^ S CO CQ W y 15 U O CJ
a i, : i i , i 3 i i a a 1
s
Oft"
JB"
W» M &ft - ^ &fi bO
*** _ . i-< Er .— v £r *tllt.Ba*-' »-•
o"^o8^53 G o* - o o
O -^- C c *T- C ft> O -^_, C .. C
«>5oSSa> «»wJ3oSw
g^jS^^. gg^js^x; >j
^5 ja euo^^? ^^^fiA^oo x
w> S'^*! 2^ r\ r\ ^ M 2 >? 2>?- 1^1 ^
« 3 3. J 3 J (-1 u) a a g S. S -1- LJ co
03 CO co ZZCQCQcO co Z W
« w u u w oa aa u wo




•° oB
B" •• £0oocj— nt~-o\



-a *t
ao J5 •£. -S- >
"-"2 "S o. i- ^3-><
o~ S j< C S a" tr Ji T3 x"
c u c oecc u^c


OO O OOOO O coO
P
0
^ ^ ^ ° S" 9 ®
o o o § § o 9
s o § g § ° rj
9 9 9 ^ " ® o
rn en f^t ^ c^i c/\
9 9 9 CJ r> rj ^
f^ C*S C^l U rj r) O*
O O O 52- O w °
O O O ^, co X "1
f | 1 I 1 £ if
^ ^ ^-^ u c c ^
"^ "S '^ 15 ^ ^J
tt. U, (L, CO 0, U, tt.




CO
"c "S
d> *^i

O co




«?r
O
*o
§
1
en
9
CO
c
s
tw
                                                                o
                                                                  co
                                                              0
                                                              «H «

                                                              <2 3
    tS *
    <0 —

    11
                                                                  o
                                                                  SS
                                                                  Q.
                                                                !>-  •"
                                                              111
    III


   ^ §< M
    2k--

    o! ° -2
    *-i o5 »c
    o •« «

    Hi 0

   fc I t5
                                                              T3

                                                                «

                                                                u o

                                                                s
                                                                  c« ^3

                                                                  CQ t>
                                                              s -6 S » -S
                                                              0 *   < 2
                                                                c
                                                                  bO   g"
                                                                B .s g ^

                                                                § "i u c
                                                              §§ 1 g
                                                              ^2 '> ^ -2
                                                                    -
12.4-8
                             EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                                                             •8
tN





CS
E^
not measured or collected. Where tapping emissions are controlled by primary system, th<
ermined. Fugitive emissions may vary greatly among sources, with furnace and collection
•JTj
1)

<« -o
c t*
•i §
.« T3
E 3
S 8
=: d
i-i
<5 .2
In most source testing,
contribution to total em


t>
P,
•4—*
t3
CO
•o
>
jo
"re
bo
S
"So
j*
in
0
"re
.2
•4— »
'S
•s
C«
§• 1
<4-c CO
O «
 • 22
O °c
>.feS g
1§ I
!§ e £
ll !
<*- S 73
o -c _c
r-i ^^ O
o o P
C C c«
"" .« c
o
V
<
01
O
D
w
Low-energy scrubbers i
0 O
*J5 '«
<*3 .S3
^ _ -^ £J
T3 
'1, ^
w" «5"
*.* a)
>, 2
J3 3
_ O
Includes fumes capturec
References 4,10,21.
Factor is average of 3 s
or 2.1 kg/MW-hr.
References 4,10.
CO
re
CO
X

's
L^
o
bo
"S<
&
^— •
E
o
*
CO
c
o
Does not include emissi
References 25-26.




Reference 23.
>y control system (escaped fugitive emissions not included in factor).
_!_•
1
3
K,
03
O
ng emissions
Estimated 60% of tappi
References 10,13.
iy control system (escaped fugitive emissions not included in factor).
_LJ
•s
_3
O,
re
o
ng emissions
Estimated 50% of tappi
References 4,10,12.
:m.
ve emissions. Fugitive emissions measured at 33% of total uncontrollable emissions.
n factor.
U^ »— — Q
f.Mg
-5 S
§•^2
c w .S
8i"s
&>-•§
c .S "o
1 e-s
°"i o
E re C
Includes fumes only fro
Includes tapping fumes
Assumes tapping fumes
Reference 14.
urce included fugitive emissions (3.4% of total uncontrolled emissions). Second test
/ere included in total.
•
emissions
0)
'3>

C/2
O>
H
CO
OJ
'i
V5
•4— »
W^
ni
!£
missions

•*— >
'eb
a
<4_,
«•%
Factor is average of 2 ti
insufficient to determine
References 2,18-19.
8
£
8
&.'
<
•8
«a
"i
&
GO
3
4_>
cS
a>
•4-*
O
-------
  o
  a!
  PL,
  O a

  PS O

  el
  si
  Is
  "

  
o S
O Q


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
§•>
s I"S
•i*!
0 C i!
"l-i I
<£ -1 S
S D
BJ
|
K
O
03
E
U.

•^j
S
13
O
OH





ffl
00



VI
3
O
•a
CO
CQ
UJC1} Uji^^CQfflCIj CJ i^UCJ O
oo oo o
o os oo Q Q n o" >-H o QrJTj- o
z z OT z

!t
«o
45~
'•HH g S '%. S z i ^ \< g ^ = z i >L g
^_C^W ISSj^ ^_r- >v-D^

I 'a ^ g ,3 S'o'licbiE S3 g g 3
CO CO PO 03 CO CO tU (O CO
CU [U UJUCQ03 U WUOl
-« S I*E- - SES •


w>
**1
c
u
O,
o
0
O
o
rn
O
U
U
co
S£
o
•— '
u.

"^? *^.
"i? "^o,1- "T? =->,s
8 J< 8 E B IT 8 T3 X N X)
o c uccc o juce^u
6 o'uo'cS'O 6 coOOw
M en g 9 r1- g
O O <*> O fjj
9 9 ° <*) 9 rj "^
C^ (*1 ^*^ ^^ p^l r/s ^P
^3 O r ^ rr\ SO^ vrt
" ' M ^ ^N O
U U 5S O CO I 0
o o ^ co, ^ •£ 9
55- 52. ^ >-. -^ S f>
g~ ^ S o S? "§> o
"^ ° •js 22- O Ic 52,
•-^ •—' c «e ^ u c
Uri U^ CO U-l UH tL, CO
                                                                             8
                                                                          "
                                                                          4)

                                                                          13
                                                                        s 'p
                                                                        x> u
                                                                        CD   •-

                                                                        «a _J 1  SP
                                                                        >>& J5

                                                                        ^-so
                                                                        c 2  «
                                                                        5 c  p.

                                                                        'Z3 52 T3
                                                                        3
                                                                          -
                                                                             g
                                       •s is c
                                       TO •—« O

                                       gl-
                                          3 cJ)

                                       <2  °*.S



                                       §11
                                       en  55 O
                                       tU ..
                                                                          OX)
                                                                          v!  * •§




                                                                          CA  &^
                                                                             Sfil
                                       I S 2<


                                       1 S " Z
                                       01 ° oo cd

                                       o 'Jg .S «
                                                                        'S
                                            «
                                                                                 e
12.4-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   8
   (S    ~
   o>

   1
   H
ot measured or collected. Where tapping emissions are controlled by primary system, theii
jrmined. Fugitive emissions may vary greatly among sources, with furnace and collection
inches of H2O; high-energy with AP > 20 inches of H2O.
ency estimated at near 100%).
c *5
In most source testing, fugitive emissions are
contribution to total emissions could not be de
o
O o
^S
v ,s
O« -o
• < §
S^ -§
•Hi?
« a) O<
S.S &
g~ ^
is*
2 "» "S
8,2 §
°.§ 1U
TJ .0 e« CS
C 3 0 •>
ca u, o
e 8 8-.
.£? >> S *
S £?£ S
•0 a> CA "
i?i§
2 > £ 
0>
•*— •
"&b
a
CA"
0)
|
1
fi
<4_
O
o>
M
CO •
i— <-
1> 43
^
•ssS
S£
•4-^
£^
tu m
M


References 4,10.
_e .
CA
W
CA
..—i
Does not include emissions from tapping or m
References 25-26.
._ ^


Reference 23.
s
y control system (escaped fugitive emissions not included in factor).
^fi
Estimated 60% of tapping emissions captured
References 10,13.
c o.
o
o
=2
_c
•s
•o
"o
1
CA
"33
CA
1
_>
•*_<
1
CA
0)
eu
CA
"o
0
o
f>
Estimated 50% of tapping emissions captured
References 4,10,12.
a- t.
m.
ve emissions. Fugitive emissions measured at 33% of total uncontrollable emissions.
n factor.
£ -~ 0
Includes fumes only from primary control sysl
Includes tapping fumes and mix seal leak fugit
Assumes tapping fumes not included in emissi
Reference 14.
IB ^ 3 >

.
Does not include tapping or fugitive emissions
Tapping emissions included.
References 2, 15- 17.
% X >•>
urce included fugitive emissions (3.4% of total uncontrolled emissions). Second test
rere included in total.
O S
Factor is average of 2 test series. Tests at 1 s
insufficient to determine if fugitive emissions
References 2,18-19.
a
t*l as
CL>
1
'o
1
3
u.
D
-s
0
 ^i
CA **
Factors developed from 2 scrubber controlled
Uncontrolled tapping operations emissions are
.0
^
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                                 12.4-11
-------
         Table 12.4-4 (Metric Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                  SUBMERGED ARC FERROALLOY FURNACES
Product
50% FeSi
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-01)
















80% FeMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-06)
















Control
Device

Noneb>c








Baghouse









Nonee>f








Baghouse6








Particle Sizea
Qim)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

45
50
53
57
61
63
66
69
100
31
39
44
54
63
72
80
85
100

30
46
52
62
72
86
96
97
100
20
30
35
49
67
83
92
97
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg alloy)

16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
35
0.28
0.35
0.40
0.49
0.57
0.65
0.72
0.77
0.90

4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
14
0.048
0.070
0.085
0.120
0.160
0.200
0.220
0.235
0.240
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B








B









B








B








12.4-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                        Table 12.4-4 (cont.).
Product
Si Metais
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-04)















FeCr (HC)
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-07)














Control
Device

None*1








Baghouse








NonebJ







ESP







Particle Size8
G*m)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

57
67
70
75
80
86
91
95
100
49
53
64
76
87
96
99
100

19
36
60
63k
76
88k
91
100
33
47
67
80
86
90
100

Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg alloy)

249
292
305
327
349
375
397
414
436
7.8
8.5
10.2
12.2
13.9
15.4
15.8
16.0

15
28
47
49
59
67
71
78
0.40
0.56
0.80
0.96
1.03
1.08
1.2

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B

















C







C







10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-13
-------
                                      Table 12.4-4 (cont.).
Product
SiMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-05)













Control
Device

Noneb>m







Scrubber"1'11






Particle Sizea
0*m)

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
Cumulative
Mass %
<• Stated Size

28
44
60
65
76
85
96k
100
56
80
96
99
99.5
99.9k
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg alloy)

27
42
58
62
73
82
92k
96
1.18
1.68
2.02
2.08
2.09
2.10k
2.1
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C







C






a  Aerodynamic diameter, based on Task Group On Lung Dynamics definition.
   Particle density = 1 g/cm3.
b  Includes tapping emissions.
0  References 4,10,21.
d  Total particulate, based on Method 5 total catch (see Tables 12.4-2 and 12.4-3).
   Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 50%).
   References 4,10,12.
   References 10,13.
h  Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 60%).
   References 1,15-17.
   Interpolated data.
m References 2,18-19.
n  Primary emission control system only, without tapping emissions.
 12.4-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86
-------
          Table 12.4-5 (English Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                    SUBMERGED ARC FERROALLOY FURNACES
Product
50% FeSi
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-01)
















80% FeMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-06)
















Control
Device

Noneb'c








Baghouse









Nonec'f








Baghouse6








Particle Sizea
0*m)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

45
50
53
57
61
63
66
69
100
31
39
44
54
63
72
80
85
100

30
46
52
62
72
86
96
97
100
20
30
35
49
67
83
92
97
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(Ib/ton alloy)

32
35
37
40
43
44
46
48
70
0.56
0.70
0.80
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.8

8
13
15
17
20
24
26
27
28
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.24
0.32
0.40
0.44
0.47
0.48
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B








B









B








B








10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-15
-------
                                  Table 12.4-5 (cont.).
Product
Si Metais
Open Furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-04)















FeCr (HC)
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-07)














Control
Device

Noneh








Baghouse








NonebJ







ESP







Particle Sizea
Oxm)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

57
67
70
75
80
86
91
95
100
49
53
64
76
87
96
99
100

19
36
60
63k
76
88k
91
100
33
47
67
80
86
90
100

Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(Ib/ton alloy)

497
584
610
654
698
750
794
828
872
15.7
17.0
20.5
24.3
28.0
31.0
31.7
32.0

30
57
94
99
119
138
143
157
0.76
1.08
1.54
1.84
1.98
2.07
2.3

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B








B








C







C







12.4-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                       Table 12.4-5 (cont.).
Product
SiMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-05-006-05)













Control
Device

Noneb>m







Scrubber"1-"






Particle Size3
(Mm)

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

28
44
60
65
76
85
96k
100
56
80
96
99
99.5
99.9k
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(Ib/ton alloy)

54
84
115
125
146
163
177k
192
2.36
3.34
4.03
4.16
4.18
4.20k
4.3
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C







C






a  Aerodynamic diameter, based on Task Group On Lung Dynamics definition.
   Particle density = 1 g/cm3.
b  Includes tapping emissions.
c  References 4,10,21.
d  Total particulate, based on Method 5 total catch (see Tables 12.4-2 and 12.4-3).
e  Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 50%).
f  References 4,10,12.
*  References 10,13.
h  Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 60%).
J   References 1,15-17.
k  Interpolated data.
m  References 2,18-19.
n  Primary emission control system only, without tapping emissions.
        Available data are insufficient to provide emission factors for raw material handling,
pretreatment, and product handling.  Dust particulate is emitted from raw material handling, storage,
and preparation activities (see Figure 12.4-1).  These activities include unloading raw materials from
delivery vehicles (ship, railway car,  or truck),  storing raw materials  in piles, loading raw materials
from storage piles into trucks or gondola cars,  and crushing and screening raw materials. Raw
materials may be dried before charging in rotary or other types of dryers, and these dryers can
generate significant particulate emissions. Dust may  also be generated by heavy vehicles used for
loading, unloading, and transferring  material.  Crushing, screening, and storage of the ferroalloy
product emit particulate matter in the form of dust.  The properties of particulate matter emitted as
dust are similar to the natural properties of the ores or alloys from which  they originated, ranging in
size from 3 to 100 micrometers (/im).
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-17
-------
       Approximately half of all ferroalloy facilities have some type of control for dust emissions.
Dust generated from raw material storage may be controlled in several ways, including sheltering
storage piles from the wind with block walls, snow fences, or plastic covers.  Occasionally, piles are
sprayed with water to prevent airborne dust.  Emissions generated by heavy vehicle traffic may be
reduced by using a wetting agent or paving the plant yard.  Moisture in the raw materials, which may
be as high as 20 percent; helps to limit dust emissions from raw material unloading and loading.
Dust generated by crushing, sizing, drying, or other pretreatment activities may be controlled by dust
collection equipment such as scrubbers, cyclones, or fabric filters. Ferroalloy product crushing and
sizing usually require a fabric filter. The raw material  emission collection equipment may be
connected to the furnace emission control system.  For fugitive emissions from open sources, see
Section 13.2 of this document.

References  For Section 12.4

1.     F. J. Schottman,  "Ferroalloys", 1980 Mineral Facts And Problems, Bureau Of Mines,
       U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1980.

2.     J. O. Dealy and A. M. Killin, Engineering And Cost Study Of The Ferroalloy Industry,
       EPA-450/2-74-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1974.

3.     Background Information On Standards Of Performance: Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces
       For Production Of Ferroalloys, Volume I: Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-018a,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

4.     C. W.  Westbrook and D. P. Dougherty, Level I Environmental Assessment Of Electric
       Submerged Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-81-038,  U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Washington,  DC, March 1981.

5.     F. J. Schottman,  "Ferroalloys", Minerals Yearbook, Volume I:  Metals And Minerals, Bureau
       Of Mines, Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1980.

6.     S. Beaton and H. Klemm, Inhalable Paniculate Field Sampling Program For The Ferroalloy
       Industry, TR-80-115-G,  GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, November 1980.

7.     C. W.  Westbrook and D. P. Dougherty, Environmental Impact Of Ferroalloy Production
       Interim Report: Assessment Of Current Data, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, November  1978.

8.     K. Wark and C. F. Warner, Air Pollution: Its  Origin And Control, Harper And Row, New
       York,  1981.

9.     M.  Szabo and R. Gerstle, Operations And Maintenance Of Paniculate Control Devices On
       Selected Steel And Ferroalloy Processes, EPA-600/2-78-037, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency,  Washington,  DC, March 1978.

10.    C. W.  Westbrook, Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces
       Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-83-092, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, September 1983.
12.4-18                             EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 11.    S. Gronberg, et al., Ferroalloy Industry Paniculate Emissions: Source Category Report,
       EPA-600/7-86-039, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November
       1986.

 12.    T. Epstein, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development, Roane Limited,
       Rockwood, Tennessee, EPA-600/X-85-325, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, June 1981.

 13.    S. Beaton, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development, Interlake Inc., Alabama
       Metallurgical Corp., Selma, Alabama, EPA-600/X-85-324, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC, May 1981.

 14.    J. L. Rudolph, et al., Ferroalloy Process Emissions Measurement, EPA-600/2-79-045,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1979.

 15.    Written Communication From Joseph F. Eyrich, Macalloy Corporation, Charleston, SC, to
       GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, February 10,  1982, Citing Airco Alloys And Carbide Test
       R-07-7774-000-1, Gilbert Commonwealth, Reading, PA.  1978.

 16.    Source Test, Airco Alloys And Carbide, Charleston, SC, EMB-71-PC-16(FEA),
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  1971.

 17.    Telephone communication between Joseph F.  Eyrich, Macalloy Corporation, Charleston, SC,
       and Evelyn J. Limberakis, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA. February 23, 1982.

 18.    Source Test, Chromium Mining And Smelting Corporation, Memphis, TN, EMB-72-PC-05
       (FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC. June 1972.

 19.    Source Test, Union Carbide Corporation, Ferroalloys Division, Marietta,  Ohio,
       EMB-71-PC-12 (FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC.  1971.

20.    R. A. Person, "Control Of Emissions From Ferroalloy Furnace Processing", Journal Of
       Metals, 25(4): 17-29, April 1971.

21.    S. Gronberg, Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development Foote Minerals,  Graham,
       W. Virginia, EPA-600/X-85-327, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       July 1981.

22.    R. W. Gerstle, et al., Review Of Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Air Sources:
       Ferroalloy Production Facility, EPA-450/3-80-041, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1980.

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

24.    Telephone Communication Between Leslie B.  Evans, Office  Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, And
       Richard Vacherot, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA.  October 18, 1984.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Metallurgical Industry                             12.4-19
-------
25.    R. Ferrari, "Experiences In Developing An Effective Pollution Control System For A
       Submerged Arc Ferroalloy Furnace Operation", J. Metals, p. 95-104, April 1968.

26.    Fredriksen and Nestas, Pollution Problems By Electric Furnace Ferroalloy Production, United
       Nations Economic Commission For Europe, September 1968.

27.    A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Paniculate Pollutant System Study—Mass Emissions, PB-203-128,
       PB-203-522 And P-203-521, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.  May
       1971.

28.    Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA^50/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  December 1977.

29.    W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970,
       EPA-APTD-1543, W. E.  Davis And  Associates, Leawood, KS.  April  1973.

30.    Source Test, Foote Mineral Company, Vancoram Operations, Steubenville, OH,
       EMB-71-PC-08 (FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC.  August  1971.

31.    C. R. Neuharth,  "Ferroalloys", Minerals Yearbook, Volume I: Metals And Minerals,
       Bureau Of Mines, Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.

32.    N. Irving Sox and R. J. Lewis, Sr., Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Van
       Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., Eleventh Edition,  1987.

33.    Theodore Baumeister, Mark's Standard Handbook For Mechanical Engineers, McGraw-Hill,
       Eighth Edition, 1978.
12.4-20                             EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
12.5  Iron And Steel Production

12.5.1  Process Description1"3

        The production of steel at an integrated iron and steel plant is accomplished using several
interrelated processes.  The major operations are:  (1) coke production, (2) sinter production, (3) iron
production, (4) iron preparation, (5) steel production, (6) semifinished product preparation,
(7) finished product preparation, (8) heat and electricity supply, and (9) handling and transport of
raw, intermediate, and waste materials.  The interrelation of these operations is depicted in a general
flow diagram of the iron and steel industry in Figure 12.5-1. Coke production is discussed in detail
in Section 12.2 of this publication, and more information on the handling and transport of materials is
found in Chapter 13.

12.5.1.1  Sinter Production -
        The sintering process converts fine-sized raw materials, including iron ore, coke breeze,
limestone, mill scale, and flue dust, into an agglomerated product, sinter, of suitable size for charging
into the blast furnace. The raw materials are sometimes mixed with water to provide a cohesive
matrix,  and then placed  on a continuous, travelling grate called the sinter strand. A  burner hood, at
the beginning of the sinter strand ignites the coke in the mixture, after which the combustion is self
supporting and it provides sufficient heat, 1300 to 1480°C  (2400 to 2700°F),  to cause surface melting
and agglomeration of the mix.  On the underside of the sinter strand is a series of windboxes that
draw combusted air down  through the material bed into a common  duct, leading to a gas cleaning
device.  The fused sinter is discharged at the end  of the sinter strand, where it is crushed and
screened.  Undersize sinter is recycled to the mixing mill and back to the strand. The remaining
sinter product is cooled  in open air  or in a  circular cooler with  water sprays or mechanical fans.  The
cooled sinter is crushed  and  screened  for a final time, then the fines are recycled, and the product is
sent to be charged to the blast furnaces.   Generally, 2.3 Mg (2.5  tons) of raw materials, including
water and fuel, are required  to produce 0.9 Mg (1 ton) of product sinter.

12.5.1.2  Iron Production-
        Iron  is produced in blast furnaces by the reduction  of iron bearing materials with a hot gas.
The large, refractory lined furnace is  charged through its top with iron as ore, pellets,  and/or sinter;
flux as limestone, dolomite,  and sinter; and coke for fuel.  Iron oxides, coke and fluxes react with the
blast air to form molten reduced iron, carbon monoxide (CO), and slag.  The molten iron and slag
collect in the hearth at the base of the furnace.  The byproduct  gas is collected through offtakes
located  at the top of the furnace and is recovered for use as fuel.

        The production of 1  ton of iron requires 1.4 tons of ore or other iron bearing material; 0.5 to
0.65 tons of coke; 0.25  tons of limestone or dolomite;  and  1.8  to 2 tons of air.  Byproducts consist of
0.2 to 0.4 tons of slag, and 2.5 to 3.5 tons of blast furnace gas containing up to 100 pounds (Ib) of
dust.

        The molten iron and slag are removed, or  cast, from the furnace periodically.  The casting
process  begins with  drilling a hole,  called the taphole, into  the  clay-filled iron notch  at the base of the
hearth.  During casting, molten iron flows  into runners that lead to transport ladles.  Slag also flows
into the clay-filled iron notch at the base of the hearth.  During casting, molten iron  flows into
runners that lead to transport ladles.  Slag also flows from  the furnace, and is directed through
separate runners to a slag pit adjacent to the casthouse, or into slag pots for transport to a remote slag


10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                                 12.5-1
-------
                                                                                     1
                                                                                     •o
                                                                                     i

                                                                                     I

                                                                                     tU

                                                                                     V
                                                                                     §
                                                                                     O
                                                                                     in
                                                                                     cs
12.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Refoimatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
pit.  At the conclusion of the cast, the taphole is replugged with clay.  The area around the base of
the furnace, including all iron and slag runners, is enclosed by a casthouse.  The blast furnace
byproduct gas, which is collected from the furnace top, contains CO and participate.  Because of its
high CO content, this blast furnace gas has a low heating value, about 2790 to 3350 joules per liter
(J/L) (75 to 90 British thermal units per cubic foot [Btu/ft3]) and is used as a fuel within the steel
plant.  Before it can be efficiently oxidized, however, the gas must be cleaned of paniculate.
Initially, the gases pass through a settling chamber or dry cyclone to remove about 60 percent of the
paniculate.  Next, the gases undergo a 1- or 2-stage cleaning operation.  The primary cleaner is
normally a wet scrubber, which removes about 90 percent of the remaining paniculate.  The
secondary cleaner is a high-energy wet scrubber (usually a venturi) or an electrostatic precipitator,
either of which can remove up to 90 percent of the paniculate that eludes the primary cleaner.
Together these control devices provide a clean fuel of less than 0.05 grams per cubic meter (g/m3)
(0.02 grains per cubic foot [g/ft3]).  A portion of this gas is fired in the blast furnace  stoves to
preheat the blast air, and the rest is used in other plant operations.

12.5.1.3 Iron Preparation Hot Metal Desulfurization -
        Sulfur in the molten iron is sometimes reduced before charging into the steelmaking furnace
by adding reagents.  The reaction forms  a floating slag which can  be slammed off.  Desulfurization
may be performed in the hot metal transfer (torpedo) car at a location between the blast furnace and
basic oxygen furnace (BOF), or it may be done in the hot metal transfer (torpedo) ladle at a station
inside the BOF shop.

        The most common reagents are powdered calcium carbide (CaC>) and calcium carbonate
(CaC03) or salt-coated magnesium granules. Powdered reagents are injected into the  metal through a
lance with high-pressure nitrogen. The process duration varies with the injection rate, hot metal
chemistry, and desired final sulfur content, and is hi the range of 5 to 30 minutes.

12.5.1.4 Steelmaking Process — Basic Oxygen Furnaces -
        In the basic oxygen process (BOP), molten kon from a blast furnace and iron  scrap are
refined in a furnace by lancing (or injecting) high-purity oxygen. The input material is typically
70 percent molten metal and 30 percent scrap metal. The oxygen reacts with carbon and other
impurities to remove them from the  metal. The reactions are exothermic, i. e., no external heat
source is necessary to melt the scrap and to raise the temperature of the metal to the desired range for
tapping.  The large quantities of CO produced by the reactions in the BOF can be controlled by
combustion at the mouth of the furnace and then vented to gas cleaning devices,  as with open hoods,
or combustion can be suppressed at the furnace mouth, as with closed hoods.  BOP  steelmaking is
conducted in large (up to 363 Mg [400 ton] capacity) refractory lined pear shaped furnaces. There
are 2 major variations of the process.  Conventional BOFs have oxygen blown into the top of the
furnace through a water-cooled lance.  In the newer, Quelle Basic Oxygen process (Q-BOP), oxygen
is injected through tuyeres located in the bottom of the furnace.  A typical BOF cycle  consists of the
scrap charge, hot metal  charge, oxygen blow (refining) period, testing for temperature and chemical
composition of the steel, alloy additions and reblows (if necessary), tapping, and slagging.  The full
furnace cycle typically ranges from 25 to 45 minutes.

12.5.1.5 Steelmaking Process — Electric Arc Furnace -
       Electric arc furnaces (EAF) are used to produce carbon and alloy steels.  The  input material
to an EAF is typically 100 percent scrap. Cylindrical, refractory lined EAFs are equipped with
carbon electrodes to be raised or lowered through the furnace roof.  With electrodes retracted, the
furnace roof can be rotated aside to permit the charge of scrap steel by overhead crane. Alloying
agents and fluxing materials usually are added through the doors on the side of the furnace. Electric
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.5-3
-------
current of the opposite polarity electrodes generates heat between the electrodes and through the
scrap.  After melting and refining periods, the slag and steel are poured from the furnace by tilting.

       The production of steel in an EAF is a batch process.  Cycles, or "heats", range from about
1-1/2 to 5 hours to produce carbon steel and from 5 to 10 hours or more to produce alloy steel.
Scrap steel is charged to begin a cycle, and alloying agents and slag materials are added for refining.
Stages of each cycle normally are charging and melting operations, refining (which usually includes
oxygen blowing), and tapping.

12.5.1.6 Steelmaking Process — Open Hearth Furnaces -
       The open hearth furnace (OHF) is a shallow, refractory-lined basin in which scrap and molten
iron are melted and refined into steel. Scrap is charged to the furnace through doors in the furnace
front.  Hot metal from the blast furnace is added by pouring from a ladle through a trough positioned
hi the door. The mixture of scrap and hot metal can vary from all scrap to all hot metal, but a half-
and-half mixture is most common. Melting heat is provided by gas burners above and at the side of
the furnace. Refining is  accomplished by the oxidation of carbon in the metal and the formation  of a
limestone slag to remove impurities.   Most furnaces are equipped with oxygen lances to speed  up
melting and refining.  The steel product is tapped by opening a hole in the base of the furnace  with an
explosive charge. The open hearth Steelmaking process with oxygen lancing normally requires from
4 to 10 hours for each heat.

12.5.1.7 Semifinished Product Preparation -
       After the steel has been tapped, the molten metal is teemed (poured) into ingots which  are
later heated and formed into other shapes, such as blooms, billets, or slabs. The molten steel  may
bypass this entire process and go directly to a continuous casting operation. Whatever the production
technique, the blooms, billets, or slabs undergo a surface preparation step, scarfing, which removes
surface defects before shaping or rolling.  Scarfing can be performed by a machine applying jets of
oxygen to the surface of hot semifinished steel, or by hand (with torches) on cold or slightly heated
semifinished steel.

12.5.2 Emissions And Controls

12.5.2.1 Sinter-
       Emissions from sinter plants  are generated from raw material handling, windbox exhaust,
discharge end (associated sinter crushers and hot screens), cooler, and cold screen.  The windbox
exhaust is the primary source of particulate emissions,  mainly iron oxides, sulfur oxides,
carbonaceous compounds, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and  chlorides. At the discharge end, emissions are
mainly iron and calcium oxides. Sinter strand windbox emissions commonly are controlled by
cyclone cleaners followed by a dry or wet ESP,  high pressure drop wet scrubber, or baghouse.
Crusher and hot screen emissions, usually controlled by hooding and a baghouse or scrubber,  are the
next largest emissions source. Emissions  are also generated from other material handling operations.
At some suiter plants, these emissions are captured and vented to a baghouse.

12.5.2.2 Blast Furnace -
       The primary source of blast furnace emissions is the casting operation.  Particulate emissions
are generated when the molten iron and slag contact air above their surface.  Casting emissions also
are generated by drilling and plugging the taphole. The occasional use of an oxygen lance to open  a
clogged taphole can cause heavy emissions.  During the casting operation, iron oxides, magnesium
oxide and carbonaceous compounds are generated as  particulate.  Casting emissions  at existing blast
furnaces  are controlled by evacuation through retrofitted capture hoods to a gas cleaner, or by
suppression techniques. Emissions controlled by hoods and an evacuation system are usually vented

12.5-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95)  10/86
-------
to a baghouse. The basic concept of suppression techniques is to prevent the formation of pollutants
by excluding ambient air contact with the molten surfaces.  New furnaces have been constructed with
evacuated runner cover systems and local hooding ducted to a baghouse.

        Another potential source of emissions is the blast furnace top. Minor emissions may occur
during charging from imperfect bell seals in the double bell system.  Occasionally, a cavity may form
in the blast furnace charge, causing a collapse of part of the burden (charge) above it.  The resulting
pressure surge hi the furnace opens a relief valve to the atmosphere to prevent damage to the furnace
by the high pressure created and is referred to as a "slip".

 12.5.2.3  Hot Metal Desulfurization -
        Emissions during the hot metal desulfurization process are  created by both the reaction of the
reagents injected into the metal and the turbulence during injection. The pollutants emitted are mostly
iron oxides, calcium oxides, and oxides of the compound injected.  The sulfur reacts with the reagents
and is skimmed off as slag. The emissions generated from desulfurization may be collected by a
hood positioned over the ladle and vented to a baghouse.

 12.5.2.4  Steelmaking -
        The most significant emissions from the BOF process occur during the oxygen blow period.
The predominant compounds emitted are iron oxides, although heavy metals and fluorides are usually
present.  Charging emissions will vary with the quality and quantity of scrap metal charged to the
furnace and with the pour rate.  Tapping emissions include iron oxides, sulfur oxides,  and other
metallic oxides, depending on the grade of scrap used. Hot metal transfer emissions are mostly iron
oxides.

        BOFs are equipped with a primary hood capture system located directly  over the open mouth
of the furnaces to control emissions during oxygen blow periods.  Two types of capture systems are
used to collect exhaust gas as  it leaves the furnace mouth:  closed hood (also known as an off gas, or
O.  G., system) or open,  combustion-type hood.  A closed hood fits snugly against the furnace mouth,
ducting all paniculate and CO to a wet scrubber gas cleaner.  CO is flared at the scrubber outlet
stack. The open hood design  allows dilution air to be drawn into the hood, thus combusting the CO
in the hood system.  Charging and tapping emissions are controlled by a variety of evacuation
systems and operating practices.  Charging hoods, tapside enclosures, and full furnace enclosures are
used in the industry to capture these emissions and send them to either the primary hood gas cleaner
or a second gas cleaner.

12.5.2.5  Steelmaking  — Electric Arc Furnace -
       The operations which generate emissions during the electric arc furnace Steelmaking process
are melting  and refining, charging scrap, tapping steel, and dumping slag.  Iron  oxide is the
predominant constituent of the paniculate emitted during melting.  During refining, the primary
paniculate compound emitted is calcium oxide from the slag.  Emissions from charging scrap are
difficult to quantify,  because they depend on the grade of scrap utilized.  Scrap emissions  usually
contain iron and other metallic oxides from alloys in the scrap metal. Iron oxides and  oxides from
the fluxes are the primary constituents of the slag emissions.  During tapping, iron oxide  is the major
paniculate compound emitted.

       Emission control techniques involve an emission capture system and a gas cleaning system.
Five emission capture systems used in the industry are fourth hold (direct shell)  evacuation, side draft
hood, combination hood, canopy hood, and furnace enclosures.  Direct shell evacuation consists of
ductwork attached  to a separate or fourth hole in the furnace roof which draws emissions to a gas
cleaner. The fourth hole system works only when the furnace is up-right with the roof hi place.  Side

10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.5-5
-------
draft hoods collect furnace off gases from around the electrode holes and the work doors after the
gases leive the furnace.  The combination hood incorporates elements from the side draft and fourth
hole venulation systems.  Emissions are collected both from the fourth hole and around the
electrodes. An air gap in the ducting introduces secondary air for combustion of CO in the exhaust
gas. The combination hood requires careful regulation of furnace interval pressure. The canopy
hood is the least efficient of the 4 ventilation systems, but it does capture emissions during charging
and tapping.  Many new electric arc furnaces incorporate the canopy hood with one of the other
3 systems. The full furnace enclosure completely surrounds the furnace and evacuates furnace
emissions through hooding in the top of the enclosure.

12.5.2.6  Steelmaking — Open Hearth Furnace -
        Paniculate emissions from an open hearth furnace vary considerably during the process.  The
use of oxygen lancing increases emissions of dust and fume. During the melting and refining cycle,
exhaust gas drawn from the furnace passes through a slag pocket and a regenerative checker chamber,
where some of the paniculate settles out.  The emissions, mostly iron oxides, are then ducted to
either an ESP or a wet scrubber.  Other furnace-related process operations  which produce fugitive
emissions inside the shop include transfer and charging of hot metal, charging of scrap, tapping steel,
and slag dumping. These emissions are usually uncontrolled.

12.5.2.7  Semifinished Product Preparation -
        During this activity, emissions are produced when molten steel is poured (teamed)  into ingot
molds, and when semifinished steel is machine or manually scarfed to remove surface defects.
Pollutants emitted are iron and  other oxides (FeO, Fe203, SiO2, CaO, MgO). Teeming emissions are
rarely controlled. Machine scarfing operations generally use as ESP or water spray chamber for
control.  Most hand scarfing operations are uncontrolled.

12.5.2.8  Miscellaneous  Combustion -
        Every iron and steel plant operation requires  energy in the form of heat or electricity.
Combustion sources that produce emissions on plant property are blast furnace stoves, boilers,
soaking pits,  and reheat furnaces.  These facilities burn combinations of coal, No. 2 fuel oil, natural
gas, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas.  In blast furnace stoves, clean gas from the blast furnace is
burned to heat the refractory checker work, and in turn, to heat the blast air. In soaking pits, ingots
are heated until the temperature distribution over the cross-section of the ingots is acceptable and the
surface temperature is uniform  for further rolling into semifinished products (blooms, billets, and
slabs).  In slab furnaces, a slab is heated before being rolled into finished products  (plates, sheets, or
strips).  Emissions from the combustion of natural gas, fuel oil, or coal in the soaking pits or slab
furnaces are estimated to be the same as those for boilers. (See Chapter 1 of this document.)
Emission  factor data for blast furnace gas and coke oven gas are not available and must be estimated.
There are 3 facts available for making the estimation. First, the gas exiting the blast furnace passes
through primary and secondary cleaners and can be cleaned to less than 0.05 g/m3  (0.02 g/ft3).
Second, nearly one-third of the coke oven gas is methane.  Third, there are no blast furnace gas
constituents that generate paniculate when burned.  The combustible constituent of blast furnace gas is
CO, which burns clean.  Based on facts 1 and 3, the emission factor for combustion of blast furnace
gas is equal to the paniculate loading of that fuel, 0.05 g/m3 (2.9 lb/106 ft3) having an average heat
value of 3092 J/L (83 Btu/ft3).

        Emissions for combustion of coke oven gas can be estimated in the  same fashion.  Assume
that cleaned coke oven gas has  as much paniculate as cleaned blast furnace gas.  Since one-third of
the coke oven gas is methane, the main component of natural gas, it is assumed  that the combustion
of this methane in coke oven gas generates 0.06 g/m3 (3.3 lb/106 ft3) of paniculate.  Thus, the
emission factor for the combustion  of coke oven gas  is the sum of the paniculate loading and that

12.5-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Refomatted 1/95)  10/86
-------
generated by the methane combustion, or 0.1 g/m3 (6.2 lb/106 ft3) having an average heat value of
19,222 J/L (516 Btu/ft3).

        The paniculate emission factors for processes in Table 12.5-1 are the result of an extensive
investigation by EPA and the American Iron and Steel Institute.3  Particle size distributions for
controlled and uncontrolled emissions from specific iron and steel industry processes have been
calculated and summarized from the best available data.1  Size distributions have been used with
paniculate emission factors to calculate size-specific factors for the sources listed in Table 12.5-1 for
which data are available. Table 12.5-2 presents these size-specific paniculate emission factors.
Particle size distributions are presented in Figure 12.5-2, Figure 12.5-3, and Figure I2.5-4.CO
emission factors are in Table 12.5-3.6

12.5.2.9  Open Dust Sources -
        Like process emission sources, open dust sources contribute to the atmospheric paniculate
burden. Open dust sources include vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads, raw material handling
outside of buildings, and wind erosion from storage piles and exposed terrain. Vehicle traffic consists
of plant personnel and visitor vehicles, plant service vehicles, and trucks handling raw materials,  plant
deliverables, steel products, and waste materials.  Raw materials are handled by  clamshell buckets,
bucket/ladder conveyors, rotary railroad dumps, bottom railroad dumps, front end loaders, truck
dumps, and conveyor transfer stations, all of which disturb the raw material  and expose fines to the
wind.  Even fine materials, resting on flat areas or in storage piles are  exposed and are subject to
wind erosion.  It is not unusual to have several million tons of raw materials stored at a plant and to
have in the range of 9.7 to 96.7 hectares (10 to 100 acres) of exposed area there.

        Open  dust source emission factors for  iron and steel production are presented  in Table 12.5-4.
These factors  were determined through source testing at various integrated iron and steel plants.

        As  an alternative to the single-valued open dust emission factors given in Table 12.5-4,
empirically derived emission factor  equations are presented in Section 13.2 of this document.  Each
equation was developed for a source operation defined on the basis of a single dust generating
mechanism which crosses industry lines,  such  as vehicle traffic on unpaved roads.  The predictive
equation explains much of the observed variance in measured emission  factors by relating emissions
to parameters which characterize source conditions.  These parameters  may be grouped into
3 categories:  (1) measures of source activity or energy expended  (e.  g., the speed and weight of a
vehicle traveling on an unpaved road), (2) properties of the material being disturbed (e. g., the
content of suspendible fines in the surface material on an unpaved road) and  (3) climatic parameters
(e. g., number of precipitation free days per year, when emissions tend to a maximum).4

        Because the predictive equations allow for emission factor adjustment to  specific source
conditions, the equations should be used in place of the factors in Table 12.5-4, if emission estimates
for sources in a specific iron and steel facility  are needed.  However, the generally higher-quality
ratings assigned to  the equations are applicable only if (1)  reliable values of correction parameters
have been determined for the specific sources of interest and (2) the correction parameter values lie
within the ranges tested in developing the equations.  Section 13.2 lists measured properties of
aggregate process materials and road surface materials  in the iron and steel industry, which can be
used to estimate correction parameter values for the predictive emission factor equations, in the event
that  site-specific values are not available.

        Use of mean correction parameter values from  Section 13.2 reduces the quality ratings of the
emission factor equation by one level.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                                12.5-7
-------
  _]
  w
  w

  6«n

  Q
  Z
  <

  z

  i


  g
  b
  CO
  a:

  e
  u
  p
  O
  ss
£ 1
S Q
Is ®
£ .a
00
Igi
pi
I*
2
0
05
UU
a
0
'S
'e
w


u
.ti
c






 v>
•o •<*•'
"35
•8
*S
'S
IS
2
bo

•3
0
i
a>
5
o
'•6
ca
a> P-
t* 2 «
Q) £J) U4
*O bo o
S ei 'S "
IlliS
Tl 5
00

n
©
^
^^





oo
O











a,
00
•a
^
Controlled


m
P
p
^^




»r»
S
0











a,
00
W
1
>t
fi
Controlled


QQ CO CQ
•* S^ oo'
O -H \o
^^ ^^ ^^




W-)
 >-i •«-»
> o O
>> >» bfi _
x» * ff-g ^
s s *§ "S
1 "§ "-3 S |
«•* ^^ , CO w
§ § ss a
u u .s «£• P
00


n
^
p,
^^





S
p











baghouse
^
Controlled



g
^J
^^




m
o\
cs
p'









fe
*
venturi scrul
*
Controlled













"53
•3
*s
'S

o
lo
1



1
•S
ta
•3
X



X- S
o
^^





"O
o











0>
Cfl
§
•a
CQ
J
Controlled

  U
  cs

12.5-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   I
   cs
3 o
tt 
3
1
s§
last furnace
Slip
Uncontrolled <
OQ

PQ CQ PQ
/-, ^ x-s
d *— < c>
•^^ N»X "^^^




^ !g 2
odd











^^
Ml
S

o S
c —
•2 §
is v~'
i •?
^ °
. s f
•^L o p
Roof monito:
Furnace with 1
Taphole and ti


Q Q
§ i
C- B




W"J
£ 1
d d
3
0

o

JO
C3-
00
s
"So









C 4>
.2 3
**-• Q
1 }
*
?5
.s ^

S j§
o ^
§ &
•B -g ^
c s *o
^ ? 2
o ij s
S § 2 g,
& a § sa
H P O


PQ
s
Q
^^




i
d






















o>

10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-9
-------
  1
  r
  o>
il
C^ »i"3
C/5
^^ U^ ON
fjj *^
o
ts
ca
0
0
'S
w



*C3












1
o
c/5

a? to
v 0)
P-1 PH

•< Q CQ
0? ^
2 22




§ co £
d o* o'

I
£
*
o
4-*
£

00

^
2
?
§
*r^
Controlled by closed hoo<
Scrubber
BOF Charging
At source
At building monitor

S S
?" ?«

CQ Q CQ
i g s
& 2-2-




§in
\O Tj-
d do


1
CO
O
4-4
j3
!C'
00
2
ji?




Controlled by baghouse
BOF Tapping
At source
At building monitor

CO


CQ «C
I S
2- 2




-H IT)
§ §
d d
"3
i
3
*
o
4-«
j3
0
00

Jf




Controlled by baghouse
Hot metal transfer
At source




CQ
is
o.




oo
CN
O
d















At building monitor




CQ
"o"
g.




a
d


1
wa
O
^^
£

00

"ob




BOF monitor (all sources















1

o
.£3
"^
O^
00
2
"So



00
1
i
00
•4-t
s
UH
O
CQ
a
s
^

CQ
1
Q
^"^



00
s
d















Controlled by scrubber

12.5-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   ts
   (O
   1




I
co
CO
S
w









4)
13
1

OS
g
ss









I
Q
.§
CO
i
P
S
_o
ts
03
e
.2
C/3
ca
W

'S
8
1
CO
O Q>
u

o1
oo
C-




0
o\


01
G
2
£_
bo
S
"So



lectric arc furnace
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled carbon steel
w











"S
•**>
X3
/" N
O
•**»
.0
^bo
S
^b

bo

'5b
j?
"in
1
•v
00
'S,
6

u

^^
__'
'*••'




^
o









monitor
bo
'S.
Uncontrolled emissions esca












"S
••_>
U9
^
2
.0
bO
S
^b
•g
cq
«.
bo
e
'S,
eo
Melting, refining, charging, ti
slagging
Uncontrolled

< u <

^-v ^-> r^
^' °' 2-





^Q ^5 *•*
vi iri o









-------
  I
  cs
"3 «> «S
'•S -a -5
S to Q
a-
l8i
CO ^ P
!<3



1
PH
C
.52
'S
w





•4-*
'S
p













<0

^
1

II

Q Q U < <


^•N 0?
— ^ OO X"*v fO
,-s 00 «3 — O
^ fS — 00 O
""* 2- S- °' S-
CJ, N~x ^^ s"^ v"^

ON
^^ Vl '"^
IO "^ OO ^5 ^?
«n ^ o ^ o
odd do




"S "S
•+•* •*-»
« va
1 1
ci o
W) bo

CtO 00
2
^ 1
^•v *i
aj C
U >
p _^
o •«
ai O
CO JS
C «
1-1 kM
3 -0
M (X, e3 '§
f -a ? •» 1 8=3^1^
1 n i ^ § "i^l's
Sg'oisSeo-gois-a-o
•c-sae«*-.s^ag«§
si^aj § 1 P a* §
0, 2 04 S J P
O H

<



^..^
0
d



|^^
o
d













^>^
{j
L-
7
g
«
•8

J3
1
Uncontrolled (

<


v5"
v«^
i
^"^

OO


d
u
O
V*
•S
1
^
1
JD
^0
S
M
2
"8
S



•o
J§
CQ
l_i
•o
12
Controlled by
baghouse
Machine scarfing

CQ <



ro
» S
d d
^"^

in

S o
o d






















OM
CO
Uncontrolled
Controlled by
12.5-12
ENDSSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
  8
  cs
  ^-H
  9)

  I
          
  .S S
   « Q
  'S
             «
il*
ggs
s <
gfa
FAC
RAT
            ^

            w
    1
            H
            §
            00
                       Q  Q
                      m  —i
                      O  O
                  ts
               2  2
               o  S
               o  o
3
03
        S
        a
        §
        c«

        .2
        +-»
        &

        1
scellaneous
                   CQ

                   ^
                   4>


                   I
Boiler, soaking
                       60

                          60
                          00
                          o
                          U
                                 4)
                                 I
                   eo
                  S
                  ^3b

                  CO

                  •^
                                      o
                                     _p

                               O >»
                               « .22
                               £ S
                               « w
S-g
2 I
t-i 3
O O
                                      c
                                      2
                              bo


                              ^

                              cs
                       CA
                       T3
                       O
                       O
                                 
           .2 S
           %-B
                                  4> «*2
                                  MO
                                            g
                      Ig
                       gfa

                                  ca jj
                                  is
                                  > E
          .s-3
           cfl V9

                                         O <«*    00
10/86 (Refonnatted 1/95)
                       Metallurgical Industry
                                                      12.5-13
-------
       Table 12.5-2 (Metric And English Units).  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Sintering
Windbox
Uncontrolled leaving grate






Controlled by wet ESP






Controlled by venruri scrubber






Controlled by cyclone6






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D






C






C






C






Particle
Size


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
~d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
~d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated Size


4b
4
65
9
15
20C
100
Igb
25
33
48
59b
69
100
55
75
89
93
96
98
100
25C
37b
52
64
74
SO
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg


0.22
0.22
0.28
0.50
0.83
1.11
5,56
0.015
0.021
0.028
0.041
0.050
0.059
0.085
0.129
0.176
0.209
0.219
0.226
0.230
0.235
0.13
0.19
0.26
0.32
0.37
0.40
100 0.5
Ib/ton


0.44
0.44
0.56
1.00
1.67
2.22
11,1
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.26
0.35
0.42
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.25
0.37
0.52
0.64
0.74
0.80
1.0
12.5-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                          Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Controlled by baghouse






Sinter discharge breaker and hot
screens controlled by baghouse






Blast furnace
Uncontrolled casthouse
emissions
Roof monito/






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C






C









C






Particle
Size
Gun)"
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d



0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <.
Stated Size
3.0
9.0
27.0
47.0
69.0
79.0
100.0
2b
4
11
20
32b
42b
100


,
4
15
23
35
51
61
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
0.005
0.014
0.041
0.071
0.104
0.119
0.15
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.010
0.016
0.021
0.05



0.01
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.18
0.3
Ib/ton
0.009
0.027
0.081
0.141
0.207
0.237
0.3
0.002
0.004
0.011
0.020
0.032
0.042
0.1



0.02
0.09
0.14
0.21
0.31
0.37
0.06
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-15
-------
                                   Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Furnace with local evacuation8






Hot metal desulfurization
Uncontrolled






Hot metal desulfurization11
Controlled baghouse






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C







E






«t
D






Particle
Size
0*m)a
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % •£
Stated Size
T
9
15
20
24
26
100

_J
2C
11
19
19
21
100

8
18
42
62
74
78
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.65


0.01
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.55

0.0004
0.0009
0.0019
0.0028
0.0033
0.0035
0.0045
Ib/ton
0.09
0.12
0.20
0.26
0.31
0.34
1.3


0.02
0.12
0.22
0.22
0.23
1.09

0.0007
0.0016
0.0038
0.0056
0.0067
0.0070
0.009
12.5-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                        Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Basic oxygen furnace EOF
Top blown furnace melting and
refining controlled by closed
hood and vented to scrubber






EOF charging at source^






Controlled by baghouse






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C






E






D






Particle
Size
&*»)'

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated Size

34
55
65
66
67
72C
100
8C
12
22
35
46
56
100
3
10
22
31
45
60
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg

0.0012
0.0019
0.0022
0.0022
0.0023
0.0024
0.0034
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.3
9-OxlO-6
3.0xlO-5
6.6xlO'5
9.3xlO-5
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
Ib/ton

0.0023
0.0037
0.0044
0.0045
0.0046
0.0049
0.0068
0.05
0.07
0.13
0.21
0.28
0.34
0.6
l.SxlO'5
6.0xlO'5
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0006
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-17
-------
                                    Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
BOF tapping at source1'






BOF tapping
Controlled by baghouse






Q-BOP melting and refining
controlled by scrubber






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E







D






D






Particle
Size
Oim)a
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated Size
_ j
11
37
43
45
50
100

4
7
16
22
30
40
100
45
52
56
58
68
85C
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
_ j
0.05
0.17
0.20
0.21
0.23
0.46

5.2xlO-5
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0013
0.013
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.019
0.024
0.028
Ib/ton
	 j
0.10
0.34
0.40
0.41
0.46
0.92

0.0001
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0026
0.025
0.029
0.031
0.032
0.038
0.048
0.056
12.5-18
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                         Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Electric arc furnace melting
and refining carbon steel
Uncontrolled"1






Electric arc furnace
Melting, refining, charging,
tapping, slagging
Controlled by direct shell
evacuation plus charing hood
vented to common baghouse
for carbon steel"






Open hearth furnace
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D








E








E






Particle
Size
Gnn)»

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <,
Stated Size

8
23
43
53
58
61
100


74b
74
74
74
76
80
100


lb
21
60
79
83
-85°
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg

1.52
4.37
8.17
10.07
11.02
11.59
19.0


0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0163
0.0172
0.0215


0.11
2.22
6.33
8.33
8.76
8.97
10.55
Ib/ton

3.04
8.74
16.34
20.14
22.04
23.18
38.0


0.0318
0.0318
0.0318
0.0318
0.0327
0.0344
0.043


0.21
4.43
12.66
16.67
17.51
17.94
21.1
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-19
-------
                                    Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Open hearth furnaces
Controlled by ESI*






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E






Particle
Size
Oun)a
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <.
Stated Size
10b
21
39
47
53b
56b
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg Ib/ton
0.01 0.02
0.03 0.06
0.05 0.10
0.07 0.13
0.07 0.15
0.08 0.16
0.14 0.28
  a Particle aerodynamic diameter micrometers 0*m) as defined by Task Group on Lung
    Dynamics.  (Particle density = 1 g/cm3).
  b Interpolated data used to develop size distribution.
  c Extrapolated, using engineering estimates.
  d Total paniculate based on Method 5 total catch.  See Table 12.5-1.
  e Average of various cyclone efficiencies.
  f Total casthouse evacuation control system.
  g Evacuation runner covers and local hood over taphole, typical of new state-of-the-art blast
    furnace technology.
  h Torpedo ladel desulfurization with CaC^ and CaCO3.
  J Unable to extrapolate because of insufficient data and/or curve exceeding limits.
  k Doghouse-type furnace enclosure using front and back sliding doors, totally enclosing the
    furnace,  with emissions vented to hoods.
  mFull cycle emissions captured by canopy and side draft hoods.
  n Information on control system not available.
  p May not be representative.  Test outlet size distribution was larger than inlet and may indicate
    reentrainment problem.
      Table 12.5-3 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED CARBON MONOXIDE
                   EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Source ,
Sintering windboxb
Basic oxygen furnace0
Electric arc furnace0
kg/Mg
22
69
9
Ib/ton
44
138
18
  a Reference 6.
  b kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of finished sinter.
  c kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of finished steel.
12.5-20
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
           o
           o
                  3ZIS Q3171S NVHl SS31 % SS7H
            o
            10
o
M
           X O  S

           0^3
                                                                                         O
3

O

Z
          £ u  C  " £  o
          mm"""  *
          e o  e  e o  «»

          o S  S  o o
          *  z  z  z  z
             z  z  z z   z
                                >— o
                                X
          o o
          UJ
          f— l/t


          II

          < u

          ^ Ul
          x z
                                                                                        1
                                                                                        •**
                                                                                        00
                                                                                         o
                                                                                        =5
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                        .2


                                                                                        I
                                                                                         4)


                                                                                         I
10/86 (Reformatted 1/9S)
              Metallurgical Industry
                          12.5-21
-------
             32IS 031715 N7Hi SS3T % SS7W  3AliVinwnO
      o
      o
       o
       «0
o
CM
            i:''
                                  V  X
rt


^•B


^•i



•^




\ —

^
|\





P
M



A
(VI




q
«^
r>
6



cr
Ul
t~
Ul
2
<
O
U
i~
< z
s!
o 2
cr u
ui*r
< JE
^^
_i
u

>-
cr
<
Q.

?£
5 e
J o
& *»
a °
0 .,
to u
ri
«• ~
*S
• 0
.e i
• •
<
s ^
o
9
c e
"•5 -2
>. *•
O *""
2 £
«•> ^
o «
•o
«
• <•
^ u
H
e >»
U 0
"*
                                                                             I
                                                                             I
                                                                             Ul
                                                                             §
                                                                             x
                                                                             o
                                                                             o
                                                                             o
            I  I
    <"
I   o



I   il
   Iu4 ac
   t- O
   X
O
tr
K-
X
o
u
CATEGORY;
Ul
o
e

0
in


0
w
^
^
O
BE
MGf/UNCONT!

Z
u
•
O
•





Ul
tn
NGC/BAGHOU

z
u
1
^
O
•




e
w
w
/UNCONTHOl
^
*•
Ik
O
0






/•AGHOUSC

4
*•


•




K
a
ININO/SCNUI

C
Ik
o
•


mi
^
•
•
3
IU3S /9NINIJ]

i
M_
Ik
O
0
o
>»
a

a
h*j
h»
<
^EXTRAPOL

i
i


N>

Z
0

«/)
Ul
5»
§
<_>
UJ
>—
>
K
)
,

                              's
                              p-
                                                                            r
12.5-22
           EMISSION FACTORS
                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
            o
            o
32IS Q3171S NVHi SS3T %


    o          o          o
    0          (0          »
                                               3Alltnnmro

                                                  o
                                                                                         VI


                                                                                         O
      2   2'
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         '•i
                                                                                         .a
                                                                                         T3
                                                                                         I
                         O w
      Z
      o
      o
      z
      3



      if
      o <
      Z 3
      » . 3  w
    Mu  w
 o  w
 §  3
 z  5


 i!
      «o
      u z
    •-W  Z     .,

    Mz  o     «
    «z  <->  a.  z
    03  Z  •«  •
     «  3  M  3
? a *o
« i aco
33 =9
•••»•*


5<5S

£2 iS  5  5   i -
      3
      Ik
      ^

      3
      M*
      M

      o
                z

                Z  u
 r. "•  a
                        o
                        z
                            3
                            o
z
o
                            O Q-
                            z <
                            uj ee.
                            o o
                                 x z
                                                                                        cs
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
                              Metallurgical Industry
                                                                 12.5-23
-------
    Table 12.5-4 (Metric And English Units). UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION
           FACTORS FOR OPEN DUST SOURCES AT IRON AND STEEL MILLS*
Operation
Continuous Drop
Conveyor
transfer station
sinter0
Pile formation
stacker pellet
ore0
Lump ore0
Coal*
Batch drop
Front end
loader/truck0
High silt skg
Low silt skg
Vehicle travel on
unpaved roads
Light duty
vehicle1*

Medium duty
vehicle4
Heavy duty
vehicle4
Vehicle travel on
paved roads
Light/heavy
vehicle mixc
Emissions By Particle Size Range (Aerodynamic Diameter)
£ 30 ion H 15 /tin <; 10 Mm s£ «

i pm ^ 2.5 pm

13 9.0 6.5 4.2 2.3
0.026 0.018 0.013 0.0084 0.0046


1.2 0.75 0.55 0.32 0.17
0.0024 0.0015 0.0011 0.00064 0.00034
0.15 0.095 0.075 0.040 0.022
0.00030 0.00019. 0.00015 0.000081 0.000043
0.055 0.034 0.026 0.014 0.0075
0.00011 0.000068 0.000052 0.000028 0.000015




13 8.5 6.5 4.0 2.3
0.026 0.017 0.013 0.0080 0.0046
4.4 2.9 2.2 1.4 0.8
0.0088 0.0058 0.0043 0.0028 0.0016
0.51 0.37 0.28 0.18
1.8 1.3 1.0 0.64
2.1 1.5 1.2 0.70
7.3 5.2 4.1 2.5
3.9 2.7 2.1 1.4
14 9.7 7.6 4.8

0.10
0.36
0.42
1.5
0.76
2.7

0.22 0.16 0.12 0.079 0.042
0.78 0.58 0.44 0.28 0.15
Unitsb

g/Mg
Ib/ton

g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton


g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT

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

kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
D

B
B
C
C
E
E


C
C
C
c
c
c

c
c
B
B
C
C
  a Predictive emission factor equations are generally preferred over these single values emission
    factors.  Predictive emission factor estimates are presented in Chapter 13, Section 13.2.
    VKT =  Vehicle kilometers traveled.  VMT = Vehicle miles traveled.
  b Units/unit of material transferred or units/unit of distance traveled.
  c Reference 4. Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
  d Reference 5. Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
12.5-24
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
References For Section 12.5

1.     J. Jeffery and J. Vay, Source Category Report For The Iron and Steel Industry,
       EPA-600/7-86-036, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October  1986.

2.     H. E. McGannon, ed., The Making, And Shaping And Treating Of Steel, U. S. Steel
       Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, 1971.

3.     T. A. Cuscino, Jr., Paniculate Emission Factors Applicable To The Iron And Steel Industry,
       EPA-450/4-79-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September  1979.

4.     R. Bonn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
       EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1978.

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

6.     Control Techniques For Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources, AP-65, 0. S.
       Department Of Health, Education And Welfare, Washington, DC, March 1970.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.5-25
-------
12.6  Primary Lead Smelting

12.6.1  General15

        Lead is found naturally as a sulfide ore containing small amounts of copper, iron, zinc,
precious metals, and other trace elements.  The lead in diis ore, typically after being concentrated at
or near the mine  (see Section 12.18), is processed into metallurgical lead at 4 facilities in the U. S.
(2 smelters/refineries in Missouri, 1 smelter in Montana, and 1 refinery in Nebraska).  Demand for
lead from these primary sources is expected to remain relatively stable in the early 1990s, due in
large part to storage battery recycling programs being implemented by several states. Significant
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO^, particulate matter, and especially lead have caused much attention
to be focused on  identifying, and quantifying emissions from, sources within these facilities.

12.6.2  Process Description15'16

        The processing of lead concentrate into metallurgical lead involves 3  major steps: sintering,
reduction, and refining.  A diagram of a typical facility, with particle and gaseous emission sources
indicated, is shown in Figure 12.6-1.

12.6.2.1 Sintering -
        The primary purpose of the sinter machine is the reduction of sulfur content of the feed
material.  This feed material typically  consists of the following:

        1.      Lead concentrates, including pyrite concentrates  that are high in sulfur content, and
               concentrates that are high in impurities such as arsenic, antimony, and bismuth, as
               well as relatively pure high-lead-concentrates;

        2.      Lime rock and silica, incorporated in the feed to maintain  a desired sulfur content;

        3.      High-lead-content sludge byproducts from other facilities;  and

        4.      Undersized sinter recycled from the roast exiting the sinter machine.

        The undersized sinter return stream mixes with the other feed components, or green feed, as
the 2 streams enter a rotary pelletizing drum.  A water spray into the drum enhances the formation of
nodules in which the sinter returns form a core rich in lead oxide and the green feed forms a coating
rich in lead sulfide.  The smaller nodules are separated out and conveyed through an ignition furnace,
then covered with the remaining nodules on a moving grate and  conveyed through the sinter machine,
which is essentially a large oven. Excess air is forced upward through the grate, facilitating
combustion, releasing SO2 and oxidizing the lead sulfide to lead oxide.  The  "strong gas" from the
front end of the sinter machine, containing 2.5 to 4 percent S02, is vented to gas cleaning equipment
before possibly being piped to a sulfuric plant. Gases from the rear part of the sinter machine are
recirculated up through the moving grate and are typically vented to a baghouse. That portion of the
product which is  undersized, usually due to insufficient desulfurization, is filtered out and recycled
through the sinter; the remaining sinter roast is crushed before being transported to the blast furnace.
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.6-1
-------
                                                                                     C3

                                                                                     Q,
                                                                                    O)
                                                                                    •a
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    U


                                                                                    O

                                                                                    'i
                                                                                    03


                                                                                    U
                                                                                    3
                                                                                    O
                                                                                    'S
                                                                                    •O
                                                                                    60
                                                                                    •a

                                                                                    jU

                                                                                    >>


                                                                                    g

                                                                                    *C
                                                                                    o<

                                                                                    "c3

12.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                   1/95
-------
 12.6.2.2  Reduction-
        The sinter roast is then conveyed to the blast furnace in charge cars along with coke, ores
 containing high amounts of precious metals,  slags and byproducts dusts from other smelters, and
 byproduct dusts from baghouses and various other sources within the facility.  Iron scrap is often
 added to the charge to aid heat distribution and to combine with the arsenic in the charge.  The blast
 furnace process rate is controlled by the proportion of coke hi the charge and by the air flow through
 the tuyeres in the floor of the furnace.  The charge descends through the furnace shaft into  the
 smelting zone, where it becomes molten, and is tapped into a series of settlers that allow the
 separation of lead from slag.  The slag is allowed to cool before being stored, and the molten lead of
 roughly 85 percent purity is transported in pots to the  dross building.

 12.6.2.3  Refining -
        The dressing area consists of a variety of interconnected kettles, heated from below by natural
 gas combustion.  The lead pots arriving from the blast furnace are poured into receiving kettles and
 allowed to cool to the point at which copper  dross rises to the top of the top and can be skimmed off
 and transferred to a reverbatory furnace.  The remaining lead dross is transferred to a finishing kettle
 where such materials as wood chips, coke fines, and sulfur are added and mixed to facilitate further
 separation,  and this sulfur dross is also skimmed off and transferred to the reverbatory furnace.  To
 the drosses in the reverbatory furnace are added tetrahedrite ore, which is high in silver content but
 low in lead and may have been dried elsewhere within the facility, coke fines, and soda ash.  When
 heated in the same fashion as the kettles, the dross in the reverbatory furnace separates into 3 layers:
 lead bullion settles to the bottom and is tapped back to the receiving kettles, and  matte  (copper sulfide
 and other metal sulfides), which rises to the top,  and speiss (high hi arsenic and antimony content) are
 both typically forwarded to copper smelters.

        The third and final phase in the processing of lead ore to metallurgical lead, the refining of
 the bullion in cast iron kettles, occurs hi 5 steps:  (1) removal of antimony, tin, and arsenic;
 (2) removal of precious metals by Parke's Process, in which zinc combines with  gold and silver to
 form  an insoluble intermetallic at operating temperatures; (3)  vacuum removal of zinc;  (4) removal of
 bismuth by the Betterson Process, in which calcium and magnesium are added to form  an insoluble
 compound with the bismuth that is skimmed  from the kettle; and (5) removal  of remaining traces of
 metal impurities through the adding of NaOH and NaNO3. The final refined lead, from 99.990 to
 99.999 percent pure,  is typically cast into 45 kilogram (100 pound) pigs for shipment.

 12.6.3  Emissions And  Controls15"17

       Emissions of lead and paniculate occur in varying amounts from nearly every process and
process component within primary lead smelter/refineries, and SO2 is also emitted from several
sources.  The lead and paniculate emissions point, volume, and area sources may include:

        1.      The milling, dividing, and fire assaying of samples of incoming concentrates and
               high-grade ores;

       2.      Fugitive emissions within the crushing  mill area, including the loading and unloading
               of ores and concentrates from rail cars  onto conveyors;

       3.      The ore crushers and associated transfer points, which may be controlled by
               baghouses;
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.6-3
-------
        4.      Fugitive emissions from the unloading, storage, and transfer of byproduct dusts, high-
               grade ores, residues, coke, lime, silica, and any other materials stored in outdoor
               piles;

        5.      Strong gases from the front end of the sinter machine, which are typically vented to
               an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), 1 or more scrubbers, and a wet ESP for sulraric
               acid mist elimination, but during shutdowns of the acid plant may bypass the ESP;

        6.      Weak gases from the back end of the suiter machine, which are high in lead dust
               content but typically pass  through cyclones and a baghouse;

        7.      Fugitive emissions from the sinter building, including leaks in the sinter machine and
               the sinter cake crusher;

        8.      Gases exiting the top of the blast furnace, which are typically controlled with a
               baghouse;

        9.      Fugitive emissions from the blast furnace, including leaks from the furnace covers and
               the bottoms of charge cars, dust from the charge car bottom dump during normal
               operation, and escaping gases when blow holes develop in the  shaft and must be
               "shot" with explosives;

        10.     Lead fumes from the molten lead and slag leaving the blast furnace area;

        11.     Fugitive leaks from the tapping of the kettles  and settlers;

        12.     The hauling and dumping of slag, at both the handling and  cooling area and the slag
               storage pile;

        13.     The combustion of natural gas, as well as the creation of lead-containing fumes at the
               kettles and reverbatory furnace, all of which are typically vented to a baghouse at the
               dressing building;

        14.     Fugitive emissions from the various pouring,  pumping, skimming, cooling, and
               tapping operations within  the dressing building;

        15.     The transporting, breaking,  granulating, and storage of speiss and matte;

        16.     The loading, transferring, and drying of tetrahedrite ore,  which is typically controlled
               with cyclones and a baghouse;

        17.     The periodic cleanout of the blast and reverbatory furnaces; and

        18.     Dust caused by wind erosion and plant vehicular traffic, which are normally estimated
               with factors from Section 13.2 of AP-42, but are addressed herein due to the high
               lead content of the dust at primary lead smelting and refining facilities.

        Tables 12.6.1 and  12.6.2 present  paniculate,  PM-10, lead, and SO2 emission factors for
primary lead smelting.
12.6-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
   o
   S
   on

   Q
   PC

   I


   P.


   g
   P-



   i
   H


   tu


   |
   CO
   CO
  CN
   CQ

  H
§
U
O

co
CO
   I    s
   D

-f»
CO










*O
J










^
i
w






JD
»
Particula





to


<£
Z










i-M
8
d









00
o
d









en
S
d





o
o
en
9
en
u
U
i
u
8
O

<;
Z










_
8
d










8
d









d





re screening6 (SCC 3-03-010-27)
O

. •*•
Z p5










g**"1 ^
8
d d









en fN
0 8
d d









(S *"*
— < w->
0 0
'd d



00

etrahedrite drie/ (SCC 3-03-010-
nter machine (weak gas)8
(SCC 3-03-010-29)
H co

^
Z










vo
q
d









OO
o
d









00
d





nter building fugitives8
(SCC 3-03-010-25)
co

<;
Z










^
Z











Z









2





S"
en
O
9
en
9
en
U
U
co,
"fc
?
O
en
S
a
CO

.c
fN










Tf
en
O
d










^









fS
d





last furnace* (SCC 3-03-010-02)
CO

„£
Z










*
z











<









z





en
6
9
s
en
U
O
n
CO
en
CO
25
o
"S,
0,
CQ
o
a

Z
x c c • —
O 3) 13
P/' O «H O
£2 „ <2J ^S
^ -| « g g .^
1 «§ 1 .§ a 1
.2 c e — a «>
•o w 3 <» c
*-• «-c c3 *> O

2 g> C 0 g *«
il SSJI.
^H >s ^f> tS "t? cfc -w"
l".i iS'S si
cd flj *™^ ^> ^
^ C • 5 C ^0 O
••N ® ^\ ^T* O 3 52 . .
Filterable and condensable part
Entire ore crushing building at
Tests at one facility; kg/Mg on
kg/Mg dried; tests at one facili!
kg/Mg sinter produced; tests at
Uncontrolled emission factor fr
kg/Mg throughput; includes chi
kg/Mg of bullion, includes dros
kg/Mg granulated; from tests ai
o T3 o <*- w> .c ._ M E
1/95
                                Metallurgical Industry
12.6-5
-------
  1
  CO
  I
  I
  i
      g
o
CO
22

i
  3
  G

  S
  4)
      CO
      CO

S








^8
>B






b
"7

g







JS
£
1
""S
08
Q<


Process

z










d





VO
o

d








>rt
1
d




|Ore crushing*1 (SCC 3-03-010-04)

< < -o
Z Z £







^5
f*l ^P ^N
80 o
d d d





£ «
8 S 2

O 0 O









8 § 2
d d d




Ore screening*5 (SCC 3-03-010-27)
Tetrahedrite drie/
(SCC 3-03-010-28)
Sinter machine (weak gas)g
(SCC 3-03-010-29)

1








(S
8
d





r-
'*"'

o









S
d




Sinter building fugitives8
(SCC 3-03-010-25)

£








^
Z







5











Z





jsinter storage" (SCC 3-03-010-30)

% Z








r- -<
% £
d





to
00 Z

d









"t z
0 **




f?
9 -
O ""'
i i
« s
u JT
2. g
K
3 o,
^ B5
4^ CO
J 'S.
S CO
o>
1
a 2
ea 5
o .g
II 1
Z *S
*o 'S
o S
>^ co
es *""
1 .-§
eS S *
^ -o :§

2 f 1
3 X
O ^ O_i
co 35
ii | "
O 
U ° -a
t/5 & QJ
B ~
1^1*
o y- g . ~
C3 \O^  ^»
8 «S 1 .2 I '3

1 II ilfiS
J-! *^ ^H c£3 ^^ ®
^^3 C fe^n O *^ ^ ^
O <3 g* "g O e« cS
W3 «4 ^2 4i C ^^ flj

o a. c P ° bB t!
s •*• — 13 c E
eo o • . "S5 s S .j
jS TH-^ >>*jS(t35*
a Most of the processes are controlled by 1
b Filterable paniculate only.
c Filterable and condensable paniculate; <
d Entire ore crushing building at one facili
e Tests at one facility; Ib/ton ore.
f Ib/ton dried; tests at one facility.
g Ib/ton sinter produced; tests at one facili
h Uncontrolled emission factor from 1971
3 Ib/ton throughput; includes charge car k
k Ib/ton of bullion, includes dross kettles;
m Ib/ton granulated; from tests at one facil
12.6-6
                             EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
References For Section 12.6

1.      C. Darvin and F. Porter, Background Information For New Source Performance Standards:
       Primary Copper, Zinc, And Lead Smelters, Volume I, EPA-450/2-74-002a, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

2.      A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Paniculate Pollutant System Study, Volume I: Mass Emissions,
       APTD-0743, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
       1971.

3.      A. Worcester and D. H. Beilstein, "The State Of The Art: Lead Recovery", Presented At
       The 10th Annual Meeting Of The Metallurgical Society, AIME, New York, NY, March
       1971.

4.      Environmental Assessment Of The Domestic Primary Copper, Lead, And Tine Industries "
       (Prepublication), EPA Contract No.  68-03-2537, PedCo Environmental, Cincinnati, OH,
       October 1978.

5.      T. J. Jacobs, Visit To St. Joe Minerals Corporation Lead Smelter, Herculaniem, MO, Office
       Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, October 21, 1971.

6.      T. J. Jacobs, Visit To Amax Lead Company, Boss, MO, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 28,
       1971.

7.      Written communication from R. B. Paul, American Smelting And Refining Co., Glover, MO,
       to Regional Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, MO,
       April  3, 1973.

8.      Emission Test No.  72-MM-14, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1972.

9.      Source Sampling Report: Emissions From Lead Smelter At American Smelting And Refining
       Company, Glover, MO, July 1973 to July 23, 1973, EMB-73-PLD-1, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, August 1974.

10.    Sample Fugitive Lead Emissions From Two Primary Lead Smelters, EPA-450/3-77-031, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1977.

11.    Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investigation (Interim Report), Contract
       No. 68-02-1343, PedCo Environmental,  Durham, NC, February 1975.

12.    R. E.  Iversen, Meeting with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and AISI On  Steel
       Facility Emission Factors, Office Of Air Quality Planning And  Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1976.

13.    G. E. Spreight, "Best Practicable Means In The Iron And Steel  Industry", The Chemical
       Engineer, London, England, 271:132-139. March  1973.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                              12.6-7
-------
14.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.

15.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

16.     Task 2 Summary Report: Revision And Verification Of Lead Inventory Source List, North
       American Weather Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT, June 1990.

17.     Task 5 Summary Report: ASARCO East Helena Primary Lead Smelter Lead Emission
       Inventory, Volume 1: Point Source Lead Emission Inventory, North American Weather
       Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT, April 1991.
12.6-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
12.7  Zinc Smelting

12.7.1  General1'2

        Zinc is found in the earth's crust primarily as zinc sulfide (ZnS). Primary uses for zinc
include galvanizing of all forms of steel, as a constituent of brass, for electrical conductors,
vulcanization of rubber and in primers and paints.  Most of these applications are highly dependent
upon zinc's resistance to corrosion and its light weight characteristics.  In 1991, approximately
260,000 megagrams (287,000 tons) of zinc were refined at the 4 U. S.  primary zinc smelters. The
annual production volume has remained constant since the 1980s.  Three of these 4 plants, located in
Illinois, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, utilize electrolytic technology, and the 1 plant in Pennsylvania
uses an electrothermic process.  This annual production level approximately equals production
capacity, despite a mined  zinc ore recovery level of 520 megagrams (573 tons), a domestic zinc
demand of 1190 megagrams (1311 tons), and a secondary smelting production level of only
110 megagrams (121  tons).  As a result, the U. S.  is a leading exporter of zinc concentrates as well
as the world's largest importer of refined zinc.

        Zinc ores typically may contain from 3 to 11 percent zinc,  along with cadmium, copper, lead,
silver, and iron.  Beneficiation, or the concentration of the zinc  in the recovered ore, is accomplished
at or near the mine by crushing, grinding, and flotation process. Once concentrated, the zinc ore is
transferred to smelters for the production of zinc or zinc oxide.  The primary  product of most zinc
companies is slab zinc, which is produced in 5 grades:  special high grade, high grade,  intermediate,
brass  special, and prime western.  The 4 U.  S. primary smelters also produce sulfuric acid as a
byproduct.

12.7.2  Process Description

        Reduction of zinc sulfide concentrates to  metallic zinc is accomplished through either
electrolytic deposition from a sulfate solution or by distillation in retorts or furnaces.  Both of these
methods begin  with the elimination of most of the sulfur in the concentrate through a roasting
process, which is described below. A generalized process diagram depicting primary zinc smelting is
presented  in Figure 12.7-1.

        Roasting is  a high-temperature process that converts zinc sulfide concentrate to an impure zinc
oxide called calcine.  Roaster types include multiple-hearth, suspension, or fluidized bed.  The
following  reactions  occur during roasting:

                                2ZnS  + 3O2  -»  2ZnO +  SO2                            (1)

                                     2SO2 + O2 -»   2SO3                                  (2)

        In a multiple-hearth roaster, the concentrate drops through a series of  9 or more hearths
stacked inside a brick-lined cylindrical cojumn. As the feed concentrate drops through the furnace, it
is first dried by the hot gases passing through the hearths  and then oxidized to produce calcine.  The
reactions are slow and can be sustained only by the addition of fuel.  Multiple hearth roasters are
unpressurized and operate at about 690°C (1300°F). Operating  time depends  upon  the composition
of concentrate and the amount of the sulfur removal required.  Multiple hearth roasters have the
capability  of producing a high-purity calcine.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.7-1
-------



1
1 UJ
1 S
|£r-
i 	





i i
1 Ul 1
1 i l—
!£!
L J


la 1
(Z .,.!
sSh
IL'J
ICC LUl
1? °1
is 5j
1 	 1












ty
1

T
HI
2


O
I
cc
h
1U31NIS


cc
u
z
CO












~.

0-COOSJI


I

?

8
n

(SCO 3-03-


1
8























s-





















^

c
(






c
2
<
0
















5
I
u
V :
3 ;
«5 7
J S
! 1




3 U
: *
5 8
i




Q
Z ...
<^
i§2
o
§£
'"i V
DO
WQ
1 	
ffl
~j






>
L
J
Q
3
- ,•"
! ^




h-
j «
R





|
J
1


5j
„





















CALCINE

i
ROASTING
t
IcONCEN-l
TRATE



! 1
1
L J




1
1
& r~
\
i i




1 S „ 	
1 D
I 5
L-*J




il^
l_ _J




— 1 — ,
SODIUM OR
ZINC CHLORIDE




IA
a uj
CO £
U! mz
g E iS
go Q g |5
= £ so
— . i? 9 =0
6 51 £ $e
tt w CO O BO
§p
uJ^
1

K C5 CO
' 3-^1
O LL P
i 5 §§
£ N 0. <
£
0.
e
• ^
i3§ o g
La g p o tr
_1 CO >~ 
-------
        In a suspension roaster, the concentrates are blown into a combustion chamber very similar to
that of a pulverized coal furnace.  The roaster consists of a refractory-lined cylindrical steel shell,
with a large combustion space at the top and 2 to 4 hearths hi the lower portion, similar to those of a
multiple hearth furnace.  Additional grinding, beyond that required for a multiple hearth furnace, is
normally required to ensure that heat transfer to the material is sufficiently rapid for the
desulfurization and oxidation reactions to occur hi the furnace chamber. Suspension roasters are
unpressurized and operate at about 980°C (1800°F).

        In a fluidized-bed roaster,  finely ground sulfide concentrates are suspended and oxidized in a
feedstock bed supported on an air  column.  As hi the suspension roaster, the reaction  rates for
desulfurization are more rapid than hi the older multiple-hearth processes.  Fluidized-bed roasters
operate under a pressure slightly lower than atmospheric and at temperatures averaging 1000°C
(1800°F). In the fluidized-bed process, no additional fuel is required after ignition has been
achieved.  The major advantages of this roaster are greater throughput capacities and greater sulfur
removal capabilities.

        Electrolytic processing  of desulfurized calcine consists of 3 basic steps, leaching, purification,
and electrolysis.  Leaching occurs  hi an aqueous solution of sulfuric acid, yielding a zinc sulfate
solution as shown in Equation 3 below.

                                     ZnO + SO3  -»  ZnSO4                                  (3)

In double leaching, the calcine  is first leached in a neutral or slightly alkaline solution, then hi an
acidic solution, with the liquid  passing countercurrent to die flow of calcine.  In the neutral  leaching
solution, sulfates from the calcine  dissolve, but only a portion of the zinc oxide enters into solution.
The acidic leaching solution dissolves the remainder of the zinc oxide, along with metallic impurities
such as arsenic, antimony,  cobalt,  germanium,  nickel, and thallium. Insoluble zinc  ferrite, formed
during concentrate roasting by die  reaction of iron with zinc, remains hi the leach residue, along with
lead and silver. Lead and silver typically are shipped to a lead smelter for recovery, while the zinc is
extracted from the zinc ferrite to increase recovery efficiency.

        In the purification process, a number of various reagents are added to the zinc-laden
electrolyte hi a sequence of steps designed to precipitate the metallic impurities, which otherwise will
interfere with deposition of zinc.  After purification, concentrations of these impurities are limited to
lest than 0.05 milligram per liter (4 x 10"7 pounds per gallon). Purification is usually conducted in
large agitated tanks.  The process takes place at temperatures ranging from 40 to 85°C (104 to
185°F), and pressures ranging from atmospheric to 240 kilopascals (kPa) (2.4 atmospheres).

       In electrolysis, metallic zinc is recovered from the purified solution by passing current
through an electrolyte solution, causing zinc to deposit on an aluminum cathode.  As the electrolyte is
slowly circulated through the cells, water hi the electrolyte dissociates, releasing oxygen gas at the
anode.  Zinc metal is deposited at  the cathode and  sulfuric acid is regenerated for recycle to the leach
process.  The sulfuric acid  acts as  a catalyst in the process as a whole.

       Electrolytic zinc smelters contain as many as several hundred cells. A portion of the
electrical energy is converted into heat, which increases me temperature of the electrolyte.
Electrolytic cells operate at temperature ranges from 30 to 35°C (86 to 95°F) and at atmospheric
pressure.  A portion of the  electrolyte is continuously circulated through the cooling towers both to
cool and concentrate the electrolyte through evaporation of water.  The cooled and concentrated
electrolyte is then recycled to die cells.  Every 24 to 48 hours, each cell is  shut down, die zinc-coated
cathodes are removed and rinsed, and the zinc is mechanically stripped from the aluminum plates.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                 12.7-3
-------
        The electrothermic distillation retort process, as it exists at 1 U. S. plant, was developed by
the St. Joe Minerals Corporation in 1930.  The principal advantage of this pyrometallurgical
technique over electrolytic processes is its ability to accommodate a wide variety of zinc-bearing
materials, including secondary items such as calcine derived from electric arc furnace (EAF) dust.
Electrothermic processing of desulfurized calcine begins with a downdraft sintering operation, in
which grate pallets are joined to form a continuous conveyor system.  The sinter feed is essentially a
mixture of roaster calcine and EAF calcine. Combustion air is drawn down through the conveyor,
and impurities such as lead, cadmium, and halides hi the sinter feed are driven off and collected in a
bag filter.  The product sinter typically includes 48 percent zinc, 8 percent von, 5 percent aluminum,
4 percent silicon, 2.5 percent calcium, and smaller quantities of magnesium, lead, and other metals.

        Electric retorting with its greater thermal efficiency than externally heated furnaces, is the
only pyrometallurgical technique utilized by the U. S. primary zinc industry, now and in the future.
Product sinter and, possibly, secondary zinc materials are charged with coke to an electric retort
furnace. The charge moves downward from a rotary feeder in the furnace top into a refractory-lined
vertical cylinder.  Paired graphite electrodes protrude from the top and bottom of this cylinder,
producing a current flow.  The coke serves to provide electrical resistance, producing heat and
generating the carbon monoxide required for the reduction process.  Temperatures of 1400 °C
(2600 °F) are attained, immediately vaporizing zinc oxides according to the following reaction:

                              ZnO  + CO   •*  Zn (vapor)  + CO2                            (4)

The zinc vapor and carbon dioxide pass to a vacuum condenser, where zinc  is recovered by bubbling
through a molten zinc bath.  Over 95 percent of the zinc vapor  leaving the retort is condensed to
liquid zinc.  The carbon dioxide is  regenerated with carbon, and the carbon monoxide is recycled
back to the retort furnace.

12.7.3  Emissions And Controls

        Each of the 2 smelting processes generates emissions along the various process steps.  The
roasting process in a zinc smelter is typically responsible for more than 90 percent of the potential
SO2 emissions. About 93 to 97 percent of the sulfur hi the feed is emitted as sulfur oxides.
Concentrations of SO2 in the offgas vary with the type of roaster operation.  Typical SO2
concentrations for multiple hearth,  suspension, and fluidized bed roasters are 4.5 to 6.5 percent, 10 to
13 percent, and 7 to 12 percent, respectively.  Sulfur dioxide emissions from the roasting processes at
all 4 U. S. primary zinc processing facilities are recovered at on-site sulfuric acid plants.  Much of
the paniculate matter emitted from primary zinc processing facilities is also  attributable to the
concentrate roasters.  The amount and composition of paniculate varies with operating parameters,
such as air flow rate and equipment configuration. Various combinations of control devices such as
cyclones, electrostatic precipitators (ESP), and baghouses can be used on roasters and on sintering
machines, achieving 94 to 99 percent emission reduction.

        Controlled and uncontrolled paniculate emission factors for points within  a zinc smelting
facility  are presented hi Tables 12.7-1 and 12.7-2. Fugitive emission factors are presented in
Tables  12.7-3 and 12.7-4. These emission factors should be applied carefully.  Emission factors for
sintering operations are derived from data from  a single facility no longer operating.  Others are
estimated based on similar operations hi the steel, lead, and copper industries.  Testing on
1 electrothermic primary zinc smelting facility indicates that cadmium,  chromium, lead, mercury,
nickel,  and zinc are contained hi  the offgases from both the sintering machine and the retort furnaces.
12.7-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   Table 12.7-1 (Metric Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ZINC SMELTING4
Process
Roasting
Multiple hearthb (SCC 3-03-030-02)
Suspension6 (SCC 3-03-030-07)
Fluidized bedd (SCC 3-03-030-08)
Sinter plant (SCC 3-03-030-03)
Uncontrolled6
With cyclonef
With cyclone and ESPf
Vertical retort8 (SCC 3-03-030-05)
Electric retorth (SCC 3-03-030-29)
Electrolytic processJ (SCC 3-03-030-
06)
Uncontrolled

113
1000
1083

62.5
NA
NA
7.15
10.0
3.3

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

E
E
E

E
NA
NA
D
E
E

Controlled

ND
4
ND

NA
24.1
8.25
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
E
NA

NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA

a Factors are for kg/Mg of zinc ore processed.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ESP = Electrostatic precipitator. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b References 5-7.  Averaged from an estimated 10%  of feed released as paniculate, zinc production
  rate at 60% of roaster feed rate, and other estimates.
c References 5-7.  Based on an average 60%  of feed  released as paniculate emission and a zinc
  production rate at 60% of roaster feed rate.  Controlled emissions based on 20% dropout in waste
  heat boiler and 99.5% dropout hi cyclone and ESP.
d References 5,13.  Based  on an average 65% of feed released  as paniculate emissions and  a zinc
  production rate of 60% of roaster feed rate.
e Reference 5.  Based on unspecified  industrial  source data.
f Reference 8.  Data not necessarily compatible with uncontrolled emissions.
8 Reference 8.
h Reference 14.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
J  Reference 10.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.7-5
-------
  Table 12.7-2 (English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ZINC SMELTING*
Process
Roasting
Multiple hearthb (SCC 3-03-030-02)
Suspension0 (SCC 3-03-030-07)
Fluidized beda (SCC 3-03-030-08)
Sinter plant (SCC 3-03-030-03)
Uncontrolled6
With cyclonef
With cyclone and ESPf
Vertical retort« (SCC 3-03-030-05)
Electric retort11 (SCC 3-03-030-29)
Electrolytic process5 (SCC 3-03-030-
06)
Uncontrolled

227
2000
2167

125
NA
NA
14.3
20.0
6.6

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

E
E
E

E
NA
NA
D
E
E

Controlled

ND
8
ND

NA
48.2
16.5
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
E
NA

NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA

a Factors are for Ib/ton of zinc ore processed. SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ESP = Electrostatic precipitator. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
b References 5-7.  Averaged from an estimated 10% of feed released as paniculate, zinc production
  rate at 60% of roaster feed rate, and other estimates.
c References 5-7.  Based on an average 60%  of feed released as paniculate emission and a zinc
  production rate at 60% of roaster feed rate.  Controlled emissions based on 20% dropout in waste
  heat boiler and 99.5% dropout in cyclone and ESP.
d References 5,13.  Based on an average 65% of feed released as paniculate emissions and a zinc
  production rate of 60% of roaster feed rate.
e Reference 5.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
f Reference 8.  Data not necessarily compatible with uncontrolled emissions.
g Reference 8.
h Reference 14.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
J  Reference 10.
 12.7-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
     Table 12.7-3 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
                         FACTORS FOR SLAB ZINC SMELTING*
Process
Roasting (SCC 3-03-030-24)
Sinter plantb
Wind box (SCC 3-03-030-25)
Discharge screens (SCC 3-03-030-26)
Retort building0 (SCC 3-03-030-27)
Castingd (SCC 3-03-030-28)
Emissions
Negligible
0.12-0.55
0.28- 1.22
1.0-2.0
1.26
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
E
E
E
E
a Reference 9.  Factors are in kg/Mg of product.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  NA = not applicable.
b From steel industry operations for which there are emission factors. Based on quantity of sinter
  produced.
c From lead industry operations.
d From copper industry operations.
    Table 12.7-4 (English Units). UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
                         FACTORS FOR SLAB ZINC SMELTING3
Process
Roasting (SCC 3-03-030-24)
Sinter plantb
Wind box (SCC 3-03-030-25)
Discharge screens (SCC 3-03-030-26)
Retort building0 (SCC 3-03-030-27)
Castingd (SCC 3-03-030-28)
Emissions
Negligible
0.24- 1.10
0.56 - 2.44
2.0-4.0
2.52
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
E
E
E
E
a Reference 9. Factors are in Ib/ton of product.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  NA = not applicable.
b From steel industry operations for which there are emission factors. Based on quantity of sinter
  produced.
c From lead industry operations.
d From copper industry operations.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.7-7
-------
References For Section 12.7

 i.     J.  H. Jolly, "Zinc", Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
       Bureau of Mines.

 2.     J.  H. Jolly, "Zinc", Minerals Yearbook 1989, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington,
       DC, 1990.

 3.     R. L. Williams,  "The Monaca Electrothermic Smelter—The Old Becomes The New", Lead-
       Zinc '90, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, Philadelphia, PA, 1990.

 4.     Environmental Assessment Of The Domestic Primary Copper, Lead And Zinc Industries,
       EPA-600/2-82-066, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1978.

 5.     Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume I: Mass Emissions, APTD-0743,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1971.

 6.     G. Sallee, Personal Communication, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. June
       1970.

 7.     Systems Study For Control Of Emissions In The Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry,
       Volume I, APTD-1280, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, June 1969.

 8.     R. B. Jacko and D. W. Nevendorf, "Trace Metal Emission Test Results From A Number Of
       Industrial And Municipal Point Sources", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association,
       27(10):989-994.  October 1977.

 9.     Technical Guidance For Control Of Industrial Process Fugitive Paniculate Emissions,
       EPA-450/3-77-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1977.

10.     Background Information For New Source Performance Standards: Primary Copper, Zinc And
       Lead Smelters, Volume I: Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-002a, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

11.     Written communication from J. D. Reese, Zinc Corporation Of America,  Monaca, PA, to
       C. M.  Campbell, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 18, 1992.

12.     Emission Study Performed For Zinc Corporation Of America At The Monaca Facilities,
       May 13-30, 1991, EMC Analytical, Inc., Gilberts,  IL, April 27, 1992.

13.     Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1967.

14.     Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use, Chapter 28 Primary Zinc Industry,
       EPA-600/2-80-169, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1980.
12.7-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
12.8  Secondary Aluminum Operations

12.8.1  General1

        Secondary aluminum producers recycle aluminum from aluminum-containing scrap, while
primary aluminum producers convert bauxite ore into aluminum.  The secondary aluminum industry
was responsible for 27.5 percent of domestic aluminum produced in 1989.  There are approximately
116 plants with a recovery capacity of approximately 2.4 million megagrams (2.6 million tons) of
aluminum per year.  Actual total secondary aluminum production was relatively constant during the
1980s.  However, increased demand for aluminum by the automobile industry has doubled in the last
10 years to an average of 78.5 kilograms (173 pounds) per car. Recycling of used aluminum
beverage cans (UBC) increased more than 26 percent from 1986 to 1989. In 1989, 1.3 million
megagrams (1.4 million tons) of UBCs were recycled, representing over 60 percent of cans shipped.
Recycling a ton of aluminum requires only 5 percent of the energy required to refine a ton of primary
aluminum from bauxite ore, making the secondary aluminum economically viable.

12.8.2  Process Description

        Secondary aluminum production involves 2 general  categories of operations, scrap
pretreatment and smelting/refining.  Pretreatment operations include sorting, processing, and cleaning
scrap. Smelting/refining operations  include  cleaning, melting, refining, alloying, and pouring of
aluminum recovered from scrap. The processes used to convert scrap aluminum to products such as
lightweight aluminum alloys for industrial castings are presented in Figure 12.8-1A and
Figure 12.8-1B. Some or all the steps in these figures may be involved at any one facility. Some
steps  may be combined or reordered, depending on scrap quality, source of scrap, auxiliary
equipment available, furnace design, and product specifications.  Plant configuration, scrap type
usage, and product output varies throughout the secondary aluminum industry.

12.8.2.1  Scrap Pretreatment -
        Aluminum scrap comes from a variety of sources. "New" scrap is generated by pre-
consumer sources, such  as drilling and machining of aluminum castings, scrap from aluminum
fabrication and manufacturing operations, and aluminum bearing residual material (dross) skimmed
off molten aluminum during smelting operations.  "Old" aluminum scrap is material that has been
used by the consumer and discarded. Examples of old scrap include used appliances, aluminum foil,
automobile and airplane parts,  aluminum siding, and beverage cans.

        Scrap pretreatment involves sorting and processing scrap to remove contaminants  and to
prepare the material for  smelting.  Sorting and processing separates the aluminum from other metals,
dirt, oil, plastics,  and paint.  Pretreatment cleaning processes are based on mechanical,
pyrometallurgical, and hydrometallurgical techniques.

12.8.2.1.1 Mechanical Cleaning -
        Mechanical cleaning includes the physical separation of aluminum from other scrap, with
hammer mills, ring rushers, and other machines to break scrap containing aluminum into  smaller
pieces.  This improves the efficiency of downstream recovery by magnetic removal of iron.  Other
recovery processes include vibratory screens and air classifiers.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.8-1
-------
                                         PRETREATMENT
                         r
                                             FUEL
   Figure 12.8-1A.  Typical process diagram for secondary aluminum processing industry.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                                 PRODUCT
                                       inrjr
                                           -CHLORINE
                                            FLUX
                                           -FUEL
                              REVERBERATORY
                                 (CHLORINE)
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                                 (SCO 3-04-001-04)
                                           -FLUORINE
                                            FLUX
                                          nFUEL
                                       YVV	
     I TREATED
     1 ALUMINUM
        SCRAP
  REVERBERATORY
     (FLUORINE)
SMELTING/REFINING
     (SCO 3-04-001-05)
                                            FLUX
                                          r-FUEL
                                        TT
                                  CRUCIBLE
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                                  (SCO 3-04-001-02)
     INDUCTION
SMELTING/REFINING
                                                        -HHARDENERS
                                        44
                                          LFLUX
                                          — ELECTRICITY
   Figure 12.8-1B.  Typical process diagram for secondary aluminum processing industry.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
       Metallurgical Industry
12.8-3
-------
       An example of mechanical cleaning is the dry milling process. Cold aluminum-laden dross
and other residues are processed by milling and screening to obtain a product containing at least 60 to
70 percent aluminum.  Ball, rod, or hammer mills can be used to reduce oxides and nonmetallic
particles  to fine powders for ease of removal during screening.

12.8.2.1.2  Pyrometallurgical Cleaning -
       Pyrometallurgical techniques (called drying in the industry) use heat to separate aluminum
from contaminates and other metals.  Pyrometallurgical techniques include roasting and sweating.
The roasting process involves heating aluminum scrap that contains organic contaminates  in rotary
dryers to temperatures high enough to vaporize or carbonize organic contaminates, but not high
enough to melt aluminum (660 °C [1220°F]).  An example of roasting is the APROS delacquering and
preheating process used during the processing of used beverage cans (shown in Figure 12.8-2). The
sweating process involves heating aluminum scrap containing other metals in a sweat furnace to
temperatures above the melting temperature of aluminum, but below that of the other metal.  For
example, sweating recovers aluminum from high-iron-content scrap by heating the scrap in an open
flame reverberatory furnace.  The temperature  is raised and maintained above the melting temperature
of aluminum, but below the melting temperature of iron.  This condition causes aluminum and other
low melting constituents to melt  and trickle down the sloped hearth, through a grate and into air-
cooled molds or collecting pots.  This product  is called  "sweated pig". The  higher-melting materials,
including iron, brass, and the oxidation products formed during the sweating process, are periodically
removed  from the furnace.

       In addition to roasting and  sweating, a  catalytic  technique may also be used to  clean aluminum
dross.  Dross is a layer of impurities and semisolid flux that has been skimmed from the surface of
molten aluminum.  Aluminum may be recovered from dross by batch fluxing with a salt/cryolite
mixture in a mechanically rotated,  refractory-lined barrel furnace.  Cryolite acts as a catalyst that
decreases aluminum surface tension and therefore increases recovery rates. Aluminum is  tapped
periodically through a hole in the base of the furnace.

12.8.2.1.3  Hydrometallurgical Cleaning -
       Hydrometallurgical techniques use water to clean and process aluminum scrap.
Hydrometallurgical techniques include leaching and heavy media separation.  Leaching is  used to
recover aluminum from dross, furnace skimmings, and  slag. It requires wet milling, screening,
drying, and finally magnetic separation to remove fluxing salts and other waste products from the
aluminum.  First, raw material is fed into a long rotating drum or a wet-ball mill  where water soluble
contaminants are rinsed into  waste water and removed (leached).  The remaining washed material is
then screened to remove fines and undissolved  salts.  The screened material is then dried and passed
through a magnetic separator to remove ferrous materials.

       The heavy media separation hydrometallurgical  process separates high density  metal from low
density metal using a viscous medium,  such as copper and iron, from aluminum.  Heavy media
separation has been used to concentrate aluminum recovered from shredded cars.  The cars are
shredded after large aluminum components have been removed (shredded material contains
approximately 30 percent aluminum) and processed in heavy media to further concentrate
aluminum to 80 percent or more.

12.8.2.2  Smelting/Refining  -
       After scrap pretreatment, smelting and  refining  is performed.  Smelting and refining in
secondary aluminum recovery takes place primarily in reverberatory furnaces. These furnaces  are
brick-lined and constructed with  a curved roof.  The term reverberatory is used because heat rising
12.8-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
      Scrap
      Aluminum
      Inlet
                   Dust   Collector
                             Reverberatory.
                                  Furnace
                 Moiten[
              Aluminum
                      Exhaust,
       Heated,  Recycle  Gas
                                  Combustor
                                                   Fuel
                                                                       Hot   Gas
                                                                     Recycle  Fan
                 Figure 12.8-2. APROS delacquering and preheating process.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.8-5
-------
from ignited fuel is reflected (reverberated) back down from the curved furnace roof and into the
melted charge. A typical reverberatory furnace has an enclosed melt area where the flame heat
source operates directly above the molten aluminum.  The furnace charging well is connected to the
melt area by channels through which molten aluminum is pumped from the melt area into the
charging well.  Aluminum flows back into the melt section of the furnace under gravity.

        Most secondary aluminum recovery facilities use batch processing hi smelting and refining
operations.  It is common for 1 large melting reverberatory furnace to support the flow requirements
for 2 or more smaller holding furnaces. The melting furnace is used to melt the scrap, and remove
impurities and entrained gases.  The molten aluminum is then pumped into a holding furnace.
Holding furnaces are better suited for final alloying, and for making any additional adjustments
necessary to ensure that the aluminum meets product specifications. Pouring takes place from holding
furnaces, either into molds or as feedstock for continuous casters.

        Smelting and refining operations can involve the following steps:  charging, melting, fluxing,
demagging, degassing, alloying, skimming, and pouring. Charging consists of placing pretreated
aluminum scrap into a melted aluminum pool (heel) that is maintained in  melting furnaces.  The
scrap, mixed with flux material, is normally placed into the furnace charging well, where heat from
the molten aluminum surrounding the scrap causes it to  melt by conduction.  Flux materials combine
with contaminates  and  float to the surface of the aluminum, trapping impurities and providing a
barrier (up to 6 inches thick) that reduces oxidation of the melted aluminum.  To minimize aluminum
oxidation (melt loss), mechanical methods are used to submerge scrap into the heel as quickly as
possible. Scrap may be charged as high density bales, loosely packed bales, or as dry shredded scrap
that is continuously fed from a conveyor and into the vortex section of the charging well. The
continuous feed system is advantageous when processing uniform scrap directly from a drier (such as
a delacquering operation for UBCs).

       Demagging reduces the magnesium content of the molten charge from approximately
0.5 percent to about 0.1 percent (a typical product specification).  In the past, when demagging with
liquid chlorine, chlorine was injected under pressure to react with magnesium as  the chlorine bubbled
to the surface.  The pressurized chlorine was released through carbon lances directed under the heel
surface, resulting in high chlorine emissions.

       A more recent chlorine aluminum demagging process has replaced the carbon lance
procedure.  Molten aluminum in the furnace charging well gives up thermal energy to the scrap as
scrap is melted.  In order to maintain high melt rates in the charging well, a circulation pump moves
high temperature molten aluminum from the melt section of the reverberatory furnace to the  charging
well.  Chlorine gas is metered into the circulation pump's discharge pipe.  By inserting chlorine gas
into the turbulent flow of the molten aluminum at an angle to the aluminum pump discharge, small
chlorine-filled gas  bubbles are sheared off and mixed rapidly in the turbulent flow found in the
pump's  discharge pipe. In actual practice, the flow rate of chlorine gas is increased until a slight
vapor (aluminum chloride) can be seen above the surface of the molten aluminum.  Then the flow rate
is decreased until no more vapor is seen.  It is reported  that chlorine usage approaches the
stoichiometric relationship using this process. Chlorine emissions resulting from this procedure have
not been made available, but it is anticipated that reductions of chlorine emissions (in the form of
chloride compounds) will be reported in the future.

       Other chlorinating agents or fluxes, such as anhydrous aluminum  chloride or chlorinated
organics, are used in demagging operations.  Demagging with fluorine is  similar to demagging with
chlorine, except that aluminum fluoride (A1F3) is employed instead of chlorine.  The A1F3 reacts with
12.8-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 magnesium to produce molten metallic aluminum and solid magnesium fluoride salt that floats to the
 surface of the molten aluminum and is trapped in the flux layer.

        Degassing is a process used to remove gases entrained in molten aluminum. High-pressure
 inert gases are released below the molten surface to violently agitate the melt.  This agitation causes
 the entrained gasses to rise to the surface to be absorbed hi the floating flux. In some operations,
 degassing is combined with the demagging operation.  A combination demagging and degassing
 process has been developed that uses a 10 percent concentration of chlorine gas mixed with a
 nonreactive gas (either nitrogen or argon). The combined high-pressure gases are forced through a
 hand held nozzle that has a designed distribution pattern of hole sizes across the face of the nozzle.
 The resulting high turbulent flow and the diluted chlorine content primarily degasses the melt.
 Chlorine emissions resulting from this process are not available.

        Alloying combines aluminum  with an alloying agent in order to change its strength and
 ductility.  Alloying agents include zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium,  and silicon.  The alloying
 steps include an analysis of the furnace charge, addition of the required alloying agents, and then a
 reanalysis of the charge.  This iterative process continues until the correct alloy is reached.

        The  skimming operation physically removes contaminated semisolid fluxes (dross, slag,  or
 skimmings) by ladling them from the  surface of the melt. Skimming is normally  conducted several
 tunes during die melt cycle, particularly if the pretreated scrap contains high levels of contamination.
 Following the last skimming, the melt is allowed to cool before pouring into molds or casting
 machines.

        The  crucible smelting/refining process is used to melt small batches of aluminum scrap,
 generally limited to 500 kg (1,100 Ib) or less.  The metal-treating process steps are essentially the
 same as those of reverberatory furnaces.

        The  induction smelting and refining process is designed to produce aluminum alloys with
 increased strength and hardness by blending aluminum and hardening agents in an electric induction
 furnace.  The process steps include charging scrap, melting, adding and blending  the hardening agent,
 skimming, pouring,  and casting into notched bars.  Hardening agents include manganese and silicon.

 12.8.3  Emissions And Controls2"8

        The major sources of emissions from scrap pretreatment processes are scrap crushing and
 screening operations, scrap driers, sweat furnaces, and UBC delacquering systems.  Although each
 step in scrap treatment and smelting/refining is a potential source of emissions,  emission factors  for
 scrap treatment processes  have not been sufficiently characterized and documented and are therefore
 not presented below.

        Smelting and refining emission sources originate from charging, fluxing, and demagging
processes. Tables 12.8-1  and 12.8-2 present emission factors for sweating furnaces, crucible
furnaces,  reverberatory furnaces, and chlorine demagging process.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.8-7
-------
  So
  z
  o
  H


  I
  a,
  O
  Q
  Z
  O
  o
  O
  uu

  00
  04
  O
  Z
  O

  0-5
  00
  O

  g
  £
  D
  o
  oo

  ts

2og
oo H c
oo (j H
>_* ^ ^
s*3
W


o
'•§ S
2 to
eo *i
go,
O ij
^
w a,




o * O
2o£
oo H S
oo o H
5 < <
M fc °*
u'




O)
CO
§
bo
«i
tAJ




C^ C5
i-S ^^ 2^
g5&P
sn




u tu u u



JQ o?
r~' o





Sweating furnaceb
(SCC 3-04-001-01)
Smelting
Crucible furnaceb
(SCC 3-04-001-02;




in
04 O
•n



.~^
Reverberatory0
(SCC 3-04-001-03;
Chlorine demaggingd
(SCC 3-04-001-04)

CO
O u,
*- O
cQ *•*
-S 'g1 S3
bO +•» co
1 £ 1
•o in  r ^^ S
"r* T? bo ^
|| f |
«-'&•* °
o S? in «*-.
tt< ^j t~- O
2 — ' «
- C co
"S CO J=
a> n "" »J
"3 " VH
S < 2 ^>
oZ % $
b VM bb
2 H -2 m
•g ^ eg —
^ § 'S .22

M" -S3
So a a
•SbZ 8 ^
a« 8 •§
X C "»
"8 U 3 'S
^ G *S "»
2 .2 «s "8
O< *g o j^
go "*g O
g S •> •£
a, c3 •§ 2
S0 1 1
8 "2 o
bo '^ c3 —
ef 3 CO C
« J ^ -2
•B M «
S II «J ">
co *•• D
T3 O 8-0
GO •" -0
eo CO g j-
bO " -o
g _: S . c
'S as o ^n co
CO V CO ."?* *^
1 S ^oS^
^ M% •<—* *""* ^>n
co ^ co bO
" c cS <£ J« i2
g -C *- ° ^ §5
^ ^ 8 S -1 2
co J3 w Kn ,-5 cU
g o 3 « ° o
1 ^ ° > "^ 1
**< bo ^ ^ o M
C S *o C t5 O
^» C^ l-' *—, «5 ^H
Reference 3. Emissi(
emission factor is kg/
Based upon averages
Uncontrolled, based c
controlled emission f;
Based on average of
18 kg/Mg.
OS .O O T3
                                                                  "8
                                                                  CO
                               0>
                               CO

                               3
                               bO
                               co
                                                                  1

                                                                  O
                              _o


                              X)
12.8-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   I
   o
   £
   o
   z

   s
   D
   Q
   Z
   O
   U
   UJ
   CO

   05
   O
   UH

   CO
   Cli



   e


   2

   Z
   O

   So
   CO
   U
   C/3
   •4—»


   'S
   .—

   "eb


   W,


   CN
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



t> Ui
*3 o
2 CTJ
I '§

.— < .^
UJ o-



EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING






Cfl
o
J=
«





Z «>
^D /^ S^
So H p
| < <
Wfe



I

1

3

D




Operation

z z w z




Q Q
Z Z








^ Q
— Z




z





^ Q
CO g








o
CO
-H O




« « »




v> o\
if — <'
*-'






Sweating furnaceb
(SCC 3-04-001-01)
Smelting
Crucible furnaceb
(SCC 3-04-001-02)





CO
§'

^H





Reverberatory0
(SCC 3-04-001-03)
Chlorine demaggingd
(SCC 3-04-001-04)

lagging,

D
•o

C* 0}
'C 2
s .a
*-« fv
O 5s
[i, ™
O
5 u
C/5 II
"

?» *^C
3 I
U T3
S 2
M-! e
c I'
2Q
js Z
CA
ffj 3>
T3
5 O
CA O
2i §
« fj
S S

Crt W2
S —
3 U
^^ Q>
60 JJ
2 o

•5 _w
cT "o
0 S
-ti c
£ 8

o
CO ^_j
u,
2 e
o 5
« 1
.2 o
wa CO
.52 •*
S .2
"
•S 2
^-i O
o <2
•a c
o -2
CJ C«
c .=£
3 E
 S
4) O
•O 0
•« §
U-i ^
•o *o
c c
C/5 °
1
1 1
9> "H
O S3
t-> "^
1 1

0 ™
'*-• 12
0 tS
S 2

2 c u~

> S o
C — 0
Uncontrolled, based o
emission factor is 0.3
Based on average of 1
36 Ib/ton.
o -o
































1
c«
wa
3
O
•a
CO

"S
03
O
O
C3
rj t


UH
£
1
1
«j
I?
u
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.8-9
-------
12.8.3.1 Scrap Pretreatment Emissions -
        Mechanical cleaning techniques involve crushing, shredding, and screening and produce
metallic and nonmetallic particulates. Burning and drying operations (pyrometallurgic techniques)
emit particulates and organic vapors. Afterburners are frequently used to convert unburned VOCs to
carbon dioxide and water vapor.  Other gases that may be present, depending on the composition of
the contaminants, include chlorides, fluorides, and sulfur oxides. Specific emission factors for these
gases are not presented due to lack of data.  Oxidized aluminum fines blown out of the dryer by the
combustion gases contain paniculate emissions.  Wet scrubbers or fabric filters are sometimes used in
conjunction with afterburners.

        Mechanically generated dust from rotating barrel dross furnaces constitutes the main air
emission of hot dross processing.  Some fumes are produced from the fluxing reactions.  Fugitive
emissions are controlled by enclosing the barrel furnace in a hood system and by ducting the
emissions to a fabric filter.  Furnace offgas emissions, mainly fluxing salt fume, are often controlled
by a venturi scrubber.

        Emissions from sweating furnaces vary with  the feed scrap composition. Smoke may result
from incomplete combustion of organic contaminants (e. g., rubber,  oil and grease, plastics, paint,
cardboard, paper) that may be present.  Fumes can result from the oxidation of magnesium and zinc
contaminants and from fluxes in recovered dross and skims.

        In dry milling, large amounts of dust are generated from the crushing, milling, screening, air
classification, and materials transfer steps.  Leaching operations  (hydrometallurgic techniques) may
produce particulate emissions during drying.  Particulate emissions from roasting result from the
charring of carbonaceous materials (ash).

12.8.3.2 Smelting/Refining Emissions -
        Emissions from reverberatory furnaces represent a significant fraction of the total particulate
and gaseous effluent generated in the secondary aluminum industry.  Emissions from the charging
well consist  of organic and inorganic particulate, unburned organic vapors, and carbon dioxide.
Emissions from furnace burners contain carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfuric oxide, and
nitrogen oxide. Furnace burner emissions are usually separated from process emissions.

        Emissions that result from fluxing operations are dependent upon both the type of fluxing
agents and the amount required, which are a function of scrap quality.  Emissions may include
common fluxing salts such as sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and cryolite. Aluminum and
magnesium chloride also may be generated from the  fluxing materials being added to the melt.
Studies  have suggested that fluxing particulate emission are typically less than 1 micrometer in
diameter.  Specific emission factors for these compounds are not presented due to lack of information.

        In the past, demagging represented the most  severe source of emissions for the secondary
aluminum industry.  A more recent process change where chlorine gas is mixed into  molten
aluminum from the furnace circulation pump discharge may reduce chlorine emissions.  However,
total chlorine emissions are directly related to the amount of demagging effort and product
specifications (the magnesium content in the scrap and the required magnesium reduction). Also, as
the magnesium percentage decreases during demagging, a disproportional increase in emissions results
due to the decreased efficiency of the scavenging process.

        Both the chlorine and aluminum fluoride demagging processes create highly corrosive
emissions.  Chlorine demagging results in the formation of magnesium chloride that contributes to
fumes leaving the dross.  Excess chloride combines with aluminum to form aluminum chloride, a

12.8-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
vapor at furnace temperatures, but one that condenses into submicrometer fumes as it cools.
Aluminum chloride has an extremely high affinity for water (hygroscopic) and combines with water
vapor to form hydrochloric acid. Aluminum chloride and hydrochloric acid are irritants and
corrosive.  Free chlorine that does not form compounds may also escape from the furnace and
become an emission.

        Aluminum fluoride (A1F3) demagging results in the formation of magnesium fluoride as a
byproduct. Excess fluorine combines with hydrogen to form hydrogen fluoride.  The principal
emissions resulting from aluminum fluoride demagging is a highly corrosive fume containing
aluminum fluoride, magnesium fluoride, and hydrogen fluoride. The use of A1F3 rather than
chlorine in the demagging  step reduces demagging emissions.  Fluorides  are emitted as gaseous
fluorides (hydrogen fluoride, aluminum and magnesium fluoride vapors,  and silicon tetrafluoride) or
as dusts.  Venturi scrubbers are  usually used for gaseous fluoride emission control.

        Tables 12.8-3 and  12.8-4 present particle size distributions and corresponding emission factors
for uncontrolled chlorine demagging and metal refining in secondary aluminum reverberatory
furnaces.

        According to the VOC/PM Speciate Data Base Management System (SPECIATE) data base,
the following hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) have been found in emissions from reverberatory
furnaces:  chlorine, and compounds of manganese, nickel, lead, and chromium. In addition to the
HAPs listed for reverberatory furnaces, general secondary aluminum plant emissions have been found
to include HAPs such as antimony, cobalt, selenium, cadmium, and arsenic, but specific emission
factors for these HAPs are not presented due to lack of information.

        In summary,  typical furnace effluent gases contain combustion products, chlorine,  hydrogen
chloride and metal chlorides of zinc, magnesium and aluminum, aluminum oxide and various metals
and metal compounds, depending on the quality of scrap charged.
      Table 12.8-3 (Metric Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
       EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED REVERBERATORY FURNACES IN
                         SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS21

Aerodynamic Particle
Diameter (jim)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Particle Size
Distribution15

Chlorine
Demagging
19.8
36.9
53.2

Refining
50.0
53.4
60.0
Size-Specific Emission Factor0 (kg/Mg)

Chlorine
Demagging
99.5
184.5
266.0
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E

Refining
1.08
1.15
1.30
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
a References 4-5.
b Cumulative weight percent is less than the aerodynamic particle diameter, /un.
c Size-specific emission factor equals total paniculate emission factor multiplied by particle size
  distribution (percent)/100. From Table 12.8-1, total particulate emission factor for chloride
  demagging is 500 kg/Mg chlorine used, and for refining, 2.15 kg/Mg aluminum processed.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.8-11
-------
     Table 12.8-4 (English Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
      EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED REVERBERATORY FURNACES IN
                        SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS*
Aerodynamic Particle
Diameter (jim)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Particle size
Distribution15
Chlorine
Demagging
19.8
36.9
53.2
Refining
50.0
53.4
60.0
Size-Specific Emission Factor0 (Ib/ton)
Chlorine
Demagging
199
369
532
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
Refining
2.16
2.3
2.6
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
a References 4-5.
b Cumulative weight percent is less than the aerodynamic particle diameter, /im.
c Size-specific emission factor equals total paniculate emission factor multiplied by particle size
  distribution (percent)/100. From Table 12.8-2, total paniculate emission factor for chloride
  demagging is 1000 Ib/ton chlorine used, and for refining, 4.3 Ib/ton aluminum processed.
References For Section 12.8

1.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau of Mines.

2.     W. M.  Coltharp, et al., Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of The Secondary Nonferrous
       Metal Industry, Draft Final Report, 2 vols., EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319, Radian
       Corporation, Austin, TX, June 1976.

3.     W. F. Hammond and S. M. Weiss, Unpublished Report On Air Contaminant Emissions From
       Metallurgical Operations In Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
       District, July 1964.

4.     Emission Test Data From Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
       Information System (EPEIS), Series Report No. 231, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.

5.     Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op.tit., Series Report No. 331.

6.     Danielson, John., "Secondary Aluminum-Melting Processes".  Air Pollution Engineering
       Manual, 2nd Ed., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Report Number
       AP-40, May 1973.

7.     Secondary Aluminum Reverberatory Furnace, Speciation Data Base. U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, Profile Number 20101, 1989.

8.     Secondary Aluminum Plant—General, Speciation Data Base.  U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, Profile Number 90009, 1989.
12.8-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 12.9 Secondary Copper Smelting

 12.9.1  General1'2

        As of 1992, more than 40 percent of the U. S. supply of copper is derived from secondary
 sources, including such items as machine shop punchings, turnings, and borings; manufacturing
 facility defective or surplus goods; automobile radiators, pipes, wires, bushings, and bearings; and
 metallurgical process skimmings and dross.  This secondary copper can be refined into relatively pure
 metallic copper, alloyed with zinc or tin to form brass or bronze, incorporated into chemical
 products, or used in a number of smaller applications. Six secondary copper smelters are in operation
 in the U. S.:  3 in Illinois and 1 each in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. A large number
 of mills and foundries reclaim relatively pure copper scrap for alloying purposes.

 12.9.2  Process Description2'3

        Secondary copper recovery is divided into 4 separate operations:  scrap pretreatment,
 smelting, alloying, and casting.  Pretreatment includes the cleaning and consolidation of scrap in
 preparation for smelting.  Smelting consists  of heating and treating the scrap for separation  and
 purification of specific metals.  Alloying involves the addition of 1 or more other metals to  copper to
 obtain desirable qualities characteristic of the combination of metals. The major secondary  copper
 smelting operations are shown in Figure 12.9-1; brass and bronze alloying operations are shown in
 Figure  12.9-2.

 12.9.2.1  Pretreatment-
        Scrap pretreatment may be achieved  through manual, mechanical, pyrometallurgical, or
 hydrometallurgical methods.  Manual and mechanical  methods include sorting, stripping, shredding,
 and magnetic separation.  The scrap may then be compressed into bricquettes in a hydraulic press.
 Pyrometallurgical pretreatment may include  sweating (the separation of different metals by slowly
 staging furnace air temperatures to liquify each  metal  separately), burning insulation from copper
 wire, and drying in  rotary kilns to volatilize oil and other organic compounds.  Hydrometallurgical
 pretreatment methods include flotation and leaching to recover copper from slag.  Flotation  is
 typically used when slag contains greater than 10 percent copper. The slag is slowly cooled such  that
 large, relatively pure crystals are formed and recovered.  The remaining slag is cooled, ground, and
 combined with water and chemicals that facilitate flotation.  Compressed air and the flotation
 chemicals separate the ground slag into various  fractions of minerals.  Additives cause the copper  to
 float in a foam of air bubbles for  subsequent removal, dewatering, and concentration.

        Leaching is  used to  recover copper from slime, a byproduct of electrolytic refining. In this
 process, sulfuric acid is circulated through the slime in a pressure filter.   Copper dissolves in the acid
 to form a solution of copper sulfate (CuS04), which can then be either mixed with the electrolyte  in
the refinery cells or sold as  a product.

 12.9.2.2  Smelting -
        Smelting  of low-grade copper scrap begins with  melting in either a blast or a rotary furnace,
resulting in  slag and impure  copper.  If a blast furnace is used,  this copper is charged to a converter,
where the purity is increased to  about 80 to 90 percent, and then to a reverberatory furnace, where
copper of about 99 percent purity is achieved.  In these fire-refining furnaces, flux is added  to the
copper and air is  blown upward through the  mixture to oxidize  impurities. These impurities are then


 1/95                                  Metallurgical  Industry                                12.9-1
-------
     ENTERING THE  SYSTEM
                                                                    LEAVING THE  SYSTEM
     LOW GRADE SCRAP.
      (SLAG, SKIMMINGS.
 DROSS. CHIPS. BORINGS)

                   FUEL

                    AIR
                   FLUX

                   FUEL

                    AIR
                   FLUX

                   FUEL

                    AIR



                   FLUX

                   FUEL

                    AIR
    PYROMETALLURGICAL
       PRETREATMENT
         (DRYING)
       (SCO 3-04-002-07)
                                      TREATED
                                      SCRAP
          CUPOLA
       (SCC 3-04-002-10)
                                      BLACK
                                      COPPER
                                                   SLAG
     SMELTING FURNACE
      (REVERBERATORY)
       (SCC 3-04-002-14)
     SEPARATED
     COPPER
                  SLAG
        CONVERTER
       (SCC 344-002-50)
                            BLISTER
                            COPPER
                   AIR

                  FUEL

     REDUCING MEDIUM
              (POLING)
                                          SLAG
FIRE REFINING
                         BLISTER
                         COPPER
GASES. DUST. METAL OXIDES
TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                                    CARBON  MONOXIDE. PARTICULATE DUST.
                                   . METAL  OXIDES. TO AFTERBURNER  AND
                                    PARTICULATE CONTROL
                                                                     SLAG TO  DISPOSAL
                 CASTING AND SHOT
                    PRODUCTION
                   (SCC 3-04-002-39)
GASES AND METAL  OXIDES
TO CONTROL  EQUIPMENT
GASiS AND METAL  OXIDES
TO CONTROL  EQUIPMENT
                                                                          FUGITIVE METAL OXIDES  FROM
                                                                          POURING TO  EITHER HOODING
                                                                          OR PLANT ENVIRONMENT
                                            GASES. METAL DUST.
                                            TO CONTROL DEVICE
                                 REFINED COPPER
                              Figure 12.9-1.  Low-grade copper recovery.
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.9-2
         EMISSION FACTORS
                                    1/95
-------
       ENTERING  THE  SYSTEM
                              LEAVING THE  SYSTEM
       HIGH GRADE SCRAP.
     (WIRE. PIPE. BEARINGS.
    PUNCHINGS. RADIATORS)
MANUAL AND MECHANICAL
     PRETREATMENT
       (SORTING)
-*. FUGUTIVE OUST TO ATMOSPHERE
   (SCCS-CX-OO2-30)
                                                                 UNDESIPED SCRAP TO SALE
                               DESIRED
                            COPPER SCRAP
              DESIRED BRASS
            AND BRONZE SCRAP
                   L
                    FUEL-

                     AIR-
                                                               GASES. METAL OXIDES
                                                              'TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT

                                                              .LEAD,  SOLDER.  BABBITT METAL

FUEL »

(ZINC, TIN. ETC.)
MELTING AND
ALLOYING FURNACE




                                       ALLOY MATERIAL

                                            1
                                         CASTING
                                      (FINAL PRODUCT)
                               _>. PARTICULATES, HYDROCARBONS.
                                  ALDEHYDES. FLUORIDES. AND
                                  CHLORIDES TO AFTERBURNER
                                  AND  PARTICULATE CONTROL
                                                                    METAL  OXIDES TO
                                                                    CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                                                                    SLAG TO DISPOSAL
                                  FUGITIVE METAL OXIDES GENERATED
                                -*• DURING POURING TO EITHER PLANT
                                  ENVIRONMENT OR HOODING
                        Figure 12.9-2. High-grade brass and bronze alloying.
                            (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
removed as slag.  Then, by reducing the furnace atmosphere, cuprous oxide (CuO) is converted to
copper.  Fire-refined copper is cast into anodes, which are used during electrolysis.  The anodes are
submerged in a sulruric acid solution containing copper sulfate.  As copper is dissolved from the
anodes, it deposits on the cathode.  Then the cathode copper, which is as much as 99.99 percent
pure, is extracted and recast.   The blast furnace and converter may be omitted from the process if
average copper content of the  scrap being used  is greater than about 90 percent.

        The process used by 1 U. S.  facility involves the use of a patented top-blown rotary converter
in lieu of the blast, converting, and reverberatory furnaces and the electrolytic refining process
described above.  This facility begins with low-grade copper scrap and conducts its entire refining
operation in a single vessel.

12.9.2.3 Alloying-
        In alloying, copper-containing scrap  is charged to  a melting furnace along with 1 or more
other metals such as tin, zinc,  silver, lead, aluminum, or nickel. Fluxes are added to remove
impurities and to protect the melt against oxidation by air.  Air or pure oxygen may be blown through
1/95
     Metallurgical Industry
                               12.9-3
-------
the melt to adjust the composition by oxidizing excess zinc.  The alloying process is, to some extent,
mutually exclusive of the smelting and refining processes described above that lead to relatively pure
copper.

12.9.2.4  Casting -
        The final recovery process step is the casting of alloyed or refined metal products. The
molten metal is poured into molds from ladles or small pots serving as surge hoppers and flow
regulators.  The resulting products include shot,  wirebar, anodes,  cathodes, ingots, or other cast
shapes.

12.9.3  Emissions And Controls3

        The principal pollutant emitted from secondary copper smelting activities is particulate matter.
As is characteristic of secondary metallurgical industries,  pyrometallurgical processes used to separate
or refine the desired metal, such as the burning of insulation from copper wire, result in emissions of
metal oxides and unburned insulation. Similarly, drying of chips and borings to remove excess  oils
and cutting fluids can cause discharges of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and products of
incomplete combustion.

        The smelting process utilizes large volumes of air to oxidize sulfides, zinc, and other
undesirable constituents of the scrap. This oxidation procedure generates particulate matter in the
exhaust gas  stream.  A broad spectrum of particle sizes and grain loadings exists in the escaping gases
due to variations in furnace design and in the quality of furnace charges.  Another major factor
contributing to differences in emission rates is the amount of zinc present in scrap feed  materials.
The low-boiling zinc volatilizes and  is oxidized to produce copious amounts of zinc oxide as
submicron particulate.

        Fabric filter  baghouses are the most effective control technology applied to secondary copper
smelters. The control efficiency of these baghouses may exceed 99 percent, but cooling systems may
be needed to prevent hot exhaust gases from damaging or destroying the bag filters.  Electrostatic
precipitators are not  as well suited to this  application, because they have a low collection efficiency
for dense particulate such as oxides of lead and zinc.  Wet scrubber installations are ineffective as
pollution control devices in the secondary copper industry because scrubbers are useful  for particles
larger than 1 micrometer (^m), and the metal oxide fumes generated are generally submicron in size.

        Particulate emissions associated with drying kilns can  also be controlled with baghouses.
Drying temperatures up to 150°C (300°F) produce exhaust gases that require no precooling prior to
the baghouse inlet.  Wire burning generates large amounts of particulate matter, primarily composed
of partially combusted organic  compounds.  These emissions can be effectively controlled by direct-
flame incinerators called afterburners. An efficiency of 90 percent or more can be achieved if the
afterburner combustion temperature is maintained above 1000°C (1800°F).  If the insulation contains
chlorinated organics  such as polyvinyl chloride, hydrogen chloride gas will be generated.  Hydrogen
chloride is not controlled by the afterburner and is emitted to the atmosphere.

        Fugitive emissions occur from each process associated with secondary copper smelter
operations.  These emissions occur during the pretreating of scrap, the charging of scrap into furnaces
containing molten metals, the transfer of molten copper from one operation to another,  and from
material  handling. When charging scrap into furnaces, fugitive emissions often occur when the  scrap
is not sufficiently compact to allow a full  charge  to fit into the furnace prior to heating. The
introduction of additional material onto the liquid metal surface produces significant amounts of
volatile and  combustible materials and smoke.  If this smoke exceeds  the capacity of the exiting

12.9-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
 capture devices and control equipment, it can escape through the charging door.  Forming scrap
 bricquettes offers a possible means of avoiding the necessity of fractional charges.  When fractional
 charging cannot be eliminated, fugitive emissions are reduced by turning off the furnace burners
 during charging. This reduces the flow rate of exhaust gases and allows the exhaust control system to
 better accommodate the additional temporary emissions.

        Fugitive emissions of metal oxide fumes  are generated  not only during melting, but also while
 pouring molten metal into molds.  Additional dusts may be generated by the charcoal or other lining
 used in the mold.  The method used to make "smooth-top"  ingots involves covering the metal surface
 with ground charcoal.  This process creates a shower of sparks, releasing emissions into the plant
 environment at the vicinity of the furnace top and the molds being filled.

        The electrolytic refining process produces emissions of sulfuric acid mist, but no data
 quantifying these emissions are available.

        Emission factor averages and ranges for 6 different types of furnaces are presented in
 Tables 12.9-1  and 12.9-2, along with PM-10 emission rates and reported fugitive and lead emissions.
 Several of the metals contained in  much of the scrap used in secondary copper smelting operations,
 particularly lead, nickel, and cadmium, are hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined in Title III of
 the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.  These metals will exist  in the particulate matter emitted from
 these processes in proportions related to their existence in the scrap.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.9-5
-------
  Table 12.9-1 (Metric Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR FURNACES USED
          IN SECONDARY COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING PROCESS*
Furnace And Charge Type
Cupola.
Scrap iron (SCC 3-04-002-13)
Insulated copper wire
(SCC 3-04-002-11)
Scrap copper and brass
(SCC 3-04-002-12)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-34)
Reverberatory furnace
High lead alloy (58%)
(SCC 3-04-002-43)
Red/yellow brass
(SCC 3-04-002-44)
Other alloy (7%)
(SCC 3-04-002-42)
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-14)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-15)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-35)
Rotary furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-17)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-36)
Crucible and pot furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-19)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-37)
Electric arc furnace
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-20)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-21)
Electric induction
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-23)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-24)
Fugitive emissions'*
(SCC 3-04-002-38)
Control
Equipment

None
None
ESF*1
None
ESPd

None

None

None

None

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None


None
ESPd
None


None
ESPd
None


None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None

Total
Particulate

0.002
120
5
35
1.2

ND

ND

ND

ND

2.6
0.2
18
1.3
ND


150
7
ND


11
0.5
ND


2.5
0.5
5.5
3

3.5
0.25
10
0.35
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B
B
B
B
B

NA

NA

NA

NA

B
B
B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
B
B

B
B
B
B
NA

PM-10b

ND
105.6
ND
32.1
ND

1.1

ND

ND

ND

2.5
ND
10.8
ND
1.5


88.3
ND
1.3


6.2
ND
0.14


2.5
ND
3.2
ND

3.5
ND
10
ND
0.04

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
E
NA
E
NA

E

NA

NA

NA

E
NA
E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E
NA

E
NA
E
NA
E

Leadc

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

25

6.6

2.5

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

B

B

B

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

12.9-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                     Table 12.9-1 (cont.).

 a Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg ore processed.  The information for paniculate in Table 12.9-1
  was based on unpublished data furnished by the following:
  Philadelphia Air Management Services, Philadelphia, PA.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Metro Field Office, Springfield, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Newark Field Office, Newark, NJ.
  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York, NY.
  The City of New York Department of Air Resources, New York, NY.
  Cook County Department of Environmental Control, Maywood, IL.
  Wayne County Department of Health, Air Pollution Division, Detroit, MI.
  City of Cleveland Department of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Air Pollution Control,
    Cleveland,  OH.
  State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus,  OH.
  City of Chicago Department of Environmental Control, Chicago, IL.
  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles, CA.
 b PM-10 and fugitive emissions are listed in Airs Facility Subsystem Source Classification Codes and
  Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
  450/4-90-003, March 1990.  These estimates should be considered to have an EMISSION FACTOR
  RATING of E.
 c References 1,6-7.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg product.
 d ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                               12.9-7
-------
    Table 12.9-2 (English Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR FURNACES
        USED IN SECONDARY COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING PROCESS3
Furnace And Charge Type
Cupola
Scrap iron
(SCO 3-04-002-13)
Insulated copper wire
(SCC 3-04-002-11)
Scrap copper and brass
(SCC 3-04-002-12)
Fugitive emissions1*
(SCC 3-04-002-34)
Reverberatory furnace
High lead alloy (58%)
(SCC 3-04-002-43)
Red/yellow brass
(SCC 3-04-002-44)
Other alloy (7%)
(SCC 3-04-002-42)
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-14)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-15)
Fugitive emissions'*
(SCC 3-04-002-35)
Rotary furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-17)
Fugitive emissions'*
(SCC 3-04-002-36)
Crucible and pot furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-19)
Fugitive emissions'*
(SCC 3-04-002-37)
Electric arc furnace
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-20)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-21)
Electric induction furnace
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-23)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-24)
Fugitive emissions1*
(SCC 3-04-002-38)
Control
Equipment


None
None
ESP"1
None
ESP"1
None


None

None

None

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None


None
ESPd
None


None
ESPd
None


None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None

Total
Paniculate


0.003
230
10
70
2.4
ND


ND

ND

ND

5.1
0.4
36
2.6
ND


300
13
ND


21
1
ND


5
1
11
6

7
0.5
20
0.7
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


B
B
B
B

NA


NA

NA

NA

B
B
B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
B
B

B
B
B
B
NA

PM-10b


ND
211.6
ND
64.4
ND
2.2


ND

ND

ND

5.1
ND
21.2
ND
3.1


177.0
ND
2.6


12.4
ND
0.29


5
ND
6.5
ND

7
ND
20
ND
0.04

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


NA
E
NA
E
NA
E


NA

NA

NA

E
NA
E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E
NA

E
NA
E
NA
E

Lead0


ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


50

13.2

5.0

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


B

B

B

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

12.9-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                     Table 12.9-2 (cont.).

a Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton ore processed.  The information for participate in Table 12.9-2 was
  based on unpublished data furnished by the following:
  Philadelphia Air Management Services, Philadelphia, PA.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Metro Field Office, Springfield, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Newark Field Office, Newark, NJ.
  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York, NY.
  The City of New York Department of Air Resources, New York, NY.
  Cook County Department of Environmental Control, Maywood, IL.
  Wayne County Department of Health, Air Pollution Division, Detroit, MI.
  City of Cleveland Department of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Air Pollution Control,
   Cleveland, OH.
  State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.
  City of Chicago Department  of Environmental Control, Chicago, IL.
  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles, CA.
b PM-10 and fugitive emissions are listed in Airs Facility Subsystem Source Classification Codes and
  Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
  450/4-90-003, March 1990.  These estimates should be considered to have an EMISSION FACTOR
  RATING of E.
c References 1,6-7.  Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton product.
d ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
References For Section 12.9

1.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

2.     Air Pollution Aspects Of Brass And Bronze Smelting And Refining Industry, U. S. Department
       Of Health, Education And Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Raleigh,
       NC,  Publication No. AP-58, November 1969.

3.     J.  A. Danielson (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.), AP-40, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973. Out of Print.

4.     Emission Factors And Emission Source Information For Primary And Secondary Copper
       Smelters, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, Publication
       No. EPA-450/3-051, December 1977.

5.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450-2/77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

6.     H. H. Fukubayashi, et al., Recovery Of Zinc And Lead From Brass Smelter Dust, Report of
       Investigation No. 7880, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington,
       DC,  1974.

7.     "Air  Pollution  Control  In The Secondary Metal Industry", Presented  at the First Annual
       National Association Of Secondary Materials Industries Air Pollution Control Workshop,
       Pittsburgh, PA, June 1967.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                               12.9-9
-------
12.10  Gray Iron Foundries

12.10.1  General

       Iron foundries produce high-strength castings used in industrial machinery and heavy
transportation equipment manufacturing.  Castings include crusher jaws, railroad car wheels, and
automotive and truck assemblies.

       Iron foundries cast 3 major types of iron: gray ifon, ductile iron, and malleable iron.  Cast
iron is an iron-carbon-silicon alloy, containing from 2 to 4 percent carbon and 0.25 to 3.00 percent
silicon, along with varying percentages of manganese, sujfur, and phosphorus.  Alloying elements
such as nickel, chromium,  molybdenum,  copper, vanadiu^n, and titanium are sometimes added.
Table 12.10-1 lists different chemical compositions of irons produced.

       Mechanical properties of iron castings are determined by the type, amount, and distribution of
various carbon formations.  In addition, the casting design, chemical composition, type of melting
scrap, melting process, rate of cooling of the casting, and heat treatment determine the final
properties of iron castings.  Demand for  iron casting in 1989 was estimated at 9540 million
megagrams (10,520 million tons),  while domestic production during the same period was
7041 million megagrams (7761 million tons). The difference is a result of imports.  Half of the total
iron casting were used by the automotive and truck manufacturing companies, while half the total
ductile iron castings  were pressure pipe and fittings.

   Table 12.10-1.  CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FERROUS CASTINGS BY PERCENTAGES
Element
Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Sulfur
Phosphorus
Gray Iron
2.0-4.0
1.0-3.0
0.40 - 1.0
0.05 - 0.25
0.05- 1.0
Malleable Iron
(As White Iron)
1.8-3.6
0.5- 1.9
0.25 - 0.80
0.06 - 0.20
0.06-0.18
Ductile Iron
3.0-4.0
1.4-2.0
0.5 - 0.8
<0.12
<0.15
Steel
<2.0a
0.2-0.8
0.5 - 1.0
<0.06
<0.05
a Steels are classified by carbon content: low carbon is less than 0.20 percent; medium carbon is
  0.20-0.5 percent; and high carbon is greater than 0.50 percent.

12.10.2 Process Description1"5'39

       The major production operations in iron foundries are raw material handling and preparation,
metal melting, mold and core production, and casting and finishing.

12.10.2.1  Raw Material Handling And  Preparation -
       Handling operations include the  conveying of all raw materials for furnace charging, including
metallics, fluxes and fuels. Metallic raw materials are pig iron, iron and steel scrap, foundry returns,
and metal turnings.  Fluxes include carbonates (limestone, dolomite),  fluoride (fluorospar), and
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-1
-------
12.10.2.1  Raw Material Handling And Preparation -
       Handling operations include the conveying of all raw materials for furnace charging, including
metallics, fluxes and fuels.  Metallic raw materials  are pig iron, iron and steel scrap, foundry returns,
and metal turnings.  Fluxes include carbonates (limestone, dolomite), fluoride (fluorospar), and
carbide compounds (calcium carbide). Fuels include coal, oil, natural gas, and coke.  Coal, oil, and
natural gas are used to fire reverberatory furnaces.  Coke, a derivative of coal, is used for electrodes
required  for heat production in electric arc furnaces.

       As shown in Figure 12.10-1, the raw materials, metallics, and fluxes are added to the melting
furnaces  directly.  For electric induction furnaces, however, the scrap metal added to the furnace
charge must first be pretreated to remove grease and oil.  Scrap metals may be degreased with
solvents, by centrifugation, or by preheating to combust the organics.

12.10.2.2  Metal  Melting -
       The furnace charge includes metallics, fluxes, and fuels.  Composition of the charge depends
upon specific metal characteristics required.  The basic  melting process operations are furnace
operations, including charging, melting, and backcharging; refining, during  which the chemical
composition is adjusted to meet product specifications; and slag removal and molding the molten
metal.

12.10.2.2.1 Furnace Operations-
       The 3 most common furnaces used in the iron foundry industry are cupolas, electric arc, and
electric induction furnaces.  The cupola is the major type of furnace used  in the iron foundry
industry.  It is typically a cylindrical steel shell with a refractory-lined or  water-cooled inner wall.
The cupola is  the only furnace type that uses coke as a fuel.  Iron is melted  by the burning coke and
flows down the cupola. As the melt proceeds, new charges are added at the top. The flux combines
with nonmetallic impurities in the iron to  form slag, which can be removed.  Both the molten iron
and the slag are removed  at the bottom of the cupola.

       Electric arc furnaces  (EAFs) are large, welded steel cylindrical vessels equipped with a
removable roof through which 3 retractable carbon electrodes are inserted.  The electrodes  are
lowered through the roof of the furnace and are energized by 3-phase alternating current, creating
arcs that melt the metallic charge with their heat.  Electric arc  furnace capacities range from 5 to
345 megagrams (6 to 380 tons). Additional heat is produced by the resistance of the metal between
the arc paths.  Once the melting cycle is complete, the carbon electrodes are raised and the roof is
removed. The vessel can then be tilted to pour the molten iron.

       Electric induction furnaces are cylindrical or cup-shaped refractory-lined vessels that are
surrounded by electrical coils. When these coils are energized with high frequency alternating
current, they produce a fluctuating electromagnetic field which heats the metal charge.  The induction
furnace is simply a melting furnace to which high-grade scrap is added to make  the desired product.
Induction furnaces are kept closed except when charging,  skimming and tapping. The molten metal is
tapped by tilting and pouring through a hole in the side of the vessels.

12.10.2.2.2 Refining -
       Refining is the process in which magnesium and other  elements are  added to molten iron to
produce ductile iron.  Ductile iron is formed as a steel matrix containing spheroidal particles (or
nodules)  of graphite.  Ordinary cast iron contains flakes of graphite.  Each flake acts as a crack,
which makes cast  iron brittle.  Ductile irons have high tensile strength and are silvery in appearance.
12.10-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------














o
^
••
o
o
z
<
o
z
5
z










o
<
<
!•!
«



X
O
o
z
Of
3
































































Ul
= ?
^
O











a
Ul
^
<
i.
a <
a. <
S


tf
(.
" <
w
2



PURCHASED






























?

^
j
ii


»





a.
<
o:
U
CO








g-
-i
= i"
=?s<
x O
I
z£
oj





o
u

t




a. ,j
<<
Of »-
0"
co 5


CO
a
CX
o
CO
a

fi-
Oji
z§
^ 9
OO
O O


a:
UJ
O





£§8|s
2-J*O«5
 Ul
CO
cr
CO
O
Q?
05
0<
oo
m
5 6
0 <5
- Ul t»
s<: c5
I*
co K
S2-











r
<
CO
LU
to
<





C
<
cw
















LU
-J
en
<
UJ
-J
2









r—




-






*





»—








CD<
Z 4
nf
S?
e _
0a

Ul
Ul
CO
2
o
CO



0
•7-
<
CO



a.
->
_i


O
Ul
z
0
S



?
0
<
LU
<


7

Ul
(V
O
CO







|
9n

» i
c«
•8
w













3
O
v
O
0
?


a
O
<
K
<:
Ul
(ft



CD
z
O
O

§f
n
S
^
0
o







~f
zi s
xA °-2
"i*~*55 2
utg o Z
o
z
<
z
z
<
Itf
a 5 o
i-2 5
- o



4 	 	 	 SG1OW


I
jj
|

5
1U
N>
>
•4
0

z
<


z
«A



go
2z













z
o
<
at
S-
< «.
K< O
00
os


m « "0
5u.SQC1
^OQ
                                                                                                                  t-
                                                                                                                  ea
                                                                                                                  Cu
                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                                                                 •O
                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                 o


                                                                                                                  o

                                                                                                                 'i
                                                                                                                  on
                                                                                                                  OS

                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                  c


                                                                                                                 I

                                                                                                                  c

                                                                                                                  s


                                                                                                                 "co
                                                                                                                  u


                                                                                                                 1
                                                                                                                 4-1

                                                                                                                  C9
                                                                                                                 <4-
                                                                                                                  o


                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                  IM
                                                                                                                  OJQ
                                                                                                                  ns
                                                                                                                 _o

                                                                                                                 UN
                                                                                                                 
-------
       Two widely used refining processes are the plunge method and the pour-over method.  In
plunging, magnesium or a magnesium alloy is loaded into a graphite "bell" which is plunged into a
ladle of molten iron.  A turbulent reaction takes place as the magnesium boils under the heat of the
molten iron.  As much as 65 percent of the magnesium may be evaporated.  The magnesium vapor
ignites in air, creating large amounts of smoke.

       In the pour-over method, magnesium  alloy is placed in the bottom of a vessel and molten iron
is poured over it.  Although this method produces more emissions and is less efficient than plunging,
it requires no capital equipment other than air pollution control equipment.

12.10.2.2.3 Slag Removal And Molding -
       Slag is removed from furnaces through a tapping hole or door.  Since slag is lighter than
molten iron, it remains on top of the molten iron and can be raked or poured out. After slag has
been removed, the iron is cast into molds.

12.10.2.3 Mold And Core Production -
       Molds are forms used to shape the exterior of castings.  Cores are molded sand shapes used
to make internal voids in castings.  Molds are prepared from wet sand, clay,  and organic additives,
and are usually dried with hot air.  Cores are made by mixing sand with organic binders or organic
polymers, molding the sand into a core, and baking the core in an oven.  Used sand from castings
shakeout is recycled and cleaned to remove any clay or carbonaceous buildup. The  sand is screened
and reused to make new molds.

12.10.2.4 Casting And  Finishing -
       Molten iron is tapped into a ladle or directly into molds.  In larger, more mechanized
foundries, filled molds are conveyed automatically through a cooling tunnel.  The molds are then
placed on a vibrating grid to shake the mold sand and core sand loose from the casting.

12.10.3  Emissions And Controls9'31'52

       Emission points  and types of emissions from a typical foundry are shown in Figure 12.10-2.
Emission factors are presented in Tables 12.10-2, 12.10-3, 12.10-4, 12.10-5, 12.10-6, 12.10-7,
12.10-8,  and  12.10-9.

12.10.3.1 Raw Material Handling And Preparation -
       Fugitive particulate emissions are generated from the receiving, unloading, and conveying of
raw materials.  These emissions can be controlled by enclosing the points of disturbance
(e. g., conveyor belt transfer points)  and routing air from enclosures through fabric  filters or wet
collectors.

       Scrap preparation with heat will emit  smoke, organic compounds, and carbon monoxide;
scrap  preparation with solvent degreasers will emit organics. Catalytic incinerators  and  afterburners
can control about 95 percent of organic and carbon monoxide emissions (see Section 4.6, "Solvent
Degreasing").

12.10.3.2 Metal Melting -
       Emissions released  from melting furnaces include particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
organic compounds, sulfur  dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and small quantities of chloride and fluoride
compounds.  The particulates, chlorides, and  fluorides are generated from incomplete combustion of
carbon additives, flux additions, and  dirt and  scale on the scrap charge. Organic material on scrap
and furnace temperature affect the amount of carbon monoxide generated.  Fine particulate fumes

12.10-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
                                                                          FUGITIVE
                                                                        PARTICIPATES
                                                   RAW MATERIALS
                                                UNLOADING  STORAGE.
                                                      TRANSFER

                                                  • FLUX
                                                  • METALS
                                                  • CARBON SOURCES
                                                  • SAND
                                                  • BINDER
                    FUGITIVE
                      DUSI
                                                       SCRAP
                                                    PREPARATION
                                                    (SCO 3-04403-14)
                                   FUMES AND
                                    FUGITIVE
                                      DUST
                             .FUGITIVE
                                OUST
                                                                        HYDROCARBONS.
                                                                        »      CO.
                                                                          AND SMOKE
                          FURNACE
                           VENT
                                                    FUGITIVE
                                                     DUST
     FURNACE
• CUPOlAtSCC 3-04003-01)
• ELECTRIC ARC(SCC*04-003-0*)
• INDUCTION
-------
           Table 12.10-2 (Metric Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                    IRON FURNACES4
Process
Cupola (SCC 3-04-003-01)







Electric arc furnace
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Electric induction
furnace (SCC 3-04-003-03)
Reverberatory
(SCC 3-04-003-02)
Control Device
Uncontrolled13
Scrubber6
Venturi scrubbed
Electrostatic precipitatore
Baghousef
Single wet cap8
Impingement scrubber8
High-energy scrubber8
Uncontrolled11
Baghouse>
Uncontrolledk
Baghouse"1
Uncontrolled"
Baghousem
Total Paniculate
6.9
1.6
1.5
0.7
0.3
4.0
2.5
0.4
6.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
1.1
0.1
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
a Emission Factors are expressed in kg of pollutant/Mg of gray iron produced.
b References 1,7,9,10.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References 12,15.  Includes averages for wet cap and other scrubber types not already listed.
d References 12,17,19.
e References 8,11.
f References 12-14.
8 References 8,11,29,30.
h References 1,6,23.
J References 6,23,24.
k References 1,12.  For metal melting only.
m Reference 4.
n Reference 1.
 12.10-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                      1/95
-------
           Table 12.10-3 (English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                     IRON FURNACES8
Process
Cupola (SCC 3-04-003-01)







Electric arc furnace
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Electric induction
furnace (SCC 3-04-003-03)
Reverberatory
(SCC 3-04-003-02)
Control Device
Uncontrolledb
Scrubber0
Venturi scrubbed
Electrostatic precipitator6
Baghousef
Single wet capg
Impingement scrubber8
High energy scrubber8
Uncontrolled11
Baghouse*
Uncontrolledk
Baghouse1"
Uncontrolled"
Baghouse"1
Total Paniculate
13.8
3.1
3.0
1.4
0.7
8.0
5.0
0.8
12.7
0.4
0.9
0.2
2.1
0.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
a Emission Factors expressed
b References 1,7,9,10.  SCC
c References 12,15. Includes
d References 12,17,19.
e References 8,11.
f References 12-14.
& References 8,11,29,30.
h References 1,6,23.
J  References 6,23,24.
k References 1,12. For metal melting only.
m Reference 4.
n Reference 1.
as Ib of pollutant/ton of gray iron produced.
= Source Classification Code.
averages for wet cap and other scrubber types not already listed.
1/95
         Metallurgical Industry
12.10-7
-------
  S/5
  Cri
  Q
  Z


  o
  tu

  Z
  o
  tu
  on
  a;
  Z
  O

  So
  on
  Q
  Z
  8
  U
  on
  <
  O
  w
  H
  2
  D

   o
  O


  ri



  ~
  2
   CQ
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

"T3
Ja

0 £ 0
2 o z
S^S
13S2

o
p
^


Z oJ 0
55 H §
J2 U H
«g < <


X
O

0 £ °
y o •?•
S3 H ~
jo O *r
5 < <
w fc


to


_
5 0* r5

S5 H r;
1^*
O
u





u
o.
>,
Furnace T

CQ
«
O
o
d


Z

Q
Z




<;
Z


Q
Z


w



o"





U

o
r~




^_,
Q

en
upola (SCC 3-04-00
Uncontrolled
O
Z

Q
Z


Z

Q
Z




^
Z


Q
Z


U



en
d





U

en
t-







4)
_O
|
O
i
u
g
§

Z

Q
Z


n
m
d
en
O
d





en
d
d

U



an
u





U

Os
v>
O







9
en
O
o
03 "^
|o
S ^
n
o
9
s
d

Z

Q
Z




<;
Z


Q
Z


w



00
u





PJ

00
Z








e'T
-c 9
•11
1?
•*" en
•gu
S^
5
.
o
9
I
d

Z

Q
Z




.^
Z


Q


Z



Q
Z





Z

Q
Z








everberatory
(SCC 3-04-003-02)
f*

2
•o
o
II
Q
Z
,2
"3}
a>


fcO
O)

a>
•o
o
O
c
•2
5
c
C/3
a
o
o
Ui
O
II
U
u
60
"S
o
•o
o
VH
G.
C
a
&b
o
eo
4»*
CS
"o
Q.


O
M
^
CM
C8
"S
CA
Ul
O)
u<
D,
X
W

                  O"
                  SO

                  2

                  •8
                  t:
                   a>


                   o
                  .3


                   CA

                  <^
                   O


                  *
                  O
                                                         CD

                        a\
                        CN
                     VO  -
                                                           s
                                                      0)  O)
                                                     C«_l Ct_c

                                                      CU  D
                                                             oi
12.10-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
   Q
   Z
   8
   tu

   §
   OS
   2

   I
   u
   i
   &r>
   e/3
   »-*
   Q
   Z
   <
   C/3
   D
   O
   U
   or>
   <
   D
   u
   •a
   'S
   oo
   e
   ts
   

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


0*


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


cT
CO

^
2 p z
co H r3
to u H
0
CJ




u
o
1


CO

Z3
6

2


Q
Z

Z


Q
Z


U


"*>
-


W
o



^^
Cupola (SCC 3-04-003-01
Uncontrolled


Z

Q
Z

Z


Q
Z

Z


Q
Z


.


•o
6


U
s




High energy scrubber


^ 03 CO
— 2
Q 2 9
Z | 2
. O
o 6
W Z Z


S Q Q
S z z
0
« z z

VO
9 Q Q
S z z
o

W M Z


60 BO /-,
o o Q
z z z


u u z
<"~ 88 «
tn o Q
^ z z




Electric arc6
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Electric induction^
(SCC 3-04-003-03)
Reverberatory
(SCC 3-04-003-02)



2
cS
•o
§
II
Q
Z
is
CM)
"bb
o>
II
bo
3

'i
o
s
CO
CJ
= Source
U
U
oo
"S
o
o
w
bb
"o
c
o

c
•4—1
"o «% .
Expressed as Ib of p
NA = not applicable
References 11,31,34
a ^>































Reference 2.
o
                                                                   O
                                                                   1/5
                        o
                        <5
                        3

                        o>

                        _C

                        a
                                                                    cj  o
                                                                    C  C
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-9
-------
  u
  Oi
  u


  o

  UH
  Q


  oo

  O
  tu O


  O o
  z2
  oo
  u
  £3
  'c
  D
  O

  ts
IP
auP
S<^
w fc «
£ 2
H o
"S °*
s »
•S ®
E i
U <
isi
g^p
o c
H J4 1
a 5 £
El
M £
2§i
co H g
CO Q_) H
^ 5. t^



c
.2
en
II
1^
f2


U
^O
^
Q
|
c
3






Process
U U U UJ



S

o o o o



U U 04 U
«•> \r>
C*l O ~* \O
do do


QJ U EU UJ UJUJ PLJOUJUJ





Vi
-N
H O U
"O o O ^ --^ ^
H lg ! o^i 5 -vf 11 ||
|f !§ i II g |i .15 i§
15 i? , ? is 5 -? |$s fs
ag ic >c =^c § ic I|B is
&to &u Su "C5-1 -S §<-> -ac52- gO
252- ^co, ^co, sco, a ^co, c.^_ gco,
to S^0tf^(£^co U^co^ O











•o
o
U
c
o
'o
U
s
o
00
II
U
^-^
•s
o
•o
o
CL,
C
0
w.
'^
V-i
bO
f| l
0
(30
1

•4—*
^5
a
<4-
O
a Expressed as kg
b Reference 4.







































c Reference 1,4.
d Reference 35.
                                                                    c
                                                                    t-

                                                                    c<
                                                                    o  <
                                                                         (S
                                       O O
                                       C C
                                                                           O
                                                                           C
12.10-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
  oo
  g
  O
  D
  O
  HH

  S
  s
  o
  DS3
  oo b
  02 7
  O
  W
  D
    s
  fr
  o
Otf C5
| 0 P
w U. «
0 g
H 6
_ J
12 o.
£ 01
'B E
W 3
^
2 g i
1*1
i| S
u i5


5 os o
2 O J7
co u H
5 "^ ^"
W "" ^*


c
_o
"> 1-c
E |
— i£
o




o
o
'§
Q
1






CA
en
8
2
&.
. . .
o o o ^
dj m m EIJ
V^ 00 C*l »— «
o ^ 6 ^



[ij UJ tU UQ tU pj ti} Q UJ






^ TJ- 0
so oo i cs cs vo p r-i
O ^* fi ^" f*"l t nOO








o o
qj S u S c5 o o
2 1 2 2 Sg 11;''!
C C C C CC C-go
So o o oo o-S-S
o o o oo o?oo
c c c c cc cha
D 3 D 3 33 3 <» ffl



60? S" _
cm m T3
T3 ^ o O ^ ^— .
S •* c '^ ^^ ^-«Tt ^v CO
_g o u »-< r) oo o J» o jS "?
a rj I S cA°6ocA^|2 -oo
£rO SQ o cesO^o co
«U "O O '-^V O -SO BOS'*
|» ES s §s a ^s |»2
s.f iG >S c5^ I IS l>b
§• g &0 'SO 'CO jg go -0^52.
2^ ™to. 'gw, §<£, _g ^52, go
10 S oi a. to O co



U






^H
—








"8
ncontroll
^





C ON
li
- O
Is
•x j.
ca f*>
E 0
g O
U ""













•a
0
U
0
'£
s
en
03
U
a>
o
3
O
II
CJ
u

•3
O

0
Ui
a«
c
o
•^
OS
oo
<*-
o
c
o
s
2
"o
c.
<4-i
o
.0
3 Expressed as
b Reference 4.












































W)
rN
c Reference 1,4.
d Reference 35.
e References 1,3,
f Reference 1.
                                             r~
                                             cs

                                             HN
                                                                                   
-------
          Table 12.10-8 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
             AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES*
Source
Cupola furnaceb
(SCC 3-04-003-01)
Uncontrolled







Controlled by baghouse







Controlled by venturi
scrubber6






Electric arc furnaced
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Uncontrolled





Particle Size
Oim)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0



1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative Mass
% < Stated Sizeb


44.3
69.1
79.6
84.0
90.1
90.1
90.6
100.0
83.4
91.5
94.2
94.9
94.9
94.9
95.0
100.0
56.0
70.2
77.4
77.7
77.7
77.7
77.7
100.0


13.0
57.5
82.0
90.0
93.5
100.0
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg metal)


3.1
4.8
5.5
5.8
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.9
0.33
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.4
0.84
1.05
1.16
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.50


0.8
3.7
5.2
5.8
6.0
6.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


C







E







C









E





12.10-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                     Table 12.10-8 (cont.)
Source
Pouring, coolingb
(SCC 3-04-0030-18)
Uncontrolled







Shakeoutb (SCC 3-04-003-31)
Uncontrolled







Particle Size
G*m)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative Mass
% < Stated Sizeb


_d
19.0
20.0
24.0
34.0
49.0
72.0
100.0

23.0
37.0
41.0
42.0
44.0
70.0
99.9
100.0
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg metal)


ND
0.40
0.42
0.50
0.71
1.03
1.51
2.1

0.37
0.59
0.66
0.67
0.70
1.12
1.60
1.60
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D








E







a Emission Factor expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of metal produced.  Mass emission rate data
  available in Tables 12.10-2 and  12.10-6 to calculate size-specific emission factors.
  SCC =  Source Classification Code.  ND  = no data.
b References 13,21,22,25,26.
c Pressure drop across venturi:  approximately 25 kPa of water.
d Reference 3, Exhibit VI-15.  Averaged from data on 2 foundries.  Because original test data could
  not be obtained, EMISSION  FACTOR RATING is E.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-13
-------
       Table 12.10-9 (English Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND
                EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES'1
Source
Cupola furnaceb
(SCC 3-04-003-01)
Uncontrolled







Controlled by baghouse






Controlled by venturi scrubber0
»






Electric arc furnaced
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Uncontrolled





Particle Size
G*m)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0



1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
<. Stated
Sizeb


44.3
69.1
79.6
84.0
90.1
90.1
90.6
100.0
83.4
91.5
94.2
94.9
94.9
95.0
100.0
56.0
70.2
77.4
77.7
77.7
77.7
77.7
100.0


13.0
57.5
82.0
90.0
93.5
100.0
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
(Ib/ton metal)


6.2
9.6
11.0
11.6
12.4
12.4
12.6
13.8
0.66
0.74
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.80
1.68
2.10
2.32
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
3.0


1.6
7.4
10.4
11.6
12.0
12.8
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


C







E






C









E





12.10-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                                      Table 12.10-9 (cont.)
Source
Pouring, coolingb
(SCC 3-04-003-18)
Uncontrolled







Shakeoutb (SCC 3-04-003-31)
Uncontrolled







Particle Size
Oim)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated
Sizeb


_d
19.0
20.0
24.0
34.0
49.0
72.0
100.0

23.0
37.0
41.0
42.0
44.0
70.0
99.9
100.0
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
(Ib/ton metal)


ND
0.80
0.84
1.00
1.42
2.06
3.02
4.2

0.74
1.18
1.32
1.34
1.40
2.24
3.20
3.20
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D








E







a Emission factors are expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of metal produced.  Mass emission rate data
  available in Tables 12.10-3 and 12.10-7 to calculate size-specific emission factors.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b References 13,21-22,25-26.
c Pressure drop across venturi: approximately 102 inches of water.
d Reference 3,  Exhibit VI-15.  Averaged from data on 2 foundries.  Because original test data could
  not be  obtained, EMISSION FACTOR RATING is E.
backcharging, alloying, slag removal, and tapping operations. These emissions can escape into the
furnace building or can be collected and vented dirough roof openings.  Emission controls for melting
and refining operations involve venting furnace gases and fumes directly to a control device. Canopy
hoods or special hoods near furnace doors and tapping points capture emissions and route them to
emission control systems.

12.10.3.2.1 Cupolas -
       Coke burned in cupola furnaces produces several emissions.  Incomplete combustion of coke
causes carbon monoxide emissions and sulfur in the coke gives rise to sulfur dioxide emissions.  High
energy scrubbers and fabric filters are used to control paniculate emissions from cupolas and electric
arc furnaces and can achieve efficiencies of 95 and 98 percent, respectively.  A cupola furnace
typically has an afterburner as well, which achieves up to 95 percent efficiency.  The afterburner is
located in the  furnace stack to oxidize carbon monoxide and burn organic fumes, tars, and oils.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-15
-------
Reducing these contaminants protects the paniculate control device from possible plugging and
explosion.

       Toxic emissions from cupolas include both organic and inorganic materials.  Cupolas produce
the most toxic emissions compared to other melting equipment.

12.10.3.2.2 Electric Arc Furnaces -
       During melting in an electric arc furnace, paniculate emissions of metallic and mineral oxides
are generated by the vaporization of iron and transformation  of mineral additives.  This paniculate
matter is controlled by high-energy scrubbers (45 percent efficiency) and fabric filters (98 percent
efficiency).  Carbon monoxide emissions result from  combustion of graphite from electrodes and
carbon added to the charge.  Hydrocarbons result from vaporization and incomplete combustion of
any oil remaining on the scrap iron charge.

12.10.3.2.3 Electric Induction Furnaces -
       Electric induction furnaces using clean steel scrap produce paniculate emissions comprised
largely of iron oxides.  High emissions from clean charge emissions are due to cold charges,  such as
the first charge of the day.  When contaminated charges are used, higher emissions rates result.

       Dust emissions from electric induction furnaces also  depend on the charge material
composition, the melting method (cold charge or continuous), and the melting rate of the materials
used. The highest emissions occur during a cold  charge.

       Because induction furnaces emit negligible amounts of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
emissions and relatively little paniculate, they are typically uncontrolled, except during charging and
pouring operations.

12.10.3.2.4 Refining-
       Paniculate emissions are generated during the refining of molten iron before pouring.  The
addition of magnesium to molten metal to produce ductile iron causes a violent reaction between the
magnesium and molten iron, with emissions of magnesium oxides and metallic fumes.  Emissions
from pouring consist of metal fumes from the melt, and carbon monoxide, organic compounds, and
paniculate evolved from die mold and core materials. Toxic emissions of paniculate, arsenic,
chromium, halogenated  hydrocarbons, and aromatic hydrocarbons are released  in die refining process.
Emissions from pouring normally are captured by a collection system and vented, either controlled or
uncontrolled, to the atmosphere. Emissions continue as the molds  cool. A significant quantity of
paniculate is also generated during the casting shakeout operation.  These fugitive emissions are
controlled by either high energy scrubbers or fabric filters.

12.10.3.3  Mold And Core Production -
       The major pollutant emitted in mold and core production operations is paniculate from sand
reclaiming, sand preparation, sand mixing with binders and additives, and mold and core forming.
Organics, carbon monoxide, and paniculate are emitted from core baking and organic emissions from
mold drying.  Fabric filters and high energy scrubbers generally  are used to control paniculate from
mold and core production.  Afterburners and catalytic incinerators  can be used to control organics and
carbon monoxide emissions.

       In addition to organic binders, molds and cores may  be held together in the desired shape by
means of a cross-linked organic polymer network. This network of polymers undergoes thermal
decomposition when exposed to the very high temperatures of casting, typically 1400°C (2550°F).
At these temperatures it is likely that pyrolysis of the chemical binder will produce a complex of free

12.10-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
radicals which will recombine to form a wide range of chemical compounds having widely differing
concentrations.

       There are many different types of resins currently in use having diverse and toxic
compositions. There are no data currently available for determining the toxic compounds in a
particular resin which are emitted to the atmosphere and to what extent these emissions occur.

12.10.3.4 Casting And Finishing -
       Emissions during pouring include decomposition products of resins, other organic compounds,
and paniculate matter.  Finishing operations emit particulates during the removal of burrs, risers, and
gates, and during shot blast cleaning. These emissions are controlled by cyclone separators and fabric
filters. Emissions are related to mold size, mold composition,  sand to metal ratio, pouring
temperature, and pouring rate.

References For Section 12.10

1.     Summary Of Factors Affecting Compliance By Ferrous Foundries, Volume I:  Text,
       EPA-340/1-80-020, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.  January 1981.

2.     Air Pollution Aspects Of The Iron Foundry Industry, APTD-0806, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. February 1971.

3.     Systems Analysis Of Emissions And Emission Control In The Iron Foundry Industry,  Volume
       II: Exhibits, APTD-0645, U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
       NC.   February 1971.

4.     J. A.  Davis, et al, Screening Study On Cupolas And Electric Furnaces In Gray Iron
       Foundries, EPA Contract No. 68-01-0611, Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH. August
       1975.

5.     R. W. Hein, et al, Principles Of Metal Casting,  McGraw-Hill, New York,  1967.

6.     P. Fennelly and P.  Spawn, Air Pollution Control Techniques For Electric Arc Furnaces In The
       Iron And Steel Foundry Industry,  EPA^*50/2-78-024, U. S. Environmental  Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  June 1978.

7.     R. D. Chmielewski and S. Calvert, Flux Force/Condensation Scrubbing For Collecting Fine
       Paniculate From Iron Melting Cupola, EPA-600/7-81-148, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September 1981.

8.     W. F. Hammond and S. M. Weiss, "Air Contaminant Emissions From Metallurgical
       Operations In Los Angeles County", presented at the Air Pollution Control Institute, Los
       Angeles,  CA, July 1964.

9.     Paniculate Emission Test Repon On A  Gray Iron Cupola At Cherryville Foundry Works,
       Cherryville, NC,  Department Of Natural  And Economic Resources, Raleigh, NC, December
       18, 1975.

10.    J. W.  Davis and A.  B. Draper, Statistical Analysis Of The Operating Parameters Which Affect
       Cupolas Emissions, DOE Contract No. EY-76-5-02-2840.*000, Center For Air  Environment
       Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, December 1977.

1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                             12.10-17
-------
11.    Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973. Out of print.

12.    Written communication from Dean Packard, Department Of Natural Resources, Madison, WI,
       to Douglas Seeley, Alliance Technology, Bedford, MA, April 15, 1982.

13.    Paniculate Emissions Testing At Opelika Foundry, Birmingham,  AL, Air Pollution Control
       Commission, Montgomery,  AL, November 1977 - January 1978.

14.    Written communication from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN, to Mike
       Jasinski, Alliance Technology, Bedford, MA, July 12, 1982.

15.    Stack Test Report, Dunkirk Radiator Corporation Cupola Scrubber, State Department Of
       Environmental Conservation, Region IX, Albany, NY,  November 1975.

16.    Paniculate Emission Test Report For A Scrubber Stack For A Gray Iron Cupola At Dewey
       Brothers, Goldsboro, NC, Department Of Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC,  April 7,  1978.

17.    Stack Test Report, Worthington Corp.  Cupola, State Department  Of Environmental
       Conservation, Region IX, Albany, NY, November 4-5, 1976.

18.    Stack Test Report, Dresser Clark Cupola Wet Scrubber, Orlean, NY, State Department Of
       Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, July 14 & 18, 1977.

19.    Stack Test Report, Chevrolet Tonawanda Metal Casting, Plant Cupola #3 And Cupola #4,
       Tonawanda, NY, State Department Of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, August
       1977.

20.    Stack Analysis For Paniculate Emission, Atlantic States Cast Iron Foundry/Scrubber, State
       Department Of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ, September 1980.

21.    S. Calvert, et al, Fine Panicle Scrubber Performance, EPA-650/2-74-093,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1974.

22.    S. Calvert, et al, National Dust Collector Model 850 Variable Rod Module Venturi Scrubber
       Evaluation, EPA-600/2-76-282, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       December 1976.

23.    Source Test, Electric Arc Furnace At Paxton-Mitchell Foundry, Omaha, NB, Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, October  1974.

24.    Source Test, John Deere Tractor Works, East Moline, IL, Gray Iron Electric Arc Furnace,
       Walden Research, Willmington, MA, July  1974.

25.    S. Gronberg, Characterization Oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From An Iron
       Foundry, Lynchburg Foundry, Archer Creek Plant, EPA-600/X-85-328, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, August 1984.

26.    Paniculate Emissions Measurements From The Rotoclone And General Casting Shakeout
       Operations Of United States Pipe & Foundry, Inc., Anniston, AL, Black, Crow And Eidsness,
       Montgomery, AL, November 1973.

12.10-18                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
27.    Report Of Source Emissions Testing At Newbury Manufacturing, Talladega, AL, State Air
       Pollution Control Commission, Montgomery, AL, May 15-16, 1979.

28.    Paniculate Emission Test Report For A Gray Iron Cupola At Hardy And Newson, La Grange,
       NC,  State Department Of Natural Resources And  Community  Development, Raleigh, NC,
       August 2-3, 1977.

29.    H. R. Crabaugh, et al, "Dust And Fumes From Gray Iron Cupolas:  How Are They
       Controlled In Los Angeles County?" Air Repair, 4(3): 125-130, November 1954.

30.    J. M. Kane, "Equipment For Cupola Control",  American Foundryman's Society Transactions,
       64:525-531, 1956.

31.    Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, 2 Volumes, EPA-450/2-77-012,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

32.    W. E. Davis,  Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970,
       APTD-1543, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April
       1973.

33.    Emission Test No. EMB-71-CI-27, Office Of Air  Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1972.

34.    Emission Test No. EMB-71-CI-30, Office Of Air  Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

35.    John Zoller, et al, Assessment Of Fugitive Paniculate Emission Factors For Industrial
       Processes, EPA-450/3-78-107, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, September 1978.

36.    John Jeffery, et al,  Gray Iron Foundry Industry  Paniculate Emissions:  Source Category
       Repon, EPA-600/7-86-054, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       December, 1986.

37.    PM-10 Emission Factor Listing Developed By Technology Transfer, EPA-450/4-022, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1989.

38.    Generalized Panicle Size Distributions For Use In  Preparing Size Specific Paniculate
       Emission Inventories, EPA-450/4-86-013, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC,  July 1986.

39.    Emission Factors For Iron Foundries—Criteria And Toxic Pollutants, EPA Control
       Technology Center, Research Triangle Park, EPA-600/2-90-044.  August 1990.

40.    Handbook Of Emission Factors, Ministry Of Housing, Physical Planning And Environment.

41.    Steel Castings Handbook, Fifth Edition, Steel Founders Society Of America, 1980.

42.    Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron Foundry Industry, APTD-0806 (NTIS PB 204 712),
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, NC, 1971.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                            12.10-19
-------
43.     Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, AP-42, (NTIS PB 89-128631),
        Supplement B, Volume I, Fourth Edition, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  1988.

44.     M. B. Stockton and J. H. E. Stelling, Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors For The 1985
        NAPAP* Emissions Inventory, EPA-€00/7-87-015 (NTIS PB 87-198735), U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1987. (*National Acid Precipitation
        Assessment Program)

45.     V. H. Baldwin Jr., Environmental Assessment Of Iron Casting, EPA-600/2-80-021
        (NTIS PB 80-187545), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  1980.

46.     V. H. Baldwin, Environmental Assessment Of Melting, Inoculation And Pouring, American
        Foundrymen's Society,  153:65-72, 1982.

47.     Temple Barker and Sloane, Inc., Integrated Environmental Management Foundry Industry
        Study, Technical Advisory Panel, presentation to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        April 4, 1984.

48.     N. D. Johnson, Consolidation Of Available Emission Factors For Selected Toxic Air
        Pollutants, ORTECH International,  1988.

49.     A. A. Pope, et al., Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors—A Compilation For Selected Air
        Toxic Compounds And Sources, EPA-450/2-88-006a (NTIS PB 89-135644),
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, 1988.

50.     F. M. Shaw,  CIATG Commission 4 Environmental Control:  Induction Furnace Emission,
        commissioned by F. M. Shaw, British Cast Iron Research Association, Fifth Report, Cast
        Metals Journal,  6:10-28, 1982.

51.     P. F. Ambidge and P. D. E. Biggins, Environmental Problems Arising From The  Use Of
        Chemicals In Moulding Materials, BCIRA Report, 1984.

52.     C. E. Bates and W. D. Scott,  The Decomposition Of Resin Binders And The Relationship
        Between Gases Formed And The  Casting Surface Quality—Pan 2: Gray Iron, American
        Foundrymen's Society, Des Plains, IL, pp. 793-804, 1976.

53.     R. H. Toeniskoetter and R. J. Schafer, Industrial Hygiene Aspects Of The Use Of Sand
        Binders And Additives, BCIRA Report 1264,  1977.

54.     Threshold Limit Values And Biological Exposure Indices For 1989-1990; In: Proceedings Of
        American Conference Of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, OH, 1989.

55.     Minerals Yearbook, Volume I, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

56.     Mark's Standard Handbook For Mechanical Engineers, Eighth Edition, McGraw-Hill,  1978.
12.10-20                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
 12.11 Secondary Lead Processing

 12.11.1  General

        Secondary lead smelters produce lead and lead alloys from lead-bearing scrap material.  More
 than 60 percent of all secondary lead is derived from scrap automobile batteries.  Each battery
 contains approximately 8.2 kg (18 Ib) of lead, consisting of 40 percent lead alloys and 60 percent lead
 oxide.  Other raw materials used in secondary lead smelting include wheel balance weights, pipe,
 solder, drosses, and lead sheathing. Lead produced by secondary smelting accounts for half of the
 lead produced in the U. S.  There are 42 companies operating 50 plants with individual capacities
 ranging from 907 megagrams (Mg) (1,000 tons) to 109,000 Mg  (120,000 tons) per year.

 12.11.2  Process Description1"7

        Secondary lead smelting includes 3 major operations:  scrap pretreatment, smelting, and
 refining.  These are shown schematically in Figure 12.11-1 A, Figure  12.11-1B, and Figure 12.11-1C,
 respectively.

 12.11.2.1  Scrap Pretreatment -
        Scrap pretreatment is the partial removal of metal and nonmetal contaminants  from lead-
 bearing scrap and residue.  Processes used for scrap pretreatment include battery breaking, crushing,
 and sweating.  Battery breaking is the draining and crushing of batteries, followed by manual
 separation of the lead from nonmetallic materials.  Lead plates, posts, and intercell connectors are
 collected and stored in a pile for subsequent charging to the furnace.  Oversized pieces of scrap and
 residues are usually put through jaw crushers. This separated lead scrap is then sweated in a gas- or
 oil-fired reverberatory or rotary furnace to separate lead from metals with higher  melting points.
 Rotary furnaces are usually used to process low-lead-content scrap and residue, while reverberatory
 furnaces are used to process high-lead-content scrap.  The partially purified lead is periodically tapped
 from these furnaces for further  processing in smelting furnaces or pot furnaces.

 12.11.2.2  Smelting-
        Smelting produces lead by melting and separating the lead from metal and nonmetallic
 contaminants and by reducing oxides to elemental lead.  Smelting is carried out in blast,
 reverberatory, and rotary kiln furnaces. Blast furnaces produce hard or antimonial lead containing
 about 10 percent antimony.  Reverberatory and rotary kiln furnaces are used to produce semisoft lead
 containing 3 to 4 percent antimony; however, rotary kiln furnaces are rarely used in the U. S. and
 will not be discussed in detail.

       In blast furnaces pretreated scrap metal, rerun slag, scrap iron, coke,  recycled dross, flue
dust,  and limestone are used as charge  materials to the furnace.  The process  heat needed to melt the
lead is produced by the reaction of the  charged coke with blast air that is blown into the furnace.
Some of the coke combusts to melt the charge, while the remainder reduces lead oxides  to elemental
lead.  The furnace is charged with combustion air at 3.4 to 5.2 kPa (0.5 to 0.75 psi) with an exhaust
temperature ranging from 650 to 730°C (1200 to 1350°F).

       As the lead charge melts, limestone and iron float to the  top of the molten bath and form a
flux that retards oxidation of the product lead. The molten lead flows from the furnace  into a  holding
pot at a nearly continuous rate.   The product lead constitutes roughly 70 percent of the charge. From


 10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.11-1
-------
                                  PRETREATMENT
                                                       T__F
                                                             UEL
               Figure 12.11-1 A.  Process flow for typical secondary lead smelting.
                        (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86
-------
                                   SMELTING
         PRETREATED
            SCRAP
                                  SO,
                                  REVERBERATORY
                                     SMELTING
                                    (SCC 3-04-004-02)
                                     —RECYCLED DUST

                                     —RARE SCRAP

                                       -FUEL
                                       BLAST
                                     FURNACE
                                     SMELTING
                                    (SCC 3-04-004-03)
                                     — LIMESTONE

                                     — RECYCLED DUST

                                     —COKE

                                     — SLAG RESIDUE

                                     — LEAD OXIDE

                                     — SCRAP I RON

                                     — PURE SCRAP

                                    I—RETURN SLAG
               Figure 12.11-1B.  Process flow for typical secondary lead smelting.
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.11-3
-------
                                  REFINING
                                     KETTLE (ALLOYING)
                                         REFINING
                                 -FLUX

                                 -FUEL
                                 -ALLOYING AGENT

                                 -SAWDUST
                                      REVERBERATORY
                                        OXIDATION
               Figure 12.11-1C.  Process flow for typical secondary lead smelting.
                         (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.11-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
the holding pot, the lead is usually cast into large ingots called pigs or sows.  About 18 percent of the
charge is recovered as slag, with about 60 percent of this being a sulfurous slag called matte.
Roughly 5 percent of the charge is retained for reuse, and the remaining 7 percent of the charge
escapes as dust or fume. Processing capacity of the blast furnace ranges from 18 to 73 Mg per day
(20 to 80 tons per day).

        The reverberatory furnace used to produce semisoft lead is charged with  lead scrap, metallic
battery parts, oxides, drosses, and other residues.  The charge is heated directly to a temperature of
1260°C (2300T) using natural gas, oil, or coal.  The average furnace capacity is about
45 megagrams (50 tons) per day. About 47 percent of the charge is recovered as lead product and is
periodically tapped into molds or holding pots. Forty-six percent of the charge is removed as slag
and is later processed in blast furnaces. The remaining 7 percent of the furnace charge escapes as
dust or fume.

12.11.2.3  Refining-
        Refining and casting the crude lead from the smelting furnaces can consist of softening,
alloying, and oxidation depending on the degree of purity or alloy type desired.  These operations are
batch processes  requiring from 2 hours to 3 days.  These operations can be performed in
reverberatory furnaces; however, kettle-type furnaces are most commonly used.  Remelting process is
usually applied to lead alloy ingots that require no further processing before casting.  Kettle furnaces
used for alloying, refining, and oxidizing are usually gas- or oil-fired, and have typical capacities of
23 to 136 megagrams (25 to 150 tons) per day.  Refining and alloying operating  temperatures range
from 320 to 700°C (600 to BOOT).  Alloying furnaces simply melt and mix ingots of lead and alloy
materials.  Antimony, tin, arsenic, copper, and nickel are the most common alloying materials.

        Refining furnaces are used to either remove copper and  antimony for soft lead production, or
to remove arsenic, copper, and nickel for hard lead production.   Sulfur may be added to the molten
lead bath to remove copper.  Copper sulfide skimmed off as  dross may subsequently be processed in
a blast furnace to recover residual lead. Aluminum chloride flux may be used to remove copper,
antimony, and nickel.  The antimony content can be reduced to  about 0.02 percent by bubbling air
through the molten lead. Residual antimony can be removed by adding sodium nitrate and sodium
hydroxide to the bath and skimming off the resulting dross.  Dry dressing consists of adding sawdust
to the agitated mass of molten metal.  The sawdust supplies carbon to help separate globules of lead
suspended in the dross and to reduce some of the lead oxide  to elemental lead.

        Oxidizing furnaces, either kettle or reverberatory units,  are used to oxidize lead and to entrain
the product lead oxides in the combustion air stream for subsequent recovery in high-efficiency
baghouses.

12.11.3  Emissions And  Controls1'4"5

       Emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled processes and fugitive paniculate are given in
Tables 12.11-1,  12.11-2, 12.11-3, and 12.11-4.  Paniculate emissions from most processes are based
on accumulated test data, whereas fugitive paniculate emissions  are based on the  assumption  that
5 percent of uncontrolled stack emissions are released as fugitive emissions.

       Reverberatory and blast furnaces account for the vast majority of the total lead emissions from
the secondary lead industry. The relative quantities emitted from these 2 smelting processes cannot
be specified, because of a lack of complete information. Most of the remaining processes are small
emission sources with undefined emission characteristics.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.11-5
-------
  o

  (A
  Ox


  I
  Q

  I
  O
  H
  Z
  O
  NM
  c«
  on
  I
  (S



c<
g








^
•o
"












^
0
s
§
tt
£




|g|
^Q r) ^N
53 ^* ^C
HJ B< «

1
2
^
|


*v
EMISSIOr'
FACTOR
RATING

1
1
e
o
U

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

3

—
'S
o
g

o * O
2 oz
afcl
2JS2S

"S
1
c
o
U

IP
££H
s<3
g tt, OS
Uncontrolled
Process



O
Z



O
z



5

Q
Z


B)



lo




Z


o
z



tu


1
«
•Sf
ss
"569
o '
C/5


0



§f
52-



Z

Q
Z


O


00
ts oo"
^,



U
t*ri
fC1
0 ^
d «
0,


U


o
everberatory smelting
(SCC 3-04-004-02)
oi


U



r- ^
Na.



o
a
fT
di
0 g
o

O


g
n r-
E



U
^
^
^

s.


U


ll-
last smelting-cupola"
(SCC 3-04-004-03)
CQ


Z Z Z



Q Q O
Z Z Z



z z z

Q Q O
Z Z Z


u z °

t£.
8
d Q d
Z




Z Z Z


Q Q O
Z Z Z



o w o


a. a-
o o
d ^ d
IN
VI
^ OO i
v 9 o
s4 |? s
^s 'iS s.
20 ° U ">
|0 |U |
^> ^> r \


1
II

Z
03
1

C

n
Q
•a
a
o
1
£
0
<1>
a
s
o
00
[I
II
U
U
00
,
•8
O
1
o.
S
g

f
+*
M
•4-*
"o
o.
<+-
o
bO
^!
Emission factor units expressed as











dustries.
.S
"S i
1 S
M 0,
CO aj
4-> S
&2
g<2
*> c
"• O

o >-«
•a ^
2^
o, o
i 8
•O T3
2 _S
d< 'g*
•s §
— e
i|

*z: c
§•1
§•!
0 «
T3 "
1 s
(D ^~
« ^o
52 'I
applicable.
Paniculate and lead emission facto
Reference 1 . Estimated from swe*












TJ
*$
fl

u-
missions 2

53

«

'S
>.
o
13
u<
^
*"
1
"g
s
§
§
^
*^
_O
References 3,5. Based on assumpt
References 8-11.


o
§

8
1
V
&
f*
^^*

missions
o>
1
C
ts
J2
m
^
cs
•»
L.
o
IS
Ui
0>
o
References 6,8-11.
Reference 13. Uncontrolled reverl

« £> O "O U <~ M


&>ts

1 2
o,
+3  O
W5
S T3
5 S
c ^*tS
•*"* ^^ fli
S- TJ s
t Is
•rt  O
1 8 8 ~
KV 4-^ qj ^3
c e • tl|
•—• C^ fe^ .i* ^
6J) *?y ^o ^* 4)
a * S g s
•g s M a o
I 1 Ml
S cA ._,
tS _w g c Q,
•a "oi ** 5
O B OX) E ^
o 'S _c se u
0 ° 1 %&
'5 "S "*- •- 4?
— jg ° W "S
C "^ ^{ ^2 S
1 I ill
'o O _uj '« ®
S S U2 *^ *"
M *j o w 'S
•g o 'S -52 .52
tJ • 52 rt^ P* •
" "S « S S « S
5> S « " g a .2
a 3, U S e'-S S «
t^S .eO!*=~"OH
S^" c/54~>w-tj2Jfe
^1 .IM-S1! oti
34%, based on single uncontrolled
Blast furnace emissions are combir
References 8,11-12.
References 6,8,11-12,14-15.
Reference 13. Blast furnace emiss
Based on quantity of material char;
Reference 13. Lead content of ket
References 1-2. Essentially all prc
collection efficiency > 99%. Fact
Represents approximate upper limi
_
j= ._, M S c a. o-
12.11-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   o
   z
   »«4
   so
   on
   i
   IX
   Q
   Z
   O
   u
   tu
   on


   g
   u-

   oo
   a:
   O
   H
   U
   <
   U.

   Z
   O
   y— 4
   CO
   00
   SO

   'S

   cs
   CN


   9
0 '
•So
So
> to
cn

0




So"
O 00
00 J^



^
Z





Q
Z





0

E



0


(4-1

s
tn cn
,_H
S""'





00

^f
fl
13 ^
U
•eo
u O
S£.
a:

o



o
o"
oo



O



a
as?
CN O
d cn
o
o.



u
S
2?



u


1?
fsi 5
cs
d.

U
._^
^
00

"""^






"'"S ^-s
"3 m
|?
« u
Is
m

Z




Q
Z


^
Z





Q
Z





0
a.
O
d



Z



Q
Z


O
a.
O
d








^^
VO
MO
.£4
C O
IS ^
S CO
1*^

z




Q
Z


^t
Z





Q
Z





Z

Q
Z



Z



D


«


{X
o
VI







_^^
00
o
li
|i
a w
N^l

Z




Q
Z


jt
Z





Q
Z





O
Cu
o
d



Z



Q
Z


U
0.
O
d






9
•4-
8
o
O
O
c
Gt]
O


0
c

II
Z
CO
+^
c«
•o
g

II
Q
Z


42
_o
°co
w

85








CO
aj
'2
^3
•o
C
bO

V q>

O o

W5 *""
*T<
ed, except <
nonferrous
0 >>
§1
0 g
3
•o -o
O WJ
*•* JH
•o o
C3 C

~ E
e. ^ «*
*•£» C
11
gl

li
fl
c
WQ 'in
li
<+2 ^
c E
.2 °
"so  2 
£*$
ffeu oJ














•d
CO
Q>

cn

CD


CO
: emissions
>
2
CO
l^
Q>
X3
l_
 o>
U, 14 U,
,

§
1
"»
CO
i n
CO
C
o
CO
so
£
D
O
C

1
1
C
u«
I
ai
1
^>
"S
;
"o
•g

^J

t — .
t-J
i
1

.C O "O 4> <*- Dfl
                                                            2 ^

                                                            I  2

                                                            *3  «
                                                           •g 3

                                                              "x
                                                            CO  o



                                                           Jl

                                                            O3  4>
                                                           AJ ^
                                                                                                       o 2
                                                                                      e«
                                                                               z=    '3>
                                          S

                                          S
                                          -a
                                          O
                                          o

                                          2
                                          'o
                                                                                      CO


                                                                                     "c

                                                   2
-

0
 O  3 J=

*CA  «>  CO

•I-2  «
 C     Oj



 e1 w  «
                                                   o

                                                  •a
      ^; v^*  >MM
      O    CO
     "55 -2  .S

     •-  oo" VQ* ro §
                                                                                                        .    0
                                                                                                             al
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
         12.11-7
-------
             Table 12.11-3 (Metric Units).  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SECONDARY LEAD PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Operation
Sweating (SCC 3-04-004-12)
Smelting (SCC 3-04-004-13)
Kettle refining (SCC 3-04-004-14)
Casting (SCC 3-04-004-25)
Paniculate
0.8-1.8b
4.3-12.1
0.001
0.001
Lead
0.2-0.9C
0.1-0.3d
0.00036
0.00046
a Reference 16.  Based on amount of lead product except for sweating, which is based on quantity of
  material charged to furnace. Fugitive emissions estimated to be 5% of uncontrolled stack
  emissions.  SCC=  Source Classification Code.
b Reference 1.  Sweating furnace emissions estimated from nonlead secondary nonferrous processsing
  industries.
c References 3,5. Assumes 23% lead content of uncontrolled blast furnace flue emissions.
d Reference 24.
e Reference 13.
            Table 12.11-4 (English Units).  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SECONDARY LEAD PROCESSINGa

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Operation
Sweating (SCC 3-04-004-12)
Smelting (SCC 3-04-004-13)
Kettle refining (SCC 3-04-004-14)
Casting (SCC 3-04-004-25)
Particulate
1.6-3.5b
8.6-24.2
0.002
0.002
Lead
0.4-1. 8C
0.2-0.6d
0.00066
0.0007e
a Reference 16.  Based on amount of lead product, except for sweating, which is based on quantity of
  material charged to furnace. Fugitive emissions estimated to be 5% of uncontrolled stack
  emissions.  SCC = Source Classification  Code.
b Reference 1.  Sweating furnace emissions estimated from nonlead secondary nonferrous processsing
  industries.
c References 3,5. Assumes 23% lead content of uncontrolled blast furnace flue emissions.
d Reference 24.
e Reference 13.
12.11-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
        Emissions from battery breaking are mainly of sulfuric acid mist and dusts containing dirt,
battery case material, and lead compounds.  Emissions from crushing are also mainly dusts.

        Emissions from sweating operations are fume, dust, soot particles, and combustion products,
including sulfur dioxide (SO^. The SO2 emissions come from combustion of sulfur compounds in
the scrap and fuel.  Dust particles range in size from 5 to 20 micrometers (/im) and unagglomerated
lead fumes range in size from 0.07 to 0.4  /*m, with an average diameter of 0.3 /im. Paniculate
loadings in the stack gas from reverberatory sweating range from 3.2 to 10.3 grams per cubic meter
(1.4 to 4.5 grains per cubic foot).  Baghouses are usually used to control sweating emissions, with
removal efficiencies exceeding 99 percent.  The emission factors for lead sweating in Tables 12.11-1
and 12.11-2 are based on measurements at similar sweating furnaces in other secondary metal
processing industries, not on  measurements at lead sweating furnaces.

        Reverberatory smelting furnaces emit paniculate and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen.
Paniculate consists of oxides, sulfides and sulfates of lead,  antimony, arsenic, copper, and tin, as well
as unagglomerated lead fume. Paniculate  loadings range from to 16 to 50 grams per cubic meter
(7 to 22 grains per cubic foot).  Emissions are generally controlled with settling and cooling
chambers, followed by a baghouse.  Control efficiencies generally exceed 99 percent.  Wet scrubbers
are sometimes used to reduce SO2 emissions. However,  because of the small particles emitted from
reverberatory furnaces, baghouses are more often used  than scrubbers for paniculate control.

        Two chemical analyses by electron spectroscopy have shown the paniculate to consist of 38 to
42 percent lead, 20 to 30 percent tin, and about 1 percent zinc.17 Paniculate emissions from
reverberatory smelting furnaces are estimated to contain 20 percent lead.

        Emissions from  blast  furnaces occur at charging doors, the slag tap, the lead well, and the
furnace stack.   The emissions are combustion gases  (including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
oxides of sulfur and nitrogen) and paniculate.  Emissions from the charging doors and the slag tap
are hooded and routed to the  devices treating the furnace  stack emissions.  Blast furnace paniculate is
smaller than that emitted from reverberatory furnaces and is suitable for control by scrubbers or
fabric filters downstream of coolers.  Efficiencies for various control devices are shown in
Table 12.11-5. In one application, fabric filters alone captured over 99 percent of the blast furnace
paniculate emissions.

        Paniculate recovered  from the uncontrolled flue emissions at 6 blast furnaces had  an average
lead content of 23 percent.3*5 Paniculate recovered from the uncontrolled charging and tapping
hoods at 1 blast furnace had an average lead content of 61 percent.13 Based on relative emission
rates, lead is 34 percent of uncontrolled blast furnace emissions.  Controlled emissions from the same
blast furnace had lead content of 26 percent, with 33 percent from flues, and 22 percent from
charging and tapping operations.13  Paniculate recovered from another blast furnace contained 80 to
85 percent lead sulfate and lead chloride, 4 percent tin, 1  percent cadmium, 1 percent zinc,
0.5 percent antimony, 0.5 percent arsenic,  and less than 1 percent organic matter.18

        Kettle  furnaces for melting, refining, and alloying are relatively minor emission sources.  The
kettles are hooded, with fumes and dusts typically vented to baghouses and recovered at efficiencies
exceeding 99 percent. Twenty measurements of the uncontrolled particulates from kettle furnaces
showed a mass median aerodynamic particle diameter of 18.9 micrometers,  with particle size ranging
from 0.05 to 150 micrometers.  Three chemical analyses by electron spectroscopy showed the
composition of paniculate to vary from 12 to 17 percent lead, 5 to  17 percent tin, and 0.9 to
5.7 percent zinc.16
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.11-9
-------
          Table 12.11-5.  EFFICIENCIES OF PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
              ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
Control Equipment
Fabric filter3

Dry cyclone plus fabric filter*
Wet cyclone plus fabric filterb
Settling chamber plus dry
cyclone plus fabric filter0
Venturi scrubber plus demisterd
Furnace Type
Blast
Blast Reverberatory
Blast
Reverberatory
Reverberatory
Blast
Control Efficiency
(%)
98.4
99.2
99.0
99.7
99.8
99.3
a Reference 8.
b Reference 9.
c Reference 10.
d Reference 14.
       Emissions from oxidizing furnaces are economically recovered with baghouses. The
particulates are mostly lead oxide, but they also contain amounts of lead and other metals.  The
oxides range in size from 0.2 to 0.5 /an. Controlled emissions have been estimated to be
0.1 kilograms per megagram (0.2 pounds per ton) of lead product, based on a 99 percent efficient
baghouse.
References For Section 12.11.

1.     William M. Coltharp, et al., Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of The Secondary
       Nonferrous Metal Industry (Draft), Contract No. 68-02-1319, Radian Corporation, Austin,
       TX, June 1976.

2.     H. Nack, et al., Development Of An Approach To Identification Of Emerging Technology And
       Demonstration Opportunities, EPA-650/2-74-048, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, May 1974.

3.     J. M. Zoller, et al., A Method Of Characterization And Quantification Of Fugitive Lead
       Emissions From Secondary Lead Smelters, Ferroalloy Plants And Gray Iron Foundries
       (Revised), EPA-450/3-78-003 (Revised), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, August 1978.

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

5.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.
12.11-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
6.     Background Information For Proposed New Source Performance Standards, Volumes I And II:
       Secondary Lead Smelters And Refineries, APTD-1352a and b, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.

7.     J. W. Watson and K. J. Brooks, A Review Of Standards Of Performance For New Stationary
       Source—Secondary Lead Smelters, Contract No. 68-02-2526, Mitre Corporation,
       McLean, VA, January  1979.

8.     John E. Williamson, et al., A Study  Of Five Source Tests On Emissions From Secondary Lead
       Smelters, County Of Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, CA,
       February 1972.

9.     Emission Test No. 72-CI-8, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1972.

10.    Emission Test No. 72-CI-7, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.

11.    A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Paniculate Pollutant Systems Study, Volume I: Mass Emissions,
       APTD-0743, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1971.

12.    Emission Test No. 71-CI-34, Office  Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1972.

13.    Emission And Emission Controls At A Secondary Lead Smelter (Draft), Contract
       No. 68-03-2807, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1981.

14.    Emission Test No. 71-CI-33, Office  Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.

15.    Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling At General Battery Corporation, Reading,
       Pennsylvania, Contract No. 68-02-0230, Battelle Institute, Columbus, OH, July 1972.

16.    Technical Guidance For Control Of Industrial Process Fugitive Paniculate Emissions,
       EPA-450/3-77-010,  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1977.

17.    E.I. Hartt, An Evaluation Of Continuous Paniculate Monitors At A Secondary Lead Smelter,
       M. S. Report No. 0. R. -16, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.  Date Unknown.

18.    J.  E. Howes, et al., Evaluation Of Stationary Source Paniculate Measurement Methods,
       Volume V:  Secondary Lead Smelters, Contract No. 68-02-0609, Battelle Laboratories,
       Columbus,  OH, January 1979.

19.    Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investigation (Interim Repon), Contract
       No. 68-02-1343, Pedco, Inc.,  Cincinnati, OH, February 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Metallurgical Industry                            12.11-11
-------
20.    Rives, G. D. and A. J. Miles, Control Of Arsenic Emissions From The Secondary Lead
       Smelting Industry, Technical Document, Prepared Under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3816,
       Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1985.

21.    W. D. Woodbury, Minerals Yearbook,  United States Department Of The Interior, Bureau of
       Mines, 1989.

22.    R. J. Isherwood, et al.,  The Impact Of Existing And Proposed Regulations Upon The
       Domestic Lead Industry.  NTTS, PBE9121743. 1988.

23.    F. Hall, et al.., Inspection And Operating And Maintenance Guidelines For Secondary Lead
       Smelter Air Pollution Control, Pedco-Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 1984.
12.11-12                           EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
12.12  Secondary Magnesium Smelting

12.12.1  General1'2

        Secondary magnesium smelters process scrap which contains magnesium to produce
magnesium alloys.  Sources of scrap for magnesium smelting include automobile crankcase and
transmission housings, beverage cans, scrap from product manufacture, and sludges from various
magnesium-melting operations.  This form of recovery is becoming an important factor in magnesium
production.  In 1983, only 13 percent of the U. S. magnesium supply came from secondary
production; in 1991, this number increased  to 30 percent, primarily due to increased recycling of
beverage cans.

12.12.2  Process Description3'4

        Magnesium scrap is sorted and charged into a steel crucible maintained at approximately
675°C (1247°F). As the charge begins to burn, flux must be added to control oxidation.  Fluxes
usually contain chloride salts of potassium,  magnesium, barium, and magnesium oxide and calcium
fluoride. Fluxes are floated on top of the melt to prevent contact with air. The method of heating the
crucible causes the bottom layer of scrap to melt first while the top  remains solid.  This semi-molten
state allows cold castings to be added without danger of "shooting", a violent reaction that occurs
when cold metals are added to hot liquid metals.  As  soon as the surface of the feed becomes liquid, a
crusting flux must be added to inhibit surface burning.

        The composition of the melt is  carefully monitored.  Steel, salts, and oxides coagulate at the
bottom of the furnace. Additional metals are added as needed to reach specifications.  Once the
molten metal reaches the desired levels of key components, it is poured, pumped, or ladled into
ingots.

12.12.3  Emissions And Controls5'6

        Emissions for a typical magnesium smelter are given in Tables 12.12-1 and 12.12-2.
Emissions from magnesium smelting include paniculate magnesium oxides (MgO) and from the
melting and fluxing processes, and nitrogen oxides from the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by the
furnace temperatures. Carbon monoxide and nonmethane hydrocarbons have also been detected.  The
type of flux used on the molten material, the amount of contamination of the scrap (especially oil  and
other hydrocarbons), and the type and extent of control equipment affect the amount of emissions
produced.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.12-1
-------
                  Table 12.12-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING
Type of Furnace
Pot Furnace (SCC 3-04-006-01)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Paniculate
Emission Factor3

2
0.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C
C
a References 5 and 6.  Emission factors are expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of metal processed.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
                 Table 12.12-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING
            Type of Furnace
            Paniculate
         Emission Factor3
EMISSION FACTOR
      RATING
 Pot Furnace (SCC 3-04-006-01)

   Uncontrolled

   Controlled
               4

               0.4
         C

         C
3 References 5 and 6.  Emission factors are expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of metal processed.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.


References For Section 12.12

1.     Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed., Vol. 14, John Wiley And Sons,
       Canada, 1981.

2.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC.

3.     Light Metal Age, "Recycling:  The Catchword Of The '90s", Vol. 50, CA, February, 1992.

4.     National Emission Inventory Of Sources And Emissions Of Magnesium, EPA-450 12-74-010,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.

5.     G. L. Allen, et al.,  Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dusts And Fumes In Los Angeles
       County.  Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC, Information
       Circular Number 7627, April 1952.

6.     W. F. Hammond, Data On Nonferrous Metallurgical Operations, Los Angeles County Air
       Pollution Control District, November 1966.
12.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
   (Reformatted 1/95) 11/94
-------
 12.13   Steel Foundries

 12.13.1  General

        Steel foundries produce steel castings weighing from a few ounces to over 180 megagrams
 (Mg) (200 tons).  These castings are used in machinery, transportation, and other industries requiring
 parts that are strong and reliable. In 1989, 1030 million Mg (1135 million tons) of steel (carbon and
 alloy) were cast by U. S. steel foundries, while demand was calculated at 1332 Mg (1470 million
 tons). Imported steel accounts for the difference between the amount cast and the demand amount.
 Steel casting is done by small- and medium-size manufacturing companies.

        Commercial steel castings are divided into 3 classes: (1) carbon steel, (2) low-alloy steel, and
 (3) high-alloy steel. Different compositions and heat treatments of steel castings result in a tensile
 strength range of 400 to 1700 MPa (60,000 to 250,000 psi).

 12.13.2  Process Description1

        Steel foundries produce steel castings by melting scrap, alloying, molding, and finishing. The
 process flow diagram of a typical steel foundry with fugitive emission points is presented in
 Figure 12.13-1. The major processing operations of a typical steel foundry  are raw materials
 handling, metal melting, mold and core production, and casting and finishing.

 12.13.2.1  Raw Materials Handling -
        Raw material handling operations include receiving, unloading, storing, and conveying all raw
 materials for the foundry.  Some of the raw materials used by steel foundries are iron and steel scrap,
 foundry  returns, metal turnings, alloys, carbon additives, fluxes (limestone,  soda ash, fluorspar,
 calcium  carbide), sand, sand additives, and binders.  These raw materials are received in ships,
 railcars, trucks, and containers, and are transferred by trucks, loaders, and conveyors to both open-
 pile and  enclosed storage areas.  They are then transferred by similar means from storage to the
 subsequent processes.

 12.13.2.2  Metal Melting9 -
        Metal melting process operations are:  (1) scrap preparation; (2) furnace charging, in which
 metal, scrap, alloys, carbon, and flux are added to the furnace;  (3) melting,  during which the furnace
 remains  closed; (4) backcharging, which is the addition of more metal and possibly alloys;
 (5) refining by  single (oxidizing) slag or double (oxidizing and reducing) slagging operations;
 (6) oxygen lancing, which is injecting oxygen into  the molten steel to adjust the chemistry of the
 metal and speed up the melt;  and (7) tapping the molten metal into a ladle or directly into molds.
 After preparation, the scrap, metal, alloy, and flux are weighed and charged to the furnace.

       Electric furnaces are used almost exclusively in the steel foundry for melting  and formulating
 steel. There are 2 types of electric furnaces:  direct arc and induction.

       Electric arc furnaces are charged with raw  materials by  removing the lid through a chute
opening in the lid or through  a door in the side.  The molten metal is tapped by tilting and pouring
through a spout on the side. Melting capacities range up to  10 Mg (11 tons) per hour.
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.13-1
-------
                                                                          FUGITIVE
                                                                        PARTICIPATES
                                                   RAW MATERIALS
                                                UNLOADING. STORAGE.
                                                     TRANSFER

                                                  • FLUX
                                                  • MEMLS
                                                  • CARBON SOURCES
                                                  • SAND
                                                  • BINDER
                    FUGITIVE
                      DUST
                                                      SCRAP
                                                   PREPARATION
                                                    (SCC 3-OKXJ3-U)
                                   FUMES AND
                                    FUGITIVE
                                     DUST
                             . FUGITIVE
                               DUST
                                                                        HYDROCARBONS,
                                                                       >.     CO,
                                                                          AND SMOKE
                          FURNACE
                            VENT
                                                   FUGITIVE
                                                    DUST
      FURNACE
 • CUPOLA(SCC»0«-OOM1)
 • ELECTRIC ABC(SCC»*t003-04)
 • INDUCTION(SCC 3-04-003-03)
 • OTHER
                                                     TAPPING.
                                                     TREATING
                                                   (SCC 3-0*003-16)
                                                                        FUGITIVE FUMES
                                                                          AND DUST
                                                                        FUGITIVE FUMES
                                                                          AND  DUST
                                                  MOLD POURING.
                                                     COOLING
                                                             OVEN VENI
                                                     CASTING
                                                    SHAKEOUT
                                                   (SCC3-CM-003-31)
                                                     COOLING
                                                    (SCC 3O4-OCB-25)
                          FUGITIVE
                            DUST
                                                                         FUMES AND
                                                    CLEANING.
                                                     FINISHING
                                                    pec 3-OM)03-ao)
                          FUGITIVE
                            DUST
                                                     SHIPPING
                          Figure 12.13-1.  Flow diagram of a typical steel foundry.
                                  (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.13-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
        A direct electric arc furnace is a large refractory-lined steel pot, fitted with a refractory roof
 through which 3 vertical graphite electrodes are inserted, as shown in Figure 12.13-2.  The metal
 charge is melted with resistive heating generated by electrical current flowing among the electrodes
 and through the charge.
                     RETRACTABLE   ELECTRODES
                              Figure 12.13-2.  Electric arc steel furnace.

        An induction furnace is a vertical refractory-lined cylinder surrounded by coils energized with
alternating current. The resulting fluctuating magnetic field heats the metal.  Induction furnaces are
kept closed except when charging, skimming, and tapping.  The molten metal is tapped by tilting and
pouring through a spout on the side.  Induction furnaces are also used in conjunction with other
furnaces, to hold and superheat a charge, previously melted and refined in another furnace.  A very
small fraction of the secondary steel industry also uses crucible and pneumatic converter furnaces. A
less common furnace used in steel foundries is the open hearth furnace, a very large shallow
refractory-lined batch operated vessel. The open hearth furnace is fired at alternate ends, using the
hot waste combustion gases to heat  the incoming combustion air.

12.13.2.3 Mold And Core Production-
       Cores are forms used to make the internal features in castings.  Molds are forms used to
shape the casting exterior.  Cores are  made of sand  with organic binders, molded into a core and
baked in an oven.  Molds are made of sand with clay or chemical binders.  Increasingly, chemical
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.13-3
-------
binders are being used in both core and mold production.  Used sand from castings shakeout
operations is usually recycled to the sand preparation area, where it is cleaned, screened, and reused.

12.13.2.4  Casting And Finishing -
        When the melting process is complete, the molten metal is tapped and poured into a ladle.
The molten metal may be treated in the ladle by adding alloys and/or other chemicals. The treated
metal is then poured into molds  and allowed to partially cool under carefully controlled conditions.
When cooled, the castings are placed on a vibrating grid and the sand of the mold and core are
shaken  away from the casting.

        In the cleaning and finishing process, burrs, risers, and gates are broken or ground off to
match the contour of the casting. Afterward, the castings can be shot-blasted to remove remaining
mold sand and scale.

12.13.3 Emissions And Controls1'16

        Emissions from the raw" materials handling operations are fugitive particulates generated from
receiving, unloading, storing, and conveying all raw materials for the foundry. These emissions are
controlled by enclosing the major emission points and routing the air from the enclosures through
fabric filters.

        Emissions from scrap preparation consist of hydrocarbons if solvent degreasing is used and
consist  of smoke, organics, and carbon monoxide (CO) if heating is used. Catalytic incinerators and
afterburners of approximately 95 percent control efficiency for carbon monoxide and organics can be
applied  to these sources.

        Emissions from melting  furnaces are particulates, carbon monoxide, organics, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and small quantities of chlorides and fluorides.  The particulates,  chlorides, and
fluorides are generated by the flux.  Scrap contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and dirt
particles, along with oxidized phosphorus, silicon, and manganese.  In addition, organics on the scrap
and the  carbon additives  increase CO emissions. There are also trace constituents such as nickel,
hexavalent chromium, lead,  cadmium, and arsenic.  The highest concentrations of furnace emissions
occur when the furnace lids  and  doors are opened during charging, backcharging, alloying, oxygen
lancing, slag removal, and tapping operations.  These emissions escape into the furnace building and
are vented through roof vents. Controls for emissions during the melting and refining operations
focus on venting the furnace gases and fumes directly to an emission collection duct and control
system. Controls for fugitive furnace emissions involve either the use of building roof hoods or
special hoods near the furnace doors, to collect emissions and route them to emission  control systems.
Emission  control systems commonly used to control particulate emissions from electric arc and
induction furnaces are bag filters, cyclones, and venturi scrubbers.  The capture efficiencies of the
collection systems are presented  in Tables 12.13-1 and 12.13-2.  Usually, induction furnaces are
uncontrolled.

        Molten steel is tapped from a furnace into a ladle.  Alloying agents can be added to the ladle.
These include aluminum, titanium, zirconium, vanadium, and boron.  Ferroalloys  are used to produce
steel alloys and adjust the oxygen content while the molten steel is in the ladle. Emissions consist of
iron oxides during tapping in addition to oxide fumes from alloys added to the ladle.

        The major pollutant from mold and core production are particulates from  sand reclaiming,
sand preparation, sand mixing with  binders and additives, and mold and core forming. Particulate,
12.13-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
   on
   Q
   Z


   O
   fc,
   UJ
   H
   on

   c*
   O
   u.

   00
   OS


   g
   «J
   <
   OH

   Z
   O

   So
   6O

   i
   w
   p
   O
   ro
   *-H


   (N



   4)

CL. r*l
2 o g
e/5 H -3
co Q H
S < <
W fc *


_o
3 ®
S S
U.


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


c „
o S>
8*3
•S *
iz °


§ OS U
g H S
1 ^ ^


2-5 M s—
g *3 PJ
J§ t fc-
£ S3
OH
















S
u
2



Z Z





Q Q
Z Z







>/•>
- §
o' o




W U


g- 5-
o o

Ci- C-
V) VI
vo vi
















)-04-007-01)
3-04-007-02)
" H
w ^
"" -0
1 |
•8 %
y s G
188.
« u o
.
3 ^
^ P4 W W CD W W CD W ^ .2 8 o?
c« "o O
1 &£
W ^ ON
«> O
^f"j £J U^
IO J^ j^ *•* flj
*K^r^ *— « vi »noo oil .0
Q o -i — S oo
^ 0 ^
'S 3 S
vi o
0 Q Q Q Q Q Q S* || "C
2^z Z ZZZZ.^.0
^, o 'O *^ c^
m o >,y ^^
 a 5
to Si ^
"" C bo
^^ 'c3 2 _§
®" a> «
o e fe • -
ri G O >,
o o, « a
9 &«2 §
O CJ 4) 'o
*2 H~I
O ^ <^ cu
U ±50—.
52, <*-  •= eS
4> ^ *^ OO
cA in § « 2 « ON
5J ° ° 9 Oi *3 O
w I 1 Iv^SsE^
^il § sllil^c
! a = ? S ?! r»!l
— oo ao 3; to o o r. >5 ja o»
s r -.§ S .^uu"$«-s>>
M -^c =5 m ^S2.S2.5oMa)cucj.
1! !
1! !
° s i a i a s a ^^sl.s
CJ
B
0>
"3

-
1
8
_
Vs-
ON
ON
G
-4^
^o
ON
1
1
o

'i^
3
1
>
>\
O
C
—
'3

»
"o
•g
o
CJ
-j
O"^
ON
ON
ON
D
3
O
^2
to
CO
x;
>•»
o
c
4)
'3
£
0>
"o

£%
o
o
y-O
OO
ON
O
•*— »
ON
O
2
•3^0
§,«
0 fN
lectrostati
eferences
u «
•O O i

^^
^*
c
.2
'3
"o
b
O
O

^
OO
ON
O

ON
J
*D
3
CJ
ta
'C
C
>

t*^
O
c
0>
'3
»
"o
UN
r^
O
CJ
_>
ON
ON
3
O
JS
oo
CO
X)
>•*
O
c
OJ
'3
£

"o
U-i
g^
O
CJ
fc?
00
ON
O
•t— •
10
ON
0
2 ^
•3 .1
S - S
0,^0
i<-T u
CJ ^ _
lectrostati
eferences
sually noi
W 06 P
~ oo _c
































































^
eference :
oi
•— i







































I
"o
c
CO
fi
T3
C
CO

^?
°
fro
2
c
CO
3

"5
O.
'*-
o
60
""
eo
w
CO
u.
g"
u>
O
•*-*
O
<+-<
c
_o
*W2
VI
's
u
^j
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.13-5
-------











NDRIES
o
w
H
03
&
O
UH
O3
1
H
r)
^J
(LI
Z
O

t/J
f/%
S
W

*
W5
'S
43
.—
"Bo

[^j
fS
1
*— ^
•
cs
0>
1
H






2oi
to H e
£2 U £2
H «5 «


u
3 <=>
si r~l
**
UH


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

c M
|l

~
Q ^ O
|^l
^SJ» ^£* fy>
u


— s ^v ^** 1
•^ cs <-<
222
S Ci SS- 6

T— « »-H *— 1












(f\
S
r^
C3
?
9 ^.
u °
s § ^ g

( — r^ 60 ^"
§9-^2
' Tf C
o 9 g 0
-i r*^ es CJ
0 0 B -
o a a -B
5S ^ >> o
i i 1 i
o •£ •£ -o
h 5 ^ c
W C8 TO "^
0 J 4= "
I 1 1 1 1
" PJ O O 04

2 i 2222


< Q Q < < <
Z Z Z Z Z Z



z z z z z z






Q Q Q Q Q Q
z z z z z z















"c1
• »"J
!•!«
E
g S-
8 o ^^ ^
*O t** *"^ C^ y"^-
C ^? 1~H 1~H ^^
i r*^ t^ •
fo f*^
o ®
*« i^ O O ^-
g- o O ' ' o
** S ^ ^ ^
c ? o -S ^^ ^^ 52-
_e C; CJ "55 "3c "Ba •-,..
^ Q 55 as c c 5?
CJ) O 1^;, O '£ ^3 C
S "41 — a. T3 CS "H *3
'-0 0 g C £ g §
C ^ 4> °* O jg O
•a O W "C *jj i- *^3
r- ^5 fcn 3 en C3 en
uj > — ' O o c3 -C 03


§
%
'S
5
'W
t<^*
•8
>->
i_o
OH
C
1
«
^•^
c
o
»
S
Jj
£
**^
°
^>>

"o
V-

t;

^
>,
Ui
>
V3


"13
4_*
0>
o.
CO
Ui
en
0
X

.
' W
^
«
Q

..^
*3
Q)
Q
Q
X
a













•a
U
§
'Z!
O
1
cd
0
a>
o
w
g
03
||
.

^)
03
a>
60
c

w«
bH
o
•K
'^J
<%
1>
4j
Cf-l
O
OJ
'5
^
*^^\
.£r
a>
•S
g
Q
fU-i
1
1
o

^
ON
o
^j.
ON

4i
2
O


B
c
'o
i
o
0
g5
ON
*0
OO
ON
'J^
3i
—
<*-(
• H
"§

'S-^'
a>
1
60
«
40
O
a>
"o
H
O
se

^lS
o
c
8
ON
ON

2
ON
|
c/3
1
>>
O
c
—
"o
£
QJ
"s
•«^
c
o
o
^5
ON
ON
ON

"
Qi
ai
O
60
CS
JO
O
C
'o
<£
a>
,
2
o
o

S?
oo
ON
O
* IT)
ON

1
"a,
>» 'o
control efficien
References 2-1
Electrostatic pi
o -o


















































O
i
References 2,8
o

o
0>
"o
?p
^H
«
0
^
o

^^
oo
o\
o
•*— »
ON
uT
o>
43
|
3
C
>

O
J
o

5
"o
l-l
c:
o
_~
ON
ON

D
1
^Q
«J

O
c
'o
£
o>
,
2
o
0

^
oo
ON
O
>0
ON

2
S s
;& ^
8-; «
t . ^^ C
Electrostatic pi
References 5,1
Usually not co
<*- 60 43





























•s
"O
c
c^
4=
co

'o
C
Q
• —
1
J3
^^
O
C.
0
43
C/3

•o
v:
V2
UH
Q,
Reference 13.
Emission facto
•- , •*
12.13-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
 VOC, and CO emissions result from core baking and VOC emissions occur during mold drying. Bag
 filters and scrubbers can be used to control particulates from mold and core production. Afterburners
 and catalytic incinerators can be used to control VOC and CO emissions.

        During casting operations, large quantities of particulates can be generated in the steps prior
 to pouring. Emissions from pouring consist of fumes, CO,  VOCs, and particulates from the mold
 and core materials when contacted by the molten  steel.  As the mold cools, emissions continue.  A
 significant quantity of paniculate emissions is generated during the casting shakeout operation. The
 paniculate emissions from the shakeout operations can be controlled by either high-efficiency  cyclone
 separators or bag filters. Emissions from pouring are usually uncontrolled.

        Emissions from finishing operations consist of particulates  resulting from the removal of
 burrs, risers, and gates and during shot blasting.  Particulates from finishing operations can be
 controlled by cyclone separators.

        Nonfurnace emissions sources in steel foundries are  very similar to those in iron foundries.
 Nonfurnace emissions factors and particle size distributions for iron foundry emission sources for
 criteria and toxic pollutants are presented in Section  12.10, "Gray Iron Foundries".

 References For Section 12.13

 1.      Paul F. Fennelly And Fetter D. Spawn, Air Pollutant Control Techniques For Electric Arc
        Furnaces In The Iron And Steel Foundry Industry, EPA-450/2-78-024, U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  June 1978.

 2.      J. J. Schueneman, et al., Air Pollution Aspects Of The Iron And Steel Industry, National
        Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, OH. June 1963.

 3.      Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual, 2nd Edition, Foundry Air Pollution Control
        Committee, Des Plaines,  IL, 1967.

 4.      R. S. Coulter, "Smoke, Dust, Fumes Closely Controlled In Electric Furnaces",  Iron Age,
        173:107-110, January 14, 1954.

 5.      J. M. Kane and R. V. Sloan, "Fume Control Electric Melting Furnaces", American
        Foundryman, 18:33-34, November 1950.

 6.      C. A.  Faist, "Electric Furnace Steel",  Proceedings Of The American Institute Of Mining And
        Metallurgical Engineers,  11:160-161, 1953.

 7.      I.  H. Douglas, "Direct Fume Extraction And Collection Applied To A Fifteen-Ton Arc
        Furnace", Special Report On Fume Arrestment, Iron  And Steel Institute, 1964, pp.  144, 149.

 8.     Inventory Of Air Contaminant Emissions, New York  State Air Pollution Control Board,
       Table XI, pp. 14-19. Date unknown.

9.     A.  C. Elliot and A. J. Freniere, "Metallurgical Dust  Collection In Open Hearth  And Sinter
       Plant", Canadian Mining And Metallurgical Bulletin, 55(606):724-732.  October 1962.

 10.    C. L. Hemeon,  "Air  Pollution Problems Of The Steel Industry", JAPCA, 10(3):208-218.
       March 1960.

 1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.13-7
-------
11.    D. W. Coy, Unpublished Data, Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, VA.

12.    E. L. Kotzin, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Revision,  1992.

13.    PM10 Emission Factor Listing Developed By Technology Transfer, EPA-450/4-89-022.

14.    W. R. Barnard, Emission Factors For Iron And Steel Sources—Criteria And Toxic Pollutants,
       E.H. Pachan and Associates, Inc., EPA-600/2-50-024, June 1990.

15.    A. A. Pope, et al., Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors A Compilation For Selected Air
       Toxic Compounds And Sources, Second Edition, Radian Corporation, EPA-450/2-90-011.
       October 1990.

16.    Electric Arc Furnaces And Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels In The Steel Industry:
       Background Information For Proposed Revisions To Standards, EPA-450/3-B-020A,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  July 1983.
12.13-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
 12.14 Secondary Zinc Processing

 12.14.1  General1

        The secondary zinc industry processes scrap metals for the recovery of zinc in the form of
 zinc slabs, zinc oxide, or zinc dust. There are currently 10 secondary zinc recovery plants operating
 in the U. S., with an aggregate capacity of approximately 60 megagrams (60 tons) per year.

 12.14.2  Process  Description2"3

        Zinc recovery involves 3 general operations performed on scrap, pretreatment, melting, and
 refining.  Processes typically used in each operation are shown in Figure 12.14-1.

 12.14.2.1  Scrap  Pretreatment -
        Scrap metal is delivered to the secondary zinc processor as ingots, rejected castings, flashing,
 and other mixed metal scrap containing zinc.  Scrap pretreatment includes:  (1) sorting, (2) cleaning,
 (3) crushing and screening, (4) sweating, and (5) leaching.

        In the sorting operation, zinc scrap is manually separated according to  zinc content and any
 subsequent processing requirements. Cleaning removes foreign materials to improve product quality
 and recovery efficiency.  Crushing facilitates the ability to separate the zinc from the contaminants.
 Screening and pneumatic classification concentrates the zinc metal for further processing.

        A sweating furnace (rotary, reverberatory, or muffle furnace) slowly heats the scrap
 containing zinc  and other metals to approximately 364°C (687°F).  This temperature is sufficient to
 melt zinc but is still below the melting point of the remaining metals.  Molten  zinc collects at the
 bottom of the sweat furnace and is subsequently  recovered. The remaining scrap metal is cooled and
 removed to be sold to other secondary  processors.

        Leaching  with sodium carbonate solution converts dross and skimmings to zinc oxide,  which
 can be reduced to zinc metal.  The zinc-containing material is crushed and washed with water,
 separating contaminants from zinc-containing metal.  The contaminated aqueous stream is treated with
 sodium carbonate  to convert zinc chloride into sodium chloride (NaCl) and insoluble zinc hydroxide
 [Zn(OH)2]. The NaCl is separated from the insoluble residues by filtration and settling.  The
 precipitate zinc hydroxide is dried and  calcined (dehydrated into a powder at high temperature) to
 convert it into crude zinc oxide (ZnO). The ZnO product is usually refined to  zinc at primary zinc
 smelters.  The washed zinc-containing metal portion becomes the raw material  for the melting
process.

 12.14.2.2  Melting-
       Zinc scrap is melted in kettle,  crucible, reverberatory,  and electric induction furnaces.  Flux
is used in these  furnaces to trap impurities from  the molten zinc. Facilitated by agitation, flux and
impurities float to the surface of the melt as dross, and is skimmed from the surface. The
remaining molten  zinc may be poured  into molds or transferred to the refining  operation in a molten
state.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                                12.14-1
-------
 (B
 z
 >
 O
    r
            = I  . -I =L	_J =>Ls	J =U_

            tlT t-Tf iTf ul
                                                            CB
                                                         las
                                              < UJ
                                              Z O m
                                              	en
                                              5 x =>
                                              
-------
        Zinc alloys are produced from pretreated scrap during sweating and melting processes.  The
 alloys may contain small amounts of copper, aluminum, magnesium, iron, lead, cadmium, and tin.
 Alloys containing 0.65 to 1.25 percent copper are significantly stronger than unalloyed zinc.

 12.14.2.3 Refining-
        Refining processes remove further impurities in clean zinc alloy scrap and in zinc vaporized
 during the melt phase in retort furnaces, as shown in Figure 12.14-2.  Molten zinc is heated until it
 vaporizes. Zinc vapor is condensed and recovered in several forms, depending upon temperature,
 recovery time, absence or presence of oxygen, and equipment used during zinc vapor condensation.
 Final products from refining processes include zinc ingots, zinc dust, zinc oxide, and zinc alloys.

        Distillation retorts and furnaces are used either to reclaim zinc from alloys or to refine crude
 zinc.  Bottle retort furnaces consist of a pear-shaped ceramic retort (a long-necked vessel used for
 distillation).  Bottle retorts are filled with zinc alloys and heated until most of the zinc is vaporized,
 sometimes as long as 24 hours.  Distillation involves vaporization of zinc at temperatures from 982 to
 1249°C  (1800 to 2280°F) and condensation as zinc dust or liquid zinc. Zinc dust is produced by
 vaporization and rapid cooling, and liquid zinc results when the vaporous product  is condensed slowly
 at moderate temperatures. The melt is cast into ingots or slabs.

        A muffle furnace, as shown in Figure 12.14-3, is a continuously charged retort furnace,
 which can operate for several days at  a time. Molten zinc is charged through a feed well that also
 acts as an airlock.  Muffle furnaces generally have a much greater vaporization capacity than bottle
 retort  furnaces. They produce both zinc ingots and zinc oxide of 99.8 percent purity.

        Pot melting, unlike bottle retort and muffle furnaces, does not incorporate distillation as a part
 of the refinement process. This  method merely monitors the composition of the intake to control the
 composition of the product.  Specified die-cast scraps containing zinc are melted in a steel pot.  Pot
 melting is a simple indirect heat melting operation where the final alloy cast into zinc alloy slabs is
 controlled by the scrap input into the pot.

        Furnace distillation with oxidation produces zinc oxide dust.  These processes are similar to
 distillation without the condenser.  Instead of entering a condenser, the zinc vapor discharges directly
 into an air stream leading to  a refractory-lined combustion chamber.  Excess air completes the
 oxidation and cools the zinc oxide dust before it is collected in a fabric filter.

        Zinc oxide is transformed into zinc  metal though a retort reduction process using coke as a
 reducing agent. Carbon monoxide produced by the partial oxidation of the coke reduces the  zinc
 oxide to metal and carbon dioxide. The zinc vapor is recovered by condensation.

 12.14.3  Emissions And Controls2'5

       Process and fugitive emission  factors for secondary zinc operations are tabulated in
 Tables 12.14-1, 12.14-2, 12.14-3, and 12.14-4.  Emissions from sweating  and melting operations
 consist of paniculate, zinc fumes, other volatile metals, flux fumes, and smoke generated by  the
 incomplete combustion of grease, rubber, and plastics in zinc  scrap.  Zinc  fumes are negligible at low
furnace temperatures.  Flux emissions may be minimized by using a nonfuming flux. In production
requiring special fluxes that do generate fumes, fabric filters may be used to collect emissions.
Substantial emissions may arise from incomplete combustion of carbonaceous material in the zinc
scrap.  These contaminants are usually controlled by afterburners.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                               12.14-3
-------
                          Figure 12.14-2.  Zinc retort distillation furnace.
         STACK
                                       BURNER PORT
1 1 1 1
1 ! 1 1 !

1
••
1 1 1
MUFFLE
I 1 1 1 !
1 1 1 ! 1
1 1 1 1 I 1
- S
    MOLTEN METAL
    TAPHOLE
                                                                         FLAME PORT
                                                                         AIR IN
                                                                              DUCT FOR OXIDE
                                                                              COLLECTION
                                                                         RISER CONDENSER
                                                                              UNIT
                                                                             MOLTEN METAL
                                                                                TAPHOLE
                          Figure 12.14-3.  Muffle furnace and condenser.
12.14-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81
-------
    Table 12.14-1 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                           FOR SECONDARY ZINC SMELTINGa
Operation
Reverberatory sweating*1 (in mg/Mg feed material)
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-18)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-28)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-38)
Rotary sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-09)
Muffle sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-10)
Kettle sweating1"
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-14)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-24)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-34)
Electric resistance sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-1 1)
Sodium carbonate leaching calciningd (SCC 3-04-008-06)
Kettle potd, mg/Mg product (SCC 3-04-008-03)
Crucible melting (SCC 3-04-008-41)
Reverberatory melting (SCC 3-04-008-42)
Electric induction melting (SCC 3-04-008-43)
Alloying (SCC 3-04-008-40)
Retort and muffle distillation, in kg/Mg of product
Pouring0 (SCC 3-04-008-51)
Casting0 (SCC 3-04-008-52)
Muffle distillation41 (SCC 3-04-008-02)
Graphite rod distillation0'6 (SCC 3-04-008-53)
Retort distillation/oxidation5 (SCC 3-04-008-54)
Muffle distillation/oxidation5 (SCC 3-04-008-55)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-01)
Galvanizing41 (SCC 3-04-008-05)
Emissions
Negligible
6.5
16
5.5 - 12.5
5.4 - 16

Negligible
5.5
12.5
< 5
44.5
0.05
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2 - 0.4
0.1 -0.2
22.5
Negligible
10-20
10-20
23.5
2.5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
C
C

C
C
C
C
C
C
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
a Factors are for kg/Mg of zinc used, except as noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 4.
c Reference 5.
d References 6-8.
e Reference 2.
f Reference 5.  Factors are for kg/Mg of ZnO produced. All product zinc oxide dust is carried over
  in the exhaust gas from the furnace and is recovered with 98-99% efficiency.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.14-5
-------
   Table 12.14-2 (English Units).  UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                         FOR SECONDARY ZINC SMELTINGa
Operation
Reverberatory sweating15 (in mg/Mg feed material)
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-O08-18)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-28)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-38)
Rotary sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-09)
Muffle sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-10)
Kettle sweatingb
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-14)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-24)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-34)
Electric resistance sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-11)
Sodium carbonate leaching calciningd (SCC 3-04-008-06)
Kettle potd, mg/Mg product (SCC 3-04-008-03)
Crucible melting (SCC 3-04-008-41)
Reverberatory melting (SCC 3-04-008-42)
Electric induction melting (SCC 3-04-008-43)
Alloying (SCC 3-04-008-40)
Retort and muffle distillation, in Ib/ton of product
Pouring0 (SCC 3-04-008-51)
Casting0 (SCC 3-04-008-52)
Muffle distillationd (SCC 3-04-008-02)
Graphite rod distillation0'*5 (SCC 3-04-008-53)
Retort distillation/oxidation*" (SCC 3-04-008-54)
Muffle distillation/oxidationf (SCC 3-04-008-55)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-01)
Galvanizing"1 (SCC 3-04-008-05)
Emissions
Negligible
13
32
11 -25
10.8 - 32

Negligible
11
25
<10
89
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4-0.8
0.2 - 0.4
45
Negligible
20-40
20 - 40
47
5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
C
C

C
C
C
C
C
C
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
a Factors are for Ib/ton of zinc used, except as noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 4.
c Reference 5.
d References 6-8,
e Reference 2.
f Reference 5. Factors are for Ib/ton of ZnO produced.  All product zinc, oxide dust is carried over
  in the exhaust gas from the furnace and  is recovered with 98-99% efficiency.
12.14-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81
-------
       Table 12.14-3 (Metric Units).  FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING*
Operation
Reverberatory sweating5 (SCC 3-04-008-61)
Rotary sweatingb (SCC 3-04-008-62)
Muffle sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-63)
Kettle (pot) sweating5 (SCC 3-04-008-64)
Electrical resistance sweating, per kg processed1*
(SCC 3-04-008-65)
Crushing/screening0 (SCC 3-04-008-12)
Sodium carbonate leaching (SCC 3-04-008-66)
Kettle (pot) melting furnace5 (SCC 3-04-008-67)
Crucible melting furnaced (SCC 3-04-008-68)
Reverberatory melting furnace5 (SCC 3-04-008-69)
Electric induction melting5 (SCC 3-04-008-70)
Alloying retort distillation (SCC 3-04-008-71)
Retort and muffle distillation (SCC 3-04-008-72)
Casting5 (SCC 3-04-008-73)
Graphite rod distillation (SCC 3-04-008-74)
Retort distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-75)
Muffle distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-76)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-77)
Emissions
0.63
0.45
0.54
0.28
0.25
2.13
ND
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
ND
1.18
0.0075
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA
NA
a Reference 9.  Factors are kg/Mg of end product, except as noted. SCC  = Source Classification
  Code.  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
5 Estimate based on stack emission factor given in Reference 2, assuming  fugitive emissions to be
  equal to 5% of stack emissions.
c Reference 2.  Factors are for kg/Mg of scrap processed.  Average of reported emission factors.
d Engineering judgment,  assuming fugitive emissions from crucible melting furnace to be equal to
  fugitive emissions from kettle (pot)  melting furnace.
       Particulate emissions from sweating and melting are most commonly recovered by fabric
filter.  In 1 application on a muffle sweating furnace, a cyclone and fabric filter achieved particulate
recovery efficiencies in excess of 99.7 percent.  In 1 application on a reverberatory sweating furnace,
a fabric filter removed 96.3 percent of the particulate.  Fabric filters show similar efficiencies in
removing particulate from exhaust gases of melting furnaces.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.14-7
-------
     Table 12.1*4 (English Units).  FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                              SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING*
Operation
Reverberatory sweating1* (SCC 3-04-008-61)
Rotary sweating1* (SCC 3-04-008-62)
Muffle sweatingb (SCC 3-04-008-63)
Kettle (pot) sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-64)
Electrical resistance sweating, per ton processed1*
(SCC 3-04-008-65)
Crushing/screening0 (SCC 3-04-008-12)
Sodium carbonate leaching (SCC 3-04-008-66)
Kettle (pot) melting furnaceb (SCC 3-04-008-67)
Crucible melting furnaced (SCC 3-04-008-68)
Reverberatory melting furnaceb (SCC 3-04-008-69)
Electric induction melting5 (SCC 3-04-008-70)
Alloying retort distillation (SCC 3-04-008-71)
Retort and muffle distillation (SCC 3-04-008-72)
Casting15 (SCC 3-04-008-73)
Graphite rod distillation (SCC 3-04-008-74)
Retort distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-75)
Muffle distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-76)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-77)
Emissions
1.30
0.90
1.07
0.56
0.50
4.25
ND
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
ND
2.36
0.015
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA
NA
a Reference 9.  Factors are Ib/ton of end product, except as noted. SCC = Source Classification
  Code. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Estimate based on stack emission factor given in Reference 2, assuming fugitive emissions to be
  equal to 5% of stack emissions.
c Reference 2.  Factors are for Ib/ton of scrap processed. Average of reported emission factors.
d Engineering judgment,  assuming fugitive emissions from crucible melting furnace to be equal to
  fugitive emissions from kettle (pot) melting furnace.
       Crushing and screening operations are also sources of dust emissions.  These emissions are
composed of zinc, aluminum, copper, iron, lead, cadmium, tin, and chromium.  They can be
recovered by hooded exhausts used as capture devices and can be controlled with fabric filters.
12.14-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81
-------
        The sodium carbonate leaching process emits zinc oxide dust during the calcining operation
 (oxidizing precipitate into powder at high temperature).  This dust can be recovered in fabric filters,
 although zinc chloride in the dust may cause plugging problems.

        Emissions from refining operations are mainly metallic fumes. Distillation/oxidation
 operations emit their entire zinc oxide product in the exhaust gas.  Zinc oxide is usually recovered in
 fabric filters  with collection efficiencies of 98 to 99 percent.
 References For Section 12.14

 1.      Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

 2.      William M. Coltharp, et al., Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of The Secondary
        Nonferrous Metal Industry, Draft, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319, Radian Corporation,
        Austin, TX, June 1976.

 3.      John A. Danielson, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Edition, AP-40,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973.  Out of Print.

 4.      W. Herring, Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control Problem Definition Study (Part I),
        APTD-0706, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
        1971.

 5.      H. Nack, et al., Development Of An Approach To Identification Of Emerging Technology And
        Demonstration Opportunities, EPA-650/2-74-048, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1974.

 6.      G. L. Allen, et al., Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dusts And Fumes In Los Angeles
        County,  Report Number 7627, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, April
        1952.

 7.      Restricting Dust And Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Lead Smelters, VDI Number 2285,
        U. S. Department Of Health And Human Services, Washington, DC, September 1961.

 8.      W. F. Hammond, Data On Nonferrous Metallurgical Operations, Los Angeles  County Air
        Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, CA, November 1966.

 9.     Assessment Of Fugitive Paniculate Emission Factors For Industrial Processes,
        EPA-450/3-78-107, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        September 1978.

 10.     Source Category Survey:  Secondary Zinc Smelting And Refining Industry, EPA-450/3-80-012,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1980.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                              12.14-9
-------
 12.15 Storage Battery Production

 12.15.1  General1'2

         The battery industry is divided into 2 main sectors: starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI)
 batteries and industrial/traction batteries.  SLI batteries are primarily used in automobiles.  Industrial
 batteries include those used for uninterruptible power supply and traction batteries are used to power
 electric vehicles such as forklifts.  Lead consumption in the U. S. in 1989 was 1.28 million
 megagrams (1.41 million tons); between 75 and 80 percent of this is attributable to the manufacture of
 lead acid storage batteries.

        Lead acid storage battery plants range in production capacity from less than 500 batteries per
 day to greater than 35,000 batteries per day. Lead acid storage batteries are produced in many sizes,
 but the majority are produced for use in automobiles and fall into a  standard size range.  A standard
 automobile battery  contains an average of about 9.1 kilograms  (20 Ib) of lead, of which about half is
 present in the lead grids and connectors and half in the lead oxide paste.

 12.15.2  Process Description3'12

        Lead acid storage batteries are produced from lead alloy ingots and lead oxide.  The lead
 oxide may be prepared by the battery manufacturer, as  is the case for many larger battery
 manufacturing facilities, or may be purchased from a supplier.  (See Section 12.16, "Lead Oxide And
 Pigment Production".)

        Battery grids are manufactured by either casting or stamping operations.  In the casting
 operation, lead alloy ingots are charged to a melting pot, from  which the molten  lead flows into
 molds that form the battery grids.  The stamping operation involves cutting or stamping the battery
 grids from lead sheets.  The grids are often cast or stamped in  doublets and split apart (slitting) after
 they have been either flash dried or cured.  The pastes used to  fill the battery grids are made in batch-
 type processes.  A mixture of lead oxide powder, water, and sulfuric acid produces a positive paste,
 and the same ingredients in slightly different proportions with the addition of an expander (generally a
 mixture of barium sulfate, carbon black, and organics), make the negative paste.  Pasting machines
 then force these pastes into the interstices of the grids, which are made into plates.  At the completion
 of this process, a chemical reaction starts in the paste and the mass gradually hardens, liberating heat.
 As the setting process continues, needle-shaped crystals of lead sulfate (PbS04) form throughout the
 mass.  To provide optimum conditions for the setting process, the plates are kept at a relative
 humidity near 90 percent and a temperature near 32 °C (90°F) for about 48 hours and are then
 allowed to dry under ambient conditions.

       After the plates are cured they are sent to the 3-process operation of plate stacking, plate
 burning, and element assembly in the battery case (see Figure 12.15-1).  In this process the doublet
plates are first cut apart and depending upon whether they are dry-charged or to be wet-formed, are
stacked in an alternating positive and negative block formation, with insulators between them.  These
insulators are made of materials such as non-conductive plastic, or glass fiber.  Leads are then welded
to tabs on each positive or negative plate or in an element during the burning operation. An
alternative to this operation, and more predominantly used than the manual burning operation, is the
cast-on connection,  and positive and negative tabs are then independently welded  to produce an
element.  The elements are automatically placed  into a battery case.  A top is placed on the


 1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.15-1
-------
                                                                                    •8
                                                                                    8

                                                                                    o.

                                                                                    c


                                                                                    8
                                                                                    T3
                                                                                    O
                                                                                    .2
                                                                                    4»*
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    CJ
                                                                                    _

                                                                                    U
                                                                                    O
                                                                                    c
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    cs


                                                                                    1
                                                                                    o.
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    u.

                                                                                    OX)
                                                                                    C
                                                                                    1
12.15-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                  1/95
-------
batterycase.  The posts on the case top then are welded to 2 individual points that connect the positive
and negative plates to the positive and negative posts, respectively.

        During dry-charge formation, the battery plates are immersed in a dilute sulfuric acid
solution; the positive plates are connected to the positive pole of a direct current (DC) source and the
negative plates connected to the negative pole of the DC source.  In the wet formation process, this is
done with the plates in the battery case.  After forming, the acid may be dumped and fresh acid is
added, and a boost charge is applied to complete the battery.  In dry formation, the individual plates
may be assembled into elements first and then formed in tanks or formed as individual plates.  In this
case of formed elements, the elements are then placed in the battery cases, the positive and negative
parts of the elements are connected to the positive and negative terminals of the battery, and the
batteries are shipped dry.  Defective parts are either reclaimed at the battery plant or are sent to a
secondary lead smelter (See Section 12.11, "Secondary Lead Processing").  Lead reclamation
facilities at battery plants are generally small pot furnaces for non-oxidized lead. Approximately 1 to
4 percent of the lead processed at a typical lead acid battery plant is recycled through the reclamation
operation as paste or metal.  In recent years, however, the general trend in the lead-acid battery
manufacturing industry has been to send metals to secondary lead smelters for reclamation.

12.15.3  Emissions And Controls3-9'13'16

        Lead oxide emissions result from the discharge of air  used in the lead oxide production
process. A cyclone, classifier, and fabric filter is generally used as  part of the process/control
equipment to capture particulate emissions from lead oxide facilities. Typical air-to-cloth ratios of
fabric filters used for these facilities are in the range of 3:1.

        Lead and other particulate matter are generated  in several operations,  including grid casting,
lead reclamation, slitting, and small parts casting, and during  the 3-process operation. This
particulate is usually collected by ventilation systems and ducted  through fabric filtration systems
(baghouses) also.

        The paste mixing operation consists of 2 steps.  The first, in which dry ingredients are
charged to the mixer, can result in significant emissions of lead oxide from the mixer.  These
emissions are usually collected and ducted through a baghouse.  During the second step, when
moisture is present in the exhaust stream from acid addition, emissions from the paste mixer  are
generally collected and ducted to  either an impingement scrubber or fabric filter. Emissions from
grid casting machines and lead reclamation facilities are sometimes processed by impingement
scrubbers as well.

        Sulfuric acid mist emissions are generated during the formation step.  Acid mist emissions are
significantly higher for dry formation processes than for wet formation processes because wet
formation is conducted in battery cases, while dry formation is conducted in open tanks.  Although
wet formation process usually do not require control, emissions of sulfuric acid mist from dry
formation processes can be reduced by more than 95 percent with mist eliminators.  Surface foaming
agents are also commonly used in dry formation baths to strap process, in which molten lead  is
poured around the plate tabs to form the control acid mist emissions.

       Emission reductions of 99 percent and above can be obtained when  fabric filtration is used to
control slitting, paste mixing, and the 3-process operation.  Applications of scrubbers to paste mixing,
grid casting, and lead reclamation facilities can result in emission reductions of 85 percent or  better.
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.15-3
-------
       Tables 12.15-1 and 12.15-2 present uncontrolled emission factors for grid casting, paste
mixing, lead reclamation, dry formation, and the 3-process operation as well as a range of controlled
emission factors for lead oxide production.  The emission factors presented in the tables include lead
and its compounds, expressed as elemental lead.
          Table 12.15-1 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                             STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION4
Process
Grid casting (SCC 3-04-005-06)
Paste mixing (SCC 3-04-005-07)
Lead oxide mill (baghouse outlet)b
(SCC 3-04-005-08)
3-Process operation (SCC 3-04-005-09)
Lead reclaim furnace6 (SCC 3-04-005-10)
Dry formationd (SCC 3-04-005-12)
Small parts casting (SCC 3-04-005-11)
Total production (SCC 3-04-005-05)
Paniculate
(kg/103 batteries)
0.8 - 1.42
1.00-1.96
0.05-0.10
13.2 - 42.00
0.70 - 3.03
14.0 - 14.70
0.09
56.82 - 63.20
Lead
(kg/103 batteries)
0.35 - 0.40
0.50- 1.13
0.05
4.79 - 6.60
0.35 - 0.63
ND
0.05
6.94 - 8.00
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
NA
a References 3-10,13-16.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 7.  Emissions measured for a "state-of-the-art" facility (fabric filters with an average air-
  to-cloth ratio of 3:1) were 0.025 kg particulate/1000 batteries and 0.024 kg lead/1000 batteries.
  Factors represent emissions from a facility with typical controls (fabric filtration with an air-to-cloth
  ratio of about 4:1).  Emissions from a facility with typical controls are estimated to be about
  2-10 times higher than those from a "state-of-the-art" facility (Reference 3).
c Range due to variability of the scrap quality.
d For sulfates in aerosol form, expressed as sulfuric acid or paniculate, and not accounting for water
  and other substances which might be present.
12.15-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
          Table 12.15-2 (English Units). UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION*
Process
Grid casting (SCC 3-04-005-06)
Paste mixing (SCC 3-04-005-07)
Lead oxide mill (baghouse outlet)b
(SCC 3-04-005-08)
3-Process operation (SCC 3-04-005-09)
Lead reclaim furnace0 (SCC 3-04-005-10)
Dry formation*1 (SCC 3-04-005-12)
Small parts casting (SCC 3-04-005-11)
Total production (SCC 3-04-005-05)
Paniculate
Ob/103 batteries)
1.8-3.13
2.20 - 4.32
0.11 -0.24
29.2 - 92.60
1.54-6.68
32.1 -32.40
0.19
125.00 - 139.00
Lead
Ob/103 batteries)
0.77 - 0.90
1.10-2.49
0.11 -0.12
10.60 - 14.60
0.77- 1.38
ND
0.10
15.30 - 17.70
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
NA
a References 3-10, 13-16.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
  NA =  not applicable.
b Reference 7.  Emissions measured for a "state-of-the-art" facility (fabric filters with an average air-
  to-cloth ratio of 3:1) were 0.055 Ib paniculate/1000 batteries and 0.053 Ib lead/1000 batteries.
  Factors represent emissions from a facility with typical controls (fabric filtration with an air-to-cloth
  ratio of about 4:1). Emissions from a facility with typical controls are estimated to be about
  2-10 times higher than those from a "state-of-the-art"  facility (Reference 3).
c Range due to variability of the scrap quality.
d For sulfates in aerosol form, expressed as sulfuric acid, and not accounting for water and other
  substances which might be present.


References For Section 12.15

1.     William D. Woodbury, Lead.  New Publications—Bureau Of Mines, Mineral Commodity
       Summaries, 1992., U. S. Bureau of Mines,  1991.

2.     Metals And Minerals, Minerals Yearbook, Volume 1.  U. S. Department Of The Interior,
       Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

3.     Lead Acid Battery Manufacture—Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA 450/3-79-028a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 1979.

4.     Source Test, EPA-74-BAT-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, March 1974.

5.     Source Testing Of A Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plant—Globe-Union, Inc., Canby, OR,
       EPA-76-BAT-4,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC, 1976.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.15-5
-------
6.     R. C. Fulton and C. W. Zolna, Report Of Efficiency Testing Performed April 30, 1976, On
       American Air Filter Roto-clone, General Battery Corporation, Hamburg, PA, Sports, Stevens,
       And McCoy, Inc., Wyomissing, PA, June 1,  1976.

7.     Source Testing At A Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Company—ESB, Canada, Ltd.,
       Mississauga, Ontario, EPA-76-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park,  NC, 1976.

8.     Emissions Study At A Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Company—ESB, Inc., Buffalo, NY,
       EPA-76-BAT-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       1976.

9.     Test Report—Sulfuric Acid Emissions From ESB Battery Plant Forming Room, Allentown, PA,
       EPA-77-BAT-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977.

10.    PM-10 Emission Factor Listing Developed By Technology Transfer And AIRS Source
       Classification Codes, EPA-450/4-89-022,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, November  1989.

11.    (VOC/PM) Speciation Data Base, EPA Contract No. 68-02-4286. Radian Corporation,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1990.

12.    Harvey E. Brown, Lead Oxide: Properties And Applications, International Lead Zinc
       Research Organization, Inc.,  New York, 1985.

13.    Screening Study To Develop Information And Determine The Significance Of Emissions From
       The Lead—Acid Battery Industry.  Vulcan - Cincinnati Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-02-0299,
       Cincinnati, OH, December 4, 1972.

14.    Confidential data from a major  battery manufacturer, July 1973.

15.    Paniculate And Lead Emission Measurement From Lead Oxide Plants, EPA  Contract
       No. 68-02-0266, Monsanto Research Corp, Dayton, OH, August 1973.

16.    Background Information In Support Of The Development Of Performance Standards For The
       Lead Acid Battery Industry: Interim Report No. 2, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2085, PEDCo
       Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, December 1975.
 12.15-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
 12.16 Lead Oxide And Pigment Production

 12.16.1  General1'2'7

        Lead oxide is a general term and can be either lead monoxide or "litharge" (PbO); lead
 tetroxide or "red lead" (P\)3O^); or black or "gray" oxide which is a mixture of 70 percent lead
 monoxide and 30 percent metallic lead.  Black lead is made for specific use in the manufacture of
 lead acid storage batteries. Because of the size of the lead acid battery industry, lead monoxide is the
 most important commercial compound of lead, based on volume. Total oxide production in 1989 was
 57,984 megagrams (64,000 tons).

        Litharge is used primarily in the manufacture of various ceramic products.  Because of its
 electrical and electronic properties, litharge is also used in capacitors, Vidicon® tubes, and
 electrophotographic plates, as well as in ferromagnetic and ferroelectric materials.  It is also used as
 an activator in rubber, a curing agent in elastomers, a sulfur removal agent hi the production of
 thioles and in oil refining, and an oxidation catalyst hi several organic chemical processes.  It also has
 important markets in the production of many lead chemicals, dry colors, soaps (i. e., lead stearate),
 and driers for paint.  Another important use of litharge is the production of lead salts, particularly
 those used as stabilizers for plastics, notably polyvinyl chloride materials.

       The major lead pigment is red lead (Pb3O4), which is used principally hi ferrous metal
 protective paints.  Other lead pigments include white lead and lead chromates.  There are several
 commercial varieties of white lead including leaded zinc  oxide, basic carbonate white lead, basic
 sulfate white lead, and basic lead silicates.  Of these, the most important is leaded zinc oxide, which
 is used almost entirely as white pigment for exterior oil-based paints.

 12.16.2  Process Description8

       Black oxide is usually produced by a Barton Pot  process. Basic carbonate white lead
 production is based on the reaction of litharge with acetic acid or acetate ions.  This product, when
 reacted with carbon dioxide, will form lead carbonate. White leads (other than carbonates) are made
 either by chemical, fuming, or mechanical blending processes.  Red lead is produced by oxidizing
 litharge in a reverberatory furnace. Chromate pigments are generally manufactured by precipitation
 or calcination as in the following equation:

                         Pb(N03)2  + Na2(CrO4) •* PbCrO4 + 2 NaNO3                      (1)

       Commercial lead oxides can all be prepared by wet chemical methods.  With the exception of
 lead dioxide, lead oxides are produced by thermal processes in which lead is directly oxidized with
 air.  The processes may be classified according to the temperature of the reaction:  (1) low
temperature,  below the melting point of lead; (2) moderate temperature, between the melting points  of
lead and lead monoxide; and (3) high temperature, above the melting point of lead monoxide.

 12.16.2.1 Low Temperature Oxidation-
       Low temperature oxidation of lead is accomplished by tumbling slugs of metallic lead hi a ball
mill  equipped with an air flow.  The air flow provides oxygen and is used as a coolant.  If some form
of cooling were not supplied, the heat generated by the oxidation of the lead plus the mechanical heat
of the tumbling charge would raise the charge temperature above the melting point of lead.  The ball
mill product is a "leady" oxide with 20 to 50 percent free lead.

 1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.16-1
-------
12.16.2.2  Moderate Temperature Oxidation -
        Three processes are used commercially in the moderate temperature range:  (1) refractory
furnace, (2) rotary tube furnace, and (3) the Barton Pot process. In the refractory furnace process, a
cast steel pan is equipped with a rotating vertical shaft and a horizontal crossarm mounted with plows.
The plows move the charge continuously to expose fresh surfaces for oxidation.  The charge is heated
by a gas flame on its surface.  Oxidation of the charge supplies much of the reactive heat as the
reaction progresses.  A variety of products can be manufactured from pig lead feed by varying the
feed temperature, and time of furnacing.  Yellow litharge (orthorhombic) can be made by cooking for
several hours at 600 to 700°C (1112 to 1292°F) but may contain traces of red lead and/or free
metallic lead.

        In the rotary tube furnace process, molten lead is introduced into the upper end of a
refractory-lined inclined rotating tube.  An oxidizing flame in the lower end maintains the desired
temperature of reaction.  The tube is long enough so that the charge is  completely oxidized when it
emerges from the lower end. This type of furnace has been used commonly to produce lead
monoxide (tetragonal type), but it is not unusual for the final product to contain traces of both free
metallic and red lead.

        The Barton Pot process (Figure 12.16-1) uses a cast iron pot with an upper and lower stirrer
rotating at different speeds.  Molten lead is fed through a port in the cover  into the pot, where it is
broken up into droplets by high-speed blades. Heat is supplied initially to develop an operating
temperature from 370 to  480°C (698 to 896°F).  The exothermic heat from the resulting oxidation of
the droplets is usually sufficient to maintain the desired temperature. The oxidized product is swept
out of the pot by an air stream.

        The operation is controlled by adjusting the rate of molten lead feed, the speed of the stirrers,
the temperature of the system, and the rate of air flow through the pot.  The Barton Pot produces
either litharge or leady litharge (litharge with 50 percent free lead).  Since it operates at a higher
temperature than a ball mill unit, the oxide portion will usually contain some orthorhombic litharge.
It may also be operated to obtain almost entirely orthorhombic product.

12.16.2.3 High Temperature Oxidation -
        High temperature oxidation is a fume-type process.  A very fine particle, high-purity
orthorhombic litharge is made by burning a fine stream of molten lead  in a special blast-type burner.
The flame temperature is around  1200°C (2192°F).  The fume is swept out of the chamber by an air
stream,  cooled hi a series of "goosenecks" and collected hi a baghouse.  The median particle diameter
is from 0.50 to 1.0 micrometers,  as compared with 3.0 to 16.0 micrometers for lead monoxide
manufactured by other methods.

12.16.3  Emissions And  Controls3^-6

        Emission factors  for lead oxide and pigment production processes are given in Tables 12.16-1
and 12.16-2. The emission factors were assigned an E rating because of high variabilities in test run
results and nonisokinetic sampling.  Also, since storage battery production  facilities produce lead
oxide using the Barton Pot process,  a comparison of the lead emission factors from both industries
has been performed. The lead oxide emission factors from the battery plants were found to be
considerably lower than the emission factors from the lead oxide and pigment industry.  Since lead
battery production plants are covered under federal regulations, one would  expect lower emissions
from these sources.
12.16-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
      LEAD
      FEED
                                                  GAS
                                                 STREAM
                                                  EXIT
      AIR
BARTON \
POT
(SCC3-01 -036-06)
v_y
LEAD OXIDE
LEAD
SEIILING
CHAMBER
1
'
f\ GAS STREAM

BAGHOUSE
>

                                                                CONVEYER
                                                                (PRODUCT TO STORAGE)
                                                                (SCC 3-01-035-54)
                          Figure 12.16-1.  Lead oxide Barton Pot process.
                            (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)


        Automatic shaker-type fabric filters, often preceded by cyclone mechanical collectors or
settling chambers, are the common choice for collecting lead oxides and pigments.  Control
efficiencies of 99 percent are achieved with these control device combinations. Where fabric filters
are not appropriate, scrubbers may be used to achieve control efficiencies from 70 to 95 percent.  The
ball mill and Barton Pot processes of black oxide manufacturing recover the lead product by these
2 means.  Collection of dust and fumes from the production of red lead is likewise an economic
necessity, since paniculate emissions, although small,  are about 90 percent lead.  Emissions data from
the production  of white lead pigments  are not available, but they have been estimated because of
health and safety regulations.  The emissions from dryer exhaust scrubbers account for over
50 percent of the total lead emitted in lead chromate production.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
                                                                                         12.16-3
-------
     Table 12.16-1 (Metric Units).  CONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM LEAD OXIDE AND
                               PIGMENT PRODUCTION*
Process
Lead Oxide Production
Barton Pot15
(SCC 3-01-035-06)
Calcining
(SCC 3-01-035-07)
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Pigment Production
Redleadb
(SCC 3-01-035-10)
White leadb
(SCC 3-01-035-15)
Chrome pigments
(SCC 3-01-035-20)
Paniculate
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.21 - 0.43 E
7.13 E
0.032 E
0.5C B
ND NA
ND NA
Lead
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.22 E
7.00 E
0.024 E
0.50 B
0.28 B
0.065 B
References

4,6
6
6
4,5
4,5
4,5
a Factors are for kg/Mg of product.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.  NA = not
  applicable.
b Measured at baghouse outlet.  Baghouse is considered process equipment.
c Only PbO and oxygen are used in red lead production, so paniculate emissions are assumed to be
  about 90% lead.
 12.16-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                  1/95
-------
     Table 12.16-2 (English Units).  CONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM LEAD OXIDE AND
                                PIGMENT PRODUCTION8
Process
Lead Oxide Production
Barton Potb
(SCC 3-01-035-06)
Calcining
(SCC 3-01-035-07)
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Pigment Production
Red leadb
(SCC 3-01-035-10)
White leadb
(SCC 3-01-035-15)
Chrome pigments
(SCC 3-01-035-20)
Paniculate
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.43 - 0.85 E
14.27 E
0.064 E

1.0C B
ND NA
ND NA
Lead
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.44 E
14.00 E
0.05 E

0.90 B
0.55 B
0.13 B
References

4,6
6
6

4,5
4,5
4,5
a Factors are for Ib/ton of product.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
  NA = not applicable.
b Measured at baghouse outlet. Baghouse is considered process equipment.
c Only PbO and oxygen are used in red lead production, so particulate emissions are assumed to be
  about 90% lead.
References For Section 12.16

1.     E. J. Ritchie, Lead Oxides, Independent Battery Manufacturers Association, Inc., Largo, FL,
       1974.

2.     W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-0271, W. E. Davis And Associates, Leawood, KS, April  1973.

3.     Background Information In Support Of The Development Of Performance Standards For The
       Lead Additive Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2085, PEDCo Environmental Specialists,
       Inc., Cincinnati, OH, January  1976.

4.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012A. U. S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

5.     R. P. Betz, et al, Economics Of Lead Removal In Selected Industries, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0299, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus OH, December 1972.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.16-5
-------
6.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Contract No. 74-PB-O-l, Task No. 10, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, August 1973.

7.     Mineral Yearbook, Volume 1:  Metals And Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of
       The Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.

8.     Harvey E. Brown, Lead Oxide: Properties And Applications, International Lead Zinc
       Research Organization,  Inc., New York, NY, 1985.
 12.16-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95
-------
12.17 Miscellaneous Lead Products

12.17.1  General1

        In 1989 the following categories (in decreasing order of lead usage) were significant in the
miscellaneous lead products group: ammunition, cable covering, solder, and type metal.  However,
in 1992, U. S. can manufacturers no longer use lead solder.  Therefore, solder will not be included as
a miscellaneous lead product in this section.  Lead used in ammunition (bullets and shot) and for shot
used at nuclear facilities in 1989 was 62,940 megagrams (Mg) (69,470 tons).  The use of lead sheet
in construction and lead cable sheathing in communications also increased to a combined total of
43,592 Mg (48,115 tons).

12.17.2 Process  Description

12.17.2.1  Ammunition And Metallic Lead Products8 -
        Lead is consumed in the manufacture of ammunition, bearing metals, and other lead products,
with subsequent lead emissions.  Lead used  in the manufacture of ammunition is melted and alloyed
before it is cast, sheared, extruded, swaged, or mechanically  worked. Some lead is also reacted to
form lead azide, a detonating agent.  Lead is used in bearing  manufacture by alloying it with copper,
bronze, antimony, and tin, although lead usage in this category is relatively small.

        Other lead products include terne metal (a plating alloy), weights and ballasts, caulking lead,
plumbing supplies, roofing materials, casting metal  foil, collapsible metal tubes, and sheet lead.  Lead
is also used for galvanizing, annealing, and plating.  In all of these cases lead  is usually melted and
cast prior to mechanical forming operations.

12.17.2.2  Cable Covering8'11 -
        About 90 percent of the lead cable covering produced in the United States is lead-cured
jacketed cables, the remaining 10 percent being lead sheathed cables.  The manufacture of cured
jacketed cables involves a stripping/remelt operation as an unalloyed lead cover that is applied in the
vulcanizing treatment during the manufacture of rubber-insulated cable must be stripped from the
cable and remelted.

        Lead coverings  are applied to insulated cable by hydraulic extrusion of solid lead around  the
cable. Extrusion rates of typical presses average 1360 to 6800 Mg/hr (3,000 to 15,000 Ib/hr).  The
molten lead is continuously fed into the extruder or screw press, where it solidifies as it progresses.
A melting kettle supplies lead to the press.

12.17.2.3  Type Metal Production8 -
        Lead type, used primarily in the letterpress segment of the printing industry, is cast from a
molten lead alloy and remelted after use. Linotype  and monotype processes produce a mold, while
the stereotype process produces a plate for printing.  All type is an alloy consisting of 60 to
85 percent recovered lead, with antimony, tin, and a small amount of virgin metal.

12.17.3  Emissions  And Controls

        Tables 12.17-1 and 12.17-2 present emission factors for miscellaneous lead products.
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.17-1
-------
    Table 12.17-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES"
Process
Type Metal
Production
(SCC 3-60-001-01)
Cable Covering
(SCC 3-04-040-01)
Metallic Lead
Products:
Ammunition
(SCC 3-04-051-01)
Bearing Metals
(SCC 3-04-051-02)
Other Sources of Lead
(SCC 3-04-051-03)
Paniculate
0.4b

0.3C


ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

C


NA
NA
NA

Lead
0.13

0.25


< 0.5
Negligible
0.8

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

C


C
NA
C

Reference
2,7

3,5,7


3,7
3,7
3,7

a Factors are expressed as kg/Mg lead (Pb) processed. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Calculated on the basis of 35% of the total (Reference 2). SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References, p. 4-301.
    Table 12.17-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES8
Process
Type Metal Production
Cable Covering
(SCC 3-04-040-01)
Metallic Lead Products:
Ammunition
(SCC 3-04-051-01)
Bearing Metals
(SCC 3-04-051-02)
Other Sources of Lead
(SCC 3-04-051-03)
Particulate
0.7 b
0.6 c

ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C

NA
NA
NA
Lead
0.25
0.5

1.0
Negligible
1.5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C

C
NA
C
Reference
2,7
3,5,7

3,7
3,7
3,7
a Factors are expressed as Ib/ton lead (Pb) processed.  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Calculated on the basis of 35% of the total (Reference 2).  SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 8,  p. 4-301.


12.17.3.1  Ammunition  And Metallic Lead Products8 -
       Little or no air pollution control equipment is currently used by manufacturers of metallic lead
products.  Emissions from bearing manufacture are negligible, even without controls.
 12.17-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
12.17.3.2  Cable Covering8'11 -
       The melting kettle is the only source of atmospheric lead emissions and is generally
uncontrolled.  Average particle size is approximately 5 micrometers, with a lead content of about
70 to 80 percent.

       Cable covering processes do not usually include paniculate collection devices.  However,
fabric filters, rotoclone wet collectors, and dry cyclone collectors can reduce lead emissions at control
efficiencies of 99.9 percent, 75 to 85 percent, and greater than 45 percent, respectively. Lowering
and controlling the melt temperature, enclosing the melting unit and using fluxes to provide a cover
on the melt can also minimize emissions.

12.17.3.3  Type Metal Production2'3 -
       The melting pot is again the major source of emissions,  containing hydrocarbons as well as
lead particulates.  Pouring the molten metal into the molds involves surface oxidation of the metal,
possibly  producing oxidized fumes, while the trimming and finishing operations emit lead particles.
It is estimated that 35 percent of the total emitted particulate is lead.

       Approximately half of the current lead type operations control lead emissions, by
approximately 80 percent. The other operations are uncontrolled.  The most frequently controlled
sources are the main melting pots and dressing areas. Linotype equipment does not require controls
when operated properly.  Devices in current use on monotype and stereotype lines include rotoclones,
wet scrubbers, fabric filters, and electrostatic precipitators, all of which  can be used in various
combinations.

       Additionally, the VOC/PM Speciation Data Base has  identified phosphorus, chlorine,
chromium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, arsenic, selenium, cadmium,  antimony, mercury, and lead as
occurring in emissions from type metal production and lead cable coating operations. All  of these
metals/chemicals  are listed in CAA  Title III as being hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and  should be
the subject of air emissions testing by industry sources.

References For Section 12.17

1.     Minerals  Yearbook, Volume 1.  Metals And Minerals, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
       Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

2.     N. J. Kulujian, Inspection Manual For The Enforcement Of New Source Performance
       Standards:  Portland Cement Plants, EPA Contract No.  68-02-1355, PEDCo-Environmental
       Specialists, Inc.,  Cincinnati, OH, January 1975.

3.     Atmospheric Emissions From Lead Typesetting Operation Screening Study, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2085,  PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, January 1976.

4.     W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-0271, W. E. Davis Associates, Leawood, KS, April  1973.

5.     R. P. Betz, et al., Economics Of Lead Removal In Selected Industries, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0611,  Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH, August  1973.

6.     E. P. Shea, Emissions From Cable Covering Facility, EPA Contract No.  68-02-0228.
       Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO, June 1973.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.17-3
-------
7.     Mineral Industry Surveys: Lead Industry In May 1976, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
       Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC, August 1976.

8.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012A, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

9.     Test Nos. 71-MM-01, 02, 03, 05.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC.

10.    Personal Communication with William Woodbury, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau
       Of Mines, February 1992.

11.    Air Pollution Emission Test, General Electric Company, Wire And Cable Department,
       Report No. 73-CCC-l.

12.    Personal communication with R. M. Rivetna, Director, Environmental Engineering, American
       National Can Co., April 1992.
 12.17-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
 12.18 Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding

 12.18.1  General1

        Leadbearing ore is mined from underground or open pit mines.  After extraction, the ore is
 processed by crushing, screening, and milling.  Domestic lead mine production for 1991 totaled
 480,000 megagrams (Mg) (530,000 tons) of lead in ore concentrates, a decrease of some 15,000 Mg
 (16,500 tons) from 1990 production.

        Except for mines in Missouri, lead ore is closely interrelated with zinc and silver.  Lead ores
 from Missouri  mines are primarily associated with zinc and copper.  Average grades of metal from
 Missouri mines have been reported as high as  12.2 percent lead, 1 percent zinc, and 0.6 percent
 copper.  Due to ore body formations, lead and zinc ores are normally deep-mined  (underground),
 whereas copper ores are mined hi open pits. Lead, zinc, copper,  and silver are usually found
 together (in varying percentages) in combination with sulfur and/or oxygen.

 12.18.2  Process Description2-5"7

        In underground mines the ore is disintegrated by percussive drilling machines,  processed
 through a primary crusher, and then conveyed to the surface.  In open pit mines, ore and gangue  are
 loosened and pulverized by explosives, scooped up by mechanical equipment, and transported to the
 concentrator.  A trend toward increased mechanical excavation as a substitute for standard cyclic mine
 development, such as drill-and-blast and surface shovel-and-truck  routines has surfaced as an element
 common to most metal mine cost-lowering techniques.

        Standard  crushers, screens, and rod and ball mills classify and reduce the ore to powders  in
 the 65 to 325 mesh range. The finely divided particles are separated from the gangue and are
 concentrated in a liquid medium by gravity and/or selective flotation, then cleaned, thickened,  and
 filtered.  The concentrate is dried prior to shipment to the smelter.

 12.18.3  Emissions And Controls2"4-8

        Lead emissions are largely fugitive and are caused by drilling, loading,  conveying,  screening,
 unloading, crushing, and grinding.  The primary means of control are good mining techniques and
 equipment maintenance. These practices include enclosing the truck loading operation, wetting or
 covering truck loads and stored concentrates, paving the road  from mine to concentrator, sprinkling
 the unloading area, and preventing leaks in the crushing and grinding enclosures.  Cyclones and
 fabric filters can be used in the milling operations.

       Paniculate and lead emission factors for lead ore crushing and materials handling operations
 are given in Tables 12.18-1 and  12.18-2.
7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.18-1
-------
  Table 12.18-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORE CRUSHING AND GRINDING
Type Of Ore And
Lead Content
(wt %)
Lead0 5.1
(SCC 3-03-031-01)
Zincd 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-02)
Copper6 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-03)
Lead-Zincf 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-04)
Copper-Lead^ 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-05)
Copper-Zinch 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-06)
Copper-Lead-Zinc1 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-07)
Particulate
Emission
Factor3
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Lead
Emission
Factorb
0.15
0.006
0.006
0.06
0.06
0.006
0.06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
a Reference 2.  Units are expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg ore processed. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b Reference 2,3,5,7.
c Refer to Section 12,6.
d Characteristic of some mines in Colorado.
e Characteristic of some mines in Alaska, Idaho, and New York.
f Characteristic of Arizona mines.
g Characteristic of some mines in Missouri, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana.
h Characteristic of some mines in Missouri.
1 Does not appear in ore characterization of the top 25 domestic lead producing mines.
12.18-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/79
-------
  Table 12.18-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORE CRUSHING AND GRINDING
Type Of Ore And
Lead Content
(wt %)
Leadc 5.1
(SCC 3-03-031-01)
Zincd 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-02)
Copper6 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-03)
Lead-Zincf 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-04)
Copper-Lead8 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-05)
Copper-Zinch 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-06)
Copper-Lead-Zinc1 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-07)
Paniculate
Emission
Factor8
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.0
6.4
6.4
6.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Lead
Emission
Factor15
0.30
0.012
0.012
0.12
0.12
0.012
0.12
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
a Reference 2.  Units are expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton ore processed.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b Reference 2,3,5,7.
c Refer to Section 12.6.
d Characteristic of some mines in Colorado.
e Characteristic of some mines in Alaska, Idaho, and New York.
f Characteristic of Arizona mines.
s Characteristic of some mines in Missouri, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana.
h Characteristic of some mines in Missouri.
1 Does not appear in ore characterization of the top 25 domestic lead producing mines.
7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.18-3
-------
References For Section 12.18

1.     Mineral Commodity Summary 1992, U. S. Department Of Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

2.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012A, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

3.     W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-0271, W. E. Davis And Associates, Leawood, KS, April  1973.

4.     B. G. Wixson and J. C. Jennett, The New Lead Belt In The Forested Ozarks Of Missouri,
       Environmental Science And Technology, 9(13): 1128-1133, December 1975.

5.     W. D. Woodbury, "Lead", Minerals Yearbook, Volume 1. Metals And Minerals,
       U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines,  1989.

6.     Environmental Assessment Of The Domestic Primary Copper, Lead, And Zinc  Industry,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
       September 1976.

7.     A. 0. Tanner, "Mining And Quarrying Trends In The Metals And Industrial Minerals
       Industries", Minerals Yearbook, Volume 1. Metals And Minerals, U.S. Department Of The
       Interior, Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

8.     VOC/PM Speciation Data System, Radian Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-4286,
       November 1990.
 12.18-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/79
-------
 12.19 Electric Arc Welding

        NOTE: Because of the many Source Classification Codes (SCCs) associated with electric arc
 welding, the text of this Section will give only the first 3 of the 4 SCC number fields.  The last field
 of each applicable SCC will be found in Tables 12.19-1 and 12.19-2 below.
 12.19.1  Process Description1"2

        Welding is the process by which 2 metal parts are joined by melting the parts at the points of
 contact and simultaneously forming a connection with molten metal from these same parts or from a
 consumable electrode. In welding, the most frequently used methods for generating heat  employ
 either an electric arc or a gas-oxygen flame.

        There are more than 80 different types of welding operations in commercial use.  These
 operations include not only  arc and oxyfuel welding, but also brazing, soldering, thermal  cutting,  and
 gauging operations. Figure 12.19-1 is a diagram of the major types of welding and related processes,
 showing their relationship to one another.

        Of the various processes illustrated in Figure 12.19-1, electric arc welding is by far the most
 often found. It  is also the process that has the greatest emission potential.  Although the national
 distribution of arc welding processes by frequency of use is not now known, the percentage of
 electrodes consumed in 1991,  by process type, was as follows:

        Shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) - 45 percent
        Gas metal arc welding (GMAW) - 34 percent
        Flux cored arc welding (FCAW) - 17 percent
        Submerged arc welding (SAW) - 4 percent

 12.19.1.1  Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW)3 -
        SMAW  uses heat produced by an electric arc to melt a covered electrode and the welding
joint at the base metal.  During operation, the rod core both conducts electric current to produce the
 arc and provides filler metal for the joint. The core of the covered electrode consists of either a solid
 metal rod of drawn or cast material or a solid metal rod fabricated by encasing metal powders in a
 metallic sheath.  The electrode covering provides  stability to the arc and  protects the molten metal by
 creating shielding  gases by vaporization of the cover.

 12.19.1.2  Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW)3 -
        GMAW is a consumable electrode welding process that produces an arc between the pool of
weld and a continuously  supplied filler metal.  An externally supplied gas is used to shield the arc.

 12.19.1.3 Flux  Cored Arc Welding (FCAW)3 -
       FCAW is a consumable electrode welding process that uses the heat generated by  an arc
between the continuous filler metal electrode and the weld pool to bond the metals.  Shielding gas  is
provided from flux contained in the tubular electrode. This flux cored electrode consists of a metal
sheath surrounding a core of various powdered materials.  During the welding process, the electrode
core material produces a slag cover on the face of the weld bead. The welding pool can be protected
from the atmosphere either by self-shielded vaporization of the flux core  or with a separately supplied
shielding gas.


1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.19-1
-------
                                                                                  0>
                                                                                  a,

                                                                                  c
                                                                                  
-------
 12.19.1.4  Submerged Arc Welding (SAW)4 -
        SAW produces an arc between a bare metal electrode and the work contained in a blanket of
 granular fusible flux.  The flux submerges the arc and welding pool.  The electrode generally serves
 as the filler material.  The quality of the weld depends on the handling and care of the flux.  The
 SAW process is limited to the downward and horizontal positions, but it has an extremely low fume
 formation rate.

 12.19.2  Emissions And Controls4"8

 12.19.2.1  Emissions  -
        Particulate matter  and particulate-phase hazardous air pollutants are the major concerns in the
 welding processes.  Only electric arc welding generates these pollutants in substantial quantities.  The
 lower operating temperatures of the other welding processes cause fewer fumes to be released. Most
 of the paniculate matter produced by welding is submicron  in size and, as such, is considered to be
 all PM-10 (5. e., particles  < 10 micrometers  in aerodynamic diameter).

        The elemental composition of the fume varies with the electrode type and with the workpiece
 composition. Hazardous metals designated in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that have been
 recorded in welding fume  include manganese  (Mg), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), and lead
 (Pb).

        Gas phase pollutants are also  generated during welding operations, but little information is
 available on these pollutants.  Known gaseous pollutants (including "greenhouse" gases) include
 carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and ozone (O3).

        Table 12.19-1 presents PM-10 emission  factors from SMAW, GMAW, FCAW, and SAW
 processes, for commonly used  electrode types. Table 12.19-2 presents similar factors for hazardous
 metal emissions. Actual emissions will depend not only on  the process and  the electrode type, but
 also on the base metal material, voltage, current, arc length, shielding gas, travel speed, and  welding
 electrode angle.

 12.19.2.2 Controls-
       The best way to control welding fumes is to choose  the proper process and operating variables
for the given task.   Also, capture and collection  systems may be used to contain the fume at the
source and to remove  the fume with a collector.   Capture systems may be welding booths, hoods,
torch fume extractors, flexible  ducts,  and portable ducts.  Collection systems may  be high efficiency
filters, electrostatic  precipitators, paniculate scrubbers, and  activated carbon filters.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.19-3
-------
Z
o
H

i
g
N-H
3
2
on

g
o

 I


a.


 ca
•4-*

'S
            w
2   -^
O    TJ
a!    3
tt. „ g



If 1

.§23
       131
       3  OS 5
                                                             0 < Q Q O  U U
                                                                               o\ o
                                                                               n" c4
•a
ts


 CD


1
H
            U
            v>
          " n

         ?!
                                                                      X_^ >j^ N^

                                                                      O VO O
                                                                      tN t- tX5
                                                     i_ —i *^  3
                 O 00 O '-O O
                                                                    •Tt

                                                                    Wl
                                                                        p p
                                                                        Z Z
                        n
§ ,3 «  .. .
en t=- a! os os a:
UJ UJ U4 Uj PJ UJ W
     Ml
     ^

     i
                 s
                 0
                                                                      o
                                                                   0
 12.19-4
                                EMISSION FACTORS
                             1/95
-------
O
es
•S
u^^
4> ^"^ "O
H!
ra
        8.0
        •§«
        is ts
        o ^^
        U t5
        53,3
Welding Proce
             Q Q U 03 00 03
                           U
            oo o «H >n «
            ^3 r** o* oo v%
            ts wi     •"
         p
         o
            S   ± 83 8
       >O
       o
O
r-)
     !a^
~>/Y    o"
 >n    —
            o o oo \o H H   2
            rt ^ O •-« p r-1  . "S
            ^^ ^^ en en
                W
              s
              5-
                           bp  o

                           1   VI
                                •8
                                 w
                                 8
                                 S
                                      «
                                     S
                                      13
                                     S
                                     £
                                      o

                                     1

                                o
                                   1~*
                                 . ^ V-

                          II!
                                                                                 1
                                                                            H
                                                                            °



                           je        > > > >
                           WO—   ^tSfS
                          — . on   f> r^   r-
                                                                     W W W UJ   W
                                                                     C/2 CO C/3 C/3 r)^ CA
                                                                     CO 
-------
        on E- S
        to o H
                                                                            U < Q  Q  Q PP U
z
o


1
OH
O
u

1
g
UH
CO
c*
O
u-



1
to
CO
<
DC
rs

l
OH
 CO
 D
 O
 Q
 N
 o\


 cs
          a>
         w
o


o




"5«

o



I

tu
 V3

's
u

Cu
          Q Q Q ^  Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q  Q  Q Q Q Q Q Q Q     QQQQQQQ

          ^" *7 *7  	•  *JF *7 *J? *7 *7 *7 *7 *7   *  *7 *7 *7 *7 *7 *7 *7     *7 *!7 *7  *7  *7 *7 *7"
          *-* £-* F-4 t^^  ^-« ^-» *-< ^-< ^-* ^-< ^-t .<-»  ^^  »^ ^H 4-4 ^-i X-( 4-4 F-I     4-4 4-4 4-4  4*4  4-> 4-* 4-4
          — «    •«*• os  «o — o o    o
                                         fS
                                         o
                                            z  z    z    z
                                                                            •i  in  in

                                                                            ~ o" Q Q  ri  n
                       O
                       U
                                                                                9
                                                                                O\

                                                                             •>  9
                                                                                      a
                                                                                         U
 12.19-6
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                        1/95
-------
 8
CS
 >c
c
1 «
t> "
a|














* O
3z
* 3
U »



£






z



c
s







a



>
u




o



2
50
M U
§£
-0
3
»


en
C/3
CD
O
8
0.
60
.s
2
13
^



Q




Q
Z






*•?



cs
d
cs






Q
Z



Q
Z




S
d



^
I


o
5








o
£
>r^
u
b


U




Q
Z






o



s
r~







Q
Z



Q
Z




VO
ON



N
oo
O

OO
o
5




MP.
C>
g
^p
CO
U
U
00



g«




Q Q
Z Z






Q o
Z


o
ON
Q ««'
Z






Q Q
Z Z



Q -
Z




0
Q °^
Z


C8
CO
CS O
1 1


OO VO
O — t















CQ




Q
Z






d



5?
OO







Q
Z



Q




S
d



J3
ja
IT)


O
r-
W















09




Q






d



S
vd







o
V



Q
Z




cs
o
d



o
m
UJl


r-















i




Q
Z






Q



Q
Z







Q
Z



Q
Z




Q
Z




2

^
cs
U




_^

S
^^
CO
js U
^ U
< ^2-
on




. »s
f5
hM
is
^
o
c^
1

o
o
X


<
u.
60
C
•3
•"•^
^
^
0
CS
1



GMAW

&B
^

2
*H3
o
C3
— i
4— •
E
•8
2
•J

^
*5
on


OO
Ji
a>
0
CU

'-*-
(2

«s




















^
CS
CS
T3
O

II
Q
Z
•S
0
U
o
^
o
S
'en
en
cs
0

1
3

II
j>
|*jl
on



ii
1
O
U



E
'E
8
J=
o
II

«
^
1^
u

•

romiu
o
II
IM
U
•8
^
en
C
O
O
1>
T3
0
1-1
CJ
rtl

"a>
'•4-
0
en
3
'£
Ui

+->
c
CT3
*->
"o
fj
o
en
CS
^

13
^
S
'•3
e

T3
§
CQ
.£
g
a.
o
H— 4
VI
»5
D
c
c«
a
(U
c
CS
«D
N
• ^H

O
1

a,

.!!.<
!Zi ^^
. ^
tU o

^s.1
60 —
i n

c
II   CD >-^  X>
                   T3 T3  -O rV -O
                   ^3 _3  _3 t-  3

                   "o "o  13 S "o
                   £ £  £ u  e

                      ca  jo      o
                   N  CS  JO      O
                                                                  •= CS CO
                                                               W)
                                                               ca
                                                                  *- 1  . f
                                                                  c  <•
                                                                  -. 3  =J  "
                U H  U U £
CO CO CO  Tf f—5

W W U  W oo

c«  eo  en  en en
CD  CD  O  CO CO
•a -a -a  -a -a
33333
                                                                                                        Z^"*' ^^ ^ j
                                                                                                        CO f- 05

                                                                                                     U W U !-U
O
ON

 en  en  en  en
 cu  d)  CD  cu
T3 T3 13  T3
 3333
                                                                               O  O O  O  O
                                                                               c  c c  c  c
                o  o  o  o  o o
                C  C  C  C  C C
                                                                 O
                                                                        e*  .c
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
                             12.19-1
-------
References For Section 12.19

1.     Telephone conversation between Rosalie Brosilow, Welding Design And Fabrication
       Magazine, Penton Publishing, Cleveland, OH, and Lance Henning, Midwest Research
       Institute, Kansas City, MO, October 16, 1992.

2.     Census Of Manufactures, Industry Series, U. S. Department Of Commerce,  Bureau Of
       Census, Washington, DC, March 1990.

3.     Welding Handbook,  Welding Processes, Volume 2, Eighth Edition, American Welding
       Society, Miami, FL, 1991.

4.     K. Houghton and P. Kuebler, "Consider A Low Fume Process For Higher Productivity",
       Presented at the Joint Australasian Welding And Testing Conference, Australian Welding
       Institute And Australian Institute For Nondestructive Testing, Perth, Australia,  1984.

5.     Criteria For A Recommended Standard Welding, Brazing, And Thermal Cutting, Publication
       No. 88-110, National Institute For Occupational Safety And Health, U. S. Department Of
       Health And Human Services, Cincinnati, OH, April 1988.

6.     I. W.  Head and S. J. Silk,  "Integral Fume  Extraction In MIG/CO2 Welding", Metal
       Construction, 77(12):633-638, December 1979.

7.     R. M. Evans, et al., Fumes And Gases In The Welding Environment, American Welding
       Society, Miami, FL, 1979.

8.     R. F.  Heile and D. C. Hill, "Paniculate Fume Generation In Arc Welding Processes",
       Welding Journal, 54(7):201s-210s, July 1975.

9.     J. F. Mcllwain and L.  A. Neumeier, Fumes From Shielded Metal Arc (MMA Welding)
       Electrodes,  RI-9105, Bureau Of Mines, U.  S. Department Of The Interior, Rolla Research
       Center, Rolla, MO, 1987.

10.    I. D. Henderson, et al., "Fume Generation And Chemical Analysis Of Fume For A Selected
       Range Of Flux-cored Structural Steel Wires", AWRA Document P9-44-85, Australian
       Welding Research, 75:4-11, December 1986.

11.    K. G. Malmqvist et al., "Process-dependent Characteristics  Of Welding Fume Particles",
       Presented at the International Conference On Health Hazards And Biological Effects Of
       Welding Fumes And Gases, Commission Of the European Communities.  World Health
       Organization and Danish Welding Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, February 1985.

12.    J. Moreton, et al., "Fume Emission When  Welding Stainless Steel", Metal Construction,
       77(12):794-798, December 1985.

13.    R. K.  Tandon, et al., "Chemical Investigation Of Some Electric Arc Welding Fumes And
       Their  Potential  Health Effects", Australian  Welding Research, 75:55-60, December 1984.

14.    R. K.  Tandon, et al., "Fume Generation And Melting Rates Of Shielded Metal Arc Welding
       Electrodes", Welding Journal, 6~3(8):263s-266s, August 1984.
12.19-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
 15.    E. J. Fasiska, et al., Characterization Of Arc Welding Fume, American Welding Society,
       Miami, FL, February 1983.

 16.    R. K. Tandon, et al., "Variations In The Chemical Composition And Generation Rates Of
       Fume From Stainless Steel Electrodes Under Different AC Arc Welding Conditions", AWRA
       Contract 90, Australian Welding Research, 77:27-30, December 1982.

 17.    The Welding Environment, Parts IIA, IIB, and III, American Welding Society, Miami, FL,
       1973.

 18.    Development of Environmental Release Estimates For Welding Operations, EPA Contract
       No. 68-C9-0036, IT Corporation, Cincinnati, OH,'1991.

 19.    L. Henning and J. Kinsey, "Development Of Particulate And Hazardous Emission Factors For
       Welding Operations", EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
       City, MO, April 1994.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                             12.19-9
-------
12.20  Electroplating

        This section addresses the electroplating industry.  However, emphasis is placed on chromium
electroplating and chromic acid anodizing because the majority of emissions data and other
information available were for this area of the electroplating industry. Detailed information on the
process operations, emissions,  and controls  associated with other types of electroplating will be added
to this section as it becomes available.  The six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for
electroplating is 3-09-010.

12.20.1  Process Description1"4

        Electroplating is the process of applying a metallic coating to an article by passing an electric
current through  an electrolyte in contact with the article, thereby forming a surface having properties
or dimensions different from those of the article.  Essentially any electrically conductive surface can
be electroplated. Special techniques, such as  coating with metallic-loaded paints or silver-reduced
spray,  can be used to make nonconductive surfaces, such as  plastic, electrically conductive for
electroplating.  The metals and alloy substrates electroplated on a commercial scale are cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, gold, indium, iron, lead, nickel, platinum group metals, silver, tin, zinc,
brass, bronze, many gold alloys, lead-tin, nickel-iron, nickel-cobalt,  nickel-phosphorus, tin-nickel, tin-
zinc, zinc-nickel, zinc-cobalt, and zinc-iron.  Electroplated materials are generally used for a specific
property or  function,  although  there may be some overlap, e. g., a material may be electroplated for
decorative use as well as for corrosion resistance.

        The essential components of an electroplating process are an electrode to be plated (the
cathode or substrate), a second electrode to complete the circuit (the anode), an electrolyte containing
the metal ions to be deposited, and a direct current power source. The electrodes are  immersed in the
electrolyte with  the anode connected to the  positive  leg of the power supply and the cathode to the
negative leg.  As the current is increased from zero, a point is reached where metal plating begins to
occur on the cathode.  The plating tank is either made of or  lined with totally inert materials to protect
the tank.  Anodes can be either soluble or insoluble, with most electroplating baths using one or the
other type.  The majority of power supplies are solid-state silicon rectifiers, which may have a variety
of modifications, such as stepless controls, constant  current,  and constant voltage. Plate thickness is
dependent on the cathode efficiency of a particular plating solution, the current density, and the
amount of plating time.  The following section describes the electroplating process.  Following the
description of chromium plating, information is provided on  process parameters for other types of
electroplating.

12.20.1.1  Chromium Electroplating -
        Chromium plating and anodizing operations  include hard chromium electroplating of metals,
decorative chromium  electroplating of metals, decorative chromium  electroplating of plastics, chromic
acid anodizing, and trivalent chromium plating. Each of these categories of the chromium
electroplating industry is described below.
7/96                                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.20-1
-------
Hard Chromium Electroplating -
        In hard plating, a relatively thick layer of chromium is deposited directly on the base metal
(usually steel) to provide a surface with wear resistance, a low coefficient of friction, hardness, and
corrosion resistance, or to build up surfaces that have been eroded by use.  Hard plating is used for
items such as hydraulic cylinders and rods, industrial rolls, zinc die castings, plastic molds, engine
components, and marine hardware.

        Figure 12.20-1 presents a process flow diagram for hard chromium electroplating. The process
consists of pretreatment, alkaline cleaning,  acid dipping, chromic acid anodizing, and chromium
electroplating. The pretreatment step may include polishing, grinding, and degreasing.  Degreasing
consists of either dipping the part in organic solvents, such as trichloroethylene or perchloroethylene,
or using the vapors from organic solvents to remove surface grease.  Alkaline cleaning is used to
dislodge surface soil with inorganic cleaning solutions, such as sodium carbonate, sodium phosphate,
or sodium hydroxide.  Acid dipping, which is  optional,  is used to remove tarnish or oxide films
formed in the alkaline cleaning step and to neutralize the alkaline film.  Acid dip solutions typically
contain 10 to 30 percent hydrochloric or sulfuric acid. Chromic acid anodic treatment, which also is
optional, cleans the metal surface and enhances the adhesion of chromium in the electroplating  step.
The final  step in the process is the electroplating operation itself.

        The plating tanks typically are equipped with some type of heat exchanger.  Mechanical
agitators or compressed air supplied through pipes on the tank bottom provide uniformity of bath
temperature and composition.  Chromium electroplating requires constant control of the plating bath
temperature, current density, plating time, and bath composition.

        Hexavalent chromium plating baths are the most widely  used baths to  deposit chromium on
metal.  Hexavalent chromium baths are composed  of chromic acid, sulfuric acid, and water.  The
chromic acid is the source of the hexavalent chromium that reacts and deposits on the metal and is
emitted to the atmosphere.  The sulfuric acid in  the bath catalyzes the chromium deposition reactions.
        The evolution of hydrogen gas from chemical reactions at the cathode consumes 80 to
90 percent of the power supplied to the plating bath, leaving the remaining 10 to 20 percent for the
deposition reaction.  When the hydrogen gas evolves, it causes misting at the surface of the plating
bath, which results in the loss of chromic acid to the atmosphere.

Decorative Chromium Electroplating -
        Decorative chromium electroplating is applied to metals  and plastics.  In decorative plating of
metals, the base material generally is plated with layers of copper and nickel followed by a relatively
thin layer of chromium to provide a bright  surface with wear and tarnish resistance. Decorative
plating is  used for items such as automotive trim, metal furniture, bicycles, hand tools,  and plumbing
fixtures.

        Figure 12.20-2 presents a process flow diagram for decorative chromium electroplating.  The
process consists of pretreatment, alkaline cleaning, and acid dipping, which were described previously,
followed by strike plating of copper, copper electroplating, nickel electroplating, and chromium
electroplating. The copper strike plating step consists of applying a thin layer of copper in a copper
cyanide solution to enhance the conductive properties of the base metal.  Following the copper  strike
plate, the  substrate is acid dipped again, and then electroplated with an undercoat of copper to improve
corrosion  resistance and cover defects. Either a  copper cyanide or acid  copper solution is used in this
step.  The substrate then is plated with nickel in two layers (semibright  nickel and bright nickel) to
further improve corrosion resistance and activate the surface metal for chromium electroplating.
12.20-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 7/96
-------
               SUBSTRATE TO BE PLATED
                 PRETREATMENTSTEP
                 (POLISHING, GRINDING
                  AND DECREASING)*
                  ALKALINE CLEANING

                     (34)9-010-14)
                       ACID DIP

                     (3-09-010-15)
                CHROMIC ACID ANODIC
                    TREATMENT

                    (3-09-010-16)
                  ELECTROPLATING OF
                     CHROMIUM

                     (3-09-010-18)
   ,	I
                                        ©
   	I
                                        0
   	I
                                        0
  	i
                                        ©
  	i
 (T) PM EMISSIONS

      VOC EMISSIONS
•SPECIFIC SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODE
 NOT ASSIGNED.  REFER TO AP-42
 CHAPTER 4 FOR EMISSION FACTORS FOR
 DEGREASING.
           HARD CHROMIUM PLATED PRODUCT
            Figure 12.20-1. Flow diagram for a typical hard chromium plating process.3
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
7/96
Metallurgical Industry
                                    12.20-3
-------
               METAL SUBSTRATE TO BE PLATED
                    PRETREATMENT STEP
                  (POLISHING, GRINDING, AND
                       DECREASING)*
                     ALKALINE CLEANING

                        (3-00-010-14)
                         ACID DIP

                        (3-09-010-15)
                 STRIKE PLATING OF COPPER

                        (3-09-010-42)
                         ACID DIP

                        (3-09-010-15)
                 ELECTROPLATING OF COPPER

                    (3-09-010-42, -45, -48)
                           T
               ELECTROPLATING OF SEMIBRIGHT
                      (WATTS) NICKEL

                       (3-09-010-65)
                 ELECTROPLATING OF BRIGHT
                      (WATTS) NICKEL

                        (3-09-010-65)
                ELECTROPLATING OF CHROMIUM

                        (3-09-010-28)
                       PM EMISSIONS

                       VOC EMISSIONS
                 •SPECIFIC SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODE
                  NOT ASSIGNED. REFER TO AP-42
                  CHAPTER 4 FOR EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                  DEGREASING.
            DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATED PRODUCT
        Figure 12.20-2.  Flow diagram for decorative chromium plating on a metal substrate.
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.20-4
EMISSION FACTORS
7/96
-------
 Semibright and bright nickel plating both use Watts plating baths.  The final step in the process is the
 electroplating operation itself.

        Decorative electroplating baths operate on the same principle as that of the hard chromium
 plating process. However, decorative chromium plating requires shorter plating times and operates at
 lower current densities than does hard chromium plating. Some decorative chromium plating
 operations use fluoride catalysts instead of sulfuric acid because fluoride catalysts, such as fluosilicate
 or fluoborate, have been found to produce higher bath efficiencies.

        Most plastics that are electroplated with chromium are formed from acrylonitrile butadiene
 styrene (ABS). The process for chromium electroplating of ABS plastics consists of the following
 steps: chromic acid/sulfuric acid etch; dilute hydrochloric acid dip; colloidal palladium activation;
 dilute hydrochloric acid dip; electroless nickel plating or copper plating; and chromium electroplating
 cycle. After each process step, the plastic is rinsed with water to prevent carry-over of solution from
 one bath to another.  The electroplating of plastics follows the same cycle as that described for
 decorative chromium electroplating.

 Chromic Acid Anodizing -
        Chromic acid anodizing is used primarily on aircraft parts and architectural structures that are
 subject to high stress and corrosion. Chromic acid anodizing is used to provide an oxide layer on
 aluminum for corrosion protection, electrical insulation, ease of coloring, and improved dielectric
 strength.  Figure 12.20-3 presents a flow diagram for a typical chromic acid anodizing process.

        There are four primary differences between the equipment used for chromium electroplating
 and that used for chromic acid anodizing: chromic acid anodizing requires the rectifier to be fitted
 with a rheostat or other control mechanism to permit starting at about 5 V; the tank is the cathode in
 the electrical circuit; the aluminum substrate acts as the anode; and sidewall shields typically are used
 instead of a liner in the tank to minimize short circuits and to decrease the effective cathode area.
 Types of shield materials used are herculite  glass, wire safety glass, neoprene, and vinyl chloride
 polymers.

        Before anodizing, the aluminum must be pretreated  by means of the following steps:  alkaline
 soak, desmutting, etching, and vapor degreasing.  The pretreatment steps used for a particular
 aluminum substrate depend upon the amount of smut and the composition of the aluminum.  The
 aluminum substrate is rinsed between pretreatment steps to remove cleaners.

        During anodizing, the voltage is applied step-wise (5 V per minute) from 0 to 40 V and
 maintained at 40 V for the remainder of the  anodizing time.  A low starting voltage (i. e., 5 V)
 minimizes current surge that may cause "burning" at contact points between the  rack and the
 aluminum part. The process is effective over a wide range of voltages, temperatures, and anodizing
 times. All other factors being equal, high voltages tend to produce bright transparent films, and lower
 voltages tend to produce opaque films.   Raising the bath temperature increases current density to
produce thicker films in a given time period. Temperatures up to 49°C (120°F) typically are used to
produce films that are to be  colored by dyeing.  The amount of current varies depending on the size of
the aluminum parts; however, the current density typically ranges from 1,550 to  7,750 A/m2 (144 to
720  A/ft2).

       The postanodizing steps include sealing and air drying.  Sealing causes hydration of the
aluminum oxide and fills the pores in the aluminum surface. As a result, the elasticity of the oxide
film increases, but the hardness and wear resistance decrease.  Sealing is performed by immersing


7/96                                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.20-5
-------
           SUBSTRATE TO BE PLATED
             PRETREATMENT STEPS

             DESMUTTING
             ETCHING
             VAPOR DEGREASING*
                           RINSE
              ALKALINE CLEANING

                 (3-09-010-14)
           CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING

                 (3--09-010-38)
                         RINSE
                  SEALING
               ©
                                                  PM EMISSIONS
                                                2) VOC EMISSIONS
                                                  (FROM DEGREASING)
         'SPECIFIC SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODE
          NOT ASSIGNED. REFER TO AP-42
          CHAPTER 4 FOR EMISSION FACTORS FOR
          DEGREASING.
                                         ©
                                          A
                FINAL PRODUCT
          Figure 12.20-3.  Flow diagram for a typical chromic acid anodizing process.
                       (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.20-6
EMISSION FACTORS
7/96
-------
 aluminum in a water bath at 88° to 99°C (190° to 210°F) for a minimum of 15 minutes.  Chromic
 acid or other chromates may be added to the solution to help improve corrosion resistance. The
 aluminum is allowed to air dry after it is sealed.

 Trivalent Chromium Plating -
        Trivalent chromium electroplating baths have been developed primarily to replace decorative
 hexavalent chromium plating baths. Development of a trivalent bath has proven to be difficult because
 trivalent chromium solvates in water to form complex stable ions that do not readily release chromium.
 Currently, there are two types  of trivalent chromium processes on the market: single-cell and
 double-cell.  The major differences in the two  processes are that the double-cell process solution
 contains minimal-to-no chlorides, whereas the  single-cell process solution contains a high
 concentration of chlorides. In addition, the double-cell process utilizes lead anodes that are placed in
 anode boxes that contain a dilute sulfuric acid  solution and are lined with a permeable membrane,
 whereas the single-cell process utilizes carbon  or graphite anodes that are placed in direct contact with
 the plating solution.  Details on these  processes are not available because the trivalent chromium baths
 currently on the market are proprietary.

        The advantages of the trivalent chromium processes over the hexavalent chromium process are
 fewer environmental concerns  due to the lower toxicity of trivalent chromium, higher productivity, and
 lower operating costs.  In the trivalent chromium process, hexavalent chromium is a plating bath
 contaminant. Therefore, the bath does not contain any appreciable  amount of hexavalent chromium.
 The total chromium concentration of trivalent chromium solutions is approximately one-fifth that of
 hexavalent chromium solutions.  As a result of the chemistry of the trivalent chromium electrolyte,
 misting does not occur during  plating  as it does during hexavalent chromium plating.  Use of trivalent
 chromium also reduces waste disposal problems and costs.

        The disadvantages of the trivalent chromium process are that the process is more sensitive to
 contamination than the hexavalent chromium process, and the trivalent chromium process cannot plate
 the full range of plate thicknesses that the hexavalent chromium process can.  Because it is sensitive to
 contamination,  the trivalent chromium process  requires more thorough rinsing and tighter laboratory
 control than does the hexavalent chromium process.  Trivalent chromium baths can plate thicknesses
 ranging up to 0.13 to 25 urn (0.005 to 1.0 mils) and, therefore, cannot be used for most hard
 chromium plating applications.  The hexavalent chromium process can plate thicknesses up to 762 um
 (30 mils).

 12.20.1.2 Electroplating-Other Metals -

 Brass Electroplating -
        Brass, which is an alloy of copper and uzinc, is the most widely used alloy electroplate.  Brass
 plating primarily is used for decorative applications,  but it is also used for engineering applications
 such as for plating steel wire cord for  steel-belted radial tires. Although all of the alloys of copper
 and zinc can be plated, the brass alloy most often used includes  70  to 80 percent copper, with the
 balance zinc. Typical brass plating baths include 34 g/L (4.2 oz/gal) of copper cyanide and 10 g/L
 (1.3 oz/gal) of zinc cyanide. Other bath constituents include sodium cyanide, soda ash, and ammonia.

 Cadmium Electroplating -
        Cadmium plating generally is performed in alkaline cyanide baths that are prepared by
 dissolving cadmium oxide in a sodium cyanide solution. However, because of the hazards associated
 with cyanide use, noncyanide cadmium plating solutions are being used more widely.  The primary
 noncyanide plating solutions are neutral sulfate, acid fluoborate,  and acid sulfate.  The cadmium


7/96                                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.20-7
-------
concentration in plating baths ranges from 3.7 to 94 g/L (0.5 to 12.6 oz/gal) depending on the type of
solution.  Current densities range from 22 to 970 A/m2 (2 to 90 A/ft2).

Copper Electroplating -
        Copper cyanide plating is widely used in many plating operations as a strike.  However, its use
for thick deposits is decreasing.  For copper cyanide plating, cuprous cyanide must be complexed with
either potassium or sodium to form soluble copper compounds in aqueous solutions.  Copper cyanide
plating baths typically contain 30 g/L (4.0 oz/gal) of copper cyanide and either 59 g/L (7.8 oz/gal) of
potassium cyanide or 48 g/L (6.4 oz/gal) of sodium cyanide.  Current densities range from 54 to 430
A/m2 (5 to 40 A/ft2). Cathode efficiencies range from 30 to 60 percent.

        Other types of baths used in copper plating include copper pyrophosphate and copper sulfate
baths.  Copper pyrophosphate plating, which is used for plating on plastics  and printed circuits,
requires more control and maintenance of the plating baths than copper cyanide plating does.
However, copper pyrophosphate solutions are relatively nontoxic. Copper pyrophosphate plating baths
typically contain 53 to 84 g/L (7.0 to 11.2 oz/gal) of copper pyrophosphate and 200 to  350 g/L (27 to
47 oz/gal) of potassium pyrophosphate.  Current densities range from 110 to 860 A/m2 (10 to
80 A/ft2).

        Copper sulfate baths, which are more economical to prepare and operate than copper
pyrophosphate baths, are used for plating printed circuits, electronics, rotogravure, and plastics, and for
electroforming and decorative uses.  In this type of bath copper and sulfate and sulfuric acid form the
ionized species in solution.  Copper sulphate plating baths typically contain 195 to 248 g/L (26 to
33 oz/gal) of copper sulphate and 11 to 75  g/L (1.5 to 10 oz/gal) of sulfuric acid.  Current densities
range from 215 to  1,080 A/m2 (20 to 100 A/ft2).

Gold Electroplating -
        Gold and gold alloy plating are used in a wide variety of applications. Gold plating solutions
can be classified in five general groups:  alkaline gold cyanide, for gold and gold  alloy plating; neutral
cyanide gold, for high purity gold plating; acid gold cyanide, for bright hard gold  and gold alloy
plating; noncyanide (generally sulfite), for gold and gold plating; and miscellaneous.  Alkaline gold
cyanide plating baths contain 8 to 20 g/L (1.1  to 2.7 oz/gal) of potassium gold cyanide and 15 to
100 g/L (2.0 to 13.4 oz/gal) of potassium cyanide.  Current densities range  from 11  to 86 A/m2 (1.0 to
8 A/ft2) and cathode efficiencies range from 90 to  100 percent.

        Neutral gold cyanide plating baths contain  8 to 30 g/L (1.1 to 4.0 oz/gal) of potassium gold
cyanide. Current densities range from 11 to 4,300 A/m2 (1.0 to 400 A/ft2), and cathode efficiencies
range from 90 to 98  percent.
       Acid gold cyanide plating baths contain 8 to 16_g/L (1.1 to 2.1 oz/gal) of potassium gold
       ;.  Current densities ra:
range from 30 to 40 percent.
                                                    9
cyanide.  Current densities range from 11 to 4,300 A/nr (1.0 to 400 A/ft), and cathode efficiencies
Indium Electroplating -
       In general, indium is electroplated using three types of plating baths:  cyanide, sulfamate, and
fluoborate. Indium is the only trivalent metal that can be electrodeposited readily from a cyanide
solution.  Cyanide baths are used in applications that require very high throwing power and adhesion.
Indium cyanide plating baths typically contain 33 g/L (4.0 oz/gal) of indium metal and 96 g/L
(12.8 oz/gal)  of total cyanide. Current densities range from 162 to 216 A/m2 (15 to 20 A/ft2), and
cathode efficiencies range from 50 to 75 percent.


12.20-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 7/96
-------
        Indium sulfamate baths are very stable, relatively easy to control, and characterized by a high
 cathode efficiency that remains relatively high (90 percent). The plating baths typically contain
 105 g/L (14 oz/gal) of indium sulfamate and 26 g/L (3.5 oz/gal) of sulfamic acid. Current densities
 range from 108 to 1,080 A/m2 (10 to 100 A/ft2).

        Indium fluoborate plating baths typically contain 236 g/L (31.5 oz/gal) of indium fluoborate
 and 22 to 30 g/L  (2.9 to 4.0 oz/gal) of boric acid.  Current densities range from 540 to 1,080 A/m2
 (50 to 100 A/ft2), and cathode efficiencies range from 40 to 75 percent.

 Nickel Electroplating -
        Nickel plating is used for decorative, engineering, and electroforming  purposes.  Decorative
 nickel plating differs from other types of nickel  plating in that the solutions contain organic agents,
 such as benzene disulfonic acids, benzene trisulfonic acid, naphthalene trisulfonic acid, benzene
 sulfonamide, formaldehyde, coumarin, ethylene cyanohydrin, and butynediol.  Nickel plating for
 engineering applications uses solutions that deposit pure nickel.  In nickel plating baths, the total
 nickel content  ranges from 60 to 84 g/L (8 to 11.2 oz/gal), and boric acid concentrations range from
 30 to 37.5 g/L (4  to 5 oz/gal).  Current  densities range from 540 to 600 A/m2 (50 to  60 A/ft2), and
 cathode efficiencies range from 93 to 97 percent.

 Palladium and Palladium-Nickel Electroplating -
        Palladium plating solutions are categorized as ammoniacal, chelated, or acid.  Ammoniacal
 palladium plating  baths contain 10 to 15 g/L (1.3 to 2.0 oz/gal) of palladium ammonium nitrate or
 palladium ammonium chloride, and current densities range from 1  to 25 A/m2 (0.093 to 2.3 A/ft2).
 Palladium acid plating  baths contain 50 g/L (6.7 oz/gal) of palladium chloride, and current densities
 range from 1 to 10 A/m2 (0.093 to 0.93 A/ft2).

        Palladium alloys readily with other metals, the most important of which is nickel.  Palladium
 nickel electroplating baths contain  3 g/L (6.7 oz/gal) of palladium  metal and 3  g/L (6.7 oz/gal) of
 nickel metal.

 Platinum Electroplating -
        Solutions  used for platinum plating are similar to those used for palladium plating.  Plating
 baths contain 5.0 to 20 g/L (0.68 oz/gal) of either dinitroplatinite sulfate or chloroplatinic acid, and
 current densities range  from  1 to 20 A/m2 (0.093 to 1.86 A/ft2).

 Rhodium Electroplating -
        Rhodium plating traditionally has been used as decorative plating in jewelry and silverware.
 However, the use  of rhodium plating for electronics and other industrial applications has been
 increasing in recent years. For decorative plating, rhodium baths contain 1.3 to 2.0 g/L (0.17 to
 0.27 oz/gal) of rhodium phosphate or rhodium sulfate concentrate and 25 to 80 ml/L (3.0 to 11 oz/gal)
 of phosphoric or sulfuric acid. Current densities typically range from 20 to 100 A/m2 (1.86 to
 9.3 A-ft2). For industrial and electronic applications, rhodium plating baths contain approximately
 5.0 g/L (0.67 oz/gal) of rhodium metal  as sulfate concentrate and 25 to 50 ml/L (3.0 to 7.0 oz/gal) of
 sulfuric acid.  Current densities typically range from  10 to 30 A/m2 (0.93 to 2.79 A-ft2), and cathode
 efficiency ranges from 70 to 90 percent  with agitation or 50 to 60  percent without agitation.

Ruthenium Electroplating -
       Electroplated ruthenium is a very good electrical  conductor and produces a very hard deposit.
Typical plating baths contain  approximately 5.3 g/L (0.71  oz/gal) of ruthenium as sulfamate or nitrosyl
7/96                                   Metallurgical Industry                                12.20-9
-------
sulfamate and 8.0 g/L (1.1 oz/gal) of sulfamic acid. Current densities typically range from 108 to
320 A/m2 (10 to  30 A-ft2), and cathode efficiency is typically about 20 percent.

Silver Electroplating -
        Silver plating traditionally has been performed using a cyanide-based plating solution.
Although some noncyanide solutions have been developed, due  to various shortcomings, cyanide
solutions still are commonly used. Typical plating baths contain 5.0 to 40 g/L (0.67 to 5.3 oz/gal) of
silver as potassium silver cyanide and 12 to  120 g/L (1.6 to 16  oz/gal) of potassium cyanide. Current
densities typically range from 11 to 430 A/m2 (1 to 40 A-ft2).

Tin-Lead, Lead, and Tin  Electroplating -
        Fluoborate and fluoboric acid can be used to plate all percentages of tin and lead.  Alloys of
tin and lead are most commonly used for plating in the proportions of 60 percent tin and 40 percent
lead.  Tin-lead plating baths typically contain 52 to 60 g/L (7.0  to 8.0 oz/gal) of stannous tin, 23 to
30 g/L (3.0 to 4.0 oz/gal) of lead, 98 to 150 g/L (13 to 20 oz/gal) of fluoboric acid, and 23 to 38 g/L
(3.0 to 5.0 oz/gal) of boric acid. Current densities typically range from 270 to 380 A/m2 (25 to
35 A-ft2).

        Lead fluoborate plating baths typically contain 340 to 410 g/L (45 to 55 oz/gal) of lead
fluoborate, 195 to 240 g/L (26 to 32 oz/gal)  of lead, 15 to 30 g/L (2.0 to 4.0 oz/gal) of fluoboric acid,
and 23 to 38 g/L  (3.0 to 5.0 oz/gal) of boric acid.  Current densities typically range from 215 to
750 A/m2 (20 to 70 A-ft2).

        Tin plating  generally is performed using one of three  types of plating solutions (stannous
fluoborate, stannous sulfate, or sodium or potassium stannate) or by the halogen tin process. Stannous
fluoborate plating baths include 75 to 110 g/L (10 to 15 oz/gal) of stannous fluoborate, 30 to 45 g/L
(4.0 to 6.0 oz/gal) of tin, 190 to 260 g/L (25 to 35 oz/gal) of  fluoboric acid, and 23 to 38 g/L (3.0 to
5.0 oz/gal) of boric acid.   Current densities typically range from 215 to 270 A/m2 (20 to 25 A-ft2),
and cathode efficiencies are greater than 95 percent.

        Stannous  sulfate plating baths include  15 to 45 g/L (2.0 to 6.0 oz/gal) of stannous  sulfate, 7.5
to 22.5 g/L (1.0 to 3.0 oz/gal) of stannous tin, and 135 to 210 g/L (18 to 28 oz/gal) of sulfuric acid.
Current densities  typically range from 10 to 270 A/m2 (1 to 25  A-ft2), and cathode efficiencies are
greater than 95 percent.

        Sodium/potassium stannate plating baths include 90 to 180 g/L (12 to 24 oz/gal) of sodium
stannate or 100 to 200 g/L (13 to 27 oz/gal) of potassium stannate and 40 to 80 g/L (5.3 to 11 oz/gal)
of tin metal.  Current densities typically range from 10 to  1,080 A/m2 (1  to 100 A-ft2).

Tin-Nickel Electroplating  -
        Tin-nickel alloy plating is used in light engineering and electronic applications and is used as
an alternative to decorative chromium plating. Tin-nickel fluoride plating baths contain 49 g/L (6.5
oz/gal) of stannous  chloride anhydrous, 300 g/L (40 oz/gal) of nickel chloride, and 56 g/L (7.5 oz/gal)
of ammonium bifluoride.  Current densities are typically about 270 A/m2 (25 A-ft2).

        Tin-nickel pyrophosphate plating baths contain 28 g/L (3.2 oz/gal) of stannous chloride,
31 g/L (4.2 oz/gal)  of nickel chloride, and 190 g/L (26 oz/gal) of potassium pyrophosphate. Current
densities range from 52 to 150 A/m2 (4.8 to 14 A-ft2).
12.20-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 7/96
-------
Zinc Electroplating -
        The most widely used zinc plating solutions are categorized as acid chloride, alkaline
noncyanide, and cyanide.  The most widely used zinc alloys for electroplating are zinc-nickel, zinc-
cobalt, and zinc-iron.  Zinc plating baths contain 15 to 38 g/L (2.0 to 5.0 oz/gal) of acid chloride zinc,
6.0 to 23 g/L (0.80 to 3.0 oz/gal) of alkaline noncyanide zinc, or 7.5 to 34 g/L (1.0 to 4.5 oz/gal) of
cyanide zinc.

        Acid zinc-nickel plating  baths contain 120 to 130 g/L (16 to 17 oz/gal) of zinc chloride and
110 to 130 g/L (15 to 17 oz/gal) of nickel chloride.  Alkaline zinc-nickel plating baths contain 8.0 g/L
(1.1 oz/gal) of zinc metal  and 1.6 g/L (0.21 oz/gal) of nickel metal. Current densities range from 5.0
to 40 A/m2 (0.46 to 3.7 A-ft2) and 20 to 100 A/m2 (1.9 to 9.3 A/ft2) for acid and alkaline baths,
respectively.

        Acid zinc-cobalt plating  baths contain 30 g/L (4.0 oz/gal) of zinc metal and 1.9 to 3.8 g/L
(0.25 to 0.51 oz/gal) of cobalt metal. Alkaline zinc-cobalt plating baths contain 6.0 to 9.0 g/L (0.80 to
1.2 oz/gal) of zinc metal and 0.030 to 0.050 g/L (0.0040 to 0.0067 oz/gal) of cobalt metal.  Current
densities range from 1.0 to 500 A/m2 (0.093 to 46 A-ft2) and  20 to 40 A/m2 (1.9 to 3.7 A/ft2) for acid
and alkaline baths, respectively.

        Acid zinc-iron plating baths  contain 200 to 300 g/L (27  to 40 oz/gal) of ferric sulfate and 200
to 300 g/L (27 to 40 oz/gal) of zinc  sulfate.  Alkaline zinc-iron plating baths contain 20 to 25 g/L (2.7
to 3.3 oz/gal) of zinc metal and 0.25 to 0.50 g/L  (0.033 to 0.067 oz/gal)  of iron metal. Current
densities range from 15 to 30 A/m2 (1.4 to 2.8 A-ft2).

12.20.2  Emissions and Controls2"3'43"44

        Plating operations generate mists due to the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gas.  The gases
are formed in the process  tanks on the surface of the submerged part or on anodes  or cathodes. As
these gas bubbles rise to the surface, they escape into the air and may carry considerable liquid with
them in the form of a  fine mist.  The rate of gassing is a function of the chemical or electrochemical
activity in the tank and increases with the amount of work in the tank, the strength and temperature of
the solution, and the current densities in the plating tanks.  Air sparging also can result in emissions
from the bursting of air bubbles  at the surface of the plating tank liquid.

        Emissions are  also generated from surface preparation steps, such as alkaline cleaning, acid
dipping, and vapor degreasing.  These emissions are in the form of alkaline and acid mists and solvent
vapors. The extent of acid misting from the plating processes depends mainly on the efficiency of the
plating bath and the degree of air sparging or mechanical agitation.  For many metals, plating baths
have high  cathode efficiencies so that the  generation of mist is minimal.  However, the cathode
efficiency  of chromium plating baths is  very low (10 to 20 percent), and a substantial  quantity of
chromic acid mist is generated.  The following paragraphs describe the methods used to control
emissions from chromium electroplating.  These methods generally apply to other types of plating
operations as well.

        Emissions of chromic acid mist from the electrodeposition of chromium from chromic acid
plating baths occur because of the inefficiency of the hexavalent chromium plating  process.  Only
about 10 to 20 percent of the current applied actually is used to deposit chromium on the item plated;
the remaining  80 to 90 percent of the current applied is consumed by the evolution of hydrogen gas at
the cathode with the resultant liberation of gas bubbles.  Additional bubbles are formed at the anode
7/96                                   Metallurgical Industry                               12.20-11
-------
due to the evolution of oxygen.  As the bubbles burst at the surface of the plating solution, a fine mist
of chromic acid droplets is formed.

        The principal techniques used to control emissions of chromic acid mist from decorative and
hard chromium plating and chromic acid anodizing operations include add-on control devices and
chemical fume suppressants.  The control devices most frequently used are mist eliminators and wet
scrubbers that are operated at relatively low pressure drops. Because of the corrosive properties of
chromic acid, control devices typically are made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or fiberglass.

        Chemical fume suppressants are added to decorative chromium plating and chromic acid
anodizing baths to reduce  chromic acid mist.  Although chemical agents alone are effective control
techniques, many plants use them in conjunction with an add-on control device.

        Chevron-blade and mesh-pad mist eliminators are the types of mist eliminators  most frequently
used to control chromic acid mist. The most important mechanism by  which mist eliminators remove
chromic acid droplets from gas streams is the inertial impaction of droplets onto a stationary set of
blades or a mesh pad.  Mist eliminators typically are operated as dry units that are periodically washed
down with water to clean the impaction media.

        The wet scrubbers typically used to control emissions of chromic acid mist from chromium
plating, and chromic acid anodizing operations are single and double packed-bed scrubbers. Other
scrubber types used less frequently include fan-separator packed-bed and centrifugal-flow scrubbers.
Scrubbers remove chromic acid droplets from the gas stream by humidifying the gas stream to increase
the mass of the droplet particles, which are then removed by impingement on a packed bed.
Once-through water or recirculated water typically is used as the scrubbing liquid because chromic
acid is highly soluble in water.

        Chemical fume suppressants are surface-active compounds that are added directly to chromium
plating and chromic acid anodizing baths to reduce or control misting.  Fume suppressants are
classified as temporary or  as permanent. Temporary fume suppressants are depleted mainly by the
decomposition of the fume suppressant and dragout of the plating solution, and permanent fume
suppressant  are depleted mainly by dragout of the plating  solution. Fume  suppressants  include wetting
agents that reduce misting by lowering the surface tension of the plating or anodizing bath, foam
blankets that entrap chromic acid mist at the surface of the plating solution, or combinations of both a
wetting agent and foam blanket. Polypropylene balls, which float on the surface of the plating baths,
also are used as a fume suppressant in chromium plating tanks.

        National emission  standards to regulate chromium emissions  from  new and existing hard and
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks at major and area sources were
promulgated on January 25, 1995 (60 FR 4948).  The regulation requires limits on the concentration of
chromium emitted to the atmosphere (or alternative limits on the surface tension of the bath for
decorative chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks) and specifies work practice standards, initial
performance testing, ongoing compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

        Table 12.20-1 presents the emission factors for  chromium electroplating.  The emission factors
are based on total energy input and are presented in units  of grains per ampere-hour (grains/A-hr).  For
controlled emissions from  chromium electroplating operations, each of the add-on control devices used
in the industry generally achieves a narrow range of outlet concentrations of chromium, regardless of
the level of  energy input.  For this reason, total energy  input may not be an appropriate basis for
establishing  emission factors for this  industry.  Therefore, the factors for chromium  electroplating tanks


12.20-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 7/96
-------
 in Table 12.20-1 are presented both as concentrations and in units of total energy input.  Emission
 rates for controlled emissions should be estimated using the concentration factors and typical exhaust
 flow rates for the particular type of exhaust system in question. The factors for controlled emissions
 based on total energy input should only  be used in the absence of site-specific information.

        Table 12.20-2 presents emission factors for chromic acid anodizing. The emission factors are
 presented in units of grains per hour per square foot (grains/hr-ft2) of tank surface area.  Table 12.20-3
 presents particle size distributions for hard chromium electroplating. Table  12.20-4 presents emission
 factors for the plating of metals other than chromium.

        Emissions from  plating operations other than chromium electroplating can be estimated using
 the emission factors and operating parameters for chromium electroplating.  Equation  1  below
 provides an estimate of uncontrolled emissions from nonchromium plating tanks.

                              EFm = 3.3 x  10-7 x (EEm/em)  x Cm x Dm                           (1)

 where:

       EFm = emission factor for metal "m", grains/dscf;
       EEm = electrochemical equivalent for metal  "m", A-hr/mil-ft2;
        em = cathode efficiency for metal "m", percent;
        Cm = bath concentration for metal "m", oz/gal; and
        Dm = current density for metal "m", A/ft2.

 Equation 2 below provides an estimate of controlled emissions from nonchromium plating  tanks.

                                    EFm = 0.028 x EFCr x Cm                                  (2)

 where EFm and Cm are as defined above, and
     EFCr = emission factor for controlled hard chromium electroplating emissions, grains/dscf.

        Equations 1  and 2 estimate emissions from the formation of gas as a result of the electrical
 energy applied to the plating tank; the equations do not account for additional emissions  that result
 from air sparging or mechanical agitation of the tank solution.  To estimate  uncontrolled  emissions due
 to air sparging, the following equation should be used:

                                          (1  - 2a  +  9a2)0'5 +  (a - 1)
                           =  100
                                               3a)  - (1  - 2a +  9a2)0'5
(3)
                                    2
                              6-45  Rb  ,      56.7 a  .      1.79 x 10s a
                         a = 	, k, =  	, k, =  	
                                k2            c2           (Pi  ~ PR) g
7/96                                  Metallurgical Industry                              12.20-13
-------
where:

      Ej = emission factor, grains/bubble;
      Rb = average bubble radius, in.;
       CT = surface tension of bath, pounds force per foot (lb/ft);
       cs = speed of sound, ft/sec;
      pj = density of liquid, lb/ft3;
      p  = density of gas (air), lb/ft3; and
       g = acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec2.

Substituting typical values for constants cs (1,140 ft/sec), g (32.2 ft/sec2), and assuming values for pl
of 62.4 lb/ft3 and for p  of 0.0763 lb/ft3, Equation 3 can be reduced to the following equation:
                     D
                         E  _  1.9 o    (i -  /a  + yaT'" + (.a - i)                          (4)


where:

                  0.072 R?
            a =  	
(1
.0 •
- 2a + 9a2)0'5 +
" 3a) - (
1 - 2a n
(a - 1)
- 9a2)°-5J
                     a
           E2 =  emission factor in grains/ft3 of aeration air; and
                 the other variables are as defined previously.

       Equations 3 and 4 also can be used to estimate emissions from electroless plating operations.
It should be noted that Equations 1 thorough 4 have not been validated using multiple emission tests
and should be used cautiously. Furthermore, the emission factors that are calculated in units of
concentration may not be applicable to plating lines in which there  are multiple tanks that introduce
varying amounts of dilution air to a common control device.  Finally, Equation 1 does not take into
account the emissions reductions achieved by using fume suppressants.  If a fume suppressant is used,
the corresponding emission factor for hard chromium plating with fume suppressant control should be
used with Equation 2 to estimate emissions.   Alternately, Equation  1 can be used and the resulting
emissions can be reduced using an  assumed  control efficiency for hard or decorative chromium
electroplating, depending upon which type of plating operation is more similar to the type of plating
conducted. The control  efficiencies for chemical fume suppressants are 78 percent for hard chromium
electroplating controlled and 99.5 percent for decorative chromium  plating.  Based on the requirements
for the chromium electroplating national emission standard, emissions from decorative chromium
plating baths with chemical  fume suppressants are  considered to be controlled if the resulting surface
tension is no more than 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm) (3.1  x  10"3 pound-force per foot [Uyft]).

       Emissions chromium electroplating operations are regulated under the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart N, National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative
Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks. These  standards, which were promulgated
on January 25,  1995 (60 FR 4963), limit emissions of total chromium to 0.03 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) (1.3 x 10"5 grains/dscf) from plating tanks at small, hard chromium
electroplating facilities; and to 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 x 10"6 grains/dscf) from all other hard chromium
plating tanks.  Small, hard chromium plating facilities are defined in the rule as those which have a
maximum cumulative rectifier capacity of less than 60 million amp-hr/yr. Total chromium emissions
from decorative chromium plating tanks and chromic acid anodizing tanks are limited to 0.01 mg/dscm
(4.4 x  10"6 grains/dscf),  unless a fume suppressant is used and the bath surface tension is maintained
at no more than 45 dynes/cm  (3.1 x 10"3 Ibj/ft).
12.20-14                             EMISSION FACTORS                                7/96
-------
           Table 12.20-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATINGa
Process
Hard chromium electroplating
(SCC 3-09-010-18)
— with moisture extractor6
— with polypropylene balls
— with fume suppressant8
— with fume suppressant and
polypropylene balls
— with packed-bed scrubber1
- with packed-bed scrubber, fume
suppressant, and polypropylene
ballsk
— with chevron-blade mist
eliminator111
— with mesh-pad mist eliminator"
- with packed-bed scrubber and
mesh-pad eliminator15
— with composite mesh-pad mist
eliminator''
Decorative chromium electroplating1
(SCC 3-09-010-28)
— with fume suppressant8
Chromium Compounds15
grains/A-hr
0.12

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA
0.033

NA
grains/dscf
NA

0.00014
0.00042
0.00016
3.0 x 10'5
2.1 x 10'5
2.6 x 10'6

8.8 x 10'5

1.2 x 10'5
3.2 x 10'8
3.8 x 10"6
NA

1.2 x 10'6
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B

D
D
D
D
D
D

D

D
E
D
D

D
Total PM°
grains/A-hr
0.25

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA
0.069

NA
grains/dscf
NA

0.00028
0.00088
0.00034
6.3 x 10'5
4.4 x 10'5
5.5 x ID'6

0.00018

2.6 x 10'5
6.7 x 10'8
8.0 x 10'6
NA

2.5 x 10'6
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

E
E
E
E
E
E

E

E
E
E
E

E
   For chromium electroplating tanks only. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise
   noted.  Emission factors based on total  energy input in units of grains per ampere-hour
   (grains/A-hr) and based on concentrations in units of grains per dry standard cubic foot
   (grains/dscf). To convert from grains/A-hr to mg/A-hr multiply by 64.8.  To convert grains/dscf to
   mg/dscm, multiply by 2,290.  To convert grains/A-hr to grains/dscf, multiply by 0.01.  To convert
   grains/dscf to grains/A-hr multiply by 100.  Note that there is considerable uncertainty in these
   latter two conversion factors because of differences in tank geometry,  ventilation, and control device
   performance. For controlled emissions, factors  based on concentration should be used whenever
   possible.  SCC = Source Classification Code. NA = units not applicable.
   Comprised almost completely of hexavalent chromium.
   Total PM includes  filterable and condensible PM.  However, condensible PM is likely to be
   negligible. All PM from chromium electroplating sources is likely to be emitted as PM-10.  Factors
   estimated based on assumption that PM consists entirely of chromic acid mist.
   References 5-13,15,17-18,23-25,28,34.
   References 8,14.
   Reference 10.
   Reference 15.
   References 18,23-25.
   References 11-13,18,32,34-35.
   References 18, 40-42.
m References 5-7.
n  References 8-10,21,28.
p  Reference 37.
q  References 11-13.
r  References 19-20,25-26.
s  References 20, 25-26.
7/96
Metallurgical Industry
                                                                                       12.20-15
-------
           Table 12.20-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING3
Process
Chromic acid anodizingd
(SCC 3-09-010-38)
- with polypropylene balls6
- with fume suppressant
- with fume suppressant and
polypropylene balls8
- with packed-bed scrubber11
- with packed-bed scrubber and
fume suppressantd
~ with mesh-pad mist eliminated
- with packed-bed scrubber and
mesh pad mist eliminator1"
- with wet scrubber, moisture
extractor, and high efficiency
paniculate air filter"
Chromium
Compounds,5
grains/hr-ft
2.0
1.7
0.064
0.025
0.0096
0.00075
0.0051
0.00054
0.00048

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D

Total PM,C
grains/hr-ft2
4.2
3.6
0.13
0.053
0.020
0.0016
0.011
0.0011
0.0010

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E

a For chromium electroplating tanks only.  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise
  noted.  Factors are in units of grains per hour per square foot (grains/hr-ft2) of tank surface area.
  SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from grains/hr-ft2 to mg/hr-m2, multiply by 0.70.
b Comprised almost completely of hexavalent chromium.
0 Total PM includes filterable and condensible PM. However, condensible PM is likely to be
  negligible.  All PM from chromium electroplating sources is likely to be emitted as PM-10.  Factors
  estimated based on assumption that PM consists entirely of chromic acid mist.
d References 27,29-30,33,42.
® Reference 30.
  References 27,29-30.
  References 27,30.
  References 33,39.
  Reference 36.
  Reference 21.
m Reference 37.
n Reference 42.
12.20-16
EMISSION FACTORS
7/96
-------
      Table 12.20-3.  SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CHROMIUM
                                    ELECTROPLATING3
Uncontrolled
Diameter,
|jm
<0.5
0.5
2.4
8.0
Cumulative Percent Less Than
Total PM0
0
9.1
48.3
59.3
Chromium
Compounds'1
0
6.9
67.7
82.6
Controlled11
Diameter,
(am
<0.49
0.49
2.35
7.9
Cumulative Percent Less Than
Total PM°
0
18.5
94.7
100
Chromium
Compounds'1
0
20.4
97.5
99.2
 a  Reference 6.  Based on C-rated emission data for hard chromium electroplating tanks.  Source
   Classification Code 3-09-010-18.
 b  Controlled with chevron-blade mist eliminators.
 c  Total PM consists of filterable and condensible PM.  However, condensible PM is likely to be
   negligible.
 d  Comprised almost completely of hexavalent chromium.
       Table 12.20-4. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ELECTROPLATING-OTHER METALSa
                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Copper cyanide electroplating tank with mesh-pad mist
eliminator
(SCC 3-09-01042)
Copper sulfate electroplating tank with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-09-010-45)
Cadmium cyanide electroplating tank
(SCC 3-09-010-52)
- with mesh-pad mist eliminator
- with mesh-pad mist eliminator
-- with packed-bed scrubber
~ with packed-bed scrubber
- with packed-bed scrubber
Nickel electroplating tank
(SCC 3-09-010-68)
~ with wet scrubber
Pollutant
Cyanide
Copper
Cadmium
Cyanide
Cadmium
Cyanide
Cadmium
Ammonia
Nickel
Nickel
Emission Factor
grains/A-hr
NA
NA
0.040
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.63
NA
grains/dscf
2.7 x 10'6
8.1 x 10'5
NA
0.00010
1.4 x 10'7
5.9 x 10'5
1.7 x lO'6
4.2 x 10'5
NA
6.7 x 10'6
Ref.
21
31
31
21
21
22
22,31
22
31
31
  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. All emission factors in units of grains per
  ampere-hour (grains/A-hr) and as concentrations in units of grains per dry standard cubic foot
  (grains/dscf).  To convert from grains/A-hr to mg/A-hr multiply by 64.8.  To convert grains/dscf to
  mg/dscm, multiply by 2,290.  To convert grains/A-hr to grains/dscf, multiply by 0.01.  To convert
  grains/dscf to grains/A-hr multiply by 100. Note that there is considerable uncertainty in these latter
  two conversion factors because of differences in tank geometry, ventilation, and control device
  performance.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  NA = units not applicable.
7/96
Metallurgical Industry
12.20-17
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 12.20

 1.  Horner, J., "Electroplating", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, 4th Ed., Volume
    No. 9, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1994.

 2.  Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Chromium (Supplement), EPA
    450/2-89-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1989.

 3.  Chromium Emissions From Chromium Electroplating And Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations--
    Background Information For Proposed Standards, EPA 453/R-93-030a, U.  S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1993.

 4.  Metal Finishing Guidebook And Directory Issue '93k, Volume 91,  Issue IA, Elsevier Science
    Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, January 1993.

 5.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Greensboro Industrial Platers, Greensboro, NC, Entropy
    Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-l, March 1986.

 6.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Consolidated Engravers Corporation, Charlotte, NC,
    Peer Consultants, Inc., Rockville, MD, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Research Triangle Park, NC,  EMB Report 87-CEP-9, May 1987.

 7.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Able Machine Company, Taylors, SC, PEI Associates,
    Inc., Cincinnati, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
    Park, NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-3, June 1986.

 8.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Roll Technology Corporation, Greenville, SC, Peer
    Consultants, Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
    Park, NC, EMB Report 88-CEP-13, August 1988.

 9.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Precision Machine And Hydraulic, Inc., Worthington, WV,
    Peer Consultants, Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
    Triangle Park, NC, EMB  Report 88-CEP-14, September 1988.

 10. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Hard Chrome Specialists,  York, PA, Peer Consultants,
    Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
    EMB Report-89-CEP-15, January 1989.

11.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Piedmont Industrial Platers,  Statesville, NC, Entropy
    Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-04,  September  1986.

12.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Steel Meddle, Inc.,  Greenville, SC, PEI Associates, Inc.,
    Cincinnati, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
    NC, EMB Report 86-CEP-2, June 1986.

13.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Fusion, Inc.,  Houston, TX, Peer Consultants, Inc., Dayton,
    OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB
    Report 89-CEP-16, May 1989.

14.  Hexalavent Chromium Emission Test Report:  Precision Engineering, Seattle, WA, Advanced
    Systems Technology, Atlanta, GA, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
    Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 91-CEP-18, December 1991.
12.20-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                                7/96
-------
 15.  Emission Test Report:  Emission Test Results For Total Chromium Inlet And Outlet Of The South
     Fume Scrubber, Monroe Auto Equipment, Hartwell, GA, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     Report No. 192-92-25, February 1992.

 16.  Chromium Electroplaters Emission Test Report:  Remco Hydraulics,  Inc., Willits, CA, Advanced
     Systems Technology, Atlanta, GA, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 91-CEP-17, June 1991.

 17.  NESHAP Screening Method Chromium, Emission Test Report, Roll Technology Corporation,
     Greenville, SC, EMB Report No. 87-CEP-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, September 1987.

 18.  Chromium Electroplating Emissions Comparison Test: Electric Chromic And Grinding  Company,
     Santa Fe Springs, CO, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, EMB Report 91-CEP-20, February 1992.

 19.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report:  CMC Delco Products Division, Livonia, MI, Peer
     Consultants, Inc., Dayton, OH, Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 89-CEP-7, March 1987.

 20.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report:  Automatic Die Casting Specialties, Inc., St. Clair Shores,
     MI, Prepared for U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB
     Report 89-CEP-ll, April 1988.

 21.  NEESA 2-165, Chromium, Cyanide, And Cadmium Emission Tests Results, Building 604 Plating
     Facility, Source Identification 10-PEN17008406, Naval Aviation Depot, Pensacola, Naval Energy
     and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA, January 1991.

 22.  Charles K. Yee, Source Emissions Tests at Buildings 604 and 3557 at Naval Air Rework Facility,
     Pensacola, Florida, Navy Environmental Support Office, Port Hueneme, CA, September 1980.

 23.  Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, M&T Chemical's Fumetrol 101 In Hard
     Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, November 1, 1989.

 24.  Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, OMI International Corporation's Foam-Lok L
     In Hard Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, November 17,
     1989.

 25.  Test Results For Fume Suppressant Certification, McGean  Rohco's Dis Mist NP In Decorative
     Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, March 16,  1990.

 26.  Test Results For Fume  Suppressant Certification, Omi International's Zero-Mist In Decorative
     Chrome Plating Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, July 13, 1990.

 27.  Test Results For Fume  Suppressant Certification, Autochem, Inc., M&T's Fumetrol 101 In
     Chrome Anodizing Tanks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Arcadia, CA, March 1990.

 28.  William E. Powers and Seth Forester, Source Emission Testing Of The  Building 195 Plating Shop
     At Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA, 11-18 March 1985,  Naval Energy and
     Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA, May 1985.

 29.  Efficiency Of Harshaw  Chemical's MSP-ST For Controlling Chrome Emissions From A  Chromic
     Acid Anodizing Tank, Pacific Environmental Services,  Arcadia,  CA, March 16, 1989.
7/96                                Metallurgical Industry                             12.20-19
-------
30. Report of Hexavalent Chromium Emission Testing On The Chromic Acid Anodizing And Tri-Acid
    Etching Processes At Buildings 3 And 5, Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, CA,
    Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, September 14, 1989.

31. Air Toxics Sampling Report Deutsch Engineered Connecting Devices, Oceanside, California,
    Kleinfelder, Inc., San Diego, CA, June 28,  1991

32. Emission Test Results for Chromium Emission Rate of the Scrubber inlet at the U.S.  Chrome
    Corporation Facility, Batavia, New York, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC, November  11, 1991.

33. Source Test Report for Total Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium From Chromic Acid
    Anodizing, General Dynamics-Convair, Lindbergh Field Facility, Building #1, TEAM
    Environmental Services, Inc., San Marcos, CA, March 24, 1993.

34. Source Emission Evaluation, Hytek Finishes Company, Chrome Abatement Equipment
    Performance Evaluation, Kent, Washington, May 18-19, 1989, Am Test, Inc., Redmond, WA,
    July 14, 1989

35. Measurement of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions From Hard Chrome Plating Operations at
    Multichrome Company, Inc., Pacific Environmental Services,  Inc., Baldwin Park, CA, January 29,
    1993.

36. Measurement of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations In Building 2 At
    Naval Aviation Depot, North Island, San Diego, CA, Benmol  Corporation, San Diego, CA,
    October 29, 1991.

37. Measurement of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations In Building 2 At
    Naval Aviation Depot, San Diego,  CA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Baldwin Park, CA,
    April 8, 1992.

38. NEESA 2-197, Chromium Emission Tests Results, Building 32 Plating Facility, BAAQMD
    Authority To Construct:  574, Naval Aviation Depot, Alameda, Naval Energy and Environmental
    Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA, August 1992.

39. Measurement of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations In Building 2 At
    Naval Aviation Depot, San Diego,  CA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Baldwin Park, CA,
    August 15, 1991.

40. Compliance Test Procedure, Pacific Hard Chrome, Tests Conducted December 3, 1991, Chemical
    Data Management Systems, Dublin, CA, January 2, 1991.

41. Compliance Test Results, Babbitt Bearing, Test Date May 27, 1992, Chemical Data Management
    Systems, Dublin, CA, 1992.

42. Source Test Measurement Of Chromium Emissions From Chromic Acid Anodizing Tanks At
    Boeing Fabrication,  700  15th Street, S. W., Auburn, WA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
    Baldwin Park, CA, September 24,  1991.

43. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 12-20, Electroplating, U. S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1996.
12.20-20                           EMISSION FACTORS                                7/96
-------
 44.  D.S. Azbel, S.L. Lee, and T.S. Lee, Acoustic Resonance Theory For The Rupture of Film Cap Of
     A Gas Bubble At A Horizontal Gas-Liquid Interface, Two-Phase Momentum, Heat and Mass
     Transfer in Chemical, Process, and Energy Engineering Systems, Volume 1, F. Durst,
     G.V. Tsiklauri, and N.H. Afgan, Editors, Hemisphere Publishing Company, Washington, 1979.
7/96                                Metallurgical Industry                            12.20-21
-------
                       13.  MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
       This chapter contains emission factor information on those source categories that differ
substantially from, and hence cannot be grouped with, the other "stationary" sources discussed in this
publication. Most of these miscellaneous emitters, both natural and manmade, are truly area sources,
with their pollutant-generating process(es) dispersed over large land areas.  Another characteristic of
these sources is the inapplicability, in most cases, of conventional control methods such as wet/dry
equipment, fuel switching, process changes, etc. Instead, control of these emissions, where possible
at all, may involve such techniques as modification of agricultural burning practices, paving with
asphalt or concrete, or stabilization of dirt roads. Finally, miscellaneous sources generally emit
pollutants intermittently, compared to most stationary point  sources.  For example, a wildfire may
emit large quantities of paniculate and carbon monoxide for several hours or even days.  But, when
measured against a continuous emitter over a long period of time its emissions may seem relatively
minor. Also, effects on air quality may be of relatively short duration.
1/95                                 Miscellaneous Sources                               13.0-1
-------
 13.1  Wildfires And Prescribed Burning

 13.1.1  General1

        A wildfire is a large-scale natural combustion process that consumes various ages, sizes, and
 types of flora growing outdoors in a geographical area.  Consequently, wildfires are potential sources
 of large amounts of air pollutants that should be considered when trying to relate emissions to air
 quality.

        The size and intensity, even the occurrence, of a wildfire depend directly on such variables as
 meteorological conditions, the species of vegetation involved and their moisture content, and the
 weight of consumable fuel per acre (available fuel loading).  Once a fire begins,  the dry combustible
 material is consumed first.  If the energy release is large and of sufficient duration, the drying of
 green, live material  occurs, with subsequent burning of this material as well.  Under proper
 environmental and fuel  conditions, this process may initiate a chain reaction that results in a
 widespread conflagration.

        The complete combustion of wildland fuels (forests, grasslands,  wetlands) require a heat flux
 (temperature gradient),  adequate oxygen supply, and sufficient burning time.  The size and quantity of
 wildland fuels, meteorological conditions, and topographic features interact to modify  the burning
 behavior as the fire spreads, and the wildfire will  attain different degrees of combustion efficiency
 during its lifetime.

        The importance of both fuel type and fuel loading on the fire process cannot be
 overemphasized. To meet the pressing need for this kind of information, the U. S. Forest Service is
 developing a model of a nationwide fuel  identification  system that will provide estimates of fuel
 loading by size class. Further, the environmental parameters  of wind, slope, and expected moisture
 changes have been superimposed on this fuel model and incorporated into a National Fire Danger
 Rating System (NFDRS).  This system considers five classes of fuel, the components of which are
 selected on the basis of combustibility, response of dead fuels to moisture, and whether the living
 fuels are herbaceous (grasses, brush) or woody (trees,  shrubs).

        Most fuel loading figures are  based  on values for "available fuel", that is, combustible
 material that will be consumed in a wildfire under specific weather conditions. Available fuel values
 must not be confused with corresponding values for either  "total fuel"  (all the combustible material
 that would burn under the most severe weather and burning conditions) or "potential fuel" (the larger
 woody material that remains even after an extremely high intensity wildfire).  It must be emphasized,
 however, that the various methods of fuel identification are of value only when they are related to the
 existing fuel quantity, the quantity consumed by the fire, and the geographic area and conditions
under which the fire occurs.

       For the sake of conformity and convenience, estimated fuel loadings estimated for the
vegetation in the U.  S. Forest Service Regions are presented in Table 13.1-1.  Figure  13.1-1
 illustrates these areas and regions.
10/96                                 Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                           13.1-1
-------
Table 13.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FUEL CONSUMED BY
                                         WILDFIRES"
National Regionb
Rocky Mountain
Region 1: Northern
Region 2: Rocky Mountain
Region 3: Southwestern
Region 4: Intermountain
Pacific
Region 5: California
Region 6: Pacific Northwest
Region 10: Alaska
Coastal
Interior
Southern
Region 8: Southern
Eastern
North Central
Region 9: Conifers
Hardwoods
Estimated Average Fuel Loading
Mg/hectare
83
135
67
22
40
43
40
135
36
135
25
20
20
25
25
22
27
ton/acre
37
60
30
10
8
19
18
60
16
60
11
9
9
11
11
10
12
' Reference 1.
b See Figure 13.1-1 for region boundaries.
 13.1.2  Emissions And Controls1

        It has been hypothesized, but not proven, that the nature and amounts of air pollutant
emissions are directly related to the intensity and direction (relative to the wind) of the wildfire, and
are indirectly related to the rate at which the fire spreads.  The factors that affect the rate of spread
are (1) weather (wind velocity, ambient temperature, relative humidity); (2) fuels (fuel type, fuel bed
array, moisture content, fuel size); and (3) topography (slope and profile). However, logistical
problems (such as size of the burning area) and difficulties in safely situating personnel and equipment
close to the fire have prevented the collection of any reliable emissions data on actual wildfires, so
that it is not possible to verify  or disprove the hypothesis. Therefore, until such measurements are
made, the only available information is that obtained from burning experiments in the laboratory.
These data, for both emissions and emission factors, are contained in Table 13.1-2.   It must be
emphasized that the factors presented here are adequate for laboratory-scale emissions estimates,  but
that substantial errors may result if they are used to calculate actual wildfire emissions.
 13.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/96
-------
                                                          • Headquarters
                                                     —	 Regional Boundaries
                 Figure 13.1-1.  Forest areas And U. S. Forest Service Regions.
       The emissions and emission factors displayed in Table 13.1-2 are calculated using the
following formulas:
                                            F.  = P:L
                                                       (1)
                                       E.  = F.A = P.LA
                                                       (2)
where:
        F; = emission factor (mass of pollutant/unit area of forest consumed)
        Pi = yield for pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant/unit mass of forest fuel consumed)
           = 8.5 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (17 pound per ton [lb/ton]) for total particulate
           = 70 kg/Mg (140 lb/ton) for carbon monoxide
           = 12 kg/Mg (24 lb/ton) for total hydrocarbon (as CH4)
           = 2 kg/Mg (4 lb/ton) for nitrogen oxides (NOJ
           = negligible for sulfur  oxides (SOJ
        L = fuel  loading consumed (mass of forest fuel/unit land area burned)
        A = land area burned
        E; = total emissions of pollutant "i" (mass pollutant)
10/96
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                          13.1-3
-------
  C/3
  bu

  §
  on
  Of!
  O

  <
  IX,
  on
  22
  S
  w

  Q
  V3
  Z
  o
  on
  co
  W


  CN



  rn
O
z
E
1
on
co
UJ



M
s
o
'£
W






I
K

t
1
c






1

e,
f
f
,?

•5 i
o
O







fl
z°
™ H
"3 S>

«•§
8 g
0 §
1
•|
*
1$
P 'd
z°
^-g


>5
^
i §

I
o
H
Cu
§ gf
^ &- ^
£ B 8
3 1 "§)
v?
>•» ^S e3
n S |



S
•a
o
"E.
8
o

00
t~-
OS
m
OS
$
T-H

5o
5
s
OS
o

3
T-H

•o
OS


0
oo
in
*
f-.




00

R

CO





.§
c
o
s
f

in
CM
00
CM
OS
in
CM

s
OS
8
S

OS
CM

O



o

os
„
i-H
^



CO

VO
CM
5



""
M
'*

Northern

Sin o >-< co \o co oo oo •*
CO t^- CM CO f^ VO CM CM "^
oo co o *—< o r** in in ^
m co CM cMo\inoo vo vo *o
inCM Tj- 00 rfr OS OS CM

>o f- co oo m •* oo •* •* m
oo i—1 in co *sj* in co oOoOin
o *
ON CO 00
VO CM £
in oo os
00 i-! \O
r» c\ co
•* -H os

t^ »— ' CO
•^•00 <-H
00 O\ CM
ON in in
in oo in
OS OS O
CM VO
in
5 •* r-


\o ^5 oo
ON O> *O
CM CM •*


O O O
C-- t^" ^O

2 2 S
CM CM CO




in in oo
CM CM CO

OO vo O
CM O 00
fH (- O

-


^^
"e
§<_o
o _
'§> N
o S c/ o
gq H
                                                                                  a  23
                                                                                  O  53

                                                                                  '  "8
                                                                                  §  B-
                                                                                  u w
13.1-4
                            EMISSION FACTORS
10/96
-------
        For example, suppose that it is necessary to estimate the total participate emissions from a
 10,000-hectare wildfire in the Southern area (Region 8).  From Table 13.1-1, it is seen that the
 average fuel loading is 20 Mg/hectare (9 tons/acre).  Further, the pollutant yield for particulates is
 8.5 kg/Mg (17 Ib/ton). Therefore, the emissions are:

         E  = (8.5 kg/Mg of fuel) (20 Mg of fuel/hectare) (10,000 hectares)

         E  = 1,700,000 kg = 1,700 Mg

        The most effective method of controlling wildfire emissions is, of course, to prevent the
 occurrence of wildfires by various means at the land manager's disposal.  A frequently used technique
 for reducing wildfire occurrence is "prescribed"  or "hazard reduction" burning.  This type of
 managed burn involves combustion of litter and  underbrush to prevent fuel buildup under controlled
 conditions,  thus reducing the  danger of a wildfire.  Although some air pollution is generated by this
 preventive burning, the net amount is believed to be a relatively smaller quantity then that produced
 by wildfires.

 13.1.3  Prescribed Burning1

        Prescribed burning is  a land treatment, used under controlled conditions, to accomplish
 natural resource management  objectives.  It is one of several land treatments, used individually or in
 combination, including chemical and mechanical methods. Prescribed fires are conducted within the
 limits of a fire plan and prescription that describes both the acceptable range of weather,  moisture,
 fuel, and fire behavior parameters, and the ignition method to achieve the desired effects. Prescribed
 fire is a cost-effective and ecologically sound tool for forest, range, and wetland management.  Its use
 reduces the potential for destructive wildfires and thus maintains long-term air quality. Also, the
 practice removes logging residues, controls insects and disease, improves wildlife habitat and forage
 production, increases water yield, maintains natural  succession of plant communities, and reduces the
 need for pesticides and herbicides. The major air pollutant of concern is the smoke produced.

        Smoke from prescribed fires is a complex mixture of carbon, tars, liquids, and different
 gases. This open combustion source produces particles of widely ranging size, depending to some
 extent on the rate of energy release of the fire.  For example, total particulate and particulate less than
 2.5 micrometers  (jim) mean mass cutpoint diameters are produced in different proportions, depending
 on rates of heat release by the fire.2 This difference is greatest  for the highest-intensity fires, and
 particle volume distribution is bimodal, with peaks near 0.3 /an and exceeding  10 ^m.3  Particles
 over about 10 /*m, probably of ash and partially  burned plant matter, are entrained by the turbulent
 nature of high-intensity fires.

       Burning methods  differ with fire objectives and with fuel and weather conditions.4  For
example, the various  ignition  techniques used to  burn under standing trees include:  (1) heading fire,
a line of fire that runs with the wind; (2) backing fire, a line of fire that moves  into the wind; (3) spot
fires, which burn from a number of fires ignited along a line or in a pattern; and (4) flank fire, a line
of fire that is lit into the wind, to spread laterally to the direction of die wind.   Methods  of igniting
the fires depend on forest management objectives and the size of the area.  Often, on areas of 50 or
more acres, helicopters with aerial ignition devices are used to light broadcast burns.  Broadcast fires
may involve many lines of fire in a pattern that allows the strips of fire to burn together over a
sizeable area.
10/96                                 Miscellaneous Sources                                13.1-5
-------
       In discussing prescribed burning, the combustion process is divided into preheating, flaming,
glowing, and smoldering phases.  The different phases of combustion greatly affect the amount of
emissions produced.5"7 The preheating phase seldom releases significant quantities of material to the
atmosphere.  Glowing combustion is usually associated with burning of large concentrations of woody
fuels such as logging residue piles.  The smoldering combustion phase is a very inefficient and
incomplete combustion process that emits pollutants at a much higher ratio to the quantity of fuel
consumed than does the flaming combustion of similar materials.

       The amount of fuel consumed depends on the moisture content of the fuel.8"9  For most fuel
types, consumption during the smoldering phase is greatest when the fuel is driest. When lower
layers of the fuel are moist, the fire usually is  extinguished rapidly.10

       The major pollutants  from wildland burning are particulate, carbon monoxide, and volatile
organics.  Nitrogen oxides are emitted at rates of from 1  to 4 g/kg burned, depending on combustion
temperatures.  Emissions of sulfur oxides are negligible.11"12

       Particulate emissions  depend on the mix of combustion phase, the rate of energy release, and
the type of fuel consumed. All of these elements must be considered in  selecting the appropriate
emission factor for a given fire and fuel situation.  In some cases, models developed by the U. S.
Forest Service have been used to predict particulate emission factors and source strength.13 These
models address fire behavior, fuel chemistry, and ignition technique, and they predict the mix of
combustion products.  There  is insufficient knowledge at this time to describe the  effect of fuel
chemistry on emissions.

       Table 13.1-3 presents emission factors from various pollutants, by fire and fuel configuration.
Table 13.1-4. gives emission factors for prescribed burning, by geographical area  within the United
States. Estimates of the percent of total fuel consumed by region were compiled by polling experts
from the Forest Service.  The emission factors are averages and can vary by as much as 50 percent
with fuel and fire conditions. To use these factors, multiply the mass of fuel consumed per hectare
by the emission factor for the appropriate fuel  type.  The mass of fuel consumed by a fire is defined
as the available fuel.  Local forestry officials often compile information on fuel consumption  for
prescribed fires and have techniques for estimating fuel consumption  under local conditions.  The
Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook? and the Prescribed Fire Smoke Management
Guide15 should  be consulted when using these emission factors.

       The regional emission factors in Table 13.1-4 should be used only for general planning
purposes. Regional averages are based on estimates of the acreage and vegetation type burned and
may not reflect prescribed burning activities in a given state. Also, the regions identified are broadly
defined, and the mix of vegetation and acres burned within a given state may vary considerably from
the regional averages provided. Table 13.1-4  should not be used to develop  emission  inventories and
control strategies.

       To develop state emission inventories,  the user is strongly urged to contact that state's federal
land management agencies and  state forestry agencies that conduct prescribed burning to obtain the
best information on such activities.
13.1-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                10/96
-------
    s
    a
    P
    o

    I

                  .2
                   0)

                  £
                              or-
                              mvo
                                                                                oo
                                                                                
 e
 
-------













^
&0
jX
-29
3
!e





















EMISSION 1
t
«


l

CA
O

00
6
_u
1


.

^



1
"3
o

3
&















t o
3 Z

3 *—•
3

1
1
o
Z

1
s
H-8
1'S
3 c
* •§

^
H
o
i
^
a.

"5

>g
OH

O
05
1

c
,o
1
•§
o
U
~3
a
1
u-

QQ acncQcarara •<•<<; QQQQQOQ
CM *O VI
Q Q oo vi ts
z z - rt



QQ rst^>ncnKvd oo^^j QQQQQ"®
zz zzzzz



QQ cs c> vd en vd vd ^n^-* QQQQQOQ
zz ^ zzzzzz


8° 5c3oor2oo inmo oc3°§@Sr2
CN CN *~~t *—* *-* '"^ *~^ c*) T"^ *~* '"^ £-*



z
C4


00


QQ ^S^SSS ^22 QQQQQ°°Q
ZZ ZZZZZZ

"on •^j) oij an on
v v B. « ! B, « ! U, ca | 1 | 1' | 1 1 1
33 tn 32 « K
0
'o
1 1 -. i I

i!i? i i:l" t> ! ^ i S
2*1 t 1 Is « i J i 15
2Si5 w u .So o
CA -J
13.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                        10/96
-------
        s?
       'o>

gp
'S
T3
1
en
II
on
t
53
II
PL,
.§'
&0
2
£
? Al
1 1
2 1
d a"
« «S
3 S
H 2
^ 13
«C
>»
f>
I
1
•S
1
1

en
0
CJ
§
&
£




s
cd
T3
a
Q
2
on
T3

53
PL,
f| ,
o
average


.CTOR RATING: C.
<
UH
z
2
CO
on
HH
1
c~'
ference
aj
^
*s
0

S
OH
VH
£

Q
FACTOR RATING:
O
on
on
W
r^-
en"
ferences
-
cn"
ferences

(A
1
tf
o
CA
<4-i
O
-------
     Table 13.1-4 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRESCRIBED BURNING
                              BY U. S. REGION
Regional Configuration
And Fuel Type"
Pacific Northwest
Logging slash
Piled slash
Douglas fir/Western hemlock
Mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Hardwood
Underburning pine
Average for region
Pacific Southwest
Sagebrush
Chaparral
Pinyon/Juniper
Underburning pine
Grassland
Average for region
Southeast
Palmetto/gallbery
Underburning pine
Logging slash
Grassland
Other
Average for region
Percent
Of Fuelb


42
24
19
6
4
5
100

35
20
20
15
10
100

35
30
20
10
5
100
Pollutant0
Paniculate (g/kg)
PM-2.5 PM-10


4 5
12 13
12 13
13 13
11 12
30 30
9.4 10.3

9
8 9
13
30
10
13.0

15
30
13
10
17
18.8
PM


6
17
17
20
18
35
13.3

15
15
17
35
10
17.8

16
35
20
10
17
21.9
CO


37
175
175
126
112
163
111.1

62
62
175
163
15
101.0

125
163
126
75
175
134
13.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/96
-------
                                      Table 13.1-4  (cont.).
Regional Configuration
And Fuel Type8
Rocky Mountain
Logging slash
Underburning pine
Grassland
Other
Average for region
North Central and Eastern
Logging slash
Grassland
Underburning pine
Other
Average for region
Percent
of Fuelb

50
20
20
10
100

50
30
10
10
100
Pollutant0
Particulate (g/kg)
PM-2.5 PM-10

4
30
10
17
11.9

13
10
30
17
14
PM

6
35
10
17
13.7

17
10
35
17
16.5
CO

37
163
75
175
83.4

175
75
163
175
143.8
" Regional areas are generalized, e. g., the Pacific Northwest includes Oregon, Washington, and parts
  of Idaho and California.  Fuel types generally reflect the ecosystems of a region, but users should
  seek advice on fuel type mix for a given season of the year. An average factor for Northern
  California could be more accurately described as chaparral, 25%; Underburning pine, 15%;
  sagebrush, 15%; grassland, 5%; mixed conifer, 25%; and  douglas fir/Western hemlock, 15%.
  Blanks indicate no data.
b Based on the judgement of forestry experts.
c Adapted from Table 13.1-3 for the dominant fuel types burned.

13.1.4  Wildfires and Prescribed Burning—Greenhouse Gases

        Emission factors  for greenhouse gases from wildfires and prescribed burning are provided
based on the amount of material burned.  Emission factors for methane (CH4)  and nitrous oxide (N2O)
based on the mass of material burned are provided in Table 13.1-5.  To express emissions based on
area burned, refer to Table 13.1-1 for estimated average fuel loading by region.  The CH4 emission
factors have been divided into the type of forests being studied for specific plant species.  Emissions
of CO2 from this source as well as other biogenic sources are part of the carbon cycle,  and as such
are typically not included in greenhouse gas emission inventories.
10/96
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                        13.1-11
-------
        Table 13.1-5.  WILDFIRE AND PRESCRIBED BURNING GREENHOUSE GAS
                                   EMISSION FACTORS

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Regional/Fuel Type'
Agricultural Residues
Amazon
Boreal and Coniferous Forests
Savanna
Temperate and Boreal Forests
Pollutant (Ib/ton)
CH4
5.4b
8.5C
11.1°
3.7C
12.2
N2O


0.46


" References 19-22.  To convert Ib/ton to kg/Mg multiply by 0.5.
b For more details see Table 2.5-5 of Section 2.5 Opening Burning.
c Emission factor developed based on combustion efficiency (ratio of carbon released as

References For Section 13.1
1 .      Development Of Emission Factors For Estimating Atmospheric Emissions From Forest Fires,
       EPA-450/3-73-009, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1973.

2.      D. E. Ward and C. C. Hardy, Advances In The Characterization And Control Of Emissions
       From Prescribed Broadcast Fires Of Coniferous Species Logging Slash On Clearcut Units,
       EPA DW12930110-01-3/DOE DE-A179-83BP 12869, U. S. Forest Service, Seattle, WA,
       January 1986.

3.      L. F. Radke, et al., Airborne Monitoring And Smoke Characterization Of Prescribed Fires On
       Forest Lands In Western Washington And Oregon, EPA-600/X-83-047, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1983.

4.      H. E. Mobley, et al., A Guide For Prescribed Fire In Southern Forests, U. S. Forest Service,
       Atlanta, GA, 1973.

5.      Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook, SE-10, U. S. Forest Service, Asheville,
       NC, 1976.

6.      D. E. Ward and C. C. Hardy, "Advances In The Characterization And Control Of Emissions
       From Prescribed Fires", Presented at the 77th Annual Meeting Of The Air Pollution Control
       Association, San Francisco, CA, June 1984.

7.      C. C. Hardy and D. E. Ward, "Emission Factors For Paniculate Matter By Phase Of
       Combustion From Prescribed Burning", Presented at the Annual Meeting Of The Air
       Pollution Control Association  Pacific Northwest International Section, Eugene, OR,
       November 19-21,  1986.
13.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                     10/96
-------
8.     D. V. Sandberg and R. D. Ottmar,  "Slash Burning And Fuel Consumption In The Douglas
       Fir Subregion", Presented at the 7th Conference On Fire And Forest Meteorology, Fort
       Collins, CO, April 1983.

9.     D. V. Sandberg, "Progress In Reducing Emissions From Prescribed Forest Burning In
       Western Washington And Western Oregon", Presented at the Annual Meeting Of The Air
       Pollution Control Association Pacific Northwest International Section, Eugene, OR,
       November  19-21,  1986.

10.    R. D. Ottmar and D. V. Sandberg,  "Estimating 1000-hour Fuel Moistures In The Douglas Fir
       Subregion", Presented at the 7th Conference On Fire And Forest Meteorology, Fort Collins,
       CO, April 25-28,  1983.

11.    D. V. Sandberg, et al., Effects Of Fire On Air — A State Of Knowledge Review, WO-9,
       U. S. Forest Service, Washington, DC, 1978.

12.    C. K. McMahon,  "Characteristics Of Forest Fuels, Fires, And  Emissions", Presented at the
       76th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,  Atlanta, GA, June 1983.

13.    D. E. Ward, "Source Strength Modeling Of Paniculate Matter  Emissions From Forest Fires",
       Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting Of The Air Pollution Control Association, Atlanta,  GA,
       June 1983.

14.    D. E. Ward, et al.,  "Paniculate Source Strength Determination For Low-intensity Prescribed
       Fires", Presented at the Agricultural Air Pollutants Specialty Conference, Air Pollution
       Control Association, Memphis, TN, March 18-19, 1974.

15.    Prescribed Fire Smoke Management Guide, 420-1, BIFC-BLM  Warehouse, Boise, ID,
       February 1985.

16.    Colin C. Hardy, Emission Factors For Air Pollutants From Range Improvement Prescribed
       Burning of Western Juniper And Basin Big Sagebrush, PNW 88-575, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March  1990.

17.    Colin C. Hardy And D. R. Teesdale, Source Characterization and Control Of Smoke
       Emissions From Prescribed Burning  Of California Chaparral, CDF Contract No. 89CA96071,
       California Department Of Forestry And Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA  1991.

18.    Darold E. Ward And C. C. Hardy,  "Emissions From Prescribed Burning Of Chaparral",
       Proceedings Of The 1989 Annual Meeting Of The Air And Waste Management Association,
       Anaheim, CA  June 1989.

19.    D. Ward, et al., An Inventory  Of Paniculate Matter And Air Toxic Emissions From Prescribed
       Fires In The U.S.A. For 1989, Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association,
       1993 Annual Meeting,  Denver, CO, p.  10, June 14-18, 1993.

20.    W. M. Hao and D. Ward, "Methane Production From Global Biomass Burning", Journal Of
       Geophysical Research, 98(D11):20,657-20,661, pp. 20, 656, November 1993.
10/96                               Miscellaneous Sources                              13.1-13
-------
21.    D. Nance, et a/., "Air Borne Measurements Of Gases And Particles From An Alaskan
       Wildfire", Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(D8): 14,873-14,882, August 1993.

22.    L. Radke, et al., "Particulate And Trace Gas Emissions From Large Biomass Fires In North
       America", Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, And Biospheric Implications, MIT
       Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 221, 1991.
 13.1-14                            EMISSION FACTORS                              10/96
-------
 13.2 Fugitive Dust Sources

        Significant atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular material
 exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" because it is not
 discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream.  Common sources of fugitive dust include
 unpaved roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and heavy construction
 operations.

        For the above sources of fugitive dust, the dust-generation process is caused by 2 basic
 physical phenomena:

        1.   Pulverization and abrasion of surface materials by application of mechanical force
            through implements (wheels, blades, etc.).

        2.   Entrainment of dust particles by the action of turbulent air currents, such as wind erosion
            of an exposed surface by wind speeds over 19 kilometers per hour (km/hr) (12 miles per
            hour [mph]).

        In this section of AP-42, the principal pollutant of interest is PM-10 — paniculate matter
 (PM) no greater than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (jimA).  Because PM-10 is the  size
 basis for the current primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for paniculate
 matter, it represents the particle size range of the greatest regulatory interest.  Because formal
 establishment of PM-10 as the primary standard basis occurred in 1987, many earlier emission tests
 have been referenced to other particle size ranges, such as:

        TSP   Total Suspended Paniculate, as measured by the standard  high-volume  ("hi-vol") air
               sampler, has a relatively coarse size range.  TSP was the basis for the previous
               primary NAAQS for PM and is still the basis  of the secondary standard. Wind tunnel
               studies show that the particle mass capture efficiency curve for the high-volume
               sampler is very broad,  extending from 100 percent capture of particles  smaller than
               10 fan to a few percent capture of particles as large as 100 /mi. Also, the capture
               efficiency curve varies  with wind speed and wind direction, relative to roof ridge
               orientation.  Thus, high-volume samplers do not provide definitive particle size
               information for emission factors.  However, an effective cut point of 30 /*m
               aerodynamic diameter is frequently assigned to the standard high volume sampler.

        SP     Suspended Particulate,  which is often used as a surrogate for TSP, is defined as PM
               with an aerodynamic diameter no greater than 30 /un.  SP may also  be denoted as
               PM-30.

        IP      Inhalable Particulate is  defined as PM with an aerodynamic diameter no greater than
               15 [im IP also may be denoted as PM-15.
       FP     Fine Particulate is defined as PM with an aerodynamic diameter no greater than
               2.5 /xm.  FP may also be denoted as PM-2.5.

       The impact of a fugitive dust source on air pollution depends on the quantity and drift
potential of the dust particles injected into the atmosphere.   In addition to large dust particles that


1/95                                 Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2-1
-------
settle out near the source (often creating a local nuisance problem), considerable amounts of fine
particles also are emitted and dispersed over much greater distances from the source.  PM-10
represents a relatively fine particle size range and, as such, is not overly susceptible to gravitational
settling.

       The potential drift distance of particles is governed by the initial injection height of the
particle, the terminal settling velocity of the particle, and  the degree of atmospheric turbulence.
Theoretical drift distance, as a function of particle diameter and mean wind speed, has been computed
for fugitive dust emissions.  Results  indicate that, for a typical mean wind speed of 16 km/hr
(10 mph), particles larger than about 100 /im are likely to settle out within 6 to 9 meters (20 to
30 feet [ft]) from the edge of the road or other point of emission.  Particles that are 30 to 100 pm in
diameter are likely to undergo impeded settling.  These particles, depending upon the extent of
atmospheric turbulence, are likely to settle within a few hundred feet from the road. Smaller
particles, particularly IP, PM-10, and FP, have much slower gravitational settling velocities and are
much more likely to have their settling rate retarded by atmospheric turbulence.

       Control techniques for fugitive dust sources generally involve watering, chemical stabilization,
or reduction of surface wind speed with windbreaks  or source enclosures.  Watering, the most
common and, generally, least expensive method,  provides only temporary dust control.  The use of
chemicals to treat exposed surfaces provides longer dust suppression, but may be costly, have adverse
effects on plant and animal life, or contaminate the treated material. Windbreaks and source
enclosures are often  impractical because of the size of fugitive dust sources.

       The reduction of source extent and the incorporation of process modifications or adjusted
work practices, both of which reduce the amount of dust generation, are preventive techniques for the
control of fugitive dust emissions. These techniques could include, for example, the elimination of
mud/dirt carryout on paved roads at  construction sites.  On the other hand, mitigative measures entail
the periodic removal of dust-producing material.  Examples of mitigative control measures include
clean-up of spillage on paved or unpaved travel surfaces and clean-up of material spillage at conveyor
transfer points.
 13.2-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
13.2.1 Paved Roads

13.2.1.1  General

       Participate emissions occur whenever vehicles travel over a paved surface, such as a road or
parking lot. In general terms, paniculate emissions from paved roads originate from the loose
material present on the surface.  In turn, that surface loading,  as it is moved or removed,  is
continuously replenished by other sources. At industrial sites, surface loading is replenished by
spillage of material and trackout from unpaved roads and staging areas. Figure  13.2.1-1 illustrates
several transfer processes occurring on public streets.

       Various field studies have found that public streets and highways, as well as roadways at
industrial facilities, can be major sources of the atmospheric paniculate matter within an area.1"9 Of
particular interest in many parts of the United States are the increased levels of emissions  from public
paved roads when the equilibrium between deposition and removal processes is upset.  This situation
can occur for various reasons, including application of snow and ice controls, carryout from
construction activities in  the area, and wind and/or water erosion from surrounding unstabilized areas.

13.2.1.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

       Dust emissions from paved roads have been found to vary with what is termed the "silt
loading" present on the road surface as well as the average weight of vehicles traveling the road. The
term silt loading (sL) refers to the mass of silt-size material (equal to or less than 75 micrometers
[/im] in physical diameter) per unit area of the travel surface.4  The total road  surface dust loading
is that of loose material that can be collected by broom sweeping and vacuuming of the traveled
portion of the paved road. The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of the loose
dry surface dust that passes through a 200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method.  Silt loading
is the product of the silt  fraction and the total loading, and is abbreviated  "sL".  Additional details on
the sampling and analysis of such material are provided in AP-42 Appendices C.I and C.2.

       The surface sL provides a reasonable means of characterizing seasonal variability  in a paved
road emission inventory.9  In many areas of the country, road surface loadings are heaviest during the
late winter and early spring months when the residual loading from snow/ice controls is greatest.

13.2.1.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations10

       The quantity of dust emissions from vehicle traffic on a paved  road may be estimated using
the following empirical expression:
where:

        E = particulate emission factor
        k = base emission factor for particle size range and units of interest (see below)
       sL = road surface silt loading (grams per square meter) (g/m2)
       W = average weight  (tons) of the vehicles traveling the road

1/96                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.1-1
-------
                                                                                  CJ
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  03


                                                                                  O
                                                                                  §
                                                                                  c
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  •a
                                                                                  '55

                                                                                  a
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  Q
                                                                                  CN
                                                                                  00

                                                                                  E
13.2.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
       It is important to note that Equation 1 calls for the average weight of all vehicles traveling the
road. For example,  if 99 percent of traffic on the road are 2 Mg cars/trucks while the remaining
1 percent consists of 20 Mg trucks, then the mean weight "W" is 2.2 Mg.  More specifically,
Equation  1 is not intended to be used to calculate a separate emission factor for each vehicle weight
class. Instead, only  1 emission factor should be calculated to represent the "fleet" average weight of
all vehicles traveling the road.

The particle size multiplier (k) above varies with aerodynamic size range as follows:

                         Particle Size Multipliers For Paved Road Equation

Size Rangea
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-15
PM-30C
Multiplier kb
g/VKT
2.1
4.6
5.5
24
g/VMT
3.3
7.3
9.0
38
Ib/VMT
0.0073
0.016
0.020
0.082
a Refers to airborne particulate matter (PM-x) with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than
  x micrometers.
b Units shown are grams per vehicle kilometer traveled  (g/VKT), grams per vehicle mile traveled
  (g/VMT), and pounds per vehicle mile traveled (Ib/VMT).
c PM-30 is sometimes termed "suspendable particulate"  (SP) and is often used as a surrogate for TSP.
To determine particulate emissions for a specific particle size range, use the appropriate value of
k above.

        The above equation is based on a regression analysis of numerous emission tests, including
65 tests for PM-10.    Sources tested include public paved roads, as well as controlled and
uncontrolled industrial paved roads.  No tests of "stop-and-go" traffic were available for inclusion in
the data base.  The equations retain the quality rating of A (B for PM-2.5), if applied within the range
of source conditions  that were tested in developing the equation as follows:
        Silt loading:
       Mean vehicle weight:
       Mean vehicle speed:
0.02 -  400 g/m2
0.03 -  570 grains/square foot (ft2)

1.8  -  38 megagrams (Mg)
2.0  -  42 tons

16   -  88 kilometers per hour (kph)
10   -  55 miles per hour (mph)
       To retain the quality rating for the emission factor equation when it is applied to a specific
paved road, it is necessary that reliable correction parameter values for the specific road in question
be determined. The field and laboratory procedures for determining surface material silt content and
surface dust loading are summarized in Appendices C.I and C.2. In the event that site-specific values
cannot be obtained, an appropriate value for an industrial road may be selected from the mean values
given in Table 13.2.1-1, but the quality rating of the equation should be reduced by 1  level. Also,
recall that Equation 1 refers to emissions due to freely flowing (not stop-and-go) traffic.
1/96
       Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                        13.2.1-3
-------
  00
  a
  <
  o
  a;

  Q
  oi
  O
  Pu

  C^3
  U
  D
  O

  Z
  H- I
  Q
  <
  O
    W
  S2
  •— H
  oo K


  < Q
  D

  X!
   W)

  W

  •a
   
o
U
oo




t







o>
S


0>
03
05

X
00
-*->
CH


£*
oj
S




1
D>D O ^— i ^" (N >— i »D mc<^ |



>D CN C; °^ O O ^
2S ^'-25^2 ID°^
CN ID OOcNrO'-'lD ^ON
— ' "* 0 0 ^ ^

CN CN ^H CN —< CN CN


O ID m ID -^-<
ON CN CO ID' O |

t> r~-
• "^ VO O ON
— -< .._
CN "^ ^O C^
Ti" ' ^3 CN ''d"
ID ^j CN ID vcj
— ^


rn oo co c<"> c<^ C^ 'O

— ON — — — CN — i


txn bO C __
•S .S 3 gj Ss
i- ci ^ 'S i^ ^ o ^~*
| ^ .0 ^ xl M^ "1
oo -rt tj "° w T3 'oo g^ ^2
1 |1 ! "i 11 If 1
O ^&< O oo ^ 2 O

c
"o rt
C CN
oo "-1
2 CN
ft 
*-< bo
o fr*
• — U-
3 -o
3 C
«J^"
O CN
~ 2
•«-« 1-1
5 3
"« £P


S «?
|^
B 2
— ^ 3
8 bO
oo E
f-
S CN

^5 ^ 	 J
0)
t/3 O
 ^
<— i »
                                                                      K X)
                                    -1 d<
13.2.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                    1/96
-------
       With the exception of limited access roadways, which are difficult to sample, the collection
and use of site-specific sL data for public paved road emission inventories are strongly recommended.
Although hundreds of public paved road sL measurements have been made since 1980,8> 14~21
uniformity has been lacking in sampling equipment and analysis techniques, in roadway classification
schemes, and in the types of data reported.10  The assembled data set (described below) does not
yield any readily identifiable, coherent relationship between sL and road class, average daily traffic
(ADT), etc., even though an inverse relationship between sL and ADT had been found for a subclass
of curbed  paved roads in urban areas.8  The absence of such a relationship in the composite data set
is believed to be due to the blending of data (industrial and nonindustrial,  uncontrolled,  and
controlled, and so on). Further complicating  any analysis is the fact that,  in many parts of the
country, paved road sL varies greatly over the course of the year, probably because of cyclic
variations in mud/dirt carryout and in use of anti-skid materials.  For example, repeated sampling of
the same roads over a period of 3 calendar years at 4 Montana municipalities indicated a noticeable
annual cycle.  In those areas, silt loading declines during the first 2 calendar quarters and increases
during the fourth quarter.

       Figure  13.2.1-2 and  Figure 13.2.1-3 present the cumulative frequency distribution for the
public paved road sL data base assembled during the preparation of this AP-42 section.10 The data
base includes samples taken from roads that were treated with sand and other snow/ice controls.
Roadways are grouped into high- and low-ADT sets, with 5000 vehicles per day being the
approximate cutpoint.  Figure 13.2.1-2 and Figure 13.2.1-3, respectively, present the cumulative
frequency distributions for high- and low-ADT roads.

       In the absence of site-specific sL  data to serve as input to a public paved road inventory,
conservatively high emission estimates can be obtained by using the following values taken from the
figures. For annual conditions, the median sL values of 0.4 g/m2 can be used for high-ADT roads
(excluding limited access roads that are discussed below) and 2.5 g/m2 for low-ADT roads.  Worst-
case loadings can be estimated for high-ADT  (excluding limited  access roads) and  low-ADT roads,
respectively, with the 90th percentile values of 7 and 25 g/m2. Figure 13.2.1-4, Figure 13.2.1-5,
Figure 13.2.1-6, and Figure 13.2.1-7 present similar cumulative frequency distribution  information
for high- and low-ADT roads, except that the sets were divided based on whether the sample was
collected during the first  or second half of the year.   Information on the 50th and 90th percentile
values is summarized in Table 13.2.1-2.
  Table 13.2.1-2 (Metric Units). PERCENTILES FOR NONINDUSTRIAL SILT LOADING (g/m2)
                                         DATA BASE

Averaging Period
Annual
January-June
July-December
High-ADT Roads
50th
0.4
0.5
0.3
90th
7
14
3
Low-ADT Roads
50th
2.5
3
1.5
90th
25
30
5
In the event that sL values are taken from any of the cumulative frequency distribution figures, the
quality ratings for the emission estimates should be downgraded 2 levels.
 1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-5
-------
        As an alternative method of selecting sL values in the absence of site-specific data, users can
review the public (i. e., nonindustrial) paved road sL data base presented in Table 13.2.1-3 and can
select values that are appropriate for the roads and seasons of interest. Table 13.2.1-3 presents paved
road surface loading values together with the city, state, road name, collection date (samples collected
from the same road during the same month are averaged), road ADT if reported, classification of the
roadway, etc.  Recommendation of this approach recognizes that end users of AP-42 are capable of
identifying roads in the data base that are similar to roads in  the area being inventoried.  In the event
that sL values are developed  in this way, and that the selection process is fully described, then the
quality ratings for the emission estimates should be downgraded only 1  level.

        Limited  access roadways pose severe logistical difficulties in terms of surface sampling, and
few sL data are  available for such roads.  Nevertheless, the available data do not suggest great
variation in sL for limited access roadways from 1 part of the country to another. For annual
conditions, a default value of 0.02 g/m2 is recommended for limited access roadways. Even fewer of
the available data correspond to  worst-case situations, and elevated loadings are observed to be
quickly depleted because of high ADT rates. A default value of 0.1 g/m2 is  recommended for short
periods of time following application of snow/ice controls to limited access roads.

13.2.1.4  Controls6'22

        Because of the importance of the surface loading,  control techniques  for paved roads attempt
either to prevent material from being deposited onto the surface (preventive controls) or  to remove
from the travel lanes any material that has been deposited (mitigative controls).  Regulations requiring
the covering of  loads in trucks, or the paving of access areas to unpaved lots or construction sites,  are
preventive measures.  Examples of mitigative controls include vacuum sweeping, water flushing, and
broom sweeping and flushing.

        In general, preventive controls are usually more cost effective than mitigative controls.  The
cost-effectiveness of mitigative controls falls off dramatically as the size of an area to be treated
increases.  That is to say, the number and length of public roads within most areas of interest
preclude any widespread and routine use of mitigative controls. On the other hand, because of the
more limited scope of roads at an industrial site, mitigative measures may  be used quite successfully
(especially in  situations where truck spillage occurs). Note,  however, that public agencies could make
effective use of  mitigative controls to remove sand/salt from roads after the winter ends.

        Because available controls will affect the sL, controlled emission factors may be obtained by
substituting controlled silt loading values into the equation.  (Emission factors from controlled
industrial roads  were used  in the development of the equation.) The collection of surface loading
samples from treated, as well as baseline (untreated), roads provides a means to track effectiveness of
the controls over time.
 13.2.1-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/96
-------
       0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5      1      2        5     10     20       50     100
  1.0,	,—
                1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1       i        i       r
                                                                                • 22
                                                                               •3.
                                                                             32
                                                                       • ••  *2
 0.9
 0.8
 0.7
 0.6
 0.5
 0.4
 0.3
 0.2
 0.1
 0.0
                                                           2-2
                                                                 22.
                                                                32
                                                              32
                                                             —3
                                                   4.
                                                  >4
                                                 33
                                               -3.
                                               5
                                                      .4
                                                     23
                                                    .4
                                                   32
                                                   5
                                                 •32
                                                32
                                               4.
                                             • 22
                                             5
                                    4>
                                  32
                                 4>
                                4.
                             3 3
                           "22
                           5
                          32
                         4-
                        5
                       32
                       23
                       6                                  High-ADT roads,  including majors,
                     •3«                                  arterials, collectors  with ADT
                     5                                    given as > 5000  vehicles/day
                   2-2
                          4-
                       -  4
                       5
                       4
           42
       3 «
       5
 mm  2   m
 2
_|	|	L
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2     0.5     1      2        5     10    20       50     100

                                       SILT  LOADING, "sL"  (g/m2)
 Figure  13.2.1-2.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on high-ADT roadways.
1/96                                    Miscellaneous Sources                                13.2.1-7
-------
      0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2     0.5      1      2       5     10     20       50     100
1.0
         r      i       i        i      i         i      i      i         i      i       i        i      r

                                                                                     2
                                                                                    3
                                                                                  • 2
0.9
                                                                               2
                                                                             2-
                                                                           2>
                                                                           3
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
 0.1
                                                                           2
                                                                         2-
                                                                        2-
                                                                      •2
                                                                      2
                                                                     3
                                3
                               3
                              2
                            3
                           2-
                         • 2
                        2
                       2-
                       3
                      2-
                     2>
                    ••
                   3
                   3
                  .2
                  2
                • 2
               •2
              3
              2
              3
              •2
            •2
           2             Low-ADT roads,  including local,
         2«              residential,  rural, and collector
        3                (excluding collector, with ADT given
     •• •                as > 5000 vehicles/day)
     2
    2 -
2  •
2
     i    I	I	I	I	I	1	1	I	I	1	1	'	L
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2        5     10     20      50     100
                                     SILT LOADING, "sL"  (g/m2)
 Figure  13.2.1-3.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on low-ADT roadways.
13.2.1-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                                   1/96
-------
      0.01   0.02     0.05    0.1     0.2      0.5    1      2       5     10     20       50     100
 1.0
                                                                          1       |        |       |
0.9
 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
 0
          High-ADT  roads, including  majors,                                        2«  •
          arterials, collectors with ADT                                         32
          given as  > 5000 vehicles/day                                         «3
                                                                           2 2
          First 2 calendar quarters                                  2 •• •
                                                                23
                                                              «2«
                                                              4
                                                           22-
                                                           4
                                                         23
                                                       «3
                                                       4
                                                     •3.
                                                     •3
                                                    •4
                                                   3«
                                                   4
                                                 •3-
                                                22
                                               4>
                                              22
                                             4
                                            4-
                                          3«
                                       «3
                                     >2 >
                                    4.
                                   3-
                                  4>
                                 4
                                3-
                               4>
                              .3
                             4>
                             4
                          .3
                        2 3
                      2 2
                      5
                     -3
                   •3
                5
                4
         3  2
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2       5     10     20      50     100
                                        SILT LOADING, »sL"  (g/m2)
            Figure 13.2.1-4.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
            high-ADT roadways, based on samples during first half of the calendar year.
1/96                                    Miscellaneous Sources                                13.2.1-9
-------
       0.01    0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2       5     10     20      50     100
 1.0
              -,	!       !	!	!	!	!
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

                                                        High-ADT  roads, including majors,
                                                        arterials, collectors with ADT
                                                        given as  > 5000 vehicles/day
0.3
                                                        Last 2 calendar quarters
0.2
0.1
                                                                                     J	L
        0.01   0.02   0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5    1      2        5     10     20       50     100
                                     SILT LOADING, "sL»  (g/n2)
           Figure 13.2.1-5.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
           high-ADT roadways, based on samples during second half of the calendar year.
13.2.1-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/96
-------
        0.01    0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2        5     10     20       50     100
 1.0
 0.1
 0.0
         I       I       I        I      \         \      \
                                                                                     2
                                                                                2
                                                                               2-
                                                                             2
                                                                            • •
                                                                           2
 0.9
 0.8
 0.7

                                                                        2
                                                                       2
                                                                      2«
 0.6
                                                                  2
                                                                 2
 0.5
                                                              2
                                                             2
                                                             2
                                                         • ••
 0.4
                                                    2
 0.3  I-                                               2
                                                    2


                                              2.
 0.2
                                           2                     Low-ADT roads,  including locals,
                                         • •                     residential,  rural and collector
                                        ••                       (excluding collector with ADT  given
                                     2                           as > 5000 vehicles/day)
      2
••                                 First 2 calendar quarters
         j	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2       5     10    20       50     100
                                      SILT LOADING, »sL"  (g/m2)
            Figure 13.2.1-6.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
             low-ADT roadways, based on samples during first half of the calendar year.
1 /96                                   Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.1-11
-------
1.0
 0.01   0.02
—I	1	
 0.05
—I	
 0.1
—I—
 0.2
—I—
0.5     1
                                           T	r
                                                                5     10    20       50     100
                                                                      ~i	r
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
                                             Low-ADT roads,  including  local,
                                             residential,  rural and collector
                                             (excluding collector with ADT
                                             given as > 5000 vehicles/day)

                                             Last 2 calendar quarters
0.0
        J	I	I	I	I	I	I	L
                                                                              I	I	L
        0.01   0.02   0.05    0.1    0.2     0.5    1      2        5
                                     SILT LOADING,  "sL"  (g/mz)
                                                                      10     20       50    100
           Figure 13.2.1-7. Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
           low-ADT roadways, based on samples during second half of the calendar year.
13.2.1-12
                  EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                   1/96
-------
Q
O
»—<
i
Q
>
o.
J
2
c/n
Q
HH
O
m
 i
CN

«
s3

«1~
K g b
U
00
* ^°a
CO °S "^
O W)
*— 3 v~/
1

-w
Q


J
U

fl" g
^3 *7
O
o -o
^§
on (V
J „
"H< t5
a s
CO SO

^\
• «
U
H
CO









en cn

>n cn
OO Tf
*" -

NO V>
0 O

o »n
VI ^H
00 00
r- r-
S S
13

« 1
H co
d u
K 04





-------
1
CO
(N

CO
CO
a
a
a
o
U
U)
III
*j § ^

00 | E
U
60 ^
•^ « ^fl
B^
CQ
QL

^

•M
Q
CO
U
g §
ta ^
o -a
• 9 ^
"o< to





•U*
rj




00






CM
ON

rj-
0
CM


NO
NO
en


oo
oo
s
Collector
-3
NO
|
>
1







>•
.Q
J
H







Q

~H
CM
"


Q
Z
o
0

*
oo
oo
en
0
Collector



California







>•
<-Q
J
H







Q
Z

tn
CM
^


Q
Z
o
in
oo
o
oo
oo
en
O
Arterial



CM







j?
Xj
•-1
H







en
ON

ON
0
.—i

—i
CM
CM
\o
I/")

oo
oo
s
Residential





r-
o
NO

ro
CM
ON
OO
00
O
Collector



.a
03
S



ri


1>
a
c§
w
H
S






in
NO

in
CM
""

— i
CM
0
( '"i
ON

ON
OO
oo
O
Arterial



CM
T—l
1/3



03



K
«
w
H
S






Q

in
ON



g
0
ON
en

O
ON
en
O
Residential



.a
CO
a
03
PH

03
ri
a
0
U
H
S






in
en

en
•^j-
• '

oo
oo
O
O


O
ON
S
Residential



55
1


cS
PH

03
Xi
a
o
U
H
S






Q
Z

en
rl-



Q
Z
o
m


0
ON
en
O
Residential




•a
en

^
03


03
Xi
a
3
0
U
H







Q

Tf
w-j



§
0
CM
r-

o
ON
en
O
Residential



>

^H

PH

03
^-i
a
o
U
H







Q

en
NO
"


Q
0

0s)

0

en
O
•a
o



tw
£
o
u-
p-
u

p^

PH

03
o
a
o
U
H







Q

oo
oo



Q
z
o

\f\
~
o

en
0
Collector



XJ
CM



PH

03
j-j
a
o
U
H







i


f^.



Q
Z
in
^^
ON
"
0
ON
S
Collector



H
CO

•— !

fe

rt
0
a
3
0
U
H







ON
en
in


0


TT
in
0
en
r-

o
ON
en
O
Collector



Nucleus

"H

PH

03
o
a
o
U
H
S
13.2.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
(N
on
13
OJ
a
a
o
U
QQ
'S
•"•* -2 wp^
co S 2S
U
-.aV
V) <£ ^-
CO
§


^_»
Q


M
3
O
d" 1
1 1
1-1 o
d
S (D
co to

Jj*
U


H
co






1

CM
SO


§
SO

o

o


1-1
Collecto


M
o
O
I
a
|
"o
U
H






i

CM



§
i

o

S



Collecto




0
S

o

p-
o



Collecto




S
S
S
ac
S

H






Os
O

^
10

CM
en
S
Os

O

S



Arterial




04
i
s
S
sS
H
w
H






p~


^j.

>o

o
o

o

oo
o



•a




i
ti-
es
|
"o
U
H






CM
en

Os
fC
"

CM
O
en
10

O

oo
O



Collecto

<*
1
d>
i



,D
-1
H






SO

en
10

oo
o
o
en

0
Os
00
O


tH
Collecto




Nucleus
13
U-,
03
"a
3
"3
U-
H






Os
04


P-

04
O
Os
S
en

O
OS
oo
O



Arterial




CM
1
Oj
|
"o
U
S






en
en

O4
O


en
8

o
Os
O



"«
o




Morton
S
,<">
a
1
w
H






en
oo

so
*o

10
*
SO
en
CM

0
Os
O



Collecto




•1
.
0)
18
to
cS
W
H
S






en
•*

Os
en

SO
o
o
o

o
Os
o



Arterial




CM
r— 1
CO
oj
c
o
en

CM
>0
R
SO
>0
O
OS
SO
o



Collecto




Nucleus
2,
•a
a
1
J3
U
H






CM

,_,
_jl
04
^

0
OS
OO
>o
0
Os
SO
0



Arterial




CM
CO
"3
CS
42
a
_g
"o
U
H
S






OS
en
CM

SO
Os

>O
04
I
0
OS
00
0
04



Arterial




04
CO
ID



JD
J
H






tn
o
10

^H
P~
CM
SO
en
0
en
o
Os
Os
o
CM



Collecto

<*
|

.a
a*
S



jg
J
H






so

^j-
»o
"


o
0
en
0
Os
en
CM



Collecto




S
X
H



1
ffl
H
S






SO
o
en

^j-
en



>o

r— (
OS
0



~S




1
a
a
0
X
1
w
H
S
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                        13.2.1-15
-------
I
m
CN
ca





•*
o
H

•3
CO


«->
C/}
























CO
i
a
o
U
00 ^
oj -9
J ^
a
C3 ^^
o -^
U
00 ^
'H rt
ctf -5
°«>
fe
^^



•2



CO
U
a 2
o c
ts ^
o
•31
.a °t
"E c
1 fi
CO CO



&
U
CO





*>
vo
VO
vo

oo
T-H



CM

§



^H
ON
V— <
o

1




s
(X
1
OH


03
*
1
w
H





en
CM

VO
en


-H
^

0
CM



rt
ON
^H
O

"3
JS






Morton


03
C
ffi
1
w
H






en
O
en

*-*
CM
* — i

r~
VO
en
vo
en
CM


.— i
ON
i— i
O

Collecto






CO
1


CO
a
CD
CD
CO
a
W
H
s





VO
vo


Ti"


oo
o

O
O
ON



_
ON
^
O

Arterial






CM


as
a
tS
to
S






ON

ON
ON


CM
ON

0
CM
ON



ON
en
CM
O

13






Preston
M
03
U_
a
o
1*
^
H





CM
CM
CM

CM
£"*•
CM

en
en
en
8
vo


ON
en
tN
O

Collecto




CM
>>
a
00
3
CO
03

a
CO
H





^
1

^
r-


vo
»— i
CM
0



(
ON
CM
O

13
O



T3
•s
&
CO
CD
CO



CD
CD
to
(3
§






en
CM


ON


CM
ON

^H
CM


t
?>
CM
O

Collecto
Q

d
CD
CO

CO
z


aS
a
CO
PC
§





oo
vo
ON

f-
f-


Tf
^.

O
oo



^
ON



Collecto






1
0
OH


03
a
(U
HI
1
w
H





tN
OO

r-
00
"

en
en
en
O
en
vo



ON
^f
r*
s

Collecto



®o
5

.a
OS




|
s





en
o
en
en


T-H
CM

en
ON

8
O*
^

ON
f*^
i-H
8

Arterial






CM




|
s





ON
O


T— <
~

CM
^_«

R
en


ON
^
CM
§
fcH
Collecto






CD
H




CD
tJ
s





VO
VO
m

ON
r-


ON
CM

OO
CM
CM

ON
.—1
CM
CM
O

CO





a
.8




1
H





ON
CM
CM
r— 1

00
Tj-
tN

VO
O
en
en
VO
CM


ON
^p
CM
s
Ui
Collecto
CO

<*!
^
1
a
-2
CT




T3
.a
S





CM
vo
00

•*
o
CM

Tf
[ —

O
^}"
^H

ON
^f
CS
8

Arterial






1




!
S





VO
ON
ON

ON
t~


f~
vo
en
ON



ON
vo
CM
8

I






Preston
42

UH
fi
CO
I
H
S





en
en

00
r-


00
vo
vo
o
o
o
vo


ON
VO
CM
CM
O

Collecto




o
o
CM
>>
1
X
CO
13
b
o
to
1
Q
5





en
00

CM
vo


•rf
VO

8
ON

CM

^_,
ON
en
O

Arterial





03
1




ctt
1
H
13.2.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
O
o
rs

CO



CO
•g

•^
-1

ON
CM

— H
ON

en
VO
CM
ON

^
O
Ui
Collecto
to
' — '
£f
*0
•i
s
•s
en

a
CO
"tS
S
oo
O
i
oo
O
. r


S

vo
t~.

O
p-

1-H
ON
ON
0
8

Arterial





.a
03

S
H
ON
in
i
oo
CM
. .
n
0

o
o
ON
p-

ON
3

Arterial





CM
00

§
ID
1
W
H
O
Tj-
1
en
O

t>
W)
3

g
"3.
g

CO
TJ-
en
*o

f-
2

CM
_H

ON


ON
3

o
,3





Preston
CO
1
H
H
S
CM
CM
i
—
.-<

ID
M
§

S
OH


CO
CM
^
rf
i—i

en


CM

8
in
l-H
ON
S^
i
u
Collecto




o
o
CM
I
W>
55
x
Thompson Fal
s
^_
^*
1
in
CM
. .

s*
3

CO
"ft
Q


CM
OO
p-


3

in
en

o
en


ON
S

Collecto



c&l
1
>

1
S
ON
CM
CM
i
CM
j—i
. ,
ID
U)
§

CO
"B<
Q

CO
Tt
CM
^>,

in
o
CM

00
„

i
CM

ON
S

Arterial





CM
S

1
H
















ON
Q


en

^H
m
l-H
en
in
CM
ON

1

Collecto
„
"-H
*&t
«Q
.9
03
"S
en

1
S
















vo
[ —

oo
ON


ON

O
r-
vo


ON
S

Collecto





Nucleus

Columbia Fall
H

















ON
CM
in
5


en

O
en
-
o\

i

Arterial





.a
OS

Kalispell
H
oo
en
i
en
^H


M
§
*"

jo
PH


CO
Tf
ON
in

in
£

Tt
CM

VD
in

ON
in
0

Collecto





Nucleus

Columbia Fall
H
CM
^
i
m
^
. .
ID
W)
a

CO
Ut
S
03

in
oo
•*
CM
r-
CM

in
in

CM
r-
S

ON
in
o

Arterial





CM
vi

Columbia Fall
H
















c-
m


en

r-
„

0
en
in

ON
ON
in
o
u
Collecto



e^t
|
>
1
S

1
H
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                       13.2.1-17
-------
CM
CO
2
g
o
U
3-|^

*S*



O

OT




-
r» o
en
en so
•* CM


t— oo
~H en
0 0
en o

O\ Os
CM CM
so VO
0 0
l-i
Collecto
Arterial


1
S
I N
1 3


t t
£ £
H H
s s




en t*» t~- os
m os oo in
^* C^ Os CM

^H ^- ^H OO


f- OO OS T— 1
rt 00 O CM
O vo O O

^^ ^H OS OS
5 5 5s Os
r-~ r~ O O
oof:?;
0 0
tH U
2 B
1 1 1 1
Q O Q O
,-J U J U


1
1 1 1 1
CO GO
"3 "o3
«, „ u- u-
rt fl ri cd
£ J2 o §
O JJ « »
K K 1* I1
sail
W W H H
H H H H
S S S S





OS

^.


Os
o
8
ON
04

ON
i— t



Arterial



Montana


1
H
s




OS
oo
CM
00
CM

>n
CM
1
en

OS

f»

U
Collecto



o
H


1
H
S




00

CM
00
CM

VO

OS
C^

OS
VO
CM
C~


Arterial



Harrison


1
03
H
S




en
W-l
CM

en
CM

00

en

OS
8
OO

(H
Collecto
ti

I
•s
en


!
H
s




en
OS

^H


^
^^



o
en

Os
8
o

t-l
Collecto



n
r-
^
CM

en
*
O
en
r-

Os
0
o


1
1



s


1
H
s




OS
in

^H
en

00

O

Os
so
o


I



Morton


1
o
W
H
s
13.2.1-18
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
fN
H




w
§
O
U




 ^-v
3 gb
u
bO
* -i^S
CO * -Jjj
H
^



1


0)
U
d g
s
o '
pt qj
i s

o
H
CO













p-
p-



0


VO

NO
en
CM


ON
S
O


Collecto



CO
.9
si
S

a
8
1
H
S













ON
^.
mi


NO




ON
p-


ON
NO
O


Arterial



i

i
to
a
W
H
S













en
en
f-H

ON

^^

ON

0
p-
VO



ON
o
o

t-l
CoUecto



Nucleus

Columbia Falls
H
S













CM
O



^
«— i

CM

O
ON
00
\/")
7—1

ON
CM
0


Arterial



CM

Columbia Falls
H
S













oo
r-



CM
""

CM
CM
en
CM


ON
8
l-H

In
Collecto
t<5
^
1
1

1
H
S













00
O
en


oo


p-
CM
O
en
^f-
^^

ON
00
CM
•r*


Arterial



1

.1*
•a
H
s













vn
CM
CM

l-H
00
^^


Tf
O
CM
ON



ON
P-
l-H
CM


•a
o
o



a

Thompson Fall
H
2













VO
,_,
^H

CM
en


>n

8
o



ON
p-
T— 1
CM

u
Collecto


CM
r
•a
a

Thompson Fall
H
S













vr^
^
^o

VO

"

-H
ON
O
en


ON
S
CM


Collecto



t»
4>

3
H
S













en
ON



CM


en
00
ON
00
CM
CM

ON
0

0

Arterial



Harrison

i
03
H
2













p~
^
CM
00

ON


en
oo
p-
O
CM



ON
en
o

0

o
o



Morton

OS
o
"a5
1
W
H
2













10
T-J.
^o

en
vo
>n

en
NO
en
o
en



ON
en
O
CM


•a
i



CO

iS
H
S













•t
r*4
CM

ON
ON
^

p-
O
O
en
1/1



ON
en
o
01


Collecto


D
>

|
H
S














,__,
ON
en
00
^
^^

ON
P-
S
CN|


ON
en
o
CM

Ui
Collecto



^
s

^
i
H
S













Tt
*/"!
•n


ON
en
o
CM


Collecto



Nucleus

Columbia Falls
H
S
ON
oo
i
O
en
»
§

VI
0,
VI
CM

—
en
•t

CM
CM
en

en
£
i
CM
»"H

CM
ON
CM
O


Arterial



CM

Columbia Falls
H
S













p-
o
CM

en

^

ON
CM
8
ON
P~


ON
2

0

Arterial



CM

i
"a>
1
W
H














NO
CM



OO
t— 1

>n
o
ON



ON
CM
CM
CM


•a
o



Preston

Thompson Fall
H














rt
00


NO

~

CM

O
8



ON
CM
CM
CM

tH
Collecto


8
CM
Highway

Thompson Fall
H
s
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                       13.2.1-19
-------

CN


W
fi
8

M
o
U





1^
H 1 "5o
3 ~
*J O ^-S
60 g s^
U
- .£?<£

3 «
«
o
^


*J
°

J
U
tf 8
•^ gj
0 *
S "3
o
~ --
CO CO

U
E-
CO














en
£
CM
en
f^
en

^H
00
en
vo
CM
CM
ON
in
en
O
Ui
Collecto
2
.j
=0
1
•a
en

1
s














en
in


CM
en
in
VO

o
en
-
CM
ON
in
en
O

Arterial




I

}
H














CM
en

o\
•^
"
en
o

ON


CM
ON
s

•a




Preston
=a
Thompson Fa
S

q
^
0
. .
n
VO
in

0
en

CM
ON
,_,
cS

Collecto


<%
1
1

|
H














•t
ON
CM

vo
in
CM

o

i
CM

CM
ON
8

Arterial




CM

|
H















8

c-
VO

ON
VO

0

CM
ON
in
o

-a
o
.3




Morton

1
s
w
H














oo
CM
VO

CM
0


VO

VO
en
CM
CM
ON
in
in
O

Collecto




CO

1
1
w
H















r-

ON
vo

CM
,_,

8
ON

CM
ON
in
in
O

Arterial




CM
co

1
1
w
H














in
•*


T— 4
CM

r-H

VO
in
CM
ON
in
CJ
in
o
(M
Collecto




Nucleus
GO
Columbia Fal
H














vo
in


t-


^H

8
in

CM
ON
^
VO
O

•a
s
2
in
=8
' -3
N

Missoula
H
13.2.1-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
 C
 8




CO
fl
O
cd
3
o

^•^







BO ^
•S T3 S
0 13 -5
H o t_9
4-» § <••••*

"5 § -— '
O

Cl '*™V
^ ;9 3 ^
1


Q

i
o

§ 1
•£ oj

o *«
1 TO
^^ O
jfi
V) <*>


U
IS




















•*
00
o
*^


Tt



eN
s
o
es
CM
OS
i
i

ollector
O
|

wg
•a
en

I
1
OS1
_a|
0
1
S




















c--
-i

»-<
en




tN
O
1
fN

1
fS

1
^
A

^Q
CD
o

"3
OH
"S
fn
3
1
.2
S
s
r-

d
>
S
d
i
O
bO
g
IH


—
O.
fl

en
"*

OS
Os



=
— i

1
Q
O
U
S
fN

en
O
d

(0
U)

S

CO

"A
a
3
CO
i — 1
^~*


^

OS
T-H


^O
r-
o'
o
>n
O
OS

OS
00
0

il
£ <






n
rn
SO
so
•*


^^
T-H
o'
in

Os
00
i

II
s <





at
3
!™
,3
W
(H
5
§
Q
O
U

oo
fN
1
CS
d
, .
fl>
W)
§

fc
91
0)
3.,
y

CO
SO


Q


Q
*
•a

^-

Q

o
OS
o

IH -p
° a
S <





at
1
EA
3
m
IH
S
a
O
U





















g


o
z
•a

fN
CN
O
o
gs
o

1
o
O




D
^
=d
%
— i
UJ
IH
(U
1
O
U
SO
in
d
'
SO
in
d

-------
O
CN
tri





















3
'o
H

J3
&0


^j

oo












cn
13
i

o
U








BO
a ^
^-S
o ^09
i—3 ^"^
s3
CD /— -
§ ^
U
oo ^
•H rt
*O P

i_J s""'
H
Q

W
^

1
o
u

p-

d
,
8
d

&
fl
3
„
CO

1
O
O













VI
Q
OH
£

CO
cn


Q







P
Z
P
Z
o
Os
O
cn
0

j..
13
II
s — 1

P
z
0

o

^J
•^J
II


>
W
1
W
^
t«
a
P
O
U


^o
oi
i
s
d

ii
BO

§
^
cn

rt
O.

§
en

CM


P
Z


P
z
•o
T— 1

o

P
Z
o
Os
cn
o

XI

d "C
rt D
•a t;
£ <


^. Colfax Ave
!?
tn
1
P
0
u


,__,
^^
d
^
q
d
CD
00

tH

cn"

p(
g

en
VO


Q
z




•o
in
o

d



0
OS
1



13
o


s
•^
PH
fe
I
O
u


in
en
d
^
CM
d
CD
BO

t-H

wT
(D
OH
a

w
vo


P





•o
en

d

P

0
Os
1

J-J
'cS
a 'S
•I 5
PH <


a
2
^
6
I
o
u






















g


P
z
•o
CM

d

Q
*
o
Os
oo
i

jO
13
d "C
•9 t


*o
U
W
.
a
CD
P
O
u
CM

*— i
d

g
^H
d
-------
I
CO
CN
m'





co
+J
1
a
a
0
u









^H Cl /*~ "*"
2 *J3 d
H 8 ^9
alff

w o l*— ''
u

9^^ y~v
^fl
^l^
S
^£

o
«



(C
«
C§
O
a" 2
o S

1?
*»«§
.g ..

II

u



H
CO
r — ^ *o c*~
in en (N t--
en o -^ , • voo^cocNcn
°°°" 2 5 2 3 " S
t*- ...,,,
CS I-H OO f-

cSOO— : csJ^DlO'— <^t^
OOO .. OOOO^nO
i) D 4) &JQ *D o »— * ^ o ^O'— 'r^ioc^i^c^r^r^or"
^. o o ^ vor-^o-^vom-HTtcn-«-
r^
•^ Wi O Tt" CS f— « oo ox ON ^— ' CS

r^* *^ fi ^^ c^ ^^ ^D ^f r*^ v*j ^f ^™< ^^ cS ^/"
cs cs ^^^cg^^^mcs^
oo r^ ^o r^ f^- */
oo cS ON ^ '-^ c**i ^ oo oo cN ON CS o

o o o >— ^ o c*4 i— < o >— ' o o »—* o o c
§ § g g QQQPQQQQQPC
P- C^ VO W-l
eN t~- •*
oooooooooooooooooo
°. a, ° ° ininmoNO\o\r~r^f-*"*"

OOOOOO-H— I-H
t. t_ IH M
Oj>*j>* Q Q O-^ —
flj ^ ^ n3 o ^3 fli r^ T3 fli S "^3 flj 'C 'i
O C J-i O .^ o O ._^ Q O .^ Q O *M 1
CJ PH tin | 1 ^H-lUSi-JOSl— 1^"*^"*



i
•73 T3 J
a! 0) X 1
*-. 3i>5t3tl)l>l>l)l1ll1l>l)l i
*^ 3 *^ ^ *^ ^ i^— * ^t/itfic/i'/iwt/jixiwwO'

^0 ^) ^0 ^J ^0 ^J V5 ^^ ^ ^ )^ ^J )_J )_J | — ^ t ] , ) ^J ^ t p
H H H H >>>>>>>>>Nts
P P D zzzzzzfezz<:<

















3 ^H
4 es
o



i en

i vn
3 en
5 O
> o
5 Q
'-, Z



I
i


3 13
: 'C
i €
c  ^
J °°
1 1

3 '3
J O
3 O
3 ,a

J N
c <:
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                        13.2.1-23
-------
8
CN
en
'S
ID
O
U
|||
« IS-
^5 a ts

U
on

r3 *13 S
M o !M
ra
9

Q

W
3
O
tf «
•| 1

Sampling L
Street, Roa<

£>
•**
U

£




1
ON
en

CM
S
0



1

Arterial



1


(D
3
1
a




en vi CM CM f
oo oo ON en o
«-< q o CM v£
<•* •- d d c
CM ON •t OC
oo oo r- en »-
~ ~ "
ON ON Tj- OO
ON ON i— 1 CM [-
o o o o c
0 O O O C



1 1 1 1

<-H — 1 — < O C
•s -a -s i i
111°^
< < < U 5.
£
0 *
* §
Jl*}5
OQ O «Q fc
5 S S 5 "
$ S W ^ r


ID ^
is '§
2 C3 CCJ fli
S £ S |
s s s S :
a ss si s




r^ ON *—i
i ON vo r~ vo
; P-; en rf ON
)' Tj- ^- ^H ON
) »-i •* en •*
H l-H \O fNj SO
, «
00 CM i/l CM
CM oo en oo
) vr> CM O CM
> O O O -H



III 1

2322 2
> o o o o
0 Hi (D ID  S, ^ Ji ja
T < < Z O SO

g
K >< >< °

5 
§
o
U
1
S




d
S
^
1—1
00
S
o
Q
*

1

•a
1



&

g
o
O
1
04
S




r~ oo 
ON \O CM
-; CM t-;
d en d
vo ON vo
O O 1/1
vn en «


O S 0
o o o



1 1

s -a -a
S -c -c
t—j (D fl>
? 1 1
o -5 <


T3
Amklam Rd
Fort Lowel R
Oracle Rd

3 § 9
o o o
U U U
PH 0H 04
a s a




t^ V> i-i
CM CM f~
•-H 1-; V>
d d CM
so ON in
>n oo c^
r^ ON ON
oo 1-1 en
•-H CM
^ CM so
§so O
rH ^4
000



1 1

•a -a -a
•g -g -g


ID
o
^ "f
3 S> §
w 1 ^
1 5 ,3

g g s
o o o
U U U
04 AH 04
N N N
13.2.1-24
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
I
en
cs




(A
1
d
M
o

U





3-9<^
o 3 -5
H j ^
'S
*J to .— <
•5 13 w"*
W O *~'
U
»^
4n »H *P
"35
1
1
00
Q


J
U
II

0 ^
M «J

PI ^5
CO WO

1?
U

H

•*
d

T— 1
d
to
SO
9
I*

in"

"g,

en
cs
Tfr


oo
SO
OS
ts
o
s
o
oo
i


Arterial





s

U
GQ
W
S2

8

T^
1
9
o
to
00


^
CO
£
a,

tn

en


i— i
8
t--
SO
d
Q
Z
§
?5
o


Arterial





Volker

U
ansas
«
o
















en
en


(-;
l-H
eN
oo
so
d
Q
Z
g
i


Arterial





Rockhill

U

«
O

















f-^


»r>
-

\n
04
Q
Z
o
00
s


Collector





1
to
•S
o
1
H
a

















es


eN
(S
l-H
os
C"4
d
i
o
00
8


Arterial





•3
t~-

u

«
a











CA
JH
o.

*

Q
^


g
cs
o
d
s
g
o

03
Expressw





5

GQ
!
55
O
1-H
1— (
d
i
0
d
to

§

^
en
_to
a.

en

d


o\
d
oo
0
d
Q
Z
g
0


Collector


>>
1
-B,
60
^
.1°
^

CO
!
do
O
S

en
OO

d
t--
d
to
t>0
§
tH


_to
g.

eN
en
e>i
T— 1

^>
so
oo
r-~
d
Q
Z
o
00
0


Arterial





1

U
1
o
d
















00
d


SO
00
en
o\
d
Q
o
00
0


Collector





Benton

U
to
O
d
r--
r--
d

S
d

'S-

oo
S
^



00
eN
en
es
d
1
eN
en
0

I
./•^
cn^
1
a
&
en .d
^1
Si


1
°
Z
S

en
d

o
d
to
00
§
fH


to
"S.
i
^
en
oi


^
en

CN
d
o
o
o
es
ON
so
cs
es
o

I
/***,
Cfl
1
"a

«l
^ |
SI


|
°
Z
                                                                         o
                                                                         o
                                                                         g

                                                                          d
                                                                         SE
                                                                         •o
                                                                         1

                                                                          §
                                                                          O
                                                                          

                                                                                o '&

                                                                                «  «J
                                                                                S ;>
                                                                                  "8
                                                                                is  ^
                                                                                o
                                                                         CO
S
VH
Q
03
en



§


S
                                             M W)




                                             "ft "On
                                                                                         S C
                                   •^  o     .c .c
                                    4>  *-'     60 W)

                                   "S  ^     CU CU
                                       c3   .  •*-> ^4-*

                             tC so  "  » ^  •§ -§

                             « "  g  g u  ,a ,a
                             O  0^  ^  ^  ^  H-H *j^|

                             c-  en  bo 5f? 'S  ^ ^

                             2  £  o  -s. S  8, S,
                             d)  CU  ^  r^  Q^ ^ ^

                             *S "a3  w  §  ex o o

                             Pi OS >  on <  Z Z

                             a! .JO  o  "O      t>  <*-
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                                       13.2.1-25
-------
References For Section 13.2.1

1.     D. R. Dunbar, Resuspension Of Paniculate Matter, EPA-450/2-76-031, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1976.

2.     R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
       EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.

3.     C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
       EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

4.     C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Quantification Of Dust Entrainment From Paved Roadways,
       EPA-450/3-77-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       July  1977.

5.     Size Specific Paniculate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September  1983.

6.     T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And  Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control
       Evaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       October 1983.

7.     J. P. Reider, Size-specific Paniculate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural
       Roads, EPA Contract 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       September 1983.

8.     C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J.  Englehart, Paved Road Paniculate Emissions, EPA-600/7-84-077,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1984.

9.     C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J.  Englehart, Size Specific Paniculate Emission Factors For
       Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, September 1985.

10.    Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42, Sections 11.2.5 and 11.2.6 — Paved Roads, EPA
       Contract No. 68-DO-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March  1993.

11.    Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO, March 1979.

12.    PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO, September  1987.

13.    Chicago Area Paniculate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, Contract
       No. 68-02-4395, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO, May 1988.

14.    Montana Street Sampling Data, Montana Department Of Health And Environmental  Sciences,
       Helena, MT, July 1992.

15.    Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
       October 1989.
 13.2.1-26                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/96
-------
16.    Evaluation Of PM-10 Emission Factors For Paved Streets, Harding Lawson Associates,
       Denver, CO, October 1991.

17.    Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, RTF Environmental Associates, Inc., Denver,
       CO, July 1990.

18.    Post-storm Measurement Results — Salt Lake County Road Dust Silt Loading Winter 1991/92
       Measurement Program, Aerovironment, Inc., Monrovia, CA, June 1992.

19.    Written communication from Harold Glasser, Department of Health, Clark County (NV).

20.    PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.

21.    Characterization Of PM-10 Emissions From Antiskid Materials Applied To Ice- And Snow-
       covered Roadways,  EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0137, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
       MO, October  1992.

22.    C. Cowherd, Jr., et al, Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
1/96                               Miscellaneous Sources                           13.2.1-27
-------
13.2.2 Unpaved Roads

13.2.2.1  General

       Dust plumes trailing behind vehicles traveling on unpaved roads are a familiar sight in rural
areas of the United States.  When a vehicle travels an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the
road surface causes pulverization of surface material.  Particles are lifted and dropped from the
rolling wheels, and the road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the
surface.  The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle
has passed.

13.2.2.2 Emissions Calculation And Correction Parameters

       The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of unpaved road varies linearly with the
volume of traffic.  Field  investigations also have shown that emissions depend on correction
parameters (average vehicle speed, average vehicle weight, average number of wheels per vehicle,
road surface texture, and road surface moisture) that characterize  the condition of a particular road
and the associated vehicle traffic.1"4

       Dust emissions from  unpaved roads have been found to vary in direct proportion to the
fraction of silt (particles smaller than 75 micrometers [/xm] in diameter) in the road surface
materials.1  The silt fraction  is determined by measuring the proportion of loose dry surface dust that
passes a 200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method.  Table 13.2.2-1 summarizes measured  silt
values for industrial and  rural unpaved roads.

       Since the silt content of a rural dirt road will vary with location,  it  should be measured for
use in projecting  emissions.  As a conservative approximation, the silt content of the parent soil in the
area can be  used.  Tests, however, show that road silt content is normally lower than in the
surrounding parent soil, because the fines are continually removed by the vehicle traffic, leaving a
higher percentage of coarse particles.

       Unpaved  roads have a hard, generally nonporous surface that usually dries quickly after a
rainfall.  The temporary  reduction in emissions caused by precipitation may be accounted for by not
considering  emissions on "wet" days (more than 0.254 millimeters [mm] [0.01 inches (in.) ]  of
precipitation).

       The following empirical expression may be used to estimate the quantity of size-specific
particulate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle kilometer traveled  (VKT) or vehicle mile
traveled (VMT):
        E=k(1.7)
'  "o*c" i   (^grains [kgl/VKT)
   JOJ
                                                                                            (1)
          = k(5'9)    115 I   141  [T^0'7    1^1™   \^^\     (Pounds [lb]/VMT)
                      IZ, I   I 3\J I  I  0
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.2-1
-------
       Table 13.2.2-1.  TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIAL
                      ON INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADSa
Industry
Copper smelting
Iron and steel production
Sand and gravel processing
Stone quarrying and
processing

Taconite mining and
processing

Western surface coal
mining



Rural roads

Municipal roads
Municipal solid waste
landfills
Road Use Or
Surface Material
Plant road
Plant road
Plant road
Plant road
Haul road
Service road
Haul road
Haul road
Access road
Scraper route
Haul road
(freshly graded)
Gravel/crushed
limestone
Dirt
Unspecified
Disposal routes
Plant
Sites
1
19
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
7
3
4
No. Of
Samples
3
135
3
10
10
8
12
21
2
10
5
9
32
26
20
Silt Content (%)
Range
16- 19
0.2 - 19
4.1 -6.0
2.4 - 16
5.0 - 15
2.4-7.1
3.9-9.7
2.8- 18
4.9-5.3
7.2 - 25
18-29
5.0 - 13
1.6-68
0.4 - 13
2.2-21
Mean
17
6.0
4.8
10
9.6
4.3
5.8
8.4
5.1
17
24
8.9
12
5.7
6.4
a References 1,5-16.
where:
        E = emission factor
        k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
        s = silt content of road surface material (%)
        S = mean vehicle speed, kilometers per hour (km/hr) (miles per hour [mph])
       W = mean vehicle weight, megagrams (Mg) (ton)
        w = mean number  of wheels
        p = number of days with at least 0.254 mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation per year (see
            discussion below about the effect of precipitation.)
13.2.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
follows:
       The particle size multiplier in the equation, k, varies with aerodynamic particle size range as
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier (k) For Equation 1
<=30/xma
1.0
<30/«n < 15 jim <10jtm <5 pm
0.80 0.50 0.36 0.20
<2.5 /im
0.095
a Stokes diameter.

        It is important to note that Equation 1 calls for the average speed, weight, and number of
wheels of all vehicles traveling the road.  For example, if 98 percent of traffic on the road are
4-wheeled cars and trucks while the remaining 2 percent consists of 18-wheeled trucks, then the mean
number of wheels "w" is 4.3.  More specifically,  Equation 1 is not intended to  be used to calculate a
separate emission factor for each vehicle class. Instead,  only one emission factor should be calculated
that represents the "fleet" average of all vehicles traveling the road.

        The number of wet days per year, p, for the geographical area of interest should be
determined from local climatic data.  Figure 13.2.2-1 gives the geographical distribution of the mean
annual number of wet days per year in the United States.17 The equation is rated "A" for dry
conditions (p = 0) and "B"  for annual or seasonal conditions (p  > 0).  The lower rating is applied
because extrapolation to seasonal or annual conditions assumes  that emissions occur at the estimated
rate on days without measurable precipitation and, conversely, are absent on days with measurable
precipitation.  Clearly, natural mitigation depends not only on how much precipitation falls, but also
on other factors affecting the evaporation rate, such as ambient air temperature,  wind speed, and
humidity. Persons in dry, arid portions of the country may wish to base p (the  number of wet days)
on a greater amount of precipitation than 0.254 mm (0.01 in.).  In  addition, Reference 18 contains
procedures to estimate the emission reduction achieved by the application of water to an unpaved road
surface.

        The equation retains the assigned quality rating,  if applied within the ranges of source
conditions that were tested in developing the equation, as follows:
Ranges Of Source Conditions For Equation
Road Silt Content
(wt %)
4.3 - 20
Mean Vehicle Weight
Mg
2.7 - 142
ton
3- 157
Mean Vehicle Speed
km/hr
21 -64
mph
13 -40
Mean No.
Of Wheels
4- 13
Moreover, to retain the quality rating of the equation when addressing a specific unpaved road, it is
necessary that reliable correction parameter values be determined for the road in question. The field
and laboratory procedures for determining road surface silt content are given in AP-42
Appendices C. 1 and C.2. In the event that site-specific values for correction parameters cannot be
obtained, the appropriate mean values from Table 13.2.2-1 may be used, but the quality rating of the
equation is reduced by 1 letter.

        For calculating annual average emissions, the equation is to be multiplied by annual vehicle
distance traveled (VDT).  Annual average values for each of the correction parameters are to be
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.2-3
-------
                                                                                CO

                                                                                1
                                                                                _c
                                                                                c
                                                                                o
                                                                                 ex
                                                                                "+-
                                                                                 o
                                                                                I
                                                                                o
                                                                                o
                                                                                O
                                                                                I
                                                                                i
                                                                                CN
13.2.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
substituted for the equation.  Worst-case emissions, corresponding to dry road conditions, may be
calculated by setting p = 0 in the equation (equivalent to dropping the last term from the equation).
A separate set of nonclimatic correction parameters and a higher than normal VDT value may also  be
justified for the worst-case average period (usually 24 hours).  Similarly, in using the equation to
calculate emissions for a 91-day season of the year, replace the term (365-p)/365 with the term
(91-p)/91, and set p equal to the number of wet days in the 91-day period.  Use appropriate seasonal
values for the nonclimatic correction parameters  and for VDT.

13.2.2.3  Controls18-21

        Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treating with penetration
chemicals, working stabilization chemicals  into the roadbed, watering, and traffic control regulations.
Chemical stabilizers work either by binding the surface material or by enhancing moisture retention.
Paving, as a control technique, is  often not economically practical.  Surface chemical treatment and
watering can be accomplished at moderate to low costs, but frequent treatments are required.  Traffic
controls, such as speed limits and traffic volume restrictions, provide moderate emission reductions,
but may be difficult to enforce.  The control efficiency obtained by speed reduction can be calculated
using the predictive emission factor equation given above.

        The control efficiencies achievable by paving can be estimated by comparing emission factors
for unpaved and paved road conditions, relative to airborne particle size range of interest. The
predictive emission factor equation for paved roads, given in Section 13.2.4, requires estimation of
the silt loading on the traveled portion of the paved surface,  which in turn depends on whether the
pavement is periodically cleaned.  Unless curbing is to be installed, the effects of vehicle excursion
onto shoulders (berms) also must  be taken into account in estimating control efficiency.

        The control efficiencies afforded by the periodic use of road stabilization chemicals are much
more difficult to estimate.  The application parameters that determine control efficiency include
dilution ratio, application intensity,  mass  of diluted chemical per road area, and  application frequency.
Other factors that affect the performance of chemical stabilizers include vehicle characteristics
(e. g., traffic volume, average weight) and road characteristics (e. g., bearing strength).

        Besides water, petroleum  resin products historically have been the dust suppressants most
widely used on industrial unpaved roads.   Figure 13.2.2-2 presents a method to estimate average
control efficiencies associated with petroleum resins applied to unpaved roads.19  Several items should
be noted:

        1.   The term "ground inventory" represents the total volume (per unit area) of petroleum
            resin concentrate (not solution) applied since the start of the dust control season.

        2.   Because petroleum resin products must be periodically reapplied to unpaved roads, the
            use of a time-averaged control efficiency value is appropriate.  Figure 13.2.2-2 presents
            control efficiency values averaged over 2  common application intervals,  2 weeks and
            1  month.  Other application intervals will require interpolation.

        3.   Note that zero efficiency is assigned  until the ground inventory reaches 0.2  liter per
            square meter (L/m2)  (0.05 gallon per square yard [gal/yd2]).

        As an example of the application of Figure 13.2.2-2, suppose that the equation was used to
estimate an emission factor of 2.0 kg/VKT for PM-10 from a particular road.  Also, suppose that,
1/96                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.2-5
-------
C-;

O
                                                                            CM

                                                                            O
                                                                             CN

                                                                             o
                                                          O


                                                          VII
                                                          M
                                                          JU

                                                          "o
lf\


O
                                                                             O

                                                                             o
 I
CN)

O
                                                                         H  

                                                                         1  £
                                                                         CTM

                                                                         -52 13
                                                                                             a
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             OJ
                                                                                            CN

                                                                                            
                                                                                             VH
                                                                             O

                                                                             o
          O
          o
                o
                00
13.2.2-6
                             EMISSION FACTORS
              1/96
-------
starting on May 1, the road is treated with 1 L/m2 of a solution (1 part petroleum resin to 5 parts
water) on the first of each month through September.  Then, the following average controlled
emission factors are found:
Period
May
June
July
August
September
Ground
Inventory
(L/m2)
0.17
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.83
Average Control
Efficiency3
(%)
0
62
68
74
80
Average Controlled
Emission Factor
(kg/VKT)
2.0
0.76
0.64
0.52
0.40
a From Figure 13.2.2-2,  < 10 /tm. Zero efficiency assigned if ground inventory is less than
  0.2 L/m2 (0.05 gal/yd2).
       Newer dust suppressants are successful in controlling emissions from unpaved roads.  Specific
test results for those chemicals, as well as for petroleum resins and watering, are provided in
References 18 through 21.

References For Section 13.2.2

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

2.     R. J.  Dyck and J. J. Stukel, "Fugitive Dust Emissions From Trucks On Unpaved Roads",
       Environmental Science And Technology,  70(10): 1046-1048, October 1976.

3.     R. O. McCaldin and K. J. Heidel, "Paniculate Emissions From Vehicle Travel Over Unpaved
       Roads", Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
       Houston, TX, June 1978.

4.     C. Cowherd, Jr, et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
       EPA-600/2-79-013, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

5.     R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
       EPA-600/2-78-050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.

6.     Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1979.

7.     C. Cowherd, Jr., and T. Cuscino, Jr., Fugitive Emissions Evaluation, MRI-4343-L, Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February  1977.

8.     T. Cuscino, Jr.,  et al.,  Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution
       Control Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.2-7
-------
9.     Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining Sources,
       2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental and Midwest Research
       Institute, Kansas City, MO, July 1981.

10.    T. Cuscino, Jr., et al, Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control
       Evaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       October 1983.

11.    Size Specific Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.

12.    C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. Englehart, Size Specific Paniculate Emission Factors For Industrial
       And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, September 1985.

13.    PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract 68-02-3891,
       Work Assignment 30, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,  September 1987.

14.    Chicago Area Paniculate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-4395, Work Assignment 1, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       May 1988.

15.    PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.

16.    Oregon Fugitive Dust Emission Inventory, EPA Contract 68-DO-0123, Midwest Research
       Institute, Kansas City, MO, January 1992.

17.    Climatic Atlas Of The United States, U. S.  Department Of Commerce, Washington, DC,
       June 1968.

18.    C. Cowherd, Jr. et al, Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.

19.    G. E. Muleski, et al., Extended Evaluation Of Unpaved Road Dust Suppressants In The Iron
       And Steel Industry, EPA-600/2-84-027, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, February 1984.

20.    C. Cowherd, Jr., and J. S. Kinsey, Identification, Assessment And Control Of Fugitive
       Paniculate Emissions, EPA-600/8-86-023,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, August 1986.

21.    G. E. Muleski and C. Cowherd, Jr., Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Chemical Dust
       Suppressants On  Unpaved Roads,  EPA-600/2-87-102, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, November 1986.
 13.2.2-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                               1/96
-------
 13.2.3 Heavy Construction Operations

 13.2.3.1  General

        Heavy construction is a source of dust emissions that may have substantial temporary impact
 on local air quality.  Building and road construction are 2 examples of construction activities with
 high emissions potential.  Emissions during the construction of a building or road can be associated
 with land clearing, drilling and blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations (i.e., earth
 moving), and construction of a particular facility itself.  Dust emissions often vary substantially from
 day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing
 meteorological  conditions. A large portion of the emissions results from equipment traffic over
 temporary roads at the construction site.

        The temporary nature of construction differentiates it from other fugitive dust sources as to
 estimation and control of emissions. Construction consists of a series of different operations, each
 with its own duration and potential for dust generation.  In other words, emissions from any single
 construction site can be expected (1) to have a definable beginning and an end and (2) to vary
 substantially over different phases of the construction process. This is in contrast to most other
 fugitive dust sources, where emissions are either relatively  steady or follow  a discernable annual
 cycle.  Furthermore, there is often a need to estimate areawide construction emissions, without regard
 to the actual plans of any individual construction project. For these reasons, following are methods
 by which either areawide or site-specific emissions may be estimated.

 13.2.3.2  Emissions  And Correction Parameters

        The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations is proportional to the area of land
 being worked and to the level  of construction activity.  By analogy to the parameter dependence
 observed for other similar fugitive dust sources,1 one can expect emissions from heavy  construction
 operations to be positively correlated with the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than
 75 micrometers [/un] in diameter), as well as with the speed and weight of the average vehicle, and to
 be negatively correlated with the soil moisture content.

 13.2.3.3  Emission Factors

        Only 1 set of field studies has been performed that attempts to relate the emissions from
 construction directly  to an emission factor.1"2  Based on field measurements  of total suspended
 paniculate (TSP) concentrations surrounding apartment and shopping center  construction projects, the
 approximate emission factors for construction activity operations are:

       E  =2.69 megagrams (Mg)/hectare/month of activity
       E  = 1.2 tons/acre/month of activity

       These values are most  useful for developing estimates of overall emissions from construction
scattered throughout a geographical area.  The value is most applicable to construction operations
with:  (1) medium activity level, (2) moderate silt contents, and (3) semiarid climate.  Test data were
not sufficient to derive the specific  dependence of dust emissions on correction parameters.  Because
the above emission factor is referenced to TSP, use of this factor to estimate paniculate matter  (PM)
no greater than  10 /*m in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10) emissions will result in conservatively high
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                              13.2.3-1
-------
estimates.  Also, because derivation of the factor assumes that construction activity occurs 30 days per
month, the above estimate is somewhat conservatively high for TSP as well.

       Although the equation above represents a relatively straightforward means of preparing an
areawide emission inventory, at least 2 features limit its usefulness for specific construction sites.
First, the conservative nature of the emission factor may result in too  high an estimate for PM-10 to
be of much use for a specific site under consideration.  Second, the equation provides neither
information about which particular construction activities have the greatest emission potential nor
guidance for developing an effective dust control plan.

       For these reasons, it is strongly recommended that when emissions  are to be estimated for a
particular construction site, the construction process be broken down into component operations.
(Note that many general contractors typically employ planning and scheduling tools, such as critical
path method [CPM], that  make use of different sequential operations to allocate resources.) This
approach to emission estimation uses a unit or phase method to consider the more basic dust sources
of vehicle travel and material handling. That is to say, the construction project is viewed as
consisting of several operations, each involving traffic and material movements, and emission factors
from other AP-42 sections are used to generate estimates.  Table 13.2.3-1 displays the dust sources
involved with construction, along with the recommended emission factors.3

       In addition to the  on-site activities shown in Table 13.2.3-1, substantial emissions are possible
because of material tracked out from the site and deposited on adjacent paved streets. Because all
traffic passing the site  (i.  e., not just that associated with the construction) can  resuspend the
deposited material, this "secondary" source of emissions may be far more important than all the dust
sources actually within the construction site.   Furthermore,  mis secondary source will be present
during all construction operations.  Persons developing construction site emission estimates must
consider the potential for  increased adjacent emissions from off-site paved roadways (see
Section 13.2.1, "Paved Roads"). High wind events also can lead to emissions from cleared land and
material stockpiles.  Section 13.2.5, "Industrial Wind Erosion", presents an estimation methodology
that can be used for such  sources at construction sites.

13.2.3.4 Control Measures4

       Because of the relatively short-term nature of construction activities, some control measures
are more cost effective than others.  Wet suppression and  wind speed reduction are 2 common
methods used to control open dust sources at construction sites, because a source of water and
material for wind barriers tend to be readily available on a construction site. However, several other
forms of dust control are  available.

       Table 13.2.3-2 displays each of the preferred control measures, by dust source.3^  Because
most of the controls listed in the table modify independent variables in the emission  factor models, the
effectiveness can be calculated by comparing controlled and uncontrolled emission estimates from
Table 13.2.3-1.  Additional guidance on controls is provided in the AP-42 sections from which the
recommended emission factors were taken, as well  as in other documents, such as Reference 4.
13.2.3-2                             EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
   O
   Z
   O
   »— *
   H
   U

   o:
   E-
   co
   Z
   O
   U

   <
   UH



   O
   >— <
   CO
   CO
   Q
   W
   Q
   Z
   a
   o
   u
   w
   OS
c
(30 0
.S £
•^* ^
-c



=/5
C
1
o
U






U-i
O
•4— *
1
£
^O
*C/3
W9
'g
w
"S

~5
§
S
o
o
o>
OS
Dust-generating Activities

OH
C
_o
-*->
O
3
Ui
C
O
CJ

































Demolition of buildings or
—'
1
C
o

ni
"o
S


I I
1 1























Z Z





other (natural) obstacles
such as trees, boulders, etc.
a. Mechanical
dismemberment
("headache ball") of
existing structures
b. Implosion of existing
structures


1

;_!
.22
1
"O


(
I
















t
o\
^~~t
i>
r*i
C3
H
v-
o
a
o

60
Q
0
_c
•+— •
IS
•§
CO
60
SI
o








o

Z ^

+J M
o .2
c v- •«
*? 42 • j
ZH 'S c
^ 's, °
.S c ° '§
i- re & 2
0 — D. ^
O ON c
42 -"g g
5?"" S3 -
•5 g -2 S
% 3 e c
i — i CU ^ ^>
CO F- o 60

•S
"cT
w ^
3 O\
"£ *
S
7r "^^ c
2 JT

o c« O\
42 s _ I
60 O) "^
.5 t. w
5 Q H
60
re
"o
B
"re

c o- c o
O ^^ ••*' *^
"^ r^ ^ cd
•S2 S ;*-
ErsT ° &0
, • ^* C

O ^^ **~* • rt
^ r^ ^ fl -C
§ "S | c is
^ O £> Q t^
re ^j ^^^ ..« q^
c" ^ re 'S 1«
D .S S co S
V)
t/2 • —
•0 "°
•s °
*- 60
O ^
& 1
c 2
2 g
O O
2 2
H H
fi Tt


































CO








1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.3-3
-------
  I

I
(2





























c:

bfl
4— >
W2
Q

£
Cj
0
5
'S,
c
0
U

^
4











• i^
Dozer equation (overburden)





bO
Bulldozin
-'
.0
CB
1
IH
CL,
a)
4_»
'rs"i
a
















's
D
"o
1
^
cs
a
g































traveled [VMT])

















o
^












.S
2
_c
•*"* 2
'S .2
1
a>
i
•s
•^-t
>
«o
o
X
tl ^
•S **
eo o
53
iri









o
O


o>
•*-*
IS
o
u>
o
o
o

CO


£
1
42
1?
!«.
C cS
CO
X! ^
."2 c
Uc O
B «
to o
S^
w
.e
o
s o
**-' W3
O CO
bo-0
C T3
12
Truck du
material,
materials
M3









O O
cs  °
i * .s
CO *^?
<*-! a5 c« ..
e -o o> c
« CO O (jj
•° bb § £
J2 S a> .&
G I> Jj^j St^
W •§ S aT
ck
*-H
^ 3
^^ cC
—• H
.£•§ 'c
c « .2
O T^< ^rt
"S ON §4
3 ' q^ *•,"*
4) *^ W) °^
fe 8 1-
O CO U. "2
Q H O §





bo
a» 1
"Z3 i—
o tt)
I 1
1 i
r-^ od








13.2.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
   en
   en
   eu
Xl
c
bo cU
G g

1.1
^jj
"^




£2
S
V
g


CJ






Ui
O
ts

mended Emission F
o
C*


en
.2
• w*
^
ust-generating Acti
Q


9>
CB
/•t
0
'§
S
•4-t
CO
o
U



u o
*—< «-^
1 1
99














o

i
i














o
CN
~L
1





u

1
9







i






e
J
*t«
cn
c'l
• S ^
31
^l
e* 55 t-H
§ ca ri
• •-H TO ^.^
«3 ^, *
^ *"^ f>
1°G
•o ts ••-
6^ fO O
O • a>
>- en co
"S G-S
ill
D co 42





0
E
CO
Ui
-*-*
o
•§
>

—

e
o
'S
S S
CD en
0) O
O U
*
•3















1
"d
1
o
a.

CM"










en
•pi
CO
Ui
0}
similar material/opi
o
c2





i
en
2
u
CO
















1 1 of this documeni
f
.£



















CO
J

2
ai . .
similar material/opi
1 1 of this documeni
O *"
e+-« *rf
CO Ci«
O -C
o 0
£ .S





. Screening
•°
















.S
o
1
.S
H rJ
es
JS C<0
!3 c
2-B
CO «
«^ D
2 CO




en
Material transfer
o












CO
*•••;
2
ai , .
similar material/opi
1 1 of this documeni
^ 1-
35
tso
£ .S





c
Ui
a,
o
 "2
O co c rs
a> S e^
to O -r
c c n_ co
O'"" O 5.
— "^
t3 .£? bo —
o> ^3 C ^
CO CO « CO
eu O* ui *J
^S u g s
° i- 1 "
« O o -5
"^ "5
S H *« „.
9> C a»
e 3 ° *o
3^ co 'S  c ^5 °
<5) s 1 s
U » " <*S
CJ «>
C *° co 3
•o 2 •> •«
's»l § £

2 w co .2
1 • i a a
•- ^ "o -I I
S j>~ ~ « .S
*e f § ^ •§
S <8 3 ?
.a x co a> "^
CO 4> co rj CO
CO CO "^ CU
Dnal letters the emi
ion activities. For
11 emission factors
i that no rating can
ndependent variabl
•3 t3 < 3 —
=5 2 £ •£
T3 ^^ * ^™« "^
• S 2 22 £
 3
C 2 ^3 tj X5 -jg
u £ |: 2 2 >
^^ ^ A Q r^ *M
Z Qi 4s u 'lo tL,
cfl jO O


































.
\f^
given. Reference ;
UN
O
*^
42
. o
8>'is
c •?
2 i
f ^
"2 ^c1
y^. ^_i
3 CO
0 «
T3





bO
c


9
X>
S
.2
CO
• *M
4>
0

i
s
(X

I
'•3
§
^
O

very conservativel
CO
O
1
s
0>
12

^
AJ
operations cannot
"ea
•O
'>
I
to

'ss -4
ea O
•S •"
r* 'J '
M W
u
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.3-5
-------
           Table 13.2.3-2. CONTROL OPTIONS FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
                                OPEN SOURCES OF PM-10
              Emission Source
                 Recommended Control Method(s)
 Debris handling


 Truck transportb



 Bulldozers

 Pan scrapers

 Cut/fill material handling


 Cut/fill haulage



 General construction
          Wind speed reduction
          Wet suppression3

          Wet suppression
          Paving
          Chemical stabilization0

          Wet suppressiond

          Wet suppression of travel routes

          Wind speed reduction
          Wet suppression

          Wet suppression
          Paving
          Chemical stabilization

          Wind speed reduction
          Wet suppression
          Early paving of permanent roads
a Dust control plans should contain precautions against watering programs that confound trackout
  problems.
b Loads  could be covered to avoid loss of material in transport, especially if material is transported
  offsite.
c Chemical stabilization usually cost-effective for relatively long-term or semipermanent unpaved
  roads.
d Excavated materials may already be moist and not require additional wetting.  Furthermore, most
  soils are associated with an "optimum moisture" for compaction.
References For Section 13.2.3

1.   C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development Of Emissions Factors For Fugitive Dust Sources,
     EPA-450/3-74-03, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     June 1974.

2.   G. A. Jutze, et d., Investigation Of Fugitive Dust Sources Emissions And Control,
     EPA-450/3-74-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     June 1974.

3.   Background Documentation For AP-42 Section 11.2.4, Heavy Construction Operations, EPA
     Contract No. 69-DO-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, April 1993.

4.   C. Cowherd  ; al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
13.2.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
 5.    M. A. Grelinger, et al., Gap Filling PM-10 Emission Factors For Open Area Fugitive Dust
      Sources, EPA-450/4-88-003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
      NC,  March 1988.
1/95                                Miscellaneous Sources                            13.2.3-7
-------
13.2.4  Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles

13.2.4.1  General

        Inherent in operations that use minerals in aggregate form is the maintenance of outdoor
storage piles. Storage piles are usually left uncovered, partially because of the need for frequent
material transfer into or out of storage.

        Dust emissions occur at several points in the storage cycle, such as material loading onto the
pile, disturbances by strong wind currents, and loadout from the pile.  The movement of trucks and
loading equipment  in the storage pile area is also a substantial source of dust.

13.2.4.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

        The quantity of dust emissions from aggregate storage operations varies with the volume of
aggregate passing through the storage cycle.  Emissions also depend on 3  parameters of the condition
of a particular storage pile:   age of the pile, moisture content, and proportion of aggregate fines.

        When freshly processed aggregate is loaded onto a storage pile, the potential for dust
emissions is at a maximum.  Fines are easily disaggregated and released to the atmosphere upon
exposure to air currents, either from aggregate transfer itself or from high  winds.  As the aggregate
pile weathers, however, potential for dust emissions is greatly reduced. Moisture causes aggregation
and cementation of fines to the surfaces of larger particles.  Any significant rainfall soaks the interior
of the pile, and then the drying process is very slow.

        Silt (particles equal to or less than 75 micrometers [pm] in diameter) content is determined by
measuring the portion of dry aggregate material that passes through a 200-mesh screen, using
ASTM-C-136 method.1  Table 13.2.4-1 summarizes measured silt and moisture values for industrial
aggregate materials.

13.2.4.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

        Total dust emissions from aggregate storage piles result from several distinct source activities
within the storage cycle:

        1.  Loading of aggregate onto storage piles (batch or continuous drop operations).
        2.  Equipment traffic in storage area.
        3.  Wind erosion of pile surfaces and ground areas around piles.
        4.  Loadout of aggregate for shipment or for return to the process stream (batch  or
           continuous drop  operations).

        Either adding aggregate material to a storage pile or removing it usually involves dropping the
material onto a receiving surface.  Truck  dumping on the pile or loading out from the pile to a truck
with a front-end loader are examples of batch drop  operations.  Adding material to the pile by a
conveyor stacker is an example of a continuous drop operation.
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                             13.2.4-1
-------
  W

  5

  CO


  Q
  Z
  O
  on
  H
  Z
  U

  Z
  o
  a

  U
  V5

  O

  S

  Q
  Z
  <
  o
s
ure Content (
A
«J
"S

_
Content (%
•*_»



c
a>
M
t*-< ««
d §
1

D
C
vi_ =«
°i
Z i
^ 5/3
"2
4^
O -X
6 'o
3
•a
cs Tf oo ON oovo I cs t-~ ~* ON Tf ON 1 ^t~ •/•> T$- \o
cs •/•) ^f o (•— t^- vo ' o o' cs o o vb en^rs-entSTtiot^»-<
°. 0 ^ P CN -,00 ^ ^ o,
•* od — • ^ ON _—'l^«s cs vo'r-' •*' — *- cs
' ' ' ' I - I 9 • ' • I ' I • • • • i ' • i
SVO°°.JQ Tt zen^g«»oor- m ON o\ \o
0- — ri 0- so* d 0- o <^ 0 ts CM' °°' » ^
= vo-cn-csi-oNN-or.-^o«ngs-c,^-«^-
rO ^O ^O c^ ^^ t^ ^5 ^^ v^^ '^ 0s! ^^i O^ ^O OO ^^ ^s^ y^5
^•ON^-^enn-^o enen-vor-in^csenoNONvoOoj
rn ON ^ en f ^* >o 10 ^^ ^ ^* vo ^" ,
'"' ^^ i*- f^v CN \/^ ^ ^^ *~< i/^ -^^ »-H cS ^ rt* '"H t^ OO
^ °°. O O f". •* •<*; en °°. ts ^ "* °°. — vo O P iri oo
•^^csen^1*' o'--Ofsi enen«r>o en1^ •<*'t^'
en ON C4 en en c^ ""•* ^~^ en CM oo ON c*4 v^ v^ en ^? '™H e*4 *o *"* c*i ^~ *""*
^H »-H T-H '-H \O
cn
•4«*
o
•o
o
« « - -i
C r* "O c^
o S -a S 'C
*i *5 C >  S"o §^2 o^25^',s
0,1— ic_)55ti-iOpQc/5JCj>'&.HOOwcj&oKOcjCJtt<2
ON ^ _ rj- ^_ ,t
C *" ^
§ 1 i 1 ^ 1
"S D- O< c c 0>
3 *rt "O *cS .2 c^
•o c S ° o- 5
0 «< * u u, &
a. ^ c3 8 | S
-------
        The quantity of paniculate emissions generated by either type of drop operation, per kilogram
 (kg) (ton) of material transferred, may be estimated, with a rating of A, using the following empirical
 expression:
           .11
                         E=k(0.0016)
                         E=k(0.0032)
                                            JJJ1.3
                                            2.2
               (kg/megagram  [Mg])
                                                                                              (1)
               (pound  [lb]/ton)
where:
         E = emission factor
         k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
         U = mean wind speed, meters per second (m/s) (miles per hour [mph])
        M = material moisture content (%)

The particle size multiplier in the equation, k, varies with aerodynamic particle size range, as follows:
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier (k) For Equation 1
< 30 ^m
0.74
< 15 fim
0.48
< 10 /zm
0.35
< 5 /zm
0.20
< 2.5 urn
0.11
        The equation retains the assigned quality rating if applied within the ranges of source
conditions that were tested in developing the equation, as follows. Note that silt content is included,
even though silt content does not appear as a correction parameter in the equation. While it is
reasonable to expect that silt content and  emission factors are interrelated, no significant correlation
between the 2 was found during the derivation of the equation, probably because most tests with high
silt contents were conducted under lower winds, and vice versa.   It is recommended that estimates
from the equation be reduced 1 quality rating level if the silt content used  in a particular application
falls outside the range given:
Ranges Of Source Conditions For Equation 1
Silt Content
(%)
0.44 - 19
Moisture Content
(%)
0.25 - 4.8
Wind Speed
m/s
0.6 - 6.7
mph
1.3- 15
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.4-3
-------
        To retain the quality rating of the equation when it is applied to a specific facility, reliable
 correction parameters must be determined for specific sources of interest.  The field and laboratory
 procedures for aggregate sampling are given in Reference  3.  In the event that site-specific values for
 correction parameters cannot be obtained, the appropriate mean from Table 13.2.4-1 may be used,
 but the quality rating of the equation is reduced by 1 letter.

        For emissions from equipment traffic (trucks, front-end loaders, dozers, etc.) traveling
 between or on piles, it is recommended that the equations  for vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces be
 used (see Section 13.2.2).  For vehicle travel between storage piles, the silt value(s) for the areas
 among the piles (which may differ from the silt values for the stored materials) should be used.

        Worst-case emissions from storage pile areas occur under dry, windy  conditions.  Worst-case
 emissions from materials-handling operations may be calculated by substituting into the equation
 appropriate values for aggregate material moisture content and for anticipated wind speeds during the
 worst case averaging period, usually 24 hours.  The treatment of dry conditions for Section 13.2.2,
 vehicle traffic, "Unpaved Roads", follows the methodology described in that section centering on
 parameter p.  A separate set of nonclimatic correction parameters and source extent values
 corresponding to higher than normal storage pile activity also may be justified for the worst-case
 averaging period.

 13.2.4.4  Controls12'13

        Watering and the use of chemical wetting agents are the principal means for control of
 aggregate storage pile emissions. Enclosure or covering of inactive piles to reduce wind erosion can
 also reduce emissions. Watering is useful mainly to  reduce emissions from vehicle traffic in the
 storage pile area.  Watering of the storage piles themselves typically has only a very temporary slight
 effect on total emissions.  A much more effective technique is to  apply  chemical agents (such as
 surfactants) that permit more extensive wetting.  Continuous chemical treating of material loaded onto
 piles, coupled with watering or treatment of roadways, can reduce total particulate emissions from
 aggregate storage operations by up to 90 percent.12

 References For Section  13.2.4

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

 2.      R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron  And Steel Plants,
        EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.

 3.      C. Cowherd, Jr., et al.,  Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
        EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

4.      Evaluation  Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
        No.  68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1979.

5.      C. Cowherd, Jr., and T. Cuscino, Jr., Fugitive Emissions Evaluation, MRI-4343-L, Midwest
        Research Institute,  Kansas City, MO,  February 1977.

6.      T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution
        Control Agency, Roseville,  MN, June 1979.

 13.2.4-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95
-------
 7.      Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining Sources,
        2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental, Kansas City, MO, and
        Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, July 1981.

 8.      Determination Of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions From Rotary Railcar Dumping, TRC,
        Hartford, CT, May  1984.

 9.      PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In the Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1987.

 10.     Chicago Area Paniculate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-4395, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, May 1988.

 11.     Update Of Fugitive Dust Emission Factors In AP-42 Section 11.2, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, July 1987.

 12.     G.  A. Jutze, et al., Investigation Of Fugitive Dust Sources Emissions And Control,
        EPA-450/3-74-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        June 1974.

 13.     C.  Cowherd, Jr., et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
        U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
1/95                               Miscellaneous Sources                            13.2.4-5
-------
13.2.5  Industrial Wind Erosion

13.2.5.1  General1'3

        Dust emissions may be generated by wind erosion of open aggregate storage piles and
exposed areas within an industrial facility. These sources typically are characterized by
nonhomogeneous surfaces impregnated with nonerodible elements (particles larger than approximately
1 centimeter [cm] in diameter).  Field testing of coal piles and other exposed materials using a
portable wind tunnel has shown that (a) threshold wind speeds exceed 5 meters per second (m/s)
(11 miles per hour [mph]) at 15 cm above the surface or  10 m/s (22 mph) at 7 m above the surface,
and (b) paniculate emission rates tend to decay  rapidly (half-life of a few minutes) during an erosion
event.  In other words, these aggregate material surfaces  are characterized by finite availability of
erodible material (mass/area) referred to as the erosion potential.  Any natural crusting of the surface
binds the  erodible material, thereby reducing  the erosion  potential.

13.2.5.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

        If typical values for threshold  wind speed at 15 cm are corrected to typical wind sensor height
(7 - 10 m), the resulting values exceed the upper extremes of hourly mean wind speeds observed  in
most  areas of the country.   In other words, mean atmospheric wind speeds are not sufficient to sustain
wind  erosion from flat surfaces of the type tested.  However, wind gusts may quickly deplete a
substantial portion of the erosion potential. Because erosion potential has been found to increase
rapidly with increasing wind speed, estimated emissions should be related to the gusts  of highest
magnitude.

        The routinely measured  meteorological variable that best reflects the magnitude of wind gusts
is the fastest mile.  This quantity represents the wind speed corresponding to the whole mile of wind
movement that has passed by the 1 mile contact anemometer in the least amount of time.  Daily
measurements of the fastest mile are presented in the monthly Local Climatological Data (LCD)
summaries. The duration of the fastest mile,  typically about 2 minutes (for a fastest mile of 30 mph),
matches well with the half-life of the erosion process, which ranges between 1 and 4 minutes. It
should be noted, however, that peak winds can significantly exceed the daily fastest mile.

        The wind speed profile in the  surface boundary layer is found to follow a logarithmic
distribution:

                                  u(z) = ^  In^.      (z>z0)                             (1)


where:
         u =  wind speed, cm/s
        u* =  friction velocity, cm/s
         z =  height above test surface, cm
        z0 =  roughness height, cm
       0.4 =  von Karman's constant, dimensionless
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                              13.2.5-1
-------
The friction velocity (u*) is a measure of wind shear stress on the erodible surface, as determined
from the slope of the logarithmic velocity profile.  The roughness height (z0) is a measure of the
roughness of the exposed surface as determined from the y intercept of the velocity profile, i. e., the
height at which the wind speed is zero. These parameters are illustrated in Figure 13.2.5-1 for a
roughness height of 0.1 cm.
                                                   WIND SPEED  AT 2.
                                                   W/HO -Sf££0 AT  /O
                   Figure 13.2.5-1.  Illustration of logarithmic velocity profile.
        Emissions generated by wind erosion are also dependent on the frequency of disturbance of
the erodible surface because each time that a surface is  disturbed,  its erosion potential is restored.  A
disturbance is defined as an action that results in the exposure of fresh surface material.  On a storage
pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material is either added to or removed from the old
surface.  A disturbance of an exposed area may also result from the turning of surface material to a
depth exceeding the size of the largest pieces  of material present.

13.2.5.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equation4

        The emission factor for wind-generated particulate emissions from mixtures of erodible and
nonerodible surface material subject to disturbance may be expressed in units of grams per square
meter (g/m2) per year as follows:
                                                        N
                                   Emission factor = k
                                                       (2)
13.2.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
where:

         k = particle size multiplier
        N = number of disturbances per year
        PJ = erosion potential corresponding to the observed (or probable) fastest mile of wind for
              the ith period between disturbances, g/m2

The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 2 varies with aerodynamic particle size, as follows:
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multipliers For Equation 2
30 urn
1.0
< 15 fim
0.6
-------
    FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY
                  (from a 1952 laboratory procedure published by W. S.  Chepil):

       1.      Prepare a nest of sieves with the following openings: 4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm,
               and 0.25 mm.  Place a collector pan below the bottom (0.25 mm) sieve.

       2.      Collect a sample representing the surface layer of loose particles (approximately 1 cm
               in depth, for  an encrusted surface), removing any rocks larger than about 1 cm in
               average physical diameter.  The area to  be sampled should  be not less than 30 cm by
               30 cm.                                               »

       3.      Pour the sample into the top sieve (4-mm opening), and place a lid on the top.

       4.      Move  the covered sieve/pan unit by hand, using a broad  circular arm motion in the
               horizontal plane.  Complete 20  circular  movements at a speed just necessary to
               achieve some relative horizontal motion between the sieve and the particles.

       5.      Inspect the relative quantities of catch within each sieve,  and determine where the
               mode in the aggregate size distribution lies, i. e., between the opening size of the
               sieve with the largest catch  and  the opening size of the next largest sieve.

       6.      Determine the threshold friction velocity from Table 13.2.5-1.
The results of the sieving can be interpreted using Table 13.2.5-1.  Alternatively, the threshold
friction velocity for erosion can be determined from the mode of the aggregate size distribution using
the graphical relationship described by Gillette.5"6  If the surface material contains nonerodible
elements that are too large to include in the sieving (i. e., greater than about 1 cm in diameter), the
effect of the elements must be taken into account by increasing the threshold friction velocity.10
        Table 13.2.5-1 (Metric Units). FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF
                             THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY
Tyler Sieve No.
5
9
16
32
60
Opening (mm)
4
2
1
0.5
0.25
Midpoint (mm)

3
1.5
0.75
0.375
u* (cm/s)

100
76
58
43
       Threshold friction velocities for several surface types have been determined by field
measurements with a portable wind tunnel.  These values are presented in Table 13.2.5-2.
13.2.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
             Table 13.2.5-2 (Metric Units). THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES
Material
Overburden*
Scoria (roadbed material)8
Ground coal (surrounding
coal pile)8
Uncrusted coal pile8
Scraper tracks on coal pilea>b
Fine coal dust on concrete padc
Threshold
Friction
Velocity
(m/s)
1.02
1.33
0.55
1.12
0.62
0.54
Roughness
Height (cm)
0.3
0.3
0.01
0.3
0.06
0.2
Threshold Wind Velocity At
10 m (m/s)
z0 = Act
21
27
16
23
15
11
z0 = 0.5 cm
19
25
10
21
12
10
8 Western surface coal mine.  Reference 2.
b Lightly crusted.
c Eastern power plant.  Reference 3.
       The fastest mile of wind for the periods between disturbances may be obtained from the
monthly LCD summaries for the nearest reporting weather station that is representative of the site in
question.7  These summaries report actual fastest mile values for each day of a given month.  Because
the erosion potential is a highly nonlinear function of the fastest mile,  mean values of the fastest mile
are inappropriate.  The anemometer heights of reporting weather stations are  found in Reference 8,
and should be corrected to a 10-m reference height using Equation 1.

       To convert the fastest mile of wind (u+) from a reference anemometer height of 10 m to the
equivalent friction velocity (u*), the logarithmic wind speed profile may be used to yield the following
equation:
                                        u * = 0.053 u
                                                     10
                                                                            (4)
where:
          u  =

         uio =
friction velocity (m/s)

fastest mile of reference anemometer for period between disturbances (m/s)
       This assumes a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm for open terrain.  Equation 4 is restricted
to large relatively flat piles or exposed areas with little penetration into the surface wind layer.

       If the pile significantly penetrates the surface wind layer (i. e., with a height-to-base ratio
exceeding 0.2), it is necessary to divide the pile area into subareas representing different degrees of
exposure to wind.  The results of physical modeling show that the frontal face of an elevated pile is
exposed to wind speeds of the same order as the approach wind speed at the top of the pile.
1/95
                      Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-5
-------
       For 2 representative pile shapes (conical and oval with flattop, 37-degree side slope), the
ratios of surface wind speed (us) to approach wind speed (ur) have been derived from wind tunnel
studies.9 The results are shown in Figure 13.2.5-2 corresponding to an actual pile height of 11 m, a
reference (upwind) anemometer height of 10 m, and a pile surface roughness height (z0) of 0.5 cm.
The measured surface winds correspond to a height of 25 cm above the surface. The area fraction
within each contour pair is specified in Table 13.2.5-3.
             Table 13.2.5-3. SUBAREA DISTRIBUTION FOR REGIMES OF us/ura
Pile Subarea
0.2a
0.2b
0.2c
0.6a
0.6b
0.9
1.1
Percent Of Pile Surface Area
Pile A
5
35
NA
48
NA
12
NA
Pile Bl Pile
5
B2 Pile B3
3 3
2 28 25
29 NA NA
26 29 28
24 22 26
14 15 14
NA
3 4
  NA =  not applicable.
       The profiles of us/ur in Figure 13.2.5-2 can be used to estimate the surface friction velocity
distribution around similarly shaped piles, using the following procedure:
        1.
Correct the fastest mile value (u+) for the period of interest from the anemometer
height (z) to a reference height of 10 m u10 using a variation of Equation 1:
                        +  _  + In (10/0.005)
                      uio ~ "
                                              In (z/0.005)
                                                                                           (5)
       2.
where a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm (0.005 m) has been assumed. If a site-
specific roughness height is available, it should be used.

Use the appropriate part of Figure 13.2.5-2 based on the pile shape and orientation to
the fastest mile of wind, to obtain the corresponding surface wind speed distribution
                                        us =
                                             (Us)
                                     J10
                                                                                           (6)
 13.2.5-6
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                          1/95
-------
       Flow
    Direction
                          Pile  A
                                   Pile B1
                           Pile B2
                                                                       Pile B3
               Figure 13.2.5-2.  Contours of normalized surface windspeeds, us/ur.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-7
-------
       3.      For any subarea of the pile surface having a narrow range of surface wind speed, use
               a variation of Equation 1 to calculate the equivalent friction velocity (u*):
                                            lnO.5



From this point on, the procedure is identical to that used for a flat pile, as described above.

       Implementation of the above procedure is  carried out in the following steps:

       1.      Determine threshold friction velocity for erodible material of interest (see
               Table 13.2.5-2 or determine from mode of aggregate size distribution).

       2.      Divide the exposed surface area into subareas of constant frequency of disturbance
               (N).

       3.      Tabulate fastest mile values (u+) for each frequency of disturbance and correct them
               to 10 m (uj^) using Equation 5.5

       4.      Convert fastest mile values (u10) to equivalent friction velocities (u*), taking into
               account (a) the uniform wind exposure of nonelevated surfaces, using Equation 4, or
               (b) the nonuniform wind exposure of elevated surfaces (piles),  using Equations 6 and
               7.

       5.      For elevated surfaces (piles), subdivide areas of constant N into subareas of constant
               u* (i. e., within the isopleth  values of us/ur in Figure  13.2.5-2 and Table 13.2.5-3)
               and determine the size of each subarea.

       6.      Treating each subarea (of constant N and u*) as a separate source, calculate the
               erosion potential  (Pj)  for each period between disturbances using Equation 3 and the
               emission factor using Equation 2.

       7.      Multiply the resulting emission factor for each subarea by the size of the subarea, and
               add the emission contributions of  all subareas. Note that the highest 24-hour (hr)
               emissions would  be expected to occur on the windiest day of the year.  Maximum
               emissions are calculated assuming a single event with the highest fastest mile value for
               the annual period.

       The recommended emission factor equation presented above assumes that all of the erosion
potential corresponding to the fastest mile of wind is lost during the period between disturbances.
Because the fastest mile event typically lasts only about 2 minutes, which corresponds roughly to  the
half-life for the decay of actual erosion potential,  it could be argued that the emission factor
overestimates particulate emissions.  However, there are other aspects of the wind erosion process
that offset this apparent conservatism:

        1.      The  fastest mile event contains peak winds that substantially exceed the mean value
               for the event.
13.2.5-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95
-------
        2.      Whenever the fastest mile event occurs, there are usually a number of periods of
               slightly lower mean wind speed that contain peak gusts of the same order as the
               fastest mile wind speed.

        Of greater concern is the likelihood of overprediction of wind erosion emissions in the case of
surfaces disturbed infrequently in comparison to the rate of crust formation.

13.2.5.4 Example 1:  Calculation for wind erosion emissions from conically shaped coal pile

        A coal burning facility maintains a conically shaped surge pile 11 m in height and 29.2 m in
base diameter, containing about 2000 megagrams (Mg) of coal, with a bulk density of 800 kilograms
per cubic meter (kg/m3) (50 pounds per cubic feet [Ib/ft3]).  The total exposed surface area of the pile
is calculated as follows:

                                S =  i r (r2 + h2)

                                  =  3.14(14.6) (14.6)2  +  (ll.O)2

                                  =  838 m2

        Coal is added to the pile by means of a fixed stacker and reclaimed by front-end loaders
operating at the base of the pile on the downwind side. In addition, every 3 days 250 Mg
(12.5 percent of the stored capacity of coal) is added back to the pile by a topping off operation,
thereby restoring the full capacity of the pile.  It is assumed that (a) the reclaiming operation disturbs
only a limited portion of the surface area where the daily activity is occurring, such that the
remainder of the pile surface remains intact, and (b) the topping off operation creates a fresh surface
on the entire pile while restoring its original shape  in the area depleted by daily reclaiming activity.

        Because of the high frequency of disturbance of the pile, a large number of calculations must
be made to  determine each contribution to the total annual wind erosion emissions.  This illustration
will use a single month as an example.

        StepJ: In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold friction velocity, a value of
1.12 m/s is obtained from Table 13.2.5-2.

        Step 2: Except for a small area near the base of the pile (see Figure 13.2.5-3), the entire pile
surface is disturbed  every 3 days, corresponding to a value of N  = 120 per year. It will be shown
that the contribution of the area where daily activity occurs is negligible so that it does not need to be
treated separately in the calculations.

        Step 3:  The calculation procedure involves determination of the fastest mile for each period
of disturbance.  Figure 13.2.5-4 shows a representative set of values (for a 1-month period) that are
assumed to  be applicable to the geographic area of the pile location.   The values have been separated
into 3-day periods, and the highest value in each period is indicated.  In this example, the
anemometer height is 7 m, so that a height correction to 10 m is needed for the fastest mile values.
From Equation 5,
                                               In (10/0.005)1
                                   uio = UT"
                                   uio =  L05
                                                In (7/0.005) J
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                              13.2.5-9
-------
        Prevailing
        Wind
        Direction
                                                                        Circled values
                                                                        refer to
        * A portion of C^  is  disturbed daily by reclaiming  activities.
                                                             Pile Surface
Area
ID
A
B
Cn + Cj

us
0.9
0.6
0.2

X
12
48
40

Area (m2)
101
402
335
Total 838
         Figure 13.2.5-3. Example 1: Pile surface areas within each wind speed regime.
13.2.5-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
               Local  Climatoloeical  Data
                         MOMHLY
" i 11 1*
.
a:
0

z
•<
tow
t
3
Jj
or
13
30
0
10
13
12
20
29
29
22
A
29
17
21
10
10
01
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
34
31
30
30
33
34


X
•~ "
z •
£ r

-I 0
^ Ul
» - 1 ^
cc ^^
u
5.3
10.5
2.4
1 1.0
1 1 .3
1 . 1
19.6
0.9
3.0
14.6
22.3
7.9
7.7
4.5
6.7
13.7
1 1 .2
4.3
9.3
7.5
10.3
17.1
2.4
5.9
1 .3
2. 1
8.3
8.2
5.0
3. 1
29 1 4.9

o
Ul
u>
a
w

UJ
0 3

e a
Z r
"*
15
6.9
10.6
FASTEST
MILE



•
5
• 0

«xr
i/>
16
J
Q)
6.0[ l£
11.4 1 16
1 .9 15
19.0 Pff
19.81 63
11.2 17
8. 1 15
5. 1
23.3
13.5
15.5
9.6
8.8
13.8
1 .5
5.8


o

^».
• O
UJ
cc
0
17
36
01
02
13
1 l
30
30
30
13
23 12
Qj) 29
231 ' 7
18
€^
13
6)
T5
1 2
10.2 (14
7.8 (J9
10.6 16
13
13
1 l
36
34
31
35
24
20
17.31 ©1 32
8.5 Ti 1 13
8.8 .
11.7
12.2
6.5
8.3 "
6.6
5.2 .
1.5 1 02
TDM 32
16 32
lej 26
"Ol 32
ro 32
9 31
5.5 1 8| 25
FOP THE MONTH:
30
— -
3.3

l . i
	 0
31 I 29
tTE: 'I
i








Ul
2
0
22
i
2
3
4
c
6
7
e
9
0
) l
12
13
1 1
15
16
17
e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
>s
29
30
3'.



          Figure 13.2.5-4.  Example daily fastest miles wind for periods of interest.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-11
-------
       Step 4: The next step is to convert the fastest mile value for each 3-day period into the
equivalent friction velocities for each surface wind regime (i. e., us/ur ratio) of the pile, using
Equations 6 and 7.  Figure 13.2.5-3 shows the surface wind speed pattern (expressed as a fraction of
the approach wind speed at a height of 10 m).  The surface areas lying within each wind speed
regime are tabulated below the figure.

       The calculated friction velocities are presented in Table 13.2.5-4.  As indicated, only 3 of the
periods contain a  friction velocity which exceeds the threshold value of 1.12 m/s for an uncrusted
coal pile.  These 3 values all occur within the us/ur = 0.9 regime of the pile surface.
                    Table 13.2.5-4 (Metric And English Units).  EXAMPLE 1:
                         CALCULATION OF FRICTION VELOCITIES
3-Day Period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u.
mph
14
29
30
31
22
21
16
25
17
13
7
m/s
6.3
13.0
13.4
13.9
9.8
9.4
7.2
11.2
7.6
5.8
u
mph
15
31
32
33
23
22
17
26
18
14
10
m/s
6.6
13.7
14.1
14.6
10.3
9.9
7.6
11.8
8.0
6.1
u* = O.lu+ (m/s)
us/ur: 0.2
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.12
us/ur: 0.6
0.40
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.62
0.59
0.46
0.71
0.48
0.37
us/ur: 0.9
0.59
1.23
1.27
1.31
0.93
0.89
0.68
1.06
0.72
0.55
        Step 5: This step is not necessary because there is only 1 frequency of disturbance used in
the calculations. It is clear that the small area of daily disturbance (which lies entirely within the
us/ur = 0.2 regime) is never subject to wind speeds exceeding the threshold value.

        Steps 6 and 7:  The final set of calculations (shown in Table 13.2.5-5) involves the tabulation
and summation of emissions for each disturbance period and for the affected subarea.  The erosion
potential (P) is calculated from Equation 3.

        For example, the calculation for the second 3-day period is:

                             P  = 58(u*-  ut*)2 + 25(u*- ut*)

                             P2 = 58(1.23 - 1.12)2 + 25(1.23 - 1.12)

                                = 0.70 + 2.75 = 3.45 g/m2
 13.2.5-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
      Table 13.2.5-5 (Metric Units).  EXAMPLE 1: CALCULATION OF PM-10 EMISSIONS8
3-Day Period
2
3
4
TOTAL
u* (mis)
1.23
1.27
1.31

* *
U -Ut
(m/s)
0.11
0.15
0.19

P (g/m2)
3.45
5.06
6.84

ID
A
A
A

Pile Surface
Area
(m2)
101
101
101

kPA
(g)
170
260
350
780
a Where U  = 1.12 m/s for uncrusted coal and k = 0.5 for PM-10.
        The emissions of paniculate matter greater than 10 /im (PM-10) generated by each event are
found as the product of the PM-10 multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion potential (P), and the affected
area of the pile (A).

        As shown in Table 13.2.5-5, the results of these calculations indicate a monthly PM-10
emission total of 780 g.

13.2.5.5  Example 2: Calculation for wind erosion from flat area covered with coal dust

        A flat circular area 29.2 m in diameter is covered with coal dust left over from the total
reclaiming of a conical coal pile described in the example above.  The total exposed surface area is
calculated as follows:
                            s  =  -  d2 = 0.785  (29.2)2 = 670  m2


        This area will remain exposed for a period of 1 month when  a new pile will be formed.

        Step 1: In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold friction velocity, a value of
0.54 m/s is obtained from Table 13.2.5-2.

        Step 2: The entire surface area is exposed for a period of 1 month after removal of a pile and
N =  1/yr.

        Step 3: From Figure 13.2.5-4, the highest value of fastest mile for the 30-day period
(31 mph) occurs on the llth day of the period. In this example, the  reference anemometer height is
7 m, so that a height correction is needed for the fastest mile value.  From Step 3 of the previous
example, u*Q  = 1.05 u^, so that uj^  = 33 mph.

        Step 4: Equation 4 is used to  convert the fastest  mile value of  14.6 m/s (33 mph) to an
equivalent friction velocity of 0.77 m/s.  This value exceeds the threshold friction velocity from
Step 1 so that  erosion does occur.

        Step 5: This step is  not necessary, because there is only 1  frequency of disturbance for the
entire source area.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-13
-------
       Steps 6 and 7: The PM-10 emissions generated by the erosion event are calculated as the
product of the PM-10 multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion potential (P) and the source area (A). The
erosion potential is calculated from Equation 3 as follows:

                           P = 58(u*-  ut*)2+25(u*- ut*)

                           P = 58(0.77 - 0.54)2+25(0.77  - 0.54)

                              = 3.07 + 5.75

                              = 8.82 g/m2

Thus the PM-10 emissions for the  1-month period are found to be:

                           E = (0.5)(8.82 g/m2)(670 m2)

                              = 3.0 kg

References For Section 13.2.5

1.     C. Cowherd, Jr.,  "A New  Approach To Estimating Wind Generated Emissions From Coal
       Storage Piles", Presented at the APCA Specialty Conference on Fugitive Dust Issues in the
       Coal Use Cycle, Pittsburgh, PA, April 1983.

2.     K. Axtell and C. Cowherd, Jr., Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Surface
       Cod Mining Sources, EPA-600/7-84-048,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, March 1984.

3.     G. E Muleski, "Coal Yard Wind Erosion Measurement", Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
       City, MO, March 1985.

4.     Update Of Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors In AP-42 Section 77.2 — Wind Erosion, MRI No.
       8985-K, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,  1988.

5.     W. S. Chepil,  "Improved Rotary Sieve For Measuring State And Stability Of Dry Soil
       Structure", Soil Science Society Of America Proceedings, 7(5:113-117, 1952.

6.     D. A. Gillette, et al., "Threshold Velocities For Input Of Soil  Particles Into The Air By
       Desert Soils", Journal Of Geophysical Research, 85(C 10):5621-5630.

7.     Local Climatological Data, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.

8.     M. J. Changery, National  Wind Data Index. Final Report, HCO/T1041-01 UC-60, National
       Climatic Center, Asheville, NC, December 1978.

9.     B. J. B. Stunder and S. P.  S. Arya, "Windbreak Effectiveness  For Storage Pile Fugitive Dust
       Control:  A Wind Tunnel Study", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association,
       55:135-143, 1988.

10.    C. Cowherd, Jr.,  et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA 450/3-88-008, U.  S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September  1988.

13.2.5-14                           EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
 133 Explosives Detonation

 13.3.1  General1'5

        This section deals mainly with pollutants resulting from the detonation of industrial explosives
 and firing of small arms.  Military applications are excluded from this discussion.  Emissions
 associated with the manufacture of explosives are treated in Section 6.3, "Explosives".

        An explosive is a chemical material that is capable of extremely rapid combustion resulting in
 an explosion or detonation.  Since an adequate supply of oxygen cannot be drawn from the air, a
 source of oxygen must be incorporated into the explosive mixture.  Some explosives, such as
 trinitrotoluene (TNT), are single chemical species, but most explosives are mixtures of several
 ingredients.  "Low explosive" and  "high explosive" classifications are based on the velocity of
 explosion, which is directly related to the type of work the explosive  can perform. There appears to
 be no direct relationship between the velocity of explosions and the end products of explosive
 reactions.  These end products are determined primarily by the oxygen balance of the explosive. As
 in other combustion reactions, a deficiency of oxygen favors the formation of carbon monoxide and
 unburned organic compounds and produces little, if any, nitrogen oxides.  An excess of oxygen
 causes more nitrogen oxides and less carbon monoxide  and other unburned organics.  For ammonium
 nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) mixtures,  a fuel  oil content of more than  5.5 percent creates a deficiency
 of oxygen.

        There are hundreds of different explosives, with no universally accepted system for
 classifying them.  The classification used in Table 13.3-1  is based on  the chemical composition of the
 explosives, without regard to other properties, such as rate of detonation,  which relate to the
 applications of explosives but not to their specific end products. Most explosives are used in 2-, 3-,
 or 4-step trains that are shown schematically in Figure 13.3-1.  The simple removal of a tree stump
 might be done with a 2-step train made up of an electric blasting cap and a stick of dynamite.  The
 detonation wave from the blasting cap would cause detonation of the dynamite.  To make a large hole
 in the earth, an inexpensive explosive such as ANFO might be  used.  In this case, the detonation
 wave from the blasting cap is not powerful enough to cause detonation, so a booster must be used in
 a 3- or 4-step train.  Emissions from the blasting caps and safety fuses used in these trains are usually
 small compared to those from the main charge,  because the emissions  are  roughly proportional to the
 weight of explosive used, and the main charge makes up most of the total weight.  No factors are
 given for computing emissions from blasting caps or fuses, because these have not been measured,
 and because the uncertainties are so great in estimating emissions from the main and booster charges
that a precise estimate of all emissions is not practical.

 13.3.2  Emissions And Controls2'4"6

        Carbon monoxide is the pollutant produced in greatest quantity from explosives detonation.
TNT, an oxygen-deficient explosive, produces more CO than most dynamites, which are oxygen-
balanced.  But all explosives produce measurable amounts of CO.  Particulates are produced as well,
but such large quantities of paniculate are generated in the shattering of the rock and  earth by the
 explosive that the quantity of particulates from the explosive charge cannot be distinguished.
Nitrogen oxides (both nitric oxide [NO] and nitrogen  dioxide [NO2]) are formed, but only limited
data are available on these emissions.  Oxygen-deficient explosives are said to produce little or no
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Miscellaneous Sources                                13.3-1
-------
  S
  D-
  X

  Pu
  O
  O
  P
  I
  Q


  g
  IX,
  02

  O
  H
  U
  <
  Pu

  Z
  O

  05
  t-H
  •g
  JO


  03
O
z
g
p-
z
o
       UJ


1
O









a
CO
1
o
fc
Ofi
2
z

"o
T3
O
C
o
c
0
•e
eij
u
e
|
I
Pollutant
c
o
^2

w>
5
60

c
o
j3


Ml
S


O
""*



Ml
]3)

VI
u
EA
C
Compositio

u
"S.
X
U

S
CM
Cfl

CM
•*


—
CM

Q
Z



Q
Z

g




>r>
00

CA
en
a
a
"3
Q

6"
^
o
£
S

^
1

p
o\
VO
9
S"
t

o,






o"

^,



§



Potassium
(sodium)

1
u
o
a,

CM
0
^H
r-

v*
^H


vO
O

Q
Z



Q
Z

r^
r-




oo

CM
a
"«
C/]

U
v>
J2
| « 1 |
C O (A >^S
z
^
I
5

C->-
«-H
f!.
o.
S"
9
•<*•
0,






_
oo
00
^— -



4

propellant

(sometimes
with other


°'
»,
£
























materials)

w rj
en M_i
U u
~u •?
•s *
O o
S £X
on

VO "7
9
m 9
X
vo-
>o >o
(S vo
0_
oo"
m CM
~* CO
O,
Q
Z



Q
Z
^
^ CM
00 "P
CM (-L
00



CM
— VO
- 2

•s
CA
3
1
o *S
•c 2 ^
41 *i Q.
£'£ 3 £
S £ "o § "a a
Q Z » f o o
CM
c eu)
ca '5
C i;
5". »5
Q
_
S|
"" si-
a"
•— i
tn CM
rt VO
9.
--.
r~ —
0 en
0,
Q
Z



Q
Z
bo-
rn 2
vo




CM ^
CM
U)
. -S
^ M
o J2
? J=
>, c1-
fc E
« S
<§-
~O
0-60%
Nitroglyceri
ammonium
CM
Dynamite,
ammonia




























nitrate/sodiu
nitrate/wood
pulp



-1
-I
S
p
r- —
o en
2-
b?
en 9
0 -
0,
t>"
cn 2
00


^_^
VO £
^ s
o"

CM,



0
CM ^
*> en
c
Demolition,
constructic
work,

0-100%
Nitroglyceril
CM
.-a^c
is
C u
>v M
Q

i
-I
S"






















B
•Is
S-£
S E




13.3-2
                            EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80
-------




U
^
o










£
u
c
C3
JC
U
S




1
T3
•g
O
1
2
2


CO
-•§
x
o
IT!
Carbon Moi

c
0
2s
00
S
~oi



^^
1
a
<£




c
o



00
S
j?


c
o
;s

00
1)
•^


c




oo


u
VI


C
Compositio

u
"S.
X
U


*?


c)
0




c^1
C^l





Q
Z




Q
Z


t—



00




£


•<*•
en

§ .S
o w>
2 * •£ S
| S « .5
o ^ 3 E
U

_
'o
Ammonium
nitrate with
5.8-8% fuel

V,
1

0 ^_ _ ^ S

r &• s o
S ^ 2 u -
•S « 8 | 1 53
c ra o1 o ^ ^
*2 r- IH ?S o O
* .S a £ 2 o
2 CQ

r'l
f\ r4 .
c 0 g
u -7 A -5
3 ^ , c E
2 zfe J §
S ^>J2 >l
•E 3&!:s
S §u E-


^- 'x
Z Q


w^ »n
ri o

**! cQ
•^ 6
^^



£
z





Q




Q
2


Q
2


Q
2


a\~
^j
S; °?

ci
-1
^^ oo
en



u
u
V)
0
O
CQ


»"3
C(CH2ONO2),
Pentaerythrit
tetranitrate


a




"8
VI
V)

u,
n-

Z -g
o
Ps
fe §
S

o 2
cfl O
S G
^ _^^
J ^3 •

d *> ^
«-> p «O
8 • §
>< § ^
sj*
S | g
2 g |
g 'o 0
*g p E
3 13 O
f -g "8
^o S "C.
'S -S g
.j 4>
experiments <
rs apply to th
Studies wen
e o •
•r •*— » ai
O O jji
73 «S 2
5 „, JS2
co a) «r!
,5 £ c
DQ H S
as .Q
























S
•o
73
c
Qj
'S
-5- i*
o r;
•i^ fc
•^^ 2
c~| "£

*"* C
gs
^ .2
s|
~ 13
t> .H
o *"•*
'o1 i-
.S ^
2 £
^i/] o
Wri
T— » 55

v- «2
2 §
OES
0 TD
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
13.3-3
-------
                                                      Z DYNAMITE
                                     1 ELECTRIC
                                      BLASTING CAP
                                   PRIMARY
                                   HIGH EXPLOSIVE
                                                     SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
                                 a.   Two-step  explosive  train
                                                           3 DYNAMITE
                         1 SAFETY FUSE
                                      2 NONELECTRIC
                                        BLAST ING CAP
                            LOW EXPLOSIVE    PRIMARY
                            (BLACK POWDER)   HIGH
                                          EXPLOSIVE
                                                    SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
                                 b.  Three-step explosive train
                                                                4. ANFO
                          1 SAFETY
                           FUSE
NELECTRIC
&STING CAP
J J


3. DYNAMITE
BOOSTER

1
1

w

                           LOW       PRIMARY            ^S
                           EXPLOSIVE   HIGH EXPLOSIVE  SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
                                  c.   Four-step explosive train
13.3-4
Figure 13.3-1. Two-, three-, and four-step explosive trains.

                   EMISSION FACTORS                    (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80
-------
 nitrogen oxides, but there is only a small body of data to confirm this.  Unburned hydrocarbons also
 result from explosions, but in most instances,  methane is the only species that has been reported.

        Hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia all have been reported as products of
 explosives use.  Lead is emitted from the firing of small arms ammunition with lead projectiles and/or
 lead primers, but the explosive charge does not contribute to the lead emissions.

        The emissions from explosives detonation are influenced by many factors such as explosive
 composition, product expansion, method of priming, length of charge, and confinement.  These
 factors  are difficult to measure and control in the field and are almost impossible to duplicate in a
 laboratory test facility.  With the exception of a few studies in underground mines, most studies have
 been performed  in laboratory test chambers that differ substantially from the actual environment.
 Any estimates of emissions from explosives use must be regarded as approximations that  cannot be
 made more precise because explosives are not  used in a precise, reproducible manner.

        To a certain extent, emissions can be altered by changing the composition of the explosive
 mixture.  This has been practiced for many years to safeguard miners who must use explosives. The
 U.S. Bureau of Mines has a continuing program to study the products from explosives and to
 identify explosives that can be used safely underground.  Lead emissions from small  arms use can be
 controlled by using jacketed soft-point projectiles and special leadfree primers.

        Emission factors are given in Table 13.3-1.  Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per
 megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton).

 References For Section 13.3

 1.      C. R. Newhouser, Introduction To Explosives, National Bomb Data Center, International
        Association Of Chiefs Of Police, Gaithersburg, MD (undated).

 2.      Roy V. Carter, "Emissions From The Open Burning Or Detonation Of Explosives", Presented
        at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control  Association, Houston, TX, June
        1978.

 3.      Melvin A. Cook, The Science  Of High Explosives, Reinhold Publishing Corporation,  New
        York,  1958.

 4.      R. F. Chaiken, et. al., Toxic Fumes From Explosives:  Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil Mixtures,
        Bureau Of Mines Report Of Investigations 7867, U. S. Department Of Interior, Washington,
        DC, 1974.

5.      Sheridan J. Rogers, Analysis OfNoncoal Mine Atmospheres: Toxic Fumes From Explosives,
        Bureau Of Mines, U.  S. Department Of Interior, Washington, DC, May  1976.

6.      A. A. Juhasz, "A Reduction Of Airborne Lead In Indoor Firing Ranges By Using Modified
        Ammunition", Special Publication 480-26, Bureau Of Standards, U. S. Department Of
        Commerce, Washington, DC, November  1977.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.3-5
-------
 13.4 Wet Cooling Towers

 13.4.1  General1

        Cooling towers are heat exchangers that are used to dissipate large heat loads to the
 atmosphere.  They are used as an important component in many industrial and commercial processes
 needing to dissipate heat.  Cooling towers may range in size from less than 5.3(10)6 kilojoules (kJ)
 (5[10]6 British thermal units per hour [Btu/hr]) for small air conditioning cooling towers to over
 5275(10)6 kJ/hr (5000[106] Btu/hr) for large power plant cooling towers.

        When water is used as the heat transfer medium, wet, or evaporative, cooling towers may be
 used.  Wet cooling towers rely on the latent heat of water evaporation to exchange heat between the
 process and the air passing through the cooling tower. The cooling water may be an integral part of
 the process or may provide cooling via heat exchangers.

        Although cooling towers can be classified several ways, the primary classification is into dry
 towers or wet towers, and some hybrid wet-dry combinations exist. Subclassifications can include the
 draft type and/or the  location of the draft relative to the heat transfer medium, the type of heat
 transfer medium, the relative direction of air movement, and the type of water distribution system.

        In wet cooling towers, heat transfer is measured by the decrease in the process temperature
 and  a corresponding increase in both the moisture content and the wet bulb  temperature of the air
 passing through the cooling tower.  (There also may be a change in the sensible, or dry bulb,
 temperature, but its contribution to the heat transfer process is very small and is typically ignored
 when designing wet cooling towers.)  Wet cooling towers  typically contain a wetted medium called
 "fill" to promote evaporation by providing a large surface area and/or by creating many water drops
 with a large cumulative surface area.

        Cooling towers can be categorized by the type of heat transfer; the type of draft and location
 of the draft, relative to the heat transfer medium; the type of heat transfer medium;  the relative
 direction of air and water contact; and the type of water distribution system. Since wet, or
 evaporative, cooling towers are the dominant type, and they also generate air pollutants, this section
 will  address only that type of tower. Diagrams of the various tower configurations are shown in
 Figure 13.4-1 and Figure 13.4-2.

 13.4.2  Emissions And Controls1

        Because wet cooling towers provide direct contact between the cooling water and the air
passing through the tower, some of the liquid water may be entrained in the air stream and be carried
out of the tower as "drift" droplets.  Therefore, the paniculate matter constituent of the drift droplets
may be classified as an emission.

       The magnitude of drift loss is influenced by the number and size of droplets produced  within
the cooling tower, which in turn are determined by the fill design, the air and water patterns, and
other interrelated factors.  Tower maintenance and operation levels also can influence the formation of
drift droplets. For example,  excessive water flow, excessive airflow, and water bypassing the tower
drift eliminators can promote and/or increase drift emissions.
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.4-1
-------
                               WtfwOUM

             Air OulM
 Air
   OulM
        Counteribw Natural Daft To
             Air OulM
                                                                              AirOriM
                           Air
          Fin A*
            MmdCMt
                                                                    Air
                                                                                              Air
                                                                              Mind Draft
                  Figure 13.4-1 Atmospheric and natural draft cooling towers.
        Because the drift droplets generally contain the same chemical impurities as the water
circulating through the tower, these impurities can be converted to airborne emissions. Large drift
droplets settle out of the tower exhaust air stream and deposit near the tower.  This process can lead
to wetting, icing, salt deposition, and related problems  such as damage to equipment or to vegetation.
Other drift droplets may evaporate before being deposited in the area surrounding the tower, and they
also can produce PM-10 emissions.  PM-10 is generated when the drift droplets evaporate and leave
fine particulate matter formed by crystallization of dissolved solids. Dissolved solids found in cooling
tower drift can consist of mineral matter, chemicals for corrosion inhibition, etc.
13.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
                AirOutM
                                                                            Air Outlet
                         Fan
                                                                        11111
                                                                                             .Air
                                                                      Forad Draft CountarHow TOMT
          Induced Draft Counttrftmr Tow*r
               AirOutM    F(U,
                                                              W«t«rlnM
         Induced Drift CwMHow TOKPW

                          Figure 13.4-2.  Mechanical draft cooling towers.
        To reduce the drift from cooling towers, drift eliminators are usually incorporated into the
tower design to remove as many droplets as practical from the air stream before exiting the tower.
The drift eliminators used in cooling towers rely on inertia! separation caused by direction changes
while passing through the eliminators.  Types of drift eliminator configurations include herringbone
(blade-type), wave form, and cellular (or honeycomb) designs. The cellular units generally are the
most efficient. Drift eliminators may include various materials, such as ceramics, fiber reinforced
cement, fiberglass, metal, plastic, and wood installed or formed into closely spaced slats, sheets,
honeycomb assemblies,  or tiles. The materials may include other features, such as corrugations and
water removal channels, to enhance the drift removal further.

        Table 13.4-1 provides  available particulate emission factors for wet cooling towers. Separate
emission factors are given for  induced draft and natural draft cooling towers.  Several features in
Table 13.4-1 should be noted.   First, a conservatively high PM-10 emission factor can be obtained by
(a) multiplying the total liquid drift factor by the total dissolved solids (TDS) fraction in the
circulating water and (b) assuming that, once the water  evaporates, all remaining solid particles are
within the PM-10 size range.

        Second, if TDS  data for the cooling tower are not available, a source-specific TDS content
can be estimated by obtaining the TDS data for the make-up water and multiplying them by the
cooling  tower cycles of concentration.  The cycles of concentration ratio is the ratio of a measured
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.4-3
-------
   Table 13.4-1 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FACTORS FOR WET
                                    COOLING TOWERS*
Tower Type
Induced Draft
(SCC 3-85-001-01,
3-85-001-20,
3-85-002-01)
Natural Draft
(SCC 3-85-001-02,
3-85-002-02)
Total Liquid Driftb
Circulating
Water lb/103
Flow*5 g/daL gal
0.020 2.0 1.7
0.00088 0.088 0.073
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
PM-100
lb/103
g/daLe gal
0.023 0.019
ND ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

a References 1-17. Numbers are given to 2 significant digits.  ND = no data.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b References 2,5-7,9-10,12-13,15-16. Total liquid drift is water droplets entrained in the cooling
  tower exit air stream.  Factors are for % of circulating water flow (10~2 L drift/L [10~2 gal
  drift/gal] water flow) and g drift/daL (Ib drift/103 gal) circulating water flow.
  0.12 g/daL = 0.1 lb/103 gal; 1 daL = 101 L.
c See discussion in text on how to use the table to obtain PM-10 emission estimates.  Values shown
  above are the arithmetic average of test results from References 2,4,8, and 11-14, and they imply
  an effective IDS content of approximately 12,000 parts per million (ppm) in the circulating water.
d See Figure 13.4-1 and Figure 13.4-2.  Additional SCCs for wet cooling towers of unspecified draft
  type are 3-85-001-10 and 3-85-002-10.
e Expressed as g PM-10/daL (Ib PM-10/103 gal) circulating water flow.
parameter for the cooling tower water (such as conductivity, calcium, chlorides, or phosphate) to that
parameter for the make-up water.  This estimated cooling tower TDS can be used to calculate the
PM-10 emission factor as above.  If neither of these methods can be used, the arithmetic average
PM-10 factor given in Table 13.4-1 can be used. Table 13.4-1 presents the arithmetic average PM-10
factor calculated from the test data in References 2, 4, 8, and 11 -  14.  Note that this average
corresponds to an effective cooling tower recirculating water TDS content of approximately
11,500 ppm for induced draft towers.  (This can be found by dividing the total liquid drift factor into
the PM-10 factor.)

       As an alternative approach, if TDS data are unavailable for an induced draft tower, a value
may be selected from Table 13.4-2 and then be combined  with the total liquid drift factor in
Table 13.4-1 to determine an apparent PM-10 factor.

       As shown in Table 13.4-2, available data do not suggest that there is any significant
difference between TDS levels in counter and cross flow towers. Data for natural draft towers are
not available.
13.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                         1/95
-------
              Table 13.4-2.  SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
                   SOLIDS (TDS) CONTENT IN CIRCULATING WATERa
Type Of Draft
Counter Flow
Cross Flow
Overall
No. Of Cases
10
7
17
Range Of TDS Values
(ppm)
3700 - 55,000
380 - 91,000
380 - 91,000
Geometric Mean TDS Value
(ppm)
18,500
24,000
20,600
a References 2,4,8,11-14.
b Data unavailable for natural draft towers.
References For Section 13.4

1.     Development Of Paniculate Emission Factors For Wet Cooling Towers, EPA Contract
       No. 68-DO-0137, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1991.

2.     Cooling Tower Test Report, Drift And PM-10 Tests T89-50, T89-51, And T89-52, Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1990.

3.     Cooling Tower Test Report, Typical Drift Test, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       January 1990.

4.     Mass Emission Measurements Performed On Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation's Westend
       Facility, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Trona, CA, And Environmental Systems
       Corporation, Knoxville, TN, December 1989.

5.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, January 1989.

6.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, October 1988.

7.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August 1988.

8.     Report Of Cooling Tower Drift Emission Sampling At Argus And Sulfate #2 Cooling Towers,
       Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Trona, CA, and Environmental Systems Corporation,
       Knoxville, TN, February 1987.

9.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1987.

10.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, January 1987.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.4-5
-------
11.     Isoldnetic Droplet Emission Measurements Of Selected Induced Draft Cooling Towers, Kerr-
       McGee Chemical Corporation, Trona, CA, and Environmental Systems Corporation,
       Knoxville, TN, November 1986.

12.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, December 1984.

13.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August 1984.

14.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       November 1983.

15.     Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project, Volumes 1 and 2, JHU PPSP-CPCTP-16, John Hopkins
       University, Laurel, MD, August 1977.

16.     Comparative Evaluation Of Cooling Tower Drift Eliminator Performance, MIT-EL 77-004,
       Energy Laboratory And Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute Of
       Technology,  Cambridge, MA, June 1977.

17.     G. O. Schrecker, et al., Drift Data Acquired On Mechanical Salt Water Cooling Devices,
       EPA-650/2-75-060, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1975.
 13.4-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95
-------
 13.5 Industrial Flares

 13.5.1  General

        Flaring is a high-temperature oxidation process used to burn combustible components, mostly
 hydrocarbons, of waste gases from industrial operations.  Natural gas, propane, ethylene, propylene,
 butadiene and butane constitute over 95 percent of the waste gases flared.  In combustion, gaseous
 hydrocarbons react with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO^) and water.  In some waste
 gases, carbon monoxide (CO) is the major combustible component.  Presented below, as an example,
 is the combustion reaction of propane.

                               C3H8 + 5 O2—5> 3 C02 + 4 H20

        During a combustion reaction, several intermediate products are formed, and eventually, most
 are converted to CO2 and water.  Some quantities of stable intermediate products such as carbon
 monoxide, hydrogen, and hydrocarbons will escape as emissions.

        Flares are used extensively to dispose of (1) purged and wasted products from refineries,
 (2) unrecoverable gases emerging with oil from oil wells, (3) vented gases from blast furnaces,
 (4) unused gases from  coke ovens, and (5) gaseous wastes from chemical industries.  Gases flared
 from refineries, petroleum production, chemical industries, and to some extent, from coke ovens, are
 composed largely of low molecular weight hydrocarbons with high heating value.  Blast furnace flare
 gases are largely of inert species and CO, with  low heating value. Flares are also used  for burning
 waste gases generated by sewage digesters, coal gasification, rocket engine testing, nuclear power
 plants with sodium/water heat exchangers, heavy  water plants, and ammonia fertilizer plants.

        There are two types of flares, elevated and ground flares.  Elevated flares, the more common
 type, have larger capacities than ground flares.  In elevated flares, a waste gas  stream is fed through a
 stack anywhere from 10 to over 100  meters tall and is combusted  at the tip of the stack. The flame is
 exposed to atmospheric disturbances  such as wind and precipitation.  In ground flares, combustion
 takes place at ground level.  Ground flares vary in complexity, and they may consist either of
 conventional  flare burners discharging horizontally with no enclosures or of multiple burners in
 refractory-lined steel enclosures.

        The typical flare system consists of (1)  a gas collection header and piping for collecting gases
 from processing units,  (2) a knockout drum (disentrainment drum) to remove and store  condensables
 and entrained liquids, (3) a proprietary seal, water seal, or purge gas supply  to prevent flash-back,
 (4) a single- or multiple-burner unit and a flare  stack, (5) gas pilots and an igniter to ignite the
 mixture of waste gas and air, and, if required, (6) a provision for  external momentum force (steam
 injection or forced air) for smokeless flaring. Natural gas, fuel gas, inert gas,  or nitrogen can be
 used as purge gas.  Figure 13.5-1 is a diagram of a typical steam-assisted elevated smokeless flare
 system.

        Complete combustion requires sufficient combustion air and proper mixing of air and waste
 gas.  Smoking may result from combustion,  depending upon waste gas components and  the quantity
and distribution of combustion air. Waste gases containing methane, hydrogen, CO, and ammonia
usually burn without smoke.  Waste gases containing heavy hydrocarbons such as paraffins above
methane, olefins, and aromatics, cause smoke.  An external momentum force, such as steam injection


9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Miscellaneous Sources                                13.5-1
-------
                                     Assisrsiwt       r mommas
                                      *u -^    /
                                                    • lunot ruf
                  nun
                       mucus
             VOttt
                          7w
                          u*
 UUECTION NEADH
11IU5HI UK
                                                      -Ittlfl S£(L
                                             T
                                              DUU
           Figure 13.5-1.  Diagram of atypical steam-assisted smokeless elevated flare.
or blowing air, is used for efficient air/waste gas mixing and turbulence, which promotes smokeless
flaring of heavy hydrocarbon waste gas.  Other external forces may be used for this purpose,
including water spray, high velocity vortex action, or natural gas. External momentum force is rarely
required in ground flares.

        Steam injection is accomplished either by nozzles on an external ring around the top of the
flare tip or by a single nozzle located  concentrically within the tip.  At installations where waste gas
flow varies, both are used.  The internal nozzle provides steam at low waste gas flow rates, and the
external jets are used with large waste gas flow rates. Several other special-purpose flare tips are
commercially available, one of which is for injecting both steam and air.  Typical steam usage ratio
varies from 7:1 to 2:1, by weight.

        Waste gases  to be flared must have a  fuel value of at least 7500 to 9300 kilojoules per cubic
meter kJ/m3 (200 to  250 British thermal units per cubic foot [Btu/ft3]) for complete combustion;
otherwise fuel must be added.  Flares providing supplemental fuel to waste gas are known as fired, or
endothermic, flares.  In some cases, even flaring waste gases having the necessary heat content
will also require supplemental heat. If fuel-bound nitrogen is present, flaring ammonia with a heating
value of 13,600 kJ/m3 (365 Btu/ft3) will require higher heat to minimize nitrogen oxides (NOX)
formation.

        At many locations, flares normally  used to dispose of low-volume continuous emissions  are
designed to handle large quantities of  waste gases that may be intermittently generated during plant
emergencies.  Flare gas volumes can vary from a few cubic meters per hour during regular operations
13.5-2
        EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91
-------
 up to several thousand cubic meters per hour during major upsets.  Flow rates at a refinery could be
 from 45 to 90 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (100 - 200 pounds per hour [lb/hr]) for relief valve leakage
 but could reach a full plant emergency rate of 700 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (750 tons/hr).
 Normal process blowdowns may release 450 to 900 kg/hr (1000 - 2000 lb/hr), and unit maintenance
 or minor failures may release 25 to 35 Mg/hr (27 - 39 tons/hr). A 40 molecular weight gas typically
 of 0.012 cubic nanometers per second (nm3/s)  (25 standard cubic feet per minute [scfm]) may rise to
 as high as 115 nm3/s (241,000 scfm).  The required flare turndown ratio for this typical case is over
 15,000 to 1.

        Many flare systems have 2 flares, in parallel or in series.  In the former, 1 flare can be shut
 down for maintenance while the other serves the system.  In systems of flares in series, 1  flare,
 usually a low-level ground flare, is intended to handle regular gas volumes, and the other, an elevated
 flare, to handle excess gas flows from emergencies.

 13.5.2  Emissions

        Noise and heat are the most apparent undesirable effects of flare operation.  Flares are usually
 located away from populated areas or are sufficiently isolated, thus minimizing their effects on
 populations.

        Emissions from flaring include carbon particles (soot), unburned hydrocarbons, CO, and other
 partially burned and altered hydrocarbons.  Also emitted are NOX and, if sulfur-containing material
 such as hydrogen sulfide or mercaptans is flared, sulfur dioxide (SO2).  The quantities of hydrocarbon
 emissions generated relate to the degree of combustion. The degree of combustion depends largely on
 the rate and extent of fuel-air mixing and on the flame temperatures achieved and maintained.
 Properly operated flares achieve at least 98  percent combustion efficiency in the flare plume, meaning
 that hydrocarbon and CO emmissions amount to less than 2 percent of hydrocarbons in the gas
 stream.

        The tendency of a fuel to smoke or  make soot is influenced by fuel characteristics  and by the
 amount and distribution of oxygen in the combustion zone.  For complete combustion,  at least the
 stoichiometric amount of oxygen must be provided in the combustion zone.  The theoretical amount
 of oxygen required increases with the molecular weight of the gas burned.  The oxygen supplied as
 air ranges from 9.6 units of air per unit of methane to 38.3 units of air per unit of pentane, by
 volume.  Air is supplied to the flame as primary air and secondary air.  Primary air is mixed with the
 gas before combustion, whereas secondary air is drawn into the flame. For smokeless combustion,
 sufficient primary air must be supplied, this varying from about 20 percent of stoichiometric air for a
 paraffin to about 30 percent for an olefin.  If the amount of primary air is insufficient, the gases
 entering the base of the flame are preheated by the combustion zone, and larger hydrocarbon
 molecules crack to form hydrogen, unsaturated hydrocarbons, and  carbon.  The carbon particles may
 escape further combustion and cool down to form soot or smoke.  Olefins and other unsaturated
hydrocarbons may polymerize to form larger molecules which crack, in turn forming more carbon.

       The fuel characteristics influencing soot formation include the  carbon-to-hydrogen (C-to-H)
ratio and the molecular structure of the gases to be burned. All hydrocarbons above methane, i.  e.,
those with a C-to-H ratio of greater than 0.33, tend to soot.  Branched chain paraffins smoke more
readily than corresponding normal isomers.  The more highly branched the paraffin, the greater the
tendency to smoke.  Unsaturated hydrocarbons  tend more toward soot formation than do saturated
 ones.  Soot is eliminated by adding steam or air; hence, most industrial flares are steam-assisted and
some  are air-assisted. Flare gas composition is a critical factor in determining the amount of steam
necessary.

9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Miscellaneous Sources                                13.5-3
-------
        Since flares do not lend themselves to conventional emission testing techniques, only a few
 attempts have been made to characterize flare emissions.  Recent EPA tests using propylene as flare
 gas indicated that efficiencies of 98 percent can be achieved when burning an offgas with at least
 11,200 kJ/m3 (300 Btu/ft3).  The tests conducted on steam-assisted flares at velocities as low as
 39.6 meters per minute (m/min) (130 ft/min) to  1140 m/min (3750 ft/min), and on air-assisted flares
 at velocities of 180 m/min (617 ft/min) to 3960 m/min (13,087 ft/min) indicated that variations in
 incoming gas flow rates have no effect on the combustion efficiency. Flare gases with less than
 16,770 U/m3 (450 Btu/ft3) do not smoke.

        Table 13.5-1 presents flare emission factors, and Table 13.5-2 presents emission composition
 data obtained from the EPA tests.1 Crude propylene was used as flare gas during the tests.  Methane
 was a major fraction of hydrocarbons in the flare emissions, and acetylene was the dominant
 intermediate hydrocarbon species.  Many other reports on flares indicate that acetylene is always
 formed as a stable intermediate product. The acetylene formed in the combustion reactions may react
 further with hydrocarbon radicals to form polyacetylenes followed by polycyclic hydrocarbons.

        In flaring waste gases containing no  nitrogen compounds, NO is formed either by the fixation
 of atmospheric  nitrogen (N) with oxygen (O) or by the reaction between the hydrocarbon radicals
 present in the combustion products and atmospheric nitrogen, by way of the intermediate stages,
 HCN,  CN, and OCN.2 Sulfur compounds contained in a flare gas stream are converted to SO2 when
 burned.  The amount of SO2 emitted depends directly  on the quantity of sulfur in the flared gases.
        Table 13.5-1 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR FLARE OPERATIONS'1

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Component
Total hydrocarbons'3
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Sootc
Emission Factor
(lb/106 Btu)
0.14
0.37
0.068
0-274
a Reference 1.  Based on tests using crude propylene containing 80% propylene and 20% propane.
b Measured as methane equivalent.
c Soot in concentration values:  nonsmoking flares, 0 micrograms per liter (/ig/L); lightly smoking
  flares, 40 /ig/L; average smoking flares, 177 /ig/L; and heavily smoking flares, 274 ng/L.
13.5-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91
-------
            Table 13.5-2.  HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION OF FLARE EMISSION4
Composition
Methane
Ethane/Ethylene
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Volume %
Average
55
8
5
7
25
Range
14-83
1 - 14
0.3 - 23
0-16
1-65
 a Reference 1.  The composition presented is an average of a number of test results obtained under
   the following sets of test conditions:  steam-assisted flare using high-Btu-content feed; steam-
   assisted using low-Btu-content feed; air-assisted flare using high-Btu-content feed; and air-assisted
   flare using low-Btu-content feed.  In all tests, "waste" gas was a synthetic gas consisting of a
   mixture of propylene and propane.
 References For Section 13.5

 1.     Flare Efficiency Study, EPA-600/2-83-052, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, July 1983.

 2.     K. D. Siegel, Degree Of Conversion Of Flare Gas In Refinery High Flares, Dissertation,
       University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, February 1980.

 3.     Manual On Disposal Of Refinery Wastes, Volume On Atmospheric Emissions, API Publication
       931, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, June 1977.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
13.5-5
-------
           14.  GREENHOUSE GAS BIOGENIC SOURCES

       This chapter contains emission factor information for greenhouse gases on those
source categories that differ substantially from, and hence cannot be grouped with, the other
stationary sources discussed in this publication.  Two of these natural emitters, soils and
termites, are truly area sources, with their pollutant-generating process(es) dispersed over
large land areas.  The third source, lightning occurs in the atmosphere and results in the
formation of nitrous oxide.
9/96                        Greenhouse Gas Biogenic Sources                      14.0-1
-------
14.1  Emissions From Soils—Greenhouse Gases

14.1.1  General

        A good deal of research has been done to estimate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from
soils. Although numerous measurements have been made, emissions from soils show variability
based on a number of factors.  Differences in soil type, moisture, temperature, season, crop type,
fertilization, and other agricultural practices apparently all play a part in emissions from soils.

        Soils emit NOX through biological and abiological pathways, and emission rates can be
categorized either by fertilizer application  or land use. Agricultural lands and grasslands are the most
significant emission sources within this category.  The quantity of NOX emitted from agricultural land
is dependant on fertilizer application and the subsequent microbial denitrification of the soil.
Microbial denitrification is  a natural process in soil, but denitrification is higher when soil has been
fertilized with chemical fertilizers. Both nitrous  oxide (N2O) and nitric oxide (NO) are emitted from
this source.  Emissions of NOX from soils are estimated to be as much as  16 percent of the global
budget of NOX in the troposphere, and as much as 8 percent of the NOX in North America.l  This
section discusses only emissions of N2O from soils.  Refer to reference 2  for information on
estimating total NOX from soils using  the EPA's  Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS).

14.1.2  Agricultural Soils

        The description of the source and the methodology for estimating  emissions and emission
factors presented in this section are taken directly from the State Workbook:  Methodologies for
Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Inventory of U.S.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-1994, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (OPPE).   A more detailed discussion of the processes and variables affecting
N2O generation from this source can be found in those volumes.3'4

        Various agricultural soil management practices contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The
use of synthetic and organic fertilizers adds nitrogen to soils, thereby increasing natural emissions of
N2O. Other agricultural  soil management practices such  as irrigation,  tillage, or the fallowing of land
can also affect trace gas fluxes to  and  from the soil since  soils are both a source and a sink for carbon
dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO), a sink for methane (CH4), and a source of N2O.
However, there is much uncertainty about the direction and magnitude of  the effects of these other
practices, so only the emissions from fertilizer use are included in the method presented here.

        Nitrous oxide  emissions from  commercial fertilizer use can be  estimated using  the following
equation:
                             N2O Emissions =  (FC * EC * 44/28)a
    a EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D.

9/96                                 Miscellaneous Sources                               14.1-1
-------
where:
              FC  = Fertilizer Consumption (tons N-applied);b
              EC  = Emission Coefficient = 0.0117 tons N2O-N/ton N applied; and
           44/28  = The molecular weight ratio of N2O to N2O as N (N2O/N2O-N).

       The emission coefficient of 0.0117 tons N/ton N-applied represents the percent of nitrogen
applied as fertilizer that is released into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide.  This emission coefficient
was obtained  from the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
which estimated that 1.84 kg N2O was emitted per 100 kg of nitrogen applied as fertilizer.  After
applying the appropriate conversion, this is equivalent to 0.0117 tons N2O-N/ton N-applied.

       The total amount of commercial fertilizer consumed in a given state or region is the sum of
all synthetic nitrogen, multiple-nutrient, and organic fertilizer applied (measured  in mass units of
nitrogen).  Fertilizer data by type and state can be obtained from the Tennessee Valley Authority's
National Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center.  In the case of organic fertilizers, such as
manure from  livestock operations, data may be available from state or local Agricultural Extension
offices.   There may be instances in which fertilizer consumption is given as the total mass of fertilizer
consumed rather than as nitrogen content.  In such cases, total mass by fertilizer type may be
converted to nitrogen content using  the percentages in Table 14.1-1.

        Because agricultural activities fluctuate from year to year as a result of economic, climatic,
and other variables, it is recommended  that an average of 3 years of fertilizer consumption  be used to
account for extraordinary circumstances.

Example:

        For County A, a 3-year average of 16 tons of monoammonium phosphate is applied.  As
        shown in Table 14.1-1, monoammonium  phosphate is  11  percent N.

               FC  =  16 tons fertilizer *  11 % N/ton fertilizer
                    =  1.76 tons N
where:
        FC = Fertilizer consumption

        Emissions are calculated by:

                                                                              44
              N2O Emissions = (1.76 tons N applied)   *  (0.0117 tons N2O)  *  —
                                                                              28

                             = 0.032 tons  N2O
    b In some instances, state fertilizer consumption data may only be provided by fertilizer type and
      not aggregated across all types by total N consumed.  If this is the case, then analysts must first
      determine the amount of N consumed for each fertilizer type (using the percentages in Table 14.1-1)
      and then follow the method presented. To obtain total emissions by state, sum across all types.

 14.1-2                               EMISSION  FACTORS                                9/96
-------
        Table 14.1-1.  NITROGEN CONTENT OF PRINCIPAL FERTILIZER MATERIALS*
                            MATERIAL
                                   % NITROGEN (by wt)
  Nitrogen
   Ammonia, Anhydrous
   Ammonia, Aqua
   Ammonium nitrate
   Ammonium nitrate-limestone mixtures
   Ammonium sulfate
   Ammonium sulfate-nitrate
   Calcium cyanamide
   Calcium nitrate
   Nitrogen solutions
   Sodium nitrate
   Urea
   Urea-form
  Phosphate
   Basic slag, Open hearth
   Bone meal
   Phosphoric acid
   Rock phosphate
   Superphosphate, Normal
   Superphosphate, Concentrated
   Superphosphoric acid
   Potash
   Potassium chloride (muriate)
   Potassium magnesium sulfate
   Potassium sulfate
  Multiple Nutrient
   Ammoniated superphosphate
   Ammonium phosphate-nitrate
   Ammonium phosphate-sulfate
   Diammonium phosphate
   Monoammonium phosphate
   Nitric phosphates
   Nitrate of soda-potash
   Potassium nitrate
   Wood ashes
   Blast furnace slag
   Dolomite
   Gypsum
   Kieserite (emjeo)
   Limestone
   Lime-sulfur solution
   Magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt)
   Sulfur
                                           82
                                          16-25
                                          33.5
                                          20.5
                                           21
                                           26
                                           21
                                           15
                                          21-49
                                           16
                                           46
                                           38
                                          2-4.5
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b


                                           3-6
                                           27
                                          13-16
                                          16-21
                                           11
                                          14-22
                                           15
                                           13
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                           _b
                                             b
a Reference 3.
b No,  or a negligible amount of, nitrogen present.
9/96
Miscellaneous Sources
14.1-3
-------
14.1.3  Other Soils

  The amount of N2O emitted from non-agricultural soils is dependent on the soil's nutrient level and
moisture content.5  It is believed therefore that soils in tropical regions emit far more N2O than soils
in other terrestrial ecosystems.5'6  Because of the variability of soil types and soil moisture levels,
some tropical soils emit more N2O than others.

  Global soil N2O flux measurements were compiled from various sources5"8 and used to delineate
soil N2O emission factors.9 Table 14.1-2 presents the mean emission factors developed for 6
ecological regions.  These emission factors are based on test data from primarily undisturbed soils.9

14.1.4  Uncertainty3

  Scientific knowledge regarding nitrous oxide production and emissions from fertilized soils is
limited.  Significant uncertainties exist regarding the agricultural practices, soil properties, climatic
conditions, and biogenic processes that determine how much fertilizer nitrogen various crops absorb,
how much remains in soils after fertilizer application, and in what ways the remaining nitrogen
evolves into either nitrous oxide or gaseous nitrogen and other nitrogen compounds.

  A major difficulty in estimating the magnitude of emissions  from this source has been the relative
lack of emissions measurement data across a suitably wide variety of controlled conditions, making it
difficult to develop statistically valid estimates of emission factors.  Previous attempts have been made
to develop emission factors for different fertilizer and crop types for state and national emission
inventories.   However, the accuracy of these emission  factors  has been questioned. For example,
while some studies indicate that N2O emission rates are higher for ammonium-based fertilizers than
for nitrate, other studies show no particular trend in N2O emissions related to fertilizer types.
Therefore, it is possible that fertilizer type is not the most important factor in determining emissions.
One study suggests that N2O emissions from the nitrification of fertilizers may be more closely
related to soil properties than to the type of fertilizer applied.

  There is consensus, however,  as to the fact that numerous natural and management factors influence
the biological processes of the soil microorganisms that determine N2O emissions from nitrogen
fertilizer use.

  While it is relatively well known how the natural processes individually affect N2O emissions, it is
not well understood how the interaction of the processes affects N2O emissions.  Experiments have
shown that in some cases increases in each of the following factors (individually) enhance N2O
emissions: pH, soil temperature, soil moisture, organic carbon content, and oxygen supply.
However, the effects  on N2O emissions of soil moisture, organic carbon content, and microbial
population together, for example, are not readily predictable.

  Management practices may also  affect N2O emissions, although these relationships have not been
well quantified. As mentioned, levels of N2O emissions may  be dependent on the type of fertilizer
used, although the extent of the effect is not clear, as demonstrated by the wide range of emission
coefficients for individual fertilizer types derived in experiments.  Although high fertilizer application
rates may cause higher N2O emission rates, the relationship between fertilizer application rate  and
nitrous oxide emissions is not well understood.  Deep  placement of fertilizer as an application
technique will result in  lower N2O emissions  than broadcasting or hand placement. One study found
that emissions from fertilizer applied in the fall  were higher than emissions from the same fertilizer
applied in the spring, indicating that the timing  of fertilizer application can affect N2O emissions.
Tillage practices can also affect N2O emissions. Tilling tends to decrease N2O emissions; no-till and

14.1-4                                EMISSION  FACTORS                                  9/96
-------
     Table 14.1-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR N2O FROM NON-AGRICULTURAL SOILSa

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Ecosystem
Tropical forest
Savanna
Temperate forest (coniferous)
Temperate forest (deciduous)
Grassland
Shrubs/Woodlands
Emission Factor (Ibs
N2O/acre/yr)b
3.692
2.521
1.404
0.563
1.503
2.456
a Reference 9.
b
  To convert Ib N2O/acre/yr to g N2O/mz/yr, multiply by 0.11208.
use of herbicides may increase N2O emissions. However, limited research at unique sites under
specific conditions has not been able to account for the complex interaction of the factors, making the
effects of combinations of factors difficult to predict.

       Emissions may also occur from the contamination of surface and ground water due to nutrient
leaching and runoff from agricultural systems.  However, methods to estimate emissions  of N2O from
these sources are not included at this time due to a lack of data and emission coefficients  for each
contributing activity. Because of the potential relative importance of these N2O emissions, they
should be included in the future as data availability and scientific understanding permit.

References  For Section 14.1

1.      Air Quality Criteria For NOX,  Volume I, EPA 600/8-9l/049aF, U. S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, p. 4-11 to 4-14, 1993.

2.      User's Guide For The Urban Airshed Model, Volume IV: User's Manual  For The Emission
       Preprocessor System 2.0, Part A: Core FORTRAN System EPA-450/4-90-007D(R).
       U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1990.

3.      State Workbook:  Methodology For Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
       Washington, DC, p. D9-1 to D9-5,  1995.

4.      Inventory Of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: 1990-1993,  EPA-230-R-94-014,
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
       Washington, DC, 1994.

5.      E. Sanhueza et al, "N2O And NO Emissions From Soils Of The Northern Part Of The
       Guayana Shield, Venezuela" /. Geophy. Res., £5:22481-22488, 1990.

6.      P.A. Matson, et al., "Sources  Of Variation In Nitrous Oxide Flux From Amazonian
       Ecosystems", J. Geophys. Res., .95:6789-6798, 1990.

7.      R.D. Bowden, et al., "Annual Nitrous Oxide Fluxes From Temperate Forest Soils In The
       Northeastern United States", /. Geophys. Res., P5:3997-4005, 1990.

9/96                                Miscellaneous Sources                               14.1-5
-------
8.      D. Campbell, et al., Literature Review Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Biogenic Sources,
       EPA-600/8-90-071, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
       Development, Washington DC, 1990.

9.      R.L. Peer, et al., Characterization Of Nitrous Oxide Emission Sources, Prepared for the
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, 1995.
 14.1-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                               9/96
-------
14.2  Termites—Greenhouse Gases

14.2.1  General1'2

        Termites inhabit many different ecological regions, but they are concentrated primarily in
tropical grasslands and forests.  Symbiotic micro-organisms in the digestive tracts of termites
(flagellate protozoa in lower termites and bacteria in higher termites) produce methane (CH4).
Estimates of the contribution to  the global budget of CH4 from termites vary widely, from negligible
up to 15 percent.

        Termite CH4 emissions  estimates vary for several reasons.  Researchers have taken different
approaches to approximating the number of termites per area for different ecological regions (e.g.,
cultivated land, temperate grassland, tropical forest) and different species.  In addition, the total area
per ecological region is not universally agreed upon, and not all of the area in an ecological region  is
necessarily capable of supporting termites.  For example, cultivated land in Europe and Canada is
located in a climatic zone where termites cannot survive.  Some researchers have tried to estimate the
percentage of each region capable of supporting termites while others have conservatively assumed
that all of the area of a given ecological region can  support termites.  Finally, the contributions to
atmospheric CH4 from many other related CH4 sources and sinks associated with termite populations
(i. e., tropical soils) are not well understood.

14.2.2  Emissions3'4

        The only pollutant of concern from  termite  activity is  CH4. Emissions of CH4 from termites
can be approximated by an emission factor derived  from laboratory test data.  Applying these  data to
field estimates of termite population to obtain a realistic, large-scale value for CH4 emissions is
suspect, but an order-of-magnitude approximation of CH4 emissions can be made. Termite activity
also results in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2).  These CO2 emissions are part of the regular
carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

        Table 14.2-1 reports typical termite densities per ecological region,  and Table 14.2-2 provides
the CH4 emission factors for species typical to  each ecological region.

        A critical data gap currently exists in determining the  activity rate for these emission factors
(which are given in units of mass of CH4 per mass  of termite).  Estimates of termites per acre are
given in Table 14.2-1,  but converting the number of termites into a usable mass is difficult. If the
species of termite is known or can be determined, then the number of termites or the number of
termite nests can be converted into a mass of termites.  If the  species  is not known for a particular
area, then a typical value must be used that is representative of the appropriate  ecological region.
Reference 4 provided information on termite density for various North American species,  with an
average denisity of 4.86xlO~6 Ib/worker termite.
9/96                                  Miscellaneous Sources                                14.2-1
-------
An example calculation to estimate annual emissions from termites on 5,000 acres of cultivated land is
as follows:
                   cnnn          11.38xl06 termites   - ,n inio ..
                   5000 acres *  	 = 5.69x10   termites
                                        acre
         5.69x1010 termites  *
                                                    ~3
                              4.86xlO~6 Ib     1.8xlO~  Ib CH4
                                 termite
                                      Ib OL
            1000 Ib termite      hr
8760 hr
  yr
                            = 4360.39
                                        yr
                     To convert pounds to kilograms, multiply by 0.454.
         Table 14.2-1.  TYPICAL TERMITE DENSITIES PER ECOLOGICAL REGION*
                   Ecological Region
                           106 Termites per Acre
 Tropical wet forest
 Tropical moist forest
 Tropical dry forest
 Temperate
 Wood/shrub land
 Wet savanna
 Dry savanna
 Temperate grassland
 Cultivated land
 Desert scrub
 Clearing and burning
                                   4.05
                                  18.01
                                  12.80
                                   2.43
                                   1.74
                                  17.81
                                   3.48
                                   8.66
                                  11.38
                                   0.93
                                  27.62
a Reference 3.
 14.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
              9/96
-------
              Table 14.2-2.  METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TERMITES3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Termite Species
(Ecological Region)
Tropical forest
Temperate forest
Savanna
Temperate grassland
Cultivated land
Desert scrub
Methane Emissions
(Ib CH4/1000 Ib termite/hr)
4.2 E-03
1.8E-03
8.0 E-03
1.8 E-03
1.8 E-03
1.0 E-03
  References 5 and 6. Reference 7 suggests the following seasonal variation based on studies of the
  species Coptotermes lacteus:

                                   Spring - 22%
                                   Summer - 49%
                                   Fall  -21%
                                   Winter - 8%
References For Section 14.2

1.     I. Fung, et al., "Three-Dimensional Model Synthesis Of The Global Methane Cycle", Journal
       Of Geophysical Research, 95:13,033-13,065, July 20, 1991.

2.     W. R. Seiler, et al., "Field Studies Of Methane Emissions From Termite Nests Into The
       Atmosphere and Measurements Of Methane Uptake By Tropic Soils", Journal Of Atmospheric
       Chemistry, 7:171-186, 1984.

3.     P. R. Zimmerman,  et al.,  "Termites:  A Potentially Large Source Of Atmospheric Methane,
       Carbon Dioxide, And Molecular Hydrogen", Science, 218(5):563-565, Nov.  1982.

4.     K. Krishna and F. M. Weesner, Biology Of Termites, Volume I, Academic Press, New York,
       1969.

5.     Written Communication from M. Saegar, SAIC, to Lee Beck, Project Officer, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, regarding Summary Of Data Gaps Associated With County-
       Specific Estimates OfCH4 Emissions, July 6, 1992.

6.     P. J. Frasser, et al., "Termites And Global Methane — Another Assessment", Journal Of
       Atmospheric Chemistry, 4:295-310, 1986.

7.     T. M. Lynch, Compilation Of Global Methane Emissions Data, Draft Report, Alliance Tech.
       Corp.  for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nov.  1991.


9/96                               Miscellaneous Sources                              14.2-3
-------
14.3  Lightning Emissions—Greenhouse Gases3

       Observations have been made of increased levels of nitrogen oxides (NOX), nitric oxide (NO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere after the occurrence and in the
proximity of lightning flashes.1"3 Although lightning is thought to be one of the larger natural
sources of NOX, N2O production by lightning is believed to be substantially less significant,
particularly  in comparison to anthropogenic sources.4"5 Estimates for global production of N2O from
lightning range from 1.36 E-02  to 9.98 E-02 Tg.6 Emission factors for this source are uncertain.
Estimates of per-lightning-flash production of NOX (emission factors) require calculations involving
the length of the lightning stroke, the number of strokes per flash, the estimated energy discharge,
and the amount of N2O produced per joule, all of which are under discussion in the literature.

       N2O emissions from lightning are based on estimates of the molecules produced per joule for
each lightning stroke 1.1 E+21 molecules/lightning stroke.6

       Published estimates for the molecules/joule factors  range from 4.3 E+12 to 4.0 E+16.6
Although  most researchers use a stroke length of 5 km, stroke length varies.  Estimates of the
electrical discharge are based on discharge per meter, so the variability of the lightning stroke adds to
the emission estimate uncertainty.  Other factors that are of significance, but that are not included in
this emission factor, are estimates of the number of strokes in a lightning flash  (not only are there
multiple strokes, but the energy output varies, as does the length of the  stroke), and indications that
the production of N2O depends on electrical discharge conditions, not just the amount of the discharge
energy.7  Estimates for the electrical discharge per lightning flash (as opposed to a lightning stroke)
range from  1.0 E+08 joules/flash to 8.0 E+08 joules/flash.5

       Because the first stroke in a lightning flash will release more energy than subsequent strokes,
the energy per flash is estimated by assuming the subsequent strokes release one-quarter the amount
of energy released by the first stroke.  Hence the total flash energy is  assumed to be  1.75 times that
of the first return stroke.5 The N2O emission factor for each lightning flash is:

                                      0.14 grams N2O/flash

       The number of lightning flashes within a certain time period and area may be available
through the  East Coast lightning detection network,8 satellite data, or from the lightning strike data
archive from the National Lightning Detection Network (GDS) in Tucson, AZ.  Several assumptions
must  be made in order to estimate the total number of lightning flashes from these sources.9 It is
assumed that not all of the lightning flashes are detected. The East Coast lightning detection network
is estimated  to record 0.7 of the lightning flashes that occur.  Recorded  lightning flashes can then be
corrected  by multiplying the recorded lightning flashes by an efficiency  factor of 1.43.  It is also
assumed that lightning flashes recorded are cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning flashes.  Intra-cloud (1C)
flashes can be calculated from CG activity, but vary depending on latitude.  It is assumed that about
four 1C flashes occur for every CG flash.

The equation to calculate the number of 1C flashes from CG activity is:
    8 This section uses only metric units because that is standard in this field.

9/96                                  Miscellaneous Sources                                14.3-1
-------
                          1C activity = CG activity
                                                   (    10
                                                          ^2
1
                                                         30


              where:

                     I = latitude of the study area in degrees
References For Section  14.3

1.     J. F. Noxon,  "Atmospheric Nitrogen Fixation By Lightning", Geophysical Research Letters,
       J:463-465, 1976.

2.     J. S. Levine,  et al., "Tropospheric Sources Of NOX Lightning And Biology", Atmospheric
       Environment, 18(9): 1797-1804, 1984.

3.     E. Franzblau  and C. J. Popp, "Nitrogen Oxides Produced From Lightning", Journal Of
       Geophysical Research, P4(D8): 11,089-11,104, 1989.

4.     J. A. Logan,  "Nitrogen Oxides In The Troposphere: Global And Regional Budgets", Journal
       Of Geophysical Research, SS(C15): 10,785-10,807, 1983.

5.     W. J. Borucki and  W. L. Chameides, "Lightning: Estimates  Of The Rates Of Energy
       Dissipation And Nitrogen Fixation", Reviews Of Geophysics And Space Physics,
       22(4):363-372,  1984.

6.     R. D. Hill, et al., "Nitrous Oxide Production By Lightning", Journal Of Geophysical
       Research, SP(D1): 1411-1421, 1984.

7.     D. K. Brandvold and P.  Martinez, "The NOX/N2O Fixation Ration From Electrical
       Discharges",  Atmospheric Environment,  22(11):2,477-2,480, 1988.

8.     R. Orville, et al., "An East Coast Lightning Detection Network", Bulletin Of The American
       Meteorological  Society, 64:1024, 1983.

9.     T. E. Pierce and J. H. Novak, Estimating Natural Emissions for EPA's Regional Oxidant
       Model, presented at the EPA/AWMA International Specialty Conference on Emission
       Inventory Issues in the 1990s, Durham,  N.C., 1991.
 14.3-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                9/96
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1 REPORT NO 2.
AP-42, Fifth Edition
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Supplement B To
Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources
7 AUTHOR(S)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Factor And Inventory Group, EMAD (MD 14)
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 277 1 1
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3 RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO
5 REPORT DATE
November 1996
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
1 3 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16 ABSTRACT
    This document contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories.
 These emission factors have been compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates, and
 they can be used judiciously in making emission estimations for various purposes. When specific source test data are
 available, they should be preferred over the generalized factors presented in this document.

    This Supplement to AP-42 addresses pollutant-generating activity from Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal
 Combustion, Anthracite Coal Combustion, Fuel Oil Combustion, Natural Gas Combustion, Liquefied Petroleum Gas
 Combustion, Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers, Lignite Combustion, Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills, Residential
 Fireplaces, Residential Wood Stoves, Waste Oil Combustion,  Refuse Combustion, Stationary Gas Turbines For Electricity
 Generation, Heavy-duty Natural Gas-fired Pipeline Compressor Engines And Turbines, Gasoline And Diesel Industrial
 Engines, Large Stationary Diesel And All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines, Adipic Acid, Cotton Ginning, Alfalfa Dehydrating,
 Malt Beverages, Ceramic Products Manufacturing, Electroplating, Wildfires And Prescribed Burning, Emissions From
 Soils—Greenhouse Gases, Termites—Greenhouse Gases, Lightning Emissions—Greenhouse Gases
17 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
Emission Factors Area Sources
Emission Estimation Criteria Pollutants
Stationary Sources Toxic Pollutants
Point Sources
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS

19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (Pag^
Unclassified
c COSATI Field/Group

21 NO OF PAGES
406
22 PRICE
IPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
                                                                            PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997-527-090/66003
-------
                                APPENDIX A




               MISCELLANEOUS DATA AND CONVERSION FACTORS
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix A                             A-l
-------
                      SOME USEFUL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Unit Of Measure
grain
gram
ounce
kilogram
pound
pound (troy)
ton (short)
ton Gong)
ton (metric)
ton (shipping)
centimeter
inch
foot
meter
yard
mile
centimeter2
inch2
foot2
meter2
yard2
mile2
centimeter3
inch3
foot3
foot3
Equivalent
0.002 ounces
0.04 ounces
28.35 grams
2.21 pounds
0.45 kilograms
12 ounces
2000 pounds
2240 pounds
2200 pounds
40 feet3
0.39 inches
2.54 centimeters
30.48 centimeters
1.09 yards
0.91 meters
1.61 kilometers
0.16 inches2
6.45 centimeters2
0.09 meters2
1.2 yards2
0.84 meters2
2.59 kilometers2
0.061 inches3
16.39 centimeters3
283.17 centimeters3
1728 inches3
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-3
-------
                     SOME USEFUL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (cont.)
Unit Of Measure
meter3
yard3
cord
cord
peck
bushel (dry)
bushel
gallon (U. S.)
barrel
hogshead
township
hectare
Equivalent
1.31
0.77
128
4
8
4
2150.4
231
31.5
2
36
2.5
yeads3
meters3
feet3
meters3
quarts
pecks
inches3
inches3
gallons
barrels
miles2
acres
                                 MISCELLANEOUS DATA

One cubic foot of anthracite coal weighs about 53 pounds.

One cubic foot of bituminous coal weighs from 47 to 50 pounds.

One ton of coal is equivalent to two cords of wood for steam purposes.

A gallon of water (U. S. Standard) weighs 8.33 pounds and contains 231 cubic inches.

There are 9 square feet of heating surface to each square foot of grate surface.

A cubic foot of water contains 7.5 gallons and 1728 cubic inches, and weighs 62.5 Ibs.

Each nominal horsepower of a boiler requires 30 to 35 pounds of water per hour.

A horsepower is equivalent to raising 33,000 pounds one foot per minute, or 550 pounds one foot per
second.

To find the pressure in pounds per square inch of a column of water, multiply the height of the
column in feet by 0.434.
A-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                      TYPICAL PARAMETERS OF VARIOUS FUELS3
Type Of Fuel
Solid Fuels
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
Lignite (@ 35% moisture)
Wood (@ 40% moisture)
Bagasse (@ 50% moisture)
Bark (@ 50% moisture)
Coke, Byproduct
Liquid Fuels
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Diesel
Gasoline
Kerosene
Liquid Petroleum Gas
Gaseous Fuels
Natural Gas
Coke Oven Gas
Blast Furnace Gas
Heating Value
kcal

7,200/kg
6,810/kg
3,990/kg
2,880/kg
2,220/kg
2,492/kg
7,380/kg

9.98 x 106/m3
9.30 x 106/m3
9.12x 106/m3
8.62 x 106/m3
8.32 x 106/m3
6.25 x 106/m3

9,341/m3
5,249/m3
890/m3
Btu

13,000/lb
12,300/lb
7,200/lb
5,200/lb
4,000/lb
4,500/lb
13,300/lb

150,000/gal
140,000/gal
137,000/gal
130,000/gal
135,000/gal
94,000/gal

1,050/SCF
590/SCF
100/SCF
Sulfur
% (by weight)

0.6-5.4
0.5-1.0
0.7
N
N
N
0.5-1.0

0.5-4.0
0.2-1.0
0.4
0.03-0.04
0.02-0.05
N

N
0.5-2.0
N
Ash
% (by weight)

4-20
7.0-16.0
6.2
1-3
1-2
l-3b
0.5-5.0

0.05-0.1
N
N
N
N
N

N
N
N
a N = negligible.
b Ash content may be considerably higher when sand, dirt, etc., are present.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-5
-------
                THERMAL EQUIVALENTS FOR VARIOUS FUELS
Type Of Fuel
Solid fuels
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Lignite
Wood
Liquid fuels
Residual fuel oil
Distillate fuel oil
Gaseous fuels
Natural gas
Liquefied petroleum
gas
Butane
Propane
kcal

(5.8 to 7.8) x 106/Mg
7.03 x 106/Mg
4.45 x 106/Mg
1.47x 106/m3
10 x lOMiter
9.35 x 103/liter

9,350/m3

6,480/liter
6,030/liter
Btu (gross)

(21.0 to 28.0) x 106/ton
25.3 x 106/ton
16.0 x 106/ton
21. Ox 106/cord
6.3 x 106/bbl
5.9 x 106/bbl

1,050/ft3

97,400/gal
90,500/gal
                    WEIGHTS OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES
Type Of Substance
Asphalt
Butane, liquid at 60°F
Crude oil
Distillate oil
Gasoline
Propane, liquid at 60 °F
Residual oil
Water
g/liter
1030
579
850
845
739
507
944
1000
Ib/gal
8.57
4.84
7.08
7.05
6.17
4.24
7.88
8.4
A-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                      DENSITIES OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES
Substance
Fuels
Crude Oil
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Gasoline
Natural Gas
Butane
Propane
Wood (Air dried)
Elm
Fir, Douglas
Fir, Balsam
Hemlock
Hickory
Maple, Sugar
Maple, White
Oak, Red
Oak, White
Pine, Southern
Agricultural Products
Corn
Milo
Oats
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral Products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Density

874 kg/m3
944 kg/m3
845 kg/m3
739 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
579 kg/m3
507 kg/m3

561 kg/m3
513 kg/m3
400 kg/m3
465 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
689 kg/m3
529 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
641 kg/m3

25.4 kg/bu
25.4 kg/bu
14.5 kg/bu
21.8 kg/bu
27.2 kg/bu
226 kg/bale

2.95 kg/brick
170 kg/bbl
1483 kg/m3

7.3 Ib/gal
7.88 Ib/gal
7.05 Ib/gal
6. 17 Ib/gal
1 lb/23.8 ft3
4.84 Ib/gal (liquid)
4.24 Ib/gal (liquid)

35 lb/ft3
32 lb/ft3
25 lb/ft3
29 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
43 lb/ft3
33 lb/ft3
42 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
40 lb/ft3

56 Ib/bu
56 Ib/bu
32 Ib/bu
48 Ib/bu
60 Ib/bu
500 Ib/bale

6.5 Ib/brick
375 Ib/bbl
2500 lb/yd3
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-7
-------
                   DENSITIES OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES (cont.).
Substance
Concrete
Glass, Common
Gravel, Dry Packed
Gravel, Wet
Gypsum, Calcined
Lime, Pebble
Sand, Gravel (Dry, loose)
Density


1600-

880
850-
1440-
2373
2595
1920
2020
-960
1025
1680
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3


100-

55
53
90-
4000
162
120
126
-60
-64
105
lb/yd3
Ib/ft3
Ib/ft3
Ib/ft3
Ib/ft3
Ib/ft3
Ib/ft3
A-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                                  CONVERSION FACTORS

       The table of conversion factors on the following pages contains factors for converting English
 to metric units and metric to English units as well as factors to manipulate units within the same
 system. The factors are arranged alphabetically by unit within the following property groups.

       -   Area
       -   Density
       -   Energy
       -   Force
       -   Length
       -   Mass
       -   Pressure
       -   Velocity
       -   Volume
       -   Volumetric Rate

 To convert a number from one unit to another:

       1.  Locate the  unit in which the number is currently expressed in the left-hand column of the
           table;

       2.  Find the desired unit in the center column;  and

       3.  Multiply the number by the corresponding conversion factor in the right-hand column.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                       Appendix A                                     A-9
-------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS'1
To Convert From
Area
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq inches
Sq inches
Sq inches
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq miles
Sq miles
Sq miles
To

Sq feet
Sq kilometers
Sq meters
Sq miles (statute)
Sq yards
Acres
Sq cm
Sq inches
Sq meters
Sq miles
Sq yards
Sq feet
Sq meters
Sqmm
Acres
Sq feet
Sq meters
Sq miles
Sq yards
Sq cm
Sq feet
Sq inches
Sq kilometers
Sq miles
Sq mm
Sq yards
Acres
Sq feet
Sq kilometers
Multiply By

4.356 x 104
4.0469 x 1(T3
4.0469 x 103
1.5625x ID'3
4.84 x 103
2.2957 x 1Q-5
929.03
144.0
0.092903
3.587 x 10'8
0.111111
6.9444 x 10'3
6.4516 x 10'4
645.16
247.1
1.0764x 107
l.Ox 106
0.386102
1.196x 106
l.Ox 104
10.764
1.55 x 103
l.Ox 10-6
3.861 x 10'7
1.0 x 106
1.196
640.0
2.7878 x 107
2.590
A-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Sq miles
Sq miles
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Density
Dynes/cu cm
Grains/cu foot
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu meter
Grams/liter
Kilograms/cu meter
Kilograms/cu meter
Kilograms/cu meter
Pounds/cu foot
Pounds/cu foot
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/cu inch
To
Sq meters
Sq yards
Acres
Sq cm
Sqft
Sq inches
Sq meters
Sq miles

Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu meter
Dynes/cu cm
Grains/mil liliter
Grams/milliliter
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/cu foot
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/gal (Brit.)
Pounds/gal (U. S., dry)
Pounds/gal (U. S., liq.)
Grains/cu foot
Pounds/gal (U. S.)
Grams/cu cm
Pounds/cu ft
Pounds/cu in
Grams/cu cm
kg/cu meter
Grams/cu cm
Grams/liter
kg/cu meter
Multiply By
2.59 x 106
3.0976 x 106
2.0661 x 10"4
8.3613 x 103
9.0
1.296x 103
0.83613
3.2283 x 10-7

1.0197x 10-3
2.28835
980.665
15.433
1.0
1.162
62.428
0.036127
10.022
9.7111
8.3454
0.4370
8.345 x 10'3
0.001
0.0624
3.613 x 10-5
0.016018
16.018
27.68
27.681
2.768 x 104
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-ll
-------
                              CONVERSION FACTORS (cont).
        To Convert From
            To
  Multiply By
  Pounds/gal (U. S., liq.)
  Pounds/gal (U. S., liq.)
 Energy
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/lb
  Btu/lb
  Btu/lb
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Ergs
  Ergs
Grams/cu cm
Pounds/cu ft

Cal. gm (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules (Int.)
kg-meters
kW-hours (Int.)
Cal. kg/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/hr
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Kilowatts
Foot-pounds/lb
Hp-hr/lb
Joules/gram
Btu (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules
kg-meters
kW-hours (Int.)
Btu
Foot-poundals
   0.1198
   7.4805

 251.83
   1.05435 x 1010
 777.65
   3.9275 x 10-4
1054.2
 107.51
   2.9283 x 10-4
   0.252
   2.929 x 106
 777.65
   3.9275 x 10-4
   2.9856 x 10'5
   3.926 x 10-4
   3.982 x 10-4
   2.929 x 10-4
 777.65
   3.9275 x KT*
   2.3244
   3.9714
   4.190 x 1010
   3.0904 x 103
   1.561 x 1Q-3
   4.190x 103
 427.26
   1.1637x 10'3
   9.4845 x 10'11
   2.373 x lO'6
A-12
  EMISSION FACTORS
     (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Ergs
Ergs
Ergs
Ergs
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (boiler)
To
Foot-pounds
Joules (Int.)
kW-hours
kg-meters
Btu (1ST.)
Cal. kg (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-poundals
Hp-hours
Joules
kg-meters
kW-hours (Int.)
Newton-meters
Btu/min
Ergs/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (metric)
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/hr
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules/sec
Kilowatts (Int.)
Btu (mean)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Multiply By
7.3756 x 10'8
9.99835 x ID'8
2.7778 x 10-14
1.0197 x ID'8
1.2851 x 1(T3
3.2384 x ID"4
1.3558 x 107
32.174
5.0505 x 10'7
1.3558
0.138255
3.76554 x 10-7
1.3558
2. 1432 x 10'5
2.2597 x 105
5.0505 x 10'7
5.121 x 10-7
3.766 x lO'7
2.5425 x 103
7.457 x 109
1.980x 106
0.07602
0.9996
1.0139
745.70
0.74558
3.3446 x 104
9.8095 x 1010
4.341 x 105
13.155
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-13
-------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (com.).
        To Convert From
            To
  Multiply By
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules/sec
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)/hr
Cal. kg/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules/sec
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
kg-meters/sec
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)
Foot-pounds
Joules
kg-meters
kW-hours
Btu (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-poundals
Foot-pounds
kW-hours
 13.15
 13.337
  9.8095 x 103
  9.8095
  2.5435 x 103
641.87
  7.46 x 109
  3.3013 x 104
  0.07605
  1.0143
746.0
  0.746
  2.5077 x 103
  7.355 x 109
  3.255 x 104
  0.98632
  0.07498
  0.9859
 75.0
  0.7355
  2.5425 x 103
  1.98x 106
  2.6845 x 106
  2.73745 x 105
  0.7457
  9.4799 x 10-4
  1.0002x 107
 12.734
  0.73768
  2.778 x 1Q-7
A-14
  EMISSION FACTORS
    (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Joules (Int.)/sec
Joules (Int.)/sec
Joules (Tnt.)/sec
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters/sec
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Newton-meters
Newton-meters
To
Btu (mean)/min
Cal. kg/min
Horsepower
Btu (mean)
Cal. kg (mean)
Ergs
Foot-poundals
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules (Int.)
kW-hours
Watts
Btu (IST.)/hr
Cal. kg (IST.)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-poundals/min
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules (Int.)/hr
kg-meters/hr
Btu (mean)
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules (Int.)
kg-meters
Gram-cm
kg-meters
Multiply By
0.05683
0.01434
1.341 x 10'3
9.2878 x 10'3
2.3405 x 10'3
9.80665 x 107
232.715
7.233
3.653 x 10-6
9.805
2.724 x 10'6
9.80665
3.413 x 103
860.0
1.0002x 1010
1.424x 106
4.4261 x 104
1.341
0.10196
1.3407
1.3599
3.6 x 106
3.6716 x 105
3.41 x 103
2.6557 x 106
1.341
3.6 x 106
3.6716 x 105
1.01972 x 104
0.101972
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-15
-------
                         CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Newton-meters
Force
Dynes
Dynes
Dynes
Newtons
Newtons
Poundals
Poundals
Poundals
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Length
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Inches
Inches
Inches
Inches
Kilometers
Kilometers
Kilometers
Kilometers
Meters
Meters
Micrometers
To
Pound-feet

Newtons
Poundals
Pounds
Dynes
Pounds (avdp.)
Dynes
Newtons
Pounds (avdp.)
Dynes
Newtons
Poundals

Centimeters
Inches
Kilometers
Meters
Miles (statute)
Centimeters
Feet
Kilometers
Meters
Feet
Meters
Miles (statute)
Yards
Feet
Inches
Angstrom units
Multiply By
0.73756

l.Ox 10'5
7.233 x 10'5
2.248 x 1Q-6
l.Ox 10'5
0.22481
1.383xl04
0.1383
0.03108
4.448 x 105
4.448
32.174

30.48
12
3.048 x 10-4
0.3048
1.894x 10"4
2.540
0.08333
2.54 x 10'5
0.0254
3.2808 x 103
1000
0.62137
1.0936x 103
3.2808
39.370
l.Ox 104
A-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Miles (statute)
Miles (statute)
Miles (statute)
Miles (statute)
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Nanometers
Nanometers
Nanometers
Nanometers
Nanometers
Yards
Yards
Mass
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grams
To
Centimeters
Feet
Inches
Meters
Millimeters
Nanometers
Feet
Kilometers
Meters
Yards
Angstrom units
Centimeters
Inches
Meters
Micrometers
Mils
Angstrom units
Centimeters
Inches
Micrometers
Millimeters
Centimeters
Meters

Grams
Milligrams
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (metric)
Dynes
Multiply By
l.Ox 10'3
3.2808 x ID"6
3.9370 x ID'5
l.Ox 10-6
0.001
1000
5280
1.6093
1.6093 x 103
1760
l.Ox 107
0.1
0.03937
0.001
1000
39.37
10
l.Ox lO'7
3.937 x 10'8
0.001
l.Ox IQ-6
91.44
0.9144

0.064799
64.799
1.7361 x 10-4
1.4286x 10-4
6.4799 x 10'8
980.67
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-17
-------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
        To Convert From
            To
  Multiply By
   Grams
   Grams
   Grams
   Grams
   Grams
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Megagrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Ounces (apoth. or troy)
   Ounces (apoth. or troy)
   Ounces (apoth. or troy)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Pounds (avdp.)
   Pounds (avdp.)
   Pounds (avdp.)
Grains
Kilograms
Micrograms
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons, metric (megagrams)
Grains
Poundals
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (long)
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Tons (metric)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (apoth. or troy)
Ounces (avdp.)
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (avdp.)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Poundals
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Tons (long)
 15.432
  0.001
  1 x 106
  2.205 x  lO'3
  1 x 10-6
  1.5432x 104
 70.932
  2.679
  2.2046
  9.842 x  10"*
  0.001
  1.1023x 10-3
  1.0
  0.01543
  l.Ox 10'3
  3.215 x  10'5
  3.527 x  10'5
  2.679 x  10-6
  2.2046 x 10-6
480
 31.103
  1.097
437.5
 28.350
  0.9115
  0.075955
  0.0625
 32.174
  1.2153
  4.4643 x KT4
A-18
  EMISSION FACTORS
    (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (long)
Tons (long)
Tons (loni)
Tons (long)
Tons Gong)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Pressure
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Inches of Hg (60 °F)
To
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (apoth. or troy)
Ounces (avdp.)
Kilograms
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Grams
Megagrams
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (long)
Tons (short)
Kilograms
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (long)
Tons (metric)

cm of H2O (4°C)
FtofH20(39.2°F)
In. ofHg(32°F)
kg/sq cm
mm of Hg (0°C)
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
Multiply By
4.5359 x 10-4
5.0 x ID"4
7000
453.59
14.583
16
1.016 x 103
2.722 x 103
2.240 x 103
1.016
1.12
l.Ox 106
1.0
2.6792 x 103
2.2046 x 103
0.9842
1.1023
907.18
2.4301 x 103
2000
0.8929
0.9072

1.033 x 103
33.8995
29.9213
1.033
760
14.696
0.03333
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-19
-------
                          CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Inches of Hg (60°F)
Inches of Hg (60°F)
Inches of Hg (60°F)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Millimeters of Hg (0°C)
Millimeters of Hg (0°C)
Millimeters of Hg (0°C)
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Velocity
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec
To
Grams/sq cm
mmofHg(60°F)
Pounds/sq ft
Atmospheres
In. ofHg(32°F)
kg/sq meter
Pounds/sq ft
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
cmofHg(0°C)
FtofH2O(39.2°F)
In. ofHg(32°F)
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
Grams/sq cm
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
cm of Hg (0°C)
cmofH2O(4°C)
In. ofHg(32°F)
In. ofH2O(39.2°F)
kg/sq cm
mmofHg(0°C)

Feet/min
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Miles/hr
Multiply By
34.434
25.4
70.527
2.458 x ID'3
0.07355
25.399
5.2022
0.036126
0.96784
73.556
32.809
28.959
14.223
1.3158x 10'3
1.3595
0.019337
0.06805
5.1715
70.309
2.036
27.681
0.07031
51.715

1.9685
0.0328
0.036
0.6
0.02237
A-20
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                           CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/sec
Feet/sec
Feet/sec
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Meters/min
Meters/min
Meters/min
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Volume
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
To
cm/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Meters/sec
Miles/hr
cm/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Miles/hr
cm/sec
Feet/hr
Feet/min
Meters/sec
Miles (starute)/hr
cm/sec
Feet/min
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
cm/sec
Feet/hr
Feet/min
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min

Cu feet
Gallons (U. S.)
Liters
Cu feet
Cu inches
Multiply By
0.508
0.01829
0.3048
5.08 x 10'3
0.01136
30.48
1.0973
18.288
0.6818
27.778
3.2808 x 103
54.681
0.27778
0.62137
1.6667
3.2808
0.05468
0.06
44.704
5280
88
1.4667
1.6093
26.822

5.6146
42
158.98
4.2109
7.2765 x 103
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-21
-------
                          CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
To
Cu meters
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Cufeet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Cu yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Quarts (U. S., liq.)
Cu centimeters
Cu meters
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Cu cm
Cu feet
Cu meters
Cu yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Quarts (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Cu cm
Cu feet
Cu inches
Cu yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Bushels (Brit.)
Bushels (U. S.)
Cu cm
Multiply By
0.1192
31.5
119.24
3.5315 x ID'5
0.06102
l.Ox 10-6
1.308x 1Q-6
2.642 x 10^
1.0567x 10-3
2.8317 x 104
0.028317
7.4805
28.317
16.387
5.787 x 1Q-4
1 .6387 x 10'5
2. 1433 x 10'5
4.329 x 10-3
0.01639
0.01732
8.3864
1 .0 x 106
35.315
6. 1024 x 104
1.308
264.17
1000
21.022
21.696
7.6455 x 10s
A-22
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Liters
Liters
Liters
Liters
Liters
To
Cufeet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Liters
Quarts
Quarts
Quarts
Barrels (U. S., liq,)
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Bushels (U. S.)
Cu centimeters
Cu feet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Cu yards
Gallons (wine)
Liters
Ounces (U. S., fluid)
Pints (U. S., liq.)
Quarts (U. S., liq.)
Cu centimeters
Cu feet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Ounces (U. S., fluid)
Multiply By
27
4.6656 x 104
0.76455
168.18
173.57
201.97
764.55
672.71
694.28
807.90
0.03175
0.02381
0.10742
3.7854 x 103
0.13368
231
3.7854 x 1C'3
4.951 x 10'3
1.0
3.7854
128.0
8.0
4.0
1000
0.035315
61.024
0.001
0.2642
33.814
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-23
-------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Volumetric Rate
Cu ft/min
Cu ft/min
Cu ft/min
Cu ft/min
Cu meters/min
Cu meters/min
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Liters/min
Liters/min
To

Cu cm/sec
Cuft/hr
Gal (U. S.)/min
Liters/sec
Gal (U. S.)/min
Liters/min
Cuft/hr
Cu meters/min
Cu yd/min
Liters /hr
Cu ft/min
Gal (U. S., liq.)/min
Multiply By

471.95
60.0
7.4805
0.47193
264.17
999.97
0.13368
6.309 x 10'5
8.2519 x 10'5
3.7854
0.0353
0.2642
 Where appropriate, the conversion factors appearing in this table have been rounded to four to six
 significant figures for ease in use. The accuracy of these numbers is considered suitable for use
 with emissions data; if a more accurate number is required, tables  containing exact factors should be
 consulted.
A-24
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
      CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS




                      AIRBORNE PARTICULATE MATTER
To Convert From
Milligrams/cu m




Grams/cu ft




Grams/cu m




Micrograms/cu m




Micrograms/cu ft




Pounds/ 1000 cu ft




To
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Multiply By
283.2 x ID"6
0.001
1000.0
28.32
62.43 x ID"6
35.3145 x 103
35.314
35.3 14 x 106
l.Ox 106
2.2046
1000.0
0.02832
l.Ox 106
28.317 x 103
0.06243
0.001
28.317 x 10-9
l.Ox 10'6
0.02832
62.43 x 10-9
35.314 x 1C-3
l.Ox HT6
35.314 x 10-6
35.314
2.2046 x lO"6
16.018 x 103
0.35314
16.018 x 106
16.018
353. 14 x 103
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-25
-------
   CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS (cont.)-
                               SAMPLING PRESSURE
       To Convert From
            To
Multiply By
 Millimeters of mercury (0°C)
 Inches of mercury (0°C)

 Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60 °F)
Millimeters of mercury (0°C)
Inches of mercury (0°C)
 0.5358
13.609
 1.8663
73.48 x 10-3
A-26
   EMISSION FACTORS
   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
    CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS (cont.).
                                 ATMOSPHERIC GASES
       To Convert From
             To
 Multiply By
  Milligrams/cu m
 Micrograms/cu m
  Micrograms/liter
 ppm by volume (20°C)
 ppm by weight
 Pounds/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight	
  1000.0
     1.0
   24.04/M
     0.8347
   62.43 x 10'9
     0.001
     0.001
     0.02404/M
  834.7 x 10-6
   62.43 x 10'12
     1.0
  1000.0
   24.04/M
     0.8347
   62.43 x 10-9
 M/24.04
  M/0.02404
 M/24.04
 M/28.8
M/385.1 x 106
     1.198
     1.198x 10"3
     1.198
   28.8/M
     7.48 x 1Q-6
   16.018 x 106
   16.018x 109
   16.018x 106
  385.1 x 106/M
  133.7 x 103
M = Molecular weight of gas.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
        Appendix A
                A-27
-------
   CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS  (cont.).



                                VELOCITY
To Convert From
Meters/sec


Kilometers/hr


Feet/sec


Miles/hr


To
Kilometers/hr
Feet/sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Feet/sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Feet/sec
Multiply By
3.6
3.281
2.237
0.2778
0.9113
0.6214
0.3048
1.09728
0.6818
0.4470
1.6093
1.4667
                          ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
To Convert From
Atmospheres


Millimeters of mercury


Inches of mercury


Millibars


To
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury












Multiply By
760.0
29.92
1013.2
1.316x 10'3
39.37 x lO'3
1.333
0.03333
25.4005
33.35
0.00987
0.75
0.30
VOLUME EMISSIONS
To Convert From
Cubic m/min
Cubic ft/min
To
Cubic ft/min
Cubic m/min
Multiply By
35.314
0.0283
A-28
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
           BOILER CONVERSION FACTORS
   1 Megawatt  =  10.5 x 106 BTU/hr
                (8  to 14 x 106 BTU/hr)

   1 Megawatt  -  8  x 103 Ib steara/hr
                (6  to 11 x 103 Ib steam/hr)

   1 BHP      -  34.5 Ib steam/hr

   1 BHP      •  45  x 103 BTU/hr
                (40 to 50 x 103 BTU/hr)

I  Ib steam/hr  -  1.4 x 103 BTU/hr
                (1.2 to 1.7 x 103 BTU/hr)
      NOTES:  In the relationships,

            Megawatt Is the net electric  power production of  a  steam
            electric power plant.

            BHP is boiler horsepower.

            Lb steara/hr is the steam production rate of the  boiler.

            BTU/hr is the heat input rate to the boiler (based  on  the
            gross or high heating  value of the fuel burned).

For less efficient (generally older and/or smaller) boiler operations,
use the higher values expressed.  For more efficient operations
(generally newer and/or larger), use the  lower vlaues.
VOLUME
Cubic inches 	
Milllliters 	
Liters 	
Ounces (U. S. fl.)
Gallons (U. S.)*..
Barrels (U. S.)...
Cubic feet 	
cu. in.

0.061024
61.024
1 .80469
231
7276.5
1728
ml.
16.3868

1000
29.5729
3785.3
1.1924xl05
2.8316x10*
liters
.0163868
0.001

0.029573
3.7853
119.2369
28.316
ounces
(U. S. fl.)
0.5541
0.03381
33.8147

128
4032.0
957.568
gallons
(U. S.)
4.3290xlO"3
2.6418x10"*
0.26418
7.8125xlO-3

31.5
7.481
barrels
(U. S.)
1.37429x10"*
8. 387xlO-6
8.387xlO-3
2 .48xlO~4
0.031746

0.23743
cu. ft.
5.78704x10"*
3.5316xlO-5
0.035316
1 .0443xlO-3
0.13368
4.2109

   u.  S.  gallon of water at 16.7°C (62°F) weighs 3.780 kg. or 8.337 pounds (avoir.)
MASS
Grams 	

Ounces (avoir.)...
Pounds (avoir.)*..
Grains 	
Tons (U. S.) 	
Milligrams 	
grams

1000
28.350
453.59
0.06480
9.072xl05
0.001
kilograms
0.001

0.028350
0.45359
6.480x10-5
907.19
IxlO-6
ounces
(avoir.)
3.527x10-2
35.274

16.0
2.286xlO'3
3.200x10*
3.527xlO-5
pounds
(avoir.)
2.205X10"3
2.2046
0.0625

1.429x10"*
2000
2.205xlO-6
grains
15.432
15432
437.5
7000

1.4xl07
0.015432
tons
(U. S.)
1.102x10-6
1 .102xlO-3
3.125xlO-5
5.0x10-*
7.142x10-8

1. 102xlO-9
milligrams
1000
IxlO6
2.8350x10*
4.5359x105
64.799
9.0718xl08

  *Mass of 27.692 cubic inches water  weighed  in  air  at  4.0'C,  760  nm mercury  pressure.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
    Appendix A
A-29
-------


«=


-

CD
1
I
>M
«B
O
ft.
X

B
1

w
%
ae
Jt


£

a

Joules

OO
V

0}
u
«
[
9
00
o
ae
z
Q
S
S

i

T
O
X
00

o
CM
1,1 ter Atmoaphe res



•sf
£
O

o
*x
o
NO





NO
CM
o
2
CM
NO
0
X
o
OS

^
CM
i
o
m
00
NO
CM
o
en


1
Horsepower Hours .
*n
O
•n
O
CO
o
*x
o
—


OO
1
o
X
OS
NO
-
o
X
00
-
1
o
CM
CM
00

o
o
m
o
*x
en
«
CM
3
o
o
o
CM
-------
.C
H
BO
Joules/sec
CO
c
J
X
c
"a
u
ec
u
to
S
o
00

e
H
m
u
to
00
1-
V
u
01
CO
J3
5
watts
POWER
-a1
O
en
-a-
-
CO
sO

1.341x10-3
en
en
O
O
•a-
0
.0197x1

CO
NO
m
O
o
o
m
en
T-.
O
o
o
o

CO
4-1 '.
mj
0
en
-a-
en
O
O
o
m
O
x
CO
NO
o
en
^
m
o
.0197x1

-a-
CO
NO
in
0
o
X
m
en

O
O
O
Kilowatts 	
-a-
fN
sO
OO
m
\f<
00
CM
O
ON
1.8182x10-3
en
en
-a1
0
0
o
X
NO
CM
00

CM
O
O
1.3558xl07

1.3558x10-3
CM
OO
m
m
en
s.
a
li
£. o
o
O SO
3.4130xlO"7
i
o
"S
in
o
•a-
CO
NC
1.3410x10-10
ON
1
0
en
en
t
o
.0197x1

ON
1
X
CO
CO
m

7.3756x10-8
o
o
*x
I
0
X
r-t
c
o
u
-------
                  CONVERSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS SUBSTANCES*
            Type Of Substance
                     Conversion Factors
 Fuel
   Oil
   Natural gas
 Gaseous Pollutants
   03
   NO2
   SO2
   H2S
   CO
   HC  (as methane)
 Agricultural products
   Corn
   Milo
   Oats
   Barley
   Wheat
   Cotton
 Mineral products
   Brick
   Cement
   Cement
   Concrete
 Mobile sources, fuel efficiency
   Motor vehicles
   Waterborne vessels
 Miscellaneous liquids
   Beer
   Paint
   Varnish
   Whiskey
   Water
      1 bbl = 159 liters (42 gal)
      1 therm = 100,000 Btu (approx.25000 kcal)
      1 ppm, volume
      1 ppm, volume
      1 ppm, volume
      1 ppm, volume
      1 ppm, volume
      1 ppm, volume
1960/ig/m3
ISSO/xg/m3
2610jig/m3
1390 /ig/m3
1.14 mg/m3
0.654 mg/m3
      1 bu = 25.4 kg = 56 Ib
      1 bu = 25.4 kg = 56 Ib
      1 bu = 14.5 kg = 32 Ib
      1 bu = 21.8 kg = 48 Ib
      1 bu = 27.2 kg = 60 Ib
      1 bale = 226 kg = 500 Ib

      1 brick = 2.95 kg = 6.5 Ib
      1 bbl = 170 kg = 375 Ib
      1 yd3 = 1130kg  = 2500 Ib
      1 yd3 = 1820 kg  = 4000 Ib

      1.0 mi/gal  = 0.426 km/liter
      1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km

      1 bbl = 31.5 gal
      1 gal = 4.5 to 6.82 kg  =  10 to 15 Ib
      1 gal = 3.18kg = 71b
      1 bbl = 190 liters = 50.2 gal
      1 gal = 3.81 kg = 8.3  Ib
  Many of the conversion factors in this table represent average values and approximations and some
  of the values vary with temperature and pressure. These conversion factors should, however, be
  sufficiently accurate for general field use.
A-32
EMISSION FACTORS
               (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
                               APPENDIX B.I

                   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND
               SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED SOURCES
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Appendix B.I                            B.l-1
-------
                                CONTENTS

AP-42
Section                                                              Page

Introduction  	 B.l-5

1.8 BAGASSE-FIRED BOILER: EXTERNAL COMBUSTION	 B.l-6

2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION:
     MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR 	 B.l-8
     MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR 	 B.l-10

4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING
     OPERATIONS:  AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER-BASE ENAMEL)  . B.l-12

6.1 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFFGAS BOILER	 B.l-14

8.4 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER	 B.l-16

8.10 SULFURIC ACID:
     ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)	 B.l-18
     ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM 	 B.l-20
     ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM 	 B.l-22
     SECONDARY ABSORBER 	 B.l-24

8.xx BORIC ACID DRYER	B.l-26

8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER	 B.l-28

8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER	 B.l-30

9.7 COTTON GINNING:
     BATTERY CONDENSER	 B.l-32
     LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST	 B.l-34

9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
     GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS	 B.l-36
     CONVEYING	 B.l-38
     RICE DRYER	 B. 1-40

9.9.2  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CEREAL DRYER	 B.l-42

9.9.4  ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE	 B.l-44

9.9.xx FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER  . B.l-46

10.5 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
     BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE	 B.l-48
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Appendix B.I                           B.l-3
-------
                            CONTENTS (cont.).
Section                                                             page

11.10 COAL CLEANING:
     DRY PROCESS ...........................................  B.l-50
     THERMAL DRYER ........................................  B.l-52
     THERMAL INCINERATOR ...................................  B.l-54

11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):
     COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN .................................  B.l-56
     DRYER ................................................  B.l-58
     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER  .....................  B.l-60

11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE):
     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER  .....................  B.l-62

11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE):
     COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN .................................  B.l-64
     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER  .....................  B.l-66

1 1 .21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:
     CALCINER .............................................  B.l-68
     OIL-FIRED ROTARY AND FLUIDIZED-BED TANDEM DRYERS .........  B.l-70
     OIL-FIRED ROTARY DRYER .................................  B.l-72
     BALL MILL .............................................  B.l-74
     ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING  .....................  B.l-76

11.26 NONMETALLIC MINERALS: TALC PEBBLE MILL ..................  B.l-78

1 1 .xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS :
     ELDSPAR BALL MILL .....................................  B.l-80
     FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER .......................  B.l-82

12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:
     BAUXITE PROCESSING - FINE ORE STORAGE  ....................  B.l-84
     BAUXITE PROCESSING - UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP .............  B.l-86

12.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES:
     CASTINGS SHAKEOUT .....................................  B.l-88
     OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST  ..................................  B.l-90

12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:
     GRID CASTING ..........................................  B.l-92
     GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING ...........................  B.l-94
     LEAD OXIDE MILL  .......................................  B.l-96
     PASTE MIXING AND LEAD OXIDE CHARGING ....................  B.l-98
     THREE-PROCESS OPERATION ................................  B. 1-100

12.xx BATCH TINNER ..........................................  B.l-102
B.l-4                        EMISSION FACTORS             (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                       APPENDIX B.I

                        PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND
                   SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED SOURCES
Introduction
       This appendix presents particle size distributions and emission factors for miscellaneous
sources or processes for which documented emission data were available.  Generally, the sources of
data used to develop particle size distributions and emission factors for this appendix were:

       1. Source test reports in the files of the Emissions Monitoring,  and Analysis Division of
          EPA's Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards.

       2. Source test reports in the Fine Particle Emission Information System (FPEIS), a
          computerized data base maintained by EPA's Air And Energy Engineering Research
          Laboratory, Office Of Research And Development.

       3. A series of source tests titled Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous
          Sources In The South Coast Air Basin, by H. J. Taback.

       4. Particle size distribution data reported in the literature by various individuals and
          companies.

       Particle size data from FPEIS were mathematically normalized into more uniform and
consistent data. Where EMB tests and Taback report data were filed in  FPEIS, the normalized data
were used in developing this appendix.

       Information on each source category in Appendix B.I is presented in a 2-page format: For a
source category, a graph provided on the first page presents a particle size distribution expressed as
the cumulative weight percent of particles less than a specified aerodynamic diameter (cut point), in
micrometers. A sized emission factor can be derived from the  mathematical product of a mass
emission factor and the cumulative weight percent of particles smaller than a specific cut point in the
graph. At the bottom of the page is a table of numerical values for particle size distributions and
sized emission factors, in micrometers, at selected values of aerodynamic particle diameter.  The
second page gives some  information on the data used to derive  the particle  size distributions.

       Portions of the appendix denoted TEA in the table of contents refer to information that will be
added at  a later date.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                     Appendix B. 1                                    B.l-5
-------
              1.8 BAGASSE-FIRED BOILER: EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
   99

   9t




3"
CO

•o  "
V
JJ
(0  80
•U
CO
   70
     3 30
      
                                                                            CD

                                                                            O
                                                                            3

                                                                            •-K
                                                                            91
                                                                            n
                                                                            rv
                                                                            O
                                                                            n
                                                                            3Q
                                                                         0.5
                                                                         0.0
                         3   4   5 4  7  8 » 10        20    JO

                              Particle diameter, urn
                                                          40  50  60 70 SO 90 100
: Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < stated size
Wet scrubber controlled
46.3
70.5
97.1
Emission factor, Icg/Mg
Wet scrubber controlled
0.37
0.56
0.78
B.l-6
                           EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                1.8  BAGASSE-FIRED BOILER:  EXTERNAL COMBUSTION


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter G*m):       2.5      6.0     10.0


              Mean (Cum. %):                       46.3     70.5     97.1

              Standard deviation (Cum. %):             0.9      0.9      1.9

              Min (Cum. %):                        45.4     69.6     95.2

              Max (Cum. %):                        47.2     71.4     99.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Approximately 0.8 kg particulate/Mg bagasse
charged to boiler.  This factor is derived from AP-42, Section 1.8, 4/77, which states that the
particulate emission factor from an uncontrolled bagasse-fired boiler is 8 kg/Mg and that wet
scrubbers typically provide 90% particulate control.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a Riley Stoker Corp. vibrating grate spreader stoker boiler rated
at 120,000 Ib/hr but operated during this testing at 121 % of rating.  Average steam temperature and
pressure were 579 °F and 199 psig, respectively.  Bagasse feed rate could not be measured, but was
estimated  to be about 41 (wet) tons/hr.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Cascade Impactor

EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, U. S. Sugar Company, Bryant, FL, EMB-80-WFB-6, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                 B.l-7
-------
      2.1  REFUSE INCINERATION:  MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR
        99.9
         99


         »«




         95
     «   90
     •g   «
        30

0)
3   20
S   5

§

U   2


    1


    0.5





    0.1
        0.01
                                              UNCONTROLLED
                                             — Weight  percent
                                             —Emission factor
                                                                          s.o
                                                                          10.0
                                                                        
                                                                          •°  *•
                                                                             OQ


                                                                             00
                                                                          4.0
                            5  6  7  S « 10        20


                          Particle diameter, urn
                                                                          2.0
                                                        M   *O  50 60 70 «0 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
26.0
30.6
• 10.0 38.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled :
3.9 !
4.6 :
5.7
B.l-8
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
     2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR

NUMBER OF TESTS: 7, conducted before control

STATISTICS:   Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (jj.m):      2.5     6.0    10.0

               Mean (Cum. %):                     26.0     30.6    38.0
               Standard deviation (Cum. %):            9.5     13.0    14.0
               Min (Cum. %):                      18      22      24
               Max (Cum. %):                      40      49      54

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged.
Emission factor from AP-42 Section 2.1.
SOURCE OPERATION:  Municipal incinerators reflected in the data base include various mass
burning facilities of typical design and operation.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Unknown
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
REFERENCE:
      Determination of Uncontrolled Emissions, Product 2B, Montgomery County, Maryland, Roy F.
      Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, August 1984.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix B.I                                B.l-9
-------
      2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION:  MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR
       99.99
       99.9
        99

        9»

      01
      «* »s
2  M
CO

V  70

*<  M

^  30
ao



S  3D
41

^  20
      3
         2

         1

        0.5



        0.1





       0.01
                                              UNCONTROLLED
                                               Weight percent
                                               Emission factor
                                                                         10.0
                                                                         3.0  B
                                                                             0)
                                                                             h*
                                                                             o
                                                                             3
                                                                             a>
                                                                             rs
                                                                         s.o
                                                                            OQ
                                                                            •>•

                                                                            00
                                                                    4.0
                                                                    2.0
                          3*3*7*910        20    X

                               Particle  diameter, um
                                                      *0 SO M 70 «) 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
54.0
60.1
67.1
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
8.1
9.0
10.1
B.l-10
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
      2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR


NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (/xm):      2.5     6.0    10.0


                Mean (Cum.  %):                      54.0    60.1    67.1

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):           19.0    20.8    23.2

                Min (Cum. %):                       34.5    35.9    37.5

                Max (Cum. %):                       79.9    86.6    94.2
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged.
Emission factor from AP-42 Section 2.1.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Modular incinerator (2-chambered) operation was at 75.9% of the design
process rate (10,000 Ib/hr) and 101.2% of normal steam production rate. Natural gas is required to
start the incinerator each week.  Average waste charge rate was 1.983T/hr.  Net heating value of
garbage 4200-4800 Btu/lb garbage charged.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, City of Salem,  Salem, Va, EMB-80-WFB-1, U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-11
-------
  4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:

              AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER-BASE ENAMEL)
        N.9
    98



    95



    90



    80



    70


*e   60


«   50

00
-*   40
      0)
      M
      «

      a

      CD

      v
      91
         30
         20
      a


      1  10

      O   5
    2


    1


   0.5





   0.1







   0.01
                                                   CONTROLLED

                                                   Weight percent

                                                   Emission  factor
                                                                       3.0
                                                                      2.0
             c*i
             s

             a
             09

             o
             3
actor
                                                                     3Q
                                                                       1.0
                         3  4   56789 10       20


                             Particle  diameter, urn
                                                                      0.0
                                                     30   40  50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Water curtain controlled
28.6
38.2
46.7
Emission factor, kg/Mg |
i
Water curtain controlled
1.39
1.85
2.26
B.l-12
                        EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:
                AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER-BASE ENAMEL)
NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after water curtain control

STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter (j«n):     2.5     6.0     10.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                    28.6    38.2    46.7

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):         14.0    16.8    20.6

                Min(Cum. %):                     15.0    21.4    26.1

                Max (Cum. %):                     42.2    54.9    67.2
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  4.84 kg particulate/Mg of water-base enamel
sprayed. From References a and b.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a water-base enamel spray booth in an automotive assembly
plant. Enamel spray rate is 568 Ib/hour, but spray gun type is not identified.  The spray booth
exhaust rate is 95,000 scfm.  Water flow rate to the water curtain control device is 7181 gal/min.
Source is operating at 84% of design rate.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  SASS and Joy trains with cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

REFERENCES:

a.     H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous Sources in the South
      Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
      February 1979.

b.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series  Report No. 234, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-13
-------
           6.1 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFFGAS BOILER
       99.9
 99

 9»
      at
      v
        so
        70
      -so
      V
      3 30
      01 ,-
      -> 20
      V
      -* 10
      s
      3  >
  i
  i
 0.5

 0.1


0.01
                                                  UNCONTROLLED
                                                    Weight percent
                                                    Emission factor
                                                                         1.75
                                                                            PJ
                                                                            a
                                                                            OB
                                                                         1.50
                                                                            O
                                                                            3
                                                                            0>
                                                                            n
                                                                            rr
                                                                            O
                                                                     JT
                                                                     OQ
                                                                     2
                                                                     TO
                                                                         1.25
                                                                         1. 00
                      *   J * 7 » » 10        20    30
                        Particle diameter, urn
                                                           «OJOM)70MW100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
87.3
95.0
97.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled :
1.40 \
1.52
1.55
B.l-14
                         EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
            6.1 CARBON BLACK:  OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFFGAS BOILER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  3, conducted at offgas boiler outlet


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im):      2.5       6.0      10.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                     87.3      95.0      97.0

                Standard Deviation (Cum. %):           2.3       3.7       8.0

                Min (Cum.  %):                      76.0      90.0      94.5

                Max (Cum. %):                      94.0      99       100


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.6 kg particulate/Mg carbon black produced, from
reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Process operation: "normal" (production rate = 1900 kg/hr). Product is
collected in fabric filter, but the offgas boiler outlet is uncontrolled.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Phillips Petroleum Company, Toledo, OH, EMB-73-CBK-1,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1974.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-15
-------
              8.4 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER
        »8
      
-------
               8.4 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  3, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter <>m):      2-5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     10.8    49.1    98.6

             Standard Deviation (Cum. %):           5.1    21.5     1.8

             Min (Cum. %):                       4.5    20.3    96.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      17.0    72.0   100.0


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  23 kg particulate/Mg of ammonium sulfate
produced.  Factor from AP-42, Section 8.4.

SOURCE OPERATION: Testing was conducted at 3 ammonium sulfate plants operating rotary
dryers within the following production parameters:


             Plant	A      C      D

             % of design process rate              100.6    40.1    100

             production rate, Mg/hr                16.4     6.09     8.4


SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Cascade Impactors

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCE:

      Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture — Background Information For Proposed Emission Standards,
      EPA-450/3-79-034a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      December 1979.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-17
-------
                    8.10  SULFURIC ACID:  ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
      
-------
                    8.10 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)


NUMBER OF TESTS:  Not available


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter (pan):     2.5      6.0      10.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                    51.2    100       100

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                                         •
                Min (Cum. %):

                Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.2 to 2.0 kg acid mist/Mg sulfur charged, for
uncontrolled 98% acid plants burning elemental sulfur.  Emission factors are from AP-42
Section 8.10.

SOURCE OPERATION: Not available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCES:

a.    Final Guideline Document: Control OfSulfuric Acid Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
      Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

b.    R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Standards For Sulfuric
      Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE, June 1974.

c.    J. A. Brink, Jr.,  "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Industrial and Engineering
      Chemistry, 50:641, April 1958.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-19
-------
                  8.10 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM
        99.99
         99.9
          99


          98




          95
      -t   90
      CD


      "S   ao


      CD
      J_l   70
      a

      V/   *°


      X   SO


      ^   «
      BO
      -4   30
       «
       3   '
          20
      u  10
       CO
      I
          t


          0.5
          0.1
         o.ot
                                                     UNCONTROLLED

                                                      Weight  percent
                                   5  6  ;  8 •> 10       20    30   40  50  60 70 30 90 100



                                  Particle  diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
: 10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
97.5
100
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
See Table 8.10-2


B.l-20
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                    8.10 SULFURIC ACID:  ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM


NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available


STATISTICS:     Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi)*:     1.0     1.5       2.0


                 Mean (Cum. %):                      26     50       73

                 Standard deviation (Cum.  %):

                 Min (Cum.  %):

                 Max (Cum.  %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants are a
function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product. See AP-42, Section 8.10, Tables 8.10-2
and 8.10-3.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Not available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCES:

a.     Final Guideline Document: Control Of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
      Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

b.     R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Standards For Sulfuric
      Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,  Wilmington, DE, June 1974.

c.     J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Industrial and Engineering
      Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
*100% of the particulate is less than 2.5 /xm in diameter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-21
-------
                   8.10 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM
      01
      N
      01
      a
      CD
      V
      60
      V4
      I
      01
      3
         99.99
         99.9
 99
 98

 95

 90
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 :o

 10

 5

 Z
 I
 0.5

 3.1



0.01
                                                     UNCONTROLLED
                                                      Weight percent
                            3   4   5  6  7  a 9 10        :o
                                 Particle diameter, urn
                                                          30   40  50  oO 70 30 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
100
100
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
See Table 8.10-2


B.l-22
                        EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                    8.10  SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM


NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter Gun)*:     1.0    1.5       2.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                      41     63        84

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                Min (Cum. %):

                Max (Cum. %);


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants are a
function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product.  See AP-42, Section 8.10, Table 8.10-2.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Not available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCES:

a.     Find Guideline Document:  Control Of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
      Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

b.     R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Standards For Sulfiiric
      Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE, June 1974.

c.     J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor  For Adiabatic Measurements", Industrial and Engineering
      Chemistry, 50:641, April 1958.
"100% of the paniculate is less than 2.5 /xm in diameter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-23
-------
                   8.10 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER
         99.9
          99


          99
       *  to
          TO


          60
       00
       — to
       0)

       3 30
          :o
          10
         O.OI
                                                    UNCONTROLLED
                                                     Weight percent
                           3   -   5  *  7  J » 10       20

                                Particle  diameter, urn
                         30   -0  SO 60 70 SO 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter , urn
: 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
48
78
87
Emission factor , kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
Not Available •
Not Available
Noc Available
B.l-24
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                    8.10  SULFURIC ACID:  SECONDARY ABSORBER


NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available


STATISTICS:     Aerodynamic particle diameter (/xm):    2.5    6.0      10.0


                 Mean (Cum. %):                    48     78        87

                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum.  %):

                 Max (Cum.  %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Acid mist emission factors vary widely according
to type of sulfur feedstock. See AP-42 Section 8.10 for guidance.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source is the second absorbing tower in a double absorption sulfuric acid
plant. Acid mist loading is 175  - 350 mg/m3.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
                                           •
REFERENCE:

      G. E. Harris and L. A. Rohlack, "Paniculate Emissions From Non-fired Sources In Petroleum
      Refineries:  A Review Of Existing Data", Publication No. 4363, American Petroleum
      Institute, Washington,  DC, December 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-25
-------
                              g.xx  BORIC ACID DRYER
       9S.99
       99.9
        99


        91
      ,3
                                              S
                                              h*
                                              CD
                                              O
                                              3
                                                                               rr
                                                                               O
                                                                               00


                                                                               OQ
                                                                           o.z
                                                                           0.1
                                 5  4  7  S 9 10        20    30


                               Particle diameter, urn
                                                                           0.0
                                                            40 JO  «0 70 M 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < stated size
Uncontrolled
0.3
3.3
6.9
Fabric filter
3.3
6.7
10.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.01
0.14
0.29
Fabric filter;
controlled
0.004
0.007
0.011
B.l-26
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                                8.xx  BORIC ACID DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 1, conducted before controls
                     (b) 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter Om):        2.5     6.0    10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                         0.3     3.3     6.9
                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (fim):        2.5     6.0    10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                         3.3     6.7    10.6
                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Before control, 4.15 kg particulate/Mg boric acid
dried.  After fabric filter control, 0.11 kg particulate/Mg boric acid dried. Emission factors from
Reference a.
SOURCE OPERATION:  100% of design process rate.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a) Joy train with cyclones
                         (b) SASS train with  cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
REFERENCES:
a.      H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
       South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
       VA, February 1979.
b.      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
       Information System, Series Report No. 236, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-27
-------
      99.99
       99.9
       99
       98
    0)
    N
       95
       90
0)   80
9
U   70
CO
v   60
X   50
    ao
    •M   30
    cu
       :o
    cu
    JJ   10
    CO
    r-4
    S   5
    U
       0.01
                   8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER
                                           UNCONTROLLED
                                           -Weight percent
                                           - Emission factor
                                           CONTROLLED
                                           - Wt.  Z high pressure
                                                               *
                                                                         s.o
                                                                         3.0
                                                                             CD
                                                                             01
                                                                             o
                                                                             3
                                                                             O
                                                                             n
                                                                         OQ
                                                                         2C
                                                                         2.0
                                5  4 7  8 9 10
                                                  20
                                                                     0.0
                                                   30   40 50  60 70 80 90 100
                                Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
0.95
2.46
4.07
High pressure
drop venturi
scrubber
5.0
7.5
9.0
Emission factor
(kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
0.31
0.81
1.34
B.l-28
                             EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                     8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER

NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 7, before control
                      (b) 1, after cyclone and high pressure drop venturi scrubber control

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jon):   2.5       6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                   0.95      2.46     4.07
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):        0.68      2.37     4.34
                 Min (Cum. %):                    0.22      0.65     1.20
                 Max (Cum. 96):                    2.20      7.50    13.50

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter Qaa):   2.5       6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                   5.0       7.5      9.0
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
              •   Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Uncontrolled emissions of 33 kg particulate/Mg of
potassium chloride product from dryer, from AP-42.  It is assumed that paniculate emissions from
rotary gas-fired dryers for potassium chloride are similar to particulate emissions from rotary steam
tube dryers for sodium carbonate.
SOURCE OPERATION: Potassium chloride is dried in a rotary gas-fired dryer.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a) Andersen Impactor
                         (b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
REFERENCES:
a.     Emission Test Report, Kerr-Magee, Trona,  CA, EMB-79-POT-4, U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
b.     Emission Test Report, Kerr-Magee, Trona,  CA, EMB-79-POT-5, U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                 B.l-29
-------
     99.99
     99.9
   0)
   N
      »5
      90
   
-------
                     8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER


 NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after fabric filter


 STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter Otm):     2.5     6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                    18.0    32.0     43.0

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):           7.5    11.5     14.0

             Min (Cum.  %):                      10.5    21.0     29.0

             Max (Cum.  %):                      24.5    44.0     14.0


 TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: After fabric filter control, 0.033 kg of particulate
 per Mg of potassium sulfate product from the dryer. Calculated from  an uncontrolled emission factor
 of 33 kg/Mg and control efficiency of 99.9%.  From Reference a and AP-42, Section 8.12. It is
 assumed that particulate emissions from rotary gas-fired dryers are similar to those from rotary steam
 tube dryers.

 SOURCE OPERATION: Potassium sulfate is  dried in a rotary gas-fired dryer.

 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

 REFERENCES:

 a.    Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-4, Office Of Air Quality
      Planning And Standards,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
      NC, April  1979.

b.    Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-5, Office Of Air Quality
      Planning And Standards,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
      NC, April  1979.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-31
-------
                    9.7 COTTON GINNING: BATTERY CONDENSER
      f».M
       99.9
       99


       9»
•3   *



«   80
j_l
03
U   70



V   *°


x   so




80




3   20

01



"   10
    2


    1



    O.S





    0.1








   0.01
                                                CYCLONE

                                          —^- Weight percent

                                          ——— Emission factor

                                        CYCLONE AND WET SCRUBBER

                                           •   Weight percent

                                          • • • Emission factor
                                                                          0.100
                                                                              in
                                                                              3
                                                                              t—

                                                                              09
                                                                              09


                                                                              O
                                                                              3
                                                                              a>
                                                                              n
                                                                          0.030
                                                                              OQ
                                                                               o-
                                                                               a
                                 I  t  I	I  t I
                                                                          1.006
                                                                          0.003
                          1   *   5671910       20


                               Particle diameter,  v
                                                        30   40  50  60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative we. Z < stated size
With
cyclone
8
33
62
With cyclone &
wet scrubber
11
26
52
Emission factor (kg/bale) ,
With
cyclone
0.007
0.028
0.053
With cyclone
& wet scrubber
0.001
0.003
0.006
B.l-32
                            EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                     9.7  COTTON GINNING: BATTERY CONDENSER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a)  2, after cyclone
                      (b)  3, after wet scrubber

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (>m):    2.5     6.0    10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                    8      33      62
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum. %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/zm)

                 Mean (Cum. %.):                  11      26      52
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %  ):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Paniculate emission factor for battery condensers
with typical controls is 0.09 kg (0.19 lb)/bale of cotton.  Factor is from AP-42, Section 9.7. Factor
with wet scrubber after cyclone is 0.012 kg (0.026 lb)/bale. Scrubber efficiency is 86%.  From
Reference b.

SOURCE OPERATION:  During tests, source was operating at 100% of design capacity.  No other
information on source is available.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: UW Mark 3 Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission test data  from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No. 27, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research  Triangle  Park, NC, June 1983.

b.     Robert E. Lee, Jr., et al., "Concentration And Size Of Trace Metal Emissions From A Power
      Plant, A Steel Plant, And A Cotton Gin", Environmental Science And Technology, P(7)643-7,
      July 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-33
-------
                 9.7  COTTON GINNING: LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST
    v
    tt
-a
9>
u
9

eo

v
    .s
    M
    ••*
    V
99

M


»S


to


80


70

60

SO

40

30

20
.u   10
«
i—I

|    >

u
     2

     1

    0.5
        0.1
       0.01
                           I 	1	I   i  V J
                           3    4   567*9 10

                                Parcicle  dl
                                                    CTCLONX
                                                   • W«ight percent
                                                 — —-E«l»»ioB factor
                                                   CTOLOUE AND urr scxwm
                                                           p*rc«BC
                                                                    t   iiit
                                                                               0.3
                                                                                   CD
                                                                                   CO
                                                                                   tB
                                                                               0.2  O
                                                                               OQ

                                                                               cr

                                                                               H-
                                                                               fD
                                                                               O.J
                                                  20

                                             ter, urn
                                                        30   40 30 60 70 to 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative we. Z < stated size
After
cyclone
1
20
54
After cyclone
& wet scrubber
11
74
92
Emission factor
(kg/bale)
After cyclone
0.004
0.07
0.20
B.l-34
                               EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                 9.7  COTTON GINNING: LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST

NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 4, after cyclone
                     (b) 4, after cyclone and wet scrubber

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter 0*m):        2.5    6.0   10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                         1     20     54
                 Standard deviation (Cum.  %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):        2.5    6.0   10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                        11     74     92
                 Standard deviation (Cum.  %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.37 kg particulate/bale of cotton processed, with
typical controls. Factor is from AP-42, Section 9.7.
SOURCE OPERATION: Testing was conducted while processing both machine-picked and ground-
harvested upland cotton, at a production rate of about 6.8 bales/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Coulter counter
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
      S. E. Hughs, et al., "Collecting Particles From Gin Lint Cleaner Air Exhausts", presented at
      the 1981 Winter Meeting of the American Society Of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, IL,
      December 1981.
10/86 (Reformatted i/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-35
-------
        9t.*»
       oi n
       N
         90


         80
X

u 50
J=
80 U)
         20
      .3 10
       3
       B
      3 5
         2

         1

         0.3



         0.1





        0.01
                 9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
                   GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
                                          UNCONTROLLED
                                           Weight  percent
                                           Emission factor
                                                            I
                                                                       l.J
                                                                          as
                                                                          0)
                                                                          09
                                                                          o
                                                                          era
                                                                      0.5
                                                                 0.0
                               5 * 7 8 » 10       20    10   40  50 60 70 80 90 LOG

                              Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10. C
Cumulative wgt. 7. 
-------
                  9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
                     GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):     2.5    6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                      13.8   30.5   49.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           3.3    2.5   —

             Min (Cum. %):                       10.5   28.0   49.0

             Max (Cum. %):                       17.0   33.0   49.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.3 kg particulate/Mg of grain unloaded, without
control.  Emission factor from AP-42, Section 9.9.1.

SOURCE OPERATION: During testing, the facility was continuously receiving wheat of low
dockage.  The elevator is equipped with a dust collection system that serves the dump pit boot and
leg.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Nelson Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No.  154, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.

b.     Emission Test Report, Uniontown Co-op, Elevator No. 2, Uniontown, WA, Report No. 75-34,
      Washington State Department Of Ecology, Olympia, WA, October 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-37
-------
           9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CONVEYING

99.9


99
9}
01
5 *>
•
^^
^u ^
*
* '0

00
to
V
« 50

.U 40
«> 30
V
a 20
0)
H 10
a
^j
3 5
e
3
2

1
0.5
0.1
0. 01

UNCONTROLLED
• Weight percent
— — Emission factor

•
/
/
'
i

•
*" /
/
-• i „

9 f
1 Jf
' s
.s
„ jr
s^l
/ '
9^ ''
'
'
^ /

'
/
" ' —
'
-
-
i t iitiiii i i itiiii



0.4




a
0.3 I—
CD
OB
o"
3


(B
o
o

^
o.: jr
»
•*-,
00






0.1



0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 20 30 40 50 M) 70 80 90 IOC
                            Particle diameter, ua
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
16.8
41.3
69.4
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.08
0.21
0.35
B.l-38
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
            9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CONVEYING

NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jtm):      2.5    6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     16.8   41.3   69.4

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):            6.9   16.3   27.3

             Min(Cum.  %):                        9.9   25.0   42.1

             Max (Cum. %):                       23.7   57.7   96.6


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.5 kg particulate/Mg of grain processed, without
control.  Emission factor from AP-42, Section 9.9.1.

SOURCE OPERATION: Grain is unloaded from barges by "marine leg" buckets lifting the grain
from the barges and  discharging it onto an enclosed belt conveyer, which transfers the grain to the
elevator.  These tests measured the combined emissions from the "marine leg" bucket unloader and
the conveyer transfer points. Emission rates averaged 1956 Ib particulate/hour (0.67 kg/Mg grain
unloaded). Grains are corn and  soy beans.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Model B Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corporation, Destrehan, LA, EMB-74-GRN-7, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1974.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-39
-------
           9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  RICE DRYER
      99.99
       99.9
   99


   99



X  »
•H
CO

•9  *°
0)

<8  90

CO

v  ;0

»•*  *°
     -  50

     "ab
     •H  40
     dl

     3  30


     >  20



     CB
        10
       0.01
                                                   UNCONTROLLED

                                                    Weight percent

                                                    Emission factor
                                                                          0.015
    m
    a

    CD
    09

    O
    3


0.010 03
    n
    rr
    O
                                                                         3d



                                                                         3Q
                                                                         0.005
                                                                          o.oo
                          3   4   J 6 7 S J 10        2O    30  40 30  W) 70 80 90 100

                               Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
Particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < Stated Size
Uncontrolled
2.0
8.0
19.5
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
0.003
0.01 .
0.029
B.l-40
                            EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                   (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
            9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  RICE DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted on uncontrolled source.


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (/un):    2.5      6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                      2.0      8.0     19.5

             Standard Deviation (Cum. %):          —      3.3      9.4

             Min(Cum.  %):                       2.0      3.1     10.1

             Max (Cum.  %):                       2.0      9.7     28.9


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.15 kg particulate/Mg of rice dried. Factor from
AP-42, Section 9.9.1.  Table 9.9.1-1, footnote b for column dryer.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source operated at 100% of rated capacity, drying 90.8 Mg rice/hr.  The
dryer is heated by 4 9.5-kg/hr burners.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: SASS train with cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

REFERENCES:

a.     H. J. Taback, Fine Panicle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
      South  Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
      VA, February 1979.

b.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 228, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-41
-------
          9.9.2  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CEREAL DRYER
         99.99
         99.9
          99


          98
        *
        N
        « 80
        u
        CO

          70
        
                                                                            rt
                                                                            rr
                                                                            O
                                                                            oo


                                                                            OQ
                                                                         0.2S
                                          0.0
                           3   4   5  * 7  » 9 10       20

                               Particle  diameter, urn
                        30  40 JO 6O 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. I < stated size
Uncontrolled
27
37
44
Emission factor, kg/Mg
i
Uncontrolled i
0.20 ;
0.28 i
0.33
B.l-42
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
          9.9.2 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CEREAL DRYER

NUMBER OF TESTS:  6, conducted before controls

STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/an):     2.5    6.0     10.0

             Mean (Cum.  %):                    27     37       44
             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):          17     18       20
             Min (Cum. %):                     13     20       22
             Max (Cum. %):                     47     56       58

TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.75 kg particulate/Mg cereal dried.  Factor taken
from AP-42, Section 9.9.2.
SOURCE OPERATION: Confidential
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Mark HI Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
      Confidential test data from a major grain processor, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO,
      January 1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                             B.l-43
-------
    9.9.4  ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE
v
N
0)
   90
2  so

•  70'
v
   »o

*j  50

Uc  io

I  »

a  ::
E

CJ
                                            UNCONTROLLED
                                             Weight percent
                                             Emission factor
                                                                o.: 3
                                                                   a

                                                                   o"
                                                                   39
                                                                   rs
                                                                0.0
                                                      50 iC TO 3C ?0
                        Particle diameter, ura
! Aerodynamic
: Particle
diameter, urn
: 2.5
! 6.0
10.0
Cum. we. 2 < stated size
Uncontrolled
70.6
82.7
90.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
3.5
4.1
4.5
                         EMISSION FACTORS
                                                        (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
          9.9.4 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE


NUMBER OF TESTS:  1, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/*m):      2.5    6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                    70.6    82.7   90.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %)

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max  (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 5.0 kg particulate/Mg alfalfa pellets before control.
Factor from AP-42, Section 9.9.4.

SOURCE OPERATION:  During this test, source dried 10 tons of alfalfa/hour in a direct-fired rotary
dryer.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Nelson Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment  Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 152, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-45
-------
     9.9.xx FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER
        99.99
         99.9
          99


          99
       »  90

       "O
       0)
       •"  80

       4-1
       as  70
        o  *o


       3  30

       0)  20
       >
       •»*
       u
       «  10
         0.01
                                                   UNCONTROLLED

                                                    Weight percent

                                                    Emission factor
                                         0.75
                                             CO


                                             O
                                                                         o.so a>
                                                                            n
                                                                            rr
                                             73
                                                                        0.25
                          3   4   5  &  7  3 9 10        20

                               Particle  diameter, urn
                                                                        o.o
                                                       30   *O  50 60 70 SO 9O IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
; diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative vt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
3.0
3.2
9.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled ;
0.11
0.12
0.36
B.l-46
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
     9.9.XX FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  1, conducted before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter fam):     2.5    6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                      3.0    3.2    9.6

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max  (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  3.8 kg/Mg carob kibble roasted.  Factor from
Reference a, p. 4-175.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source roasts 300 kg carob pods per hour, 100% of the design rate.
Roaster heat input is  795 kJ/hr of natural gas.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Joy train with 3 cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCES:

a.     H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
      South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
      VA, February 1979.

b.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System Series, Report No. 229, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park,  NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-47
-------
              10.5 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
                     BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
       99.99
       99.9
        99


        98
     Ol
     N  93
     tB
        90
     v  n»


     «  M


     -  50

     BO
     -<  40
     Ol

     3  30

     01
     >  20
        10
      8
        0.1
       9.01
             CYCLONE CONTROLLED
             —•- Weight percent
             	 Emission factor
               FABRIC FILTER
             -»- Weight percent
                                                                '  i i  l« n
                                       3.0
                                                                        o>
                                                                        33
                                        0 Si
                                          n
                                         3C
                                                                     1.0
                           *   5 * 7 I 9 10       20    10

                             Particle diameter, urn
                                                        40  50 60 70 80 90 100
, Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Cyclone
29.5
42.7
52.9
After cyclone
and fabric filter
14.3
17.3
32.1
Emission factor, kg/hour
of cyclone operation
After :
cyclone collector
0.68
0.98
1.22
B.l-48
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
               10.5 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
                       BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a)  1, conducted after cyclone control
                     (b)  1, after cyclone and fabric filter control

STATISTICS:  (a)  Aerodynamic particle diameter Gtm):        2.5    6.0   10.0
                  Mean (Cum. %):                        29.5   42.7   52.9
                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                  Min (Cum. %):
                  Max (Cum. %):

              (b)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (pm):        2.5    6.0   10.0
                  Mean (Cum. %.):                       14.3   17.3   32.1
                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                  Min (Cum. %):
                  Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  2.3 kg particulate/hr of cyclone operation. For
cyclone-controlled source, this emission factor applies to typical large diameter cyclones into which
wood waste is fed directly, not to cyclones that handle waste previously collected in cyclones.  If
baghouses are used for waste collection, paniculate emissions will be negligible. Accordingly, no
emission factor is provided for the fabric filter-controlled source. Factors from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source was sanding 2-ply panels of mahogany veneer, at 100% of design
process rate of 1110 m2/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a)  Joy train with 3 cyclones
                         (b)  SASS train with cyclones
EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  E
REFERENCE:
      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 238, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-49
-------
                       11.10 COAL CLEANING:  DRY PROCESS

    TS
     4)
       99.99
       99.9
        99


        9t




        «




        90
as   to

to

v/
        7°
        50
     01

     3  30
     3)
     09

     3
     e

    o
    20





    10




    5




    2


    1


    0.5





    0.1








   0.01
                                                                            0.003
                                                       CONTROLLED

                                                       Weight percent

                                                       Emission  factor
                                                                            0.00*
                                                                            PJ
                                                                                09
                                                                                00
                                                                                0
                                                                                3
                                                                            ai
                                                                            n
                                                                            rr
                                                                            o
                                                                            0.002
                                                                            0.001
                                                                            0.00
                                  5  6  7  1 9 10        20     30   40 50 6O 70 80 90 100


                                Particle  diameter,  um
, Aerodynami c
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . Z < stated size
After fabric filter control
16
26
31
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After fabric filter control
0.002 ;
0.0025
0.003
B.l-50
                             EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                     (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                        11.10  COAL CLEANING:  DRY PROCESS


NUMBER OF TESTS:  1, conducted after fabric filter control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/an):      2.5     6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     16     26     31

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.01 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed.
Emission factor is calculated  from data in AP-42, Section 11.10, assuming 99% paniculate control by
fabric filter.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source cleans coal with the dry (air table) process. Average coal feed rate
during testing was 70 tons/hr/table.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Coulter counter

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      R. W. Kling, Emissions From The Florence Mining Company Coal Processing Plant At
      Seward, PA, Report No. 72-CI-4, York Research Corporation,  Stamford, CT, February 1972.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-51
-------
                     11.10 COAL CLEANING: THERMAL DRYER
      V
      CD
          »8
          »5
          90
      eg   so

      to
      v
70


60


50
      &0  ,«
      f-l  ^0
      V
       B

      y
          30
          :o
          10
          0.5
          3.1
         0.01
                                           UNCONTROLLED

                                          - Weight percent

                                          - Emission  factor

                                           CONTROLLED

                                          - Weight percent
                                                                           5.0
            m
            3
            H*
            09
            09

            O
            3
                                                                           3.0 09
                                                                              n
                                                                    QQ



                                                                    OQ
                                                                           1.0
                                                                           0.0
                                  5  *  7  8 9 10       20


                                 Particle  diameter,  urn
                                                        30*05060708090100
Aerodynamic
particle
i diameter, urn
i 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
42
86
96
After
wet scrubber
53
85
91
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
1.47
3.01
3.36
After •
wet scrubber'
0.016 ;
0.026
0.027
B.l-52
                       EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                       11.10  COAL CLEANING:  THERMAL DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 1, conducted before control
                      (b) 1, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/xm):        2.5    6.0   10.0

                 Mean (Cum.  %):                        42     86     96

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max  (Cum. %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diamter (/mi):         2.5    6.0   10.0

                 Mean (Cum.  %):                        53     85     91

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max  (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.5 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed (after
cyclone) before wet scrubber control. After wet scrubber control, 0.03 kg/Mg. These are site-
specific emission factors and are calculated from process data measured during source testing.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source operates a thermal dryer to dry coal cleaned by wet cleaning
process. Combustion zone in the thermal dryer is about 1000°F, and the air temperature at the dryer
exit is about 125 °F.  Coal processing rate is about 450 tons per hour. Product is collected in
cyclones.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a)  Coulter counter
                          (b)  Each sample was dispersed with aerosol OT, and further dispersed
                              using an ultrasonic bath.  Isoton was the electrolyte used.

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      R. W. Kling, Emission Test Report, Island Creek Coal Company Coal Processing Plant,
      Vansant, Virgina, Report No. Y-7730-H, York Research Corporation, Stamford, CT,
      February 1972.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                 B.l-53
-------
                11.10 COAL PROCESSING: THERMAL INCINERATOR
       #9.99
        99.9
        99

        98
      0)
      N
      CO
      0)
      u
      V
        80
        70
        60
      00
      •H *0
       20
      CO


      1 "

      CJ>  5
 2

 1

 0.5



 0.1





0.01
                                                    UNCONTROLLED
                                                —•— Weight percent
                                                	 Emission  factor
                                                    CONTROLLED
                                                 •   Weight percent
                                llllll
                                                                        0.4
                                                                   w
                                                                   B
                                                                   H-
                                                                   CD
                                                                   CD
                                                                   H-
                                                                   O
                                                                   9
                                                                           0>
                                                                           n
                                                                    m
                                                                    ^
                                                                0.2
                             4  5 6 7 8 9 10       20    30

                               Particle diameter, urn
                                                                        0.0
                                                           *0  50 60 70 80 90 100
.Aerodynamic
; particle
'diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
9.6
17.5
26.5
Cyclone
controlled
21.3
31.8
43.7
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled \
t
0.07 \
0.12
0.19
B.l-54
                        EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                  11.10 COAL PROCESSING: THERMAL INCINERATOR

NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 2, conducted before controls
                     (b) 2, conducted after multicyclone control

STATISTICS:   (a)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (jari):        2.5     6.0    10.0
                   Mean (Cum. %):                         9.6    17.5    26.5
                   Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                   Min (Cum.  %):
                   Max (Cum.  %):

               (b)  Aerodynamic particle diamter (fim):         2.5     6.0    10.0
                   Mean (Cum. %):                        26.4    35.8    46.6
                   Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                   Min (Cum.  %):
                   Max (Cum.  %):

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.7 kg particulate/Mg coal dried, before
multicyclone control. Factor from AP-42, Section  11.10.
SOURCE OPERATION; Source is a thermal incinerator controlling gaseous emissions from a rotary
kiln drying coal. No additional operating data are available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Mark HI Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
REFERENCE:
      Confidential test data from  a major coal processor, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January
      1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-55
-------
        11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):  COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN
        99.99
         99.9
          99

          9»
       01  95
       N
          90
«e
CD
V
30


70
   »0

jj  50

"ab 40
^H
a  30
       •i  ''°
       B
       3  5
          1

          0.5
         J.Ot
                                             WET SCRUBBER  and
                                            SETTLING CHAMBER
                                           -•— Weight percent
                                           — Emission  factor
                                              WET SCRUBBER
                                           -•— Weight percent
                                                                         2.0
                                                                           CD
                                                                           01
                                                                           o
                                                                           3
                                                                           n
                                                                           rr
                                                                           O
                                                                           I
                                                                           30
                                                                        1.0
                                 5 S 7 8 f 10       VJ

                                Particle diameter,  urn
                                                                         0.0
                                                              50  60 TO 30 50 100
Aerodynamic
. particle
i diameter (urn)
! 2-5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative vt. Z < stated size
Wet scrubber
and settling chamber
55
65
81
Wet
scrubber
55
75
84
Emission factor (
kg/Mg)
Wet scrubber
and settling chamber
0.97
1.15
1.43
:


B.l-56
                         EMISSION FACTORS
                                                      (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
         11.20  LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):  COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 4, conducted after wet scrubber control
                     (b) 8, conducted after settling chamber and wet scrubber control


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (pan):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                       55    75      84

                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum. %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (jim):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                       55    65      81

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  1.77 kg particulate/Mg of clay processed, after
control by settling chamber and wet scrubber. Calculated from data in Reference c.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate  in pulverized coal-fired rotary
kilns. Kiln capacity for Source b is 750 tons/day, and operation is continuous.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries, Inc.,
      EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
      1981.

b.     Emission test  data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 341, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.

c.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Lightweight Aggregate
      Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC, May 1981.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                               B.l-57
-------
                 11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER
       99.99
        99.9
         99


         M



         91



         90
      41
         70
         50
      01  30
      3

      ^  20
      « 10
      ^*

      s
      3  J
      O
         2


         I


        0.3




        0.1






        0.01
                   UNCONTROLLED
                    Weight  percent
                    Emission factor
                                                                          GO
                                                                          00
                                                                          O
                                                                          3
                                                                          09
                                                                          n
                                                                          QQ
                                                                       20
                         3   *  3 * 7 S » 10       20

                              Particle diameter,  urn
                       X   40  SO 60 70 M 9O IOC
; Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 2 < stated size
Uncontrolled
37.2
74.8
89.5
Emission factor, kg/Mg ]
|
Uncontrolled
13.0
26.2
31.3
B.l-58
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                  11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS: 5, conducted before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):      2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. 96):                    37.2   74.8    89.5

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           3.4    5.6     3.6

             Min (Cum. %):                      32.3   68.9    85.5

             Max (Cum. %):                      41.0   80.8    92.7


TOTAL PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTOR:  65 kg/Mg clay feed to dryer. From AP-42,
Section 11.20.

SOURCE OPERATION:  No information on source operation is available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data  from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 88, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-59
-------
11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
      99.99
       99.9
99

98


»5


90


SO


70
     •o
     V
     V
     -  50


     X  <*
     U
     3  30
     -H  10
     3


     I  5
        0.5
        0. i
       0.01
                              X
            MOLTICLONE CONTROLLED
             —•— Weight percent
             	 Emission factor
                FABRIC FILTER
             —•- Weight percent
                              1  i  > I  I
                                                                     0.15
                                          PJ

                                          **
                                          IB
                                          05
                                          ^
                                          o
                                          3
                                                                     0. ;o CD
                                                                        n
                                                                        00

                                                                        I
                                                                     0.05
                                                                     0.0
                           4   5 4 - i 1 10       20    JO

                             Particle diameter, urn
                                                        -0  50 60 70 30 ?0 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
• 2.5
j 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . J
Multi clone
19.3
38.1
56.7
I < stated size
Fabric filter
39
48
54
Emission factor, kg/Mg
,_ Multi clone
0.03
0.06
0.09
B.l-60
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                       (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 11.20  LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a)  12, conducted after Multicyclone control
                     (b)   4, conducted after Multicyclone and fabric filter control


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                       19.3   38.1     56.7

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):             7.9   14.9     17.9

                 Min (Cum. %):                         9.3   18.6     29.2

                 Max (Cum. %):                        34.6   61.4     76.6


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                       39    48       54

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.157 kg particulate/Mg clay processed, after
multicyclone control. Factor calculated from data in Reference b. After fabric filter control,
particulate emissions are negligible.

SOURCE OPERATION: Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate in a coal-fired rotary kiln and
reciprocating grate clinker cooler.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a) Andersen Impactor
                          (b) Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries, Inc.,
      EMB-80-LWA-3, in U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      May 1981.

b.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Lightweight Aggregate
      Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-2, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC, May 1981.

c.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report  No. 342, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park,  NC, June  1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-61
-------
      **.»
       »8
    •O "
     V
    u
     <0 80
    j_i
     32

       70
u JO





5 30


> 20
^H
u
m
     3


     I
       10
       0.3
       0.1
      0.01
                  11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE):

                   RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
                                            CONTROLLED

                                            Weight  percent

                                            Emission  factor
                              t 	i^  ± j i j
                                                                     o.os
                                                                     0.03
                                                                    to
                                                                    CD
                                                                         3q
                                                                     0.01
                                                                  •_ 0.0
                          4   5 * 7 I » 10       20    X)  4O SO M 70 80 90 100


                            Particle diameter,  urn
1 Aerodynami c
particle
: diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Settling chamber control
8.2
*
17.6
25.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg :
i
Settling chamber control ;
0.007
0.014
0.020
B.I-62
                          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                              (Refonnatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                     11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE):
                      RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS:  4, conducted after settling chamber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im):     2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                      8.2   17.6    25.6

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):           4.3    2.8     1.7

             Min (Cum. %):                       4.0   15.0    24.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      14.0   21.0    28.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.08 kg particulate/Mg of aggregate produced.
Factor calculated from data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates 2 kilns to produce lightweight shale aggregate, which is
cooled and classified on a reciprocating grate clinker cooler.  Normal production rate of the tested
kiln is 23 tons/hr, about 66% of rated capacity. Kiln rotates at 2.8 rpm. Feed end temperature is
1100°F.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Vulcan Materials  Company,
      EMB-80-LWA-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      March 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-63
-------
       11.20  LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN
       99.99
        99.9
        99

        M
      V
      N
      CD

      T3
      iJ
      (0 (0
  70
V
« *°

iJ JO

J"«
0)
3 JO
       a
      fi 10

       3 .
        0.01
                                                  - Weight  percent
                                                  - Emission  factor
                                                   CONTROLLED
                                                  - Weight  percent
                                                                       O)
                                                                          00
                                                                          09
                                                                          O
                                                                          3
                                                                          IB
                                                                          n
                                                                          O
                                                                          i-l
                                                                          2
                                                                          30
                                                                       20
                         3  *   5  6  7 « 9 10
                                                20
                                                      30   4O 50 M 70 30 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative vt. % < stated size
Without
controls
13
29
42
After vet
scrubber control
33
36
39
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Without
controls
7.3
16.2
23.5
After wet
scrubber control
0.59
0.65
0.70
B.l-64
                         EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
        11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a)  3, conducted before control
                     (b)  5, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (^m):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. 96):                       13.0   29.0     42.0

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. 96):

                 Max (Cum. %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. 96):                       33.0   36.0     39.0

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  For uncontrolled source, 56.0 kg particulate/Mg of
feed.  After wet scrubber control, 1.8 kg particulate/Mg of feed. Factors are calculated from data in
reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces lightweight aggregate from slate in coal-fired rotary kiln
and reciprocating grate clinker cooler.  During testing source was operating at a feed rate of
33 tons/hr, 83% rated capacity. Firing zone temperatures are about 2125°F and kiln rotates at
3.25 rpm.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a)  Bacho
                         (b)  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-6,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-65
-------
                    11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE):

                     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
       **.**
      «
      N
   W

V

«  »o

GO


V
         70
      u  JO


      *>  40

      0)
      3  30


      «  20
      —I  10
      3
         1


         O.J
         0.1
        0.01
                                                                      o.:
                    CONTTUDLLED

                    Weight percent

                    Emission factor
                                                                         00
                                                                         a>
                                           o
                                           3
                                           rr
                                           O
                                           n
                                           7f
                                           V)



                                           TO
                                                                      0.1
                                                                      0.0
                         3   *  3 t 7 » » 10       20


                             Particle diameter, um
                                                     30   40  SO 6O 70 M 4O 100
! Aerodynamic
particle
I diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After settling chamber control
9.8
23.6
41.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg •<
After
settling chamber control •
0.02
0.05
0.09
B.l-66
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                          (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                     11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE):
                      RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 5, conducted after settling chamber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):  2.5     6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                  9.8     23.6    41.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):

             Min(Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.22 kg particulate/Mg of raw material feed.
Factor calculated from data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source produces lightweight slate aggregate in a coal-fired kiln and a
reciprocating grate clinker cooler.  During testing, source was operating at a feed rate of 33 tons/hr,
83% of rated capacity.  Firing zone temperatures are about 2125°F, and kiln rotates at 3.25 rpm.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-6,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February  1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-67
-------
                   11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: CALCINER
          99.9
    99


    98



    95

O>

.3   90
CO
       o>
       4-1
       to

       CO

       V
    80


    70

    60


»•«   30


£   *°

3  30
01
5   20

01


5   10

          0.1
          0.01
                                      CYCLONE AND WET SCRUBBER
                                       	  Weight percent
                                       	   Emission factor
                                      llll
                                                                          0.075
M
B

CO
CD

O
9
                                                                          0.050
                                                                              O
                                                                              pr
                                                                              O
                                                                             OQ


                                                                             OQ
                                                                          0.025
                    3  4   56789 10       20

                         Particle diameter, um
                                                        30   40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After cyclone3 and
wet scrubber
94.0
97.0
98.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After cyclone3 and
wet scrubber
0.064
0.066
0.067
aCyclones  are typically used in  phosphate rock processing as  product collectors.
 Uncontrolled emissions are emissions in the air exhausted  from such cyclones.
B.l-68
                        EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                  11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:  CALCINER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  6, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/un):     2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     94.0   97.0   98.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           2.5    1.6    1.5

             Min (Cum. %):                      89.0   95.0   96.0

             Max  (Cum. %):                      98.0   99.2   99.7


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.0685 kg particulate/Mg of phosphate rock
calcined, after collection of airborne product in a cyclone, and wet scrubber controls.  Factor from
reference cited below.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a phosphate rock calciner fired with No. 2 oil, with a rated
capacity of 70 tons/hr.  Feed to the calciner is beneficiated rock.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor.

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Beker Industries, Inc., Conda, ID, EMB-75-PRP-4, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                               B.l-69
-------
                    11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:
            OIL-FIRED ROTARY AND FLUIDIZED-BED TANDEM DRYERS
**.9*
99.9
99
»«
»5
N
«•* »0
CD

TJ
01 10
4J
<8
JJ 70
CD
V *°

»< 50
5 *°
"5)
X 30
01
* 20
>
JJ 10
tg
^H
1 *
CJ
2
1
0.5

0.1

0.01


-
.
^*
^^^^
m Jj^^
^S^10^
^^^^ ^
^^^ ^
" — ^^^^ ^
Wr^ ^
^'
" **
ml ^
" —
.
.






•
»
-
m


WET SCRUBBER AND ESP
„ -*- Weight percent
	 Emission factor
i i iiitiii i i tit!**
1 2 345*78*10 20 30 40 50 60 70 MM


0.015



PJ
3
^*
n
OS

O~
3
n\
0.010 »
n
O
"t
«

j^*
OQ
z



.005






}
100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After wet scrubber and
ESP control
78.0
88.8
93.8
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After wet scrubber and
ESP control
0.010
0.011
0.012 :
B.l-70
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                        11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:
              OIL-FIRED ROTARY AND FLUIDIZED-BED TANDEM DRYERS
NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after wet scrubber and electrostatic precipitator control


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):      2.5     6.0     10.0


              Mean (Cum.  %):                      78.0    88.8     93.8

              Standard deviation (Cum.  %):           22.6     9.6      2.5

              Min (Cum. %):                       62      82       92

              Max (Cum. %):                       94      95       95


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.0125 kg particulate/Mg phosphate rock
processed, after collection of airborne product in a cyclone and wet scrubber/ESP controls.  Factor
from reference cited below.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates a rotary and a fluidized bed dryer to dry various types of
phosphate rock.  Both dryers are fired with No.  5 fuel oil, and exhaust into a common duct.  The
rated capacity of the rotary dryer  is 300 tons/hr, and that of the fluidized bed dryer is
150-200 tons/hr. During testing,  source was operating at 67.7%  of rated capacity.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, W. R. Grace Chemical Company,  Bartow, FL, EMB-75-PRP-1,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-71
-------
            11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: OIL-FIRED ROTARY DRYER
•o
V
ij
«
u
a

v
      so
      —*
      
90


SO


70

60

50

40

30

:o



10
          0.5
          0.1
         0.01
                          _l_
                              _J	L^A  I I  I I
                                                     croon
                                                   -•—Height percent
                                                   •--Z«1««10B factor
                                                    CTCUME AHD VET SCZDBKK
                                                   ••— Httlght percent
                                                    ••• e^»«ion factor
                                                                           1.5
                                                                               05
                                                                               09
                                                                               O
                                                                               3
                                                                               n
                                                                               rr
                                                                               O
                                                                              OQ
                                                         _L
                                                             J^M^X^_J^^^^^H.L.
                                                                           0.02
                                                                         -10.01
                     34   54789 10        20    3O

                          Particle diameter,  urn
                                                             40  50  (.0 70 SO 90 100
•Aerodynamic
, particle
diameter, (urn)
2.5
; 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < stated size
After
cyclone3
15.7
41.3
58.3
After
wet scrubber
89
92.3
96.6
Emission factor, kj?/Mg
After
cyclone3
0.38
1.00
1.41
After
wet scrubber :
i
0.017
i
0.018 i
0.018
aCyclones  are cynically used in  phosphate rock  processing as  product collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions  are emissions in the air exhausted from such cyclones.
  B.l-72
                             EMISSION FACTORS
                                                           (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
           11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:  OIL-FIRED ROTARY DRYER

NUMBER OF TESTS: (a)  3, conducted after cyclone
                     (b)  2, conducted after wet scrubber control

STATISTICS:   (a)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (>m):       2.5    6.0    10.0
                   Mean  (Cum.  %):                        15.7   41.3    58.3
                   Standard deviation (Cum. %):             5.5    9.6    13.9
                   Min (Cum. %):                         12     30      43
                   Max (Cum. %):                         22     48      70

               (b)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):       2.5    6.0    10.0
                   Mean  (Cum.  %):                        89.0   92.3    96.6
                   Standard Deviation (Cum. %):             7.1    6.0     3.7
                   Min (Cum. %):                         84     88      94
                   Max (Cum. %):                         94     96      99
Impactor cut points for the tests conducted before control are small, and many of the data points are
extrapolated. These particle size distributions are related to specific equipment and source operation,
and are most applicable to paniculate emissions from similar sources operating similar equipment.
Table 11.21-2, Section 11.21, AP-42 presents particle size distributions for generic phosphate rock
dryers.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS: After cyclone, 2.419 kg particulate/Mg rock
processed.  After wet scrubber control, 0.019 kg/Mg. Factors from reference cited below.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source dries phosphate rock in #6 oil-fired rotary dryer. During these tests,
source operated at 69% of rated dryer capacity of 350 tons/day, and processed coarse pebble rock.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a) Brinks Cascade Impactor
                         (b)  Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
REFERENCE:
      Air Pollution Emission Test, Mobil Chemical, Nichols, FL, EMB-75-PRP-3, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January  1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                 B.l-73
-------
                  11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:  BALL MILL
        V
        N
        to
        JJ
        00

       V
        BO

        V
9»

98



95



90



SO


70

60

50

•iO

30

:o
       4J   10

       >H

       i   5
           2

           t

           3.5
          }.0l
                                                       CYCLONE
                                                  •   Weight percent
                                                 ———Emission factor
        0.4
            n
            3

            09
            CD

            o"
            3
                                                                             09
                                                                             n
                                                                             3Q
                       5 » 7 a 9 10       20

                     Particle diameter,  urn
                                                        30   40  50 6O 70 M 90 iOO
' Aerodynamic
particle
diameter , urn
2.5
; 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After cyclone3
6.5
19.0
30.8
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After cyclone3 !
0.05
0.14 !
0.22
aCyclones are typically  used in phosphate rock  processing as product  collectors.
 Uncontrolled emissions  are emissions  in  the  air  exhausted from  such  cyclones.
 B.l-74
                      EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                  11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:  BALL MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS:  4, conducted after cyclone


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):      2.5     6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                      6.5    19.0     30.8

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           3.5     0.9      2.6

             Min (Cum. %):                       3      18       28

             Max (Cum. %):                      11     20       33


Impactor cutpoints were small, and most data points were extrapolated.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.73 kg particulate/Mg of phosphate rock milled,
after collection of airborne product in cyclone. Factor from reference cited below.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source mills western phosphate rock.  During testing source was operating
at 101% of rated capacity, producing 80 tons/hr.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Beker Industries, Inc., Conda, ID, EMB-75-PRP-4, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-75
-------
    11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING
         99.99
         99.9
          99

          M
       5  N
5  so
u

2  70
09

V  *°

X  SO
       e
       *  20
«  10
IB
•-4


I   '
u
    2

    I

   O.S



   0.1





  0.01
                                   CYCLONE
                                —•— Weight percent
                                	— Emission factor
                                   CYCLONE AND FABRIC FILTER
                                  •  Weight percent
                                                                 1.5
                                                                        1.0
                                                                           w
                                                                           a
                                                                           at
                                                                           o
                                                                           3
                                                                           O
                                                                           H
                                                                    3Q
                                                                        O.S
                           3   4   S  t  7  t 9 10        20

                               Particle  diameter, urn
                                                           40 SO  M 70 tO *> 100
; Aerodynamic
'. particle
• diameter, urn
• 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After
cyclone*
21
45
62
After fabric filter
25
70
90
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After
cyclone3
0.27
0.58
0.79
After fabric filter
Negligible
j
Negligible ;
Negligible
              it                     11
Cyclones are typically used in phosphate  rode processing as product collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions are emissions  in the air exhausted from such cyclones.
  B.l-76
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
   11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 2, conducted after cyclone
                     (b) 1, conducted after fabric filter control


STATISTICS: (a)  Aerodynamic particle diameter ftan):        2.5    6.0     10.0
                  Mean (Cum.  %):                        21.0   45.0     62.0
                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):              1.0    1.0      0

                  Min (Cum. %):                         20.0   44.0     62.0

                  Max (Cum. %):                         22.0   46.0     62.0


              (b)  Aerodynamic particle diamter (/mi):         2.5    6.0     10.0

                  Mean (Cum.  %):                        25     70       90
                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                  Min (Cum. %):

                  Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR.  0.73 kg particulate/Mg of rock processed, after
collection of airborne product in a cyclone. After fabric filter control, 0.001 kg particulate/Mg rock
processed. Factors calculated from data in reference cited below.  See Table 11.21-3 for guidance.

SOURCE OPERATION:  During testing, source was operating at 100% of design process rate.
Source operates 1 roller mill with a rated capacity of 25 tons/hr of feed, and 1  bowl mill with a rated
capacity of 50 tons/hr of feed.  After product has been collected in cyclones, emissions from each
mill are vented to a coin baghouse. Source operates 6 days/week, and processes Florida rock.

SAMPLING  TECHNIQUE: (a) Brink Cascade Impactor
                         (b) Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, The Royster Company, Mulberry, FL, EMB-75-PRP-2, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                 B.l-77
-------
                11.26 NONMETALLIC MINERALS: TALC PEBBLE MILL
        99.99
        99.9
         99


         91
       •is
       •o90
       «
       4J
       a so
       j->
       a
         70
       V

       X »0

       •u 50
      I  3
          1


         0.5
        0.01
                                                   UNCONTROLLED
                                                     Weight percent
                                                     Emission factor
                                            CD
                                            31
                                         15  «
                                            n
                                            rr
                                            O
                                                                           9Q
                                                                         10
                                                                       ,
                                 5 9 7 8 9 10        :0     JO  40 50  60 70 30 90 100

                               Particle diameter, um
; Aerodynami c
', particle
: diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. I < stated size
Before controls
30.1
42.4
56.4
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Before controls '
5.9
8.3 i
11.1 :
B.l-78
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                 11.26  NONMETALLIC MINERALS:  TALC PEBBLE MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (>m):     2.5    6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     30.1   42.4     56.4

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           0.8    0.2      0.4

             Min(Cum. %):                      29.5   42.2     56.1

             Max (Cum. %):                      30.6   42.5     56.6
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 19.6 kg particulate/Mg ore processed. Calculated
from data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source crushes talc ore then grinds crushed ore in a pebble mill. During
testing, source operation was normal according to the operators.  An addendum to the reference
indicates throughput varied between 2.8 and 4.4 tons/hr during these tests.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Sample  was collected in an alundum thimble and analyzed with a
Spectrex Prototron Particle Counter Model ILI1000.

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Pfizer, Inc., Victorville, CA, EMB-77-NMM-5, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1977.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-79
-------
             11.xx  NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL
      99.99
       99.9
        99

        9»
      V 95
      N
        90
     •o
      V
        30
  70
V
  60
Kf

^ 50

"so *o

| 10

« :o
      I 5
        0-5
       J.Ol
                                                   UNCONTROLLED
                                                    Weight  percent
                                                    Emission factor
                                                                        8.0
                                                                        6.0
                                                                           O
                                                                           3
                                                                           09
                                                                           n
                                                                           o
                                                                           i
                                                                         •0 OQ


                                                                           3Q
                                                                        2.0
                         3   <   ; 6  ; a 9 u>        20

                              Particle diameter, urn
                                                                        o.o
                                                           40 50 60 70 80 90 100
. Aerodynamic
: particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Before controls
11.5
22.8
32.3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Before controls
1.5
2.9
4.2
B.l-80
                                EMISSION FACTORS
                                                            (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                11.xx  NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter Om):      2.5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     11.5    22.8    32.3

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):            6.4     7.4     6.7

             Min (Cum. 96):                        7.0    17.5    27.5

             Max (Cum. %):                      16.0    28.0    37.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  12.9 kg particulate/Mg feldspar produced.
Calculated from data in reference and related documents.

SOURCE OPERATION: After crushing and grinding of feldspar ore, source produces feldspar
powder in a ball mill.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Alundum thimble followed by 12-inch section of stainless steel probe
followed by 47-mm type SGA filter contained in a stainless steel Gelman filter holder. Laboratory
analysis methods:  microsieve and electronic particle counter.

EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, International Minerals and Chemical Company, Spruce Pine, JVC,
      EMB-76-NMM-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      September 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-81
-------
     11.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS:  FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER
        99.99
         99.9
         99


         9t
       4) 91
       M
tJ
0)

us

0)

v
         so


         70
       u 50

       "ac 40
       •**
       ci
       5 30

       
-------
      11.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted after fabric filter control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/un):  2.5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                  10     30     48

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):

             Min (Cum.  %):

             Max (Cum.  %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.375 kg particulate/Mg ore dried, after fabric
filter control. Factors from reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source dries fluorspar ore in a rotary drum dryer at a feed rate of
2 tons/hr.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark HI Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Confidential test data from a major fluorspar ore processor, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden,
      CO, January 1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix B.I                              B.l-83
-------
12.1  PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:  BAUXITE PROCESSING - FINE ORE STORAGE
       99.99
       99.9
        99

        M
     D  9}
     N
     •H

     "  90
        80
™  70
V
   60


,j  SO
£
BO  40
•**

S!  30
7

0)  20
     J
   10






    2

    1

   0.5



   0.1





  0.01
                                                    CONTROLLED
                                                    Weight percent
                                                    Emission  factor
                                                                   0.0007}
                                                                              at
                                                                              CO
                                                                              o
                                                                              3
                                                                        o.oooso
                                                                              o
                                                                              rr
                                                                              O
                                                                        0.00025
                                                                         0.00
                                5  «  7  S 9 10       20

                               Particle diameter, um
                                                          40 50  60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter, um
: 2.5
i 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Fabric filter controlled
50.0
62.0
68.0
Emission factor, tcg/Mg
Fabric filter ;
controlled
0.00025
0.0003
0.0003
 B.l-84
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:  BAUXITE PROCESSING - FINE ORE STORAGE


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, after fabric filter control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter Own):      2.5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                      50.0    62.0    68.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           15.0    19.0    20.0

             Min (Cum. %):                       35.0    43.0    48.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      65.0    81.0    88.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.0005 kg particulate/Mg of ore filled, with fabric
filter control. Factor calculated from emission and process data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina.  Bauxite ore, unloaded from ships,
is conveyed to storage bins from which it is fed to the alumina refining process.  These tests
measured the emissions from the bauxite ore storage bin filling operation (the ore drop from the
conveyer into the bin), after fabric filter control. Normal bin filling rate is between 425 and 475 tons
per hour.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen  Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company, Corpus Christi, TX, EMB-80-MET-9,
      U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-85
-------
          12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
                           UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
        9».9
   98



N  95
•H
09


01


«  SO

CO
        50

      00
      •* 40
      3)

      3
      0)
      3
      E
        30
        :o
         2


         I


        0.5




        0.1






        0.01
                                             CONTROLLED
                                        —•-  Weight  percent
                                        	  Emission factor
                                                                        0.0075
                                                                       0.0050
                                                                             oo
                                                                             a
                                                                        r^
                                                                        O
                                                                             2
                                                                             70
                                                                        0.0025
                                                                   0.00
                                5  6  7  8 » 10        20

                              Particle diameter, urn
                                                30  40  50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
, particle
diameter, urn
. 2.5
: 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Wet
scrubber controlled
60.5
67.0
70.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg ;
Wet scrubber !
controlled i
0.0024 \
0.0027
0.0028
B.l-86
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
           12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:  BAUXITE PROCESSING-
                             UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
NUMBER OF TESTS:  1, after venturi scrubber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/on):     2.5     6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     60.5    67.0   70.0

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.004 kg particulate/Mg bauxite ore unloaded after
scrubber control. Factor calculated from emission and process data contained in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina.  Ship unloading facility normally
operates at 1500-1700 tons/hr, using a self-contained extendable boom conveyor that interfaces with a
dockside conveyor belt through an accordion chute. The emissions originate at the point of transfer
of the bauxite ore from the ship's boom conveyer as the ore drops through the chute onto the
dockside conveyer.  Emissions are ducted to a dry cyclone.and men to a Venturi scrubber. Design
pressure drop across scrubber is 15 inches, and efficiency during test was  98.4%.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company, Corpus Christi, TX,  EMB-80-MET-9,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May  1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                               B.l-87
-------
                   12.13  STEEL FOUNDRIES: CASTINGS SHAKEOUT
         99.9
         99


         98
       0)
       N

       4)
       jj
       01 80
      v
70


60


50
        20
       ea
       -, 10
       3


       I  »
          2


          1


         0.3





         0.1







         0.01
                                          UNCONTROLLED
                                           Weight percent
                                           Emission factor
                                                                15
                                                                          10
                                                                   99
                                                                   a
                                                                            n
                                                                            rr
                                                                            O
                              43*739 10        ZO    3O


                                Particle diameter,  um
                                                            4O 50 6O 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter, um
i 2.5
i
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
72.2
76.3
82.0
Emission factor, k.g/Mg
Uncontrolled
11.6
12.2
13.1 :
B.l-88
                       EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                   12.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES:  CASTINGS SHAKEOUT


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted at castings shakeout exhaust hood before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/zm):      2.5    6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                      72.2   76.3   82.0

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):           5.4    6.9    4.3

             Min (Cum.  %):                       66.7   69.5   77.7

             Max (Cum.  %):                       77.6   83.1   86.3


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  16 kg particulate/Mg metal melted, without
controls.  Although no nonfurnace emission factors are available for steel foundries, emissions are
presumed to be similar to those in iron  foundries. Nonfurnace emission factors for iron foundries are
presented in AP-42, Section 12.13.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a steel foundry casting steel pipe. Pipe molds are broken up at
the castings shakeout operation.  No additional information is available.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Model BMS-11 Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 117, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-89
-------
               12.1? STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST









0)
M
CO

•o
4)
«
CO

„

r~
7x

3
0)
^
AJ
(3
3
8
<5







99. »9
99.9



99
98

95

90


80

70

60
SO
40

30

20

10


5

2

I
O.J

0.1

n_ni


"


.


.

.

	 t
	 f —~~"^
" » ~"~

^^^M
^-^^"^
*-~ 	 ^^^ ..--'
— — — ""•" '""""-*
"* ~ ~
»




m




m
_
.



i r i i i i i i i

UNCONTROLLED
-•— Weight percent
	 Emission factor
CONTROLLED
-*- Weight Percent
... Emission factor






























, . i r i .












—




_



_




_
-«*•••

—

_

-
_

-
i i




a.o


7.0




6.0


9
CD
5.0 «
O
3
•-*
OP
n
4.0 rr
O
"

OQ
3.0 "^
OQ

0.5

O.4

0.3
0.2

O.I
0.0
                               5  4  7 i » 10       20    30  40 50 60 70 80 90 100




                              Particle diameter,  urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
' 6.0
iO.O
Cumulative we. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
79.6
82.3
85.4
ESP
49.3
58.6
66.8
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
4.4
4.5
4.7
ESP :
0.14 ;
0.16
0.18
B.l-90
                              EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
                  12.13  STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST


NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 1, conducted before control
                     (b) 1, conducted after ESP control

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter Otm):       2.5      6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                      79.6     82.8     85.4
                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum.  %):

                 Max (Cum. %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im):       2.5      6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                      49.3     58.6     66.8
                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum.  %):

                 Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 5.5 kg particulate/Mg metal processed, before
control.  Emission factor from AP-42, Section 12.13. AP-42 gives an ESP control efficiency of 95 to
98.5%.  At 95% efficiency, factor after ESP control is 0.275 kg particulate/Mg metal processed.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces steel castings by melting,  alloying, and casting pig iron
and steel scrap. During these tests; source was operating at 100% of rated capacity of 8260 kg metal
scrap feed/hour, fuel oil-fired, and 8-hour heats.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a) Joy train with 3 cyclones
                         (b) SASS train with cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems,  Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 233, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                 B.l-91
-------
               12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  GRID CASTING
      tt)
      N
      <0
      ij
      CD
     JS
      00

      0)
      3
         99.99
         99.9
99


9t



9}



90



SO



70


60


50


to


30


20
      U   10
      <«
      ^

      |   '

      u
          2

          I

          0.3
         O.I
         0.01
                  UNCONTROLLED
                —•— Weight perceac
                	Emission factor


                                                                          12.0
                                                                               
-------
                12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  GRID CASTING


NUMBER OF TESTS:  3, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jari):      2.5    6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     87.8  100      100

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):          10.3   —       —

             Mic (Cum. %):                      75.4  100      100

             Max (Cum. %):                     100    100      100


Impactor cut points were so small that most data points had to be extrapolated.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  1.42 kg paniculate/103 batteries produced, without
controls.  Factor from AP-42, Section 12.15.

SOURCE OPERATION: During tests, plant was operated at 39% of design process rate. Six of
nine of the grid casting machines were operating during the test. Typically, 26,500 to 30,000 pounds
of lead per 24-hour day are charged to the grid casting operation.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe Union, Inc., Canby, OR, EMB-76-BAT-4, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-93
-------
     12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING
    98



    95
«
N

?   »

T3
«   80
j_i
«

S   70

\x   60

X   50
     a
     a
    30

    :o



    to



     5



     2

     t

    0.5



    3.1





   0.01
                                                 UNCONTROLLED
                                                  Weight percent
                                                  Emission  factor
                                i  i  ilii
                                                                          09
                                                                          CD
                                                                          o
                                                                          3
                                                                          0)
                                                                          n
                                                                          o
                                                                          1-1
                                                                          DO
                                                                          o-
                                                                          IB
                                                                          rr
                                                                          rr
                                                                          (V
                          3   <•   5  6  7  8 » 10       20

                               Particle diameter,  um
                                                            SO  60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
1 diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size

Uncontrolled
65.1
90.4
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
2.20
3.05
3.38
B.l-94
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
     12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING


NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control

STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):      2.5      6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     65.1     90.4    100

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           24.8      7.4     —

             Min(Cum. %):                      44.1     81.9    100

             Max (Cum. %):                     100      100      100


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  3.38 kg paniculate/103 batteries, without controls.
Factor is from AP-42, Section 12.15, and is the sum of the individual factors for grid casting and
paste mixing.

SOURCE OPERATION: During tests, plant was operated at 39% of the design process rate. Grid
casting operation consists of 4 machines.  Each 2,000 Ib/hr paste mixer is controlled for product
recovery by a separate low-energy, impingement-type wet collector designed for an 8 -10 inch w. g.
pressure drop at 2,000 acfm.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe Union, Inc., Canby, OR, EMB-76-BAT-4, U.  S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-95
-------
            12.15  STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  LEAD OXIDE MILL
    »»


    98



    95



    90



    ao



    70


    60


    50


    40
09

•o

JJ
a

CO



x



90
—   30
01

3   :o
J->   10
(S

D   5

S
O
         0.5
         a. i
         1.01
                                                                              r*i


                                                                          0.0*  «


                                                                              o"
                                                                              3
                                                                          0.03
                                               CONTROLLED

                                               Weight  percent

                                               Emission factor
                                                                          0.0}
                                                                              OQ



                                                                              O
                                                                          .02
                                                                             00
                                                                          0.01
                     3   4   5«71«10       20


                          Particle  diameter, un
                                                        JO   4O  50  W 70 80 9O 100
.Aerodynamic
, particle
'diameter (urn)
. 2-5
: 6.0
10.0
Cumulative vt. Z < stated size
After fabric filter
32.8
64.7
83.8
Emission factor :
(kg/103 batteries)
After fabric filter
0.016 i
0.032 •
0.042 :
B.l-96
                          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                            (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
              12.15  STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: LEAD OXIDE MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted after fabric filter


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):      2.5     6.0     10.0


              Mean (Cum. %):                     32.8   64.7     83.8

              Standard deviation (Cum. %):          14.1   29.8     19.5

              Min (Cum. %):                       17.8   38.2     61.6

              Max (Cum. %):                       45.9   97.0    100


TOTAL PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTOR:  0.05 kg particulate/103 batteries, after typical
fabric filter control (oil-to-cloth ratio of 4:1). Emissions from a well-controlled facility (fabric filters
with an average air-to-cloth ratio of 3:1) were 0.025 kg/103 batteries (Table 12.15-1 of AP-42).

SOURCE OPERATION: Plant receives metallic lead and manufactures lead oxide by the ball mill
process. There are 2 lead oxide production lines, each with a typical feed rate of 15 100-pound lead
pigs per hour.  Product is  collected with a cyclone and baghouses with 4:1 air-to-cloth ratios.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, ESB Canada Limited, Mississouga, Ontario, EMB-76-BAT-3,
      U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-97
-------
  12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: PASTE MIXING AND LEAD OXIDE CHARGING
       v
       N
      T3
      V
       CO
       4-1
       go
      JZ.
       60
      —H
       0)


       9)
       3

       3
       O
         99.9
 99


 9«



 95



 90



 80


 70

 60


 50

 40

 30

 :o



 10



 5



 2


 1


 0.5




 O.t






0.01
                                                   UNCONTROLLED
                                                 »  Weight percent
                                                	 Emission  factor
                                                   CONTROLLED
                                                 •  Weight percent
                                         2.0 0)
                                            a)
                                                                         .0 ru
                           3   4  5 * 7 8 9 iO       20

                               Particle diameter, um
                                                       JO   40  50 60 70 80 90 100
: Aerodynamic
: particle
i diameter (um)
; 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. X < stated size
Uncontrolled
80
100
100
Fabric filter
47
87
99
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
1.58 ;
1.96
1.96
B.l-98
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
 12.15  STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: PASTE MIXING AND LEAD OXIDE CHARGING

NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 1, conducted before control
                     (b) 4, conducted after fabric filter control

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):        2.5    6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                       80    100      100
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum.  %):
                 Max (Cum.  %):

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):        2.5    6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %.):                       47     87       99
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):             33.4   14.5     0.9
                 Min (Cum.  %):                         36     65       98
                 Max (Cum.  %):                        100    100      100

Impactor cut points were so small that many data points had to be extrapolated. Reliability of particle
size distributions based on a single test is questionable.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  1.96 kg. particulate/103 batteries,  without controls.
Factor from AP-42, Section 12.15.
SOURCE OPERATION:  During test, plant was operated at 39% of the design process rate. Plant
has normal production rate of 2,400 batteries per day and maximum capacity of 4,000 batteries per
day.  Typical amount of lead oxide charged to the mixer is 29,850 lb/8-hour shift. Plant produces
wet batteries, except formation is carried out at another plant.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a) Brink Impactor
                         (b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
      Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe  Union, Inc., Canby, OR,  EMB-76-BAT-4, U.  S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-99
-------
     12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: THREE-PROCESS OPERATION






«

-*
0

TJ

rr
O
?
OQ
*m^^

O
t^

a
rr
rr
(D
^
>i*
fj
CB

• •







30
1 2 3 4 5 & 7 8 » 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 9O 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
i particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
93.4
100
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries) \
Uncontrolled
39.3
W
42
B. 1-100
                            EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
         12.15  STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: THREE-PROCESS OPERATION


NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (>m):     2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     93.4  100    100

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           6.43

             Min (Cum.  %):                      84.7

             Max (Cum. %):                      100


Impactor cut points were so small that data points had to be extrapolated.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 42 kg particulate/103 batteries, before controls.
Factor from AP-42, Section 12.15.

SOURCE OPERATION: Plant representative stated that the plant usually operated at 35% of design
capacity.  Typical production rate is 3,500 batteries per day (dry and wet), but up to 4,500 batteries
per day can be produced. This is equivalent to normal and maximum daily element production of
21,000 and 27,000 battery elements, respectively.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, ESB Canada Limited, Mississouga, Ontario, EMB-76-BAT-3,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted i/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B. 1-101
-------
                                12.xx BATCH TINNER
           M.9
           »8
         0)
         N
0)

-------
                                12.xx BATCH TINNER

NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted before controls

STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (>m):      2.5    6.0   10.0

             Mean (Cum. %):                     37.2   45.9   55.9
             Standard deviation (Cum. %):
             Min (Cum. %):
             Max (Cum. %):

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 2.5 kg particulate/Mg tin consumed, without
controls.  Factor from AP-42, Section 12.14.
SOURCE OPERATION:  Source is a batch operation applying a lead/tin coating to tubing. No
further source operating information is available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark ILL Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
      Confidential test data, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                              B. 1-103
-------
                                  APPENDIX B.2




                   GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix B.2                               B.2-1
-------
                                           CONTENTS




                                                                                          Page




 B.2.1   Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions  	B.2-5




 B.2.2   How to Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Uncontrolled Processes  .  . B.2-5




 B.2.3   How to Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Controlled Processes  .... B.2-20




 B.2.4   Example Calculation	B.2-20




        References	B.2-22
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                       Appendix B.2                                     B.2-3
-------
 
-------
                                           Appendix B.2

                               Generalized Particle Size Distributions

B.2.1  Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions

        The preparation of size-specific paniculate emission inventories requires size distribution
information for each process.  Particle size distributions for many processes are contained in
appropriate industry sections of this document.  Because particle size information  for many processes
of local impact and concern are unavailable, this appendix provides "generic" particle size
distributions applicable to these processes.  The concept of the "generic" particle size distribution is
based on categorizing measured particle size data from similar processes generating emissions from
similar materials.  These generic distributions have been developed from sampled size distributions
from about 200 sources.

        Generic particle size distributions are  approximations.  They should be used only in the
absence of source-specific particle size distributions for areawide emission inventories.

B.2.2  How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For Uncontrolled Processes

        Figure B.2-1 provides an example calculation to assist the analyst in preparing particle size-
specific emission estimates using generic size distributions.

        The following instructions for the calculation apply to each particulate emission  source for
which  a particle size distribution  is desired and for which no source specific particle size information
is given elsewhere in this document:


        1.       Identify and review the  AP-42 section dealing with that process.

        2.       Obtain the uncontrolled particulate emission factor for the process from  the main text
                of AP-42, and calculate uncontrolled total particulate emissions.

        3.       Obtain the category number of the appropriate generic particle size distribution from
                Table B.2-1.

       4.       Obtain the particle size  distribution for the appropriate category from Table B.2-2.
                Apply the particle size distribution to the uncontrolled particulate emissions.

        Instructions for calculating the controlled size-specific emissions are given in Table B.2-3 and
illustrated  in Figure B.2-1.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                        Appendix B.2                                     B.2-5
-------
                 Figure B.2-1. Example calculation for determining uncontrolled
                         and controlled particle size-specific emissions.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address: ABC Brick Manufacturing
                        24 Dustv Wav
                        Anywhere. USA
                      Dryers/Grinders
Process description:
AP-42 Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
 emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:  3057.6 tons/year
                       8.3. Bricks And Related Clay Products
                      96 Ibs/ton
                       63.700 tons/year
                   (units)
                   (units)
                   (units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name:  Mechanically Generated/Aggregated. Unprocessed Ores
Category number:   3
Generic distribution, Cumulative
  percent equal to or less than the size:

Cumulative mass < particle size emissions
  (tons/year):
                                                               Particle size

                                                        < 2.5       < 6
                                                         15
                                                        458.6
  34
1039.6
                                                                                 10
  51
1559.4
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device:  Fabric Filter
	_   _	 ^
  (tons/year):

Mass in size range after control
  (tons/year):

Cumulative mass (tons/year):

le B.2-3):
re control
Dntrol
ar):
0-2.5
99.0
458.6
4.59
4.59
Particle size (jim)
2.5-6
99.5
581.0
2.91
7.50
6- 10
99.5
519.8
2.60
10.10
*   These data do not include results for the greater than 10 fim particle size range.
**  Uncontrolled size data are cumulative percent equal to or less than the size. Control efficiency
    data apply only to size range and are not cumulative.
B.2-6
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
      (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                    Table B.2-1.  PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORY BY AP-42 SECTION
AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
External combustion
                                                             AP-42
                                                            Section
                             Source Category
                                           Category
                                           Number*
 1.1    Bituminous and subbituminous coal
         combustion
 1.2    Anthracite coal combustion
 1.3    Fuel oil combustion
         Residual oil
           Utility
           Commercial
         Distillate oil
           Utility
           Commercial
           Residential
 1.4    Natural gas combustion
 1.5    Liquefied petroleum gas
 1 .6    Wood waste combustion in boilers
 1.7    Lignite combustion
 1.8    Bagasse combustion
 1.9    Residential fireplaces
 1.10   Residential wood stoves
 1.11   Waste oil combustion
                   Solid waste disposal
 2.1     Refuse combustion
 2.2    Sewage sludge  incineration
 2.7    Conical burners (wood waste)
                Internal combustion engines
        Highway vehicles
 3.2     Off highway vehicles
                Organic chemical processes
 6.4     Paint and varnish
 6.5     Phthalic anhydride
 6.8     Soap and detergents
               Inorganic chemical processes
 8.2     Urea
 8.3    Ammonium nitrate fertilizers
 8.4     Ammonium sulfate
        Rotary dryer
        Fluidized bed  dryer
 8.5    Phosphate fertilizers
    a
    a

    a
    a
    a
    a
    a
    a
    a
    b
    a
    a
   a
   2

   c
   1

   4
   9
   a

   a
   a

   b
   b
   3
 8.5.3   Ammonium phosphates
         Reactor/ammoniator-granulator          4
         Dryer/cooler                         4
 8.7     Hydrofluoric acid
         Spar drying                          3
         •Spar handling                         3
         Transfer                             3
 8.9     Phosphoric acid (thermal process)         a
 8.10    Sulfuric acid                           b
 8.12    Sodium carbonate                       a
                Food and agricultural
 9.3.1   Defoliation and harvesting of cotton
         Trailer loading                        6
         Transport                             6
 9.3.2   Harvesting of grain
         Harvesting machine                    6
         Truck loading                         6
         Field transport                         6
 9.5.2   Meat smokehouses                      9
 9.7     Cotton ginning                          b
 9.9.1   Grain elevators and processing plants      a
 9.9.4   Alfalfa dehydrating
         Primary cyclone                       b
         Meal collector cyclone                 7
         Pellet cooler cyclone                   7
         Pellet regrind cyclone                  7
 9.9.7   Starch manufacturing                    7
 9.12    Fermentation                           6,7
9.13.2   Coffee roasting                         6
              Wood products
 10.2    Chemical wood pulping                  a
 10.7    Charcoal                               9
             Mineral products
11.1    Hot mix asphalt plants                   a
11.3    Bricks and related clay products
         Raw materials handling
          Dryers, grinders, etc.                 b
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
                                             B.2-7
-------
                                             Table B.2-1 (cont.).
 AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
        Tunnel/periodic kilns
          Gas fired                                 a
          Oil fired                                  a
          Coal fired                                 a
11.5   Refractory manufacturing
         Raw material dryer                         3
         Raw material crushing and screening         3
         Electric  arc melting                         8
         Curing oven                               3
11.6   Portland cement  manufacturing
         Dry process
          Kilns                                    a
          Dryers, grinders, etc.                     4
         Wet process
          Kilns                                    a
          Dryers, grinders, etc.                     4
11.7   Ceramic clay manufacturing
         Drying                                    3
         Grinding                                  4
         Storage                                    3
11.8   Clay and fly ash sintering
         Fly ash sintering, crushing,
           screening, yard storage                   5
         Clay mixed with coke
         Crushing, screening, yard storage            3
11.9   Western surface  coal mining                  a
11.10  Coal cleaning                               3
11.12  Concrete batching                            3
11.13  Glass fiber manufacturing
         Unloading and  conveying                   3
         Storage bins                               3
         Mixing and weighing                       3
         Glass furnace - wool                        a
         Glass furnace - textile                       a
11.15  Glass manufacturing                         a
                                        11.16   Gypsum manufacturing
                                                 Rotary ore dryer                       a
                                                 Roller mill                            4
                                                 Impact mill                           4
                                                 Flash calciner                         a
                                                 Continuous kettle calciner              a
                                        11.17   Lime manufacturing                     a
                                        11.18   Mineral wool manufacturing
                                                 Cupola                                8
                                                 Reverberatory furnace                  8
                                                 Blow chamber                         8
                                                 Curing oven                          9
                                                 Cooler                                9
                                        11.19.1  Sand and gravel processing
                                                 Continuous drop
                                                   Transfer station                      a
                                                   Pile formation - stacker               a
                                                   Batch  drop                          a
                                                 Active storage piles                    a
                                                 Vehicle traffic on unpaved road         a
                                        11.19.2  Crushed stone processing
                                                 Dry crushing
                                                   Primary crushing                     a
                                                   Secondary crushing and screening     a
                                                   Tertiary crushing and screening        3
                                                   Recrushing and screening             4
                                                    Fines mill                          4
                                                 Screening, conveying, handling         a
                                        11.21   Phosphate rock processing
                                                 Drying                                a
                                                 Calcining                             a
                                                 Grinding                              b
                                                 Transfer and storage                   3
                                        11.23   Taconite ore processing
                                                 Fine crushing                         4
B.2-8
                       EMISSION FACTORS
                                           (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                                             Table B.2-1 (cont.).
  AP-42
  Section
                    Source Category
Category
Number*
          Waste gas                               a
          Pellet handling                           4
          Grate discharge                          5
          Grate feed                               4
          Bentonite blending                        4
          Coarse crushing                          3
          Ore transfer                             3
          Bentonite transfer                        4
          Unpaved roads                           a
11.24   Metallic minerals processing                a
                      Metallurgical
12.1    Primary aluminum production
          Bauxite grinding                          4
          Aluminum hydroxide calcining             5
          Anode baking furnace                     9
          Prebake cell                             a
          Vertical Soderberg                        8
          Horizontal Soderberg                     a
12.2    Coke manufacturing                        a
12.3    Primary copper smelting                    a
12.4    Ferroalloy production                       a
12.5    Iron and steel production
          Blast furnace
           Slips                                   a
           Cast house                             a
          Sintering
           Windbox                               a
           Sinter discharge                        a
           Basic oxygen furnace                   a
           Electric arc furnace                    a
12.6    Primary lead smelting                      a
  Data for numbered categories are given Table B.2-
  in the AP-42 text; for "b" categories,  in Appendix
  Mobile Sources.
AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
12.7 Zinc smelting 8
12.8 Secondary aluminum operations
                                                                   Sweating furnace                       8
                                                                   Smelting
                                                                   Crucible furnace                        8
                                                                   Reverberatory furnace                   a
                                                          12.9    Secondary copper smelting
                                                                   and alloying                            8
                                                          12.10   Gray iron foundries                      a
                                                          12.11   Secondary lead processing                 a
                                                          12.12   Secondary magnesium smelting            8
                                                          12.13   Steel foundries - melting                   b
                                                          12.14   Secondary zinc processing                 8
                                                          12.15   Storage battery production                 b
                                                          12.18   Leadbearing ore crushing and grinding      4
                                                                          Miscellaneous sources
                                                          13.1    Wildfires and prescribed  burning           a
                                                          13.2    Fugitive dust                            a
                                                        •2.  Particle size data on "a"  categories are found
                                                         B.I; and for "c" categories, in AP-42  Volume II:
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                                               Appendix B.2
                                                         B.2-9
-------
                           Figure B.2-2.  CALCULATION SHEET
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address:	
Process description:
AP-42  Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
 emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
                                                 (units)
                                                 (units)
                                                 (units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name:          	
Category number:	
                                                              Particle size (jari)

                                                       < 2.5       < 6       <  10
Generic distribution, Cumulative
  percent equal to or less than the size:

Cumulative mass ^ particle size emissions
  (tons/year):
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device:     	
                                                    0-2.5
                           Particle size (/un)

                              2.5-6         6-10
Collection efficiency (Table B.2-3):
Mass in size range** before control
  (tons/year):
Mass in size range after control
  (tons/year):
Cumulative mass (tons/year):

*   These'data do not include results for the greater than 10 jim particle size range.
**  Uncontrolled size data are cumulative percent equal to or less than the size.  Control efficiency
    data apply only to size range and are not cumulative.
B.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                Table B.2-2. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORIES




Category:     1

Process:       Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Material:      Gasoline and Diesel Fuel



       Category 1 covers size-specific emissions from stationary internal combustion engines. The

paniculate emissions are generated from fuel combustion.



REFERENCES:  1,9
                            99
                        w   "
                        !•*

                        *   98

                        o
                        4*1


                        H   95
                        I/*

                        v   90
                        ^
                        z
                        4*J

                        £   80
                        M
                        Q.

                        M   70


                        r   so


                        1   50


                        §   40
                                       2345         10


                                       PARTICLE DIAMETER, ug
Particle Size, ^tm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
s.o3
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
82
88
90
90
92
93
93
96
Minimum
Value


78



86
92
Maximum
Value


99



99
99
Standard
Deviation


11



7
4
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 jun.

  for the calculated value.
                   No statistical parameters are given
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
B.2-11
-------
                                      Table B.2.2 (com.).

Category:      2
Process:       Combustion
Material:       Mixed Fuels

        Category 2 covers boilers firing a mixture of fuels, regardless of the fuel combination.  The
fuels include gas, coal, coke, and petroleum. Paniculate emissions are generated by firing these
miscellaneous  fuels.

REFERENCE:  1

                             95

                             90

                             30

                             70
                             60
                             SO
                             40

                             30

                             20

                             10
              i   i  T   i i  i  i
                                        2345         10
                                        'ARTICLE DIAMETER, \tn
Particle Size, jum
1.0*
2.0*
2.5
3.0*
4.0*
5.0*
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
23
40
45
50
58
64
70
79
Minimum
Value


32



49
56
Maximum
Value


70



84
87
Standard
Deviation


17



14
12
* Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0,  and  10.0 fun.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
B.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                                       Table B.2.2 (com.).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Mechanically Generated
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
        Category 3 covers material handling and processing of aggregate and unprocessed ore.  This
broad category includes emissions from milling, grinding, crushing, screening, conveying, cooling,
and drying of material. Emissions are generated through either the movement of the material or the
interaction of the material with mechanical devices.

REFERENCES: 1-2,4,7
                        o
                        oc
                        h*4
                        Q.
             90 r

             80

             70

             60
             50
             40
             30

             20

             10
                                         2345         10
                                         'ARTICLE DIAMETER. j«n
Particle Size, /zm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
4
11
15
18
25
30
34
51
Minimum
Value


3



15
23
Maximum
Value


35



65
81
Standard
Deviation


7



13
14
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 /mi.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                           Appendix B.2
B.2-13
-------
Category:
Process:
Material:
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.).
Mechanically Generated
Processed Ores and Nonmetallic Minerals
        Category 4 covers material handling and processing of processed ores and minerals. While
similar to Category 3, processed ores can be expected to have a greater size consistency than
unprocessed ores. Paniculate emissions are a result of agitating the materials by screening or transfer
during size reduction and beneficiation of the materials by grinding an:; fine milling and by drying.
REFERENCE:  1
    95


    90


-   80
r+4
Z   70
a
-   60

£   50

v   40

5   30
u
£   20
IM
»
~   10
<

I    5
                           0.5
                              i    I   i   i  i  I i  r
                        2345

                        PARTICLE DIAMETER.
                                                              10
Particle Size, /zm
1.0a
2.0*
2.5
3.0*
4.0*
5.0*
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
6
21
30
36
48
58
62
85
Minimum
Value


1



17
70
Maximum
Value


51



83
93
Standard
Deviation


19



17
7
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 /^m.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
B.2-14
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                      (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
 Category:
 Process:
 Material:
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.).
Calcining and Other Heat Reaction Processes
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
        Category 5 covers the use of calciners and kilns in processing a variety of aggregates and
 unprocessed ores. Emissions are a result of these high temperature operations.

 REFERENCES:  1-2,8
                            90

                            SO

                            70
                            60
                            50
                            40
                            30

                            20

                            10

                             5
                                   I   !   I  I  I  1 I
                                                      I  till!
                                        2345         10
                                        'ARTICLE DIAMETER,  ym
Particle Size, pan
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.03
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
6
13
18
21
28
33
37
53
Minimum
Value


3



13
25
Maximum
Value


42



74
84
Standard
Deviation


11



19
19
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 /mi.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                          Appendix B.2
B.2-15
-------
                                       Table B.2.2 (cent.).
Category:
Process:
Material:
               Grain Handling
               Grain
       Category 6 covers various grain handling (versus grain processing) operations.  These
processes could include material transfer, ginning and other miscellaneous handling of grain.
Emissions are generated by mechanical agitation of the material.

REFERENCES:  1,5
                            30

                       ~    20
                       */•>
                       2    10


                       V

                       I     2
                       OC     ]
                       UJ     '

                       I   °'5

                       ^   0.1
                       §  0.05

                          0.01
                                                  1I   I  I  I  I I
                                                  I   I   >  I  I
                                        2345          10
                                        "ARTICLE DIAMETER. \f>
Particle Size, jim
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
0.07
0.60
1
2
3
5
7
15
Minimum
Value


0



3
6
Maximum
Value


2



12
25
Standard
Deviation


1



3
7
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0
  for the calculated value.
                                                              No statistical parameters are given
B.2-16
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                                       Table B.2.2 (com.).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Grain Processing
Grain
        Category 7 covers grain processing operations such as drying, screening, grinding, and
milling.  The participate emissions are generated during forced air flow, separation, or size reduction.

REFERENCES:  1-2
                              80

                              70

                              60
                              50
                              40

                              30

                              20

                              10
                                         i  i   i i i  i
                                          2345         10
                                          PARTICLE DIAMETER, ym
Particle Size, /an
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.03
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
8
18
23
27
34
40
43
61
Minimum
Value


17



35
56
Maximum
Value


34



48
65
Standard
Deviation


9



7
5
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and  10.0 jim. No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                           Appendix B.2
B.2-17
-------
                                      Table B.2.2 (cont.).

Category:      8
Process:       Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material:       Metals, except Aluminum

        Category 8 covers the melting, smelting, and refining of metals (including glass) other than
aluminum. All primary and secondary production processes for these materials which involve a
physical or chemical change are included in this category.  Materials handling and transfer are not
included.  Paniculate emissions are a result of high temperature melting,  smelting,  and refining.

REFERENCES:  1-2
                                       2345        10
                                       PARTICLE DIAMETER, ym
Particle Size, urn
1.0a
2.0*
2.5
3.0*
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
72
80
82
84
86
88
89
92
Minimum
Value


63



75
80
Maximum
Value


99



99
99
Standard
Deviation


12



9
7
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 jun. No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
B.2-18
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.).

Category:      9
Process:       Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling, and Distillation
Material:      All

        Category 9 covers condensation, hydration, absorption, prilling, and distillation of all
materials.  These processes involve the physical separation or combination of a wide variety of
materials such as sulfuric acid and ammonium nitrate fertilizer.  (Coke ovens are included since they
can be considered a distillation process which separates the volatile matter from coal to produce
coke.)

REFERENCES:  1,3
                        E    99
                        •»    98
                        a
                        <    95
                        wi
                        v    90
                        z
                        IhJ
                        s    80

                        s    70
                        Z    60


                        I    CO
                        »>
                                         2345          10
                                         'SBTICLE DIAMETER. \pn
Particle Size, /zm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
60
74
78
81
85
88
91
94
Minimum
Value


59



61
71
Maximum
Value


99



99
99
Standard
Deviation


17



12
9
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 p,m.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
B.2-19
-------
B.2.3  How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For Controlled Processes

        To calculate the size distribution and the size-specific emissions for a source with a paniculate
control device, the user first calculates the uncontrolled size-specific emissions. Next, the fractional
control efficiency for the control device is estimated using Table B.2-3. The Calculation Sheet
provided (Figure B.2-2) allows the user to record the type of control device and the collection
efficiencies from Table B.2-3, the mass in the size range before and after control, and the cumulative
mass.  The user will note that the uncontrolled size data are expressed in cumulative fraction less than
the stated size. The control efficiency data apply only to the size range indicated and are not
cumulative.  These  data do not include results for the greater than 10 jun particle size range. In
order to account for the total  controlled emissions, particles greater than 10 /*m in size must be
included.

B.2.4  Example  Calculation

        An example calculation of uncontrolled total particulate emissions, uncontrolled size-specific
emissions, and controlled size specific emission is shown in Figure B.2-1. A blank Calculation Sheet
is provided in Figure B.2-2.
     Table B.2-3. TYPICAL COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS PARTICULATE
                                     CONTROL DEVICES3
AIRS
Codeb
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
014
015
Type Of Collector
Wet scrubber - hi-efficiency
Wet scrubber - med-efficiency
Wet scrubber - low-efficiency
Gravity collector - hi-efficiency
Gravity collector - med-efficiency
Gravity collector - low-efficiency
Centrifugal collector - hi-efficiency
Centrifugal collector - med-efficiency
Centrifugal collector - low-efficiency
Electrostatic precipitator - hi-efficiency
Electrostatic precipitator - med-efficiency
boilers
other
Electrostatic precipitator - low-efficiency
boilers
other
Mist eliminator - high velocity > 250 FPM
Mist eliminator - low velocity < 250 FPM
Particle Size (/jm)
0-2.5
90
25
20
3.6
2.9
1.5
80
50
10
95
50
80
40
70
10
5
2.5-6
95
85
80
5
4
3.2
95
75
35
99
80
90
70
80
75
40
6-10
99
95
90
6
4.8
3.7
95
85
50
99.5
94
97
90
90
90
75
B.2-20
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                                       Table B.2-3 (cont.).
AIRS
Codeb
016
017
018
046
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
061
062
063
064
071
075
076
077
085
086
Type Of Collector
Fabric filter - high temperature
Fabric filter - med temperature
Fabric filter - low temperature
Process change
Liquid filtration system
Packed-gas absorption column
Tray-type gas absorption column
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Process enclosed
Impingement plate scrubber
Dynamic separator (dry)
Dynamic separator (wet)
Mat or panel filter - mist collector
Metal fabric filter screen
Dust suppression by water sprays
Dust suppression by chemical stabilizer or
wetting agents
Gravel bed filter
Annular ring filter
Fluid bed dry scrubber
Single cyclone
Multiple cyclone w/o fly ash reinjection
Multiple cyclone w/fly ash reinjection
Wet cyclonic separator
Water curtain
Particle Size (/zm)
0-2.5
99
99
99
NA
50
90
25
20
90
1.5
25
90
50
92
10
40
40
0
80
10
10
80
50
50
10
2.5-6
99.5
99.5
99.5
NA
75
95
85
80
95
3.2
95
95
75
94
15
65
65
5
90
20
35
95
75
75
45
6- 10
99.5
99.5
99.5
NA
85
99
95
90
99
3.7
99
99
85
97
20
90
90
80
97
90
50
95
85
85
90
a Data represent an average of actual efficiencies.  Efficiencies are representative of well designed
  and well operated control equipment.  Site-specific factors (e. g., type of particulate being collected,
  varying pressure drops across scrubbers, maintenance of equipment, etc.) will affect collection
  efficiencies.  Efficiencies shown are intended to provide guidance for estimating control equipment
  performance when source-specific data are not available.  NA = not applicable.
b Control codes in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), formerly National Emissions
  Data Systems.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
B.2-21
-------
References For Appendix B.2

 1.     Fine Particle Emission Inventory System, Office Of Research And Development, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1985.

 2.     Confidential test data from various sources, PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,  1985.

 3.     Final Guideline Document:  Control OfSulfuric Add Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977.

 4.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corp., Destrehan, LA, EMB-74-GRN-7, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.

 5.     I. W. Kirk, "Air Quality In Saw And  Roller Gin Plants", Transactions Of The ASAE, 20:5,
       1977.

 6.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry. Galite Corp., EMB- 80-LWA-6, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1982.

 7.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries, Inc.,
       EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       1975.

 8.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, Michigan, EMB-76-IOB-2,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.

 9.     H. J. Taback, et al., Fine Paniculate  Emissions From Stationary Sources In The South Coast
       Air Basin, KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA,  1979.

 10.    K. Rosbury, Generalized Particle Size Distributions For Use In Preparing Particle  Size-
       Specific Emission Inventories, U. S. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3890, PEI Associates, Inc.,
       Golden, CO, 1985.
B.2-22                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
                               APPENDIX C.I




           PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SURFACE/BULK DUST LOADING
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix C.I                             C.l-1
-------
                                         Appendix C.I

                       Procedures For Sampling Surface/Bulk Dust Loading
       This appendix presents procedures recommended for the collection of material samples from
paved and unpaved roads and from bulk storage piles.  (AP-42, Appendix C.2, "Procedures For
Laboratory Analysis Of Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Samples",  presents analogous information for the
analysis of the samples.)  These recommended procedures are based on a review of American Society
For Testing And Materials (ASTM) methods, such as C-136 (sieve analysis) and D-2216 (moisture
content). The recommendations follow ASTM standards where practical,  and where not, an effort
has been made to develop procedures consistent with the intent of the pertinent ASTM standards.

       This appendix emphasizes that, before starting any field sampling  program, one must first
define the study area of interest and then determine the number of samples that can be collected and
analyzed within the constraints of time, labor, and money available. For example, the study  area
could be defined as an individual industrial plant with  its network of paved/unpaved roadways and
material piles. In that instance, it is advantageous to collect a separate sample for each major dust
source  in the plant.  This level of resolution is useful in developing cost-effective emission reduction
plans.  On the other hand, if the area of interest is geographically large (say a city or county, with a
network of public roads), collecting at least 1 sample from each source would be highly impractical.
However, in such an area, it is important to obtain samples representative of different source types
within  the area.

C.I.I  Samples From Unpaved Roads

Objective -
       The overall objective in an unpaved road sampling program is to inventory  the mass of
paniculate matter (PM) emissions from the roads. This is typically done by:

       1.   Collecting "representative"  samples of the loose surface material from  the road;
       2.   Analyzing the samples  to determine silt fractions;  and
       3.   Using the results in the predictive emission factor model given in AP-42, Section 13.2.2,
            Unpaved Roads, together with traffic data (e. g., number of vehicles traveling the road
            each day).

       Before any field sampling program, it is necessary to define the study area of interest and to
determine the number of unpaved road samples that can be collected and  analyzed within the
constraints  of time, labor, and money  available.  For example, the study area could be defined as a
very specific industrial plant having a network of roadways.  Here it is advantageous  to collect a
separate sample for each major unpaved road  in the plant.  This level of resolution  is useful in
developing  cost-effective emission reduction plans involving dust suppressants or traffic rerouting.
On the other hand, the area of interest may be geographically large, and well-defined traffic
information may not be easily obtained.  In this case, resolution of the PM emission inventory to
specific road segments would not be feasible,  and it would be more important to obtain representative
road-type samples within  the area by aggregating several sample increments.

Procedure -
       For a network consisting of many relatively short roads contained in  a well-defined study area
(as would be the case at an industrial plant), it is recommended that one collect a sample for each
0.8 kilometers (km) (0.5 miles [mi]) length, or portion thereof, for each major road segment.  Here,

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                       Appendix C.I                                     C.l-3
-------
the term "road segment" refers to the length of road between intersections (the nodes of the network)
with other paved or unpaved roads.  Thus, for a major segment 1 km (0.6 mi) long, 2 samples are
recommended.

        For longer roads in study areas that are spatially diverse, it is recommended that one collect a
sample  for each 4.8 km (3 mi) length of the road.  Composite a sample from a minimum of
3 incremental samples.  Collect the first sample increment at a random location within the first
0.8 km (0.5 mi), with additional increments taken from each remaining 0.8 km (O.S mi) of the road,
up to a maximum length of 4.8 km (3 mi). For a road less than 1.5 mi in length, an acceptable
method for selecting sites for the increments is based on drawing 3 random numbers (xl, x2, x3)
between zero and the length. Random numbers may be obtained from tabulations in statistical
reference books, or scientific calculators may be used to generate pseudorandom numbers. See
Figure C. 1-1.

        The following steps describe the collection method for samples (increments).

        1.   Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic and that sampling personnel are
            visible to drivers.  If the road is heavily traveled, use 1 person to "spot" and route traffic
            safely around another person collecting the surface  sample (increment).

        2.   Using string or other suitable markers, mark a 0.3  meters (m) (1 foot [ft]) wide portion
            across the road. (WARNING:  Do not mark the collection area with a chalk line or in
            any other method likely to introduce fine material into the sample.')

        3.   With a whisk broom and dustpan, remove the loose surface material from the hard road
            base. Do not abrade the base during sweeping. Sweeping should be performed slowly
            so that fine surface material is not injected into the air.  NOTE:  Collect material only
            from the portion of the road over which the wheels  and carriages routinely travel (i. e.,
            not from berms or any "mounds" along the road centerline).

        4.   Periodically deposit the swept material into a clean, labeled container of suitable size,
            such as a metal or plastic 19  liter (L) (5 gallon [gal]) bucket, having a scalable
            polyethylene liner.  Increments may be mixed within this  container.

        5.   Record the required information on the sample collection sheet (Figure C.l-2).

Sample Specifications -
        For uncontrolled unpaved road surfaces, a gross sample of 5 kilograms (kg) (10 pounds [lb])
to 23 kg (50 lb) is desired.  Samples of this size will require splitting to a size amenable for analysis
(see Appendix C.2).  For unpaved roads having been treated with chemical dust suppressants (such as
petroleum resins, asphalt emulsions, etc.), the above goal may not be practical in well-defined study
areas because a very large area would need to be swept.   In general, a minimum of 400 grams (g)
(1 lb) is required for silt and moisture analysis.  Additional increments  should be taken from heavily
controlled unpaved surfaces, until the minimum sample mass has been achieved.

C.I.2  Samples From Paved Roads

Objective -
        The overall objective in a paved road sampling program is to inventory the  mass of particulate
emissions from the roads. This is typically done by:
C.l-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------









E
in
"A!
.c
c
3
•o
«
O
cr







•s ' ;^ ^'





;:ii™::«^*?^





K^*SS:.i;..:;S:w


C
E
in
C)
,.l
D-^

1
in
C)
,,l
j
t
E
in
0
J
"t "^
"t
X
1

                                                                    I
                                                                 "2 "5
                                                                 CO o>
                                                          E
                                                          in
                                                          o>
                                                          o
                                                          IT
                             "§«
                             CD CD
                    o

                 •go
                  CD 
-------
                       SAMPLING DATA FOR UNPAVED ROADS
Date Collected
                             Recorded by
Road Material (e.g., gravel, slag, dirt, etc.):'
Site of Sampling:
METHOD:
   1. Sampling device: whisk broom and dustpan
   2. Sampling depth: loose surface material (do not abrade road base)
   3. Sample container: bucket with sealable liner
   4. Gross sample specifications:
      a. Uncontrolled surfaces -- 5 kg (10 Ib) to 23 kg (50 Ib)
      b. Controlled surfaces -- minimum of 400 g (1 Ib) is required for analysis

Refer to AP-42 Appendix B.1 for more detailed instructions.

Indicate any deviations from the above:


SAMPLING DATA COLLECTED:
Sample
No.







Time







Location +







Surf.
Area







Depth







Mass of
Sample







*  Indicate and give details if roads are controlled.
+ Use code given on plant or road map for segment identification.  Indicate sampling
   location on map.
                 Figure C.l-2. Example data form for unpaved road samples.
C.l-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
        1.   Collecting "representative" samples of the loose surface material from the road;
        2.   Analyzing the sample to determine the silt fraction; and
        3.   Combining the results with traffic data in a predictive emission factor model.

        The remarks above about definition of the study area and the appropriate level of resolution
for sampling unpaved roads are equally applicable to paved roads.  Before a field sampling program,
it is necessary first to define the study  area of interest and then to determine the number  of paved
road samples that can be collected and  analyzed, for example, in a well-defined study area (e. g., an
industrial plant), it is advantageous to collect a separate sample for  each major paved road, because
the resolution can be useful  in developing cost-effective emission reduction plans.  Similarly, in
geographically large study areas,  it may be more important to obtain samples representative of road
types within the area by aggregating several sample increments.

        Compared to unpaved road sampling, planning for a paved road sample collection exercise
necessarily involves  greater  consideration as to types of equipment to be used.  Specifically,
provisions must be made to  accommodate the characteristics of the vacuum cleaner chosen.  For
example, paved road samples are collected by cleaning the surface with a vacuum cleaner with
"tared" (i. e., weighed before use) filter bags. Upright "stick broom" vacuums use relatively small,
lightweight filter bags, while bags for industrial-type vacuums are bulky and heavy.  Because the
mass  collected is usually several times  greater than the bag tare weight, uprights are thus well suited
for collecting samples from  lightly loaded road surfaces.  On the other hand, on heavily loaded roads,
the larger industrial-type vacuum bags  are easier to use and can be more readily used to aggregate
incremental  samples from all road surfaces.  These features are discussed further below.

Procedure -
        For  a network of many relatively short roads contained in a well-defined study area (as would
be the case at an industrial plant), it  is  recommended that one collect a sample for each 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) length, or portion thereof, for each major  road segment. For a 1 km long (0.6  mi) segment,
then, 2 samples  are recommended. As  mentioned, the term "road segment" refers to the  length of
road between intersections with other paved or unpaved roads (the nodes of the network).

        For  longer roads in  spatially heterogeneous study areas, it is recommended that one collect a
sample for each 4.8  km (3 mi) of sampled road length. Create a composite sample from a minimum
of 3 incremental samples. Collect the first increment at a random location within the first 0.8 km
(0.5 mi), with additional increments  taken from each remaining 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the road, up to a
maximum length of 4.8 km  (3 mi.)   For a road less than 2.4 km  (1.5 mi)  long, an acceptable method
for selecting sites for the increments is based on drawing 3 random numbers (xl, x2, x3) between
zero and the length (See Figure C.I-3). Random numbers may be obtained from tabulations in
statistical reference books, or scientific calculators may be used to generate pseudorandom numbers.

        The following steps  describe the collection  method for samples (increments).

        1.   Ensure  that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic and that sampling  personnel are
            visible to drivers.  If the road is heavily traveled, use 1 crew member to "spot" and
            route traffic safely around another person collecting  the surface sample (increment).

        2.   Using string or other suitable markers, mark the  sampling portion across the road.
            (WARNING:  Do not mark the collection area with  a chalk line or in any other method
            likely to introduce fine material into the sample.) The  widths may be varied between
            0.3 m (1 ft) for visibly dirty roads and 3  m (10 ft) for  clean roads.  When an industrial-
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.I                                    C.l-7
-------
E
in
               o>

               (D
               O
              OC
                     g

                   "S "o
                   TO m
                             E

                             o
                          -I
                             o
}?
                      c
                      o
                                       £
                                       LO
               O>
               C
               0>
               CO
               O
               cr
                        }?
                      c
                      o
                     'l
                                  }
                                             2
                                             I
                                             (O
                                             c.
                                             O
                                                                     "S.

                                                                     03
                                                                     U
                                       t
                                       X
                                       J
C.l-8
   EMISSION FACTORS
                                           (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
            type vacuum is used to sample lightly loaded roads, a width greater than 3 m (10 ft) may
            be necessary to meet sample specifications, unless increments are being combined.

        3.   If large, loose material is present on the surface, it should be collected with a whisk
            broom and dustpan.  NOTE:  Collect material only from the portion of the road over
            which the 'wheels and carriages routinely travel (i. e., not from berms or any "mounds"
            along the road centerline).  On roads with painted side markings, collect material "from
            white line to white line"  (but avoid centerline mounds).  Store the swept material in a
            clean, labeled container of suitable size, such as a metal or plastic 19 L (5 gal) bucket,
            with a scalable polyethylene liner.  Increments for the same sample may be mixed within
            the container.

        4.   Vacuum the collection area using a portable vacuum cleaner fitted with an empty tared
            (preweighed) filter bag.  NOTE:  Collect material only from the portion of the road over
            which the wheels and carriages routinely travel (i. e., not from berms or any "mounds"
            along the road centerline).  On roads with painted side markings, collect material "from
            white line to white line"  (but avoid centerline mounds).  The same filter bag may be
            used for different increments for  1 sample. For heavily loaded roads, more than 1  filter
            bag may be needed for a sample (increment).

        5.   Carefully remove the bag from the vacuum sweeper and check for tears or leaks. If
            necessary, reduce samples (using the procedure in Appendix C.2) from broom sweeping
            to a size amenable to analysis.  Seal broom-swept material in a clean, labeled plastic jar
            for transport (alternatively, the swept material  may be placed in the vacuum filter bag).
            Fold the unused portion of the filter bag, wrap a rubber band around the folded bag, and
            store the bag for transport.

        6.   Record the required information on the sample collection sheet (Figure C.l-4).

Sample Specifications -
        When broom swept samples are collected, they should be at least 400 g (1 Ib) for silt and
moisture analysis. Vacuum swept samples should be at least 200 g (0.5 Ib).  Also, the weight of an
"exposed" filter bag should be at least 3 to 5 times greater than when empty.  Additional increments
should be taken until these sample mass goals  have been attained.

C.I.3  Samples From Storage Piles

Objective -
        The overall objective of a storage pile sampling and analysis program is to inventory
paniculate matter emissions from the  storage and handling of materials. This is done typically by:

        1.   Collecting "representative" samples of the material;
        2.   Analyzing the samples to determine moisture and silt contents;  and
        3.   Combining analytical results with material throughput and meteorological information in
            an emission factor model.

        As initial steps in storage pile sampling, it is necessary to decide (a) what emission
mechanisms - material load-in to and load-out  from the pile, wind erosion of the piles - are of
interest, and (b) how many samples can be collected and analyzed, given time and monetary
constraints.  (In general, annual average PM emissions from material handling can be expected to be
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                       Appendix C.I                     u               C.I-9
-------
                        SAMPLING DATA FOR PAVED ROADS
Date Collected
Sampling location *
                             Recorded by

                             No. of Lanes
Surface type (e.g., asphalt, concrete, etc.)

Surface condition (e.g., good, rutted, etc.)
* Use code given on plant or road map for segment identification.  Indication sampling
  location on map.

METHOD:

   1.  Sampling device: portable vacuum cleaner (whisk broom and dustpan if heavy
      loading present)
   2.  Sampling depth: loose surface material (do not sample curb areas or other
      untravelled portions of the road)
   3.  Sample container: tared and numbered vacuum cleaner bags (bucket with scalable
      liner if heavy loading  present)
   4.  Gross sample specifications: Vacuum swept samples should be at least 200 g
      (0.5 Ib), with the exposed filter bag weight should be at least 3 to 5 times greater
      than the empty bag tare weight.

Refer to AP-42 Appendix C.1 for more detailed instructions.

Indicate any deviations from the above:


SAMPLING DATA COLLECTED:
Sample
No.




Vacuum Bag
Tare Wgt
ID (g)








Sampling
Surface
Dimensions
(I x w)




Time




Mass of
Broom-Swept
Sample +




+  Enter "0" if no broom sweeping is performed.
                    Figure C.l-4. Example data form for paved roads.
C.l-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
much greater than those from wind erosion.) For an industrial plant, it is recommended that at least
1 sample be collected for each major type of material handled within the facility.

       In a program to characterize load-in emissions, representative samples should be collected
from material recently loaded into the pile.  Similarly,  representative samples for load-out emissions
should be collected from areas that are worked by load-out equipment  such as front end loaders or
clamshells.  For most "active" piles (i. e., those with frequent load-in  and load-out operations),
1 sample may be considered representative of both loaded-in and loaded-out materials.  Wind erosion
material samples  should be representative of the surfaces exposed to the wind.

       In general, samples should consist of increments taken from all exposed areas of the pile
(i. e., top, middle, and bottom).  If the same material  is stored in several piles, it is recommended
that piles with at least 25 percent of the amount in storage be sampled. For large piles that are
common in industrial settings (e. g., quarries, iron and steel plants), access to some portions may be
impossible for the person collecting the sample.  In that case, increments  should be taken no higher
than it is practical for a person to climb carrying a shovel and a pail.

Procedure -
       The  following steps describe the method for collecting samples from storage piles:

        1.   Sketch plan and elevation views of the pile.  Indicate if any portion is not  accessible.
            Use the sketch to plan where the N increments will  be taken by dividing the perimeter
            into N-l roughly equivalent segments.

            a.     For  a large pile, collect a minimum of 10 increments, as near to mid-height of the
                  pile as practical.

            b.     For  a small pile, a sample should be a minimum of 6 increments, evenly
                  distributed among the top, middle, and bottom.

                  "Small" or "large" piles,  for practical purposes, may be defined as those piles
                  which can or  cannot, respectively, be scaled by a person carrying a shovel and
                  pail.

       2.   Collect material  with a straight-point shovel or a small garden spade, and store the
            increments in a clean,  labeled container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L
            [5  gal] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner. Depending upon the ultimate goals of
            the sampling program, choose 1 of the following procedures:

            a.     To characterize emissions from material handling operations at an active pile, take
                  increments from the portions of the pile which most recently had material added
                  and  removed.  Collect the material with a shovel to  a depth of 10 to  15 centimeters
                  (cm) (4 to  6 inches [in]).  Do not deliberately  avoid larger pieces of  aggregate
                  present on the surface.

            b.     To characterize handling emissions from an inactive pile, obtain increments of the
                  core material  from a 1 m (3 ft) depth in the pile.  A sampling tube 2 m (6 ft)
                  long, with a diameter at least  10 times the diameter of the largest particle being
                  sampled, is recommended for these samples.   Note that, for piles containing large
                  particles, the  diameter recommendation may be impractical.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.I                                   C.l-11
-------
            c.    If characterization of wind erosion, rather than material handling is the goal of the
                 sampling program, collect the increments by skimming the surface in an upwards
                 direction.  The depth of the sample should be 2.5 cm (1 in), or the diameter of the
                 largest particle, whichever is less.  Do not deliberately avoid collecting larger
                 pieces of aggregate present on the surface.

            In most instances, collection method "a" should be selected.

       3.   Record the required information on the sample collection sheet (Figure C.l-5).  Note the
            space for deviations from the summarized method.

Sample Specifications -
       For any of the procedures, the sample mass collected should be at least 5 kg (10 Ib).  When
most materials are sampled with procedures 2a or 2b, 10 increments will normally result in a sample
of at least 23 kg (50 Ib). Note that storage pile samples usually require splitting to a size more
amenable to laboratory analysis.
C.l-12                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
                        SAMPLING DATA FOR STORAGE PILES
Date Collected
Recorded by
Type of material sampled	

Sampling location*	

METHOD:

   1.  Sampling device: pointed shovel (hollow sampling tube if inactive pile is to be
       sampled)
   2.  Sampling depth:
       For material handling of active piles: 10-1 5 cm (4-6 in.)
       For material handling of inactive piles: 1  m (3 ft)
       For wind erosion samples: 2.5 cm (1 in.) or depth of the largest particle (whichever
       is less)
   3.  Sample container: bucket with scalable liner
   4.  Gross sample specifications:
       For material handling of active or inactive piles:  minimum of 6 increments with
       total sample weight of 5 kg (10 Ib) [10 increments totalling 23 kg  (50 Ib) are
       recommended]
       For wind erosion samples:  minimum of 6 increments with total sample weight of
       5 kg (10lb)

Refer to AP-42  Appendix C.1 for more detailed instructions.

Indicate any deviations from the above: 	
SAMPLING DATA COLLECTED:
Sample
No.




Time




Location* of
Sample Collection




Device Used
S/T **




Depth




Mass of
Sample




   Use code given of plant or area map for pile/sample identification. Indicate each
   sampling location on map.
   Indicate whether shovel or tube.
                     Figure C.l-5.  Example data form for storage piles.


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix C. 1
                C.l-13
-------
                               APPENDIX C.2

       PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SURFACE/BULK DUST
                            LOADING SAMPLES
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix C.2                           C.2-1
-------
                                         Appendix C.2

             Procedures For Laboratory Analysis Of Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Samples
        This appendix discusses procedures recommended for the analysis of samples collected from
paved and unpaved surfaces and from bulk storage piles.  (AP-42 Appendix C.I, "Procedures For
Sampling Surface/Bulk Dust Loading", presents procedures for the collection of these samples.)
These recommended procedures are based on a review of American Society For Testing And
Materials (ASTM) methods, such as C-136 (sieve analysis) or D-2216 (moisture content). The
recommendations follow ASTM standards where practical, and where not,  an effort has been made to
develop procedures consistent with the intent of the pertinent ASTM standards.

C.2.1  Sample Splitting

Objective -
        The collection procedures presented in Appendix C.I can result in samples that need to be
reduced in size before laboratory analysis. Samples are often unwieldy,  and field splitting is advisable
before transporting the samples.

        The size of the laboratory sample is important.  Too small a sample will not be
representative, and too much sample will be unnecessary as well as unwieldy.  Ideally, one would like
to analyze the entire gross sample in batches, but that is not practical.  While all ASTM standards
acknowledge this impracticality, they disagree on the exact optimum size, as indicated by the range of
recommended samples, extending from 0.05 to 27 kilograms (kg) (0.1 to 60 pounds  [lb]).

        Splitting a sample may be necessary before a proper analysis. The principle in sizing  a
laboratory sample for silt analysis is to have sufficient  coarse and fine portions  both to be
representative of the material and to allow sufficient mass on each sieve to  assure accurate weighing.
A laboratory sample of 400 to 1,600 grams (g) is recommended because of the  capacity of normally
available scales (1.6 to 2.6 kg).  A larger sample than this may produce "screen blinding" for  the
20 centimeter (cm) (8 inch [in.]) diameter  screens normally available for silt analysis.  Screen
blinding can also occur with small samples of finer texture.  Finally, the sample mass should be such
that it can be spread out in a reasonably sized drying pan to a depth of <  2.5 cm (1  in.).

        Two methods are recommended  for sample splitting: riffles, and coning and quartering.  Both
procedures are described below.

Procedures -
        Figure C.2-1 shows 2 riffles for sample division.  Riffle slot widths should be at least 3 times
the size of the largest aggregate in the material being divided.  The following quote from ASTM
Standard Method D2013-72 describes the use of the riffle.

        Divide the gross sample by using a riffle.  Riffles properly used will reduce sample variability
but cannot eliminate it.  Riffles are shown in Figure C.2-1.  Pass the material through the riffle from
a feed scoop, feed bucket, or riffle pan having a lip or opening the full length of the riffle. When
using any of the above containers to feed the riffle, spread the material evenly in the container, raise
the container,  and hold it with its front edge resting on top of the feed chute, then slowly tilt it so that
the material  flows in a uniform stream through the hopper straight down over the center of the riffle
into all the slots, thence into the riffle pans, one-half of the sample being collected in a pan.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.2                                     C.2-3
-------
                        Feed Chute
                                     SAMPLE DIVIDERS (RIFFLES)
 Rolled
 Edges
                             Riffle Sampler

                                 (b)
    Riffle Bucket and
Separate Feed Chute Stand
         (b)
                              Figure C.2-1. Sample riffle dividers.
                                    CONING AND QUARTERING
                        Figure C.2-2.  Procedure for coning and quartering.
C.2-4
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
                              (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
Under no circumstances shovel the sample into the riffle, or dribble into the riffle from a small-
mouthed container.  Do not allow the material to build up in or above the riffle slots.  If it does not
flow freely through the slots, shake or vibrate the riffle to facilitate even flow.1

        Coning and quartering is a simple procedure useful with all powdered materials and with
sample sizes ranging from a few grams to several hundred pounds.2  Oversized material, defined as
> 0.6 millimeters (mm) (3/8 in.) in diameter, should be removed before quartering and be weighed
in a "tared" container (one for which its empty weight is known).

        Preferably, perform the coning and quartering operation on a floor covered with clean  10 mil
plastic. Take care that  the material is not contaminated by anything on the floor or that any portion is
not lost through cracks  or holes. Samples likely  affected by moisture or drying must be handled
rapidly, preferably in a controlled atmosphere, and sealed in a container to prevent further changes
during transportation and  storage.

        The procedure for coning and quartering  is illustrated in Figure  C.2,-2.  The following
procedure should be used:

        1.   Mix the material and shovel it into a neat cone.

        2.   Flatten the  cone by pressing the top without further mixing.

        3.   Divide the  flat circular pile into equal quarters by cutting or scraping out 2 diameters at
            right angles.

        4.   Discard 2 opposite quarters.

        5.   Thoroughly mix the 2 remaining quarters, shovel them into  a  cone, and repeat the
            quartering and discarding procedures until the sample  is reduced to 0.4 to 1.8 kg (1 to
            41b).

C.2.2  Moisture Analysis

        Paved road samples generally are not to be oven dried because vacuum filter bags are used  to
collect the samples.  After a sample has been recovered by dissection of the bag, it is combined with
any broom swept material for silt analysis. All other sample types are oven dried to determine
moisture content before sieving.

Procedure -
        1.   Heat the oven to approximately 110°C (230°F).  Record oven temperature.  (See
            Figure C.2-3.)

       2.   Record the  make, capacity, and smallest division of the scale.

       3.   Weigh the empty laboratory sample containers  which will be placed in the oven to
            determine their tare weight. Weigh any lidded containers with the lids.  Record the tare
            weight(s).   Check zero before each weighing.

       4.   Weigh the laboratory sample(s) in the container(s). For materials with high moisture
            content, assure that any standing moisture is included in the laboratory sample container.
            Record the  combined weight(s).  Check zero before each weighing.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.2                                    C.2-5
-------
                                 MOISTURE ANALYSIS

Date:	      By:
Sample No:	     Oven Temperature:
Material:	     Date In:  	Date Out:
                                                 Time In:  	Time Out:
Split Sample Balance:	     Drying Time: 	
   Make	
   Capacity	     Sample Weight (after drying)
   Smallest division	     Pan + Sample:	
                                                 Pan:
Total Sample Weight:	     Dry Sample:	
(Excl. Container)
Number of Splits:	     MOISTURE CONTENT:
                                                 (A) Wet Sample Wt.	
Split Sample Weight (before drying)              (B) Dry Sample Wt.	
Pan  + Sample:	     (C) Difference Wt.  	
Pan:	C x 100
Wet Sample:	       A    =  	% Moisture
                       Figure C.2-3. Example moisture analysis form.


       5.   Place sample in oven and dry overnight.  Materials composed of hydrated minerals or
           organic material such as coal and certain soils should be dried for only 1.5 hours.

       6.   Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if uncovered, being
           careful of the hot container; or (b) place a tight-fitting lid on the container and let it cool
           before weighing.  Record the combined sample and container weight(s).  Check zero
           before weighing.

       7.   Calculate the moisture, as  the initial weight of the sample and container,  minus the oven-
           dried weight of the sample and container, divided by the initial weight of the sample
           alone.  Record the value.

       8.   Calculate the sample weight to be used in the silt analysis, as the oven-dried weight of the
           sample and container, minus the weight of the container. Record the value.

C.2.3  Silt Analysis

Objective -
       Several open dust emission factors have been found to be correlated with the  silt content
(< 200 mesh) of the material being disturbed.  The basic procedure for silt content determination is
mechanical, dry sieving. For sources other than paved roads, the same sample which was oven-dried
to determine moisture content is then mechanically sieved.

       For paved road samples, the broom-swept particles and the vacuum-swept dust are
individually weighed on a beam balance.  The broom-swept particles are weighed in a container, and
the vacuum-swept dust is weighed in the bag  of the vacuum, which was tared before  sample


C.2-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
collection. After weighing the sample to calculate total surface dust loading on the traveled lanes,
combine the broom-swept particles and the vacuumed dust. Such a composite sample is usually small
and may not require splitting in preparation for sieving.

Procedure -
        1. Select the appropriate 20-cm (8-in.) diameter, 5-cm (2-in.) deep sieve sizes.
           Recommended U. S. Standard Series sizes are 3/8 in., No. 4, No. 40, No. 100, No. 140,
           No. 200, and a pan. Comparable Tyler Series sizes  can also be used.  The No. 20 and
           the No. 200 are mandatory.  The others can be varied if the recommended sieves are not
           available, or if buildup on 1 paniculate sieve during  sieving indicates that an intermediate
           sieve should be inserted.

        2. Obtain a mechanical sieving device, such as a vibratory  shaker or a Roto-Tap" without
           the tapping function.

        3. Clean the sieves with compressed air and/or a soft brush.  Any material lodged in the
           sieve openings or adhering to the sides of the sieve should be removed, without handling
           the screen roughly,  if possible.

        4. Obtain a scale (capacity of at least 1600 grams [g] or 3.5 Ib) and record make, capacity,
           smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy.  (See Figure C.2-4.)

        5. Weigh the sieves and pan to determine tare weights.   Check the zero before every
           weighing. Record the weights.

        6. After nesting the sieves  in decreasing order of size, and  with pan at the bottom, dump
           dried laboratory sample (preferably immediately after moisture analysis) into the top
           sieve.  The sample should weigh between ~  400 and 1600 g (~ 0.9 and 3.5 Ib).  This
           amount will vary for finely textured materials, and 100 to 300 g may be sufficient when
           90%  of the sample passes  a No.  8 (2.36 mm) sieve.  Brush any fine material adhering to
           the sides of the  container into the top sieve and cover the top sieve with a special lid
           normally purchased with the pan.

        7. Place nested sieves into  the mechanical sieving device and sieve for 10 minutes (min).
           Remove pan containing minus No. 200 and weigh. Repeat the sieving at 10-min intervals
           until the difference between 2 successive pan sample  weighings (with the pan tare weight
           subtracted) is less than 3.0%.  Do not sieve longer than  40 min.

        8. Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight. Check the zero before every
           weighing.

        9.  Collect the laboratory sample.  Place  the sample in a separate container if further analysis
           is expected.

        10. Calculate the percent of mass less than the 200 mesh  screen (75 micrometers [/im]). This
           is the silt content.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.2                                    C.2-7
-------
Date:
   SILT ANALYSIS

  _        By:
Sample No:
Material:
             Sample Weight (after drying)
             Pan + Sample:    	
             Pan:
Make 	
Smallest Division
       SIEVING
             Split Sample Balance:
             Dry Sample:   	
             Capacity:     	
             Final Weight:    	
                     Net Weight <200 Mesh
             % Silt = Total Net Weight       x 1 00
                                                                                   =   %
Time: Start:
Initial (Tare):
10 min:
20 min:
30 min:
40 min:
Weight (Pan Only)





Screen
3/8 in.
4 mesh
1 0 mesh
20 mesh
40 mesh
1 00 mesh
140 mesh
200 mesh
Pan
Tare Weight
(Screen)









Final Weight
(Screen + Sample)









Net Weight (Sample)









%









                          Figure C.2-4. Example silt analysis form.
C.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93
-------
References For Appendix C.2

1.      "Standard Method Of Preparing Coal Samples For Analysis", Annual Book OfASTM
        Standards, 1977, D2013-72, American Society For Testing And Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
        1977.

2.      L. Silverman, et al., Particle Size Analysis In Industrial Hygiene, Academic Press, New
        York,  1971.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.2      *U.S.  G.P.O.:1995-630-341      C.2-9
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
REPORT NO 2
AP-42, Fifth Edition
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Supplement A To
Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources
AUTHOR(S)
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Factor And Inventory Group, EMAD (MD 14)
Dtfice Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
J. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 277 1 1
2 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3 RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO
5 REPORT DATE
February 1996
b PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NC)
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/0 RANT NO
11 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6 ABSTRACT
  This document contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories.
 "hese emission factors have been compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates, and
hey can he used judiciously in making emission estimations for various purposes. When specific source test data are
available, they should be preferred over the generalized factors presented in this document.

  This Supplement to AP-42 addresses pollutant-generating activity from Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal
Zomhustion; Anthracite Coal Combustion; Fuel Oil Combustion; Natural  Gas combustion; Wood Waste Combustion In
Boilers; Lignite Combustion; Waste Oil Combustion: Stationary Gas Turbines For Electricity Generation; Heavy-duty
Natural Gas-fired Pipeline Compressor Engines; Large Stationary Diesel And All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines; Natural
3as Processing; Organic Liquid Storage Tanks; Meat Smokehouses; Meat Rendering Plants; Canned Fruits And
Vegetables; Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables; Pickles, Sauces And Salad Dressings; Grain Elevators And Processes;
Cereal Breakfast Foods; Pasta Manufacturing; Vegetable Oil Processing; Wines And Brandy; Coffee Roasting; Charcoal;
Toal Cleaning; Frit Manufacturing; Sand And Gravel Processing; Diatomite Processing; Talc Processing; Vermiculite
3rocessing; Paved Roads; and Unpaved Roads. Also included is information on Generalized Particle Size Distributions.
7 KEY WC )RDS AND [X )( TIMENT ANALYSIS
i DESCRIPTORS
Emission Factors Area Sources
Emission Estimation Criteria Pollutants
Stationary Sources Toxic Pollutants
Point Sources
X DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b IDENTIFIERS/f )PEN ENDED TERMS

I 
-------