-------
Table 12.10-8 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES8
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
0*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
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 (com.)
Source
Pouring, coolingb
(SCC 3-04-0030-18)
Uncontrolled
Shakeoutb (SCC 3-04-003-31)
Uncontrolled
Particle Size
(A«n)
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
0*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
(nm)
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
Ob/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 through 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 particulate 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 the mold and core materials. Toxic emissions of paniculate, arsenic,
chromium, halogenated hydrocarbons, and aromatic hydrocarbons are released in the 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 particulate 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, el 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-450/2-78-024, 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
Particulate 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 Report 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 Repon 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, Wonhington Corp. Cupola, State Department Of Environmental
Conservation, Region IX, Albany, NY, November 4-5, 1976.
18. Stack Test Repon, Dresser Clark Cupola Wet Scrubber, Orlean, NY, State Department Of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, July 14 & 18, 1977.
19. Stack Test Repon, 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. Particulate 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
Report, 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 Particle 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-600/7-87-015 (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—Part 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
UEL
Figure 12.11-1A. 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 IRON
— PURE SCRAP
-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
- 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 (2300°F) 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 1300°F). 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 particulate 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
-------
NH
CO
CO
U)
U
i
Q
3
2
g
u-
g
I
2
CO
CO
D
o
1
cs
p»
O
CO
^
J
"°0
td
1
i
|i|
i^
_
o
1
1
c
5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1
1
1
iMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
UJ
2
"s
k«
S
O
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3
1
c
0
U
•MISSION
FACTOR
RATING
PM
S
1
'c
§
c
Process
Q
Q
Z
Z
Q
Z
*
4
Z
Q
Z
.
i
—
IT
0£
ur
A
J= ^
O Tf
!i
??
tmm
> 52-
CO
U
*s-
§J
'*«*'
z
Q
Z
u
M^
n c?
en f
"
U
*f^
S? 2 Z
0 Z Z
1
£5 Q Q
dg 2 Z
0 ° Z
%
§•» ^
N O~ O Q
~
0 Z Z
^
Tf
2ri Q Q
^ J, Z Z
0,
O O W
a.
•^ s
j*i r^ o 91
10 o o
~ S «
S^ ^
j.
Is s i
ii 4 Ji
C -4- -S ^ « Tf
SO £0 ."20
Ss IS IB
^ w, 4> $2, "jj 5S-
5 X r*1
Z
Q
Z
Z
O
z
u
r1-
§
6
Z
Q
Z
U
o.
S
d
§
g
I
O
u
w>
_c
01
U
4-*
II
^
^
i
T3
§
II
Q
Z
1
U
c
_o
«
o
U
•d'SSS
» o> r^
882
en
*- 3
3 *§J
"8
C 'c
o £
C 4i
o >, g
ill
£1 s
O <8
Ui V
>,
o
§ 2
5 -8
" ^,* I
•*-• C/3 Ui
'£3 C ^_
I-il
§••! 2
§§1
I 8
g 3
aH
»1
W3 'S .2
^s ^ '•?
2 « o-
«2 M 3
cl ^
= £ 23
o o w
are ba
£8
?'S
g S
ti
jo JJa
>»**
II
CA
^1^ =
VO S «
^ § s
03 3, o
'i ""i
J-s-2
0>
J3
O
o
c
"8
is
s
-0
II
—
>
•a Is
c »
'5 2 15
O *tf *O
*§ § 'i
w e -o
1 § -i
§ -1.S.S
j= o 'S —' Q, *>
sills*
.M bn *_» j* o 4->
e« £7 C P *^ *S
•| « 5 fe. g |
"° ^ "i
« _• f>
' « 2 a> S
§S^2 g g
i .§ s g §
=s,'e «s D
a; &
-««g £ 8 g A |
- --m -S J ..22
"1°°^ c - ^ — °*
o
cocc.2«>
oa>
8 oi
12.11-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
6
z
S
C/3
OH
Q
Q
Z
o
O
u.
C/3
a;
o
u,
Z
o
So
c
P
."§
"Sb
CO
Vi
1
•§
"3
o
C
£
Z ft/ r^
o 5 w
2pz
C
2f<^
2
"g
c
I
K-.
gaso
55 S —
22 u j^
^ b «
UJ
Controlled
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
TJ
Q
1
'c
O
o
c
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
"O
2
1
c
o
O
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Uncontrolled
CA
O
S
a.
Z
Q
Z
<
Z
Q
Z
*
-o
^
ji
Z
Q
Z
(U
o
r-
r)
'5T
E?
A
O ^
li
O '
com
« o
CO
o
0?
O 00
oo ^
^j
Z
Q
Z
0
s?
*/"}
m
U
^
w^
O -^
1-1 >o
o.
o
o
fS ^J"
en m
"i
e-9
15
o rl
•£<->
o O
(2 ""
o
o
o"
5> n^
00
U
a
4
°s
u
s
s!
^^ i
S
o
00
"^
o.
-
f> ^"
00
J3
« ^-s
|S.
0 o
1?
« 52-
5
Z
Q
Z
<£
Z
o
z
o
a.
O
d
Z
Q
Z
«
a.
O
d
cs
60O
Is
3S-
z
a
z
^«
z
Q
Z
Z
Q
2
Z
Q
Z
U
0
Tfr
VI
0?
o
« 4-
."2 o
SI
*
Z
Q
Z
^
Z
D
Z
O
a
o
d
Z
Q
Z
O
o
d
asting (SCC 3-04-004-09)
O
1
CO
C8
•o
§
||
II
Q
jf.
.
tD
0
U
.S
CO
f J
rce Classifn
3
o
1/3
||
U
tj
oduced. ,
O-
•2
1
o
c
o
f pollutant/t
Emission factors expressed as Ib ol
applicable.
lt_
o
I Sits
C S "^
3 |g
•0 _, C«
J ™-o
s> * "3
£ a> 0
o ^
"3 2£ QJ
41 O £? a)
'S 'S ^ *£
oo .22 bo >^ ^
"Q C .,« •*"* -v
P TJ « CM -a .2
•pIS |i i is
, 3
£ °" co s go "B. vo c "*
— 3 M 2 -a "^ 2 3
&2 § -d H | .2 | o
311 5 B 1 ill
•s"§§ S; S s is-;
o >* 2> ^ t£ a> Scdi
3 In .-^ (D "ftn (j> ^ Cfl
"§•0^ -0 o c t>oE«
fcSo 0 0 "& Ceo4*
^•^ H co "^ -^ ^ "*s ^ •*-*
tj> S5 =§ o«s
^•HS 3 S ^^gg
•a o IS ^ a> « § - —
cOCi- ii> j^p c^
Ci> & ®^ vd ^
<4i 5 i- '3? S cs osr"
0 i > •- .2 <*- "* .S ^
>, a> £ o o t« cc
£j Ml h* S O *J '"" U- J2
•acT-i "* P^cS
£cs *» SS «> c§.2
111 •§ I I |.a|
p1- S^^^iso
1 « 1 __ . O ~~ 1-
c = ;8 T3c° • ^ a 'c ^ ^s? &
ill 1!
•Ogco t>M"^,vi'T«.S
w.Saa ^pp«2jLJ2>,2wyS
~ ,3 . -; T ^ 's E - —. ffl ^J . .1 2
•o w >n — 'ixi co>-^oo c oi'oQ<
§ ^ m oo vcT 2 ° -g oo" so" «2 § fQ *^ ^ «*
ai c/: c/: on S co c/2 c« CT c/3 c/a
S4)_4>ii>c:-tJ
cocjt_)ocjOco'-'^>t->^>l:-5jcjRC
— ccccc^scc cocc.2«>
rt4>O4>a>o>'*-ici>a)a>._Jci>oj*^SR
U b Ui VN k< ti •~..Uit-W^3u ,o) ,i> 15? to ,i> ,a> f «> i) t> o> £»
T: ^ri (4-1 ^4~t VM ^-« O^ Xl ^^-l t+-< ^-l-^ V^ ^«l ^— 1 ~^ C^
jgaia>a)Da>_..J2i>a)a>coa>aJ'r;a>
(XdittJOiOiCi^CQOiOSDiCQQjBS oOi
rt ^ O ^3 1J *^^ &0 -C ^yj £ cj ^*L, {^
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
0.0003e
0.0004e
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 PROCESSING21
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
1.6-3.5b
8.6-24.2
0.002
0.002
Lead
0.4-1. 8C
0.2-0.6d
0.0006e
0.00076
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 (/on) and unagglomerated
lead fumes range in size from 0.07 to 0.4 /un, with an average diameter of 0.3 fim. 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 particulate 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 j*m. 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. O. 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 a/., The Impact Of Existing And Proposed Regulations Upon The
Domestic Lead Industry. NTIS, 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 particulate 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
Particulate
Emission Factor*
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Pot Furnace (SCC 3-04-006-01)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
0.2
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
Particulate
Emission Factor3
EMISSION FACTOR
RATING
Pot Furnace (SCC 3-04-006-01)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
4
0.4
C
C
a 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, Nove'mber 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
• METALS
• CARBON SOURCES
• SAND
• BINDER
FUGITIVE
DUST
SCRAP
PREPARATION
(SCCMKXO-U)
FUMES AND
FUGITIVE
DUST
, FUGITIVE
DUST
HYDROCARBONS.
, CO.
AND SMOKE
FURNACE
VENT
FUGITIVE
DUST
FURNACE
• CUPOLA (SCO aotOOUII)
• ELECTRIC ARC(SCCS«WOMM)
• INDUCTIONISCCWH-C03-03)
• OTHER
TAPPING.
TREATING
(SCCM4-OGJ.16)
FUGITIVE FUMES
AND DUST
FUGITIVE FUMES
* AND DUST
MOLD POURING.
COOLING
SAND
OVEN VENJ
CASTING
SHAKEOUT
COOLING
(SCC1W-OXV2S)
CLEANING.
FINISHING
(SCO 3-04-003-60)
FUGITIVE
DUST
FUMES AND
' FUGITIVE
DUST
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
-------
00
Q
Z
D
2
O
tu
CO
05
g
<
tL,
CO
o
CN
in
vi O H
2 "*• o§
w *
u
2 o
g V
S s
— OH
B,
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
§ 8
II
.tn /*\
Z °
isi
CO H S3
&2 O H
U *
o "o
111
•3 ts *-•
fi cfl
OH
U
U
£
z z z
Q Q Q
Z Z Z
w w <
W"l
- 8 i
0 0 ^
U W U}
o" o1 ^
o S vi
es »-i 2
10 W> S
\O wi «r>
^
en
o
£^
8
o
m
o
c:
z
Q
Z
B)
S
o'
v-t
9
nduction11 (SCC 3-04-007
Electric i
H4 W
^
C4 0
o en
Z
Z
z
Q
z;
^
9
t~-
§
HJ-
o
en
U
O
62-
c
"cs
E
g
u
A
T3
1
.S
00
_c
^3
s
CS
.c
"So
c
'•3
_c
M
•o
c
tw
w u
J^
1 •*
z
Q
Z
Z
Q
»i (SCC 3-04-007-07)
c
u
o
o
U
W
^
^
Z
Q
Z
Z
Q
Z
0?
9
r1-
§
S
en
U
O
5S
"c1
GQ
a
•o
c
a
00
c
i
00
6
Z.
Z
z
Q
^^
t~-
en
O
O
52-
'c
"3
|
CJ
u
oo
O
Z
Z
z
Q
Z
^_^
CS
i
?
en
O
U
52.
^
a
j:
1
U
U
r-
•a" "
® <**
o Z
0.
§1
yi T3
J§
CO ^^
tso .
x -a
o o
*o ^
s §
a> *s
g §
Vu V
T, Js
° o
'o s
0 CO
>> II
T3 tj
2? CO
> •
V3 OO
— c
2 2
c ^
t^
& «
UH ^"*
O 4>
™ •£
2 <4_
•43 O
fe a>
^^ ^3
T3 «
55 j-j
0 4S
S _g
<4_ C
° S
&o o
•5 •*
•< u
"So «
^ 43
c« -o
|§
S "S
(0 w
H
w -.
CJ
C
"3
"o
S
o
o
w^
oo
Os
o
in
OS
^
o
S
'S. •
•3 o
OH °°
o CS
llectrostati
References
us
3
«
'^,
3
C
>
>"*
O
c
2?
"o
«
"o
c
o
o
OS
OS
3
O
rc*^
BO
C3
'^
>»
O
c
Q>
"3
c:
|
'c
o
o
^
00
Os
0
wo
Os
O
S "S
!& 1
0 . j-
2 ^ ^
.S^ *^ ^^
*•*-» c« O
c« o> e i>
'*-' CJ O
Cfl p-i ^^ ±<
g § -^ §
1111
i
^
c
CO
45
"O
C
S
O
"c
3
"o
0.
o
00
CO
"8
C«
UN
S
Ui
2
o
(Tf
mission f;
CD JC
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.13-5
-------
8
bu
03
o:
e
<
tu
o
on
«
"ob
ts
cs
ill
Filterable
PM-10
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
II
z°
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
11
•3 t:
CO
2
&.
Z Zt Z
Q Q Q
Z Z Z
w a z
« o |
00
WWW
o o •—«
^- w «-i
222
2 2 2
§
o
u
~ f? u
o 9 52.
u u 5
CJ ^( bo
52, ~ >>
0 «. g
•°o ^= -fi
c -e «
c3 03 cC
O O
° J3 J=
ll||
s w
i: .*
o'ovdciorirtb'H
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Q < Q Q < < <
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
"1 1 1 1 1 1
*-! *-4 X^H rf^l «L| X-4
rt Q Q Q Q Q Q
c
.x
a
0 ^
O o O
£ •§ i = S" f?
9 « 9 t-1- r1- V
•* TJ C1 •* O O fc
g 1 9 ° 3 3 9
o •- 9 o ^ " M
to w> 2 to. u U ,,
^ -s ~ S -^ u ° H
gloy ^>5£.52.^
I 1 2 ^ "1 "I1 "S" '^
1 ll i -sill
O C ^ 4) ^ O jg O
|oboo .c^3)^
3l^a !<3uJ
00
2 M
& 'c
£ S
» c
oo • •
G» ^
1 §
— 'o
g o S
0 u ^
1 § S
S "S ^
h « ON
g G ON
;•" "3 o
. 3
CD O
C W)
CO CO
cu *»>
J= IS
•s
«! O
M^o
S
l!
o
8
•4—1
O
o
ON
ON
CJ
CO
3
o
o
ON
ON
C/3
O
en
ce
o
8
•«->
o
o
oo
ON
ON
0
S S "S
and handled.
<*•<
o
o
^—•
s
CO
•*-»
"3
a.
4-
o
in
co
-O
a>
v.
sn
•S S O,
'o O T>
o t-
"- C
,— O
^ o o
I S *S
-ls_
O r) i- cu TJ
*r* «\ f^' ^4—t *\
C/l
ce
o
'^"30
m o
»-< .CO
co a> ce to c
*e o *^ cj
a>
CJ
aj
^ O o
«3 ^
W OJ U
a o <—,
a>
c >>* o
11 §1
3^ g
CD
0$ W
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 Petter 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 psocessing 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
-------
r
>-
o
CD
z
I
CTJ
OH
JS?
" w
o
u
c
.o
55
"w
&
CO
0
o
CO
2
o<
o
°N
b
re
•o
O
CA
<4_
O
re
w>
re
O
O
CN
CJD
12.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81
-------
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
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 SMELTING*
Operation
Reverberatory sweating15 (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 3-04-008-11)
Sodium carbonate leaching calcining"1 (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 distillation11 (SCC 3-04-008-02)
Graphite rod distillation0'6 (SCC 3-04-008-53)
Retort distillation/oxidationf (SCC 3-04-008-54)
Muffle distillation/oxidationf (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 SMELTING3
Operation
Reverberatory sweating1" (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 sweating6 (SCC 3-04-008-09)
Muffle sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-10)
Kettle sweating
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 calcining*1 (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 distillation0-6 (SCC 3-04-008-53)
Retort distillation/oxidationf (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 SMELTING3
Operation
Reverberatory sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-61)
Rotary sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-62)
Muffle sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-63)
Kettle (pot) sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-64)
Electrical resistance sweating, per kg processed15
(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 furnace15 (SCC 3-04-008-69)
Electric induction melting15 (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
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.
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 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 paniculate
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 paniculate. Fabric filters show similar efficiencies in
removing paniculate from exhaust gases of melting furnaces.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.14-7
-------
Table 12.14-4 (English Units). FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING*
Operation
Reverberatory sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-61)
Rotary sweating13 (SCC 3-04-008-62)
Muffle sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-63)
Kettle (pot) sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-64)
Electrical resistance sweating, per ton processed15
(SCC 3-04-008-65)
Crushing/screening0 (SCC 3-04-008-12)
Sodium carbonate leaching (SCC 3-04-008-66)
Kettle (pot) melting furnace15 (SCC 3-04-008-67)
Crucible melting furnaced (SCC 3-04-008-68)
Reverberatory melting furnace15 (SCC 3-04-008-69)
Electric induction melting15 (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^50/3-78-107, 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
I
f
-------
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 furnace0 (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 paniculate/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).
0 Range due to variability of the scrap quality.
d For sulfates in aerosol form, expressed as sulruric 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 PRODUCTION8
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
(lb/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 particulate/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, Spotts, 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—Suljuric 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 hi rubber, a curing agent in elastomers, a sulfur removal agent in 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 (Pb3O^), which is used principally in 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 hi a reverberatory furnace. Chromate pigments are generally manufactured by precipitation
or calcination as in the following equation:
Pb(N03)2 + Na2(Cr04) •* 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 hi which lead is directly oxidized with
ah-. 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 in 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 hi 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"4'6
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
/ \ LEAD OXIDE
' BARTON \
HOI I *
(SCC 301-035-06)) LEAD
SEMLING
CHAMBER
1
'
— «-|cvc
\
>
\ 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 PRODUCTION8
Process
Lead Oxide Production
Barton Potb
(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 paniculate 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
0.3°
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-O4-051-01)
Bearing Metals
(SCC 3-04-051-02)
Other Sources of Lead
(SCC 3-04-051-03)
Participate
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 paniculate 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 in 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 %)
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)
Particulate
Emission ,
Factor4
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 exj
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 %)
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-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
Factor*
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
Factorb
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.
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.
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. O. 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
-------
^9 f!
a§ •§
•55 £
1? I1
1^ fi
(U
c«
00
12.19-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
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 -
Paniculate 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 particulate matter produced by welding is submicron in size and, as such, is considered to be
all PM-10 (i. 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, particulate scrubbers, and activated carbon filters.
1/95 Metallurgical Industry 12.19-3
-------
2
I
o
S
si
&
o
tu
00
Qi
g
J3
•a
CN
•8
.s c*i c
co o o
,5 S3 U
W ^ "O
131
3 wi o
o
£: O O
•-i >n •-< cs cs t~- oo
O 00 O >O O
O ^H »-H .^
Ol »—< —H ^H
u
^5^^w'—IT—i^^*^,f^OOOOOOOO.P » Iy t^
SSSSSwututuwuwtuwwSupjww
o
1 =
\o p O
Z? *7 *7
C'l «-H ^-1
o: oi a:
0
9
o\
o
< O
S w
o "
12.19-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
ON
cs
4>
1
o
z
H
2
OH
o
§
u.
z
0
CO
CO
U
o
a ^-^
£5^8
J5j
™*o c
'£^8
a£ o
O "T3
§ »8
£^8
3~«
o
H
U
8.5
|5
ju tS
i
CA
EA
U
U
2
0.
eo
c
^
i
Q Q U CO OQ « U
00 ^D ^^ *^1 ^^ C*l |^s
o r~ Ov oo >ri oi O
n — — o
SJ3 O "O O c^
J2 0 T> O C
vo oo c< o Tt in o
o o »-* cs >n in .— •
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 j j ^
o o oo \o H H 2
— — o -i o r- 5
<— c »— < f<^ f*^ p- (-- ^£
UJ tU Uj W UJ tU tU
>— V ^— ,
Cn Tj-
»n »o
O O
u s s
^ U jo U
M «« 2s"
(J ^^ < ^'
U. CO
Is
•o
"53
^
o
is
•8
8
X
II
1
u.
ti
jo
^
&
S
"e3
W) •
u -o
"I o
ll
gp'35
•S ^
•o ~
13 ^
§1
"B00
"S
•§ _c
II ""
*^
p
S 2
i £
2 S
u
<2J ^
&vi
a
C
• ^
8
o
VI
"3
— 2
I
0
5
D
J3
2
S3
J2
c
o
o
.M
1
_c
2
^
^^
<
1
1
o
*s
I
3
a>
C.
2
3
|
t«
S
a
,
i
g
WWWW
D OJ D O)
|
«(D
ffff-8 2
''
§
o
Ov
U
' a a a o.^.2.2.2.5.5.5,5.5.2.2.2.2.2
i u u u u H"£ ££>S£JS£(2,S>S>£>S>S£
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.19-5
-------
§
I
S
a
1
g
u-
t/5
g
P-
z
o
So
H
I
g
g
<
N
Os
1— I
CN
s
•
S-
C/3
(•5
2
ex.
.£
T3
/"5
Q en
Z
55
Q <°
Z
j; ._^
oo cs
o —
1 1
00
1-H
O^
9
?
en
Q)
U
U Q U CQ U § OQ
^ Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Z Z Z Z Z Z
ON */"> *•"" O O O
<-< O O O O Q O
z
Tf- ITS — 00 If)
cs in vo o\ o\ Q o\
N Z
^•H ^H
O 0
Q Q Q Q o Q 6
Z Z Z Z Z V
cs *~<
oo en O
oo en Q o Q Q Q
""' Z Z Z Z
cs en v^ *^
«rj vi Q o' O Q O
" Z Z
^ E c
S ° CS CS en en §
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
u w S w w w w
0
a
z
S
o
en
O
q
d
V
O
Z
o
d
5
i
.
0
w
u
Q
Z
Q
Z
O\
CS
\o
Q
Z
Q
Z
q
o
S?
i
fO
\ N
^^
w
uu§u§uuu
SQQQQQQQ
^zzzzzzz
In 2 ^ ^ cs
Q O' Q O Q OO' CS Tt
Z Z Z
cs
»—• 4
NO en ON en CS
^f en oo en Tf ^H
OOOQt^QOOCS
Z Z
QQQQQQQQ
zzzzzzzz
QQQQQQQQ
ZZZZZZZZ
2r: 2 ^
OOQCSQQTtQ
Z Z Z Z
ClntT1 U «3
Sn^Svoxof^tSSo
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O CS
oooovooo-n^*
rvl ^^ ^^ ^™i » i C_) i
1^1 *^ *^ *^ f* t \^ i
f^ ^) ^*) <^ W *^ *^ *^
uuuuuuuu
u <
Q Q
Z Z
^ *— <
00 O
-- d
vo oo
en en
•— ( «-H
O O
d d
V V
Q Q
Z Z
cs o
\r> o
*> 3
cs •^~
1 1
oo co
0 O
en l~-
VI
9
ON
« 9
•o en
£ u
< u
0 ^
Q Q
Q Q
Z Z
Q O
z z
^J.
en
Q o
Z
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
Z Z
S£^
-«
o o
O ^O
— cs
1 1
S-fr
VI
cs — •
UJ W
a
Q
Z
cs
cs
>n
^1
cs
Q
o
d
3
XI
8
1
VO
2
W
OQ U
Q Q
Z Z
•n In
CS TT
o cs
K cs
o o
i§
Q Q
Z Z
en — i
ID o
en O
V
? X
NO CO
r~ oo
1 1
o
la
§ 2
w w
12.19-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Z c
2c
«H t
S3 <•
S<
t
t
g
s
U)
U
1
3
S
^^
"i
o
bo
"So
_i
o
1
u.
C
'3
00
'g
w
ci-
sc
Ci
s,:l
i—
'""' r
fS
M
>4
»
^
~s
V)
^
^
o
5
<*5
^
^
tu
O
Q
Z
§
3
r*'
a
z
Q
Z
ON
N
oo
9
oo
o
W
r^i
m
?
r*}
U
00
§
Q
Q
Z
Q
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
2
oo
o
2
CD
Q
Z
o
o
iri
Q
Z
°;
*-«
O
ON
3
o
vo
f^
u
CO
Q
Z
o
oo
Q
Z
Q
Z
S
d
^
£
S
c_
O
r-
m
Q
Z
d
cs
9
^
V
Q
Z
o
d
0
18
[_
»— »
t-~
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
2
^"^
^
rs
i
w
JS
^
00
^^
vn
0
i
ro
U
y.
0)
w
•g
U(
8
X
3
u
-g«
-6 .S
60 4> II
II "O .
pf "^ **
5 c . o
S -i 1 .s
o I | |
^ i 8<
.§
« o —
-. en <"
O
U
£5
fe
H
5
O f> f~-
l^^s^w
3 5 £ £ S V
5 5 5 o so H
1.11 < <
cmm
_
§<<
oo
a
Tj-
6
u.
u
c«
o
04 .„
IT)
OO
W '£>
a
t*«
O
u u -S n
c c o c
W ^. O u.
I- U< Q, W
U CJ H'U
WWWWWooos
aia2t/3S««!lc«[«
!UI1>4>
-OTs-a
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.19-7
-------
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, "Particulate 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?(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 HA, 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
PRETREATMENT STEP
(POLISHING, GRINDING
AND DECREASING)*
'
ALKALINE CLEANING
(3-09-010-14)
\
F
ACID DIP
(3-09-010-15)
i
1
CHROMIC ACID ANODIC
TREATMENT
(3-09-010-16)
\
'
ELECTROPLATING OF
CHROMIUM
(3-09-010-18)
V-XV-X
|
' (T) PM EMISSIONS
(£\ VOC EMISSIONS
0
* 'SPECIFIC SOURCE CLASSIRCATION CODE
1 NOT ASSIGNED. REFER TO AP-42
CHAPTER 4 FOR EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DECREASING.
1°
1
0
+
1
0
__J
HARD CHROMIUM PLATED PRODUCT
7/96
Figure 12.20-1. Flow diagram for a typical hard chromium plating process.3
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
Metallurgical Industry
12.20-3
-------
METAL SUBSTRATE TO BE PLATED
PRETREATMENTSTEP
(POLISHING, GRINDING, AND
DECREASING)*
ALKALINE CLEANING
(3-00-010-14)
I
ACID DIP
(3-00-010-15)
STRIKE PLATING OF COPPER
(3-00-010-42)
ACID DIP
(3-00-010-15)
ELECTROPLATING OF COPPER
(3-09-010-42, -45, -48)
T
ELECTROPLATING OF SEMIBRIGHT
(WATTS) NICKEL
(3-00-010-65)
I
ELECTROPLATING OF BRIGHT
(WATTS) NICKEL
(3-00-010-65)
ELECTROPLATING OF CHROMIUM
(3-00-010-28)
(T) PM EMISSIONS
VOC EMISSIONS
'SPECIFIC SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODE
NOT ASSIGNED. REFER TO AP-42
CHAPTER 4 FOR EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DECREASING.
DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATED PRODUCT
Figure 12.20-2. How 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 DECREASING*
T
RINSE
ALKALINE CLEANING
(3--09-010-14)
T
CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING
(3-09-010-38)
RINSE
SEALING
FINAL PRODUCT
(T) PM EMISSIONS
VOC EMISSIONS
(FROM DECREASING)
•SPECIFIC SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODE
NOT ASSIGNED. REFER TO AP-42
CHAPTER 4 FOR EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DECREASING.
©
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
divalent 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 um (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
electrofomiing 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
cyanide. Current densities range from 11 to 4,300 A/m2 (1.0 to 400 A/ft2), and cathode efficiencies
range from 30 to 40 percent.
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 ranee 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 C
m
(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:
= 100
(1
- 2a + 9a2)0'5 + (a - 1)
_(1 + 3a) - (1 - 2a + 9a2)°'5_
(3)
6.45 R
a -
56.7 a , _ 1.79 x 10 0
- k2 -
(Pi - P.) g
7/96
Metallurgical Industry
12.20-13
-------
where:
Ej = emission factor, grains/bubble;
Rb = average bubble radius, in.;
a = surface tension of bath, pounds force per foot (Ib/ft);
cs = speed of sound, ft/sec;
pj = density of liquid, Ib/ft3;
p = density of gas (air), Ib/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 PJ
of 62.4 Ib/ft3 and for p of 0.0763 Ib/ft3, Equation 3 can be reduced to the following equation:
T).5
(4)
where:
0.072
E2 =
1
.9 o
Rb
(1
(1
- 2a
+ 3a)
+ 9a
- (1
2}0.5 +
- 2a -
(a -
i- 9a
2)
1)
0.5
a =
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 [Ib/ft]).
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 Ib/ft).
12.20-14 EMISSION FACTORS 7/96
-------
Table 12.20-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING3
Process
Hard chromium electroplating
(SCC 3-09-010-18)
— with moisture extractor6
— with polypropylene ballsf
— with fume suppressant^
- with fume suppressant and
polypropylene balls'1
— 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 eliminatorP
— with composite mesh-pad mist
eliminator''
Decorative chromium electroplating1"
(SCC 3-09-010-28)
— with fume suppressant5
Chromium Compounds'3
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 lO'5
2.1 x IO'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 10'6
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.
k 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 suppressant*1
- with mesh-pad mist eliminator*
- with packed-bed scrubber and
mesh pad mist eliminator"1
- with wet scrubber, moisture
extractor, and high efficiency
particulate air filter"
Chromium
Compounds.1*
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.
c 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 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
ELECTROPLATING11
Uncontrolled
Diameter,
jam
<0.5
0.5
2.4
8.0
Cumulative Percent Less Than
Total PMC
0
9.1
48.3
59.3
Chromium
Compounds'1
0
6.9
67.7
82.6
Controlledb
Diameter,
urn
<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 3-09-010-42)
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 10-6
4.2 x 10'5
NA
6.7 x 10'6
Ref.
21
31
31
21
21
22
22,31
22
31
31
a 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 1A, 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 Heddle, 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 JO-PEN 17008406, 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-Add
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 Region1"
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 = FLA
(2)
where:
F; = emission factor (mass of pollutant/unit area of forest consumed)
Pj = yield for pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant/unit mass of forest fuel consumed)
= 8.5 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (17 pound per ton Db/ton]) for total particulate
= 70 kg/Mg (140 Ib/ton) for carbon monoxide
= 12 kg/Mg (24 Ib/ton) for total hydrocarbon (as CH4)
= 2 kg/Mg (4 Ib/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
-------
tu
tu
Q
2
2
S
e
<
OH
Z
o
vi
%
u
CN
en
o3
H
O
z
p
U
UH
Z
p K
oo
5 w>
tl
1°
»1s
'So "3 Si
£ >5
.2 «
•°° § •§
tu £ §
°S
i
•g
,2
T~
OH
§ j
I'l
| |13
3 ><5
£
I ll
| °i
1
g
1
o.
T5 S ^
PL, •c 5
Is
2 B 'S)
5 o «g
^ o e-
"8 « ^
3 § >\ *S e3
•S! 1*1 8
a £,
CO
Vl
»— 1
oo
o
00
o
•*
CM
r-
VI
vS
CM
oo
00
vo
q
L
S o
si
Vl
p
en
en
S
5
,_,
en
f-
S!
V)
f-H
V)
OS
CM
O
^H
»— 1
OS
S
Vl
t^
en
00
§ e?
8 §
1!
CO
g
s
Tf
R
VO
CM
en
S
en
vo
VI
S
o
vo
CM
en
VI
§
VI
^
CM
is-
5 o
i'§>
— en
CM en
O wn
O '-^
VO VO
CM Os
O Os
00 Vl
en ^f
f~- vo
fen
VI
T— i
o - en
a s
00 •*
•* 00
vi en
en r^
° ^
(yi sfi
SOs
CM
OS r-l
CM en
CM OS
1-H O
en CM
Tf VO
0 0
*— < CM
CM OS
8 5
en «-H
VO V)
en en
0 0
en oo
vi en
en r~
^
O jj
»— ( oft
1 1
§> I®
^ Z§
•3 4TS*
< t£
00 00
VI VI
vi vn
en en
oo oo
vo vo
VI V>
OS OS
T-4 *— (
00 00
OO 00
en en
•*
N CM
00 00
en en
O O
CM CM
O O
r~ r~-
S 8
ON ON
C-l CSI
0 0
oo oo
00
e
•E
A
P S>
g 1
o v*
CO
5
^
00
J5
VI
VI
CM
VD
Os
P
OS
1-H
Os
S
CM
O
P
O
T-H
CM
CM
1-H
Os
os
•o
1
•§
w 1
la
Z
I
SO
VI
00
?
*
en
CM
00
Os
VI
Os
CM
Os
S
CM
O
en
c-
o
CM
CM
00
en
CM
5
Os
•|
O Vl
CM Os
en oo
CM ^H
en
Os en
en ^H
- OS
— c r-
OS -H
-H en
—1 VO
00 *^
Os eM
Vl Vl
oo in
OS O
VO
in
Os SO
VO 00
OS VI
CM Tf
0 0
en r-
f- VO
*-< CM
CM en
in oo
CM en
VO O
C5 00
r- o
•
13.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
10/96
-------
For example, suppose that it is necessary to estimate the total paniculate 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 (/xm) 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 pm and exceeding 10 /xm.3 Particles
over about 10 jun, 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 the 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 paniculate, 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
Paniculate 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 paniculate 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
-------
6
ffl
S
m
8
g
on
m
en
10/96
MISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
.s
£
§
•a
o
U
13
3
U,
^H C5 t»J P VO
tsr-
CM rt
iA)
CM
H, W . UH 03
bfl
oo
o\—<
O t- OO
U, CO .!3
' 3
o
tS o
-a -a •;
— -3 «
'
1
J
Miscellaneous Sources
13.1-7
-------
o
o
CO
'so
'S
a
S
a
|P
S c
^ r
PQ
«
L
ce
o
ot
bfl
5
•3
^
1
3
1
3g
J H
S
5 /T*^
S ^<
3
L,
1
c
o
z
8
1
maroon
[onoxide
2
1
o
fc
S
«g
£
1
1
c
_o
§>
•s
o
O
13
tu
1
u-
QQ m m m tx> co m <<< QQQQQOQ
Q O QO *o on op
coco ft to .^ ft to .^ ftco.ja I'Sg^iigii
K CO W OQ BC
^
1 ^
1 % is
1 I 1 ! ] 1] ! , 1 j 1 1
2^j§5 M u° .So o
« j
13.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
10/96
-------
bo
1
§
E
2
I
UH
i
E,
3 Al
O rf.
o
bo
c
0> to
S 2
I
1
§
Q Q
°gg'§
o'SS.§
HH
H
o b
1
8
I
U [L, PH
fc Z 2
S|2 O
S C/D on _2
B W W -S1
•S "
0 Q
1
D
8
§ g g 2
(O
1
-------
Table 13.1-4 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRESCRIBED BURNING
BY U. S. REGION
Regional Configuration
And Fuel Type8
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
Particulate (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 Type-
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
5.4"
8.5'
11.1°
3.7°
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.
0 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 DW 129301 10-01 -3/DOE DE-A179-83BP12869, 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 Particulate 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., "Particulate 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 Jumper 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 Particulate 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 al., "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.M4 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 hi 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 (/imA). 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 (j.m to a few percent capture of particles as large as 100 /un. 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 /an
aerodynamic diameter is frequently assigned to the standard high volume sampler.
SP Suspended Paniculate, which is often used as a surrogate for TSP, is defined as PM
with an aerodynamic diameter no greater than 30 /an. 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 /an. 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 /*m 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 tan 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
Particulate emissions occur whenever vehicles travel over a paved surface, such as a road or parking
lot. Particulate emissions from paved roads are due to direct exhaust from vehicles and resuspension of loose
material on the road surface. In general terms, particulate 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 particulate matter within an area. 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. In the absence of continuous addition of fresh
material (through localized trackout or application of antiskid material), paved road surface loading should
reach equilibrium values in which the amount of material resuspended matches the amount replenished. The
equilibrium sL value depends upon numerous factors. It is believed that the most important factors are:
mean speed of vehicles traveling the road; the average daily traffic (ADT); the number of lanes and ADT per
lane; the fraction of heavy vehicles (buses and trucks); and the presence/absence of curbs, storm sewers and
parking lanes.
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 [um] in physical diameter)
per unit area of the travel surface.4"5 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. 1 and C.2.
The surface sL provides a reasonable means of characterizing seasonal variability in a paved road
emission inventory. 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. As noted earlier, once
replenishment of fresh material is eliminated, the road surface loading can be expected to reach an
equilibrium value, which is substantially lower than the late winter/early spring value.
10/97 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-1
-------
/
E
w
ii
a Z
ci —
2 u
s s
ii
5 Z
f» '= S < g 2
S f • B e i s E
2 > o j s u» •»
a©©©©©000
-•fiiSJ-i-•"**-.
Jurr
•^g*^^*'
rlS^j^^Slfe;
^ «^**jt*'~^ •I"^"^ ^
•«S^~~*?i? -
"a^gi -j.£§.
13.2.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/97
-------
13.2.1.3 Predictive Emission Factor Equations
10
The quantity of dust emissions from vehicle traffic on a paved road may be estimated using the
following empirical expression:
E=k (sL/2)°-65 (W/3 )L5 (1)
where:
E = paniculate emission factor (having units matching the units of k)
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
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 one 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 shown in Table 13.2.1-1.
To determine particulate emissions for a specific particle size range, use the appropriate value of k shown in
Table 13.2.1-1.
Table 13.2-1.1. PARTICLE SIZE MULTIPLIERS FOR PAVED ROAD EQUATION
Size rangea
PM-2.5C
PM-10
PM-15
PM-30d
Multiplier kb
g/VKT
1.1
4.6
5.5
24
g/VMT
1.8
7.3
9.0
38
Ib/VMT
0.0040
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). The multiplier k includes unit conversions to produce
emission factors in the units shown for the indicated size range from the mixed units required in
Equation 1.
c Ratio of PM-2.5 to PM-10 taken from Reference 22.
d PM-30 is sometimes termed "suspendable particulate" (SP) and is often used as a surrogate for TSP.
The above equation is based on a regression analysis of numerous emission tests, including 65 tests
for PM-10.10 Sources tested include public paved roads, as well as controlled and uncontrolled industrial
paved roads. All sources tested were of freely flowing vehicles on relatively level roads and at constant
speed. No tests of "stop-and-go" traffic or vehicles under load 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:
10/97
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-3
-------
Silt loading: 0.02 - 400 g/m2
0.03 - 570 grains/square foot (ft2)
Mean vehicle weight: 1.8 - 38 megagrams (Mg)
2.0 - 42 tons
Mean vehicle speed: 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.
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. 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
a paved public road may be selected from the values given in Table 13.2.1-2, but the quality rating of the
equation should be reduced by 2 levels. Also, recall that Equation 1 refers to emissions due to freely flowing
(not stop-and-go) traffic at constant speed on level roads.
During the preparation of the background document (Reference 10), public road silt loading values
from 1992 and earlier were assembled into a data base. This data base is available in the file "oldsldat.zip"
located at the Internet URL "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42back.html" on the World Wide Web.
Although hundreds of public paved road sL measurements had been collected, there was no uniformity in
sampling equipment and analysis techniques, in roadway classification schemes, and in the types of data
reported. Not surprisingly, the data set did not yield a coherent relationship between sL and road class,
average daily traffic (ADT), etc., even though an inverse relationship between sL and ADT has been found
for a subclass of curbed paved roads in urban areas. Further complicating the 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. Although there were strong reasons to
suspect that the assembled data base was skewed towards high values, independent data were not available to
confirm the suspicions.
Since the time that the background document was prepared, new field sampling programs have
shown that the assembled sL data set is biased high for "normal" situations. Just as importantly, however,
the newer programs confirm that substantially higher than "normal" silt loadings can occur on public paved
roads. As a result, two sets of default values are provided in Table 13.2.1-2, one for "normal" conditions and
another for worst-case conditions (such as after winter storm seasons or in areas with substantial mud/dirt
trackout). The newer sL data base is available as in the file "newsldat.zip" located at the Internet URL
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42back.html" on the World Wide Web.
13.2.1 -4 EMISSION FACTORS 10/97
-------
Table 13.2.1-2 (Metric Units). RECOMMENDED DEFAULT SILT LOADING (g/m2)
VALUES FOR PUBLIC PAVED ROADS3
Normal conditions
Worst-case conditions0
High ADT roadsb
0.1
0.5
Low ADT roads
0.4
3
a Excluding limited access roads. See discussion in text. 1 g/m is equal to 1.43
grains/ft2
b High ADT refers to roads with at least 5,000 vehicles per day.
c For conditions such as post-winter-storm or areas with substantial mud/dirt
carryout.
The range of sL values in the data base for normal conditions is 0.01 to 1.0 for high-ADT roads and
0.054 to 6.8 for low-ADT roads. Consequently the use of a default value from Table 13.2.1-2 should be
expected to yield only an order-of-magnitude estimate of the emission factor. Public paved road silt loadings
are dependent upon: traffic characteristics (speed, ADT, and fraction of heavy vehicles); road characteristics
(curbs, number of lanes, parking lanes); local land use (agriculture, new residential construction) and
regional/seasonal factors (snow/ice controls, wind blown dust). As a result, the collection and use of site-
specific silt loading data is highly recommended. In the event that default sL values are used, the quality
ratings for the equation should be downgraded 2 levels.
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 one part of the country to another. For annual conditions, a default value of
0.015 g/m is recommended for limited access roadways.9'22 Even fewer of the available data correspond to
worst-case situations, and elevated loadings are observed to be quickly depleted because of high traffic
speeds and high ADT rates. A default value of 0.2 g/m2 is recommended for short periods of time following
application of snow/ice controls to limited access roads.22
The limited data on silt loading values for industrial roads have shown as much variability as public
roads. Because of the greater variation of traffic conditions, the use of preventive controls and the use of
mitigative controls at industrial roads, the data probably do not reflect the potential extent of this variation.
However, the collection of site specific silt loading data from industrial roads is easier and safer than for
public roads. Therefore, the collection and use of site-specific silt loading data is preferred and is highly
recommended. 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 13.2.1-3, but the quality rating of the equation
should be reduced by 2 levels.
13.2.1.4 Controls6'23
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.
10/97
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-5
-------
oo
•1-H
bO
CO
cs
CO
Bj
H
1
w
•o
1
CO
en
i
O
'—|
X
bfl
C
••3
o
Q
[-<
0
6
g-
^
C
0
U
•4— )
i/S
rt
1
U
M
•4— »
'3
p~*
B
s
s
h/1
s
&
« S
15
u
s
o
O •§.
6 S
^ 00
o sg
• •*-»
z ^
£>
00
3
•o
C
H— i
r~; •* cs
cs ON o cs o C-- od
a\ cs >— i r-
cs — •
§ ^ 0\ ^ ""> CS 2
§§ S 3 ^ E 2 -*
oo • f: I-H in cs
i-H "^-^ 1-H
t-g S -g 6 -g 6 -g 6 -g
^c w> ^5 U) ^o wj ]B bb ]B '
rJH »JH »Jt< t-*( *JC|
IO
V^ V) ^^ i-^ Tj" CN) ,-H l/^ f<^ C*~l 1
i— ( IO *~~( 'O 1~~< |
>o cs [^ °> q q ^
O\ ON .fT ^_j OO ^f ^^ . ; .—/
r-(VO ,, >-j< VO «^< VO ^ ^ "^
cs cs -H cs ^- cs cs
CO *O CO *O »— '
ON CS to iri t~~ 1
1— 1 •— 1 1
^ t~^ \O o ON
CS }J} •* vo K
•4 ^ vq cs Tj-
i3CL'
bo o
c 'S
••3 -5
cS JO
O ^^/
in ^J
•O ^
e 8,
fj OO
.y -o
s §
£ 1
•3 "e
e} rt
a ?
"(3 ^
i ^
V5 -^.^
3 u
"a D
C •*-*
•=5 — H CO
=s -2 S
8 1 1
8 I o
P^H " i— 1
s °a
g SI
•u O C
C •£ 3
8i-o
H g ^
0. 0 S
U <*H to
«, -S e
j) o '3
•a 8|
> ^ 2
2 '» 8
' j3 O
Z^ w -^
? ^^
IO . C/3
CS ,
I A-&
^ 1 "3
(g HS
tO J3
13.2.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/97
-------
It is particularly important to note that street sweeping of gutters and curb areas may actually increase the silt
loading on the traveled portion of the road. Redistribution of loose material onto the travel lanes will
actually produce a short-term increase in the emissions.
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. The
cost-effectiveness of mitigative measures is also unfavorable if only a short period of time is required for the
road to return to equilibrium silt loading condition. 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.
13.2.1.5 Changes since Fifth Edition
The following changes were made since the publication of the Fifth Edition of AP-42:
1) The particle size multiplier was reduced by approximately 55% as a result of emission testing
specifically to evaluate the PM-2.5 component of the emissions.
2) Default silt loading values were included in Table 13.2.1-2 replacing the Tables and Figures
containing silt loading statistical information.
3) Editorial changes within the text were made indicating the possible causes of variations in the silt
loading between roads within and among different locations. The uncertainty of using the default silt
loading value was discussed.
References For Section 13.2.1
1. D. R. Dunbar, Resuspension Of Particulate 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 Entrapment From Paved Roadways,
EPA-450/3-77-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1977.
5. Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.
10/97 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-7
-------
6. T. Cuscino, Jr., et ai, 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 Particulate 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 Particulate 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 Particulate 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.Sand 11.2.6 — PavedRoads, 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 Particulate 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.
16. Evaluation Of PM-10 Emission Factors For Paved Streets, Harding Lawson Associates, Denver, CO,
October 1991.
17. Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, RTP 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. Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Work Assignment No. 4-06,
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, April 1997.
13.2.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 10/97
-------
23. 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.
24. Written communication from G. Muleski, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, to R. Myers,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 30, 1997.
10/97 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-9
-------
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 [/im] 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
paniculate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT) or vehicle mile
traveled (VMT):
0.5 r^65-n]
ig-H (kilograms [kg]/VKT)
[ 365 J
(1)
10.5 f^s-nl (pounds flb]/VMT)
365
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 pma
1.0
<30/xm < 15 ^m <10ftm <5 fim
0.80 0.50 0.36 0.20
^2.5 Mm
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
-------
1
a,
1
a,
i
q
d
T3
<4-c
o
en
2
.1
PL,
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
-------
f-;
o
O
VII
O
T3
o
o
I >
CT1—i
la"0
^ P
C3
o
1
o
s
o
"E,
1
S
8
_
'o
SE
00
o
o
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
Efficiency8
(%)
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 fim. 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, "Particulate Emissions From Vehicle Travel Over Unpaved
Roads", Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Houston, TX, June 1978.
4. C. Cowherd, Jr, et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source 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,
1 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
-------
13.23 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 \jjaa] 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, this 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"4 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
-------
Z
o
o.
O
Z
o
in
Z
O
u
04
O
PH
c/a
ff!
B
PH
Z
O
S
u
O
W
Q
Z
O
u
w
.2
3
03
"c
bo
s
0
u
Ui
0
tj
OS
HH
C
.2
'S
CO
w
"8
T3
C
0>
Recomm
Dust-generating Activities
CO
JZ
ON
^
O
•*-»
O
g
CO
C
O
O
1 1 . Demolition of buildings or ]
•o
c
o!
C
O
— '
0
s
_.
1 1
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
CTJ
^.
o
£^
t>
e
_o
•*— •
o
3
•«»*
CO
C
O
O
03
u*
C
bo
o o
*7 9
-S
? c
1^ ^
2 ON o
,0 • 4-^
wl — < O
S3 ^_ gs
O "O 6Z)
^^ S c
C "^
.2-7 ^ (N-
e3 c7\ os
3 — ' * 2
^J ^
g 3 tS u
Q H S oo
bo
•C S
03 C
"o _co
"T3 J2
e •§
"s "s
g bo
o ^ -^
•d J 2
o
s
Ui
o
11
§3..s
'co o fa
.— 2
£^ *^ O
** tN '*" __
^3 * c3 .
03 2 CJ o i> o
OH t/3 "° '§
D.S 2c^
CO
1
-a
•-i_
o
o
CH
to
03
VM
^
O
o
9
s
i
o
3
o
O
ns*
2
C
O
tj
bo
^
ro
•G
Material
CO
-------
8
**!
oi
CO
c
bQ
&
S
00
01
o
1
o
o
"55
V3
Ui 1
4> "^
^"•0
^ g
^ j£
4) ^
«* W
0 _,
00 .S
"c3
1
_c
00
en
•o
U
I
IB
>
2
5.7 kg/vehicle kilometer t
'o
OH
O
bO
Scrapers removi
•*'
£
(VKT) (20.2 Ib/vehicle m
traveled [VMT])
O
1
9
G
S
«
.S
1
Is
'S
ts
•2
to
o
2
VM
o
w>
•5
wS
i
»
J^
O
2
*-•
o
.S
O
1
9
«
1
o
o
0
o
1
c
2
o
42
bo
!«
g^.
* ^
!2 c
UH O
d> .—
•w •>->
CS O
^^ QJ
2 oo
«3
o
w
S3 O
fli
<+? «i
O 03
.§"1
|1
~° ."S
o «3
II
^d
materials
o
1
t
O _g
"i ^
3 o>
.. u 0,
n2 J °
« t3 ••*
<*- S VI <_,
§18 1
•sj bo i) c
« C £ OH
S o '- '§•
U T3 -O <0
Ox
Ci ^3
£ ^3
o —
•^ t
c« Ox
s »_;
o" .
1) "- '
»- S
-------
O
o
cs
= I
'S *-
o
u
£
PU
o
ended Em
3
Con
^^ ^^
T i
cc
_o
C8
w.
ws
§
1 S
illl-a
1- I"8 1
6 .2 S .=2 a
a* ss« «
•—<*-i— jn-ie
E ° S °
*
§
II
I-8
E .2
£
C/5
ai
Vehcu
CQ
ff
o- -S
Qj 3
•s &
-I
§
« S
o
O U
C4 (SO
<=i« ti ts
< f.2
4-1 ',3 a>
O » d
« *> O
G C <+«
0—0
S ^ g>
« ~ S
5/5 2 =3
fe o«2
1^|
ll^
c g _-
••"we
c -g o
Hi
fl> <•>»
O ^ r,
I 2 I
1
53
>
5
"^
_e
s
13
'S»|| ^
q> ^ *5 c
* s ?. §
|"8l
f?t
S < M
«N
2
o
>.
i s ^ «
-s s
•—
?
1
O « u3
a jj -a s .s
||ll|
S a^ «? o to
^ CO *^ (U
s
ts -s 53 o ^
£«1
«
S £
8 .2
O .52
§
mo
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
Debris handling
Truck transport1"
Bulldozers
Pan scrapers
Cut/fill material handling
Cut/fill haulage
General construction
Recommended Control Method(s)
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 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.
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 [/xm] 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
-------
CO
CO
D
Q
Z
>•••<
CO
D
O
CO
z
o
U
U
ai
CO
O
Q
Z
co
e
5
/~N 5
feS
•4—*
« «>
rS §
CJ p^
2
f S|
o £
Z 5,3
c
8
^
&
e 60
1 S
O
U
6 |
i
.2
4)
I
O ;s
o 'o
>>
tS
3
•a
c
cs
CS *^" OO ON OO v»O | CS t"^ *"H ON ^^ ON
CS V} *& C^ t^* f1^ ^O ^* e^t ^sj <^i f^ >^
P o „ P cs — P P o
•
§ 1
'ttf <^»
1 1
M fc- „ .5 B
£2 -S»0 e ~ —
°° 1^"S Sls^a
It-a^s^llil-Sii-a
T33OJ2— O^J.g.SCw^njO
a,JU55pt,u«t»JU>A,HO
.£ f
V3 ^ bfi
« «S S
e ° y '£
I £ 1 £
~ CS. Cl, s
3 T3 "2 "e3
T3 C £ 0
O « W o
o 00 60 4)
™ .S «
*^3 *^^ 'c fti
«> t '£ 3
« B3 C W
*i §• s s
CS 4) "S <1>
c S S S
o 2 « >
rj- in rj- \o
CO Tj- t~~ f> CS T
^•H »•
^r ^r ON ^Q
i i | i '
oo r- to o\
d cs' cs' °°
O m ON — < CS in -
in cs vo oo o c
r-' m cs' cs' ro ON a
'~M
^ _ oo ^ ^
• • T | , •
oo — vo o O
cs in •*•
r— ^
•o S
c >
if! I
3 S CS "
•Q o ^ a> ^
> & 0 a JS 0 J
CD W U co co U C.
C/3
^•J
•o
e
"c a>
"o, f
1 ^
O "o
D, M
11
IY 'o
1 'I
U S
h O t-> —
- — cs — «
rt ON
" es
^ ' '
ON \^
oo' <^
- cs -n oo
•* ^
i CS •<*•—<
1
2
0}
i i
3 "S
3 u E §
cs
rn
Q
Z
o
§
13.2.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
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)
_
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 /tm
0.74
< 15 urn
0.48
< 10 fim
0.35
< 5 /an
0.20
< 2.5 pm
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 paniculate 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
credible 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 credible 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.
\ Jo
W//VD SPEED
WIND SPEED AT
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:
Emission factor = k
N
E
(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 /mi
1.0
< 15 /mi
0.6
<10/*m
0.5
< 2.5 /mi
0.2
This distribution of particle size within the under 30 micrometer (/mi) fraction is comparable
to the distributions reported for other fugitive dust sources where wind speed is a factor. This is
illustrated, for example, in the distributions for batch and continuous drop operations encompassing a
number of test aggregate materials (see Section 13.2.4).
In calculating emission factors, each area of an erodible surface that is subject to a different
frequency of disturbance should be treated separately. For a surface disturbed daily, N = 365 per
year, and for a surface disturbance once every 6 months, N = 2 per year.
The erosion potential function for a dry, exposed surface is:
P = 58 (u * - ut* )2 + 25 (u * - ut* )
(3)
P = 0 for u *
-------
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
30cm.
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
a Western surface coal mine. Reference 2.
b Lightly crusted.
c Eastern power plant. Reference 3.
Material
Overburden*
Scoria (roadbed material)*
Ground coal (surrounding
coal pile)*
Uncrusted coal pile*
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
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:
u10 =
In (10/0.005)
In (z/0.005)
(5)
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.
2. 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
(O
+ (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*Q) 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 paniculate 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 = ir 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.
Step 1: 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)
u10 = u7
In (7/0.005)
= 1.05 u7+
1/95 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.5-9
-------
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Circled values
refer to
* A portion of €2 is disturbed daily by reclaiming activities.
Pile Surface
Area
ID
A
B
GI + C2
us
T
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 Climatolosical Data
MONTHLY
! "
cr
o
a
v>
\~i
cr
1
30
01
10
1 3
12
20
29
29
22
1 1
29
1 7
21
10
10
01
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
34
31
30
30
33
34
29
3.
*- a
z
RESULT*
SPEED M
U
5.3
10.5
2.4
1 I .0
M .3
t 1 .
19.6
10.9
3.0
14.6
22.3
7.9
7.7
4.5
6.7
3.7
1 .2
4.3
9.3
7.5
0.3
7.1
2.4
5.9
1 .3
2. 1
e.3
8.2
5.0
3. 1
4.9
o
UJ
u^
a.
i/>
UJ
0 Z
^
a o.
u>
>• t
15
6.9
10.6
FASTEST
MILE
o ~
\_JD-
LtJ
a. r
en
16
J$
O
6.0 1 10
11.4 j 16
1 .9
9.0
19.8
1 I .2
8. 1
15. 1
15
Cf
q5
1 7
15
2J
23.3 £j)
13.5 23
is.srTF
9.6 B^
8.6 13
13.8
1 .5
5.8
10.2
7.8
10.6
17.3
8.5
(?}
T|
12
1 4
^^
16
^a
T4
8.8 IS
1 1 .7 1 QJ
12.2 16
8. 5 1 16
8.3fTJ
6.6 fO
£.2^ 9_
5.5^ 8
z
0
UJ
cr
o
17
36
01
02
13
1 1
30
30
30
13
12
29
17
18
13
1 I
36
34
31
35
24
20
32
13
02
32
32
26
32
32
31
25
FOS THE MONTH:
30
— •
3.3
i . I
o
31
29
ATE: 1 1
UJ
-c
C3
22
i
2
3
4
c
v
6
7
g
5
10
I I
12
3
I 4
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
'6
29
30
ji
-
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.S-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*
us/ur: 0.2
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.12
= 0.1U+ (m/s)
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 EMISSIONS4
3-Day Period
2
3
4
TOTAL
u* (m/s)
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 /*m (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)z = 670 nr
4
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, uj^ = 1.05 u^", so thatu^ = 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 erosioiyxrtential (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
Coal 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 11.2 — 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, 76:113-117, 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): 562 1-5630.
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
-------
13.2.6 Abrasive Blasting
13.2.6.1 General1'2
Abrasive blasting is the use of abrasive material to clean or texturize a material such as metal or
masonry. Sand is the most widely used blasting abrasive. Other abrasive materials include coal slag, smelter
slags, mineral abrasives, metallic abrasives, and synthetic abrasives. Industries that use abrasive blasting
include the shipbuilding industry, automotive industry, and other industries that involve surface preparation
and painting. The majority of shipyards no longer use sand for abrasive blasting because of concerns about
silicosis, a condition caused by respiratory exposure to crystalline silica. In 1991, about 4.5 million tons of
abrasives, including 2.5 million tons of sand, 1 million tons of coal slag, 500 thousand tons of smelter slag,
and 500 thousand tons of other abrasives were used for domestic abrasive blasting operations.
13.2.6.2 Process Description1"9
Abrasive blasting systems typically include three essential components: an abrasive container (i. e.,
blasting pot); a propelling device; and a blasting nozzle or nozzles. The exact equipment used depends to a
large extent on the specific application and type(s) of abrasive.
Three basic methods can be used to project the abrasive towards the surface being cleaned: air
pressure; centrifugal wheels; or water pressure. Air blast (or dry) systems use compressed air to propel the
abrasive using either a suction-type or pressure-type process. Centrifugal wheel systems use a rotating
impeller to mechanically propel the abrasive by a combination of centrifugal and inertial forces. Finally, the
water (or wet) blast method uses either air pressure or water pressure to propel an abrasive slurry towards the
cleaned surface.
Abrasive materials used in blasting can generally be classified as sand, slag, metallic shot or grit,
synthetic, or other. The cost and properties associated with the abrasive material dictate its application. The
following discusses the general classes of commonly used abrasives.
Silica sand is commonly used for abrasive blasting where reclaiming is not feasible, such as in
unconfmed abrasive blasting operations. Sand has a rather high breakdown rate, which can result in
substantial dust generation. Worker exposure to free crystalline silica is of concern when silica sand is used
for abrasive blasting.
Coal and smelter slags are commonly used for abrasive blasting at shipyards. Black Beauty™,
which consists of crushed slag from coal-fired utility boilers, is a commonly used slag. Slags have the
advantage of low silica content, but have been documented to release other contaminants, including
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), into the air.
Metallic abrasives include cast iron shot, cast iron grit, and steel shot. Cast iron shot is hard and
brittle and is produced by spraying molten cast iron into a water bath. Cast iron grit is produced by crushing
oversized and irregular particles formed during the manufacture of cast iron shot. Steel shot is produced by
blowing molten steel. Steel shot is not as hard as cast iron shot, but is much more durable. These materials
typically are reclaimed and reused.
9/97 Metallurgical Industry 13.2.6-1
-------
Synthetic abrasives, such as silicon carbide and aluminum oxide, are becoming popular substitutes
for sand. These abrasives are more durable and create less dust than sand. These materials typically are
reclaimed and reused.
Other abrasives include mineral abrasives (such as garnet, olivine, and staurolite), cut plastic, glass
beads, crushed glass, and nutshells. As with metallic and synthetic abrasives, these other abrasives are
generally used in operations where the material is reclaimed. Mineral abrasives are reported to create
significantly less dust than sand and slag abrasives.
The type of abrasive used in a particular application is usually specific to the blasting method. Dry
blasting is usually done with sand, metallic grit or shot, aluminum oxide (alumina), or silicon carbide. Wet
blasters are operated with either sand, glass beads, or other materials that remain suspended in water.
13.2.6.3 Emissions And Controls1'3-5'11
Emissions —
Particulate matter (PM) and particulate HAP are the major concerns relative to abrasive blasting.
Table 13.2.6-1 presents total PM emission factors for abrasive blasting as a function of wind speed. Higher
wind speeds increase emissions by enhanced ventilation of the process and by retardation of coarse particle
deposition.
Table 13.2.6-1 also presents fine particulate emission factors for abrasive blasting. Emission factors
are presented for PM-10 and PM-2.5, which denote particles equal to or smaller than 10 and 2.5 microns in
aerodynamic diameter, respectively. Emissions of PM of these size fractions are not significantly wind-speed
dependent. Table 13.2.6-1 also presents an emission factor for controlled emissions from an enclosed
abrasive blasting operation controlled by a fabric filter; the blasting media was 30/40 mesh garnet.
Limited data from Reference 3 give a comparison of total PM emissions from abrasive blasting using
various media. The study indicates that, on the basis of tons of abrasive used, total PM emissions from
abrasive blasting using grit are about 24 percent of total PM emissions from abrasive blasting with sand.
The study also indicates that total PM emissions from abrasive blasting using shot are about 10 percent of
total PM emissions from abrasive blasting with sand.
Hazardous air pollutants, typically particulate metals, are emitted from some abrasive blasting
operations. These emissions are dependent on both the abrasive material and the targeted surface.
Controls —
A number of different methods have been used to control the emissions from abrasive blasting.
Theses methods include: blast enclosures; vacuum blasters; drapes; water curtains; wet blasting; and reclaim
systems. Wet blasting controls include not only traditional wet blasting processes but also high pressure
water blasting, high pressure water and abrasive blasting, and air and water abrasive blasting. For wet
blasting, control efficiencies between 50 and 93 percent have been reported. Fabric filters are used to control
emissions from enclosed abrasive blasting operations.
13.2.6-2 EMISSION FACTORS 9/97
-------
Table 13.2.6-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ABRASIVE BLASTING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Sand blasting of mild steel
panels'3
(SCC 3-09-002-02)
Abrasive blasting of unspecified
metal parts, controlled with a
fabric filter'1
(SCC 3-09-002-04)
Particle size
Total PM
5 mph wind speed
10 mph wind speed
15 mph wind speed
PM-10C
PM-2.5C
Total PM
Emission factor,
lb/1, 000 Ib abrasive
27
55
91
13
1.3
0.69
a One lb/1,000 Ib is equal to 1 kg/Mg. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.
SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 10.
c Emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5 are not significantly wind-speed dependent.
d Reference 11. Abrasive blasting with garnet blast media.
References For Section 13.2.6
1. C. Cowherd and J. Kinsey, Development OfParticulate And Hazardous Emission Factors For
Outdoor Abrasive Blasting, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, MO, June 1995.
2. Written communication from J. D. Hansink, Barton Mines Corporation, Golden, CO, to Attendees of
the American Waterways Shipyard Conference, Pedido Beach, AL, October 28, 1991.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Section 2: Unconftned Abrasive Blasting, Draft
Document, El Monte, CA, September 8, 1988.
4. A. W. Mallory, "Guidelines For Centrifugal Blast Cleaning", J. Protective Coatings And Linings,
1(1), June 1984.
5. B. Baldwin, "Methods Of Dust-Free Abrasive Blast Clearing", Plant Engineering, 32(4),
February 16, 1978.
6. B. R Appleman and J. A. Bruno, Jr., "Evaluation Of Wet Blast Cleaning Units", J. Protective
Coatings And Linings, 2(8), August 1985.
9/97
Metallurgical Industry
13.2.6-3
-------
7. M. K. Snyder and D. Bendersky, Removal Of Lead-Based Bridge Paints, NCHRP Report 265,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, December 1983.
8. J. A. Bruno, "Evaluation Of Wet Abrasive Blasting Equipment", Proceedings Of The 2nd Annual
International Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 17-19, 1985.
9. J. S. Kinsey, Assessment Of Outdoor Abrasive Blasting, Interim Report, EPA Contract
No. 68-02 4395, Work Assignment No. 29, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, September 11, 1989.
10. J. S. Kinsey, S. Schliesser, P. Murowchick, and C. Cowherd, Development Of Paniculate Emission
Factors For Uncontrolled Abrasive Blasting Operations, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1995.
11. Summary Of Source Test Results, Poly Engineering, Richmond, CA , Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA, November 19, 1990.
12. Emission Factor Documentation ForAP-42 Section 13.2.6, Abrasive Blasting, Final Report,
Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, September 1997.
13.2.6-4 EMISSION FACTORS 9/97
-------
13.3 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 an
-------
CO
CO
,eo
c
^
o
&
s
2
%
o
o
c
o
•e
A
o
J
JD
60
-S?
'c
I
C
j5
*~"
no
2
"So
c
o
£
60
S
d
o
60
3
CA
u
e
Compositioi
u
o
"o.
X
»f
'S^'
f-.
fl£
aT
p
(S O\
Tf VO
o
s"*'
0?
*~J T
C4 tr>
2-
Q
Z
Q
Z
S*
sl
o1
XI 2
00 oo
c-
CA
U
CA
•3
C
"u
Q
75/15/10;
Potassium
(sodium)
u
13
o o
•52 pi
m
-
*? «
6 1
IN
^^
2 "? °i
*-« o 1
XM ^
-•
•^
VO
d
Q
Z
Q
Z
£
00
f*>
CA
63
(fl
nitrate/
charcoal
sulfur
Nitrocellulose
CA
CA
JU
"33
•g
60
JT"
rt
t*;
O
*^^
S1
9
^j-
o.
_
00
00
VO,
!
s
t
S u. ^
C U ^x
5 -J-
'€ o -c
E - -i
11 I
n.
u
•o
1
VO ~
*~*
^ 2-
aT
VO1
>n >o
r^ ^o
O
s^'
ot?
fi
S
Q
Z
Q
Z
^,
00 "^
-> ts
Q
S ^
•*> 2
VO '
(N VO
^s
60
il
? j=>
&t
c3 2
3 ^A
U £
ill!
wo cuo g "S "4$
«*" O r- *S *i
s .s ii 1 1
g Z i •£ c o.
o 25
M s
s-
0
K i
c
. 0
11 .
"o S "w
E o g
4) o if
a
o
20-100%
Nitroglycerir
S""c
'E -|
a .2
c u
>v 50
Q
*"* 1
s^
-I
8"
60
•i s
S.S
S E
13.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80
-------
S
ro
cu
tH
O
j=
o
&
Q
C
a
u
u
•o
'x
0
c
u
Cud
g
Z
"u
3
§
o
c
o
O
c
o
"^
" '
M
j*9
<_,
I
1
C
o
2
I?
"So
§
2
60
"Sb
j<
c
o
60
M
Wl
U
Cfl
C
.2
W
a
o
U
u
CO
O
"&
X
W
^ o ?r S' ^
_,
o" s § *>* * S
^ Z BC o u Z Z
5"
Q 2 2 Q Q
Z 2 ^ Z Z
tn
"
^
Q M r^ Q Q
Z t^ « Z Z
~— •
r- Q Q Q
" Z Z Z
oo 0 Q Q
00 Z Z Z
P. >0 I ^5 ^ 1- S
« ^ r1- o^ vA S vo
^3 *O (NJ
^^ ^ ^
P- [^ §
^ (^ rf ON OO 1-1 CO
t^ ; m
O d C-
§ .s a $ g i
Q op 5 ^- *^ L- c/r
S^'Su"''SSs"0 u o
"2o«.S cra'oo§ « «
§»35«.SS.E2 § §
OS CQ GQ
O y ^^ ^y. O
-1™ ^ § ^ ' -S /-C1 p- o
.3^0 ~2 ^'C £ « ^ t^ g
E ' c >X •§ S O S '£ 5i oi S
< t- y. u
•0
"5-, N
2 % *>< 2
Z Z 0 u
< H OS a.
ca
"8
2
G,
X
U
. O
2 >,
T3 en
O cj
"= §
u a
il
Z'S
CO
h- so
W fc-
G. °
c '^
C8 _2
r - O -rt
H > S
^ o ^5
P ^ I
[L G O
K O> g
OH ^
^? a> OH
O£; ^ x
tyj o O d
5s "^ o
0 •§ — " «S3
e a> ^ *"* a
'H £ en tjn *•
^ . is s |
sj O >^ fen *"*
l^lsl
•2 g a> S "5
o '§ 2 .«, 'S
"En ^ 2 0
5 "e3 o e "5
Illli
'£ -g re og t~
b ° 0 >n T3
T\ «D ~ H 35
-e 2: t- >
«2 *•' S S 'C
c o £ 0, a>
S &1 vo ^
K t« "3 e« O
I»H r* •*"*
c o • "5 a
o o g u- <*-.
S ^ c^ v:
W2 ^ ^^ ^ ^
« j2 1 u H
es JO O T3
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
13.3-3
-------
13.3-4
i DYNAMITE
1 ELECTRIC
BLASTING CAP
PRIMARY
HIGH EXPLOSIVE
SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
a. Two-step explosive train
3. DYNAMITE
1. SAFETY FUSE
LOW EXPLOSIVE PRIMARY
(BLACK POWDER) HIGH
EXPLOSIVE
SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
b. Three-step explosive train
4 ANFO
1. SAFETY
FUSE
LOW PRIMARY V
EXPLOSIVE HIGH EXPLOSIVE SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
c. Four-step explosive train
NELECTRIC
WTING CAP
\ i
I DYNAMITE
BOOSTER
I
1
\/
•
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 pruning, 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 Ob/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
-------
WriwtaM
WtfwOUM
AirOulM
AirOulM
Air
Countorftow NMunl Draft T<
AirOulM
AirOulM
Air
FanAttMl
Muori Draft
Air
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 paniculate 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
AirOutM
Pan
=1111
11111
•Air
.Air
• InM
Fonmi Draft Countartkm Toww
hdumd Draft CounttrHow TOUMT
AirOutM Fm
Water Inta
n I I 1 i I n
WatorOutW
Forcsd Drat Croat Bo* Towar
Inducad Draft CroaattowToww
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 paniculate 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 Typed
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
Flowb 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
1 "
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 TDS 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 WATER*
Type Of Draft
Counter Flow
Cross Flow
Overall15
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 To'wer Institute,
Houston, TX, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, lanuary 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. IsoJdnetic 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—> 3 C02 + 4 H2O
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 ignitor 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
-------
NtOIWWtS
llftttl W
fUH tUCt
ISSIST
HEM
STJU SEJt
-0
Witt US
MS
/W UUECTIOII HEADEt
/ jjtt TUUSfJI UK
\
-*- MOT MS
-tttHI SOL
ww
T
OUII
Figure 13.5-1. Diagram of a typical 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 [Bru/ft3]) for complete combustion;
otherwise fuel must be added. Flares providing supplemental fuel to waste gas are known as fired, or
endotherrnic, 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 Ib/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 ah- 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 kJ/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 OPERATIONS4
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Component
Total hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Soot0
b
Emission Factor
Ob/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 /tg/L; and heavily smoking flares, 274 /ig/L.
13.5-4 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91
-------
Table 13.5-2. HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION OF FLARE EMISSION"
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
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:
N2O Emissions = (1.76 tons N applied) * (0.0117 tons N2O) * —
28
= 0.032 tons N,O
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
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
% NITROGEN (by wt)
a Reference 3.
b No, or a negligible amount of, nitrogen present.
82
16-25
33.5
20.5
21
26
21
15
21-49
16
46
38
2-4.5
_b
_b
_J>
_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
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 SOILS"
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/m2/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 600/8-9 l/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" J. Geophy. Res., .95:22481-22488, 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", J. Geophys. Res., 95:3997-4005, 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 c sn inio «.
5000 acres * = 5.69x10 termites
acre
Ll
termite
lb CH,
5.69x10'° termites * 4-86x10" lb * 4 * 1 *
1000 lb termite hr
= 4360.39
yr
To convert pounds to kilograms, multiply by 0.454.
Table 14.2-1. TYPICAL TERMITE DENSITIES PER ECOLOGICAL REGION3
Ecological Region
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
8 Reference 3.
106 Termites per Acre
4.05
18.01
12.80
2.43
1.74
17.81
3.48
8.66
11.38
0.93
27.62
14.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/96
-------
Table 14.2-2. METHANE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TERMITESa
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, 96:13,033-13,065, July 20, 1991.
2. W. R. Seller, 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 Gases8
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:
a This section uses only metric units because that is standard in this field.
9/96 Miscellaneous Sources 14.3-1
-------
1C activity = CO activity
10
f*
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,
3:463-465, 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, 94(DS): 11,089-11,104, 1989.
4. J. A. Logan, "Nitrogen Oxides In The Troposphere: Global And Regional Budgets", Journal
Of Geophysical Research, 88(C 15): 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, 89(D\):\4\ 1-1421, 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
-------
14.4 Enteric Fermentation—Greenhouse Gases
14.4.1 General
The description of this source is drawn from a report by Gibbs and Leng.1 The methodology and
factors presented in this section are drawn directly from the methodology description in the State Workbook:
Methodologies for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, prepared by the U. S. EPA Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (OPPE),2 International Anthropogenic Methane Emissions: Estimates for 1990?
and Crutzen, et al. (1986).4 A more detailed discussion of biology and variables affecting methane (CH4)
generation from ruminant digestion can be found in those volumes.
Enteric fermentation is fermentation that takes place in the digestive systems of animals. In
particular, ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) have a large "fore-stomach," or rumen,
within which microbial fermentation breaks down food into soluble products that can be utilized by the
animal.1'2 Approximately 200 species and strains of microorganisms are present in the anaerobic rumen
environment, although only a small portion, about 10 to 20 species, are believed to play an important role in
ruminant digestion.5 The microbial fermentation that occurs in the rumen enables ruminant animals to digest
coarse plant material that monogastric animals cannot digest.3
Methane is produced in the rumen by bacteria as a by-product of the fermentation process. This CH4
is exhaled or belched by the animal and accounts for the majority of emissions from ruminants. Methane also
1 1
is produced in the large intestines of ruminants and is expelled. •
There are a variety of factors that affect CH4 production in ruminant animals, such as: the physical
and chemical characteristics of the feed, the feeding level and schedule, the use of feed additives to promote
production efficiency, and the activity and health of the animal. It has also been suggested that there may be
genetic factors that affect CH4 production. Of these factors, the feed characteristics and feed rate have the
most influence.
To describe CH4 production by ruminant animals, it is convenient to refer to the portion of feed
energy (food caloric value) intake that is converted to CH4. Higher levels of conversion translate into higher
emissions, given constant feed energy intake. Similarly, higher levels of intake translate into higher
emissions, given constant conversion. There are, however, interactions between level of intake and
conversion to CH4, so these values are not independent.1'2
Methane production as a fraction of the animal's gross energy intake generally will decrease as daily
intake increases for the same diet, but the actual quantity of CH4 produced may increase due to the greater
amount of fermentable material. Because of the complex relationship between the quantity of feed and the
CH4 yield percentage, emission factors and straightforward emission equations can be used for general
approximations only. In cases where the animal type, feed quality, and feed quantity are narrowly
characterized and matched to reliable CH4 yield percent values, CH4 emission factors are much more
accurate. In addition, feed intake changes over time with animal performance. Periodic updates to the
emission factors are required to reflect changes in animal management characteristics.
As a result of the various interrelationships among feed characteristics, feed intake, and conversion
rates to CH4, most well-fed ruminant animals in temperate agriculture systems will convert about 5.5-6.5
percent of their feed energy intake to CH4. Given this range for the rate of CH4 formation, CH4 emissions
a Monogastric animals have a single-chambered stomach, unlike the multi-chambered stomachs of ruminants.
Examples of monogastric animals include swine, dogs, monkeys, and humans.
2/98 Greenhouse Gas Biogenic Sources 14.4-1
-------
can be estimated based on the feed energy consumed by the animals. Because feed energy intake is related
to production level (e.g., weight gain or milk production), the feed energy intake can be estimated for these
regions based on production statistics.1'2
The rates of conversion of feed energy to CH4 for non-ruminant animals are much lower than those
for ruminants. For swine on good quality grain diets, about 0.6 percent of feed consumed is converted to
CH4. For horses, mules, and asses the estimate is about 2.5 percent. While these estimates are also
uncertain and likely vary among regions, the global emissions from these species are much smaller than the
emissions from ruminant animals. Consequently, the uncertainty in these values does not contribute
significantly to the uncertainty in the estimates of total CH4 emissions from livestock.2'4
14.4.2 Emissions
Given their population and size, cattle account for the majority of CH4 emissions in the United
States for this source category. Cattle characteristics and emissions vary significantly by region.
Therefore, it was important to develop a good model for cattle which takes into account the diversity of
cattle types and cattle feeding systems in the United States. The variability in emission factors among
regions for other animals is much smaller than the variability in emission factors for cattle.2
The emission factors presented here were developed using a validated mechanistic modelb of rumen
digestion and CH4 production for cattle feeding systems in the United States.5 The digestion model
estimates the amount of CH4 formed and emitted as a result of microbial fermentation in the rumen. The
model is linked to an animal production model that predicts growth, pregnancy, milk production, and other
production variables as a function of digestion products. The model evaluates the relationships between
feed input characteristics and animal outputs including weight gain, lactation, heat production, pregnancy,
and CH4 emissions.5 The model has been validated for a wide range of feeding conditions encountered in
the United States; a total of 32 diets were simulated for 8 animal types in 5 regions.5 Figure 14.4-1 shows
which states are assigned to each region. Table 14.4-1 provides regional emission factors for typical types
of dairy and beef cattle. The use of these emission factors requires detailed information on cattle
production characteristics.2
For example, emissions from beef cattle in Kansas from a 1,000 head (animal) operation using the
yearling system are calculated using the figures and tables of this section, in the following manner:
N * F
EF =
2,000
(1,000 head) (103.4 Ib CH4/head-yr)
2,000 Ib/ton
EF = 5.17 ton CH4/year
where: EF = CH4 emission factor for a livestock operation or facility (ton CH4/yr)
b The mechanistic model is outlined in the U. S. EPA Report to Congress entitled "Anthropogenic
Methane Emissions in the United States: Estimates for 1990."5
14.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/98
-------
F = the individual animal methane emission factor from Table 14.4-1 and Figure 14.4-1
(Ib CH4/head-yr). In this example Kansas is in the north central zone according to
Figure 14.4-1 and yearling operations in the north central zone have an "F" value of 103.4 Ib
CH4 per head-yr.
Emission factors for other animals were developed using a simple functional relationship between
feed intake and feed intake released as CH4.3> This approach is reasonable given that feed characteristics of
other animals are more or less homogeneous. Table 14.4-2 provides emission factors for sheep, goats, swine,
horses, mules, and asses in developing and developed countries. Note that emission factors differ for sheep
and swine for developed and developing countries, and the emission factor for water buffalos is unique for
India.
Emission factors for cattle outside of the United States were also developed based on a model of feed
intake and methane conversion. Table 14.4-3 provides emission factors for dairy cattle in Western Europe,
Eastern Europe, Oceania, Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent.
Table 14.4-4 provides emission factors for non-dairy cattle in the same regions.
Although much study and measurement of this source has been done, the potential variation for the
parameters used to develop the emission factors introduce a considerable amount of uncertainty, as would be
the case for any source that relies on biological processes, which are highly variable by nature.
2/98 Greenhouse Gas Biogenic Sources 14.4-3
-------
o
ex,
b
o
-------
Z
0
0
§
;*
PQ
W
^
<
U
00
g
oo
O
H
U
S
Z
0
oo
00
W
O
§
&
O
H
U
^
Z
o
oo
oo
S
W
00
O
O
[2
C
O
'oo
00
w
•c
O
S
£H
O
r-r
HM
C
O
'oo
'3
U
r|
«
a
W
— JD
C 60
.2 G
Z J
C/3
^^
_C c3
•j; i V-4
§ c
C/l r^
O
^_
° §
z u
o
•S '•n
3 S
oo 3
_o
"§ ' c
O ^
*7^ +-»
A <
— .0
"rt O
C 60
2 2
'*3 iy
>S >
00
o
d
CM
<0
Os
1—1
^H
CO
10
•^
c^
^
^"
sq
1-H
^
, — i
iri
Os
CM
Replacements
0-12 months0
r-
00
q
^H
so
10
T— (
SO
CO
IO
SO
00
IO
CO
od
>o
^t
Os
CN
CO
T_H
t-;
IO
CO
T— <
CO
so
T-H
Os
CM
T— 1
IO
00
CN
r-H
Replacements
12-24 months0
CO
5;
J~~>
_
Os
T-H
1-1
Os
SO
T-H
T-H
CM
O
CM
SO
CM
T-H
CM
C"1""
I— 1
T-.
CM
10
CM
CM
SO
CM
C-.
f-^!
V~l
CM
r-
O
S
CO
00
r-
CM
>o
od
in
CM
Mature Cows
eef Cattle
PQ
CO
OJ '
SO
CM
CM
10
CO
CM
CO
d
CM
SO
CM
CM
t
Os
~
T-H
Os
Os
Os
^~
Os
,_ I
IO
oo
^-
^
Os
Os
•o o
so co
Os •*
OO CO
SO CN
r- os
CD CO
F- CM
Tj- IO
Os CM
10 CM
u
oo •<
Os Z
SO
o
T-H *7
SO
r- oo
SO CD
•* >o
r~t
° £
i— i ln
OS 00
10 CM
•o >o
T— <
OS C-;
CD Os
CO tj-
O w
£J ^
"
CO ^
o
00
O
^
1
>">
•g
S
,—v
"8
3
^
«3
fli
o
,.|
*J "~
b ^-f ^
W) ^
>,'£ Ml
?5 U Q,
J^ b ,00
rC O3 J^H
Units are Ibs CH4/
National averages
A portion of the ot
"replacements."
C3 JO CJ T
-C
o
u
o
u
-a
C
o
>>
oo
T3
> CH 60
ȤS
III
£81-
11/97
Greenhouse Gases Biogenic Sources
14.4-5
-------
Table 14.4-2. ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER ANIMALS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Animal Type
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Mules/Asses
Water Buffalo
Emission Factors
Developing
Countries (Ibs)
11.0
11.0
2.2
39.6
22.0
116.8b
Developing
Countries (kg)
5.0
5.0
1.0
18.0
10.0
53.0
Developed
Countries (Ibs)
17.6
11.0
3.3
39.6
22.0
127.9
Developed
Countries (kg)
8.0
5.0
1.5
18.0
10.0
58.0
a References 3 and 4. Units are Ibs/head/year or kg/head/year.
b India only. Emission factor for developed countries applies to other developing countries.
Table 14.4-3. ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSION FACTORS FOR DAIRY CATTLEa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Region
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Oceania
Latin America
Asia
Africa and Middle East
Indian Subcontinent
CH4 Emission
Factor
(Ib/head/yr)
220
178
150
125
123
72
101
CH4 Emission
Factor
(kg/head/yr)
100
81
68
57
56
36
46
Average Milk
Production
(lb/yr)
9240
5610
3740
1760
3630
1045
1980
Average Milk
Production
(kg/yr)
4200
2550
1700
800
1650
475
900
a Reference 6.
14.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/97
-------
Table 14.4-4. ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSION FACTORS
FOR NON-DAIRY CATTLEa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type
Western Europe
Mature Males
Replacement/growing
Calves on milk
Calves on forage
Eastern Europe
Mature Females
Mature Males
Young
Oceania0
Mature Females
Mature Males
Young
Latin America^
Mature Females
Mature Males
Young
Asia6
Mature Females — Fanning
Mature Females — Grazing
Mature Males — Farming
Mature Males — Grazing
Young
Indian Subcontinentf
Mature Females
Mature Males
Young
Africa
Mature Females
Draft Bullocks
Mature Females — Grazing
Bulls — Grazing
Young
CH4 Emission Factors
(Ib/head/yr)
132
185
0
73
163
143
88
139
121
86
128
125
92
106
90
128
97
68
68
90
37
68
88
101
121
31
CH4 Emission Factors
(kg/head/yr)
60
84
0
6.3
73.7
65
40.2
63.2
54.6
38.8
58.2
56.7
42.3
48.3
41.3
57.5
44.3
31.2
30
46.1
17
31.2
39.7
46
55.2
14.2
a Reference 3.
Based on estimates for the former U.S.S.R.
c Based on estimates for Australia.
d Based on estimates for Brazil.
e Based on estimates for China.
Based on estimates for India.
9/97
Greenhouse Gas Biogenic Sources
14.4-7
-------
References For Section 14.4
1. M. J. Gibbs and R. A. Leng, "Methane Emissions From Livestock", Methane And Nitrous Oxide,
Proceedings Of The International IPCC Workshop, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, pp. 73-79,
February 1993.
2. State Workbook: Methodology For Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, EPA 230-B-92-002,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC,
1995.
3. International Anthropogenic Methane Emissions: Estimates for 1990, EPA-230-R-93-010.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation,
Washington, DC, 1994.
4. P. Crutzen, et al, Methane Production By Domestic Animals, Wild Ruminants, Other Herbivorous
Fauna, and Humans, Tellus, 38B(3-4): 271-284, 1986.
5. Anthropogenic Methane Emissions In The United States: Estimates For 1990, Report to Congress,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, 1993.
6. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Workbook, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change/Organization
For Economic Cooperation And Development, Paris, France, pp. 4.1-4.5, 1995.
14.4-8 EMISSION FACTORS 9/97
-------
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 (long)
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 FUELSa
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
1.47 x 106/m3
10 x IC^/liter
9.35 x lO^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
lb/ft3
Ib/ft3
lb/ft3
lb/ft3
lb/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 FACTORS3
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
Sq mm
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 10~3
4.0469 x 103
1.5625 x 10'3
4.84 x 103
2.2957 x 1Q-5
929.03
144.0
0.092903
3.587 x lO'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
1.55x 103
l.Ox 10-6
3.861 x 10-7
l.Ox 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/milliliter
Grams/mil lil Her
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^
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 lO'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 lO"4
1054.2
107.51
2.9283 x 10-4
0.252
2.929 x 106
777.65
3.9275 x 1(T*
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 10-4
2.3244
3.9714
4.190x 1010
3.0904 x 103
1.561 x lO-3
4.190x 103
427.26
1.1637 x 10'3
9.4845 x ID'11
2.373 x 10'6
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 1(T14
1.0197x 10'8
1.2851 x 10"3
3.2384 x 10^
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 1Q-5
2.2597 x 105
5.0505 x 10'7
5.121 x 10'7
3.766 x 10'7
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 (cont.).
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 GST.)
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 1Q-4
1.0002 x 107
12.734
0.73768
2.778 x 10'7
A-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Joules (Int.)/sec
Joules (Int.)/sec
Joules (Int.)/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 lO'3
9.2878 x 10'3
2.3405 x lO-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
1.0002 x 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
3.6xl06
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
1.0 x 10'5
7.233 x 10'5
2.248 x 10-6
l.Ox KT5
0.22481
1.383 x 104
0.1383
0.03108
4.448 x 10s
4.448
32.174
30.48
12
3.048 x 10-4
0.3048
1.894 x 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 ID'3
3.2808 x It)"6
3.9370 x 10'5
l.Ox KT6
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 10'7
3.937 x ID'8
0.001
l.Ox 1Q-6
91.44
0.9144
0.064799
64.799
1.7361 x 1Q-4
1.4286x 10-4
6.4799 x ID'8
980.67
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-I7
-------
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 10'3
1 x IQ-6
1.5432 x 104
70.932
2.679
2.2046
9.842 x 10-4
0.001
1.1023x 10-3
1.0
0.01543
l.Ox HT3
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 10-4
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 (long)
Tons (long)
Tons (long)
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)
FtofH2O(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
mm of Hg (60 °F)
Pounds/sq ft
Atmospheres
In. of Hg (32°F)
kg/sq meter
Pounds/sq ft
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
cm of Hg (0°C)
FtofH2O(39.2°F)
In. ofHg(32°F)
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
Grams/sq cm
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
cmofHg(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 10'3
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 (statute)/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 1(T5
0.06102
l.Ox 10-6
1.308x lO"6
2.642 x Iff4
1.0567 x 10-3
2.8317 x 104
0.028317
7.4805
28.317
16.387
5.787 x 10^
1.6387 x 1Q-5
2.1433 x 10'5
4.329 x 10'3
0.01639
0.01732
8.3864
l.Ox 106
35.315
6. 1024 x 104
1.308
264.17
1000
21.022
21.696
7.6455 x 105
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
Cu feet
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 lO'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 1Q-5
3.7854
0.0353
0.2642
a 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 10-6
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 1Q-6
0.02832
62.43 x 10'9
35.314 x 10'3
1.0 x 10"6
35.314 x 10-6
35.314
2.2046 x 10-6
16.018 x 103
0.35314
16.018 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
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20 °C)
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
To
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
Multiply By
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 1Q-3
1.198
28.8/M
7.48 x 10-6
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
VOLUME EMISSIONS
To Convert From
Cubic m/min
Cubic ft/min
To
Cubic ft/min
Cubic m/min
Multiply By
760.0
29.92
1013.2
1.316x 10-3
39.37 x 10-3
1.333
0.03333
25.4005
33.35
0.00987
0.75
0.30
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)
'. Megawatt - 8 x 103 Ib steam/hr
(6 to 11 x 103 Ib steam/hr)
- 34.5 Ib steam/hr
• 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
2.48x10-*
0.031746
0.23743
cu. ft.
5.78704x10"*
3.5316xlO~5
0.035316
1 .0443xlO~3
0.13368
4.2109
1
1
. S. gallon of water at 16.7°C (62°F) weighs 3.780 kg. or 8.337 pounds (avoir.)
*Mass of 27.692 cubic Inches water weighed In air at 4.0°C, 760 mm mercury pressure.
MASS
Grams
Kilograms
Ounces (avoir.)...
Pounds (avoir.)*..
Grains
Tons (U. S.)
Milligrams
grams
1000
28.350
453.59
0.06480
9.072x10$
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*
pounds
(avoir.)
2.205xlO-3
2.2046
0.0625
1 .429x10-*
2000
3. 527xlO-5 |2.205xlO-6
grains
15.432
15432
437.5
7000
1.4xl07
0.015432
tons
(U. S.)
1 .102x10-6
1 .102xlO-3
3.125x10-5
5.0x10-*
7.142x10-8
1.102xlO"9
milligrams
1000
1x106
2.8350x10*
4.5359x105
64.799
9.0718xl08
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-29
-------
i
5
5
poundals
i £
*
w
o
X
X
a
-j
m
w
+j
8
00
•J*
-«
NW
g
.
1
5^
.
*
«
u
«<
^
t,
.
oo
0 ENERGY
i
*•>
1
O
"x
«
NO
0
s
*
•
a
*•*
ON
1
O
K
vn
0.04UU
CO
NO
<»
O
CO
r>
O
"5
NO
ON
<*>
CO
^
X
NO
CO
i
o
V
LI •
0 •
d *-*.
u c
«
a i
« e
k. N^
0
03
(M
NO
m
O
CM
ri
«•>
ON
)
O
X
to
**•
eo
rst
^>
^
O
*n
O
do
NO
tn
00
-T
O
X
NO
CD
•NT
o
1
D Calories.
O
O
"x
o
CO
*»
ON
:
•
*€>
X
^
1
O
X
CO
CO
«S
ON
CD
CO
f)
(M
O
".
Joules
o
f*i
o
•»
X
*n
ON
CN|
*»
O
X
o
en
fN|
1
O
X
9>
•*
O
NO
^
"
CO
Os
£
eo
O
O
o
l.OSABx
CO
ON
«
CO
ON
1/1
C
V
e
=>
•&
i
0
NO
r»
0
X
(N
NO
f*l
i
0
X
0
0.013381
fNI
CO
o
«•>
o
"x
m
eo
CM
CO
r%
O
N
CO
in
**t
^
O
X
ON
CO
CNi
ON
CO
(•>
IN
O
K
C
0
a.
o
£
o
PN|
NO
O
X
(NJ
t*t
-.
O
x
0
0. 096781
rt
o
-'
m
o
x
f^
O
o>
N0
NO
»
ON
O
9 .8066x
n
O
X
(M
rt
^
~
0
V
**
I
„
oej^o^j^
rg
NO
O
•NT
CO
xD
(N
O
X
in
CO
NO
(M
O
m
-»
| 6.4130xI05
I
u
41
!
a
k.
o
*n
i
O
"x
in
O
-
CO
t
o
in
in
O
r-.
—
O
X
in
•»
O
X
in
N*
NO
O
-*
0
i
NO
(-1
(^
0
3. 6000 x
o
o
CO
in
O
X
o
o
NO
CO
HourB . . .
Kllowet
1
o
o
o
o
ri
CO
o
X
0
;*
3.5529xl03
ON
O
NO
fl
m
(N
O
ri
-T
«O
O
^1
ml
i
o J
"o!
3.6000x
o
o
NO
CO
o
i
o
o
NO
CO
i
OB
n
S
il
A-30
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85
-------
3 T)
8.S
" -HO OB
E CJ
=
p-l 01
O *•»
U 3
c
!•
00 U
o
o
o
o
"3
I
Sjo 4|
'« i
*-M —
Sj -
*1 -
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-31
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS SUBSTANCESa
Type Of Substance
Fuel
Oil
Natural gas
Gaseous Pollutants
°3
NO2
SOo
^
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
Conversion Factors
1 bbl = 159 liters (42 gal)
1 therm = 100,000 Btu (approx.25000 kcal)
1 ppm, volume = 1960/ig/m3
1 ppm, volume = 1880/ig/m3
1 ppm, volume = 2610/zg/m3
1 ppm, volume =1390 jig/m3
1 ppm, volume =1.14 mg/m3
1 ppm, volume = 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
Igal = 3. 18 kg = 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.l-40
9.9.2 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CEREAL DRYER B.I-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.).
AP-42
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
11.21 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
11.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.I B.l-5
-------
1.8 BAGASSE-FIRED BOILER: EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
99.1
99.9
99
98
70
V
N
-V *
Q>
CO SO
XJ
OB
V
X »°
JJ JO
0)
3 30
,5 10
i
0.5.
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
1.5
CO
CD
o
3
1.0 Q9
o
3Q
3Q
O.S
0.0
36789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
M *O SO 60 70 M 90 100
.Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Wet scrubber controlled
46.3
70.5
97.1
Emission factor, kg/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 (jim): 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 boilen This factor is derived from AP-42, Section 1.8, 4/77, which states that the
paniculate emission factor from an uncontrolled bagasse-fired boiler is 8 kg/Mg and that wet
scrubbers typically provide 90% paniculate 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
N
OB
•o
4)
eg
co
V
X
u
80
•H
3
«
£
tg
3
§
o
99. »
99
9«
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
Z
1
O.S
0.1
Ort I
UNCONTROLLED
• Weight percent
——Emission factor
••
.
•
.
—
§
»
f ^»
_^. — • —
-^-^^^^^^^^ ~m
*~~ ,
/
/
/
*
^ •*"
^ ^
•" **" _>
_,
-
-
> i iiiitii i i itiiti
10.0
9
s.o fr-
ee
OB
o"
3
|^|
n
rt
O
•
6.0 yf
OQ
W
4.0
1.0
1 2 3 4 } 6 7 S 9 10 20 JO 40 SO 6O 70 SO 90 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
1 6.0
; 10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
26.0
30.6
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 (jim): 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*
V
T3 99
01
10
CO
V 70
X M
.-: so
BO
30
0)
> 20
3
2
I
0.3
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
10.0
8.0
PI
3
M-
09
0)
o
3
a>
n
o
n
6.0
5
4.0
2.0
»3t7t«10 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
40 JO « 70 »0 W IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. I < stated size
Uncontrolled
54.0
60.1
67.1
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncont rol 1 ed
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
•o
V
J_>
a
to
V
99.»9
99.9
99
98
9S
90
SO
70
60
50
BO
•H 40
n
3Q
3
3Q
1.0
3 * 5 * 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
0.0
30 *O SO 60 70 SO 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, icg/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 (/an): 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 (Refoimaited 1/95) Appendix B.I B.l-13
-------
6.1 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFFGAS BOILER
99.99
9*
U
a M
to
v70
M 60
- SO
§30
s! 20
«
-I 10
I 5
2
I
0.3
9.1
0.01
X
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
1.7S
a
to
l.SO
B>
n
rr
0
•n
OQ
1.25
1.00
4}478»10 20 3O
Particle diameter, urn
40 SO M 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
: particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative we. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
87.3
95.0
97.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled :
1.52
1.55
B.l-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Rcfomiattcd 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 (/mi): 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
99.99
99.9
99
»•
CD
o
3
20
UQ
10
i_ o
} I- b t 1 t 9 10 20 30 *O 50 M 70 SO 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
10.8
49.1
98.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
2.5 ;
LI. 3
22.7
B.l-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
8.4 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jj.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 PARTICULATE 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 (Refoimatted 1/95) Appendix B.I B.l-17
-------
8.10 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
90 „
N
•H
a
4)
JJ 30
•u
« :o
V 60
50
XJ
J -0
0) 30
« :°
«0
—I
3
3
u
0.5
r
pcrc*nc
factor (0.2}
factor (2.0)
2.0
1.5
CO
09
at
n
75
3Q
1.5
3 » 5 o 7 a » LO 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
T.O
-0 50 oO 70 JO 90 100
B.l-18
.Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
51.2
100
*
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
(0.2) (2.0)
0.10
0.20
0.20
1.0 '
2.0 |
2.0 ;
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
8.10 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter
-------
8.10 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM
N
•H
OB
<0
u
OB
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
90
ao
70
60
50
>0
2 30
§1
>
•H
4J
CB
i—I
I
20
10
s
2
t
0.5
O.I
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight oercenc
3 • 5 6 ; 8 » 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 30 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
; 10.0
Cumulative wt . I < 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 (/zm)*: 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
90
3.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
i i i i i
1 4 56739 10 20
Particle diameter, ua
30
iO SO eO 73 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 (jari)*: 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. 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 Suljuric
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
-------
99.9
99
9t
V
H 9i
•a 90
4)
u
« SO
to
v ro
M 60
£ 50
00
— 40
0)
3 30
«
> :o
10
O.Ql
8.10 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
J i 7 1 » 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 -0 50 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
Not 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 (jim): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 48 78 87
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE 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
-------
8.xx BORIC ACID DRYER
99.99
99.9
99
91
4) 95
N
90
•O
V
« so
00
70
V
X *°
•u 50
.c
?4°
3 30
-H 10
B
s >
1
o.j
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Weight percent
o.s
r*i
a
h*
03
CD
H*
O
3
0-3 S
rr
O
:*•
OQ
OQ
0.2
0.1
o.o
3 * 5 6 7 1 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 M 9O 100
Particle diameter, um
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, k.g/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 0*m): 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 (/un): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 3.3 6.7 10.6
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE 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
-------
8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER
V
N
CO
tJ
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
90 ^_
80
« 70
to
50
130
•H 30
Ol
3 20
u 10
9
3 s
3
U
1
3.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
— Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Wt. Z high pressure
I I 1 1 1 1
5.0
i.O
pq
05
CD
O
3
3.0
OQ
OX)
2.0
1 .0
5 4 7 8 9 10
20
0.0
30 <>0 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. I < 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 (/*m): 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. %): 2.20 7.50 13.50
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter Qmi): 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 participate emissions from
rotary gas-fired dryers for potassium chloride are similar to paniculate 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
-------
8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER
99.99
99.*
99
»8
95
90
0) SO
09
V
SO
3
V
70
so
20
10
S 3
2
1
0.2
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
• Weight percent
- — Emission factor
3.020
0.013
n
B
OB
CD
h»
o
3
OQ
0.010
0.005
4)6719 10 20
Particle diameter , um
M 40 JO M> 70 M> 9O 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
, 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Controlled with fabric filter
18.0
32.0
43.0
Emission factor,
Controlled with fal
filter
0.006
0.011
0.014
kg/Mg '
sric I
B.l-30
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted after fabric filter
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/zm): 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 paniculate
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 paniculate 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. 1 B. 1-31
-------
9.7 COTTON GINNING: BATTERY CONDENSER
N
99.99
99.9
99
•8
»S
90
V SO
a
•"•> 70
a
v *°
« so
JR *°
60
•s M
3 20
0)
I
o
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
CYCLONE
-^- Weight percent
——— Emission factor
CYCLONE AND WET SCRUBBER
• Weight percent
• • • Emission factor
O.IOO
m
3
n
CD
o
3
09
n
0.030
OQ
— 0.006
0.003
5*7»91B 20 3O
Particle diameter, urn
iO 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative vt. 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 (/«n): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 8 33 62
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im)
Mean (Cum. %.): 11 26 52
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. % ):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Particulate 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, .9(7)643-7,
July 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95) Appendix B.I B.l-33
-------
9.7 COTTON GINNING: LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST
0)
T3
V
OB
V
BO
-rt
4)
3
99.99
99.9
99
M
»3
90
80
70
M
JO
40
30
20
4J 10
«
l-H
I '
2
I
0.5
O.i
0.01
5 6 7 8 * 10
CTCLONX
•— H«l«hc percent
— — Imifmioo factor
CTCUWE AND Vtt SCUIBBSIt
p*rc*nc
0.3
09
ca
o
3
01
0.2 O
rr
O
n
OQ
o-
0>
o.i
20
30 40 50 M 70 M »O IOC
Particle diameter, u«
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. I < stated size
After
cyclone
1
20
54
After cyclone
& wee 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 (/mi): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 1 20 54
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min(Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter Qim): 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 1/95) Appendix B.I B.l-35
-------
9*.M
•o
5-.
" I
" 70
60 40
:o
s
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
1.5
0)
CD
1.0 "-fi
a>
n
rr
O
"t
OQ
0.5
0.0
5 » 7 < » 10 20 30 40 SO M) 70 80 «0 IOC
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10. C
Cumulative wgt. Z
-------
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.I-37
-------
9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CONVEYING
99.9
99
9t
V
" »
«
•O 80
2 70
a
60
V
X 50
U 40
j:
.£f 30
S 20
0)
•H 10
-------
9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CONVEYING
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (^m): 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 paniculate/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
9»
91
S »5
•H
a»
« W
eg so
CD
v 70
^ 50
"So
•rt 40
cu
3 30
cu
> 20
CO
3 10
S
3
O 5
2
1
0.3
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
littii
0.015
PI
3
CD
CD
>"*
O
3
o.oio a:
n
OQ
^
30
0.005
0.00
5 6 7 « J 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 SO 6O 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
Particle
diameter, urn
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 (jan): 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 PARTICIPATE 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 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. 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
99.9»
9».9
99
M
« SO
u
CD
v 70
»< *o
OJ
3 30
> 20
•*
j_i
•
01
09
M>
O
3
0.50 a>
n
pr
O
yr
OQ
OQ
0.25
0.0
3 i 56719 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
10 40 50 60 70 M 9O LOO
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < 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 (jim): 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
01 »i
N
•4
«
•W
5 s°
• 70
V
« '°
*j ^o
"ac io
u
:o
>
^>
EB
I
UNCONTROLLED
»- Weight percent I
— Emission factor
o.: 3
39
«
•»>
9
a
n
79
0.0
f, : 9 ? 5 ? iO 21
Particle diameter, urn
! Aerodynamic
Particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cum-, wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
70.6
82.7
90.0
Emission factor, k.g/Mg
Uncontrolled
3.5
4.1
4.5
B.l-44
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 0*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
9»
V
N
TJ
V
90
•"•> SO
a
to 70
6O
"BO *o
V
3
20
-------
9.9.xx FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim): 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
M
V
N »S
"Q
9>
SO
70
to
50
BO
0)
3 30
0)
> 20
10
o.i
a.oi
CYCLONE CONTROLLED
-•- Weight percent
Emission factor
FABRIC FILTER
-•- Weight percent
3.0
0)
CO
o
a
:.o
n
rr
O
00
4 J « 7 * » 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um
. Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < 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.M8
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 (/im): 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 Qxm): 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, particulate 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
-------
W.M
»9.9
18
s «
•o "
0)
u
<5 30
CO
V, 70
M Ml
« 50
§ «
S ,0
5 »
a
3
10
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
11.10 COAL CLEANING: DRY PROCESS
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
0.00*
0.003
PI
09
a
01
0
0.002
0.001
0.00
5 6 7 S » 10 20 30 4O 50 *0 70 ao 90 100
Particle diameter, um
: Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
: 2-5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative we . % < 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 (jari): 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
N
*4
CD
•a
99.99
99.9
99
9t
95
90
t8 SO
CO
70
»< to
" 50
$
>
I
30
:o
10
5
i
0.5
3.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Weight percent
1 I t t L
5.0
m
3
0)
to
o
3
3.0 09
,1
rr
O
OQ
1.0
0.0
3 * 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 4O 50 6O 70 80 9O 10O
Aerodynamic
( particle
: diameter, um
1 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative we. 2 < stated size
Uncontrolled
42
86
96
After
wet scrubber
53
85
91
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
1.47
3.01
3.36
After j
wet scrubber'
0.016 i
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 Qim): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 42 86 96
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diamter (jari): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 53 85 91
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE 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 »5
•H
CO
•O *°
IV
S s°
CO
V 70
»-S 60
0)
3 30
01
™ 20
co
'i 10
§
U 5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Weight percent
0.4
W
5
H-
0)
00
H-
O
9
Ml
01
n
rr
O
n
7?
TO
0.2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
; Aerodynamic
; particle
; diameter, um
: 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontroll ed
9.6
17.5
26.5
Cyclone
controlled
21.3
31.8
43.7
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled i
i
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 (>m): 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 frim): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 26.4 35.8 46.6
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTTCULATE 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
It
V 95
N
90
•O
5 «
ij
• 70
»0
u SO
"ab 40
•^
a 30
I
t
0.3
WET SCRUBBER and
SETTLING CHAMBER
-•— Weight percent
Emission factor
WET SCRUBBER
-*- Weight percent
2.0
09
OB
o
3
a
n
ff
M
1.0
3 * 5 i 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
0.0
30 40 50 «>0 "0 30 30 100
; Aerodynamic
. particle
: diameter (urn)
! 2.5
6.0
10. 0
Cumulative wt. 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, Otm): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 55 75 84
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min(Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (/im): 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 particuIate/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
-------
99.99
99.9
99
H
9i
•o
0)
70
- 50
"so *°
3 30
1 20
« 10
•—»
I 5
U
2
t
O.S
0.1
0.01
11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
o
3
tt
ft
3Q
2
3Q
20
5 * 7 » » 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
40 50 W) 70 W) 9O IOC
; Aerodynamic
| particle
diameter, um
<: 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 (/un): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 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
V ,.
N "
**4
00
•o *°
V
«o so
AJ
a
70
V
K 60
u 50
«C
so 4O
•"*
3 30
§ »
•rt
U
a
— l 10
s
3 ,
U 5
1
0.5
0. i
n ni
"
p
»
•
*
"
™
..*
^S**
^-»-^/
^-— ^ /^ /
• ^^ ^* /
^^ '
s^
/^^ /
*^ /
/
/
/
*
/
m *
/
m
t 1 1 11*111
MULTICLONE CONTROLLED
-•- Weight percent
Emission factor
FABRIC FILTER
— •- Weight percent
i i iitt
j_
—
* i
0. IS
CO
3
09
09
O
3
o.ia QJ
o
rr
O
1
"
?r
30
31
3Q
0.05
0.0
5 •> - i 9 :o :o
Particle diameter, urn
10
40 50 60 70 30 90 LOO
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
• 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Multi clone
19.3
38.1
56.7
Fabric filter
39
48
54
Emission factor, kg/Mg }
I
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 (/zm): 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 (/*m): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 39 48 54
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.157 kg particulate/Mg clay processed, after
multicyclone control. Factor calculated from data in Reference b. After fabric filter control,
paniculate 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
-------
99.99
99.9
99
9t
-------
11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE):
RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 4, conducted after settling chamber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/on): 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
0)
N
01
co 10
70
V
»•« *°
jj so
0)
3 30
a
1-1 10
3
J 5
2
1
0.3
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Weight percent
39
03
o
3
OQ
3?
3 * 5 6 7 » 9 10
20
30 40 30 M 70 30 90
0
IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Without
controls
13
29
42
After wet
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 0*m): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 13.0 29.0 42.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 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. 1 -65
-------
»».»»
2 «
90
V
« M
4J
CD
70
u )0
.e
«
3 30
S :o
5 »
3
2
1
O.J
0.1
0.01
11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE):
RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
0.2
09
CD
o"
3
O
1
3Q
00
0.1
0-Jo.o
} 4 5 * 7 » » 10 20 JO M>SOM>70*0«0100
Particle diameter, urn
; Aerodynamic
particle
. diameter, urn
: 2-5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative we. 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 (>m): 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 (Refoimatted 1/95) Appendix B.I B.l-67
-------
11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: CALCINER
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
3 30
0)
S 20
CD
N
•o
CU
to
CO
V
s
CJ
0.5
0.1
0.01
CYCLONE AND WET SCRUBBER
Weight percent
Emission factor
0.075
M
5
09
03
£•
3
0.050 0>
o
rr
O
i-l
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 (jun): 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
M.99
V
N
99
M
»S
90
•8 a.
JJ 70
(0
v *o
»< so
-H 30
41
* 20
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
WET SCRUBBER AND ESP
-*— Weight percent
Emission factor
K • I • I
0.015
fl
s
o
s
D.oio a>
fT
o
OQ
Z
OQ
.005
3 4 367S910 20 30 40 50 40 70 40 »0 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
s
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 (jari): 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 PARTICULATE 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
99.9
•O
91
u
OS
u
CO
V
oo
4>
3
v
a
*8
90
M
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
1
0.5
0.1
3.01
CTOONE
-•—H«i«bt pcrccoc
•—— ZaluloB factor
CTCLOME MO VET SCBJBKI
••—Height p«rc«0t
••• Eai««ion factor
l.S
1.0
a
CD
o
3
to
n
0.5
0.02
1.01
5 6 7 a 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30 40 SO 60 70 «0 90 100
'Aerodynamic
, particle
diameter, (um)
: 2-5
; 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < seated size
After
cyclonea
15.7
41.3
58.3
After
wet scrubber
89
92.3
96.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After
cyclone*
0.38
1.00
1.41
After
wet scrubber ;
0.017
i
0.018 ;
0.018
aCyclones are cynically used in phosphate rock processing as product collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions are emissions in Che 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 (/xm): 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 (/im): 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
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
N
•H 90
to
U 80
.LJ
-------
11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: BALL MILL
NUMBER OF TESTS: 4, conducted after cyclone
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im): 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 (Refomatted 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
9i
« M
• ,.
^ 70
OD
M>
K SO
- 40
X »
3 20
£ 10
1 S
CJ
2
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
CYCLONE
• Weight percent
— Emission factor
CYCLONE AND FABRIC FILTER
• Weight percent
J t_ i i I
1.0
ra
9
o
3
O
"I
00
'—
OQ
0.5
5 * 7 8 » 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 4O SO M 70 M 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative
After
cyclone*
21
45
62
vt. Z < stated size
After fabric filter
25
70
90
Emisslc
After
cyclone*
0.27
0.58
0.79
n factor, kg/Mg
After fabric filter
Negligible
Negligible :
Negligible
a Cyclones are typically used in phosphate rock 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 (tan): 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
9t
0)
N
01
03 SO
CD
ro
v
X *°
ij 50
01
3 30
•310
I s
i
0.5
0.0!
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
20
PI
B
>-•
IB
IB
H»
o
3
B>
O
3Q
•^
3Q
10
5 9 ? 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 30 90 100
Aerodynami c
'. particle
: diameter, urn
: 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Before controls
30.1
42.4
56.4
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Before controls
5.9
8.3 !
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 (/mi): 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 ILI 1000.
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
98
V
N
90
•o
V
ao
" 70
60
jj 50
"so 40
•«
»»
tu :o
I 5
0.5
3.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
s.o
a
p^
o
CD
r.
rr
0
1
i.O
oa
2.0
3 « 5 *> ' S 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Particle diameter, urn
0.0
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 (/im): 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. %): 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, NC,
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
»8
v »
N
•*4
09
•«
0)
3 «
4J
* 70
V
jj 30
BO 40
3 30
-------
11.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jari): 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
9»
0) 95
N
•o
V
90
ao
70
60
« J0
JC
00 40
•rt
4)
V 20
G
2
I
0.3
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
O.OOO75
00
CO
r*
o
3
o.oooso
n
rr
o
2
00
0.00025
0.00
«• 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30
Particle diameter, um
40 50 60 70 aO 9O 100
Aerody nami c
; particle
diameter, um
; 2.5
:' 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Fabric filter controlled
50.0
62.0
68.0
Emission factor, kg/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 (/im): 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 ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
99.99
99.9
99
9t
V
N >5
•H
CO
T3 *°
0)
9 W
-------
12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING -
UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, after venturi scrubber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im): 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
95
90
0)
« 80
09
70
V
X *°
AJ 50
30
HI
>
9
—, 10
E
5 >
2
1
0.5
O.I
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
15
99
09
10 91
n
70
S 4 7 S 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 LOO
Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter, urn
': 2.5
i
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
72.2
76.3
82.0
Emission factor, kg/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 Oim): 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
4>
N
CO
•o
4)
«
iJ
CD
«
,_
"ob
.
3
0)
.2
JJ
a
3
a
<3
99.99
99
98
95
90
80
70
6O
50
40
30
20
10
3
2
I
0.3
0.1
Oft 1
• Ul
*
•
*
m
+
a— *"""""''
— » ^
^ •
^^^n^*
" ^__-^^-^^
»^ — ~"^~^ „--"
^ ^ — _ — ^
»
»
^
.
1 t 1 1 1 1 1 r 1
1 2 34547*9 10
UNCONTROLLED
-•— Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
-*- Weight Percent
— Emission factor
i i i i r i
20 30 40 50 60 70
„
•~
„
M.
_
^^*
•™
—
-
-
i i
30 90
8.0
7.0
6.0
3
h**
CO
5.0 ».
O
3
i-n
0)
n
4.0 rr
O
5^
OQ
3.0 "^
-m
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.!
0.0
100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
' 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
79.6
82.8
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 (jj.m): 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 (/xm): 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
V
c
V
4J
(0
V
GO
4)
3
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
ij 10
2
I
O.J
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
* Weight percent
Emission factor
_L
J 1 L_4_
J.
1.0
09
09
o
3
0)
n
OQ
O
or
a
IB
0)
3 4 5 » 7 8 » 10 20 JO 40 50 60 70 SO 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
: Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
I
Cumulative vt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
87.8
100
100
Emission factor :
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
1.25 i
1.42
1.42
B.l-92
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86
-------
12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: GRID CASTING
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/on): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 87.8 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 10.3 — —
Min (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
99.99
V
M
•o
01
oo
v
V
B
o
99.9
99
98
9}
90
80
70
60
50
iO
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
3.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
00
OB
o
3
CD
n
3Q
O
U)
cr
IB
3 <• 5 6 7 8 » 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
.diameter (urn)
'. 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 2 < stated size
Uncontrolled
65.1
90.4
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries) i
Uncontrolled
2.20 i
i
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 (JJOIL): 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 particulate/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
99.)
41
M
99.9
99
98
95
90
"S 10
70
50
00
— 30
:o
10
CJ
2
1
0.5
3.1
O.Ot
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
o.os
o.o* •
09
H*
O
3
CD
rt
IT
O
0.03 *
OQ
.02
o.ot
3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 20 30 40 SO 6O 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, ua
Aerodynamic
. particle
'diameter (um)
i 2.5
: 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After fabric filter
32.8
64.7
83.8
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries) "
After fabric filter ;
0.016 ;
!
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 (jari): 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 paniculate/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
99.9
99
98
9S
(4
•H 90
OB
0)
j_l
CO
.u
CO
V
&0
80
70
60
50
40
30
V
3 20
V
jj 10
3
3
O.I
o.oi
UNCONTROLLED
—•—Weight percent
— Emission factor
CONTROLLED
• Weight percent
1 • ' • ' I
J.
JL
_L
3
h--
2.0 0)
O
UJ
1 •> 1 » 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 JO 60 70 SO 90 100
iAerodynamic
; particle
^diameter (um)
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < 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 (/mi): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 80 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/un): 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
tt.M
N
—t
CD
•O
BO
«H
0
s
3
u
M
*•
»S
90
80
60
SO
40
30
20
10
2
1
0.3
O.I
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
• Weight percent
Emission factor
I I 111
43
40
CD
o>
O
•1
OQ
O
OJ
go
rr
IT
ft
o>
09
J & 7 « t 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30
30 40 50 60 70 tO 90 100
: Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
93.4
100
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries) !
Uncontrolled
39.3
42
A2
B.l-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 G*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 paniculate/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 (Refoimatted 1/95) Appendix B.I B. 1-101
-------
12.xx BATCH TINNER
-------
12.xx BATCH TINNER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/xm): 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 m 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
-------
* U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1996-728-090/66001
B.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
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
10
51
1039.6 1559.4
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device: Fabric Filter
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):
Particle size Qim)
0-2.5 2.5-6 6-10
99.0 99.5 99.5
458.6
4.59
4.59
581.0
2.91
7.50
519.8
2.60
10.10
* These data do not include results for the greater than 10 /zm 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
1.1 Bituminous and subbituminous coal a
combustion
1.2 Anthracite coal combustion a
1.3 Fuel oil combustion
Residual oil
Utility a
Commercial a
Distillate oil
Utility a
Commercial a
Residential a
1.4 Natural gas combustion a
1.5 Liquefied petroleum gas a
1.6 Wood waste combustion in boilers a
1.7 Lignite combustion a
1.8 Bagasse combustion b
1.9 Residential fireplaces a
1.10 Residential wood stoves a
1.11 Waste oil combustion a
Solid waste disposal
2.1 Refuse combustion a
2.2 Sewage sludge incineration a
2.7 Conical burners (wood waste) 2
Internal combustion engines
Highway vehicles c
3.2 Off highway vehicles 1
Organic chemical processes
6.4 Paint and varnish 4
6.5 Phthalic anhydride 9
6.8 Soap and detergents a
Inorganic chemical processes
8.2 Urea a
8.3 Ammonium nitrate fertilizers a
8.4 Ammonium sulfate
Rotary dryer b
Fluidized bed dryer b
8.5 Phosphate fertilizers 3
AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
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*
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
AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
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
Category AP-42
Source Category Number* Section
Category
Source Category Number*
Waste gas a 12.7 Zinc smelting . 8
Pellet handling 4 12.8 Secondary aluminum operations
Grate discharge 5 Sweating furnace 8
Grate feed 4 Smelting
Bentonite blending 4 Crucible furnace 8
Coarse crushing 3 Reverberatory furnace a
Ore transfer 3 12.9 Secondary copper smelting
Bentonite transfer 4 and
alloying 8
Unpaved roads a 12.10 Gray iron foundries a
11.24 Metallic minerals processing a 12.11 Secondary lead processing a
Metallurgical 12.12 Secondary magnesium smelting 8
12.1 Primary aluminum production 12.13 Steel foundries - melting b
Bauxite grinding 4 12.14 Secondary zinc processing 8
Aluminum hydroxide calcining 5 12.15 Storage battery production b
Anode baking furnace 9 12.18 Leadbearing ore crushing and grinding 4
Prebake cell a
Miscellaneous sources
Vertical Soderberg 8 13.1 Wildfires and prescribed burning a
Horizontal Soderberg a 13.2 Fugitive dust 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.
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
< 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
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 /im 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
particulate emissions are generated from fuel combustion.
REFERENCES: 1,9
2 3 4 S 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, uq
Particle Size, pm
l.O3
2.03
2.5
3.0a
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
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
o
tej
«e
95
90
30
70
60
SO
40
30
20
10
i i i i I i i
2345 10
ARTICLE DIAMETER, pra
Particle Size, pm
1.0s1
2.0a
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
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 jim. 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
90 t-
80 -
70 -
60
50 -
40
30 -
20
10
23*5 10
'ARTICLE O:AMETER, ^
Particle Size, /*m
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
*4
3; 70
i 6°
£ 50
v 40
§ 30
5 20
Z 10
i 5
u
0.5
i i i i i i IT
2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER. \*n
Particle Size, /xm
1.0a
2.0*
2.5
3.0s
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 pm. 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
rs
z
90
30
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
I I I I I !
2345
'ARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle Size, /mi
1.0a
2.0s
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
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 /un. No statistical parameters are given
for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
B.2-15
-------
Table B.2.2 (cont.).
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
o
w
«c
30
20
10
5
: o.s
£ 0.2
1 0.1
§ 0.05
<_>
0.01
i i I i i i r
I ! I I
2345 10
"ARTICLE OIAMETER. >*n
Particle Size, pm
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 Aim. No statistical parameters are given
for the calculated value.
B.2-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
Table B.2.2 (cont.).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Grain Processing
Grain
Category 7 covers grain processing operations such as drying, screening, grinding, and
milling. The paniculate 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
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER, inn
10
Particle Size, /zm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
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 /im. 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. Particulate emissions are a result of high temperature melting, smelting, and refining.
REFERENCES: 1-2
2345 10
PARTICLE 3IAME7ER. n™
Particle Size, fjan
1.0*
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
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 p.m. No statistical parameters are given
for the calculated value.
B.2-18
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90
-------
Category:
Process:
Material:
Table B.2.2 (cont.).
Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling, and Distillation
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
SJ 99
^ 98
Q
UJ
«c
95
90
80
70
60
50
iO
2345
'APTtCLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle Size, /*m
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0*
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 pm. 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 fim particle size range. In
order to account for the total controlled emissions, particles greater than 10 /an in size must be
included.
B.2.4 Example Calculation
An example calculation of uncontrolled total paniculate 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 (jj,m)
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 0*m)
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 paniculate 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 Panicle 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. 1.1 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 (0.5 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
CO
o
cr
o
'
_
E
in
d
,1
'1
E
in
ci
M
o
o
"
LO
X
I
E
u>
'v
i>
I
7/93 (Refomatted 1/95)
Appendix C.I
C.l-5
-------
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 scalable 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
(Refonnatted 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 greatei 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.l-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 sampies (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
LO
CD
•a
CO
o
tr
g
c
g
"2
o
"S
1
"c
O
.1
o
X
-t
E
in
01
c.
CD
O
CC
g
'
}?
CO
2
"8
O
O
CO
X
co
1
X
-------
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 witfiin
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.M).
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 C.l-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
(1 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: 10-15 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 sealable 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.I
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. 1 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 iO-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 [/xm]). 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
1 40 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., Panicle 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
(PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE BEFORE COMPLETING)
REPORT NO.
AP-42, FIFTH EDITION
2- EPA-454/F-99-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
. AND SUBTITLE
SUPPLEMENT D TO
COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMtSSfON FACTORS
VOLUME II: STATIONARY POINT AND AREA SOURCES
B. REPORT DATE
8/31/98
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
EMISSION FACTOR AND INVENTORY GROUP, EMAD (MD-14)
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND SSTANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
i. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
;. ABSTRACT
«IS DOCUMENT CONTAINS EMISSION FACTORS AND PROCESS INFORMATION FOR MORE THAN 200 AIR
.UTION SOURCE CATEGORIES. THESE EMISSION FACTORS HAVE BEEN COMPILED FROM SOURCE
i o i 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 NATURAL GAS
COMBUSTION, WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS; MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS; WASTE
WATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND STORAGE; ORGANIC LIQUID STORAGE TANKS; NITRIC ACID;
GRAIN ELEVATORS AND PROCESSES; PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING; LIME MANUFACTURING; PRIMARY
ALUMINUM PRODUCTION; PAVED ROADS; ABRASIVE BLASTING; ENTERIC FERMENTATION - GREENHOUSE
GASES.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
EMISSION FACTORS TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EMISSION ESTIMATION
STATIONARY SOURCES
POINT SOURCES
AREA SOURCES
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
(IPITRIBUTION STATEMENT
UNLIMITED
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
I '
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COSATI FIELD/GROUP
21. NO. OF PAGES
312
22. PRICE
-------
t
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
I REPORT NO
AP-42, Fifth Edition
3 RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Supplement B To
Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources
5 REPORT DATE
November 1996
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
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 27711
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
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
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI Field/Group
Emission Factors
Emission Estimation
Stationary Sources
Point Sources
Area Sources
Criteria Pollutants
Toxic Pollutants
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19 SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
406
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
* U.S. GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE: 1997-527-090/S6003
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO
AP-42, Fifth Edition
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Supplement A To
Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources
5. REPORT DATE
February 1996
b F'ERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
8. F'ERFORMINO ORGANIZATION REE'ORTNO
•) 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 27711
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRA! T/GRANT NO
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
TYPE ()F REPORT AND PERK)[)('(1VERED
14, SPONSORING AGENI 'Y CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
It. 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 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
Combustion; 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
Gas 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;
Coal Cleaning; Frit Manufacturing; Sand And Gravel Processing; Diatomite Processing; Talc Processing; Vermiculite
Processing; Paved Roads; and Unpaved Roads. Also included is information on Generalized Particle Size Distributions.
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
11. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c CO.SATI Reid/Group
21 NO OF PAGES
346
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVK >( IS EDITION IS ()BS( )LETE
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
AP-42 Volume I, Fifth Edition
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
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 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
January 1995
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Editor: Whitmel M. Joyner
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, such should be preferred over the
generalized factors presented in this document.
This Fifth Edition addresses pollutant-generating activity from EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES,
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES, EVAPORATION LOSS
SOURCES, PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, ORGANIC CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY, LIQUID STORAGE
TANKS, INORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, WOOD
PRODUCTS INDUSTRY, MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY, METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY, and
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES.
Also included are particle size distribution data and procedures for sampling and analyzing
surface/bulk dust loading.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Emission Factors Criteria Pollutants
Emission Estimation Toxic Pollutants
Stationary Sources
Point Sources
Area Sources
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
c. COS AT I Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
2050
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION .s OBSOLETE
-------
US.Enwonmen.al Protection Agency
S Sffl
60604-3590
-------