AP42C
                            AP-42
                         Fifth Edition
                         Supplement C
                        November 1997
   SUPPLEMENT C
           TO
   COMPILATION
          OF
  AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS
       VOLUME I:
   STATIONARY POINT
  AND AREA SOURCES
            IENC'
  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
      Office Of Air And Radiation
    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

        November 1997   U.S

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial products
is not intented to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                             AP-42
                                          Fifth Edition
                                            Volume I
                                          Supplement C

-------
Chap. 9, Sect. 5.1
Chap. 9, Sect. 6.1
Chap. 9, Sect. 9.6
Chap. 9, Sect. 10.1.1
Chap. 9, Sect. 10.1.2
Chap. 9, Sect. 12.3
Chap. 9, Sect. 15
Chap. 11, Sect. 3

Chap. 11, Sect. 14
Chap. 11, Sect. 23
                             Instructions For Inserting
                             Supplement C Of Volume I
                                       Into AP-42
Meat Packing Plants
Natural and Processed Cheese
Bread Baking
Cane Sugar Processing
Sugarbeet Processing
Distilled Spirits
Leather Tanning
Brick And Structural Clay
Product Manufacturing
Frit Manufacturing
Taconite Ore Processing
Insert new Technical Report Data Sheet.
Replace [Work In
Replace [Work In
Replace [Work In
Replace [Work In
Replace [Work In
Replace [Work hi
Replace [Work hi
Replace entire

Replace entire
Replace entire
Progress] sheet
Progress] sheet
Progress] sheet
Progress] sheet
Progress] sheet
Progress] sheet
Progress] sheet
New Section
New Section
New Section
New Section
New Section
New Section
New Section
Major Revision

Minor Revision
Major Revision

-------
                      AP-42
                  SUPPLEMENT C
                  SEPTEMBER 1990
  SUPPLEMENT C
         TO
   COMPILATION
        OF
  AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS

     VOLUME I:
 STATIONARY POINT
 AND AREA SOURCES
              FOR REFERENCE
              Do Not Take From This Room
    TT ~ f. - ..,.- • •    _ , : 	,,

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                           AP-42
                                         Volume I
                                       Supplement C

-------
                  INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSERTING SUPPLEMENT C
                                     INTOAP-42
Pp. iii and iv replace same. New Publications In Series.
Pp. v through viii replace same. New Contents.
Pp. ix through xv replace same. New Key Word Index.
Pp. 1.10-1 through 1.10-5 replace same. Major Revision.
Pp. 2.1-1 through 2.1-20 replace 2.1-1 through 2.1-10.  Major Revision.
Pp. 2.5-1 through 2.5-13 replace 2.5-1 through 2.5-6. Major Revision.
Add pp. 4.2.2.13-1  through 4.2.2.13-9.  New Section.
Add pp. 4.2.2.14-1  through 4.2.2.14-18. New Section.
Pp. 5.19-1 through 5.19-24 replace 5.19-1 and 2. Major Revision.
Pp. 7.6-5 and 6 replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pp. 7.10-19 through 7.10-21 replace same. Minor Revision.
Pp. 10.1-5 and 6 replace same. Major Revision.
Pp. 11.1-7 through 11.1-12 replace 11.1-7 through 11.1-11. Major Revision.
Pp. 11.2.6-1 and 2 replace same. Minor Revision.
Pp. 11.2.7-1 through 11.2.7-15 replace same. Minor Revision.
Pp. 11.3-1 through 11.3-5 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. C.2-5 and 6 replace same. Minor Revision.
Pp. C.2-17 through  C.2-19 replace C.2-17 and 18. Major Revision.
Add pp. D-l through D-8. New Appendix.
Add pp. E-l through E-8. New Appendix.

-------
                            PUBLICATIONS IN SERIES
       Issue
COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS, FIFTH EDITION
SUPPLEMENT A
       Introduction
       Section  1.1
                1.2
                1.3
                1.4
                1.6
                1.7
                1.11
                3.1
                3.2
                3.4
                5.3
                7.0
                7.1
                9.5.2
                9.5.3
                9.8.1
                9.8.2
                9.8.3
                9.9.1
                9.9.2
                9.9.5
                9.11.1
                9.12.2
                9.13.2
                10.7
                11.10
                11.14
                11.19
                11.22
                11.26
                11.28
                13.2.1
                12.2.2
       Appendix B.2
                                                             Date
                                                             1/95

                                                             11/96
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
Liquid Storage Tanks Introduction
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 Food
Pasta Manufacturing
Vegetable Oil Processing
Wines And Brandy
Coffee Roasting
Charcoal
Coal Cleaning
Frit Manufacturing
Construction Aggregate Processing
Diatomite Processing
Talc Processing
Vermiculite Processing
Paved Roads
Unpaved Roads
Generalized Particle Size Distributions
11/96
             Publication In Series
                                                                                           in

-------
SUPPLEMENT B
       Section
11/96
                 1.1      Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal Combustion
                 1.2      Anthracite Coal Combustion
                 1.3      Fuel Oil Combustion
                 1.4      Natural Gas Combustion
                 1.5      Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion
                 1.6      Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers
                 1.7      Lignite Combustion
                 1.8      Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills
                 1.9      Residential Fireplaces
                 1.10     Residential Wood Stoves
                 1.11     Waste Oil Combustion
                 2.1      Refuse Combustion
                 3.1      Stationary Gas Turbines For Electricity Generation
                 3.2      Heavy-duty Natural Gas-fired Pipeline Compressor Engines
                 3.3      Gasoline And Diesel Industrial Engines
                 3.4      Large Stationary Diesel And All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines
                 6.2      Adipic Acid
                 9.7      Cotton Ginning
                 9.9.4    Alfalfa Dehydrating
                 9.12.1   Malt Beverages
                 11.7     Ceramic Products Manufacturing
                 12.20   Electroplating
                 13.1     Wildfires And Prescribed Burning
                 14.0     Greenhouse Gas Biogenic Sources
                 14.1     Emissions From Soils—Greenhouse Gases
                 14.2     Termites—Greenhouse Gases
                 14.3     Lightning Emissions—Greenhouse
SUPPLEMENT C
       Section
11/97
                 9.5.1     Meat Packing Plants
                 9.6.1     Natural and Processed Cheese
                 9.9.6     Bread Baking
                 9.10.1.1   Cane Sugar Processing
                 9.10.1.2   Sugarbeet Processing
                 9.12.3    Distilled Spirits
                 9.15      Leather Tanning
                 11.3      Brick And Structural Clay Product Manufacturing
                 11.14     Frit Manufacturing
                 11.23     Taconite Ore Processing
                                                                                                    i
w
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
  11/96

-------
                                   CONTENTS
                                                                        Page

INTRODUCTION  	      1

1.   EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES  	  1.1-1
     1.1    Bituminous Coal Combustion  	  1.1-1
     1.2    Anthracite Coal Combustion  	  1.2-1
     1.3    Fuel Oil Combustion  	  1.3-1
     1.4    Natural Gas Combustion 	  1,4-1
     1.5    Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion  	  1.5-1
     1.6    Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers 	  1.6-1
     1.7    Lignite Combustion 	  1.7-1
     1.8    Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills 	  1.8-1
     1.9    Residential Fireplaces 	  1.9-1
     1.10   Residential Wood Stoves 	 1.10-1
     1.11   Waste Oil Combustion  	 1.11-1

2.   SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL  	  2.0-1
     2.1    Refuse Combustion 	  2.1-1
     2.2    Automobile Body Incineration 	  2.2-1
     2.3    Conical Burners 	  2.3-1
     2.4    Open Burning 	  2.4-1
     2.5    Sewage Sludge  Incineration  	  2.5-1

3.   STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES 	  3.0-1
            Glossary Of Terms 	 Vol.  II
            Highway Vehicles 	 Vol.  II
            Off Highway Mobile Sources  	 Vol.  II
     3.1    Stationary Gas Turbines For Electric Utility
              Power Plants 	  3.1-1
     3.2    Heavy Duty Natural Gas Fired Pipeline
              Compressor Engines  	  3.2-1
     3.3    Gasoline And Diesel Industrial Engines 	  3.3-1
     3.4    Stationary Large Bore And Dual Fuel Engines 	  3.4-1

4.    EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES 	  4.1-1
     4.1    Dry Cleaning 	  4.1-1
     4.2    Surface Coating 	  4.2-1
     4.3    Storage Of Organic Liquids  	  4.3-1
     4.4    Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids 	  4.4-1
     4.5    Cutback Asphalt,  Emulsified Asphalt And Asphalt Cement ..  4.5-1
     4.6    Solvent Degreasing 	  4.6-1
     4.7    Waste Solvent Reclamation 	  4.7-1
     4.8    Tank And Drum Cleaning 	  4.8-1
     4.9    Graphic Arts 	  4.9-1
     4.10   Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use 	 4.10-1
     4.11   Textile Fabric Printing 	 4.11-1
     4.12   Polyester Resin Plastics  Product Fabrication 	 4.12-1

-------
                                                                        Page

5.    CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY 	   5.1-1
     5.1    Adipic Acid 	   5.1-1
     5.2    Synthetic Ammonia 	   5.2-1
     5.3    Carbon Black 	   5.3-1
     5.4    Charcoal 	   5.4-1
     5.5    Chlor-Alkali 	   5.5-1
     5.6    Explosives 	   5.6-1
     5.7    Hydrochloric Acid 	   5.7-1
     5.8    Hydrofluoric Acid 	   5.8-1
     5.9    Nitric Acid 	   5.9-1
     5 .10   Paint And Varnish 	  5.10-1
     5.11   Phosphoric Acid 	  5.11-1
     5.12   Phthalic Anhydride 	  5.12-1
     5.13   Plastics 	  5.13-1
     5.14   Printing Ink 	  5.14-1
     5.15   Soap And Detergents 	  5.15-1
     5.16   Sodium Carbonate 	  5.16-1
     5.17   Sulfuric Acid 	  5.17-1
     5.18   Sulfur Recovery 	  5.18-1
     5.19   Synthetic Fibers 	  5.19-1
     5.20   Synthetic Rubber 	  5.20-1
     5.21   Terephthalic Acid 	  5.21-1
     5.22   Lead Alkyl 	  5.22-1
     5.23   Pharmaceuticals Production 	  5.23-1
     5.24   Maleic Anhydride 	  5.24-1

6.    FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 	   6.1-1
     6.1    Alfalfa Dehydrating 	   6.1-1
     6.2    Coffee Roasting 	   6.2-1
     6.3    Cotton Ginning 	   6.3-1
     6.4    Grain Elevators And Processing Plants 	   6.4-1
     6.5    Fermentation 	   6.5-1
     6.6    Fish Processing 	   6.6-1
     6.7    Meat Smokehouses 	   6.7-1
     6.8    Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers 	   6.8-1
     6.9    Orchard Heaters 	   6.9-1
     6.10   Phosphate Fertilizers 	  6.10-1
     6.11   Starch Manufacturing 	  6.11-1
     6.12   Sugar Cane Processing 	  6.12-1
     6.13   Bread Baking 	  6.13-1
     6.14   Urea 	  6.14-1
     6.15   Beef Cattle Feedlots 	  6.15-1
     6.16   Defoliation And Harvesting Of Cotton 	  6.16-1
     6.17   Harvesting Of Grain 	  6.17-1
     6.18   Ammonium Sulfate 	  6.18-1

7.    METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY 	   7.1-1
     7.1    Primary Aluminum Production 	   7.1-1
     7.2    Coke Production 	   7.2-1
     7.3    Primary Copper Smelting 	   7.3-1
     7.4    Ferroalloy Production 	   7.4-1
                                      VI

-------
                                                                        Page

     7.5    Iron And Steel Production 	  7.5-1
     7.6    Primary Lead Smelting 	  7.6-1
     7.7    Zinc Smelting	  7.7-1
     7.8    Secondary Aluminum Operations 	  7.8-1
     7.9    Secondary Copper Smelting And Alloying 	  7.9-1
     7.10   Gray Iron Foundries 	 7.10-1
     7.11   Secondary Lead Processing 	 7 .11-1
     7.12   Secondary Magnesium Smelting 	 7.12-1
     7.13   Steel Foundries 	 7.13-1
     7.14   Secondary Zinc Processing 	 7.14-1
     7.15   Storage Battery Production 	 7 .15-1
     7.16   Lead Oxide And Pigment Production 	 7 .16-1
     7.17   Miscellaneous Lead Products 	 7.17-1
     7.18   Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding 	 7 .18-1

8.    MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 	  8.1-1
     8.1    Asphaltic Concrete Plants 	  8.1-1
     8.2    Asphalt Roofing 	  8.2-1
     8.3    Bricks And Related Clay Products 	  8.3-1
     8.4    Calcium Carbide Manufacturing 	  8.4-1
     8.5    Castable Refractories 	  8.5-1
     8.6    Portland Cement Manufacturing 	  8.6-1
     8.7    Ceramic Clay Manufacturing 	  8.7-1
     8.8    Clay And Fly Ash Sintering 	  8.8-1
     8.9    Coal Cleaning 	  8.9-1
     8.10   Concrete Batching 	 8.10-1
     8.11   Glass Fiber Manufacturing 	 8.11-1
     8.12   Frit Manufacturing 	 8.12-1
     8.13   Glass Manufacturing 	 8.13-1
     8.14   Gypsum Manufacturing 	 8.14-1
     8.15   Lime Manufacturing 	 8.15-1
     8.16   Mineral Wool Manufacturing 	 8.16-1
     8.17   Perlite Manufacturing 	 8.17-1
     8.18   Phosphate Rock Processing 	 8.18-1
     8.19   Construction Aggregate Processing 	 8.19-1
     8.20   [Reserved] 	 8.20-1
     8.21   Coal Conversion 	 8.21-1
     8.22   Taconite Ore Processing 	 8.22-1
     8.23   Metallic Minerals Processing 	 8.23-1
     8.24   Western Surface Coal Mining 	 8.24-1

9.    PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 	  9.1-1
     9.1    Petroleum Refining 	  9.1-1
     9.2    Natural Gas Processing 	  9.2-1

10.   WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 	 10.1-1
     10.1   Chemical Wood Pulping 	 10.1-1
     10.2   Pulpboard 	 10.2-1
     10.3   Plywood Veneer And Layout Operations 	 10.3-1
     10.4   Woodworking Waste Collection Operations  	 10.4-1
                                     vii

-------
                                                                        Page

11.  MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES 	 11.1-1
     11.1   Wildfires And Prescribed Burning 	 11.1-1
     11.2   Fugitive Dust Sources 	 11.2-1
   •  11.3   Explosives Detonation 	 11.3-1
APPENDIX A  Miscellaneous Data And Conversion Factors

APPENDIX B  (Reserved For Future Use)
                                                          A-l
APPENDIX C.I   Particle Size Distribution Data And Sized Emission
                 Factors For Selected Sources 	  C.l-1
APPENDIX C.2

APPENDIX C.3

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E
Generalized Particle Size Distributions 	   C.2-1

Silt Analysis Procedures 	   C.3-1

Procedures For Sampling Surface/Bulk Dust Loading ....   D-l

Procedures For Laboratory Analysis Of Surface/Bulk
  Dust Loading Samples 	   E-l
                                     viii

-------
                                KEY WORD  INDEX
Acid
  Adipic	   5.1
  Hydrochloric	  5.7
  Hydrofluoric	  5.8
  Phosphoric	   5.11
  Sulfuric	   5.17
  Terephthalic	   5.21
Adipic Acid	   5.1
Aggregate, Construction	   8.19
Aggregate  Storage Piles
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Agricultural Tilling
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Alfalfa Dehydrating	   6.1
Alkali ,  Chlor-	   5.5
Alloys
  Ferroalloy Production	   7.4
  Secondary Copper Smelting And Alloying	   7.9
Aluminum
  Primary Aluminum Production	   7.1
  Secondary Aluminum Operations	   7.8
Ammonia,  Synthetic	   5.2
Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers	   6.8
Anhydride, Phthalic	   5.12
Anthracite Coal Combustion	   1.2
Ash
  Fly Ash Sintering	   8.8
Asphalt
  Cutback Asphalt, Emulsified Asphalt And Asphalt Cement	   4.5
  Roofing	   8.2
Asphaltic Concrete Plants	   8.1
Automobile Body Incineration	   2.2

Bagasse  Combustion In Sugar Mills	   1.8
Baking,  Bread	   6.13
Bark
  Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers	   1.6
Batching, Concrete	   8 .10
Battery
  Storage Battery Production	   7 .15
Beer Production
  Fermentation	   6.5
Bituminous Coal Combustion	   1.1
Bread Baking	   6.13
Bricks And Related Clay Products	   8.3
Burners,  Conical (Teepee)	   2.3
Burning,  Open	   2.4
                                      IX

-------
Calcium Carbide Manufacturing	  8.4
Cane
  Sugar CAne Processing	 6.12
Carbon Black	  5.3
Carbonate
  Sodium Carbonate Manufacturing	  5.16
Castable Refractories	  8.5
Cattle
  Beef Cattle Feedlots	  6 .15
Cement
  Asphal t	  4.5
   Portland Cement Manufacturing	  8.6
Ceramic Clay Manufacturing	  8.7
Charcoal	  5.4
Chemical Wood Pulping	 10.1
Chlor-Alkali	  5.5
Clay
  Bricks And Related Clay Products	  8.3
  Ceramic Clay Manufacturing	  8.7
  Clay And Fly Ash Sintering	  8.8
Cleaning
  Coal	  8.9
  Dry	  4.1
  Tank And Drum	  4.8
Coal
  Anthracite Coal Combustion	  1.2
  Bituminous Coal Combustion	  1.1
  Cleaning	  8.9
  Conversion	  8.21
Coating, Surface	  4.2
Coffee Roasting	  6.2
Coke Manufacturing	  7.2
Combustion
  Anthracite Coal	  1.2
  Bagasse ,  In Sugar Mills	  1.8
  Bituminous Coal	  1.1
  Fuel Oil	  1.3
  Internal	 Vol. 11
  Lignite	  1.7
  Liquified Petroleum Gas	  1.5
  Natural Gas	  1.4
  Orchard Heaters	  6.9
  Residential Fireplaces	  1.9
  Waste Oil	  1.11
  Wood Stoves	  1.10
Concrete
  Asphaltic Concrete Plants	  8.1
  Concrete Batching	  8.10
Conical (Teepee) Burners	  2.3
Construction Aggregate	  8.19
Construction Operations
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Conversion, Coal	  8.21
  Wood Waste In Boilers	  1.6
                                       x

-------
Copper
  Primary Copper Smelting	   7.3
  Secondary copper Smelting And Alloying	   7.9
Cotton
  Defoliation And Harvesting	   6.16
  Ginning	   6.3

Dacron
  Synthetic Fibers	   5 .19
Defoliation, Cotton	   6.16
Degreasing,  Solvent	   4.6
Dehydrating, Alfalfa	   6.1
Detergents
  Soap And Detergents	   5.15
Detonation,  Explosives	  11.3
Drum
  Tank And Drum Cleaning	   4.8
Dry Cleaning	   4.1
Dual Fuel Engines,  Stationary	  3.4
Dust
  Fugitive Dust Sources	  11.2
Dust Loading Sampling Procedures	  App. D
Dust Loading Analysis	  App. E

Electric Utility Power Plants, Gas	   3.1
Elevators ,  Feed And Grain Mills	   6.4
Explosives	   5.6
Explosives Detonation	  11.3

Feed
  Beef Cattle Feedlots	   6.15
  Feed And Grain Mills And Elevators	   6.4
Fermentation	   6.5
Fertilizers
  Ammonium Nitrate	   6.8
  Phosphate	   6.10
Ferroalloy Production	   7.4
Fiber
  Glass Fiber Manufacturing	   8.11
Fiber,  Synthetic	   5.19
Fires
  Forest Wildfires  And Prescribed Burning	  11.1
Fireplaces,  Residential	   1.9
Fish Processing	   6.6
Fly Ash
  Clay And Fly Ash Sintering	   8.8
Foundries
  Gray Iron Foundries	   7 .10
  Steel Foundries	   7.13
Frit Manufacturing	   8.12
Fuel Oil Combustion	   1.3
Fugitive Dust Sources	  11. 2
                                      XI

-------
Gas Combustion, Liquified Petroleum	  1.5
Gas, Natural
  Natural Gas Combustion	  1.4
  Natural Gas Processing	  9.2
Gasoline/Diesel Engines	  3.3
Ginning, Cotton	•	  6.3
Glass Manufacturing	  8.13
Glass Fiber Manufacturing	  8.11
Grain
  Feed And Grain Mills And Elevators	  6.4
  Harvesting Of Grain	  6.17
Gravel
  Sand And Gravel Processing	  8.19
Gray Iron Foundries	  7 .10
Gypsum Manufacturing	.<	  8 .14

Harvesting
  Cotton	  6.16
  Grain	  6.17
Heaters,  Orchard	  6.9
Hydrochloric Acid	  5.7
Hydrofluoric Acid	  5.8

Incineration
  Automobile Body	  2.2
  Conical (Teepee)	  2.3
  Refuse	  2.1
  Sewage Sludge	  2.5
Industrial Engines,  Gasoline And Diesel	  3.3
Ink, Printing	  5.14
Internal Combustion Engines
  Highway Vehicles	 Vol.  II
  Off Highway Mobile Sources	,	 Vol.  II
  Off Highway Stationary Sources	    3.0
Iron
  Ferroalloy Production	  7.4
  Gray Iron Foundries	  7 .10
  Iron And Steel Mills	  7.5
  Taconite Ore Processing	  8.22

Large Bore Engines	  3.4
Lead
  Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding	  7.18
  Miscellaneous Lead Products	  7.17
  Primary Lead Smelting	  7.6
  Secondary Lead Smelting	  7.11
Lead Alkyl	  5.22
Lead Oxide And Pigment Production	  7 .16
Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding	  7.18
Lignite Combustion	  1.7
Lime Manufacturing	  8.15
Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion	  1.5
                                      xii

-------
Magnesium
  Secondary Magnesium Smelting	   7.12
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing	   4.2
Maleic Anhydride	   5.24
Marketing
  Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids	   4.4
Meat Smokehouses	   6.7
Mineral Wool Manufacturing	   8.16
Mobile Sources
  Highway	 Vol.  II
  Off Highway	 Vol.  II

Natural Gas Combustion	   1.4
Natural Gas Fired Pipeline Compressors	   3.2
Natural Gas Processing	   9.2
Nitric Acid Manufacturing	   5.9

Off Highway Mobile Sources	 Vol.  II
Off Highway Stationary Sources	     3.0
Oil
  Fuel Oil Combustion	   1.3
  Waste Oil Combustion	   1.11
Open Burning	   2.4
Orchard Heaters	   6.9
Ore Processing
  Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding	   7.18
  Taconite	   8.22
Organic Liquids , Storage	   4.3

Paint And Varnish Manufacturing	   5.10
Paved Roads
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Perlite Manufacturing	   8.17
Petroleum
  Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion	   1.5
  Refining	   9.1
  Storage Of Organic Liquids	   4.3
  Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids	   4.4
Pharmaceuticals Production	   5.23
Phosphate Fertilizers	   6 .10
Phosphate Rock Processing	   8.18
Phosphoric Acid	   5.11
Phthalic Anhydride	   5.12
Pigment
  Lead Oxide And Pigment Production	   7 .16
Pipeline Compressors	   3.2
Plastics	   5.13
Plywood Veneer And Layout Operations	 10. 3
Polyester Resin Plastics Product Fabrication	   4.12
Portland Cement Manufacturing	   8.6
Prescribed Burning	 11.1
Printing Ink	   5.14
Pulpboard	 10. 2
Pulping,  Chemical Wood	 10.1
                                     XLll

-------
Reclamation, Waste Solvent	  4.7
Recovery,  Sulfur	  5.18
Refractories,  Castable	  8.5
Residential Fireplaces	  1.9
Roads,  Paved
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Roads,  Unpaved
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Roasting Coffee	  6.2
Rock
  Phosphate Rock Processing	  8.18
Roofing,  Asphalt	  8.2
Rubber, Synthetic	  5.20

Sand And Gravel Processing	  8.19
Sewage  Sludge  Incineration	  2.5
Sintering, Clay And Fly Ash	  8.8
Smelting
  Primary Copper Smelting	  7.3
  Primary Lead Smelting	  7.6
  Secondary Copper Smelting And Alloying	  7.9
  Secondary Lead Smelting	  7.11
  Secondary Magnesium Smelting	  7.12
  Zinc  Smelting	  7.7
Smokehouses, Meat	  6.7
Soap And Detergent Manufacturing	  5.15
Sodium Carbonate Manufacturing	  5.16
Solvent
  Commercial/Consumer Use	  4.10
  Solvent Degreasing	  4.6
  Waste Solvent Reclamation	  4.7
Starch Manufacturing	  6.11
Stationary Gas Turbines	  3.1
Stationary Sources ,  Off Highway	  3.0
Steel
  Iron And Steel Mills	  7.5
  Steel Foundries	  7.13
Storage Battery Production	  7 .15
Storage Of Organic Liquids	  4.3
Sugar Cane Processing	  6.12
Sugar Mills, Bagasse Combustion In	  1.8
Sulfur  Recovery	  5.18
Sulfuric Acid	  5.17
Surface Coating	  4.2
Synthetic Ammonia	  5.2
Synthetic Fiber	  5.19
Synthetic Rubber	  5 . 20

Taconite Ore Processing	  8.22
Tank And Drum Cleaning	i	  4.8
Tape, Magnetic	  4.2
Terephthalic Acid	  5.21
                                      xiv

-------
Tilling, Agricultural
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids	  4.4
Turbine Engines,  Natural Gas	  3.1

Unpaved Roads
  Fugitive Dust Sources	 11.2
Urea	  6.14

Varnish
  Paint And Varnish Manufacturing	  5 .10
Vehicles,  Highway And Off Highway	 Vol. II

Waste Solvent Reclamation	  4.7
Waste Oil Combustion	  1.11
Whiskey Production
  Fermentation	  6.5
Wildfires ,  Forest	 11.1
Wine Making
  Fermentation	  6.5
Wood Pulping,  Chemical	 10.1
Wood Stoves	  1.10
Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers	  1.6
Woodworking Waste Collection Operations	 10.4

Zinc
  Secondary Zinc Processing	  7 .14
  Smelting	  7.7
                                      xv

-------
 1.10    RESIDENTIAL WOOD STOVES

 1.10.1  General1"3

       Wood stoves are commonly used as space heaters in residences to
 supplement conventional heating systems.   They are increasingly found as the
 primary source of residential heat.

      Because of differences in both the magnitude and the composition of
 emissions from wood stoves, four different categories of stoves should be
 considered when estimating emissions:

              the conventional noncatalytic wood stove,

              the noncatalytic low emitting wood stove,

              the pellet fired noncatalytic wood stove,  and

              the catalytic wood stove.

      Among these categories,  there are many variations  in wood stove design
 and operation characteristics.

       The conventional stove  category  comprises all  stoves without catalytic
 combustors not included in the other noncatalytic categories.   Stoves of many
 different airflow designs,  such as updraft,  downdraft,  crossdraft,  and S-flow,
 may be in this category.

      "Noncatalytic low emitting" wood  stoves are those  units properly
 installed,  haying no catalyst and meeting EPA certification standards as of
 July 1,  1990.L

      Pellet fired stoves  are  those fueled with pellets  of sawdust,  wood
 products,  and other biomass materials  pressed into manageable  shape and size.
 These stoves have a specially designed or modified grate to accommodate this
 type of  fuel.

      Catalytic stoves are equipped with a ceramic or metal honeycomb device,
 called a combustor or converter,  that  is  coated with a  noble metal  such as
 platinum or palladium.  The catalyst material reduces the ignition temperature
 of  the unburned hydrocarbons  and carbon monoxide in  the exhaust gases,  thus
 augmenting their ignition and combustion at  normal stove operating
 temperatures.   As these components of  the gases burn, the temperature inside
 the catalyst increases to a point where the  ignition of the gases  is
 essentially selfsustaining.   The particulate emissions  data in Table 1.10
 represent  the  field operation emissions expected from properly installed
 catalytic  wood heaters meeting  the EPA July  1,  1990  certification  standards.
9/90                    External Combustion Sources                     1.10-1

-------
1.10.2  Emissions4"15

     The combustion and pyrolysis of wood in wood stoves produce atmospheric
emissions of particulate, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, organic compounds,
mineral residues, and to a lesser extent, sulfur oxides.  The quantities and
types of emissions are highly variable and depend on a number of factors,
including the stages of the combustion cycle.   During initial stages of
burning, after a new wood charge is introduced, emissions increase
dramatically and are primarily volatile organic compounds (VOC).  After the
initial period of high burn rate, there is a charcoal stage of the burn cycle,
characterized by a slower burn rate and decreased emission rates.  Emission
rates during this stage are cyclical, characterized by relatively long periods
of low emissions with shorter episodes of emission spikes.

     Particulate emissions are defined in this document as the total catch
measured by the EPA Method 5H (Oregon Method 7) sampling train.   A small
portion of wood stove particulate emissions includes "solid" particles of
elemental carbon and wood.  The vast majority of particulate emissions is
condensed organic products of incomplete combustion equal to or less than 10
micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM-iQ).  The particulate emission values
shown in Table 1.10-1 represent estimates of emissions produced by wood
heaters expected to be available over the next few years as cleaner, more
reliable wood stoves are manufactured to meet the New Source Performance
Standards.   These emission values are derived from limited field test data
from studies of the best available wood stove control technology.  Still,
there is a potential for higher emissions from some wood stove models.

      In addition, the values for particulate and carbon monoxide emissions on
the table reflect tests of new units.  Control devices on wood stoves may
exhibit reduced control efficiency over a period of operation, resulting in
increased emissions 3 to 5 years after installation.  For catalyst equipped
wood heaters, the potential for control degradation is probably on the order
of 10 to 30 percent after 3 years of operation.  Control degradation for any
stoves, including low emitting noncatalyst wood stoves may also occur, as a
result of deteriorated seals and gaskets, misaligned baffles and bypass
mechanisms, broken refractory ,  or other damaged functional components.  The
increase in emissions resulting from such control degradation has not been
quantified, but can be significant.

     Although reported particle size data are scarce, one reference states
that 95 percent of the particles in the emissions from a wood stove were less
than 0.4 micrometers in size.

     Sulfur oxides are formed by oxidation of sulfur in the wood.  Nitrogen
oxides are formed by oxidation of fuel and atmospheric nitrogen.  Mineral
constituents, such as potassium and sodium compounds, are also released from
the wood matrix during combustion.  The high levels of organic compound and
carbon monoxide emissions result from incomplete combustion of the wood.
1.10-2                        EMISSION FACTORS                             9/90

-------




STOVES
Q
§

i
1 1
re c
g> O
o 2
^
CQ O
> |
0




J3
s*
te X
co10


CJD
0) w
O) .2
O T3
k_ u
ig
^_

^
0)
C"O
.25
S g
•9 2
3|
0_
ja"
of
0 c
CB §.
3°
c VI
£



J
o.

CM
CD


CC?
CM,
•t_
T~


o"
N.
CM,
O
•*

o"
£2-

in

75
c
g
J3
Is
^i
a>
                                                   D.  cc  cc^c  p:  a-cccc
                                                          o TJ
9/90
                          External  Combustion  Sources
                                1.10-3

-------
      Organic constituents of wood smoke vary considerably in both type and
volatility.  These constituents include simple hydrocarbons of carbon number 1
through 7 (Cl - C7), which exist as gases or which volatilize at ambient
conditions, and complex low volatility substances that condense at ambient
conditions.  These low volatility condensible materials generally are
considered to have boiling points below 300°C (572°F).

     Polycyclic organic matter (POM) is an important component of the
condensible fraction of wood smoke.  POM contains a wide range of compounds,
including organic compounds formed by the combination of free radical species
in the flame zone through incomplete combustion.  This group contains some
potentially carcinogenic compounds, such as benzo(a)pyrene.

      Emission factors and their ratings for wood combustion in residential
wood stoves are presented in Table 1.10-1.

      As mentioned, particulate emissions are defined as the total emissions
equivalent to that collected by EPA Method 5H (Oregon Method 7).  This method
employs a heated filter followed by three impingers, an unheated filter, and a
final impinger.  Particulate emissions data used to develop the factors in
Table 1.10-1 are primarily from data collected during field testing programs,
and they are presented as values equivalent to that collected with Method 5H.
Conversions are employed, as appropriate, for data collected with other
methods.  See Reference 2 for detailed discussions of EPA Methods 5H and 28.
Other emission factors shown in Table 1.10-1 have been developed from data
collected during laboratory testing programs.


References for Section 1.10

 1.   Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources:  New Residential
      Wood Heaters. 53 FR 5860, February 26, 1988.

 2.   G. E. Weant, Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 1.10.
      Residential Wood Stoves. EPA-450/4-89-007, U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1989.

 3.   R. Gay and J. Shah, Technical Support Document For Residential Wood
      Combustion. EPA-450/4-85-012, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1986.

 4.   Residential Wood Heater Test Report. Phase 1. Tennessee Valley
      Authority, Chattanooga, TN, November 1982.

 5.   J. A. Rau and J. J. Huntzicker, "Composition And Size Distribution Of
      Residential Wood Smoke Aerosols".  Presented at the 21st Annual Meeting
      of the Air And Waste Management Association, Pacific Northwest
      International Section, Portland, OR, November 1984.
                                                                                     i
1.10-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                              9/90

-------
 6.   R. C. McCrillis and R. G. Merrill, "Emission Control Effectiveness Of A
      Woodstove Catalyst And Emission Measurement Methods Comparison".
      Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Air And Waste Management
      Association, Detroit, MI, 1985.

 7.   L. E. Cottone and E. Me'sser, Test Method Evaluations And Emissions
      Testing For Rating Wood Stoves. EPA-600/2-86-100, U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1986.

 8.   In-situ Emission Factors For Residential Wood Combustion Units.
      EPA-450/3-88-013, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, December 1988.

 9.   K. E. Leese and S. M. Harkins, Effects Of Burn Rate. Wood Species.
      Moisture Content. And Weight' Of Wood Loaded On Woodstove Emissions. EPA-
      600/2-89-025, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May
      1989.

10.   Residential Wood -Heater Test Report.  Phase II.  Vol. 1. Tennessee Valley
      Authority, Chattanooga, TN, August 1983.

11.   J. M. Allen, et al.. Study Of The Effectiveness Of A Catalytic
      Combustion Device On A Wood Burning Appliance.  EPA-600/7-84-04, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH, March 1984.

12.   J. M. Allen and W. M. Cooke, Control Of Emissions From Residential Wood
      Burning By Combustion Modification. EPA-600/7-81-091,  U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH, May 1981.

13.   R. S. Truesdale and J. G. Cleland, "Residential Stove Emissions From
      Coal And Other Fuels Combustion".   Presented at the Specialty
      Conference on Residential Wood and Coal Combustion, Louisville, KY,
      March 1982.

14.   R. E. Imhoff, et al.. "Final Report On A Study Of The Ambient Impact Of
      Residential Wood Combustion in Petersville,  Alabama".   Presented at the
      Specialty Conference on Residential Wood and Coal Combustion,
      Louisville,  KY, March 1982.

15.   D. G. Deangelis, et al..  Preliminary Characterization Of Emissions From
      Wood-fired Residential Combustion Equipment.  EPA-600/7-80-040, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH, March 1980.
                         External Combustion Sources                    1.10-5

-------
2.1  REFUSE COMBUSTION

     Refuse combustion is generally the burning of predominantly nonhazardous
garbage or other solid wastes.  Types of combustion devices used to burn
refuse include single chamber units, multiple chamber units, trench
incinerators, controlled air incinerators, and pathological incinerators.
These devices are used to burn municipal, commercial, industrial,
pathological, and domestic refuse.

2.1.1  Municipal Waste Combustion

     There are currently over 150 municipal waste combustion (MWC) plants in
operation in the United States.   Three main types of combustors are used:
mass burn, modular, and refuse derived fuel (RDF) fired.  In mass burn units,
the municipal solid waste (MSW) is combusted without any preprocessing other
than removal of items too large to go through the feed system.  In a typical
mass burn combustor, refuse is placed on a grate that moves through the
combustor.  Combustion air in excess of stoichiometric amounts is supplied
both below (underfire air) and above (overfire air) the grate.  Mass burn
combustors are usually erected at the site (as opposed to being prefabricated
at another location) and range in size from 46 to 900 megagrams (50 to 1000
tons) per day of refuse throughput per unit.  Many mass burn facilities have
two or more combustors and have combined site capacities of greater than 900
megagrams (1000 tons) per day.  The mass burn category can be further divided
into waterwall and refractory wall designs.   Most refractory wall combustors
were built prior to the early 1970s.  Newer units are mainly waterwall
designs,  which have water-filled tubes in the walls of the combustor used to
recover heat for production of steam and/or electricity.  Process diagrams for
one type of refractory wall combustor and a typical waterwall combustor are
presented in Figures 2.1.1-1 and 2.1.1-2, respectively.

     Modular combustors also burn waste without preprocessing, but they are
typically shop fabricated and generally range in size from 5 to 110 megagrams
(5 to 120 tons) per day of refuse throughput.   One of the most common types of
modular combustors is the starved air or controlled air type, incorporating
two combustion chambers.   A process diagram of a typical modular starved-air
combustor is presented in Figure 2.1.1-3.  Air is supplied to the primary
chamber at substoichio-metric levels.   The incomplete combustion products
(carbon monoxide and organic compounds) pass into the secondary combustion
chamber where excess air is added and combustion is completed.   Another type
of modular combustor, functionally similar to mass burn units, uses excess air
in the primary chamber.

     Refuse derived fuel  fired combustors burn processed waste which may vary
from shredded waste to finely divided fuel suitable for co-firing with
pulverized coal.   A process diagram for a typical RDF combustor is shown in
Figure 2.1.1-4.  Preprocessing usually consists of removing noncombustibles
and shredding the waste,  which raises  the heating value and provides a more
9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                        2.1-1

-------
                                                                       Stack
                                                 n ..    Cooling

                          1  ™ ££S "Y^v  *£?   chan*w    ^

                        'SSI?  ^  '"I??001    Ash   XT              Conveyor,
                         Fan               Quench Conveyor
                                          Pit
 Figure  2.1-1.  Mass burn refractory wall  combustor with grate/rotary kiln.
                                                                           Inducad
                                                                           OrtftFv
2.1-2
Figure 2.1-2.   Mass burn waterwall combustor.



               EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                         i
                                                                              9/90

-------
                                          To Dump Stack or
                                          Waste Heat Boiler
                               Primary
                              Gas Burner
                Waste Tipping Floor
////////////////

              Ram  ^Jp\
             Feeder
                              Charge
                              Hopper
                   Feed > .^

                  ST
                                               Secondary
                                              A
                                                                        Secondary
                                                                           ~

                                                            000

                                                            0 0  O

                                                            O O  0
                                                  Primary Chamber
                                                Transfer Barm
                                                                              Secondary
                                                                             'Gas Burner
                                           Primary Air
         Figure 2.1-3.   Modular  starved-air combustor with  transfer  rams.
9/90
     Figure  2.1-4.   RDF  fired  spreader  stoker boiler.


                      Solid Waste Disposal
2.1-3

-------
uniform fuel.  Combustor sizes range from 290 to 1,300 megagrams (320 to 1400
tons) per day.  Most RDF facilities have two or more corabustors, and site
capacities range up to 2700 megagrams (3000 tons) per day.  RDF facilities
typically recover heat for production of steam and/or electricity.

     There are also small, numbers of other types of MWCs.   One type used less
extensively is the rotary waterwall combustor.  As with mass burn units,
rotary waterwall combustors burn waste without preprocessing but differ in
design from most mass burn units in the use of a rotary combustion chamber
equipped with water-filled tubes for heat recovery.  Other types of MWCs
include batch incinerators and fluidized bed combustors.

     Over 30 percent of the units currently operating are mass burn units
(including refractory and waterwall) and another 40 to 50 percent are modular
units.  Over 10 percent of the, units are RDF units and the remainder of the
units are of other designs.  In terms of waste combusted,  mass burn units
account for about 60 percent of the MSW combusted, modular units account for 8
percent, and RDF units for 30 percent.

2.1.1.1  Process Description

     Types of combustors described in this section include:

               - Mass burn refractory wall
               - Mass burn waterwall
               - Refuse derived fuel fired
               - Modular starved air
               - Modular excess air
               - Rotary waterwall
               - Fluidized bed

     Mass Burn Refractory Wall - At least three distinct combustor designs
make up the existing population of refractory wall combustors.  The first
design is a batch fed upright combustor, where the combustor may be
cylindrical or rectangular in shape.  This type of combustor was prevalent in
the 1950s, but no additional units of this design are expected to be built.

     A more common design consists of rectangular combustion chambers with
traveling, rocking, or reciprocating grates.  This type of combustor is
continuously fed and operates in an excess air mode with both underfire and
overfire air provided.  The primary distinction between plants with this
design is the manner in which the waste is moved through the combustor.  The
traveling grate moves on a set of sprockets and does not agitate the waste bed
as it advances through the combustor.  Rocking and reciprocating grate systems
agitate and aerate the waste bed as it advances through the combustion
chamber.  The system generally discharges the ash at the end of the grates to
a water quench pit for collection and disposal in a landfill.

     A third major design type in the mass burn refractory wall population is
a system which combines grate burning technology with a rotary kiln.  Two
grate sections (drying and ignition) precede a refractory lined rotary kiln.
Combustion is completed in the kiln, and ash leaving the kiln falls into a
water quench.  This system is depicted in Figure 2.1.1-1.
2.1-4                          EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90
                                                                                  i

-------
     Most mass  burn  refractory wall  combustors  have  electrostatic
 precipitators  (ESPs)  for particulate control. Others have  a  wet  particulate
 control device,  such as  a wet  scrubber.

     Mass Burn  Waterwall -  With this type  of system,  unprocessed waste with
 large, bulky, noncombustibles  removed is delivered by an overhead  crane  to a
 feed hopper from which it is fed into the  combustion chamber.  Earlier mass
 burn designs utilized gravity  feeders, but it is more typical today  to feed by
 means of single  or dual  hydraulic  rams that operate  on a set frequency.

     Nearly all  modern conventional  mass burn facilities utilize
 reciprocating grates  to  move the waste through  the combustion chamber.   The
 grates typically include two or  three separate  sections where designated
 stages in the combustion process occur.  The initial  grate section is referred
 to as the drying grate,  where  heat reduces the  moisture content  of the waste
 prior to ignition.  The  second grate section is the  burning  grate, where the
 majority of active burning  takes place.  The third grate section is  referred
 to as the burnout or  finishing grate, where remaining combustibles are burned.
 Smaller units may have two  rather  than three individual grate sections.
 Bottom ash is discharged from  the  finishing grate into a water filled ash
 quench pit.  Dry ash  systems have  been used in  some designs, but are not
 widespread.

     Combustion  air is added to  the  waste  from  beneath the grate by way  of
 underfire air plenums.   The majority of mass burn waterwall  systems  supply
 underfire air to the  individual  grate sections  through multiple plenums.  As
 the waste bed burns,  additional  air  is required to oxidize fuel rich gases and
 complete the combustion  process.  Overfire  air  is injected through rows  of
 high pressure nozzles (usually two to three inches in diameter).   Typically,
 mass burn waterwall MWCs  are operated with 80 to 100  percent excess air.

     The majority of  mass burn waterwall combustors have ESPs for  particulate
 control.   Several plants  have  acid gas controls in combination with a fabric
 filter or ESP.

     Refuse Derived Fuel  - As  a  means of raising the heating value, raw  MSW
 can be processed to refuse derived fuel (RDF) before  combustion.   A set  of
 standards for classifying RDF  types  has been established by the American
 Society For Testing And  Materials.    The type of RDF used is dependent on the
 boiler design.   Boilers  that are designed  to burn RDF as a primary fuel
 usually utilize  spreader  stokers and fire RDF-3 (fluff,  or f-RDF)  in a semi-
 suspension mode.  This mode of feeding is accomplished by using an air swept
 distributor,  which allows a portion  of the  feed to burn in suspension and the
 remainder to be burned out after falling on a horizontal traveling grate.

     Suspension fired RDF boilers, such as pulverized coal (PC) fired boilers,
 can co-fire RDF-3 or RDF-4 (powdered or p-RDF).   If RDF-3 is used,  the fuel
 processing must be more  extensive so that a very fine fluff results.
 Currently,  PC boilers co-fire fluff with pulverized coal.   Suspension firing
 is usually associated with larger boilers due to the increased boiler height
and retention time required for combustion to be completed in total
 suspension.   Smaller systems firing RDF in suspension require moving or dump
grates in the lower furnace to handle the falling material  that is  not
 completely combusted in suspension.  Boilers co-firing RDF in suspension are
generally limited to 50 percent RDF,  based on heating value.

9/90                         Solid Waste  Disposal                         2.1-5

-------
        O
        4J
        U
          00

                                                                       4-1
                                                                       c
                                                                       o
                                                                       o
                0.1
                      1.0               10
                         rVtlclt dl««tttr (u>)
                                                                  100
          Figure  2.1-6.
               Cumulative particle size distribution and size

               specific emission factors  for starved air combustors.
2.1-6
                       EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         9/90

-------






WASTE COMBUSTION3
tj
s
f— 1
t->
r-H
S
1
CO
PC
g
1
8?
r-H
§
<— H
i — 1
ON]
3
s
e-t























r-H
3
IM
•o
>
^H
M
Refuse-D

u
•H
rf
•o
a
E
4J
C/>





U
3
03
U
3




Emission
Factor
Rating
" e
^H O> O
^ ~x -X
t-i D> ja
C * rH
u
•O
(U
•-H —
~H C
8 IF 3
4J \ \
C O> .O
jntrolled Emission Unco
kg/Mg Factor k
(Ib/ton) Rating (1
u
•o
at
*H C
8 £ 5
4J >v "^
C O* .Q
o j-: •-(
u *—
Emission Ur
Factor
Rating
T3
•H C
o a t>
M >, v.
-p C7* ,Q
C .* -1
U
•o
 .Q
8 * -
C
D
0> M
-1 0)
U 4-> ~
-H OJ CJi
4-1 E 3
rc ~H
CU T3
4->
C
ro
^
^H
O
(X
U Q Q Q Q Q
O
O —
«. O 00
rH 00 00 CN *T 00 00 O ^ U XI
• nmr-r-r- o • *-\ — . — .
*-OOOOO O *— t-4 • •
o •* — — < <
a\o\a\\or-osvi-iin 2Z
Oi-t^rnmro o o in in a>
OOOOOO O O O CS rH
n *^
-^. rH r- ^. ,^
00 • - O U)
. O cH • •
•— OCNJCVJ^OOO —— •
. o • • •
VOVOi-HCM^' O • O CS rH
rH rH CN OJ CM ^ O
Q Q Q Q Q O
*. ~ * A
lorn.-. — -^-^ -* — *
rHt-HOCMTVO O CM
OOrgcMCNfM m O 0) O
• •oooo o o ^^ o ^*
O O • • • • • • r-4 ^ ^*
•— • — oooo o o • *r •
•—•«—-—•«- 	 •— rH « {*)
o m — ' ^ — •
OOO\OrHCMfOlOrH — << *<
OOi-frHrHrHt-HOm r* 3SZ
OOOOOO 0 0 in CM rH
OOOOOO O O O 04 O
ooocMro^tn  fN OtH
'-* *-' — CO CM O
iDinmoo eH — • *^ CM"*'
m*Dr^oocTiOO\rHin co
OOOOOi-H i-4 O in ^. O
^OCM — — — • « \O O| O. —
• ••OJ*J"QD OiH « • • O
inr^O\rHrH<-H . — — — * fl CM OrH
n a» in o
r-mvoooo — o oo oo rH CM^*
c\iro^r^>r^o\ m o O rH rH o in
rH O O
o o
m
CM
vo o m o o o
o rH og m o m
rH rH
a)
^ o
(0 T3 M Q) -H
rH (i> Q) T3 c: at
D T3 T3 -H (0 C
O -rH ^H. X t7> OJ
•H XXO MWQ)£
J-» OOC OTJCAJ
M -rt O Ci *d 0)
^•0 c e a> =* j= e
a) I-H o -u c
H O« Cl -H Qi (1) O
rH 3OO 4JEZZ
O nj-C*nn,n. iflO
X o a> 3 -H « o
ou H vn1 « a o >










scrubbers.
-«-•
§

"S
ra
2
a
10 "
. s.£r
& B=^
•a M fci
§ 3 fa
cu 9 aT
^ . 1H
a> co 8  "-H
• •-*
W '-I W
gj fl) < — t Q}
O O |-H
t-- > > SH >
a> a> o  -o -a «-< -a
£3 ^H — 1 OJ ^H
222^2
cu jJ +J M *->
t-i c c a> c
OS O O KB O
to X5 0 T3 


-------
     The emission controls for RDF systems are typically ESPs alone, although
acid gas controls are used with particulate control devices in some systems.

     Modular Starved Air  - The basic design of a modular starved air combustor
consists of two separate  combustion chambers, "primary" and "secondary".
Waste is batch fed to the primary chamber by a hydraulically activated ram.
The charging bin is filled by a front end loader.  Waste is fed automatically
on a set frequency, generally 6 to 10 minutes between charges.

     Waste is moved through the primary combustion chamber by either hydraulic
transfer rams or reciprocating grates.  Combustors using transfer rams have
individual hearths upon which combustion takes place.  Grate systems generally
include two separate grate sections.  In either case, waste retention times in
the primary chamber are long, up to 12 hours.  Bottom ash is usually
discharged to a wet quench pit.

     The quantity of air  introduced in the primary chamber defines the rate at
which waste burns.  The primary chamber essentially functions as a gasifier,
producing a hot fuel gas which is burned out in the secondary chamber.  The
combustion air flow rate  to the primary chamber is controlled to maintain an
exhaust gas temperature set point (generally 650 to 760°C [1200 to 1400°F]),
which normally corresponds to about 40 percent theoretical air.  Other system
designs operate with-a primary chamber temperature between 870 to 980°C (1600
and 1800°F), which requires 50 to 60 percent theoretical air.

     As the hot, fuel rich flue gases flow to the secondary chamber, they are
mixed with excess air to  complete the burning process.  The temperature of the
exhaust gases from the primary chamber is above the autoignition point.  Thus,
completing combustion is  simply a matter of introducing air to the fuel rich
gases.   The amount of air added to the secondary chamber is controlled to
maintain a desired flue gas exit temperature, typically 980 to 1200°C (1800 to
2200°F).  Approximately 80 percent of the total combustion air is introduced
as secondary air, so that excess air levels for the system are about 100
percent.  Typical operating ranges vary from 80 to 150 percent excess air.

     The walls of both combustion chambers are refractory lined.   Early
starved air modular combustors did not include heat recovery,  but a waste heat
boiler is common in newer installations, with two or more combustion modules
manifolded to a boiler.    Combustors with heat recovery capabilities also have
dump stacks.  A dump stack is an alternate emission point,  located upstream of
the boiler and/or air pollution control equipment.   It is for use in an
emergency,  or when the boiler and/or air pollution control equipment are not
in operation.

     Because emissions are relatively low, many modular starved air MWCs do
not have emissions control.   Those that do usually have ESPs for particulate
control, although fabric filters have been used.   A few newer starved air MWCs
have acid gas controls.

     Modular Excess Air - This design is similar to that of modular starved
air units.   The basic design includes two separate combustion chambers
(referred to as the "primary" and "secondary" chambers).  Waste is batch fed
to the primary chamber,  which is refractory lined.   The waste is moved through
2.1-8                          EMISSION FACTORS.                           9/90
                                                                                   i

-------
CNI
 I
CM
w
.J

3
H
                                         £
                                         J?
C
<
C

                                              en
 o
•H Q)
 <-" N fcO|
 t^ -H -T
 <0 t/5 v^
O-.
                                                        n

                                                        o
                                      n

                                      o
                                            co

                                            o
                                                                         m

                                                                         o
CM

o
                                                       CO


                                                       O
                                          o

                                          o
m

o
                                vO        oo    m
                                —^    -^    ^^    ^-^    o    o    -^
                                o    o    o    o    o    o    o
                                 •     •*••*•
                                o    o    o    o    o    o    o



                                o    oo    o    in    n    -^    oo
                                *    ^^v    ^S    /*N    ^%     .    X*\
                                oo    -a-    CM    CN    o    oo    O
                                -»    -*    -a-    co    CM    ^^    oo
                                                                        1 «

                                .3-    CM    —1    *O    O     .    O
                                CM    (M    C-l    -H    —<    ^    ^
                                                                        •o
                                                                         Q)

                                                             O    /-v   M
                                            n    CM    o    oo    ON    p
                                                                         «
                                                             O    -H   TJ

                                                                         «
                                      o     in    o    o    o    m    m
                                                       in    -a-    ON    g
                                                                        K-<
                                ooooooo    «
                                                                         u

                                                             ^s
                                x^.    ^-^   x^    CM    O    ^    s-\
                                00    -3-    CM     .     .     .    00   Id,
                                                                        |Q

                                O    O     O    vO    in    rv
                                                                        1»-
                                                                  in    n    in    *o    o
                                                                  o    
                                                       oo   co    r^    •&    *o
                                                                  o
                                                                  o
                                                       CO   r»    CM    ON    ^    O\    O
                                                       m   -»    -*    n    n    CM    o
                                                       O   in    fo    o
                                                       sO   »n    in    ^
                                                            —i    o
                                                            ^H    o
                                                       ON   -*    OO    CO    CO    CM    O
                                                       r~   t>-    so    vo    >n    •*    o
                                                                                          o
                                                                                          o
                                                            o
                                                              •
                                                            o
                                           o
                                            «
                                           m
                                                m    o
                                                  «.
                                                CM    — <
                                                                                    in
                                                                                    CM
                 ca
                 4J
                 o
9/90
                        Solid  Waste  Disposal
                                                                                               2.1-9

-------
 CM


 1
       S5
       M
       H
       pcj

       PI
       O
       H
       U
       8
       M
       CO
       co
-a e
05 O
OJ 4J
T3 — .
•H ft
X i-H
O
B
41
b£
O 60
h X
VI •»-.
iH 60


0
m
u
•rt B
B O
OJ 4-1
6C ^-.
tj J^
O rH
r-4
•U 60
« X
r-» »».
•sO?
« B
•O O
1< "*i
e H 222




*M m "*~i *M
in m «-H in
• « • ^fl •
CM CM O Z CM




m in mm
CM CM O CM
• • • ^c •
r* ~* O 2 ^






i>. m co oo r»
•-I r^ CO O1
•-4


mm mm
CO t-  4) rl
3 JD H
43 g -Hr-J
O 5 4J rf
JS P<
4) O W -H
rH JB 4) 0
O. 4) J2 TJ 42 -H
•H r-l O O ft C
rH §* S 5 5 H
9 ^4 W
S W H




e*1 o — < CM
•— «





m m

— « in o — >









m en o CM
-* o
»— i


m m

t"» rH O "H
m


00 0 60
CM •* O «
 4)
rH 2




mm mm
• * « •
O 0 O 0




mm mm
CM >
§bO-H C.
B U o)
43 g -H O, 8
0 % 0 -H
4) 4J Vi
•O 41 «rt O 3 ftc
4) rH  <0 4-1 4J
a ^3 3-S B ^y ^f
rH O





to






m

— <









60
41
Z



60
4)
2


60




60
55




60
4)
Z





60
4)
2






oo





.-J.












rH
O
•H
60
O
rH
O
f.
U
0)
(•u





•
4)
r-l
•H
bC
•rt
rH
60
U
-•
n
60
u



«
4)
i-H
43
0)
r-H
1-1
a
a

j
2
i
s

•
I
j
00
4)

it
15
a)
DO
O
4J
S

0)
B
•rl
U
B
•rl

t^
O
MH
0)
IH
3
•o
4)
0
O

a.
•<
Vi

B
O
TJ
41
a>
43

4)
60
14
4)

Of
«
QS

a
(4
o
O
(0
r*«
cd j
                                                         I     «
                                                         IH     41
                                                         a     u
                                                        43     B
                                                                                           «
                                                                                           B
                                                                                                   o)
                                                                                                   TJ
                                                                                                   B
                                                                                                   O  •
                                                                                                   Bco
                                                                                                            B
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            o
                                                         g
                                                         05
                                                         3
                                                        43

                                                         O
                                                         O

                                                        •O
                                                         O
                                                                                                                  4*
                                                                                                                 is
                           O
                           t4

                           §
                           u
                                                                                                                 IH
                                                                                                                  H
                                                                                                                 •o
         CO rj rH       in
 • JS  • .-H «8 -—I     l4rH
 CM4J  CM)  O. I     O  I
O  4) O O iH O    o
                                              (D B 03    -O 00 IH OJ
                                     _  J •«  4)    4)41     4)«4)4)«
                                     4>4)4)uBOOBU4JOUU
                                     03o)0)COCCOC     «) «0 4) 4)  4)
                                                                                     O  O. O. &, M-l (0 "4-1 
-------
the primary chamber by hydraulic transfer rams, oscillating grates or a
revolving hearth.  Bottom ash is discharged to a wet quench pit.

     The majority of combustion air is provided in the primary chamber.  Up to
200 percent excess air can be supplied.  Flue gas burnout occurs in the
secondary chamber, which is also refractory lined.  Heat is recovered in waste
heat boilers.

     Particulate emissions are typically controlled by ESPs,  although other
controls including a cyclone and an electrified gravel bed, are used.  A few
newer facilities have acid gas controls. Some modular excess air combustors
operate without emission controls.

     Rotary Waterwall - This type of system uses a rotary combustion chamber
with pre-sorting of objects too large to fit in the combustor.  The waste is
ram fed to the rotary combustion chamber, which sits at an angle and rotates
slowly, causing the waste to advance and tumble as it burns.   Bottom ash is
discharged from the rotary combustor to a stationary after burning grate and
then into a wet quench pit.

     Underfire air is injected through the waste bed and overfire air is
provided directly above the waste bed.  Approximately 80 percent of the
combustion air is provided along the combustion chamber length with most of
this provided in the first half of the length.  The rest of the combustion air
is supplied to the afterburner grate and above the rotary combustor outlet in
the boiler chamber.  Water flowing through the tubes in the rotary chamber
recovers heat from combustion.  Additional heat recovery occurs in the boiler
waterwall,  superheater and economizer.  Flue gas emissions are controlled by
ESPs or fabric filters.

     Fluidized Bed - This technology is an alternative method of combusting
RDF.  Fluffed or pelletized RDF is combusted on a turbulent bed of heated
noncombustible material such as limestone, sand, silica,  or alumina.   The bed
is suspended or "fluidized"  through introduction of underfire air at a high
flow rate.   Overfire air is  used to complete combustion.

     There are two basic types of fluidized bed combustion systems; bubbling
bed combustors and circulating fluidized bed combustors.   With bubbling bed
combustors,  most of the fluidized solids are maintained near the bottom of the
combustor by using relatively low air fluidization velocities.  This helps
prevent the entrainment of solids from the bed into the flue gas, minimizing
recirculation or reinjection of bed particles.  Circulating fluidized bed
combustors operate at relatively high fluidization velocities to promote carry
over of solids into the upper section of the combustor.   Combustion occurs in
both the bed and upper section of the combustor.  By design,  a fraction of the
bed material is entrained in the combustion gas and enters a cyclone separator
which recycles unburned waste and inert particles to the lower bed.

2.1.1.2  Emissions And Controls

     Refuse  combustors have  the potential to emit significant quantities of
pollutants to the atmosphere.  The major pollutants emitted are:  (1)
particulate  matter, (2) metals (in solid form on particulate,  except  for
mercury), (3) acid gases (primarily hydrogen chloride [HCl]  and sulfur dioxide
[802]), (4)  carbon monoxide  (CO),  (5)  nitrogen oxides (NOX),  and (6)  toxic

9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                       2.1-11

-------
         w
         14
         o
         c
         o
30

25


20
10


 5


 0
                            Uncontrolltd
                                                  Control ltd
                                                                   0.60
                                                                   0.50
                                                                   0.40
                                                                   0.30
                                                                   0.20
                                                                   0.10
to
M
o
4J
O
CO
c
o
•H /-s
W 00
_/
•a
0)
o
u
4J
c
                 O.J
                  1.0              10
                     Ptrtldt di*Mttr
                                                                100
         Figure 2.1-7.  Cumulative particle size distribution  and  size
                        specific emission factors  for  refuse-derived fuel
                        combustors.
organic compounds (most notably chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins  and chlorinated
dibenzo furans [CDD/CDF]).

     Particulate matter is emitted because of  the  turbulent  movement of the
combustion gases with respect to the  burning refuse  and resultant ash.
Particulate matter is also produced when metals  that are volatilized in the
combustion zone condense  in the exhaust gas stream.   The particle size
distribution and concentration of the particulate  emissions  leaving the
combustor vary widely, depending on the composition  of the refuse being burned
and the type and operation of the combustor.

     Particulate matter from MWCs contributes  to hazardous air emissions in
two ways.  First, trace metals are emitted because they are  typically
concentrated in the smaller size fraction of the total particulate emissions
where capture is more difficult.  Secondly, the  amount of particulate surface
area may contribute to  the availability of sites for catalytic reactions
involving toxic organic compounds, thus playing  a  role in potential downstream
formation mechanisms  (see below).

     Metals emissions are affected by two primary  factors,  (1) level of
particulate matter control, and  (2) flue gas temperature. Most metals  (with
the exception of mercury) are associated with  fine particulate, and would
therefore be removed  as the fine particulate are removed. Mercury is
generally not contained on particulate matter  and  removal is not a function of
particulate removal.

     Concentrations of  HCl and S02 in MWC flue gases are directly related to
the quantities of chlorine and sulfur in the waste.   Refuse  components  that
are major contributors  of sulfur include rubber, plastics,  foodwastes,
 2.1-12
                 EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                           9/90
                                                                    i

-------
yardwastes,  and  paper.   Similarly,  plastics  and  miscellaneous  organic
compounds  are  the  major  sources  of  chlorine  in refuse.   Therefore,  chlorine
and  sulfur contents  can  vary considerably  based  on seasonal  and local  waste
variations.

     Carbon  monoxide can be  formed  when  insufficient  oxygen  is available  for
complete combustion,  or  when excess air  levels are too  high, thus lowering
combustion temperature.

     Nitrogen  oxides are formed  during combustion  through  (1)  oxidation of
nitrogen in  the  waste and (2)  fixation of  atmospheric nitrogen.  Conversion of
nitrogen in  the  waste occurs at  relatively low temperatures  (less than 1090°C
[2000°F]), while fixation of atmospheric of  atmospheric nitrogen occurs at
higher temperatures.  75 to  80 percent of  NOX  formed  is associated  with
nitrogen in  the  waste.

     CDD/CDF may be  formed through  two mechanisms.  In  the first, CDD/CDF are
formed as  products of reactions  in  the furnace when the combustion  process
fails to completely  convert  hydrocarbons to  carbon dioxide and water.
Alternatively, organic compounds which escape  the  high  temperature  regions  of
the  furnace may  react at lower temperatures  downstream  to form CDD/CDF.
Formation  of CDD/CDF across  the  ESP is a recently  identified concern with the
operation  of MWC ESPs at temperatures above  roughly 230°C (450°F).  The
mechanism  and  extent  of  formation are poorly understood.

     A wide variety  of control technologies  are used  to control  emissions from
MWCs.  For particulate control,  electrostatic  precipitators are  most
frequently used, although other particulate  control devices (including
electrified gravel beds,  fabric  filters, cyclones  and venturi  scrubbers) are
used.  Processes used for  acid gas  control include  wet  scrubbing, dry  sorbent
injection, and spray  drying.

     Electrostatic Precipitator  - Particulate  emissions  from MWCs are most
often controlled using ESPs.   In this process, flue gas  flows  between a series
of high voltage  (20  to 100 kilovolts) discharge electrodes and grounded metal
plates.  Negatively  charged  ions formed  by this high  voltage field  (known as a
"corona") attach to PM in  the  flue  gas,   causing the charged particles to
migrate toward the grounded  plates.  Once the  charged particles  are collected
on the grounded  plates,   the  resulting dust layer is removed from the plates by
rapping,  washing, or  some  other method and collected  in  a hopper.  When the
dust layer is removed, some  of the  collected PM becomes  reentrained in the
flue gas.  To assure  good  PM collection  efficiency  during plate  cleaning and
electrical upsets,  ESPs  have several fields located in series along the
direction of flue gas flow that can be energized and  cleaned independently.
Particles reentrained when the dust layer is removed  from one field can be
recollected in a downstream  field.

     Small particles  generally have lower migration velocities than large
particles, and are therefore more difficult to collect.   This factor is
especially important  to  MWCs because of  the large amount of total fly ash
smaller than one micron.   As compared to pulverized coal fired combustors, in
which only 1 to 3 percent of the fly ash is generally smaller than 1 micron,
20 to 70 percent of the  fly ash at the ESP inlet  for MWCs is  reported to be
smaller than 1 micron.  As a result, effective collection of  PM from MWCs
9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                       2.1-13

-------
requires greater collection areas and lower flue gas velocities than many
other combustion types.

     The most common types of ESPs used by MWCs are (1) plate wire units in
which the discharge electrode is a bottom weighted or rigid wire and (2) flat
plate units which use flat plates rather than wires as the discharge
electrode.  Plate wire ESPs generally are better suited for use with fly ashes
with large amounts of small particulate and with large flue gas flow rates
(greater than 5700 actual cubic meters per minute [200,000 actual cubic feet
per minute]).  Flat plate units are less sensitive to back corona problems and
are thus well suited for use with high resistivity PM.  Both of these ESP
types have been widely used on MWCs in the U. S., Europe, and Japan.

     As an approximate indicator of collection efficiency, the specific
collection area (SCA) of an ESP is frequently used.   The SCA is calculated by
dividing the collecting electrode plate area by the actual flue gas flow rate
and is expressed as square feet of collecting area per 1000 actual cubic feet
per minute of flue gas.  In general, the higher the SCA, the higher the
collection efficiency.

     Fabric Filters - Fabric filters (baghouses) are frequently used in
combination with acid gas controls and are of two basic designs, reverse air
and pulse cleaned.  Both methods provide additional potential for acid gas
removal as the filter cake builds up on the bags.  In a reverse air fabric
filter, flue gas flows through unsupported filter bags, leaving the
particulate on the inside of the bags.  The particulate builds up to form a
particulate filter cake.  Once excessive pressure drop across the filter cake
is reached, air is blown through the filter in the opposite direction,  the
filter bag collapses, and the filter cake falls off and is collected.   In a
pulse cleaned fabric filter, flue gas flows through supported filter bags
leaving particulate on the outside of the bags.  To remove built up
particulate filter cake, compressed air is introduced through the inside of
the filter bag,  the filter bag expands and the filter cake falls off and is
collected.  Particulate removal by a fabric filter following acid gas controls
is typically greater than 99 percent.

     Wet Scrubbers - Many types of wet scrubbers are used for controlling acid
emissions from MWCs.  These include spray towers, centrifugal scrubbers, and
venturi scrubbers.  In these devices, the flue gas enters the absorber where
it is contacted with enough alkaline solution to saturate the gas stream.  The
alkaline solution, typically containing calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] reacts
with the acid gas to form salts, which are generally insoluble and may be
removed by sequential clarifying, thickening, and vacuum filtering.  The
dewatered salts or sludges are then landfilled.

     Dry Sorbent Injection - This type of technology has been developed
primarily to control acid gas emissions.  However, when combined with flue gas
cooling and either a fabric filter or ESP, sorbent injection processes may
also control CDD/CDF and particulate emissions from MWCs.  Two primary subsets
of dry sorbent injection technologies exist.  The more widely used of these
approaches, referred to as duct sorbent injection (DSI), involves injecting
dry alkali sorbents into flue gas downstream of the combustor outlet and
upstream of the particulate control device.  The second approach, referred to
as furnace sorbent injection (FSI), injects sorbent directly into the
combustor.

2.1-14                         EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
     In DSI, powdered  sorbent  is  pneumatically  injected  into  either  a  separate
reaction vessel  or a section of flue  gas  duct located  downstream of  the
combustor economizer or quench tower.  Alkali in the sorbent  (generally
calcium or sodium) reacts with HC1, hydrogen fluoride  (HF), and  SC>2  to form
alkali salts (e. g. , calcium chloride [CaC^],  calcium fluoride  [Cap2],  and
calcium sulfite  [CaSO-j]).   By  lowering the acid content  of the flue  gas,
downstream equipment can be operated  at reduced temperatures  while minimizing
the potential for acid corrosion  of equipment.  Reaction products, fly ash,
and unreacted sorbent  are collected with  either a fabric filter  or ESP.

     Acid gas removal  efficiency  with DSI depends on flue gas temperature,
sorbent type and feed  rate,  and the extent of sorbent  mixing  with the  flue
gas.  Flue gas temperature  at  the point of sorbent injection  can range from
180 to 320°C (350 to 600°F)  depending on  the sorbent being used  and  the  design
of the process.  Sorbents that have been  successfully  tested  include hydrated
lime (Ca(OH)2),  soda ash (Na2CO-j), and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO^).  Based  on
published data for hydrated lime, DSI can achieve relatively  high removals  of
HC1 (60 to 90 percent) and  S02 (40 to 70  percent) under  proper operating
conditions.  Limestone (CaCO-j) has also been tested but  is relatively
unreactive at the above temperatures.

     By combining flue gas  cooling with DSI, it may be possible  to increase
the potential for CDD/CDF removal which is believed to occur  through a
combination of vapor condensation and adsorption onto  the sorbent surface.
Cooling may also benefit PM control by decreasing the  effective  flue gas flow
rate (i. e., actual cubic meters  per  minute) and reducing the resistivity of
individual particles.

     Furnace sorbent injection involves the injection  of powdered alkali
sorbent into the furnace section  of a combustor.  This can be accomplished  by
addition of sorbent to the  overfire air,  injection through separate  ports,  or
mixing with the waste  prior to feeding to the combustor.  As with DSI,
reaction products, flyash,  and unreacted sorbent are collected using a fabric
filter or ESP.

     The basic chemistry of  FSI is similar to DSI.  Both use a reaction of
sorbent with acid gases to  form alkali salts.   However,  several  key
differences exist in these  two approaches.  First, by  injecting  sorbent
directly into the furnace (at  temperatures of 870 to 1200°C [1600 to 2200°F])
limestone can be calcined in the  combustor to more reactive lime, thereby
allowing use of less expensive limestone as a sorbent.    Second,  at these
temperatures, SC>2 and lime  react  in the combustor, thus  providing a  mechanism
for effective removal of SC>2 at relatively low  sorbent feed rates.   Third, by
injecting sorbent into the  furnace rather than  into a downstream duct,
additional time is available for mixing and reaction between the sorbent and
acid gases.  As a result,  it may be possible to remove HC1 and S02 from the
flue gas at lower sorbent-to-acid gas stoichiometric ratios than with  DSI.
Fourth,  if a significant portion of the HC1 is removed before the flue gas
exits the combustor,  it may  be possible to reduce the formation  of CDD/CDF in
latter sections of the flue gas ducting.   However, HC1  and lime  do not react
with each other at temperatures above 760°C (1,400°F).

     Spray Drying - Spray drying is designed to control  S02 and HC1 emissions.
When used in combination with particulate control, the  system can control
CDD/CDF,  PM,  S02, and HC1  emissions from MWCs.   In the  spray drying process,

9/90                         Solid Waste  Disposal                       2.1-15

-------
lime slurry is injected into a spray dryer  (SD).  The water in the slurry
evaporates to cool the flue gas and the lime reacts with acid gases to form
salts that can be removed by a PM control device.  The simultaneous
evaporation and reaction increases the moisture and particulate content in the
flue gas.  The particulate leaving the SD contains fly ash plus calcium salts,
water, and unreacted lime.

     The key design and operating parameters that significantly affect SD
performance are SD outlet temperature and lime-to-acid gas stoichiometric
ratio.  The SD outlet temperature is controlled by the amount of water in the
slurry.  More effective acid gas removal occurs at lower temperatures, but the
temperature must be high enough to ensure the slurry and reaction products are
adequately dried prior to collection in the PM control device.  For MWC flue
gas containing significant chlorine, a minimum SD outlet temperature of around
120°C (240°F) is required to control agglomeration of PM and sorbent by
calcium chloride.  The stoichiometric ratio is the molar ratio of calcium fed
to the theoretical amount of calcium required to react with the inlet HC1 and
S02-  Lime is fed in quantities sufficient to react with the peak acid gas
concentrations expected without severely decreasing performance.  The lime
content in the slurry must be maintained at or below approximately 30 percent
by weight to prevent clogging of the lime slurry feed system and spray
nozzles.

     Spray drying can be used in combination with either a fabric filter or an
ESP for PM control.   Both combinations have been used for MWCs in the United
States, although SD/fabric filter systems are more common.  Typical removal
efficiencies range from 50 to 90 percent for SC>2 and for 70 to 95 percent for
HC1.

     Emission factors for municipal waste cumbustors are shown in Table 2.1-1,
Table 2.1-2 shows the cumulative particle size distribution and size specific
emission factors for municipal waste combustors.  Figures 2.1-5, 2.1-6 and
2.1-7 show the cumulative particle size distribution and size specific
emission factors for mass burn, starved air and RDF combustors, respectively.

2.1.2  Other Types Of Combustors8~^

     The most common types of combustors consist of a refractory-lined
chamber with a grate upon which refuse is burned.  In some newer
incinerators water-walled furnaces are used.  Combustion products are formed
by heating and burning of refuse on the grate.  In most cases, since
insufficient underfire (undergrate) air is provided to enable complete
combustion, additional over-fire air is admitted above the burning waste to
promote complete gas-phase combustion.   In multiple-chamber incinerators,
gases from the primary chamber flow to a small secondary-mixing chamber
where more air is admitted, and more complete oxidation occurs.  As much as
300 percent excess air may be supplied in order to promote oxidation of
combustibles.   Auxilliary burners are sometimes installed in the mixing
chamber to increase the combustion temperature.  Many small-size incin-
erators are single-chamber units in which gases are vented from the primary
combustion chamber directly into the exhaust stack.  Single-chamber
incinerators of this type do not meet modern air pollution codes.
2.1-16                         EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
 2.1.2.1   Process  Description8"11

      Industrial/commercial  Combustors  -  The  capacities  of these  units cover a
 wide  range,  generally between  22.7  and 1800  kilograms  (50 and 4000  pounds)
 per hour.  Of  either  single- or multiple-chamber  design,  these units  are
 often manually charged and  intermittently operated.  Some industrial
 combustors are similar to municipal  combustors  in size  and design.  Better
 designed  emission control systems include gas-fired  afterburners, scrubbers,
 or both.

      Trench  Combustors - A  trench combustor  is  designed for the  combustion  of
 wastes having  relatively high  heat  content and  low ash  content.  The  design
 of the unit  is simple.  A U-shaped  combustion chamber is  formed  by  the  sides
 and bottom of  the pit,  and  air is supplied from nozzles (or fans) along the
 top of the pit.   The  nozzles are directed at an angle below the  horizontal
 to provide a curtain  of air across  the  top of the pit and to provide  air  for
 combustion in  the pit.  Low construction and operating  costs have resulted
 in the use of  this combustor to dispose  of materials other than  those for
 which it  was originally designed.   Emission  factors  for trench combustors
 used  to burn three such materials are  included  in Table 2.1-4.

      Domestic  Combustors -  This category includes combustors marketed for
 residential  use.   Fairly simple in  design, they may have  single  or  multiple
 chambers  and usually  are equipped with an auxiliary burner to aid
 combustion.

      Flue-fed  Combustors -  These units,  commonly  found  in large  apartment
 houses, are  characterized by the charging method  of dropping refuse down  the
 combustor flue  and into the combustion chamber.   Modified flue-fed
 incinerators utilize  afterburners and draft  controls to improve  combustion
 efficiency and reduce  emissions.

      Pathological  Combustors - These are  combustors used  to  dispose of  animal
 remains and  other organic material of high moisture content.   Generally,
 these  units  are in a  size range of 22.7  to 45.4 kilograms  (50  to 100  pounds)
 per hour.  Wastes are  burned on a hearth in  the combustion chamber.    The
 units  are equipped with combustion controls  and afterburners  to  ensure  good
 combustion and  minimal  emissions.

 2.1.2.2  Emissions  And  Controls8

     Operating  conditions,  refuse composition, and basic  combustor design
 have a pronounced effect on emissions.   The  manner in which  air  is supplied
 to the combustion  chamber or chambers has a  significant effect on the
 quantity of  particulate emissions.  Air  may  be introduced  from beneath  the
 chamber,  from the  side, or from the top of the combustion  chamber.   As
 underfire air  is  increased,  an increase  in fly-ash emissions  occurs.
 Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption  of the combustion bed and a
 subsequent release  of large quantities of particulates.   Large quantities of
uncombusted particulate matter and carbon monoxide are also emitted for an
 extended period after charging of batch-fed units because  of interruptions
 in the combustion process.   In continuously fed units,  furnace particulate
 emissions are strongly dependent upon grate type.   The use of a rotary kiln
and reciprocating grates results in higher particulate  emissions than the
use of a rocking or traveling grate.  Emissions of oxides of sulfur  are

9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                        2.1-17

-------






1
s
s
I-H
| ^
1
w 5
s^ E-*
1 ^
« P
2 g
1 1
•S 53
CO
g
s
£1
CM
jjH
S
C->
:=>

1
r— i
CM
1















^|
a
i
t


1
|
I
^
•o
1
3



.0,
1
o
5



<*
1
7
fe
a.




















*
S

g

A
t—
*
s
1
s
1


*-
f


5


i


s

o















&
>l
u

3

i
»- „-,-,«,« »- 3


m  ** <•» o _>  in  u* in u> ut in •
(MCM OCMCVJtM CMNOI
• • •••• • » 9t
— 1 — O — O O O O X

^"En "T-i '^*u> "I "5 "I "1 17,
~c>; o oi ° ° oo j.


u>u> motto i/> m u> to «
•• .*J***«4^^ ••
*** ^ *o 09 ^ n>



^*12 £3 9$ £> S *° r?'*' °*
r+












c
•"u u fc
J{ "- J! E\
•2 *» St II -~ i 2 g

jj il'fc jC£ « C « fe-


i «>«J. fc'§^"'--'«' tt- 3
•c ii"«-8l^ TZ ^ z i^ y
S S? S3£l T T tX 55 o
| is; t s s 1 55 5
C ^- r— A 19
—• u. u. o d.










• «H
cn
• r-t
. 	 1
C
ft
I

C
••— 1
•g
•§
O
(0
S a>

c 3

M —I
O fO
<4-l O
M '3
CD O
N °
•a c i/i
CO fO •»-< • — 1
U -l-> 0
2
ex -^ c
«: a> o c/3 u
CL, • T3 -»J 3
Cz3 CP ->-H rO ^ -*-1
•a x s-i s 1-1
C "H O CP O (O
O X -rt CS O Vl


® *O • C C- ^3 O *"O
Wl OJO)"HrH Q C"
<4-l .£3 I-t <— 1 ftf C3O* M rHWI
«* r— i -i-> -t-J i o- r o (Mo co
W £3 

•> M •» i - O fO cScSwcoceS'Se<«ccc« «'cuc8cSST=i22'aSS f| | (4—4 *| | <4— t ^ "-1 -p-, JxJ *— 1 g C O CX 2.1-18 EMISSION FACTORS 9/90 i


-------
dependent on the sulfur content of the refuse.  Carbon monoxide and unburned
hydrocarbon emissions may be significant and are caused by poor combustion
resulting from improper combustor design or operating conditions.  Nitrogen
oxide emissions increase with an increase in the temperature of the
combustion zone, an increase in the residence time in the combustion zone
before quenching, and an increase in the excess air rates to the point where
dilution cooling overcomes the effect of increased oxygen concentration. ^
References for Section 2.1

 1.    Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile - Facilities Subject To
      Section llKd) Guidelines. Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park,
      NC, prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 16,
      1988.

 2.    Municipal Waste Combustion Study - Combustion Control Of Organic
      Emissions. EPA/530-SW-87-021-C, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1987, p. 6-2.

 3.    Municipal Waste Combustion Retrofit Study (Draft), Radian Corporation,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, August 5, 1988, p. 6-4.

 4.    Air Pollution Control At Resource Recovery Facilities. California Air
      Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 24, 1984.

 5.    Control Of NOX Emissions from Municipal Waste Combustors. Radian
      Corporation,  Research Triangle Park, NC, prepared for U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, February 3, 1989.

 6.    H. Vogg and L, Stieglitz, Chemosphere. Volume 15, 1986.

 7.    Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 2.1.1:  Municipal Waste
      Combustion. EPA-450/4-90-016,  U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1990.

 8.    Air Pollutant Emission Factors. APTD-0923,  U.  S.  Environmental
      Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, April 1970.

 9.    Control Techniques  For Carbon Monoxide Emissions  From Stationary
      Sources.  AP-65, U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC,  March 1970.

10.    Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  1967.

11.    J. DeMarco. et al..  Incinerator Guidelines  1969.  SW. 13TS,  U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1969.

12.    J. 0. Brukle, J.  A.  Dorsey, and B.  T.  Riley, "The Effects Of Operating
      Variables And Refuse Types On Emissions From A Pilot-scale  Trench
      Incinerator", Proceedings Of_Ihe 1968 Incinerator Conference. American
      Society Of Mechanical Engineers, New York,  NY, May 1968.


9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                       2.1-19

-------
13.   Walter R. Nessen, Systems Study Of Air Pollution From Municipal
      Incineration. Contract Number CPA-22-69-23, Arthur D. Little, Inc.
      Cambridge, MA, March 1970.

14.   C. V. Kanter, R. G. Lunche, and A. P. Fururich, "Techniques For Testing
      Air Contaminants From Combustion Sources", Journal Of The Air Pollution
      Control Association. 6(4): 191-199, February 1957.

15.   J. L. Stear, Municipal Incineration:  A Review Of Literature. AP-79, U.
      S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June
      1971.

16.   E. R. Kaiser, Refuse Reduction Processes In Proceedings Of Surgeon
      General's Conference On Solid Waste Management. PHS 1729, Public Health
      Service, Washington, DC, 1967.

17.   Unpublished source test data on incinerators, Resources Research,
      Incorporated, Reston, VA, 1966-1969.

18.   E. R. Kaiser, e-t al. . Modifications To Reduce Emissions From A Flue-fed
      Incinerator. Report Number 552.2, College Of Engineering, New York
      University, June 1959, pp. 40 and 49.

19.   Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, VA, and
      Division Of Air Quality Control, Maryland State Department Of Health,
      Baltimore, MD, 1969.

20.   Unpublished data on incinerator testing, U. S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1970.
                                                                                    i
2.1-20                         EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
2.5     SEWAGE SLUDGE  INCINERATION

        There  are  currently almost 200  sewage  sludge  incineration (SSI)  plants
in operation  in the United States.  Three main types of  incinerators are used:
multiple hearth,  fluidized bed, and electric  infrared.   Some sludge is  co-
fired with municipal  solid waste  in combustors based on  refuse combustion
technology.   Refuse co-fired with sludge in combustors based on  sludge
incinerating  technology is limited to multiple hearth incinerators only.

        Over 80 percent of  the  identified operating sludge  incinerators  are  of
the multiple  hearth design.  About 15 percent are fluidized bed  combustors  and
3 percent are  electric.  The remaining combustors co-fire  refuse with sludge.
Most sludge incinerators are located in the Eastern United States, though
there are a significant number on the West Coast.  New York has  the largest
number  of facilities  with  28.  Pennsylvania and Michigan have the next-largest
numbers of facilities with 20 and 19 sites, respectively.
                           -i o
2.5,1   Process Description '

        Types  of incineration described in this section include:

            Multiple  hearth
            Fluidized bed
            Electric
            Single hearth  cyclone
            Rotary kiln
            High  pressure,  wet air oxidation
            Co-incineration with  refuse

2.5.1.1  Multiple Hearth Furnaces

        The multiple hearth furnace was originally developed for  mineral ore
roasting nearly a century  ago.  The air-cooled variation has been used to
incinerate sewage sludge since the 1930s.   A cross section diagram of a
typical multiple  hearth furnace is shown in Figure 2.5-1.  The basic multiple
hearth  furnace (MHF)  is cylinder  shaped and oriented vertically.   The outer
shell is constructed  of steel, lined with refractory, and  surrounds a series
of horizontal refractory hearths.   A hollow cast iron rotating shaft runs
through the center of the hearths.  Cooling air is introduced into the shaft
by a fan located  at its base.   Attached to the central shaft are rabble arms,
which extend above the hearths.   Each rabble arm is equipped with a number of
teeth,  approximately 6 inches in length,  and spaced about 10 inches apart.
The teeth are shaped to rake the  sludge in a spiral motion, alternating in
direction from the outside  in, to the inside out, between hearths.  Typically,
the upper and lower hearths are fitted with 4 rabble arms,  and the middle
hearths are fitted with two.  Burners,  providing auxiliary heat,  are located
in the sidewalls  of the hearths.
9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                        2.5-1

-------
                                   COOLING AIR
                                   DISCHARGE
                                                                   BURNERS
                                                                   SUPPLEMENTAL
                                                                   FUEL

                                                                  *• COMBUSTION AIR
                                                                   SHAFT COOLING
                                ASH
                            DISCHARGE
           Figure 2.5-1.   Cross section  of a  multiple  hearth furnace.
                                                         EXHAUST AND ASH
                         THERMOCOUPLE
                          SLUDGE
                          INLET
                        FLUIOIZING
                        AIR INLET
                                                            PRESSURE TAP
                                                               BURNER
                                                TUYERES

                                                FUEL
                                                GUN
                                              PRESSURE TAP
                                                STARTUP
                                                PREHEAT
                                                BURNER
                                                FOR HOT
                                                WINOBOX
2.5-2
Figure  2.5-2.   Cross  section of  a fluidized bed furnace,


                          EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
        Partially dewatered sludge  is  fed onto  the  perimeter of the top
hearth.  The motion of the  rabble  arms rakes the sludge toward the center
shaft where it drops through holes located at  the  center of the hearth.  In
the next hearth  the sludge  is raked in the opposite direction.  This process
is repeated in all of the subsequent hearths.  The effect of the rabble motion
is to break up solid material to allow better  surface contact  with heat and
oxygen, and is arranged so  that sludge depth of about one inch is  maintained
in each hearth at the design sludge flow rate.

        Scum may  also be fed to one or more hearths of the incinerator.  Scum
is the material  that floats on wastewater.  It is  generally composed of
vegetable and mineral oils, grease, hair, waxes, fats, and  other materials
that will float.  Scum may  be removed from many treatment units including
preaeration tanks, skimming tanks, and sedimentation tanks.  Quantities of
scum are generally small compared  to those of other wastewater solids.

       Ambient air is first ducted through the central shaft and its
associated rabble arms.  A  portion, or all, of this air is  then taken from the
top of the shaft and recirculated  into the lowermost hearth as  preheated
combustion air.  Shaft cooling air which is not circulated  back into the
furnace is ducted into the  stack downstream of the air pollution control
devices.  The combustion air flows upward through  the drop  holes in the
hearths, countercurrent to the flow of the sludge,  before being exhausted from
the top hearth.  Provisions are usually  made to inject ambient  air directly
into on the middle hearths as well.

       From the  standpoint  of the  overall incineration process, multiple
hearth furnaces can be divided into three zones.  The upper hearths comprise
the drying zone where most of the moisture in the  sludge is evaporated.  The
temperature in the drying zone is typically between 425 and 760°C  (800 and
1400°F).  Sludge combustion occurs in the middle hearths (second zone) as the
temperature is increased to about 925°C  (1700°F).  The combustion  zone can be
further subdivided into the upper middle  hearths where the volatile gases and
solids are burned, and the lower middle hearths where most  of  the  fixed carbon
is combusted.  The third zone, made up of the lowermost hearth(s),   is the
cooling zone.  In this zone the ash is cooled as its heat is transferred to
the incoming combustion air.

       Multiple hearth furnaces are sometimes operated with afterburners to
further reduce odors and concentrations  of unburned hydrocarbons.   In
afterburning, furnace exhaust gases are ducted to a chamber where  they are
mixed with supplemental fuel and air and  completely combusted.   Some
incinerators have the flexibility to allow sludge to be fed to a lower hearth,
thus allowing the upper hearth(s) to function essentially as an afterburner.

       Under normal operating conditions, 50 to 100 percent excess air must
be added to a MHF in order to ensure complete combustion of the sludge.
Besides enhancing contact between fuel and oxygen in the furnace,  these
relatively high rates of excess air are necessary to compensate for normal
variations in both the organic characteristics of the sludge feed and the rate
at which it enters the incinerator.  When an inadequate amount of excess air
is available,  only partial oxidation of the carbon  will  occur with  a resultant
increase in emissions of carbon monoxide, soot, and hydrocarbons.   Too much
excess air,  on the other hand,  can cause increased  entrainment of particulate
and unnecessarily high auxiliary fuel consumption.

9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                        2.5-3

-------
       Some MHFs have been designed to  operate  in a starved air mode.
Starved air combustion (SAC) is, in effect, incomplete combustion.  The key to
SAC is the use of less than theoretical quantities of air in the furnace,
30 to 90 percent of stoichiometric quantities.  This makes SAC more fuel
efficient than an excess air mode MHF.  The SAC reaction products are
combustible gases, tars and oils, and a solid char that can have appreciable
heating value.  The most effective utilization of these products is by burning
of the total gas stream with subsequent heat recovery.  When an SAC MHF is
combined with an afterburner, an overall excess air rate of 25 to 50 percent
can be maintained (as compared to 75 to 200 percent overall for an excess air
MHF with an afterburner).

       Multiple hearth furnace emissions are usually controlled by a venturi
scrubber, an impingement tray scrubber, or a combination of both.  Wet
cyclones are also used.

2.5.1.2  Fluidized Bed Incinerators

       Fluidized bed technology was first developed by the petroleum industry
to be used for catalyst regeneration.  Figure 2.5-2 shows the cross section
diagram of a fluidized bed furnace.  Fluidized bed furnaces (FBF) are
cylindrically shaped and oriented vertically.  The outer shell is constructed
of steel, and is lined with refractory.  Tuyeres (nozzles designed to deliver
blasts of air) are located at the base of the furnace within a refractory-
lined grid.  A bed of sand, approximately 0.75 meters (2.5 feet) thick, rests
upon the grid.  Two general configurations can be distinguished on the basis
of how the fluidizing air is injected into the furnace.  In the "hot windbox"
design the combustion air is first preheated by passing through a heat
exchanger where heat is recovered from the hot flue gases.  Alternatively,
ambient air can be injected directly into the furnace from a cold windbox.

       Partially dewatered sludge is fed .into the lower portion of the
furnace.   Air injected through the tuyeres, at pressure of from 20 to
35 kilopascals (3 to 5 pounds per square inch grade),  simultaneously fluidizes
the bed of hot sand and the incoming sludge.  Temperatures of 750 to 925°C
(1400 to 1700°F) are maintained in the bed.  Residence times are on the order
of 2 to 5 seconds.  As the sludge burns, fine ash particles are carried out
the top of the furnace.  Some sand is also removed in the air stream; sand
make-up requirements are on the order of 5 percent for every 300 hours of
operation.

       The overall process of combustion of the sludge occurs in two zones.
Within the bed itself (zone 1) evaporation of the water and pyrolysis of the
organic materials occur nearly simultaneously as the temperature of the sludge
is rapidly raised.  In the second zone, (freeboard area) the remaining free
carbon and combustible gases are burned.  The second zone functions
essentially as an after burner.

       Fluidization achieves nearly ideal mixing between the sludge and the
combustion air and the turbulence facilitates the transfer of heat from the
hot sand to the sludge.  The most noticeable impact of the better burning
atmosphere provided by a fluidized bed incinerator is seen in the limited
amount of excess air required for complete combustion of the sludge.   These
incinerators can achieve complete combustion with 20 to 50 percent excess air,
about half the amount of excess air typically required for incinerating sewage

2.5-4                          EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
sludge in multiple hearth furnaces.  As a consequence, FBF incinerators have
generally lower fuel requirements compared to MHF incinerators.

       Fluidized  bed incinerators most  often have venturi scrubbers  or
venturi/impingement tray scrubber combinations for emissions control.

2.5.1.3  Electric Incinerators

       Electric furnace technology  is new compared to  other sludge combustor
designs; the first electric furnace was installed in 1975.  Electric
incinerators consist of a horizontally oriented, insulated furnace.  A woven
wire belt conveyor extends the length of the furnace and infrared heating
elements are located in the roof above the conveyor belt.  Combustion air is
preheated by the  flue gases and is injected into the discharge end of the
furnace.  Electric incinerators consist of a number of prefabricated modules,
which can be linked together to provide the necessary furnace length.  A cross
section of an electric furnace is shown in Figure 2.5-3.

       The dewatered sludge cake is conveyed into one  end of the incinerator.
An internal roller mechanism levels the sludge into a continuous layer
approximately one inch thick across the width of the belt.  The sludge is
sequentially dried and then burned as it moves beneath the infrared heating
elements.  Ash is discharged into a hopper at the opposite end of the furnace.
The preheated combustion air enters the furnace above the ash hopper and is
further heated by the outgoing ash.  The direction of air flow is
countercurrent to the movement of the sludge along the conveyor.  Exhaust
gases leave the furnace at the feed end.  Excess air rates vary from 20 to
70 percent.

       When compared to MHF and FBF technologies, the electric furnace offers
the advantage of lower capital cost, especially for smaller systems.   However,
electricity costs in some areas may make an electric furnace infeasible.   One
other concern is replacement of various components such as the woven wire belt
and infrared heaters,  which have 3 to 5 year lifetimes.

       Electric incinerators are usually controlled with a venturi scrubber
or some other wet scrubber.

2.5.1.4  Other Technologies

       A number of other technologies have been used for incineration of
sewage sludge including cyclonic reactors,  rotary kilns and wet oxidation
reactors.  These processes are not in widespread use in the United States and
will be discussed only briefly.

       The cyclonic reactor is designed for small capacity applications.   It
is constructed of a vertical cylindrical chamber that is lined with
refractory.   Preheated combustion air is introduced into the chamber
tangentially at high velocities.   The sludge is sprayed radially toward the
hot refractory walls.   Combustion is rapid:   the residence time of the sludge
in the chamber is on the order of 10 seconds.   The ash is removed with the
flue gases.

       Rotary kilns are also generally used for small capacity applications.
The kiln is  inclined slightly from the horizontal plane,  with the upper end

9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                        2.5-5

-------
receiving both the sludge feed and the combustion air.  A burner is located at
the lower end of the kiln.  The circumference of the kiln rotates at a speed
of about 6 inches per second.  Ash is deposited into a hopper located below
the burner.

       The wet oxidation process is not strictly one of incineration; it
instead utilizes oxidation at elevated temperature and pressure in the
presence of water (flameless combustion).  Thickened sludge, at about six
percent solids, is first ground and mixed with a stoichiometric amount of
compressed air.  The slurry is then pressurized.  The mixture is then
circulated through a series of heat exchangers before entering a pressurized
reactor.  The temperature of the reactor is held between 175 and 315°C
(350 and 600°F).   The pressure is normally 7000 to 12,500 kilopascals (1000 to
1800 pounds per square grade).   Steam is usually used for auxiliary heat.
The water and remaining ash are circulated out the reactor and are finally
separated in a tank or lagoon.  The liquid phase is recycled to the treatment
plant.  Off-gases must be treated to eliminate odors:  wet scrubbing,
afterburning or carbon absorption may be used.

2.5.1.5  Co-incineration With Refuse

       Wastewater treatment plant sludge generally has a high water content
and in some cases, fairly high levels of inert materials.  As a result,  its
net fuel value is often low.  If sludge is combined with other combustible
materials in a co-combustion scheme, a furnace feed can be created that has
both a low water concentration and a heat value high enough to sustain
combustion with little or no supplemental fuel.

       Virtually any material that can be burned can be combined with sludge
in a co-combustion process.  Common materials for co-combustion are coal,
municipal solid waste (MSW), wood waste and agricultural waste.  Thus, a
municipal or industrial waste can be disposed of while providing an autogenous
(self-sustaining) sludge feed, thereby solving two disposal problems.

       There are two basic approaches to combusting sludge with municipal
solid waste,  1) use of MSW combustion technology by adding dewatered or dried
sludge to the MSW combustion unit, and 2) use of sludge combustion technology
by adding processed MSW as a supplemental fuel to the sludge furnace.  With
the latter, MSW is processed by removing noncombustibles, shredding, air
classifying,  and screening.  Waste that is more finely processed is less
likely to cause problems such as severe erosion of the hearths, poor
temperature control, and refractory failures.

                             1 ^
2.5.2  Emissions And Controls

       Sewage sludge incinerators potentially emit significant quantities of
pollutants.  The major pollutants emitted are:  1) particulate matter,
2) metals, 3) carbon monoxide (CO),  4) nitrogen oxides (NOX),  5) sulfur
dioxide (802) and 6) unburned hydrocarbons.  Partial combustion of sludge can
result in emissions of intermediate products of incomplete combustion (PIC)
including toxic organic compounds.
                               i
       Uncontrolled particulate emission rates vary widely depending on the
type of incinerator, the volatiles and moisture content of the sludge, and the
operating practices employed.  Generally, uncontrolled particulate emissions

2.5-6                          EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
            RADIANT
            INFRARED
 ROLLER      HEATING
r LEVELER      ELEMENTS (TYPI
                                                            - WOVEN WIRE
                                                            CONTINUOUS MLT
                                      COOLING
                                       AIR
                                 HAULING I
                    COOLING
                     AIR
                                                                               commriON
                                                                        I OMCHARGi
         Figure 2.5-3.   Cross  section of an  electric infrared furnace.
                                               OMMttlnduHd Draft
                                                 NnwdMck
                                                                  MMEklUnMor

                                                                  SoruMMr
9/90
                Figure 2.5-4.   Venturi/impingement  tray  scrubber.
    Solid Waste Disposal
2.5-7

-------
are highest from fluidized bed incinerators because suspension burning results
in much of the ash being carried out of the incinerator with the flue gas.
Uncontrolled emissions from multiple hearth and fluidized bed incinerators are
extremely variable, however.  Electric incinerators appear to have the lowest
rates of uncontrolled particulate release of the three major furnace types,
possibly because the sludge is not disturbed during firing.  In general,
higher airflow rates increase the opportunity for particulate matter to be
entrained in the exhaust gases.  Sludge with low volatile content or high
moisture content may compound this situation by requiring more supplemental
fuel to burn.  As more fuel is consumed, the amount of air flowing through the
incinerator is also increased.  However, no direct correlation has been
established between air flow and particulate emissions.

       Metals emissions are affeqted by flue gas temperature and the level of
particulate matter control, since metals which are volatilized in the
combustion zone condense in the exhaust gas stream.  Most metals (except
mercury) are associated with fine particulate and are removed as the fine
particulates are removed.

       Carbon monoxide is formed when available oxygen is insufficient for
complete combustion or when excess air levels are too high, resulting in lower
combustion temperatures.

       Nitrogen and sulfur oxide emissions are primarily the result of
oxidation of nitrogen and sulfur in the sludge.  Therefore, these emissions
can vary greatly based on local and seasonal sewage characteristics.

       Emissions of volatile organic compounds also vary greatly with
incinerator type and operation.  Incinerators with countercurrent air flow
such as multiple hearth designs provide the greatest opportunity for unburned
hydrocarbons to be emitted.  In the MHF, hot air and wet sludge feed are
contacted at the top of the furnace.  Any compounds distilled from the solids
are immediately vented from the furnace" at temperatures too low to completely
destruct them.

       Particulate emissions from sewage sludge incinerators have
historically been controlled by wet scrubbers, since the associated sewage
treatment plant provides both a convenient source and a good disposal option
for the scrubber water.  The types of existing sewage sludge incinerator
controls range from low pressure drop spray towers and wet cyclones to higher
pressure drop venturi scrubbers and venturi/impingement tray scrubber
combinations.  A few electrostatic precipitators are employed,  primarily where
sludge is co-fired with municipal solid waste.   The most widely used control
device applied to a multiple hearth incinerator is the impingement tray
scrubber.  Older units use the tray scrubber alone while combination
venturi/impingement tray scrubbers are widely applied to newer multiple hearth
incinerators and to fluidized bed incinerators.  Most electric incinerators
and many fluidized bed incinerators use venturi scrubbers only.

       In a typical combination venturi/impingement tray scrubber (shown in
Figure 2.5-4), hot gas exits the incinerator and enters the precooling or
quench section of the scrubber.  Spray nozzles in the quench section cool the
incoming gas and the quenched gas then enters the venturi section of the
control device.


2.5-8                          EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
        Venturi  water  is  usually pumped  into  an inlet weir  above  the  quencher.
The venturi water enters the  scrubber above  the throat and floods the throat
completely.   This eliminates build-up  of  solids and reduces abrasion.
Turbulence created by high gas  velocity in the converging throat section
deflects some of the water traveling down  the  throat into the gas stream.
Particulate matter carried along with the  gas  stream impacts on these water
particles and on the water wall.  As the scrubber water and flue gas leave the
venturi section, they pass into a flooded  elbow where the stream velocity
decreases, allowing the water and gas to separate.  Most venturi sections come
equipped with variable throats.  By restricting the throat area within the
venturi, the linear gas velocity is increased  and the pressure drop is
subsequently increased.  Up to  a certain point, increasing the venturi
pressure drop increases the removal efficiency.  Venturi scrubbers typically
maintain 60 to  99 percent removal efficiency for particulate matter, depending
on pressure drop and particle size distribution.

        At the base of the flooded elbow, the gas stream passes through a
connecting duct to the base of the impingement tray tower.  Gas velocity is
further reduced upon entry to the tower as the gas stream passes upward
through the perforated impingement trays.  Water usually enters the trays from
inlet ports on  opposite sides and flows across the tray.  As gas passes
through each perforation in the tray, it creates a jet which bubbles up the
water and further entrains solid particles.  At the top of the tower is a mist
eliminator to reduce the carryover of water droplets in the stack effluent
gas.  The impingement section can contain  from one to four trays, but most
systems for which data are available have  two  or three trays.

        Emission factors and emission factor  ratings for sludge incinerators
are shown in Table 2.5-1.  Table 2.5-2  shows the cumulative particle size
distribution and size specific emission factors for sewage sludge
incinerators.  Figures 2.5-5,  2.5-6, and 2.5-7 show cumulative particle size
distribution and size-specific emission factors for multiple-hearth,
fluidized-bed, and electric infrared incinerators,  respectively.
9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                        2.5-9

-------




















0
CD
i — 1
Ed









•g
S
"8
03
•a
=
Eu










£
>H
JC
5
.S
-u
^-1
P
3C




















g
•rH
CO
CO
.r4
_s
ISJ
(_l
., _g
w -S
CD ^
-t-> p
i3 S
rt "
CO
T3
^
r-H
O
£

g
.s
83
i

i-l
Ii-H OJ
CD J-5
•4-> ^
<*H P
-i


s
r-H
o
1
1
£3



.i
03
W
• •-H
^
i@

*.
M CU

-i 3 •s , — i r-< g H -t; g | ^ i^5 ^J B o s-i o-> O C -i^ .!H t) -t-> £S JQ_^ O^ f-* CT» • — ^ Jid .« . — | X3 €1 t7* -^ •* a >-l 0> o es -(-> "H " -s £ S X3 ^ S 3C O O^ "^^- ^£ A ^§ ^.+3 O-> W ^^ J* .« S-l CT> Q C -P -rH CJ +-> l£ iS M>4 t-n ja_^ CT» c4 SS.J CT> --— ~£ xi S1 g * _s ^^>* +^ CT> "^^ •^ s i-l t/1 a> d -fj O ^ ^ B C.) "— • ^ T3 ^_> 3 i — | S Ed CD CD CD iD r-. CD CD CD ID CO CO CD CD CD CM f-H «-H CD CD LD l£> CD CD Ed T3 \O CD f-H CO CD CD OO IT) CD •-) CD CD f£. s: Ed CJ ^J- tD <— 1 «-H 0 C3 t— CO CD CD CD CD CD "31 VD CTl CD CD CD C— CO <* C3 CD IT) CM i£t CD O <— 1 CD -P fO .^-4 •£ ^ cu o «— 4 CD LO CD O CM CD « — 1 VO CO CD OO i— 1 CD CO «-H CD cn CD o CM CM i — 1 in CM «» CD ** t-I CM CNJ CD CD CM I — • . • r-i r-H CD «* CD VD CO UO CO r~ CD co r-H CO ^* CD ^" {Q ^f *f ^f CD CD CD CD CM CO CM CM CM CD CD CD CD CM Tl- CM CM CM CD CD <=> CD r-H CM i— t »— 1 «-H CD CD CD CM CM CM • • i — 1 ^* CO ' t— ^ . V£> CM ^ CD CD CD IT) CD LT> *-H rH Ed OL^ «= CM 2 s "* (—1 *• * pflG CO Si <_i ca CU CD l£> UD >£) CD S- S CO CO OO CD CD CD g g 0 0 CD CD CO «* • CD ^ e— \ CTl OO CM • CD CD ^<" CD OO i-H CD CM - ^< in CD O 3 J5 1 5 •rH 3"§ e °- « s <=> CD_^ CD «3" CD CM CD C*^ CD r-t 0 CD_^ O ^3* CD CM f CD CM CD i— I 0 CD *!• CM § Q , 1 4-1 •S .I-H X .2 •CJ £ a z w nj i— — j^r« -fi-* «rf ^ g g g *— * CO <*"™* i^ f& ^C oo s= 3= a: ' ' « Ed Ed CO CD_^ CD_^ **• ^ oT S • • CM rH CM CM g g g g <_> o a ea CD CD CD CD CD Kf l£> l~- m ^* « ' CM >- — • ir> ro m • • CO CM CM ^ ^ I^H" CM" Z: r— «— i r— • in ^D .00 m in CO CD 10 CD CD t3 CD •o •-< S •r-l X >O X O CD -C 0 § 8 g tu C, B S Si c ..-I ns co o ^ 5 32^ = •*-> V-4 • — 1 O •tn S 0 as o s> cu > -»-> fO =3 o CD i-, "3 $ $ 5 c; S c: • ^s w Crt •«a o> !_[__> fD O ••— 1 •e 03 <£ OJ • o^ QD T3 —4 rs •s-a • — i 'to 5> > "-i 03 >-i ., T3 -4-J g*4-i • O M II W ^ «C ."tn *p 5-4 K § _S CO ^ * f"! ^3 U^ "-H 4-1 i-( £^ CJ 8*13 fli W CD e c w cu •— < CP W O> ^ % 2.S5 •ss s-frg O5 Ed l— ' S> (O XJ O T3> . -S § CO g. tt • 1— < S 5 2 CD C3 • r-i u .5 1-1 o Tf\ S. >1 -l-> $ ^_> CO -^j O3 (XJ •9 fe M <4-i U CO CD cn S 2 O CD • — 1 > CJ (0 »•« O C m % - • — -T3 •O CD S "!^ '^ .,-> .3 ^ ^ rii rti •£ 2 g i * -l-i g -S tDI CO .S (O CD- O 65 CD I — 1 CO CD 1-< 2.5-10 EMISSION FACTORS 9/90


-------
     TABLE  2.5-2.   CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION  AND  SIZE  SPECIFIC
               EMISSION FACTORS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS3
Particle Cumulative mass % < stated size Cumulative
size,
microns
15

10

5.0

2.5

1.0

0.625

TOTAL
Uncontrol led Control led Uncontrol
MHD FBC El° MH° FBC Ela MHD FBC
15 NA 43 30 7.7 60 6.0 NA
(12)
10 NA 30 27 7.3 50 4.1 NA
(8.2)
5.3 NA 17 25 6.7 35 2.1 NA
(4.2)
2.8 NA 10 22 6.0 25 1.1 NA
(2.2)
1.2 NA 6.0 20 5.0 18 0.47 NA
(0.94)
0.75 NA 5.0 17 2.7 15 0.30 NA
(0.60)
100 100 100 100 100 100 40 NA
(80)
emission
led
Eld
4.3
(8.6)
3.0
(6.0)
1.7
(3.4)
1.0
(2.0)
0.60
(1.2)
0.50
(1.0)
10
(20)
factor.

MHD
0.12
(0.24)
0.11
(0.22)
0.10
(0.20)
0.09
(0.18)
0.08
(0.16)
0.07
(0.14)
0.40
(0.80)
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Control led
FBC
0.23
(0.46)
0.22
(0.44)
0.20
(0.40)
0.18
(0.36)
0.15
(0.30)
0.08
(0.16)
3.0
(6.0)

Eld
1.2
(2.4)
1.0
(2.0)
0.70
(1.4)
0.50
(1.0)
0.35
(0.70)
0.30
(0.60)
2.0
(4.0)
aReference 5. NA = not available.
bMH =
CFB =
dEI =

























multiple hearth.
fluidized bed.
electric infrared.

M J • \J
00

n" 7-5
o
4J
CJ

-------
                    i  tii j u
            O.i
                    l7o10
                       Pirtlclt dUmtttr (u«0
                                                               0.24
                                                               0.20
                                                               0.04
                                                 100
                                                                     oo
                                                                     s

                                                                     00
                                                                     o

                                                               0.16  y
                                                               0.12  I
                                                                     cn
                                                                     cn
                                                                     •H
                                                                     E
                                                               0.08  ^
                                                                     a;
                                                                     e
                                                                     o
                                                                     u
           Figure 2.5-6.   Cumulative particle size distribution and

                       size-specific emission factors for

                           fluidized-bed  incinerators.
M6
je
 .5

o
M

fl A
         e
         o
         •H
         (0
         09
         6
         M
         O
         u

         So
            O.I
                                       Uncontrolled
                             i  i  i i i i 11
                                           I   I  I I  I I I
1.50




1.25




1.0




0.75



0.50




0.25
                    J.O               10
                       Partlelt dttMtir (u»)
                                                             100
                                                                      00


                                                                      oo
                                                                      o
                                                                      4J
                                                                      o
                                                                      nj
                                                                     "4-1
                                                             01
                                                             -H
                                                             e
                                                                     -d
                                                                      0)
                                                          o
                                                          V-i
                                                                      c
                                                                      o
2.5-12
Figure  2.5-7.   Cumulative  particle size distribution

            size-specific emission factors  for

             electric(infrared) incinerators.


                     EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                    and
                                                                      9/90

-------
 References for  Section  2.5

1.   Second Review Of Standards Of Performance For Sewage Sludge Incinerators.
    EPA-450/3-84-010, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
    Park,  NC,  March 1984.

2.   Process Design Manual For Sludge Treatment And Disposal.   EPA-625/1-79-011,
    U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH,  September 1979.

3.   Control Techniques For Farticulate Emissions From Stationary Sources -  Volume 1.
    EPA-450/3-81-005a, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle  Park,
    NC,  September 1982.

4.   Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 2.5: Sewage Sludge Incineration.
    EPA-450/4-90-017, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
    NC,  August 1990.
 9/90                         Solid Waste Disposal                       2.5-13

-------
4.2.2.13  Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry  "

     Magnetic tape manufacturing is a subcategory of industrial paper
coating, which includes coating of foil and plastic film.  In the
manufacturing process, a mixture of magnetic particles, resins and solvents is
coated on a thin plastic film or "web".  Magnetic tape is used largely for
audio and video recording and computer information storage.  Other uses
include magnetic cards, credit cards, bank transfer ribbons, instrumentation
tape, and dictation tape.  The magnetic tape coating industry is included in
two Standard Industrial Classification codes, 3573 (Electronic Computing
Equipment) and 3679 (Electronic Components Not Elsewhere Classified).

                        1 9
     Process Description     - The process of manufacturing magnetic tape
consists of:

          1) mixing the coating ingredients (including solvents)
          2) conditioning the web
          3) applying the coating to the web
          4) orienting the magnetic particles
          5) drying the coating in a drying oven,
          6) finishing the tape by calendering, rewinding, slitting, testing,
          and packaging.

     Figure 4.2.2.13-1 shows a typical magnetic tape coating operation,
indicating volatile organic  compound (VOC) emission points.  Typical plants
have from 5 to 12 horizontal or vertical solvent storage tanks, ranging in
capacity from 3,800 to 75,700 liters (1,000 to 20,000 gallons), that are
operated at or slightly above atmospheric pressure.   Coating preparation
equipment includes the mills, mixers, polishing tanks, and holding tanks used
to prepare the magnetic coatings before application.   Four types of coaters
are used in producing magnetic tapes:  extrusion (slot die), gravure, knife,
and reverse roll (3- and 4-roll).   The web may carry coating on one or both
sides.  Some products receive a nonmagnetic coating on the back.  After
coating, the web is guided through an orientation field,  in which an
electromagnet or permanent magnet aligns the individual magnetic particles in
the intended direction.  Webs from which flexible disks are to be produced do
not go through the orientation process.   The coated web then passes through a
drying oven, where the solvents in the coating evaporate.  Typically,  air
flotation ovens are used, in which the web is supported by jets of drying air.
For safe operation, the concentration of solvent vapors is held between 10 and
40 percent of the lower explosive limit.  The dry coated web may be passed
through several calendering rolls to compact the coating and to smooth the
surface finish.  Nondestructive testing is performed on up to 100 percent of
the final product,  depending on the level of precision required of the final
product.  The web may then be slit into the desired tape  widths.   Flexible
disks are punched from the finished web with a die.   The final product is then
packaged.  Some plants ship the coated webs in bulk to other facilities for
slitting and packaging.
                              t
     High performance tapes require very clean production conditions,
especially in the coating application and drying oven areas.   Air supplied to

9/90                       Evaporation Loss Sources                  4.2.2.13-1

-------
                                                                              
-------
these areas  is  conditioned  to  remove dust particles  and  to adjust  the
temperature  and humidity.   In  some  cases, "clean  room" conditions  are
rigorously maintained.

                            1 8
     Emissions  And  Controls-1"0 -  The significant  VOC emission  sources  in a
magnetic  tape manufacturing plant include the  coating preparation  equipment,
the coating  application and flashoff area, and the drying ovens.   Emissions
from the  solvent storage tanks and  the cleanup area  are  generally  only a
negligible percentage of total emissions.

     In the  mixing  or coating  preparation area, VOCs are emitted from  the
individual pieces of equipment during the following  operations:  filling of
mixers and tanks; transfer  of  the coating; intermittent  activities,  such as
changing  the filters in the holding tanks; and mixing (if equipment  is not
equipped  with tightly fitting  covers).  Factors affecting emissions  in the
mixing areas include the capacity of the equipment,  the  number of  pieces of
equipment, solvent  vapor pressure,  throughput, and the design and  performance
of equipment covers.  Emissions will be intermittent  or  continuous,  depending
on whether the  preparation  method is batch or  continuous.

     Emissions  from the coating application area  result  from the evaporation
of solvent during use of the coating application  equipment and from  the
exposed web  as  it travels from the coater to the  drying  oven (flashoff).
Factors affecting emissions are the solvent content  of the coating,  line width
and speed, coating  thickness,  volatility of the solvent(s), temperature,
distance  between coater and oven, and air turbulence  in  the coating  area.

     Emissions  from the drying oven are of the remaining solvent that  is
driven off in the oven.  Uncontrolled emissions at this  point are  determined
by the solvent  content of the  coating when it  reaches the oven.  Because the
oven evaporates  all the remaining solvent from the coating, there  are no
process VOC emissions after oven  drying.

     Solvent type and quantity are the common  factors affecting emissions
from all  operations in a magnetic tape coating facility.   The rate of
evaporation or  drying depends  on  solvent vapor pressure  at a given temperature
and concentration.  The most commonly used organic solvents are toluene,
methyl ethyl ketone, cyclohexanone,  tetrahydrofuran,   and methyl isobutyl
ketone.    Solvents are selected for their cost, solvency,  availability,  desired
evaporation rate, ease of use  after recovery,  compatibility with solvent
recovery equipment, and toxicity.

     Of the total uncontrolled VOC emissions from the mixing area and coating
operation (application/flashoff area and drying oven), approximately 10
percent is emitted from the mixing area, and 90 percent from the coating
operation.  Within  the coating operation,  approximately  10 percent occurs in
the application/flashoff area,  and 90 percent in the  drying oven.

     A control  system for evaporative emissions consists  of two components,  a
capture device and a control device.  The  efficiency  of the control system is
determined by the efficiencies of the two components.
9/90                       Evaporation Loss Sources                 4.2.2.13-3

-------
     A capture device is used to contain emissions from a process operation
and direct them to a stack or to a control device.  Room ventilation systems,
covers, and hoods are possible capture devices from coating preparation
equipment.  Room ventilation systems, hoods, and partial and total enclosures
are typical capture devices used in the coating application area.  A drying
oven can be considered a capture device, because it both contains and directs
VOC process emissions.  The efficiency of a capture device or a combination of
capture devices is variable and depends on the quality of design and the
levels of operation and maintenance.

     A control device is any equipment that has as its primary function the
reduction of emissions to the atmosphere.  Control devices typically used in
this industry are carbon adsorbers, condensers and incinerators.  Tightly
fitting covers on coating preparation equipment may be considered both capture
and control devices, because they can be used either to direct emissions to a
desired point outside the equipment or to prevent potential emissions from
escaping.

     Carbon adsorption units use activated carbon to adsorb VOCs from a gas
stream, after which the VOCs are desorbed and recovered from the carbon.  Two
types of carbon adsorbers are available, fixed bed and fluidized bed.  Fixed
bed carbon adsorbers are designed with a steam-stripping technique to recover
the VOCs and to regenerate the activated carbon.  The fluidized bed units used
in this industry are designed to use nitrogen for VOC vapor recovery and
carbon regeneration.  Both types achieve typical VOC control efficiencies of
95 percent when properly designed, operated and maintained.

     Condensers control VOC emissions by cooling the solvent-laden gas to the
dew point of the solvent(s) and then collecting the droplets.  There are two
condenser designs commercially available, nitrogen (inert gas) atmosphere and
air atmosphere.  These systems differ in the design and operation of the
drying oven (i. e., use of nitrogen or air in the oven) and in the method of
cooling the solvent-laden air (i. e., liquified nitrogen or refrigeration).
Both design types can achieve VOC control efficiencies of 95 percent.

     Incinerators control VOC emissions by oxidation of the organic compounds
into carbon dioxide and water.   Incinerators used to control VOC emissions may
be of thermal or catalytic design and may use primary or secondary heat
recovery to reduce fuel costs.   Thermal incinerators operate at approximately
890°C (1600°F) to assure oxidation of the organic compounds.  Catalytic
incinerators operate in the range of 400° to 540°C (750° to 1000°F) while
using a catalyst to achieve comparable oxidation of VOCs.   Both design types
achieve a typical VOC control efficiency of 98 percent.

     Tightly fitting covers control VOC emissions from coating preparation
equipment by reducing evaporative losses.  The parameters affecting the
efficiency of these controls are solvent vapor pressure, cyclic temperature
change, tank size, and product throughput.   A good system of tightly fitting
covers on coating preparation equipment reduces emissions by as much as 40
percent.   Control efficiencies of 95 or 98 percent can be obtained by venting
the covered equipment to an adsorber, condenser or incinerator.
4.2.2.13-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
     When the efficiencies of a capture device and control device are known,
the efficiency of the control system can be computed by the following
equation:
                   capture    control device     control system
                 efficiency x   efficiency    =    efficiency

The terms of this equation are fractional efficiencies rather than
percentages.  For instance, a system of hoods delivering 60 percent of VOC
emissions to a 90 percent efficient carbon adsorber would have control system
efficiency of 54 percent (0.60 x 0.90 - 0.54).  Table 4.2.2.13-1 summarizes
control system efficiencies, which may be used to estimate emissions in the
absence of measured data on equipment and coating operations.


              TABLE  4.2.2.13-1.   TYPICAL OF  CONTROL EFFICIENCIES3


  Control technology                                     Control Efficiency
Coating Preparation Equipment

  Uncontrolled                                                    0

  Tightly fitting covers                                         40

  Sealed covers with
    carbon adsorber/condenser                                    95

Coating Operation0

  Local ventilation with
    carbon adsorber/condenser                                    83

  Partial enclosure with
     carbon adsorber/condenser                                   87

  Total enclosure with
      carbon adsorber/condenser                                  93

  Total enclosure with incinerator                               95

aReference 1.
"To be applied to uncontrolled emissions from indicated process area, not from
 entire plant.
clncludes coating application/flashoff area and drying oven.

                                   ~l  O Q
     Emission Estimation Techniques '     - In this industry, realistic
emission estimates require solvent consumption data.   The variations found in
coating formulations,  line speeds' and products mean that no reliable
inferences can be made otherwise.


9/90                       Evaporation Loss Sources                 4.2.2.13-5

-------
     In uncontrolled plants and in those where VOCs are recovered for reuse
or sale, plantwide emissions can be estimated by performing a liquid material
balance based on the assumption that all solvent purchased replaces that which
has been emitted.  Any identifiable and quantifiable side streams should be
subtracted from this total.  The liquid material balance may be performed
using the following general formula:

                      solvent     quantifiable        VOC
                     purchased " solvent output  =  emitted

The first term encompasses all solvent purchased, including thinners, cleaning
agents, and any solvent directly used in coating formulation.  From this
total, any quantifiable solvent outputs are subtracted.  Outputs may include
reclaimed solvent sold for use outside the plant or solvent contained in waste
streams.  Reclaimed solvent that is reused at the plant is not subtracted.

     The advantages of this method are that it is based on data that are
usually readily available, it reflects actual operations rather than
theoretical steady state production and control conditions,  and it includes
emissions from all sources at the plant.  Care should be taken not to apply
this method over too short a time span.  Solvent purchase, production and
waste removal occur in cycles which may not coincide exactly.

     Occasionally, a liquid material balance may be possible on a scale
smaller than the entire plant.  Such an approach may be feasible for a single
coating line or group of lines, if served by a dedicated mixing area and a
dedicated control and recovery system.  In this case, the computation begins
with total solvent metered to the mixing area, instead of with solvent
purchased.  Reclaimed solvent is subtracted from this volume, whether or not
it is reused on the site.  Of course,  other solvent input and output streams
must be accounted, as previously indicated.  The difference between total
solvent input and total solvent output is then taken to be the quantity of
VOCs emitted from the equipment in question.

     Frequently, the configuration of meters, mixing areas,  production
equipment, and controls will make the liquid material balance approach
impossible.  In cases where control devices destroy potential emissions,  or
where a liquid material balance is inappropriate for other reasons,  plantwide
emissions can be estimated by summing the emissions calculated for specific
areas of the plant.  Techniques for these calculations are presented below.

     Estimating VOC emissions from a coating operation (application/flashoff
area and drying oven) starts with the assumption that the uncontrolled
emission level is equal to the quantity of solvent contained in the coating
applied.  In other words, all the VOC in the coating evaporates by the end of
the drying process.

     Two factors are necessary to calculate the quantity of solvent applied,
solvent content of the coating and the quantity of coating applied.   Coating
solvent content can be either directly measured using EPA Reference Method 24
or estimated using coating formulation data usually available from the plant
owner/operator.  The amount of coating applied may be directly metered.   If it
is not, it must be determined from production data.  These data should be
4.2.2.13-6                     EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
available from the plant  owner/operator.   Care  should  be  taken in developing
these two factors to assure  that  they  are  in  compatible units.   In cases  where
plant-specific data cannot be  obtained, the information in  Table  4.2.2.13-2
may be useful in approximating the  quantity of  solvent applied.

     When an estimate  of  uncontrolled  emissions is  obtained,  the  controlled
emissions level is computed  by applying a  control system  efficiency factor:

     (uncontrolled VOC) x (1-control system efficiency) = (VOG  emitted).
              TABLE 4.2.2.13-2.  SELECTED COATING MIX PROPERTIES3
Parameter
        Unit
 Range
Solids


VOC


Density of coating


Density of coating solids


Resins/binder

Magnetic particles

Density of magnetic material


Viscosity
Coating thickness
  Wet
  Dry
       weight %
       volume %

       weight %
       volume %

         kg/1
        Ib/gal

         kg/1
        Ib/gal

  weight % of' solids

  weight % of solids

         kg/1
        Ib/gal

         Pa-s
      lbf-s/ft2
          //m
          mil

          /urn
          mil
  15-50
  10-26

  50-85
  74-90

1.0-1.2
  8-10

 2.8-4.0
  23-33

  15-21

  66-78

1.2-4.8
  10-40

  2.7-5.0
0.06-0.10
 3.8-54
0.15-2.1

 1.0-11
0.04-0.4
aReference 9.  To be used when plant-specific data are unavailable.


As previously explained, the control system efficiency is the product of the
efficiencies of the capture device and of the control device.  If these values
are not known, typical efficiencies for some combinations of capture and
9/90
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.13-7

-------
control devices are presented in Table 4.2.2.13-1.  It is important to note
that these control system efficiencies apply only to emissions that occur
within the areas serviced by the systems.  Emissions from sources such as
process wastewater or discarded waste coatings may not be controlled at all.

     In cases where emission estimates from the mixing area alone are
desired, a slightly different approach is necessary.  Here, uncontrolled
emissions will consist of only that portion of total solvent that evaporates
during the mixing process.  A liquid material balance across the mixing area
(i.e., solvent entering minus solvent content of coating applied) would
provide a good estimate.  In the absence of any measured value, it may be
assumed, very approximately, that 10 percent of the total solvent entering the
mixing area is emitted during the mixing process.  When an estimate of
uncontrolled mixing area emissions has been made, the controlled emission rate
can be calculated as discussed previously.  Table 4.2.2.13-1 lists typical
overall control efficiencies for coating mix preparation equipment.

     Solvent storage tanks of the size typically found in this industry are
regulated by only a few states and localities.  Tank emissions are generally
small (130 kilograms per year or less).  If an emissions estimate is desired,
it can be computed using the equations, tables and figures provided in Section
4.3.2.


References For Section 4.2.2.13

1.    Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry - Background Information For
     Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-85-029a, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  December 1985.

2.    Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources -
     Volume II:  Surface Coating Of Cans. Coils.  Paper. Fabrics.  Automobiles,
     And Light Duty Trucks. EPA 450/2-77-008, U.  S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  May 1977.

3.    C.  Beall,  "Distribution Of Emissions Between Coating Mix Preparation
     Area And The Coating Line",  Memorandum file, Midwest Research Institute,
     Raleigh, NC, June 22, 1984.

4.    C.  Beall,  "Distribution Of Emissions Between Coating Application/
     Flashoff Area And Drying Oven", Memorandum to file,  Midwest Research
     Institute, Raleigh, NC, June 22,  1984.

5.    Control Of Volatile Organic Emission From Existing Stationary Sources -
     Volume I:   Control Methods For Surface-coating  Operations. EPA-450/2-76-
     028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     November 1976.

6.    G.  Crane,  Carbon Adsorption For VOC Control. U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,  January 1982.
4.2.2.13-8                     EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
7.   D. Mascone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance For NSPS", Memorandum,
     Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 11, 1980.

8.   D. Mascone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance For NSPS, Addendum",
     Memorandum, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 22,
     1980.

9.   C. Beall, "Summary Of Nonconfidential Information On U. S. Magnetic Tape
     Coating Facilities", Memorandum, with attachment, to file, Midwest
     Research Institute, Raleigh, NC, June 22, 1984.
9/90                       Evaporation Loss Sources                 4.2.2.13-9

-------
4.2.2,14  Surface  Coating Of  Plastic  Parts For  Business Machines

4.2.2.14.1  General1'2

     Surface coating of plastic parts for business machines  is defined as the
process of applying coatings  to plastic business machines  parts to  improve  the
appearance of the  parts, to protect the parts from physical  or chemical
stress, and/or to  attenuate electromagnetic  interference/radio frequency
interference (EMI/RFI) that would otherwise  pass through plastic housings.
Plastic parts for  business machines are synthetic polymers formed into panels,
housings, bases, covers, or other business machine components.  The business
machines category  includes items such as typewriters, electronic computing
devices, calculating and accounting machines, telephone and  telegraph
equipment, photocopiers and miscellaneous office machines.

     The process of applying  an exterior coating to a plastic part  can include
surface preparation, spray coating, and curing, with each  step possibly being
repeated several times.  Surface preparation may involve merely wiping off  the
surface, or it could involve  sanding and puttying to smooth  the surface.  The
plastic parts are  placed on racks or trays,  or  are hung on racks or hooks from
an overhead conveyor track for transport among  spray booths, flashoff areas
and ovens.  Coatings are sprayed onto parts  in  partially enclosed booths.  An
induced air flow is maintained through the booths to remove  overspray and to
keep solvent concentrations in the room air  at  safe levels.  Although low
temperature bake ovens (140°  F or less) are  often used to  speed up  the curing
process, coatings  also may be partially or completely cured  at room
temperature.

     Dry filters or water curtains (in water wash spray booths) are used to
remove overspray particles from the booth exhaust.  In waterwash spray booths,
most of the insoluble material is collected  as  sludge, but some of this
material is dispersed in the water along with the soluble overspray
components.   Figure 4.2.2.14-1 depicts a typical dry filter  spray booth,  and
Figure 4.2.2.14-2  depicts a typical water wash  spray booth.

     Many surface  coating plants have only one manually operated spray gun per
spray booth,  and they interchange spray guns according to  what type of
coating is to be applied to the plastic parts.  However, some larger surface
coating plants operate several spray guns (manual or robotic) per spray booth,
because coating a  large volume of similar parts on conveyor  coating lines
makes production more efficient.

     Spray coating systems commonly used in this industry fall into three
categories,  three coat, two coat,  and single coat.  The three coat system is
the most common,  applying a prime coat,  a color or base coat, and a texture
coat.  Typical  dry film thickness for the three coat system  ranges from 1 to
3 mils for the  prime coat,  1 to 2 mils for the color coat,  and 1 to 5 mils for
the texture  coat.  Figure 4.2.2.14-3 depicts a typical conveyorized coating
line using the  three-coat system.   The conveyor line consists of three
separate spray booths,  each followed by a flashoff (or drying) area, all  of
9/90                       Evaporation Loss Sources                 4.2.2.14-1

-------
                                                                                 i.
                                                                                 S-i
                                                                                 T3

                                                                                 •—1

                                                                                 s

                                                                                 &
                                                                                 tM


                                                                                 CNJ
                                                                   o, p
                                                                   o o
4.2.2.14-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
9/90

-------
                                                                             g
                                                                             8-
                                                                             £
                                                                             $
                                                                             —I
                                                                             S
9/90
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.14-3

-------
which is followed by a curing oven.  A two coat system applies a color or base
coat, then a texture coat.  Typical dry film thickness for the two coat system
is 2 mils for the color (or base) coat and 2 to 5 rails for the texture coat.
The rarely used single coat system applies only a thin color coat, either to
protect the plastic substrate or to improve color matching between parts whose
color and texture are molded in.  Less coating solids are applied with the
single coat system than with the other systems.  The dry film thickness
applied for the single coat system depends on the function of the coating.  If
protective properties are desired, the dry film thickness must be at least 1
mil (.001 inches).  For purposes of color matching among parts having
molded-in color and texture, a dry film thickness of 0.5 mils or less is
needed to avoid masking the molded-in texture.  The process of applying 0.5
mils of coating or less for color matching is commonly known as "fog coating",
"mist coating", or "uniforming".

     The three basic spray methods used in this industry to apply
decorative/exterior coatings are air atomized spray, air-assisted airless
spray, and electrostatic air spray.  Air atomized spray is the most widely
used coating technique for plastic business machine parts.  Air-assisted
airless spray is growing in popularity but is still not frequently found.
Electrostatic air spray is rarely used, because plastic parts are not
conductive.  It has been used to coat parts that have been either treated with
a conductive sensitizer or plated with a thin film of metal.

     Air atomized spray coating uses compressed air, which may be heated and
filtered,  to atomize the coating and to direct the spray.  Air atomized spray
equipment is compatible with all coatings commonly found on plastic parts for
business machines.

     Air-assisted airless spray is a variation of airless spray,  a spray
technique used in other industries.  In airless spray coating, the coating is
atomized without air by forcing the liquid coating through specially designed
nozzles, usually at pressures of 7 to 21 megapascals (MPa) (1,000 to 3,000
pounds per square inch).   Air-assisted airless spray atomizes the coating by
the same mechanism as airless spray, but at lower fluid pressures (under 7
MPa).   After atomizing, air is then used to atomize the coating further and to
help shape the spray pattern,  reducing overspray to levels lower than those
achieved with airless atomization alone.  Figure 4.2.2.14-4 depicts a typical
air-assisted airless spray gun.  Air-assisted airless spray has been used to
apply prime and color coats but not texture coats, because the larger size of
the sprayed coating droplet (relative to that achieved by conventional air
atomized spray)  makes it difficult to achieve the desired surface finish
quality for a texture coat.  A touch-up coating step with air atomized
equipment is sometimes necessary to apply color to recessed and louvered areas
missed by air-assisted airless spray.

     In electrostatic air spray, the coating is usually charged electrically,
and the parts being coated are grounded to create an electric potential
between the coating and the parts.  The atomized coating is attracted to the
part by electrostatic force.  Because plastic is an insulator, it is necessary
to provide a conductive surface that can bleed off the electrical charge to
maintain the ground potential of the part as the charged coating particles
accumulate on the surfaces.  Electrostatic air spray has been demonstrated for
application of prime and color coats and has been used to apply texture coats,
4.2.2.14-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
                                          A
                                           I
                                           i
                                          Cb
                     ta
                                                                cd 33
                                                                i
                                            M


                                            §
                                           CO
                                           M

                                           5

                                           u
                                                     8,
                                                     W
                                                                                   I
                                                                                   S
                                                                Cd 33
                                                                X H
                                                                                   Cvl

                                                                                   CM
                                        U
                                     •-. z
                                      O M
               i


               V
9/90
Evaporation Loss  Sources
                                                                          4.2.2.14-5

-------
         Figure  4.2.2.14-4.   Typical  air  assisted  airless  spray  gun.5
but this technique does not function well with the large size particles
generated for the texture coat, and it offers no substantial improvement over
air atomized spray for texture coating.  A touch-up coating step with air
atomized spray is sometimes necessary to apply color and texture to recessed
and louvered areas missed by electrostatic spray.

     The coatings used for decorative/exterior coats are generally solvent-
based and waterborne coatings.  Solvents used include toluene, methyl ethyl
ketone, methylene chloride, xylene, acetone and isopropanol.  Typically,
organic solvent-based coatings used for decorative/exterior coats are two
types of two-component catalyzed urethanes.  The solids contents of these
coatings are from 30 to 35 volume percent (low solids) and 40 to 54 volume
percent (medium solids) at the spray gun (i.e., at the point of application,
or as applied).  Waterborne decorative/exterior coatings typically contain no
more than 37 volume percent solids at the gun.  Other decorative/exterior
coatings being used by the industry include solvent-based high solids coatings
(i.e., equal to or greater than 60 volume percent solids) and one-component
low solids and medium solids coatings.

     The application of an EMI/RFI shielding coat is done in a variety of
ways.  About 45 percent of EMI/RFI shielding applied to plastic parts is done
by zinc-arc spraying, a process that does not emit volatile organic compounds
(VOC).  About 45 percent is done using organic solvent-based and waterborne
metal-filled coatings, and the remaining EMI/RFI shielding is achieved by a
variety of techniques involving electroless plating, and vacuum metallizing or
sputtering (defined below), and use of conductive plastics, and metal inserts.

     Zinc-arc spraying is a two-step process in which the plastic surface
(usually the interior of a housing) is first roughened by sanding or grit
blasting and then sprayed with molten zinc.  Grit blasting and zinc-arc
spraying are performed in separate booths specifically equipped for those
activities.  Both the surface preparation and the zinc-arc spraying steps
currently are performed manually, but robot systems have recently become
available.   Zinc-arc spraying requires a spray booth, a special spray gun,
pressurized air and zinc wire.  The zinc-arc spray gun mechanically feeds two
zinc wires into the tip of the spray gun, where they are melted by an electric
4.2.2.14-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
 arc.  A  high  pressure  air  nozzle  blows  the  molten zinc  particles  onto  the
 surface  of  the  plastic part.   The coating thickness  usually ranges  from 1  to  4
 mils, depending on  product requirements.

      Conductive coatings can  be applied with most conventional  spray equipment
 used  to  apply exterior coatings.   Conductive coatings are usually applied
 manually with air spray guns,  although  air-assisted  airless spray guns are
 sometimes used.  Electrostatic spray methods can  not be used because of the
 high  conductivity of EMI/RFI  shielding  coatings.

      Organic  solvent-based conductive coatings  contain  particles  of  nickel,
 silver,  copper  or graphite, in either an acrylic  or  an  urethane resin.
 Nickel-filled acrylic  coatings are the  most frequently  used,  because of their
 shielding ability and  their lower cost.  Nickel-filled  acrylics and  urethanes
 contain  from  15 to  25  volume  percent solids at  the gun.  Waterborne  nickel-
 filled acrylics with between  25 and 34  volume percent solids at the  gun
 (approximately  50 to 60 volume percent  solids,  minus water)  are less
 frequently  used than,are organic-solvent-based  conductive coatings.

      The application of a  conductive coating usually involves three  steps:
 surface  preparation, coating  application, and curing.   Although the  first  step
 can be eliminated if parts  are kept free of mold-release agents and  dirt,  part
 surfaces are  usually cleaned  by wiping  with organic  solvents or detergent
 solutions and then  roughened  by light sanding.  Coatings are usually applied
 to the interior surface of  plastic housings,  at a dry film  thickness of 1  to
 3 mils.  Most conductive coatings  can be cured at room  temperature,  but some
 must  be  baked in an oven.

      Electroless plating is a dip  process in which a film of metal is
 deposited in  aqueous solution onto all  exposed  surfaces of  the part.   In the
 case  of  plastic  business machine housings,  both sides of a  housing are
 coated.  No VOC emissions  are  associated with the plating process itself.
 However, coatings applied before the plating step, so that  only selected areas
 of the parts  are plated, may  emit  VOCs.  Wastewater  treatment may be necessary
 to treat the  spent  plating  chemicals.

      Vacuum metallizing and sputtering  are  similar techniques in which  a thin
 film  of  metal (usually aluminum)  is deposited from the  vapor phase onto the
 plastic  part.  Although no VOC emissions occur during the actual metallizing
 process, prime  coats often applied to ensure  good adhesion  and top coats to
 protect  the metal film may both emit VOCs.

      Conductive plastics are  thermoplastic  resins that  contain conductive
 flakes or fibers of materials  such as aluminum,  steel,  metallized glass or
 carbon.   Resin  types currently available with conductive fillers include
 acrylonitrile butadiene styrene,  acrylonitrile butadiene styrene/polycarbonate
 blends,   polyphenylene  oxide, nylon 6/6,  polyvinyl chloride,  and polybutyl
 terephthalate.  The conductivity,   and therefore the  EMI/RFI  shielding
 effectiveness, of these materials  relies on contact  or near  contact between
 the conductive particles within the resin matrix.   Conductive plastic parts
usually  are formed by  straight injection molding.   Structural foam injection
 molding  can reduce the  EMI/RFI shield effectiveness  of these materials because
 air pockets in the foam separate the conductive  particles.
9/90                       Evaporation Loss Sources                 4.2.2.14-7

-------
4.2.2.14.2  Emissions And Controls

     The major pollutants from surface coating of plastic parts for business
machines are VOC emissions from evaporation of organic solvents in the
coatings used, and from reaction byproducts when the coatings cure.  VOC
sources include spray booth(s), flashoff area(s), and oven(s) or drying
areas(s).  The relative contribution of each to total VOC emissions from a
from plant to plant, but for an average coating operation, about 80 percent is
emitted from the spray booth(s), 10 percent from the flashoff area(s), and 10
percent from the oven(s) or drying area(s).

     Factors affecting the quantity of VOC emitted are the VOC content of the
coatings applied, the solids content of coatings as applied, film build
(thickness of the applied coating), and the transfer efficiency (TE) of the
application equipment. To determine of VOC emissions when waterborne coatings
are used, it is necessary to know the amounts of VOC, water and solids in the
coatings.
              «
     The TE is the fraction of the solids sprayed that remains on a part.  TE
varies with application technique and with type of coating applied.
Table 4.2.2.14-1 presents typical TE values for various application methods.
                   TABLE 4.2.2.14-1. TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES'
     Application methods
      Transfer
    efficiency
Type of coating
     Air atomized spray

     Air-assisted airless spray
     Electrostatic air spray
        25

        40
        40
Prime, color, texture,
touchup and fog coats
Prime, color coats
Prime, color coats
     "As  noted in the promulgated standards,  values  are  presented solely to
     aid in determining compliance with the standards and may not reflect
     actual TE at a given plant.  For this reason, table should be used with
     caution for estimating VOC emissions from any new facility.  For a more
     exact estimate of emissions, the actual TE from specific coating
     operations at a given plant should be used.1
     Volatile organic compound emissions can be reduced by using low
VOC-content coatings (i.e., high solids or waterborne coatings), using surface
finishing techniques that do not emit VOC, improved TE, and/or added controls.
Lower VOC content decorative/exterior coatings include high solids-content
(i.e., at least 60 volume percent solids at the spray gun) two-component
catalyzed urethane coatings and,waterborne coatings (i.e., 37 volume percent
solids and 12.6 volume percent VOC at the spray gun).  Both of these types of
exterior/decorative coatings contain less VOC than conventional urethane
4.2.2.14-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                        9/90

-------
X
s
j-^J

8


i — i
s
O
g
|_«|
E-t
§
W rt
* o
P5 0
CM g
5Q *""*
ij s
S ba"
fi, i — i
g |§
i — i O


f^i
c/3
§
CM
1
T— 1
CM
CM
w
ij
s

















"Z?
^*

.S *-"
"SI,
O CO
&
GO






o cy


• i— 1 i — f
13 2
S "E
8

f 	 ^
M M *-*->
d> *o •— t
fO -*-*
U_t - "to
0
GO
i-l


|T£


B5 Q
en
3 =!-£
QJ _d t~{

o co


-l_> CD
c: to

tx


cn cr»
O U O O \JOO O O O O «-QO

«^> LO CO OO UD ^D ^"^ «~~i f""1 CT^ O^ ^D
i^ oo «— <  £j ,Q cr» ^_) c3
X C (B -^H X C (p -^
.(— | .rH O -M "— t •'H O -*-*

c± O cO c O c/5
•H CQ •— * CQ
^-^ f"Q CO C/^ •*— * PO, CO tO
§CO T3 *O CO 'O
•«— t CO g~I O **""! CO J-*
CO ""H T3 O^ O C/l *"H T3 Cy>
C *^H O -l-> C 'r— 1 O -3

oStSS'ac §i ca3^« g


r-( CO
*— t *3*

t--


CD CD






• —1
CN un



CD CD
CD CD
CD CD
^ ^1*




i
i-H "-H
S "S
CO 3C


er>
o u cj o^ CMO
to m 10 co ^* oo
t^  CM
•—I 0 VO P-. f— 1 C3
CM t—- f^) CTl CM
CO CO CM *—4 CO



o,
tr*
S*-i
•^u^ki .s
.rH .i-l O -«->

&* 8 So
^O fV\ ^Q CO
o oo .— i -o cr>
T3 O «^H B
d> -.H GO i— 1 "H
B ^H O -)->
'— i oo S 8
01 --i J=! O
oo * "O cr.



<=>
CO

CTi
•"•


CO










§
CD
^t4
















. •
w wi^
i j^-s

-M >
0 *->+-> ^
(4-l to to Q
GO
GO GO GO
to -a -o u
GO t— 1 *-t B
13% o o to
B GO 5) gl
. '*-> *P A» O
g 8 1 I *
^ <,_, ^ ^ =
i-i o o o 3
CD £> > • — 1
•S X 0
fO -^H CM C5 >
3c S co in
"* B" B" CM
§ *o "B 'B *"*
S .^1 ._! ^
GO to to C
• -t-> -P -f-> to
c; *>-i o o GO

*3 0 E C 0
B to to GO
53 B j= jS
S 0 +-> J3 *«>
•— 1 *t-H CD CD
8 "i ^
" 1 "8 'S o
OQ c- frQ e^a >
CO Q >^ >-«
O ^^ -H r-»
- cr>4S 42 ^
GO B to to C71
ST<"H C3 O B
.5 1o -•-> -i-> 'B
to O CD CD to
O B B -*^

t8

o
>Q 4-> 1 1 •— <
-M X O O ^H
CD CD S S >-.


GO > CD -*-> o
HH o c c: -S
-E  a> a> M
S^ > > a.
W <1> O O 
-------
               8
             V
             •IS
  i
         8
                 •SI'S
                «.-H  O O W
                 £ <4-l 
-------
>, 0)
i—3 ^^
Cu to
CL, &H
3 S.
 S
r-r . *s^ (^ , U
g HH O H HJ
ba • — . in >H W
S HH  
EH rO rtS <*H
fe **H O O
g HO
CO 3 CM
S ^ ^,
ro WO
1 JM MH +J .rt
f*^H 4->
&H W
O  "3 >H
III
o w
-H> O>
C N
<3 -rt
— 1 C/3
(X



««• <=> ino «* oo ^>^-
n <=3 .—tin r-i ^}- CMTJ-
ro o IDC— *3* ^D OOr—
to CM" t— i »a^ «* ro VD
c— ••* fO f-H




HH HH
-^3 C'\\ I -^ }^^i_i
HH -. •— ^. ^ 1 — 1 *• *^ »«
bnO HHO> Cn pinO I — ICD CP
S Cn 3C cn C « Cn =JB Cn C
- — «E3c:—H -^CWC-rt
HH .rt -rt T3 -rt HH -rt .rt 13 -rt
S-H>eci-i->~H i ac-H>ca-»->.rt i
(J3 CO (O CU Cn M «co .rtTSin-oScp
^ ^H -rt -~—.rt S-i <—> i—l -rt -— -rt £4
O OJ in O> HH -^J (O 0 O) in Ol HH -U ro
(A .^H Q) .-H 2C  *rt PC O3
JS ^2 _C« HU C3 CJ X3 *^ ^- fcau O CJ
3: W O< CO O C * W cn t/5 O £
O -rt CO -rt Q -rt CQ .rt
i-^9:Sc<]i-aeesBN



f— t CM
CM ^C
CT^ oo

«* CTl
O
frt


0 CM





O CM

^ cr>
o o
0 C^
^ •*
i — i 9
^H -rt

c?S a:



O ^f »*• C=
^BT CM IT> IO
O CM VD ^»-
C-J t— OO ^*
(^i cn c-~ ro
 cn
S CnaC Cn S3
	 S3 53 C — '
HH .rt »rt -O -rt
S-ScS^ o! cn
O O *rt ^*|
CO O M O ^2 -l
Cn -rt cn •* CLi
W (S -rt c H-m-i W
•O .rt 0 -rt by cn
•rt -o <7S -O S B P
r— 1 . 	 1 . 	 ) • 	 *.rt >H
Q OJ M 0) HH *J  -rt X 
oo
CM

CT>
CO
CM


^1-





•*

CD
CD
<=>
»*
O)


HH
9/90
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.14-11

-------


         w
  a
             *—* E*4 °3
             g^-g
             --342
                  S-P ac i=.
                  co S t;
                  "  S-§
                  »~t  0> M
                <*-! CM **-< **-!
                O    O O
                  (O
         s s.
4.2.2.14-12
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
                9/90
                                  i
                              §
                              ^
                              CM

                              CM
                                 I
                                                  s
f ig
tro
and
                                                                  S
 CM VO t-l i-H OO
 CM CT> CM   » t—
 ^H O CM CM r—

 OO t—I IT> i-( •—I

    -    ^
S
                                                                  CM
                                                                  CM
                                                              "U
                                                         •3
                                                            CO
                                                            CO
                                                                  CO
                                                         0)    -1

                                                         (B O QD
                                                         OQ t-3 3C
                                                                              CM CM ^J-
                                                                              VO CM O
                                                                              r-l CM t-l
                                                                                          VO

                                                                                         " f>
in o  - ^»-
CM o r-. co
OO OO «-H CM
 »•  * —•««.  *
OO *~4 t^» *rt*
CO «3- VO t—I
      OO
                                                                              ^- ^* «3-  -00
                                                                              OO •—I IT) O i—I

                                                                              O i—I CD VO ^
                                                                                       CO
                         OQ  M  CO

                         M ."2  wo>
                         CO <— 1  T3  9>
                         •O  O  — 1  C5
                         "H  35  — < -«H
Evaporation  Loss  Sources
                                                    CT>


                                              If) «-t «-H CT>
                                                                                                            §
                                                                                                      V0 VO  •» CT>
                                                                                                      I— O CO OO
                                                                                                      O If* ^* IT>
                                                                                                   Csj CM
                                                                                                      S3S5"
                                                                                                            S
                                                    CM
                                                    CM
                                              S«?  «£   .OO
                                              i-l  IT)  O .—I


                                           °  ^  °  S"°
                 °x  ^^ .S

                  B •*->  8  
-------
                                         =3




                                         1
                                         co



                                         &
                                         8
                                         co

                                         &
                                         en
                                         B
                                         CU
                                         c
                                         CO
                                 I
                                 •—*

                                 8
     §
     CM



     CM
     9
         g
                        .2
                        •s
         8


         g
        ••—I

        £
•g — 5^ .§
1^—«^tJ
                                 B g
                        Ci »•« IB  to
                        4-1 (O  IM  O •+->
                           M  £X O J5

                        S3 e-fr.M.s'
                        Q _  en o a>
                        to •—> •>->  B
                        g
                                 8-2.

                                   +j
                                    3


                                              CNi *  * ± 3
                                         »-l   •
                                         m  a>
                                         

en en en ro g -e 3 .s.« c 2 qj jo ,— 1 B B E to 5 8 8 8| •g g, en g, o ^i .,_| .^-i .^H ^^p CJ +J +J 4_> S "~H (O *v —' -w o <3 tp cj C B a> a> B > •-{ 8 CQ OO O g % 8 s u SfQ CT3 O J3 j5 g *->+-> 4-> O S § g-fi 553i^ 8 8 8 S tO rt3 fO 35 CO W OT W W CO EMISSION FACTORS 9/90


-------












XJ
w ~
O
cslS
• Cd
2s
s^
IS
o














^

Cn
^M
V>
O
'c

. — 1
+J
(O
^M
O
=»^
Cr>
j«i








•s
-i->
g

CM
e





















1
1S
3 -H
^y> O
•-H l-l
II
-f-> *T=»
C= C
 U") VD

CM ^-t LO O"* LO
LO CM








T— 1C— LT) CD i— IC^-LDCD
LT) CM CD LO CM CD














'O 'O

c= c
0 .S O -^H
en -•-> cy» -*->
C5  o
o cr> o Cn
.r-l .^H
.^H 4-> *rH *^J
t-H -*— . t—t --^
I-H »O 1— 1 rrt
5E CO — 1 3€ 00 • — 1
CO'dCOM C/l *O W fc-*
• -H CX —H pu
W'-HI— IW W-Hl-HCy3
no O &H '^3 O &M
•i-H o5 ffi O ••— 1 CO CC O
— t -^- i-l ^H — M
O M •— • * a £
t^ X i-


^* T— 1 c-H CZ)

C3 VD CO
CO r-t








«r «>• «* <=
*J* CO CM

^H «3> CM
CM VD r-l
r— 1








»— 1 C-^ in CZ>
in CM o

O O CO












*o


O —I

•^ i
§cn
K
• •-H
^H !c c:
.r-i H_>
I-H 	 ^
b t— 1 CT>
1 — 1 ^O
g OQ —1
•^H >-•
-H fX
S 8S 0
O >H g (O
) & O> C
3T1 O "H CO "H
H tJ 33 3C Cvl
3
9/90
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.14-15

-------
                                             Q)

                                                        CO


                                                        CO*
                                                  -8 ^
                                                     S
                                             o>    --3 -—I -a
                                             t-i     o  o ••H
                                            •a     co  co •—i

                                               co
     CM
     CM



     s
§
              •3
               B

              'i
                           IT

                         s  §
                         LO  ID
                         .-I  CM
                              t!    S S
                              o    'B 'B B"

                              ip 0) CO tO B
                              3) C -i-> -P •.-<
                              •O G B B 
CO  p. Vf    U
M  CO    4-4   B    ^4-*
o  e -S j_> ~-i
  B
<4-i j->  
                           §
                           co <*•<  o
                           co  o     o> ->->
                                    8
                              •a
                                                  •§-53.3.5

                                                  i—ii—i  co <—i
                                                  EH EH     O)
                                                      (V
                                                      W
                                    S S-S  J
                                    55^  ^

                                    8 8 £•;
                                            =»•«»•  o  o  o  o
                     £
                           II  II  II  II
                                               •S  S3  S3  S
                                                CO  BC  «C  «
                                                  O *C^  GJ
4.2.2.14-16
                                 EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                                      9/90

-------
coatings, which are  typically  32 volume percent  solids  at  the  gun.   Lower VOC
content EMI/RFI shielding  coatings  include  organic  solvent-based  acrylic or
urethane conductive  coatings containing at  least 25 volume percent  solids at
the spray gun and waterborne conductive coatings containing  30 to 34 volume
percent solids at the gun.  Use of  lower VOC content coatings  reduces
emissions of VOCs both by  reducing  the volume  of coating needed to  cover the
part(s) and by reducing the amount  of VOC in the coatings  that are  sprayed.

     The major technique which provides an  attractive exterior/decorative
finish on plastic parts for business machines  without emitting VOCs is the use
of molded-in color and texture.  VOC-free techniques for EMI/RFI  shielding
include zinc-arc spraying, electroless plating,  the use of conductive plastics
or metal inserts, and in some  cases, vacuum metallizing and  sputtering.

     Transfer efficiency can be improved by using air-assisted airless or
electrostatic spray  equipment, which are more  efficient than the  common
application technique (air atomized).  More efficient equipment can reduce VOC
emissions by as much as 37 percent  over conventional air atomized spray
equipment, through reducing the amount of coating that must  be sprayed to
achieve a given film thickness.

     Addon controls  applied to VOC  emissions in  other surface  coating
industries include thermal and catalytic incinerators, carbon  adsorbers and
condensers.  However, these control technologies  have not  been used in the
surface coating of plastic parts because the large volume  of exhaust air and
the low concentrations of VOC in the exhaust reduce their  efficiency.

     The operating parameters  in Tables 4.2.2.14-2 and 4.2.2.14-3 and the
emissions factors in Tables 4.2.2.14-4 and 4.2.2.14-5 are  representative of
conditions at existing plants with  similar  operating characteristics.  The
three general sizes  of surface coating plants  presented in these  tables
(small, medium and large) are given to assist  in making a  general estimate of
VOC emissions.  However, each plant has its own  combination  of coating
formulations, application equipment and operating parameters.   Thus, it is
recommended that,  whenever possible, plant-specific values be  obtained for all
variables when calculating emission estimates.

     A material balance may be used to provide a  more accurate  estimate of
VOC emissions from the surface coating of plastic parts for  business machines.
An emissions estimate can be calculated using  coating composition data (as
determined by EPA Reference Method  24) and data  on coating and solvent
quantities used in a given time period by a surface coating  operation.  Using
this approach, emissions are calculated as follows:
                                     n
                                     Z   Lct  Dct W01
where:
     MT  =  total  mass  of  VOC emitted  (kg)
     Lc  =  volume of each coating consumed,  as  sprayed
     Dc  =  density of  each coating as  sprayed  (k/£)
9/90                       Evaporation Loss Sources                4.2.2.14-17

-------
     W0 = the proportion of VOC in each coating,  as  sprayed (including
          dilution solvent added at plant) (weight fraction)
     n  = number of coatings applied .
References for Section 4.2.2.14

1.    Surface Coating Of Plastic Parts For Business Machines - Background
     Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-85-019a, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December
     1985.

2.    Written communication from Midwest Research Institute, Raleigh, NC, to
     David Salman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, June 19, 1985.

3.    Protectaire" Spray Booths,  Protectaire  Systems  Company,  Elgin,  IL,  1982,

4.    Sinks" Spray Booths and  Related Equipment,  Catalog SB-7,  Binks
     Manufacturing Company, Franklin Park, IL, 1982.

5.    Product Literature on Wagner" Air Coat" Spray Gun, Wagner Spray
     Technology, Minneapolis, MN, 1982.
4.2.2.14-18                    EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
5.19  SYNTHETIC FIBER MANUFACTURING

5.19.1  General1'3

     There are two types of  synthetic  fiber products,  the  semisynthetics,  or
cellulosics,  (viscose rayon  and cellulose acetate) and the true  synthetics, or
noncellulosics, (polyester,  nylon, acrylic and modacrylic,  and polyolefin).
These six fiber types compose over 99  percent of  the  total production of
manmade fibers in the U. S.

5.19.2  Process Description2"6

     Semisynthetics are formed from natural polymeric  materials  such as
cellulose.  True synthetics  are products of the polymerization of  smaller
chemical units into long chain molecular polymers.  Fibers are formed by
forcing a viscous fluid or solution of the polymer through the small orifices
of a spinneret (see Figure 5.19-1) and immediately solidifying or
precipitating the resulting  filaments.  This prepared  polymer may  also be used
in the manufacture of other  than fiber products,  such  as the enormous number
of extruded plastic and synthetic rubber products.
                               SPINNING SOLUTION
                               OR DOPE
                                 FIBERS
                          Figure 5.19-1. Spinneret.

     Synthetic fibers (both semisynthetic and true synthetic) are produced
typically by two easily distinguishable methods, melt spinning and solvent
spinning.  Melt spinning processes use heat to melt the fiber polymer to a
viscosity suitable for extrusion through the spinneret.  Solvent spinning
processes use large amounts of organic solvents, which usually are recovered
for economic reasons, to dissolve the fiber polymer into a fluid polymer
solution suitable for extrusion through a spinneret. The major solvent
spinning operations are dry spinning and wet spinning.  A third method,
9/90
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-1

-------
reaction spinning, is also used, but to a much lesser extent.  Reaction
spinning processes involve the formation of filaments from prepolymers and
monomers that are further polymerized and cross linked after the filament is
formed.

     Figure 5.19-2 is a general process diagram for synthetic fiber
production using the major types of fiber spinning procedures.  The spinning
process used for a particular polymer is determined by the polymer's melting
point, melt stability and solubility in organic and/or inorganic (salt)
solvents.  (The polymerization of the fiber polymer is typically carried out
at the same facility that produces the fiber.)  Table 5.19-1 lists the
different types of spinning methods with the fiber types produced by each
method.  After the fiber is spun, it may undergo one or more different
processing treatments to meet the required physical or handling properties.
Such processing treatments include drawing, lubrication, crimping, heat
setting, cutting, and twisting. The finished fiber product may be classified
as tow, staple, or continuous filament yarn.

                 TABLE 5.19-1. TYPES OF SPINNING METHODS AND
                             FIBER TYPES PRODUCED
    Spinning method                     Fiber type

    Melt spinning                       Polyester
                                        Nylon 6
                                        Nylon 66
                                        Polyolefin

    Solvent spinning

      Dry solvent spinning              Cellulose acetate
                                        Cellulose triacetate
                                        Acrylic
                                        Modacrylic
                                        Vinyon
                                        Spandex

      Wet solvent spinning              Acrylic
                                        Modacrylic

    Reaction spinning                   Spandex
                                        Rayon  (viscose  process)
     Melt  Spinning  - Melt  spinning uses heat to melt the polymer to a
viscosity  suitable  for extrusion.  This type of spinning is used for polymers
that are not decomposed or degraded by the temperatures necessary for
extrusion.  Polymer chips  may be melted by a number of methods.  The trend  is
toward melting and  immediate extrusion of the polymer chips in an electrically
heated screw extruder. Alternatively, the molten polymer is processed in an
inert gas  atmosphere, usually nitrogen, and is metered through a precisely
machined gear pump  to a filter assembly consisting of a series of metal gauges
interspersed in layers of  graded sand.  The molten polymer is extruded at high


5.19-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
                 Figure  5.19-2.   General  process  diagram  for
                   melt,  wet and dry spun systhetic fibers.
9/90
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-3

-------
pressure and constant rate through a spinneret  into a  relatively  cooler  air
stream which solidifies the filaments.  Lubricants and finishing  oils  are
applied to the fibers in the spin cell.  At the base of the  spin  cell, a
thread guide converges the individual filaments to produce a continuous
filament yarn, or a spun yarn, that typically is composed of between 15  and
100 filaments.  Once formed, the filament yarn  either  is immediately wound
onto bobbins or is further treated for certain  desired characteristics or  end
use.  Treatments include drawing, lubrication,  crimping, heat setting,
cutting, and twisting.

     Since melt spinning does not require the use of solvents, VOC  emissions
are significantly lower than those from dry and wet solvent  spinning
processes.  Lubricants and oils are sometimes added during the spinning  of the
fibers to provide certain properties necessary  for subsequent operations,  such
as lubrication and static suppression.  These lubricants and oils vaporize,
condense, and then coalesce as aerosols primarily from the spinning operation,
although certain post-spinning operations may also give rise to these  aerosol
emissions.

     Dry Solvent Spinning - The dry spinning process begins  by dissolving  the
polymer in an organic solvent. This solution is blended with additives and
is filtered to produce a viscous polymer solution, referred  to as "dope",  for
spinning.  The polymer solution is then extruded through a spinneret as
filaments into a zone of heated gas or vapor.  The solvent evaporates  into
the gas stream and leaves solidified filaments, which  are further treated
using one or more of the processes described in the general  process
description section.  (See Figure 5.19-3.)  This type  of spinning is used  for
easily dissolved polymers such as cellulose acetate, acrylics and modacrylics.
         POLYMER
                           SPniNERET-
                                          SPIN CELL
             VOC
                                             SOLVENT-LADEN '
                                             STREAMTO
                                             RECOVERY
                                                               •PRODUCT
5.19-4
                         Figure 5.19-3. Dry spinning.
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
     Dry  spinning  is  the  fiber formation process potentially emitting the
largest amounts  of VOC  per pound of fiber produced.  Air pollutant emissions
include volatilized residual  monomer,  organic solvents, additives, and other
organic compounds  used  in fiber processing.   Unrecovered solvent constitutes
the major substance.  The largest amounts of unrecovered solvent are emitted
from the  fiber spinning step  and drying the  fiber.   Other emission sources
include dope preparation  (dissolving the polymer,  blending the spinning
solution, and filtering the dope),  fiber processing (drawing, washing,
crimping) and solvent recovery.

     Wet  Solvent Spinning - Wet spinning also uses  solvent to dissolve the
polymer to prepare the  spinning dope.  The process  begins by dissolving polymer
chips in  a suitable organic solvent,  such as dimethylformamide (DMF),
dimethylacetamide  (DMAc),  or  acetone,  as in  dry spinning; or in a weak
inorganic acid,  such as zinc  chloride  or aqueous sodium thiocyanate.   In wet
spinning, the spinning  solution is  extruded  through spinnerets into a
precipitation bath that contains a  coagulant (or precipant) such as aqueous
DMAc or water.   Precipitation or coagulation occurs by diffusion of the
solvent out of the thread and by diffusion of the  coagulant into the thread.
Wet spun  filaments also undergo one or more  of the  additional treatment
processes described earlier,  as depicted in  Figure  5.19-4.
         POLYMER
                                                                     PRODUCT
     PRECIPITATION
     BATH SOLUTION

     SOLVENT/WATER
     MIXTURE)
                       MORE CONCENTRATED
                        ILUTION OF
                        ILVENT A"~
                       	AND WATER
                       TO RECOVERY
                            SPINNERET
                         Figure 5.19-4. Wet spinning.

     Air pollution emission points  in  the wet  spinning  organic solvent
process are similar to those of dry spinning.  Wet  spinning processes that use
solutions of acids or salts to dissolve  the polymer chips  emit no solvent VOC,
only unreacted monomer, and are, therefore, relatively  clean from an air
pollution standpoint. For those that require solvent, emissions occur as
solvent evaporates from the spinning bath and  from  the  fiber in post-spinning
operations.
9/90
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-5

-------
     Reaction Spinning - As in the wet and dry spinning processes, the
reaction spinning process begins with the preparation of a viscous spinning
solution,which is prepared by dissolving a low molecular weight polymer, such
as polyester for the production of spandex fibers, in a suitable solvent and a
reactant, such as di-isocyanate.   The spinning solution is then forced through
spinnerets into a solution containing a diamine, similarly to wet spinning, or
is combined with the third reactant and then dry spun.  The primary
distinguishable characteristic of reaction spinning processes is that the
final cross-linking between the polymer molecule chains in the filament occurs
after the fibers have been spun.   Post-spinning steps typically include drying
and lubrication.  Emissions from the wet and dry reaction spinning processes
are similar to those of solvent wet and dry spinning, respectively.

5.19.3 Emissions And Controls

     For each pound of fiber produced with the organic solvent spinning
processes, a pound of polymer is dissolved in about 3 pounds of solvent.
Because of the economic value of the large amounts of solvent used, capture
and recovery of these solvents are an integral portion of the solvent spinning
processes.  At present, 94 to 98 percent of the solvents used in these fiber
formation processes is recovered.  In both dry and wet spinning processes,
capture systems with subsequent solvent recovery are applied most frequently
to the fiber spinning operation alone, because the emission stream from the
spinning operation contains the highest concentration of solvent and, there-
fore, possesses the greatest potential for efficient and economic solvent
recovery.  Recovery systems used include gas adsorption, gas absorption,
condensation, and distillation and are specific to a particular fiber type or
spinning method. For example, distillation is typical in wet spinning
processes to recover solvent from the spinning bath, drawing, and washing (see
Figure 5.19-8), while condensers or scrubbers are typical in dry spinning
processes for recovering solvent from the spin cell (see Figures 5.19-6 and
5.19-9).  The recovery systems themselves are also a source of emissions from
the spinning processes.

     The majority of VOC emissions from pre-spinning (dope preparation, for
example) and post-spinning (washing, drawing, crimping, etc.) operations
typically are not recovered for reuse.  In many instances, emissions from
these operations are captured by hoods or complete enclosures to prevent
worker exposure to solvent vapors and unreacted monomer.  Although already
captured, the quantities of solvent released from these operations are
typically much smaller than those released during the spinning operation.  The
relatively high air flow rates required in order to reduce solvent and monomer
concentrations around the process line to acceptable health and safety limits
make recovery economically unattractive.  Solvent recovery, therefore, is
usually not attempted.

     Table 5.19-2 presents emission factors from production of the most
widely known semisynthetic and true synthetic fibers.  These emission factors
address emissions only from the spinning and post-spinning operations and the
associated recovery or control systems.  Emissions from the polymerization of
the fiber polymer and from the preparation of the fiber polymer for spinning
are not included in these emission factors.  While significant emissions occur
in the polymerization and related processes, these emissions are discussed in
Sections 5.13, "Plastics", and 5.20, "Synthetic Rubber".


5.19-6                         EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
       TABLE 5.19-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SYNTHETIC FIBER MANUFACTURING
                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
      Type  of  Fiber
                                   Nonme thane
                                    Volatile
                                    Organics
Particulate
References
Rayon, viscose process

Cellulose acetate, filter tow

Cellulose acetate and
  triacetate,  filament yarn

Polyester, melt spun
                                      112
                                      199d,e
               7-8,10,35-36

               11,37


               11,38

               41-42
Staple
Yarnk
Acrylic, dry spun
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Modacrylic, dry spun
Acrylic and modacrylic, wet spun
Acrylic, inorganic wet spun
Homopolymer
Copolymer
Nylon 6, melt spun
Staple
Yarn
Nylon 66, melt spun
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Polyolefin, melt spun
Spandex, dry spun
Spandex, reaction spun
Vinyon, dry spun
0.6f>S
0.05f'S
40
32m
125S>h
6. 75?
20. 7S>C1
2.75§'r
3.93S
0.45s
2.13f>t
0.31f>v
5§
4.23m
138X
150m
25.2h'J
0.038.J
21,43-44
c
c
c 45
c 19,46
47-48
c
c
25,49
0.018
c
26
0.5U
O.lu
0.01& 5,25,28,49
c 32
c 50-51
c 52
aFactors are pounds of emissions per 1000 pounds of fiber spun, including
 waste fiber.
Uncontrolled carbon disculfide (CS2) emissions are 251 Ib CS2/1000 Ib fiber
 spun; uncontrolled hydrogen sulfide emissions are 50.4 Ib I^S/IOOO Ib fiber
9/90
                          Chemical Process Industry
                     5.19-7

-------
                             TABLE 5.19-2 (CONT.).

 spun.  If recovery of 082 from the "hot dip" stage takes place, CSo emissions
 are reduced by about 16%.
cParticulate emissions from the spinning solution preparation area and later
 stages through the finished product are essentially nil.
 After recovery from the spin cells and dryers.  Use of more extensive
 recovery systems can reduce emissions by 40% or more.
eUse of methyl chloride and methanol as the solvent, rather than acetone, in
 production of triacetate can double emissions.
 Emitted in aerosol form.
^Uncontrolled.
_Af ter control on extrusion parts cleaning operations.
^Mostly particulate,. with some aerosols.
 Factors for high intrinsic viscosity industrial and tire yarn production are
 0.18 Ib VOC and 3.85 Ib particulate.
mAfter recovery from spin cells.
nAbout 18 Ib is from dope preparation, and about 107 Ib is from spinning/post-
 spinning operations.
PAfter solvent recovery from the spinning, washing, and drawing stages.  This
 factor includes acrylonitrile emissions.  An emission factor of 87 lb/1000 Ib
 fiber has been reported.
^Average emission factor; range is from 13.9 to 27.7 Ib.
rAverage emision factor; range is from 2.04 to 16.4 Ib.
sAfter recovery of emissions from the spin cells.  Without recovery, emission
 factor would be 1.39 Ib.
Average of plants producing yarn from batch and continuous polymerization
 processes.  Range is from abut 0.5 to 4.9 Ib.  Add 0.1 Ib to the average
 factor for plants producing tow or staple.   Continous polymerization
 processes average emission rates approximately 170%.  Batch polymerization
 processes average emission rates approximately 80%.
uFor plants with spinning equipment cleaning operations.
vAfter control of spin cells in plants with batch and continuous
 polymerization processes producing yarn.  Range is from 0.1 to 0.6 Ib.  Add
 0.02 Ib to the average controlled factor for producing tow or staple.  Double
 the average controlled emission factor for plants using continuous
 polymerization only;  subract 0.01 Ib for plants using batch plymerization
 only.
wAfter control of spinning equipment cleaning operation.
xAfter recovery by carbon adsorption from spin cells and post-spinning
 operations.  Average collection efficiency 83%.  Collection efficiency of
 carbon adsorber decreases over 18 months from 95% to 63%.
5.19-8                         EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
     Examination  of VOC  pollutant  emissions  from  the  synthetic  fibers
industry has recently  concentrated on  those  fiber production  processes  that
use an organic  solvent to dissolve the polymer for extrusion  or that use an
organic solvent in some  other way  during  the filament forming step.  Such
processes, while  representing only about  20  percent of total  industry
production, do  generate  about 94 percent  of  total industry VOC  emissions.
Particulate emissions  from fiber plants are  relatively low, at  least an order
of magnitude lower than  the  solvent VOC emissions.

5.19.4 Semisynthetics

     Rayon Fiber  Process Description-*' 7 ~*-Q  . jn t^e United States, most rayon
is made by the  viscose process.  Rayon fibers are made using  cellulose
(dissolved wood pulp), sodium hydroxide,  carbon disulfide, and  sulfuric acid.
As shown in Figure 5.19-5, the series of  chemical  reactions in  the viscose
process used to make rayon consists of the following  stages:

     1.   Wood  cellulose and a concentrated  solution  of sodium  hydroxide
          react to form  soda cellulose.

     2.   The soda cellulose reacts with  carbon disulfide to  form sodium
          cellulose xanthate.

     3.   The sodium cellulose xanthate is dissolved  in a dilute solution of
          sodium  hydroxide to give a viscose solution.

     4.   The solution is ripened  or aged to complete  the reaction.

     5.   The viscose  solution is  extruded through spinnerets into dilute
          sulfuric acid, which regenerates the cellulose in the  form of
          continuous filaments.

     Emissions  And Controls  - Air  pollutant  emissions  from viscose rayon
fiber production  are mainly  carbon disulfide  (CS2), hydrogen  sulfide (I^S),
and small amounts of particulate matter.  Most C§2 and I^S emissions occur
during the spinning and  post-spinning processing  operations.  Emission
controls are not used extensively  in the rayon fiber industry.  A counter-
current scrubber  (condenser) is used in at least  one instance to recover C$2
vapors from the sulfuric acid bath alone.   The emissions from this operation
are high enough in concentration and low enough in volume to make such
recovery both technically and economically feasible.    The scrubber recovers
nearly all of the C$2 and l^S that  enters it, reducing  overall CS2 and  ^S
emissions from  the process line by  about 14  percent.   While carbon adsorption
systems are capable of CS2 emission reductions of up to 95 percent, attempts
to use carbon adsorbers have had serious problems.

     Cellulose Acetate And Triacetate Fiber  Process Description^'   •*-   - All
cellulose acetate and triacetate fibers are produced by dry spinning.    These
fibers are used for either cigarette filter  tow or filament yarn.  Figure
5.19-6 shows the typical process for the production of cigarette filter tow.
Dried cellulose acetate polymer flakes  are dissolved in a solvent,  acetone
and/or a chlorinated hydrocarbon in a closed mixer.  The spinning solution
(dope) is filtered,  as it is with other fibers.   The dope is forced through
spinnerets to form cellulose acetate filaments,  from which the solvent  rapidly


9/90                      Chemical Process  Industry                     5.19-9

-------
                    Figure 5.19-5. Rayon viscose process.

evaporates as the filaments pass down a spin cell or column.  After the
filaments emerge from the spin cell, there is a residual solvent content which
continues to evaporate more slowly until equilibrium is attained.  The
filaments then undergo several post-spinning operations before they are cut
and baled.

     In the production of filament yarn, the same basic process steps are
carried out as for filter tow, up through and including the actual spinning of
the fiber.  Unlike filter tow filaments, however, filaments used for filament
yarn do not undergo the series of post-spinning operations shown in Figure
5.19-6, but rather are wound immediately onto bobbins as they emerge from the
spin cells.  In some instances, a slight twist is given to the filaments to
meet product specifications. In another area, the wound filament yarn is
subsequently removed from the bobbins and wrapped on beams or cones (referred
to as "beaming") for shipment.

     Emissions And Controls - Air pollutant emissions from cellulose acetate
fiber production include solvents, additives and other organic compounds used
in fiber processing.  Acetone, methyl ethyl ketone and methanol are the only
solvents currently used in commercial production of cellulose acetate and
triacetate fibers.

     In the production of all cellulose acetate fibers, i.e., tow, staple, or
filament yarn, solvent emissions occur during dissolving of the acetate
flakes, blending and filtering of the dope, spinning of the fiber, processing
of the fiber after spinning, and the solvent recovery process.  The largest
emissions of solvent occur during spinning and processing of the fiber.
Filament yarns are typically not dried as thoroughly in the spinning cell as
are tow or staple yarns. Consequently, they contain larger amounts of residual
solvent, which evaporates into the spinning room air where the filaments are
5.19-10
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
                                                             VOC EMISSIOHS
               FILTMTIM
                             MWIM
                                   HASHING
                                          CRIMPING
                                                  DOTING
                                                                 BA11K
         Figure 5.19-6. Cellulose acetate and triacetate  filter  tow.

wound and into the room air where the wound yarn  is  subsequently transferred
to beams.  This residual solvent continues to evaporate for  several  days,
until an equilibrium is attained.  The largest emissions  occur during the
spinning of the fiber and the evaporation of the  residual  solvent from the
wound and beamed filaments.  Both processes also  emit  lubricants (various
vegetable and mineral oils) applied to the fiber  after spinning  and  before
winding, particularly from the dryers in the cigarette filter tow process.

     VOC control techniques are primarily carbon  adsorbers and scrubbers.
They are used to control and recover solvent emissions from  process  gas
streams from the spin cells in both the production of  cigarette  filter tow  and
filament yarn.  Carbon adsorbers also are used to control  and recover solvent
emissions from the dryers used in the production  of  cigarette filter  tow.   The
solvent recovery efficiencies of these recovery systems range-from 92 to 95
percent.  Fugitive emissions from other post-spinning  operations,  even though
they are a major source, are generally not controlled.  In at least  one
instance however, an air management system is being  used  in  which the air from
the dope preparation and beaming areas is combined at  carefully  controlled
rates with the spinning room air which is used to provide  the quench  air for
the spin cell. A fixed amount of spinning room air is  then combined with the
process gas stream from the spin cell and this mix is  vented to  the recovery
system.

5.19.5 True Synthetic Fibers

     Polyester Fiber Process Description^' ^->15-17 . polyethylene
terepthalate (PET) polymer is produced from ethylene glycol  and  either
dimethyl terepthalate (DMT) or terepthalic acid (TPA).  Polyester filament
yarn and staple are manufactured either by direct melt spinning  of molten PET
from the polymerization equipment or by spinning  reheated  polymer chips.
Polyester fiber spinning is done almost exclusively with extruders, which feed
9/90
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-11

-------
the molten  polymer under pressure through the  spinnerets.   Filament
solidification is induced by blowing the filaments  with cold air at the top of
the spin cell.   The filaments are then led down  the spin cell through a fiber
finishing application,  from which they are gathered into tow, hauled off and
coiled into spinning cans.   The post-spinning  processes,  steps 14 through 24
in Figure 5.19-7,  usually take up more time and  space  and may be located far
from the spinning machines.   Depending on the  desired  product, post-spinning
operations  vary but may include lubrication, drawing,  crimping, heat setting,
and stapling.
UtttfejiJtf
                             J2_
                                        14
                                                       18
     1  Chips
     2  Oryar
     3  Extrudw
     4  Or direct spinning, spinning manifold
     5  Filtration
         • Splnnertt
         7 Conventional haul-off
         8 Blowing air
         9 Spinning Mutt, solidification
         10 Finish appHeatlon
         11 Tow
         12 Haul-off unit
         13 Flora can
14 Can end
IS Finish
16 Drawing
17 Holing lone

II SrCng
20 Tow
21 Stapling (salting)
                                                                      24
22 Flocks
23 Bafeprass
24 Carton filling
                     Figure 5.19-7.  Polyester production.

     Emissions And Controls - Air pollutant  emissions  from polyester fiber
production include polymer dust from drying  operations,  volatilized residual
monomer, fiber lubricants (in the form of fume or oil  smoke),  and the burned
polymer and combustion products from cleaning the spinning equipment.
Relative to the  solvent spinning processes,  the melt spinning  of polyester
fibers does not  generate significant amounts of volatilized monomer or
polymer, so emission control  measures typically are not  used in the spinning
area.  Finish oils that are applied in polyester fiber spinning operations are
usually recovered  and recirculated.  When applied, finish oils are vaporized
in the spin cell to some extent and, in some instances,  are vented to either
demisters, which remove some  of the oils, or catalytic incinerators, which
oxidize significant quantities of volatile hydrocarbons.   Small amounts of
finish oils are  vaporized in  the post-spinning process.   Vapors from hot draw
operations are typically controlled by such  devices as electrostatic
precipitators.   Emissions from most other steps are not  controlled.

     Acrylic And Modacrylic Fiber Process Description^>18-24,53 _ Acry^ic ancj
modacrylic fibers  are based on acrylonitrile monomer,  which is derived from
propylene and ammonia.   Acrylics are defined as those  fibers that are composed
of at least 85 percent acrylonitrile.  Modacrylics are defined as those fibers
that are composed  of between  35 and 85 percent acrylonitrile.   The remaining
composition of the fiber typically includes  at least one of the following -
methyl methacrylate,  methyl acrylate, vinyl  acetate, vinyl chloride, or
vinylidene chloride.   Polyacrylonitrile fiber polymers are produced by the
5.19-12
            EMISSION FACTORS
                              9/90

-------
 industry using  two  methods,  suspension  polymerization and  solution
 polymerization.   Either  batch or  continuous  reaction modes may be  employed.

     As shown in  Figures 5.19-8 and  5.19-9,  the  polymer  is dissolved in a
 suitable solvent, such as dimethylformamide  or dimethylacetamide.   Additives
 and delusterants  are added,  and the  solution is  usually  filtered in plate and
 frame presses.  The solution is then pumped  through  a manifold to  the
 spinnerets  (usually a  bank of 30  to  50  per machine).   At this  point in  the
 process, either wet or dry spinning  may be used  to form  the acrylic fibers.
 The spinnerets are  in  a  spinning  bath for wet spun fiber,  or at the top of an
 enclosed column for dry  spinning.  The  wet spun  filaments  are  pulled from the
 bath on takeup wheels, then  washed to remove more solvent.   After  washing, the
 filaments are gathered into  a. tow band, stretched to improve strength,  dried,
 crimped, heat set,  and then  cut into staple. The dry spun  filaments are
 gathered into a tow band,  stretched, dried,  crimped,  and cut into  staple.

     Emissions And  Controls  - Air pollutant  emissions from the production of
 acrylic and modacrylic fibers include emissions  or acrylonitrile (volatilized
 residual monomer),  solvents,  additives, and  other organics  used in fiber
 processing.  As shown  in Figures  5.19-8 and  5.19-9,  both the wet and the dry
 spinning processes  have  many emission points.  The major emission  areas for
 the wet spin fiber  process are the spinning  and washing  steps.  The major
 emission areas from dry  spinning  of  acrylic  and modacrylic  fibers  are the
 spinning and post-spinning areas, up through and including  drying.   Solvent
 recovery in dry-spinning of  modacrylic  fibers is also a  major  emission  point.

     The most cost-effective method  for reducing solvent VOC emissions  from
 both wet and dry  spinning  processes  is  a solvent recovery  system.   In wet
 spinning processes, distillation  is  used to  recover  and  recycle solvent from
 the solvent/water stream that circulates through the  spinning, washing, and
 drawing operations.  In  dry  spinning processes, control  techniques  include
 scrubbers,   condensers, and carbon adsorption. Scrubbers  and  condensers  are
 used to recover solvent  emissions from  the spinning  cells and  the dryers.
 Carbon adsorption is used  to recover solvent emissions from  storage  tank vents
 and from mixing and filtering operations.  Distillation  columns are  also used
 in dry spinning processes  to recover solvent from the condenser, scrubber,  and
 wash water  (from  the washing operation).

     Nylon  Fiber  6  and 66  Process Description-"' 17,24-27  _ jvjyion 5 polymer is
 produced from caprolactam.   Caprolactam is derived most  commonly from
 cyclohexanone,  which in  turn comes from either phenol or cyclohexane.  About
 70 percent  of all nylon  6  polymer is produced by continuous  polymerization.
 Nylon 66 polymer  is made from adipic acid and hexamethylene  diamine, which
 react to form hexamethylene  diamonium adipate (AH salt).   The  salt  is then
washed in a methyl  alcohol bath.  Polymerization then takes  place under heat
and pressure in a batch process.   The fiber spinning and processing procedures
are the same as described  earlier in the description  of melt spinning.

     Emissions  And  Controls  - The major air pollutant emissions from
production of nylon 6 fibers are volatilized monomer  (caprolactam)  and oil
vapors or mists.  Caprolactam emissions may occur at the  spinning step,
because the polymerization reaction is reversible and exothermic,  and the heat
of extrusion causes  the polymer to revert partially to the  monomer  form. A
monomer recovery system is used on caprolactam volatilized  at the spinneret


9/90                       Chemical Process Industry                    5.19-13

-------
                                                                 \ VOC EMISSIONS
                            HUE UP
                            SO. KIT
                   Figure 5.19-8.   Acrylic fiber wet spinning.
                                                 RECOVERED SOLVENT
                                         	t:	-4	vr	
      i   VOC EMISSIONS
era

PIDDLING
 BOX
                   Figure 5.19-9.   Acrylic fiber  dry spinning.
5.19-14
        EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
                                         rUTMTIOK
                 POLrHER
                  CHIPS
                      Figure 5.19-10. Nylon production.

during nylon 6 fiber formation. Monomer recovery systems are not used  in nylon
66 (polyhexamethylene adipamide) spinning operations, since nylon  66 does not
contain a significant amount of residual monomer.  Emissions, though small,
are in some instances controlled by catalytic incinerators.  The finish oils,
plasticizers and lubricants applied to both nylon 6 and 66 fibers  during the
spinning process are vaporized during post-spinning processes and, in  some
instances, such as the hot drawing of nylon 6, are vented to fabric filters,
scrubbers and/or electrostatic precipitators.

                                         9 S 9ft *^0
     Polyolefin Fiber Process Description ''      - Polyolefin fibers are
molecularly oriented extrusions of highly crystalline olefinic polymers,
predominantly polypropylene.  Melt spinning of polypropylene is the method of
choice because the high degree of polymerization makes wet spinning or
dissolving of the polymer difficult.  The fiber spinning and processing
procedures are generally the same as described earlier for melt spinning.
Polypropylene is also manufactured by the split film process, in which it is
extruded as a film and then stretched and split into flat filaments, or narrow
tapes, that are twisted or wound into a fiber. Some fibers are manufactured as
a combination of nylon and polyolefin polymers, being melted together in a
ratio of about 20 percent nylon 6 and 80 percent polyolefin such as
polypropylene, and being spun from this melt. Polypropylene is processed more
like nylon 6 than nylon 66, because of the lower melting point 203°C (397°F)
for nylon 6 versus 263°C (505°F) for nylon 66.

     Emissions And Controls - Limited information is available on  emissions
from the actual spinning or processing of polyolefin fibers.  The  available
data quantify and describe the emissions from the extruder/pelletizer stage,
the last stage of polymer manufacture,  and from just before the melting of the
polymer for spinning.  VOC content of the dried polymer after extruding and
9/90
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-15

-------
pelletizing was found to be as much as 0.5 weight percent.  Assuming the
content is as high as 0.5 percent and that all this VOC is lost in the
extrusion and processing of the fiber (melting, spinning, drawing, winding,
etc.), there would be 5 pounds of VOC emissions per 1,000 pounds of polyolefin
fiber-.  The VOCs in the dried polymer are hexane, propane and methanol, and
the approximate proportions are 1.6 pounds of hexane,  1.6 pounds of propane
and 1. 8 pounds of methanol.
            ECTIUOER
•(•;
foj






Q

                               WILL
                               DOLLS

^TO^
KoJ












AMCU.ING OVU





r°^i
0

k,



                                                                     70C EMISSIONS
                             ROM
                             DOLLS
nun
DOLLS
                 Figure  5.19-11.  Polyolefin fiber production

     During  processing,  lubricant and finish oils are added to the fiber, and
some of these  additives  are  driven off in the form of aerosols during
processing.  No  specific information has been obtained to describe the oil
aerosol emissions  for polyolefin processing, but certain assumptions may be
made to provide  reasonably accurate values.  Because polyolefins are melt spun
similarly  to other melt  spun fibers (nylon 6, nylon 66,  polyester, etc.), a
fiber  similar  to the polyolefins would exhibit similar emissions.  Processing
temperatures are similar for polyolefins and nylon 6.  Thus, aerosol emission
values for nylon 6 can be assumed valid for polyolefins.
                                                     C *3 1 *3 Q
     Spandex Fiber Manufacturing Process Description13'J 'J-3 - Spandex is a.
generic name for a polyurethane fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is
a long chain of  synthetic polymer comprising of at least 85 percent of a
segmented  polyurethane.   In  between the urethane groups, there are long chains
which  may  be polyglycols, polyesters or polyamides.  Being spun from a
polyurethane (a  rubber-like  material), spandex fibers are elastomeric, that
is,  they  stretch.   Spandex fibers are used  in such stretch fabrics as belts,
foundation garments, surgical stockings, and stocking tops.

      Spandex is  produced by two different  processes  in the United States.
One  process is similar in some respects to  that used for acetate textile yarn,
 in that  the fiber is dry spun, immediately wound onto takeup bobbins, and  then
 twisted  or processed in other ways.  This  process is referred to as dry
 spinning.   The other process, which uses reaction spinning, is substantially
 different  from any other fiber forming process used  by domestic synthetic
 fiber producers.
 5.19-16
                                EMISSION FACTORS
                   9/90

-------
     Spandex Dry  Spun  Process  Description -  This  manufacturing process,  which
is illustrated  in Figure  5.19-12,  is  characterized by use of solution
polymerization  and dry spinning with  an  organic solvent.   Tetrahydrofuran is
the principal raw material.  The  compound's  molecular ring structure is
opened, and the resulting straight chain compound is  polymerized to  give a low
molecular weight  polymer.  This polymer is then treated with an excess of a
di-isocyanate.  The reactant, with any unreacted di-isocyanate,  is next reacted
with some diamine, with monoamine added  as a stabilizer.   This final
polymerization  stage is carried out in dimethylformamide  solution, and then
the spandex is  dry spun from this solution.   Immediately  after spinning,
spandex yarn is wound  onto a bobbin as continuous filament yarn.   This yarn is
later transferred to large spools for shipment or for further processing in
another part of the plant.
                                                 DISTILLATION
                                                           VOC EMISSIONS
                    Figure 5.19-12. Spandex dry spinning.

     Emissions And Controls - The major emissions from the spandex dry
spinning process are volatilized solvent losses, which occur at a number of
points of production.  Solvent emissions occur during filtering of the spin
dope, spinning of the fiber, treatment of the fiber after spinning, and the
solvent recovery process.  The emission points from this process are also
shown in Figure 5.19-12.

     Total emissions from spandex fiber dry spinning are considerably lower
than from other dry spinning processes.  It appears that the single most
influencing factor that accounts for the lower emissions is that, because of
nature of the polymeric material and/or spinning conditions, the amount of
residual solvent in the fiber as it leaves the spin cell is considerably lower
than other dry spun fibers.  This situation may be because of the lower
9/90
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-17

-------
 solvent/polymer ratio that is used in spandex dry spinning.  Less solvent is
-used for each unit of fiber produced, relative to other fibers.  A
 condensation system is used to recover solvent emissions from the spin cell
 exhaust gas. Recovery of solvent emissions from this process is as high as 99
 percent.  Since the residual solvent in the fiber leaving the spin cell is much
 lower than for other fiber types, the potential for economic capture and
 recovery is also much lower.  Therefore, these post-spinning emissions, which
 are small,  are not controlled.

      Spandex Reaction Spun Process Description - In the reaction spun
 process,  a polyol (typically, polyester) is reacted with an excess of
 di-isocynate to form the urethane prepolymer, which is pumped through
 spinnerets at a constant rate into a bath of dilute solution of
 ethylenediamine in toluene.  The ethylenediamine reacts with isocyanate end
 groups on the resin to form long chain cross-linked polyurethane elastomeric
 fiber.   The final cross linking reaction takes place after the fiber has been
 spun.   The fiber is transported from the bath to an oven, where solvent is
 evaporated.  After drying, the fiber is lubricated and is wound on tubes for
 shipment.
              Recovered
                     /Condenser  ~)  <
             Prepolyner
                                                             Filament
                                                             Winding
                                                           t
                                                           ! voc
                                                           i EMISSIONS
                  Figure 5.19-13.  Spandex  reaction  spinning.

      Emissions And Controls - Essentially all air that enters the spinning
 room is  drawn into the hooding that surrounds the process equipment and then
 leads to a carbon adsorption system.  The oven is also vented to the carbon
 adsorber.   The gas streams from the spinning room and oven are combined and
 cooled in a heat exchanger before they enter the activated carbon bed.

      Vinyon Fiber Process Description '    - Vinyon is a copolymer of vinyl
 chloride (88 percent) and vinyl acetate (12 percent).  The polymer is
 dissolved in a ketone (acetone' or methyl ethyl ketone) to make a 23 weight
 percent  spinning solution.  After filtering, the solution is extruded as
 filaments into warm air to evaporate the solvent and to allow its recovery and
 reuse. The spinning process is similar to that of cellulose acetate.  After
 5.19-18
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
spinning, the filaments are stretched to achieve molecular orientation to
impart strength.

     Emissions And Controls - Emissions occur at steps similar to those of
cellulose acetate, at dope preparation and spinning, and as fugitive
emissions, from the spun fiber during processes such as winding and
stretching.  The major source of VOC is the spinning step, where the warm air
stream evaporates the solvent.  This air/solvent stream is sent to either a
scrubber or carbon adsorber for solvent recovery.  Emissions may also occur at
the exhausts from these control device.

     Other Fibers - There are synthetic fibers manufactured on a small volume
scale relative to the commodity fibers. Because of the wide variety of these
fiber manufacturing processes, specific products and processes are not
discussed. Table 5.19-3 lists some of these fibers and the respective
producers.
            TABLE 5.19-3. OTHER SYNTHETIC FIBERS AND THEIR MAKERS
                 Nomex (aramid)

                 Kevlar (aramid)

                 FBI (polybenzimidazole)

                 Kynol (novoloid)

                 Teflon
                                    DuPont

                                    DuPont

                                    Celanese

                                    Carborundum

                                    DuPont
Crimping:



Coagulant:


Continuous
  filament
  yarn:


Cutting:

Delusterant:




9/90
                    GLOSSARY

A process in which waves and angles are set into fibers,
such as acrylic fiber filaments, to help simulate properties
of natural fibers.

A substance, either a salt or an acid, used to precipitate
polymer solids out of emulsions or latexes.
Very long fibers that have been converged to form a
multifiber yarn, typically consisting of 15 to 100 filaments.

Refers to the conversion of tow to staple fiber.

Fiber finishing additives (typically clays or barium sulfate)
used to dull the surfaces of the fibers.
            Chemical Process  Industry
5.19-19

-------
 Dope:
Drawing:
Filament:
           The polymer,  either in molten form or dissolved in solvent,
           that is  spun  into fiber.

           The stretching of the  filaments  in order  to  increase  the
           fiber's  strength;  also makes  the fiber more  supple and
           unshrinkable  (that is,  the  stretch is irreversible).   The
           degree of stretching varies with the  yarn being spun.

           The solidified polymer that has  emerged from a  single  hole or
           orifice  in a  spinneret.
Filament yarn:  (See continuous filament yarn)
Heat setting:
Lubrication:
Spinneret:
Spun yarn:


Staple:



Tow:
Twisting:
           The dimensional  stabilization  of  the  fibers with heat  so
           that  the  fibers  are completely undisturbed by subsequent
           treatments  such  as washing  or  dry cleaning at a lower
           temperature.  To illustrate, heat setting allows a pleat  to be
           retained  in the  fabric, while  helping prevent undesirable
           creases later in the life of the  fabric.

           The application  of oils or  similar substances to the
           fibers in order,  for example,  to  facilitate subsequent
           handling  of the  fibers and  to  provide static suppression.

           A spinneret is used in the  production of all man-made fiber
           whereby liquid is forced through  holes.  Filaments emerging
           from  the  holes are hardened and solidified.  The process  of
           extrusion and hardening is  called spinning.

           Yarn  made from staple fibers that have been twisted or spun
           together  into a  continuous  strand.

           Lengths of  fiber made by cutting  man-made fiber tow into
           short (1- to 6-inch) and usually  uniform lengths, which
           are subsequently twisted into  spun yarn.

           A collection of  many (often thousands) parallel, continuous
           filaments,  without twist, which are grouped together in
           a rope-like form having a diameter of about one-quarter
           inch.

           Giving the  filaments in a yarn a  very slight twist that
           prevents  the fibers from sliding  over each other when pulled,
           thus  increasing  the strength of the yarn.
References for Section 5.19

1.
2.
Man-made Fiber Producer's Base Book. Textile Economics Bureau
Incorporated, New York, NY, 1977.

"Fibers - 540.000", Chemical Economics Handbook. Menlo Park, CA, March
1978.
5.19-20
                          EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
3.   Industrial Process Profiles For Environmental Use - Chapter 11  - The
     Synthetic Fiber Industry. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1310, Aeronautical
     Research Associates of Princeton, Princeton, NJ, November 1976.

4.   R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
     York, NY, 1967.

5.   R. W. Moncrief, Man-made Fibers. Newes-Butterworth, London, 1975.

6.   Guide To Man-made Fibers. Man-made Fiber Producers Association, Inc.
     Washington, DC, 1977.

7.   "Trip Report/Plant Visit To American Enka Company, Lowland, Tennessee",
     Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, January 22, 1980.

8.   "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Avtex Fibers, Inc., Rayon Fiber
     Division, Front Royal, VA", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
     Durham, NC, January 15, 1980.

9.   "Fluidized Recovery System Nabs Carbon Disulfide", Chemical Engineering.
     70181:92-94, April 15, 1963.

10.  Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS, Docket No. A-80-7,
     II-B-3, "Viscose Rayon Fiber Production - Phase I Investigation", U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 25, 1980.

11.  "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Tennessee Eastman Company
     Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing",  Kingsport,  TN, Pacific Environmental
     Services, Inc., Durham, NC, December 13, 1979.

12.  "Report Of The Phase II Plant Visit To Celanese's Celriver Acetate Plant
     In Rock Hill, SC", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, May
     28, 1980.

13.  "Report Of The Phase II Plant Visit To Celanese's Celco Acetate Fiber
     Plant In Narrows, VA", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
     August 11, 1980.

14.  Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS,  Docket No. A-80-7,
     II-I-43, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December
     1979.

15.  E. Welfers, "Process And Machine Technology Of Man-made Fibre
     Production", International Textile Bulletin. World Spinning Edition,
     Schlieren/Zurich, Switzerland,  February 1978.

16.  Written communication from R. B.  Hayden, E.  I. duPont de Nemours and
     Co., Wilmington, DE, to E. L. Bechstein, Pullman,  Inc., Houston, TX,
     November 8, 1978.

17.  Written communication from E. L.  Bechstein,  Pullman,  Inc.,  Houston,  TX,
     to R. M. Glowers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC,  November 17,  1978 .
9/90                      Chemical Process Industry                    5.19-21

-------
18. - "Report Of The Plant Visit To Badische Corporation's Synthetic Fibers
     Plant In Williamsburg, VA", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
     Durham, NC, November 28, 1979.

19.  "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Monsanto Company's Plant In
     Decatur, AL",  Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
     April 1, 1980.

20.  "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To American Cyanamid Company",
     Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, April 11, 1980.

21.  Written communication from G. T. Esry, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co.,
     Wilmington, DE, to D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, July 7, 1978.

22.  "Report Of The Initial Visit To duPont's Acrylic Fiber Plant In
     Waynesboro, VA",  Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
     May 1, 1980.

23.  "Report Of The Phase II Plant Visit To duPont's Acrylic Fiber May Plant
     In Camden, SC", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
     August 8, 1980.

24.  C. N. Click and D. K. Webber, Polymer Industry Ranking By VOC Emission
     Deduction That Would Occur From New Source Performance Standards. EPA
     Contract No. 68-02-2619, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, August 30, 1979.

25.  Written communication from E. L. Bechstein, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX,
     to R. M. Glowers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, November 28, 1978.

26.  Written communication from R. B. Hayden, E. I, duPont de Nemours and
     Co., Wilmington,  DE, to W. Talbert, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, October
     17, 1978.

27.  "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Allied Chemical's Synthetic Fibers
     Division, Chesterfield, VA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
     Durham, NC, November 27, 1979.

28.  Background Information Document -- Polymers And Resins Industry.
     EPA-450/3-83-019a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, January 1984.

29.  H. P. Frank, Polypropylene. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New
     York, NY, 1968.

30.  A. V. Galanti  and C. L. Mantell, Polypropylene - Fibers and Films.
     Plenum Press,  New York, NY, 1965.

31.  D. W. Grumpier, "Trip Report.- Plant Visit To Globe Manufacturing
     Company", D. Grumpier, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, September 16 and 17, 1981.
5.19-22                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
32.  "Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS, Docket No. A-80-7,
     II-I-115, Lycra Reamout Plan," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, May 10, 1979.

33.  "Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS, Docket No. A-80-7,
     II-I-95," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March
     2, 1982.

34.  Written communication from W. K. Mohney, Avtex Fibers, Inc., Meadville,
     PA, to R. Manley, Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC,
     April 14, 1981.

35.  Personal communication from J. H. Cosgrove,  Avtex Fibers, Inc., Front
     Royal, VA, to R. Manley, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham,
     NC, November 29, 1982.

36.  Written communication from T. C. Benning, Jr., American Enka Co.,
     Lowland, TN, to R. A. Zerbonia, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
     Durham, NC, February 12, 1980.

37.  Written communication from R. 0. Goetz, Virginia State Air Pollution
     Control Board, Richmond, VA, to Director, Region II, Virginia State Air
     Pollution Control Board, Richmond, VA, November 22, 1974.

38.  Written communication from H. S. Hall, Avtex Fibers, Inc., Valley Forge,
     PA, to J. R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, December 12, 1980.

39.  Written communication from J. C. Pullen, Celanese Fibers Co., Charlotte,
     NC, to R. A. Zerbonia, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
     July 3, 1980.

40.  Written communication from J. C. Pullen, Celanese Fibers Co., Charlotte,
     NC, to National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     September 8, 1981.

41.  "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Tennessee Eastman Company
     Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing, Kingsport, TN",  Pacific Environmental
     Services, Inc., Durham, NC, December 13, 1979.

42.  Written communication from J. C. Edwards, Tennessee Eastman Co.,
     Kingsport, TN, to R. Zerbonia, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
     Durham, NC, April 28, 1980.

43.  Written communication from C. R. Earnhart, E.I.  duPont de Nemours and
     Co., Camden, SC, to D. W. Grumpier, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 5,  1981.

44.  C. N. Click and D. K. Weber, Emission Process And Control Technology
     Study Of The ABS/SAN. Acrylic Fiber. And NBR Industries. EPA Contract
     No. 68-02-2619, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX,  April 20,  1979.
9/90                       Chemical Process  Industry                    5.19-23

-------
45.  Written communication from D. 0. Moore, Jr., Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX,
     to D. C. Mascone, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, April 18, 1979.

46.  Written communication from W. M. Talbert, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, to
     R.'J. Kucera, Monsanto Textiles Co., Decatur, AL, July 17, 1978.

47.  Written communication from M. 0. Johnson, Badische Corporation,
     Williamsburg, VA, to D. R. Patrick, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1, 1979.

48.  Written communication from J. S. Lick, Badische Corporation,
     Williamsburg, VA, to D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 14, 1980.

49.  P. T. Wallace, "Nylon Fibers", Chemical Economics Handbook. Stanford
     Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA, December 1977.

50.  Written communication from R. Legendre, Globe Manufacturing Co., Fall
     River, MA, to Central Docket Section, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC, August 26, 1981.

51.  Written communication from R. Legendre, Globe Manufacturing Co., Fall
     River, MA, to J. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, June 26, 1980.

52.  Written communication from R. H. Hughes, Avtex Fibers Co., Valley Forge,
     PA, to R. Manley, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
     February 28, 1983.

53.  "Report Of The Phase II Plant Visit, duPont's Acrylic Fiber May Plant In
     Camden, SC", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
     April 29, 1980.
5.19-24                        EMISSION FACTORS  .                         9/90

-------
      Particulate  emissions  from sinter machines  range from 5 to 20 percent of
 the  concentrated  ore  feed.   In product weight, typical emissions are estimated
 at 106.5 kilograms  per  megagram (213  pounds  per  ton)  of lead produced.   This
 value and  other particulate and SC>2 factors  appear in Table 7.6-1.

      Typical  material balances from domestic lead  smelters indicate that about
 15 percent of the sulfur in ore concentrate  fed  to the sinter machine is
 eliminated in the blast furnace.   However, only  half  of this amount,  about 7
 percent of the total  sulfur in the ore is  emitted  as  SC>2.

      The remainder  is captured by the slag.   The concentration of this  SC>2
 stream can vary from  1.4 to 7.2 grams per  cubic  meter (500 to 2500  parts per
 million) by volume, depending  on the  amount  of dilution air injected to
 oxidize the carbon  monoxide and to cool the  stream before  baghouse  particulate
 removal.

      Particulate  emissions  from blast furnaces contain many kinds of material,
 including  a range of lead oxides,  quartz,  limestone,  iron  pyrites,  iron-lime-
 silicate slag, arsenic  and  other metallic  compounds associated with lead ores.
 These  particles readily agglomerate and are  primarily submicron in  size,
 difficult  to  wet, and cohesive.   They will bridge  and arch in hoppers.   On
 average, this dust  loading  is  quite substantial, as is shown in Table 7.6-1.

     Minor quantities of particulate  are generated by ore  crushing  and
 materials  handling  operations,  and these emission  factors  are also  presented
 in Table 7.6-1.

     TABLE  7.6-1.  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS  FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
Total
Particulate
Process
Ore crushing"
Sintering (updraft)c

Blast furnace

kg/Mg
1.0
106.5

180.5

Ib/ton
2.0
213.0

361.0

Sulfur dioxide
kg/Mg Ib/ton
-
275.0 550.0

22.5 45.0

Lead
kg/Mg Ib/ton
0.15 0.3
87 174
(4.2-170) (8.4-340)
29 59
(8.7-50) (17.5-100)
Dross reverberatory
furnace
Materials
handl ing
10
2
.0
.5
20.
5.
0
0
Neg
Neg
2.4
(1.3-3.5)
4.
(2.6
8
7.0
aOre crushing factors expressed as kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of crushed ore.  All other
 factors are kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of lead product.  Dash = no data.  Neg =
 negligible.
References 2,13.
References 1, 4-6, 11, 14-17, 21-22.
References 1-2, 7, 12, 14, 16-17, 19.
References 2, 11-12, 14, 18,  20.
^-Reference 2.

9/90                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.6-5

-------
     '.Table 7.6-2 and Figure 7.6-2 present size specific emission factors  for
the controlled emissions from a primary lead blast furnace.   No other size
distribution data can be located for point sources within a  primary lead pro-
cessing plant.  Lacking definitive data, size distributions  for uncontrolled
assuming that the uncontrolled size distributions for the sinter machine and
blast furnace are the same as for fugitive emissions from these sources.

      Tables 7.6-3 through 7.6-7 and Figures 7.6-3 through 7.6-7 present size
specific emission factors for the fugitive emissions generated at a primary lead
processing plant.  The size distribution of fugitive emissions at a primary lead
processing plant is fairly uniform, with approximately 79 percent of these
emissions at less than 2.5 micrometers.  Fugitive emissions  less than 0.625
micrometers in size make up approximately half of all fugitive emissions,  except
from the sinter machine, where they constitute about 73 percent.

      Emission factors for total fugitive particulate from primary lead smelting
processes are presented in Table 7.6-8.  The factors are based on a combination
of engineering estimates, test data from plants currently operating, and test
data from plants no longer operating.  The values should be  used with caution,
because of the reported difficulty in accurately measuring the source emission
rates.

      Emission controls on lead smelter operations are for particulate and
sulfur dioxide.  The most commonly employed high efficiency  particulate control
devices are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP), which often
follow centrifugal collectors and tubular coolers (pseudogravity collectors).

     Three of the six lead smelters presently operating in the United States use
single absorption sulfuric acid plants to control S02 emissions from sinter
machines and, occasionally, from blast furnaces.  Single stage plants can
attain sulfur oxide levels of 5.7 grams per cubic meter (2000 parts per mill-
ion), and dual stage plants can attain levels of 1.6 grams per cubic meter (550
parts per million).  Typical efficiencies of dual stage sulfuric acid plants in
removing sulfur oxides can exceed 99 percent.  Other technically feasible  S02
control methods are elemental sulfur recovery plants and dimethylaniline (DMA)
and ammonia absorption processes.  These methods and their representative
control efficiencies are given in Table 7.6-9.
7.6-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
References For Section 7.10

 1.   Supimary Of Factors Affecting Compliance By Ferrous Foundries. Volume I:
     Text. EPA-340/1-80-020, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, January 1981.

 2.   Air Pollution Aspects Of The Iron Foundry Industry. APTD-0806, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February
     1971.

 3.   Systems Analysis Of Emissions And Emission Control In The Iron Foundry
     Industry. Volume II:  Exhibits. APTD-0645, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1971.

 4.   J. A. Davis, et al.. Screening Study On Cupolas And Electric Furnaces In
     Gray Iron Foundries. EPA Contract No. 68-01-0611, Battelle Laboratories,
     Columbus, OH, August 1975.

 5.   R. W. Hein, et al.. Principles Of Metal Casting. McGraw-Hill, New York,
     1967.

 6.   P. Fennelly and P. Spawn, Air Pollution Control Techniques For Electric
     Arc Furnaces In The Iron And Steel Foundry Industry. EPA-450/2-78-024,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June
     1978.

 7.   R. D. Chmielewski and S. Galvert, Flux Force/Condensation Scrubbing For
     Collecting Fine Particulate From Iron Melting Cupola. EPA-600/7-81-148,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     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.   Particulate Emission Test Report On A Gray Iron Cupola At Cherryville
     Foundry Works. Cherryville. NC. State Department Of Environmental Health
     And Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, December 18, 1975.

10.   J. W. Davis and A. B. Draper, Statistical Analysis Of The Operating
     Parameters Which Affect Cupola Emissions. DOE Contract No. EY-76-5-02-
     2840.*000, Center For Air Environment Studies, Pennsylvania State
     University, University Park, PA, December 1977.

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.
9/90                        Metallurgical Industry                     7.10-19

-------
13.  Particulate 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.  Particulate Emission Test Report For A Scrubber Stack For A Gray Iron
     Cupola At Dewey Brothers. Goldsboro. NC. State Department Of
     Environmental Health And Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, April 7, 1978.

17.  Stack Test Report. Worthington Corp. Cupola. State Department Of
     Environmental Conservation, Region IX, Albany, NY, November 4-5, 1976.

18.  Stack Test Report. Dresser Clark Cupola Wet Scrubber. Orlean. NY. State
     Department Of-Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, July 14 & 18,
     1977.

19.  Stack Test Report. Chevrolet Tonawanda Metal Casting. Plant Cupola #3
     And Cupola #4. Tonawanda. NY. State Department Of Environmental
     Conservation, Albany, NY, August 1977.

20.  Stack Analysis For Particulate Emission. Atlantic States Cast Iron
     Foundry/Scrubber.  State Department Of Environmental Protection, Trenton,
     NJ, September 1980.

21.  S. Calvert, et al.. Fine Particle Scrubber Performance. EPA-650/2-74-
     093, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October
     1974.

22.  S. Calvert, e_t 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, Wilmington, MA, July 1974.

25.  S. Gronberg, Characterization Of Inhalable Particulate 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.  Particulate 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,
7.10-20                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
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 Environmental Health  And
     Natural Resources, 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 Particulate 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 Particulate Emissions:
     Source Category Report.  EPA-600/7-86-054, U.  S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Cincinnati,  OH,  December 1986.
9/90                        Metallurgical Industry                     7.10-21

-------
9.5.1  Meat Packing Plants

9.5.1.1 General1'2

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

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

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

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

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

       In some plants, electrical stimulation (ES) is applied to the carcasses to improve lean color, firmness,
texture, and marbling score; to improve bleeding of carcasses; and to make removal of the hides easier.
Electrical stimulation also permits rapid chilling by hastening the onset of rigor before temperatures drop to
the cold shortening range. If muscles reach temperatures below 15° to 16°C (59° to 61 °F) before they have
attained rigor, a contraction known as cold shortening occurs, which results in much less tender meat. In
some cases ES is applied to control the fall of pH value.  Meat with a low pH value will be pale, soft, and
exudative (PSE meat). Meat with a high pH value may be dark, firm, and dry (DFD meat). It has been
claimed that ES enhances tenderness, primarily through the hastening of the onset of rigor and prevention of
cold shortening.  Both high-voltage (>500 volts) and low-voltage (30 to 90 volts) ES systems can be used.
6/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.5.1-1

-------
                                                                         VOC EMISSIONS
                                                                          PM EMISSIONS
                            BLOOD
                                          IMMOBILIZING
                                             AND
                                         EXSANGUINATKDN
                                                           PORK ONLY
                                      SCALDING OR
                                       SINGEING
                                                                                                    i
9.5.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
6/97

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


6/97                               Food And  Agricultural Industry                             9.5.1-5

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

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

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

9.5.1.3  Emissions And Controls

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

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

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

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

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

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


9.5.1-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  6/97

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

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

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

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

References for Section 9.5.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
9.6.1  Natural And Processed Cheese

9.6.1.1  General1'3

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

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

9.6.1.2  Process Description4"9

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

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

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

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

-------














IX
1
i
3
^
u
C/3
W
X
O
1
o
w
nj
u
^
pj
CD
u
y
s^l
w
PL,
U,
S
i
vo'
ON
U
J3
H



















T3
O
•c
Ripening Pe

eo
c
x»
0^
00
c
T5


o



s?
•5
I
r"§
5jS
•c S


Ig,
*"" 0
I?
8
^

vp
03
3
3*0
0 1

rcr
u
•c 50
cu <
_c
Type of C

>%
==
3
en
3
en
1

(A
g"
H
g
;s
o

o
B
en
T3
3
C
t-H

O
u-i
^


vi





e
S
T3



g
f^T
s




y^-S

'g
O
C-

C
I

o
s








>
a
HH
§

en
I surface weight














































oo
4
1
•c
1^
ll
^
^
u
•c


5





c
'2
•o
1


i^
VO






C
g
»N

B
1

O
(§












CO
1
en
In molds, no
surface weight

ft
~,
%


r—t








CL,
a


if
r^
(S




/^S
_c
g
VI

B
1
tt
Camembe

>i
^
3
en
3 _
cn 0
0 ?
XO
tA &
E "S
3 i-
.£<2
60 days min
12 or longer
en
Horizontal
hydraulic pres

>f\
~,
&•
Q


CN





C
•g
•o
1


f
1— 1
oo
p;





G
§

-------
           MILK PREPARATION
            (HOMEGENIZING,
             PASTEURIZING)
             COAGULATING
                 I
                 i
              PRESSING
                                         voc
CURD TREATMENT
1
CURD DRAINING
1
CURD KNITTING
1
SALTING

WHEY



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

                                                                 A, POSSIBLE VOC

RIPENING
I
4
f

PACKAGING




^ GRINDING,
GRATING OR


i
i

PM



^^
^






CHEESE

DRYER
(3-02-030-20)
t
*
DRIED
CHEESE
PRODUCTS
                                                                                 •PM, POSSIBLE VOC
                              Figure 9.6. 1-1. Natural cheese manufacture.
                              (Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
7/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
                                                                                             9.6.1-3

-------
Curd Treatment -
        After the curd is formed, it is cut into small pieces to speed whey expulsion and increase the surface
area. The curd particles are cut into various sizes, depending on the variety of cheese being made. Cutting
the curd into small cubes reduces the moisture content of the curd, whereas creating larger cubes increases the
moisture content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


9.6.1-4                                 EMISSION FACTORS                                   7/97

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The molten cheese is removed quickly from the cookers and is  pumped or dropped into packaging
hoppers. The cheese is packaged in the absence of oxygen to inhibit the growth of mold.  The cheese is
usually wrapped in lacquered aluminum foil or in aluminum foil-lined cardboard or plastic boxes. For sliced
processed cheese, the molten  cheese is spread uniformly by chilled steel rollers and cut by rotary knives to
consumer size.
7/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.6.1-5

-------
Processed Cheese Foods -
        Other processed cheeses that are similar to the above in manufacturing are also commonly produced.
For example, to produce pasteurized process cheese food, one or more of the following optional dairy
ingredients are added: cream, milk, skim milk, buttermilk, and/or cheese whey. The result is a processed
cheese food that is higher in moisture and lower in fat than pasteurized process cheese.  After heating,
processed cheese intended for spreading undergoes a creaming step, which includes mechanical kneading of
the hot cheese and addition of various dairy products and other additives.  Other processed cheese products
include cold-packed cheese, cold-packed cheese food, and reduced fat cheeses. All processed cheeses may be
enhanced with  salt, artificial colorings, spices or flavorings, fruits, vegetables, and meats.

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

9.6.1.3  Emissions And  Controls

        Particulate emissions from cheese manufacture occur during cheese or whey drying, and may occur
when the cheese is grated or ground before drying. CO2 emissions from direct-fired dryers are primarily from
the combustion of fuel, natural gas. Cheese dryers are used in the manufacture of grated or powdered
cheeses. Whey dryers are used in some facilities to dry the whey after it has been separated from the curd
following coagulation.  VOC emissions may occur in the coagulation and/or ripening stages.  Particulate
emissions from cheese and whey dryers are controlled by wet scrubbers, cyclones, or fabric filters. Cyclones
are also  used for product recovery. Emission factors for cheese drying and whey drying in natural and
processed cheese manufacture are shown in Table 9.6.1-2.
              Table 9.6.1-2. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR NATURAL AND
                              PROCESSED CHEESE MANUFACTURE8
Source
Cheese dryer
(SCC 3-02-030-20)
Whey dryer
(SCC 3-02-030-10)
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensible inorganic PM
Condensible organic PM
Filterable PM
Condensible PM
Average emission factor1"
Ib/ton
2.5
0.29
0.44
1.24
0.31
Rating
D
D
D
D
D
Ref.
1,2,3
2,3
1,2,3
4,6,7
4,6,7
 a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of dry product. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. SCC = Source
   Classification Code.
   Emission factors for cheese dryers represent average values for controlled emissions based on wet scrubbers or
   venturi scrubbers.  Factors for whey dryers are average values for controlled emissions based on cyclones, wet
   scrubbers, or fabric filters.
9.6.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
7/97

-------
References For Section 9.6.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
 9.9.6 Bread Baking

    USEPA Recommendation for Estimating VOC Emissions from Bread Bakeries

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

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

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

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

-------
9.10.1.1  Cane Sugar Processing

9.10.1.1.1  General1'3

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

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

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

9.10.1.1.2  Emissions2'3

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

References For Section 9.10.1.1

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

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

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

-------
9.10.1.2  Sugarbeet Processing

9.10.1.2.1 General1'2

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

9.10.1.2.2 Process Description1'4

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

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

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

-------

(f)
0
V)
v>
lit
S
a.
0
O
w
OT
§
w
o
UJ
3
0
G

5
a!
w
w
HI
o
o
a:
a.
)!



§
u_
a:
<
A
i
                                                                                         OH


                                                                                         00
                                                                                         O

                                                                                         s
                                                                                         a,
                                                                                         s_
                                                                                         to
                                                                                         DO

                                                                                         to
                                                                                         o

                                                                                        •-B
                                                                                         tO
                                                                                         u,
                                                                                         a> '
                                                                                         CX

                                                                                         0

                                                                                        T3 tO

                                                                                         O OH
                                                                                           -
                                                                                        £ o
                                                                                         O c

                                                                                         o o
                                                                                         to *3
                                                                                         O) tO
                                                                                         > o
                                                                                         ooO

                                                                                         .S 
-------
                                                                             00
                                                                             
3/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.10.1.2-3

-------
        In the juice purification stage, non-sucrose impurities in the raw juice are removed so that the pure
sucrose can be crystallized.  First, the juice passes through screens to remove any small cossette particles.
Then the mixture is heated to 80° to 85°C (176° to 185°F) and proceeds to the first carbonation tank.  In
some processes, the juice  from the screen passes through a pre-limer, heater, and main limer prior to the
first carbonation tank.  In  the first carbonation tank, milk of lime [Ca(OH)2] is added to the mixture to
adsorb or adhere to the impurities in the mixture, and carbon dioxide (CO2) gas is bubbled through the
mixture to precipitate the lime as insoluble calcium carbonate crystals.  Lime kilns are used to produce the
C02 and lime used in carbonation; the lime is converted to milk of lime in a lime slaker.  The small,
insoluble crystals (produced during carbonation)  settle out in a clarifier, after which  the juice is again
treated with CO2 (in the second carbonation tank) to remove the remaining lime and impurities.  The pH
of the juice is lower during this second carbonation, causing large,  easily filterable, calcium carbonate
crystals to form.  After filtration, a small amount of sulfur dioxide  (S02) is added to the juice to inhibit
reactions that lead to darkening of the juice.  Most facilities purchase S02 as a liquid but a few facilities
produce S02  by burning elemental sulfur in a sulfur stove. Following the addition of S02, the juice
(known as thin juice) proceeds to the evaporators.

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

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

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

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


9.10.1.2-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                   3/97

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

9.10.1.2.3 Emissions And Controlsl • 3~4

        Particulate matter (PM), combustion products, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the
primary pollutants emitted from the sugarbeet processing industry. The pulp dryers, sugar granulators and
coolers, sugar conveying and sacking equipment, lime kilns and handling equipment, carbonation tanks,
sulfur stoves, evaporators, and boilers, as well as several fugitive sources are potential emission sources.
Potential emissions from boilers are addressed in AP-42 Sections 1.1 through 1.4 (Combustion) and those
from lime kilns are addressed in AP-42 Section  11.17, Lime Manufacturing. Potential sources of PM
emissions include the pulp dryer, sugar granulators and coolers, sugar conveying and sacking equipment,
sulfur stove,  and fugitive sources.  Fugitive sources include unpaved roads, coal handling, and pulp
loading operations.  Although most facilities purchase S02, a few facilities still use sulfur stoves.  The
sulfur stove is a  potential source of S02 emissions, and the pulp dryers may be a potential source of
nitrogen oxides (NOX), S02, CO2, carbon monoxide (CO), and VOC.  Evaporators may be a potential
source of C02, ammonia (NH^, S02, and VOC emissions from the juice.  However, only the first three
of five evaporators (in a typical five-stage system)  release exhaust gases, and the gases are  used as a heat
source for various process heaters before release to the atmosphere.  Emissions from carbonation tanks are
primarily water vapor but contain small quantities of NH3, VOC,  and may also include CO2 and other
combustion gases from the lime kiln.  There are no emission test data available for ammonia emissions
from carbonation tanks.

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

        Table 9.10.1.2-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM, PM-10, and condensible PM
emissions from sugarbeet processing operations. Table 9.10.1.2-2 presents emission factors for volatile
organic  compounds (VOC), methane, NOX, S02, CO, and C02 emissions from sugarbeet processing
operations, and Tables 9.10.1.2-3 and 9.10.1.2-4 present emission factors for organic pollutants emitted
from coal-fired dryers, carbonation tanks, and first evaporators.
3/97                              Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.10.1.2-5

-------
 2
 O
 I— H
 E-



(X
S""
OJ
T3
O
O





(X
f°
s
fe


202
co E— p- •
°2 O H
1
5 
o
Multicloneh
^L
"O
ex
!i
P
2


P
en
o
Wet scrubber



oo
l_J PnO
CD
f|
"2 CO
C j
g £2-
O




1
\
1
13
2
CO
9
CO
u
fe2-

P
*


CJ

^^
 t/5 rfi CJ VJ > c/} K*^ W5 I-M 4_4 4-. <-(



LO y i— ' — ' CD
LO S CD CO ~-
CD Qfl CD CD CO
O -S S O 0
|g | g £g |S te
igu felo !3o ^o °
MJCO. S>S52.~52.«S2- §3
CO CO CO (X 00











; — ,
"?
CD
O
CM
0
u
CO,

 W
 !X
 O

 o
 W
 O
 O
 &
 CL,


 W
 w
 CQ
 O
 D
 O
 fc
 oo
 &
 O
 E-
 O
 O
 (— H
 OO
 oo
 ex
 w
 5
 D
 O
 I— I
 CU
 CD

  O)
9-10.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97

-------
§
o

oi
jo
 CO
OO t— ' "
S ^ ^
1
H
2 §°S

DH ^ O f~I
<1) 5 *£ S
^ fT1

S
•§ .a
O M
o S
c5


lo^
g^g
S< <
U5«
o
1
1
log
c^UP
S^K
U^

o
§ i
gj
2 2 rV
GJ O K ^
^3 ^ ^ 2
UH ^ E""1 r~!
S <; r o
HO







0)
§
O
c/)


Q
Z







Q




p




Q








1


cu
c
o
Z



CNJ
CD
O
CN)
O
fe ^
N CJ
'•go
aj£.
cu
OH

0
•o
OJ
o
CO
1
o
'co
.22
S
cu
T3
*O
C
O
(J •
3 «
*j -O
S 2
IT
fli rf— *
£ P
•2 oj
^3
11
C U
ll
3 0
fc S
T3 O

•S II
-.
•^ C )
OnO
"3 00
OH
^ C3
^^3 ^*>
cu -Q
8 -^
c
2 oo



§ -^
•a c
§ 2
2 ^
CO S ^
r i . Q
t, cu
G <*-" 0
•i s I
"^ ^ C^H
G o f
w 8 os

« J3




































cn" CM
t— " 2
1 — ' .^
rt. CD '"I
t~- •— i CO
CO CO CO
CU CU CU
o o o
§ g g
S_ t-i t-,
'f1! 'M 'M
cu cu cu
o< os os

O T3 O)




































CU
o
g
t-,

cu
os



CO
rt
t-.
J2
CP
o>
fe
T3
1o
00
fc
D-
o
CO
s
Q^
t/>
?**>
c/>
1

. recircula
£
00
O>
.a
3
CO
o>
%
CO

cu
•s
o
•s
o

CO
CM CM
CM T1
• CM CO
CO CO
cu cu cu
o o o
c c c
cu cu cu

CU CD CU
OS OS OS
GO 43 .— ,
O
CO
T3
CO
-o
"3
O
O
§
•o
T3
c
co
cu
c
"o
^>
..^
"8
1
c
8
co
i-,
cu
^>
•o
G
o
cfa
CO
td
-o
OH
O
CO
&
o
cu
3
'co
cu
-o

o
o
CO
cu
-a
J3
"o
i— i •
m c
CM . o
2 . ~ «
i CD CO* .S
1—1 ' ' ,jQ '
^•H *^J* ^J* ^H "S"*"
S — '
CO CO CO >?
cu a) cu x cu
o o o ° o
g g g £ g
cu cu cu 0 cu

cu cu cu y cu
os os os fros
^ E c a.

















CO
•s
:3 *J <-;
033
5ft
•S o o
5 CO CO
ts spsp
•a « ^
Q^ C«_t C4_!
co O O
3 G C
co O O
S < <
D , O _O
CO
^ H !3
1 .-S .-S
§c
„ 3
'fr3 2
CO o O
co c£2 JS
co
00 G G
_ _0 _0


• - s s
S w w
tSooo
co ^ -
cu cu cu
CJ O O
c c c
cu cu cu
(-,!_,!_

cu cu cu
OS OH OS
cr1 u to
    3/97
Food and Agricultural Industry
9.10.1-7

-------
       Table 9.10.1.2-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR VOC, METHANE, AND INORGANIC
         POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM SUGARBEET PROCESSING OPERATIONS3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Coal-fired pulp dryerc
(SCC 3-02-016-01)
Natural gas-fired pulp dryerc
(SCC 3-02-0 16-08)
Fuel oil-fired pulp dryerc
(SCC 3-02-0 16-05)
First evaporator
(SCC 3-02-016-41)
Sulfur stove
(SCC 3-02-01 6-31)
First carbonation tank
(SCC 3-02-0 16-21)
Second carbonation tank
(SCC 3-02-016-22)
Ib/ton
vocb
1.2d
ND
0.1 lJ
ND
ND

ND

ND

Methane
ND
ND
0.028)
ND
ND

ND

ND

NOY
0.66e
ND
0.60J
ND
ND

ND

ND

S09
0.79f
ND
1.0k
ND
ND

ND

ND

CO
2.3d
ND
l.Oi
ND
ND

ND

ND

C09
3708
156h
430m
ND
ND

ND

ND

a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of pressed wet pulp to the dryer, unless noted. Factors represent
  uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Volatile organic compounds as methane.
c Data for pulp dryers equipped with cyclones, multiclones, wet scrubbers, or a combination of these
  control technologies are averaged together because these control technologies are not specifically
  designed to control VOC, methane, NOX, S02, CO, or C02 emissions.
d Reference 19.
e References 16,19.
f References 7,19.
8 References 7,13,16-17,19,21. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B.
h References 8-12,22-23,25. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C.
J Reference 4.
k References 14-15.
m References 4-6,14,24. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
9.10.1.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97

-------
       Table 9.10.1.2-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
                                 FROM PULP DRYERS3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Coal-fired pulp dryer with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-02-0 16-01)



















Pollutant
CASRN
75-07-0
107-02-8
123-73-9
50-00-0
91-57-6
88-75-5
95-48-7
105-67-9
106-44-5
100-02-7
208-96-8
100-52-7
65-85-0
100-51-6
117-81-7
84-74-2
132-64-9
84-66-2
91-20-3
98-95-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
Name
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2-methylnaphthalene
2-nitrophenol
2-methylphenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4-methylphenol
4-nitrophenol
Acenaphthylene
Benzaldehyde
Benzoic acid
Ben2yl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Emission
Factor,
Ib/ton
0.015
0.0076
0.0020
0.0071
1.7xlO-5
0.00018
3.4xlO-5
2.5xlO-5
0.00013
0.00014
1.7xlO-6
0.0014
0.0028
7.1xlO-5
0.0015
5.2xlO-5
LlxlO'5
9.8xlQ-6
0.00011
1.9xlO-5
1.2X10'5
0.00032
a Reference 3.  Emission factor units are Ib/ton of pressed wet pulp to the dryer.  To convert from Ib/ton
 to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.  SCC = Source Classification Code. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service
 Registry Number.
3/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.10.1.2-9

-------
       Table 9.10.1.2-4.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
                  FROM CARBONATION TANKS AND EVAPORATORS3
Source
First carbonation tankb
(SCC 3-02-016-21)









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


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















Pollutant
CASRN
91-57-6
51-28-5
106-44-5
83-32-9
100-52-7
65-85-0
100-51-6
117-81-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
75-07-0
107-02-8
123-73-9
50-00-0
75-07-0
107-02-8
123-73-9
50-00-0
106-44-5
100-52-7
65-85-0
100-51-6
117-81-7
84-74-2
132-64-9
84-66-2
78-59-1
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
110-86-1
Name
2-methylnaphthalene
2,4-dinitrophenol
4-methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Benzaldehyde
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
4-methylphenol
Benzaldehyde
Benzole acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyridine
Emission Factor,
lb/l,000gal
S.lxlQ-7
ND
6.6xlO-7
ND
LlxlO'4
8.4xlO-6
S.OxlO-6
1.2xlO-5
2.0xlO-6
1.4xlO-6
1.3xlO-6
0.0043
2.4xlO'4
3.0xlO'5
1.6xlO-5
6.7xlQ-5
4.2xlO'7
1.4xlO'7
7.0xlO-7
ND
2.2X10'6
ND
l.SxlO'7
3.7xlO-7
l.lxlO-9
ND
ND
ND
2.5X10'8
1.6xlO-8
1.2xlO-8
3.4xlQ-8
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
a Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry
 Number. ND = no data.
b Emission factor units are Ib per 1,000 gallons of raw juice produced.
c Emission factor units are Ib per 1,000 gallons of thin juice produced.
9.10.1.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9.10.1.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.      .Report On Compliance Testing Performed At Western Sugar Company Pulp Dryer, Scottsbluff, NE,
        Clean Air Engineering,  Palatine, IL, January 12,  1990.
3/97                             Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.10.1.2-11

-------
14.     Emission Measurement Test Report Of C.E. Boilers, Union Boilers, And Pulp Dryers-Permit
       Compliance For SO2, Particulate, AndPM-10 With Back-Half Emissions-Holly Sugar
       Corporation, Montana Division, The Emission Measurement Group, Inc., Englewood, CO,
       November 16, 1993.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
9.12.3  Distilled Spirits

9.12.3.1  General1'2

        The distilled spirits industry includes the production of whisky, gin, vodka, rum, and brandy.  The
production of brandy is discussed in AP-42 Section 9.12.2, "Wines and Brandy".  Distilled spirits
production also may include the production of secondary products such as distillers dried grains used for
livestock feed and other feed/food components.

        Distilled spirits, including grain spirits and neutral spirits, are produced throughout the United
States.1 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) has established "standards of identity"
for distilled spirits products.2

9.12.3.2  Process Description3'4

        Distilled spirits can be produced by a variety of processes.  Typically, in whisky production,
grains are mashed and fermented to produce an alcohol/water solution,  that is distilled to concentrate the
alcohol.  For whiskies, the distilled product is aged to provide flavor, color, and aroma.  This discussion
will be limited to the production of Bourbon whisky.  Figure 9.12.3-1 is a simple diagram of a typical
whisky production process.  Emission data are available only for the fermentation and aging steps of
whisky production.

9.12.3.2.1 Grain Handling And Preparation -
        Distilleries utilize premium cereal grains,  such as hybrid corn,  rye, barley, and wheat, to produce
the various types of whisky and other distilled spirits. Grain is received at a distillery from a grain-
handling facility and is prepared for fermentation by milling or by malting  (soaking the grains  to induce
germination).  All U.S. distillers purchase malted grain instead of performing the malting process onsite.

9.12.3.2.2 Grain Mashing -
        Mashing consists of cooking the grain to solubilize the starch from the kernels and to convert the
soluble starch to grain  sugars with barley  malt and/or enzymes.  Small quantities  of malted barley are
sometimes added prior to grain cooking.  The mash then passes through a noncontact cooler to cool the
converted mash prior to entering the fermenter.

9.12.3.2.3 Fermentation-
        The converted mash enters the fermenter and is inoculated with yeast.  The fermentation  process,
which usually lasts 3 to 5 days for whisky, uses yeast to convert the grain sugars into ethanol and  carbon
dioxide.  Congeners are flavor compounds which are produced during fermentation as well as  during the
barrel aging process.  The final fermented grain alcohol mixture, called "beer", is transferred  to a "beer
well" for holding. From the beer well,  the beer passes through a preheater, where it is warmed by the
alcohol vapors leaving the still, and then to the distillation unit.  The beer still vapors condensed in the
preheater generally are returned to the beer still as reflux.
3/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.12.3-1

-------
                                    Grain Receiving
                                    (Malted Grains)
                  PM Emissions
                                    Grain Handling
                                     (3-02-010-01)
                                        Milling
                                     (3-02-010-05)
                  Barley Malt _
                  or Enzymes
                                    Grain Mashing
                             (Conversion of Starches to Sugars)
                                     (3-02-010-13)
                      Yeast-
                                     Fermentatbn
                             (Conversion of Sugars to Alcohol)
                                     (S02-010-14)
                        Backset Stillage
                  PM Emissions
                          OPTIONAL PROCESS
                                                                    Grain Cleaning
                                                                    (342-010-01)
                                           —*• PM Emissions  |

                 PM Emissions
               —*-VOC Emissions3
                    Ethanol and COj Emissions'"
                                                           Backset Stillage
                                             Whole Stillage
                                      Distillation
                                     (342-010-15)
                                                                 Dryer House Operations
                                                                 (Distillers Dried Grains)
                                                                     G3-02-010-02)
                                                • PM Emissions3
                                                                  VOC Emissions; Noncondensed Off-Gases3
                                  Intermediate Storage
                                  Warehousing/Aging
                                     (342-010-17)
                                  Intermediate Storage
                                    BtenoSng/Botbing
                                     (342-010-18)
                                                                  Ethanol Emissions (Breathing)
                  Ethanol Emissions
                                                                  Ethanol Emissions (Breathing)
             —»• Ethanol Emissions
        Processes require heat. Emissions generated (e.g., CO, (X>2, NOX, SOj, PM, and VOCs) will depend on the source of fuel.
      } Other compounds can be generated in trace quantities during fermentation including ethyl acetate, fusel oil, furfural,
        acetaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. AcetaWehyde is a hazardous air pollutant (HAP).
                                   Figure 9.12.3-1.  Whisky production process.
                                   (Source Classification Codes in parentheses).
9.12.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
3/97

-------
9.12.3.2.4 Distillation -
        The distillation process separates and concentrates the alcohol from the fermented grain mash.
Whisky stills are usually made of copper, especially in the rectifying section, although stainless steel may
be used in some stills.  Following distillation, the distilled alcohol spirits are pumped to stainless steel tanks
and diluted with demineralized water to the desired alcohol concentration prior to filling into oak barrels
and aging. Tennessee whisky utilizes a different process from Bourbon in that the distillate  is passed
through sugar maple charcoal in mellowing vats prior to dilution with demineralized water.

9.12.3.2.5 Grain And Liquid Stillage  ("Dryer House Operations") -
        In most distilleries, after the removal of alcohol, still bottoms (called whole stillage), are pumped
from the distillation column to a dryer house. Whole stillage may be sold,  land applied (with permitting),
sold as liquid feed, or processed and dried to produce distillers dried grains (DDG) and other secondary
products. Solids in the whole stillage are separated using centrifuges or screens; the liquid portion (thin
stillage) may be used as a backset or concentrated by vacuum evaporation.  The concentrated liquid may
be recombined with the solids or dried.  Drying is typically accomplished using either steam-heated or
flash dryers.

9.12.3.2.6 Warehousing/Aging -
        Aging practices differ from distiller to  distiller, and even for the same distiller.  Variations in the
aging process are integral to producing the characteristic taste of a particular brand of distilled spirit.  The
aging process,  which typically ranges from 4 to 8 years or more,  consists of storing the new whisky
distillate in oak barrels to encourage chemical reactions and extractions between the whisky  and the wood.
The constituents of the barrel  produce  the whisky's characteristic color and distinctive flavor and aroma.
White oak is used because it is one  of the few woods that holds liquids while allowing breathing (gas
exchange) through the wood.  Federal  law requires all Bourbon whisky to be aged in charred new white
oak barrels.

        The oak barrels and the barrel environment are key to producing distilled spirits of desired quality.
The new whisky distillate undergoes many types of physical and chemical changes during the aging process
that removes the harshness of the new  distillate. As whisky ages, it extracts and reacts with constituents in
the wood of the barrel, producing certain trace  substances, called congeners, which give whisky its
distinctive color, taste, and aroma.

        Barrel environment is extremely critical in whisky aging and varies considerably by distillery,
warehouse, and even location  in the warehouse. Ambient atmospheric conditions, such as seasonal and
diurnal variations in  temperature and humidity, have a great affect on the aging process, causing changes
in the equilibrium rate of extraction, rate of transfer by diffusion, and rate of reaction. As a result,
distillers may expose the barrels to  atmospheric conditions during certain months, promoting maturation
through the selective opening of windows and doors and by other means.

        Distillers often utilize various warehouse designs, including single- or multistory buildings
constructed of metal, wood, brick,  or masonry. Warehouses generally rely upon  natural ambient
temperature and humidity changes to drive the aging process.  In  a few warehouses, temperature is
adjusted during the winter.  However,  whisky warehouses do not  have the capability to control humidity,
which varies with natural climate conditions.

9.12.3.2.7 Blending/Bottling  -
        Once the whisky has completed its desired aging period, it is transferred from the  barrels into
tanks and reduced in proof to the desired final alcohol concentration by adding demineralized water.
3/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.12.3-3

-------
Following a filtration process that renders it free of any solids, the whisky is pumped to a tank in the
bottling house, bottled, and readied for shipment to the distributors.

9.12.3.3 Emissions And Controls3'6

9.12.3.3.1  Emissions -
        The principal emissions from whisky production are volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
principally  ethanol, and occur primarily during the aging/warehousing stage.  In addition to ethanol, other
volatile compounds,  including acetaldehyde (a HAP), ethyl acetate, glycerol,  fusel oil, and furfural, may
be produced in trace  amounts during aging.  A comparatively small source of ethanol  emissions may result
from the fermentation stage.  Smaller quantities of ethyl acetate, isobutyl alcohol, and isoamyl alcohol are
generated as well; carbon dioxide is also produced during fermentation.  Particulate matter (PM) emissions
are generated by the  grain receiving, handling, drying, and cleaning processes and are discussed in more
detail in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain  Elevators and Processes.  Other emissions, including S02, C02, CO,
NOX, and PM may be generated  by fuel combustion from power production facilities located at most
distilled spirits plant.

        Ethanol and  water vapor emissions result  from the breathing phenomenon of the oak barrels during
the aging process. This phenomenon of wood acting as a semipermeable membrane is complex and not
well understood.  The emissions  from evaporation from the barrel during aging are not constant. During
the first 6 to 18 months, the evaporation rate from a new barrel is low because the wood must become
saturated (known as  "soakage") before evaporation occurs.  After saturation,  the evaporation rate is
greatest, but then decreases as evaporation lowers the liquid level in the barrel.   The lower liquid level
decreases the surface area of the  liquid in contact with the wood and thus reduces the surface area subject
to evaporation.  The  rate of extraction of wood constituents, transfer, and reaction depend upon ambient
conditions, such as temperature and humidity, and the  concentrations of the various whisky constituents.
Higher temperatures increase the rate of extraction,  transfer by diffusion, and reaction. Diurnal and
seasonal temperature changes cause convection currents in the liquid. The rate of diffusion will depend
upon the differences  in concentrations of constituents in the wood, liquid,  and air blanketing  the barrel.
The rates of reaction will increase  or decrease with the concentration of constituents.  The equilibrium
concentrations of the various whisky components depend upon the humidity and air flow around the barrel.

        Minor emissions are generated when the whisky is drained from the barrels for blending and
bottling. Residual whisky remains in the used barrels  both as a surface film ("heel")  and within the wood
("soakage").  For economic reasons, many distillers attempt to recover as much residual whisky as
possible by methods  such as rinsing the barrel with water and vacuuming.  Generally, barrels are refilled
and reentered into the aging process for other distilled spirits at the particular distiller or sealed with a
closure (bung) and shipped offsite for reuse with other distilled spirits. Emissions may also be generated
during blending and  bottle filling, but no data are  available.

9.12.3.3.2  Controls -
        With the  exception of devices for controlling PM emissions, there are very few emission controls
at distilleries.  Grain handling and  processing emissions are controlled through the use of cyclones,
baghouses, and other PM control devices (see AP-42 Section 9.9.1).  There are currently no current
control technologies  for VOC emissions from fermenters because the significant amount of grain solids
that would  be carried out of the fermenters by air  entrainment could quickly render systems, such as
carbon adsorption, inoperable. Add-on air pollution control devices for whisky aging warehouses are not
used because of potential adverse impact on product quality.  Distillers ensure that barrel construction is of
high quality to minimize leakage, thus reducing ethanol emissions.  Ethanol recovery would require the use
9.12.3-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                   3/97

-------
of a collection system to capture gaseous emissions in the warehouse and to process the gases through a
recovery system prior to venting them to the atmosphere.

9.12.3.3.3 Emission Factors -
        Table 9.12.3-1 provides uncontrolled emission factors for emissions of VOCs from fermentation
vats and for emissions of ethanol from aging due to evaporation. Because ethanol is the principal VOC
emission from aging, the ethanol emissions factors are reasonable estimates of VOC emissions for these
processes.  Emission factors for grain receiving, handling, and cleaning may be found in
AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and  Processes.  Emission factors are  unavailable for grain mashing,
distillation, blending/bottling, and spent grain drying. An emission factor for carbon dioxide from
fermentation vats is also unavailable, although carbon dioxide and ethanol are theoretically generated in
equal molecular quantities during the fermentation process.

                 Table 9.12.3-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS3

                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Sourceb
Grain mashing
(SCC 3-02-010-13)
Fermentation vats
(SCC 3-02-010-14)
Distillation
(SCC 3-02-010-15)
Aging
(SCC 3-02-010-17)
Evaporation lossd
Blending/bottling
(SCC 3-02-010-18)
Dryer house operations
(SCC 3-02-010-02)
Ethanol
NA
14. 2C

ND


6.9e
ND
ND
Ethyl acetate
NA
0.046C

ND


ND
ND
ND
Isoamyl
Alcohol
NA
0.013C

ND


ND
ND
ND
Isoburyl
Alcohol
NA
0.004C

ND


ND
ND
ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data
  available.  To convert from Ib to kg, divide by 2.2. NA = not applicable.
b Emission factors for grain receiving, handling, and cleaning processes are available in
  AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.
c Reference 5 (paper).  In units of pounds per 1,000 bushels of grain input.
d Evaporation losses during whisky aging do not include losses due to soakage.
e References 6-7.  In units of Ib/bbl/yr; barrels have a capacity of approximately 53 gallons.

        Recognizing that aging practices may differ from distiller to distiller, and even for different
products of the same distiller, a method may be used to estimate  total ethanol emissions from barrels
during aging.  An ethanol emission factor for aging (total loss emission factor) can be calculated based on
annual emissions per barrel in proof gallons (PG).  The term "proof gallon" refers to a U.S. gallon of
proof spirits, or the alcoholic  equivalent thereof, containing 50 percent of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) by
volume. This calculation method  is derived from the gauging of product and measures the difference in
the amount of product when the barrel was filled and when the barrel was emptied.  Fugitive evaporative
3/97
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.12.3-5

-------
emissions, however, are not the sole difference between these two amounts.  During the aging period,
product soaks into the barrel, test samples are drawn, and other losses (e. g., spillage, leakage) may occur.
Estimates of ethanol loss due to evaporation during aging based only on the gauging of product will
produce an overestimate unless soakage and sampling losses (very small losses) are subtracted. The
emission factor for evaporation loss in Table 9.12.3-1 represents an overestimate because only data for
soakage losses could be calculated; data for other losses were  not available.

References for Section 9.12.3

1.     Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, And Firearms (BATF), "Monthly Statistical Release-Distilled
       Spirits", Department Of The Treasury, Washington, DC, January 1995 through December 1995.

2.      "Standards Of Identity For Distilled Spirits", 27 CFR Part 1, Subpart C, Office Of The Federal
       Register, National Archives And Records Administration, Washington, D.C., April 1, 1996.

3.     Bujake, J. E.,  "Beverage Spirits, Distilled", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology,
       4th.  Ed., Volume No. 4, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.

4.      Cost And Engineering Study Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Whiskey Warehousing,
       EPA-450/2-78-013, Emissions Standards Division, Chemical and Petroleum Branch, Office Of
       Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, April 1978.

5.     Carter, R. V., and B.  Linsky, "Gaseous Emissions From Whiskey Fermentation Units",
       Atmospheric Environment, 8:57-62, January 1974; also a preliminary paper of the same title by
       these authors (undated).

6.     Written communication from R. J. Garcia,  Seagrams  Americas, Louisville,  KY, to T. Lapp,
       Midwest Research  Institute, Gary, NC, March  3, 1997. RTGs versus age for 1993 standards.

7.     Written communication from L. J. Omlie, Distilled Spirits Council Of The United States,
       Washington, D.C., to T. Lapp, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, February 6,  1997.
       Ethanol emissions data from Jim Beam Brands  Co.
9.12.3-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  3/97

-------
9.15 Leather Tanning

9.15.1  General1'4

        Leather tanning is the process of converting raw hides or skins into leather. Hides and skins have the
ability to absorb tannic acid and other chemical substances that prevent them from decaying, make them
resistant to wetting, and keep them supple and durable.  The surface of hides and skins contains the hair and
oil glands and is known as the grain side. The flesh side of the hide or skin is much thicker and softer.  The
three types of hides and skins most often used in leather manufacture are from cattle, sheep, and pigs.

        Tanning is essentially the reaction of collagen fibers in the hide with tannins, chromium, alum, or
other chemical agents. The most common tanning agents used in the U. S. are trivalent chromium and
vegetable tannins extracted from specific tree barks.  Alum, syntans (man-made chemicals), formaldehyde,
glutaraldehyde, and heavy oils are other tanning agents.

        There are approximately 111 leather tanning facilities in the United States. However, not every
facility may perform the entire tanning or finishing process.  Leather tanning and finishing facilities are most
prevalent in the northeast and midwest states; Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin
account for almost half of the facilities.  The number of tanneries in the United States has significantly
decreased in the last 40 years due to the  development of synthetic substitutes for leather, increased leather
imports, and environmental regulation.

9.15.2 Process Description1 ~2-5-6

        Although the title of this section is "Leather Tanning", the entire leathermaking process is considered
here, not just the actual tanning step. "Leather tanning" is a general term for the numerous processing steps
involved in converting animal hides or skins into finished leather. Production of leather by both vegetable
tanning and chrome tanning is described below.  Chrome tanning accounts for approximately 90 percent of U.
S. tanning production. Figure 9.15-1 presents a general flow diagram for the leather tanning and finishing
process.  Trimming, soaking, fleshing, and unhairing, the first steps of the process, are referred to as the
beamhouse operations. Bating, pickling, tanning, wringing, and splitting are referred to as tanyard processes.
Finishing processes include conditioning, staking, dry milling, buffing, spray finishing, and plating.

9.15.2.1  Vegetable Tanning -
        Heavy leathers and sole leathers are produced by the vegetable tanning process, the oldest of any
process in use in the leather tanning industry.  The hides are first trimmed and soaked to remove salt and
other solids and to restore moisture lost during curing.  Following the soaking, the hides are fleshed to remove
the excess tissue, to impart uniform thickness, and to remove muscles or fat adhering to the hide.  Hides are
then dehaired to ensure that the grain is clean and the hair follicles are free of hair roots.  Liming is the most
common method of hair removal, but thermal, oxidative, and chemical methods also exist The normal
procedure for liming is to use a series of pits or drums containing lime liquors (calcium hydroxide) and
sharpening agents.  Following liming, the hides are dehaired by scraping or by machine.  Deliming is then
performed to make the skins receptive to the vegetable tanning. Bating, an enzymatic action for the removal
of unwanted hide components after liming, is performed to impart softness, stretch, and flexibility to the
leather.  Bating and deliming are usually performed together by placing the hides in an aqueous solution of an
ammonium salt and proteolytic
6/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                             9.15-1

-------
                      BEAMHOUSE
                         TANYARD
                 Chrome Tanning
                      RETAN, COLOR,

                        FATLIQUOR
                         FINISHING
                                            [Receiving and Stonng Hides'

                                              ::;;::*":::::.
                                                   Trimming
                                                     .*.
                                              Soaking and Washing
                                  :::*"::.
                                   Fleshing
                                                   Unhamng
                                                    Bating
                                                   Pickling
                                                     _L
                                                 Wringing/Siding
                                                    Spliting
                                            Grain portion!
                                                   Shaving
                                                   Retanning
                                              Bleaching and Colonng
                                                     J_
                                  Fatliquoting
                                (Chrome tanning)
                                                     JL
                                                  Setting Out
                                                    Drying
                                                  Conditioning
                                               Staking, Dry Mining
                                                     31
                                                    Buffing
                                               Finishing and Plating
                                                                             Sulfides. NH3
                                                               Vegetable Tanning
                                                                 Flesh portion
                                                                          »• To split tannery, retanning
                                                                          -*• PM
                                                     	»• Possible VOC
--*• Possible VOC
                                                j	«. Possible PM, VOC, or NH 3
                                                         -*• PM
                                                                       	*• VOC
9.15-2
Figure 9.15-1. General flow diagram for leather tanning and finishing process.



                            EMISSION FACTORS
                                    6/97

-------
enzymes at 27° to 32°C (80° to 90°F). Pickling may also be performed by treating the hide with a brine
solution and sulfiiric acid to adjust the acidity for preservation or tanning.

        In the vegetable tanning process, the concentration of the tanning materials starts out low and is
gradually increased  as the tannage proceeds. It usually takes 3 weeks for the tanning material to penetrate to
the center of the hide.  The skins or hides are then wrung and may be cropped or split; heavy hides may be
retanned and scrubbed. For sole leather, the hides are commonly dipped in vats or drums containing sodium
bicarbonate or sulfuric acid for bleaching and removal of surface tannins.  Materials such as lignosulfate,
com sugar, oils, and specialty chemicals may be added to the leather. The leather is then set out to smooth
and dry and may then undergo further finishing steps.  However, a high percentage of vegetable-tanned
leathers do not undergo retanning, coloring, fatliquoring, or finishing.

        Leather may be dried by any of five common methods. Air drying is the simplest method. The
leather is hung or placed on racks and dried by the natural circulation of air around it. A toggling unit
consists of a number of screens placed in a dryer that has controlled temperature and humidity.  In a pasting
unit, leathers are pasted on large sheets of plate glass, porcelain, or metal and sent through a tunnel dryer with
several controlled temperature and humidity zones, hi vacuum drying, the leather is spread out, grain down,
on a smooth surface to which heat is applied. A vacuum hood is placed over the surface, and a vacuum is
applied to aid in drying the leather.  High-frequency drying involves the use of a high frequency
electromagnetic field to dry the leather.

9.15.2.2  Chrome Tanning -
        Chrome-tanned leather tends to be softer and more pliable than vegetable-tanned leather, has higher
thermal stability, is very stable in water, and takes less time to produce than vegetable-tanned leather.
Almost all leather made from lighter-weight cattle hides and from the skin of sheep, lambs, goats, and pigs is
chrome tanned. The first steps of the process (soaking, fleshing, liming/dehairing, deliming, bating, and
pickling) and the drying/finishing steps are essentially the same as in vegetable tanning. However, in chrome
tanning, the additional processes of retanning, dyeing,  and fatliquoring are usually performed to produce
usable leathers and a preliminary degreasing step may be necessary when using animal skins, such as
sheepskin.

        Chrome tanning in the United States is performed using a one-bath process that is based on the
reaction between the hide and a trivalent chromium salt, usually a basic chromium sulfate. In the typical one-
bath process, the hides are in a pickled state at a pH of 3 or lower, the chrome tanning materials are
introduced, and the pH is raised. Following tanning, the chrome tanned leather is piled down, wrung, and
graded for the  thickness and quality, split into flesh and grain layers, and shaved to the desired thickness.  The
grain leathers from the shaving machine are then separated for retanning, dyeing, and fatliquoring.  Leather
that is not subject to scuffs and scratches can be dyed on the surface only. For other types of leather (i. e.,
shoe leather) the dye must penetrate further into the leather.  Typical dyestuffs are aniline-based compounds
that combine with the skin to form an insoluble compound.

        Fatliquoring is the process of introducing oil into the skin before the leather is  dried to replace the
natural oils lost in beamhouse and lanyard processes. Fatliquoring is usually performed in a drum using an
oil emulsion at temperatures of about 60° to 66°C (140° to 150°F) for 30 to 40 minutes. After fatliquoring,
the leather is wrung, set out, dried, and finished.  The finishing process refers to all the steps that are carried
out after drying.
6/97                               Food And Agricultural Industry                             9.15-3

-------
9.15.2.3 Leather Finishing
       Leathers may be finished in a variety of ways: buffed with fine abrasives to produce a suede finish;
waxed, shellacked, or treated with pigments, dyes, and resins to achieve a smooth, polished surface and the
desired color; or lacquered with urethane for a glossy patent leather. Water-based or solvent-based finishes
may also be applied to the leather. Plating is then used to smooth the surface of the coating materials and
bond them to the grain.  Hides may also be embossed.

9.15.3 Emissions  and Controls2-4-6
       There are  several potential sources of air emissions in the leather tanning and finishing industry.
Emissions of VOC may occur during finishing processes, if organic solvents are used, and during other
processes, such as  fatliquoring and drying. If organic degreasing solvents are used during soaking in suede
leather manufacture, these VOC may also evaporate to the atmosphere. Many tanneries are implementing
water-based coatings to reduce VOC emissions. Control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, are used less
frequently to reduce VOC emissions. Ammonia emissions may occur during some of the wet processing
steps, such as deliming and unhairing, or during drying if ammonia is used to aid dye penetration during
coloring.  Emissions of sulfides may occur during liming/unhairing and subsequent processes. Also, alkaline
sulfides in tannery wastewater can be converted to hydrogen sulfide if the pH is less than 8.0, resulting in
release of this gas. Particulate emissions may occur during shaving, drying, and buffing; they are controlled
by dust collectors or scrubbers.

       Chromium emissions may occur from chromate reduction, handling of basic chromic sulfate powder,
and from the buffing process. No air emissions  of chromium occur during soaking or drying. At plants that
purchase chromic sulfate in powder form, dust containing trivalent chromium may be emitted during storage,
handling, and mixing of the dry chromic sulfate. The buffing operation also releases particulates, which may
contain chromium. Leather tanning facilities, however, have not been viewed as sources of chromium
emissions by the States in which they are located.

References for Section 9.15

1.      K. Bienkiewicz, Physical Chemistry Of Leathermaking, Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL, 1983.

2.      Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines And Standards For The Leather
       Tanning And Finishing Point Source Category, EPA-440/1-82-016, U.  S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November, 1982.

3.      1992 Census Of Manufactures, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Washington,
       DC, April 1995.

4.      Telecon, A. Marshall, Midwest Research Institute, with F. Rutland, Environmental Consultant,
       Leather Industries of America, August 7, 1996.

5.      1996 Membership Directory, Leather Industries of America Inc.

6.      M. T. Roberts and D. Etherington, Bookbinding And The Conservation Of Books, A Dictionary Of
       Descriptive Terminology.

7.      T. C. Thorstensen, Practical Leather Technology, 4th Ed., Krieger Publishing  Co., Malabar, FL,
       1993.
9.15-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                  6/97

-------
        Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Chromium, EPA-450/4-84-007g, U. S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1984.
6/97                             Food And Agricultural Industry                            9.15-5

-------
c
o
5J"« 5
X W
S
B
« •£
C ^ &
J-s ~

si's 5:

*-. e
o o
id u
B ** }?
00 -I
.OTJ
32 -
O •**.
B j?
--N C
CM O
O M
It +~> A
3 i~i
3-rt
"1 1
' £

e
0
4J
*•• A
r«
3
iM M)
o, -^
s
^
b
4J
c
o
o
U-I
V
X
H

Source

o
-* O o m mm m
o m o» a) tt) v
^0 CM o *n *n in in
000 -• -1 -* -<
m CM
O O — •
O O -* CM CM CM CM

o o »n
O O O M? sO %O sO
1 1 1
tn «n «n
ill • • *
»n m *n
l 1 l
r«» r-» f-»
111 2 25

R
O 00 CM -4
1 ' ' 2 * A
III 0 •» — 1
CJN CM in

A .0 ja TJ ^4 ^*
TJ TJ TJ TJ V X «
ii ev a! « f b .0
W CO 10 <0 b 3 —13
0)0)0) OI9b ^ b
4J 4-1 4J 4J C B 0* K B
BBC CO) en 9
330 D > W <
Ji
A
4J b 4J
O O
? « b
^ b vi
.0 O -O
"B b 5 1
O 41 41 «
£
«4-l 00 4J t-l
«l CO O 01
•H » 0) —1
r-l IM vl b
01 Ji Mj O O
b o oi .a 4^
0 0
b 4J 0) x b
0) 00 ^ b O
00 C vl > CO
01 > 4J 0 >
00 O -1 O 11
vl b 3 01
o «o r es




£ £
0 0
£ £
0 0
O 0
2^
in m
m m
1 l
1 I

O CM
m — «

•8
3
4-* OM
B en
3 U
01
itact recovery boil
lout direct contact
lorator
o u a
•a-a-a
0 0 O
m in in
o O O
"^"CM CM
O O O

-, -, — .
000
1 1 1
1 1 1
CM CM 1
O O
• • 1
00

r~ -H O
in in —4
to o o

0) TJ b
01 J3
4J 00 b
E 01 0
S X en

dissolving tank
4-1
R*.
o o
e B
o o
B B
in in
o o
e a
CM CM
0 0
—4 *-4
0 O
m m
0 0
o o
CO |
0
in
-H
' 1
O

in
•a o
in
in
00 O
CM

en
b
o
"8 b
CO £
01 .0
4-1 b
c u
3 en

B
vl
01
B
vl
J
m m
0 O
in m
0 O
o

m
S
0 '
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

1 1
1 1

•e -o
CO <0
0) 0)
B C
3 a

itlne condenser
laneous11
01 01
D. U
fci B
9 «H
H X





04 9 -H X 4J ^, o
b 01 3
CO) CO vjuo*
4J 9 U 0) CO TI o
0. TJ b 0) 01
a cu b .* TJ o b
b .*£ §8
B .£ >-4 b TI fi B
4-1 .9V bDCUO
-. o—  E O) »
4J . C inCa BrH Ob vt
X 4J — 1 .£O • C CO UB &
vt 11 » 01 a U D.VJ 01 3 TJ
I O 3 bvlr-l e O.O 4)
eazer a* oaou o a. -a
a! 01 BE b > 0 -( e 3
1 BOO 4J O 0) CO — l
-^oo video uopd Ji « vi
a, o 41 B b TJ vif^c a:
< co v< a x cu u "^ co vi
^ C BCOO fvlbvi Q.
• b 5> 4J 31) vl -1 C
-l O 14* . 0) 3 U -H 3 O. b vl
a«x So* """SBB E «
^"o." SBcj? r-i'SB S°° T<
£vlO O0\ £ — O 41 vIB O
00)0) » i vi m -a _ a« b
^0. bOUl —brt *0 §
^ «l4^VCr> » 3 t4D<
CUC b C TJ rH CO T) Q. vl
3—1—1 M— 1 4J o C O 3 — i
4J vl B TJ 3 vl « u E B —1
•a « Ji vi u 4J o vi 3ub vl c
CO—I4J 3 UO4J IUB f
f.i TJueoOtO 4IB5
(4-1 TJ " B C O >
OHO) gvieo covio J= op
4J 3 4Jb4^B 4JE •
D0td> 41 4-1 -H O C _ > B 01
vi so vio o.^-v c e tt
CM-«D 00V TJ^HOC O 4J
3^HO CO b ^H O 4J4J
3b *0)O bOTJ4-l ^^ C t^
— i — i o cocoer iu 4j^a ~HVI 0)
TJcO COOvl b«,n o •
BXCO 4JUJ^ CO^O.0 •**•« U
COXO) <0 O 330. OOI O
l)4Jf cobco bo^' u
O.B 0) ^)Xvlffivl bO~« C
SvlSTJ^^^ OO^C >
00 CO)£rHbXOJjT ^.0 S
IU OfA -H .0 -H C inu
W CO 4) >\ C O 94 Qj M *H 3 O O S B
OWWO-tHttlOOOXM-** • 4J
cd oi 
• 0)0) BCjQ4uuca>4J^jjcub
• OI^-OVO (Q30J> J3 4J Cl U
-H ^ ^, «oajoesoit-iaJ3 u
3lli«0 T3 *n T3 T3COC
o>Xd3 r-*y "2 .H* .H ,-H h *** TJ
a)0)Cd.<-H<-(fl]C^-i *-( « o « as o »H
UHS eaask-aaiasoes . u
(0 ^ o T3 V >M bOJ= ^-) fl "" "^ G*
9/90
Wood Products Industry
10.1-5

-------
    TABLE 10.1-2.  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC
              EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITH A DIRECT
                          CONTACT EVAPORATOR AND AN ESPa

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C


Particle size
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass % <
stated size
Uncontrolled
95.0
93.5
92.2
83.5
56.5
45.3
26.5
100
Controlled
—
-
68.2
53.8
40.5
34.2
22.2
100
Cumulative emission factor
(kg/Mg of air dried pulp)
Uncontrolled
86
84
83
75
51
41
24
90
Controlled
_
-
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0
  aReference 7.  Dash  =  no data.
              100
    90 -


    80


o_ 70
tJ"2
£K
§^ 60
S'-fe
I<- 50
•o «
^ o 40


§5 30
C
Z3

    20


    10


     0
                 0.1
                         Uncontrolled
                                              Controlled
 .0


 .9


0.8


0.7


0.6


0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1
                                       '   I  I I Hill
                                                       i   I  I  I I III
                                                                      §1

                       1.0               10
                       Particle diameter (pm)
                                                                 100
         Figure  10.1-2.  Cumulative  particle size distribution and
                  specific emission factors for recovery  boiler
                     with direct  contact evaporator and ESP.
                                                           size
10.1-6
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                             10/86

-------
     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
For most fuel types, consumption during the smoldering phase is much greatest
when the fuel is driest.  When. lower layers of the fuel are moist, the fire
usually is extinguished rapidly. °

     The major pollutants from wildland burning are particulate, carbon monoxide
and volatile organics.  Nitrogen oxides are emitted at rates of from 1 to 4
grams per kilogram burned, depending on combustion temperatures.  Emissions of
sulfur oxides are negligible.*1"12

     Particulate emissions depend on the mix of combustion phase, the rate of
energy release, antf the type of fuel consumed.  All of these elements must be
considered in selecting the appropriate emission factor for a given fire and
fuel situation.  In some cases, models developed by the U.  S. Forest Service
have been used to predict particulate emission factors and source strength.1-'
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 11.1-3 presents emission factors from various pollutants, by fire
and fuel configuration.  Table 11.1-4 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 Guide*-* should be consulted
when using these emission factors.

     The regional emission factors in Table 11.1-4 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 11.1-4 should not be
used to develop emission inventories and control strategies.

     To develop state emission inventories, the user is strongly urged to con-
tact that state's federal land management agencies and state forestry agencies
that conduct prescribed burning to obtain. the best information on such activities,

Q/88
 '                            Miscellaneous Sources                       11.1-7

-------
.2 S  B1
 CO -)-> •—!
 CO O -»->
                                                               OQ CQ OQ
                                                                                 OQ  OQ  CQ     « <=>
                                                                                                         OQ OQ OQ OQ
04


i,
g
            -2
            3
            £
                        £
                        to
                        1
                     OJ
                     •a
                  -3
                  ftf
                        -2
                                                      roc-*.r-.
                           COOCO

                           ^HCM<-H
                                                                                CDkTi

                                                                                CMCM
LOtO

CMCO
                                                                                            CD CO CD r-. CM CM
               lT> CM OO vO CO
               CM CO r-*. O CD

               i—I       i—« t-H
oo ^r co ro co
<—I t—I CM CM CM
            CD

            CO

            to

                                                2        2
                                               ..—l       ..-l

                                                                                            CO CO

                           2
11.1-8


<*-!
"— 1
t-.
§
.^H
*J
to
i*-l
I

Cn
.1-1
en
s^. i
U U3 *O
*"O fO ^-i
OQ
O
r-l  0)
B d>
B
Q) IH er>
.'S^ §
B CO »-3
t~>
^§8
-l
CO r-l O>
tO *«H B
• — 1 Gu >~H
W E
t^» CD O
ts*
I
2
o>
B
CO
.r-H
<<
'S0i_^ §
o
ro
1
o
r— 1

8 °
in
CVJ

2
•i— i
CD
en
a
1
CO
.1
>-5


"^
f

                                  EMISSION  FACTORS
                  9/90

-------
S f-t en
"-> O B
8 -tj '£ "=> ° <=>
« fw_. <-»*
^ l« ^
^H X - — s
-. O)
fl3
x— x

•*->
ti)
1
^.^

OS
P^
04
y 'o
tx £$
« ^
s ^

^ 43
8 S

£ S
§
CO
1— 1
s



CO
I
r— 1
*— 1
< — 1
S
C-

J3 III
CO •!->
CJ CU
1
to at

O  E-H

*o
^H
S<=> o o tn
r-t -^ CM *-i
1 £
a.
m
a15 iii
•"*


Cn JS

CL. BC (2 aa


. — .
•5 £r
- «
O iQ
"H O) ^H

^4 O O^
•— 1 S3 O) "^^
SCn 5 O
*«~4 Q) V-4 j -*
flj O *+•-! "~l O €
«i— i ^ O fC
faw B c_> a.


ea ea c_> ea




m
it • i




co
ii • i
CM






o CM in
l~~^ | to p^
»— I




in i m <=>
f— 1 «— 1 r-l



Q CM
in -P CM en o
•— i oo i— i
II CO 1



.f

ro .^H cl) "H
co EU se fct




en
co
« "^3 ^
b %
S.S



CO

s
to
t-H
^^1
V

• ^H


-*->
£

u
ro
Cu
.1

1
^
^^
CO
i
O)
<4-4
3 C
H r-
£





























.
*X3

O
ea- §
•i— i
en s
B *§
+•> S
s i*
03 i-t
Cx^ O
c n?
O i~~*
• •-i
% Z
.rH .t-t
g B
."8
r^ C
rT* 'g
|1
O>

O) CM k£)
« r-l ^
J C3O S
1 .-HG E
53 d) m



























.
*o
^

B
O
1
I
2
,— i

en
c:

1
1
) i

^ ^
i i
m n
ferences 1
ferences 1















































1
1
o>
cj T3 o> <4-i cnJ2 -i — ,
9/90
Miscellaneous Sources
11.1-9

-------
             TABLE  11.1-4.
EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRESCRIBED BURNING
     BY U. S.  REGION
Regional
configuration and
fuel type*
Pacific Northwest
Logging slash
Piled slash
Douglas fir/
Western hemlock
Mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Hardwood
Underburning pine
Average for region
Pacific Southwest
Sagebrush
Chaparral
Pi nyon/ Juniper
Underburing pine
Grassland
Average for region
Southeast
Palmetto/gallberry
Underburning pine
Logging slash
Grassland
Other
Average for region
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


42

24
19
6
4
5
100

35
20
20
15
10
100

35
30
20
10
5
100

50
20
20
10
100

50
30
10
10
100
Pollutant0
Particulate

-------
References for Section 11.1

 1.  Development Of Emission Factors For Estimating Atmospheric Emissions From
     Forest Fires, EPA-450/3-73-009, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1973.

 2.  D. E. Ward and C. C. Hardy, Advances In The Characterization And Control
     Of Emissions From Prescribed Broadcast Fires Of Coniferous Species Logging
     Slash On Clearcut Units. EPA DW12930110-01-3/DOE DE-A179-83BP12869, 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 Particulate 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.

 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.
 9/90                        Miscellaneous Sources                      11.1-11

-------
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 Juniper And Basin Big
     Sagebrush. PNW 88-575, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     March 1990.
11.1-12                        EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
 11.2.6  INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROADS

 11.2.6.1  General

     Various field studies have  indicated that dust emissions from industrial
 paved roads are a major component  of atmospheric particulate matter in the
 vicinity of industrial operations.  Industrial traffic dust has  been  found to
 consist primarily of mineral  matter, mostly tracked or deposited onto the road-
 way by vehicle traffic itself, when vehicles enter from an unpaved area or
 travel on the shoulder of the road, or when material is spilled  onto the paved
 surface from open truck bodies.

 11.2.6.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters'"^

     The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of paved road varies
 linearly with the volume of traffic.  In addition, field investigations have
 shown that emissions depend on correction parameters (road surface silt content,
 surface dust loading and average vehicle weight) of a particular road and asso-
 ciated vehicle traffic.

     Dust emissions from industrial paved roads have been found  to vary in
 direct proportion to the fraction  of silt (particles equal to or less than 75
 microns in diameter) in the road surface material.  The silt fraction is deter-
 mined by measuring the proportion  of loose dry surface dust that passes a 200
 mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136  method.  In addition, it has also been found
 that emissions vary in direct proportion to the surface dust loading.  The road
 surface dust loading is that  loose material which can be collected by broom
 sweeping and vacuuming of the traveled portion of the paved road.  Table 11.2.6-1
 summarizes measured silt and  loading values for industrial paved roads.

 11.2.6.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

     The quantity of total suspended particulate emissions generated by vehicle
 traffic on dry industrial paved  roads, per vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT) or
 vehicle mile traveled (VMT),  may be estimated with a rating of B or D (see
 below), using the following empirical expression^:


                  /*H-V1V"V-7
     E = 0.022 I   	   	   	    	        (kg/VKT)                 (1)
                           s\/L
         0.0771  [	1  (	    	If  	\       (Ib/VMT)
                          10 / UOOO

where:  E = emission  factor
        I = industrial augmentation factor (dimensionless)  (see below)
        n = number of  traffic lanes
        s = surface material silt content (%)
        L = surface dust loading, kg/km (Ib/mile)  (see below)
        W = average vehicle weight, Mg (ton)
11/88                       Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.6-1

-------
 PS
 o
 CO
 g
 O flj
 Z CO
 I"
 o en
 o »
 < w
 O O
 I
 vO
 •
 CM
 W
 5
 H
C
CO
 bO
•H CO
CO K

CO
CO -H
1 ti
O1 S3
X
bfl C

•H 
f-^


f^.
• \o
IO •
CO  O
(-1 u CO O
O CO T3 M lJ
C 43 C 00 CX
O CO
CJ CO





































•
0)
•H
e


TJ
cu
ii
*J
CO
4J
CO

C
"r4
cd
^ t

o

0
* 1

o
o
o
«*
•-H

•°
CO
• CU
m -H
1 Wi
*-H t J
C
m cu
»
C rH
cu cx
I* -H
CU 4->
l*H rH
CO 3
P^ 5S
cd Xi
11.2.6-2
                                EMISSION  FACTORS
9/88

-------
 11.2.7   INDUSTRIAL WIND EROSION

 11.2.7.1  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 (11 miles  per hour) at  15 centimeters above the surface or 10
 meters per second (22 miles per hour) at  7 meters above the surface, and  (b)
 particulate emission  rates tend to decay  rapidly (half life of a few minutes)
 during an erosion event.  In other words, these aggregate material surfaces
 are characterized by  finite availability  of erodible material  (mass/area)
 referred to as the erosion potential.  Any natural crusting of the surface
 binds the erodible material, thereby reducing  the erosion potential.

 11.2.7.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

     If typical values for threshold wind speed at 15 centimeters are
 corrected to typical  wind sensor height (7-10  meters), 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 which 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 which 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 miles per hour),  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) =  u*  In z_     (z  > z0)                        (1)
                             0.4    z0

where u    =  wind speed,  centimeters per second
      u*   —  friction velocity,  centimeters per second
      z    =  height above test surface,  cm
      ZQ   =  roughness height,  cm
      0.4  =  von Karman's constant, dimensionless
                                      *
9/90                        Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.7-1

-------
The friction velocity (u*) is a measure of wind shear stress on the erodible
surface, as determined from the slope of the logarithmic velocity profile.
The roughness height (z0) is a measure of the roughness of the exposed surface
as determined from the y intercept of the velocity profile, i. e., the height
at which the wind speed is zero.  These parameters are illustrated in Figure
11.2.7-1 for a roughness height of 0.1 centimeters.

     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 which 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.

11.2.7.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equation^

     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 per year as follows:

                                               N
                         Emission factor = k   S   Pt                      (2)
                                              i-1

where k    =   particle size multiplier
      N    =   number of disturbances per year
      P^   =   erosion potential corresponding to the observed (or
               probable) fastest mile of wind for the ith period
               between disturbances, g/m^

The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 2 varies with aerodynamic
particle size, as follows:

            AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE  SIZE MULTIPLIERS  FOR EQUATION 2

                30 ^m    <15 nm    <10 /^m    <2.5 urn
                1.0       0.6       0.5       0.2

     This distribution of particle size within the under 30 micron 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 11.2.3).

     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.
11.2.7-2                       EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
       Figure  11.2.7-1.   Illustration of logarithmic velocity profile.




9/90                        Miscellaneous  Sources                     11.2.7-3

-------
The erosion potential function for a dry, exposed surface is:

               P  -  58 (u* - u*)2 + 25  (u* - u*)


               P  =  0 for u* < u*
                                                       (3)
        where u*  = friction velocity (m/s)
              u
threshold friction velocity (m/s)
     Because of the nonlinear form of the erosion potential function, each
erosion event must be treated separately.

     Equations 2 and 3 apply only to dry, exposed materials with limited
erosion potential.   The resulting calculation is valid only for a time period
as long or longer than the period between disturbances.  Calculated emissions
represent intermittent events and should not be input directly into dispersion
models that assume steady state' emission rates.

     For uncrusted surfaces,  the threshold friction velocity is best
estimated from the dry aggregate structure of the soil.  A simple hand sieving
test of surface soil can be used to determine the mode of the surface
aggregate size distribution by inspection of relative sieve catch amounts,
following the procedure described below in Table 11.2.7.-1.  Alternatively,
the threshold friction velocity for erosion can be determined from the mode of
the aggregate size distribution, as described by Gillette.

     Threshold friction velocities for several surface types have been
determined by field measurements with a portable wind tunnel.   These values
are presented in Table 11.2.7-2.
            TABLE 11.2.7-1.  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/sec)
100
72
58
43

11.2.7-4
           EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
       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, 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.

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 Figure 1.

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.    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 meter reference height using Equation  1.

     To convert  the  fastest mile of wind  (u+) from  a reference anemometer
height of 10 meters  to the  equivalent friction velocity (u*), the  logarithmic
wind speed profile may be used  to yield the  following  equation:

                                 u*  =  0.053 u+                             (4)
                                             10
                  where u* = friction velocity (meters per second)

                        u+ = fastest mile of reference anemometer for period
                              between disturbances (meters per second)

     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.
9/90                         Miscellaneous  Sources                     11.2.7-5

-------
                TABLE 11.2.7-2.  THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES
                        Threshold
                        friction   Roughness
                        velocity     height
                                          Threshold wind
                                       velocity at 10 m (m/s)
Material
Overburden3
Scoria (roadbed
material)3
Ground coala
( surrounding
coal pile)
Uncrusted coal
pile3
Scraper tracks on
coal pilea'b
Fine coal dust
on concrete padc
(m/s)
1.02

1.33


0.55

1.12

0.62

0.54
(cm)
0.3

0.3


0.01

0.3

0.06

0.2
ZQ = ACt
21

27


16

23

15

11
ZQ = 0.5 cm
19

25


10

21

12

10
       3Western surface coal mine.  Reference 2,
       bLightly crusted.
       cEastern power plant.   Reference 3.

     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.

     For two representative pile shapes (conical and oval with flattop,
37 degree side slope), the ratios of surface wind speed (us) to approach wind
speed (Uj,) have been derived from wind tunnel studies.   The results are shown
in Figure 11.2.7-2 corresponding to an actual pile height of 11 meters, a
reference (upwind) anemetersometer height of 10 meters, and a pile surface
roughness height (ZQ) of 0.5 centimeters.  The measured surface winds
correspond to a height of 25 centimeters above the surface.  The area fraction
within each contour pair is specified in Table 11.2.7-3.

     The profiles of ug/ur in Figure 11.2.7-2 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 (u* ) using
a variation of Equation 1:
                        u
                         10
                                u
                          In (10/0.005)

                          In  (z/0.005)
                                                                           (5)
          where a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm (0.005 meters)  has been
          assumed.  If a site specific roughness height is  available, it
          should be used.
11.2.7-6
                     EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
     2.   Use the appropriate part of Figure 11.2.7-2 based on the pile shape
          and orientation to the fastest mile of wind, to obtain the
          corresponding surface wind speed distribution (u+):
                                        (us>
                                               u+                          (6)
                                                 10

     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*) :

                                      0.4 u+
                                          s
                            u*  =  -  - 0.10 u+
                                       25
                                      In0.5

     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 11.2.7-2 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 (u+ ) using Equation 5.

     4.   Convert fastest mile values (U-^Q) 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/Uj.
          in Figure 11.2.7-2 and Table 11.2.7-3) and determine the size of
          each subarea.

     6.   Treating each subarea (of constant N and u*) as a separate source,
          calculate the erosion potential (P^) 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-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.

9/90                         Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2.7-7

-------
  Flow
Direction
                    Pile A
Pile B1
                     Pile B2
                                                              Pile  B3
      Figure 11.2.7-2.   Contours of normalized surface wind speeds, ug/ur.

 11.2.7-8                       EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
            TABLE 11.2.7-3.  SUBAREA DISTRIBUTION FOR REGIMES OF us/u
                                                                  s'  r

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
Pile
Subarea
2a
2b
2c
6a
6b
9
1
Percent of pile surface area
Pile A
5
35
-
48
-
12
-
Pile Bl
5
2
29
26
24
14
-
Pile B2
3
28
-
29
22
15
3
Pile B3
3
25
-
28
26
14
4
     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
halflife for the decay of actual erosion potential, it could be argued that
the emission factor overestimates particulate emissions.  However, there are
other aspects of the wind erosion process which offset this apparent
conservatism:

     1.      The fastest mile event contains peak winds which substantially
            exceed the mean value for the event.

     2.      Whenever the fastest mile event occurs, there are usually a number
            of periods of slightly lower mean wind speed which 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.

11.2.7.4    Example 1: Calculation for wind erosion emissions from conically
            shaped coal pile

     A coal burning facility maintains a conically shaped surge pile 11 meters
in height and 29.2 meters in base diameter, containing about 2000 megagrams of
coal, with a bulk density of 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3).  The total exposed surface
area of the pile is calculated as follows:

                    S - £ r (r2 + h2)

                      = 3.14(14.6)  (14.6)2 +(11.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 raegagrams (12.5 percent of the stored capacity of
coal) is added back to the pile by a topping off operation, thereby restoring
                                        t
9/90                        Miscellaneous  Sources                     11.2.7-9

-------
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 meters  per second is obtained from Table
11.2.7-2.

     Step 2:  Except for a small area near the base of the pile (see Figure
11.2.7-3), 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 11.2.7-4 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 meters, so that a height correction to
10 meters is needed for the fastest mile values.  From Equation 5,
                 N(10/0.005)
             	
10
                     u+   =  u+
                                    In (7/0.005)
                     u+   =  1.05 u+
                      10           7

     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
11.2.7-3 shows the surface wind speed pattern (expressed as a fraction of the
approach wind speed at a height of 10 meters).  The surface areas lying within
each wind speed regime are tabulated below the figure.

     The calculated friction velocities are presented in Table 11.2.7-4.   As
indicated,  only three of the periods contain a friction velocity which exceeds
the threshold value of 1.12 meters per second for an uncrusted coal pile.
These three values all occur within the us/ur =0.9 regime of the pile
surface.

     Step 5:  This step is not necessary because there is only one frequency
of disturbance used in the calculations.  It is clear that the small area of
daily disturbance (which lies entirely within the ug/ur =0.2 regime) is never
subject to wind speeds exceeding the threshold value.

11.2.7-10                      EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
                                    Circled values
                                    refer to ug/ur
* A portion of €2 is disturbed daily by reclaiming activities.
                                                    Pile Surface
Area
ID
A
B
cl + C2

us
"^
0.
0.
0.


9
6
2

% Area (m2)
12 101
48 402
40 335
Total 838
        Figure 11.2.7-3.  Example 1:  Pile surface areas within each wind
                                      speed regime.
9/90
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.7-11

-------
       TABLE 11.2.7-4.  EXAMPLE 1:  CALCULATION OF FRICTION VELOCITIES
3 -day
period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(mph)
14
29
30
31
22
21
16
25
17
13
U7
(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* = i
us/ur: 0.2
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.12
0.1 us
0.6
0.40
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.62
0.59
0.46
0.71
0.48
0.37
(m/s)
0.9
0.59
1.23
1.27
1.31
0.93
0.89
0.68
1.06
0.72
0.55
     Steps 6 and 7:   The final set of calculations (shown in Table 11.2.7-5)
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.


          TABLE  11.2.7-5.   EXAMPLE 1:   CALCULATION OF PM10  EMISSIONS3

3 -day
period u* (m/s)
2 1.23
3 1.27
4 1.31

u* - u* (m/s)
0.11
0.15
0.19

P (g/m2)
3.45
5.06
6.84

Pile
Surface Area
ID (m2)
A
A
A
101
101
101

kPA
(g)
170
260
350
                                                              Total:
                                                     780
awhere u  =1.12 meters per second for uncrusted coal and k
                                           0.5 for PM10.
For example, the calculation for the second 3 day period is:

                   P

                                       .2
     58(u* - u*)2 + 25(u* - u*)
              t              t
P2 - 58(1.23 - 1.12)z + 25(1.23 - 1.12)

   - 0.70 + 2.75 = 3.45 g/m2
     The PM-in emissions generated by each event are found as the product of
the PM-LQ multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion potential (P), and the affected
area of the pile (A).
11.2.7-12
            EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
                Local  Climatological Data
                         MONIHLY SUMMARY
WIND
er
o
z
_i
s
i/>
UJ
er
i:
30
0
0
13
12
20
29
29
22
1 A
29
7
21
10
10
01
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
34
31
30
30
33
34
29
_ RESULTANT
*• SPEED M.P.H.
5.3
10.5
2.4
1 1 .0
1 1 .3
1 . 1
9.6
10.9
3.0
4.6
22.3
7.9
7.7
4.5
6.7
13.7
1 1 .2
4.3
9.3
7.5
0.3
17. 1
2.4
5.9
1 1 .3
12. 1
6.3
8.2
5.0
3. 1
4.9
o
UJ
UJ
a.
t/>
UJ
13 3
<
er a
UJ
•>• x.
15
6.9
10.6
6.0
1 .4
1 1 .9
'19.0
19.8
1 I .2
8. 1
5. 1
23.3
13.5
15.5
9.6
8.8
13.8
11.5
5.8
10.2
7.8
0.6
17.3
8.5
8.8
11.7
12.2
e.s
8.3
6.6
5.2 .
5.5
FASTEST
MILE
i r
• o
UJQ
. uj
• a r
i/>
16
10
16
1 7
2?
18
6j
1 4
§
16
9.
8
- DIRECTION
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
FOB THE MONTH:
30
— •
3.3

I . 1
	 C
31 29
UE: 11

UJ
<
O
22
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
I
12
3
1 i.
15
16
17
e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
29
30
j t

Figure 11.2.7-4.  Example daily fastest miles of wind for periods of interest.
9/90
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.7-13

-------
     As shown in Table 11.2.7-5, the results of these calculations indicate a
monthly PM^Q emission total of  780 grams.

11.2.7.5    Example 2: Calculation for wind erosion from flat area covered
            with coal dust

     A flat circular area of 29.2 meters 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:

                             7T
                     S  =   	  d2 = 0.785 (29.2)2  =  670 m2
     This area will remain exposed for a period of 1 month when a new pile
will be formed.

     Step 1:  In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold
friction velocity, a value of 0.54 m/s is obtained from Table 11.2.7-2.

     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 11.2.7-4,  the highest value of fastest mile for the
30-day period (31 mph) occurs on the llth day of the period.  In this example,
the reference anemometer height is 7 m, so that a height correction is needed
for the fastest mile value.  From Step 3 of the previous example,
u+  = 1.05 u+ -, so that u+  = 33 mph.
 10         7             10
     Step 4:  Equation 4 is used to convert the fastest mile value of 33 mph
(14.6 mps) to an equivalent friction velocity of 0.77 mps.  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 one frequency
of disturbance for the entire source area.

     Steps 6 and 7:  The PM-^Q emissions generated by the erosion event are
calculated as the product of the PM^Q multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion
potential (P) and the source area (A).  The erosion potential is calculated
from Equation 3 as follows:

                  P = 58(u* - u*)2 + 25(u* - u*)
                               t              t
                  P = 58(0.77 - 0.54)2 + 25(0.77 - 0.54)
                    = 3.07 + 5.75
                    =8.82 g/m2

Thus the PM-^Q emissions for the 1 month period are found to be:

                  E = (0.5)(8.82 g/m2)(670 m2)
                    = 3.0 kg
11.2.7-14                      EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
References for Section 11.2.7

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.
     16:113-117,  1952.

6.   D. A. Gillette, e t al.. "Threshold Velocities For Input Of Soil Particles
     Into The Air By Desert Soils", Journal Of Geophysical Research.
     85(C1Q):5621-5630.

7.   Local Climatological Data, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.

8.   M. J. Changery, National Wind Data Index Final Report. HCO/T1041-01
     UC-60, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC, December 1978.

9.   B. J. B. Stunder and S. P. S. Arya, "Windbreak Effectiveness For Storage
     Pile Fugitive Dust Control:  A Wind Tunnel Study", Journal Of The Air
     Pollution Control Association. 38:135-143, 1988.
9/90                        Miscellaneous  Sources                    11.2.7-15

-------
11.3 Brick And Structural Clay Product Manufacturing

11.3.1  General1'2

        The brick and structural clay products industry is made up primarily of facilities that manufacture
structural brick from clay, shale, or a combination of the two. These facilities are classified under standard
industrial classification (SIC) code 3251, brick and structural clay tile. Facilities that manufacture structural
clay products, such as clay pipe, adobe brick, chimney pipe, flue liners, drain tiles, roofing tiles, and sewer
tiles are classified under SIC code 3259, structural clay products, not elsewhere classified.

11.3.2  Process Description3'6

        The manufacture of brick and structural clay products involves mining, grinding, screening and
blending of the raw materials followed by forming, cutting or shaping, drying, firing, cooling, storage, and
shipping of the final product. A typical brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 11.3-1.

        The raw materials used in the manufacture of brick and structural clay products include surface clays
and shales, which are mined in open pits. The moisture content of the raw materials ranges from a low of
about 3 percent at some plants to a high of about 15 percent at other plants.  Some facilities have onsite
mining operations, while others bring in raw material by truck or rail. The raw material is typically loaded by
truck or front-end loader into a primary crusher for initial size reduction.  The material is then conveyed to a
grinding room, which houses several grinding mills and banks of screens that produce a fine material that is
suitable for forming brick or other products.  Types of grinding mills typically used include dry pan grinders,
roller mills, and hammermills.  From the grinding room, the material is conveyed to storage silos or piles,
which typically are enclosed. The material is then either conveyed to the mill room for brick forming or
conveyed to a storage area.

        Most brick are formed by the stiff mud extrusion process, although brick are also formed using the
soft mud and dry press processes (there may be no plants in the U.S. currently using the dry press process).
A typical stiff mud extrusion line begins with a pug mill, which mixes the ground material with water and
discharges  the mixture into a vacuum chamber.  Some facilities mix additives such as barium carbonate,
which prevents sulfates from rising to the surface of the brick, with the raw material prior to extrusion. The
moisture content of the material entering the vacuum chamber is typically between 14 and 18 percent. The
vacuum chamber removes air from the material, which is then continuously augered or extruded through dies.
The resulting continuous "column" is lubricated with oil or other lubricant to reduce friction during extrusion.
If specified, various surface treatments, such as manganese dioxide, iron oxide, and iron chromite can be
applied at this point.  These treatments are used to add color or texture to the product. A wire-cutting
machine  is  used to cut the column into individual bricks, and then the bricks are mechanically or hand set onto
kiln cars. All structural tile and most brick are formed by this process. Prior to stacking, some facilities
mechanically process the unfired bricks to create rounded imperfect edges that give the appearance of older
worn brick.

        The soft mud process is usually used with clay that is too wet for stiff mud extrusion. In a pug mill,
the clay is mixed with water to  a moisture content of 15 to 28 percent, and the bricks  are formed in molds and
are dried before being mechanically stacked onto kiln cars.  In the dry press process, clay is mixed with a
small amount of water and formed in steel molds by applying pressure of 500 to 1,500 pounds per square
inch (3.43 to  10.28 megapascals).
8/97                                      Mineral Products                                    11.3-1

-------
   0-
   0-	



j!
1*
1
1

!|
P


P
M
s§



"§
U J
If
f
1?
2«


i
5
s


































0

TM j
0
v_x



















1

i









si
Pi








*
„

iu 2
K q
EE





















«













V*)
0" 	



o
*
s
I
g


.0
I 
-------
        Following forming and stacking, the brick-laden kiln cars enter a predryer or a holding area and are
then loaded into the dryer. Dryers typically are heated to about 400°F (204°C) using waste heat from the
cooling zone of the kiln.  However, some plants heat dryers with gas or other fuels. Dryers may be in-line or
totally separate from the kiln. From the dryer, the bricks enter the kiln.  The most common type of kiln used
for firing brick is the tunnel kiln, although some facilities operate downdraft periodic kilns or other types of
kilns. A typical tunnel kiln ranges from about 340 feet (ft) (104 meters [m]) to 500 ft (152 m) in length and
includes a preheat zone, a firing zone, and a cooling zone.  The firing zone typically is maintained at a
maximum temperature of about 2000°F (1090°C).  During firing, small amounts of excess fuel are
sometimes introduced to the kiln atmosphere, creating a reducing atmosphere that adds color to the surface of
the bricks. This process is called flashing.  After firing, the bricks enter the cooling zone, where they are
cooled to near ambient temperatures before leaving the tunnel kiln. The bricks are then stored and shipped.

        A periodic kiln is a permanent brick structure with a number of fireholes through which fuel enters
the furnace.  Hot gases from the fuel are first drawn up over the bricks, then down through them by
underground flues, and then out of the kiln to the stack.

        In all kilns, firing takes place in six steps:  evaporation of free water, dehydration, oxidation,
vitrification, flashing, and cooling. Natural gas is the fuel most commonly used for firing, followed by coal
and sawdust.  Some plants have fuel oil available as a backup fuel. Most natural gas-fired plants that have a
backup fuel use vaporized propane as the backup fuel. For most types of brick, the entire drying, firing, and
cooling process takes between 20 and 50 hours.

        Flashing is used to impart color to bricks by adding uncombusted fuel (other materials such as zinc,
used tires, or used motor oil  are also reportedly used) to the kiln to create a reducing atmosphere. Typically,
flashing takes place in a "flashing zone" that follows the firing zone,  and the bricks are rapidly cooled
following flashing. In tunnel kilns, the uncombusted fuel or other material typically is drawn into the firing
zone of the kiln and is burned.

11.3.3 Emissions And Controls3'7'11'22-24'29-30

        Emissions from brick manufacturing facilities include particulate matter (PM), PM less than or equal
to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10), PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic
diameter (PM-2.5) sulfur dioxide (S02), sulfur trioxide (S03), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide
(CO), carbon dioxide (C02), metals, total organic compounds (TOC) (including methane, ethane, volatile
organic compounds [VOC],  and some hazardous air pollutants [HAP]), hydrochloric  acid (HC1), and fluoride
compounds.  Factors that may affect emissions include raw material composition and moisture content, kiln
fuel type, kiln operating parameters, and plant design. The pollutants emitted from the manufacture of other
structural clay products are expected to be similar to the pollutants emitted from brick manufacturing,
although emissions from the manufacture of glazed products may differ significantly.

        The primary sources of PM, PM-10, and PM-2.5 emissions are the raw material grinding and
screening operations and the kilns. Other sources of PM emissions include sawdust dryers used by plants
with sawdust-fired kilns, coal crushing systems used by plants with coal-fired kilns, and fugitive dust sources
such as paved roads, unpaved roads, and storage piles.

        Combustion products, including SO2, NOX, CO, and C02, are emitted from fuel combustion in brick
kilns and some brick dryers.  Brick dryers that are heated with waste heat from the kiln cooling zone are not
usually a source of combustion products because kilns are designed to prevent combustion gases from
entering the cooling zone. Some brick dryers have supplemental gas  burners that produce small amounts of
NOX, CO, and C02 emissions. These emissions are sensitive to the condition of the burners. The primary


8/97                                     Mineral Products                                   11.3-3

-------
source of SO2 emissions from most brick kilns is the raw material, which sometimes contain sulfur
compounds. Some facilities use raw material with a high sulfur content, and have higher SO2 emissions than
facilities that use low-sulfur raw material.  In addition, some facilities use additives that contain sulfates, and
these additives may contribute to S02 emissions. Data are available that indicate that sulfur contents of
surface soils are highly variable, and it is likely that sulfur contents of brick raw materials are also highly
variable.

        Organic compounds, including methane, ethane, VOC, and some HAP, are emitted from both brick
dryers and kilns. These compounds also are emitted from sawdust dryers used by facilities that fire sawdust
as the primary kiln fuel. Organic compound emissions from brick dryers may include contributions from the
following sources: (1) petroleum-based or other products in those plants that use petroleum-based or other
lubricants in extrusion, (2) light hydrocarbons within the raw material that vaporize at the temperatures
encountered in the dryer, and (3) incomplete fuel combustion in dryers that use supplemental burners in
addition to waste heat from the kiln cooling zone. Organic compound emissions from kilns are the result of
volatilization of organic matter contained in the raw material and kiln fuel.

        Hydrogen fluoride  (HF) and other fluoride compounds are emitted from kilns as a result of the
release of the fluorine compounds contained in the raw material. Fluorine typically is present in brick raw
materials in the range of 0.01 to 0.06 percent. As the green bricks reach temperatures of 930° to 1110°F,
(500° to 600°C), the fluorine in the raw material forms HF and other fluorine compounds.  Much of the
fluorine is released as HF.  Because fluorine content in clays and shales is highly variable, emissions of HF
and other fluoride compounds vary considerably depending on the raw material used.

        A variety of control systems may be used to reduce PM emissions from brick manufacturing
operations.  Grinding and screening operations are sometimes controlled by fabric filtration systems, although
many facilities process raw material with a relatively high moisture content (greater than 10 percent) and do
not use add-on control systems.  Most tunnel kilns are not equipped with control devices, although fabric
filters or wet scrubbers are sometimes used for PM removal. Particulate matter emissions from fugitive
sources such as paved roads, unpaved roads, and storage piles can be controlled using wet suppression
techniques.

        Gaseous emissions from brick dryers and kilns typically are not controlled using add-on control
devices. However, dry scrubbers that use limestone as a sorption medium may be used to control HF
emissions; control efficiencies of 95 percent or higher have been reported at one plant operating this type of
scrubber. Also, wet scrubbers are used at one facility. These scrubbers, which use a soda ash and water
solution as the scrubbing liquid, provide effective control of HF and SO2 emissions. Test data show that the
only high-efficiency packed tower wet scrubber operating in the U.S. (at brick plants) achieves control
efficiencies greater than 99 percent for SO2 and total fluorides. A unique "medium-efficiency" wet scrubber
operating at the same plant has demonstrated an 82 percent S02 control efficiency.

        Process controls are also an effective means of controlling kiln emissions. For example, facilities
with coal-fired kilns typically use a low-sulfur, low-ash coal to minimize SO2 and PM emissions. In addition,
research is being performed on the use of additives (such as lime) to reduce HF and S02 emissions.

        Table  11.3-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM, filterable PM-10, condensible inorganic
PM, and condensible organic PM emissions from brick and structural clay product manufacturing operations.
Two emission factors for uncontrolled grinding and screening operations are presented; one for operations
processing relatively dry material (about 4 percent moisture) and the other for operations processing wet
material (about 13 percent moisture). Table 11.3-2 presents total PM, total PM-10, andtotalPM-2.5
emission factors for brick and structural clay product manufacturing.  Table 11.3-3 presents emission factors


11.3-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                  8/97

-------
for S02, S03, NOX, CO, and C02 emissions from brick dryers, kilns (fired with natural gas, coal, and
sawdust), and from a combined source-sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer. To estimate emissions of NOX,
and CO from fuel oil-fired kilns, refer to the AP-42 section addressing oil combustion. Table 11.3-4 presents
emission factors for HF, total fluorides, and HC1 emissions from brick kilns and from a combined source--
sawdust-fired kilns and sawdust drying. Table 11.3-5 presents emission factors for TOC as propane,
methane, and VOC from brick dryers, kilns, and from a combined source—sawdust-fired kilns and sawdust
drying.  Tables 11.3-6 and 11,3-7 present emission factors for speciated organic compounds and metals,
respectively. Table 11.3-8 presents particle size distribution data for sawdust- and coal-fired kilns.  Although
many of the emission factors presented in the tables are assigned lower ratings than emission factors in
previous editions of AP-42, the new factors are based on higher quality data than the old factors.
8/97                                    Mineral Products                                   11.3-5

-------

19
on
Z
O
U
PL,
O
o
2
£_J
f-H
O
1
O
m
(^
o
UH
FACTOR?
5
o
c/i
C/5
§
m

H
CJ
H

^~J
CL,

i-H
1


U
H

fc
U
Condensi










u

_.
to





^0 C_l H^
O
<5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
u
•a
c$
§
(-H
§sg
K H P
on u H
S <; •<
SS"
v>
(N

s
MISSION
FACTOR
RATING

0
1
CM

M y H
a











o
on
^
g

*


^£
z
2





»

ON
O
o

s
g






u. C



u u
.0 °
Primary crusher with fa
(SCC 3-05-003-40)
Grinding and screening
(SCC 3-05-003-02)
.<<
^^^

22i


^C '^C '^
^ fc !Z
< < <


g^
2

^q pq pq

tn tN
O VI O
P d P
o o

WWW
P 00 O
0 d









"=3 .
processing wet maten
processing dry materi
with fabric filter8
•
£

•


^*
Z
<





W

VO
o
d

'
p







j—


1
Extrusion line with fab
(SCC 3-05-003-42
S§ p
— o*
p ^^
^ d
W P

•^ Pu
i-H QQ
d d
? 1





1 -

_ c
P °°
d

W U
'F- S
r- r-
0 0









^-N
»— t
Brick dryer
(SCC 3-05-003-50, -
Natural gas-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-11)
P
0-
1-H
O
p

0.
00
d
P


00
 cr
O O
P P

a a

d d
|j P


§^
t

^ °

x
P ^o
o

W P
^ ^r
d °










with fabric filter
Sawdust-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-10)
W
i
o
*

ro

O
d
?





«


cl
o

«
«*!




%

"c3

CO
9
!
1 Sawdust-fired kiln and
(SCC 3-05-003-61)
1
p

•


/~s

^





3


Q
^

„
P


>>
a
o

^s
s

to
g1
1 Natural gas-fired kiln fi
tilez

































R
o
o
s
o
o
                                                                   .s
                                                              S 4)
                                                               a *8
11.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97

-------























?
o
U
ro
i— i
0
3
H














ff
o
fS
1

^,
<
S3
!>-.
&
0
rt
S

I
"SL

1
CO

*?
C
u
^3
>•
1
u
£
U->
•o
O
-3
U
<:
OH
W
§
c«
O
§
-S
a
t ,
s
.s
ex
s
> §
-^ S ro 53 <2
^1 S s 's
'a-S «g -a §
'§-1 1 « 1
^•S -g H g
8l 1 a «
H 1 1 5
sj -0 -S 0- S
1* e ° |
&S -3 f 8
e«^ "C 5 «
-§ « S -d 8 y §
co 2 u s c 5
U -r-i C CO O O CO
Si illil
,..„._, frt VH flj C3 -4— >
T3 TO -- * »^i S
§2 S^^JP'S
bo H o ca „§ «« c
« -i -o e a 2 8,
?« sMs^
of raw material processed. Gri
is based on measurements at th
isture content of 4 percent.
n of raw material processed. B
ge buildings that can be fully or
ton of raw material processed.
rage raw material moisture com
nts processing material with a 5
|8 iff 8.1*
b £ "3 &.S -a . &
cx^-c-a-o a-o_£
-a-o g oS 0-3
S"0^32^o)-,
1 § I^lf-i &
~.2 fe.^43 &i c 5>
oogS,>>t*-|'u>p
o, g 2 M-7=g ° >, g
^^«°S£=i8
fi!i|o|:S11
e'S'Skuco^"
^a^^ss-ls^
•^ Sm i S !^^
Reference 29.
Reference 8. Emission factor ui
large buildings that can be fully
effect of the building enclosure.
Reference 11. Emission factor i
Grinding and screening operatic
References 8-9. Emission facto:
in large buildings that can be ful
Reference 29. Extrusion line wi
TJ U <<-c 00 JS































CO
s
applicable to typical extrusion li
Reference 21,36-37.

















I
^o
p
a
CO
b
•6
ca
•S
'S
T3
O
1
§
0
C
3
C8
I
1
T3
CO
1
"o
C
>—t
t^-
m
vA
m^
1-"
ro
tN
ro
o"
CO
Reference 21.
References 8,12,15,22,25-26,29
* e
































Reference 25.
c






























«Hk
^J
m
i
m
m
o"
ro
i
ON
°i

g
2n
c2
«j
c^
o.
































References 8-9, 11, 25,29-30.
tr
































References 9,13-14,17-18,21.
U
































References 9,13-14,17-18,21.
w




-d
U
"
^
S
c3
I
























M
'Si
1
«
T3
1
CO
KJ
1
S
CO
-4_»
CO
3
C8
•a
-> N
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3.-7

-------
     Table 11.3-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL PM, TOTAL PM-10, AND TOTAL PM-2.5
                        FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS3
Source
Primary crusher with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-003-40)
Grinding and screening operations
(SCC 3-05-003-02)
processing dry material0
processing wet material
with fabric filter6
Extrusion line with fabric filte/
(SCC 3-05-003-42)
Natural gas-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-11)
Coal-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 13)
uncontrolled
with fabric filter
Sawdust-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 10)
Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer8
(SCC 3-05-003-61)
Total PM*
PM
ND

8.5
0.025
0.0062
ND

0.96


1.8
0.63
0.93

1.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA

E
E
E
NA

D


B
E
D

E
PM-10
0.00059

0.53
0.0023
0.0032
0.0036

0.87


1.4
ND
0.85

0.31
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

E
E
E
E

D


C
NA
D

E
PM-2.5
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


0.87
ND
0.75

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA


D
NA
D

NA
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired bricks produced unless noted. Factors represent
  uncontrolled emissions unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data. NA = not
  applicable. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
b Total PM emission factors are the sum of filterable PM and condensible inorganic and organic PM
  emission factors from Table 11.3-1.  Total PM-10 emission factors are the sum of filterable PM-10 and
  condensible inorganic and organic PM emission factors from Table 11.3-1. Total PM-2.5 emission factors
  are the sum of filterable PM-2.5 and condensible inorganic and organic PM emission factors from Table
  11.3-1.
c Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of raw material processed. Grinding and screening
  operations are typically housed in large buildings that can be fully or partially enclosed. Factor is based on
  measurements at the inlet to a fabric filter and does not take into account the effect of the building
  enclosure. Based on a raw material moisture content of 4 percent.
d Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of raw material processed. Based on a raw material
  moisture content of 13 percent.  Grinding and screening operations are typically housed in large buildings
  that can be fully or partially enclosed.
e Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of raw material processed. Grinding and screening
  operations are typically housed in large buildings that can be fully or partially enclosed.
f This emission factor is not applicable to typical extrusion lines. Extrusion line with several conveyor drop
  points processing material with a 5-9 percent moisture content.
8 Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
11.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97

-------



o>


H
5j
W
PH
O
o
\CTURIN
PL,
;->
Z
<;
S
o
2
PQ
0
[T,
0!
o
H
U
U-
2
0
55
h— <
w
C*1
^H
i— H
H




EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
(S
O
u
Igg
t/3 H H
§ **• C§
W


O
o



EMISSK».
FACTOR
RATING


o*
g
§o§
K^H
S <; <
122


m
o
on
§*o
£o H 5
w o H
1^«

rj
O






3
O
W CQ CQ
g g
<4^- o o
r- o o
WO 0




m N ^
o "^ rt



WO O

T3
oo 7}S uS
§ o o
CQ m o
6 S =
o o o
o o o
O O Q




"^ ^00
r-« .— « <— j



O O D


?•> ?! *£
O dd
Q
X
o
ON
Q




X
— '



W


^
o
in g S | S n

^5 1

^0 Q

00 _
< t- ^
•^ d "•>

3

u SP
6 -c
JJ «e
g; J7 c S~ c -3 R
S" m -"3 >— ' ~ 'C ^
with medium-efficienc
wet scrubberq
with high-efficiency
packed-bed scrubber1
Coal-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 13)

d

O



O





1 — 1
^ rA
3 °
j* o
•o '
| o
-o 0
                                               u

                                               5
                                               -a
                                               H
                                               y3

                                               •s

                                               I

                                               £
                                              <3
                  3  c^-«


                  Jill
                   ft fi ^H  P
                   a,-53 ^3  i-
                   CS  fa -C  o
                  •g 
-------
 o
 o
en
11.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97

-------
   Table 11.3-4. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, TOTAL FLUORIDES, AND
            HYDROGEN CHLORIDE FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS3
Source
Sawdust- or natural gas-fired tunnel kiln
(SCC 3-05-003-10,-! 1)
uncontrolled
with dry scrubber11
with medium-efficiency wet scrubber-1
with high-efficiency packed-bed
scrubber^
Coal-fired tunnel kilnm
(SCC 3-05-003-13)
Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer11
(SCC 3-05-003-61)
HFb

0.37e
ND
ND
ND
0.17
0.18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C
NA
NA
NA
D
E
Total
fluorides0

0.59f
0.028
0.18
0.0013
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

E
C
C
C
NA
NA
HCld

0.178
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
   Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired product. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions
   unless noted. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND
   = no data. NA = not applicable.
   Hydrogen fluoride measured using an EPA Method 26A or equivalent sampling train.
   Total fluorides measured using an EPA Method 13B or equivalent sampling train.
   Hydrogen chloride measured using an EPA Method 26A or equivalent sampling train.
   References 8,11,26-27,32,34. Factor includes data from kilns firing structural clay tile. Data from kilns
   firing natural gas and sawdust are averaged together because fuel type (except for coal) does not appear to
   affect HF emissions. However, the raw material fluoride content does effect HF emissions. A mass
   balance on fluoride will provide a better estimate of emissions for individual facilities.  Assuming that all
   of the fluorine in the raw material is released as HF, each Ib of fluorine will result in 1.05 Ib of HF
   emissions.
   Reference 26. Factor is 1.6 times the HF factor.
   References 8,26.
   References 22,33-34. Kiln firing material with a high fluorine content. Dry scrubber using limestone as a
   sorption medium.
   Reference 29. Medium-efficiency wet scrubber using a soda-ash/water solution (maintained at pH 7) as
   the scrubbing liquid. The design of this scrubber is not typical. Kiln firing material with a high fluorine
   content.
   Reference 30. High-efficiency packed bed scrubber with soda-ash/water solution circulated through the
   packing section. Kiln firing material with a high fluorine content (uncontrolled emission factor of
   2. lib/ton).
   References 9,26.
   Reference 11. Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
8/97
Mineral Products
                                                                                       11.3-11

-------
               Table 11.3-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOC, METHANE, AND VOC
                       FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS3
Source
Brick dryer*1
(SCC 3-05-003-50)
Brick dryer w/supplemental gas burner
(SCC 3-05-003-51)
Brick kiln)
(SCC 3-05-003-10,-! 1.-13)
Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryer"
(SCC 3-05-003-61)
TOCb
0.05e
0.148
0.062k
0.18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
C
E
Methane
0.02f
O.llh
0.037m
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
NA
vocc
0.03
0.03
0.024
0.18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
D
E
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired product. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions
  unless noted. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND
  = no data. ND = not applicable.
b Total organic compounds reported "as propane"; measured using EPA Method 25A, unless noted.
c VOC as propane; calculated as the difference in the TOC and methane emission factors for this source.  If
  no methane factor is available, VOC emissions are estimated using the TOC emission factor. In addition,
  emissions of the non-reactive compounds shown in Table 11.3-6 (brick kiln = 0.00094 Ib/ton) are
  subtracted from the TOC factors to calculate VOC.
d Brick dryer heated with waste heat from the kiln cooling zone.
e References 9-10.
f Reference 9.  Methane value includes methane and ethane emissions.  Most of these emissions are believed
  to be methane.
8 References 8,37.
h Factor is estimated by assuming that VOC emissions from dryers with and without supplemental burners
  are equal. The VOC factor is subtracted from the TOC factor to estimate methane emissions.
  Includes natural gas-, coal-, and sawdust-fired tunnel kilns.
k References 8-11,25,32,36-37. Data from kilns firing natural gas, coal, and sawdust are averaged together
  because the data indicate that the fuel type does not effect TOC emissions.
m References 8-9,25. Data from kilns firing natural gas, coal, and sawdust are averaged together because the
  data indicate that the fuel type does not effect methane emissions.
n Reference 11. Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
j
11.3-12
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
8/97

-------
     Table 11.3-6. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM
                     BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS3

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Coal-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 13)


































Pollutant
CASRN
75-34-3
71-55-6
106-46-7
78-93-3
591-78-6
91-57-6
95-48-7
67-64-1
71-43-2
65-85-0
117-81-7
74-83-9
85-68-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
108-90-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
132-64-9

84-66-2
131-11-3
100-41-4
78-59-1
1330-20-7
75-09-2
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
71-55-6
108-88-3
108-05-4
75-69-4
Name
1,1-dichloroethane
l,l,l-trichloroethaneb*
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
2-butanone
2-hexanoneb
2-methylnaphthalene
2-methylphenolb
Acetone*
Benzene
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Bromomethane
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachlorideb
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroformb
Chloromethane
Dibenzofuran0
Di-n-octylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalateb
Ethyl benzene
Isophorone
M-/p-xylene
Methylene chloride*
Naphthalene
O-xylene
Phenol
Styreneb
Tetrachloroethaneb
Trichloroethaneb*
Toluene
Vinyl acetateb
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
S.OxlO'6
BDL(1.7xlO'5)
3.2xlO'6
2.5xlO-4
BDL (9.4xlO~7)
1.7xlO'6
BDL(2.2xlO'6)
6.8xlO'4
2.9xlO'4
2.5xlO'4
7.3xlO'5
2.4xlO'5
1.2xlO'6
2.3xlO'6
BDL(1.0xlO-7)
2.1xlO'5
l.lxlO'5
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
l.lxlO'4
3.6xlO'7
1.2xlO'5
1.4X10'6
BDL(7.8xlO'7)
2.1xlO'5
3.0xlO'5
\.3xW~4
S.OxlO'7
6.9xlO'6
4.7xlO'5
3.5xlO'5
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
BDL(1.0xlO"7)
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
2.5xlO'4
BDL(1.0xlO'7)
1.4xlO'5
Ref. No.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3-13

-------
                                  Table 11.3-6 (cont.).
Source
Natural gas-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 11)






















Sawdust-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 10)













Pollutant
CASRN
71-55-6
106-46-7
91-57-6
78-93-3
591-78-6
67-64-1
71-43-2
117-81-7
85-68-7
75-15-0
7782-50-5
75-00-3
74-87-3
84-74-2
84-66-2
100-41-4
1330-20-7
74-88-4
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
78-93-3
591-78-6
95-48-7
67-64-1
107-13-1
71-43-2
117-81-7
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
67-66-3
74-87-3
84-74-2
132-64-9
Name
1,1,1-Trichloroethane*
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
2-methylnaphthalene
2-butanone
2-Hexanone
Acetone*
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbon disulfide
Chlorine
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Ethylbenzene
M-/p-Xylene
lodomethane
Naphthalene
o-Xylene
Phenol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
l,l,l-trichloroethaneb*
2-butanoneb
2-hexanoneb
2-methylphenolb
Acetone*
Acrylonitrile6
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachlorideb
Chloroformb
Chloromethane
Di-n-butylphthalatec
Dibenzofuran
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
4.7X10"6
4.8xlO'5
5.7X10'5
0.00022
8.5xlO'5
0.0017
0.0029
0.0020
l.SxlO'5
4.3xlO'5
0.0013
0.00057
0.00067
0.00014
0.00024
4.4xlO'5
6.7xlO's
9.3xlO'5
6.5xlO'5
5.8xlO'5
8.6xlO's
2.0xlO's
2.8X10"6
0.00016
BDL (3.0X10'7)
BDL (6.6XW6)
BDL (3.0xlQ-7)
BDL(2.0xlO'9)
3.9X10"*
1.5xlO'5
5.2X10"4
2.9xlO'5
S.OxlO'5
1.6X10'5
BDL (3.0xlO'7)
BDL (3.0X10'7)
6.8X10"4
6.1xlO'6
l.SxlO'5
Ref. No.
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11.3-14
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97

-------
                                         Table 11.3-6 (cont).
Source
Sawdust-fired kiln
(SCC 3-05-003- 10)












Sawdust-fired kiln .
and sawdust dryer
(SCC 3-05-003-61)























Pollutant
CASRN
84-74-2
100-41-4
74-88-4
1330-20-7
75-09-2
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
75-69-4
108-05-4
71-55-6
78-93-3
591-78-6
95-48-7
67-64-1
107-13-1
71-43-2
117-81-7
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
67-66-3
74-87-3
84-74-2
132-64-9
131-11-3
100-41-4
74-88-4
1330-20-7
75-09-2
91-20-3
95-47-6
108-95-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
Name
Dimethylphthalate0
Ethyl benzene
lodomethane
M-/p-xylene
Methylene chloride*
Naphthalene0
O-xylene0
Phenol
Styreneb
Tetrachl oroethaneb
Toluene
Trichloroethane *
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Vinyl acetateb
l,l,l-trichloroethaneb*
2-butanone
2-hexanoneb
2-methylphenolb
Acetone*
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachlorideb
Chloroformb
Chloromethane
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
DJmethylphthalateb
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
M-/p-xylene
Methylene chloride*
Naphthalene15
O-xylene
Phenol
Styreneb
Tetrachloroethaneb
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
l.OxlO'5
8.5xlO'6
2-OxlO-4
2.9xlO'5
7.5xlQ-6
3.4xlO'4
3.8xlO'6
7.2xlO'5
BDL (4.4X10'7)
BDL (3.0xlO'7)
l.lxlO'4
BDL(3.0xW7)
5.8xlO'6
BDL (3.0xlO~7)
BDL (5.2xW7)
2.2xlO'4
BDL(3.8xlO'7)
BDL (2.4xlO-9)
0.0010
1.9xlO'5
5.6xlO'4
1.4xlO'4
4.4xlO'5
l.SxlO'5
BDL (3.8xlO'7)
BDL (3.8xlO'7)
0.0014
1.6xlO-5
BDL(2.4xlO-9)
BDL (2.4x1 0'9)
l.OxlO'5
2.4xlO'4
2.9xlO'5
6.2xlO'5
BDL(2.4xlO'9)
7.3xlO'6
l.OxlO'4
BDL (4.2xlO-6)
BDL (3.8xlO'7)
Ref. No.
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3-15

-------
                                       Table 11.3-6 (cont.).
Source
Sawdust-fired kiln and
sawdust dryer
(SCC 3-05-003-61)


Pollutant
CASRN
108-88-3
71-55-6
75-69-4
108-05-4
Name
Toluene
Trichloroethane *
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Vinyl acetate
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
4.3xlO'4
BDL (3.8xlO'7)
l.OxlO"6
1.9xlO'7
Ref. No.
11
11
11
11
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired bricks produced. To convert from Ib/ton to
  kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.  * = Non-reactive
  compound as designated in 40 CFR 51.100(s), July 1,1995.  BDL = concentration was below the method
  detection limit.
b The emission factor for this pollutant is shown in parentheses and is based on the detection limit.
c Emissions were below the detection limit during two of three test runs.  Emission factor is estimated as the
  average of the single measured quantity and one-half of the detection limit for the two nondetect runs.
d These emission factors are based on data from an atypical facility.
e Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
11.3-16
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97

-------
                  Table 11.3-7. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALS EMISSIONS
                        FROM BRICK MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS3
Source
Kilnb (SCC 3-05-003-10,-! 1,-13)






Coal-fired kiln (SCC 3-05-003-13)




Natural gas-fired kiln (SCC 3-05-003-1 1)



Sawdust-fired kiln (SCC 3-05-003-10)




Sawdust-fired kiln and sawdust dryerd
(SCC 3-05-003-61)









Pollutant
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
Mercury
Phosphorus
Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
Mercury
Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
Mercury
Phosphorus
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Emission Factor,
Ib/ton
2.7xlO'5
1.5xlO'5
S.lxlO'5
ZlxlO-6
l.SxlO-4
7.2xlO'5
2.3X10"4
1.3x10^
1.6X10'5
2.9x10^
9.6X10'5
9.8X10"4
S.lxlO'5
4.2x1 0"7
2.9X10-4
7.5xlO-6
3.1xlO'5
4.2xlO'7
0.013C
7.5xlO'6
9.8X10"4
2.8xlO'6
2.1xlO-5
3.1xlO'7
2.2X10'5
4.8xlO'5
1.2X10"4
4.8X10"4
l.lxlO'5
3.4xlO'5
5.5X10"4
4.7xlO'5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
E
E
D
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Reference
Nos.
8-9,11,25
8-9,11,25
9,11,25
25
8-9,11,25
9,11,25
8-9,11,25
9
9
8-9,25
9
9,11
8,11,25
8,11,25
8-9,25
11,25
8,11,25
8,11,25
11
11,25
9,11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
a Emission factor units are Ib of pollutant per ton of fired brick produced. Emission factors for individual
  facilities will vary based on the metal content of the raw material, metallic colorants used on the face of the
  bricks, metallic additives mixed into the bodies of the bricks, and the metal content of the fuels used for
  firing the kilns.
b Coal-, natural gas-, or sawdust-fired tunnel kiln.
c The facility uses a manganese surface treatment on the bricks. The manganese emission factor for coal-
  and natural gas-fired kilns is a better estimate for sawdust-fired kilns firing bricks that do not have a
  manganese surface treatment.  Conversely, this emission factor should be used to estimate manganese
  emissions from coal- or natural gas-fired kilns firing a product with manganese surface treatment.
d Sawdust dryer heated with the exhaust stream from a sawdust-fired kiln.
8/97
Mineral Products
11.3-17

-------
                   Table 11.3.8. AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                       FOR FILTERABLE PM EMISSIONS FROM KILNS3
Source
Sawdust-fired kiln


Coal-fired kiln


Aerodynamic Diameter,
microns
10b
2.5
1
10b
2.5
1
Percent of Filterable PM
Emissions Less Than or Equal
to Stated Particle Size
75
48
44
63
23
9.8
Reference No.
11,20
11,20
11,20
9,21
21
21
a  Particle size distribution based on cascade impactor tests unless noted.
b  Based on cascade impactor particle size distribution and a comparison of PM-10 (measured using EPA
   Method 201A) and filterable PM (measured using EPA Method 5) emissions.

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 11.3

 1.     1992 Census Of Manufactures, Cement And Structural Clay Products, U. S. Department Of
       Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1995.

 2.     Telephone communication between B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, and
       N, Cooney, Brick Institute Of America, Reston, VA, October, 20, 1994.

 3.     Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, October 1986.

 4.     Written communication from J. Dowdle, Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc., Madison, NC, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1992.

 5.     Written communication from B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.

 6.     Written communication from B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1993.

 7.     D. A. Brosnan, "Monitoring For Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions", Ceramic Industry, July 1994.

 8.     Emission Testing At A Structural Brick Manufacturing Plant-Final Emission Test Report For
       Testing At Belden Brick Company, Plant 6, Sugarcreek, OH, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1995.

 9.     Final Test Report For U. S. EPA Test Program Conducted At General Shale Brick Plant, Johnson
       City, TN, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1993.

 10.    Flue Gas Characterization Studies  Conducted On The SOB Kiln And Dryer Stacks In Atlanta, GA
       For General Shale Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, March 1993.
11.3-18
EMISSION FACTORS
8/97

-------
11.    Final Test Report For U. S. EPA Test Program Conducted At Pine Hall Brick Plant, Madison, NC,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1993.

12.    Source Emission Test At Belden Brick,  Inc., Sugarcreek, OH, No. 1 Kiln, Plant 3, CSA Company,
       Alliance, OH, March 3,  1992.

13.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On The Tunnel Kiln #6B And #28 In Marion, VA, For General
       Shale Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 1990.

14.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On The Tunnel Kiln #21 In Glascow, VA, For General Shale
       Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 16, 1990.

15.    Source Emission Test At Belden Brick,  Inc., Sugarcreek, OH, No. 1 Kiln, Plants, CSA Company,
       Alliance, OH, July 21,1989.

16.    Sulfur Dioxide Emission Tests Conducted On The #20 Tunnel Kiln In Mooresville, IN, For
       General Shale Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, December 2, 1986.

17.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On The #7B Tunnel Kiln In Knoxville, TN, For General Shale
       Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, April 22, 1986.

18.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted On Plant #15 In Kingsport, TN, For General Shale Products
       Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 11,1983.

19.    Particulate Emission  Tests For General Shale Products Corporation, Kingsport, TN, Tunnel Kiln
       TK-29And Coal Crusher, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, July 21, 1982.

20.    Building Brick And Structural Clay Wood Fired Brick Kiln, Emission Test Report,  Chatham Brick
       And Tile Company, Gulf, NC, EMB Report 80-BRK-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1980.

21.    Building Brick And Structural Clay Industry, Emission Test Report, Lee Brick And Tile Company,
       Sanford, NC, EMB Report 80-BRK-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, April  1980.

22.    Exhaust Emission Sampling, Acme Brick Company, Sealy, TX, Armstrong Environmental Inc.,
       Dallas, TX, June 21, 1991.

23.    Stationary Source Sampling Report: Chatham Brick And Tile Company, Sanford, NC, Kiln No. 2
       Particulate Emissions Compliance  Testing, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle
       Park, NC, July 1979.

24.    D. Brosnan, "Technology And Regulatory Consequences Of Fluorine Emissions In Ceramic
       Manufacturing", American Ceramic Industry Bulletin, 71 (12), pp 1798-1802, The American
       Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, December 1992.
8/97                                   Mineral Products                                 11.3-19

-------
25.    Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 14448, Triangle Brick, Merry Oaks, North
       Carolina, Emissions Testing For: Carbon Monoxide, Condensible Participate, Metals, Methane,
       Nitrogen Oxides, Participate, Participate * 10 Microns, Sulfur Dioxide, Total Hydrocarbons,
       Entropy, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October, 1995.

26.    BIA HF Research Program Stack Testing Results (and Individual Stack Test Data Sheets), Center
       for Engineering Ceramic Manufacturing, Clemson University, Anderson, SC, November, 1995.

27.    Source Emission Tests At Stark Ceramics, Inc., East Canton, OH, No. 3 Kiln Stack, CSA
       Company, Alliance, OH, September 16, 1993.

28.    Crescent Brick Stack Test-No. 2 Tunnel Kiln, CSA Company, Alliance, OH, February 29,1988.

29.    Emissions Survey Conducted At Interstate Brick Company, Located In West Jordan, Utah,
       American Environmental Testing, Inc., Spanish Fork, UT, December 22, 1994.

30.    Emissions Survey For SO2, NO^ CO, HF, And PM-10 Emissions Conducted On Interstate Brick
       Company's Kiln No. 3 Scrubber, Located In West Jordan, Utah, American Environmental Testing,
       Inc., Spanish Fork, UT, November 30, 1995.

31.    Stationary Source Sampling Report For Isenhour Brick Company, Salisbury, North Carolina, No.
       6 Kiln Exhausts 1 And 2, Sawdust Dryer Exhaust, Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc., Charlotte,
       NC, October 1995.

32.    Participate, Fluoride, And CEM Emissions Testing On The #1 And #2 Kiln Exhausts, Boral
       Bricks, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Roswell, GA, September 26,
       1996.

33.    Source Emissions Survey Of Boral Bricks, Inc., Absorber Stack (EPN-K), Henderson, Texas, TACB
       Permit 21012, METCO Environmental, Addison, TX, June 1995.

34.    Source Emissions Survey Of Boral Bricks, Inc., Absorber Stack (EPN-K) And Absorber Inlet Duct,
       Henderson, Texas, METCO Environmental, Addison, TX, February 1996.

35.    Stationary Source Sampling Report For Statesville Brick Company, Statesville, NC, Kiln Exhaust,
       Sawdust Dryer Exhaust, Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc., Charlotte, NC, November 1994.

36.    Source Emissions Testing, Marseilles Brick, Marseilles, Illinois, Fugro Midwest, Inc., St. Ann,
       MO, October 13, 1994.

37.    Source Emissions Testing, Marseilles Brick, Marseilles, Illinois, Fugro Midwest, Inc., St. Ann,
       MO, July 1, 1994.

38.    Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.3, Brick and Structural ClayProduct
       Manufacturing, Final Report, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, August 1997.
11.3-20                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 8/97

-------
11.14 Frit Manufacturing

11.14.1 Process Description1"6

        Frit is a homogeneous melted mixture of inorganic materials that is used in enameling iron and steel
and in glazing porcelain and pottery.  Frit renders soluble and hazardous compounds inert by combining them
with silica and other oxides. Frit also is used in bonding grinding wheels, to lower vitrification temperatures,
and as a lubricant in steel casting and metal extrusion. The six digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for
frit manufacturing is 3-05-013.

        Frit is prepared by fusing a variety of minerals in a furnace and then rapidly quenching the molten
material. The constituents of the feed material depend on whether the frit is to be used as a ground coat or as
a cover coat.  For cover coats, the primary constituents of the raw material charge include silica, fluorspar,
soda ash, borax, feldspar, zircon, aluminum oxide, lithium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, and titanium
oxide. The constituents of the charge for a ground coat include the same compounds plus smaller amounts of
metal oxides such as cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, copper oxide, and manganese oxide.

        To begin the process, raw materials are shipped to the manufacturing facility by truck or rail and are
stored in bins. Next, the raw materials are carefully weighed in the correct proportions.  The raw batch then
is dry mixed and transferred to a hopper prior to being fed into the smelting furnace. Although pot furnaces,
hearth furnaces, and rotary furnaces have been used to produce frit in batch operations, most frit is now
produced in continuous smelting furnaces.  Depending on the application, frit smelting furnaces operate at
temperatures  of 930° to  1480°C (1700° to 2700°F).  If a continuous furnace is used, the mixed charge is fed
by screw conveyor directly into the furnace.  Continuous furnaces operate at temperatures of 1090° to
1430°C (2000 ° to 2600°F). When smelting is complete, the molten material is passed between water-cooled
metal rollers that limit the thickness of the material, and then it is quenched with a water spray that shatters
the material into small glass particles called frit.

        After quenching, the frit is milled by either wet or dry grinding. If the latter, the frit is dried before
grinding. Frit produced in continuous furnaces generally can be ground without drying,  and it is sometimes
packaged for  shipping without further processing. Wet milling of frit is no longer common. However, if the
frit is wet-milled, it can be charged directly to the grinding mill without drying. Rotary dryers are the devices
most commonly used for drying frit.  Drying tables and stationary dryers also have been used. After drying,
magnetic separation may be used to remove iron-bearing material. The frit is  finely ground in a ball mill, into
which clays and other electrolytes may be added, and then the product is screened and stored.  The frit
product then is transported to on-site  ceramic manufacturing processes or is prepared for shipping.  In recent
years, the electrostatic deposition spray method has become the preferred method of applying frit glaze to
surfaces. Frit that is to be applied in that manner is mixed during the grinding step with an organic silicon
encapsulating agent, rather than with  clay and electrolytes. Figure 11.14-1 presents a process flow  diagram
for frit manufacturing.

11.14.2 Emissions And Controls1-7-10

        Significant emissions of particulate matter (PM) and PM less than 10 micrometers (PM-10) are
created by the frit smelting operation in the form of dust and fumes.  These emissions consist primarily of
condensed metallic oxide fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge.  The emissions also contain
mineral dust and sometimes hydrogen fluoride.  Emissions from furnaces also include products of
combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO),  carbon dioxide (CO^, and nitrogen oxides (NOJ. Sulfur oxides
(SOX) also may be emitted, but they generally are absorbed by the molten material to form an
6/97                                Mineral Products Industry                            11.14-1

-------
                                    RAW MATERIALS
                                       STORAGE
                                       WEIGHING

                                      (345-013-02)
                                        MIXING

                                      (345-013-03)
                                       FURNACE
                                       CHARGING

                                      (3-06-013-04)
                                       SMELTING
                                       FURNACE

                                      (345-013-04)
                                      OUENCWNG

                                      (3-06-013-10)
       CLAYS. OTHER
       ELECTROLYTES
            PACKAGING
                                     TO CERAMIC
                                    MANUFACTURING
                                      PROCESS
                                                      ©
                                                       A
                                    PM EMISSIONS

                                    GASEOUS EMISSIONS
                                  CLAYS AND OTHER
                                  ELECTROLYTES OR
                                ENCAPSULATING AGENT
                      Figure 11.14-1 Process flow diagram for frit manufacturing.
                              (Source Classification Code in parentheses)
11.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
6/97

-------
immiscible sulphate that is eliminated in the quenching operation. Particulate matter also is emitted from
drying, grinding, and materials handling and transfer operations

        Emissions from the furnace can be minimized by careful control of the rate and duration of raw
material heating, to prevent volatilization of the more fusible charge materials. Emissions from rotary
furnaces also can be reduced with careful control of the rotation speed, to prevent excessive dust carryover.
Venturi scrubbers and fabric filters are the devices most commonly used to control emissions from frit
smelting furnaces, and fabric filters are commonly used to control emissions from grinding operations. No
information is available on the type of emission controls used on quenching, drying, and materials handling
and transfer operations.

        Table 11.14-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM, CO, NOW and CO^ emissions from frit
manufacturing.  Table 11.14-2 presents emission factors for other pollutant emissions from frit
manufacturing.

11.14.3  Updates Since the Fifth Edition

        The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995.  A complete revision of this section was completed
on 11/95.  The emission factor for NOx for Smelting Furnace was revised on 6/97 based upon a review of the
production information that was provided by the manufacturing facility.
                Table 11.14-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT MANUFACTURING2

                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Smelting furnace
(SCC 3-05-013-05,06)
Smelting furnace with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-0 13-05,06)
Smelting furnace with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
Filterable PMb
16°
1.8f
0.020d
CO
4.8°
g
g
NOX
16d
g
g
CO2
l,300e
g
g
* Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. Emission factor units are Ib/ton of
 feed material. ND = no data. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg,
 multiply by 0.5.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
 sampling train.
c Reference 1.
d Reference 10.
'Reference 7-10.
f References 7-9. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
8 See factor for uncontrolled emissions.
6/97
Mineral Products Industry
11.14-3

-------
              Table 11.14-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT MANUFACTURING-
                                FLUORIDES AND METALS"

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Smelting furnace with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-0 13-05,-06)







Pollutant
fluorides
barium
chromium
cobalt
copper
lead
manganese
nickel
zinc
Emission factor, Ib/ton
0.88
2.8 x lO'5
1.4 xlO'5
4.3 x lO'6
1.9xlO-5
9.6 x ID"6
1.4xlO-5
1.6 x 10-5
1.2 x 10-"
•Reference 10. Factor units are Ib/ton of material feed.
 SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
References For Section 11.14

1.  J. L. Spinks, "Frit Smelters", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Danielson, J. A. (ed.), PHS Publication
   Number 999-AP-40, U. S. Department Of Health, Education, And Welfare, Cincinnati, OH, 1967.

2.  "Materials Handbook", Ceramic Industry, Troy, MI, January 1994.

3.  Andrew I. Andrews, Enamels: The Preparation, Application, And Properties Of Vitreous Enamels,
   Twin City Printing Company, Champaign, IL, 1935.

4.  Written communication from David Ousley, Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
   Montgomery, AL, to Richard Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, April 1, 1993.

5.  Written communication from Bruce Larson, Chi-Vit Corporation, Urbana, OH, to David Ousley,
   Alabama Department Of Environment Management, Montgomery, AL, October 10,1994.

6.  Written communication from John Jozefowski, Miles Industrial Chemicals Division, Baltimore, MD, to
   Ronald E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 22,
   1994.
11.14-4
EMISSION FACTORS
6/97

-------
7.  Particulate Emissions Test Results, No. 2 North Stack, Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg, Alabama,
    ATC, Inc. Auburn, AL, May 1987.

8.  No. I South Stack Paniculate Test Report,  Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg, Alabama, April 1989,
    ATC, Inc., Auburn, AL, May 1989.

9.  Frit Unit No. 2, Scrubber No. 2, Particulate Emission Test Report, Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg,
    Alabama, April 1991, ATC, Inc., Auburn, AL, April 1991.

10. Diagnostic Test, Dry Gas Cleaning Exhauster Stack, Miles, Inc., International Technology Corporation,
    Monroeville, PA, February  1994.
6/97                              Mineral Products Industry                           11.14-5

-------
11.23  Taconite Ore Processing

11.23.1 General1

        The taconite ore processing industry produces usable concentrations of iron-bearing material by
removing nonferrous rock (gangue) from low-grade ore.  The six-digit Source Classification Code
(SCC) for taconite ore processing is 3-03-023. Table 11.23-1 lists the SCCs for taconite ore
processing.

        Taconite is a hard, banded, low-grade ore, and is the predominant iron ore remaining in the
United States. Ninety-nine percent of the crude iron ore produced in the United States is taconite.  If
magnetite is the principal  iron mineral, the rock is called magnetic taconite; if hematite is the principal
iron mineral, the rock is called hematic taconite.

        About 98 percent  of the demand for taconite comes from the iron and steel industry. The
remaining 2 percent comes mostly from the cement industry but also from manufacturers of heavy-
medium materials, pigments,  ballast, agricultural products, and specialty chemicals. Ninety-seven
percent of the processed ore shipped to the iron and steel industry is in the form of pellets.  Other
forms of processed ore include sinter and briquettes. The average iron content of pellets is  63 percent.

11.23.2 Process Description2"5'41

        Processing of taconite consists of crushing and grinding the  ore to liberate iron-bearing
particles, concentrating the ore by  separating  the particles from the waste material (gangue), and
pelletizing the iron ore concentrate. A simplified flow diagram of these processing steps is  shown in
Figure 11.23-1.

        Liberation is the first step  in processing crude taconite ore and consists mostly of crushing and
grinding.  The ore must be ground to a particle size sufficiently close to the grain size of the
iron-bearing mineral to allow for a high degree of mineral liberation.  Most of the taconite used today
requires very fine grinding.  Prior to grinding, the ore is dry-crushed in up to six stages,  depending on
the hardness of the ore. One or two stages of crushing may be performed at the mine prior to
shipping the raw material  to the processing facility. Gyratory crushers are generally used for primary
crushing, and cone  crushers are used for secondary and tertiary fine  crushing. Intermediate  vibrating
screens remove undersize  material  from the feed to the next crusher and allow for closed-circuit
operation of the fine crushers. After crushing, the size of the material is further reduced by wet
grinding in rod mills or ball mills.   The rod and ball mills are also in closed circuit with classification
systems such as cyclones.   An alternative to crushing is to feed some coarse ores directly to wet or dry
semiautogenous or autogenous grinding mills (using larger pieces of the ore to grind/mill the smaller
pieces), then to pebble or  ball mills. Ideally, the liberated particles of iron minerals and  barren gangue
should be removed from the grinding circuits as soon as they are formed, with larger particles returned
for further grinding.

        Concentration is the second step  in taconite ore processing.  As the  iron ore minerals are
liberated by the crushing steps, the iron-bearing particles must be concentrated.  Because only about 33
percent of the crude taconite becomes a shippable product for iron making, a large amount of gangue
2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-1

-------
          Table 11.23-1.  KEY FOR SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR
                        TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
Key3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ
AK
AL
AM

Source
Ore storage
Ore transfer
Primary crusher
Primary crusher return conveyor transfer
Secondary crushing line
Secondary crusher return conveyor transfer
Tertiary crushing
Tertiary crushing line
Tertiary crushing line discharge conveyor
Screening
Grinder feed
Primary grinding
Classification
Magnetic separation
Secondary grinding
Conveyor transfer to concentrator
Concentrate storage
Bentonite storage
Bentonite transfer to blending
Bentonite blending
Green pellet screening
Chip regrinding
Grate/kiln furnace feed
Straight grate furnace feed
Vertical shaft furnace feed
Hearth layer feed to furnace
Grate/kiln, gas-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, gas-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coke-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coke-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coal-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coal-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, flux pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, top gas stack, acid
pellets
sec
3-03-023-05
3-03-023-04
3-03-023-01
3-03-023-25
3-03-023-27
3-03-023-28
3-03-023-02
3-03-023-30
3-03-023-31
3-03-023-03
3-03-023-34
3-03-023-06
3-03-023-36
3-03-023-17
3-03-023-38
3-03-023-41
3-03-023-44
3-03-023-07
3-03-023-45
3-03-023-08
3-03-023-47
3-03-023-11
3-03-023-49
3-03-023-79
3-03-023-69
3-03-023-48
3-03-023-51
3-03-023-52
3-03-023-53
3-03-023-54
3-03-023-55
3-03-023-56
3-03-023-57
3-03-023-58
3-03-023-59
3-03-023-60
3-03-023-61
3-03-023-62
3-03-023-71

11.23-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97

-------
                                      Table 11.23-1.  (cent).
Keva
AN

AO

AP

AQ
AR
AS
AT
AU
AV
AW
AX
AY
AZ
BA
BB
BC
BD
BE
BF
BG
BH
b
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Source
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, top gas stack, flux
pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, bottom gas stack, acid
pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, bottom gas stack, flux
pellets
Straight grate, gas-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, gas-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, oil-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, oil-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, coke-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, coke-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln furnace discharge
Vertical shaft furnace discharge
Straight grate furnace discharge
Hearth layer screen
Pellet cooler
Pellet screen
Pellet transfer to storage
Pellet storage bin loading
Secondary storage bin loading
Tertiary storage bin loading
Haul road, rock
Haul road, taconite
Nonmagnetic separation
Tailings basin
Other, not classified
Traveling grate feed
Traveling grate discharge
Indurating furnace: gas-fired
Indurating furnace: oil-fired
Indurating furnace: coal -fired
Kiln
Conveyors, transfer, and loading
sec
3-03-023-72

3-03-023-73

3-03-023-74

3-03-023-81
3-03-023-82
3-03-023-83
3-03-023-84
3-03-023-85
3-03-023-86
3-03-023-87
3-03-023-88
3-03-023-50
3-03-023-70
3-03-023-80
3-03-023-93
3-03-023-15
3-03-023-95
3-03-023-16
3-03-023-96
3-03-023-97
3-03-023-98
3-03-023-21
3-03-023-22
3-03-023-18
3-03-023-40
3-03-023-99
3-03-023-09
3-03-023-10
3-03-023-12
3-03-023-13
3-03-023-14
3-03-023-19
3-03-023-20
         ^Refers to labels in Figure 11.23-1.
         °Not shown in Figure 11.23-1.
         clnactive code.
2/97
Taconite Ore Processing
                                                                                          11.23-3

-------

TACONITE ORE
STORAGE 0
'
©
.*J PRIMARY CRUSHING (c)|
§>|
1
1
f SECONDARY CRUSHING 0

'
SCREEN
Oversize
Undersize ore



j—fc- TERTIARY CRUSHING ©@l
Oversize ore
<



Oversize
1
r
ING Q

- ©
1 PRIMARY GRINDING Q
i
1 	 1 CLASSIFICATION (B)
'
1
MAGNETIC SEPARATION (R)

Oversize
*
Tailings
SECONDARY GRINDING (O) 1
1
CLASSIFIC



5ATION (M)

©
c

HYDRO-SEPARATOR
1 i
1 Ittnp,
L

CONCENTRATE 1
STORAGE 0 U-


* i
, , Tailings FLOTATION
CONCENTRATE |
THICKENER •* '
i
DISC FILTERS
~l ^=

BENTONITE _ 	
STORAGE (™)
I F
(£) | BLENDING (j)

J
CHIP X"N —
REGRIND ^




(
I
BALLING I
DRUMS i
Undersizs =
»:
^CRFFWIMft (\T\=

] Oversize
1 ©©(L/
* /--
vl*
INDURATION /AjM TO ^X) I— 	

1
AY) (A?) (PA) ^. HEARTH LAYER /^\:
^V^V^j *• scflEEN (5^1

PELLET COOLING (BC)
f.
PELLET SCREENING £|J\
Ife
PELLET STORAGE
(BF)(BG){BH)
11.23-4
Figure 11.23-1.  Process flow diagram for taconite ore processing.
    (Refer to Table 11.23-1 for Source Classification Codes)

                   EMISSION FACTORS
2/97

-------
is generated. Magnetic separation and flotation are the most commonly used methods for
concentrating taconite ore.

        Crude ores in which most of the recoverable iron is magnetite (or, in rare cases, maghemite)
are normally concentrated by magnetic separation.  The crude ore may contain 30 to 35 percent total
iron by assay, but theoretically only about 75 percent of this is recoverable magnetite. The remaining
iron is discarded with the gangue.

        Nonmagnetic taconite ores are concentrated by froth flotation or by a combination of selective
flocculation and flotation.  The method is determined by the differences in surface activity between the
iron and gangue particles.  Sharp separation is often difficult.

        Various combinations of magnetic separation and flotation may be used to concentrate ores
containing various iron  minerals (magnetite and hematite, or maghemite) and wide ranges of mineral
grain sizes. Flotation is also often used as a final polishing operation on magnetic concentrates.

        Pelletization is the third major step in taconite ore processing.  Iron ore concentrates must be
coarser than about No.  10 mesh to be acceptable  as blast furnace feed without further treatment.  Finer
concentrates are agglomerated into small "green"  pellets, which are classified as either acid pellets or
flux pellets.  Acid pellets are produced from iron ore and a  binder only, and flux pellets are produced
by adding between 1 and 10 percent limestone  to the ore and binder before pelletization.  Pelletization
generally is accomplished by tumbling moistened concentrate with a balling drum or balling disc.  A
binder, usually powdered bentonite, may be added to the concentrate to improve ball  formation and the
physical qualities of the "green" balls.  The bentonite is mixed with the carefully moistened feed at 5
to 10 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (10  to 20 pounds per ton [lb/ton]).

        The pellets are  hardened by a procedure called induration. The green balls are dried and
heated in an oxidizing atmosphere at incipient fusion temperature of 1290° to 1400°C (2350° to
2550°F), depending on  the composition of the balls, for several minutes and then cooled.  The
incipient fusion temperature for acid pellets falls in the lower region of this temperature range, and the
fusion temperature  for flux pellets falls in the higher region of this temperature range. The three
general types of indurating apparatus currently  used are the  vertical shaft furnace, the straight grate,
and the grate/kiln.  Most large plants and new plants use the grate/kiln. Currently, natural gas is the
most common fuel  used for pellet induration, but heavy oil  is used at a few plants, and  coal and coke
may also be used.

        In the vertical shaft furnace, the wet green balls are distributed evenly over the top of the
slowly descending bed of pellets.  A stream of hot gas of controlled temperature and  composition rises
counter to the descending bed of pellets.  Auxiliary fuel combustion chambers supply hot gases
midway between the top and bottom of the furnace.

        The straight grate furnace consists of a continuously moving grate, onto which a bed of green
pellets is deposited.  The grate  passes through a firing zone  of alternating up  and down  currents of
heated gas.  The fired pellets are cooled either on an extension of the grate or in a separate cooler.  An
important feature of the straight grate is the  "hearth layer", which consists of a 10- to 15-centimeter (4-
to 6-inch) thick layer of fired pellets that protects the grate.  The hearth layer is formed by diverting a
portion of the fired pellets exiting the firing zone of the furnace to a hearth layer screen, which
removes the fines.  These pellets then are conveyed back to the feed end of the straight  grate and
deposited on to the bare grate.  The green pellets being fed to the furnace are deposited  on the hearth
layer prior to the burning zone  of the furnace.


2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-5

-------
        The grate/kiln apparatus consists of a continuous traveling grate followed by a rotary kiln.
The grate/kiln product must be cooled in a separate cooler, usually an annular cooler with counter
current airflow,

11.23.3 Emissions And Controls  '

        Particulate matter (PM) emission sources in taconite ore processing plants are indicated in
Figure 11.23-1.  Taconite ore is handled dry through the initial stages of crushing  and screening.  All
crushers, size classification screens, and conveyor transfer points are major points  of PM emissions.
Crushed ore is normally wet ground in rod and ball mills.  Because the ore remains wet, PM emissions
are insignificant for the rest of the process until the drying stage of induration. A few plants use dry
autogenous or semi-autogenous grinding and have higher emissions than do conventional plants.

        Emissions from crushing and conveying operations are generally controlled by a hood-and-duct
system that leads to a cyclone, rotoclone, multiclone, scrubber, or fabric filter.  The inlet of the control
device will often be fed by more than one duct.  Water sprays are also used to control emissions.

        The first source of emissions in the pelletizing process is the transfer and blending of
bentonite. Additional emission points in the pelletizing process include the main waste gas stream
from the indurating furnace, pellet handling, furnace transfer points (grate feed and discharge), and
annular coolers for plants using the grate/kiln furnace.

        Induration furnaces generate sulfur dioxide (SO2).  The  SO2 originates both from  the fuel and
the raw material (concentrate, binder, and limestone).  Induration furnaces also emit combustion
products such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO).   Because of the additional
heating requirements, emissions of NOX and S02  generally are higher when flux pellets are produced
than when acid pellets are produced.

        The combination of multicyclones and wet scrubbers is a common configuration for
controlling furnace waste gas.  The purpose of the multicyclones is to recover material from the drying
gases  as they pass from the preheat stage to the drying stage. The  wet scrubber reduces concentrations
of S02  and PM  in the furnace waste gas.  Minor emission sources, such as grate feed and discharge,
are usually controlled by small wet scrubbers.

        Annular coolers normally operate in stages. The exhaust of the first-stage cooler  is vented to
the indurating furnace as preheated combustion gas.  The second and third stages generally are
uncontrolled.

        Particulate matter emissions also arise  from ore mining operations.  The largest source of PM
in taconite ore mines is traffic on unpaved haul roads. Other significant PM emission sources at
taconite mines are tailing basins and wind erosion.  Although blasting is a notable emission source of
the various fractions of PM, it is a short-term event, and most of the material settles quickly.

        Emissions from taconite ore processing facilities constructed or modified after August 24, 1982
are regulated under 40 CFR 60, subpart LL, Standards of Performance for Metallic Mineral Processing
Plants.  The affected emission sources include crushers,  screens, conveyors, conveyor transfer points,
storage bins, enclosed storage areas, product packaging stations, and truck and rail loading and
unloading stations.  The regulation limits PM stack emissions from these sources to 0.05 grams per
dry standard cubic meter (0.022 grains per dry standard  cubic foot). In addition, the opacity of stack
emissions for these sources is limited to 7 percent unless the stack  is  equipped with a wet scrubber,


11.23-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 2/97

-------
and process fugitive emissions are limited to 10 percent.  The standard does not affect emissions from
indurating furnaces.

        Table 11.23-2 presents the factors for PM emissions from taconite ore indurating furnaces.
Factors for emissions of PM from taconite ore processing sources other than furnaces are presented in
Table  11.23-3. Factors for emissions of S02, NOX, CO, and C02 from taconite ore processing are
presented in Tables 11.23-4 and 11.23-5 for acid pellet and flux pellet production, respectively.
Table  11.23-6 presents emission factors for other pollutants emitted from taconite ore indurating
furnaces.  Emission factors for fugitive dust sources associated with taconite ore processing can be
estimated using the predictive equations found in Section 13.2 of AP-42, which includes, for the
parameters used in the equations, values based on measurements  at taconite ore processing facilities.
2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-7

-------
   Table 11.23-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES3
Source
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-5 1,-52)
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln,
with multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-51, -52)
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-51 ,-52)
Natural gas/oil-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-53,-54)
Natural gas/oil-fired grate/kiln,
with ESP
(SCC 3-03-023-53,-54)
Coal/oil-fired grate/kiln, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-61, -62)
Coke-fired grate/kiln, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-55,-56)
Coke/coal-fired grate/kiln, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-57,-58)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack
(SCC 3-03-023-71/72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack,
with multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-71, -72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-71,-72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack,
with multiclone and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-71.-72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft bottom gas stack,
with rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-73.-74)
Oil-fired straight grate
(SCC 3-03-023-83,-84)
Coke/gas-fired straight grate,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-83,-84)
Filterableb
PM
7.4d
0.44§

0.082J

ND
0.017™

0.19"

0.1 OP
0.141

16r
1.4s

0.921

0.66U

0.031'

1.2V
O.llw

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D

C


E

E

E
D

D
D

E

D

E

E
D

PM-10
0.63e
0.1 3h

ND

ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E























Condensible0
0.022f
NA

0.0055k

0.040m
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND
ND

0.050*

ND

0.00861

ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D


D

D










E



E




11.23-8
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97

-------
                                      Table 11.23-2 (cont).
a Applicable to both acid pellets and flux pellets.  Emission factors in units of Ib/ton of fired pellets
  produced.  One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg.  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless
  noted. SCC = Source Classification  Code. ND  = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 sampling train or
  equivalent.
c Condensible PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d References 4-5,40.
e Reference 40.
f References 4,36,39-40.  Based on data presented in Reference 40, 84 percent of condensibles
  consists of inorganic material.
8 References 32-36,39,42-43.
h Reference 39.
J  References 20,27,37.
  References 4,37.
m Reference 5.
n Reference 18.
p Reference 29.
q References 26-27.
r References  12-14,24.
s References  12-13,24.
1 Reference 45.
u Reference 14.
v Reference 6.
w References 30-31.
2/97                                 Taconite Ore Processing                              11.23-9

-------
        Table 11.23-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING-
                             OTHER SOURCES3
Source
Primaiy crusher, with cyclone
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Primary crusher, with cyclone and
multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Primary crusher, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Primary crusher, with fabric filter
(SCC 3-03-023-01)
Secondary crushing line, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-27)
Tertiary crusher, with rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-02)
Tertiary crushing line, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-30)
Grinder feed, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-34)
Hearth layer feed, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-48)
Hearth layer screen, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-93)
Grate/kiln feed, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-49)
Grate/kiln discharge
(SCC 3-03-023-50)
Grate/kiln discharge, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-50)
Straight grate feed
(SCC 3-03-023-79)
Straight grate discharge
(SCC 3-03-023-80)
Straight grate discharge, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-80)
Pellet cooler
(SCC 3-03-023-15)
Pellet screen
(SCC 3-03-023-95)
Filterable1"
PM
0.25d
0.060d
0.00126
0.00 19f
0.00278
0.0013h
0.00 16g
0.001 1J
0.0 17k
0.038m
6.6 x 10-5<8>
0.82"
0.0019r
0.63s
1.4s .
0.012k
0.121
10"
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
C
D
E
E
D
E
E
E
D
D
E
PM-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


















Condensible0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00035p
9.0 x \0'5 ^
0.00012<»
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING











E
E
E





11.23-10
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97

-------
                                       Table 11.23-3 (cont).
Source
Pellet screen, with rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-95)
Primary crusher return conveyor
transfer, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-25)
Pellet transfer to storage, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-16)
Secondary crusher return conveyor
transfer, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-28)
Conveyor transfer to
concentrator, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-41)
Tertiary crushing line discharge
conveyor, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-31)
Bentonite storage bin loading, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-07)
Bentonite transfer
(SCC 3-03-023-45)
Bentonite transfer, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-45)
Bentonite blending
(SCC 3-03-023-08)
Bentonite blending, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-08)
Bentonite blending, with fabric
filter
(SCC 3-03-023-08)
Pellet storage bin loading
(SCC 3-03-023-96)
Pellet storage bin loading, with
rotoclone
(SCC 3-03-023-96)
Secondary storage bin loading,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-97)
Tertiary storage bin loading, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-98)
Filterableb
PM
0.037°


0.0003 lf


0.0036"1


0.0057V


0.000288


0.00178


2.4m

3.2s


0.11s

19s


0.25s


0.11s

3.7"


0.071"


0.000198


0.00188

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E


E


E


D


E


E


E

E


E

E


E


E

E


E


E


D

PM-10
ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING












































Condensible0
ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND


ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING












































2/97
Taconite Ore Processing
                                                                                         11.23-11

-------
                                      Table 11.23-3 (cent).
   Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factors for furnace feed, furnace
   discharge, coolers, and product handling are in units of Ib/ton of pellets produced; emission factors
   for other sources are in units of Ib/ton of material processed or handled. One Ib/ton is equivalent to
   0.5 kg/Mg.  SCC  = Source Classification Code. ND = no data available.
   Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
   sampling train.
c  Condensible PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a  PM sampling train.
d  References 10-11.
e  Reference 22.
   Reference 27.
8  Reference 28.
   Reference 6.
J   References 7,9.
k  References 8-9.
m Reference 8.
n  References 4-5.
p  Reference 5.
q  Reference 4.  Condensible inorganic PM fraction only.
r  Reference 4.
s  Reference 2.
1  References 16-17,27.
u  Reference 23.
v  References 21,28.
11.23-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 2/97

-------
    Table 11.23-4. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES-
                                ACID PELLET PRODUCTION3
Source
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-51)
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-51)
Coke-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-55)
Coal/coke-fired grate/kiln,
(SCC 3-03-023-57)
Coal/coke-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-57)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top
gas stack
(SCC 3-03-023-71)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top
gas stack, with wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-71)
Gas-fired straight grate
(SCC 3-03-023-81)
Gas-fired straight grate, with
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-81)
Coke-fired straight grate,
with multiclone and wet
scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-85)
Coke/gas-fired straight-grate
(SCC 3-03-023-87)
SO2b
0.29d

u
0.053h

1.9k

2.3m


1.5"


ND



0.28P

ND


0.10r



0.99s

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D


D

E

E


D






E




E



D



NOX
1.5e


j

ND

ND


ND


0.2QP



j

ND


ND



ND

0.44r

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D












E














D

CO
0.014f


j

ND

ND


ND


0.077P



j

0.039*


j



j

0.1 5r

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D












E





E








E

C02C
99«


j

99g

99g


j


941



j

ND


ND



ND

62s

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C




C

C





C














D

a  Emission factors in units of Ib/ton of fired pellets produced. One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg.
   Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND =
   no data.
   Mass balance of sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
   the S02 factors presented in this table.
c  Mass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
   the CO2 factors represented in this table.
d  References 4,39-40.
e  References 19,27,39.
f  Reference 39.
g  References 5,18,29,32-34,39-40,42.
   Reference 4.
J   See emission factor for uncontrolled emissions.
k  Reference 29.
m  Reference 15.
n  References 15,25,29.
p  Reference 44.
q  References 12-14,24,44-45.
r  Reference 31.
s  References 30-31.
2/97
Taconite Ore Processing
                                                                                    11.23-13

-------
    Table 11.23-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES-
                               FLUX PELLET PRODUCTION21
Source
Natural gas-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-52)
Coal/coke-fired grate/kiln,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-58)
Gas-fired straight grate
(SCC 3-03-023-82)
Pellet cooler
(SCC 3-03-023-15)
S02b
0.14d

1.5h

ND
Neg.
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

D



NOX
1.5e

ND

2.5*
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D



D

CO
0.10f

ND

ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING






CO2C
1308

1308

ND
6.4f
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

C


E
a Emission factors in units of Ib/ton of fired pellets produced.  One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg.
  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND =
  no data. Neg. = negligible.
b Mass balance of sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
  the SO2 factors presented in this table.
c Mass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than
  the CO2 factors represented in this table.
  Reference 20.
e References 19,27,39.
f Reference 27.
8 References 20,25-27,36-37.
h References 15,25,29.
J  Reference 38.
                                                                                                 i
 11.23-14
EMISSION FACTORS
2/97

-------
          Table 11.23-6. EMISSION FACTORS FORTACONITE ORE PROCESSING--
                                 OTHER POLLUTANTS3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Source
Gas-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-5 1.-52)
Gas-fired grate/kiln, with multiclone
(SCC 3-03-023-51,-52)
Coke-fired grate/kiln
(SCC 3-03-023-55,-56)
Coke-fired grate/kiln, with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-55,-56)
Gas-fired vertical shaft top gas stack
(SCC 3-03 -023-71, -72)
Gas-fired vertical shaft bottom gas stack
(SCC 3-03-023-73,-74)
Gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-81,-82)
Gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-85,-86)
Coke/gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-87,-88)
Coke/gas-fired straight grate furnace, with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-03-023-87,-88)
Pollutant
VOC

Lead

H2S04

H2S04

VOC

VOC


Lead


Beryllium


Lead


Beryllium

Emission
factor,
Ib/ton
0.0037b
0.075C
0.00050

0.17

0.099

0.013d

0.046d


6.8 x 10'5


2.2 x 10'7


7.6 x 10'5


2.9 x 10"7

References
39
27
39

29

29

44

44


31


31


31


31

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. All emission factors for furnaces in Ib/ton of
  fired pellets produced. One Ib/ton is equivalent to 0.5 kg/Mg.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data available.
b Based on Method 25A data.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D.
c Based on Method 25 data.
d Based on Method 25A data.

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 11.23
 1.     C.M. Cvetic and P.H. Kuck, "Iron Ore", in: Minerals Yearbook,  Vol. /, U. S. Government
       Printing Office, 1991, pp. 521-547.

 2.     J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions From Iron Ore Mining, Beneficiation And
       Pelletization, Volume 1, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2113, Midwest Research Institute,
       Minnetonka, MN,  June 1983.

 3.     A. K. Reed, Standard Support And Environmental Impact Statement For The Iron Ore
       Beneficiation Industry (Draft), EPA Contract No. 68-02- 1323, Battelle Columbus
       Laboratories, Columbus, OH, December 1976.
2/97
Taconite Ore Processing
                                                                                11.23-15

-------
 4.     Air Pollution Emissions Test, Eveleth Taconite, Eveleth, MN, EMB 76-IOB-3, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.

 5.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, MI, EMB 76-IOB-2, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.

 6.     Emission Testing Report, Reserve Mining Company, Silver Bay, MN, EMB  74-HAS-l, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

 7.     Results Of The January 1977 Particulate Emission Testing Of Crusher Feed Mill Scrubbers
       Nos. 2, 3, 5, And 6 Conducted At The Nibbing Taconite Company, Ribbing, MN, Interpoll,
       Inc., St. Paul, MN, June 8, 1977.

 8.     Results Of The June 27-July I, 1977 Particulate Emission Tests Conducted On Selected
       Sources In The Pelletizer Building At The Hibbing Taconite Company Plant, Ribbing, MN,
       Interpoll, Inc., St.  Paul, MN, August 16, 1977.

 9.     Phase II Particulate Emissions Compliance Testing, Hibbing Taconite Company, Hibbing,
       MN, September 4-6, 1979.

10.     Results Of The March 15, 1990 Dust Collector Performance Test On The No. 1 Crusher
       Primary Dust Collector At The Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility In Babbitt, MN, Interpoll
       Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April  19, 1990.

11.     Results Of The March 9, 1990 Dust Collector Performance  Test On The No. 1 Crusher
       Secondary Collector At The Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility In Babbitt,  MN, Interpoll
       Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April  18, 1990.

12.     Results Of The May 22 And 23, 1984, Dust Collection Efficiency Tests On The D-2 And E-2
       Furnace Top Gas Mechanical Collectors At The Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt
       Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, May  29, 1984.

13.     Results Of The December 17,  1981 Compliance Test On The D-2 Furnace Dust Control
       System At The Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc.,  St.
       Paul, MN, December 22,  1981.

14.     Results Of The February 20, 1980 Particulate Emission Test On The D-l Furnace Top Gas
       Wet Collector At The Erie Mining Company Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc.,
       St. Paul, MN, March 4, 1980.

15.     Results of the October 12-15,  1987 Air Emission Compliance Tests At The Eveleth Taconite
       Plant in Eveleth, MN,  Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, December 18, 1987.

16.     Results Of The July 9, 1981 Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The Kiln Cooler
       Exhaust Stack At Eveleth Mines, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,  St. Paul, MN,
       July 22, 1981.

17.     Results Of The March 11, 1980 Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The Kiln Cooler
       Exhaust Stack At Eveleth Mines, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, April 18, 1980.
11.23-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                                2/97

-------
18.    Results Of The December 13 And 14, 1979 Particulate Emission Compliance Tests On The
       Kiln Cooler Exhaust And The 2A  Waste Gas Stacks At The Eveleth Expansion Company Plant
       Near Eveleth, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, January 22, 1980.

19.    Results Of The June 12, 1975 Oxides Of Nitrogen Determinations At The Fairlane Plant Pellet
       Furnace Wet Scrubber Inlet And Outlet, Eveleth Taconite  Company, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll,
       Inc., St. Paul, MN, June 30, 1975.

20.    Results Of The March/April 1992 Emission Performance Tests On The Nos. 4 And 5 Scrubber
       Stacks At The USS Minnesota Ore Operations Facility In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll
       Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April 23, 1992.

21.    Results Of The February 18 And 19, 1992 Particulate Emission Performance Testing On Two
       SEI Multiple Throat Venturi Type Wet Scrubber Systems At The USS Minnesota Ore
       Operations Facility, Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
       March  11, 1992.

22.    Crusher Environeering Wet Scrubber Dust Collectors Particulate  Emissions Compliance
       Testing Nibbing Taconite Company, Hibbing, MN, October 18, 1982.

23.    Results Of The June 25 And 26, 1980 Particulate Emission Compliance  Tests On The No. 2
       Loading Pocket Collector And The Nos. 7 And 8 Pellet Screen Collector At The Erie Mining
       Company Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN,  Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, July 7, 1980.

24.    Results Of The June 12-15, 1984,  Dust Collection Efficiency Tests On The D-2 And E-2
       Furnace Top Gas Mechanical Collectors At The Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt
       Lakes, MN,  Interpoll, Inc.,  Circle Pines, MN, June 22,  1984.

25.    Results Of The August  6, 1991 SO2 Emission Engineering Tests At The USX Minnesota Ore
       Operation Facility In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
       August 15, 1991.

26.    Results Of The January 25, 1990 Particulate And Sulfur Dioxide Engineering Emission Test
       On The Line 7 Grate Kiln At The USX Minnesota Ore  Operation Facility, Mountain Iron, MN,
       Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, March 7, 1990.

27.    Results Of The March 28-31, 1989 Air Emission Compliance  Testing At The USS Plant in
       Mountain Iron, MN,  Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April 21, 1989.

28.    Results Of The January 8-10, 1980 Particulate Emission Compliance Tests On Emission
       Source Nos. 6.39, 6.40, 6.34, 6.44, 6.41, 6.56, 6.43, 8.43, 8.47, And 8.49 At The U.S.  Steel
       Minntac Plant In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN,  February 8,  1980.

29.    Results Of The May 21 And 22, 1987 Particulate And SO^SO3 Emission Compliance Tests On
       The Line 2 Induration Furnace  Waste Gas Systems At The Eveleth Taconite Plant In Eveleth,
       MN, Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines, MN, June 25,  1987.

30.    Results Of The  August 6-8, 1986, Particulate And SO2  Compliance Tests On The Indurating
       Gas Wet Scrubber Stacks At The Inland Steel Mining Company In Virginia, MN, Interpoll Inc.,
       Circle Pines, MN, August 19 1986.


2/97                                Taconite Ore Processing                            11.23-17

-------
31.    Results Of The May 5-7, 1987, Atmospheric Emission Tests On The Induration Furnaces At
       The Hibbing Taconite Company In Nibbing, MV, Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, May 14,
       1987.

32.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2B, June  17, 1992, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, July 17,
       1992.

33.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2A, June  5, 1991,  Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc. Columbia, MO, June 28,
       1991.

34.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2B, May  16, 1990, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, May 30,
       1990.

35.    Particulate Emissions Testing For National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas
       Stack No. 2A, June  7, 1989,  Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, June 14,
       1989.

36.    Results Of The October 13, 1994  National Steel Pellet Company Particulate And Visible Waste
       Gas Stack 2B Emissions Compliance Test, Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN,
       November 1994.

37.    Results Of The April 28, 1993 State Air Emission Compliance  Testing On The No. 4 And 5
       Pelletizers At The U.S. Steel Plant In Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle
       Pines, MN, June 10, 1993.

38.    Results Of The July  31 And August 1, 1990 NOX Emission Compliance Test On The Flux
       Pellet Induration Furnace At The Inland Steel Mining Plant, Interpoll Laboratories,  Inc., Circle
       Pines, MN, October 10, 1990.

39.    Results Of The September 12, 16, 23, And October 12, 1994 National Steel Pellet Company
       Waste Gas Stack 2B Emission Tests, Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN, November
       1994.

40.    Results Of The March 25, 1994 Air Emission Engineering Tests On The No. 3 Waste Gas
       Stack At The  U.S. Steel Plant In Mountain Iron, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle
       Pines, MN, April  1994.

41.    Written communication from P. O'Neill, Minnesota Pollution Control Association,
       Minneapolis, MN, to R. E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle
       Park, NC, June 20,  1996.

42.    Results of the June 22, 1993  Particulate And Opacity Compliance Tests Conducted On The
       No. 2A Waste Gas Stack At The National Steel Pellet Plant In Keewatin, Minnesota, Interpoll
       Laboratories,  Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 26, 1993.
11.23-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                                2/97

-------
43.     Results Of The June 6, 1995 National Steel Pellet Company Particulate Emission Compliance
        Test Waste Gas Stack 2A (Emission Point 30), Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN,
        June  1995.

44.     Written Communication from D. Koschak, LTV Steel Mining Company, Hoyt Lakes, MN, to
        S. Arkley, Minnesota Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, MN. October 31, 1995.

45.     Results Of The July 11-13,  1995 State Air Emission Performance Testing At The LTV Steel
        Mining Plant Company Pellet Plant In Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota (Permit No.  48B-95-1/O-1),
        Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 28, 1995.
                                                           •&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1998 428-483

2/97                                Taconite Ore Processing                            11.23-19

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO. 2.
AP-42, Fifth Edition
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Supplement C To
Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources
7 AUTHOR(S)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Factor And Inventory Group, EMAD (MD 14)
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 277 1 1
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3 RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO
5 REPORT DATE
November 1997
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
1 3 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  16 ABSTRACT
     This document contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories.
  These emission factors have been compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates, and
  they can be used judiciously in making emission estimations for various purposes. When specific source test data are
  available, they should be preferred over the generalized factors presented in this document.

     This Supplement to AP-42 addresses pollutant-generating activity from Meat Packing Plants, Natural and Processed
  Cheese, Bread Baking, Cane Sugar Processing, Sugarbeet Processing, Distilled Spirits, Leather Tanning, Brick And
  Structural Clay Product Manufacturing, Frit Manufacturing and Taconite Ore Processing.
  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
                                                         19 SECURITY CLASS (Report)
                                                           Unclassified
                                                                 21 NO OF PAGES
                                                                      98
   Unlimited
                                                         20 SECURITY CLASS (Page)
                                                           Unclassified
                                                                                                  22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
                           PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------
                TABLE C.2-1.   PARTICLE  SIZE  CATEGORY BY AP-42 SECTION
AP-42
Section


1.1
1.2
1.3








1.4
1.5
1.6

1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11

2.1
2.3
2.5


3.2


5.4
5.8



5.10
5.11
5.12
5.15
5.16
5.17

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4

6.5
6.7
Source
Category
External combustion

Bituminous and subbituminous
coal combustion
Anthracite coal combustion
Fuel oil combustion
Residual oil
Utility
Industrial
Commercial
Distillate oil
Utility
Commercial
Residential
Natural gas combustion
Liquefied petroleum gas
Wood waste combustion
in boilers
Lignite combustion
Bagasse combustion
Residential fireplaces
Residential wood stoves
Waste oil combustion
Solid waste disposal
Refuse combustion
Conical burners (wood waste)
Sewage sludge incineration
Internal combustion engines
Highway vehicles
Off highway vehicles
Chemical nracesses

Charcoal
Hydrofluoric acid
Spar drying
Spar handling
Transfer
Paint and varnish
Phosphoric acid (thermal process)
Pthalic anhydride
Soap and detergents
Sodium carbonate
Sulfuric acid
Food and agricultural
Alfalfa dehydrating
Primary cyclone
Meal collector cyclone
Pellet cooler cyclone
Pellet regrind cyclone
Coffee roasting
Cotton ginning
Grain elevators and
processing plants
Fermentation
Meat smokehouses
Category
Number


a
a

a
a
a

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
a
a
a

a
2
a '

c
1


9

3
3
3
4
a
9
a
a
b

b
7
7
7
6
b
a
6,7
9
AP-42
Section
6.8
6.10
6.10.3
6.11
6.14
6.16


6.17



6.18



7.1





7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5








7.6
7.7
7.8




7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.18



Source
Category
Ammonium nitrate fertilizers
Phosphate fertilizers
Ammonium phosphates
Reactor/ammoniator-granulator
Dryer/cooler
Starch manufacturing
Urea
Category
Number
a
3
4
4
7
a
Defoliation and harvesting of cotton
Trailer loading
Transport
Harvesting of grain
Harvesting machine
Truck loading
Field transport
Ammonium sulfate
Rotary dryer
Fluidized bed dryer
Metallurgical
Primary aluminum production
Bauxite grinding
Aluminum hydroxide calcining
Anode baking furnace
Prebakecell
Vertical Soderberg
Horizontal Soderberg
Coke manufacturing
Primary copper smelting
Ferroalloy production
Iron and steel production
Blastfurnace
Slips
Cast house
Sintering
Windbox
Sinter discharge
Basic oxygen furnace
Electric arc furnace
Primary lead smelting
Zinc smelting
Secondary aluminum operations
Sweating furnace
Smelting
Crucible furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Secondary copper smelting
6
6

6
6
6

b
b


4
5
9
a
8
a
a
a
a


a
a

a
a
a
a
a
8

8

8
a

and alloying 8
Gray iron foundries a
Secondary lead Processing a
Secondary magnesium smelting 8
Steel foundries - melting b
Secondary zinc processing 8
Storage battery production b
Leadbearing ore crushing and grinding 4






 'Data for numbered categories are given in Table C.2-2. Particle size data on "a" categories are found in the AP-42
 sxt; for "b" categories, in Appendix C.I; and for "c" categories, in AP-42 Volume II: Mobile SOUK^.
9/90
Appendix  C.2
C.2-5

-------
                    TABLE  C.2-1.    PARTICLE  SIZE  CATEGORY  BY  AP-42  SECTION  (cont.)
 AP-42
  Section
                         Source
                          Category
Category
 Number
AP-42
 Section
                                                                      8.19.1
                                                                      8.19.2
                                                                      8.22
                                                                      8.23
                                                                      8.24


                                                                      10.1
                                                                      11.1
                                                                      11.2
Source
 Category
Category
 Number*
                       Mineral products
8.1                Asphaltic concrete plants               a
8.3                Bricks and related clay products
                    Raw materials handling
                      Dryers, grinders, etc.               b
                      Tunnel/periodic kilns
                       Gas fired                        a
                       Oil fired                         a
                       Coal fired                        a
8.5                Castable refractories
                    Raw material dryer                  3
                    Raw material crushing and screening   3
                    Electric arc melting                  8
                    Curing oven                        3
8.6                Portland cement manufacturing
                    Dry process
                      Kilns                            a
                      Dryers, grinders, etc.               4
                    Wet process
                      Kilns                            a
                      Dryers, grinders, etc.               4
8.7                Ceramic clay manufacturing
                    Drying                             3
                    Grinding                            4
                   Storage                             3
8.8                Clay and fly ash sintering
                    Fly ash sintering, crushing, screening,
                      yard storage                       5
                    Clay mixed with coke
                    Crushing, screening, yard storage      3
8.9                Coal cleaning                        3
8.10               Concrete batching                     3
8.11               Glass fiber manufacturing
                    Unloading and conveying             3
                    Storage bins                        3
                    Mixing and weighing                3
                    Glass furnace - wool                 a
                    Glass furnace - textile               a
8.13               Glass manufacturing                  a
8.14               Gypsum manufacturing
                    Rotary ore dryer                     a
                    Roller mill                         4
                    Impact mill                        4
                    Hash calciner                       a
                    Continuous kettle calciner            a
8.15               Lime manufacturing                  a
8.16               Mineral wool manufacturing
                    Cupola                            8
                    Reverberatory furnace                8
                    Blow chamber                      8
                    Curing oven                        9
                    Cooler                            9
8.18               Phosphate rock processing
                    Drying                            a
                    Calcining                          a
                    Grinding                           b
                    Transfer and storage                  3

*Data for numbered categories are given in Table C.2-2. Panicle size data on "a" categories are found in the AP-42
text; for "b" categories, in Appendix C.I; and for V categories, in AP-42 Volume II: Mobile Sources.
                                        Sand and gravel processing
                                         Continuous drop
                                          Transfer station
                                          Pile formation - stacker
                                          Batch drop
                                         Active storage piles
                                         Vehicle traffic on unpaved road
                                        Crushed stone processing
                                         Dry crushing
                                          Primary crushing
                                          Secondary crushing and screening
                                          Tertiary crushing and screening
                                          Recrushing and screening
                                           Fines mill
                                         Screening, conveying, handling
                                        Taconite ore processing
                                         Fine crushing
                                         Pellet handling
                                         Grate discharge
                                         Grate feed
                                         Bentonite blending
                                         Coarse crushing
                                         Ore transfer
                                         Bentonite transfer
                                         Unpavedroads
                                        Metallic minerals processing
                                        Western surface coal mining

                                            Wood products
                                        Chemical wood pulping

                                            Miscellaneous sources
                                        Wildfires and prescribed burning
                                        Fugitive dust
                                                     3
                                                     4
                                                     4
                                                     a

                                                     4
                                                     a
                                                     4
                                                     5
                                                     4
                                                     4
                                                     3
                                                     3
                                                     4
                                                     a
                                                     a
                                                     a
C.2-6
                                                    EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                         9/90

-------
CL2.3  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 particulate control device, the user first calculates the
uncontrolled size specific emissions.  Next, the fractional control efficiency
for the control device is estimated, using Table C.2-3.  The Calculation  Sheet
provided (Figure C.2-2) allows the user to record the type of control device
and the collection efficiencies from Table C.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 ^m particle size range.  In order to account for the total
controlled emissions, particles greater than 10 p,m in size must be included.

C.2.4  Example Calculat i on

     An example calculation of uncontrolled total particulate emissions,
uncontrolled size specific emissions, and controlled size specific emission is
shown on Figure C.2-1.  A blank Calculation Sheet is provided in Figure C.2-2.
            TABLE C.2-3
TYPICAL COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS
PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES3
AIRS    Type of collector
Codeb
                                                        Particle  size
                       0 -  2.5   2.5 - 6
6 - 10
001    Wet scrubber - hi-efficiency               90          95          99
002    Wet scrubber - med-efficiency              25          85          95
003    Wet scrubber - low-efficiency              20          80          90
004    Gravity collector - hi-efficiency           3.6         5           6
005    Gravity collector - med-efficiency         2.9         4           4.8
006    Gravity collector - low-efficiency          1.5         3.2         3.7
007    Centrifugal collector - hi-efficiency     80          95          95
008    Centrifugal collector - med-efficiency    50          75          85
009    Centrifugal collector - low-efficiency    10          35          50
010    Electrostatic precipitator -
         hi-efficiency                            95          99          99.5
Oil    Electrostatic precipitator -
         med-efficiency       boilers             50          80          94
                              other               80          90          97
012    Electrostatic precipitator -
         low-efficiency       boilers            40          70          90
                              other               70          80          90
014    Mist eliminator - high velocity >250 FPM  10          75          90
015    Mist eliminator - low velocity <250 FPM    5          40          75
016    Fabric filter - high temperature           99          99.5        99.5
017    Fabric filter - med temperature           99          99.5        99.5
018    Fabric filter - low temperature            99          99.5        99.5
9/90
        Appendix C.2
  C.2-17

-------
046
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
061
062

063
064
071
075
076
077
085
086
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
_.
50
90
25
20
90
1.5
25
90
50
92
10
40

40
0
80
10
10
80
50
50
10
--
75
95
85
80
95
3.2
95
95
75
94
15
65

65
5
90
20
35
95
75
75
45
--
85
99
95
90
99
3.7
99
99
85
97
20
90

90
80
97
90
50
95
85
85
90
aData represent an average of actual efficiencies.  Efficiencies are
representative of well designed and well operated control equipment.  Site-
specific factors (e. g.,  type of particulate being collected, varying pressure
drops across scrubbers, maintenance of equipment, etc.) will affect collection
efficiencies.  Efficiencies shown are intended to provide guidance for
estimating control equipment performance when source-specific data are not
available.  Dash - Not applicable.
 Control codes in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), formerly
National Emissions Data Systems.
C.2-18                         EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
References for Appendix C.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 Of Sulfuric Acid Production Units.
     EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, 1977.

 4.  Air Pollution Emission  Test. Bunge Corp.. 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. Taback, et al.. Fine Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources In
     The South Coast Air Basin. KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA, 1979.

10.  K. Rosbury, Generalized Particle Size Distributions For Use In Preparing
     Particle Size Specific  Emission Inventories. EPA Contract No. 68-02-
     3890, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO,  1985.
9/90                             Appendix C.2                           C.2-19

-------
                                  APPENDIX  D

                PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SURFACE/BULK DUST LOADING
     Procedures are herein recommended  for  collection  of  road dust  and
aggregate material samples from unpaved and paved  industrial roads,  and  from
storage piles.  These recommended procedures are based on a review  of American
Society Of Testing And Materials  (ASTM)  standards.  The recommended procedures
follow ASTM  standards where practical,  and  where not,  an  effort has been made
to develop procedures consistent with the intent of the majority  of pertinent
ASTM Standards.

                          1.  Unpaved Industrial Roads

     The main objective in sampling the  surface material  from unpaved roads is
to collect composite samples from major  road segments  within an industrial
facility.  A composite, or gross, sample comprises of  several incremental
samples collected from representative subareas of  the  source.  A  road segment
can be defined as the distance between  major intersections.   Major road
segments can be identifed by an analysis of  plant delivery, shipment and
employee travel routes and should be mapped  before sampling begins.

     The goal of this sampling procedure is  to develop data on the  mean  silt
and moisture contents of  surface material from a given road segment.
"Representative" samples  will be collected and analyzed through the  use  of
compositing  and splitting techniques.  A composite sample is formed by the
collection and subsequent mixing of the  combined mass  obtained from multiple
increments or grabs of the material in question.  The  analyzed, or  test,
sample refers to the reduced quantity of material extracted, or split, from
the larger field sample.  A minimum of 0.4 kg (~1 Ib)  of  sample is  required
for analysis of the silt  fraction and moisture content.

     A gross sample of 5  kg (10 Ib) to 23 kg (50 Ib) from every unpaved  road
segment should be collected in a clean,  labeled, 19 liter (5 gal) plastic pail
with a scalable poly liner.  This sample should be composited from  a minimum
of three incremental samples,  but it may consist of only one,  depending  on the
length of the road segment and hazards to the sampling team.  The first  sample
increment is collected at a random location within the  first 0.8 km  (0.5 mi)
of the road  segment,  with additional samples collected from each remaining 0.8
km (0.5 mi)  of the road segment up to a maximum road segment length  of 4.8 km
(3 mi).

     An acceptable method of selecting three sample locations on road segments
of less than 1.5 mi length is to sample at locations represented by  three
random numbers (x-^,  X£,  ^3),  between 0.0 mi and y mi,   the road segment length.
A scientific handheld calculator can produce pseudorandom numbers, or they may
be obtained from statistical tables.
9/90                              Appendix D                               D-l

-------
     /M
     o
     tr
                 c
                                                          c
                                                          o
                                                       o
                                                       tr
                                               O)
          o
         DC
              5
                     c
                     g

                  Ti'S
                                                                            CVJ

                                                                            X
                                                                                co
                                                                                X
                                                                                           •o
                                                                                           id
                                                      •a
                                                      (U

                                                      10

                                                      8-
                                                                                           id
                                                                                           i—
                                                                                           t-


                                                                                           3

                                                                                           C
                                                                                           <0


                                                                                           o
                                                                                           o
                                                      (O
                                                      u
                                                      o
                                                                                           o>
   oo

   •o
   0)
   •o
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           u
                                                                                           
D-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
9/90

-------
Date Sample Collected
                                Sampling Data for
                                 Unpaved Roads
                Recorded by.
Type of Material Sampled:
Site of Sampling*:	
SAMPLING METHOD
  1.  Sampling device: whisk broom and dust pan
  2.  Sampling depth: loose surface material (do not abrade road base)
  3.  Sample container: metal or plastic bucket with sealed poly liner
  4.  Gross sample specifications:
     (a) 1 sample of 23kg (50 Ib) minimum for every 4.8 km (3 mi) sampled
     (b) composite of at least 3 increments: lateral strips of 30 cm (1 ft) width extending over
        traveled portion of roadway

Indicate deviations from above methods and general meteorology:	
SAMPLING DATA
Sample
No.










Time










Location*










Surface
Area










Depth










Quantity
of Sample










* Use code given on plant or road map for segment identification and indicate sample
  on map.
  9/90
                  Figure  2.   Data Form For Unpaved Road Sampling.
Appendix D
                                                                            D-3

-------
     Figure 1 illustrates sampling locations along industrial unpaved roads.
The width of each sampled area across the road should be 0.3 m (1 ft).  Only
the travelled section of the roadway should be sampled.

     The loose surface material is removed from the hard road base with a
whisk broom and dustpan.  The material should be swept carefully to prevent
injection of fine dust into the atmosphere.  The hard road base below the
loose surface material should not be abraded so as to generate more fine mate-
rial than exists on the road in its natural state.  Figure 2 is a data form to
be used for the sampling of unpaved roads.
                          2.  Payed Industrial Roads

     For paved roads, it is necessary to obtain a representative sample of
loading (mass/area) from the travelled surface to characterize particulate
emissions caused by vehicle traffic.  A composite sample should be collected
from each major road 'segment in the plant.  A minimum sample mass of 0.4 kg
(~1 Ib) should be composited from a minimum of three separate increments.

     Figure 3 is a diagram showing the locations of incremental samples for a
two-lane paved industrial road.  The first sample increment should be
collected at a random location between 0.0 and 0.8 km (0.5 mi).  Additional
samples should be collected from each remaining 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the road
segment, up to a maximum road segment length of 8 km (5 mi).  For road
segments of less than 2.4 km (1.5 mi) in length, an acceptable method would be
to collect sample increments at three randomly chosen locations (x-^, X2,  x-j),
between 0.0 km and y km, the road length.

     Care must be taken that sampled dust loadings are typical of only the
travelled portion of the road segment of interest.  On paved roads painted
with standard markings, the area from ""solid white line to solid white line"
should be sampled.  Curbs should not be sampled, since vehicles are not likely
to disturb dust from this area.

     Each incremental sample location consists of a lateral strip from 0.3 to
3 m (1 to 10 ft) wide across the travelled portion of the roadway.  The exact
area to be sampled depends on the amount of loose surface material on the
paved roadway.  For a visibly dirty road, a width of 0.3 m (1 ft) is
sufficient, but for a visibly clean road, a width of 3 m (10 ft) could be
required to obtain an adequate sample.

     This sampling procedure is the preferred method of collecting surface
dust from a paved industrial road segment.  However, if for lack of resources
or traffic hazards collection of a minimum of three sample increments across
all travel lanes is not feasible on a short road segment (<2.4 km or 1.5 mi),
sampling from a single representative paved strip 3 to 9 m (10 to 30 ft)  wide
across each lane will likely produce sufficient sample for analysis.

     Samples are removed from the road surface by vacuuming, preceded by broom
sweeping if large aggregate is present.   The sample number is identified and
the sampled area measured and is recorded on the appropriate data form.   With
a whisk broom and a dust pan, the larger particles are collected from the
sampling area and placed in a clean, labeled plastic jar.  The remaining
                                         t

D-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
    A
    o>

    o


    •a
    co
    o
    EC
              C
              g

           ^1

           £§
                          E
                          uq
                          o


                          1
               c

                          o

                          I
     v

     .C

     O)
     c
     CD
     0
     cc
                                                   •/'

                                                                   CM
                                           •o
                                           id
                                           o
                                           0)
                                                                              s-
                                                                              4J
                                                                              
ended S
Rec
                                                                               fO


                                                                               O)


                                                                               3

                                                                               D>
                                                                               •r—

                                                                               U_
9/90
Appendix  D
                                                                               D-5

-------
                               Paved Road Loading
Date Sample Collected
                 Recorded by
Type of Material Sampled:
Sampling Location*:	
       No. of Traffic Lanes:
       Surface Condition:
*Use code given on plant or road map for segment identification and indicate sample on map.
SAMPLING METHOD
  1.  Sampling device: portable vacuum cleaner (broom sweep first if loading is heavy)
  2.  Sampling depth: loose surface material
  3.  Sample container: tared and numbered vacuum cleaner bags
  4.  Gross sample specifications:
     (a) 1 sample every 8 km (5 mi) of road length
     (b) lateral sampling strips of 30 cm (1 ft) minimum width extending from curb to curb
        traveled portion of roadway
     (c) do not sample curb areas

Indicate deviations from above method:     	                 	
SAMPLING DATA
Sample
No.






Vac
Bag






Time






Surface
Area






Broom
Swept?






Sample
No.






Vac
Bag






Time






Surface
Area






Broom
Swept?






 DIAGRAM (mark each segment with vacuum bag number)
                    Figure 4.  Data Form For  Paved Road Sampling,
    D-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
Date Sample Collected,
                                Sampling Data for
                                  Storage Piles
                 Recorded by.
Type of Material Sampled:
Site of Sampling :	
SAMPLING METHOD
  1.  Sampling device: pointed shovel
  2.  Sampling depth: 10-15 cm (4-6 in)
  3.  Sample container: metal or plastic bucket with sealed poly liner
  4.  Gross sample specifications:
     (a)  1 sample of 23kg (50 Ib) minimum for every pile sampled
     (b)  composite of 10 increments
  5.  Minimum portion of stored maten'al (at one site) to be sampled: 25%

Indicate deviations from above method (e.g., use of sampling tube for inactive piles):
SAMPLING DATA
Sample
No.















Time















Location (Refer to map)















Surface
Area















Depth















Quantity
of Sample















                Figure 5.  Data Form For  Storage Pile Sampling.
9/90
Appendix D
                                                                             D-7

-------
smaller particles are then swept from the road with an electric broom-type
vacuum sweeper.  The sweeper must be equipped with an empty weighed, labeled,
disposable vacuum bag.  Care must be taken to avoid tearing the bag and losing
the sample.  After the sample has been collected, the bag should be removed
from the sweeper, checked for leaks and stored in a previously labeled sealed
plastic bag or paper envelope for transport.  Figure 4 presents a data form to
be used for the sampling of paved roads.
                               3.   Storage Piles

     Ideally, a gross sample made up of top, middle, and bottom incremental
samples from a pile should be obtained to determine representative silt and
moisture content for use in predicting particulate emissions from wind erosion
and materials handling operations.   However, it is impractical to climb to
the top or even the middle of most industrial storage piles, because of their
large size.

     The most practical approach to minimize sampling location bias for large
piles is to sample as near to the middle of the pile as practical and to
select sampling locations in a random fashion.  A minimum of ten incremental
samples should be obtained at locations along the entire perimeter of a large
pile.  If a small pile is sampled, two sets of three incremental samples
should be collected from the pile top', middle, and bottom.  A gross sample of
5 kg (10 Ib) to 23 kg (50 Ib) from a storage pile should be placed in a clean,
labeled, 19 liter (5 gal) plastic pail with a scalable poly liner.

     For determination of wind erosion estimation parameters, incremental
samples are collected by skimming the surface of the pile in an upwards
direction, using a straight-point shovel or small garden spade.  Every effort
must be made not to avoid sampling larger pieces of aggregate material.

     To characterize a pile for particulate emissions from materials handling
processes, incremental samples should be taken from the portion of the storage
pile surface (1) which has been been recently formed by the addition of aggre-
gate material, or (2) from which aggregate material is being reclaimed.
Samples should be collected with a shovel to a depth of 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6
in), taking care not to avoid sampling larger pieces of material.

     If an inactive pile is to be sampled before loadout operations, sample
increments should be obtained using a sampling tube approximately 2 m (6 ft)
long pushed to a depth of 1 m (3 ft).  The diameter of the sampling tube
should be a minimum of 10 times the diameter of the largest particle sampled.
 Samples should be representative of the interior portions of the pile that
constitute the bulk of the material to be transferred.  Figure 5 presents a
data form to be used for the sampling of storage piles.
D-8                            EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
                                   APPENDIX E

    PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SURFACE/BULK DUST LOADING SAMPLES


                1.0   Samples  From Sources  Other  Than Paved Roads

 1.1   Sample  Preparation

      Once  the gross  sample is  brought  to  the laboratory,  it must be prepared
 for analyses of moisture  and silt,  the two  physical parameters of principal
 interest.  The latter  is  defined as the percent of  test  sample mass passing  a
 200 mesh screen (<75 micrometers physical diameter) based on  mechanical
 sieving of oven-dried  material.   These analyses entail dividing  the sample to
 a  workable size.

      The gross sample  can be divided by using (1) mechanical  devices,
 (2) alternative shovel method,  (3)  riffle,  or (4) coning and  quartering
 method.  Mechanical  division devices are not discussed in this section since
 they  are not found in  many laboratories.  The alternative shovel method  is
 actually only necessary for  samples weighing hundreds of  pounds.   Therefore,
 only  the use of the  riffle and the  coning and quartering method  are discussed.

      American Society  For Testing And  Materials (ASTM) standards describe the
 selection  of the  correct  riffle  size and the correct use  of the  riffle.
 Riffle slot  widths should be at  least  three  times the size of the largest
 aggregate  in the  material being  divided.  Figure 1  shows  two  riffles for
 sample division.  The  following  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 1, (a)  and  (b).   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.   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.

      The procedure for coning and quartering  is best illustrated  in Figure 2.
Coning and quartering  is  a simple procedure which is applicable  to all
powdered materials and to sample  sizes ranging from a few grams  to several
hundred pounds.    Oversized material, defined as >0.6 mm  (3/8 in)  in diameter,
should be  removed prior to quartering and weighed in a tared container.   The
following  steps describe  the procedure.


9/90                              Appendix E                               E-l

-------
     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 two diameters at right angles;

     4.   Discard two opposite quarters;

     5.   Thoroughly mix the two remaining quarters, shovel them into a cone,
          and repeat the quartering and discarding procedures until the
          sample has been reduced to 0.4 to 1.8 kg (1 to 4 Ib).

Preferably, the coning and quartering operation should be conducted on a floor
covered with clean 10 mil plastic.  Samples likely to be affected by moisture
or drying must be handled rapidly, preferably in an area with a controlled
atmosphere, and sealed in a container to prevent further changes during
transportation and storage.  Care must be taken that the material is not
contaminated by anything on the floor or that a portion is not lost through
cracks or holes.

     The size of the laboratory sample is important.  Too little sample will
not be representative and too much sample will be unwieldly.  Ideally, one
would like to analyze the entire gross sample in batches, but this is not
practical.  While all ASTM standards acknowledge this impracticality, they
disagree on the exact size, as indicated by the range of recommended samples,
extending from 0.05 to 27 kg (0.1 to 60 Ib).

     The main principle in sizing the laboratory sample is to have sufficient
coarse and fine portions to be representative of the material and to allow
sufficient mass on each sieve so that the weighing is accurate.  A laboratory
sample of 400 to 1600 g is recommended since these masses can be handled by
the scales normally available (1.6 to 2.6 kg capacities).  Also, more sample
than this can produce screen blinding for the 20 cm (8 in) diameter screens
normally available.   In addition, 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).

1.2  Laboratory Analysis Of Samples For Moisture And Silt Contents

     The basic recommended procedure for silt analysis is mechanical, dry
sieving after moisture analysis.  Step-by-step procedures are given in
Tables 1 and 2.  The moisture content is obtained from a differential weight
analysis of the bulk material before and after drying.

     Non-organic samples should be oven dried overnight at 110° C (230°F)
before sieving.  The sieving time is variable; sieving should be conducted for
several periods of equal interval (e. g., 10 min), and continued until the net
sample weight collected in the pan increases by less than 3.0 percent of the
previous silt weight.  A small variation of 3.0 percent is allowed since some
sample grinding due to interparticle abrasion will occur, and consequently,
the weight will continue to increase.

     When the silt mass change reduces to not more than 3.0 percent, it is
thought that the natural silt has been passed through the No. 200 sieve screen
and that any additional increase is due to grinding.  The sample preparation

E-2             .               EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
                    Feed Chute
                                 SAMPLE DIVIDERS (RIFFLES)
                             Rolled
                             Edges
                         Riffle Sampler

                             (b)
                               Riffle Bucket and
                            Separate Feed Chute Stand
                                    (b)
                        Figure  1.  Sample Dividers  (Riffles)
                                  CONING AND QUARTERING
9/90
Figure 2.  Procedure  For Coning And  Quartering.


                     Appendix E
E-3

-------
Date:
                            MOISTURE ANALYSIS
       By:
Sample No:
Material:
Split Sample Balance:
  Make	
  Capacity.
  Smallest Division
Total Sample Weight:
(Excl. Container)
Number of Splits:	
Split Sample Weight (before drying)
Pan  + Sample:	
Pan:	
Wet  Sample:	
       Oven Temperature:
       Date In	
       Time In	
Date Out
Time Out
       Drying Time
       Material Weight (after drying)
       Pan + Material:	
       Pan:	
       Dry Sample:
       MOISTURE CONTENT:
         (A) Wet Sample Wt. _
         (B) Dry Sample Wt. _
         (C) Difference Wt.  _
          CxIQO
             A
       % Moisture
                   Figure  3.   Example Moisture Analysis Form.
 operations and the moisture and sieving results  can be  recorded on the data
 forms shown in Figures 3 and 4.



                         2.0   Samples From Paved Roads


 2.1  Sample Preparation And Analysis For Total  Loading


     The gross sample of paved road dust can arrive at  the laboratory in two
 types of containers, (a) for heavily loaded roads,  the  broom  swept particles
 will be in plastic jars; and (b) the vacuum swept dust  will be in vacuum bags
 sealed inside plastic bags or paper envelopes.   The broom swept particles and
 the vacuum swept dust are individually weighed  on a beam balance.  The broom
 swept particles are weighed in a tared container.   The  vacuum swept dust is
 weighed in the vacuum bag which was tared in the laboratory before going to
 the field.


     The total surface dust loading on the  traveled lanes of  the paved road is
 then calculated in units of kilograms of dust on the traveled lanes per
 kilometer of road.  The total dust loading  on the traveled lanes is calculated
 as follows:
 E-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                9/90

-------
                                            rav
                                                                    (1)
where:   m^ = mass of the broom  swept dust  (kg)
         my = mass of the vacuum swept dust  (kg)
         P  = width of the sampling strip as measured along the
              centerline of the  road segment (km)
                    TABLE E-l.   MOISTURE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
 1.   Preheat the oven to approximately 110°C  (230°F).  Record oven
      temperature.

 2.   Tare the laboratory sample containers which will be placed in the oven.
      Tare the containers with the lids on if  they have lids.  Record the tare
      weight(s).  Check zero before each weighing.

 3.   Record the make, capacity, and smallest  division of the scale.

 4.   Weigh the laboratory sample(s) in the container(s).a  Record the
      combined weight(s).  Check zero before each weighing.

 5.   Place sample in oven and dry overnight.

 6.   Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if
      uncovered, being careful of the hot container; or (b) place tight-
      fitting lid on the container and let cool before weighing.  Record the
      combined sample and container weight(s).  Check zero reading on the
      balance 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.

aFor materials with high moisture content, agitate the sample container to
ensure that any standing moisture is included  in the laboratory sample
container.
 Materials composed of hydrated minerals or organic material like coal and
certain soils should be dried for only 1.5 h.
9/90                              Appendix E                               E-5

-------

Date
Sample No:
Material:
Split Sample Balanc
Make
Caoacitv
Smallest Division

SILT ANALYSIS
Bv
Material Weight (after drying)
Pan + Material:
Pan:
e: Dry Sample:

Final Weiaht:

„, „,„. Net weiant <200 Mesn 	
Total Net Weight A '°
SIEVING

Time: Start:
Initial (Tare):
20 min:
30 min:
40 min:


Screen Tare \A
(Scree
3/8 in.
4 mesh
10 mesh
20 mesh
40 mesh
100 mesh
140 mesh
200 mesh
Pan

Weight (Pan Only)






(eight Final Weight
n) (Screen + Sample) Net Weight (Sample) %










                     Figure  4.   Example  Silt Analysis Form.
E-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90

-------
                     TABLE E-2.  SILT ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
   1.  Select  the appropriate  8-in diameter,  2-in deep  sieve  sizes.  Recommended
      U.S.  Standard  Series  sizes are:   3/8  in, No.  4,  No.  20, No.  40,  No.  100,
      No. 140, No. 200, and a pan.  Comparable Tyler Series  sizes  can  also be
      utilized.  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  one
      particulate sieve during sieving  indicates that  an intermediate  sieve
      should  be inserted.

 2.   Obtain  a mechanical sieving device such as vibratory shaker  or a Roto-Tap
      (without the tapping  function).

 3.   Clean the sieves with compressed  air and/or a soft brush.  Material
      lodged  in the  sieve openings or adhering to the  sides  of  the sieve should
      be removed (if possible) without  handling the screen roughly.

 4.   Obtain  a scale (capacity of at least 1600 g) and record make, capacity,
      smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy.

 5.   Tare sieves and pan.  Check the zero before every weighing.  Record
     weights.

 6.  After nesting the sieves in decreasing order with pan  at  the bottom,  dump
      dried laboratory sample (probably immediately after moisture analysis)
      into the top sieve.   The sample should weigh between 400  and 1600 g  (~
      0.9 to  3.5 lb)a.  Brush fine material adhering to the  sides of the con-
      tainer  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 device and sieve  for 10  min.
     Remove  pan containing minus No.  200 and weigh.   Repeat the sieving in 10-
     min intervals until the difference between two successive pan sample
     weighings (where the  tare of the  pan has been subtracted) is less than
      3.0 percent.  Do not  sieve longer than 40 min.

 8.  Weigh each sieve and  its contents and record the weight.  Check  the  zero
     reading on the balance before every weighing.

 9.  Collect the laboratory sample and 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 urn).
     This is the silt content.

aThis amount will vary for finely textured materials;  100 to 300 g may be
sufficient when 90% of the sample passes a No.  8 (2.36 mm)  sieve.


2.2  Sample Preparation And Analysis  For Road Dust Silt Content

     After weighing the sample to calculate total surface dust loading on the
traveled lanes,  the broom swept particles and vacuum swept dust are

9/90                              Appendix E                               E-7

-------
composited.  The composited sample  is  usually small  and may require no sample
splitting in preparation for  sieving.   If splitting  is necessary to prepare a
laboratory sample of 400 to 1600  g,  the techniques discussed in Section 1.1
can be used.  The laboratory  sample is then sieved using the techniques
described in part 1.2 above.
References For Appendix E

1.   "Standard Method Of Preparing  Coal  Samples  For Analysis",  D2013-72,
     Annual Book Of ASTM Standards.  1977.

2.   L. Silverman, et al..  Particle  Size Analysis  In Industrial Hygiene.
     Academic Press, New York,  1971.
                 OFFICE 1990/727-090/27002
E-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                           9/90

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
     AP-42 Supplement  C
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Supplement C to Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission
    Factors, AP-42,  Fourth  Edition
5. REPORT DATE
  September  1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Office Of Air And Radiation
  Office Of Air Quality  Planning And Standards
  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
 EPA  Editor:   Whitmel M. Joyner
16. ABSTRACT

       In  this Supplement to  the Fourth Edition  of AP-42, new or revised emissions data
 are  presented for Residential  Mood Stoves; Refuse Combustion; Sewage  Sludge
 Incineration; Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry;  Surface Coating Of Plastic Parts
 For  Business Machines; Synthetic Fiber Manufacturing;  Primary Lead Smelting; Gray
 Iron  Foundries; Chemical Wood  Pulping; Willdfires And Prescribed Burning; Industrial
 Paved Roads; Industrial Wind Erosion; Explosives Detonation; Appendix C.2,
 "Generalized Particle Size  Distributions"; Appendix  D, "Procedures For Sampling
 Surface/Bulk Dust Loading",;  and Appendix E,  "Procedures For Laboratory Analysis Of
 Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Samples".
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                               b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COS AT I Field/Group
 Stationary Sources
 Point Sources
 Area Sources
 Emission Factors
 Emissions
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                                               170
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R»v. 4-77)    PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------