UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENO
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY.
' RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
"< PRO^ NORTH CAROLINA' 277T1
DATE: June 19, 1978
SUBJECT: Controls for Industrial Fugitive Process PM Emissions
FROM: J. H. Abbott, Chief
Particulate Technology Branch,' IERL/RTP (MD-61 )
TO: J. B. Weigold
Strategies and Air Standards Division (MD-12)
In response to your memo of June 6, 1978, attached is a paper prepared
on the state of control technology for industrial fugitive process
partlculate matter (PM) emissions. The paper concludes that for nonferrous
and two-thirds of iron and steel sources, fugitive .emissions are primarily
less than 15. ym and therefore application of a respirable ambient standard
to this size range would have the same effect as a JSP standard. However,
for iron and steel sintering and open sources, the very large percentage
of greater than 15 ym particles implies that even control technology
which is slightly more effective for larger particles would have to be
used to a much higher overall efficiency and cost to meet a TSP standard
as opposed to a standard applied only to less than 15 ym particles. In
general, control technology for fugitive particles is not highly efficient
except at high cost. Lower levels of allowable emissions would result
in higher costs for either total control or control of particles less
than 15 .ym in diameter.
We hope that this paper will provide you with the information you need.
Because of the short deadline you requested for this information we do
not think that this is the most thorough compilation of data possible.
If you need additional assistance in this area, please do not hesitate
to call upon us again.
CC: J. Bachman
W. Barber
J. BuYchard
J. Padgett
E. Plyler
F. Princiotta
-------
POSITION PAPER
STATE OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR
INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE PROCESS.PARTICIPATE -EMISSIONS
Dr. D. C. Drehmel
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
David P. Daugherty
Charles H. Gooding
Energy and Environmental Research Division
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709
-------
I. SUMMARY
Fugitive particulates from industrial sources can be described by the mag-
nitude and particle size distribution of the emission from source activities.
Table 1 gives data for fugitive process emissions from integrated iron and steel
plants. Uncontrolled fugitive emission rates are highest for electric arc
furnaces and sintering machines. With the 'application of control, the greatest
respirable* fugitive emissions are from coke ovens and electric arc furnaces.
For comparison, stack emissions with control are also shown for respirable
particles. Although sintering machine stack emissions are greater than any
fugitive source, the total emissions from fugitive process sources are greater
than the total emissions from stack sources. Table 2 gives data for fugitive
open source emissions from integrated iron and steel plants. By far, the two
t ,
sources with the greatest respirable fugitive emissions are vehicular traffic
and storage pile activities. For a complete accounting of iron and steel fugitive
sources, Table 3 gives both process and open sources in rank order according to
total emissions for all particle sizes, not just respirable particles. In the
table, the first six sources account for 95 percent of the overall emissions.
These first six include coke ovens, three process sources, and two open sources.
Coke oven emissions are primarily in the respirable size range. Process
emissions from the two most important sources are not only primarily less than .
15 ym but also primarily less than 5 ym and hence could be described as fine ,
particles. Open source emissions are generally greater than 15 ym except
for vehicular traffic on paved roads.
Tables 4 and 5 give data on fugitive process emissions from lead and copper
smelting. Highest rates for fugitive emissions in lead smelters come from sintering
and concentrate storage and transfer. For these sources, as well as all others,
the emissions are primarily in the respirable size range. Highest rates for
fugitive emissions in copper smelters come from unloading of concentrate,
roaster charging, and converter charging and tapping. For these sources and
most copper smelter operations, the emissions are primarily less than 15 ym.
However, for blister furnace charging and tapping, most particles are larger than
15 ym.
*Respirable particles are assumed to be those with diameters less than 15 ym.
-------
TABLE 1. FUGITIVE PROCESS EMISSIONS FROM INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
Process
Estimated uncontrolled
fugitive emission rates
lb/ton process product
Percent of Mass
less than 15 urn
Estimated controlled emissions in 1976 - nationwide
mass in tons less than 15 ym
Coke Ovens
Charging
Pushing
Quenching
Sintering Machine
Hot Metal Transfer
Electric Arc Furnace
Alloy steel
Carbon steel
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Open Hearth Furnace
Scarfing
Machine
Hand .
References: Bohn, R. , T.
1.0
0.7
0.6
4.4
0.2
1.5
3.7
0.5
0.17
0.005
0.11
Cuscino and C.
50
60
60
10
15
85
85
65
90
100
100
Cowherd, Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive
30,000
20,000
3,000
8,000
1,200
3,800
27,000
13,000
1,800
30
700
from Integrated
Stacks
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
52,000
Not Applicable
]• 13,000
12,000
4,000
} 100
Iron and Steel Plants,
EPA-600/2-78-050, March 1978.
Zoller, J., G. Wood, and T. Janszen, "Current Status of Process Fugitive Particulate Emission
Estimating Techniques," Second Symposium on Fugitive Emissions: Measurement and Control Held
in Houston. Texas on May 23-25, 1977, EPA-600/7-77-148. December 1977.
Jacko, R., "Coke Oven Emission Measurements During Pushing," Symposium on Fugitive Emissions
Measurement and Control (May 1976, Hartford, CT). EPA-600/2-76-246, September 1976.
Kenson, R., N. Bowne, and W. Cote, "The Cost Effectiveness of Coke Oven Control Technology," Symposium
on Fugitive Emissions Measurement and Control (May 1976, Hartford, CT). EPA-600/2-76-246, September 19
-------
TABLE 2. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM IRON AND STEEL PLANT OPEN SOURCES
(NATIONWIDE TOTALS IN 1976)
Source Estimated Emissions
Less Than 30 pm, Tons
Unloading Raw Materials
Conveyor Transfer Stations
Storage Pile Activities
Vehicular Traffic
Wind Erosion of Exposed
t»> Areas
1 ,400
2,500
19,000
32,000
1,800
Estimated Emissions
Less Than 15 pm, Tons
(By Interpolation)
950
1,900
13,000
24,000
1,200
Estimated Emissions
Less Than 5 pm, Ton1
470
1,000
5,700
13,000
540
Reference: Bohn, R., T. Cuscino,
and C. Cowherd,
Fugitive Emissions From Integrated
Iron and Steel Plants,
EPA-600/2-78-050, March 1978.
-------
TABLE 3. RANKING OF IRON AND STEEL FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES
Source
Coke Ovens
Electric Arc Furnace
Vehicular Traffic
unpaved
paved
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Storage Pile Activity
Sintering
Open Hearth Furnace
Hot Metal Transfer
Conveyor Transfer Operations
Scarfing
Wind Erosion
Unloading Raw Materials
Rank in Total
Fugitive Emissions
1
2
\
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Percent Less
15 ym
60
85
45
70
65
10
• 10
90
15
40
100
6
7
Than
5 urn
40
70
25
40
50
5
5
65
10
20
90
3
3
-------
TABLE 4. FUGITIVE PROCESS EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
Process
Estimated Uncontrolled
Fugitive Emission Rates
Ib/Ton Product Lead
Estimated Percent
of Mass Less Than
15 Micron
Railroad Car and Truck Unloading
Materials Storage and Transfer
Limestone
Silica
Concentrate
Iron Ore
Coke
Mixing and Pelletizing
Sintering
Blast Furnace
Slag Pouring and Disposal
Zinc Fuming Furnace
Dross Kettle
Reverberatory Furnace Leakage
Lead Casting
.67
.21
.02
5.8
.74
.15
2.2
21.1
.15
3.4
4.6
.48
3.0
1.87
50
80
80
80
80
80
; 95
90
, ' 70
100
100
100
95
Sources: Uncontrolled emission rates from PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial
Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. EPA-450/3-77-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1977. Pp. 2-130 - 2-163.
Size data from several sources noted in Figure 2 legend.
-------
TABLE 5. FUGITIVE PROCESS EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
Process
Estimated Uncontrolled
Fugitive Emission Rates
Ib/Ton Product Copper
Estimated Percent
of Mass Less Than
15 microns
CT>
Unloading of Concentrate
Materials Storage and Transfer
33.7
50
Ore Concentrate
Limestone Flux
Roaster Charging and Leakage
and Calcine Transfer
Reverberatory Furnace: Charging,
Leakage, and Tapping
Converter: Charging,. Leakage,
and Tappiny
Blister Copper: Furnace Charging
and Tapping
1.1
.5
23.0
8.5
12.0
4.4
80
80
No data, see note
95
95
20
Note: No reliable fugitive size data available. Might expect fugitives to be similar in size to fugitives
from ore concentrate materials handling i.e., 80 percent less than 15 microns.
Sources: Uncontrolled emission rates from PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Technical Guidance for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. EPA-450/3-77-010, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1977. Pp. 2-130 - 2-163.
Size data from several sources noted in Figure 2 legend.
-------
Other data, presented in this paper but not shown in the summary, deal with
zinc and aluminum processing. From the limited information available, it may
be concluded that zinc and aluminum, like copper and lead, give rise primarily to
respirable particles although emissions from aluminum operations may be generally
larger than from the other three.
In review of emission data, nonferrous metal industrial operations give rise
primarily to small or respirable particles with only one exception which is not
a major source in copper processing. However, for iron and steel industrial
operations many sources which release large particles have been identified.
These sources are sintering, hot metal transfer, and open sources. Sintering
and two of the open sources—vehicular traffic and, storage pile activities--
are major sources and combined account for almost a third of iron and steel
fugitive dust.
An important question is the application of control technology for different
air pollution prevention strategies. Control to prevent total suspended parti-
culate (TSP) will be the same as control to prevent respirable particulate matter
(IPM) if the emissions to be controlled are primarily in the respirable size
range. This is true for nonferrous metal industrial fugitive emissions and for
two thirds of the iron and steel industry fugitive emissions. Controls applied
to sintering and open sources would have to be better to meet the same level of
TSP instead of IPM requirements. If greater control were needed to meet lower
levels of IPM allowable, costs for control on all sources would increase greatly
because no. control _for fugitive emissions is highly efficient. Application of
control to meet a high standard could not be inexpensively modified to
provide control to a lower level.
-------
II. OVERVIEW OF FUGITIVE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Perhaps the state of industrial fugitive process particulate (IFPP) controls
can best be characterized by the terms "emerging" and "site-specific." Only
within the last two to three years have IFPP emissions been studied and means
for their measurement and control considered. The sources of IFPP emissions are
numerous and quite varied, not only from industry to industry, but also between
different sources within the same plant. Accordingly, the control equipment
requires design and development almost on a case by case basis. For example,
the hooding required to collect fugitive emissions from pushing coke is entirely
different from that used in collecting offgases from blowing a copper converter.
Not only is the mechanical design different but particulate removal efficiency
can vary widely due to differences in air flow, ambient conditions, etc. The
central points here are: (1) control technology for fugitive emissions is new
and changing; and (2) the industrial applications are highly individual and it
is much more difficult to generalize than in the case of stack emissions. In
the future, it is unlikely that any single method of fugitive control will
predominate and we can expect the process systems will continue to require
individual control strategies.
By definition, fugitive emissions are difficult to collect and control.
They are diffuse and typically come from many small sources as opposed to a
single large emitter. For example, in a primary lead smelter, twenty-five
different groups of emission sources have been identified,' • with each group
containing several emission sources within the plant. Fugitive emissions can
also be diffuse in the sense that there are low level emissions from a large
area as in the case of wind erosion from storage piles or dust from in-plant
vehicular traffic.
Many of the fugitive emissions are intermittent in nature. Unloading railcars
or slag dumping are two good examples of intermittent fugitive emissions—
the only significant emissions are during the five to ten minute period during
the dumps. Control equipment is not required the remainder of the time. Process
upsets and abnormal feeds can also be the cause of intermittent, high level
fugitive particulates.
Because.of the intermittent and diffuse nature of fugitive emissions their
measurement is difficult. Briefly, sampling can be via (1) quasi-stack sampling
8
-------
where a collection hood near the source is sampled; (2) roof monitor sampling
in which a large enclosed area such as a building is sampled; or (3) upwind-
downwind sampling where fugitive emissions are back-calculated from particulate
measurements around the source perimeter. Accuracy of such methods varies from
(?} > -'~ -•. •
50 to 500 percent.v;
Because of the relatively recent interest in fugitive process emissions and
the measurement difficulties, data on the size and rate of IFPP emissions are
spotty and often several fugitive sources are grouped together for measurement pur-
poses. Field data on control device efficiencies is even more scarce. In the
sections on control equipment and particulate characteristics which follow,
engineering judgement and the results of a recent,literature survey were used to
provide information relevant to a standard based on particulate matter less than
15 microns.
III. EQUIPMENT FOR CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Some degree of fugitive particulate control can be obtained with little
or no equipment investment via good housekeeping and plant maintenance practices.
Prompt repair of hood damage, maintenance of seals on coke oven doors, the proper
handling and disposal of dusts from fabric filters, quick clean up and disposal
of particulate spills, and any of the numerous other elements of good manufacturing
practice all serve to reduce the amount of fugitive particulate emissions. This
type of control depends on work practices; equipment costs (if any) for these
control measures would be independent of whether the standard was based on total
suspended particulate or the minus 15 micron fraction.
For open source fugitive particulate emissions such as agricultural tilling,
construction activity, and traffic on unpaved roads, water suppression is the major
means of fugitive particulate control. Wetting with sprays can also be used to
reduce fugitive process particulates from storage bins, conveyors, or raw
materials storage. Additives of various sorts may be used to form a "crust" on
/3\
the particulate and improve control efficiency.v '
Some recent work has been directed at removing suspended fugitive particulates
with charged water sprays.^ ' It was found that most particulates carry a
negative electrostatic charge and by inducing a positive charge on water droplets,
good removal of respirable size particulates is achieved. A small version of the
charged water sprayer suitable for conveyor transfer points, grinding wheels, etc.
has recently been marketed.*
f o)
*Electrostatic Fogger..Iv-A, Ransburg Corp., Indianapolis, Ind. Mention of
company or product names is not to be considered an endorsement by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. .,,:-.-.•-.
-------
IERL-RTP is currently directing an evaluation of this device for fugitive control
(5)
in lead and copper smelters. '
A serious disadvantage of water spray suppression is that it can only be
used when (1) the process and product can tolerate the additional water and
(2) when capture of the particles is not required. Water sprays help agglomerate
suspended particulates so they settle out of the air faster, but they do not, by
themselves, collect the settled material. This is not a disadvantage for bins,
car unloading, or conveyor transfer points where the settled material returns to
the process. However, in many other applications, the settled particulate would
dry out and be resuspended. .
To remove fugitive particulates from a gas stream, conventional control
devices are used: predominantly bag filters, also electrostatic precipitators
scrubbers, and in some cases cyclones. However, for fugitive emissions, the control
problem is not usually the removal of particulates from the gas, it is instead
the gathering and collection of the gas streams. Emissions from the many diffuse
sources of fugitive particulates must be gathered and transferred to the control
device via a ventilation system.
Ventilation systems for fugitives are typically either secondary hooding at
the local source of emissions or total building enclosure and evacuation. Both
methods have their drawbacks and, for large airflows, have high energy and
capital requirements. The ventilation system for collecting fugitives requires
individual consideration for each fugitive source. Personnel and equipment »
access must be considered, the areas to be vented must be selected, and ductwork
layout can be difficult in retrofitting existing plants.
For an overview of the various fugitive control methods used in industry
consult Tables 6-12 reproduced from Reference (6). Reference (1) is also a
good source of data on fugitive particulate sources for various industries.
10
-------
TABLE 6 . FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR MATERIALS HANDLING SOURCES
Source
Type of Control
Relative
Estimated
Effectiveness
Remarks or Restrictions
Conveyors,
Elevators,
and Feeders
Sprays at trans-
fer points
In-PI ant
Hauling
Loading and
Unloading
Rail car
or truck
Barge or
Ship
Foam sprays
Enclosure of
transfer points
and exhaust
Complete enclo-
sure and exhaus-
ting to control
device
Scraper
— ^Wetting
Stabilization
Enclosure
Exhausting
Enclosure or
hooding 6"f hatches
Reduction of
fall distance
Wet Suppression
Pneumatic System
Tarpaulins over
holds
Reduction of
fall distance
F to G
F
F to G
F
G
P to F
P to F
G
P to F
P to F
Can use water or water
plus a surfactant.
Cannot be used where
wet product is intoler-
able to later process
steps.
Could be costly
Costly—must" be ducted
to control device.
Used to remove sticking
material from belt.
Effective in combination
with other controls.
Wetting of transported
material is a temporary
control but is effec-
tive for short hauls.
Not cost effective
for short hauls.
Costly
By use of rock ladders,
telescoping chutes, etc.
Only applicable if wet
product can be tolerated.
Costly
May establish a positive
pressure in hold. There-
fore, venting may be
needed.
Still causes disturbance
of surface. Depending
on material, could become
clogged.
continued
11
-------
TABLE 6. (cont'd)
Source
Bagging
Stacking
of Products
Type of Control
Relative
Estimated
Effectiveness
Remarks or Restrictions
Barge or
Ship
(cont'd)
Canopy with
exhaust
Enclosure and
exhaust of
receiving
hoppers
Enclosure of
receiving
hoppers
F to G
F to G
F
Requires a control
device—costly.
Requires a control
device— costly.
•
Enclosure of
operation
Exhausting, of
enclosure
Reduction of
fall distance
Wet Suppression
Enclosure
Waste Disposal Wet Material
Handling
Dumping
Covered or
enclosed hauling
system
Sprays
Enclosure
F to G
P to F
P to F
G
P to F
F
May lead to problems of
equipment abrasion due
to retained dust—requires
periodic cleaning.
Extra cost for control
Use of telescoping
chutes, rock ladders,
hinged-boom conveyors,
etc.
Temporary only
May not be feasible due
to type or amount of
material.
May be impractical due
to type of material or
disposal area. May pre-
sent additional problems
such as solubilization
of metals, etc.
Costly
May be impractical
12
-------
TABLE 7'. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR STOCKPILES AND VIASTE DISPOSAL HEAPS
Relative
Estimated
Source Type of Control Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions
Stockpiles
Waste
Disposal
Heaps
Coal Refuse
Pile Fires
Wetting
Stabilization , P
Enclosure F to G
Wind Screen VP
Separation of F
fines that are
sent to enclosed
areas
Wetting . P
Stabilization P to F
Vegetation F to G
Physical F to G
Stabilization
Wetting VP
Trenching VP
Covering, etc. VP
Continuous operations on
stockpiles preclude
effective control.
Same as wetting
May not be practical for
all types of operations.
Extra cost
Temporary only
Efficiency depends on
type of material, type
of stabilizer, etc.
Temporary
May be expensive due
to cost of pretreating
(fertilizing, etc.).
No effective control
No effective control
No effective control
13
-------
TABLES'. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL METHODS FOR MINING OPERATIONS
Source
Type of Control
Relative
Estimated
Effectiveness
Remarks or Restrictions
Overburden
Removal
Drilling
Blasting
Excavating
and Loading
Wetting VP
Water, foam F to G
or surfactant
injection
Hooding and 6
collection
system
Wetting VP
Water ampul VP
steming
Proper technique P
Wettina P
Continuous activity
negates effective
control
Baghouses are common
controls—costly.
No effective control
No effective control
No effective control
Continual disturbance
precludes effective
control
14
-------
TABLE 9. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR SOLIDS BENEFICIATION SOURCES
Source
Type of Control
Relative
Estimated
Effectiveness
Remarks or Restrictions
Crushing
Screening
Classifying
Wetting
Enclosure
Hooding and
ducting to con-
trol device
Wetting
Housing or
enclosure
Hooding and
ducting to
control
device
Enclosure and
ducting
Wet Classifica-
tion
Closed pneumatic
system
P to F
F
F to G
P to F
F to G
F
G
Depends on type of prod-
uct and crusher. Wet-
ting can cause clogging.
Can have problems due
to abrasion of equipment
by enclosed particles.
Efficiency depends on
type and design of con-
trol and associated
equipment.
Wetting can cause clogging
of fine screens. Not
applicable for materials
that require low moisture
for subsequent process
steps.
May increase maintenance
charges due to abrasion
of screens. Periodic
cleaning necessary.
Costly--may add signifir-'
cant cost per unit of
product, especially in
high volume, low price
industries such as ,
crushed stone.
Only applicable if
material can be wet for
next steps.
Applicability depends
on material
15
-------
TABLE 10. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL METHODS FOR TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
Source
Unpaved Roads
Paved Roads
Transport of
Fines by
Truck or
Train
Type of Control
Wet Suppression
Stabilization
Pavi ng
Speed Reduction
Washing
Vacuuming
Wetting
Covering (tarps)
Enclosure
Relative
Estimated
Effectiveness
VP
P
G
\
Variable
P
P.
P
•
F
G
Remarks or Restrictions
Temporary
Temporary
Cost—without improve-
ment of road leads to
psychological over-
driving
Costly, temporary
Costly, .temporary
Temporary only
Problems occur during
Off-Highway
Travel
Road Shoulders
None
Stabilization
Vegetation
F
G
loading and unloading
and from leakage.
Also costly.
lfiL
-------
TABLET!. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION SOURCES
Source
Type of Control
Relative
Estimated
Effectiveness
Remarks or Restrictions
Excavating
Heaping of
Excavated
Materials
Wetting
Wetting
Stabilizing
VP to P
P
F to G
Vehicle Travel See Unpaved Roads (Table 7)
Demolition None
Continual working pre-
cludes effective control.
Temporary only
Stabilizing with a bind-
er is an effective
control method that is
applicable to short term
.heaping of excavated
material.
Demolition may cause high,
short-term exposure to
asbestos from bulding
materials.
TABLE 12', FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL OF MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
Source
Type of Control
Relative
Estimated
Effectiveness
Remarks or Restrictions
Roof Monitors
Open Burning
Incineration
Cooling Tower
Drift
Ducting to
control device
None
Control Device
F to G
F to G
Effectiveness depends on
type of material and
type of control
Costly
No effective control
17
-------
IV. FUGITIVE EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS
Particle size distributions for various fugitive emissions are shown in
two figures—Figure 1 for the iron and steel industries and Figure 2 for the
nonferrous metallurgical industries. The accompanying legends give the source
of the emissions together with the literature references. Characteristics for
some of the fugitive emissions have been estimated from ducted sources. Note
that for the majority of the nonferrous sources, most of the fugitive emission
mass is below the proposed standard of 15 micron while for iron and steel sources
the size range is broader. .
We would expect the fugitive emissions measured at the plant boundary to
have fewer larger particles because these would settle out inside the plant
boundaries. However, it should be noted that the ultimate fate of fugitive
particulate emissions from an industrial process is not well known. It depends
in general on the height of the emission point, on the location of surrounding
structures, on meteorological conditions at the site (particularly wind patterns),
on the topography of the area, and on the size distribution of the emissions.
For example, mathematical modeling^ ' has shown that the average drift distance
of 15 micron particles emitted 3 meters above the level of surrounding structures
can vary from 300 to 800 meters depending on topography alone. (Almost a 300
percent variation.) The correspondong drift distance of 5 micron particles
varies from 2 to 6 kilometers. This means, of course, that the achievement of
any ambient suspended particulate standard depends not only on the above factors,
but is also highly affected by the point and method of compliance testing. A
change in the sampling method or point or in the size basis of ambient standards
could easily reverse the compliance status of any particular site for either a
total or a minus 15 micron standard.
More detailed information on fugitive particulates from three areas in
which we have done the most work is given below. A summary of the detailed
information below is presented in Section I - Summary, Tables 1 through 4.
IV. A. Integrated Iron and Steel Plants
Fugitive emissions originate from several individual processes as well as
from open sources in an integrated iron and steel plant. Table 1 in Section I
summarizes the estimated process fugitive emission rates and size characteristics
and compares the relative magnitude of the process fugitive emissions (with
18
-------
FIGURE 1. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
1 I I I I l l I I
i i i t t i LA
57.? -
99.« -
90 -
20 -
7O
6O
ro
10
3O
10 -^
/O
r
x
i.o
Ul
u>
{2.
Ul
U)
s:
O
Ste ACCOM? Aw^lNiCr-
FOR SO Of- <•-<=•=> OB T>A
.or
1 ) I II f I
I I l i l l i l i
IOC
I 1 I I I l I I
10'
I I
I I
-------
LEGEND FOR FIGURE 1
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Curve Number
Fugitive ParticuTate Source
Reference
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
Coke Pushing
Sintering Machine
Hot Metal Transfer
Electric Arc Furnace
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Open Hearth Furnace
Scarfing
Raw Material Handling and
Storage Pile Activity
Vehicular Traffic
(Unpaved Roads)
Vehicular Traffic
(Paved Roads)
Conveyor Transfer Stations
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
"Technical Guidance for Control
of Industrial Process Fugitive
Emissions," EPA-450/3-77-010,
(1977)
Bohn, R., T. Cuscino &
C. Cowherd, "Fugitive Emissions
From Integrated Iron and Steel
Plants," EPA-600/2-78-050,
(1978)
ditto .
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
20
-------
FIGURE 2. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR NONFERROUS METALS INDUSTRY
i i i 11
1 I L 1 1 I I I
I I I I I t I I
97.S -
9? •-
n -
TO
to
SO
10
30
Ul
tO
5"
1
I.
fl-
H
'•"I
Z
Zi
vj
oc
.01 •
T—r-f-r
10'
I I I I I I I I
10°
I I I I I I I
in' ..
i t i i i i
-------
LEGEND FOR FIGURE 2
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR NONFERROUS METALS INDUSTRY
Curve Number
Fugitive Particulate Source
Reference
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Metal Melting, Secondary
Aluminium Smelting
Metal Melting, Secondary
Brass Smelting
Metal Melting, Secondary
Bronze Smelting
Metal Melting, Secondary
Lead Smelting
Metal Melting, Secondary
Zinc Smelting
Blast Furnace Stack Gases,
Secondary Lead Smelting
Sintering Machine ESP Inlet,
Primary Zinc Production
Fugitives, Sintering Building,
Primary Lead Production
Pouring and Casting, Primary
Copper Smelting
Reverberatory Furnace, Primary
Copper Smelting
Jones, H. R. Pollution Control
in the Nonferrous Metals Industry,
1972, Noyes Data Corp., Park
Ridge, N.J.
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
Harris, D. B. and D. C. Drehmel.
Fractional Efficiency of Metal
Fume Control as Determined by
Brink Impactor. Presented at
66th Annual Meeting of the
APCA, Chicago, Illinois. June
24-28, 1973.
Constant, P., M. Marcus, and
W. Maxwell. Sampling Fugitive
Lead Emissions from Two
Primary Lead Smelters. EPA-
450/3-77-031. U.S. EPA (1977).
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Technical Guidance for Control
of Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emissions. EPA-
450/3-77-010, U.S. EPA, (1977).
Thompson, G. S., Jr. and G. B.
Nichols. Experience with
Electrostatic Precipitators as
Applied to the Primary Copper
Smelting Reverberatory Furnace;
in Proceedings: Particulate
Collection Problems Using ESP's
in the Metallurgical Industry.
EPA-600/2-77-208, U.S. EPA, (1977)
22
-------
LEGEND FOR FIGURE 2 (CONTINUED)
Curve Number
Fugitive Particulate Source
Reference
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Limestone Storage and Material
Handling
Fugitives, Blast Furnace Tapping
Area, Primary Lead Smelting
Fugitives, Ore Storage Bins,
Primary Lead Smelting
Fugitives, Blast Furnace
Charging Area, Primary Lead
Smelting
Sintering Baghouse Inlet,
Primary Lead Smelting
Converter ESP Inlet, Primary
Copper Smelting
Roaster ESP Inlet, Primary
Zinc Production
PEDCo (1977).
Constant et al (1977)
Constant et al (1977)
Constant et al (1977)
Harris'and Drehmel (1973),
Harris and Drehmel (1973)
Harris and Drehmel (1973)
23
-------
currently typical controls applied) to controlled stack emissions from the same
processes. It should be noted that most of the fugitive emission estimates are
based on sparse data and extrapolations from stack measurements. At individual
plants the fugitive emission rates could quite possibly vary from -50 percent
to +200 percent of the tabulated values.
'Table 2 in the same section gives estimates of controlled particulate
emissions nationwide in 1976 from open sources in iron and steel plants. The
estimates are in terms of total mass less than 30 urn and.total mass less than
5 ym with mass less than 15 ym determined by log-normal interpolation. These
estimates are based on sampling at a relatively small number of plants with
extrapolation to yield the nationwide totals. The\immediate conclusion is
that fugitive emissions from vehicular traffic and from storage pile activities
are relatively large in comparison to process fugitive emissions although the
relative significance of the sources will in general vary from plant to plant.
Each of the sources, both process and open is discussed briefly below.
Coke Ovens .
In terms of total mass on a nationwide basis, coke oven emissions are the
most significant source of fugitive emissions and .perhaps the most difficult to
(&}
control. The following comments, extracted from a recent paper^ ' on coke oven
emission control, give a concise summary of the emission problems and present
control strategies:
"Coke. Oven CkaA.gi.ng
The charging of coal into coke ovens results in a fugitive emission release
consisting of coal dust, tars and gases from the charging hole. Control tech-
nologies considered commercially feasible for prevention for prevention of
substantial charging emissions include:
Stage charging with oven evacuation
0 Larry cars equipped with gas collecting systems and wet scrubbers
0 Pipeline charging
The former two have been considered as retrofits for present coke ovens as
well as feasible for new coke oven battery construction. In some cases, pipeline
charging, which is a technology considered suitable for new construction, has
been installed in rebuilt batteries to meet the need for strict control of par-
ticulate emissions. .
24
-------
Coking
Leakage of emissions (gases, fumes) from the coke oven doors and other
openings in the ovens are minor but hard to control sources of emissions.
Although improved door sealing is a potential control, it is hard to estimate
the degree of control achieved by this technique.
Coke. Po6/ung
The pushing of the incandescent coke >from the oven into the quench car
results in emission of hot coke particles and tars as well as gases from the
coke as it.leaves the oven and dumps into the quench car. Although there have
.been commercial control equipment installations, the technology is undergoing
change and new concepts are now in design stage. Commercially feasible
controls include:
0 Coke side sheds ducted to wet scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators
0 Coke guide and hooded quench car
Both have been considered for retrofit to present ovens and for new construction.
In new construction, the hooded quench car can contain a mobile quench station
which eliminates quench towers.
Co fee Que.nc.ki.ng
Although changes in this technology may be more related to water reuse and
pollution, they do result in lower air pollution emissions. Commercially feasible
control technologies include:
0 Dry quenching
0 Coke guide and hooded quench car (with mobile quench station)
Both technologies have been primarily considered for new installations rather
than retrofit."
This same paper concludes that stringent (and costly) controls can reduce
local suspended particulate concentrations significantly, but compliance
problems may still exist if the ovens are located within a few thousand feet
of the plant boundary.
Sintering Machines .
Sintering operations can emit fugitive emissions at the end of the strand
where the sinter is broken, at the cooler and on the cold screen. The emissions
are relatively large in size and probably do not travel far from the machine
by air. In some installations, one or more of these potential fugitive emission
points is hooded and the emissions are ducted to a baghouse or other collector.
25
-------
Hot Metal Transfer
In plants where hot metal is transferred from the blast furnaces to
steelmaking furnaces, iron oxide and.kish (a carbonaceous material) emissions
are produced during the pouring operations. Where controls exist, the most
common practice is hooding roll owed by fabric filtration.
Steelma'king Furnaces >
Fugitive emissions are associated with all three types of steelmaking
furnaces. They occur primarily during charging, slagging and tapping operations
although significant leakage through various ports and loose-fitting covers
may occur throughout the cycle in some installations.. Alternate control strategies
involve primarily deciding the type of hooding (close fitting vs. canopy vs.
building evacuation). Once the emissions are ducted, any of the conventional
stack gas control devices can be used.
Scarfing
In the scarfing operation, in which a thin layer is burned off the surface
of the steel to create a better finish, a very fine iron-oxide particulate is
formed. The scarfing area is frequently hooded and the emissions are sent to
a scrubber or wet precipitator.
Unloading Raw Materials and Conveyor Transfer Stations •
Fugitive emissions occur when raw materials are unloaded from barges, rail
cars, or trucks and transferred to conveyors. Emissions are also usually apparent
where the material transfers from one conveyor to another if dropping or physical
mixing occurs. These material-handling emissions can be reduced by enclosing
the unloading or transfer points or by the use of liquid sprays to suppress the
dust.
Storage Pile Activities
Fugitive emissions can occur due to loading and unloading at the pile, wind
erosion of the pile surface, and local vehicular traffic that is related to
maintaining pile configuration. Emissions from unloading activities can be
reduced to some extent by reducing the drop distance of the materials.
Enclosures and spray systems can reduce emissions from the other phenomena.
26
-------
Vehicular Traffic
Motor vehicle traffic is associated with employee arrival and departure,
employee transportation within the typically large plant areas, ans transportation
of raw and finished materials by truck. Although the inter-plant roads are
frequently paved, fugitive emissions can be substantial when the surface dust
loading is allowed to accumulate. These emissions can be reduced by paving
unpaved roadways, by periodically watering, oiling, or flushing the roads
(runoff can create water pollution problems), or by sweeping (which can aggravate
the problem more than solve it unless vacuum sweepers are used).
Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas \
Bare, unused land areas within the plant are susceptible to wind erosion.
Although the magnitude of this problem is relatively small, it can be alleviated
by paving or other surface stabilization or by wind breaks.
IV. B. Primary Lead Smelting
In producing metallic lead from ore concentrate, three major steps are
involved: (1) sintering in which the lead sulfide ore is burned to lead oxide;
(2) blast furnace in which coke is. added to the sinter to reduce the lead oxides
to molten lead; and (3) refining in which remaining impurities are removed from
the molten lead. Sintering is the largest potential source of fugitives^ '
with materials handling operation also being a major source. See Table 4 in
Section I for a summary of rate and size data.
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) conducted actual plant measurements of
fugitive emissions from two ASARCO primary lead smelters: the Glover, Missouri
plant and the East Helena, Montana plant.* ' Because of the measurement problems
associated with individual sources, fugitive emissions from an entire operation
(such as the sintering building) were measured as one fugitive source.
MRI determined the particle-size range of total particulate fugitive emissions
for four locations at the Glover plant: (1) sintering building, (2) blast-furnace
tapping area, (3) blast-furnace feed charging area, and (4) ore storage bin area.
A Sierra, Model 230, HiVol cascade impactor was used. A Sierra impactor was also
used to determined the particle size range for total fugitive emissions from the
East Helena blast furnace operations. The results are summarized in Table 13.
27
-------
TABLE 13. PARTICLE,DISTRIBUTION FOR FUGITIVE PARTICULATES FROM LEAD SMELTING
Location
Sinter .building,
G.I over, Missouri
Blast furnace
(tapping operations),
Glover, Missouri
Blast furnace
(.charge-feed area)
Glover, Missouri
Ore-storage-bin
area
Blast furnace
operations
East Helena, Montana
Concentration
(yg/m3) w.t-% - •
1,420*
207
174
112
117
116
, 44.1
39
32.7
24.7
40.4
75.7
1,301
79.1
82.1
81.2
190
338
372
36.6
54.4
45.1
89.5
177
652.0
375.0
242. 0
132.0
102.0
71.1
66.18
9.64
8.11
5.22
5.45
x 5.40
17.19
15.20
12,74 •
9.62
15.74
29.51
62.81
3.82
3.96
3.92
9.17
16.32
48.03
4.72
7.02
5.82
11.55
22.86
41.43
23.82
15.37
8.38
6.48
4.52
Particle Size Range
micron
<0.38
0.38-0.71
0.71-1.15
1.15-2.3
2.3-5.6
. >5.6
<0.31
0.31-0.59
0.59-0.95
0.95-1.9
1.9-4.6
>4.6
<0.33
0.33-0.63
0.63-1.0
. 1.0-2.03
2.03-4.9
>4.9
<0.31
0.31-0.59
0.59-0.95
0.95-1.9
1.9-4.6
>4.6
<0.31
0.31-0.59
0.59-0.95
0.95-1.9
1.9-4.6
>4.6
Source: Constant et al (1977)
28
-------
Particle sizes as determined by Harris and Drehmer ' with a Brink impactor
gave the data in Table 14 for ducted emissions from a lead sintering machine.
Some idea of the size distribution of fugitive particulates outside the
boundary of a lead smelter can be gained from data by Dorn et_a]_. ' They
measured lead, cadmium, zinc, and copper levels in suspended particulate over
winter, spring, and summer seasons at a site approximately 800 meters north of
a lead smelter. An eight-stage Andersen impactor sampler was used. While they
did not present total particulate weights versus size, a rough idea of the particles
in the respirable range can be gained from the elemental distributions in
Table 15. (Complete elemental distribution data is given in Table 16.)
IV. C. Primary Copper Smelting x
The production of copper metal from the ore consists of.four major steps:
(1) roasting in which part of the sulfur in the ore is burned (this step has been
eliminated in many smelters today); (2) srne 11in g in which the roasted ores are
melted to produce a molten "matte" consisting of copper and iron sulfides;
(3) converting in which the molten "matte" is blown with oxygen to produce a
fairly clean "blister copper"; and (4.) refining in which any final impurities
are removed. Table 5 (in Section I) identifies the largest potential source of
fugitive particulates as materials unloading with converter operations also a
strong source. (Roasting can also be a large source but it
being eliminated as a process step in many smelters.)
There has been no study of fugitive emissions from copper smelters comparable
in scope to the MRI report on fugitives from lead smelters. Data scattered
throughout the literature are presented here.
Harris and DrehmeV ' provided the values in Table 17 for particulates
from a copper converter as sampled by a Brink, Model B,5 stage impactor.
(12)
A separate set of data from Thompson and Nicholsv ' falls in line with the
smaller range of sizes. They measured particulates from two copper reveratory
furnaces with cascade inertial impactors and five stage cyclones. Data estimated
from two figures in Reference (12) is given below in Table 18.
The particulate entrained from handling limestone flux for the copper process
has a mean dian:3ter of 3-6 microns. ' It is reasonable to expect the mean
diameter of fugitives from copper concentrate storage to be approximately the
same size range. .
• ' ' 29
-------
TABLE 14. PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION FOR DUCTED LEAD SINTERING
MACHINE GASES
Particle size
(microns).
>3.i
1.8-3.1
1.25-1.8
0.62-1.25
0.38-0.62
<0.38
Total
Particle
(g/scf)
.04077
.01622
.02599
\
.05938
.06676
.02062
.22974
Loading
(wt %)
17.75
7.06
11.31
25.85
29.06
8.97
100.00
Source: Harris and Drehmel (1973).
30
-------
TABLE 15. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu IN RESPIRABLE RANGE
NEAR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTER
Particle Size
(microns)
I4-7
< 4.7
Pb.
34.29
65.71
Element
Cd
11.69
88.31
and %
Zn
27.09
72.91
Cu
45.68
54.32
SOURCE: Dorn et al. (1976)
31
-------
TABLE 16. AIRBORNE ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS NEAR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTER
Size
(microns)
1 11
7-11
4.7-7.
3.3-4.7
2.1-3.3
1.1-2.1
0.65-1.1
0.43-0.65
TOTAL
Pb
yg/m3 wt%
0.1064
0.0733
0.1768
0.1655
0.0691
0.1430
0.1651
0.1372
1.0361
10.26
7.07
17.06
15.97
6.67
13.80
15.93
13.24
100.00
Elemental Concentration
Cd Zn
yg/m3 wt% yg/m3 wt%
0.0009
0.0007
0.0013
0.0014
0.0011
0.0064
0.0071
0.0059
0.0248
3.63
2.82
5.24
5.65
4.44
25.81
28.63
23.79
100.00
0.0194
0.0113
0.0166
0.0163
0,0140
0.0307'
0.0343
0.0320
0.1746
11.11
6.47
9.51.
9.34
8.02
17.58
19.64
18.33
100.00
Cu
yg/m3 wt%
0.0042
0.0018
0.0029
0.0026
0.0015
0.0016
0.0008
0.0040
0.0194
21.65
9.28
14.95
13.40
7.73
8.25
4.12
20.62
100.00
SOURCE: Dorn et al. (1976)
-------
TABLE 18. PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION FOR DUCTED COPPER REVERBERATORY
FURNACE GASES
PLANT A PLANT B
Particle Size
(microns) (mg/acm) wt% mg/acm wt%
> 4
2-4
1-2
0.6-1
0.3-0.6
<0.3
10
20
31
27
24
28
7
14
22
20
17
20
80
50
40
38
65
17
28
17
14
13
22
6
Source: Figures 2 and 5; Thompson and Nichols (1977)
34
-------
In the period from 1965 to 1973 NIOSH collected data on trace metal levels
in copper smelters. ' Samples from many smelters were obtained and used to
get long term industry-wide averages of exposure for the following smelter
areas: (1) reverberatory furnace charging'deck, (2) reverberatory furnace
operators deck, (3) converters, and (4) anode casting. Both personal and area samples
were collected. Membrane filters with a 0.8 ym pore size were used to collect
metal fumes and dusts, which were then analyzed by atomic absorption. Table 19
presents the results of these tests.
In an attempt to distinguish between "respirable" and "non-respirable"
metal concentrations, the NIOSH workers took some samples through a cyclone
before analyzing for metals collected on the filter. No data is given on the
particle size corresponding to "respirable" but Table 20 shows the results for
23 data points for converter furnace and crane aisle employees. If we assume
the metals other than Cu and As were distributed evenly between sizes we get
an estimate of 50-60 weight percent of the fugitives in the "respirable" size
range.
35
-------
TABLE 19. ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR BY COPPER SMELTER
AREA INDUSTRY WIDE AVERAGES
Area
Reverberatory
Furnace
Charging Deck
Reverberatory
Furnace
Operators Deck
Converter Aisle
en Anode Casting
Area Sampling (mg/M3)
Pb
.07
.06
.05
.01
Zn Cu
.07 1.1
.12 2.3
.05 .22
<.01 .13
As Cd
.04 ,005
.02 .012
.01 .003
<.01 .001
Mo
.014
.015
.004
No data
Pb
.07
.07
.03
.01
Personal Sampling (mg/M3)
Zn
.12
.07
.04
.01
Cu
3.4
1.3
.11
.07
As
No data
No data
No data
No data
Cd
.005
.006
.004
<.001
Mo
.003
.03
No data
No data
Source: Wagner (1975).
-------
TABLE 20. PERCENT OF METAL AEROSOLS IN RESPIRABLE^ RANGE
CONVERTER, FURNACE AND CRANE AISLE EMPLOYEES
IN A U.S. COPPER SMELTER
Metal Pb Zn Cu As Cd
Average %(3) Respirable(2) 52.1 , 59.5 6.1 75.2 49.5
adapted from Wagner (1975).
No size given for "respirable." Larger aerosols were removed using a
miniature cyclone before collecting remainder on a filter.
*• '23 data points each except As only has 14 data points. . ' ...
37
-------
V. CONTROL FLEXIBILITY AND FACTORS AFFECTING COMPLIANCE
The critical factor in reducing the overall emission rate of process fugitive
particulates is not how efficiently the control device removes particulates from
the ducted gases. Instead, the overall effectiveness is determined by how well
the ducting and hoods gather fugitive particulates and how many of the various
fugitive sources are controlled. There is little room to "fine-tune" overall
removal by varying the design of the central control device—any flexibility in
system performance would come from varying the fraction of the numerous fugitive
sources which are hooded and routed to the central control device. We do not
now have the technology to be able to accurately predict the relative reduction
attributed to various fugitive sources, so attempting'to meet standards by partial
control would be a risky, trial-and-error process.
, Since the primary problem with current control methods is one of containment
of the gases rather than removal of the particles from the gas stream, the impor-
tance of an ambient standard based on a 15 ym upper size limit as opposed to total.
suspended particulate does not seem to be critical. In addition, most of the
emissions are less than 15 ym in size and the large particles are more apt to
settle before reaching, plant boundaries.
For open sources of fugitive emissions within the plant area, the emission
characteristics and rates are very poorly defined. In these applications, the
efficiency of proposed controlmethods is also not as well established as the
methods for process sources, which are based on ducting and conventional particuiate
removal.
38
-------
VI. REFERENCES
1. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial
Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. EPA-450/3-77-010, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1977.
2, Kolnsberg, Henry J. A Guideline for the Measurement of Air-borne Fugitive
Emissions from Industrial Sources, in Symposium on Fugitive Emissions
Measurement and Control (May 1976; Hartford, Connecticut).
EPA-600/2-76-246, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., 1976. Pp. 33-50.
3. Dean, K. C., R. Havens, and M. W. Glantz. Methods and Costs for Stabilizing
Fine-Mineral Wastes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
R.I. 7894, 1974. .. \
4. Hoening, Stuart A. Use of Electrostatically Charged Fog for Control
of Fugitive Dust Emissions. EPA-600/7-77-131 , U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1977. 59p'.
5. Research Triangle Institute. Assessment of the Use of Fugitive Dust
Control Devices. EPA Contract No. 68-02-2612, Task 048. Task Officer
D. C. Drehmel, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
6. Carpenter, B. H. and G. E. Weant, III. Particulate Control for Fugitive
Dust. EPA-600/7-78-071 , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., 1978. 57p.
7. Cowherd, Chatten. The Impact of Fugitive Emissions of Fine Particles
in Symposium on Fugitive Emissions Measurement and Control (May 1976,
Hartford, Connecticut). EPA-600/2-76-246, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1976. Pp. 143-158.
8. Kenson, R. E., N. E. Bowne, and W. A. Cote. The Cost Effectiveness of
Coke Oven Control Technology in Symposium on Fugitive Emissions Measurement
and Control (May 1976, Hartford, Connecticut). EPA-600/2-76-246,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. ,
1976. Pp. 247-266.
9. Constant P., M. Marcus, and W. Maxwell. Sampling Fugitive Lead Emissions
from Two Primary Lead Smelters. EPA-450/3-77-031 . U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1977. 407 p.
10. Harris, D. B. and D. C. Drehmel. Fractional Efficiency of Metal Fume
Control as Determined by Brink Impactor presented at 66th Annual Meeting
of the Air Pollution Control Association, Chicago, Illinois. June 24-28,
1973.
11. Dorn, C. R. , J. 0. Pierce, II, P.E. Phillips, and G. R. Chase.
Airborne Pb, Cd, Zn and Cu Concentration by Particle Size Near a
Pb Smelter; in Atmospheric Environment, v. 10, pp. 443-446, 1976.
39
-------
12. Thompson, G. S., Jr. and G. B. Nichols. Experience with Electrostatic
Precipitators as Applied to the Primary Copper Smelting Reverberatory
Furnace; in Proceedings: Participate Collections Problems Using
ESP's in the Metallurgical Industry. EPA-600/2-77-208, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,, 1977.
pp. 234-251.
13. Wagner, W. L. Environmental Conditions in U.S. Copper Smelters. U.S.
Department HEW, NIOSH, Division of Technical Services, Salt Lake City,
Utah, HE20.7102:C 79, April 1975. HEW Publication No. NIOSH 75-158.
40
------- |