PB-229 660
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS,
PETROL-BUM REFINERIES, STORAGE VESSELS, SECONDARY
LEAD SMELTERS AND RE FINE RIE S, BRASS OR BRONZE INGOT
PRODUCTION PLANTS, IRON AND STEEL PLANTS, SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANTS: VOLUME II, APPENDIX: SUMMARIES OF
TEST DATA
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151
This document has been approved for public release and sale.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
APTD-1352b
PB 229 660
4. Tiile ind Subtle BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STAKDARDS: Asphalt Concrete Plants, Petroleum Reflr
eries. Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and?Refineries,
Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants,
7. Aiahor<»)
Sewage Treatment Plants; Volume Z, Appen-
4jj$: Summaries of Test Data
ft. Perioraia* Orgtaiutioa Re pi.
9. Performing Organization Name and Addles*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Sponsoring Org«oii«tiofi Name and Addrei
Ieport D«tr
fr June 1973
10. Project/Ta»k/Vork Unit No.
11. Conutct/Gruu No.
15. Supplememwx
rUuiuiaent provides background information on the derivation of the propose
second group of new source performance, standards and their economic impact on the con-
struction and operation of asphalt "concrete."plants, petroleum refineries, storage vesse
secondary-lead smelters and refineries, brass or bronze ingot production plants, iron
and steel plants, and sewage.treatment plants. Information is also provided on the en-
vironmental impact of.Imposing the standards. 'The standards require control at a level
.typical of well controlled existing plants and attainable with existing technology. To
•determine these levels, extensive on-slte* investigations were conducted, and design fac
tors, maintenance practices, available ,'test data*, and the character of emissions were
considered.•^^epnomic analyses of Jthe^.e"f,fects"of .the standards indicate th^^ll^joot
cause undue reductions of profit .margins^'or reductions in growth rates. j|[ UrtiPappenJix
presents summaries of. source testsrci'ted'in Volume 1. The summaries are concerned prii
cipally with tests for particulate matter and carbon monoxide, but also describe the
facilities.' characteristics of exhaust gas streams, and conditions of operation.
17. Key Wordi.«fld Docu
Air Pollution
Pollution control ;
* Performance standards
* Asphalt concrete plants :•
* Petroleum refineries
* Lead smelters and refineries ""
* Brass ingot production
*•< Bronze ingot production
* Iron production
ITb. Ueanfters/Opcn-Eaded Tern*
* Air pollution control
* Steel production
* Sewage treatment
17e- COSATI Field/Group
Reproduced by
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U S Department of Commarc*
SpringfiaU VA 22151
18. A«ftiiBbiiitr Stucawai On request from:
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ATTB: Mr. Don-R. Goodwin-
'ONM MTt»S» INK*. *
9. Security Class (1
Report)
UNCLASS1FII
IJNCLA
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Water Pro-
grams Environmental Protection Agency, to report technical data of interest
to a. limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports are available free
of charge to Federal employees, current contractors .and grantees, and non-
profit organizations - as supplies permit - from the^Vir Pollution Technical
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research,Triangle Parx,
North Carolina 27711 or nay be obtained, for a nominal cost, f ron .the
National Technical Information'Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
AWBERC OBRAR7
o* --
26 W. MARTIN LUTHER Kit® §ffl
I, CfilO 4526$ "
Publication No. APTD-1352b
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS 3
PETROLEUM REFINERIES - FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS 22
y
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES . . . . : 31
SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION PLANTS 42
IRON AND STEEL MILLS - BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES 52
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS - SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS ........ 60
111
INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents summaries of source tests cited in the
document. The sumnaries are concerned principally with tests for
participate matter and carbon monoxide, but also describe the
facilities, characteristics of exhaust gas streams, and conditions
of operation.
For each source category, facilities are identified by the same
coding used in the technical reports. For example, Table A-16
summarizes results of the December 1971. test of petroleum refinery
catalytic cracking Facility A. These results are also plotted as
Bar A, in Figure 3 of the Technical Report Number 7. In this case,
the bar represents the range of the two valid results. Table A-17
summarizes a second test, A,,, conducted in February 1972 at the same
facility.
Most of the tests summarized herein were conducted using the
reference test methods of 40 CFR 60.- Wherever particulate tests
were conducted, additional measurements were made to evaluate
materials that condense and collect in impingers as the gases are
cooled to 70°F. In the summaries, the "probe and filter catch" is
the particulate that relates to the standard and the EPA reference
method (Method 5 of 40 CFR 60 as published December 23, 197.1). .
The 'total catch" includes the probe and filter catch, plus material
collected 4n the impingers using the particulate method as described
in 36 FR 15704, published on August 17, 1971.
-------
Where particulate testing was performed using methods other than
those cited above, the method ts noted under "Facility" 1n the
discussion and also in the appropriate table. Code test methods are
listed in the "Introduction" of the main text.
HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE PLAHTS
PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS
Four hot mix asphalt concrete plants were tested by EPA, one
controlled with a high-pressure-venturl scrubber and three with
baghouses. In addition, State and local control agencies provided
data from the testing of four plants controlled with venturi
scrubbers and three with baghouses. National Asphalt Pavement
Association tests of four plants controlled with baghouses are
also included. Two of these are not representative of "best
demonstrated technology" because poor collector maintenance or
operation was observed during testing. Additional information
was available from an EPA study of asphalt concrete plants in
the Seattle, Washington, area. The latter plants were not
necessarily well controlled and were tested to determine average
emission factors.
For each plant, exhaust gases were analyzed after discharge from
the particulate collector. These gases included drier exhaust gases
and sweep air used to gather dust at various points in the system
such as elevators, screens, and scavenger systems. The front and back
half catches could not be separated (based on data supplied) for Plants
F and G, and therefore are comparable to the catch from the total £PA
train.
Facilities:
A,. Oil-fired, 120-ton/hr design capacity, equipped with a cyclone
and a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse designed for
99.9+ percent efficiency. Plant was operating at or near
3
-------
capacity for conditions prevalent during the test periods.
A,. Same location as plant A^ Gas-fired rotary dryer, production
rate of 115 tons/hr during sampling, equipped with a cyclone
and a baghouse. -Opacity Was reported to be less than 5 percent;'
Data' provided by^.the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
' . '• ' *J ; £• *' t; ' $; :•>' • ? ' "- '
B. . Oil-fired, 300-to^i/hr design capacity, equipped with a closed
' ' ; •• .'-•<-.', ' :,-•'.'f-. •
suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse designed for 99.9+ percent
efficiency? Plant was operating at an estimated 80 to 90 percent
capacity for conditions prevalent during the test periods.
C. Oil-fired, 200-ton/hr design capacity, equipped with a cyclone
and a high-pressure venturi scrubber operating at 20.4 inches of
water pressure drop and approximately 14 gallons of water per
1000 scfm of exhaust gases. Data were provided by a local control
agency. The plant was operating at approximately 70 percent and
100 percent of design capacity during the test periods. No exhaust
gas opacity readings were available. The air flow rates (dscfm)
for this plant were unusually high for a typical 200-ton/hr plant.
The plant was not observed or tested by EPA.
D. Gas-fired, 240-ton/hr design capacity, equipped with a multicyclone
and a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse designed for 99.9+
percent efficiency. Plant was operating at or near capacity for
conditions prevalent during the test periods.
E. Batch process, 180-ton/hr rated capacity, gas-fired, equipped with
a multicyclone and a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse
. designed for 99.9+ percent efficiency. Plant production during
the test period is unknown. Data were provided by a local control
agency. No exhaust gas opacity readings were available.
F. Gas-fired, 250- to 300-ton/hr design capacity, equipped with a
' •** ' ; . '- - < - ..,:;
cyclone and a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse
^designed?for" 99.9+ percent efficiency. Plantjroduction during
'*£ '• •' • *•'.••>.-
the test periods is unknown. The_testing was performed and
• • • ' -' '
data were provided by a local control agency. : No exhaust gas
opacity readings were available.
G. Gas-fired, 75-ton/hr design capacity, equipped with two cyclones '
and a high-pressure venturi scrubber operating at 16 inches water
pressure drop and approximately 11.5 gallons of water per 1000
scfm of exhaust gases. Tested.using Code Method 3. Production
rate during the test period was approximately 100 percent of
capacity. Data were provided by a local control agency. No
exhaust gas opacity readings were available.
H^ Oil-fired, 240-ton/hr design capacity, equipped with a cyclone
and a high-pressure venturi operating at 18.5 inches water
pressure drop and approximately 18 gallons of water per 1000
scfm of exhaust gas. Plant was operating at capacity for
conditions prevalent during the test periods. Exhaust gas
opacity readings were not recorded.
H£. Same plant as Hj. Testing conditions differed in that production
rate was 200 tons/hr, the venturi scrubber was operating at 19.5
inches water pressure .drop and the test results were provided by
a local agency.
-------
I. Gas-fired, 120-ton/hr design capacity, equipped with a venturl
scrubber operating at 26 Inches water pressure drop. Plant
production data during the test periods Is unknown. Testing
was performed and data were provided by a State control agency.
No exhaust gas opacity readings were available.
J. Baghouse collector. Data provided by a State control agency.
Operating conditions unknown.
K. Oil-fired rotary dryer, production rate approximately 120 tons/hr,
equipped with a cyclone and a baghouse. Data provided by the
National Asphalt Pavement Association.
L. Oil-fired, production rate of 200 tons/hr during sampling, equipped
with a cyclone and a baghouse. "Very little visible emissions from
stack" observed. Data provided by the National Asphalt Pavement
Association.
H. Oil-fired rotary dryer, production rate varying from 132 to 173 tons/
hr during sampling, equipped with a cyclone and a baghouse. Data
provided by the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Table A-l. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run mmber
1
Date 11/15/71
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
126
112
How rate, dscfm 16,228
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, "F
Hater vapor, vol .%
C02, vol.* dry
02, vol . % dry
CO, vol.* dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
8693
195
18.35
0.9
19.2
0
<10
2
11/16/71
63.0
89
16,139
10,880
196
18.38
4.6
14.8
0.1
<10
3
11/17/71
63.0
98
16,520
10,114
187
17.48
4.0
15.4
0.1
<10
Averagi
84.0
99.7
16,296
9896
192.7
18.07
3.2
16.5
0.1
<10
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
lb/ ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
0.0057
0.0037
0.79
0.007
0.02/2
0.0176
3.78
0.033
0.0077
0.0050
1.06
0.011
0.0194
0.0126
2.68
0.029
0.0068
0.0045
0.98
0.010
0.0184
0.0122
2.60
0.027
0.0067
0.0044
0.94
0.009
0.0217
0.0141
3.02
0.030
-------
Table A-2. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table A-3. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY B,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tqns/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol.i
C02. vol.J dry
02, vol . % dry
CO, vol .% dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
7/20/72
12
15,650
8165
218
28.2
4.5
12.8
0
0.021
2.8
0.0243
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol:%
C02, vol .% dry
0. , vol . % dry
CO, vol .% dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Particulate emissions
1
11/11/71
144
203
19,756
5839
275
31.71
5.3
14.1
n.<15
<10
2
11/13/71
90
198
21 ,065
6383
247
23.71
5.8
13.6
0.05
<10
3
11/13/71
90
236
22 ,407
5697
234
21.78
5.1
14.6
0.05
<10
Average
108.0
212.3
21 .076
5973
252
25.73
5.4
14.1
0.05
<10
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
0.0079
0.0038
1.34
0.007
0.1006
0.0490
17.04
0.089
0.0100
0.0056
1.80
0.012
0.0550
0.0308
9.94
0.066
0.0064
0.0038
1.23
0.005
0.0168
0.0099
3.23
0.014
0.0081
6.0044
'l.46
0.008
0.0575
0.0299
10.07
0.056
-------
Table A-4. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY C,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table A-5. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY D,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol.3!
C02> vol.* dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol .% dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Partlculate emissions
1
11/18/71
—
130
36,522
16,856
• 90
2.82"
-
-
--
2
11/18/71
--
130
35,399
16,338
- 90
4.70
--
No
-'-
—
3
11/19/71
--
175
36,148
12,394
-90
4.34
--
4
11/19/71
-
175
34,883
11,960
90
4.51
-
Average
152.5
35,738
14,387
90
4.09
--
orsat available
-
—
—
—
--
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
0.022
0.019
7.09
0.054
0.024
0.021
7.51
0.058
0.021
0.018
6.68
0.051
0.024
0.020
7.28
0.056
0.012
0.010
3.89
0.022
0.013
0.011
4.03
0.023
0.012
0.010
3.82
0.022
0.013
0.011
3.89
0.022
0.017
0.014
5.37
0.037
0.018
0.016
5.68
0.040
Run nunfcer
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol.2
C02, vol.* dry
Og, vol. X dry
CO, vol.* dry
Visible emissions,
X opacity
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
1b/ ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
1
10/29/71
48
221
24,028
6523
238 .
21.6
3.0
14.8
0
<10
0.0122
0.0071
2.49
0.010
0.0517
0.0302
10.64
0.044
2
10/29/71
48
234
23,919
6133
230
23.2
4.6
12.7
0
<10
0.0234
0.0136
4.80
0.020
0.1281
0.0746
26.26
0.109
Average
48
222.5
23,974
6328
234
22.40
3.8
13.8
0
<10
0.0178
0.0104
3.64
0.015
0.0899
0.0524
18.45
0.076
11
-------
Table A-6. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY E,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number 1
Date 11/4/71
Test time, minutes 65
Production rate.
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm 21.706
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, "F 262
Water vapor, vol.% 23.3
CO,, vol .% dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol.% dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
2 Average
11/11/71
65.4 65.2
21,651 21,678
_- --
268 266
27.1 25.2
__ --
"
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
0.0163^
0.0093
3.03
~
0.025
0.0142
4.74
„
0.0215
0.0122
3.99
-
0.029
0.0160
5.47
__
0.0189
0.0108
3.51
--
0.027
0.0151
5.10
—
12
Table A-7. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY E,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test. time, minutes
Production rate.
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol.%
O>2, vol.% dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol .% dry
Visible emissions.
% opacity
1 2
9/25/68 9/26/68
120 120
—
26,160 26,160
„
281 281
24 24
No orsat available
No orsat available
No orsat available
—
Average
120
26,160
281
24
"
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Could not be calculated
from test report
Ib/ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf °-°06 °-°°7
gr/acf °-003 °-°°4
, ,r 1 57
Ib/hr K35
Ib/ton of
product .
0.0065
0.004
1.46
13
-------
Table A-8. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY G.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS8
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
. Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °f
Mater vapor, vol.i
C02, vol.* dry
0, , vol . % dry
CO, vol .« dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
lb/ ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
1
7/23/70
60
74
17,092
13,858
107
2.0
No
No
No
--
0.0133
0.0122
1.994
0.027
0.0143
0.0134
0.029
2.137
2
7/23/70
60
--
—
-
—
orsat available
orsat available
orsat available
--
0.0162
--
--
--
--
--
—
Average
60
Table A-9. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY H.,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
0.01525
'Tested by local agency using Code Method 3.
14
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol .%
C02, vol .« dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol.? dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Paniculate emissions
1
11/4/71
54
176
28,217
9619
112
9.2
3.3
16.6
0.1
--
2
11/4/71
54
193
28,118
8741
109.1
8.4
. 3.1
16.4
0
--
3
11/5/71
54
170
26,126
9221
122
12.2
3.9
15.9
0
~~
Average
54
. 180'
27.487
9194
114
9.93
3.4
16.3
0
."
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
0.0314
0.0259
7.63
0.043
0.0497
0.0409
12.02
0.068
0.0340
0.0282
8.15
0.042
0.1087
0.0901
26.19
0.136
' 0.0292
0.0229
6.27
0.037
0.0555
0.0435
12.43
0.073
0.0315
0.0257
7.35
0.041
0.0713
0.0582
16.88
0.092
15
-------
Table A-10. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number 1
tote =• . 11/17/71
Test time, minutes 70
Production rate, 200
tons/hr
Stack effluent ' ' '.
Flow rate, ds'cfm '• 29,400
Flow rate, dscf/ton 8820
product
Temperature, °F HO
Water vapor, vol .if 8.7
CO,, vol.i dry
0-, vol. % dry
CO, vol.% dry --
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf a.Cll
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
lb/ton of
product
0.022
5.05
0.025
16
Table A-ll. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY I,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number 1
Date 7/17/72
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm 30,460
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F 175
Water vapor, vol.? 15
C02, vol.* dry -- ,
02, vol.'t dry
CO, vol.% dry
Visible emissions,
X opacity
Partfculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf 0.025
gr/acf
Ib/hr 6.45
Ib/ton of
product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
• product
0.026
6.75
-------
Table A-12. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY J,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number 123
Date (10/16/72 and 10/17/72)
Test time, minutes 80 80 80
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm 17,060 17,060 17,060
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, "F 268 268 268
Water vapor, vol.* 25 25 25
C02, vol.* dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol.? dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Average
80
"'
17,060
268
25
"
Paniculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf °-°0571
gr/acf
Ib/hr 2.89
Ib/ton of
product
0.01142 0.01423
1.894
2.301
0.01012
2.362
18
Table A-13. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY K,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, "F
Water vapor, vol.?
C02> vol.! dry
02> vol. X dry
CO, vol.* dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Participate emissions
1
8/22/72
61.25
120
23,000
1 1 ,500
207
14.3
4
15
0
--
2
8/22/72
61.25
120
21 ,700
10,850
205
14.0
4
15
0
—
3
8/22/72
61.25
120
17,800
8900
189
16
4
15
0
—
Averagi
61.25
120
20,500
10,417
200
14.8
4
15
0
—
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
0.0534
--
10.5
0.0875
0.0918
--
17.1
0.1425
0.180
--
27.5
0.2291
0.108
18.4
0.1530
19
-------
Table A-14. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY L,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, "F
Water vapor, vol .%
COj, vol.* dry
02> vol . X dry
CO, vol .* dry
Visible emissions,
X opacity
Partlculate emissions
1
8/21/72
60
206
29,900
8970
193
22.3
6
12
0
--
2
8/21/72
60
200
30,700
9210
200
21.0
6
12
0
--
3
8/21/72
60
200
27,200
8160
200
26.7
6
12
0
~~
Average
60
200
29,267
8780
198
23.3
6
12
0
—
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
0.00447
--
14.1
0.0057
0.00402
--
1.06
0.0053
0.0131
--
3.05
0.0152
0.00720
-
1.75
0.0087
20
Table A-15. ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY H,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Production rate,
tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
product
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol .%
C02, vol.? dry
02 , vol . % dry
CO, vol .« dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of
product
1
7/14/72
67.5
173
18,290
6345
251
27.1
e
10.6
0
—
0.043
--
6.74
0.0389
2
7/14/72
67.5
132
18,270
8304
245
26.2
8
10.6
0
--
0.043
--
6.73
0.0501
Average
67.5
153
18,280
7325
248
26.7
8
10.6
0
—
0.043
—
6.735
0.0445
21
-------
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS
PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS
Stack tests were carried out at four fluid catalytic cracking
(FCC) units located 1n different petroleum refineries. At each
Installation, carbon monoxide emissions were controlled by the use
of an Incinerator waste heat boiler (carbon monoxide boiler) and
paniculate matter by the use of an electrostatic precipltator.
Effluent gases were sampled after they had passed through both
control devices. At one of the sites tested by EPA, particulate
emissions also were measured by refinery personnel. Six other
units were tested by a local agency and one by a refinery.
Facilities:
A. FCC unit of about 55,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic precipltator followed by a carbon monoxide
boiler. Tables A-16 and A-17 summarize results of tests
conducted in December 1971 and February 1972. Unit had
been onstream about six months and eight months, respectively,
following the last major turnaround. Additional source test
data were supplied by the refinery and are listed 1n Table A-21.
These were determined using Code Method 6.
B. FCC unit of about 70,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with a
carbon monoxide boiler followed by an electrostatic precipltator.
Unit had been onstream about 10 months following the last
22
major turnaround at the time of the test. Ammonia was
injected into the gas stream ahead of the precipltator as a
conditioning agent.
C. FCC unit of about 65,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with a
carbon monoxide boiler followed by an electrostatic precipltator.
Unit had been onstream about 13 months following the last
major turnaround. Ammonia was Injected into the effluent
ahead of the precipltator as a conditioning agent. During
the test, a malfunction occurred in the FCC unit.
D. FCC unit of about 55,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator followed by a carbon monoxide
boiler. Unit had been onstream about 8 months following the
last major turnaround. During the test, an equipment mal-
function occurred, Invalidating the particulate results.
E. FCC unit of about 45,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator followed by a carbon monoxide
boiler. Tested by refinery personnel using Code Method 6
(alundum thimble packed with glass wool followed by a Gelman
type A glass fiber filter). Emission data gathered over
18-month period of operation.
F. FCC unit of about 65,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with a
carbon monoxide boiler followed by an electrostatic precipltator.
Tested by local control agency using Code Method 5.
23
-------
6. FCC unit of about 30,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic preclpltator followed by a carbon monoxide
boiler. Tested by local control agency using Code Method 5.
H. FCC unit of 45,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with an electro-
static preclpltator followed by a carbon monoxide toller
Tested by local control agency using Code Method!5.
I. FCC unit of about 55,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic preclpltator followed by a carbon monoxide boiler.
Tested by local control agency using Code Method 5.
J. FCC unit of about 45,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with a
carbon monoxide boiler followed by an electrostatic preclpltator.
Tested by local control agency using Code Method 5.
K. FCC unit of about 55,000-bbl/day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic preclpltator followed by a carton monoxide
boiler. Tested by local control agency using Code Method 5.
24
Table A-16. CATALYTIC CRACKING FACILITY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date,
Test time, minutes
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Temperature, °F
Mater vapor, vol .
C02, vol . % dry
02, vol. % dry
1
12/16/71
120
185,200
645
. % 17.9
13
4
Carbon monoxide emissions, 14
' ppm (volume)
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
10
catch
0.1 02T*
0.0410
161. 9a
0.2866a
0.11503
455.6
2
12/17/71
120
175,600
655
19.4
14
4
Nil
10
0.0156
0.0061
23.5
0.0246
0.0096
37.0
3
12/17/71
120
171,100
661
19.7
14
4
Nil
10
0.0114
0.0044
16.7
0.0174
0.0067
25.5
Average
120
177,300
653
19
14
4
5
10
0.0135
0.0053
20.1
0.0210
0.0034
31.2
aExcess1ve emissions. Test run not considered representative of normal
operation, and not included in averages.
25
-------
Table A-17. CATALYTIC CRACKING FACILITY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table A-18. CATALYTIC CRACKING FACILITY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol.
C02> vol. t dry
02, vol. X dry
1
2/8/72
120 .
183,800
652
X 21.5
11.2
6.4
Carbon monoxide emissions, 10
ppm (volume)
Visible emissions.
% opacity
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
10
catch
0.0233
0.0088
36.7
0.0331
0.0125
52.1
2
2/9/72
120
183,900
666
20.9
12.8
4.4
9
10
3
2/10/72
120
184,700
686
22.0
13.2
4.0
11
10
Average
120
184,100
668
21.5
12.4
4.9
10
10
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. * dry
02, vol. % dry
Carbon monoxide emissions
ppm (volume)
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Partlculate emissions
1
12/9/71
120
180,600
543
14.5
13.0
3.0
, Nil
30
2
12/9/71
60
183,500
519
15.5
12.0
3.8
Nil
30
3
12/10/71
60
187,000
547
16.9
14.0
3.0
Nil
25
Average
80
183,700
536
15.6
13.0
3.3
Nil
30
Probe and filter catch
0.0202
0.0076
31.8
0.0272
0.0102
42.8
0.0225
0.0082
35.6
0.0308
0.0112
48.7
0.0220
0.0082
34.7
0.0304
0.0113
47.9
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
0.0355
0.0161
54.2
0.1055
0.0480
162.5
0.0364
0.0166
56.6
0.1320
0.0602
207.6
0.0403
0.0177
64.1
0.1219
0.0534
195.5
0.0374
0.0168
58.3
0.1198
0.0539
188.5
26
27
-------
83 - -
CT D)
2 CO
d
— h r+
C O)
3 n
o :w
f 1
„ o
o «>.
«•»• «•*
(D Oi
(D
-D Z
C Qf
_1. (/I
1 i
3 ct-
cf
-h
^- c
3 3
< n
o> c*
ct i
Q-
"O "1
0 O
~1 "D
Ct 2J
E, *<*
r? =r
s =
«/» *3"
C O
I/I
r+
O
S
—•CO 03
tr-i -i n
^.^.-^ o»
3- D> O. r*
-t» O 3-
O O
2— • ro
— > CJ
• cj en
Co cn en
_PP
cn o ro
^•J to O
co to ro
o o
cn o ro
ro to — •
cn co to
o o
4k O ^
CD OO **J
o c?
co ^-» ro
ro o CD
- O CO
•*j en co
o o
4k O —
co o cn
o o
sj _< ro
o O ro
_°°
cn o — *
CJ CO 00
. to CO
•o
cr
— . n>
ff^T^ Q>
3- o> a. o.
"S O (/»
-h O -t>
-h -*
O
01
00 f?
^J 00 CO
ro o
o o
CO • •
in o — •
• 4k CD
Cn to cn
00
*-j O O
• — ' CJ
vjtO
o o
to o o
O CO 00
ro to
o o
ro • •
xjOO
4k cn cn
to ro
o o
cn o o
• ro 4k
cn — < cn
CJ O
00
ro • •
CO O O
co *-J cn
00
?8S
O CJ O
S S £•
c* 12. 3-
_•. cr o
o a* — • T3 3 o o s; -H ji
(D O-»- ox — 3 O> »*-5 (6 *
w w) o-'A o. • * a.
-». • 3 -% CL t/>
i ^ <-
cn cn 4k to * crt ro
to to o
o
to
— * CO
ro co cn -^ *
o co 4* to • co cn
o
ro 5
— | — i O 4> v
cn *vj 4k to » cn to
— • cn o
o
to
ro — • --J ** »
o cn 4k to • cn co
CJ CO O
o
to
— • o
— • — en 4*.
o cn 4k to ' cn to
CO CO O
o
to
_ , ^ en 4> J^
cn ^J 4^ to • cn cn
VD tO O
o
«,
cn cn 4k to • cn o
tocng
(O
ro co. cn 4* .
to cn o
cn
r>
a>
-h
-h
c
a>
3
r*
^
CD
tu
j.,
OD
a>
DO
a*
CO
o>
-H O 50
(D 0. C
Wl C* 3
3
rt- C
f S"
3 "* ' :
3
C
rt- - . . • '
«
s _.
^^ — 1
ro CT
— • o
CJ
OO >
to
CO
i S
•^ "* ^H
ro ro rq o
ro m ?3 .
C/l 3»
ro co
ro r- 7^
en —i _
CO Z
cn
-TI
J*
2
ro «-i •
ro — i-
ro -<
— o
CO CO
ro
ro
ro
4k
to
cn
<
fu
(D
S
cn
laoie A-iU. UMALTiii- cnMUPuna rnuiLiiT u,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number ] 2 3
Date 12/14/71 12/15/71 12/16/71
Test time, minutes 150 240 120
' Stack effluent
How rate, dscfm 196,400 186,400 205,000
Temperature, °F 739 732 723
Mater vapor, vol. X 24.7 23.2 20.6
C02, "vol. % dry 7.0 7.0 10.2
0-, vol. % dry 12.4 12.4 7.4
Carbon monoxide emissions, N11 Nil * N11
ppm (volume)
Visible emissions, 15 10 15
I opacity
29
4 Average
12/16/71
i on i AO
1 £\t I OU
195,800 195,900
734 732
25.9 23.6
13.1 9.3
3.8 9.0
6 Nil
15 15
-------
Table A-21. ADDITIONAL PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
FOR CATALYTIC CRACKING FACILITIES
Stack Effluent
Facility A.a flow rate, dscfm
* 3_
Low
High •
Average
Facility Eb
Low
High
Average
Control agency datac
Unit F
Unit G
Unit H
Unit I
Unit J
Uni-t K
166,000
202,000
181,000
106,000
194,000
161,000
169,500
233,300
171,600
224,400
198,300
226 ,900
Concentration
gr/dscf gr/acf
0.010 0.0031
0.021
0.014
0.015
0.022
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.017
0.013
0.020
0.018
0.0067
0.0044
0.0066
0.0094
0.0076
0.0077
0.0059
0.0062
0.0045
0.0085
0.0061
Emission
rate,
Ib/hr
16
34
22
13.6
28.2
23.3
24.7
36.0
25.0
25.0
34.0
35.0
aData covers 7 months operation with two emission tests per month,
alundum thimble plus glass fiber filter (Code Method 6).
Data covers 17 months operation with an emission test about every
2 months, alundum thimble plus glass fiber filter (Code Method 6).
cData supplied by control agency covering 18 emission tests, Los
Angeles County APCD method (Code Method 5). Impingers precede filter.
30
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES,
BLAST AND REVERBERATORY FURNACES
Test results are summarized for seven blast furnaces and three
reverberatory furnaces. A local agency supplied-test data for three
of the blast furnaces and one reverberatory furnace. Nine of the 10
furnaces were equipped with baghouses, six employed afterburners to
bum combustibles, and two units had scrubbers for control of sulfur
dioxide.
Facilities:
A. Blast furnace rated at 77 tons of lead per day, equipped with
an afterburner and baghouse.
B. Two blast furnaces having a combined rating of 80 tons of lead
per day, equipped with an afterburner, baghouse, and venturi
scrubber, calcium hydroxide liquor circulated in scrubber.
C. Blast furnace rated at 45 tons of lead per day, equipped with
a caustic venturi scrubber, sodium hydroxide liquor circulated
In scrubber.
D. Blast furnace having an estimated production rate of 90 tons of
lead per day, equipped with afterburner and baghouse. Tested
by local agency using Code Method 9.
E. Blast furnace having an estimated production of 20 tons of lead
per day, equipped with afterburner and baghouse. Tested by
local agency using Code Method 9.
31
-------
F. .Blast furnace having an estimated production rate of 52 tons
of lead per day, equipped with afterburner and baghouse. Tested
by local agency using Code Method 9.
6. Reverberatory furnace rated at 40 tons of lead per day equipped
with baghouse.
H. Reverberatory furnace rated at 65 tons of lead per day, equipped
with baghouse.
I. Reverberatory furnace having an estimated production of 20 tons
of lead per day, equipped with a baghouse. Tested by local
agency using Code Method 9.
32
Table A-22. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY A,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol . %
COj, vol . % dry
Oj>, vol. I dry
CO emissions, vol. 4 dry
CO emissions, Ib/hr
SOj emissions, ppm dry
S02 emissions, Ib/hr
Visible emissions.
% opacity
1
11/17/71
91
3.7
23,200
376,200
176
3.7
2.2
19.0
0.5
503
443
701
10 to 15
2
11/18/71
188.
2.5
22,900
549,600
182
:2.3
2.1
19.0
0.2
199
264
59
10 to 70
3
11/18/71
186
3.0s
23,120
462,400
177
3.1
1.5
19.5
0.4
401
204
46
5 to 15
Average
155
3.T
'23,070
462,700
178
3.0
1.9
19.2
0.36
368
304
69
12
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
0.0028
0.0022
0.5541
0.1498
—
0.0027
0.0021
0.5231
0.2092
0.0471
0.0368
9.2439
3.6976
0.0023
0.0018
0.4570
0.1523
0.0396
0.0310
7.8566
2.6189
0.0026
0.0020
0.5114
0.1704
0.0434
0.033?
8.5503
3.1583
Lead emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
0.00035
0.00027
0.0679
0.0272
0.00033
0.00026
0.0648
0.0216
0.00034
0.00027
0.0664
0.0244
Essentially the same as probe and filter.
aThe lead holding pot level was altered by plant personnel during this test
and a rate based on average production figures was assumed.
33
-------
Table A-23. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY B,
Run number
Date
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1 2 3
12/15/71 12/16/71 12/16/71
Visible emissions, % opacity
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Lead emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
Average
Test time, minutes
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
Hater vapor, vol . %
C02 , vol . % dry
Oj, vol . t dry
CO emissions, vol. % dry
CO emissions, Ib/hr
502 emissions, ppm dry
S02 emissions, Ib/hr
S02 Inlet, pom dry
SOj Inlet, Ib/hr
195
4.2
32,060
458,000
124
6.34
3.2
16.8
<0.1
139
1050
334
1680a
534
200
4.9
29,420
360,200
121
10.33
2.8
17.0
0.2
255
310
90
1100
321
200
3.5
38,060
652,500
118
11.04
3.4
16.4
0.4
660
138
52
1900b
718
198
4.2
32,960
490,200
121
9.24
3.1
16.7
0.23
350
499
159
1560
524
0.0079
0.0066
2.1743
0.5177
0.0417
0.0348
11.4461
2.7253
0.00011
0.00009
0.0300
0.0070
0.0042
0.0033
1.0551
0.2153
0.0364
0.0290
9.1715
1.8717 -
0.00013
0.00010
0.0328
0.0067
0.0115
0.0094
3.7600
1.0713
0.0454
0.0372
14.8245
. 4.2356
0.00016
0.00013
0.0506
0.0145
0.0079
0.0064
2.3298
0.6024
0.0412
0.0366
11.8140
2.9442
0.00013
0.00011
0.0378
0.0094
Essentially the same as probe and filter.
"Scrubber pH add for portions of test (control efficient lowered).
Scrubber operating properly.
34
Table A-24. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY C,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. % dry
02, vol. % dry
CO emissions, vol. X dry
CO emissions, Ib/hr
SOj emissions, ppm dry
SOj emissions, Ib/hr
Visible emissions,
i opacity
Partfculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Lead emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
1
12/8/71
120
1.5
12,100
484,000
97
2.4
0.5
20.3
0.8
420
0.06
0.01
2
12/9/71
112
1.2
13,330
666,500
95
1.7
0.8
20.2
0.3
160
0.04
0.01
3
12/9/71
112
1.2
12,540
627,000
93
2.3
0.8
18.8
0.2
109
0.08
0.01
Average
115
1.3
12,657
592,500
95
2.13
0.7
19.7
0.4
330
0.06
0.01
10 to 15 10 to 20 5 to 15
12
0.0196
0.0184
2.0354
1.3570
0.0275
0.0257
2.8474
1.8983
0.00127
0.00119
0.1320
0.0880
0.0084
0.0080
0.8913
0.7750
0.0157
0.0149
1.6556
1.4397
0.00061
0.00058
0.0646
0.0562
0.0149
0.0140
1.6061
1.2849
0.0235
0.0221
2.5200
2.0160
0.00127
0.00120
0.1368
0.1095
0.0143
0.0135
1.5109
1.1389
0.022r
0.0208
2.3410
1.7847
0.00105
0.00099
0.1111
0.0846
Essentially the same as probe and filter
35
-------
Table A-25. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY D,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS3
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent „ ,. .
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
•C02, vol. % dry
02, vol. I dry
CO emissions, vol. X dry
CO emissions, Ib/hr
S02 emissions, ppm dry
S02 emissions, Ib/hr
Visible emissions, X opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Lead emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
3.9 (estimated)
20,900
321,500
152
8.7
4.2
.16.8
1.5
1363
1170
248
0.0013
0.0010
0.233
0.060
0.0075
0.0059
1.344
0.345
0.00061
0.00048
0.1093
0.0280
Tested by local agency using Code Method 9.
36
Table A-26. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY E,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS3
Lead production, tons/hr
•Stack effluent
•• • £ ;
Flow rate, dscfm
.Flow rate, dscf/ton • -
Temperature, °F . •_
Hater vapor, vol. %
S02 emissions, ppm dry
S02 emissions, Ib/hr
Visible emissions, % opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
0.8 I
; 13,000
975,000
175
3.9
300
40
0
0.0059
0.0047
0.657
0.822
0.0350
0.0281
3.900
4.875
Tested by local agency using Code Method 9.
37
-------
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent
FTow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
Visible emissions, % opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Table A-27. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY F,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS3 .
2.2 (estimated)
.7500
204,500
110
10 to 30
0.0142
0.913
0.415
0.084
5.400
2.455
"Tested by local agency using Code Method 9. ,
38
'-:> •:«
:.ac '-.
"?i.
Table A-28. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY G,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
C0£ , vol . % dry
02, vol. I dry
CO emissions, volj. % dry
CO emissions, Ib/hr
SO- emissions, ppm dry
S02 emissions, Ib/hr
Visible emissions, % opacity
Paniculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Lead emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
1
1/26/72
120
2.1
14,600
417,100
166.
3.1
1.8
18.6
<0.1
63.5 '
1580
229
0
0.0043
0.0035
0.5387
0.2565
0.0132
0.0170
1.6520
0.7867
0.00090
0.00073
0.1130
0.0538
0.0010
0.00081
0.1262
0.0601
2
1/26/72
. 120
.2.1
15,200
434,300
164
2.8
1.8
18.7
<0.1
66.0
1525
230
0
0.0028
0.0023
0.3702
0.1763
0.0086 .
0.0070
1.1148
0.5309
0.00049
0.00040
0.0640
0.0305
—
. —
—
—
3
1/26/72
120
2.1
14,200
405,700
175
3.1
1.8
18.7
<0.1
61.7
1618
228
0
0.0035
0.0028
0.4297
0.2046
0.0200
0.0161
2.4321
1.1581
0.00045
0.00037
0.0553
0.0263
—
--
—
Average
120
2.1
14,667
419,000
168
3.0
1.8
18.7
<0.1
63.7
1574
229
0
0.0035
0.0029
0.4462
0.2125
0.0139
0.0113
1.7330
0.8252
0.00061
0.00050
0.0775
0.0369
0.00100
0.00081
0.1262
0.0601
39
-------
Table A-29. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY H,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
Water vapor , vol . %
C02 , vol . I dry
Oj. vol. % dry
CO emissions, vol. % dry
CO emissions, Ib/hr
SO* emissions, ppm dry
S0| emissions, Ib/hr
Visible emissions. % opacity
Partlculste emissions
Prcoe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Lead emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
1
2/9/72
i
150
2.4
23,480
587,000
124
4.0
2.4
18.2
<0.1
<102
2060
480
0
0.0024
0.0021
0.4890
0.2038
~ 0.0118
0.0100
2.3737
0.9890
0.00034
0.00029
0.0692
0.0288
0.00050
0.00043
0.1035
0.0432
2
2/9/72
150
2.4
22,600
565,000
132
4.6
2.5
18.0
<0.1
<98
2111
473
0
0.0033
0.0027
0.6350
0.2646
0.0131
0.0109
2.5398
1.0583
0.00039
0.00033
0.0763
0.0318
__
—
~
3
2/10/72
150
2.4
19,940
498,500 .
117
4.2
2.0
. 18.2
<0.1
<87
1930
381
0
0.0042
0.0036
0.7205
0.3002
0.0164
0.0140
2.7950
1.1646
0.00041
0.00035
0.0695
0.0289
„
—
Average
150
2.4
22,007
550,200
124
4.3
2.3
18.1
<0.1
<96
2034
445
: °
0.0033
0.0028
0.6148
0.2562
0.0138
0.0860
2.5695
1.071
0.00038
0.00032
0.0717
0.0298
0.00050
0.00043
0.1035
0.0432
Table A-30. LEAD SMELTING FACILITY I,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS"
Lead production, tons/hr
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
Temperature, °F
SOj emissions, ppm dry
SOj emissions, Ib/hr
Visible emissions, % opacity
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
0.85 (estimated)
10,400
734,100
327
1039
110
0
0.0022
0.196
0.231
0.0130
1.159
1.363
aTested by local agency using Code Method 9.
40
41
-------
SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE REFINING
The data summarized herein cover 13 brass and bronze Ingot
production furnaces at 9 different test sites. Tests AI. B, and
D were conducted by EPA and EPA contractors. Tests C, E, F, and
I were conducted as part of a 1968 study performed jointly by the
Brass and Bronze Ingot Institute and the National Air Pollution
Control Administration, an EPA predecessor. Tests AZ> G, and H
were conducted by local control agencies.
Facilities:
A. Gas-fired rotary (rotating reverberatory) furnace, 7.5-ton
capacity, equipped with two closed suction-type manually
cleaned baghouses with a total cloth area of 7181 square
feet. Tested by EPA and by local agency, the latter using
Code Method 10.
B. Gas-fired reverberatory (stationary reverberatory) furnace,
100-ton capacity, equipped with a closed suction-type cyclic-
cleaned baghouse with a cloth-area of 9000 square feet.
C. Gas-fired reverberatory furnace, 60-ton capacity, equipped
with a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse with a
cloth area of 5940 square feet. Testing using Code Method
E. Gas-fired reverberatory furnace, 100-ton capacity, equipped with a
closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of
7360 square feet. Tested using Code Method 4.
F. Gas-fired rotary furnace, 17.5-ton capacity, equipped with a
closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse with a cloth area
of 20,866 square feet. Tested using Code Method 4.
G. Two rotary furnaces with a total capacity of 55 tons, equipped
with two closed suction-type baghouses with a total cloth area
of 41,700 square feet. Probe and filter catch were not analyzed
separately.
H. Two rotary furnaces with a total capacity of 27.5 tons, equipped
with three closed suction-type baghouses with a total cloth area
of 9536 square feet. Probe and filter catch were not analyzed
separately.
I. One 7.5-ton rotary furnace, one 17.5-ton rotary furnace, and one
blast furnace, which was being preheated. All three furnaces were
ducted to a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse with a
cloth area of 20,866 square feet. Tested using Code Method 4.
Oil-fired rotary furnace, 20-ton capacity, equipped with a
closed pressure-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse with a cloth
area of 18,661 square feet.
42
43
-------
Table A-31.
Run muter
Date
"Test time, minute:
Heat time, minutes
-Ingots produced per heat."tons
Zinc -In alloy produced. .J
Stack effluent
Flow rate,^scfa
-v'Temperatut*. *F
Hater *apor. Hobe andH'llter^xatch
gr/ascf
gr/acf-
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
.Total catch
- gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
BRASS AND
BRONZE FACILITY A,,
JWNARY OF RESULTS
1
11/10/71
582
938
;e:66
-40
13-^539
--84.9 :
3.303
OS
18.4
Nil
0.'002
0.001
0.165
t>.388
-0.0047
. -0.0043
0.521
1.22
.. 2
n/io-n/71
. 771
922
-;-7:80
-37
13.^0 :
-:103.*
3.227 :
: l.o :
16.8
mi
0.0005
0.0005
0.065
0:1 27
0.0011
'0:0010
0.129
0.25
3
11/12/71
733 .
912
7:21
•:gD
. 13^75
.'106.2
3.139
.073
17^4
Nil
0.0003
0.0002
0.010
•0.066
-.0.0016
.0.0014
0.185
0.37
Average
£95
924
7.22
..39.
13^568
- .98.2
'.3.2?3
— r fc«
-: ,^7,3.
H11
;o.ooi.
0.0006
0.080
0.194
0.0024
.0.0022
0.278
0.61
Run number . -
Date .
Z1nc In alloy produced. I (approx.)
.Stack-effluent
Flow rats.,dscfm
- Teaperature. *T .
Partlculate emissions
Total «^trh
. -gr/dscf
' Ib/nr .
Table A-32. BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY
. . SUMMARY OF-RESULTS9
1
5/11/71
40
15.468
O25
0.0023
0.286
tested by local agency-using .Code-Method .10. Profaevand-fllier urtdi
.-„ not, analyzed separately.
44
45
|g^j**. ?^^:;. •:- ^ ;.. ••.- ;c\-i;-^v^^-/!^^^ir2«?^^^ ^J^^^^^a,;
"r^^-^r- •±^i^^^'r_-2:_^:'--L:i.i"-''^'"i-'^
-------
Table A-33. BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY B,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table A-34. BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITIES C, E, arid F,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS3
V
I
i
T
*i
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Heat time, minutes
Ingots produced per
heat, tons
Z1nc In alloy produced.
t
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. t
C02. vol. t try
0_, vol. t dry
z" *
Excess air at
sampling point, %
Visible emissions,
t opacity
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
*
'• .Ib/ton of product
? Total catch
.; gr/dscf
; gr/ac*
Ib/hr-
. •• Ib/ton of product
1
11/1/71
120
1140
49.09
9
27,515
118
2.66
0.60
19.50
1112
<10
0.006
0.005
1.55
0.60
-
0.022
0.019
5.081
1.98
2
11/2-3/71
700
1183
59.86
5
30,124
107
1.86
0.58
19.58
1117
<10
0.005
0.005
1.25
0.41
0.007
0.006
1.692
0.51
3
11/3-4/71
747
1326
56.36
5
25,406
106
1.85
0.60
19.60
1205
<10
0.007
0.006
1.46
0.43 .
0.008
0.008
1.789
0.68
4
11/4-5/71
780
1372
53.93
5
27,114
113
1.75
0.53
19.60
1210
<1Q
0.004
0.004
0.99
0.42
0.006
0.005
1.356
0.51
Average
656
1255
54.81
6
27,540
111
2,03
0.58
19.57
1176
<10
0.006
0.005
1.31 .
0.46 .
•0.011 .
0.009 ,
2.479 .
0.92
Installation
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Heat time, minutes
Metal charged per
heat, tons
Z1nc 1n alloy
produced, %
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
CO?, vol . t try
02, vol. % try
Excess air at
sampling point, %
Visible emissions, * opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton charged
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
• Ib/ton charged"
aTested using Code Method 4.
C
1
10/22-23/68
~
1326
72
9
18,052
4.51
0.57
19.0
791.0
—
0.013
--
1.93
0.59
0.014
' 2.17
0.67
Tons of scrap charged was used for these
rates were unavailable.
E
1
7/9-10/68
1175
1174
52.7
5
27,049
160
5.0
0.89
17.9
484.0
<10
0.014
--
3.16
1.17
0.014
3.32
1.23
calculations since
F
1
7/7-8/68
879
874
16.7
5
33,999
150
2.6
0.63
18.2
535.0
<10
0.005
__
-1.61
1.41
0.006
1.78
1.56
Ingot production
46
47
-------
Table A-35. BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY D,
SLBMARY OF RESULTS •
Sun miter
Bate
-•Test tlie* dilutes
Heat tine. minutes
Ingots produced per
••heat, tons
* 21 nc In jTlflj' produced.
I
SUck-effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
'Temperature, -T
Hater vapor. -vol. %
CO., vol . I dry
z
02, vol;:Xdry
. Excess »1r at
.sampling' point. X " "'
Visible emissions.
X opacity
• Paniculate .emissions
Probe anaTllter-catch
.gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
•.lb/ton of product
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
•lb/ton of product
1
31/30/71
_266
. .534
-18:03
31
28,582
W4
1.250
0.300
20.30
- .2474
- art1 cul ate-esrt sstom
'Total ratch
5r/dscf
=1b/nr
3 2
7/15/70 8/20/70
*0 •<. 9"
-..-52.900 • 52,900
~ 250 ' -250 .
,0.015 - O.fliS - •
-B^BO B^2 '
Average
"75
.,-52,900
250.
• B.017
' J.71
'Conducted by local agency. Probe and filter catch not analysed
separately.
49
-------
Table A-37. BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY H,
. ' . SUMMARY OF RESULTS4
5 6
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfra
Temperature, °F
Paniculate emissions
Total catch
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
.1
8/17/70
60
8000
155
0.009
0.62
2
8/17/70
60
8000
155
0.015
1.02
3
3/11/71
60
4100
--
0.019
0.67
4
3/1 2/',
60
4100
-
0.001
0.04
60
60
Average
60
0.016 0.012
Conducted by local agency. Probe and filter catch not analyzed separately.
0.012
SO
Table A-38. BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY I.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. « dry
02, vol. % dry
CO. vol . % dry
Part icul ate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Total catch
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
1
7/8/68
60
33,926
215
4.5
0.65
17.0
Nil
0.012
3.49
0.018
5.18
2
7/8/68
60
33,807
215
3.1
0.63
17.0
Nil
0.007
2.04
0.011
3.32
3
7/9/68
60
36,121
175
3.2
1.43
17.5
Nil
0.010
3.21
0.021
6.39
Averagf
60
34,618
202
3.6
9.03
17.2
N11
0.010
2.91
0.017
4.96
51
-------
IRON AND STEEL MILLS
BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES
Six emission tests were performed by EPA and EPA contractors on
six basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) facilities. The particulate
control systems included two electrostatirc,orecipitator systems, one
open-hood venturi scrubber system, and two movable closed-hood venturi
scrubber systems. Closed-hood Facility A was tested in November 1971
and again in February 1972. There were no visible emissions from any
of the plants tested except Facility D.
Each facility consists of two or three BOPFs. Normally, two
furnaces are operated at any one time, with the third undergoing
routine rebricking and maintenance. Each test consisted of four or
six cycles of the furnaces. Testing was initiated immediately after
the furnace was charged and discontinued just prior to tapping. Only
one furnace was blown with oxygen during any cycle.
Facilities:
A. Rated capacity each vessel—220 tons of steel per heat, equipped
with a closed-hood venturi scrubber system.
B. Rated capacity each vessel—200 tons of steel per heat, equipped
with a closed-hood venturi scrubber system.
C. Rated capacity each vessel—140 tons of steel per heat, equipped
with an open hood ducted to a cannon electrostatic precipitator.
52
D. Rated capacity each vessel—325 tons of steel per heat, each
vess.el equipped with an open hood ducted to a common venturi
scrubber system. Oil is burned in the hood between oxygen
blows to give a constant steam supply. * '•
E. Rated capacity each vessel—250 tons of steel per heat, equipped
with an open hood ducted to a common electrostatic precipitator.
53
-------
TaSrte A-39. BOPF FACILITY A, ,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date x
Test time, minutes
Net output (six heats).
tons of steel
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/
ton steel
Temperature, "F
Water vapor, vol. %
C02, vol . % dry
02, vol . % dry
CO, vol . % drya
Visible emissions.
% opacity
Participate emissions
1
1/26/72
173
1381.0
58,600
7341
123
13.4
0
2
1/27/72
154
1372.5
55,600
6239
125
13.6
Orsat not
Orsat not
Orsat not
0
3
1/27/72
156
1361.2
58,600
6716
129
12.6
run
run
run
0
Average
161
1371.6
57 ,600
6765
126
13.2
0
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
0.002
0.002
0.0021
0.005
0.004
Ib/ton of steel 0.0048
0.002
0.001
0.0015
0.004
0.003
0.0034
0.005
0.004
0.0048
0.006
0.005
0.0061
0.003
0.002
0.0028
0.005
0.004
0.0047
aStack gases analyzed at point downstream of scrubber but upstream of flare.
54
Run number
Date
Test tine, minutes
Net output (six heats),
tons of steel
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/
ton steel
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. % dry
0- , vol . % dry
CO, vol. % dry3
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Particulate emissions
Table A-40.
SUMMARY
1
11/16/71
162
1331.0
58,880
7166
119
12.9
13.0
8.0
27.0
0 '
BOPF FACILITY
OF RESULTS
2
11/16-17/71
149
1321.3
57,808
6519
117
12.9
19.2
7.3
22.0
0
V
3
11/18/71
168
1298.5
59,621
7714
125
9.8
20.8
7.6
19.0
0
Average
160
1316.9
58,769
7133
120
11.9
17.7
7.6
22.7
0
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch
gr/dscf -
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
0.002
0.002
0.0020
0.005
0.004
0.0052
0.009
0.007
0.0083
0.014
0.011
0.0135
0.003
0.002
0.0031
0.005
0.004
0.0052
0.005
0.004
0.0044
0.004
0.006
0.0039
aStack gases analyzed at point downstream of scrubber but upstream of
flare.
55
-------
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Net output (six heats),
tons of steel
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/
ton steel
Temperature, °F
Hater vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. % dry
02, vol . % dry
CO, vol . % dry8
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Table A-41.
SUMMARY
1
10/20/71 '
222
1214.3
37,154
6792
154
10.5
10.4
8.7
27.2
0
BOPF FACILITY B,
OF RESULTS
2
10/21/71
255
1202.7
32,020
6788
161
12.7
9.4
9.7
25.2
0
3
10/23/71
224
1223.8
48,787
8930
128
13.4
10.8
7.5
36.7
0
Average
234
1213.6
39,300
7503
148
12.2
10.2
8.6
29.7
0
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
"gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
0.012
0.009
0.0116
0.014--
0.011
0.0141
0.016
0.012
0.0159
0.011
0.009
0.0141
0.012
.0.010
0.0158
0.012
0.010
0.0133
0.014
0.011
0.0158
aStack gases analyzed at point downstream of scrubber but upstream of
flare.
''The impinger catch of Run 1 was contaminated with stopcock grease.
56
, — r ,
Run number
Date
Test time, rrfnutes
Net output {four heats),
tons of steel
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/
ton steel
Tempe--:.-re, °F
Water vapor, vol . %
C02, vol. I dry
02 , vol . % dry
CO, vol . % dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Paniculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
Table A-42.
SUMMARY
1
11/10/71
141 .'
569.2 '
219,120
54,279
238
14.6
6.2
16.6
<1
0
0.009
0.006
0.0730
0.014
0.009
0.1070
BOPF FACILITY
OF RESULTS
2
11/10/71
143
601.5
215,571
53,042
246
14.8
1.8
19.2
<1
0
0.005
0.003
0.0370
0.008
0.005
0.0631
c,
3
11/11/71
i4
586.0
201 ,071
56,272
234
15.0
5.1
17.4
<1
0
0.006
0.004"
0.0471
0.010
0.006
0.0779
Average
151
585.6
211,921
54,531
238
14.8-
4.4
17.7
<1
0
-0.007
0.004
0.0524
0.011
0.007
0.0826
57
-------
Table A-43. BOPF FACILITY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...... nu «,- m-cm TC
D,
Table A-44.
BOPF FACILITY
E,
awuinni u, r,,.ju.- SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Net output (four heats),
tons of steel
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/
ton steel
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. * dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol . % dry
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Particulate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
1
12/8-9/71
130
1376.6
224,900
21 ,239
134
16.2
1.2
19.3
<1
0 to 20
0.035
0.026
0.106
0.042
0.031
0.1270
2
12/10/71
126
1357.2
217,982
20,237
144
15.4
1.0
19.9
<1
0 to 20
a
-
—
0.040
0.029
0.1160
3
12/10/71
158
1368.1
214,100
24,726
137
12.6
1.0
19.9
<1
0 to 20
a
-
--
0.028
0.021
0.0996
Average
138
1367.3
218,994
22,067
138
14.7
1.1
19.7
<1
0 to 20
-
-
-
0.0368
0.027
0.1142
Run number
Date
Test tine, minutes
Net output (four heats),
tons of steel
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/
ton steel
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol . *
C02, vol . t dry
0., vol . t dry
CO, vol . t dry
Visible emissions.
% opacity
Particulate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/ton of steel
1
1/12/72
122
1101.5
522,332
57,852
198
16.0
4.3
17.6
<1
0
0.020
0.014
0.169
0.029
0.020
0.244
2
1/12-13/72
121
1102.9
496,657
54,486
196
19.1
4.9
16.7
<1
0
0.045
0.030
0.352
0.052
0.034
0.402
3
1/13-14/72
115
1087.9
461 .571
48,792
206
20.8
4.9
16.7
<1
0
0.016
0.010
0.109
0.023
0.015
0.161
Average
: 119
1097.4
493,920
53,742
200
18.6
4.7
17.0
<1
• o
0.027
0.018
0.210
0.035
0.023
0.269
aThe filter In Runs 2 and 3 leaked, and it 1s impossible to separate the
front half catch from the total catch for these runs.
58
59
-------
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Stack tests were conducted on five sludge incinerators including
three multiple hearth units and two fluid bed reactors. One installation
was tested both by EPA and a State agency. Four of the incinerators
were controlled by impingement-type scrubbers, one was controlled by a
venturi scrubber. Pressure drops across the scrubbers ranged from
2.5 to 18 inches of water.
Facilities:
A. Fluidized bed reactor, 1100-lb/hr dry solids design capacity, _
operated at 100 percent capacity during test, equipped with a
20-inch-of-water pressure-drop venturi scrubber operated at
18 inches water pressure drop. Tested by EPA and by a State
agency, latter using Code Method 8.
B. Multiple hearth (six hearths) Herreshoff incinerator, 750-lb/hr
dry solids design capacity, operated at 64 percent capacity
during.test, equipped _with_a_6_.0jrichj-of-water-pressure-drop
single-cross-flow perforated-plate inpinjet scrubber.
C. Multiple hearth (six hearths) Herreshoff incinerator, 900-lb/hr
dry solids design capacity, operated at 35 percent capacity
during test, equipped with a 6.0-inch-water-pressure-drop
single-cross-flow perforated-plate impinjet scrubber.
D. Fluidized bed reactor, 500-1b/hr dry sol Ids design capacity, operated
at 95 percent capacity during test, equipped with a 4.0-inch-water-
pressure-drop single-cross-flow perforated-plate Impinjet scrubber.
60
E. Multiple hearth Herreshoff incinerator, 2500-lb/hr dry solids
design'capacity, operated at about 50 percent capacity during
• tests, equipped with a 2.5-inch-water-pressure-drop cyclonic
inertial jet scrubber.
61
-------
Table A-45. SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY A,,
SUN4ARY OF RESULTS
Table A-46. SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY A2>
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Furnace feed rate.
ton/hr dry solids
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
feed '
Temperature, °F
Hater vapor, vol. *
C02, vol. % dry
Oj , vol . X dry
CO, vol. % dry
S02 emissions, ppm
NO, emissions, ppm
HCT emissions, ppm
Visible emissions,
% opacity
1
1-11-72
108
0.550
2880
314,000
59
1.93
12.8
4.8
0.0
<0.3
4.2
<3.8
<10
2
1-12-72
108
0.560
2550
273,000
59
1.92
12.6
4.7
0.0
<0.3
5.7
<2.9
. <10
3
1-12-72
108
0.560
2660
285,000
59
2.23
11.5
6.4
0.0
<0.3
6.4
<4.1
<10
Average
108
0.557
2700
291 ,000
59
2.03
12.3
5.3
0.0
<0.3
5.4
<3.6
<10
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
0.024
0.023
0.583
1.06
0.032
0.031
0.779
1.42
0.005
0.005
0.116
0.207
0.007
0.007
0.160
0.286
0.004
0.004
0.099
0.177
0.010
0.010
0.227
0.405
0.011
0.011
0.266
0.481
0.0163
0.016
0.389
0.704
SUMMARY OF RESULTS"
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Furnace feed rate,
ton/hr dry solids
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
feed
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. t
COj, vol. % dry
(less aux. fuel)
S02 emissions'3
Visible emissions
Ringelmann No.
Participate emissions
Total catch
gr/dscf
1
5-3-71
60
0.325
3480
642,500
80
3.4
4.0
2
5-4-71
60
0.325
3600
664,600
80
3.4
5.1
3
5-4-71
60
0.325
3320
612,900
78
3.4
4.0
Average
60
0.325
3470
640,600
79
3.4
4.4
<1
0.020
(cor. to m CO,)
gr/acf f 0.019
Ib/hr 0.596
Ib/ton of feed 1.84
0.031
0.029
0.956
2.94
<1
0.048
0.047
1.365
4.20
0.033
0.032
0.972
2.99
aTested by local agency using Code Method 1. Probe and filter catch
not analyzed separately.
bNo S02 detected.
C0pac1ty was not recorded.
62
63
•£
-------
Table A-47. SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY B,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Furnace feed rate,
tons/hr dry solids
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
feed
Temperature, "F
Hater vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. % dry
0?, vol. % dry
CO, vol . * dry
S02:em1ssions, ppm
NOX emissions, ppm
HC1 emissions, ppm
Visible emissions,
X opacity
1
10-13-71
120"
0.237
3300
835,000
198
3.64
3.8
17.3
0.0
2.29 to 2.57
--
<10
2
10-14-71
120
0.236
2950
750,000
196
4.02
4.7
1.40
0.0
2.75
--
<10
3
10-14-71
120
0.249
2120
511,000
199
3.65
2.7
15.8
0.0
44.2 to 24.3
14.3
0.624 to 1.33
0.621
<10
Average
120
0.241
2790
699,000
198
3.77
' 3.7
15.7
0.0
2.53
27.6
0.858
<10
Partlculate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
0.0245
0.0187
0.690
2.91
0.0374
0.0289
1.06
4.47
0.0196
0.0155
0.495
2.10
0.0374
0.0287
0.945
4.00
0.0173
0.0132
0.315
1.26
0.0457
0.0348
0.832
3.34
0.0205
0.0158
0.500
2.09
0.0402
0.0308
0.946
3.94
64
Table A-48. SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY C.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test tine, minutes
Furnace feed rate,
tons/hr dry solids
Stack effluent
• Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
feed
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol . %
CO, ; vol . % dry
02. vol. % dry
CO, vol. % dry .
502 emissions, ppm
NOX emissions, ppm
HC1 emissions, ppm
Visible emissions,
% opacity
1
7-15-71
80
0.111
1230
665,000
80
3.23
10.0
7.7
0.0
15. 9. to 11.9
402 to 140
3.50 to 2.62
<10
2
7/15/71
80
0.149
1490
600,000
80
3.00
10.1
7.3
0.0
14.5 to 14.6
90.8 to 74.3
2.33 to 2.62
<10
3 .
7-16-71
80
0.146
1400
575,000
77
2.95
10.2
7.4
0.0
14.6 to 13.3
14.5 to 142
50.6 to 61.8
2.52 to 2.62
<10
Average
to
0.135
1373
613,000
79
3.06
1-0.1
7.5
0.0
14:2
163
2.72
<10
Particulate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
• gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
0.0127
0.00985
0.127
1.14
0.0195
0.0150
0.206
1.86
0.0620
0.0477
0.620
4.16
0.0696
0.0535
0.889
5.97
0.0196
0.0152
0.196
1.34
0.0260
0.0201
0.312
2.14
0.0314
0.0242
0:314
2.21
0.0384
0.0295
0.469
3.23
65
-------
Table A-49. SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY 0,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Furnace feed rate,
tons/hr dry solids
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
feed
Temperature, "F
Water vapor, vol. %
CO?, vol. % dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol. % dry
S02 emissions, ppm 8
NOX emissions, ppm
HC1 emissions, ppm 0.
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Particulate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
7-21-71
120
0.255
1190
280,000
99
3.92
8.8
6.3
0.0
.29 to 11.2
154 to 168
780 to 260
<10
0.0551
0.0468
0.562
2.20
0.0665
0.0565
0.678
2.66
2
7-21-71
96
0.237
1170
296,000
99
4.09
9.9
7.4
0.0
14.8 to 14.8
41.2 to 42.9
4.16 to 1.56
<10
0.0766
0.0650
0.768
3.24
0.0859
0.0729
0.861
3.63
3
7-22-71
96
0.202
1240
368,000
95
3.48
9.1
8.2
0.0
14.2 to 15.4
17.8
187 to 170
161
2.35 to 2.09
<10
0.0545
0.0467
0.579
2.87
0.0653
0.0559
0.694
3.43
Average
104
0.231
1200
315,000
98
3.83
9.3
7.3
0.0
13.8
132
2.26
<10
0.0621
0.0528
0.636
2.77
0.0726
0.0618
0.744
3.24
66
Table A-50. SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY E,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Furnace feed rate,
tons/hr dry solids
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton
feed
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
C02, vol. % dry
02, vol. % dry
CO, vol. % dry
502 emissions, ppm
NO, emissions, ppm 62
HCl emissions, ppm
Visible emissions,
% opacity
Particulate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
8-5-71
96
0.689
9840
—
135
16.3
4.2
14.9
0.0
2.01
.8 to 46.0
11.9
<10
0.0260
0.0196
2.19
3.18
0.0335
0.0252
2.83
4.11
2
8-5-71
96
0.855
8510
--
145
18.6
4.3
14.9
0.0
2.07
83.5 to 75.8
6.83
<10
0.0136
0.0099
0.99
1.16
0.0221
0.0159
1.61
1.88
3
8-5-71
96
0.290
10,290
--
145
14.8
2,2
16.9
0.0
2.12
44.3 to 54.7
10.9
<10
0.0134
0.0101
1.18
4.07
0.0170
0.0128
1.50
5.17
Averagt
96
0.611
9547
—
142
16.6
3.6
15.6
0.0
2.07
61.2
9.88
<10
0.0177
0.0132
1.45
2.80
0.0242
0.180
1.98
3.72
67
------- |