|EPA-450/3-74-007
November 1973
NATIONAL EMISSIONS
DATA SYSTEM.
POINT SOURCE INVENTORY
FOR THE STATE OF KANSAS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-74-007
NATIONAL EMISSIONS
DATA SYSTEM
POINT SOURCE INVENTORY
FOR THE STATE OF KANSAS
by
John M. Zoller
PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Suite 13
Atkinson Square
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-1001
Task Order No. 2
EPA Project Officer: Charles O. Mann
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
November 1973
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available free of charge
to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations -
as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or from
the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc , Cincinnati, Ohio, in. fulfillment of
Contract No. 68-02-1001. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received
from PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc.. The opinions , findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-007
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report was prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency by PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, under contract to .the Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Mr. Donald J. Henz was the PEDCo Project Manager. The
author of the report was Mr. John M. Zoller.
Mr. John Bosch was the Project Officer for the
Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr. Charles Mann was
Project Engineer. The author appreciates the fine cooperation
of Mr. Raymond Buergin of the Kansas State Department of
Health, Division of Environmental Health.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1
1.1.1 Work Priorities 1
1.1.2 General Description of Sources 1
1.1.3 Work Accomplished 2
2.0 METHODOLOGY - KANSAS POINT SOURCES 3
2.1 General 3
2.1.1 Confidentiality 3
2.1.2 Standard Forms 3
2.1.3 Location of Company Files 6
2.1.4 Emissions 6
2.1.5 .Compliance Status 7
2.1.6 Plant I.D. Numbers 9
2.1.7 SIC and IPP Codes 9
2.1.8 Stack Data 10
2.1.9 Control Equipment and Efficiency 10
2.1.10 Percent Annual Thruput and Normal 10
Operating Schedule
2.1.11 sulfur Content 10
2.1.12 Heat Content of Fuels 11
2.1.13 Additional Information Required .11
2.1.14 List of Companies and Plant I.D. 11
Numbers
2.2 Calculation of Allowable Emissions 12
2.3 Specific Processes 22
2.3.1 Grain Elevators 22
IV
-------
Page
2.3.2 Flour.Mills 27
2.3.3 Alfalfa Dehydrators 28
2.3.4 Reciprocating Internal Combustion 29
Engines
2.3.5 Foundry Operations 30
2.3.6 Stone Quarry 31
2.3.7 Asphalt Batching 32
2.3.8 Gray Iron Cupola 33
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 A Blank NEDS Form. v 4
2.2 Sample PEDCo Standard Form. -, . 5
2.3 Allowable Emissions for Zero Emitters 13
and Unlimited Allowable Emissions
2.4 Allowable Emissions for Small or Well- 14
Controlled Sources
2.5 Kansas Regulation 28-19-20 for Process 17
Emissions
2.6 Calculation of Allowable Emissions for 18
Processes
2.7 Kansas Regulation 28-19-31 for Indirect 19
Heating Equipment
2.8 Calculation of Allowable Emissions for 20
Boilers
2.9 Calculation of Allowable Emissions for 21
Incinerators
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Kansas Air Pollution Emission Regulation 15
2.2 Approximate Distribution of Activities at 24
Grain Elevators
2.3 Efficiencies of Various Control Systems 26
VI
-------
.1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of the task performed was to complete a
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) form for each identified
point source in the State of Kansas. These forms were suit-
able for key punching. It .was estimated that there were 3500
point sources identified in the state files. All NEDS forms
were completed, as far as possible, based on the information
in the state's files.
1.1.1 Work Priorities
The first priority was to complete (update) all sources
already in the NED System. The second priority was to complete
sources on which the state has a compliance schedule. PEDCo was
supplied a list of these sources by the state. The next prior-
ity was to complete sources that were >100 TPY emitters. After
that, the balance of companies were completed as available
manhours permitted.
1.1.2 General Description of Sources
Agricultural operations comprised the largest group of
sources in the State of Kansas. They were located mainly in
rural areas and consisted largely of grain elevators and
alfalfa dehydrators. Grain elevators made up the largest group
-------
of a single type of source. Other sources included rock
crushers, petroleum refineries and various manufacturing opera-
tions. The areas with, the greatest concentration of point
sources were the counties of Reno, Sedgwick, Shawnee, and
Wyandotte.
1.1.3 Work Accomplished
A total of approximately 4>000 NEDS forms for 800 companies
were completed, based on information obtained from the Kansas
State Agency files , The original forms were sent to the Project
Officer with a copy to Region VII headquarters in Kansas City.
In addition, under the direction of the Project Officer a copy
was also sent to the Kansas State Agency.
The first priority sources, sources already in the NED
System, were completed as far as possible. Sources on the
compliance schedule list supplied by the state agency were also
completed as far as possible. Data was extracted from the state
files for all sources estimated to emit >100 TPY. However, for
the >100 TPY emitters the estimated emissions and allowable
emissions were not calculated in all cases where there was ade-
quate information to do so. This was due to insufficient funds
to complete the task. Approximately one-third of the >100 TPY
sources were without these calculations. Additional sources
from the A's and part of the B's in the State's alphabetical
files were completed.
-------
2.0 METHODOLOGY - KANSAS POINT SOURCES
2.1 GENERAL
Government Publication APTD-1135, "Guide for Compiling a
Comprehensive Emission Inventory", revised March 1973, was used
as a guideline for completing the Kansas point source emission
inventory. UTM coordinates were not determined for the point
sources in Kansas. This was due to lack of sufficient information
to locate the sources on USGS maps. However, UTM zones as specified
on page 2-5 of APTD-1135, were assigned to the point sources.
2.1.1 Confidentiality
All sources in Kansas supplied information to the Kansas
State Department of Health with the understanding that all infor-
mation except actual emissions would be held in confidence.
Therefore, confidentiality was noted by entering a one (1) in
column 72 of card 6 on all NEDS sheets.
2.1.2 Standard Forms
PEDCo prepared 80 standard NEDS forms to aid in the comple-
tion of the point sources. See Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 for a
blank NEDS form and a sample PEDCo standard form. These standard
sheets covered the majority of sources in Kansas. The informa-
tion contained on the standard forms included SIC number, IPP
code, control equipment, zero emissions and estimation method
where applicable, zero or infinite allowable emissions where
-------
Still
1
2
Cewity
3
4
5
6
AQCR
7
e
9
Flint ID
Number
10
11
12
13
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
POINT SOURCE
Input Form
Narr.e ol Person
Completing Form .
Date .
14
City
15
16
Point
. ID
01
17
Ulm'
Zone
18
Yard
Record
16
17
Yearol
Record
16
17
ftaro!
Record
16
17
Ya»ot
:ecord
16
17
Yearol
lecord
16
17
19
Warol
Record
20
21
Establishment Name and Address
22
SIC
ie|i9
1
20 21
23
24
IPP
22
Boiler Design
Capacity
lO'BTUtir
18
19 2071
5 A
Dec-
Feb
18
19
NNUAL
Kay
20
21
22
23
25
26
27 28
UTM COO
Horizontal
km
24
25l26!27
i
29
30
31
32
3334
RDINATES
Vertical
km
28l29
Primary (Secondary
Part. 1 Part.
23
24
THRU
June
Aug
22
23
25 P6 27
1
'UT
Sepl-
Nov
24
Parlicjlale
18 19
1
ie
r
II
10
20
2223
sec
III
2l! 22
73
-
25
N
OP!
Hr 'day
126 27
28
OR
RA
0
28
so?
25'26|27J2B
IV
24
25_
30
31I32
I
Primary
S02
?9!-lol31
I
'AL
TING
29
—
30
.
31
ALLOM
(2?!30f3T
35| 3Q 37 38l
J±
Height (II) On
33
34 35 35 37
C
Secondary
S02
32 33(34
J
Par
1J
L
33
40 41 42 43
mm
16421
1
44
STACK C
Temp (PR
40J4142
43
ONTROL EQUIPMENT
Primary 1 Seccr.ojry Prirrary
NO, NO, HC
ssboijv
i
icu'ate
liT
353flfi7
8LE E.TISS!ONS (Ions
NO,
32 33 34
Fuel, Process,
Solid ttaste
Optra ia| Ri!e
21J27
i28|23
— 1 —
30
31
iL
K 3C 37
.. L
Kaliffiu:a Qfsi
Ralc_
^8
39
L_LJ
38139]
>e
3l
I"
38
r)
39
3T-
I
j i
1
40 41!42i43
Oil]
SO?
FRTTiT!
!
HC
«fl1'«
1
Saliur
4u-4ij<;-
A
x i
45146
47
48
43
50
51152
ATA
Flow Rale (IH/mm
44145
46
Secondary
HC
4 4] 4 slip
47]48
I
Pnrj
CO
4?4?
I I I 1 I
EMISSION ESTIMATE
NC
^
—
-
44 .Ibj46:47
447.15
1
Ash
~|
1
i
i
4^J50
'1
49
53
54
55 5
Plume Height
II no slack-lt.
51152^53
Sccord
CO
J0'5l"
(tens, yea
,
48]49]50l51
__,
CO
49.SU.5!
Heal Co.-.ter.;
i!)6 STU s:c
46
47143 '4D'50
52
5-1 5
657
5 56
58
59
60 61
62
Contact
63J64
57,58 'S3
EST1.VIATEO C
Par. S02
53'54i55|56:57
A.
60
65
Personal
66 67|6S
69170
61 62 63 64l65|G6
j.STROL E
NO,
5i)(596o'61
i
HC
fl
52
53
_
ti
C
o
53
54'fi
Q"
ccv.f
SCK
Year
>*
51 52'B3 54 S
! i
5!56l57i53
rh~
LIAN
EDUL
•fe
5J56
— i —
CE
E
ilh
?j
59]
CCra?L
I
Year
55
r5
^
60
61
WCE s
PDATE
"cntri
60J61
1
^7 63
•FICIENCY ('.)
HC 1 CO
62
CO
J>i
1 1
63J64
TA?JS
Day
>2
57:54
J
5D't9'6i; 62
63
0.
c:
UJ
U'l
'es
L_
,
a
r
66
5V
71
72
73
sc
o
74
75]
76(77
o
78
A
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
79
P
O
1
76L77i78
oR-59 70
STIMATION
.V.ETHOD
a
G8J6D
cc
Rt£ 1
C5'C6
fo7!66
L_
CO
70
71
72
73!74 75i76 77
'. Space
Heal
71
72
^3
1
fTROL REGJL
JE9J70I71I72J
62i u4i65 60
67 3d
I
|
CD 7i!
i
!
|
i
O
7)
•o
I
12
. 1
74175
1
76
ATIONS
73
I74J75
76
77
77
73
A
J
g
cd
80
1
79
P
78!73
A \f
_AJP
5
A
M
74l75;?e'77[/a
i A
I
i.
A
A
A
A
cd
30
7
cd
30
3|
cd
ko
—
-
cd
/SJiO
P~|5
J
P
P
P
P
P
6
G
6
6
6
EPA (OUR) 220
3/7Z
Figure 2.1. A Blank NEDS Form.
-------
Slate
1 2
Count;
3
4
5
6
AQCR
7
8
9
Plant 10
Number
10
0
11
0
12
13
1
•SCC UUIT.
IOOO BBL
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
UOTC: FOC UPilJfllCS
us: ;C:MS tsTucu 74
POINT SOURCE
Input Form
Name of Person
Completing Form.
Date .
14
City
15ll6
I
point I
10 1
If
V5j
17
(Jim
Zone
18 19
Yeaol
Record
16
17
ftaiol
Record
16
17
Itarol
Record
16
17
la*
iecord
16
7
17
3
Cearol
16
17
•-
Year of
Record 1
20
21 [22 23
I
24
FCC-' 1 ^~~~\
TCC-2 , ,pp
SIC Prass
18
Ll
M920
91
2l|22
10
Boiler Design
Capacity
luSBTU hr
18 19
SA
Dec-
Feti
18|19
2 5
20I21 22
1
NNUAL
filar-
Hay
?0
2
21
5
0
23
25
26
27
28
UTM COC
Horizontal
kn
27
25
26
27
2930
31
32
33^4
ROINATES
Verliui •
km
28 l29l 30
-. ESP 'Ol
f BAG = 01
Prinary 1 Secondary
Part. Part.
23!24l25t!oi27
01
THRU
June
Auj
HJ23
2|5
0
'UT
Sept
Nov
,24125
2J5
Particulate
18
1
18
3
19 20
II
^20
0
6
21
22
23
SCC
III
21 22 23
0
0
t
24
o
H
OP(
Hr. day
2pj27
25
9
IV
24:25
?S
9
26
28
0
OR!
RA
0
7
so?
27
9
28
9
31
32
A
39
Esl
3&; "!
1
1
Height ill)
33
34
D
E, C
Pri.-naiy [Secondary
^2 L so:
29:10
0
0
!AL
TING
W* yr
n
5
;
291
9
30
2
31
3733
Sto^J
rcc...
TCC...
Par
,f^
30
9
31
9
BLEE
9'"9
FaellPmcess/
Solid *J-,:e
Ooeraiing Ra;e
27I28J23
30
31
32
34
0
17
ICU
5?
;is
34
9
35
36
ablislw
38J39
tr.t Name and Address
40!
Diam (II)
57.
ONTROL £
Piirra.-y
NO,
35136
LpiQ
ale
35! 3G
T"
ION
NO
3?
9
37
37
38l33
j
41
42
43
44
STACK C
Tercp i°n
_40
QUIP.MENT
Secondary
HO,
'8
0.
C
38
S (Ions >e
X
3GJ3'7
9 9
33
9^
3D
o:
>2e
C.C
fsT
40
A
>
40
41 42J43
rc
Primary
HC
41
oj
so?
41
43
EM
~
46)47 48
49
ATA
Flo* Rale III3'
44
««k
48_
50
51
52
mm)
49lsO
o eo.'ue. 022
Secondary Primary
HC CO
o
SSI
4?'43l44
"IT
45
L.P'
ON
C.
'5*
'
EE&. 28-11-24 5 t
OCOUSTE. ACTCfc 1
HC
391
9
fAaii.-nuTi Design
Rale
33
34
3»
3b
3/
38
39
i
i
-.0
9
41
9
42
9
Sullur
Oodenl ',
40
41
,
"A.
0V.
0
43U4
9|9
Co
43
As
ilf.
44
i
A
9
1
45
t5
-*.
4C47
0 0
ESTIMA
3
46J47
^PPL't
-I-7Z
4GJ47
9J9.
3
TE
NO
48
I
s -
f
(13
,
4~9
.
53 54J55
Pluae Heijh;
lino sue. II.
51 .52 53i 54
Secc.id»y
CO
w:
0
is-
50T
1
5
ea
51
52
P.
i C
•2
52
0 UUITS
CO
9!
50
9
Heat Content
!0« STU/sce
46147
48
49
50
tr
51
"91
52
9
56
57 5
i 59
60
ICOMMOU
55!56!5
,CCU'
f EST
Part.
53^54
r,
5=,
0
fcCT02 ,
20
87 HC
53
cx
ti
o
53
54
55
~
COr.'PL
SCHEC
Year
"saTsi,
0!(
J68J59
i o
.Efr.roa
.VATEO C
S02
56 5-
|
5.i
0
Ib/iOOO
56'IT
IANCE
uLE
Wonlh
SG!S
61
52153 54'55
t
1
1
1
'pc
61
Contact • Persona
62
63 64J b5
66 67 68:69170 7
72
73
ic
O
74
p
75i 76i 77
1
e
"
78,75
AJP
6fl!61!62 63l64i65,6G:67 63
Oi
ESf1; H^
WTRO^ E
NO,
J9
i
s^Tio
CffrlPL
i
Year
1 b5~59
61
0
FE
61
ANCE S
PDATE
Kontli
6o;ei
"J_^L
7'58
1-
.5 FOfe ."5
"FICIENCY
HC
62 J63JC4
d!i(L_
1
Aij
|%f?
CO
G5
13700
CO 38CO
62 63I64J65
TATUS
Day
;:'63
0.
UJ
J4
To
PE
[
[.
Go
^*
69
70 71
72!73|74|75J76l77
COUT70L £FF. F02 CO SOIL
T
STi.VATIitt
VETK03
07
65
CO
Reg I
SG G6J67J6B
I
Conmerls
59 6016V 62! 63l64r65l66 67
^
!
~~* '
G8
65
al
CC
70
71
72,73 74 75
'. Space
Heal
71 72
P
P
P
P
cd
80
:3
S
cd
50
5
30
6
5
6
6
6
EP« (DUBI 220
J/72
• rCC-2; TCC4-HCC'3
Figure 2.2. Sample PEDCo Standard Form.
-------
applicable, Source Classification Code (SCC) number, SCC units,
and emission factors. For each NEDS sheet completed, a copy
of the appropriate PEDCo standard form was used. A duplicate
set of PEDCo standard forms was given to the Kansas State
Department of Health to aid them in completing additional
point sources.
2.1.3 Location of Company Files
The point sources were arranged alphabetically in the Kansas
filing system. Whenever a company file was removed by state
personnel, an out of file card was inserted in it's place. The
out of file card contained the name of the company removed and
the initials of the person who removed the file. Notation of
this information insured location of all files.
2.1.4 Emissions
Government Publication AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors", February 1972, was used as the source of
emission factors for calculating emission estimates. When stack
tests of emissions were reported by the source, they were used
to calculate emission estimates and the estimation method was
shown to be by stack tests. If emissions were reported by the
source but not specified to be the results of stack tests, the
annual emissions were calculated using this information but the
estimation method was recorded as a guess.
When in-process fuels were burned, emissions from the fuel
were calculated using boiler emission factors. The estimation
method recorded was a three (3), denoting that the emissions
-------
were calculated by, an AP-42 emission factor. The in-process
fuel emissions were calculated only for pollutants other than
those given off by the process. In no case were process
emissions and in-process fuel emissions added together.
Actual emissions were hand calculated for all sources
that reported their hourly emissions. Sources with adequate
information to calculate emissions (that is, annual thruput and
control equipment) but an AP-42 emission factor did not exist,
had their emissions hand calculated using a four (4) as the
estimation method, denoting a guess. However, actual emissions
were not hand calculated for all sources that had both adequate
information and an AP-42 emission factor. This was due to
insufficient funds to complete that operation and there was
adequate information for the computer to calculate the actual
emissions.
2.1.5 Compliance Status
The Kansas State Department of Health evaluated sources for
compliance based on AP-42 emission factors and State of Kansas
Air Pollution Emission Control Regulations. Estimated emissions
and allowable emissions were calculated by the state to deter-
mine if the source complyed with the regulations. Based on
this determination by the state, if the source was judged in
compliance a one (1) was entered in column 53, card 5 of the
NEDS sheet to signify compliance with the regulations. If the
source was judged to be out of compliance, this was indicated
on the NEDS sheet by entering a two (2) in column 53 of card 5.
The code of two (2) meant that the source was not in compliance
-------
with existing legislation and no variance had been given (vari-
ances were not granted in the State of Kansas). .
In cases where the state felt there were no applicable
emission factors they did not conduct a formal evaluation under
Regulation 28-19-20 regarding particulate emission limitations.
Instead, all sources were considered as being in compliance by
the Kansas State Department of Health if, upon a preliminary
plant inspection, no violations of Regulations 28-19-50 regard-
ing visible emissions and 28-19-51 regarding dust losses from
materials handling and storage, were noted. However, full
compliance with these regulations had to be established on the
basis of field observations under a variety of operational and
climatic conditions. Although the source was therefore not
considered officially in full compliance, they were considered
in compliance until such a time official compliance status could
be established. If a source was considered in compliance by the
state but subsequent calculations by PEDCo resulted in the
emission estimate exceeding allowable emissions, the source was
still shown to be in compliance on the.NEDS sheet.
For sources recorded as in compliance, the date the appli-
cable regulations became effective was entered in the columns
titled Compliance Status Update, columns 58 through .63 of card 5.
For Kansas this date was January 1, 1971.
Sources not in compliance were required to submit a compli-
ance schedule that would bring the source into compliance. The
year and month that the source was scheduled to be in compliance
was entered in the columns titled Compliance Schedule, columns 54
8
-------
through 57 of card^S. For sources out of compliance and on
compliance schedules, the information entered in the columns
headed Compliance Status Update (columns 58 through 63 of card
5) represented the latest date of any changes (milestones
reached) as reported in.the source's quarterly report to the
agency. If no quarterly report had been submitted to the
agency, these columns were left blank.
When a company indicated that the goals of their compliance
schedule had been met, they.were still considered out of compli-
ance until a formal plant inspection had been made by the agency.
Therefore, unless there was evidence of a successful inspection,
PEDCo considered these sources to be out of compliance and
entered a two (2) in column 53 of card 5.
2.1.6 Plant I.D. Numbers
Plants that were assigned I.D. numbers for a previous
inventory were reassigned the same numbers in this emission
inventory. The next sources assigned I.D. numbers were those on
compliance schedules. A list of compliance scheduled sources
was supplied by the State Agency. The remaining plants were
assigned plant I.D. numbers in alphabetical order.
2.1.7 SIC and IPP Codes
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes with IPP
Process Identification codes are listed in Appendix A.4 of
APTD-1135. The SIC code was entered in columns 18•through 21
and the IPP code in columns 22 and 23, both on card 2. If the
appropriate SIC code was not listed in Appendix A. 4, it was
found in the 1972 SIC Manual.
-------
2.1.8 Stack Data
If there was a -stack the height, diameter, temperature,
and flow rate were entered in the appropriate co.lumns and a
zero was entered in plume height... If. there was ho distinct
stack, zeros were entered for height, diameter, and flow rate
and data was entered for temperature and plume height. Common
stack information was entered in columns 56 through 59 of card
2. If there was no common stack, zeros were entered in these
columns and if common stack information was unknown, they were
left blank.
2.1.9 Control Equipment and Efficiency
Control equipment codes were taken from Appendix A.3 of
APTD-1135. For all points where the control equipment was known,
a control efficiency was estimated. Control efficiency was
necessary to calculate emission estimates.
2.1.10 Percent Annual Thruput and Normal Operating Schedule
Percent annual thruput was estimated for all sources that
reported their normal operating schedule. If a source did not
report any seasonal variation, it was assumed they operated
52 weeks per year and the thruput distributed evenly. If the
hours per day and days per week operating schedule was not
reported, none was assumed for the NEDS sheet. If the operation
included space heat or operated less than 50 weeks per year, the
percent thruput was varied to reflect these seasonal changes.
2.1.11 Sulfur Content
If a substantial amount of fuel oil was burned and no
percent sulfur content was reported, columns 40 through 42
10
-------
of card 6 (sulfur, content) we.re left blank. The sulfur content
of oil was assumed in only a few instances when the.amount of fuel
burned was quite small. The amount of sulfur assumed.was 0.5%
and whenever this assumption was. made it was noted in the margin
of the NEDS sheet.
2.1.12 Heat Content of Fuels
If the heat content of fuels were not reported by the
source, the following values were assumed. Natural gas was
assumed to have 1,000 BTU/ft , distillate fuel oil was assumed
to have 150,000 BTU/gal, and residual fuel oil was assumed to
have 150,000 BTU/gal. If LPG was unspecified as to propane or
butane it was assumed to be equal to propane or 91,000 BTU/gal.
2.1.13 Additional Information Required
A list of sources for which additional information was
required was compiled when the information on the NEDS sheet
was insufficient to calculate the emission estimates. The
main entries needed for the calculations were control equipment
and annual thruput or operating rate. The Kansas Department of
Health was given this list in order to obtain the information
needed to calculate emissions.
2.1.14 List of Companies and Plant I.D. Numbers
A list was made, by county, of companies and their plant
I.D. numbers. This list also included whether or not the source
was in compliance, the compliance schedule deadline (if on a
compliance schedule), and the number of NEDS forms filled out
for that source.
11
-------
2.2 CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS
The NEDS forms contained information fields for allowable
emissions, as defined by the State of Kansas Air Pollution
Control Regulations. For purposes of the Kansas point sources
the following procedures and conventions were used in completing
card 5, columns 18-52 of the NEDS forms..
All processes which, by their nature, were not emitters of
a specific pollutant had a zero entered in the appropriate
column in the allowable emissions information field. For example,
see the NO emissions indicated on Figure 2.3. Note that when
X
an actual emission of zero tons per year is shown only because
the source is small or well-controlled, allowable emissions were
calculated and entered on card 5. See particulate emissions on
Figure 2.4 for example. Where allowable emissions were calcu-
lated to be less than 0.5 TPY, emissions were not rounded off
to zero. In such cases a "1" was entered in the appropriate
column.
If no regulation was applicable to a pollutant emitted by
a source, nines were entered in the appropriate columns on card
5. See the SO- emissions in Figure 2.3. Table 2.1 lists the
Kansas regulations applicable to specific processes and pollu-
tants. Blanks indicate that there was no regulation applicable
to the particular pollutant for that process. Virtually all
pollutants other than particulate matter were unregulated.
Regulations for S0~, CO, I-IC, and NO only applied to certain
-------
$U!t
1
2
County
3
«
5
6
AQCR
7
8
9
Plan! 10
Number
10
11
12
13
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)r
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
POINT SOURCE
Input Form
Name 01 Person
Completing Form .
Date .
14
City
15
16
FOinl
ct
17
Utm
Zone
18
Yeaol
?ecord
16
L_
17
Year of
Record
16
17
Ifcarof
Record
16
17
Yearol
Record
16
17
near ol
Record
16
17
19
Yearol
Record
20
21
Establishment Kane and Address
r
SIC
ie!l9!20
21
23
24
IPP
flxrss
22
Boiler Desi{n
Capacity
106 BTU 1"
18 19
\A
Dec-
Feb
18
19
20 fel
NNUAL
Mar-
may
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
UTM COC
Horizontal
km
24
2526
27
„
29
30
31
32
RDINATES
Vertical
km
28
Primary I Secondary
Par . ] Part.
5"
THRU
June
Auj
22
23
24
25^6
'LIT
Sept-
Nov
24
7OOO
Particu ale
18
1
18
19
20
II
19
20
21
22
23
sec
III
21
22^23
-2^
25
27i28
H
OPf
Hr day
26
27
OR
RA
D
28
29
30
31
I A
Primary
SO,
?9
30131
HAL
TING
'nk.'yr
.
31
33
32
,
34
3!
36
Hei(hl (Hi
3j[34
C
Secondary
S07
,2
R
3334
farticu
n
34
35.
37
36
38
39
40 41 4
Diam(ll) Tem:
1 43 44
STACK C
37l33!30l40i4142l43
"1 r i r
ONTROL E
Primary .
NO,
35
ale
35
ffl
f;
QUIPMENT
Secondary! Primary
NO, I HC
H
*
3' ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS (Ions 'yej
/ soj 1 y*T
H
9
IV
74
25
26
9
9
28
9
79
9
30
9
31 32
9P
fuel,Process,
Solid Waste
Operali.-.; Rale
?fi
27
28
29
2
30
7
31
r
32
0
£
rt35
3G
38
0
39J4o].l
1 1
sc
39J40T4
[ 1
n^**^
Maiiru.-n Design Sul
Rj!t Owle
33
34_
3b^
it,
37
8
3ij|3fi 40 : 4
O'O i
t
1|42 43
J_
45
46
47 46J49
ATA
FlowRae(ll].
44J45
j
Second
HC
.;ol«
T
EKISSI
2
[42I43J44
J^.
^
[42 U3J44
I I
jr
r '. Co
V42 4j
As
i?
ON
s*
...
46 47J48
50
51
mm)
49
aryi Primary
CO
46147143
I 1
ESTIMATE!
NC
JJ_
^
•;6]47 4?
_L
49
50
52
53
54 55
Plume HeijM
II no slack 11.
51[52;53
Secondary
CO
60J51
Jj
(Ions'
,
49150
J*\
52
year)
irk
Op-
s^
CO
49150
T
Heat Conlen
lO'BTIJ/sc
4Tj47T48 «
50
51 52
54
56
57
55 56
EST
Part.
53
54 55
HC
53] 54
l
f
53
55
50
59
60
61
Contact -Personal
62
63
64
65, 66
1
67
63
69,70
71
72
73
z
o
74
75J76
77
j
78
A
57_,58i59
GO
6l!G2l63
MATED CONTROL E
SO; [ NO,
5?
5C
f~r\-
1L2
CCVPLIANCE
SCHEDULE
Year JiVonlh
54
55
56 57
58
60l61_
64
I65 66I67
-FICIENCY ft)
HC 1 CO
62_
^ -,
nj4
-1
CO
COWL
I
Year
5-
59
j
JWCE S
PDATE
Month
60
61
65
j —
TATUS
Day
S263
o
UJ
34
1
PE
r
65
68 69|70
71
7273
74
75
76i77
68 63170
STIMATKM
METHOD
SO^l'DinC
C7
~
G8I5S
0|
CO
Rejl
55i66 |67
|
63
CO
70
71
72^73 74
\ Space
Heal
71
'2
iTROLREGUL
' RejZ
09
70
Co-TT-ents
51 52 53 54|55
56
57!58!59|60;61i6i! 63:64
•
65 66;67J68:69 70
71
5
1
71
72
O
CJ
72
F
77
75 76 77
«
76177
ATIONS
Re|3
73
74
75
78
77
731
74
75 7o'77
73
P
|
73
A
J
78
A
cd
80
1
75
P
(79
P
A
1
/a
A
•J
73
A
A
A
A
A
P
79
P
/9
P
p
p
P
P
cd
80
2
cd
eo
:3
y
?\
cd
JO
5
cd
OU
6
6
6
6
6
EPA (OUR) 22O
Figure 2.3. Allowable Emissions for Zero Emitters and
Unlimited Allowable Emissions.
-------
Stale
1 2
County
3
4
5
6
AQCR
7
8
9
Plant ID
Number
10
11
12
13
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
POINT SOURCE
Input Form
Hint ol Person
Completing Form .
Date
14
City
15
Point
ID
14
15
16
17
Utm
Zone
18
[Yea of
pecord
16
1
17
19
Yearol
Record
20
21
Establishment Name and Address
77
23
24
1 IPP
SIC (Brass
isl
19
20
21 22
Boiler Design
Yearol I Capacity
Record] lO^BTUht
16
17(18 19
•fearol
Record
16
17
Yea of
iecord
16 17
Yearol
Record
16
17
%A
Dec-
Feb
18
19
20
21
NNUAL
Mar-
May
?0
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
UTM COO
Horizontal
km
24
25
26
27
29
30 31
32
33
RDINATES
Vertical
km
28
Primary [Secondary
Part, j Part.
23^24
i
THRU
June
Aug
22
23
25 P6
1
=UT
Sept-
Nov
24
Paniculate
13
18
19
20
II
19
20
21
22
23
1
sec
III
21
22
23
24
2
25
27
N
OPf
Hr-day
76
27
28
OP
RA
D
28
,29 30
31
Primary
SOi
29 30
:AL
TING
Ak 'it
29|30
31
3_2
Sec
3?
34
3£
36|
1
37
Height ill)
\ \
ond
"2
a
C
r
3.1
r
Particu
ONI
P
•-b
J
ate
ffft5
ALLOWJ
25
*
IV
24
25
»PJ|8
29130
1
31
Btrf
32J33
Fuel.Process,
Solid Waste
Opera m; Hate
26
27[2S
29 30
31
32
^
nIS
3_4
^
10;
NO
f\
3o
RO
inj
NO
L5i
S(
30
38
39
40 41 42
OM(||I
37I38
~n
Li
[
'37
0_
ons
F
ID
43
44
STACK C
Temp l°n
40 41J42J43
OUIPWEHT
Secondj'i Pr rr.jry
NO, HC
H
38
1
'ye
*\
39140 11
42
«
EK
_S£?.._.
39T?oT4li42l4~3
- 1 - -+ H
i i l i
r)
39 10] 4?
Maiimum Design
Rale
33
341.0 :iu
:i7J38 -3'.)
45 46
1
47 48 49150151
' _J
ATA
Flo* Ra • (l|3/min|
14,45'46J47J48
Scconc
HC
00
J
SSI
44
1 ..I
4b
-J
ON
I?
|
am Pnma
CO
464/J48
1 1
ESTIMATES
NO
raViJis]
r ~i
49 50
ry I Set
*fl
(Ions.
i
49150
"^ 1 I I 1
HC
42
Sullur
fjin enl ',
^
j
1
43
44
45
Ash
Ccr.lc.-.l '.
JJL
45
52
53
54
55
Plume Height
II no sack II.
5_l,52j53
or.d
CO
^
1"
51
aiy
57
)
CO
46 47 48~]49 50
t
Heat Conlen
IC5nTy.scc
t
1
51
52
54
56
57
58
59
60
61
Contact -Personal
62
63
64
b5
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
I
74
75! 76, 77
1 1
g
781
A
55'55l57'58
EST
Part.
3
54
J
54
i
t
53
CO.'
SC
Ye
•si
55
MA
561
TEDCC
so?
57J58
HC
55'56J57
5S
1 i
PL
HEt
L
55
"1
IANCE
)ULE
,"onth
-
57
59
GO
,6l!62j63
1
JNTROL £
NO,
SI1
60
Cl
64
-FICIENCY
HC
62
63
64
„
65i66'67
(*)
CO
li5Juo 67
CO
59^60 1 rJi:62|63|64|65'
corffL
t
Year
-ie
^NCES
PDATE
Month
601
61
1 1 t
TATUS
Day
52
63
0.
tu
34
68
69170
T\l7Z
73
74
75
76177
63 59 70
-ESTIMAT
a I.MEJHO
i. HA
66]
3
62
68
CO
Regl
l>5 66
67 68
ION
°l
HClcO
69170
71 72
73
% Space
Heat
71
72
1TROL REGUL
Re|2
69|70
Co-iicnls
f 1 52 53' 5455156
.'
57
58
59
oO;61i62!63lj--.
65,66 67
66169
70
71
a
o
71
72
O
CJ
/:•:
73
74
75
76^77
r
74
75
76|77
ATIOKS
Ret 3
731
74,75
76
77
73
74I75176I77
79
P
I
73
A
73
A
§
78
A
C
7d
A
g
78
A
A
A
'A
A
cd
80
1
79
P
(79
P
cd
30
2
cd
60
:3
Id
/9|30|
41
79
P
13
a
P
P
P
P
cd
>0
5
cd
JO
6
?
6
6
EPA IOURI 220
3/72
Figure 2.4. Allowable Emissions for Small or
Well-Controlled Sources.
-------
Table 2.1. KANSAS AIR POLLUTION EMISSION REGULATIONS
' Process
All processes
H-SO. mfg
Storage of HC
Ethylene plant
Cupola
i
Cat cracker/petro
Nitric acid mfg
Boilers & indirect heaters
Incinerators
Non-ferrous smelters
Flares
Space heaters
Pollutant Regulated
Part.
28-19-20
28-19-20
28-19-20
28-19-20
28-19-20
28-19-31A
28-19-41
28-19-20
28-19-31A
S02
28-19-22*
28-19-31C*7
28-19-22*
28-19-22*
NOX
28-19-31D*'
28-19-31E*-
HC
28-19-23*
28-19-23*
28-19-23C*
CO
)
•
i
28-19-24*
2.8-19-24*
/
)
* Sources existing on 1-1-72 are exempt.
•t Sources > 250 mm btuh.
-------
source was new (constructed or.enlarged after January 1, 1972)
and a regulation otherwise was applicable, the preprinted nines
were eradicated and the calculated allowable emissions entered.
Using the allowable emission rates obtained from Figure
2.5 the allowable process particulate emissions were calculated
as shown in Figure 2.6. In all cases, allowable emissions were
based on the hourly maximum design rate (card 6, columns 33-39).
Using the allowable emission rates obtained from Figure
2.7 the allowable indirect heat exchanger particulate emissions
were calculated as shown in Figure 2.10. In all cases, allowable
emissions were based on the boiler design capacity (card 3,
columns 18-22).
Allowable incinerator particulate emissions were calculated
using the figures shown on Figure 2.9. These emission rates
were derived from the regulation, using theoretical air
(adjusted to 12% C0»). These figures were obtained from the ADL
Report (EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-23) p. V-6 and 7.
16
-------
10
" 1.0
5 o.i
o.oi
GIVEN: MAX. DESIGN RATE = 3.80 tons/hr
ANNUAL RATE = 2700 tons
FIND: ALLOW. EMISSION
FROM FIGURE READ ALLOW. EMISSION
= 2.7 Ibs/ton
x 2700 TPY = 3.6 tons/yr ALLOW. EMISSION _
THIS NO. OBTAINED FROM CARD 6,
COLUMNS 33 THRU 39. NOTE:
NO. ON NEDS FORM IS NOT
ALWAYS IN TONS NOR IS IT
ALWAYS THE PROCESS WEIGHT. IN
SUCH CASES, THE NO. MUST 3E
CONVERTED TO TONS PER HOUR,
PROCESS WEIGHT.
0.1
10 100
PROCESS WEIGHT, tons/hr.
1000
10,000
Figure 2.5. Kansas Regulation 28-19-20 for Process Emissions.
-------
CO
State
1 2
County
3
4
5
6
AQCR
7
8
9
Plant ID
Number
10
11
12
13
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
POINT SOURCE
Input Form
Name ol Person
Completing Form .
Dale .
City
14 15
Rint
ID
1415
b^on
DC
16
17
Ulffl
Zone
18
[Yearol
Record
CCtSS
UULE
COA
55
16
17
Yearol
Record
16
17
Yearol
Record
16
17
Yearol
!ecord
16
17
fearol
Record
16
17
•^^.
19
Yearol
Record)
20
21 C2
1
SIC
13! 19 20
21
23
24
IPP
Raiss
22
Boiler Design
Capacily
10' BTU hr
18
19
'.A
Dec-
Feb
18
19
20 21
NNUAL
Mar-
Way
20 M
A
:coo *x,
Particu
13
18
19
20
II
19120
22
23
25
26
27
Establishment Name and Address
28
UTM COO
Horizonta
km
24
25J26
' 1,
Primary
Pail.
23i24
THRU
June^
23
25
'UT^
-Sepl-
Nov
24
00 TPO
\
TO
sec
III
21
22 23
25
27
29
30
31
32
33
RDiNATES
Vertical
km
28
29
Secondary
Part.
"6
27
. — "
OPE
Hr day
26
3.6 -
27
7
2R
•or
RA
0
'A'l
?8
SO,
30
31
Primary
"7
29130
TIH
Wk
29
-5l26i2zl28!20
9"i"9'i9|9|9
IV
ii)25
•7*
G
30
U.L
PiO
9
31
32
34 3S
36
37
Height (II)
33J34
35
Li
C
Secondary
S0?
32
33 34
1
36
38
39
40 41
Dram (It)
371
ONTROLE
Plimjry
NO,
35J3GJ37
Particulale
3'i2?
OVr>
31
9
33!34[3S
" -f 'I
BLE E.V.IS
^-
9
Fuel,Processr
Solid Ante
Operating Rale
Cj2i7k^r
'
3
610
0
0
9 9
SlO^
-W
35
9
ft'aiim
73 J4
/
3b
t—
|
3Gf37
4 7
38
39
Te
40
42
43
44
STACK 0
4142 43
QUIP.T.ENT
Secondary) P
NO, I
*2pi
S \tons 'ye,
i
30
9
37133
9" 0
cmOesijn
isle '
:',-T-);i3ii
3.
o
i
0
0
W
2
/
"5s
0
0
—
.
^
HC
42J43
4?«
Ji
,-*
45
46
47 48 49
ATA
Flo* Rale ill3/
44
45^6 47 48
50 51
mini
49
Secondary Primary
HC CO
44
15J46 4?!«
•10
::L L TU~
ISSION
44 -.5
3JJ
^
44
45
--f|-
rtou T
Sull^r
Can en ',
40
41
— i
L ,
,
k
,
4:'
^
uisv..\7
Ash
Cor.le.-l '.
Jj
44
|45
i
i
1
T
A
E5TWA1E
Ss^ HC
4GV":b
^
46J47 48
Heal Co
10» OTU
46l47 43"
i
1 0
50
52
53
54
55
Plume Heighl
II no sack II.
51^52 53
Secondary
CO
'.•OJ51
I
52
(Ions-year
• _l
«a;so
CO
49
S£
OH. t\
ntenl
49
0
00
0
51
0
X
54
5Gl57
56
59
60
61
Contact -Personal
62
631
64
b5- 66
67
eal69
70 71
72
73
3=
3:
O
74
75(761 77
1
78
A
55
EST
Pan.
ift
5/57
Zft
1
53
55
HC
55
P
COViPL
SCHEC
Year
54
•-
56
57
58
J1ATED C(
so?
ssjizp.
56
ANCE
ULE
IhOnlh
S67S7
59
60
61
NTROL El
NO,
59 6o!o1
1
§?
COfl'PL
I
Year
50159
GO
62
63
64165
FICIENCY
HC
2i.
CO
61? 6 2
— 1 —
MCE S
POATE
Monlh
60
61
63J64
15
TATUS
Day
52;63
66
67 68
i'.)
CO
65
64;65
._. .
a.
r>4
G6J67
i
PE
i
t.
66
69170
71
72
73
74
75
76F77
63 69 70 71 |72 73
STIVATION
METHOD I
soik^qco
67[G8
"n1
CO
Reg 1
C5!66
67 68
69/0
1
_J_
74J75
7677
\Space i
Heat 1
7li72
1TROL REGUL
Reg?
69 70
JUSS.Q-T^lb/tonCSSf FIG-3^
Ccn.Tierts
5i:52 5354;55 56
57
53
59160 161; 62
63 64r65!66 67 68:69170
i
71
u
71
P
C
72
0
72
'3
Zi
75 ^76
— I —
_
ATION3
Reg3
73?
7475
76
77
77
73^74
75T76T77
79
P
|
78
A
1
78
A
1
73
A
"w
78
A
|
78
A
A
A
A
A
cd
30
1
I
cd
79 bo
pfz
73
P
cd
80
•3
-H
m
/9
P
73
?
P
P
P
P
cd
3?
5
cd
BO
6
6
6
6
6
EPA (OUR) 220
3/72
Figure 2.6. Calculation of Allowable Emissions for Processes.
-------
to
o
; o.6
CO
-------
SLile
1
2
County
T
4
5
6
AQCR
7
8
9
Flint ID
Number
10
111 12
1
13
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
POINT SOURCE
Input Form
Name ol Person
Completing Form .
Date .
NJ
O
BTUM I
City
14 15
fcinl
ID
16
17
Ulm
Zone
18
pecwd
racw
S-I9-5I
OVJ
10*
\
16
17
Year of
Record
16
17
ttarol
Record
16 17
v
Year of
iecord
16
17
tear ol
iecord
16
17
19
.Year of
Record
20
21
EsfiblUhmenl Nime and Add'ess
22
SIC
18l
19120
21
23
24
IPP
ftxss
22
Boiler Design
Capacity
106BTU hr
18
19 20-
-d'|3
% A
Dec
Fell
13
19
"•-.
NNUAL
Mar-
Kay
29.
21
5
23
25
26
27
28
UTH COC
Noiizonlal
km
24
25,26 27
n
Prirary
Part.
23,24
y
— s
THRU
June
Ailg
22
TOO? *\y ''
Psrticu ate
18
1
ifl
1920
II
19
20
21
'•
#
25
'UT
Sept-
no)
23
\
\
sec
Ml
21
2223
^
1
29
30
31 32
33
RDINATES
Vertical
km
28i29
Secondary
Part.
26
27 28
N
OP
•fr i!ay
up
OR
p^
D
38139
1
40
Diarnflli
37
L E
ry
3T
::
«i
BLE EMISSIONS (tons
NO,
32
Fue^Prccess,
Solid Waste
^s^Cpcrating Ra e
26127"
^s'29
^
>
"•**.
Oi.
7^
*
.-•*"
33 34
35
39
37
33^9
~T
Cui
Sc
w
J
381
.
38
P.VE
C-.1(
NO
5
39
s.
41 4
Z 43
44 45 4G
STACK 0
Temp (°n
40 4
i
NT
«4
L_
*f
,,\
39j-io"!4
1
AtaiimuT. Design
Rale
33J34
3b
3u
3'l33
1
1,
— i
39
I"
•13
?Fi-nary
HC
?42|43
JJ
'f!
\
HC
1;J2
i
Suilur
Oinler.l '.
40' 4
A.
4.
A
i
i
1 42
1
5
\
«
Co
43
47U8U9
ATA
FloxRaerlt3/
•14 45 1.16 47 -'.0
Secondary Pnmj
HC CO
44'45i46 47|48
~ij
SSION
!44 15
'
ESTIMATE
NC
4GU7R8
4G'47j48
CAT r
Ash
nlC^I '.
441451
i
|
A _
so'si
52
53
54
55
Plu.TO Height
r,in) II no slack-It.
S~^
-1
49
J
do
,
CC
50
Sec
r,o
51
one
CO
5T1
.U
ns year
51
52 53
a,y
5?
S?
''ftr
HeaNTonlcn
i
2
*N
6
>>
51
54
56
57
58
59
60
61
' Contact -Personal
62
63
64
65
66 67 68 69
70
71
72
73
o
74
75
76
77
1
7S
A
55 56
EST
Part.
53
54
55
i,
57
58
MATED C
S02
56^57
,
5JJ
HC
53
33
ffl
COMPL
SCHEC
54
55
56
57
IANCE
ULE
5?
T?
5C
59 GO
61 62
DNTROL E
NO,
T2)
sl|
CWIPL
I
5^59
i
60
61
61
—
ANCES
POATE
G0|61
63J64
FICIENCY
HC
02
63|64
1
65J66i67!68 69:70
|
C.)
CO
G5
CO
ff
TATUS
Day
J21G3
G4I65
o_
o
UJ
66-67
|
71
72
73174
75 76 77
G8
ESTI.VATIOft
a iJnETriOD
66 C7J63
CO
Rcgl
C4«5;66,G7j63
TTTi
69
CO
70
71
72
73,74
> Space
Heat •
71
72
UROLRECUL
69 70
i
Co~.-nerls
«
:53J54
i
i
i
55
56i57
58
59i60!6ll62!63
l
64 o5l66|67 68 63)70
| |
f !
71
1
71
It
O
72
73
75
74
75
76<77
[76)77
ATIOHS
Reg 3
73|74 75
76
b
73|74l75i7677
79
P
J
78
A
- o
-------
State
1 2
County
3
4
5
6
AQCR
7
8
9
Plant ID
Number
10
11
12
13
NATIONAL EMISSIONS DATA SYSTEM (NEDS)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
POINT SOURCE
Input Farm
Name ol Person
Completing Form .
. Dale .
Cih;
14
1S
16
Point I
I ID
17
Utm
Zone
18
Year of
Record
16
17
19
Yearol
Record
20
21
Establishment Nane and Address
>2
SIC
is!l920
21
23^241 25
1
IPP
Rocs
22J23
I
26
27
28[29 30l
UTM COt
Horizontal
km
24J25
26l27
i
31
32
'I
ROINATES
Vertical
km
28 29,30
i
31
32
34,3d 36
1 1
37
Height (It)
13i3'»!35
1 !
36
38
39
40
Oia.n (111
37[38
39
41
42I43U4I45
STACK [
Temo ("n
40
41J42
|
43
46
47
48
49
50
51
ATA
Flo* Rale ill'.-minl
44
45
46
.1.
47
48
43j50
52
|53 54 55
Plume Height
II na stack II.
51
52J53;54
1
So
57
58
51
56
57
59
58
r
60
61
62 63 64
S
60
Contact- Pers
bS
66J67
-
63
6l!62 63f64
1
onal
69
70] Til
65lS667i63
I
I
72
73
z:
3:
o
74
75
76
69l7o!71
1 1
72 1-73174
77
1
7K
A
75J76 77
i
75
f
j
73
A
ed
80
1
h
79l?0
P U
ESTIMATED CONTROL EFFICIENCY ('.)
*SOURCE^ A. D. Little report (CPA No. 22-69-23) p. V-6 & 7
EPA (OURI 220
a/72
Figure 2.9. Calculation of Allowable Emissions for Incinerators.
-------
2.3 SPECIFIC PROCESSES
The following is an explanation of .(Variations when, filling
/,
out NEDS forms for some specific sources..
2.3.1 Grain Elevators . .
The operations of a grain elevator included receiving,
transferring and conveying, drying, screening and cleaning,
feed manufacturing (hammermill), and shipping. Of these oper-
ations receiving, shipping, and transferring and conveying were
common to all elevators. Drying, screening and cleaning, and
feed manufacturing were only at some elevators. Individual
NEDS forms were filled out for the above operations. Since
receiving and shipping operations had the same SCC number,
notation was made in the comment section as to which operation
the NEDS form represented.
While there was no clear-cut definition to distinguish
between country elevators and terminal elevators, there were a
few basic differences. Country elevators were the smaller,
rural elevators and usually received grain by truck directly
from the farm. Terminal elevators were few in number , near urban
areas and received several million bushels of grain per year,
mostly by rail.
The following information about percent annual thruput was
compiled by Donald D. Snethen, Air Quality Engineer, Kansas
State Department of Health.
"There are two harvesting periods in the state. They
are for wheat and corn, milo, and soybeans. Wheat harvest
occurs during the late spring or early summer and corn, milo,
22
-------
and soybean harvest occurs during the fall.
Since growing and 'maturity of the grains are
greatly affected-by ;various climatic conditions, it
is not possible to make more than an approximate
prediction as to when the harvest will occur.
However, wheat harvest will generally take place
between mid-June and mid-July. The harvest progresses
from the.south to the north. It will begin in the
southeast and end in the northwest. After harvesting
operations begin at a particular area they will continue
for about two weeks. The heaviest activity will last
for about one week during this two week period.
The fall harvesting season will begin around mid-
September and under normal weather conditions will last
for 20-30 days. The general level of activity during
the fall harvest is greater than that during the
remainder of the year but usually does not reach the
same level as that associated with the wheat harvest.
Generally, rail shipping will increase somewhat
during wheat harvest but will probably not increase
much during the fall harvest. Grain drying is not as
great during the wheat harvest as during the fall
harvest.
An approximate distribution of the activities
at a country elevator is shown in Table 2.2. It
should be noted that the activities at terminal
elevators and feed manufacturing plants can probably
be equally distributed throughout the year.
It should be noted that this information is
to provide a rough guideline for the harvesting
seasons and should be tempered with the fact that
local climatic conditions will govern the start and
duration of harvest seasons."
The Source Emission Report gave the annual amount of
grain received, handled, dried, cleaned, milled and shipped.
The reported amounts received and shipped did not always
agree, however. This was due to increases or decreases in the
amount of grain held in storage from the previous year.
23
-------
Table 2.2.. APPROXIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES
AT COUNTRY ELEVATORS
Quarter
Dec-Feb
Mar -May
June-July
Sept-Nov
Truck Receiving
Wheat
1.5*
20
50
15
Milo, Corn, Soybeans**
15
10
5
70
Grain Drying
20
10
10
60
Feed
Processing
25
25
25
25
Quarter
Dec-Feb
Mar-May
June-July
Sept-Nov.
Rail Shipping
20
30
30
20
Screen/Clean
10
10
70
10
Transfer/Convey
20
20
30
30
* Percent annual thruput.
** Soybean production carried out in eastern half
of state only.
24
-------
The emission factors used in calculating the emission
estimates were based on the use of control devices as follows:
Assumed AP-42
Normal Control Assumed Emission Factor/
Source Device Used Efficiency Ib/ton
TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Shipping Fabric 99.95 1
Receiving Fabric 99.95 1
Transfer & convey Cyclone 33 2
Screen & clean Cyclone 40 . 5
Drying Screen house 14 6
COUNTRY ELEVATORS
Shipping Cyclone 99.75 5
Receiving Cyclone 99.75 5
Transfer & convey None 0 3
Screen & clean None 0 8
Drying None 0 7
If a source had a control system which was better than the
assumed control device, the increased efficiency in calculating
the emissions was considered. For purposes of these calcu-
lations, the efficiencies and uncontrolled emission rates shown
in Table 2.3 were used.
The AP-42 emission factor for barley feed manufacturing was
3 Ib/ton at the cyclone exit. It was assumed that the feed was
manufactured by hammermills. For feed manufacturing of any
grain other than barley, the emission factor was assumed to be
3 Ib/ton.
The Kansas Department of Health did not formally evaluate
grain elevators for compliance with state regulations. This was
because the state considered currently available published infor-
mation used to evaluate processes not to be fully comprehensive
25
-------
Table 2.3 EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS CONTROL SYSTEMS
Type of Control System
Fabric
Cyclone
Fabric & cyclone
Gravity Collector*
Uncontrolled
emissions, Ib/ton
Emission Source
Ship &
Receive
99.95
99.75
99.99
-
2000
Transfer
& Convey
99.0
33
99.7
-
3
Screen &
Clean
99.0
40
99.6
20
8
Drying
99.0
-
•
.
7
NJ
* A dust bin gravity collector is occasionally used as a control device
on screening and cleaning. The State of Kansas Agency calculates the
efficiency of the dust bin to be 58.6%. It is unlikely, however, that
a gravity collector would be more efficient than a cyclone (which is
40% efficient on screening and cleaning, based on information taken
from AP-42). Therefore for this project, the control efficiency for a
dust bin gravity collector is assumed to be 40%.
-------
in considering all factors present in the grain handling indus-
*
try. Official judgment was based upon visual observations
during plant inspections under a variety of climatic and opera-
tional conditions. In the interim until official judgment is
made, the grain elevators were considered in compliance.
The maximum hourly production rates,-necessary for the
calculation of allowable emissions, were usually reported for
grain drying and feed manufacturing (hammermill). Therefore,
allowable emissions for these operations were often calculated.
Since the maximum hourly rate was not given for receiving, trans-
ferring, and conveying or shipping, allowable emissions for
these operations could not be calculated. The maximum hourly
rate for screening and cleaning was seldom given, hence the
allowable emissions for this process were rarely calculated.
2.3.2 Flour Mills
When entering a flour mill into NEDS, one form was entered
for each of the following three operations: receiving, trans-
ferring and conveying, and screening and cleaning the grain.
An additional two forms were filled out, one being for addi-
tional grain cleaning and the other for the flour milling
process.
The flour mill grain cleaning form for additional cleaning
was assumed to include the aspirators, disc separators,
scourers, and stoners. EPA approved emission factors from
AP-42 for these processes combined were 0.2 Ib/ton for barley
or wheat and 0.4 Ib/ton for milo. Both emission factors were
at the cyclone exit. The annual thruput entered on this NEDS
27
-------
form was equal to the\arnount of grain received. The hourly
maximum rate was equal to the lowest maximum rated capacity of
the four operations.
The flour mill grain milling form included the operations
of entoleters, roller mills, sifters, purifiers, pneumatic and
mechanical conveying, feed hammermills, and shipping. The AP-42
emission factor for barley flour milling was 3 Ib/ton at the
cyclone exit. The emission factor for wheat or milo flour
milling was estimated to be also 3 Ib/ton at the cyclone exit.
The assumption was made that if a baghouse control was used it
would be 99.99% efficient for an emission factor of 0.2 Ib/ton
at the filter exit. Also, if a cyclone was used in series
before the baghouse, the emission factor would be 0.1 Ib/ton
(99.995% efficient) at the filter exit. The annual thruput for the
milling was also equal to the amount of grain received and the
maximum hourly rate was equal to the maximum rated capacity of
the roller mills.
2.3.3 Alfalfa Dehydrators
In alfalfa dehydrating plants, receiving, drying, hammer-
milling, pelletizing, pellet cooling, pellet regrinding and
shipping were all combined on one NEDS sheet. The emission
factor of 60 Ib/ton of dry hay was for the total plant emissions
and was from the primary cyclone exit. The primary cyclone was
not entered on the NEDS form as a control device. This was
because the primary cyclone was considered an integral part of
the dehydrating operation and the emission factor was at
the primary cyclone exit. Controls after the primary cyclone
such as fabric filters were entered on the NEDS form.
28
-------
Total particuiate allowable emissions entered on card 5
equaled the sum of the allowable emissions calculated for the
dryer, hammermill, pelletizer, and pellet regrinder. Allowable
emissions for the dryer were calculated on a wet hay basis,
that is, hay into the dryer. The wet hay input to the dryer
was calculated using the ratio of the water evaporation rate
to dry hay operating rate plus the annual amount of dehydrated
hay produced. Example:
4 tons/hr hay dried + 10 tons/hr water evaporated = 14 tons/hr
dryer capacity
Annual production = 9,000 tons/yr dehydrated hay
n nnn 4. / 10 tons/hr water evaporated 00 crm . ,
9,000 tons/yr x . 4 tOns/hr hay dried = 22;500 tons/yj
' * water evaporated
9,000 tons/yr hay + 22,500 tons/yr water = 31,500 tons/yr
input to dryer
If the ratio of water evaporated to dry hay operating rate
was not known, the assumed ratio of 2.5 tons of water evaporated
per ton of dry hay was used in the calculations.
Hammermill and pelletizer operations occured after the
water had evaporated, hence for the purpose of allowable omission
calculations the annual operating rate for each of these pro-
cesses was equal to the annual production reported by the source.
The maximum hourly production rates for these processes were
also reported by the source. The maximum hourly rate entered
on card 6 of the NEDS form was equal to that of the hammermill.
2.3.4 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
Electric generators in some small communities were powered
by reciprocating internal combustion engines. These engines
29
-------
were fueled by a combi-nation of natural gas and oil. Natural
gas was the primary fuel and was used in conjunction with a
small amount.of fuel oil. The emission factor used for the
combustion of natural gas was 770 Ib N02 per MM CF. This factor
was taken from the emission factor book under natural gas
combustion, gas engines. The emission factors for the oil
combustion were assumed to be equal to those for heavy duty
truck diesel engines. The total emission estimates entered on
card 4 of the NEDS form were the sums of the natural gas and
oil emissions.
Allowable emission regulations that applied to these
engines were visual opacity regulations only. This permitted
unlimited amounts of SO,,, NO , HC, and CO to be emitted with
particulate emission compliance based on visual observation.
Therefore, particulate allowable emissions on card 5, columns
18 through 24, were left blank and 9's were entered in columns
25 through 52 to denote no limitation of S0~, NO , HC, and CO
fL X
pollutants.
2.3.5 Foundry Operations
The following procedure was used in calculating the esti-
mated emissions from foundry sand handling and grinding and
also from mold ovens.
2.3.5.1 Foundry Sand Handling and Grinding - Emissions could
only be calculated when the exit gas volume (scf) of the stack
was determined. The emission factor used here was 40.75 gr/scf.
This number was taken from "Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron
and Steel Industry", PHS Publication No. 999-AP-l (1963). This
30
-------
number represents total emissions from sand handling and
grinding operations.
When this emission factor was used, a "4" was placed in
column 66 of card 4.
2.3.5.2 Foundry Mold Ovens - Emissions could only be calcu-
lated when the exit gas volume (scf) of the stack was deter-
mined. The emission factor for hydrocarbon emissions was
6.0 Ib/mm scf. This number was calculated using data from Air
Pollution Engineering Manual, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service, page 314.
In summary, the following emission factors were used:
Operation
Sand handling
and grinding
Mold Ovens
Uncontrolled Emissions, Ib/imu scf
Part
6000
24
IIC
(expressed as methane)
0
6.0
Ccl . 4
Entry
:ol. 66
4
4. -
Col. 69
0
4
2.3.6 Stone Quarry
Stone quarry operations included primary crushing, secondary
crushing, tertiary crushing, recrushing and screening, fines
mill, miscellaneous operations of screening, conveying and
handling, and also open storage. The emission factors for
primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing, and the fines mill
were all based on raw material entering the primary crusher.
Since the source emission reports provided approximate annual
production, it was assumed that all material processed entered
the primary crusher and therefore annual production equaled raw
31
-------
material processed. The emission factors for the miscellaneous
operations of screening, conveying, and handling, and for
storage pile losses were based on tons of stored product. The
assumption was made that all the product was at one point
stored* Therefore, the annual production was entered as tons
of stored product. The emission factor for recrushing and
screening was based on thruput for that operation.
The address'assigned to portable rock crushers was that
of the home office, city, and county. Permanent crusher instal-
lations were given the address of their permanent location.
The allowable emissions for the stone quarry operations
of primary crushing, secondary crushing, tertiary crushing,
and the fines mill were based on the hourly maximum rate for
the individual operation and the total annual production. The
allowable emissions for the recrushing and screening operation
were based on the maximum hourly rate and total annual produc-
tion for that operation only. Allowable emissions for the
miscellaneous operations of screening, conveying, and handling,
and also storage pile losses were based on visual opacity regu-
lations.
2.3.7 Asphalt Batching
Asphalt batching sources consisted of portable or permanent
installations. Portable asphalt batching plants were assigned
the address (city and county) of the home office. Permanent
installations were listed at the address where the plant was
located.
32
-------
2.3.8 Gray Iron Cupola
Calculation of allowable CO emissions from new cupolas in
gray iron foundries was calculated as follows. Kansas Regula-
tion 28-19-24 was a design standard rather than an absolute
emission limitation. While the standards seemed stringent
enough to provide complete oxidation of the CO, Publication
AP-42 stated that where an afterburner was used, CO emissions
were 9 Ib/ton.
Therefore, cupola CO emissions were calculated as follows:
CO emissions; Ib/ton
Cupolas built prior to
January 1, 1972
Cupolas built after to
January 1, 1972
Uncontrolled
145
145
Controlled
9
9
Allowable
9999999
9
33
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-74-007
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emissions Data System Point Source Inventory
for the State of Kansas
5. REPORT DATE
November 1973
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
John M. Zoller
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Suite 13, Atkinson Square
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AE132
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1001
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) point source coding forms were
completed for point sources in the State of Kansas. Input data were in-
corporated into the NEDS data bank and used to estimate air pollutant
emissions in Kansas. The report summarizes the methods used to obtain
the data.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Emission inventory
Point sources
Kansas
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Meld/Group
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
40
2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-34-
------- |