United States
Environmental Protection
Industrial Environmental Research EPA 6OO/2-78-004z
Laboratory December 1978
Cincinnati OH 46268
Research and Development
Source Assessment
Charcoal Manufacturing
State of the Art
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-004z
December 1978
SOURCE ASSESSMENT: CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING
State of the Art
by
C. M. Moscowitz
Monsanto Research Corporation
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1874
Project Officer
H. Kirk Willard
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our
environment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficient-
ly and economically.
This report contains information on air emissions from the
charcoal manufacturing industry. This study was conducted to
provide a better understanding of the distribution and character-
istics of emissions from charcoal manufacture. Further informa-
tion on this subject may be obtained from the Food and Wood
Products Branch, Industrial Pollution Control Division.
David G- Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
1X1
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility
for insuring that pollution control technology is available for
stationary sources to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and solid waste legisla-
tion. If control technology is unavailable, inadequate, or
uneconomical, then financial support is provided for the develop-
ment of the needed control techniques for industrial and extrac-
tive process industries. Approaches considered include: process
modifications, feedstock modifications, add-on control devices,
and complete process substitution. The scale of the control tech-
nology programs ranges from bench- to full-scale demonstration
plants.
IERL has the responsibility for investing tax dollars in programs
to develop control technology for a large number of operations
(more than 500) in the chemical industries. As in any technical
program, the first question to answer is, "Where are the unsolved
problems?" This is a determination which should not be made on
superficial information; consequently, each of the industries is
being evaluated in detail to determine if there is, in EPA's judg-
ment, sufficient environmental risk associated with the process
to invest in the development of control technology.
Monsanto Research Corporation has contracted with EPA to investi-
gate the environmental impact of various industries which repre-
sent sources of pollution in accordance with EPA's responsibility
as outlined above. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as Program
Manager in this overall program entitled, "Source Assessment,"
which includes the investigation of sources in each of four
categories: combustion, organic materials, inorganic materials,
and open sources. Dr. Dale A. Denny of the Industrial Processes
Division at Research Triangle Park serves as EPA Project Officer.
Reports prepared in the Source Assessment Program are of two
types: Source Assessment Documents and State-of-the-Art Reports.
The major difference between the two is the quantity and quality
(reliability) of the data reported.
Source Assessment Documents contain data on emissions from spe-
cific industries gathered from literature, government agencies,
and cooperating companies. Emissions sampling and analysis are
also performed by the contractor when the available information
does not adequately characterize the source emissions. The
IV
-------
intent of these documents is to provide all of the information
necessary for IERL to decide whether emissions reduction is
required.
State-of-the-Art Reports contain information on emissions from
specific industries gathered from literature, government agencies,
and cooperating companies. However, no emissions sampling of
industries is conducted by the contractor in a state-of-the-art
study. Data quality available may be poor and, if so, this is
called out in the report. The intent of the report is to provide
an overview of the industry and to indicate where data are lack-
ing. Results of such studies aid EPA in deciding if further,
indepth study of the industry is warranted. Such reports have
potential utility to government, industry, and other researchers
having specific needs and interests.
This state-of-the-art study was undertaken to provide information
on air emissions from charcoal manufacturing. The study was
initiated by IERL-RTP in July 1975 with Dr. R. A. Venezia of the
Industrial Processes Division at RTF serving as EPA Task Officer.
Project responsibility was transferred to lERL-Cincinnati in
October 1975, and Dr. H. Kirk Willard of the Food and Wood Prod-
ucts Branch of the Industrial Pollution Control Division served
as EPA Task Officer until the study was completed.
v
-------
ABSTRACT
This document reviews the state of the art of charcoal manufac-
ture. Information collected from literature, government agencies,
and industrial sources was used to evaluate process chemistry,
process technology, industry population and geographical distribu-
tion, airborne emissions and environmental effects, control
technology, and future trends in the industry.
Charcoal is the solid material remaining following the pyrolysis
of carbonaceous materials, primarily hardwoods. It is produced
in both batch and continuous facilities and then briquetted. In
1975 an estimated 590,000 metric tons of charcoal were produced
to satisfy its primary use as a recreational fuel. Charcoal
production is concentrated in the southeastern quadrant of the
United States, with Missouri dominating production.
Emissions estimates were made for the following species: partic-
ulate, carbon monoxide, methanol, methane, hydrogen, polycyclic
organic materials, nitrogen oxides, and other gases. For cri-
teria pollutants, controlled emissions from charcoal manufacture
are estimated to range from 0.03% to 0.05% of the total national
emissions of these pollutants. Source severity (the ratio of a
calculated maximum ground level concentration from a representa-
tive source to a defined allowable concentration) values for
controlled emissions from batch kilns range from 0.016 to 3.7,
for continuous furnaces from 0.0097 to 4.6, and for briquetting
operations from 0.27 to 1.6. The affected population for
charcoal manufacture in controlled facilities ranges from 0 per-
sons to 247 persons.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers
the period July 1975 to October 1977.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword . . . „ iii
Preface iv
Abstract vi
Figures viii
Tables viii
Abbreviations and Symbols ix
Conversion Factors and Metric Prefixes x
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 2
3. Source Description 6
Source definition 6
Process description 7
Industry status 17
4. Emissions 21
Characterization of emissions 21
Potential environmental effects 23
5. Emission Control Technology 30
Batch production 30
Continuous production 31
Briquetting 32
6. Growth and Nature of the Industry 33
References 34
Appendices
A. Charcoal producers in the United Stages 39
B. Derivation of source severity equations 43
C. Examples of source severity calculations 55
D. Emission factor compilation . 58
E. Industry comment to Source Assessment: Charcoal
Manufacturing, State of the Art 65
Glossary 76
Vll
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 "Missouri-type" charcoal kiln 12
2 Herreshoff multiple hearth furnace 15
3 Charcoal briquetting flow diagram 17
4 General distribution of x/F as a function of distance
from the source, showing the two teneral roots to
the plume dispersion equation 29
5 Schematic of charcoal emission incinerator 31
TABLES
1 Mass Emissions From Charcoal Manufacture 3
2 Estimated Contribution of Charcoal Production to State
Total Criteria Emissions 3
3 Source Severities for Representative Charcoal Manu-
facturing Plants 4
4 Amount and Composition of Charcoal Produced at
Different Maximum Temperatures 9
5 Composition Range for Noncondensible Products of
Charcoal Manufacture 10
6 Compounds Formed by Wood Carbonization 11
7 Geographical Distribution of Charcoal Manufacturers . .20
8 Range of Emission Factors for Charcoal Manufacture . . 22
9 Range of Time-Averaged Maximum Ground Level Concentra-
tions and Source Severities for Charcoal Manufacture 26
10 Estimated National Emissions From Charcoal Production . 27
11 Estimated Controlled Criteria Emissions by State ... 28
12 Affected Population Around Controlled Representative
Charcoal Manufacturing Sources 29
Vill
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
AR — Q/acTru
a,b,c,d,f — constants (Appendix B)
BR H2/2c2
e ~ 2.72
F — hazard factor; for criteria emissions, F is the
ambient air quality standard; for noncriteria
emissions, F is a reduced TLV
H — emission height
h — stack height
Q — emission rate
S — source severity
TLV — threshold limit value
t — short-term averaging time (3 min)
t — averaging time
u — wind speed
u — average wind speed
x — downwind dispersion distance from source of emission
release
y — horizontal distance from centerline of dispersion
ir — 3.14
a — standard deviation of horizontal dispersion
a — standard deviation of vertical dispersion
Z
X — downwind ground level concentration at reference
coordinate (x, y)
"x — average ground level concentration
Y — maximum ground level concentration of a pollutant
^max
X -- time-averaged maximum ground level concentration of
max a pollutant
IX
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND METRIC PREFIXES
To convert from
Degree Celsius (°C)
Degree Kelvin (K)
Joule (J)
Kilogram (kg)
Kilogram (kg)
Kilometer2 (km2)
Meter (m)
Meter3 (m3)
Metric ton
Metric ton
CONVERSION FACTORS
To
Degree Fahrenheit
Degree Celsius
British thermal unit
Pound-mass (Ib-mass
avoirdupois)
Ton (short, 2,000 Ib-mass)
Mile2
Foot
Foot3
Pound-mass
Ton (short, 2,000 Ib-mass)
Multiply by
= 1.8
tj
32
= t° - 273.15
JN.
9.479 x 10"1*
2.205
1.102 x 10~3
3.860 x 10"1
3.281
3.531 x 101
2.205 x 103
1.102
Prefix
Giga
Kilo
Mega
Milli
Symbol
G
k
M
m
METRIC PREFIXES
Multiplication factor
109
103
106
ID'3
Example
1 GJ = 1 x 109 joules
Ikg=lxl03 grams
1 MJ = 1 x 106 joules
1 mm = 1 x 10~3 meter
Standard for Metric Practice. ANSI/ASTM Designation:
E 380-76e, IEEE std 268-1976, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976. 37 pp.
x
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Although the primary current use of charcoal is as a recreational
cooking fuel, its manufacture has a long and interesting history
in the United States. In the Colonial period, charcoal was pro-
duced as a fuel for iron smelting. As metallurgical charcoal
requirements peaked toward the end of the 19th century, byproduct
recovery of acetic acid and methanol for the synthetic organic
chemical industry became important to the growth of charcoal pro-
duction. Production of acetic acid and methanol stimulated
growth into the 20th century with charcoal becoming the byproduct
until more efficient and less expensive acetic acid and methanol
synthesis routes were commercialized. Subsequently, charcoal
production declined until all acetic acid and methanol recovery
plants had ceased operation. Then charcoal once again became the
primary product. Demand for charcoal as a recreational fuel has
boosted production to an estimated 590,000 metric tonsa annually,
greater than the previous peak production of 500,000 metric tons
in 1909.
Charcoal manufacturing is not a homogeneous industry. It uses a
variety of raw materials and operating practices. However, pro-
duction can be generally classified into either batch or con-
tinuous operations. Batch units are small, manually loaded and
unloaded kilns producing typically 16 metric tons of charcoal
during a 3-wk cycle, while continuous units produce an average of
2.5 metric tons/hr of charcoal. Both of these processes, as well
as the general process chemistry, are described in detail.
This report discusses air emissions from the manufacture of char-
coal. Emission points within the manufacturing process are
identified, types and quantities of emissions are delineated, and
characteristics of air pollutants are listed. State and national
emissions of criteria pollutants from the charcoal industry are
compared to total state and national emissions from all sources.
The maximum average ground level concentrations of emissions from
typical charcoal plants are compared to a corresponding ambient
air quality. The effect of control technology is also discussed.
Possible future trends in the industry are delineated.
1 metric ton equals 106 grams; conversion factors and metric
system prefixes are presented in the prefatory pages of this
report.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
Charcoal is manufactured by the pyrolysis of carbonaceous mater-
ials, primarily hardwoods, in batch kilns or continuous furnaces.
This document examines air emissions from the basic manufacturing
processes and from the formation of charcoal briquets. The
manufacture of activated carbon is not included because it repre-
sents a declining fraction of total charcoal plus activated
carbon production.
Estimated 1975 production of charcoal was 590,000 metric tons
with an estimated distribution of 55% manufactured in continuous
furnaces and the remaining 45% manufactured in batch kilns. On a
number basis, this production represents an estimated 1,330 batch
kilns and 16 continuous furnaces. There are also an estimated
32 charcoal briquetting plants in the United States. Charcoal
production is located primarily in the southeastern quadrant of
the United States. Missouri produces an estimated 45% of
national production.
During the manufacturing process, emissions of particulate, car-
bon monoxide, hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and nitrogen oxides are
released to the atmosphere. Table 1 presents the range in uncon-
trolled emission factors for these species, estimated national
emissions from the charcoal industry based on the current appli-
cation of control technology, and the percent contribution of
charcoal production to total national criteria emissions from all
sources. Ranges are reported for emission factors because of the
poor quality of the input data. Table 2 shows the estimated
contribution of charcoal manufacture to the emission of criteria
pollutants on a state-by-state basis for states in which charcoal
production was identified.
For use in assessing the environmental impact of charcoal manu-
facturing, representative emission sources were defined for batch
kilns, continuous furnaces, and briquetting operations. A rep-
resentative batch kiln produces approximately 200 metric tons of
charcoal annually, and there are 12 kilns at a typical charcoal
batch plant. Every kiln has eight emission stacks each approxi-
mately 4.6 m high. A representative continuous furnace is
defined as having an average annual production rate of approxi-
mately 20,000 metric tons. Each furnace has one emission point
a stack 21 m high. An average briquetting facility processes
-------
TABLE 1. MASS EMISSIONS FROM CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE
Uncontrolled emission
factor, g/kg
Total annual
controlled emissions
Charcoal
Emission species
Particulate
Carbon monoxide
Methanol
Acetic acid.
Other gases
Methane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen oxides
Polycyclic organic materials
manufacture
28
160
67
102
7
44
0.5
0
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
12
.004
406
179
76
116
60
57
2
-
Briquetting
7 to 42
c
c
c
_c
c
c
in
1975, .
metric tons
6.6
3.6
1.5
2.3
1.6
9.9
1.2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
103
10"
TO1*
10"
103
103
102
7.3
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
0.90
9.3
4.0
1 .7
2.6
1.4
1.3
4.5
10*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10"
10"
10" )
10" J
10" I
10"
102
Percent of
national
emissions
from all
sources
0.04 to 0.5 .
0.04 to 0.04
J _
0.2 to 0.2Q'e
_
_g
0.03
_g
Controlled emissions were determined based on the following assumptions: 25% of batch kilns
have 85% efficient afterburning, 100% of continuous furnaces have 95% efficient afterburning,
and 100% of briquetting plants have 95% efficient particulate control.
Includes tar, oil, and pyroacids.
No information available.
The calculation rounded to one significant figure yields the same number for high and low end
of the range.
eMethanol, acetic acid, and other gases summed and compared to national hydrocarbon emissions.
Includes compounds identified in the literature as "higher hydrocarbons" (assumed to be non-
methane noncondensibles), ethane, formaldehyde, and unsaturated hydrocarbons (e.g., ethylene).
applicable.
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION OF CHARCOAL PRODUCTION
TO STATE TOTAL CRITERIA EMISSIONS
State
Percent of emissions
Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
ulate monoxide carbons oxides
Arkansas
California
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin
to 6
:1 to 2
1 to 21
:l to 8
:l to 2
:l to 1
:1 to 1
2 to 3
<1 to 1
5 to 6
5 to 6
<1 to 1
Based on the summation of methanol, acetic acid, poly-
cyclic organic materials, and other gases.
-------
approximately 18,000 metric tons of briquets annually and has a
7.6 m emission height.
To evaluate the hazard potential of the representative sources,
the source severity, S, was defined as the ratio of the time-
averaged maximum ground level concentration of a pollutant,
Xmaxf determined using Gaussian plume dispersion methodology, to
a hazard factor, F. For criteria emissions, F is the ambient air
quality standard. For noncriteria emissions, F is a reduced
TLV®. Values for S, shown in Table 3, are based on both con-
trolled and uncontrolled emissions.
TABLE 3. SOURCE SEVERITIES FOR REPRESENTATIVE
CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS
a
Source severity, S
Batch kiln
Emission species
d
Particulate
Carbon monoxide
Methanol
Acetic acid^
Other gases
Methane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen oxides
Polycyclic organic materials
Uncontrolled
1.7
0.11
1.2
20
1.0
to 25
to 0.12
to 1.4
to 23
to 8.5
9
_g
2.8
19
Controlled13
0.26
0.016
0.19
3.0
0.2
to 3.7
to 0.018
to 0.21
to 3.4
to 1.3
9
_g
3.0
2.9
Continuous furnace
Uncontrolled
3.0
0.19
2.2
35
1.7
to 44
to 0.22
to 2.5
to 39
to 15
9
_g
4.2
34
Controlled
0.15
0.0097
0.11
1.7
0.09
to 2
to 0
to 0
to 2
to 0
9
_y
4.6
1.7
.2
.011
.12
.0
.8
Briquetting
Uncontrolled
5.4 to 32
e
e
e
@
e
Controlled
0.27 to 1.6
e
e
e
e
e
Emissions assumed constant over period of emission, batch 2,971 hr/yr, continuous and briquetting 8,000 hr/yr.
Also assumed one emission point per source.
b
Based on 85% control efficiency for particulate, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons.
Based on 95% control efficiency for particulate, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons.
d
Includes tar, oil, and pyroacids.
No information.
Includes compounds identified in the literature as "higher hydrocarbons" (assumed to be nonmethane noncondensibles),
ethane, formaldehyde, and unsaturated hydrocarbons (e.g., ethylene).
n
'Methane and hydrogen are simple asphyxiants, have no TLV or F and therefore no S.
Affected population is defined as the population around a
representative plant that is exposed to an average ground level
concentration (x") for which x"/F is either greater than 0.1 or
greater than 1.0. Among the emissions from charcoal manufacture,
the largest population is affected by nitrogen oxides, followed
in decreasing order by particulate, acetic acid, polycyclic
organic materials, other gases, and methanol. For x/F greater
than 1.0, the affected populations range from 0 to 11 persons,
for x/F greater than 0.1, the range is from 0 to 247 persons.
-------
Batch kilns do not typically have emission control devices. How-
ever, some kilns utilize afterburners to reduce emissions. Con-
tinuous furnace charcoal production facilities are all believed
to use some level of afterburning to reduce emissions. After-
burning is estimated to reduce emissions of particulates, carbon
monoxide, and hydrocarbons by a minimum of 80%. Briquetting
operations can control particulate emissions with centrifugal
collection (65% control) or fabric filtration (99% control).
The future growth in charcoal production is projected to be
approximately 4%/yr. This will result in a 22% growth in pro-
duction over the 5-yr period from 1975 to 1980, and, if emission
control efficiency and application remain constant, an increase
in emissions of 22% over the same period.
-------
SECTION 3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE DEFINITION
Charcoal is the solid carbonaceous residue remaining following
the pyrolysis (carbonization or destructive distillation) of
carbonaceous raw materials. Raw materials can be almost any
carbonaceous material of either animal, vegetable, or mineral
origin, but medium to dense hardwoods such as beech, birch, hard
maple, hickory, and oaks are the principal commercial raw materi-
als (92% in 1961) (1, 2). Other raw materials include softwoods
(primarily longleaf and slash pine), nutshells, fruit pits, coal,
vegetable wastes, and papermill residues (1, 3-5).
Charcoal is used primarily as a recreational fuel, but in some
instances its manufacture may be considered as a solid waste dis-
posal technique. As noted above, many raw materials for charcoal
manufacture are wastes, and charcoal manufacture is also used as
(1) Toole, A. W. , P. H. Lane, C. Arbogast, Jr., W- R. .Smith,
R. Peter, G- Locke, E. Beglinger, and E. C. O. Erickson.
Charcoal Production, Marketing, and Use. Forest Products
Laboratory Report No. 2213, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wiscon-
sin; Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville,
North Carolina; and Lake States Forest Experiment Station,
St. Paul, Minnesota, July 1961. 137 pp.
(2) Doying, E. G. Activated Carbon. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclo-
pedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 4. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, New York, 1964. pp. 149-158.
(3) Panshin, A. J., E. S. Harrar, J. S. Bethel, and W. J. Baker.
Forest Products, Their Sources, Production, and Utilization.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1962.
pp. 404-424.
(4) Stamm, A. J., and E. E. Harris. Chemical Processing of Wood,
Chemical Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York, 1953.
pp. 440-468.
(5) Nut Shells and Pits Reduced to Profit. Actual Specifying
Engineer, 26(4):91-92, 1971.
-------
an outlet for disposal of forest management refuse (6, 7). In
fact, charcoal manufacture has been responsible for the elimina-
tion of some teepee burners used for disposal of wood waste (per-
sonal communication, Bruce L. Winter, Clorox Company, 26 August
1977) .
Charcoal is produced batchwise or continuously by heating the raw
materials in kilns or furnaces with limited quantities of air.
Product charcoal is then either sold as raw bulk charcoal, made
into briquets, or activated by further heat treatment.
In 1975 an estimated 80% to 90% of charcoal was briquetted (per-
sonal communication, R. Massengale, Missouri Conservation Depart-
ment, 31 July 1975) , an increase from 69% in 1961 (8). Activated
carbon production comprised 14% of charcoal briquet and activated
carbon production in 1972, a decline from 18% in 1967 (9, 10).
Therefore, this assessment of charcoal manufacture includes the
carbonization and the briquetting processes but not production of
activated carbon.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Chemistry
The elemental composition of wood, regardless of species, is
approximately 50% carbon, 6% hydrogen, and 44% oxygen on an ash-
free, moisture-free basis; the approximate chemical formula is
C42H60°28 (ID- Nitrogen, sulfur, and ash content are all
(6) Hamilton, L. S., and F. Fontana. Arnot Forest's Portable
Steel Charcoal Kiln. Northern Logger, 18(1):19, 35, 1969.
(7) Boldt, C. E., and C. Arbogast, Jr. Charcoal Kiln Operation
for Improved Timber Stands. Forest Products Journal, 10(1):
42-44, 1960.
(8) Charcoal and Charcoal Briquette Production in the United
States, 1961. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C., February 1963. 33 pp.
(9) Gum and Wood Chemicals, SIC 2861, Preliminary Report, 1972
Census of Manufacturers, Industry Series. MC72(P)-28-F-l,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., January 1974.
6 pp.
(10) Industrial Inorganic Chemicals Not Elsewhere Classified,
SIC 2819, Preliminary Report, 1972 Census of Manufacturers,
Industry Series. MC72(P)-28A-4, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C., December 1973. 14 pp.
(11) Rieck, H. G. , Jr., E. G. Locke, and E. Tower. Charcoal,
Industrial Fuel from Controlled Pyrolysis of Sawmill Wastes.
The Timberman, 46(2):49-54, 1944.
-------
typically below 1%, while moisture content on a dry wood basis
for hardwoods ranges from 40% to 99% (normally 50%) (4, 12-14).
Hardwood charcoal is manufactured by a four-step pyrolysis proc-
ess. Heat is applied to the wood, and as the temperature rises
to 100°C, water and highly volatile hydrocarbons are distilled
off. The wood temperature remains at approximately 100°C until
the moisture content of the wood has been removed, at which time
the volume of distillate production declines and the wood temper-
ature begins to climb. During the next stage, the wood tempera-
ture rises with heat input to approximately 275°C, and hydrocar-
bon distillate yield increases. As the third stage begins in the
vicinity of 275°C, external application of heat is no longer
required since the carbonization reactions become exothermic.
During this stage, the wood temperature rises to 350°C, and the
bulk of hydrocarbon distillates are produced. At approximately
350°C, exothermic pyrolysis ends, and during the final stage,
heat is again applied, raising the wood temperature to 400°C to
500°C to remove more of the less volatile, tarry materials from
the product charcoal (3, 11).
Wood, being a complex organic material, yields a wide variety of
products upon the application of heat. A generalization of the
pyrolysis of wood can be expressed as follows:
2Cit2H60°28 "• 3C16H10°2 + 28H2O + 5C02 + 3CO + 2C2Hi,O2 + CH3OH + C23H22Oi,
(wood) (charcoal) (water) (carbon (carbon (acetic (methanol) (wood tar) M )
dioxide) monoxide) acid)
This reaction is exothermic, and the heat evolved is approxi-
mately 6% of the total heat of combustion of the wood (11).
Products of charcoal manufacture are divided into four categories:
charcoal, noncondensible gases, pyroligneous liquor, and insolu-
ble tars. Products and product distribution are variable depend-
ing on raw materials and carbonization parameters. Consequently,
numbers presented as product yields are ranges or typical values.
A laboratory carbonization of dry hard maple gives an indication
of the relative breakdown of products: 31% charcoal, 25%
(12) Kanury, A. M., and P. L. Blackshear, Jr. Some Considera-
tions Pertaining to the Problem of Wood-Burning. Combustion
Science and Technology, 1 (5):339-355, 1970.
(13) Air Pollution Control for Missouri Charcoal Kilns. Sverdrup
& Parcel and Associates, Inc. Prepared for The Missouri Air
Conservation Commission, February 1971. 29 pp.
(14) Gallagher, F. P. Utilization of Off Gases from Herreshoff-
Furnace Charcoal Production. In: Proceedings of the llth
Biennial Conference of the Institute for Briquetting and
Agglomeration, Sun Valley, Idaho, 1969. pp. 27-29.
8
-------
noncondensible gases, 39% pyroligneous liquor, and 5% insoluble
tars (15).
Charcoal is the solid carbonaceous residue remaining following
the pyrolysis of wood. It is a complex combination of carbon and
hydrocarbons with composition dependent on distillation tempera-
ture as indicated in Table 4. Charcoal produced at 400°C has a
volatile content of 15% to 25%. The volatile fraction in the
product charcoal decreases with increasing distillation tempera-
ture as evidenced by the declining charcoal yields with increas-
ing temperature presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4. AMOUNT AND COMPOSITION OF CHARCOAL PRODUCED
AT DIFFERENT MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES (4)
Distillation
Composition of charcoal, %
Yield of
charcoal
on the
dry weight
temperature, °
1,
1,
200
250
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
000
100
C Carbon
52
70
73
77
89
92
92
95
96
96
96
.3
.6
.2
.7
.2
.2
.8
.7
.1
.6
.4
Hydrogen
6.
5.
4.
4.
3.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
2
9
5
1
6
4
0
7
5
4
Oxygen
41.
24.
21.
18.
6.
5.
4.
3.
3.
2.
3.
4
2
9
1
7
2
8
3
2
9
2
of wood, %
91
65
51
40
31
29
27
26
26
26
26
.8X
.2
.4
.6
.0
.1
.8
.7
.6
.8
.1
Distribution of noncondensible gaseous products varies widely
because of the sensitivity of product distribution to carboniza-
tion operating parameters. Average noncondensible gas composi-
tion ranges are presented in Table 5. The heating value of the
noncondensibles is approximately 11 MJ/m3 (4, 16).
The condensible portion of wood pyrolysis products is divided
into two fractions: water-soluble pyroligneous liquor and insolu-
ble tars. Pyroligneous liquor is an 80% to 90% aqueous solution
with major hydrocarbon components of acetic acid and methanol.
(15) Wood Chemistry, Volume 2, Second Edition. L. E. Wise and
E. C. Jahn, eds. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York,
New York, 1952. pp. 826-851.
(16) Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry, Seventh Edition.
J. A. Kent, ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
New York, 1974. pp. 475-479.
9
-------
TABLE 5. COMPOSITION RANGE FOR NONCONDENSIBLE
PRODUCTS OF CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE (3, 16, 17)
Percent of
Product noncondensibles
Carbon dioxide 50 to 60
Carbon monoxide 22 to 33
Methane 3 to 18
Hydrogen 1 to 4
Higher hydrocarbons 1 to 6
"Higher hydrocarbons" are not defined
by Reference 16, but are assumed to be
nonmethane, noncondensible hydrocarbons.
Acetic acid is 4% to 7% of the condensible products (pyroligeneous
liquor plus insoluble tars), methanol is 3% to 6%, and insoluble
tars are 8% to 13% (3).
The insoluble tars can be further divided into three categories:
light oils with boiling point below 200°C (aldehydes, ketones,
acids, and esters); heavy oils boiling above 200°C (containing
phenolic components); and pitch (16). Table 6 lists over 200 com-
pounds that have been found in the liquid products from the
destructive distillation of wood.
Technology
Batchwise Charcoal Production—
Charcoal was historically produced in pits or earthen kilns in
which seasoned hardwood, about 1.2 m long and 150 mm to 200 mm in
diameter, were piled in quantities of up to 90 cords. The wood
was ignited, and covered by an earthen enclosure to limit but not
prevent air leakage to the wood. Approximately 20 days were
required to obtain yields of 20% (1).
Kilns of a variety of designs, capacities, and materials of con-
struction are currently in operation, but the most common is the
"Missouri-type" kiln shown in Figure 1 (13, 18). This type of
kiln is constructed of concrete, typically processing 45 to 50
cords of wood per cycle. A typical cycle may be within the
following time frame:
(17) Hartwig, J. R. Control of Emissions from Batch-type Char-
coal Kilns. Forest Products Journal, 21(9):49-50, 1971.
(18) Heflin, E. L., and R. Massengale. Missouri Charcoal Direc-
tory. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,
Missouri, April 1973. 10 pp.
10
-------
TABLE 6. COMPOUNDS FORMED BY WOOD CARBONIZATION (15)
From WOOD CHEMISTRY, Second Edition, edited by L. E. Wise and E. C. Jahn
1952 Litton Educational Publishing, Inc.
Reprinted by permission of Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Formula
NHj
CH2O
CHZ02
CHi/>
C2H202
c2H(t°2
C2H,02
C2H»02
C2H60
C2H7"
c3Hlt°2
C3H60
C3H60
C3H60
C,H602
C3H602
C3H«02
C3H80
C3H80
C3H802
C3H,S
CUH203
CitH^O
CifttgO
C<»H602
Ci»H602
CUH60Z
CuH502
-------
Figure 1. "Missouri-type" charcoal kiln (13).
1 to 2 days
5 to 8 days
10 to 14 days
1 to 2 days
load
pyrolysis
cool
unload (19)
After the wood is manually loaded in the kiln, a fire is started,
usually at the bottom center of the kiln, by igniting easily com-
bustible materials placed at this point during the loading.
During ignition, a large amount of air is necessary for the rapid
combustion of the starting fuels to insure the heat level needed
for pyrolysis. This air is supplied through groundline ports in
the kiln side walls or through temporary openings under the kiln
door. In some cases, the kiln doors remain open until the burn
is adequately started.
Auxiliary ceiling ports in some kilns serve as temporary stacks
and aid ignition by causing greater amounts of air to be drawn
into the kiln through the air ports. They also aid removal of
smoke from the kiln.
Ignition patterns are generally similar for all types of kilns.
During the first 5 min to 15 min, temperatures in the ignition
(19) Maxwell, W. H. Stationary Source Testing of a Missouri-Type
Charcoal Kiln. Contract No. 68-02-1403 (PB 258 695), Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, Missouri, August
1976. 178 pp.
12
-------
area will rise rapidly to about 540°C. After much of the fuel
has been burned, the temperatures will quickly drop, often to as
low as 150°C. The extent of the temperature drop is closely
related to conditions of air supply and to the moisture content
of the charge. With the establishment of a suitable ignition
zone, however, the temperature gradually increases to about
280°C, and the ignition period is considered complete.
Satisfactory carbonization depends primarily on maintenance of
proper burning conditions in the pyrolysis zone. Sufficient heat
must be generated first to dry the wood and then to maintain
temperatures necessary for efficient carbonization. At the same
time, the burning must be limited so that only sufficient heat is
present to produce good charcoal. Temperature control is
attained by varying the size of the air port openings providing
air for combustion of wood volatiles.
For the production of good-quality charcoal, kiln temperatures
from about 450°C to 510°C are required. Prolonged higher tempera-
tures will reduce the yield of charcoal without necessarily
upgrading it for recreational use. If, on the other hand, pyroly-
sis temperatures remain low, the charcoal may be too "smoky" for
domestic use, and larger than normal amounts of brands (partially
charred wood) will be produced.
The direction and rate of spread of the pyrolysis zone is associ-
ated with a number of factors, such as location of air ports and
stacks, volume and velocity of the incoming air, wood size and
moisture content, piling of the charge, and design of the kiln.
Pyrolysis generally proceeds at a faster rate at the upper part
of the charge, where higher temperatures are available for longer
periods of time. Less rapid pyrolysis takes place near the kiln
floor, where the average temperature usually is lowest. In the
"Missouri-type" kiln, combustion and carbonization progresses
from the top of the kiln to the floor and from the center to the
walls.
Burn progress can be determined by the color of the smoke from
the kiln or by determining the temperature along the vertical
distance of the steel doors. The pyrolysis is completed when
fire has reached the floor of the kiln as determined by view
ports (air intake ports) at the floor level. This may also be
indicated by a marked decrease in the volume of smoke and a color
change from grayish yellow to bluish white.
When pyrolysis has been completed, all air ports are sealed for
the start of the cooling cycle. After the ports are sealed, the
stacks remain open until smoking has practically stopped to pre-
vent the development of gas pressure in the kiln. Stacks can usu-
ally be sealed from 1 hr to 2 hr after the air ports are closed.
The kiln is allowed to cool for about 10 days to 14 days before
removing the charcoal. Yields of approximately 25% are achieved.
13
-------
"Missouri-type" kilns typically have eight exhaust stacks approxi-
mately 4.6 m high along the side walls of the kiln. Other types
of kilns have various numbers of exhausts. Pyrolysis time and
emissions vary with the kiln type and kiln capacity and among
different operators of the "Missouri-type" kiln, and are also
dependent on wood type and moisture content (1, 13).
Continuous Charcoal Production—
An increasing percentage of charcoal is produced continuously
with the application of multiple hearth furnaces to charcoal
manufacture. Advantages of multiple hearth furnaces include:
• Lower labor requirements than kiln operations where manual
loading and unloading is needed. Only one man per shift is
required for continuous facilities.
• Consistent yield and quality charcoal with easy control of
product volatile and fixed carbon content.
• Feed of multiple forms of wood waste.
• Operation by "art" reduced to a minimum.
• Off-gases easily collected for further processing (20).
An example of this type of facility is the Herreshoff multiple
hearth furnace (21) consisting of several hearths or burning
chambers stacked one on top of the other (Figure 2). The number
of hearths employed depends upon the process and the heat load.
The hearths are contained in a cylindrical, steel, refractory-
lined shell and are divided by refractory decks which function as
the floor of one hearth and the roof of the hearth below.
Passing up through the center of the furnace is a shaft to which
are attached two to four rabble arms for each hearth. As the
shaft turns (usually 1 rpm to 2 rpm), the hogged material resting
on the hearth floors is continually agitated, exposing fresh
material to the hot gases being evolved. A further function of
the rabble arms is to move material through the furnace. On
alternate hearths, the teeth are canted to spiral the material
from the shaft toward the outside wall of the furnace or from the
outside wall toward the center shaft. Around the center shaft is
an annular space through which material drops on alternate
hearths, while on the remaining hearths material drops through
(20) Gallagher, F. Use of the Multiple Hearth Furnace in the Pro-
duction of Charcoal from Wood Waste. In: Third Texas Indus-
trial Wood Seminar, Wood Residue Utilization, Texas Forest
Products Laboratory, Lufkin, Texas, 1969. pp. 13-20.
(21) Wastewater Engineering, Collection, Treatment Disposal.
B. J. Clark and M. A. Ungersma, eds. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York, New York, 1972. pp. 320.
14
-------
WASTE COOL ING AIR
TO ATMOSPHERE
FEED MATERIAL
PYROLYSIS
GASES "
PRODUCT
CHARCOAL
i=^=
COOLING AND
COMBUSTION AIR
Figure 2. Herreshoff multiple hearth furnace (21).
From Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal
Copyright© 1972 by McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Used with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Co.
holes in the outer periphery of the hearth floor. In this way,
material fed at the top of the furnace moves alternately across
the hearths at increasing temperatures until it discharges from
the floor of the bottom hearth.
Initial heat for startup is provided by oil- or gas-fired burners
mounted in the sides of the hearths. When furnace temperature
has been attained, the auxiliary fuel ceases, and combustion air
is used to ignite the evolving wood gases to maintain furnace
temperature. Combustion gases exit from the top hearth either to
stacks approximately 21 m in height (5, 22) or to ductwork for
transport to a boiler or air pollution control equipment.
Furnace temperatures range between 480°C and 650°C.
(22) Anderson, E. A. New Ways in Wood Products.
Journal, 23(9):56-58, 1973.
Forest Products
15
-------
Charcoal exiting from the furnace is cooled by water sprays and
water jacketing on a cooler. These sprays are controlled auto-
matically by a temperature regulator set for a given charcoal
temperature.
While the furnace can operate with any wood or wood waste or
combination of wastes, it is important that the material fed does
not have too great a size range so that carbonization will be
even throughout. Capacity for this type of unit averages
2.5 metric tons/hr of charcoal with a conversion efficiency of
approximately 25% (23).
For comparison, a 50-cord batch kiln produces approximately
16 metric tons of charcoal over about a 3-wk cycle.
Lignite can be carbonized for charcoal manufacture in Lurgi
carbonizers of conventional design. Crushed lignite is fed into
a drying section, which is the topmost of three vertically super-
imposed sections of the carbonizer shaft. Drying gas circulates
through the drying section, countercurrent to the slowly downward
moving lignite. Standpipes at the bottom discharge the dried
material into the middle carbonizing section. The drying gas
maintains the drying section at about 260°C. The carbonizing
section is where a portion of the volatile matter is driven off.
It operates at about 590°C. These gases and volatile products
are fed to a byproduct treatment auxiliary system. Some byprod-
uct gas from the carbonization is burned in a combustor; the hot
combustion products are used to heat the carbonizing section.
The carbonized lignite is discharged into the cooling section
where the product is cooled by circulating cool gas and then
discharged to storage (24).
Charcoal Briquetting—
Fabrication of briquets from raw charcoal may be an integral part
of a charcoal-producing facility, or the operation may be inde-
pendent with charcoal being purchased as raw material. Figure 3
presents a flow diagram for briquet production.
Charcoal is first hammermilled or crushed to pass a 3.175 mm
screen aperture and stored for briquetting. The charcoal is
mixed with a 9% to 10% (by weight) solution of binder (corn-,
milo-, or wheatstarch, or other) to form a 65% to 70% charcoal
mixture. Other materials such as sawdust may also be added to
effect faster burning or higher temperature (24). Briquets are
(23) Koch, P. Utilization of the Southern Pines, Volume II.
Agricultural Handbook No. 420, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Pineville, Louisiana, 1972. pp. 1499-1504.
(24) Giammar, R. D., R. B. Engdahl, and P. E. Barrett. Emissions
from Residential and Small Commercial Stoker-Coal-Fired
Boilers under Smokeless Operation. EPA 600/7-76-029, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1976. pp. 63-64.
16
-------
LUMP
CHARCOAL
STORAGE
GROUND
CHARCOAL
STORAGE
CHARCOAL
PROPORTIONING
FEEDER-
CONVEYOR
— STARCH
_STORAGE AND]
PROPORTIONING
FEEDER
T
COOLING ELEVATOR "-STORAGE-
Figure 3. Charcoal briquetting flow diagram (1).
then formed in a press and dried for 3 hr to 4 hr at approxi-
mately 135°C to obtain a product having a 5% moisture content.
This composition results in a briquet of approximately 90%
pyrolysis product. A 90% charcoal briquet was assumed for this
report. Industrial contacts suggested that the carbonized mater-
ial content of a charcoal briquet may be lower (personal communi-
cation, A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute, 6 September
1977). Production equipment ranges in capacity from 0.9 to 9
metric tons per hour (1, 23). The dryer is assumed to have a
7.6-m stack.
INDUSTRY STATUS
A current, complete, and accurate characterization of the char-
coal manufacturing industry is not available. The most recent
thorough investigation of the industry was conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service Division of Forest
Economics and Marketing Research in 1961 (8). Compilation of
current information sources revealed inadequacies. To update and
elaborate on the available data, an industry survey was attempted,
with limited success due to lack of industry response. The fol-
lowing is the best currently available, traceable characteriza-
tion of the charcoal manufacturing industry.
17
-------
Source Population
The best available source population data are presented in Appen-
dix A, which lists producer, location, and production or capacity.
Not all sources have production data, but those having informa-
tion account for approximately 420,000 metric tons annual pro-
duction. The accuracy of these population data is questionable
when compared with a 1972 charcoal industry analysis which lists
the four largest U.S. charcoal producers and their 1972 estimated
market shares: Kingsford Co. (37%), a subsidiary of Husky Oil
Canada, Ltd. (15%), Great Lakes Carbon (7%), and a joint venture
of Georgia-Pacific and Cook Industries (7%) (25). Combined,
these four producers manufacture approximately 66% of U.S. char-
coal, but in Appendix A, they represent only approximately 23%
of the identified production.
Estimates of 1975 charcoal production range from 132,000 metric
tons to 825,000 metric tons, with 590,000 metric tons being most
representative (personal communication, A. W. Seeds, Charcoal
Briquet Institute, 27 February 1976) (9, 20, 25-29). Although
the references are not on a consistent basis and report either
briquet sales, charcoal sales, briquet production, charcoal
production, briquet consumption, or charcoal capacity, 590,000
metric tons charcoal briquet production is considered a conserva-
tive figure for this study. Assuming 90% of charcoal is bri-
quetted and 90% of each briquet is charcoal, then approximately
590,000 metric tons of raw charcoal were produced. Of this
590,000 metric tons, an estimated 55% is produced in continuous
multiple-hearth furnace facilities, while the remaining estimated
45% is produced in batch kilns (personal communication, A. W.
Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute, 27 February 1976).
(25) Kingsford Company. The Wall Street Transcript, 37(5):29394-
29395, 1972.
(26) Hopper, T. G., and W. A. Marrone. Impact of New Source Per-
formance Standards on 1985 National Emissions from Station-
ary Sources, Volume I. Contract 68-02-1382, Task 3, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1975. p. 54.
(27) Rolke, R. W., R. D. Hawthorne, C. R. Garbett, E. R. Slater,
T. T. Phillips, and G. D. Towell. Afterburner Systems Study.
EPA-R2-72-062 (PB 212 560), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1972.
pp. 289-306.
(28) Blyth, J. E., and R. Massengale. Missouri's Primary Forest
Products Output and Industries, 1969. PB 226 468, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1973.
p. 7.
(29) Floyd, J. R. Screening Study Summary Report - Raw Charcoal
Manufacture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, January 1976. 4 pp.
18
-------
Based on the representative source definition given in Section 4,
there is an estimated 1975 population of 1,330 batch kilns.
Although the number of kilns has been estimated to be lower, 750
kilns to 1,000 kilns (personal communication, A. W- Seeds, Char-
coal Briquet Institute, 31 August 1977), further calculations
requiring the number of batch kilns use the 1975 estimate of
1,330 kilns. There were also an estimated 16 continuous multiple-
hearth furnaces and 32 charcoal briquetting plants in the United
States (personal communication, A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet
Institute, 31 August 1977).
Current data are not available in the literature or from industry
concerning raw material breakdown, percentage of raw charcoal
briquetted, percentage of briquets made from captive raw charcoal
sources, or the number of charcoal plants. The following is
conjecture on these topics based on information compiled in 1961
and trends in the industry. In 1961, 92% of the charcoal pro-
duced was derived from medium to dense hardwoods such as beech,
birch, hard maple, hickory, and oaks. With the application of
carbonization to the reduction of waste materials (e.g., fruit
pits and nut shells), the percentage has probably declined, but
the great majority of charcoal probably is still produced from
hardwoods. The percentage of raw charcoal that is converted to
briquets has been growing as charcoal has become more and more a
recreational fuel. In 1961, 69% of the charcoal produced was
briquetted, while the current figure is probably near the upper
end of the 80% to 90% range. Discussions of the number of char-
coal plants and percentage of captive charcoal used for briquet
production are closely related. As stated above, the number of
production units has declined to 1,330 in 1975 from 1,977 units
in 1961. It is likely that the number of plants has declined by
the same percentage from 297 plants in 1961. In 1975 there were
only 32 briquetting plants, while in 1961 there were 50. The
approximate decline of 35% in the number of processing units,
charcoal plants, and briquetting plants since 1961, along with
the near doubling of production (298,000 metric tons in 1961
versus an estimated 590,000 metric tons in 1975) suggest a trend
toward larger facilities. Larger facilities probably would
devote more attention to securing sources of raw materials and
would therefore probably result in larger captive raw charcoal
production (61% in 1961) (8).
Geographical Distribution
As with the general population data, information on the regional
distribution of the charcoal manufacturing industry is limited.
The industry is located primarily in the southeast quadrant of
the United States. Missouri is the largest charcoal-producing
state (54% of plants and 45% of available production data listed
in Appendix A) (18, 28). Table 7 lists the number of producers
and identified production by state as listed in Appendix A.
19
-------
TABLE 7. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF
CHARCOAL MANUFACTURERS
Number
of
State producers
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Florida
Georgia
Kansas
Kentucky
Illinois
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
3
16
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
85
1
1
4
5
2
1
1
8
5
1
6
1
Identified
production,
metric tons
_a
40,000
23,000
_3
_a
~a
5,000
7,400
15,300
190,000
_a
30,000
49,000
8,000
_a
_a
9,720
10,700
_a
28,200
_a
4,100
TOTAL
155
420,OOO
State production has not been reported.
Does not add due to rounding. Total
implies that 170,000 metric tons of pro-
duction have not been jrepprted.
20
-------
SECTION 4
EMISSIONS
CHARACTERIZATION OF EMISSIONS
The manufacture of charcoal without emission control can result
in the emission of any of the products of pyrolysis of carbona-
ceous materials. Over 200 products of wood pyrolysis have been
identified (see Table 6), and the list is not complete. Infor-
mation on emissions from the charcoal manufacturing industry was
obtained from the literature (3, 16, 17, 19, 27, 30-34), as
essentially the only available source of such data. Literature
sources quantified uncontrolled emissions, either by estimate or
by sampling, for uncontrolled emissions of: particulate, carbon
monoxide, methanol, acetic acid, methane, polycyclic organic
matter, and other gases. These species are found in the uncon-
trolled emissions, of both batch and continuous charcoal manu-
facture. Similarly, particulate emissions from briquetting
operations have also been estimated in the literature.
Very few data are available to characterize emissions from char-
coal manufacture. Most estimates found in the literature derive
(30) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edi-
tion. AP42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, February 1972. p. 5.4.1.
(31) Keeling, B. F. Emission Testing the Missouri Type Charcoal
Kiln. Preprint of Paper 76-37.1 presented at the 69th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Portland, Oregon, 1976. 6 pp.
(32) National Emission Data System Point Source Listing - Char-
coal Manufacture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 19 June 1975. 113 pp.
(33) Fernandez, J. H. Why Not Burn Wood? Chemical Engineering,
84(11):159-164, 1977.
(34) Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from
Stationary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. Washington, D.C. NAPCA Publication No. AP-67
(PB 190 265), March 1970. 115 pp.
21
-------
from material-balance calculations based on laboratory wood
pyrolysis studies. When reported even field-sampling data from
"Missouri-type" kilns are of questionable utility due to the
improvisational sampling techniques utilized. The necessary mod-
ifications of the sampling technique cast doubt on the represen-
tative nature of the resulting data.
Uncontrolled emissions estimates, derived from the literature,
presented in Table 8 do not distinguish between batch and con-
tinuous charcoal production (personal communication, multiple
industrial sources, and 13, 16, 17, 19, 27, 30-34). Although
overall annual emissions might possibly be independent of pro-
duction technique, the cyclic (batch) versus continuous emission
rate and composition would be an important consideration in the
development of emission control. The "worst case" situation for
the industry would be to consider that no emissions control is
applied. It is, however, known that control technology is
applied, even though the extent and efficiency of application
are undocumented. Estimated controlled emission factors are
presented in Table 8 based on the following assumptions: effi-
ciency of batch kiln afterburners of 85% (13, 17), efficiency of
continuous furnace afterburners of 95% (personal communication,
B. L. Winter, Clorox Company, 26 August 1977), and efficiency of
particulate emission control for briquetting operation of 95%.
The accuracy of the emission estimates is uncertain at best.
TABLE 8. RANGE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL
MANUFACTURE (3, 16, 17, 19, 27, 30-34)
(g/kg charcoal)
Emission factor
Uncontrolled
Emission species
Particulate
Carbon monoxide
Methanol
Acetic acid .
Other gases
Methane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen oxides
Polycyclic organic materials
Charcoal
28
160
67
102
7
44
0.5
0
manufacture
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
12
.004
406
179
76
116
60
57
2.0
Briquetting
7 to 42
_c
c
c
_c
£
c
c
Batch kiln
2.1
24
10
15
1.0
6.6
0.08
0.
to 61
to 27
to 11
to 17
to 9.0
to 8.6
to 0.3
13
0006
a
Controlled
Continuous furnace
0
8
3
5
0
2
0.
.7
.0
.3
.1
.4
.2
03
0.
to 20
to 8.9
to 3.8
to 5.8
to 3.0
to 2.9
to 0.1
13
0002
Briquetting
0.35 to 2
_C
C
C
C
~r
C
C~
.1
a
Controlled emission factors are estimates based on the following control efficiency assumptions: batch kiln
afterburners, 85%; continuous furnace afterburners, 95%; briquetting emission control, 95%.
Includes tar, oil, and pyroacids.
No information.
Includes compounds identified in the literature as "higher hydrocarbons" (assumed to be nonmethane nonconden-
sibles), ethane, formaldehyde, and unsaturated hydrocarbons (e.g., ethylene).
n
Uncontrolled emission factor is based on the assumption that all wood nitrogen, 0.14% (33), is oxidized and
no thermal fixation of air nitrogen (34). Controlled emission factor adds 3.23 x 10~2 g/MJ (27) due to
thermal fixation of air in afterburning.
22
-------
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
There are several approaches to estimating the environmental
impact of air emissions from an industry. Each approach yields a
comparative value. These values are designed to answer the fol-
lowing questions: Do the emissions represent a potential hazard
to population? Do the quantities of emissions from the industry
represent a significant fraction of the total national emissions
from all sources? Do the quantities of emissions from the in-
dustry in a state where it operates represent a significant frac-
tion of emissions from all sources in that state? If emissions
represent a hazard potential, how large a population might be
affected? At what rate is the industry estimated to grow
(decline)? Considered in aggregate, the answers to these ques-
tions reasonably describe the potential environmental impact of
industry emissions. Each of these evaluation criteria is dis-
cussed in turn below.
In deriving the numerical answers to the above questions, it is
desirable to operate with a representative (typical or average)
production unit. This representative unit, or plant, is defined
as one with operating parameters and other quantitative charac-
teristics that are the average values for all plants within the
industry. Thus, in order to evaluate the environmental effects
of charcoal production, it is necessary to define a representa-
tive (typical or average) charcoal production unit. Because of
the distribution of charcoal production between batch units and
continuous units, representative source definitions are required
for each type as well as for briquetting facilities.
A representative batch kiln as defined in Reference 13 is a 50-
cord "Missouri-type" facility producing 200 metric tons/yr
(16 metric tons/cycle) of charcoal with a capacity of 280 metric
tons/yr. It produces airborne emissions from its open doors
during startup and from its eight uncontrolled exhaust stacks,
each 4.6m high for the remainder of the cycle. A typical plant
has 12 kilns. The operation of this type of unit is described
in Section 3 (13).
Continuous furnaces for charcoal production are of varied sizes.
A representative continuous furnace is defined as a Herreshoff-
type, multiple-hearth furnace with an average production rate.
It produces 2.5 metric tons/hr of charcoal for an estimated 8,000
hr/yr, yielding an annual production rate of 20,000 metric
tons/yr of charcoal (personal communication, A. W. Seeds, Char-
coal Briquet Institute, 31 August 1977). It has only one emis-
sion source, the stack, which is approximately 21 m high. The
operation of this type of unit is described in Section 3 (5, 20,
22). Both batch and continuous units are assumed to be fed with
23
-------
hardwoods. The batch unit uses roundwood, while the continuous
facility uses hogged wood.
Definition of a representative briquetting facility assumes that
each facility has only one drying oven, the major potential emis-
sion source. Thirty-two briquetting facilities annually produc-
ing 590,000 metric tons of briquets yield an average facility
processing approximately 18,000 metric tons/yr of briquets (per-
sonal communication, A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute,
27 February 1976). Individual briquetting units produce 0.9 to
9 metric tons/hr of briquets. An emission height of 7.6 m is
assumed. Briquetting is described in Section 3.
To evaluate the potential hazard of the emissions, the actual
(or estimated) concentration of each pollutant species in the
vicinity of the plant is compared with the concentration of the
species considered safe for prolonged exposure. If the numerical
value of this ratio is greater than 1.0, a hazard is considered
to exist. If the value is between 0.1 and 1.0, a hazard might
exist.
In practice, the ground level concentration of emission species
downwind from the representative source is compared to the
ambient air quality standard for the criteria pollutants,3 or to
a reduced threshold limit value (TLV) for noncriteria emission
species. This comparison is defined as the source severity, S,
and given by :
S = . (2)
where Xmax = average maximum ground level concentration for
each emission species
F = primary ambient air quality standard for criteria
pollutants (particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, and hydrocarbons)
or
and
8 1
F = TLV x -jj- x TTfTw for noncriteria emission species,
Criteria pollutants are those for which air quality standards
have been established or guidelines have been proposed. They
include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO ), sulfur
oxides (SO ), hydrocarbons, and particulate.
2^
24
-------
TLV = threshold limit value for each species
jj = correction factor to adjust the TLV to a 24-hr
exposure level
jTjQ- = safety factor
The value of xm=~ for a representative source is defined as (35)
max
(3)
1LLU..A. ILLd^ \ U /
where *max = -^r (4)
ireuh^
and Q = emission rate, g/s
TT = 3.14
e = 2.72
u = average wind speed, 4.5 m/s (national average)
h = stack height, m
t = short-term averaging time, 3 min
t = averaging time, min
The equation for Xmax (Equation 4) is derived from the general
plume dispersion equation for an elevated point source, ground
level (z = 0) concentration, radially ,(y = 0) downwind from the
source, and for U.S. average atmospheric stability conditions (35)
A detailed derivation of severity equations is presented in
Appendix B. It was assumed that the stack height, h, was equal
to the emission height, H; i.e., that the plume rise was negligi-
ble. Table 9 presents the ranges of S for each emission species
for both controlled and uncontrolled representative sources.
Sample calculations are presented in Appendix C.
The potential environmental impact of emissions from charcoal
manufacture can also be evaluated by comparing the nationwide
mass of each criteria emission from charcoal production to the
total nationwide mass of each criteria emission from all sources.
Actual national charcoal manufacture emissions cannot be calcu-
lated because of a lack of information regarding the application
and efficiency of control technology. However, estimated nation-
wide emissions were calculated using the efficiencies of control
(35) Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,
1970 Revision. Public Health Service Publication No. 999-
AP-26, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1970. 84 pp.
25
-------
TABLE 9. RANGE OF TIME-AVERAGED MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
AND SOURCE SEVERITIES FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE
N3
Emission species TLV, g/m3
L
Parttculate 2.6 x lO"*0
Carbon monoxide 4.0 x 10~2
Methanol 2.6 x 10" '
Acetic acid 2.5 x lo"2
Other gases6 1.6 x 10"*f
Methane -J
Hydrogen -
Nitrogen oxides 1.0 x 10~*c
Polycyclie organic
materials 1.0 x 10"6"
Participate
Carbon monoxide
Methanol
Acetic- acid
Other gases6
Methane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen oxides
Polycyclie organic
materials
Controlled
6.7 x 10"5 to 9.8 x
6.6 x 10"" to 7.4 x
1.6 x 10"" to 1.8 x
2.5 x 10"* to 2.8 x
2.4 x 10"5 to.2.1 x
_S
_9
3.0 x 10"*
9.6 x 10~9
0.26 to 3.7
0.016 to 0.018
0.19 to 0.21
3.0 to 3.4
0.2 to 1.3
3.0
2.9
Batch kiln
Uncontrolled
Time-
10~* 4.5 x 10~* to 6.5 x 10"3
10"* 4.4 x 10"3 to 4.9 x 10"3
10"* 1.1 x 10"3 to 1.2 x 10"3
10"* 1.7 x 10"3 to 1.9 x 10"3
10"* 1.6 x 10"* tfv.1.4 x 10"3
_9
-9
2.8 X 10"*
6.5 x 10"8
1.7 to 25
0.11 to 0.12
1.2 to 1.4
20 to 23
1.0 to 8.5
2.8
19
Continuous furnace
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Briquetting
Controlled
Uncontrol led
-averaged maximum ground level concentration (x_- / 9/m")
3.9 x 10"5 to 5.7 x 10"* 7.9 X
3.9 x 10"* to 4.3 x 10"* 7.7 x
9.4 x 10"5 to 1.1 X 10~* 1.9 x
1.4 x 10"1* to 1.6 x 10"* 2.9 X
1.4 x 10"s to 1.2 x 10"* 2.8 x
_9
4.6 X 10"*
5.7 x 10"9
Source severity.
0.15 to 2.2
0.0097 to 0.011
0.11 to 0.12
1.7 to 2.0
0.09 to 0.8
4.6
1.7
10"* to 1.1 x 10"2 7.0 x
10"3 to 8.6 x 10"3
10"3 to 2.1 x 10"3
10"3 to 3.3 x 10"3
10"* ton2.4 x 10"3
_9
_9
4.2 x 10"*
1.1 X 10~7
S
3.0 to 44
0.19 to 0.22
2.2 to 2.5
35 to 39
1.7 to 15
-_
~
4.2
34
10's to.4.2 x 10~* 1.4 x
~j
— j
~A
_d
0.27 to, 1.6
~d
~ri
~d
~d
~d
j
10" 3 toj8.4 x 10" 3
d
d
d
d
d
~j
_d
5.4 toH32
~A
~d
"A
~d
.
&Emissions assumed constant over period of emission, batch 2,971 hr/yr, continuous and briquetting 8,000 hr/yr. Also assumed one emission per source.
Includes tar, oil, and pyroacids.
Primary ambient air quality standard.
No information.
-6Includes compounds, identified in the literature as "higher hydrocarbons" (assumed to be nonraethane noncondensibles), ethane, formaldehyde, and unsaturated hydrocargons (e.g., ethylene).
The value of 160 pg/m3 used for hydrocarbons in this report is an EPA recommended guideline for meeting the primary ambient air quality standard for oxidants.
Methane and hydrogen are simple asphyxiants; have no -TLV or F, and therefore no s.
N/alue for carcinogenic compounds adopted for this program. It corresponds approximately to the minimum detectable limit.
-------
assumed earlier and the following assumptions for application of
control: 25% of batch kilns are controlled, and 100% of both
continuous furnaces and briquetting plants are controlled.
Results are presented in Table 10 (36).
TABLE 10. ESTIMATED NATIONAL EMISSIONS FROM CHARCOAL PRODUCTION
(metric tons)
Estimated
Species
b
Partioulate
Carbon monoxide
Methanol
Acetic acid
Other gases
Methane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen oxides
Polycyclic organic materials
Batch kilns
5.
3.
1.
?..
1.
9.
1.
9
3
4
1
5
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
103 to 8.5
10* to 3.7
10* to 1.6
10* to 2.4
103 to 1.3
103 to 1.2
102 to 4.2
3.2 x 103
0.8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10*
10"
10"
10*
10*
10*
102
charcoal industry emissions
Continuous furnaces
4.6 x 102 to 6.6 x 103 2.
2.6 x 103 to 2.9 x 103
1.1 x 103 to 1.2 x lo3
1.7 x 103 to 1.9 x 103
1.1 x 102 to 9.8 x 102
7.1 x 103 to 9.3 x 103
8.1 x 10° to 3.3 x 101
4.1 x 103
0.7
in 19758
Briquetting
1 x 102 to 1.2 x 103
_c
c
c
c
c
"c
National emissions
from all sources
in 1972 (36)
17,
96,
25,
22,
872
868
045
258
,000
,000
d)
,000 ?
f )
— f
f
,000
Controlled emissions based on assumptions presented in the text.
Includes tax, oil, and pyroacids.
No information.
Total national hydrocarbon emissions.
A
Includes compounds identified in the literature as "higher hydrocarbons" (assumed to be nonmethane noncondensibles),
ethane, formaldehyde, and unsaturated hydrocarbons (e.g., ethylene).
Not applicable.
Estimated emissions (based on controlled emission factors) are
responsible for an estimated 0.04% to 0.5% of national particulate
emissions, less than 0.1% of national carbon monoxide emissions,
0.02% to 0.2% of national hydrocarbon emissions, and less than
0.1% of national nitrogen oxide emissions. Estimated charcoal
emissions for 1975 were compared with total national emissions
from all sources for 1972.
The same evaluation procedure can be followed for each charcoal-
producing state for which production was identified by apportion-
ing state emissions according to each state's share of national
charcoal production. Results are given in Table 11. As above,
1975 charcoal emissions are compared to 1972 statewide total
emissions.
Using the average population density around a charcoal plant, one
can determine an affected population, defined as the number of
persons around a representative source exposed to emission concen-
trations that cause the ratio of x/F to exceed 0.1 or 1.0. Plume
(36) 1972 National Emissions Report; National Emissions Data Sys-
tems (NEDS) of the Acrometric and Emissions Reporting System
(AEROS). EPA-450/2-74-012, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1974.
422 pp.
27
-------
TABLE 11. ESTIMATED CONTROLLED CRITERIA EMISSIONS BY STATE
Fraction
of
national
productioi
State %a
Arkansas 9
California 5
Maryland 1
Minnesota 2
Mississippi 4
Missouri 45
North Dakota 7
Ohio 12
Oklahoma 2
South Carolina 2
Tennessee 3
Virginia 7
Wisconsin 1
Estimated controlled criteria emissions; metric ton/yr
Charcoal manufacture en
l.
6.2 x
3.6 x
7.8 x
1.2 x
2.4 x
2.9 x
4.7 x
7.6 x
1.3 X
1.5 X
1.7 X
4.4 X
6.4 x
p
102 to
articulate^
8.9 X 103
137,817
102 to 5.1 x 103
1,006
101 to
,452
1.1 X 103
494,921
102 to 1.6 X 103
266,
102 to
230
3.4 x 103
168,355
103 to 4.2 x 10*
202,435
102 to 6. 7 X 103
78,978
102 to 1.1 x 10*
1,766
102 to
93,
102 to
198,
102 to
409,
102 to
,056
1.9 x 103
595
2.2 X 103
767 Ol"
2.4 x 103
704 ol
6.3 X 103
477,494
101 to 9.1 x 10J
411,
558
lissions 1975
All emissions 1972 (36)
C
ell ,-. n 3'5 * 10
2.0 X 10
Clt 8
4.3 X 10
-11 x
,,, 6.4 X 10
-11 tc -t 1>3 * 10
1.6 X 10
,„ ^ „„ 2.6 x 10
a
3
rbo
to
843,
3 to
2
2
237
to
261
to
170,
3 to
829,
* to
3
854
to
<1* to 0% 318j
4.2 x 103 to
5
,„ t_ „, 7.3 x 10
,,. .. ,, 8.4 X 10
9.2 x 10
2
2
2
1,
2.4 X 103
3.5 x 10
<1% x
2
'
205
to
456
to
222
to
469
to
548
to
582
n monoxide
3.9 X 103
204 °l "
2.2 X 103
,667 OI '1%
4.8 X 102
,804 01 Ci*
7.2 x 102
749 °r U
1.5 X 103
094 °r <14
1.8 X 10"
,901 °r ll
2.9 X 103
679 °T 1%
4.7 x 103
,719 °l "
8.2 x 102
,627 -l -11
9.5 X 102
,168 ' °r '"
1.0 X 103
,253 " -ll
2.7 X 103
,031 °r U
4.0 x 102
,869 "l
3.8 X 103 to
195,
2.2 x 103 to
2,160
4.8 X 102 to
295,
7.0 X 102 to
410,
1.5 X 103 to
195,
1.8 X 10* to
413,
2.9 x 103 to
70,
4.6 X 103 to
1,153
8.1 X 102 to
341,
9.3 X 102 to
907,
1.0 X 103 to
362,
2.7 x 103 to
369,
3.9 X 102 to
523,
Hydrocarbon1-
5.4 x 103 „
3.1 X 103
,710 '"
6.8 X 102
867
1.0 x 103
674 01 -11
950 °r 'lt to ll
2.5 x 10*
130 °r '% tc Cl
4.1 X 103
289 °r Jl t0 "
6.6 X 103
,493 °E "
1.2 X 103
358 °l C"
1.3 X 103
833
1.5 X 103
928 01
3.8 X 103
416
5.6 x 102
930 "L
Nitrogen
7.0 x 10'
168,989
4.0 x 102
1,663,139
8.8 x 101
265,204
1.3 x 10Z
311,834
2.7 x 102
172,519
3.3 x 103
448,300
5.3 x 102
85,708
8.6 x 102
1,101,470
1.5 x 102
222,687
1.7 x 102
521,544
1.9 x 102
426,454
5.0 x 102
329,308
7.2 x 101
408,525
oxides
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
or <1%
Based on Appendix A.
fa
Includes tar, oil, and pyroacids.
Methanol, acetic acid, and other gases summed and compared to state hydrocarbon emissions.
dispersion calculations (Equation 5.13, Reference 30) determine
the two downwind distances for which the ratio equals 0.1 or 1.0
(see Figure 4). These two distances are used to calculate an
annular area around the representative sources. The affected
population is calculated by multiplying these areas by the aver-
age population density around a charcoal plant. The average
population density used (11 persons/km2) was the average for the
21 charcoal-producing counties in Missouri (18), the largest
charcoal-producing state (45%). Results of these calculations
using controlled emission factors are presented in Table 12.
28
-------
JL
F
X0.1X1.0
X1.0 X0.1
DISTANCE
Figure 4. General distribution of x/F as a function of
distance from the source, showing the two
general roots to the plume dispersion equation.
TABLE 12. AFFECTED POPULATION AROUND CONTROLLED REPRESENTATIVE
CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING SOURCES
Affected population, number of persons
Batch kiln
Continuous furnace Briquetting
Emission F F p p'-1--" F -^ F
Particulate
Carbon monoxide
Methanol
Acetic acidj
Other gases
Methane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen oxides
Polycyclic organic materials
<1 to 10
0
8 to 9
<1 to 2
6
_e
5
8
0 to <1
0
0
0 to <1
c
e
<1
12
C
C
_c
mm
^
-------
SECTION 5
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Application of emission control technology for charcoal manufac-
ture in the past has been primarily a function of process econom-
ics. As long as byproduct recovery of methanol and acetic acid
was profitable, the practice was commonplace. When the economics
deteriorated, byproduct recovery declined and finally ceased.
Following is a discussion of current emission control practices
as applied to,batch and continuous charcoal production and
charcoal briquetting operations.
BATCH PRODUCTION
Control of emissions from charcoal kilns is difficult due to the
cyclic nature of the process and therefore the emissions.
Throughout the cycle, both emission composition (see Section 3)
and flow rate change. Typically, emission rates peak early in
the cycle at an actual flow rate over 40% greater than the actual
flow rate near the end of the cycle (19). Variation in feed
material and operating practice also influence emission composi-
tion and rate.
Two conventional emission control techniques are applicable to
charcoal kilns: scrubbing or incineration. Scrubbing can be
dismissed for two technical reasons. First, most small charcoal
kilns are located in remote areas frequently not having ready
access to adequate cooling water. Second, collected emissions
would then represent a liquid waste problem since byproduct
processing and recovery equipment would not be economical. The
other alternative, incineration using an afterburner, is techni-
cally more promising.
A direct-fired afterburner, capable of incinerating the combust-
ible emissions by subjecting them to direct flame contact for a
sufficient time and at a sufficient temperature, provides the
most feasible means for emission control. Incinerators for this
application were designed, installed, and operated by Husky
Briquetting, Inc., on kilns in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Figure 5
presents a schematic diagram of an incinerator capable of serving
multiple kilns. The incinerator is equipped with two oil or
natural gas burners which are required for the first 24 hr of the
cycle, when most of the moisture in the feed material is driven
off. Combustion is then self-sustaining. Charcoal kiln
30
-------
SLAB WITH WIRE
MESH REINFORCING
FUEL OIL
BURNER
FUEL DRUM
INSULATED
AND COVERED
LINE
INSULATED
AND COVERED
LINE
Figure 5. Schematic of charcoal emission incinerator (13).
emissions have been reduced an estimated 80% to 90% using this
type of equipment (13, 17). Efficient afterburning would proba-
bly effectively reduce emissions of the species listed in Table 5.
Analysis of the economics of a typical kiln operation performed
for the Missouri Air Conservation Commission indicates why the
application of afterburners is not widespread. The typical
operation was defined as approximately 12 "Missouri-type" kilns
with an annual production of 2,400 metric tons of charcoal. The
net profit for an uncontrolled facility was an estimated $1.57/
metric ton. Installation and operation of afterburners for this
facility would cost $2.57/metric ton, yielding a net loss for
controlled operation of $1.00/metric ton. Consequently, after-
burners do not appear to be economically feasible for a typical
operation under the assumed market conditions (13).
CONTINUOUS PRODUCTION
Continuous production of charcoal is more amenable to emission
control than batch kilns. Being continuous, emission composition
and flow rate are relatively constant. Normally, the off-gas is
burned in refractory-lined stacks by opening adjustable doors in
the base of the stack to admit combustion air. The stack emits
flame and a light smoke of intensity below Ringelmann Number 2
and usually below Ringelmann Number 1 (personal communication,
A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute, 31 August 1977). Where
31
-------
better emission control is required, a fan draws the gases
through a chamber for afterburning. They are then scrubbed with
water and exhausted to the atmosphere (5, 14, 20, 23). Incinera-
tion is estimated to reduce emissions 95% (personal communication,
B. L. Winter, Clorox Company, 26 August 1977), and efficient
afterburning would probably effectively destroy the species
listed in Table 6.
Energy recovered from combustible pyrolysis gases can be used in
numerous ways. An estimated average of 29 GJ can be obtained for
each metric ton of charcoal produced (14). This energy has been
used to fire a wood predryer, briquet dryer, or to generate steam
(20, 37). Other potential applications for this energy include
running a high energy process such as lime calcining in conjunc-
tion with charcoal manufacture or generating electricity from a
turbine-driven generator (14).
Although not documented, it is believed that all continuous char-
coal producing facilities have some type of pyrolysis gas emis-
sion control, principally afterburning.
BRIQUETTING
Little information was found concerning emission control equip-
ment on briquet dryers. Two sources from a National Emissions
Data System (NEDS) listing were specifically identified as bri-
quetting operations. One had centrifugal collection and the
other had fabric filtration with respectively 65% and 99% par-
ticulate collection (32).
(37) New Charcoal Plant Uses Flue Gas as Fuel. Wood and Wood
Products, 69(9):35-36, 1964.
32
-------
SECTION 6
GROWTH AND NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY
i*
Charcoal consumption is directly related to leisure time activi-
ties since its primary use is as a recreational fuel. Industry
growth is expected to accelerate in the 1970's "since a greater
percentage of the population will be in their prime charcoal
cooking years (25)." Estimates of future industry growth range
from an annual increase of 2% to 15% (personal communication,
A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute, 27 February 1976) (20,
25-27). An annual growth rate near the low end of the range, 4%,
is assumed due to the accelerating growth of competing gas and
electric grills for outdoor cooking (personal communication, A.
W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute, 31 August 1977). Applying
an annual growth rate of 4% to 1975 estimated production of
590,000 metric tons charcoal yields a 1980 estimated production
rate of 720,000 metric tons charcoal. If the level of applica-
tion and efficiency of control remain constant, this growth rate
will result in a 22% growth in emissions from 1975 to 1980.
Even with this predicted growth, the trend of the recent past
toward fewer but larger producers will probably continue.
Requirements for additional emission control equipment would
accelerate this trend via small plant closures due to an addi-
tional economic burden on already marginal economics of the small
kiln operations (13, 20).
Potential for future changes in the charcoal manufacturing indus-
try is suggested by the many historical changes to date in the
industry. For example, a shift in economics or raw material
availability could potentially encourage byproduct methanol or
acetic acid recovery again some time in the future. In fact,
discussing future acetic acid production, one reference suggests
that "feedstock availability may be more important than relative
cost (38)."
At one location, charcoal manufacture has become a byproduct
again. One hardwood flooring plant produces its entire steam
supply for its drying kilns and other heating needs by burning
the combustible gases distilled from dry wood residues (22). The
resulting charcoal produced is merely a byproduct.
(38) Acetic Output: Ample for Now. Short by 1980? Chemical
Week, 117(6):23-24, 1975.
33
-------
REFERENCES
1. Toole, A. W., P. H. Lane, C. Arbogast, Jr., W. R. Smith,
R. Peter, E. G- Locke, E. Beglinger, and E. C. 0. Erickson.
Charcoal Production, Marketing, and Use. Forest Products
Laboratory Report No. 2213, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wiscon-
sin; Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville,
North Carolina; and Lake States Forest Experiment Station,
St. Paul, Minnesota, July 1961. 137 pp.
2. Doying, E. G. Activated Carbon. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclo-
pedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 4. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, New York, 1964. pp. 149-158.
3. Panshin, A. J., E. S. Harrar, J. S. Bethel, and W. J. Baker.
Forest Products, Their Sources, Production and Utilization.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1962.
pp. 404-424.
4. Stamm, A. J., and E. E. Harris. Chemical Processing of Wood.
Chemical Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York, 1953.
pp. 440-468.
5. Nut Shells and Pits Reduced to Profit. Actual Specifying
Engineer, 26(4):91-927 1971.
#
6. Hamilton, L. S., and F. Fontana. Arnot Forest's Portable
Steel Charcoal Kiln. Northern Logger, 18(1):19, 35, 1969.
7. Boldt, C. E., and C. Arbogast, Jr. Charcoal Kiln Operation
for Improved Timber Stands. Forest Products Journal, 10(1):
42-44, 1960.
8. Charcoal and Charcoal Briquette Production in the United
States, 1961. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C., February 1963. 33 pp.
9. Gum and Wood Chemicals, SIC 2861, Preliminary Report, 1972
Census of Manufacturers, Industry Series. MC72(P)-28-F-l,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., January 1974.
6 pp.
34
-------
10. Industrial Inorganic Chemicals Not Elsewhere Classified,
SIC 2819, Preliminary Report, 1972 Census of Manufacturers,
Industry Series. MC72(P)-28A-4, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C., December 1973. 14 pp-
11. Rieck, H. G-, Jr., E. G. Locke, and E. Tower. Charcoal,
Industrial Fuel from Controlled Pyrolysis of Sawmill Wastes.
The Timberman, 46(2):49-54, 1944.
12. Kanury, A. M., and P. L. Blackshear, Jr. Some Considera-
tions Pertaining to the Problem of Wood-Burning. Combustion
Science and Technology, 1 (5):339-355, 1970.
13. Air Pollution Control for Missouri Charcoal Kilns. Sverdrup
& Parcel and Associates, Inc. Prepared for The Missouri Air
Conservation Commission, February 1971. 29 pp.
14. Gallagher, F. P. Utilization of Off Gases from Herreshoff-
Furnace Charcoal Production. In: Proceedings of the llth
Biennial Conference of the Institute for Briquetting and
Agglomeration, Sun Valley, Idaho, 1969. pp. 27-29.
15. Wood Chemistry, Volume 2, Second Edition. L. E. Wise and
E. C. Jahn, eds. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York,
New York, 1952. pp. 826-851.
16., Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry, Seventh Edition.
J. A. Kent, ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
New York, 1974. pp. 475-479.
17. Hartwig, J. R. Control of Emissions from Batch-type Char-
coal Kilns. Forest Products Journal, 21(9):49-50, 1971.
18. Heflin, E. L., and R. Massengale. Missouri Charcoal Direc-
tory. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,
Missouri, April 1973. 10 pp.
19. Maxwell, W. H. Stationary Source Testing of a Missouri-Type
Charcoal Kiln. Contract No. 68-02-1403 (PB 258695), Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Kansas City, Missouri, August 1976.
178 pp.
20. Gallagher, F. Use of the Multiple Hearth Furnace in the Pro-
duction of Charcoal from Wood Waste. In: Third Texas Indus-
trial Wood Seminar, Wood Residue Utilization, Texas Forest
Products Laboratory, Lufkin, Texas, 1969. pp. 13-20.
21. Wastewater Engineering, Collection, Treatment Disposal.
B. J. Clark and M. A. Ungersma, eds. McGraw-Hill Book Co-,
New York, New York, 1972. pp. 320.
22. Anderson, E. A. New Ways in Wood Products. Forest Products
Journal, 23(9):56-58, 1973.
35
-------
23. Koch, P. Utilization of the Southern Pines, Volume 'II.
Agricultural Handbook No. 420, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Pineville, Louisiana, 1972. pp. 1499-1504.
24. Giammar, R. D., R. B. Engdahl, and P. E. Barrett. Emissions
from Residential and Small Commercial Stoker-Coal-Fired
Boilers under Smokeless Operation. EPA 600/7-76-029, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1976. pp. 63-64.
25. Kingsford Company. The Wall Street Transcript, 37(5):29394-
29395, 1972.
26. Hopper, T. G-, and W. A. Marrone. Impact of New Source Per-
formance Standards on 1985 National Emissions from Station-
ary Sources, Volume I. Contract 68-02-1382, Task 3, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1975. p. 54.
27. Rolke, R. W., R. D. Hawthorne, C. R. Garbett, E. R. Slater,
T. T. Phillips, and G. D. Towell. Afterburner Systems Study.
EPA-R2-72-062 (PB 212 560), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1972.
512 pp.
28. Blyth, J. E., and R. Massengale. Missouri's Primary Forest
Products Output and Industries, 1969. PB 226 468, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1973.
p. 7.
29. Floyd, J. R. Screening Study Summary Report - Raw Charcoal
Manufacture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, January, 1976. 4 pp.
30. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edi-
tion. AP42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, February 1972. p. 5.4.1.
31. Keeling, B. F. Emission Testing the Missouri Type Charcoal
Kiln. Preprint of Paper 76-37.1 presented at the 69th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Portland, Oregon, 1976. 6 pp.
32. National Emission Data System Point Source Listing - Char-
coal Manufacture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 19 June 1975.
113 pp.
33. Fernandez, J. H. Why Not Burn Wood? Chemical Engineering,
84(11):159-164, 1977.
36
-------
34. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from
Stationary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. Washington, D.C. NAPCA Publication No. AP-67
(PB 190 265), March 1970. 115 pp.
35. Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,
1970 Revision. Public Health Service Publication No. 999-
AP-26, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1970. 84 pp.
36. 1972 National Emissions Report; National Emissions Data Sys-
tems (NEDS) of the Acrometric and Emissions Reporting System
(AEROS). EPA-450/2-74-012, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1974.
422 pp.
37. New Charcoal Plant Uses Flue Gas as Fuel. Wood and Wood
Products, 69{9):35-36, 1964.
38. Acetic Output: Ample for Now. Short by 1980? Chemical
Week, 117(6):23-24, 1975.
39. Compliance Data System Source Data Report - Charcoal Plants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
7 September 1976.
40. Clorox. The Clorox Company Annual Report for the Year Ended
June 30, 1976. Oakland, California, August 1976. p. 32.
41. Bertelson, D. F. Arkansas Forest Industries, 1971. Forest
Service Resource Bulletin SO-38, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1973, pp. 28-29.
42. Bertelson, D. F. Mississippi Forest Industries, 1972.
Forest Service Resource Bulletin SO-43, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1973. p. 27.
43. Bertelson, D. F. Oklahoma Forest Industries, 1972. Forest
Service Resource Bulletin SO-45, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1973. p. 16.
44. Bertelson, D. F. Tennessee Forest Industries. Forest Serv-
ice Resource Bulletin SO-30, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 1971. pp. 25-26.
45. TLV® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1976. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 94 pp.
37
-------
46. Martin, D. 0., and J. A. Tikvart. A General Atmospheric
Diffusion Model for Estimating the Effects on Air Quality of
One or More Sources. Presented at the 61st Annual Meeting
of the Air Pollution Control Association, St. Paul,
Minnesota, June 23-27, 1968. 18 pp.
47. Eimutis, E. C., and M. G. Konicek. Derivations of Continu-
ous Functions for the Lateral and Vertical Atmospheric Dis-
persion Coefficients. Atmospheric Environment, 6(11):859-
863, 1972.
48. Tadmor, J. , and Y. Gur. Analytical Expressions for the
Vertical and Lateral Dispersion Coefficients in Atmospheric
Diffusion. Atmospheric Environment, 3(6):688-689, 1969.
49. Gifford, F. A., Jr. An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in
the Lower Layers of the Atmosphere. In: Meteorology and
Atomic Energy 1968, Chapter 3, D. A. Slade, ed. Publication
No- TID-24190, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Technical Infor-
mation Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 1968. p. 113.
50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42 - Public Health,
Chapter IV - Environmental Protection Agency, Part 410 -
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards,
April 28, 1971. 16 pp.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
CHARCOAL PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES
39
-------
TABLE A-l. CHARCOAL PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES
State
Number
City or county
Producer
Annual
production,
metric tons Reference
Alabama
TOTAL
Arkansas
TOTAL
California
TOTAL
Florida
TOTAL
Georgia
TOTAL
Kansas
TOTAL
Kentucky
TOTAL
Illinois
TOTAL
Maryland
TOTAL
Minnesota
TOTAL
Mississippi
TOTAL
Missouri
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 ^
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Dothan
Tuscumbia
Muscle Shoals
Jasper
Huntsville
Omaha
Green Forest
Yellville
Paris
Scranton
Waldron
Harrison
Paris
Paris
Hot Springs
George
Hatfield
Waldron
Mountain View
Elk Grove
Santa Clara
Milipitas
Ocala
Atlanta
Chetopa
Burnside
Chicago
White Church
Oakland
Isanti
Bruce
Pachuta
Pachuta
Beaumont
Barry
Purdyd
Boons
Centralia
Carter?
Carter"1
Ellsinore
Ellsinore
Van Buren
Kingsford Co.
Malone Charcoal Co.
McKinney Lumber & Plywood
Jasper Charcoal Co.
Keeter Charcoal Co.
Keeter Charcoal Co.
Keeter Charcoal Co.
Martin Charcoal Co.
Ozark Charcoal Co.
Scranton Charcoal Co.
Waldron Charcoal Co.
Newberry Charcoal Co.
Paris Charcoal Co.
Arkansas Charcoal Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
George Charcoal Co.
Arkansas Charcoal Co.
Waldron Charcoal Co.
Hinesley & Everett Enterprises
C. B. Hobbs Corp.
C. B. Hobbs Corp.
C. B. Hobbs Corp.
Pioneer Charcoal
Husky Industries
Jayhawk Charcoal Co.
Kingsford Co.
Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
Kingsford Co.
Kingsford Co.
Husky Briquetting, Inc.
Blackjack Charcoal Co.
Hood Charcoal Co.
Masonite Corp., Charcoal Div.
Ronnies Hickory Chips
Harris Enterprises
Heaser Charcoal Co.
Charles Chrisman Charcoal
L s A Dailing Charcoal Co.
Big Springs Industrial
Carter County Charcoal
Leach Bros. Charcoal
Rozark Farms
Big Springs Charcoal
907 to 4,535°
23,000,
23,000
5,000
0
5,000
7,400
7,400
15,300.
15,300
3,000.
907 to 4,535
3,000
907 to 4,535e
3,000
3,000
1,460
5,000
1,400
39,40
39
39
4,960
5,950
3,700
5,210
2,000
4,000
2, no
3,680a
4,000,
CL
a
_a
a
3,680.
_a
4,000°
32,39,41
32,39,41
32,41
32,41
32,39
32,39,41
32,39,41
32,39,41b
32
41.
_b
41
41
32,41
41
32,39b
32
32
32
39
32
32,39
32,39b
42
32
18
32
18
32
32
18,32
18,32
32
Data not available. Personal communication, A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute, February 27, 1976.
cNumbers do not add due to rounding. Counties. eCapacity range rathe- than production.
(39) Compliance Data System Source Data Report - Charcoal Plants.
Washington, D.C., 7 September 1976.
(40) Clorox. The Clorox Company Annual Report for the Year Ended June 30, 1976.
August 1976. p. 32.
Bertelson, D. F. Arkansas Forest Industries, 1971. Forest Service Resource Bulletin SO-38,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Oakland, California,
(41)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1973, pp. 28-29.
(42) Bertelson, D. f. Mississippi Forest Industries, 1972. Forest Service Resource Bulletin SO-43, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1973. p. 27.
40
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
State
Missouri
(continued)
Number
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
City or county
Van Buren
Cole
Henley
Jefferson City
Steelville
Wesco
Greenfield
Salem
Salem
Salem
Dent|
Dent
Salem
Salem ^
Gasconade
Owensville
Wheatland
Howelld
Mount View
West Plains
Mount View
Peace Valley
Mount View
Mount View
Kansas City
Hocomo j
Lacledej
Laclede
Vienna
High Gate
Belle
Belle
Belle
Hayden
Iberia j
Miller
St. Elizabeth
Neoshoj
Oregon
Meta d
Osage d
Osage
Freeburg
Osage jj
Osage
Meta d
Osage
Freeburg
Freeburg
Meta
Belle
Meta
Gainesville
Ozark"
St . James
Lake Spring
Vienna
Lesterville
Reynolds
Winona d
Shannon ^
Shannon
Birch Tree
Summersville
Round Springs
Round Springs
Round Springs
Gladden
Branson
Bradleyville
Branson
Raymondville
Licking
Plato
Producer
Big Springs Charcoal
Stegeman Charcoal Co.
Louis Stegeman Charcoal Co.
Rich Stegeman Charcoal Co.
Hardwood Charcoal Co.
Pordell Development Corp.
Pr ingle Charcoal Co.
Carty Charcoal
Floyd Charcoal Co .
C & H Charcoal
Langworthy Charcoal Co.
Lennox Charcoal Co.
Wieberg Charcoal Co.
Hobson Charcoal Co.
Hickory Charcoal Co.
Gene's Charcoal
J, S E Charcoal Co.
Missouri Charcoal Co.
Craig Charcoal Co.
Nubbin Ridge Charcoal Co.
Bays Sawmill and Charcoal
Peace Valley Kilns
Old Hickory Charcoal Co.
Carr Forest Products
Standard Milling Co.
Bakersfield Charcoal Co.
Independent Stave Co.
Timber Products Co.
Wulff Charcoal Co.
Kings ford Co.
Kingsford Co.
W. B. Stockton
H & D Charcoal
Curtis & Hayes Charcoal
Louis Stegeman Charcoal
Kalaf Charcoal
Kirkweg Charcoal Co.
Neosho Charcoal Products
Greer Springs Co.
Barnhart Charcoal
J S M Charcoal Co.
Kelly Charcoal Co.
Al Luecke charcoal Co.
McDonald Charcoal Co.
Ridenhour Charcoal Co.
Ripka Charcoal and Lumber
Sugar Creek Charcoal Co.
Wieberg Charcoal Co.
Ben Berhorst
Charkol , Inc .
Gene Noblett Charcoal Co.
Standard Milling Co.
Ozark Forest Charcoal
Wallace Charcoal Co.
Parry Charcoal Co.
Lenox Charcoal
Tackett Charcoal Co.
Black River Charcoal Co.
> Copeland Charcoal Co.
Dailey Charcoal
George Helmuth Charcoal
Royal Forest Charcoal
Kerr Charcoal
Craig Charcoal
Roaring Springs Corp.
Round Springs Charcoal
Robert Hamilton
Timber Charcoal Co.
S & S Charcoal Co.
Horner Charcoal Co.
Keeter Charcoal Co.
Thomason Charcoal Co.
Wulff Charcoal Co.
H. 0. Charcoal Co.
Annual
production ,
metric tons
907 to 4,535e
3,0000
907 to 4,535*
907 to 4,535
3,000.
907 to 4,535
3,000
168
35,700
68
3,000
3,000
3,000
230
3,000.
907 to 4,535=
907 to 4,535e
3,000
5,000
3,000
420
4,670
454 to 906e
907 to 4,535J;
""" p
907 to 4,535
1,390
3,000
8,700
8,700b
p
907 to 4,535
454 to 906J;
454 to 906
3,800
3,000
110
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
907 to 4,535e
3,000
3,000
_ a
3,000
3,000
907 to 4,535e
907 to 4,535e
454 to 906e
_3
5,000
3,000
3,000
907 to 4,535e
3,000
907 to 4,535e
1,230
122
3,000
2,300
907 to 4,535e
9,000
900
907 to 4,535e
907 to 4,535e
2,000
5,000
4,200a
~
2,690
5,000
907 to 4,535°
Reference
18
32
18
18
18,32
18
18,32
18,32
18,32
32
32
32
18,32
18,32
32
18
18
32
18,32
18,32
18,32
18,32b
18°
18b
18
32
32
18,32
18,32
25,40
18
18
18
18,32
32
18,32
18,32
18,32
18,32
32
32
18,32
32
32
18,32
32
18,32
18
18
18
39
18,32
32
18,32
18
18,32
18,3-2
18,32
18,32
32
32
18
18,32
32
18
18
32
18,32
18,32
18
18,32
18 , 32
18
aData not available. Personal communication, A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet Institute, February 27, 1976.
Sumbers do not add due to rounding. Counties. ecapacity range rather than production.
(continued)
41
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
State
Missouri
(continued)
TOTAL
New Jersey
TOTAL
North Dakota
TOTAL
Ohio
TOTAL
Oklahoma
TOTAL
Oregon
TOTAL
Pennsylvania
TOTAL
South Carolina
TOTAL
Tennessee
TOTAL
Texas
TOTAL
Virginia
TOTAL
West Virginia
•
TOTAL
Wisconsin
TOTAL
UKITED STATES
Number
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
' 133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
City or county
Seymour
St. Louis
Teterboro
Dickinson
Oak Hill
Lucas"
West Marion
McArthur
Heavener
Talihina
Clayton
Talihina
Bull Hollow
Springfield
White City
Brookville
Lake City
Jamestown
Red Bank
Cookeville
Tullahoma
Red Boiling Springs
Spencer
Memphis
Lynchburg
Flatonia
Houston
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
San Antonio
Kenbrldge
Belington
Beryl
Maysville
Parsons
Swiss
Bentree
Hixton
Data not available. Personal communication ,
cNumbers do not
add due
_tons from Reference 18
to rounding. Counties
Producer
Oak-lite Corp.
Cupples Co. , Manufacturers
Degussa, Inc.
Husky Industries
Victory Charcoal Co.
Sun Oil Co.
Great Lakes Carbon
Roseville Charcoal
Forest Products Charcoal Co.
Forest Products Charcoal Co.
Forest Products Charcoal Co.
Talihina Charcoal Co.
Cherokee Forest Industries
Kingsford Co.
Georgia Pacific Corp.
Humphrey Charcoal
T. S. Ragsdale Co., Inc.
Royal Oak Charcoal Co.
Cumberland Kingsford
Royal Oak Charcoal Co.
Tennessee Dickel Distilling
Cumberland Charcoal Corp.
Royal Oak Charcoal Co.
Arkansas Charcoal Co.
Jack Daniels Distillery
B & B Charcoal
Pine-0-Pine Co.
Campfire charcoal Co.
Char Time Charcoal
National Charcoal Co.
Imperial Briquet Corp.
Kingsford Charcoal
Kingsford Charcoal
Kingsford Charcoal
Kingsford Charcoal
Roseville Charcoal
Roseville Charcoal
Husky Industries
A. W. Seeds, Charcoal Briquet
Total state production is
Annual
production.
metric tons
2,000
—
190,000f
_a
0
30,000
30,000
1,100
7,690
40,000a
-
49,000
8,000
477.-
a
a
8,000C
_a
3
0
_a
0
9,720
9,720
10,700.
a
3
3
3
3
3
3
10,700
_a
3
3
3
a
0
28,200
28,200
_a
a
a
a
a
a
0
4,100
4,100
420,000°
Institute, February
Reference
18,32b
_b
32,39
32,39
32
32
32
32,39,43
32,39
39
43
43
25,39,40,
D
39
8,32b
32,44
39
32
44
44
39,44h
D
32,44
39h
D
39
39
39
32,39b
39
25,39,40
32
25,32,40
39
39
32
27, 1976.
assumed to be 125,078 metric
plus production from other references for Missouri plants.
(43) Bertelson, D. F. Oklahoma Forest Industries, 1972. Forest Service Resource Bulletin SO-45, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1973. p. 16.
(44) Bertelson, D. F. Tennessee Forest Industries. Forest Service Resource Bulletin SO-30, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1971. pp. 25-26.
42
-------
APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF SOURCE SEVERITY EQUATIONS
SUMMARY OF SEVERITY EQUATIONS
The severity (S) of pollutants may be calculated using the mass
emission rate, Q, the height of the emissions, H, and the thresh-
old limit value, TLV (45). The equations summarized in Table B-l
are developed in detail in this appendix.
TABLE B-l. POLLUTANT SEVERITY EQUATIONS
FOR ELEVATED POINT SOURCES
Pollutants
Severity equation
Particulate
x
Hydrocarbon
CO
Other
Q _ 70 Q
S -__2_
s = 50 Q
S = 31r? Q
S = 162 Q
c - 0-78 Q
b H2
. 5.5 Q
' TLV • H-
DERIVATION OF Y FOR USE WITH U.S. AVERAGE CONDITIONS
max
The most widely accepted formula for predicting downwind ground
level concentrations from a point source is (35)
(B-l)
(45) TLV® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1976. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 94 pp.
43
X~~ ^^ tf^i*5f T"i
ircr a u p
y z
r i
2
UY~
WJ
exp
" 1
~2
(«"
(\
n
-------
where x = downwind ground level concentration at reference
coordinate x and y with emission height of H, g/m3
Q = mass emission rate, g/s
TT = 3.14
Cy = standard deviation of horizontal dispersion, m
a z = standard deviation of vertical dispersion, m
u = wind speed, m/s
y = horizontal distance from centerline of dispersion, m
H = height of emission release, m
x = downwind dispersion distance from source of emission
release, m
We assume that Xmax occurs when x is much greater than 0 and y
equals 0. For a given stability class, standard deviations of
horizontal and vertical dispersion have often been expressed as a
function of downwind distance by power law relationships as fol-
lows (46) :
ay = ax
b
(B-2)
= CX + f
(B-3)
Values for a, b, c, d, and f are given in Tables B-2 and B-3.
Substituting these general equations into Equation B-l yields
X =
acirux + airufx
exp
2(cx
f)
(B-4)
Assuming that Xmax occurs at x less than 100 m or the stability
class is C, then f equals 0 and Equation B-4 becomes
X =
acirux
b+d
exp
-H2
2c2x2d
For convenience, let
(B-5)
A — *»
AR ~
aciru
so that Equation B-5 reduces to
and B_ =
JK
2c2
(46) Martin, D. 0., and J. A. Tikvart. A General Atmospheric
Diffusion Model for Estimating the Effects on Air Quality
of One or More Sources. Presented at the 61st Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, St. Paul,
Minnesota, June 23-27, 1968. 18 pp.
44
-------
TABLE B-2.
VALUES OF a FOR THE
COMPUTATION OF a a (47)
Stability class
A
B
C
D
E
P
a
0.3658
0.2751
0.2089
0.1471
0.1046
0.0722
For the equation
ay = axb
where x = downwind distance
b = 0.9031 (from
Reference 48)
TABLE B-3. VALUES OF THE CONSTANTS USED TO
ESTIMATE VERTICAL DISPERSION9 (47)
Usable range, Stability
m class Coefficient
>1,000 A
B
C
D
E
F
100 to 1,000 A
B
C
D
E
F
<100 A
B
C
D
E
F
= 1
0.00024
0.055
0.113
1.26
6.73
18.05
C2
0.0015
0.028
0.113
0.222
0.211
0.086
= 3
0.192
0.156
0.116
0.079
0.063
0.053
«l
2.094
1.098
0.911
0.516
0.305
0.18
d2
1.941
1.149
0.911
0.725
0.678
0.74
<*3
0.936
0.922
0.905
0.881
0.871
0.814
fl
-9.6
2.0
0.0
-13
-34
-48.6
f2
9.27
3.3
0.0
-1.7
-1.3
-0.35
£3
0
0
0
0
0
0
For the equation
cx
(47) Eimutis, E. C., and M. G. Konicek. Derivations of Continu-
ous Functions for the Lateral and Vertical Atmospheric Dis-
persion Coefficients. Atmospheric Environment, 6(11) :859-
863, 1972.
(48) Tadmor, J., and Y. Gur. Analytical Expressions for the
Vertical and Lateral Dispersion Coefficients in Atmospheric
Diffusion. Atmospheric Environment, 3(6):688-689, 1969.
45
-------
X = ARx
-(b+d)
exp
2d
(B-6)
Taking the first derivative of Equation B^
->-*
exp
+ exp
-b-d-i
(B-7)
and setting this equal to zero (to determine the roots which
give the minimum and maximum conditions of x with respect to x)
yields
dx
= 0 =
exp
\
y-J
-2dBt3x 2d-b-d
I\
(B-8)
Since we define that x ^ 0 or °° at x » the following expression
must be equal to 0. max
or
-2dB_.x~2d-d-b = 0
JK
(b+d)x2d = -2dBt
(B-9)
(B-10)
or
or
or
x
2d _
2d
b+d 2c2 (b+d)
dH2
c2 (b+d)
X =|
\c2(b+d)/
Thus Equations B-2 and B-3 become
at X
max
b
dH2 \2d
a = a
y \c2(d+b)
(B-ll)
(B-12)
(B-13)
(B-14)
46
-------
= C|
dH2
d i
2d = /dH2\T
\b+dj
(B-15)
The maximum will be determined for U.S. average conditions of
stability. According to Gifford (49) , this is when a equals a
y
Since b equals 0.9031, and upon inspection of Table B-2 under
U.S. average conditions, av equals oz, it can be seen that
0.881 is less than or equal to d which is less than or equal to
0.905 (class C stability9). Thus, it can be assumed that b is
nearly equal to d or
a =
z
H
/2
(B-16)
and
a H
ay c /2
(B-17)
Under U.S. average conditions, ay equals az and a approximates c
if b approximates d and f equals
closer to belonging in class C) .
0 (between class C and D, but
Then
a =
H
(B-18)
Substituting for a and a into Equation B-l and letting
y equal 0
or
2 Q
TTUH2
max
exp
1 / H/2
(B-19)
(B-20)
aThe values given in Table B-3 are mean values for stability
class. Class C stability describes these coefficients and
exponents, only within about a factor of two (35).
(49) Gifford, F. A., Jr. An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in
the Lower Layers of the Atmosphere. In: Meteorology and
Atomic Energy 1968, Chapter 3, D. A. Slade, ed. Publication
No. TID-24190, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Technical
Information Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 1968.
p. 113.'
47
-------
For U.S. average conditions, u equals 4.47 m/s so that
Equation B-20 reduces to
*max
= °-0524 Q (B-21)
DEVELOPMENT OF SOURCE SEVERITY EQUATIONS
The general source severity, S, relationship has been defined as
follows :
S = -p^ (B-22)
where Xmax = time-averaged maximum ground level concentration
F = hazard factor
Noncriteria Emissions
The value of Xmax maY be derived from Xmax' an undefined "short-
term" concentration. An approximation for longer term concen-
tration may be made as follows (35):
For a 24-hr time period,
(t \ 0•17
t /
or
/ \0. 17
— _ / 3 min | ,
xmax xmax \1,440 min/ (
Xmax = XTna* (0'35) (B~25)
Iuu.X IllciX
Since the hazard factor is defined and derived from TLV values
as follows:
F = (TLV) ai (B-26)
F = (3.33 x 10~3) TLV (B-27)
then the severity factor, S, is defined as
S = = _ - (B_28)
F (3.33 x 10~3) TLV
48
-------
105 x
S = Amax
TLV
If a weekly averaging period is used, then
- / \0. 17
xmax ~ xmax 110,080J (B-30)
or
*max = °'25 X (B-31)
and
F=
F = (2.38 x 10~3)TLV (B-33)
and the severity factor, S, is
°'25 X (B-34)
F (2.38 x 10~3)TLV
or
s - (B_35)
which is entirely consistent, since the TLV is being corrected
for a different exposure period.
Therefore, the severity can be derived from Xmax directly without
regard to averaging time for noncriteria emissions. Thus, com-
bining Equations B-35 and B-21, for elevated sources, gives
s = — 5'5 Q (B-36)
TLV • H2
Criteria Emissions
For the criteria pollutants, established standards may be used
as F values in Equation B-22. These are given in Table B-4 (50).
(50) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42 - Public Health,
Chapter IV - Environmental Protection Agency, Part 410 -
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, April 28, 1971. 16 pp.
49
-------
However, Equation B-23 must be used to give the appropriate
averaging period. These equations are developed for elevated
sources using Equation B-21.
TABLE B-4.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS (50)
Pollutant
Particulate matter
S0x
CO
Nitrogen dioxide
Photochemical oxidants
Hydrocarbons (nonmethane)
Averaging time
Annual (geometric mean)
24-hrb
Annual (arithmetic mean)
24-hr6
3-hrb
l-hrb
Annual (arithmetic mean)
l-hrb
3-hr (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.)
Primary
standards ,
pg/m3
75
260
80
365d
10,000
40,000
100
160
1606
Secondary
standards ,
pg/m3
60a
160
60c
260C
1,300
10,000
40,000
100
160
160
The secondary annual standard (60 pg/m3) is a guide for assessing implementa-
tion plans to achieve the 24-hr secondary standard.
Not to be exceeded more than once per year,
cNo standard exists.
The secondary annual standard (260 pg/m3) is a guide for assessing implementa-
tion plans to achieve the annual standard.
eThere is no primary ambient air quality standard for hydrocarbons. The value
of 160 pg/m3 used for hydrocarbons in this report is an EPA-recommended guide-
line for meeting the primary ambient air quality standard for oxidants.
Carbon Monoxide Severity—
The primary standard for CO is reported for a 1-hr averaging
time. Therefore
t = 60 min
t = 3 min
o
X
max
0.17
(B-37)
max
(3.14) (2.72) (4.5)H2
= 0.052 Q 0>6
(3.12 x 1Q-2)Q
x
0.6
max
(B-38)
(B-39)
(B-40)
(B-41)
50
-------
Severity, S = - (B-42)
Setting F equal to the primary standard for CO; i.e., 0.04 g/m3,
yields
s = = (3.12 x
0.04 H2
or
= i^LQ (B-44)
Hydrocarbon Severity—
The primary standard for hydrocarbon is reported for a 3-hr
averaging time.
N
t = 180 min
t = 3 min
v = v
Amax A
(B-46)
X
max
= (0.5) (Q.052)Q (B-47)
H2
= 0-Q26 Q (B-48)
For hydrocarbons, the concentration of 1.6 x 10"1* g/m3 has been
issued as a guideline for achieving oxidant standards. Therefore,
S = Xmax = 0.026 Q (B-49)
F 1.6 x IQ'1* H2
or
s = 162-5 Q (B-50)
HC H2
Particulate Severity —
The primary standard for particulate is reported for a 24-hr
averaging time.
51
-------
0 . 17
= (0.05)(0.052)0 (B-52)
H2
X = °'°182 Q (B-53)
Amax TTo
For particulates, F = 2.6 x 10-lt g/m3, and
c _ xmax _ 0.0182 Q
(B-54)
F (2.6 x 10~1+)H2
Sp = Z^-fi (B-55)
H2
SOy Severity—
The primary standard for SO is reported for a 24-hr averaging
time. x
Amax
= °-0182 Q (B-56)
The primary standard is 3.65 x 10-1+ g/m3. Therefore,
Vax _ 0.0182 Q
F (3.65 x 10-lt)H2
S= ax = °-0182 Q (B-57)
or
en n
(B-58)
x
H2
NOy Severity —
Since NOX has a primary standard with a 1-yr averaging time, the
Xmax correction equation cannot be used. As an alternative, the
following equation is used:
2.03 Q
Jl/J
L2(°=
(B-59)
A difficulty arises, however, because a distance x, from emission
point to receptor, is included; hence, the following rationale is
used:
52
-------
x =
max
is valid for neutral conditions or when a equals o . This
maximum occurs when ^
H =
z
and since, under these conditions,
0z = axb
then the distance, x / where the maximum concentration occurs is
max
x
max
For class C conditions,
a = 0.113
b = 0.911
Simplifying Equation B-59,
°z = °'113
and
u = 4 . 5 m/s
Letting x = x in Equation B-59,
max
x 1.911
max
where
x
and
4 Q = 4 Q
x 1-911 (7.5 H1-098)1'911
max
53
(B-60)
max 0.16J
x = 7.5 H1-098 (B-62)
max
(B-63)
-------
Therefore,
- 0-085 Q
As noted above,
or
a = 0.113 x°-911
z
=0.113(7.5 H1-1)0'911
a = 0.71 H
Therefore,
°-085
H2.1
3.15 x
H
VI
/ j
(0.371)
0-2 Q
(B-64)
(B-65)
(B-66)
(B-67)
(B-68)
(B-69)
(B-70)
Since the NO standard is 1.0 x 10"1* g/m3 , the NO severity
equation is
N0
0.15 x
1 x 10-* H2'1
_ 315 Q
~
54
-------
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLES OF SOURCE SEVERITY CALCULATIONS
Uncontrolled Emission Factor
Particulate
28 g/kg to 406 g/kg charcoal produced
Annual Uncontrolled Emission Rate
Batch Kiln
me c^ metric ton 103 kg ,~0 ,, . ._., „ ,
196.61 - — - x metric lon x (28 g/kg to 406 g/kg)
= 5.51 x 106 to 7.98 x 107 g/yr
Continuous furnace
20,300 t0" x * <28 9Ag to 406 g/kg,
= 5.68 x 108 to 8.24 x 109 g/yr
Average Uncontrolled Emission Rate
Batch Kiln
Although the emissions are cyclic, assume they
are constant over the period of emission. Assume
15.88 metric tons of charcoal are produced
per cycle, and each cycle emits for 10 days
of the cycle.
Annual period of emission =
metric ton _ cycle _ 10 days emission
yr x 15>88 metric ton cycle
8.64x 10** s = 1>0? x 1Q7 s/yr
55
-------
Average uncontrolled emission rate =
5.5! x 1Q6 g/yr to 7.98 x 10? g/yr = Q_51 g/fl fco 7>4g g/g
1.07 x 10 7 s/yr
Continuous furnace
Annual period of emission 8,000 hr/yr
Average uncontrolled emission rate:
5.68 x 1Q8 g/yr to 8.24 x 1Q9 g/yr = ,
8,000 hr/yr x 3,600 s/hr - 19.7 g/s to 286 g/s
Uncontrolled Time-Averaged Maximum Ground Level Concentration,
/ 1 \o. 17
x = _2_e_[^°)
max ireuh* \ t /
where Q = emission rate, g/s
e = 2.72
u = national average wind speed, 4-5 m/s
h = stack height, m
t = short-term averaging time, 3 min
t = 1,440 min
1-" x KT*
Batch Kiln
Q = 0.51 g/s to 7.46 g/s
h = 4.57 m (assumed)
x"max = 4.44 x ID"1* g/m3 to 6.50 x 10~3 g/m'
Continuous Furnace
Q = 19.7 g/s to 286 g/s
h = 21.34 m (assumed)
)( = 7.87 x lO"1* g/m3 to 1.14 x 10~2 g/m3
rticix
Uncontrolled Source Severity
_ xmax
s - —
56
-------
where F for particulate is the ambient air quality standard,
2.6 x ID"*4 g/m3
Batch Kiln
c _ 4.44 x 10"*+ g/m3 to 6.50 x 10"3 g/m3 . _. , __
b — - = 1. / _L tO £. D
2.6 x 10~4 g/m3
Continuous Furnace
7,87 x 10-^ g/m3 to 1.14 x 1Q-2 g/m3 = ^^ to ^^
2.6 x 10-1* g/m3
57
-------
APPENDIX D
EMISSION FACTOR COMPILATION
The uncontrolled emission factors used to characterize charcoal
emissions are summarized in Table D-l. The following discussion
presents raw data input and procedures used to generate the emis-
sion factors shown.
TABLE D-l. UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE
(g/kg)
Emission species Charcoal manufacture
Particulate
Carbon monoxide
Methanol
Acetic acid
Methane
Hydrogen
Polycyclic organic materials
Nitrogen oxides
Other gases'3
28 to'
160 to
67 to
102 to
44 to
0-5 to
406
179
76
116
57
2
0.004
12
7 to
60
Briquetting
7 to 42
a
a
_a
a
a
No information available.
Other gases are defined to include higher hydrocarbons (non-
methane noncondensibles) , ethane, unsaturated hydrocarbons,, and
formaldehyde.
DERIVATION OF TABLE 5 COMPOSITION RANGE FOR NONCONDENSIBLE
PRODUCTS OF CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE
Table 5 was compiled using input from References 3, 16 and 17.
Table D-2 presents a compilation of the input material from each
reference.
Nonmetric units are used in this appendix because they are the
type that were utilized in performing the calculations des-
cribed. All results in the report proper are shown in metric
units.
58
-------
TABLE D-2. INPUT DATA FOR GENERATION OF TABLE 5
Reference no.:
Reference page no.:
Compounds Units:
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Hydrogen
Higher hydrocarbons
Ethane
Unsaturated hydrocarbons; e.g., ethylene
3
405
Volume %
50
27
11
4
3
2
.74
.88
.36
.21
.09
.72
16
478
Volume %
50
28
3.5
I
1
to
to
to
to
to
60
33
18
3
3
Pounds
523
172
55
30
17
50
(Volume %)
(53)
(27)
(15)
(5)
a
Higher hydrocarbons are not defined by Reference 16 but are assumed to be
nonmethane noncondensible hydrocarbons.
Note.—Blanks indicate information not available.
The masses from Reference 17 were converted to volume percent as
shown in Table D-3 (assuming ideal gas behavior).
TABLE D-3.
CONVERSION OF MASS
TO VOLUME PERCENT
Compound
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Ethane
Pounds
523
172
55
30
Molecular
44
28
16
30
weight
Moles Volume %
11.9 53
6.1 27
3.4 15
1.0 5
TOTAL 780 22.4 100
A summary of the ranges of composition and an assumed average
composition for all the references appears in Table D-4.
TABLE D-4. COMPOSITION RANGE AND ASSUMED AVERAGE COMPOSITION
FOR NONCONDENSIBLE PRODUCTS OF CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE
Percent of noncondensibles
Compound
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Hydrogen
Higher hydrocarbons
Range Assumed
50
27
3
1
1
to
to
to
to
to
60
33
18
4
6
55
30
9
2.
3.
average
5
5
9Higher hydrocarbons are assumed to be nonmethane
noncondensible hydrocarbons; i.e., ethane and un-
saturated hydrocarbons are combined to give a
total higher hydrocarbon value.
59
-------
DERIVATION OF TABLE 8, RANGE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL
MANUFACTURE
Table 8 was compiled using References 17, 19, 27, and 30-32 plus
references to Table 5, presented previously. Table D-5 presents
a compilation of the input material from each reference.
TABLE D-5. INPUT DATA FOR GENERATION OF TABLE 8
Emission
Reference: 17 19
Reference page no.: 50 6, 10
Operation: Charcoal Charcoal
Type of emission factor: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Units: Pounds See below
27 30 31 32
306 5.4.1 6 18, 87
Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Briquetting
Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Controlled
106 Ib/yr kg/MT Ib/hr tons/yr
Tar
Pyroacids
Carbon monoxide
Methane
Participate
Polycyclic organic material
Combustible partioulate
Hydrocarbon
Methanol
Acetic acid
Particulate (tar, oil)
Crude methanol
200
190
172
55
126.4 to 160.5
lb/ton.
193
48
73
112
160
50
116
200
76
4.23
20, 17
An additional controlled particulate emission factor of 1.25 x 10 * Ib particulate/lb briquet was obtained from an
industry survey.
Daily emission rates over a 6-day period were 1,122.4 x 1CT6 Ib/yr, 691.8 x 10~6 Ib/hr, 309.2 x 10~6 Ib/hr, 613.2 x 10~6 Ib/
hr, 1,062.8 x 10~6 Ib/hr, and 2,278.7 x 10~5 Ib/hr.
Note.—Blanks indicate no information available.
Additional information required to convert the data in Table D-5
into uncontrolled emission factors (g/kg) was obtained from the
appropriate references. The charcoal yield of 960 pounds (17)
was required. The duration of a production cycle, 6 days (19),
and the batch production rate, 18 tons/cycle (19) were required.
The annual production rate of 548,000 tons (27) was required.
The duration of the cycle, 21 days, and the batch size, 18 tons
of charcoal (31), were required. Other necessary information
included charcoal production rates and control efficiencies,
8,100 tons/yr and 40,300 tons/yr and 65% and 99%, respectively
(32). Several assumptions were made. Tar, pyroacids, particu-
late, combustible particulate, and particulate (tar, oil) were
assumed to be synonymous. Likewise, methane and hydrocarbon
were assumed to be the same as were methanol and crude methanol.
Emission factors are presented in Table D-6.
Emission factors for other noncondensible gases were generated
using the input information presented in Table D-7.
These data were combined to generate three emission factors;
i.e., nitrogen oxides, hydrogen, and other gases (defined as
nonmethane noncondensible hydrocarbons; i.e., higher hydro-
carbons, ethane, unsaturated hydrocarbons, and formaldehyde).
60
-------
TABLE D-6. UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS
DERIVED FROM TABLE D-5
(g/kg)
Reference
Emission 17
Particulate^ 406
Carbon monoxide 179
Methanol
Acetic acid
Methane 57
Polycyclic organic
materials
19b 27C
63 to 80 176
67
102
44
0.004
30d 316 32f
200 59 7 to 42
160
76
116
50
Note. — Blanks indicate no
a
Tarticulato. 96Q lfa oharooal \ lb )\ kg )
Carbon monoxide. 96() lb cnarcoai (^ u, )\ kg )
Methane- 55 lb f454 ?}(2-2 lb]
Methane. 96Q lb charcoal V lb ;V kg 1
pnrt,m,latn! 126.4 lb to 160.5 lb /454 gV ton
information available.
= 406 g/kg
= 179 g/kg
=57 g/kg
-=~\\ . 1 = 63 a/ka to 80 a/ka
ton charcoal
Polycyclic organic material:
Average daily emission = Day 1 + Day 2 + Day 3 + Day 4 •*• Day 5 + Day 6
(1,122.4 + 691.8 •!• 309.2 + 613.2 + 1,062.8 + 2,278.7) x 10"6 Ib/hr (24-hr/day) / 454 q\f ton V2-2 lb') = 4.0 x 10"3 gAg
Particulate:
Methane:
193 x 106
548,000 ton/yr charcoal
/fc
All emissions: emission factor jj| ( 10kg9)(lo"Tkg) = emission factor
—iculate:
particulate:
17 ton/yr controlled /2,000 IbVlOO lb uncontrolled\/454 gV ton V2.j_lb\ = 42 g/kg
40,300 ton/yr charcoal V ton A 1 lb controlled A lb A2.000 IDA Kg /
.1 survey controlled particulate emission factor of 1.25 X 10~3 lb particulate/lb bri.
an uncontrolled emission factor assuming 95% control efficiency and a briquet contai.
bllows:
„ ,n-3 lb particulate controlled / lb briquet }(2,000_^bW20 lb uncon^r°Ved.)(^jEg)(!r4gg-IF)(—
.25 x 10 * lb briquit \0.9 lb chlrcoalA ton }\ lb controlled A "> A2,000 IDA
««
90%
charcoal as follows:
28 g/kg
61
-------
TABLE D-7. INPUT DATA FOR GENERATION OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSION
FACTORS FOR OTHER NONCONDENSIBLE GASES
Reference:
Reference page no.
Compound Units:
Hydrogen
Higher hydrocarbon
Ethane
Unsaturaged hydrocarbons ,
e.g. , ethylene
Other gases (HCHO, N2, NO)
3
: 405
Volume %
4.21
3.09
2.72
16
478
Volume %
1 to 3
1 to 3
17 30
50 5.4.1
Pounds Volume % kg/MT
30 5
30
a
Higher hydrocarbons are not defined by Reference 16 but are assumed to be
nonmethane noncondensible hydrocarbons.
Note.—Blanks indicate no information available.
Both controlled and uncontrolled nitrogen oxide emission factors
were estimated using engineering calculations. The uncontrolled
emission factor for nitrogen oxides was calculated assuming that
no oxides of nitrogen were formed by thermal fixation of air and
that all fuel nitrogen was oxidized to NO- Thermal fixation of
air is excluded since the normal operating temperatures of char-
coal manufacture (approximately 500°C) are not high enough to
promote NO formation, as suggested by Table D-8 (34).
TABLE D-8. TIME FOR NO FORMATION IN A GAS CONTAINING
75% NITROGEN AND 3% OXYGEN (34)
Time to formNO concentration at
Temperature, °C 500 ppm NO, s equilibrium, ppm
1,360
1,538
1,760
1,982
1,370
16.2
1.10
0.117
550
1,380
2,600
4,150
Nitrogen oxides formed from wood nitrogen were calculated
assuming all of the 0.14% nitrogen in wood was oxidized to NO-
The wood nitrogen content is the average for four woods identi-
fied on page 160 of Reference 33. With the assumption that 4 kg
of wood are needed to produce 1 kg of charcoal (23), the un-
controlled emission factor is derived as follows:
0.14 g N /30 g N0\/4,000 g wood\ = n- ,.
100 g wood 114 g N Mkg charcoal / g/ g
62
-------
Control of combustible emissions by afterburning generates nitro-
gen oxides. Page 24 of Reference 27 gives an emission factor of
0.05 to 0.1 lb NOX/MM Btu fuel, and an average value of 0.075 was
chosen for calculations. The heating value of combustible gases
is estimated to be 25 MM Btu/ton charcoal (26). Therefore,
nitrogen oxides generated by afterburning are:
n 07^ N°x / MM Btu \ /454 g\ / ton \/2.2 lb\ n n. n
°-°75 MM Btu fuel (2S ton charcoal A^b"^ (2,000 lbA~5~J = °'94 9/kg
The controlled emission factor is the sum of the uncontrolled
emissions plus those generated by control.
12 g/kg + 0.94 g/kg = ^13 g/kg
Estimates of hydrogen emissions range from 1% to 4.21% of noncon-
densibles. To convert this to a mass emission and an emission
factor, the required molecular weight for the noncondensibles is
calculated from the average noncondensible composition in Table
D-4 as follows:
Higher hydro-
CO2 CO CHt> H2 carbon (C2H6)
0.55(44) + 0.3(28) + 0.09(16) + 0.025(2) + 0.035(30) = 35.1
Also required is a noncondensibles emission factor; i.e.,
g noncondensibles/g charcoal. From Reference 15, this number is
25 g noncondensibles/31 g charcoal. A hydrogen emission factor
can then be calculated.
1 mole to 4.21 moles hydrogen / 2 g hydrogen \ / mole noncondensible \
100 moles noncondensibles \mole hydrogen/ \35.1 g noncondensible/
/ 2,500 g noncondensibles \ . _ ., „ .,
( — rr^ r ; ) =0.5 g/kg to 2 g/kg
\ 31 kg charcoal /
Only an emission factor for the other gases (higher hydrocarbons,
ethane, unsaturated hydrocarbons, and formaldehyde) remains to
be calculated. The relationship between these other gases as
well as the input available on each from Table D-7 follows.
Other gases = higher hydrocarbons (formaldehyde + ethane + unsaturated hydrocarbons)
1% to 3% noncondensibles (18 g/kg + 30 lb to 3.09% noncondensibles + 2.72% noncondensibles)
Higher hydrocarbons are converted to an emission factor as
follows:
1 mole to 3 moles higher hydrocarbon /30 g higher hydrocarbon tCz"6lW mole noncondensible \f 25,000 g nonconaensibles \ 7
100 moles noncondensibles V mole higher hydrocarbon / \35.1 g noncondensible/V 31 kg charcoal /
63
-------
The formaldehyde emission factor is merely other gases (formalde-
hyde, nitrogen, nitric oxide) minus the nitrogen oxide emission
factor, 12 g/kg, calculated above. Ethane emission factors are
3.09 moles ethane / 30 g ethane W mole noncondensible N/25,OOP g noncondensible\ __
100 moles noncondensibles V mole higher hydrocarbon/ \ 35.1 g noncondensible/\ 31 kg charcoal / 9' 9
or
30 Ib ethane /454 g\/ Ib \/l,000 g\ = ,, .,
960 Ib charcoal \ Ib /\454 g)\ kg / y/ y
The unsaturated hydrocarbon emission factor is calculated assum-
ing they are ethylene
2.72 moles unsaturated hydrocarbon / 28 g unsaturated hydrocarbonsN / mole noncondensible \ /25,000 g noncondensible\ _
100 moles noncondensibles \mole unsaturated hydrocarbon / \35.1 g noncondensible/ \ 31 kg charcoal /
An emission factor for other gases can be calculated as below:
Other gases = higher hydrocarbon (formaldehyde + ethane + unsaturated hydrocarbons)
7 g/kg to 21 g/kg (12 g/kg + 21 g/kg to 31 g/kg + 17 g/kg)
Therefore, other gases range from 7 g/kg to 60 g/kg.
64
-------
APPENDIX E
INDUSTRY COMMENT TO SOURCE ASSESSMENT:
CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING, STATE OF THE ART
The Charcoal Briquet Institute of Oak Brook, Illinois expressed
the desire to add a listing of industrial comments to this
report. The following are their comments (November 1977).
FOREWARD
The Charcoal Briquet Institute, trade association for charcoal
briquet manufacturers in the United States, is pleased to sub-
mit this review and evaluation of a report recently completed by
Monsanto Research Corporation identified as Contract No. 6802-
1874, SOURCE ASSESSMENT: CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING, State of the
Art.
Numerous changes and improvements have been included in the
reviewed MRC document published under the date of November 1977.
Likewise, it must be emphasized that much expert opinion pro-
vided by industry authorities was not included in the final MRC
report.
This Appendix has been prepared by the Charcoal Briquet
Institute for the purpose of providing additional background
information that will improve the total report being developed
by Monsanto Research Corporation.
The Institute, in this review and evaluation of the "SOURCE
ASSESSMENT: CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING, State of the Art" report,
has assumed an objective position of evaluating overall report
results and the quality of statements and data therein.
The Charcoal Briquet Institute is organized under the General
Not For Profit Corporation Act of the State of Illinois and
engages in a number of lawful activities which promote the
interests of the charcoal briquet manufacturing industry and
the public in general.
Since original organization in 1958, the Institute has maintained
an acute awareness of its responsibility to public and private
agencies interested in the charcoal manufacturing industry. There-
fore, the Institute has willingly and continually maintained
65
-------
close liaison with representatives of the Monsanto Research
Corporation as this industry study developed the past two years.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The report is identified as a SOURCE ASSESSMENT of charcoal
manufacturing. It is the Institute's position that the report
is not an "assessment" since no field sampling was completed by
Monsanto Research Corporation and no contemporary facts based
upon reliable data or engineering studies were available to
include in the report.
Therefore, the Institute also recommends that the words, "SOURCE
ASSESSMENT," be deleted in all cases and that the report be
identified as a "State of the Art" document in accordance with
established protocol.
Substantiation of Recommendations
The Charcoal Briquet Institute has submitted these previous
recommendations for the following reasons:
• General availability of this report would be a disservice
to the public in general who depend upon public and private
agencies for the generation of reliable knowledge and facts
related to complex public issues.
• The report could also severely damage the charcoal briquet
manufacturing industry that produces products now utilized
by an estimated 166,000,000 people annually.
• Many of the companies are small businesses and are not in a
position to cope with the increasing regulatory impact from
matters associated with environment, transportation and
product liability.
• Special interest groups and well-meaning citizens who use
this document for resource data may not be aware of or
understand the complex assumptions and equations that went
into the final report.
• Emission factors as presented in the report are key inputs
to the study. MRC obtained none of the data from actual
measurements, .but instead relied on literature estimates.
• No meaningful discussion of the development of uncontrolled
emission factors is provided. These uncontrolled emission
factors are probably the single most important figures in
the report.
• Production estimates in the states are not based on
accurate data.
66
-------
• The composition of finished charcoal briquet production and
potential effect on emissions is inaccurate and should not
be used in the report.
• The report confuses the overall emissions situation by pre-
senting summary data that are inaccurate and incomplete.
• The treatment of incineration and source severity lacks
sufficient technical detail for proper evaluation of pollu-
tion characteristics of the charcoal briquet industry.
• A more careful^ consideration of the true nature of the par-
ticulate emissions from charcoal plants would result in
much less severe environmental impact estimates.
• The data that are used to develop the final estimates are
obsolete in many cases and incorrect and without basis in
other cases.
CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING: THE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO AMERICA
A high percent of all charcoal manufactured in the United States
is processed into charcoal briquets for use as a cooking fuel in
charcoal barbecue grills.
The industry is an important energy producer and an estimated
645,000,000 charcoal barbecues in 1977 replaced a vast amount of
cooking energy that would have been drawn from the nation's
electrical power generating network or natural gas supplies.
As the industry developed during the past two-and-one-half
decades, it has become a major user of wood wastes from the
nation's forest products industry.
Forest products wastes that are now gathered and manufactured
into charcoal briquets have reduced emissions from incineration
of wastes at hundreds of plant sites throughout the U.S.
Pollution control technology available to the industry is now
in use at charcoal briquetting plants and the trend toward con-
tinous processing of charcoal has allowed the industry to effec-
tively control emissions in compliance with state and federal
regulations at these manufacturing locations.
Charcoal briquet manufacturers provide a unique and vital service
to America. Industry products make significant contributions to
the nation's energy supply. Concurrently, the charcoal manufac-
turing industry has contributed to a massive reduction in total
emissions formerly generated by forestry management practices
and the elimination of unwanted byproducts from the nation's
forest products industries.
67
-------
COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
The Charcoal Briquet Institute hereby presents these comments
and observations regarding this final report.
Cover Page
The Institute recommends that SOURCE ASSESSMENT be deleted from
the cover page since the report will be more accurately iden-
tified as a "State of the Art" document or a "General Background
Report" about the charcoal manufacturing industry.
Disclaimer (Page ii)
On line three following the word "Approval," the Institute recom-
mends that "for publication" be added.
Because of the sequential prominence of this page, it is also
recommended that this copy be added to the Disclaimer page:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is aware that no
samples were taken of any charcoal manufacturing operations
by Monsanto Research Corporation to determine actual emis-
sions and that technical data set forth in this document is
based upon suppositions and purely hypothetical estimates.
(See definition of State-of-the-Art Report, Page v - Ed.)
"In addition, scientifically reliable data on the total
emissions from all industrial sources in the states are not
presently known. Therefore, comparative data on charcoal
manufacturing as a percent of the total should not be pre-
sumed as an accurate representation." (Total emissions from
all sources are referenced^ Page 34, Reference 36 - Ed.)
Preface (Page iv)
In paragraph two of the Preface, it is stated,
"This is a determination which should not be made on super-
ficial information; consequently, each of the industries
is being evaluated in detail to determine if there is, in
EPA's judgment, sufficient environmental risk associated
with the process to invest in the development of control
technology."
It is the Institute's position that this document has presented
information based on suppositions and estimates, and that the
basic objective of providing reliable data has not been achieved.
The first sentence of the fourth paragraph on Page iv states
that:
68
-------
"Source Assessment Documents contain data on emissions from
specific industries."
This statement further substantiates the Institute's position
that the report should not be identified as a "Source Assessment"
document.
This same paragraph goes on to state:
"Sampling and analysis are also performed by the contractor
when the available information does not adequately charac-
terize the source emissions."
This statement further substantiates the Institute's position
that the document cannot be considered a factual assembly of
industry data when no sampling and analysis were undertaken.
Abstract (Page vi)
The Institute recommends that data set forth in paragraph three
not be considered as an accurate representation since no samp-
ling has been completed to determine relationships with total
national emissions or ground level concentrations which are
indicated at 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively.
The report presents estimates of the maximum possible emission
levels. Actual emission levels are considerably lower than
the maximum estimates. Maximum estimates provide no basis for
the evaluation of emissions by the charcoal briquet industry.
Summary (Page 2)
The word "examines" in the second sentence of the first para-
graph should more appropriately be "relates to" or similar
language since "examines" implies careful inquiry, testing, or
investigative scrutiny.
Paragraph two indicates that charcoal manufacture represents
an estimated 1,330 batch kilns and 16 continuous furnaces. The
Charcoal Briquet Institute estimates that there are approxi-
mately 750 to 1,000 batch kilns now operating in the United
States. It has also been well established that the percent of
finished briquet production originating in charcoal kilns is
less than 45% of the total U.S. production.
The final sentence in paragraph two states:
"Missouri produces an estimated 45% of national production."
No accurate records exist regarding the percentage of production
originating in the State of Missouri. Data generated by the
Charcoal Briquet Institute reveals that carbonaceous materials
69
-------
subjected to pyrolysis in Missouri and added to the charcoal
briquet product mix contributes approximately 16% of total
national finished charcoal briquet tonnage produced.
Table 2, Page 3
Industry authorities who are aware of charcoal manufacture in
the various states, and the total amount of industrial activity,
believe it is inconceivable that charcoal generates 1% of
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen oxide in the
states noted.
The table neglects the fact that the report only produces maxi-
mum estimates, not actual emissions. There is no technical
basis behind the conclusions in this table. Indeed, this entire
table provides information that is beyond the scope of facts
available.
Table 1, Page 3
The Charcoal Briquet Institute believes that all data set forth
in Table 1 is suspect because sampling of the industry was not
conducted. Suppositions set forth in Table 1 are based upon
estimates which the Monsanto Research Corporation labeled:
"Of questionable utility due to the improvisational samp-
ling techniques utilized."
Uncontrolled emissions are discussed on this page and at other
locations in this report. Uncontrolled continuous emissions do
not exist because all continuous sources are controlled. Any
discussion of uncontrolled continuous emissions is irrelevant
and confusing, and, therefore, detracts from the purpose of
performing the study.
Paragraphs 2 and 3, Page 4
The Charcoal Briquet Institute observes that paragraphs two and
three on page 4 appear to set forth absolutes when, in fact re-
liable data were not available to Monsanto Research Corporation.
Paragraph 1, Page 17
The first complete sentence in this paragraph states:
"This composition results in a briquet of approximately
90% pyrolysis product. A 90% charcoal briquet was assumed
for this report."
At the meeting held August 31, 1977, the Charcoal Briquet
Institute informed Monsanto Research Corporation staff that
the total amount of carbonaceous material that is subjected to
70
-------
pyrolysis before mixing and briquetting now accounts for approxi-
mately 35% to 40% of the total product mix in the United States.
A sizable tonnage of charcoal briquets is produced with virtual-
ly no carbonaceous material previously subjected to pyrolysis.
A very small tonnage, possibly 5% of the total charcoal briquet
production in the United States, can be classified as all wood
charcoal.
Industry Status, Page 17
The report indicates here that:
"The most recent thorough investigation of the industry
was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service Division of Forest Economics and Marketing Research
in 1961."
The Institute emphasizes that references used by Monsanto
Research Corporation in evaluating and characterizing the indus-
try in 1977 are based upon reports issued early in the history
of the industry.
The USDA study, for example, characterizes an industry that is
substantially different than the industry as we know it in 1977.
There have been major changes in production patterns geographi-
cally. Manufacturing technology and equipment has drastically
changed since 1961.
Such data are not qualified as an accurate source of background
for making assumptions or making technical projections and fore-
casts in 1977.
Source Population, Paragraph 2, Page 18
Again, the report makes assumptions that 90% of each briquet is
charcoal. The Institute emphasizes again that carbonaceous
material subjected to pyrolysis comprises approximately 35% to
40% of all materials not entering the charcoal briquet materials
mix.
Table 7, Page 20
Table 7 supplies the statistical data on geographical distribu-
tion on charcoal manufacturers. The Charcoal Briquet Institute
maintains records for charcoal briquet manufacturers only. Data
for Table 7 are supplied as follows:
71
-------
Number of producers
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Georgia
Illinois
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia
Monsanto
report
3
16
3
1
1
1
4
85
1
4
5
2
8
5
6
CBI
data
1
4
1
0
0
0
1
4
0
1
0
2
2
2
1
Characterization of Emissions, Page 21
This section states that over 200 products of wood pyrolysis
have been identified and they are listed in Table 6, COMPOUNDS.
The Institute emphasizes that many of the compounds occur
naturally in nature and during the process of charcoal manu-
facture, would have no deleterious effect upon atmospheric or
effluent discharges. Many of the compounds would not be emitted
in the usual sense and would not affect the atmosphere, nor
would they be considered an air pollutant.
Paragraphs 1 and 2, Pages 21-22
The Institute highlights these statements made in paragraphs
one and two on pages 21 - 22:
"Similarly, particulate emissions from briquetting opera-
tions have also been estimated, in the literature."
"Very few data are available to characterize emissions
from charcoal manufacture."
"Most estimates found in the literature derive from
material-balance calculations based on laboratory wood
pyrolysis studies."
"When reported, even field-sampling data from "Missouri-
type" kilns are of questionable utility due to the impro-
visational sampling techniques utilized."
72
-------
Potential Environmental Effects, Page 23
Since all of the emission data in the MRC report are based upon
invalid assumptions and obsolete references, none of the sup-
positions and data set forth in this chapter can be considered
of a useful nature.
Exact location of charcoal producing units has not been deter-
mined. The amount of controlled and uncontrolled emissions has
not been determined. Therefore, it is impossible to evaluate
environmental effects of charcoal production.
Both of the study methods offered by MRC on pages 24 and 25
cannot be utilized in this report since no valid base data are
available.
Once again the Institute emphasizes that Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11
should not be recognized since the data are grossly inaccurate.
Likewise, the Institute highlights the statement made in the
second paragraph on page 22:
"The accuracy of the emission estimates is uncertain at
best."
Table 8, Page 22
The inclusion of tar, oil, and pyroacids under particulates
and "higher hydrocarbons" under other gases results in double
accounting. "Higher hydrocarbons" are undefined. Tar, oil,
pyroacids, and "higher hydrocarbons" are converted into harmless
carbon dioxide and water by incineration. Charcoal production
emits substantially no pollution in the form of NOX.
Final Paragraph, IJ'age 25
The report states that:
"The potential environmental impact of emissions from char-
coal manufacture can also be evaluated by comparing the
nationwide mass of each criteria emission from charcoal
production to the total nationwide mass of each criteria
emission from all sources."
The Charcoal Briquet Institute seriously questions this assump-
tion because statements made elsewhere in the MRC report refute
this possibility.
The Institute's position is further substantiated by this state-
ment which appears in the same paragraph:
73
-------
"Actual national charcoal manufacture emissions cannot be
calculated because of a lack of information regarding the
application and efficiency of control technology."
Table 10, Page 27
The qualification that maximum estimates are used in Table 10 is
not given in the table.
Table 10 data are not considered to be useful since a three-year
time span separates "Estimated Charcoal Industry Emission" and
"National Emissions for All Sources."
Paragraph 2, Page 27
Statements made in this paragraph which relate to particulate,
carbon monoxide and emission of other gases are represented as
accurate. Such suppositions should not be made because there
are no reliable support data.
Table 11, Page 28
Brief, preliminary calculations by the Charcoal Briquet Insti-
tute indicate that Column 2, "Fraction of National Production,"
does not represent current data and is grossly inaccurate.
Therefore, all assumptions made in the columns appearing under
"Estimated Controlled Criteria Emissions" are fallacious and
should not be used.
References, Page 34
The Institute notes that references used in preparation of the
Monsanto Report have been utilized as authoritative sources
though many listings have aged and are not reliable as back-
ground information.
It is further noted that Monsanto Research Corporation in many
cases elected not to recognize and use expert opinions offered
by industry representatives.
Table A-l, Page 40
The Charcoal Briquet Institute is unable to verify the existence
of many producers listed in Table A-l. Numerous companies have
dual listings, some of the companies are no longer in business,
and the annual production in metric tons is substantially over-
stated in some cases. The listing should not be utilized in
assessing the industry position in any state until such time
that an industry census has been developed.
74
-------
Items 18 and 19, Distribution Statement, Page 77
The Distribution and Security Class for this report is entered
as "Unlimited" and "Unclassified."
The Charcoal Briquet Institute recommends that the entire
Monsanto Research Corporation report not be distributed and
that the report remain classified within the Monsanto Research
Corporation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
75
-------
GLOSSARY
brands: Partially charred wood.
carbonaceous: Material containing carbon.
carbonization: Process of increasing the carbon content of a
material by subjecting it to elevated temperatures to drive
off volatile hydrocarbons.
cord: Quantity of wood stacked in a 4-ft x 4-ft x 8-ft pile,
128 ft3 (3.63 m3).
cordwood: Pieces of wood approximately 1.2 m long and 150 mm to
200 mm in diameter.
destructive distillation: Process of making charcoal by dis-
tilling off volatile hydrocarbons from carbonaceous
materials.
hardwood: Wood of an angiospermous tree such as beech or oak.
hogged: Adjective describing wood that has been broken into
small chips.
pyroligneous: Obtained from the destructive distillation of
wood.
pyroligneous acid, pyroligneous liquor, pyroacid: Reddish,
brown acidic liquid produced by the destructive distil-
lation of wood; the condensible water soluble products of
destructive distillation of wood.
pyrolysis: Process of removing volatiles from a material by
elevating the temperature With minimal oxygen present.
rabble arms: Device in a continuous furnace which rakes the
raw material over each bed to expose fresh material to
hot pyrolysis gases and to advance the material through
the furnace.
softwood: Wood of a coniferous tree such as pine.
76
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-004z
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITtE AND SUBTITLE
SOURCE ASSESSMENT: CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING,
State of the Art
6. REPORT DATE
December 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
'/
C. M. Moscowitz
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MRC-DA-772
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB604
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1874
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab-Cinn, OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final 7/75-10/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IERL-Ci task officer for this report is H. K. Willard, 513/684-4227
16. ABSTRACT
This document reviews the state of the art of air emissions from charcoal manufacture.
The composition, quality, and rate of emissions, and their environmental effects are
described. Charcoal is the solid material remaining after the pyrolysis of car-
bonaceous materials, primarily hardwoods. It is produced in both batch and contin-
uous facilities and then briquetted. During the manufacturing process, emissions of
particulate, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides are released. To
evaluate the hazard potential of representative sources defined for batch kilns, con-
tinuous furnaces, and briquetting operations, source severity .was defined as the ratio
of the time-averaged maximum ground level pollutant concentration to a hazard factor.
For criteria pollutants, the hazard factor is the ambient air quality standard; for
noncriteria pollutants, it is a reduced TLV. Source severities range for controlled
batch kilns from 0.016 to 3.7, for continuous furnaces from 0.0097 to 4.6, and for
briquetting operations from 0.27 to 1.6. Batch kilns do not typically have emission
control devices; however, some kilns utilize afterburners. Continuous furnaces are
believed to use some level of afterburning to reduce particulate carbon monoxides, and
hydrocarbons. Briquetting operations control particulate emissions via centrifugal
collection or fabric filtration.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
1.
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Assessment
Charcoal
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Contro]
Source Assessment
COSATI Field/Group
68D
NO. OF PAGES
87
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21
2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thltpagt)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
Form «2
------- |