SEPA
United States Control Technology
Environmental Protection Canter EPA-600/8-90-075
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711 October 1990
ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTROLLABILITY
OF CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
control
technology center
-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
SPONSORED BY:
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
EPA-600/8-90-075
October 1990
ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTROLLABILITY
OF CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
by:
G. S. Shareef and J. T. Waddell
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4286
Work Assignment Nos. 67 and 105
EPA Project Officer
Carlos M. Nunez
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
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
environmental 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
6. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the SPECIAL REPORTS series. This series is
reserved for reports which are intended to meet the technical information needs
of specifically targeted user groups. Reports in this series include Problem Orient-
ed Reports. Research Application Reports, and Executive Summary Documents.
Typical of these reports include state-of-the-art analyses, technology assess-
ments, reports on the results of major research and development efforts, design
manuals, and user manuals.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to better understand and
quantify condensible emissions, this study was initiated to develop an understanding of condensible
emissions from an air toxics perspective. The major objectives of the study were to: (a) develop a
data base on condensible emissions, (b) determine chemical makeup of condensible emissions, and (c)
evaluate effectiveness of various control devices in reducing condensible emissions and identify
modifications to improve performance.
Two data bases were developed from a review of emissions source test reports from EPA's
Emission Measurement Branch (Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards/Technical Support
Division) files and from the State of California. The Condensibles Data Base contains information on
condensible emissions covering 43 emission source categories. The Speciated Condensibles Data
Base focuses on the chemical composition of condensible emissions, for the purposes of this study,
the back-half catch of the EPA Reference Method 5 or its equivalent was considered to represent the
condensible fraction.
Based on the data contained in the Condensibles Data Base, source categories with a relatively
high percentage of Condensibles in the total paniculate catch (i.e., greater than 50 percent) included the
following: plywood manufacturing, asphaltic concrete, electric utilities, fertilizer manufacturing, and
secondary lead smelting. From the limited data on chemical composition of condensed paniculate
matter, the toxic traction (composed of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and
vanadium) of condensed paniculate matter was less than one percent in most cases.
For many sources in the Condensibles Data Base, wet scrubbers including venturi scrubbers,
fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators (ESP's), and wet ESP's were the commonly employed paniculate
matter control devices. There was a wide variation in performance of these devices in controlling
condensible emissions. This was attributed to differences in emission source characteristics such as
temperature, composition, and concentration. Although limited performance data were available for
HI
-------
specific control devices, venturi scrubbers and other wet scrubbers appeared to be more effective in
reducing condensible emissions than other control devices. No general conclusions were drawn
regarding controllability of specific components because of limited data.
Modification in control device operation/design that would affect potential reductions in
condensible emissions include the following: (a) operating at lower temperatures and higher humidity
levels to enhance condensed paniculate formation prior to the control device, (b) adding an ionizing
section before wet/venturi scrubbers to improve collection efficiency of the fine participate, and (c) using
gas conditioning agents to induce condensed particle agglomeration.
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary iii
TABLES vi
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Approach 1-2
1.3 Recommendations 1-2
1.4 Report Organization 1-3
2 CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS DATA 2-1
2.1 Definitions of Condensible Emissions 2-1
2.2 Condensibles Data Base 2-1
2.2.1 Data Sources 2-16
2.2.2 Sampling Methods , 2-16
2.2.3 Condensibles Data Analysis 2-17
2.3 Speciated Condensibles Data Base 2-18
2.3.1 Data Sources 2-21
2.3.2 Speciated Condensibles Data Analysis 2-21
3 CONTROLLABILITY OF CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS 3-1
3.1 Condensible Emissions Control Data 3-1
3.1.1 Condensible Emissions Control Efficiency 3-1
3.1.2 Control Device-Specific Performance 3-6
3.1.3 Controlled Condensible Emissions 3-9
3.2 Speciated Condensible Emissions Control Data 3-9
3.3 Condensible Emissions Control Improvement 3-14
REFERENCES 4-1
-------
TABLES
No. Paoe
2-1 Condensibles Data Base 2-2
2-2 Percentage of Condensibles in Participate Emissions 2-19
2-3 Category Ranking According to Percentage of Condensibles
in Paniculate Emissbns 2-20
2-4 Contribution of Major Stationary Point Sources to
Paniculate Emissions 2-22
2-5 Speciated Condensibles Data Base 2-23
3-1 Condensible Emissions Control Efficiency 3-2
3-2 Control Device-Specific Performance 3-7
3-3 Variation in Control Device Effectiveness for Selected
Categories , 3-10
3-4 Comparison of Control Device Effectiveness for Selected
Categories 3-10
3-5 Variation in Controlled Condensible Emissions for Selected
Categories 3-11
3-6 Comparison of Condensible Emissions for Selected Categories 3-13
3-7 Control Effectiveness for Speciated Condensible Emissions 3-15
vi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The PM10 SIP Development Guideline document broadly defines condensible paniculate matter
as "material that is not paniculate matter at stack conditions but which condenses and/or reacts (upon
cooling and dilution in the ambient air) to form paniculate matter immediately after discharge from the
stack."1 Almost all condensed paniculate matter falls within the PM10 size fraction (aerodynamic panicle
diameter less than or equal to 10 microns).2
Condensible paniculate emission factors, as such, are not explicitly included in AP-42 for most
source categories. Because of the manner by which paniculate matter is measured in stack gases, the
mass of the condensed paniculate matter is generally not included in calculations of paniculate matter
emission factors. A 1983 study has shown that the estimated paniculate emissions may have to be
increased by a third or more to account for condensed paniculate.2 Therefore, there are current efforts
underway within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to better understand and quantify
condensible emissions.
As pan of these efforts, the EPA has initiated the current study to gain insights into the
condensible emissions area from an air toxics perspective, with emphasis on controllability and
chemical composition of these emissions. The primary objectives of the study were to:
(a) compile existing data on condensible emissions;
(b) determine chemical composition of condensible emissions, where possible;
(c) identify source categories that are major emitters of condensibles;
(d) evaluate effectiveness of various control devices in reducing condensible emissions;
and
(e) evaluate how performance of currently available control technologies can be improved
to better control condensible emissions.
1.2 APPROACH
The data compiled for this study were obtained from a review of literature on condensible
emissions. For the purposes of this study, the back-half catch from the EPA Reference Method 5 or its
equivalent was considered to represent condensible emissions. The EPA Method 5 or its equivalent,
1-1
-------
where the back-half catch is determined gravimetrically, includes no corrections for acid or sutfate
formation in the impingers from the SO./SO3 in the stack gas. Therefore, the Method 5 results
overestimate what is caught in the back-half of the sampling train as condensibles.
The major sources of information reviewed included emission test reports from the U.S. EPA's
Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) and from the States of California and New York. The data
obtained from the test reports were screened to ensure their suitability and completeness for inclusion
in this study. Test reports containing questionable results were excluded from further analysis.
Two data bases were developed in this study. The first data base contains information on
condensible emission rates for specific emission source-control device combinations. The second data
base focuses on composition or speciation of condensible emission rates. These data bases were
used to: (a) identify major sources of condensible emissions; and (b) analyze and evaluate the
performance of existing control devices in controlling condensible emissions. An attempt was made to
assess potential control and process improvements to further reduce condensible emissions.
1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
This study provided the first step in developing estimates of condensible emission factors,
identifying major sources of condensible emissions, and evaluating the effectiveness of paniculate
matter control devices for reducing condensible emissions. The analysis was limited to total
condensible emissions due to the limited nature of speciated condensibles data.
A logical extension of this study would involve the following:
(a) Develop a prioritized list of source categories for use in potential future studies:
using the preliminary analysis results from this study, complete characterization
of all source categories with respect to condensible emission factors;
develop a condensible emissions inventory on a national basis by applying the
condensible emission factors to facilities within each source category. (This
inventory could also be broken down by condensible species where possible.)
rank source categories according to condensible emissions and identify major
emitters (including sources of specific air toxics).
(b) Conduct an engineering evaluation of high-priority source categories to identify the
components of condensible emissions and determine their physical/chemical
characteristics. This would provide the framework for developing source category-
specific control strategies.
(c) Collect and compile stack data generated using EPA's draft method on condensibles:
Based on conversations with STAPPA/ALAPCO, a number of States have begun
implementing the draft Method 202 Determination of Condensible Emissions from
Stationary Sources. Compilation of these data and results from tests conducted by
1-2
-------
EPA using the draft method would provide a valuable source of information to
interested parties.
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is divided into four sections. Section 1 contains the introduction. Section 2
describes and discusses the Condensibles Data Base and the Speciated Condensibles Data Base.
Section 3 presents a discussion on the effectiveness of control devices in reducing condensible
emissions. It includes an evaluation of potential improvements in control device performance to further
reduce condensible emissions. Section 4 contains the references used in this document.
1-3
-------
SECTION 2
CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS DATA
This section describes the condensible emissions data compiled in this study. The definition of
condensibte emissions used in this report is followed by a discussion of the two data bases developed.
The Condensibles Data Base described in Section 2.2 presents the condensible emission factors
estimated for specific emission source-control technology combinations. Section 2.3 describes the
Speciated Condensibles Data Base, which presents the available chemical species data corresponding
to the condensible emissions.
2.1 DEFINITION OF CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
As stated in the PM10 SIP Development Guideline document, condensible paniculate matter is
defined broadly as "material that is not paniculate matter at stack conditions but condenses and/or
reacts (upon cooling and dilution in the ambient air) to form paniculate matter immediately after
discharge from the stack."1 Currently available test data on condensible emissions have been collected
using the EPA Reference Method 5 or its equivalent. For the purposes of this study, condensible
emissions are considered as the paniculate matter collected downstream of the heated fitter in the EPA
Reference Method 5 sample train or its equivalent. Emissions that pass through the heated finer and
condense in the impingers in the "back-half" of the train are assumed to comprise the condensible
emissions.
2.2 CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
Table 2-1 presents condensible emissions data for approximately 40 emission source
categories. The following information is provided, where available, for each emission source:
• Source category,
Process type,
• Emission control type,
Uncontrolled emissions - total paniculate (front-half and back-half catch), Condensibles,
and percent Condensibles,
2-1
-------
TMU z-i. oNMMioiES MM BASE
tourc* Cotooonr »roe*o* Typa
AtualiMi tovorboratory
Mnufacturlno furnaca
•lualnua kOMlt furnaca
ProcaoolrdJ
nrliydroui Calclua Calclntr
tut fat* Nanu-
facturln*
ftaphott Canerata Cenvantlcnal
•ocyeU oaatult
, pavoaant
' RocycU aopholt
pavaaant
Asphalt Mont Oryw
•TOO* • •raraa froM furnaca
taoltora
••attar
ItulWlna trick Timal kiln
Mararfacturtno
fk**^.»
vr]rar
Uncentrollod EatMlar*
Central T«oa
Control lod Ealulana
ffflcltncy (I)
tcwclc*
Total X Total C Total Oot* t«f«rmc«
Portlculata Candonalbt* CandanolfeU Partlculot* Condmlbl* CandonalM* ParttcutM* CondanalMa T**t Natnod (T/«l Muttar
•on* 0.74 Ib/hr
•.0112 (r/dacf
•ana 0.048 Ib/hr
•.0022 or/*ef
.^IBU,, M
Knockout tao: and 3.41 Ib/ton
wonturl acrUbbor 7.S3 fr/dwf
Knockout bM and 2.2 Ib/ton
mnfurl acnttor 4.33 ar/dKf
Knockout boa and 4.41 Ib/ton
vanturl ocrufear 3.71 tr/dtct
a^ioua. M
fabric fllt*r M
fabric ftttar M
•ana 12.6 (b/fcr
0.066 fr/dKf
•ana 1.34 tbrtr
0.003 or/dacf
0.09 tbflir
0.0016 or/ihcf
0.041 Ib/hr
0.0022 or/oaef
M
•.13* lb/t«n
•.312 or/dKf
•.261 Ib/ten
•.536 •< -luf
0.041 Ib/tan
0.032 fr/dtcf
M
M
M
0.9 Ib/hr
0.005 ar/dttf
0.85 IWhr
0.002 r/dKf
12 M
100 M
M 0.167 Ib/hr
O.OZ or/duf
4 0.073 It/ton
0.164 or/docf
12 0.065 Ib/ton
0.13 ar/cfccf
I 0.113 tb/tan
0.1S3 or/dtcf
M 4.3 Ib/hr
0.0166 flr/dttf
M 2.3 tb/hr
0.008 or/docf
M 3.3 Ib/hr
0.011 or/docf
7 M
63 M
•A M
M M
0.066 Ib/hr 40
0.0079 or/dtcl
0.048 lb/too 66
0.107 «r/duf
O.OS2 Ib/ten BO
0.105 or/chef
0.018 Ib/tan 16
0.023 ar/dKf
2.4 thrtir 56
0.009 ar/dKf
•.6 Ib/hr 26
0.002 tr/dtcf
0.95 llVhr 29
0.003 (r/d*cf
m IH
m w
M M KAON) 3.2 • lit
IU M SCMW $.2 • 101
MA M SCAOMD 1.2 • IIS
90 66 EM « » 4
97 80 EM K T 4
97 56 EM SC 1 3
M M tCIMMO 5.2 * 120
M M EM 5 I 5
•A M EM 3 II 6
M M EPA J • 7
M M EM 5 V 7
(continued)
-------
IAOLE 2-1.
MTA 8AX
Sourc* Coteaory
Cable Ceworlno
Carbon Block
Catetyat
NMifacMrlno
Coal Preparation
Plant*
ro
i
u>
Cotoovono
Uncontrolled CalMlora
ProceM TIM Control Tup*
Total
Portlculota CondonolMe
lead praaoea. load Mom •.SI Ib/ton 0.1 Ill/ton
pot*, drat* kottlo
ProeoM Urn vent fabric III tor O.OOM Ib/lb 0.0024 Ib/lb
(vie off-foo bolltr)
lotery dryer OojhouM M M
Air tobtoo Fabric f II tor M M
fluid bod dryor Vanturl wrutbor M M
TltonMt tfryvr Itantvl •criotabak**^a^«« l^ailaoA^a^BH*^^ HA lift
wwi D*ncwrp HvimwioWivV IM •••«
•tack (Mblla gmtlnf)
Own battery H»t C» O.*f Ib/ton •.18 Ib/ton
•tack «.Cm ar/<*Kf 0.805 ar/dKf
Ovon bottory Halntanoneo M •»
(tack
Ovon bottory fabric filter 25.88 Ib/hr 2.21 Ib/kr
•tack 8.085 r/*ef 0.007 r/*cf
i Controllod talmlora Efficiency (X)
tooclaa
X Total
CondonolMo »ortlculoto
M M
4] O.OOU Ib/lb
M 0.7J3 Ib/hr
0.0085 ar/duf
M 2.S Ib/hr
0.011 ar/ocf
M 20.S Ib/br
0.021 ar/tcf
M *J.3 Ib/hr
O.OS ar/ocf
M 54.4 Ib/hr
0.121 ar/docf
M 0.08 Ib/ton
0.002 ar/dtcf
M * Ib/ton
0.051 tr/dttf
• 8.6 Ib^ir
0.027 ar/duf
» Total Beta loforonco
Condonalbla Condonolblo Partlculato Candomlblo Toot Method (T/» oiofctr
M MM
0.0007 Ib/lb U 71
0.674 Ib/hr 72 M
0.006 ar/docf
1.4 Ib/hr 56 M
0.006 fr/ocf
1.8 Ib/hr 9 M
0.002 or/tcf
13.1 Ib/hr 30 M
0.009 tr/ocf
1.4 Ib/hr 3 M
0.003 ar/docf
0.03 Ib/ton 38 83
0.0008 fr/docf
2.1 Ib/ton 23 M
0.012 ar/docf
1.71 Ib/hr 20 67
0.005 or/dtcf
M EM 5 T 8
71 f M 5 • 9
M KAON) 5.2 • 108
M EPA 5 • 58
M EPA 5 • 59
M EPA 5 • 60
M EPA 5 • 10
83 EPA 5 T 11
M EPA 5 T M
23 EPA 5 • 80
( continued)
-------
tMU 2-1. CMDEKIH.ES Ml* MSC
Source Cattaory rroceu type
Electric
Utilities
m ,,
erroo or
fO
.jL.
rertltltor
r*rt filter
Coal-fired boiler
Coat-fired bolter
~ .
electric are
furnace
til Icon Mtel
•(•ctrlc ere
furnace
Slllce-ewieenMe
electric ere
furnace
•aaonletor.
Oranuletor,
•ryer, and
Cooler
tryer kiln end
cooler
Aeaonletor
ttcyvr •aid cooler
Control Type
•
Etf
t»
Elf
fabric fitter
Venturl ocrunber
end doBltter
Cyclone*, eprey
chaaber. and
vonturl terubber
(In eerlee)
fabric filter
Venturl Krubber
end daiUter
Met acnJbber
Uncontrolled Eolation*
Totel
articulate CondmalMe (
M M
M M
1312 IbAr 19 IbAr
1.87 r/dKf 0.0271 r/dKf
2360 IbAr 1J1 IbAr
D.7D6 r/dKf 0.04S r/dKf
230 IbAr 3.0 IbAr
1.65 r/dKf 0.0259 r/dKf
M M
133.2 Ib/ton 0.* Ib/ton
14.7* r/dKf 0.06 r/dKf
4.67 Ib/ton 0.1 Ib/ton
3.14 r/dKf 0.07 r/dKf
M M
Controlled Ealeelane Efficiency IX)
Smelt*
* lotel * fatel Oate Reference
UmdmiMe >ertleuUt« CondvielMe Cendwwlbl* »ertlcutet« Condmlbl* 1e*t Htthod ITA) aurtwr
M 0.122 Ib/MMtu
0.0378 r/dKf
M 10M IbAr
0.081 r/dKf
1 24.1 Ib/hr
0.0183 r/dKf
6 27.65 IbAr
O.OOS3 r/d*cf
2 14.21 IbAr
0.08S6 r/dKf
M 0.7S Ib/ton
0.0785 r/dKf
«1 0.346 Ib/ton
O.OS r/dKf
2 0.24 Ib/ton
0.123 r/dKf
M 15.1 IbAr
0.042 r/dKf
0.018 tb/VMtu 31 M
0.0181 r/dKf
882 IbAr 00 M
0.06S1 r/dKf
3.6 IbAr 1$ 98
0.0027 r/dKf
12.13 IbAr 44 99
0.0023 r/dKf
1.42 IbAr 10 94
0.008) r/dKf
0.29 Ib/ton 39 M
0.0257 r/dKf
0.302 Ib/ton 87 >99
0.043 r/d*cf
0.12 Ib/ton SO 93
0.062 r/dwf
6.8 IbAr 43 M
0.019 er/OKf
M EM S • S«
M EM S • 57
81 EM S II BS
92 EM 3 • 13
40 EM 5 • 81
M EM 5 • 14
SO EM 5 • IS
(•) EM 5 • IS
M EPA S • 16
——————— — — ————~——————
-------
TMU 2-1. OMOCIKIM.ES 0AM BASE
•aurca Cateaary Prece** Type
•lara Hanu- Maaa aaltlna
facturlnt furnace
••eaneratlve
furnace
Htttlnf furnace
Ntltlna furnace
Ntltlna furnace
ro
Ui Neltlne furnace
Ntltlno furnace
Nettlm furnace
train Proeetalna Brain dryer
Araln elevator
(araln leedlnf)
train elevator
(araln clenlne)
^-r-l,
Uncontrolled EalMlone Controlled EaUtloni
Control T«M
Total S Total
•articulate CondmlMe CondenelMe Partlculate
fabric flltar MM M 25.25 Ib/hr
0.1115 ar/dKf
Packed toner. MM M 5.52 Ib/hr
venturl acrubbar, 0.0422 er/dkcf
anddaaliter
lerubber M M M 0.33 Ib/hr
0.0125 ar/dKf
•ana 8.42 Ib/hr 4.87 Ib/hr M M
0.101 ar/dKf 0.058 ar/dKf
Iff MM M 1.057 Ib/hr
0.0109 ar/dKf
Scrubber MM M 2.91 Ib/hr
0.00169 ar/dKf
•tjtmiai MM M 4.834 Ib/hr
0.0143 er/dKf
Scrubber and ESP M M M 0.65 Ib/hr
0.0069 ar/dKf
•olyeater acraen M M M S.44 Ib/hr
filter «••'«• •"*«'
fabric filter M M M 0.54 Ib/hr
0.0126 ar/dKf
fabric filter MM •* °-« "^r
0.004 ar/dKf
Cyclone MM M 0.09 Ib/hr
O.OD4 ar/dKf
Condmtlbte
20.87 Ib/hr
0.0926 ar/dKf
2.25 Ib/hr
0.01H ar/dKf
0.04 Ib/hr
0.0016 ar/dKf
M
0.417 Ibrtr
0.0043 ar/dKf
0.291 llVhr
0.00019 ar/dKf
2.641 Ib/hr
0.0078 ar/dKf
0.49 Ib/hr
0.0052 ar/dKf
3.67 Ib/hr
0.01 ar/dKf
0.2 Ittflu-
O.OM7 ar/dKf
0.04 Ib/hr
0.0012 ar/dKf
0.027 Ib/hr
0.0012 ar/dKf
Efficiency (1)
S Total
Condralbte Pertlculate CondB«IM* Test Hethed
83 M M EPA 5 and
EPA 17
41 M M EPA 5
12 M M SCAOW 5.2
M M M SCAflN) 5.2
OT MA MA SCAOMO 5.2
10 M MA SCAOJB 5.2
5$ M M SCMN> 5.2
75 M M SCMHD 5.2
67 MA M EPA 5
37 M MA EM 5
31 M MA EPA 5
30 M M EPA S
SpKlM
0«te Icference
(T/H) Hiater
• 54
H 55
• 105
• 117
M 111.112
• 103
• 107
• 98
• 61
• 62
• 62
• 63
-------
TAME 2-1. OMDEmisuf DATA use
Source Catetorv
Cray Iron
Foundry
Incinerator'
*•"
O\
InduatrUI •oiler
Iron Ore
•eneflclotlen
9roc**a type
Electric Arc
Furnace Meter
fabric filter 19$ Ib/hr
0.33 er/dKf
CSV 199 Ib/hr
1.09 er/dKf
ES» UO Ib/hr
1.473 er/dacf
ESP 517 Ib/hr
1.744 tr/dKf
Huttl •cyclone M
Nuttl-cyelone IM
end net ecrufeber
E». eouetlc M
acrvbber
•one 201 Ib/hr
•.127 tr/dacf
Cyclone M
IA.O. *-• Hal
9.9 Ib/hr
•.0173 tr/dKf
21 Ib/hr
0.0* er/dKf
3.7S Ib/hr
0.012 tr/dKf
352 Ib/hr
•.•11 or/dKf
M
M
M
14.7 Ib/hr
0.0104 tr/dKf
M
•i
S S.M Ib/hr
0.005* tr/dKf
$ 19 Ib/hr
0.05 tr/dacf
I 22.4 Ib/hr
0.073 w/dKf
63 18.5 Ib/hr
0.05* or/dKf
M O.«02 tb/Mtu
0.239 er/dKf
M *.44 Ib/hr
0.034 or/dKf
M 19.1 Ib/hr
0.0097 or/dKf
• MA
M 204 Ib/hr
0.11 er/dKf
M 2.8 Ib/hr
1.27 Ib/hr 33
0.0019 *T/dKf
4.7 Ib/hr 25
0.01 or/dKf
1.53 Ib/hr 7
0.005 tr/dKf
2.31 Ib/hr 12
0.007 or/dKf
0.011 tb/Mtu 2
0.004 fr/dKf
0.38 Ib/hr 9
0.003 tr/duf
9.49 Ib/hr $0
0.0048 er/dKf
HA MA
21.3 Ib/hr 10
0.0113 or/dKf
0.2 Ib/hr 7
98 87 EM S • 77
95 78 EM 5 • 91
95 59 EM S • 90
97 34 EM S • 90
M IA EM S • 92
•A M EM S II 93
IM IA EM S I 100
MA M EM S 1 17
M M EPA S * 17
MA M ETA S I 17
Wit
tertiary cruahlnt
0.0121 tr/dKf 0.0008 tr/dKf
(tar
-------
TMU 2-1. OMDENSIHES DATA 8ASE
Uncontrolled Eartailona
Source Catetory trot*** Type Centre! Two
Total
•ertlculote CorahnelMo
Iron end Steel Baalc Qeyton trap-out cheater M M
Mint* Furnace (K*) end IV
tot Vonturl ecrubber IM M
•or Venturl ecrufaber M M
•OF Venturl ecrubber M M
i» nr E»f> M M
•>j
EAF Fabric fllt«r «.OS3r «r/dwf 0.0019 tr/dKf
f Interim CyelOTM «nd •* M
E»
(Intwlnj CyelanM and M M
fabric tlltar
llntarlm Cyclone*, won- *1» Ihrtir «• Ib/hr
turl acnttor. 0.40) ar/dKf B.06I ar/dKf
•nddnlitw
Controlled UUilon* Efficiency (X) .
iOMlM
t Total
Candanalbt* f>artlculate
M 0.269 Ib/tcn
O.OM7 0r/dKf
M O.I US Ib/tan
O.OJ49 ar/dMf
M 0.008 Ib/ton
O.OOBt ar/dKf
M 0.00*7 Ib/ton
O.OM9 fr/dscf
M 0.0827 Ib/ton
fl.OlM ir/dMf
4 0.0027 vr/duf
M 1.17 Ib/ton
B. 192 tr/dKf
M 66.1* Ibrtr
0.0578 |r/dwf
16 72.3 Ib/kr
0.0*2 fr/dKf
t Total Data l*f*r«nc«
CandanalM* CondonalMa f>artlculitt CondmlMe TMt Method CT/II NuaHn-
0.0593 Ib/ton 22 HA
0.0077 fr/dKf
0.0212 Ib/ton 19 M
0.0071 tr/duf
0.0015 Ib/ton U M
0.0055 tr/dKf
0.0019 Ib/tan M) M
0.002 *r/dKf
0.0)03 Ib/ton 37 M
0.0039 tr/dKf
0.0013 er/dKf *8 95
0.208 Ib/ton 18 M
0.033 or/
-------
TMIE 2-1. CONDEMSlllEf OATA MSE
Source Category
(raft Pulp Mllle
oo
teed
lead Acid
Oattery
Proceee Type Control Type
I
•aalt-dlssolvtni Htt scrubber
tank
Recovery furnace ESP
SMlt-dissolvInt Hit eerubber
tank
Ua» kiln Vanturl scrubber
and doajleter
(avlt-dleealvlni Wet packed
tank ecrubfaer
Savlt-dlMolvInt Hat packed
tank ecrubber
Olaet furnace Peeked ocrufebar
Ceatlnt furnace Hen*
ftecklnt. elaaent fabric filter
•urnlnt, and caelnf
Paste ejUer Itet ecrubber
Uncontrolled Ealislons
Total
•articulate CondanetMo C
HA M
M HA
HA M
HA M
1.79 Ib/ton 0.09 Ib/ton
0.492 r/dscf 0.025 r/dKf
MA HA
MA BBtV
0.197 Ib/ton 0.05S Ib/ton
0.0091 r/dKf 0.0025 r/dKf
1.469 Ib/hr 0.711 Ib/hr
0.0149 r/dscf 0.0072 r/dKf
0.545 Ib/ton 0.021 Ib/ton
0.0614 r/dscf 0.0027 r/dKf
Controlled Emissions
X lotel t
londensiMo Partlculste Condenelble Condensibte
HA S.OS Ib/hr
0.0159 r/dKf
HA 12.47 tb/hr
0.0442 r/duf
HA 5.15 Ib/hr
0.064) r/dKf
HA 11.12 Ib/hr
0.117 r/dKf
S 0.205 Ib/ton
0.0708 r/dKf
HA 0.223 Ib/ton
0.115 r/dKf
HA 1.19 Ib/hr
0.009) r/dKf
27 HA
49 1.029 Ib/hr
0.0096 r/dKf
4 0.124 Ib/ton
0.0142 r/dKf
1.95 Ib/hr 11
0.012 r/dKf
13.06 Ib/hr 41
0.0191 r/dKf
1.5 tb/hr 29
0.0189 r/dKf
0.94 Ib/hr 7
0.262 r/dKf
0.018 Ib/ton 6
0.0047 r/dKf
0.021 Ib/ton 9
0.007 r/dKf
0.36 Ib/hr 30
0.0028 r/dKf
HA HA
0.543 Ib/hr S3
0.0051 r/dKf
0.0)7 Ib/ton M
0.0041 r/dKf
Efficiency (S)
fot*l Dats teftrence
Partlculete CondmtlbU Twt Hothod (T/«) Hudier
HA HA EPA 5 H 21
HA HA EPA S R 22
HA HA EPA 5 R 22
HA HA EPA 5 R 22
84 00 EPA 5 R 2)
HA HA EPA S 1 24
HA HA EPA 5 H
HA HA EPA 5 T 25
30 24 EPA 5 T 25
77 (a) EPA 5 Y 25
-------
T«U 2-1. CCMDCKIOIES OAT A MSf
Source Catatery Proceee Type Control Type
lead Oklda Plant Oarten pot fabric filter
MtarlaU bandllno fabric filter
Calclnlnt furnace Cyclonet and
fabric filter
Natarlala fabric filter
•andllno and
Crlndlno
to
• loadlr* aon*
vD
lead Procemlno lead aeltlnj OaahouM and
furnace aerubbar
UthtMeltht notary kiln Wet acrubbar
Attratete
Clinker cooler Cyclone and
fabric filter
•otary kiln Met acrubber
Clinker coaler Sett lint cheat*
•otary kiln Met acrubber
Clinker cooler Sett lint eheahti
Uncontrolled lalMlont
Total
PartlcuUt*
•A
•A
86.7 Ib/hr
11.64 ar/dacf
49.32 Ib/hr
1.0093 S»/dKf
0.034 Ib/hr
O.MS7 tr/dKf
M
m
12.09 Ib/hr
0.082S r/dKf
9190 Ib/hr
26.28 tr/dKf
r M
3699 Ib/hr
17.421 ar/dKf
r HA
Controlled EalMlont Efficiency (X)
leacle*
X Total
CondanalM* CendmlMe Parti cut ete
M
M
0.1 Ib/hr
O.OM ar/dtcf
0.03 Ib/hr
0.0007 tr/dKf
0.0001 tb/hr
0.0009 tr/dKf
M
M
0.09 Ib/hr
0.0007 tr/dKf
61.3 Ib/hr
0.10 ar/dKf
HA
4.S Ib/hr
0.0214 tr/dKf
HA
M 0.57 Ib/ton
0.0411 tr/dKf
M O.OM Ib/hr
0.0029 tr/dKf
<1 0.004 IbAr
0.0121 tr/dKf
<1 O.OS4 IbAr
0.001 r/dKf
<1 M
M 0.29 Ib/hr
0.00*3 ar/dKf
M 10.13 Ib/hr
0.0563 ar/dKf
1 2.36 IbAr
0.0047 r/dKf
1 21.13 Ib/hr
0.0506 tr/dKf
HA. 4.436 Ib/hr
0.0743 tr/dKf
<1 123.3 Ib/hr
0.29 tr/dKf
M K.64 Ib/hr
0.0587 tr/dKf
1 Total Bat* Inference
Condmlbte CondmelMe Pertfculete CondavlMe Teet Method (T/H1 HurfMr
0.01 Ib/ton 2 M
0.0009 tr/dKf
0.00 Ib/hr 91 HA
0.0002 tr/dKf
0.017 Ib/hr 20 >99
0.0021 tr/dttf
0.022 Ib/hr 4t >99
0.0005 tr/dKf
HA M HA
0.11 Ib/hr M M
0.0014 tT/dKf
2.S3 IbAr 2) HA
0.0162 ar/dKf
1.91 IbAr 01 01
0.0018 tr/dKf
J.73 IbAr 27 >9»
0.0156 tr/d»cf
0.636 IbAr 14 HA
0.0103 tr/dKf
3.9 IbAr 3 97
0.0093 tr/dKf
0.54 IbAr 4 HA
0.0027 ar/dtcf
M EPA 5 • 26
HA EPA S H 26
83 EPA 5 H 26
27 EPA S H 26
M EPA 5 H 26
HA SCAM) 5.2 H 107
M EPA S T 27
(e) EPA 5 T 27
91 EPA S T 28
U EPA S T 20
13 EPA S T 29
M EPA 5 1 29
(continued)
-------
TMLE 2-1. CONOENSItlEt DATA IASC
Uncontrolled Edlillone Controlled £•<»•( one Efficiency (X)
Source Cotewrv Proc*M Tm Central Type SoeclM
Totll * total X Totil Data Mcference
Particular Cenderalble Cendrrttlbl* Participate Condemlbl* Condemlblt PtrtlcuUte Condcntltatt Twt Method (T/M) Nueber
KM «ot»ry ktlnt EtP NA NA NA O.S3S Ib/ton
Manufacturing 0.0134 gr/duf
Rotary kiln febrle filter M M NA 0.315 Ib/ton
0.0346 gr/d*cf
(•nonlng chHfctr Met »cn*ber M NA NA 0.1 Ib/ton
0.0341 gr/dtcf
•ydritor Utt wnAber M NA NA 0.112 Ib/ton
0.1487 gr/duf
O Petrol f rCCU E» NA HA NA 0.11 gr/d«cf
fCCO Cyclone* and C«P M NA NA 109 Ib/lir
0.214 gr/dtcf
fCCU E» M M NA 323 Ib/hr
0.204 gr/owf
•CO! Vonturl tcrubbtr 0.0213 tr/d*ef 0.0083 gr/dscf 39 0.0129 gr/dwf
fCOU E» NA NA NA 22.6S Ib/dr
0.0171 gr/dwf
rCCU l» NA NA NA 28.68 Ib/hr
0.0218 gr/dtcf
0.263 Ib/ton 49 NA
0.0067 tr/dtcf
0.039 Ib/ton 12 NA
0.004 gr/dtef
0.016 Ib/ton 16 NA
0.0056 gr/dtef
0.0036 Ib/ton 3 NA
0.0048 gr/dicf
0.067 gr/dwf 61 NA
116 tb/hr 61 NA
0.07 gr/ckcf
85 Ib/hr 26 NA
0.1S1 or/decf
0.0013 gr/d*cf 10 61
3.21 tb/hr 14 NA
0.0024 gr/dccf
13.66 Ib/hr 48 NA
0.0104 gr/dKf
NA EPA 5 N 64
NA EPA 5 N 65
NA EPA 5 N 66
NA EPA 5 N 67
NA EPA 5 N 50
NA EPA S N 51
NA EPA 5 N 52
84 EPA 5 and T 53
EPA 8
NA SCAOND 5.2 N 119
NA SCAOMD 5.2 N 78
(continued)
-------
TAILE Z-1. CDNOEIBIILES Ml* SASE
Uncontrolled Eat Him Controlled te<» Ion* Efficiency rt)
tourc* CMtgory f rocMi typt Control T«»
ToUl X Totil
P*rtlcut*t* Conhralbl* CordmlbU rwtleulctt
•.trolw FCCU ESP MM Ml* Ib/hr
«•*•«'"• 0.045* tr/dKf
(contlnutd)
«CU ESP M M M 20.1S Ib/hr
0.0447 pr/dKf
'CCU ESP M M M 24.BS Ib/hr
0.1BJ ir/duf
FCO/ ESP MM M U Ib/hr
0.0216 «r/dKf
'CCU ESP M M M 8.B3 Ib/hr
r\J 0.02o fr/dwf
"~* FCCU CtP M M M S.44 Ib/hr
0.021 tr/dKf
FCCU ESP M « M 18-51 Ib/hr
0.012 ir/dtcf
FCCU ESP M M M 26.2 tb/hr
0.014 flr/dKf
FCCU ESP M M M 7.90 Ib/hr
O.OU gr/dtef
FCCU ESP M M M 8.92 tb/hr
0.04 gr/dicf
Condcnlblc Candtmlble P.rttcul.t. Condemlblc ?«t Method (T/«) Nu*er
16.06 Ib/hr »5 M
O.OSS gr/dkcf
14.61 (b/hr 71 U
0.0324 *r/d»cl
1.131 Ib/hr fr M
D.006J tr/dKf
11.54 Ib/hr 14 M
O.OU fr/dicf
O.S2I Ib/hr 6 M
O.WJ15 gr/dicf
1.24 Ib/hr 1$ M
0.005 gr/cbcf
2.64 Ib/hr U M
0.0017 gr/dmcf
20.1! Ib/hr 7T IH
0.010B gr/d>cf
2. 25 Ib/hr 28 M
0.011 gr/daef
2.46 Ib/hr 28 M
0.011 gr/dscf
M CAM f .2 M 114
KA CM! $.2 N 114
M SCAOC $.2 M 123
U SCI.au> S.2 N 122
MA SCAQM) $.2 M 113
KA SOWN) 5.2 N 11J
M SCAON) S.2 T 104
M SCAOM) 5.2 M 79
M SCAON) S.2 N 121
M SCAOND 5.2 II 12S
(continued)
-------
TAKE 2-1. CONDENSIOUS MIA MSC
tource Catetory
•***«• lock
•*TOCoM«)lfl0
PlyMOodNanu-
faeturlm
to
/,
to
Portland Coaont
Proc eaa Typo
votary dryer ond
fluid bed dryer
fluid bod dryer
•oiler 0)111 and
bowl Mill
Veneer dryer and
Mood-fired
boiler
Vonter dryer*
Clinker cooler
•otary kiln
f Inlafc oil!
Air eeperotor
•otary kiln
Uncontrolled EajlMlona Controlled Eariealona Efficiency (S)
Control Type Specie*
Total X Total X Total Oate teftronc*
Pertlculate CondemlbU CondonalMo Portlculate Condon* Ible Condonalble PortlcuUte Condmelble Teat Method (T/H) Matw
Cyclonea. net M M M 0.033 Ib/ton
ecrdbber. end 0.011 tr/dKf
HOt «P
Cyclone ond 2.81 Ib/ton 0.069 Ib/ton 2 0.102 Ib/ton
net cyclonic 1.677 ar/d*cf 0.038 or/dKf O.OS8 tr/dacf
•crUbbtr
CyclonN and 201 Ib/hr 0.1) Ib/hr <1 0.146 Ib/tir
fobrle filter 3.21 tr/dacf 0.0024 tr/dicf 0.003 tr/dtcf
•one 33.4 Ib/hr 31 Ib/hr 93 HA
1.19 Ib/1000ft2 1.1 lb/tOOO«tZ
0.161 or/dKf 0.» or/dKf
18.3 Ib/hr 16.6 Ib/hr 91 14.9 Ib/hr
O.S3 Ib/1000ft2 0.47 Ib/1000ft2 0.43 Ib/IOOOf
0.164 tr/dacf 0.148 tr/dKf 0.103 or/d*cf
fabric filter M M •* 0.483 Ib/ton
0.0617 tr/d*cf
Et» M M M 0.972 Ib/ton
0.1099 er/dKf
fabric filter M M HA 0.0213 Ib/ton
0.0132 tr/dKf
fabric filter M •* «A 0.0668 tb/ton
0.0088 fr/dKf
fabric filter M •* M 0.184 Ib/too
M A9.«*B M*. «>•»»•
0.008 Ib/ton 24 M
0.003 tr/dKf
0.026 Ib/ton 2S 96
0.015 tr/docf
0.042 tb/t>r 29 >99
0.001 tr/dtcf
M HA HA
11.7 tb/hr 79 18
0.34 Ib/1000ft2
0.081 ar/dKf
0.018 Ib/ton 4 HA
0.0023 fr/dKf
0.088 Ib/ton 9 M
0.01 tr/dKf
0.0079 Ib/ton 37 HA
0.0049 ar/dKf
0.0278 Ib/ton 42 M
0.0036 er/dKf
0.114 Ib/ton 67 HA
• 111 IX mrlitfrt
•A EPA S • 69
62 EPA S • 70
72 EPA S H 71
M EPA SX T 36
28 EPA SX T 37
m EPA S • •»
M EPA > • 89
M EPAS • 88
M EPA S • 88
M EPAS • 30
-------
TAME 2-1. OMKKIIUS DATA IASC
Source Coteoory
Portland Ceaant
(continued) .
Prlaory Alualnai
Prlaery Copper
rO
i
Prlaory load
Procttot Typt)
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln
i Anodt prefaeke
colt
Anode prebake
Horliontel
Sodtrburt
•ovtrborotory
furnace
Converter, elec-
tric furnace, end
fluldltad ted roaettr
Reverberetory
furnace and outtl-
heorth roaator
Blast furnace
Slnterlm
01 oat furnace
Control Typo
fabric fitter
fabric filter
fabric filter
fabric filter
ESP
Sett lint chaabir
and ESP
Spray ch saber
and fabric filter
Spray ehoeber
end ESP
Spray cheater
and fabric filter
Spray chaster
and fabric fllttr
Spray choaber
and fabric filter
Uncontrolled Ealttlons
Total
•articulate
HA
HA
HA
99.1 Ib/ten
0.1401 tr/duf
81.8 Ib/ton
0.0875 tr/dKf
398.5 Ib/hr
0.597 f/a»cf
8678 Ib/hr
6.264 tr/dKf
2415 Ib/hr
2.207 tr/dKf
HA
58.2 Ib/ton
3.47 tr/dKf
174 Ib/ton
3.16 tr/dKf
CandonelMe
M
NA
•A
1.3 Ib/ton
0.0019 tr/dKf
15.2 Ib/ton
0.0163 tr/duf
103.5 Ib/hr
0.155 or/dKf
122.2 Ib/hr
0.008 tr/dKf
S1.4 Ib/hr
0.047 tr/dKf
HA
J.2 Ib/ten
0.53 fr/dKf
2 Ib/ton
0.05 or/dKf
Controlled Ealtilone Efficiency (1)
X Totol
Condanelbte PertleuUte
HA 1.026 Ib/ton
0.127 tr/duf
HA 0.396 Ib/ton
0.0496 tr/dKf
HA 0.744 Ib/ton
0.0061 tr/dKf
1 1.8 Ib/ton
0.0022 tr/dscf
19 5.95 Ib/ton
0.0064 tr/dKf
26 138.8 Ib/hr
0.157 tr/dKf
1 111.3 Ib/hr
0.078 or/dKf
2 75 Ib/hr
0.055 tr/duf
HA 22.35 Ib/hr
0.02 tr/duf
5 0.095 Ib/ton
0.002 tr/dKf
1 2.5 Ib/ton
0.0275 or/duf
X Totel
ConaanelMo Condemlbte Pertlculete
0.427 Ib/ton 42 HA
0.053 tr/dKf
0.124 Ib/ton 31 HA
0.0158 tr/duf
0.251 Ib/ton 34 M
0.0035 tr/duf
0.57 Ib/ten 32 90
0.0007 tr/duf
2.99 Ib/ton 50 93
0.0032 or/duf
61.7 Ib/hr 44 65
0.07 tr/dKf
82.5 Ib/hr 74 99
0.050 tr/dKf
16.4 Ib/hr 22 97
0.012 tr/dKf
13.5 Ib/hr 60 HA
0.012 er/duf
HA HA >99
1.2 Ib/ton 40 99
0.0133 er/duf
Deto Reference
Condenolble Test Method (T/H) Htafcer
HA EPA 5 « 31
HA EPA 5 1 99
HA EPA 5 1 32
56 EPA 5 II 33
00 EPA 5 M 34
69 EPA 17 H 35
33 EPA 5 Y 82
68 EPA 5 Y 83
HA EPA 5 T 38
HA EPA 5 fl 39
40 EPA 5 Y 39
(contlnuMl)
-------
TAM.E 2-1. CONDEttlBlES DATA IASE
•ourci Cetofory Proceie Type
Uncontrolled teltoiane
Control T»M
Controlled Enletlon* Efficiency (X)
Specie*
lotel X Tout X Taut Deto Reference
••ertfculote CondenelMe Condenelble Pertlculote Condenelble Condendble Fertlculite Condemlble Tt»t Method
-------
TMU 2-1. aMKKIM.fi DATA USE
Uncontrolled Eolation*
tourc* Cetetory Proceee Type Control type
Total
•ortlcuUt* CondmlbU i
•oop t 0«toia«nt Opray toner Cyclone* and 275 Ib/hr * Ib/hr
Nenufacturlna fabric filter 1.09 tr/dKf 0.02 tr/dKf
fcw^BB* tflOoaBBI* f*OBV»4 JMeBBA AAB»t> •*• MA
•prVf/' «fJOJOJT •LyCVVaTWWf aW eaW eTfll
pocked acruDber.
M*t t»
•pray toner Mat oenAher M M
•A Cyclona and M M
scnttwr
ftetl tlnterlnt OiafreuM M M
HonufKturln)
Itone Cruehlnt Secondary end rebrlc filter M M
tertiary crueher*.
clOMl fler*
final elifnt and fabric filter M M
•wUlorlea
nwa»tlc drllllnf fabric filter M M
Toconite Or* Fin* crueher Mat cyclone M M
•recMllns
Controlled CB) ill ont efficiency
X Totel
CondmtlM* rartlcutite
2 1.00 iBVhr
0.0007 ar/decf
OA 0.422 Ib/ton
0.019B tr/dKf
M 1.705 Ib/ton
0.0225 ar/dccf
M 1.9* Ib/hr
O.OOM tr/dKf
M 13.2 Ib/tir
0.013 or/dKf
M 0.0107 Ib/ton
0.009 ar/dacf
•A 0.0037 Ib/ton
0.0039 er/dKf
M 0.04 Ib/hr
0.041 ar/dKf
M O.OOM Ib/ton
0.0049 tr/dKf
S Total
Condmlbt* Condenmlble ••rtltoUte Co
1.S9 Ib/hr 05 99
0.0074 tr/dKf
0.512 Ib/ton 02 M
O.OMJ ar/dKf
0.254 Ib/ton 14 M
0.0052 ar/dKf
0.110 Ib/hr • MA
O.OOM ar/dKf
4.95 Ib/hr 30 M
0.00(9 tr/dKf
O.OOM Ib/ton ft M
0.0005 ar/dKf
0.0009 Ib/ton 24 M
0.001 tr/dKf
0.002 Ib/hr 5 M
0.002 tr/dKf
0.0001 tb/ton » HA
0.0003 tr/dKf
toeelee
D«t*
ndenalMa Teat Method
-------
Controlled emissions - total paniculate (front-half and back-half catch), condensibles,
and percent condensibles,
Emission control efficiency - total paniculate and condensibles,
• Availability of chemical species data,
Emission test method, and
Reference.
2.2.1 Data Sources
A large proportion of the data compiled in this study was obtained from emission test reports.
The source test reports were gathered from EPA's Emission Measurement Branch files, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) source testing files, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and other sources.
A large number of reports reviewed did not include the back-half catch and were excluded from
further analysis. In addition, test data collected using an adsorbent (e.g., XAD resin traps used in
dioxin/furan testing) in the back-half of the sampling train were not included, because samples collected
in this manner would not represent condensible matter as defined in this study.
Test data gathered in this study were screened to ensure data quality. Only the tests
performed using EPA or State agency approved sampling methods or their equivalent were included in
the data base. Additionally, any questionable testing results were excluded from the data base.
The condensible emissions reported in Table 2-1 were either taken directly from the test reports
or calculated from the test results presented. If back-half data were presented, these were taken as the
condensible fraction. Where the back-half results were not reported explicitly, condensible emissions
were calculated by either subtracting the front-half catch from the total catch or multiplying the total
catch by the percent impinger catch.
2.2.2 Sampling Methods
About 70 percent of the tests summarized in Table 2-1 were conducted using the EPA
Reference Method 5. Data collected using the SCAQMD Method 5.2 account for about 20 percent of
the tests. In addition, 2-3 tests each were performed using EPA Methods 5E, 5H, 5X, and 17.
The sampling train used in all the tests was essentially the same. In tests conducted using
EPA methods, the filter temperature was maintained at 250°F except in three tests. These tests
involved petroleum refining and plywood manufacturing source categories where the filter temperature
2-16
-------
was kept at 350°F. In more than half of the SCAQMD tests, the filter temperature was maintained at
200-250°F. The remaining SCO AMD tests were conducted at filter temperatures less than 200°F or at
unspecified filter temperatures.
For a given source, maintaining the front-half filter temperature at <250°F would result in
smaller quantities of condensible material collected in the impingers than that collected at filter
temperatures of 250°F. If the filter temperature is kept at temperatures higher than 250°F, a greater
proportion of the paniculate matter would be collected in the impingers. For a given source, the
condensibles emission rate estimated using the EPA Method 5 test data would be higher than that
estimated using the SCO AMD Method 5.2 (filter temperature <250°F) test data.
Typically, deionized water was used in the impingers. However, in some tests, impinger
solutions containing nitric acid or sodium hydroxide were used (e.g., cadmium sulfide pigments and
asphalt concrete source categories). Since these solutions have greater affinity for certain species, the
condensibles emission rate estimated using such systems would be greater than that of a typical
sampling train.
The EPA Method 5 or its equivalent, where the back-half catch is determined gravimetrically,
includes no corrections for acid or sulfate formation in the impingers from the S(ySO3 in the stack gas.
Therefore, the Method 5 results overestimate what is caught in the back-half of the sampling train as
condensibles. The SCQAMD Method 5.2 procedures incorporate corrections for formation of
acid/sulfate species in the impingers. When reporting total paniculate matter (front-half and back-half)
emission rates, an adjustment is made for formation of such species. In addition, if ammonia is injected
to increase the efficiency of a control device, a second adjustment to the impinger catch is made (only
for fluid catalytic cracking units). Therefore, for a given source, the condensibles emission rate
measured using the SCAQMD Method 5.2 would be tower than that measured using the EPA Method 5
back-half catch.
The EPA is currently developing a test method to measure condensible emissions from
stationary sources. This method is similar to the SCAQMD Method 5.2 in that it contains procedures to
correct for acid/sulfate species formation in the back-half of the sampling train.
2.2.3 Condensibles Data Analysis
The Condensibles Data Base in Table 2-1 characterizes 43 source categories. For 13 of the
categories, only one set of data is available, making it difficult to draw any conclusions about these
categories.
Table 2-2 presents a summary of percent condensibles [100 x back-half catch/(back-half catch + front-
half catch)] data for each source category with more than one set of test data. As shown in this table,
2-17
-------
the average percent condensible value ranges from 8 (iron ore benefication) to 86 (plywood
manufacturing).
The relative standard deviation (100 x standard deviation/average) values shown in Table 2-2
provide a measure of the variation in the percentage of condensibles within a given source category.
This parameter ranges from 7 percent (brass and bronze smelting) to over 100 percent (building brick
manufacturing, lead oxide, lightweight aggregate, and primary lead). In a majority of the cases, the
relative standard deviation is in excess of 50 percent. The high degree of variation for these categories
is probably due to differences in individual emission source characteristics, since the data in most
cases were collected using the same measurement method.
To identify source categories where future efforts on condensible emissions should be focused,
a preliminary analysis was conducted. As part of this analysis, Table 2-3 ranks the source categories
according to the percentage of condensibles in the paniculate catch. Based on the information
collected in this study, the categories where the percentage of condensibles is greater than 50 include
the following: plywood manufacturing, asphalt concrete, electric utilities, fertilizer manufacturing, and
secondary lead smelting. Paniculate emissions from stationary point source categories are ranked
according to their contributions to national emissions in Table 2-4. These data were extracted from the
1985 NAPAP Emission Inventory.184 The percentages of condensibles estimated from the current study
are also listed in Table 2-4. Source categories characterized with high percentage of condensibles and
significant contribution to national particulate emission levels would be ideal candidates for further
study. From the two tables, it appears that the combustion source category (utility/industrial boilers
fueled with coal/oiVwood/barfc) would be a suitable candidate for future studies.
2.3 SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
Table 2-5 presents the spedated condensible emissions data identified in this study for 13
source categories. Most of these source categories are also included in Table 2-1. The information
presented for each emission source includes the following:
Source category,
Process Type,
• Emission control type,
Condensible species,
Uncontrolled emissions - condensible species,
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-2. PERCENTAGE OF CONDENSIBLES IN PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Source Category
Relative Standard
Deviation
% Condensibles*
Asphalt Concrete
Brass & Bronze Smelters
Building Brick Manufacturing
Coal Preparation Plants
Coke Ovens
Electric Utilities
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Processing
Incinerators
Industrial Boilers
Iron Ore Beneficiation
Iron and Steel Plants
Kraft Pulp Mills
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Lead Oxide
Lightweight Aggregate
Lime Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Phosphate Rock Processing
Plywood Manufacturing
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Primary Aluminum
Primary Copper Smelting
Primary Lead Smelting
Secondary Lead Smelting
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
Stone Crushing
54
28
35
32
21
56
23
55
47
41
12
30
8
35
21
37
31
26
20
39
26
86
32
39
47
33
57
47
12
63
7
114
75
67
32
78
40
57
41
83
97
25
40
76
38
119
111
100
72
12
12
63
26
55
118
77
91
92
•As defined by the back-half (Method 5 or equivalent) catch.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-3. CATEGORY RANKING ACCORDING TO PERCENTAGE
OF CONDENSIBLES IN PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
% Condensibles
(Average) Source Category
80 - 90 Plywood manufacturing
50 • 60 Asphalt concrete
Electric utilities
Fertilizer manufacturing
Secondary lead smelting
40 - 50 Glass manufacturing
Grain processing
Primary copper smelting
Soap and detergent manufacturing
25 - 40 Brass and bronze smelters
Building brick manufacturing
Coal preparation plants
Industrial boilers
Iron and steel plants
Lead acid battery manufacturing
Lead oxide manufacturing
Lightweight aggregate
Petroleum refining
Phosphate rock processing
Portland cement manufacturing
Primary aluminum
Primary lead smelting
2-20
-------
Controlled emissions - condensible species,
Emission control efficiency - condensible species, and
Reference.
2.3.1 Data Sources
The data in Table 2-5 were extracted from source test reports in EPA's Emission Measurement
Branch files. Results representing only the back-half catch of the sampling train were incorporated in
the data base. In several cases, conversion factors based on process data (e.g., stack gas flow rate,
production rate) were applied to the analytical results to estimate the condensible emission rates.
Determination of organic and inorganic fractions of the back-half catch was typically based on
gravimetric methods. However, analyses for other species such as trace metals were based on
instrumental techniques.
2.3.2 Soeciated Condensibles Data Analysis
The data collected on quantification of specific components within the condensible fraction were
very limited, making it difficult to draw any conclusions. As shown in Table 2-5, the most common
breakdown of the condensible fraction involved expressing the back-half catch as organic/inorganic.
Results from tests conducted to characterize emissions of specific species such as cadmium, arsenic,
lead are also included in the table. Additionally, trace metal analyses are reported for three source
categories. However, the trace metal results are limited in that they are based on a single run during
the tests.
From the limited data in Table 2-5, it appears that the air toxics species measured make up
less than one percent of the total condensible emissions in most cases. The air toxics species
measured include the following: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, chromium, mercury, and vanadium.
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-4. CONTRIBUTION OF MAJOR STATIONARY POINT SOURCES
TO PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Annual
Paniculate Emissions*
Source Category (%) % Condensibles"
Coal Combustion (utility) 27.2 56
Nonmetallic Minerals 7.1 12
Coal Mining 5.4 NA
Coal Combustion (industrial) 4.6 NA
Wood/Bark Combustion (industrial) 4.2 NA
Cement Manufacturing 4.1 32
Iron and Steel Plants 2.7 35
Charcoal Manufacturing 1.9 NA
Oil Combustion (industrial) 1.8 NA
Lime Manufacturing 1.7 20
Brick Manufacturing 1.5 35
Oil Combustion (utility) 1.5 NA
Petroleum Refining 1.3 39
Primary Aluminum 1.3 37
TOTAL -65
Based on the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory; as percent of the total U.S. stationary point source
annual paniculate emissions.
As percent of annual paniculate emissions for a given source category.
NA > not available.
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPEC I MED COND6NSIBL6S DATA BASE
to
Source Category Process Type Control Type Condenslble Species
Asphalt Concrete Recycle asphalt Knockout box and Total
pavement venturl scrubber Organic
Carbon
Conventional Knockout box and Total
venturl scrubber Organic
Carbon
Organlcs
(ether-cholorofom
soluble fraction)
Aluainua
BerylUua
Cadaiua
Calcium
ChromiuM
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Uncontrolled Emission*
7.81 Ib/hr
0.052 gr/dscf
0.041 Ib/ton
32.0 Ib/hr
0.312 gr/dscf
0.139 Ib/ton
12.4 Ib/hr
0.121 gr/dscf
0.0537 Ib/ton
5.06-05 gr/dscf
2.2E-05 Ib/ton
7.2E-07 gr/dscf
2.8E-07 Ib/ton
4.3E-06 gr/dscf
1.86-06 Ib/ton
0.001 gr/dscf
0.0004 Ib/ton
<1. 26-06 gr/dscf
<4. 96-07 Ib/ton
4.06-05 gr/dscf
2.06-05 Ib/ton
<9.6E-05 gr/dscf
<4.0E-05 Ib/ton
4.06-05 gr/dscf
2.06-05 Ib/ton
Controlled Emissions
3.45 Ib/hr
0.023 gr/dscf
0.018 Ib/ton
11.0 Ib/hr
0.107 gr/dscf
0,048 Ib/ton
4.49 Ib/hr
0.0445 gr/dscf
0.0191 Ib/ton
3.06-05 gr/dscf
1.36-05 Ib/ton
8.36-07 gr/dscf
3.46-07 Ib/ton
4.26-06 gr/dscf
1.76-06 Ib/ton
4.1E-04 gr/dscf
1.7E-04 Ib/ton
3.86-06 gr/dscf
1.66-06 Ib/ton
2.06-05 gr/dscf
B.OE-06 Ib/ton
NA
7.46-05 gr/dscf
3.06-05 Ib/ton
Control
efficiency Reference
(X) Number
56 3
66 4
64
40
(0
2
59
(.)
50
NA
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
to
Source Category Process Type Control Typa Condenslble Species
Asphalt Concrete Conventional Knockout box and Manganese
(continued) venturi scrubber
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
i
Recycle Knockout box and Total
venturi scrubber Organic
Carbon
Organic*
(ether-chloroform
soluble fraction)
Aluminum
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Uncontrolled Emissions
1.5E-06 gr/dscf
5.9E-07 Ib/ton
<1.6E-05 gr/dscf
<6.7E-06 Ib/ton
<4.1E-06 gr/dscf
<1.3E-06 Ib/ton
<7.0E-05 gr/dscf
<3.0E-05 Ib/ton
1.0E-05 gr/dscf
4.4E-06 Ib/ton
62.1 Ib/hr
0.536 gr/dscf
0.261 Ib/ton
14.4 Ib/hr
0.123 gr/dscf
0.0605 Ib/ton
5.7E-05 gr/dscf
2.4E-05 Ib/ton
1.2E-06 gr/dscf
4.9E-07 Ib/ton
5.5E-06 gr/dscf
2.3E-06 Ib/ton
6.2E-04 gr/dscf
2.6E-04 Ibyton
Controlled Emissions
1.6E-06 gr/dscf
6.7E-07 Ib/ton
1.8E-05 gr/dscf
7.4E-06 Ib/ton
<1.8E-06 gr/dscf
<7.4E-07 Ib/ton
3.6E-05 gr/dscf
1.5E-05 Ib/ton
3.1E-06 gr/dscf
1.3E-06 Ib/ton
12.4 Ib/hr
0.105 gr/dscf
0.052 Ib/ton
4.53 Ib/hr
0.0388 gr/dscf
0.0188 Ib/ton
<1 .8E-05 gr/dscf
<8.2E-06 Ib/ton
<1.8E-07 gr/dscf
<8.3E-08 Ib/ton
<7.3E-07 gr/dscf
<3.3E-07 Ib/ton
1.9E-04 gr/dscf
8.7E-05 Ib/ton
Control
Efficiency Reference
(X) Number
(a)
(e)
56
49
69
80
69
68
85
87
69
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATEO CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
Source Category Process Type
Asphalt Concrete leeyel*
(continued)
>
i
PI
Cadaiua Sulf idt Belt dryer
Pig*ents
Rotary calciner
and vacuua pan
dryer
Control Type Condenaible Specie* Uncontrolled Emissions
Knockout box and Chrosriua 5.2E-06 gr/dscf
venturl acrubber 2.2E-06 Ib/ton
Iron 5.3E-05 gr/dscf
2.2E-OS Ib/ton
Lead <9.4E-05 gr/dscf
<4.0E-05 Ib/ton
NagnesiuM 1.0E-04 gr/dscf
4.2E-OS Ib/ton
Manganese 2.7E-06 gr/dscf
1.1E-06 Ib/ton
Mercury <3.3E-OS gr/dscf
<1.4E-05 Ib/ton
Nickel 2.3E-06 gr/dscf
9.8E-07 Ib/ton
Vanadiua <6.8E-05 gr/dscf
<2.9E-OS Ib/ton
Zinc 1.2E-OS gr/dscf
4.9E-06 Ib/ton
Venturi scrubber Cad»iu» NA
Spray tower Cadniin NA
Controlled EHiasiona
<3.6E-07 gr/dscf
<1.7E-07 Ib/ton
2.5E-06 gr/dscf
1.2E-06 Ib/ton
<3.1E-05 gr/dscf
<1. 4E-05 Ib/ton
<1.2E-05 gr/dscf
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
to
Source Category
Cadatua Sulf Ida
Plgaents
(continued)
Cable Covering
Coke Oven*
Iron and Steel
Plants
Process Type
Materials
handling and
crushing
Tray dryer
Lead presses.
lead pots,
dross kettle
Oven battery
stack
Oven bsttery
stack
Sintering
Sintering
Control Type Condensible Species
Fabric filter Cadalua
None CadHltai
None Lead
Uet ESP Orgsnics
(Benzene Soluble
fraction)
Maintenance Sulfate
Organic*
(ether-chlorofor»
soluble fraction)
Inorganics
Cyclone* and Organics
ESP (ether-chloroform
soluble fraction)
Cyclones, venturl Organics
scrubber, and (ether-chloroform
deaister soluble fraction)
Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled EailMions
NA 4.0E-06 Ib/hr
1.8E-07 gr/dscf
4.9E-06 Ib/hr NA
4.4E-07 gr/dscf
0.0001 Ib/ton NA
3.7E-05 Ib/hr 1.7E-05 Ib/hr
NA 3.25 Ib/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
NA 0.12 Ib/hr
0.0007 gr/dscf
NA 0.197 Ib/hr
0.0011 gr/dscf
NA 0.0042 gr/dscf
0.0265 Ib/ton
47.6 Ib/hr 14.4 Ib/hr
0.031 gr/dscf 0.008 gr/dscf
Control
Efficiency Reference
(X) Nuaber
NA 49
NA
NA 8
54 11
NA 84
NA
NA
NA 45
70 47
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
to
i
10
Source Cetegory Proem Type Control Type Condensible Specie*
Iron end Steel MF Venturl scrubber Sulfete
Plents
(continued)
•OF ESP Sulfete
•OF Venturl scrubber Antleony
Arsenic
Berylllun
Btseuth
Boron
Cadalu*
CelciiM
ChroMius
Cobalt
Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions
HA 8.1E-02 Ib/hr
1.6E-04 gr/dscf
1.6E-0* Ib/ton
NA 1.8E-01 Ib/tir
9.8E-04 gr/dscf
7.6E-03 Ib/ton
NA <4.0E-07 Ib/hr
<4.0E-07 gr/dscf
NA <6.0E-07 tb/hr
<6.0E-07 gr/dscf
NA <6.1E-09 Ib/hr
<6.4E-09 gr/dscf
NA <6. IE-OS Ib/hr
<6.4E-08 gr/dscf
NA <6.0E-07 Ib/hr
<6.0E-07 gr/dscf
NA <«.OE-07 Ib/hr
<4.0E-07 gr/dscf
NA <3.0E-06 Ib/hr
<3.0E-06 gr/dscf
NA <6.1E-08 Ib/hr
<6.*E-08 gr/dscf
NA <6.1E-08 Ib/hr
<6.4E-08 gr/dscf
Control
Efficiency
(X)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference
Nuefcer
19
18
87
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
10
•
ro
oo
Source Category Process Type Control Type Condenslble Species
Iron and Steal SOf Vanturl scrubber Copper
Plants
(continued)
Iron
Lead
LtthliM
Nagneslus
Manganese
MolybdenuM
Nickel
Potass I UM
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions
NA <1.2E-06 Ib/hr
<1.3E-06 gr/dtcf
NA
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
Source Category Procttt Typo
Control Typo
Condorwtblt Species
Control
Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions Efficiency Reference
(X)
to
•
to
Iron end Steel BOF
Plants
(continued)
Venturl scrubber Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadtun
Zinc
Zirconium
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<*.OE-07 Ib/hr
<*.OE-07 gr/dscf
<«.OE-07 Ib/hr
<*.OE-07 gr/dscf
<6. IE-OS Ib/hr
<6.4E-08 gr/dscf
<6. IE-OS Ib/hr
<6.4E-08 gr/dscf
<1.2E-06 Ib/hr
<1.3E-06 gr/dscf
<6.1E-08 Ib/hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<6.4E-08 gr/dscf
Leed Acid
Battery
Casting fumoce None
Lightweight
Aggregrete
Stacking.
element burning,
end casing
Paste Mixer
Rotary kiln
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
wet scrubber
Lead
Lead
Lead
Organ!cs
(ether-chlorofom
soluble fraction)
Inorganics
2.0E-05 gr/dscf
6.0E-04 Ib/ton
0.005 Ib/hr
4.0E-05 gr/dscf
3.0E-05 gr/dscf
3.3E-M Ib/ton
NA
NA
0.0027 Ib/hr
2.5E-OS gr/dscf
5.0E-05 gr/dscf
4.0E-04 Ib/ton
0.13 Ib/hr
0.0007 gr/dscf
2.4 Ib/hr
0.135 gr/dscf
NA
25
NA
NA
27
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBIES DATA BASE
Source Category Process Type Control Type Condenelble Specie*
Lightweight Clinker cooler Cyclone and Organic*
Aggregrat* fabric filter (ether-chlorofoni
(continued) soluble fraction)
Inorganics
Notary kiln Uet scrubber Organlcs
(ether-chloroform
soluble fraction)
Inorganics
Clinker cooler Settling chaster Organlcs
(ether-chloroform
soluble fraction)
Inorganics
Rotary kiln wet scrubber Organic*
(ether-chloroform
soluble fraction)
Inorganics
Clinker cooler Settling cheater Organlcs
(ether-chloroform
soluble fraction)
Inorganic*
Uncontrolled Emission*
0.05 Ib/hr
0.0004 gr/dscf
0.04 Ib/hr
0.0003 gr/dscf
6.9 Ib/hr
0.021 gr/dscf
54.4 Ib/hr
0.159 gr/dscf
NA
NA
1.6 Ib/hr
0.0075 gr/dscf
2.9 Ib/hr
0.0139 gr/dscf
NA
Controlled Emissions
1.77 Ib/hr
0.001 gr/dscf
0.144 Ib/hr
0.0008 gr/dscf
0.23 Ib/hr
0.0006 gr/dscf
5.5 Ib/hr
0.015 gr/dscf
0.016 Ib/hr
0.0003 gr/dscf
0.62 Ib/hr
0.01 gr/dscf
0.8 Ib/hr
0.0019 gr/dscf
3.1 Ib/hr
0.0074 gr/dscf
0.26 Ib/hr
0.001 gr/dscf
0.42 Ib/hr
0.0017 gr/dscf
Control
Efficiency Reference
(X) Number
'•'
(a)
97 28
90
NA
50 29
(a)
NA
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED COMOEMSIBLES DATA BASE
Ni
Source Category
Petroleui
Refining
Plywood
Manufacturing
Priiwry Copper
Primary Lead
Process Type
FCOI
FCCU
Veneer dryer
and wood-fired
boiler
Veneer dryers
Converter,
electric furnace,
and f luidized bed
roaster
Reverberatory
furnace and eulti-
hearth roaster
Blast furnace
Blast furnace
Control Type Condensible Species
Venturi scrubber Sulfate
ESP Nitrate
Aaannla
None Organlcs
Cyclones and Organics
wet scrubber
Spray cheater Arsenic
and fabric filter
Spray cheater Arsenic
and ESP
Spray chaster and Lead
fabric filter
Spray cheater and Lead
fabric filter
Uncontrolled Emissions
8.3E-03 gr/dscf
NA
NA
31.0 Ib/hr
0.15 gr/dscf
1.1 Ib/1000ft2
16.6 Ib/hr
0.15 gr/dscf
0.47 Ib/1000ft2
12.7 Ib/hr
0.0093 gr/dscf
19.2 Ib/hr
0.0128 gr/dscf
NA
NA
Controlled Emissions
1.3E-03 gr/dscf
10.6 Ib/hr
11.2 Ib/hr
NA
11.7 Ib/hr
0.081 gr/dscf
0.33 Ib/1000ft2
2.2 Ib/hr
0.0016 gr/dscf
1.0 Ib/hr
0.0008 gr/dscf
0.036 Ib/hr
3. IE-OS gr/dscf
3.0E-05 gr/dscf
0.017 Ib/ton
Control
Efficiency
(X)
84
NA
NA
NA
30
83
95
NA
NA
Reference
Nuater
S3
104
36
37
82
83
38
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATEO CONOENSIBLES DATA BASE
Sourct Category Process Type
Secondary lead Blast furnace
Control Type Condensible Species
Afterburner, Lead
settling chaster.
uncontrolled Emissions
0.022 Ib/hr
0.02 Ib/ton
Controlled Esiissions
0.006 Ib/hr
0.0059 Ib/ton
Control
Efficiency
(X)
73
Reference
Muaber
U
end fabric filter
Refining kettles Venturi scrubber
and slag tap and wet cyclone
Blast furnace
Afterburner,
cyclones, and
fabric filter
Lead
AluMinus
Ant irony
0.006 Ib/hr
NA
NA
0.002 Ib/hr
2.2E-06 gr/dscf
1.3E-M Ib/ton
<2.2E-06 gr/dscf
<1.3E-04 Ib/ton
67
41
NA
to
Arsenic
BartuM
Beryllius
Boron
CadnfuM
Calciua
Chroaiu*
Cobalt
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<«.4E-06 gr/dscf
<2.9E-04 Ib/ton
<3.5E-07 gr/dscf
<2.2E-05 Ib/ton
<3.7E-08 gr/dscf
<2.2E-06 Ib/ton
1.4E-06 gr/dscf
8.3E-05 Ib/ton
<2.2E-06 gr/dscf
<1.3E-04 Ib/ton
1.2E-05 gr/dscf
6.8E-04 Ib/ton
<3.5E-06 gr/dscf
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
Source Category Process Type
Control Type
Condemible Species Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions
Control
Efficiency
(X)
Reference
Nwfcer
Secondery Lead fleet furnace
(continued)
Afterburner,
cyclones, and
fabric filter
Copper
Iron
Lead
UthlUB
Nagnesiu*
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potasstua
Strontiu*
Silver
Silicon
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.2E-07 gr/dscf
1.4E-05 Ib/ton
LIE-OS gr/dscf
S.8E-04 Ib/ton
<2.7E-06 gr/dscf
<1.6E-04 Ib/ton
<5.9£-06 gr/dscf
<3.8E-Ot Ib/ton
7.1E-07 gr/dscf
4.9E-05 Ib/ton
<1.8E-07 gr/dscf
<1.1E-05 Ib/ton
<3.7E-08 gr/dscf
<2.2E-06 Ib/ton
<1.9E-06 gr/dscf
<1.06-04 Ib/ton
<1.IE-OS gr/dscf
<1.2E-03 Ib/ton
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
to
Source Category Process Type Control Type Condenslble Species
Secondary Lead Hast furnace Afterburner. Sodltn
(continued) cyclones, and
fabric filter
Vanadium
Zinc
Slatt furnace Afterburner, Total Acid
and refining fabric filter.
kettles venturi scrubber,
and dMister Alualnua
AHMOnilM
Antliwny
Arsenic
Bartua
Beryl HIM
Boron
Uncontrolled Eat »• tons Controlled Earissions
NA <4.3E-06 gr/dscf
<2.5E-04 Ib/ton
NA <3.7E-06 gr/dscf
<2.2E-05 Ib/ton
NA <4.3E-06 gr/dscf
<2.5E-04 Ib/ton
NA 1.0E-03 gr/dscf
8.1E-02 Ib/ton
NA <1.7E-06 gr/dscf
<1.4E-04 Ib/ton
NA 2.3E-03 gr/dscf
2.1E-01 Ib/ton
NA <2.9E-06 gr/dscf
<2.4E-04 Ib/ton
NA <3.6E-06 gr/dscf
<3.0E-04 Ib/ton
NA <5.7E-07 gr/dscf
<4.7E-05 Ib/ton
NA <5.7E-08 gr/dscf
<4.7E-06 Ib/ton
NA 8.SE-07 gr/dscf
7.3E-OS Ib/ton
Control
Efficiency Reference
(X) Nuaber
NA
NA
NA
NA 43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CQNDEMSIBLES DATA BASE
Source Category Process Typo
Control Type
Condenslble Specie*
Control
Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions Efficiency Reference
(X) Nurtxr
Secondary Lead Blast furnace
(continued) and refining
kettles
Afterburner,
fabric filter.
venturl acrubber,
and dealsten
u»
en
CadMiin
Calciui
Chlorine
ChraMuB
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<3.6E-06 gr/dscf
<3.06-04 Ib/too
1.6E-05 gr/dscf
1.3E-03 Ib/ton
1.8E-M gr/dscf
1.6E-02 Ib/ton
<1.46-06 gr/dscf
<1.1E-04 Ib/ton
<1.3E-06 gr/dscf
<1.0E-04 Ib/ton
O.6E-07 gr/dscf
<3.0E-05 Ib/ton
4.9E-06 gr/dscf
3.9E-04 Ib/ton
<2.9E-06 gr/dscf
<2.4E-04 Ib/ton
<5.7E-06 gr/dscf
<4.7E-04 Ib/ton
2.4E-06 gr/dscf
2.0E-04 Ib/ton
<2.7E-07 sr/dscf
<2.3E-05 Ib/ton
5.7E-Oa gr/dscf
4.7E-06 Ib/ton
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPECIATED CONOENSIBLES DATA BASE
Source Category Procett Type
Control Type
Condeneible Specie* Uncontrolled Eaissions Controlled Emissions
Control
Efficiency
(X)
Reference
Secondary Lead
(continued)
•Iwt furnace
and refining
kettle*
Afterburner,
fabric filter,
venturi scrubber,
and demlster
01
N03
Nickel
Potaestua
S03
Strontium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Tin
Venadiui
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4E-03 gr/ctacf
1.3E-01 Ib/ton
<1.*E-06 flr/dscf
<1.1E-M Ib/ton
<1.*E-05 gr/dscf
<1.1E-03 Ib/ton
1.5E-02 gr/dscf
1.2E+00 Ib/ton
<2.0E-06 flr/dscf
<1.7E-W Ib/ton
7.1E-06 flr/dscf
6.0E-M Ib/ton
<5.7E-08 flr/dscf
<4.7E-06 Ib/ton
<5.7E-06 flr/dscf
<4.7E-04 Ib/ton
1.4E-02 gr/dscf
1.2E+00 Ib/ton
3.6E-06 or/dsef
3.0E-04 Ib/ton
<5.7E-07 flr/dscf
<*.7E-05 Ib/ton
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-5. SPtCIATED CONDENSIBLES DATA BASE
Source Category
Secondary leed
(contfnuKi)
Sewage Sludge
Incinerator
Process Type
•iMt furnace
and rtf infng
kattlts
Fluldlzed bed
incinerator
Control Type Condenetble Species
Afterburner, Zinc
fabric filter.
venturl scrubber.
end dearister
Venturl scrubber Lead
and desjUter
Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled E«istlons
NA
-------
SECTION 3
CONTROLLABILITY OF CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
This section discusses the effectiveness of control devices in controlling condensible emissions
based on the data collected in this study. It also includes a brief discussion on possible methods of
optimizing controls for improved performance.
3.1 CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS CONTROL DATA
In evaluating the effectiveneness of condensible emissions controls, emphasis is placed on
control device efficiency as well as controlled emissions levels. Control efficiency data are discussed in
Section 3.1.1. followed by a discussion of controlled emissions levels in Section 3.1.2.
3.1.1 Condensible Emissions Control Efficiency
Table 3-1 presents a summary of the condensible emissions control efficiency data collected in
this study. This information was extracted from the Condensible Emissions Data Base presented in
Table 2-1 and covers over 40 test results. The control efficiency was calculated from the back-half
catch data collected before and after the control device. The efficiency data represent performance of
the following paniculate matter control devices:
venturi scrubber
wet scrubber (other)
fabric finer
electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
wet ESP
In Table 3-1, efficiency of the control devices for reducing total paniculate emissions range from
about 30 to over 99 percent. Control efficiency for condensible emissions range from less than zero
(i.e., the back-half catch at the outlet was greater than the back-half catch at the inlet) to about
90 percent. In almost all cases, the control efficiency for condensible emissions was less than that for
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1. CONDENSIILE EMISSIONS CONTROL EFFICIENCY
Sourca Catagory Process Typa
Control Type
Uncontrolled Emissions
Controlled Emissions
Total X Total X
Particulata Condanalbla Condensibla Psrticulate Condensible Condensible
Asphalt Concrete Convantlbnal
Raeyela asphalt
pavaajsnt
Raeyela asphalt
psvaaant
Carbon Olack Process Una vent
(via eff-gaa Dollar)
Coke Oven Oven battery
•tack
to
10 Oven battery
•tack
ferroalloy Ferro-dircM
electric arc
furnace
Silicon Mtal
electric arc
furnace
gilico-aanganeee
electric arc
furnace
Fertilizer Dryer kiln and
(Phosphate) cooler
AeBonlator
Knockout box and
vanturl scrubber
Knockout box and
vanturl scrubber
Knockout box and
vanturl aerubbar
Fabric filter
Hat ESP
Fabric Filter
ESP
Fabric filter
Venturl aerubbar
and dwlatar
Fabric filter
Vanturl scrubber
end desiister
3.41 Ib/ton
7.53 gr/dscf
2.2 Ib/ton
4.33 gr/dacf
4.41 Ib/ton
5.71 gr/dacf
0.0056 Ib/lb
0.47 Ib/ton
0.0135 gr/dscf
25.88 Ib/hr
0.085 gr/dacf
1312 Ib/hr
1.87 gr/dacf
2360 Ib/hr
0.706 gr/dacf
230 Ib/hr
1.65 gr/dacf
133.2 Ib/ton
14.78 gr/dscf
4.67 Ib/ton
3.14 gr/dscf
0.139 Ib/ton 4
0.312 gr/dacf
0.261 Ib/ton 12
0.536 gr/dscf
0.041 Ib/ton 1
0.052 gr/dacf
0.0024 Ib/lb 43
0.18 Ib/ton 38
0.005 gr/dacf,
2.21 Ib/hr 9
0.007 gr/dscf
19 Ib/hr 1
0.0271 gr/dacf
151 Ib/hr 6
0.045 gr/dscf
3.6 Ib/hr 2
0.0259 gr/dscf
0.6 Ib/ton <1
0.06 gr/dscf
0.1 Ib/ton 3
0.07 gr/dscf
0.073 tb/ton
0.164 gr/dscf
0.065 tb/ton
0.13 gr/dscf
0.115 Ib/ton
0.1S3 gr/dscf
0.0016 Ib/lb
0.08 Ib/ton
0.002 gr/dscf
8.6 Ib/hr
0.027 gr/dscf
24.1 Ib/hr
0.0183 gr/dscf
27.65 Ib/hr
0.0053 gr/dscf
14.21 Ib/hr
0.0856 gr/dscf
0.346 Ib/ton
O.OS gr/dscf
0.24 Ib/ton
0.123 gr/dscf
0.048 Ib/ton 66
0.107 gr/dscf
0.052 Ib/ton 80
0.105 gr/dscf
0.018 Ib/ton 16
0.023 gr/dscf
0.0007 Ib/lb 44
0.03 Ib/ton 38
0.0008 gr/dscf
1.71 Ib/hr 20
0.005 gr/dscf
3.6 Ib/hr 15
0.0027 gr/dscf
12.13 Ib/hr 44
0.0023 gr/dscf
1.42 Ib/hr 10
0.0085 gr/dscf
0.302 Ib/ton 87
O.M3 gr/dscf
0.12 Ib/ton 50
0.062 gr/dscf
Efficiency (X)
Total
Pertlculate Condensible
98 66
97 80
97 56
71 71
83 83
67 23
98 81
99 92
94 60
>99 50
°5 (a)
• ~ (continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS CONTROL EFFICIENCY
u>
Source Category
firey Iron
Foundry
Incinerators
Iron end Steel
Plants
Kraft Pulp Dills
Lead Acid
Battery
leed Oxide Plant
rTOCMft Typt
Electric Arc
Furnace (EAF)
Municipal Solid
Uaste (NSU) fired
HSU end Industrial
SU-flred
NSUend ISU
fired
EAF
Sintering
Sselt-dissolvlng
tank
Stscklng, element
burning, end casing
Peete arixer
Calcining furnace
Materials handling
and grinding
Control Type
Febrlc filter
ESP
ESP
ESP
Febrlc filter
Cyclones, ven-
turl scrubber,
end deals tar
Vat pecked
scrubber
Febrlc filter
Uat acrufaber
Cyclones and
fabric fitter
Fabric filter
Uncontrolled Emissions
Totel
Psrtlculata
195 Ib/hr
0.33 gr/dKf
393 Ib/hr
1.09 gr/dKf
460 Ib/hr
1.473 gr/dKf
557 Ib/hr
1.744 gr/dKf
0.0537 gr/dKf
619 Ib/hr
0.403 gr/dscf
1.79 Ib/ton
0.492 gr/dKf
1.469 Ib/hr
0.0149 gr/dKf
0.545 Ib/ton
0.0614 gr/dKf
86.7 Ib/hr
11.64 gr/dKf
49.32 Ib/hr
1.0893 gr/dKf
Controlled Esiisaicna
X Total
Condsnslble CondsnslbU Particuiata
9.9 Ib/hr 5
0.0173 gr/dKf
21 Ib/hr 5
0.06 gr/dKf
3.75 Ib/hr 1
0.012 gr/dKf
3.52 Ib/hr <1
0.011 gr/dKf
0.0019 gr/dKf 4
99 Ib/hr 16
0.065 gr/dKf
0.09 Ib/ton 5
0.025 gr/dKf
0.713 Ib/hr 49
0.0072 gr/dKf
0.021 Ib/ton 4
0.0027 gr/dKf
0.1 Ib/hr 99
>99
Condensible
87
78
59
34
32
59
80
24
(a)
83
27
-------
UllE 5-1. CONKNSIILE EMISSIONS CONTROL EFFICIENCY
Source Category
Lightweight
Aggregrete
Petroleua
Refining
Phosphate Rock
«*» Processing
*•
Plywood
Manufacturing
Prtaary Alualnu
Prlaary. Copper
Process Type
Clinker cooler
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln
FCCU
Fluid bed dryer
Roller «lll and
tall alll
I^MMtA^^ «eV*^ejkA
WnMT Ul f VI •
i Anode prebaka
Horizontal
Sodtrburg
Rovarberatory
furnace
Converter, elec-
Control Type
Cyclone and
fabric filter
Ust scrubber
Wet scrubber
Venturl scrubbers
Cyclone and
wet cyclonic
scrubber
Cyclones and
fabric filter
Cyclones and
wet scrubber
Fabric filter
ESP
Settling chaaber
and ESP
Spray chaaber
Uncontrolled Emissions
Controlled Emissions
Total X Total X
Partlculate Condeneible CondanslMe ParticuUte Condansible Condensible
12.09 Ib/hr
0.0825 gr/dscf
9190 Ib/hr
26.28 gr/dscf
3699 Ib/hr
17.421 gr/dtcf
0.0213 gr/dscf
2.81 Ib/ton
1.677 gr/dscf
201 Ib/hr
3.21 gr/dscf
0.525 lb/1000
0.164 gr/dscf
99.3 Ib/ton
0.1401 tr/dscf
81.8 Ib/ton
0.0675 gr/dtcf
398.5 Ib/hr
0.597 gr/dtcf
8678 Ib/hr
0.09 Ib/hr 1
0.0007 gr/dscf
61.3 Ib/hr 1
0.18 gr/dscf
4.5 il./hr <1
0.0214 gr/dscf
0.0083 gr/dscf 39
0.069 Ib/ton 2
0.038 gr/dscf
0.15 Ib/hr <1
0.0024 gr/dscf
0.472 lb/1000 90
0.148 tr/dscf
1.3 Ib/ton 1
0.0019 gr/dKf
15.2 Ib/ton 19
0.0163 gr/dwf
103.5 Ib/hr 26
0.155 gr/dtcf
122.2 Ib/hr 1
2.36 Ib/hr
0.0047 gr/dtcf
21.13 Ib/hr
0.0586 gr/dtcf
123.3 Ib/hr
0.29 gr/dtcf
0.0129 gr/dKf
0.102 Ib/ton
0.058 gr/dwf
0.146 Ib/hr
0.003 gr/dKf
0.43 lb/1000
0.103 gr/dtcf
1.8 Ib/ton
0.0022 gr/dtcf
5.95 Ib/ton
0.0064 gr/dtcf
138.8 Ib/hr
0.157 gr/dtcf
111.3 Ib/hr
1.91 Ib/hr 81
0.0018 gr/dtcf
5.73 Ib/hr 27
0.0156 gr/dtcf
3.9 Ib/hr 3
0.0093 gr/dtcf
0.0013 gr/dtcf 10
0.026 Ib/ton 25
0.015 gr/dtcf
0.042 Ib/hr 29
0.001 gr/dtcf
0.338 lb/1000 79
0.081 gr/dtcf
0.57 Ib/ton 32
0.0007 gr/dtcf
2.99 Ib/ton SO
0.0032 gr/dtcf
61.7 Ib/hr 44
0.07 gr/dscf
82.5 Ib/hr 74
Efficiency (X)
Totel
ParticuUte Condansible
« (S)
>99 91
97 13
61 84
96 62
>99 72
18 28
98 56
93 80
65 69
99 33
trie furnace, and and fabric filter 6.264 gr/dtcf 0.088 gr/dKf
fluldlzed bad roaster
0.078 gr/dtcf 0.058 gr/dKf
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. CONOENSIBLE EMISSIONS CONTROL EFFICIENCY
CJl
Source Category
Process Type
Control Type
Uncontrolled Emissions
Controlled Emissions
Totel X Total X
Parti cut it* Condensible Condensible Paniculate Condensible Condensible
PrlMry Copper
(continued)
PrlMry Lead
Residential
UoodhMttfS
Secondary Lead
Soap C Detergent
Manufacturing
Reverberatory
furnace and eultl-
hearth roester
•last furnace.
Catalytic
Non-catalytic
Pellet-fired
•lest furnace
Refining kettles
end slag tap
Spray tower
Spray chMber
and ESP
Spray chafer
and fabric filter
Catalyst
Design
•edification
Controlled air ft
fuel delivery
Afterburner,
settling cheater,
fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
and wet cyclone
Cyclones and
fabric filter
241S Ib/hr
2.207 gr/dscf
174 tb/ton
3.16 gr/dscf
HA
HA
NA
1506 Ib/hr
3610 Ib/tcn
34.7 Ib/hr
273 Ib/hr
1.09 gr/dscf
51.4 Ib/hr 2
0.047 gr/dscf
2 Ib/ton 1
0.05 gr/dscf
45.3 Ib/ HA
1000 Ibwood
45.3 Ib/ NA
1000 Ib wood
45.3 Ib/ NA
1000 Ib wood
15.72 Ib/hr 1
400 Ib/ton
1.67 Ib/hr 5
6 Ib/hr 2
0.02 gr/dscf
104.9 Ib/hr 22.9 Ib/hr 22
0.055 gr/dscf 0.012 gr/dscf
2.5 Ib/ton 1.2 Ib/ton 48
0.0275 gr/dscf 0.0133 gr/dscf
HA 3.1 Ib/ HA
1000 Ib wood
NA 5.7 Ib/ NA
1000 Ib wood
NA 5.7 Ib/ NA
1000 Ib wood
13.67 Ib/hr 12.54 Ib/hr 92
3.3 Ib/tcn 3 Ib/ton
5.53 Ib/hr 0.95 Ib/hr 17
1.88 Ib/hr 1.59 Ib/hr 85
0.0087 gr/dscf 0.0074 gr/dscf
Efficiency (X)
Totat
Participate Condensible
96 55
99 40
NA 93-94
NA 87-89
NA 87-89
99 20
04 43
99 74
(el Due to reasons unclear fro» the test reports, the back-half catch at the outlet was greater than that at the inlet.
-------
total participate emissions. As indicated earlier, a large fraction of condensible paniculate matter falls in
the very fine size range. The decreased efficiency for condensible emissions is likely due to the
increased difficulty of collecting very fine particles.
Since condensible emissions are collected at a lower efficiency than total paniculate, one would
expect to see an enrichment in the condensible fraction of the reported controlled paniculate emissions.
This behavior is exhibited in Table 3-1 in all but six cases. The fraction of condensible participates in
the total catch collected after the control device shows a significant increase in most cases.
3.1.2 Control Device-Specific Performance
Table 3-2 summarizes the control efficiency data for condensible emissions by control device
type and identifies the source category and process type. For venturi scrubbers, the control efficiency
ranges from less than zero for a phosphate fertilizer plant to 84 percent for a fluid catalytic cracking
unit. The range for wet scrubbers is from less than zero for a lead acid battery manufacturing facility to
91 percent for a lightweight aggregate plant. The control efficiency range for ESP's is from 34 to
81 percent, for an incinerator and a ferroalloy manufacturing plant, respectively. The widest range of
performance is for fabric filters, from less than zero at a lightweight aggregate plant to 92 percent at a
ferroalloy plant.
The increase in condensible emissions after the control device, as indicated by the negative
control efficiencies, may result from a number of factors. The negative efficiency for the venturi
scrubber was probably due to the entrainment of scrubber solution containing soluble species. For the
wet scrubber and fabric filter, the increased condensible emissions may be explained by changes in
waste gas conditions such as a temperature drop followed by increased condensation across the
control device.
The wide variation in condensible emissions control efficiencies for a given control device type
is an indication of the differences in processes and operating conditions involved. Within a given
source category and process type, however, a greater degree of consistency in control efficiency is
observed for a specific control device. This is indicated in Table 3-3 lor a number of categories.
It is difficult to determine which devices are more effective in controlling condensible emissions
from similar sources. This would depend on the specific process characteristics of the source in
question. The limited control efficiency data where a comparison can be made are presented in
Table 3-4.
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-2. CONTROL DEVICE-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Control Device
Venturi Scrubber
WetSeniiber
ESP
Wet ESP
Source Category
Asphan concrete
Ferroaloy
Fertiizer (phosphate)
Iron and steal
Petroleum refining
Secondary lead
Kraft pulp
Lead add battery
Lightweight aggregate
Phosphate rock
Plywood manufacturing
Ferroaloy
Incinerator
Primary aluminum
Primary copper
Coke oven*
Process Type
Conventional
Recycle asphat pavement
Recycle asphalt pavement
Silico-manganese
electric arc furnace
Ammoniator
Sintering
Fluid catalytic cracking unit
Refining kettles and slag tap
Smell dhoMng Tank
Paste mixer
Rotary Un
Rotary Un
Fluid btd dryer
Veneer dryer
Ferrochrome
electric arc furnace
MSW-find
MSW and ISW-lired
MSW and ISW-fired
Horizontal Soderburg
Reverberatory furnace
Reverberatory furnace and roaster
Oven battery alack
Condensibte
Emissions
Control Efficiency
(%)
66
80
56
60
<0
59
84
43
80
(a)
81
13
62
28
81
78
50
34
80
60
55
83
(continued)
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-2. CONTROL DEVICE-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
(Continued)
Control Device Source Category
Fabric Filler
Carbon black
Coke oven
Ferroaloy
Fertiizer
Gray iron foundry
Iron and steal
Lead acid battery
Lead oxide
Lightweight aggrvgate
Phosphate rock
Primary aluminum
Primary copper
Primary toad
Secondary dad
Soap and detergent
Process Type
Proceea In* vent
Oven battery stack
Silicon metal
electric arc furnace
Dryer kin and cooler
Electric arc furnace
Electric arc furnace
Stacking, element burning.
and casing
Calcining furnace
Material* handing and grinding
CHnker oootor
Rotor mil and bad mill
Anodtprebake
Converter, furnace, and roaster
Blastfurnace
Blastfurnace
Spray tower
Condensible
Emissions
Control Efficiency
<*)
70
23
92
50
87
32
24
83
27
(•)
72
56
33
40
20
74
(a) Due to reasons unclear from the test reports, the back-naN catch at the outlet was greater than that at the Met.
3-8
-------
3.1.3 Controlled Condensible Emissions
In several of the test reports included in this study, emissions data were collected only at the
control device outlet. Therefore, no control efficiency calculations were made for these tests. As
Table 3-1 shows, the emission rates are expressed in different units (Ib/ton, Ib/hr, etc.) depending on
the available information. This makes it difficult to identify possible trends in the data with respect to
control device type or source category/process type.
Table 3-5 summarizes controlled condensible emissions levels for a number of source
categories where similar emission sources are controlled by the same type of control device. For a
given source category, the emission levels for wet scrubbers, settling chambers, venturi scrubbers, and
fabric filters vary within a factor of 10-11. For ESP's, the variation is greater than two orders of
magnitude. As indicated earlier, these variations reflect the differences in the specific source
characteristics.
Table 3-6 presents performance of different control devices for similar process sources in a
given emission category. Higher control efficiencies are not always associated with lower outlet
emissions levels. For example, controlled emissions from an electric arc furnace were 1.4 Ib/hr,
equivalent to 60 percent control with a venturi scrubber. For the same type of source, the emissions
after a 92 percent controlled fabric filter were 12.4 b/hr. Similar behavior is observed for the primary
copper and asphalt concrete (Table 3-5) categories.
Due to the effect of lower temperatures on condensation, wet control technologies such as wet
scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, and wet ESP's would be expected to be more effective in collecting
condensible emissions. Based on the data shown in Table 3-6, it is difficult to distinguish between the
performance of ESP's and fabric filters. However, in almost all cases, wet scrubbers and venturi
scrubbers are associated with lower condensible emission levels than ESP's or fabric filters.
3.2 SPECIATED CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS CONTROL DATA
Data collected in this study on the controllability of specific components within the condensible
fraction were very limited. As Table 2-5 shows, the most common breakdown of condensible emissions
involved expressing the back-half catch in terms of the organic and inorganic fractions. Results from
tests conducted to characterize emissions of specific species such as lead, arsenic, sulfuric acid, and
cadmium are also included. In addition, trace metal analysis of the back-half catch is reported for three
source categories. These analyses are based on a single run during the tests.
Any organic compound that is emitted as a vapor and is normally a solid at ambient conditions
will condense once the critical temperature and pressure are reached for that compound. Higher
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-3. VARIATION IN CONTROL DEVICE EFFECTIVENESS FOR SELECTED CATEGORIES
Condenstote
Emissions
Control Efficiency
Source Category Process Type Control Type (%)
Asphalt concrete Conventional Veruuri scrubber 66
Recycle asphalt pavement Venturl scrubber 80
Recycle asphalt pavement Venturi scrubber 56
Incinerator MSW and ISW-fired ESP SB
MSW and ISW-fired ESP 34
Lightweight aggregate Rotary kin Wet scrubber 91
Rotary kin Wet scrubber 13
Primary copper Raverberatory furnace ESP 68
Reverberatory furnace ESP 55
TABLE 3-4. COMPARISON OF CONTROL DEVICE EFFECTIVENESS FOR SELECTED CATEGORIES
Condensbto
Emissions
Control Efficiency
Source Category Process Type Control Type (%)
Coke ovens Oven battery Wet ESP 83
Oven battery Fabric liter 23
Ferroaloy Electric arc furnace ESP 81
Electric arc furnace Fabric filer 82
Electric arc furnace Venturi scrubber 60
Primary copper Reverberatory furnace ESP 60
Converter, furnace, roaster Fabric War 33
Furnace and roaster ESP 55
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-5. VARIATION IN CONTROLLED CONDENSBLE EMISSIONS FOR SELECTED CATEGORIES
Source Category
Process Type
Control Type
Controlled
Condensibte
Emissions
Condensibte
Emissions
Control
Efficiency
O>
Asphalt concrete
Coal prep, plants
Glass manufacturing
Grain processing
Incinerator
Iron and steel
Kraft-pulp
Lead oxide
Lightweight aggregate
Petroleum refining
Conventional
Recycle
Recycle aaphal
Fluid bed dryer
Thermal dryer
Melting furnace
Melting furnace
Melting furnace
Melting furnace
Grain elevator
Grain elevator
MSW and ISW-f (red
MSW and ISW-f ired
BOF
BOF
BOF
Smelt dissolving tank
Smelt dissolving tank
Smett dissolving tank
Smelt dissolving tank
Materials handing
Materials handing
Clinker cooler
Clinker cooler
Rotary kin
Rotary ken
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
FCCU
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filer
Fabric filer
Scrubber
Scrubber
Fabric filer
Fabric filer
ESP
ESP
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber (packed)
Wet scrubber (packed)
Fabric filer
Fabric filer
Selling chamber
Setting chamber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
.05 fatten
.06 Won
.02 fatten
lAbmr
13.1 b/hr
20.87 bmr
2.64 bmr
.04tyhr
.29 bmr
20 bmr
.04IVhr
66
80
56
2.31 bmr
.0212 bton
.0035 btton
59
34
1.95 bmr
1.5 bmr
.018 bnon
.021 Men
80
.OZbTrr
5.7 bmr
3.9 bmr
116 bmr
13
321 bmr
13.66 bmr
16.06 bmr
14*1 bmr
153 bmr
1154 bmr
.52 bmr
124 bmr
2.64 bmr
20.15 bmr
225 bmr
2.46 bmr
(continued)
3-11
-------
TABLE 3-5. VARIATION IN CONTROLLED CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS FOR SELECTED CATEGORIES
(Continued)
Condensible
Emissions
Source Category
Process Type
Control Type
Controlled
Condensbto
Emissions
Control
Efficiency
Portland cement
Primary capper
Secondary lead
Rotary Un
Rotary Kin
Rotary Un
Furnace
Furnace
Blastfurnace
Blastfurnace
Fabric filer
Fabric Mer
Fabric filer
ESP
ESP
Fabric filer
Fabric filer
.11 talon
.43tVton
.12bton
61.7tVhr
22.8 IVhr
2.08b/ion
3b1on
69
55
20
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-6. COMPARISON OF CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS FOR SELECTED CATEGORIES
Source Category
Coke ovens
Ferroaloy
Glass manufacturing
Iran and Meet
Lightweight aggregate
Ume manufacturing
Phosphate rock
Portland cement
Primary cupper
Secondary toad
Soap and detergent
ProoM»Type
Oven battery stack
Oven battery stack
Oven battery slack
Electric arc furnace
Electric arc furnace
Electric arc furnace
Furnace
Furnace
Furnace
Furnace
Furnace
Furnace
Furnace
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
BOF
Sintering
Sintering
Clinker cooler
Clinker cooler
CHnker coder
Rotary kin
Rotary kin
Dryer
Dryer
Rotary kin
Rotary kin
Rotary kin
Rotary kin
Furnace
Furnace
Furnace
Blastfurnace
Blast furnace
Blastfurnace
Spray tower
Spray tourer
Control Type
Maintenance
Fabric filler
Maintenance
ESP
Fabric filer
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filer
Venturi scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Fabric filer
Scrubber/ESP
ESP
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
ESP
Fabric fMer
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filer
Setting chamber
Setting chamber
ESP
Fabric filer
Wet scrubber/wet ESP
Wet scrubber
ESP
Fabric flier
Fabric filer
Fabric filer
Fabric filer
ESP
ESP
Fabric filer
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filer
Wet scrubber/wet ESP
Wet scrubber
Controlled
Condensfcte
Emissions
l.4*yrv
1.7*Vhr
2.1 Unr
3.6ftyhr
12.1 b/hr
1.4KVrv
20.9 b/hr
2-3tyhr
.MtVhr
.42KVhr
.20 Mir
2.64 b/hr
.40tVhr
-OSWbrton
.0212 avion
.oossbfton
.OOlDkVlon
.0303ftyton
17.9 b/hr
402 b/hr
14M b/hr
.64sVhr
.54«yhr
.26 tyion
.04 Men
.Mb/ton
.OStyion
.OBKVton
.11 ft/ton
.43 to/ton
.12 avion
61 .7 bmr
825 bmr
224fa/hr
2.96b/tan
.04 avion
3trton
.SIMon
JStyion
Conde risible
Emissions
Control
Efficiency
(%)
23
81
82
60
59
(•)
62
69
33
55
(a) Due to reasons undear from the lest reports, the back-half catch at the outlet was greater than that at the Met.
3-13
-------
molecular weight compounds such as polycyclic organic matter would more readily condense than
lower molecular weight compounds. Therefore, one would expect such species to make up the organic
fraction of condensibles collected in the back-half of the EPA Method 5 sampling train. Based on
component vapor pressures and temperatures, metallic oxides, sulfates, and chlorides would be
expected to make up the inorganic condensibles fraction. Sulfates are believed to make up a large
proportion of the inorganic condensible emissions. However, in a number of cases in Table 2-5, the
inorganic fraction may contain sulfates formed from absorption of SCyS03 in the back-half of the
sampling train, in addition to the sulfates emitted from the process.
A comparison of the available control efficiency data based on specific condensible components
and the total back-half catch is shown in Table 3-7. This comparison is possible for eight source
categories and covers six distinct species - organics, inorganics, total organic carbon, lead, arsenic, and
sulfate. There are no clear trends that indicate a correlation between the condensible species control
efficiency, control device type or condensible emissions control efficiency. This behavior is attributed to
the wide variety of processes represented in this data set. For example, the organic fraction appears to
be better controlled than the organic and inorganic fractions combined in the lightweight aggregate and
iron and steel industries. For asphalt concrete plants and coke ovens, however, the opposite appears
to be true.
3.3 CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS CONTROL IMPROVEMENT
The most obvious method for optimizing condensible paniculate emissions control is to force
condensation of the emissions upstream of or within the control device. Theoretically, this can be
accomplished by lowering the flue gas temperature, increasing the gas pressure, or both. Although gas
compression may not be a practical approach, methods of lowering the flue gas temperatures are
available. Heat exchanger designs or direct water sprays can be used to lower flue gas temperatures
and volume, thus improving both condensible and total paniculate removal.
Addition of a precooler/presaturatfon section will facilitate condensation before the control
device and increase the collection efficiency. For example, venturi scrubbers are very efficient in
removing very fine particles when the particles form ahead of the venturi throat. Increased control
efficiency for condensible emissions may also be achieved in wet scrubber applications by adding an
ionizing section before the scrubber. The ionizer, which functions like an ESP, enhances collection
efficiency of the fine fraction.12'
In wet scrubber applications, entrapment of the scrubbing liquor in the exit waste gas is quite
common. Dissolved species in the entrained liquid droplets also contribute to the condensible
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-7. CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS FOR SPECIFIED CONDENSIBLE EMISSIONS
Source Category Process Type
Asphalt concrete Recycle
Conventional
Recycle
Coke event Oven battery stack
Iron and steel Sintering
Lead acid battery Stacking, element burning.
casing
Paste nlxer
-, Lightweight aggregate Clinker cooler
Y Clinker cooler
r± Rotary kiln
"* Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln
Petroleum refining FCCU
Primary copper Converter, electric furnace.
and fluldlzed bed roaster
Reverberator/ furnace
and aultlhearth roaster
Blast furnace
Secondary lead Refining kettles and slag tap
Control Type
Venturl scrubber
Venturl scrubber
Venturl scrubber
Het ESP
Venturl scrubber
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Net scrubber
Wet scrubber •
Net scrubber
Met scrubber
Venturl scrubber
Spray chamber
and fabric filter
Spray chanber and
ESP
Fabric filter
Venturl scrubber
Condenslble
Species
Total organic carbon
Total organic carbon
Organlcs
Total organic carbon
Organlcs
Organlcs
Organlcs
Lead
Lead
Organlcs
Inorganics
Organics
Inorganics
Organlcs
Inorganics
Sulfate
Arsenic
Arsenic
Lead
Lead
Species
Control
Efficiency
(%)
56
66
64
SO
69
54
70
46
(a)
<0
<0
97
90
50
<0
84
S3
95
73
67
Condenslble
Emissions
Control
Efficiency
(%)
56
66
66
BO
BO
83
59
24
(a)
<0
<0
91
91
13
13
84
33
55
20
43
(a) Due to reasons unclear frora the test reports, the back-half catch at the outlet was greater than that at the Inlet.
-------
emissions. Therefore, application of high-efficiency mist eliminators following venturi or other types of
wet scrubbers improves condensible emission removal.
In ESP applications, gas conditioning agents are used to improve performance by altering
particle resistivity. Conditioning agents may also enhance performance by particle agglomeration, thus
effecting an increased control of condensible emissions. However, care must be taken to prevent
condensation of corrosive species in the ductwork or device internals.
A technology used with ESP's that is currently in the demonstration phase is the cold-pipe
precharger.11* This technology combines precharging and heat exchange designs. The cold-pipe
precharger consists of discharge wires interspersed with grounded pipes through which cooling water
flows. When applied at the ESP entrance, the temperature and volume of gas treated by the ESP are
decreased, and the particles are pre-charged. This technology could be promising as a condensible
emission control.
Optimization of fabric filters for condensible emission control is not straightforward. Excessive
moisture in the flue gas can cause undesirable fitter cake properties, resulting in unacceptabty high
pressure drops or bag blinding. Some of the currently available filter bag coatings, such as Nomex® or
Qoretex®, have demonstrated effective control of fine particulates. Thus, they may also enhance
condensible control.
3-16
-------
SECTION 4
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PM10 SIP Development Guide. Report No. EPA-450/2-
86-001 (NTIS PB87-206488). June 1987.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimation of the Importance of Condensed Paniculate
Matter to Ambient Particulate Levels, Report No. EPA-450/4-83-012. April 1983.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 84-ASP-8. Sloan
Construction Company Asphalt Concrete Plant. Cocoa, Florida. November 1984.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 83-ASP-4. T. J. Campbell
Asphalt Concrete Plant. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Revised May 1984.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Test Number 71-C1-26. R. L. Lavin & Sons, Inc.
Chicago. Illinois. March 1972.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Test Number 71-C1-27. American Smelting and
Refining Co. San Francisco, California. February 1971.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Building Brick and Structural Clay Industry. EMB
Report No. 80-BRK-1. Lee Brick and Tile Company. Sanford, North Carolina. 1980.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions Sampling Report EMB Project Report
Number 73-CCC-1. General Electric Company Wire and Cable Division. Bridgeport,
Connecticut. June 1973.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Phillips Petroleum Company, Carbon Black Division.
Toledo, Ohio. EMB Test No. 73-CBK-1. September 1974.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coke Oven Emission Testing Bethlehem Steel
Corporation. Sparrows Point, Maryland. Report No. 79-CKO-15. July 1979.
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing at a By-Product Coke Oven Battery.
Wisconsin Steel Division. Chicago, Illinois. EMB Report No. 77-CKO-11. May 1977.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EMB Report No. 73-ELC-1. Electric Arc Furnace.
Babock and Wilcox Company, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. 1973.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EMB Report. Number 72-PC-02. Union Carbide
Corporation Ferroalloys Division. Alloy, West Virginia. June 1972.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing Report. EMB Test No. 73-FRT-6.
Swift Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama. May 1973.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report Number 73-FRT-7. U.S.S. Agri-
Chemicals. Nashville, Tennessee. November 1974.
4-1
-------
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing Report No. 73-FRT-14. International
Minerals and Chemicals Inc. Winston-Salem, North Carolina. March 1973.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Source Testing Study at an Iron Ore Beneficiation
Facility. Report No. 76-IOB-1. Hanna Mining Company Groveland Mine. Iron Mountain,
Michigan. October 1975.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 71-MM-23. Alan Wood Steel
Co. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. March 1972.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 71 -MM-24. United States
Steel Corporation. Lorain. Ohio. March 1972.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Source Testing Report No. 71-MM-01. Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, Basic Oxygen Furnace. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. April 1972.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Emission Test. Report No. 74-KPM-4.
Escanaba Paper Company. Escanaba, Michigan. September 1973.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Emission Test. Report No. 74-KPM-5.
Champion International. Courtland, Alabama. November 1973.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Paniculate Emission Measurements From Kraft Pulp
Mills Report No. 74-KPM-9. Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Camas, Washington. October
1973.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Emission Test. Report No. 74-KPM-10.
Weyerhaeuser Company Kraft Mill. Everett, Washington. October 1973.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 74-BAT-1. ESB
Incorporated. Milpitas, California. March 1974.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. 74-PBO-1. Paniculate and Lead Emission
Measurements From A Lead Oxide Plant. Gould Incorporated Metals Division. St. Paul,
Minnesota. August 1973.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Method Development and Testing for Clay, Shale, and
Slate Aggregate Industry. Emission Test Report No. 80-LWA-3. Texas Industries, Inc.
Clodine, Texas. May 1981.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Method Development and Testing for Clay, Shale, and
Slate Aggregate Industry. Emission Test Report No. 80-LWA-4. Vulcan Materials Company.
Bessemer, Alabama. March 1982.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Method Development and Testing for Clay, Shale, and
Slate Aggregate Industry. Emission Test Report No. 80-LWA-6. Galite Corporation. Rockmart,
Georgia. April 1982. i
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions From Dry Process Cerrkent Kiln. Emission
Test Report No. 71 -MM-05. Oregon Cement Company. Northampton, Pennsylvania. 1971.
31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln. Emission
Testing Report No. 71 -MM-13. Oregon Portland Cement. Lake Oswego, Oregon. 1971.
4-2
-------
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-MM-12. Alcoa Aluminum.
Baldin, North Carolina. March 1972.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-MM-06. Alcoa Aluminum.
Wenatchee, Washington. October 1972.
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-MM-08. Reynolds
Aluminum. Longvlew, Washington. May 1972.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 77-CUS-4. Kennecott
Copper Company. Hayden. Arizona. 1977.
36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 81-PLY-2. Champion
Plywood Plant. Lebanon, Oregon. May 1982.
37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 81-PLY-4. Georgia-Pacific
Plywood Plant. Springfield, Oregon. December 1981.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions From A Primary Lead Smelter Blast
Furnace. Emission Test Report No. 72-MM-14. American Smelting and Refining Company.
Glover, Missouri. May 1972.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 73-PLD-1. American
Smelting and Refining Company. Glover, Missouri. July 1973
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 86-CAD-2. Cadmium Sulfide
Pigments. Harshaw/Fiftrol Partnership, Louisville, Kentucky. November 1986.
41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling.
Emission Test Report No. 71 -CI-29. N. L Industries Plant. Beech Grove, Indiana. August
1972.
42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling.
Emission Test Report No. 71-CI-33. Revere Smelting and Refining Plant. Newark, New
Jersey. August 1972.
43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Secondary Lead Rant Stack Emission Sampling.
Emission Test Report No. 71-CI-34. General Battery Corporation. Reading, Pennsylvania.
Jury 1972.
44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 74-SLD-1. Selco. Columbus,
Georgia. July 1974.
45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 75-SIN-5. Colorado Fuel &
Iron. Pueblo, Colorado. February 1976.
46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions Source Test From A Bagnouse Serving an
Iron and Steel Sintering Plant. Emission Test Report No. 75-SIN-3. Kaiser Steel Corporation.
Fontana, California. November 1975.
47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Emissions Test. Emission Test Report
No. 75-SIN-4. National Steel Corporation. Granite City, Illinois. May 1975.
4-3
-------
48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sewage Sludge Incinerator Emissions Test. Emission
Test Report No. 74-SS1-3. Piscataway Sewage Sludge Incinerator. Accokeek, Maryland.
February 1974.
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 86-CAD-3. Cadmium Sulfide
Pigments. SCM Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland. November 1986.
50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Source Sampling of Fluid Catalytic Cracking Plant.
Emission Test Report No. 71-PC-20. Standard Oil of California. Richmond, California. July
1972.
51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 71-PC-21. Standard Oil of
California Company. El Segundo, California. 1971.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-PC-1. Atlantic Richfield
Company. Wilmington, California. 1972.
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Monitoring Of A Wet Gas
Scrubber. Emission Test Report No. 80-CAT-8. Marathon Oil Company. Garyville, Louisiana.
April 1982.
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stationary Source Testing Of a FiberGlass. Emission
Test Report No. 78-GLS-1. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. Kansas City, Kansas.
February 1978.
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stack Emission Sampling. Emission Test Report
No. 78-GLS-2. Glass Containers Corporation. Vemon, California. January 1978.
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stationary Source Testing Of Coal-Fired Steam
Generator. Emission Test Report No. 76-SPP-14. The Navajo Power Plant. Page, Arizona.
December 1976.
57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stationary Source Testing Of An Electric Power Plant.
Emission Test Report No. 77-SPP-16. The Pacific Power and Light Company Centralia No. 1
Steam Plant. Centralia, Washington. August 1977.
58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Test. Emission Test
Report No. 72-CI-13. Eastern Associates Coal Company. Keystone, West Virginia. February
1972.
59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-CI-19. Consolidation
Coal Company. Bishop, West Virginia. November 1972.
60. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 73-CCL-2. Island Creek
Coal Company. Van Sant, Virginia. October 1972.
61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions From the Grain Drying Facility. Emission
Test Report No. 73-GRN-4. Quaker Oats Company. Chattanooga, Tennessee. April 1973.
62. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 74-GRN-6. Kansas City
Terminal Elevator. Kansas City, Missouri. October 1973.
4-4
-------
63. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-CI-28. Cargill, Inc. Sioux
City, Iowa. June 1972.
64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Study Of Gaseous and Paniculate Emissions From
Lime Kilns. Emission Test Report No. 74-LIM-6. Dow Chemical Corporation. Freeport, Texas.
May 1974.
65. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 74-LIM-4. Bethlehem Mines
Corporation. Annville, Pennsylvania. 1974.
66. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 74-LIM-5. U.S. Lime
Division of Flintkote Company. City of Industry, California. October 1974.
67. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 76-LIM-9. Martin-Marietta.
Calera, Alabama. September 1975.
68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 74-HAS-1. Prepared for
Reserve Mining Company. Silver Bay, Minnesota. June 1974.
69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 75-PRP-1. W. R. Grace
Chemical Company. Bartow, Florida. January 1976.
70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 73-ROC-1. International
Minerals and Chemical Corporation. Kingsford, Florida. February 1973.
71. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 75-PRP-2. The Royster
Company Phosphate Rock Facility. Mulberry, Florida. January 1976.
72. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 73-DET-7, Colgate
Palmolive. Jeffersonville, Indiana. June 1973.
73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 73-DET-4. Procter and
Gamble. Long Beach California. April 1973.
74. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 73-DET-2. Lever Brothers.
Los Angeles, California. April 1976.
75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 75-STN-2. Essex
Bituminous Concrete Corporation. Dracut, Massachusetts. December 1974.
76. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 75-STN-4. Caldwell Stone
Company. Danville, Kentucky. 1975.
77. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 74-GFE-1. John Deere
Tractor Works. Waterloo, Iowa. June 1974.
76. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0043. Shell OP
Company. Carson, California. January 1988.
79. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0372. Mobil Oil
Corporation. Torrance, California. October 1988.
4-5
-------
80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 79-CKO-14. Kaiser Steel
Corporation. Fontana, California. 1979.
81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-PC-05. Chromium Mining
and Smelting Corporation. Memphis, Tennessee. 1972.
82. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Paniculate and Arsenic Emission Measurements From
a Copper Smelter. Emission Test Report No. 77-CUS-5. Anaconda Mining Company.
Anaconda, Montana. April 1977.
83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Paniculate and Arsenic Emission Measurements From
a Copper Smelter. Emission Test Report No. 77-CUS-6. Asarco. El Paso. Texas. June 1977.
84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing at a By-Product Coke Plant.
Emission Test Report No. 79-CKO-16. C. F. & I. Steel Corporation. Pueblo, Colorado. August
1979.
85. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 71-PC-16. AIRCO Alloys
and Carbide. Charleston, South Carolina. 1971.
86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 71 -MM-26. Weirton Steel
Division National Steel Corporation. Weirton, West Virginia. March 1972.
87. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 72-MM-02. United States
Steel Corporation. Lorain, Ohio. June 1972.
88. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln and Finish
Mill Systems. Emission Test Report No. 71-MM-04. Ideal Cement Company. Castle Hayne,
North Carolina. ApriM971.
89. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln and Clinker
Cooler. Emission Test Report No. 71 -MM-03. Ideal Cement Company. Seattle, Washington.
1971.
90. Battelle. Schuty, E.J., et al., Battelle. Rnal Report on Harrisburg Municipal Incinerator
Evaluation to the Harrisburg Incinerator Authority. December 17, 1973.
91. Allen, R. N., Resources Research, Inc. Chicago Northwest Incinerator. Chicago, Illinois. Test
No. 71-CI-11. McLean, Virginia. March 1972.
92. Doertlein, W.S. and H.R. Horn, York-Shipley. Inc. Fluid Flame Solid Waste Converter,
Particulate Emission Test. H&B Lumber Company. Marion, North Carolina. August 1977.
93. The Mogul Corporation. Emission Test Report for Champion International Corporation in Dee,
Oregon. March 1978.
94. Applied Energy Systems, Inc. Design Handbook for Solid Fuel Heaters. East Greenwich,
Rhode Island. 1981.
95. Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 38, pp. 5860,5861. February 1988.
4-6
-------
96. McCrillis, R. and R. Merrill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Control
Effectiveness of a Woodstove Catalyst and Emission Measurement Methods Comparison.
APCA paper 85-43.5. June 1985.
97. Burnett, P. and P. Tiegs, Omni Environmental Services, Inc. Woodstove Emissions as a
Function of Firebox Size. Presented at 21st Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International
Section of the APCA. November 12-14,1984. Portland, Oregon.
98. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88CST089. Brockway
Glass Company, Pomona, California. March 1989.
99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Test Report No. 71-MM-15. Oregon Portland
Cement. Lake Oswego, Oregon. 1971.
100. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. C-79-39. Kerr-McGee
Chemical Corporation, Trona, California. September 1979.
101. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. C-79-62. Interstate
Engineering, Anaheim, California. December 1979.
102. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. C-80-68. Kaiser Steel
Corporation, Fontana, California. July 1980.
103. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST007. Ball
Corporation, El Monte, California. August 1987.
104. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87-0019. Chevron
USA, Inc.. El Segundo. California. January 1987.
105. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST024. AAA
Glass Corporation, Los Angeles, California. September 1987.
106. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST032. GNB,
Inc., Vemon, California. September 1987.
107. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST049. Latchford
Glass Company, Los Angeles, California. October 1987.
108. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST059.
Harshaw/Fittrol Partnership, Los Angeles, California. November 1987.
109. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST072. Ateo
Pacific, Inc., Gardena, California. November 1987.
11 o. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST110. Lever
Brothers Company, Inc., Los Angeles, California. January 1988.
111. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST135. Owens-
Illinois, Inc., Vemon, California. February 1988.
112. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87CST136. Owens-
Illinois, Inc., Vemon, California. February 1988.
4-7
-------
113. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87-0322. Golden
West Refining Company, Santa Fe Springs, California. October 1987.
114. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87-0356. Atlantic
Richfield, Company, Watson Refinery, Carson, California. November 1987.
115. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 87-0370. Gold Bond
Building Products, Long Beach, California. November 1987.
116. Emmel. T. et at. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cost of Controlling Directly
Emitted Acidic Emissions from Major Industrial Sources. Report No. EPA-600/7-88-012
(NTIS PB88-234190). July 1988.
117. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88CST046. National
Can Corporation, Foster Forbes Division, Maywood, California. January 1989.
118. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88CST102. Aluminum
Company of America, Vemon, California. April 1989.
119. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0161. Shell Oil
Company, Carson, California. August 1988.
120. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0212. Blair
Paving, Inc., Anaheim, California. July 1988.
121. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0259. Fletcher Oil
and Refinery Company, Carson, California. July 1988.
122. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0310. Texaco
Refining and Marketing, Inc., Wilmington, California. September 1988.
123. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0316. Powertlne
Oil Company, Santa Fe Springs, California. August 1988.
124. Saeger, M. et al. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The 1985 NAPAP Emissions
Inventory (Version 2). Development of the Annual Data and Modelers' Tapes. Report No.
EPA-600/7-89-012a. November 1989.
125. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Test Report No. 88-0432. Fletcher Oil
and Refining Company, Carson, California. January 1989.
126 US Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques for Paniculate Emissions from
Stationary Sources. Volume 1. Report No. EPA-450/3-81-005a (NTIS PB83-127498).
September 1982.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
//Yeae read Instructions on the rtvene before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/8- 90-075
2.
3. RECIP =NTS ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Assessment of the Controllability of Condensible
Emissions
5. REPORT DATE
October 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
G. S. Shareef and J. T. Waddell
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Radian Corporation
P. O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4286. Tasks 67/105
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA. Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL project officer is Carlos M.
541-1156.
Nunez. Mail Drop 61, 919/
10. ABSTRACT i
The report gives results of a study to gain insights into the condensible
emissions area from an air toxics perspective, with emphasis on controllability and
chemical composition of these emissions. The study: compiled existing data on con-
densible emissions; determined the chemical composition of condensible emissions.
where possible; identified source categories that are major emitters of condensibles;
evaluated the effectiveness of various control devices in reducing condensible emis-
sions; and evaluated how the performance of currently available control technologies
can be improved to better control condensible emissions.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Emission
Condensing
Chemical Composition
Particles
Toxicity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Condensible Emissions;
Particulate
13B
14G
07D
06T
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
IB. SECURITY CLASS
Unclassified
71
20. SECURITY
Unclassified
22. PRICE
Perm 2220-1 Jt-73)
4-9
------- |