Interim Report to State/Local APC Agencies of Particle Size Distributions and Emission Factors including PM10


v>EPA
INTERIM REPORT TO
STATE/LOCAL APC AGENC! ES
OF
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND
EMISSION FACTORS (INCLUDING PM10)
By
Criteria Emissions Section
Air Management Technology Branch
Monitoring And Data Analysis Division
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standa ds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
JULY 1,1986

-------
This document has been peer reviewed for appropriate technical
content. It does not represent Agency policy but may be quoted or
cited as reference.
ii

-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 	 iv
Part I
AP-42 Sections 		1
Section 1.1 Bituminous Coal Combustion 		1.1-1
1.2	Anthracite Coal Combustion 		1.2-1
1.3	Fuel Oil Combustion 		1.3-1
1.4	Natural Gas Combustion 		1.4-1
1.6	Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers 		1.6-1
1.7	Lignite Combustion 		1.7-1
7.4	Ferroalloy Production 		7.4-1
7.5	Iron And Steel Production 		7.5-1
8.1 Asphaltic Concrete Plants 		8.1-1
8.3 Bricks And Related Clay Products 		8.3-1
8.10 Concrete Batching 		8.10-1
8.15 Lime Manufacturing 		8.15-1
10.1 Chemical Wood Pulping 		10.1-1
Part II
Appendix C.l: Particle Size Distribution Data And Sized
Emission Factors For Selected Sources 		C.l-1
Part III
Appendix C.2: Generalized Particle Size Distributions 		C.2-1
in

-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this interim report is to make additional particle size
emission factors that are ready for publication available to State and local
air pollution control programs. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is
developing and making available emission factors for a range of particle sizes,
including those nominally ten micrometers or less in diameter (PM^q), to aid
in the development of emission inventories, permit programs, implementation
plans, and other air quality management functions relating to an anticipated
PMjo ambient standard. These emission factors, along with some other particle
size emission factors still under development, are scheduled to be published
in the Fall of 1986 as the first Supplement to Compilation Of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Fourth Edition, AP-42.
Some particle size emission factors for crushed stone processing and for
roadway and other fugitive dust emissions appeared in the Fourth Edition of
AP-42 in September 1985. This report provides size specific factors for combus-
tion, manufacturing of asphaltic concrete, brick and clay products, lime,
ferroalloy, iron and steel, wood pulp and paper, miscellaneous processes, and
several "generic" categories. The next Supplement to AP-42 is expected to
include all the factors in this report, and as well, another set of factors for
iron foundries, production of nonferrous metals, portland cement, metallurgical
coke, sodium carbonate, secondary aluminum, taconite, manufacturing of glass,
and several more processes. Upon the publishing of that Supplement, virtually
all of the nearly two hundred fifty particle size emission factors being devel-
oped under this program will be available in AP-42.
v

-------
This document also includes a revision to Section 8.10, "Concrete Batch-
ing". Even though it does not contain particle size emission factors, this
portion has been revised for publication in AP-42 and is therefore provided.
Section 1.4, "Natural Gas Combustion", also does not have particle size emission
factors, but its updated text does include a discussion of particulate emissions
from that activity.
This document is divided into three parts. Part I offers the revised
AP-42 Sections already mentioned. Part II is AP-42 Appendix C.l, "Miscellaneous
Processes", and Part III is AP-42 Appendix C.2, "Generalized Particle Size
Distributions". All of this material will be included in the AP-42 Supplement
planned for publication later this year.
Any comments, questions or suggestions concerning this document or other
elements of AP-42 series should be directed to:
E. L. Martinez
Chief, Criteria Emissions Section (MD 14)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-5575
vi

-------
1.1 BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION
1.1.1 General*
Coal Is a complex combination of organic matter and inorganic ash formed
over eons from successive layers of fallen vegetation. Coal types are broadly
classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous or lignite, and classifica-
tion is made by heating values and amounts of fixed carbon, volatile matter,
ash, sulfur and moisture. Formulas for differentiating coals based on these
properties are given in Reference 1. See Sections 1.2 and 1.7 for discussions
of anthracite and lignite, respectively.
There are two major coal combustion techniques, suspension firing and
grate firing. Suspension firing is the primary combustion mechanism in pulver-
ized coal and cyclone systems. Grate firing is the primary mechanism in under-
feed and overfeed stokers. Both mechanisms are employed in spreader stokers.
Pulverized coal furnaces are used primarily in utility and large industrial
boilers. In these systems, the coal is pulverized in a mill to the consistency
of talcum powder (i. e., at least 70 percent of the particles will pass through
a 200 mesh sieve). The pulverized coal is generally entrained in primary air
before being fed through the burners to the combustion chamber, where it is
fired in suspension. Pulverized coal furnaces are classified as either dry or
wet bottom, depending on the ash removal technique. Dry bottom furnaces fire
coals with high ash fusion temperatures, and dry ash removal techniques are
used. In wet bottom (slag tap) furnaces, coals with low ash fusion tempera-
tures are used, and molten ash is drained from the bottom of the furnace.
Pulverized coal furnaces are further classified by the firing position of the
burners, i. e., single (front or rear) wall, horizontally opposed, vertical,
tangential (corner fired), turbo or arch fired.
Cyclone furnaces burn low ash fusion temperature coal crushed to a A mesh
size. The coal Is fed tangentially, with primary air, to a horizontal cylin-
drical combustion chamber. In this chamber, small coal particles are burned
in suspension, while the larger particles are forced against the outer wall.
Because of the high temperatures developed in the relatively small furnace
volume, and because of the low fusion temperature of the coal ash, much of the
ash forms a liquid slag which is drained from the bottom of the furnace through
a slag tap opening. Cyclone furnaces are used mostly in utility and large
industrial applications.
In spreader stokers, a flipping mechanism throws the coal into the furnace
and onto a moving fuel bed. Combustion occurs partly in suspension and partly
on the grate. Because of significant carbon in the particulate, flyash rein-
jection from mechanical collectors is commonly employed to improve boiler
efficiency. Ash residue in the fuel bed is deposited in a receiving pit at the
end of the grate.
External Combustion Sources
1.1-1

-------
r	TABLE 1.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR EXTERNAL BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION3
I
PO

Particulate*1
Sulfur 0xldeac
Nltroftea
0ildesd
Carboa
Homi Ide*
Nooaethaoe V0Ce»'
Nathalie*
Firing Configuration

lb/ton
kg/Hg
lb/ioo
kg/Hg
lb/ton
U/H
lb/too
kg/Mg
Ib/1 oo
t|/Hg
1 b/ton
Pulverlied coal fired
Dry bottoa
5A
10A
19
5S(l7 5S)
39S(35S)
10 5(7 5)«
21(15 )I
0 3
0 6
0 04
0 07
0 015
0 0J
Uet bottoa
3 JA*
7 Ah
J9
5S(17 5S)
39S(35i)
17
34
0 3
0 6
0 04
0 07
0 015
U 0)
Cyclone furnace
lAh
2Ah
19
SS(l7 IS)
39S(35S)
18 5
37
0 3
0 6
0 04
0 07
0 015
0 0}
Spreader stoker
Uncontrolled
30J
60J
19
5S(17 5S)
39S(35S)
7
14
2 5
5
0 04
0 07
0 015
0 oj
After aultlple cyclone
With fly «ah relnjectlon
froa ailtlpl* cyclone
6 *
17
19
SS(17 IS)
39S(35S>
7
14
2.5
5
0 04
0 07
0 015
0 0J
No fly ash relnjectlon
froa aultlple cyclone
6
12
19
5S(17 5$)
39S(35S)
7
14
2.5
5
0 04
0 07
U 015
0 01
Overfeed stoker^
Uncont rolled
8®
16"
19
5S(17 5S)
39S(J5S)
3 25
7 5
3
6
0 04
0 07
0 015
O OJ
After aultlple cyclone
4 5"
9n
19
5S(I 7 5S)
39S< 3 is)
3 25
7 S
3
6
0 04
0 07
0 015
0 03
Underfeed stoker
Uncont rolLad
7 5P
15P
IS
ss
31S
4 75
9 5
5 5
11
0 65
1
O 4
0 8
After aultlple cyclone
5 5n
lln
1)
is
31S
4 75
9 5
s 5
11
0 65
1
0 4
0 8
Handf 1 red un11s
7 5
15
1)
ss
31S
1 5
3
45
90
5
10
4
0
'Factors represent uncontrolled altiloni unltn otherwise apeclfled and should t* applied to coil cooiiaptlon aa fifed
^	^(ned on EPA Method 5 (front half catch) as described in Reference 12 Where particulate la expressed In teras of coal
^	ash content. A, (actor la determined by aultlplylng weight Z nh content of coal (•• fired) by the uaerlcal value
preceding the "A" For eaaaple, If coal having 81 aah la fired In • dry bottoa unit, the particulate ealsalon factor
would be 5 s 8, or 40 kg/Kg (80 lb/ton) The "cooJenalble* aatter collected In back half catch of EPA Method 5 averagea
jj	2, and only about 0 71 of fuel
aulfur la ealtted aa SOj and gaseous sulfate Ao equally saall percent of fuel aulfur la ealtted aa particulate sulfate
(References 9, 13) Small quaotltlea of aulfur are alao retained lo bottoa aah With aubbltualooue coal geoerally about
10Z aore fuel aulfur la retained In the bottoa aah and particulate becauae of the aore alkaline nature of the coal aah
Conversion to gaaeous aulfate appears about the aaae aa for bltialnoua coal
^Expressed as HOj Cenerally, 91 - 99 voluae Z of nitrogen oxide* present Id coabuatlon exhaust will be In the fora of
NO, the rest NOj (Reference 11) To express factors aa NO, aultlply by factor of 0 66 All factora repreaent ealsalon
at baseline operation (I e , 60 - 110X load and no N0g control aeasurei, aa discussed la Ceit)
'Noainel value* achleveablc under noma! operating conditions Values ooa or two orders of aagnltude higher can occur
when coabuatlon la not cunplete
'Nornethane volatile organic coapounda (VOC). expreaaed aa Cg to C.^ n-alkaoe equivalents (leference 58) Becauae of
llalted data on NMVOC available to distinguish th* effects of firing configuration, all data weri averaged
collectively to develop a single average for pulverlied coal units, cyclones, spreaders and overfeed stokers
SParenthetlc value la for tangentlally fired boilers
^Uncontrolled particulate colaalons, when no fly aah rclnjectlon la eaployed /hca control device la installed, aod
collected fly aah la reinjected to boiler, particulate froa boiler reachlQ£ control equipment can lacreaee by up to a
factor of two
JAccounts (or fly ash aettllng In an eronoalcer, air heater or breeching upstrea of control device or stack
(Partliulate dlreetly at boiler outlet typically vt11 be twice thla level ) Factor should be applied even when fly
aah Is reinjected to boiler frua boiler, air heater or ecoooalter dust hoppers
^Includes (raveling grate, vibrating grate and chain grate stokers
"Accounts for fly ash aettllng In breeching or stack baae Particulate loadloge directly at boiler outlet typically
can be 50X higher
"See text for discussion of spparently low aultlple cyclone control efficiencies, regarding uncontrolled ealastona
PAccounta for fly ash settling In breeching dovnstreaa of boiler outlet

-------
TABLE 1.1-2. EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS* AND REFERENCES FOR BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION
tn
Firing Configuration
	Part lcut»itc	Sul fur Ox Idea	Nitrogen Ox I do a	Carbon Monoxide	Nonmethme VOC	Hethdrn	
ln&	Re^	Rating	Ref	Ratlnx		RatlrtR	Kef	Hating Kef	HdtlnK	Ri f
Pulverized coal fired
Dry bottom	A	14-25	A 9,16-19,21, A 11,14,16-17, A 16,18-19,21	A 55,58	A	58
31-3?,10,	21,46,56	47,57
41-46,51-55
Wee boctoo	D	14,16,26	A	"	C 14,16	A	"	A 56	A	"
Cyclone furnace	D	14,19,22,	A	"	B 11	A	"	A	"	A	"
27-29
Spreader btoker
Uncontrolled	B	17,30-35	A	"a 11,17,31-37 A 17,19,31-34, a	"	a
39-40,46	36,47,51
i ¦	After multiple cyclone
Ultli flyaeh relojection
O	from cyclone	B	14,32,36-38 A	"A
O
3	No flyaeh relnjectlon
from cyclone	A	17,31-35,	A	"
A
39,40,59
Overfeed stoker
°	Uncontrolled	B	6,17,41-43,	A	"A 11,17,19,	B 17,41-42,45,
45-47	41-45	47,51
After multiple cyclone	B	6,41,44-45
O
c
^	Underfeed stoker
fC	Uncontrolled	B	6 ,19,47-48	B 19,48	B 19,47-46	B 19,47-48	A 47 58	A	47 58
(ft	'	*
After multiple cyclone	C	6	B	"	B	"	B
A	A
Handflred units	D	49-50	D	"	D 50	D 50	D 50 58	D	50.58
These ratlnga, In the context of this Section, refer to the number of test data on which each emission factor Is baaed An "A" raf Lug tneuns the
factor Is based on tests al ten or more boilers, a "B" rating on all to nine test data, and a "t" rating on teat data for two to five boilers.
A "D" rating Indicates the factor la based on only a single datum or extrapolated from a secondary reference These ratings are n..t a measure of
the scatter In the underlying lest data. However, a higher rating will generally lucrcase confidence that a given factor will better approximate
the average emissions for a particular boiler category.

-------
In overfeed stokers, coal is fed onto a traveling or vibrating grate, and
it burns on the fuel bed as it progresses through the furnace. Ash particles
fall into an ash pit at the rear of the stoker. The terra "overfeed" applies
because the coal is fed onto the moving grate under an adjustable gate._ Con-
versely, in "underfeed" stokers, coal is fed into the firing zone from under-
neath by mechanical rams or screw conveyers. The coal moves in a channel,
known as a retort, from which it is forced upward, spilling over the top of
each side to form and to feed the fuel bed. Combustion is corapleced by the
time the bed reaches the side dump grates from which the ash is discharged to
shallow pits. Underfeed stokers include single retort units and multiple
retort units, the latter having several retorts side by side.
1.1.2 Emissions And Controls
The major pollutants of concern from external coal combustion are partic-
ulate, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. Some unburnt combustibles, including
numerous organic compounds and carbon monoxide, are generally emitted even
under proper boiler operating conditions.
Particulate^-^ - Particulate composition and emission levels are a complex
function of firing configuration, boiler operation and coal properties. In
pulverized coal systems, combustion is almost complete, and thus particulate
largely comprises inorganic ash residue. In wet bottom pulverized coal units
and cyclones, the quantity of ash leaving the boiler is less than in dry bottom
units, since some of the ash liquifies, collects on the furnace walls, and
drains from the furnace bottom as molten slag. To increase the fraction of ash
drawn off as wet slag, and thus to reduce the flyash disposal problem, flyash
may be reinjected from collection equipment into slag tap systems. Dry bottom
unit ash may also be reinjected into wet bottom boilers for the same purpose.
Because a mixture of fine and coarse coal particles is fired in spreader
stokers, significant unburnt carbon can be present in the particulate. To
improve boiler efficiency, flyash from collection devices (typically multiple
cyclones) is sometimes reinjected into spreader stoker furnaces. This prac-
tice can dramatically increase the particulate loading at the boiler outlet
and, to a lesser extent, at the mechanical collector outlet. Flyash can also
be reinjected from the boiler, air heater and economizer dust hoppers. Flyash
reinjection from these hoppers does not increase particulate loadings nearly so
much as from multiple cyclones.5
Uncontrolled overfeed and underfeed stokers emit considerably less particu-
late than do pulverized coal units and spreader stokers, since combustion takes
place in a relatively quiescent fuel bed. Flyash reinjection Is not practiced
in these kinds of stokers.
Other variables than firing configuration and flyash reinjection can
affect emissions from stokers. Particulate loadings will often increase as
load increases (especially as full load is approached) and with sudden load
changes. Similarly, particulate can increase as the ash and fines contents
increase. ("Fines", in this context, are coal particles smaller than about 1.6
millimeters, or one sixteenth inch, in diameter.) Conversely, particulate can
be reduced significantly when overfire air pressures are increased.5
1.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS

-------
The primary kinds of particulate control devices used for coal combustion
include multiple cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters (bag-
houses) and scrubbers. Some measure of control will even result from ash
settling in boiler/air heater/economizer dust hoppers, large breeches and chim-
ney bases. To the extent possible from the existing data base, the effects of
such settling are reflected in the emission factors in Table 1.1-1.
Electrostatic precipitators (ES?) are the most common high efficiency
control device used on pulverized coal and cyclone units, and they are being
used increasingly on stokers. Generally, ESP collection efficiencies are a
function of collection plate ared per volumetric flow rate of flue gas through
the device. Particulate control efficiencies of 99.9 weight percent are
obtainable with ESPs. Fabric filters have recently seen increased use in both
utility and industrial applications, generally effecting about 99.3 percent
efficiency. An advantage of fabric filters is that they are unaffected by high
flyash resistivities associated with low sulfur coals. ESPs located after air
preheaters (i. e., cold side precipitators) may operate at significantly reduced
efficiencies when low sulfur coal is fired. Scrubbers are also used to control
particulate, although their primary use is to control sulfur oxides. One draw-
back of scrubbers is the high energy requirement to achieve control efficiencies
comparable to those of ESPs and baghouses.2
Mechanical collectors, generally multiple cyclones, are the primary means
of control on many stokers and are sometimes installed upsteam of high effi-
ciency control devices in order to reduce the ash collection burden. Depending
on application and design, multiple cyclone efficiencies can vary tremendously.
Where cyclone design flow rates are not attained (which is common with under-
feed and overfeed stokers), these devices may be only marginally effective and
may prove little better in reducing particulate than large breeching. Con-
versely, well designed multiple cyclones, operating at the required flow rates,
can achieve collection efficiencies on spreader stokers and overfeed stokers
of 90 to 95 percent. Even higher collection efficiencies are obtainable on
spreader stokers with reinjected flyash, because of the larger particle sizes
and increased particulate loading reaching the controls.
Sulfur Oxides?-^ - Gaseous sulfur oxides from external coal combustion
are largely sulfur dioxide (SO2) and much less quantity of sulfur trioxide
(SO3) and gaseous sulfates. These compounds form as the organic and pyritic
sulfur in the coal is oxidized during the combustion process. On average, 98
percent of the sulfur present in bituminous coal will be emitted as gaseous
sulfur oxides, whereas somewhat less will be emitted when subbituminous coal
is fired. The more alkaline nature of the ash in some subbituminous coal
causes some of the sulfur to react to form various sulfate salts that are
retained in the boiler or in the flyash. Generally, boiler size, firing con-
figuration and boiler operations have little effect on the percent conversion
of fuel sulfur to sulfur oxides.
Several techniques are used to reduce sulfur oxides from coal combustion.
One way is to switch to lower sulfur coals, since sulfur oxide emissions are
proportional to the sulfur content of the coal. This alternative may not be
possible where lower sulfur coal is not readily available or where a different
grade of coal can not be satisfactorily fired. In some cases, various cleaning
processes may be employed to reduce the fuel sulfur content. Physical coal
cleaning removes mineral sulfur such as pyrlte but is not effective in removing
External Combustion Sources
1.1-5

-------
organic sulfur. Chemical cleaning and solvent refining processes are being
developed to remove organic sulfur.
Many flue gas desulfurization techniques can remove sulfur oxides formed
during combustion. Flue gases can be treated through wet, semidry or dry
desulfurization processes of either the throwaway type, in which all waste
streams are discarded, or the recovery (regenerable) type, in which the S0X
absorbent is regenerated and reused. To date, wet systems are che most com-
monly applied. Wet systems generally use alkali slurries as the SOx absorbent
medium and can be designed to remove well in excess of 90 percent of the in-
coming SOx. Particulate reduction of up to 99 percent is also possible with
wet scrubbers, but flyash Is often collected by upsteam ESPs or baghouses, to
avoid erosion of the desulfurization equipment and possible interference with
the process reactions.^ Also, the volume of scrubber sludge is reduced with
separate flyash removal, and contamination of the reagents and byproducts is
prevented. References 7 and 8 give more details on scrubbing and other S0X
removal techniques.
Nitrogen Oxides ^-11 _ nitrogen oxides (N0X) emissions from coal
combustion are primarily nitrogen oxide (NO). Only a few volume percent are
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO results from thermal fixation of atmospheric nitro-
gen in the combustion flame and from oxidation of nitrogen bound in the coal.
Typically, only 20 to 60 percent of the fuel nitrogen is converted to nitrogen
oxides. Bituminous and subbituminous coals usually contain from 0.5 to 2
weight percent nitrogen, present mainly in aromatic ring structures. Fuel
nitrogen can account for up to 80 percent of total N0x from coal combustion.
A number of combustion modifications can be made to reduce NOx emissions
from boilers. Low excess air (LEA) firing is the most widespread control
modification, because it can be practiced in both old and new units and in all
sizes of boilers. LEA firing is easy to implement and has the added advantage
of increasing fuel use efficiency. LEA firing is generally effective only
above 20 percent excess air for pulverized coal units and above 30 percent
excess air for stokers. Below these levels, the NO^ reduction from decreased O2
availability is offset by increased N0X because of increased flame temperature.
Another N0X reduction technique is simply to switch to a coal having a lower
nitrogen content, although many boilers may not properly fire coals of different
properties.
Off-stoichiometric (staged) combustion is also an effective means of
controlling N0X from coal fired equipment. This can be achieved by using
overfire air or low NOx burners designed to stage combustion in the flame zone.
Other NOx reduction techniques Include flue gas recirculation, load reduction,
and steam or water injection. However, these techniques are not very effective
for use on coal fired equipment because of the fuel nitrogen effect. Ammonia
injection is another technique which can be used, but it is costly. The net
reduction of N0X from any of these techniques or combinations thereof varies
considerably with boiler type, coal properties and existing operating practices.
Typical reductions will range from 10 to 60 percent. References 10 and 60
should be consulted for a detailed discussion of each of these NOx reduction
techniques. To date, flue gas treatment is not used to reduce nitrogen oxide
emissions because of its higher cost.
1.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS

-------
Volatile Organic Compounds And Carbon Monoxide - Volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO) are unburnt gaseous combustibles which generally
are emitted in quite small amounts. However, during startups, temporary upsets
or other conditions preventing complete combustion, unburnt combustible..emis-
sions may increase dramatically. VOC and CO emissions per unit of fuel fired
are normally lower from pulverized coal or cyclone furnaces than from smaller
stokers and handfired units where operating conditions are not so well con-
trolled. Measures used for N'0X control can Increase CO emissions, so to reduce
the risk of explosion, such measures are applied only to the point at which CO
in the flue gas reaches a maximum of about 200 parts per million. Other than
maintaining proper combustion conditions, control measures are not applied to
control VOC and CO.
Emission Factors And References - Emission factors for several pollutants
are presented in Table 1.1-1, and factor ratings and references are presented
in Table 1.1-2. The factors for uncontrolled underfeed stokers and hand fired
units also may be applied to hot air furnaces. Tables 1.1-3 through 1.1-3
present cumulative size distribution data and size specific emission factors
for particulate emissions from the combustion sources discussed above. Uncon-
trolled and controlled size specific emission factors are presented in Figures
1.1-1 through 1.1-6.
External Combustion Sources
1.1-7

-------
TABLE 1.1-3.
CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR DRY BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED BITUMINOUS COALa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
C (uncontrolled)
D (scrubber and ESP controlled
E (multiple cyclone and baghouse)
Particle «lzeh
Cuiwila11 *e iMm 3 < itnteH il«e
Cumu1nIv
t emission f,»ctnrc (lb/tor) coal, M r*r! |
(ub)
Uncon' ro
ted
font rolled
Uncont rn11ed
Confoll.dd

Multiple
cyclone
Scrubber
esp
Baghouse

Hul11 pi«
cyclone
Scrubber
ESP
Baghouae
15
12

54
91
79
97
1.6A
(J.2A)
0 54A
(1 .08/)
0 24A
(0 48a)
0 0032A
(0 006A)
0 0010A
(0 00ZA)
10
23

29
71
67
92
1 15A
(2.3A)
0 29A
(0 S«A)
0 2IA
(0 62A)
0 0027A
(0 O05A)
0 0009A
(0 001 A)
6
17

14
62
50
77
0 45A
(1 7A)
0.1 4a
(0 28A)
0 19A
(0 18A)
0 r)02()A
(0 004A)
0 OOOflA
(0 001A)
2 5
6

3
51
29
51
0.30A
(0 6A)
0 03A
(0.06A)
0 15A
(0 3A)
0.0012A
(0 002A)
0 0005A
<0 001A)
1 25
2

'
35
17
31
0.10A
(0 2A)
0 01A
(0 02A)
0 1 IA
(0 22A)
0 0007A
(0.001 A)
0 0OO3A
(0 0006A)
1 00
2

I
31
It
25
0 10A
(0 2A)
0.01 A
(0 02A)
0 09A
(0 18A)
0 0006A
(0 OOlA)
o noo3A
{0 0006A)
0 625
I

1
20
12
14
0 05A
(0.10)
0 01A
(0 02A)
0 06A
(0 12A)
O 0005A
(0 001 A)
0 0001A
(0 0002A)
TOTAL
too

100
100
100
100
5A
(IOA)
IA
(2A)
0 3A
<0 hA)
0 004a
(O.OOfiA)
o ooia
(0 002A)
'Reference 61. ESP ¦ el eelroalat le precipitator
t>Expreaaed aa aerodynamic equivalent dl*aeter
CA - coal a«h weight I, aa fired.
^EatlaeCed control efficiency for aulclplc cyclone, SOX, scrubber, 94X,
ESP, 99.21 baghouae, 99 fit
i/i ui
«-
fcj
c
2 OA
1 8A
1 6A
1 4A
1 2A
1 OA
0 8A
0 6A
0 4A
0 2A
0
Scrubber
J l I l
1 OA
0 6A
0 4A
0 2A
- 0 1A
o —
Baghouse
Uncontrolled
Multiple cyclone —
J I I i i i i i i i i
0 06A * e
O «-•
0 04A U o
IQ |J
O -O
0 02A
i 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (pm)
20
40 60 100
0 01A —1
0 01A
006A
004A
0 002A
*D
C
'O
0 001A
£
0 0006A *.
V. '
0 0004A S.
*0
0 0002A 2
-------
TABLE 1.1-4. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR WET BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED BITUMINOUS COAL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Cumulative tnas-3 X < stated size
Cumulative emissLon factorc [Vg/Mjj
(lb/ton) coal, as flre«i|
Particle s lze&
(uro)
Uncont rol1ed
Cone rolled
Uncont rolled
Cont rol ».ed^

Multiple
cyclone
ES?

Multiple cyclone
ESP
15
40
99
83
1.4A (2.8A)
0.69A ( 1.38A)
0.023A (0.046A)
10
37
93
75
1.30A (2.6A)
0.65A ( 1.3A)
0.021A (0.042A)
6
33
84
63
1.16A (2.32A)
0.59A ( 1.18A)
O.OlfiA (0.036A)
2.5
21
61
40
0.74A (1.48A)
0.43A (0.86A)
0.0UA (0.022A)
1.25
6
31
17
0.21A (0.42A)
0.22A (0.44A)
0.005A (0.01A)
1.00
k
19
8
0.14A (0.28A)
0.13A (0.26A)
0.002A (0.004A)
0.625
2
e
e
0.07A (0.14A)
e
e
TOTAL
100
*100
100
3 - 5A (7.OA)
<
<
o
0.028A (0.056A)
aReference 61. ESP - electrostatic precipitator.
''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
CA - coal ash weight 2, as Fired
^Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 802, ESP, 99.22.
eInaufflclent data.
3 bA
2 8A -
2 1A -
1 4A
0 /OA -
J I I I
ESP -\
Mulcipie
cyclone
Uncontrolled
J I I I I I ll
2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (ym)
20
1 OA
0 9A
0 8A
0 7A
0 6A
0 5A
0 4A
0 3A
0 2k
0 1A
0
40 60 100
O) E

o
0 1A
0 06A
0 04A /o
0 01A
0 006A o
C7>
0 002A
0 001A
Figure 1.1-2. Cumulative size specific emission factors for wet bottom
boilers burning pulverized bituminous coal
External Combustion Sources
1.1-9
-------
TABLE 1.1-5. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR CYCLONE FURNACES BURNING BITUMINOUS COAL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
^article size^
Cumulative mass Z < stated size
Cumulative emission factor0 [kg/Mg
(lb/ton) coal, as fired)
(uta)
Uncont rolled
Cont rolIed
Uncont rolled
Cone rollede

Scrubber
ESP

Scrubber
SSP
15
33
95
90
0.33A (0.66A)
0.057A (O.MAA)
0.0064A (0.013A)
10
13
94
68
0.13A (0.23a)
0.056A (0.112A)
0.0054a (O.Ol1A)
6
8
93
56
0.08A (0.16A)
0.056A (0.112A)
0.00^5A (0.009a)
2.5
0
92
36
0 (0)
0.055A (0.11A)
0.0029a (0.006a)
1.25
0
85
22
0 (0)
0.0MA (0.10A)
0.0018A (O.OO^A)
1.00
0
82
17
0 (0)
0.049a (0.I0A)
0.00L4A (0.003A)
0.625
0
d
d
0 (0)
d
d
TOTAL
100
100
100
1A (2A)
O.ObA (0.12A)
0.008A (0.016A)
aReference 61. ESP » electrostatic precipitator
^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
CA ¦ coal ash weight Z, as fired.
^Insufficient data.
eEstlmated control efficiency for scrubber, 94Z, ESP, 99.2X.
1 OA"
0 9A.
0 8A ¦
0 7A '
0 6A -
0 5A .
0 4A -
0 3A "
0 2A -
0 1A -
0 .
J
0 0 LA
0 006A
0 004A
Uncontrolled
,0 10A
0 OfaA
0 04A
0 02A
1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (pm)
40 60 100
•*- 15
E O
4) L.
0 002A
Figure 1.1-3.
Cumulative size specific emission factors tor cyclone
furnaces burning bituminous coal
1.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 1.1-6. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR SPREADER STOKERS BURNING BITUMINOUS COALa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C (uncontrolled and controlled for
multiple cyclone without flyash
reinjection, and with baghouse)
E (multiple cyclone controlled with
flyash reinjection, and ESP
controlled)
Particle alxe^
(u«)
Cun
ulatlv# a*M t <, stated size
Cuaulat Ive mlnlor
f«t»r (lb/ton) coul
«n Mreii)
line one rol l«d

Cone ro
lied

Unconc rol1rd
Controlled

Mu1 1 p I e
eyelonec
Hul tIple
cyclone1*
ESP
Baghouse

Multiple
cyclone0
Hul cIple
cyclone51
ESP
SaghouH e
i5
26
96
74
97
72
8.4
( 16 8}
7. J
(H ft)
4 4
(6 8)
0 23
(0 44)
0 04 J
(0 086)
10
20
73
65
90
60
6 0
(12 0)
6.2
<12 4)
3 9
(7 «)
0 22
(0 44)
l> PJ6
(0 072)
6
1*
31
52
82
46
4 2
*)
4 3
(8 6)
J 1
(6 2)
0 2a
(0 40)
0 023
(0 Ci6>
2.5
7
8
27
61
26
2 1
(*.2)
0 »
(1 4)
1 6
(3 2)
0 15
(0 3ft)
0 016
<0 032)
1 2i
5
2
16
*6
18
1 5
O o)
0 2
(0 4)
1 0
(2 0)
0 II
(a 22)
0 ON
(0 022)
1 00
5
2
14
*1
1)
1 i
(3 ft)
0 2
(0 *>
0 8
(I 6)
0 10
(0 20)
0 009
(0 018}
0 625
4
1
9
e
7
1 2
U *)
0 1
(0.2)
0 s
(1 Q)
e
0 004
(0 008)
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
JO o
(60 0)
8 3
(IJ.0)
6 0
(12 0)
0 24 :
(0 68)
0 Ob
(0 12)
•Keterenee 61 ESP ¦ «1ectro«tatIc precipitator —' ¦ '
rea.ed «• aerodyncalc equlv.lenc dimeter
tWlth My.ah reinjection.
^without fly.eh reinjection.
*1n.uffIclent diti
'E.tts.red control efficiency for ESP, 99 21, b.ghouBe, 99 BI
10
9
6
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
D
Hultipie cyclone with
y

-
flyash reinjection

-
Multiple cyclone without

flyash reinjection

^^Bagnoube

/ /

Uncontrolled
-
_ / -X*

^— ESP
-
i i i i i i i i i
J 1 1 l r
1 I I 1 I
I I 1
20
10 C
6 C
4 L
I C
I 0
0 6
0 4
0 2
0 1
£ °
UJ
cr>
40 60 100
Figure 1.1-4,
4 6 1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (gm)
Cumulative size specific emission factors for spreader
stokers burning bituminous coal
External Combustion Sources
1,1-11
-------
TABLE 1.1-7. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR OVERFEED STOKERS BURNING BITUMINOUS COAL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C (uncontrolled)
E (multiple cyclone controlled)
Particle slzeb
Cumulative mass Z < stated SLze
Curaulactve emission fartor
[kg/Hg Mb/ton) coal, as flr>j|
(urn)
Uncont rolled
Multiple cyclone
cont rolled
I'ncon t roll ed
Multiple C/< lone
cont ro11~d^
15
49
60
3.9 (7.8)
2.7 (5. •)
10
37
55
3.0 (6.0)
2.5 (5.0)
6
24
49
1.9 (3.R)
2.2 (4. .)
2.5
14
43
1.1 (2.2)
1.9 (3.0
1.25
13
39
1.0 (2.0)
1.8 (3.o)
o
o
12
39
1.0 (2.0)
1.8 (3.^)
0.625
c
16
c
0.7 (l.-l
TOTAL
100
100
8.0 (16.0)
4.5 (9..))
aReference 61.
^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
cInsufflcient data.
^Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 802.
7 2
-

~
6 4

Multiple

5 6
-
cyclone

4 8
-
f

4 0
-
/ Uncontrolled .
—
3 2
-
/
\
2 4
-
/
_
1 6
-

-
0 8
-

0
1 III
i i i 11 i i i i i i i 11 i
1 1 1 1 1 t
10
6 0
4 0
T3
01
U

"U
4)
2 C
O » o
0 4
u
41 o
£ m
i
0 i
1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (pm)
20
40 60 100
Figure 1.1-5. Cumulative size specific emission factors for overfeed
stokers burning bituminous coal
1.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 1.1-8. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR UNDERFEED STOKERS BURNING BITUMINOUS COAL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Particle size*3
(um)
Cumulative mass 7. < stated size
Uncontrollea cumulative emission factor0
[kg/Mg ^lb/ton) coal, as fired)
15
50
3.8 (7.6)
10
41
3.1 (6.2)
6
32
2.4 (4.8)
2.5
25
1.9 (3.8)
1.25
22
1.7 (3.4)
1.00
21
1.6 (3.2)
0.625
18
1.4 (3.4)
TOTAL
100
7.5 (15.0)
aReference 61.
bEx pressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
cMay also be used for uncontrolled hand fired units.
10
9
8
L.
o 7
*-> 1
u
« *o
C h 6
O H-
vi r
«3 J
¦DO ^
Ci u
o T. 3
*-> CT»
C
o —' 2
u w
c
1
0 1 2 4 6 1 2 4 6 10 20 40 60 100
Particle diameter (yni)
Figure 1.1-6. Cumulative size specific emission factors for underfeed
stokers burning bituminous coal
Uncontrol1ed
External Combustion Sources
1.1-13
-------
References for Section 1.1
1. Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, 1975.
2. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,
Volume I, EPA-450/3-81-005a, 1J. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1981.
3. Ibidem, Volume II, SPA-450/3-8l-0005b.
4. Electric Utility Steam Generating Units: Background Information for
Proposed Particulate Matter Emission Standard, EPA-450/2-78-006a, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1978.
5. W. Axtman and M. A. Eleniewski, "Field Test Results of Eighteen Industrial
Coal Stoker Fired Boilers for Emission Control and Improved Efficiency",
Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Asso-
ciation, Philadelphia, PA, June 1981.
6. Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal Fired Boilers for Emission Control
and Efficiency Improvement - Sites Ll-17, EPA-600/7-81-Q20a, IJ. S. Environ-
nental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1981.
7. Control Techniques for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,
2nd Edition, EPA-450/3-81-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1981.
8. Electric Utility Steam Generating Units: Background Information for
Proposed SO? Emission Standards, EPA-450/2-78-007a, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1978.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1981.
9. Carlo Castaldini and Meredith Angwin, Boiler Design and Operating Vari-
ables Affecting Uncontrolled Sulfur Emissions from Pulverized Coal Fired
Steam Generators, EPA-450/3-77-047, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.
10. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources,
2nd Edition, EPA-450/1-78-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.
11• Review of NOy Emission Factors for Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion
Sources, EPA-450/4-79-021, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.
12. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 36 FR 24876, December
23, 1971. ~ ~
13. L. Scinto, Primary Sulfate Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion, EPA
Contract Number 68-02-3138, TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA, February 1980.
14. S. T. Cuffe and R. W. Gerstele, Emissions from Coal Fired Power Plants:
A Comprehensive Summary, 999-AP-35, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1967.
1.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
15. Field Testing: Application of Combustion Modifications To Control NOy
Emissions from Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-74-066, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1974.
16. Control of Utility Boiler ana Gas Turbine Pollutant Emissions by Combus-
tion Modification - Phase I, EPA-600/7-78-036a, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.
17. Low-sulfur Western Coal Use :n Existing Small and Intermediate Size
Boilers, EPA-600/7-78-153a, 'J, S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, July 1978.
18. Hazardous Emission Characterization of Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-75-066,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 1975.
19. Application oE Combustion Modifications To Control Pollutant Emissions
from Industrial Boilers - Pha-se I, EPA-650/2-74-078a, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 1974.
20. Field Study To Obtain Trace Element Mass Balances at a Coal Fired Utility
Boiler, EPA-600/7-80-171, U. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, DC, October 1980.
21. Environmental Assessment of Coal and Oil Firing in a Controlled Industrial
Boiler, Volume II, EPA-600/7-78-164b, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, August 1978.
22. Coal Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study, U. R. Environmental Protection
Agency, Denver, CO, September 1975.
23. Source Testing of Duke Power Company, Plezer, SC, EMB-71-CI-01, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1971.
24. J. W. Kaakinen, et al., "Trace Element Behavior in Coal-fired Power Plants",
Environmental Science and Technology, 9(9):862—869, September 1975.
25. Five Field Performance Tests en Koppers Company Precipitators, Docket No.
OAQPS-78-1, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February-March 1974.
26. H. M. Rayne and L. P. Copian, 31ag Tap Boiler Performance Associated with
Power Plant Flyash Disposal, Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works,
Chicago, IL, undated.
27. A. B. Walker, "Emission Characteristics for Industrial Boilers", Air
Engineering, 9^8): 17-19, Augus : 1967.
28. Environmental Assessment of Coal-fired Controlled Utility Boiler, EPA-600/
7-80-086, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April
1980.
29. Steam, 37th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, 1963.
External Combustion Sources 1.1-15
-------
30. Industrial Boiler: Emission Test Report, Formica Corporation, Cincinnati,
Ohio, EMB-80-IBR-7, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, October 1980.
31. Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal-fired Boilers for Emissions Control
and Efficiency Improvement - Site A, EPA-600/7-78-135a, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 1978.
32. ibidem-Site C, EFA-600/7-79-130a, May 1979.
33.
ibidem-Si te
E,
EPa.-600/7-80-064a,
March 1930.
34.
ibidem-Site
F,
EPA-600/7-80-065a,
March 1980.
35.
ibidem-Si te
G,
EPA-600/7-80-082a,
April 1980.
36.
ibidem-Site
B,
EPA-600/7-79-04la,
February 1979.
37. Industrial Boilers: Emission Test Report, General Motors Corporation,
Parma, Ohio, Volume I, EMB-80-IBR-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle ?ark, NC, March 1980.
38. A Field Test Using Coal; dRDF Blends in Spreader Stoker-fired Boilers,
EPA-600/2-80-095, J. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
August 1980.
39. Industrial Boilers: Emission Test Report, Rickenbacker Air Force Base,
Columbus, Ohio, EM3-80-IBR-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1980.
40. Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial Boilers: Site 1, EPA-600/7-80-085a,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 1980.
41 • Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal-fired Boilers for Emissions Control
and Efficiency Improvement - Site D, EPA-600/7-79-237a. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, November 1979.
42. ibidem-Site H, EPA-600/7-80-112a, May 1980.
43. ibidem-Site I, EPA-600/7-80-136a, May 1980.
44. ibidem-Site J, EPA-600/7-80-137a, May 1980.
45. ibidem-Site K, EPA-600/7-80-138a, May 1980.
46. Regional Air Pollution Study: Point Source Emission Inventory, EPA-600/4-
77-014, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
March 1977.
47. R. P. Hangebrauck, et al., Emissions of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and
Other Pollutants from Heat Generation and Incineration Process", Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, J_4(7) : 267-278, July 1964^
1.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
EPA-600/2-78-004o, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
June 1978.
49. Source Sampling Residential Fireplaces for Emission Factor Development,
EPA-450/3-76-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, November 1975.
50. Atmospheric Emissions from Coal Combustion: An Inventory Guide, 999-AP-24,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 1966.
51. Application of Combustion Modification To Control Pollutant Emissions from
Industrial Boilers - Phase II, EPA-600/2-76-086a, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 1976.
52. Continuous Emission Monitoring for Industrial Boiler, General Motors Cor-
poration, St. Louis, Missouri, Volume I, EPA Contract Number 68-02-2687,
GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, June 1980.
53. Survey of Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems: Cholla Station, Arizona
Public Service Company, EPA-600/7-78-048a, U. S- Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.
54. ibidem: La Cygne Station, Kansas City Power and Light, EPA-600/7-78-048d,
March 1978.
55. Source Assessment: Dry Bottom Utility Boilers Firing Pulverized Bituminous
Coal, EPA-600/2-79-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, August 1980.
56. Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial Boilers: Site 3 - Pulverized - Coal
Fired Boiler, EPA-600/7-80-085c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, April 1980.
57. Systematic Field Study of Nitrogen Oxide Emission Control Methods for
Utility Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.
58. Emissions of Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds from Utility Boilers,
EPA—600/7—80—11L, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
May 1980.
59. Industrial Boilers: Emission Test Report, DuPont Corporation, Parkers-
burg, West Virginia, EMB-80-IBR-12, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1982.
60. Technology Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler Applications: NOy
Combustion Modification, EPA-600/7-79-178f, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, December 1979.
61. Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion
Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View,
CA, January 1985.
External Combustion Sources
1.1-17
-------
1.2 ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION
1.2.1 General^ -
Anthracite coal is a high rank coal with more fixed carbon and less vola-
tile matter than either bituminous coal or lignite, and it has higher ignition
and ash fusion temperatures. 3ecause of its low volatile matter content and
slight clinkering, anthracite is most commonly fired in medium sized traveling
grate stokers and small hand fired units. Some anthracite (occasionally with
petroleum coke) is used in pulverized coal fired boilers. It is also blended
with bituminous coal. None is fired in spreader stokers. For its low sulfur
content (typically less than 0.8 weight percent) and minimal smoking tendencies,
anthracite is considered a desirable fuel where readily available.
In the United States, all anthracite is mined in northeastern Pennsylvania
and is consumed mostly in Pennsylvania and several surrounding states. The
largest use of anthracite is for space heating. Lesser amounts are employed
for steam/electric production; coke manufacturing, sintering and pelletizing;
and other industrial uses. Anthracite currently is only a small fraction of
the total quantity of coal combusted in the United States.
1.2.2 Emissions And Controls^-!^
Particulate emissions from anthracite combustion are a function of furnace
firing configuration, firing practices (boiler load, quantity and location of
underfire air, sootblowing, flyash reinjection, etc.), and the ash content of
the coal. Pulverized coal fired boilers emit the highest quantity of partic-
ulate per unit of fuel because they fire the anthracite in suspension, which
results in a high percentage of ash carryover into exhaust gases. Pulverized
anthracite fired boilers operate in the dry tap or dry bottom mode, because of
anthracite's characteristically high ash fusion temperature. Traveling grate
stokers and hand fired units produce much less particulate per unit of fuel
fired, because combustion takes place in a quiescent fuel bed without signifi-
cant ash carryover into the exhaust gases. In general, particulate emissions
from traveling grate stokers will increase during sootblowing and flyash rein-
jection and with higher fuel bed underfeed air from forced draft fans. Smoking
is rarely a problem, because of anthracite's low volatile matter content.
Limited data are available on the emission of gaseous pollutants from
anthracite combustion. It is assumed from bituminous coal combustion data that
a large fraction of the fuel sulfur is emitted as sulfur oxides. Also, because
combustion equipment, excess air rates, combustion temperatures, etc., are
similar between anthracite and bituminous coal combustion, nitrogen oxide and
carbon monoxide emissions are assumed to be similar, too. Volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions, however, are expected to be considerably lower,
since the volatile matter content of anthracite is significantly less than that
of bituminous coal.
External Combustion Sources
1.2-1
-------
rsj
I
ro
TABLE 1.2-1. UNCON'IROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR ANTHRACITE COMBUSTION3
Boiler type
Pa rticulateb
Sulfur
oxidesc
Nitrogen oxides^
Carbon monoxide0
Volarlle organics
NonmeLliane
Methane
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton

Pulverized coal fired
f
f
19.5S
39S
9
18
f
f
f
f
Traveling grate

stoker
A. 68
9. 18
19.5S
39S
5
10
0.3
0.6
i
f
Hand fed units
5^
10h
19.5S
39S
1.5
3
f
f
t"
f
aFactors are for uncontrolled emissions and should be applied to coal consumption as fired.
O ^Based on EPA Method 5 (front half catch).
q cAssumes, as with bituminous coal combustion, most fuel sulfur is emitted as S0X« Limited data in Reference 5
^ verify this for pulverized anthracite fired boilers. Emissions are mostly S02> with 1-35! SOj. S Indicates that
weight % sulfur should be multiplied by the value given.
dFor pulverized anthracite fired boilers and hand fed units, assumed to be similar to bituminous co«jL combustion. For
traveling grate stokers, see References 8, 11.
eMay increase by several orders of magnitude with boilers not properly operated or maintained. For Leveling grate
stokers, based on limited information in Reference 8. For pulverized coal fired boilers, subsLantiat<_d by additional
data in Reference 14.
^Factors in Table 1.1-1 may be used, based on similarity of anthracite and bituminous coal.
SReferences 12-13, 15-18. Accounts, for limited fallout that may occur in fallout chambers and stack breeching. Factors
for individual boilers may be 2.5 - 25 kg/Mg (5 - 50 lb/ton), highest during soot blowing.
^Reference 2.
-------
Controls on anthracite emissions mainly have been applied to particulate
matter. The most efficient particulate controls, fabric filters, scrubbers and
electrostatic precipitators, have been installed on large pulverized anthracite
fired boilers. Fabric filters and venturi scrubbers can effect collection
efficiencies exceeding 99 percent. Electrostatic precipitators typically are
only 90 to 97 percent efficient, because of the characteristic high resistivity
of low sulfur anthracite fly ash. It is reported that higher efficiencies can
be achieved using larger precipitators and flue gas conditioning. Mechanical
collectors are frequently employed upstream from these devices for large part-
icle removal.
Traveling grate stokers are often uncontroiled. Indeed, particulate
control has often been considered unnecessary, because of anthracite's low smok-
ing tendencies and of the fact that a significant fraction of large size flyash
from stokers is readily collected in flyash hoppers as well as in the breeching
and base of the stack. Cyclone collectors have been employed on traveling
grate stokers, and limited information suggests these devices may be up to 75
percent efficient on particulate. Flyash reinjection, frequently used in
traveling grate stokers to enhance fuel use efficiency, tends to increase
particulate emissions per unit of fuel combusted.
Emission factors for pollutants from anthracite coal combustion are given
in Table 1.2-1, and factor ratings in Table 1.2-2. Cumulative size distribution
data and size specific emission factors and ratings for particulate emissions
are in Tables 1.2-3 and 1.2-4. Uncontrolled and controlled size specific emis-
sion factors are presented in Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2. Size distribution data
for bituminous coal combustion may be used for uncontrolled emissions from
pulverized anthracite fired furnaces, and data for anthracite fired traveling
grate stokers may be used for hand fed units.
TABLE 1.2-2. ANTHRACITE COAL EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS

Volatile organics
Furnace Type
Particulate
Sulfur
oxides
Nit rogen
oxides
Carbon
monoxide
Nonmethane
Methane
Pulverized coal
B
B
B
B
C
C
Traveling grate
stoker
B
B
B
B
C
C
Hand fed units
B
B
B
B
D
D
External Combustion Sources
1.2-3
-------
TABLE 1.2-3. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRY BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED
ANTHRACITE COAL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Cumulative emission facCorc

Cuaulatlve mass X < staced size
[Itg/Mg (lb/ton) b*rk, aa f I red j
Particle aUeb
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Uncont rolLed
Cont rolled^
(no)

Multiple cyclone
Baghouse

Multiple cyclone
Baghouse
15
32
63
79
1.6A (3.2A)
0.63A (1 26A)
0.0079A (0.0I6A)
10
23
55
67
1.2A (2.3A)
0.55A (1.10A)
0.0067A (0.013A)
6
17
46
51
o
>
>
0.46A (0.92A)
0.005IA (0.0I0A)
2.5
6
24
32
0.3A (0.6A)
0.24A (0.68A)
0.0032A (0.006A)
1.25
2
13
21
0.IA (0.2A)
0.13A (0.26A)
0.0021A (0.004A)
1.00
2
10
18
0.1A (0.2A)
0.10A (U.20A)
0.00I8A (0.004A)
0.625
I
7

0.05a (0.1A)
0.07A (0.14a)
e
TOTAL
100
100
100
5A (10A)
IA (2A)
0.01A (0.02A)
aReference 19.
bg* pressed as Aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
CA " coal ash weight, as fired.
^Estlnated control efficiency for oultlple cyclone, 801, baghouse, 99.81.
®lnsuffIclent data.
Uncontrolled
Particle diameter (pm)
Figure 1.2-1. Cumulative size specific emission factors for dry bottom
boilers burning pulverized anthracite coal.
1.2.-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 1.2-4. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR TRAVELING GRATE STOKERS BURNING ANTHRACITE COAL*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle size'1
Cumulative
< stated
mass X
size
Cumul
(kg/Mg
ative emission factor
(lb/ton) coal, as fired]
(un)
'Jnconc roLledc
Uncont rolled
15
64

2.9
(5.8)
10
52

2.4
(4.8)
6
42

1.9
(3.8)
2.5
27

1.2
(2.4)
1.25
24

1.1
(2.2)
1.00
23

1.1
(2.2)
0.625
d

TOTAL
100

4.6
(9.2)
aReference 19.
''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
cMay also be used for uncontrolled hand fed units.
^Insufficient data.
Particle diameter (uni)
Figure 1.2-2. Cumulative size specific emission factors for traveling
grate stokers burning anthracite coal.
External Combustion Sources
1.2-5
-------
References for Section 1.2
1. Minerals Yearbook, 1978-79, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC, 1981.
2. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.
3. Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, NY, 1975.
b. Fossil Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers - Background Information for Proposed
Standards, Draft, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1980.
5. R. W. Cass and R. W. Bradway, Fractional Efficiency of a Utility Boiler
Baghouse: Sunbury Steam Electric Station, EPA-600/2-76-077a, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1976.
6. R. P. Janaso, "Baghouse Dust Collectors on a Low Sulfur Coal Fired Utility
Boiler", Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Denver, CO, June 1974.
7. J. H. Phelan, et al., Design and Operation Experience with Baghouse Dust
Collectors for Pulverized Coal Fired Utility Boilers - Sunbury Station,
Holtwood Station, Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Denver,
CO, 1976.
8. Source Test Data on Anthracite Fired Traveling Grate Stokers, Office Of
Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.
9. Source and Emissions informatlonT on Anthracite Fired Traveling Grate
Stokers, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.
10. R. J. Milligan, et al., Review of NOy Emission Factors for Stationary
Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources, EPA-450/4-79-021, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.
11. N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
Combustion Systems, Volume IV: Commercial/Institutional Combustion
Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation. Bedford. MA. October
1980.
12. Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, RCA-E1ectronic Com-
ponents, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Scott Environmental
Technology, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA, April 1975.
13. Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Shippensburg State
College, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Scott Environmental
Technology, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA, May 1975.
1.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
14. W. Bartok, et al., Systematic Field Study of NOy Emission Control Methods
for Utility Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.
15. Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Ashland State General
Hospital, Ashland, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA, March 16, 1977.
16. Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Norristown State Hospi-
tal, Norristown, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA, January 19, 1980.
17. Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Pennhurst Center, Spring
City, Pennsylvania, Final Report, TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
Wethersfield, CT, January 23, 1980.
18. Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, West Chester State, West
Chester, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Roy Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA,
April 4, 1977.
19. Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion
Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View,
CA, January 1985.
External Combustion Sources
1.2-7
-------
1.3 FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
1.3.1 General2,22
Fuel oils are broadly classified into two major types, distillate and
residual. Distillate oils (fuel oil grade Nos. I and 2) are used mainly in
domestic and small commercial applications in which easy fuel burning is
required. Distillates are more volatile and less viscous that residual oils,
having negligible ash and nitrogen contents and usually containing less than
0.3 weight percent sulfur. Residual oils (grade Nos. 4, 5 and 6), on the other
hand, are used mainly in utility, industrial and large commercial applications
with sophisticated combustion equipment. No. 4 oil is sometimes classified as
a distillate, and No. 6 is sometimes referred to as 3unker C. Being more vis-
cous and less volatile than distillate oils, the heavier residual oils (Nos. 5
and 6) must be heated to facilitate handling and proper atomization. Because
residual oils are produced from the residue after lighter fractions (gasoline,
kerosene and distillate oils) have been removed from the crude oil, they contain
significant quantities of ash, nitrogen and sulfur. Properties of typical fuel
oils can be found in Appendix A.
1.3.2 Emissions
Emissions from fuel oil combustion depend on the grade and composition of
the fuel, the type and size of the boiler, the firing and loading practices
used, and the level of equipment maintenance. Table 1.3-1 presents emission
factors for fuel oil combustion pollutants, and Tables 1.3-2 through 1.3-5 pre-
sent cumulative size distribution data and size specific emission factors for
particulate emissions from fuel oil combustion. Uncontrolled and controlled
size specific emission factors are presented in Figures 1.3-1 through 1.3-4.
Distillate and residual oil categories are given separately, because their
combustion produces significantly different particulate, SO2 and NOx emissions.
Particulate Matter3-7,12-13,24,26-27 _ particulate emissions depend most on
the grade of fuel fired. The lighter distillate oils result in particulate
formation significantly lower than with heavier residual oils. Among residual
oils, Nos. 4 and 5 usually produce less particulate than does the heavier No. 6.
In boilers firing No. 6, particulate emissions can be described, on the
average, as a function of the sulfur content of the oil. As shown in Table
1.3-1), particulate emissions can be reduced considerably when low
sulfur No. 6 oil is fired. This is because low sulfur No. 6, either refined
from naturally low sulfur crude oil or desulfurized by one of several current
processes, exhibits substantially lower viscosity and reduced asphaltene, ash
and sulfur, which results in better atomization and cleaner combustion.
Boiler load can also affect particulate emissions in units firing No. 6
oil. At low load conditions, particulate emissions may be lowered 30 to 40
percent from utility boilers and by as much as 60 percent from small industrial
and commercial units. No significant particulate reductions have been noted at
External Combustion Sources
1.3-1
-------
TABLE 1.3-1. UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Sulfur Dioxide1 Sulfur Carbon Nitrogen Oxide* Volatile Organlcs*
a Hatter Trloxlde Monoxide Koniwtliflne Hethane
Boiler Type 1 — . — ^
kg/103! lb/loV' Vg/I03l lb/l03gal kg/103l lb/103ga] kg/l03l lb/103gal Wg/103l lb/103gal kg/103l Ib/I03gal kg/103l lb/103gal
m
3
M
W
CO
r-i
C
Z
>
o
H
O
7*
CO
Ut 111ty boilers
Residual Oil g g
1 OS
157S
0.34&h
2.95h
0.6
5 8.0
(12,6)(5)
67 1
(105)(42)
0.09
0. 76
0.03
0.28
Industrial Boilers
Rt:Htdu
>106 x 10'' J/hr (>100 x 106 Btu/hr)
to 11)6 * IU9 J/hr (10 X 106 to 100 x !06 Btu/hr)
9 J/hr (0 J a 106 to 10 * 106 Btu/hr)
ll>6 Btu/hr)
References 3-7 ond 24-25. Particulate matter Is defined Lti this section as that material collected by EPA Method 5 (front half cotch)
rfRel Tcnccs 1-5. S Indicates that the weight X r> f sulfur In the oil should he multiplied by the value given.
^Rt*f• rences 3-5 nnd 8-10 Carbon monoxide emission* may increase by factors of 10 to 100 If the unit la Improperly operated or not well maintained.
Expressed as NOa References 1-5, 8-11, 17 and ?f> Test result* Indicate that at least 95X by weight of NO* Is NO for all boiler types except residential
^funidci'i, where obout 75X la NO
References 18-21 Volatile organic compound emissions are generally negligible unless boiler Is Improperly operated or not well maintained, In which case
emissions may Increase by several orders of mnp.nItude.
Particulate emission fjctore for ruHldual oil combustion ore, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content:
2515X) excess air. Several ccwbuatlon modifications can be employed for N0X reduction: (l>
Halted excess air can reduce N0>, emissions 5-201, (2) staged coabustlon 2O-40X, (3) using low N0X burners 25-501, and (4) arnaonld Injection can reduce NO,
ecnlxblona 40-70X but may Increase cmlsnlons uf ammonia. Cnmblnatlona of these modifications have been employed for further reductions In certain boilers.
jSee Reference 23 for a discussion of these and other N0X reducing techniques and their operational and environmental Impacts.
Nitrogen oxides emissions from residual oil combustion In industrial and commercial boilers are strongly related tn fuel nitrogen content, estimated more
accurately by the euplrlcal relationship.
kg N0,/IU' liters - 2 75 ~ 50U 5 weight X) nitrogen content, use 15 kg Nl)3/10s liter (120 lb N0a/103gal) as an emission factor.
-------
low loads from boilers firing any of the lighter grades, however. At too low a
load condition, proper combustion conditions cannot be maintained, and partic-
ulate emissions may increase drastically. It should be noted, in this regard,
that any condition that prevents proper boiler operation can result in excessive
particulate formation.
1 — S 9S 97
Sulfur Oxides - Total S0X emissions are almost entirely dependent
on the sulfur content of the fuel and are not affected by boiler size, burner
design, or grade of fuel being fired. On the average, more than 95 percent of
the fuel sulfur is emitted as S02> about 1 to 5 percent as SO3 and about 1 to 3
percent as sulfate particulate. SO3 readily reacts with water vapor (in both
air and flue gases) to form a sulfuric acid mist.
Nitrogen Oxides 1->4,17 ,23,27 _ mechanisms form N0x, oxidation of
fuelbound nitrogen and thermal fixation of the nitrogen in combustion air.
Fuel NOx is primarily a function of the nitrogen content of the fuel and the
available oxygen. On average, about 45 percent of the fuel nitrogen is con-
verted to N0X, but this may vary from 20 to 70 percent. Thermal NOx, rather,
is largely a function of peak flame temperature and available oxygen, factors
which depend on boiler size, firing configuration and operating practices.
Fuel nitrogen conversion is the more important N0X forming mechanism in
residual oil boilers. Except in certain large units having unusually high peak
flame temperatures, or in units firing a low nitrogen residual oil, fuel NC^
will generally account for over 50 percent of the total N0X generated. Thermal
fixation, on the other hand, is the dominant N0X forming mechanism in units
firing distillate oils, primarily because of the negligible nitrogen content in
these lighter oils. Because distillate oil fired boilers usually have low heat
release rates, however, the quantity of thermal N0X formed in them is less than
that of larger units.
A number of variables influence how much NO^, is formed by these two
mechanisms. One important variable is firing configuration. Nitrogen oxide
emissions from tangentially (corner) fired boilers are, on the average, less
than those of horizontally opposed units. Also important are the firing prac-
tices employed during boiler operation. Limited excess air firing, flue g.is
recirculation, staged combustion, or some combination thereof may result in N0X
reductions of 5 to 60 percent. See Section 1.4 for a discussion of these
techniques. Load reduction can likewise decrease NOx production. Nitrogen
oxide emissions may be reduced from 0.5 to 1 percent for each percentage
reduction in load from full load operation. It should be noted that most of
these variables, with the exception of excess air, infuence the NOx emissions
only of large oil fired boilers. Limited excess air firing is possible in many
small boilers, but the resulting NO^ reductions are not nearly so significant.
Other Pollutantsl8"21 - As a rule, only minor amounts of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and carbon monoxide will be emitted from the combustion of fuel
oil. The rate at which VOCs are emitted depends on combustion efficiency.
Emissions of trace elements from oil fired boilers are relative to the trace
element concentrations of the oil.
External Combustion Sources
1.3-3
-------
TABLE 1.3-2. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR UTILITY BOILERS FIRING RESIDUAL OIL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
C (uncontrolled)
E (ESP controlled)
D (scrubber controlled)

Cumulative masb X < stated size
Cumulative emission factorc
kg/10-l (lb/10^)]
Particle size*5

(ira)
Uncontrolled
Cont rolled
Uncontrolled
Cont rolled°

ESP
Sc rubber

ESP
Scrubber
15
80
75
100
0.80A (1.6A)
0.0060A (0.012A)
0.06A (0.12A)
10
71
63
100
0.71A (1.42A)
0.0050A C0.01A)
0.06A (0.I2A)
6
58
52
100
0.58A (1.16A)
0.0042A (0.008A)
0.06A (0.12A)
2.5
52
41
97
0.52A (1.04A)
0.0033A (0.007A)
0.058A (0.12A)
1.25
43
31
91
0.43A (0.86A)
0.0025A (0.005A)
0.055A (0.11A)
1.00
39
28
84
0.39a (0.78a)
0.0022A (0.004A)
0.050A (0.10A)
0.625
20
10
64
0.20A (0.40A)
0.0008A (0.002A)
0.038A (0.07A)
TOTAL
100
100
100
A (2A)
0.008A (0.016A)
0.06A (0.12A)
aReference 29. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
^Expressed as aerodynamic equlvalenc diameter.
particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average, a function
of fuel oil grade and sulfur content
Grade 6 Oil A = 1.25(S) » 0.38
Where S Is the weight X of sulfur in the oil
Grade 5 Oil A - 1 .25
Grade 4 Oil A - 0.88
dEstlmated control efficiency for scrubber, 94Z, ESP, 99.2Z.
1 OA
0 9A
0 8A
0 7A
0 6A
0 5A
0 4A
0 3A
0 2A
0 1A
0
Uncontrolled
Scrubber
J I l I I I I I
J I i i i i i i I
l I I l I I
0 10A
0 09A 3
U
•9
0 08A c
o
0 07A S
£
0 06A -a —
0 05A o°
Z cn
c
0 04A g
0 03A |
D
0 02A £
0 01A
0
1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (pm)
20
40 60 100
—,0 01A
0 006A
0 004A
0 002A
0 001A
0 0006A
0 0004A
0' 0002A
0 0001A
B 2
Figure 1.3-1.
Cumulative size specific emission factors for utility
boilers firing residual oil.
1.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 1.3-3. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING RESIDUAL OIL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (uncontrolled)
E (multiple cyclone controlled)

rumulatl/e emission ta(_C'jrc

Cumulative raaba
" < stated size
(ib/ton) coal, as f i red 1
Partible size*1

(urn)

Unconc rolled
Multiple cyclone
Uncont rolled
Mulclple cyclone

controlled

cont rolIede
15
91
100
0.91A (1.82A)
0.20A (0.40A)
10
86
95
0.86A (1.72A)
0.19A (0.38A)
6
77
72
0.77A (1.54A)
0.14A (0.28A)
2.5
56
22
0.56A (1.I2A)
0.04A (0.08A)
i .25
39
21
0.39A (0.78A)
0.04A (0.08A)
1.00
36
21
0.36A (0.72A)
0.04A (0.08A)
0.625
30
d
0.30A (0.60A)
d
TOTAL
100
100
1A (2A)
0.2A (0.4A)
aReference 29.
^Exprebbed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on
average, a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content
Grade 6 Oil A ° 1.25CS) - 0.38
Where S Is the weight I of sulfur In the oil
Grade 5 Oil A - 1.25
Crade U Oil A « 0.88
dInsutfIcient data.
Estimated control efficiency for multiple cycLone, 80Z.
_ <-¦>
i 2
"-s.
^ IT>
1 OA
0 9A
0 8A
0 7A
0 6A
0 SA
0 4A
0 3A
0 2A
0 1A
OA
Uncontrolled

/ VMul tiplc

/ /
/ cyclone
-
i i 1 i i '
i i i i i 1 i i
I 1 1 II 1
2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (vim)
0 2UA
0 18A
0 16A
T5 —.
Ol
0 14A ¦i's
0 12A
u
0 10A C 2
° u
u "
0 08A 5
QJ O
0 06A ? s
0 04A i
0 02A
20
OA
40 60 100
Figure 1.3-2.
Cumulative size specific emission factors for industrial
boilers firing residual oil.
External Combustion Sources
1.3-5
-------
TABLE 1.3-4. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING DISTILLATE OIL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Cumulative mass Z
< stated size
Cumulative emission factor
-------
TABLE 1.3-5. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIF[C EMISSION
FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED COMMERCIAL BOILERS BURNING RESIDUAL
AND DISTILLATE OILa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Cumulative mass 2 C seated size
Cumulitlve emission factor
kg/ lip 1 (lb/103 gdl)
Particle slze^
(Um)
Uncontrolled with
residual oil
Uncontrolled with
distillate ollc
Uncontrolled with
residual oil
Uncontrolled with
dlstllLate oil
15
78
60
0.78A (1.56A)
O.U (0.28)
10
62
55
0.62A (1.24A)
0.13 (0.26)
6
44
49
0.44A (0.H8A)
0.12 (0.24)
2.5
23
42
0.23A (0.46A)
0.10 (0.20)
1.25
16
38
0.16A (0.32A)
0.09 (0 18)
1.00
16
37
0.14A (0 28A)
0.09 (0.18)
0.625
13
35
0.13A (0.26A)
0-08 (0.16)
TOTAL
100
100
1A (2A)
0.24 (0.48)
aReference 29.
^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
•-Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average,
a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content
Grade 6 Oil A - 1.25 (S) + 0.38
Where S is the weight I of sulfur in Che oil
Grade 5 Oil A - 1.25
Crade U 011 A - 0.88
1 OOA
0 9 OA
0 80A
0 7 OA
0 6 OA
0 5 OA
0 40A
0 JOA
0 20A
0 10A
0
Oisti 1 late oi I
0 25
0 c'O -
t
- 0 15
0 10
Residual oil
4 6 1 2 4 6 10 20
Particle diameter (pin)
0 05
40 60 100
Figure 1.3-4.
Cumulative size specific emission factors for uncontrolled
commercial boilers burning residual and distillate oil.
External Combustion Sources
1.3-7
-------
Organic compounds present in the flue gas streams of boilers include
aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, esters, ethers, alcohols, carbonyls,
carboxyllc acids and polycylic organic matter. The last Includes all organic
matter having two or more benzene rings.
Trace elements are also emitted from the combustion of fuel oil. The
quantity of trace elements emitted depends on combustion temperature, fuel
feed mechanism and the composition of the fuel. The temperature determines the
degree of volatilization of specific compounds contained in the fuel. The fuel
feed mechanism affects the separation of emissions into bottom ash and fly ash.
If a boiler unit is operated improperly or is poorly maintained, the
concentrations of carbon monoxide and VOCs may increase by several orders of
magni tude.
1.3.3 Controls
The various control devices and/or techniques employed on oil fired
boilers depend on the type of boiler and the pollutant being controlled. All
such controls may be classified into three categories, boiler modification,
fuel substitution and flue gas cleaning.
Boiler Modification l-4,8-9,13—14,23_ B0Her modification includes any
physical change in the boiler apparatus itself or in its operation. Maintenance
of the burner system, for example, is important to assure proper atomization
and subsequent minimization of any unburned combustibles. Periodic tuning is
important in small units for maximum operating efficiency and emission control,
particularly of smoke and CO. Combustion modifications, such as limited excess
air firing, flue gas recirculation, staged combustion and reduced load opera-
tion, result in lowered NOx emissions in large facilities. See Table 1.3-1 for
specific reductions possible through these combustion modifications.
Fuel Substitutional^, 12,28_ jrUel substitution, the firing of "cleaner" fuel
oils, can substantially reduce emissions of a number of pollutants. Lower
sulfur oils, for instance, will reduce S0X emissions in all boilers, regardless
of size or type of unit or grade of oil fired. Particulates generally will he
reduced when a lighter grade of oil is fired. Nitrogen oxide emissions will be
reduced by switching to either a distillate oil or a residual oil with less
nitrogen. The practice of fuel substitution, however, may be limited by the
ability of a given operation to fire a better grade of oil and by the cost and
availability thereof.
Flue Gas CIeaning!5-16,28 _ Fiue gas cleaning equipment generally is
employed only on large oil fired boilers. Mechanical collectors, a prevalent
type of control device, are primarily useful in controlling particulates gen-
erated during soot blowing, during upset conditions, or when a very dirty heavy
oil is fired. During these situations, high efficiency cyclonic collectors can
effect up to 85 percent control of particulate. Under normal firing conditions,
or when a clean oil is combusted, cyclonic collectors will not be nearly so
effective because of the high percentage of small particles (less than 3 micro-
meters diameter) emitted.
1.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
Electrostatic precipitators are commonly used in oil fired power plants.
Older precipitators, usually small, remove generally AO to 60 percent of the
particulate matter. Because of the low ash content of the oil, greater
collection efficiency may not be required. Today, new or rebuilt electrostatic
precipitators have collection efficiencies of up to 90 percent.
Scrubbing systems have been installed on oil fired boilers, especially of
late, to control both sulfur oxides anc particulate. Thebe systems can achieve
SO2 removal efficiencies of 90 co 95 percent and particulate control
efficiencies of 50 to 60 percent.
References for Section 1.3
1. W. S. Smith, Atmospheric Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion: An Inventory
Guide, 999-AP-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
November 1962.
2. J. A. Danielson (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
1973. Out of Print.
3. A. Levy, et al., A Field Investigation of Emissions from Fuel Oil Combus-
tion for Space Heating, API Bulletin 4099, Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbia, OH, November 1971.
4. R. E. Barrett, et al«, Field Investigation of Emissions from Combustion
Equipment for Space Heating, EPA-R2-73-084a, U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.
5. G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing: Application of Combustion Modifications
To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers - Phase I, EPA-650/
2-74-078a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October
1974.
6. G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing: Application of Combustion Modifications
To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers - Phase II, EPA-600/'
2-76-086a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April
1976.
7. Particulate Emission Control Svstems for Oil Fired Boilers, EPA-450/3-74-
063, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
December 1974.
8. W. Bartok, et al., Systematic Field Study of NOy Emission Control Methods
for Utility Boilers, aPTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December L971.
9. A. R. Crawford, et al., Field Testing:. Application of Combustion Modi-
fications To Control N0Y Emissions from Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-74-066,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1974.
External Combustion Sources
1.3-9
-------
10. J. F. Deffner, et al., Evaluation of Gulf Econojet Equipment with Respect
to Air Conservation, Report No. 731RC044, Gulf Research and Development
Company, Pittsburgh, PA, December 18, 1972.
11. C. E. Blakeslee and .-i. E. Burbach, "Controlling NO^ Emissions from Steam
Generators", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 23:37-42,
January 1973.
12. C. W. Siegmund, "Will Desulfurized Fuel Oils Help?", American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers Journal, 1 1: 29-33,
April 1969.
13. F. A. Govan, et al., "Relationships of Particulate Emissions Versus
Partial to Full Load Operations for Utility-sized Boilers", Proceedings
of Third Annual Industrial Air Pollution Control Conference, Knoxville,
TN, March 29-30, 1973.
14. R. E. Hall, et al., A Study of Air Pollutant Emissions from Residential
Heating Systems, EPA-650/2-74-003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, January 1974.
15. Flue Gas Desulfurization: Installations and Operations, PB 257721,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, September 1974.
16. Proceedings: Flue Gas Desulfurization Symposium - 1973, EPA-650/2-73-038,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1973.
17. R. J. Milligan, et al., Review of NO^ Emission Factors for Stationary
Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources, EPA-450/4-79-021, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.
18. N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
Combustion Systems, Volume I: Gas and Oil Fired Residential Heating
Sources, EPA-600/7-79-029b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, May 1979.
19. C. C. Shih, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Com-
bustion Systems, Volume III: External Combustion Sources for Electricity
Generation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA,
November 1980.
20. N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessement of Conventional Stationary
Combustion System, Volume IV: Commercial Institutional Combustion Sources,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.
21. N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
Combustion Systems, Volume V: Industrial Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.
22. Fossil Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers - Background Information for Proposed
Standards (Draft EIS), Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1980.
1.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
23. K. J. Lim, etaL, Technology Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler
Applications: NOy Combustion Modification, EPA-bOO/7-79-178f, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1979.
24. Emission Test Reports, Docket No. OAQPS-78-1, Category II-I-257 through
265, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972 through 1974.
25. Primary Sulfate Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion, EPA Contract No.
68-02-3138, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA, February 1980.
External Combustion Sources
1.3-11
-------
1.4 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
1.4.L General * 2
Natural gas Is one of Che major fuels used throughout the country. It Is
used mainly for power generation, for Industrial process steam and heat produc-
tion, and for domestic and commercial space heating. The primary component of
natural gas Is methane, although varying amounts of ethane and smaller amounts
of nitrogen, helium and carbon dioxide are also present. Gas processing plants
are required for recovery of ltquefiable constitutents and removal of hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) before the gas is used (see Natural Gas Processing, Section 9.2).
The average gross heating value of natural gas is approximately 9350 kilo-
calories per standard cubic meter (1050 British thermal units/standard cubic
foot), usually varying from 8900 to 9800 kcal/scm (1000 to 1100 Btu/scf).
1.4.2 Emission And Controls3~26
Even though natural gas is considered to be a relatively clean fuel, some
emissions can occur from the combustion reaction. For example, improper oper-
ating conditions, Including poor mixing, insufficient air, etc., may cause
large amounts of smoke, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Moreover, because a
sulfur containing mercaptan is added to natural gas to permit detection, small
amounts of sulfur oxides will also be produced in the combustion process.
•
Nitrogen oxides are the major pollutants of concern when burning natural
gas. Nitrogen oxide emissions are functions of combustion chamber temperature
and combustion product cooling rate. Emission levels vary considerably with
the type and size of unit and with operating conditions.
In some large boilers, several operating modifications may be used for NO^
control. Staged combustion, for example, including off-stoichiometric firing
and/or two stage combustion, can reduce emissions by 5 to 50 percent.26 In off-
stoichiometric firing, also called "biased firing", some burners are operated
fuel rich, some fuel lean, and others may supply air only. In two stage combus-
tion, the burners are operated fuel rich (by introducing only 70 to 90 percent
stoichiometric air), with combustion being completed by air injected above the
flame zone through second stage "NO ports". In staged combustion, N0X emissions
are reduced because the bulk of combustion occurs under fuel rich conditions.
Other NC^ reducing modifications include low excess air firing and flue
gas recirculation. In low excess air firing, excess air levels are kept as
low as possible without producing unacceptable levels of unburned combustibles
(carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and smoke) and/or other operating
problems. This technique can reduce N0X emissions 5 to 35 percent, primarily
because of lack of oxygen during combustion. Flue gas recirculation into the
primary combustion zone, because the flue gas is relatively cool and oxygen
deficient, can also lower N0X emissions 4 to 85 percent, depending on the
amount of gas recirculated. Flue gas recirculation is best suited for new
boilers. Retrofit application would require extensive burner modifications.
External Combustion Sources
1.4-1
-------
.p-
t
ro
TABLE 1.4-1. UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION3

Pa rt lcul ate^

Sulfur
dlox1dec
Nitrogen oxides^
Carbon nonoxldee
Volatile organlca
Furnace nice & type
( I06 Btu/hr heat Input)

Nonnethane
Methane

kg/106m3
lb/106
ft3
kg/!06«3
lb/106 f13
kg/106n3
lb/106 ft'
kg/l06o3
lb/106 ft3
kg/l06n3
lb/106 ft3
kg/106o3
lb/106 ft3
Utility boilers (> J00)
16 - 80
1 -
5
9.6
0.6
8800h
550h
640
40
23
1.4
4.8
0.3
Industrial boilers ( 10 - 100)
16 - 80
I -
5
9.6
0.6
2240
140
560
35
44
2.8
48
3
Dotaestlc and coraaerciat
boilers (< 10)
16-80
1 -
5
9.6
0.6
1600
100
320
20
84
5.3
43
2.7
r*3
M
C/3
CO
J—I
o
25
T1
>
o
H
O
00
^References 15-18.
cReference 6. Based on avg. sulfur content of natural gftfl, 4600 g/106 Wa3 (2000 gr/106 ecf).
^References 4-5, 7-8, 11, 14, 18-19, 21.
•Expressed as NCU. Tests Indicate about 95 weight X NO Is N0j.
'References 4, 7-8, 16, 18, 22-25.
SReferencen 16, 18. Hay Increase 10 - 100 tlaes with loproppr operation or nalntenance.
^Por tangent lat ly fired units, use 4400 kg/106 n3 ( 275 Ib/lU6 ft^). At reduced loads, multiply
factor by load reduction coefficient In Plgure 1.4-1. Kor potential NQ^ reductions by
coabuetlon nod If1 cat Ion, see text. Note that NO* reduction f ran these nod 1f1cs11ons will
also occur at reduced load conditions.
-------
Studies indicate that low NC^ burners (20 to 50 percent reduction) and ammonia
injection (40 to 70 percent reduction) also offer NOx emission reductions.
Combinations of the above combustion modifications may also be employed to
reduce NOx emissions further. In some boilers, for instance, NO^ reductions
as high as 70 to 90 percent have been produced by employing several of these
techiques simultaneously. In general, however, because the net effect of any
of these combinations varies greatly, it is difficult to predict what the
reductions will be in individual applications.
Although not measured, all particulate has been estimated to be less
than 1 micrometer in size.27 Emission factors for natural gas combustion are
presented in Table 1.4-1, and factor ratings in Table 1.4-2.
TABLE 1.4-2. FACTOR RATINGS FOR NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
Furnace

Sulfur
Ni t rogen
Carbon
Volatile organics
type
Particulate
oxides
oxides
monoxide
Nonmethane
Methane
Utility
boiler
B
A
A
A
C
C
Industrial
boiler
B
A
A
A
C
C
Commercial
boiler
B
A
A
A
D
D
Residential
furnace
B
A
A
A
D
D
External Combustion Sources
1.4-3
-------
CJ
UJ
o
as
u
02 —
40
60
80
100
110
LOAD, percent
Figure 1.4-1. Load reduction coefficient as function of boiler load.
(Used to determine NOx reductions at reduced loads in large boilers.)
References for Section 1.4
1. D. M. Hugh, et al., Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes,
EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-36, Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, DC,
October 2, 1971.
2. J. H. Perry (ed.), Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, 1963.
3. H. H. Hovey, et al., The Development of Air Contaminant Emission Tables
for Non-process Emissions, New York State Department of Health, Albany,
NY, 1965.
4. W. Bartok, et al., Systematic Field Study of NOy Emission Control Methods
for Utility Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.
1.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
5. F. A. Bagwell, et al., "Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Reduction Program for
Oil and Gas Fired Utility Boilers", Proceedings of the American Power Con-
ference , JlA:683-693, April 1970.
6. R. L. Chass and R. E. George, "Contaminant Emissions from the Combustion
of Fuels", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 10:34-43,
February 1980.
7. H. E. Dietzraann, A Study of Power Plant Boiler Emissions, Final Report No.
AR-837, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, August 197?.
8. R. E. Barrett, et al., Field Investigation of Emissions from Combustion
Equipment for Space Heating, EPA-R2-73-084, IJ. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.
9. Confidential information, American Gas Association Laboratories, Cleveland,
OH, May 1970.
10. Unpublished data on domestic gas fired units, U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1970.
11. C. E. Blakeslee and H. E. Burbock, "Controlling NOx Emissions from Steam
Generators", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 23:37-42,
January 1979.
12. L. K. Jain, et al., "State of the Art" for Controlling NOy Emissions:
Part 1, Utility Boilers, EPA-Contract No. 68-02-0241, Catalytic, Inc.,
Charlotte, NC, September 1972.
13. J. W. Bradstreet and R. J. Fortman, "Status of Control Techniques for
Achieving Compliance with Air Pollution Regulations by the Electric
Utility Industry", Presented at the 3rd Annual Industrial Air Pollution
Control Conference, Knoxville, TN, March 1973.
14. Study of Emissions of NOy from Natural Gas Fired Steam Electric Power
Plants In Texas, Phase II, Volume II, Radian Corporation, Austin, TX,
May 8, 1972.
15. N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
Combustion Systems, Volume I: Gas and Oil Fired Residential Heating
Sources, EPA-600/7-79-029b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, May 1979.
16. C. C. Shih, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Com-
bustion Systems, Volume III: External Combustion Sources for Electricity
Generation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA,
November 1980.
17. N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
Combustion Sources, Volume IV: Commercial Institutional Combustion
Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA,
October 1980.
External Combustion Sources
1.4-5
-------
18. N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
Combustion Systems, Volume V: Industrial Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, HA, October 1980.
19. R. J. Milligan, et al., Review of NOy Emission Factors for Stationary
Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources, EPA-450/4-79-021, (J. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.
20. W. H. Thrasher and D. W. Dewerth, Evaluation of the Pollutant Emissions
from Gas Fired Water Heaters, Research Report No. 1507, American Gas
Association, Cleveland, OH, April 1977.
21. W. H. Thrasher and D. W. Dewerth, Evaluation of the Pollutant Emissions
from Gas Fired Forced Air Furnaces, Research Report No. 1503, American
Gas Association, Cleveland, OH, May 1975.
22. G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing: Application of Combustion Modification
To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers, Phase I, EPA-650/
2-74-078a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October
1974.
23. G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing: Application of Combustion Modification
To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers, Phase II, EPA-600/
2-76-086a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April
1976.
24. W. A. Carter and H. J. Buening, Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial
Boilers - Site 5, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2645, KVB Engineering, Inc.,
Irvine, CA, May 1981.
25. W. A. Carter and H. J. Buening, Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial
Boilers - Site 6, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2645, KVB Engineering, Inc.,
Irvine, CA, May 1981.
26. K. J. Lim, et al., Technology Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler
Applications: NOy Combustion Modification, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3101,
Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, December 1979.
27. H. J. Taback, et al., Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary and Miscel-
laneous Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, California Air Resources
Board Contract No. A6-191-30, KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA, February 1979.
1.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
1.6 WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS
1.6.1 General * 3
The burning of wood waste In boilers Is mostly confined to those industries
where it is available as a byproduct. It is burned both to obtain heat energy
and to alleviate possible solid waste disposal problems. Wood waste may include
large pieces like slabs, logs and bark strips, as well as cuttings, shavings,
pellets and sawdust, and heating values for this waste range from about 4,400
to 5,000 kilocalories per kilogram of fuel dry weight (7,940 to 9,131 Btu/lb).
However, because of typical moisture contents of 40 to 75 percent, the heating
values for many wood waste materials as actually fired are as low as 2,200 to
3,300 kilocalories per kilogram of fuel. Generally, bark is the major type of
waste burned In pulp mills, and either a varying mixture of wood and bark waste
or wood waste alone are most frequently burned in the lumber, furniture and
plywood industries.
1.6.2 Firing Practices
Varied boiler firing configurations are used in burning wood waste. One
common type in smaller operations Is the dutch oven, or extension type of
furnace with a flat grate. This unit is widely used because it can burn fuels
with very high moisture. Fuel Is fed Into the oven through apertures atop a
firebox and is fired in a cone shaped pile on a flat grate. The burning is
done in two stages, drying and gasification, and combustion of gaseous products.
The first stage takes place in a cell separated from the boiler section by a
bridge wall. The combustion stage takes place in the main boiler section. The
dutch oven is not responsive to changes in steam load, and It provides poor
combustion control.
In another type, the fuel cell oven, fuel is dropped onto suspended fixed
grates and is fired in a pile. Unlike the dutch oven, the fuel cell also uses
combustion air preheating and repositioning of the secondary and tertiary air
injection ports to improve boiler efficiency.
In many large operations, more conventional boilers have been modified
to burn wood waste. These units may include spreader stokers with traveling
grates, vibrating grate stokers, etc., as well as tangentlally fired or cyclone
fired boilers. The most widely used of these configurations Is the spreader
stoker. Fuel is dropped in front of an air jet which casts the fuel out over
a moving grate, spreading it in an even thin blanket. The burning is done In
three stages in a single chamber, (1) drying, (2) distillation and burning of
volatile matter and (3) burning of carbon. This type of operation has a fast
response to load changes, has improved combustion control and can be operated
with multiple fuels. Natural gas or oil are often fired in spreader stoker
boilers as auxiliary fuel. This is done to maintain constant steam when the
wood waste supply fluctuates and/or to provide more steam than is possible
from the waste supply alone.
External Combustion Sources
1.6-1
-------
TABLE 1.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR WOOD AND BARK COMBUSTION IN BOILERS
Pollutant/Fuel type
kg/Mg
lb/ton
Emission Factor
Rating
Particulate3

Ba rkb

Multlclone, with flyash reinjectlonc
7
14
B
Multiclone, without flyash
relnjeccionc
4.5
9
B
Uncontrolled
24
47
B
Wood/bark mixture1*

Multlclone, with flyash
reinj ec t ionc »e
3
6
C
Multlclone, without flyash
reinJectlonc>e
2.7
5.3
C
Uncontrolled^
3.6
7.2
C
WoodE

Uncontrolled
4.4
OO
OO
c
Sulfur dioxide*1
0.075
(0.01 - 0.2)
0.15
(0.02 - 0.4)
B
Nitrogen oxides (as NOo)-^
50,000 - 400,000 lb steam/hr
<50,000 lb steam/hr
1.4
0.34
2.8
0.68
B
B
Carbon monoxide'4
2 - 24
4-47
c
VOC

Nonmethane01
0.7
1.4
D
Methane11
0.15
0.3
E
References 2, 4, 9, 17-18, 20. With gas or oil as auxiliary fuel, all particulate assumed
to result froTD only wood waste fuel. Hay include condensible hydrocarbons of pitches and
tar9, mostly from back half catch of EPA Method 5. Tests indicate condensible hydrocarbons
about 42 of total particulate weight*
^Based on fuel moisture content about 502.
References 4,7-8. After control equipment, assuming an average collection efficiency of
802. Data indicate that 502 flyash reinfection Increases dust load at cyclone inlet 1.2 to
1.5 times, and 1002 flyash reinjection increases the load 1.5 to 2 tines.
dBased on fuel moisture content of 332.
GBased on large dutch ovens and spreader stokers (avg. 23,430 kg steam/hr) with steam
pressures 20 - 75 kps (140 - 530 psi).
fBased on small dutch ovens and spreader stokers (usually <9075 kg steam/hr), with steam
pressures 5-30 kpa (35 - 230 psi). Careful air adjustments and Improved fuel separation and
firing sometimes used, but effects can not be Isolated.
SReferences 12-13, 19, 27. Wood waste Includes cuttings, shavings, sawdust and chips, but
not bark. Moisture content ranges 3-50 weight 2. Based on small units (<3000 kg steam/hr).
^Reference 23. Based on dry weight of fuel. From tests of fuel sulfur content and SO2
emissions at 4 mills burning bark. Lower limit of range (in parentheses) should be used for
wood, and higher values for bark. Heating value of 5000 kcal/kg (9000 Btu/lb) is assumed.
jReferences 7, 24-26. Several factors can influence emission rates, including combustion
2one, temperature, excess air, boiler operating conditions, fuel moisture and fuel
nitrogen content,
^Reference 30.
raReferences 20, 30. Nonmethane VOC reportedly consists of compounds with high vapor
pressure, such as alpha plnene.
nRef erence 30. Based on approximation of methane/nonmethane ratio, quite variable.
Methane, expressed as 2 total VOC, varied 0-74 weight 2.
1.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
Sander dust is often burned in various boiler types at plywood, particle
board and furniture plants. Sander dust contains fine wood particles with low
moisture content (less than 20 weight percent). It is fired in a flaming
horizontal torch, usually with natural gas as an ignition aid or supplementary
f uel.
1.6.3 Emissions And Controls^-28
The major emission of concern from wood boilers is particulate matter,
although other pollutants, particularly carbon monoxide, may be emitted in
significant amounts under poor operating conditions. These emissions depend
on a number of variables, including (1) the composition of the waste fuel
burned, (2) the degree of flyash reinjection employed and (3) furnace design
and operating conditions.
The composition of wood waste depends largely on the industry whence it
originates. Pulping operations, for example, produce great quantities of bark,
that may contain more than 70 weight percent moisture and sand and other non-
combustibles. Because of this, bark boilers in pulp mills may emit considerable
amounts of particulate matter to the atmosphere unless they are well controlled.
On the other hand, some operations, such as furniture manufacturing, produce a
clean dry wood waste, 5 to 50 weight percent moisture, with relatively little
particulate emission when properly burned. Still other operations, such
as sawmills, burn a varying mixture of bark and wood waste that results in
particulate emissions somewhere between these two extremes.
Furnace design and operating conditions are particularly important when
firing wood waste. For example, because of the high moisture content that can
be present in this waste, a larger than usual area of refractory surface is
often necessary to dry the fuel before combustion. In addition, sufficient
secondary air must be supplied over the fuel bed to burn the volatiles that
account for most of the combustible material in the waste. When proper drying
conditions do not exist, or when secondary combustion is incomplete, the
combustion temperature is lowered, and increased particulate, carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon emissions may result. Lowering of combustion temperature
generally means decreased nitrogen oxide emissions. Also, short term emissions
can fluctuate with significant variations in fuel moisture content.
Flyash reinjection, which is common to many larger boilers to improve
fuel efficiency, has a considerable effect on particulate emissions. Because
a fraction of the collected flyash is reinjected into the boiler, the dust
loading from the furnace, and consequently from the collection device, increases
significantly per unit of wood waste burned. It is reported that full reinjec-
tion can cause a tenfold increase in the dust loadings of some systems, although
increase of 1.2 to 2 times are more typical for boilers using 50 to 100 percent
reinjection. A major factor affecting this dust loading increase is the extent
to which the sand and other noncombustibles can be separated from the flyash
before reinjection to the furnace.
Although reinjection increases boiler efficiency from 1 to 4 percent and
reduces emissions of uncombusted carbon, it increases boiler maintenance
requirements, decreases average flyash particle size and makes collection more
difficult. Properly designed reinjection systems should separate sand and char
External Combustion Sources
1.6-3
-------
TABLE 1.6-2. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR BARK FIRED BOILERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle size**
Cumulative raat>s Z
£ stated sLze
Cumulative emission factor
[kg/Mg (lb/ton) bark, as fired]
(um)
Uncontrolled
Cone rolLed
Uncont rolled
Cont rolLed

Multiple
cyclone0
Multlple
cycloned
Scrubbere

Multiple
cyclonec
Multiple
eye lonori
Sc rubbe re
15
42
90
AO
92
10.1
(20.2)
6.3
(12.6)
1.8
(3.6)
1.32
(2.64)
10
35
79
36
87
8.4
(16.8)
5.5
(11.0)
1.62
(3.24)
1.25
(2.50)
6
23
64
30
78
6-7
(13.4)
4.5
(9.0)
1.35
(2.7)
1 .12
(2.24)
2.5
21
AO
19
56
5.0
(10.0)
2.8
(5.6)
0.86
(1.72)
0.81
(1.62)
1.25
15
26
1A
29
3.6
(7.2)
1.8
(3.6)
0.63
(1.26)
0.42
(0.84)
1.00
13
21
11
23
3.1
(6.2)
1.5
(3.0)
0.5
(1.0)
0.33
(0.66)
0.625
9
15
8
14
2.2
(4.4)
1.1
(2.2)
0.36
(0.72)
0.20
(0.40)
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
24
(48)
7
(14)
4.5
(9.0)
L .44
(2.88)
aReference 31. All spreader stoker boilers.
^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
cWlth flyash relnjectlon.
''without flyash relnjectlon.
Estimated control efficiency for scrubber, 94Z.
25
20
15
10
-
Multiple cyclone
-

with flyash reinjection

Scrubber -v \

-
Uncontrolled

Multiple cyclone

without flyash -
_

' reinjection
i
i i i M 111 i i i i 11.
i 1 i i i i i > i i
1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (um)
20
40 60 100
l/l -o
•- OJ
I ^
Figure 1.6-1.
Cumulative size specific emission factors
for bark fired boilers.
1.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
from the exhaust gases, to reinject the larger carbon particles to the furnace
and to divert the fine sand particles to the ash disposal system.
Several factors can influence emissions, such as boiler size and type,
design features, age, load factors, wood species and operating procedures". In
addition, wood is often cofired with other fuels. The effect of these factors
on emissions is difficult to quantify. It is best to refer to the references
for further information.
The use of multitube cyclone mechanical collectors provides particulate
control for many hogged boilers. Usually, two multicyclones are used in series,
allowing the first collector to remove the bulk of the dust and the second to
remove smaller particles. The efficiency of this arrangement is from 65 to 95
percent. Low pressure drop scrubbers and fabric filters have been used
extensively for many years, and pulse jets have been used in the western U. S.
Emission factors and emission factor ratings for wood waste boilers are
presented in Table 1.6-1, except for cumulative size distribution data, size
specific emission factors for particulate, and emission factor ratings for the
cumulative particle size distribution, all presented in Tables 1.6-2 through
1.6-3. Uncontrolled and controlled size specific emission factors are in
Figures 1.6-1 and 1.6-2.
External Combustion Sources 1.6-5
-------
TABLE 1.6-3. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR WOOD/BARK FIRED BOILERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E (A for dry electrostatic granular filter [DEGF])

Cumulative mass X < stated size
Cumulative emission factors
(kg/Mg (lb/ton) wood/bark,
is fired]
Particle size**
(u m)
Uncont rol1edc
Cont rolled
Uncont rol1edc
Control led

Multiple
cyclone^
Multlple
cyclonee
Scrubber^
DECF

MultIple
cyclone^
Hul11 pie
cyclonee
Sclubber^
DECF41
15
94
96
35
98
77
3.38
(6.77)
2.88
(5.76)
0.95
(1.90)
0.216
(0.431)
0.123
(0.246)
10
90
91
32
98
74
3.24
(6.48)
2.73
(5.46)
0.86
(1.72)
0.216
(0.432)
0.118
(0.236)
6
86
80
27
98
69
3. 10
(6.20)
2.40
(4.80)
0.73
(1.46)
0.216
(0.432)
0. 1 10
(0.220)
2.5
76
54
16
98
65
2.74
(5.47)
1.62
(3.24)
0.43
(0.86)
0.216
(0.432)
0. 104
(0.208)
1.25
69
30
8
96
61
2.48
(4.97)
0.90
.(1.80)
0.22
(0.44)
0.21 1
(0.422)
0.098
(0.196)
1.00
67
24
6
95
58
2.41
(4.82)
0.72
(1.44)
0.16
(0.32)
0.209
(0.418)
0.093
(0.186)
0.625
-
16
3
-
51
-
0.48
(0.96)
0.081
(0.162)
-
0.082
(0.164)
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
3.6
(7.2)
3.0
(6.0)
2.7
(5.4)
0.22
(0.44)
0.16
(0.32)
^Reference 31. Dash • Insufficient data.
^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
cProm data on underfeed stokers. Hay also be used as size
distribution for wood fired boilers.
^From data on spreader stokers. With fly ash reinjectlon.
«From data on spreader stokers. Without fly ash reinjectlon.
'From data on dutch ovens. Estimated control efficiency, 94X.
-------
CTJ
X
rr
fD
«-J
05
o
o
3
CT
C
w
rr
j-»
O
3
00
o
c
rl
o
fD
o «
+-> T3
O Q>
ft3 U
O I/)
•— to
i/>
1/) •»
<-
G t-
oj m
_o
"O \
QJ *o
¦— o
r— O -
O *
i_
-M cn
c 2;
o ^
L> Cn
c;
3.5
2.8 -
2.1 -
Uncontrolled
Dry electrostatic
granular filter
1.4 -
Multiple cyclone
-with flyash
reinjection
0.7 -
J L
.1
.2
.4
Scrubber
Multiple cyclone
without flyash
reinjecti on
I I I 1 I 1 I I I I
1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter (ym)
20
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
40 60 100
u

4-»

•r—
-a
(/>
QJ
l/»

r—
«r—
c
<*-
O)

l/>
TD
fU
CJ

»—
*
f—

L.
fO
¦M

C
—,
O
"O
u
0

0
0

0
m

z:m
u
*-«««.
2S
rn
0

4->

0.220
0.218
0.216
0.214
0.212
0.210
0.208
0.206
0.204
0.202
0.200
0.2
O
1X3
<4- "O
a
c L.
o —
r-
1/1
to i/l
r~ fO
E
0)
XJ i-
<1> eo
JD
o -o
u o
4J o
C 3
O
u cn
x:
u ^
oj cn
_o
J3 —'
3
L-
U
cO
2 "S
u
^3 .r-
0.1
u i «
r, 5 ^
o
o
*
H a>
>>
Q
u r; si
a> £ ^
r- o cn
Figure 1.6-2. Cumulative size specific emission factors for wood/bark fired boilers.
cn
I
-------
References for Section 1.6
1. Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, NY, 1972.
2. Atomspherlc Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry,
EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, September 1973.
3. C-E Bark Burning Boilers, C-E Industrial Boiler Operations, Combustion
Engineering, Inc., Windsor, CT, 1973.
4. A. Barron, Jr., "Studies on the Collection of Bark Char throughout the
Industry", Journal of the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper
Industry, 53(8):1441-1448, August 1970.
5. H. Kreisinger, "Combustion of Wood Waste Fuels", Mechanical Engineering,
6J_: 115-120, February 1939. '
6. P. L. Magill (ed.), Air Pollution Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, NY, 1956.
7« Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.
8. J. F. Mullen, A Method for Determining Combustible Loss, Dust Emissions,
and Recirculated Refuse for a Solid Fuel Burning System, Combustion
Engineering, Inc., Windsor, CT, 1966.
9. Source test data, Alan Lindsey, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta, GA, May 1973.
10. H. K. Effenberger, et al., "Control of Hogged Fuel Boiler Emissions: A
Case History", Journal of the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper
Industry, 56(2):111-115, February 1973.
11. Source test data, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland
OR, May 1973.
12. Source test data, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield,
IL, June 1973.
13. J. A. Danielson (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
1973. Out of Print.
14. H. Droege and G. Lee, "The Use of Gas Sampling and Analysis for the
Evaluation of Teepee Burners", presented at the Seventh Conference on the
Methods in Air Pollution Studies, Los Angeles, CA, January 1967.
15. D. C. Junge and K. Kwan, "An Investigation of the Chemically Reactive
Constituents of Atmospheric Emissions from Hog-fuel Boilers in Oregon",
Northwest International Section of the Air Pollution Control Association,
November 1973.
1.6-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
16. S. F. Galeano and K. M. Leopold, "A Survey of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
in the Pulp Mill", Journal of the Technical Association of the Pulp and
Paper Industry, 56(3):74-76, March 1973.
17. P. B. Bosserman, "Wood Waste Boiler Emissions in Oregon State", presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International Section of
the Air Pollution Control Association, September 1976.
18. Source test data, Oregon Department of Environnental Quality, Portland,
OR, September 1975.
19. Source test data, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY, May 1974.
20. P. B. Bosserman, "Hydrocarbon Emissions from Wood Fired Boilers", pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International
Section of the Air Pollution Control Association, November 1977.
21. Control of Particulate Emissions from Wood Fired Boilers, EPA-340/1-77-
026, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
1978.
22. Wood Residue Fired Steam Generator Particulate Matter Control Technology
Assessment, EPA-450/2-78-044, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1978.
23. H. S. Qglesby and R. 0. Blosser, "Information on the Sulfur Content of
Bark and Its Contribution to SO? Emissions When Burned as a Fuel", Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, 30(7)*: 769—772, July 1980.
24. A Study of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Wood Residue Boilers, Technical
Bulletin No. 102, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Steam
Improvement, New York, NY, November 1979.
25. R. A. Kester, Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from a Pilot Plant Spreader Stoker
Bark Fired Boiler, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA, December 1979.
26. A. Nunn, NOy Emission Factors for Wood Fired Boilers, EPA-600/7-79-219,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1979.
27. C. R. Sanborn, Evaluation of Wood Fired Boilers and Wide Bodied Cyclones
in the State of Vermont, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston,
MA, March 1979.
28. Source test data, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh, NC, June 1981.
29. Nonfossil Fueled Boilers - Emission Test Report: Weyerhaeuser Company,
Longview, Washington, EPA-80-WFB-10, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, March 1981.
External Combustion Sources
1.6-9
-------
30. A Study of Wood Residue Fired Power Boiler Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic
Emissions in the Pacific Northwest, Technical Bulletin No. 109, National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Steam Improvement, New York, NY,
September 1980.
31. Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion
Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View,
CA, January 1985.
1.6-10 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
1.7 LIGNITE COMBUSTION
1.7.1 General
Lignite is a relatively young coal with properties intermediate to those
of bituminous coal and peat. It has a high moisture content (35 to 40 weight
percent) and a low wet basis heating value (1500 to 1900 kilocalories) and
generally is burned only near where it is mined, in some midwestern states and
Texas. Although a small amount is used in industrial and domestic situations,
lignite is used mainly for steam/electric production in power plants. In the
past, lignite has been burned mainly in small stokers, but today the trend is
toward use in much larger pulverized coal fired or cyclone fired boilers.
The major advantages of firing lignite are that, in certain geographical
areas, it is plentiful, relatively low in cost and low in sulfur content (0.4
to 1 wet basis weight percent). Disadvantages are that more fuel and larger
facilities are necessary to generate a unit of power than is the case with
bituminous coal. The several reasons for this are (1) the higher moisture
content means that more energy Is lost In the gaseous products of combustion,
which reduces boiler efficiency; (2) more energy is required to grind lignite
to combustion specified size, especially in pulverized coal fired units; (3)
greater tube spacing and additional soot blowing are required because of the
higher ash fouling tendencies; and (4) because of its lower heating value, more
fuel must be handled to produce a given amount of power, since lignite usually
Is not cleaned or dried before combustion (except for some drying in the crusher
or pulverizer and during transfer to the burner). No major problems exist with
the handling or combustion of lignite when its unique characteristics are taken
into account.
1.7.2 Emissions And Controls^-!!
The major pollutants from firing lignite, as with any coal, are particulate,
sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon
monoxide emissions are quite low under normal operating conditions.
Particulate emission levels appear most dependent on the firing configu-
ration in the boiler. Pulverized coal fired units and spreader stokers, which
Eire much or all of the lignite in suspension, emit the greatest quantity of
flyash per unit of fuel burned. Cyclone furnaces, which collect much of the
ash as molten slag In the furnace itself, and stokers (other than spreader),
which retain a large fraction of the ash in the fuel bed, both emit less par-
ticulate matter. In general, the relatively high sodium content of lignite
lowers particulate emissions by causing more of the resulting flyash to
deposit on the boiler tubes. This is especially so in pulverized coal fired
units wherein a high fraction of the ash is suspended in the combustion gases
and can readily come into contact with the boiler surfaces.
Nitrogen oxide emissions are mainly a function of the boiler firing
configuration and excess air. Stokers produce the lowest N0X levels, mainly
External Combustion Sources
1.7-1
-------
I
INJ
TABLE 1.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR EXTERNAL COMBUSTION OF LIGNITE COAL3
Firing configuration
Particulate*5
Sulfur
oxidesc
Nitrogen oxides'^
Carbon
monoxide
Volatile organics
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton

Nonmethane
Methane
Pulverized coal fired
dry bottom
3.1A
6.3A
15S
30S
6e> f
12e»f
g
g
g
Cyclone furnace
3.3A
6.7 A
15S
30S
8.5
17
g
g
g
Spreader stoker
3.AA
6.8A
15S
30S
3
6
g
g
g
Other stoker
1. 5A
2.9A
15S
30S
3
6
g
g
g
cn aFor lignite consumption as fired.
S ''References 5-6, 9, 12. A = wet basis % ash content of lignite.
25 cReferences 2, 5-6, 10-11. S = wet basis weight X sulfur content of lignite. For high sodium/ash
lignite (Na20 >8%), use 8.5S kg/Mg (17S lb/ton); for low sodium/ash lignite (Na20 <2%), use 17.5S
^ kg/Mg (35S lb/ton). If unknown, use 15S kg/Mg (30S lb/ton). The conversion of SO2 is shown to be
o a function of alkali ash constituents.
pO j
co References 2, 5, 7-8. Expressed as NC^.
eUse 7 kg/Mg (1A lb/ton) for front wall fired and horizontally opposed wall fired units, and A kg/Mg (8 lb/ton)
for tangentLally fired units.
^May be reduced 20 - A0% with low excess firing and/or staged combustion in front fired and opposed wall fired
units and cyclones.
"Factors in Table 1.1-1 may be used, based on combustion similarity of lignite and bituminous coal.
-------
because most existing units are relatively small and have lower peak flame
temperatures. In most boilers, regardless of firing configuration, lower
excess combustion air means lower NOjj emissions.
Sulfur oxide emissions are a function of the alkali (especially sodiun)
content of the lignite ash. Unlike most fossil fuel combustion, in which over
90 percent of the fuel sulfur is emitted as SO2 , a significant fraction of the
sulfur in lignite reacts with the ash components during combustion and is
retained in the boiler ash deposits and fly ash. Tests have shown that less
than 50 percent of the available sulfur may be emitted as SO2 when a high
sodium lignite is burned, whereas more than 90 percent may be emitted from low
sodium lignite. As a rough average, about 75 percent of the fuel sulfur will
be emitted as SO2, the remainder being converted to various sulfate salts.
Newer lignite fired utility boilers are equipped with large electrostatic
precipitators with as high as 99.5 percent particulate control. Older and
smaller electrostatic precipitators operate at about 95 percent efficiency.
Older industrial and commercial units use cyclone collectors that normally
achieve 60 to 80 percent collection efficiency on lignite flyash. Flue gas
desulfurization systems identical to those on bituminous coal fired boilers
are in current operation on several lignite fired utility boilers. (See
Section 1.1).
Nitrogen oxide reductions of up to 40 percent can be achieved by changing
the burner geometry, controlling excess air and making other changes in operat-
ing procedures. The techniques for bituminous and lignite coal are identical.
TABLE 1.7-2. EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS FOR LIGNITE COMBUSTION
Firing configuration
Particulate
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Pulverized coal
fired dry bottom
A
A
A
Cyclone furnace
C
A
A
Spreader stoker
B
B
C
Other stokers
3
C
D
External Combustion Sources
1.7-3
-------
TABLE 1.7-3. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED LIGNITE COAL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle size''
Cumulative mass
X < stated size
Cumulative emission factor1-
[kg/Mg (lb/ton) coal, as. fired]
Gjtn)
Uncontrolled
Multiple cyclone
cont rolled
Uncont roLied
Multiple cyclone
cont rolled^
15
51
77
1.58A (3.16A)
0.477A (0.954A)
10
35
67
1.09A (2.18A)
0.415A (0.830A)
6
26
57
0.81A (1.62A)
0.353A (0.706A)
2.5
10
27
0.31A (0.62A)
0.167A (0.334a)
1.25
7
16
0.22A (0.44A)
0.099A (0.198A)
1.00
6
14
0.19A (0.38A)
0.087A (0.174A)
0.625
3
8
0.09A (0.18A)
0.050A (0.I00A)
TOTAL
100
100
3.1A (6.2A)
0.62A (1.24A)
aReference 13.
bExp ressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
CA = coal ash weight X content, as fired.
^Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 802.
Oi
-------
TABLE 1.7-4 CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGNITE FUELED SPREADER STOKERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle size*3
Cumulative mass
X < stated size
Cumulative emission factor0
[kg/Mg (lb/ton) coal, as fired]
Cym)
Uncont rolled
Multiple cyclone
cont rolled
Uncont rolled
Multiple cyclone
cont rolled^
15
28
55
0.95A (1.9A)
0.374A (0.748A)
10
20
41
0.68A (1.36A)
0.279A (0.558A)
6
14
31
0.48A (0.96A)
0.211A (0.422A)
2.5
7
26
0.24A (0.48A)
0.177A (0.354A)
1.25
5
23
0.17a (0.34A)
0.156A (0.3I2A)
1.00
5
22
0.17A (0.34A)
0.150A (0.300A)
0.625
4
e
0.14a (0.28A)
e
TOTAL
100
100
3.4A (6.8A )
0.68A (1.36A)
''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
cCoal ash weight X content, as fired.
''Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80Z.
insufficient data.

1
OA

0
9A
-------
Emission factors for particulate, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are
presented in Table 1.7-1, and emission factor ratings in Table 1.7-2. Specific
emission factors for particulate emissions, and emission factor ratings for the
cumulative particle size distributions, are given in Tables 1.7-3 and 14.7-4.
Uncontrolled and controlled size specific emission factors are presented in
Figures 1.7-1 and 1.7-2. 3ased on the similarity of lignite combustion and
bituminous coal combustion, emission factors for carbon monoxide and volatile
organic compounds (Table 1.1—1), and cumulative particle size distributions
for cyclone furnaces, uncontrolled spreader stokers and other stokers (Tables
1.1-5 through 1.1-8) may be used.
References for Section 1.7
1. Kirk-Qthmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second Edition, Volume
12, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1967.
2. G. H. Gronhovd, et al., "Some Studies on Stack Emissions from Lignite
Fired Powerplants", Presented at the 1973 Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks,
NB, May 1973.
3. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement: Promulgated
Standards of Performance for Lignite Fired Steam Generators: Volumes I
and II, EPA-450/2-76-030a and 030b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1976.
4. 1965 Keystone Coal Buyers Manual, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1965.
5. Source test data on lignite fired power plants, North Dakota State Depart-
ment of Health, Bismarck, ND, December 1973.
6. G. H. Gronhovd, et al., "Comparison of Ash Fouling Tendencies of High and
Low Sodium Lignite from a North Dakota Mine", Proceedings of the American
Power Conference, Volume XXVIII, 1966.
7. A. R. Crawford, et al., Field Testing: Application of Combustion Modi-
fication To Control NOy Emissions from Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-74-066,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1974.
8. "Nitrogen Oxides Emission Measurements for Lignite Fired Power Plant",
Source Test No. 7 5-LSG-33, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.
9. Coal Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study, A Three Station Comparison,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO, September 1975.
10. C. Castaldini and M. Angwin, Boiler Design and Operating Variables
Affecting Uncontrolled Sulfur Emissions from Pulverized Coal Fired Steam
Generators, EPA-450/3-77-047, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.
1.7-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
11. C. C. Shih, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
Combustion Systems, Volume III: External Combustion Sources for
Electricity Generation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, TRW Inc., Redondo
Beach, CA, November 1980.
12. Source test data on lignite fired cyclone boilers, North Dakota State
Department of Health, Bismarck, ND, March 1982.
13. Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion
Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View,
CA, January 1985.
External Combustion Sources
1.7-7
-------
7.4 FERROALLY PRODUCTION
7.4.1 General
A ferroalloy Is an alloy of iron and one or more other elements, such as
silicon, manganese or chromium. Ferroalloys are used as additives to impart
unique properties to steel and cast iron. The iron and steel industry consumes
approximately 95 percent of the ferroalloy produced in the United States. The
remaining 5 percent is used in the production of nonferrous alloys, including
cast aluminum, nickel/cobalt base alloys, titanium alloys, and in making other
ferroalloys.
Three major groups, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, and ferrochrome, con-
stitute approximately 85 percent of domestic production. Subgroups of these
alloys include siliconmanganese, silicon metal and ferrochromium. The variety
of grades manufactured is distinguished primarily by carbon, silicon or aluminum
content. The remaining 15 percent of ferroalloy production is specialty alloys,
typically produced in small amounts and containing elements such as vanadium,
columbium, molybdenum, nickel, boron, aluminum and tungsten.
Ferroalloy facilities in the United States vary greatly in size. Many
facilities have only one furnace and require less than 25 megawatts. Others
consist of 16 furnaces, produce six different types of ferroalloys, and require
over 75 megawatts of electricity.
A typical ferroalloy plant is illustrated in Figure 7.4-1. A variety of
furnace types produces ferroalloys, including submerged electric arc furnaces,
induction furnaces, vacuum furnaces, exothermic reaction furnaces and elec-
trolytic cells. Furnace descriptions and their ferroalloy products are given
in Table 7.4-1. Ninety-five percent of all ferroalloys, including all bulk
ferroalloys, are produced in submerged electric arc furnaces, and it is the
furnace type principally discussed here.
The basic design of submerged electric arc furnaces is generally the same
throughout the ferroalloy industry in the United States. The submerged elec-
tric arc furnace comprises a cylindrical steel shell with a flat bottom or
hearth. The interior of the shell is lined with two or more layers of carbon
blocks. Raw materials are charged through feed chutes from above the furnace.
The molten metal and slag are removed through one or more tapholes extending
through the furnace shell at the hearth level. Three carbon electrodes,
arranged in a delta formation, extend downward through the charge material to
a depth of 3 to 5 feet to melt the charge.
Submerged electric arc furnaces are of two basic types, open and covered.
About 80 percent of submerged electric arc furnaces in the United States are of
the open type. Open furnaces have a fume collection hood at least one meter
above the top of the furnace. Moveable panels or screens sometimes are used to
reduce the open area between the furnace and hood to improve emissions capture
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-1
-------
¦p-
K>
W
s
C/3
t/1
o
25
TJ
>
o
H
o
po
c/i
OUST
DUST
OUST
OUST
OUST
OUST AND
FUMES
OUST
AND
FUMES
OUST
FUMES
FUMES
DUST
OUST
SMELTING TAPPING CASTING
CRUSHING wE iGh -FEEDinG
STORAGE
unloading
DUST OUST
OUST
OUST
STORAGE
Shipment
CRUSHING
Figure 7.4-1. Typical ferroalloy production process, showing emission points.
-------
TABLE 7.4-1. FERROALLOY PROCESSES AND RESPECTIVE PRODUCT GROUPS
Process
Product
Submerged arc furnace3
Silvery iron (15 - 22% Si)
Ferrosilicon (50% Si)
Ferrosilicon (65 - 75% Si)
Silicon metal
Silicon/manganese/zirconium (SMZ)
High carbon (HC) ferromanganese
Siliconmanganese
HC ferrochrome
Ferrochrome/silicon
FeSi (90% Si)
Exothermic*3
Silicon reduction
Aluminum reduction
Low carbon (LC) ferrochrome, LC
ferromanganese, Medium carbon (MC)
ferromanganese
Chromium metal, Ferrotitanium,
Ferrocolumbium, Ferrovanadium
Mixed aluminothermal/
silicothermal
Ferromolybdenum, Ferrotungsten
Electrolytic0
Chromium metal, Manganese metal
Vacuum furnace^
LC ferrochrome
Induction furnacee
Ferroti tanium
shell by three submerged graphite electrodes.
^Process by which molten charge material is reduced, in extherraic reaction,
by addition of silicon, aluminum or combination of the two.
cProcess by which simple ions of a metal, usually chromium or manganese
in an electrolyte, are plated on cathodes by direct low voltage current.
•^Process by which carbon is removed from solid state high carbon
ferrochrome within vacuum furnaces maintained at temperature near melting
point of alloy.
eProcess which converts electrical energy without electrodes into heat,
without electrodes, to melt metal charge in a cup or drum shaped vessel.
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-3
-------
efficiency. Covered Eurnaces have a water cooled steel cover to seal the top,
with holes through it for the electrodes. The degree of emission containment
provided by the covers is quite variable. Air infiltration sometimes is reduced
by placing charge material around the electrode holes. This type is called a
mix seal or serai enclosed furnace. Another type is a sealed or totally closed
furnace having mechanical seals around the electrodes and a sealing compound
packed around the cover edges.
The submerged arc process is a reduction smelting operation. The reactants
consist of metallic ores and quartz (ferrous oxides, silicon oxides, manganese
oxides, chrome oxides, etc.). Carbon, usually as coke, low volatility coal or
wood chips, is charged to the furnace as a reducing agent. Limestone also may
be added as a flux material. After crushing, sizing, and in some cases, dry-
ing, the raw materials are conveyed to a mix house for weighing and blending,
thence by conveyors, buckets, skip hoists, or cars to hoppers above the furnace.
The mix is then fed by gravity through a feed chute either continuously or
intermittently, as needed. At high temperatures in the reaction zone the car-
bon sources react chemically with oxygen in the metal oxides to form carbon mon-
oxide and to reduce the ores to base metal. A typical reaction, illustrating 50
percent ferrosilicon production, is:
Fe203 + 2 Si02 + 7C 2 FeSi + 7C0.
Smelting in an electric arc furnace is accomplished by conversion of
electrical energy to heat. An alternating current applied to the electrodes
causes a current flow through the charge between the electrode tips. This
provides a reaction zone of temperatures up to 2000°C (3632°F). The tip of
each electrode changes polarity continuously as the alternating current flows
between the tips. To maintain a uniform electric load, electrode depth is con-
tinuously varied automatically by mechanical or hydraulic means, as required.
Furnace power requirements vary from 7 megawatts to over 50 megawatts, depending
upon the furnace size and the product being made. The average is 17.2 mega-
watts^. Electrical requirements for the most common ferroalloys are given in
Table 7.4-2.
TABLE 7.4-2. FURNACE POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT FERROALLOYS

Furnace load

(kw-hr/lb alloy produced)
Product
Range
Approximate

average
50% FeSi
2.4 - 2.5
2.5
Silicon metal
6.0 - 8.0
7.0
High carbon FeMn
1.0 - 1.2
1.2
High carbon FeCr
2.0 - 2.2
2.1
SiMn
2.0 - 2.3
2.2
7.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
The molten alloy and slag that accumulate on the furnce hearth are removed
at 1 to 5 hour Intervals through the taphole. Tapping typically lasts 10 to 15
minutes. Tapholes are opened with a pellet shot from a gun, by drilling or by
oxygen lancing. The molten metal and slag flow from the taphole into a~carbon
lined trough, then into a carbon lined runner which directs the metal and slag
into a reaction ladle, ingot molds, or chills. Chills are low flat iron or
steel pans that provide rapid cooling of the molten metal. Tapping is termin-
ated and the furnace resealed by inserting a carbon paste plug into the taphole.
When chemistry adjustments after furnace smelting are necessary to produce
a specified product, a reaction ladle is used. Ladle treatment reactions are
batch processes and may include chlorination, oxidation, gas mixing, and slag-
metal reactions.
During tapping, and/or in the reaction ladle, slag is skimmed from the
surface of the molten metal. It can be disposed of in landfills, sold as road
ballast, or used as a raw material in a furnace or reaction ladle to produce a
chemically related ferroalloy product.
After cooling and solidifying, the large ferroalloy castings are broken
with drop weights or hammers. The broken ferroalloy pieces are then crushed,
screened (sized) and stored in bins until shipment.
7.4.2 Emissions And Controls
Particulate is generated from several activities at a ferroalloy facility,
including raw material handling, smelting and product handling. The furnaces
are the largest potential sources of particulate emissions. The emission fac-
tors in Tables 7.4-3 and 7.4-4 and the particle size information in Figures
7«4—2 through 7.4-11 reflect controlled and uncontrolled emissions from ferro-
alloy smelting furnaces. Emission factors for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide
and organic emissions are presented in Table 7.4-5.
Electric arc furnaces emit particulate in the form of fume, accounting for
an estimated 94 percent of the particulate emissions in the ferroalloy industry.
Large amounts of carbon monoxide and organic materials also are emitted by sub-
merged electric arc furnaces. Carbon monoxide is formed as a byproduct of the
chemical reaction between oxygen in the metal oxides of the charge and carbon
contained in the reducing agent (coke, coal, etc.). Reduction gases containing
organic compounds and carbon monoxide continuously rise from the high temper-
ature reaction zone, entraining fine particles and fume precursors. The mass
weight of carbon monoxide produced sometimes exceeds that of the metallic
product (see Table 7.4-5). The chemical constituents of the heat induced fume
consist of oxides of the products being produced, carbon from the reducing
agent, and enrichment by Si02, CaO and MgO, if present in the charge.2"
In an open electric arc furnace, all carbon monoxide burns with induced
air at the furnace top. The remaining fume, captured by hooding about 1 meter
above the furnace, is directed to a gas cleaning device. Baghouses are used to
control emissions from 85 percent of the open furnaces in the United States.
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-5
-------
"-*4
I
ON
TABLE 7.4-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE FROM SUBMERGED ARC FERROALLOY FURNACES3
2
Z/i
tn
*0
>
o
H
O
CO

Particulate emission Factors
Uncotit rol 1 edc

Particulate emission factors
Cont rol1edc

Product^
Furnace
type
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
al 1 oy
kg (lb)/Mw-hr
SI ze
data
Notes
Eolsalon
Factor
Rat I ng
Control device^
fcg/Hg (lb/ton)
al loy
kg (lb)/Mw-hr
Size
data
Notes
Era1 as 1 on
Fac tor
Rat 1 ng
FeSl (50X)
Open
Covered
35 (70)
46 (92)
7.4 (16.3)
9.3 (20.5)
Yes
e.f .8
h
B
P.
Baghouee
Scrubber
High energy
Low energy
0.9 (1.8)
0.24 (0.48)
4.5 (9.0)
0.2 (0.4)
0.05 (0.1)
0.77 (1.7)
Yes
e.f
M
M
B
E
E
FeSl (75X)
Open
Covered
158 (316)
103 (206)
16 (35)
13 (29)

k
h.J
E
E
Scrubber
Low energy
4.0 (8.0)
0.5 (I.I)

h.j
E
FeSl (901)
Open
282 (564)
24 (53)
Yes
a
E

SI raecal (98X)
Open
436 (872)
33 (73)
Yes
n,p
8
Baghouse
16 (32)
1.2 (2.6)
Yes
n,p
B
FeMn (80Z)
Open
14 (28)
4.8 (11)
Yes
q , r
B
Baghouee
Scrubber
High energy
0.24 (0.48)
0.8 (1.6)
0.078 (0.2)
0.34 (0.7)
Yes
q.r
h,a
B
E
FeHn (11 SI)
Covered
Sealed
6 (12)
37 (74)
2.4 (5.3)
17 (37)

h»
u ,v
e
E
High energy
0.25 (0.5)
0.10 (0.2)

h ,s ,w
C
PeCr (high
carbon)
Open
78 (157)
15 (33)
Yes
*,y
c
KSP
1.2 (2.3)
0.23 (0.5)
Yes
*.y
C
SIHn
Open
Seal ed
96 (192)
(-)
20 (44)
(-)
Yes
z ,aa
c
Scrubber
Scrubber
High energy
2.1 (4.2)
0.15 (0.30)
0.44 (1.0)
0.016 (0.04)
Yes
aa,bb
v, w
c
E
-------
TABLE 7.4-3 (Cont.). NOTES
aFactors are for main furnace dust collection system before and after control device. Where other emissions,
such as leaks or tapping, are included or quantified separately, such is noted. Particulate sources not
Included: raw material handling, storage, preparation; and product crushing, screening, handling, packaging.
"Percentages are of the main alloying element in product.
cln most source testing, fugitive emissions not measured or collected. Where tapping emissions are
controlled by primary system, their contribution to total emissions could not be determined. Fugitive
emissions may vary greatly among sources, with furnace and collection system design and operating practices.
Low energy scrubbers are those with A P <20 in. HjO; high energy, with A P >20 in. HjO.
eIncludes fumes captured by tapping hood (efficiency estimated near 100%).
f Ref erences A, 10, 21.
^Factor is average of 3 sources, fugitive emissions not included. Fugitive emissions at one source
measured an additional 10.5 kg/Mg alloy, or 2.7 kg/Mw hr.
^References A, 10.
J JDoes not include emissions from tapping or mix seal leaks.
£ kRef erences 25-26.
c "Reference 23.
"Estimated 60% of tapping emissions captured by control system (escaped fugitive emissions not
0 Included in factor).
£L PReferences 10, 13.
^Estimated 50% of tapping emissions captured by control system (escaped fugitive emissions not
included in factor).
e References A, 10, 12.
<-r sIncludes fume only from primary control system.
3 includes tapping fumes and mix seal leak fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions measured at 33% of total
uncontrolled emissions.
"Assumes tapping fumes not included in emission factor.
vReference 1A. Dash = No data.
wDoes not include tapping or fugitive emissions.
xTapping emissions included. Factor developed from two test series performed on the same furnace 7
years apart. Measured emissions in latter test were 36% less than in former.
yReferences 2, 15-17.
zFactor is average of two test series. Tests at one source included fugitive emissions (3.A% of total
uncontrolled emissions). Second test insufficient to determine if fugitive emissions were included
in total.
aaReferences 2, 18-19.
l y. 7
Factors developed from two scrubber controlled sources, one operated at A P = A7-57" HjO, the other at
unspecified A P. Uncontrolled tapping operations emissions are 2.1 kg/Mg alloy.
1
-"-J
-------
TABLE
7.4-4. SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR SUBMERGED ARC FERROALLOY FURNACES
Product
Cont rol
device
Particle sizea
(um)
Cumulative mass %
< stated size
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
alloy
Emission Factor
Ra t i ng
50% FeSi

Open furnace
None^~c
0.63
45
16 (32)
B

1.00
50
18 (35)

1.25
53
19 (37)

2.50
57
20 (40)

6.00
61
21 (43)

10.00
63
22 (44)

15.00
66
23 (46)

20.00
69
24 (48)

d
100
35 (70)

Baghouse
0.63
31
0.28 (0.56)
B

1.00
39
0.35 (0.70)

1.25
44
0.40 (0.80)

2.50
54
0.49 (1.0)

6.00
63
0.57 (1.1)

10.00
72
0.65 (1.3)

15.00
80
0.72 (1.4)

20.00
85
0.77 (1.5)

100
0.90 (1.8)

80% FeMn

Open furnace
Nonee» f
0.63
30
4 (8)
B

1.00
46
7 (13)

1.25
52
8 (15)

2.50
62
9 (17)

6.00
72
10 (20)

10.00
86
12 (24)

15.00
96
13 (26)

20.00
97
14 (27)
f

d
100
14 (28)

(conti nued)
-------
TABLE 7.4-4 (cont.)
Product
Cont rol
device
Particle size3
(pm)
Cumulative mass%
< stated size
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
alloy
Emission Factor
Ra 11 ng
80% FeMn

Open furnace
Baghousee
0.63
20
0.048 (0.10)
B

1.00
30
0.070 (0.14)

1.25
35
0.085 (0.17)

2.50
49
0.120 (0.24)

6.00
67
0.160 (0.32)

10.00
83
0.200 (0.40)

15.00
92
0.220 (0.44)

20.00
97
0.235 (0.47)

d
100
0.240 (0.48

Si Metalh

Open furnace
NoneS
0.63
57
249 (497)
B

1.00
67
292 (584)

1.25
70
305 (610)

2.50
75
327 (654)

6.00
80
349 (698)

10.00
86
375 (750)

15.00
91
397 (794)

20.00
95
414 (828)

d
100
436 (872)

Baghouse
1.00
49
7.8 (15.7)
B

1.25
53
8.5 (17.0)

2.50
64
10.2 (20.5)

6.00
76
12.2 (24.3)

10.00
87
13.9 (28.0)

15.00
96
15.4 (31.0)

20.00
99
15.8 (31.7)

100
16.0 (32.0)

(continued)
-------
TABLE 7.4-4 (cont.)

Cumulative mass

emission factor

Product
Control
Particle size3
Cumulative mass%

Emission Factor

d ev i c e
(jim)
< stated size
kg/Mg
(lb/ton)
Rati ng

alloy

FeCr (HC)
None''»j

Open furnace
0.5
19
15
(30)
C

1.0
36
28
(57)

2.0
60
47
(94)

2.5
63k
49
(99)

4.0
76
59
(119)

6.0
88k
67
(138)

10.0
91
71
(143)

d
100
78
(157)

ESP
0.5
33
0.40
(0.76)
C

1.0
47
0.56
(1.08)

2.5
67
0.80
(1.54)

5.0
80
0.96
(1.84)

6.0
86
1.03
(1.98)

10.0
90
i .08
(2.07)

d
100
1.2
(2.3)

SiMn

Open furnace
None'' »nl
0.5
28
27
(54)
C

1.0
44
42
(84)

2.0
60
58
(115)

2.5
65
62
(125)

4.0
76
73
(146)

6.0
85
82
(163)

10.0
96k
92k
(177)k

d
100
96
(192)

(conti nued)
-------
TABLE 7.4-4 (cont.)
Product
Cont rol
device
Particle size3
Cum)
Cumulative tnass%
< stated size
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
al 1 oy
Emission Factor
Rating
SiMn

Open furnace

(cont.)
Scrub-

b e rm >n
0.5
56
1.18 (2.36)
C

1.0
80
1.68 (3.44)

2.5
96
2.02 (4.13)

5.0
99
2.08 (4.26)

6.0
99.5
2.09 (4.28)

10.0
99.9k
2.10k (4.30)k

100
2.1 (4.3)

aAerodynamic diameter, based on Task Group On Lung Dynamics definition.
Particle density = 1 g/cm^.
^Includes tapping emissions.
cReferences 4, 10, 21.
dTotal particulate, based on Method 5 total catch (see Table 7.4-3).
eIncludes tapping fume (capture efficiency 50%).
^References 4, 10, 12.
^Includes tapping fume (estimated capture efficiency 60%).
^References 10, 13.
^References 1, 15-17.
^Interpolated data.
"¦References 2, 18-19.
"Primary emission control system only, without tapping emissions.
-------
9.990
9.930
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
I
0.5
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.0
10
TOTAL PARTICULATE ^ kg PARTICULATE
¦ EMISSION RATE " Mg ALLOY
J—i-i—i i i 11 il 1 1 I l I I I 11 i '
10° 10 1
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
.4-2. Uncontrolled, 50% FeSi producing, open furnace particle
size distribution.
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
99 990
99.950
99.90
99.80
99 50
99
98 -
95
j
j
; 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
I
0.5
0.2
0 15
0.1
TOTAL PARTICULATE kg PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE Mg ALLOY
0 77
0 72
0 65
0.57
0.49
0.40
0.35
-0.28
UJ
N
CO
o
u
i-
<
h-
in
V
UJ
<
_J
ID
U
y-
cc
<
Q.
o>
JC
UJ
>
I-
<
_l
r>
D
O
0.0
10
' I ' I I I 11 11
I I I 111

' ¦ ¦ "
10° 10 1
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
10'
Figure 7.4-3 Controlled (baghouse), 50% FeSi, open furnace particle
size distribution
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-13
-------
99 990
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
u
M
CO
o
UJ
h-
<
H
CO
V
»-
z
UJ
a
cc
UJ
Q.
UJ
>
H
<
D
u
TOTAL PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE
14
kg PARTICULATE
Mg ALLOY
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
I
0.5
0.2
0.15
0 I
0.0
l i l
l i 11
I I I 1111
_L
14
13
12
10
9
8
7
i I l 1.11
)"' 10° 10 '
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
10*
u
>
h-
<
5
r)
o
Figure 7.4-4. Uncontrolled, 80% FeMn producing, open furnace particle
size distribution
7.4-14
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
99 990
99.950
99.90
99 60
99.50
99
98
95
! so
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
I
0 5
0.2
0.15
0 I
0.0
10
TOTAL PARTICULATE ?40kq PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE "0 240 Mg aLLOY
0 235
0 220
0 200
0 IGO
0 120
0 085
0 070
0 048
iii i'i
jluL
j i i 111
jllL
J—I—¦ It'll
10° 10 1 10*
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
Figure 7.4-5. Controlled (baghouse), 80% FeMn producing, open furnace
size distribution
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-15
-------
99.990
99.950
99.90
99 80
99.50
99
98r
95
j
-n 90
3 80
5 70
0
, 60
; 50
j «o
5 30
L
20
>
10
5
2
I
0 5
0.2
0.15
0.
0.0
10
total particulate
EMISSION RATE 35
kg PARTICULATE
Mg ALLOY
414
397
375
3 49
327
305
292
249
l i I
I I i 11
J l l u ill
J—l I l li.il
10° 10 1
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
10'
Figure 7.4-6. Uncontrolled, Si metal producing, open furnace
particle size distribution
7.4-16
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
99 990
99.950
99.90
99 80
99.50
99
98 -
95
j
X 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
I
0.5
0.2
0.15
0.1
TOTAL PARTICULATE Kg PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE bU
Mq ALLOY
0.0
10
15 8
15 4
13 9
12.2
10.2
8.5
7 8
J L_l I—L.
' ' I
I
J ¦ I I I I I I
10° 101
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
10'
Figure 7.4-7. Controlled (baghouse), Si metal producing, open
furnace particle size distribution
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-17
-------
99.990
99.950
99.90
99.80
TOTAL PARTICULATE
- EMISSION RATE
99.50
99
98r
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
-18 *9 particulate
Mg ALLOY
-71
1 I I ' ' ' ¦'
J I I I 11111
J—I I I IU
47
28
15
10° 10 ' I0J
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
Figure 7.4-8. Uncontrolled, FeCr producing, open furnace particle
size distribution
7.4-18
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
99 990
99.950
99.90
99.80
99 50
99
98
95
j 90
>
! 80
c
; 70
60
: 50
> 40
j 30
i 20
>
\ '»
3
: 5
3
)
2
I
0.5
0 2
0.15
0.1
0.0
10
TOTAL PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE
= 1 -?n PARTICULATE
Mg ALLOY
1 -08
0-96
0.80
0.56
0-10
i 11
1111
j i i 11111
10° 10 1
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
j—i i i i i.i I
10'
Figure 7.4 9. Controlled (ESP), FeCr (HC) producing, open furnace
particle size distribution
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-19
-------
99 990
99.950
99.90
99.80
99 50
99
98
95
J
i
; 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
I
0.5
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.0
10
TOTAL PARTICULATE
- EMISSION RATE
= 96
kg PARTICULATE
Mg ALLOY
—1—1—I—I I I I I 11 I i i i i i i
1
J—I 1,1.
92
73
58
42
27
10° 10 1 ,0J
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
Figure 7.4-10. Uncontrolled, SiMn producing, open furnace
particle size distribution
7.4-20
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
99.990
99.930 ¦
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
j
; 90
j
[ 80
C
" 70
60
; so
j 40
[j 30
J 20
>
* 10
D
£ 5
D
J
2
I
0.5
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.0
10
TOTAL PARTICULATE Kg PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE Mg ALLOY
¦ i i 11 i
_L
i i i i i i
J—I I I I LI
2.10

UJ
2.08
N

in
2.02
o

LlI

~—

CO
1 /
1.68
V

»-

<
1.18
_l
O

10° 10 1 10'
PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometers
Figure 7.4-11. Controlled (scrubber), SiMn producing, open furnace
particle size distribution
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-21
-------
TABLE 7.4-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, LEAD
to AND VOLATILE ORGANICS FROM SUBMERGED ARC FERROALLOY FURNACES3
NJ
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
LEAD:
w
3
i—i
CO
CO
HH
O
z
>
o
H
O
w

Volatile Organic Compounds
Product
Furnace
so2b
C0c'd'€
Lead ^

type
(lb/tor)
(lb/ton)
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
Uncont rol1ed^ie
kfi/HR (lb/ton)
Control leclB
kfi/Mg (lb/ton)
Cont rol
device
FeSi - 50Z
Open
Covered
-
2180
0.15 (0.29)
2.25 (4.5)
6.35 (12.7]
2.2 (4.4)
0.2fl (O.Sf.)
0.75 (!.5)
Bughouse
Scrubber
High energy
Lou energy
FeSi - 751
Open
Covered
-
3230
0.0015 (0.00313
10. 25 (20.5)
2.4 (A.fl)
Sc rubber
SI Metal - 98X
Open
-

0.00L5 (0.0031)
35.90 (71.8)
25.9 (51.6)
Bagliouse
FeMn - 80Z
Open
Covered
Sealed
0.010h
-
0.06 (0.11)
3.05 (6.1)
0.70 (1.4)
l.fli (3.7)
0.70 (1.4)
0.40 (0.8)
Baghouse
l-Ugh energy scrubber
Scrubber
FeCr (HC)
FeCr-Sl
SfMn
Open
Open
Open
Sealed
5.4h.J
0-070e»k
0.02 le>k
1690
0.17 (0.34)
0.04 (0.08)
0.0029 (0.0057)
-
0.05 (0.10)
High energy scrubber
aExpressed as weight/unit weight of specified product (alloy). Dash ° No data,
^References 14-15, 17, 19, 30. Emissions depend on amount of sulfur In feed material.
References 14, Measured before control by flare- CO emissions from open furnaces are low- Quantity
from covered furnaces will vary with volume of air drawn into cover# Increased air will reduce CO emissions.
^References 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, 21. Hay Increase if furnace feed is dirty scrap Iron or steel.
eDoes not Include seal leaks or tapping emissions* Open furnace hoods may capture some tapping emissions.
^References 2, 20, 27-29.
^Measured before any flare In the control system.
^Uncont rol1ed.
Jlncludes tapping emissions.
^Scrubber outlet.
-------
Scrubbers are used on 13 percent of the furnaces, and electrostatic precipita-
tors on 2 percent. Control efficiences for well designed and operated control
systems [i. e., baghouses with air to cloth ratios of 1:1 to 2:1 ft^/ft^, and
and scrubbers with a pressure drop from 14 to 24 kilopascals (kPa) (55 to 96
inches 1^0)], have been reported to be in excess of 99 percent. Air to cloth
ratio is the ratio of the volumetric air flow through the filter media to the
media area.
Two emission capture systems, not usually connected to the same gas clean-
ing device, are necessary for covered furnaces. A primary capture system with-
draws gases from beneath the furnace cover. A secondary system captures fume
released around the electrode seals and during tapping. Scrubbers are used
almost exclusively to control exhaust gases from sealed furnaces. The gas from
sealed and mix sealed furnaces is usually flared at the exhaust of the scrub-
ber. The carbon monoxide rich gas has an estimated heating value of 300 Btu
per cubic foot and is sometimes used as a fuel in kilns and sintering machines.
The efficiency of flares for the control of carbon monoxide and the reduction
of organic emission has been estimated to be greater than 98 percent for steam
assisted flares with a velocity of less than 60 feet per second and a gas heat-
ing value of 300 Btu per standard cubic foot^^. For unassisted flares, the
reduction of organic and carbon monoxide emissions is 98 percent efficient with
a velocity of less than 60 feet per second and a gas heating value greater than
200 Btu per standard cubic foot.24
Tapping operations also generate fumes. Tapping is intermittent and is
usually conducted during 10 to 20 percent of the furnace operating time. Some
fumes originate from the carbon lip liner, but most are a result of induced
heat transfer from the molten metal or slag as it contacts the runners, ladles,
casting beds and ambient air. Some plants capture these emissions to varying
degrees with a main canopy hood. Other plants employ separate tapping hoods
ducted to either the furnace emission control device or a separate control
device. Emission factors for tapping emissions are unavailable because of a
lack of data.
A reaction ladle may be involved to adjust the metallurgy after furance
tapping by chlorination, oxidation, gas mixing and slag metal reactions. Ladle
reactions are an intermittent process, and emissions have not been quantified.
Reaction ladle emissions often are captured by the tapping emissions control
system.
Available data are insufficient to provide emission factors for raw
material handling, pretreatment and product handling. Dust particulate is
emitted from raw material handling, storage and preparation activities (see
Figure 7.4-1), from such specific activities as unloading of raw materials from
delivery vehicles (ship, railcar or truck), storage of raw materials in piles,
loading of raw materials from storage piles into trucks or gondola cars and
crushing and screening of raw materials. Raw materials may be dried before
charging in rotary or other type dryers, and these dryers can generate signif-
icant particulate emissions. Dust may also be generated by heavy vehicles used
for loading, unloading and transferring material. Crushing, screening and
storage of the ferroalloy product emit particulate in the form of dust. The
Metallurgical Industry
7.14-23
-------
properties of particulate emitted as dust are similar to the natural properties
of the ores or alloys from which they originated, ranging in size from 3 to 100
micrometers.
Approximately half of ferroalloy facilities have some type of control for
dust emissions. Dust generated from raw material storage may be controlled
in several ways, including sheltering storage piles from the wind with block
walls, snow fences or plastic covers. Occasionally, piles are sprayed with
water to prevent airborne dust. Emissions generated by heavy vehicle traffic
may be reduced by using a wetting agent or paving the plant yard.3 Moisture
in the raw materials, which may be as high as 20 percent, helps to limit dust
emissions from raw material unloading and loading. Dust generated by crushing,
sizing, drying or other pretreatment activities is sometimes controlled by dust
collection equipment such as scrubbers, cyclones or baghouses. Ferroalloy pro-
duct crushing and sizing usually require a baghouse. The raw material emission
collection equipment may be connected to the furnace emission control system.
For fugitive emissions from open sources, see Section 11.2 of this document.
References for Section 7.4
1. F. J. Schottman, "Ferroalloys", 1980 Mineral Facts and Problems, Bureau Of
Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1980.
2. J. 0. Dealy, and A. M. Killin, Engineering and Cost Study of the Ferroalloy
Industry, EPA-450/2-74-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1974.
3. Backgound Information on Standards of Performance: Electric Submerged Arc
Furnaces for Production of Ferroalloys, Volume I: Proposed Standards,
EPA-450/2-74-018a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, October 1974.
4. C. W. Westbrook, and D. P. Dougherty, Level I Environmental Assessment of
Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-81-038,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1981.
5. F. J. Schottman, "Ferroalloys", Minerals Yearbook, Volume I: Metals and
Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC,
1980.
6. S. Beaton and H. Klemm, Inhalable Particulate Field Sampling Program for
the Ferroalloy Industry, TR-80-115-G, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA,
November 1980.
7. G. W. Westbrook and D. P. Dougherty, Environmental! Impact of Ferroalloy
Production Interim Report: Assessment of Current Data, Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1978.
8. K. Wark and C. F. Warner, Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control, Harper
and Row Publisher, New York^ 1981.
7.4-24
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19,
20,
21,
22,
M. Szabo and R. Gerstle, Operations and Maintenance of Particulate Control
Devices on Selected Steel and Ferroalloy Processes, EPA-600/2-78-037, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.
C. W. Westbrook, Multimedia Environmental Assessment of Electric Submerged
Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-83-092, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1983.
S. Gronberg, et al., Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for the
Ferroalloy Industry, TR-82-25-G, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3157, GCA Corpor-
ation, Bedford, MA, March 1982.
T. Epstein, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development, Roane
Limited, Rockwood, Tennessee, EPA-600/X-85-325, U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1981.
S. Beaton, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development, Inter-
lake Inc., Alabama Metallurgical Corp., Selma, Alabama, EPA-600/X-85-324,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1981.
J. L. Rudolph, et al., Ferroalloy Process Emissions Measurement, EPA-600/
2-79-045, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February
1979.
Written communication from Joseph F. Eyrich, Macalloy Corporation, Charles-
ton, SC to Evelyn J. Limberakis, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, February 10,
1982.
Source test, AIRCO Alloys and Carbide, Charleston, SC, EMB-71-PC-16(FEA),
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1971.
Telephone communication between Joseph F. Eyrich, Macalloy Corporation,
Charleston, SC and Evelyn J. Limberakis, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA,
February 23, 1981.
Source test, Chromium Mining and Smelting Corporation, Memphis, TN, EMB-
72-PC-05 (FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, June 1972.
Source test, Union Carbide Corporation, Ferroalloys Division, Marietta,
Ohio, EMB-71-PC-12(FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1971.
R. A. Person, "Control of Emissions from Ferroalloy Furnace Processing",
Journal of Metals, 23(4):17-29, April 1971.
S. Gronberg, Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development Foote Minerals,
Graham, W. Virginia, EPA-600/X-85-327, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, July 1981.
R. W. Gerstle, et al., Review of Standards of Performance for New Station-
ary Air Sources - Ferroalloy Production Facility, EPA-450/3-80-041, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1980.
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-25
-------
23. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, APTD-0923, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.
24. Telephone communication between Leslie B. Evans, Office Of Air Quality
Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, and Richard Vacherot, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA,
October 18, 1984.
25. R. Ferrari, Experiences in Developing an Effective Pollution Control
System for a Submerged Arc Ferroalloy Furnace Operation, J. Metals,
p. 95-104, April 1968.
26. Fredriksen and Nestaas, Pollution Problems by Electric Furnace Ferroalloy
Production, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, September 1968.
27. A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Particulate Pollutant System Study - Mass Emis-
sions , PB-203-128, PB-203-522 and P-203-521, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA, May 1971.
28. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.
29. W. E. Davis, Emissions Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants,
1970, EPA-APTD-1543, W. E. Davis and Associates, Leawood, KS, April 1973.
30. Source test, Foote Mineral Company, Vancoram Operations, Steubenvil1e, OH,
EMB-71-PC-08(FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, August 1971.
7.4-26
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
7.5 IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION
7.5.1 Process Descnptionl~3
The production of steel at an integrated iron and steel plant is
accomplished using several interrelated processes. The major operations are:
(1) coke production, (2) sinter production, (3) iron production, (4) iron
preparation, (5) steel production, (6) semifinished product preparation, (7)
finished product preparation, (8) heat and electricity supply, and (9) handling
and transport of raw, intermediate and waste materials. The interrelation of
these operations is depicted in a general flow diagram of the iron and steel
industry in Figure 7.5-1. Coke production is discussed in detail in Section
7.2 of this publication, and more information on the handling and transport of
materials is found in Chapter 11.
7.5.1.1 Sinter Production - The sintering process converts fine sized raw
materials, including iron ore, coke breeze, limestone, mill scale, and flue
dust, into an agglomerated product, sinter, of suitable size for charging into
the blast furnace. The raw materials are sometimes mixed with water to provide
a cohesive matrix, and then placed on a continuous, travelling grate called the
sinter strand. A burner hood, at the beginning of the sinter strand ignites
the coke in the mixture, after which the combustion is self supporting and it
provides sufficient heat, 1300 to 1480°C (2400 to 2700°F), to cause surface
melting and agglomeration of the mix. On the underside of the sinter strand
is a series of windboxes that draw combusted air down through the material
bed into a common duct leading to a gas cleaning device. The fused sinter is
discharged at the end of the sinter strand, where it is crushed and screened.
Undersize sinter is recycled to the mixing mill and back to the strand. The
remaining sinter product is cooled in open air or in a circular cooler with
water sprays or mechanical fans. The cooled sinter is crushed and screened for
a final time, then the fines are recycled, and the product is sent to be charged
to the blast furnaces. Generally, 2.5 tons of raw materials, including water
and fuel, are required to produce one ton of product sinter.
7.5.1.2 Iron Production - Iron is produced in blast funaces by the reduction
of iron bearing materials with a hot gas. The large, refractory lined furnace
is charged through its top with iron as ore, pellets, and/or sinter; flux as
limestone, dolomite and sinter; and coke for fuel. Iron oxides, coke and fluxes
react with the blast air to form molten reduced iron, carbon monoxide and slag.
The molten iron and slag collect in the hearth at the base of the furnace. The
byproduct gas is collected through offtakes located at the top of the furnace
and is recovered for use as fuel.
The production of one ton of iron requires 1.4 tons of ore or other iron
bearing material; 0.5 to 0.65 tons of coke; 0.25 tons of limestone or dolomite;
and 1.8 to 2 tons of air. Byproducts consist of 0.2 to 0.4 tons of slag, and
2.5 to 3.5 tons of blast furnace gas containing up to 100 lbs of dust.
The molten iron and slag are removed, or cast, from the furnace perio-
dically. The casting process begins with drilling a hole, called the taphole,
into the clay filled iron notch at the base of the hearth. During casting,
molten iron flows into runners that lead to transport ladles. Slag also flows
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-1
-------
N5
W
X
H
C/>
CO
M
o
rz.
>
o
H
O
po
CO
riMon
KlllltaHNIATNa
Hum JivuuumI
| J^lAT MMM ¦TWj
uii auia
rtwiowr
rmnui
PMIUI
L Kill
nana
II CAB
tmoaa ami
I cooiia
to mil
Tianui
¦IHM
inn

itMf OKI m
f u cab~| — b» w ram)
A^tL —
CWTIRMM
CAfTMl
UIM1Al
IUWII
iliniK AM
IUUABCI
lAlllMAlll
p\«
MM I
OITIII
riMwaa
lAlllABAVII
on* MIABIM
rUMAKI
• AS
tllMtlfl
lAtcHAauiil
(OA HIKIU
liuai imi
ABO 0US1
yrniH)M*»cH |MWgl iAU
ABOOW1
it mooun
AICOVIAT
ce«i ovia (Aj
10 II bllO u run
(iiai
CMUUfllOfl IIACI ilMWCn

con nail
IK.LIT1.SLAM. AU BOOBB0

B100M MtllT
ABO 11 Al
MUIM
KAMHI
I MHIAI I
-^lUMAKI h—
I
I Ml SMI 0
rueoucr
MOCiniBi
CIIABIB II AH PHUMI
BAA 10 CI mio Al ruu
lOUaTlBflABt
(10IIB1M0B
MJOT PHBBABUI
Figure 7.5-1. General flow diagram for the iron and steel industry.
-------
from Che furnace, and is directed through separate runners to a slag pit
adjacent to the casthouse, or into slag pots for transport to a remote slag
pit. At the conclusion of the cast, the taphole is replugged with clay. The
area around the base of the furnace, including all iron and slag runners,, is
enclosed by a casthouse. The blast furnace byproduct gas, which is collected
from the furnace top, contains carbon monoxide and particulate. Because of
its high carbon monoxide content, this blast furnace gas has a low heating
value, about 2790 to 3350 joules per liter (75 to 90 BTU/ft^) and is used as a
fuel within the steel plant. Before it can be efficiently oxidized, however,
the gas must be cleaned of particulate. Initially, the gases pass through a
settling chamber or dry cyclone to remove about 60 percent of the particulate.
Next, the gases undergo a one or two stage cleaning operation. The primary
cleaner is normally a wet scrubber, which removes about 90 percent of the
remaining particulate. The secondary cleaner is a high energy wet scrubber
(usually a venturi) or an electrostatic precipitator, either of which can
remove up to 90 percent of the particulate that eludes the primary cleaner.
Together these control devices provide a clean fuel of less than 0.05 grams
per cubic meter (0.02 gr/ft^). A portion of this gas is fired in the blast
furnace stoves to preheat the blast air, and the rest is used in other plant
operations.
7.5.1.3 Iron Preparation Hot Metal Desulfurization - Sulfur in the molten
iron is sometimes reduced before charging into the steelmaking furnace by
adding reagents. The reaction forms a floating slag which can be skimmed off.
Desulfurization may be performed in the hot metal transfer (torpedo) car at a
location between the blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace (B0F), or it may
be done in the hot metal transfer (torpedo) ladle at a station inside the BOF
shop.
The most common reagents are powdered calcium carbide (CaC2) and calcium
carbonate (CaC03) or salt coated magnesium granules. Powdered reagents are
injected into the metal through a lance with high pressure nitrogen. The pro-
cess duration varies with the injection rate, hot metal chemistry, and desired
final sulfur content, and is in the range of 5 to 30 minutes.
7.5.1.4 Steelmaking Processes Basic Oxygen Furnaces - In the basic oxygen
process (BOP), molten iron from a blast furance and iron scrap are refined in
a furnace by lancing (or injecting) high purity oxygen. The input material is
typically 70 percent molten metal and 30 percent scrap metal. The oxygen reacts
with carbon and other impurities to remove them from the metal. The reactions
are exothermic, l. e., no external heat source is necessary to melt the scrap
and to raise the temperature of the metal to the desired range for tapping.
The large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO) produced by the reactions in the
BOF can be controlled by combustion at the mouth of the furnace and then vented
to gas cleaning devices, as with open hoods, or combustion can be suppressed at
the furnace mouth, as with closed hoods. BOP steelmaking is conducted in large
(up to 400 ton capacity) refractory-lined pear-shaped furnaces. There are two
major variations of the process. Conventional BOFs have oxygen blown into the
top of the furnace through a water cooled lance. In the newer, Quelle Basic
Oxygen process (Q-BOP), oxygen is injected through tuyeres located in the bot-
tom of the furnace. A typical BOF cycle consists of the scrap charge, hot
metal charge, oxygen blow (refining) period, testing for temperature and
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-3
-------
chemical composition of the steel, alloy additions and reblows (if necessary),
tapping, and slagging. The full furnace cycle typically ranges from 25 to 45
rai nutes.
7.5.1.5 Steelmaking Process-Electric Arc Furnace - Electric arc furnaces
(EAF) are used to produce carbon and alloy steels. The input material to an
EAF is typically 100 percent scrap. Cylindrical, refractory lined EAFs are
equipped with carbon electrodes to be raised or lowered through the furnace
roof. With electrodes retracted, the furnace roof can be rotated aside to
permit the charge of scrap steel by overhead crane. Alloying agents and flux-
ing materials usually are added through the doors on the side of the furnace.
Electric current of the opposite polarity electrodes generates heat between the
electrodes and through the scrap. After melting and refining periods, the slag
and steel are poured from the furnace by tilting.
The production of steel in an EAF is a batch process. Cycles, or "heats",
range from about 1 1/2 to 5 hours to produce carbon steel and from 5 to 10
hours or more to produce alloy steel. Scrap steel is charged to begin a cycle,
and alloying agents and slag materials are added for refining. Stages of each
cycle normally are charging and melting operations, refining (which usually
includes oxygen blowing), and tapping.
7.5.1.6 Steelmaking Process-Open Hearth Furnaces - The open hearth furnace
(OHF) is a shallow, refractory-lined basin in which scrap and molten iron are
melted and refined into steel. Scrap is charged to the furnace through doors
in the furnace front. Hot metal from the blast furnace is added by pouring
from a ladle through a trough positioned in the door. The mixture of scrap
and hot metal can vary from all scrap to all hot metal, but a half and half
mixture is most common. Melting heat is provided by gas burners above and at
the side of the furnace. Refining is accomplished by the oxidation of carbon
in the metal and the formation of a limestone slag to remove impurities. Most
furnaces are equipped with oxygen lances to speed up melting and refining.
The steel product is tapped by opening a hole in the base of the furnace with
an explosive charge. The open hearth steelmaking process with oxygen lancing
normally requires from 4 to 10 hours for each heat.
7.5.1.7 Semifinished Product Preparation - After the steel has been tapped,
the molten metal is teemed (poured) into ingots which are later heated and
formed into other shapes, such as blooms, billets, or slabs. The molten steel
may bypass this entire process and go directly to a continuous casting opera-
tion. Whatever the production technique, the blooms, billets, or slabs undergo
a surface preparation step, scarfing, which removes surface defects before
shaping or rolling. Scarfing can be performed by a machine applying jets of
oxygen to the surface of hot semifinished steel, or by hand (with torches) on
cold or slightly heated semifi>u sled sieeL.I
7.5.2 Emissions and Controls '
7.5.2.1 Sinter - Emissions from sinter plants are generated from raw material
handling, windbox exhaust, discharge end (associated sinter crushers and hot
screens), cooler, and cold screen. The windbox exhaust is the primary source
of particulate emissions, mainly iron oxides, sulfur oxides, carbonaceous com-
7.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
pounds, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and chlorides. At the discharge end, emissions
are mainly iron and calcium oxides. Sinter strand windbox emissions commonly
are controlled by cyclone cleaners followed by a dry or wet ESP, high pressure
drop wet scrubber, or baghouse. Crusher and hot screen emissions, usually con-
trolled by hooding and a baghouse or scrubber, are the next largest emissions
source. Emissions are also generated from other material handling operations.
At some sinter plants, these emissions are captured and vented to a baghouse.
7.5.2.2 Blast Furnace - The primary source of blast furnace emissions is the
casting operation. Particulate emissions are generated when the molten iron
and slag contact air above their surface. Casting emissions also are generated
by drilling and plugging the taphole. The occasional use of an oxygen lance
to open a clogged taphole can cause heavy emissions. During the casting opera-
tion, iron oxides, magnesium oxide and carbonaceous compounds are generated as
particulate. Casting emissions at existing blast furnaces are controlled by
evacuation through retrofitted capture hoods to a gas cleaner, or by suppres-
sion techniques. Emissions controlled by hoods and an evacuation system are
usually vented to a baghouse. The basic concept of suppression techniques is
to prevent the formation of pollutants by excluding ambient air contact with
the molten surfaces. New furnaces have been constructed with evacuated runner
cover systems and local hooding ducted to a baghouse.
Another potential source of emissions is the blast furnace top. Minor
emissions may occur during charging from imperfect bell seals in the double
bell system. Occasionally, a cavity may form in the blast fuernace charge,
causing a collapse of part of the burden (charge) above it. The resulting
pressure surge in the furnace opens a relief valve to the atmosphere to pre-
vent damage to the furnace by the high pressure created and is referred to as
a "slip".
7.5.2.3 Hot Metal Desulfurization - Emissions during the hot metal desulfur-
ization process are created by both the reaction of the reagents injected into
the metal and the turbulence during injection. The pollutants emitted are
mostly iron oxides, calcium oxides and oxides of the compound injected. The
sulfur reacts with the reagents and is skimmed off as slag. The emissions
generated from desulfurization may be collected by a hood positioned over the
ladle and vented to a baghouse.
7.5.2.4 Steelmaking - The most significant emissions from the BOF process
occur during the oxygen blow period. The predominant compounds emitted are
iron oxides, although heavy metals and fluorides are usually present. Charging
emissions will vary with the quality and quantity of scrap metal charged to the
furnace and with the pour rate. Tapping emissions include iron oxides, sulfur
oxides, and other metallic oxides, depending on the grade of scrap used. Hot
metal transfer emissions are mostly iron oxides.
BOFs are equipped with a primary hood capture system located directly
over the open mouth of the furnaces to control emissions during oxygen blow
periods. Two types of capture systems are used to collect exhaust gas as it
leaves the furnace mouth: closed hood (also known as an off gas, or 0. G.,
system) or open, combustion type hood. A closed hood fits snugly against the
furnace mouth, ducting all particulate and carbon monoxide to a wet scrubber
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-5
-------
gas cleaner. Carbon monoxide is flared at the scrubber outlet stack. The open
hood design allows dilution air to be drawn into the hood, thus combusting the
carbon monoxide in the hood system. Charging and tapping emissions are con-
trolled by a variety of evacuation systems and operating practices. Charging
hoods, tapside enclosures, and full furnace enclosures are used in the industry
to capture these emissions and send them to either the primary hood gas cleaner
or a second gas cleaner.
7.5.2.5 Steelmaking-Electric Arc Furnace - The operations which generate
emissions during the electric arc furnace steelmaking process are melting and
refining, charging scrap, tapping steel, and dumping slag. Iron oxide is the
predominant constituent of the particulate emitted during melting. During
refining, the primary particulate compound emitted is calcium oxide from the
slag. Emissions from charging scrap are difficult to quantify, because they
depend on the grade of scrap utilized. Scrap emissions usually contain iron
and other metallic oxides from alloys in the scrap metal. Iron oxides and
oxides from the fluxes are the primary constituents of the slag emissions.
During tapping, iron oxide is the major particulate compound emitted.
Emission control techniques involve an emission capture system and a gas
cleaning system. Five emission capture systems used in the industry are
fourth hold (direct shell) evacuation, side draft hood, combination hood, can-
opy hood, and furnace enclosures. Direct shell evacuation consists of ductwork
attached to a separate or fourth hole in the furnace roof which draws emissions
to a gas cleaner. The fourth hole system works only when the furnace is up-
right with the roof in place. Side draft hoods collect furnace off gases from
around the electrode holes and the work doors after the gases leave the furnace.
The combination hood incorporates elements from the side draft and fourth hole
ventilation systems. Emissions are collected both from the fourth hole and
around the electrodes. An air gap in the ducting introduces secondary air for
combustion of GJ in the exhaust gas. The combination hood requires careful
regulation of furnace interval pressure. The canopy hood is the least effi-
cient of the four ventilation systems, but it does capture emissions during
charging and tapping. Many new electric arc furnaces incorporate the canopy
hood with one of the other three systems. The full furnace enclosure com-
pletely surrounds the furnace and evacuates furnace emissions through hooding
in the top of the enclosure.
7.5.2.6 Steelmaking-Open Hearth Furnace - Particulate emissions from an open
hearth furnace vary considerably during the process. The use of oxygen lanc-
ing increases emissions of dust and fume. During the melting and refining
cycle, exhaust gas drawn from the furnace passes through a slag pocket and a
regenerative checker chamber, where some of the particulate settles out. The
emissions, mostly iron oxides, are then ducted to either an ESP or a wet scrub-
ber. Other furance-related process operations which produce fugitive emissions
inside the shop include transfer and charging of hot metal, charging of scrap,
tapping steel and slag dumping. These emissions are usually uncontrolled.
7.5.2.7 Semifinished Product Preparation - During this activity, emissions are
produced when molten steel is poured (teemed) into ingot molds, and when semi-
finished steel is machine or manually scarfed to remove surface defects.
Pollutants emitted are iron and other oxides (FeO, Fe2C>3, S1O2, CaO, MgO).
7.5-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
Teeming emissions are rarely controlled. Machine scarfing operations generally
use as ESP or water spray chamber for control. Most hand scarfing operations
are uncontrolled.
7.5.2.8 Miscellaneous Combustion - Every iron and steel plant operation
requires energy in the form of heat or electricity. Combustion sources that
produce emissions on plant property are blast furnace stoves, boilers, soaking
pits, and reheat furnaces. These facilities burn combinations of coal, No. 2
fuel oil, natural gas, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas. In blast furnace
stoves, clean gas from the blast furnace is burned to heat the refractory
checker work, and in turn, to heat the blast air. In soaking pits, ingots are
heated until the temperature distribution over the cross section of the ingots
is acceptable and the surface temperature is uniform for further rolling into
semifinished products (blooms, billets and slabs). In slab furnaces, a slab is
heated before being rolled into finished products (plates, sheets or strips).
Emissions from the combustion of natural gas, fuel oil or coal in the soaking
pits or slab furnaces are estimated to be the same as those for boilers. (See
Chapter 1 of this document.) Emission factor data for blast furnace gas and
coke oven gas are not available and must be estimatexW There are three facts
available for making the estimation. First, the gas exiting the blast furnace
passes through*primary and secondary cleaners and can be cleaned to less than
0.05 grams per cubic meter (0.02 gr/ft3). Second, nearly one third of the
coke oven gas is methane. Third, there are no blast furnace gas constituents
that generate particulate when burned. The combustible constituent of blast
furnace gas is CO, which burns clean. Based on facts one and three, the emis-
sion factor for combustion of blast furnace gas is equal to the particulate
loading of that fuel, 0.05 grams per cubic meter (2.9 lb/10^ ft3) having an
average heat value of 83 BTU/ft3.
Emissions for combustion of coke oven gas can be estimated in the same
fashion. Assume that cleaned coke oven gas has as much particulate as cleaned
blast furnace gas. Since one third of the coke oven gas is methane, the main
component of natural gas, it is assumed that the combustion of this methane in
coke oven gas generates 0.06 grams per cubic meter (3.3 lb/10^ ft3) of partic-
ulate. Thus, the emission factor for the combustion of coke oven gas is the
sum of the particulate loading and that generated by the methane combustion, or
0.1 grams per cubic meter (6.2 lb/10^ ft3) having an average heat value of 516
BTU/ft3.
The particulate emission factors i:or processes in Table 7.5-1 are the
result of an extensive investigation by EPA and the American Iron and Steel
Institute.3 Particle size distributions for controlled and uncontrolled emis-
sions from specific iron and steel industry processes have been calculated and
summarized from the best available data.^ Size distributions have been used
with particulate emission factors to calculate size specific factors for the
sources listed in Table 7.5-1 for which data are available. Table 7.5-2
presents these size specific particulate emission factors. Particle size dis-
tributions are presented in Figures 7.5-2 to 7.5-4. Carbon monoxide emission
factors are in Table 7.5-3.^
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-7
-------
TABLE 7.5-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS3

Ecnl ss i on
Particle

Factor
Size
Sou rce
Unl ts
Emission Factor
Rating
Data
Sintering

W1 ndbox
kg/Mg (lb/Con) finished

sinter

Unconc rol1ed

Leaving grace

5.56 (11.1)
B
Yes
After coarse partic-

ulate removal

4.35 (8.7)
A

Controlled by dry ESP

0.8 (1.6)
B

Controlled by wet ESP

0.085 (0.17)
fi
Yes
Controlled by venturl

scrubber

0.235 (0.47)
B
Yes
Controlled by cyclone

0.5 (1.0)
B
Yes
Sinter discharge (breaker

and hot screens)
kg/Mg (lb/ton) finished

sinter

Uncontrolled

3.4 (6.8)
B

Controlled by baghouse

0.05 (0.1)
B
Yes
Controlled by venturi

scrubber

0.295 (0.59)
A

Wlndbox and discharge
kg/Mg (lb/ton) finished

si nter

Controlled by baghouse

0.15 (0.3)
A

Blast furnace

Slip
kg/Mg (lb/ton) slip
39.5 (87.0)
D

Uncontrolled casthouse
kg/Mg (lb/ton) hot metal

Roof Monitor^

0.3 (0.6)
B
Yes
Furnace with local

evacuat ionc

0.65 (1.3)
B
Yes
Taphole and trough only

(not runners)

0.15 (0.3)
B

Hot metal desulfurlzation

Uncontrolled*1
kg/Mg (lb/ton) hot metal
0.55 (1.09)
D
Yes
Controlled by baghouse

0.0045 (0.009)
D
Yes
Basic oxygen furnace (BOF)

Top blown furnace melting

and refining
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Uncontrolled

14.25 (28.5)
B

Controlled by open hood

vented to*

ESP

0.065 (0.13)
A

Scrubber

0.045 (0.09)
B

Controlled by closed hood

vented to.

Scrubber

0.0034 (0.0068)
A
Yes
7 .5-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 7.5-1 (cont.). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS

Emlss ion
Pa rtlcle

Factor
Size
Source
Unl ts
Emission Factor
Rati ng
Data
80F Chargl ng
kg/Mg (lb/ton) hot metal

Ac source

0.3 (0.6)
D
Yes
AC building monitor

0.071 (0.142)
B

Controlled by baghouse

0.0003 (0.0006)
B
Yes
BOF Tapping
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Ac source

0.46 (0.92)
D
Yes
AC building monitor

0.145 (0.29)
B

Controlled by baghouse

0.0013 (0.0026)
B
Yes
Hot metal cransfer
kg/Mg (lb/ton) hot metal

At source

0.095 (0.19)
A

At building monitor
'
0.028 (0.056)
B

BOF monitor (all sources)
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel
0.25 (0.5)
B

Q-BOP melting and refining
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Controlled by scrubber

0.02B (0.056)
B
Yes
Electric arc furnace

Melting and refining
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Uncontrolled carbon

steel

19.0 (38.0)
C
Yes
Charging, tapping and

slagging
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Uncontrolled emissions

escaping monitor

0.7 (1.4)
C

Melting, refining,

charging, tapping

and slagging
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Uncont rol1ed

Alloy steel

5.65 (11.3)
A

Carbon steel

25.0 (50.0)
C

Controlled by e

Buildlng evacuation

to baghouse for

0.15 (0.3)
A

alloy steel

Direct shell

evacuation (plus

charging hood)

vented to common

baghouse for

carbon steel

0.0215 (0.043)
E
Yes
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-
-------
TABLE 7.5-1 (Cont.)- PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS

Emission
Particle

Factor
Size
Source
Units
Emission Factor
Rating
Data
Open hearth furnace

Melting and refining
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Uncontrolled

10.55 (21.1)
D
Yes
Controlled by ESP

0.14 (0.28)
D
Yes
Roof monitor

0.084 (0.168)
C

Teeming

Leaded steel
kg/Mg (lb/ton) steel

Uncontrolled (measured

at source)

0.405 (0.81)
A

Controlled by side draft hood

vented to baghouse

0.0019 (0.0038)
A

Unleaded steel

Uncontrolled (measured

at source)

0.035 (0.07)
A

Controlled by side draft hood

vented to baghouse

0.0008 (0.0016)
A

Machine scarfing

Uncontrolled
kg/Mg (lb/ton) metal
0.05 (0.1)
B

through scarfer

Controlled by ESP

0.0115 (0.023)
A

Miscellaneous combustion sources^

f f

Boiler, soaking pit and slab

reheat
kg/109 J (lb/106 Btu)

Blast furnace gasS

0.015 (0.035)
D

?oke oven gas8

0.0052 (0.012)
D

aReference 3, except as noted.
''Typical of older furnaces with no controls, or for canopy hoods or total casthouse evacuation.
cTyplcal of large, new furnaces with local hoods and covered evaucated runners. Emissions are
higher than without capture systems because they are not diluted by outside environment.
Emission factor of 0.55 kg/Mg (1.09 lb/ton) represents one torpedo car; 1.26 kg/Kg (2.53 lb/ton) for
two torpedo cars, and 1.37 kg/Mg (2.74 lb/ton) for three torpedo cars.
eBulldlng evacuation collects all process emissions, and direct shell evacuation collects only
melting and refining emissions.
^For various fuels, use the emission factors in Chapter 1 of this document. The emission factor
rating, for these fuels in boilers is A, and in soaking pits and slab reheat furnaces Is D.
SBased on methane content and cleaned particulate loading.
7.5-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 7.5-2. SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS

Emission

Cumulative
Cumulative mass

Factor
Particle
Mass % <
emission factor
Source
Ra 11 ng
Size yma
Stated size
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
Sintering

Wi ndbox

Uncontrolled

Leaving grate
D
0.5
4b
0.22 (0.44)

1.0
4
0.22 (0.44)

2.5
5
0.28 (0.56)

5.0
9
0.50 (1.00)

10
15
0.83 (1.67)

15
20c
1.11 (2.22)

d
100
5.56 (11.1)
Controlled by wet

ESP
C
0.5
18b
0.015 (0.03)

1.0
25
0.021 (0.04)

2.5
33
0.028 (0.06)

5.0
48
0.041 (O.OB)

10
59b
0.050 (0.10)

15
69
0.059 (0.12)

d
100
0.085 (0.17)
Controlled by

venturi scrubber
C
0.5
55
0.129 (0.26)

1.0
75
0.176 (0.35)

2.5
89
0.209 (0.42)

5.0
93
0.219 (0.44)

10
96
0.226 (0.45)

15
98
0.230 (0.46)

d
100
0.235 (0.47)
Controlled by

cyclonee
C
0.5
25c
0.13 (0.25)

1.0
37b
0.19 (0.37)

2.5
52
0.26 (0.52)

5.0
64
0.32 (0.64)

10
74
0.37 (0.74)

15
80
0.40 (0.80)

d
100
0.5 (1.0)
Controlled by

baghouse
C
0.5
3.0
0.005 (0.009)

1.0
9.0
0.014 (0.027)

2.5
27.0
0.041 (0.081)

5.0
47.0
0.071 (0.141)

10.0
69.0
0.104 (0.207)

15.0
79.0
0.119 (0.237)

d
100.0
0.15 (0.3)
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-11
-------
TABLE 7.5.2 (cont.) SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS

Emission

Cumulative
Cumulative mass

Fact or
Parti cle
Mass % <
emission factor
Source
Rati ng
Size pma
Stated size
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
Sinter discharge

(breaker and hot

screens) controlled
C
0.5
2b
0.001 (0.002)
by baghouse

1.0
4
0.002 (0.004)

2.5
11
0.006 (0.011)

5.0
20
0.010 (0.020)

10
32b
0.016 (0.032)

15
42b
0.021 (0.042)

d
100
0.05 (0.1)
Blast furnace

Uncontrolled cast-

house emissions

Roof monitor^
C
0.5
4
0.01 (0.02)

1.0
15
0.05 (0.09)

2.5
23
0.07 (0.14)

5.0
35
0.11 (0.21)

10
51
0.15 (0.31)

15
61
0.18 (0.37)

d
100
0.3 (0.6)
Furnace with local

evacuations
C
0>5
7C
0.04 (0.09)

1.0
9
0.06 (0.12)

2.5
15
0.10 (0.20)

5.0
20
0.13 (0.26)

10
24
0.16 (0.31)

15
26
0.17 (0.34)

d
100
0.65 (1.3)
Hot metal

desulfurizationh
E
0.5
j

Uncontrolled

1.0
2C
0.01 (0.02)

2.5
11
0.06 (0.12)

5.0
19
0.10 (0.22)

10
19
0.10 (0.22)

15
21
0.12 (0.23)

d
100
0.55 (1.09)
Hot metal

desulfurizationh

Controlled baghouse
D
0.5
8
0.0004 (0.0007)

1.0
18
0.0009 (0.0016)

2.5
42
0.0019 (0.0038)

5.0
62
0.0028 (0.0056)

10
74
0.0033 (0.0067)

15
78
0.0035 (0.0070)

d
100
0.0045 (0.009)
7.5-12
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 7.5-2 (cont.) SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS

Emi ssi on

Cumulative
Cumulative mass

Factor
Particle
Mass % <
emission factor
Source
Rati ng
Size yma
Stated size
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
Basic oxygen furnace

Top blown furnace

melting and refining

controlled by closed

hood and vented to

scrubber
C
0.5
34
0.0012 (0.0023)

1.0
55
0.0019 (0.0037)

2.5
65
0.0022 (0.0044)

5.0
66
0.0022 (0.0045)

10
67
0.0023 (0.0046)

15
72c
0.0024 (0.0049)

d
100
0.0034 (0.0068)
BOF Charging

At source^
E
0.5
8C
0.02 (0.05)

1.0
12
0.04 (0.07)

2.5
22
0.07 (0.13)

5.0
35
0.10 (0.21)

10
46
0.14 (0.28)

15
56
0.17 (0.34)

d
100
0.3 (0.6)
Controlled by

baghouse
D
0.5
3
9.0xl0-6 1.8xl0-5

1.0
10
3.0x10-5 6.0xl0-5

2.5
22
6.6x10-5 (0.0001)

5.0
31
9.3x10-5 (0.0002)

10
45
0.0001 (0.0003)

15
60
0.0002 (0.0004)

d
100
0.0003 (0.0006)
BOF Tapping

At source^
E
0.5
j
J J

1.0
11
0.05 (0.10)

2.5
37
0.17 (0.34)

5.0
43
0.20 (0.40)

10
45
0.21 (0.41)

15
50
0.23 (0.46)

d
100
0.46 (0.92)
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-13
-------
TABLE 7.5-2 (cont.) SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS

Emission

Cumulatlve
Cumulative mass

Factor
Particle
Mass % <
emission factor
Source
Rat ing
Size ma
Stated size
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
BOF Tapping

Controlled by

baghouse
D
0.5
4
5.2xl0-5 (0.0001)

1.0
7
0.0001 (0.0002)

2.5
16
0.0002 (0.0004)

5.0
22
0.0003 (0.0006)

10
30
0.0004 (0.0008)

15
40
0.0005 (0.0010)

d
100
0.0013 (0.0026)
Q-BOP melting and

refining controlled

by scrubber
D
0.5
45
0.013 (0.025)

1.0
52
0.015 (0.029)

2.5
56
0.016 (0.031)

5.0
58
0.016 (0.032)

10
68
0.019 (0.038)

15
85c
0.024 (0.048)

d
100
0.028 (0.056)
Electric arc furnace

melting and refin-

ing carbon steel

uncontrol1edm
0
0.5
8
1.52 (3.04)

1.0
23
4.37 (8.74)

2.5
43
8.17 (16.34)

5.0
53
10.07 (20.14)

10
58
11.02 (22.04)

15
61
11.59 (23.18)

d
100
19.0 (38.0)
Electric arc furnace

Melting, refining,

charging, tapping,

siagging

Control 1-ed by

direct shell

evacuation (plus

charging hood)

vented to common

baghouse for
E
0.5
74b
0.0159 (0.0318)
carbon steeln

1.0
74
0.0159 (0.0318)

2.5
74
0.0159 (0.0318)

5.0
74
0.0159 (0.0318)

10
76
0.0163 (0.0327)

15
80
0.0172 (0.0344)

d
100
0.0215 (0.043)
7.5-14
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 7.5-2 (cont.) SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS

Emission

Cumulative
Cumulative mass

Factor
Particle
Mass, % <
emission factor
Source
Rating
Size yma
Stated size
kg/Mg (lb/ton)
Open hearth furnace

Melting and refining

Uncontrolled
E
0.5
lb
0.11 (0.21)

1.0
21
2.22 (4.43)

2.5
60
6.33 (12.66)

5.0
79
8.33 (16.67)

10
83
8.76 (17.51)

15
85c
8.97 (17.94)

d
100
10.55 (21.1)
Open Hearth Furnaces

10b

Controlled by
E
0.5
0.01 (0.02)
ESPP

1.0
21
0.03 (0.06)

2.5
39
0.05 (0.10)

5.0
47
0.07 (0.13)

10 '
53b
0.07 (0.15)

15
56b
0.08 (0.16)

d
100
0.14 (0.28)
aParticle aerodynamic diameter micrometers (urn) as defined by Task Group on Lung
Dynamics. (Particle density = 1 gr/cm^).
^Interpolated data used to develop size distribution.
cExtrapolated, using engineering estimates.
^Total particulate based on Method 5 total catch. See Table 7.5-1.
eAverage of various cyclone efficiencies.
^Total casthouse evacuation control system.
SEvacuation runner covers and local hood over taphole, typical of new state of
the art blast furnace technology.
^Torpedo ladle desulfurization with CaC2 and CaCO^.
JUnable to extrapolate because of insufficient data and/or curve exceeding limits.
^Doghouse type furnace enclosure using front and back sliding doors, totally
enclosing the furnace, with emissions vented to hoods.
mFull cycle emissions captured by canopy and side draft hoods.
"Information on control system not available.
PMay not be representative. Test outlet size distribution was larger than inlet
and may indicate reentrainment problem.
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-15
-------
SOURCE CATEGORY/CONTROLS
Ui
I
CT5
•X
*—t
cn
CO
t—t
o
2
>
o
H
O
CO
Sinter plant winobox/uncontrolled
sinter plant windgox/cyclones — —
Sintcr plant winobox/scrubber — ¦ —
Sinter plant winobox/esp
SINTER Plant winDBOx/BAGHOuSE •<
Sinter BREakER/BAGhOuSE "
EXTRAPOLATED BY EXTENDING
THE CURVES ON THE GRAPH
PARTICLE AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER
(micrometers )
(Colculoted According to the TosK Group Lung
Oynomics definition of Aerodynomic Diometer)
Figure 7.5-2. Particle size distribution of sinter plant emissions.
-------
SOURCE CATEGORY/CONTROLS
Z
c
i-i
OP
o
BJ
3
Q.
C
cn
1
'<
80F - CHARGE /UNCONTROLLED
BOF-CHARGE/BAGMOUSE
BOF-TAP/UNCONTROLLED
BOF- TAP/BAGHOUSE
BOF- REFINING /SCRUBBER
QBOP- REFINING / SCRUBBER
^EXTRAPOLATED BY EXTENDING
'THE CURVES ON THE GRAPH
0.5
PARTICLE AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER
(micrometers )
(Colculoted according to the Task Group Lung
Dynomics definition of Aerodynomic Diameter)
in Figure 7.5-3. Particle size discribud on of basic oxygen furnace emissions.
-------
I
SOURCE CATEGORY/CONTROLS
BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE/UNCONTROLLEO .
total building evacuation
blast FURNACE CASTMOUSE/UNCONTROLLED.
LOCAL HOOD B RUNNER EVACUATION SYSTEM
OPEN HEARTH/UNCONTROLLED
OPEN HEARTH/ESP
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE / UNCONTROLLED
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE / BAOHOUSE
HOT METAL DESULFuRlZ ATlON /UNCONTROLLED
hot uetal oesulfurization/sachouse
m
1-1
c/i
cn
h-t
o
z
Tl
>
o
H
O
70
t/1
EXTRAPOLATED BY EXTENDING
THE CURVES ON THE GRAPH
0 S
PARTICLE aerodynamic diameter
(micrometers )
(Colcutoled occording lo the Tosk Group Lung
Dynomics definition of Aerodynamic DiomeMr )
Figure 7.5-4. Particle size distribution of blast furnace, open hearth,
electric arc furnace and hot metal desulfurizat1 on emissions.
-------
TABLE 7.5-3. UNCONTROLLED CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Source
kg/Mg
lb/ton
Sintering windbox*3
22
44
Basic oxygen furnace0
69
138
Electric arc furnacec
9
18
aReference 6.
bkg/Mg (lb/ ton) of finished sinter.
Ckg/Mg (lb/ton) of finished steel.
7.5.2.9 Open Dust Sources - Like process emissloa sourcfes. ; open dust sources
contribute to the atmospheric particulate burden. Open dust sources include
vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads, raw material handling outside of
buildings and wind erosion from storage piles and exposed terrain. Vehicle
traffic consists of plant personnel and visitor vehicles, plant service
vehicles, and trucks handling raw materials, plant deliverables, steel pro-
ducts and waste materials. Raw materials are handled by clamshell buckets,
bucket/ladder conveyors, rotary railroad dumps, bottom railroad dumps, front
end loaders, truck dumps, and conveyor transfer stations, all of which disturb
the raw material and expose fines to the wind. Even fine materials resting on
flat areas or in storage piles are exposed and are subject to wind erosion. It
is not unusual to have several million tons of raw materials stored at a plant
and to have in the range of 10 to 100 acres of exposed area there.
Open dust source emission factors for iron and steel production are
presented in Table 7.5-4. These factors were determined through source testing
at various integrated iron and steel plants.
As an alternative to the single valued open dust emission factors
given in Table 7.5-4, empirically derived emission factor equations are pre-
sented in Section 11.2 of this document. Each equation was developed for a
source operation defined on the basis of a single dust-generating mechanism
which crosses industry lines, such as vehicle traffic on unpaved roads. The
predictive equation explains much of the observed variance in measured emission
factors by relating emissions to parameters which characterize source conditions.
These parameters may be grouped into three categories: (1) measures of source
activity or energy expended (e. g., the speed and weight of a vehicle traveling
on an unpaved road), (2) properties of the material being disturbed (e.g., the
content of suspendible fines in the surface material on an unpaved road) and
(3) climatic parameters (e.g.. number of precipitation-free days per year, when
emissions tend to a maximum).^
7.5-19
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 7.5-4. UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
OPEN DUST SOURCES AT IRON AND STEEL MILLS3

Emissions by particle size range
(aerodynamic diameter)

Emission
Operation
£ 30 urn
< 15 um
< 10 um
£ 5 um
< 2 5 a«
Units"
Factor
Rating
Continuous drop
Conveyor transfer station
ainterc
13
0.026
9.0
0.018
6.5
0.013
4.2
0.0084
2.3
0.0046
g/Mg
lb/ton
D
D
Pile formation stacker pellet orec
1.2
0.0024
0.75
0.0015
0.55
0.0011
0.32
0.00064
0.17
0.00034
g/Mg
lb/ton
B
B
Lump orec
0.15
0.00030
0.095
0.00019
0.075
0.00015
0.040
0.000081
0.022
0.000043
g/M«
lb/ton
C
C
Coald
0.055
0.00011
0.034
0.000068
0.026
0.000052
0.014
0.000028
0.0075
0.000015
g/Mg
lb/ton
E
E
Batch drop
Front end loader/truck0
High silt slag
13
0 026
8.5
0.017
6.5
0.013
4.0
0.0080
2 3
0.0046
g/^g
Lb/ton
C
c
Low silt slag
4.4
0.0088
2.9
0.0058
2.2
0 0043
1.4
0.0028
0.80
0 0016
g/Mg
lb/ton
c
c
Vehicle travel on unpaved roads
Light duty vehicle"
0.51
1.8
0.37
1.3
0.28
1.0
0.18
0.64
0.10
0.36
Kg/VKT
lb/VMT
c
c
Medium duty vehicle^
2.1
7.3
1.5
5.2
1.2
4.1
0.70
2.5
0.42
1.5
Kg/VKT
lb/VMT
c
c
Heavy duty vehicle**
3.9
14
2.7
9.7
2.1
7.6
1 4
4.8
0 76
2.7
Kg/VKT
lb/VMT
B
B
Vehicle travel on paved roads
Light/heavy vehicle mlxc
0.22
0.78
0.16
0.58
0.12
0.44
0.079
0 28
0 042
0.15
Kg/VKT
Lb/VMT
C
C
aPredictlve emission factor equations are generally ;
Predictive emission factors estimates are presented
traveled. VMT - Vehicle mile traveled.
^Units/unit of material transferred or units/unit of
cReference 4. Interpolation to other particle sizes
dRef erence 5. Interpolation to other particle sizes
^referred over these single values emission factors
in Chapter 11, Section 11 2. VXT • Vehicle kilometer
distance traveled,
will be approximate,
will be approximate.
7.5-20
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
Because the predictive equations allow for emission factor adjustment to
specific source conditions, the equations should be used in place of the fac-
tors in Table 7.5-4, if emission estimates for sources in a specific iron and
steel facility are needed. However, the generally higher quality ratings
assigned to the equations are applicable only if (1) reliable values of correc-
tion parameters have been determined for the specific sources of interest and
(2) the correction parameter values lie within the ranges tested in developing
the equations. Section 11.2 lists measured properties of aggregate process
materials and road surface materials in the iron and steel industry, which can
be used to estimate correction parameter values for the predictive emission
factor equations, in the event that site specific values are not available.
Use of mean correction parameter values from Section 11.2 reduces the
quality ratings of the emission factor equation by one level.
References for Section 7.5
1. J. Jeffery and J. Vay, Source Category Report for the Iron and Steel
Industry, GCA/Technology Division, December 1982.
2. H. E. McGannon, ed., The Making, and Shaping and Treating of Steel, U. S.
Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, 1971.
3. T. A. Cuscino, Jr., Particulate Emission Factors Applicable to the Iron and
Steel Industry, EPA-450/4-79-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.
4. R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel Plants,
EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, March 1978.
5. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emis-
sion Evaluation, EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.
6. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,
AP-65, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC,
March 1970.
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-21
-------
8.1 ASPHAITIC CONCRETE PLANTS
8.1.1 General1 2
Asphaltic concrete paving is a mixture of well graded, high quality ag-
gregate and liquid asphaltic cement which is heated and mixed in measured quan-
tities to produce bituminous pavement material. Aggregate constitutes over
92 percent by weight of the total mixture. Aside from the amount and grade
of asphalt used, mix characteristics are determined by the relative amounts
and types of aggregate used. A certain percentage of fine aggregate (% < 74 |jm
in physical diameter) is required for the production of good quality asphaltic
concrete.
Hot mix asphalt paving can be manufactured by batch mix, continuous mix
or drum mix process. Of these various processes, batch mix plants are cur-
rently predominant. However, most new installations or replacements to ex-
isting equipment are of the drum mix type. In 1980, 78 percent of the total
plants were of the conventional batch type, with 7 percent being continuous
mix facilities and 15 percent drum mix plants. Any of these plants can be
either permanent installations or portable.
Conventional Plants - Conventional plants produce finished asphaltic
concrete through either batch (Figure 8.1-1) or continuous (Figure 8.1-2)
mixing operations. Raw aggregate is normally stockpiled near the plant at a
location where the bulk moisture content will stabilize to between 3 and
5 weight percent.
As processing for either type of operation begins, the aggregate is
hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the appropriate hoppers of the
cold feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor belt
and is transported into a gas or oil fired rotary dryer. Because a substan-
tial portion of the heat is transferred by radiation, dryers are equipped with
flights designed to tumble the aggregate to promote drying.
As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator
and is transferred to a set of vibrating screens and classified into as many
as four different grades (sizes). The classified material then enters the
mixing operation.
In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into four large bins
according to size. The operator controls the aggregate size distribution by
opening various bins over a weigh hopper until the desired mix and weight are
obtained. This material is dropped into a pug mill (mixer) and is mixed dry
for about 15 seconds. The asphalt, a solid at ambient temperature, is pumped
from a heated storage tank, weighed and injected into the mixer. Then the
hot mix is dropped into a truck and is hauled to the job site.
In a continuous plant, the dried and classified aggregate drops into a
set of small bins which collect the aggregate and meter it through a set of
feeder conveyors to another bucket elevator and into the mixer. Asphalt
is metered through the inlet end of the mixer, and retention time is
Mineral Products Industry
8 1-1
-------
(JiMlad (nJlllww
Draft Fai
..Primary Dust
Collecloi
.•»» fuglll«i (¦Jiiloi*
Ojxii Out! LnJitloia
I lot Screens
Fines -
Return
Line
Fine Aggregate
Storage Pile
tlol Bins
I lot Mix
Storage
(OptlonulJ
Cold Aggregate Dins
Weigh
I topper
V 7 I loader
iixerl
Rotary Drye
(on]
Coarse Aggregate
Storage Pile
M
Feeders
Heater
Conveyor
Figure 8.1-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix
asphalt paving plants.
-------
D
(D
n
TJ
o
O-
£
r>
CL
c
01
r*
^—4 fntlitlon fuliili
® Uuit*d Emlttlorv
© f.oc. 11 fuglllvi fnJuloia
(Oil Ojurt Ovlll (nJitlotit
Fine Aggregate
Stoioge Pile
Loader
Cold Aggiegote Dins
Secondary
Collector
([Exltuust to
JI Atmosphere
Draft Fan ( Location
Dependent Upon
Type of Secondary)
IPrimary Dust
Collecloi
Feeders
Couisc Aggregate
Storage Pile
Storage
Silo
(Optional)
Miner
Ho I Dins

Conveyor
* C levators
I lealer Asp I ui 11
Storage
Tiuck
Figure 8.1-2. General process flow diagram for cont Lnuous mix
asphalt paving plants.
00
i—1
i
u>
-------
controlled by an adjustable dam at the opposite end. The hot mix flows oat
of the mixer into a surge hopper, from which trucks are loaded.
Drum Mix Plants - The drum mix process simplifies the conventional pro-
cess by using proportioning feed controls in place of hot aggregate storage
bins, vibrating screens and the mixer. Aggregate is introduced near the
burner end of the revolving drum mixer, and the asphalt ls injected midway
along the drum. A variable flow asphalt pump is linked electronically to the
aggregate belt scales to control mix specifications. The hot mix is dis-
charged from the revolving drum mixer into surge bins or storage silos. Fig-
ure 8.1-3 is a diagram of the drum mix process.
Drum mix plants generally use parallel flow design for hot burner gases
and aggregate flow. Parallel flow has the advantage of giving the mixture a
longer time to coat and to collect dust in the mix. thereby reducing partic-
ulate emissions. The amount of particulate generated within the dryer in
this process is usually lower than that generated within conventional dryers,
but because asphalt is heated to high temperatures for a long period of time,
organic emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol) are greater than in conven-
tional plants.
Recycle Processes - In recent years, recycling of old asphalt paving has
been initiated in the asphaltic concrete industry. Recycling significantly
reduces the amount of new (virgin) rock and asphaltic cement needed to repave
an existing road. The various recycling techniques include both cold and hot
methods, with the hot processing conducted at a central plant.
In recycling, old asphalt pavement is broken up at a job site^ and is re-
moved from the road base. This material is then transported to the plant,
crushed and screened to the appropriate size for further processing. The
paving material is then heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable),
to which the proper amount of new asphaltic cement is added to produce a
grade of hot asphalt paving suitable for laying.
There are three methods which can be used to heat recycled asphalt pav-
ing before the addition of the asphaltic cement: direct flame heating, in-
direct flame heating, and superheated aggregate.
Direct flame heating is typically performed with a drum mixer, wherein
all materials are simultaneously mixed in the revolving drum. The first ex-
perimental attempts at recycling used a standard drum mix plant and introduced
the recycled paving and virgin aggregate concurrently at the burner end of
the drum. Continuing problems with excessive blue smoke emissions led to
several process modifications, such as the addition of heat shields and the
use of split feeds.
One method of recycling involves a drum mixer with a heat dispersion
shield. The heat shield is installed around the burner, and additional cool-
ing air is provided to reduce the hot gases to a temperature below 430 to
650°C (800 to 1200°F), thus decreasing the amount of blue smoke. Although
now considered obsolete, a drum within a drum design has also been successfully
8.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
Fine Aggregate
Storage Pile
Loader
Coarse Aggregate
Storage Pile
Aggregate Feed Bins
w v
YYYY
a_
Conveyor
/> 4 Eamiion Foitrfi
© OuClad Efnltilofa
© p'« • 11 fuylllvi ttiJtiliWi
(oa Open Pull CmlulMM
Exhaust
Stack
Dusl Collector
) Draft Fan
Drum
Exhaust
Burner
heated
Storage
Silo
ML
Heated Asphalt Storage Tank
Truck Load-out
Figure 8.1-3.
General process flow diagram for drum mix asphalt
paving plants.
-------
used for recycling Reclaimed material is introduced into the outer drum
through a separate charging chute while virgin material is introduced into
the inner drum.
Split feed drum mixers were first used for recycling in 1976 and are now
the most popular design. At about the midpoint of the drum, the recycled
bituminous material is introduced by a split feed arrangement and is heated
by both the hot gases and heat transfer from the superheated virgin aggregate.
Another type of direct flame method involves the use of a slinger conveyor to
throw recycled material into the center of the drum mixer from the discharge
end. In this process, the recycled material enters the drum along an arc,
landing approximately at the asphalt injection point.
Indirect flame heating has been performed with special drum mixers
equipped with heat exchanger tubes. These tubes prevent the mixture of
virgin aggregate and recycled paving from coming into direct contact with the
flame and the associated high temperatures. Superheated aggregate can also
be used to heat recycled bituminous material.
In conventional plants, recycled paving can be introduced either into
the pug mill or at the discharge end of the dryer, after which the tempera-
ture of the material is raised by heat from the virgin aggregate. The proper
amount of new asphaltic cement is then added to the virgin aggregate/recycle
paving mixture to produce high grade asphaltic concrete.
Tandem drum mixers can also be used to heat the recycle material. The
first drum or aggregate dryer is used to superheat the virgin aggregate, and
a second drum or dryer either heats recycled paving only or mixes and heats a
combination of virgin and recycled material. Sufficient heat remains in the
exhaust gas from the first dryer to heat the second unit also.
8.1.2 Emissions and Controls
Emission points at batch, continuous and drum mix asphalt plants dis-
cussed below refer to Figures 8.1-1, 8.1-2 and 8.1-3, respectively.
Conventional Plants - As with most facilities in the mineral products
industry, conventional asphaltic concrete plants have two major categories of
emissions, those which are vented to the atmosphere through some type of
stack, vent or pipe (ducted sources), and those which are not confined to
ducts and vents but are emitted directly from the source to the ambient air
(fugitive sources). Ducted emissions are usually collected and transported
by an industrial ventilation system with one or more fans or air movers,
eventually to be emitted to the atmosphere through some type of stack.
Fugitive emissions result from process sources, which consist of a combina-
tion of gaseous pollutants and particulate matter, or open dust sources.
The most significant source of ducted emissions from conventional as-
phaltic concrete plants is the rotary dryer The amount of aggregate dust
carried out of the dryer by the moving gas stream depends upon a number of
factors, including the gas velocity in the drum, the particle size distribution
8.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
of the aggregate, and the specific gravity and aerodynamic characteristics of
the particles. Dryer emissions also contain the fuel combustion products of
the burner.
There may also be some ducted emissions from the heated asphalt storage
tanks. These may consist of combustion products from the tank heater.
The major source of process fugitives in asphalt plants is enclosures
over the hot side conveying, classifying and mixing equipment which are
vented into the primary dust collector along with the dryer gas. These vents
and enclosures are commonly called a "fugitive air" or "scavenger" system.
The scavenger system may or may not have its own separate air mover device,
depending on the particular facility. The emissions captured and transported
by the scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain
gaseous volatile organic compounds (VOC) and a fine aerosol of condensed
liquid particles. This liquid aerosol is created by the condensation of gas
into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphal-
tic cement in the pug mill. The amount of liquid aerosol produced depends to
a large extent on the temperature of the asphaltic cement and aggregate
entering the pug mill. Organic vapor and its associated aerosol are also
emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck loadout,
from the bed of the truck itself during transport to the job site, and from
the asphalt storage tank, which also may contain small amounts of polycyclic
compounds.
The choice of applicable control equipment for the drier exhaust and
vent line ranges from dry mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric col-
lectors. Attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have met with little
success. Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment like
large diameter cyclones, skimmers or settling chambers. These chambers are
often used as classifiers to return collected material to the hot elevator
and to combine it with the drier aggregate. Because of high pollutant levels,
the primary collector effluent is ducted to a secondary collection device.
Table 8.1-1 presents total particulate emission factors for conventional
asphaltic concrete plants, with the factors based on the type of control
technology employed. Size specific emission factors for conventional asphalt
plants, also based on the control of technology used, are shown in Table 8.1-2
and Figure 3.1-4. Interpolations of size data other than those shown in Fig-
ure 8.1-4 can be made from the curves provided.
There are also a number of open dust sources associated with conven-
tional asphalt plants. These include vehicle traffic generating fugitive
dust on paved and unpaved roads, handling aggregate material, and similar
operations. The number and type of fugitive emission sources associated with
a particular plant depend on whether the equipment is portable or stationary
and whether it is located adjacent to a gravel pit or quarry. Fugitive dust
may range from 0.1 micrometers to more than 300 micrometers in diameter. On
the average, 5 percent of cold aggregate feed is less than 74 micrometers
(minus 200 mesh). Dust that may escape collection before primary control
generally consists of particulate having 50 to 70 percent of the total mass
being less than 74 micrometers. Uncontrolled particulate emission factors
for various types of fugitive sources in conventional asphaltic concrete
plants can be found in Section 11.2.3 of this document.
Mineral Products Industry
3.1-7
-------
TABLE 8.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL PARTICULATE
FROM CONVENTIONAL ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3

Type of control
Emission
factor

kg/Mg
lb/ton
Uncontrolled*5'C
22.5
45.0
PrecleanerC
7.5
15.0
High efficiency cyclone
0.85
1.7
Spray tower
0.20
0.4
Baffle spray tower
0.15
0.3
Multiple centrifugal scrubber^
0.035
0.07
Orifice scrubber
0.02
0.04
£
Venturi scrubber
0.02
0.04
Baghouse^
0.01
0.02
2
References 1-2, 5-10, 14-16. Expressed in terms of
emissions per unit weight of asphaltic concrete pro-
duced. Includes both batch mix and continuous mix
^processes.
Almost all plants have at least a precleaner follow-
ing the rotary drier.
Reference 16. These factors differ from those given
in Table 8.1-6 because they are for uncontrolled
^emissions and are from an earlier survey.
Reference 15. Range of values = 0.004 - 0.0690 kg/Mg.
Average from a properly designed, installed, operated
and maintained scrubber, based on a study to develop
New Source Performance Standards.
References 14-15. Range of values = 0.013 - 0.0690
fkg/Mg.
References 14-15. Emissions from a properly de-
signed, installed, operated and maintained bag-
house, based on a study to develop New Source Per-
formance Standards. Range of values = 0.008 - 0.018
kg/Mg.
8.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 8.1-2.
SUMMARY OF SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONVENTIONAL ASPHALT PLANTSa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle
s i ze.
(pmA)
UncontrolIed
Cumulative mass $ stated size (X)
Multiple Gravity
Cyclone centrifugal spruy Baghousc
collectors scrubbers towers collectoi
Cumulative particiilaLe emission factor $ stated sizec
Mnltiple
Cyclone centrifugal Gravity D
-------
10.0
10.0
0.01
0.001
I . Sag houses
2. Cenrrifugal Scrubbers
3. Spray Towers
4. Cyclones
5. Uriconfrol led
0.01
1.0 10.a
Aerodynamic Porticle Diameter (/imA)
0.001
100.0
Figure 8.1-4. Size specific emission factors for conventional
asphalt plants.
8.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
Drum Mix Plants - As with the other two asphaltic concrete production
processes, the most significant ducted source of particulate emissions is the
drum mixer itself. Emissions from the drum mixer consist of a gas stream with
a substantial amount of particulate matter and lesser amounts of gaseous VOC
of various species. The solid particulate generally consists of fine aggre-
gate particles entrained in the flowing gas stream during the drying process.
The organic compounds, on the other hand, result from heating and mixing of
asphalt cement inside the drum, which volatilizes certain components of the
asphalt. Once the VOC have sufficiently cooled, some condense to form the
fine liquid aerosol (particulate) or "blue smoke" plume typical of drum mix
asphalt plants.
A number of process modifications have been introduced in the newer plants
to reduce or eliminate the blue smoke problem, including installation of flame
shields, rearrangement of the flights inside the drum, adjustments in the
asphalt injection point, and other design changes. Such modifications result
in significant improvements in the elimination of blue smoke.
Emissions from the drum mix recycle process are similar to emissions from
regular drum mix plants, except that there are more volatile crganics because
of the direct flame volatilization of petroleum derivatives contained in the
old asphalt paving. Control of liquid organic emissions in the drum mix re-
cycle process is through some type of process modification, as described above.
Table 8.1-3 provides total particulate emission factors for ducted emis-
sions in drum mix asphaltic concrete plants, with available size specific emis-
sion factors shown in Table 8.1-4 and Figure 8.1-5.
TABLE 8.1-3. TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DRUM MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING. B
Type of control
Emission
factor

kg/Mg
lb/ton
Uncontrolled
2.45
4.9
Cyclone or multiclone ^
0.34
0.67
Low energy wet scrubber
0.04
0.07
Venturi scrubber
0.02
0.04
£
Reference 11. Expressed in terms of emissions per
unit weight of asphaltic concrete produced. These
factors differ from those for conventional asphaltic
concrete plants because the aggregate contacts and
is coated with asphalt early in the drum mix pro-
cess .
Either stack sprays, with water droplets injected
into the exit stack, or a dynamic scrubber with a
wet fan.
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-11
-------
TABLE 8.1-4. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DRUM MIX ASPHALT PLANTS CONTROLLED BY A BAGKOUSE COLLECTOR3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle size
Cumulative mass ^ stated
size (%)
Cumulative particulate emission factors
£ stated size
Uncontrolled
Controlled
(pmA)b
Uncontrolled
Controlled^
kg/Mg
lb/ton
10"3 kg/Mg
10 3 lb/ton
2.5
5.5
11
0.14
0.27
0.53
1.1
10.0
23
32
0.57
1.1
1.6
3.2
15.0
27
35
0.65
1.3
1.7
3 5
Total mass
emission
factor

2.5
4.9
4.9
9.8
Condensable
O
orgamcs0

3.9
7.7
^Reference 23, Table 3-35- Rounded to two significant figures.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Expressed in terms of emissions per unit weight of asphaltic concrete produced. Not
^generally applicable to recycle processes.
Based on an uncontrolled emission factor of 2.45 kg/Mg (see Table 8.1-3).
Reference 23. Calculated using an overall collection efficiency of 99 8% for a
^baghouse applied to an uncontrolled emission factor of 2.45 kg/Mg.
Includes data from two out of eight tests where ~ 30% recycled asphalt paving was
processed using a split feed process.
^Determined at outlet of a baghouse collector while plant was operating with ~ 30%
recycled asphalt paving. Factors are applicable only to a direct flame heating
process with a split feed.
8.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
¦f 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 i L
:

-
/
-
-
/
-

/
_

-
/A
-

-
C
'

j / /

/ /

«— u /
-
_
/
—
-
/
-
-
/c
E

—
_ U = Uncontrolled
/ *
-
C = Saghouse

—
, i i i i i i i
1 \ I I 1 1 1 1 1
i i » tiiii
1.0 10 0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (/imA)
100 0
Figure 8.1-5. Particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for drum mix
asphaltic concrete plants.
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-13
-------
Interpolations of the data shown in Figure 8.1-5 to particle sizes other than
those indicated can be made from the curves provided.
Process fugitive emissions normally associated with batch and continuous
plants from the hot side screens, bins, elevators and pug mill have been
eliminated in the drum mix process. There may be, however, a certain amount
of fugitive VOC and liquid aerosol produced from transport and handling of
hot mix from the drum mixer to the storage silo, if an open conveyor is used,
and also from the beds of trucks. The open dust sources associated with drum
mix plants are similar to those of batch or continuous plants, with regard to
truck traffic and aggregate handling operations.
8.1.3 Representative Facility
Factors for various materials emitted from the stack of a typical
asphaltic concrete plant are given in Table 8.1-5, and the characteristics of
such a plant are shown in Table 8.1-6. With the exception of aldehydes, the
materials listed in Table 8.1-6 are also emitted from the mixer, but in con-
centrations 5 to 100 fold smaller than stack gas concentrations, and they
last only during the discharge of the mixer.
Reference 16 reports mixer emissions of SO , NO , and VOC as "less than"
values, so it is possible they may not be present at all Particulates,
carbon monoxide, polycyclics, trace metals and hydrogen sulfide were observed
at concentrations that were small relative to stack amounts. Emissions from
the mixer are thus best treated as fugitive.
All emission factors for the typical facility are for controlled opera-
tion and are based either on average industry practice shown by survey or on
results of actual testing in a selected typical plant.
An industrial survey16 showed that over 66 percent of operating hot mix
asphalt plants use fuel oil for combustion. Possible sulfur oxide emissions
from the stack were calculated, assuming that all sulfur in the fuel oil is
oxidized to SO . The amount of sulfur oxides actually released through the
stack may be attenuated by water scrubbers, or even by the aggregate itself,
if limestone is being dried. Number 2 fuel oil has an average sulfur content
of 0.22 weight percent.
Emission factors for nitrogen oxides, nonmethane volatile organics, car-
bon monoxide, polycyclic organic material, and aldehydes were determined by
sampling stack gas at the representative asphalt hot mix plant.
8.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 8.1-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED GASEOUS POLLUTANTS
FROM A CONVENTIONAL ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANT STACK3

Emission

Material emitted
Factor
Emission
factor0

Rating
g/Mg
lb/ton
Sulfur oxides (as S02)^'e
C
146S
0.292S
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)^
D
18
0.036
Volatile organic compounds^
D
14
0.028
Carbon monoxide^
D
19
0.038
Polycyclic organic material^
D
0.013
0.000026
f
Aldehydes
D
10
0.02
Formaldehyde
D
0.075
0.00015
2-Methylpropanal

(isobutyraldehyde)
D
0.65
0.0013
1-Butanal

(a-butyraldehyde)
D
1.2
0.0024
3-Methylbutanal

(isovaleraldehyde)
D
8.0
0 016
£
^Reference 16.
Particulates, carbon monoxide, polycyclics, trace metals and
hydrogen sulfide were observed in the mixer emissions at con-
centrations that were small relative to stack concentrations.
Q
^Expressed as g/Mg and lb/ton of asphaltic concrete produced.
Mean source test results of a 400 plant survey.
Reference 21. S = % sulfur in fuel. S02 may be attenuated
^50% by adsorption on alkaline aggregate.
Based on limited test data from the single asphaltic concrete
plant described in Table 8.1-6.
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-15
-------
TABLE 8.1-6. CHARACTERISTICS OF A REPRESENTATIVE
ASPHAITIC CONCRETE PLANT SELECTED FOR SAMPLING3
Parameter Plant sampled
Plant type
Production rate,
Mg/hr (tons/hr)
Mixer capacity,
Mg (tons)
Primary collector
Secondary collector
Fuel
Release agent
Stack height, m (ft)
Conventional, permanent,
batch plant
160.3 ± 16% (177 + 16%)
3.6 (4.0)
Cyclone
Wet scrubber (venturi)
Oil
Fuel oil
15.85 (52)
aReference 16, Table 16.
References for Section 8.1
1. Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study, EPA Contract No.
68-02-0076, Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Seattle, WA, November 1971.
2. Guide for Air Pollution Control of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Information
Series 17, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.
3 R. M. Ingels, et al. , "Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in
Los Angeles County", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
10(l):29-33, January 1960.
4. H. E. Friedrich, "Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot
Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants", Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 19_( 12) :924-928, December 1969.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973. Out of Print.
6. G. L. Allen, et al., "Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes
in Los Angeles County, California", Information Circular 7627, U. S De-
partment of Interior, Washington, DC, April 1952.
8.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16,
17.
18.
19.
P. A. Kenline, Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chem-
ical process industries, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH, May 1959.
Private communication on particulate pollutant study between G. Sallee,
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, and U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1970.
J. A. Danielson, Unpublished test data from asphalt batching plants, Los
Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, Presented at Air Pollution
Control Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA,
November 1966.
M. E. Fogel, et al , Comprehensive Economic Study of Air Pollution Con-
trol Costs for Selected Industries and Selected Regions, R-OU-455, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February
1970.
Preliminary Evaluation of Air Pollution Aspects of the Drum Mix Process,
EPA-340/1-77-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, March 1976.
R. W. Beaty and B. M. Bunnell, "The Manufacture of Asphalt Concrete Mix-
tures in the Dryer Drum", Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Technical Asphalt Association, Quebec City, Quebec, November 19-21, 1973.
J. S. Kinsey, "An Evaluation of Control Systems and Mass Emission Rates
from Dryer Drum Hot Asphalt Plants", Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 2(5(12) : 1163-1165 , December 1976.
Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards,
APTD-1352A and B, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, June 1973.
Background Information for New Source Performance Standards, EPA 450/2-74-
003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 1974.
Z. S. Kahn and T W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Asphalt Paving Hot Mix,
EPA-600/2-77-107n, U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
December 1977.
V. P. Puzinauskas and L. W. Corbett, Report on Emissions from Asphalt Hot
Mixes, RR-75-1A, The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD, May 1975.
Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321,
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1976.
J. A. Peters and P K. Chalekode, "Assessment of Open Sources", Presented
at the Third National Conference on Energy and the Environment, College
Corner, OH, October 1, 1975.
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-17
-------
20. Illustration of Dryer Drum Hot Mix Asphalt Plant, Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, 1978.
21. Herman H. Forsten, "Applications of Fabric Filters to Asphalt Plants",
Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Asso-
ciation, Houston, TX, June 1978.
22. Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds from Drum Mix Asphalt Plants, EPA-
600/2-81-026, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
February 1981.
23. J. S. Kinsey, Asphaltic Concrete Industry - Source Category Report, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3999, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
September 1985.
8.1-18
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.3 BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS
8.3.1 Process Description
The manufacture of brick and related products such as clay pipe, pottery
and some types of refractory brick involves the mining, grinding, screening and
blending of the raw materials, and the forming, cutting or shaping, drying or
curing, and firing of the final product.
Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits. Most fine clays are
found underground. After mining, the material is crushed to remove stones and
is stirred before it passes onto screens for segregation by particle size.
To start the forming process, clay is mixed with water, usually in a pug
mill. The three principal processes for forming brick are stiff mud, soft mud
and dry press. In the stiff mud process, sufficient water is added to give the
clay plasticity, and bricks are formed by forcing the clay through a die. Wire
is used in separating bricks. All structural tile and most brick are formed by
this process. The soft mud process is usually used with clay too wet for the
stiff mud process. The clay is mixed with water to a moisture content of 20 to
30 percent, and the bricks are formed m molds. In the dry press process, clay
is mixed with a small amount of water and formed in steel molds by applymg
pressure of 3.43 to 10.28 megapascals (500 to 1500 pounds per square inch). A
typical brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 8.3-1.
Wet clay units that have been formed are almost completely dried before
firing, usually with waste heat from kilns. Many types of kilns are used for
firing brick, but the most common are the downdraft periodic kiln and the
tunnel kiln. The periodic kiln is a permanent brick structure with a number
of fireholes where fuel enters the furnace. Hot gases from the fuel are drawn
up over the bricks, down through them by underground flues, and out of the oven
to the chimney. Although lower heat recovery makes this type less efficient
than the tunnel kiln, the uniform temperature distribution leads to a good
quality product. In most tunnel kilns, cars carrying about 1200 bricks travel
on rails through the kiln at the rate of one 1.83 meter (6 foot) car per hour.
The fire zone is located near the middle of the kiln and is stationary.
In all kilns, firing takes place in six steps: evaporation of free water,
dehydration, oxidation, vitrification, flashing, and cooling. Normally, gas or
residual oil is used for heating, but coal may be used. Total heating time
varies with the type of product, for example, 22.9 centimeter (9 inch) refrac-
tory bricks usually require 50 to 100 hours of firing. Maximum temperatures of
about 1090°C (2000°F) are used in firing common brick.
Mineral Products Industry
8.3-1
-------
8.3.2 Emissions And Controls*>3
Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of bricks.
The main source of dust is the materials handling procedure, which includes
drying, grinding, screening and storing the raw material. Combustion products
are emitted from the fuel consumed in the dryer and the kiln. Fluorides,
largely in gaseous form, are also emitted from brick manufacturing operations.
Sulfur dioxide may be emitted from the bricks when temperatures reach or exceed
1370°C (2500°F), but no data on such emissions are available,^
FUEL
HOT
GASES
MINING
KILN
(P)
GLAZING
FORMING
AND
CUTTING
DRYING
(P)
SCREENINC
(P)
CRUSHING
AND
STORAGE
(P)
PULVERIZING
(P)
STORAGE
AND
SHIPPING
(P)
Figure 8.3-1. Basic flow diagram of brick manufacturing process.
(P = a major source of particulate emissions)
A variety of control systems may be used to reduce both particulate and
gaseous emissions. Almost any type of particulate control system will reduce
emissions from the material handling process, but good plant design and hooding
are also required to keep emissions to an acceptable level.
The emissions of fluorides can be reduced by operating the kiln at tem-
peratures below 1090°C (2000°F) and by choosing clays with low fluoride con-
Cent. Satisfactory control can be achieved by scrubbing kiln gases with water,
since wet cyclonic scrubbers can remove fluorides with an efficiency of 95
percent or higher.
Table 8.3-1 presents emission factors for brick manufacturing without
controls. Table 8.3-2 presents data on particle size distribution and emission
factors for uncontrolled sawdust fired brick kilns. Table 8.3-3 presents data
on particle size distribution and emission factors for uncontrolled coal fired
tunnel brick kilns.
8.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 8.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR BRICK MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS*1
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Volatile Organic Compounds

Farticulstes
Sulfur
oxides
Carbon
monoxide
Nonroethane
Methane
Nitrogen
oxLdea
Fluorides0

Process

lb/ton kg/Kg
lb/ton
kfi/Mfs
lb/ton
kg/Kg
lb/ton kg/Mfc
lb/ton
kfi/Mft
lb/ton
tg/Hg
lb/ton
3T
H
Raw material handling0

3
ro
Drying
35
70
-
-
-
-
"
"
-
-
~
~

•i
Grinding
38
76
-
-
-
-
~

GJ
i—>
Storage
17
34
"
~

TJ
Brick dryer^

0.33
0.66

M
O
Coal/gas fired
0.006A
0.012A
0.55S
1 .10S
-
-
"
—
"

~
c
o
Curing and finnge

rr
Tunnel kiln

CO
Caa fired
0.012
0.023
Neg
Neg
0.03
0.06
0.0015
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.09
0.18
0.5
1 .0
~—<
OiI fired
0.29
0.59
1 .98S
3.95S
0.06
0.12
0.0035
0.007
0.013
0.025
0.525
L .05
0.5
1 .0
3
Coal fired
0.34A
0. 6 7 A
3.65S
7.31S
0.71
1 .43
0.005
0.01
0.003
0.006
0. 73
1 .45
0.5
1 .0
O-
c
Coal/gaa fired
0.16A
0.31A
0.31S
0.62S
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.81
1 .61
-
-
rr
Sawdust fired
0.12
0.24
-
-
~
—

n
Periodic kiln

Caa fired
0.033
0.065
Neg
Neg
0.075
0.15
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.25
0.50
0.5
1 .0

Oil fired
0.44
0.88
2.93S
5.86S
0.095
0. 19
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.81
1 .62
0.5
1.0

Coal fLred
9.42
18.04
6.06S
12.13S
1.19
2.39
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.01
1.18
2.35
0.5
1 .0
aExpreased as units per unit weight of brick produced* One brick weighs about 2.95 kg (6.5 pounds). Daeh - No data.
A - X ash in coal. S ¦ X sulfur in fuel. Neg ¦ negligible,
^References 3, 6-10.
cBased on data from Section 8.7 on Ceramic Clay Manufacturing in this publication. Becauae of proceaa variation
some steps may be omitted* Stor-age losses apply only to that quantity of material stored.
^Reference 12*
eReferencea 1, 5, 12-16.
Oo
I
LO
-------
TABLE 8.3-2. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AM) EMISSION FACTORS FOR
UNCONTROLLED SAWDUST FIRED BRICK K.ILNS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Aerodynamic particle
diameter (um)
Cumulative weight %
< stated size
Emission factor*3
(kg/Mg)
2.5
36.5
0 .044
6.0
63.0
0.076
10.0
82.5
0.099
Total particulate emission
1
factor 0 -12 c
aReference 13.
^Expressed as cumulative weight of particulate £ corresponding particle
size/unit weight of brick produced.
cTotal mass emission factor from Table 8.3-1.
4>
N
"O
<1>
a
v
o
3
JZ
00
0>
0)
>
7?
oo
2
o os OC
3
a
3
O
UN CONT POLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
•0 >0 *0 .0 SO 10 00
Particle diameter, pm
Figure 8.3-2. Cumulative weight percent of
particles less than stated particle diameters
for uncontrolled sawdust fired brick kilns.
3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 8.3-3. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR
UNCONTROLLED COAL FIRED TUNNEL BRICK KILNS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Aerodynamic particle
diameter (yra)
Cumulative weight %
< stated size
Emission factor^
(kg/Mg)
2.5
24.7
0.08A
6.0
50.A
0 .17 A
10.0
71.0
0.24A
Total particulate emission
1
factor 0.34AC
aReferences 12, 17.
^Expressed as cumulative weight of particulate < corresponding particle
size/unit weight of brick produced. A = % ash in coal. (Use 10% if
ash content is not known).
cTotal mass emission factor from Table 8.3-1.

3
H
c/>
C
3
O
OQ
2
(Jo
3
c
3
O
* ¦ >.»¦!
UNCONTROLLED
—Weight percent
-— Emission factor
» » ' ' i
j t » * 10
» .o >0 m ro ao to 'oo
Particle diameter, Jim
Figure 8.3-3. Cumulative weight percent of
particles less than stated particle diameters
for uncontrolled coal fired tunnel brick kilns
Mineral Products Industry
8.3-5
-------
TABLE 8.3-4. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR
UNCONTROLLED SCREENING AND GRINDING GF RAW MATERIALS
FOR BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTSA
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Aerodynamic particle
diameter (ym)
Cumulative weight %
< stated size
Emission factor*3
(kg/Mg)
2.5
0.2
0.08
6.0
0.4
0.15
10.0
7.0
2.66
Total particulate emission factor 38c
1 1
aRef erences 11, 18.
^Expressed as cumulative weight of particulate <_ corresponding
particle size/unit weight of raw material processed.
cTotal mass emission factor from Table 8.3-1.

« H

cr>
H

11
Ol

XJ
»
to

\/
to

;o
u
*e
X
w
to

• ^
»0

ft
i_>

03
J

3
t
CJ

m
3
O
3
Ci
O
n
7T
09
3
QQ
UNCONTROLLED
Velght percent
Emission factor
tc » to o «o .Of
Particle diameterjjim
Figure 8.3-4. Cumulative weight percent of
particles less than stated particle diameters
for uncontrolled screening and grinding of raw
materials for bricks and related clay products.
8.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
References for Section 8.3
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.
2. "Technical Notes on Brick and Tile Construction", Pamphlet No. 9, Structural
Clay Products Institute, Washington, DC, September 1961.
3. Unpublished control techniques for fluoride emissions, U. S. Department Of
Health And Welfare, Washington, DC, May 1970.
4. M. H. Allen, "Report on Air Pollution, Air Quality Act of 1967 and Methods
of Controlling the Emission of Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants",
Structural Clay Products Institute, Washington, DC, September 1969.
5. F. H. Norton, Refractories, 3rd Ed, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949.
6. K. T. Semrau, "Emissions of Fluorides from Industrial Processes: A Review",
Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 7_( 2): 92-108, August 1957 .
7. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol 5, 2nd Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.
8. K. F. Wentzel, "Fluoride Emissions in the Vicinity of Brickworks", Staub,
25(3):45-50, March 1965.
9. "Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles
County", Information Circular No. 7627, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department
Of Interior, Washington, DC, April 1952.
10. Notes on oral communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA
and New Jersey Air Pollution Control Agency, Trenton, NJ, July 20, 1969.
11. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
12. Building Brick and Structural Clay Industry - Lee Brick and Tile Co.,
Sanford, NC, EMB 80-BRK-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1980.
13. Building Brick and Structural Clay Wood Fired Brick Kiln - Emission Test
Report - Chatham Brick and Tile Company, Gulf, North Carolina, EMB-80-
BRK-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 1980.
14. R. N. Doster and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report: Lee Brick
and Tile Co., Sanford, NC, Compliance Testing, Entropy Environmentalists,
Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1978.
15. R. N. Doster and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report: Lee Brick
and Tile Co., Sanford, NC, Compliance Testing, Entropy Environmentalists,
Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1978.
Mineral Products Industry
8.3-7
-------
16. F. J. Phoenix and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report - Chatham
Brick arid Tile Co., Sanford, NC, Particulate Emissions Compliance Testing,
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.
17. Fine Particle Emissions Information System, Series Report No. 354, "Office
Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
8.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING
8.10.1 Process Description* ^
Concrete is composed essentially of water, cement, sand (fine aggregate)
and coarse aggregate. Coarse aggregate may consist of gravel, crushed stone
or iron blast furnace slag. Some specialty aggregate products could be either
heavyweight aggregate (of barite, magnetite, limonite, ilmenite, iron or steel)
or lightweight aggregate (with sintered clay, shale, slate, diatomaceous shale,
perlite, vermiculite, slag, pumice, cinders, or sintered fly ash). Concrete
batching plants store, convey, measure and discharge these constituents into
trucks for transport to a job site. In some cases, concrete is prepared at a
building construction site or for the manufacture of concrete products such as
pipes and prefabricated construction parts. Figure 8.10-1 is a generalized
process diagram for concrete batching.
The raw materials can be delivered to a plant by rail, truck or barge.
The cement is transferred to elevated storage silos pneumatically or by bucket
elevator. The sand and coarse aggregate are transferred to elevated bins by
front end loader, clam shell crane, belt conveyor, or bucket elevator. From
these elevated bins, the constituents are fed by gravity or screw conveyor to
weigh hoppers, which combine the proper amounts of each material.
Truck mixed (transit mixed) concrete involves approximately 75 percent of
U. S. concrete batching plants. At these plants, sand, aggregate, cement and
water are all gravity fed from the weigh hopper into the mixer trucks. The
concrete is mixed on the way to the site where the concrete is to be poured.
Central mix facilities (including shrink mixed) constitute the other one fourth
of the industry. With these, concrete is mixed and then transferred to either
an open bed dump truck or an agitator truck for transport to the job site.
Shrink mixed concrete is concrete that is partially mixed at the central mix
plant and then completely mixed in a truck mixer on the way to the job site.
Dry batching, with concrete is mixed and hauled to the construction site in dry
form, is seldom, if ever, used.
8.10-2 Emissions and Controls^-^
Emission factors for concrete batching are given in Table 8.10-1, with
potential air pollutant emission points shown. Particulate matter, consisting
primarily of cement dust but including some aggregate and sand dust emissions,
is the only pollutant of concern. All but one of the emission points are
fugitive in nature. The only point source is the transfer of cement to the
silo, and this is usually vented to a fabric filter or "sock". Fugitive sources
include the transfer of sand and aggregate, truck loading, mixer loading,
vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles. The
amount of fugitive emissions generated during the transfer of sand and aggregate
depends primarily on the surface moisture content of these materials. The
extent of fugitive emission control varies widely from plant to plant.
Mineral Products Industry
8.10-1
-------
\ BARGE /
\ BARGE /
FRONT END
LOADER
BUCKET
ELEVATOR
ELEVATED STORAGE
BINS
ELEVATED
CEMENT
SILO
^ SAND, \
AGGREGATE
FEED O''
HOPPER
AGGREGATE
UNLOADING
SAND
AGGREGATE
SCREW
CONVEYOR
CEMENT
UNLOADING
WEIGH
HOPPERS
WATER
PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS
MIXER
CENTRAL MIXED
PRODUCT
TRUCK MIXED
PRODUCT

Figure 8.1-1. Typical concrete bdLching process.
-------
TABLE 8.10-1. UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CONCRETE BATCHING
Source
kg/Mg
of
mat erlal
lb/ton
of
material
lb/yd^
of
concrete3
Emission
Factor
Rat I ng
Sand and aggregate transfer
to elevated bin^
0.014
0.029
0.05
E
Cement unloading to elevated
storage silo
P neuraat1cc
Bucket elevator^
0 13
0.12
0.27
0.24
0.07
0.06
D
E
Weigh hopper loadlnge
0.01
0.02
0.04
E
Truck loading (truck mlx)e
0 01
0.02
0.04
E
Mixer loading (central mix)e
0.02
0.04
0.07
E
f
Vehicle traffic (unpaved road)E
4.5 kg/VKT
16 1b/VMT
0.28
C
Wind erosion from sand
and aggregate scorage piles'1
3.9 kg/
hectare/day
3.5 lb/
acre/day
0.1'
D
Total process emissions
(truck mix)J
0.05
0.10
0.20
E
aBased on a tvplcal yd-* weighing 1.318 leg (4,000 lb) and containing 227 leg
(500 lb) cement, 554 kg (1,240 lb) 3and. 864 kg (1,900 lb) coarse aggregate
and 164 kg (360 lb) water.
bRef erence 6.
cFor uncontrolled emissions measured before filter. Based on two tests on
pneumatic conveying controlled by a fabric filter.
^Reference 7. From test of mechanical unloading to hopper and subsequent
transport of cement by enclosed bucket elevator to elevated bins with
fabric socks over bin vent.
eReference 5. Engineering judgement, based on observations and emission
tests of similar controlled sources.
^From Section 11.2.1, with k = 0.8, s ° 12, S = 20, W - 20, w =¦ 14, and p a
100. VKT - vehicle kilometers traveled. VMT a vehicle miles traveled.
SBased on facility producing 23, 100 mVyr (30,000 yd-Vyr), with average truck
load of 6.2m^ (8 yd-*) and plant road length of 161 meters (1/10 mile).
^From Section 8.19.1, for emissions <30 um for inactive storage piles.
Assumes 1,011 (1/4 acre) of sand and aggregate storage at plant with
production of 23,100 m^/yv (30,000 yd^/yr).
J Based on pneumatic conveying of cement at a truck nix facility. Does not
include vehicle traffic or wind erosion from storage plies.
Mineral Products Industry
8.10-3
-------
Types of controls used may include water sprays, enclosures, hoods, cur-
tains, shrouds, movable and telescoping chutes, and the like. A major source
of potential emissions, the movement of heavy trucks over unpaved or dusty
surfaces in and around the plant, can be controlled by good maintenance"and
wetting of the road surface.
Predictive equations which allow for emission factor adjustment based on
plant specific conditions are given in Chapter 11. Whenever plant specific
data are available, they should be used in lieu of the fugitive emission factors
presented in Table 8.10-1.
References for Section 8.10
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.
2. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974. Out of Print.
3. Telephone and written communication between Edwin A. Pfetzing, Pedco
Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, and Richard Morris and Richard
Meininger, National Ready Mix Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD, May
1984.
4. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of
Performance, The Concrete Products Industries, Draft, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, August 1975.
5. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emissions, EPA-450/3-77-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1977.
6. Fugitive Dust Assessment at Rock and Sand Facilities in the South Coast
Air Basin, Southern California Rock Products Association and Southern
California Ready Mix Concrete Association, Santa Monica, CA, November
1979.
7. Telephone communication between T. R. Blackwood, Monsanto Research Corp.,
Dayton, OH, and John Zoller, Pedco Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
October 18, 1976.
8.10-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING
8.15.1 General1-4
Lime is the high temperature product of the calcination of limestone.
There are two kinds, high calcium lime (CaO) and dolomitic lime (CaO • MgO)
Lime is manufactured in various kinds of kilns by one of the following
reactions:
CaC03 + heat -*¦ C02 + CaO (high calcium lime)
CaCC>3 • MgCOs + heat -*¦ C02 + CaO • MgO (dolomitic lime)
In some lime plants, the resulting lime is reacted (slaked) with water to
form hydrated lime.
The basic processes m the production of Lime are 1) quarrying raw
limestone, 2) preparing limestone for the kilns by crushing and sizing;
3) calcining limestone; 4) processing the lime further by hydrating, and
5) miscellaneous transfer, storage and handling operations. A general-
ized material flow diagram for a lime manufacturing plant is given in Fig-
ure 8.15-1. Note that some operations shown may not be performed in all
plants.
The heart of a lime plant is the kiln. The prevalent type of kiln is
the rotary kiln, accounting for about 90 percent of all lime production in
the United States. This kiln is a long, cylindrical, slightly inclined, re-
fractory lined furnace, through which the limestone and hot combustion gases
pass countercurrently. Coal, oil and natural gas may all be fired in rotary
kilns. Product coolers and kiln feed preheaters of various types are com-
monly used to recover heat from the hot lime product and hot exhaust gases,
respectively
The next most common type of kiln in the United States is the vertical,
or shaft, kiln. This kiln can be described as an upright heavy steel cylin-
der lined with refractory material. The limestone is charged at the top and
is calcined as it descends slowly to discharge at the bottom of the kiln A
primary advantage of vertical kilns over rotary kilns is higher average fuel
efficiency. The primary disadvantages of vertical kilns are their rela-
tively low production rates and the fact that coal cannot be used without
degrading the quality of the lime produced. There have been few recent
vertical kiln installations in the United States because of high product
quality requirements
Other, much less common, kiln types include rotary hearth and fluidized
bed kilns. Both kiln types can achieve high production rates, and neither
can operate with coal. The "calcimatic" kiln, or rotary hearth kiln, is a
circular shaped kiln with a slowly revolving donut shaped hearth In fluid-
ized bed kilns, finely divided limestone is brought into contact with hot
combustion air in a turbulent zone, usually above a perforated grate.' Be-
cause of the amount of lime carryover into the exhaust gases, dust collec-
tion equipment must be installed on fluidized bed kilns for process economy
Mineral Products Industry
8 15-1
-------
| rhgn Cotfiiun ana Dotefftihc Lm«iron«
00) - Cma Csnr Source
P?oc»u Source
12 - 20 cm Li matron
for v«ftical Kiln
Seining and C)euifi<«fion
Sccongary Owning
Scr*«ftin9 or>a CJauificarron
L Twtron* ror
iotvy Kilnt
Scr««ning and CiauiFicarion
P*ool« ory) lumo
Qgichfim*
Oivarry and Min« Optrerio^i
(Drilling, ilaifjng ona Conveying
of &ro««n U9 j—'7^'OOj

[/v/v^oo)
hign Coicmm ana Daiomitic ^
Moreno I nvflWtd ijm* \Py
Do(om»fiC Prvtiur*
i"ivgrar«4 U>r«
L"-^*>CC)
igure 8.15-1. Simplified flow diagram for lime and limestone products.
15-2
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
About 10 percent of all lime produced is converted to hydrated (slaked)
lime. There are two kinds of hydrators, atmospheric and pressure. Atmo-
spheric hydrators, the more prevalent type, are used in continuous mode to
produce high calcium and normal dolomitic hydrates Pressure hydrators, on
the other hand, produce only a completely hydrated dolomitic lime and oper-
ate only in batch mode. Generally, water sprays or wet scrubbers perform
the hydrating process, to prevent product loss. Following hydration, the
product may be milled and then conveyed to air separators for further drying
and removal of coarse fractions.
In the United States, lime plays a major role in chemical and metal-
lurgical operations. Two of the largest uses are as steel flux and in
alkali production. Lesser uses include construction, refractory and agri-
cultural applications.
8.15.2 Emissions And Controls3 5
Potential air pollutant emission points in lime manufacturing plants
are shown in Figure 8 15-1. Except for gaseous pollutants emitted from
kilns, particulate is the only pollutant of concern from most of the opera-
tions .
The largest ducted source of particulate is the kiln. Of the various
kiln types, fluidized beds have the most uncontrolled particulate emissions,
because of the very small feed size combined with high air flow through
these kilns. Fluidized bed kilns are well controlled for maximum product
recovery. The rotary kiln is second worst in uncontrolled particulate emis-
sions, also because of the small feed size and relatively high air veloci-
ties and dust entrainment caused by the rotating chamber. The calcimatic
(rotary hearth) kiln ranks third in dust production, primarily because of
the larger feed size and the fact that, during calcination, the limestone
remains stationary relative to the hearth. The vertical kiln has the lowest
uncontrolled dust emissions, due to the large lump feed and the relatively
low air velocities and slow movement of material through the kiln.
Some sort of particulate control is generally applied to most kilns.
Rudimentary fallout chambers and cyclone separators are commonly used for
control of the larger particles. Fabric and gravel bed filters, wet (com-
monly venturi) scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are used for sec-
ondary control.
Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides are all produced in
kilns, although the last are the only gaseous pollutant emitted in signifi-
cant quantities. Not all of the sulfur in the kiln fuel is emitted as sul-
fur oxides, since some fraction reacts with the materials in the kiln. Some
sulfur oxide reduction is also effected by the various equipment used for
secondary particulate control.
Product coolers are emission sources only when some of their exhaust
gases are not recycled through the kiln for use as combustion air The
Mineral Products Industry
8 15-3
-------
tread is away from the venting of product cooler exhaust, however, to maxi-
mize fuel use efficiencies. Cyclones, baghouses and wet scrubbers have been
employed on coolers for particulate control
Hydrator emissions are low, because water sprays or wet scrubbers are
usually installed to prevent product loss in the exhaust gases. Emissions
from pressure hydrators may be higher than from the more common atmospheric
hydrators, because the exhaust gases are released intermittently, making
control more difficult.
Other particulate sources in lime plants include primary and secondary
crushers, mills, screens, mechanical and pneumatic transfer operations,
storage piles, and roads. If quarrying is a part of the lime plant opera-
tion, particulate may also result from drilling and blasting. Emission
factors for some of these operations are presented in Sections 8.20 and 11.2
of this document.
Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors and particle size data for
lime manufacturing are given in Tables 8.15-1 through 8.15-3- The size dis-
tributions of particulate emissions from controlled and uncontrolled rotary
kilns and uncontrolled product loading operations are shown in Figures
8 15-2 and 8.15-3.
8. 15-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TAHLK 8.15-1. KM1SS10N FACTORS FOR L IMIi MANUFACTURING*1
EMISSION FACTOR RATING. B
l\> rt i tnl dte|* °**Jes Carbon monoxide bn I fur d iox lde
Source kg/flg Ih/ton kg/Mfc Ih/Lnii kg/Mg lb/ton kg/Mg Ih/lon

(rusltcts, !i( reens, conveyoi i», stoiagr

piles, nripaved roadb, cLt
<
4
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg

Hot a ry k 11 iib1^

Uncoiilro) led
IHO
350
1 4
2 8
1
2
f
f

Large diamclei cyclone
81
160
1 A
2 8
1
2
f
t

Multiple cyclone
Ul
83
1 U
2 8
1
2
r
f
pr
fc.1 ect rostatic precipitator^
2 <*
U 8
1 U
2 8
1
2
i.
h
H
Venluri scrubber
2 U
U 8
I U
2 8
I
2
>i
li
P
fD
Cijvel bed filter®
0 S31
1 I1
1 /,
2 8
1
2
i,
li
n
MulLie lone and ventun scrubber8
0 UU
0 87
1 4
2 8
1
2
i,
li
w
t—•
Uaglionse
0 4SJ
0 B9J
1 l>
2 8
1
2
h
li
"0
Cyclone and hagboiise
0 055
0 1 1
1 i.
2 8
1
2
i>
li
t-i
o
Vc rtica I kiIns

CL
C
Uncont rol1ed
u
8
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o
rt
C j 1 c mm L i c k i Inflk

w
llnconttolled
25
50
0 1
0 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1—H
f-j
Multiple cyclone g
3
6
0 1
0 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
£
Secondary d«iit collection
NA
NA
0 1
0 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
v>
r*
Flutdized bed kiIns
m
in
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Product coolers
2u"
/.o"

Uncoil t rol led
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg

Hydra tors (atmospheric)**

Wet bctubbei
0 05
0 ]
Neg
Hog
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg

Crusher, screpn, hanunermi 11

tie
U 0005
0 001
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
n
-------
Ln
I
o\
TABLE 8.15-1 (cont.)
References 4-7. Factors for kilns and coolers are per unit of lime produied. Diviile by two to obtain factors |ier unit of
Imestoue feed to tlie kiln. Factors for hydrators are per unit of hydrated line prndured Multiply by I 25 to obtain
^factors per unit of line feed to the hydrator Neg - negligible NA = not available
F.aissloii Factor Rating - I)
^Fat-tors for these operations are presented in Sections 8 20 and II 2 of this document
For coal fired rotary kilns only.
No particulate control except for settling that aay occur in staik breeclung and chiancy base
^Sulfur dioxide may be estimated by a marerial balance using tuel sulfur content.
^fonbination coal/gas fired rotary kilns only
When scrubbers are used, < of the fuel sulfur will be emitted as S02 even wilh high sulfur coal. When other secondary
collection devices are used, about 20% of the fuel sulfur will be emitted as S02 with high sulfur fuels, and < I (I J with
m low sulfur fuels
2 'Emission Factor Rating = E
^ ^Emission Factor Rating = C
Cn Calciaatic kilns generally have stone preheaters. Factors are for eaissions after the kiln exhaust passes
^ ^through a preheater.
55 Fabric filters and venturi scrubbers have been used on calcioaLic kilns. No data are available on particulate
^ ^emissions after secondary control.
> Huidized bed kilns oust have sophisticated dust collection equipment for process econoaics, hence particulate
n lesions will depend on efficiency of thr control equipsient installed.
O Sone or all cooler exhaust typically is used in kiln as combustion air Eaissions will result only froa that
PO fraction not recycled to kiln.
Typical particulate loading for atmospheric hydrators following water Bprays or wet scrubbers. Liailed data
suggest particulate eaissions from pressure hydrators nay he approximately I kg/Mg (2 lb/ton) of hydrate pro-
duced, after wet collectors.
-------
TABLE 8.15-2. SUMMARY OF STZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROTARY LIME KILNS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
~
rc>
1-1
u>
n
o
Cl
c
r>
P
Cl
P
*<
Particle
size
(|'mA)
Cumulative mass % S stated partlrle sIze
RoLary
Uncontrolled Rotary kiln Rotary kiln
Cumulative particulate emission factor 5 stated size1"
Rotary kiln RoLary kiln
rotary kiln
kiIn wit
out 11clone
W| III
tSHe
with cyclone^
and baghouse
Uncontrolled
rotary kiIns
kg/Mg lb/ton
with
inriJ^Li clone
kg/Mg
Rotary k1 In
with ESI1
»e
lb/ton
kg/Mg
Ih/ton
wi Lh cyclone j.
and baghouse
kg/Mg lb/ton
2 5
1 4
6 1
14
27
2
6
5 2
2
6
5
2
0 34
0 68
0 02
0 03
5 0
2 9
9 8
NA
HA
5
2
10
4
1
8
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
10 0
12
16
50
55
21

42
6
9
14

1.2
2 4
0 03
0 06
15 0
31
23
62
73
56

110
9
7
19

1 5
3 0
0 04
0 08
ToLal mass
emission factor 6

ISO

350
42

2.4
4 8
0 055
0 11
^Reference 7 Coal fired rotary kilns Numbers rounded to two significant figures ESP = cIcctrostatic precipitator NA = not available
Aerodynamic diameter
^Uuit weight of particulate matter/unit weight of lime produced
Emission Factor Rating = E.
^For combination coal/natural gas fired rotary kilns
For rotary kiln with cyclone collector followed by h.ighouse
^PM.q emission factor data Is not available for baghouse, venturl scrubber, simple cyclone
and other control technologies used for rotary lime kilns.
oo
j—1
Ln
l
-^1
-------
00
o*
CO
TABLE 8.15-3. UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRODUCT LOADING'
tTJ
K
V—i
CO
cn
O
2:
>
o
t-3
O
33
C/5
lype of loading operation
Tot J I
parliculdlu
kg/Mg
lh/lon
Pulverized limestone into open hed
lulu lat>le
l>d rl 1 cul die
F|ne j
particulaIe
kg/Mg
Ih/Loil
Kg/Mg
lb/ton
Enn st> 1 on
factor rating
11 ticks

0
75
1
5
0
51
1
0
0
13
0
26
D
Fill ver 1 ^e<]
1lmestone
jnlo tank trucks
0
18
0
76
0
29
0
58
0
043
0
086
D
C1js s 11 me
into tank
trucks
0
15
0
30
0
062
0
12
0
0080
0
016
E
^Kefetencc 7 Fat tors are for injsi of po H utaul/mass of product loaded Numbers rounded to two s 1 gu 1 f 1 Ltiiit figuiL-s
cl'arliclos < — 300 jimA (aerodynamic tlidnu'trrj
jPjilirleb < 15 jJraA (aerodynamic- diameter)
r.iu JC los <25 |iuiA (aerodynamic tluniL'icr)
-------
U10)5cr
i i r
TT
& H10)4
1000.0
~m
i—i i 111 m
100.0

CD
4

7
10.0

jtL-
1.0
100.0
©•
1. Rotary Ki In - Uncontrol led
2. Rotary Kiln - w/Multiclone
3. Rotary Kiln-w/ESP
4. Rotary Kiln - w/Cyclane &
Baghouse
0.
10.0
1.0
0
1.0 10.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (/imA)
0.001
100.0
Figure 8.15-2. Size specific emission factors for lime kilns.
Mineral Products Industry
8 15-9
-------
1 . Limestone Loading - Open Trucks
2. Limestone Loading - Enclosed Trucks
3. Lime Loading - Enclosed Trucks
o>
£
G)
0.01
0.001
.0 10.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (^mA)
100.0
Figure 8.15-3. Size specific emission factors for product loading.
8. 15-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
References for Section 8.15
1- C. J. Lewis and B. B Crocker, "The Lime Industry's Problem of Air-
borne Dust", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
_19(1) :31 -39 , January 1969
2. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd Ed , John Wiley
and Sons, New York, 1967
3• Screening Study for Emissions Characterization from Lime Manufacture,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0299. Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
August 1974.
Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1: Pro-
posed Standards of Performance for Lime Manufacturing Plants, EPA-450/
2-77-007a, U. S Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, April 1977.
5. Source test data on lime plants, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1976.
6. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, HEW Contract No. CPA 22-69-119, TRW
Systems Group, Reston, VA, April 1970.
7- J. S. Kinsey, Lime and Cement Industry - Source Category Report, Vol. I:
Lime Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3999, Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, MO, February 1986.
Mineral Products Industry
8 15-11
-------
10.1 CHEMICAL WOOD PULPING
10.1.1 General
Chemical wood pulping involves the extraction of cellulose from wood by
dissolving the lignin that binds the cellulose fibers together. The four pro-
cesses principally used in chemical pulping^are kraft, sulfite, neutral sulfite
semichemical (NSSC), and soda. The first three display the greatest potential
for causing air pollution. The kraft process alone accounts for over 80 per-
cent of the chemical pulp produced in the United States. The choice of pulping
process is determined by the desired product, by the wood species available,
and by economic considerations.
10.1.2 Kraft Pulping
Process Description-*- - The kraft pulping process (See Figure 10.1-1)
involves the digesting of wood chips at elevated temperature and pressure in
"white liquor", which is a water solution of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide.
The white liquor chemically dissolves the lignin that binds the cellulose fibers
together.
There are two types of digester systems, batch and continuous. Most kraft
pulping is done in batch digesters, although the more recent installations are
of continuous digesters. In a batch digester, when cooking is complete, the
contents of the digester are transferred to an atmospheric tank usually referred
to as a blow tank. The entire contents of the blow tank are sent to pulp
washers, where the spent cooking liquor is separated from the pulp. The pulp
then proceeds through various stages of washing, and possibly bleaching, after
which it is pressed and dried into the finished product. The "blow" of the
digester does not apply to continuous digester systems.
The balance of the kraft process is designed to recover the cooking
chemicals and heat. Spent cooking liquor and the pulp wash water are combined
to form a weak black liquor which is concentrated in a multiple effect evaporator
system to about 55 percent solids. The black liquor is then further concentrated
to 65 percent solids in a direct contact evaporator, by bringing the liquor
into contact with the flue gases from the recovery furnace, or in an indirect
contact concentrator. The strong black liquor is then fired in a recovery
furnace. Combustion of the organics dissolved in the black liquor provides
heat for generating process steam and for converting sodium sulfate to sodium
sulfide. Inorganic chemicals present in the black liquor collect as a molten
smelt at the bottom of the furnace.
The smelt is dissolved in water to form green liquor, which is transferred
to a causticizing tank where quicklime (calcium oxide) is added to convert the
solution back to white liquor for return to the digester system. A lime mud
precipitates from the causticizing tank, after which it is calcined in a lime
kiln to regenerate quicklime.
Wood Products Industry
10.1-1
-------
I
ro
s
M
VI
V>
n
O
Z
>
o
H
O
50
cn
CHIPS
CH3SH, CH3SCH3, H2S
HzS, CH3SH, CH3SCH3
AND HIGHER COMPOUNDS
RELIEF
HEAT
NONCONDENSABLES
4
1 CH3SH, CH3SCH3, H?S
EXCHANGER
1 L
o
O

TURPENTINE

BLOW

TANK1

BLOW
V
hotwell
CONTAMINATED
WATER
CONTAMINATED WATER
STEAM, CONTAMINATED WATER,
4 HZS, AND CH3SH
PULP
FILTER
BLACK
LIQUOR
PULP 13% SOLIDS
SPENT AIR, CH3SCH3*
AND CH3SSCH3
WHITE
LIQUOR
N12S
NaOH
OXIDATION
TOWER
BLACK LIQUOR
50% SOLIDS
FILTER
PRECIPITATO
DIRECT CONTACT
EVAPORATOR
(BLACK
LIQUOR 70% SOLIDS
CaO "aZ^0<
'WATER

I ,
GREEN
LIQUOR

RECOVERY
FURNACE
OXIDIZING
ZONE
REDUCTION
ZONE
SMELT
>
AIR
NjjS + N*2C03
Figure 10.1-1. Typical kraft sulfate pulping and recovery process.
-------
For process heating, for driving equipment, for providing electric power,
etc., many mills need more steam than can be provided by the recovery furnace
alone. Thus, conventional industrial boilers that burn coal, oil, natural gas,
or bark and wood are commonly used.
Emissions And Controls^--^ - Particulate emissions from the kraft pro-
cess occur largely from the recovery furnace, the lime kiln and the smelt dis-
solving tank. These emissions are mainly sodium salts, with some calcium salts
from the lime kiln. They are caused mostly by carryover of solids and sublima-
tion and condensation of the inorganic chemicals.
Particulate control is provided on recovery furnaces in a variety of ways.
In mills with either a cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator as the direct
contact evaporator, further control is necessary, as these devices are generally
only 20 to 50 percent efficient for particulates. Most often in these cases,
an electrostatic precipitator is employed after the direct contact evaporator,
for overall particulate control efficiency of from 85 to more than 99 percent.
Auxiliary scrubbers may be added at existing mills after a precipitator or a
venturi scrubber to supplement older and less efficient primary particulate
control devices.
Particulate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers.
Electrostatic precipitators have been used in a few mills. Smelt dissolving
tanks usually are controlled by mesh pads, but scrubbers can provide further
control.
The characteristic odor of the kraft mill is caused by the emission of
reduced sulfur compounds, the most common of which are hydrogen sulfide, methyl
mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, all with extremely low odor
thresholds. The major source of hydrogen sulfide is the direct contact evapo-
rator, in which the sodium sulfide in the black liquor reacts with the carbon
dioxide in the furnace exhaust. Indirect contact evaporators can significantly
reduce the emission of hydrogen sulfide. The lime kiln can also be a potential
source of odor, as a similar reaction occurs with residual sodium sulfide in
the lime mud. Lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide are emitted with the noncon-
densible offgasses from the digesters and multiple effect evaporators.
Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with the
wood component, lignin. Dimethyl disulfide is formed through the oxidation of
mercaptan groups derived from the lignin. These compounds are emitted from
many points within a mill, but the main sources are the digester/blow tank
systems and the direct contact evaporator.
Although odor control devices, per se, are not generally found in kraft
mills, emitted sulfur compounds can be reduced by process modifications and
improved operating conditions. For example, black liquor oxidation systems,
which oxidize sulfides into less reactive thiosulfates, can considerably reduce
odorous sulfur emissions from the direct contact evaporator, although the vent
gases from such systems become minor odor sources themselves. Also, noncon-
densible odorous gases vented from the digester/blow tank system and multiple
effect evaporators can be destroyed by thermal oxidation, usually by passing
them through the lime kiln. Efficient operation of the recovery furnace, by
avoiding overloading and by maintaining sufficient oxygen, residence time and
turbulence, significantly reduces emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from
Wood Products Industry
10.1-3
-------
this source as well. The use of fresh water instead of contaminated condensates
in the scrubbers and pulp washers further reduces odorous emissions.
Several new mills have incorporated recovery systems that eliminate the
conventional direct contact evaporators. In one system, heated combustion air,
rather than fuel gas, provides direct contact evaporation. In another, the
multiple effect evaporator system is extended to replace the direct contact
evaporator altogether. In both systems, sulfur emissions from the recovery
furnace/direct contact evaporator can be reduced by more than 99 percent.
Sulfur dioxide is emitted mainly from oxidation of reduced sulfur compounds
in the recovery furnace. It is reported that the direct contact evaporator
absorbs about 75 percent of these emissions, and further scrubbing can provide
additional control.
Potential sources of carbon monoxide emissions from the kraft process
include the recovery furnace and lime kilns. The major.cause of carbon monoxide
emissions is furnace operation well above rated capacity, making it impossible
to maintain oxidizing conditions.
Some nitrogen oxides also are emitted from the recovery furnace and lime
kilns, although amounts are relatively small. Indications are that nitrogen
oxide emissions are on the order of 0.5 and 1.0 kilograms per air dried mega-
grams (1 and 2 lb/air dried ton) of pulp produced from the lime kiln and
recovery furnace, respectively.
A major source of emissions in a kraft mill is the boiler for generating
auxiliary steam and power. The fuels used are coal, oil, natural gas or bark/
wood waste. See Chapter 1 for emission factors for boilers.
Table 10.1-1 presents emission factors for a conventional kraft mill.
The most widely used particulate control devices are shown, along with the odor
reductions through black liquor oxidation and incineration of noncondensible
offgases. Tables 10.1-2 through 10.1-7 present cumulative size distribution
data and size specific emission factors for particulate emissions from sources
withm a conventional kraft mill. Uncontrolled and controlled size specific
emission factors^ are presented in Figures 10.1-2 through 10.1-7. The particle
sizes presented are expressed in terms of the aerodynamic diameter.
10.1.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping
Process Description - The production of acid sulfite pulp proceeds
similarly to kraft pulping, except that different chemicals are used in the
cooking liquor. In place of the caustic solution used to dissolve the lignin
in the wood, sulfurous acid is employed. To buffer the cooking solution, a
bisulfite of sodium, magnesium, calcium or ammonium is used. A diagram of a
typical magnesium base process is shown in Figure 10.1-8.
Digestion is carried out under high pressure and high temperature, in
either batch mode or continuous digesters, and in the presence of a sulfurous
acid/bisulfite cooking liquid. When cooking is completed, either the digester
is discharged at high pressure into a blow pit, or its contents are pumped into
a dump tank at a lower pressure. The spent sulfite liquor (also called red
liquor) then drains through the bottom of the tank and is treated and discarded,
10.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 10.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFITE PULPINGa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
o
o
a-
rd
O
a.
c
o
p
p-
c
cn

Su1 fur
Ca rbon
Hyd rogen
RSII,
RSK,

Pa rtleu late
dioxide (SO2)
monoxide (CO)
Sulfide (S")
RSSR (S")"
Source
Type of control

kg/Mg
lb/Lon
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
1b/con
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Digester relief and blow tank
Unt rested^
.
_
_
_
_
_
0 02
0.03
0 6
I 2
Brown stock washer
Unt reated*5
-
-
-
-
-
-
0 01
0 02
0.2C
0 4C
Multiple effect evaporator
Unt reated^
-
-
-
-
-
-
0 55
1 .1
0 05
0 t
Recovery boiler and direct

12f

3f
evaporator
Unt roatede
90
180
3.5
7
5.5
11
6^
1 5f

Venturl

1 5f

Scrubber
24
48
3 5
7
5.5
11
6f
12f
3f

LSP
1
2
3 5
7
5.5
11
6f
12f
1 5f
3f

AuxlIlary

1 .sf

sciubbe r
1.5-7 5f
3-l5f

6f
12f
3r
Noncontact recovery boiler

without direct contact

evaporator
Untreated
115
2 30
-
-
5.5
11
0.05J
0.1J
-
-
tSP
1
2
-
-
5 5
11
0 05J
0 lJ
-
-
SmQlt dissolving tank
Unt reated
3.5
7
0 I
0.2
-
-
0.1k
0 2k
0 15k
0.3k
Mesh pad
0 5
1
0 1
0.2
-
-
0.1k
0.2k
0.15k
0. 3k

Scrubber
0.1
0.2
-
-
-
-
0.1*
0 2k
0.15k
0 3k
Lime kiln
Untreated
28
56
0.15
0.3
0.05
0.1
0 25°
0.5®
0.1m
0.2m

Scrubber or ESP
0.25
0 5
-
-
0.05
0.1
0.25m
O^1"
0.1°
0 2m
Turpentine condenser
Unt rea ted
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.005
.01
0 25
0 5
Hlscel lanousd
Unt rea ted
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0 25
0.5
°References 8-10 Factors expressed in unit weight of air dried unbleached pulp (ADP). RSH ° Methyl mercaptan RSR ¦
Dimethyl 9ulfide. RSSR ¦ Dimethyl disulfide ESP » Electrostatic precipitator,
blf noncondenslble gases from these sources are vented to lime kiln, recovery furnace or equivalent, the reduced sulfur
compounds are destroyed
cApply with system using condensate as washing medium Uhen using fresh water, emissions are 0 05 (0 I).
^Includes knotter vents, brovnatock seal tanks, etc. When black liquor oxidation Is Included, emissions are 0 3 (0.6).
eApply when cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator is used for direct contact evaporation, with no further controls.
^Usually reduced by 50Z with black liquor oxidation and can be cut 95 - 99T when oxidation is complete and recovery
furnace Is operated optimally.
BApply when venturl scrubber is used for direct contact evaporation, with no further controls
huee 7.5 (15) when auxiliary scrubber follows venturl scrubber, and I 5 (3) when it follows ESP
) . JApply when recovery furnace is operated optimally to control total reduced sulfur ( TRS) compounds.
O ^Usually reduced to 0 01 g/kg (0.02 lb/ton) ADP when water low In sulfides is used in smelt dissolving tank and associated
* . sc rubbc r.
1 "Usually reduced to 0 015 g/kg (0 03 lb/ton) ADP with efficient mud washing, optimal kiln operation and added caustic In
scrubbing water With only efficient mud washing and optimal process control, TRS compounds reduced to 0 OA g/kg
(0 08 lb/ton) ADP
-------
TABLE 10.1-2. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITH A DIRECT
CONTACT EVAPORATOR AND AN ESPa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative mass % <
Cumulative emission factor

stated
size
(kg/Mg of air
dried pulp)
Particle size

(um)
Uncont rolled
Cont rolled
Uncont rol1ed
Cont rol1ed
15
95.0

10
93.5
-
84
-
6
92.2
68.2
83
0.7
2.5
83.5
53.8
75
0.5
1.25
56.5
40.5
51
0.4
1.00
45.3
34.2
41
0.3
0.625
26.5
22.2
24
0.2
Total
100
100
90
1.0
aReference 7. Dash = no data.
S3
= 5
i i:
•o "
ft)
O
s5
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1
Uncontrolled
Control led
0 7 ir —
S^
0 6
J I II
J 1 I I
I I I II I I I
1 0
0 9
0 8
0 5
i?
* -O
in
is
0 4?°
ef
= 2"
0 3 oi
0 2
- 0 1
1 0 10
Particle diameter (ym)
100
Figure 10.1-2. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for recovery boiler
with direct contact evaporator and ESP.
.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 10.1-3. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITHOUT A DIRECT
CONTACT EVAPORATOR BUT WITH AN ESPa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative mass / <
Cumulative emission factor

stated
size
(kg/Mg of air
dried pulp)
Particle size

(urn)
Uncont rol1ed
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Controlled
15

78.8

0.8
10
-
74.8
-
0.7
6
-
71.9
-
0.7
2.5
78.0
67.3
90
0.6
1.25
40.0
51.3
46
0.5
1.00
30.0
42.4
35
0.4
0.625
17 .0
29.6
20
0.3
Total
100
100
115
1.0
aReference 7. Dash = no data.
150
1 0
tJ.2-
-2 a
g 2*
100 -
50 -
Control led
Uncontrolled
- 0 9
- 0 8
-01 o-J
- 0 6
Ss
1/1 -O
l/l
0 5 i J:
4. o
0 4 o g
s*
0 3
-------
TABLE 10.1-4. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH A VENTURI SCRUBBER3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative mass % <
Cumulative emission factor

stated
size
(kg/Mg of air
dried pulp)
Particle size

(um)
Uncont rol1ed
Controlled
Uncont rolled
Cont rolled
15
27 .7
98.9
7.8
0.24
10
16.8
98.3
4.7
0.24
6
13.4
98.2
3.8
0.24
2.5
10.5
96.0
2.9
0.24
1.25
8.2
35.0
2.3
0.21
1.00
7.1
78.9
2.0
0.20
0.625
3.9
54.3
1.1
0.14
Total
100
100
28.0
0.25
aReference 7.
Control led
Particle diameter (pm)
Figure 10.1-4. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for lime kiln with venturi scrubber.
.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 10.1-5. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH AN ESPa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative mass % <
Cumulative emission factor

stat ed
size
(kg/Mg of air
dried pulp)
Particle size

(um)
Uncont rol1ed
Cont rol1ed
Uncontrolled
Cont rol1ed
15
27.7
91.2
00
r-.
0.23
10
16.8
88.5
4.7
0 .22
6
13.4
86.5
3.8
0.22
2.5
10.5
83.0
2.9
0.21
1.25
8.2
70.2
2.3
CO
o
1 .00
7.1
62.9
2.0
0.16
0.625
3.9
46.9
1.1
0.12
Total
100
100
28.0
0.25
aReference 7.
30
o o. 20
10
Control led
Uncontrolled
I I I I II
I l 0
0 3
0 2 ^
c °-
° -o
"» z
"O
« cn
' i el1
0 1
J 0 10
Particle diameter (pm)
Figure 10.1-5. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for lime kiln with ESP.
Wood Products Industry
10.1-9
-------
TABLE 10.1-6. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
PACKED TOWER3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative mass % <
Cumulative emission factor

stated
size
(kg/Mg of air
dried pulp)
Particle size

(um)
Uncont rol1ed
Cont rol1ed
Uncont rol1ed
Cont rol1ed
15
90.0
95.3
3.2
0.48
10
88.5
95.3
3.1
0.48
6
87.0
94.3
3.0
0.47
2.5
73.0
85.2
2.6
0.43
1.25
47.5
63.8
1.7
0.32
1.00
40.0
54.2
1.4
0.27
0.625
25.5
34.2
0.9
0.17
Total
100
100
3.5
0.50
aReference 7.
' Q. 4
2 »
* "o
S J: 3

0 1
Control led
Uncontrol led
J ' i i i I I I
J I I I I 1 I I
1 0 10
Particle diameter (vim)
i i i i I I
0 6
0 5
"S-
ot
0 3 it
0 2
0 1
100
Figure 10.1-6. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for smelt dissolving tank, with
packed tower.
.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 10.1-7. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
VENTURI SCRUBBER3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Cumulative mass % <
Cumulative emission factor

stated
size
(kg/Mg of air
dried pulp)
Particle size

(um)
Uncont rol1ed
Cont rolled
Uncont rolled
Cont rol1ed
15
90.0
89 .9
3.2
0.09
10
88.5
89.5
3.1
0.09
6
87.0
88.4
3.0
0.09
2.5
73.0
81.3
2.6
0.08
1 .25
47.5
63.5
1.7
0.06
1.00
54.0
54.7
1.4
0.06
0.625
25.5
38.7
0.9
0.04
Total
100
100
3.5
0.09
aReference 7.
S-
-o 10
Z ° 2
2 £•
0 1
Controlled
Uncontrol1ed
l I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
1 0
0 9
0 8
0 7
o CL
o 6 "T,
§ 2
0 5?.
0 4
¦a u_
-------
m
2
M
CO
cn
M
o
2;
>
O
H
O
cn
RCCOVtHV fUHPIACl/
ABSORPTION STRIAM
(IHAUST
*000
CHIPS OIGESTER
DIGESTER
EVAPORATOR
tXHAUSI
SI DM PI 1/
DUMP I Ah*
EXHAUST
A

BLOW

Pir DUMP

TANK

MICH ANICAl
OUST
COtlfCIOR
OIHECT CONTACT R.VC-°-V-jRxY..\. r- ,
IVAfORATOR JURHACI fPTTTTJ pvAjn
STEAM FOR
PROCESS ANO POWER
RECOVERY FURNACE
FORTIFICATION
TOWER
9
ACID
II11ER
eH
LOOKING
ACIO
STORAGE
HOT WAMH

PUtP
WASHlHS
SCREENS
(lHAUST
LIQUOR
HCATCR
MAKEUP
(OH I)
M| (OH)}
WATER
STRONG REO LIQUOR
MAKEUP
SULfUR
Muivmt cmcv
EVAPORATORS
SUlfUR
GASCOOLER 6UHNEH
STRONG
HE D
LIQUOR
ST Ott&bf
WEAK
REO
HOUOR
STORAGE
CONDENSATE
-------
incinerated, or sent to a plant for recovery of heat and chemicals. The pulp
is then washed and processed through screens and centrifuges to remove knots,
bundles of fibers and other material. It subsequently may be bleached, pressed
and dried in papermaking operations.
Because of the variety of cooking liquor bases used, numerous schemes have
evolved for heat and/or chemical recovery. In calcium base systems, found most-
ly in older mills, chemical recovery is not practical, and the spent liquor is
usually discharged or incinerated. In ammonium base operations, heat can be
recovered by combusting the spent liquor, but the ammonium base is thereby con-
sumed. In sodium or magnesium base operations, the heat, sulfur and base all
may be feasibly recovered.
If recovery is practiced, the spent (weak) red liquor (which contains more
than half of the raw materials as dissolved organic solids) is concentrated in
a multiple effect evaporator and a direct contact evaporator to 55 to 60 per-
cent solids. This strong liquor is sprayed into a furnace and burned, pro-
ducing steam to operate the digesters, evaporators, etc. and to meet other
power requirements.
When magnesium base liquor is burned, a flue gas is produced from which
magnesium oxide is recovered in a multiple cyclone as fine white power. The
magnesium oxide is then water slaked and is used as circulating liquor in a
series of venturi scrubbers, which are designed to absorb sulfur dioxide from
the flue gas and to form a bisulfite solution for use in the cook cycle. When
sodium base liquor is burned, the inorganic compounds are recovered as a molten
smelt containing sodium sulfide and sodium carbonate. This smelt may be pro-
cessed further and used to absorb sulfur dioxide from the flue gas and sulfur
burner. In some sodium base mills, however, the smelt may be sold to a nearby
kraft mill as raw material for producing green liquor.
If liquor recovery is not practiced, an acid plant is necessary of suf-
ficient capacity to fulfill the mill's total sulfite requirement. Normally,
sulfur is burned in a rotary or spray burner. The gas produced is then cooled
by heat exhangers and a water spray and is then absorbed in a variety of dif-
ferent scrubbers containing either limestone or a solution of the base chemical.
Where recovery is practiced, fortification is accomplished similarly, although
a much smaller amount of sulfur dioxide must be produced to make up for that
lost in the process.
Emissions And Controls*! - Sulfur dioxide is generally considered the major
pollutant of concern from sulfite pulp mills. The characteristic "kraft" odor
is not emitted because volatile reduced sulfur compounds are not products of
the lignin/bisulfite reaction.
A major SO2 source is the digester and blow pit (dump tank) system. Sul-
fur dioxide is present in the intermittent digester relief gases, as well as m
the gases given off at the end of the cook when the digester contents are dis-
charged into the blow pit. The quantity of sulfur dioxide evolved and emitted
to the atmosphere in these gas streams depends on the pH of the cooking liquor,
the pressure at which the digester contents are discharged, and the effective-
ness of the absorption systems employed for SO2 recovery. Scrubbers can be
installed that reduce SC>2 from this source by as much as 99 percent.
Wood Products Industry
10.1-13
-------
Another source of sulfur dioxide emissions is the recovery system. Since
magnesium, sodium, and ammonium base recovery systems all use absorption systems
to recover SO2 generated in recovery furnaces, acid fortification towers, mul-
tiple effect evaporators, etc., the magnitude of SO2 emissions depends on the
desired efficiency of these systems. Generally, such absorption systems recover
better than 95 percent of the sulfur so it can be reused.
The various pulp washing, screening, and cleaning operations are also
potential sources of SO2• These operations are numerous and may account for a
significant fraction of a mill's SO2 emissions if not controlled.
The only significant particulate source in the pulping and recovery pro-
cess is the absorption system handling the recovery furnace exhaust. Ammonium
base systems generate less particulate than do magnesium or sodium base systems.
The combustion productions are mostly nitrogen, water vapor and sulfur dioxide.
Auxiliary power boilers also produce emissions in the sulfite pulp mill,
and emission factors for these boilers are presented in Chapter 1.
Table 10.1-8 contains emission factors for the various sulfite pulping
operations.
10.1.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping
Process Description^> 12-14 _ jn this method, wood chips are cooked in a
neutral solution of sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate. Sulfite ions react
with the lignin in wood, and the sodium bicarbonate acts as a buffer to maintain
a neutral solution. The major difference between all semichemical techniques
and those of kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only a portion of the
lignin is removed during the cook, after which the pulp is further reduced by
mechanical disintegration. This method achieves yields as high as 60 to 80
percent, as opposed to 50 to 55 percent for other chemical processes.
The NSSC process varies from mill to mill. Some mills dispose of their
spent liquor, some mills recover the cooking chemicals, and some, when operated
in conjunction with kraft mills, mix their spent liquor with the kraft liquor
as a source of makeup chemcials. When recovery is practiced, the involved
steps parallel those of the sulfite process.
Emissions And Controls^»12-14 _ Particulate emissions are a potential prob-
lem only when recovery systems are involved. Mills that do practice recovery
but are not operated in conjunction with kraft operations often utilize fluid-
ized bed reactors to burn their spent liquor. Because the flue gas contains
sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate dust, efficient particulate collection may
be included for chemical recovery.
A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. Absorbing towers, diges-
ter/blower tank system, and recovery furnace are the main sources of SO2, with
amounts emitted dependent upon the capability of the scrubbing devices installed
for control and recovery.
Hydrogen sulfide can also be emitted from NSSC mills which use kraft type
recovery furnaces. The main potential source is the absorbing tower, where a
10.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE 10.1-8. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFITE PULPING3
Source
Base
Cone rol

Emission
factor''

Emission
Factor
Rat ing
Particulate
Sulfur dioxide
kg/ADUMg
lb/ADUT
kg/ADUMg
lb/ADUT
Digester/blow pic or

dump tankc
All
No re
Neg
Neg
5 to 35
O
n
O
O
C

MgO
Process change^
Neg
Neg
1 to 3
2 to 6
C

MgO
Scrubber
Neg
Neg
0 5
1
B

MgO
Process change and

scrubber
Neg
Neg
0.1
0.2
B

MgO
All exhaust vented through

recovery system
Neg
Neg
0
0
A

NH3
Process change
Neg
Neg
12.5
25
0

NH3
Process change and

scrubber
Neg
Neg
0 2
0.4
B

Na
Process change and

scrubber
Neg
Neg
L
2
C

Ca
Unknown
Neg *
Neg
33.5
67
c
Recovery systeme
MgO
Multlcyclone and venturl

scrubbers
1
2
4 5
9
A

NH3
Ammonia absorption and

mlsc eliminator
0 35
0 7
3.5
7
B

Na
Sodium carbonate scrubber
2
4
1
2
C
Acid plant^
NHn
Scrubber
Neg
Neg
0 2
0.3
c

Na
Unknowns
Neg
Neg
0.1
0.2
D

Ca
Jenssen scrubber
Neg
Neg
4
8
C
Other*1
All
None
Neg
Neg
6
12
D
aReference 11. All factors represenc long term average emissions. ADUMg ° Air dried unbleached megagram
AD(JT = Air dried unbleached ton. Neg ® negligible
^Expressed as kg (lb) of pollutant/air dried unbleached ton (mg) of pulp.
cFactors represent emissions after cook is completed and when digester contents are discharged into blow pit or
dump tank Some relief gases are vented from digester during cook cycle, but these are usually transferred to
pressure accumulators and SO2 therein reabsorbed Cor use in cooking liquor In some mills, actual emissions
will be intermittent and for short periods.
^May include such measures as raising cooking liquor pH (thereby lowering free SO2), relieving digester
pressure before concents discharge, and pumping out digester concents Inscead of blowing ouc
eRecovery system at most mills Is closed and includes recovery furnace, dlrecc contact evaporator, multiple
effect evaporator, acid forcificacion cower, and SO2 absorption scrubbers Generally only one emission poinc
for entire system. Factors include high SO2 emissions during periodic purging of recovery systems.
^Necessary in mills with insufficient or nonexistent recovery systems.
8Concrol Is pracdced, but type of system is unknown
^Includes miscellaneous pulping operations such as knotters, washers, screens, etc
Wood Products Industry
10.1-1
-------
significant quantity of hydrogen sulfite is liberated as the cooking liquor is
made. Other possible sources, depending on the operating conditions, include
the recovery furnace, and in mills where some green liquor is used in the cook-
ing process, the digester/blow tank system. Where green liquor is used", it
is also possible that significant quantities of mercaptans will be produced.
Hydrogen sulfide emissions can be eliminated if burned to sulfur dioxide before
the absorbing system.
Because the NSSC process differs greatly from mill to mill, and because
of the scarcity of adequate data, no emission factors are presented for this
process.
References for Section 10.1
1. Review of New Source Performance Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/
3-83-017, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, September 1983.
2. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Proposed
Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/2-76-014a, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September
1976.
3. Kraft Pulping - Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Mills, EPA-450/78-
003b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
March 1979.
4. Environmental Pollution Control, Pulp and Paper Industry, Part I: Air,
EPA-625/7-76-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
October 1976.
5. A Study of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Lime Kilns, Technical Bulletin
Number 107, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, New York, NY, April 1980.
6. A Study of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Large Kraft Recovery Furnaces,
Technical Bulletin Number 111, National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY, January 1981.
7. Source Category Report for the Kraft Pulp Industry, EPA Contract Number
68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, January 1983.
8. Source test data, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972.
9. Atmospheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry,
EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, September 1973.
10. Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Selected Combustion Sources Based on Short-
Term Monitoring Records, Technical Bulleting Number 416, National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY,
January 1984.
10.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
11. Backgound Document: Acid Sulfite Pulping, EPA-450/3-77-005, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1977 .
12. E. R. Hendrickson, et al., Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood
Pulping Industry, Volume I, HEW Contract Number CPA-22-69-18, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 15, 1970.
13. M. Benjamin, et al., "A General Description of Coramercial Wood Pulping and
Bleaching Processes", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 19
(3):155-161, March 1969.
14. S. F. Galeano and B. M. Dillard, "Process Modifications for Air Pollution
Control in Neutral Sulfite Semi-chemical Mills", Journal of the Air Pollu-
tion Control Association, 22(3):195-199s March 1972.
Wood Products Industry
10.1-17
-------
APPENDIX C.l
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AN"D SIZED EMISSION FACTORS
FOR
SELECTED SOURCES
-------
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
CONTENTS
AP-42
Section Page
Introduction C.l-5
1.8 Bagasse Boiler C.l-6
2.1 Refuse Incineration
Municipal Waste Mass Burn Incinerator C.l-8
Municipal Waste Modular Incinerator C.1 — 10
4.2 Automobile Spray Booth C.1—12
5.3 Carbon Black: Off Gas Boiler C.1—14
5.15 Detergent Spray Dryer TBA
5.17 Sulfuric Acid
Absorber C. 1 — 18
Absorber, 20% Oleum C.l-20
Absorber, 32% Oleum C.1—22
Absorber, Secondary C.l-24
5.xx Boric Acid Dryer C.1—26
5.xx Potash Dryer C.1—28
6.1 Alfalfa Dehydrating - Primary Cyclone C.l-30
6.3 Cotton Ginning
Roller Gin Gin Stand TBA
Saw Gin Gin Stand TBA
Lint Cleaner Air Exhaust TBA
Battery Condenser TBA
Roller Gin Bale Press TBA
Saw Gin Bale Press TBA
6.4 Feed And Grain Mills And Elevators
Carob Kibble Roaster C.1—44
Cereal Dryer C.1—46
Grain Unloading In Country Elevators C.1—48
Grain Conveying C.l-50
Rice Dryer C.1—52
6.18 Ammonium Sulfate Fertilizer Dryer C.l-54
7.1 Primary Aluminum Production
Bauxite Processing - Fine Ore Storage C.l-56
Bauxite Processing - Unloading From Ore Ship C.1—58
7.13 Steel Foundries
Castings Shakeout C.l-60
Open Hearth Exhaust C.l-62
7.15 Storage Battery Production
Grid Casting TBA
Grid Casting And Paste Mixing TBA
Lead Oxide Mill TBA
Paste Mixing; Lead Oxide Charging TBA
Three Process Operation TBA
7.xx Batch Tinner C.l-74
Appendix C.l C.l-3
-------
CONTENTS (cone.)
AP-A2
Section Page
8.9 Coal Cleaning
Dry Process C. L-76
Thermal Dryer C.l-78
Thermal Incinerator C.l-80
8.18 Phosphate Rock. Processing
Calciner TBA
Dryer - Oil Fired Rotary And Fluidized Bed TBA
Dryer - Oil Fired Rotary TBA
Ball Mill TBA
Grinder - Roller And Bowl Mill TBA
8.xx Feldspar Ball Mill C.l-92
8.xx Fluorspar Ore Rotary Drum Dryer C.l-94
8.xx Lightweight Aggregate
Clay - Coal Fired Rotary Kiln C.l-96
Clay - Dryer C.l-98
Clay - Reciprocating Grate Clinker Cooler C.l-100
Shale - Reciprocating Grate Clinker Cooler C.1-102
Slate - Coal Fired Rotary Kiln C.1-104
Slate - Reciprocating Grate Clinker Cooler C.1-106
8.xx Nonmetallic Minerals - Talc Pebble Mill C. 1-108
10.4 Woodworking Waste Collection Operations
Belt Sander Hood Exhaust C.L-110
C.l-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
APPENDIX C.l
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
AND
SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED SOURCES
Introduction
This Appendix presents particle size distributions and emission factors
for miscellaneous sources or processes for which documented emission data were
available. Generally, the sources of data used to develop particle size
distributions and emission factors for this Appendix were:
1) Source test reports in the files of the Emission Measurement Branch
(EMB) of EPA's Emission Standards And Engineering Division, Office Of Air
Quality Planning And Standards.
2) Source test reports in the Fine Particle Emission Information System
(FPEIS), a computerized data base maintained by EPA's Air And Energy Engineer-
ing Research Laboratory, Office Of Research And Development.
3) A series of source tests titled Fine Particle Emissions From Station-
ary And Miscellaneous Sources In The South Coast Air Basin, by H. J. Taback.^
4) Particle size distribution data reported in the literature by various
individuals and companies.
Particle size data from FPEIS were mathematically normalized into more
uniform and consistent data. Where EMB tests and Taback report data were
filed in FPEIS, the normalized data were used in developing this Appendix.
Information on each source category in Appendix C.l is presented in a two
page format. For a source category, a graph provided on the first page presents
a particle size distribution expressed as the cumulative weight percent of
particles less than a specified aerodynamic diameter (cut point), in micro-
meters. A sized emission factor can be derived from the mathematical product
of a mass emission factor and the cumulative weight percent of particles smaller
than a specific cut point in the graph. At the bottom of the page is a table
of numerical values for particle size distributions and sized emission factors,
in micrometers, at selected values of aerodynamic particle diameter. The
second page gives some information on the data used to derive the particle size
dis t ributi ons.
Portions of the Appendix denoted TBA in the table of contents refer to
information which will be added at a later date.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-5
-------
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION - 1.8 BAGASSE FIRED BOILER
09 99 »
99 9
99
98
95
90
-a
a)
jj
CO 80
jj
W
70
V
M 60
SI
60
UO
•H
20
3
E
3
U
2
1
0 5
0 1
0 01
/
/
CONTROLLED
—o— Weight percent
Emission factor
1 < *
' » 1
_L
' t 1 « t
I 5
Pi
3
H«
W
CO
H»
o
a
1 0
OQ
0 5
0 0
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. %
< stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, urn
Wet scrubber
controlled
Wet scrubber controlled
2.5
46 .3

0.37
6.0
70.5

0.56
10.0
97.1

0.78
C.l-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION -
1.8 BAGASSE FIRED BOILER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 LO.O
Mean (Cura. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
46.3 70.5 97.1
0.9 0.9 1.9
45.A 69 .6 95 .2
47.2 71.4 99.0
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %) :
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Approximately 0.8 kg particulate/Mg bagasse
charged to boiler. This factor is derived from AP-42, Section 1.8, 4/77, which
states that the particulate emission factor from an uncontrolled bagasse fired
boiler is 8 kg/Mg and that wet scrubbers typically provide 90% particulate
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a Riley Stoker Corp. vibrating grate spreader
stoker boiler rated at 120,000 lb/hr but operated during this testing at 121%
of rating. Average steam temperature and pressure were 579°F and 199 psig
respectively. Bagasse feed rate could not be measured, but was estimated to be
about 41 (wet) tons/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Anderson Cascade impactor.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
cont rol.
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, U. S. Sugar Company, Bryant, F1, EMB-80-WFB-6,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
May 1980.
Appendix C.l
C.l-7
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR
99 99
99 9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
AO
30
20
10
2
1
0 5
0 1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
— Weight percent
• — Emission factor
' i i » « «
' iii
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
26.0
3.9
6.0
30.6
4.6
10.0
38.0
5.7
C. 1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR
NUMBER OF TESTS: 7, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (um):
2.5
6.0
10.0
Mean (Cum. %) :
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
18
40
26.0
9.5
30.6
13.0
22
49
38.0
14.0
24
54
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged.
Emission factor from AP-42 Section 2.1.
SOURCE OPERATION: Municipal incinerators reflected in the data base include
various mass burning facilities of typical design and operation.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Unknown.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Determination Of Uncontrolled Emissions, Product 2B, Montgomery County,
Maryland, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, August 1984.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C. 1-9
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR
99.99
99 9
99
98
V
N 93
CO
-u 90
0)
CO
80
w
v '0
** 60
xj
X 50
W>
*H 40
1
2
1
0.5
0.1
0 01
y
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
— Emission factor
j i
J I L.
10 0
60 T
5?
4 0
2 0
5 6 7 8 9 10
60 SO 60 70 80 90 IOC
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, k.g/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncont rol1ed
Uncontrolled
2.5
54.0
8.1
6.0
60.1
9.0
10.0
67.1
10.1
C.l-10
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR
NUMBER OF TESTS. 3, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
54.0 60.1 67.1
19.0 20.8 23.2
34.5 35.9 37.5
79.9 86.6 94.2
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged.
Emission factor from AP-42, Third Edition, Section 2.1 (1/82).
SOURCE OPERATION: Modular incinerator (2 chambered) operation was at 75.9% of
the design process rate (10,000 lb/hr) and 101.2% of normal steam production
rate. Natural gas is required to start the incinerator each week. Average
waste charge rate was 1.983T/hr. Net heating value of garbage 4200-4800 BTU/lb
garbage charged.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emission Test Report, City of Salem, Salem, Va, EMB-80-WFB-1, U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1980.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C.l-ll
-------
A.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE & LIGHT DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:
AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER BASE ENAMEL)
*o
0)
Jj
CO
u
CO
V
3^
s:
bo
0)
3

D
E
D
a
99 99
99 9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
t
1
0 5
0 01
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
J ' ' ' ' ¦
i
* »
5 6 7 8 9 10
30
0 0
^0 50 oO 70 30 90 IOC
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Water curtain controlled
Water curtain controlled
2.5
28.6
1.44
6.0
38.2
1.93
10.0
46.7
2.36
C.l-12
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:
AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER BASED ENAMEL)
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted after water curtain control.
Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6 .0
10 .0
Mean (Cum. %):
28.6
38.2
46 .7
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
14.0
16.8
20.6
Min (Cum. %):
15.0
21.4
26.1
Max (Cum. %):
42.2
54.9
67 .2
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.3 kg particulate/hour of operation. From
Reference a, p. 4-232.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a water base enamel spray booth in an automotive
assembly plant. Enamel spray rate is 568 lbs/hour, but spray gun type is not
identified. The spray booth exhaust rate is 95,000 scfm. Water flow rate to
the water curtain control device is 7181 gal/min. Source is operating at 84%
of design rate.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Joy train with cyclones.
SUITABILITY OF DATA USE: Fair. Source operation is such that the data could
be applied to other sources in this category. However, the reliability of the
data is questionable because of the small number of tests.
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 234, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C.l
C.l-13
-------
5.3 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFF GAS BOILER
99 99
99 9
99
98

70
CO
90
20
*H
i_l
CO
H 10
3
e
D
o 5
2
I
0 5
0.1
/
/
/
s
I 75
I 50
3
M
W
•Si
H*
o
3
0)
o
0
1
OQ
Oq
UNCONTROLLED
—o— Weight percent
Emission factor
a.
i *
1 i

-L.

I \
I 25
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
87.3
1.40
6.0
95.0
1.52
10.0
97.0
1.55
C ."1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
5.3 CARBON BLACK. OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFF GAS BOILER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted at off gas boiler outlet
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter Cum): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard Deviation (Cum. 7,):
87.3 95.0 97.0
2.3 3.7 8.0
76.0 90.0 94.5
94.0 99 100
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.6 kg particulate/Mg carbon black produced,
from reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Process operation: "normal" (production rate = 1900 kg/hr).
Product Is collected in fabric filter, but the off gas boiler outlet is
uncontrolled.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Air Pollution Emission Test, Phillips Petroleum Company, Toledo, OH, EMB-
73-CBK.-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, September 1974.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C. 1-15
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
99 9

•H
JJ
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor (0.2)
Emission factor (2.0)
3
5 6
8 9 10
20
30
iO 50 60 70 30 90 100
/
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle

Uncont rolled
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
(0.2)
(2.0)
2.5
51.2
O
•
o
1.0
6.0
100
0.20
2.0
10.0
100
0.20
2.0
C. 1-18
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 51.2 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.2 to 2.0 kg acid mist/Mg sulfur charged,
for uncontrolled 98% acid plants burning elemental sulfur. Emission factors
are from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Not available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Not available
SUITABILITY OF DATA USE: Poor. Applicability to other sources in this category
is doubtful, because information about the source operation and the number of
tests is not available.
REFERENCES:
a. Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1977 .
b. R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Stand-
ards For Sulfuric Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Wilmington, DE, June 1974.
c. J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry, 50/647, April 1958.
Appendix C.l C.l-19
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM
90 oc
V
•H
O
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
1
2
3
u
5 6 7 8 9 10
20
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 LOO
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncont rolled
2.5
97.5
See Table 5.17-2
6.0
100

10 .0
100

C .1-20
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM
NUMBER OF TESTS: Indeterminate
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR" Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid
plants are a function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product. See
AP-42 Section 5.17, Table 5.17-2.
SOURCE OPERATION: Not available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Not available
SUITABILITY OF DATA USE: Poor. Applicability to other sources in this category
is doubtful, because information about the source operation and the number of
tests is not available.
REFERENCES:
a. Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.
b. R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Stand-
ards For Sulfuric Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Wilmington, DE, June 1974.
c. J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry, 5(3:647, April 1958.
2.5 6.0 10.0
97.5 100 LOO
Appendix C.l
C.l-21
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM
93
V
N
TJ
0)
XJ
V
s:
to

•H
CO
3
E
3
a
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
o 01
3
4
5 6 7 3 9 10
20
30
40 50 60 70 30 90 iOO
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, k.g/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncont rolled
2.5
100
See Table 5.17-2
6.0
100

10.0
100

C.1-22
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM
NUMBER OF TESTS: Indetenninate
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (ura): 2.5 6.0 1U.0
Mean (Can. %): 100 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid
plants are a function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product. See
AP-42 Section 5.17, Table 5.17-2.
SOURCE OPERATION: Not available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Not available
SUITABILITY OF DATA USE: Poor. Applicability to other sources in this category
is doubtful, because information about the source operation and the number of
tests is not available.
REFERENCES:
a. Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.
b. R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Stand-
ards For Sulfuric Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Wilmington, DE, June 1974.
c. J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
Appendix C.l C.l-23
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER
J9 9,
99 9
D 01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
_l_
_1 i I I
_l_
J I I I -1-
5 6 7 8 9 10 :0
Particle diameter, urn
50 60 70 30 90 100
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
48
Not Available
6.0
78
Not Available
10.0
87
Not Available
C. 1-24
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER
NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available
STATISTICS:
Particle Size (um)
Mean (Cum. %).
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
2.5 6.0 10.0
58.6 97.8 99.9
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.2 to 2.0 kg/Mg (uncontrolled 98% acid
plants burning elemental sulfur). Expressed as units of acid mist per unit
weight of raw material charged to the process. Emission factors from AP-42
SOURCE OPERATION: Not available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Not available
SUITABILITY OF DATA USE: Poor. Applicability to other sources in this category
is doubtful because information about the source operation and the number of
tests is not available.
REFERENCES:
Emission Test Report, City of Salem, Salem, Va, EMB-80-WFB-1, U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1980.
b. J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
c. G. E. Harris and L. A. Rohlack, "Particulate Emissions from Non-fired
Sources in Petroleum Refineries: A Review of Existing Data", Publica-
tion No. 4363, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, December
1982.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-25
-------
5.xx CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY: BORIC ACID DRYER
99 99
99 9
39
98
3 95
90
Q)
u
eg 30
jj
CO
V
70
60
JJ 50
to
•H
-------
5.xx BORIC ACID DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted before controls
b) 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (ura): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
0.3
3.3
6.9
Min (Cum. %) :
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
3.3
6.7 10.6
Mm (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Before control, 4.15 kg particulate/Mg
boric acid dried. After fabric filter control, 0.11 kg particulate/Mg boric
acid dried. Emission factors from Reference a.
SOURCE OPERATION: 100% of design process rate.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Joy train with cyclones
b) SASS train with cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 236, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C.l
C.1-27
-------
5. POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER
v
N
<1>
u
<0
¦U
CO
V
x:
bO
•H
01
»
0)
>
3
£
3
CJ
°9 99
99 9
99
98
93
90
80
'0
60
50
40
30
20
I
0 5
0 1
0 01
UNCONTROLLED
-~—Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
-b—Wt. t low pressure
Wt. % high pressure
-i—i » ' » »
Jim
I I I
_L
5 0
3 0
0 0
5 6
9 10
20
30
iO 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um

Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Low pressure
drop venturi
scrubber
High pressure
drop venturi
scrubber
Uncontrolled
2.5
0.95
77.3
5.0
0.31
6.0
2.46
78.8
7.5
0.81
10.0
4.07
79.9
9.0
1.34
C.1-28
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
5. POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 7, conducted before control
b) 2, conducted after cyclone and low pressure drop
venturi scrubber control
c) 1, conducted after cyclone and high pressure drop
venturi scrubber control
STATISTICS:
a)
Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0
10.0

Mean (Cum. %):
0.95
2.46
4.07

Standard deviation (Cum. %):
0.68
2.37
4.34

Min (Cum. %):
0.22
0.65
1.20

Max (Cum. %):
2.20
7.50
13.50
b)
Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0
10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
77.3
78.8
79.9
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
0.3
0.8
1.7
Min (Cum. %):
77.0
78.0
78.2
Max (Cum. %):
77.5
79.5
81.5
Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0
10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
5.0
7.5
9.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. X):
Max (Cum. Z):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 33 kg particulate/Mg of potassium
chloride product from dryer, from AP-42, Section 5.16, Supplement 13, 8/82.
It is assumed that particulate emissions from rotary gas fired dryers for
potassium chloride are similar to particulate emissions from rotary steam
tube dryers for sodium carbonate.
SOURCE OPERATION: Potassium chloride is dried in a rotary gas fired dryer.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Andersen Impactor
b) Andersen Impactor
c) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCES:
a) Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-4, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April
1979.
b) Emission Test Report, Kerr-Mcgee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-5, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April
1979.
Appendix C.l C.l-29
-------
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE
/
/

0 4
O 2 =L
V J JT
73
UNCONTROLLED
—•- Weight percent
Emission factor
_i i ¦ 1 1 ¦
i i i i
3 0
¦"> iC K .DC
10
;o
-o :o
Particle diameter, ura
Aerodynamic
Particle
diameter, um
Cum. wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncont rolled
Uncontrol1ed
2.5
70.6
3.5
6.0
82.7
4.1
10.0
90.0
4.5
C. 1-30
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %)
70.6 82.7 90.0
Min (Cum. Z):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 5.0 kg particulate/Mg alfalfa pellets
before control. Factor from AP-42, 3rd Edition, Section 6.1, (8/77).
SOURCE OPERATION: During this test, source dried 10 tons of alfalfa/hour in a
direct fired rotary dryer.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Nelson Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 152, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C.l-31
-------
99 99
99.9
*U
01
99
98
95
90
80
03
w 70
V
o\#
60
50
"Sd <¦<>
•H
S 30
qj 20
C 10
E
3 5
CJ
2
1
0.5
0 1
0 01
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER
/
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
-i_
j i > i i
_i_
_i_
_i_
I
' 1
J.
0 75
cn
3
Ji
V)
r»
O
3
0 50 Oo
n
rr
O
OQ
7Q
0 25
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
0 0
40 50 60 70 30 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, ura
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
3.0
0.11
6.0
3.2
0.12
10.0
9.6
0.36
C.1-44
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN HILLS AND ELEVATORS: CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
3.0
3.2 9.6
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.8 kg/Mg carob kibble roasted. Factor
from Reference a, pg. 4-175.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source roasts 300 kg carob pods per hour, 100% of the design
rate. Roaster heat input is 795 kj/hr of natural gas.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Joy train with 3 cyclones.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System Series, Report No. 229, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C.l
C .1-45
-------
99 99
99 9
99
98
0)
N 95
90
CO 30
CO
v 70
60
£ 50
*?«>
0)
5 30
0)
> 20

n
rr
O
i-l
0 25
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, ura
30
0 0
40 50 60 70 30 90 -0C
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, utn
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
27
0.20
6.0
37
0.28
10.0
44
0.33
C.l-46
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
6.A FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CEREAL DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 6, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
27
17
13
47
37
18
20
56
44
20
22
58
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.75 kg particulate/Mg cereal dried.
Factor taken from AP-42, Section 6.4, Table 6.4-3.
SOURCE OPERATION: Confidential.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE. Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Confidential test data from a major grain processor, PEI Associates,
Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-47
-------
99 99
99.9
99
96
95
N
T3
OJ
JJ
CD
u
CO
V
5s#
90
SO
70
60
jj 50
rC
W 40
•H
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
13.8 30.5
3.3 2.5
10.5 28.0
17.0 33.0
49.0
Min (Cum. %) :
Max (Cum. %):
49.0
49.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.3 kg partlculate/Mg of grain unloaded,
without control. Emission factor from AP-42 Section 6.4.
SOURCE OPERATION: During testing, the facility was continuously receiving
wheat of low dockage. The elevator is equipped with a dust collection system
which serves the dump pit boot and leg.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Nelson Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCES:
a. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No. 154, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
b. Emission Test Report, Uniontown Co-op, Elevator No. 2, Uniontown, WA,
Report No. 75-34, Washington State Department Of Ecology, Olympia, WA,
October 1975.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-49
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CONVEYING
v
N
73
0)
u
CO
u
CO
V
5^
X
bO
•H
CJ
5

0
E
D
CJ
99 99
99 9
99
96
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1
0 5
0 1
0 01
J—I » ' ¦ '
5 6 7 8 9 10
UNCONTROLLED
¦ • Weight percent
— — —Emission factor
' ' « * '
20
30
40 50 60 70 80 90
Pi
3
h-
cn
cn
o*
3
m
0}
O
rr
O
»1
OP
2
CTQ
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynami c
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncont rolled
2.5
16 .8
0.08
6.0
41.3
0.21
10.0
69.4
0.35
C.1-50
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CONVEYING
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
16.3 41.3 69.4
6.9 16.3 27.3
9.9 25.0 42.1
23.7 57.7 96.6
Mm (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.5 kg particulate/Mg of grain processed,
without control. Emission factor from AP-42, 3rd Edition.
SOURCE OPERATION: Grain is unloaded from barges by "marine leg" buckets lifting
the grain from the barges and discharging it onto an enclosed belt conveyer,
which transfers the grain to the elevator. These tests measured the combined
emissions from the "marine leg" bucket unloader and the conveyer transfer
points. Emission rates averaged 1956 lbs particulate/hour (0.67 kg/Mg grain
unloaded). Grains are corn and soy beans.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Model B Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corporation, Destrehan, LA, EMB-74-
GRN-7, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, January 1974.
Appendix C.l
C.l-51
-------
99 99
99
98
S '5
•H
CO
•u
:o
CO
^ LO
S
3
a :
I
0 5
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: RICE DRYER
90 _
' i i i I i i
UNCONTROLLED
~— Weight percent
— Emission factor
-i.
' i i i i >
0 015
m
3
H-
CO
0)
H*
O
3
Hh
0 010 t)
O
rr
O
K
crc
crq
o 005
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
u0 50 60 70 30 90 10C
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < Stated Size
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
Particle

diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
2.0
0.003
6.0
8.0
0.01
10.0
19.5
0.029
C. 1-52
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: RICE DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted on uncontrolled source.
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (urn): 2.5
6.0
10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
2.0
3.3
3.1
9.7
8.0
19.5
9.4
10.1
28.9
Min (Cum. 7„):
Max (Cura. %):
2.0
2.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.15 leg particulate/Mg of rice dried.
Factor from AP-42, Table 6.4-1, footnote b for column dryer.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source operated at 100% of rated capacity, drying 90.8 Mg
rice/hr. The dryer is heated by four 9.5 kg/hr burners.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Sass train with cyclones.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 228, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C.l
C .1-53
-------
99 99
99 9
99
98
95
90
80
u
W
5^ 60
" 50
v4 40
CJ
5 30
20
3
E
3
CJ
1
0 5
6.IS AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
till
_L_
_L
-L.
i
lit!
30
20
10
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
60 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynaraic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
10.8
2.5
6.0
49.1
11.3
10.0
98.6
22.7
C•1-54
Appendix C.1
-------
6.18 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control.
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um)
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
2.5
6.0
10.0
10.8
49.1
98.6
5.1
21.5
1.8
4.5
20.3
96.0
17.0
72.0
100.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 23 kg particulate/Mg of ammonium sulfate
produced. Factor from AP-42, 3rd Edition, Section 6.18.
SOURCE OPERATION: Testing was conducted at three ammonium sulfate plants
operating rotary dryers within the following production parameters:
Plant
D
% of design process rate 100.6
production rate, Mg/hr 16.A
40.1 100
6.09 8.4
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Cascade Impactors
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture - Background Information For Proposed
Emission Standards, EPA-450/3-79-034a, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1979.
Appendix C.l
C .1-55
-------
7.1
99 99
99 9

•H

CO
i-H
10
3

3
5
U

1
0 5
0 1
0 01
PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
FINE ORE STORAGE
0 00075
3
H>
Cfi
J)
H
O
3
0 00050
o
n
77*
*5
0 00025
CONTROLLED
—¦- Weight percent
Emission factor
« * iii*
JL
' i i « i
0 00
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
<*Q 50 60 70 80 90 10C
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Fabric filter controlled
Fabric filter
controlled
2.5
50.0
0.00025
6.0
62.0
0.0003
10.0
68.0
0.0003
C. 1-56
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING -
FINE ORE STORAGE
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
50.0 62.0 68.0
15.0 19.0 20.0
35.0 43.0 48.0
65.0 81.0 88.0
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.0005 kg particulate/Mg of ore filled,
with fabric filter control. Factor calculated from emission and process data
in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina. Bauxite ore,
unloaded from ships, is conveyed to storage bins from which it is fed to the
alumina refining process. These tests measured the emissions from the bauxite
ore storage bin filling operation (the ore drop from the conveyer into the bin),
after fabric filter control. Normal bin filling rate is between 425 and 475
tons per hour.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company, Corpus Christi, TX, EMB-
80-MET-9, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, May 1980.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C.1-57
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
99 99
99 9
0)

N
95

•H

~
CO

>
:o

•H

CT3

r-{
3
10

CJ
5
-

1
0 5
CONTROLLED
»— Weight percent
-- Emission factor
_i_
¦ ' ¦ ¦
_1_
J I I I I
0 007 5
0.0050
0 0025
0 00
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
40 50 60 70 80 90 L0(
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Wet
scrubber controlled
Wet scrubber
cont rol1ed
2.5
60.5
0.0024
6.0
67.0
0.0027
10.0
70.0
0.0028
C .1-58
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, after venturi scrubber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. /): 60.5 67.0 70.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.004 kg particulate/Mg bauxite ore unloaded
after scrubber control. Factor calculated from emission and process data
contained in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina. Ship unloading
facility normally operates at 1500-1700 tons/hr, using a self contained
extendable boom conveyor that interfaces with a dockside conveyor belt through
an accordion chute. The emissions originate at the point of transfer of the
bauxite ore from the ship's boom conveyer as the ore drops through the the
chute onto the dockside conveyer. Emissions are ducted to a dry cyclone and
then to a Venturi scrubber. Design pressure drop across scrubber is 15 inches,
and efficiency during test was 98.4 percent.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company, Corpus Christi, TX, EMB-
80-MET-9, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, May 1980.
Appendix C.l
C .1-59
-------
99 9
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: CASTINGS SHAKEOUT
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
» «
I i
XL
15
rt
3
H*
Cfl
W
H*
o
3
Ml
10 QJ
O

2
OS
5 6 7 8 9 10
20
30
40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynami c
Cumulative wt. / < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
72.2
11.6
6.0
76.3
12.2
10.0
82.0
13.1
C. 1-60
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: CASTINGS SHAKEOUT
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted at castings shakeout exhaust hood before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
2.5
6.0
10.0
72.2
76.3
82.0
5.A
6.9
4.3
66.7
69.5
77.7
77.6
83.1
86.3
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 16 kg particulate/Mg metal melted, without
controls. Although no nonfurnace emission factors are available for steel
foundries, emissions are presumed to be similar to those in iron foundries.
Nonfurnace emission factors for iron foundries are presented in AP-42, 3rd
Edition, Section 7.10.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a steel foundry casting steel pipe. Pipe molds
are broken up at the castings shakeout operation. No additional information is
available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Model BMS-11 Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 117, U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C.l C. 1. — 61
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST
U
N
99 99
99.9
99
93
95
90
QJ
jj
CO
w
V
bO
•H

3
E
3
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
i
0 5
0 1
UNCONTROLLED
—Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
Weight Percent
••• Emission factor
j.
_L
JL
' 1 ' 1 *
J.

I I I I 1
6 0
5 0
6 0
3 0
0 5
- 0 3
0 2
" 0 1
0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 LOG
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt.
< stated size
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
ESP
Uncontrolled
ESP
2.5
79.6
49.3
4.4
0.14
6.0
82.8
58.6
4.5
0.16
10.0
85.4
66.8
4.7
CO
o
C.1-62
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted before control
b) 1, conducted after ESP control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 79.6 82.8 85.4
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 LO.O
Mean (Cum. %): 49.3 58.6 66.8
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 5.5 kg particulate/Mg metal processed,
before control. Emission factor from AP-42, 3rd Ed., Section 7.13, (4/81).
AP-42 gives an ESP control efficiency of 95 to 98.5%. At 95% efficiency,
factor after ESP control is 0.275 kg particulate/Mg metal processed.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces steel castings by melting, alloying, and
casting pig iron and steel scrap. During these tests, source was operating at
100% of rated capacity of 8260 kg metal scrap feed/hour, fuel oil fired, and 8
hour heats.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Joy train with 3 cyclones
b) Sass train with cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 233, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-63
-------
7.xx BATCH TINNER

70
60
50
AO
30
20
ce
i-« 10
3
£
5 3
2
I
0.5
UNCONTROLLED
—Weight percent
Emission factor
¦ i ¦ i i i

_i_
J i i i i
o o
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynami c
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
37.2
0.93
6.0
45.9
1.15
10.0
55.9
1.40
C.1-7A
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
7.xx BATCH TINNER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
37.2 45.9 55.9
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 2.5 kg particulate/Mg tin consumed, without
controls. Factor from AP-42 , Section 7.14.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a batch operation applying a lead/tin coating to
tubing. No further source operating information is available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Confidential test data, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
Appendix C.l
C.1-75
-------
39 99
99 9 ,
T3
0)
V
>
D
E
3
CJ
99
98
95
90
CO 80
jj
<0
70
V
gso 60
50
i*0
30
20
£
b0
0)
5
10
2
1
0.5
0 1
8.9 COAL CLEANING: DRY PROCESS
/
CONTROLLED
—Weight percent
Emission factor
' * i i I*
1 « »
0 00^
0 003
n
3
H-
CO
O
D
OJ
n
o
0 002 K
w
era
0 001
0 00
5 6 7 8 9 10
20
30
60 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
After fabric filter control
After fabric filter control
2.5
16
0.002
6.0
26
0.0025
10.0
31
0.003
C.1-76
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.9 COAL CLEANING: DRY PROCESS
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5
6.0
10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
16
26
31
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.01 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed.
Emission factor is calculated from data in AP-42, Section 8.9, 3rd Edition,
assuming 99% particulate control by fabric filter.
SOURCE OPERATION: Soutce cleans coal with the dry (air table) process.
Average coal feed rate during testing was 70 tons/hr/table.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Coulter counter
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
R. W. Kling, Emissions from the Florence Mining Company Coal Process-
ing Plant at Seward, PA, Report No. 72-CI-4, York Research Corporation,
Stamford, CT, February 1972.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C. 1-77
-------
SECTION 8.9 COAL CLEANING: THERMAL DRYER
99 99
99 9
99
98
90
30
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
1
0 5
0 1
0 01
UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Weight percent
-i_
» ' » ¦
-L.
¦ « ' «
5 0
PI
3
H
(n
(n
H*
o
3
i-n
3 0 0)
n
rr
O
n
OQ
2
0 0
5 6 7 8 9 10
20
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
After
wet scrubber
Uncont rol1ed
After
wet scrubber
2.5
42
53
1 .47
0.016
6.0
86
85
3.01
0.026
10.0
96
91
3.36
0.027
C. 1-78
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
SECTION 8.9 COAL CLEANING: THERMAL DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted before control
b) 1, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5
6.0
10.0
Mean (Cum. 7,):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
42
86
96
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5
6.0
10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
53
85
91
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.5 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed,
(after cyclone) before wet scrubber control. After wet scrubber control, 0.03
kg/Mg. These are site specific emission factors and are calculated from process
data measured during source testing.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates a thermal dryer to dry coal cleaned by wet
cleaning process. Combustion zone in the thermal dryer is about 1000°F, and
the air temperature at the dryer exit is about 125°F. Coal processing rate is
about 450 tons per hour. Product is collected in cyclones.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Coulter counter
b) Each sample was dispersed with aerosol 0T, and further
dispersed using an ultrasonic bath. Isoton was the
electrolyte used.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
R. W. Kling, Emission Test Report, Island Creek Coal Company Coal Pro-
cessing Plant, Vansant, Virgina, Report No. Y-7730-H, York Research
Corporation, Stamford, CT, February 1972.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-79
-------
8.9 COAL PROCESSING: THERMAL INCINERATOR
99.99
99.9
99
9B
95
90
80
70
60
50
AO
30
20
10
2
1
0.5
0 1
UNCONTROLLED
—Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
—Weight percent
» » ' » «
1 * » » i
0 4
0 2
5 6 7 8 9 10
20
30
0 0
40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt.
% < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Cyclone
controlled
Uncont rolled
2.5
9.6
21.3
0.07
6.0
17.5
31.8
0.12
10.0
26.5
A3.7
0.19
C. 1-80
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.9 COAL PROCESSING: THERMAL INCINERATOR
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 2, conducted before controls
b) 2, conducted after multicyclone control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
9.6 17.5 26.5
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
26.A 35.8 46.6
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.7 kg particulate/Mg coal dried, before
multiclone control. Factor from AP-42, 3d Edition, Section 2.1.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a thermal incinerator controlling gaseous emissions
from a rotary kiln drying coal. No additional operating data are available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Confidential test data from a major coal processor, PEI Associates, Inc.,
Golden, CO, January 1985.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C.1-8 1
-------
99 99
99 9
99
98
0) 95
N
90 _
(U
30
60
5\°
jj 30
SI
bo uo

lO
D
E
3
CJ
I
0 5
0 1
0 01
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor

j ¦ ' ¦ ¦
J I L
S 0
ra
3
H*
6 0 cn
CO
o
3
0>
O
O
?r
0 03
oq
: o
5 6 7 3 9 10 2<
Particle diameter,
30
0 0
60 50 60 :o 30 90 .00
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, am
Before controls
Before controls
2.5
11.5
1.5
6.0
22.8
2.9
10.0
32.3
4.2
C.l-92
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
11.5 22.8 32.3
6.4 7.4 6.7
7.0 17.5 27.5
16.0 28.0 37.0
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 12.9 kg particulate/Mg feldspar produced.
Calculated from data in reference and related documents.
SOURCE OPERATION: After crushing and grinding of feldspar ore, source produces
feldspar powder in a ball mill.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Alundum thimble followed by 12 inch section of stainless
steel probe followed by 47 mm type SGA filter contained in a stainless steel
Gelman filter holder. Laboratory analysis methods: microsieve and electronic
particle counter.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Air Pollution Emission Test, International Minerals and Chemical Company,
Spruce Pine, NC, EMB-76-NMM-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1976.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C.1-93
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER
99 99
99 9
OJ 95
XI
20
3
E
3
CJ
1
0 5
0 Ot

CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
1 1 1 ¦
-L.
1 I
_L_L
3
«
0}
H-
O
3
l-tl
03
n
7?
tn
03
5 6 7 3 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
40 50 oO 70 50 90 100
Aerodynam!c
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
After fabric filter control
After fabric filter control
2.5
10
0 .OA
6.0
30
0.11
10.0
48
0.18
C.1-94
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum, %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
10
30
48
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.375 kg particulate/Mg ore dried, after
fabric filter control. Factors from reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source dries fluorspar ore in a rotary drum dryer at a feed
rate of 2 tons/hour.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Confidential test data from a major fluorspar ore processor, PEI
Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-95
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
99 99
99 9
99
93

5^8
—
U
50

U>
^0

3
-
a;
:o

•H

•U

CO
L0

D
-

—
I
0 J

WET SCRUBBER and
SETTLING CHAMBER
Weight percent
— Emission factor
WET SCRUBBER
Weight percent
JL
' till
-L.
' « i t i
3
en
cr
H*
os
n
rr
O
n
7T
2
1 0
5 6 7 S ^ 10 20
Particle diameter, um
o o
50 60 70 30 =0 LOO
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
After wet scrubber control
After wet scrubber control
2.5
55
0.97
6.0
75
1 .33
10.0
84
1.49
C .1-96
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 4, conducted after wet scrubber control
b) 8, conducted after settling chamber and wet scrubber
cont rol
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 55 75 84
Standard Deviation (Cura. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cura. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 55 65 81
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.77 kg particulate/Mg of clay processed,
after control by settling chamber and wet scrubber. Calculated from data in
Reference c.
SOURCE OPERATION: Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate in pulverized
coal fired rotary kilns. Kiln capacity for Source b is 750 tons/day, and
operation is continuous.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCES:
a. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries,
Inc., EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 341, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
c. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Light-
weight Aggregate Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
Appendix C.l
C. 1-97
-------
99 99
99.9
99
98
a>
95

•H

W
90

•o

i_»
80

—
i_i

CO
70

u
—
JZ

bO
40

•H

(1)
20

J_>

CO
10

m
3

D
5

2
I
0 5
0 1
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER
/
UNCONTROLLED
—Weight percent
Emission factor
-L
-L-J 1 I II
_L
-L
' 1 ' ' »
3
H
CD
W
C
3
CD
o
o
ri
7?
TO
2
OP
20
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
AO 50 60 70 80 90 10C
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
2.5
37.2
13.0
6.0
74.8
26.2
10.0
89.5
31.3
C•1—98
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 5, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. X):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
37.2 74.8 89.5
3.4 5.6 3.6
32.3 68.9 85.5
41.0 80.8 92.7
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 35 kg/Mg clay feed to dryer. From
AP-42, Section 8.7.
SOURCE OPERATION: No information on source operation is available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 88, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C-l
C.1-99
-------
.XX LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):
99 99
RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
99 9
99
98
=0
AJ
CO
r-l L0
1
0 5
0 01
/
/

MULTICLONE CONTROLLED
-O— Weight percent
Emission factor
FABRIC FILTER
—o— Weight percent
-L.
i i i i
/ •
_L_
I I I
0 15
3
O)
CO
O
3
rh
iO
O
rr
O
n
7T
JQ
2
CTC
0 05
0 0
5 5 7 3 9 l0 20
Particle diameter, um
50 60 70 30 "0 100
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt.
< stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Multiclone
Fabric falter
Multiclone
2.5
19.3
39
0.03
6.0
38.1
48
0.06
10.0
56.7
54
0.09
C.1-100
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 12, conducted after Multiclone control
b) 4, conducted after Multiclone and fabric filter control
a)
Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):
2.5
6.0
10.0

Mean (Cum. %):
19.3
38.1
56.7

Standard deviation (Cum. %):
7.9
14.9
17.9

Min (Cum. %):
9.3
18.6
29.2

Max (Cum. %):
34.6
61.4
76.6
b)
Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0
10.0

Mean (Cum. %):
39
48
54
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.157 kg particulate/Mg clay processed,
after multiclone control. Factor calculated from data in Reference b. After
fabric filter control, particulate emissions are negligible.
SOURCE OPERATION: Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate in a coal fired
rotary kiln and reciprocating grate clinker cooler.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Andersen Impactor
b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCES:
a. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries,
Inc., EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
b. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Light-
weight Aggregate Corporation, EM3-80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
c. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 342, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
Appendix C.l
C.1-101
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
99.99
T3
V
99 9
99
98
95
90
CO 80
jj
CO
V
70
§ 40
3 30
g 20
3
U
10
5
2
1
0.5
0 1
0.01
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
J i i I i i

0.05
0 03
0 01
0 0
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30
40 50 60 70 30 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt. "L < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle

diameter, um
Settling chamber control
Settling chamber control
2.5
8.2
0.007
6.0
17.6
0.014
10.0
25.6
0.020
C. 1-102
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 4, conducted after settling chamber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
8.2 17.6 25.6
4.3 2.8 1.7
4.0 15.0 24.0
14.0 21.0 28.0
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.08 kg particulate/Mg of aggregate
produced. Factor calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates two kilns to produce lightweight shale
aggregate, which is cooled and classified on a reciprocating grate clinker
cooler. Normal production rate of the tested kiln is 23 tons/hr, about 66% of
rated capacity. Kiln rotates at 2.8 rpm. Feed end temperature is 1100°F.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Vulcan Materials
Company, EMB-80-LWA-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, March 1982.
Appendix C.l
C.1-103
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGCREGATE (SLATE):
99.99
COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
99.9
99
98
0) 95
N "
•H
(A
90
0)
i-J
CO 60
jj
Cfl
70
V
60
u 50
I-
20
<3 »
2
1
0 5
0 1
UNCONTROLLED
• Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
' ' ¦ ¦
5 6 7 8 9 10
40 50 60 70 80 90 LOC
Aerodynamic
Cumulative wt.
% < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Without
controls
After wet
scrubber control
Without
controls
After wet
scrubber control
2.5
13
33
7.3
0.59
6.0
29
36
16.2
0.65
10.0
42
39
23.5
0.70
C. 1-104
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 3, conducted before control
b) 5, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 13.0 29.0 42.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 33.0 36.0 39.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: For uncontrolled source, 56.0 kg parti-
culate/Mg of feed. After wet scrubber control, 1.8 kg particulate/Mg of feed.
Factors are calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces light weight aggregate from slate in coal
fired rotary kiln and reciprocating grate clinker cooler. During testing
source was operating at a feed rate of 33 tons/hr., 83% rated capacity. Firing
zone temperatures are about 2125°F and kiln rotates at 3.25 RPM.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a. Bacho
b. Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation,
EMB-80-LWA-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, February 1982.
Appendix C.l C.1-105
-------
.XX LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
99 99
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 5, conducted after settling chamber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
9.8 23.6 41.0
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.22 kg particulate/Mg of raw material
feed. Factor calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces lightweight slate aggregate in a cool fired
kiln and a reciprocating grate clinker cooler. During testing, source was
operating at a feed rate of 33 tons/hr, 83% of rated capacity. Firing zone
temperatures are about 2125°F, and kiln rotates at 3.25 rpm.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactors
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation,
EMB-80-LWA-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, February 1982.
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C.1-107
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: TALC PEBBLE MILL
99 99
99
98
95
90 L
N
•H
W
TJ
0)
CO 30
jj
W
70
V
u 50
x:
w 'n
•H -°
0)
3 30
2 -0
3
£
D
CJ
LO
I
0 5
0 1
0 01
UNCONTROLLED
—Weight percent
Emission factor
¦ « »
» >
1 ' » « »
25
20
en
3
0)
Cfl
0)
n
O
n
7?
era
crq
3 6 / 3 9 LO 20
Particle diameter, um
30
60 50 60 70 30 90 LOO
Aerodynami c
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Emission factor, kg/Mg
particle
diameter, um
Before controls
Before controls
2.5
30.1
5.9
6.0
42.4
8.3
10.0
56.4
11.1
C.1-108
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: TALC PEBBLE MILL
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (um):
2.5
6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
30.1 42.4 56.4
0.8 0.2 0.4
29.5 42.2 56.1
30.6 42.5 56.6
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 19.6 kg particulate/Mg ore processed.
Calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source crushes talc ore then grinds crushed ore in a pebble
mill. During testing, source operation was normal, according to the operators.
An addendum to reference indicates throughput varied between 2.8 and 4.4
tons/hour during these tests.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Sample was collected in an alundum thimble and analyzed
with a Spectrex Prototron Particle Counter Model ILI 1000.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Air Pollution Emission Test, Pfizer, Inc., Victorville, CA, EMB-77-NM>l-5,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July
1977 .
REFERENCE:
Appendix C.l
C.1-109
-------
99 99
99.9
99
98
0)
N 95
T3
0)
90
CO
jj
00
\y
5^ 60
80
70
2 50
bO
*H 40
0)
3 30
Z>
£
3
a
20
10
2
1
0 5
10.4 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
CYCLONE CONTROLLED
—•- Weight percent
Emission factor
FABRIC FILTER
-a- Weight percent

JL
-L.
> I )
-L.
I
' » '
_L
3 0
3
H*
CO
CO
H-
o
3
i-n
QJ
n
rr
O
»1
7T
03
I 0
0 o
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
Cumulative wt. /
< stated size
Emission factor, kg/hour
of cyclone operation
diameter, um
Cyclone
After cyclone
and fabric filter
Af t er
cyclone collector
2.5
29.5
14.3
0.68
6.0
42.7
17 .3
0.98
10.0
52.9
32.1
L .22
C•1-110
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
10.4 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted after cyclone control
b) 1, after cyclone and fabric filter control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 29.5 42.7 52.9
Standard deviation (Cum. %) :
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 14.3 17.3 32.1
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %).
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 2.3 kg particulate/hr of cyclone operation.
For cyclone controlled source, this emission factor applies to typical large
diameter cyclones into which wood waste is fed directly, not to cyclones that
handle waste previously collected in cyclones. If baghouses are used for waste
collection, particulate emissions will be negligible. Accordingly, no emission
factor is provided for the fabric filter controlled source. Factors from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source was sanding 2 ply panels of mahogany veneer, at 100%
of design process rate of 1110 m^/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Joy train with 3 cyclones
b) Sass train with cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 238, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983,
Appendix C.l
C. 1-111
-------
APPENDIX C.2
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
Appendix C.2
C. 2-1
-------
CONTENTS
page
C.2.1 Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle
Distributions C.2-3
C.2.2 How To Use The Generalized Farticle Size Distributions
For Uncontrolled Processes C.2-3
C.2.3 How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions
For Controlled Processes C.2—17
C.2.4 Example Calculation C.2—17
Tables
C.2-1 Particle Size Cateogry By AP-42 Section C.2-5
C.2-2 Description of Particle Size Categories C.2-8
C.2-3 Typical Collection Efficiencies of Various Particulate
Control Devices (percent) C.2—17
Figures
C.2-1 Example Calculation for Determining Uncontrolled and
Controlled Particle Size Specific Emissions C.2-4
C.2-2 Calculation Sheet C.2-7
References C.2-18
C.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
APPENDIX C.2
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
C.2.1 Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions
The preparation of size specific particulate emission inventories
requires size distribution information for each process. Particle size
distributions for nany processes are contained in appropriate industry
sections of this document. Because particle size information for many
processes of local impact and concern are unavailable, this Apperdix provides
"generic" particle size distributions applicable to these processes. The
concept of the "generic particle size distribution is based on categorizing
measured particle size data from similar processes generating emissions from
similar materials. These generic distributions have been developed from
sampled size distributions from about 200 sources.
Generic particle size distributions are approximations. They should be
used only in the absence of source-specific particle size distributions for
areawide emission inventories.
C.2.2 How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For
Uncontrolled Processes
Figure C.2-1 provides an example calculation to assist the analyst in
preparing particle size specific emission estimates using generic size
distributions.
The following instructions for the calculation apply to each particulate
emission source for which a particle size distribution is desired and for
which no source specific particle size information is given elsewhere in this
document:
1. Identify and review the AP-42 Section dealing with that process.
2. Obtain the uncontrolled particulate emission factor for the process
from the main text of AP-42, and calculate uncontrolled total
particulate emissions.
3. Obtain the category number of the appropriate generic particle size
distribution from Table C.2-1.
4. Obtain the particle size distribution for the appropriate category
from Table C.2-2. Apply the particle size distribution to the
uncontrolled particulate emissions.
Instructions for calculating the controlled size specific emissions are
given in C.2.3 and illustrated in Figure C.2-1.
Appendix C.2
C.2-3
-------
Figure C.2-1. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR DETERMINING UNCONTROLLED
AND CONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name arid address: ABC Brick Manufacturing
Process description:
AP-42 Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
24 Dusty Way
Anywhere, USA
Dryers/Grinders
8.3, Bricks And Related Clay Products
96 lbs/ton
63,700 tons/year
3057.6 tons/year
(units)
(units)
(units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name: Mechanically Generated/Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category number: 3
Particle size (ym)
< 2.5
< 6
< 10
Generic distribution, Cumulative
percent equal to or less than the size: 15 34 51
Cumulative mass <_ particle size emissions
(tons/year): 458.6 1039.6 1559.^
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device: Fabric Filter
Collection efficiency (Table C.2-3):
Mass in size range"* before control
(tons/year):
Mass in size range after control
(tons/year):
Cumulative mass (tons/year):
Particle size (ym)
0 - 2.5 2.5 - 6
99.0
458.6
4.59
4.59
99.5
581.0
2.91
7.50
6-10
99.5
519.8
2.60
10.10
* These data do not include results for the greater than 10 ym particle size range,
** Uncontrolled size data are cumulative percent equal to or less than the size.
Control efficiency data apply only to size range and are not cumulative.
C.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2-1. PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORY BY AP-42 SECTION
AP-42 Category AP-42 Category
Section Source Category Number Section Source Category Number
External combustion
1 1 Bituminous coal combustion a
1 2 Anthracite coal combustion a
1.3 Fuel oil combustion a
Utility, residual oil a
Industrial, residual oil a
Uti1ity, distillate oil a
Commercial, residual oil a
Commercial, distillate a
Residential, distillate a
1.4 Natural gas combustion a
1 5 Li^eTied pstioleur gas a
1 6 Wood waste combustion in
boilers a
1 7 Lignite, combustion a
1 8 Bagasse Combustion b
1 9 Residential fireplaces a
1 10 Viood stoves a
1 11 Waste oil combustion 2
Sol id waste disposal
2 1 Refuse Incinerators b
2 3 Conical burners (wood waste) 2
Internal combustion engine
Highway vehicles'' a
3 2 Off highway 1
Chemical process
5.4 Charcoal production 9
5 8 Hydrofluoric acid
Spar drying 3
Spar handling 3
Transfer 3
5 10 Paint 4
5 11 Phosphoric acid (thermal
process) a
5 12 Phthalic anhydride 9
5 16 Sodium carbonate a
5 17 Sulfuric acid b
Food and agricultural
b.l Alfalfa dehydrating
Primary cyclone b
Meal collector cyclone 7
Pellet cooler cyclone 7
Pellet regrind cyclone 7
6 2 Coffee roasting 6
6 3 Cotton ginning b
6.4 Feed and grain mills and
elevators
Unloading b
Food and agricultural (cont )
Grain elevators 6
Grain processing 7
6 5 Fermentation 647
6 7 Heat smokehouses 9
6.8 Ammonium nitrate fertilizers a
6 10 Phosphate fertilizers 3
6 10 3 Ammonium phosphates
Reactor/ammoniator-
granulator 4
Oryer/cooler 4
6 11 Starch manufacturing 7
5 14 Ureo ncufactunrg 2
6 16 Defoliation and harvesting
of cotton
Trailer loading 6
Transport 6
6 17 Harvesting of grain
Harvesting machine 6
Truck loading 6
Field transport 6
6 18 Ammonium sulfate manufacturing
Rotary dryer b
Fluidized-bed dryer b
Metallurgical industry
7 1 Primary aluminum production
Bauxite grinding 4
Aluminum hydroxide calcining 5
Anode baking furnace 9
Prebake cell a
Vertical Soderberg 8
Horizontal Soderberg a
7 2 Coke manufacturing a
7 3 Primary copper smelting a
7 4 Ferroalloy production e
7 5 Iron and steel production
Blast furnace
Slips a
Cast house a
Sintering
Windbox a
Sinter discharge a
8asic oxygen furnace a
Electee arc fu'nace a
7 6 Primary lead smelting a
7.7 Zinc smelting 8
7 8 Secondary aluminum
Sweating furnace 8
Smelting
Crucible furnace 8
Reverberatory furrace a
7 9 Secondary copper smelting
and alloying 8
7 10 Gray iron foundries a
a Categories with particle size data specific to process included in the main body of the text
b. Categories with particle size data specific to process included in Appendix C 1
c Data for each numbered category are shown in Table C 2-2
d Highway vehicles data are reported in AP-42 Volume II Kobile Sources
Appendix C.2 C.2-5
-------
TABLE C.2-1 (continued).
AF-42

Category
AP-42

Categorv
Section
Source Category
Number
Section
Source Category
Number

Metallurgical industry (cont )

Mineral products (cont )

7 Li
Secondary lead processing
a

Impact mill
4
7.12
Secondary magnesium smelting
8

Flash calclner
a
7 13
Steel foundaries

Continuous kettle calclner
a

melting
b
8 15
Lime manufacturing
a
7 U
Secondary 2inc smelting
8
8.16
Mineral wool manufacturing

7.15
Storage battery production
b

Cupola
8
7 L8
Leadbearing ore crushing and

Reverberatory furnace
8

grinding
4

Blow chamber
8

Curing oven
9

Mineral products

Cooler
9

8 18
Phosphate rock processing

8 1
Asphaltlc concrete plants

Drying
a

Process
a

Calcining
a
a 3
Bricks and related clay

Grinding
b

products

Transfer and storage
3

Raw materials handling

8 19.1
Sand and gravel processing

Dryers, grinders, etc
b

Continuous drop

Tunnel/periodic kilns

Transfer station
a

Cas fired
a

Pile formation - stacker
a

Oil fired
a

Batch drop
a
8 5
Coal fired
a

Active storage piles
a
Castable refractories

Vehicle traffic unpaved road
a

Raw material dryer
3
8 19 2
Crushed stone processing

Raw material crushing and

Dry crushing

screening
3

Primary crushing
a

Electric arc melting
8

Secondary crushing

Curing oven
3

and screening
a
8.6
Portland cement manufacturing

Tertiary crushing

Dry process

and screening
3

Kilns
a

Recrushlng and screening
4

Dryers, grinders, ecc
A

Fines mill
4

Wet process

Screening, conveying,

kilns
a

and handling
a

Dryers, grinders, etc
6
8 22
Taconite ore processing

8 7
Ceramic clay manufacturing

Fine crushing
u

Drying
3

Waste gas
a

Crindlng
6

Pellet handling
4
0 8
S torage
3

Grate discharge
5
Clay and fly ash sintering

Grace feed
4

Fly ash sintering, crushing,

Bentonlte blending
4

screening and yard storage
5

Coarse crushing
3

Clay mixed with coke

Ore transfer
3

Crushing, screening, and

Bentonite transfer
4

yard storage
3

Unpaved roads
a
3.9
Coal cleaning
3
8.23
Metallic minerals processing
a
8 10
Concrete batching
3
8.24
Western surface coal mining

8 U
Class fiber manufacturing

Unloading and conveying
3

Wood processing

Storage bins
3

Mixing and weighing
3
10 1
Chemical wood pulping
a

Class furnace - wool
a

Class furnace - textile
a

Miscellaneous sources

8 13
Glass manufacturing
a

8. 16
G' psum manufacturing

11.2
Fugitive dust
a

Rotary ore dryer
a

Roller mill
u

a. Categories with particle sire data specific to process included in cbc main body of the text
b Categories with particle size data specific to process included in Appendix C 1
c Data for each numbered category are shown in Table C 2-2
C.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
Figure C.2-2. CALCULATION SHEET.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address:
Process description:
AP-42 Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
emission factor: (units)
Activity parameter: (units)
Uncontrolled emissions: (units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name:
Category number:
Particle size (pm)
<2.5 <6 <10
Generic distribution, Cumulative
percent equal to or less than the size:
Cumulative mass < particle size emissions
(tons/year):
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device:
Particle size (ym)
0-2.5 2.5-6 6 - 10
Collection efficiency (Table C.2-3):
Mass in size range** before control
(tons/year):
Mass in size range after control:
(tons/year):
Cumulative mass (tons/year):
* These data do not include results for the greater than 10 um particle size range.
** Uncontrolled size data are cumulative percent equal to or less than the size.
Control efficiency data apply only to size range and are not cumulative.
Appendix C.2
C.2-7
-------
TABLE C.2-2. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORIES
Category: 1
Process: Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Material: Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Category 1 covers size specific emissions from stationary internal
combustion engines. The particulate emissions are generated from fuel
combustion.
REFERENCE: 1, 9
2 3 4 5
PARTICLE DIAMETER, yg
Cumulative %
less than or equal
Particle to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
size, ym (uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
1.02 82
2.03 88
2.5 90 78 99 11
3.0a 90
4.0a 92
5.0a 93
6.0 93 86 99 7
10.0 96 92 99 4
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
C.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 2
Process: Combustion
Material: Mixed Fuels
Category 2 covers boilers firing a mixture of fuels, regardless of the
fuel combination. The fuels include gas, coal, coke, and petroleum.
Particulate emissions are generated by firing these miscellaneous fuels.
REFERENCE: 1
2 3 4 5
PARTICLE OIAMETEP, pin
Cumulative %
less than or equal
Particle to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
size, pm (uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
l.O3 23
2.0a 40
2.5 45 32 70 17
3.0a 50
4.0a 58
5.0a 64
6.0 70 49 84 14
10.0 79 56 87 12
£
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C.2
C.2-9
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 3
Process: Mechanically Generated
Material: Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category 3 covers material handling and processing of aggregate and
unprocessed ore. This broad category includes emissions from milling,
grinding, crushing, screening, conveying, cooling, and drying of material.
Emissions are generated through either the movement of the material or the
interaction of the material with mechanical devices.
REFERENCE: 1-2, 4, 7
2 3 4 5
PARTICLE DIAMETER, jjm
Particle
size, ym
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Standard
Deviation
1.0'
2. 0£
2.5
3.0'
4.0£
5.0£
6.0
10.0
4
11
15
18
25
30
34
51
15
23
35
65
81
13
14
g
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
C.2-10 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 4
Process: Mechanically Generated
Material: Processed Ores and Non-metallic Minerals
Category 4 covers material handling and processing of processed ores and
minerals. While similar to Category 3, processed ores can be expected to h?ve
a greater size consistency than unprocessed ores. Particulate emissions are
a result of agitating the materials by screening or transfer, curing size
reduction and beneflciation of the materials by grinding and fine milling, and
by drying.
REFERENCE: 1
Particle
size, ym
2 3 4 5
PA9T1 CLE DIAMETER,
pm
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Standard
Deviation
1.0'
2.0*
2.5
3.0*
4.0*
5.0*
6.0
10.0
6
21
30
36
48
58
62
85
17
70
51
83
93
19
17
7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 pm. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C.2 C.2-11
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 5
Process: Calcining and Other Heat Reaction Processes
Material: Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category 5 covers the use of calcmers and kilns in processing a variety
of aggregates and unprocessed ores. Emissions are a result of these high
temperature operations.
REFERENCE: 1-2, 8
2 3 4 5 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, urn
Cumulative %
less than or equal
Particle to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
size, ym (uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
1.0a 6
2.03 13
2.5 18 3 42 11
3.0a 21
4.0a 28
5.0a 33
6.0 37 13 74 19
10.0 53 25 84 19
a
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 pm. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
C.2-12 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 6
Process: Grain Handling
Material: Grain
Category 6 covers various grain handling (versus grain processing)
operations. These processes could include material transfer, ginning and
other miscellaneous handling of grain. Emissions are generated by mechanical
agitation of the material.
REFERENCE: 1, 5
30
20
10
5
2
1
0 5
0 2
0 1
1 05
0 01
2
3 4 5
10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, ym
Particle
size, ym
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Standard
Deviation
1.0
2.0C
2-5„
3.02
4. 0£
5.0C
6.0
10.0
.07
.60
1
2
3
5
7
15
12
25
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C.2
C.2-13
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 7
Process: Grain Processing
Material: Grain
Category 7 covers grain processing operations such as drying, screen
grinding and milling. The particulate emissions are generated during
forced air flow, separation or size reduction.
REFERENCE: 1-2
<
i
z
? 3 4 5 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, pm
Particle
size, pm
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Standard
Deviation
1.0
2. 0£
2.5
3.0£
4.0*
5. 0£
6.0
10.0
18
23
27
34
40
43
61
17
35
56
34
48
65
a
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 Um. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
C.2-14 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 8
Process: Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material: Metals, except Aluminum
Category 8 covers the melting, smelting, and refining of metals (in-
cluding glass) other than aluminum. All primary and secondary production
processes for these materials which involve a physical or chemical change are
included in this category. Materials handling and transfer are not included.
Particulate emissions are a result of high temperature melting, smelting, and
refining.
REFERENCE: 1-2
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
2
3 4 5
10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, ym
Cumulative %
less than or equal
Particle to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
size, vim (uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
1.0a 72
2. 0a 80
2.5 82 63 99 12
3.0a 84
4.0a 86
5.0a 88
6.0 89 75 99 9
10.0 92 80 99 7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
Appendix C.2 C.2-15
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 9
Process: Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling and Distillation
Material: All
Category 9 covers condensation, hydration, absorption, prilling, and
distillation of all materials. These processes involve the physical separa-
tion or combination of a wide variety of materials such as sulfuric acid and
ammonium nitrate fertilizer. (Coke ovens are included since they can be con-
sidered a distillation process which separates the volatile matter from coal
to produce coke.)
REFERENCE: 1, 3
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
10
2
3 4 5
PARTICLE DIAMETER, pm
Particle
size, )jm
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Standard
Deviation
1.0°
2.0°
2.'5
3. 0£
~.o£
5.0C
~.0
10.0
60
74
78
81
85
88
91
94
59
61
71
99
99
99
17
12
9
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
C.2-16 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
C.2.3 How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For
Controlled Processes
To calculate the size distribution and the size specific emissions for a
source with a particulate control device, the user first calculates the
uncontrolled size specific emissions. Next, the fractional control efficiency
for the control device is estimated, using Table C.2-3. The Calculation Sheet
provided (Figure C.2-2) allows the user to record the type of control device
and the collection efficiencies from Table C.2-3, the mass in the size range
before and after control, and the cumulative mass. The user will note that
the uncontrolled size data are expressed m cumulative fraction less than the
stated size. The control efficiency data apply only to the size range
indicated and are not cumulative. These data do not include results for the
greater than 10 ym particle size range. In order to account for the total
controlled emissions, particles greater than 10 pm in size must be included.
C.2.4 Example Calculation
An example calculation of uncontrolled total particulate emissions,
uncontrolled size specific emissions, and controlled size specific emission is
shown on Figure C.2-1. A blank Calculation Sheet is provided in Figure C.2-2.
TABLE C.2-3 TYPICAL COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS
PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES.3'
(percent)
Particle size, ym
Type of collector
0 - 2.5
2.5 - 6
6-10
Baffled settling chamber
NR
5
15
Simple (high-throughput) cyclone
50
75
85
High-efficiency and multiple cyclones
80
95
95
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
95
99
99.5
Packed-bed scrubber
90
95
99
Venturi scrubber
90
95
99
Wet-impingement scrubber
25
85
95
Fabric filter
99
99.5
99.5
The data shown represent an average of actual efficiencies. The efficien-
cies are representative of well designed and well operated control equipment
Site specific factors (e.g., type of particulate being collected, varying
pressure drops across scrubbers, maintenance of equipment, etc.) will affect
the collection efficiencies. The efficiencies shown are intended to provide
guidance for estimating control equipment performance when source-specific
ata are not available.
Reference: 10
NR = Not reported.
Appendix C.2
C.2-17
-------
References for Appendix C.2
1. Fine Particle Emission Inventory System, Office of Research and
Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1985.
2. Confidential test data from various sources, PEI Associates, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH, 1985.
3. Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Production Units,
EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1977.
A. Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corp., Destrehan, LA., EMB-74-GRN-7,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 197A.
5. I. W. Kirk, "Air Quality in Saw and Roller Gin Plants", Transactions of
the ASAE, 20:5, 1977.
6. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corp.,
EMB-80-LWA-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1982.
7. Air Pollution Emission Test, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas
Industries, Inc., EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.
8. Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, Michigan,
EMB-76-IOB-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1975.
9. H. Taback , et al., Fine Particulate Emission from Stationary Sources in
the South Coast Air Basin, KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA 1979.
10. K. Rosbury, Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Use in Preparing
Particle Size Specific Emission Inventories, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-3890, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden,
CO, 1985.
C.2-18
EMISSION FACTORS
-------