PB
203 128
PARTICULATE POLLUTANT SYSTEM STUDY.
VOLUME I - MASS EMISSIONS
A. E. Vandegrift, et al
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri
1 May 1971
DISTRIBUTED BY:
MFDS
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151
-------
- rHi! "
W&l
Ruproducad by
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
Sprtngfiald, V». 221SI
a. *®j|
I It 111
S t*. Wfr; 1
U.S. EPA LIBRARY REGION 10 MATERIALS
RXOOOOOtlflS
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE
BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
SIBLiOCRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
i. Report No.
APTD-0743
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
May 1, 1971
4. i".iU and Subtitle
Particulate Pollutant System Study
Volume 1- Mass Emissions
PMfRK
6.
V. Authorsa.k. vatidegrifc, ur. l.j. shannon, Mr. f.u. uartflan,
Dr. E. W. Lawless, Mr. E. E. .Sallee, and Miss M. Reichel
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Per forming Organization Name and Address
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri 64141
10. Prnifrt/Tastr/Wnrlr Unit No.
No. 3326-C
11. Contract/Grant No.
CPA 22-69-104
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Air Pollution Control Office
Environmental Protection Agency
411 West Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
is. Nnt» DISCLAIMER - Tftis report was turnistied to tne urnce or Air urograms
by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri 64141 in fulfillment of Contract
No. CPA 22-69-104
16. Abstracts
A program on particulate air pollution from stationary sources In the
continental United States was conducted. The specific objective of the
study was to identify, characterize, and, to the extent possible,
quantify the particulate air pollution problem. Information was to be
assembled and analyzed on the kind and magnitude of specific sources, and
the status of current control practices. The resultant Information was
to be used to identify deficiencies in current knowledge regarding the
nature of important particulate pollution sources, and to provide
requisite luTntTbook data for the design and application of control devices
The results of the study are presented, in this report and la a sepa-
rate handbook.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Particles
EmissJLon
Data acquisition
S urveys
Fuels
Industrial wastes
Agricultural wastes
Wood products
Petroleum refining
17b. identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Particulates
Sources
Air pollution control
Stationary sources
17e. COSAT1 Field/Group 13B
18. Availability Statement Unlimited
A.
19.. Security Class (This
Report)
.. , inffiLMWlFlEa
20. Security Class (This
'Unclassified
21. No." of Pages
384
22. Price
FOB* NTIS-3S ('10-701
USCOMM-OC 40S2S-P7I
-------
PARTICULATE POLLUTANT SYSTEM STUDY
Volume I - Mass Emissions
1 May 1971
Contract No. CPA 22-69-104
MRI Project No. 3326-C
Prepared for
Air Pollution Control Office
Environmental Protection Agency
411 West Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared for APCO under Contract No. CPA-22-69-
104, which was monitored by Mr. Timothy Devitt and Mr. Don Felton.
The work was conducted in the Environmental Pollution Section of
the Physical Sciences Division.
The report was written "by Dr. A. E. Vandegrift, Project Director,
and Dr. L. J. Shannon with the assistance of Mr. P. G. Gorman, Dr. E. W.
Lawless, Mr. E. E. Sallee, and MLss M. Reichel.
Dr. Seymour Calvert and Mr. Paul L. Magill, consultants to MRI,
made many valuable comments and contributions to this document. Dr. Larry
Faith, Dr. Louis McCabe, and Dr. Prank Fowler also contributed to the program.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTIQ
G)
H. M. Hubbard, Director
Physical Sciences Division
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary. ...... 1
Program Organization 1
Presentation of Results 2
Information Acquisition 2
Important Sources 2
Other Ranking Methods 6
Effluents 12
Controls 14
Projections of Particulate Emissions 15
Research and Development Plans . 20
Chapter
1. Introduction 27
1.1 Background 27
1.2 Objectives 28
1.3 Organization of the Program. 28
1.4 Organization of the Final Report 31
1.5 Organization of the Handbook (Volume III) 31
1.6 Bibliography • 31
2. Information Acquisition 33
3. Computerized Bibliographic Information Retrieval System . . 39
4. Important Sources by Tonnage 49
4.1 Introduction 49
4.2 Fuel Combustion in Stationary Sources. . 60
4.3 Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel 71
4.4 Operations Related to Agriculture 77
4.5 Iron and Steel 90
4.6 Cement Plants 99
4.7 Forest Products . 106
4.8 Lime . 119
4.9 Clay Products. 123
4.10 Primary Nonferrous Metals 133
4.11 Fertilizer and Phosphate Rock 146
4.12 Asphalt 159
4.13 Ferroalloys 167
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
4.14 Iron Foundries 174
4.15 Secondary Uonferrous Metals 179
4.16 Coal Preparation Plants. 130
4.17 Carton Black 194
4.18 Petroleum Refining 199
4.19 Mineral Acids 202
4.20 Secondary Sources 210
5. Extent of Control 213
5.1 Coal-Fired Boilers 213
5.2 Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel 218
5.3 Agriculture Operations 219
5.4 Iron and Steel 220
5.5 Cement 222
5.6 Forest Products 223
5.7 Lime 224
5.8 Primary Nonferrous ..... 225
5.9 Clay 230
5.10 Fertilizer and Phosphate Rock 230
5.11 Asphalt 231
5.12 Ferroalloys 233
5.13 Iron Foundries 234
5.14 Secondary Nonferrous 235
5.15 Coal Cleaning 236
5.16 Carbon Black 237
5.17 Petroleum 237
5.18 Acids 237
5.19 Emissions Based on an Annual Average Efficiency. . . 23S
5.20 Reliability of the Determined Values for Application
of Control 239
6. Ranking of Air Pollutants and Their Sources "by Objection-
able Properties 245
6.1 Introduction 245
6.2 Methods of Ranking 247
6.3 Ranking on the Basis of Complaints 247
6.4 Ranking of Pollutants on the Basis of Increase
Over Background. 252
Yl
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Chapter
6.5 Ranking on the Basis of Toxicity . 255
6.6 Ranking "by Effects on Materials and Facilities . . . 260
6.7 Ranking of Pollutants on the Basis of Overall
Objectionability 266
6.8 Ranking of Sources on the Basis of Overall
Objectionability 266
6.9 Conclusions 275
7. Miscellaneous Ranking Techniques 277
7.1 Difficulty of Control 277
7.2 Ranking Particulate Sources "by Unit Operation. . . . 282
8. Future Problems .... ............ 291
8.1 Production 291
8.2 Improvements in Control Devices. 292
8.3 Currently Installed Equipment 294
8.4 Projection Methods 294
8.5 Results 297
9. R&D Plans 327
9.1 Identification of Major Problems Requiring R&D . . . 327
9.2 Ordering of Priorities and Allocations of Resources. 329
Appendix A - Pollution Document Retrieval System 339
Appendix B - Master List Particulate Pollutant Sources 359
Appendix C - Computation of Eaissions Based on an Average
Annual Collection Efficiency 371
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
S-l Distribution of Particulate Emissions-Industrial
Sources 4
S-2 Projections of Particulate linissions - All Major
Industrial Sources 18
4.4-1 Flow of Wheat from Farm to Market 81
4.12-1 Frequency Distribution (emission factors for asphalt
plants - particulate discharged from dust collectors
to the atmosphere) 165
8.2-1 Rate of Change of Efficiency of Installed Control
Equipment. 293
8.5-1 Projections of Particulate Emissions - All Major
Industrial Sources 299
8.5-2 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Electric
Utilities Industry 300
8.5-3 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Industrial Power
Gen. Industry 301
8.5-4 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Crushed Stone/
Sand/Gravel 302
8.5-5 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Agr icultural
Industry 303
8.5-6 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Iron and Steel. . 304
8.5-7 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Cement 305
8.5-8 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Woodpulp
Industry 306
8.5-9 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Lime. ...... 307
8.5-10 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Clay 308
8.5-11 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Primary Aluminum. 309
8.5-12 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Primary Copper.'. 310
8.5-13 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Primary Zinc. . . 311
8.5-14 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Primary Lead. . . 312
8.5-15 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Phosphate Rock. . 313
8.5-16 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Fertilizer. . . . 314
8.5-17 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Asphalt 315
8.5-18 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Ferroalloys . . . 316
8.5-19 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Iron Foundries. . 317
8.5-20 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Secondary Copper. 318
8.5-21 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Secondary
Aluminum 319
8.5-22 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Secondary Lead* . 320
8.5-23 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Secondary Zinc. . 321
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Figures (Concluded)
Figure Title Page
8.5-24 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Coal Cleaning . . 322
8.5-25 Projections of Particulate Emissions - Carbon Black. . . 323
8.5-26 Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Petroleum .... 324
8.5-27 Projections of Particulate Snissions - Acids 325
List of Tables
Table Title Page
S-l Major Industrial Sources of Particulate Pollution. ... 5
8-2 Objectionable Properties of Air Pollutants and General
Effects on Receptors ................. 8
S-3 Ranking of Air Pollutants by Air Quality Goals 10
S-4 Ranking of Air Pollution Sources on the Basis of Overall
Objectionability . . . . . 11
S-5 Five-Year R&D Program Costs on Particulate Pollutants. . 24
3-1 Selected Key Word List for Information Retrieval
Purposes 40
3-2 Listing of Document Accession numbers for Key Word
"Scrubbers" 42
3-3 Sample Portion of Computer Printout for Key Word
"Scrubbers" 43
3-4 Computer Printout for Key Word "Scrubbers" and SIC No.
3312 46
4.1.1 Major Industrial Sources of Particulate Pollutants ... 50
4.1-2 Miscellaneous Significant Sources of Particulate
Pollution 57
4.2-1 Estimated Distribution of Coal Use by !Eype of Firing . . 62
4.2-2 Ratios of Fuel Oil Consumption 1968 to 1967 63
4.2-3 Estimated Consumption of Fuel Oil in 1968* . 65
4.2-4 Particulate Snissions Fuel Combustion in Stationary
Sources 67
4.3-1 Particulate Emissions Crushed Stone and. Sand and Gravel. 72
4.3-2 Dust Potential of Stockpiling in the Crushed Stone end
Sand and Gravel industries ... 75
4.4-1 Particulate Snissions from Operations Belated to
Agriculture . 78
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Tables (Continued)
Table Title Page
4.4-2 Disposition of Grains Harvested as Grains in 1968. ... 80
4.4-3 Estimate of Emission Factors for Cotton Ginning 84
4.4-4 Emission Factors for Alfalfa Dehydrators 86
4.5-1 Particulate Elnissions Iron and Steel Industry 91
4.6-1 Comparison of Emission Factors for Cement KLlns 100
4.6-2 Statistical Calculations-Emissions from Cement Kilns . • 101
4.6-3 Particulate Emissions Cement Manufacture 104
4.7-1 Particulate Elnissions Forest Products Industry 107
4.7-2 Sources of Particulate Emissions in Kraft Pulp Mills . . 110
4.8-1 Particulate Emissions Lime Manufacture 120
4.9-1 Particulate Elnissions Clay Products 124
4.9-2 Particulate Emissions from Castable Refractories
Manufacturing 128
4.10-1 Particulate Elnissions Primary Konferrous Metals
Industries 134
4.10-2 Mission Factors for Various Sources in Aluminum Mills . 136
4.11-1 Particulate Emissions Phosphate Rock and Manufacture of
Fertilizer 147
4.11-2 Statistical Calculations Particulate Scissions from
Phosphate Rock Dryers. . 148
4.11-3 Use of Phosphate Rock in Fertilizer Manufacture, 1968. . 151
4.12-1 Particulate Elnissions Asphalt 160
4.12-2 Statistical Calculations Particulate Elnissions to the
Atmosphere from Controlled Asphalt Plants. 164
4.13-1 Ferroalloy Emission Factors 168
4.13-2 Average Ferroalloy Enission Factors 169
4.13-3 Ferroalloy Production - Electric-ARC Furnaces 169
4.13-4 Particulate Elnissions Production of Ferroalloys 172
4.14-1 Bnission Factors for Cupola Furnaces 174
4.14-2 Particulate Elnissions Iron Foundries 175
4.15-1 Particulate Emissions Secondary Konferrous Metals. . . . 180
4.15-2 Ehission Factors for Smelting and Refining Furnaces
Recovering Scrap Copper and Copper Alloys 182
4.17-1 Particulate Emissions from the Manufacture of Carbon
Black 195
4.17-2 Elnissions from Carbon Black Manufacturing Processes,
Lb/Ton of Product 196
4.19-1 Particulate Elnissions Mineral Acids 203
4.19-2 Average amission Factors for Sulfuric Acid Plants Using
the Contact Process 204
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
List of Tables (Concluded)
Table Title Page
4.19-3 Comparison of Ilnission Factors Plants with Mist Elimina-
tors Vs. Plants Without Mist Eliminators ....... 206
5.8-1 Current and Newest Air Pollution Controls for Primary
Aluminum Potline Air Pollution Controls 226
5.8-2 Current Air Pollution Controls for Roof Monitors .... 227
5.20-1 Reliability of Values for "Application of Control" . . . 241
6.3-1 atypical Air Pollution Complaints from the Public .... 249
6.3-2 Complaints Mentioned by Air Pollution Control Agencies
Responding to MRI Survey 250
6.3-3 Ranking of Sources of Objectionable Odors by Complaints
Received 251
6.3-4 California Survey of Air Pollution Complaints 252
6.4-1 Average Abundance of Selected Elements in the Earth's
Crust 254
6.4-2 Estimated Normal Background Levels of Various Air Pol-
lutants in the United States . 255
6.4-3 Atypical Urban Levels of Pollutants in the Air 256
6.4-4 Rankings of Urban Air Pollution Levels Compared to
Normal Background Levels 257
6.5-1 Relative Toxicites of Potential Air Pollutants 259
6.5-2 Hazard Factor Ranking of Toxic Pollutants in the Air . . 261
6.5-3 Toxic Hazard Index of Air Pollutants . . 262
6.6-1 Soiling 264
6.6-2 Deterioration 265
6.7-1 Ranking of Air Pollutants by Air Quality Goals 267
6.8-1 Ranking of Air Pollution Sources on the Basis of Overall
Objectionability 268
7.1-1 Particulate Pollution Sources Difficult to Control . . . 278
7.2-1 Particulate Sources by Unit Operations and Selected
Effluent Characteristics 283
8.1 Average Efficiency of Newly Installed Air Pollution
Control Equipment by Industry 295
9.1 Five-Year R&D Program Descriptions on Particulate
Pollutants 332
9.2 Five-Year R&D Program Costs on Particulate Pollutants. . 336
C-l Comparison of Particulate Enissiana 372
xi
-------
SUMMARY
A program on particulate air pollution from stationary sources in
the continental United States was conducted at Midwest Research Institute
under the sponsorship of the Air Pollution Control/EPA Office. This study
is one of a series of programs sponsored by AFCO to assess the national
particulate pollution problem, and more importantly to advance the capability
of control equipment for particulate emissions.
APCO/EPA and the federal government through APCO are placing em-
phasis on this specific area of pollution because of the numerous problems
that can be created by particulate pollution. Particulate pollutants may
exert adverse effects in the areas of human health, esthetics, and economics.
Health problems include respiratory ailments, toxic reactions, and eye or
skin irritations. Esthetic problems include soiling, decrease in visibility
of the atmosphere, and odor. Economic effects include material damage,
increased cleaning cost because of soiling, and general neighborhood de-
terioration. The contribution of a specific source to the overall problems
in any of the above areas depends upon the rate of emission, the physical
and chemical characteristics of the emissions and the environment surrounding
the emission source.
The only feasible way of alleviating or averting the problems
created by particulate pollution is to control the pollutant at its source.
Control of particulate pollutants is facilitated by detailed knowledge of
the sources and the properties of the effluents from these sources. The
specific objective of the present study was to identify, characterize, and,
to the extent possible, quantify the particulate air pollution problem. In-
formation was to be assembled and analyzed on the kind and magnitude of
specific sources, the characteristics of both particulate and carrier gas
from specific sources, and the status of current control practices. The
resultant information was to be used to identify deficiencies in current
knowledge regarding the nature of important particulate pollution sources,
and was to provide requisite handbook data for the design and application
of control devices.
The program organization and principal results are highlighted in
the following paragraphs.
Program Organization
The program was divided Into five phases: (l) sources; (2) efflu-
ents; (3) controls; (4) future problems; and, (5) B&D plans. The two major
1
-------
tasks in Phase 1 wer,e to identify all significant sources of particulate
pollutants and to evaluate the most important sources. Phase 2 was dire „ed
to the characterization of the total effluent stream from important particu-
late sources. The determination of current particulate pollution control
practices and the extent to which each of the important particulate emission
sources is now controlled was conducted in Phase 3. Future problem particu-
late emission sources, determined "by projecting production trends, control
efficiency, and control equipment application trends, were identified in
Phase 4. In Phase 5 research and development plans were formulated to fill
in the knowledge gaps pinpointed during the study.
Presentation of Results
The results of the study are presented in two documents. The first
document, Volume I, Mass Emissions, covers the results of Phases 1, 4 and 5
of the program. The second document, Volume III, Handbook of Bnission
Properties, presents the results of Phases 2 and 3. A bibliography, intended
as a companion document, of all the information sources collected during the
program was also prepared. The bibliography contains more than 3,000 ref-
erences .
Information Acquisition
To obtain as much pertinent information as possible, a rapid
literature survey was conducted to delineate information sources. This
step permitted a general definition of the scope of the information acquisi-
tion process. The literature search included scientific abstracts, techni-
cal libraries, government literature, air pollution journals, and periodi-
cals pertaining to specific industries. Information was also obtained by
personal contacts with government agencies dealing with air pollution prob-
lems, industrial organisations which are sources of particulate pollutants,
industrial associations, control equipment manufacturers, stack sampling
organizations, and key researchers in the field.
All information that was received in the form of a written article
or report was coded, key worded, and stored for retrieval on a computer.
Complete details of the information acquisition activity and the computer
information retrieval system are presented in Sections 2 and 3, pages 33
to 47.
Important Sources
To determine which sources were important, a comprehensive list
of all possible significant sources was prepared. This list is presented
2
-------
in Appendix B. From the list of significant sources, a ranking of the most
important sources by total tonnage emitted was developed "by calculating
total emissions using emission factor techniques and other calculation methods.
Figure S-l illustrates the distribution of emissions by industry. The left-
hand column in Table S-l presents the actual emission quantities.
The emission factor method of calculation is based on the following
equation:
„ (P)(ef)(l-CcCt)
E = 2^000
where
E is the emission rate, tons/yr
ef is the emission factor (uncontrolled), lb/ton
P is the production rate, tons/yr
Cc is the average operating efficiency of control equipment
Ct is the percentage of the production capacity on which control
equipment has been installed.
Information required to use this equation was obtained from the
literature and information survey. In cases where information was inadequate
for this calculation method, emission rates were estimated from material
balances, grain loadings, or some other technique. These procedures vary
from case to case and are described in detail in Section 4.
Incineration (municipal, industrial and open burning) was not
handled in the same manner as the other industrial sources and, in fact, was
not considered an industrial source. It is, however, an important source.
The total particulate emitted per year from incineration was estimated at
931,000 tons.
In developing the ranking of stationary sources represented in
Table S-l, more attention was directed to calculating the emissions from
the primary pieces of processing equipment such as kilns, furnaces, reactors,
and dryers. In several cases, we have included emissions for "secondary
sources" which include crushing, materials handling, grinding, stock piles,
etc. The calculations involving these secondary sources are in general much
less accurate than those involving the primary processing equipment because
s
-------
I
FUEL COMBUSTION
33%
ELECTRIC UTILITY
17.6%
OTHER INDUSTRIAL
15.4%
CRUSHED STONE,
SAND AND GRAVEL
25.6%
df
-------
TABLE S-l
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF
PARTICULATE POLLUTION
Source
1. Fuel Combustion
2. Crushed Stone,
Sand & Gravel
3. Agricultural
Operations
(grain elevators,
feed mills and
cotton gins)
4. Iron and Steel
5. Cement
6. Forest Products
7. Lime
8. Clay
9. Primary Nonferrous
(copper, aluminum,
zinc and lead)
10. Fertilizer and
Phosphate Rock
11. Asphalt (batch
plants and roofing)
12. Ferroalloy
13. Iron Foundries
14. Secondary Nonferrous
(copper, aluminum,
zinc and lead)
15. Coal Cleaning
16. Carbon Black
17. Petroleum
18. Acids (sulfuric and
phosphoric)
Emissions, per
Table 4.1-1
Tons/Ye ax
5,953,000
4,600,000
1,817,000
1,442,000
934,000
580,000
573,000
467,000
476,000
328,000
218,000
160,000
143,000
127,000
94,000
93,000
45,000
16,000
Emissions, Assuming That Annual
Collection Efficiency is 90$ of
Efficiency Shown in Table 4.1-1
Tons/Year
8,624,000
4,714,000
1,843,000
2,183,000
1,629,000
1,002,000
708,000
542,000
654,000
337,000
721,000
180,000
148,000
134,000
94,000
95,000
45,000
26,000
Total
18,056,000
25,679,000
5
-------
data on secondary sources are meager or nonexistent. The emission quanti
ties listed for these secondary sources are at "best order of magnitude cal-
culations, and it is possible that secondary sources may emit as much or
more particulate matter than the primary sources. An example of this is the
potential emission from stock piles in the crushed stone and sand and gravel
industries. Results in Section 4.3.2, page 75, indicate that the potential
emission from these stockpiles may "be over 9 million tons per year. We have
not included this number in Table S-l because the emission figure is based
on very rough estimates of stockpile losses. However, the importance of these
secondary sources should not be overlooked. Secondary sources are discussed
in more detail in Section 4, page 49.
The emission figures shown in the left-hand column of Table S-l
were calculated using estimated efficiencies for control equipment. Esti-
mated efficiencies were required because most plants have not tested their
equipment to determine actual operating efficiences. These estimates tend
to be near the higher end of the efficiency ranges for each type of control
device, and, therefore, are more representative of the optimum efficiency
for these devices.
It is likely that the actual collection efficiencies would be
lower than the optimum value because of equipment malfunction and operating
methods. It is difficult, however, to assess what the average annual ef-
ficiency might be for a specific industry. A computation of emissions,
using an annual average efficiency of 90$ of the optimum efficiency listed
in Table 4.1-1, page 50, was performed to provide an estimate of the probable
maximum quantity of particulate emissions from the major industrial sources.
The right-hand column of Table S-l presents the results of this calculation
using the annual collection efficiency results in a 32$ increase in partic-
ulate emissions.
Other Ranking Methods
Ob.lectionability
As indicated earlier in this summary, the deleterious effects
created by particulate emissions result not only from the total amount emitted,
but also from the physical and chemical properties of the particulates and
the carrier gas. The ranking of air pollutants and their sources on the
basis of objectionability is quite difficult for several reasons: (l) the
dissimilarity of properties which are considered objectionable; (2) the
highly subjective nature of much of the available data; and, (3) the un-
avoidable dependency of objectionability on the geographical and meteorologi-
cal relationships of the sources and receptors. By definition an objectionable
6
-------
property of a pollutant is one which causes objections from humans because
it produces an undesirable effect on some type of receptor (animal, plant,
or material). An objectionable source is one which emits one or more of
these objectionable pollutants in a location where they can cause one or
more of these effects.
A brief outline of the objectionable properties of air pollutants
and general effects on receptors is given in Table S-2.
In regard to the specific area of particulate pollutants from sta-
tionary sources, several of the above categories are of marginal pertinence.
For example, malodorous effluents axe highly objectionable air pollutants
but they consist largely of gaseous, rather than particulate, materials,
although the odoriferous compound may also interact with the solid particle
(e.g., be absorbed, transported, and released), or be in solution in liquid
mists. Nevertheless, in the present study some consideration was given to
each category.
A comprehensive objectionability rating of particulate pollution
sources should consider (a) the total tonnage emitted, (b) the size distri-
bution and the chemical composition of the particles, (c) the composition of
the carrier gas, (d) all potential receptors, and (e) sources parameters
which may modify emissions. Obvious factors which influence the objection-
ability of a source"include the manner in which the pollutant Is emitted,
the dispersion of the pollutant before it reaches a receptor, meteorological
and geographical conditions, and the location, density, or nature of sur-
rounding population, vegetation or structures, i.e., the receptors. In
order to place the rating system on some objective basis, the quantification
of several parameters is required.
One subjective method of ranking sources is based on citizen com-
plaints. The results of such a ranking are shown in Table 6.3-1 to Table
6.3-4, pages 249 to 252. In a survey of air pollution control agencies,
it was found that the primary metals industry vas responsible for the great-
est number of complaints. On the basis of a single operation, asphalt plants
received the highest number of complaints.
Another ranking technique was based on toxicity and the average
background levels of various toxic pollutants in the atmosphere. Hie re-
sults of this technique are shown in Tables 6.4-1 to 6.5-1, pages 254 to
259. Based on this ranking technique, the heavy metal particulates are the
most serious pollutants; lead and mercury are ranked at the top. One sig-
nificant point is that in one city the background level of mercury attained
a value as high as 28% of the threshold limit value.
7
-------
TABLE S-2
OBJECTIONABLE PROPERTIES OF AIR POLLUTANTS AND
GENERAL EFFECTS OH RECEPTORS
I. Toxicological and sensory effects on humans
(a) acute toxicity
(b) chronic toxicity
(c) irritation of eyes, lungs, mucus membranes, skin, etc.
(d) odor
II. Effects on plant and animal life
(a) toxic to agricultural crops, timber, grass
(b) toxic to livestock and wildlife
III. Effects on materials and facilities
(a) soiling
(D) corrosive to metals, minerals, plastics, textiles, and paint
(c) effects on electrical systems
(d) miscellaneous (abrasive, forms sludges, etc.)
IV. Optical and esthetic effects
(a) visibility reduction
(b) visible or colored plume and colored atmosphere
V. Modification of atmospheric chemical and physical properties
8
-------
Another ranking technique that was used was the effect of partic-
ulate pollutants on materials and facilities. These effects can range from
the deposition of a dust covering to the complete dissolution by corrosion.
This ranking technique was based on the cost of cleaning or replacing the
material that was affected by the pollutant. The results of this technique
are presented in Tables 6.6-1 and 6.6-2, pages 264 and 265, and indicate
that paint, zinc, flat glass, and cement are the materials most affected
by deterioration and soiling.
Two overall ranking techniques were then developed based on the
individual rating systems just discussed. The first of these overall ranking
techniques was based on the overall objectionability of the pollutant itself.
In this ranking technique the concept of an air quality goal was employed.
The air quality goal should not be confused with air quality standards, which
are being set by various governmental bodies. Unfortunately, a complete set
of standards is not yet available and we have, therefore, developed a set of
eight air quality goals. These assigned goals are based upon several con-
siderations including toxicity to man, animal, and plant life; corrosion and
soiling of materials, odor, reduction of visibility, and formation of haze.
The results of this ranking are presented in Table S-3.
The ranking of sources on the basis of overall objectionability
is extremely difficult because of. the large ranges in the factors which
affect the quantity and type of particulate emitted by a given type of source,
and a lack of data on the chemical composition and physical properties of
the emitted pollutants. Table S-4 presents a ranking, on a relative scale,
of the major particulate- sources on the basis of their contribution to the
overall problems of soiling, corrosion, toxicity, and odor. In making these
rankings, consideration was given to the number, distribution, and proximity
to the materials of the sources, the nature and tonnage of pollutants emitted
by a typical source, and the total tonnage emitted throughout the country.
This estimate includes the average control in use.
Difficulty of Control
To discuss particulate pollution sources in terms of difficulty of
control, it was necessary to select a set of guidelines to judge the degree
of difficulty. A review of the pertinent effluent characteristics and process
variables indicated that the most significant factors are: (1) particle size
distribution of emitted particulates; (2) grain loading; (3) carrier-gas
volumetric flowrate; (4) particulate and carrier-gas handling characteris-
tics (i.e., corrosive, sticky, etc.); (5) number of small sources (i.e.,
transfer points); and (6) nature of process.
A division of sources into the broad categories of metallurgical,
chemical, combustion, and mechanical processes also facilitates a ranking of
9
-------
TABLE S-3
RANKING OF AIR POLLUTANTS BY AIR QUALITY GOALS
Air Pollutant
Carcinogens
Beryllium, Mercury
Highly toxic metals (Cd, Cr, Pb, Se, V, etc.)
Mercaptans
Ieocyanates
Asbestos, silica, silicates
Very toxic metals (As, Sb, Cu, Ni, w)
Fluorides, as HF
Alkyl amines
Hydrogen sulfide
Calcium oxide and other alkalis
Mineral acids (HC1, HNO3, ffeS04, H3P04)
Sulf&tes, nitrates, fluorides
(as salts)
Sulfur oxides
Organo sulfides and pyridines
Nitrogen oxides
Chlorine
Soot, smoke, carbon black
Less toxic metals (Pe, Mn, Mo, Ti, Zn, etc.)
Fly a6h (from coal combustion)
Inert particulates
Oxidants (ozone, etc.) total
Olefins, aldehydes, phenols, aniline
Aromatics, chlorocarbons, mixed organics
Amnonia
Hydrocarbons (excluding Cf^)
Carbon monoxide
Relative
Ranking*
0.001
0.1
1
5
5
5
5
10
20
30
30
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
100
100
100
200
500
500
3,500
Basis of Ranking
toxicity
toxicity
toxicity
odor and toxicity
toxicity
toxicity
toxicity
vegetation damage
odor, toxicity
toxicity, corrosion (paint), (odor?)
toxicity
toxicity, corrosivity, soiling
toxicity, vegetation damage
electrical conductivity
toxicity, vegetation damage
odor and toxicity
toxicity, color, atm. rxns.
toxicity, corrosivity (odor?)
soiling, toxicity
soiling, toxicity
soiling, toxicity
soiling, visibility
corrosion, toxicity
toxicity, soiling, corrosion
toxicity, soiling
toxicity, atm. rxns. (odo'r?)
soiling, toxicity, atm. rxns.
toxicity
* Ranked in order of decreasing objectionability; i.e., a low number indicates a highly
objectionable pollutant. Numerical values were chosen to correspond with maximum
tolerable level in ng/m^ during occasional 1-5 day pollution episodes.
-------
TABLE 8-4
RANKING OF AIR POLLUTION SOURCES
ON THE BAB13 OF
OVERALL OBJECTIOHABILITY
Sources*
Soiling
Corroslvlty
Odor
Toxicity
Sources Soiling
Corroslvlty
Odor
Toxl
Electric Utilities
Food Products (Concluded)
Coal-flred
C
C
C
C
Sugar, candy, and
Oil-fired
B
B
A
B
confections
A
-
A
-
Gas-fired
A
A
-
.
Coffee
B
.
B
B
Vats and oils
B
A
A
A
Heating Plants
Coal
C
C
C
C
Textile Products
on
C
C
A
B
Mills
B
B
A
B
flae
A
A
-
.
Wood, etc.
C
B
A
C
Forest products
Wood
C
A
A
-
Incinerators
Pulp and paper
C
B
C
B
Industrial
C
B
A
B
Commercial
C
B
A
B
Chemicals
Municipal
C
B
A
B
Ammonia
A
B
A
A
Residential &
Chlor-alkall
A
B
A
B
Apartment
C
B
A
B
Mineral acids
B
C
B
r.
Pigments
C
B
A
A
Mining and Quarrying
Coal tar products
B
B
B
C
Iron
C
B
-
A
Carbon black
C
A
-
A
Copper
c
A
-
A
Soap and detergent
C
B
3
A
Lead
c
A
-
S
Plastics and resins
C
C
B
C
Zinc
c
A
-
A
Synthetic fibers
C
C
B
C
Aluminum
c
A
•
A
Synthetic rubber
C
B
B
B
Nonmetals
c
A
A
A
Agricultural chemicals
C
B
C
C
Fertilizers
C
C
B
c
Ferrous Metals
Paints and varnish,etc.
C
C
C
c
Taconlte handling
c
C
-
A
Polishes
A
A
A
A
Steel furnaces
c
C
A
C
Toilet and sanitation
Foundries
c
c
A
C
goods
A
A
A
A
Finished products
B
A
-
A
Inks
B
A
A
A
Olue and gelatin
B
A
A
A
Nonferrous Metals
Explosives
A
A
A
A
Aluminum
c
c
A
C
Copper
c
B
C
B
Petroleum Refining and
Lead
c
8
C
C
Related Industries
C
C
C
c
Zinc and brass
c
B
C
B
Rubber Goods
C
A
A
A
Minor Metals and
Metalloids
Leather Products
A
A
A
A
(production and Use)
Arsenic
A
A
B
Glass Products
C
B
A
C
Beryllium
A
A
B
Cadmium
A
A
C
Stone and Clay Products
Cobalt
A
A
A
Asbestos product*
C
A
- ¦
C
Chromium
A
A
C
Abrasives
A
A
A
A
Phosphorus
A
A
A
Brick and tile
C
A
-
A
Manganese
A
A
B
Ceramics
B
A
A
B
Mercury
A
A
C
Perllte, rock vool
B
A
A
B
Molybdenum
A
A
B
Qypma products
C
B
A
B
Tin
A
A
A
Crushed atone
C
A
*
A
Titanium
A
A
A
A
Vanadium
A
A
C
Cement Production
C
B
B
Food Products
Llae Production
C
B
A
B
Meat processing
B
A
c
B
Grain and (rain
Arohalt
product*
C
-
c
e
B»tehlO(
C
A
B
C
Roofing
C
A
C
B
* System c * 8erlous and/or frequent proble*
B • Significant lo*l problea
A - Oooaelonal prcfclea
Dash {-) Indicates little or no prcfclm
RUM on the basis of nlitlng oondltlcos in the United States of population distribution, oontrols used, etc,
11
-------
difficult sources. The metallurgical, chemical, and combustion processes
are inherently more difficult to control than are mechanical processes.
Metallurgical processes include some of the most difficult sources to con-
trol because metallurgical effluent streams are characterized by fine metallic
fumes (less than lp.) and high volumetric flow rates. In many cases, the
particulates are corrosive, sticky, and have high angles of repose. In
addition, the carrier gases are at high temperatures and may be corrosive.
Particulates emitted from mechanical processes are generally not
inherently difficult to control, but the number of sources may present a
problem. Conveyor transfer points, loading and unloading operations, and
stockpiles may be quite troublesome. The ranking of sources by difficulty
of control is presented in Section 7.
Unit Operations
Particulate emission sources can also be ranked by unit operation.
A ranking on this basis delineates similarities and differences between emis-
sions from a specific unit operation in different industries. The ranking
could be developed in terms of tonnage of emitted particulate or appropriate
effluent characteristics. Data on emission and production figures were
found to be incomplete for many unit operations in specific industries, and
a meaningful ranking on the basis of tonnage emitted could not be developed.
As a consequence, a ranking or classification using effluent characteristics
was developed. The unit operations considered are: (l) kilns; (2) dryers;
(3) sinter machines; (4) roasters; (5) furnaces; (6) crushing, grinding, and
milling; and (7) miscellaneous chemical processes. Table 7.2-1, page 283,
presents the listing of particulate sources by unit operation.
Effluents
The intelligent selection or design of dust collection equipment
must be based on particle and carrier gas characteristics. To facilitate a
more comprehensive definition of the particulate air pollution problem, and
to provide background data for control equipment design, information on
effluent properties was collected and analyzed. Effluent property data for
the major industrial particulate sources are presented in Volume III.
Particle and carrier-gas properties that are important for control
device selection or design include: (l) particle size distribution and
shape; (2) particle density; (3) electrical resistivity; (4) volumetric
flcwrate; (5) gas temperature; and (6) humidity.
12
-------
Analyses of experimental methods for determining effluent prop-
erties, such as particle size and particle electrical resistivity, indicate
that current techniques do not always accurately reflect "in-situ" condi-
tions. No universal method or apparatus for particle size determination
is possible, even in principle. For gas-cleaning applications, sedimentation
and elutriation methods have very definite advantages because they give re-
sults in terms of settling velocity of Stokes' diameter. But these methods
usually necessitate redispersion of collected particulate samples, which may
be difficult, and any agglomerates present in the original aerosol cannot be
reproduced in the particle size equipment. Another problem connected with
sizing of industrial aerosols is the difficulty of procuring representative
samples from the field because of the very large gas flews and variable con-
ditions that characterize most industrial gas-cleaning situations.
There are a number of factors and combinations of factors which
influence the apparent resistivity of particulates. Among those particle
characteristics which may be important are particle size distribution, parti-
cle shape, particle temperature, surface energy characteristics, packing
configuration, and chemical composition. Carrier-gas characteristics in-
clude chemical composition and temperature.
Evidence that these properties axe important in the apparent re-
sistivity of collected dust layers comes from numerous laboratory and field
observations. On the basis of these observations, it is suggested that
there are two distinct modes of electrical conduction in the collected layer:
volume conduction and surface conduction. For any particular set of opera-
ting conditions, one or the other conduction mode may predominate.
Because of these conduction modes and their dependence on operating
conditions, particle resistivities measured directly in plant flues are pre-
ferable to those measured in the laboratory. When "in-situ" measurements
are compared to laboratory measurements, it is often found that the "in-situ"
resistivity is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower. This discrepancy is most'
severe in the case of fly ash. Laboratory measurements of particle resistivity
for fly ash are of limited value and the only meaningful measurements are
those made "in situ." For other particulate materials, the discrepancy is
not as serious. Essentially all electrical resistivity data currently avail-
able in the literature have been determined under laboratory conditions.
A more detailed discussion of effluent characteristics is presented
in Chapter 4 of Volume III.
13
-------
Controls
There is a wide array of equipment available for the control or
particulate emissions. The major categories of gas cleaning devices are:
(l) settling chambers; (2) cyclones; (3) wet scrubbers; (4) electrostatic
precipitators; (5) fabric filters; (6) mist eliminators; and (7) after-
burners. The selection of gas cleaning equipment is far from an exact science
and is based on particle and carrier gas characteristics, and process, oper-
ating, construction, and economic factors. The efficiency of these devices
is usually deferred on a mass emission basis. In many cases, efficiencies
based on particle size or number average collected would be preferable.
Current data are too limited to be of value at present in establishing ef-
ficiency based on these factors. These alternate efficiencies will become
more important in the near future as stricter pollution codes are adopted.
Settling chambers are usually installed as precleaners to remove
large and agglomerated particles, which can clog small-diameter cyclones
and other equipment. Areas of application include natural draft exhaust
from kilns and furnaces, cotton gins, and alfalfa feed mills. Cyclones are
frequently used in both primary and secondary gas cleaning operations. They
are used in feed and grain mills, cotton gins, fertilizer plants, petroleum
refineries, hot mix asphalt plants, metallurgical operations, and chemicals,
plastics, and metals manufacture.
Wet collectors and mist eliminators are used in pulp mills, fer-
tilizer plants, lime plants, acid plants, hot mix asphalt plants, metallurgi-
cal operations, and chemicals, plastics, and metals manufacture. The high-
voltage electrostatic precipitator is used at more large installations them
any other type of high-efficiency collector. For many operations, such as
coal-fired electric utility boilers, the high-voltage electrostatic precipi-
tator is the only proven high-efficiency control device available. High-
voltage single-stage precipitators have been used successfully to collect
both solid and liquid particulate matter from smelters, steel furna'ces,
petroleum refineries, cement kilns, acid plants, and many other operations.
Afterburners use a furnace for the combustion of gaseous and particulate
matter. Afterburners are usually used to dispose of fumes, vapors, and odors
when relatively small volumes of gases and low concentrations of particulate
matter are involved.
As discussed in preceding paragraphs, the quantity of particulate
emitted from industrial sources was, in most cases, calculated on the basis
of an emission factor which relates the production rate to the quantity of .
particulate produced by the process. The quantity thereby obtained'is that
which would be emitted if no pollution control equipment were used.' To de-
termine the quantity of particulate emitted to the atmosphere, it is neces-
sary to know the percent of production capacity that has controls (application
of control), and the average efficiency of the control equipment weighted on
14
-------
the basis of the associated production capacity (efficiency of control).
The product of the application and efficiency of control is the net control,
which can be used along with the production rate and emission factor to
calculate the quantity of particulate emitted to the atmosphere.
Net control data for each important source were found to be, in
most cases, unobtainable from the open literature. There is some information
as to the number of plants that have control equipment but no information as
to the production capacity of these plants or to the plants that do not have
control equipment. Industry surveys, conducted by telephone, were used to
secure information on net control. The response from the cement industry
exemplifies the type of information obtained by an industry survey. The
person contacted in each cement plant surveyed was an individual knowledge-.
able about the air pollution control status in that company or plant. This
person was asked about the following: (l) plant production capacity; (2)
type of process; (3) number of kilns and associated capacity; (4) types of
control equipment on kilns; (5) efficiency of the control equipment (design,
actual, or estimated); and (6) other dust sources and type of control equip-
ment used on these sources.
A total of 20 different persons were contacted and provided data
on 47 plants representing 30$ of the U. S. production capacity. Based on
the results of this survey, 94.5$ of the production capacity has control
equipment with a weighted average efficiency of 93.6$. This yields a net
control of 88.5$.
The data obtained were investigated using statistical analysis.
It was concluded that the net control of 88.5$ could vary ±6$ at a 95$
confidence limit. It was also concluded that there was no correlation be-
tween plant production capacity and net control, nor was there any correla-
tion between production capacity by company and net control in that company.
A detailed discussion of the determination of net control for other
industries is given in Section 5.
Projections of Particulate Tftni ssions
The principal objective of this phase of the study was to predict
the quantity of particulate pollutants emitted from stationary sources up
to the year 2000. In making these forecasts the following factors were taken
into account:
a. Changes in production capacity.
b. Improvements in control devices.
15
-------
c. Action to enforce installation of control equipment.
To make these projections, it was necessary to obtain data or make
assumptions regarding production trends, efficiency of currently installed
control equipment, improvements in control devices, and net control in future
years.
Production
Historical production data were collected on each major particulate
pollutant source for the 1947-1968 period. Additionally, published forecasts
were obtained from the literature covering the 1968 through 1980 period for
many of these sources. In making projections, the median published forecasts
were used in some cases; in all cases, they were at least employed as check
points.
Historical data were projected to the year 2000 by 10-year intervals,
using a variety of computerized forecasting procedures. Time series projec-
tions were made, using both linear and exponential forms, while other projec-
tions were based on correlation analyses between annual production volumes
and the Index of Industrial Production and the Gross National Product.
Altogether, forecasts were made of all significant particulate
pollutant sources on ten different bases. The median values and ranges
resulting from these different forecasting techniques were carefully ex-
amined and evaluated. If there was no particular reason to disbelieve the
results of the computer forecasts, a median value was chosen.
In other cases, still different forecasting methods were employed.
Paint, asphalt, mineral products, lumber and cement, for example, were tied
to forecasts of new construction activity, while fertilizer and grain pro-
duction were keyed to per capita consumption trends. Coal combustion by
electric utilities was based on a declining percentage of total energy pro-
duction, brought about by a combination of improved generating efficiency
and by greater eventual use of alternative energy sources.
Improvements in Control Devices
Improvements in control devices were accounted for through the
development of a technological forecasting curve. Details of the ^development
of this curve are given in Section 8.
16
-------
Currently Installed Equipment
Data on equipment sales by industry for the year 1967 were used
to estimate the efficiency of equipment presently being installed in each
industry. The data based on sales were modified for those industries in
which the sales of different types of control equipment do not accurately
reflect actual practice. An example of this is petroleum production in
which the cyclones on catalytic crackers are installed in series.
The technological growth curve and the estimates on efficiency of
currently installed equipment are input data for the various projection
methods.
Projection Methods
Five methods were selected to project the particulate emission
burden to the year 2000:
a. Method 1 reflects no increase in control over 1969 - 1970
levels.
b. Method 2 reflects activity to establish controls on all
sources.
c. Method 3 reflects activity to establish controls on all
sources and also improvements in control devices.
d. Method 4 reflects activity to establish controls on all
sources, improvements in control devices, and economic
factors associated with installing control equipment on
old plants.
e. Method 5 reflects activity to establish controls on all
sources, improvements in control devices, economic factors
associated with installing control equipment on old plants,
and increasingly stringent emission standards.
Complete details of the projection methods are given in Section 8.
Results
Figure S-2 presents a summation of the projection of particulate
emissions for all the major industrial sources. Tljis figure shows that if
there is no improvement in net control the emissions will increase from the
present level of 18.0 x 10® tons/yr up to 52.6 x 10® tons/yr by the year
2000. This figure also illustrates the effect of four control strategies
17
-------
j 20.0-
1968 1970
1975
1980
1985
YEAR
Figure S-2 - Projections of Particulate Bnissions
1990 1995 2000
All Major Industrial Sources
18
-------
that would reduce emissions to between 2.7 and 8.4 x 106 tons/yr in the year
2000. Results of the projection of particulate emissions from individual
industrial sources are presented in Figures 8.5-2 to 8.5-27, pages 300 to
325.
The major implication of the projection of particulate emission
is that emissions can he reduced by installation of control equipment on
uncontrolled sources and,to a lesser extent, by shifts to more efficient
types of collection equipment. Other conclusions are:
a. Emissions will rise at an alarming rate if additional and
higher efficiency control equipment is not installed (Method l).
b. The most effective method of decreasing emissions is by
increasing the application of control to 100$. Accomplishing J-00# appli-
cation of control by 1980 (Method 5) greatly reduces emissions, especially
for those industries such as electric utilities and cement in which retire-
ment of uncontrolled plants would take a greater number of years.
c. Increasing the application of control to 100# has a pronounced
effect on industries in which present application of control is low, such
as crushed stone. However, this low application of control exemplifies the
control difficulties involved for these industries due to the numerous and
varied sources of their emissions.
d. Emissions from many industrial sources tend toward an asymptotic
value after 100# application of control is achieved. Thereafter, up to the
year 2000, the installation of increasingly efficient equipment tends to
stabilize the quantities emitted by offsetting increased production. After
the year 2000, when advances in technology have increased efficiency to 99+#
emissions from most industries will follow production changes and may begin
to rise accordingly.
e. Hot mix asphalt plants and coal cleaning will be serious future
problems because unlike most other sources the emissions begin to rise after
about 1985 even with the most severe control measures.
f. The emissions from coal-fired industrial boilers, with no
change in net control (Method 1), level off after 1980 as & result of de-
creased use of coal in industrial boilers. Ibis fact is corroborated by
phone conversations with many industrial boiler operators who stated that
they have already converted to oil or gas, or intend to do so In the next
2 or 3 years.
g. The projected emissions from primary aluminum manufacture do
not decrease as significantly as in other industries under the four control
methods. This situation is a result of increasing production and process
19
-------
characteristics that limit the suitability of efficient control devices.
Farther research is needed to investigate effective means of controlling
this source.
h. Potential future problem sources because of magnitude of con-
trolled emissions are:
Sources Emissions, Year 2000
Electric Utilities
0.7
to
3.5
X
106
tons/yr
Crushed Stone
0.4
to
1.0
X
106
tons/yr
Industrial Power
0.3
to
1.0
X
106
tons/yr
Cement
0.2
to
0.4
X
106
tons/yr
Iron and Steel
0.2
to
0.4
X
106
tons/yr
Agriculture
0.1
to
0.3
X
106
tons/yr
Lime
0.1
to
0.3
X
106
tons/yr
Woodpulp
0.1
to
0.3
X
106
tons/yr
Asphalt
0.1
to
0.2
X
106
tons/yr
Coal Cleaning
0.1
X
10®
tons/yr
Research and Development Plans
The - objective of this phase of the project was to formulate a 5-year
research and development program which would fill in gaps in knowledge about:
(l) particulate sources; (2) effluent stream properties which affect control;
(3) control technology; and (4) other aspects of the effects of¦ particulate
pollution and its control. These R&D 5-year programs are based on two assumed
levels of support: Plan A $5 million and Plan B $1 million. The development
of the R&D plans involved the identification during the program of significant
knowledge gaps, the evaluation of needs for new information, considerations
of the probability and degrees of success which niight be attained, and esti-
mates of the time and cost involved for each proposed research area task.
A comprehensive R&D program will require more than $5 million des-
ignated as the maximum expenditure. The more urgent problems caa, however,
receive a significant degree of attention within this monetary constraint.
20
-------
Several significant sources were noted for which information was
limited or incomplete. Largest of these in terms of tonnage of particulates
emitted, and in fact, one of the largest of all sources is the crushed stone
industry. The second most significant source for which more data was needed
centers around agricultural products and in particular on grain elevators,
flour and feed mills, cereal manufacture and associated transfer, transpor-
tation or handling facilities. The clay and ceramics industry is a third
source group which is in much need of study in terms of both total emissions
and constituents such as fluorides.
Knowledge gaps also exist in many.aspects of the collection and
measurement of particulates. These include the development and standardiza-
tion of sampling and monitoring techniques and the instrumentation of these
operations; the determination of the chemical composition of the collected
dust from various sources and evaluation of its economic value; the more
complete determination of compositions of emitted particulates; and the
development of emission standards based on chemical composition as well as
on a weight basis.
Areas of control technology for which further information is needed
include specific operations, such as conveying and handling of materials,,
and a number of difficult to control, fugitive or small industry sources.
The area of materials handling operations is a very significant source on
an overall basis as mentioned earlier in the summary. Potential contribu-
tions of secondary sources to the particulate pollutant burden may exceed
the amount generated by the primary process operations. Since there is
surprisingly little definitive data on these emission sources it is impera-
tive that a systematic research study be conducted in this area.
The control of small particle emission requires much improvement,
but a general study of small particle (below 5 g.) technology will be re-
quired because of the present limitations in control capabilities in this
area. Particularly troublesome are sources which emit a fine particulate at
low grain loading but with a high volume of high temperature carrier gas.
Metallurgical processes such as zinc retorts, aluminum reduction cells, and
ferroalloys are examples which present this formidable.control problem.
Studies are also needed in the basic physics of growth, agglomeration, and
collection of small particles to increase the understanding of these processes
so that new improvements or approaches can be made in control technology.
The control of combustion sources has already received an enormous
amount of attention, but because these sources constitute such a major part
of the particulate problem, continuing studies are needed. The control of
emissions from fossil fuel combuBtion is the central problem and requires
further study of: control techniques for electric utility and Industrial
boilers; new boiler design, operating methods, and combustion techniques;
21
-------
additives which improve collector efficiency; the interrelation of par _cu-
late and SO2 control; and methods of coal desulfurization.
The detrimental and economic effects of present and projected
particulate pollutant levels on health, vegetation, materials, etc., will
require continuing evaluation. The interrelationships of the distribution
of Sources and receptors, and the economic effects of relocation of in-
dustries because of pollution related reasons need to be established. The
economic effects on industry of the need to purchase new control equipment
to meet increasingly stringent emission standards will need evaluation,
especially for small industries and difficult to control sources where the
cost of control equipment may be nearly as large as the value of the plant
installation.
Particulate pollution problems whose solutions will require in-
tensive research and development are readily identifiable and an intensive
R&D program will require more than $5 million stipulated as the maximum
level to be considered in the development of the present 5-year plans. The
major and most urgent problems identified iri the preceding paragraphs can,
however, each receive a significant degree of attention within this frame-
work. For the smaller $1 million level of effort, all but the most urgent
R&D programs must be eliminated and some of these would operate at reduced
levels or be delayed one or more years. Several factors were considered
in determining the priority of problems and their support levels; size of
the particulate burden involved; the degree to which reliable data are
lacking; currently existing programs designed to solve the problem; special
characteristics which make the problem important (for example, small particle
sizes, toxic or carcinogenic emissions, analytical difficulties, etc.);
the improvement in efficiency of control which might be obtained or the
probability of successfully completing an R&D program designed to solve the
problem; the time and cost involved in the proposed R&D programs; and the
total level of support. Overall, an attempt was made to select R&D programs
designed to give results which when added to the present state of knowledge
would provide the most help in reducing the national particulate problem in
the shortest time.
The total R&D program was divided into three general categories;
Area 1 - Programs on particulate sources and analysis,
Area 2 - Programs related to control technology,
Area 3 - Programs on the effects of particulate pollutants and
their control.
22
-------
Program topics together with the allocation of funding and the time schedule
are presented in Table S-5. For more details about each program listing,
see Table 9-1, page 332. At the lower level of support ($1 million) only
three of the eight Area 1 programs and. three of the four Area 3 programs
could be included. Most of the programs which were included were necessarily
assigned smaller budgets and, in addition, certain tasks had to be omitted
or delayed. In both program plans, the largest portion of the expenditures
was allocated to Area 2 on control technology.
The proposed R&D plans can be modified to include other or recent
identified tasks of high priority or exceptionally meritorious ideas re-
ceived as unsolicited proposals. In its present form it will provide the
framework within which answers can be developed to some of our more urgent
problems concerning the identification, effects, and control of particulate
emissions.
23
-------
T/VBLE S-5
FIVE-YEAR R&D PROGRAM COSTS ON BdRTICUIATB POLLUTANTS
Plan A- $5 Million Level of Support
Task
Program Year
Task
¦rograa
Program Designation
Designation
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Totals
Programs on Particulate Sources and Analysis
PS-1 Crushed Stone
PS-1.1
' 50,000
50,000
PS-1.2
50,000
50,000
100,000
P3-2 Agricultural is
PS-2.1
50,000
50,000
Related Products,
PS-2.2
40,000
40,000
PS-2.3
40,000
40,000
PS-2.4
50,000
50,000
PS-2.5
40,000
40,000
00,000
260,000
P3-5 Clay & Ceramics
PS-3.1
40,000
40,000
PS-3.2
40,000
40,000
80,000
PS-4 Miscellaneous
PS-4.1
50,000
50,000
Sources
P8-4.2
50,000
50,000
PS-4.;
40,000
40,000
PS-4.4
40,000
40,000
PS-4.5
40,000
40,000
220,000
PS-5 Information Center
PS-5.1
40,000
40,000
PS-5.2
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
120,000
160,000
P8-6 Sampling &
PS-6.1
50,000
50,000
Monitoring
PS-6.2
50,000
50,000
PS-6.3
75,000
75,000
150,000
PS-6.4
75,000
75,000
325,000
PS-7 Chemical Compositions
P6-7.1
40,000
35,000
75,000
PS-7.2
40,000
40,000
P6-7.3
45,000
45,000
90,000
PS-7.4
40,000
40,000
245,000
P8-8 Secondary Particu-
ps-e.i
35,000
35,000
lates
PS-8.2
35,000
55,000
PB-B.3
40,000
40,000
110,000
Research Area 1 Totals
355,000 330,000
320,000
270,000
225,000
*1.500,000
Programs or Control Technology
CT-1 Industrial, Non-
CT-1.1
100,000
100,000
Ccoibustloa Sources
CT-1.2
50,000
50,000
CT-1.3
100,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
325,000
CT-1.4
75,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
375,000
CT-l.S
100,000
100,000
950,000
CT-2 Small Particle
CT-2.1
70,000
70,000
Technology
CT-2.2
50,000
75,000
50,000
175,000
CT-2.3
100.000
75,000
75,000
100,000
330,000
595,000
CT-3 Ccohustlon Sources
CT-S.l
100,000
80,000
180,000
CT-J.2
125,000
100,000
100,000
325,000
CT-S.S
100,000
50,000
190,000
CT-3.4
75,000
75,000
CT-3.5
100,000
100,000
CT-3.6
75,000
75,000
CT-3.7
50,000
50,000
50,000
190,000
1,055,000
Hessarch Area XI Totals
420,000 460,000
600,000
550,000
850, OOC
2,000,000
24
-------
TABLE S-5 (Concluded)
Plan A. >6 W. 1X1 on Levi (Concluded)
Task
Program Year
Task
Program
Program Designation
Designation
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Totals
Programs on Effects
E-l
Effects of Control
Costs
E-l. 1
E-l.2
E-l.3
50,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
50,000
170,000
40,000
50,000
260,000
E-2
Effects of Pollutants
E-2.1
75,000
90,000
70,000
225,000
235,000
E-3
Toxicological
Effects
E-3.1
E-3.2
E-3.3
50,000
60,000
70,000
50,000
75,000
110,000
120,000
75,000
305,000
E-4
Fundamental Studies
E-4.1
E-4.2
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
Research Area HI Totals
225,000 190,000
160,000
180,000
125,000
900,000
Totals,
All Programs
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000 1,000,0
30
5,000,000
Plan B.
$1 Million Level of Support
PS-1
Crushed Stone
PS-1.1
PS-1.2
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
PS-2
Agricultural &
Related Products
P8-2.1
PS-2.2
PS-2.3
PS-2.4
45,000
40,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
40,000
160,000
FS-3
Clay & Ceramics
PS-3,1
PS-S.2
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
60,000
Research Area I Totals
50,000
95,000
80,000
75,000
40,000
340,000
CT-1
Industrial, Non-
Combustion
Sources
CT-1.1
CT-1.2
CT-1.3
45,000
35,000
40,000
35,000
35,000
50,000
45,000
35,000
160,000
240,000
CT-2
Small Particle
Technology
CT-2.1
CT-2.2
CT-2.3
36,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
35,000
30,000
95,000
160,000
CT-3
Ccwbustlon Sources
CT-3.1
CT-3.2
35,000
40,000
40,000
75,000
35,000
155,000
190,000
Research Area II Totals
115,000
105,000
120,000
125,000
125,000
590,000
E-l
E-2
Effects of Control
Costs
Effects of Pollutants
E-l.l
E-2.1
55,000
35,000
55,000
55,000
Research Area III Totals
35,000
35,000
70,000
Totals,
All Frogrws
200,000 200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
1,000,000
25
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The emission of particulate pollutants to the atmosphere can
create numerous problems related to health, esthetics, and/or economics.
The severity of these problems is related to the total rate of emission,
the physical and chemical characteristics of the emissions, and the envi-
ronment surrounding the emission source. A source particulate pollutant
may therefore be important because of the total amount emitted or because
of the objectionable properties of the material emitted. Deleterious as-
pects of particulate pollution include:
Health Problems
(1) Respiratory - created by large concentrations of particles
less than 1
(2) Toxic Reaction - created by toxic particles such as fluoride
salts, beryllium compounds, etc.
(3) Eye or Skin Irritation - created by acid mists or small
particles.
Esthetic Problems
(1) Soiling - created by large mass emission rates, tarry or
sticky emissions, etc.
(2) Turbidity (lowering of visibility) - created by emission of
large concentrations of small particles (i.e., less than 1 n).
(3) Odor - created by numerous compounds emitted by various
sources.
Economic Problems
(1) Material (living and nonliving) Damage - created by cor-
rosive particles.
(2) Soiling - cleaning costs related to soiling by particulate
pollutants.
(3) Secondary Economic Problems - created by neighborhood dete-
rioration.
Preceding pagi blank
-------
To alleviate or avert these problems requires control at the
source. Adequate and economic control requires a knowledge of the sources
and the properties of the effluents from the sources. Some sources are
extremely difficult to control because of (a) incomplete information about
sources and properties or (b) unusual properties, and research and develop-
ment will be required to establish successful control techniques.
Since a large number of potentially important air pollution
problems require research and development, some type of priority rating
must be used to determine the optimum expenditure of funds. In the study
described in the following report, we have investigated particulate pollu-
tion from stationary sources to determine the magnitude of the problem so
that a priority may be developed: (a) for this area of air pollution and
(b) for the problems within this area.
The results of the study are presented in the following sections
of this report and in a handbook which is distinct from the report. In the
following sections, the report contains program objectives and organization,
more details about the handbook and final report, a discussion of information
acquisition and handling, and details of emission rates and properties of
effluents from source industries.
The work described in this report and the handbook is a portion
of the research and development program authorized by the Clean Air Act of
1967, and implemented through the Air Pollution Control Office/EPA.
1.2 Objectives
The program was initiated to overcome deficiencies in knowledge
regarding the nature of important stationary particulate pollution sources,
and to provide handbook data required for the design and application of
particulate control devices.
1.3 Organization of the Program
The program was organized into five phases and each phase was
divided into several tasks. In these tasks we have attempted to identify,
characterize, and quantify the particulate air pollution control problem
for stationary sources in the USA. We have also investigated the type and
magnitude of specific sources, the characteristics of both the particulates
and carrier gas from specific sources, and the status of current control
practices.
28
-------
This organization allowed assignment of the program personnel
to specific jobs, and at the same time allowed each engineer to see how
his part of the program was related to the whole. The phases were divided
as follows to facilitate conduct of the program:
Phase I - Sources
Phase II - Effluents
Phase III - Controls
Phase IV - Future Problems
Phase V - R8eD Plans
Phase I - Sources
The two major tasks in this phase were to: (l) identify all
significant sources of particulate pollutants; and (2) evaluate important
particulate sources. Subtasks included: searching published and unpublished
literature, consulting with air pollution control agencies, representatives
of particulate pollution source industries, suppliers and users of partic-
ulate control equipment, and suppliers and operators of important classes
of equipment and processes that emit particulate pollution.
The survey of various sources of information was not exhaustive,
but was pursued as far as necessary to ensure that a comprehensive list of
particulate sources was developed.
Important particulate sources were listed in their order of
importance as contributors to the overall particulate pollution problem on
the following four bases:
(1) Important sources based on total tonnage of emissions.
(2) Important sources based on objectionable properties such
as toxicity, corrosiveness, or unusual soiling properties.
(3) Source classification by unit operation.
(4) Source classification by difficulty of control.
Phase II - Effluents
In this phase we attempted to characterize total effluent stream
from important particulate sources. Using existing data, we have charac-
terized particulates and carrier streams from major existing particulate
pollution sources. We have included in the characterization data on particle
properties such as size, shape, density, solubility, corrosive properties,
hygroscopicity, agglomerating tendency, "stickiness,n flotrability, flaamabil-
ity, and toxicity.
29
-------
Phase III - Controls
In this phase current particulate pollution-control practices
were determined. The extent to which each of the important particulate
emission sources is now controlled was determined. In addition to iden-
tifying control methods, we have included information on the performance
characteristics of each method and the process stream characteristics that
affect performance. We have included in the identification, control methods
that have failed as well as those that are being used successfully. We
have attempted to determine for different particulate sources commonality
that would suggest common methods of control or common problems that tend
to limit control, and identified specific particulate sources that cannot
be adequately controlled by application of existing control devices or
methods.
Phase IV - Future Problems
In this phase future major problem sources were predicted by
studying production trends among industries that produce particulate emis-
sions; we have attempted to predict major sources of the future to the year
2000, and to the extent possible, estimated probable emissions from major
sources in tons per year.
Phase V - R&D Plans
In this phase recommendations for future research and develop-
ment were developed. We have developed two 5-year research and develop-
ment programs, Plan A and Plan B, as a product of this study, with Plan A
based on an assumed total expenditure of $5 million and Plan B on an assumed
total expenditure of $1 million.
In each plan we have analyzed data on characteristics of emissions
from important sources of particulates, and as a result, recommended the
specific research and development needed to advance particulate control
capability. Recommended projects involve more complete characterization of
particulate and carrier gas properties, and are concerned with meeting con-
trol device or control process needs that are now apparent.
We have included in each recommendation for research an evalu-
ation of priority and a detailed description of the research proposed, in-
cluding the purpose, goals, proposed scope of work, recommended approach,
and estimated time and cost schedules.
30
-------
1.4 Organization of the Final Report
The results of our investigations axe presented in two docu-
ments—this final report and a handbook. The two documents are closely
related; however, the handbook is complete in itself while the final report
relies more heavily on the handbook. In our presentations we have assumed
that anyone who has the final report will also have the handbook, but that
persons with access to the handbook will not necessarily have access to the
final report.
The final report presents, roughly, the material from Phases
I, IV, and V of the program as outlined in the preceding section. This
material includes the results of our investigations on source emission
rates, future problems, and research and development needs. We have dupli-
cated only those items in both documents that appear essential to a coher-
ent presentation.
In the following sections of this report, we present the
program methodology, information handling, important sources (by total
tonnage, citizen complaint, objectionable properties, difficulty to control,
and common unit operation), future problems, research and development plans,
and conclusions.
1.5 Organization of the Handbook (Volume III)
In the handbook we present the results of our investigations
on Phases II and III' (Effluents and Controls) of the program. It is organ-
ized around the most important sources by total tonnage. A chapter was
prepared for all sources which, when added up, contribute more than 99#
of the total tonnage emitted from stationary industrial sources. Each of
these chapters includes a process description, effluent properties, control
techniques and control costs. There are also introductory chapters describ-
ing general effluent-property me as tiring techniques and general control tech-
niques . The handbook will be referred to at appropriate places in the fol-
lowing report.
1.6 Bibliography
Since we have collected more than 3,000 documents in conducting
our investigations, we have included only the most pertinent references in
our handbook and in the final report. The bulk of these references are
presented in a separate document. Several methods of grouping the refer-
ences have been presented and all are stored for computer retrieval by
various descriptors. More detail about our storage/retrieval capability is
presented later in the report. (See Appendix A.)
31
-------
2. INFORMATION ACQUISITION
Obtaining all information pertinent to the objectives of the
study was the first requirement. To do this, we conducted a rapid liter-
ature survey to find information sources. This step permitted a general
definition of the scope of the information acquisition process.
Following this initial activity, the detailed information
acquisition was started. The most obvious place to obtain information
about any scientific subject is from the published literature. In searching
public literature, "abstracts of various types were extremely useful, and in
this particular case the Air Pollution Control Association (APCA) abstracts
or equivalent were particularly relevant. Besides this abstracting service,
the Chemical Abstracts and the Engineering Abstracts, along with such gov-
ernment abstracts as were available, were searched for information pertaining
to the study. Periodicals pertaining to specific industries or areas were
sources of information. Besides the general published literature, tech-
nological libraries are a good source of information and specialized air
pollution libraries contained a large amount of very useful data.
Governmental agencies dealing with air pollution problems and
air pollution control were useful and productive sources of information.
There are a large number of such agencies at the federal and various local
governmental levels. Depending on the seriousness and the history of the
air pollution problems in a particular region, these agencies had more or
less information and were more or less sophisticated in their approach to
the problems.
The industrial organizations which are the sources of particulate
pollutants also have the information needed for a study of this type. Some
industries have entered into air pollution control because of the value of
the product that can be returned to their processing. Other industries use
pollution-control equipment and have made pollution measurements because of
public or governmental pressure. Whatever the reason for their involvement,
they are in a position to have n»re information than anyone else on the sub-
ject of particulate pollution from their particular industries.
For most large industries, some type of an industrial or trade
association has been formed, and in most cases these associations are con-
cerned about industry-wide problems. If air pollution is one of these prob-
lems, they generally have at least some information regarding emissions,
particle properties, or control techniques. The manufacturers of air pol-
lution control equipment form another group which possesses information.
The control manufacturers need this information to determine the type and
size of control equipment that should be installed on a particular source.
33
Pracedii pigi link
-------
Companies who conduct stack-sampling tests have the exact type of infor-
mation needed to determine emission rates from important sources, and _n
many cases they also have information on the effluent properties.
One other important information source for this study has been
personal contact with persons who are conducting research on air pollu-
tion or particle physics. These contacts also have often led to other infor-
mation sources, and have assisted in the formulation of research and develop-
ment plans.
After determining where the information was, we used several
methods of collecting the information. Ideally, we would have located
every possible information source starting with those listed above, and
then contacted every person or organization that might have had any infor-
mation. Because this was impossible, we attempted to determine the optimum
methods of contact within the constraints of manpower, time and money avail-
able. This optimum procedure was a combination of personal visits, telephone
contacts and written questionnaires. A mass mailing of questionnaires was
found to have two principal drawbacks: (l) the information needed is so
diverse as to require a very long and complicated questionnaire; and (2)
since interest was not restricted to a particular industry, it would be
necessary to prepare a different questionnaire for each industry.
The procedure which has worked best for us required that the
first contact be made over the telephone or by letter. Subsequent contacts
were either in person or by mail, depending on the amount and quality of
information that could be obtained and the wishes of the person contacted.
Simplified questionnaires to a very homogeneous information source were
useful. Such questionnaires were used to determine if information were
available and what the nature of the information was rather than to obtain
the information itself.
The actual persons contacted were determined by literature
references and recommendations from previous contacts or from consultants.
No standard procedure was developed in making these contacts because it
was found that the particular approach used in contacting any potential
information source depends on the information source itself and any prior
information about the source.
After our "rapid literature and information survey" had indicated
that our information sources were as complete as possible, we began to con-
tact these sources and collect information. At the same time, we prepared
a letter which was sent to over 300 air pollution control agencies which re-
quested (l) the number of stack sampling reports that were on file; (2) the
availability of any information relating to sizing, identification and
characteristics of particulate or gaseous streams emanating from sources in
34
-------
their area; (3) information on emission inventories taken; (4) names of
industrial sources who might be willing to provide information for our study;
and (5) a listing of the particulate sources in their particular area which
created the most problems, and the type of problems created. The results
from this letter were quite good, as we received almost 150 replies, or
about a 50$ response. The number of air-pollution agencies with actual
information of use in our study was less than 50. Subsequent telephone
contacts indicated that the number possessing actual data that would be
available to us was less than 30. The most commonly mentioned problem
industries included hot-mix asphalt batch plants, cement plants, foundries,
incinerators, and power plants. The results of this survey are discussed
in more detail later in the report.
When we actually visited several local control agencies, we found
data in various stages of completeness. We obtained a large amount from the
New Jersey Air Pollution Control Agency, most of which gave the emission
rates after control equipment. In general, they had made no attempt to de-
termine the efficiency of the collecting equipment other than to state the
type of equipment and in some cases the design efficiency. In many cases
no indication was given even of the type of control equipment. However, the
data from New Jersey were reasonably complete compared to the data from many
other control agencies. The cooperation obtained from this control agency,
as well as New York and Pennsylvania, was outstanding.
Cooperation varied from one agency to another. One agency
admitted that they had a great deal of information, but seemed disinclined
to divulge any of it to us. They did spend time with us in discussing prob-
lems, but would not allow us to look into their files without one of their
engineers helping us, and they stated that they had no engineers available
for this purpose. The average amount of information obtained from any of
the 30 or so agencies that had information was approximately 10 to 15 stack
sampling tests per agency. In general, almost no information on effluent
properties or control parameters was obtained from these sources.
Our first contact with various technological libraries was gen-
erally by letter or in person. Prom general libraries such as the Linda
Hall Library of Science and Technology in Kansas City, or the John Crerar
Library in Chicago, we attempted to find the special information sources
that might be available on air pollution. The main contribution these
libraries made to our study was in the area of specific references. The
NA.PCA libraries at Durham and Cincinnati and the APTIC Library were espe-
cially useful and of primary importance in collecting published information
for our study. Unfortunately, the APTIC Library did not go back far enough
to allow us to obtain some very pertinent literature. To obtain literature
information prior to 1965, we purchased the Bay Area Air Pollution Library
on microfilm.
35
-------
In the case of both the Bay Area Library and the APTIC Library,
we found that it was more useful to scan the entire library than to attempt
to use the key word descriptors that were available. We did this because
it became apparent that we always missed some documents no matter how care-
fully we chose our key words. The basis for our literature file was then
made up of the APTIC Library, the San Francisco Bay Area Library and a
thorough review of the Chemical Abstracts back to the year 1950. (As we
mentioned earlier, we did investigate other abstracts, but not with the
thoroughness that was used in the previous three literature sources.)
In attempting to obtain information from the Air Pollution
Control Manufacturers, we met with a wide variety of reactions. The gamut
ranged from complete cooperation to complete lack of cooperation. When
there was a" lack of cooperation, three principal reasons were cited: (l)
the information we were seeking gave that particular control manufacturer
a competitive advantage; (2) the information was scattered throughout many
files and impossible to collect; (3) Research Cottrell had a subcontract
from NAPCA and was being paid to gather the information that we were re-
questing for free. A fourth reason was cited in some cases, i.e., that the
company was newly formed and had no information. On the other end of the
scale one company opened their files to us and allowed us to extract a great
deal of very useful particle size information. Another control manufacturer
gave us emission rate data. All of these data have been analyzed and the
results are presented in the handbook.
In contacting industrial companies, the pollution sources them-
selves, the cooperation that we obtained depended greatly on the previous
contacts they had with either federal or local air pollution agencies. The
classic example of this was a cement company which was extremely cooperative
with us and indicated they had emission data and particle property data which
they would be willing to give to us. Two weeks after our first contact, we
contacted them again to arrange for a visit to collect the data, and were
told that they would not part with the data unless they were under Court Order.
In the intervening 2 weeks between our first and second contacts, information
that they had submitted to the local air pollution control agency in an at-
tempt to cooperate had appeared in a letter to Congress. Hie purpose of this
letter or report was to push for stricter legislation in air ppllution, and
the cement company's name had been attached to the data. This same type of
complaint was voiced to us in other contacts when we said we would keep any
information given to us in confidence. A frequent reply was, "I have given
information to people in confidence before and seen it published." At the
other extreme we made contacts with some companies who were very open with
us and willing to discuss any of their problems in great detail. However,
in most cases we were unable to obtain any data on emission rates or particle
properties even from the companies who were most cooperative. In almost
every company the data we were after, if available, were scattered throughout
36
-------
the company in many places and many reports, and it was not possible to col-
lect these data without a substantial effort on the part of the industry.
The most valuable assistance from companies who were cooperative was in the
area of commenting on the accuracy and completeness of our information about
that particular industry. Recently, several companies have offered to gather
their information if we would pay them.
Industrial associations were also contacted and again our
request for information about particulate pollutant sources met with a
variety of reactions. If the particular industry represented by the indus-
trial association had never been disturbed about the possible air-pollution
problems in their industry, the association had little information of use
to us. If, on the other hand, the industry had received a great deal of
bad publicity about their air-pollution problems, the association was very
protective and extremely secretive. An exception to these two statements
was the National Crushed Stone Association. We attended one of their na-
tional meetings and attended a committee meeting about air pollution. Very
few experiments have been run to quantify the air-pollution problems in
their industry, but they are aware that they do have problems and they wish
to do something about them. They pointed out to us places where information
could be found and helped us to obtain it.
The method which we used to contact the associations is worth
commenting on because we used three different techniques. Early in the
program we sent letters to many industrial associations and scientific
associations which were closely related with specific industries and that
we believed might have information on particulate pollutant emissions. We
received a fairly good return on these letters, but almost no information
or indication that information was available. Later, we contacted some of
these same associations by telephone—sometimes having a person's namo and
sometimes with no name, and we received a much better response. We used
the last technique to become acquainted with the National Crushed Stone
Association. After a telephone call to their Washington Headquarters, we
were invited to attend their meeting.
Numerous individuals are involved in air-pollution work, as
researchers, consultants, or in Federal or local governmental operations.
We contacted this group to obtain general comments, specific information
if they had it, or sources of information which we had not contacted pre-
viously. Academic researchers generally had little information of use to
us because their lines of research do not coincide with the directions of
this program. Their research is generally directed to fundamental studies
such as particle physics (which is useful to the study) but not to emission
rates or control techniques. On the other hand, engineering consultants
usually offer very general information, and are helpful for an over-view
of specific problems.
37
-------
Persons working for Federal or local governmental agencies
concerned with air pollution were good sources of information. The typ of
information depended on their mission, but they were generally very coop-
erative. We were able to obtain emission-rate data, and information sources
from this group.
All three of these groups of people were cooperative; however,
we did not obtain large amounts of information from any of them, but did
obtain pieces of data from almost all of them.
30
-------
J? h'i
tjt--
. m ¦ A . -••-
v - &£? j vi
ES$< a : y?
l '•'; *f. •*$ #H
"• 4.'^ • J^P
> f~K '¦ ¦'- • v5 I
¦;%» ». ? . -jtl >*.,¥•
•re \M
' *¦¦ ¦ ^j?
». «•
¦Vj Ji,| |ua
'¦ * 'V • V> * 7" -J
' j * ' «»"
"I
»l.*& Vj
r> i ¦
i£*l
i! A' •
' ' WP®j
:. II,
-------
3. COMPUTERIZED BIBLIOGRAPHIC INTORMA.TION
RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
The Information Retrieval System that MRI has set up uses, as a
data base, the bibliographic information from over 3,000 articles and re-
ports that have been collected and key worded in the course of this project.
All the bibliographic information and key words for each document have been
entered in this computerized retrieval system along with an accession number
and up to two SIC* numbers. The key words used are taken from the Micro-
thesaurus of Air Pollution Terms.**
Retrieval of information from the data base can be done in two
ways. The first method is a manual search on a single author or key word.
A search by author utilizes the complete listing of documents by author
which includes all bibliographic information including title of the document.
A manual search by key word must rely on the selected key word list shown
in Table 3-1. From this selected list one can proceed to the listing of
document accession numbers under each key word. For example, if it is de-
sired to search on the key word "scrubbers," the listing of pertinent docu-
ment accession numbers is shown in Table 3-2. These accession numbers can
then be used as a guide to scan titles in the complete listing of biblio-
graphic information by document accession number.
The second retrieval method is by computerized search routines.
The search program has been written to enable a search to be done by author,
SIC number or key word or any combination of these utilizing up to eight
key words. For example, if a computerized search was to be done on the key
word "scrubbers," the computer would print out the bibliographic information
for each document having this key word. A portion of this printout is shown
in Table 3-3. If a computer search was done on the key word "scrubbers,"
but was also restricted to "SIC No. 3312" (iron and Steel), the computer
would print out the bibliographic information, as shown in Table 3-4, for
only those documents that have the key word "scrubbers" and an SIC No. 3312.
The computer search routines are very versatile and allow complex
combinations of author, SIC numbers and multiple key words to be used in
retrieving pertinent document information. The manual search capabilities
by author or single selected key words are more restricted but are still a
valuable tool that will, in many cases, locate the pertinent documents with-
out requiring use of the computer.
* SIC - Standard Industrial Classification as prepared by the U. S. Bureau
of the Budget.
** Public Health Service, Air Pollution Technical Information Center.
39
-------
TABLE 3-1
SELECTED KEY WORD LIST FOR INFORMATION RETRIEVAL PURPOSES
BK-55 Plant damage
BK-119 Nitrates
BK-146 Carbon dioxide
BK-147 Carbon monoxide
BK-150 Nitrogen oxides
BK-159 Sulfur oxides
BK-163 Ozone
BK-164 Phosphorus compounds
BK-165 Phosphates
BK-171 Sulfur compounds
BK-172 Sulfates
BK-198 Combustion
BL-81 Cancer
BL-161 Electrical properties
BL-193 Air pollution episodes
BL-197 Costs
GL-07 Sonic
GL-08 Solid flow properties
GL-09 Angular properties
GL-10 Efficiency
GR-02 Respiratory diseases
GR-24 Carbon black
GR-25 Ceramics
GR-30 Cements
GR-38 Corrosion
GR-45 Aluminum
GR-49 Copper
GR-51 Iron
GR-52 Steel
GR-53 Lead
GR-63 Zinc
GR-66 Asbestos
GR-70 Limestone
GR-82 Paints
GR-84 Tar
GR-101 Economic losses
GR-104 Enforcement procedures
GR-107 Governments
GR-120 Legislation
GR-148 Standards
GR-151 Emission
GR-181 Tracers
GR-184 Mercury compounds
GR-189 Abatement
GR-191 Air quality
GY-15 Stack gases
GY-25 Particulates
GY-33 Suspended particulates
GY-36 Fumes
GY-40 Smokes
GY-53 Boilers
GY-59 Fuels
GY-60 Coal
GY-61 Coke
GY-62 Fuel gases
GY-64 Fuel oils
GY-71 Furnaces
GY-72 Basic oxygen
GY-73 Bessemer converters
GY-74 Blast
GY-75 Cupolas
GY-76 Electric
GY-77 Oil burners
GY-78 Open hearth
GY-79 Industrial emission sources
GY-81 Chemical processes
GY-84 Petroleum refining
Gi-85 Kraft pulping
GY-92 Food and feed operations
GY-95 Flour
GY-96 Grain elevators
GY-97 Slaughterhouses
0-05 Sedimentation
0-06 Gravity settling
0-07 Inertial separation
0-08 Sulfur oxides control
0-12 Coal preparation processes
0-26 SOg removal
0-51 Instrumentation
0-81 Experimental methods
0-86 Mathematical analysis
0-95 Air pollution forecasts
P-01 Dispersion
P-02 Diffusion
40
-------
TABLE 3-1 (Concluded)
P-03 Diffusion models
P-05 Plume "behavior
P-16 Meteorology
P-53 Acids
P-81 Ammonia
P-Q3 Arsenic compounds
R-06 Measurement methods
R-14 Particle counters
R-20 Qrsat analysis
R-28 Particulate classification methods
R-29 Particle shape
R-30 Particle size
R-31 Sieve analysis
R-32 Sampling methods
R-35 Particulate sampling
R-36 Samplers
R-44 Sampling probes
R-45 Stack sampling
"R-47 Control equipment
R-48 Afterburners
R-54 Centrifugal separators
R-55 Settling chambers
R-56 Electrostatic precipitation
R-57 Exhaust systems
R-59 Filters
R-65 Flares
R-68 Scrubbers
R-92 Incineration
S-00 Fluorides
S-14 Hydrocarbons
S-54 Polynuclear confounds
S-78 Aluminum compounds
S-82 Beryllium compounds
S-96 Lead compounds
W-99 Automotive emissions
Y-04 Kilns
Y-05 Lime
Y-08 Mineral processing
Y-09 Mining
Y-10 Paint manufacturing
Y-ll Paper manufacturing
Y-13 Petroleum production
Y-21 Primary metallurgical processes
Y-22 Printing
Y-23 Rubber manufacturing
Y-24 Soaps
Y-28 Crop spraying
Y-30 Feed lots
Y-31 Fertilizing
Y-33 Open burning
Y-39 Solid waste disposal
Y-45 Water pollution
Y-47 Oxygen lancing
Y-49 Sintering
Y-50 Stacks
Y-59 Internal combustion
Y-72 Air quality measurements
Y-81 Dust fall
Y-82 Emission inventories
Y-89 Analytical methods
Y-90 Chemical
Y-95 Chromatography
41
-------
TABLE 3-2
LISTING OF DOCUMENT ACCESSION NUMBERS FOR KEY WORD "SCRUBBERS"
R 68 Scrubbers
A
4
A
344
A 800
A1158
A180 9
A 2148
A2421
A
7
A
388
A 801
A1160
A1811
A2166
A2433
A
14
A
393
A 813
A1193
A1812
A2181
R 1
A
23
A
406
A 817
A1234
A1817
A2182
R 3
A
24
A
420
A 833
A1240
A1819
A2186
R 15
A
35
A
428
A 862
A1243
A1823
A2201
R 57
A
47
A
459
A 888
A1266
A1827
A2202
R 58
A
57
A
471
A 930
A1273
A1828
A2204
R 72
A
63
A
523
A 977
A1274
A1840
A2207
R 97
A
103
A
524
A 985
A1275
A1846
A2225
R 99
A
132
A
533
A 988
A1331
A1848
A2227
R 102
A
138
A
534
A 989
A1332
A190 7
A2236
R 116
A
139
A
555
A 995
A1338
A1914
A2255
R 119
A
151
A
579
A 997
A1339
A1915
A2259
R 218
A
152
A
603
A0875
A1356
A1947
A2267
A
169
A
610
A1017
A1361
A1950
A2269
A
185
A
624
A101B
A1404
A1972
A2276
A
189
A
626
A1021
A1406
A1995
A2277
A
191
A
637
A10 24
A1412
A2002
A2278
A
193
A
645
A1030
A1423
A2009
A2289
A
195
A
646
A1031
A1426
A2012
A2330
A
196
A
664
A1033
A1442
A2014
A2335
A
198
A
665
A1042
A1458
A2033
A2336
A
205
A
670
A1070
A1469
A2034
A2347
A
209
A
672
A1075
A1473
A2035
A2353
A
222
A
678
A1081
A1480
A2036
A2358
A
224
A
708
A1085
A1535
A2043
A2359
A
226
A
709
A1087
A1625
A2064
A2364
A
227
A
711
A1088
A1649
A2074
A2365
A
238
A
718
A1104
A1684
A2087
A2369
A
256
A
722
A1105
A1700
A2094
A2379
A
257
A
750
A1112
A1713
A2099
A2382
A
261
A
762
A1115
A1716
A2103
A2389
A
266
A
783
A1119
A1769
A2111
A2390
A
287
A
786
A1121
A17 90
A2116
A2395
A
292
A
790
A1130
A1800
A2126
A2403
A
299
A
792
A1141
A180 2
A2133
A2407
A
300
A
794
A1144
A1804
A2146
A2409
A
311
A
798
A1146
A1806
A2147
A2410
42
-------
TABLE 3-5
SAMPLE PORTION OF COMPUTER PRIHTOUT FOR KEY WORD "SCRUBBERS"
SEARCH REQUEST
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
AUTHOR
SUBJECT
AND SCRUBBERS
AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
BARNES»T M. LOWNIE, JR.»H W
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
A COST ANALYSIS OF AIR-POLLUTION CONTROLS IN THE
AGENCY REPORT
A 4
9110 0
5/69
INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
&
2 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
OATE
LEWIS,C J* CROCKER,B B
TI-2 CHEMICAL COMMITTEE
THE LIME IN0USTRY7S PROBLEM OF AIRBORNE DUST
JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
A 7
3274 0
1/69
AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC COOE
OATE
CROSS,F L, ROSS.R W
FIELD CONTROL OF A DOLOMITE PLANT
JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
A 14
3274 0
1/68
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
I* AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
SILVERMAN.L. DAVIDSON.R A
ELECTRIC FURNACE FERROSILICON FUME COLLECTION
JOURNAL OF METALS
A 23
9111 0
5/56
5 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
BRIEF.* S. ROSE. JR..A H. STEPHAN.D G
U. S. »UBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
PROPERTIES AND CONTROL OF ELECTRIC—ARC STEEL FURNACE FUMES
JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
A 24
3323 0
2/57
6 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
PETROLEUM COMMITTEE TI-3
THE PETROLEUM REFINING INOUSTRY—AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND CONTROL METHODS
JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
A 35
2900 0
1/64
7 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
OATE
INGELS.R M. SHAFFER.N R. DANIELSON.J A
LOS ANGELES COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
CONTROL OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
A 47
2951 0
2/60
8 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
MEBER.H J
METHODS OF COMBATTING AIR POLLUTION IN FERROUS AND NON-FERROUS FOUNDRIES
JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
A 57
3300 0
0/ 0
9 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUM6FR
SIC CODE
DATE
CALVERT,S
U. S. HEALTH SERVICE
BASIC STUDY OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL WET SCRUBBERS
°ENN. STATE UNIVERSITY
A 63
9111 0
9/66
-------
TftHLE 3-3 (Concluded)
10 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
D*TE
POLLOC*.* 4. TOMAN*.J P. FRIELING.G
FLUE—GAS SCRUBBER
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
A 103
<>911 0
6/67
II AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
OATE
HORVATM.H » ROSSANO.A T
TECHNIQUE FOR MEASURING DUST COLLECTOR EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF PARTICLE SI2E
1969 APCA MEETING
A 13?
9001 0
6/69
cn
12 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
OATE
KEMPNER.S K. SEILER.E N. BOWMAN.D H
HESTER* ELECTRIC COMPANY. INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA
COMPARISON OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE PLATING FUME SCRUBBERS
1969 APCA MEETING
A 136
0 0
6/69
13 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
SPARKS«L E. PILAT.M J
UNIVERSITY OF MASHIN6TON
DIFFUSION FORCES AND PARTICULATE SCRUBBER EFFICIENCIES
1969 APCA MEETING
A 139
9001 0
6/69
14 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
«HidcF
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
OATE
BURDOCK.J L
UOP Aid CORRECTION DIVISION, DARIEN, CONNECTICUT
PRESENT APPLICATIONS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTORS TO BOILERS
1969 APCA MEETING
A 151
9001 0
6/69
15 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
SCHINDELER.J W
THE EFFECT OF COMMON VARIABLES ON CYCLONE PERFORMANCE
1969 APCA MEETING
A 152
9001 0
6/69
-------
TAKLE 5-4
COMPUTET, PRII.'TO'T FOR KEY WORD "SCR'JBBERE" A 1.11 "SIC iX. 531£"
ACCESSION MUMSFB
SIC COO^ 131? (1
AUTHOR
SURJECT AND SC3UH3EPS
1 AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
ANONYMOUS
FABRIC FILTER INSTALLATION
AIR POLLUTION MANUAL
A ?(, 6
331? 0
0/ n
if-
CJ>
?. AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMrtFP
sic cooe
DATE
YOUNG» 3 A. PEARSON.K h, BFALE.C 0
THE GENERATION AND TREATMENT OF SINTER PLANT DUSTS
AIMF OLAST FURNACE. COKE OVEM AND RAW MATERIALS CONFERENCE
A 4?0
*312 0
0/61
AUTHOR
AGENCY
TITLE
SOURCE
ACCESSION NUMBER
SIC CODE
DATE
BAUM.K
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WET SCRUBBING OF EFFLUENT GASES FROM OXYGEN STEEL WORKS
STAUB
A1017
331? 0
10/65
-------
TA.BLE 3-4 (Concluded)
4 AUTHOR F.NGELS.L
AGENCY
TITLE FEED GAS
SOURCE ST AlJf"
ACCESSION NUMBER A101B
SIC COOF 331
-------
i
t v- - *¦,
•••• •¦
T.
.,- A '" " " .<
'} -
i,,! J
V
" ij '
¦|rf
'^>'- ""
r
* »
V ';,f- ^
;#-
-Jfsf
¦«r-
>•' -jEf
.:'*' '. tW ¦
^ %? :
• •*¦. '* '•« ' J
" V i>
4tii
;1iv : > *\
. «#-. -s
V 'T '
-4 -A
« V'r<
>". i •
-.•X'. >£. '--^v
*V" V"' "t ¦ % *- V
' -¦ , ;.u
- ' .v. -Pr- «,#i
; v-e- • *V$S$ "
A' • „..£*»• AfrV
•» • ...» i^Sf ? * : -U « 'iajp.* *. :
<;. v , K > '3 * i-<*M i >¦
• r fc- . %WVi *
w-'*« iff • ' , " v-,r/ " « T &W-J& .S ^
V -~ . •:¦•• S '
W • KMf ST
-vv.
"''V i-i'A - *
¦ 'W+-
i.x.A ML.L , o
¦ Vi • • £» ¦¦> ¦¦ „
; 4. IMPORWT SICES'
"J
; t ¦ i$'r' ' t '*• Arf
' : 4 - « w; ., T*
a? "*-'V j
.^«k5S*fWfc
¦• 7' <4. *vi
¦ ¦ tf:
> * ,i. v ire #
jt ¦ «'" "&¦ n",
x - I" i
._ iCtfi
* . & ¦ >*¦ ' P*!®
•*Y>i , $&**?*$>', '4
I V '-V V1>J - ,4' _.|g
*¦« r ' "•; S' 'J j
. Vt.-:
;;a-7
- f
1 I * -.r»
/* « ,-». ,* V
Kfi' i " x *"fi v'. . *-v 2 *
v. 4
,V 4.f''
: ft f- " . f' f"-;
5R;-. ,.; : ?••;-. :*,•». »-J, ^
Ji'* PI* * V:".- i.
'.-•Hi** V.ui- - olf-i
Tfti'i .1 * ¦ - ¦« ;«-A >f JSr v
. M * '^jAr l&L' • 'm- -
•"•' L: \
.. JKjy V
• -/./'
4 ?> <»
¦.jAr W-
* I :if
fwRK- /
^'¦'v' # ¦¦ j - 1
WflO%
« |f-f'-1
.jay I
S^'
-------
4. IMPORTANT SOURCES BY TONNAGE
4.1 Introduction
Important particulate pollutant sources based on the total tonnage
emitted per year are presented in this section. To determine which sources
are important, a comprehensive list of possible significant sources was
prepared. This list (Appendix B) was based primarily on pollution control
equipment sales. From this list of significant sources, a ranking of the
most important sources was developed by calculating total emissions using
emission factors and other techniques. This ranking is presented in Table
4.1-1 and includes those industries for which the estimated emissions ex-
ceed 10,000 tons per year.
The list of sources in Table 4.1-1 has been investigated in detail
during this study. The results of these investigations which pertain to
emissions are presented in the following subsections and in the Handbook
(Volume III). The subsections are arranged in the order of ranking in
Table 4.1-1, and each subsection presents the information about one source
industry. Specifically, these subsections contain the details of the cal-
culations that led to the ranking in Table 4.1-1 and pertinent data and
information sources required for the calculations.
The format for each subsection of Section 4 is as follows: a short
introduction, emission points, production rate, emission factors and analy-
sis, calculation of emission rate, and important references.
The primary method of calculating emission rates was from emission
factors, using the following equation:
E = (p)(ef)(1 - Gcct)
2,000 lb/ton
where E is the emission rate, tons/year
ej. is the emission factor (uncontrolled), lb/ton
P is the production rate, tons/year
CQ is the average operating efficiency of control equipment
C-fc is the percentage of the production capacity on which
control equipment has been installed.
Information required to use this equation was obtained from the literature
and information survey. In cases where information was inadequate for this
calculation, emission rates were estimated from material balances or grain
loadings. These procedures vary from case to case and are described in de-
tail in the appropriate subsections. No attempt has been made to describe
49
-------
TABLE 4.1-1
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS
(Based on 1968 production data)
Source
Fuel Combustion
A. Coal
1. Electric Utility
a. Pulverized
b. Stoker
c. Cyclone
2. Industrial boilers
a. Pulverized
b. Stoker
c. Cyclone
B. Fuel Oil
1. Electric Utility
2. Industrial
a. Residual
b. Distillate
C. Hatural Gas & LEG
1. Electric Utility
2. Industrial
Annual
Tonnage
P
2138,400,000 tons of coal
9,900,000 tons of coal
28,700,000 tons of coal
20,000,000 tons of coal
70,000,000 tons of coal
10,000,000 tons of coal
7.18 x 10y gal.
7.51 x 10y gal.
2.36 * 109 gal.
3.14 x 10° mil. scf
9.27 x 10s mil. scf
Emission
Factor
Lb/Ton
ef
16A=190^/ lb/ton of coal
13A=146 lb/ton of coal
3A=35 lb/'ton of coal
16A=170£/ lb/ton of coal
13A=133 lb/ton of coal
3A=31 lb/ton of coal
Efficiency^/
of Control
Appl ic at ion^/
of Control
Net£/
Control
C,, • C+
0.010 lb/gal
0.023 lb/gal
0.015 lb/gal
15 lb/mil. scf
13 lb/mil. scf
0.92 0.97 0.69
0.80 0.87 0.70
0.91 0.71 0.64
Total from Electric Utility Coal
0.85 0.95 0.61
0.85 0.62 0.52
0.82 0.91 0.75
Total from Industrial Coal
0 0 0
0 0 0
Total from Fuel Oil
0 0 0
0 0 0
Total from Natural Gas 8c LPG
Ercis ions
Tons/Yr
E
2,710,000
217,000
182,000
3,109,000
322,000
2,234,000
39,000
2,595,000
36,000
87,000
16,000
141,000
24,000
84,000
108,000
Reliaoility
Rating!/
Total from Utility and Industrial Fuel Combustion
5.953,000
Crushed Stone, Sand & Gravel
A. Crushed Stone
B. Sand & Gravel
Operations Belated to
Agriculture
A- Grain Elevators
B Gotten Gins
C. Feed Mills
1. Alfalfa Mills
2. Mills Other Than
Alfalfa
681,000,000
918,000,000
177,000,000 tons grain handled
11,000,000 bales
1,600,000 tons dry meal
8,364,000 tons
17
0.1
12 lb/bale
50 lb/ton dry meal
of production
0.80 0.25 0.20
0
Total from Crushed Stone, Sand & Gravel
0.70
0. B0
0.85
0.85
0.40
0.40
0.50
0.50
0.28
0.32
0.42
0.42
4,554,000
4,600,000
1,700,000
45,000
Total from Listed Agricultural Operations 1,617,000
-------
Source
Annua]
Tonnage
P
Iron and Steel
A. Ore Crushing
B- Materials Handling
C. Pellet Plants
D- Sinter Plants
1. Sintering Process
2. Crushing, Screening, Etc.
E- Coke Manufacture
1. Beehive
£. By-Product
3. Pushing tc Quenching
F. Blast Furnace
G- Steel Furnaces
1. Open Hearth
2. Basic Oxygen
3. Electric Arc
H- Scarfing
82,000,000 toes of ore
131,000,000 tons of steel
50,000,000 tons of pellets
51,000,000 tons of sinter
1,300,000 tons of coal
90,000,000 tons of coal
91,300,000 tons of coal
88,000,000 tons of iron
65,800,000 tons of steel
48,000,000 tons of steel
16,800,000 tons of steel
131,000,000 tons of steel
Cement
A. Wet Process
1. Kilos
2. Grinders, Dryers, etc.
B- Dry Process
1. Kilns
2. Grinders, Dryers, etc.
43,600,000 tons of cement
31,000,000 tons of cement
Forest Products
A. Wigwam Burners
B- Pulp Mills
1. Kraft Process
a. Recovery Furnace
b. Line Kilns
c. Dissolving Tanks
2. Sulfite Process
a. Recovery Furnace
3. HSSC Process
a. Recovery Furnace
b. Fluid-Bed Reactor
4. Bark Boilers
C- Particleboard, etc.
27,500,000 tons of waste
24,300,000 tons of pulp
2,500,000 tons of pulp
833,000 tons of pulp
3,500,000 tons of pulp
1,167,000 tons of pulp
525,000 tons of pulp
Line
A. Crushing, Screening
B. Rotary Kilns
C. Vertical Kilns
D. Materials Handling
28,000,000 tons of rock
16,200,000 tons of lime
1,800,000 tons of lime
18,000,000 tons of lime
TABLE 4.1-1 (Continued)
Emission
Factor
Lb/Ton
ef
Efficiency^/
of Control
Cc
Application^/
of Control
Ct
Net£/
Control
Cc C-t
Er-.i; z; one
Tonc/Yr he
£
Pit 1
? lb/ton of ore
0
0
0
8i,000
/
10 lb/ton of steel
0.90
0.35
0.32
446,000
4
--
—
--
--
80,000*
4
20 lb/ton of sinter
0.90
1.0
0.90
51,000
c
2? lb/ton of sinter
0.90
1.0
0.90
56,000
£00 lb/ton of coal
0
0
0
130,000
2
2 lb/ton of coal
0
0
0
90,000
2
0.46 lb/ton of coal
—
--
--
21,000
J
130 lb/ton of iron
0.99
1.0
0.99
58,000
£
17 lb/ton of steel
0.97
0.41
0.40
337,000
2
40 lb/ton of steel
0.99
1.0
0.99
10,000
2
10 lb/ton of steel
0.99
0.79
0.78
18,000
o
3 lb/ton of steel
0.90
0.75
0.68
63,000
3
Total from
Iron and Steel
1,442,000
167 lb/ton of cement
0.94
0.94
0.88
435,000
1
25 lb/ton of cement
0.94
0.94
0.88
65,000
3
167 lb/ton of cement
0.94
0.94
0.88
310,000
1
67 lb/ton of cement
0.94
0.94
0.88
124,000
3
Total from Cement
934,000
10 lb/ton of waste
0
0
0
132,000
2
150 lb/ton of pulp
0.92
0.99
0.91
164,000
2
45 lb/ton of pulp
0.95
0.99
0.94
33,000
2
5 lb/ton of pulp
0.90
0.33
0.30
42,000
3
268 lb/ton of pulp
0.92
0.99
0.91
10,000
¦7
24 lb/ton of pulp
0.92
0.99
0.91
1,000
3
533 lb/ton of pulp
0.70
1.00
0.70
42,000
3
—
—
--
—
82,000*
3
—
—
—
—
74,000*
4
Total from Forest Products
580,000
24 lb/ton of rock
0.80
0.25
0.20
2o4,000
180 l'o/ton of lime
0.93
0.87
0.81
2:-4,000
2
7 lo/ton of lime
0.97
0.40
0.3?
4,000
2
5 lb/ton of lime
0.95
0.80
0.16
11,000
3
Total from Lime
573,000
-------
Sourc
Annua]
Tonnage
P
Primary Nonferrous Metals
A. Aluminum
1. Grinding of Bauxite
2. Calcining of Hydroxide
3. Reduction Cells
a. H. S. Soderberg
b. V. S. Soderberg
c. Prebake
4. Materials Handling
B. Copper
1. Ore Crushing
2. Roasting
3. Reverb. Furnace
4. Converters
5. Materials Handling
C. Zinc
1. Ore Crushing
2. Roasting
a. Fluid-bed
b. Ropp, multi-hearth
3. Sintering
4. Distillation
5. Materials Handling
D. Lead
1. Ore Crushing
2. Sintering
3. Blast Furnace
4. Dross Reverb. Furnace
5. Materials Handling
13,000,000 tons of bauxite
5,840,000 tons of alumina
800j000 tens of aluminum
700,000 of aluminum
1,755,000 tons of aluminum
3,300,000 tons of aluminum
170,000,000 tons of ore
575,000 tons of copper
1,437,000 tons of copper
1,437,000 tons of copper
1,437,000 tons of copper
18,000,000 tons of ore
765,000 tons of zinc
153,000 tons of zinc
612,000 tons of zinc
612,000 tons of zinc
1,020,000 tons of zinc
4,500,000 tons of ore
467,000 tons of lead
467,000 tons of lead
467,000 tons of lead
467,000 tons of lead
TABLE 4.1-1 (Continued)
Emission . .
Factor Efficiency^/ Application^/ Net£/ Emissions
Lb/Ton of Control of Control Control Tons/Yr Reliability
Cc Ct Cc-Ct E Ratine-/
ef
6
lb/ton
of
bauxite
—
--
0.80
8,000
3
200
lb/ton
o
alumina
--
--
0.90
56,000
3
144
lb/ton
of
aluminum
0.40
1.0
0.40
35,000
2
84
lb/ton
of
aluminum
0.64
1.0
0.64
10,000
2
63
lb/ton
of
aluminum
0.64
1.0
0.64
.20,000
2
10
lb/ton
of
aluminum
0.90
0.35
0.32
11,000
4
Total
from
Pricary Aluminum
142,000
2
lb/ton
of
ere
0
0
0
170,000
3
168
lb/ton
of
Cu
0.85
1.0
0.85
7,000
3
206
lb/ton
of
Cu
0.95
0.8S
0.81
28,000
3
235
lb/ton
of
Cu
0.95
0.85
0.81
33,000
3
10
lb/ton
of
Cu
0.90
0.35
0.32
5,000
4
Total
from
Primary Copper
243,000
2
lb/ton
of
ore
0
0
0
18,000
3
2,000
lb/ton
of
Zn
0.98
1.0
0.98
15,000
3
333
lb/ton
of
Zn
0.85
1.0
0.85
4,000
3
180
lb/ton
of
Zn
0.95
1.0
0.95
3,000
3
--
--
--
--
15,000*
4
7
lb/ton
of
Zn
0.90
0.35
0.32
2,000
4
Total from Primary Zinc 57,000
2 lb/ton of ore 0 0 0 4,000 3
520 lb/ton of lead 0.95 0.90 0.86 17,000 3
250 lb/ton of lead 0.65 0.98 0.63 10,000 3
20 lb/ton of lead — — 0.50 2,000 3
5 lb/ton of lead 0.90 0.35 0.32 1,000 4
Total from Primary Lead 34,000
Total from Primary Konferro-is 476,000
-------
Source
Clay
A. Ceramic
1. Grinding
2. Drying
B. Refractories
1. Kiln-Fired
a. Calcining
b. Drying
c. Grinding
2. C&stable
5. Magnesite
4. Mortars
a. Grinding
b. Drying
5. Mixes
C- Heavy Clay Products
1. Grinding
2. Drying
Fertilizer and Phosphate Rock
A. Phosphate Bock
1. Drying
2. Grinding
5. Materials ttmrtl Ing
4. Calcining
B. Fertilizers
1. Annonium Nitrate
2. Urea
3. Phosphates
a. Bock Pulverizing
b. Acid-Bock Reaction
c. Granulation and dying
etc.
d. Materials Handling
e. Bagging
4. Anaonium Sulfate
Asphalt
A. Paving Material
1- Dryers
2. Secondary Sources
B- Hoofing Material
1. Blowing
2. Saturator
Annual
Tonnage
P
4,722,000
tons
7,870,000
tons
688,000
tons
1,032,000
tons
3,440,000
tons
550,000
tons
120,000
tons
120,000
tons
120,000
tons
249,000
tons
4,740,000
tons
7,110,000
tons
41,300,000 tons of rock
8,260,000 tons
2,800,000 tons of granules
1,000,000 tons of granules
17,000,000 tons of rock
4,370,000 tons of P2Q5
18,100,000 tons of granules
9,000,000 tons of granules
2,700,000 tons of granules
251,000,000 tons of material
6,264,000 tons of asphalt
TABLE 4-1-1 (Continued)
Emission
Factor Efficiency^/ Applications/ Net^/ Emissions
Lb/Ton of Control of Control Control Tons/Yr Reliabili
Cc Ct Cc-Ct E Rati
111V
r^L
76 lb/ton
70 lb/ton
o.eo
0.80
0.75
0. 75
0.60
0.60
72,000
110,000
200 lb/ton
0.80
0.80
0.64
25,000
3
70 lb/ton
0.80
0.80
0.64
13,000
3
76 lb/ton
0.80
0.80
0.64
47,000
3
225 lb/ton
0.90
0.85
0.77
14,000
3
250 lb/ton
0.80
0.70
0.56
7,000
3
76 lb/ton
0.80
0.75
0.60
2,000
3
70 lb/ton
0.80
0.75
0.60
2,000
3
76 lb/ton
0.80
0.75
0.60
4,000
3
76 lb/ton
0.80
0.75
0.60
72,000
3
70 lb/ton
0.80
0.75
0.60
99,000
3
Total from Clay 467,000
12 lb/ton
0.94
1.0
0.94
14,000
2
2 lb/ton
0.97
1.0
0.97
1,000
2
2 lb/ton
0.90
0.25
0.22
30,000
4
40 lb/ton
0.95
1.0
0.95
8,000
3
—
26,000*
4
—
—
—
—
10,000*
4
6 lb/ton of rock
0.80
1.0
0.80
10,000
2
48 lb/ton of F2O5
0.95
0.95
0.90
9,000
2
195 lb/ton
0.95
0.95
0.90
169,000
2
--
--
—
—
18,000*
4
--
—
—
—
4,000*
4
—
—
—
—
27,000*
4
Total
from Fertilizers
and Phosphate Bock
328,000
32 lb/ton of material 0.97 0.99 0.96 161,000 2
8 lb/ton of material 0.97 0.99 0.96 40,000 2
4 lb/ton of asphalt — — 0.50 3,000 4
14,000* 4
Total from Asphalt 218,000
-------
Source
Annual
Tonnage
P
IP. Ferroalloys
A. Blast Furnace
B. Electric Furnace
C. Materials Handling
591,000 tons of ferroalloy
2,119,000 tons of ferroalloy
2,710,000 tons of ferroalloy
13. Iron Foundries
A. Furnaces 18,000,000 tons of hot metal
B. Materials Handling
1. Coke, Limestone, etc.
2. Sand 10,500,000 tons of sand
cn
14. Secondary Nonferrous Metals
A. Copper
1. Material Preparation
a. Wire Burning
b. Sweating Furnaces
c. Blast Furnaces
2. Smelting & Refining
300,000 tons insulated vire
64,000 tons scrap
287,000 tons scrap
1,170,000 tons scrap
B. Aluminum
1. Sweating Furnaces
2. Refining Furnaces
3. Chlorine Fluxing
500,000 tons scrap
1,015,000 tons scrap
136,000 tons CI used
C. Lead
1. Pot Furnaces
2. Blast Furnaces
3. Reverb. Furnaces
53,000 tons scrap
119,000 tons scrap
554,000 tons scrap
D. Zinc
1. Sweating Furnaces
a. Metallic Scrap
b. Residual Scrap
2. Distillation Furnace
52,000 tons of scrap
210,000 tons of scrap
233,000 tons Zn recovered
TABLE 4.1-1 (Continued)
Emission
Factor
Lb/Ton
er
Efficiency^/
of Control
Application^/
of Control
Ct
Net£./
Control
-------
TABLE 4.1-i (Concluded)
Source
15. Coal Cleaning
A. Thermal Dryers
16. Carbon Black
A. Channel Process
B. Furnace Process
1. Gas
2. Oil
17. Petroleim
A. FCC Units
Annual
Tonnage
P
73,000,000 tons dried
71,000
156,000
1,180,000
1.19 x 10s bbl. of feed
Emission
Factor
Lb/Ton
ef
2,300
Efficiency^/ Apjlication^/ Net£/
of Control of Control Control
Cc Ct cc"ct
1.0
1.00
1.00
Total from Carbon Black
Emissions
Tor.s/Yr Reliability
E Rating^/
94,000*
1.0
82,000
5,000*
6,000*
93,000
45,000*
ot
Ol
18. Acids
A. Sulfuric
1. Hev Acid
a. Chamber
b. Contact
2. Spent-Acid Concentrators
B. Riosphoric
1. Thermal Process
1,000,000 tons of 100J& ^S04
27,000,000 tons of loojt H2SO4
11,200,000 tons of spent acid
1,020,000 tons of P2O5
5 lb/ton of lOOjt HgS04
2 lb/ton of lOOjt H2S04
30 lb/ton of spent acid
134 lb/ton of P205
0.95
0.95
0
0.90
0.85
0.97 1.0
Total from Acids
0
0.85
0.80
0.97
2,000
4,000
8,000
2,000
16,000
TOTAL FROM MAJOR UTOUSTRIAL SOURCES 18,056,000
» See specific industry section for method of calculating quantity emitted.
aj Application of Control 18 defined as that fraction of the total production vhich has controls.
b/ Efficiency of Control is defined as the average fractional efficiency of the control equipment, prorated on the basis of production capacity,
cj Bet Control is defined as the overall level of control, and is the product of the application of control multiplied by the efficiency of ccntrol.
d,e/ Arerage Ash Content of Coal Used, determined by phone survey (see Section 5):
(d) (e)
Type Boiler Klec. Utll. Industrial
Pulverized 11.9* 10.6$
Stoker 11.2* 10.2*
Cyclone 11.8^ 10.3$
t/ Reliability rating is Indicative of the reliability of the Bnissions quantity. Ratings range from 1 to 4 with 1 being the most reliable.
-------
the source processes in detail in the following subsections because this
information is given in the corresponding chapters in the Handbook. Wore
details are also presented in the Handbook on effluent properties and con-
trols. The details of how the operating efficiency and the percentage of
production capacity on which control equipment has been installed were
determined are given in a separate section (Section 5). In each of the
following subsections these quantities are given without reference to
Section 5.
The stationary sources represented in Table 4.1-1 were ranked by
calculating the emissions from the primary pieces of processing equipment
such as kilnsj furnaces, reactors, and dryers. In several cases, we have
included emissions for "secondary sources" which include crushing opera-
tions, materials handling, stockpiles, etc. The calculations involving
these secondary sources are in general much less accurate than those in-
volving the primary processing equipment because data on secondary sources
are meager or nonexistent. The emission quantities listed for these second-
ary sources are, at best, order of magnitude calculations, and it is possi-
ble that secondary sources may emit as much or more particulate matter than
the primary sources. Total emissions for an industry were obtained as a
sum of the emissions from primary and secondary sources. A more detailed
discussion of secondary sources is given in Section 4.20, page 210.
A reliability rating has been assigned to the emission quantities
in Table 4.1-1. These ratings range from 1 to 4 with 1 being the most re-
liable. The ratings were determined by assigning a reliability rating,
ranging from 1 to 5, to each of the factors used to compute the emission
quantities (i.e., annual tonnage, emission factor, efficiency of control,
and application of control).
The reliability of each factor was evaluated by considering the
quantity of data available, the spread of the data and the source of the
data. After a rating had been assigned to each of the four factors, the
average rating was computed and rounded off to the nearest whole number.
This value is shown in the last column of Table 4.1-1. In those cases where
the emissions were calculated by a method other than using the above factors
a reliability rating was applied to the final emission quantity. The com-
posite ratings given in Table 4.1-1 range from 1 thru 4 although tiiey repre-
sent an average of individual ratings that ranged from 1 thru 5. This
results from the fact that the annual production tonnage was considered
highly reliable in most instances.
To indicate the relative magnitude of the particulate problem
from stationary sources, we have prepared Table 4.1-2, which lists non-
industrial sources of particulate pollutants with their corresponding
emission estimates.
56
-------
TABLE 4.1-2
MISCELLANEOUS SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
OF PARTICULATE POLLUTION
Source
A. Natural Dusts
B. Forest Fires^/
1. Wildfire
2. Controlled fire
(a) slash burning
(b) accumulated litter
3. Agricultural burning^/
C. Transportation^/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Motor vehicles
(a) gasoline
(b) diesel
Aircraft
Railroads
Water transport
Non-highway use
(a) agriculture
(b) commercial
(c) construction
(d) other
Emissions
(tons/yr)
37,000,000
6,000,000
11,000,000
2,400,000
420,000
260,000
30,000
220,000
150,000
79,000
12,000
3,000
26,000
63,000,000
56,400,000
1,200,000
D. Incineration
1. Municipal incineration-
2. On-site incineration^/
3. Wigwam .burners (excl.2/
Forest Products disposal)
4. Open dump£/
E. Other Minor Sources^/
1. Rubber from tires
2. Cigarette smoke
3. Cosmic dust
4. Aerosols from spray cans
5. Ocean salt spray
98,000
185,000
35,000
613,000
300,000
230,000
24,000
390,000
340,000
931,000
1.284.000
TOTAL
122,815,000
57
-------
The amount of natural dust listed, 63,000,000 tons, was calcu_u,ted
from data in an article written by personnel working in soil conservation. y
The article describes a continuing project on dust deposition at 15 stations
located from New Jersey to Texas and Montana. The stations are located in
rural areas at sites "protected for at least several hundred feet by sur-
rounding ground cover that effectively prevents surface soil from blowing."
At the present time, yearly averages®/ at each of the stations (data from
13 stations) range from 19 to 280 lb. of dust deposited/acre/month. The
highest record for a single month is 3,616 lb/acre at Tribune, Kansas, on
the Colorado border, the center of the nation's dust bowl. If the median
of the range of yearly averages is taken at 150 and multiplied by the number
of acres subject to wind erosion, estimated at 70,000,000, the tons of
natural dust settling out of the atmosphere each year sire calculated to be
63,000,000.
nr, 150 lb. dust 12 months „ 1 ton
70,000,000 acres x x x
acre-month " year 2,000 lb.
= 63,000,000 tons/yr
The estimates of particulate emissions from forest fires were
obtained from the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
These estimates were made on the basis of research data on products of com-
bustion and statistics on acres of forests burned. Data have been obtained
for the amount of gas produced (COg, SO, hydrocarbons) from a given amount
of fuel in full-scale fires. The amounts of fuel required to produce only
the measured amounts of gas were calculated. It was then assumed that if
fuel left the fire in other than gaseous j.orm, it loft as a solid. If it
left as a solid, it was particulate. No data have been obtained on size
distribution, but, in intense fires, the "particulate" would include fire-
brands of "quite significant size." The estimates for controlled fire are
discussed in the section of Forest Products.
Also listed as miscellaneous significant sources are transporta-
tion and incineration. Estimates of particulate emissions from these sources
were obtained from the National Air Pollution Control Administration. More
information on incineration is presented in a chapter of the Handbook. We
have included other minor sources for completeness.
The total emissions from stationary industrial sources amount to
18,173,000 tons/yr, and the miscellaneous source total is 122,415,000 tons/yj.
The grand total for particulate pollutant emissions in the continental
United States is estimated at 140,588,000 tons/yr.
58
-------
REFERENCES
1. Smith, R. M., and P. C. IWiss, "Extensive Gaging of Dust Deposition
Rates," Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 68 (2) 311-321,
August 31, 1965.
2. Private communication, Mr. Charles Buck, Forest Service, U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, July 1970.
3. "1968 NAPCA Data File of Nationwide Emissions," unpublished report,
Bureau of Criteria and Standards, Division of Air Qiality and Emis-
sion Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham,
North Carolina.
4. "Systems Analysis Study for Reduction of Air Pollution from Refuse In-
cinerators,'" report of the Division of Process Control Engineering,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, prepared by Arthur D.
Little, Inc., 1970.
5. Marchesani, V. J., T. Towers and H. C. Vohlers, "Minor Sources of Air
Pollutant Emissions," Journal of Air Pollution Control Association,
20 (1) 19 (1970).
6. Private communication, Prof. N. T. Woodruff, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, Kansas.
59
-------
4.2 Fuel Combustion in Stationary Sources
The major source of particulate pollutants from fuel combustion
is the electric-utility industry. An intensive effort has been made to con-
trol air pollution from this source. However, electric utilities burn ap-
proximately 300,000,000 tons of coal per year; and the magnitude of the
quantity of material consumed makes the task of pollution control a formid-
able one. Combustion of fuel oil and natural gas also produces a notable
amount of particulate pollution, but the amount estimated for combustion of
these fuels is less than 10$ of that estimated for coal.
The consumers of fuel have been classified as follows:
A. Electric Utilities
B. Industrial Users
C. Residential and Commercial Users
These three classifications are listed as subheadings under each of the
three types of fuel: (l) coal; (2) fuel oil; and (3) natural gas.
Emission factors used are those in the "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors,"i/ with the exception of the factor for cyclone
firing. Data from Reference 3 combined with data from Reference 2 indicate
that a value of 3A may be more representative for cyclone units. The emis-
sion factors for coal combustion in Reference 1 are obtained from Reference
2, in which the data for cyclone firing yield an emission factor, carried
to three significant figures, of 2.47 A. Two additional items of data in
Reference 3 give emission factors for cyclone firing of 14A and 21A. The
calculations for these factors are as follows.
Full-load test
gr* = j.G gr. x 12.8$ COg x 0.957 cu. ft. dry f.g. = 1>5
cu. ft. wet cu. ft. dry f.g. 12 cu. ft. wet f.g.
f.g. at 12$ COg
1.5 gr. particulate x 557,600 cu. ft. x 60 min. x 1 hr. x 1 lb.
cu. ft. min. hr. 64.4 tons 7,000 gr.
coal
I_ ill lb. particulate
ton coal
Ash content =7.7$
60
-------
111 = 14A*
7.7
Partial-load test
1.8 x — x 0.934 = 1'7 gr- Particulate
12 cu. ft. wet flue gas
1.7 x 443,500 x 60 x —A- x 1 = 156 lb. particulate
41.3 7,000 ton coal
Ash content = 7. 4
156
= 21A
7.4
Averaging these factors with the data in Reference 2 yields an average of
3A, which is used here for cyclone firing.
44 x 2.47A = 108.5A
1 x 14 A = 14 A
_1 x 21 A = 21 A
46 = 143.5A
Average 3.12A, round off to 3A
* A = percent ash
The values for the percentage of ash in the coal used for the
various firing methods are averages derived from data obtained from a survey
which MRI conducted during the project. This survey covered approximately
half of the electric-utility plants; of the users of coal classified as
"industrial," approximately one-third of those using pulverized-coal firing,
one-tenth of stoker-fired and one-fifth of cyclone-fired were surveyed.
Data on coal use by consumer category were obtained from the 1968
Minerals Yearbook.!/ The use of coal in stoker-fired boilers in electric-
utility plants in 1968 was obtained from Reference 5. In compiling this
quantity, only plants which designated their burning equipment as "S"
(stoker) were tabulated. Plants which designated their burning equipment
as "SP" (stoker and pulverized) were not included since plants having both
facilities will use stoker firing only as necessary, e.g., during peak loads.
The quantity obtained was 9,900,000 tons. This quantity was subtracted from
the total amount of coal used in electric-utility plants, 297,000,000 tons;
the difference, 287,100,000 tons, represents coal used in cyclone and
61
-------
pulverized-coal firing units. The amount of coal burned, by cyclone and
pulverized-coal firing was calculated from estimates of future use by ype
of firing made for the years 1960-2000 ..§/ The distribution of coal usage
by various types of firing used for calculating the estimates in this re-
port are shown in Table 4.2-1.
TABLE 4.2-1
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF COAL USE BY TYPE OF FIRING
User Category Type of Firing Distribution
Electric Utility Pulverized 87$
Stoker 3
Cyclone 10
Industrial Pulverized 20
Stoker 70
Cyclone 10
Coal consumed by industrial users is utilized for purposes such
as process steam as well as for power generation. Data on the amounts of
coal burned for various purposes are not readily available, and no effort
is made to estimate air pollution from each use. Table 4.2-1 shows that
stoker firing is the prevalent firing method in industrial boilers.
The data for coal use include anthracite as well as bituminous
coal and lignite.
Estimates of the quantities of particulate emissions from combus-
tion of coal are as follows. (See footnotes d and e, Table 4.1-1, p. 55,
for percent ash.) The values for "Net Control," Cc x C^ , are discussed
in Chapter 5, pp. 215-218.
A. Electric Utility
1. Pulverized
(258,400,000)(16 x 11.9)(l-0.92 x 0.97) _
E = * 1 —g Q00 n L = 2,710,000 tons
E = f :g(X-°-80 11 °-87> = 217,000 W
j Uvv
3. Cyclone
E = (28,700,000)(5 X 11.8)(1-0.91 X 0.71) a ^ tons
2,000
62
-------
B. Industrial
1. Pulverized
E - (g0,0°0f°0°)(16 x 10^6?(l-°-85 x 0.95) = ^
2. Stoker
E . (70,000,000)(15 X 10.g)(l-0.SS x 0.62) ^
2,000 5 '
3. Cyclone
E = (10,000,000)(3 x 10.3)(l-0.62 X 0.91) = „ coo
2,000
C. Residential and Commercial
The emission factor used for this classification is that for
"All Other Stokers" in Reference 1,—5A. The ash content, 6$, was obtained
from conversation with coal producers.
, (20,000,000)(5 x 6) „
2,000
The percentage application of air pollution control equipment on "residential
and commercial" boilers was assumed to be zero.
Data on the use of fuel oil were obtained from References 7 and
8. Reference 8 contains data by consumer classification for fuel-oil use
only through 1967; use by consumer classification for 1968 was therefore
estimated by the ratio of total use of fuel oil in 19682/ to the total for
1967. Table 4.2-2 shows the total consumptions for the 2 years and the
ratios obtained.
TABLE 4.2-2
RATIOS ;0F FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION
1968 to 1967
Total Consumption - Barrels Ratio
19676/ 19681/ 1968:1967
Residual 640,000,000 680,000,000 1.06
Distillate 829,000,000 863,000,000 1.04
63
-------
The quantity consumed in 1967 for each consumer classification was then
multiplied, by the appropriate ratio to obtain an estimate of the 1968 con-
sumption. Table 4.2-3 lists the estimated quantities of fuel consumed in
1968.
Estimates of the quantities of particulate emissions from combus-
tion of fuel oil are as follows:
A. Electric Utility (Gas and Electric Power Plants)
E = 7,180,000,000 gal. fuel oil x 10 lb. particulate ^ 1 ton
36,000 tons
B. Industrial
1,000 gal.
2,000 lb,
1. Residual
E = 7,510,000,000 gal. fuel oil x
= 87,000 tons
2. Distillate
E = 2,360,000,000 gal. fuel oil x
= 18,000 tons
23 lb. particulate 1 ton
1,000 gal. X 2,000 lb,
15 lb. particulate l ton
1,000 gal. X 2,000 lb,
C. Residential and Commercial
8 lb. particulate
E = 36,530,000,000 gal. fuel oil x —: -x
1,000 gal.
1 ton
2,000 lb.
146,000 tons
Data on use of natural gas were obtained from Reference 4. Two
tables (Tables 5 and 6) were used. The consumer classifications and fuel
quantities obtained f*om Reference 4 are tabulated here under the consumer
classifications listed above.
64
-------
TABLE 4.2-3
ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION OF FUEL OIL IN 1968
1967 Quantity^/
(bbl.)
Ratio
Estimated 1968 Quantity
(bbl.) (gallons)
Gas and Electric Power Plants
Residual
Distillate
158,417,000
2,858,000
x 1.06
x 1.04
167,920,000
2,970,000
170,890,000 7,180,000,00!
Industrial
Residual
Smelters, mines and mfrs.
Oil and gas company fuel
130,819,000
57,880,000
168,699,000
x 1.06
178,820,000 7,510,000,001
Distillate
Smelters, mines and mfrs.
Oil and gas company fuel
44,997,000
8,997,000
53,994,000
x 1.04
56,150,000
2,360,000,00(
Residential and Commercial
Residual
Space heating and cooking
Miscellaneous
175,990,000
8,794,000
184,784,000
x 1.06
195,870,000
Distillate
Space heating and cooking
Miscellaneous
501,026,000
147,381,000
648,407,000
x 1.04
674,000,000
869,870,000
36,530,000,001
-------
Electric Utilities 3,143,000 cu. ft.
Industrial
Industrial 7,130,000
Lease and plant fuel 1,240,000
Pipeline fuel 600,000
Other consumers (municipalities for street 500,000
lighting, institutional use, etc.) 9,270,000 cu. ft.
Residential and Commercial
Residential 4,450,000
Commercial 1,800,000 6,250,000 cu. ft.
Estimates of the quantities of particulate emissions from the
combustion of natural gas are as follows:
A. Electric Utilities
E = 3,143,000 million cu. ft. gas x 15 lb. particulate x
million cu. ft. 2,000 lb.
= 24,000 tons
B. Industrial
« 18 lb. particulate 1 ton
E = 9,270,000 million cu. ft. gas x rrr-: 37— x
million cu. ft. 2,000 lb.
- 84,000 tons
C. Residential and Commercial
.^ 19 lb. particulate 1 ton
E » 6,250,000 million cu. ft. gas x mmLn cu. ft. 11 g,00O lb':
= 59,000 tons
A summary of particulate emissions from fuel combustion at station-
ary sources is shown in Table 4.2-4.
A recent survey by the Federal Power Commission^ contains data
from which emission factors can be calculated for pulverized-coal and
cyclone firing. The results of th£ calculations are tabulated as follows:
66
-------
TABUS 4.2-4
PARTICULATE MISSIONS
FUEL COMBUSTION IN STATIONARY SOURCES
Source
Coal
A. Electric Utility
1. Pulverized
2. Stoker
3. Cyclone
B. Industrial
1. Pulverized
2. Stoker
3. Cyclone
C. Residential and
Conmerical
Amount of Fuel
Burned
258,400,000 tons
9,900,000
28,700,000
20,000,000
70,000,000
10,000,000
20,000,000
Emission
Factor
16 A*
13 A
3 A
16 A
13 A
3 A
Efficiency
of Control
(Cc)
0.92
0.80
0.91
Application
of Control
(Ct)
0.97
0.87
0.71
Net
Control
(cc-ct)
0.89
0.70
0.64
5 A
Total from electric utilities
0.85 0.95 0.81
0.85 0.62 0.52
0.82 0.91 0.75
Total from industrial use
Total fran coal
Emissions
(tons/yr)
2,710,000
217,000
182,000
3,109,000
322,000
2,234,000
39,000
2,595,000
300,000
6,004,000
O)
II. Fuel Oil
A. Electric
Utilities
7,180,000,000 gal. 10 lb/l,000 gal.
36,000
B. Industrial
1. Residual
2. Distillate
7,510,000,000 gal.
2,360,000,000 gal.
C. Residential and 36,530,000,000 gal.
Ccnercial
in. Hatural Gas and
LPG
A. Electric
utilities
B. Industrial
C. Residential, and
Ccnmercial
3,143,143,000 mil.
cu. ft.
9,270,000 mil.
cu. ft.
6,250,000 mil.
cu. ft.
23 lb/1,000 gal.
15 lb/1,000 gal.
8 lb/1,000 gal.
15 lb/mil cu. ft.
IB lb/mil CU. ft.
19 lb/mil cu. ft.
Total frcm fuel oil
Total from natural gas
Total for fuel combustion, stationary sources
87,000
18,000
287,000
24,000
84,000
59,000
167,000
6,458,000
* A is percent ash.
-------
Number of boilers
Arith. mean emission factor
Geom. mean emission factor
Median
Range
Std. deviation
Std. error of the mean
Coeff. of variation
Pulverized Coal Cyclone
80
15A
13A
15A
0.3A-29A
6.02A
0.67A
0.41
15
8A
7A
6A
4A-25A
5.01A
1.29A
0.62
The emission factors for pulverized coal, "both the geometric mean, 13A, and
the arithmetic mean, 15A, are in good agreement with the factor, 16A, listed
in Reference 1 for "general" pulverized-coal firing. The factors for cyclone
firing, 8A and 7A, respectively, for arithmetic and geometric means, are sig-
nificantly higher than the factors for cyclone firing, 2A, listed in References
1 and 3A used here to estimate the particulate emissions from boilers utiliz-
ing cyclone firing.
Two plants burning fuel oil reported data which yield emission
factors significantly higher than the factor for fuel-oil combustion in
power plants, 10 lb. per 1,000 gal. listed in Reference 1. The emission
factors obtained were 28 and 94 lb. of particulate per 1,000 gal. of fuel oil
burned. The following calculations were made:
lb. particulate = cu. ft. f.g. grains lb. fa.. Btu
1,000 gal. fuel oil min. cu. ft. gr. Btu bbl. X
bbl. min.
1,000 gal. X hr.
?lant A
ef = 600,000 x 0.06 x x 1,600 x 10^ x (6 x ^ x 23,8 x 60
=27.6 lb/1,000 gal.
Plant B
= 254,000 x 0.48 x j^qqq x 1,600 x lO^ x x ) x 25*® x 60
=93.5 lb/1,000 gal.
68
-------
The questionnaire sent out by the Federal Power Commission re-
quested estimated emission rates from plants that had no stack-sampling
data, and the estimated values were not denoted in the data furnished. It
would be desirable to ascertain the influence of the estimated emission
rates on the statistics before making adjustment of the factors in current
use.
69
-------
REFERENCES
FUEL COMBUSTION
1. Duprey, R. L., "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Public
Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-42, 1968.
2. Smith, Walter S., and C. W. Gruber, "Atmospheric Emissions from Coal
Combustion," U. S. Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-24,
April 1966.
3. Cuffe, S. T., and R. W. Gerstle, "Emissions Power Plant, A Comprehensive
Survey," Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-35, 1967.
4. 1968 Minerals Yearbook Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of
the Interior, p. 359, Table No. 38, and p. 401, Table No. 27.
5. Keystone Coal Industry Manual, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969.
6. Moore, W. W., "Reduction in Ambient Air Concentration of Fly Ash—
Present and Future Prospects," National Conference on Air Pollution,
Washington, D. C., December 12-14, 1966, Paper No. BIO.
7. 1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department
of the Interior, p. 894, Table No. 44, and p. 895, Table No. 45.
8. Statistical Abstracts 1969, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Table No. 1031.
9. Private Communication, John R. O'Connor, Division of Economic Effects
Research, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Raleigh,
North Carolina, September 22, 1969.
70
-------
4.3 Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel
Air pollution from the crushed stone Industry and the sand and
gravel industry arises from materials-handling equipment, conveyors and
elevators; fr*om the sizing operations, crushing, grinding and screening;
from stockpiles from which dust is blown by the wind; and from traffic of
vehicles over plant roads. The raw materials for these industries, as
obtained from the ground, are usually moist and not notably dusty during
initial processing. The moisture content is affected by atmospheric temp-
erature. Materials which are moist in the winter months may be dry in the
summer. Some material is dredged from underwater sources. Approximately
10$ of sand and gravel is presently obtained by dredging.1/
In the crushed stone industry, rock is routinely passed through
jaw crushers as the first step in size reduction. Subsequent crushing is
done in cone crushers and gyratory crushers as necessary to obtain desired
sizes. Milling is done for materials used in finely divided form, e.g.,
agricultural lime.
In the sand and gravel industry, washing is often required to
obtain a product which meets users' specifications. Wetting of the material
tends to prevent dust from forming. A rule of thumb for minimum wash water
requirements is 1 gal/min for 1 ton of finished product per 10-hr. day.2/
This amounts to 600 gal. of water/ton of product. Material is frequently
screened before crushing, and wash water is applied to the material as it
passes over the screens. Washing may also occur on conveyors transporting
material from digging site to the plant.
Emission factors and the emissions calculated are shown in
Table 4.3-1. Emission factors were obtained for the various rock crushers
and for conveying, general screening, etc., in crushed stone plants; and
for emissions from sand and gravel plants as a whole. No factors were
obtained for rock dryers, for quarrying operations or for in-plant vehicle
traffic. Values for Cc and Ct are discussed in Chapter 5, p. 218.
4.3.1 Crushed Stone
The following emission factors are listed for several grinding
operations and are based on the amount of rock passing through primary
crushing at one plant.5/
71
-------
TABLE 4.3-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
CRUSHED STONE AND SAND AND GRAVEL
Source
Quantity of Material
Efficiency Application Net
Emission of Control of Control Control Emissions
Factor C C+ Cc • Ct Tons/Year
I. Crushed Stone
A. Primary crusher 681,000,000 tons (cement, 0.5 lb/ton
lime 8c dolomite not of rockS/
B. Secondary crushing & screening included) 1.527
C. Tertiary crushing & screening 6.0^/
D. Fines milling 6.0£/
E. Re-crushing & screening 1.0^/
15
.<&/ 0.80 0.25 0.20 4,100,000
F. Conveying, general screening,
etc.
G. Dryers
II- Sand & Gravel - crushing and
screening
918,000,000 tons
1.7 lb/ton
of product
0.80
0.25
0.20
454,000
0.1 lb/ton
of material
46,000
III. Quarrying
A. Drilling
B. Blasting
C. Loading - unloading
IV. In-Plant Vehicle Traffic
Total for Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel 4,600,000
ayIbunds/ton of rock through the primary crusher.
b/ Listed emission factor is 5 lb/ton of rock re-crushed. Twenty percent of product is assumed to be re-crushed.
-------
Primary crusher
Secondary crushing and screening
Tertiary crushing and screening
Fines milling
Total for "once-through"
Re-crushing and screening
0.5 lb. dust/ton of rock through
primary crusher
1.5 lb. dust/ton of rock through
primary crusher
6.0 lb. dust/ton of rock through
primary crusher
6.0 lb. dust/ton of rock through
primary crusher
14.0 lb. dust/ton of rock through
primary crusher
5 lb. dust/ton of rock re-crushed
The proportions of rock passing through tertiary crushers and mills will vary
in any one plant as well as from plant to plant. However, it i3 assumed that
the proportions of rock passing from primary crushing to the various secondary
grindings at the plant where the above emission factors were measured are
typical for the total industry.
Based on conversations with industry contacts, 20$ of the total
rock crushed is assumed to undergo re-crushing. The emission factor for re-
crushing can be calculated on the basis of rock through the primary crusher
as follows:
5 x 0.20 = 1 lb. of dust from re-crushing/ton of rock through the
primary crusher
The total overall emission factor for crushed stone is then 15 lb. dust/ton
of rock crushed in the primary crusher. Although as much as 20$ of the raw
material may be waste (clay, dirt, etc.), for the purpose of calculating an
estimate of particulate emissions the tons of product are assumed to eq.ual
the tons of rock crushed.
Production of crushed and broken stone amounted to 816 million
tons in 1968.1/ The amount of stone used in the manufacture of cement,
lime, and dead-bumed dolomite was subtracted from this total because
particulate emissions from crushing of this stone were accounted for in
emission estimates for those industries. Dimension stone is also not in-
cluded. The total amount of stone used in the estimates for the crushed-
stone industry was determined as follows:
73
-------
Total production, crushed and broken stone 816,000,000 tons
Used in cement manufacture 104,000,000
Used in lime manufacture 28,000,000
Dead-burned dolomite 5,000,000
135,000,000
Total for estimate of particulate
pollution under the heading, "Crushed Stone" 681,000,000 tons
Information available on the installation of dust-control equip-
ment in the crushed stone industry indicates that the net control is
approximately 0.20, i.e., Cc x Ct = (0.80)(0.25) = 0.20. Dust discharged
to the atmosphere is thus estimated as follows.
P = 681,000,000 tons of crushed rock produced in 1968 (excludes
rock used for cement, lime and dolomite)
ef = 15 lb. dust/ton of product
Cc = 80$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors installed
in rock crushing plants
C.J. = 25$, percent of production capacity in the industry on which
dust collectors are installed
( 681,000,000)(15 )(1-0.80 x 0.25)
= 4,100,000 tons of dust discharged
2,000 6
to the atmosphere in 1968 from stone crushing
4.3.2 Sand and Gravel
No information has been found on emission factors from sand and
gravel plants. State air pollution control agencies in states with the
largest production report that sand and gravel plants are an infrequent
source of complaint. Most sand and gravel plants operate without dust
collectors; many are in rural areas. Dust-control equipment has been found
desirable for some plants located in metropolitan areas, and the means of
control is usually a wet technique. Eabric filters are used to a lesser
extent. Information on the percent of production capacity in the sand and
gravel industry that is equipped with dust collectors is not readily avail-
able. The only data obtained on emission factors is one sampling report^/
which lists a value of 0.06 lb. of dust per "ton of material through the
plant." No mention was made of dust collectors. This sampling was done in
a temperate climate in the month of January. This report lists the "dis-
charge of the secondary and reducing crushers," the elevator boot on the
"dry side" of the plant, and the final screening on the dry side of the
plant as the sources of dust. Seventy-five percent of the dust was estimated
to come from the crushers.
74
-------
Based on the above information, the emission factor for sand and
gravel plants was assumed to be 0.1 lb. of dust/ton of product. In estimat-
ing the amount of dust emissions, no account was made for dust collectors.
Production of sand and gravel in the United States in 1968 was
918,000,000 tons.:i/ Estimate of the dust generated by the industry is as
follows.
E = 918,000,000 x ^ = 46,000 tons of dust discharged to the
atmosphere in 1968 from processing sand
Emission factors and the emissions calculated are shown in
Table 4.3-1.
Dust blown from stockpiles has been estimated at 1$ of finished
product for sand and at 1/2$ for gravel and crushed stoneMost stock-
piles are merely piled on the ground; however, silos and bins are sometimes
used. Because of the large tonnages of production in these two industries,
the total amount of dust blown from stockpiles becomes correspondingly
large. Production in the two industries is widely scattered. The 1968
Minerals Yearbook lists over 4,000 crushed stone plants and over 6,000 sand
and gravel plants. The total production for the two industries (excluding
cement, lime and dolomite) is approximately 1,600,000,000 tons. Table 4.3-2
shows the amount of dust that would arise from stockpiles if the total of
the production of the two industries were subject to dust losses at the
emission rates indicated. Factors which would reduce this estimate are:
(l) the amount of product which is loaded for shipment directly from process-
ing without being sent to stockpiles, (2) the amount of product which is
stored in bins and silos, and (3) material which may contain sufficient
moisture at time of discharge to stockpiles to inhibit the formation of dust.
TABLE 4.3-2
DUST POTENTIAL OF STOCKPILING IN THE
CRUSHED STONE AND SAND AND GRAVEL INDUSTRIES
Material Emission Rate Dust Potential from Stockpiles
(tons/year) of Product (tons/year)
Crushed stone; 618,000,000 1/2$ 3,090,000
Gravel; 548,000,000 1/2$ 2,740,000
Sand; 370,000,000 1$ 3,700,000
75
-------
REFERENCES
CRUSHED STONE
1. "Forecast 1970," Rock Products, December 1969.
2. Industrial Minerals and Rocks, published "by the American Institute of
Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, New York, 1949, p. 855.
3. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," report of the Division of Air Quality
and Emission Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
April, 1970, prepared by TRW Systems Group of TRW, Inc., Contract
No. CPA 22-69-119, p. 4-20.
4. 1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department
of the Interior, pp. 1040-41, Table 8.
5. Ibid., p. 980, Table 1.
6. Private communication, industrial source.
76
-------
4.4 Operations Related to Agriculture
Included under this heading are five operations which are directly
connected to agriculture.
1. Burning of stubble
2. Grain elevators
3. Cotton gins
4. Feed mills
5. Flour mills
Four of these are industrial sources, one for which no estimate of particu-
late pollution is made (flour mills). The first is a farming activity
(burning of stubble). Not included are such sources as dust from tilling of
the soil, blowing of soil (included under Natural Dust in Table4.1-2, "Miscel-
laneous Sources"), and numerous manufacturing and food industries (cereal,
starch, brewing) which use agricultural products. The industries reported
on here are thought to be the most significant with regard to particulate
pollution among the industries connected with agriculture. The total of
smaller amounts of dust from less profuse sources may also be significant.
A summary of emission factors and estimated quantities of emissions
is shown in Table 4.4-1. Emission factors were obtained for all sources
listed in the table except for milled feeds other than alfalfa and disposi-
tion of waste products at flour mills. Dust from mills producing these other
feeds is estimated at 1$ of the product. Dust from flour mills is not esti-
mated. Values of Cc and are discussed in Chapter 5, pp. 219-220.
4.4.1 Burning Stubble
An estimate of the quantity of particulate emission from the burn-
ing of stubble was provided by the National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion.—/ The estimated quantity was derived as the product of estimates of the
tonnage of stubble per acre and the number of acres on which stubble was
burned, and the emission factor for open burning, 17 lb. of particulate per
ton of material burned. This quantity is estimated to be 2,400,000 tons per
year.
4.4.2 Grain Elevators
The emission factors used to estimate the dust emitted from grain
elevators were obtained from the most recent compilations of information on
this sourceListed below are factors from Reference 3 which are derived
mainly from Reference 2.
77
-------
TABLE 4.4-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
OPERATIONS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE
Source
Quantity of Material
Emission Factor
I. Burning of Stubble
280,000,000 tons of stubble 17 lb/toil of stubble burned
Efficiency
of Control
Cc
0.0
Applicat ion
of Control
Ct
0.0
Net
Control
0.0
Esiissions
(tons/yr)
2,400,000
II. Grain Elevators
A. Terminal Elevators
1. Shipping or Receiving
2. Transferring, Conveying, etc.
3. Screening and Cleaning
4. Drying
B. Country Elevators
1. Shipping or Receiving
2. Transferring, Conveying, etc.
3. Screening and Cleaning
4. Drying
177,000,000 tons of grain
Total for Grain Elevators
1 lb/ton of grain handled
2 lb/ton of grain handled
5 lb/ton of grain handled
6 lb/ton of grain handled
5 lb/ton of grain handled
3 lb/ton of grain handled
8 lb/ton of grain handled
7 lb/ton of grain handled
0.70
0.40
0.28
1,700,000
-0
00
HI. Cotton Gins
A. Trailer Unloading
B. Cleaners
C. Stick and Bur Machine plus Buller
Front and Mote Discharge Stand
D. Lint Cleaner
E. Condenser
11,000,000 bales
Total for Cotton Gins
5 lb/bale
2 lb/bale
3 lb/bale
1 lb/bale
_1 lb/bale
12
0.80
0.40
0.32
45,000
IV. Feed Mills
A. Alfalfa Dehydrators
1. Primary Cooling Cyclone
Secondary Cooling Cyclone
Air-Meal Separator
a. Cyclone
b. Cyclone + Skinnier
Pellet-Meal Separator
Pellet Re-Grinder
2.
3.
4.
5.
1,600,000 tons of dry meal
Total for Alfalfa Dehydrators
11 lb/ton of dry meal
4 lb/ton of dry meal
47 lb/ton of dry meal
9 lb/ton of dry meal
2 lb/ton of dry meal
2 lb/ton of dry meal
50 (as an average)
0.85
0.50
0.42
23,000
B. Wheat Mill-Feeds
C. Gluten Feed and Meal
D. Rice Mill-Feeds
g. Brewers' Dried Grains
F- Distillers' Dried Grains
G. llried Beet Pulp
4,490,000 tons
1,515,000 tons
476,000 tons
336,000 tolls
447,000 tons
1,100,000 tons
Total tor Feed Mills other Than Alfalfa
1% of end product
of end product
ljt of end product
1% of end product
1$ of end product
156 of end product
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.4?
26,OCO
9,0O0
3,000
2.000
3, COO
6,000
49,000
V. Flair Kills
112 lb. per capita
4,217,OCC.
-------
Emission
Factor
Source (lb/ton)
Terminal elevators
Shipping or Receiving 1
Transferring, Conveying, etc. 2
Screening and Cleaning 5
Drying 6
Country Elevators
Shipping and Receiving 5
Transferring, Conveying, etc. 3
Screening and Cleaning 8
Drying 7
Some grains generate more dust than others. Oats and milo (sor-
ghum) are notoriously dusty; wheat is a comparatively clean grain. However,
no data have been found to indicate the difference in dustiness between
grains; therefore, no effort was made to estimate emissions for individual
grains. Also, there is lack of data on amount of duat generated in unload-
ing different types of railroad cars. Dumping grain from a boxcar generates
more dust than unloading a hopper car.
In addition to loading and unloading, grain is transferred for
other purposes. Conserving storage space is a constant endeavor; grain from
full, small bins is combined in large bins. A desired quality of grain is
obtained by blending different grades, which are transferred from different
bins to make the blend. Also, to prevent deterioration, grain is "turned"
in the winter to lower the storage temperature. "Turning" is the transfer
of grain from one bin to another which is empty and cold. Grain can also
be cooled by running it through a dryer using cold air. When turning is
done, repeated exposure to low temperatures is necessary for substantial
cooling.—/ Wheat, for example, will probably be received at temperatures
above 85°F; 55°F is a desirable storage temperature. Since one turning
(transferring from one bin to another) will reduce the temperature less than
10®, even in the coldest weather, and since grain in a concrete bin is
affected little by atmospheric temperature, frequent turning is desirable.
Grain stored in elevators is cleaned to remove dirt, chaff, etc.,
and dried to prevent deterioration in storage. Cleaning and drying are the
dustiest operations in grain elevators.
The amount of dust discharged to the atmosphere from grain elevators
was estimated from the tonnage of principal crops which would be handled in
grain elevators.^/ These are corn, -wheat, soybeans, sorghum, oats, barley,
79
-------
rice and rye. Not all of the grain harvested goes to market. A small amouvc
is kept for seed (a smaller amount goes to market to be sold as seed); how-
ever, most of the grain kept on farms is used for livestock feed. Among the
"feed" grains, approximately 1/2 of the corn and 2/3 of oats are kept on
farms. Table 4.4-2 lists quantities of grain harvested "for use as grain"
and the amount "sold from farms" in 1968Ji/
TABLE 4.4-2
DISPOSITION OF GRAINS-^
HARVESTED AS GRAINS IN 1968
Total Production^/
Sold from
Pounds
Sold from
for Grain
Farms
7
per
Farms
Grain
(10^ bushels)
(10 bushels)
Bushel
(tons)
Corn
4,375,000
2,319,000
56
65,000,000
Wheat
1,570,000
1,471,000
60
44,000,000
Soybeans
1,080,000
1,056,000
60
32,000,000
Sorghum
738,000
596,000
56
17,000,000
Oats
930,000
348,000
32
6,000,000
Barley
418,000
310,000
48
7,000,000
Rice
105,000,000 cwt.
104,000,000 cwt.
-
5,000,000
Rye
23,000
19,000
56
500,000
Total handled in grain
elevators
177,000,000
a/ Soybeans included.
b/ "For use as grain" is distinguished from use as sileage and forage.
Grain sold from farms goes to at least one elevator, but only a
small percent goes directly to a processor's elevator (flour mill, cereal
manufacturer, etc.). Figure 4.4-1 shows the movement of wheat from farm to
market. Actually, approximately 20# of wheat shipped in any one year will
be wheat already stored in an elevator from previous harvests. Similarly,
20# of a harvest will still be in storage at the time of the next harvest.
Approximately 80# of a harvest goes to a country elevator, and less than
10# of this goes on to a processor's elevator without an intermediate stop
in a terminal or a sub-terminal elevator. If, while grain is enroute, a
shipper avails himself of "transit privileges," i.e., storage, cleaning,
blending, even milling, a shipment may be "in transit for a year or more
and may be stopped as many as three times for storage and processing."iL/
80
-------
5%
CD
Adapted from "Agricultural Markets in Change," U. S. Department of Agriculture.
7/
Figure 4.4-1 - Flow of Wheat from Farm to Market
-------
To calculate the amount of dust generated in the transportation
of grain, the assumption is made that the movement of all grain parallels
that of the wheat movement shown in Figure 4.4-1 and that it passes through
three elevators,--a country elevator, a terminal elevator, and a processor's
elevator or a port elevator for export. The dust from loading, unloading,
and conveying to and from storage is calculated as follows:
Lb. Dust per
Ton of Grain Handled
Unloading
from farm at country elevator
at two other elevators
5
2
Transferring and conveying
country elevator
two other elevators
3
4
Loading
at country elevator
at one other elevator
Total dust from transporting grain
from farm to market
5
1
_6
20
Then
T? -1-7n nnA nm *. - 20 lb. dust 1 ton
E * 177,000,000 tons gram x ; x
ton grain 2,000 lb.
1,777,000 tons of dust per year generated in transport of grain
from farm to processor's elevator or to a port elevator for export
The dust from cleaning is estimated by assuming that all grain is
cleaned once.
E = 177,000,000 tons grain x 6 ' dust. x = 531,000 tons
' ' ton grain 2,000 lb.
of dust from cleaning grain
The dust from drying is estimated on the basis of data from an
industrial source which indicated that the amount of grain dried in a ter-
minal elevator is approximately 20$ of the amount handled in a year's time. w
Drying is done also in country elevators. Assuming that this percentage of
grain is dried only one time, the dust generated by drying is estimated as
follows:
82
-------
E = (177,000,000 x 0.20) tons grain dried x 6 dust— x
ton grain 2,000 lb
E * 106,000 tons of dust per year from grain drying.
The estimate of total dust generated from grain elevators in 1968
Dust discharged to the atmosphere is estimated as follows:
Cc 55 70<$>, average collection efficiency of dust collectors installed
on grain elevators
C-t = 40$, percent of handling capacity of elevators on which dust
collectors are installed
E = (2,414,000)(l-0.70 x 0.40) = 1,700,000 tons of dust discharged
to the atmosphere from grain elevators in 1968
4.4.3 Cotton Ginning
Cotton ginning is primarily a process of separating seed from fiber;
hut it also involves the cleaning of raw cotton which, as "brought to the gin
from the field, contains leaves and stems from the cotton plants as well as
dirt, sto; e following units in a ginning plant may be equip-
1. Trailer unloading
2. No. 1 dryer (full tower)
3. No. 2 dryer (stub tower)
4. Cylinder cleaners
5. Stick and green-leaf machine
6. Extractor feeder
7. Gin stand
8. Lint cleaner
9. Condenser
Ducting arrangements vary widely in hooking up exhaust systems for these units«
is:
Shipping and Receiving
Cleaning
Drying
1,777,000 tons
531,000
106,000
Total dust generated
2,414,000
ped with
83
-------
Emission factors are based on data in Reference 10, the report on
air pollution from cotton gins by the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.
Table 4.4-3 shows a derivation of factors on a basis of lb/bale. The left-
hand column, ""jo by Wt. of Cotton Ginned," is the same, with the percentages
rounded, as the column headed "Total (T)" in Table 2, "Effluent Summary"
in the Taft report. The second column, "Lb/Ton of Cotton Ginned," is de-
rived directly from the left-hand column. The factors listed in the right-
hand column, "Lb/Bale," are obtained by calculating fractions of the total
emission factor, 12 lb/bale, which is obtained from Table 3, "Atmospheric
Particle Emissions," in the Taft report. The factor listed there for "Total
Discharge, Wo Control" is 11.7 lb/bale. The fractions are obtained from the
second column. For example, the emission factor of 5 lb/bale for unloading
fans is obtained as 20/50, or 2/5, of 12.
TABLE 4.4-3
ESTIMATE OF EMISSION FACTORS
FOR COTTON GINNING
Source
Unloading Fan
Six Cylinder Cleaner
Stick and Bur Machine plus
Huller Front and Mote
Discharge Stand
Separator No. 2
Seven Cylinder Cleaner
Separator No. 3 (Lint Cleaner)
Condenser
$ by Wt.
of Cotton
Ginned
1
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
Lb/Ton
of Cotton
Ginned
20
4
14
2
6
2
2
Lb/Balef/
2 (incl. 7
cyl.)
1
1
Total Discharge to the Atmosphere
50
12
aJ 500 lb/bale
The amount of particulate emissions which might be expected to
settle on the plant premises was measured in the Taft project by including
in the sampling train a settling chamber which was designed to collect
particles of 100 M* and larger—a size large enough to settle rapidly. The
amount of particulate collected in the settling chamber was approximately
4056 of the total discharge. The amount of "air pollution material" is thus
measured as 7 lb. of particulate per bale of cotton ginned.
84
-------
Estimation of the amount of material discharged to the atmosphere
from cotton gins is as follows:
P = 11,000,000 bales of cotton ginned in 1968
e^ = 12 lb. particulate per bale of cotton ginned
Cc = 80$, average collection efficiency of cyclones in use in the
industry
C.(. = 40$, percent of production capacity of the various processing
units in cotton gins on which cyclones are installed
(11,000,000)(12)(1-0.80 x 0.40) ^ „ . . , .
E = -—- ——— = 45,000 tons of particulate
000 discharged to the atmosphere
If 40$ of the particulate discharged to the atmosphere settles on plant
premises, the air pollution from cotton gins would "be estimated as 60$ of
45,000, or 27,000 tons of particulate air pollution from cotton gins in 1968.
4.4.4 Alfalfa Dehydrators
Air pollution from alfalfa dehydrating plants comes from cyclones
which function as collectors of the alfalfa at various points in the process
rather than as auxiliary dust control equipment. Transport of material is
by pneumatic conveying. Although a variety of equipment layouts and duct
systems exists among alfalfa dehydrators, cyclones are located at four points
in a typical plant design. Their location and functions are listed as follows:
1. Primary cooling cyclone—This cyclone is located at the dis-
charge from the dryer and acts as a cooler. "Heavy trash" is separated
from the dried hay in this cyclone.
2. Secondary cooling cyclone—This cyclone is in series with the
first. It effects further cooling and acts as a hopper for the mill.
3. Air-meal separator—This cyclone collects ground alfalfa
meal.
4. Pellet-meal separator—This cyclone handles air used to cool
pellets, which are made by extrusion with steam. Meal dust which has passed
through the pellet machine and fragments of pellets are separated from the
air stream.
In mills which manufacture formula feeds by blending alfalfa with
other ingredients, a fifth source is the pellet-regrind cyclone. This cyclone
separates powder from re-ground pellets from the air stream conveying the
powder to a blender.
85
-------
Emission factors for alfalfa dehydrators were obtained from two
sources. Reference 12 lists results obtained in plants in Kansas and Ohio.
Data were also made available on tests conducted in 1969 by the American
Dehydrators Association.—/ Table 4.4-4 lists emission factors derived from
information on three plants in Reference 12.
TABLE 4.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS FOR
ALFALFA DEHYDRATORS jg/
Emission Factor
(lb/ton of dry meal)
11
4
47
9
2
2
a/ Skimmer is a device for skimming off the peripheral flow in a cyclone
and conducting the skimmed flow to a secondary collector.
The data from the trade association^^indicate an average of approximately
8 lb. of dust per ton discharged to the atmosphere from an entire plant. The
average is for eight plants; the range is 3-19 lb/ton of dry meal.
Calculation of particulate emissions from alfalfa dehydrators
involves selection of an average emission factor from the above data and
estimation of the extent and effectiveness of dust control equipment in-
stalled. High-efficiency cyclones and multi-tube cyclones have been in-
stalled in some plants. Reference 12 describes a baghouse installation in
Ohio which is said to be satisfactory with "alert and careful operation."
Two plants in Kansas use baghouses. The use of vegetable oil and animal
fat, injected into the process stream at the grinding of the dehydrated
hay, has reduced dust. A scrubbing process which utilizes moist air from the
dehydrator is a recent development which has been found satisfactory. Of
the factors listed in Table 4.4-4, the most typical value is 64 lb/ton of
dry meal which is the total of sources 1, 2, 3a and 4.
Source
1. Primary cooling cyclone
2. Secondary cooling cyclone
3. Air-meal separator
a. Cyclone
b. Cyclone + skimmer^/
4. Pellet-meal separator
5. Pellet re-grinder
86
-------
Of the plants in the data furnished by the American Dehydrator
Association, several have installed the wet scrubbing system referred to
above. The average for this group is thus somewhat lower; however, the upper
limit of the range is much less than the factor of 64 lb/ton obtained from
Reference 12. Reference 12 reports "loss to the atmosphere" to be between
"l and 3-1/2 wt. $ of the dry meal production" in the plants sampled. This
is a range of 20-70 lb/ton of dry meal produced. To estimate the dust from
alfalfa dehydrators, an average emission factor of 50 lb/ton of dry meal was
assumed. This factor was taken as an average of the total dust discharged
from large-diameter cyclones. On the basis of information from projects
presently being conducted by Midwest Research Institute,-7 A8/ it was assumed
that plants totaling half of the production capacity of the industry have in-
creased the efficiency of dust collection with some type of secondary equip-
ment or replacement of large-diameter cyclones with installation of high-
efficiency cyclones. The average operating efficiency of the additional
equipment is assumed to be 85$. The estimate for particulate emissions is
thus calculated as follows:
P = 1,582,400 tons of dehydrated alfalfa meal produced in 1968
e^ •» 50 lb. dust discharged from large-diameter cyclones per ton
of dry meal
Cc = 85$ average collection efficiency of additional dust collection
equipment installed
C.J. = 50$ of production capacity of the industry on which additional
dust collection equipment has been installed
E = (1i5Sqi0°0)(50?(1-0.85 x 0.50) = 23j000 tong of dust discharged
2>°0° to the atmosphere from alfalfa
dehydrators in 1968
4.4'.5 Feed Mills Other Than Alfalfa Mills
Included under this heading are estimates of particulate emissions
for milled feeds for which no information on particulate emissions was obtained.
The estimates axe based on an assumed emission rate of 1$ of the product. Dust
collection in these mills is assumed to be equivalent to dust collection in
alfalfa mills. Production listed in Table 4.4-1 are for 1967.ii/
4.4.6 Flour Mills
Particulate emissions from flour mills come mainly from the loading
of waste products, chaff and middlings, into railroad cars. The product,
flour, is a powder; however, because of its value, the collection is well
controlled.zzJ No estimate was made of the dust from loading of waste product.
87
-------
REFERENCES
OPERATIONS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE
1. " 1968 NAPCA Data File of Nationwide Emissions," unpublished report.
Bureau of Criteria and Standards, Division of Air Quality and Emission
Standards, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham.,
North Carolina.
2. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," report of the Division of Air Quality
and Emission Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration;
April 1970, prepared by TRW Systems Group of TRW, Inc., Contract No.
CPA 22-69-119, p. 5-5.
3. Information from report in preparation, Division of Air Quality and
Emission Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham,
North Carolina, July 1, 1970.
4. Bailey, J. E., 'terminal Elevator Storage," in Storage of Cereal Grains
and Their Products, by J. A. Anderson and A. W. Alcock, published by
the American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, Minnesota,
1954, p. 388.
5. Statistical Abstracts 1969, Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Com-
merce, 1969, Table No. 935.
6. Agricultural Statistics 196S, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
7. Agricultural Markets in Change, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Marketing Economics Division, Agricultural Economic Report No. 95,
July 1966, p. 225.
8. "Food Transportation and What It Costs Us," U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Marketing Research Division, Miscellaneous Publication No. 738, p. 7.
9. Moore, V. P., and 0. L. McCaskill, "Methods of Collecting Seed Cotton
Trash," in "Control and Disposal of Cotton-Ginning Wastes," Public
Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-31, 1967, pp. 29-38.
10. "Air-Borne Particulate Emissions from Cotton Ginning OperationsTechnical
Report A60-5, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1960.
11. " Control and Disposal of Cotton-Ginning Wastes^' Public Health Service
Publication No. 999-AP-31, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967, p. 41.
88
-------
12. "Air Pollution from Alfalfa Dehydrating Mills" U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1960.
13. Private communication, Mr. Kenneth Smith, American Dehydra'tors Associa-
tion, July 1970.
14. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Public Health Service Publication No.
999-AP-40, p. 92, 1967.
15. Stern, A. C., Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, Academic Press, New York, pp.
277-278, 1968.
16. Private communication, industrial source.
17. Project in progress, "Air Quality Study of Kansas," conducted by Midwest
Research Institute.
18. Private communication, E. P. Shea, Midwest Research Institute.
19. Agricultural Statistics 1969, U.S. Department of Agriculture, p. 56,
Table 80.
89
-------
4.5 Iron and Steel
Sources of particulate emissions in the iron and steel industry
are outlined as follows.
A. Ore Crushing
B. Pellet Plants
C. Sinter Plants
D. Coke Manufacture
E. Blast Furnaces
F. Steel Furnaces
1. Open hearth
a. No oxygen lancing
b. Oxygen lancing
2. Basic oxygen furnace (BOF)
3. Electric arc
G. Scarfing
H. Materials Handling—includes soaking pits, pickling lines, etc
A summary of emission factors and the emissions calculated are
shown in Table 4.5-1. Data on emission factors were found for sinter plants
the various furnaces used in the industry and scarfing machines. The emis-
sion factor used for by-product ovens is an estimate. The factors listed
for coke pushing and for quenching towers are from a single source. Emis-
sion factors for ore crushing and materials handling were derived from data
on similar operations in other indvstries. Emissions data for pellet plants
or for the various parts of furnace production cycles, i.e., charge, heat
and tap, were not found or did not give production rates with which factors
could be calculated on a process-weight basis. Values of Cc and C^. used
in the calculations are discussed in Chapter 5, pp. 220-222.
Production data and data for quantities of raw materials were
obtained from the 1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II.
4.5.1 Ore Crushing
Ore crushing is generally done at mine sites before transporting
it to the steel mills. The fineness to which ores are ground depends upon
the iron content. Ore mined in this country now must be upgraded. This
can be done with some ores by merely crushing, screening, and washing. Ores
which are beneficiated by magnetic separation, such as the magnetic taconit©
which are now a major portion of ore mined in the United States, are milled
to a fineness of 200 mesh. Ores used for making pellets must be ground to
-200 mesh.A/
90
-------
TABLE>4,5.1
Ore Crushing
II. Materials Handling
A.
1. Ore and ore fines
2. Clay (bentonite)
3. Limestone
4. Coal
5. Scrap metal
B. Conveyors
1. Transfer points
2. Discharge to bins
stockpiles
C. Elevators
1. Boots
2. Heads
III. Pellet Plant
A. Grate Feeder
B. Dryer
C. Klin
PARTICULATE BGBBI0M3
Hjyi yflmreng
4iantlty of Material
82,000,000 tons of
Iron ore
131,000,000 tons
of steel
Loading-Unloading, Freight
Cars, Barges, Ore Boats
50,000,000 tons,
of pellets
aulas Ion Factor
2 lb/ton of ora
10 lb/ton of steel
0.90
Applica-
tion of
Control
_2i
0.0
0.35
Net
Control Bniitiona
c<3 °t (fop°/rW
0.0
BE,000
0.32 446,000
80,000
rv- Sinter Plant
A. Sintering Process
B. Crushing, Screening,
Cooling
V. Coke Manufacture
A. Ovens
1. Beehive
a. Charging
b. Coking
c. Pushing
2. ^-Product
a. Charging
b. Coking
e. Pushing
B. flenching Tower
C. Grinder
D. Screen
E. By-Produet Recovery Plant
51,000,000 tons of
sinter
775,000 tons of
coke - 1,300,000
tons of coal
63,700,000 tons of
coke - 90,000,000
tons of coal
20 lb/ton sinter
22 lb/ton sinter
200 lb/ton of coal
0.08 lb/ton of coal
2 lb/ton of coal
0.08 lb/ton of coaW
0.38 lb/ton of coalV
0.90
0.90
0.00
0.00
1.0
1.0
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.90
0.00
0.00
51,000
56,000
130,000
90,000
4,000
17,000
91
-------
TABLE 4.5-1 (concluded)
to
Source
VI. Blast Furnaces
Qiantity of Material Baission Factor
88,800,00 tons of
pig iron
Effici- Applica-
ency of tion of Net
Control Control Control
Cc Ct Cc'Ct
A-
Charge
B.
Heat
C.
Tap
VII. Steel Furnaces
A. Open Hearth
65,800,000 tons of
steel
1. Ho oxygen lancing
a. Charge
b. Heat
c. Tap
2. Oxygen lancing
a. Charge
b. Heat
c. Tap
B. Basic Oxygen (BOF)
1. Charge
2. Heat
3. Tap
C. Electric Arc
1. Charge
2. Heat
3. Tap
Average for open hearth
48,000,000 tons of
steel
16,800,000 tons of
steel
8 lb/ton of steel
21 lb/ton of steel
17 lb/ton of steel**/
VIII- Scarfing
IX. Pickling
0.97
10 lb/ton of steel 0.99
131,000,000 tons of 3 lb/ton scarfed 0.90
steel
Total for Iron and Steel
a/ Industrial source,
b/ Emission factor is assumed to be an average for the total heat cycle.
130 lb/ton of pig iron 0.99 1.00
0.41
40 lb/ton of steel 0.99 1.00
0.79
0.75
0.99
0.99
0.78
0.68
Bnissions
(tons/year)
58,000
0.40 337,000
10,000
18,000
63,000
1,442,000
-------
Estimate of the particulate emissions from ore crushing are
based on the emission factors for rock crushing in the crushed stone in-
dustry. The factor used here is the sum of the factors for primary and
secondary crushing, 2 lb/ton of material crushed. The tons of dust ftom
ore crushing are estimated as follows.
E = 82,000,000 tons ore x 2 lb' dust x ¦ 1 tori = 82,000 tons
ton ore 2,000 lb.
4.5.2 Pellet Plants
Production of "agglomerates" in 1968 was 50,000,000 tons. Data
on particulate emissions from pellet plants are lacking; but if an emission
rate of 25 lb. of particulate per ton of pellets produced and collection
of three fourths of the dust generated be assumed for pellet plants, the
quantity of dust discharged to the atmosphere would be approximately 80,000
tons.
4.5.3 Sinter Plants
There are two sources of dust in sintering operations. The first
is the moving grate on which the ore and coke is sintered. The air pulled
through the material on the grate entrains dust. The second source is
collectively the crushing, screening and cooling of the sinter. The emis-
sion factors for these two sources are:£/
Sintering process 20 lb/ton sinter
Crushing, screening, cooling 22 lb/ton sinter
The emissions from the sintering process are calculated as follows.
20
E = (51,000,000) (g~ 0Q0) (1-1.0 x 0.90) = 51,000 tons
The emissions from crushing, screening and cooling are calculated as follows.
22
E = (51,000,000) (g Q00) (1-1.0 x 0.90) » 56,000 tons
The total quantity of emissions from sintering plants is thus estimated at
107,000 tons.
4.5.4 Coke Manufacture
Emissions from coke ovens occur during charging of the raw
material and pushing (removal of finished coke) as well as during the
process. The particulate emissions generated during the process, the
95
-------
heating of the coal, can be estimated at approximately 200 lb/ton of cot
consumed on the basis of material balances. The following tabulation shows
approximate amounts of the products obtained from one ton of coal in the
manufacture of coke. y
Coke 1,400 lb.
Coke breeze 70-100 lb.
Tar 10 gal.
Ammonium sulfate 20 lb.
Light oil 3 gal.
Gas 11,000 cu. ft.
If the weight of the oil and tar is assumed to be 6.5 lb/gal, the amount
of products that might be discharged from the oven as particulate matter
can be estimated as follows.
Coke breeze 85 lb.
Tar 65 lb.
Light oil 20 lb.
Total as particulate 170 lb.
The ammonium sulfate is formed by absorbing ammonia from the oven in sul-
furic acid.
Quenching is also a source of pollution. The spraying of hot
coke with water results in the formation of steam which carries off particu-
late matter. An estimate of the emissions is given in Table 4.5-1.
The amount of particulate discharged to the atmosphere depends
on the extent to which the by-products are recovered. Beehive ovens dis-
charge all the by-products to the atmosphere. The effluent from slot ovens,
or "by-product" ovens, can be processed for by-product recovery; and the
air pollution can be substantially reduced. However, the extent to which
by-products are recovered may be a function of economic factors. The de-
velopment of the synthetic organic chemicals industry has depressed the
market for by-products from coke ovens; consequently, the economic motiva-
tion to collect the by-products has decreased.
The emission factors used for coke ovens are:
Beehive ovens 200 lb/ton coal
Slot (by-product) ovens 2 lb/ton coal
The particulate pollution from each type is estimated as follows.
94
-------
Beehive .. ,
1,300,000 tons coal x 200 lb' ^"culate ». , 130,000 tons
ton of coal 2,000 lb.
Slot ovens
90,000,000 tons coal x 2 lb" Peculate x . 90,000 tons
ton of coal 2,000 lb.
These estimates show that, although coke production from beehive ovens is
only about 1$ of the total production, the particulate pollution from
beehive ovens is over half the total particulate pollution from coke ovens.
4.5.5 Blast Furnaces
Particulate matter from furnaces is composed of fume, kish, and
dust from the raw materials. Kish is the carbon particles which solidify
from the molten metal when it is cooled during the tap or, in BOF furnaces,
when cold scrap is dumped into molten metal during the charge. Kish floats
to the molten surface and is swept off by drafts created by the high tem-
perature of the molten metal. Dust from raw materials arises during charg-
ing. Fume is discharged during the heat.
The blast furnace is the first step in steel manufacture. In
the blast furnace, iron is separated from its matrix to produce pig iron.
Particulate emissions from blast furnaces depend on the proportions of
sinter and pellets in the burden. A burden in which the iron ore is
charged as pellets and sinter produces approximately 10$ of the particu-
late emissions produced from burdens of lump ore. "The addition of 3,000
lb. of sinter plus pellets/net ton of hot jnetal can decrease the dust
from 300 to 30 lb/net ton of hot metal."—' Data published in 1963 give
an emission factor of 0.1 ton of dust/ton of pig iron produced .£/ Data
published in 1969 indicate that the proportion of pellets and sinter in .
the burden of blast furnaces is increasing steadily from year to year.—/
It might be expected, therefore, that an average emission factor for par-
ticulate matter from blast furnaces would be decreasing. On the basis of
these statements, the emission factor for blast furnaces is selected as
130 lb/ton of pig iron produced. The quantity of particulate emissions
from blast furnaces is estimated as follows.
E = 88,800,000 tons pig iron x 130 lb' dust x (1-1.0 x 0.99) «
ton pig iron
58,000 tons
4.5.6 Steel Furnaces
The most important furnaces for making steel currently in use in
the United States are (l) the open hearth, (2) the basic oxygen furnace,
95
-------
and (3) the electric-arc. The open hearth furnace is the oldest. It i,
being succeeded by the basic oxygen furnace, which has a much higher pro-
duction rate. The electric-arc furnace is adaptable to close temperature
control, and its primary use has been in making alloy and stainless steels.
However, in the past decade, it has become an increasingly important pro-
ducer of carbon steel.
4.5.6.1 Open Hearth Furnaces: The rate of emissions of par-
ticulate matter from open hearth furnaces is affected by the use of oxygen
lancing. Oxygen lancing shortens the length of time required for a heat
and decreases fuel consumption. This practice is widely used in open hearth
operations. The following emission factors are listed for open hearth
furnaces. 8/
Without oxygen lancing 8 lb/ton of steel
With oxygen lancing 21 lb/ton of steel
A factor of 17 lb/ton has been estimated as a weighted average for these
two factors.—' This factor is used to estimate the quantity of particu-
late emissions from open hearth furnaces.
E = (65,800,000) (1-0.97 x 0.41) = 337,000 tons
4.5.6.2 Basic Oxygen Furnace (EOF): The basic oxygen furnace
uses oxygen lancing as an integral part of the process and is designed to
facilitate the use of lances. The emission factor used to estimate the
particulate emissions from basic oxygen furnaces is 40 lb. particulate/ton
of steel produced.^2/ Estimate of the quantity of emissions from basic
oxygen furnaces is as follows.
E = (48,000,000) (g3000) C1-0"1,0 x °«") = 10>000 tons
4.5.6.3 Electric-Arc Furnaces; The rate of particulate emissions
from electric-arc furnaces is the lowest of the three kinds of steel fur-
naces considered here. Since scrap metal is the usual charge to these
furnaces, dirty scrap is a frequent source of particulate emissions. The
emission factor used is 10 lb. per "ton of metal;" this basis is assumed
to be metal melted .i2/ Since the charge is scrap, this value is assumed
for a basis of tons of steel produced. The quantity of particulate emis-
sions from electric-arc furnaces is estimated as follows.
E = (16,800,000) (g pop) (1-0.99 x 0.79) = 18,000 tons
96
-------
4.5.7 Scarfing
Scarfing is the term applied to the process of removing blemishes
from the solid shapes (billets, blooms, slabs) into which molten steel is
formed. The emission factor used to estimate the particulate emissions
from scarfing is 3 lb/ton of steel.^/ In calculating the estimate, it is
assumed that all steel is scarfed.
E = (131,000,000) (1-0-90 * 0.75) = 63,000 tons
4.5.8 Materials Handling
The emission factor used to estimate dust from materials handling
is based on the factor for materials handling in the crushed stone industry.
For materials handling, a factor of 1.7 lb. per ton has been reported.—'
Included in the operations for this factor are "general screening, convey-
ing, and handling." For stone crushing this factor pertains to one commodity.
In using this factor for materials handling in the iron and steel industry,
account is to be taken of the fact that several materials are handled. Ore,
coal, and limestone are handled in large quantities. Also desirable would
be a comparison of the number of sources—elevator^ conveyor transfer points,
screens, stockpiles, etc., existent in the flow of materials in the produc-
tion of steel to the number of these sources in a rock-crushing plant.
To estimate the amount of dust arising from materials handling,
an emission factor, considered conservative, of 10 lb/ton of finished
steel is used.
E = (131,000,000) ( ) (1-0.90 x 0.35) » 446,000 tons
97
-------
references
IRON AND STEEL
1. Kirk and Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd Edition,
John Wiley and Sons, Vol. 18, 1969, p. 10.
2. Schueneman, J. J., et al., "Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel
Industry," Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-l, June 1963,
p. 2.
3. "A Systems Analysis Study of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry,"
report of the Division of Process Control and Engineering, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, May 15, 1969, prepared by
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, Contract No. PH 22-68-
65, p. V-8.
4. Shreve, R. N., Chemical Process Industries, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, p. 88.
5. Duprey, R. L., 'Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Public
Health Series Publication, No. AP-999-42, 1968, p. 27.
6. Schueneman, J. J., et al., op. cit., p. 1.
7. "A Systems Analysis of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry," op. cit.
p. A-2. ~
8. Ibid.
9. "1968 NAPCA Data File of Nationwide Emissions," unpublished report, Bur-
eau of Criteria and Standards, Division of Air Quality and Emission
Standards, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham,
North Carolina.
10. Schueneman, J. J., et al., op. cit., p. 4.
11. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," report of the Division of Air Quality
and Emission Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration;
April, 1970, prepared by TRW Systems Group of TRW, Inc., Contract
No. CPA 22-69-119, pp. 7-26.
98
-------
4.6 Cement Plants
In the manufacture of cement the most important source of air
pollution is the calcining kiln, and most of the sampling in cement plants
has been the measurement of dust emissions from Kilns. There are, however,
other significant sources of dust in cement plants. These include mills,
driers, elevators, and hoppers.
The emission factor for the kilns was calculated from data in
the U.S. Public Health Service Publication, AP-17, "Atmospheric Emissions
from the Manufacture of Portland Cement, "i/ and data obtained from air
pollution control agencies in several states; a collective emission factor
for mills, driers, elevators, and hoppers was derived as described later
in the chapter. Most of the data from state agencies do not contain any
stack sampling tests upstream from dust collectors. To calculate emission
factors and estimate the particulate emissions from cement manufacturing,
a statistical analysis was made of the data in Reference 1 to ascertain
differences between dust loads from kilns of the two processes, wet and
dry, indicated by these data. Table 4.6-1 shows an array of the emission
factors calculated for each plant for which sufficient data were listed
in Tables 4 and 5 of the reference and the calculations for the statisti-
cal test of the difference between the means.
The "t" test indicates that the difference between the average
emission factors is not statistically significant. Therefore, a single
emission factor was used for both wet and dry process cement kilns. Emis-
sion factors and estimated emissions are summarized in Table 4.6-1.
The average emission factor for dust discharged from kilns is
245 lb. dust/ton of cement produced. This value is an arithmetic average
of 31 items of data. The geometric mean of these data is 167 lb/ton. The
median is 190 lb/ton; the range is 13-715 lb/ton. Table 4.6-2 is a tabu-
lation of the statistics calculated from the data at hand.
The arithmetic mean for emissions from control equipment is
10.5 lb. dust/ton of cement produced; the geometric mean is 3.8 lb/ton.
The range of emissions from control equipment is 0.19 - 69 lb/ton; the
upper extreme is 363 times the lower extreme. A classification of the
data for emissions from control equipment is given below. Included in
these data are 25 tests made by stack sampling teams from state air pollu-
tion control agencies and 28 tests in Reference 1.
No. of values less than 1.0 lb. partic. per ton of cement 10
No. of values from 1.0 to 3.0 17
No. of values from 3.0 to 10 15
No. of values from 10 to 30 9
No. of values from 30 to 50 4
No. of values above 50 2
99
-------
TABLE 4.6-1
COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CEMENT KILNS
Avg. Emission Factor
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Dry Process
(lb. dust/ton cement)
13
83
93
203
214
231
332
364
556
232
lb. dust
ton cement
167
55.6
Wet Process
(lb. dust/ton cement)
35
80
96
107
146
149
178
192
228
277
363
437
628
224
lb. dust
ton cement
166
46.1
Hypothesis: There is no difference between the average emission factors.
t = xx - x2
,2 N1 + N2
3 NlN2
s2 =
(Nl-l)sl2 + (Ng-l)s22
N1 + n2
2 _ (9-l)(55.6)2 + (13-1)(46.1)2 =
s =
13+9
2,511.67
100
-------
232-224 8
t = 1,1 = „ = 0.368
\
2,511.67
13 + 9 21,7
13 x 9
degrees of freedom =13+9-2= 20
tQ 5Q level of probability = 0.687
Formulas from Walker and Lev, Statistical Inference, Henry Holt and Co.,
New York, 1953, p. 156.
TABLE 4.6-2
STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS-EMISSIONS FROM CEMENT KILNS
Dust Discharged Emissions from
from Kilns Control Equipment
Arithmetic Mean, Ma 245 lb/ton 10.5 lb/ton
Geometric Mean, Mg 167 lb/ton 3.8 lb/ton
Median 190 lb/ton 3.6 lb/ton
Range 13 - 715 lb/ton 0.19 - 69 lb/ton
NUmber of Samples , N 30 57
Standard Deviation, S 193 15.8
Standard Error of the Mean, SM 35.3 2.1
Coefficient of Variation s/M 0.79 1.5
The statistics show the influence of a comparatively few large
sampling results. Note in particular that for emissions from control
equipment the standard deviation is larger than the mean. Some explanation
other than wide variation of amounts of particulate pollutants being in-
trinsic to industrial processes should be sought. OBa consideration is
that much of the data on emissions from control equipment cone from plants
in areas where intensive effort is being made to control air pollution.
The lowest rates for controlled emissions (0.19, 0.27, 0.35 lb/ton) maybe
assumed to be from plants with effective dust collectors in good operating
condition. Type of fuel may also be a factor. Values for four plants in
Which coal was reported as the fuel for heating the kilns are 63, $6, 18
and 1.5 lb. particulate/ton of cement produced. Thus, coal may contribute
to a high emission rate; however, the lowest of these four values indicates
101
-------
that a low emission rate is possible with coal-fired kilns. Type of kil„-
and manner of operation can exert a strong effect on emission levels.
The total amount of emissions presently discharged from cement
kilns is estimated by using the source emission factor for dust discharged
from kilns and estimates of the effectiveness of dust collection equipment
currently being used. Because of the considerable dispersion of the data,
the geometric mean may give a more realistic value than the arithmetic mean,
and it was therefore used in calculating the estimate of total emissions.
„ _ ref(l-CeCt)
2,000
P = 43,600,000 tons cement-wet process
51,000,000 tons cement-dry process
74,600,000 tons, cement produced in 1968
= 166 lb. partic/ton cement
Cc = 94$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors on
cement kilns
Ct = 94$, percentage of kiln capacity for which dust collectors
are installed
E „ (74,600,000)(167)(1-0.94 x 0.94) = ^ ^ of partlculate
2,000
discharged to the atmosphere in 1968 from cement kilns.
If the total industry had the effectiveness of control indicated
by the data obtained for emissions from control equipment (an unrealistic
assumption), dust discharged to the atmosphere from kilns would be esti-
mated as follows. The geometric mean is used to calculate the estimate.
74,600,000 tons cement 3.8 lb. partic. 1 lb.
E = —2 2 x — x _ AAn , = 141,000 tons
yr. ton cement 2,000 tons us
As mentioned above, there are significant sources of dust in
cement plants in addition to kilns. In dry-process plants the grinding and
drying of the raw materials generates much dust. Finish grinding of the
product is a dust source in both types of plants. Handling and transfer
of material and bagging machines also generate dust. One report-/ mentions
3 390 lb. of dust/hr collected from "dryers, mills, elevators and hoppers."
Dust from the kilns was measured at 8,397 lb/hr. These two values were
obtained four days apart; but if it be assumed that production rate was ap-
proximately the same over that time, the dust discharged from other sources
in the plant was approximately 40$ of that discharged from the illns. In a
102
-------
wet-process plant, there would be much less dust from the preparation of raw
materials. In the wet process, water is added to the raw materials as they
are ground; and they are handled as a slurry from grinding to the kilns.
In the dry process, the raw materials are ground while dry, and a heated
air stream is used to separate fines from oversize in the material discharged
from the grinder. The dry fines are conveyed to the kiln; the oversize is
returned to the grinder. Fifteen percent is the estimate of the percentage
of dust from other plant sources in a wet process plant compared to the dust
being discharged from the kiln.
An emission factor for dryers, mills, elevators, etc. is calculated
from the kiln emission factor as follows.
Dry-process plants: 167 x 0.40 = 67 lb. particulate/ton of cement
Wet-process plants: 167 x 0.15 = 25 lb. particulate/ton of cement
Total emissions from these secondary sources were calculated with
the assumption that the average operating efficiency (Cc) and percentage of
production capacity controlled (C-^) were the same as for kilns. Informa-
tion obtained from personnel in this industry indicates that this assumption
is suitable. (See Table 4.6-3.)
103
-------
TABI£ 4.6-3
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
CEMENT MANUFACTURE
Source
Kilns
Production
74,600,000
Emission
Factor
ef
167
Efficiency
of Control
Cc
0.94
Grinders, Dryers,
Elevators, etc.
Wet Process
Dry Process
S
*>¦
43,600,000
31,000,000
25
67
0.94
0.94
Application
of Control Net Control
Ct (Cc.Ct)
0.94 0.88
0.94 0.88
0.94 0.88
Total for Cement
Emissions
(tons/yr)
745,000
65,000
124,000
934,000
-------
REFERENCES
CEMENT
Kreichelt, T. E., Douglas A. Kemnitz and S. T. Cuffe, "Atmospheric
Emissions from the Manufacture of Portland Cement," U. S. Public
Health Service Publication No. 999 AP-17, 1967.
Cuffe, Stanley T., "Report on the Air Pollution Aspects of the Universal
Atlas Cement Division of United States Steel Corporation at Duluth,
Minnesota," Technical Assistance Branch, Division of Air Pollution,
U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, circa 1965.
105
-------
4.7 Forest Products
Under the heading "Forest Products," the production of pulp for
paper manufacturing is the most important source of particulate pollutants
from plants in this industry. However, the burning of logging wastes,
"slash" burning, which takes place in the forests, produces particulate
matter in an amount much larger than that from pulp mills. The burning
of waste from mills in wigwam burners is also an important source. Par-
ticulate pollutants in comparatively smaller amounts are produced in ply-
wood manufacture and in manufacture of particleboard and hardboard. Par-
ticleboard and hardboard are made from waste and were developed partly
from efforts to solve waste-disposal problems. Particulate pollution from
sawmills is mostly from burning of waste. Pollution control agencies in
states where lumber is an important industry have not found the sawing of
lumber to be an important source of pollution.
A summary of emission factors and calculated emissions is shown
in Table 4.7-1. The emission factors for the sources in pulp mills are
obtained from the literature. No factor is listed in this table for bark
boilers since the quantity of emissions was calculated without using an
emission facto::. The factors for plywood, particleboard and hardboard
are derived as described later in the chapter. The estimate for quantity
of emissions from slash burning is also calculated without using an emis-
sion factor. Values of Cc and used in the calculations are discussed
in Chapter 5, p. 223.
4.7.1 Slash Burning
Particulate emissions from slash burning have been estimated by
two agencies of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service
has ventured an estimate of 17,000,000 tons of particulate matter produced
by "Prescribed Fiies"i/ in the United States in 1967 with 6,000,000 tons
of this ascribed to the western part of the country where burning is pri-
marily to "reduce the flammability of heavy concentrations of slash left
after timber cutting." This agency estimates that the "fuel consumed in
the west" is 21,000,000 tons/year. The estimate of 6,000,000 tons of par-
ticulate matter is based on an estimate of the products of combustion from
wood. An average chemical composition, C4H10O9, was assumed; and estimates
were made of the amounts of gases, solid matter, and condensed organic
vapors that would be formed as combustion products. An inventory of quan-
tities of slash burned was available. The inventories had been compiled
by field representatives of the Forest Service who were familiar with burn-
ing activity. The Soil and Water Conservation Research Division "estimates
that 25,000,000 tons of logging debris are burned each year and that
6,500,000 tons of particulates are produced by "prescribed burning in the
forests."§/
106
-------
TABU! 4.7-1
PARTICUIATE EMISSIONS
FOREST PRODUCTS JMDUSTRY
Source
I. Slash Burning
IX. Wigwam Burners
III. Chemical Pulp Mills
A. Kraft Process
1. Recovery furnace
2. Lime kiln
S. Dissolving tanks
B. Sulfite Process
1. Recovery Furnace
C. H.S.S.C. Process
I
> 1. Recovery furnace
1 2. Fluid ted reactor
D. Bark Boilers
Quantity of
Material
23,000,000 toos/yr
27,500,000 tons/yr
24,300,000 tons pulp
l/3 of 2,500,000 tons pulp
1/3 of 3,500,000 tons pulp
l&jl of 3,500,000 tons pulp
32,000,000 tons pulp
Emission
Factor
10 lb/ton
150 lb/ton
45 lb/ton
5 lb/ton
268 lb/ton
24 lb/ton
533 lb/ton
Efficiency
of Control
Cc
0.92
0.95
0.90
0.92
0.92
0.70
Application
of Control
Ct
0.99
0.99
0.33
0.99
0.99
1.00
Met
Control
Ce'Ct-
0.91
0.94
0.30
0.31
0.91
0.70
Total from Chemical Pulp Mills
Qoission
(tons/yr)
6,000,000
132,000
164,000
33,000
42,000
10,000
1,000
42,000
82,000
374,000
IT. Plywood, Paxticleboard
Hardboard
A. Boilers
B. Cyclones
C. Veneer Dryers
1,500,000,000 sq. ft.
plywood/yr
2.6 lb/ton burned
dry tons
MM sq. ft., plywood
250 lb/lM sq. ft., plywood
3,000
67,000
4,000
74,000
Total for Forest Products Industry
6,580,000
-------
4.7.2 Wigwam Burners (Teepee Burners)
The estimate for emissions from wigwam burners in the Forest
Products industry is based on an emission factor of 10 lb. of particulate
discharged per ton of material burned.il/ Reference 14 lists the follow-
ing data on emission factors for the burning of wood waste in "Conical and
Cylindrical Burners."
1 lb/ton of waste charged—properly maintained burner with
adjustable underfire air supply and overfire air inlets.
10 lb/ton of waste charged—properly maintained burner with
overfire air supply.
20 lb/ton of waste charged—improperly maintained burner.
Boubel-i^/ lists a factor of 11 lb/ton of waste charged in a report on
particulate emissions from the burning of sawmill wastes. The factor of
10 lb/ton was selected as representative.
Waste frcm cutting of logs amounts to approximately 50# of the
log. In areas where pulp mills are located, much of the waste can be
used in pulp manufacture. In the past several years, processes ftor manu-
facturing by-products such as particleboard and hardboard have been
developed to utilize wood waste. In the Mid-Willamette Valley in 1968,
only 30# of the log was burned in wigwam burners.i^/ The following datai5/
and assumptions were used to estimate the particulate pollutants discharged
from wigwam burners in the Forest Products Industry.
Domestic production:
saw logs 5,765,000,000 cu. ft.
veneer logs 1,130,000,000 cu. ft.
pulpwood 3,255,000,000 cu. ft.
Assume 50# of log is waste.
Assume no waste from debarking and chijping pulpwood.
Total volume contributing to waste = 6,895,000,000 cu. ft.
Assume average density of 32 lb/cu ft.
6,895,000,000 x 32 x ij jjjmj x 0.5 = 55,100,000 tons of waste/
year.
108
-------
Assume that 40$ of timber production is subject to only 30$
burning of waste because of by-product manufacture. The
proportion, 40$, is estimated from the proportion of the
nation's timber production which comes from the northwest.
In 1967, the Pacific states (Oregon, Washington, and Cali-
fornia) accounted for 46.3$ of the total.XL/ 55,100,000 x
0.30 x 0.20 = 3,306,000 tons of waste burned in areas with
extensive utilitzation of waste.
Assume 70$ of waste burned in areas where waste is not utilized
55,100,000 x (1-0.40) x 0.70 = 23,100,000 tons of waste burned.
Total weight of waste burned in wigwam burners = 26,400,000 tons.
27,500,000 x 10 x = 132,000 tons/year particulate pol-
lutants discharged to the atmosphere from wigwam burners.
4.7.3 Pulp Mills
Pulp is manufactured by two kinds of processes: mechanical and
chemical. The production in 1968 by process was as follows:
1. Mechanical 5,900,000 tons
2. Chemical
a. Kraft 24,300,000
b. Sulfite 2,500,000
c. Neut.-sulf.-semi-chem. 3,500,000
d. Dissolving 1,500,000
e. Soda 200,000
32,000,000
Total pulp manufactured 37,900,000
fh* mechanical process is not a source of particulate pollution. It is a
grinding process which is carried out under water to keep down the tempera-
ture . The chemical processes, principally the Kraft process, involve sev-
eral operations from which particulate pollution arises.
Most of the work in developing emission factors for the chemical
processes has been done on the Kraft process, which accounts for approximately
75^ of chemical pulp production. The main sources of particulate emissions
and the corresponding emission factors for the Kraft process are listed in
Table 4.7-2.
109
-------
TABLE 4.7-2
SOURCES OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
IN KRAFT PULP MILLS
Source Emission Factor
Recovery Furnace 150 lb. particulate/ton pulp
Lime Kiln 45 lb. particulate/ton pulp
Dissolving Tank 5 lb. particulate/ton pulp
Bark Boilers 35 lb. particulate/ton pulp
Data on emissions from recovery furnaces have been found in the
literature mostly as ranges without listing individual test results. Ranges
are listed here.
50 - 194 lb. particulate/ton pulp3/
82 - 238 lb. particulate/ton pulpi/
90 - 200 lb. particulate/ton pulp5/
105 - 157 lb. particulate/ton pulp§/
Reference 3, published in 1936, lists 12 tests for which the average is
102 lb/ton. The data in Reference 4 are taken from flow sheets; six of
eight emissions rates in these data are below 125 lb/ton. Reference 5
contains a statement to the effect that 150 lb. particulate/ton of pulp is
an average. The data of Reference 5 are from stack sampling tests, and
150 lb. particulate/ton of air-dry pulp is the source emission factor that
appears "best." Data furnished by state cortrol agencies (seven items),
which are emission rates from control equipment, range from 1.9 to 17.4
lb. particulate/ton of pulp; the average is 9 lb/ton. A new plant in
California?/ reports an emission rate from the recovery furnace of 1.3
lb/ton of pulp. This plant has an electrostatic precipitator followed by
a wet scrubber.
Of the chemical processes other than the Kraft, only the sulfite
and the neutral-sulfite-semi-chemical are considered to produce a signifi-
cant amount of particulate pollutants. These processes account for approxi-.
mately 20$ of chemical pulp production. Recovery furnaces are the main
sources of particulate pollution in these processes. Approximately half
of these plants do not recover the chemicals used; the spent liquor is
discharged to ponds, etc. One-third of the plants using the N.S.S.C.
process are adjacent to Kraft plants and discharge their spent liquor to
the Kraft recovery boilers. The emission rate attributable to liquor
from N.S.S.C. plants is 24 lb/ton of air-dry, unbleached pulp.*/ Fluid-
bed equipment has been introduced into N.S.S.C. plants for recovery of
110
-------
chemicals, and. approximately 15$ of production from the N.S.S.C. process
comes from plants utilizing this equipment as a recovery furnace. Data
from a flow diagram (N.S.S.C. Plow Diagram No. 3)k/ show a "Fluidized Bed
Reactor and Cyclone" with an in-flow of 888 lb. of solids and 1,452 l"b.
of water per ton of air-dry pulp. If the amount of dust carried out of
the fluid-bed reactor is assumed to approximate the rate of dust emissions
from similar equipment in the smelting of zinc, approximately 60$ of the
solids in the feed, an emission factor for the fluid-bed reactor is calcu-
lated as follows.
888 lb. solids 0.6 lb. particulate _ 533 lb. particulate
ton of pulp lb. solids ton pulp
Flow sheets!/ for the sulfite process show emission rates of 212 and 325 lb.
of particulate per ton of air-dry pulp for plants accounting for approxi-
mately 20$ of production. The average of these two values is 268 lb/ton,
and this average is used to estimate the particulate emissions from sulfite
furnaces.
Calculation of the emissions from Kraft recovery furnaces is as
follows.
» Fef (J-CpCt)
2,000
P = 24,300,000 tons/year, air-dry pulpi2/
ef = 150 lb. particulate/ton of pulp
Cc = 92$ average operating efficiency of pollution control equip-
ment on recovery furnaces
Ct =99$, percent of capacity of pulp production for which pollu-
tion control equipment is installed on recovery furnaces
E _ (24,300,000)(150)(1-0.92 x 0.99)
2,000
= 164,000 tons particulate/year discharged to the atmosphere
from recovery furnaces
An emission factor for the controlled source may be calculated from the
above equation as follows.
ef(l-Cc) = (150)(1-0.91) = 12.0 lb. particulate discharged to
the atmosphere per ton of air-dry pulp
This can be compared with the average value of 9 lb/ton from the control
agency data—very reasonable agreement.
Ill
-------
The estimates of the particulate emissions from sulfite and
N.S.S.C. furnaces are as follows.
N.S.S.C. - proportion to Kraft furnaces
E = (l/3 x 5,500,000)(g^00Q)(1-0.92 x 0.99) = 1,260 tons
N.S.S.C. - proportion to fluid-bed reactors
Assume that the cyclones on these units have a collection
efficiency of 70$
533
E = (0.15 x 3,500,000)(2^5-)(1-0.70) = 42,000 tons
Sulfite
Assume that collection of particulate from recovery furnaces
in sulfite plants is equivalent to the same operation in
Kraft plants
E = (2,500,000 x l/3)(^r§§ff)(l-0.92 x 0.99) = 9,700 tons
Data on emissions from lime kilns are meager. The few values
that have been found vary from 18.7^/ to 962/lb. dust discharged from the
kiln per ton of air-dry pulp produced. Reference 4 lists a range of 20-
65 lb/ton. Forty-five pounds/ton is taken as the best value. Calculation
of the emissions from lime kilns is as follows.
P = 24,300,000 tons/year, air-dry Kraft pulp
ef = 45 lb. particulate/ton of pulp
Cc = 95$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors on
lime kilns
Ct = 99$, percent of capacity of pulp production for which dust
collectors are installed on lime kilns
E = (24,300,000)(45)(1-0.95 x 0.99)
2,000
= 33,000 tons particulate/year discharged to the atmo$phere
from lime kilns
The emission factor for the controlled source, calculated by the same
method that was used to calculate the controlled emission factor for
recovery furnaces, is 2.30 lb. lime dust discharged to the atmosphere/
ton of air-dry pulp produced. Good agreement with this value is obtained
from the following data.10/ which are presented on lime kilns as representa-
tive of a mill having a capacity of 300 tons of pulp.
112
-------
Fan Capacity 25,000 to 30,000 cfm at
400°F and 15 in. W.C.
Impingement Scrubbers 0.2 to 0.6 Gr/SCF
Venturi Scrubbers 0.05 to 0.2 Gr/SCF
With a dust load of 0.2 G-r/SCF, the following emission factor is calculated
0 2 " x 27,500 cu. ft. 520 R 1 lb.
cu. ft. x min. x 862"R x 7,000 gr. x
1,440 min. x 1 d-ay
day 300 tons pulp
= 2.3 lb. lime dust/ton of pulp
Two stack samples from state control agencies list data from which emission
factors of 1.6 and 1.4 lb/ton are calculated. This is fair agreement con-
sidering that no information about type of control device was available.
Dissolving tanks have received less attention in Kraft mills
than furnaces and kilns. One articleii/ lists three stack sampling results:
17.2; 20.0; and 14.0 lb. particulate from the tank/ton of pulp produced.
Reference 4 lists a range of 1-4 lb/ton and the Air Pollution Control
Board in the State of Washington uses 5 lb/ton.-i^ One finds a threefold
difference between the average of the stack samples and the listed values.
The factor, 5 lb/ton, is used to calculate the emissions.
P = 24,300,000 tons/year, air-dry pulp
ef = 5 lb. particulate/ton of pulp
Cc = 90$, average efficiency of mist collectors installed on
dissolving tanks
Ct = 33$, percent of pulp production capacity for which dis-
solving tanks are equipped with mist collectors
E = (24,300,000)(5)(1-0.90 x 0.33)
2,000
= 42,000 tons particulate/year discharged to the atmosphere
from dissolving tanks
The emissions from bark boilers are calculated from data obtained
in a study which the National Air Pollution Control Administration con-
ducted with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement in 1969.
The data used here are from 25 mills. These mills listed production ca-
pacities totalling 20,181 tons of pulp/day and reported use of bark and
wood for fuel in the amount of 8,591 tons/day. Of the 8,591 tons used
per day, 6,023 tons were burned in boilers utilizing fly-ash reinfection.
113
-------
An estimate of the amount of bark used in the total industry is obtained
by multiplying the amount of bark used in the 25 mills by the ratio of
the total capacity of the industry, 109,908 tons/day,1/to the capacity o:
the 25 mills. For boilers utilizing fly-ash reinfection, the amount of
particulate discharged to the atmosphere is calculated as follows.
Assume 50$ moisture content in the barki^
Assume 12$ of dry * raa-fcter from
6,023 x 2Q 181 x (1-0-50) x 0.12 = 1,960 tons/day discharged
from the source
Assume a 95$ operating efficiency of the cyclone collectors on
the reinjection system
Assume 300 operating days/year
1,960 x 300 x (1-0.95) = 29,500 tons/year discharged to the
atmosphere from bark boilers with fly-ash reinfection.
For boilers without fly-ash reinfection, the calculation is as follows.
The amount of bark burned in these boilers is 2,568 tons/day. Of the
2,568 tons/day, 860, approximately one-third, were burned in boilers for
which no fly-ash collectors were listed.
Assume 7$ of dry bark discharged as particulate matter from the
boiler ii/
Assume 50$ moisture content in the bark
discharged from the source
Assume two-thirds (l-860r2,568) of these boilers have dust
collectors of 95$ operating efficiency
488 x 300 x (1-0.67 x 0.95) = 52,800 tons/year discharged
to the atmosphere from bark boilers without fly-ash reinfection
The total amount of particulate emissions discharged to the atmosphere
from bark boilers is thus estimated at 82,000 tons/year. This estimate
does not include particulate matter from the combustion of coal and fuel
oil in the bark boilers.
If the assumption be made that the 25 mills were operating at
capacity, an emission factor for bark boilers can be calculated from the
above data as follows:
the boiler when
109,908
109 90ft
2,568 x 20^181 x (^~0*50) x C.07 = 488 tons/day
114
-------
8,591 tons wood x 2,000 _ x 1 day
day ton 20,181 tons pulp
= 850 lb. wet bark burned/ton of pulp
Assume 50$ moisture content
Assume 10$ of bone dry bark going up stack
850 x 0.50 x 0.10 = 42.5 lb. particulate/ton of pulp produced.
Therefore, 42.5 lb/ton is the emission factor for the source and
approximates the 35 lb/ton listed in Table 4.7-2.
4.7.4 Plywood, Particleboard, and Hardboard
The emissions from the manufacture of plywood, particleboard,
and hardboard are estimated from data presented in a report on this part
of the Forest Products Industry by the Mid-Willamette Valley Air Pollution
Authority in Salem, Oregon.i^/ The report lists emission factors for
various operations in the manufacture of these products; these and the
accompanying data in the report have been applied to the production nation-
wide. Particulate pollutants arise from drying and sanding of the finished
products and from burning the bark, trim, sawdust, and sanderdust not sold
or recycled. Burning is done either in wigwam burners or in boilers. The
emissions from wigwam burners are considered to be included in the esti-
mate for the total industry. The emissions from boilers are calculated
as follows. Approximately 30$ of the waste is burned in boilers; the
emission factor for this combustion is 2.6 lb. particulate/ton of wood
waste burned. The total amount of waste in plywood and by-product manu-
facturing averages approximately 475 dry tons/million sq. ft. (3/8 in.
basis) of plywood. The estimated production of plywood in the Halted
States in 1968 was 15,000,000,000 sq.. ft. on a 3/8 in. basis.
15,000,000,000 x i}ood^OOO x 0,30 x 2^0§0' = 2>780 tons/year,
particulate emissions from boilers
The dust from sanding machines is collected by cyclones J the
average emission to the atmosphere is approximately 10$ of the sanderdust
produced. Sanderdust from the manufacture of plywood, particleboard, and
hardboard comprises approximately 10$ of the total waste from these plants,
or 45 dry tons/million sq. ft. of plywood manufactured.
15,000,000,000 x jl^UUO^UUU x 0,10 = 67,000 tons/year, particulate
discharged from cyclones
115
-------
The waste from veneer dryers averages approximately 250 lb. particulate/
million sq. ft. of plywood.
15,000,000,000 x ooo^ooo x 2,000 = 3'750 tons/year, particulate
from veneer dryers
The estimate for particulate emissions from plywood and by-
products manufacture is tabulated as follows. Calculated emissions are
rounded to the nearest thousand. Excluded are emissions from wigwam
burners operated at plywood and by-product plants.
Boilers 3,000 tons particulate/year
Cyclones 67,000
Veneer Dryers 4,000
Total 74,000
The total amount of particulate pollutants from the Forest
Products Industry is estimated at 6-3/4 million tons per year. Six
million tons of this is from slash burning in the forests.
116
-------
REFERENCE LIST
FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
1. Private communications, Mr. Charles Buck, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
2. Wadleigh, C. H.> "Wastes in Relation to Agriculture and Forestry,"
Soil and Water Conservation Research Division, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1065, March 1968.
3. Sultzer, N. W., and C. E. Beaver, "Alkali Recovery by Electrical
Precipitation," Technical Association Section, Paper Trade Journal,
p. 33, January 23, 1936.
4. "Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood Pulping Industry,"
report of the National Air Pollution Control Administration, Division
of Process Control Engineering and Division of Economic Effects,
Cincinnati, Ohio, March 15, 1970.
5. Shah, I. S., "Pulp Plant Pollution Control," Chemical Engineering
Progress, 64 (9), pp. 66-77, September 1968.
6. Hand, C. E., "Some Aspects of Cottrell Precipitator Operation in the
Kraft Industry," Paper Trade Journal, 35, November 10, 1959.
7. Walther, J. E., and H. R. Aniberg, "A Positive Air Quality Control
Program at a New Kraft Mill," Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association. 20 (l), 9-18, January 1970.
8. Kenline, P. A., and J. M. Hales, "Air Pollution and the Kraft Pulping
Industry," Public Health Service Publication No. 999 AP-4, 5,
November 1963.
9. "A Study of Air Pollution in the Interstate Region of Lewiston, Idaho,
and Clarkston, Washington," Public Health Service Publication No.
999-AP-8, 23 and 36, December 1964.
10. "Proceedings of the International Conference on Atmospheric Missions
fre«a Sulfate Pulping," sponsored by U.S. Public Health Service,
National Council for Stream Improvement, University of Florida,
April 28, 1966, E. 0. Painter Printing Company, DeLand, Florida,
246-249.
117
-------
11. Bernhardt, A. A., and J. C. Buchanan, "Recovery of Dissolver Vent
Ctack Dorla Looses," TAPPI, 43_ (6), 191A-193A, June 1960.
I'd. Mick, Allen, and Dean McCargar, "Air Pollution Problems in Plywood,
Particleboard, and Hardboard Mills in the Mid-Willamette Valley,"
report by the Mid-Wallamette Air Pollution Authority, Salem, Oregon
March 24, 1969.
13. Statistical Abstracts, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1969, Table
No. 981.
14. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," report of the National Air Pollution
Control Administration, prepared by TRW, Environmental Health Service
Washington, D.C., pp. 3-24, April 1970. '
15. Boubel, R. W., "Particulate Emissions from Sawmill Waste Burners,"
Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon, Bulletin No. 42, pp. 7-8, August 1968.
16. "Air Pollution from the Kraft Pulping Industry," report to the Washington
Air Pollution Control Board, prepared by the Office of Air Quality
Control, Washington State Department of Health, Seattle, Washington
p. 6-C, May 1969.
118
-------
4.8 Lime
Dust from the manufacture of lime comes mainly from kilns. Other
sources are crushers and pulverizers, screens, hydrators, and bagging and
"bulk loading of product.
Emission factors and emissions calculated are shown in Table 4.8-1.
Emission factors were obtained for films and rock crushers. No information
was found on emissions for pulverizers, mills and hydrators. An emission
factor for materials handling plus the other sources for which no informa-
tion was found was assumed. Values of Cc and C^. used in the calculations
are discussed in Chapter 5, p. 224.
Dust from rotary kilns is estimated at 5 to 15$ of product,-i/
which is a range of 100 to 300 lb. of dust discharged from the kiln per
ton of product. A second source estimates dust loss at 5$ of limestone
charged, or 9$ of lime produced,—/ which is 180 lb/ton. Two stack sampling
results^/ list emission rates of 99 and 54 lb/ton of product for rotary
kilns. Reference 4 lists a factor of 430 lb/ton processed; this would be
approximately 215 lb/ton of product. Reference 2 lists an emission factor
of 7.7 lb. of dust/hour from a vertical kiln producing 25 tons/day. On a
process-weight basis, this rate is 7.4 lb. dust/ton of product. From con-
versation with personnel in the industry, production of lime from vertical
kilns is estimated at 10$ of the total. Based on these limited data an
emission factor of 180 lb/ton was chosen for dust discharged from rotary
kilns and coolers; a factor of 7 lb/ton is used for vertical kilns. Emis-
sion factors for kilns are considered to include emissions from coolers.
Where coolers are utilized, the customary arrangement is to provide one
system to collect dust from both kiln and cooler.
Calculation of particulate emissions from rotary kilns is as
follows. (Calcining of lime in the pulp and paper industry is not included.)
P = 19,000,000 x 0.90 tons of lime produced per year (1968) in
rotary kilns
ef = 180 lb. of dust discharged from kilns per ton of lime
produced
Cc = 93$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors
installed on rotary kilns
Cj. = 87$, percent of production capacity of rotary kilns on which
dust collectors are installed
E = (19,000,000 x 0.90)( 180)( 1-0.93 x 0.87) = 294,000 tons
2,000
dust discharged to the atmosphere from rotary kilns in 1968
119
-------
TAlrliK 1.8-1
rart'n'kate laiTcniai:
LIML MAHUFACTUKI-:
Source
I. Kilns and Coolers
A. Rotary Kilns and Coolers
B. Vertical Kilns
C. Fluid-Bed Kilns
Quanti ty
Material
Emission factor
18,000,000 tons lime (excl. pulp 8c paper)
16,200,000 tons 180 lb/ton lime
1,800,000 tons 7 lb/ton lime
Efficiency ol
Control (Cc)
0.95
0.97
Application j'
Control ( Cf. )
0.87
0.40
Cor.--r_
(c..-c._
o.ts-
0.29
i34,:::
4. OX
ro
o
II. Minor Sources
A. Stone Crushing and Screening
1 - Primary Crusher
2. Secondary Crusher
3. Pulverizing, Quicklime
4. Milling, Hydrated Line
B. Hydrator
C. Materials Handling
1. Conveyors
a. Transfer Points
b. Discharge to Bins,
Stockpiles
2. Elevators
a. Boots
b. Heads
5. Shipment of Product
a. Bagging Machines
b. Bulk Loading
(1) trucks
(2) freight cars
28,000,000 tons of rock
crushed for lime
Assumed for hydrator plus
materials handling
22 lb/ton of
rock crushed
2.0 lb/ton of
rock crushed
24 lb/ton of
rock crushed
5 lb/ton of
lime produced
0.80
0.95
0.95
0.25
0.80
0.80
0.20
0.76
0.76
264,000
0.95
0.80
0.76
11.000
Total for Lime Manufacture
:"3,000
-------
Calculation of particulate emissions from vertical kilns is as
follows.
P = 19,000,000 x 0.10, tons of lime produced per year in
vertical kilns (1968)
e^. = 7 lb/ton
Cc = 97$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors
installed on vertical kilns
= 40$, percent of production capacity of vertical kilns on
which dust collectors are installed
E = f19,000,000 x 0,10)(7 )(1-0.97 x 0.40) - 4,000 tons dust/year
2,000
For crushing of the limestone, the emission factor is taken from
Reference 4. For primary crushing, an emission factor of 22 lb. of dust
per ton of rock crushed is taken as the average of data listed. To this
factor is added the factor of 2 lb/ton for secondary crushing. The total
factor for rock crushing is thus 24 lb. dust per ton of rock crushed.
Dust from rock crushing is calculated as follows
P = 28,000,000 tons of rock crushed for manufacture of lime
ef =24 lb. dust per ton of rock crushed
Cc and C-fc * same as for the crushed stone industry
E = (28,000,000)(24)(l-0.80 x 0.25) _ 264,000 tons of dust from
2,000
rock crushed for lime
No data were found for the amount of quicklime which is pulverized
or the amount of hydrated lime which is milled. However, the total dust
from these sources is considered insignificant.
Three stack samples from state air pollution control agencies
give controlled emission factors of 3.7, 1.6, and 3.3 lb. particulate per
ton of product for kilns. This rate is approximately 0.15$ of the end
product. If the entire industry operated at this dust-collection effici-
ency , the dust discharged to the atmosphere from kilns would be:
E = 19,000,000 tons •Lime x 3 lt>> dus't x 1 x
year ton lime 2,000 ton
= 28,500 tons/year, a factor of 10 lower than calculated
previously
121
-------
REFERENCES
LIME INDUSTRY
1. Stern, A. C., Air Pollution, 2nd Edition, Vol. Ill, Academic Press,
New York, pp. 213-216, 1968.
2. Lewis, C. J., and B. B. Crocker, "The Lime Industry's Problem of
Airborne Dust," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
p. 36, January 1969.
3. Private communication from industrial source.
4. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," report of the Division of Air Quality
and Emission Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration;
April 1970, prepared by TRW Systems Group of TRW, Inc.; Contract No.
CPA 22-69-119, pp. 7-47.
122
-------
4.9 Clay Products
The clay products industries have as their finished materials a
variety of articles that are essentially silicates. These products may be
classified as: (l) whiteware; (2) heavy clay products; (3) refractories;
and (4) enamels and enameled metal. The three main raw materials used in
making common ceramic products are: (l) clay; (2) feldspar; and (3) sand.
In addition to these three principal raw materials, there is a wide variety
of other minerals, salts, and oxides that are used as fluxing agents and
special refractory ingredients. Included are: Borax, soda ash, cryolite,
alumina, chromite, and magnesite.i/
Clay or ceramic products are manufactured by a series of processes
involving grinding, screening, calcining, blending of the raw materials,
forming, drying or curing, firing and final cutting or shaping. Particulate
emissions occur during handling of raw materials, grinding, calcining,
screening and blending, and during cutting and shaping operations.
To facilitate emission calculations, the clay products industry
will be grouped into three main categories:
1. Ceramic Clay
a. Pottery and Stoneware
b. Floor and Wall Tile
c. Filter Activated Clays, Chemical, etc.
d. Fillers
e. Miscellaneous
2. Refractories
3. Heavy Clay Products
Emission factors and estimated emissions are summarized in
Table 4.9-1. Information was obtained on emission factors for all the
listed sources; however, very little information was obtained on dust-
collection practices. A short discussion of dust collection in the in-
dustry is given in Chapter 5, p. 230.
The raw materials for all products in these categories undergo
grinding and/or drying to some extent. The emission factors for these
operations were taken from Reference 1. In Reference 1, the results of
nine tests of controlled dryer exhaust gases were used to calculate emis-
sion factors. The uncontrolled emission factors, calculated using stack
test data and assumed collector efficiencies, ranged from 14-110 lb/ton.
An average of 70 lb/ton was chosen for dryers.
The emission factor for clay grinding was determined from test
data on one clay grinding mill. Uncontrolled emissions from this mill,
123
-------
TAELE 4.9-1
PARTICULATE MISSIONS
CLAY PRODUCTS
Efficiency
Appl3 cation
Net
of Control
of Control
Control
Briissions
Source
Quantity
Bnission Factor
Cc
Ct
Cc "Ct
tons/yr
Ceramic Clay
7,870,000 tons
<
A. Grinding
& of ceramics
76 lb/ton prod.
--
--
0.60
72,000
B. Drying
100)6 of ceramics
70 lb/ton prod.
--
—
0.60
110,000
Refractories
3,440,000 tons
A. Kiln-Fired
1. Calcining
20$ of fciln-fired
200 lb/ton prod.
—
--
0.64
25,000
2. Drying
30$ of kiln-fired
70 lb/ton prod.
—
—
0.64
13,000
3. Grinding
100$ of kiln-fired
76 lb/ton prod.
--
--
0.64
47,000
B. Castable Refracts.
550,000 tons
225 lb/ton prod.
--
—
0.77
14,000
C. Dead-Burned Magneslte
125,000 tons
250 lb/ton prod.
--
--
0.56
7,000
D. Mortars
120,000 tons
1. Grinding
76 lb/ton prod.
—
--
0.60
2,000
2. Drying
70 lb/ton prod.
—
--
0.60
2,000
£. Gunning Mixes
250,000 tons
76 lb/ton prod.
--
--
0.60
4,000
Heavy Clay Products
23,700,000 tons
A¦ Grinding
20$ of heavy clay
76 lb/ton prod.
—
--
0.60
72,000
B. Ikying
30$ of heavy clay
70 lb/ton prod.
—
—
0.60
99,000
Total for Clay Products
467,000
Note: Values reported for net control are assumed numbers.
-------
calculated from the test data and assumed collector efficiency, ranged
from 64-88 lb/ton. An average value of 76 lb/ton was chosen for clay
grinders.i/ The collector was a cyclone; the assumed efficiency was 75$.
The above emission factors for drying and grinding of clay are
assumed to be applicable for these processes in all phases of the clay
products industry. Emissions from each major category of clay products
are discussed in the following sections.
4.9.1 Ceramic Clay
The manufacture of the clay products grouped in this category
involve conditioning of the basic ores by several methods. These include
the separation and concentration of the minerals by screening, floating,
wet and dry grinding, and blending of the desired ore varieties. The
basic raw materials in ceramic clay manufacture are kaolinite and mont-
morillonite clays. These clays are refined by separation and bleaching,
blended, and after kiln drying are formed into whiteware, stoneware, and
other products such as diatomaceous earth used as a filter aid.
The manufacture of filter and. activated clays includes grinding
and wet or acid treating followed by drying and regrinding.
Particulate emissions occur from the drying and grinding steps.
The emission factors for these operations are 70 and 76 lb/ton, respectively.
Production figures for this category in 1968 were:
1. Pottery and Stoneware - 514,000 tons
2. Floor and Wall Tile - 577,000 tons
3. Filters. Catalyst, Chemicals, etc. - 3,781,000 tons
4. Fillers - 3,001,000 tons
Data were not found on the quantity of material subjected to
dry grinding or drying. However, from the process descriptions it would
appear that all the raw material is dried and that 60# is probably ground
by dry methods.
The degree of application of control is assumed to be 75#, and
the average efficiency of control equipment is assumed to be 80#.
Emissions were calculated as follows.
125
-------
Grinding
E = (7'87 10^ tons/yr)(0.60)( 76 lb/ton)(1-0.75 x 0.80^)
2 x 103 lb/ton
71,800 tons/yr
Drying
E = (?.87 x 106 tons/yr)(70 lb/ton)(1-0.75 x 0.80) =
2 x 10 lb/ton
110,180 tons/yr
Losses from stockpiles were not estimated. Total estimated
particulate emissions from this category are, therefore, 182,000 tons/year.
4.9.2 Refractories
Refractories are produced by kiln-fired and castable techniques.
Emissions for each process are outlined in the following paragraphs.
4.9.2.1 Kiln-Fired: The multiplicity of refractory products
results in a highly variable process flowsheet. Depending upon the
desired product, raw materials may be calcined or dried prior to mixing
and blending.
The decision to calcine or dry the raw material depends upon its
end use. The type of clay, refractory brick, and ultimate density are
among the factors that influence the decision.£i^/ Discussions with con-
tacts in the refractories industry indicate that approximately 20$ of the
raw material is calcined, and 30$ of the total clay and calcine goes
through a dryer. f '
Emission factors for rotary kilns were obtained from industry
and literature sources. Reference 2 provided factors of 65, 100, anri 135
lb/ton for three plants. Reference 3 indicated that emissions varied from
200-400 lb/ton. The value of 400 lb/ton was for a plant operating over
capacity. European data for rotary kilns indicate emission factors rang-
ing from 10-15$ of kiln input.^J The range of emission factors from these
sources is 65-400 lb/ton. An average value of 200 lb/ton was selected.
Dryer emission factors reported in European data ranged from
0.5-8$ of dryer input, with the average value being approximately 4,$.^/
This corresponds to 80 lb/ton and agrees closely with the value of 70
lb/ton reported in Reference 1. The value of 70 lb/ton was selected.
126
-------
The degree of application of control devices and their average
efficiency was estimated from discussions with industry representatives.
Plants constructed in the last 5-10 years generally have settling chambers
and cyclones on kilns and dryers.^/ Reference 3 indicated that in that
company all kilns and dryers were equipped with some type of control device.
The estimated overall efficiency of the equipment was 80$ on a mass basis.
On an industry wide basis, it was assumed that the degree of application'
of control was 80$, and the overall average efficiency of control equip-
ment was 80$.
Production of kiln-fired clay refractories totaled 3.44 million
tons in 1969.—/
Emissions from kiln-fired refractories plants were calculated
as follows.
Calcining (20$ of raw material is calcined)
E = (3.44 x 106 tons/yr)(0.2)(200 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.80) =
2 x 103
24,800 tons/yr
Drying (30$ of raw material is dried)
E = (3.44 x 106 tons/yr)(0.3)(70 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.80) _
2 x 103
13,000 tons/yr
Grinding (all raw material ground)
E = (3.44 x 10^ tons/yr)(76 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.80) _
2 x 103
47,120 tons/yr
Emissions from storage bins and stockpiles were not estimated
because of lack of data regarding quantities stored and emission rates.
Total particulate emission from refractory clay manufacture is, therefore,
estimated to be 84,920 tons/year.
4.9.2.2 Castable: Castable or fused-cast refractories are
manufactured by carefully blending such components as alumina, zirconia,
silica, chrome, and magnesia, melting the mixture in sin electric arc
furnace at temperatures of 3200-4500°P, pouring into molds, and slowly
cooling to the solid state.
127
-------
Particulate emissions occur from the drying, crushing, handling
and blending phases of this process, the actual melting process, and
in the molding phase. Emission factors for cast refractories were taken
from Reference 1, and are summarized in Table 4.9-2. The emission factors
in Table 4.9-2 are based on limited data and cover a wide range.
TABLE 4.9-2
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
CASTABLE REFRACTORIES MANUFACTURING
Process
Raw Material Dryer
Raw Material Crushing
and. Processing
Electric Arc Melting
Curing Oven
Molding and Shakeout
Emissions, Lb/Ton of Feed Material
Uncontrolled
30
120 (100-190)
50 (10-88)
Keg.
25
Controlled Type of Control
0.3
7
45
0.8
10
0.3
Baghouse
Scrubber
Cyclone
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
It is assumed that all raw materials go through drying and
crushing, prior to melting. An overall emission factor of 225 lb/ton will,
therefore, be used for calculating emissions. It is also assumed that the
degree of application of control is 85$ and that the average efficiency of
control is 90$.
Production of castable refractories totaled 550,000 tons in 1969 ..§/
Emissions from castable refractory manufacture were calculated
as follows.
E - (5.5 x 105 tons/yr)(225 lb/ton)(1-0.85 x 0.90) ^
2 x 103
14,300 tons/yr
4.9.2.3 Dead-Burned Magnesite: Calcined or "dead-burned"
magnesite is obtained by firing naturally occurring magnesium carbonate
to temperatures of 1540-2000°C. The calcining may be done in rotary or
vertical kilns. Reference 5 lists an emission factor of 8-10$ of the kiln
128
-------
input for vertical kilns, while Reference 4 indicated that emissions may-
be as high as 25$ of the charge for rotary kilns. An emission factor of
250 lb/ton is assumed to represent an average for vertical and rotary
kilns. The degree of application of control is assumed to be 70$, and
the average efficiency of control equipment is assumed to be 80$. Pro-
duction for the year 1969 was 119,831 tons.
Emissions were calculated as follows.
E = x 105 tons/yr)(250 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.70) _ gjg00 tons/yr
2 x 105
4.9.2.4 Mortars, Plastic Refractories, Ramming Mixes, and Gunning
Mixes: Mortars consist of finely ground refractory grains and plasticizers
to lay up refractory brick. They may be manufactured wet (premixed) or dry,
and are generally compounded in cylindrical paddle-type mixers. It is
assumed that all these materials go through drying and fine grinding. The
emission factor for drying is assumed to be 70 lb/ton, and that for grind-
ing 76 lb/ton. The degree of application of control is assumed to be 75$,
and the average efficiency of control equipment is assumed to be 80$. Pro-
duction for the year 1969 was 120,326 tons/year.
Emissions were calculated as follows.
Grinding
E = (1.2 x 105 tons/yr)(76 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.75) = ly824 tons/yr
2 x 103
Drying
E = (1-2 x 105 tons/yr)(70 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.75) = 1)6Q0 ^iib/vx
2 x 103
Ramming mixes are mixtures of refractory grains and plastic
clays from which a plastic mixture is formed by adding water. Coarse
refractories are used, and it is assumed that fine grinding and drying
do not occur. Therefore, particulate emissions are assumed negligible.
Gunning mixes are mixtures of refractory grains which are
applied by a spray gun. Gunning mixes are generally finer grained than
regular castables and plastics. It is assumed that these materials are
all subjected to fine grinding, and that control practice corresponds to
that assumed for mortar production. Production of mixes in 1969 was
249,385 tons/year .§J
129
-------
Emissions were calculated as follows,
E - (2-S x IPS tons/yr)( 76 lb/ton)(1-0.60 x 0.75) = ^ ^
2 x 103
4.9.3 Heavy Clay Products
The manufacture of brick and related products such as clay pipe,
common brick, drain tile, and kindred products involves grinding, screen-
ing, blending of the raw materials, forming, diying or curing, firing and.
final cutting or shaping.
Particulate emissions occur during handling of raw materials,
grinding, screening, and blending, and. during cutting and shaping operations,
Fine grinding (i.e., beyond secondary crushing) is not usually
necessary for heavy clay products. When grinding is performed, wet grind-
ing is generally preferred. No data are available regarding the quantity
of material actually ground, or that ground by the dry method. It is
assumed that 20$ of the raw materials undergo dry grinding.
The extent of raw material drying is also not known, and it is
assumed that 30$ of the raw material is dried.
Emission factors are 70 lb/ton for dryers and 76 lb/ton for clay
grinders.
/The production of heavy clay products totaled 23.7 million tons
in 1968.--/
The degree of application of control is assumed to be 75$, an^
the average efficiency of control equipment is assumed to be 80$.
Emissions were calculated as follows.
Grinding
(23.7 x 106 tons/yr)(0.2)(76 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.75)
2 x io» =
72,000 tons/yr
Drying
E = (23.7 x 106 tons/yr)(0.3)(70 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0,7$) _
2 x 10s
99,500 tons/yr
130
-------
Losses from stockpiles were not estimated as no data were found
on tannage stockpiled or storage procedures. Emissions from heavy clay
products curing and firing are negligible unless coal is used to fire the
kilns. Coal-fired kilns are not widely used and emissions from these units
were not estimated.
Total particulate emissions from heavy clay manufacture are
estimated to be 171,500 tons/year.
Estimated emissions from clay or ceramics products are summarized
below.
I. Ceramic Clay
II. Refractories
a. Kiln-fired - 84,920
b. Castable - 14,300
c. Dead-Burned
Magnesite - 6,600
d. Mortars - 3,500
e. Gunning Mixes - 5,800
113,120
III. Heavy Clay Products
Total
182,000 tons/yr
113,120 tons/yr
171,500 tons/yr
466,620 tons/yr
Table 4.9-1 presents a detailed breakdown of the factors that
lead to these numbers.
131
-------
REFERENCES
CLAY PRODUCTS
1. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors/'report of the Division of Air Quality
and Emissions Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration;
April 1970, prepared by TRW Systems Group of TRW, Inc.; Contract No.
CPA 22-69-119.
2. Private communication, R. Besalke, A. P. Greene Company.
3. Private communication, R. Crawford, Harbison-Walker Refractories
Company.
4. Budmikov, P. P., Technology of Ceramics and Refractories, MIT Press,
1964.
5. Rutman, Z. M., "Purification of Waste Gases from Heat Units in
Refractory Factories," Oaneupory. No. 9, 5-10, Septemter 1964.
6. Current Industry Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce.
7. Kirk and Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 4, 2nd
Edition, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1964.
8. Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, 1968.
132
-------
4.10 Primary Nonferrous Metals
The nonferrous metals produced in sufficient quantity to be of
significance with regard to quantity of particulate air pollutants are
aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc. The designation, "primary," indicates
the extractive industries. The nature of the raw materials differentiates
the primary industries from the secondary industries, for which the raw
materials are scrap metal. Aluminum is obtained from its oxide; copper,
lead, and zinc are obtained mostly from their sulfides. To process alumi-
num oxide (alumina), electrolytic refining is the most economical means.
The processing of copper, lead and zinc utilizes roasting to remove sulfur
and smelting to refine the metal. For high purity, electrolysis is also
used as a final refining step for copper and zinc. Over 85$ of primary
copper production and approximately 40$ of primary zinc is electrolytically
refined.
A fume of suhmicron size is a characteristic of particulate pol-
lutants from the primary nonferrous industries.
A summary of emission factors and estimated particulate emissions
is shown in Table 4.10-1. Information and data on emission factors were
obtained for most of the processing equipment in the industry. Emissions
date, was not found for fire refining and slag furnaces used in copper
smelting or for drossing kettles, softening furnaces, de-silvering kettles,
cupeling furnaces and refining kettles used in the lead industry. Value'
of Cc and Ct used in the calculations are discussed in Chapter 5, pp. 225-230.
The main source of data and information intthis chapter is the
report, "Systems Study far Control of Emissions, Primary Nonferrous Smelt-
ing Industry," prepared by the Arthur G. McKiee Company for the Division of
Process Control Engineering of NAPCA.
All production figures used in estimating quantities of emissions
were obtained from the 1968 Minerals Yearbook.2/
4.10.1 Aluminum
Particulate pollution from the production of aluminum comes from
the following sources: (l) grinding and calcining in the preparation of
alumina, (2) electrolytic cells, (3) ovens used to bake electrodes, (4) hold-
ing furnaces; and (5) handling of materials. Over 85$ of the bauxite used
in this country is imported; and most of it is ground and dried before ship-
ment. Emissions from the beneficiation of bauxite are thus assumed to be
insignificant. To produce alumina, bauxite is ground and reacted with chem-
icals to produce the hydroxide, Al(CH)3, which is calcined to dehydrate the
133
-------
TAI'IjF 4.10-1
part-icjlate emission
FK IMA?Y NQI.TKF-.^OUS METALS EDUGTHIES
4iantity of Material
Emission Factor
Ef f.r.. -
ency of
Control
(Cc)
Applica-
tion of
Control
(Ct)
Net
Control
(c;-ct)
Emissions
(t^ns/yr)
I. Aluminum
A. Preparation of Alumina
1. Grinding of Bauxite
2. Calcining of Hydroxide
B- Aluminum Kills
1. Soderberg Cells
a. Horizontal stud
b. Vertical stud
2. Pre-Bake Cells
C. Materials Handling
13,000,000 tons of bauxite
5,840,000 tons of alumina
800,000 tons of aluminum
700,000 tons of aluminum
1,755,000 tons of aluminum
3,300,000 -tons of aluminum
6 lb/ton of bauxite
200 lb/ton of alumina
144 lb/ton of aluminum
84 lb/ton of aluminum
63 lb/ton of aluminum
10 lb/ton of aluminum
0.40
0.64
0.64
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.35
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.64
0.64
0.32
Total from primary aluminum industry
8,000
58,000
35,000
10.000
20,000
11,000
142,000
II.
Copper
A. Ore Crushing
170,000,000
tons
of ore
2 lb/ton of ore
0.0
0.0
0.0
B. Roasting
40jt of
1,437,000
tons
of copper
168 lb/ton copper
0.85
1.0
0.85
C. Reverberator/ Furnace
1,437,000
tons
of copper
206 lb/ton copper
0.95
0.85
0.61
D. Converter
1,437,000
tons
of copper
235 lb/ton copper
0.95
0.85
o.ei
E. Fire Refilling
F. Slag Furnaces
G. Materials Handling: Ore, Limestone
Slag, etc.
1,437,000
tons
of copper
10 lb/ton copper
0.90
0.35
0.32
Total from
primary copper industry
III.
Zinc
A. Ore Crushing
18,000,000
tons
of ore
2 lb/ton of ore
0.0
0.0
0.0
B. Boasting
1. Flu id i zed-Bed, Suspension
75$ of
1,020,000
tons
of zinc
2,000 lb/ton zinc
0.98
1.0
0.98
2. Bopp, Miltiple-Hearth
15jt of
1,020,000
tons
of zinc
333 lb/ton zinc
0.85
1.0
0.85
C. Sintering and Sinter Crusbing
exyf, of
1,020,000
tons
of zinc
180 lb/ton ainc
0.95
1.0
0.95
D. Distillation
e&f, of
1,020,000
tons
of zinc
0.0
0.0
0.0
E. Materials Handling
1,020,000
tons
of zinc
7 lb/ton zinc
0.90
0.35
0.32
Total from primary zinc industry
IV.
Lead
A. Ore Crushing
4,500,000
tons
of ore
2 lb/ton ore
0.0
0.0
0.0
B. Sintering
467,000
tons
of lead
520 lb/ton lead
0-95
0.90
0.86
C. Blast Furnace
467,000
tons
of lead
250 lb/ton lead
0.85
0.96
0.83
D. Drossing Kettle
-
E- Softening Furnace
-
F. De-Silvering Kettles
-
G- Cupeling Furnpces
-
H. Refining Kettles
-
I. Dross Reverberatory Furnace
467,000
tons
of lead
20 lb/ton lead
_
_
0.50
J. Materials Handling
467,000
tons
of lead
5 lb/toji lead
0-90
0.35
0.32
Total from primary lead industiy
Total from nonferroas metaJs industries
170,000
7,000
26,000
33,000
5,000
243,000
18,000
15,000
4,000
3,000
15,000
2,000
57,000
4,000
17,000
10,000
2,000
34,000
476,000
-------
hydroxide and form alumina. Data from industrial sources—/ indicate that
the emission rate from the calcining of the hydroxide is approximately
200 lb/ton of alumina produced. For an emission factor for the grinding
of bauxite, the process is assumed to be the equivalent of the pulverizing
of phosphate rock for the manufacture of wet-process phosphoric acid, and
the emission factor for this process, 6 lb/ton of rock ground, is assumed
applicable to the grinding of bauxite. The efficiency of dust collection
in the grinding of bauxite is assumed to be 80$.
The amount of particulate pollution from the preparation of
alumina is estimated as follows:
1. Grinding of bauxite
6 tons part- generated
E = 13,000,000 tons bauxite x 2>QOO ^ of baucite
(1-0.8) tons part, to atm.
x —— » 7,800 tons
tons generated '
2. Calcining of alumina
200 tons part, generated
E . 5,840,000 tone of alumina x 2>000 alumina
x (1-0.9) tons part, to atm. , g8 toM
tons generated
Emissions from electrolytic cells vary with the type of cell. The
Soderberg cells, horizontal stud and vertical stud, have higher emission
rates than pre-bake cells. In Soderberg cells, the anodes are baked in the
cell from a paste which flows continuously to the cell. The baking of the
paste produces a hydrocarbon mist which is added to the particulate effluent
from the materials in the bath. While the pre-bake cell has a lower emis-
sion rate than the Soderberg cells, mills using pre-bake cells discharge<¦
particulate pollutants from the ovens in which these anodes are baked.
The furnaces used for holding the molten metal after it is tapped
. from the electrolytic cells are also a source in all aluminum mills. Emis-
sions from this source include compounds of chlorine, which is used as a
purifying reagent. Table 4.10-2 lists thq various emission factors used to
calculate emissions from aluminum wm»
the
3
135
-------
TAJ3IE 4.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS FOB VARIOUS SOURCES
IN ALUMINUM MILIS
2.
3.
Source
Electrolytic Cells
A. Soderberg
1. Horizontal stud
2. Vertical stud
B. Pre-bake
Anode Ovens
Holding Furnace
Emission Factor
(lb. particulate per ton of Al)
140
80
55
4
4
To be noted in the calculations is the value of 1.00 representing
extent of pollution control in the industry. This extent of control is due
to the fact that all "pot lines," i.e., rows of electrolytic cells in the
mills, have wet scrubbers primarily for control of gaseous fluoride emis-
sions. The relatively low values for the efficiencies of collection of
particulate emissions, 0.40 and 0.64, result from the design of the scrub-
bers for collection of gaseous emissions. The quantity of emissions from
aluminum mills is estimated as follows:
1. Soderberg, horizontal stud
Emission factor: (140 + 4) lb/ton of aluminum produced
Production: 800,000 tons cf Al
E . (e00,000)(U4)(l-0.40 X 1.00) . 34 600 tons
2,000
2. Soderberg, vertical stud
Emission factor: (80 + 4) lb/ton of aluminum produced
Production: 700,000 tons of Al
£ . (700,000)(at)(l-0.6* * 1-0) . 10<600 tono
2,000
3. Pre-Bake
Emission factor: (55 + 4+4) lb/ton of aluminum produced
Production: 1,755,000 tons of Al
E . (lf 755f000)(65)(1-0*64 x 1.0) _
* 2,000
136
-------
To calculate a quantity for dust from materials handling, the
same factor as that for this source in the copper industry is used, i.e.,
10 lb/ton of aluminum produced. The quantity is calculated as follows:
E = 3,300,000 tons A1 x —"**° x ^ x (1-0.90 x 0.35) 3 11,000 tons
ton of A1 2,000 lb.
Table 4.10-1 shows that the emissions from electrolytic cells
are 65,000 tons/year for a production of 3,300,000 tons of aluminum. The
emission rate is approximately 40 lb/ton of aluminum produced. The state
of Washington, in which approximately 30$ of aluminum is produced, reports
12,500 tons of particulate emissions for a production of 1,000,000 tons of
aluminum. This leads to an emission rate of 25 lb/ton.§/ Two plants using
pre-bake cells are reported to have reduced their emission rates to "close
to 15 lb/ton," which is the Washington standard for aluminum mills.
4.10.2 Copper
Particulate pollution from the smelting of copper comes from the
following sources: (l) crushing of ore, (2) roasters, (3) smelting furnaces,
(4) converters; and (5) handling of materials. Slag furnaces and furnaces
for fire refining are of less significance.
4.10.2.1 Crushing of Ore; Estimate of particulate emissions from
crushing of ore are based on the emission factors for these operations in
the crushed stone industry*-/ The factor used here is the sum of the factors
far primary and secondary crushing—2 lb/ton of rock through the primary
crusher. Copper ore is crushed first in gyratory crushers and then in cone
crushers; water is then added to form a slurry which is ground to the size
required for making concentrates. Dust is thus produced only in the
crushers. The amount of dust from crushing is estimated as follows:
E ¦ 170,000,000 tons ore x 2 lb. dust x 1 ton „ 17o 000 tons
year ton Qre 2,000 lb.
4.10.2.2 Roasting; Roasting is done in copper smelting only on
ores in which the sulfur content is relatively high. Of 16 copper smelters
in the United States, seven roast their concentrates. The others charge
their concentrates directly to the reverberatory furnaces. It is assumed
that the seven plants which roast concentrates account for 40$ (7/l6)
of the production of refined copper.
137
-------
The emission factor is obtained from data on a flow diagram of
a hypothetical model of a copper smelter utilizing a roaster.^/
dust collected from roaster
dust to atmosphere
dust from roaster
tons copper produced 230
19.4 tons dust __ 168 lb. dust
ef = x 2,000 lb. = ~——
230 tons Cu ton Cu
These data are for a fluid-"bed roaster. .Not all roasters in use are fluid-
bed roasters; however, these roasters have been in use in the industry for
over 3D years, and recent installations have been of the fluid-bed type.
It is assumed that the emission factor calculated here is applicable to the
industry. Estimate of the dust from roasters is as follows:
E = (1,437,000 x 0.40) tons Cu from roasted cones, x ' dustl.
ton Cu
x (1-0.85 x 1.0) x —L %oxl— = 7,250 tons
2,000 lb.
4.10.2.3 Reverberatory Furnace: Data to calculate the emission
factor for furnaces were obtained from the same source as the data used to
calculate the emission, factor for roasters. Data were obtained from two
flow diagrams, one is' a model for a plant without roasters.The emis-
sion factors are 201 lb. particulate per ton of copper produced for the
plant with no roasting and 212 lb/ton for the plant utilizing roasting.
The average of the two factors, 206 lb/ton, is used. Estimate of the
emissions from reverberatory furnaces is as follows:
E = 1,437,000 tons Cu x 206 lb- particulate x x 0_Q5j
ton Cu '
1 ton = 28,100 tons
2,000 lb.
4 10.2.4 Converters: Data to calculate the particulate emissions
from converters are obtained from the same source as the data used to cal-
culate the emission factors for roasters and reverberatory furnaces. The
138
-------
average emission factor for converters obtained from data on the two flew
diagrams is 245 lb. particulate per ton of copper produced. Estimate of
the emissions from converters is as follows:
E = 1.437,000 x—^-x (1-0.95 x 0.85) = 33,300 tons
2,000 N
4.10.2.5 Handling of Materials: The estimate of dust from the
handling of materials is based on a factor of 1.7 lb/ton reported for the
crushed stone industry. Included in the operations of materials handling
are "general screening, conveying and handling."lJ This factor is increased
to 10 lb. dust/ton of copper produced as the emission rate for handling
solid materials consumed in and produced by the smelting of copper. (See
discussion of emission factor for materials handling in Section 4.5.8.)
Estimate of the amount of dust from materials handling is as follows:
E = 1,437,000 tons Cu x 10 Ib" dust x 1 ton x (1-0.90 x 0.35) = 4,900 tons/yr
ton Cu 2,000 lb.
Table 4.10-1 shows that the emissions from the process equipment
(roasters, furnaces, converters) total 67,000 tons for a production of
1,437,000 tons of copper. The rate of emissions is approximately 90 lb/ton
of copper produced. Data from the state of Arizona®/ for smelters which
account for over 50$ of copper production show an emission rate of 19 lb/ton
of concentrate. If an average of 25# Cu is assumed for the concentrate,
the emission rate for the Arizona data is 75 lb/ton of copper produced.
4.10.3 Zinc
Particulate emissions from primary zinc smelting come from (l)
crushing of ore, (2) roasting of concentrates, (3) sintering, (4) distilla-
tion; and (5) materials handling. Slag-fuming furnaces, which distill zinc
from the slags from lead furnaces, are a less significant source.
4.10.3.1 Crushing of Ore: The emission factor for dust from
crushing of ore is the same as that used for copper ore—2 lb/ton of ore
crushed. Data on quantities of ore mined and the assay of zinc in them are
not readily available. Reference 11 reports the recoverable zinc content
of domestic ores mined in 1968 as 529,446 tons. Reference 12, published
in 1947, states that the "average zinc content of ores mined in this country
is about 3From these data, the quantity of ore mined is calculated
as 17,600,000 tons. The quantity of dust from crushing this aoouttt of ore
is estimated as follows:
2 lb. dust 1 ton /
E ¦ 17,600,000 tons are x x " ¦ 17,600 tons/yr
' ton ore 2,000 1b. '
139
-------
4.10.3.2 Roasting: Roasting of zinc concentrates is done in a
variety of roasters . The oldest type utilizes a raking action to move the
concentrate through the roaster. The newer types utilize a pneumatic-
suspension principle in which hot air is blown through the concentrate and
which requires a finely ground concentrate. Most prominent among the latter
type has been the fluid-bed roaster; however, in the zinc industry a "fluid-
column" roaster has been developed, in which the feed is in the form of
pellets and the discharge does not require sintering. Fluid-bed roasters
have high rates of dust emissions; 70-85$ of the concentrate charged is
carried out of the roaster in the effluent gas stream. The fluid-column
roaster is reported to generate dust in the amount of only 17-18$ of the
feed.
Approximately 75$ of zinc production comes from plants which use
either fluid-bed or suspension roasters. The suspension roaster utilizes
mechanical rakes, but the emission rate is similar to the rate for fluid-
bed roasters. The following data on the amount of dust generated are ob-
tained from the literature.
Fluid-bed roasters
20-77$ of feed§/
70-85$i/
Suspension (flash) roasters
60$ of feedi/
50$
From these data a value of 60$ is taken as a representative emission rate
for the 75$ of the industry that utilizes fluid-bed and suspension roasting.
Concentrates fed to roasters are assumed to average 60$ Zn. The emission
factor for fluid-bed and suspension roasters is thus:
0.6 ton dust 2,000 lb. 100 tons feed 2,000 lb. dust
f ton feed ton 60 tons Zn ton Zn produced
The dust emissions from this segment of the industry are estimated as
follows:
E = (1,020,000 x 0.75)(2,000)(—i—)(l-1.0 x 0.98) = 15,300 tons
2 j 000
Of the other 25$ of production, approximately 10$ is from oxide ores which
are not roasted. The remaining 15$ is roasted in Ropp or multiple-hearth
roasters. The emission rates for these roasters range from 5-15$ of the
feed; 10$ is taken as an average. The emission factor for a concentrate
140
-------
of 6O56 Zn is 333 lb. dust per ton of zinc produced. The quantity of dust
emissions from roasting for this segment of the industry is estimated as
follows:
333
E = (1,020,000 X 0.15 >(27000) (l-l.o x 0.85) = 3 ,830 tons/yr
4.10.3.3 Sintering: Dust comes from sintering machines and
crushing of the sinter. Five to ten percent of feed to the sinter machines,
which averages 65# Zn, Is carried out in the effluent gas stream. An emis-
sion factor is calculated as approximately 250 lb. dust per ton of zinc
produced. Information from an industrial source gives an emission rate of
approximately 0.04 ton of dust per ton of sinter produced. At an assay of
65# Zn, the emission factor on a basis of ton of zinc produced would be
125 lb/ton. The average of these factors, 180 lb/ton, Is used to estimate
the quantity of emissions. In making this estimate, account must be taken
of the zinc produced electrolytically since the roasted concentrate used
for electrolytic production is not sintered. Approximately 40# of zinc
production is by electrolysis..3/
(1,020,000 x 0.60)(180)(1-1.0 x 0.95) ...
E = — g 000 = 2>750 tons of duSt from
' sintering machines
4.10.3.4 Distillation: Because zinc vapor burns readily in air,
a minute quantity of vapor is allowed to escape from condensers in order
to prevent the entrance of air. Information from an industrial sourceiS/
indicates that the emission rate is 12 lb. of particulate (zinc oxide)
per ton of zinc produced. An emission rate of 0.5# per ton of zinc in the
ore is published in the literature The quantity of particulate emissions
from distillation is estimated as follows:
E = (1,020,000 x 0.60) (—~)= 3,680 tons
' 2,000
Also a source of pollution in the distillation process is broken
retorts, the loss from which may exceed the loss frem venting condensers.
This loss is reported as 1.8# of zinc in the ore and is computed as the
difference between accountable disposition of zinc in the smelting process
and the amount of zinc which entered the process.2^/ Since recovery of
zinc in the ore exceeds 90#, the emission factor based on ton of zinc
produced would be approximately the sane as the factor based on ton of zinc
in the ore. The quantity of particulate emissions from broken retorts is
estimated as follows:
(1,020,000 x 0.60)(0.018) = 11,016 tons
141
-------
The total particulate emissions from distillation are thus esti-
mated at 15,000 tons.
4.10.3.5 Materials Handling; The emission factor for materials
handling in zinc smelting is set in relation to the factor set for this
source in the copper industry. Since the ratio of ore consumed to metal
obtained is lower for zinc than for copper, the emission factor is lowered.
A factor of 7 lb. dust per ton of zinc produced is assumed. The amount
of dust from materials handling is estimated as follows*.
7
E = (1,020,000) (^ooo") (I"0,90 x °*35) = 2,430 tons
4.10.4 Lead
The main sources of particulate emissions in lead smelting are;
(1) ore crushing; (2) sintering; (3) blast furnaces; (4) dross reverbera-
tory furnaces; and (5) materials handling.
4.10.4,1 Crushing of ore: The emission factor for dust from
crushing of lead ore is the same as that used for the crushing of zinc
and copper ores--2 lb. dust per ton of ore crushed. The quantity of ores
crushed is an estimated quantity. The recoverable lead content of ores
mined in 1968 was 359,000 tons;ii/ the assay of lead ore was 6 to 10# Pb.14/
With the assumption that the average Pb assay is 8#, the quantity of ore
mined is calculated as 4,500,000 tons. The quantity of dust from crushing
this amount of ore is estimated as follows:
2 lb. dust 1 ton , ,
E = 4,500,000 tons ore x tQn Qre * 2,000 lb. " 4'5°° tonS
4.10.4.2 Sintering: The dust and fume load is usually from
5 to 20# of the feed. Average assay of lead in the feed to sinter machlnes
is 37# Pb. The range of emissions calculated £rom these data is as follovs :
2,000 lb. dust 1 ton feed
ef = (0.05-0.20) x ton feed x q.37 ton Pb
260-1,040 lb. dust
ton Pb produced
142
-------
Since the geometric mean has been found to approximate the median more
closely than the arithmetic mean for wide ranges of emission factors, the
geometric mean, 520 lb. dust per ton of lead produced, is used to estimate
the dust emissions from sintering. Estimate of quantity of dust from
sintering is as follows.
520
E = (467,000)(2jo5o)(1-0.95 x 0.90) = 17,000 tons/yr
4.10.4.3 Blast Furnaces: Information on particulate-emission
rates for blast furnaces is limited to rates expressed on a time basis,
tons of dust per 24-hr. period, in a flow diagram-i^/ Listed are 9.7 tons
of dust from the blast furnace and 22.0 tons of dust from the sintering
machines. An emission factor for blast furnaces is obtained as a ratio to
tbe emission factor for sintering.
_ 9.7 tons dust from blast furnaces 520 lb. dust from sintering
22.0 tons dust from sintering ton Fb produced
= 250 lb. dust from blast furnace per ton of lead produced
The quantity of dust emissions from blast furnaces Is estimated
as follows:
250
E = (467,000)(2^oqq)(1-0•85 x 0.98) = 9,900 tons
4.10.4.4 Dross Reverberatory Furnaces: The dross in lead re-
fining comes from the molten material tapped from the blast furnaces. The
molten material is the blast-furnace bullion. The dross contains up to
50lead-/ as well as recoverable amounts of copper, and it is processed in
a reverberatory furnace.
The emission factor for dross reverberatory furnaces Is estimated
from data in Reference 9. Dust from the reverberatory is approximately
80 lb/ton of the dross charged to it, and the dross charged is 10-30^ of
tbe "blast-furnace bullion. The rest of the blast-furnace bullion, approxi-
mately 80$, is lead bullion, and it is assumed that all this lead ie re-
tained as final product. The emission factor is calculated as follows.
Mid-points of the ranges are used in making the calculation.
143
-------
lb. dust from reverb. lb. dust x tons dross x tons bl.-furn. buT
ton Fb produced ~ ton dross ton bl.-furn. ton Pb produced
= 80 x 0.2 x -i-
0.8
= 20 lb. dust from reverberatory furnaces
per ton of lead produced
Estimate of the quantity of particulate emissions from dross reverberatory
furnaces is as follows.
E = (467,000) (J=0__)(i_o.50) = 2,330 tons
2,000
4.10.4.5 Materials Handling; Hie emission factor for materials
handling in lead smelting is set in relation to the factors set for this
source in the copper and zinc industries. Since the ratio of ore consumed,
to metal obtained is lower than for zinc and copper, the emission factor
assumed for the lead industry is the lowest of the three. A factor of
5 lb. dust per ton of lead produced is used. The amount of dust from mate-
rials handling is estimated as follows.
E = (467,000)(_^—) (1-0.90x0.35) = 800 tons
2,000
144
-------
REFERENCE LIST
PRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS
1. Private communications, industrial sources.
2. "Air Pollution from the Primary Aluminum Industry," a report to the
Washington Air Pollution Control Board prepared by the Office of
Air Quality Control, Washington State Department of Health, Seattle,
Washington, 1970.
3. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Report of the National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Washington, D.C., pp. 7-26, April 1970.
4. "Systems Study for Control of Emissions, Primary Nonferrous Smelting
Industry," Report of the National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1969.
5. Private communication, Office of Air Quality Control, Washington State
Department of Health, Seattle, Washington.
6. Private communication, Division of Air Pollution Control, Arizona
State Health Department.
7. Kirk and Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, First Edition,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, Vol. 15, 1956.
8. Private communication, industrial source.
9. 1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II, Metals, Minerals, and Fuels,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1969.
10. D. M. Liddel, Handbook of Nonferrous Metallurgy, McGraw-Hill, Second
Edition, p. 448, 1945.
11. Stern, A. C., Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, Academic Press, New York,
p. 179, 1968.
145
-------
4.11 Fertilizer and. Phosphate Rock
Because of the close industrial connection between phosphate rock
and fertilizer, these two industries are considered together. Approxi-
mately 50% of phosphate rock is used in fertilizer manufacture in this
country. One third is exported.
A summary of emission factors and estimated emissions is given
in Table 4.11-1. Information and data on emissions were found for the fol
lowing: dryers, grinders and calciners used in beneficiation of phosphate
rock; evaporators and prilling towers used in the manufacture of ammonium
nitrate; rock pulverizers and acid digesters used in the manufacture of we*t
process phosphoric acid; dryers, coolers, and granulators used in granula-
tion of phosphate fertilizers; and machines for bagging fertilizer. No
formation or data on emissions were found for the following: dryers and
coolers used in the manufacture of ammonium nitrate and urea; prilling
towers used in the manufacture of urea; screens and mills used in the man^
facture of phosphate fertilizers; crystallizers and dryers used in the
manufacture of ammonium sulfate; and materials handling equipment in gene**
Values of Cc and C-^ are discussed in Chapter 5, pp. 230-231.
4.11.1 Phosphate Rock
Phosphate rock is mined mostly as a strip-mining operation; and
in Florida, where approximately 75$ of phosphate rock is produced, much of
the stripping is a dredging of underwater deposits. Sources of particulate
air pollution are drying and grinding of the washed rock, and calcining to
remove organic material and reduce carbonate content. The amount of phos-
phate rock which may be produced on the premises of fertilizer plants, and
which might therefore be attributable to fertilizer production is not know*}
and no attempt is made to estimate it. The dust emissions estimated undex- '
this heading are those from drying and grinding of the rock wherever they
may arise. However, the rock used in fertilizer manufacture is assumed to
undergo a final pulveriz'ing in a roller mill at the fertilizer plant, and
the dust from this grinding is attributed to fertilizer manufacture.
The emission factor for dryers is estimated from data furnished
by air pollution control agencies. Five emission factors, ranging from 1 ^
to 260 lb. dust discharged from the dryer per ton of rock produced, have q,
geometric mean of 12 lb/ton. These factors, which are calculated from sta.
samples on effluent streams from control equipment and reported efficienci
of the equipment, are tabulated here.
146
-------
TABIX 4.11-1
PARTICULAR EMISSIONS
PTOSPHATE ROCK AND WWACTOE OF F8RTILIZBB
Applica-
Efficiency tion of
C. Dryer and cooler
D. Materials harvlling
1. Elevators
a. boots
b. heads
2. Conveyors
a. transfer points
b. discharge to bins, silos
3. Shipment of product
a. bagging
b. bulk loading
III. Urea-
IV
as Ammonium Nitrate
Phosphate Fertilisers
A. Rock pulverizing
B. Fluoride particulate from
acid-rock reaction
1. Wet-process reactor
2. Filter
3. Mixers superphosphate manufacture
C. Pre-neutraliser
D. Granulating equipment
1. Blunger
2. Granulator
E. Drye r
F. Cooler
0. Screens
H. Hills
1. Materials Handling
1. Unloading of rav-nmterial
shipments
a. phosphate rock
b. potash
2. Conveyors
a. transfer points
b. discharge to bins, alios
3. Elevators
a. boots
b. heads
4. Shipment of product
a. bagging aachlnes
b. bulk loading
V. Aanoniua Sulfate
A. Crystalliier
B. Drying
C. Shipping
1. Bagging machines
2. Bulk loading
Total for Ammonium Nitrate
1,000,000 tons of (NH^gCO granules
17,000,000 tons of phosphate rock
4,370,000 tons of Pg0g from phosphate
rock
18,000,000 tons of granular material
500 of 18,000,000 tons
2,700,000 tons
1 lb/ton (controlled)
Assume 10 of end product
Assume 10 of product
6 lb/ton of rock
0.60
48 lb. pnrtic./ton of Pg05 0.95
0.5 lo/ton
105
90 lb/ton
195 0.95
2 lb/ton of granular material
1 lb/ton (controlled)
10 of product*
1.0 0.80
0.95 0.90
of Control
Control
Control
Omissions
Source
Quantity of Material
Emission Factor
cc
Ct
ce-ct
(tona/yr)
Phosphate Bock
41,300,000 tons per year
A. Dryrr
12
lb/ton of* end product
0.94
1.0
0.94
14,000
B. Grinder
2
lb/ton of end product
0.97
1.0
0.97
1,000
C. Materials handling
2
lb/ton of end product
0.90*
0.25*
0.22
30,000
D. Calcining
40
lb/ton of end product
0.95
i.O
0.95
8,000
Ammonium Nitrate
2,600,000 tons of NH^ICj granules
A. Evaporator
1
lb/ton of end product
B. Prilling tower
12
lb/ton of end product
26,000
10,000
10,000
9,000
0.95 0.90 169,000
Total for Phosphate Rock and Fertiliser
10,000
4,000
87,000
586,000
* Assumed.
147
-------
Emission Factors for Dryers (lb. dust per ton of rock produced)
1.4
3.5
10.0
16.0
260.0
The quantity of particulate emissions from dryers is calculated as
follows:
P = 41,300,000 tons phosphate rock produced per year (1968)
ef = 12 lb. dust discharged from the dryer per ton of rock pro-
duced
Cc = 94$, average operating efficiency of particulate control
equipment on dryers
= 100$, percent of rock production for which particulate con-
trol equipment is installed on dryers
_ (41,000,000)(12)(l-0.94 X 1.00) . ^
2,000
Data for emissions from dust collectors on dryers (Florida) show
the same wide dispersion that has been found in other industries. The
arithmetic mean for 38 items of data is 0.49 lb. of dust per ton of rock;
the geometric mean is 0.30 lb/ton. The range is 0.02 to 2.2 lb/ton. Table
4.11-2 gives statistical calculations for data on dryers.
TABLE 4.11-2
STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK DRYERS
Discharge from Control Equipment
Number of Items
Arithmetic Mean
Geometric Mean
Median
Range
Standard Deviation
Standard Error of the Mean
Coefficient of Variation
38
0.49 lb. dust/ton of product
0.30
0.25
0.02-2.20
0.52
0.08
1.06
Particulate emissions discharged to the atmosphere from dryers are
estimated from the above data as follows:
14&
-------
E = 41,300,000 x £iiL- = 6,000 tons of particulate per year
2,000
from drying phosphate rock
The emission factor for grinders is based on only two data items,
•*¦•7 and 2.0 lb. dust per ton of rock produced. Calculation of the emissions
is as follows:
P = 41,300,000 tons rock per year
ef = 2 lb. of dust per ton of particulate
Cc = 97$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors on
grinders
= 100$, percent of rock production for which dust collectors
are installed on grinders
(41,300,000)(2)(l-0.97 x 1.0) , . . ,
E = -—£ 2 " L = 1,200 tons dust per year
2,000
from grinders
from Florida, where baghouses are used to collect dust from grinders,
show an average of 0.05 ton of dust discharged to the atmosphere per ton
°f rock produced. Calculation with this factor produces an estimate of
!j000 tons of dust per year—unusually good agreement.
Materials handling losses at conveyor transfer points, conveyor
discharge into bins, loading of rock shipments, etc., are estimated at
® lb/toniS/of rock produced as an average for the industry. Many of these
Points in some plants will have dust-collection systems. It is assumed
that 25$ of these sources are controlled with an average efficiency of 90$.
resulting estimate is 30,000 tons/yr of dust lost by the industry in
Materials handling.
An emission factor for calcining is estimated from data in
Reference 1. Mentioned is an emission rate of 53.7 tons/day. Listed
Opacity of the planti/ is 1,000,000 tons of processed rock per year; the
dumber of roasters is three. If it be assumed that the calciner involved,
6 new fluid-bed roaster which is the largest of the three, processes half
the calcined plant output and that the plant operates 300 days/year, the
following calculation is made for an emission factor.
33.7 tons dust/day x.300 days/yr x a * 2,000 lb/ton
' 10° x 0.5 tons rock '
* 40.4 lb. dust from the calciner per ton of rock
^is factor is nuch lower than those for fluid-bed roasters used in non-
?«rrous smelting. Western phosphate rock is generally comparatively high
149
-------
in organic content, and calcining is a frequent operation in processing.
Western rock accounts for approximately 15$ of national production. Cal-
cining of rock in the southeastern part of the country is of less impor-
tance, but some calcining is done. If we assume that 20$ of total produc-
tion is calcined, the following estimate of dust from calcining is obtained.
P » 20$ of 41,300,000 tons/yr
e-f = 40 lb. of dust/ton of end product
Cc = 95$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors on
calciners
Ct = 100$, percent of calcining capacity on which dust collectors
are installed
E = x 41,300,000)(40)(l-0.95 x 1.00) _ 9 q00 tons of
2,000
particulate per year discharged to the atmosphere from
calcining phosphate rock
4.11.2 Fertilizer
Particulate air pollution from fertilizer manufacture is mainly
from drying and cooling of granular material. In the manufacture of phos-
phate fertilizers, drying is done in horizontal, rotary equipment. In the
manufacture of ammonium nitrate and urea, prilling towers are used. In
the manufacture of ammonium sulfate, air-blowing is utilized to control
size and shape of crystals. Dust is generated also in screening and trans-
port of material and in handling for shipment.
4.11.2.1 Ammonium Nitrate and Urea: In the manufacture of am-
monium nitrate and urea, over 95$ is produced by prilling. N6 data have
been published on particulate emissions from these plants; however, re-
sults of recent stack-sampling tests5/ show an emission rate from prilling
towers of 1 lb. dust/ton of ammonium nitrate produced and from dryers,
12 lb/ton. To estimate the particulate emission^ .from these industries,
an emission factor of 1$ of end product is used.i/ Tonnages of granular
ammonium nitrate and urea were 2,826,000 and 1,000,000, respedtively, in
1968.5/ The particulate emissions from ammonium nitrate are Estimated at
28,000 tons and from urea at 10,000 tons.
4.11.2.2 Phosphate: Particulate emissions from the manufacture
of phosphate fertilizer come from pulverizing of rock and from chemical
reaction between rock and acid as well as from drying and cooling the gran-
ular product. Particulate from reaction between phosphate rock and acid is
a mist of dilute fluosiliclc acid. In drying and cooling little variation
in quantity and nature of dust is likely as long as the basic -inaterials are
the same; however, change in type of rock inauperphosphate arinuffecture, for
example, can noticeably affect the amount of dust generated.®/
150
-------
4.11.2.2.1 Rock pulverizing: For particulate emissions
the pulverizing of phosphate rock, it is assumed that all rock used
in fertilizer manufacture undergoes a pulverizing at the fertilizer plants.
Pulverized rock is transported by pneumatic conveying, and the air in the
system is recirculated. The recirculated air must be vented to prevent ac-
cumulation of moisture; the vent stream is passed through a cyclone. Dust
from the cyclone has been measured at approximately 24 lb/hr from tvo roller
wills pulverizing 20 tons of rock/hr.Z/ The emission factor on a weight
basis is 1.2 lb. dust/ton of phosphate rock pulverized. Table 4.11-3 shows
the amount of phosphate rock used for fertilizer manufacture in 1968.®/
TABLE 4.11-3
USE OF PHOSPHATE ROCK IN FERTILIZER MANUFACTURE, 1968
Process
H3PO4, wet process
Ordinary superphosphate
Triple superphosphate
Total
Total Used in
Fertilizer Mfg.
9,500,000 tons
3,700,000
3,900t000
17,000,000
Estimation of the amount of particulate pollutants from pulver-
izing phosphate rock is as follows:
E « (17,000,000)( A'2 ) » 10,000 tons/yr of dust from rock
2,000
ground in pulverizers
If we assume that the efficiency of the cyclones on the vent lines
is 80$ and that all pulverizing and pneumatic conveying installations are
Hulpped with cyclones, the source emission factor would be 6 lb, dust/ton
°f rock pulverized.
4.11.2.2.2 Wet-process phosphoric acid and superphosphate;
pollution Btuiies of the manufacture of wet-process phosphoric acid have
k«en mostly concerned with emissions as fluoride; data on amount of partic-
ulate matter emitted are lacking. Particulate is foimed by reaction between
hydrogen fluoride and silica, which is present apparently as silicate,
^rogen fluoride is produced by reaction between fluoride inthe rock and
sulfuric acid. There are several reactions possible between hydrogen
*luoride, silica, and waterS/j but the most important at the temperature
Concentrations of the wet process are the following}
151
-------
CaFg + H2S04 > CaS04 + 2HF
4HF + Si02 > SiF4 + 2^0
3SiF4 + 2H20 : ^HgSiFg + Si02
The first two reactions take place in the digesters; the third takes place
in water present as fine droplets in the ducts and launders which conduct
the effluent gas stream from the digesters. The product of the last
reaction is a mist of dilute fluosilicic acid together with silica as a
very finely divided precipitate Agglomeration causes the formation of
a flaky material which settles on exposed surfaces. Data in Reference 11
indicate that approximately 10 lb. of fluoride ion is discharged from a
digester system per ton of P2O5 produced. The following data are listed
for venting a digester system with a nominal capacity of 300 tons of P20g
per day:
Volume, cu ft/min 15,000
Temperature, °F 130-160
Fluoride cone., mgm/cu ft 33-100
An average of 60 mgm/cu ft is assumed.
15 000 cu- ft- x 60 mgm. x 1 lb. x 1440 min. x 1 day
' min. cu. ft. 453,000 mgm. day 300 ton P2O5
= 9.55 lb. F" from digester system per ton of P2O5 produced
Ten pounds of fluoride ion per ton of P2O5 is only about 5$ of the,, fluoride
ion actually produced. The other 95$ remains dissolved in the acid as it
flows from the digesters and escapes at various points in th.e process
stream. The theoretical yield from phosphate rock is 178 lb. of fluoride
ion per ton of P2O5.
The particulate matter which forms from fluoride ion has* been de-
termined for a continuous superphosphate "den. "i2/ The following c omposi-
tion is listed.
HgSiFg 25 parts by weight
SiOg 5
H20 70
The product from reaction between acid and phosphate rock in the
wet-process manufacture of phosphoric acid is of different characteristic
152-
-------
than the product in the manufacture of superphosphate. The product in
the wet-process manufacture of acid is a slurry; the product in the
manufacture of superphosphate is a much drier material that begins to
set up as soon as it is discharged from the mixer. However, with the
following assumptions, an estimate of the amount of fluoride particulate
discharged from the manufacture of phosphates can be calculated.
1. Assume that the composition of fluoride particulate listed
above for a superphosphate "den" is typical of particulate from all acid-
rock reactions.
2. Assume that the amount of fluoride (5$) combining to form
particulate in the effluent gas stream from a digester system for wet-
process acid is representative of the percent of fluoride from the manu-
facture of superphosphates which forms particulate. An emission factor
for fluoride particulate is then:
lb. particulate lb. P" to HgSiFg lb. HgSig lb. part.
-- mm .1 I I 111 ¦ X I II' X I
ton P205 ~ ton P205 lb. F" lb. HgSiFg
144 100
= (9,55)(j24)("2g) 88 48*1 It* particulate per ton of P2O5
produced from reaction of acid and phosphate rock,
for both wet-process acid and superphosphates
In 1968, 4,149,000 tons of P2O5 were produced as phosphatic
fertilizer. If we assume that 95# of PgOg produced is actually made into
fertilizer, the tonnage of P2O5 produced in reaction between acid and rock
^as 4,370,000. Estimate of the tonnage of fluoride particulate discharged
"to the atmosphere is then:
P ¦ 4,370,000 tons/yr of P2O5 produced in the manufacture of
phosphatic fertilizer
ef = 48 lb. of fluoride particulate per ton of PgOg produced
Cq « 95% average operating efficiency of fluoride scrubbers
Ct = 95$, percent of production capacity of phosphatic-fertilizer
industry that is equipped with fluoride scrubbers
_ f4.370.000)(48Kl-0.95 x 0.95) . ..
E - 2,000 " M40 tons/yr of fluoride
particulate from the manufacture of phosphatic fertilisers.
Comparison of this calculation can be mads with data from the
State of Florida, where the citrus industry necessitates strict control
of fluoride emissions. Data from both companyreports and state reports
®&ow a geometric mean of 0.12 lb. fluoride iorrper ton of PgOg produced
the manufacture of triple superphosphate Calculation of this
153
-------
emission factor assumes that production was at listed capacity at the t?..me
of testing. This estimate is from 25 items of data on triple superphos-
phate plants which range from0.01 to 1.56 lb. of F" per ton of P2O5 pro-
duced. To the extent that production was below listed capacity, the
emission factor would be larger. The emission data are reported on a
time basis, lb. F" per hr.; the capacities are listed as tons per day.
Twenty-four data items for wet-process phosphoric acid plants have a
geometric mean of 0.04 lb. F~ per ton of P2O5; the range of these data is
0.003 to 0.377 lb. F~ per ton of P205- The following calculations esti-
mate the amount of fluoride particulate for national production with con-
trol measures equal to those in Florida. We assume that the emission
factor for manufacture of normal superphosphate is the same as for triple
superphosphate. Production figures are from Reference 2.
Normal and concentrated superphosphate
2,500,000 tons Pg05j^/ 0.12 lb. F" 1 ton _ 158 tons F"
yr. ton P2O5 2,000 lb. yr.
Wet-process H3PO4
13/
3,860,000 tons P2O5 0.04 lb. F~ 1 ton 733 tons F"
yr. X ton P2O5 * 2,000 lb. yr.
(773 + 158) = 4>600 tons of fluoride particulate
per year
4.11.2.2.3 Granulation: Dust from granulation is mainly
from dryers and coolers. Dust from screens, haxnmermllls, and materials
handling is not insignificant since the granulation process involves re-
circulation of material to build up the size of granules. The manufacture
of salt grades (fertilizers containing potash) produces a fume of NH4C1
which is composed of particles less than 5 microns and is difficult to
collect. The amount of chloride fume produced depends on the raw mate-
rials used. Use of ammoniating solutions and sulfuric acid tend to increase
the amount, of fume.
Published data on emissions from granulation processes are meager
and not definitive in every instance of what process equipment is being
vented. A typical dust-collection system in a granulation plant will have
two or more cyclones with a scrubber for each. One cyclone and scrubber
will serve the dryer, the other will serve the cooler, screens, elevators,
hammermills, etc. Discharge from the scrubbers may be into a plenum
chamber with a single stack for discharge to the atmosphere. A stack
sample of the emissions to the atmosphere may thus include a dryer, a
154
-------
cooler, and such other dust sources as are connected to the dust-collection
system. An emission factor for emissions from granulation is obtained from
data averaged for 15 plants over the country.il/ The averages, which are
pounds of dust discharged from the process equipment, are listed here.
ammoniators 0.53 lb. of dust per ton of fertilizer
dryers 105.0
coolers 90.0
Total for granulation 195.53
Calculation of the particulate emissions to the atmosphere from granulation
is as follows. No attempt is made to account for variation in emissions
with variation in materials used in the granulating process.
Total tonnage of granulated fertilizer:
Aram. phosphate—1,640,000 tons as P2O5 at 40$ = 4,000,000 tons
Salt grades—205,000 tons as P2O5 at 21$ = 975,000
Solid fertilizer (SIC No. 2872, plants
which do not manufacture any of their
raw materials) 7,200,000
12,175,000
Normal superphos—914,000 tons as P2O5
at 19$ 4,810,000
Triple superphos—1,389,000 tons as P2O5
at 45$ 3,080,000
7,890,000
Assume 75$ of superphosphates are granulated ^S^g^^oOO
18,093,000
P = 18,100,000 tons per year (1968), tonnage of granular material
ef = 195 lb. of dust per ton of fertilizer
Cc = 95$, average operating efficiency of dust-collection equip-
ment in granulation plants.. (Assumes cyclone and wet
scrubber.)
Cfc = 95$, percent of granulation production capacity on which
dust-collection systems are installed.
E , (18,100,000K195)(1.Q.9S x 0.95) = 169<000 ^ of au£t per
w j uuu
year discharged to the atmosphere from granulation
155
-------
To check this calculation, an arithmetic average of 7.2 lb. dust
per ton of fertilizer was obtained from 13 items of data from various liter-
ature sources and state agencies for discharge to the atmosphere from dust-
collection equipment on granulation plants. The range of these data is
0.13 to 17.2 lb/ton. The arithmetic average is used since values are dis-
tributed more or less evenly over the range. The particulate emissions
for the industry calculated vith this factor are as follows:
(18,100,000)( 7:.?, ) = 65,000 tons of particulate per year from
2,000 granulation
Since the data used in this estimate are mostly from plants in locales in
which extensive effort is being made at controlling air pollution, the
figure is considered to represent a potential level of particulate emis-
sions which could be achieved.
Dust from bagging operations has been measured in two stack
samples as 1.1 and 0.9 lb. dust per ton. Assumption is made that 50$ of
granular production is bagged.
Dust losses from loading bulk material, unloading of phosphate
rock and potash, at conveyor transfer points, etc., are estimated at 2 lb.
per ton of granulated material.^/
4.11.2.3 Ammonium Sulfate: Ammonium sulfate is mainly a by-
product. Its manufacture involves crystallizing and drying of the crystals.
Air-blowing into the crystallizer is used to control the size and shape of
the crystals.!®/ The crystallizer and the dryer are sources of particulate
pollution. No data have been found on emission factors for the manufacture
of ammonium sulfate. The assumed factor is 1$ of the end product.
156
-------
REFERENCES
FERTILIZER AND PHOSPHATE ROCK
1. Smith, J. L., and H. A. Snell, "Selecting Dust Collectors," Chemical
Engineering Progress; 64, (l), 60-63 (January 1966).
2. Harre, E. A., "Fertilizer Trends--1969," National Fertilizer Develop-
ment Center, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama,
p. 37.
3. Information from report in preparation, Division of Air Quality
and Emission Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
Durham, North Carolina (July 1970).
4. Stern, A. C., Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd edition, Academic Press,
New York, 233 (1968).
5. Harre, E. A., o£. cit., p. 26 and p. 23.
6- Sauchelli, V., Chemistry and Technology Of Fertilizersi American
Chemical Society Monograph Series No. 148, Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, New York, 650 (i960).
"? • Private communication, J. C. Barber, Office of Agricultural and Chemi-
cal Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama
(March 4, 1970).
1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department
of Interior, p. 925, Table 7.
9- Waggaman, W. H., Phosphoric Acid, Phosphates, and Phosphatic Fertilizers.
American Chemical Society Monograph Series, No. 34, Reinhold Publish-
ing Company, New York, 181 (1952).
Sherwin, K. A., "Effluents from the Manufacture of Superphosphate and
Compound Fertilizers," Chemistry and Industry, 1276 (October 8, 1955).
Grant, H. 0., Pollution Control in a Phosphoric Acid Plant," Chemical
Engineering Progress, 60 (l), 53 (January 1964).
1?
• Huffstutler, K. K., and W. E. Starnes, "Sources of Quantities of
Fluoride Evolved from the Manufacture of Fertilizer and Related
Products," presented at the annual meeting, Air Pollution Control
Association (June 1966).
13
• Harre, E. A., . cit., p. 48.
157
-------
14. Private communication, industrial source.
15. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," report of the Division of Air Quality
and Emissions Standards, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
April 1970, prepared by TRW Systems Group of TRW, Inc., Contract No.
CPA 22-69-119, pp. 7-26.
16. Sauchelli, V., o£. cit., pp. 33-34.
158
-------
4" Asphalt
Asphalt is a raw material for several industries. Two of the
more important with regard to air pollution are hot mix asphalt for paving
ahd the manufacture of roofing materials. Asphalt used in the roofing
industry is "blown" to improve its resistance to softening, and approxi-
mately 50# of this asphalt is blown at those roofing plants which are
remotely located from the source of supply. Plants close to their source
0;f supply obtain blown asphalt from the refineries. In the manufacture
of asphalt roofing, the particulate pollutant is a hydrocarbon mist; and
"the main source of particulate emissions is the saturator in which fibrous-
base material is impregnated with hot asphalt. In the mixing of materials
f°r asphalt paving, the pollutant is dust; the main source of emissions is
the dryer for the stone aggregate. Elevators, screens, storage bins and
Weigh hoppers are also sources of dust emissions in hot-mix plants.
Emission factors and estimated emissions are summarized in Table
4.12-1. Data on emissions were found for all the sources listed. These
are: asphalt blowers; asphalt saturators used in the manufacture of asphalt
hoofing materials; aggregate dryers used in asphalt paving plants;, and the
Mns weigh hoppers, etc., which are part of asphalt paving plants. Values
°f Cc and Ct used in the calculations are discussed in Chapter 5,
1)5 • 231-232.
The production of asphalt and its use in the two industries in
1968 is estimated as follows.
Asphalt from refineries--136,000,000 bbl. (5.5 bbl. per ton)^/
or
136,000,000 = 24}700,000 tons asphalt
5*5
Production by the asphalt-roofing industry^/
Roofing—77,984,000 sales squares at 234 lb/sales square
Siding—422,000 sales squares at 175 lb/sales square
Saturated felts—843,000 tons
. ,The weight of the asphalt in these materials is calculated as
f0Uow8:2/
Roofing—Asphalt roofing is 170# saturated with
asphalt, i.e., asphalt in the material weighs
1.70 times as much as the material bound by
the asphalt.
159
-------
Source
I. Asphalt Roofing
A.Blowing
B.Saturator
II. Hot-Mix Paving
Plants
A. Dryer
B. Bins, weigh
hopper, etc.
TABLE 4.12-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
ASPHALT
Quantity of
Material
Efficiency Application Wet
Emission of Control of Control Control Emission
Factor (^c) (Ct) (^c*^t) (tons/yr)
6,264,000 tons/year
(asphalt used in
roofing manufacturer)
4 lb/ton
4 (controlled)
0.50
3,000
14,000
251,000,000 tons/year
(hot-mix asphalt)
32*
_8
40
0.97
0.99
0.96
201,000
Total for Primary Users of Asphalt
218,000
* Prior to any control equipment.
-------
1 + 1.7 = 2.7
— x 100 = 63.0$ asphalt
Saturated felts—Saturated felts are 140$ saturated.
1 + 1.4 = 2.4
x 100 = 58.4$ asphalt
Siding—estimated at 60$ asphalt.
Therefore, the amount of asphalt used is shown below.
roofing: 77,984,000 x 234 x 0.63 x —i— = 5,750,000 tons
2,000
siding: 422,000 x 175 x 0.60 x —i— = 22,000 tons
2,000
saturated felt: 843,000 x 0.584 = 492,000 tons
total 6,264,000 tons
The amount of asphalt used in paving is calculated as the difference of
24,700,000 and 6,264,000 or 18,436,000 tons.
4.12.1 Asphalt Roofing
The emissions from the manufacture of asphalt roofing are
calculated as follows. For the blowing of asphalt, the factor used is
3.9 lb. particulate per ton of asphalt.5/ This is the only value found
in the literature.
6,264,000 x 0.50 x = 6,100 tons/yr, particulate discharged
2,000 from blowing of asphalt.
Data on control of emissions from asphalt blowing have not been obtained, but
it is estimated that 50$ of the particulate emissions from asphalt blowing
in the roofing industry escape to the atmosphere.
The emission factor for the s&turator is calculated as follows.
Emission rates on a time basis are tabulated from Reference 4.
161
-------
Inlet to Outlet from
Control Equipment Control Equipment Control Equipm< .i-h
67.7 lb/hr Cycl., bag filter 25.5 lb/hr
55.0 Scrubber 7,7
71.4 Scr., Lo-volt, ESP 10.0
The average of the rates into the control equipment is approxi-
mately 65 lb/hr; the average of the emissions from the control equipment
is 14.3 lb/hr.
Assume the average rate of felt speed to the saturator is
12 squares per minute.^/
1 felt square = 100 sq. ft.
Assume an average weight of felt of 27 lb. per 480 sq. ft.
(27 lb. felt). Assume an average saturation of 160$.
lb. partic. _ 65 lb. partic. 1 min. 1 square 480 sq. ft.
ton of asphalt hr. 12 squares 100 sq. ft. 27 lb. felt
1 lb. felt 2,000 lb. 1 hr.
X 1.60 lb. asphalt ton 60 min.
= 20.1 lb. partic. per ton of asphalt applied
The amount of particulate from asphalt saturators is calculated as follows •
ih. -partic. to atm. _ U.5 lb. partic. to atm. x 20.1 lb. Partic to scr.
yr 65 lb. partic. to scr. ton of asphalt used
x 6,264,000 tons asphalt used
y*.
= 13,500 tons of particulate per year emitted frcm
asphalt saturators
162
-------
4.12.2 Hot-Mix Asphalt
Dust from plants for mixing asphalt paving is collected in two
effluent streams. One is from the dryer; and the other is from the bins,
screens, elevators, and weigh hoppers, or any part of these. Emissions
from dryers were calculated from 12 items of data to have a geometric mean
of 32 lb. of dust generated per ton of asphalt produced.4*5/ Eleven of
these items range from 9.3 to 71 lb. per ton. The twelfth item is 390 lb.
per ton. Only two sets of data were available for dust collected from bins,
weigh hopper, etc. These are 11 and 4.3 lb. per ton, and the arithmetic
average is used, 7.6 lb. dust per ton of asphalt generated in the plant
exclusive of the dryer. Thus the total is 40 lb. per ton.
Calculation of amount of dust from asphalt plants is as follows.
P = 251,000,000 tons of hot-mix asphalt per year
ef « 40 lb. of dust per ton of hot-mix produced
Cc = 97$, average operating efficiency of dust-collection systems
installed on hot-mix plants
=99$, percent of production capacity in the industry on which
dust collectors are installed.
(251,000,000)(40)(1-0.97 x 0.99)
E = 2,ooo 88 so1*000 tons Per year>
dust discharged to the atmosphere from hot-mix paving plants
Data on emissions to the atmosphere range from 0.06 to 21.4 lb.
per ton for 59 data items obtained from air pollution control agencies and
industrial sources. In the plant mentioned above with the loading of 390
lb. per ton from the dryer, the emission to the atmosphere was measured as
0.13 lb. per ton. Much of these data are from agencies in areas where in-
tensive effort at control is being made, and for this reason the emission
rate calculated from these data is not realistic, nationwide. The arithmetic
mean is 1.3 lb. dust emitted to the atmosphere per ton of asphalt mixed; the
geometric mean is 0.45 lb. per ton. The geometric mean approximates the
median, 0.42 lb. per ton. If air pollution from the entire industry were
controlled to this extent, the particulate emissions discharged to the atmo-
sphere would be estimated as follows.
E = (251,000,000) °-4 = 50,200 tons per year
2,000
The statistical data are shown in Table 4.12-2. Figure 4.12-1 shows the
frequency distribution of the 59 data items. All these data are from plants
with some type of dust-collection equipment installed in addition to the
pre-cleaner.
163
-------
TABLE 4.12-2
STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE FROM CONTROLLED ASPHALT PLANTS
Number of data items 59
Arithmetic mean 1.29 lb/ton
Median 0.42 lb/ton
Range 0.06-21.4 lb/ton
Standard deviation 3.42
Standard error of the mean 0.44
Coefficient of variation 2.67
Geometric mean 16/ton
There is no distinction in these calculations between batch plants
and continuous plants or as to type of control equipment. Also, there is no
indication for most of the data of the water-to-gas ratio in the scrubbers.
Variations in this ratio might be a significant cause of the wide dispersion
of the data. Gas velocity through the dryer is also an operating variable
with a decided effect on dust emission.
The data described herein for discharge from scrubbers (emissions
to the atmosphere) provide a higher emission factor than those listed in
AF-42, "Compilations of Air Pollutant Emission Factors".^/ The factor, 0.4O
lb. per ton, is approximately twice the value listed in AP-42, 0.2 lb. per
ton for both multiple centrifugal scrubbers and baffle spray towers. Much
of the data obtained for this report was from plants with a "scrubber"
listed, but the type was not mentioned. Of the 59 items of data, 42 from
plants with some type of scrubber had emission factors above 0.2 lb. per
ton. One consideration in explaining the difference might be the difference
that exists in code regulations in areas from which the data were obtained.
164
-------
20
M
o>
Ol
z 15
UJ
ec
5
u
8
t 10
>-
u
z
Ul
D
o
I I ¦
ALSO,
5.6
15.6
21.4
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
LB. PARTICULATE PER TON OF ASPHALT PRODUCED
Figure 4.12-1 - Frequency Distribution (emission factors for asphalt plants -
particulate discharged from dust collectors to the atmosphere)
-------
REFERENCES
ASPHALT
1. Statistical Abstracts, 1969, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Table No. 1137.
2. Greenfeld, S. H., "A Study of the Variables in the Saturating of
Roofing Felts," U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Standards;
Building Science Series 19, June 1969, p. 1.
3. Von Lehnden, D. J., R. P. Hangebrauck and J. E. Meeker, "Polynuclear
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Selected Industrial Processes," Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, 15, (7), 306-312, 1965.
4. "Air Pollution Engineering Manual," Public Health Service Publication
No. 999-AP-40, 1967, pp. 378-383.
5. Private communication, industrial source.
6. Duprey, R. L., "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Public
Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-42, 1968, p. 34.
166
-------
4.13 Ferroalloys
The production of ferroalloys has many dust or fume producing
steps. Particulates are emitted from raw material handling, mix delivery,
crushing, grinding, and sizing, and furnace operations. The dust resulting
from the solids handling steps does not present a difficult control
problem. Emissions from furnaces vary widely in type and quantity,
depending upon the particular ferroalloy being produced, type of furnace
used, and the amount of carbon in the alloy.
There are four major methods used to produce ferroalloy and high
purity metallic additives. These are: (l) blast furnace, (2) electric-arc
furnace, (3) alumino-silicothermic process, and (4) electrolytic deposition.
The blast furnace and electric-arc furnaces are the major sources of
particulates, and they are discussed in more detail in the next section.
4.13.1 Blast Furnaces
Ferromanganese is produced in blast furnaces by carbon reduction
of manganese ore and iron ore in the presence of coke and limestone. Only
two items of data were found regarding emission factors from these furnaces.
Reference 1 reported that the emissions from two 350-ton ferromanganese
furnaces averaged about 125 tons of dust per day. Assuming that the dust
emitted from each furnace accounted for half the total, an emission factor
of 356 lb/ton was calculated for these furnaces. Reference 2 reported the
following data on a ferromanganese blast furnace:
Gas volume: 60,000 cfta
Production: 320 tons/day
Outlet grain loading: 12 grains/ft'
From these data an emission factor of 464 lb/ton was calculated.
The arithmetric average of 410 lb/ton was selected for the emission factor
for ferromanganese blast furnaces.
All the blast furnaces are equipped with high efficiency dust
collection systems because the carbon monoxide in the gas stream is used
as a fuel in other parts of the plant. The degree of application of control
is, therefore, 1.00 and the efficiency of control is assumed to be 99#.
Total production of ferroalloys by blast furnaces in 1968 was
590,955 tons£/
Emissions from blast furnaces were calculated as follows:
E = (591,000 tons/yr)(410 lb/ton)(1-0.99 x 1.0) „ 1,210 tons/yr
2 x 103
167
-------
Because of the high net control (i.e., 0.99) the emission rates for bias-
furnaces calculated by the above equation is not too accurate, and a total
emission of 1,500 tons/yr will be assumed for this source.
4.13.2 Electric-Arc Furnaces
The submerged arc, or the roof-in open bath, electric furnace can
more effectively complete the reduction of the oxides; therefore, higher
overall yields of the various metallic components are possible. Also, the
electric-arc furnace provides more flexibility and control over the oper-
ation than is possible in the coke blast furnace. For these reasons the
electric furnace is more often used for the production of ferroalloys.
Emission factors for electric-arc furnaces depend upon the par-
ticular ferroalloy being produced. Table 4.13-1 summarizes available emis-
sion factor data for electric-arc furnaces.
TABLE 4.13-1
FERROALLOY EMISSION FACTORS
Ferroalloy
50$ FeSi
II
It
If
75$ FeSi
II
tl
90$ FeSi
It
II
II
Silicon Metal
It
II
FeMn
tl
SiMn
U
Emission Factor
(lb of fume/ton of
specified product)
200
130
208
260
315
200-400
315
565
500
585
605
625
470-520
600-700
45
22-65
195
200
190
Reference
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
4
3
4
4
168
-------
Table 4.13-2 lists the arithmetic average of the emission factors
for each ferroalloy given in Table 4.13-1.
TABLE 4.13-2
AVERAGE FERROALLOY EMISSION FACTORS
Average amission Factors
50# FeSi
75# FeSi
90# FeSi-
200
308
564
583
44
195
Silicon metal
FeMn
SiMn
The factors in Table 4.3^-2 are used in subsequent calculations for total
emissions from electric-arc furnaces.
A telephone survey of ferroalloy producers vas used to determine
control practices in this industry (see Section 5, p. 233). The results
of the survey for ferroalloy electric furnaces are as follows:
Electric-arc furnace production figures (1968) for the various
ferroalloys are summarized in Table 4.13-3.
a) Application of control =49.9#
b) Efficiency of control = 80.5#
c) Net control =40.2#
TABLE 4.13-3
FERROALLOY PRODUCTION - ELECTRIC-ARC FURNACES
Ferroalloy
Production (tons)
FeMn
SiMn
FeSi
FeCr and other chrome alloys
Perrophosphorus
Silvery iron
Silicon metal
Miscellaneous
317,421
284,499
665,383
389,572
116,723
166,181
96,261
84,049
169
-------
Calculation of particulate emissions from the manufacture of the
a"bove ferroalloys is as follows:
1) FeMn
(3.17 x 105 tons/yr)(44 lb/ton)(1-0.80 x 0.50) _ 4^220 tons
E * 2 x 103
2) Sitfri
•P _ (2.8 x 105)(1.95 x 1Q2)(1-0.80 x 0.50) _ 16^50o tons
2 x 1CH
3) FeSi
Oie emission factor used for this calculation is the
average of those for the three grades of FeSi listed in Table
4.12-1.
E _ (6.65 x 105)(557)(1-0.80 x 0.50) _ 73^222 tons
2X103
4) Silicon Metal
¦p = (9.6x 10^)(585)(l-0.80 x 0.50) _ qqo tons
2 x 105
5) Silvery Iron (5-20$ FeSi)
An emission factor for silvery iron was not available.
However, a factor of 120 lb/ton was determined from extrapo-
lation of data for 50, 75, and 90$ FeSi.
E = (1-66 x 105)(120)(1-0.80 x 0.50) s 6^000 tons
2 x 103
6) Ferrochrome, Ferrophosphorus and Miscellaneous
amission factors were not available for tihese alloys.
She emission factor for 50$ FeSi (200 lb/ton) was assumed appn
cable.
E . (5-9 X 105)(200M1-0.80 x 0.50) , 5 400 tons
2 x10s
170
-------
Summary of Electric-Arc Furnace Emissions
Ferroalloy Emissions
FeMn 4,220 tons
SiJfti 16,500
FeSi 71,222
Silicon Metal 16,800
Silvery Iron 6,000
Ferrochrome, etc. 35,400
150,142 tons
4.13.3 Materials Handling
The estimate of the emissions from materials handling is made vith
the same emission factor used for this source in the Iron and Steel industry--
10 lb/ton of metal produced.
E = 2,704,000 tons x 10 lh/ton x (1-0.90 x 0.55) a g Q00 tons
2 x 1CP
of particulate from handling materials in the manufacture
of ferroalloys
liable 4.13-4 summarizes the emission calculations for ferroallbys.
171
-------
TABLE 4.13-4
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
PRODUCTION OF FERROALLOYS
Source
I• Furnaces
A. Blast Furnaces
B. Electric-Arc Furnaces
H
ro
II. Materials Handling
Efficiency
Application
Net
of Control
of Control
Control
Emissions
Quantity of Material
Emission Factor
Cc
Ct
Cc'Ct
(tons/yr)
591,000 tons, ferromanganese
410
lb/ton product*
0.99
1.0
0.S9
1,200
317,000 tons, ferromanganese
44
lb/ton
0.80
0.50
0.40
4,200
285,000 tons, silicomanganese
195
lb/ton
0.80
0.50
0.40
16,500
665,000 tons, ferrosilicon
357
lb/ton
0.80
0.50
0.40
71,200
96,000 tons, silicon metal
583
lb/ton
0.80
0.50
0.40
16,800
166,000 tons, silvery iron
120
lb/ton
0.80
0.50
0.40
6,000
590,000 tons, ferrochrome,
ferrophosphorus
200
lb/ton
0.80
0.50
0.40
35,400
,710,000 tons, of metal pro-
duced
10
lb/ton of metal
produced
0.90
0.35
0.32
9.000
Total from Ferroalloys
* All emission factors are "per ton of product."
-------
REFERENCES
FERROALLOYS
Specht, S. E., and R. W. Sickles, "New Uses of Electrical Precipitation
for Control of Air Pollution," Air Repair, £(3), 137-140, 1954.
Good, C. H., "The Ferromanganese Gas Cleaning Installation at Duquesne
Works," Air Repair, 4(4), 173-175, 1955.
Private communication, M. McGraw, Air Quality and Emissions Data Division,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, North Carolina,
(July 1970).
Fredricksen and Nestass, "Pollution Problems by Electric Furnace Ferro-
Alloy Production," United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,
(September 1968).
Gerstle and McGinnity, plant visit memorandum, U.S.D.H.E.W., P.H.S.,
(June 1967).
Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, 1968, p. 506, Table No. 2.
173
-------
4.14 Iron Foundries
Gray iron foundries range from primitive, unmechanized hand
operations to heavily equipped plants in which operators are assisted
by electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic equipment. Cupola, electric-arc,
electric-induction, and reverberatory air furnaces are used to obtain
molten metal for production of castings.
Emission factors and estimated emissions are summarized in Table
4.14-2. Emissions data were found for cupola furnaces, both cold-blast and
hot-blast; electric-arc furnaces; handling of sand; core ovens; and shell
core machines. No emissions data were found for reverberatory furnaces,
electric induction furnaces, casting shake-out systems, grinding and buf-
fing, or materials handling other than sand. Values of Cc and C-j. used
in the calculations are discussed in Chapter 5, p. 234.
The iron melting process in foundries is the principal source of
emissions. Secondary sources include materials handling, casting, shake-
out systems, buffing and grinding operations, and core ovens. Cores are
baked in ovens which discharge a hydrocarbon mist from the oil in the
binder.
Two sources in the literature were used to determine an emission
factor for cupolas The data from these two references are separable
into classifications, "hot-blast" and "cold-blast" furnaces. Tabulation
of the statistics for each classification is shown in Table 4.14-1. The
geometric mean of the combined data, 16 lb. particulate/ton of hot metal,
is taken as the emission factor.
TABLE 4-14-1
No. of Samples
Arith. Mean
Geom. Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Range
EMISSION FACTORS FOR CUPOIA RJRMCES
(lb. particulate/ton hot metal)
A.P.E. Manual^:/
Hot- Cold-
Blast Blast
Engels & Weberjj/
Hot- Cold-
Blast Blast
Total
Hot- Cold-
Blast Blast Total
2
5
8
9
10
14
24
15
13
14
28
15
23
20
16
15
13
12
23
13
20
16
10
18
9
17
15
15-16
4-26
7-37
10-73
7-37
4-73
4-73
174
-------
TABIE 4.14-2
PARTICULATE HUSSIONS
IRON FOUNDRIES
Ol
Source
I. Furnaces
A. Cupola.
1. Bot blast
a. externally fired
b. recuperative
2. Cold blast
B. Electric
1. Arc
2. Induction
C. Bererberatory
II. Materials Bnndlllng
A. Freight nhlwwHng —Coke
and Lime atone
B. Cotiveyura
1. Transfer points
2. Discharge to storage
a. bins, silos
b. stockpiles
C. KLevatore
1. Boots
2. Beads
D. Sand Handling
HI- Care Ovens
IT. Shell Gore Machines
V. Casting Siake-ont Protest
VI. Grinding sod Buffing
Quantity of Material
18,000,000 tons of bot metal
10,500,000 tons of sand
Bmission Factor
15 lb/ton of hot metal
15 lb/ton of hot metal
23 lb/ton of hot metal
5-10 lb/ton
*5 lb/ton of hot metal
0.3 lb/ton of sand
0.3 lb/gal of core oil
0.35 lb/ton of cores
Efficiency
of Control
Cc
0.80
*0.30
Application
of Control
0.33
•0.25
Net
Control
cc'ct
0.27
Bnissioi
tons/yi
105,00c
*0.20 37,OOC
1,000
143,000
• k&smeA-
-------
follows.5/
,The production of iron in foundries for 1968 is tabulated as
Gray iron*
Ductile iron
Malleable iron
Pressure pipe fittings
Soil pipe and fittings
11,577,000 tons
959,000
16,196,000
862,000
1,039,000
1,779,000
* 3,179,000 tons of ingot molds are included in the tonnage for
Gray iron.
The total tonnage is for finished products; this does not include reject
castings, gates, runners, sprues, etc., which are part of the hot metal
produced. This scrap is assumed to be 10# of the finished product. The
total hot metal produced in iron foundries is thus estimated to be:
The particulate pollution from furnaces in iron foundries is estimated as
follows:
P = 18,000,000' tons of hot metal
ef ® 16 lb. particulate per ton of hot metal produced
Cc = 80#, average collection efficiency of dust collectors
installed on furnaces
Ct = 33#, per cent of production capacity of the industry on
which dust collectors are installed
E » f18>000,000X16)(1-0.80 x 0.33) » 105,000 tons of particulate
2,000
pollution discharged to the atmosphere from foundry furnaces
in 1968
An estimate has also been made for dust generated in iron foundriea
by the handling of sand. An emission factor of 0.3 lb. dust per ton of
sand is given in Reference 4. The amount of sand used in foundries in
1968 is:5/ u
Finished product
10# as reject, gates,
16,400,000 tons
runners, sprues, etc
Total hot metal
1.600.000
18,000,000
Molding sand
(^•oundl sand
Total used in foundries
10,300,000 tons
200,000
10,500,000
176
-------
The percent of sand used in iron foundries is estimated from production
data in Reference 3. These data indicate that approximately 80$ of foundry
production, both ferrous and nonferrous, was from iron foundries. We assume
the same percentage for use of sand.
E = 0,3 lb' dust x 10»500>000 tons 5^ x 0.80 = 1,260 tons of
ton sand 2,000
dust from sand handling
177
-------
REFERENCES
IRON FOUNDRIES
Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Public Health Service Publication
No. 999-AP-40; 1967, p. 260.
Engels, G., and E. Weber, Cupola Emission Control, translated and
published by Gray and Ductile Iron Founders Society, Cleveland, Ohio
1967.
"Census of World Casting Production 1967," Modern Casting, December,
1968, pp. 46-47.
Duprey, R. L., "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Public
Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-12, 1968, p. 29.
1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, Table 1, p. 980,
and Table 10, p. 996.
178
-------
4.15 Secondary Nonferrous Metals
The secondary nonferrous metals industry is considered separately
from the primary nonferrous because of the nature of the raw materials
and the location of plants. Raw materials for the secondary industry are
scrap metal, and residues and skimmings from melting and refining processes.
Some of the scrap metal is clean; but much of it contains the various mate-
rials, such as rubber, plastic, paint, paper, which are part of scrapped
consumer products. Plants for the recovery of scrap metal are located near
the most plentiful sources of supply which, for scrap metal, are metro-
politan areas.
A summary of emission factors and estimated quantities of emis-
sions is given in Table 4.15-1. Except for burning of insulation from
copper wire, fluxing with chlorine in recovery of aluminum and dross pro-
cessing in aluminum recovery, the sources listed are all furnaces. Emis-
sions data were found for each source except aluminum dross processing,
induction furnaces used in aluminum refining and sweating furnaces used in
reclaiming copper. Values of Cc and C-t used in the calculations are dis-
cussed in Chapter 5, pp. 235-236.
4.15.1 Copper
Operations which are sources of particulate emissions in the re-
covery of copper and copper alloys may be divided into operations for mate-
rials preparation and the smelting and refining operations. These are
outlined as follows.
1. Materials preparation
a. Burning of insulation from wire
b. Sweating furnaces
c. Blast furnaces
2. Smelting and refining
a. Reverberatory furnaces
b. Rotary furnaces
c. Crucible furnaces
d. Electric furnaces
179
-------
TABUS 4.15-1
PARTICULARS EMISSIONS
SECONDARY NOHTBRBOU3 MB TALE
Source
Copper
A. Materials Preparation
1. Wire burning
2. Sweating furnaces
3. Blast furnaces
^iantlty of
Material
300,000 tons insulated wire
64,000 tona, auto radiators
267,000 tons, scrap and residue
Emission
Factor
£75 lb/ton
IS
50 lb/ton scra.p
Efficiency Application net
of Control of Control Control Baiaslon
C0 t Cc,ct tona/yr
0,35
0,90
0.20
0.75
B. Smelting and Refining 1,170,000 tons scrap
1. In secondary
smelters, etc.
(a) charge
(b) refine
(c) pour
II. Aluminum
A. Sweating Furnaces
B. Refining Furnaces
1. Reverberatory
2. Pot (crucible)
3. Induction
C. Fluxing
D. Dross Processing
1. Hot process
2. Milling process
500,000 tone of scrap
1,015,000 tons scrap
136,000 tons Cl used
50 lb/ton charge
39
0.6
70 0.95 0.60
Tbtal fron Secondary Copper
32 lb/ton scrap 0.95
4 lb/ton scrap 0.95
2 lb/ton scrap
0.20
0.60
1,000 lb/ton Cl used
Total from Secondary Aluminum
0.19
0.68
41,000
40o
2,30o
0,57 17, OOo
60»700
O-13 6*000
0.57
900
0,25 SI,000
57,
*900
III. Lead Rirnaces
A. Pot
B. Blast Furnace
C. Reverberatory
D. Rotary Reverberatory
Average, reverberatory
53,000 tons scrap
119,000 tons scrap
554,000 tons scrap
IV, Zinc
A. Sweating
1. Metallic scrap
2. Residual scrap
B. Distillation Furnace
1. Distillation retort
2. Hi ffie
Average, distillation furnaces
52,000 tons scrap
210,000 tons scrap
233,000 tons Zn recovered
0.8 Lb/ton scrap
190
130 " "
70
100 lb/ton scrap
0.95
0.95
0.95
Total from Secondary Lead
12 lb/ton charge
50
47 lb/too &
45 lb/ton Zr
45 lb/ ton Sfe
0.95
0.95
0.95
0,95
0.95
0.95
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.19
0.19
0.57
Total from Secondary Zinc
Total fraa Secondary Honferroua Metals
< 10o
i-.OOo
3*000
4,OOo
SOO
^600
127,
7Oq
180
-------
4.15.1.1 Burning of Insulation from Wire: The following emis-
sion factors are listed for the burning of insulation from wire.i/ The
percent combustible is the percent of total weight, copper wire plus
insulation.
multi-chamber incinerators
356 lb. particulate/ton chaise - 35$ combustible
190 - 19$
multi-chamber incinerators with secondary burner
35 lb. particulate/ton of charge - 16$ combustible
21 - 35$
furnace with secondary combustion
20 lb. particulate/ton of charge - 23$ combustible
Wire is burned in the open as well as in incinerators. No information was
obtained on the amounts of wire burned by these three means: (l) in the
open, (2) incinerators without secondary burners, and (3) incinerators with
secondary burners. A small amount may be cleaned by hand, but information
from personnel in the industry indicates that this amount would be insig-
nificant. We assume as an average condition that the total amount of wire
is "burned in incinerators without secondary burners and that the emission
factor is 275 lb. of particulate per ton of wire "burned.
The amount of scrap wire from which the insulation has been burned
off was estimated by an industrial sourceM/ to be about 20$ of the total
amount of scrap recovered. The total scrap listed in Reference 2 is 1,662,000
tons for 1968; 20$ would be 330,000 tons. The amount of particulate emissions
from burning insulation off of copper wire is calculated as follows:
E = 300,000 tons wire x 275 lb' x 1 ton = 41,200 tons
ton wire , 2,000 lb.
of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere in 1968
from burning insulation off of copper wire
4.15.1.2 Sweating Furnaces: The particulate pollution frcm
sweating furnaces is considered to be mainly from the sweating of auto-
mobile radiators. Reference 2 lists 64,000 tons of automobile radiators
consumed as scrap in 1968. Reference 1 lists data for aluminum and zinc
sweating furnaces which give emission factors of 24 and 13 lb. of partic-
ulate per ton of material sweated, respectively. The material sweated in
each furnace was castings. Frcm these data, we have assumed an emission
factor of 15 lb. per ton of material sweated. Estimate of the emissions
from sweating of autanobile radiators is as follows.
E « 64,000 x 15 = 482 tons of particulate generated
2,000
181
-------
Dust collection from sweat furnaces is estimated to "be 20$ of that gener-
ated.^/ Particulate discharged to the atmosphere in 1968 is thus estimated
as 400 tons.
4.15.1.3 Blast Furnaces : Factors of 20.1 and 16.8 lb. per ton
of material charged are reported^/ as the emission rates at a point follov.
ing a preliminary collector on the furnace. The type of collector is not
stated; but if we assume that it was a settling chamber, the collection ef.
ficiency can be assumed to be about 35$; the emission factors for the
furnace would be 59 and 48 lb. per ton of material charged to the furnace
From these data we assume an emission factor of 50 lb. per ton of charge.
The charge to blast furnaces is "low-grade materials such as slag and
skimmings."£/ Tonnage charged is taken from Reference 2 as "low-grade
scrap and residues"—287,000 tons in 1968. The particulate emissions frcm.
blast furnaces melting scrap copper are estimated as follows.
P = 287,000 tons charged, low-grade scrap and residue
ej> = 50 lb. per ton of charge
Cc = 90$, average collection efficiency of dust collectors in-
stalled ori blast furnaces melting scrap copper
Ct = 75$, percent of furnace capacity on which dust collectors
are installed
E = (287;000)(50)(1-0.90 x 0.75) = 2 300 tons of dust discharRert
2,000 K a
to the atmosphere in 1968 from blast furnaces melting scrap
copper
4.15.1.4 Smelting and Refining: Data for emissions from smelts
ing and refining of scrap copper are listed in Table 4.15-2 JJ Data have be©
obtained for the various cycles of the heat. No data are presented for
crucible and electric furnaces.
TABLE 4.15-2
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SMELTING AND REFINING FURNACES
RECOVERING SCRAP COPPER AND COPTER ALLOYS
(Lb. particulate per ton of material charged)
Furnace Cycle
Charge
12
25
55
Furnace Type
Refine
18
28
98
Reverberatory
54
157
Rotary
30
147
Pour
0.7
0.8
0.4
182
-------
These few data show no significant difference between reverberatory and
rotary furnaces. Of the three cycles in a heat, the "Pour" cycle is sig-
nificantly lower in emission rate than the other two cycles. Reference 4
states that the "industry average-emission factor" is 60 to 80 lb. of par-
ticulate per ton of ingot produced "for a reverberatory brass-ingot fur-
nace." This average factor is on an end-product basis; for a raw-material
basis, the value would be somewhat higher. However, because the raw mate-
rial in this instance contains a high percent of the end. product, the values
for each basis are considered equal. An emission factor of 70 lb/ton of
scrap was assumed.
Total copper scrap consumed in 1968 was 1,660,000 tons. Of this
total, 513,000 tons was consumed by primary smelters and is not included in
the total used to calculate the emissions from secondary production of cop-
per. The following tabulation gives the consumption of copper scrap by the
principal users of scrap.§/
Brass mills 595,000 tons
Foundries, chemical plants,
miscellaneous users 103,000
Secondary smelters 450,000
Total 1,148,000
The scrap consumed by secondary recovery is taken as 1,150,000 tons. The
amount of particulate emissions from smelting and refining copper scrap is
estimated as follows.
P = 1,150,000 tons of scrap charged to secondary smelting and
refining furnaces
ef = 70 lb. particulate per ton of scrap charged
Cc = 95$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors in-
stalled on furnaces smelting copper scrap
Ct ¦ 6056, percent of capacity on which dust collectors are
installed
E = (if150f000)(70)(1-0.95 x 0.60) = 17 300 tons 0f particulate
2,000 '
discharged to the atmosphere in 1968 from furnaces smeltiig
and refining scrap copper
The total emissions for secondary copper production are thus:
Materials preparation 43,000 tons
Smelting and refining 17,300
Total 60,300
183
-------
4.15.2 Aluminum
Particulate emissions from the recovery of scrap aluminum come
from sweating of scrap metal, melting and refining, and fluxing with
chlorine. When dirty scrap is charged to melting furnaces, the emissions
will be similar to those from a sweating furnace. Chlorine is used to re-
duce magnesium content of a charge. The magnesium chloride which forms
collects mostly in the dross; but aluminum chloride, which also forms, is
vented as a gas which condenses in the stack. The effluent also contains
hydrogen chloride and chlorine.
The emission factors for the various processes in recovery of
scrap aluminum are taken from Reference 10.
Sweating furnace 32 lb/ton of scrap charged
Reverberatory furnace 4 lb/ton of charge
Crucible furnace 2 lb/ton of charge
Chlorination 1,000 lb/ton of chlorine used
Sweating furnaces are used to melt all kinds of aluminum scrap.
Of the total scrap reclaimed, the percent that goes to sweating furnaces is
not readily determinable. Some scrap is charged to reverberatory furnaces
without being put through a sweating process. Fifty percent of the total
scrap consumed is assumed to be processed in sweat furnaces.
follows.
Emissions from aluminum sweating furnaces are calculated as
P = 50# of 1,015,000 tons of scrap consumedii/
ef = 32 lb/ton of scrap charged
Information on control of pollution from recovery of scrap alumi^
num is lacking. We have assumed that the control of sweating furnaces fQr,
recovery of scrap aluminum is equivalent to the control of pollution in the
recovery of scrap copper.
_ (500,000)(32)(1-0.95 X 0.20) , ^ partlculate
2,000
discharged to the atmosphere in 1968 from sweating furnaces
producing aluminum pig
To estimate the emissions from refining furnaces, we use the
tor for reverberatory furnaces. Crucible furnaces and induction furnaces
are comparatively small,i/ and we assume that their particulate emissions
are negligible. As for sweating furnaces, we assume that the control of
184
-------
pollution from melting furnaces for recovery of scrap aluminum is equivalent
to the control of melting furnaces for the recovery of scrap copper. This
calculation does not include emissions for chlorine fluxing.
P = 1,015,000 tons of scrap consumed
ef » 4 lb. per ton of scrap charged
Cc = 95$, average operating efficiencies of dust collectors
C-t = 60$, percent of production capacity on which dust collectors
o t n o4*q 1
E = U,°35,000)W(l-0-95 X 0.60) „ particulate
2,000
discharged to the atmosphere from refining furnaces (not
including chloride emissions)
For estimating emissions from fluxing with chlorine, the principle
of material balance is used. The emission factor listed above is based on
the amount of chlorine used, but data on chlorine consumption in the indus-
try is not readily obtainable. The ratio of chlorine used is "very roughly1'
4 lb. of chlorine per pound of magnesium removed.!/ Assuming that the
amount of magnesium in existence as alloy with aluminum is more or less
constant in any one year, the amount of new magnesium used in aluminum al-
loying can be taken as an approximation of the amount of magnesium that was
removed in secondary refining. In 1968, 34,000 tons of magnesium were used
to make aluminum alloys.12/ since collection of the chloride particulate
from fluxing has been a difficult problem, we assume that at least 75$ of
the chloride particulate generated escapes to the atmosphere.!/ The partic-
ulate emissions from chloride fluxing are estimated as follows.
E = 34,000 tons of Mg 4 tons CI used 0.5 ton partlc. produced
used in A1 alloys x ton Mg removed ton CI used
x 0.75 ton partlc. to atm. „ 51 ^ partloiaate Us.
ton partic. produced
charged to the atmosphere from chlorine fluxing in the re-
covery of scrap aluminum in 1968
4.15.3 Lead
Estimate of particulate emissions from recovery of scrap lead is
made on the basis of information in Reference 6 and the Minerals Yearbook.
Reference 13 lists three types of furnaces which are uBed for recovery of
scrap lead: (l) pot furnaces, (2) blast furnaces, and (3) reverberatory
furnaces. Pot furnaces process soft-lead scrap which is of fairly high
purity. Blast furnaces process drosses, slags and hard-lead scrap. Hard
lead has approximately 8$ antimony. Reverberatory furnaces process drosses,
battery plates, type metal, cable lead, solder, etc.—designated semi-soft
lead.
185
-------
Emissions from each-type of furnace are calculated as follows.
Production figures are from the Minerals Yearbook.
14/
1. Pot Furnaces
Emission factor: 0.8 lb. of particulate per ton of scrap chargediS/
Scrap consumed: 53,000 tons of soft lead
E = (55»000)(Q-9)(l-0-95 x 0.95)
2,000
= 2 tons of particulate dis-
charged to the atmosphere from pot furnaces
2. Blast Furnaces
Emission factor: 190 lb. of particulate per ton of scrap
Scrap consumed:
Hard lead
Drosses & residues
15,000 tons
104,000
119,000
E =
(119,000)(190)(1-0.95 x 0.95)
2,000
= 1,130 tons of particulate
discharged to the atmosphere from blast furnaces recovering
scrap lead
3. Reverberatory Furnaces
Emission factor: The emission factor for reverberatory furnaces
is taken as the average of the factor for rotary reverberatory fur-
naces, 70 lb. per ton, and the factor listed for reverberatory fur-
naces, 130 lb. per ton. The average is 100 lb. per ton of scrap
charged.
Scrap consumed: Scrap consumed in reverberatory furnaces is
taken as the difference between the total scrap consumed in the
secondary recovery of lead, 726,000 tons, and that ascribed to
the other types of furnace, 172,000 tons.
Total scrap consumed 726,000 tons
Scrap consumed in pot and blast furnaces 172,000
Scrap consumed in reverberatory furnaces 554,000
186
-------
E = (554,000)(100)(1-0.95 x 0.95) = 2,150 tons of particulate dis-
2,000
charged to the atmosphere from reverberatory furnaces re-
covering scrap lead
4.15.4 Zinc
Air pollution from the recovery of scrap zinc comes from sweat-
ing furnaces and distillation of the sweated metal. Data on emissions from
sweating furnaces indicate that the amount of emissions is as much a func-
tion of the type of scrap charged to the furnace as of the type of furnace.
The following emission factors have been determined.®/
Metallic scrap
kettle furnace-sweat 11 lb/ton of material sweated
reverberatory-sweat 13
Residual scrap
kettle furnace-sweat 24
reverberatory-sweat 40
We use an emission factor of 12 lb. per ton of material sweated for metal-
lic scrap and a factor of 30 lb. per ton of material sweated for residual
scrap.
The amount of metallic scrap reclaimed in 1968 is obtained from
the Minerals Yearbook.^/
New clippings 776 tons
Old zinc 5,112
Engravers' plates 3,610
Die castings 41,420
Rod and die scrap 1,192
52,110
The amount of residual scrap reclaimed in 1968 is taken as the difference
between the total scrap reclaimed and the scrap listed above as metallic
scrap. Included in residual scrap are die-cast skimmings, galvanizers1
dross, flue dust and chemical residues.
Total scrap reclaimed 262,756 tons
Listed above as metallic scrap 52>110
Residual scrap 210,646
The amount of particulate emissions from sweating metallic scrap
is estimated as follows.
187
-------
P = 52,000 tons of metallic scrap
ef = 30 lb. of particulate per ton of scrap
Since information on the control of particulate pollution for sweating
zinc scrap is lacking, we assume that the control is equivalent to the con-
trol of pollution from sweating furnaces used to recover scrap copper.
Cc = 95$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors
= 20$, percent of production capacity on which dust collectors
are installed
E = (S2;000?^2)^"0'95 x 0-2Q) = 233 tons per year from Wteat-
2 >000
ing metallic residues
The amount of particulate emissions fronj sweating residual scrap
is estimated as follows:
210,000 tons of residual scrap
30 lb. of particulate per ton of scrap
95$, average operating efficiency of duet collectors
20$, percent of production capacity on which duBt collectors
are Installed
(210,000)(30)(1-0.95 x 0.20) „ A „
v ' n2 L = 2,560 tons in 1968 from
sweating residual scrap
Distillation of the molten metal from sweating furnaces is car-
ried out in three types of retorts: (l) Belgian retorts, (2) distillation
retort furnaces, and (3) muffle furnaces. Belgian retorts are the oldest
and are being replaced by the newer types. Muffle fui$mpes can be oper-
ated continuously. Emission factors are listed in Reference 13 as 47 lb.
of particulate per ton of zinc recovered for "Betort Seduction Furnace"
and 45 lb. per ton for muffle furnaces. We use 45 lb. per ton to estimate
the emission from distillation in the recovery of scrap zinc.
P = 233,000 tons zinc recovered
ef = 45 lb. particulate per ton of zinc recovered
Cc and Ct: These -values are assumed to be the same as for
refining furnaces used to recover scrap copper
Cc = 95$, average operating efficiency of dust collectors
Ct - 60$l, percent of production capacity on which duet collectors
are installed
„ (233,000)(45)(1-0.95 x 0.60) „ ^ „ ...
E = 1 2 000 " 2'250 tans of Particulate ^
1968 from distillation of reclaimed zinc.
188
-------
REFERENCES
SECONDARY NQNFBKROUS METALS
1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Public Health Service Publication
Ho. 999-AP-40, 1967, p. 495 ff.
2. 1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-II; Bureau of Mines, U, S, Department
of the Interior, p. 478, Table 21.
3. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, second editionj
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1965, Vol. 6, p. 138.
4. "Air Pollution Aspects of the Brass and Bronze Smelting and Refining
Industry," National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication
No. AP-58, November, 1969, p. 43.
5. Ibid.. p. 42.
6. Ibid.. p. 22.
7. Ibid., pp. 38, 39, 41.
8. 1968 Minerals Yearbook, op. cit.. p. 479, Table 22.
9. Tomany, J. P., "A System for Control of Aluminum Chloride Fumes,"
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. June 1969, p. 421.
10. Duprey, R. L., "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,"
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-42, 1968, p. 29.
11. 1968 Minerals Yearbook, op. cit., p. 153, Table 4,
12. Tbid.. p. 671, Table 3.
13. "Air Pollutant Emission Factors," report of the Division of Air
Quality and Emissions Data, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, April 1370, prepared by TEW Systems Group of TRW,
Inc., Contract No. CPA 22-69-119, pp. 6-21 ff.
14. 1968 Minerals Yearbook, op. cit.. p. 645, Table 8.
15. Infonnation from report in preparation, Dr. William Herring, Division
of Proc. Cont. Engineering, National Air Pollution Control Admin-
istration, Durham, North Carolina, May 13, 1970.
16. Private communication, industrial source.
169
-------
4.16 Coal Preparation Plants
The major source of particulate emissions in coal preparation
plants is the thermal dryer, "transfer points, loading and unloading points
and crushing, grinding, and screening operations are secondary sources.
Burning coal-refuse piles are also significant pollution sources.
Thermal drying usually involves the combustion of coal and the
passage of combustion gases through a bed of wet coal. Thermal dryers are
of various types: (l) rotary, (2) continuous carrier, (3) vertical tray and
cascade, (4) multilouvre, (5) suspension or flash, and (6) fluidized Toed.
Because of higher capacity potential, the utilization of fluidized bed tech-
niques for thermal drying has expanded in recent years
The size consistency of the coal being dried and the. velocity of
the gases through the "bed are major factors in determining the air Pollution
potential of the plant. Emissions include products of combustion and errtra-
coal fines. lned
Ihe calculation of emissions from thermal dryers based on the us©
of an emission factor is not accurate since the emissions from each type of
dryer vary over a wide range depending on operating methods. The flash dryer
carries all of the product into a product separation cyclone, while the flui^
bed type may carry over from 5$ to 50$ of the product into the cyclone col-
lection system. For these reasons, the emissions are best calculated on the
basis of average outlet grain loadings from control equipment, as was done
a recent internal NAPCA study dated February 27, 1970.1*/ 11
Ihe NAPCA study included a survey of thermal dryers operated at
8 of the largest coal companies. The survey covered about 60$ of the total
coal dried yearly in the U.S. It determined a total air flow from these
of 1.16 X 1012 SCF/yr.5/ 4l"!"
Uiis survey also indicated that 50$ of the dryers were equipped
with cyclones, while the remaining 50$ were equipped with cyclones plus some
type of wet scrubber. Total emissions were then calculated to be in the o-tri
of 300,000 tons/yr assuming an outlet grain loading of 4.0 gr/SCF from cyci ^
0.15 gr/SCF from low energy scrubbers, and 0.04 gr/SCF from high-energy
bers. ~
Hie assumed grain loadings have been found to correspond with &» +
in the literature and data from the West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission. However, the fact that 50$ of the dryers are equipped with onl
cyclones seemed low in view of a 1967 West Virginia Air Pollution Control"^
Commission survey which indicated that less than 15$ of the dryers in that
state had cyclones only.£/
190
-------
Further analysis of the NAPCA survey showed that 50$ of the dryers
did have cyclones only, "but these represented only 13.8$ of the total air
flow. On this basis, the emissions are calculated in the following manner:
E = (1.16 x 1012 — )(l3.8$)(4 ££_)( i-£22 ) a 45,700 tons/yr
v yr SCF 14 x 10® grains
E = (1.16 x 1012 SCF)(86.2#)(0.15 |£E-)( I ton ) = 10,700 tons/yr
yr SCF 14 x 106 grains
Total 56,400 tons/yr
Ihen, if this represents about 60$ of the coal dried, the total annual partic-
ulate emissions from thermal dryers are 94,000 tons/yr.
A second method of calculating emissions, for comparison purposes,
can be done on the basis of emission factors for the dryers. Data in Reference
5 shows that the emission factor for the outlet of the dryer cyclone is 12
lb/ton for flash dryers and 13 lb/ton for fluid bed dryers. QSie emission
factor for the other types of dryers are probably somewhat lower since their
mode of operation should not carry out as much dust to the cyclone. Oils
includes the rotary, continuous carrier, cascade, and multilouvre dryers.®/
However, it might be assumed that the average overall emission factor is
12 lb/ton although this may be somewhat high. The calculation of the emis-
sions also involves the question of what percent of the coal is dried in
units that are equipped with wet scrubbers. Die two calculations given below
show the quantities emitted on the basis of two different assumptions. The
efficiency of the wet scrubbers has been estimated at 95$ for both cases.
a. It is assumed that 50$ of the coal is dried in units equipped
with wet scrubbers. This is similar to the NAPCA study which assumed that
50$ of the total air flow for all dryers is cleaned in wet scrubbers. The
NAPCA survey actually showed that 50$ of the number of dryers were equipped
with wet scrubbers and it was presumed that this also represents 50$ of the
total air flow. The emissions for this assumption are calculated as:
E = (73,000,000 tons)(lg_rb)(a.,000 Ib)(1.0-S0 x 0-95) . 230)000 toM/yr
yr ton ton
b. It is assumed that 85$ of the coal is dried in units equipped
with wet scrubbers. Diis assumption is based on our analysis of the data in
the NAPCA survey and is supported "by information from the West Virginia Air
Pollution Control Commission. The emissions for this assumption are calcu-
lated as:
E * (73,000,000 tons^12 lb ^2,000 ^)(1.0
-------
These results support the previously discussed emission calcula-
tions but do not resolve the question of the extent to which thermal dryers
are equipped with wet scrubbers. Based on the present information and cal-
culations described in this section, it is felt that the emission quantity
of 94,000 tons/yr is the more accurate figure.
Insufficient data were available to calculate particulate emission
rates from the secondary sources. Also, data could not be found on particu-
late emissions from burning coal-refuse banks. Reference 5 reports an emis-
sion level of 400,000 tons/yr of particulate from coal refuse. This figure
was calculated assuming that the emission factor for refuse piles corresponds
to that for open burning. This is a questionable assumption, and the number
of 400,000 tons per year is considered a gross estimate.
192
-------
REFERENCES
COAL PREPARATION PLANTS
1. Schrecengost, H. A., and Maurice S. Childers, "Fire and Explosion Hazards
in Fluidized-Bed Thermal Coal Dryers," Bureau of Mines Report, 1965.
2. Brown, H. R., et al., "Fire and Explosion Hazards in Thermal Coal-Drying
Plants," Bureau of MLnes Report of Investigations, 5198.
3. Internal Study on Coal Dryer Emissions, Div. of Proc. Cont. Engineering,
National Air Pollution Control Administration.
4. Private communication from Mr. David Ellis, West Virginia APC Commission,
Charleston, West Virginia.
5. Research Triangle Institute, Final Report, "Comprehensive Economic Cost
Study of Air Pollution- Control Costs for Selected Industries and
Selected Regions," NAPCA Contract No. CPA 22-69-79, February 1970,
p. T-4.
6* Coal Preparation, Third Ed., American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical
and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York, 1968, p. 13-8.
7. National Bnission Standard Study, Senate Document No. 91-63 (March 1970).
195
-------
4.17 Carbon Black
Carton "black is ultrafine soot manufactured "by the burning of
hydrocarbons in a limited supply of air. This finely divided material
(10 to 400 mn in diameter) is of industrial importance as a reinforcing agent
for rubber and as a colorant for printing ink, paint, paper, and plastics.
Three basic processes currently exist in the United States for
producing this compound. They are: the furnace process accounting for about
83$ of production; the older channel process which accounts for about 6$ of
production; and the thermal process. Atmospheric pollutants from the ther-
mal process are negligible since the exit gases which are rich in hydrogen
are used as fuel in the process. In contrast, the pollutants emitted from
the channel process are excessive and characterized by copious amounts of
highly visible black smoke. There are only three channel plants still in
operation, and they are all located in western Texas. Emissions from the
furnace process consist of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydro-
gen, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and some sulfur compounds.i/ A sum-
mary of estimated emissions is given in Sable 4.17-1.
The most important factor affecting emissions is the basic manu-
facturing process and its inherent inefficiency. Bius, emissions from the
channel black process are excessive, while those from the thermal process
are negligible. Particulate emissions from the furnace process are affected
by the type of collection equipment used. Gaseous emissions are largely de-
termined by the overall yield, type of fuel (that is, liquid or gas), the
reaction time and temperature, the ratio of gas to oil in the feed, and. the
amount of combustion air.
Additional emissions may occur from the conveying, grinding, screen
ing, drying, and packaging operations at a carbon black plant. Poorly de-
signed or maintained equipment can result in leaks and spills. Spillage of'
the fluffy black before pelleting is the source of pollution.
When pellets cease to form in the dry pelleting process the drum
has to be emptied and reloaded with fresh loose black, be reseeded, and
pelleting resumed. The emptying of the drum will naturally result in black
spillage.
Maintenance operations will often result in carbon black spillage
The cleaning of clogged screens, located either at the top of the storage
tank into which the finished black is screened or at the pelleting section
where oversized pellets are screened out, causes black to be discharged in
the atmosphere. Whenever a production line is plugged the remedial measur
are either to pound the line or use a vibrator. If this proves ineffective^8
194
-------
TABLE 4.17-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE
MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK
Source
I. Channel process
Quantity of
Material
71,500 tons,
carbon "black
Omission
Factor
2,300 lb/ton
product
Application
of Control
Cc
0.0
Efficiency
of Control
Ct
0.0
Net
Control flnissions
Cc'Ct (tons/yr)
0.0
82,000
H
CO
cn
TT. Furnace process
A. Gas
B. Oil
156,000 tons,
carbon black
1,180,000 tons,
carbon black
60 lb/ton
product*
10 lb/ton
product*
Total
5,000
6,000
93,000
• See 3M>le 4.17-2.
-------
high-pressure air is used to dislodge the black. Carbon black is generally-
emitted to the atmosphere in this operation.
Carbon black is so finely divided that whenever a leak develops
in plant equipment, such as in the conveyor system, or in the bins, or at
the bagging equipment, black will seep out into the atmosphere.
Emission factors for carbon black manufacture were taken from
Reference 1, and are summarized in Table 4.17-2. Factors for the channel
black process are questionable due to a complete absence of emission data.
Production of carbon black was 1.4 million tons in 1968. The
furnace process accounted for 1.33 million tons and the channel process
71,475 tons
TABLE 4
.17-ai/
EMISSIONS FROM CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURING PROCESSES,
lb/ton OF PRODUCT
Process Particulate
Channel-^ 2,300 (2,000 to 5,000)
Thermal neg.
Furnace .
Gas 22C&/
60SJ
Oil Kg/
a/ Based on yield of 1.5 lb. of carbon black per 1,000 ft of gas feed,
b/ 90$ overall collection efficiency, that is, no collection -after
cyclone.
c/ 97$ overall collection efficiency, that is, cyclones followed by scrubby
d/ 99.5$ overall collection efficiency, that is, fabric filter system.
Note: finission ranges are due to variations in operating conditions and not
any specific factors.
196
-------
Die emission calculations are as follows:
4.17.1 Channel Process:
E = (7-15 x 10* tons/yr)(2.3 x 103 lb/ton) , B2225 tons
2 x10s
4.17.2 Furnace Process:
4.17.2.1 Gas Process: Production of carbon "black "by the
gas furnace process amounted to 156,000 tons in 1968.2/ The controlled
emission factor vas assumed to be 60 It/ton of product.
E = (1-56 xlO5 tons/yr)(60 lb/ton) = 4 ?00 tong
2 x 103
4.17.2.2 Oil Process: Production of carbon black by the
oil furnace process amounts to 1.18 million tons in 1968.2/
E = (1-18 x 106 tons/yr)(lO lb/ton) = Q tong
2 x 103
4.17.2.3 Materials Handling: Due to the variability of
these emissions, no emission estimate is possible.
4.17.2.4 Summary of Emissions: Ihe current particulate
emissions from carbon black manufacture are:
Channel Process 82,225 tons
Gas Furnace Process 4,700 tons
Oil Furnace Process 5,900 tons
92,825 tons
197
-------
references
CARBON BLACK
"Air Pollutant Qnission Factors," report of the Division of Air Quality
and Emissions Data, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
April 1970, prepared by TRW Systems Group of TOW, Inc., Contract No.
22-69-119, p. 4-20.
Minerals Yearbook Vol. I-II, Bureau of Mines, 1968, p. 235, Table No. l.
198
-------
4.18 Fatroleum Refining
The petroleum industry can logically be divided into three major
divisions; production, refining, and marketing. Production includes the
operations involved in locating and drilling oil fields, removing oil from
the ground, pretreatment at the well site, and transporting the crude to
the refinery. Refining is limited to operations necessary to convert the
crude into salable products. Marketing involves the distribution and sale
of finished petroleum products. Only the refining operations will be
considered in this discussion.
The emission of particulate matter from refineries may originate
from catalyst regeneration, decoking operations, airblown asphalt stills,
sludge burner, boilers, process heaters and incineratorsFlare systems
may also result in particulate emissions due to formation of carbon particles
but this is a result of the combustion process at the flare. Emissions
from boilers and process heaters are included in the stationary combustion
source category. The catalyst regenerator is the remaining major particu-
late emission source.
In the production of high-octane gasoline, oil end powdered catalyst
are mixed in a reactor. Spent catalyst, containing residual carbon (or coke)
from the catalytic cracking process taking place in a reactor, is mixed with
combustion air and fed to the regenerator in order to reactivate the catalyst
by burning off the coke or residual carbon formed on the catalyst. After re-
generation, the hot incinerated catalyst is mixed with crude oil and is
transported back to the reactor and the cycle repeated.
The gaseous products of combustion from the top of the regenerator
are exhausted through a series of mechanical collectors which return their
catch directly to the fluid bed. The finer fractions of the catalyst escape
along with the discharged gas. The exhaust gases may be further cleaned
with additional cyclones or an electrostatic precipitator.
J&nission rates from catalyst regenerator units could not be
calculated by the methods of emission factors because of the high extent of
control. Available data indicate that one 6,000 BPSD (barrel per stream
day) FCC unit emits 0.135 ton of dust/day based on 0.016# dust in the air
stream out of the final separator,i/ The total capacity of FCC units is
3,609,000 BPSD.i/ By direct ratio:
Emission from FCC - (3,609,000j (0.135 ton/day) ¦ SI tons/day
6,000
a 24,000 tons/yr
199
-------
The emissions may be calculated "by another method. Information
from Reference 3 indicates catalyst "losses" range from 0.05-0.1 lh/bbl
fresh feed. Using the average of 0.075 lb/bbl, the emissions would be:
(°.--075 lb) (3-609 X 106 ttl) (330 day} . 44j70Q t ,
bbl day yr 2,000 lb
The latter figure of 44,700 tons/year is probably more represent-
ative because the former figure is based on data from only one plant.
Emissions from decokers and asphalt stills were not determined
because of lack of data on emissions from these sources. Discussions with
refinery engineers indicated these sources were probably small compared to
regenerators.
200
-------
REFERENCES
PETROLEUM REFINING
1. Private Communication, Industrial Source.
2. "Production Statistics," Oil and Gas Journal, March 24, 1969.
3. Hydrocarbon Processing, 1968 Refining Process Handbook. Houston, Texas,
Gulf Publishing Co., September, 1968, pg. 147.
201
-------
4.19 Mineral Acids
Particulate pollution from the manufacture of mineral acids is
significant only for sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid. Air pollutants
from the manufacture of hydrochloric acid and nitric acid are in a gaseous
state in the discharge stacks except for a hydrocarbon mist discharge with
hydrogen chloride in the manufacture of hydrochloric acid. The quantity of
hydrocarbon mist is considered to be insignificant with regard to tonnage.
Particulate pollutants from the manufacture of both sulfuric
acid and phosphoric acid are acid mists from the absorption equipment.
Dust from handling and stockpiling solid sulfur is a secondary source.
The most important source of sulfuric acid mists appears to be airblown
concentrators used in the recovery of spent acid in such processes as the
manufacture of nitroglycerine from which the acid emerges chemically un-
changed. Although sulfuric acid is a comparatively inexpensive material,
its recovery in these instances is economical.
A summary of emission factors and estimated quantities of emis-
sions is given in Table 4.19-1. Values of Cc and C-^ used in the cal-
culations are discussed in Chapter 5, pp. 237-238.
4.19.1 Sulfuric Acid
There are two processes in current use for manufacturing sul-
furic acid: (l) the chamber process, and (2) the contact process. In both
processes, acid is produced by absorption of sulfur trioxide in water, in.
the chamber process, oxides of nitrogen are used to oxidize sulfur dioxide
to sulfur trioxide; in the contact process, the oxidation of sulfur dioxide
is effected by catalytic action.
The emission factors for absorption towers in sulfuric acid
manufacture are obtained from Reference 1. The factors in the reference
are listed on a time basis, tons of mist per day; the factors used here,
which, are based on process weight, have been calculated from the • production
data given in the reference. The emission rates in Reference 1 for the
contact process have been classified by source of the sulfur as follows:
1. Elemental sulfur
2. Metallurgical gas
3. Spent acid
4. Wet gas
Bnission rates from elemental sulfur are further classified by (l) state
of the sulfur, solid or molten, and (2) degree of refinement, bright or
dark. Table 4.19-2 shows the emission factors calculated for these various
202
-------
TABLE 4.19-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
MINERAL ACIDS
to
S
Source
I. Sulfuric Acid
A. Processing Units
1. Gay-Lussac tower
(chamber process)
2. Absorber (contact
process)
B. Spent-Acid Concentrators
1. Air-blown
2. Vacuum
H. Phosphoric Acid
Process
Thermal
Quantity of Material
26,000,000 tons of HgSO^
1,000,000 tons of HgS04
27,000,000 tons of H2S04
11,200,000 tons of spent
acid
1,020,000 tons of PgOg
Emission Factor
Efficiency Application
of Control of Control Net Control Emissions
C; Ct Cc -Ct ton/yr
5 lb/ton H2S04 0.0
2 lb/ton H2S04 0.95
30 lb/ton of spent 0.95
acid
134 lb. particulate/
ton of P2O5 pro-
duced
0.97
0.0
0.9O
0.85
1.0
Total from Acids
0.0
0.85
0.80
0.97
2,000
4,000
8,000
Neg.
2,000
16,000
-------
TABLE 4.19-2
AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFURIC ACID
PLANTS USING THE CONTACT PROCESS
Plant Type
Sulfur burning, air dilution
Raw material
molten dark
molten recovered
Emission Factor
lb. particulate/ton H2SO4
Without mist
eliminator
2.5
1.1
With mist
eliminator
0.1
Sulfur burning, no air dilution
molten recovered
solid, bright
solid, dark
molten dark
0.9
1.7
1.2
3.7
3.0
Metallurgical
Spent acid
pyr't spent acid
pyr't
by-product gas
-spent acid and sulfur
spent acid
spent acid, HgS sulfur
1.2
7.4
3.2
2.3
2.2
0.2
Wet gas
HgS, sulfur
1.2
-------
classifications. The range for the 11 factors tabulated is 0.9-7.4 lb. per
ton of H2SO4 obtained as end product; ten of the eleven are below 4 lb. per
ton. Inspection of Table 4.19-2 suggests that processes using metallurgical
gases may have the highest rate of particulate emissions; no difference is
evident between states of the sulfur.
The emission factors for the contact process can also be tabu-
lated according to towers utilizing mist eliminators and towers without mist
eliminators. The arithmetic average for 21 items in the data for "without
mist eliminator" group is 2.2 lb. per ton. The average for nine items in
the "with" group is 0.9 lb. per ton. The average for the "without" group
is approximately twice that of the "with" group. This is less than the
difference within the groups; however, a statistical test (t-test) on the
difference between the means for the "with" group is significantly less than
the mean for the "without" group. Table 4.19-3 is a tabulation of the sta-
tistical calculations. In making inferences from the statistical calcula-
tions, it should be noted that a wide dispersion of the data is indicated
by the large values of the standard deviations relative to the means.
The average of all 30 items of data given in Reference 1 for con-
tact plants is approximately 2 lb. of particulate discharged from absorption
towers per ton of 100$ H2SO4 obtained as end product. This factor was used
to estimate the particulate pollution from contact plants as follows:
E = (27,000,000)(—¦!=—)(1-0.95 x 0.90) - 4,000 tons
2,000
For chamber process plants, only two items of data are given in
Reference 1. Baission factors of 2.3 lb. per ton for molten dark sulfur as
the raw material and 8.6 lb. per ton for solid sulfur as the raw material
are calculated. An average of the two factors, 5 lb. of particulate per
ton of 100$ H2SO4 obtained as end product, was used to estimate the quantity
of emissions from plants manufacturing sulfuric acid by the chamber process.
E = (1,000,000)(—£—.) = 2,500 tons
2,000
Spent acid concentrators have been acknowledged as sua important
source of air pollution,but information in the literature concerning the
air-pollution aspects of acid concentrators is scarce. There are two types
of concentrators: (l) airblown concentrators, and (2) vacuum concentrators.
The economics of the two types are such that airblown concentrators are
favored where the desired strength of the re-concentrated acid exceeds 80$.
Nearly all concentrators are of the airblown type.
205
-------
TABLE 4.19-3
COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS
PLANTS WITH MIST ELIMINATORS VS. PLANTS WITHOUT MIST ELIMINATORS
Bnission Factors
No. of missions factors, N
Arithmetic average of emission factors, X
Standard deviation, s _
t =
X1 " *2
A
= 1.74
2 2
Sl+ Si
Nx + N2
Plants with
mist eliminators
21
0.1 lb. mist
ton H2SO4
1.7
Plants without
mist eliminators
2.2 lb. mist
ton H2SO4
2.1
degrees of freedom =
®1 ®2
+ N2
Nx + 1
- 2 = 22
n2 + 1
Hypothesis: The emission factor for plants using mist eliminators is less than the emission factor for
plants not using mist eliminators.
Probability^:
Probability^ Q25:
t = 1.72
t = 2.07
Statistical formulas from Walker and Lev, Statistical Inference, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1953,
pp. 157-156.
-------
The following data were used to calculate an emission factor
for air-blown spent-acid concentrators ^
Volume of gas from concentrators 89,000 cu ft/min
Gas temperature 166°C
Avg. mist concentration 117 mgm/std cu ft
Process weight 700 tons/day of spent acid
89,000 cu ft x 275 x ir7jngm x 1 lb x 1440 min
min 439 std cu ft 454,000 mgm day
x 1 day 50 lb mist
700 tons spent acid = ton of spend acid
This acid was being concentrated from 70$ to 95$.
There are presently 160 spent-acid concentrators in the United
States; 147 of these are in ordnance plants. The average capacity is
approximately 200 tons of spent acid per day.-/ The capacity of spent-
acid concentrators is thus:
160 units x 200 tons x 550 days = 11,200,000 tons per year
unit-day year
Concentrators in ordnance plants operate, on an annual average, at much
less than capacity, possibly only ten percent of the time.5/ If a
utilization factor of 0.25 is assumed for the total capacity, the following
estimate can be made for the quantity of particulate emissions from
spent-acid concentrators.
E = 11,200,000 X 0.25 tons acid x 30 lb particulate x 1 ton
ton spent acid 1,000
x (1-0.95 x 0.85) = 8,000 tons discharged to the atmosphere
4.19.2 Phosphoric Acid
Under this heading is discussed only the thermal process for
manufacturing phosphoric acid. The wet process, used extensively in the
fertilizer industry, is discussed in Section 4.11, Fertilizers and Phosphate
Bock, p. 146.
Manufacture of phosphoric acid "by the thermal process involves
combustion of phosphorous to form phosphorus pentoxide which is absorbed in
water to form phosphoric acid. The source of particulate emissions is
the effluent gas stream from the absorption process which contains a mist
of phosphoric acid. Because the particulate emission is productt collection
equipment is installed.
207
-------
The emission factor for the thermal process is derived from
data in Reference 4. Data from eight plants yields a geometric mean of
134 lb. of mist per ton of ^2^5 obtained as end product. The range is
36-869 lb. per ton; the arithmetic mean is 212 lb. per ton. Values for
seven of the eight plants are at or below 200 lb. per ton. Estimate of
the quantity of particulate emissions from the thermal process for
manufacture of phosphoric acid is as follows:
E = 1,020,000 tons x 134 lb mist x (1-0.97 x 1.0)
yr ton P2O5
x •*- "k°n— = 2,000 tons/yr
2,000 lb.
208
-------
REFERENCES
MINERAL ACIDS
Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes,
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-13; 1965.
Clause, N. W., "The Reduction of Atmospheric Pollution from Sulfuric
Acid Recovery Processes," Air Repair, February 1954, pp. 131-136.
Private communication, Chemical Construction Company, New York,
July 1970.
Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication, No. AP-48
October 1968.
209
-------
4.20 Secondary Sources
Secondary sources are defined as operations that are ancillary to
the main processing units in a plant. The secondary sources in a plant are
generally multiple sources in contrast with a major source which, in many
industries, can "be identified as a single piece of equipment. With regard
to particulate pollution, "boilers in the electric-utility industry, kilns
in the cement industry, furnaces in the iron and steel industry, aggregate
dryers in asphalt plants and catalytic cracking units in petroleum refiner-
ies are further examples of major sources. These major sources are all
equipment in which some kind of processing takes place. It may be noted
that all of the equipment mentioned involves heat transfer.
mon to many plants
Hie following outline lists some secondary sources which are com-
y plants.
Processing equipment
A. Size reduction
1. Crushers
2. Grinders
3. Mills
B. Size separation - screens
II. Materials handling
A. Elevators
1. Boots
2. Heads
B. Conveyor discharge points
1. Transfer points
2. Discharge to storage
a. Bins, silos
b. Stockpiles
C. Shipping
1. Unloading of raw materials
2. Shipment of product
a. Bulk loading
b. Bagging
III. Stockpiles - windblown dust
IV. In-plant traffic on dusty roads
In addition to the sources common to many plants, there are secondary g~»i1T
which are intrinsic to a particular industry—for example, slakers in lime
plants and dissolving tanks in Kraft pulp mills.
210
-------
Particulate emissions from much of the process equipment listed in
the outline have been effectively controlled. Equipment which is enclosed,
such as a haramermill or an elevator "boot, can "be easily vented to a dust-col-
lection system. Conveyor transfer points can be effectively hooded. If the
conveyor system contains extensive footage, considerable ducting may be re-
quired to serve all the transfer points. Stockpiles are a source of dust
which more or less defy design of a dust-collection system. One solution
to the dust problem of stockpiles is silos, which can be vented to dust-
collection equipment. However, the cost of these may be prohibitive if the
amount of material to be stored is large. Stockpiles of coal at a steel
mill may be as high as 100 feet and cover an area of 10 acres or more. Dust
from in-plant traffic over dirt and gravel roads can be a significant source
where truck traffic is frequent. Crushed-stone plants consider this source
to be a major one in this industry. Ihe best solution found by crushed-
stone plants to keep down road dust is the use of water wagons to spray the
roads continuously. Collection of dust from processing equipment and mate-
rials handling equipment becomes increasingly economical as the value of the
dust increases with the amount of processing it has undergone; and where the
end product is a dust, such as flour from a flour mill, the problem of air
pollution becomes a minor one because of the economic necessity of dust col-
lection.
Ihe sources of secondary pollution such as elevators which are not
enclosed, points in conveyor systems at which materials are transferred from
one conveyor to another or discharged to storage, and stockpiles are sources
of air pollution which are less conspicuous as well as less profuse than
cupolas and boiler stacks. Consequently, although such sources have not
escaped notice, development of methods for their control has been of less
concern. However, the importance of secondary sources relative to the total
pollution load is indicated by some of the estimates made for dust from mate-
rials handling. In the iron and steel industry, the amount of dust from mate-
rials handling is estimated at approximately one-third of the total particu-
late emissions for the industry. In the lime industry, approximately half of
the total emissions is estimated to come from crushing and screening. Diese
proportions are a function of the effectiveness of pollution control on the
major sources. The proportion of pollution from secondary sources in an
industry increases as the pollution from the major sources decreases; and in
the iron and steel industry there has been notable reduction in the rate, i.e.,
pounds of emissions per ton of product, of emissions from the furnaces. Al-
though the quantity of particulate emissions from blast furnaces is estimated
as 58,000 tons (see liable 4.1-1, p. 50), this quantity would be approximately
4,000,000 tons if pollution control of blast furnaces, 0.99J&, were of no
greater extent than the "Net Control", 0.32$, assumed for materials handling
in the industry; and the 446,000 tons estimated for materials -ing would
be consequently of less significance. Bius, the installation of pollution
control equipment on the major sources results in an Increase of the signi-
ficance of secondary sources relative to the total pollution load*
211
-------
The estimates of particulate pollution from secondary sources sug-
gest that increased attention should be given to: (l) measurement of quan-
tities of pollution from the various secondary sources; and (2) investigation
of methods of control of secondary sources.
212
-------
5. EXTENT CEF CONTROL
The quantity of particulates emitted from industrial sources
has "been, in most cases, calculated on the "basis of an emission factor
which relates the production rate to the quantity of particulate produced
by the process. The quantity thereby obtained is that which would be
emitted if no pollution control equipment were used. Therefore, to determine
the quantity of particulate emitted to the atmosphere, it is necessary
to know if the source is controlled and at what efficiency.
Table 4.1-1 shows the quantity of particulates emitted by
the major industrial sources. To prepare this table, it was necessary
to know the percent of the production capacity that has controls
(application of control), and the average efficiency of the control
equipment weighted on the basis of the associated production capacity
(efficiency of control). The product of the application and efficiency
is the net control, which can be used along with the production rate and
emission factor to calculate the quantity of particulate emitted to the
atmosphere. The methods used to obtain the net control for each of the
industry's shown in Table 4.1-1 are explained in the following sections.
The complete computation of the quantities emitted and an explanation of
the values used are contained in Section 4.
The net control was determined by phone survey for some of the
industries. The people contacted by phone were very cooperative and
provided the requested information after some assurances as to its use
and the objective of our program. Other techniques for obtaining net
control are discussed where they were used.
5.1 Coal-Fired Boilers
5.1.1 Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers
A phone survey of electric utilities was carried out to obtain
accurate information as to the application and efficiency of control in
this industry. This survey contacted 88 companies representing 190 plants
and 673 boilers. So that a large percentage of the coal usage in this
industry would be covered by the survey, only those plants burning more
than 100,000 tons/yr of coal were contacted.
The information requested from each plant is shewn on attached
Figure 5.1-1. The efficiency of the control equipment was estimated by
the plant operator in most cases although a few were based on actual test
data. The results of the survey axe shewn below. Discussion of these
results and additional information are presented on the following pages.
215
-------
Company Location
Plant No.
Number of Boilers
Boiler 1:
Type (Pulverized, stoker, cyclone)
Coal Used (tons/yr)
Control Equipment
Efficiency (measured or estimated)
Average $> ash in coal
Boiler 2:
Type
Coal Used
Control Equipment
Efficiency
Average $ ash in coal
Boiler 3:
Type
Coal Used
Control Equipment
Efficiency
Average # ash in coal
Figure 5.1-1 - Phone Survey Data Form
214
-------
Results of Phone Survey:
Efficiency Application
Type of Boilers of Control of Control Net Control
1) Pulverized 92.3$ 96.9$ 89.4$
2) Stoker 80.0$ 87.4$ 70.0$
3) Cyclone 91.0$ 70.6$ 64.3$
5.1.1.1 Pulverized Coal Boilers: The phone survey covered
plants using 136,145,000 tons/yr of coal or 53$ of the total 258,400,000
tons/yr of coal used by all pulverized coal boilers in the electric utility
industry.
The application of control of 96.9$ is weighted on the "basis
of the quantity of coal used and is believed to be a very accurate
figure for the present situation. It must be pointed out that many
of the plant operators stated that they were planning to install new
control equipment within the next 1-3 years or they were planning to
switch over to oil or gas.
The efficiency of control of 92.3$ is also weighted on the basis
of the quantity 6f coal used. In most cases the efficiency estimated by
the plant operator was within the efficiency range expected for the
particular type of control device. It was calculated that for the coal
burned in controlled plants using cyclones or electrostatic precipitators,
24.3$ used cyclones or multiclones at a weighted average efficiency of
82.2$, while the remaining 75.7$ used electrostatic precipitators or
cyclones plus an electrostatic precipitator at a weighted average efficiency
of 96.0$. This corresponds to an efficiency of control of 92.6$ which
does not exactly match the calculated value of 92.3$ since a few plants
still are equipped only with settling chambers.
The average efficiency of 96$ for systems with electrostatic
precipitators is supported by the fact that a large percentage of electro-
static precipitator capacity has been installed since 1955 with average
design efficiency in excess of 96$. i/ The survey figure of 96$ also re-
flects the fact that about 20$ of the coal burned utilizing electrostatic
precipitators includes a cyclonic device in series with the electrostatic
precipitator.
215
-------
The average efficiency of 82.2$ for the cyclone or multiclone
systems is based mostly on estimated efficiencies but is within the range
of these devices although it is somewhat on the high side. If the effi-
ciency for these devices was assumed to be 70$ rather than 82.2# this would
reduce the overall efficiency of control from 92.3$ to 89.7$.
5.1.1.2 Stoker-Fired Coal Boilers: The phone survey covered 18
plants using 4,444,000 tons/yr of coal or 45$ of the total 9,900,000 ton/yr
of coal used by all stoker-fired boilers in the electric utility industry.
The application of control and the efficiency of control, weighted
on the basis of the quantity of coal used, were found to be 07.4$ and 80.1%
respectively. The application of control for stoker boilers is, of cours^
less than for the pulverized boilers. Also, only 5.2$ of coal burned is
contioiled in boilers equipped with electrostatic precipitators. The re_
maining 94.8$ are equipped with cyclonic collectors.
5.1.1.3 Cyclone-Fired Coal Boilers: The phone survey covered 21
plants using 14,971,000 tons/yr of coal or 52$ of the total 28,700,000
ton/yr of coal used by all cyclone-fired boilers in the electric utility
industry.
The application of control and the efficiency of control, weighted
on the basis of the quantity of coal used, were found to be 70.6$ and 91.0%
respectively. The application of control is therefore less than for either'
pulverized or stoker-fired boilers. However, the survey revealed that the
efficiency of control is high (91.0$).because 81.2$ of the coal is burned
cyclone controlled boilers that are equipped with electrostatic precipitatorj
5.1.1.4 Ash Content of Coals Used: The phone survey of the elec-
tric utilities also included a request for information regarding ash content
of coal used. It was found that the average ash content for the coal used
weighted on the basis of quantity of coal burned, was as follows: '
Type of Boiler Average Ash Content
Pulverized 11.9$
Stoker 11.2$
Cyclone 11.8$
The average ash content of 11.9$ given above agrees exactly with
that calculated based on data from a recent survey by the Federal Power
Commission.
216
-------
5.1.2 Coal-Fired Industrial Boilers
A phone survey of industrial coal-fired boilers, similar to the
survey of electric utility boilers, was also carried out. This survey con-
tacted 68 companies, each of which burned more than 10,000 tons/yr of coal.
The results of the survey are shown below. Discussion of these results and
additional information follows.
Efficiency of Application
Type of Boilers Control of Control Net Control
(1) Pulverized 84.7# 95.5# 81.0#
(2) Stoker 84.7# 61.7# 52.3#
(3) Cyclone 82.4# 90.5# 74.7#
5.1.2.1 Pulverized Coal Boilers: The phone survey covered 42
plants using 7,055,000 tons/yr of coal or 35# of the total 20,000,000 tons/yr
of coal used by all pulverized coal industrial boilers.
The application of control and efficiency of control, weighted
on the basis of the quantity of coal used, were found to be 95.5# and 84.7#,
respectively. In most cases the efficiency of control was estimated by
the plant operator and was within the efficiency range expected for the
particulate control device.
It was found that 31# of the controlled plants, on the basis of
quantity of coal consumed, were using electrostatic precipitators while
most of the remaining 69# were using multiclanes.
5.1.2.2 Stoker-Fired Boilers: The survey covered 59 plants vising
6,600,000 tons/yr of coal or 9.4# of the total 70,000,000 tons/yr of coal
vised by all stoker-fired industrial boilers.
The application of control and the efficiency of control, weighted
on the basis of quantity of coal used, were found to be 61.7# and 84.7#,
respectively.
It was found that 14.8# of the controlled plants, on the basis
of quantity of coal consumed, were using electrostatic precipitators while
most of the remaining 85.2# were using multiclanes. It is interesting to
note that the percentage vising electrostatic precipitators on industrial
stoker-fired boilers is about three times greater than for stoker-fired
boilers in the electric utility industry.
217
-------
5.1.2.3 Cyclone-Fired Boilers: The survey covered 11 plants
using 2,230,000 tons/yr of coal or 22.3$ of the total 10,000,000 tons/yr
of coal used by all. cyclone-fired industrial boilers.
The application of control and efficiency of control, weighted
on the basis of quantity of coal used, were found to be 90.5$ and 82.4$,
respectively.
It was found that 55$ of the controlled plants, on the basis of
quantity of coal consumed, were using electrostatic precipitators while
most of the remaining 45$ were using multiclones.
The survey indicates that the application of control (90.5$) in
industrial cyclone-fired boilers is greater than that for cyclone-fired
boilers in the electric utility industry (70.6$).
5.1.2.4 Ash Content of Coal Used: The phone survey of industrial
coal-fired boilers also included a request for information as to the ash
content of the coal used. It was found that the average ash content was
about the same for each type of boiler. However, this average ash content
is lower than the average of 11.9$ determined for electric utility boilers
Type of Boiler Average Ash Content
Pulverized 10.6$
Stoker 10.2$
Cyclone 10.3$
5.2 Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel
5.2.1 Crushed Stone
The extent of control for crushed stone is based on discussions
of industry practice with members of the National Crushed Stone Association
The 25$ application of control is indicative of the fact that the particulate
sources in the crushed stone operations are many and varied. Most of the
sources are of the "fugitive" type and effective control is difficult. Con-
ventional methods of control, including water spray systems, are used for
the crushing and grinding operations, but no data have been located to de-
termine the efficiency of these systems as applied to crushed stone. This
efficiency was estimated to average about 80$.
218
-------
5.2.2 Sand and Gravel
The net control for sand and gravel operations has been assumed
to be zero since many of the operations are performed wet, as evidenced
by the relatively small emission factor shown in Table 4.1-1.
5.3 Agriculture Operations
5.3.1 Grain Elevators
The extent of control for grain elevators has been determined
by discussions with the industry and a supplier of control equipment for
that industry. These discussions have pointed out that almost all elevators
do use some cyclones but there are many points of emission in each elevator.
Very little data have been collected as to the relative quantities emitted
from each source within any elevator. Our estimate is 40$ for the applica-
tion of control.
The control equipment used in grain elevators is usually cyclones
although some baghouses are being used. Discussions with the control equip-
ment manufacturer and actual testing previously done by MRI indicate that
the efficiency of the cyclones can be as high as 90$. However, other test-
ing of cyclones in various services in one elevator shewed efficiencies
ranging from 45$ to 68$ with a weighed average of 64.3$. The average of
64.3$ appears to be more realistic considering the low specific gravity
and small particle size of the emissions. Talcing this into account and
considering that some baghouses are used, it is estimated that the average
efficiency of control is 70$. Therefore, net control is 28$.
5.3.2 Cotton Gins
The extent of control for cotton gins has been determined on the
basis of conversations with the Texas Air Control Board and the Cotton
Ginning Laboratory of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. These discus-
sions indicate that although most gins do utilize some cyclones, only about
40$ of the individual sources have these controls, i.e., application of
control = 40$. The efficiency of the cyclones vised was estimated to be
80$. Therefore, the net control is 32$.
5.3.3 Feed Mills
5.3.3.1 Alfalfa Mills: The computation of emissions from alfalfa
dehydrators uses an emission factor based on the outlet of the first cooling
cyclone that is common to all dehydrators. The extent of control, therefore,
reflects only the status of equipment used following this first cyclone.
219
-------
On the basis of projects presently being conducted by MRI it
was estimated that plants totaling half the production capacity have addi-
tional collection equipment following the first cooling cyclone. This
corresponds to an application of control of 50$. Since the additional col-
lection equipment installed is usually a second cooling cyclone of higher
efficiency, it was estimated that the efficiency of control is 85$. The
resultant net control is 42$.
5.3.3.2 Mills Other Than Alfalfa: Due to lack of information
regarding control practices, the efficiency and application of control was
assumed to be the same as that for alfalfa mills.
5.4 Iron and Steel
5.4.1 Ore Crushing
The net control has been taken as zero for ore crushing as it
was assumed little if any control equipment has been applied to this
operation.
5.4.2 Materials Handling
No information was available that would allow an assessment of
the control practices for materials handling operations. An application
of control of 35$ was assumed for the various sources associated with
materials handling and the efficiency of control was estimated to be 90$.
Net control therefore is 32$.
5.4.3 Pellet Plants
The emissions were computed for pellet plant by assuming that
net control is 75$.
5.4.4 Sinter Plants
Due to the lack of information in the published literature re-
garding extent of control for the iron and steel industry, and the rapidly
changing status of production methods, a phone surVey of the integrated
iron and steel industry was conducted. This survey requested production
quantities plus type and efficiency of control equipment used in the sinter
plants, open hearth furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces and electric arc furnaces
The phone survey contacted 11 companies that operate sinter plants
and represented about 50$ of the sinter plant production. The phone survey
has reaffirmed the fact that this operation always has at least some type
220
-------
of cyclone removal system, operating at relatively high efficiency for re-
covery and reuse of the dust. Also, one plant has been testing various con-
trol methods and found that an electrostatic precipitator would be unsatis-
factory because the collected material "fused" to the electrodes and could
not be rapped off. The phone conversations have disclosed that the trend
toward high flux sinter is creating problems due to the change in particu-
late electrical resistivity.
The control equipment used on bindbox gases consisted, in almost
all plants, of cyclones or cyclones followed by an electrostatic precipita-
tor. However, one plant reported using only a settling chamber. The dis-
charge and control methods usually consisted only of cyclone-type equipment
although two plants were using wet scrubbers and another used a baghouse.
Based on the phone survey the application of control and efficiency
of control, weighed on the basis of production capacity, have been determined
to be 100$ and 90$, respectively. Therefore, the net control is 90$. This
applies specifically to controls on the windbox but the phone coversations
indicate that this may also be representative of the controls used on the
discharge end.
5.4.5 Coke Manufacture
The beehive ovens are completely uncontrolled so the net control
is 0$. In the by-product coke ovens, essentially all of the particulate
matter generated during operation is removed as a consequence of the by-
product recovery process. However, the particulate matter generated during
the charging, pushing and quenching operations is uncontrolled. Since the
emission factors shown in Table 4.1-1 applied only to these emissions, the
net control is 0$ for the by-product coke ovens.
5.4.6 Blast Furnaces
All blast furnaces have a high control efficiency as the gases
must be cleaned for subsequent vise as fuel. Any remaining particulate
matter becomes a part of the effluent from the fuel user. There is some
dust emission that escapes during charging and tapping. Therefore, the
efficiency of control has been estimated to be 99$ while the application
of control is 100$.
5.4.7 Open Hearth Furnaces
The phone survey contacted eight companies that are presently
operating open hearth furnaces and this represented 42$ of the open hearth
production. Several other companies were contacted at which the open hearth
furnaces were no longer in operation.
221
-------
The data obtained in the phone survey showed that the present
application of control is 41$. This is considerably higher than reporte
in earlier literature, due to rapid retirement of many of these furnaces
and the increased use of oxygen lancing accompanied by the installation
of the control equipment necessitated by this process modification.
All of the open hearths that are presently controlled reported
using electrostatic precipitators exclusively. The associated efficiency
of control was determined to be 97$.
5.4.8 Basic Oxygen Furnaces
The phone survey contacted 14 companies that operate BOF's and
represented over 90$ of the BOF production capacity. The information ob-
tained has reaffirmed the data in the Battelle^/ report showing that a.l \
BOF's are equipped with high efficiency control equipment consisting of
either a high-energy wet scrubber or electrostatic precipitator. Thus
the application of control is 100$. The average efficiency of control is
99$ based on actual or estimated efficiencies obtained in the phone survey-
s'.9 Electric Arc Furnaces
The phone survey contacted 16 companies that operate electric
arc steel furnaces and represented 60$ of the electric arc steel production
Earlier data indicated that only 10$ of the electric axe furnac
were controlled.^/ Contrary to this, the phone survey reveals that 79$ Qj.S
the production capacity has control equipment (application of control = 79*
Most of these controlled units employed baghouses. Two plants reported
using wet scrubbers and one used an electrostatic precipitator. Based on
this information the efficiency of control has been estimated at 99$.
ever, there is an unknown quantity of fume that escapes collection during ""
charging and other phases of the furnace operation.
5.4.10 Scarfing
No information regarding scarfing operations was included in the
phone survey. Literature sources indicate that many plants use a baffle^
settling chamber,1/ while others employ electrostatic precipitators or hirfw
energy scrubbers.5/ Therefore, the efficiency of control has been esti- "
mated at 90$ and the application of control has been estimated to be 75$
5.5 Cement
A phone survey was also made of the cement industry and provide
data on 47 plants representing 30$ of the cement production capacity.
222
-------
Based on the findings of the phone survey, 94.5# of the production capacity
has control equipment on the cement kilns (application of control = 94.5#).
The weighted average efficiency of control was found to "be 93.6# "based on
the estimated (or measured) efficiencies of the control equipment installed
on the cement kilns covered by the survey. Therefore, the net control was
88#. This was assumed applicable to the calculations of overall emissions
from cement plants which included dryers, coolers, and other secondary
sources.
The survey revealed that the control equipment on the kilns,
for those that do have controls, is as follows:
Type of Control Equipment on Kilns
Mech ESP or
(only) Mech + ESP FF
# of controlled production
capacity using given equipment 18# 65# 17#
5.6 Forest Products
5.6.1 Wigwam Burners
No control is used on wigwam burners, so the net control is 0#.
5.6.2 Pulp Mills
The extent of control, as shown in Table 4.1-1, for recovery
furnaces, lime kilns, and dissolving tanks was obtained from personal
communication with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Their data are from a NCA.SI-NAPCA. Kraft pulp industry questionnaire.
Relating to the 33# application of control on dissolving tanks,
correspondence from NA.PCA. concerning the current pulp and paper study pro-
vided data, based on 44 questionnaires, indicating that the application of
control was about 66#. However, the 44 questionnaires are only about half
of the 80 original questionnaires. Therefore, 33# is believed to be the
more accurate figure.
The extent of control on recovery boilers for the sulfite and
NSSC processes was assumed to correspond with that for the Kraft process.
The fluid-bed reactors used in the NSSC process were assumed to be equipped
with cyclones operating at an estimated efficiency of 70# per Reference 21.
223
-------
Net control for bark boilers is not shown in Table 4.1-1 because
emissions were calculated separately for boilers with reinjection and fop
those without reinjection. However, the efficiency of control for the cy-
clone collectors on bark boilers was estimated at 95$ and it was calculated
that 75$ of the non-reinjection-type boilers also use collectors of 95$
efficiency.
5.6.3 Particleboard, etc.
No estimate of net control was made since the method used for
calculating the emission qualities did not require this information.
5.7 Lime
A phone survey was conducted to determine the extent of control
for the lime production industry, especially the kiln operations. Eleven
companies were contacted representing 28 plants or approximately 15$ of
the total U. S. production. The results of this survey are shewn below
It should be pointed out that, for those surveyed, about 80$ of the pro-
duction capacity was by rotary kilns, while the remaining 20$ was by
vertical shaft kilns.
The control equipment employed on both the vertical and rotary-
kilns consisted of mechanical collectors, wet scrubbers, or baghouses.
The larger plaints were usually equipped with wet scrubbers or baghouses.
During the phone conversations, some information was obtain*^
for secondary dust sources. This involves hydrators and other miseeli«nc-
ous sources. However, the data obtained were not as complete as for kilns
About 80$ of the hydrators were controlled at better than 95$ efficiency
with wet scrubbers or baghouses. The survey also indicated that 80$ of the
plants had equipment for control of secondary sources. Most used baghouses
for this service, while a few just used water sprays. Based on this in-
formation, the extent of control for the secondary s
-------
5.8 Primary Nonferrous
5.8.1 Primary Al-imnnuxn
5.8.1.1 Grinding of Bauxite: A value for net control of 80$
has been assumed for grinding of bauxite. Wo definitive information has
been located regarding the controls on grinding but considering the value
of this material it seems likely that dust losses would be held to a minimum.
5.8.1.2 Calcining of Hydroxide: A net control of 90$ has been
assumed for the calcining operation since the alumina contained in the dust
should warrant control of dust emissions.
5.8.1.3 Reduction Cells; What little information is available
about amounts of particulate from aluminum mills is concentrated about the
pot room emissions, as they are the major air pollution source. Pot room
emissions can be divided into the roof monitor emissions and the potline
control system emissions. The roof monitor emissions are emitted at the
building height along the entire length of the building and may be con-
sidered a line source of pollution. The scrubber emissions on the other
hand are emitted from stacks at a somewhat higher level than the roof
emissions, and tend to be placed at one end of the potline building. Actual
emissions will vary widely from plant to plant, depending upon the age, the
type of cell employed and types of controls. Also an important factor will
be the efficiency of hooding over the electrolytic cells, called the capture
efficiency.
The aluminum companies have only recently become concerned, about
particulate emissions. Consequently, little emission testing has been
performed and data are scarce or nonexistent. Hie only data on particulate
emissions were obtained from Reference 6. Table 5.8-1 summarizes collection
efficiencies for potline control devices, while Table 5.8-2 presents data
for roof monitor controls.
Potline controls in Table 5.8-1 are listed according to the type
of cell employed because of the varying types and qualities of emissions
given off by each cell. Thus, the horizontal stud Soderberg cell only
employs spray scrubbers on existing collectors because of the high hydro-
carbon content of the cell emissions. The prebake plant, having signifi-
cantly lower hydrocarbon contents in the cell exhaust, can use multiclones
or dry electrostatics ahead of the spray scrubbers to Increase particulate
removal.
Efficiency of existing controls on potline scrubbers for fluorides
ranges between 80 and 90$ for total fluorides. Existing particulate control
efficiencies are considerably less, varying frcm 40 to 60$, unless a dry
225
-------
TABLE 5.8-1
Type of Cell
H.S.b/ Soderberg
Prebake
ro
to
o>
CURRENT AND NEWEST AIR POLLUTION CONTROIS
FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM POTLINE AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS^/
Existing Collectors
Spray Scrubbers
Multiclones
Dry Electrostatic
Precipitators
Spray Scrubbers
v.s.l/ Soderberg Multiclones
Spray Scrubbers
Est. Removal Efficiencies, $
Fluorides Particulates
80-90
80-90
0
80-90
40-50
< 60
90
40-50
10e
< 60
40-50
Latest Collectors
Est. Removal Efficiencies
Fluorides^/
90
1. Floating bed
scrubber0
2. Wetted plate electro-
static (with condition-
ing of flue gases) 90
1. Fluidized alumina 99
contacts cell exhausts,
followed by collection
in alumina-coated
baghouse
2. Counterflow packed 90
scrubber
Sieve Plate Scrubber 95
Particulates
80-90
99
96-98
95
70
a/ Gaseous and particulate fluorides,
b/ H.S. = horizontal stud,
c/ One section of bed employed,
c/ When used after multiclones.
e/ When used after ESP.
f/ V.S. = vertical stud.
-------
electrostatic is used at estimated particulate removal efficiencies of 90$.
(One plant in Washington used dry electrostatics in combination with spray-
scrubbers.)
Roof monitor controls are listed in Table 5.8-2. The extent to
which these devices are currently used on roof monitors is unknown. Col-
lection efficiencies of 60$ for fluorides have been estimated, although
particulate removal efficiencies are near zero because of their extremely
low pressure drop. Another variation of this has been the use of electro-
static prefilters, followed by medium pressure-drop, wetted-mesh, which
required a fan to overcome the resistance of the filter. Fluoride emissions
collection has been increased to 90$ and particulate efficiencies are also
increased, although to what extent is not certain.
TABLE 5.8-2
CURRENT AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS FOR ROOF MONITORS^/
Collection Efficiency, $
Type of Control Fluoride Particulate
Spray mesh filter 60-70 0
Electrostatic prefilter, 90 50sj
followed by wetted mesh
filter
a/Estimated.
The data in Tables 5.8-1 and 5.8-2 have been used to estimate
the efficiency of control (particulate only) for the three types of re-
duction cells as shown below, assuming 80$ hooding capture efficiency:
Estimated Avg. Efficiency Overall Efficiency
Cell of Control Devices (80$ capture)
H.S. Soderberg 50$ 40$
V.S. Sbderberg 80$ 64$
Prebake 80$ 64$
227
-------
5.8.1.4 Materials Handling: Control equipment for raw materi; ^.s
handling, if used, are usually cyclones or baghouse. The efficiency of
control is therefore estimated to be about 90$. However, it is very diffi-
cult to assess the application of these control devices on raw materials
handling. It has been assumed that the application of control is 35$ for
raw materials handling. This duplicates the assumption in the corresponding
section on iron and steel.
5.8.2 Primary Copper
5.8.2.1 Ore Crushing: As in the case of iron and steel, it has
been assumed that the application of control is 0$ for ore crushing operations
5.8.2.2 Roasting: Roasting in copper smelters is carried out in
multiple hearth or fluid-bed roasters. The gases from either type of roaster
undergo preliminary solids collection after which they are cooled by air dilu-
tion, water sprays or heat exchangers and undergo final cleaning in electro-
static precipitators.!/ Based on this information and personal communication
with some of the copper smelters, the application of control is 100$.
average efficiency of the control systems in use is estimated at 85$.
5.8.2.3 Reverberatory Furnaces: Personal communication with an
industry source indicates that 80-85$ of the reverberatory furnaces are
controlled with electrostatic precipitators, operating at an estimated aver-
age efficiency of 95$. Net control is therefore 81$.
5.8.2.4 Converters: Reference 8 states that 75-85$ of the soli
-------
5.8.3.2 Roasting:
(a) Fluid Bed Roasters
In the fluid bed roasters 50 to 85$ of the feed to the roaster
is carried as dust in the off-gas stream. The gas usually passes through
a waste heat boiler where the first increment of dust is collected. More
dust is recovered in a cyclone and the gas then flows to an electrostatic
precipitator for additional collection.9/
Since a large portion of the feed material is carried out with
the gases from fluid bed roasters, collection systems as described above
are required. Thus, the application of control is 100$. An overall effi-
ciency of 98$ has been assumed for these collection systems.
(b) Ropp and Multihearth Roaster
Since 5 to 15$ of the roaster feed may be carried out of these
roasters with the gas stream,it is concluded that the application of
control would be 100$. The overall efficiency of control has been assumed
to be 85$.
5.8.3.3 Sintering: Usually 5 to 10$ of the total feed is carried
out as dust in the off-gas from sintering. Recovered dust may be either
recycled or treated for lead and cadmium recovery.ii/ Thus the application
of control is estimated to be 100$, and the efficiency of control is es-
timated at 95$.
5.8.3.4 Distillation: The application of control is 0$ because
a small quantity of fume is allowed escape from the condensers in order to
prevent the entrance of air. There is also seme loss of fume from broken
retorts, but the application of control for this is also 0$.
5.8.3.5 Materials Handling: Net control of 32$ was used, dupli-
cating the assumed values for iron and steel.
5.8.4 Lead
5.8.4.1 Ore Crushing: As in the case of iron and steel, it has
been assumed that the application of control is 0$ for ore crushing operations,
5.8.4.2 Sintering: The control equipment used for lead sintering
machines is either bag filters or electrostatic precipitators. Collected
material is recycled to the sintering machine .i§/ It is believed that most
•inter operations are controlled,but it is known that at least one unit is
uncontrolled. 15/ Therefore, the application of control is estimated to be
90$. The overall efficiency of control is estimated to be 95$.
229
-------
5.8.4.3 Blast Furnaces: The application of control of 98# is
based on discussion with a representative of the industry.13/ Baghouses
are used to clean lead blast furnace gases. However, operating problems
can necessitate bypassing the baghouse,13/ which decreases the overall
efficiency. Thus the average efficiency of control has been estimated to
be 85$.
5.8.4.4 Dross Reverberatory Furnace: Little information was
available on the control equipment associated with the dross reverberatory
furnace. Net control of 50$ has been assumed for this operation.
5.8.4.5 Materials Handling: Net control of 32$ was used, du-
plicating the assumed value for iron and steel.
5.9 Clay
Very little information was located for the clay industry and
associated processes. This industry produces a variety of products en-
tailing different processing steps and these steps may vary, for the sa-wa
product, depending on the properties of the raw material. Therefore, it
is difficult to determine even the quantity of material that, is processed.
Phone discussions were held with four of the larger clay products
manufacturers in an attempt to clarify these problems and to discuss control
practices for the various operations. These manufacturers were helpful
but the diversity of practices made it difficult to characterize the indi-
vidual processes and control practices.
The phone conversations indicated that cyclones and some wet
scrubbers are employed in many of the operations but these are mainly for
product recovery. On the basis of these few phone conversations, the appn_
cation of control and efficiency of control have been assumed at the valuea
shewn in Table 4.1-1.
5.10 Fertilizer and Phosphate Rock
5.10.1 Phosphate Rock
The emissions from phosphate rock manufacture, as detailed in
Section 4.11, come from drying, grinding, calcining and materials handling.
The efficiency and application of control was determined on the basis of
phone calls and a personal visit with persons in Florida who were very
familiar with the current practices for control of phosphate rock opera-
tions in Florida. Actual test data on grinders and dryers were obtained
as a result of these discussions.
230
-------
All phosphate rock drying operations are controlled with cyclones
and/or wet scrubbers. Data obtained for dryers showed an average efficiency
of 94$. All grinding operations are also controlled and similar data showed
an average efficiency of 97$.
The emissions from phosphate rock materials handling were assumed
to have an application of control of 25$ at an estimated average efficiency
of 90$.
Some information regarding calcining of phosphate rock was obtained
from the Idaho Department of Health. This indicated that all calcining oper-
ations were controlled with wet scrubbers at an average efficiency of 95$.
5.10.2 Fertilizers
The computation of emissions from the manufacture of ammonium
nitrate, urea and ammonium sulphate were based on the use of a controlled
emission factor of 1$ of the product. Therefore, the application and
efficiency of control were not required for the calculations.
The pulverizing of phosphate rock, associated with fertilizer
manufacture, were all assumed to be equipped at least with cyclones and
an estimated efficiency of control of 80$.
Interviews with control agency officials and other persons knowl-
edgeable in the field of phosphate fertilizer manufacture in Florida in-
dicated that the application of control was at least 95$. Cyclones and
wet scrubbers were used for control of emissions and the average efficiency
of control, based on these discussions, was estimated to be 95$.
Private communication with one industrial source provided data
on 10 granulation plants. Most of these used cyclones and wet scrubbers
at an average efficiency of control of 95$. Hie application of control,
on the basis of these discussions and the data, Is estimated to be 95$.
5.11 Asphalt
5.11.1 Paving Material
5.11.1.1 Dryers: Due to the fact that there axe some 3,000 asphalt
plants in the U. S., a representative phone survey to determine extent of con-
trol was not feasible. Therefore, the extent of control has been based on
discussions with several members of the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
These persons generally represent seme of the larger asphalt producers in
this country.
231
-------
Information was obtained from seven companies representing 294
plants and a total production capacity of approximately 25 x 106 tons/yr.
This production capacity is 10$ of the total U. S. production.
All of the plants operated by those seven companies contacted
were controlled and the consensus of opinion was that very few plants in
the U. S. would-have no control at all. When asked, most could not recall
any plant that did not have even a primary cyclone on the dryer effluent.
Based on these discussions it is estimated that only 1$ or less are not
controlled. Therefore, the application of control would be 99$.
Only two of the companies contacted had any dryers that were
equipped with only a primary cyclone. In both cases, these represented
4 to 5$ of their production capacity. The other companies contacted also
estimated that only about 5$ of all asphalt plant dryers would have only
a primary collector.
Based on the above discussions and the data obtained, the follow-
ing conclusions have been drawn in regard to asphalt plant dryers:
a. 1$ of production is uncontrolled.
b. 5$ of production is equipped with only a primary collec-
tor having an estimated collection efficiency of 70$.
c. 94$ of production is equipped with cyclones followed 'by-
various types of secondary collectors. The average overall efficiency is
estimated to be 98$.
These three conclusions show that the application of control is
99$, and that the weighted average efficiency of control is 96.6$. There-
fore, the net control for asphalt plant dryers is 95.6$.
5.11.1.2 Secondary Source: Many asphalt plants duct the emis-
sions from secondary sources to the dryer control system. Since no addi-
tional information was obtained about other secondary control systems, the
application and efficiency of control were assumed to be the Same as for
the dryers.
5.11.2 Roofing Materials
5.11.2.1 Blowing: Data on control of emissions ftam asphalt
blowing has not been obtained but a net control of 50$ was used as it is
estimated that 50$ of the particulate emissions from asphalt blowing, in
the roofing industry, escapes to the atmosphere. w
5.11.2.2 Saturator: The computation of emissions from saturate^
did not require a determination of the extent of control.
232
-------
5.12 Ferroalloys
5.12.1 Blast Furnaces
A phone conversation with one ferroalloy blast furnace operator
verified that blast furnaces axe equipped with high efficiency dust col-
lection systems because the gas stream, which has a high carbon monoxide
content, is used as fuel in other parts of the plant. This practice cor-
responds to that of blast furnaces in the iron and steel industry. There-
fore, the application of control is 100$ and the efficiency of control is
assured to be 99$.
5.12.2 Electric Furnaces
A phone survey of ferroalloy electric furnace operators was made
and covered 11 companies representing 22 plants and 127 furnaces. This
represents a production of approximately 1,667,000 tans/yr or 62$ of the
electric furnace production capacity.
The information requested in the phone survey included:
(a) number of furnaces
(b) KW rating of furnaces
(c) type of hooding (open, closed or hooded)
(d) estimated capture efficiency
(e) type of control equipment
(f) estimated efficiency of control equipment
The calculation of the application and efficiency of control is
based on the assumption that production capacity is directly proportional
to KW ratings. The calculations axe also based on estimated capture effi-
ciency far the various hooding methods. The results of the phone survey
for ferroalloy electric furnaces are as follows;
(a) application of control = 49.9$
(b) efficiency of control ¦ 80.5$
(c) net control » 40.2$
5.12.3 Materials Handling
Net control of 52$ was used, duplicating the assumed values for
iron and steel.
233
-------
5.13 Iron Foundries
5.13.1 Furnaces
The efficiency of control and amount of control for iron foundries
is derived from analysis of a postcard survey of 1,500 foundries conducted
by the U. S. Department of Commerce.
The data from this survey revealed that 33.5$ of the production
had some type of control equipment on the cupolas ("based on the value of
castings). This survey also showed that 89$ of the castings were produced
in cupola furnaces.
The survey delineated the cupola control equipment into five
types for which we assumed an average efficiency to calculate the effi-
ciency of control. A breakout of the controlled capacity by type of equip-
ment is presented below.
Type of Control Assumed Percent of
Equipment Efficiency ($) Controlled Capacity
Electrostatic precipitator 97 0.6
Mechanical 75 16.0
Fabric filter 99 9.6
Wet scrubber 90 54.0
Wet cap 50 19.8
From the assumed efficiencies shown above and the percent of the
controlled capacity for each type of collector, the average efficiency of
control was calculated to be 79.9$. This figure, multiplied by the 33.5$
application of control yields a net control of 27$.
5.13.2 Materials Handling
5.13.2.1 Coke, Limestone, etc.: For the handling of coke, lime-
stone and other materials, excluding sand, in the iron foundry operation
it was assumed that the application of control is 25$ at an estimated effi-
ciency of 80$.
5.13.2.2 Sand: It was assumed that the application of control
was 0$ for sand handling operations in iron foundries.
234
-------
5.14 Secondary Nonferrous
5.14.1 Secondary Copper
5.14.1.1 Material Preparation:
(a) Wire Burning - It was assumed that wire burning is carried
out in incinerators without secondary turners and that the application of
control is 0$.
(b) Sweating Furnaces - Data in Reference 17 show four sweating
furnaces with no control and one furnace equipped with an afterburner and
baghouse. This indicates an application of control of 20$ and the efficiency
of control was estimated to be 95$.
(c) Blast Furnace - Data from Reference 17 show four cupolas
(blast furnaces) equipped with baghouses, one with a wet collector and one
uncontrolled. This is based on questionnaires completed by members of the
Brass and Bronze Ingot Institute whose twelve member plants represent 40$
of the production. Using the above data and assuming that BBII members
may have somewhat better control practices, the application of control was
estimated to be 75$. Overall efficiency of control for the devices used on
cupola furnaces was estimated at 90$.
5.14.1.2 Smelting and Refining: Reference 17 shews the capacity
of several reverberatory and rotary furnaces and their associated control
equipment. The reverberatory furnaces represent 80$ of the capacity shown
and 71$ of the reverberatory capacity is controlled while 80$ of the rotary
furnaces are controlled. Again, these data represent members of the Brass
and Bronze Ingot Institute. Thus, the overall application of control is
estimated to be 60$.
All of the controlled furnaces, discussed above, were equipped
with baghouses. However, the capture efficiency for the hooding arrange-
ments have been considered in estimating the efficiency of control at 95$.
5.14.2 Secondary Aluminum
5.14.2.1 Sweating Furnaces: Due to lack of information about
secondary aluminum control practices, the net control was assumed identical
to that for secondary copper sweating furnaces.
5.14.2.2 Refining Furnaces: Net control was assumed identical
to that for secondary copper refining furnaces.
235
-------
5.14.2.3 Chlorine Fluxing: It has been statedi§/ that the col-
lection of aluminum chloride and aluminum oxide particulates from chlorine
fluxing has defied conventional means of control. Bag filters become plugged,
by the hydroscopic aluminum chloride and low energy scrubbers do not have
adequate collection efficiency, meaning that an unacceptable plume appear-
ance will remain.
Due to this difficulty of control it has been assumed that 75#
of the particulate generated escapes to the atmosphere. Correspondingly,
net control would be 25$.
5.14.3 Secondary Lead
Very little information has been available on secondary lead
operations and control practices. However, considering the toxicity of
the fume it seemed logical that the degree of control would be fairly high.
Personal communication with one industry source indicated that almost ali
furnaces are controlled with baghouses. Thus, the application of control
has been assumed to be 95# and the overall efficiency of control has been
estimated at 95$ for the three types of furnaces..
5.14.4 Secondary Zinc
5.14.4.1 Sweating Furnaces: Due to lack of information about
secondary zinc control practices, the extent of control was assumed iden-
tical to that for secondary copper sweating furnaces.
5.14.4.2 Distillation Furnaces: The extent of control figures
for zinc distillation furnaces was assumed identical to that for secondary-
copper smelting and refining furnaces.
5.15 Coal Cleaning
The computation of emissions from thermal dryers, as detailed in
the specific industry section of this report, was based on average outlet
grain loadings from the various control systems. Thus, it was not necessary
to determine an average efficiency of control but it is pointed out that
all dryers are equipped at least with cyclones and many plants have wet
scrubbers following this cyclone.
236
-------
5.16 Carbon Black
5.16.1 Channel Process
The application of control is 0$ because control measures would
upset the burning conditions and drastically affect yield and quality.!*!/
5.16.2 Furnace Process
The furnace process utilizes control equipment as a part of the
process to collect the product. The computation of emissions, as detailed
in the specific industry section of this report, makes use of controlled
emission factors from this equipment. The controlled emission factor of
60 lb/ton for the gas process is based on 97$ overall collection efficiency
for cyclones followed by a scrubber.20/ The controlled emission factor of
10 ll?/ton for the oil process is based on 99.5$ overall collection effi-
ciency for a fabric filter system.20/
5.17 Petroleum
The largest source of particulate emission from refineries (ex-
clusive of flare systems) is the dust from fluid catalytic cracking units.
All of these employ two or three states of cyclone separators and some
follow this with additional cleaning in electrostatic precipitators. Thus,
the average efficiency exceeds 99.9$. This makes it impractical to cal-
culate the emissions on the basis of an •uncontrolled emission factor which
would require an accurate determination of this high level of control.
Therefore, the emissions were computed on the basis of a controlled emis-
sion factor, as detailed in Section 4 of this report.
5.18 Acids
5.18.1 Sulfuric Acid
(a) Chamber Process - The application of control is 0$ for the
gases exit the final Gay Lussac tower.15/
(b) Contact Process - Control devices for contact processes
include electrostatic precipitators, glass-fiber and wire-mesh eliminators.
The electrostatic precipitators are capable of 92 to 99.9$ efficiency.
Glass-fiber mist eliminator efficiencies range from 94 to 99.9$ while typi-
cal efficiencies for wire-mesh eliminators may be 95$.14/ Based on this
information and data presented in Reference 14, the efficiency of control
is estimated to be 95$.
237
-------
No definitive information was located that would allow a reliable
determination of the percentage of the plants that have installed control
devices. Considering the relative simplicity and efficiency of the mesh-
type mist eliminators that are available, and the value of the recoverable
mist, we have roughly estimated the application of control to be 90$.
(c) Acid Concentrators - Very little information has been found
pertaining to acid concentrators and associated control devices. It has
been stated^/ that emissions from the vacuum-type concentrators are minor.
The drum-type concentrators may use electrostatic precipitators, venturi
scrubbers, or glass-fiber mist eliminators.2*1/
A phone conversation with one designer of spend acid concentrators
indicates that a large majority of these units are equipped with electro-
static precipitators or venturi scrubbers. Without further information,
the application of control has been estimated at 85$ and the efficiency of
control estimated to be 95$. Thus, net control is 80$.
5.18.2 Phosphoric Acid (Thermal Process)
The report "Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal-Process Phosphoric
Acid Manufacture."16/ gives information on 90$ of the thermal process es-
tablishments in the U. S. All of these have control equipment. Reference
16 states that "Losses of phosphoric acid to the atmosphere represent direct
product loss; therefore, efficient collection devices are normally installed
in the gas stream before the gas is discharged from the "Plant."16/ it iB
concluded from this that the application of control is 100$.
The data given in Reference 16 show the collector efficiencies
ranging from 95 to 99.9$. The efficiency of control is at least 97$ al-
though data were not given on some of the plants.
5.19 Emissions Based on an Annual Average Efficiency
The efficiency of control determined for each of the major in-
dustrial sources is based, for the most part, on estimated equipment ef-
ficiencies, because most plants have not tested their equipment to deter-
mine actual operating efficiencies. These estimates of efficiency tended,
to be near the higher end of the efficiency ranges for each type of control
device and, therefore, are more representative of the optimum efficiency
for these devices. The emissions shown in Table 4.1-1 were calculated usinr»
these estimated efficiencies although it might be assumed that actual col-
lection efficiencies would be somewhat lower because of equipment malfunction
238
-------
A decline in the efficiency of control devices over a period of
time may result from a variety of operational problems: cyclones may plug
up, wet scrubbers may scale up, filter bags become abraded and torn, and
electrostatic precipitators may have sections short out or may not main-
tain peak voltage adjustment. When these problems or others require main-
tenance, the control device may be taken off the line without shutting
down the process. The increased emissions which result from the above
problems and practices result in a lower average control efficiency on an
annual operating basis.
In addition to the reasons cited above for decreased operating
efficiency of the control devices, many of these installations include
various hooding arrangements which rarely capture all of the fume that is
emitted by the source. An example of this is the hooding systems installed
on electric furnaces in the iron and steel industry. Although the fume
that escapes collection by the hoods appears to be significant, no informa-
tion is available on the quantity or percent of fume that is not captured.
Considering all of the above factors and other problems that
lead to decreased collection efficiency, the emissions from each of the
industrial sources might reasonably be computed on the basis of an annual
average efficiency that is lower than the more optimum efficiency estimates
discussed in the preceeding sections and used in Table 4.1-1. A caniputa-
tion of emissions using this lower annual average efficiency would be use-
ful for comparison purposes as an estimate of the maximum quantity of
particulate emissions that might be expected from any of the industrial
sources. A calculation of this type and the results are given in Appendix C.
5.20 Reliability of the Determined Values for Application of Control
The percentage application of control for each industry and source
has been determined by methods explained in the preceding sections. Many
of these were based on phone surveys while others were only estimates. Hie
phone surveys probably represent the best method of assessing the application
of control, but the reliability of even this method would be improved if the
phone survey could have covered a much larger percentage, such as 90# or
more, of the production capacity of each industry group. Also, most of the
survey information collected was representative of the larger oampanies.
These companies were contacted first since they comprise & large percentage
of the production capacity. Time and money limitations restricted more ex-
tensive survey work. The fact that the surveys tend to represent practices
of the larger companies, may decrease the reliability of the values for ap-
plication of control on the basis of the assumption that these larger com-
panies may be more progressive in their control practices.
239
-------
Considering the various factors that restrict the reliability
of the values used for the percentage application of control, Table 5.20-1
has been prepared as a guide to indicate our best judgment of the relative
reliability of these values for each industry group. An arbitrary rating
system for these values is given belcw. The actual method of obtaining
the percentage application of control for each industry is explained in
the preceding sections of this chapter.
Excellent Reliability - Process information which leaves
little doubt as to the control
practices.
High Reliability - Survey of the industry, which, in
our own judgment, is represen-
tative of the industry. Usually
the survey will have covered over
50$ of the production capacity.
Good Reliability
Fair Reliability
Survey of the industry, covering
less than 50$ of the production
capacity, which we feel is prob-
ably representative of the industry.
Some survey data or industry re-
ports were used to assess the
app3.ication of control.
Minimum Reliability
An estimate of the application of
control that has the lowest
reliability.
240
-------
TABLE 5.20-1
RELIABILITY OF VALUES FOR "APPLICATION OF CONTROL"
Reliability of
Values for Percentage
Industry Group Application; of Control
1. Fuel combustion
A. Coal
1. Electric utility
a. Pulverized
High
b. Stoker
High
c. Cyclone
High
2. Industrial boilers
a. Pulverized
High
b. Stoker
Good
c. Cyclone
Fair
2.
Crushed stone, sand and gravel
Minimum
3.
Operations related to agriculture
Fair
4.
Iron and steel
Good
5.
Cement
High
6.
Forest products
Good
7.
Lime
High
8.
Primary nonferrous metals
Fair
9.
Clay
Fair
10.
Fertilizer and phosphate rock
Good
11.
Asphalt
Good
12.
Ferroalloys
High
13.
Iron foundries
High
14.
Secondary nonferrous metals
Minimum
15.
Coal cleaning
Excellent
16.
Carbon black
Excellent
17.
Petroleum
Excellent
IS.
Acids
A. Sulfuric
Minimum
B. Phosphoric
High
241
-------
REFERENCES
1. Research-Cottrell, Inc., "A Report cm the Use of Electrostatic Precipi-
tators for the Collection of Fly Ash in the Electric Utility Industry,"
October 1969.
2. Varga, J., and H. W. Lownie, "Final Technological Report on a System
Analysis Study of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry," Columbus,
Ohio, Battelle Memorial Institute, May 1969.
3. Schueneman, J. J., M. D. High, and W. E. Bye, "Air Pollution Aspects of
the Iron and Steel Industry," Cincinnati, Ohio, Public Health Service
June 1963. '
4. Devitt, T. W., "The Integrated Iron and Steel Industry Air Pollution
Problem," Cincinnati, Ohio, National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, December 1968.
5. Varga, Op. Cit., p. V-18.
6. The Office of Air Quality Control, Washington S'tate Department of Health
"Air Pollution from the Primary Aluminum Industry," Seattle, Washington
October 1969.
7. McKee, A. G. and Company, "Systems Study for Control of Emissions Primary
Nonferrous Smelting Industry," San Francisco, California, June 1969
p. V-4. '
8. Ibid., p. V-8.
9. Ibid., p. V-15.
10. Ibid., p. V-12.
11. Ibid., p. V-19.
12. Ibid., p. V-25.
13. Personal Communication with industrial source.
14. Public Health Service, "Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Manu-
facturing Processes," Cincinnati, Ohio, 1965, p. 4.
15. Ibid., p. 34.
242
-------
16. "Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture,"
NA.PCA Publication No. AP-48, Durham, North Carolina (1968), p. 27.
17. Brass and Bronze Ingot Institute, "Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and
Bronze Smelting and Refining Industry," Raleigh, North Carolina:
National Air Pollution Control Administration, November 1969, p. 43.
18. Tomany, J. P., "A System for Control of Aluminum Chloride Fumes,"
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 1£(6), June 1969.
19. Drogin, I., "Carton Black," Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, April 1968.
20. Public Health Service, "Air Pollution Emission Factors," Washington,
D. C.: National Air Pollution Control Administration, Contract
No. CPA 22-69-119, April 1970.
21. "Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood Pulping Industry,11
National Air Pollution Control Administration, DPCE March 15, 1970,
pp. 4-52.
243
-------
6. RANKING OF AIR POLICTANTS AND THEIR SOURCES
BY OBJECTIONABLE PROPERTIES
6.1 Introduc tion
6.2 Methods of Ranking
6.3 Ranking on the Basis of Complaints
6.4 Ranking on the Basis of Increase over Background
6.5 Ranking on the Basis of Toxicity
6.6 Ranking by Effects on Materials and Facilities
6.7 Ranking of Pollutants on the Basis of Overall
Objectionability
6.8 Ranking of Sources on the Basis of Overall
Objectionability
6.8.1 Objectionability Rating of Industries
6.8.1.1 Soiling and Corrosion
6.8.1.2 Odor
6.8.1.3 Toxicity
6.8.2 Objectionability Rating of Individual Sources
6.9 Conclusions
6.1 Introduction
The ranking of air pollutants and their sources on the basis of
"objectionability" is quite difficult for several reasons including the
following: the dissimilarity of properties which are considered objection-
able; the highly subjective nature of much of the available data; and the
unavoidable dependency of the "objectionability" on the geographical and
meteorological relationships of the source and receptors. By definition
an objectionable property of a pollutant is one which causes objections
from humans because it produces an undesirable effect on some type of
receptor (animal, plant, or material). An objectionable source is one which
emits one or more of these objectionable pollutants in a location where
they can cause one or more of these effects. The reasons for the objections
may range from the homemaker's concern over soot and fly ash settling out of
the atmosphere to the geophysicist's concern over the COg and particulate
levels which are increasing in the atmosphere.
1-5/
The effects of air pollution have been reviewed ' in terms of
physical properties of the atmosphere, vegetation, biological systems,
human health, and materials and the economy. A brief outline of the
objectionable properties of air pollutants and the affected receptors would
include:
PracidiBg page blank
-------
1. Toxicological and Sensory Effects on Humans
a. Acute Toxicity
b. Chronic Toxicity
c. Irritation of Eyes, Lungs, Mucous Membranes, Skin, etc.
a. Odor
2. Effects on Plant and Animal Life
a. Toxic to Agricultural Crops, Timber, Grass
b. Toxic to Livestock and Wildlife
3. Effects on Materials and Facilities
a. Soiling
b. Corrosion of Metals, Minerals, Plastics, Textiles and
Paint
c. Effects on Electrical Systems
d. Miscellaneous (abrasive, forms sludges, etc.)
4. Optical and Esthetic Effects
a. Reduces Visibility
b. Produces Visible or Colored Plume or Colored Atmosphere
Some of these areas are of much less significance to the present
program on particulates than to the overall air pollution problems as will
be discussed in the next paragraph. Also a broad distinction must "be made
between the pollutant in the immediate vicinity of the source (where it ia
present in high concentration) and the pollutant in the atmosphere (where
it is present in lower concentration and is well removed from the vicinity-
of the source). In the former case, a knowledge of stack height and emis-
sion data, wind direction and speed, etc., nre important variables, but in
the latter, the meteorology of the air basin may be a major factor.
In regard to the specific area of particulate pollutants from
stationary sources, several of the above categories are of marginal per-
tinence. For example, malodorous effluents are highly objectionable air
pollutants, but they consist largely of gaseous, rather than particulate
materials, although the odorous compound may also interact with the solid
particles (e.g., be absorbed, transported, and released), or "be in Bolutton
in liquid mists. The distinction between the particulate matter awr} -the
carrier gas in the effluent is difficult to make. Similarly, the irritants
are largely the gaseous compounds, such as the S0X and N0X compounds, rathe
than particulates. Haze formation and photochemical smog are closely tied
to automobile exhaust which is excluded by the stationary source criteria
Nevertheless, some consideration of each category is required in the present
study.
246
-------
6.2 Methods of Ranking
The ranking of air pollutants by their effects on receptors can be
approached by several methods. Ideally, one would like a ranking system
which relates the two factors involved: properties of the source of a pol-
lutant and properties of the pollutant which make the pollutant objection-
able to the various receptors. Thus, rating systems based on total tonnage
of emission would consider only one property of the source, whereas tabula-
tions of maximum allowable concentrations for occupational exposure to air-
borne pollutants consider only a portion of the properties of the pollutants
on only one of the receptors. An objectionability rating of pollutants
should include all physiological, economic and esthetic factors. A true
objectionability rating of sources must consider not only the total tonnage
of particulate emitted, but also the size distribution and the chemical
composition of the particles, and the composition of the carrier gas, since
pollutants which are emitted as gases may either remain as gases or be con-
verted into respirable particles by the time they reach the receptor. This
last comment illustrates that the objectionability of a given source is de-
pendent on atmospheric events between the source and the receptor. Obvious
factors then which influence objectionability of a source include the man-
ner in which the pollutant is emitted (i.e., continuous source of low
strength versus an intermittent source of high strength) the dispersion of
the pollutant before it reaches the receptor (including stack height, meteor-
ological and geographical conditions, and atmospheric reactions) and the
location, density or nature of the surrounding population, vegetation or
structures, i.e., the receptors. In order to place the rating system on
some objective basis the quantification of several parameters is required.
6.3 Ranking on the Basis of Complaints
Local pollution problems frequently result in objections from the
afflicted populace. The various city, county, regional or state pollution
control agencies have received these complaints and have generally filed
and tabulated them according to various categories, e.g., name and location
of complaintant, character of pollutant, source of pollutant, etc. Typical
data from two air pollution control agencies are shown in Table 6.3-1.
Unfortunately the agencies do not use the same categories so that comparisons
and summaries are difficult. As part of the information gathering phase of
this program, a survey was made of air pollution control agencies to determine
problem sources in various areas of the country. One question of the
questionnaire asked the agencies to identify particulate sources that have
caused complaints in their communities. This question was as follows:
Question 5. Please liat 5-10 particulate (solid or aerosol)
sources of air pollution in your community that have caused
complaints and possible or definite effects.
247
-------
Source
Effect or Damage
Examples: Pesticide Manufacture Vegetation damage
Carbon black Manufacture Soiling
A total of 580 "problem source" complaints were noted by
by 113 agencies (located in 42 different states) which
responded to the questionnaire. A total of 775 complaints
by effects or damage were specified. The results* of this
survey are summarized in Table 6.3-2.
The primary metals industries and the stone clay and glass products
industries are the biggest source of complaints, followed closely by petroleum
related industries and refuse disposal. Asphalt plants are the largest sin^Le
source.
Discussions with personnel at pollution control agencies revealed
several points which influence the number and types of complaints from the
populace. In particular, the major complaint is almost invariably that of
soiling by particulate matter (dust, soot, etc.) while complaints about odors
generally rank next. These effects and the visible sightings of smoke are
readily recognized and described by the average citizen. Other effects, sueh
as corrosivity or toxicity are not recognized by the general public unless
they are of large or catastrophic proportions and are not so frequently
reported.
The responses on odor complaints were probably limited in our
survey by the emphasis placed on particulates in the questionnaire. The
results of a survey on sources of objectionable odors have been reported
and are shown in revised form in Table 6.3-3. The irritant characteristics
of air pollution are illustrated by the California survey results shown in
Table 6.3-4. In both of these cases the major pollutants causing the
complaints are gases, but the results are included in this review for
illustrative purposes.
* The results also showed geographical variations not illustrated in Table
6.3-2, e.g., the high percentage of complaints on sawmills, Table
6.3-1A, would not be true in states with little forest industries.
248
-------
TABLE 6.3-1
TYPICAL AIE POLLUTION COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC
A. Source & Character of Air Pollutants Which Caused Complaints
in Wisconsin (1968-69)
Source Complaints
Source
Complaints
Open Burning Dumps 18#
Paving Plants (including
6$
Foundries 15$
asphalt, gravel, etc.)
Sawmills 9#
Rendering Plants
6$
Fertilizer 8$
Coal, etc. (stockpiling
4$
Diesel Smoke 8$
and conveying)
Power & Heating Plants 7$
Cement
2$
Pulp and Paper 6$
Incinerators
2$
Character
Complaints
Particulates (fly ash, etc.)
32$
Odors (incl. Mercaptans)
30$
Smoke and Soot
28$
Gases (NHj, N0x, etc.)
10$
B. Air Pollution Complaints Received in Minneapolis
Complaints
Character
1964 1966
Odors
35$
26$
Dust, Soot, Fly Ash
18$
23$
Smoke
45$
50$
Miscellaneous
2$
1*
-------
TABLE 8.5-2
Problem Source
Primary Metal Industries
Foundries (general)
Steel
Aluminum
Brass, Zinc, Copper, etc.
Subtotals
Stone, Clay and Glass Products
Cement
Reck grinding
Rock quarry
Concrete mix
Phosphate rock
Gypsum, perlite, etc.
Subtotal
Petroleum Refining and
Related Industries
Asphalt plants
Petroleum Refineries
Roofing Manufacturing
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incinerators
Open Burning Dump
Backyard Burning
Junked Auto
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
Chemical8 and Allied Products
Fertilizer
Chemical (general)
Pesticides
Soap and Detergent
Ammonia, Sulfuric Acid, etc.
Carbon
Subtotal
Agriculture
Grain Handling
Wood Waste Burners
Cotton Gins
Agricultural Burning, FVost
Protection, etc.
Subtotal
Forest Products
Lumber Products
plyvood, Sawmills, etc.
pulp and Paper
Box Manufacture
Subtotal
Electric Utilities
Food and Kindred Products
Grain Mills
Rendering
Tobacco, Sugar, Coffee j etc.
Subtotal
Construction
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
% by Effect
COMPLAINTS MENTIONED BY AIR POLLUTXpW CONTROL AGENCIES
' RESPONDING TO MR I SURVEY
Agencies Reporting Complaints
By Source Effget
? Animal and Toxic Nuisance, Totals"
of Property Vegetation to Visibility, and
number Total Damage Odor Damage Human» etc. jt of Total
28
16
14
20
78
13$
23
10
6
18
51
1
2
1
6
10
5
5
13
9
4
8
10
31
36
17
21
38
i" (xssy
25
11
11
a
3
22
83
14*
23
9
8
5
2
16
63
7
3
S
1
1
10
28
S3
15
i«
6
a
32
HO
55
40
7
2
3
18
7C
6
3
3
2
-
2
10
5
4
4
-
-
4
12
66
11#
47
14
4
3
24
92 (sgy
30
18
4
_
1
6
29
19
18
8
1
1
7
35
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
6
3
-
-
3
IS
3
6
4
-
-
3
13
68
12#
48
19
1
2
19
89 uisy
14
9
2
6
_
4
21
13
8
6
6
1
2
23
5
-
4
2
4
-
10
3
-
1
-
-
2
3
10
2
J
3
2
2
12
9
4
2
-
-
1
7
54
9 #
23
IB
17
7
11
76TIo?y
9
11
1
_
4
5
21
7
3
-
-
-
1
4
5
2
-
-
-
S
4
22
15
7
2
-
a
32
43
51
8
2
4
16
~5TTa?r
9
3
.
.
-
2
5
13
14
-
1
1
6
22
14
7
8
2
-
2
19
1
~sr
1
1
-
-
-
e
37
25
9
3
1
10
48 (sfT
38
7#
25
3
3
6
58 (5*)
17
5
2
_
-
2
9
5
-
2
-
-
-
2
17
6
11
-
3
3
23
39
n
11
15
-
3
S
13
a#
16
3
1
1
5
88
61
ii#
44
7
6
7
23
87 (lutt
¦ RiL
560
384
106
59
47
160
776
49*
14#
8#
«#
85#
250
-------
TABLE 6.3-3
RANKING OF SOURCES OF OBJECTIONABLE ODORS BY COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
Source
Meat packing and rendering plants
Gasoline and diesel engines
Solid waste combustion (incinerator, open
burning, etc.)
Foundries and smelters
Steel mills, combustion, coke-oven and coal gas
Coffee roasting
paint, lacquer and varnish manufacture
Refineries
Asphalt roofing and paving, manufacture and use
Restaurants and bakeries
Organic waste decomposition (acids, protein,
lignite, etc.)
Sewers and sewage treatment plants
Manufacturing plants producing "fish-oil" (amine) odors
Paint spraying
Poultry ranches and processing
Fertilizer plants
Maladjusted heating systems
Plastics manufacture
Dry cleaning shops
Rubber burning (smelting and debonding)
Unidentified (industrial) Hydrogen sulfide 4.8
Sulfur dioxide 2.7
Ammonia 2.0
Commercial solvents 2.0
Percent of
Complaint
8.2-/
6.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.5
5.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
i.lX
3.4
3.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
11.5
a7 Condensed from data reported in Reference 6, Chapter 8 (based on
146 complaints recorded in a 1958 survey).
b/ Some complaints recorded as waste decomposition were probably related
to meat processing plants.
251
-------
TABLE 6.3-4
CALIFORNIA SURVEY OF AIR POLLUTION COMPLAINTS^/
Effects
Reported-
y
I$ye irritation
Nasal irritation
Breathing
Headache
Throat irritation
Cough
Sinus
Odor
Annoyance
Miscellaneous
Unspecified
jo of Respondents' Complaints£/
Los Angeles
and Orange
Counties
90
25
11
3
3
2
1
2
5
0.5
0.5
San Francisco Rest of
Bay Area State
60
14
13
1
3
4
2
14
14
2
5
37
11
12
3
4
1
5
9
24
3
13
Total
California
76
20
12
3
3
2
2
5
10
1
3
a/ Results of a 1960 survey condensed from Reference 4, p. 607.
b/ Question: (Asked only of persons who reported "being bothered by air
pollution-) "How does it bother you—in what ways?"
cJ Many respondents reported more than one effect, so the percentages add
to more than 100.
6.4 Ranking of Pollutants on the Basis of Increase Over Background
One approach to the rating of pollutants which man has emitted
into the atmosphere would be to compare levels observed with those of the
"natural" background; i.e. in the absence of those activities of man which
have caused significant pollution.* This type of data, however, is of
limited avail «:MH+.y-*>-10/ The National Air Sampling Network has, since
1957, been collecting certain analytical data on various pollutants at urban
and "nonurban" stations and has recently^"18:'tabulated data at nonurban
stations for a number of metals and other pollutants. Stern has also
estimated^' some so-called "global" backgrounds for CO, S02, NO2, oxidant
or ozone, terpenes (olefins), sulfate and nitrate. The NASN data show
considerable variation among reporting station^ and air quality at some
"nonurban" sites is obviously influenced by metropolitan areas. One would.
* This "natural" background may vary slightly from so-called ".global"
backgrounds or backgrounds determined at isolated points op the earth.
252
-------
of course, expect that local "background levels would "be influenced by local
variations in mineral content, vegetation, wind conditions and proximity to
the ocean, and the NASN data appear to reflect some of these effects. Based
on the NASN data and consideration of the abundance^' and distribution of
the chemical elements in the ocean and in the earth's crust (Table 6.4-1)
we have developed a set of normal background levels for the United States*
(as shown in Table 6.4-2).
Urban levels of several of these pollutants have been measured for
several years and the arithmetic mean and also the maximum observed values
have been previously reported.^/ These are reported in Table 6.4-3 (to-
gether with same supplementary data). The ratio of these observed levels
to background levels then might be called a "pollution factor." Table
6.4-4 shows a ranking of these pollutants on the basis of the pollution
factors. Not shown by these data but of serious concern is the increase
of rural background levels of total particulates compared to the normal
background used herein.
6.5 Ranking on the Basis of Toxicity
The ranking of pollutants and sources on the basis of toxicity is
extremely difficult. The toxicity depends not only on the chemical elements
present, but also on the chemical compounds or species which are present,**
their physical properties (such as particle size, crystal modification in some
cases, volatility and solubility), the nature of the receptor and the route
by which the pollutant enters the receptor.*** A true measure of the objec-
tionability of various kinds of air pollutants could be provided only by a
knowledge of their toxicity to all kinds of life under all kinds of conditions,
but obviously this type of information is lacking. Lave and Seskin—< have
attempted to quantify the effects of air pollution on human health and to
estimate the dollar benefits of pollution abatement. Extensive literature
on toxicity of air pollutants is available, but evaluation is exceedingly
difficult. The lack of toxicity data for long-term exposure to low levels
of pollutants has slowed the setting of uniform air quality standards for
all the possible airborne pollutants. Thus, those which have been set "by
various agencies in this country and by governmental agencies in other
countries frequently show variations of one or two orders of magnitude.
* These data appear to fit best the observed data at the NASN
nonurban sites in Nebraska and South Dakota.
** A stark contrast is presented by Hg01%, a violent poison, and
(calomel) which has "been used as a laxative (although toxic in
large quantities).
*** The high toxicity of inhaled mineral oil mists contrasts with its very
low toxicity by ingestion.
253
-------
TABLE 6.4-1
AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF SELECTED ELEMENTS IN THE EARTH'S CRUST
Abundance—1'
Element- ppni Rank
Metals
Manganese 1000 10
Rubidium, Strontium, Barium 310-250 16, 18, 19
Zirconium 220 20
Chromium, Vanadium, Zinc, Nickel, Copper 200-70 21-25
Tungsten 69 26
Cerium 46 29
Tin 40 30
Cobalt 23 23
Lead 16 36
Gallium 15 37
Molybdenum 15 3Q
Thorium 12 39
Germanium 7 41
Beryllium 6 44
Arsenic 5 47
Uranium 4 50
Antimony 1 58
Mercury 0.5 62
Bismuth 0.2 64
Cadmium 0.15 66
Non Metals
Phosphorus, Sulfur, Carbon 1180; 520; 320 11, 13, 14
Chlorine, Fluorine 310, 300 15^ 17
Nitrogen 46 28
Bromine, Iodine 1.6, 0.3 55 ^ 63
Selenium 0.09 69
a7 Ten major elements not listed: 0, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Na, K, Mg, Ti, H
(in decreasing order).
254
-------
TABLE 6.4-2
ESTIMATED NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVELS
OF VARIOUS AIR POLLUTANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Background
Pollutants pg m" each
Total Suspended Particulate 20-40
Aluminum; Calcium; Phosphate; Carbonate;
Silicate Minerals 1-5
Chlorides) Fluorides; Sulfates (salts) 0.5-1,0
Iron; Salts of NOj" 0.2-0.5
Magnesium; Salts of NH4+ 0-1
Copper; Manganese; Titanium} Zinc 0.01
Arsenic; Barium; Gallium; Germanium;
Rubidium; Strontium 0.005
Chromium; Lead; Nickel; Selenium; Tin; Vanadium; Zirconium 0.001
Cerium; Mercury; Molybdenum; Thorium, Tungsten 0.0005
Antimony; Beryllium; Bismuth; Cadmium; Cobalt; Uranium 0.0001
Miscellaneous Organic (combustible) Particulates and Liq.uld
Particulates 10
Benzene-soluble organics (excludes pollens, molds, etc.) 1
Benzo(of)pyrene (carcinogen) 0.0001
Gaseous Pollutants*
Carbon Monoxide 100
Misc. Organics (excluding CH4) 100
Terpene3, other olefins, aldehydes (total) 50
Ozone and peroxides (total) 50
Nitrogen Oxides 40
Ammonia 10
Inorganic acids (total HC1, HP, HNO3, H2SO4, H3PO4) 10
Sulfur Oxides 5
Itydrogen Sulfide 1
* Excludes 300 ppm COg, 1 ppm CH4 and 0.5 ppm NgO normally present.
255
-------
TABLE 6.4-3
TYPICAL URBAN
LEVELS OF POLLUTANTS IN THE AIR
Arith. Mean^
!
Pollutant
(us m"3)
Max*- (u-K
Metals
Beryllium
< 0.0005
0.010
Bismuth
< 0.0005
0.064
Cobalt
< 0.0005
0.060
Antimony
0.001
0.160
Cadmium
0.002
0.42
Molybdenum
< 0.005
0.78
Chromium
0.015
0.33
Arsenic
0.02, < 1
2.4
Tin
0.02
0.50
Nickel
0.034
0.46
Titanium
0.04
1.10
Vanadium
0.05
2.20
Copper
0.09
10.00
Manganese
0.10
9.98
Mercury
0.1
14
Zinc
0.67
58.0
Lead
0.79
8.6
Phosphorus
1
Not Available
Iron
1.58
22.0
Inorg. Salts
Ammonium
0.7
4.3
Nitrates
2.6
39.7
Sulfates
10.6
101.2
Organics
Benzene-soluble
6.9
17.1
Be nzo(a)pyre ne
2.8 x 10"3
11.2 x
Total Suspended Particulates
105
1254
Gaseous Pollutants
SOg
62
346
NOg
141
333
Carbon Monoxide
~ 7000
*
ffydrocarbons (excl. CH4)
~ 500
Oxidants
~ 100
•
Ammonia
~ 80
250
HC1
70
KF
8
HqS
~ 4
-
a/Arithmetic mean and maximum urban particulate concentration in the U.S.
1960-1965, from Reference 6 except As, Hg and P from Reference IS,
NH4+ and organise from Reference 10b, and gaseous pollutants from
NASN and miscellaneous sources.
25S
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,rai
ft
fl
ll
H
If
ft
TABLE 6.4-4
RANKINGS OF URBAN AIR POLLUTION LEVELS
COMPARED TO NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVELS
Average Pollution Factor Max. Pollution Factor
Pollutant (Mean)/(Background) (Max.)/(Background)
Lead
790
8,600
Mercury-
200
28,000
Carbon Monoxide
~ 70
-
Zinc
67
5,800
Vanadium
50
2,200
Nickel
34
460
Benzo(a)pyrene
28
110
Cadmium
20
4,200
Tin
20
500
Sulfates
20
200
Chromium
15
330
Sulfur Dioxide
12
70
Antimony-
10
1,600
Manganese
10
1,000
Nitrates
10
200
Molybdenum
10
1,560
Copper
9
1,000
Iron
8
110
Ammonia
8
25
Ammonium Salts
7
43
Benzene-soluble organics
7
20
Bismuth
5
640
Cobalt
5
600
Arsenic
4
480
Titanium
4
110
Beryllium
5
100
HgS, N02> Oxidant,
hydrocarbons, Aldehydes
5
-
Total Suspended
Particulate
4
50
257
-------
Studies of the toxicity of pollutants to other animal life havu
centered on the usual laboratory test animals which are frequently the "basis
of judgment of the toxicity of the material for humans. On the other hand,
toxicology data are frequently found to be species-specific. Studies of the
effects of pollutants on wild life are really Just getting under way and an
attempt to rank pollutants on this basis is not justified at present.
The phytotoxicity of pollutants shows a much greater range of
variation than does human toxicity. Some species of plants show an extreme
sensitivity to specific pollutants while others tend to accumulate elements,
such as selenium, arsenic and fluorine, and thereby become highly toxic to
livestock. Brandt and Hech^' have reviewed the complex relationships of
sensitivity with time and intensity of exposure, species and varietal
differences, soil and weather factors, synergistic effects, and mode of
attack by the pollutant. In general, the objectionable pollutants are
small gaseous molecules such as ethylene, oxidants (03, PAN, NC>2,*Cl2),
acids (HF, HC1, H2SO4, etc.), bases (NH3, N2H4), and SO2 rather than partic-
ulate matter and will not be ranked here.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Ifygienists sets
threshold limit values (TLV's) for industrially important chemical compounds
which may be involved in occupational exposure. The TLV's (based on human
and animal toxicology studies and industrial experience) give those levels
of airborne gases, mists or dusts to which nearly all workers of normal
health can be repeatedly exposed, day after day during a normal work week,
without apparent adverse effect. These TLV's are not directly applicable
in considerations of air pollution where the population contains many
susceptible individuals who would be subjected to possibly prolonged exposures
Thus, the annual exposure of the general populace to the atmosphere is about
4.4 times greater than the occupational exposure of the worker. Probably
even more important would be the build-up of the body burden of specific
pollutants because the excretion rate does not maintain pace with the intake
rate under constant exposure. Also of very great importance, but not con-
sidered by the TLV's, is the size distribution of the particles, which has
a marked effect on the extent to which respired particles are retained by
the body and the location in the respiratory system in which they are active
Nor do they consider synergistic effects. The TLV's do, however, provide
one guide to the relative toxicities of various pollutants to humans, which
we believe can be used in the present study.
Table 6.5-1 presents selected TLV's for a number of elements and
compounds.i^/ In selecting these entries, emphasis was placed on the in-
dustrially important metals, but a number of other entries are included .be-
cause they are prevalent, or for comparative purposes. (Data are not avail-
able on all the commercial inorganic compounds, let alone the probable
* PAN, peroxyacetyl nitrate.
258
-------
TABLE 6.5-1
RELATIVE TOXICITIIS OF POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTANTS
(Selected TLV'i for Toxic Dust*, Fumes and Mlata^)
Substance TLV (mg a*3)
Extremely Toxic
Beryllium 0.002
Platinum, soluble salts 0.002
Sliver, metal and soluble
compounds 0.01
Mercury, vapor, lnorg. and org.
compounds (except alkyl Hg, 0.01) 0.05
Methyl Isocyanate 0.05
Highly Toxic
Lead, tetraethyl 0.1 (as Pb)
Cadmium oxide fumes 0.1 (as Cd)
Chromic acid and chromates 0.1 (as CrOj)
Cobalt, metal fume and dust 0.1
Vanadium, V2O5 fume O.l
Lead arsenate 0.15
Lead, tetramethyl 0.15 (as Fb)
Lead 0.2
Cadmlua metal dust and
soluble salts 0.2
Coal tar pitch volatllee 0.2
Oxone 0.2
Quarts, fused silica, crystobolite, 0.1-0.3^
tridymite
Selenium compounds 0.2 (as Se)
Uranium compounds 0.2 (as U)
Very Toxic
Antimony and compounds 0.5 (as Sb)
Arsenic and compounds 0.5 (as As)
(except ABH3, 0.2)
Barium, soluble compounds 0.5
Chromium, soluble salts 0.5 (as Cr)
Vanadium, V2O5 dust 0.5
Nicotine 0*5
Bromine (Br?) 0.7
Ammonium chloride fume 1
Calcium arsenate 1
Chromium, metal and insoluble
salts 1
Copper, fume, duets and mists 1
Cotton dust (raw) - 1
Hydrogen peroxide 1
Iron, soluble salts 1 (as Pe)
Iron, ferrovanadlum dust X
Iodine (l2) 1
Nickel, metal and soluble
compounds (except carbonyl,
0.007 1
Sulfuric acid 1
Tungsten, soluble compounds 1 (at V)
Zinc chloride fume 1
DOT 1
Asbestos ( It crystalline SlOg) 2mppcf-,
Tremolite ( " " " ) 5mppcf£^
Graphite' (natural) 5mppcf-'
Substance
Toxic
Asphalt (petroleum) fume
Hydrogen fluoride (H?)
Sodium hydroxide
Tin compounds (except organic
compounds, 0.1; SnOg# 15 and SnKt)
Fluoride salts
Chlorine (Clg)
Carbon black
Coal dust (bituminous)
Calcium oxide
Cyanides
Fibrous glass (5-7 dlam.)
Formaldehyde
Manganese
Molybdenum, soluble compounds
Nitric acid
Oil mist, particulate
Tungsten, Insoluble compounds
Zinc oxide, fume
Hydrogen chloride
Nitrogen dioxide
Hydrogen bromide
Iron oxide fume
Methyl mercaptan
Wood dust, total dust
SulAir dioxide
tydrogen sulfide
Amorphous silica (lncl. dlatomaceous
earth)
Mica, soapstone, and talc
Mild or Low Toxicity
Boron oxide
Magnesium oxide fume
Molybdenum, insoluble compounds
toiionla
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
Methyl alcohol
Pe rchlo roethylene
Liquefied petroleum gas
"Inert" or Nuisance
Particulates (<1$ 3iOe)
Aluminum oxide
Calcium carbonate
Cellulose
Cement, portland
ttsery
Glycerine mist
Graphite, synthetic
Limestone
Magneslte
Marble
Plaster of Paris
Rouge
Silicon oarbide
Starch
Sucrose
Tin oslde
Titanium dioxide
Vagetable oil mists
(except castor, oaabsv nut
or iliUar Irritant oils)
™ <•* »~a)
(a« F)
2
2.
s
3.5
3.5 (reapirable)
5
(aa CN)
(•¦ W)
aOappefS^
20»ppef-
15
IS
IS
35
55
65
80
260
670
1800
15 (or 50 upper- )
*/ Sourca; R.f.ranc. 15.
b/ 8*. Rafaranea IS for aathed of calculation.
c/ Million partlolM p«r cubic foot of air {mppet x S5.3 ¦ partlcla. par cr).
8«. Reference IS far Batted of counting.
259
-------
thousands of organic compounds which may be present as minor pollutants lc
cally or even nationally.) These entries have, in general, been grouped
according to increasing order of toxicity. One notes, however, that the
so-called inert particulates have a lower TLV than such known poisons as
carbon monoxide, demonstrating again that the physical properties of the in-
haled substance are extremely important (i.e., a particulate which may be
permanently retained vs. a gaseous compound which may be later exhaled, re-
versibly). The effect of particle size on toxicity has been studied rather
extensively with a few substances such as silica, the silicates and natural
graphite. TLV's have been set for these substances on the basis of particle
count as shown also in Table 6.5-1.
One approach to rating the objectionability of air pollutants on
the basis of toxicity is by use of the measured levels already present and
consideration of these levels in relation to the TLV's. Mean and maximum
concentrations have been measured for a number of air pollutants as already
shown in Table 6.4-3. We have calculated the simple ratios of these values
to the pertinent TLV's and ranked the pollutants on the basis of this ratio
which we have termed a "hazard factor." The results given in Table 6.5-2
indicate that mercury and lead are the two most serious metallic air pollutant
In fact, mercury levels as high as 28$ of the TLV for industrial exposure
have been measured in the ambient air.
Finally, a combination of the pollution factor (a measure of how
far pollutant levels are above background, Table 6.4-4) with the hazard
factor (a measure of the hazard presented by observed levels of toxic pollut-
ants, Table 6.5-2) would appear to be a further useful basis for ranking
pollutants (since one might assume that man can tolerate the normal back-
ground levels). The product of the pollution factor and the hazard factor
which we have termed a "toxic hazard index", has been calculated for a number
of pollutants. The pollutants are ranked on this basis as shown in Table 6.5-
6.6 Ranking by Effects on Materials and Facilities
Air pollutants emitted to the air can have a wide range of effects
on materials, varying from the deposition of a dust covering to the complete
dissolution by corrosion of the affected material. Dustfall values of 0.35
to 3.5 mg/cm2/mo (10 to 100 tons/mile2/mo) are typical of many cities and
values as high as 70 mg/cm2/mo (2,000 tons/mile2/mo) have been recorded near
sources of high emission (a dustfall of 10 mg/cm2/mo would be a depth of
about 0.1 mm/yr or 1 cm/century). Severe local problems can be incurred by
the settling of larger particles (10-500 n) of certain chemical compositions*
acids or solvents which cause corrosion; iron-containing dust which causes
rusting; gritty materials which may be abrasive; and organic materials which,
may be sticky, cohesive or sludge-forming. The suspended particulate (< xo
260
-------
TABLE 6.5-2
HAZARD FACTOR RANKING OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN THE AIR
Mean Basis
Max Basle
Ranking
Hazard Factor®/
Pollutant ([Mean"l/TLV)xlCr
Metals
NO3- 0.17
P (all forms)0.07
NH4+ 0.05
Organlea
Benzene-
soluble 0.7
Benzo(a)
pyrene 3.0
Gaseous Pollutants £/
CO 127.0
Oxidants
(lncl.03)100.0
N02 15.7
HC1 10.0
S02 4.6
HF 4.0
NH3 2.3
Hydrocarbons
(excl.CKt) 1.5
HgS 0.3
Pollutant
Metals
Hazard Factor®/
(lMaxl/TLV)xl03
1
Fb
4.c£/
Hg
280. (£/
2
Hg
2.0
Fb
43.0
3
Fe
0.31
Zn
11.6
4
Be (*
4) <
0.25
Cu
10.0
5
V
0.17
V
7.3
6
Cd
0.13
Be
5.0
7
Zn
C .13
As
4.6
8
Cu
0.09
Fe
4.4
9
As
0.04
Cd
2.8
10
Ni
0.034
Mn
e.o
11
Cr
0.03
Cr
0.66
12
Mn
0.02
Co
0.6
13
Co
<
0.005
Nl
0.46
14
Sn
0.004
Sb
0.33
15
Ti
0.004
Bl
0.13
16
Sb
0.002
Tl
0.11
17
Bi
<
0.001
Sn
0.10
18
Mo
<
0.0005
Mo
0.078
Inorganic
Salts
SO4-
0.7
a/ Mean and Max concentrations In ug/m from Table 6.4-3. TLV's In mg/m3
from Table 6.5-1 except: B1 (0.5 est.); Cd (0.15 avg.); Ho (10.0 avg.);
Ct- (0.5 avg.); T1 (10 est.); V (0.3 avg.); Fa (5 avg.); Sn (5 avg.).
Benzene-soluble organic particulates (10 eat.); benzo(cr)pyrene (0.001
est.); and lnorg. salts (eat. 15 each). The 103 factor la used to give
a convenient scale.
]>J Concentrations giving ratios of 4 and 280 represent D.*$ and 2B$, respec-
tively, of the TLV.
c/ Gaseous pollutants probably should not be conpared directly to partic-
ulates, e.g., CO can be reveralbly exhaled.
261
-------
TABLE 6.5-3
TOXIC HAZARD INDEX OF AIR POLLUTANTS
Pollutant Hazard Index*
Lead
3100
Carbon Monoxide
890
Mercury
400
Benzo(a)pyrene
78
Sulfur Dioxide
58
Ammonia
18
Sulfates
14
Zinc
8.7
Vanadium
8.5
Benzene-Soluble Organics
4.9
Cadmium
2.6
Iron
2.5
Nitrates
1.7
Beryllium
< l.S
Nickel
1.1
Copper
0.8
Chromium
0.5
Ammonium Salts
0.4
Manganese
0.2
Arsenic
0.2
Antimony
0.02
Titanium
0.02
Cobalt
< 0.02
Bismuth
< 0.01
Molybdenum
< 0.01
* Hazard Index = Pollution Factor x Hazard Factor (Both Mean Basis)
Pollution Factors from Table 6.4-4 and Hazard Factors from Table
6.5-2. Units are pg/mg, i.e., 10"3. See Table 6.5-2.
262
-------
emissions and gaseous emissions which react in the atmosphere to form partic-
ulate may settle out or be adsorbed on materials at greater distances from
the source and cause soiling, corrosion, electrical shorts (during conditions
of high humidity), etc. The suspended particulate levels in urban atmos-
pheres ranged frcm 60 \i>g m~3 to about 200 |j,g m"3 (annual geometrical mean),
but 24 hr. average maxima vere about three times the annual mean. For rural,
non-urban areas the annual mean is 20-60 |J.g m~3. Gruber and Schumann^®/ ^iave
described a "soiling potential" of sources which quantifies the smoke emis-
sion from a source, in terms analogous to the "soiling index" of the atmos-
phere, which is a measure of the sutmicron, non-settling particles present.
Some economic costs of the effects of pollutants on materials have
been estimated in a recent report.iZ/ In making these estimates two major
damaging effects on materials were considered: soiling and deterioration.
Fifty-three major materials were identified, the total value of each was
estimated on the basis of the in-place (or final product) cost, and estimates
were made of the economic cost or loss caused by air pollution in the United
States.
In the estimaxion of costs due to soiling, the assumption was made
that an increase in suspended particulate pollutant levels causes a directly
proportional increase in soiling rate of materials, which is, in turn, reflected
in either an increased cleaning cost or an equivalent lose in esthetic value.
In other words, the basis of estimation was the added cost required to keep
materials (i.e., those which we desire to have cleaned) as clean in a polluted
area as people normally keep their homes in a nonpulluted environment. The
results of these estimates, condensed in Table 6.6-1 indicate that 44 of the
materials incurred losses totaling $100 billion. . This value is obviously much
greater than we are actually spending, although estimates of the actual value
range as high as $30 billion. The difference is a measure of the esthetic
cost of living in a dirty environment.
For deterioration, the economic loss caused by decreased lifetimes
or impaired servicability (due to corrosion, discoloration, etc., produced by
the pollutants) was used as the basis of estimation. The loss caused by deter-
ioration, etc., was primarily "based on gaseous, i.e., nonparticulate pollutants,
but is included here for comparison. Unfortunately, the economic-cost factor
could not be related by this method to a particular pollutant, because of a
lack of available data on specific pollutants, but estimates of relative inter-
actions were made for some specific material-pollutant combinations.* The
results of these estimates, condensed In Table 6.6-2 Indicate a loss of $3.8
billion for these materials, although the total 6ost of all deterioration
losses may run as high as $9.5 billion according to the report.
~Such as: stainless steel by particulates, Pe and CI; cotton fabric by
SO2 and O3; and paint by HgS, SOg, Fe, and Cu and particulates.
263
-------
TABLE 6.6-1
SOILING
Soiling
Soiling
Cost
Cost
Rank
Material
(Billion $)
Rank
Material
(Billion ^
1
Paint
35.0
28
Phenolics
0.040
2
Zinc
24.0
29
Rayon (fiber)
0.033
3
Flat glass
19.0
30
Nylon (plastic)
0.029
4
Cement and concrete
5.4
31
Bituminous materials
0.02?
5
Aluminum
4.9
32
Acrylics (plastic)
0.026
6
Leather
2.5
33
Wood
0.025
7
Polystyrene (plastic)
2.2
34
Acetate (fiber)
0.015
8
PVC (plastic)
1.54
35
Nylon (fiber)
0.014
9
Paper
1.12
36
Epoxies (plastic)
0.011
10
Nickel
1.00
37
Cellulosics (plastic)
0.010
11
Polyethylene (plastic)
0.59
38
Acrylics (fiber)
0.005
12
Cotton (fiber)
0.34
39
Polyesters (fiber)
0.003
13
Copper
0.19
40
Magnesium
0.002
14
Brass and "bronze
0.17
41
Acetate (plastic)
0.001
15
Chromium
0.16
42
Polyolefin (fiber)
0.001
16
Stainless steel
0.14
43
Gold
< 0.001
17
Building "brick
0.11
44
Silver
< 0.001
18
Polypropylene (plastic)
0.090
45
Gray iron
No lose
»t
19
ABS (plastic)
0.085
46
Malleable iron
20
Synthetic rubber
0.070
47
Alloy steel
21
Building stone
0.069
48
Molybdenum
f»
22
Lead
0.065
49
Clay pipe
tt
23
Urea and melamine
50
Refractory ceramics
«
(plastic)
0.061
51
Carbon and graphite
tl
24
Wool
0.055
52
Natural rubber
It
25
Tin
0.053
53
Carbon steel
»»
26
Cellulose ester (fiber)
0.044
27
Polyesters (plastic)
0.041 '
TOTAL
100
264
-------
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
TABLE 6.6-2
DETERIORATION
Value
Value
Economic Loss
Economic Loss
Materials (Million $)
Rank
Materials (Million $)
Paint 1
,195.0
28
Acrylic's (plastic)
10.0
Zinc
778.0
29
Alloy steel
8.7
Cement and concrete
30
Polystyrene (plastic)
8.5
materials
316.0
31
Acrylics (fiber)
7.6
Nickel
260.0
32
Acetate (fiber)
7.6
Cotton (fiber)
152.0
33
Polyesters (fiber)
6.4
Tin
144.0
34
Polypropylene (plastic)
6.4
Synthetic rubber
140.0
35
ABS (plastic)
6.1
Aluminum
114.0
36
Epoxies (plastic)
4.7
Copper
110.0
37
Cellulosics (plastics)
4.0
Wool (fiber)
99.2
38
Bituminous materials
2.2
Natural rubber
54.0
39
Gray iron
1.9
Carbon steel
53.8
40
Nylon (plastic)
1.7
Nylon (fiber)
38.0
41
Polyolefins (fiber)
1.6
Cellulose ester (fiber)
32.8
42
Stainless steel
1.6
Building brick
24.2
43
Clay pipe
1.4
Urea and melamine
44
Acetate (plastic)
1.2
(plastic)
22.7
45
Malleable iron
0.9
Paper
22.6
46
Chromium
0.8
Leather
20.6
47
Silver
0.7
Phenolics (plastic)
19.8
48
Gold
0.6
Wood
17.6
49
Flat glass
0.3
Building stone
17.6
50
Lead
0.2
FVC (plastic)
15.4
51
Molybdenum
0.1
Brass and bronze
13.9
52
Refractory ceramics
0.02
Polyesters (plastic)
13.7
53
Carbon and graphite
0.00
Rayon (fiber)
13.2
Magnesium
13.0
TOTAL 3.
800
Polyethylene (plastic)
11.7
-------
G.7 Ranking of Pollutants on the Basis of Overall Objectionability
The "overall objectionabllity" of a pollutant should reflect some
kind of a weighted average of its different objectionable properties. A
ranking on this basis is extremely difficult to achieve because of the di-
verse characters of the pollutants and the vide variations in their effects
on different receptors. We have, nevertheless, attempted this type of rank-
ing by employing the notion of an air quality goal, AQG. The AQG's, as used
herein, should not be confused with the Air Quality Standards which are be-
ing set by authoritative bodies. Unfortunately, a complete set of Standards
is not yet available and we have, therefore, developed a set of AQG's.
These assigned AQG's are based upon several considerations including toxic-
ity to man, animal and plant life, corrosion and soiling of materials, odor
reduction of visibility, and formation of haze (particularly a colored haze)
The numerical values, in (j,g.m~^, are assigned as the upper concentration
limits which we want to occur at any ground level point, either in the air
basin affected by the source or downwind from a source.
Because effects such as toxicity to plant or animal life have an
extremely complex relationship to concentration and exposure times, an effort
was made in these assignments to include a factor which would reflect normal
atmospheric fluctuations. Since atmospheric inversions frequently last up
to one day and periods of stagnation may last from three to seven days we
have selected a time-averaging period of 1-5 days as a basis of selecting
the AQG's, i.e., the pollutant level may, without being seriously objection-
able, build up occasionally, but periodically, to the AQG followed by
meteorological ventilation within 1-5 days.
A number of pollutants have been assigned AQG's and ranked on this
basis as shown in Table 6.7-1. Many gaseous pollutants are included in order
to indicate the range of the scale and for comparison. The inclusion of more
specific types of particulate pollutants would have been desirable, "but th*»
would be believed generally to fall in the range 10-100 (jLg«m~^.
6.8 Ranking of Sources on the Basis of Overall Objectionability
6.8.1 Objectionability Bating of Industries
An objectionability rating of sources by industrial classification
is extremely difficult because of the large ranges in the factors which aff
the quantity and type of particulate emitted by a given type of source an4
the lack of data on the chemical composition and physical properties of
emitted pollutants. In Table 6.8-1 we have rated on a relative scale various
major particulate sources on the basis of their contribution to the overall
problems of soiling, corrosion, toxicity, and odor as arising from air
266
-------
TABLE 6.7-1
RANKING OF AIR POLLUTANTS BY AIR QUALITY GOALS
Air Pollutant
Relative
Ranking*
Basis of Ranking
Carcinogens
Beryllium, Mercury
Highly toxic metals (Cd, Cr, Fb, Se, V, etc.)
Mercaptans
Isocyanates
Asbestos, silica, silicates
Very toxic metals (As, Sb, Cu, Ni, w)
Fluorides, as HF
Alkyl amines
hydrogen sulfide
Calcium oxide and other alkalis
Mineral acids (HC1, HNO3, H3PO4)
Sulfates, nitrates, fluorides
(as salts)
Sulfur oxides
Organo sulfides and pyridines
Nitrogen oxides
Chlorine
Soot, smoke, carbon black
Less toxic metals (Fe, Mn, Mo, Ti, Zn, etc.)
Fly ash (from coal combustion)
Inert particulates
Oxidants (ozone, etc.) total
Olefins, aldehydes, phenols, aniline
Aroaatics, chlorocarbons, mixed organics
0.001
0.1
1
5
5
5
5
10
20
30
30
50
50
hydrocarbons (exclusing C%)
Carbon monoxide
50
50
50
50
50
50
75
100
100
100
200
500
500
3,500
toxicity
toxicity
toxicity
odor and toxicity
toxicity
toxicity
toxicity
vegetation damage
odor, toxicity
toxicity, corrosion (paint), (odor?)
toxicity
toxicity, corrosivity, soiling
toxicity, vegetation damage,
electrical conductivity
toxicity, vegetation damage
odor and toxicity
toxicity, color, atm. rxns.
toxicity, corrosivity, (odor?)
soiling, toxicity
soiling, toxicity
soiling, toxicity
soiling, visibility
corrosion, toxicity
toxicity, soiling, corrosion
toxicity, soiling
toxicity, atm. rxns., (odor?)
soiling, toxicity, atm. rxns.
toxicity
* Banked in order of decreasing objectionability; i.e., a lew number indicates a highly
objectionable pollutant. Numerical values were chosen to correspond with maximum
tolerable level in #»g/m' during occasional 1-5 day pollution episodes.
-------
TABLE 6.8-1
RANKING OF AIR POLLUTION SOURCES
ON THE BASIS OF
OVERALL OBJECTIOHABILITY
Soiling Co/roalvlty Odor Toxicity
Sources
Soiling Corro*lvlty Qflor T«cielt\
l.-i-trlc utilities
I'onl -1'lred
Oi1-fired
IftR- fired
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Zinc and brass
"lnor Metals and
i'etallolds
(Production and Use)
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Phosphorus
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
rood Products
Meat processing
drain and grain
products
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Food Products (Concluded)
Sugar, candy, and
confections
Coffee
Ffete and oils
B
A
£3
A
B
A
Meatlng Plants
Coal
C
c
c
C
Textile Product#
nil
C
c
A
B
Mills
B
B
A
B
r>as
A
A
-
-
Wood, etc.
C
B
A
C
Forest Products
Wood
C
A
A
Incinerators
pulp and paper
C
B
C
B
Industrial
c
B
A
B
Commercial
c
B
A
B
Chemicals
Municipal
c
B
A
B
Ammonia
A
B
A
A
B
c
Residential &
Chlor-alkali
A
B
A
Apartment
c
B
A
B
Mineral acids
B
C
B
Pigments
C
B
A
A
C
A
Mining and Quarrying
Coal tar products
B
B
B
Iron
c
B
-
A
Carbon black.
C
A
_
Topper
c
A
-
A
Soap and detergent
C
B
B
A
Lead
c
A
-
B
Plastics and resins
C
C
B
Q
Zinc
c
A
-
A
Synthetic fibers
c
C
B
Q
Aluminum
c
A
-
A
Synthetic rubber
c
B
B
ft
Nonmetals
c
A
A
A
Agricultural chemicals
Fertilizers
c
c
B
C
C
B
c
ft
Ferrous Metals
Paints and varnish,etc.
c
C
C
Taconite handling
c
C
-
A
Polishes
A
A
A
A
Steel furnaces
c
c
A
C
Toilet and sanitation
A
Foundries
c
c
A
c
goods
A
A
A
A
Finished products
B
A
-
A
Inks
Glue and gelatin
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
;.:onferrou6 Metals
Explosives
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
B
A
A
C
Petroleum Refining and
Related Industries
Rubber Goods
Leather Product's
Glabe Products
Stone and Clay Products
Asbestos products
Abrasives
Brick and tile
Ceramics
Perllte, rock wool
Gypsum product*
Crushed stone
Cement Production
Line Production
Asphalt
Batching
Roofing
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
B
B
B
A
C
B
Ranking System C » Serious and/or frequent problem
B - Significant local problem
A • Occasional problem
Dash (-) Indicates little or no problem
Ranked on the basis of existing conditions In the United State* of population distribution, control*
u»«d, etc.
268
-------
pollution. In making rankings we have tried to take into consideration the
number, distribution and proximity to materials of the sources, the nature
and tonnage of pollutants emitted by a typical source, and the total tonnage
emitted throughout the country. This estimate then includes the average
control in use.
Considerable subjectivity is inherent in this method of ranking.
We have, however, relied on the general literature and other work on this
program as indicated below.
6.8.1.1 Soiling and corrosion: In Tables 6.6-1 and 6.6-2, we
reported estimates which have been made on the economic costs arising from
soiling and deterioration of materials caused by pollution and in Table
4.1-1 we have listed total tonnages of particulates emitted. Soiling is in
general proportional to total tonnage with special consideration given to
sooty or smoky emissions. The corrosivity reflects the effect of gaseous
pollutants such as SOjj* O3, H2S, or MH3 which are either corrosive in them-
selves or react in the atmosphere to form corrosive acids or salts which
Increase corrosion. It also reflects the emission of pollutants such as Fe
or Cu which cause paint discoloration, rust coloration, etc., or increase
corrosion of certain materials.
6.8.1.2 Odor; In Tables 6.3-1 and 6.3-2, we noted that malodors
are the cause of a high percentage of complaints concerning air pollution.
Some further information of this type (from other sources) is reported in
Table 6.3-3 in which the sources are ranked on the basis of complaints
received.
6.8.1.3 Toxicity: In Table 6.5-1 we listed the relative toxicities
of various potential pollutants and in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3 ranked a number
of pollutants by the "hazard factor" and "hazard index" which they present at
observed levels in urban atmospheres. In addition to those materials, such
pollutants as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (frequently carcinogenic) and volatile
compounds such as SOg have been considered in the rankings in Table 6.8-1.
We reemphasize that the degree of control is considered in these rankings.
6.8.2 Objectionability Rating of Individual Sources
A system which would objectively rate an air pollution source in
terms of its emission strength and the "obJectionability" of its pollutants
would be extremely useful. In 1962 Calverti§' proposed an air pollution
rating Index system in which a "source index" (a measure of the seriousness
of the pollution source) was compared to a "location index" (a measure of the
ability of the atmosphere to dilute the pollutants). By using this approach
one could determine (using certain approximations) if the pollutants (gaseous
or particulates of < 20 ia diameter) would be sufficiently diluted between a
269
-------
specified source and a downwind receptor, so that the concentrations were
below desired limits. Calvert has suggested^?' modifications to the original
index system which have been incorporated and extended herein.
In the original index system^/ the approach was essentially local
in that the atmospheric diffusion equations (of Bosanquet and Pearson) were
used to calculate the maximum concentration at any point downwind of a source
- a smokestack of given effective height. Unfortunately individual varia-
tions in topography, local weather patterns, stack heights, plume density,
distance to the receptor, the presence of nearby pollution sources, etc.
tend to limit the use of the generalized form of the index. In the present
work, a more regional approach is taken with dispersion estimates "based on
the NAPCA workbook method.—' The initial assumptions are simple as follows:
An emission source of strength Q(g sec"1) is essentially continuous
(i.e., emission time is long compared to the travel time downwind). Atmos-
pheric conditions are taken as conducive to some buildup of pollutants tut
not as an extremely stable system. A typical example might be Type C Stability
with a wind of 2 m sec"1 (4.5 mph). At a distance of about 10 km (6.21 miles)
downwind, the ground level concentration,* xCp-g m"3) of the pollutant from
this source is dependent primarily on the mixing depth of the atmosphere arv^
is essentially independent of the stack height or effective stack height, as
shown by the graphs^/ of 2£!i vs. distance (where u is the wind velocity
in m sec-1). Thus, for Type C stability** and a mixing depth of 500 m the
value of ^ is about 10"6 m~2, or x = ^ x 10~6 & m"3 a j| M-S m~3 (the
concentration at 10 km is much less sensitive to changes of distance
at say 1 km and is much less sensitive to other local variations).
The index is now calculated at the ratio of the regional concen-
tration of pollutant from this source to an accepted standard. Unfortunately-
authoritative bodies have not yet agreed on standards for many pollutants. '
However, the Air Quality Goals (AQG) a6 defined on page 266 and listed in
Table 6.7-1 are well suited for use as standards in calculating the pollu-
tion index. Taking the AQG in jig m~s, the regional pollution index, 1^ f
is given by:
* This concentration is less than the maximum, produced by a given effec-
tive stack height, e.g., 100 m. The maximum would usually occur at a
point nearer to the stack.
**For type A or B stability the mixing depth is slightly less at this value
of , while with types D and E stability the value of drops to
about 10"5 at a mixing depth of 100 m at 10 km.
270
-------
Ir = *_ = Q (Eq. 1)
AQfJ 2(AQf})
The degree to which a particular source contributes to the overall
pollution problem for a given pollutant is also of interest. The total
regional index for a pollutant could be taken as the ratio of the concentra-
tion from the source of interest, Xi plus that from all other sources, f3,
to the AQP:
X 3
Ir(T) = -1 (Eq. 2)
AQP
where 0 includes the natural background plus the concentrations arising from
other man-made sources: 3 = B + Xg + Xj + • ¦'*. P may be simply replaced
by B for many applications. The objectionability index, IQb of the source
of interest is then a measure of this source's contribution to the overall
problem and is calculated as:
C0b
Inf, = -JS- - _i2_ (Eq. 3)
Ib(T) Xj. + t
or = 1/2 ^ » -A- (E4. 4)
1/2 ^ + B «!+ &
The objectionability index (unlike the pollution index) will always be between
zero and unity (a high value being unfavorable). Since it is completely
independent of the AQP it loses some of the sensitivity of the pollution
index and the two should be used together to rate a source. (Note that the
constant 2 in Eq. 4 has the units 10$ m3 sec"1.)
The following examples illustrate the potential usefulness of the
index system in the comparison of various sources and degrees of control.
Example: A source of strength 100 g sec"1 of "inert" particulates
(which have an. assigned AQG of 100 pig m~3) would have an index IR = 0.5 and
I^of 0.56 (assuming a background of 40 |ig m"3). Similarly a source of only
0.05 g sec-1 (10 lb/day) mercury (which has a AQp of 0.1 jig m~3 and a back-
ground of 0.005 p,g m~3) would have IR = 0.25, an Iq^ of 0.98, and would be
as objectionable as the 100 g sec-1 of the "inert" particulates. In contrast
a source of 10 g sec"1 of ammonia (AQ3 - 500) would have Ip = 0.01 and would
be nonobjectionable.* The data are summarized below.
* (In fact, NH3 would be undetectable, i.e. not above background, at 10 km
distance.)
271
-------
Pollutant
Q g sec"1
lR
J0b
Inert Particulate 100
Hg 0.05
NH, 10
0.5
0.25
0.01
0.56
0.96
0.33
Example: The assumption of a "unit plant" has been shownEi/ to "be
a useful criteria for comparing industrial pollution sources. Similarly, the
assumption of a typical plant size and emission factor can be used to obtain
values for typical source strengths, in the absence of actual emission data
for a truly representative plant. Thus assume that an electric power plant
uses 200,000 ton/yr pulverized coal. Using an emission factor for particulate
of 190 lb/ton, and AQP of 75 and a background level of 40 jig/m?, the
regional pollution index and objectionability index can be calculated at
various degrees of control as shown below:
Control
Q (g sec-1)
IR
T0b
0
540
3.6
0.87
80
108
0.7
0.57
97
16
0.1
0.16
Remark
extremely
objectionable
objectionable
unobjectionable
A comparison of the objectionability of the SOg emissions with that
of the particulates is also of interest. Assuming 90# of the sulfur xn the
coal is emitted as S02, that the AQG for S0g is 50 p,g/m , and the natural
background is 5 ng/m*, the indices at two levels of sulfur would be:
$> Sulfur Q( g sec"1)
0.5 52
JR
I0b
4.2
0.98
0.5
0.89
Remark
415 4.2 0.98 very
objectionable
probably
objectionable
The relatively high values for the low sulfur coal compared to the
controlled particulate values are at first surprising. In part they reflect
the low value for the AQG and the use of the natural background. Even if the
urban average of 62 |ig/m^ S0p and a total background of, say, 35 fig/m are
used, then Ir = 0.4 and lob = 0.43, and the S02 is still shown to be more
objectionable than the particulate at 97# control.
The availability of data on the source strengths unfortunately limn-
t to which the rating system can be applied at present. In the first
place a great range of strengths exists within a given type of source because
the extent
272
-------
of plant size, method of operation, type of fuel used (and in the case of
coal, the type of boiler and ash content), type of control equipment and its
operating efficiency, etc. In addition, in many cases the chemical composi-
tions of the emitted particulates have not yet been determined so that the
most objectionable constituents of the emissions can be identified and
employed in the calculations. In other cases the particle size distribution
may not be known so that the large, settleable particles can be excluded from
the calculations. The collection of these data is beyond the scope of the
present program. As more and better data become available, however, and
agreement is reached by authoritative bodies on the air quality standards to
be used, the index system should be applied to every source.
6.9 Conclusions
Attempts have been made using several methods to rank particulate
air pollutants and their sources on the basis of objectionable properties.
Particulate pollutants which produce readily apparent soiling (such as dust,
soot and smoke) are the primary cause of complaints which are received from
the public by air pollution control agencies. Complaints about odorous
pollutants (usually gaseous) are generally the second most numerous, while
other complaints arise from property damage (to paint, vegetation, livestock,
etc.) and nuisance effects. Four categories of particulate sources which
cause the most complaints appear to be: (l) the primary metals industries;
(2) the stone, clay and glass products industries; (3) petroleum and
related industries; and (4) refuse disposal. The largest single source of
complaints are asphalt plants.
If levels of specific particulate pollutants are compared on the
basis of their "pollution factors," i.e., their observed increase above
"natural" background levels, then lead and mercury are by far the most
serious air pollutants in our cities. Levels of other pollutants which average
far above background include carbon monoxide, zinc, vanadium, nickel, benzo-
( a )pyrene, cadmium, sulfates and sulfur dioxide. Maximum levels of over
1000 times background h'ave been observed for many pollutants, including an
observation of 28,000 times background for mercury in the air in one instance.
If the observed average levels of specific pollutants are compared
with their relative toxicities, then again lead and mercury have the highest
"hazard factor" among metallic air pollutants. Carbon monoxide, oxidants,
nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and benzo(of)pyrene..
are also serious toxicants in the air on this basis. In one instance, a
mercury level of 28# of the threshold limit value for industrial exposure
was measured in the ambient air of one of our cities. When the pollution •
factors and hazard factors were combined, (i.e., to consider the average
observed pollutant levels, the normal background levels, and the relative
toxicities) then the resulting "hazard index" showed the most serious air
273
-------
pollutants to be in decreasing order: lead, carbon monoxide, mercury,
benzo(a)pyrene and sulfur dioxide.
On the basis of effects on materials, soiling by particulates is
the major problem and has been estimated to be the cause of $100 billion of
real and esthetic damage in the United States. Corrosion of materials has
been estimated as the cause of another $3.8-9.5 billion damage by air pollu-
tants, although in this case much of the damage is caused by pollutants which
are emitted as gases.
On the basis of overall objectionability, the highly toxic pollutants
such as carcinogens, mercury, beryllium, isocyanates, lead, asbestos, etc.,
are ranked as much more serious pollutants than those which cause soiling,
property damage, etc.
A subjective ranking of industrial sources on their overall ob jec-
tionability was also made, in the categories of soiling, corrosivity, odor
and toxicity of their emissions. As guides in this ranking, an effort was
made to take into account the nature and tonnage of pollutants emitted "by
typical examples of each industry and the total for that industry, as well
as the distribution of the industry in relation to population centers. On
thiB basis the most serious sources appear to be the coal-fired electric
utilities and industrial heating plants, and the petroleum-related industries.
An objective method for the overall rating of sources of diverse objection-
able pollutants is described. This method employs a regional pollution index
which compares the concentration of a pollutant which results from a given
emission level to an allowable maximum concentration or standard, and also
an objectionability index which compares the concentration of a pollutant
from a given source with that of all sources, including natural background
levels.
274
-------
REFERENCES
1. Robinson, E», "Effect of Air Pollution on the Physical Properties of
the Atmosphere/' Air Pollution, Vol. 1, pp. 349-400. A. C. Stern,
Editor.
2. Brandt, C. S., and W. W. Heck, "Effects of Air Pollutants on Vegetation,"
Air Pollution, Vol. I, pp. 401-443.
3. Stokinger, H. E., and D. L. Coffin, "Biological Effects of Air Pollu-
tants," Air Pollution. Vol. I, pp. 445-546.
4. Goldsmith, J. R., "Effects of Air Pollution on Human Health," Air
Pollution, Vol. I, pp. 547-615.
5. Yokum, J. E., and R. 0. McCaldin, "Effects of Air Pollution on Materials
and the Economy," Air Pollution, Vol. I, pp. 617-654.
6. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, January 1969, pp. 1-17 to 1-29.
7. Teffens, B. D., "Gaseous Pollutants in the Air," Air Pollution, Vol. I,
pp. 23-45.
8. Corn, M., "Nonviable Particles in the Air," Air Pollution) pp. 47-94.
9. Eisenbud, M., "Sources of Radioactive Pollution," Air pollution.
Vol. I, pp. 121-147.
10. Air Quality Data, from national Air Sampling network, U. S. Department*
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Rational
Air Pollution Control.Administration, (a) 1965 Edition and (b) 1966
Edition.
11. Stern, A. C., "Air Pollution Standards," Air Pollution, Vol. Ill,
pp. 601-718.
12. Handbook of Physics and Chemistry, 50th Edition, 1969-1970, Chemical
Rubber Company, p. F-144.
13. Litton Industries, Inc., Air Pollution Aspects of—As, P, and Hg,
undated reports on Contract PH 22-66-25.
275
-------
14. Lave, L. B., and E. P. Seskin "Air Pollution and Human Health" report
to Resources for the Future, Inc., November 20, 1969.
15. threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants, 1969 values, American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Technical Information
Catalog of the Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., Sec. 10
16. Gruber and Schumann, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
16, p. 272 (1966).
17. Midwest Research Institute, Final Report on Contract CPA 22-69-113,
January 15, 1970.
18. Calvert, S., Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. 12,
p. 185 (1962).
19* Calvert, S., Private communications, December 1969, and January 1970.
20. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates by D. B. Hirner for
the National Air Pollution Control Administration, revised 1969,
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26.
21. "The Cost of Clean Air," First Report of the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare to the Congress of the United States, June 1969
(prepared by NAPCA).
276
-------
7. MISCELLANEOUS RANKING TECHNIQUES
There are many ways of arranging the information we have col-
lected on stationary particulate pollutant sources which will lead to
useful presentations. In this section, a preliminary development of two
such arrangements is presented. These are Difficulty of Control and Unit
Operation.
7.1 Difficulty of Control
To discuss particulate pollution sources in terms of difficulty
of control, it is necessary to select a set of guidelines to ^udge the
degree of difficulty. These guidelines should include effluent charac-
teristics and process variables. A review of possible guiding factors
indicated that the most significant ones are: (l) particle size distri-
bution of emitted particulates; (2) grain loading; (3) carrier-gas volu-
metric flowrate; (4) particulate and carrier-gas handling characteristics
(i.e., corrosive, sticky, etc.); (5) number of small sources (i.e., trans-
fer points); and (6) nature of process.
A division of stationary particulate pollution sources into the
broad categories of metallurgical, chemical, combustion, and mechanical pro-
cesses also facilitates a ranking of difficult sources. Metallurgical
processes contain some of the most difficult sources to control because
effluent streams are characterized by metallic fUmes and high volumetric
flowrates. In many cases, the particulates are corrosive, sticky, and
have high angles of repose. In addition to the high volumetric flowrates,
the carrier-gases are at high temperatures and may be corrosive.
Particulates emitted from mechanical processes are generally not
inherently difficult to control, but the number of sources may present a
problem. Conveyor transfer points, loading and unloading operations, and
stockpiles are examples of this type of source.
Table 7.1-1 presents a list of sources that are difficult to con-
trol in the metallurgical, chemical, combustion, and mechanical process
categories. The factors that make the sources difficult to control are
delineated. The ranking is not strictly quantitative. However, the metal-
lurgical, chemical, and combustion processes are inherently more difficult
to control than are mechanical processes.
277
-------
TABLE 7.1-1
PARTICULATE POLLUTION SOURCES
DIFFICULT TO CONTROL
Source
Problem
Metallurgical Processes
A. Iron and Steel
1. Sinter Machine
2. Electric Furnace
3. Coke Ovens
B. Gray Iron Foundries
1. Cupola
High temperature and high volumetric flowrate
carrier-gas. SOg content. High particle
electrical resistivity. Fluorides in effluent
are corrosive.
Small particle size of particulate (70 ¦wt'jk <
5 micron). Particulates have a strong
tendency to adhere to fabric surfaces, high
angle of repose and a high electrical resistivity
Basic nature of charging and pushing steps.
Staall size of particulate (25-30 vt$ <10 micron)
Variable gas-stream conditions. Fluxing agents
may produce corrosive effluents.
2. Electric Furnace
Staall size of particulate.
-------
TABLE '
Source
C. Primary Nonferrous
1. Copper and Lead
a) Blast, Reverberatcry, and
refining Furnaces
2. Zinc
a) Horizontal Retort
ro
-4
to
3. Aluminum
a) Reduction Cells
b) Refining Furnaces
D. Secondary Nonferrous
1. Furnaces
.1-1 (Continued)
Problem
Snail size of particulate (metallic fumes).
Particulates are cohesive and will bridge
and arch in hoppers.
Snail size of particulate (metallic fumes).
High volumetric flowrate of carrier gas. Low
outlet grain loading.
Small particle size of particulate. High
volumetric flowrate of carrier gas. Particulates
may contain tar and fluorides. Particulates
and carrier gas are corrosive.
Small particle size of particulate. Particulate
and carrier gas are corrosive.
Snail particle size of particulate. Particulates
may be abrasive or corrosive. Particulates may
have high electrical resistivity. High
temperature carrier gas.
-------
Source
E. Ferroalloys
1. Blast Furnace
2. Electric Furnace
Chemical Processes
A. Acid Manufacture
1. Sulfuric (Contact Process)
a) Absorber
2. Riosphoric (Thermal Process)
a) Absorber
B. Fertilizer Manufacture
1. Dryers and Coolers
2. Prill Toirera
1 (Continued)
Problem
Small particle size of particulate (60 vt$ <
1 micron). High temperature and high volumetric
flowrate carrier gas. Carrier gas is potentially
explosive because of high CO content.
Small particle size of particulate. Particulates
have high electrical resistivity.
Small particle size of particulate (acid mist).
Corrosive effluent.
Small particle size of particulate (acid mist).
Corrosive effluent.
Stnall particle size of particulate (fluoride
fumes).
Jbture of process.
-------
TABLE 7.1-1 (Concluded)
Source
C. Pulp Mi11a
1. Recovery Furnace
D. Carbon Black
1. Channel Process
2. Furnace Process
Combustion Sources
A. Power Plants (Electric Utility
and Industrial)
B. Slash and Field Burning
C. Incineration
Mechanical Processes
A. Crushed Stone, Sand & Gravel
1. Stockpiles
2. Materials Handling
B* Grain Elevators
1. Materials Handling
Problem
Sknall particle size of particulate (50 wt$ <
1 micron). High volumetric flowrate.
Nature of process. Staall size of particulate.
Snail size of particulate.
Sknall particle size of particulate frcm
seme furnaces.
Nature of process. Multiple sources.
Multiple sources.
Nature of process.
Multiple sources.
Multiple sources.
-------
7.2 Ranking Particulate Sources by Unit Operation
Particulate emission sources can also be ranked by unit operation.
A ranking on this basis delineates similarities and differences between
emissions from a specific unit operation in different industries. The
ranking could be developed in terms of tonnage of emitted particulate or
appropriate effluent characteristics. Incomplete data on emission and
production figures were found for many unit operations in specific indus-
tries, and a meaningful ranking on the basis of tonnage emitted could not
be developed. As a consequence, a ranking of classification using effluent
characteristics was sought.
liable 7.2-1; presents a listing of particulate sources by unit
operations and selected effluent characteristics. The effluent charac-
teristics are: (l) particle size of emitted particulate; (2) outlet
grain loading; and (3) carrier-gas flowrate. Particle size data are pre-
sented as mass median (in microns) and geometric deviation (cr) where
available or as weight percent less than a specific diameter (microns).
Outlet grain loadings are in grains per standard cubic foot. Quantities
with an asterik are in actual cubic feet. Carrier-gas flowrate is ex-
pressed in two forms: (1) thousands of standard cubic feet per minute,
and (2) thousands of standard cubic feet per ton processed. Qiantities
with an asterik are in actual cubic feet.
The unit operations listed in Table 7.2-2 are: (l) kilns; (2)
dryers; (3) sinter machines; (4) roasters, (5) furnaces; (6) crushing,
grinding, and milling; and (7) miscellaneous chemical processes. These
unit operations account for a major portion of particulates emitted from
stationary sources.
282
-------
TABLE 7.2-1
PAMIIiMjATE SOURCES BY UNIT OPERATIONS AMD SELECTED EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
ro
8
Unit Operations
I. Kilns
a) Cement
1. Rotary
2. Vertical
b) Lime
1. Rotary
2. Vertical
c) Bauxite (Rotary)
d) M&gneaite (Rotary)
e) Zinc Ore (Rotary)
f) Kickel Ore (Rotary)
Particle Size
Mass Median-8.5
o = 4.1
Mass Median- 44
ff = 13.7
10 <10, 50 <30
(one kiln)
25 - 40< 10
50< 10 (one kiln)
Outlet
Grain Loading
Dry Process
1 - 17*
Wet Process
1 - 14*
0.8*
2-23
0.3 - 1.0
2.2*
5.7 - 17.3*
12
Carrier-gas
FLowrate t
Dry Process
a) 34 - 300*
fc) 94 - 614*
Wet Process
a) 72 - 445*
b) 166 - 570*
a) 73.6*
a)
l>) 57 - 204*
a) 33.5*
a) 29.5*
a) 4.7 - 7.4*
a) 26.5*
Control
Equipment
**
MC, EP, MC & FF
MC & EP
MC, EP
MC, EP, FF, WS
MC, EP
MC, EP
MC, EP
MC, EP
t a) Thousands of 9CFM
b) Thousands of SCF/ton
-------
Unit Operation
II. Dryers
a) Rotary
1. Grain
2. Cement
3. Fhosphate Rock
4. Titanium Dioxide
5. Ammonium Nitrate
6. Fertilizer
(Superphosphate)
7. Asphalt
Stone
(Hot Mix Paving
Plant)
8. Bauxite
9. Fuller's Earth
10. Limestone
TABLE 7.2-1 (Continued)
Outlet Carrier-gas Control
Particle Size Grain Loading Flowrate Equipment
40 - 70 <10
0.5 - 1
Large, unstable
Agglomerates
Mass Median-85
ct = 6.3
Mass Median-17.8
a = 5.1
13-40
7.63
1-5
b) 26 - 64*
0.7 - 4.0
20 - 70
a) 16.5
(one unit)
a) 7.7 - 46
b) 3.9 - 24.6
EP, MC, FF
WS
WS
WS
WS
MC, WS, FF
Mass Median-7
ff = 9.7
20 - 40
1.9
4.3 - 11
a) 11 - 150*
a) 17.6*
a) 14.7*
EP, MC
EP
MC, WS
11. Dolomite
6.1 - 30.4
b) 36 - 43*
MC, WS
-------
Unit Operation
12. Clay
13. Coal
b) Spray
1. Detergent
2. Fertiliser
a) Urea
III. Sinter Machines
a) Iron Ore
b) Lead Ore
c) Zinc Ore
17. Roaster
a) Copper Ore
b) Zinc Ore
1. Ropp
2. Multiple Hearth
3. Suspension
4. Fluid-Bed
TABLE 7.2-1 (Continued)
Outlet Carrier-gas Control
Particle Size Grain Loading Flowrate Equipment
a) 23.8 MC
a) 20 - 135 MC
50 < 40 3 MC
Mass Median-100 0.2 - 5.0 a) 30 - 460 MC, EP
= 5.4 b) 148 - 230*
0.87 - 6.6 a) 140 VS, MC
b) 130
(one plant)
100<10 0.44 - 5 b) 140
6.6 a) 4.6 MC, EP, WS
b) 47.3
a) 25 - 30 MC
a) 5 - 6 MC
a) 10 - 15 MC
a) 6 - 10 MC
-------
TABLE 7.2-1 (Continued.)
Unit Operation
c) Pyrites
V. Furnaces
a) Blast
1. Iron Ore
2. Lead
3. Copper
4. Secondary lead
5. Ferro Manganese
6. Tin Ore
7. Antimony Ore
b) Open Hearth
1. Steel
(no oxygen lance)
2. Steel
(oxygen lance)
Particle Size
15-90 <74
0.03 - 0.3
80 < 1
50 < 1
69 c 10
Outlet
Grain Loading
0.5 - 1.0*
4-30
2 - 6.6
6.6
2-12
4.5 - 17
2.1 ~ 3.0*
1.6*
0.1 - 3.5
0.2 - 7.0
Carrier-gas
Flowrate
a) 6.5 - 7.7*
Control
Equipment
a) 40 - 140*
b) 60 - 138
a) 6 - 190
b) 180
a) 21.2
b) 76.5
a) 2.1
a) 60* - 135
a) 2.1 - 5.7*
a) 3.7*
a) 25 - 100
a) 45 - 200
MC, WS, EP
MC, WS, EP
MC, WS
EP, SA, WS
MC, EP
MC, EP
WS, EP
WS, EP
-------
TABLE 7.2-1 (Continued)
Unit Operation
c) Basic Oxygen
(Steel)
d) Electric-Arc
1. Steel
(no oxygen lance)
2. Steel
(oxygen lance)
3. Ferroalloy
4. Iron Foundry
e) Reverberatory
1. Copper
2. Lead
3. Brass
4. Secondary lead
5. Secondary zinc
6. Secondary
Alvaalnim
Particle Size
85 - 95 <1
84 <10
0.01 - 4
0.05 - 0.5
0.07 - 0.4
Outlet
Grain Loading
2-10
0.1 - 2.2
1-10
0.2 - 30
31 <10
1-5
0.4 - 4.4
1-8
1-6
0.2 - 1
0.12 - 0.6
Carrier-gas
Flewrate
a) 35 - 250*
a) 10 - 100
0 11 - 60
a) 25 - 60
b) 71
a) 1 - 3
b) 3.5 - 17.5
a) 5.6 - 17.6
a) 3.1
a) 7 - 8
b) .400 - 800
a) 1 - 9
b) 0.1
Control
Equipment
WS, EP
WS, EP, FF
WS, EP, FF
WS, FF, EP
MC
MC
WS, FF
WS, FF
WS, FF
FF
-------
TABLE 7.2-1 (Continued)
Unit Operation
VI. Crushing and Milling
a) Crushing Ore
b) Cement Mill
c) Limestone Crusher
d) Raymond Mill
(Limestone)
e) Hammer Mill
(Limestone )
f) Pulverizer
(Hydrated Lime)
g) Jav Crusher
(Stone)
VII. Miscellaneous Chemical
a) Absorption Towers
1. Sulfuric Acid
(Contact Plant)
2. Phosphoric Acid
(Eiermal)
Outlet Carrier-gas Control
Particle Size Grain Loading Flowrate Equipment
0.5-100 5-25 WS
22.3 a) 14.1* EP
1.1 - 1.3 a) 16.2
Mass Median-4.3
c7 = 1.6
Mass Median-6.0
a = 8.8
Mass Median-4.9
a = 2.1
8 - 90<3 0.017 - 0.76 a) 5 - 62 WS, ME, EP
b) 35 - 160
Mass Median-1.6 1.6 - 93 a) 3.4 - 30.2 WS, ME, EP
b) 35 - 160
-------
TABLE 7.2-1 (Concluded)
Unit Operation
t) Lime Hy drat or
c) Fertilizer
1. Superphosphate
Den and Mixer
Particle Size
Mass Median-2.6
a = 8.5
Outlet
Grain Loading
Carrier-gas
Flowrate
0.09 - 0.15
Control
Equipment
WS
WS
* Actual-cubic feet.
** MC - mechanical
EP - electrostatic precipitation
H? - fabric filter
WS - wet scrubber
SA - sonic agglomerator
-------
8. FUTURE PROBLEMS
The principal objective of this phase of the study was to predict
future problems that will be created by particulate pollutants emitted from
stationary sources up to the year 2000. In making these forecasts we have
attempted to take into account the following factors:
a. Changes in production capacity
b. Improvements in control devices
c. Legislative or regulatory action to enforce installa-
tion of control equipment
To make these projections, it is necessary to obtain data or make
assumptions regarding production trends, efficiency of currently installed
control equipment, improvements in control devices, and net control in future
years. Methods for obtaining the requisite data are discussed in the fol-
lowing sections.
8.1 Production
Historical production data were collected on each major particulate
pollutant source for the 1947-1968 period. Additionally, published
forecasts were obtained from the literature covering the 1968 through
1980 period for many of these sources. In making projections, the median
published forecasts were used in some cases; in all cases, they were at
least employed as check points.
Historical data were projected to the year 2000 by 10-year
intervals, using a variety of computerized forecasting procedures. Time
series projections were made, using both linear and exponential forms,
while other projections were based on correlation analyses between annual
production volumes and the Index of Industrial Production and the Gross
National Product.
Altogether, forecasts were made of all significant particulate
pollutant sources on ten different bases. The median valuer and ranges
resulting from these different forecasting techniques were carefully
examined and evaluated. If there was no particular reason to disbelieve
the results of the computer forecasts, a median value was chosen. In
other cases, still different forecasting methods were employed.
Preceding page Hank 291
-------
Paint, asphalt, mineral products, lumber and cement, for example,
were tied to forecasts of new construction activity, while fertilizer
and grain production were keyed to per capita consumption trends. Coal
combustion by electric utilities was based on a declining percentage of
total energy production, brought about by a combination of improved
generating efficiency and by greater eventual use of alternative energy
sources.
8.2 Improvements in Control Devices
We have attempted to account for improvements in control devices
by the development of a technological forecasting curve. Data reported by
Moore regarding overall dust collection efficiency of control equipment
for various equipment age groups were used in identifying trends in
industry practice. The data reflect the collection efficiency of
control equipment actually installed (and control techniques actually
practiced) by power plants during a given time period; they are not
necessarily related to design efficiencies or technical capabilities
in existence at that time. Moore's data are as follows:
Overall Dust
Year Installed Collection Efficiency (4>)
1940 - 1944 77.0
1945 - 1949 80.0
1950 - 1954 83.5
1955 - 1959 88.0
1960 - 1964 93.0
Estimates of current and projections of future air pollution
control equipment sales reported in the literature were weighted
according to their relative collection efficiencies to determine the
overall expected dust collection efficiency for equipment installed
during 1967, 1972, and 1977. These gave the following values:
Overall Dust
Year Installed Collection Efficiency (*30
1967 94»6
1972 95.7
1977 97.0
The eight points thus obtained were then plotted on normal
probability graph paper, and a least-square regression line was computed.
Figure 8.2-1 represents this regression line plotted on arithmetic graph
292
-------
£
Of
<
100
o
z
oc
Z)
o
o
a
90
to
Z
80
to
8
Z
LU
s
O-
9 70
>-
u
z
— 60
U
O
<
oc
W 50
T 1 1 1
-J I I I I 1 I I I I I
10-YEAR INTERVALS
Rate of Change of Efficiency of Installed Control Equipment
-------
paper. A comparison between the values indicated by Figure 8-1 and the ac-
tual data points used in its development is as follows:
Actual or
Theoretical
Year
Estimated Value (%)
Value ($)
1942
77.0
76.0
1947
80.0
80.5
1952
83.5
85.0
1957
88.0
89.0
1962
93.0
92.0
1967
94.6
94.0
1972
95.7
96.0
1977
97.0
97.0
8.3 Currently Installed Equipment
The data on equipment sales by industry for the year 1967 were
also used to estimate the efficiency of equipment presently being installed
in each industry. Table 8-1 presents these estimates. The data based on
sales were modified for those industries in which the sales of different
types of control equipment do not accurately reflect actual practice. An
example of this is petroleum production in which the cyclones on catalytic
crackers are installed in series.
The efficiency figures in the right column are considered to be
those attainable under optimum operating conditions. The left-hand column
presents an engineering estimate of the efficiency attained under actual
operating conditions.
The technological growth curve and the estimates on efficiency of
currently installed equipment are input data for the various projection
methods. The subsequent paragraphs describe the projection methods.
8.4 Projection Methods
Five methods have been selected to project the particulate emis-
sion burden to the year 2000. The first method considers no change in con-
trol above 1970 levels, while the other four methods reflect increasing
pressure for improved control of particulate emissions.
Method 1 - In this method net control is assumed to be constant
for each industry at the 1970 value through the year 2000. Production
294
-------
TABLE 8-1
AVERAGE EFFICIENCY OF NEWLY INSTALLED AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL ESHIPMENT BY INDUSTRY
Industry Description
Coal-fired Electric Utilities
Coal-fired Industrial Boilers
Crushed Stone/Sand 8c Gravel
Agriculture Operations
Iron and Steel
Ore Crushing
Materials Handling
Sinter Plants
Coke Ovens
Blast Furnaces
Open Hearth
Basic Oxygen
Electric Arc
Scarfing
Cement
Woodpulp
Lime
Clay
Primary Nonferrous
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Hiosphate Rock
Fertilizer
Asphalt
Ferroalloys
Iron Foundries
Secondary Nonferrous
Copper
Aluminum
Lead
Zinc
Coal Cleaning
Carbon Black
Bstroleum
Acids
Estimated
Average Operating
Efficiency*
93.6
90.0
94.0
92.0
70.0
95.0
95.0
70.0
99.0
99.0
99.2
95.0
97.7
96.0
92.0
96.0
85.0
97.0
97.0
97 .0
97.0
96.0
98.0
90.0
85.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
99.0
99.999
94.0
Expected Efficiency at
Optimum Conditions**
98.0
95.0
96.0
94.0
90.0
97.0
97.0
90.0
99 .2
99.2
99.2
97.0
98.4
97.0
94.0
97.0
90.0
98.0
98.0
99.0
98.5
98.5
99.0
95.0
90.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.2
99.999
96.0
* Installed equipment operated under standard maintenance schedules.
** Installed equipment operated under optimum maintenance schedules.
295
-------
capacity will vary, "but the product of (efficiency of control) x (applica-
tion of control) is constant.
Msthod 1 reflects a situation of no change in net control.
Method 2 - In this method application of control is assumed to
increase linearly to 100$ over the IRS plant lifetime. The efficiency of
control equipment "being installed each year is assumed to "be constant and
corresponds to the efficiency under estimated actual operating conditions
as listed in Table 8-1. Equipment with this efficiency will be installed
each year on replaced capacity, new capacity, and on some presently uncon-
trolled capacity to achieve the assumed linearity of application of control.
The rate of retirement of old plant capacity will be based on the
guideline lives advocated by the Internal Revenue Service in its Publication
No. 456, "Depreciation Guidelines and Rules." The economic lives indicated
by the IRS guidelines are based on a considerable amount of historical data
for each industry group, and probably represent the best information avail-
able regarding the actual retirement practices of industry. Any major de-
viations from the guidelines must be justified by a company's own records:
that the established guidelines are widely accepted by industry offers ample
evidence that they are adequately accurate.
Method 2 reflects activity to establish controls on all sources -
Method 5 - In this method application of control is assumed to in-
crease linearly to 100$ over the IRS lifetime and efficiency of new controls
is increased based on technological growth curve. The efficiency of equip-
ment being installed each year will be taken from Figure 8.2-1 with the
starting point for each industry in 1970 assumed to be the efficiency under
estimated actual operating conditions as listed in Table 8-1. As in Method
2, this equipment will be installed each year on replaced capacity (replaced
following normal IRS lifetime), new capacity, and on some presently uncon-
trolled capacity to achieve the assumed linearity of application of control
Method 3 reflects activity to establish controls on all sources
and also improvements in control devices.
Method 4 - In this method application of control is assumed to
increase linearly to 100$ over the normal IRS lifetime, and the replacement
period for old plant capacity is assumed to be. l/2 the normal IRS lifetime.
The efficiency of equipment being installed each year will be tafeea
from Figure 8.2-1 with the starting point for each industry in 1970 assumed
to be the efficiency under estimated actual operating conditions as listed
in Table 8-1. This equipment will be installed each year only on replaced
capacity (replaced following l/2 normal IRS lifetime), new capacity, and
296
!
-------
on some presently uncontrolled capacity to achieve the assumed linearity
of application of control.
Method 4 reflects activity to establish controls on all sources,
improvements in control devices, and economic factors associated with In-
stalling control equipment on old plants.
Method 5 - In this method application of control is assumed to
increase linearly to 100$ "by 1980. Replacement period for existing plants
is taken as l/2 the IRS lifetime. Efficiency of nev controls is increased
based on Figure 8.2-1 with starting point for each industry in 1970 assumed
to be the optimum attained efficiency listed in Table 8-1.
This equipment will be installed each year only on replaced capacity
(replaced following l/2 normal IRS lifetime), new capacity, and on some pres-
ently uncontrolled capacity to achieve the assumed linearity of application
of control.
Method 5 reflects activity to establish controls on all sources,
improvements in control devices, economic factors associated with install-
ing control equipment on old plants, and increasingly stringent emission
standards.
8.5 Results
Results of the projection of particulate emissions for the major
industrial sources axe shown in Figures 8.5-1 to 8.5-27. Figure 8.5-1
presents a summation of all the major industrial sources. Hftis figure shows
that if there is no improvement in net control the emissions will increase
from the present level of 18.0 x 10® tons/yr up to 52.6 x 106 tons/yr by the
year 2000. This figure also illustrates the effect of four control strategies
that would reduce emissions to between 2.7 and 8.4 x 10® tons/yr in the year
2000.
The major implication of the projection of particulate emissions
is that emissions can be reduced by installation of control equipment on
uncontrolled sources and,to a lesser extent, by shifts to more efficient
types of collection equipment. Other conclusions are:
1) Emissions will rise at an alarming rate if additional and
higher efficiency control equipment is not insted.led.
2) The most effective method of decreasing emissions is by In-
creasing the application of control to 100$. Acconpli shing 100$ application
of control by I960 (Method 5) greatly reduces emissions, especially for
those industries such as electric utilities and cement in which retirement
of uncontrolled plants would take a greater number of years.
297
-------
Increasing the application of control to 100$ has a pronounced
effect on industries in which present application of control is low, such
as crushed stone. However, this low application of control exemplifies 1^he
control difficulties involved for these industries due to the numerous and.
varied sources of their emissions.
3) Emissions from many industrial sources tend toward an asymptotic
value after 100# application of control is achieved, thereafter, up to the
year 2000, the installation of increasingly efficient equipment tends to
stabilize the quantities emitted by offsetting increased production. After
the year 2000, when advances in technology have increased efficiency to 99+£
emissions from most industries will follow production changes and may "begin
to rise accordingly.
Hot-mix asphalt plants and coal cleaning will "be serious future
problems because unlike most other sources the emissions begin to rise after
about 1985 even with the most severe control measures.
4) The emissions from coal-fired industrial boilers, with no
change in net control (Method l), level off after 1980 as a result of de-
creased use of coal in industrial boilers. This fact is corroborated by
phone conversations with many industrial boiler operators who stated that
they have already converted to oil or gas, or intend to do so in the next
2 or 3 years.
5) The projected emissions from primary aluminum manufacture do
not decrease as significantly as in other industries under the four control
methods. This situation is a result of increasing production and process
characteristics that limit the suitability of efficient control devices.
Further research is needed to investigate effective means of controlling
this source.
6) Potential future problem sources because of magnitude of con-
trolled emissions are:
Sources
Electric Utilities
Crushed Stone
Industrial Power
Cement
Iron & Steel
Agriculture
Lime
Woodpulp
Asphalt
Coal Cleaning
298
Bnissions, Year gOOO
0.7
to
3.5
X
106 tons/yr
0.4
to
1.0
X
10® tons/yr
0.3
to
1.0
X
106 tons/yr
0.2
to
0.4
X
106 tons/yr
0.2
to
0.4
X
106 tons/yr
106 tons/yr
0.1
to
0.3
X
0.1
to
0.3
X
10® tons/yr
0.1
to
0.3
X
106 tons/yr
0.1
to
0.2
X
10® tons/yr
0.1
X
10® tons/yr
-------
50.0
1968 1970
1975
1990
2000
1980 1985
YEAR
Figure 8.5-1 - Projections of Particulate Missions - All Major Industrial Sources
299
-------
METHOD
~
A
V
o
oU L
J968 1970
1975
1980
1*85
YEAR
1990
1996
_JLJ
>2000
Figure 8.5-2 - Projections of Particulate Omissions - Electric Utilities Industry
300
-------
1968 1970
1975
1980 1985
YEAR
1990
2000
Figure 8.5-3 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Industrial Power Gen. Industry
301
-------
1968 1970 1975 198© 19$£ 19*0> 199* 2000
year
Figure 8.5-4 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Crushed Stone/Sand/Gravel
302
-------
Figure 8.5-5 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Agricultural Industry
305
-------
Figure 8.5-6 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Iron and Steel
304
-------
Figure 8.5-7 - Projections of Particulate Bnissiona - Cement
305
-------
Figure 8.5-8 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Woodpulp Industry
306
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-9 - Projections of Particulate Bnissiona - Lime
307
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-10 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Clay
308
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-11 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Primary Aluminum
309
-------
YCAR
Figure 8.5-12 - Projections of Particulate finissions - Primary Copper
310
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-13 - Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Primary Zinc
311
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-14 - Projections of Particulate flaissions - Primary Lead
312
-------
0.04}-
1966 1970
1975
1980
1990
1995 2000
Figure 8.5-15 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Phosphate Rock
313
-------
1968 1970
1975
1980 1985
YEAR
1990
W95
2000
Figure 8.5-16 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Fertilizer
314
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-17 - Projections of Particulate Qnissiona - Asphalt
315
-------
1968 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
YEAR
Figure 8.5-18 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Ferroalloys
316
-------
0.25
1968 1970
Figure 8.5-19 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Iron Foundries
317
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-20 - Projections of Particulate Qaissions - Secondary Copper
318
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-21 - Projections of Particulate Bnissions - Secondary Aluminum
319
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-22 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Secondary Lead
320
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-23 - Projections of Particulate amissions - Secondary Zinc
321
-------
METHOD
O 1
A 2
• 3
v 4
O 5
oU I I I I I I U
1968 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
YEAR
Figure 8.5-24 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Coal Cleaning
322
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-25 - Projections of Particulate Balsslons - Carbon Black
383
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-26 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Petroleum
324
-------
YEAR
Figure 8.5-27 - Projections of Particulate Emissions - Acids
325
-------
9. R&D PLANS
The objective of this phase of the project was to develop a
5-year research and development program which would fill in gaps in
knowledge about: particulate sources; effluent stream properties which
affect control techniques; control technology; and other aspects or
effects of particulate airtpollution and its control. The R&D program
has been based on two assumed levels of support: Plan A, $5,000,000;
and Plan B, $1,000,000. The development of the R&D plans involved the
identification during the present program of significant knowledge gaps,
the evaluation of the needs for new information, considerations of the
probability and degree of success which might be attained, and estimates
of the time and costs involved for each proposed research area or task.
9.1 Identification of Major Problems Requiring R&D
Several significant sources were noted for which information was
limited or incomplete. The largest of these in terms of tonnage of particu-
late emitted (and, in fact, one of the largest of all sources) is the
crushed stone industry which involves various aspects of quarrying, crushing,
grinding and using stone products. The second most significant source for
which more data are needed centers around agricultural products and, in
particular, on grain elevators, flour and feed mills, cereal manufacture
and associated transfer, transportation or handling facilities. Better data
are also needed for a number of other agricultural-related sources such as
alfalfa dehydration, spraying, and fertilizing operations. The clay and
ceramics industry is a third source group which is in much need of study in
terms of both total emissions and constituents such as fluorides. In addi-
tion to these three most important sources, several other sources exist for
which more information is needed. These include: fertilizers other than
phosphate; -a group which we shall call the miscellaneous chemicals industry
(which includes a number of irregular or periodic sources resulting from
occasional production runs on specialty chemicals and from start-up or shut-
down operations); paint and varnish manufacture, handling and use (including
hydrocarbon emissions); iron and steel mills as a source of fluorides; non-
metallic minerals industries (including asbestos, abrasive, etc.); and land
clearance operations (including burning, demolition, urban renewal, etc.)»
Finally, the general area of sources of secondary particulates (those formed
in the atmosphere by reactions of gaseous emissions) requires further study
to identify the sources and their interrelationships.
Knowledge gaps exist in many aspects of the analysis of particu-
lates. These include the development and standardization of sampling and
monitoring techniques and the instrumentation of these operations; the de-
termination of the chemical compositions of the collected dusts from various
Preceding page blank
-------
sources and evaluation of its economic values; the determination of the
compositions of emitted particulates; and the development of emission stan-
dards based on chemical composition as well as on a weight basis. Collec-
tion and dissemination of experimental data in all of the above areas should
"be improved and a stack sampling information center (with computerized stor-
age, retrieval and correlation capabilities) is particularly recommended.
Areas of control technology for which further information is
needed include some specific, widely-used types of operations, such as emis-
sions from conveying and handling of materials, and a number of difficult-
to-control, fugitive, or small industry sources. The area of materials
handling operations is a very significant source on an overall basis since
it contributes to particulate emissions from nearly every industrial cate-
gory. Surprisingly little definitive data on these emissions exists, how-
ever, and a systematic research study is imperative. In addition, better
control techniques should be developed for several sources such as ferti-
lizers, the primary aluminum industry, the miscellaneous chemicals operations,
coke ovens, sinter plants, agricultural product-related sources, etc. The
chemical and physical processes involved in the operation of different types
of control devices, the effects of pollutant properties and concentrations
on efficiencies of various devices, and the advantages and limitations of
certain devices in various industries all need to be studied and defined.
New approaches will probably be required for the development of control
techniques for some sources which are uncontrolled or poorly controlled at
present. A development and testing program will be needed to do this. Con-
trol methods will need to "be evaluated for sources of emissions which give
secondary particulate, when these have been identified.
The control of small particle emission requires much improvement,
but a general study of small particle technology will be required because
of present limitations in control capabilities in this area. Particularly
troublesome are sources which emit a fine particulate at low grain loading,
but with a high volume of a high temperature carrier gas. (Metallurgical
process, such as zinc retorts, aluminum cells, ferroalloys, etc., are
examples which present this formidable control problem). The small particle
technology studies should include an evaluation of the present state of the
problem of fine particle emissions (from all sources) and the present state
of control capabilities and limitations for various types of sources.
Studies are needed of the growth, agglomeration and collection of small
particles to increase the understanding of these processes, so that new
improvements or approaches can be made in control technology. New applica-
tions and modifications of existing methods and the development of new
methods for small particle control will require design, development and
testing programs.
328
-------
The control of combustion sources has already received an enor-
mous amount of attention, "but because these sources constitute such a major
part of the particulate problem, continuing studies are demanded. The con-
trol of emissions from coal combustion is the central problem and requires
further studies of: control techniques for electric utility and industrial
boilers; new boiler design, operating methods, and combustion techniques;
additives which improve collector efficiency; the interrelationship of
particulate and SO2 control; and methods of coal desulfurization. Control
of emissions from oil combustion may become increasingly important, as many
of the users of coal switch to oil of various grades and possibly in time
to synthetic oils derived from coal liquification or solid waste pyrolysis.
Control of the emissions from incineration and burning of other combustibles
will probably remain a problem needing study.
The detrimental and economic effects of present and projected
particulate pollutant levels on health, vegetation, materials, etc. will
require continuing evaluation. The interrelationships of the distribution
of sources and these receptors and the economic effects of relocation of
industries because of pollution-related reasons need to be established.
The economic effects on industry of the need to purchase new control equip-
ment to meet more and more stringent emission standards will need evalua-
tion, especially for small industries or small-difficult-to-control sources,
where the cost of control equipment may be nearly as large as the value
of the plant installation. Allowable emission levels may require further
definition in 3uch cases. The economics and economic effects of an in-
creasing use of oils to replace coal and of the transformation of coal to
ga3 or oil need further elucidation.
9.2 Ordering of Priorities and Allocation of Resources
Particulate pollution problems whose solutions will require in-
tensive research and development effort are readily identifiable. An ex-
tensive R&D program will require more than the $5 million stipulated as
the maximum level to be considered in the development of the present 5-year
plans. The major and most urgent problems identified in Section 9.1 can,
however, each receive a significant degree of attention within this frame-
work. For the smaller $1 million level of effort all but the most urgent
R&D programs must be eliminated and some of these would operate at reduced
levels, or be delayed one or more years. Several factors were considered
in determining the priority of problems and their support levels: size of
the particulate burden involved; the degree to which reliable data are
lacking; currently existing programs designed to solve the problem; special
characteristics which make the problem important (e.g., small particle sizes,
toxic or carcinogenic emissions, analytical difficulties, etc.); the improve-
ment in efficiency of control which might be attained or the probability of
329
-------
successfully comp3.eting an R&D program designed to solve the problem; ohe
time and cost involved in the proposed R&D programs; and the total level of
support available. Overall, an attempt was made to select R&D programs
designed to give results which (when added to the present state of knowledge)
would provide the most help in reducing the national particulate problem in
the shortest time.
9.2.1 Flan A - $5 Million Level
Once the research and development needs were listed, time schedules
were outlined on the basis of urgency of the need for solutions to problems
and with the intent of maximizing the flow of information, i.e. so that re-
sults of one program could be used advantageously on subsequent programs.
Time and cost allotments were then assigned (on the basis of the priorities
listed above) for a five year program at the $5 million level. Final ad-
justments were then made in order to maintain expenditure at a constant
$1 million per year.
The total R&D plaja is divided into three general areas:
Area I - Programs on Particulate Sources and Analysis
Area II - Programs Related to Control Technology
Area III - Programs on Effects of Particulate Pollutants and
Their Control
Within each area of interest several programs concerning a central
topic are designated and each program may have one or more years to com-
plete. Programs in Area I are designated by PS (particulate sources), pro-
grams in Area II by CT (control technology) and programs in Area III by E
(effects). Thus a task designated as CT-1.2 entitled "Laboratory and field
studies of emissions and their control during materials handling by conveyers
and related equipment" would be a part of the program CT-1, "Extend and
Improve Control Technology for Industrial Emissions from Non-Combustion
Sources." In this instance the task CT-1.2 would require a contract for a
one year study, and is recommended for the first year of the five-year
period, because the results should be applicable to a large number of sources.
The program designations, the descriptions of programs and tasks,
and the time schedule and allotment for the accomplishment of various ob-
jectives of each task are shown in Table 9.1. The total costs of each
task, program and area, and the totals by year are shown in Table 9.2.
The control technology area will receive the largest portion of funds, 52%,
followed by the particulate sources area, 30$, and the effects area, 18$.
The expenditure in Areas I and II are highest in the first year and decrease
thereafter, emphasizing the urgent need for information which will influence
the approach to control technology. The expenditures for the latter area
330
-------
increase steadily from the first through the fifth year, reflecting par-
ticularly the increase in programs involving testing of devices. In all,
eight programs having 27 tasks are designated in Area I, three programs and
15 tasks in Area II, and four programs with 9 tasks are designated in Area
III.
9.2.2 Plan E - $1 Million Level
The development of the $1 million level R&D plan required a
further selection of programs listed in the $5 million level plan. At this
lower level of support, only three of the eight Area I programs and three
of the four Area III programs could be included. Most of the programs
which were included were necessarily assigned lower levels of support and,
in addition, certain tasks had to "be omitted or delayed.
For programs and tasks which are included in Plan B, the
designations remain the same as in Plan A and are listed in Table 9.1.
The time schedule, time and cost allotments, and the task, program, area
and yearly totals are shown in Table 9.2. The program and task costs
were adjusted to a constant expenditure of $200,000 per year. Again the
area of control technology receives the largest portion of support, 59$,
while the particulate sources studies receives 34$, and the two effects
programs only 7$.
The proposed R&D plans can be modified to include, for example,
other or newly identified tasks of high priority, or exceptionally
meritorious ideas received as unsolicited proposals. In its present form
it will provide the framework within which answers can be developed to
some of our more urgent problems concerning the identification, effects
and control of particulate emissions.
331
-------
TABLE 9.1
FIVE-YEAR R&D PRJGRAM T*s«ma'lUtp>oui Sources
-4.1 fertiliser* other than phosphates
- I testily all sources
- Collect and evaluate available data
Stack HswiUnn Information Center
•5.1 Set up computer-based information
storage and retrieval system
- Collect and encode available data
- ftrform pilot searches
- Arrange for collection of current data
>4.2 Miscellaneous chemicals industries
- Identify irregular or periodic sources
-S.2 Operation of information center
. Collect and enter new data
• ferform routine searches and
correlations
• Pinpoint trends and emerging
problems
- Rote geographical relationship of
problems, etc.
-3.1 Identify sources, collect available
data; determine emission rates
-4.3 Paint and vanish manufacture and use
- Identify all sources and determine
emissions
-3.? Determine chemical compositions
and physical properties of particu-
lates
-4. 4 Miscellaneous sources
- (Iron and steel (fluoride emis-
sions)
- I«nd clearance, etc.
- Vacmetallic minerals (asbestos,
abrasives, etc.)
>4.5 Miscellaneous sources
- Identify ot±»r probably signifi-
cant sources for vfcich data
are very liaited
- Surveys of sources
-------
Frograc:
Dasigpatioi
1
Snail Particle Te.anol-gy
-c. 1 2val\iate scope of small particle pol-
lutant pr.tle®
- Evaluate present particulate collec-
tim methods in tens of small
particle efficiency
- Identify industries where malT
particle emission* are worst
.2 .Study oeehar.i-. .-lacier at 1and
collect I on
•.5 Evaluate potential aetnois I'*-r imprj'/.n^r
saall particle "ollection efficiency
- New applications t-r fabric filters
- ltev control aethods
Lftt:rat-ry test prrr.-sei new apt.
cations ar.i r.ev aetr.ods ruch *v
soric, uitrascnir or supersoni
ievic-es, puliei ISPs, series
devices, etc.
.¦j tc3ti:.£ prograc
li test recommended
*. rol aethcds or. ?elec
Oi
w
w
Control of ccmbustion Sources
-7.1 Control of emissions frcn coal
combustion
- Studies of control techniques and
emission standards far electric
utilities
- Studies for industries using coal-
fired boilers
• Interrelationship of particulate —
and SQg control
-2.5 Control of emissions from inciner-
ation* etc.
- Municipal
- Cca*ercial
- Apartments
- Residential
-3.6 Control of Laissions from other con-
trolled fires
- Slash and bark burning
- Prescribed fires
-3.2 Modification of c-'»1-combustion
processes
- Studies c: - cal-fired roller ie:igr.
and opera'-.n^ parameters in rela-
tion to emission levels;
- Studies of additives which improve
collector efficiency
- Studies o? ::ev aethods zi comtustir.g c
-3.7 Control of es.
tion
. c i 1 r orto as -
- Identify pollutants requiring con-
trcl ex. acids, rarcinogens.
varadior.. e-.c.
- Evaluate :S cil coafcusti en
res-ltin^ fros new particulate and
SO2 enissi :r. standards
- Define .pera'.!:^ paraoeter;
required tc opticiie rcllectio
efficiencies by different
control devices
Develop improved or r.^vel furnace
and boiler designs, inte ; rated
witt collection ana control
devices
- Evaluate control techniques for
oil coobustion
- Dptiaize boiler design and opera
parameters
- Test aew cperating parameters
- Tes- aew approaches and designs
-3.4 Studies of coal desulfurization
>
- Develop enission standards for
pollutants from oil cenhustion
- Study emissions frco combustion
of synthetic oils frcm solid
wa~te pyrolysis, coal liquefaction,
etc.
Ara£ III - Programs on Effects of Particulate Pollutants and -hei
EcaMlc Effects of Control Costs twx U.S.
Industry
•1.1 Evaluate costs of control equijnent
for each type of industry
- Compare costs for added control
equijment in series ts . new
equipment
- CoWare costs in tens of emission
standards
Continue evaluation and include
• Study control costs for fugitive
sources and i 1 industries
- Refine c-cst evul\;ati ens for proposed
figure emission standards
- Develop criteria for using tne ratio of
the cost of the required control devices
to tie riant ir.s^ilatic- .-alue as an
ail in setting alicvacle emission levels
- Define optimum e;.ntrol levels f_-r
various industries as a function
of cost and emission levels
1 Evaluate economic effects produced
by conversion frora coal tc oil
and gas as a result of new staniaj-i
ccnaiics of synthetic oils
id vsste disposal; of coal
i-on vs. scrubbing system,
-------
Program
Designation
Sampling and Monitoring Techniques
-6.X Evaluation of tethods
- Laboratory art field testing ;r:-
cedures for selected source
- in situ measurements
- ;tethods for source identification
fran atmospheric measurements
Chemical c crips ?. t i on analysis
- Improve methods
- Develop method:. for more
elements and compounds
Cfeemlcal Ccapositioo* of Collected and
fitted Dusts
-7.1 Chemical analysis of collected dusts; |
chemical analysis ^f emi--ions frcm I
selected sources; v&riati^a of can- j
position with particle size j
-?.2 Compilation of chemical composi-
tion data; assessment of poten-
tial economic value; dissemina-
tion of data
CM
o»
Secondary Particulates
-8.1 Study formation of secondary particu-
lates frcm gaseous emissions
• Identify sources of gases
- identify precursors of particulates
-8.2 Atmospheric chenistry and physics
- identify reactions leading to
particulates
- Study formation and deposition
rates of particulates
Extend and Improve Control Technology for
Industrial amissions free Non-Combustion
Sources
-1.1 Studies of operating principles of
existing control equipment
- Studies of chemical and physical
processes involved in control
operations
- Studies of the effect of pollutant
properties and concentration on
efficiency
- Define limitations of various types
of equipment in terms of particu-
late properties, industry, etc.
-1.? laboratory and field studies of emissions
and their control during materials
handling by conveyors, and related
equipnent
¦1.3 Studies of applicability of existing
equipment to poorly controlled
sources
- Fugitive sources
- Difficult-to-control sources
- Shall industries
-1.4 New approaches to control of specifi
or general sources
- Ex. turbulent contact absorbers
Program Year
'nstrunerrtati Jr.
- Develop instroaen-it*, i on for
additional analyses
- Improve remote sampling and
monitoring techniques
- computerization
Ctarviard.ze ill saopling a.id is".-
reduction techniques
.3 Evaluate new separation, recovery, -7.4 Consider emission standards
and utilization prc-eedj-es for . — chemi ;-i analysis of :zi~ ^
useful constituents or gaseous sources of st-jorAtr?
lates
-8.3 Evaluate particulate levels produced
by secondary reactions
II - Programs delated to Control Technology
Fertilizers
Primary aluminum
Miscellaneous chemical industry (non-
continuous sources)
• continue development programs
• Laboratory testing of new methods
- Coke ovens
- Sinter plants
- Agricultural sources
- Studies of industries using proces
- Continue testing program
- other particulate sources
- field test rec.Tiiaendei con-_r;l
- Project future etoissior. leveL:
new controls
-1.5 "Evaluate control methods for
e.^Lissicns whic:. give sec-aE-ary
gmfti 1 particles
-siar
-------
ft llgl ¦
Dilaitloi
frnmfle Effects of fertlculate Rallution
am the ?dbUc m
-2.1 Bvalaatloa of psoMa—
• Develop ptftleulite mvm distribution
Mpa ia rftbtion to geography, popu-
lation* aatsrial* and agricultural
protects
• Evaluate icqwic effects of relocation
at Ml*ct«d lafactriN tecuM of
pollution-related reasons
• Effects on aatrrial*
• Agricultural product*
• Effect of air pollution on property
values
S"
Oi
cn
Tonlcologlcal Kftct>
-3.1 ivalnU acopa of toxicologlcal prob-
lems itm particolct* «iulou
- Seriev tcKic effects tm nan
• biiav torte affects go Mlnala
- Brriav tonic affects en plants
- OoUact «isii«« data on tonic
pollutant consonants
Identify aost taxlcologlcally *i€-
nificant coaponeata in particulate
snlsslnas
¦ 1 testify tonicity factors frcn
M(nttlaiy particulates
. Determine particle sise ivlatloo-
sfcipe of tonic pollutant coapcnents
Wd—tal Stadias on hrttctfitw
~ -4.1 atadles of forest lun end properties
of particulates
• Properties as a fraction of
coapoeitiea
Progrn Year
*
- Review aod evaluation of health
costs frtm particulate pollutsnts
-3.2 Toocicological studies of perticu- ^ -3.3 Uee toxicity data to belp eet salssic
late pollutants froa selected r stulaiill
sources
-4.2 Studies cb effects at particolates
- Define particle sise influmce
co ateospheric effects, reac-
tions, etc.
- Study asduoisu of natural par-
ticulate removal processes
- Determine fate of saall particle
emissions
-------
TABI£ 9-2
FIVE-YEAR R&D PROGRAM COSTS ON PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS
Plan A- $5 Million Level of Support
1
Task
Program Year
Task
Program'
Program Designation
Designation
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Totals
Programs cn Particulate Sour
ces and Analysis
PS-1
Crushed Stone
PS-1.1
50,000
50,000
PS-1.2
50,000
50,000
100,000
1
1 PS. 2
Agricultural &
PS-2.1
50,000
50,000
Related products
PS-2.2
40,000
40,000
PS-2.3
40,000
40,000
PS-2.4
50,000
50,000
PS-2,5
40,000
40,000
60,000
260,000
PS-3
Clay & Ceramics
PS-3.1
40,000
40,000
PS-3.2
40,000
40,000
80,000
PS-4
Miscellaneous
PS-4.1
50,000
50,000
Sources
PS-4.2
50,000
50,000
PS-4.3
40,000
40,000
PS-4.4
40,000
40,000
PS-4.5
40,000
40,000
220,000
FS-5
Information Center
PS-5.1
40,000
40,000
PS-5.2
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
120,000
160,000
PS-6
Sampling &
PS-6,1
50,000
50,000
Monitoring
PS-6.2
50,000
50,000
PS-6.3
75,000
75,000
150,000
PS-6.4
75,000
75,000
325,000
i' 3-7
Chemical Compositions
PS-7.1
40,000
35,000
75,000
PS-7.2
40,000
40,000
PS-7.3
45,000
45,000
90,000
PS-7.4
40,000
40,000
245,000
P3-6
Secondary Particu-
PS-8.1
35,000
35,000
lates
PS-8.2
35,000
35,000
PS-6.3
40,000
40,000
110,000
Research Area I Totals
355,000
330,000
320,000
270,000
225,000
*1.500,000
Programs on Control Technology
CT-1
Industrial, Non-
CT-1.1
100,000
100,000
Combustion Sources
CT-1.2
50,000
50,000
CT-1.3
100,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
325,000
CT-1.4
75,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
375,000
CT-1.5
100,000
100,000
950,000
cT-a
Small Particle
CT-2.1
70,000
70,000
Technology
CT-2.2
50,000
75,000
50,000
175,000
CT-2.3
100,000
75,000
75,000
100,000
350,000
595,000
CT-3
Combustion Sources
CT-3.1
100,000
80,000
180,000
CT-3.2
125,000
100,000
100,000
325,000
CT-3.3
100,000
50,000
150,000
CT-3.4
75,000
75,000
CT-3.5
100,000
100,000
CT-3.6
75,000
75,000
CT-3.7
50,000
50,000
50,000
150,000
1,055,000
Resf-a
>*ch krpc. II Totals
420,000
480,000
500,000
550,000
650,000
2,600,000
336
-------
TABLE 9.2 (Concluded)
Plan A. $5 Million Level (Concluded)
Program Designation
Task
Designation
Program Year
1 2 3 4 5
Task
Totals
Program
Totals
Programs on Effects
E-l Effects of Control
Costs
E-2 Effects of Pollutants
E-3 Toxicologlcal
Effects
E-4 Fundamental Studies
E-l. 1
E-l. 2
E-l.3
E-2.1
E-3.1
E-3.2
E-3.3
E-4.1
E-4.2
50,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
40,000
50,000
75,000 90,000 70,000
50,000 60,000
70,000 50,000
75,000
50,000
50,000
170,000
40,000
50,000
225,000
110,000
120,000
75,000
50,000
50,000
260,000
235,000
305,000
100,000
Research Area III Totals
225,000 190,000 180,000 180,000 125,000
900,000
Totals, All Programs
1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,0
DO
5,000,000
Plan B. $1 Million Level of Support
PS-1
Crushed Stone
PS-1.1
PS-1.2
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
PS-2
Agricultural &
Related Products
PS-2.1
PS-2.2
P3-2.3
PS-2.4
45,000
40,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
40,000
160,000
PS-3
Clay & Ceramics
PS-3.1
PS-3.2
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
80,000
Research Area I Totals
50,000
95,000
80,000
75,000
40,000
340,000
CT-1
Industrial, Non-
Combustion
Sources
CT-1.1
CT-1.2
CT-1.3
45,000
35,000
40,000
35,000
35,000
50,000
45,000
35,000
160,000
240,000
CT-2
Small Particle
Technology
CT-2.1
CT-2.2
CT-2.3
35,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
35,000
30,000
95,000
160,000
PT-3
Combustion Sources
CT-3.1
CT-3.2
35,000
40,000
40,000
75,000
35,000
155,000
190,000
Research Area II Totals
115,000
105,000
120,000
125,000
125,000
590,000
E-l
E-2
Effects of Control
Costs
Effects of Pollutants
E-l.l
E-2.1
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
Research Area III Totals
35,000
35,000
70,000
Totals
All Programs
200,000 200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
1,000,000
337
-------
APPENDIX A
POLLUTION DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
The various phases of the Pollution Document Retrieval system
as outlined in the accompanying system flowchart (Figure A-l) will accom-
plish the following:
1. Establish a "Master Keyword File" from the "Microthesaurus
of Air Pollution Terms" published by the U.S. Department of HEW. This
Master Keyword File will contain each Keyword in the Thesaurus, its asso-
ciated code and a computer-generated index which will be used in the search.
2. Establish a "Master Document File" which will contain all
relevant documents. The record for each document will contain full bibli-
ographic information plus all keywords which are descriptive of the infor-
mation contained in the article. Keywords may be from the Microthesaurus
list only.
3. Add the SIC codes associated with each document to the Master
Document File as this information was not available at the time the document
cards were produced.
4. Provide the ability to delete any documents from the master
file. To add new documents to the master file, the new documents must first
be created in the same way that the master file was created, then merged
with the master file.
5. Provide the ability to order and list the Master Document File
according to the following criteria: Accession Number, SIC code, Author
and/or Agency.
6. Provide a search facility by which the Master Document File
may be searched for documents which contain specific information. The
search criteria can be any combination of the following: Accession Number,
SIC code, Author and/or Keyvord(s). Keywords may be inclusive, exclusive
or alternative. The search program will then list all documents which con-
form to the criteria specified.
Preceding page blank 339
-------
340
-------
Examples of Search Criteria
Following are examples of possible searches:
a) All documents written by William 0. Jenkins pertaining
to Sampling Methods, Measurement Methods and Particulates.
b) All documents with an SIC code of 9110 but that pertain
to neither Sulphur Oxides nor Carbon Monoxide.
c) All documents with an SIC code of 9110, written by
William 0. Jenkins and pertaining to Stacks or Scrubbers of Hydrocarbons.
d) The document with accession number A1811. (Since
accession numbers are unique for each document, only one such document
will be printed.)
e) All documents written by William 0. Jenkins.
f) All documents pertaining to Smog.
7. Provide a cross reference listing of all documents by subject
matter. The subjects must be from the microthesaurus list only.
341
-------
BRIEF RESUME OF PROGRAMS
1. P0LD0R05
PURPOSE:
INPUT:
OUTPUT:
2. POLDORIO
PURPOSE:
INRJT:
OUTPUT:
3. P0LD0R20
PURPOSE:
INRJT:
OUTFUT:
4. P0LD0R30
PURPOSE:
The master keyword file is the required input to create the
document file. This program changes the variable word length
keyword (subject matter) into a 4 character code word.
See Sheet Format No. 4 for input layout. Keywords from
Microthesaurus List.
Master keyword file sorted by ascending accession number.
Creates master document tape,
applied to this tape to place
number if desired.
A utility sort program may be
document in ascending accession
(a) Master keyword file from P0IDOR05
(b) SIC codes. See attached card layout Sheet Ho. 1, 4 of 4
for input format
(c) Document information; see attached card layout sheets
Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of 4
Master document tape composed of unblocked variable length
records.
To search through the master document tape by accession number,
author, SIC code(s) and/or subject matter and produce a
bibliography of all requested documents.
(a) Master document tape
(b) Search criteria see attached sheet No. 2 - no limit to
number of documents in search
Bibliography of all documents requested.
To produce a complete bibliography of all documents on the
master tape.
342
-------
INPUT:
Master document tape after a utility sort has "been used to
sequence the documents by author, agency, accession number or
SIC code.
OUTRJT: A complete bibliography of all documents on the master docu-
ment tape.
5. P0LD0R40
RJRPOSE: A maintenance program for the master document tape to delete
entire records by accession number only.
INRJT: Accession numbers of all documents to be deleted. See
attached card layout sheet No. 3.
OUTPUT: A list of all documents deleted.
Note: To add records to the master document tape you would create a file
using P0LD0R10 then sort/merge with the master tape using a utility.
6. P0LD0R50
PURPOSE: To create a cross reference listing of all documents in
the master document file by subject matter.
INPUT: (a) Master keyword file from POLDOR05
(b) Master document file from POLDORIO
OUTPUT: Cross reference report
343
-------
JMBJTI
Company
Poldor 10
"^T
Application Document Card Types 1, 5
MULTIPLE-CARD LAYOUT FORM
by Sheet Format #1
Pr.n'c-d ^ t- S
Date
Job No.
Sheet No.
1 of 4
ACCESSION
NUMBER
c
D
T
Y
P
E
1
9
6
s
E
R
1
A
L
B
L
A
N
K
S
CODE 1
CODE2
CODE 3
CODE 14
9 9 9 9 9
1 2 3 4 5
9
7
999
8 9 10
9 9 9 9 9
11 12 13 14 15
9 9 9 9 9
16 17 18 19 20
9 9 9 9 9
21 22 23 24 25
9 9 9 9 9
26 27 28 29 30
9 9 9 9 9
31 32 33 34 35
9 9 9 9 9
36 37 38 39 40
9 9 9 9 9
41 42 43 44 45
9 9 9 9 9
46 47 « 49 50
9 9 9 9 9
51 52 53 54 55
9 9 9 9 9
56 57 58 59 60
9 9 9 9 9
61 62 S3 64 65
9 9 9 9 9
66 67 68 69 70
9 9 9 9 9
71 72 73 74 75
9 9 9 9 9
76 77 78 79 80
L-
Codes: 1 or 2 Alpha character plus 2 or 3 digits
left aligned, right fill with blanks
last code followed by 8 in first column of next code field
999 9 9999999999999999999999599999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 tO II 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 M 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 S2 63 64 $5 66 87 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
1st card contains 1
subsequent cards (if any)
contain 2-9
c
D
T
I
J
9 9 9 9 9fS
Dup.
1 2 3 4 S
one per card
form: Last Name, 1)^1
o
8
2
author entry
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
I 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS It 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 10
1st card contains 1,
subsequent cards (if any) contain 2-9
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9 9 9999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 63 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 7J *
9 9 9 9 9
1 2 3 4 $
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
7 t 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 6 7 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Note: There is no card type 2
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 « S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 5 7 58 59 60 6! 6: 63 54 S5 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 V ?8 79 80
,
-------
Poldar 10
Document Card Types 4.5.6
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
MULTIPLE-CARD LAYOUT FORM
by Sheet fomat #1 - Dote .
Form X24-6599
Printed in U.S.
Job No.
Sheet No.
2 of
Dup.
99999
I 2 1 « Si
AGEHCY ERCBT followed by g
|9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
U » 10 II 12 13 U 15 IS 17 10 1120 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 20 30 3t 32 33 34 35 3t 37 31 30 40 41 42 « 44 45 46 47 4i 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 6S 70 7t 72 73 74 75 7S 77 76 7JI#
1st card contains 1
subsequent cards (if any)
contain 2-9
9 919 9 9 9 9 9 9 S9 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
t 114 1 • 7 » »N 11 I2I3M IS 1« 17 1« 102* 21 22 21M25 2C 27 20 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 30 37 30 10 40 41 42 41 44tt« 47 40 40 50 5IS2S3 54 S5S0 57 S4S0C0 61 8263646S6S 67 H 00 70 71 72 73 74 75)l77 70 7tl0
i ill
DATE
Dup.
MM
YY
0
8
2
99199
t t 141
99
• •
99
wn
9
u
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
tll4t5ttt7tttt202122212l2$2C27202f 30 3l 32 33 3< 35 3S3730304O 41 42 43 44 4S4t 47 40 4OSO 51 52 53 54 55 5( 57 S0S960 61 62636465SC67t0 (5 78 7t 72 73 74 75 7S777070M
91199991999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
t 2 > 4 S • I t 0* II 12 13 M IS* 17 M 10 2021122324252627202030 31 3233M3S3S 37 303I4B 41 4243444546 47 4I4S50 51 5253545556 57 S85JM 61 6263646560 67 61097# 71 72 73 74 75 7077707000
tit 0
I*»P- | J T3TDE EHFKY followed by 8
9999999 I 999999999999999999999999999999 99 9999999999999999999999 999999999999999999
I 1 I 4 flf Til »11 12 13 WHW 17 10 «« 21 22 2J 14 25 20 27 20 2« 30 31 323334 3S3S37 30 *40 41 4243 44 45 4( 47 46 41 50 51 52S3S45556 57 S0 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 K 07 00 00 70 71 72 73 74 75 7077707000
"——^T : ~ :
1st card contains 1, subsequent
cards (for long titles), 2-9
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999°
I 2 9 4 St 1 « 0 to II 12 13 M H W II 1i 19 20 21 22 23 2« 25 26 2T » 2t 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37 J» 3i 40 41 42 43 44 45 «? 47 48 49 50 51 5' 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 sn Rl K? fil «4 RS SA S7 s* 71) 7j n n ys w w t» » j*
-------
TDlLf INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION Form X24 6599-0
Printed in U. S. A.
MULTIPLE-CARD LAYOUT FORM
Company Pnlflfrr
Application Document Card Types 7 by Sheet Format #1 Dote Job No Sheet No 3: of 4
Dup. uR SOURCE JfiHl'KY followed by
ISA
|BL
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9 9999999999999999
t 2 3 4 91 SI 7 I 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 E3 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 7S 77 78 79 10
I
1st card contains 1
subsequent cards (if any)
contain 2-9
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9 9 99999999999999999999999999
1 2 1 4 SI 1 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 II 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 SS 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 71 71 10
19991199999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
I t 1 4 S • 7 • I M II 12 1) 14 IS IS 17 IS It 2Q 21 22 23 242S2S27 2S2«30 3t 32 33 34 3S16 37 3S 39 40 41 42 43 44 4S 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 S6 57 5< 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 S6 67 6S 69 70 71 72 73 74 7S7S77nni0
19191199999999999999999999999999999999 9 9 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999
I 2 3 4 S I I > »»!1I2I3 14I5ISI7!II9 2B212273242526 27 2»2930 31 323334353S 37 3I3940 41 424344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 525354S556 S7 58 59 60 61 6263646566 67 68B370 7I 72 73 74 7576777»?980
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 S ( 7 • S 1# 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 II 19 28 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5! 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 71 79 80
*%%*%9*%999999999%9999«999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
\ 2 i 4 5 6 1 I 9 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 2» 21 22 23 24 » 26 27 2t 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3S 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45J6 47 48 « 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 5] 58 5S 60 61 62 61 64 65 66 63 U M lnit » « " is « n i» » «o
-------
IBM
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
MULTIPLE-CARD LAYOUT FORM
Company PoldOT 10
Application SIC Code Input
by Sheet Format #1
Date
Job No.
Form X24-6599 0
Printed in U. S A
Sheet No. 4 Of 4
ACCESSION
NUMBER
1 2 3 4 S
SIC
SIC
CODE
CODE
1
2
99 99
9 9 9 9
t 7 • 9
K 11 12 13
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
M 15 IS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79 30 31 32 13 34 35 38 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 53 SO 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 77 78 79 IS
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
t 2 3 4 S i I ( I 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2S 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 M 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 5? 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 7» 79 «#
99899999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9 9 9999999999999999999999999
til 4 S < 1 • 9 » 14 12 « 14 IS It H 1* 19 S 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 * 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 71 7» » 80
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 5 t 1 I »» H 12 13 14 IS IS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 27 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5 ! 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 53 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 63 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 71 79 SO
9 9 999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
I 2 3 4 S t 1 8 » tt 11 12 13 14 IS H 17 18 19 20 21 89 24 25 2C 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3S 37 30 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 €1 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 77 7» 79 80
-------
IBM
Poldor 20
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION Form X24 65?9 0
Printed '¦"> USA
MULTIPLE-CARD LAYOUT FORM
Company
Application Search Request by Sheet Format #2 Date - Job No. Sheet No. "Il—
CARD
NO.
1
9
i
ACCESS**
NO.
9 9 9 9 9
2 J 4 5 6
SIC
CODE
9 9 9 9
7 1 $ 10
AUTHOR
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB IS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 12 13 74 75 76 77 78 79 10
^-There must always 1—author must be punched exactly as on document (last name, first initial & middle initial)
be a card 1 even
if rest of card is
blank
999999999999999999 9999 999 999 999999 9999 999999 99 9 9999 999 9999 999999999939999999999S
1 2 3 4 i 6 7 1 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »» 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 M 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 71 79 10
2-9
9
i
Awq
not:
(OR)
199
2 3 4
KEYWORDS one/card; maximum of 8 keywords/search
999999999999999 9 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
S I 7 • 9 18 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 1« 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4S 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 79 »
J Lexclusive (BDT), chose (OR), inclusive (AND OR BLANK) combinations axe not allowed
if more than 1 keyword,
they follow on cards 3-9
999999 9 9 99 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9 9
1 2 3 4 S C 7 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4# 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 S4 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 63 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 8B
0
J
1
BLANK
J 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 3 4 S t 7 1 9 19 11 12 13 14 15 It 17 1» 19 20 21 22 23 34 25 26 27 2» 29 30 31 32 13 34 35 36 37 31 39 « 41 42 43 44 45 46 41 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 $4 $5 56 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 10
L- THIS CARD MUST BE THE LAST CARD IN THE SEARCH DATA DECK
19999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 I ) 4 S * ? 1 »» 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 U W 29 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 3» 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 56 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 15 76 77 18 79 » j
-------
INTERNATIONA! BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION Form X2-1 6599 •
Printed i« U. S. A
IBM
MULTIPLE-CARD LAYOUT FORM
Company PQlfl QT— ,
Application Maintenance Program by Sheet Format #5 Date Job No Sheet No 1 of
9 9 9 9 9
1 2 3 4 S
9 9 9 9 9
t 7 I 9 10
9 9 9 9 9
II 17 13 14 15
9 9 9 9 9
16 17 18 19 20
A or R Right Justified
9 9 9 9 9
21 22 23 24 25
9 9 9 9 9 9
26 27 28 29 30
9 9 9 9
31 32 33 34 35
9 9 9 9 9
36 37 38 39 40
9 9 9 9 9
41 42 43 44 45
9 9 9 9 9
46 47 48 49 50
9 9 9 9 9
51 52 53 54 55
9 9 9 9 9
56 57 56 59 60
9 9 9 9 9
61 62 S3 64 65
9 9 9 9 9
66 67 68 69 70
9 9 9 9 9
71 72 73 74 75
9 9 9 9 9
76 77 78 79 10
INPUT MAXIMUM OF 16 ACCESSION NUMBERS PER CARD. MAXIMUM OF 300 ACCESSION NUMBERS
999999999999939999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
I 2 3 4 S t 7 • 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 It 17 II 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 J» 35 36 37 30 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 W 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 7S 77 78 7» 00
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9 9 999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 J 3 4 J I 7 I S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 II 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2S 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 3S 39 40 41 42 43 <4 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 79 «
99199999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
I 2 3 4 S I 1 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 II 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2G 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 M 35 36 37 31 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 63 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 71 79 80
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
I J 1 4 S 6 7 t 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 K 17 U 1» 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 31 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 6! 62 63 61 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 79 80
9999999999999999999999999999999999 9 9 9999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999
1 f 3 4 S ( 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 » 40 4 J 4? 43 44 45 46 4; 48 49 5C M 52 53 54 55 56 5 ' 58 59 60 E' 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 7 4 75 76 7? 78 13 8f
-------
ism
Company
Poldor 05
Create Master -Keyword File
Application
by
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
MULTIPLE-CARD LAYOUT FORM
Sheet Format #4
Form X24 6599-0
Printed in U. S A'.
Date
Job No.
Sneet Nc
1 of 1
MicrothXaurus
Number
99
! 2
999
J 4 5
ENGLISH KEYWORDS
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
$78 9 )0 II 12 13 14 15 16 1J 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 16 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4a 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 SO 61 52 S3 64 65 56 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 li 75 76 77 78 79 H
Numeric-Right Justified
•-Alpha-Left Justified
99999999999999 9 9 9999999999999999999999999 9 99999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 5 t 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2< 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 J1 35 38 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 W 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 77 78 73 (0
919 9 9999 9 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 5 t 7 * 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 S3 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 80
199999 9 9 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 S ( ? I 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6S 67 68 S3 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 80
99 9 99999 9 999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 S S 7 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6S 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 W
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9.9
I 2 3 4 5 S 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 1* 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 K 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 « 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 6: 63 M 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 15 76 77 78 79 80
-------
DECK SET-UP FOR POLDOR05
6/7/8/9
7/8/9
"N
"\
DATA DECK (KEYWORDS FROM M1CROTHESAURUS LI ST)
7/8/9
SOURCE DECK
A
OI'tftUN KEUIRDS.
'DL05.
A
"\
BDL
U«RHV05tC«55e00»T50»PS0.
3326C
V.
ssoo«8800 «««««8Z*so^oiiaoooo80B8ooseoooeo80soQooooGOooooocoQoooooGoooo3ooooooo
ill«stt« > « « O Ott BSD *« JJJinnHSH JiHUMMBJJMHOflutmr;* «71SC
-------
CARD TO DISK
w
U!
ro
. 6/7/8/9'
7/8/7,..' ,
ATA DECK fSlCCODESV
HftfU. 5TT.nrT> FT-
MZUUZ.'
DPYFF(INPUT»SICFILE>
v.rhVsc , thss cog,ratio,pao.
33B6C
COOS 0 9800 • • ' ¦ 0 ' '*00 *0038000000000000000 0000000000800 000000080000080030000300
lillilll »BnWBUO*niSH!SllI;13r
-------
DECK SET-UP FOR POLDORIO
6/7/8/9,
7/8/9
DATA DECK (DOCUMENT CARDS!
__
SOURCE DECK
7/8/9
:gkmun ddcmt.
*ULI0.
iBUCE.
;: n bum
i~. -r.-Ti •
r
-------
UTILITY SORT-MERGE OF MASTER DOCUMENT TAPE
6/7/8/9
7/8/9
EliD
RECDRB(U>R» 990>
KEY
FILE 99 01» 1» >
7/6/9
COMMON BOCST.
SURTMRG.
REWIHB ItDCMT.
CGHHON BOCMT.
JHKRVST»CM50000>F50»T100.
33E6C
0000 '800 ' ' ' '80 : :o ' 'DOOOBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOaOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBOOOflOOflOOOBODO
1I14Sf>l>1«nanN O* n a a » Jill 21J4 25K 27 » J) 30 31 32 33 34 3S3S37 3UJ44<1004<43 n i n i? % r.:: /
-------
DECK SET-UP FOR POLDOR20
//o/v
EDUCE.
P
GADCLGO)
IHP DDCHT.
fFfflffl PggflTi
eulzsl
n» f f «THFUT.Tfc*Ptii ?n.i «r»mnm
MIHP LGU.
SR»CM55000»P£0»T1000.
3326C
mum iiiiiaNt*pa(U]igiisH)iaaiigaiiw>aii4i««««0««««)l*iisisia*Biiaii«eaei()iinnniiii)iiiiiisiiv)iaiii
11111111111111111111.1111111111111111111111111111111111-11111111111111111111111 I
22222 .2222 2222 22 2 .222222 2 2222222 .2 222 22 2222 22 222 2 222 222 2 2 22222222222222222222222
3333313 ..333333 .33)..3333 .3 333 ..33 .333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333
4*4444444 ,.*44444444444444 4444444 44 44f44 444444 444444444 444444 4 444444444<444<444<4
555S.5S55S.„55S555S555555555555S$55S5S5S55555555555S555555S555$555555S555555555S
CSSffi6(Ci6fiiSfiStfifi(StfiSilS6SStlSS.SSS'fitSSStStSSS666SISS6l6tii66BSS6SB66SSSSSS6SE
Tiimmiintti .iiiiimiTiimmnmmmimnjmnnymjnmmimm
SIl.tll.llKtllS.tll.llttl.tllltllltlllltllllllltlltltlllllSIt(I(ISSg83£SS88S3i3S
, S3 " S>3"9999359 J33539J9S393399 399 99S9933SS3933 SS JS3! 339 333133 S99!)S 9 9 9 SS9 9 3 9 9 ?9 99r c
t i } ) 4 ) i i t 3*a«»:tsa;ua&Ki>*ii2»a8aiM»a)?»»tt«i«24i4«e««t4M»usi»ss«»sssf$ts9Gaiic?t3t4fi*Kt»tf»;o n nnu n?s n /
.•V- _ _ . m «v3ilL.-_ _____ S
V
V
7
V
-------
DECK SET-UP FOR POLDOR30
m
01
CT>
EDUCE.
SOURCE DECK '" •••••¦•••••-----•-•--¦ •"••••••"-•-•"¦--¦•¦¦ •••-"•
7/8/9 '
L3G.
.EUINB DGCST.
!DN BOOST.
BDLuBsnns»aaaMSttn3i2i»aii:xiM»Mi>3M«s««u«M»t9ticc]i4C5KtTEiaigiinnMK»i7;
-------
DECK SET-UP FOR POLDOR40
^JtfRHVSR
,CH55000.P£0»T50.
B10B 8 0080 ;;;;a "iQ^O 0 0 • 0 9 I a 0 0 0 0 9 6 B S Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <10 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0
s i»aao»o«n«ai»iiaaj«aaa»aj»iisn«a*w»»««««i*«««««'«MMMnMSS5si7!is9w«s:t3MBtft»e;6j™nnnM»K7jT«;»eo
1111111111 111 I 111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111
22222 .22222222222 :22 2222 2222 2 2 2 2 *22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 , ,3 3 3 3 3 3 ,3 3 3 j .3 3 ,3 3 3 3 3 3 j,-3 3 j3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 .4444444 .4 444444444444(4444444 44 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 4
5 5 5 S .55535 ¦ <5555 55555 (5 5555555555555555555555555555555555555 5555555555555 5 55 5 5 55
SE6SBSSSB65G65S66£B66GS6666S66666;665E6B6B66656666SS68666S6656S66666S665o56SSS6S
7777777777777777„777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
8SS,Si8:8StS88l.iS8E.,#88.iSS8#8888888888888888888888888«3S8«888888888888S8868!888»
35 999 9 S 9 3 S S 5 9 S 9 9 3 8 9 3 9 S 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 § 9 9 9 9 9 913 9 9 3 9 9 9 S 9 9 9 9 2 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 S 9 8 9 3
i *•«**» » s-s n r>» u e a iiwm anMiSTsr.'.-s/j.nji >i2r«M3k» si Km ss:* WMHC1CIC3 t:s, 7: r« r e;
-------
6/7/6/9
7/B/9
SOURCE DECK
7/8/9
POL50
REWIND DOCMT.
REWIND REWRDS.
COBOD (MNPUT, B-POL50, L-OUTPUT)
COMMON DOCMT.
COMMON REWRDS.
JMRHV50, CM60000, P20, T1000 . 3326-C
-------
APPENDIX B
MASTER LIST
PARTICULATE POLLUTANT SOURCES
Industrial Classification S.I.C. No.
1.0 DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL HEATING PIANTS 0010
Coal Fired 9000010
Oil Fired 9010010
Gas Fired 9020010
2.0 INDUSTRIAL HEATING PLANTS 0020
Coal 9000020
Oil 9010020
Gas 9020020
Lignite 9030020
Wood and Bark 9040020
Bagasse 9050020
Fluid Coke 9060020
3.0 MINING 1000
Iron 1010
Copper 1020
Lead 1030
Zinc 104.0
Aluminum 1050
359 "
-------
Industrial Classification S.I.C. No.
4.0 MINING AND QUARRYING Cf NOJIMETALLIC
MINERALS, EXCEPT FUELS 14=00
5.0 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS £000
Meat Products 2010
Meat Slaughtering Plants 2011
Meat Processing Plants 2013
Grain ML 11 Products 2040
Flour and Other Grain Mill Products 2041
Prepared Feeds for Animals and Fowl 2042
Sugar 2060
Cane Su&ar» Except Refining Only 2061
Cane Sugar Refining 2062
Beet Sugar 2063
Confectionery and Related Products 2070
Candy and Other Confectionery Products 2071
Chocolate and Cocoa Products 2072
Miscellaneous Food Preparations and
Kindred Products 2090
Cotton Seed Oil Mills 2091
Animal and Marine Fats and Oila 2094
Coffee Roasting 20,95
6.0 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS 2200
7.0 LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS, EXCEPT FURNITURE 2400
Wood Working £002400
360
-------
Industrial Classification S.I.C. No.
8.0 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 2600
Pulp Mills 2610
Kraft 9002611
Soda 9012611
Lime Kiln 9022611
Chemical 9032611
Dissolver Tank Vents 9042611
Digester 9052611
Smelt Tank 9062611
Recovery Furnace 9072611
Evaporators 9082611
Oxidation Towers 9092611
Paper Mills, except Building Paper Mills 2620
Paperboard Mills 2630
Building Paper and Building Board Mills 2660
9.0 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING 2700
10.0 CHEMICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 2800
Industrial Inorganic and Organic Chemicals 2810
Alkalies and Chlorine 2812
Industrial Gases 2813
Intermediate Coal Tar Products 2815
361
-------
Industrial Classification
S.I.C. No.
Inorganic Pigments 2816
Organic Chemicals 2818
Inorganic Chemicals, N.E.C. 2819
Nitric Acid 9002819
Sulfuric Acid 9012819
Hydrochloric Acid 9022819
Phosphoric Acid 9032819
Plastic Materials & Synthetic Resins,
Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic and Other
MSn-Made Fibers, except Glass 2820
Plastic Materials and Resins 2821
Synthetic Rubber 2822
Soap, Detergents, and Cleaning Preparations
Perfumes, Cosmetics, and other Toilet
Preparations 2840
Soap and Other Detergents 2841
Polish and Sanitation Goods 2842
Surface Active Agents 2043
Toilet preparations 2844
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Ervaiaels and
Allied Products 2850
Gum and Wood Chemicals 2860
Charcoal Manufacturing, Except Activated 9002861
Agricultural Chemicals 2870
Fertilizers 2871
362
-------
Industrial Classification S.I.C. No.
Biosphates 9002871
Fertilizers, Mixing Only 2872
Agricultural Chemicals, N.E.C. 2879
Miscellaneous Chemical Products 2890
Glue and Gelatin 2891
Explosives 2892
Printing Ink 2893
Carbon Black 2895
Furnace Black 9002895
Channel Black 9012895
Chemical Preparations 2899
11.0 PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED INDUSTRIES 2900
Petroleum Refining 2910
Catalytic Cracking 9002911
Fluid Cokers 9012911
Paving and Roofing ifeterials 2950
Paving Mixtures and Blocks 2951
Asphalt Dryers 9002951
Asphaltic Felts and Castings 2952
Miscellaneous Products of Petroleum and Coal 2990
Lubricating Oils and Greases 2992
Petroleum and Coal Products 2999
365
-------
Industrial Classification S.I.C¦ No.
12.0 RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS 3000
Tires and Inner Tubes 3010
Rubber Footwear 3020
Fabricated Rubber Products, N.E.C. 3060
Miscellaneous Plastic Products 3070
13.0 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS 3100
Leather Tanning and Finishing 3110
14.0 STONE, CLAY, GLASS 8s CONCRETE PRODUCTS 3200
Flat Glass 3210
Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown 3220
Glass Containers 3221
Pressed 8s Blown Glass, N.E.C. 3229
Fiberglass
Frit Manufacture
Berlite Manufacture
Rock Wooo. Manufacture
Cupula
Reverb. Furnace
Blow Chamber
Curing Overn
Cooler
364
-------
Industrial Classification S.I.C. No.
Cement, Hydraulic 3240
Kiln 9003241
Cooling 9013241
Grinding 9023241
Silo 9033241
Bagging 9043241
Bulk Loading 9053241
Structural Clay Products 3250
Brick and Structural Tile 3251
Clay Refractories 3255
Structural Clay Products, N.E.C. 3259
Concrete, Gypsum & Plaster Products 3270
Concrete Block and Brick 3271
Other Concrete Products 3272
Ready Mixed Concrete 3273
Lime 3274
Gypsum Products 3275
Cut Stone and Stone Products 3280
Abrasive, Asbestos, and Miscellaneous
Nonmetalic Mineral Products 3290
Abrasive Rroducts 3291
Asbestos Products 3292
Gaskets and Insulation 3293
365
-------
Industrial Classification
S.I«C # No *
Minerals, Ground or Treated
Nonclay Refractories
15.0 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES
Blast Furnaces, Steel Works, and Rolling
and Finishing Mills
Blast Furnaces
Open Hearth
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Sintering
Coke Ovens
Ore Roasters
ftrrites Roaster
Taconite
Scarfing
Electric Furnace
Electrometallurgical Products
Steel Wire Drawing
Cold Finishing of Steel Shapes
Steel Pipe and Tube
Iron and Steel Foundries
Cupola
Shake Out
366
3295
3297
3300
3310
9003312
9013312
9023312
9038312
9043312
9053312
9063312
9073312
9083312
9093312
3313
3315
5316
3317
3320
9003320
9013820
-------
Industrial Classification S.I.C. No.
Grinding 9023320
Shot Blasting 9033320
Sand Handling 9043320
Electric Induction Furnace 9053320
Electric Arc Furnace 9063320
Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous
Metals 3330
Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper 3331
Copper Roaster 9003331
Copper Reverb. 9013331
Copper Converter 9023331
Primary Smelting and Refining of Lead 3332
Lead Furnace 9003332
Primary Smelting and Refining of Zinc 3333
Zinc Roaster 9063333
Zinc Smelter 9013333
Primary Production of Aluminum 3334
Primary Smelting and Refining of Non-ferous
Mctsls^ N.E.C. 3339
Elemental Phos. 9003339
Limenite 9013339
Titanium 9023339
Molybdenum 9033339.
367
-------
Industrial Classification S.I.C. No.
Secondary Smelting and Refining of
Nonferrous Metals 3340
Nonferrous Foundaries 3360
Aluminum Castings 3361
Brass, Bronze, Copper Castings 3362
Non-ferrous Castings, N.E.C. 3369
Miscellaneous Primary Metal Products 3390
Iron and Steel Forgings 3391
Primary Metal Industries, N.E.C. 3399
16.0 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS 3400
17.0 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL 3500
18.0 ELECTRICAL MACHINERY 3600
19.0 INSTRUMENTS 3800
20.0 ELECTRIC, GAS AND SANITARY SERVICES 4900
Electric Companies & Systems 4910
Coal 9004911
Oil 9Q14911
Gas 9Q24911
Lignite 9034911
Sanitary Services 4950
Incinerators 4953
Apartment House 9004953
368
-------
Industrial Classification
Commercial and Industrial
Municipal
Auto Body and Scrap Wire
Sewage Sludge (incinerators)
Waster Liquid (Incinerators)
Steam Supply
369
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPUTATION OF EMISSIONS BASED ON AN AVERAGE
ANNUAL COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
(See Section 5 for background information.)
There are many factors that result in lower collection efficiency,
on an annual basis, as discussed in Section 5. It is difficult, however,
to assess what this annual efficiency might be for any industry. Taking
into account that operating problems, downtime, and capture efficiency
of hooding systems, etc., can all seriously decrease collection efficiency,
it has been assumed that the annual collection efficiency, for any industry,
could approach 90$ of the efficiency figures determined in Section 5, and
shown in Table 4.1-1.
This is similar to the operating factor that is used to represent
decreased production and downtime in the design of process plants. Using
this value of 90% and applying it to the efficiencies shown in Table 4.1-1,
the emissions for each industrial source have been recomputed as shown in
Table C-l.
PrtcBflini page blank
371
-------
TABLE C-l
COMPARISON OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Source
1. Fuel Combustion
2. Crushed Stone,
Sand & Gravel
3. Agricultural
Operations
4. Iron and Steel
5. Cement
6. Forest Products
7. Lime
8. Clay
9. Primary Nonferrous
10. Fertilizer and
Phosphate Rock
11. Asphalt
12. Ferroalloy
13. Iron Foundries
14. Secondary Nonferrous
15. Coal Cleaning
16. Carbon Black
17. Petroleum
18. Acids
Emissions, per
Table 4.1-1
(tons/yr)
5,946,000
4,600,000
1,768,000
1,344,000
931,000
666,000
573,000
468,000
464,000
337,000
218,000
160,000
143,000
127,000
94,000
93,000
45,000
16.000
Total
17,9^3,000
Emissions, assuming that annual
collection efficiency is 90$ of
efficiency shown in Table 4.1-1
(tons/yr)
8,624,000
4,714,000
1,843,000
2,183,000
1,629,000
1,002,000
708,000
542,000
654,000
337,000
721,000
180,000
148,000
134,000
94,000
93,000
45,0f)0
ffVOf0
23,679,Q$0
57g
------- |