Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.1
Hot Mix Asphalt Production
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
EPA Contract No. 68-D7-0068
MRI Subcontract No. EFIG-0068/1
EPA Work Assignment No. 4-05
MRI Project No. 110075.2.001
December 2000
-------
-------
Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.1
Hot Mix Asphalt Production
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions Measurement Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Attn: Mr. Ron Myers (MD-19)
EPA Contract No. 68D-98-027
MRI Subcontract No. EFIG-0068/1
Work Assignment No. 4-05
MRI Project No. 110075.2.001
December 2000
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract Nos. 68-D2-0159 and 68-D98-027 to Midwest Research
Institute and Contract No. 68-D7-0068 to Eastern Research Group. It has been reviewed by the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Contract
Nos. 68-D2-0159, EPA Work Assignment No. 4-02, and 68-D98-027, EPA Work Assignment 3-02, and
Contract No. 68-D7-0068, EPA Work Assignment 4-05, under MRI subcontract EFIG-0068/1 to Eastern
Research Group. Mr. Ron Myers and Mr. Michael Toney were the EPA work assignment managers.
in
-------
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY 2-1
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-5
2.2.1 Batch Mix Plants 2-5
2.2.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants 2-5
2.2.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants 2-8
2.2.4 Recycle Processes 2-8
2.3 EMISSIONS 2-8
2.3.1 Batch Mix Plants 2-8
2.3.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants 2-10
2.3.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants 2-1
2.3.4 Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants 2-1
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2-1
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 3-
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING 3-
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-2
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-3
4. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT 4-1
4.1 REVISION OF SECTION NARRATIVE 4-1
4.2 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 4-1
4.2.1 Review of Specific Data Sets 4-1
4.2.2 Review of FIRE and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors 4-92
4.2.3 Review of the AP-42 Background File 4-92
4.2.4 Results of Data Analysis 4-92
4.3 STATISTICAL APPROACH 4-105
4.3.1 Batch-Mix Dryers 4-107
4.3.2 Drum-Mix Dryers 4-111
4.3.3 Applicability of Multiplicative Models 4-113
4.3.4 Filterable PM Distributions 4-113
4.4 EMISSIONS FROM HMA LOAD-OUT AND OTHER SOURCES 4-114
4.4.1 Load-Out Emissions 4-114
4.4.2 Silo Filling Emissions 4-119
4.4.3 Comparison of Load-Out Data for Plants C and D 4-119
4.4.4 Predictive Emission Factor Equations for Load-Out and
Silo Filling Operations 4-120
4.4.5 Storage Tank Emissions 4-123
4.4.6 Emissions Following Load-Out-Yard Emissions 4-126
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
2-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants 2-6
2-2. General process flow diagram for parallel-flow drum mix asphalt plants 2-7
2-3. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants 2-9
4-1. Boxplotof fabric filter-controlled filterable PM by fuel type for batch mix plants 4-128
4-2. Boxplotof filterable PM data by control device for batch mix plants 4-129
4-3. Plot of condensable inorganic PM emission factor versus RAP content for batch mix plants . . 4-130
4-4. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for batch mix plants 4-131
4-5. Boxplot of CC>2 data by fuel type for batch mix plants 4-132
4-6. Plot of CC>2 emission factor by production rate 4-133
4-7. Boxplot of filterable PM data by control device for drum mix plants 4-134
4-8. Boxplot of fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants 4-135
4-9. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants 4-136
4-10. Plot of VOC emission factor versus production rate for drum mix plants 4-137
4-11. Boxplot of COo data by fuel type for drum mix plants 4-138
4-12. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 1 4-139
4-13. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 2 4-140
4-14. Unmeasured TOC silo storage emissions, Run 3 4-141
4-15. THC silo storage emissions, Run 2 4-142
4-16. Extended period tests (1 min averaging) 4-143
4-17. Cumulative emissions vs. time after load-out 4-144
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
4-1. REFERENCES NOT USED FOR EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 4-145
4-2. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA - PLANT C ASPHALT ... 4-146
4-3. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA - PLANT D ASPHALT D . 4-146
4-4. SUMMARY OF SUMMA CANNISTER SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359 .... 4-147
4-5. SUMMARY OF PORTABLE GC/MS SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359 4-148
4-6. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYZER SAMPLE ANALYSES -
REFERENCE 359 4-148
4-7. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 360 4-149
4-8. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 361 4-150
4-9. SUMMARY OF CEMS DATA - REFERENCE 361 4-150
4-10. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED 4-151
4-11. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION; DRUM
MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-152
4-12. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION; BATCH
MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-194
4-13. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
DRUM MIX FACILITY-HOT OIL HEATERS 4-216
4-14. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM; DRUM MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS 4-217
4-15. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO2, METHANE,
NOX, SO2, AND TOC; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-232
4-16. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS; DRUM MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS 4-242
4-17. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS;
DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-246
4-18. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
DRUM MIX FACILITY - HOT OIL HEATERS 4-257
4-19. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM; BATCH MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS 4-258
4-20. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO2, METHANE,
NOX, O3, SO2, AND TOC; BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-267
4-21. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS; BATCH MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS 4-273
4-22. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS;
BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-275
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Number Page
4-23. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON BATCH MIX DATA 4-279
4-24. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO BATCH MIX DATA 4-281
4-25. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON DRUM MIX DATA 4-282
4-26. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO DRUM MIX DATA 4-285
4-27. REPORTED PARTICULATE-BASED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-286
4-28. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-287
4-29. REPORTED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS FOR PLANT D 4-289
4-30. BACKGROUND-CORRECTED PARTICULATE BASED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS -
PLANT C 4-290
4-31. BACKGROUND CORRECTED VOLATILE ORGANIC LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS -
PLANT C 4-291
4-32. ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN RESULTS FROM SELECTED STATES 4-293
4-33. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS ON HEATING DATA 4-293
4-34. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-294
4-35. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-295
4-36. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS -
PLANT D 4-297
4-37. LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS AT -0.5% LOSS ON HEATING AND 325 °F 4-297
4-38. REPORTED PARTICULATE BASED SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-298
4-39. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-299
4-40. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-301
4-41. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-302
4-42. PREDICTED AND ADJUSTED LOSS-ON-HEATING VALUES 4-304
4-43. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC PARTICULATE-BASED COMPOUNDS .... 4-305
4-44. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC VOLATILE ORGANIC-BASED
COMPOUNDS 4-306
4-45. SUMMARY OF CURVE-FITTING RESULTS FOR YARD EMISSIONS DATA 4-308
4-46. PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR YARD EMISSIONS 4-308
vin
-------
EMISSION FACTOR DOCUMENTATION FOR AP-42 SECTION 11.1
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
The document Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42) has been published by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1972. Supplements to AP-42 have been routinely
published to add new emission source categories and to update existing emission factors. AP-42 is
routinely updated by EPA to respond to new emission factor needs of EPA, State, and local air pollution
control programs, and industry.
An emission factor relates the quantity (weight) of pollutants emitted to a unit of activity of the
source. The uses for the emission factors reported in AP-42 include:
1. Estimates of areawide emissions;
2. Estimates of emissions for a specific facility; and
3. Evaluation of emissions relative to ambient air quality.
The purpose of this report is to provide background information from test reports and other
information to support revisions to AP-42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Production.
This background report consists of five sections. Section 1 includes the introduction to the report.
Section 2 gives a description of the hot mix asphalt (HMA) industry. It includes a characterization of the
industry, an overview of the different process types, a description of emissions, and a description of the
technology used to control emissions resulting from HMA production. Section 3 is a review of emission
data collection and analysis procedures. It describes the literature search, the screening of emission data
reports, and the quality rating system for both emission data and emission factors. Section 4 details
revisions to the existing AP-42 section narrative and pollutant emission factor development. It includes the
review of specific data sets and the results of data analysis. The final AP-42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix
Asphalt Production, is presented separately.
1-1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
1-2
-------
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION136
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) paving materials are a mixture of size-graded, high quality aggregate
(which can include reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP]), and liquid asphalt cement, which is heated and
mixed in measured quantities to produce HMA. Aggregate and RAP (if used) constitute over 92 percent by
weight of the total mixture. Aside from the amount and grade of asphalt cement used, mix characteristics
are determined by the relative amounts and types of aggregate and RAP used. A certain percentage of fine
aggregate (less than 74 micrometers [win] in physical diameter) is required for the production of good
quality HMA.
Hot mix asphalt paving materials can be manufactured by: (1) batch mix plants, (2) continuous
mix (mix outside dryer drum) plants, (3) parallel flow drum-mix plants, and (4) counterflow drum-mix
plants. This order of listing generally reflects the chronological order of development and use within the
HMA Industry.
There are approximately 3,600 active asphalt plants in the United States. Of these, approximately
2,300 are batch plants, 1,000 are parallel flow drum-mix plants, and 300 are counterflow drum-mix plants.
About 85 percent of plants being manufactured today are of the counterflow drum-mix design, while batch
plants and parallel flow drum-mix plants account for 10 percent and 5 percent respectively.
Continuous mix plants (type 2 above) represent a very small fraction of the plants in use
(!/2 percent or less) and, therefore, are not discussed further nor are any data presented for this type of
plant.
An HMA plant can be constructed as a permanent plant, a skid mounted (easily relocated) plant, or
as a portable plant. All plants can have RAP processing capabilities. Virtually all of the plants
manufactured today have RAP processing capability.
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY
The 1996 U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook was consulted to develop an
estimate of the annual production of HMA (1996 had the greatest reported use of bituminous aggregate).
Information useful for estimating HMA production is divided between reports on Crushed Stone and
Construction Sand and Gravel within the yearbook. Within these two categories, the information is further
divided.
The following information is presented in Table 13 in the Crushed Stone section of the 1996 USGS
Minerals Yearbook (the unspecified category includes production reported without a breakdown by end use
and estimates fornonrespondents):
Coarse aggregate, graded:
Bituminous aggregate, coarse 88,900,000 metric tons (Mt) (also called
Megagrams [Mg])
Bituminous surface-treatment aggregate 22,900,000 Mt
Fine aggregate (-3/8 inch):
Stone sand, bituminous mix or seal 25,500,000 Mt
Special:
Asphalt fillers or extenders 1,280,000 Mt
2-1
-------
Unspecified:
Actual 370,000,000 Mt
Estimated 182,000,000 Mt
Total 1,330,000,000 Mt
In addition, Table 20 in the Crushed Stone section of the 1996 USGS Minerals Yearbook presents a total
of 1,350,000 Mt of recycled asphalt for 1996.
The following information is presented in Table 6 in the Construction Sand and Gravel section of
the 1996 USGS Minerals Yearbook (the unspecified category includes production reported without a
breakdown by end use and estimates for nonrespondents):
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures 70,800,000 Mt
Unspecified:
Actual 174,000,000 Mt
Estimated 203,000,000 Mt
Total 914,000,000 Mt
In addition, Table 14 in the Construction Sand and Gravel section of the 1996 USGS Minerals Yearbook
presents a total of 3,740,000 Mt of recycled asphalt for 1996.
Both sections in the Minerals Yearbook recommend that the unspecified uses categories be
distributed as the specified uses categories. Adjusting the total crushed stone production of 1,330,000,000
Mt to the ratio of reported total specified use totals for HMA usage verses the total specified uses of
crushed stone yields 236,904,000 Mt (1,330,000,000 x (138,580,000 - 778,000,000). Adjusting the total
sand and gravel production of 914,000,000 Mt to the ratio of reported total specified HMA usage verses
the total specified uses for sand and gravel yields 120,505,000 Mt (914,000,000 x (70,800,000 -
537,000,000). Asphalt is added to this newly quarried aggregate total of 357,409,000 Mt to produce HMA
that is 6 percent asphalt (or 94 percent aggregate) to yield 380,222,000 Mt of HMA. In addition to newly
quarried aggregate, the USGS reported that a total of 5,090,000 Mt of recycled asphalt was used in HMA.
Based on these reported values from USGS, the production of HMA for 1996 is estimated to be
385,312,000 Mt or 424,614,000 tons. However, given the emphasis on recycling in State paving contracts,
a recycled asphalt to new HMA ratio of only 1.3 percent appears very low and is probably significantly
under estimated.
In a 1993 joint Federal Highway Administration and EPA report (A Study of the Use of Recycled
Paving Material - Report to Congress; FWHA-RD-93-147; EPA 600/R-93-095; June 1993), it was
estimated that 73 million metric tons (80.4 million tons) of RAP were recycled annually. This report
documents several methods of reprocessing RAP for reuse as pavement or other materials. However, the
report does not provide estimates of reprocessing by each method. Based on this report, EPA concluded
that the majority of RAP reprocessing is in HMA plants. Assuming all of the RAP is reprocessed in HMA
plants, an early 1990's upper bound estimate of 16.1 percent recycled asphalt produced can be calculated.
Recognizing that this estimate includes reprocessing not in HMA plants, EPA examined an alternative
method of estimating national RAP usage in HMA plants.
At Plants C and D between 80 and 90 percent of the asphalt produced included RAP. When RAP
was used, Plants C and D included 30 percent and 10 percnet RAP in their respective final asphalt mixes
during EPA emission testing. Extrapolating this production information to an annual estimate, Plants C
and D use between 8 and 27 percent RAP with a midpoint of 17.5 percent. While this number is larger
than the FHA derived upper bound estimate of 16.1 percent, it may be more representative of RAP usage
2-2
-------
rates in the late 1990's. Using the midpoint (17.5 percent) of this range yields a revised RAP usage of
80,653,000 Mg (88,905,000 tons). Using the revised RAP usage yields a total estimated HMA production
for 1996 of 469,102,000 Mg or 517,096,000 tons.
Information provided by the HMA industry indicates that HMA is produced by approximately
2,300 batch plants and 1,300 drum-mix plants. Using a national asphalt production estimate of 517
million tons of HMA, an estimate of the national annual production capacity at drum and batch mix plants
was determined as follows:
Based on available production capacity data from emission compliance tests of 98 batch mix plants
and 162 drum-mix plants, the average maximum production rates are:
Batch-214tons/hr
Drum - 272 tons/hr
Extrapolating these averages to the entire HMA industry yields an estimated, theoretical national
production capacity of 7,409 million tons of HMA if all plants could operate 8760 hours in a year. The
2,300 batch mix plants would produce 4,311.7 million tons and the 1,300 drum mix plants would produce
3,097.5 million tons.
Based upon the above estimates of HMA production and available plant capacity, the estimated
utilization rate of the industry is only about 7 percent (517 million + 7,409 million). This significant under
utilization is caused by limitations on when pavements can be laid, including limitations created by weather
conditions, contract specifications on times of the day when pavement construction can be performed, the
local demands for paving construction and repair, the distance that HMA can be trucked to a paving site,
the desire to be able to meet short term peak production demands, and a variety of other factors. A number
of differences between drum and batch mix asphalt plants suggest the estimated 7 percent utilization ratio
is not likely to be equal distributed among batch mix and drum mix plants. These differences include:
1. production methods,
2. capability to make and store product ahead of the time,
3. ability for loading to occur significantly quicker at facilities with storage silos,
4. the general lack of storage capability at batch mix plants, and
5. the economic desire to shift higher production demands to the higher capacity and more cost
efficient drum mix plants.
All drum mix plants require HMA storage silos to store product ahead of demand. It is estimated
that for a maximum production day, a typical drum mix plant will begin production three hours prior to the
first truck load-out in order to stay ahead of demand. For days with less than maximum production, a
typical drum mix plant will maintain this relative production advantage, although it is not necessary to
begin production three hours ahead of the first truck load-out. Since a typical batch mix plant does not
have storage for a significant amount of aggregate, it cannot produce significantly ahead of demand. For
an eight-hour load-out schedule and equal production capacity, the drum mix plant is able to produce
38 percent more product (11^-8 = 1.38) than a batch mix plant. It also is estimated that for about
30 minutes over the eight hour day, a typical batch mix plant will need to stop production because there are
no transport trucks to load. As a result, the batch mix plant is only able to produce about 94 percent of its
hourly target production (7.5 + 8 = 0.938). As a result, the eight-hour load-out capability for drum mix
plants is estimated to be 147 percent of the eight-hour production capacity for batch mix plants (1.38 +
0.938 = 1.47). Since the average production capacity of drum mix plants is 27 percent greater than batch
mix plants (272 + 214 = 1.27), the overall eight-hour load-out advantage of the average drum mix plant (as
2-3
-------
compared to the average batch mix plant) would be 187 percent of the eight-hour production capacity (1.47
x 1.27 = 1.87). Using this estimate, if 517 million tons of HMA are produced per year by the 2,300 batch
and 1,300 drum-mix plants then:
517 x 106 = 2,300 x B + 1,300 x D
and
D= 1.87xB
where:
B = average production of a batch mix plant (tons/yr)
and
D = average production of a drum-mix plant (tons/yr)
Solving the equations for B:
517 x 106 = 2,300 x B + 1,300 (1.87 x B)
517 x!06 = 4,731 xB
B = 109,000 tons/yr
D = 204,000 tons/yr
Using these average production rates, the total 1996 HMA production from batch and drum-mix
plants is estimated at about 251 million tons and 265 million tons, respectively.
The Department of Energy indicates that annual distillate fuel sales to industrial customers in the
United States for 1998 was 2,462,355,000 gallons (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/
data_publications/fuel_oil_and_kerosene_sales/current/pdf/table 1 .pdf) compared to natural gas sales of
8,686,147,000,000 cubic feet (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/
natural_gas_annual/current/pdf/table_014.pdf). At a typical energy content of 140,000 Btu/gal for
distillate oil and 1,050 btu/ft3 for natural gas, 96.3 percent of the energy used by industries was natural
gas. We expect that many of the factors that promote the preferential use of gas fuels are common within
many industries. Therefore, we expect fuel usage at hot mix asphalt plants to be very similar to other
industrial sources. Some of these factors are fuel cost, delivery system requirements, and equipment
maintenance requirements. The Energy Information Agency reported in the Manufacturing Consumption
of Energy 1994 (Combined Consumption and Fuel Switching) report (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
mecs/mecs94/consumption/mecs4a.html) that the national average cost industry paid for 1 million Btu of
energy was $2.15 for natural gas, $4.84 for distillate oil and $4.71 for LPG. This report also separates
these energy costs by four regions of the United States. Of the four regions, the differences in the costs of
the various fuels are smallest in the northeast region. In this region, the average fuel costs were $3.39 for
natural gas, $4.89 for distillate oil and $5.69 for LPG. In addition, the delivery of fuel oil and LPG must
be scheduled and stored near the production unit. The storage tanks and supporting mechanical equipment
require monitoring and maintenance that is not required when the plant is fueled with natural gas. Also,
burners for firing fuel oil require a higher level of maintenance than natural gas burners. Lastly, it is
recognized that the combustion of fuel oil produces more air emissions than natural gas combustion.
Therefore, it is believed that, where it is available, natural gas is and will remain the predominant fuel used
at HMA plants. However, many plants will maintain the capability to use fuel oil as an alternate or
supplementary fuel. A few plants will use only fuel oil due to the unavailability or high local cost of
natural gas. As a spot check of the DOE information on industrial fuel usage, an informal telephone survey
of five States was conducted. The survey confirmed that HMA plants use natural gas when it is available.
2-4
-------
The fuel usage information in the States' emission inventories shows a range of about 50 percent to
99 percent gas usage. However, the fuel usage information reported by industry generally was incomplete.
Also, for some States, energy usage per ton of product was over 50 percent higher than emission tests
where fuel usage and production information was available. As a result, it is estimated that between 70 and
90 percent of HMA is produced with gas fuels.
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION1'3
2.2.1 Batch Mix Plants
Figure 2-1 shows the batch mix HMA production process. Raw aggregate normally is stockpiled
near the production unit. The bulk aggregate moisture content typically stabilizes between 3 to 5 percent
by weight.
Processing begins as the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the appropriate
hoppers of the cold feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyer belt and is
transported into a rotary dryer (typically gas- or oil-fired). Dryers are equipped with flights designed to
shower the aggregate inside the drum to promote drying efficiency.
As the hot aggregate leaves the dryer, it drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of
vibrating screens where it is classified into as many as four different grades (sizes) and dropped into
individual "hot" bins according to size. For newer facilities, reclaimed asphalt pavement also may be
transferred to a separate heated storage bin. To control aggregate size distribution in the final batch mix,
the operator opens various hot bins over a weigh hopper until the desired mix and weight are obtained.
Concurrent with the aggregate being weighed, liquid asphalt cement is pumped from a heated storage tank
to an asphalt bucket where it is weighed to achieve the desired aggregate-to-asphalt cement ratio in the final
mix.
The aggregate from the weigh hopper is dropped into the pugmill (mixer) and dry-mixed for
6 to 10 seconds. The liquid asphalt then is dropped into the pugmill where it is mixed for an additional
period of time. For older plants, RAP typically is conveyed directly from storage hoppers to the pug mill,
where it is combined with the hot aggregate. Total mixing time usually is less than 60 seconds. Then the
hot mix is conveyed to a hot storage silo or dropped directly into a truck and hauled to the job site.
2.2.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants
Figure 2-2 shows the parallel flow drum-mix process. This process is a continuous mixing type
process using proportioning cold feed controls for the process materials. The major difference between this
process and the batch process is that the dryer is used not only to dry the material but also to mix the
heated and dried aggregates with the liquid asphalt cement. Aggregate, which has been proportioned by
gradations, is introduced to the drum at the burner end. As the drum rotates, the aggregates as well as the
combustion products move toward the other end of the drum in parallel. Liquid asphalt cement flow is
controlled by a variable flow pump which is electronically linked to the virgin aggregate and RAP weigh
scales. The asphalt cement is introduced in the mixing zone midway down the drum in a lower temperature
zone along with any RAP and particulate matter from collectors.
The mixture is discharged at the end of the drum and conveyed to a surge bin or HMA storage
silos. The exhaust gases also exit the end of the drum and pass on to the collection system.
2-5
-------
COMBINED EXHAUST FROM HOT ELEVATOR,
SCREENS, BINS, MIXER, AND DRYER
(SCC 3-05-002-45, -46, -47)
RAP BIN & CONVEYOR
HMA
STORAQE
(OPTIONAL)
SCC 3-05-002-13)
RETURN LINE
! ELEVATOR
(D) (SCC 3-05-002-02)
<
' FINES
E
\
^w
>t
i..)....f
}
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COURSE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
ROTARY
DRYER DRYER
BURNER (SCC 3-05-002-01, -51, -52, -53)
ASPHALT CEMENT STORAGE HEATER
(SCC 3-05-002-12) (SCO 3-05-002-06, -07, -08, -09)
' Emission Points
(p) Ducted Emissions
(PF) Process Fugitive Emissions
(03) Open Dust Emissions
Figure 2-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
-•» EXHAUST TO
ATMOSPHERE
SECONDARY FINES
RETURN LINE
HMA
STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002-13)
TRUCK
LOAD-OUT
(SCC 3-05-002-14)
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COURSE
AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
••*•'?PARALLEL-FLOW CONVEYOR SCALPING / COLD AGGREGATE
^ DRUM MIXER SCREEN .-'.-.,- BINS
(SCC 3-05-002-05, -55, -56, FEEDERS (scc 3.05-002-04)
-58, -59, -61, -62)
§> $
s t..
ASPHALT CEMENT HEATER
STORAGE (SCC 3-05-002-06, -07, -08, -09)
(SCC 3-05-002-12)
LEGEND
/ Emission Points
QD) Ducted Emissions
(PF) Process Fugitive Emissions
(po) Open Dust Emissions
Figure 2-2. General process flow diagram for parallel-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
Parallel flow drum mixers have an advantage in that mixing in the discharge end of the drum
captures a substantial portion of the aggregate dust, therefore lowering the load on the downstream
collection equipment. For this reason, most parallel flow drum mixers are followed only by primary
collection equipment (usually a baghouse or venturi scrubber). However, because the mixing of aggregate
and liquid asphalt cement occurs in the hot combustion product flow, there is a potential for organic
emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol) to be greater than in counterflow plants and some batch plants.
However, this increase in emissions is not evident in the data because variations in the emissions due to
other unknown variables are more significant.
2.2.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants
Figure 2-3 shows a counterflow drum-mix plant. In this type of plant, the material flow in the
drum is opposite or counterflow to the direction of exhaust gases. In addition, the liquid asphalt cement
mixing zone is located behind the burner flame zone so as to remove the materials from direct contact with
hot exhaust gases.
Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump which is electronically linked to
the virgin aggregate and RAP weigh scales. It is injected into the mixing zone along with any RAP and
particulate matter from primary and secondary collectors.
Because the liquid asphalt cement, virgin aggregate and RAP are mixed in a zone removed from
the exhaust gas stream, counterflow drum-mix plants will likely have organic emissions (gaseous and liquid
aerosol) that are lower than parallel flow drum-mix plants. However, the available data are insufficient to
discern any differences in emissions that result from differences in the two processes. A counterflow
drum-mix plant can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with little or no observed effect upon
emissions.
2.2.4 Recycle Processes
In recent years, the use of RAP has been initiated in the HMA industry. Reclaimed asphalt
pavement significantly reduces the amount of new (virgin) rock and asphalt cement needed to produce
HMA.
In the reclamation process, old asphalt pavement is removed from the road base. This material is
then transported to the plant, and is crushed and screened to the appropriate size for further processing.
The paving material is then heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable), and the proper amount of
new asphalt cement is added to produce HMA that meets the required quality specifications.
2.3 EMISSIONS
Emission points at batch and drum-mix asphalt plants discussed below refer to Figures 2-1, -2, and
-3 respectively.
2.3.1 Batch Mix Plants
As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, batch mix HMA plants have two major
categories of emissions: ducted sources (those vented to the atmosphere through some type of stack, vent,
or pipe), and fugitive sources (those not confined to ducts and vents but emitted directly from the source to
the ambient air). Ducted emissions are usually collected and transported by an industrial ventilation system
having one or more fans or air movers, eventually to be emitted to the atmosphere through some type of
stack. Fugitive emissions result from process and open sources and consist of a combination of gaseous
pollutants and PM.
2-8
-------
PRIMARY
COLLECTOR
LOADER
(SCC 3-05-002-04)
EXHAUST TO
ATMOSPHERE
RAP BIN & CONVEYOR
SECONDARY
COLLECTOR
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COURSE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
\ SECONDARY FINES
RETURN LINE
HMA
STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002-13)
TRUCK
LOAD-OUT
(SCC 3-05-002-14)
COUNTER-FLOW CONVEYOR SCALPING / COLD AGGREGATE BINS
nPMM MIYPP C^DCCM ' /cr*r* o nc nnr* nA\
DRUM MIXER
(SCC 3-05-002-05, -55, -57,
-58,-60,-61,-63)
SCREEN FEEDERS (SCC 3-05-002-04)
©
ASPHALT CEMENT
STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002-12)
HEATER
(SCC 3-05-002-06, -07, -08,09)
LEGEND
Emission Points
Ducted Emissions
Process Fugitive Emissions
(52) Open Dust Emissions
Figure 2-3. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
The most significant ducted source of emissions from batch mix HMA plants is the rotary drum
dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM; products
of combustion (carbon dioxide [CCy, nitrogen oxides [NOX], and sulfur oxides [SOX]); carbon monoxide
(CO); and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including volatile organic compounds
[VOC], methane [CH^, and hazardous air pollutants [HAP]). The CO and organic compound emissions
result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. It is estimated that about 95 percent of the energy used at
HMA plants is from the combustion of natural gas.
Other potential process sources include the hot-side conveying, classifying, and mixing equipment,
which are vented to either the primary dust collector (along with the dryer gas) or to a separate dust
collection system. The vents and enclosures that collect emissions from these sources are commonly called
"fugitive air" or "scavenger" systems. The scavenger system may or may not have its own separate air
mover device, depending on the particular facility. The emissions captured and transported by the
scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain gaseous organic compounds and a
fine aerosol of condensed organic particles. This organic aerosol is created by the condensation of vapor
into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement in the mixer (pug mill).
The amount of organic aerosol produced depends to a large extent on the temperature of the asphalt cement
and aggregate entering the pug mill. Organic vapor and its associated aerosol also are emitted directly to
the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck load-out, from the bed of the truck itself during transport
to the job site, and from the asphalt storage tank. Both the low molecular weight organic compounds and
the higher weight organic aerosol contain small amounts of HAP. The ducted emissions from the heated
asphalt storage tanks may include gaseous and aerosol organic compounds and combustion products from
the tank heater.
There also are a number of fugitive dust sources associated with batch mix HMA plants, including
vehicular traffic generating fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate material handling, and
other aggregate processing operations. Fugitive dust may range from 0.1 /Ym to more than 300 //m in
aerodynamic diameter. On average, 5 percent of cold aggregate feed is less than 74 jwm (minus 200 mesh).
Fugitive dust that may escape collection before primary control generally consists of PM with 50 to
70 percent of the total mass less than 74 //m. Uncontrolled PM emission factors for various types of
fugitive sources in HMA plants are addressed in Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations."
2.3.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants
The most significant ducted source of emissions from parallel-flow drum-mix plants is the rotary
drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM;
products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC,
CH^, and HAP). The organic compound emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel and from
heating and mixing of the liquid asphalt cement inside the drum. The CO emissions result from incomplete
combustion of the fuel. Although it has been suggested that the processing of RAP materials at these type
plants may increase organic compound emissions because of an increase in mixing zone temperature during
processing, the data supporting this hypothesis are very weak. Specifically, although the data show a
relationship only between RAP content and condensable organic particulate emissions, 89 percent of the
variations in the data were the result of other unknown process variables.
Once the organic compounds cool after discharge from the process stack, some condense to form a
fine organic aerosol or "blue smoke" plume. A number of process modifications or restrictions have been
introduced to reduce blue smoke including installation of flame shields, rearrangement of flights inside the
drum, adjustments of the asphalt injection point, and other design changes.
2-10
-------
2.3.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants
The most significant ducted source of emissions from counter-flow drum-mix plants is the rotary
drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM;
products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC,
CH^, and HAP). The CO and organic compound emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion
of the fuel. Because liquid asphalt cement, aggregate, and sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in
contact with the hot exhaust gas stream, counterflow drum mix plants will likely have lower organic
compound emissions from the kiln stack than parallel flow drum mix plants. However, variations in the
emissions due to other unknown process variables are more significant. As a result, the emission factors
for parallel flow and counterflow drum mix plants are the same.
2.3.4 Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants
Process fugitive emissions associated with batch plants from hot screens, elevators and the pugmill
are not present in the drum-mix processes. However, there are fugitive PM and VOC emissions from the
transport and handling of the HMA from the drum mixer to the storage silo and also from the load out
operations to the delivery trucks. Since the drum process is continuous, these plants have surge bins or
storage silos. The open dust sources associated with drum-mix plants are similar to those of batch mix
plants with regard to truck traffic and aggregate material feed and handling operations.
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The choice of applicable emission controls for PM emissions from the dryer and vent line includes
dry mechanical collectors, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have
met with little success. Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment such as large diameter
cyclones, skimmers, or settling chambers. These chambers are often used as classifiers to return collected
material to the hot elevator and to combine it with the drier aggregate. To capture remaining PM, the
primary collector effluent is ducted to a secondary collection device. Most plants use either a fabric filter
or a venturi scrubber for secondary emissions control. As with any combustion process, the design,
operation, and maintenance of the burner provides opportunities to minimize emissions of NOX, CO, and
organic compounds.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Asphaltic Concrete Industry Source Category Report, J. S. Kinsey, EPA-600/7-86-038, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1986.
2. Hot Mix Asphalt Mixing Facilities, Kathryn O'C. Gunkel, Wildwood Environmental Engineering
Consultants, Inc.
3. Written communication from R. Gary Fore, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, to
Ronald Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1, 1994.
4. 1996 U. S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
5. A Study Of The Use Of Recycled Paving Material - Report To Congress, FHWA-RD-93-147,
EPA/600/R-93/095, U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, June 1993.
6. Manufacturing Consumption Of Energy 1994, DOE/EIA-0512(94), U. S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
2-11
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
2-12
-------
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING
Data for this investigation were obtained from a number of sources within the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and from outside organizations. The AP-42 background files located in
the Emission Factor and Inventory Group (EFIG) were reviewed for information on the industry, processes,
and emissions. The Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE) and VOC/PM Speciation Data Base
Management System (SPECIATE) data bases were searched by SCC for identification of the potential
pollutants emitted and emission factors for those pollutants. A general search of the Air CHIEF CD-ROM
also was conducted to supplement the information from these data bases.
Information on the industry, including number of plants, plant location, and annual production
capacities, was obtained from the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) and other sources. The
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) data base also was searched for data on the number of
plants, plant location, and estimated annual emissions of criteria pollutants. A number of sources of
information were investigated specifically for emission test reports and data. A search of the Test
Method Storage and Retrieval (TSAR) data base was conducted to identify test reports for sources within
the hot mix asphalt industry. However, the test reports located using the TSAR data base were already
obtained for an earlier revision of this document. A search of EPA's Source Test Information Retrieval
System (STIRS) was conducted to identify test reports for the hot mix asphalt industry. Most of the new
data obtained for this revision were located in STIRS. Using information obtained on plant locations,
individual facilities and State and Regional offices were contacted about the availability of test reports.
Publications lists from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Control Technology Center
(CTC) also were searched for reports on emissions from the hot mix asphalt industry. In addition,
representative trade associations, including NAPA, were contacted for assistance in obtaining information
about the industry and emissions.
To screen out unusable test reports, documents, and information from which emission factors could
not be developed, the following general criteria were used:
1. Emission data must be from a primary reference:
a. Source testing must be from a referenced study that does not reiterate information from
previous studies.
b. The document must constitute the original source of test data. For example, a technical paper
was not included if the original study was contained in the previous document. If the exact source of the
data could not be determined, the document was eliminated.
2. The referenced study should contain test results based on more than one test run. If results
from only one run are presented, the emission factors must be down rated.
3. The report must contain sufficient data to evaluate the testing procedures and source operating
conditions (e.g., one-page reports generally were rejected).
A final set of reference materials was compiled after a thorough review of the pertinent reports,
documents, and information according to these criteria.
3-1
-------
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
The quantity and quality of the information contained in the final set of reference documents were
evaluated. The following data were excluded from consideration.
1. Test series averages reported in units that cannot be converted to the selected reporting units;
2. Test series representing incompatible test methods (e.g., comparison of the EPA Method 5
front-half with the EPA Method 5 front- and back-half);
3. Test series of controlled emissions for which the control device is not specified;
4. Test series in which the source process is not clearly identified and described; and
5. Test series in which it is not clear whether the emissions were measured before or after the
control device.
Data sets that were not excluded were assigned a quality rating. The rating system used was that
specified by OAQPS for the preparation of AP-42 sections. The data were rated as follows:
A-Multiple tests performed on the same source using sound methodology and reported in enough
detail for adequate validation. These tests do not necessarily conform to the methodology specified in the
EPA Reference Methods, although these methods were certainly used as a guide for the methodology
actually used.
B-Tests that were performed by a generally sound methodology but lack enough detail for
adequate validation.
C-Tests that were based on an untested or new methodology or that lacked a significant amount of
background data.
D-Tests that were based on a generally unacceptable method but may provide an
order-of-magnitude value for the source.
The following criteria were used to evaluate source test reports for sound methodology and
adequate detail:
1. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is well documented in the
report. The source was operating within typical parameters during the test.
2. Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures conformed to a generally
acceptable methodology. If actual procedures deviated from accepted methods, the deviations are well
documented. When this occurred, an evaluation was made of the extent to which such alternative
procedures could influence the test results.
3. Sampling and process data. Adequate sampling and process data are documented in the report.
Many variations can occur unnoticed and without warning during testing. Such variations can induce wide
deviations in sampling results. If a large spread between test results cannot be explained by information
contained in the test report, the data are suspect and were given a lower rating.
3-2
-------
4. Analysis and calculations. The test reports contain original raw data sheets. The nomenclature
and equations used were compared to those (if any) specified by the EPA to establish equivalency. The
depth of review of the calculations was dictated by the reviewer's confidence in the ability and
conscientiousness of the tester, which in turn was based on factors such as consistency of results and
completeness of other areas of the test report.
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
The quality of the emission factors developed from analysis of the test data was rated utilizing the
following general criteria:
A-Excellent: Developed primarily from A- and B-rated test data taken from many randomly
chosen facilities in the industry population. The source category is specific enough that variability within
the source category population may be minimized.
B-Above average: Developed primarily from A- and B-rated test data from a moderate number of
facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random
sample of the industry. As in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so that variability within
the source category population may be minimized.
C-Average: Developed primarily from A-, B-, and C-rated test data from a reasonable number of
facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random
sample of the industry. As in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so that variability within
the source category population may be minimized.
D-Below average: The emission factor was developed primarily from A-, B-, and C-rated test
data from a small number of facilities, and there is reason to suspect that these facilities do not represent a
random sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of variability within the source category
population. Limitations on the use of the emission factor are noted in the emission factor table.
E-Poor: The emission factor was developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there is reason to
suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry. There also may be
evidence of variability within the source category population. Limitations on the use of these factors are
always noted.
The use of these criteria is somewhat subjective and depends to an extent on the individual
reviewer.
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 3
1. Procedures For Preparing Emission Factor Documents, EPA-454/R-95-015. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, May 1997.
3-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
3-4
-------
4. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT
4.1 REVISION OF SECTION NARRATIVE
The AP-42 section is a revision of a previously developed draft. The section that currently is
published in AP-42 has been updated to include large amounts of additional test data gathered following
publication of the fifth edition of AP-42. Valid data from the old and new references were combined
(where applicable) to develop emission factors for several pollutants, including filterable particulate matter
(PM), condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2),
sulfur dioxide (802), nitrogen oxides (NO-^), metals, total organic compounds (TOC), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), aldehydes, polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF), and polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins (PCDD)
emitted from hot mix asphalt (HMA) production operations. These emission factors represent emissions
from drum-mix and batch-mix dryers fired by natural gas, propane, fuel oil (Nos. 2, 4, 5, or 6), and waste
oil. Additional emission factors were developed for emissions from hot oil heaters. No emission factors for
conventional continuous plants are included in the revised section because these plants represent a
small percentage of the industry (less than one-half of 1 percent).
Another major revision to the section involves the inclusion of emission factors and emission factor
equations for HMA load-out operations. These emission factors and equations were developed using data
from a recent EPA testing program. Their development is described in Section 4.4 of this background
report.
4.2 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
More than 300 emission test reports were obtained for use in developing new emission factors for
HMA production. Twenty-seven of these reports, as shown in Table 4-1, were rejected for use in
developing emission factors. All of the references used for developing emission factors are discussed in the
following paragraphs. Brief reviews of the first 23 references also are provided, although many of these
references were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1 Review of Specific Data Sets
4.2.1.1 Reference 1. This document contains a description of conventional HMA production
operations and presents emission data from 45 HMA plants. Average emission factors were developed for
conventional (continuous and batch mix) dryers controlled by spray towers, centrifugal scrubbers, and
fabric filters. In addition, the results of an emission study conducted at five HMA plants are presented.
The five source test reports are located in the background file. During the study, dryer stack emissions
were measured simultaneously with an EPA source sampling train and a Los Angeles source sampling
train. The Los Angeles train measured 37 percent higher PM emissions than the EPA train when emissions
were sampled following fabric filtration and 20 percent lower PM emissions following wet scrubber
systems. Particle size data contained in this document were evaluated in Reference 23 and are not
discussed here.
The data from the industry survey were assigned a C rating because the production rates were
estimated from the plant capacities and the test data sheets for each test were not provided. The data from
three of the five emission tests (EPA sampling train only) conducted as a part of this study were assigned a
C rating because the types of plants were not specified and only two test runs were performed during each
test. The plants were the conventional type, but batch or continuous operations were not specified. The
4-1
-------
data for plant No. 1 were not considered valid because problems with the fabric filter were reported during
testing, and the emissions were considerably higher than emissions from the other plants tested. The data
for plant No. 3 were not considered valid because problems with cyclonic flow were experienced during
testing.
4.2.1.2 Reference 2. This document contains information on process operations and control
systems for the HMA industry. No emission data for use in developing emission factors were presented.
4.2.1.3 Reference 3. This document presents test data from 25 tests conducted at conventional
HMA plants by Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District personnel prior to 1960. Filterable PM
emissions and particle size distribution are included in the data summary. A telephone conversation
documented in Reference 23 of this AP-42 background file indicated that the PM sampling train was
similar to the EPA Method 5 train, except that the filter was located downstream of the impingers. A
"Micromerograph" was used to determine particle size. The data were gathered more than 30 years ago
and cannot be validated because little detail about the testing is provided. Therefore, the data were not
rated and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.4 Reference 4. This document contains a description of HMA production operations and
potential control systems. Some emission data are included in the document, but no production rates are
documented. The data presented are the same data presented in Reference 3. Therefore, the data were not
rated and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.5 Reference 5. This document is an excerpt from the 1973 edition of the Air Pollution
Engineering Manual. Data for filterable PM emissions and particle size distribution from two HMA
batching plants are presented, but no indication of the number of test runs performed or the test method
used is provided. In addition, control devices are not specified. However, the magnitude of the emissions
suggests that the emissions were uncontrolled. Filterable PM and size-specific PM emission factors were
developed for batch-mix dryers.
All of the data were assigned a D rating because insufficient detail was provided for validation of
the emission tests.
4.2.1.6 Reference 6. This document presents emission data from 19 emission tests at 10 HMA
batching plants. Data for PM emissions from dryers are presented, but no indication of the number of test
runs performed or the test method used is provided. The data were gathered more than 40 years ago and
cannot be validated because little detail about the testing is provided. Therefore, the data were not rated
and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.7 Reference 7. This document includes a process description for HMA batching plants,
control efficiencies for various control devices, and limited emission data. No indication is given of the
number of test runs performed or the test method used to quantify emissions. The data were gathered more
than 30 years ago and cannot be validated because little detail about the testing is provided. Therefore, the
data were not rated and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.8 Reference 8. This document is not located in the background file.
4.2.1.9 Reference 9. This document is the same as Reference 3, which is described in
Section 4.2.3.3.
4-2
-------
4.2.1.10 Reference 10. This document presents costs and efficiencies for control devices used at
HMA batching plants but does not contain emission data that can be used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.11 Reference 11. This document contains a description of the drum-mix HMA production
process and contains secondary emission data for total PM emissions from drum mixers with various
controls. Several deficiencies are noted in the text, including a lack of detail on the control systems and a
large variation in emission concentrations. In addition, run-by-run data are not presented. For these
reasons, the data presented were assigned a D rating.
4.2.1.12 Reference 12. This document describes in detail the drum-mix process but does not
contain any emission data that were used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.13 Reference 13. This document describes the drum-mix process and contains limited
emission data. No indication is given of the number of test runs performed or the test method used to
quantify emissions. In addition, uncontrolled PM emission factors calculated from two of the tests differ
by an order of magnitude. The data presented were not rated and were not used for emission factor
development.
4.2.1.14 Reference 14. This document describes the production of HMA and discusses proposed
(1973) new source performance standards (NSPS) for the industry but does not contain any emission data
that were suitable for emission factor development.
4.2.1.15 Reference 15. This document presents the final version of Reference 14. DatafromSof
the 18 tests were used for emission factor development. Data were not used if (1) no production rates were
documented; (2) only 1 test run was performed; or (3) the data were deemed invalid because of problems
encountered during testing. Data for filterable PM, total PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COo
emissions from batch mix plants with various control systems were presented.
The data were assigned a B rating because the document is a secondary reference and does not
contain sufficient detail about the processes and tests. Usually, data from a secondary reference are
assigned a C rating. However, these data were used for the development of an NSPS and were the focus of
scrutiny by the HMA industry, the technical staff developing the regulation, and public interest groups.
Therefore, the data rating was increased by one level. If only two valid test runs were performed, the data
were assigned a C rating. The testing methodologies appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported
during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.16 Reference 16. This document contains secondary emission data from several sources. In
addition, the results of an industrial survey are presented. The survey was conducted in 1975 by Monsanto
Research Corporation. Data for uncontrolled and controlled PM emissions from drum mixers were
documented, but sufficient detail were not included for validation of the data.
4.2.1.17 Reference 17. This document presents the results of two test programs conducted at
HMA plants. Both plants tested were batch mix plants with wet scrubbers controlling dryer emissions.
Some run-by-run data are presented, but the run-by-run emission rates are not included in the document.
The data presented could not be used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.18 Reference 18. This document does not contain data or process information that is
relevant to this section. The revised AP-42 section does not reference this document.
4-3
-------
4.2.1.19 Reference 19. This document does not contain data or process information that is
relevant to this section. The revised AP-42 section does not reference this document.
4.2.1.20 Reference 20. This reference is missing from the background file.
4.2.1.21 Reference 21. This document discusses the application of fabric filters to dryers at HMA
plants. Some emission data also are presented, but they are insufficient for use in developing emission
factors.
4.2.1.22 Reference 22. This document presents the results of VOC emission tests conducted at
five drum-mix HMA plants. Method 25 was used to quantify nonmethane VOC (as carbon) emissions,
which are referred to as total nonmethane organic compounds (TNMOC) in Section 4.2.4 of this report. In
addition, PM emissions were measured (Method 5) at one of the plants. Operating parameters were varied
from run to run, but no change in emissions (attributable to a specific variation) was noticeable.
The data from this document were assigned a D rating. Adequate detail about the processes and
tests was provided, and no problems were reported during testing. However, the data were downgraded to
D because a positive bias in Method 25 results may occur when the product of the moisture content and
۩2 concentration of the stack gas is greater than 100, which is typical of stack gas from HMA plants
(moisture contents and COo concentrations were not provided in the document). Also, complete run-by-run
emission data were not provided, and the actual emission test reports were not available for review.
4.2.1.23 Reference 23. This document presents the background information used for the 1986
revision of AP-42 Section 8.1, Asphaltic Concrete Plants. The main emphasis in the 1986 revision was
size-specific PM, and only primary references that contained particle size data were used for emission
factor development in the report. Data from six references were used to develop size-specific PM emission
factors. Because of a lack of available data, several data sets that would not usually be used for AP-42
emission factor development were used. For this document and the associated AP-42 revision, the suspect
data sets were not used for emission factor development unless no new data were available for similar
source/control combinations.
Four of the six data sets are considered to be of insufficient quality for inclusion in the revised
AP-42 section. Two of the data sets are based on testing using cascade impactors that, based on the dates
of the tests, probably used "button hook" preseparators rather than cyclones. There is potential for
inaccuracies in particle size distribution measured with this type of impactor. Two of the data sets are
based on emission testing conducted before 1970 and are considered to be outdated. The particle size data
for uncontrolled batch-mix dryers from this document were retained in the AP-42 section because no new
data are available for uncontrolled batch-mix dryers. These data are assigned a D rating and are not of the
quality desired for use in AP-42. The two valid data sets are described below (excerpts from Reference 23
are shown in italics). It should be noted that the data from Reference 26 (transcribed below in italics) are
now assigned a C rating because only one test run was performed.
4-4
-------
(EXCERPT FROM REFERENCE 23)
3.4.7 Reference 26 fJi.J. Taback, et al, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and
Miscellaneous Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, KVB 5806-783, KVB, Inc., Tustin,
CA. February 1979.1
Reference 26 is a study of the fine particle emissions from a variety of sources in the
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles), conducted by a contractor to the California Air
Resources Board (CARS). One test included in this study was of the emissions from an
asphalt batch plant controlled by a cyclone collector followed by a baghouse. Only one
test run was performed during the sampling program with concurrent measurements
made at the inlet and outlet of the baghouse collector.
The size distribution of the paniculate was determined at each sampling location using
either of two sampling trains equipped with a series of three individual cyclones having
nominal cut-points of 10, 3, and 1 • mA, respectively. For inlet testing, a standard EPA
Method 5 (Joy) train was adapted for the program by installing the three cyclones and a
backup filter in the oven section of the impinger box. For testing at the outlet, the
Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) was used. The data obtained from the
CARB study were entered into the EADS system from which a printout was obtained. A
summary of the data contained in Reference 26 is provided in Table 3-11 with a copy of
the pertinent sections of the draft report included in Appendix F. Upon checking with
the contractor it was learned that the test data for run 29S were not changed in the final
report from that included in the draft shown in Appendix F.
TABLE 3-11. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR REFERENCE 26a
Data Rating: B
Test No.
29S
Sampling
location
Outlet
Percent of particles in stated size range0
>10 • mA 10-3 • mA 3-1 • mA <1 • mA
60 6 4 30
aFrompage 4-165 of Reference 26 (Appendix F).
Location relative to baghouse collector.
0Aerodynamic diameter.
From the analysis of Reference 26 it was determined that the particle size measurements
were made during sound methodology, and it does contain adequate information for
validation. The only significant problem found with the data was that the cyclone train
at the inlet to the baghouse became overloaded with material, which could significantly
affect the validity of the test results. This fact was learned from a review of the test
report itself rather than from the EADS printout. For this reason, the data collected at
the inlet of the baghouse were not used in the development of candidate emission factors.
Since only one test run was conducted at the outlet of the baghouse, a rating ofB was
assigned to the data.
4-5
-------
3.4.8 Reference 27 [T.J. Walker, et al. Characterization ofInhalable Particulate Matter
Emissions from a Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Technical
Directive 8, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1983.1
Reference 27 is a report of the tests conducted byMRI, under the IP program, of a
drum-mix asphalt plant controlled by a baghouse collector. The drum mixer was
equipped to process recycled asphalt paving utilizing a split feed arrangement.
Particulate matter contained in the exhaust stream was sampled at both the inlet and
outlet of the baghouse with measurements also made of the condensation aerosol which
would theoretically be formed upon release into the atmosphere (condensable organics).
The general sampling protocol used in this study was that developed for the IP
program. At the inlet, the total uncontrolled emissions from the process were
determined from a six-point traverse utilizing EPA Method 5. The particle size
distribution was obtained from samples collected by an Andersen High Capacity Stack
Sampler equipped with a Sierra Instruments 15-* mA preseparator. Four particle size
tests were conducted at each of the four sampling quadrants for a total of 16 test runs.
At the outlet from the baghouse, the total mass emissions from the plant were determined
utilizing proposed EPA Method 17, with two tests being conducted at each of four
sampling quadrants. The particle size distribution was likewise obtained using an
Andersen mark III cascade impactor and Sierra Instruments 15 • mA preseparator
utilizing an identical test protocol.
Condensable organics testing was also performed during the study utilizing the Dilution
Stack Sampling System (DSSS) developed by Southern Research Institute. This system
extracts a small slipstream of gas from the stack which, after removing particles
>2.5 • mA in diameter, is mixed in a dilution chamber with cool, dry ambient air. A
standard high-volume air sampler is installed at the discharge end of the chamber which
collects a combination of the fine paniculate (<2.5 • m) extracted from the stack and any
new paniculate matter formed by condensation. The loadings obtained from the DSSS
are then compared to those measured by a second sampling train without the dilution
chamber to determine the amount of condensable organics formed. Three separate tests
were conducted at the outlet of the baghouse collector during the sampling program.
Table 3-12 through 3-14 provides a summary of the results of this study with a copy of
applicable portions of the document included in Appendix G.
Since the tests in Reference 27 were conducted according to the protocol developed for the IP
program and are well documented, a rating of A was assigned to the data.
4-6
-------
(EXCERPT FROM REFERENCE 23)
Table 3-12. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE TEST DATA COLLECTED AT THE BAGHOUSE INLET
REFERENCE 27°
Data Rating: A
Test No.
j
2
5
4
Run No.
(source-r
un-quad)
1-1-1 (B)
1-1-2
1-1-3
1-1-4
1-2-1 (Cf
l-2-2(B)
1-2-3
1-2-4
1-3-1
1-3-2
1-3-3
1-3-4
1-4-1
1-4-2
1-4-3
1-4-4
IS • m Cyclone
Mass
(mg)
4,775.2
6,088.7
6,345.5
10,607.6
212.91
5,881.3
4,157.7
9,068.9
5,718.0
6,113.0
3,086.1
10,346.7
2,149.4
3,242.0
7,794.4
9,585.9
D50 size
(•m)
14.8
15.5
15.1
15.2
14.5
15.6
15.4
15.0
15.7
15.5
15.4
15.2
15.5
15.4
15.4
15.5
Cum. %
less than
stated
size
30.2
25.0
19.2
17.6
26.7
25.7
22.9
22.9
22.3
23.5
33.5
19.8
35.8
27.8
20.2
21.4
Stage 1
Mass
(mg)
95.2
125.0
68.5
179.5
45.6
127.0
60.4
406.6
364.8
81.0
62.2
170.5
48.4
78.4
89.3
178.5
D50 size
(•m)
11.4
11.8
11.5
11.6
11.2
11.7
11.7
11.5
11.7
11.7
11.6
11.6
11.7
11.7
11.6
11.7
Cum. %
less than
stated
size
28.8
23.5
18.3
16.2
25.1
24.1
21.7
19.5
17.4
22.5
32.1
18.5
34.4
26.00
19.3
20.0
Stage 2
Mass
(mg)
617.5
566.6
399.4
750.9
221.8
621.1
362.7
767.3
200.5
505.7
393.8
888.7
301.8
348.8
550.6
873.4
D50 size
(•m)
6.3
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.6
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.61
6.6
6.6
6.6
Cum. %
less than
stated
size
19.7
16.5
13.3
10.4
17.5
16.2
15.0
12.9
14.7
16.2
23.6
11.6
25.4
18.2
13.6
12.8
Cyclone
Mass
(mg)
1,091.0
1,143.3
906.8
977.9
446.3
1,061.0
746.0
1,038.8
975.1
997.5
937.4
1,062.2
671.9
642.8
874.2
785.0
D50 size
(•m)
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
Cum. %
less than
stated
size
3.8
2.4
1.7
2.8
2.1
2.8
1.2
4.1
1.4
3.7
3.4
3.4
5.3
3.9
4.7
6.4
Filter
Mass
(mg)
258.0
198.0
134.3
356.5
60.8
222.6
62.4
481.7
104.1
294.8
159.4
435.3
177.1
175.2
456.6
777.3
D50 size
(•m)
<1.9
<1.9
<1.9
<1.9
<1.8
<2.0
<1.9
<1.9
<2.0
<2.0
<1.9
<1.9
<2.0
<1.9
<1.9
<2.0
"Reproduced from Table 4.4, p. 49 of Reference 27 (Appendix G).
bTest conducted during the processing of recycled asphalt paving.
-------
(EXCERPT FROM REFERENCE 23)
Table 3-13. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE TEST DATA COLLECTED AT THE BAGHOUSE INLET
REFERENCE 27°
Data Rating: A
Test
No.
1
2
Run No.
(source-run
-quad)
0-1-1 (B)
0-7-2*
0-7-3*
0-1-4
0-2-1
0-2-2
0-2-3
0-2-4
15-- m Cyclone
Mass
(mg)
37.96
84.91
39.29
72.37
21.93
49.78
61.54
71.68
D50 size
(•m)
14.9
14.7
14.9
14.8
15.2
15.0
14.6
15.4
Cum. %
less than
stated
size
42.1
21.0
26.0
31.6
56.7
35.7
32.8
37.0
Stage 0
Mass
(mg)
0.41
0.51
0.00
0.61
1.60
0.67
3.52
7.79
D50 size
(•m)
14.7
14.4
14.6
14.7
14.9
14.7
14.3
15.0
Cum. %
less than
stated size
41.5
20.1
26.0
31.1
53.1
34.9
28.9
30.1
Stage 1
Mass
(mg)
1.34
0.89
0.63
0.73
1.88
0.85
1.98
3.38
D50 size
(•m)
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.2
8.9
9.4
Cum. %
less than
stated size
39.5
19.7
24.8
30.4
49.8
33.8
26.8
27.2
Stage 2
Mass
(mg)
3.65
3.94
1.95
2.36
4.33
3.36
4.77
5.75
D50 size
(•m)
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.0
6.3
Cum. %
less than
stated size
33.9
16.0
21.1
28.1
41.2
29.4
21.6
22.1
Stage 3
Mass
(mg)
5.30
4.44
2.82
16.29
4.56
4.33
4.58
6.57
Dso size
(•m)
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.3
Cum. % less than stated
size
25.8
11.9
15.8
12.7
32.2
23.8
16.6
16.3
Test
No.
1
Run No.
(source-run
-quad)
0-1-1 (B)
0-1-2"
0-1-3"
0-1-4
0-2-1
0-2-2
0-2-3
0-2-4
Stage 4
Mass
(mg)
8.45
5.43
2.97
0.00
5.68
7.91
7.04
8.35
Dso size
(•m)
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.8
Cum. %
less than
stated
size
12.9
6.8
10.2
12.7
21.0
33.6
8.9
9.0
Stage 5
Mass
(mg)
5.71
4.74
3.26
12.4
5.09
6.63
5.09
6.07
Dso size
(•m)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
Cum. %
less than
stated size
4.2
2.4
4.1
1.0
11.0
5.1
3.3
3.7
Stage 6
Mass
(mg)
2.07
1.71
1.81
0.00
2.60
2.95
2.45
2.52
Dso size
(•m)
0.80
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.78
0.82
Cum. %
less than
stated size
1.1
0.82
0.64
1.0
5.8
1.3
0.64
1.4
Stage 7
Mass
(mg)
0.33
0.57
0.21
0.88
1.54
0.77
0.46
0.91
Dx size
(•m)
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.57
0.61
Cum. %
less than
stated size
0.56
0.29
0.24
0.20
2.8
0.26
0.14
0.63
Filter
Mass
(mg)
0.37
0.31
0.13
0.21
1.40
0.20
0.13
0.72
Dso size
(•m)
<0.59
<0.58
<0.58
<0.59
<0.60
<0.59
<0.57
<0.61
"Reproduced from Table 4.5, p. 50 of Reference 27 (Appendix G).
bTest conducted during the processing of* 30% recycled asphalt paving.
-------
4.2.1.24 Reference 24. The plant tested was a batch mix facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included controlled measurements of filterable PM,
size-specific PM, trace metals, and PAH emissions and uncontrolled measurements of CO, CC^, SC^,
NOX, aldehydes, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and TOC emissions. All of the tests
were performed at the outlet of the fabric filter on the dryer, but fabric filters provide only incidental, if
any, control of the above pollutants that are labeled as uncontrolled. Several target pollutants were not
detected in any run. Particulate matter and trace metal emissions were sampled using EPA
Method 5/Combined Train SW 846 Test Method 0031. Size-specific PM, condensable inorganic PM, and
condensable organic PM emissions were determined using EPA Methods 201A and 202. However, the
actual cut size for the PM-10 catch was 7.9 micrometers ((jm) because the test ports were not large enough
to allow the proper nozzle to be used. Measurements of CO, CO2, SO2, and NOX were taken using
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) following EPA Methods 10, 3A, 6C, and 7E,
respectively. Sampling for PAHs was performed concurrently with the PM and metals test by
EPA SW 846 Test Method 0010 (Semi-VOST), and aldehyde sampling was done using EPA SW 846
Method 0011. Methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were determined using EPA
Method 18 (13 samples analyzed for each pollutant), and TOC emissions were measured using EPA
Method 25A (CEMS). The Method 25A results were converted to TOC as methane using the measured
emission concentration, the density of methane at standard temperature and pressure (STP), and the
volumetric flow rate for each test run. Three test runs were performed for each pollutant measured, except
for the pollutants measured by CEMS, as well as methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.
The results from the CEMS were averaged over the duration of each test run, thus giving one value for
each pollutant from each of three test runs. The second metals run was not included in the development of
emission factors because the back-half sample bottle was broken during shipment. The emission factors
developed from this test report differ from the emission factors presented in the test report because of the
treatment of runs in which the pollutant concentration was found to be below the detection limit. In the test
report, runs of this type were not included in emission averages, whereas the emission factors developed
from the report use one-half of the detection limit as the emissions from a "nondetect" run. Detection limits
were not provided for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. For these pollutants, assumed detection
limits were calculated using 80 percent of the smallest detected amount of each pollutant.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the test data, unless more than one test run did not detect the
targeted pollutant, in which case the data were assigned a B rating. Methane, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene emission data were assigned a B rating because detection limits were not
provided. Data for PM-10 emissions were assigned a C rating because of the problem with the actual cut
size (see above) as well as the use of an average volumetric flow rate for calculating emission rates
(measured rates were suspect). Data for condensable PM emissions were assigned a B rating because of
the use of an average volumetric flow rate for calculating emission rates (measured rates were suspect).
The acetone data are assigned a D rating because a high field blank indicates possible sample
contamination. Otherwise, the report included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and
no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.25 Reference 25. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a waste oil-fired dryer and
emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included controlled measurements of filterable PM,
condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, PM-10, trace metals, and PAHs from the plant stack
(drum mixer/dryer fabric-filter outlet). Uncontrolled measurements included CO, CO2, NOX, SO2,
aldehydes, methane, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and TOC emissions from the plant stack. All
of the tests were performed at the outlet of the fabric filter, but fabric filters provide only incidental, if any,
control of the above pollutants that are labeled as uncontrolled. Filterable PM and trace metal emissions
were sampled using EPA Method 5/Combined Train SW 846 Test Method 0031. Size-specific PM and
condensable PM emissions were determined using EPA Methods 201A and 202. Measurements of CO,
4-9
-------
CO2, NOX, SO2, and TOC were taken using a CEMS following EPA Methods 10, 3A, 7E, 6C, and 25A,
respectively. The Method 25A results were converted to TOC as methane using the measured emission
concentration, the density of methane at STP, and the volumetric flow rate for each test run. Sampling for
PAHs was performed concurrently with the PM and metals test using EPA SW 846 Test Method 0010
(Semi-VOST), and aldehyde sampling was done using EPA SW 846 Method 0011. Methane, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were determined using EPA Method 18. Three test runs were
performed for each pollutant measured, except for the pollutants measured by CEMS. The results from the
CEMS were averaged over the duration of each test run, thus giving one value for each pollutant from each
of three test runs. The emission factors developed using the data from this test report differ from the
emission factors presented in the test report because of the treatment of runs in which the pollutant
concentration was found to be below the detection limit. In the test report, runs of this type were included
in emission averages (zero emissions), whereas the emission factors developed from the report use one-half
of the detection limit as the emission from a "nondetect" run. Detection limits were not provided for
ketones, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. For these pollutants, assumed detection
limits were calculated using 80 percent of the smallest detected amount of each pollutant.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the test data, with the following exceptions: methyl ethyl
ketone, methane, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene emission data were rated B because detection
limits were not provided and at least one "nondetect" run was reported for each pollutant. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test
runs.
4.2.1.26 Reference 26. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and
CC>2 emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls
PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of COo emissions. Filterable PM was sampled
using EPA Method 5, and CC>2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.27 Reference 27. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and
COo emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls
PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Filterable PM was sampled
using EPA Method 5, and COo was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.28 Reference 28. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with emissions controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included three test runs measuring filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM,
and CC>2 emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter
controls PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Filterable PM was
sampled using EPA Method 5, condensable inorganic PM was analyzed using the Method 5 back-half
catch, and CC>2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included some detail,
but it provided only an average production rate, and the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4-10
-------
4.2.1.29 Reference 29. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a venturi scrubber. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM
and CC>2 emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the venturi scrubber outlet. The scrubber
controls PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Filterable PM was
sampled using EPA Method 5, and CO2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included some detail,
but it provided only an average production rate and did not specify the pressure drop across the venturi
section of the scrubber. The methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the
valid test runs.
4.2.1.30 Reference 30. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and CC>2
emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls PM
emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Filterable PM was sampled using
EPA Method 5, and CO 2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.31 Reference 31. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 5 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The tests were performed at the inlet and outlet of the fabric
filter and measured filterable PM and condensable organic PM (referred to as TOC in the test report). The
tests were performed during both conventional and recycle operations. The condensable organic PM tests
were not considered to be valid because problems were encountered during analysis (the back-half catch
adhered to the glassware). During conventional operation, there were two valid test runs at the fabric-filter
inlet (Run 1 was not isokinetic) and three valid runs at the fabric-filter outlet. During recycle operation,
there were three valid test runs at the fabric-filter inlet and two valid runs at the fabric-filter outlet (only
two runs were performed). All of the tests measured emissions from the drum mixer.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the tests that included three valid runs, and a
rating of B was assigned to the test data from the tests that included only two valid runs. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid
test runs.
4.2.1.32 Reference 32. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a scrubber. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and CC>2
emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the scrubber outlet. The scrubber controls PM
emissions, but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Filterable PM was sampled
using EPA Method 5, and COo was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included some detail,
but it did not provide details about the control system, including the pressure drop across the scrubber. The
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.33 Reference 33. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and
COo emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls
PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Participate matter was
4-11
-------
sampled using EPA Method 5, and CC>2 was measured using EPA Method 3. The test was conducted
while the dryer feed included about 33 percent RAP.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.34 Reference 34. The plant tested was a batch mix facility with the dryer fired by natural
gas and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring trace metals,
chromium and hexavalent chromium (Cr and Cr ), PAHs, aldehydes, VOCs, CO, and NOX emissions
from the dryer at the fabric-filter outlet. For target pollutants that were not detected in one or two test runs,
emissions from the "nondetect" runs were estimated using one-half of the pollutant detection limit. Several
target pollutants were not detected in any run. Trace metals were measured using draft EPA
Method 200.7, PAHs were tested using EPA Modified Method 5 (MM5 - now known as Semi-VOST),
and CO and NOX were tested using a CEMS. The other pollutants were measured using California Air
Resources Board (CARB) test procedures, which are similar to EPA methods for the pollutants tested.
A rating of B or C was assigned to the data from this test. Data were assigned a C rating if a
pollutant was detected in only one of three test runs, or if only two valid test runs were performed. The
report included some detail, but it provided only an average production rate. The testing methodology
appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.35 Reference 35. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by propane
and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring trace metals, total
chromium and hexavalent chromium (Cr and Cr ), PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylene, methyl chloroform,
formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide emissions from the dryer at the fabric-filter outlet. Also included were
three test runs measuring PAHs, polychlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDFs, PCDFs, HxCDFs, HpCDFs, and
OCDFs), polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins (TCDDs, PeCDDs, HxCDDs, HpCDDs, and OCDDs),
benzene, and formaldehyde emissions from the hot oil heater stack. The hot oil heater was fired with No. 2
fuel oil. Trace metals were measured using draft EPA Method 200.7, and PAHs were tested using EPA
MM5 (Semi-VOST). The other pollutants were measured using CARB test procedures, which are similar
to EPA methods for the pollutants tested. For target pollutants that were not detected in one or two test
runs, emissions from the "nondetect" runs were estimated using one-half of the pollutant detection limit.
Several target pollutants were not detected in any run. Radionuclide emissions also were sampled during
this test, but the information provided is insufficient for emission factor development.
A rating of B was assigned to most of the data from this test. A rating of C was assigned if a
pollutant was detected in only one of three test runs. The report included some detail, but it provided only
an average production rate and did not describe the control system. The test methodology appeared to be
sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.36 Reference 36. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a venturi scrubber (Ap = 15 to 21 in. f^O). The tests were performed at the
inlet and outlet of the scrubber and measured filterable PM and condensable organic PM (referred to as
TOC or back-half catch in the report). During conventional and recycle operation, three valid test runs
were performed at both the scrubber inlet and outlet. All of the tests measured emissions from the drum
mixer.
All of the test data were assigned an A rating. The report included adequate detail, the
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4-12
-------
4.2.1.37 Reference 37. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a venturi scrubber (Ap = 12.5 to 14.5 in. ^O). The tests were performed at
the inlet and outlet of the scrubber and measured filterable PM and condensable organic PM (referred to as
TOC or back-half catch in the report). During conventional and recycle operation, three valid test runs
were performed at both the scrubber inlet and outlet. All of the tests measured emissions from the drum
mixer.
All of the test data were assigned an A rating. The report included adequate detail, the
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.38 Reference 38. This document is a study of inhalable PM emissions from drum-mix
asphalt plants and includes emission data for uncontrolled and controlled filterable PM and size-specific
PM emissions from a drum mixer. The particle size data were analyzed during the 1986 revision of AP-42
Section 11.1 and are not discussed here. Filterable PM emissions were measured at both the inlet and
outlet of the fabric filter that controls emissions from the drum mixer. The inlet test was conducted using a
modified EPA Method 5 train (only six sampling points) for eight runs, and the outlet test was conducted
using a modified EPA Method 17 train (only four sampling points) for two runs.
The inlet test data were assigned a B rating, and the outlet test data were assigned a C rating. Both
tests were downgraded one letter because of the number of sampling points used, and the outlet test was
downgraded another letter because only two test runs were performed. The report included adequate detail,
and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.39 Reference 39. This document contains summary data from seven emission tests
conducted at both drum-mix and batch mix HMA plants. All of the tests were conducted at the outlets of
fabric filters controlling emissions from the drum mixers/dryers (drum-mix plants) or dryers (batch mix
plants) fired by natural gas, No. 2 fuel oil, or No. 6 fuel oil. Pollutants measured at each plant included
CO, CC>2, SC>2, NO^, TOC, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAHs, formaldehyde, and
condensable PM. Carbon monoxide, CO2, SO2, NO-^, and TOC emissions were quantified using CEMS
(EPA Methods 10, 3A, 6C, 7E, and 25A, respectively). The Method 25A results were converted to TOC
as methane using the measured emission concentration, the density of methane at STP, and the volumetric
flow rate for each test run. Methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were measured
using EPA Method 18, PAH emissions were measured using EPA MM5, formaldehyde emissions were
measured using EPA Method 0011 (proposed method at the time of testing), and condensable PM
emissions were measured using EPA Method 202. Condensable PM and PAHs are the only target
pollutants that would be expected to be controlled by the fabric filters.
The original test reports are described in Sections 4.2.1.42 through 4.2.1.48 (References 44
through 50) of this document. The individual reports were reviewed, and the data ratings are presented in
the individual report descriptions.
4.2.1.40 Reference 40. This reference includes summary data from 25 emission tests performed in
Wisconsin. Particulate matter and formaldehyde emissions were quantified using EPA Method 5 and
NIOSH Method 3500, respectively. Both drum-mix and batch mix plants using various control systems
and fuels were tested.
The filterable PM and total PM data were assigned a C rating because only summary test data
were provided. The formaldehyde data were assigned a D rating because the test method suffers from a
number of potential interferences, as documented in a letter from Gary McAlister of EPA's Emission
Measurement Branch (EMB) (attached to Ref 40).
4-13
-------
4.2.1.41 Reference 41. The plant tested was a batch mix facility with emissions controlled by a
fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and COo emissions from the dryer at the
fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of
COo emissions. Filterable PM was sampled using EPA Method 5, and COo was measured using EPA
Methods.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the dryer. The report included some detail, but it
provided only an average production rate and did not specify the fuel used to fire the dryer. The test
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.42 Reference 44. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
30 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. During each test, three test runs were performed using the EPA reference test methods
discussed in the review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The CO data are assigned a D rating because the
measured concentrations were above the calibration range in two of the three test runs. The ethyl benzene
data are assigned a B rating because the concentration during Run 3 was below an undefined detection
limit. The non-detect test run was not included in the calculated average emission factor for ethyl benzene.
The report included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.43 Reference 45. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
13 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were not detected during any test run, and
anthracene was detected in only one of three test runs. Emissions of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were
estimated as one-half of the detection limit, which was estimated as 0.1 ppm. This detection limit was used
because several recorded benzene measurements (same test method) were below 1 ppm (1 ppm is the
recorded detection limit for a similar test documented in Reference 48). During each test, three test runs
were performed (except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of
Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The CO data are not rated because the measured
concentrations were above the calibration range during all of the test runs. The benzene and pyrene data
are assigned a B rating because the concentration during one run (for each pollutant) was below an
undefined detection limit. The toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the
emissions are estimates. The report included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.44 Reference 46. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene were detected in only one of
three test runs (emission factors were not developed for these three pollutants). During each test, three test
runs were performed (except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of
Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO, SOo,
4-14
-------
and NOX were used during nine test runs on three different days. The TOC monitor was only used on the
first day of testing (three runs).
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The methane data are assigned a B rating because
the concentration during one run was below an undefined detection limit. This non-detect test run is not
included in the calculated average emission factor for methane. The report included adequate detail, the
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.45 Reference 47. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO, CC^, SC^, NOX, TOC,
methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were not detected during any test
run, and acenaphthene was detected in only one of three test runs. Emissions of benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene were estimated as one-half of the detection limit, which was estimated as 1 ppm
(1 ppm is the recorded detection limit for a similar test documented in Reference 48). During each test,
three test runs were performed (except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the
review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for
CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, and TOC were used during nine test runs on three different days. The isokinetics
during Run 3 for condensable PM were not within the specified limits; therefore, this run is not considered
valid.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The filterable and condensable PM data are
assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were performed. The benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.46 Reference 48. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a parallel-flow,
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO, CO2, §©2, NOX, TOC,
methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and 2-chloronaphthalene emissions
were not detected during any test run, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected in only one of three test runs.
Emissions of methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were estimated as one-half of the
detection limit, which was estimated as 1 ppm (1 ppm is the recorded detection limit for a similar test
documented in Reference 48). The formaldehyde data are not presented in the report because of problems
encountered during sample analysis. During each test, three test runs were performed (except as noted)
using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this
report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO2, NOX, and TOC were used during six test
runs on five different days. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO and SO2 were used during
five test runs on four different days.
Most of the test data from this report are assigned an A rating. The methane, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.47 Reference 49. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
No. 6 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
30 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO,
CO2, §©2, NOX, TOC, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde
4-15
-------
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions
were not detected during any test run. Emissions of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were
estimated as one-half of the detection limit, which was estimated as 1 ppm (1 ppm is the recorded detection
limit for a similar test documented in Reference 48). During each test, three test runs were performed
(except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of Reference 39
(Section 4.2.1.39) in this report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO, CO2, SO2, NOX,
and TOC were used during nine test runs conducted on three different days.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The phenanthrene data are assigned a B rating
because the concentration during one run was below an undefined detection limit. This non-detect test run
is not included in the calculated average emission factor for phenanthrene. In addition, the formaldehyde
data are assigned a B rating because the data range over two orders of magnitude. The benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.48 Reference 50. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
No. 2 fuel oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
35 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Toluene and xylene emissions were not detected during any test run, benzene and
ethylbenzene emissions were detected in only one of nine test runs, and fluoranthene emissions were
detected in only one of three test runs. During each test, three test runs were performed (except as noted)
using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this
report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were used during nine test runs conducted on three different days. The
SO2 results are not presented in the report because the SO2 monitor malfunctioned during testing.
Concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were estimated as one-half of the
detection limit, which was estimated as 80 percent of the lowest (only) recorded ethylbenzene measurement
(0.80 x 0.36 ppm = 0.29 ppm). These concentrations were used to estimate emissions for all of the test
runs except for the single benzene and ethylbenzene runs that had measurable concentrations.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The CO data are not rated because the measured
concentrations were above the calibration range during all of the test runs. The pyrene data are assigned a
B rating because the concentration during one run was below an undefined detection limit. This non-detect
test run is not included in the calculated average emission factor for pyrene. The benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.49 Reference 51. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 28 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-16
-------
4.2.1.50 Reference 52. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Four test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, but Run 1 was not valid due to process problems. Process rates were
provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 13 in. w.c.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported during the three valid test runs.
4.2.1.51 Reference 53. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired
(Nos. 1, 2, and 3 fuel oil), drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
31 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.52 Reference 54. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 44 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.53 Reference 55. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 32 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.54 Reference 56. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 30 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM-10, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 201 A, Method 5 (back-half
analysis), and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). All of the Method 201A test runs were
above 120 percent isokinetics. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were
provided for each test run.
4-17
-------
The test data for PM-10 are assigned a C rating because the Method 201A isokinetic requirements
were not met during any of the test runs. The condensable organic PM and CC>2 data are assigned an A
rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.55 Reference 57. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 15 in. w.c. during testing.
The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant
tested in References 58, 59, and 60.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.56 Reference 58. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. However, Run 2 is not considered valid because a sample line connection
opened during the test. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 8.9 in. w.c. during testing. The plant
was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant tested in
References 57, 59, and 60.
The test data are assigned a B rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology
was sound, but only two valid test runs were conducted.
4.2.1.57 Reference 59. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 9.3 in. w.c. during testing.
The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant
tested in References 57, 58, and 60.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.58 Reference 60. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and €62 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 12 in. w.c. during testing.
The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant
tested in References 57, 58, and 59.
4-18
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.59 Reference 61. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was processing about 35 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant,
and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 10 in. w.c. during
testing. The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same
plant tested in Reference 62.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.60 Reference 62. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was processing about 26 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant,
and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 10 in. w.c. during
testing. Although filterable PM loadings were relatively high (0.08 grains/dry standard cubic foot
[G/dscfJ), the facility was in compliance because the plant has been operating since 1957 and must meet a
grain loading of 0.4 G/dscf rather than the NSPS maximum grain loading of 0.04 grains/dscf. This plant is
the same plant tested in Reference 61.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.61 Reference 63. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 52 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COo emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.62 Reference 64. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 40 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-19
-------
4.2.1.63 Reference 65. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a butane-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 30 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.64 Reference 66. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
continuous mix dryer controlled by a multiclone and fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions
were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.65 Reference 67. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The testing was performed to compare emissions
from processing only virgin aggregate to emissions from processing virgin aggregate and RAP. Two test
runs were conducted while processing only virgin aggregate, and three test runs were conducted while
processing about 46 percent RAP. Process rates were provided for each test run. Filterable PM,
condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet during both tests.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). The scrubber pressure drop averaged 10 in. w.c. during testing. The
results showed that filterable PM emissions were about 50 percent less during RAP processing, while
condensable organic PM emissions were about 300 percent greater during RAP processing. As expected,
۩2 emissions were not affected by RAP processing.
The test data for virgin aggregate processing are assigned a B rating because only two test runs
were conducted. The test data for RAP processing are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.66 Reference 68. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 48 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.67 Reference 69. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and ۩2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
4-20
-------
an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.68 Reference 70. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 12.5 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.69 Reference 71. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.70 Reference 72. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and €62 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.71 Reference 73. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 31 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and €62 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.72 Reference 74. This reference documents two emission tests conducted on waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryers controlled by fabric filters. The first facility was processing about 18 percent RAP
during testing, and the second facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable
organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlets. These pollutants were
4-21
-------
measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for
COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant at both plants, and process rates were
provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.73 Reference 75. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an
Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. However, the Run 2 filterable PM data are not considered valid because
the Method 5 isokinetic requirements were not met. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 9.3 in. w.c.
during testing.
The filterable PM data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted.
The condensable organic PM and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.74 Reference 76. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, counter-flow, batch-mix dryer controlled by dual wet scrubbers in series. The facility was
processing about 30 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2
emissions were measured following the second scrubber. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The total
scrubber pressure drop averaged 3.1 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.75 Reference 77. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
counter-flow, batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 4.0 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.76 Reference 78. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. This plant is the same plant tested in References 57-60, but the venturi
scrubber that was in place during the earlier tests was replaced with a fabric filter prior to this test.
4-22
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.77 Reference 79. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 26 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.78 Reference 80. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an
Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but Run 1 was not
completed due to moisture in the pitot tube lines. Process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop averaged 3.3 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.79 Reference 81. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 50 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.80 Reference 82. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 42 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and €62 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.81 Reference 83. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 15 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and €62 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
4-23
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.82 Reference 84. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis).
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.83 Reference 85. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2
emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop was not recorded during testing. During testing, the plant had problems with the
automatic damper, so the damper was manually opened. The problems with the damper caused air flow
problems that may have affected emissions.
The test data are assigned a C rating because of the problems with the automatic damper and the
omission of the scrubber pressure drop.
4.2.1.84 Reference 86. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM,
condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.85 Reference 87. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural gas and
coal-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2
emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop averaged between 20 and 22 in. w.c. during testing.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM,
condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.86 Reference 88. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural gas and
coal-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
4-24
-------
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis), Method 3 (with a
Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and a modified Method 6 (analysis of Method 5 back-half catch with a
barium perchlorate and thorin titration). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run. However, the Run 3 filter was contaminated, invalidating the
filterable PM data from Run 3. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 16 in. w.c. during testing.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The SC>2 test data are
assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.87 Reference 89. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The amount of RAP processed was not discussed in
the report. Therefore, it is assumed that the facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM
and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the use of RAP is not addressed in the report and
only an average process rate is provided. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.88 Reference 90. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The amount of RAP processed was not discussed in
the report. Therefore, it is assumed that the facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM
and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the use of RAP is not addressed in the report and
only an average process rate is provided. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.89 Reference 91. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.90 Reference 92. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for the test. Run 1 failed to
meet the Method 5 isokinetic requirements, and the Run 1 filterable PM data are not considered valid.
4-25
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided and only
two valid Method 5 runs were conducted. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.91 Reference 93. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.92 Reference 94. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.93 Reference 95. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer for CO2 analysis). Four test
runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because an unspecified analyzer (Fyrite or Orsat) was
used. The filterable PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.94 Reference 96. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a drum-mix dryer
controlled by a venturi scrubber. The fuel used to fire the dryer is not specified, and the use of RAP is not
addressed in the report. Filterable PM, condensable PM, and COo emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
an unspecified method for CC^. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were
provided for each test run. Run 3 failed to meet the Method 5 isokinetic requirements, and the Run 3 data
are not considered valid.
The test data are assigned a D rating because the dryer fuel is not specified, the use of RAP is not
addressed, and the scrubber pressure drop is not included in the report.
4.2.1.95 Reference 97. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
4-26
-------
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.96 Reference 98. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-
(25 percent) and coal- (75 percent) fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not
processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, SC^, and combined sulfur trioxide (SO^) and
sulfuric acid (t^SC^) emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured
using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis), Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis),
and EPA Method 8 for the determination of SC>2 and ^804 emissions. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The SC>2 and ^804 data are not
considered valid because high gas stream moisture contents caused a low bias in the SC>2 measurements
and a high bias in the ^804 measurements.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported except for the biases in the SC>2 and ^804 data.
4.2.1.97 Reference 99. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber
pressure drop was 13 to 14 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.98 Reference 100. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
(assumed) dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified, and the
facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5
(front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). In addition, a
Method 5 back-half acetone rinse was performed per Pennsylvania protocol. The data from this acetone
rinse are not used for emission factor development because they are not comparable to condensable PM
data obtained using EPA methodology. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run. However, Run 3 was cut short due to process shutdown and is not
considered valid.
The test data are assigned a C rating because adequate details about the process are not included in
the report and only two valid test runs were conducted.
4.2.1.99 Reference 101. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
4-27
-------
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.100 Reference 102. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. The filterable PM measurements are not valid because all three test runs failed the Method 5
isokinetic requirements.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are not rated because of the problems discussed above.
4.2.1.101 Reference 103. This reference documents an emission test conducted on anatural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 15 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.102 Reference 104. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for
the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided for the
test. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.103 Reference 105. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was
provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided for the
test. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4-28
-------
4.2.1.104 Reference 106. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.105 Reference 107. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 26 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.106 Reference 108. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil- and
coal-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), Method 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for COo analysis), and a modified Method 6 (analysis of Method 5 back-half catch with a barium
perchlorate and thorin titration). Two valid test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. During the third test run, the filter was contaminated, invalidating the
filterable PM data from Run 3. An SC>2 analysis was not conducted for Run 3. The scrubber pressure
drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The report
includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.107 Reference 109. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer for COo analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop was not provided in the report.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because the type of analyzer was not specified. The PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.108 Reference 110. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2
4-29
-------
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.109 Reference 111. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.110 Reference 112. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.111 Reference 113. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo
analysis). Six test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. However, three of the test runs failed post-test leak checks, and the data from these test runs are not
valid.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.112 Reference 114. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4-30
-------
4.2.1.113 Reference 117 . This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 12 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.114 Reference 118. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.115 Reference 119. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
unspecified methods for CC>2 and SC>2 (apparently EPA Method 3 and a modified Method 5 (back-half)
with a barium perchlorate and thorin titration). Three valid test runs were conducted for each pollutant,
and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during
testing. The fuel oil contained 0.35 percent sulfur.
The CC>2 and SC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because adequate detail about the test methods
are not included in the report. The PM data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail
and the test methodology appears to be sound.
4.2.1.116 Reference 121. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.117 Reference 122. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 16 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet using EPA Method 5
(front-half analysis). Three test runs were conducted, and process rates were provided for each test run.
4-31
-------
Two tons per hour of hydrated lime were added to the mix during each test run. This addition did not
appear to affect emissions of the measured pollutants.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.118 Reference 123. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.119 Reference 124. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 22 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.120 Reference 125. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.121 Reference 126. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-
(30 percent) and coal- (70 percent) fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not
processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), Method 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and a modified EPA Method 8 for the determination of SC>2 and SO^
emissions. Insufficient information about the SO^ test is provided in the report. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
and SC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4-32
-------
4.2.1.122 Reference 128. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.123 Reference 130. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. However, only two of the test runs were
completed because of a plant shutdown.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no other problems were reported.
4.2.1.124 Reference 132. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal-
(95 percent) and natural gas- (5 percent) fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility
did not process RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM,
and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.125 Reference 133. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal-
(90 percent) and natural gas- (10 percent) fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. During
Run 1, the facility used only natural gas, but the emissions did not differ significantly from Runs 2 and 3.
The facility did not process RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable
organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured
using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. A small leak was detected during the Run 2 post-test leak check, and the gas volume was corrected
per the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.126 Reference 135. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for
4-33
-------
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for
the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided for the
test. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.127 Reference 137. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The test included two test runs while
processing virgin aggregate and two runs while processing about 31 percent RAP. Filterable PM and CC>2
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5
(front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis). Four test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. Two additional test runs
(one for virgin aggregate and one for RAP) were planned, but and electrical storm and plant electrical
problems caused the runs to be canceled. The data for virgin aggregate and RAP processing are presented
separately in the summary tables of this background report.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.128 Reference 138. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.129 Reference 139. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer (unspecified fuel) controlled by a scrubber. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. The scrubber pressure drop was not documented in the report.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the report did not contain sufficient detail about the
process. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.130 Reference 140. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for €62
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for
the test.
4-34
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided.
Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.131 Reference 141. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 29 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, Method 3 (with an unspecified
analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and NIOSH Method 3500, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop was not
provided in the report.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because the type of analyzer was not specified. The
formaldehyde data are assigned a D rating because of the test method is not believed to accurately quantify
emissions from this type of source. The PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.132 Reference 142. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 35 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COo
emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis).
Emissions of several metals were quantified by atomic absorption analysis of the Method 5 filter catch.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop was between 13 and 14 in. w.c. during testing.
The PM and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems were reported. The metals data are assigned a
D rating because the test method appeared to differ significantly from the EPA Reference method.
4.2.1.133 Reference 143. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CC^, and formaldehyde emissions
were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis), Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis), and NIOSH Method 3500,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each
test run.
The formaldehyde data are assigned a D rating because of the test method is not believed to
accurately quantify emissions from this type of source. The PM and COo data are assigned an A rating.
The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.134 Reference 144. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 38 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run. However, only two of the test runs were valid because of atypical process operations during
Run 1.
4-35
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no other problems were reported.
4.2.1.135 Reference 145. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were
measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure
drop was greater than 15 in. w.c. during testing. The filterable PM emissions from this facility are higher
than most of the other similar facilities tested.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.136 Reference 146. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 31 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer
for CC>2 analysis), and NIOSH Method 3500, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 19 in.
w.c. during testing.
The formaldehyde data are assigned a D rating because of the test method is not believed to
accurately quantify emissions from this type of source. The PM and COo data are assigned an A rating.
The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.137 Reference 147. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.138 Reference 148. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 5 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 50 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and condensable inorganic PM emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis).
Three test runs were conducted, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure
drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-36
-------
4.2.1.139 Reference 149. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), EPA Method 10, New Jersey
Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis).
Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but Run 3 is not considered valid because it failed a
post-test leak check. Process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM, CO, and
TOC test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.140 Reference 153. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, NOX, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), EPA Method 7D, New
Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant (five COo runs), and process rates were
provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the report lacks sufficient background
documentation. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.141 Reference 154. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), EPA Method 10, New Jersey
Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis).
Three test runs were conducted for PM and CO2, and one test run was conducted for CO and TOC.
Process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The CO and TOC
data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was performed. The PM test data are assigned an
A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.142 Reference 155. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Carbon monoxide, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 10, New Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A),
and EPA Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because the analyzer was not specified. The CO and
TOC test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.143 Reference 160. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
4-37
-------
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, EPA Method 10, New Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA
Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. Carbon monoxide was
only detected in one of three test runs, and TOC were not detected during any test run. The CO and TOC
data conflict with all of the other data available for similar sources and are not considered valid.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.144 Reference 161. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, EPA Method 10, New Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA
Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The TOC data indicate
that emissions from this source are more than an order of magnitude greater than TOC emissions from
similar sources.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The TOC test data
are assigned a C rating because the magnitude of emissions is not consistent with emissions from similar
sources. The filterable PM and CO test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail,
the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.145 Reference 162. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Multiple metals, lead, chromium (and hexavalent chromium (Cr ), CO2, PAH, benzene, and
formaldehyde emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 29 (draft method at the time of the test), CARB Method 12, CARB Method 425, CARB
Method 429, CARB Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer), CARB Method 410A, and CARB
Method 430, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant (eight CO2 measurements),
and production rates were provided for each test run. The multiple metals test detected mercury, zinc, and
manganese during both runs, and detected cadmium, copper, and lead during one run. Arsenic, beryllium,
nickel, and selenium were not detected. The lead test detected lead during both test runs, and the chromium
test detected chromium (however, Cr was not detected) during both test runs. The PAH test indicated
that naphthalene was the primary PAH emitted from the source. Phenanthrene was also detected by both
test runs, and anthracene was detected during one run. Insufficient information on the benzene and
formaldehyde tests was provided in the report.
Most of the test data are assigned a B rating. Data for compounds that were not detected during
one test run are assigned a C rating, and data for pollutants that were not detected during any test run are
not rated. Except as noted, the report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.146 Reference 163. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Multiple metals, chromium (and Cr ), CO2, PAH, and benzene emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 29 (draft method at the time of the
test), CARB Method 425, CARB Method 429, CARB Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer), and
CARB Method 410A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant (two chromium tests
4-38
-------
and eight CC>2 measurements), and production rates were provided for each test run. The multiple metals
test detected copper, mercury, nickel, zinc, and manganese during all three runs. Arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, lead, and selenium were not detected during any test run. The chromium test detected chromium
during both test runs and Cr during one test run. Hexavalent chromium emissions were estimated for the
non-detect run as one-half of the detection limit. Hexavalent chromium accounted for about 18 percent of
the total chromium emissions during the two tests. The PAH test indicated that naphthalene was the
primary PAH emitted from the source. Fluorene and phenanthrene also were detected by all three test runs,
and pyrene was detected during one run. Insufficient information on the benzene test was provided in the
report.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The chromium data are assigned a B rating because
only two test runs were conducted, and the Cr data are assigned a C rating because one of two runs did
not detect Cr . Except as noted, the report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.147 Reference 164. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Multiple metals, chromium (and Cr ), arsenic, CO2, PAH, benzene and formaldehyde emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 29 (draft method
at the time of the test), CARB Method 425, CARB Method 423, CARB Method 429, CARB Method 3
(with an unspecified analyzer), CARB Method 410A, and CARB Method 430, respectively. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant (nine COo measurements), and production rates were provided for
each test run. The multiple metals test detected copper, mercury, nickel, lead, zinc, and manganese during
all three runs. Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and selenium were not detected during any test run. The
chromium test detected chromium during all three test runs, but did not detect Cr during any test run.
The arsenic test did not detect arsenic during any test run; this finding agrees with the multiple metals test
results. The PAH test indicated that naphthalene was the primary PAH emitted from the source. Fluorene
and phenanthrene also were detected by all three test runs, and no other PAH were detected. Insufficient
information on the benzene and formaldehyde tests was provided in the report.
The test data are assigned an A rating. Except as noted, the report contained adequate detail, the
test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.148 Reference 165. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and 3A, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant. This facility is
the same facility described in Reference 170. However, during the test described in Reference 170, No. 2
fuel oil was used to fire the dryer.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.149 Reference 166. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 17.2 in. w.c. The report stated that the
4-39
-------
demister/particle separator may not have been operating properly. This may have caused collected PM to
become reentrained in the gas stream.
The filterable PM data are assigned a D rating because of the possible problem with the control
system. The CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.150 Reference 167. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
Run 1 of the filterable PM test was not valid because the isokinetic variation was greater than 110 percent.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were
conducted. The CC>2 data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.151 Reference 168. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 27 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Four test runs were conducted, but
the PM data from three of the runs are not valid because the isokinetic variation exceeded the Method 5
requirements. Three of the test runs included CC>2 measurements.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a C rating because only one valid test run was performed.
The COo test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.152 Reference 170. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. This facility
is the same facility described in Reference 165. However, during the test described in Reference 165,
propane was used to fire the dryer.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.153 Reference 171. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. A Method 5 back-half analysis was performed, but
the analysis was not described; therefore, only filterable PM measurements were used. Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail,
the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-40
-------
4.2.1.154 Reference 172. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The pressure drop across the venturi scrubber was 15.7 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.155 Reference 173. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Test Run 1
was not valid because the isokinetic variation was less than the required 90 percent.
The test data are assigned a C rating. Run 1 was not valid because a leak was detected during the
post-test leak check. Also, only an average production rate was given. The test methodology was sound
and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.156 Reference 174. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.157 Reference 175. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), respectively. Two test
runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.158 Reference 176. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 201/202 and 3A,
respectively. Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Run 1 had an isokinetic variation greater
than 110 percent and was replaced with test run 4.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.159 Reference 177. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC>2 and lead emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
4-41
-------
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 12, respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant. The moisture could not accurately be measured during Run 1. The isokinetic variation
was below the required 90 percent during Run 2. During Runs 2 and 3, aggregate was dried, but asphalt
was not produced because production was canceled for the day. Because the plant is a batch mix plant, the
emissions from Run 3 should be representative of typical operations. The scrubber pressure drop is not
provided in the report.
The test data are assigned a C rating because of the problems discussed above.
4.2.1.160 Reference 178. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, COo, and lead emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 12, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.161 Reference 179. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and lead emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and 12, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The moisture content could not be determined on run 2;
therefore, the average of test runs 1 and 3 was used. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was reported as
.21 in. w.c. which was interpreted as 21 in. w.c.. The facility tested is the same facility described in
Reference 183.
The test data are assigned a B rating due to the problem measuring the moisture content in run 2.
The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.162 Reference 180. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The test report mentioned fabric filter and scrubber
for the control device used. After examining the data sheets, it appears that the control being used is a
fabric filter The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a
Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.163 Reference 181. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-42
-------
4.2.1.164 Reference 182. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
An average production rate was provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was reported. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.165 Reference 183. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and lead emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 12, respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in Reference 179.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the venturi scrubber pressure drop was not provided
in the report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.166 Reference 184. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.167 Reference 186. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.168 Reference 187. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the wet scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was greater than 9 in w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.169 Reference 188. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural gas
or No. 2 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not
provided in the report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble
and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA
approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data
were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-43
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating. The report includes adequate detail except for type of fuel
being used, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.170 Reference 189. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal and
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis) and 8,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The first test run was found to be out of
compliance (for PM).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The other test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, no problems were reported, and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.171 Reference 190. This reference documents an emission test conducted on aNo. 2 fuel
oil- and coal-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 8, respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.172 Reference 191. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a drum-mix
dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report. Filterable
PM and COo emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured
using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The
venturi scrubber pressure drop was given as 0.11 in w.c.
The test data are assigned a C rating. The fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The test
methodology was sound. A notice of violation was issued for excess particulate emissions.
4.2.1.173 Reference 192. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.174 Reference 193. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3A,
respectively. A total of three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-44
-------
4.2.1.175 Reference 195. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.176 Reference 196. This reference documents an emission test conducted on No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. However, the Method 5 sampling train was
modified per San Diego requirements, which specify that the front-half filter be removed from the sampling
train. Therefore, the PM data are not comparable to other available data and are not used for emission
factor development. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided in
the report. The CC>2 test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.177 Reference 197. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CC^, and CO emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which according to a phone conversation with
Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5,
3A, and 10, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.178 Reference 198. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 6 percent RAP during
test run #1. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in
Reference 205. However, during the test described in Reference 205, No. 4 fuel oil was used to fire the
dryer.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.179 Reference 199. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-45
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.180 Reference 200. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a reprocessed
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, only the filterable PM data were used
to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the
same facility described in Reference 202.
The test data are assigned a B rating due to minor problems with Test 1. The report includes
adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.181 Reference 201. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a reprocessed
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, only the filterable PM data were used
to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.182 Reference 202. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 200.
The test data are assigned a C rating. The fuel type was not specified. The test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.183 Reference 203. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-46
-------
4.2.1.184 Reference 204. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CC>2 and CO emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which according to a phone conversation with
Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5,
3A, and 10, respectively. The CO value for Run #2 was a low estimate, but was included in developing
emission factors since it was the highest of the three measurements. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating. The test report was lacking in detail. The test methodology
was sound. Run #2 for CO was a low estimate.
4.2.1.185 Reference 205. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a #4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 14 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 198. However, during the test described in Reference 198, natural gas was used to
fire the dryer.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.186 Reference 206. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The report indicated that the facility was
processing 100 percent RAP during testing, but this information is assumed to be incorrect because
technology is not available to produce HMA using 100 percent RAP. Filterable PM, condensable
inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.187 Reference 209. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a parallel-flow,
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The dryer is equipped with a "low-NOx"
burner. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report. Filterable PM, COo, CO, NOx, and
hydrocarbons emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using
EPA Methods 201, 3A, 10, 7e, and 25A respectively. A back-half PM analysis was performed, but the
method used was not described and the PM was not labeled as condensable inorganic or condensable
organic. Therefore, the condensable PM data are not used for emission factor development. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.188 Reference 210. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, COo, and TOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
4-47
-------
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 25A, respectively. Weights are recorded for
soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to
EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM
data were not used to develop emission factors. It was noted during sample clean-up that there was a film
of oil in the impinger catch. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.189 Reference 211. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and TOC emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified to incorporate Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources requirements), 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), and 25A,
respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method
does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM
emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. The venturi
scrubber pressure drop is 20.5 in. w.c.. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The TOC data
are provided "as methane" and converted to a propane basis. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 212.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The other test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.190 Reference 212. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing 25 percent RAP
for Run 4 only. Filterable PM, COo, and TOC (as propane) emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified to incorporate
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PA DER) requirements), 3A (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CO2 analysis), and 25A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 21 in w.c.. Four test runs were
conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in Reference 211.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The other test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.191 Reference 213. This reference documents an emission test conducted on anatural
gas-fired, batch-mix (assumed) dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not
provided in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half
analyses) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the process type (batch or drum) was not explicitly
stated in the report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-48
-------
4.2.1.192 Reference 214. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, SC^, CO, CC^, NOx, and TOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5,6, 10, 3A, 7e, and 25A, respectively. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant. In addition, a particle size analysis was performed with a cascade
impactor (two test runs). The particle size data are used to calculate PM-2.5 and PM-1 emission factors.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.193 Reference 215. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CC^, and CO emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which according to a phone conversation with
Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5,
3A, and 10, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. All three CO measurements
indicated that the CO concentration was above the instrument calibration range. Therefore, CO emissions
are estimated as the upper limit of the calibration range, or 2,000 ppm. The process type was obtained
from Mr. Chuck McClure by telephone. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 216
and 217.
The CO test data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates based on the upper
limit of the calibration range. The other test data are assigned a B rating because the test report does not
contain sufficient detail. The test methodology appeared to be sound.
4.2.1.194 Reference 216. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, CO2, and CO emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which
according to a phone conversation with Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 10, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 215 and 217.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the test report does not contain sufficient detail. The
test methodology appeared to be sound.
4.2.1.195 Reference 217. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, CO2 and CO emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which
according to a phone conversation with Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 10, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 215 and 216.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the test report does not contain sufficient detail. The
test methodology appeared to be sound.
4.2.1.196 Reference 218. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
4-49
-------
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.197 Reference 219. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal and
liquid propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis
method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM
emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.198 Reference 220. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.199 Reference 221. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.200 Reference 222. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 22 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (PA DER) and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating. The isokinetic factor for two of the three runs exceeded
110 percent. The problem was traced to the delta H gauge which was reading approximately 10 percent
high.
4-50
-------
4.2.1.201 Reference 223. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for back-half filterable PM,
but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.202 Reference 224. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.203 Reference 225. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.204 Reference 226. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
The test included measurements of trace metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, mercury,
manganese, nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc), hexavalent and total chromium, PAH, formaldehyde, benzene,
CC>2, SC>2, ozone (O^), and NOX. These pollutants (except for O^) were measured using EPA reference
test methods or CARB equivalent methods.
The test data (except for O^) are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound and no problems were reported. The O^ data are assigned a D rating because the
methodology was not described in detail (although the report specified the use of CEM) and EPA has not
validated the use of CEM for measuring O^.
4.2.1.205 Reference 229. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Particulate matter (particle size analysis), COo (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), CO, and
NOx emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using CARB
Methods 501 and 100. The particle size analysis was performed with a cascade impactor, and the particle
4-51
-------
size data are used to calculate filterable PM, PM-10, PM-2.5, and PM-1 emission factors. Three test runs
were conducted for CO and NOx. Two test runs were conducted for all other pollutants.
The CO and NOx data are rated A. The COo data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite gas
analyzer was used. The PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted.
The test methodology was sound, the report contained sufficient detail, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.206 Reference 231. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 237 and 238. The filterable PM
data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until after
the impingers).
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.207 Reference 232. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 233 through 235. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.208 Reference 233. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 232, 234, and 235. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.209 Reference 234. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 232, 233, and 235. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.210 Reference 235. This reference documents an emission test conducted on anatural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
4-52
-------
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 232 through 234. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.211 Reference 236. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 10 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and VOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified), 3, and 25, respectively. Weights are
recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be
comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the
condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for PM
and CC>2. Two valid test runs were conducted for VOCs.
The PM and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The VOC data are assigned a D rating
because a positive bias in Method 25 results may occur when the product of the moisture content and ۩2
concentration of the stack gas is greater than 100, which was the case during all of the test runs. Also, only
two of the Method 25 test runs were valid. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound (except as noted), and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.212 Reference 237. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and €62 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The
facility tested is the same facility described in References 231 and 238. The filterable PM data are not
considered valid because a modified method was used (no filter until after the impingers).
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.213 Reference 238. This reference documents an emission test conducted on anatural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The
facility tested is the same facility described in References 231 and 237. The filterable PM data are not
considered valid because a modified method was used (no filter until after the impingers).
The ۩2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.214 Reference 239. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and ۩2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but two of the
PM measurements were not valid because two test runs did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic
requirements.
4-53
-------
The PM test data are assigned a C rating because only one valid test run was conducted. The CC>2
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.215 Reference 240. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.216 Reference 241. This reference documents an emission test conducted on aNo. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and TOC (as propane) emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 25A, respectively. Weights are
recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be
comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the
condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop is 14 in w.c.. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 242. However, prior to the test described in Reference 242, the venturi scrubber
was replaced with a fabric filter.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.217 Reference 242. This reference documents an emission test conducted on aNo. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, COo, and TOC (as propane) emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 25A, respectively. Weights are recorded for
soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to
EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM
data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The
facility tested is the same facility described in Reference 241. However, following the test described in
Reference 241, the venturi scrubber was replaced with a fabric filter.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.218 Reference 243. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis) emissions were measured at the
venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 14-15 in w.c..
4-54
-------
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.219 Reference 244. This reference documents an emission test conducted on anatural
gas-fired, continuous-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.220 Reference 245. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
After the second test run, plant personnel found that a bag in the baghouse had slid off the cage, leaving a
hole in the tube sheet through which particulate was being emitted. Therefore, the PM data from Runs 1
and 2 are not valid. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 246 and 247.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were
conducted. The CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.221 Reference 246. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 7 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility
described in References 245 and 247, but a different fuel was used during this test.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.222 Reference 247. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The facility tested is the same facility described in References 245 and 246.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.223 Reference 248. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-55
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.224 Reference 249. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
No. 2 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions
were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front-
and back-half analyses) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating. Only the average process rate is reported. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.225 Reference 250. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.226 Reference 251. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The pressure
drop across the venturi scrubber is 20 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.227 Reference 252. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 20 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions
were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.228 Reference 253. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.229 Reference 254. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 20 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO, and
4-56
-------
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5
(front- and back-half analyses), 10, and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.230 Reference 255. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer), and a modified Method 8
(back-half of the Method 5 train) with a barium perchlorate and thorin titration). The scrubber pressure
drop was 11.2 in. w.c.. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned a B rating because the first test run was outside of the acceptable isokinetic range.
The SC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology was sound and no other problems were
reported.
4.2.1.231 Reference 256. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.232 Reference 257. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.233 Reference 258. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 14 in. w.c.. The filterable PM data from Run 3 are not
valid because the test did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic requirements.
The filterable PM test data assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted.
The CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology was sound and no problems were
reported.
4-57
-------
4.2.1.234 Reference 259. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), respectively. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 10 in. w.c..
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.235 Reference 260. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a drum-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel type was not specified. The test
methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.236 Reference 261. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses), and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the report only includes an average production rate.
The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.237 Reference 262. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing 11 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2
emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5
(front- and back-half analyses), and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 20 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.238 Reference 263. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-fired
batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-58
-------
4.2.1.239 Reference 264. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a cyclone/fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.240 Reference 265. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a cyclone/fabric filter. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.241 Reference 266. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 11 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.242 Reference 267. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.243 Reference 268. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions
were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses), and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but a
process upset invalidated the Run 1 test results. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 21 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted and only an
average process rate was provided in the report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4-59
-------
4.2.1.244 Reference 269. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
No. 2 fuel oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.245 Reference 270. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.246 Reference 271. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
Reference 273 This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel oil-fired, drum-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.247 Reference 274. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-60
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.248 Reference 275. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a #4 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
Test run three was completed with a leak rate slightly above the allowable set by the method. The dry gas
volume was corrected according to paragraph 6.5 of Method 5. No other problems were encountered.
The test data are assigned a B rating because of the leak that was detected in Run 3. The report
contained adequate detail, and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.249 Reference 276. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating because only two test runs were conducted. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.250 Reference 277. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test run for the facility documented
in Reference 276. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.251 Reference 278. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test run for the facility documented
in References 276 and 277. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a
modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.252 Reference 279. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
4-61
-------
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test run for the facility documented
in references 276, 277, and 278. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development
because a modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.253 Reference 280. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.254 Reference 281. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.255 Reference 282. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, CC^, and CO emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using Methods ST-15 (front- and back-half analyses),
ST-5, and ST-6 which according to a phone conversation with Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5,3, and 10, respectively. Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.256 Reference 283. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average production rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.257 Reference 284. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
4-62
-------
The sampling train was modified to use a front- and back-half filter. The back-half filter was placed
between the third and fourth impinger. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.258 Reference 285. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test for the facility documented in
reference 284. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.259 Reference 286. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The filterable PM data are
not used for emission factor development because a modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.260 Reference 287. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test for the facility documented in
Reference 286. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.261 Reference 288. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The filterable PM data are
not used for emission factor development because a modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
4-63
-------
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.262 Reference 289. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test for the facility documented in
Reference 288. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.263 Reference 290. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an asphalt
plant with a batch-mix dryer, controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and
3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop
was 5 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned a C rating because only an average production rate was reported and the
fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.264 Reference 291. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an asphalt
plant with a batch-mix dryer, controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and
3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop
was 5 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.265 Reference 292. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.266 Reference 293. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
4-64
-------
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.267 Reference 294. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.268 Reference 295. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 30 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.269 Reference 296. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using Method ST-15 and ST-24, respectively. According to Mr. Chuck McClure of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District these methods are equivalent to EPA Methods 5 and 3. Carbon
monoxide emissions also were measured, but the sampling and analysis method is not specified in the
report. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM and COo test data are assigned a B rating because the test report did not provide sufficient
detail, and only an average process rate was provided. The CO test data are assigned a D rating because
the test method is not specified in the report. No problems were reported.
4.2.1.270 Reference 297. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.271 Reference 298. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-65
-------
4.2.1.272 Reference 299. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 21 percent RAP
during testing. Sulfur dioxide emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet using EPA Method 6.
Three test runs were conducted. A neutralizing agent was used in the drum to reduce SOo emissions.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.273 Reference 300. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3, and 8, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average production rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.274 Reference 301. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4-6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 24 percent RAP for the
first two runs and zero percent RAP for the third run. Filterable PM, COo, HC1, Cd, Cr, and lead
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using standard EPA
Methods according to the test report, but the methods were not specified by number. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating since the report did not state the exact test methods used.
The test methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.275 Reference 302. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, counter-flow, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not
provided in the report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contains adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.276 Reference 303. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contains adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.277 Reference 304. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for insoluble back-half
4-66
-------
participate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for
determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop
emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The filterable PM data from Run 3
are not considered valid because the test did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic requirements.
The filterable PM data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted.
The CC>2 data are assigned an A rating. The report contains adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.278 Reference 306. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. One test run
was conducted for each pollutant. The PM data are not used for emission factor development because a
modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter). The venturi scrubber pressure drop was not given.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 307.
The COo test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.279 Reference 307. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. One test run
was conducted for each pollutant. The PM data are not used for emission factor development because a
modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter). The venturi scrubber pressure drop was not given.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 306.
The ۩2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.280 Reference 308. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 312. However, during the test described in Reference
312, No. 2 fuel oil was used to fire the dryer.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.281 Reference 309. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for COo analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4-67
-------
4.2.1.282 Reference 310. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CC>2 analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for filterable PM and CC^, but
only two runs included condensable inorganic PM measurements. This is the same facility documented in
Reference 313.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The condensable
inorganic PM data are assigned a B rating because only two runs were conducted. The filterable PM test
data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and
no problems were reported.
4.2.1.283 Reference 311. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.284 Reference 312. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CC>2 analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. This is the
same facility documented in Reference 308. However, during the test described in Reference 308, natural
gas was used to fire the dryer.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.285 Reference 313. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 310.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.286 Reference 314. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-68
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.287 Reference 315. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and lead emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and 12, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and lead data are assigned a B rating because only two valid runs were
conducted. The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The report
included adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.288 Reference 316. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.289 Reference 317. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, lead, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5, 12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), respectively. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Two of the three lead runs were non-detect, and emissions for
these runs are estimated as one-half of the detection limit.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The lead test data
are assigned a C rating because lead was not detected during two of the test runs. The filterable PM test
data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and
no problems were reported.
4.2.1.290 Reference 318. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, lead, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5, 12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), respectively. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Lead was not detected during any test run, and emissions are
estimated as one-half of the detection limit
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The lead test data
are assigned a C rating because lead was not detected during any test run. The filterable PM test data are
assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.291 Reference 319. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, lead, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5, 12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis), respectively. Three
4-69
-------
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Lead was not detected during any test run, and emissions are
estimated as one-half of the detection limit
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The lead test data
are assigned a C rating because lead was not detected during any test run. The filterable PM test data are
assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.292 Reference 320. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an off
specification waste oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.293 Reference 321. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an off
specification oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, lead, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5,12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COo analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
and lead test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.294 Reference 322. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA method 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 23 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.295 Reference 323. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (as modified by PADER) and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for
soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to
EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM
data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and COo test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.296 Reference 324. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
4-70
-------
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 10.7 in. w.c.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.297 Reference 325. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer (fuel not specified) controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.298 Reference 326. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CO2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.299 Reference 327. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and COo test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.300 Reference 328. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CO2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-71
-------
4.2.1.301 Reference 329. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.302 Reference 330. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 13 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average production rate was reported. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.303 Reference 331. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer (unspecified fuel) controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.304 Reference 332. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 6.2 in. w.c.. This is the same facility documented in
Reference 333.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology was sound and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.305 Reference 333. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA method 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 7.15 in. w.c.. This is the same facility documented in
Reference 332.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.306 Reference 334. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
4-72
-------
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), respectively. Five test
runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.307 Reference 335. This reference documents an emission test conducted on parallel-flow
drum-mix dryer (unspecified fuel) controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Method 5, as modified by PADER, and Method 3, respectively. Weights are
recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be
comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the
condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer
was not specified. The test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.308 Reference 336. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal- and
natural gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM data from Run 2 are not valid because the test did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic
requirements.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were
conducted. The CC>2 data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.309 Reference 337. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CC^, PAH, and TOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3 (with an Orsat analyzer), 23, and 25A, respectively. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant, and production rates were provided for each test run. The PAH
test indicated that naphthalene was the primary PAH emitted from the source. Acenaphthene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and chrysene also were detected by all three test runs.
Benzo(a)anthracene was detected during one test run, and no other PAH were detected.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.310 Reference 338. This reference was deleted and the reference number is not used.
4.2.1.311 Reference 339 (Plant A). This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
continuous, counter-flow, double-barrel, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with recycled No. 2 fuel oil.
Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 23 percent
RAP during three of the four test runs (Runs 1 through 3). The fourth test run was conducted while the
facility was processing only virgin aggregate. The test included measurements of filterable particulate
matter (PM), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs or dioxins), polychlorinated dibenzofurans
4-73
-------
(PCDFs or furans), trace metals, speciated organic compounds, total hydrocarbons (called total organic
compounds [TOC] for the remainder of this document), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (802)
at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet.
Dioxins and furans were sampled at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using EPA Method 23. The
inlet emission data were not rated and were not used to develop emission factors, as the report identifies the
inlet tests as not valid due to low sample volume of about 11 dry standard cubic feet and a short sample
duration of 20 minutes. The sampling was aborted due to sampling difficulties associated with high PM
grain loadings at the fabric-filter inlet. As a result of the sampling difficulties, only one inlet sample run
was attempted. Although the sample volume was low, 19 out of 25 congeners had reported values.
However, since only one sample run was attempted, the inlet data were not used for emission factor
development since another test had multiple runs with reported values. Three tests with RAP and one
without RAP were performed at the fabric-filter outlet. These data do not indicate any difference in PCDD
or PCDF emissions associated with processing of RAP. Therefore, the data from all four outlet test runs
were combined to develop an average emission factor for each specific PCDD and PCDF compound that
was quantified.
Filterable PM and trace metals emissions were sampled using EPA Method 29. The testing
initially included simultaneous measurements at the inlet and outlet of the fabric filter. However, the grain
loading at the fabric-filter inlet far exceeded the sampling capacity of the sampling trains. As a result,
attempts to measure fabric-filter inlet PM and trace metals emissions were discontinued. The PM and
metals testing that was completed at the fabric-filter inlet is not considered valid. During production with
RAP, beryllium was not detected during any of the sampling runs, cobalt was detected only during the first
run, and silver and thallium were detected during two of the sampling runs. There were two instances
where the target metal was detected, but was present at a concentration less than the concentration detected
in the reagent blank samples. In these two cases (silver during the second run and antimony during the
third run), a value of zero has been reported. Similarly, during production without RAP, antimony, silver,
and selenium were detected at quantities below the concentration in the reagent blanks. For these three
metals, values of zero have been reported. In general, the metals emissions measured during the non-RAP
test run (Run 4) were slightly lower than during Runs 1 through 3. However, the results of the RAP and
non-RAP testing are similar and the data from all four test runs were combined to calculate average
emission factors for each metal. Visible emissions (VE) observations also were conducted using EPA
Method 9, but VE data are not useful for emission factor development.
The following speciated organic compounds were measured using EPA Method 320 (Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy [FTIR]): toluene, hexane, ethylene, methane, formaldehyde,
3-methylpentane, isooctane, butane, 2-methyl-l-pentene, heptane, 1-pentene, and 2-methyl-2-butene.
Carbon monoxide and SC>2 also were measured by EPA Method 320. A single FTIR instrument was used
to measure emissions from both the fabric-filter inlet and outlet. During each of four test runs, the
sampling location was moved between the inlet and outlet several times. In addition, during Runs 3 and 4,
the sample was processed in a condenser prior to analysis, in order to detect as many compounds as
possible. After examining the data, it was determined that all of the measurements, regardless of sampling
location or condenser use, should be averaged together to calculate a single emission rate for each test run.
This decision is based on: (1) the expectation that a fabric filter does not provide any control of the
pollutants measured by FTIR and (2) an examination of the data that showed similar emission levels at the
fabric-filter inlet and outlet and regardless of condenser use. One exception to this methodology for
combining the data is that the post-condenser formaldehyde data are not used because of the high solubility
of formaldehyde. Test runs where the target pollutant was not detected were assigned a value of zero.
4-74
-------
Total organic compound emissions were measured at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using EPA
Method 25A. Because fabric filters are not expected to reduce TOC emissions, the fabric-filter inlet and
outlet data were combined to determine average emissions for each test run. The results are presented on
an "as propane" basis.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the data (except for the inlet Method 23 and Method 29
data, which are not rated), unless more than one test run did not detect the targeted pollutant. In such
cases, the data were assigned a B rating. In some cases, the dioxin and furan test run values are estimates;
where more than one test run was an estimated value, these emission data also were assigned a B rating.
Similarly, if the combination of non-detect and estimated runs was two or more, the data were assigned a B
rating. The report included substantial detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported
(except as noted above).
4.2.1.312 Reference 340 (Plant B). This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
continuous, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer fired with No. 2 fuel oil. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a knockout box followed by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 18 percent
RAP during two of the three test runs (Runs 1 and 2). The third test run was conducted while the facility
was processing only virgin aggregate. The test included measurements of filterable PM, dioxins and
furans, speciated organic compounds, CO, SC^, total organic compounds, and trace metals at the
fabric-filter inlet and outlet.
Emissions of PCDDs and PCDFs were sampled at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using
EPA Method 23. The vast majority of congeners were not detected at either location during all three test
runs. Due to the extremely high grain loading at the baghouse inlet location, the Method 23 sampling train
was significantly modified and the Method 29 sampling runs significantly shortened for two test runs.
Even with the Method 23 modifications, the high inlet grain loading made it necessary to change the filters
frequently during the sampling runs. A comparison of the fabric-filter inlet and outlet data showed that the
fabric filter achieved considerable reduction of PCDDs and PCDFs. Because of uncertainties associated
with the modifications to the test method (at the fabric-filter inlet), the large difference in the non-detect
values for two of the three runs and the high detection limits for these two runs; a value of half the
non-detect value from these two fabric-filter inlet test data for PCDDs and PCDFs was averaged with a
measured or estimated maximum value if this value was less than the value measured. At the outlet of the
baghouse, no modifications of the Method 23 sampling train were required. However, of the 25 target
congeners, only total TCDF was quantified during one run and total HxCDD was quantified during another
run. Additionally, for the runs where one congener was quantified, an Estimated Maximum Possible
Concentration (EMPC) value could be assigned to one additional congener for one run and to seven
congeners for the other run. The third run had only one congener with an EMPC value. Although the
majority of the congeners were not detected, the detection limits for all of the congeners were significantly
higher than the measured values at Plant A. Test runs (most of the test runs) where the target pollutant was
not detected were assigned a value of half the detection limit. When this value was lower than a value
reported as measurable, it was included to develop the average emission factor for that congener. The data
do not indicate any difference in dioxin or furan emissions associated with processing of RAP. Therefore,
the data from all three outlet test runs were combined to develop an average emission factor for each
specific PCDD and PCDF compound that was quantified.
Filterable PM and trace metals emissions were sampled using EPA Method 29. Antimony,
beryllium, and mercury were not detected during any of the inlet sample runs. Selenium was detected
during one inlet sample run (Run 3). Arsenic, beryllium, cobalt, mercury, and thallium were not detected in
any of the outlet sample runs. In addition, silver was not detected in the third outlet test run. Test runs
4-75
-------
where the target pollutant was not detected were assigned a value of zero. Visible emissions observations
also were conducted using EPA Method 9, but VE data are not useful for emission factor development.
The following speciated organic compounds were measured using EPA Method 320 (FTIR):
toluene, hexane, ethylene, methane, formaldehyde, 3-methylpentane, isooctane, heptane, 1-pentene,
2-methyl-2-butene, and n-pentene. Carbon monoxide and SOo also were measured by EPA Method 320.
A single FTIR instrument was used to measure emissions from both the fabric-filter inlet and outlet.
During each of the three test runs, the instrument was moved between the inlet and outlet several times.
During portions of all three runs, the sample was processed in a condenser prior to analysis, in order to
detect as many compounds as possible. After examining the data, it was determined that all of the
measurements, regardless of sampling location or condenser use, should be averaged together to calculate a
single emission rate for each test run. This decision is based on: (1) the expectation that a fabric filter does
not provide any control of the pollutants measured by FTIR and (2) an examination of the data that showed
similar emission levels at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet and regardless of condenser use. One exception to
this methodology for combining the data is that the post-condenser formaldehyde data are not used because
of the high solubility of formaldehyde. Test runs where the target pollutant was not detected were assigned
a value of zero.
Total organic compound emissions were measured at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using EPA
Method 25A. Because fabric filters are not expected to reduce TOC emissions, the fabric-filter inlet and
outlet data were combined to determine average emissions for each test run. The results are presented on
an "as propane" basis.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the test data, unless more than one test run did not detect the
targeted pollutant, in which case the data were assigned a B rating. A rating of B was assigned to most of
the dioxin/furan data, because most of the test runs did not detect the targeted pollutant, or the reported
values are estimates. The report included substantial detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported (except as documented above).
4.2.1.313 Reference 341. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, benzene, CO, CO2, and NOX at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by
Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant. The report does not specify the method used to measure benzene, CO, or
NOX emissions.
The PM, formaldehyde, and CO2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NOX, and
benzene data were not rated because the test methods were not specified in the report.
4.2.1.314 Reference 342. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, CO, CO2, and NOX at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable
PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and
EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The report does not specify the method used to measure CO or NO emissions.
4-76
-------
The PM, formaldehyde, and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO and NOX, data
were not rated because the test methods were not specified in the report.
4.2.1.315 Reference 343. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 23 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, COo, benzene, chlorobenzene, and dichlorobenzene at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CC>2 concentrations
were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report
does not specify the method used to measure benzene, chlorobenzene, or dichlorobenzene emissions. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM, formaldehyde, and COo test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The benzene,
chlorobenzene, and dichlorobenzene data were not rated because the test method was not specified in the
report.
4.2.1.316 Reference 344. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 24 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, CO, NOX, CO2, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by
Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report does not specify
the method used to measure CO, NOY, or benzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each
A.
pollutant.
The PM, formaldehyde, and COo test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NOX, and
benzene data were not rated because the test methods were not specified in the report.
4.2.1.317 Reference 345. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 10 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, SO2, CO2, benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene
at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SO2 emissions
were measured using EPA Method 6; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 18
was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene emissions. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit in all test runs.
The PM, SO2, CO2, and benzene data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.318 Reference 346. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 24 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, CO, CO2, NOX, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17, and CO2 concentrations were measured by
4-77
-------
Orsat. The report does not specify the method used to measure CO, NOX, formaldehyde, or benzene
emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM and COo data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NOX, formaldehyde, and benzene data
are not rated because the test methods were not specified.
4.2.1.319 Reference 347. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The mix did not contain RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CO, CO2, NOX, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM
emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and
Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report does not specify the method used
to measure CO, NOX, or benzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM, CO2, and formaldehyde data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NOX, and benzene data
are not rated because the test methods were not specified.
4.2.1.320 Reference 348. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The mix did not contain RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CO, CO2, NOX, HC1, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM
emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; Method 26
was used to measure HC1 emissions; benzene emissions were quantified by Method 18; and Method 0011
was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report does not specify the method used to measure CO
or NOX. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM, CO2, HC1, benzene, and formaldehyde data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO and
NOX data are not rated because the test methods were not specified.
4.2.1.321 Reference 349. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous
rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The
facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, condensable PM, COo, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM
emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat;
Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions; and benzene emissions were measured by
Method 18. The report indicates that condensable PM emissions were quantified according to Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources procedures, which are comparable to the procedures specified in EPA
Method 202. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.322 Reference 350. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous
rotary drum-mix dryer fired with a combination of drain oil and natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, CO2, SO2, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), benzene,
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions
4-78
-------
were quantified using EPA Method 17; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; SC>2 and E^SC^
emissions were measured by Method 6; and benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene
emissions were measured by Method 18. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The
concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit in
all test runs.
The data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.323 Reference 351. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a parallel-flow,
rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The
facility was processing about 10 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CC^, SC^, sulfuric acid (E^SC^), benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17;
CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; SC>2 and E^SC^ emissions were measured by Method 6; and
benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene emissions were measured by Method 18.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene,
and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit in all test runs.
The data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.324 Reference 352. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
rotary drum-mix dryer. Two 1-hour tests were performed. During the first test the mixer was fired with
No. 5 fuel oil, and, during the second test, the mixer was fired with No. 2 fuel oil. The facility was
processing an unspecified amount of RAP during the emission test. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The test included measurements of NOX and CC^. Emissions of NOX were
quantified using a continuous emission monitor (CEM) (presumably in accordance with EPA Method 6E),
and CC>2 concentrations also were measured using a CEM.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.325 Reference 353. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
rotary drum-mix dryer that was fired with No. 5 fuel oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The report does not indicate if the mix included RAP during the emission test. The test
included measurements of NOX, TOC, and CC^. Emissions of NOX were quantified using EPA
Method 7E and TOC was measured by EPA Method 25A; COo concentrations also were measured using a
CEM. Three 1-hour runs of continuous sampling were performed.
The NOX and CO2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the
test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. A hand-written note in the report states that
the TOC data are incorrect and that the corrected data were not included. For that reason, the TOC data
were not rated.
4.2.1.326 Reference 354. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
rotary drum-mix dryer that was fired with low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.26 percent. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The report does not indicate if the
mix included RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of filterable PM, NOX, and
CO2- Filterable PM emission were measured by EPA Method 5; emissions of NOX were quantified using
4-79
-------
EPA Method 7E; and CC>2 concentrations also were measured by Orsat. Three 1-hour test runs were
performed.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.327 Reference 355. This test program quantified emissions from the HMA load-out
operations, silo exhaust, and drum-mix dryer. A background test also was performed (no asphalt loading)
to provide a measure of the contribution of truck emissions to the measured load-out emissions. The testing
was sponsored by EPA and was a cooperative effort between EPA, a citizen's group, State agencies and
industry. The emissions testing was performed by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and Pacific
Environmental Services (PES) (both under contract to EPA) in July 1998. In addition, an independent
Technical Systems Audit of the procedures used by both contractors was performed by Research Triangle
Institute under contract to EPA. Cooperation between EPA, the citizen's group, and industry continued
through the draft and final reporting processes. A large number of citizen and industry comments on the
MRI and PES draft reports led EPA to prepare a detailed and sometimes non-typical analysis of the
emissions data, which was compiled into the "Response to Comments" document (Reference 389). Due to
the high level of documentation included in the test reports; the adherence to EPA Reference test methods;
the few problems noted in the Technical Systems Audit Report; and the high level of scrutiny that was
included in the development of the test program, implementation of the test, and production of the test
report, the data from this report were assigned an A rating, unless noted.
Asphalt Plant C is a continuous, drum-mix HMA production facility located south of Los Angeles,
California. The plant was built in 1994 and has a rated production capacity of 650 tons per hour (tons/hr)
of hot mix asphalt. Production during the test ranged from 370 tons/hr to 630 tons/hr and averaged
490 tons/hr. For all but one test, the product mix included 30 percent RAP. The average asphalt binder
content of the HMA produced was 5.0 percent. Five 200-ton heated storage silos sit on top of a load-out
tunnel. The storage silos serve as a holding station between production and the loading of the HMA into
transport trucks. A conveyer system carries the fresh asphalt from the secondary chamber of the dryer to
the top of the silos and loads one silo at a time. Unlike most HMA plants, asphalt fumes generated in the
silos during load-in are vented through an exhaust system on top of the silos. Each of the five silos has its
own 10-inch internal diameter (ID) silo exhaust duct that feeds a 12-inch ID common header that carries
the asphalt fumes to the tunnel exhaust system. The silo storage testing was performed from an extension
at the top of Silo 2, which is located upstream of the connection to the common header. The silo exhaust
duct testing was performed only when hot mix asphalt was being loaded into Silo No. 2. Also, unlike most
HMA plants, the area beneath the storage silos is enclosed in a tunnel and ventilated. The load-out tunnel
is approximately 183 feet long by 16 feet high by 16 feet wide. Attached to the ceiling of the load-out
tunnel, and below each of the five silos, is an exhaust plenum that draws air and vapors off the transport
trucks and out of the tunnel during load-out. Each of the five exhaust plenums is identical and shaped like
a tuning fork with holes in the bottom and slots in the inside legs. Air and vapors from the HMA during
load-out are drawn through the holes and slots and into the tunnel exhaust duct by a constant rate induced
draft fan. Only one exhaust plenum is in operation at any one time. The load-out and silo storage
ventilation systems combine into one common duct which passes through a wet electrostatic precipitator
and is exhausted to the atmosphere. Testing for the load-out system was performed at a port located
between Silos 1 and 2, which is upstream of the combined common duct. During normal load-out
operations, 21 to 25 tons of HMA are transferred in 15 to 30 seconds from the silo to the truck. Testing to
characterize emissions from the load-out operations was performed only when HMA was loaded from Silos
2, 3, 4, or 5.
4-80
-------
Source sampling was performed in the tunnel exhaust duct and silo exhaust duct to determine the
concentrations and mass emission rates of PM, methylene chloride extractable matter (MCEM), and
organic HAPs. Four tests at the TED and three tests at the SED were performed over five consecutive
days beginning on July 24, 1998. EPA Method 315, "Determination of Filterable Particulate Matter (PM)
and Methylene Chloride Extractable Matter (MCEM) Emissions from Stationary Sources," was used to
quantify PM and MCEM emissions. Three test methods were used to quantify volatile organic F£APs
(VOHAPs). SW-846 Method 0030 in combination with SW-846 Method 8260B (referred to as VOST)
was used to quantify a majority of the targeted compounds. EPA Method 18 was used in a backup
capacity to quantify benzene, cumene, ethylbenzene, hexane, toluene, o-xylene, m-xylene, and p-xylene.
EPA Method 320 (extractive FTIR) was used to quantify higher concentrations of VOHAPs, CO, SOo,
and NO^ To reduce the spectral interferences due to moisture and CC>2 and to quantify lower
concentrations of VOHAPs, an additional EPA Method 320 sample was collected for each run using a
sample concentration method. In addition, a third method using a direct interface GC/MS procedure was
used as an on-site screening tool and QC check for selected VOFIAPs. SW-846 Method 0010, "Modified
Method 5 Sampling Train (MM5)," was used to collect semivolatile organic F£APs (SVOHAPs) at both
locations. The MM5 samples were extracted following the procedure of SW-846 Method 3542, dated
January 1995. The sample extracts were analyzed two ways: 1) in accordance with the guidelines of
SW-846 Method 8270C by high resolution gas chromatograph/low resolution mass spectrometer
(HCGC/LRMS) for SVOFIAPs, and 2) in accordance with the guidelines of CARB Method 429 by high
resolution gas chromatograph/high resolution mass spectrometer (HRGC/HRMS) for PAHs. EPA
Method 25A was used to quantify TOC using a flame ionization detector (FID).
Concurrent with FTIR testing of the load-out emissions discussed above, capture
efficiency testing also was performed. A stable, nonflammable gas (sulfur hexafluoride, or SF^, was used
as the tracer gas. Sample spectra were collected by extractive FTIR, where concentrations were
determined and converted to mass emissions over time. These were compared to the measured tracer gas
emission rate, allowing duct capture efficiency to be calculated.
Measurements also were made to estimate the PM and MCEM deposition on the inside walls of the
TED, the inside walls of the exhaust plenum above Silo No. 2, the inside walls of the SED and on the
ceiling of the load-out tunnel downstream of Silo No. 5.
Asphalt cement samples (i.e., hot liquid asphalt) were collected on July 24, 25, 27, and 28, 1998.
On July 24, 25, and 27, 1998, three sets of samples were taken. Each sample was analyzed twice for
volatile content at 325 °F, once following the procedures of ASTM D 1754 - Effects of Heat and Air on
Asphalt Materials (Thin Film Oven Test), and a second time following the procedures of ASTM D 2872 -
Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test). In addition, the
middle sample from each day was analyzed four more times: 1) using ASTM D 1754 with an oven
temperature of 300°F; 2) using ASTM D 1754 with an oven temperature of 350°F; 3) using ASTM D
2872 with an oven temperature of 300°F; and 4) using ASTM D 2872 with an oven temperature of 350°F.
The results of the standard and additional ASTM D 2872 analyses performed on the asphalt samples
obtained at Plant C are presented in Table 4-2. During the emissions tests, the asphalt mix contained an
average liquid asphalt content of 5.0 percent, with a range of 4.9 to 5.2 percent.
As mentioned above, a total of three test runs were performed on the load-out process. A fourth
test was performed (without asphalt loading) to measure background emissions from the trucks.
Simultaneous with the emissions testing activities, a tracer gas release and capture efficiency measurement
was performed to allow for adjustment of the data based on the capture efficiency.
4-81
-------
Capture efficiency (CE) correction - The Plant C load-out tunnel enclosure did not meet EPA
Method 204 criteria for total enclosures, and thus required capture efficiency testing as part of the test
program. Controlled SF^ releases and capture measurements were performed throughout each of the three
test runs. The 90 percent Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) technique was used to determine the capture
efficiency for each run, as described in EMC GD-035 "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency"
dated 1/9/1995 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-035.pdf) and EMC GD-036 "Revised Capture
Efficiency Memorandum" dated 2/7/1995 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-036.pdf). The
measured capture efficiencies were 64 percent, 65 percent, 54 percent and 45 percent, for Runs 1, 2, 3,
and 4, respectively. Raw emissions (concentrations for each analyte) for each test run were then corrected
by dividing the analyte concentration by the capture efficiency. Deposition data for PM also was corrected
for capture efficiency, using a slightly different procedure that is described in greater detail in Section 4.4
below.
4.2.1.328 Reference 356. Plant D is a batch mix facility located in Barre, Massachusetts. The
plants maximum production capacity is 255 tons/hr, but under normal operating conditions, the plant
produces 150 tons/hr of HMA. Approximately 95 percent of the HMA produced during the testing
included 10 percent RAP. The asphalt binder content of the HMA averaged 5.2 percent. This test
program only quantified emissions from the HMA load-out operations. The testing was sponsored by EPA
and was a cooperative effort between EPA, a number of citizen's groups, State agencies and industry. The
emissions testing was performed by MRI and PES (both under contract to EPA) in October 1998. Plant D
testing consisted of measurements of TOC by EPA Method 25 A, PM measurements by EPA Method 315
and an estimate of PM deposition in the ventilation system and within the enclosure. Prior to conducting
the emissions test, a total temporary enclosure was constructed around the load-out station. The enclosure
had entrance and exit doors that were closed during truck loading operations and were manually operated
by MRI to allow trucks to enter and exit the enclosure. The enclosure was designed, constructed, and
operated to satisfy the requirements of a temporary total enclosure as specified in EPA Method 204. It was
noted in the test report that the unpaved floor and approaches to the enclosure were watered periodically to
minimize emissions from truck movement in and around the load-out area. It was also noted in the report
that, for most loading operations, an exhaust system and flexible hosing within the temporary enclosure
captured the exhaust from the diesel engines. Because a few trucks had exhaust systems that also heated
the truck bed, the exhaust of these trucks could not be captured. As a result, the majority of the truck
exhaust was not measured as part of the load-out emissions. Measurements were made to estimate MCEM
deposition on the inside walls of the enclosure, and on the inside walls of the exhaust plenum. Due to the
high level of documentation included in the test reports; the adherence to EPA Reference test methods; the
few problems noted; and the high level of scrutiny that was included in the development of the test
program, implementation of the test, and production of the test report, the data from this report were
assigned an A rating, unless noted.
In addition to measuring load-out emissions, eight extended sampling periods were performed
following load-out operations. These extended sampling periods were an attempt to estimate emissions
from loaded trucks sitting in the yard or in transit to a paving site.
Asphalt cement samples (i.e., hot liquid asphalt) were collected on October 5, 6, and 7, 1998.
Each sample was analyzed twice for volatile content at 325 °F, once following the procedures of ASTM D
1754 - Effects of Heat and Air on Asphalt Materials (Thin Film Oven Test), and a second time following
the procedures of ASTM D 2872 - Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin
Film Oven Test). In addition, the sample was analyzed four more times: (1) using ASTM D 1754 with an
oven temperature of 300°F, (2) using ASTM D 1754 with an oven temperature of 350°F, (3) using ASTM
D 2872 with an oven temperature of 300°F, and (4) using ASTM D 2872 with an oven temperature of
350 °F. The results of the standard and additional analyses performed by ASTM D 2872 on the asphalt
4-82
-------
samples obtained at Plant D are presented in Table 4-3. During the emissions tests, the asphalt mix had an
average liquid asphalt content of 5.2 percent, with a range of 4.5 to 5.7 percent.
4.2.1.329 Reference 357. This reference documents a technique for estimating emissions from hot
mix asphalt load-out operations. Fugitive VOC emissions from hot mix asphalt load-out were estimated
using mass transfer equations for the flow of air past a plate. The document states that the key parameters
that effect emissions are (1) the vapor pressure of the asphalt, (2) the load-out temperature, and (3) the
period of time that the hot mix is sitting uncovered in the truck. The document provides emission factors
for VOC from HMA load-out of 0.885 Ib/ton of product for batch mix plants and 0.380 Ib/ton of product
for drum-mix plants (plants with hot storage silos).
The document (Reference 357) relies on several key assumptions. In particular, the assumed
asphalt vapor pressure of 30 mm Hg is significantly higher than vapor pressures of asphalt (0.2 to 0.8 mm
Hg) presented in Figure 1 of an independent review of this load-out emission estimate provided by
Cambridge Environmental Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (included with Reference 357). Information
developed in Section 4.4.5 of this background report indicates that at a storage temperature of 325 °F the
vapor pressure at the asphalt surface is less than 0.9 mm Hg. At a vapor pressure of 0.9 mm Hg, the
emissions calculated in this document would decrease by 97 percent. Another assumption used in this
document (Reference 357) was the use of the molecular weight of anthracene (C14H10, 178 g/g-mole) as
the molecular weight of the VOC emitted from load-out operations. Data from Reference 355 indicate that
emissions from asphalt operations are dominated by compounds that have infrared spectra similar to
aliphatic hydrocarbons between pentane (MW = 72 g/g-mole) and nonane (MW = 129 g/g-mole). At a
molecular weight of 129 g/g-mole, the emissions calculated with this document (Reference 357) would
decrease by an additional 28 percent. Information developed in Section 4.4.5 of this background report
indicates that a molecular weight of 105 g/g-mole is required to produce emissions with the TANKS
program that are consistent with emissions derived from Reference 355. At this molecular weight, the
emissions calculated in this document (Reference 357) would decrease by an additional 41 percent.
Adjusting for these two factors (vapor pressure and molecular weight) does result in calculated emissions
that are consistent with load-out emissions measured in Reference 355 and 356. This analysis is presented
later in Section 4.4.1. This document (Reference 357) also relies on a mass transfer equation that relates
emissions to the exposed surface area. The exposed surface area used in the document is the surface area
of the asphalt pile in the truck bed. The actual exposed surface area during load-out operations is
significantly greater than the static surface area used in the document. The document further relies on a
constant rate of emissions from the asphalt. However, differences in emissions due to the variations in
load-out times for the two processes are not supported by the information derived from test data in
References 355 and 356. This information is presented later in Section 4.4.1. As a result, the concerns
raised by the various critiques of the methodology used in the document are affirmed by analysis of the data
in References 355 and 356 (see Section 4.4.1).
The information presented in the document are not rated for use in developing emission factors for
AP-42. This document provides valuable background information and emphasizes the need for emission
testing to quantify fugitive emissions from HMA load-out operations.
4.2.1.330 Reference 358. This document include the results of a pretest survey and screening to
determine the type and relative magnitude emissions from load-out prior to the full-scale load-out emission
test conducted at Plant C and documented in Reference 355. Emissions were sampled using EPA Method 5
and SW846 Method 0030. However, because the purpose of the test was to screen emissions, rather than
to quantify emissions, some shortcuts were taken in the sampling procedures. Most notably, only a single
traverse was performed and no field blanks were sampled (for the Method 0030 test). The document
presents the results of the test but does not include most of the supporting documentation. Because the test
4-83
-------
was for screening purposes, test methods were simplified, and a subsequent full-scale test was performed
on the same sources (as documented in Reference 355), the results of the test are neither presented in this
report nor are they incorporated in the revised AP-42 section.
4.2.1.331 Reference 359. This document summarizes the results of a study to determine ambient
concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) associated with the filling of
liquid asphalt storage tanks. The data were collected on April 23, 1998 by the North Carolina Division of
Air Quality (NCDAQ) Air Toxics Analytical Support Team (ATAST). Ambient samples were collected at
five locations: an open liquid asphalt railcar hatch, a liquid asphalt storage tank vent during loading, an
upwind site, a downwind site, and an adjacent residential site. Samples were analyzed onsite using an
organic vapor analyzer and a portable gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS). In addition,
samples were collected in SUMMA canisters and subsequently analyzed at the DAQ Toxic Protection Lab
using a GC/MS. These samples also were analyzed for compounds other than BTEX. The results of the
sampling is discussed further in the following paragraphs. The report concluded that the concentrations of
benzene, toluene, and xylene measured at the upwind, downwind, and residential sites were typical of urban
air.
The SUMMA cannister samples collected at the railcar hatch and storage tank vent had
concentrations beyond the calibration range of the GC/MS and could not be quantified. Table 4-4 shows
the results of the analysis of the SUMMA cannister samples. For the data that could be quantified.
Toluene and xylenes were detected in the parts per billion by volume (ppbv) range at the upwind,
downwind, and residential sites; benzene was detected at the residential site. The detection limit for the
instrument was 0.02 ppbv. Other compounds detected included acetic acid, methyl ethyl ketone, and
hexane.
The results of the portable GC/MS sample analyses are summarized in Table 4-5. All four BTEX
compounds were detected at the railcar hatch and storage tank vent in the parts per million by volume
(ppmv) range. At the other locations, only ethyl benzene was detected (0.04 ppmv at both locations). The
detection limit for the instrument was 0.02 ppmv.
The results of the organic vapor analyzer sample analyses are summarized in Table 4-6. Organic
vapors (unspeciated) were detected in all locations. Concentrations ranged from 1.2 ppmv to 600 ppmv (at
the railcar hatch).
This document cannot be used to develop emission factors because no data were collected that can
be used to relate the measured concentrations to emission rates. In addition, no activity levels, such as
asphalt tank loading rate, were measured.
4.2.1.332 Reference 360. This reports documents the results of a study to determine emission
rates and emission factors for the load-out of hot mix asphalt into trucks. Samples were collected using
SUMMA canisters at five facilities across North Carolina. The samples were subsequently by NCDAQ by
GC/MS. Data also were collected on ambient and sample temperatures, emission velocities, and
meteorological conditions.
Four of the five plants were drum-mix plants; the other plant was a continuous feed plant. During
sampling the asphalt consisted of 100 percent virgin material (i.e., the mixes did not include RAP) using
type 1-2 asphalt.
The sampling apparatus consisted of a stainless steel funnel and Teflon tubing connected to a
SUMMA canister. A thermal anemometer also was attached to the end of the apparatus near the funnel.
4-84
-------
Samples were collected by placing the funnel end of the apparatus in the bed of the receiving truck. A
one-minute sample was collected as the hot mix asphalt was loaded into the truck. At the same time,
velocity measurements were taken using the anemometer.
Table 4-7 summarizes the results of the analysis. Five samples were collected at each of the five
facilities. For 11 of the 30 samples, the benzene concentrations were below the detection limit of 0.1 ppbv.
For the other samples, the concentrations generally ranged from 0.2 to 6.7 ppbv. Two samples were
determined to be outliers; the concentrations of those samples were 509 and 67 ppbv.
The mean benzene concentration from all samples was reported as 2.47 ppbv and the mean velocity
was reported as 0.51 meters per second (m/sec). (It should be noted that the individual velocity
measurements were not reported in the document.) Assuming this mean velocity is uniform over the entire
truck bed and using an average truck bed area, the average emission rate (which was reported as an
"emission factor" in the document) was determined to be 4.4x 10 grams per second (g/sec).
The data from this study cannot be used to develop emission factors because activity level data
were not reported (i.e., data on asphalt loading rates). In addition, the assumption that velocities are
uniform and constant across the truck bed throughout the loading process is not realistic. Velocities were
measured for 1-minute periods at single points over truck beds that averaged 10.9 square meters. The
velocities should largely be the result of the loaded asphalt displacing the air in the truck bed.
Consequently, it is expected that velocities would vary spatially (depending on the location of the probe
relative to the loading point and bed sides) and temporally (depending on the profile of the loaded asphalt as
the truck is filled) during load-out. In addition, it is unrealistic to assume that emissions are steady-state
during the load-out. For the data to be useable for AP-42, the test would have to have been conducted
throughout each load-out.
4.2.1.333 Reference 361. This document presents the results of a laboratory study of emissions
from asphalt pavement. The objective of the study was to characterize emissions from the paving process.
However, the investigators found it impractical to sample while simulating the process of placing and
compacting asphalt, and maintaining the temperature profiles characteristic of real paving operations.
Instead, the study entailed measuring emissions from a static layer of compacted hot mix asphalt
maintained at the highest temperature likely to be encountered in an actual paving operation. Initially,
emissions were sampled from a layer of asphalt that was 3.8 centimeters (cm) (1.5 inches [in.]) thick.
Subsequently, a 1.3 to 1.9 cm (0.5 to 0.75 in.) layer was used to ensure a more uniform temperature
distribution throughout the asphalt.
Emissions from two types of hot mix asphalt were sampled. One sample contained no rubber; in
the other sample, 18 percent of the nonaggregate materials consisted of crumb rubber. Both samples
contained approximately 24 percent RAP. The heating vessel measured 2 feet by 2 feet (60 centimeters by
60 centimeters). The emission stream was sampled for 65 semivolatile organics by Method TO-13 using a
PM-10 sampler to collect the samples, which were subsequently analyzed by Method 8270. The
PM-10/semivolatile sampling train was operated for a period of 130 to 165 minutes. For VOCs, the
exhaust stream was sampled by Method 18 (grab samples collected in Tedlar bags) and analyzed by
Method TO-14 for 56 compounds. A separate PM-10 sampler was used to quantify emissions of PM-10
and metals; the catch was analyzed for metals by graphite furnace atomic adsorption (GFAA).
Semiquantitative analysis of samples for hydrogen sulfide was performed using colorimetric Draeger tubes.
In addition, continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) were operated to measure concentrations of
carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (NO), oxygen, sulfur dioxide (802), total
hydrocarbons (TOC), and poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
4-85
-------
Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the tests for VOCs semi volatile s, PM, and metals. Most of the
target compounds were not detected in the samples, and, among those that were detected, most
concentrations were near the detection limit. Altogether, 12 organic compounds were found in
concentrations that were significantly higher than the blank sample concentrations. In addition, emissions
of lead, PM-10, and total PM were quantified. Table 4-9 summarizes the CEMS data. With the exception
of the PAH monitor, the facility blank emission levels measured were comparable to the emission levels
measured during the test. Therefore, the CEMS results are of limited use. In addition, the VOC emission
rates are based on grab samples. The report does not specify when samples were collected. In an actual
paving operation, emissions would be expected to peak when the pavement is placed and decline as the
pavement cooled. Data based on grab samples might be representative if samples were taken over an
extended period of time. On the other hand, the data on semivolatile compound and PM emissions are
likely to be more representative of pavement emissions because they are based on samples collected over
periods of 2 to 2.5 hours.
The semivolatile and PM data may be useful in making gross estimates of emissions from the
laying of asphalt pavement. However, it is questionable how representative the data are. Heating the test
samples to relatively high temperatures for several hours is likely to have biased the emission data;
emissions from actual pavement would be expected to decline from the time it is placed as a result of the
decline of the pavement temperature. Additionally, the emissions of PAH compounds with higher vapor
pressures (e.g., naphthalene) are lower than the PAH compounds with lower vapor pressures. This
contrasts with the data from References 339 and 340, where PAH compounds with higher vapor pressures
had higher emissions. The data should not be used to estimate emissions from paving operations because
the test did not cover the initial period when the asphalt was placed and compacted, and the temperature
was maintained at 325 °F for an extended time.
4.2.1.334 Reference 362. This document presents the results of emission tests conducted at two
batch mix plants. The data from these tests were used to prepare Reference 17, described previously in this
section. Uncontrolled emissions were sampled from either the skip hoist or hopper that followed the batch
mixer. In both tests, the skip hoist/hopper were open top vessels and had to be shrouded to minimize wind
effects on emissions. Emissions were sampled for a variety of organic and inorganic pollutants.
Particulate matter emissions were sampled using high volume samplers; the other pollutants were sampled
using evacuated canisters or cylinders. A variety of nonreference methods were used to determine pollutant
concentrations. However, exhaust gas flow rates were not measured. Therefore, the data cannot be used to
develop emission factors.
4.2.1.335 Reference 363. This document presents the results of a laboratory study of emissions
from asphalt roofing. A sample of roofing asphalt was heated in a kettle at various temperatures.
Emissions from the kettle were sampled for speciated VOC using a modified volatile organic sampling train
(VOST) and for speciated semivolatile compounds using XAD-2 and Pallflex filters. The samples were
analyzed by GC/MS. Emissions were quantified for a variety of volatile and semivolatile compounds.
Emission concentration were reported, as well as emission rates in units of milligrams emitted per square
meter of surface area per hour. Emission factors were calculated in units of milligrams emitted per
kilogram of asphalt heated. However, the data represent emissions from roofing asphalt heating and do not
pertain to hot mix asphalt production. Therefore, the data are not presented here.
4.2.1.336 Reference 364. This report documents an emission test conducted at the inlet and outlet
of a "Smog Hog" electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that controls emissions from HMA truck load-out.
According to industry representatives the facility was typical of the industry relative to mix temperature,
mix constituents, production rate, and other operating parameters. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic
4-86
-------
PM, condensable organic PM, and TOC emissions were measured using CARB Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and EPA Method 25A, respectively.
The capture efficiency of the control system was not measured during the test. However, in an
evaluation of the test report by an EPA contractor, an assessment of the capture efficiency was made. The
assessment was made based upon the available information on the load-out area in this test report. The
assessment indicates that an average face velocity of building air of about 42 feet per minute was estimated
from data in the report. It was recognized that this velocity is outside the recommended range of 50 to
100 feet per minute specified in the Industrial Ventilation Manual. It also was recognized that the
enclosure did not meet all of the criteria for a permanent total enclosure (PTE) specified in the EPA
document, "The Measurement Solution: Using a Temporary Total Enclosure for Capture Efficiency
Testing." Finally, the assessment provided an estimated range of capture efficiency of between 70 and
90 percent. While this capture efficiency assessment could be reevaluated using the measured capture
efficiency and emissions documented in Reference 355, this is unnecessary since this test was not used for
developing the final emission factor.
The emission data are assigned a rating of C because the test was not fully documented and
incomplete process information was provided in the report. However, the data were not used to develop
emission factors for inclusion in AP-42 because: (1) the emissions measured included the combined silo
and load-out emissions; (2) some data on process rates was missing from the report; (3) data on asphalt
characteristics (temperature and volatility) were not included in the report; (4) the capture efficiency of the
enclosure was not measured during the test; and, most importantly, (5) emissions test data for the loadout
process were available from two other tests, including a test at this same facility, that included complete
process information and documentation.
4.2.1.337 References 365 to 369. These documents consist of a series of personal
communications by email regarding Department of Transportation loss-on-heating values for several State
agencies. No emission data were included, but the data were used to develop a default loss-on-heating
value.
4.2.1.338 Reference 370. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements CO and CC>2
at the fabric-filter outlet. Carbon monoxide emissions were quantified using EPA Method 10, and CC>2
concentrations were measured by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.339 Reference 371. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 24 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.46 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, and formaldehyde at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SOo emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-87
-------
4.2.1.340 Reference 372. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 25 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.37 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, and formaldehyde at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SC>2 emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.341 Reference 373. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 25 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.63 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, benzene, chlorobenzene,
dichlorobenzene, trichlorobenzene, and formaldehyde at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions
were quantified using EPA Method 17; SC>2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6; CC>2
concentrations were measured by Orsat; EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions;
and Method 18 was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene
emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene,
dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit for each run.
The filterable PM, CC^, and formaldehyde test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The SOo and
benzene data are rated B because the report did not include complete documentation on those pollutants.
The chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene data were not rated.
4.2.1.342 Reference 374. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The report did not specify if the facility was processing RAP during the emission test.
However, the report did include information on fuel usage and fuel sulfur content. The sulfur content of the
fuel was 0.44 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, and HC1 at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SCK emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 26 was
used to quantify HC1 emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.343 Reference 375. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.39 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SO2, CO2, and formaldehyde at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SO2 emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; ۩2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2. 1 .344 Reference 376. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was not processing RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.43 percent.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, benzene, and HC1 at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SOo emissions were sampled using EPA
Method 6; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; EPA Method 1 8 was used to measure benzene
emissions; and EPA Method 26 was used to quantify HC1 emissions. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2. 1 .345 Reference 377. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.47 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, benzene, chlorobenzene,
dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified
using EPA Method 17; SC>2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6; CC>2 concentrations were
measured by Orsat; and Method 18 was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit for each run.
The filterable PM, SC^, CC^, and benzene test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene data were not rated.
4.2. 1 .346 Reference 378. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements CO and COo
at the fabric-filter outlet. Carbon monoxide emissions were quantified using EPA Method 10, and CO2
concentrations were measured by Orsat Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2. 1 .347 Reference 379. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.43 percent. The test included measurements of SO2, CO2, and HC1 at the fabric-filter outlet. Sulfur
dioxide emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6; COo concentrations were measured by Orsat; and
EPA Method 26 was used to quantify HC1 emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-89
-------
4.2.1.348 Reference 380. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was not processing RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.66 percent.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, and HC1 at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable
PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SC>2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6;
CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 26 was used to quantify HC1 emissions.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.349 Reference 381. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements CO and CC>2
at the fabric-filter outlet. Carbon monoxide emissions were quantified using EPA Method 10, and CC>2
concentrations were measured by Orsat Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.350 Reference 382. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements filterable PM,
CO2, benzene, and formaldehyde at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using
EPA Method 17; COo concentrations were measured by Orsat; EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify
formaldehyde emissions; and Method 18 was used to quantify benzene emissions. Three test runs were
conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.351 Reference 383. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a rotary
drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The
facility was processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CO2, formaldehyde, benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations
were measured by Orsat; formaldehyde emissions were quantified using EPA Method 0011; and Method 18
was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene emissions. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit for each run.
The filterable PM, CO2, formaldehyde, and benzene test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene data were not rated.
4.2.1.352 Reference 384. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 to 25 percent RAP during the emission test. The test
included measurements of filterable PM, COo, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet.
4-90
-------
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CC>2 concentrations were measured by
Orsat; formaldehyde emissions were quantified using EPA Method 0011; and Method 18 was used to
quantify benzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM, CC^, formaldehyde, and benzene test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.353 Reference 385. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The report did not
specify if the facility was processing RAP during the emission test. However, the report did include
information on fuel usage and fuel sulfur content. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.36 percent. The test
included measurements of filterable, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, SOo, and COo
at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were measured using EPA Method 5; condensable PM
emissions were quantified by EPA Method 202; SC>2 emissions were quantified using EPA Method 6C;
and CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.354 Reference 386. This reference documents two emission tests conducted on a
continuous, parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur
content. The facility was not processing RAP during the emission tests. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.50 percent. The initial test included measurements of SOo and COo at the fabric-filter outlet. In the
second test, emissions of filterable PM and CC>2 were measured. Filterable PM emissions were quantified
using EPA Method 5; SC>2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6C; and CC>2 concentrations were
measured by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant during each test.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.355 Reference 387. This reference documents two emission tests conducted on a
continuous, parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur
content. The facility was not processing RAP during the emission tests. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.47 percent. One test included measurements of SOo and COo at the fabric-filter outlet. In the other test,
emissions of filterable PM and ۩2 were measured. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA
Method 5; SO2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6C; and ۩2 concentrations were measured
by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant during each test.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.356 Reference 388. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was not processing RAP during the emission tests. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.36 percent.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM,
SO2, CO2, and formaldehyde at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using
EPA Method 5; condensable PM emissions were quantified using Method 202; SO2 emissions were
4-91
-------
sampled using EPA Method 6C; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.2 Review of FIRE and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors
Emission factors for hot mix asphalt production appear in both FIRE and SPECIATE. Many of
the factors in FIRE are the factors currently presented in AP-42, but some additional data also are included
in FIRE. Most of the additional data are labeled "confidential," and the references are not available for
review. The other data in FIRE do not appear to be useful for developing emission factors for the revised
AP-42 section. The references for the factors in SPECIATE were not obtained. The validity of the
references could not be checked, so the information was not used in developing emission factors for the
revised AP-42 section.
4.2.3 Review of the AP-42 Background File
The AP-42 section addressing the hot mix asphalt industry was last published in July 1994.
Forty-three references are cited in the existing section, and descriptions of these references are included in
Section
4.2.4 Results of Data Analysis
This section discusses the analysis of the data and describes how the data were combined to
develop average emission factors for HMA production. Target pollutants that were not detected during
any of the tests reviewed are shown in Table 4-10. Test data for drum-mix dryers are presented in
Table 4-11, data for batch-mix dryers are shown in Table 4-12, and data for hot oil heaters are shown in
Table 4-13. Section 4.3 describes the statistical analysis that was conducted for the large data sets. The
analysis presents the rational for aggregating and segregating data for emission factor development for the
large data sets. Section 4.4 presents an analysis of available data for HMA load-out operations,
storage-silo filling, truck emissions, and storage-tank emissions.
The emission factor ratings assigned to each of the candidate emission factors developed for HMA
production are based on the emission data ratings and the number of tests conducted.
4.2.4.1 Drum-Mix Dryers. Emission factors for drum-mix dryers were developed using the data
presented in Table 4-11. The candidate emission factors for drum-mix dryers are shown in Tables 4-14,
4-15, 4-16, and 4-17.
4.2.4.1.1 Filterable PM. An emission factor for uncontrolled filterable PM emissions from
drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from four
A-rated and two B-rated tests. The data range from 1.3 to 37 kg/Mg (2.6 to 73 Ib/ton) and average
14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers (fired
with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 155 tests. The data range
from 0.00044 to 0.071 kg/Mg (0.00089 to 0.14 Ib/ton) and average 0.0067 kg/Mg (0.014 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.0087 kg/Mg
(0.017 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0050 kg/Mg (0.010 Ib/ton).
4-92
-------
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled drum-mix dryers
(fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 36 tests. The data
range from 0.0018 to 0.049 kg/Mg (0.0036 to 0.097 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.026 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.011 kg/Mg
(0.022 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.010 Ib/ton (0.020 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.2 Size-Specific PM. For uncontrolled drum-mix dryers, no new particle size data are
available. The particle size data from Reference 23 (the background document for the 1986 revision of the
hot mix asphalt AP-42 section) were retained. To determine size specific emission factors, the percentages
of PM-15, PM-10, and PM-2.5 were multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from uncontrolled
drum-mix dryers. The emission factor for PM-15 is 27 percent of 14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton), or 3.8 kg/Mg
(7.6 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-10 is 23 percent of 14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton), or 3.2 kg/Mg
(6.4 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-2.5 is 5.5 percent of 14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton), or 0.77 kg/Mg
(1.5 Ib/ton). These emission factors are assigned E ratings because the particle size data are based on a
single test.
For PM-15 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were used to estimate the PM-15 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-15 is
35 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-15 is 35 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg
(0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.0022 kg/Mg (0.0046 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-10 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were used in conjunction with data from two additional tests. The average percentage of
PM-10 from the three tests is 30 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for
filterable PM from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-10 is
30 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg (0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.0019 kg/Mg (0.0039 Ib/ton). This emission factor is
assigned a D rating because the particle size data are based on three tests.
For PM-2.5 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were used in conjunction with data from two additional tests. The average percentage of
PM-2.5 from the three tests is 21 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for
filterable PM from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-2.5 is
21 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg (0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.0013 kg/Mg (0.0027 Ib/ton). This emission factor is
assigned a E rating because the particle size data are based on three tests that show a wide range of PM-2.5
percentages.
For PM-1 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, data from two tests were used
to estimate the PM-1 percentage of filterable PM. The average percentage of PM-1 from the two tests is
15 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-1 is 15 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg
(0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.00096 kg/Mg (0.0019 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned a E rating because the
particle size data are based on two tests that show a wide range of PM-1 percentages.
4.2.4.1.3 Condensable organic PM. An emission factor for uncontrolled condensable organic PM
emissions from drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed
using data from three A-rated tests. The data range from 0.021 to 0.042 kg/Mg (0.041 to 0.083 Ib/ton) and
average 0.029 kg/Mg (0.058 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an E rating.
4-93
-------
An emission factor for fabric filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled condensable organic PM
emissions from drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed
using data from 41 tests. The data range from 0.00018 to 0.037 kg/Mg (0.00035 to 0.074 Ib/ton) and
average 0.0059 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this
data set, the standard deviation is 0.0081 kg/Mg (0.016 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0023 kg/Mg
(0.0046 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.4 Condensable inorganic PM. An emission factor for fabric filter-or venturi
scrubber-controlled condensable inorganic PM emissions from drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas,
propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 30 tests. The data range from 0.00059 to
0.014 kg/Mg (0.0012 to 0.027 Ib/ton) and average 0.0037 kg/Mg (0.0074 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.0032 kg/Mg (0.0063 Ib/ton)
and the median is 0.0025 Ib/ton (0.0051 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.5 Total condensable PM. Emission factors for total condensable PM emissions from
fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) were
developed from three A-rated tests. The data range from 0.00048 to 0.010 kg/Mg (0.00096 to
0.019 Ib/ton) and average 0.0041 kg/Mg (0.0082 Ib/ton). This emission factor is not rated because much
larger data sets are available for condensable organic and inorganic PM. Total condensable PM is
calculated as the sum of the condensable organic and inorganic PM emission factors, which is 0.010 kg/Mg
(0.021 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.6 Total PM and PM-10. The total PM emission factors shown in the AP-42 table
represent the sum of the filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission
factors. These emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the
summation. The total PM-10 emission factors shown in the AP-42 table represents the sum of the
filterable PM-10, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission factors. These
emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the summation.
An emission factor for cyclone- or multiclone-controlled drum-mix dryers was developed using
data from a single test. The emission factor is 0.34 kg/Mg (0.67 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned an E rating.
4.2.4.1.7 Carbon monoxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled CO emissions from drum-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 18 tests. The
tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce CO
emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers,
because venturi scrubbers are not expected to reduce CO emissions. Data from one additional test were
excluded from the candidate emission factor because the magnitude of emissions from the test are an order
of magnitude higher than the next highest data point and more than two orders of magnitude higher than the
lowest data point. The data range from 0.0055 to 0.30 kg/Mg (0.011 to 0.60 Ib/ton) and average
0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating.
4.2.4.1.8 Carbon dioxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled COo emissions from drum-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, butane, coal, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from
tests conducted on 180 dryers. The tests were conducted on fabric filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled
dryers, but these control devices are not expected to reduce CO2 emissions. The data range from 1.3 to
48 kg/Mg (2.6 to 96 Ib/ton) and average 17 kg/Mg (33 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned
an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 6.4 kg/Mg (13 Ib/ton) and the median is 16 kg/Mg
(3 lib/ton).
4-94
-------
4.2.4.1.9 Nitrogen oxides. An emission factor for uncontrolled NO emissions from natural gas-
or propane-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from five A-rated tests and one B-rated test.
The tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce
NOX emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled
dryers, because venturi scrubbers are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. The data range from 0.0075
to 0.025 kg/Mg (0.015 to 0.049 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.026 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled NO emissions from fuel oil- or waste oil-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from 10 A-rated tests and one B-rated test. The tests were conducted on
fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. This factor can
also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers are
not expected to reduce NOX emissions. The data range from 0.0085 to 0.055 kg/Mg (0.017 to 0.11 Ib/ton)
and average 0.028 kg/Mg (0.055 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating.
4.2.4.1.10 Sulfur dioxide. Limited data were available for venturi scrubber-controlled drum mix
dryers. Therefore, data for fabric filter and venturi scrubber controlled dryers were combined. Venturi
scrubbers are expected to perform at least as well as fabric filters in controlling SOo emissions.
An emission factor for controlled SOo emissions from natural gas- or propane-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from three A-rated tests. The tests were conducted on fabric
filter-controlled dryers. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled
dryers. The data range from 0.00062 to 0.0024 kg/Mg (0.0012 to 0.0048 Ib/ton) and average
0.0017 kg/Mg (0.0034 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for controlled SOo emissions from No. 2 fuel oil-fired drum-mix dryers was
developed using data from three A-rated tests and one C-rated test. The tests were conducted on fabric
filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, which showed similar emissions. The data range from
0.00048 to 0.013 kg/Mg (0.00095 to 0.026 Ib/ton) and average 0.0054 kg/Mg (0.011 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an E rating because the limited data range over more than an order of
magnitude.
An emission factor for controlled SOo emissions from No. 6 fuel oil- or waste oil-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from 16 A-rated tests and 2 B-rated test. The tests were conducted on
fabric filter-controlled dryers. This factor also can be used to estimate emissions from venturi
scrubber-controlled dryers. The data range from 0.0041 to 0.081 kg/Mg (0.0081 to 0.16 Ib/ton) and
average 0.029 kg/Mg (0.058 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a B rating.
Table 4-15 shows all of the available data for SO2 emissions from drum mix dryers. Process
characteristics, including fuel type, plant type (counter-flow or parallel-flow), fuel sulfur content, and
amount of RAP used, were also available in the test reports. Reference 391 presents an examination of
these characteristics that was performed to determine their effect on SO2 emissions. The analysis of the
SO2 data shows that both fuel type and the air pollution control device had significant effects on SO2
emissions. Table 2 of Reference 391 presents the SO2 data, and includes the percentage of fuel-bound
sulfur emitted as SO2 during each emission test (where available) and the potential SO2 emissions (in
Ib/ton of HMA produced) that was not emitted. The analysis suggests that if a mass balance technique is
used to estimate SO2 emissions from drum mix dryers, it is appropriate to assume that only a percentage of
the fuel-bound sulfur is emitted as SO2- The data indicate that between 3 percent and 53 percent of fuel
bound sulfur is emitted as SO2, and the SO2 mass balance analysis includes an assumption that all of the
SO2 emissions emanate from the fuel (and not from the aggregate or asphalt). The data also show a
4-95
-------
maximum reduction (from the potential SO2 emissions) of 0.055 kg/Mg (0.11 Ib/ton) of SOo. The exact
reason that all of the sulfur is not emitted as SC>2 is not known, although possible reasons include the use of
limestone, which could react with SC^, as a feed material at some HMA facilities. The following
statement was added to the footnote for SO^: "Fifty percent of the fuel-bound sulfur, up to a maximum (as
SC^) of 0.1 Ib/ton of product, is expected to be retained in the product, with the remainder emitted as
SC>2." Fifty percent is the highest percentage of fuel-bound sulfur emitted as SC>2 (rounded to the nearest
10 percent) shown by the available data, which average 38 percent sulfur emitted as SC^. The 0.05 kg/Mg
(0.1 Ib/ton) maximum is recommended so that facilities with fuel sulfur loadings higher than those
represented in the available data set will not underestimate SC>2 emissions.
One additional parameter included in Table 2 of Reference 391 is the plant type (counter-flow or
parallel-flow). Upon inspection, the data show little correlation between plant type and SC>2 emissions.
This analysis is based on the data set for drain oil/waste oil/No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryers, because the data
sets for the other fuels are too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. The SC>2 emissions from
parallel-flow and counter-flow plants average 0.053 Ib/ton and 0.048 Ib/ton, respectively. The percent of
fuel-bound sulfur emitted as SC>2 from parallel-flow and counter-flow plants averages 41 percent and
30 percent, respectively. Because of the small difference in the average emission factors and percent sulfur
emitted from parallel-flow and counter-flow plants, separate emission factors are not recommended based
on plant type.
An emission factor for controlled SCK emissions from coal-fired drum-mix dryers (also using
supplementary gas or oil) was developed using data from three A-rated tests and one B-rated test. The
tests were conducted on fabric filter- and venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, which showed similar
emissions. Data from the No. 6 fuel oil-fired FiMA plants indicate a minimum of 50 percent retention of
sulfur (as SC^) in the product. However, no data are available to indicate similar retention at higher
concentrations of SOo as may occur from coal-fired plants. The data range from 0.0012 to 0.38 kg/Mg
(0.0024 to 0.75 Ib/ton) and average 0.097 kg/Mg (0.19 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned
an E rating because the data range over two orders of magnitude.
The SC>2 data from Reference 350 were not used in the development of emission factors. The
drum mix dryer tested was fired with a combination of drain oil and natural gas. Because of this unusual
combination of fuels and the lack of information on the relative amounts of the two fuels, it was not
possible to include the data in the emission factor calculations for oil-fired or natural gas-fired dryers, and a
separate emission factor for this fuel combination did not appear to be warranted.
4.2.4.1.11 Total organic compounds. An emission factor for uncontrolled TOC (as propane)
emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from
twelve A-rated tests, four B-rated tests, and one C-rated test. The data range from 0.0029 to 0.059 kg/Mg
(0.0058 to 0.12 Ib/ton) and average 0.021 kg/Mg (0.041 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned a B rating. Because the test method for TOC (Method 25A) does not measure formaldehyde
emissions, actual TOC emissions can be estimated by adding the formaldehyde emission factor for
drum-mix dryers (0.0013 kg/Mg [0.0025 Ib/ton]) to the candidate TOC factor.
4.2.4.1.12 Methane, benzene, ethylbenzene. toluene, and xylene. An emission factor for
uncontrolled methane emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired drum-mix dryers was
developed using data from five A-rated tests, two B-rated tests, and one C-rated test. The data range from
6.8 x 10'5 to 0.019 kg/Mg (0.00014 to 0.038 Ib/ton) and average 0.0058 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating.
4-96
-------
An emission factor for uncontrolled benzene emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste
oil-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from 15 A-rated tests, three B-rated tests, and one
C-rated test. The data range from 3.2 x 10~5 to 0.00060 kg/Mg (6.3 x 10"5 to 0.0012 Ib/ton) and average
0.00020 kg/Mg (0.00039 Ib/ton). The median for the data is 0.00015 kg/Mg (0.00030 Ib/ton), and the
standard deviation is 0.00016 kg/Mg (0.00031 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an A
rating. Data from one additional C-rated test (Reference 48) are not used because they are based on
non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions (one-half of the method detection limit was used to
estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the tests that included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled ethylbenzene emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste
oil-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from two B-rated tests and one C-rated test. The data
range from 2.6 x lO'^to 0.00019 kg/Mg (5.1 x 10'5 to 0.00038 Ib/ton) and average 0.00012 kg/Mg
(0.00024 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from two additional C-rated
tests (References 48 and 50) are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated
emissions (one-half of the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the
average of the tests that included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled toluene emissions from natural gas- or propane-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated, one B-rated, and one C-rated test. The data range from
2.3 x 10'5 to 0.00011 kg/Mg (4.5 x 10'5 to 0.00022 Ib/ton) and average 7.3 x 10'5 kg/Mg
(0.00015 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from one additional C-rated
test (Reference 48) are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions
(one-half of the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the
tests that included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled toluene emissions from fuel oil- or waste oil-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from three B-rated tests and one C-rated test. The data range from
0.00015 to 0.0037 kg/Mg (0.00029 to 0.0074 Ib/ton) and average 0.00037 kg/Mg (0.00075 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled xylene emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired
drum-mix dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test, one B-rated test, and one C-rated test.
The data range from 2.6 x 10'5 to 0.00020 kg/Mg (5.1 x 10'5 to 0.00040 Ib/ton) and average
0.00010 kg/Mg (0.00020 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from two
additional C-rated tests are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated
emissions (one-half of the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the
average of the tests that included actual measurements.
4.2.4.1.13 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Emission factors were developed for several
PAHs, including 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(e)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
chrysene, cumene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene,
perylene, phenanthrene, and pyrene emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers fired by
various fuels. Emission factors from dryers fired by natural gas and propane were combined, and emission
factors for dryers fired by different types of oil were combined. However, if the data indicated that
emissions from waste oil- or No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryers were significantly higher than emissions from other
fuel oil, separate factors were presented for these fuels. The emission factors that are based on only one or
two tests are assigned E ratings, and the factors based on three or more tests are assigned D ratings.
Table 4-17 shows the data combination for PAHs and other organic compounds.
4-97
-------
4.2.4.1.14 Formaldehyde. An emission factor for uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions from
drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from
19 A-rated tests and 2 B-rated tests. The data range from 0.00015 to 0.0070 kg/Mg (0.00030 to
0.014 Ib/ton) and average 0.0016 kg/Mg (0.0031 Ib/ton). For this data set, the standard deviation is
0.0018 kg/Mg (0.0036 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0010 kg/Mg (0.0020 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned a A rating. Additional data from 16 D-rated tests were not used to develop this candidate
emission factor.
4.2.4.1.15 Aldehydes and ketones. With the exception of formaldehyde, emission factors for all
aldehydes and ketones were developed using data from a single test. Uncontrolled emission factors were
developed for acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, benzaldehyde, butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde,
crotonaldehyde, hexanal, isovaleraldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, propionaldehyde, quinone, and
valeraldehyde emissions from waste oil-fired drum-mix dryers. These emission factors are assigned E
ratings.
4.2.4.1.16 Trace metals. Emission factors were developed for metals emissions from fabric filter-
and venturi scrubber-controlled drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil).
The emission factors and data combination are presented in Table 4-16. The data for different fuel types
generally were combined because there were significant overlaps in the range of test-specific emission
factors for different fuels. The two exceptions to this procedure were lead and mercury. For these two
metals, the magnitude of emissions from natural gas-fired dryers were significantly lower than the
emissions from dryers fired with other fuels. No D-rated data were used for emission factor development.
An emission factor rating of E was assigned to data sets with only one or two data points. An emission
factor rating of D generally was assigned to data sets with three or more data points, and an emission factor
rating of C generally was assigned to data sets with seven or more data points . The exception to this
procedure was the factor for silver. Three data sets were available, but the data ranged over two orders of
magnitude. Consequently, this candidate emission factor was assigned a rating of E.
Uncontrolled trace metals emission data also were available from one test on a fabric
filter-controlled drum-mix dryer (Reference 356). The source was tested at the inlet and outlet to the fabric
filter. The following table shows the results and calculated control efficiencies.
Besides the few exceptions described below, these uncontrolled emission factors also were
incorporated into the AP-42 section with a data rating of E.
n
The Reference 340 test indicated zero antimony emissions at the inlet but 3.5x10 Ib/ton of
antimony at the outlet. Therefore, the uncontrolled antimony data were discarded. The uncontrolled
emission factors for lead, nickel, and selenium from Reference 340 were higher than the candidate emission
factors for controlled emissions of these metals. Therefore, the control efficiencies determined from the
Reference 340 data were applied to the candidate factors for controlled emissions of these metals. These
control efficiencies were 97, 95, and 86 percent for lead, nickel, and selenium, respectively. The Reference
340 test detected no mercury emissions at the inlet or outlet to the control device. Therefore, the
uncontrolled emission factor was discarded. Finally, the Reference 340 data indicated that emissions of
silver increased across the control device. Therefore, the uncontrolled silver data also were discarded.
4-98
-------
FABRIC FILTER CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR METAL EMISSIONS - REFERENCE 356
Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
Emission factor, Ib/ton
Fabric filter inlet
0
1.30xl(T6
0.00025
0
4.20xlO'6
2.40xlO'5
1.50xlO'5
0.00017
2.30xlO'5
0.00065
0
1.50xlO'5
0.0012
2.70xlO'7
1.20xlO'7
2.20xlO'6
0.00018
Fabric filter outlet
3.50xlO'7
0
5.20xlO'6
0
3.10xlO'8
LlOxlO'6
0
l.OOxlO'6
6.10xlO'7
8.30xlO'6
0
7.40xlO'7
1.20xlO'5
4.70xlO'7
1.70xlO'8
0
3.10xlO'6
Control efficiency, %
a
100.0
97.9
a
99.3
95.4
100.0
99.4
97.3
98.7
a
95.1
99.0
-74.1
85.8
100.0
98.3
a Pollutant not detected at inlet: control efficiency not calculated.
4.2.4.1.17 Dioxins and furans. Emission factors were developed for dioxins and furans using A-
and B-rated data from two tests conducted on fuel oil- and waste-oil fired drum-mix dryers. Many of the
individual compounds were not detected, and a value of zero was included in the average emission factors
for those compounds. These emission factors are assigned E ratings because they are based on only two
tests. Emission factors were developed for the following dioxins and furans:
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (TCDD); 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF);
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (PeCDD); 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF);
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; l,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (HxCDD); 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD;
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD; 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF); 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF;
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF; 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF; l,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (HpCDD);
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF); 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF; total octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
(OCDD); total octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF); total TCDD; total TCDF; total PeCDD; total PeCDF;
total HpCDD; total HpCDF; total HxCDD; total HxCDF; total PCDD; total PCDF; and total
PCDD/PCDF.
4.2.4.1.18 Hydrochloric acid (HCD. An emission factor was developed for HC1 emissions from
five A-rated tests on fabric filter controlled drum mix dryers fired with drain or waste oil. The data range
from 1.9 x 10'5 to 0.00023 kg/Mg (3.8 x 10'5 to 0.00045 Ib/ton) and average 0.00010 kg/Mg to
0.00021 Ib/ton. This emission factor is assigned a rating of D. Because fabric filters are not expected to
control HC1 emissions, this emission factor also can be used to estimate emissions from uncontrolled
drum-mix dryers.
4-99
-------
4.2.4.1.19 Other compounds. Emission factors were developed for 1-pentene, 2-methyl-l-pentene,
2-methyl-2-butene, 3-methylpentane, butane, ethylene, sulfuric acid (E^SC^), heptane, hexane, isooctane,
methyl chloroform, and n-pentane emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. These emission
factors are based on one or two tests conducted on fuel oil- or waste oil-fired dryers. Fabric filters are not
expected to control emissions of these pollutants; therefore, these emission factors can be used to estimate
emissions from scrubber controlled drum-mix dryers as well. All of these emission factors are assigned E
ratings because they are based on only one or two data points. Chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene emissions were targeted and not detected during tests on three dryers.
4.2.4.2 Hot Oil Heaters. Emission factors for hot oil heaters, which are used to heat asphalt oil,
were developed using the data presented in Table 4-13. The average emission factors for hot oil heaters are
shown in Table 4-18.
Uncontrolled emission factors were developed for PAHs, formaldehyde, and several
polychlorinated dibenzofurans and dibenzo(p)dioxins, including 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD,
total HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, total HpCDD, total OCDD, total TCDF, total PeCDF, total
HxCDF, total HpCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF, and total OCDF. All of the emission factors were developed
from single tests and are assigned E ratings.
4.2.4.3 Batch-Mix Dryers. Emission factors for batch-mix dryers were developed using the data
presented in Table 4-12. The average emission factors for drum-mix dryers are shown in Tables 4-19,
4-20, 4-21, and 4-22. All of the emission factors developed for batch mix dryers are assumed to represent
the emissions from batch mix dryers as well as the hot screens and mixer that follow the dryers.
4.2.4.3.1 Filterable PM. An emission factor for uncontrolled filterable PM emissions from
batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from two
D-rated tests. Both tests were conducted on No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryers, but the data are assumed to
represent filterable PM emissions from dryers firing all types of fuels except coal. The data range from 14
to 18 kg/Mg (27 to 37 Ib/ton) and average 16 kg/Mg (32 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned an E rating.
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers (fired
with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 89 tests. The data range
from 0.0012 to 0.090 kg/Mg (0.0024 to 0.18 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.025 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.017 kg/Mg
(0.033 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0060 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). Data from two C-rated tests (References 1
and 40) that were at the top or bottom of the range were excluded from the average because these two
references provided only summary data on the emission tests that were conducted.
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from venturi or wet scrubber-controlled batch-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 16 tests. The
data range from 0.014 to 0.20 kg/Mg (0.027 to 0.40 Ib/ton) and average 0.061 kg/Mg (0.12 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.053 kg/Mg
(0.11 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.049 Ib/ton (0.098 Ib/ton). The data from Reference 76 were not used
because the control system, which consisted of dual wet scrubbers in series, was unique, and the data did
not fall within the range of the data for the other wet scrubber-controlled batch mix dryers.
4.2.4.3.2 Size-Specific PM. For uncontrolled batch-mix dryers, no new particle size data are
available. The particle size data from Reference 23 (the background document for the 1986 revision of the
hot mix asphalt AP-42 section) were retained, although the data are outdated. To determine size specific
4-100
-------
emission factors, the percentages of PM-15, PM-10, PM-5, and PM-2.5 were multiplied by the emission
factor for filterable PM from uncontrolled batch-mix dryers. The emission factor for PM-15 is 23 percent
of 16 kg/Mg (32 Ib/ton), or 3.7 kg/Mg (7.4 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-10 is 14 percent of
16 kg/Mg (32 Ib/ton), or 2.2 kg/Mg (4.5 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-5 is 3.5 percent of 16 kg/Mg
(32 Ib/ton), or 0.56 kg/Mg (1.1 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-2.5 is 0.83 percent of 16 kg/Mg
(32 Ib/ton), or 0.13 kg/Mg (0.27 Ib/ton). These emission factors are assigned E ratings because the particle
size data are based on D-rated data.
For PM-15 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-15 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-15 is
47 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-15 is 47 percent of 0.013 kg/Mg
(0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0059 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-10 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used in conjunction with data from Reference 24. The average percentage of PM-10
for the two tests is 39 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM
from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-10 is 39 percent of
0.013 kg/Mg (0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0049 kg/Mg (0.0098 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating
because the particle size data are based on only two tests.
For PM-5 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-5 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-5 is
36 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-5 is 36 percent of 0.013 kg/Mg
(0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0045 kg/Mg (0.0090 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-2.5 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-2.5 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-2.5 is
33 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-2.5 is 33 percent of 0.013 kg/Mg
(0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0041 kg/Mg (0.0083 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-1 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-1 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-1 is
30 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-1 is 30 percent of 0.012 kg/Mg
(0.024 Ib/ton), or 0.0038 kg/Mg (0.0075 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
4.2.4.3.3 Condensable organic PM. An emission factor for fabric filter-or venturi
scrubber-controlled condensable organic PM emissions from batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas,
4-101
-------
propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 24 tests. The data range from 5.9 x 10 to
0.0091 kg/Mg (1.2 x 10'5 to 0.018 Ib/ton) and average 0.0021 kg/Mg (0.0041 Ib/ton). This candidate
emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.0021 kg/Mg
(0.0042 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0013 Ib/ton (0.0026 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.3.4 Condensable inorganic PM. An emission factor for fabric filter-or venturi
scrubber-controlled condensable inorganic PM emissions from batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas,
propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 35 tests. The data range from 0.00037 to
0.060 kg/Mg (0.00073 to 0.12 Ib/ton) and average 0.0065 kg/Mg (0.013 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.012 kg/Mg (0.024 Ib/ton) and
the median is 0.0021 Ib/ton (0.0042 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.3.5 Total condensable PM. Emission factors for total condensable PM emissions from
fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) were
developed from one A-rated test and one B-rated test. The data range from 0.00036 to 0.0038 kg/Mg
(0.00071 to 0.0076 Ib/ton) and average 0.0021 kg/Mg (0.0042 Ib/ton). This emission factor is not rated
because much larger data sets are available for condensable organic and inorganic PM. Total condensable
PM is calculated as the sum of the condensable organic and inorganic PM emission factors, which is
0.0084 kg/Mg (0.017 Ib/ton). Data from References 46 and 240 for total condensable PM were not used
because those references did not provide data for the organic and inorganic fractions separately.
4.2.4.3.6 Total PM and PM-10. The total PM emission factors shown in the AP-42 table
represent the sum of the filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission
factors. These emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the
summation. The total PM-10 emission factors shown in the AP-42 table represents the sum of the
filterable PM-10, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission factors. These
emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the summation.
The total PM data from References 15 and 40 were not used because both references provide
summaries of test results and do not provide individual data points for the components that comprise total
PM.
4.2.4.3.7 Carbon monoxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled CO emissions from batch-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 12 tests. The
tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce CO
emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers,
because venturi scrubbers are not expected to reduce CO emissions. The data range from 0.017 to
0.65 kg/Mg (0.033 to 1.3 Ib/ton) and average 0.20 kg/Mg (0.40 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned a C rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.24 kg/Mg (0.48 Ib/ton) and the median is
0.075 kg/Mg (0.15 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.3.8 Carbon dioxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled COo emissions from batch-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, butane, coal, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from
115 tests. The tests were conducted on fabric filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, but these control
devices are not expected to reduce CO2 emissions. The data range from 3.4 to 78 kg/Mg (6.9 to
160 Ib/ton) and average 18 kg/Mg (37 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For
this data set, the standard deviation is 11 kg/Mg (22 Ib/ton) and the median is 16 Ib/ton (32 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.3.9 Nitrogen oxides. An emission factor for uncontrolled NO emissions from natural gas-
or propane-fired batch-mix dryers was developed using data from three A-rated tests and one B-rated test.
4-102
-------
The tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce
NOX emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled
dryers, because venturi scrubbers are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. The data range from 0.0071
to 0.020 kg/Mg (0.014 to 0.039 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.025 Ib/ton). This emission factor is
assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled NO emissions from fuel oil- or waste oil-fired batch-mix
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test and one B-rated test. The tests were conducted on
fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. This factor can
also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers are
not expected to reduce NO emissions. The data range from 0.031 to 0.084 kg/Mg (0.061 to 0.17 Ib/ton)
and average 0.058 kg/Mg (0.12 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating.
4.2.4.3.10 Sulfur dioxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled SOo emissions from natural gas-
or propane-fired batch-mix dryers was developed using data from two A-rated tests. The tests were
conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce SOo emissions.
This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi
scrubbers are not expected to reduce SOo emissions. The data range from 0.0017 to 0.0029 kg/Mg
(0.0034 to 0.0057 Ib/ton) and average 0.0023 kg/Mg (0.0046 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an
E rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled SO2 emissions from oil-fired batch-mix dryers was developed
using data from A-rated tests on two fuel oil-fired and one waste oil-fired dryers. The tests were conducted
on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce SO2 emissions. This factor
can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers
are not expected to reduce SOo emissions. The emission factor is 0.044 kg/Mg (0.088 Ib/ton). This
emission factor is assigned an E rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled SO2 emissions from coal-fired batch-mix dryers (also using
supplementary propane) was developed using data from a single A-rated test. The test was conducted on a
fabric filter-controlled dryer, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce SO2 emissions. This factor can
also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers are
not expected to reduce SO2 emissions. The emission factor is 0.022 kg/Mg (0.043 Ib/ton). This emission
factor is assigned an E rating.
4.2.4.3.11 Total organic compounds. An emission factor for uncontrolled TOC (as propane)
emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired batch-mix dryers was developed using data from three A-rated
tests and one C-rated test. This factor does not apply to No. 6 fuel oil or waste oil-fired dryers. The data
range from 0.0044 to 0.010 kg/Mg (0.0087 to 0.021 Ib/ton) and average 0.0073 kg/Mg (0.015 Ib/ton).
This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Because the test method for TOC (Method 25A)
does not measure formaldehyde emissions, actual TOC emission can be calculated by adding the
formaldehyde emission factor for batch-mix dryers (0.00031 kg/Mg [0.00062 Ib/ton]) to the candidate
TOC factor.
An emission factor for uncontrolled TOC (as propane) emissions from No. 6 fuel oil-fired
batch-mix dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test. The emission factor is 0.021 kg/Mg
(0.043 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an E rating. Because the test method for TOC
(Method 25 A) does not measure formaldehyde emissions, actual TOC emissions can be calculated by
adding the formaldehyde emission factor for batch-mix dryers (0.00031 kg/Mg [0.00062 Ib/ton]) to the
candidate TOC factor.
4-103
-------
4.2.4.3.12 Methane, benzene, ethylbenzene. toluene, and xylene. An emission factor for
uncontrolled methane emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired batch-mix dryers was
developed using data from two A-rated and two B-rated tests. The data range from 0.00058 to
0.0022 kg/Mg (0.0012 to 0.0043 Ib/ton) and average 0.0037 kg/Mg (0.0074 Ib/ton). This candidate
emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled benzene emissions from natural gas-fired batch-mix dryers
was developed using data from two A-rated tests, one B-rated test, and one C-rated test. The data range
from 3.5 x 10'5 to 0.00025 kg/Mg (7.0 x 10'5 to 0.00050 Ib/ton) and average 0.00014 kg/Mg
(0.00028 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from two additional C-rated
tests are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions (one-half of
the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the tests that
included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled ethylbenzene emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired
batch-mix dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test, one B-rated test, and two C-rated tests.
The data range from 0.00035 to 0.0028 kg/Mg (0.00070 to 0.0057 Ib/ton) and average 0.0011 kg/Mg
(0.0022 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled toluene emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired batch-mix
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated, one B-rated, and two C-rated tests. The data range
from 3.7 x 10'5 to 0.00099 kg/Mg (7.3 x 10'5 to 0.0020 Ib/ton) and average 0.00052 kg/Mg
(0.0010 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from one additional C-rated
test are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions (one-half of
the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the tests that
included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled xylene emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired batch-mix
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test, one B-rated test, and two C-rated test. The data
range from 0.00035 to 0.0035 kg/Mg (0.00070 to 0.0069 Ib/ton) and average 0.0014 kg/Mg
(0.0027 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
4.2.4.3.13 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Emission factors were developed for several
PAHs, including 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers fired by various fuels. In general, data
from dryers fired by natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil were combined, and data from dryers fired by No. 6 fuel
oil were presented separately. However, if the data indicated that emissions from No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryers
are similar to emissions from natural gas- or No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryers, all of the data were combined. The
emission factors that are based on only one or two tests are assigned E ratings, and the factors based on
three or more tests are assigned D ratings. Table 4-22 shows the data combination for PAHs and other
organic compounds.
4.2.4.3.14 Formaldehyde. An emission factor for uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions from
batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from five
A-rated tests, one B-rated test, and one C-rated test. The data range from 3.8 x 10 to 0.0010 kg/Mg
(7.6 x 10'5 to 0.0021 Ib/ton) and average 0.00036 kg/Mg (0.00074 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor
is assigned a D rating. Additional data from 10 D-rated tests were not used to develop this candidate
emission factor.
4-104
-------
4.2.4.3.15 Aldehydes and ketones. With the exception of formaldehyde (discussed in previous
paragraph) and acetaldehyde (two tests), emission factors for all aldehydes and ketones were developed
using data from a single test. Uncontrolled emission factors were developed for acetaldehyde,
benzaldehyde, butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde, crotonaldehyde, hexanal, and quinone emissions from
natural gas-fired batch-mix dryers. These emission factors are assigned E ratings. Data for acetone
emissions were not used because of a high field blank.
4.2.4.3.16 Trace metals. Emission factors were developed for metals emissions from fabric filter-
or venturi scrubber-controlled batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, fuel oil, or waste oil). Data for
venturi scrubber-controlled dryers and waste oil-fired dryers were only available to quantify lead emissions.
For the most part, the data did not show any significant differences between fuel types. Therefore, most of
the data were combined regardless of fuel type. However, separate emission factors were developed for
lead emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired dryers and waste oil-fired dryers, because the data indicate
that lead emissions from waste oil-fired dryers are an order of magnitude greater than lead emissions from
natural gas- or fuel oil-fired dryers. All available A-, B-, and C- rated data were combined for the
following metals: arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, hexavalent chromium,
manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. The emission factor ratings and data combination are
shown in Table 4-21. The emission factors that are based on three or more tests are assigned D ratings,
and the factors that are based on less than three tests are assigned E ratings.
4.2.4.4 Conventional: Continuous Mix Facilities. Emission factors were not developed for
continuous mix asphalt plants.
4.3 STATISTICAL APPROACH (NOTE: THE STATISTICAL ANALYSES DESCRIBED IN THIS
SECTION DO NOT INCLUDE DATA FROM REFERENCES BEYOND REFERENCE NUMBER 338)
In addition to the traditional approach, the hot mix asphalt data also were analyzed by statistical
methods to evaluate the effects of the design and operating parameters for which data were available on
emission factors. Data were analyzed using two general approaches: two-sample t-tests and general linear
model techniques (which encompass analysis of variance and regression models). The t-tests were used to
determine if the mean value for two data sets differed significantly according to a specific categorical
variable. Categorical variables are those that assume discrete (typically nonnumeric) values. For this
study, the categorical variables included emission control device (fabric filter or scrubber), scrubber type
(venturi or unspecified wet scrubber), fuel type (oil or gas), and oil class (waste oil/No. 6 fuel oil or other
types of fuel oil). If the data did not provided statistical evidence that mean emission factors for two
classes differed, the data sets were combined for subsequent analyses. For example, if a t-test did not
indicate that the mean emission factor for CO emissions from oil-fired dryers differed significantly from the
mean emission factor for CO from gas-fired dryers at a statistically significant level, fuel type was ignored,
and the data for both fuels were grouped together for the subsequent analyses of the CO data. There were
two advantages to grouping the data in this manner. First, grouping data simplified the full linear model by
reducing the number of potential values a categorical variable could assume. Second, by combining two
groups of data, the sample size increased, thereby increasing the power to identify important effects of
different parameters on emissions.
The general methodology for determining the potential effects of the categorical variables was first
to determine the potential effect of fuel type on emissions, then the potential effect of emission control
device on emissions. To eliminate the potential effect of control device while assessing fuel effects, control
device was held constant. That is, the fabric filter data and the scrubber data were grouped separately and
separate t-tests were performed on the fabric filter data and on the scrubber data. In addition, to eliminate
the potential effect of RAP content on emissions, the t-tests were performed only for those data points for
4-105
-------
which the RAP content was less than 0.1 (i.e., less than 10 percent RAP). However, it should be noted that
there were few data points for which RAP was used, but at quantities less than 10 percent.
The general linear model techniques were used to determine the effects of continuous variables on
emissions. Continuous variables are those that take on numerical values; the continuous variables
considered in the analysis of the hot mix asphalt data were the RAP content of the mix (e.g., 0.2 for
20 percent RAP), production rate, and scrubber pressure drop (for the scrubber-controlled filterable PM
data only).
To expedite the process, box plots and scatter diagrams were used to help characterize the emission
factors by providing insight on the distribution and variability of the data. As an example, Figure 4-1
shows a box plot of batch mix, fabric filter-controlled, filterable PM emission factors by fuel type. The
,i ' .-1 ^ j j i
box extends from the 25 to the 75 percentile; this range is known as the interquartile range. The line
across the box represents the median (or 50 percentile) of the data. The horizontal lines above and below
each box extend to the upper and lower adjacent values. The upper adjacent value is defined as the largest
data point less than or equal to the 75 percentile plus 1.5 times the interquartile range; the lower adjacent
value is defined as the smallest data point greater than or equal to the 25™ percentile minus 1.5 times the
interquartile range. Observed points more extreme than the adjacent values are plotted individually. In
addition, the width of the box is proportional to the number of data points in the category.
For each set of analyses, the final linear model was developed through an investigator-driven
elimination process. Based on preliminary descriptive results, such as those described earlier for t-tests,
initial models included all pertinent parameters (i.e., the main effects) that could have an effect on
emissions and the interactions (or cross-products) of those parameters. By interaction is meant the product
of two parameters, such as production rate multiplied by the RAP content in the mix. After the initial
model was fit, the model was reduced hierarchically. First, all interaction terms that were determined to be
nonsignificant were eliminated, and the model was fit again. Then, the nonsignificant main effects were
eliminated from the model, and the model was fit again.
Statistical analyses were performed on the data for the following pollutants: filterable PM,
condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, VOC, CO, CO2, NOX, and SO2- The data on
emissions of other pollutants were inadequate for the analyses to be meaningful.
For the t-tests and the general linear models, a significance level of 0.10 was used for all statistical
decisions; the p-values calculated by the statistical tests were compared to this significance level. That is,
p-values of 0.10 or less indicated a significant effect, and p-values greater than 0.10 indicated no
significant effect on emissions. Although this level provides less Type I error protection than is achieved
by the 0.05 level of significance often used, this value was selected to improve the power of the analyses
(i.e., to reduce the likelihood of a Type II error). A Type II error results when the analysis fails to find that
a factor affects emissions when it actually does. In the context of these analyses, a Type II error would
occur if, for example, the analyses indicated that control device had no effect on emissions, when, in fact,
control device did affect emissions significantly. Type II errors are considered to be at least of equal
importance as Type I errors in developing AP-42 emission factors.
The following sections summarizes the results of the analyses of the batch mix and drum-mix data
by pollutant. The complete results of each t-test performed and each linear model fit to the data on batch
mix and drum-mix emission data are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. As can be seen from
the analyses, the linear models developed from the data generally explained less than half of the variability
in the data. For this reason, an additional analysis of the data was performed to determine if multiplicative
models might be more appropriate than linear models for explaining data variability. The results of this
4-106
-------
analysis is presented in Section 4.3.3. Finally, the filterable PM data were analyzed to determine the type
of statistical distribution that best describes the data. A discussion of this analysis is presented in Section
4.3.4.
4.3.1 Batch-Mix Dryers
The following paragraphs describe the results of the analyses of the batch mix emissions data.
Table 4-23 summarizes the results of the t-tests performed on the batch mix data, and Table 4-24
summarizes the predictive equations developed from the batch mix emissions data. The complete results
the analyses are presented in Appendix A.
4.3.1.1 Filterable PM. The first step in the analyses of the filterable PM data was to use a t-test to
determine if firing batch-mix dryers with waste oil resulted in a significant difference in emissions when
compared to emissions from dryers fired with fuel oil. To eliminate the potential effect of control device,
the data for fabric filter-controlled dryers and scrubber-controlled dryers were analyzed separately. In
addition, to eliminate the potential effect of RAP, only the data for which the RAP content was less than
0.1 were considered. The mean emission factors for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM were 0.021 Ib/ton
for waste oil-fired dryers and 0.028 Ib/ton for dryers fired with other types of fuel oil. The t-test indicated
no significant difference (p = 0.59) in these two emission factors. The analyses of the data on
scrubber-controlled emissions yielded a similar result. The mean emission factor for waste-oil fired dryers
( 0.17 Ib/ton) did not differ significantly from the mean factor for nonwaste oil-fired dryers (0.042 Ib/ton),
and the p-value for the t-test was 0.34. (It should be noted that the lack of statistical significance is related
to a lack of statistical power because of small sample sizes - 5 tests total - rather than a lack of meaningful
technical difference in emissions.) Based on these results, the data for all types of fuel oil, including waste
oil, were combined for the subsequent analyses.
Next, a comparison was made to determine if there was a significant difference in filterable PM
emissions for oil-fired dryers when compared to emissions from gas-fired dryers. Again, the potential
effects of control device and RAP content were eliminated by analyzing the fabric filter data separately
from the scrubber data and by considering only those data points for which the RAP content was less than
0.1. The mean emission factors for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM were 0.025 Ib/ton for oil-fired
dryers and 0.016 Ib/ton for gas-fired dryers. The t-test indicated no significant difference (p = 0.25) in
these mean emission factors. Figure 4-1 presents a boxplot of the fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data
by fuel type for batch mix plants. For scrubber controlled emissions, the mean emission factors were
0.12 Ib/ton for oil-fired dryers and 0.21 Ib/ton for gas-fired dryers. The t-test indicated no significant
difference (p = 0.53). For the subsequent analyses, fuel type was ignored.
The effect of control device was examined next. The t-test indicated that fabric filter-controlled
filterable PM emissions (0.020 Ib/ton) differed significantly (p = 0.078) from scrubber-controlled filterable
PM emissions (0.15 Ib/ton) for RAP content less than 0.1, as would be expected. Figure 4-2 presents a
boxplot of the filterable PM data by control device for batch mix plants.
Finally, the scrubber data were analyzed to determine if the mean emission factor for venturi
scrubber-controlled dryers (0.11 Ib/ton) differed significantly from the mean emission factor for dryers
controlled with unspecified wet scrubbers (0.25 Ib/ton). The results indicated no significant difference (p =
0.34), despite the fact that the mean emission factor for venturi scrubber-controlled emissions was less than
half the mean factor for unspecified wet scrubber-controlled emissions. Again, the lack of statistical power
associated with the small data sets is the likely explanation for this result.
4-107
-------
Based on the results of the t-tests described above, separate linear models were fit for the fabric
filter data and the scrubber data. The mean emission factor for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM was
found to be a function of the RAP content (p = 0.0067) and the production rate (p = 0.033). However, the
squared correlation coefficient (R ) value for the model is 0.22, which indicates that the model explains
only a small percentage of the variability in the data. The model can be expressed as follows:
EFpM = 0.043+ 0.14R-0.00012P (4-1)
where:
EFpjyj = emission factor for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
A separate model was fit to predict fabric filter-controlled filterable PM emissions as a function of
RAP content only (p = 0.0043). This model has a squared correlation coefficient of 0.15 and can be
expressed as:
EFpM = 0.020 + 0.16R (4-2)
where:
EFpjyj = emission factor for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
R = RAP content.
Neither of the two models for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM emissions (Equations 4-1 and
4-2) explains much of the variability in the data. It should be noted that the large difference in the constant
terms for the two equations (0.043 for Equation 4-1 and 0.020 for Equation 4-2) is that Equation 4-2 is
based on an average production rate for the data; if a production rate of 200 ton/hr is used with Equation
4-1, the two models give comparable results.
Filterable PM emissions from scrubber-controlled batch-mix dryers were found to vary according
iction rate (p = 0.039). The model has an R value of 0.48 and is presented as Equation 4-3 below.
EFpM = 0.35 - 0.00094P (4-3)
where:
= emission factor for scrubber-controlled filterable PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
4.3.1.2 Condensable Inorganic PM. The data on emissions of condensable inorganic PM were
analyzed using the same methodology as described above for the filterable PM data analysis. In all cases,
the t-tests indicated no difference in the means of the groups for which comparisons were made. That is,
both fuel type and emission control device were found to have no effect on condensable inorganic PM
emissions.
Two models for estimating condensable inorganic PM emissions were developed from the data. In
the first model, emissions were found to vary according to the cross-product of RAP content and
production rate (p <0.0001). The model has an R value of 0.77 and can be expressed as follows:
4-108
-------
EFCIpM = 0.0041 + 0.00054RP (4-4)
where:
= emission factor for condensable inorganic PM emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
In the second model, emissions were found to vary according to the RAP content (p = 0.0001).
The model has an R value of 0.61 and can be expressed as follows:
EFCIpM = 0.0050 + 0.079R (4-5)
where:
EFpjpjyj = emission factor for condensable inorganic PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
R = RAP content.
A closer examination of the data indicates that both of the models for condensable inorganic PM
emissions are driven by the three data points for which RAP content was greater than zero; that is, of the
17 data points for condensable inorganic PM emissions, the RAP content was zero for 14 of the data
points. For this reason, these models are not recommended for incorporation into AP-42. The effect of the
nonnegative RAP data points on the mean emission factor is evident from Figure 4-3, which presents a plot
of the condensable inorganic PM data by RAP content for batch mix plants.
4.3.1.3 Condensable Organic PM. The results of the t-tests performed on the condensable organic
PM data were similar to the results of the condensable inorganic PM data analysis; both fuel type and
emission control device were found to have no effect on emissions. Figure 4-4 depicts a boxplot of the
condensable organic PM data by fuel type for batch mix plants. It should be noted that for most of the
comparisons, the data sets were relatively small.
From an engineering perspective, one would expect emissions from waste-oil fired dryers to be
higher than emissions from nonwaste oil-fired dryers. In fact, the mean emission factor for condensable
organic emissions from waste-oil fired dryers (0.0077 Ib/ton for fabric filter control) was nearly 3 times the
mean emission factor for nonwaste oil-fired dryers (0.0027 Ib/ton). However, because of the small data
sets, the t-test could not be used to substantiate this difference in terms of statistical significance.
Emissions were found to vary according to RAP content (p = 0.011) and the cross-product of RAP
content and production rate (p = 0.030). The model has an R value of 0.35 and can be expressed as
follows:
EFCOpM = 0.0044 + 0.065R - 0.00018RP (4-6)
4-109
-------
where:
EFpQpjyj = emission factor for condensable organic PM emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
As was the case for condensable inorganic emissions, this model is driven by a few data points; the
RAP content was zero for 5 of the 19 data points upon which the model is based. For this reason, Equation
4-6 also is not recommended for inclusion in AP-42.
4.3.1.4 Volatile Organic Compounds. For VOC emissions, there were a total of 5 data points for
which the RAP content was specified. All of the data were derived from tests on fabric filter-controlled
drum-mix dryers, so an analysis of control device effect was not possible. However, comparison of the
oil-fired dryer data to the gas-fired dried data indicated that fuel type had no significant effect on VOC
emissions. The number of data points were too few to allow a meaningful linear model analysis.
4.3.1.5 Carbon Monoxide. For CO emissions, there were a total of 10 data points, all resulting
from tests on fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. Although an analysis of control device effect was
not possible, the emission controls used in the hot mix industry are unlikely to have any effect on CO
emissions. The analysis indicated that none of the other parameters (fuel type, RAP content, and
production rate) had a significant effect on CO emissions.
4.3.1.6 Carbon Dioxide. Neither control device nor fuel type were found to impact CO2
emissions significantly. Figure 4-5 presents a boxplot of the CO2 data by fuel type for batch mix plants.
The linear model analysis indicated that CO2 emissions can be estimated as a function of RAP content (p =
0.052), production rate (p = 0.0002), and the RAP content-production rate cross-product (p = 0.043).
However, the squared correlation coefficient (R ) value for the model is 0.23, which indicates that the
model explains only a small percentage of the variability in the data. The model can be expressed as
follows:
EFCQ2 = 75 - 170R - 0.18P + 0.67RP (4-7)
where:
EFpQ2 = emission factor for CO emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
A second model developed from the CO2 data indicates CO2 emissions can be estimated as a
function of production rate alone (p = 0.0009). This model has an even smaller R value of 0.12 and can
be expressed as follows:
.10P
(4-8)
EFCO2 = 59-0.10P
where:
= emission factor for CO emissions in Ib/ton; and
= is the production rate in ton/hr.
4-110
-------
Both of the two models developed for CC>2 emissions explain little of the variation in the data.
Figure 4-6 presents a plot of the CC>2 data by production rate for batch mix plants.
4.3.1.7 Nitrogen Oxides. The data for NOX emissions from batch-mix dryers were too few to
model (six data points total). A comparison of NOX emissions from oil-fired dryers (2 data points with a
mean of 0.12 Ib/ton) and NOX emissions from gas-fired dryers (4 data points with a mean of 0.025 Ib/ton)
indicated no significant difference in mean emission factors, despite the considerable difference in the
mangnitudes of the mean emission factors. Again, the lack of statistical power due to small data sets is the
likely explanation for this outcome.
4.3.1.8 Summary of Recommended Emission Factor Equations. The equations that were
developed for batch mix facilities are not recommended for inclusion in the revised AP-42 section because
of the consistently low correlation coefficients. The large amounts of data that were analyzed did not show
any meaningful relationships between the emission factors and the parameters that were examined. This is
indicative of an industry with large amounts of variability between plants.
4.3.2 Drum-Mix Dryers
The following paragraphs describe the results of the analyses of the drum-mix emissions data.
Table 4-25 summarizes the results of the t-tests performed on the drum-mix data, and Table 4-26
summarizes the predictive equations developed from the drum-mix emissions data. The complete results
the analyses are presented in Appendix B.
4.3.2.1 Filterable PM. The same methodology was used to analyze the drum-mix data as is
described for the batch mix data analysis discussed in Section 4.3.1. However, scrubber pressure drop
data also were available for some of the drum-mix emission tests. The t-tests indicated that only control
device significantly affected filterable PM emissions (p = 0.015); the mean emission factor for fabric
filter-controlled PM determined to be 0.014 Ib/ton, and the mean emission factor for scrubber-controlled
PM was calculated as 0.026 Ib/ton. Figure 4-7 depicts a boxplot of the filterable PM data by control
device, and Figure 4-8 depicts a boxplot of the fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data by fuel type for
drum mix plants.
As indicated in Table 4-25, the mean emission factors for many of the t-test comparisons showed
significant differences, even though the statistical tests indicated otherwise. This type of results are due
mainly to a lack of statistical power associated with small data sets and the large variability in the data.
For example, for scrubber-controlled filterable from waste oil-fired dryers, the mean emission factor was
calculated as 0.047 Ib/ton, and, for scrubber-controlled filterable PM from dryers fired with nonwaste fuel
oil, the mean emission factor was 0.021 Ib/ton. Yet, the statistical test indicated no significant difference (p
= 0.18) in mean emission factors. In addition, comparisons of the means of the various emission factors
classes considered were not always consistent from engineering perspective. For example, for fabric
filter-controlled filterable PM from waste oil-fired dryers, the mean emission factor (0.0095 Ib/ton) was
much smaller in magnitude than the corresponding mean emission factor for dryers fired with nonwaste oils
(0.016 Ib/ton).
The linear model analysis indicated that neither of the continuous variables modeled (RAP content,
production rate) had a significant effect on filterable PM emissions. Furthermore, analysis of the scrubber
data indicated that the effect of scrubber pressure drop on filterable PM emissions also was negligible.
4.3.2.2 Condensable Inorganic PM. The analysis of the data on emissions of condensable
inorganic PM indicated that neither fuel type nor emission control device had significant effect on
4-111
-------
emissions. The linear model analysis indicated that both RAP content and production rate had no
significant effect on condensable inorganic PM emissions.
4.3.2.3 Condensable Organic PM. The results of the t-tests performed on the condensable organic
PM data were similar to the results of the condensable inorganic PM data analysis; both fuel type and
emission control device were found to have no significant effect on emissions. Figure 4-9 presents a
boxplot of the condensable organic PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants. This result is due largely to
the lack of statistical power associated with the analysis of small data sets; for several of the comparisons,
one of the classes compared had only 2 data points, as indicated in Table 4-25.
Emissions were found to vary according to RAP content (p = 0.047). However, the value of the
squared correlation coefficient (0.11) for the model indicates that the model is of limited use in estimating
emissions. The model can be expressed as follows:
EFCOpM = 0.0074 + 0.033R (4-9)
where:
EF^Qpjyj = emission factor for condensable organic PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
R = RAP content.
This model is consistent with engineering principles in that one would expect the condensable
organic emissions to increase with increasing RAP content. However, the squared correlation coefficient of
0.11 indicates that the model explains very little of the variability in the data.
4.3.2.4 Volatile Organic Compounds. The analysis of the VOC emission data indicated no fuel
effect (p = 0.28). However, the data do indicate that control device has a significant effect on emissions
(p = 0.060). For those data points for which the RAP content was less than 0.1, the mean emission factor
for fabric filter-controlled VOC was 0.015 Ib/ton, and the mean emission factor for scrubber-controlled
VOC was 0.058 Ib/ton. This result is not consistent with engineering principles in that, if either of the two
control devices has an effect on VOC emissions, one would expect larger emissions reductions from
scrubber control than from fabric filter control. It should be noted that the data sets compared were very
small; there were 4 data points for fabric filter-controlled VOC emissions and 3 data points for
scrubber-controlled VOC emissions. For these reasons, the revised AP-42 section does not segregate the
drum-mix VOC emission factor by control device.
The scrubber-controlled data were too few to model (3 data points total). For the fabric
filter-controlled VOC data, RAP content was found to have no significant effect on emissions, but the
analysis indicated a marginal effect for production rate (p = 0.092). The model developed has an R value
of 0.28 and can be expressed as follows:
EFVOC = 0.11- 0.00022P (4-10)
where:
EFyQp = emission factor for fabric filter-controlled VOC emissions in Ib/ton; and
P = production rate in ton/hr.
Figure 4-10 presents a plot of the VOC data by production rate for drum mix plants.
4-112
-------
4.3.2.5 Carbon Monoxide. For CO emissions, there were a total of 11 data points, all of which
were derived from tests on fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. Although an analysis of control device
effect was not possible, the emission controls used in the hot mix industry are unlikely to have any effect on
CO emissions. The analysis indicated that none of the other parameters (fuel type, RAP content, and
production rate) had a significant effect on CO emissions.
4.3.2.6 Carbon Dioxide. The analysis of the CO2 emission data generally indicated that none of
the parameters considered had a significant effect on emissions. Figure 4-11 depicts a boxplot of the COo
data by fuel type for drum mix plants. The one exception to this result pertained to the data for fabric
filter-controlled COo. For this data set, the mean emission factor for oil-fired dryers (32 Ib/ton) was found
to differ significantly (p = 0.016) from the mean emission factor for gas-fired dryers (25 Ib/ton). However,
because the magnitude of the two emission factors are comparable and the scrubber-controlled data
indicated no such difference by fuel type, the factors for CO2 were not segregated by fuel type in the
revised AP-42 section.
4.3.2.7 Nitrogen Oxides. The NOX emission data all were derived from tests on fabric
filter-controlled dryers. The analysis indicated that fuel had no significant effect on NOX emissions. The
data were to few for the linear model analyses to produce meaningful results; there were a total of 5 data
points for which the RAP content was specified.
4.3.2.8 Sulfur Dioxide. The analysis of the SO2 emission data indicated that none of the
parameters considered had a significant effect on emissions.
4.3.2.9 Summary of Recommended Emission Factor Equations. The equations that were
developed for drum-mix facilities are not recommended for inclusion in the revised AP-42 section because
of the consistently low correlation coefficients. The large amounts of data that were analyzed did not show
any strong relationships between the emission factors and the parameters that were examined. This is
indicative of an industry with large amounts of variability between plants.
4.3.3 Applicability of Multiplicative Models
In regression terminology, a multiplicative model is one in which errors (or deviations of the
emission factor about the predictive regression line or surface) are multiplicative rather than additive. In
such cases these deviations are expressed as a multiple or percentage of the modeled emission factors rather
that as ± some value. If multiplicative models are appropriate, those models can be fit by log transforming
the emission factor before modeling. One way to determine whether multiplicative models might be
appropriate is to examine the residuals (actual emissions - predicted emissions from the model) as a
function of the predicted emissions for an additive model. Patterns of residuals in which greater variability
is associated with larger predicted emission factors are indicative of a multiplicative model. For the hot
mix asphalt data, residuals did not exhibit strong patterns of increased variability with increasing predicted
values, suggesting no need for further examination of multiplicative models.
4.3.4 Filterable PM Distributions
Exploratory data analysis techniques, including both graphical descriptions via histograms and
formal tests of distributional fit using Kolmogorov type statistics, were used to assess distributional
properties of the filterable PM data for hot mix asphalt plants with separate analyses for batch and
drum-mix facilities. Analyses were conducted on two different variables, the actual emission factors and
the residuals from the emission factor models deemed to provide best fit. Because the normality
requirements for statistical inference in regression models are related to the "error term" in the model, not
4-113
-------
to the observations themselves, these analyses focused on the residuals, which are the best estimates of the
model "errors." Examination of the histograms of the residuals showed the distribution to be relatively
symmetric, with a slight skewness to the right. The Kolmogorov tests showed the data to be nonnormal, a
finding that is likely to be related to the slight skewness and to somewhat greater weight in the tails than is
found in the normal distribution. However, the distribution was quite unimodal, and given the sample sizes
for both types of hot mix plant and the robustness of the regression results to departures from normality
that don't exhibit extreme bimodality, the results appear reasonable.
The distributions of the actual emission factors also were examined, and the factors themselves
generally were lognormally distributed or nearly so. The lognormal distribution is one bounded by zero on
the left and skewed to the right. This finding is not surprising and is not inconsistent with the above
findings in that emissions are a function of RAP content and production rate, both of which appear to be
somewhat skewed to the right.
4.4 EMISSIONS FROM HMA LOAD-OUT AND OTHER SOURCES
This section summarizes the review of emission test reports and other documents that address
emissions from the HMA load-out, batch plant silo filling, truck emissions, and other sources. Two of the
references (References 355 and 356) provided data that were valid for developing emission factors. The
results of the analyses of the Reference 355 and 356 emission data are presented below. All of the
references reviewed are discussed in Section 4.2.1.
The test data from these two tests documented in References 355 and 356 require a number of
adjustments before they can be compared or combined. First, the reported load-out emissions data from
Plant C includes emissions measured during production operations and one test that quantified emissions
due to truck operations without asphalt loading. Second, the "volatility" of the asphalts used at Plant C
and Plant D are different and should be adjusted to some consistent value. Third, the load-out temperatures
for each run at Plant C and Plant D were somewhat different and should be adjusted to some consistent
value. The following sections describe the basis for performing these adjustments to arrive at load-out and
silo filling emissions at a standardized temperature and asphalt volatility. This allows the two load-out
data sets to be compared and, where appropriate, combined.
4.4.1 Load-Out Emissions
Tables 4-27 and 4-28 summarize the results of the load-out tests at Plants C, and Table 4-29
summarizes the load-out test results for Plant D. The following paragraphs discuss the data and the
corrections made to the data in the process of developing load-out emission factors.
4.4.1.1 Background correction. Emissions data were collected at Plant C during a background
test to estimate emissions from the operation of diesel trucks in the absence of hot mix asphalt loading.
This data allows for the adjustment of the run-by-run load-out data for PM (both MCEM and non-MCEM
fractions), VOHAPs), SVOHAPs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and TOC. Capture
efficiency was measured during the production tests and the background test. Capture efficiency-corrected
emissions data were presented in the test reports and was incorporated in the emission calculations.
A number of methods to adjust for these background concentrations are possible. The most
reliable method to adjust for emissions measured during background operations would be to separately
adjust each run for the measured capture efficiency and then subtract these adjusted background emissions
from the adjusted emissions measured during production operations. This procedure produces negative
values for both the PM and MCEM and many other HAP compounds. This situation is probably due to a
4-114
-------
combination of factors which cannot be accommodated retroactively. An approach that utilizes the capture
efficiency data that were collected, accounts for the emissions from diesel trucks and paved roadways,
minimizes the number of negative emission values, and provides a high bias relative to the most correct
method mentioned above was used to account for background emissions. To accomplish this, the
as-measured background concentration was subtracted from each separate capture efficiency adjusted run.
For the most part, values were treated as zero if the background concentration exceeded the
capture-efficiency-adjusted run concentration. Emissions of particulate presented the one exception. If the
background-adjusted PM is less than the MCEM, the value for the MCEM was used in lieu of the
background-adjusted PM. This background adjustment method resulted in a low estimate for the
background emissions, and, therefore, emission factors for load-out that are conservatively high.
It should also be noted that the full run average TOC emission concentration of 1.2 ppm was not
used for the background adjustment for truck emissions. Instead, the average concentration of 0.83 for the
first half of the background run was used. While the second half of the background run had average
concentrations of 1.6 ppm, the capture efficiency was generally lower. This situation could not be fully
explained and it was agreed to use the lower concentrations for the background adjustment.
Background adjusted emission factors were calculated by subtracting the measured background
concentration from the capture efficiency corrected concentration and then multiplying by the ratio of the
capture efficiency corrected emission factor to the capture efficiency-corrected concentration. An example
calculation using Run 1 MCEM emissions is presented below:
EF
EFcor= [(Cprod)-(Cback)]x pr°d
prod
where:
EFcor = Background corrected emission factor (Ib/ton).
C j = Capture efficiency corrected production concentration (gr/dscf).
^back = Measured background concentration (gr/dscf).
EF j = Capture efficiency corrected emission factor (Ib/ton).
The following values were obtained from Table 4-27:
C j = 1.68x10 gr/dscf (from MCEM row, second column).
Cback = 3.78x10'4 gr/dscf (from MCEM row, eighth column).
EFnrr,rl = 3.12x 10 ~4 Ib/ton (from MCEM row, third column).
proa ? ^ A A ' i
EFcor = ((1.68x10°) -(3.78x10"*))* (3.12xlO^/ 1.68x10°)
= 1.30xlO'3 * 1.86X10'1
= 2.42xlO'4
The background-corrected load-out emission factors calculated for Plant C are presented in
Tables 4-30 and 4-31.
4.4.1.2 Adjustment for asphalt volatility. Samples of the asphalt binder used during each test run
were collected. The mass loss-on-heating of these samples were determined according to ASTM Method D
2872-88, Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test - RTFOT).
This test determines the loss-on-heating of an asphalt sample following heating at 325 °F for five hours.
During the test, a small amount of the asphalt is maintained in a rolling vessel which causes a thin film of
the asphalt to be exposed. This test is performed by industry prior to other physical tests that measure the
4-115
-------
suitability of the asphalt as a binder for paving material. As a result of industry and state quality control
programs, this test is performed on many samples of asphalt throughout the distribution and use cycle of
asphalt binders. It also seems reasonable to expect organic air emissions from asphalt to be directly
proportional to the loss-on-heating measured by this test. However, it should be noted that this relationship
is uncertain but is assumed to be directionally correct since the basic physical processes that the asphalt
binder experiences in the production of HMA and during the rolling thin film test are similar. As a result,
it follows that all emission factors related to the organic content of asphalt binders (includes VOHAPs,
SVOHAPs, PAHs, TOC, and MCEM PM) should be scaled to common RTFOT results for each test run
before comparing emissions or combining emissions to a single result. However, the inorganic PM from
stone dust or unpaved road dust (non-MCEM PM) should not be scaled to RTFOT results, since asphalt
volatility would have no effect on these emissions.
To determine a common RTFOT value to use as a default in those situations where no historical
information is available, a survey of laboratories of a limited number of State departments of transportation
was performed. Information that was requested included the results of RTFOT tests performed by the
laboratory. Data for calendar year 1999 were obtained from Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina,
Michigan, and Minnesota. Each of the state transportation department laboratory employees who provided
these data said that they analyze asphalts used or projected for use without further blending or
modifications. Information on the rolling thin film tests for Plant C and D and for selected States where
data from 1999 were obtained are presented in Table 4-32. Also included are the number of samples tested
and the standard deviation of the loss-on-heating values.
Based upon the RTFOT data in Table 4-32 and the desire to select a default which encourages the
use of site-specific data, a default of -0.5 percent was used. The adjustment due to asphalt volatility was
performed after correcting for capture efficiency and truck background emissions. Emission factors for
individual test runs were normalized to a 0.5 percent loss-on-heating by multiplying the CE and
background-corrected emission factor by the ratio of asphalt volatility measured during the individual test
runs to 0.5 percent. Data from Plant C and Plant D were adjusted to this default value prior to comparing
the data, determining whether to combine the data into a single factor, and in combining the data. In
addition, in the revised AP-42 section, it is highly recommended that any adjustments for the
loss-on-heating be an appropriate statistical calculation of a representative sampling of asphalts used in the
location in question. Selection of the appropriate statistical calculation should also be based upon the
pollutants and health endpoints being evaluated. The adjustment of the data based upon the maximum
loss-on-heating value allowed by some general specification is not appropriate, nor is the selection of the
maximum loss-on-heating value obtained for any one sample.
4.4.1.3 Adjustment for asphalt temperature. Because asphalt binders are typical of many other
organic substances, temperature can have an effect on the emissions. Supplemental laboratory analyses
were performed on the asphalt binder obtained during both Plant C and D emissions tests. These tests can
be used to estimate the relative significance of this temperature effect. The analyses for loss-on-heating
performed on the asphalts used during the tests included temperatures 25 °F above and below the ASTM
reference temperature of 325 °F. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4-33. As indicated
by these tests, the loss-on-heating can change almost by a factor of 2 with these changes in temperature.
A fundamental physical phenomenon described by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation states that
there is a linear relationship between the natural log of the vapor pressure and the inverse of the absolute
temperature (Reference: Experimental Physical Chemistry; F. Daniels, J. W. Williams, P. Bender, R.
Alberty, and C. Cornwell; McGraw-Hill; 1962). Many engineering texts and manuals (Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics; 45th Edition; CRC Press; June 1973) provide Antoine's equation constants
describing this linear relationship for many compounds. Using the data in Table 4-33, the constants
4-116
-------
describing this relationship for the asphalts used during the tests were empirically developed. Using the
actual Plant C and D data, we can relate temperature to the loss-on-heating by using the following two
equations, where t equals temperature (°F):
r> i-f • A v. u T ((t + 460)*0.0231 - 19.28)
California Asphalt: Loss = - evv ' '
Massachusetts Asphalt: Loss = - e" ' ' '
During stakeholder meetings to discuss the collection and analysis of this data, the industry has
stated that good paving practices dictate that load-out temperatures in excess of 325 °F should be avoided.
More specifically, the Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council's published "Best Practices" brochure
(Figure 4-12) published on 4/00 provides guidance for controlling fumes, emissions, and odors from HMA
plants and paving operations. The second side of the brochure (Figure 4-13) includes recommendations for
the range and midpoint temperatures for both the storage of asphalt and the mixing of the FiMA product.
These temperatures vary by asphalt binder grade. The numbers in the binder grade are indications of the
project-specific temperature extremes (in degrees centigrade) for which the asphalt mixture is designed. As
such, a PG82-22 grade asphalt is intended for use when average 7-day maximum pavement design
temperature is 82 °C (179°F) and the minimum pavement design temperature is 22 °C (-8°F). The
midpoint HMA plant mixing temperatures range from 264°F to 315 °F. As shown in Figure 4-13, the
highest HMA mixing temperature is associated with a binder used for the most severe temperature
conditions.
In an attempt to maximize the emissions from the silo filling and load-out operations, both facilities
were requested to increase the load-out temperature as much as possible. However, as indicated by the
average temperatures measured during the tests, a consistent temperature was not achieved. The equations
developed from the additional laboratory testing of the asphalt binders used during the emission tests
provide a mechanism to normalize the emissions to the maximum temperature of 325 °F. This can be
accomplished by multiplying the capture efficiency and background corrected emissions by the ratio of the
loss-on-heating at 325 °F to the estimated loss-on-heating at the temperature measured during the test run.
Thus, all organic emission factors related to the asphalt binders (includes VOHAPs, SVOHAPs, PAHs,
TOC, and MCEM PM) can be scaled according to these temperature relationships. It should be noted that
this hypothesis has not been validated by emissions testing but provides an adjustment that is directionally
correct. It should also be noted that it is not appropriate to scale the inorganic particulate matter from
stone dust or unpaved road dust (non-MCEM PM) to the asphalt temperature, since asphalt temperature
has no effect on these emissions.
For Plant C load-out data, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility and temperature was
performed after correcting for capture efficiency and truck background emissions. (Note: For Plant C
silo filling data, which is discussed in a following section, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility
and temperature was performed on the measured emissions.) The emission factors for Plant C were
normalized to a loss-on-heating of -0.5 percent and a load-out temperature of 325 °F using Equation 4-11.
For Plant D load-out data, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility and temperature was performed
on the measured emissions as no correction for capture efficiency or truck background emissions was
required. The emission factors for Plant D were normalized to a loss-on-heating of-0.5 percent and a
load-out temperature of 325°F using Equation 4-12.
4-117
-------
Equation 4-11:
(325 + 46°) - 19.28)
EF = EF (———} \— _ 1
Std Corr y ((0.0231) (T + 460) - 19.28)
Equation 4-12:
_() c p ((0.0271) (325 + 460) - 22.93)
EF = EF
V ((°-0271)
-------
adjusted MCEM PM emission factor for Plant C is 1.62 x 10 Ib/ton and for Plant D is
5.18 xlO'4 Ib/ton.
The non-MCEM PM or inorganic PM was determined in a manner similar to MCEM PM
described above, except that the non-MCEM portion of the PM catch was not adjusted for asphalt
temperature or volatility. The reason for this is that the non-MCEM PM represents stone dust in the
emissions or road dust emissions, and these type of PM emissions are not affected by asphalt conditions.
The inorganic PM is calculated by taking the difference between the PM and MCEM emissions for both the
background corrected emissions and the deposition estimate. The inorganic PM deposition for Plant C was
1.25 x 10"4 Ib/ton. For Plant D, the inorganic PM deposition was 3.01 x 10"5 Ib/ton. For Plant C, the
sum of the inorganic PM measured by sampling and deposition is 1.81 x 10 Ib/ton. For Plant D, this
sum is 1.15 x 10 Ib/ton. Although most of the diesel truck exhaust was excluded from Plant D's
enclosure and ventilation system, the fugitive dust created by truck movement on the unpaved surfaces
could not be excluded. This may partially explain why the inorganic PM at Plant D is much higher than
from Plant C. Since no background run was performed at Plant D, an adjustment for background dust
emissions due to truck movement can not be made.
After adjusting the load-out emissions for Plant C and D to a common volatility and temperature
reference, the data were compared to determine whether to present separate emission factors for batch and
drum-mix plants or to average the data and present on one emission factor for both types of plants. Table
4-37 presents the PM, MCEM, inorganic PM and TOC data adjusted to a common loss-on-heating value
of-0.5 percent and a common load-out temperature of 325°F.
4.4.2 Silo Filling Emissions
Tables 4-38 and 4-39 summarize the results of the silo filling tests at Plants C. The analysis and
adjustment of the silo filling test data were performed as described in the previous section for the load-out
data. However, since there was no background correction, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility
and temperature was performed on the measured emissions. The adjusted data are presented in
Tables 4-40 and 4-41. For Plant C, the reported deposition for silo filling was 7.1 x 10 for PM and
1.12 x 10 for MCEM PM. The volatility and temperature adjusted deposition values are 7.26 x 10 for
PM and 2.49 x 10 for MCEM PM. The resulting temperature and volatility adjusted PM and MCEM
PM emission factors for silo filling are 5.85 x 10 and 2.53 x 10 respectively.
4.4.3 Comparison of Load-Out Data for Plants C and D
The most significant difference in emissions between Plant C and D is the inorganic PM emissions.
The inorganic PM emissions from Plant D are almost ten times the emissions from Plant C. In addition,
the inorganic PM is 1.6 times the MCEM PM compared to Plant C where the inorganic PM is
approximately the same as the MCEM PM for both the silo filling and load-out operations. This large
difference is probably due in part to the added dust emissions from the gravel paving surface. Using the
AP-42 Section 13.2.2 for unpaved roads, an estimate of dust emissions can be made. Information on the
vehicle weight, road silt content, road moisture content and vehicle speed are needed to use the equation
presented in the AP-42 section. Approximately 25 tons of asphalt was loaded into trucks that weighed
about 10 tons for an average weight of about 22 tons. Based upon the default silt content for publicly
accessible gravel roads of 6.4 percent, an assumed moisture content of 15 percent and an average vehicle
speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) the emission factor in pounds per vehicle mile traveled (vmt) can be
calculated.
4-119
-------
= (s/12)°'8(W/3)
0.5
(M/0.2)
0.4
where:
k = a constant which is 10 for total participate
s = silt content (%)
W = average vehicle weight (tons)
M = average surface moisture (%)
Solving the above equation using the above variables yields an emission factor of 2.91 Ib/vmt.
Since the enclosure was about 150 feet long (0.028 mi) and the average hot mix asphalt loaded was
25 tons, 0.00114 miles were traveled in the enclosure for every ton loaded. Also since the vehicle speed
was less than 5 mph, the AP-42 section recommends an adjustment of 5/15 to estimate emissions from
vehicles traveling at slow speeds. Multiplying the emission factor in Ib/vmt by 0.00114 to convert to Ib/ton
and by 5/15 to accommodate the slow speeds yields an emission factor of 1.11 x 10 Ib/ton. Subtracting
this emission factor from the inorganic PM emissions measured at Plant D yields a background corrected
emission factor of 1.5 x 10" . While this adjustment is speculative, it agrees well with the background
adjusted inorganic particulate emission factor for Plant C. As a result, the inorganic PM emission factor
for Plant C of 1.81 x 10 Ib/ton will be used for both batch mix plants and drum-mix plants.
The next most significant difference in emissions between Plant C and D is the MCEM PM. The
MCEM PM from Plant D is approximately four times the emissions from Plant C. This difference could
be explained by the longer time required to complete the load-out operations at batch plants compared to
drum-mix plants and other test-specific factors. However, the asphalt dependant mechanism that generates
emissions of MCEM PM and TOC is the same for both pollutants. This volatilization should cause similar
MCEM PM and TOC load-out emissions after adjustments for asphalt volatility and temperature. Both
emissions are the result of vaporization of organic material from the asphalt binder. The more volatile
organic material remains a vapor and is measured by Method 25A and generally is referred to as TOC.
The less volatile organic material condenses into an aerosol and is measured by Method 315 and is referred
to as MCEM PM. When summed, the TOC and MCEM PM emissions from Plant D are only 13 percent
higher than the TOC and MCEM PM emissions from Plant C. Given the variations in the run-by-run data,
the low number of runs, and the uncertainty in adjusting emissions to a consistent temperature and
volatility, the difference is not significant. Therefore, for the purposes of developing emission factors for
load-out operations, both the MCEM PM and TOC data from Plant C and Plant D were averaged and an
equation that represents the averaged data was developed.
4.4.4 Predictive Emission Factor Equations for Load-Out and Silo Filling Operations
The equations used to adjust the Plant C and Plant D emissions data to a common temperature and
volatility condition are specific to the asphalts used during those emissions tests. To arrive at a single
equation that accounts for the physical characteristics of both asphalts requires some additional adjustment
to the RTFOT data. Accounting for differences in the loss-on-heating of the asphalts is straightforward
since it was assumed that emissions are directly related to the loss-on-heating. Accounting for differences
in the temperature of the asphalts is more complicated due to the non-linear relationship between
temperature and loss-on-heating that was used. The temperature relationship can be developed in the same
manner that the plant specific equations relating temperature to loss-on-heating were developed. First, the
predicted loss-on-heating for each asphalt was calculated using the plant-specific equations. Next, the
4-120
-------
predicted values were adjusted to a loss-on-heating at 325 °F of -0.5 percent. Table 4-42 presents the
predicted and the adjusted loss-on-heating values for asphalts from both tests. Next, the adjusted
loss-on-heating values were averaged for each temperature. Then a linear regression of the temperature
(converted to °R by adding 460) and the natural logarithm of the adjusted loss-on-heating (expressed as a
positive number to avert a calculation error) was performed to determine the equation constants. The
results of the linear regression produce the following equation.
Loss-on-heating = e((0-0251(T+460)) - 20'43)
The loss-on-heating equation developed from the adjusted data from asphalts obtained during
emissions testing at Plant C and D can be used to develop predictive equations for total PM, organic PM
(MCEM PM), TOC and CO. The following sets of equations present the development of the predictive
equations for use in the AP-42 Section.
For total PM from load-out operations from drum-mix or batch mix plants :
w ,,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
Total PM = 1.81 E-04 + 3.40E-04 (——) [-
-0.5 g((°-0251) (325 + 46°) ~ 20.43)-
w ,,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 1.81 E-04 + 3.40E-04 (——) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.81 E-04 + 1.41E-03 (-V ) e
((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
For organic PM from load-out operations from drum-mix or batch mix plants:
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
Organic PM = 3.40 E-04 (——) [— ]
& -0.5 /7((°-°251) (325 + 460) - 20.43)
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 3.40 E-04 (——) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.41 E-03 (-V ) e
((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
For TOC from load-out operations from drum-mix or batch plants:
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
TOC = 4.15 E-03 (——) [— ]
_OS .,((0.0251) (325 + 460) - 20.43)
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 4.15 E-03 (——) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.72 E-02 (-V ) e
((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
For CO from load-out operations from drum-mix or batch plants:
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
CO = 1.35 E-03 (——) [— ]
-05 ((0.0251) (325 + 460) - 20.43)
4-121
-------
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 1.35 E-03 (— — ) [
-0.5 0.4836
= 5.58 E-03 (-V )
For total PM from silo filling:
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
Total PM = 3.32 E-04 + 2.53 E-04 (— — ) [— - ]
-0.5 £((°-°251) (325 + 46°) - 20.43)
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 3.32 E-04 + 2.53 E-04 (— — ) [- - ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 3.32 E-04 + 1.05 E-03 (-V ) e((a°251) (T + 460) - 2a43)
For organic PM from silo filling:
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
Organic PM = 2.53 E-04 (— — ) [— - ]
0 -0.5 g((°-°251) (325 + 46°) - 20.43)
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 2.53 E-04 (— — ) [- - ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.05 E-03 (-V ) e((ao251) (T + 460> - 20-43>
For TOC from silo filling:
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
TOC = 1.22 E-02 (— — ) [— - ]
-0.5 «((°-025l) (325 + 46°) - 20.43)
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 1.22 E-02 (— — ) [- - ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 5.04 E-02 (-V ) e«°-0251) (T + 460) - 2a43)
For CO from silo filling:
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
CO = 1.18 E-03 (— — ) [— - ]
-0.5 e((°-°251) (325 + 460) - 20.43)
w .,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 1.18 E-03 (——) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 4.88 E-03 (-V) e
((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
4-122
-------
Emission factors for individual compounds quantified during emission testing at Plant C should be
presented as a percentage of either the organic PM or the TOC for load-out emissions and for silo filling
emissions. Tables 4-43 and 4-44 present the speciation profiles to be used to estimate emissions of the
PM- based and the volatile organic-based compounds, respectively.
4.4.5 Storage Tank Emissions
Methodologies are available to estimate emissions from heated organic liquid storage tanks (see
Organic Liquid Storage Tanks in Chapter 7 of AP-42 and the TANKS software). The emissions from
these types of tanks depend on the contents of the tank, the volume of gas vented, and the operating
temperature range of the liquid in the tank. Emissions during the filling of these tanks (working loss) are
governed by the saturation concentration of the liquid stored in the tank and the volume of gas displaced by
the addition of liquid to the tank. Emissions during other periods (breathing losses) are governed by the
saturation concentration of the liquid stored in the tank and the changes in the volume of the gas caused by
temperature variations. However, vapor pressure information on paving asphalt is not available to allow
the use of the TANKS program without additional information.
Information is available in the test report for Plant C to infer emissions during the filling of the
asphalt storage tank and, by extension, the vapor pressure characteristics of paving asphalt at the typical
operating temperatures. The derivation is based upon the assumption that emissions from the storage tanks
and the silo vent are saturated and are at the maximum concentration possible for the temperature
maintained. As a result, organic compound emissions (TOC, MCEM, VOHAPS, and SVOHAPS) occur at
the same concentrations as the maximum measured from the silo vent. Knowledge of the mass (volume) of
asphalt transferred into the storage tank can be used to determine the volume of gas and, therefore, mass
emissions from the storage tank during filling operations. With this information, an aliphatic hydrocarbon,
exhibiting equivalent working loss emissions, can be added to the TANKS chemical database. Following
this general procedure, the specific parameters required to estimate the breathing loss emissions can be
determined using the following nine steps.
First, the TOC concentration at saturation in the head space of the asphalt binder storage tanks is
estimated at a specific temperature. This concentration can be estimated from the maximum TOC
concentration measured from the HMA storage silos at Plant C. This concentration is determined as
follows:
Two episodes of "pegged" TOC readings occurred during Run 3 (the emissions being measured
exceeded the maximum concentration of 1,000 ppm that the instrument was capable of measuring). One
was for a 10-min period from 0723 to 0733, and one was a 4-min period from 0841 to 0845. Two other
episodes occurred and lasted 1 min. Using the slope of the lines on either side of the "pegged" readings, an
estimate of the "unmeasured" emission was determined graphically from the Run 3 TOC time plot (Figure
4-14). A maximum concentration of about 1800 ppm is estimated for the 0723 to 0733 time period. This
estimate is considered to be an upper-bound estimate for the following reasons:
1. Data from Run 1 and 2 also show fairly steep curves on both sides of a plateau that is below the
1,000 ppm maximum reading of the instrument. Figure 4-15 shows data from Run 2 typical of
both runs. As can be seen, there is a very steep curve that plateaus at about 500 ppm.
Extrapolating this curve shows a peak value near 2,000 ppm, a situation not shown by the actual
data for this run.
2. Despite the steep curves seen in Run 3, several on-scale readings were observed immediately
before and after the "pegged" readings, indicating that the true peak was likely just beyond the
4-123
-------
instrument span of 1,000 ppm. Specifically, these readings were 856 ppm at 0722, 811 ppm at
0734, 994 at 0840, and 982 ppm at 0845.
The average silo emission duct concentration and mass emission rate reported for Run 3 in
Table 3-7 were 590 ppm and 2.3 Ib/hr respectively. Also, as reported for Run 3 in Table 3-5, the
volumetric flow was 574 dscfm. Therefore the measured TOC concentration for Run 3 was
6.678 x 10 ~5 Ib/dscf (2.3 Ib/hr - (574 dscfm x 60 hr/min = 0.00006678 Ib/dscf). The equivalency for a
2,000 ppm concentration was determined by using the ratio of Ib/dscf to ppm measured during the complete
Run 3 (2,000 ppm x (6.678 x 10 ~5 - 590 ppm) = 2.264 x 10 ~4). Therefore, a TOC concentration of
2,000 ppm is equivalent to 0.000226 lb/ft3.
Second, the volume of vapor displaced from the asphalt binder storage tank by the mass of asphalt
binder used to manufacture a given quantity of HMA is determined. The volume of displaced vapor is
determined as follows:
During the TOC excursion which occurred during Run 3 Between 7:00am and 8:30am on July 27
Plant C was making HMA that averaged 4.9 percent asphalt binder. At this ratio, 4,900 tons of asphalt
binder is used in the production of 100,000 tons of virgin asphalt pavement (100,000 x 0.049 = 4,900). At
a density of 69 lb/ft , the volume of vapor displaced from the storage tank by this 4,900 tons of asphalt
binder is 142,029 cubic feet (ft3) (4,900 x 2,000 - 69 = 142,029).
Third, the mass of organic compounds emitted from the asphalt binder storage tank during filling
operations (working loss) per 100,000 tons of HMA is determined. The mass emissions are determined by
multiplying the estimated concentration of organic compounds at saturation by the estimated vapor
displaced from the asphalt binder storage tank during the production of 100,000 tons of HMA. As a result,
the asphalt storage tank emissions during filling would be 32 lb/100,000 tons of asphalt production
(0.000226 lb/ft3 x 142,029 ft3/100,000 tons HMA = 32.15 lb/100,000 tons HMA).
Fourth, the physical properties of the asphalt required for the TANKS program to calculate
working loss emissions are determined. The TANKS program requires the liquid density in Ib/gal, the
liquid molecular weight, and the vapor molecular weight. Converting density from lb/ft to Ib/gal gives
9.22 Ib/gallon (69 lb/ft3 - 7.481 ft3/gal = 9.22). Data presented in the document SHRP Materials
Reference Library: Asphalt Cements: A Concise Data Compilation (SHRP-A-645; Strategic Highway
Research Program; National Research Council; Washington, DC; May 1993) indicates that the liquid
molecular weight of asphalts from single crude oil sources ranges from 700 to 1300 g/g-mole. Therefore, a
median liquid molecular weight of 1,000 g/g-mole is a reasonable value for liquid asphalt. Additionally,
information from the FTIR analysis during the testing at Plant C indicated that the vapor spectra were very
similar to aliphatic hydrocarbons between pentane and nonane. Therefore, vapor molecular weights
between 72 g/g-mole and 129 g/g-mole are reasonable.
Fifth, the TANKS program requires information on the dimensions, operating temperature, and
throughput for the storage tank. The recorded temperature for the material being loaded into the HMA
storage silo on July 27, 1998 at 7:36 was 325 ° F. This temperature was used as the average bulk liquid
temperature and average liquid surface temperature. It was assumed that the temperature of the liquid in
the storage tank varied 5 ° F above and below the average temperature. The following tank properties and
throughput were used in the TANKS software program:
Tank Length 50 feet Tank Working Volume 18,000 gallons
Tank Diameter 8 feet Net Throughput 1,062,000 gallons
Number of Turnovers 5 9
4-124
-------
Shell Color Gray/Med Shell Condition Good
Avg. Liquid Surface Temperature 325 °F Bulk Liquid Temperature 325 °F
Min. Liquid Surface Temperature 320°F Max. Liquid Surface Temperature 330°F
Sixth, the TANKS program requires the relationship between temperature and vapor pressure for the
material stored. For materials stored at temperatures greater than 120° F, TANKS requires the constants
for one of the two forms of Antoine's equations identified in the TANKS documentation. The TANKS
program does not have a compound where the vapor pressure relationship is defined by either Antoine's
equations, the liquid molecular weight is near 1,000 and the vapor molecular weight is between 72 and 129.
Therefore, recent versions of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry
were consulted for Antoine's constants for aliphatic hydrocarbons that are less volatile than are currently in
the TANKS chemical data base. Neither handbook contained Antoine's constants in either form for
aliphatic hydrocarbons less volatile than eicosane (€29^42)- However, the 45th Edition of the Handbook
of Chemistry and Physics (June 1973) included a table titled, "Vapor Pressures, Critical Temperatures and
Critical Pressures of Organic Compounds." This table provided a temperature and vapor pressure
relationship defined by two constants and included aliphatic hydrocarbons up to nonacosane (^gH^Q).
The documentation in TANKS calls one form of the equation "Antoine's equation (using °K)" and
provides the following equation defining the relationship between temperature and vapor pressure:
Log P = (-0.05223 A) / T) + B
where:
log (P) = the logarithm (base 10) of the vapor pressure (P)
P = vapor pressure in mm Hg
T = temperature for vapor pressure determination in °K (°C + 273)
The Antoine's constants for heavier aliphatic hydrocarbons were added to the TANKS software program.
Two compounds were added to the chemical data base for each available set of Antoine's constants. A
liquid molecular weight of 1,000 was specified for both compounds. A vapor molecular weight of 72 was
specified for one compound and 129 for the other compound.
Seventh, the TANKS program was run for a variety of the aliphatic hydrocarbons added to the
TANKS chemical database. The aliphatic hydrocarbons which resulted in emissions nearest to 32 Ib/year
were docosane (C-22^46) an<^ tricosane ^23^^). The TANKS program calculates emissions of
36.4 Ib/year for docosane (vapor molecular weight of 85 g/g-mole) and 29.3 Ib/year for tricosane (vapor
molecular weight of 129 g/g-mole).
Eighth, since neither compound resulted in calculated emissions near 32 Ib per year, a revised set
of Antoine's constants was required. The above calculated emissions are approximately equally above and
below the calculated working loss emissions of 32 Ib/year. For the TANKS program to calculate working
loss emissions of 32 Ib/year, Antoine's constants that more closely estimate these emissions were developed
by averaging the docosane and tricosane Antoine's constants. The constants for docosane and tricosane
(using °K) are 70871.7 and 79828.43, for "A" and 8.604918 and 9.402 for "B" (Reference: Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics; 54th Edition; CRC Press; June 1973). The "A" and "B" terms were averaged and
resulted in Antoine's constants (using °K) values of 75350.06 for "A" and 9.00346 for "B." These
Antoine's constants were added to the TANKS chemical database.
Ninth, the TANKS program was run using various vapor molecular weights between 85 and 129
to obtain the vapor molecular weight that resulted in emissions closest to 32 Ib/year. The molecular weight
that resulted in these emissions was 105 g/g-mole. Using the above Antoine's constants and a vapor
4-125
-------
molecular weight of 105 in the TANKS program results in annual working losses of 32.76 Ib/year and
breathing losses of 1.73 Ib/year. Therefore, these values will be presented in AP-42 as estimated Antoine's
constants and average liquid and vapor molecular weights for the purposes of calculating emissions from
asphalt storage tanks. Because these constants were derived using technology transfer, the emission factor
developed will be rated E.
Asphalt storage tank working and breathing losses of CO can be estimated using the TOC losses
calculated using the TANKS program and the predictive emission factor equations for TOC and CO
emissions from silo filling operations presented in the previous section. The only difference between the
two equations is value of the initial coefficient, which is 0.0504 for TOC and 0.00488 for CO. The ratio of
these coefficients (0.00488/0.0504) is 0.097. Therefore, CO emissions from asphalt storage tank working
and breathing losses can be estimated by multiplying the TOC losses by a factor of 0.097.
4.4.6 Emissions Following Load-Out - Yard Emissions
Table 4-4 of the Plant D report presented EPA Method 25 A TOC data from eight extended period
tests in an attempt to determine a static emission rate. The average emission rate at the end of the extended
period tests for all eight tests was 0.19 Ib/hr and for the seven tests that were greater than 4-min in duration
was 0.18 Ib/hr of TOC. The average asphalt in the trucks used during this test was 27 tons. For the tests
of greater than 4-min duration the average asphalt in the trucks was 29 tons. These tests were conducted
immediately following the load-out operation. Since the complete capture of load-out emissions relied upon
the capture of emissions that were collected directly from the asphalt and on additional fumes that escaped
immediate capture but were retained in the enclosure some of the emissions measured during these tests
could also be attributed to the load-out operation. Due to the potential for measuring residual emissions in
the enclosure, the data for this test are rated D.
Figure 4-16 shows time plots of the extended period test results. Note that the 3-min extended
period test data were dropped from consideration since all other test data are from 5 to 7 min in duration.
Additionally, it is apparent that the six data sets demonstrate a consistent downward trend. Several curve
fits in Lotus and Excel were attempted on this data set, but the downward trend of the data presented
problems for these programs.
Successive emission rates for each data set were added to obtain cumulative emissions overtime.
Figure 4-17 shows the cumulative emission (total grams) versus time after loading for each of these
sampling periods. For the scale shown, much of the data appear to be nearly linear, although some of the
data and the previously noted tail-off indicate that a nonlinear function may be more valid. Both linear and
nonlinear functions were investigated. Table 4-45 summarizes the best curve fits for the linear and
nonlinear functions. All three of these functions are plotted on Figure 4-17 with the data sets and are
described in the following paragraphs.
Note that these equations may not hold beyond 5 to 7 min for several reasons. First, no data are
available past eight minutes and, as with all extrapolations, estimates beyond the available data are highly
speculative. Second, as described in Reference 389, Response 53, emissions are highly dependent on
temperature. The asphalt will cool and the emission rate will be further reduced. It is expected that these
equations will provide emission estimates that are biased higher with increasing time. Because of the
consistent downward trend in the data, we believe that the linear equation is an upper-bound estimate of
emissions. The power function equation is believed to provide the least biased emissions estimate within
the constraints of the data. However, the linear and power equations can be used to show a range of the
upper-bound estimate of yard emissions. Cumulative emissions were calculated at the 5-, 8-, and
10-minute points and are included in the Table 4-46. These times should be typical of the times that trucks
are in the vicinity of the production and loading operations.
4-126
-------
"R-squared" is a mathematical term used to numerically define how well the curve fits the data,
and a value greater than 0.9 is considered good. Of the three equations presented in Table 4-45, the power
function provides the closest analogy to the appearance of the original measured emission rates and will be
presented in the AP-42 section. Rather than presenting the equation, the emission factor for the 8-minute
time period (0.011 Ib/ton) will be presented in the AP-42 section. Due to the potential problems associated
with properly collecting and analyzing this emission source, the factor is E rated.
Yard emissions of CO can be estimated using the emission factor for TOC emissions from yard
emissions (0.011 Ib/ton) and the predictive emission factor equations for TOC and CO emissions from
load-out presented in the previous section. The difference between the two equations is value of the initial
coefficient, which is 0.0172 for TOC and 0.00558 for CO. The ratio of these coefficients
(0.00558/0.0172) is 0.32. Therefore, yard CO emissions can be estimated using the emission factor of
0.0035 Ib/ton. This emission factor also is assigned a rating of E.
4-127
-------
mean ef
c
o
O
in
c
o
tn
-rH
E
LU
21
D.
.2 n
,15 -
,1
.05 -
0 -
Oil Gas
Filterable PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-1. Boxplot of fabric filter-controlled filterable PM by fuel type for batch mix plants.
4-128
-------
c
o
O
in
c
o
tn
-rH
E
LU
21
D.
mean ef
.4 n
,3 -
.1 -
0 -
FF VS
Filterable PM Emission Factor by APCD
Figure 4-2. Boxplot of filterable PM data by control device for batch mix plants.
4-129
-------
,03 -
D
•4-1
*--,
JQ
L.
O
4-J
U
ra
LL
c
o
01
-H
E
LU
.02
,01 -
D.
n
CJ
8
~T I I
0 .1 .2
RAP Content
CIPM Emission Factor vs. RAP Content
Figure 4-3. Plot of condensable inorganic PM emission factor versus RAP content for batch mix plants.
4-130
-------
mean ef
tr
o
c_
o
u
m
1=1
-1-1
m
E
LU
Q.
a
CJ
.02 -i
.015 -
,01
.005 -
0 -
Oil G33
Cond. Qrg. PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-4. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for batch mix plants.
4-131
-------
mean ef
Q
-M
X,
_o
t-
O
-U
u
a
LL.
c
D
-H
m
LU
CJ
150 -
100 -
50 -
o -
Oil Gas
C02 Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-5. Boxplot of CO2 data by fuel type for batch mix plants.
4-132
-------
c
o
u
ID
LL
c
o
-rH
LU
CM
O
CJ
150
100 -
50 -
o -
0
o3?°
o%
8 0
o
0
0 200
Production Rate
C02 Emission Factor vs Production Rate
400
Figure 4-6. Plot of CO2 emission factor by production rate for batch mix plants.
4-133
-------
mean ef
c
o
L
D
en
m
,1 -
,05 -
0 -
o
o
FF WS
Filterable PM Emission Factor by APCD
Figure 4-7. Boxplot of filterable PM data by control device for drum mix plants.
4-134
-------
c
o
c_
n
cn
cn
mean ef
.1 -
,05 -
0 -
Oil Gas
Filterable PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-8. Boxplot of fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants.
4-135
-------
mean ef
c
o
(J
m
IB
01
2:
Q.
,1 -
,05 -
0 -
Oil Gas
Filterable PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-9. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants.
4-136
-------
,15 -
c
o
u
ID
LL
O
-rH
01
-H
LU
CJ
.1 -
,05 -
0 -
100 200 300
Process Rate
VOC Emission Factor vs. Process Rate
400
Figure 4-10. Plot of VOC emission factor versus production rate for drum mix plants.
4-137
-------
_Q
(-
O
u
ia
m
ui
LU
a
CJ
mean ef
BO -i
60 -
40
20 -
0 -
o
o
O
Oil Gas
C02 Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-11. Boxplot of CO2 data by fuel type for drum mix plants.
4-138
-------
Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council Best Practices
Controlling Fumes, Emissions and Odors
from HMA Plant and Paving Operations
AT THE PLANT
• Select plant mixing temperature by:
— Contacting your asphalt supplier.
— Using the chart on the back.
• Do not use laboratory mixing tempera-
ture as plant mixing temperature.
• Make sure RAP and aggregates are dry.
• Do not use RAP containing coal tar.
• Do not expose RAP to flame.
• Do not over-heat RAP.
• Look for other sources of fumes
such as:
— Slag aggregate
— Shingles
— Crumb rubber mixtures
— Other products from construction
and demolition waste.
• Read the Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) for all materials.
• Regularly calibrate thermocouples
and other sensors.
• Tune up the burner.
• Contact the manufacturer and find
out the limits on CO and 02.
• When the stack is tested, compare
the plant's thermocouple reading to
the tester's thermocouple.
• Gather data on aggregate moisture
content and fuel usage. If fuel usage
goes up for the same or less moisture,
find the reason.
• Have stack gases tested to see if
they are in limits. If not, contact
manufacturer to make adjustments.
• Compare mix temperatures with
plant temperatures. Look for
changes with time.
• Measure and record the pressure
drop in the baghouse. Look for
changes overtime.
• Keep a record of fuel usage over
time. Find the reason for any
big changes.
• Keep track of this information and
discuss it with co-workers and the
manufacturer.
• Do not use diesel fuel and kerosene
as release agents.
AT THE PAVING SITE
• Try increasing the mat lift thickness
before calling for a higher plant
temperature.
• Do not use diesel fuel and kerosene
as release agents.
• Maintain engineering controls on
paving equipment.
ASPHALT PAVEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
APEC is comprised of the following organizations: National Asphalt Pavement Association, Asphalt Institute, State Asphalt Pavement Associations
©M/OO/BMm
Reprinted with the permission of the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Figure 4-12. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 1.
4-139
-------
Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council Best Practices
^^^^H Tunii
;al Asphalt Binder Tern
npnatnnpQ ^^^^^1
Binder Grade
PG 46 -28
PG 46 -34
PG 46 -40
PG 52 -28
PG 52 -34
PG 52 -40
PG 52 -46
PG 58 -22
PG 58 -28
PG 58 -34
PG 64 -22
PG 64 -28
PG 64 -34
PG 67 -22
PG 70 -22
PG 70 -28
PG 76 -22
PG 76 -28
PG 82 -22
HMA Plant Asphalt Tank
Storage Temperature (°F)
Range Midpoint
260 - 290 275
260 - 290 275
260 - 290 275
260 - 295 278
260 - 295 278
260 - 295 278
260 - 295 278
280 - 305 292
280 - 305 292
280 - 305 292
285-315 300
285-315 300
285-315 300
295 - 320 308
300-325 312
295 - 320 308
315-330 322
310-325 318
315-335 325
HMA Plant Mixing
Temperature (°F)
Range Midpoint
240 - 295 264
240 - 295 264
240 - 295 264
240 - 300 270
240 - 300 270
240 - 300 270
240 - 300 270
260-310 285
260-310 285
260-310 285
265 - 320 292
265 - 320 292
265 - 320 292
275 - 325 300
280 - 330 305
275 - 325 300
285-335 310
280 - 330 305
290-340 315
Use mid-point temperature for test strip construction.
ASPHALT PAVEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
APEC is comprised of the following organizations: National Asphalt Pavement Association, Asphalt Institute, State Asphalt Pavement Associations
Reprinted with the permission of the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Figure 4-13. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 2.
4-140
-------
^
c
w
o.
o
k*
O.
E
Q.
S
d
c
o
o
O
w~
20CO
i™ \jB\B. \J
1800
16CO
14CO
1200
1CCO
800
6CO
400
2CO
0
\J
7:
I
;l
II
i i,
ii
1
^
00
Silo
Unmeasured Emissions
Ar«a1
i Arw 1
A
X -I j -1
f 1 k f '
j1' \ i \ ** 4
^*'< V\ ^ ^Vyv, r^* V'^J !^*-« ,-.^ A- \
. Y*. - '"* ' '^'" ^
(
J
8:00 9:00 11:00 12
I
i
i
!!
00
I
II
Figure 4-14. Unmeasured TOC silo storage emissions, Run 3.
4-141
-------
c
m
Q.
£
a.
a.
*•*••
d
c
o
u
u
X
Run 2 - Silo
3000 t -
(1
2500
2000 • - i
A
t\
1500 / j
's Extrapolated
> Area
1000 / \
}
>- '; \
500 / \_J\
j \ Measured Emissions
' 1 I
n I / L
v • 1 ».-_-.,,,, _
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12
Time
00
Figure 4-15. THC silo storage emissions, Run 2.
4-142
-------
Extended Period Tes.s (1 min. averaging)
3.5
2-5
c
o
E
LU
O
£ 1.5
0.5
4 5
Elapsed Time (min)
7
8
Figure 4-16. Extended period tests (1 min averaging).
-------
Cumulative Emissions vs. Time After Loadout
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
CO
CO
E
LLJ
"5
-I—'
o
4 5
Time (min)
Figure 4-17. Cumulative emissions vs. time after load-out.
-------
Table 4-1. REFERENCES NOT USED FOR EMISSION
FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Ref. No.
42
43
115
116
120
127
129
131
134
136
150
151
152
156
157
158
159
169
185
194
207
208
227
228
230
272
305
357-369
Reason for exclusion
Insufficient process description and production data
Insufficient process description and production data
No production data provided
Insufficient process description
Test methods not comparable to EPA reference methods
Insufficient process description
Incomplete report
Problems with test procedure
Insufficient process description
No production data provided
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Insufficient test data provided
Stack conditions caused problems with test
Insufficient test data provided
Insufficient process description
Insufficient test data provided
Not a test report; miscellaneous data reported
Same test as Reference 226
Insufficient process description
Insufficient process description
Insufficient test data provided
Insufficient data to develop load-out emission factors
4-145
-------
Table 4-2. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA -
PLANT C ASPHALTa
Temperature, °F
300
325
350
Date
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
Loss-on-heating, % by RTFOTb
-0.216
-0.200
-0.142
-0.171
-0.369
-0.311
-0.286
-0.292
-0.686
-0.611
-0.498
-0.510
a Reference 355.
b RTFOT = Rolling thin film oven test, as specified in ASTM D2872-88, "Effects of Heat and Air on a
Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test)."
Table 4-3. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA -
PLANT D ASPHALT Da
Temperature, °F
300
325
350
Date
10/05/98
10/06/98
10/07/98
10/05/98
10/06/98
10/07/98
10/05/98
10/06/98
10/07/98
Loss-on-heating, % by RTFOTb
-0.089
-0.105
-0.109
-0.216
-0.206
-0.218
-0.400
-0.395
-0.380
a Reference 356
b RTFOT = Rolling thin film oven test, as specified in ASTM D2872-88, "Effects of Heat and Air on a
Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test)."
4-146
-------
Table 4-4. SUMMARY OF SUMMA CANNISTER SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359
Sampling location
Railcar hatch
Storage tank vent
Upwind site
Downwind site
Residential site
BTEX Compounds
Detected
Could not be quantifieda
Could not be quantifieda
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Concentration,
ppbv
NA
NA
<0.20
0.37
<0.20
1.57
<0.20
0.30
<0.20
0.76
0.65
1.88
<0.20
0.52
Other Pollutants Detected
Xylenes
-hexane
Xylenes
-Hexane,
Hexane isomers
Acetic acid
Methyl ethyl ketone
Acetic acid
Methyl ethyl ketone
Acetic acid
Methyl ethyl ketone
a Beyond calibration range of instrument.
4-147
-------
Table 4-5. SUMMARY OF PORTABLE GC/MS SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359
Sampling location
Railcar hatch
Storage tank vent
Upwind site
Downwind site
Residential site
BTEX Compounds Detected
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Concentration, ppmv
1.2
2.5
1.9
3.1
2.6
9.1
6.0
12.6
<0.20
<0.20
0.04
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
0.04
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
0.04
<0.20
Table 4-6. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYZER
SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359
Sampling location
Railcar hatch
Storage tank vent
Upwind site
Downwind site
Residential site
Concentration, ppmv
600
200 to 500
1.3
1.2
1.2
4-148
-------
Table 4-7. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 360
Sample
RC02
RC03
RC04
RC05
RC06
AC01
AC02
AC03
AC04
AC05
EB02
EB03
EB04
EB05
EB06
SW01
SW02
SW03
SW04
SW05
WY01
WY02
WY03
WY04
WY05
Benzene Concentration, ppbv
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
3.33
509
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.25
67.3
.515
4.19
0.678
<0.1
0.195
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.734
2.625
6.657
5.005
2.222
1.252
4-149
-------
Table 4-8. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 361
Pollutant
Benzene
2-Methyl phenol
Diethyl phthalate
bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-c.d)pyrene
Lead
PM-10 (organic train)
PM- 10 (metals train)
Total PM (organic train)
T
Emission Rate, ug/m -min
Asphalt without Rubber
57
7.2
32.7
5.1
0.103
1.648
1.469
0.786
4.42
1.106
0.660
0.141
0.542
26,850
37,710
27,700
Asphalt with Rubber
110
23.7
34.37
5.3
0.063
1.178
1.612
0.653
1.957
0.306
0.204
0.065
1.10
12,710
19,810
12,950
Table 4-9. SUMMARY OF CEMS DATA - REFERENCE 361
Pollutant
CO
CO2
NO
TOC
SO2
PAH
T
Emission rate, mg/m -min
Facility blank
171
8,650
32.1
126.3
0.01
7
Asphalt without rubber
144
9,616
5.4
91.1
0.00
61
Asphalt with rubber
201
8,053
17.2
124.3
0.52
11
4-150
-------
Table 4-10. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED
DRYERS
Pollutant
Sulfur dioxide"
Antimony
Arsenic8
Beryllium"
Phosphorus3
Selenium"
Thallium
Acenaphthylene"
Acenaphthene"
Anthracene"
Benzo(a)anthracene"
Benzo(a)pyrene"
Benzo(b)fluoranthene"
Benzo(e)pyrene"
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene"
Benzo(k)fluoranthene"
2-Chloro naphthalene
Chrysene"
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene"
Dibenzofurans"
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Toluene"
Methane
Lead
Ref. No.
24
24,25
24,162-164
24,25,35,162-164
24
24,25,35,162-164
24,25
24
24,47
24,45
24,34,35
24,34,35
24
24
24,34,35
24,34,46
24,48
24,34
24,34,35,46,48
24
24
45,47-50
48
163,318,319
Pollutant
Fluoranthene"
Fluorene"
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene"
Perylene"
Phenanthrene"
Pyrene"
o-Tolualdehyde
Acrolein"
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Isophorone
Isovaleraldehyde"
p-Tolualdehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
Xylene"
Methyl Chloroform"
Hydrogen Sulfide
Chromium"
Hexavalent Chromium"
Copper"
Nickel"
Benzene"
Ethylbenzene"
Cadmium
Ref. No.
24,50
24
24,34,35,46
24
24
24
24,25
24
24,25
24,25
24
24,25
24,25
34,35,45,47-50
34
34,35
35
35,162,164
35
35,162
35,47-50
45,47-50
163,164
HOT OIL HEATERS
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
TCDDs (total)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
PeCDDs (total)
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
Benzene
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Pollutant was detected in at least one other test referenced. Table does not include non-detect compounds from
references beyond Reference 338.
4-151
-------
Table 4-11. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
None
Cyclone or
multiclone
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter"
(Plant A)
Fabric filter"
(Plant A)
Fabric filter
(Plant A)
Fabric filter"
(Plant B)
Fabric filter"
(Plant C)
Fabric filter
(Plant D)
None (Plant E)
Venturi scrubber
(Plant E)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
ND
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas
Propane
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Oto30
ND
ND
30
30
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
TNMOC
TNMOC
Filterable PM
TNMOC
TNMOC
TNMOC
TNMOC
TNMOC
Filterable PM
Filterable PM- 10
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
TOC as propane
S02
No.
of
test
runs
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
1
3
5
4
5
3
5
6
3
3
3
10
10
Data
rating
D
D
D
D
D
NR
C
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.8-3.1 (3.6-6.2)
0.25-0.43 (0.49-0.85)
0.025-0.045 (0.050-0.090)
0.015-0.030(0.030-0.060)
0.085-0.12(0.17-0.24)
0.11(0.22)
0.090-0.13(0.18-0.25)
0.021-0.055(0.041-0.11)
0.042-0.060(0.083-0.12)
0.13-0.22(0.25-0.44)
0.080-0.30(0.16-0.59)
0.065-0.095(0.13-0.19)
0.0048-0.0099 (0.0097-0.020)
0.0023-0.0030 (0.0046-0.0060)
0.0097-0.018(0.019-0.036)
0.0011-0.0023 (0.0022-0.0046)
0.037-0.060(0.073-0.12)
0.034-0.055(0.068-0.11)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
2.5 (4.9)
0.34 (0.67)
0.035 (0.070)
0.023 (0.045)
0.11(0.21)
0.11(0.22)
0.11(0.21)
0.033 (0.066)
0.050(0.10)
0.16(0.33)
0.16(0.31)
0.080(0.16)
0.0079(0.016)
0.0026 (0.0052)
0.014 (0.027)
0.0016 (0.0032)
0.046(0.091)
0.049 (0.098)
Ref.
No.
11
11
11
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
25
25
25
25
25
25
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
NO,
C02
CO
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Zinc
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde/
Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexanal
No.
of
test
runs
10
9
10
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.025-0.040 (0.050-0.080)
16-23 (31-46)
0.0046-0.079(0.0092-0.16)
4.9xlO-7-1.6xlO-6(9.7xlO-7-3.1xlO-6)
2.0xlO-7-5.5xlO-6(3.9xlO-7-9.9xlO-6)
1.4xlO-7-5.5xlO-7(2.7xlO-7-9.9xlO-7)
6.5xlO-7-9.5xlO-6(1.3xlO-6-1.9xlO-5)
2.2xlO-6-4.8xlO-6(4.3xlO-6-9.5xlO-6)
2.4xlO-6-4.1xlO-6(4.7xlO-6-8.1xlO-6)
2. 8x1 0-6-7.0xl O-6 (5 .6x1 0-6- 1 .4x1 0'5)
2.8xlO-7-1.3xlO-5(5.6xlO-7-2.5xlO-5)
2.2xlO-5-3.7xlO-5(4.4xlO-5-7.3xlO-5)
5.5xlO-7-8.5xlO-7(l.lxlO-6-1.7xlO-6)
2.0xlO-5-3.5xlO-5(3.9xlO-5-6.9xlO-5)
0.00018-0.00032(0.00036-0.00063)
0.00028-0.0013 (0.00055-0.0025)
0.00026-0.00055 (0.00052-0.0011)
1.4xlO-6-3.3xlO-5(2.8xlO-6-6.6xlO-5)
1.3xlO-5-1.7xlO-4(2.5xlO-5-3.3xlO-4)
5. 5xlO-5-1.4xlO-4 (0.00011-0.00027)
l.lxlO-5-1.2xlO-4(2.2xlO-5-2.4xlO-4)
0.00030-0.0026 (0.00060-0.0051)
2.8xlO-5-l.lxlO-4(5.5xlO-5-2.2xlO-4)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.034 (0.068)
19(38)
0.019(0.038)
9.5xlO-7(1.9xlO-6)
2.4xlO-6 (4.8xlO-6)
3.1xlO-7(6.2xlO-7)
6.0xlO-6(1.2xlO-5)
3.1xlO-6(6.1xlO-6)
3.0xlO-6 (6.0xlO-6)
5.5xlO-6(l.lxlO-5)
7.5xlO-6(1.5xlO-5)
2.8xlO-5(5.5xlO-5)
7.0xlO-7(1.4xlO-6)
2.7xlO-5 (5.3xlO-5)
0.00024 (0.00047)
0.00065 (0.0013)
0.00042 (0.00083)
1.3xlO-5(2.6xlO-5)
5. 5xlO'5 (0.00011)
S.OxlO'5 (0.00016)
4.3xlO-5 (8.6xlO-5)
0.0010 (0.0020)
5. 5xlO'5 (0.00011)
Ref.
No.
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber"
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
None
Fabric filter
None
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
Pollutant
Isovaleraldehyde
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Propionaldehyde
Quinone
Valeraldehyde
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
4
4
4
4
4
19
19
19
19
19
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
2.0xlO-6-3.0xlO-5(4.1xlO-6-6.0xlO-5)
1.8xlO-6-2.8xlO-5(3.5xlO-6-5.6xlO-5)
2.4xlO-5-1.7xlO-4(4.7xlO-5-3.3xlO-4)
1.8xlO-5-1.8xlO-4(3.5xlO-5-3.5xlO-4)
1.3xlO-5-7.5xlO-5(2.6xlO-5-1.5xlO-4)
0.00036-0.12(0.00072-0.23)
2.5xlO-5-4.1xlO-4(4.9xlO-5-8.1xlO-4)
2.4xlO-5-8.9xlO-4(4.7xlO-5-1.8xlO-3)
l.lxlO-6-1.2xlO-3(2.1xlO-6-2.3xlO-3)
3.9xlO-5-1.2xlO-3(7.9xlO-5-2.3xlO-3)
15-22(30-43)
0.0085-0.017(0.017-0.033)
14-17 (27-35)
0.0055-0.013(0.011-0.027)
17-18(33-36)
0.0010-0.0035 (0.0020-0.0070)
0.0075-0.0085 (0.015-0.017)
14-17(28-33)
0.0055-0.012(0.011-0.023)
9.6-9.8(19-20)
0.013-0.015 (0.025-0.029)
20-30 (41-60)
0.0035-0.012 (0.0068-0.024)
2.2-3.4(4.3-6.7)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.6xlO-5(3.2xlO-5)
1.0xlO-5(2.0xlO-5)
6.5xlO-5 (0.00013)
S.OxlO-5 (0.00016)
3.4xlO-5 (6.7xlO-5)
0.012(0.025)
0.00020(0.00041)
0.00037 (0.00075)
0.00019(0.00038)
8.2xlO-5(1.6xlO-4)
19(37)
0.014 (0.027)
15(30)
0.0085 (0.017)
17(34)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0080(0.016)
16(31)
0.0080(0.016)
9.6(19)
0.014 (0.027)
25 (50)
0.0088(0.018)
2.7(5.4)
Ref.
No.
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
31
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Scrubber*
Scrubber
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
50
0
0
33
33
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Cadmium
Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Toluene
Methyl chloroform
No.
of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0024-0.0025 (0.0047-0.0051)
19(37-39)
0.008-0.015(0.016-0.031)
7.8-16(16-32)
0.010-0.013 (0.020-0.025)
2.2xlO-7-3.8xlO-7(4.4xlO-7-7.6xlO-7)
3 .7x1 0-8-7.0xl O-8 (7.4x1 0-8- 1 .4x1 0'7)
2.2xlO-8-5.5xlO-8(4.4xlO-8-l.lxlO-7)
2.2xlO-9-3.5xlO-9(4.4xlO-9-7.0xlO-9)
3.2xlO-7-5.5xlO-7(6.3xlO-7-l.lxlO-6)
5.5xlO-6-7.5xlO-6(l.lxlO-5-1.5xlO-5)
6. 5x1 0'7-3 .7x1 0-6 ( 1 . 3x1 0-6-7.4xl O-6)
3 . 9x1 0-9- 1 .7x1 0-8 (7. 8x1 0'9-3 .4x1 0-8)
7.0xlO-9-2.8xlO-8(1.4xlO-8-5.5xlO-8)
2.9xlO-9-4.8xlO-8(5.7xlO-9-9.5xlO-8)
8.0xlO-10-3.5xlO-8(1.6xlO-9-7.0xlO-8)
3.9xlO-5-5.5xlO-4(7.8xlO-5-l.lxlO-3)
1.2xlO-7-1.4xlO-7(2.3xlO-7-2.7xlO-7)
5.0xlO-8-2.8xlO-7(9.9xlO-8-5.5xlO-7)
9.0xlO-10-6.0xlO-9(1.8xlO-9-1.2xlO-8)
8.0xlO-8-7.0xlO-7(1.6xlO-7-1.4xlO-6)
2.5xlO-6-4.1xlO-5(5.1xlO-6-8.2xlO-5)
1.4xlO-5-1.4xlO-4(2.7xlO-5-2.7xlO-4)
1.4xlO-5-4.4xlO-5(2.7xlO-5-8.8xlO-5)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0025 (0.0049)
19(38)
0.012 (0.024)
11(22)
0.012(0.023)
2.9xlO-7(5.7xlO-7)
5.0xlO-8(1.0xlO-7)
3.7xlO-8 (7.3xlO-8)
2.7xlO-9 (5.4xlO-9)
4.1xlO-7(8.1xlO-7)
6.0xlO-6(1.2xlO-5)
1.8xlO-6(3.6xlO-6)
8.5xlO-9(1.7xlO-8)
1.5xlO-8(2.9xlO-8)
2.8xlO-8 (5.6xlO-8)
1.4xlO-8(2.7xlO-8)
0.00034 (0.00067)
1.3xlO-7(2.5xlO-7)
1.3xlO-7(2.5xlO-7)
3.7xlO-9 (7.3xlO-9)
3.1xlO-7(6.2xlO-7)
1.6xlO-5(3.1xlO-5)
8.5xlO-5 (0.00017)
2.4xlO'5 (4.8xlO-5)
Ref.
No.
31
32
32
33
33
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
None
None
None
None
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
0
0
NDd
NDd
0
0
NDd
NDd
0
10
15- Run 1,
0-Run 2
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.9-2.5(3.7-4.9)
0.018-0.022(0.035-0.044)
0.040-0.055(0.079-0.11)
0.007-0.010 (0.014-0.020)
1.4-1.9(2.8-3.9)
0.011-0.050(0.022-0.10)
0.90-1.0(1.8-2.0)
0.011-0.10(0.022-0.20)
0.0081-0.018(0.016-0.035)
0.0084-0.012 (0.017-0.024)
0.0055-0.0073(0.011-0.015)
0.0047-0.016 (0.0094-0.032)
14-21 (27-43)
8.1-13(16-25)
0.031-0.034(0.061-0.068)
0.0071-0.0089(0.014-0.018)
0.0021-0.0025 (0.0043-0.0049)
0.00075-0.0014 (0.0015-0.0027)
0.00020-0.00024(0.00040-0.00049)
0.015-0.016(0.030-0.033)
0.00015-0.00027(0.00029-0.00054)
0.00055-0.00087 (0.0011-0.0017)
0.00019-0.00024(0.00038-0.00048)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
2.2 (4.4)
0.021 (0.041)
0.049 (0.097)
0.0090(0.018)
1.6(3.3)
0.025 (0.050)
0.97(1.9)
0.042 (0.083)
0.012(0.025)
0.010(0.021)
0.0063 (0.013)
0.010(0.020)
17(34)
10(21)
0.032 (0.064)
0.0077(0.015)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.00098 (0.0020)
0.00021 (0.00043)
0.016(0.032)
0.00021 (0.00041)
0.00067(0.0013)
0.00022 (0.00043)
Ref.
No.
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
ND
ND
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
ND
ND
Waste oil
Waste oil
ND
ND
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
45
45
35
35
25
25
40
40
0
0
52
52
20
20
40
40
0
0
40
40
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
CO
C02
S02
NO,
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0019-0.0030 (0.0037-0.0060)
0.00044-0.00049(0.00089-0.00098)
0.0062-0.011(0.012-0.022)
0.0020-0.0050 (0.0039-0.010)
0.00043-0.00045(0.00087-0.00091)
0.00054-0.0012 (0.0011-0.0023)
0.0030-0.0042 (0.0061-0.0084)
0.0025-0.0049 (0.0050-0.0098)
0.0098-0.013 (0.020-0.025)
0.00031-0.00032(0.00062-0.00064)
0.0041-0.0059 (0.0083-0.012)
0.0011-0.0036 (0.0022-0.0073)
0.017-0.032 (0.033-0.065)
0.00048-0.00092 (0.00096-0.0018)
0.0015-0.0027 (0.0030-0.0053)
0.0018-0.0020 (0.0036-0.0039)
0.0055-0.0083(0.011-0.017)
0.00029-0.00037(0.00058-0.00075)
0.0018-0.0037 (0.0037-0.0074)
0.00025-0.00044(0.00050-0.00088)
NA
13 (25-26)
0.0014-0.0030 (0.0028-0.0059)
0.0075 (0.015)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0024 (0.0048)
0.00047 (0.00094)
0.0078(0.016)
0.0033 (0.0066)
0.00044 (0.00089)
0.00089(0.0018)
0.0035 (0.0071)
0.0035 (0.0071)
0.011(0.022)
0.00032 (0.00063)
0.0049 (0.0097)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.026 (0.053)
0.00063 (0.0013)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0069(0.014)
0.00034 (0.00067)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.00033 (0.00065)
0.094(0.19)
13 (25)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0075 (0.015)
Ref.
No.
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
44
44
44
44
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
0
30
30
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Pollutant
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Xylene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Condensable PM
Filterable PM
Condensable PM
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene
Toluene0
Ethylbenzenec
Xylenec
Naphthalene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
C
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.029-0.055(0.058-0.11)
0.013-0.032(0.025-0.063)
0.00053-0.00068 (0.0011-0.0014)
5. 5xlO-5-2.1xlO-4 (0.0001 1-0.00041)
5. 5xlO-5-2.4xlO-4 (0.0001 1-0.00047)
6.5xlO-5-3.1xlO-4 (0.00013-0.00062)
2.5xlO-5-2.9xlO-5(4.9xlO-5-5.7xlO-5)
2.2xlO-5-2.9xlO-5(4.3xlO-5-5.7xlO-5)
4.9xlO-6-5.5xlO-6(9.7xlO-6-l.lxlO-5)
0.0039-0.0050 (0.0078-0.010)
0.0038-0.0070 (0.0076-0.014)
0.0017-0.0034 (0.0034-0.0067)
0.0017-0.0034 (0.0034-0.0068)
0.00033-0.00060 (0.00065-0.0012)
16(31-32)
0.00060-0.00065 (0.0012-0.0013)
0.0085-0.0099 (0.017-0.020)
0.016-0.025 (0.032-0.050)
0.00082-0.0031 (0.0016-0.0062)
0.00012-0.00028(0.00024-0.00056)
2.2xlO-5-2.3xlO-5(4.3xlO-5-4.6xlO-5)
2.5xlO-5-2.7xlO-5(4.9xlO-5-5.4xlO-5)
2.5xlO-5-2.7xlO-5(4.9xlO-5-5.4xlO-5)
3 .2x1 0'5-3 .7x1 0-5 (6. 3x1 0-5-7.4xl O-5)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.040 (0.080)
0.019(0.038)
0.00060 (0.0012)
0.00011(0.00022)
0.00015 (0.00029)
0.00020 (0.00040)
2.6xlO-5 (5.3xlO-5)
2.5xlO-5 (4.9xlO-5)
5.1xlO-6(1.0xlO-5)
0.0043 (0.0086)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.00048 (0.00096)
16(31)
0.00062 (0.0012)
0.0091 (0.018)
0.020 (0.039)
0.0016 (0.0032)
0.00020 (0.00040)
2.2xlO-5 (4.5xlO-5)
2.6xlO-5(5.1xlO-5)
2.6xlO-5(5.1xlO-5)
3.5xlO-5 (7.0xlO-5)
Ref.
No.
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Formaldehyde
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane'
Benzene'
Toluene0
Ethylbenzenec
Xylenec
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Cumene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
5
6
5
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.5xlO-5-1.9xlO-5(3.0xlO-5-3.7xlO-5)
l.lxlO-5-1.3xlO-5(2.1xlO-5-2.5xlO-5)
4.4x1 0-6-5 .0x1 0-6 (8. 8x1 0-6- 1 .0x1 0'5)
2.9xlO-6-3.7xlO-6(5.7xlO-6-7.4xlO-6)
2.9xlO-7-4.0xlO-7(5.7xlO-7-8.0xlO-7)
2.7xlO-7-4.3xlO-7(5.3xlO-7-8.6xlO-7)
0.00010-0.0012 (0.00020-0.0023)
0.021-0.044 (0.043-0.088)
13-21 (26-41)
0.00082-0.0047 (0.0017-0.0095)
0.014-0.065 (0.027-0.13)
0.00085-0.0070 (0.0017-0.014)
0.00082-0.0031 (0.00012-0.00015)
0.00029-0.00036(0.00057-0.00072)
0.00034-0.00043(0.00068-0.00085)
0.00039-0.00049(0.00078-0.00098)
0.00039-0.00049(0.00078-0.00098)
2.8xlO-5-2.9xlO-5(5.6xlO-5-5.8xlO-5)
6.6xlO-5-7.3xlO-5(1.3xlO-4-1.5xlO-4)
5.5xlO-6-5.0xlO-5(l.lxlO-5-0.00010)
8.5xlO-7-1.8xlO-6(1.7xlO-6-3.5xlO-6)
5.5xlO-7-1.8xlO-6(l.lxlO-6-3.6xlO-6)
8.0xlO-7-2.0xlO-6(1.6xlO-6-4.0xlO-6)
4.5xlO-6-1.0xlO-5(9.0xlO-6-2.1xlO-5)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.7xlO-5(3.3xlO-5)
I.lxl0-5(2.3xl0-5)
4.9xlO-6 (9.8xlO-6)
3.3xlO-6 (6.6xlO-6)
3.6xlO-7(7.2xlO-7)
3.5xlO-7(6.9xlO-7)
0.00078 (0.0016)
0.028 (0.056)
17(34)
0.0024 (0.0048)
0.025 (0.049)
0.0037 (0.0073)
6.8xlO-5 (0.00014)
0.00033 (0.00066)
0.00039 (0.00078)
0.00045 (0.00090)
0.00045 (0.00090)
2.8xlO-5 (5.7xlO-5)
7.1xlO-5(1.4xlO-4)
2.1xlO-5(4.3xlO-5)
1.3xlO-6(2.7xlO-6)
I.lxl0-6(2.2xl0-6)
1.2xlO-6(2.5xlO-6)
6.9xlO-6(1.4xlO-5)
Ref.
No.
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Pollutant
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene'
Toluene0
Ethylbenzenec
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.2xlO-7-2.7xlO-7(2.3xlO-7-5.5xlO-7)
2.6xlO-7-8.5xlO-7(5.2xlO-7-1.7xlO-6)
2. 9x1 0'7-5 .6x1 0-7 (5 . 8x1 0'7- 1 .2x1 0'6)
2.7xlO-8-2.3xlO-7(5.5xlO-8-4.6xlO-7)
8.8xlO-8-2.3xlO-7(1.8xlO-7-5.6xlO-7)
4.0xlO-8-1.2xlO-7(8.1xlO-8-2.5xlO-7)
1.4xlO-8-4.5xlO-8(2.8xlO-8-9.0xlO-8)
1 .6x1 0-8- 1 .2x1 0-7 (3 .2x1 0-8-2.4xl O-7)
1.7xlO-9-l.lxlO-8(3.4xlO-9-2.2xlO-8)
4.5xlO-10-9.0xlO-9(9.0xlO-10-1.8xlO-8)
2.5xlO-9-4.3xlO-9(5.0xlO-9-8.6xlO-9)
8.4xlO-9-2.7xlO-8(1.8xlO-8-5.4xlO-8)
0.0021-0.0036 (0.0041-0.0071)
0.00045-0.0015 (0.00090-0.0029)
0.00012-0.00050 (0.00024-0.0010)
0.23-0.35 (0.46-0.69)
29-37 (57-73)
0.0033-0.0085 (0.0066-0.017)
0.031-0.049(0.062-0.098)
0.012-0.025 (0.024-0.050)
0.0025-0.010(0.0051-0.020)
9.5xlO-5-0.00039 (0.00019-0.00078)
0.00012-0.00017(0.00023-0.00034)
0.00014-0.00032(0.00027-0.00063)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.8xlO-7(3.6xlO-7)
5.3xlO-7(l.lxlO-6)
4.5xlO-7(9.0xlO-7)
1.0xlO-7(2.1xlO-7)
1.8xlO-7(3.6xlO-7)
7.6xlO-8(1.5xlO-7)
2.7xlO-8 (5.4xlO-8)
5.4xlO-8(l.lxlO-7)
4.9xlO-9 (9.8xlO-9)
4.4xlO-9 (8.8xlO-9)
3.5xlO-9 (7.0xlO-9)
2.0xlO-8 (4.0xlO-8)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0010(0.0021)
0.00036(0.00071)
0.30(0.60)
32 (65)
0.0054(0.011)
0.041 (0.081)
0.018(0.036)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.00015 (0.00030)
0.00015 (0.00029)
0.00019(0.00038)
Ref.
No.
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
-f^
H-*
O
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
28
28
28
31
31
31
44
44
44
32
32
32
30
Pollutant
Xylenec
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. PM
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM- 10
No.
of
test
runs
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00013-0.00020(0.00026-0.00039)
7.2xlO-5-8.5xlO-5 (0.00014-0.00017)
8.3xlO-5-8.8xlO-5 (0.00017-0.00018)
9.5xlO-6-1.4xlO-5(1.9xlO-5-2.8xlO-5)
8.0xlO-6-9.4xlO-6(1.6xlO-5-1.9xlO-5)
2.6xlO-5-3.0xlO-5(5.2xlO-5-6.0xlO-5)
1.6xlO-6-2.2xlO-6(3.2xlO-6-4.4xlO-6)
l.lxlO-6-1.9xlO-6(2.1xlO-6-3.9xlO-6)
0.0011-0.0017 (0.0022-0.0033)
0.0014-0.0017 (0.0027-0.0034)
0.0083-0.012 (0.017-0.023)
0.0015-0.0075 (0.0029-0.015)
0.00029-0.00032(0.00058-0.00065)
17-18(35-36)
0.0043-0.0069 (0.0087-0.014)
0.021-0.021 (0.041-0.043)
18-21 (36-41)
0.0041-0.0067(0.0082-0.013)
0.0060-0.0081 (0.012-0.016)
12-15 (24-30)
0.0047-0.0055(0.0095-0.011)
0.00089-0.0012 (0.0018-0.0024)
16-19(32-37)
0.00094-0.0012 (0.0019-0.0025)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00017(0.00034)
7.6xlO-5 (0.00015)
8.5xlO-5 (0.00017)
I.lxl0-5(2.2xl0-5)
8.5xlO-6(1.7xlO-5)
2.8xlO-5(5.5xlO-5)
1.8xlO-6(3.6xlO-6)
1.5xlO-6(3.0xlO-6)
0.0014 (0.0027)
0.0015 (0.0029)
0.010(0.019)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.00031 (0.00061)
18(36)
0.0053(0.011)
0.021 (0.042)
19(39)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0069(0.014)
13 (27)
0.0050(0.010)
0.0010 (0.0020)
18(35)
0.0011(0.0023)
Ref.
No.
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
53
53
53
54
54
54
55
55
55
56
Os
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Butane
Butane
Butane
Percent
RAP used
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
52
52
52
40
40
40
30
30
30
Pollutant
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00044-0.00058 (0.00088-0.0012)
13-14(26-27)
0.046-0.051 (0.091-0.10)
0.0043-0.0056(0.0086-0.011)
20-23 (40-47)
0.098-0.11(0.20-0.22)
0.010-0.013 (0.020-0.026)
43-50 (87-100)
0.023-0.027 (0.047-0.054)
0.0028-0.0039 (0.0057-0.0077)
16-18 (32-36)
0.021-0.026(0.043-0.051)
0.0076-0.0092(0.015-0.018)
19-24(37-48)
0.0020-0.0025 (0.0039-0.0050)
0.00084-0.0029 (0.0017-0.0057)
0.0064-0.0076(0.013-0.015)
2.9-16 (5.7-32)
0.0035-0.0058 (0.0035-0.012)
0.0039-0.015 (0.0078-0.031)
16-17 (32-34)
0.0025-0.0032 (0.0050-0.0064)
0.00012-0.00026(0.00024-0.00052)
20-22 (40-45)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00053(0.0011)
13 (26)
0.048 (0.096)
0.0049 (0.0097)
22 (44)
0.10(0.21)
0.012(0.023)
47 (94)
0.026 (0.052)
0.0035 (0.0070)
17(34)
0.024 (0.048)
0.0084 (0.017)
21 (42)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0016 (0.0032)
0.0070 (0.014)
7.5(15)
0.0046 (0.0092)
0.0093 (0.019)
16(33)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.00018(0.00035)
21 (42)
Ref.
No.
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
60
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
65
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
46
46
46
48
48
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
31
18
18
18
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
No.
of
test
runs
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.011-0.014(0.021-0.027)
0.012-0.016 (0.024-0.032)
30-33 (60-67)
0.0055-0.0070(0.011-0.014)
0.047-0.055(0.093-0.11)
29-30 (57-60)
0.0012-0.0015 (0.0023-0.0031)
0.018-0.024(0.036-0.048)
13-15 (27-30)
0.017-0.022 (0.034-0.044)
0.00027-0.0036 (0.00054-0.0072)
13-19(27-38)
0.0024-0.0036 (0.0048-0.0072)
0.0011-0.0020 (0.0021-0.0040)
21-24 (42-48)
0.0022-0.0028 (0.0044-0.0056)
0.0043-0.014 (0.0087-0.029)
17-17(33-34)
0.0031-0.0042 (0.0063-0.0084)
0.011-0.015(0.023-0.030)
10-11 (21-22)
0.019-0.033 (0.038-0.065)
0.0021-0.0043 (0.0042-0.0086)
12-14 (25-28)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.012 (0.024)
0.014(0.028)
32 (63)
0.0064(0.013)
0.052(0.10)
29 (59)
0.0013 (0.0027)
0.020(0.041)
14 (28)
0.020 (0.040)
0.0014 (0.0029)
17(34)
0.0030 (0.0059)
0.0017(0.0033)
23 (45)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0095 (0.019)
17(34)
0.0036 (0.0072)
0.013 (0.026)
11(22)
0.026 (0.052)
0.0032 (0.0063)
13 (27)
Ref.
No.
67
67
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
70
70
70
71
71
71
73
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
75
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
50
50
50
50
42
42
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
S02
C02
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0027-0.0074(0.0055-0.015)
0.0012-0.0050 (0.0025-0.010)
20-20(40-41)
0.0047-0.0063 (0.0093-0.013)
0.0025-0.0034 (0.0051-0.0068)
0.0062-0.0071 (0.012-0.014)
13-15 (25-30)
0.0016-0.0019 (0.0032-0.0039)
0.0050-0.0071 (0.0099-0.014)
19-45 (37-90)
0.0037-0.0074 (0.0074-0.015)
20-23 (40-46)
0.012-0.018(0.023-0.036)
0.00074-0.0012 (0.0015-0.0025)
0.0011-0.0017(0.0021-0.0034)
17-22 (34-45)
0.0053-0.0072(0.011-0.014)
0.00089-0.0026 (0.0018-0.0052)
0.0023-0.0038 (0.0046-0.0077)
26-29 (52-58)
0.013-0.014(0.026-0.029)
0.0011-0.0014(0.0021-0.0028)
18-20(36-40)
0.0018-0.0024 (0.0037-0.0049)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0044 (0.0088)
0.0029 (0.0059)
20 (40)
0.0057(0.011)
0.0031 (0.0062)
0.0065 (0.013)
14 (28)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0057(0.011)
36(71)
0.0059(0.012)
21 (43)
0.014 (0.027)
0.00094(0.0019)
0.0013 (0.0026)
19(38)
0.0062 (0.012)
0.0017(0.0033)
0.0033 (0.0066)
27 (54)
0.014 (0.027)
0.0012 (0.0024)
19(38)
0.0021 (0.0042)
Ref.
No.
78
78
78
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
84
84
85
85
85
85
87
87
87
87
88
88
88
89
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Pollutant
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
15-17(30-34)
0.012-0.014 (0.025-0.028)
20-21 (40-42)
0.0026-0.0033 (0.0052-0.0065)
14-14 (28-29)
0.0032-0.0044 (0.0065-0.0089)
13-13 (26-27)
0.053-0.056(0.11-0.11)
17-18 (34-35)
0.010-0.013 (0.021-0.027)
0.0042-0.0073 (0.0084-0.015)
0.0010-0.0029 (0.0021-0.0058)
15-17(30-33)
0.0043-0.0082 (0.0087-0.016)
15-16(30-33)
0.0015-0.0026 (0.0030-0.0053)
9.3-10(19-21)
0.0090-0.011(0.018-0.022)
23-25 (46-51)
0.0076-0.011(0.015-0.021)
0.0069-0.011(0.014-0.023)
0.0018-0.0022 (0.0036-0.0044)
30-32 (61-65)
0.0031-0.0076(0.0061-0.015)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
16 (32)
0.013 (0.027)
20(41)
0.0030 (0.0060)
14 (28)
0.0038 (0.0077)
13 (26)
0.054(0.11)
17(35)
0.012 (0.024)
0.0059(0.012)
0.0021 (0.0043)
16(31)
0.0063 (0.013)
15(31)
0.0020 (0.0040)
10 (20)
0.0098 (0.020)
24 (48)
0.0090(0.018)
0.0084 (0.017)
0.0021 (0.0041)
31 (63)
0.0052(0.010)
Ref.
No.
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
94
94
95
95
96
96
99
99
101
101
101
101
103
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil/coal
Fuel oil/coal
Fuel oil/coal
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
15
ND
ND
0
0
26
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
S02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
S02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
4.4-4.5 (8.8-9.0)
0.0049-0.013 (0.010-0.026)
16-20 (32-39)
0.0042-0.012 (0.0083-0.025)
15-21 (30-43)
0.0011-0.0046 (0.0022-0.0091)
3.4-6.0 (6.7-12)
0.034-0.038 (0.067-0.077)
11-22(21-43)
0.0022-0.0072 (0.0043-0.014)
0.010-0.039 (0.020-0.078)
11-15(22-29)
0.0073-0.0080(0.015-0.016)
9.7-18(19-36)
0.0013-0.0033 (0.0025-0.0066)
12-15 (25-30)
0.0018-0.0026 (0.0036-0.0053)
5.1-8.1 (10-16)
0.00098-0.0019 (0.0020-0.0037)
8.7-12 (17-24)
0.014-0.025 (0.028-0.050)
0.0018-0.0026 (0.0036-0.0052)
18-22(35-43)
0.0023-0.0024 (0.0046-0.0049)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
4.5(8.9)
0.0096(0.019)
18(36)
0.0083 (0.017)
19(38)
0.0023 (0.0046)
5.1(10)
0.036 (0.072)
16 (32)
0.0047 (0.0094)
0.027(0.053)
13 (25)
0.0076(0.015)
13 (26)
0.0020 (0.0040)
14 (27)
0.0021 (0.0042)
6.1(12)
0.0013 (0.0026)
10(21)
0.018(0.036)
0.0021 (0.0043)
19(39)
0.0023 (0.0047)
Ref.
No.
103
104
104
105
105
107
107
108
108
108
109
109
112
112
114
114
117
117
118
118
119
119
119
119
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
0
16
0
0
22
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0055-0.0076(0.011-0.015)
14-16 (28-33)
0.0056-0.0078(0.011-0.016)
0.0066-0.0090(0.013-0.018)
12-14 (23-28)
0.0013-0.0027 (0.0026-0.0054)
8.5-9.9 (17-20)
0.0022-0.0080 (0.0044-0.016)
0.00087-0.0085 (0.0017-0.017)
0.0012-0.0053(0.0024-0.011)
11-13(21-25)
0.0043-0.0059 (0.0086-0.012)
20-21 (40-42)
0.0014-0.0036 (0.0029-0.0072)
0.0015-0.0024 (0.0030-0.0047)
0.0015-0.0025 (0.0030-0.0049)
16-16(31-31)
0.012-0.018(0.024-0.035)
0.0056-0.0097(0.011-0.019)
0.0019-0.0034 (0.0038-0.0067)
17-21 (33-42)
0.0040-0.0052 (0.0080-0.010)
0.0023-0.011(0.0046-0.021)
0.00010-0.00075 (0.00021-0.0015)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0069(0.014)
15(30)
0.0069(0.014)
0.0078(0.016)
13 (25)
0.0019(0.0038)
9.3(19)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0034 (0.0068)
0.0032 (0.0064)
11(23)
0.0048 (0.0097)
20(41)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0019(0.0039)
0.0020 (0.0039)
16(31)
0.014(0.029)
0.0082(0.016)
0.0028 (0.0056)
19(37)
0.0046 (0.0092)
0.0061 (0.012)
0.00042 (0.00083)
Ref.
No.
121
121
122
123
123
124
124
125
125
125
125
128
128
130
130
130
130
132
132
132
132
133
133
133
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Coal/natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
31
31
29
29
29
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
38
38
31
31
31
0
Pollutant
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Arsenic
Hexavalent chromium
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
D
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
A
A
D
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
6.5-10(13-20)
0.0047-0.0060 (0.0094-0.012)
11-11 (21-22)
0.015-0.017(0.031-0.034)
7.7-10(15-21)
0.011-0.013(0.021-0.026)
17-19 (33-37)
0.00029-0.00034(0.00058-0.00069)
0.011-0.013(0.022-0.027)
0.00090-0.0034 (0.0018-0.0068)
0.027-0.032 (0.055-0.063)
23-25 (45-50)
2.2xlO-7-4.3xlO-7(4.3xlO-7-8.7xlO-7)
1.7xlO-6-3.5xlO-6(3.5xlO-6-7.0xlO-6)
5.7xlO-5-8.3xlO-5 (0.0001 1-0.00017)
1.5xlO-6-2.8xlO-6(3.0xlO-6-5.7xlO-6)
6.5xlO-8-1.3xlO-7(1.3xlO-7-2.6xlO-7)
2.2xlO-7-4.3xlO-7(4.3xlO-7-8.7xlO-7)
0.0092-0.011(0.018-0.022)
11-13(21-25)
0.0083-0.012 (0.017-0.023)
12-13 (25-25)
0.00065-0.00089 (0.0013-0.0018)
0.0010-0.0030 (0.0020-0.0059)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
8.5(17)
0.0053(0.011)
11(22)
0.016(0.032)
9.0(18)
0.012 (0.024)
18(36)
0.00031 (0.00062)
0.012 (0.024)
0.0019(0.0039)
0.029 (0.058)
24 (48)
3.6xlO-7(7.2xlO-7)
2.5xlO-6(5.1xlO-6)
7.1xlO-5 (0.00014)
2.0xlO-6(4.1xlO-6)
8.7xlO-8(1.7xlO-7)
2.9xlO-7(5.8xlO-7)
0.010(0.020)
12 (23)
0.010(0.021)
12 (25)
0.00079 (0.0016)
0.0023 (0.0046)
Ref.
No.
133
137
137
137
137
141
141
141
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
144
144
146
146
146
147
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
50
50
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
C02
NO,
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
CO
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cadmium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
2
8
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
B
A
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
17-19 (34-38)
0.0046-0.0086 (0.0092-0.017)
0.0081-0.013 (0.016-0.026)
0.0031-0.0084(0.0061-0.017)
0.069-0.10(0.14-0.21)
0.0018-0.0044 (0.0037-0.0088)
14-17 (27-33)
0.048-0.055(0.097-0.11)
0.57-2.8(1.1-5.6)
0.010-0.019(0.020-0.038)
0.0055-0.0068(0.011-0.014)
0.0020-0.0038 (0.0040-0.0076)
NA
NA
10-18(21-37)
0.0014-0.0026 (0.0028-0.0051)
29-31 (57-62)
2.4xlO-7-l.lxlO-6(4.7xlO-7-2.1xlO-6)
1.2xlO-7-3.2xlO-7(2.4xlO-7-6.3xlO-7)
8.0xlO-7-3.2xlO-6(1.6xlO-6-6.4xlO-6)
6.0xlO-7-7.0xlO-6(1.2xlO-6-1.4xlO-5)
2.9xlO-5-3.8xlO-5(5.7xlO-5-7.6xlO-5)
4.6xlO-6-1.4xlO-5(9.1xlO-6-2.8xlO-5)
15-32(30-63)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
18(35)
0.0070 (0.014)
0.010(0.020)
0.0050(0.010)
0.086(0.17)
0.0029 (0.0058)
15(30)
0.051 (0.10)
1.3(2.6)
0.016(0.032)
0.0062 (0.012)
0.0031 (0.0063)
0.091 (0.18)
0.012(0.023)
14 (28)
0.0021 (0.0041)
30 (59)
6.4xlO-7(1.3xlO-6)
2.2xlO-7(4.4xlO-7)
2.0xlO-6 (4.0xlO-6)
2.6xlO-6 (5.3xlO-6)
3.3xlO-5 (6.6xlO-5)
9.3xlO-6(1.9xlO-5)
25 (50)
Ref.
No.
147
148
148
149
149
149
149
153
153
153
153
154
154
154
154
160
160
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Chromium
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Manganese
C02
Chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
C02
Chromium
Naphthalene
No.
of
test
runs
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
8
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1 . 5x1 0-6- 1 .7x1 0-6 (3 .0x1 0'6-3 .4x1 0-6)
0.00070-0.0010 (0.0014-0.0020)
3.1xlO-6-8.0xlO-6(6.1xlO-6-1.6xlO-5)
2.7xlO-7-2.3xlO-6(5.4xlO-7-4.5xlO-6)
1.5xlO-6-2.1xlO-6(3.0xlO-6-4.1xlO-6)
1 . 8x1 0'7-3 .0x1 0-7 (3 . 5x1 0-7-6.0xl O-7)
2.1xlO-6-7.5xlO-6(4.1xlO-6-1.5xlO-5)
1.9xlO-5-2.2xlO-5(3.8xlO-5-4.3xlO-5)
4.8xlO-6-1.2xlO-5(9.5xlO-6-2.4xlO-5)
9.0-18(18-35)
6.5xlO-7-3.9xlO-6(1.3xlO-6-7.7xlO-6)
1.2xlO-7-3.4xlO-7(2.3xlO-7-6.7xlO-7)
0.00012-0.00014(0.00024-0.00028)
1.0xlO-6-1.3xlO-6(2.0xlO-6-2.5xlO-6)
1.6xlO-6-2.3xlO-6(3.1xlO-6-4.5xlO-6)
1 .7x1 0-6-5 .0x1 0-6 (3 .4x1 0-6- 1 .0x1 0'5)
2.7xlO-6-3.1xlO-6(5.4xlO-6-6.2xlO-6)
6.0xlO-6-0.00022(1.2xlO-5-0.00044)
1 .2x1 0'6-3 .4x1 0-6 (2.4x1 0-6-6.7xl O-6)
8.0xlO-5-0.00017 (0.00016-0.00033)
3.1xlO-6-2.2xlO-5(6.1xlO-6-4.3xlO-5)
15-21 (29-41)
5.5xlO-6-1.2xlO-5(l.lxlO-5-2.3xlO-5)
4.2xlO-5-0.00025(8.3xlO-5-0.00050)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.6xlO-6(3.2xlO-6)
0.00086 (0.0017)
5.5xlO-6(l.lxlO-5)
1.3xlO-6(2.5xlO-6)
1.7xlO-6(3.4xlO-6)
2.4xlO-7(4.7xlO-7)
4.8xlO-6 (9.6xlO-6)
2.0xlO-5 (4.0xlO-5)
7.4xlO-6(1.5xlO-5)
14 (28)
2.3xlO-6 (4.5xlO-6)
2.3xlO-7(4.5xlO-7)
0.00013 (0.00026)
I.lxl0-6(2.2xl0-6)
1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6)
3.6xlO-6(7.1xlO-6)
2.9xlO-6 (5.7xlO-6)
0.00015 (0.00029)
2.0xlO-6(4.1xlO-6)
0.00012 (0.00023)
1.5xlO-5(3.1xlO-5)
19(37)
8.0xlO-6(1.6xlO-5)
0.00014 (0.00028)
Ref.
No.
162
162
162
162
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
-f^
H-*
O
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
30
21,30,30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
D
A
B
B
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
C
C
C
C
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
7.5xlO-7-3.2xlO-6(1.5xlO-6-6.3xlO-6)
8.0xlO-7-2.7xlO-6(1.6xlO-6-5.3xlO-6)
0.23-0.40 (0.46-0.79)
15-16(31-33)
0.0025-0.0056(0.0051-0.011)
8.6-9.5(17-19)
NA
15-16(30-31)
0.0025-0.0048 (0.0050-0.0097)
13-15 (27-30)
0.0072-0.011(0.015-0.021)
8.4-12 (17-23)
0.0056-0.011(0.011-0.022)
18-21 (36-43)
0.0032-0.0032 (0.0063-0.0065)
15-16(30-31)
0.0034-0.0071 (0.0067-0.014)
8.3-12(17-23)
0.0062-0.011(0.012-0.021)
0.00043-0.0025 (0.00087-0.0050)
0-0.0029 (0-0.0057)
22-24 (44-48)
0.0017-0.0020 (0.0034-0.0041)
10-11 (21-22)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
2.0xlO-6(4.1xlO-6)
1.7xlO-6(3.3xlO-6)
0.30(0.60)
16 (32)
0.0041 (0.0081)
9.0(18)
0.0036 (0.0073)
15(31)
0.0038 (0.0076)
14 (29)
0.0090(0.018)
9.4(19)
0.0082(0.016)
20 (40)
0.0032 (0.0063)
15(31)
0.0048 (0.0097)
9.8 (20)
0.0084 (0.017)
0.0011(0.0023)
0.0012 (0.0023)
23 (46)
0.0018(0.0037)
11(22)
Ref.
No.
164
164
166
166
167
167
168
168
171
171
172
172
174
174
175
175
180
180
173
173
173
173
182
182
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
S02
Filterable PM
C02
S02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
NR
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.014-0.025 (0.028-0.051)
23-24 (45-48)
5. 3xlO-5-5.8xlO-5 (0.0001 1-0.00012)
0.0023-0.0047 (0.0046-0.0093)
17-21 (35-43)
4.2xlO-7-7.3xlO-7(8.4xlO-7-1.5xlO-6)
0.0058-0.0075 (0.012-0.015)
6.0-9.9 (12-20)
4.2xlO-5-5.5xlO-5(8.4xlO-5-0.00011)
0.012-0.019(0.024-0.039)
21-23 (43-46)
0.0025-0.0065 (0.0050-0.013)
5.1-9.5(10-19)
0.0044-0.0087 (0.0088-0.017)
13-13 (25-26)
0.044-0.53(0.089-1.1)
0.0036-0.010(0.0072-0.021)
14-15 (29-31)
0.0058-0.0067(0.012-0.013)
0.038-0.065 (0.076-0.13)
12-19 (25-39)
0.0039-0.0074(0.0077-0.015)
21-23 (42-47)
0.0041-0.0081 (0.0081-0.016)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.019(0.038)
24 (47)
5.6xlO-5 (0.00011)
0.0033 (0.0065)
19(39)
6.0xlO-7 (1.2xlO-6)
0.0066(0.013)
8.0(16)
4.8xlO-5 (9.6xlO-5)
0.016(0.033)
22 (44)
0.0049 (0.0098)
7.3(15)
0.0065 (0.013)
13 (26)
0.38(0.75)
0.0060 (0.012)
15(30)
0.0062 (0.012)
0.048 (0.097)
16 (32)
0.0056(0.011)
23 (45)
0.0064(0.013)
Ref.
No.
179
179
179
178
178
178
183
183
183
186
186
187
187
189
189
189
190
190
190
191
191
192
192
196
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
ND
ND
ND
6
6
14
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
10
10
0
0
0
25%
(4th run)
Pollutant
C02
Filterable PM
C02
CO
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
CO
NO,
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
C02
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
C02
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
6.4-13 (13-26)
0.0032-0.0073 (0.0065-0.015)
11-12(22-24)
0.0017-0.0082 (0.0034-0.016)
0.0016-0.0026 (0.0032-0.0051)
11-12(22-24)
0.0063-0.015 (0.013-0.029)
6.7-9.5(13-19)
0.0014-0.0021 (0.0028-0.0043)
0.00089-0.0014 (0.0018-0.0029)
9.4-10(19-20)
0.0047-0.0051 (0.0094-0.010)
13-13 (27-27)
2.5-3.8 (4.9-7.7)
0.015-0.017(0.030-0.033)
0.015-0.033 (0.029-0.066)
0.0030-0.0097(0.0061-0.019)
14-16 (29-32)
0.056-0.060(0.11-0.12)
0.0020-0.0027 (0.0039-0.0054)
14-16 (28-33)
0.036-0.050(0.072-0.10)
0.0014-0.0030 (0.0028-0.0060)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
11(21)
0.0056(0.011)
12 (23)
0.0055(0.011)
0.0021 (0.0041)
11(23)
0.011(0.023)
8.3(17)
0.0019(0.0037)
0.0012 (0.0023)
9.7(19)
0.0049 (0.0098)
13 (27)
3.0(6.0)
0.016(0.032)
0.022 (0.044)
0.0064(0.013)
15(30)
0.059(0.12)
0.0022 (0.0045)
15(30)
0.042 (0.083)
0.0022 (0.0045)
Ref.
No.
196
197
197
197
198
198
205
205
206
206
206
209
209
209
209
209
210
210
210
211
211
211
212
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
25%
(4th run)
25%
(4th run)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
C02
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
PM-1
PM-2.5
NO,
C02
CO
TOC
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
PM-10
Filterable PM
PM-2.5
PM-1
CO
NO,
C02
No.
of
test
runs
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
12-14 (24-27)
0.017-0.028 (0.034-0.055)
0.0098-0.011(0.020-0.022)
0.0029-0.0031 (0.0057-0.0062)
0.0046-0.0050 (0.0091-0.010)
0.024-0.026(0.049-0.051)
14-15 (28-30)
0.014-0.015 (0.027-0.030)
0.0070-0.0076(0.014-0.015)
0.0091-0.014(0.018-0.027)
7.7-17(15-33)
0.0019-0.0082(0.0038-0.016)
7.2-9.3 (14-19)
0.0016-0.0017(0.0031-0.034)
10-14 (20-27)
0.0029-0.0029 (0.0057-0.0058)
0.012-0.013 (0.023-0.025)
0.00054-0.00085 (0.0011-0.0017)
5.5xlO-5-0.00040 (0.0001 1-0.00080)
0.020-0.026(0.040-0.051)
0.012-0.014 (0.024-0.026)
12-12 (24-24)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
13 (25)
0.023 (0.046)
0.010(0.021)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0049 (0.0097)
0.025 (0.050)
14 (29)
0.014(0.028)
0.0073 (0.015)
0.012 (0.024)
11(22)
0.0047 (0.0095)
8.5(17)
0.0016(0.0033)
12 (24)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.012 (0.024)
0.00069 (0.0014)
0.00023 (0.00045)
0.024 (0.047)
0.012(0.025)
12 (24)
Ref.
No.
212
212
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
218
218
221
221
223
223
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
(continuous mix)
Fabric filter
(continuous mix)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.9
6.9
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
20
Pollutant
Filterable PM
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
Condensable inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.017-0.026 (0.035-0.052)
0.018-0.020(0.035-0.039)
16-17(31-34)
0.00070-0.00098 (0.0014-0.0020)
0.013-0.017(0.026-0.034)
14-14 (27-29)
0.0054-0.0085(0.011-0.017)
15-20(29-40)
0.0074-0.0093 (0.015-0.019)
11-14(21-28)
0.0076-0.0091 (0.015-0.018)
15-18(30-35)
0.0048-0.017(0.0097-0.033)
14-15 (27-31)
0.0077-0.0089(0.016-0.018)
8.8-11(18-21)
0.0042-0.0052 (0.0083-0.010)
0.0011-0.0033(0.0021-0.0065)
0.0040-0.0053(0.0079-0.011)
17-18(35-35)
0.0026-0.0050 (0.0053-0.010)
0.00025-0.00057 (0.00049-0.0011)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.022 (0.044)
0.018(0.037)
16(33)
0.00083 (0.0017)
0.015(0.030)
14 (28)
0.0071 (0.014)
18(35)
0.0081 (0.016)
12 (25)
0.0084 (0.017)
16(33)
0.011(0.022)
14 (29)
0.0084 (0.017)
9.8 (20)
0.0046 (0.0093)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0047 (0.0093)
18(35)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.00040(0.00081)
Ref.
No.
241
241
241
242
242
242
243
243
244
244
245
245
246
246
247
247
251
251
251
251
252
252
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
ND
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
11
11
11
0
0
Pollutant
Condensable inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
Condensable inorganic PM
CO
C02
Filterable PM
S02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
Condensable inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0032-0.0040 (0.0063-0.0080)
17-20 (34-39)
0.0078-0.017(0.016-0.035)
1.7xlO-5-0.00050(3.5xlO-5-0.0010)
0.0012-0.0051 (0.0024-0.010)
0.081-0.084(0.16-0.17)
15-19(29-37)
0.0017-0.0019 (0.0034-0.0038)
7.5xlO-5-0.0012 (0.00015-0.0023)
16-28 (33-57)
0.0011-0.0012 (0.0022-0.0023)
11-11 (21-22)
0.0067-0.0076(0.013-0.015)
29-40 (58-80)
0.0078-0.0085 (0.016-0.017)
4.0-5.0(8.1-9.9)
0.0028-0.0080 (0.0056-0.016)
21-21 (42-42)
0.0061-0.0074(0.012-0.015)
0.0082-0.013 (0.016-0.027)
0.00040-0.00084 (0.00080-0.0016)
15-18(29-36)
0.00074-0.0013 (0.0015-0.0025)
15-16(30-32)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0035 (0.0070)
18(36)
0.013(0.025)
0.00021 (0.00042)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.082(0.17)
17(34)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.00048 (0.00095)
24 (48)
0.0011(0.0022)
11(22)
0.0072 (0.014)
33 (66)
0.0081 (0.016)
4.5(9.0)
0.0053(0.011)
21 (42)
0.0068(0.014)
0.011(0.022)
0.00059 (0.0012)
17(33)
0.00096(0.0019)
15(31)
Ref.
No.
252
252
254
254
254
254
254
255
255
255
257
257
258
258
259
259
260
260
262
262
262
262
269
269
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
30
30
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00030-0.0027 (0.00061-0.0054)
12-13 (23-25)
0.014-0.018(0.028-0.036)
33-35 (66-71)
0.0040-0.0074(0.0080-0.015)
15-18(31-35)
0.013-0.013 (0.027-0.027)
23-27 (45-53)
0.00053-0.00065 (0.0011-0.0013)
8.8-12(18-23)
0.00087-0.0019 (0.0017-0.0037)
0.0015-0.0046 (0.0030-0.0092)
13-15 (26-29)
0.0017-0.0053(0.0034-0.011)
12-15 (24-29)
0.0011-0.0017 (0.0022-0.0034)
11-13(22-26)
0.0032-0.0080 (0.0064-0.016)
10-12 (20-23)
0.0053-0.0055(0.011-0.011)
9.6-12(19-25)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0018(0.0036)
12 (25)
0.015(0.030)
34 (68)
0.0053(0.011)
16(33)
0.013 (0.027)
25 (49)
0.00058 (0.0012)
9.8 (20)
0.0014 (0.0027)
0.0028 (0.0056)
14 (27)
0.0030 (0.0059)
13 (27)
0.0013 (0.0026)
12 (23)
0.0062 (0.012)
11(22)
0.0054(0.011)
11(22)
Ref.
No.
267
267
266
266
273
273
280
280
292
292
292
293
293
294
294
295
295
297
297
298
298
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
(used
neutralizing
agent to reduce
S02)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
19
ND
ND
ND
24
24
24
24
24
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
Pollutant
S02
Filterable PM
S02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
HC1
Cd
Cr
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
Data
rating
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.075-0.083(0.15-0.17)
0.0083-0.013 (0.017-0.027)
0.0038-0.013 (0.0076-0.025)
16-16 (32-33)
0.011-0.017(0.021-0.033)
11-12(22-24)
1.3xlO-5-0.00023(2.7xlO-5-0.00045)
7.4x1 0-8-7.4xl O-8 ( 1 . 5x1 0-7- 1 .5x1 0'7)
7.4x1 0-7-7.4xl O-7 ( 1 . 5x1 0-6- 1 .5x1 0'6)
1.9xlO-6-1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6-3.9xlO-6)
0.0054-0.012(0.011-0.024)
12-18 (24-36)
0.0023-0.0037 (0.0045-0.0074)
13-16(27-33)
0.0015-0.0019 (0.0030-0.0038)
0.0057-0.0080 (0.012-0.016)
16-18 (32-37)
0.0029-0.0062 (0.0059-0.012)
0.0055-0.0067(0.011-0.013)
18-19(36-37)
3.8xlO-6-4.2xlO-6(7.6xlO-6-8.4xlO-6)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.081 (0.16)
0.010(0.021)
0.0077(0.015)
16 (32)
0.013 (0.026)
12 (23)
0.00011(0.00022)
7.4x1 0-8(1. 5x1 0-7)
7.4xlO-7(1.5xlO-6)
1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6)
0.0083 (0.017)
16(31)
0.0030 (0.0060)
15 (29)
0.0018(0.0035)
0.0069(0.014)
17(34)
0.0042 (0.0083)
0.0061 (0.012)
19(37)
4.0xlO-6 (S.OxlO'6)
Ref.
No.
299
300
300
300
301
301
301
301
301
301
303
303
309
309
309
311
311
311
315
315
315
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
NA
NA
Propane
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
10
10
10
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
VOC (TGNMO)
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
2
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0057-0.0080 (0.012-0.016)
16-18 (32-37)
0.0029-0.0062 (0.0059-0.012)
0.0010-0.0031 (0.0020-0.0063)
3.9-4.0 (7.7-7.9)
0.0034-0.012 (0.0068-0.024)
11-17(22-33)
0.0021-0.0050 (0.0041-0.010)
5.7-8.7(12-18)
0.0011-0.0020 (0.0022-0.0039)
14-15 (29-30)
0.0011-0.0028 (0.0021-0.0056)
0.0016-0.0026 (0.0033-0.0051)
0.0083-0.0090(0.017-0.018)
11-11(21-23)
0.0064-0.0070(0.013-0.014)
8.2-14 (16-28)
0.0024-0.0081 (0.0047-0.016)
14-26(29-51)
0.00058-0.00065 (0.0012-0.0013)
15-17(29-34)
0.0056-0.010(0.011-0.020)
18-21 (35-43)
0.026-0.038 (0.053-0.075)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0069(0.014)
17(34)
0.0041 (0.0083)
0.0021 (0.0042)
3.9(7.8)
0.0064(0.013)
14 (28)
0.0036(0.0071)
6.8(14)
0.0015 (0.0030)
15 (29)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0086(0.017)
11(22)
0.0066(0.013)
10(21)
0.0051 (0.010)
18(37)
0.00061 (0.0012)
16(31)
0.0078(0.016)
19(38)
0.032 (0.064)
Ref.
No.
316
316
316
322
322
324
324
329
329
330
330
330
330
332
332
333
333
334
334
335
335
236
236
236
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM-2. 5
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
PM-2.5
Toluene
Hexane
Ethylene
Methane
S02
CO
Formaldehyde
3-Methylpentane
Isooctane
Butane
2-Methyl-l-pentene
Heptane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
No.
of
test
runs
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.017-0.019(0.035-0.038)
26-26 (52-53)
0.0010-0.0066(0.0021-0.013)
0.0013-0.0015 (0.0026-0.0030)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0-0.0059 (0-0.012)
0.00018-0.0017 (0.00037-0.0034)
0.0017-0.0057(0.0034-0.011)
0.0016-0.0079 (0.0033-0.016)
0.019-0.033 (0.039-0.067)
0.056-0.18(0.11-0.36)
0.00078-0.0043 (0.0016-0.0086)
0-0.00021 (0-0.00042)
0-6.2E-5 (0-0.00012)
0-0.00088(0-0-0.0018)
0.00015-0.0055 (0.00030-0.011)
0-0.0014 (0-0.0029)
0-0.00066(0-0.0013)
0-0.0012 (0-0.0023)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.018(0.036)
26 (52)
0.0038 (0.0077)
0.0014 (0.0028)
27% of filt. PM
23% of filt. PM
5. 5% of filt. PM
35% of filt. PM
32% of filt. PM
11% of filt. PM
0.0015(0.0031)
0.00092(0.0018)
0.0036 (0.0073)
0.0041 (0.0082)
0.027 (0.054)
0.10(0.20)
0.0026(0.0051)
8.2E-5 (0.00016)
1.6E-5(3.1E-5)
0.00033 (0.00067)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.00036 (0.00072)
0.00016(0.00033)
0.00055(0.0011)
Ref.
No.
268
268
268
268
23
23
23
23
23
23
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
oo
o
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
Pollutant
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
No.
of
test
runs
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0088-0.028(0.018-0.057)
0.00067-0.025 (0.0013-0.051)
0-1.6E-08(0-3.2E-08)
0-1.5E-07(0-3.0E-07)
5.1E-07-1.2E-05(1.0E-06-2.5E-05)
0-0 (0-0)
0-7.7E-08(0-1.5E-07)
2.2E-09-3.6E-07(4.3E-09-7.2E-07)
0-1.0E-07(0-2.0E-07)
6.8E-08-1.0E-06(1.4E-07-2.0E-06)
9.1E-08-4.6E-06(1.8E-07-9.3E-06)
6.0E-07-1.2E-05(1.2E-06-2.3E-05)
7.7E-08-6.6E-07(1.5E-07-1.3E-06)
1.9E-08-2.1E-07(3.8E-08-4.3E-07)
3.6E-06-2.2E-05(7.3E-06-4.5E-05)
0-2.6E-08 (0-5.3E-08)
0-4.0E-07(0-8.1E-07)
0-9.8E-09 (0-2.0E-08)
1.2E-06-7.9E-06(2.4E-06-1.6E-05)
9.3E-14-1.3E-13(1.9E-13-2.6E-13)
3.7E-13-6.2E-13(7.4E-13-1.2E-12)
1.3E-13-2.2E-13(2.5E-13-4.3E-13)
5.3E-13-2.5E-12(1.1E-12-5.0E-12)
1.6E-13-3.4E-13(3.1E-13-6.9E-13)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.018(0.036)
0.0073 (0.015)
4.2E-09 (8.3E-09)
5.2E-08(1.0E-07)
3.8E-06 (7.5E-06)
0(0)
4.9E-08 (9.8E-08)
1.0E-07(2.1E-07)
2.6E-08(5.1E-08)
3.7E-07 (7.5E-07)
1.6E-06(3.2E-06)
4.2E-06 (8.4E-06)
2.4E-07 (4.8E-07)
1.1E-07(2.1E-07)
8.5E-06(1.7E-05)
6.6E-09(1.3E-08)
1.1E-07(2.2E-07)
4.1E-09(8.2E-09)
3.1E-06(6.3E-06)
1.1E-13(2.1E-13)
4.7E-13 (9.3E-13)
1.6E-13(3.1E-13)
1.3E-12(2.6E-12)
2.1E-13 (4.2E-13)
Ref.
No.
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
18e
Pollutant
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD/PCDF
Toluene
No.
of
test
runs
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
4.8E-13-8.6E-13(9.6E-13-1.7E-12)
1.3E-13-1.2E-12(2.7E-13-2.5E-12)
2.5E-12-7.5E-12(5.0E-12-1.5E-11)
1.2E-12-3.7E-12(2.5E-13-7.4E-12)
1.2E-12-6.2E-12(2.5E-12-1.2E-11)
4.8E-12-3.3E-11(9.5E-12-6.6E-11)
1.3E-11-5.5E-11(2.6E-11-1.1E-10)
1.8E-13-8.6E-13(3.5E-13-1.7E-12)
1.2E-12-1.9E-12(2.5E-12-3.7E-12)
8.0E-14-3.7E-13(1.6E-13-7.4E-13)
9.3E-14-6.2E-13(1.9E-13-1.1E-12)
9.3E-14-3.1E-12(1.9E-13-6.2E-12)
1.2E-12-2.6E-12(2.5E-12-5.2E-12)
3.1E-13-8.6E-13(6.2E-13-1.7E-12)
5.6E-13-1.2E-12(1.3E-12-2.5E-12)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
3.4E-12-7.5E-12(6.9E-12-1.5E-11)
2.2E-12-4.3E-12(4.4E-12-8.7E-12)
6.2E-13-2.5E-12(1.2E-12-5.0E-12)
2.5E-12-4.8E-12(5.0E-12-9.6E-12)
1.9E-12-2.7E-12(3.7E-12-5.3E-12)
1.0E-11-1.8E-11(2.1E-11-3.5E-11)
2.2E-11-6.7E-11(4.3E-11-1.3E-10)
0-0.0088(0-0.018)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
6.5E-13(1.3E-12)
4.9E-13 (9.8E-13)
5.0E-12(1.0E-11)
2.4E-12 (4.8E-12)
3.4E-12 (6.9E-12)
1.2E-11(2.5E-11)
2.3E-11(4.5E-11)
4.6E-13 (9.2E-13)
1.5E-12(3.0E-12)
2.1E-13 (4.2E-13)
4.2E-13 (8.4E-13)
1.6E-12(3.2E-12)
2.0E-12 (4.0E-12)
5.8E-13(1.2E-12)
9.5E-13(1.9E-12)
BDL (BDL)
5.7E-12(1.1E-11)
3.3E-12 (6.5E-12)
1.4E-12(2.7E-12)
3.7E-12 (7.4E-12)
2.4E-12 (4.8E-12)
1.5E-11(3.0E-11)
3.7E-11(7.5E-11)
0.0037 (0.0074)
Ref.
No.
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
340
oo
to
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
Pollutant
Hexane
Ethylene
Methane
S02
CO
Formaldehyde
3-Methylpentane
Isooctane
Heptane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
n-Pentane
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0-0 (0-0)
0.0017-0.0051 (0.0035-0.010)
0.0012-0.0024 (0.0025-0.0047)
0.0089-0.016(0.018-0.032)
0.018-0.070(0.035-0.14)
0-0.0024 (0-0.0049)
0-0.00033 (0-0.00066)
0-7.2E-05 (0-0.00014)
0.0077-0.0095 (0.015-0.019)
0.0011-0.0033 (0.0023-0.0066)
0-9.2E-05 (0-0.00018)
0-0.00031 (0-0.00062)
0.019-0.040(0.038-0.079)
21-54(41-108)
0-0 (0-0)
5.0E-07-7.6E-07(1.0E-06-1.5E-06)
9.7E-05-1.6E-04(1.9E-04-3.3E-04)
0-0 (0-0)
1 .3E-06-3.0E-06 (2.6E-06-6. 1E-06)
1.0E-05-1.4E-05(2.0E-05-2.9E-05)
6.0E-06-9.5E-06(1.2E-05-1.9E-05)
8.0E-05-9.2E-05 (0.00016-0.00018)
1.1E-05-1.3E-05(2.2E-05-2.6E-05)
0.00030-0.00037(0.00060-0.00075)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0(0)
0.0033 (0.0066)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.013 (0.026)
0.041 (0.083)
0.0010(0.0021)
0.00011(0.00022)
2.4E-05 (4.8E-05)
0.0089(0.018)
0.0021 (0.0041)
3.1E-05 (6.1E-05)
0.00010(0.00021)
0.026 (0.053)
36 (73)
0(0)
6.4E-07(1.3E-06)
1.3E-04(2.5E-04)
0(0)
2.1E-06(4.2E-06)
1.2E-05(2.4E-05)
7.6E-06(1.5E-05)
8.6E-05 (0.00017)
1.2E-05(2.3E-05)
0.00033 (0.00065)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
oo
OJ
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
Pollutant
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Filterable PM
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Selenium
Thallium
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0-0 (0-0)
6.7E-06-8.9E-06(1.3E-05-1.8E-05)
0.00050-0.00066 (0.0010-0.0013)
8.9E-08-1.8E-07(1.8E-07-3.6E-07)
0-1.2E-07(0-2.5E-07)
2.8E-07-1.8E-06(5.5E-07-3.7E-06)
7.3E-05-0.00011(0.00015-0.00023)
0.0045-0.0094(0.0089-0.019)
1.6E-07-2.1E-07(3.1E-07-4.2E-07)
0-0 (0-0)
1.9E-06-3.7E-06(3.7E-06-7.4E-06)
0-0 (0-0)
1.0E-08-1.9E-08(2.1E-08-3.9E-08)
5.0E-07-6.7E-07(1.0E-06-1.3E-06)
0-0 (0-0)
3.2E-07-8.0E-07(6.5E-07-1.6E-06)
2.4E-07-3.5E-07(4.8E-07-7.0E-07)
2.8E-06-6.2E-06(5.7E-06-1.2E-05)
0-0 (0-0)
2.9E-07-4.3E-07(5.9E-07-8.6E-07)
4.5E-06-7.7E-06(8.9E-06-1.5E-05)
0-1.5E-08(0-3.1E-08)
2.1E-07-2.6E-07(4.2E-07-5.2E-07)
0-0 (0-0)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0(0)
7.7E-06(1.5E-05)
0.00060 (0.0012)
1.3E-07(2.7E-07)
5.8E-08(1.2E-07)
1.1E-06(2.2E-06)
9.2E-05 (0.00018)
0.0062 (0.012)
1.8E-07(3.5E-07)
0(0)
2.6E-06 (5.2E-06)
0(0)
1.5E-08(3.1E-08)
5.7E-07(1.1E-06)
0(0)
5.0E-07(1.0E-06)
3.0E-07(6.1E-07)
4.1E-06(8.3E-06)
0(0)
3.7E-07 (7.4E-07)
5.8E-06(1.2E-05)
8.4E-09(1.7E-08)
2.3E-07 (4.7E-07)
0(0)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
-f^
H-*
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
Pollutant
Zinc
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.2E-06-1.8E-06(2.3E-06-3.6E-06)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
2.6E-13-4.3E-11(5.3E-13-8.7E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
5.3E-13-1.9E-11(1.1E-12-3.8E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
7.9E-13-4.3E-11(1.6E-12-8.7E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
1.6E-12-1.1E-10(3.2E-12-2.1E-10)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
1.6E-13-5.6E-12(3.1E-13-1.1E-11)
2.6E-13-1.0E-11(5.3E-13-2.1E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
1.1E-12-1.8E-11(2.1E-12-3.5E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
2.6E-13-1.0E-11(5.3E-13-2.1E-11)
2.6E-13-2.0E-11(5.3E-13-4.0E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.6E-06(3.1E-06)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
2.1E-11(4.2E-11)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
7.1E-12(1.4E-11)
BDL (BDL)
1.6E-11(3.2E-11)
BDL (BDL)
4.4E-11 (8.8E-11)
BDL (BDL)
2.2E-12 (4.5E-12)
4.1E-12(8.2E-12)
BDL (BDL)
9.4E-12(1.9E-11)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
4.2E-12 (8.4E-12)
7.3E-12(1.5E-11)
BDL (BDL)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
-f^
H-*
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
Pollutant
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD+PCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
5.3E-13-1.6E-11(1.1E-12-3.1E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
2.0E-12-5.4E-11(4.0E-12-1.1E-10)
3.6E-12-1.6E-10(7.1E-12-3.2E-10)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-2.7E-12(O.OE+00-5.4E-12)
O.OE+00-1.7E-11(O.OE+00-3.4E-11)
O.OE+00-4.6E-11(O.OE+00-9.2E-11)
O.OE+00-2.2E-9 (O.OE+00-4.4E-9)
6.5E-10-2.3E-9 (1.3E-9-4.5E-9)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
1.3E-12-2.6E-11(2.7E-12-5.1E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
1.3E-12-6.0E-11(2.7E-12-1.2E-10)
O.OE+00-2.7E-12(O.OE+00-5.4E-12)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
BDL (BDL)
6.6E-12(1.3E-11)
BDL (BDL)
2.5E-11(5.1E-11)
7.0E-11(1.4E-10)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
2.7E-12 (5.4E-12)
1.7E-11(3.4E-11)
3.5E-11(7.1E-11)
1.4E-9(2.7E-9)
1.4E-9(2.8E-9)
BDL (BDL)
1.7E-11(3.3E-11)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
3.7E-11(7.4E-11)
2.7E-12 (5.4E-12)
BDL (BDL)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
-f^
H-*
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
Pollutant
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD+PCDF
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
C02
CO
NO,
Benzene
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
C02
CO
NO,
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
O.OE+00-8.1E-13(O.OE+00-1.6E-12)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-4.0E-12 (O.OE+00-8. 1E-12)
O.OE+00-5.4E-12(O.OE+00-1.1E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
5.5E-12-3.9E-12(1.1E-11-7.8E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
2.2E-11-1.2E-10(4.5E-11-2.3E-10)
7.5E-10-2.3E-9) (1.5E-9-4.6E-9)
0.00055-0.00075 (0.0011-0.0015)
0.0018-0.00292 (0.0035-0.0058)
18.43-19.97(36.86-39.95)
0.10-0.11 (0.20-0.22)
0.0080-0.0096(0.016-0.019)
0.00020 - 0.00024 (0.00039 -0.00048)
0.0011-0.0013 (0.0022-0.0026)
0.00088-0.0013 (0.0018-0.0026)
15.00-15.64(30.01-31.27)
0.039-0.050(0.077-0.10)
0.010-0.014(0.020-0.028)
0.00015 - 0.00023 (0.00030 - 0.00046)
BDL
BDL
0.0016-0.0023 (0.0032-0.0046)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
8.1E-13(1.6E-12)
BDL (BDL)
4.1E-12(8.1E-12)
5.4E-12(1.1E-11)
BDL (BDL)
1.9E-11(3.8E-11)
BDL (BDL)
7.7E-11(1.5E-10)
1.5E-9(3.0E-9)
0.00062 (0.0012)
0.0024 (0.0047)
19(38)
0.10(0.21)
0.0087(0.017)
0.00022 (0.00044)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0011(0.0021)
15(31)
0.043 (0.086)
0.012(0.023)
0.00018(0.00036)
BDL
BDL
0.0019(0.0038)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
341
341
341
341
341
341
342
342
342
342
342
342
342
342
343
-f^
H-*
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP used
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
C02
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
C02
CO
NO,
Benzene
Filterable PM
C02
S02
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Filterable PM
C02
CO
NO,
Benzene
Filterable PM
C02
Formaldehyde
CO
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NR
NR
NR
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00020-0.00027(0.00041-0.00054)
15.92-19.41 (31.85-38.81)
0.0075-0.0098(0.015-0.0196)
0.00034-0.00054 (0.00067-0.0011)
23.50-24.71 (46.99-49.42)
0.027-0.032(0.055-0.065)
0.0077-0.00091(0.015-0.018)
5.2 E-05 - 7.0 E-05 (0.00010 - 0.00014)
0.0020-0.0032 (0.0041-0.0064)
19.64-20.36(39.28-40.72)
0.032-0.034 (0.064-0.067)
6.3E-05-9.9E-05(1.3E-04-2.0E-04)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.0037-0.0040 (0.0074-0.0081)
16.31-16.73(32.62-33.45)
0.015-0.016(0.029-0.032)
0.0080-0.088(0.016-0.018)
3.9 E-05 - 5.0 E-05 (7.8 E-05 - 0.00010)
0.0056-0.0078(0.011-0.016)
46.79-49.13 (93.57-98.25)
0.0012-0.0014 (0.0024-0.0028)
0.048-0.057(0.096-0.11)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00023 (0.00046)
18(35)
0.0083 (0.017)
0.00045 (0.00091)
24 (48)
0.029 (0.059)
0.0083 (0.017)
6.1 E-05 (0.00012)
0.0027 (0.0053)
20 (40)
0.033 (0.066)
7.6E-05(1.5E-04)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.0038 (0.0077)
17(33)
0.015(0.030)
0.0084 (0.017)
4.6 E-05 (9.2 E-05)
0.0064(0.013)
48 (96)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.053(0.11)
Ref.
No.
343
343
344
344
344
344
344
344
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
346
346
346
346
346
347
347
347
347
oo
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
Pollutant
NO,
Benzene
Filterable PM
C02
HC1
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Filterable PM
C02
S02
H2S04
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Filterable PM
C02
S02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NR
NR
NR
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.049-0.060(0.098-0.12)
0.00012 - 0.00013 (0.00024 - 0.00027)
0.0034-0.0040 (0.0068-0.0080)
14.92-15.95(29.85-31.90)
0.00017-0.00028(0.00034-0.00057)
0.00027-0.00042(0.00053-0.00083)
0.00028-0.00029(0.00056-0.00058)
0.00092-0.0011 (0.0018-0.0021)
0.00067- 0.00084 (0.0013-0.0017)
0.000012-0.00045(0.00024-0.00089)
19.81-20.94(39.62-41.88)
0.00014-0.00055 (0.00028-0.001 10)
2.5E-05-3.5E-05(5.0E-05-7.0E-05)
0.0046-0.0054(0.0091-0.011)
13.23-14.03 (26.46-28.05)
0.0027-0.0049 (0.0054-0.0097)
0.0001 1-0.00017 (0.00022-0.00035)
0.00051-0.00057 (0.0010-0.0011)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.0099-0.011(0.020-0.022)
19.42-21.59(38.85-43.18)
0.033-0.041 (0.066-0.083)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.057(0.11)
0.00013 (0.00026)
0.0037 (0.0075)
16(31)
0.00022 (0.00045)
0.00035 (0.00069)
0.00029 (0.00057)
0.0010 (0.0020)
0.00077(0.0015)
0.00030 (0.00059)
20(41)
0.00033 (0.00066)
3.2E-05 (6.3E-05)
0.0050(0.010)
14 (27)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.00014 (0.00028)
0.00053(0.0011)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.011 (0.021)
21 (41)
0.036 (0.073)
Ref.
No.
347
347
348
348
348
348
348
349
349
349
349
349
349
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
351
351
351
-f^
H-*
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
No. 2 and No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 and No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil
Low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil
Low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP used
10
10
10
10
10
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
0
0
0
0
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
Pollutant
H2S04
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
C02
NO,
C02
NO,
Filterable PM
NO,
C02
CO
Propane
Methane
TOC
Filterable PM
S02
Formaldehyde
C02
Filterable PM
S02
Formaldehyde
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
NR
NR
NR
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0010-0.0013 (0.0019-0.0025)
0.00010-0.00018(0.00020-0.00037)
BDL
BDL
BDL
20.89-22.96(41.78-45.91)
0.023-0.045 (0.046-0.090)
14.37-15.61 (28.73-31.23)
0.028-0.034 (0.056-0.068)
0.0029-0.0079 (0.0057-0.016)
0.031-0.044(0.062-0.088)
20-24 (41-48)
0.0030-0.012 (0.0060-0.023)
0-0.00070 (0-0.0014)
0.0027-0.0055(0.0054-0.011)
0.0034-0.0040 (0.0067-0.0080)
0.0038-0.0063(0.0076-0.013)
0.028-0.031(0.056-0.063)
0.0046-0.0056(0.0092-0.011)
15-16(30-31)
0.0021 - 0.0028 (0.0043 - 0.0056)
0.0037 - 0.0046 (0.0075 - 0.0092)
0.0046-0.0092(0.0092-0.018)
18-20(36-39)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0011(0.0023)
0.00015 (0.00029)
BDL
BDL
BDL
22 (44)
0.034 (0.068)
15(30)
0.031 (0.062)
0.0056(0.011)
0.038 (0.076)
22 (45)
0.0070 (0.014)
0.00036(0.00071)
0.00040 (0.00080)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.0050 (0.0099)
0.030(0.059)
0.0052(0.010)
15(31)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0040(0.0081)
0.0071 (0.014)
19(38)
Ref.
No.
351
351
351
351
351
352
352
353
353
354
354
354
355
355
355
355
371
371
371
371
372
372
372
372
-f^
H-*
o
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP used
25
25
25
25
25
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
15
15
Pollutant
Filterable PM
S02
Benzene
Formaldehyde
C02
Filterable PM
S02
HC1
C02
Filterable PM
S02
Formaldehyde
C02
Filterable PM
S02
HC1
Benzene
C02
Filterable PM
S02
Benzene
C02
S02
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00078 - 0.00094 (0.0016 - 0.0019)
0.027 - 0.029 (0.054 - 0.057)
0.00011 - 0.00026 (0.00023 - 0.00051)
0.00039 - 0.0014 (0.00078 - 0.0027)
16-16(32-33)
0.0084-0.011(0.017-0.023)
0.014-0.015(0.027-0.030)
0.00012 - 0.00019 (0.00024 - 0.00039)
27-31(53-61)
0.0036-0.0053(0.0072-0.011)
0.026-0.028(0.051-0.055)
0.00095 - 0.0014 (0.0019 - 0.0029)
19-20(37-40)
0.0050-0.0052(0.010-0.010)
0.0069-0.011(0.014-0.023)
1.1E-05 - 2.7E-05 (2.2E-05 - 5.3E-05)
0.00023 - 0.00032 (0.00045 - 0.00063)
13-13(25-27)
0.0063-0.0080(0.013-0.016)
0.025 - 0.027 (0.050 - 0.054)
4.4E-05 - 7.3E-05 (8.7E-05 - 0.00015)
21 - 22 (42 - 45)
0.022-0.026(0.044-0.051)
21 - 21 (42 - 42)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00087(0.0017)
0.028 (0.056)
0.00019(0.00038)
0.00073 (0.0015)
16 ( 32)
0.010(0.021)
0.014(0.028)
0.00016 (0.00032)
29 (59)
0.0046(0.0091)
0.026 (0.053)
0.0012 (0.0023)
19(38)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0097(0.019)
2.0E-05 (3.9E-05)
0.00028 (0.00056)
13 (26)
0.0072 (0.014)
0.026 (0.053)
6.2E-05 (0.00012)
22 (43)
0.024 (0.047)
21 (42)
Ref.
No.
373
373
373
373
373
374
374
374
374
375
375
375
375
376
376
376
376
376
377
377
377
377
379
379
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
15
0
0
0
0
15
15
15
15
23
23
23
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
HC1
Filterable PM
S02
HC1
C02
Filterable PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
C02
Filterable PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
C02
Filterable PM
S02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
S02
C02
S02
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
l.OE-5 - 3.9E-5 (2.0E-5 - 3.8E-5)
0.013-0.018(0.025-0.036)
0.030-0.036(0.060-0.073)
5.5E-05 - 0.00015 (0.00011 -.00031)
18-20(36-40)
0.0011 - 0.0012 (0.0022 - 0.0025)
5.4E-05 - 0.000114 (0.00011 - 0.00028)
0.00014 - 0.00017 (0.00027 - 0.00034)
18-18(35-37)
0.00055 - 0.00079 (0.0011 - 0.0016)
0.00013 - 0.00015 (0.00025 - 0.00030)
0.00060 - 0.00075 (0.0012 - 0.0015)
11 - 12(21 -24)
0.0066-0.0079(0.13-0.16)
0.035-0.037(0.070-0.073)
19-20(38-40)
0.0046 - 0.0048 (0.0092 - 0.0095)
23 - 25 (45 - 49)
0.029-0.031(0.058-0.063)
22 - 23 (44 - 46)
0.022 - 0.026 (0.044 - 0.052)
19-21(37-42)
0.0073-0.0084(0.015-0.017)
0.0088-0.014(0.018-0.027)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.9E-5(3.8E-5)
0.015(0.030)
0.034 (0.068)
8.8E-05 (0.00018)
19(38)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.00011(0.00022)
0.00015 (0.00030)
18(36)
0.00068 (0.0014)
0.00014 (0.00027)
0.00066(0.0013)
12 (23)
0.071 (0.14)
0.036(0.071)
20 (39)
0.0047 (0.0094)
23 (47)
0.030(0.061)
23 (45)
0.024 (0.049)
20 (40)
0.0077(0.015)
0.011(0.022)
Ref.
No.
379
380
380
380
380
383
383
383
383
384
384
384
384
386
386
386
387
387
387
387
388
388
388
388
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Condensable organic PM
C02
Formaldehyde
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0012 - 0.0019 (0.0023 - 0.0037)
19-21 (38-42)
0.00053 - 0.00064 (0.0011 - 0.0013)
20 - 21 (40 - 43)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0015 (0.0029)
20 (40)
0.00059 (0.0012)
21 (41)
Ref.
No.
388
388
388
388
ND = no data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable, BDL = below detection limit
"Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced.
b Control device may provide only incidental control.
0 Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
d Facility processed 23 percent RAP during Runs 1, 2, and 3, and no RAP during Run 4.
e Facility processed 18 percent RAP during Runs 1 and 2 and no RAP during Run 3.
-------
Table 4-12. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION: BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Spray towerb
Centrifugal scrubber*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter0
Fabric filter4
Fabric filter6
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5-8
Venturi scrubber11
Venturi scrubber11
Multiple wet scrubbers1
Multiple wet scrubbers^
Multiple wet scrubbersgj
Wet cyclonic scrubber1
Wet cyclone1
Wet cyclone1
Wet cyclone8-1
Low-energy scrubber"1
Low-energy scrubber111
Low-energy scrubber8-111
Fuel fired
NO
NO
NO
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
NO
NO
NO
NO
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
PM-10
Filterable PM
PM-10
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Total PM
Total PM
C02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
No. of
test runs
NO
NO
NO
2
2
2
NO
NO
NO
NO
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
NO
NO
NO
0.026-0.029 (0.053-0.058)
0.068-0.074(0.14-0.15)
0.050-0.057(0.10-0.11)
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.015-0.024(0.030-0.048)
9.2-10(18-21)
0.025-0.028 (0.049-0.055)
0.0080-0.0086 (0.016-0.017)
0.041-0.049 (0.081-0.098)
0.0020-0.0070 (0.0040-0.014)
13-14(27-29)
0.015-0.026(0.029-0.052)
0.027-0.047 (0.056-0.094)
0.00050 (0.0010)
15-16(30-31)
0.052-0.069(0.10-0.14)
0.00050-0.0030 (0.0010-0.0060)
11(22)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.32(0.65)
0.14(0.28)
0.067(0.13)
0.028 (0.055)
0.071 (0.14)
0.054(0.11)
18(37)
3.9(7.8)
14 (27)
2.9(5.9)
0.018(0.036)
9.4(19)
0.026 (0.052)
0.0083 (0.017)
0.045 (0.089)
0.0045 (0.0090)
14 (28)
0.020(0.041)
0.035 (0.069)
0.00050 (0.0010)
15(31)
0.061 (0.12)
0.0017(0.0033)
11(22)
Ref.
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber11
Wet scrubber11
Wet scrubber8-"
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
CO
NO,
C02
TOC as propane
Methane0
Benzene0
Toluene0
Ethyl benzene0
Xylene0
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Filterable PM
PM-10
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
No. of
test runs
2
2
2
4
9
12
9
13
13
13
13
13
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
Data
rating
C
C
C
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
C
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.060-0.062(0.12-0.12)
0.0015-0.0040 (0.0030-0.0080)
12-12 (24-25)
0.42-0.57(0.85-1.1)
0.016-0.027 (0.032-0.054)
26-33 (51-65)
0.0085-0.014 (0.017-0.028)
8.1xlO-5-0.010 (0.00019-0.020)
7.5xlO-6-2.9xlO-4(1.5xlO-5-5.7xlO-4)
3.3xlO-7-7.0xlO-3(6.6xlO-7-1.4xlO-2)
3.9xlO-7-1.9xlO-2(7.7xlO-7-3.8xlO-2)
1.4xlO-6-4.2xlO-2(2.8xlO-6-8.4xlO-2)
6.4xlO-7-8.3xlO-7(1.3xlO-6-1.7xlO-6)
1.4xlO-7-2.4xlO-7(2.8xlO-7-4.8xlO-7)
1.6xlO-7-7.3xlO-7(3.2xlO-7-1.5xlO-6)
9.6xlO-7-1.0xlO-6(1.9xlO-6-2.0xlO-6)
l.lxlO-7-9.5xlO-7(2.2xlO-7-1.9xlO-6)
6.2x1 0-6-8.0xl O-6 ( 1 .2x1 0-5- 1 .6x1 0'5)
1.7xlO-7-6.3xlO-6(3.3xlO-7-1.3xlO-5)
2.4xlO-6-4.0xlO-6(4.7xlO-6-7.9xlO-6)
0.002-0.0035 (0.0039-0.0069)
0.00081-0.0011 (0.0016-0.0023)
0.0014-0.0034 (0.0028-0.0068)
0.00058-0.00065 (0.0012-0.0013)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.061 (0.12)
0.0030 (0.0060)
12 (24)
0.50(1.0)
0.020 (0.039)
28(55)
0.010(0.021)
0.0021 (0.0042)
9.6xlO-5 (0.00019)
0.00099 (0.0020)
0.0028 (0.0057)
0.0035 (0.0069)
7.3xlO-7(1.5xlO-6)
1.9xlO-7(3.8xlO-7)
4.5xlO-7(8.9xlO-7)
9.9xlO-7(2.0xlO-6)
5.3xlO-7(l.lxlO-6)
7.1xlO-6(1.4xlO-5)
3.2xlO-6 (6.4xlO-6)
3.2xlO-6 (6.3xlO-6)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0010 (0.0020)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.00061 (0.0012)
Ref.
No.
15
15
15
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde/
Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexanal
Quinone
CO
NO,
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzene
Toluene
Formaldehyde
No. of
test runs
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
5.0xlO-5-6.5xlO-5 (0.00010-0.00013)
0.00025-0.00044(0.00051-0.00088)
0.0012-0.0053(0.0024-0.011)
5.0xlO-5-7.9xlO-5 (0.00010-0.00016)
2.3xlO-6-2.8xlO-5(4.7xlO-6-5.7xlO-5)
7.5xlO-6-2.4xlO-5(1.5xlO-5-4.9xlO-5)
0.00091-0.0012 (0.0018-0.0023)
7. 5x1 0-6- 1 .6x1 0-5 ( 1 . 5x1 0'5-3 .2x1 0-5)
7.0xlO-6-0.00039(1.4xlO-5-0.00078)
0.027-0.075 (0.053-0.15)
0.010-0.016(0.020-0.031)
8.5xlO-10-4.4xlO-7(1.7xlO-9-8.7xlO-7)
8.5xlO-10-3.2xlO-7(1.7xlO-9-6.3xlO-7)
1.7xlO-9-9.5xlO-8(3.3xlO-9-1.9xlO-7)
1.7xlO-9-3.0xlO-8(3.3xlO-9-6.0xlO-8)
8.5xlO-10-3.4xlO-8(1.7xlO-9-6.7xlO-8)
3.4xlO-9-3.4xlO-8(6.7xlO-9-6.7xlO-8)
8.5xlO-10-6.5xlO-7(1.7xlO-9-1.3xlO-6)
8.5xlO-10-1.6xlO-5(1.7xlO-9-3.2xlO-5)
6.0xlO-7-1.6xlO-6(1.2xlO-6-3.1xlO-6)
1.7xlO-9-3.5xlO-8(3.3xlO-9-7.0xlO-8)
1.9xlO-5-6.0xlO-5(3.7xlO-5-0.00012)
2.5xlO-5-5.5xlO-5(5.0xlO-5-0.00011)
2.5xlO-5-5.5xlO-5(5.0xlO-5-0.00011)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
5. 8xlO-5 (0.00012)
0.00032 (0.00064)
0.0032 (0.0064)
6.4xlO-5 (0.00013)
1.5xlO-5(3.0xlO-5)
1.5xlO-5(2.9xlO-5)
0.0010(0.0021)
1.2xlO-5(2.4xlO-5)
0.00014 (0.00027)
0.055(0.11)
0.013 (0.026)
2.9xlO-7(5.7xlO-7)
1.6xlO-7(3.2xlO-7)
4.4xlO-8 (8.8xlO-8)
I.lxl0-8(2.2xl0-8)
1.2xlO-8(2.4xlO-8)
2.2xlO-8 (4.4xlO-8)
3.3xlO-7(6.5xlO-7)
9.5xlO-6(1.9xlO-5)
1.0xlO-6(2.0xlO-6)
2.4xlO-8 (4.8xlO-8)
3.5xlO-5 (7.0xlO-5)
3.7xlO-5 (7.3xlO-5)
3.8xlO-5 (7.6xlO-5)
Ref.
No.
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber8
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber8
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Copper
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Total PM
Formaldehyde
Total PM
Formaldehyde
Total PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Total PM
No. of
test runs
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
5.5xlO-8-1.2xlO-6(l.lxlO-7-2.3xlO-6)
1.6xlO-8-4.7xlO-7(3.2xlO-8-9.3xlO-7)
1.0xlO-8-1.7xlO-7(2.0xlO-8-3.3xlO-7)
3.5xlO-7-1.2xlO-6(7.0xlO-7-2.3xlO-6)
1.2xlO-7-1.7xlO-7(2.3xlO-7-3.3xlO-7)
4.2xlO-10-1.4xlO-8(8.3xlO-10-2.7xlO-8)
9.0xlO-7-5.5xlO-6(1.8xlO-6-l.lxlO-5)
1.2xlO-8-4.9xlO-7(2.3xlO-8-9.7xlO-7)
1.2xlO-6-5.5xlO-6(2.4xlO-6-l.lxlO-5)
1.5xlO-7-2.5xlO-6(3.0xlO-7-5.0xlO-6)
1 .2x1 0'8-3 .4x1 0-7 (2. 3x1 0-8-6.7xl O-7)
2.5xlO-8-6.5xlO-8(5.0xlO-8-1.3xlO-7)
1.3xlO-6-8.0xlO-6(2.6xlO-6-1.6xlO-5)
0.20-0.22 (0.40-0.45)
0.0063-0.010(0.013-0.020)
0.32-0.40 (0.65-0.80)
0.0019-0.0021 (0.0037-0.0043)
0.027-0.032 (0.054-0.064)
0.00050-0.00055 (0.0010-0.0011)
0.0024-0.0030 (0.0047-0.0060)
7.9xlO-5-0.0001 1(0.00016-0.00021)
0.0025-0.0030 (0.0049-0.0061)
0.00076-0.00099 (0.0015-0.0020)
0.036-0.043 (0.073-0.085)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
6.0xlO-7(1.2xlO-6)
1.7xlO-7(3.3xlO-7)
I.lxl0-7(2.2xl0-7)
6.5xlO-7(1.3xlO-6)
1.5xlO-7(3.0xlO-7)
4.9xlO-9 (9.7xlO-9)
2.7xlO-6 (5.3xlO-6)
2.3xlO-7(4.5xlO-7)
2.9xlO-6 (5.8xlO-6)
1.0xlO-6(2.0xlO-6)
1.9xlO-7(3.7xlO-7)
4.6xlO-8 (9.2xlO-8)
3.7xlO-6 (7.3xlO-6)
0.21 (0.43)
0.0078(0.016)
0.37(0.75)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.029 (0.058)
0.00053(0.0011)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.00010(0.00019)
0.0027 (0.0054)
0.00088(0.0018)
0.039 (0.078)
Ref.
No.
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Total PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Filterable PM
C02
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00084-0.0011 (0.0017-0.0021)
0.059-0.062(0.12-0.12)
0.00039-0.00050 (0.00078-0.0010)
0.018-0.019(0.036-0.039)
0.0037-0.0049 (0.0073-0.0098)
0.077-0.12(0.15-0.24)
0.0029-0.0049 (0.0058-0.0098)
2.1xlO-7-1.0xlO-6(4.1xlO-7-2.0xlO-6)
0.0014-0.0015 (0.0027-0.0030)
15-15(30-31)
0.012-0.021 (0.023-0.042)
9.4-11(19-21)
0.0011-0.0040 (0.0022-0.0079)
0.0057-0.0083(0.011-0.017)
NA
0.00041-0.00075 (0.00081-0.0015)
2.4xlO-5-0.00065(4.8xlO-5-0.0013)
4.8xlO-5-0.0022(9.5xlO-5-0.0044)
2.4xlO-5-0.0012(4.8xlO-5-0.0024)
7.2xlO-5-0.0022 (0.00014-0.0044)
2.4xlO-5-6.5xlO-5(4.7xlO-5-1.3xlO-4)
6.1xlO-7-8.0xlO-7(1.2xlO-6-1.6xlO-6)
8.0xlO-7-1.5xlO-6(1.6xlO-6-3.0xlO-6)
1.5xlO-6-2.6xlO-6(3.1xlO-6-5.2xlO-6)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00097(0.0019)
0.061 (0.12)
0.00044 (0.00089)
0.019(0.037)
0.0044 (0.0087)
0.093(0.19)
0.0039 (0.0079)
4.9xlO-7(9.9xlO-7)
0.0014 (0.0028)
15(31)
0.017(0.033)
10 (20)
0.0029 (0.0057)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.0044 (0.0087)
0.00058 (0.0012)
0.00025 (0.00050)
0.00076(0.0015)
0.00042 (0.00083)
0.00079 (0.0016)
4.1xlO-5(8.1xlO-5)
7.0xlO-7(1.4xlO-6)
1.0xlO-6(2.1xlO-6)
1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6)
Ref.
No.
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. PM
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene0
Toluene0
Ethylbenzene0
Xylene0
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
2.1xlO-6-3.7xlO-6(4.1xlO-6-7.5xlO-6)
2.0xlO-7-3.7xlO-7(4.0xlO-7-7.5xlO-7)
4.1xlO-8-7.0xlO-8(8.2xlO-8-1.4xlO-7)
3 . 3x1 0-8-5 .0x1 0-8 (6. 5x1 0-8- 1 .0x1 0'7)
l.lxlO-9-1.8xlO-9(2.2xlO-9-3.5xlO-9)
2.4x1 0'9-3 .7x1 0-9 (4. 8x1 0-9-7.4xl O-9)
7.0xlO-10-l.lxlO-9(1.4xlO-9-2.2xlO-9)
6.2xlO-5-2.5xlO-4 (0.00012-0.00049)
0.0014-0.0024 (0.0028-0.0047)
3.6xlO-5-0.00085(7.2xlO-5-0.0017)
0.041-0.14(0.082-0.27)
19-22(39-45)
0.00093-0.0028 (0.0019-0.0056)
0.0082-0.014 (0.016-0.028)
0.0055-0.016(0.011-0.032)
0.0046-0.017 (0.0092-0.033)
0.00023-0.00028(0.00046-0.00056)
0.00027-0.00033(0.00054-0.00066)
0.00031-0.00038(0.00062-0.00076)
0.00031-0.00038(0.00062-0.00076)
l.lxlO-5-1.4xlO-5(2.2xlO-5-2.7xlO-5)
1.5xlO-5-1.9xlO-5(2.9xlO-5-3.7xlO-5)
7.8xlO-7-l.lxlO-6(1.6xlO-6-2.2xlO-6)
9.3xlO-7-1.2xlO-6(1.9xlO-6-2.5xlO-6)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
2.7xlO-6 (5.5xlO-6)
2.7xlO-7(5.3xlO-7)
5.3xlO-8(l.lxlO-7)
3.9xlO-8 (7.8xlO-8)
1.4xlO-9(2.8xlO-9)
3.1xlO-9(6.3xlO-9)
8.8xlO-10(1.8xlO-9)
0.00017(0.00035)
0.0017(0.0034)
0.00036(0.00071)
0.095(0.19)
21 (43)
0.0017(0.0034)
0.011(0.022)
0.0095 (0.019)
0.0099 (0.020)
0.00026 (0.00052)
0.00030(0.00061)
0.00035 (0.00070)
0.00035 (0.00070)
1.3xlO-5(2.5xlO-5)
1.6xlO-5(3.3xlO-5)
8.8xlO-7(1.8xlO-6)
I.lxl0-6(2.2xl0-6)
Ref.
No.
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene0
Toluene0
Ethylbenzene0
Xylene0
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
No. of
test runs
3
3
2
2
2
9
9
9
9
9
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.6xlO-7-3.1xlO-7(3.1xlO-7-6.2xlO-7)
3.3xlO-5-7.9xlO-5(6.5xlO-5-1.6xlO-4)
0.0012-0.0026 (0.0023-0.0051)
0.0011-0.0016 (0.0022-0.0032)
0.0044-0.0046 (0.0088-0.0091)
0.019-0.065 (0.038-0.13)
25-32 (50-63)
0.10-0.15(0.21-0.30)
0.068-0.10(0.14-0.20)
0.015-0.028(0.030-0.056)
0.00013-0.0048 (0.00026-0.0096)
0.00055-0.00060 (0.0011-0.0012)
0.00065-0.00070 (0.0013-0.0014)
0.00075-0.00080 (0.0015-0.0016)
0.00075-0.00080 (0.0015-0.0016)
1.7xlO-5-2.9xlO-5(3.4xlO-5-5.8xlO-5)
2.5xlO-5-3.5xlO-5(4.9xlO-5-6.9xlO-5)
1.3xlO-5-2.4xlO-5(2.6xlO-5-4.8xlO-5)
5.3xlO-6-2.4xlO-5(l.lxlO-5-4.8xlO-5)
7.1xlO-6-6.7xlO-5(1.4xlO-5-1.3xlO-4)
1.5xlO-5-l.lxlO-3(3.0xlO-5-2.1xlO-3)
0.040-0.055(0.079-0.11)
0.0049-0.020 (0.0097-0.039)
0.0070-0.012 (0.014-0.024)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
2.1xlO-7(4.1xlO-7)
6.2xlO-5(1.2xlO-4)
0.0018(0.0037)
0.0013 (0.0027)
0.0045 (0.0090)
0.035 (0.069)
29 (59)
0.12(0.24)
0.084(0.17)
0.021 (0.043)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.00057(0.0011)
0.00068 (0.0014)
0.00078 (0.0016)
0.00078 (0.0016)
2.2xlO-5 (4.5xlO-5)
3.0xlO-5 (6.0xlO-5)
1.9xlO-5(3.7xlO-5)
1.2xlO-5(2.4xlO-5)
2.7xlO-5 (5.5xlO-5)
0.00040(0.00081)
0.045 (0.089)
0.013 (0.026)
0.0091 (0.018)
Ref.
No.
47
47
47
47
47
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
to
o
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Dual wet scrubbers
Dual wet scrubbers
Dual wet scrubbers
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
35
35
35
26
26
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
30
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0070-0.025 (0.014-0.051)
0.00030-0.00066 (0.00060-0.0013)
0.00096-0.0014 (0.0019-0.0029)
11-13(21-27)
0.14-0.17(0.29-0.33)
0.0010-0.0027 (0.0021-0.0054)
14-17 (29-34)
0.040-0.051 (0.080-0.10)
0.0033-0.0061 (0.0066-0.012)
15-19(30-38)
0.012-0.017(0.024-0.033)
0.0021-0.0034 (0.0042-0.0068)
11-12(22-24)
0.0034-0.0034 (0.0068-0.0068)
0.0012-0.0030 (0.0023-0.0059)
15-16(30-31)
0.011-0.013(0.021-0.027)
0.00034-0.0015 (0.00067-0.0030)
11-12(23-23)
0.059-0.10(0.12-0.20)
0.00075-0.00099 (0.0015-0.0020)
16-22 (33-43)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.016(0.031)
0.00050 (0.0010)
0.0011(0.0023)
12 (24)
0.15(0.31)
0.0016 (0.0032)
16(31)
0.044 (0.089)
0.0048 (0.0095)
18(35)
0.014(0.028)
0.0026(0.0051)
11(23)
0.0034 (0.0068)
0.0020 (0.0039)
15(31)
0.012(0.025)
0.00091 (0.0018)
12 (23)
0.078(0.16)
0.00090(0.0018)
19(39)
Ref.
No.
52
52
52
52
61
61
61
62
(61)
62
(61)
62
(61)
69
69
69
72
72
72
76
76
76
77
77
77
to
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
ND
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
26
26
26
0
0
0
15
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
S02
Sulfuric acid
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
D
D
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0028-0.0051 (0.0057-0.010)
0.0012-0.0031 (0.0023-0.0062)
20-20(39-41)
0.14-0.21 (0.29-0.42)
0.0028-0.0078 (0.0055-0.016)
21-26 (42-53)
0.0017-0.0022 (0.0033-0.0044)
0.0031-0.0036 (0.0061-0.0073)
18-18(35-36)
0.0025-0.011(0.0050-0.022)
0.0021-0.0034 (0.0042-0.0068)
0.0026-0.0069(0.0051-0.014)
18-21 (36-42)
0.0059-0.013 (0.012-0.025)
0.0067-0.0087(0.013-0.017)
0.0019-0.0020 (0.0037-0.0040)
52-53(100-110)
0.0035-0.023 (0.0070-0.047)
9.5-12(19-25)
0.0028-0.048 (0.0056-0.095)
0.0074-0.018(0.015-0.035)
0.014-0.015 (0.029-0.029)
0.0045-0.0060 (0.0091-0.012)
13-15 (26-29)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0022 (0.0045)
20 (40)
0.17(0.34)
0.0046(0.0091)
23 (46)
0.0019(0.0039)
0.0034 (0.0067)
18(36)
0.0059(0.012)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0040(0.0081)
19(38)
0.0082(0.016)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0019(0.0039)
53(110)
0.016(0.032)
11(21)
0.027(0.053)
0.013(0.025)
0.015 (0.029)
0.0053(0.011)
14 (28)
Ref.
No.
79
79
79
80
80
80
83
83
83
86
86
86
86
97
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
100
100
100
to
o
to
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
S02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Formaldehyde
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
B
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.043-0.058(0.086-0.12)
45-56(90-110)
0.0028-0.0036 (0.0055-0.0071)
15-17(31-33)
0.036-0.048 (0.072-0.097)
8.7-11(17-22)
0.0019-0.0062(0.0038-0.012)
7.7-11(15-21)
0.020-0.025 (0.041-0.050)
14-15 (28-30)
0.015-0.031 (0.031-0.063)
0.0028-0.0045 (0.0057-0.0089)
15-17(30-33)
0.0060-0.0087(0.012-0.017)
31-38(63-76)
0.014-0.021 (0.028-0.042)
29-30 (57-59)
0.026-0.030(0.051-0.060)
17-22 (33-45)
0.00083-0.0016 (0.0017-0.0032)
0.00026-0.00051 (0.00051-0.0010)
0.00045-0.00079 (0.00089-0.0016)
18-20(35-39)
0.0014-0.0025 (0.0028-0.0051)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.050(0.10)
45(91)
0.0033 (0.0065)
16 (32)
0.041 (0.082)
10 (20)
0.0044 (0.0088)
8.8(18)
0.023 (0.046)
15 (29)
0.022 (0.043)
0.0038 (0.0076)
16 (32)
0.0072 (0.014)
34 (69)
0.017(0.034)
29 (58)
0.028 (0.057)
19(37)
0.0012 (0.0024)
0.00040 (0.00080)
0.00058 (0.0012)
19(37)
0.0019(0.0038)
Ref.
No.
106
106
110
110
111
111
113
113
126
126
126
135
135
138
138
139
139
140
140
143
143
143
143
143
to
o
OJ
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
CO
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
C
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.15-0.26(0.30-0.52)
0.00068-0.0012 (0.0014-0.0025)
0.00085-0.0018 (0.0017-0.0037)
19-22(38-43)
0.052-0.059(0.10-0.12)
0.0050-0.0054(0.010-0.011)
13-15 (25-30)
0.026-0.030 (0.053-0.060)
0.15-0.21 (0.29-0.42)
3.0-5.2(6.0-10)
42-49 (84-99)
0.011-0.011 (0.021-0.023)
0.00014-0.00042(0.00027-0.00084)
0.00049-0.00069 (0.00099-0.0014)
23-26 (47-53)
0.00072-0.023 (0.0014-0.045)
0-0.012 (0-0.024)
0.019-0.062(0.037-0.12)
15-20(29-39)
0.00083-0.0020 (0.0017-0.0039)
0.00033-0.00091 (0.00066-0.0018)
10-20(20-41)
0.0023-0.0042 (0.0046-0.0084)
0.00084-0.0022 (0.0017-0.0044)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.20 (0.40)
0.00093 (0.0019)
0.0014 (0.0029)
20(41)
0.055(0.11)
0.0052(0.010)
14 (28)
0.028 (0.057)
0.19(0.37)
4.0(8.0)
47 (93)
0.011(0.022)
0.00028 (0.00056)
0.00059 (0.0012)
25 (50)
0.014 (0.027)
0.0040 (0.0080)
0.033 (0.066)
16 (32)
0.0014 (0.0027)
0.00061 (0.0012)
16(31)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0017(0.0034)
Ref.
No.
145
145
145
145
155
155
155
161
161
161
161
165
165
165
165
170
170
170
170
181
181
181
176
176
to
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 2 fuel
No. 2 fuel
No.2 fuel
No.2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Reprocessed
oil
Reprocessed
oil
Reprocessed
oil
Reprocessed
oil
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
C
C
C
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
C
C
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00035-0.00051 (0.00071-0.0010)
17-19(33-38)
0.011-0.017(0.021-0.035)
7.1-12(14-25)
1.3xlO-6-6.0xlO-6(2.7xlO-6-1.2xlO-5)
0.036-0.051 (0.073-0.10)
26-29 (52-58)
0.0025-0.0032 (0.0050-0.0064)
16-18(31-37)
0.00096-0.0019 (0.0019-0.0038)
0.0027-0.0065 (0.0053-0.013)
6.1-16(12-33)
0.0051-0.0079(0.010-0.016)
15-15 (29-30)
0.053-0.057(0.11-0.11)
19-22(38-43)
0.0040-0.0064(0.0081-0.013)
18-20(37-40)
0.0027-0.0035 (0.0053-0.0070)
14-18 (29-36)
0.0048-0.0060 (0.0096-0.012)
9.8-10 (20-20)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00042 (0.00084)
18(36)
0.014 (0.027)
10 (20)
3.1xlO-6(6.2xlO-6)
0.042 (0.085)
28(55)
0.0028 (0.0057)
17(34)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.0040 (0.0080)
12 (24)
0.0070 (0.014)
15(30)
0.056(0.11)
20 (40)
0.0049 (0.0099)
19(38)
0.0032 (0.0064)
16(31)
0.0054(0.011)
10 (20)
Ref.
No.
176
176
177
177
177
184
184
188
188
193
193
193
199
199
200
200
201
201
202
202
203
203
to
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Coal/
liquid propane
Coal/
liquid propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
22
22
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
CO
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
CO
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
CO
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
CO
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0041-0.0047 (0.0082-0.0093)
18-19(36-38)
0.51-0.74(1.0-1.5)
0.014-0.021 (0.028-0.042)
0.0023-0.0086 (0.0046-0.017)
18-23 (37-46)
0.013-0.016(0.027-0.032)
14-15 (28-30)
0.39-0.42 (0.79-0.85)
0.028-0.033 (0.055-0.065)
0.063-0.068(0.13-0.14)
20-25 (39-51)
0.70-0.82(1.4-1.7)
0.21-0.23 (0.41-0.47)
0.051-0.057 (1.0E-1-1.1E-1)
15-16(29-31)
0.61-0.61 (1.2-1.2)
0.0074-0.0086(0.015-0.017)
6.1-8.7(12-17)
0.0024-0.0071 (0.0049-0.014)
17-23 (33-47)
NA
0.29-5.1 (0.59-10)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0043 (0.0086)
18(37)
0.65(1.3)
0.016(0.033)
0.0061 (0.012)
20(41)
0.015 (0.029)
15 (29)
0.41 (0.82)
0.030(0.061)
0.065(0.13)
22 (44)
0.78(1.6)
0.22 (0.43)
0.053(0.11)
15(30)
0.61(1.2)
0.0080(0.016)
6.8(14)
0.0043 (0.0086)
19(39)
0.018(0.036)
3.4(6.9)
Ref.
No.
204
204
204
213
213
213
215
215
215
216
216
216
216
217
217
217
217
219
219
220
220
222
222
to
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0038-0.0049 (0.0075-0.0097)
75-79(150-160)
0.0032-0.0045 (0.0065-0.0089)
52-54(100-110)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16-22 (33-45)
0.0035-0.0058 (0.0070-0.012)
0.0014-0.0081 (0.0029-0.016)
14-21 (28-43)
0.0032-0.0049 (0.0064-0.0098)
14-18 (27-36)
0.0011-0.0019 (0.0022-0.0038)
0-1.8xlO-5(0-3.5xlO-5)
0.00041-0.0031 (0.00083-0.0062)
19-21 (38-42)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0044 (0.0088)
78(160)
0.0039 (0.0079)
53 (110)
13 (25)
14 (28)
14 (28)
16(31)
7.5(15)
12 (23)
14 (27)
0.0047 (0.0093)
0.00013 (0.00027)
0.00036 (0.00073)
19(37)
0.0049 (0.0097)
0.0038 (0.0076)
17(34)
0.0040 (0.0080)
16(31)
0.0016(0.0031)
5.9xlO-6(1.2xlO-5)
0.0021 (0.0042)
20 (40)
Ref.
No.
224
224
225
225
231
232
233
234
235
237
238
239
239
239
239
240
240
240
248
248
249
249
249
249
to
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cadmium
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Formaldehyde
NO,
S02
03
C02
Naphthalene
Acenaphtylene
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
8
8
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.031-0.034(0.061-0.068)
11-36(21-72)
0.00069-0.0019 (0.0014-0.0038)
13-14(25-29)
1.6xlO-8-6.1xlO-8(3.2xlO-8-1.2xlO-7)
3.4xlO-8-4.1xlO-8(6.9xlO-8-8.2xlO-8)
2.3xlO-8-8.1xlO-8(4.6xlO-8-1.6xlO-7)
4.2xlO-7-7.3xlO-7(8.3xlO-7-1.5xlO-6)
3.7xlO-7-5.4xlO-7(7.4xlO-7-l.lxlO-6)
1.6xlO-7-2.0xlO-7(3.2xlO-7-3.9xlO-7)
3.3xlO-7-1.0xlO-6(6.5xlO-7-2.1xlO-6)
2.1xlO-7-3.8xlO-7(4.2xlO-7-7.6xlO-7)
2.1xlO-7-8.8xlO-7(4.2xlO-7-1.8xlO-6)
1.3xlO-6-7.1xlO-6(2.6xlO-6-1.4xlO-5)
5.9xlO-8-1.2xlO-7(1.2xlO-7-2.3xlO-7)
2.9xlO-8-6.0xlO-8(5.8xlO-8-1.2xlO-7)
1.7xlO-7-4.5xlO-7(3.3xlO-7-8.9xlO-7)
9.0xlO-5-0.00017 (0.00018-0.00033)
0.028-0.039 (0.055-0.078)
0.0052-0.016(0.010-0.031)
4.5xlO-5-0.00012(8.9xlO-5-0.00023)
15-18(30-37)
2.7x1 0-6-7.0xl O-6 (5 .4x1 0-6- 1 .4x1 0'5)
3.2xlO-9-2.1xlO-8(6.4xlO-9-4.1xlO-8)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.033 (0.065)
19(38)
0.0014 (0.0029)
14 (27)
3.3xlO-8 (6.7xlO-8)
3.8xlO-8 (7.5xlO-8)
4.8xlO-8 (9.7xlO-8)
5.6xlO-7(l.lxlO-6)
4.6xlO-7(9.2xlO-7)
1.8xlO-7(3.6xlO-7)
5.7xlO-7(1.2xlO-6)
2.7xlO-7(5.4xlO-7)
4.4xlO-7(8.8xlO-7)
3.4xlO-6 (6.8xlO-6)
9.5xlO-8(1.9xlO-7)
4.3xlO-8 (8.6xlO-8)
2.6xlO-7(5.2xlO-7)
0.00012 (0.00024)
0.031 (0.061)
0.011 (0.021)
8.4xlO-5 (0.00017)
17(33)
5.4xlO-6(l.lxlO-5)
1.0xlO-8(2.0xlO-8)
Ref.
No.
250
250
253
253
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
to
O
oo
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Benz(a)Anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
4.7xlO-9-1.5xlO-8(9.4xlO-9-3.0xlO-8)
4.5xlO-8-2.3xlO-7(8.9xlO-8-4.6xlO-7)
2.5xlO-7-5.5xlO-7(4.9xlO-7-l.lxlO-6)
5.5xlO-9-1.3xlO-8(l.lxlO-8-2.5xlO-8)
2.7xlO-8-6.5xlO-8(5.3xlO-8-1.3xlO-7)
1 . 8x1 0-8-4.2xl O-8 (3 . 5x1 0-8-8.4xl O-8)
5.0xlO-10-8.0xlO-10(9.9xlO-10-1.6xlO-9)
2.1xlO-9-4.5xlO-9(4.1xlO-9-8.9xlO-9)
2.9xlO-10-6.0xlO-9(5.7xlO-10-1.2xlO-8)
1.8xlO-10-1.3xlO-9(3.5xlO-10-2.6xlO-9)
1.3xlO-10-1.8xlO-10(2.5xlO-10-3.5xlO-10)
2.4xlO-10-2.6xlO-10(4.7xlO-10-5.2xlO-10)
3.0xlO-11-8.0xlO-11(6.0xlO-11-1.6xlO-10)
1.5xlO-10-1.5xlO-10(2.9xlO-10-3.0xlO-10)
0.0013-0.0019 (0.0027-0.0038)
4.9-5.1 (9.7-10)
0.0034-0.0067 (0.0069-0.014)
0-0.00013 (0-0.00027)
0.00066-0.0018 (0.0013-0.0036)
15-16(29-31)
0.0052-0.0069 (0.010-0.014)
13-14(27-28)
0.0036-0.0053(0.0071-0.011)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.0xlO-8(2.1xlO-8)
1.4xlO-7(2.7xlO-7)
3.7xlO-7(7.3xlO-7)
8.3xlO-9(1.7xlO-8)
4.4xlO-8 (8.7xlO-8)
3.0xlO-8 (5.9xlO-8)
6.1xlO-10(1.2xlO-9)
3.2xlO-9 (6.3xlO-9)
2.2xlO-9 (4.5xlO-9)
5.6xlO-10(l.lxlO-9)
1.6xlO-10(3.1xlO-10)
2.5xlO-10(5.0xlO-10)
4.8x10-" (9. SxlO-11)
1.5xlO-10(3.0xlO-10)
0.0017(0.0034)
5.0(10)
0.0050(0.010)
5.4xlO-5 (0.00011)
0.0012 (0.0025)
15(30)
0.0060 (0.012)
14 (27)
0.0045 (0.0091)
Ref.
No.
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
256
256
261
261
261
261
263
263
265
to
O
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
Pollutant
Back half PM (acetone)
Back half PM (water)
C02
Filterable PM
Back Half PM (acetone)
Back Half PM (solubles)
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
NR
B
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0012-0.0027 (0.0024-0.0054)
0.019-0.021 (0.038-0.043)
12-17(25-33)
0.0055-0.0077(0.011-0.015)
0.00084-0.0016 (0.0017-0.0032)
4.0xlO-5-5.4xlO-5(8.1xlO-5-0.00011)
8.6-11(17-22)
0.0024-0.0046 (0.0047-0.0091)
20-22 (40-45)
0.0020-0.0025 (0.0039-0.0050)
9.6-14(19-27)
0.0079-0.0093 (0.016-0.019)
19-20(37-39)
0.0048-0.0076(0.0097-0.015)
8.3-9.1 (17-18)
0.0022-0.0023 (0.0044-0.0047)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0045-0.0054(0.0089-0.011)
32-33 (63-66)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0018(0.0035)
0.020 (0.040)
15(30)
0.0068(0.014)
0.0011(0.0022)
4.7xlO-5 (9.5xlO-5)
10 (20)
0.0035 (0.0070)
21 (42)
0.0023 (0.0046)
12 (24)
0.0086(0.017)
19(38)
0.0062 (0.012)
8.7(17)
0.0023 (0.0045)
16 (32)
0.011 (0.021)
12 (24)
17(34)
0.0051 (0.010)
32 (64)
Ref.
No.
265
265
265
264
264
264
264
271
271
274
274
275
275
276
276
276
277
277
278
279
281
281
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
CO
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
CO
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0015-0.0024 (0.0030-0.0048)
0.0059-0.010(0.012-0.021)
13-15 (25-29)
0.11-0.14(0.23-0.28)
0.032-0.037 (0.065-0.074)
0.022-0.025 (0.043-0.050)
17-17(33-33)
0.021-0.023 (0.042-0.046)
9.0-23 (18-45)
0.00086-0.0021 (0.0017-0.0043)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.047-0.058(0.094-0.12)
42-58 (83-120)
0.0066-0.016(0.013-0.032)
0.045-0.054(0.090-0.11)
29-30 (58-60)
0.0038-0.0069 (0.0076-0.014)
0.014-0.016(0.028-0.031)
22-32 (44-63)
0.38-0.42 (0.77-0.84)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0018(0.0037)
0.0085 (0.017)
14 (27)
0.13(0.25)
0.034 (0.068)
0.023 (0.046)
17(33)
0.022 (0.044)
15 (29)
0.0017(0.0034)
12 (24)
10 (20)
7.0(14)
8.8(18)
11(22)
0.052(0.10)
49 (98)
0.010(0.021)
0.049 (0.098)
30 (59)
0.0056(0.011)
0.015 (0.029)
26(51)
0.40 (0.80)
Ref.
No.
281
282
282
282
282
283
283
284
284
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
290
290
291
291
291
296
296
296
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
No. of
test runs
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B
B
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.022-0.025 (0.044-0.051)
16-21 (33-43)
0.0026-0.0033 (0.0052-0.0067)
24-27 (49-53)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0068-0.013 (0.014-0.026)
5.8-9.6(12-19)
0.038-0.054(0.076-0.11)
21-21 (41-42)
0.0021-0.0028 (0.0041-0.0056)
0.0098-0.012 (0.020-0.024)
6.3-6.8(13-14)
0.00011-0.0033 (0.00022-0.0066)
0.0051-0.0092(0.010-0.018)
6.2-6.7(12-14)
0.0070-0.017(0.014-0.035)
17-17 (34-34)
0.0015-0.0021 (0.0030-0.0042)
0.0039-0.0077(0.0078-0.015)
13-15 (26-30)
7.5xlO-7-3.8xlO-6(1.5xlO-6-7.6xlO-6)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.024 (0.048)
19(37)
0.0030 (0.0060)
25 (50)
41 (82)
0.059(0.12)
57(110)
0.11(0.21)
0.0091 (0.018)
8.2(16)
0.046(0.091)
21 (42)
0.0024 (0.0049)
0.011 (0.021)
6.6(13)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0075 (0.015)
6.4(13)
0.011 (0.021)
17(34)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0054(0.011)
14 (27)
1.9xlO-6(3.7xlO-6)
Ref.
No.
302
302
304
304
306
307
307
307
308
308
310
310
310
312
312
312
313
313
314
314
314
317
317
317
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
10
10
10
10
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0019-0.0042 (0.0039-0.0085)
15-16(31-32)
1.7xlO-6-1.8xlO-6(3.5xlO-6-3.5xlO-6)
0.0066-0.010(0.013-0.020)
16-18(33-35)
1.8xlO-6-2.1xlO-6(3.6xlO-6-4.1xlO-6)
0.0043-0.0065 (0.0085-0.013)
18-19(37-37)
0.0057-0.012(0.011-0.024)
15-17(29-33)
5.1xlO-6-8.7xlO-6(1.0xlO-5-1.7xlO-5)
0.0055-0.0069(0.011-0.014)
23-27 (46-53)
0.011-0.017(0.023-0.034)
8.4-9.7 (17-20)
0.0061-0.014(0.012-0.028)
0.00095-0.0012 (0.0019-0.0024)
0.0068-0.012 (0.014-0.025)
19-26(38-52)
0.0010-0.0022 (0.0020-0.0045)
24-31 (47-62)
0.0019-0.011(0.0038-0.022)
13-15 (25-30)
0.00078-0.0014 (0.0016-0.0027)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0028 (0.0055)
16(31)
1.7xlO-6(3.5xlO-6)
0.0080(0.016)
17(34)
1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6)
0.0053(0.011)
19(37)
0.0084 (0.017)
15(31)
7.0xlO-6(1.4xlO-5)
0.0062(0.013)
25 (50)
0.014(0.028)
9.0(18)
0.0096(0.019)
0.0011(0.0021)
0.0094(0.019)
24 (47)
0.0016(0.0033)
28(55)
0.0064(0.013)
14 (28)
0.0012 (0.0023)
Ref.
No.
318
318
318
319
319
319
320
320
321
321
321
323
323
325
325
325
325
326
326
327
327
328
328
331
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
None
None
Fuel fired
ND
ND
Coal/ nat. gas
Coal/ nat. gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
0
0
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
C02
C02
CO
C02
CO
C02
CO
Filterable PM
C02
Benzene
Formaldehyde
S02
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorg. PM
Condensable org. PM
Total condensable PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
No. of
test runs
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ND
ND
Data
rating
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
12-19 (24-37)
0.00047-0.00087 (0.00094-0.0017)
0.0026-0.0032 (0.0052-0.0063)
9.9-11(20-23)
10-13(21-26)
0.011-0.027(0.021-0.055)
10-13(33-34)
0.053-0.058(0.11-0.12)
14 - 15 (28 - 29)
0.044-0.057(0.089-0.11)
0.0041-0.0051(0.0083-0.010)
15-16(31-31)
0.00016 - 0.00020 (0.00033 - 0.00039)
0.00064 - 0.00080 (0.0013 - 0.0016)
0.0010-0.0015(0.0021-0.0031)
17-18(33-36)
0.067-0.010(0.13-0.21)
0.00064 - 0.0016 (0.0013 - 0.0033)
0.00024 - 0.0013 (0.00047 - 0.0026)
0.0011 - 0.0022 (0.0023 - 0.0044)
0.0016-0.0032 (0.0032-0.0065)
6.4-18(13-35)
ND
ND
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
15(31)
0.00063 (0.0013)
0.0029 (0.0057)
11(21)
12 (23)
0.019(0.039)
17(33)
0.056(0.11)
15 (29)
0.052 (0.10)
0.0045 (0.0090)
16(31)
0.00018(0.00036)
0.00074(0.0015)
0.0013 (0.0027)
17(35)
0.088(0.18)
0.0011(0.0021)
0.00068 (0.0014)
0.0017(0.0035)
0.0024 (0.0047)
12 (24)
23% of filt. PM
14% of filt. PM
Ref.
No.
331
331
336
336
370
370
378
378
381
381
382
382
382
382
385
385
385
385
385
385
195
195
23
23
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2. 5
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2. 5
Filterable PM-1
No. of
test runs
ND
ND
1
1
1
1
1
Data
rating
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
3. 5% of fill PM
0.83% of fill PM
47% of filt. PM
40% of filt. PM
36% of filt. PM
33% of filt. PM
30% of filt. PM
Ref.
No.
23
23
23p
23p
23p
23p
23p
to
IJl
ND = No data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced.
Emission factors developed from data collected during a plant survey.
c Plant 2.
d Plant 4.
e Plants.
f Plant 0.
g Control device may provide only incidental control.
h Plant U.
1 Plant X.
j Plant AA.
k Plant BB.
1 Plant DD.
m Plant EE.
n Plant FF.
0 Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
p Secondary data from Reference 26 within Reference 23.
-------
Table 4-13. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
DRUM MIX FACILITY-HOT OIL HEATERS
Type of
control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
TCDF (total)
PCDF (total)
HxCDF (total)
HpCDF (total)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
OCDF
HxCDD (total)
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
HpCDD (total)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
Formaldehyde
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
Emission factor range,
kg/1 (Ib/gal) fuel
consumed
1.2xlO-6-2.8xlO-6
(l.lxlO-5-2.3xlO-5)
1.7xlO-8-3.0xlO-8
(1.4xlO-7-2.5xlO-7)
6.2xlO-8-6.7xlO-8
(5.2xlO-7-5.6xlO-7)
1.6xlO-7-4.6xlO-7
(1.3xlO-6-3.8xlO-6)
4.8xlO-7-8.2xlO-7
(4.0xlO-6-6.8xlO-6)
1.7xlO-8-2.9xlO-8
(1.4xlO-7-2.4xlO-7)
3.4xlO-9-6.2xlO-9
(2.8xlO-8-5.2xlO-8)
3.2xlO-9-4.7xlO-9
(2.7xlO-8-3.9xlO-8)
7.2xlO-9-1.8xlO-8
(6.0xlO-8-1.5xlO-7)
6.7xlO-14-8.2xlO-13
(5.6xlO-13-6.8xlO-12)
2.4xlO-14-1.2xlO-13
(2.0xlO-13-1.0xlO-12)
1.6xlO-14-5.8xlO-13
(1.3xlO-13-4.8xlO-12)
3.8xlO-14-2.6xlO-12
(3.2xlO-13-2.2xlO-u)
9.4xlO-14-1.0xlO-12
(7.6xlO-13-8.4xlO-12)
1.2xlO-13-3.7xlO-12
(1.0xlO-12-3.1xlO-u)
2.3xlO-13-1.3xlO-12
(1.9xlO-12-l.lxlO-u)
3.8xlO-14-1.2xlO-13
(3.2xlO-13-1.0xlO-12)
3.8xlO-14-l.lxlO-13
(3.2xlO-13-9.2xlO-13)
1.7xlO-13-6.7xlO-12
(1.4xlO-12-5.6xlO-u)
1.7xlO-13-4.6xlO-12
(1.4xlO-12-3.8xlO-u)
1.2xlO-12-5.3xlO-u
(1.0xlO-n-4.4xlO-10)
0.0019-0.0053
(0.016-0.044)
Average emission
factor, kg/1 (Ib/gal)
fuel consumed
2.0xlO-6(1.7xlO-5)
2.4xlO-8 (2.0xlO-7)
6.4xlO-8 (5.3xlO-7)
2.8xlO-7(2.3xlO-6)
5.9xlO-7(4.9xlO-6)
2.2xlO-8(1.8xlO-7)
5.3xlO-9 (4.4xlO-8)
3.8xlO-9 (3.2xlO-8)
1.2xlO-8(1.0xlO-7)
4.0xlO-13(3.3xlO-12)
5.8xlO-14 (4.8xlO-13)
2.4xlO'13 (2.0xlO-12)
1.2xlO-12(9.7xlO-12)
4.2xlO'13 (3.5xlO-12)
1.4xlO-12(1.2xlO-u)
7.4xlO'13 (6.2xlO-12)
9.1xlO-14(7.6xlO-13)
8.3xlO-14 (6.9xlO-13)
2.4xlO'12 (2.0xlO-u)
l.SxlO'12 (1.5x10-")
1.9xlO-"(1.6xlO-10)
0.0032 (0.027)
Ref.
No.
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
4-216
-------
Table 4-14. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Propane
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Fuel oil
Propane
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
11
20
0
0
0
0
ND
0
52
0
0
0
35
0
0
20
50
0
20
10
0
0
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00059 (0.0012)
0.00077 (0.0015)
0.00094 (0.0019)
0.0010(0.0021)
0.0011 (0.0022)
0.0011 (0.0023)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0014 (0.0027)
0.0016 (0.0032)
0.0017(0.0033)
0.0018 (0.0035)
0.0018 (0.0036)
0.0019 (0.0039)
0.0019 (0.0039)
0.0021 (0.0043)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.0031 (0.0062)
0.0034 (0.0068)
0.0035 (0.0070)
0.0038 (0.0077)
0.0041 (0.0083)
0.0042 (0.0083)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
0.0037 (0.0074), A
Ref. No.
262
349
85
48
388
173
206
292
63
87
309
330
142
130
119
254
81
125
252
268
316
311
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/natural gas
ND
Coal/natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Butane
Propane
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Coal/natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
0
0
0
50
30
NDb
0
NDb
30
20
20
0
28
20
0
30
32
0
0
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
C
C
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0047 (0.0093)
0.0059 (0.012)
0.0061 (0.012)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0082 (0.016)
0.0084 (0.017)
0.010 (0.020)
0.014 (0.027)
0.021 (0.041)
0.025 (0.050)
0.042 (0.083)
0.00018 (0.00035)
0.00021 (0.00042)
0.00030 (0.00059)
0.00036 (0.00071)
0.00031 (0.00061)
0.00040(0.00081)
0.00042 (0.00083)
0.00053(0.0011)
0.0010 (0.0020)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0013 (0.0026)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
0.029 (0.058), E
0.0059(0.012), A
Ref. No.
251
94
133
28
132
101
148
25
36
37
37
65
254
349
48
51
252
133
56
55
173
85
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Natural gas/ coal
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
10
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
42
50
44
52
0
NDb
40
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
O -") •~> •~>
3,2,3,3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0014 (0.0028)
0.0014 (0.0029)
0.0015 (0.0029)
0.0016 (0.0032)
0.0017(0.0033)
0.0020 (0.0039)
0.0021 (0.0043)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.0029 (0.0059)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0032 (0.0063)
0.0033 (0.0066)
0.0057(0.011)
0.0065 (0.013)
0.0069 (0.014)
0.0070 (0.014)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.0090(0.018)
0.0093 (0.019)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
268
70
388
25
71
130
94
330
101
251
132
78
125
75
87
82
81
54
63
57-60
36
64
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Butane
Coal/natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Waste oil
Fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP
used
31
0,NDb
11
18
48
31
35
0,46
30
13
35
30
0
0
25
0
0
20
0
23
0
25
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. PM
Cond. PM
Cond. PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3,3
3
3
3
3
3
2,3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B,A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0095 (0.019)
0.010(0.021)
0.011 (0.022)
0.013 (0.026)
0.020 (0.041)
0.021 (0.042)
0.029 (0.058)
0.037 (0.074)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.00048 (0.00096)
0.010(0.019)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.0046 (0.0092)
0.0060 (0.012)
0.00044 (0.00089)
0.00058 (0.0012)
0.00061 (0.0012)
0.00062 (0.0012)
0.00067 (0.0013)
0.00068 (0.0014)
0.00083 (0.0017)
0.00087 (0.0017)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
0.0041 (0.0082), NR
0.0067(0.014), A
Ref. No.
73
37
262
74
68
53
142
67
44
45
50
65
133
190
40
292
335
341
40
384
242
373
to
to
o
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
20
0
15
30
48
0
35
0
0
ND
0
42
40
ND
22
23
0
6
12
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00098 (0.0020)
0.00096 (0.0019)
0.0010 (0.0020)
0.0011 (0.0022)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.0013 (0.0027)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.0015 (0.0029)
0.0015 (0.0030)
0.0016(0.0033)
0.0018 (0.0037)
0.0018 (0.0036)
0.0018 (0.0036)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0019 (0.0037)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0021 (0.0042)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref No.
40
269
349
257
383
295
68
118
50
330
223
182
267
82
40
206
124
343
114
198
117
89
to
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
ND
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
52
20
0
26
45
50
31
0
25
40
30
0
10
0
13
0
0
10
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
B
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0024 (0.0048)
0.0025 (0.0049)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0026 (0.0052)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0027 (0.0053)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0030 (0.0059)
0.0030 (0.0059)
0.0031 (0.0063)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
160
28
63
342
147
107
40
31
73
130
372
40
25
48
345
293
45
91
309
294
71
154
to
to
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
Propane
Waste oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
40
0
18
30
28
0
20
0
0
0
0
20
40
0
0
0
0
ND
52
24
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0032 (0.0063)
0.0033 (0.0065)
0.0035 (0.0071)
0.0036 (0.0071)
0.0036 (0.0072)
0.0036 (0.0073)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.0037 (0.0075)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0038 (0.0077)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0041 (0.0081)
0.0044 (0.0088)
0.0046 (0.0091)
0.0046 (0.0092)
0.0047 (0.0094)
0.0047 (0.0095)
0.0048 (0.0097)
0.0048 (0.0097)
0.0049 (0.0098)
0.0049 (0.0097)
0.0050 (0.0099)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref No.
175
178
40
329
74
168
51
348
252
92
171
167
78
375
64
387
221
180
128
209
40
371
to
to
OJ
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil &
natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Fuel oil
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Low-sulfur
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
32
0
20
0
0
30
44
0
15
31
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
50
0
10
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0050(0.010)
0.0050(0.010)
0.0050(0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0052 (0.010)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0054(0.011)
0.0056(0.011)
0.0056(0.011)
0.0056(0.011)
0.0057(0.011)
0.0059 (0.012)
0.0061 (0.012)
0.0062 (0.012)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
55
149
350
334
125
44
54
376
103
52
260
273
137
298
192
197
354
81
84
315
297
to
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Drain oil
Coal/ natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18
0
10
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
20
23
0
30
0
10
0
35
30
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0062 (0.012)
0.0063 (0.013)
0.0064 (0.013)
0.0064 (0.013)
0.0065 (0.013)
0.0069 (0.014)
0.0069 (0.014)
0.0069 (0.014)
0.0069 (0.014)
0.0069 (0.014)
0.0072 (0.014)
0.0073 (0.015)
0.0076(0.015)
0.0077(0.015)
0.0077(0.015)
0.0078 (0.016)
0.0078 (0.016)
0.0078 (0.016)
0.0079 (0.016)
0.0082 (0.016)
0.0083 (0.017)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
340
95
210
347
189
121
316
122
311
40
377
339
112
40
388
236
123
40
25
174
105
to
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Propane, natural
gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
ND
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Percent
RAP
used
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
38
ND
ND
6.9
14
0
10
0
ND
0
33
20
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
2,3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B,A
C
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
A
A
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0083 (0.017)
0.0083 (0.017)
0.0084 (0.017)
0.0084 (0.017)
0.0085 (0.017)
0.0088 (0.018)
0.0090(0.018)
0.0096 (0.019)
0.010(0.021)
0.010 (0.020)
0.010(0.021)
0.010(0.021)
0.011 (0.022)
0.011 (0.023)
0.011 (0.022)
0.011 (0.021)
0.012 (0.024)
0.012 (0.024)
0.012 (0.024)
0.012 (0.023)
0.013 (0.025)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref No.
303
344
245, 247
173
27
31
101
104
300
144
214
374
246
205
40
351
94
229
218
33
254
to
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
77-,]-.-: filfr,,-
-L dUUW -L11LW1
/"PI -i ivf A\
(1 IcUlt A)
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Coal/natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
ND
Natural gas
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
>T "• fii 1 11
1>IU. £* -LUWl Ull,
n-i+in--i1 mr
lldLUlCU gdb
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 5 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
24
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
20
15 -Run
1,0-Run
2
10
ND
0
0
A.TT~V
1NU
0,NDb
NDb
50
0,10
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
T7I1+ r^l-il/i PlVf
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3.
rr
3,3
3
3
6,2
Data
rating
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
B
A
A
l-»
\J
A
A
A
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.013 (0.026)
0.013 (0.027)
0.013 (0.027)
0.014 (0.027)
0.014 (0.029)
0.014 (0.027)
0.015 (0.030)
0.016(0.033)
0.016(0.032)
0.026 (0.053)
0.032 (0.064)
0.0038 (0.0077)
0.051 (0.10)
0.054(0.11)
0.071 (0.14)
n 11 f(\ 1 1 \
1.3 (2.6)
2.2 (4.4)
2.7 (5.4)
16(31)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
14 (28), D
Ref. No.
301
90
280
30
132
26
380
186
137
40
38
346
153
93
386
">">
LL
37
36
31
38
to
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
18
0
0
0
o,
25 -run 4
ND
0
0
0
11
50
0
0
0
0
0
46,0
0
0,NDb
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
2
3
2
3
3
3,4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3,3
3
3
3,2
3
3,3
3
Data
rating
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A,B
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
25 (50)
36 (73)
0.0018 (0.0036)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0022 (0.0045)
0.0046 (0.0093)
0.0049 (0.0098)
0.0062 (0.012)
0.0064 (0.013)
0.0068 (0.014)
0.0070 (0.014)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.0072 (0.014)
0.0076(0.015)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0081 (0.016)
0.0087(0.017)
0.0090(0.018)
0.0092 (0.019)
0.0098 (0.020)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
0.013(0.026), A
Ref. No.
31
340
255
96
322
211,212
251
187
87
324
262
148
243
258
332, 333
29
259
67
172
37
99
to
to
oo
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Venturi scrubber
\T 11+11 i-i r nil 1 I-
v wiiLun awiuuuwi
None
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Fuel oil/coal
No. 6 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
N^> fli i ;i
U. £* -LUW1 Ull
ND
Percent
RAP
used
31
35
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
NDb
ATF\
1>U
30
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
T7; 1+ |-n1-.1/i T'lVf
riitcraoic i ivi
Filterable PM-15
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3,2,3,3
3
3
a.
rr
4
Data
rating
A
B
A
B
B,A
C
B
A
C
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A,B,A,A
C
A
T-V
L)
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.010(0.021)
0.012 (0.024)
0.012 (0.024)
0.012 (0.024)
0.013 (0.026)
0.014 (0.027)
0.014 (0.027)
0.015 (0.030)
0.016(0.032)
0.018 (0.036)
0.018 (0.036)
0.020 (0.040)
0.022 (0.044)
0.026 (0.052)
0.027 (0.053)
0.036 (0.072)
0.046 (0.092)
0.048 (0.097)
0.049 (0.097)
n ->n tr\ cr\\
U.JU ^U.UUJ
27% of filt. PM
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
27% of filt. PM,
3.8 (7.6), E
Ref. No.
146
142
141
32
179, 183
85
88
266
40
268
119
70
241
75
109
108
57-60
191
36
1 ff
1OO
23
to
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
F-.1-, • f.\+nr
dunc 111 LCI
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
6T 1 -inn -11-
yciunc ui
multi 1-in/i
111U1L1W1U11W
"Nlnno
1 >l U11W
Fuel fired
ND
ND
ND
Waste oil
N-i-fni-il n -ir
aLuiai gcia
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
TWTl^V
1>U
wn
1>IA^
Percent
RAP
used
30
30
30
30
7f>
JU
ND
30
ND
ND
30
ND
ND
ATT^
1>U
~VTT~V
1NJJ
Pollutant
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-2.5
Filterable PM-15
Filterable PM-10
T7M+ i--i1 1 T^lVf 1 f>
rntcraoic i ivi-iu
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-10
PM-1
PM-1
PM-2.5
PM-2.5
PM-2.5
T^.j.-.] T»1\/T
lotai i M
T-,f-,I T>1\T
No. of
test
runs
4
4
4
3
a.
rr
2
4
2
3
4
2
3
ATT^
1>U
~VT1~V
1NJJ
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
T-V
L)
r\
LJ
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
23% of filt. PM
5. 5% of fill PM
35% of filt. PM
0.0026 (0.0052)
32.5% of filt. PM
n nni i tr\ r\r\^">\
U.UUll (y. UUZJJ
NfJU T>1\T 1-, + -,
0.0029 (0.0058)
24. 2% of filt. PM
32% of filt. PM
0.00023 (0.00045)
1.9% of fill PM
0.0030 (0.0060)
28. 6% of filt. PM
11% of filt. PM
0.00069 (0.0014)
5. 8% of fill PM
0.0049 (0.0097)
46. 2% of filt. PM
n -> /i /n /"7\
U.J4 ^U.U /J
•1 C /''I Q\
z.3 (4.y^
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
23% of filt. PM,
3.2 (6.4), E
5. 5% of filt. PM
0.77(1.5), E
35% of filt. PM,
0.0025 (0.0049), E
30% of filt. PM,
0.0021 (0.0042), D
15% of filt. PM,
0.0011 (0.0021), E
21% of filt. PM,
0.0015 (0.0029), E
Ref. No.
23
23
23
25
«£
J<3
229
23
229
214
23
229
214
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
to
OJ
o
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
V utiiri s nil 1 r
\\T + ,_,] 1 .-
vv WL awiuuuwi
Fuel fired
TWTT-V
1>U
TWTT-V
1>U
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
Pollutant
T> j. 1 T>TV If
lotai 1 M
T" j. 1 T>TV If
lotai 1 M
No. of
test
runs
NB
NB
Data
rating
D
D
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
6n^o /n n \ c\
6noc /n mn\
.UJJ (^U.U /UJ
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref No.
«-
«-
ND = no data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are crossed out are not used for emission factor development.
Report indicated that RAP was processed during testing, but the percentage of RAP was not specified.
to
OJ
-------
Table 4-15. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO2,
METHANE, NOX, SO2, AND TOC; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
TT^I-iii filt I
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
1 ropanc
Butane
Coal/natural
gas
Coal/natural
gas
Coal/natural
gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Coal/natural
gas
Drain oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil/coal
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
ND
10
30
ND
0
24
18
20
0
20
0
0
30
23
20
35
JN1J
30
0
0
0
24
25
0
25
0
0
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ee
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
No. of
test
runs
o
3
2
o
J
3
10
3
5
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
6
i
i
4
o
5
9
3
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
2
Data
rating
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
C
C
A
A
C
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0055(0.011)
0.0070 (0.014)
0.014 (0.028)
0.015 (0.030)
0.019 (0.038)
0.024 (0.047)
0.028 (0.056)
0.029 (0.059)
0.041 (0.083)
0.043 (0.086)
0.053 (0.11)
0.082(0.17)
0.086(0.17)
0.091(0.18)
0.094(0.19)
0.10(0.20)
0.10(0.21)
0.30 (0.60)
3.0 (6.0)
21 (42)
8.5 (17)
13 (26)
15 (30)
15(31)
16 (32)
19 (37)
19 (38)
9.8 (20)
16 (32)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
0.063 (0.13), B
17 (33), A
Ref. No.
197
357
214
346
25
229
48
344
340
342
347
254
149
154
44
339
341
50
209
65
133
189
190
371
373
132
372
292
108
4-232
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane,
natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
31
0
12
0,31
ND
23
0
ND
10
0
10
0
11
20
20
10
0
15
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
30
38
31
Pollutant
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
No. of
test
runs
o
J
3
o
5
2,2
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
4,3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3,3
o
J
3
2
3
Data
rating
A
C
B
B,B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B,A
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
19 (39)
19 (39)
6.1(12)
10 (20)
9.7 (19)
12 (23)
12 (24)
13 (27)
13 (27)
13 (27)
15 (30)
13 (27)
17 (33)
17 (34)
18 (36)
19 (38)
4.5 (9.0)
4.5 (8.9)
5.1(10)
6.8 (14)
8.5 (17)
9.0 (18)
9.4 (19)
9.6 (19)
9.8 (20)
10 (21)
11 (22)
11(22)
11(23)
12 (23)
12 (23)
12 (25)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
Ref. No.
53
119
117
137
206
384
223
209
294
75
210
245,247
262
254
252
236
259
103
107
329
221
167
172
30
180
118
257
332,333
198
295
144
146
4-233
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
(cont. mix
plant)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas/
coal
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas/
coal
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
ND
30
30
0
0
0
0
27
0
13
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
ND
0
22
0
33
0
0
Pollutant
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
No. of
test
runs
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
8
3,4
3
o
J
3
o
J
6
o
J
3
o
3
2
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
5
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
C
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
12 (25)
12 (23)
13 (26)
13 (25)
13 (26)
14 (28)
14 (28)
15 (29)
15(31)
15 (29)
16(31)
17 (34)
18 (36)
19 (38)
21 (43)
25 (49)
27 (54)
33 (66)
10 (20)
16(31)
16 (32)
17 (34)
21 (42)
1.3 (2.6)
7.3 (15)
9.3 (19)
11(21)
11(22)
11 (22)
11(23)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
Ref. No.
244
197
56
44
92
163
211,212
330
168
309
45
48
51
88
84
280
87
258
96
335
191
28
260
153
187
124
196
33
218
125
4-234
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil and
natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.9
ND
20
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
No. of
test
runs
o
6
2
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
2
o o
J,J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
Data
rating
B
C
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
11 (22)
12 (24)
12 (25)
13 (25)
13 (25)
13 (26)
13 (26)
14 (29)
14 (28)
14 (29)
14 (29)
14 (27)
14 (27)
14 (28)
14 (27)
14 (28)
15(31)
15(31)
15 (30)
15(31)
15 (30)
15 (30)
15 (30)
15(31)
15(31)
16(31)
16(31)
16(31)
16(31)
16 (32)
16 (32)
16 (33)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
Ref. No.
182
229
267
109
123
112
376
171
91
246
214
350
293
154
114
324
342
95
27
269
121
353
149
175
241,242
94
29
303
348
166
89
273
4-235
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 and No.
5 fuel oil
Low-sulfur
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
23
0
ND
ND
29
15
0
0
20
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
20
ND
0
0
0
0
10
15
20
0
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
No. of
test
runs
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
5
o
J
3
o
J
3
9
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
2
o
J
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
17 (35)
17 (34)
17 (34)
18 (35)
18 (35)
18 (35)
18 (36)
18 (36)
18 (36)
18 (37)
19 (37)
19 (38)
19 (38)
19 (38)
19 (37)
19 (38)
19 (38)
19 (38)
20 (39)
20 (41)
20 (41)
20 (40)
20 (40)
20 (40)
21 (41)
21 (41)
21 (42)
22 (43)
22 (44)
22 (44)
22 (45)
23 (46)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
Ref. No.
93
311
316
343
243
251
104
141
383
334
26
341
32
375
164
105
85
380
386
349
90
174
388
388
388
351
379
377
186
352
354
173
4-236
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel
oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 waste
oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
24
0
0
0
10
ND
0
35
0
42
0
14
0
0
24
0
0
10
0
35
52
18
44
50
48
40
ND
10
0
Pollutant
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
No. of
test
runs
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
8
2
o
J
3
9
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
2
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
23 (45)
23 (45)
23 (47)
24 (48)
24 (48)
24 (48)
25 (50)
26 (52)
29 (59)
30 (59)
32 (65)
34 (68)
36 (71)
3.9 (7.8)
8.3 (17)
11(22)
11 (22)
12 (23)
16(31)
19 (39)
19 (37)
20 (41)
24 (48)
7.5(15)
11 (22)
13 (27)
14 (28)
14 (28)
16 (33)
16 (32)
17 (33)
17 (34)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
Ref. No.
192
387
387
344
99
255
162
268
374
160
50
266
82
322
205
298
297
301
130
178
315
128
142
63
74
54
81
68
64
300
346
70
4-237
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filterb
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
31
32
0
10
0
0
0,46
0
0
30
0
0
0
13
18
23
35
30
30
30
20
13
20
ND
0
24
10
ND
ND
Pollutant
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
No. of
test
runs
11
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
2,3
o
J
3
9
3,3
o
J
2
o
J
3
4
9
19
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
6
o
J
3
o
J
3
Data
rating
A,B,
A,A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B,A
B
A
A
B,A
C
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
27 (54)
17 (34)
18 (35)
18 (35)
20 (40)
20 (40)
23 (45)
31(61)
31(63)
48 (96)
19 (38)
16 (32)
6.8xlO'5
(0.00014)
0.00040
(0.00080)
0.0016 (0.0032)
0.0018 (0.0036)
0.0041 (0.0082)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.012 (0.025)
0.019 (0.038)
0.0075 (0.015)
0.0087 (0.017)
0.0091 (0.018)
0.012 (0.023)
0.016 (0.032)
0.025 (0.049)
0.0083 (0.017)
0.0084 (0.017)
0.012 (0.025)
0.016 (0.032)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
0.0058 (0.012), C
0.013 (0.026), D
0.028 (0.055), C
Ref. No.
57-60
73
55
147
345
78
71
67
101
347
25
179,183
48
355
45
340
339
50
25
44
44
341
45
342
209
48
344
346
229
153
4-238
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
TT^I-iii filt I
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 and No.
5 fuel oil
Low-sulfur
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Natural
gas/coal
Fuel oil/coal
Coal
Coal/natural
gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
B .--.I,! il •,,., I
Idlll \J11 dllU
mtin-il rric
iidLuidi gda
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
30
ND
ND
35
0
0
0
0
0
13
30
0
0
0
35
18
OH
25
ND
0
ND
15
0
20
20
23
Pollutant
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
^r>
JUj
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
No. of
test
runs
o
J
3
10
2
o
5
9
9
3
2
3
o
J
3
o
J
5
o
J
3
5
3
o.
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
4
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.025 (0.050)
0.031(0.062)
0.034 (0.068)
0.034 (0.068)
0.038 (0.076)
0.041 (0.081)
0.057(0.11)
0.0012 (0.0024)
0.0047 (0.0094)
0.0062 (0.012)
0.38 (0.75)
0.00062
(0.0012)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0024 (0.0048)
0.00048
(0.00095)
0.0023 (0.0047)
0.0054(0.011)
0.013 (0.026)
0.0040 (0.0081)
0.0077 (0.015)
0.0097 (0.019)
0.014 (0.028)
0.024 (0.047)
0.024 (0.049)
0.026 (0.053)
0.026 (0.053)
0.027 (0.054)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
0.097(0. 19), E
0.0017 (0.0034),
D
0.0054(0.011), E
Onoo f(\ C\^Q\ T3
Ref. No.
214
353
25
352
354
50
347
88
108
190
189
45
44
48
255
119
50
340
"l£.f\
372
300
376
374
379
388
377
375
339
4-239
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
(used
neutralizing
agent to reduce
S02)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
Percent
RAP
used
25
24
0
10
0
0
10
30
19
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
23
35
0
13
ND
Pollutant
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
No. of
test
runs
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
10
o
J
3
6
2
o
J
3
1
3
8
9
o
J
3
o
J
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.028 (0.056)
0.030 (0.059)
0.030 (0.061)
0.033 (0.066)
0.034 (0.068)
0.036 (0.071)
0.036 (0.073)
0.049 (0.098)
0.081 (0.16)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.0062 (0.012)
0.0073 (0.015)
0.012 (0.023)
0.015 (0.030)
0.018 (0.036)
0.018 (0.036)
0.018 (0.037)
0.020 (0.039)
0.022 (0.044)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
0.021 (0.041), B
Ref. No.
373
371
387
345
380
386
351
25
299
149
48
355
153
214
154
242
339
50
241
45
209
4-240
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
F-il-ii-i filtjii-
dUllt/ -LllU^l
TT^I-iii filt I
v ^inuii a^iuuu^i
/131n,~t T7\
(I lailt L.)
TT^I-iii filt r
NJ-LI-IJI /T1! -int T7\
one (i lant L.)
TT^Kri filt I
Fil-ii-i filtjii-
dUllt/ AllU^l
(i lant J\)
TT^Kri filt i
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Propane
^
1 ropanc
Prj-Li-ianji
1 lOpdliC
diuidi gda
dlUldl gda
Nitin-il mr
diuitii gda
diuicii gda
NJ-L ^ flljll J-Lil
\J. t* AUV^l \J11
Percent
RAP
used
18
Ob
30
30
10
1 (\
1U
1VTT\
1~NJ-/
l^JU
TVTT\
1~NJ-/
XTT\
l^JU
f\ J__ 't f\
\J l\J J\J
xrr\
l^JU
1VTT\
1~NJ-/
Pollutant
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
T 7Y~\/~^
\\J\-S
/"TTTIV fr\r^\
(1JN1V1ULJ
T r/~\/~i
VVJl^
VVJLx
/"~T>TN fr\r^\
(11N1V1UL.J
T r/~\/~i
VVJl^
T 7"/~\/~^
VVJL^
/"TTTIV fOr^\
(11N1V1UL.J
T r/~\/~i
VVJl^
T 7"/~\/~^
VVJLx
/"TTTIV fr\r^\
(1JN1V1ULJ
T r/~\/~i
VVJl^
No. of
test
runs
6
3,4
3
10
o
3
3.
T
£.
5
J_
o.
i.
3.
T
jL
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
T1
L)
r\
T7
XTD
T1
L)
r\
Y\
L)
r\
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.026 (0.053)
0.031(0.062)
0.040 (0.080)
0.046 (0.091)
0.059(0.12)
n ft01"1 ff\ (\c 1\
U.UJ/ (\).\)(J4)
.080 (0.16)
ei /- /n o i \
.10 (^J.JIJ
ell f(\ ^ 1 \
.11 (^U./IJ
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
Ref. No.
340
211,212
44
25
210
TIT.
ZJO
11
22
11
11
22
11
11
22
11
ND = no data available, NR = not rated
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are crossed out are not used
for emission factor development.
b Run 4 of the Reference 212 test included 25 percent RAP.
4-241
-------
Table 4-16. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS;
DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
17 i_ •
v cnturi
scruDDcr
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
VrMitii**
V L11I.L111
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
17 i_ •
v cnturi
scruDDcr
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Propane
NJ~L ^ fll 1 J~Ll1
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1 J~Ll1
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
23b
18C
23b
ND
^g
30
18C
30
23b
18C
23b
18C
23b
ND
0
24
">g
30
18C
23b
0
0
0
24
^g
30
Pollutant
Antimony
Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic
„
Al SL.111C
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Barium
Barium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
No.
of
test
runs
4
3
4
3
2.
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
2
3
3.
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
2.
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
B
rx
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
C
B
ti
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
rx
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
4.2xlO-9 (8.3xlO-9)
1.8xlO-7(3.5xlO-7)
5.2xlO-8(1.0xlO-7)
1.3xlO-7(2.5xlO-7)
9.5xlO-7(1.9xlO-6)
0(0)
2.4xlO-6 (4.8xlO-6)
3.8xlO-6 (7.5xlO-6)
2.6xlO-6 (5.2xlO-6)
0(0)
0(0)
4.9xlO-8 (9.8xlO-8)
1.3xlO-7(2.5xlO-7)
6.4xlO-7(1.3xlO-6)
7.4x1 0-8(1. 5x1 0-7)
0 6" 10^ (1 ^xlO^l
3.1xlO-7(6.2xlO-7)
1.5xlO-8(3.1xlO-8)
1.0xlO-7(2.1xlO-7)
2.3xlO-6 (4.5xlO-6)
1.6xlO-6(3.2xlO-6)
8.0xlO-6(1.6xlO-5)
7.4xlO-7(1.5xlO-6)
6.0xlO-6(1.2xlO-5)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating3
9.0xlO-8
(l.SxlO-7), E
2.8xlO-7
(5.6xlO-7),D
2.9xlO-6(5.8xlO-6),D
0(0), E
2.0xlO-7(4.1xlO-7),D
2.8xlO-6 (5.5xlO-6), C
Ref.
No.
339
340
339
35
1 'l^
25
340
25
339
340
339
340
339
35
162
301
1 J.1^
25
340
339
163
162
164
301
1 'l^
25
4-242
-------
Table 4-16 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
V cnturi
scruDDcr
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
v cnturi
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
NJ~L ^ fll 1 J~Ll1
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18C
23b
18C
0
0
0
23b
30
18C
0
34
ND
0
0
24
10
0
34
30
0
23b
18C
0
0
0
30
23b
Pollutant
Chromium
Cobalt
Cobalt
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Hexavalent
chromium
H---,---,! ,,4-
hr mium
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
J_jCclcr
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
No.
of
test
runs
3
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
3-
3
3
4
3
2
3
3-
3
3,3
4
3
3
3
2
3
4
Data
rating
A
B
B
A
C
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
B,A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
5.7xlO-7(l.lxlO-6)
2.6xlO-8(5.1xlO-8)
0(0)
1.7xlO-6(3.4xlO-6)
2.2x10-' (4.4xlO-7)
3.6xlO-6(7.1xlO-6)
3.7xlO-7(7.5xlO-7)
3.1xlO-6(6.1xlO-6)
5.0xlO-7(1.0xlO-6)
2.3xlO-7(4.5xlO-7)
"» O--1 n^ f Z- Q-»^i n=?\
2.. "A1U ^ J.OA1U ~J
3.1xlO-7(6.2xlO-7)
2.0xlO-6(4.1xlO-6)
2.6xlO-6 (5.3xlO-6)
1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6)
4.0xlO-6 (S.OxlO-6)
6.0xlO-7(1.2xlO-6)
1-1 1 —I fl^ (r\ nnm /i\
S.OxlO'6 (6.0xlO-6)
5.2xlO-5 (0.00010)
1.6xlO-6(3.2xlO-6)
S.OxlO-7 (6. IxlO'7)
7.4xlO-6(1.5xlO-5)
1.5xlO-5(3.1xlO-5)
9.3xlO-6(1.9xlO-5)
5.5xlO-6(l.lxlO-5)
4.2xlO-6 (8.4xlO-6)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating3
1.3xlO-8
(2.6xlO-8), E
1.6xlO-6(3.1xlO-6),D
2.3xlO-7(4.5xlO-7),E
3.1xlO-7(6.2xlO-7),E
7.4xlO-6(1.5xlO-5), C
7.7xlO-6
(1.6xlQ-5), D
Ref.
No.
340
339
340
163
162
164
339
25
340
163
MS
35
164
162
301
315
178
•H2
25
179,
183
339
340
163
164
162
25
339
4-243
-------
Table 4-16 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
v cutun
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18C
ND
0
0
0
23b
18C
0
0
3$
30
23b
18C
30
23b
18C
30
23b
18C
23b
18C
23b
18C
ND
0
0
0
23b
Pollutant
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
IN ICJvCl
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Silver
Silver
Silver
Selenium
Selenium
Thallium
Thallium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
3-
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
Data
rating
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
4.1xlO-6(8.3xlO-6)
3.7xlO-9 (7.3xlO-9)
2.4xlO-7(4.7xlO-7)
2.0xlO-6 (4.0xlO-6)
2.9xlO-6 (5.7xlO-6)
2.4xlO-7(4.8xlO-7)
0(0)
4.8xlO-6 (9.6xlO-6)
0.00015 (0.00029)
2 0x10^(^4 1x10^1
7.5xlO-6(1.5xlO-5)
I.lxl0-7(2.1xl0-7)
3.7xlO-7(7.4xlO-7)
2.8xlO-5(5.5xlO-5)
8.5xlO-6(1.7xlO-5)
5.8xlO-6(1.2xlO-5)
7.0xlO-7(1.4xlO-6)
6.6xlO-9(1.3xlO-8)
8.4xlO-9(1.7xlO-8)
I.lxl0-7(2.2xl0-7)
2.3xlO-7(4.7xlO-7)
4.1xlO-9(8.2xlO-9)
0(0)
1.6xlO-5(3.1xlO-5)
2.0xlO-5 (4.0xlO-5)
0.00012 (0.00023)
3.3xlO-5 (6.6xlO-5)
3.1xlO-6(6.3xlO-6)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating3
1.2xlO-7(2.4xlO-7), E
1.3xlO-6(2.6xlO-6),D
3.2xlO'5
(6.3xlO'5), D
1.4xlO-5(2.8xlO-5),D
2.4xlO-7(4.8xlO-7), E
1.7xlO-7
(3.5xlO-7), E
2.1xlO-9
(4.1xlO-9), E
3.1xlO-5(6.1xlO-5), C
Ref.
No.
340
35
163
162
164
339
340
163
164
•H2
25
339
340
25
339
340
25
339
340
339
340
339
340
35
163
164
162
339
4-244
-------
Table 4-16 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
XT
1NU11L-
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
XT
1NU11L-
None
None
None
WVxin
1 N U11L/
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
NJ~L "* fll 1 J~Ll1
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1 J~Ll1
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18C
30
1 or
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
1 or
18C
18C
18C
1 Or
18C
18C
Pollutant
Zinc
Zinc
A J-'
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Leadd
Manganese
A f
ivlL-i cur^
Nickel4
Phosphorus
Selenium4
n:i
Ull V ^/l
Thallium
Zinc
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.
3
3
3
3.
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.6xlO-6(3.1xlO-6)
2.7xlO-5 (5.3xlO-5)
r\ /r\\
U (\J)
6.4xlO-7(1.3xlO-6)
0.00013 (0.00025
0(0)
2.1xlO-6(4.2xlO-6)
1.2xlO-5(2.4xlO-5)
7.6xlO-6(1.5xlO-5)
8.6xlO-5 (0.00017)
1.2xlO-5(2.3xlO-5)
0.00033 (0.00065)
r\ /r\\
U (UJ
7.7xlO-6(1.5xlO-5)
0.00060 (0.0012)
5.8xlO-8(1.2xlO-7)
I.lxl0-6(2.2xl0-6)
9.2xlO-5 (0.00018)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating3
6.4x10-'
(1.3xlO-6),E
0.00013
(0.00025), E
0 (0), E
2.1xlO-6
(4.2xlO-6), E
1.2xlO-5
(2.4xlO-5), E
7.6xlO-6
(l.SxlO-5), E
8.6xlO-5
(0.00017), E
0.00027
(0.00054), E
0.00033
(0.00065), E
0.00065
(0.0013), E
0.00060
(0.0012), E
1.2xlO-6
(2.4xlO-6), E
l.lxlO-6
(2.2xlO-6), E
9.2xlO-5
(0.00018), E
Ref.
No.
340
25
-> Ar\
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
-> Af\
340
340
340
-•> A r\
340
340
ND = no data available
aEmission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are crossed out are not used for
emission factor development.
b Facility processed 23 percent RAP during Runs 1, 2, and 3, and no RAP during Run 4.
0 Facility processed 18 percent RAP during Runs 1 and 2 and no RAP during Run 3.
dUncontrolled emission data are inconsistent with controlled emissions data for this pollutant. Therefore, emission
factor is based on the control efficiency measured during Reference 340 test applied to controlled emission factor
for this pollutant.
4-245
-------
Table 4-17. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of
control
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Propane
Waste oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP
used
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
35
13
30
0
23C
18d
0
ND
35
13
0
ND
30
30
30
35
0
0
ND
30
10
Pollutant
1-Pentene
1-Pentene
2-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
3-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Anthracene
Anthracene
Anthracene
Anthracene
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
No.
of
test
runs
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00017(0.00033)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.000031 (6.1E-05)
0.00055(0.0011)
8.5E-05 (0.00017)
1.7E-05(3.3E-05)
2.5E-05 (4.9E-05)
7.0E-05 (0.00014)
8.0E-05 (0.00016)
0.00011(0.00022)
1.1E-06(2.2E-06)
2.9E-07 (5.7E-07)
1.1E-05(2.2E-05)
1.2E-05(2.3E-05)
1.4E-06(2.7E-06)
5.0E-08(1.0E-07)
0.00065 (0.0013)
0.00042 (0.00083)
1.3E-05(2.6E-05)
1.8E-06(3.6E-06)
1.3E-06(2.5E-06)
1.8E-07(3.6E-07)
3.7E-08 (7.3E-08)
5. 5E-05 (0.00011)
4.6E-05 (9.2E-05)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
0.0011 (0.0022), E
0.0020 (0.0040), E
0.00029 (0.00058), E
8.5E-05 (0.00017), E
3.7E-05 (7.4E-05), D
9. 5E-05 (0.00019), D
6.9E-7(1.4E-6),E
1.1E-5(2.2E-5),E
4.3E-6 (8.6E-6), D
0.00065(0.0013), E
0.00042 (0.00083), E
1.3E-5(2.6E-5), E
1.5E-6(3.1E-06), E
1.1E-07(2.2E-07),E
5. 5E-05 (0.0001 1), E
0.00020 (0.00039), A
Ref.
No.
339
340
339
340
339
50
45
44
48
339
340
48
35
50
45
48
35
25
25
25
50
162
48
35
25
346
4-246
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
atmai gas
Waste oil
Drain oil
and natural
gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
and natural
gas
Drain oil
Percent
RAP
used
24
20
20
20
10
15
0
23
10
35
25
13
30
20
20
9
0
20
30
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
ND
23C
30
10
20
10
Pollutant
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
u cnz cue
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Butane
Butyraldehyde/
isobutyraldehyde
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
2
19
3
3
3-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
B
A
A
Ce
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
B
A
NR
NR
NR
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
6. IE-OS (0.00012)
6.2E-05 (0.00012)
0.00018(0.00036)
3.2E-05 (6.3E-05)
7.7E-05 (0.00015)
0.00011(0.00022)
0.00013 (0.00026)
0.00014 (0.00027q)
0.00015 (0.00029)
0.00015 (0.00030)
0.00019(0.00038)
0.00020 (0.00040)
0.00021 (0.00041)
0.00022 (0.00044)
0.00028 (0.00056)
0.00035 (0.00069)
0.00055(0.0011)
0.00060 (0.0012)
1.1E-07(2.1E-07)
4.9E-09 (9.8E-09)
7.5E-08(1.5E-07)
2.8E-08 (5.6E-08)
5.5E-08(1.1E-07)
2.0E-08 (4.0E-08)
2.7E-08 (5.4E-08)
1.4E-08(2.7E-08)
0.00034 (0.00067)
0.000080 (0.00016)
BDL
BDL
BDL
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
1.0E-07(2.1E-07), E
4.9E-09 (9.8E-09), E
5.2E-08(1.0E-07), E
5.4E-08(1.1E-07), E
2.0E-08 (4.0E-08), E
2.0E-08(4.1E-08), E
0.00034 (0.00067), E
8.0E-05 (0.00016), E
BDL
Ref.
No.
344
377
342
349
345
383
347
384
351
50
373
45
25
341
376
4»
348
350
44
48
48
48
35
48
48
48
35
339
25
345
350
351
4-247
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter13
TTnl 1-i filt r*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Waste oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
and natural
gas
Drain oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
NJ~L "* fll 1
oti
Waste oil
atmai gas
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Propane
Drain oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
20
0
ND
30
0
10
20
20
10
13
30
TC
30
ft
18d
23C
ND
13
0
35
0
13
0
0
ND
15
23C
0
20
ND
24
0
Pollutant
Chlorobenzene
Chrysene
Chrysene
Crotonaldehyde
Cumene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
T7t1-i--11 .nnrnonn
J-jlllJ lU^/llZj^/lH^
Ethylbenzene
77 tln- -11 n ln
Ethylene
Ethylene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Q.
19
3.
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
NR
A
C
A
A
NR
NR
NR
NR
C
B
pe
B
pe
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
BDL
1.8E-07(3.6E-07)
2.7E-09 (5.4E-09)
4.3E-05 (8.6E-05)
2.2E-05 (4.3E-05)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.6E-05 (5.1E-05)
0.00015 (0.00029)
n nnm o cc\ nnn^f?^
0.00019(0.00038)
0.0033 (0.0066)
0.0037 (0.0073)
8.5E-09(1.7E-08)
3.6E-07 (7.2E-07)
5.5E-07(1.1E-06)
8.5E-06(1.7E-05)
2.1E-06(4.1E-06)
4.9E-06 (9.8E-06)
1.3E-06(2.5E-06)
1.1E-06(2.2E-06)
4.1E-07(8.1E-07)
0.00015 (0.00030)
0.00023 (0.00046)
0.00029 (0.00057)
0.00033 (0.00066)
0.00034 (0.00067)
0.00046(0.00091)
0.00059 (0.0012)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
9.1E-08(1.8E-07),E
4.3E-05 (8.6E-05), E
2.1E-05(4.3E-05), E
BDL
0.00012 (0.00024), D
0.0035 (0.0070), E
3.1E-07(6.1E-07), D
5.3E-06(1.1E-05),E
1.9E-06(3.8E-06),D
0.0016 (0.0031), A
Ref.
No.
342
48
35
25
48
345
342
350
351
45
44
cn
25
AQ
340
339
35
45
48
50
164
45
48
163
35
383
343
348
349
35
344
388
4-248
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter*
TTnl ri filt rh
TTnl ri filt rh
TTnl ri filt rh
TTnl ri filt rh
TTnl ri filt rh
TTnl ri filt rh
TTnl ri filt rh
TTnl ri filt rh
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Drain oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
TT7 J- _ _ J1
V V CtoLvj Oil
Nitiiril rnr
TT7 J- _ _ J1
v v ctoLv^ Oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1
ei
T«.Tn
>T ^ fn 1
ei
TT7 J- - '1
v v cioK* Oil
"N.TH
MTi
Nitiiril rnr
TT7 J- - n J1
v v cioK* Oil
Y" t '1
v v aoU. ^
n nnn^i cc\ nnnr'M
n nnn**^ cc\ nnnr'*^
n nnrH'7 cc\ nnno^^
n nnnon cc\ nmr^
n nm o cc\ nn^Q^
n nn^** cc\ nn^r^
n nn^r cc\ nn^i ^
0.00014 (0.00028)
0.0012 (0.0023)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
0.00065(0.0013), E
Ref.
No.
384
373
45
25
340
342
375
347
50
341
339
44
371
372
.in
AC\
Af\
1/11
,-in
Af\
Af\
AC\
Af\
1 Af
Af\
AC\
Af\
AC\
Af\
AC\
350
351
4-249
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Propane
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
15
0
0
0
0
23C
18d
30
18d
23C
0
23C
18d
30
ND
30
35
0
0
30
ND
30
0
13
0
18d
0
Pollutant
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Heptane
Heptane
Hexanal
Hexane
Hexane
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyren
e
Isooctane
Isooctane
Isovaleraldehyde
Methyl chloroform
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
n-Pentane
Perylene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
C
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.9E-05(3.8E-05)
2.0E-05 (3.9E-05)
8.8E-05 (0.00018)
0.00016 (0.00032)
0.00022 (0.00045)
0.00036 (0.00072)
0.0090(0.018)
0.000055(0.00011)
0(0)
0.00090(0.0018)
3.5E-09 (7.0E-09)
1.6E-05(3.1E-05)
2.4E-05 (4.8E-05)
1.6E-05(3.2E-05)
2.4E-05 (4.8E-05)
1.0E-05(2.0E-05)
7.5E-05 (0.00015)
0.00014 (0.00028)
0.00085 (0.0017)
0.00024 (0.00047)
6.0E-06(1.2E-05)
2.7E-05 (5.3E-05)
2.9E-05 (5.7E-05)
3.5E-05 (7.0E-05)
0.00013 (0.00026)
0.00011 (0.00021)
4.4E-09 (8.8E-09)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
0.00010 (0.00021), D
0.0047 (0.0094), E
5. 5E-05 (0.0001 1), E
0.00046 (0.00092), E
3.5E-09 (7.0E-09), E
2.0E-05 (4.0E-05), E
1.6E-05(3.2E-05),E
2.4E-05 (4.8E-05), E
1.0E-05(2.0E-05),E
0.00033(0. 00065), D
4.5E-05 (9.0E-05), D
0.00011 (0.00021), E
4.4E-09 (8.8E-09), E
Ref.
No.
379
376
380
374
348
339
340
25
340
339
48
339
340
25
35
25
50
164
162
25
35
44
48
45
163
340
48
4-250
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter*
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filter13
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Nitiiril rnr
Drain oil
Drain oil
and natural
gas
Drain oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
35
0
0
ND
0
13
30
0
30
35
ND
13
0
30
35
30
23C
18d
13
ND
30
tt
10
20
10
30
13
30
?.£
30
Pollutant
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Propionaldehyde
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Quinone
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
T> 1
1 olucnc
Trichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Valeraldehyde
Xylene
Xylene
V*f1n
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
TTnl ri filt rh
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
TTnl ri filf rh
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
TTnl ri filf rh
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
TTnl ri filf rh
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
atmai gas
NJ~L "* fll 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
a
i ftrt
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ftrt
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
23C
18d
Pollutant
Yirlnno
-/v V 1L.11L.
i ^-> ^ir'vo TTi-LPT^T^
1234678 HpCDD
1234678 HpCDF
i^-> ^TO TT-^p'n'n
123478 HxCDD
123478 HxCDF
i ^-> A TOO TT.-.pT^T?
1234789 HpCDF
123678 HxCDD
I^OX-TO TT--PTAT7
123678 HxCDF
12378 PeCDD
12378 PeCDF
12378 PeCDF
No.
of
test
runs
2,
2_
4
3.
4
2.
4
3.
4
3.
4
O.
4
3.
4
O.
4
4
3
Data
rating
pe
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
nTYr mrv ^
2.4E-12 (4.8E-12)
T\T\\ (T\T\\ ^
3.3E-12 (6.5E-12)
riT^T mrv ^
2.1E-13 (4.2E-13)
T\T\\ (T\T\\ ^
2.0E-12 (4.0E-12)
riT^T mrv ^
1.4E-12(2.7E-12)
T\T\\ (T\T\\ ^
6.5E-13(1.3E-12)
TIT^T /TIT^T ^
5.8E-13(1.2E-12)
T\T\\ (T\T\\ ^
1.6E-13(3.1E-13)
2.1E-13(4.2E-13)
4.1E-12(8.2E-12)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
ratinga
0 /lln 1 0 /'/I Qln 10^ In
"5 "^TH 1 9 ('A ^!H 10^ In
0 1 In 1 "? /'/I Oln 1 1^^ In
9 nin '\') (A nin 1 9^ In
1 /IT? 1 0 /") 'Tin 10^ In
A ^!H 1 1 ('I "^TH 19^ In
^ Qln 1 "? /'I Oln 10^ In
1 Aln 1 "5 ("5 1 In 1 "^ In
2.2E-12 (4.3E-12), E
Ref
No.
AQ
-> Ar\
339
o /i t~\
339
-> /in
339
•> A r\
339
-> ^n
339
o A r\
339
-> /in
339
•> A r\
339
339
340
4-252
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filterb
TTnl ri filt rh
Fabric filterb
Fabric filterb
TTnl ri filf rh
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
TTnl ri filf rh
Fabric filter"
Fabric filterb
TTnl ri filf rh
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
>T " fn 1
ei
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
„ 1 -i
>T " fn 1
ei
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
NJ~L ^ fll 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
i ftrt
23C
")T"
18d
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
1 ft1*
23C
23C
18d
Pollutant
123789 HxCDD
i ^OTorj TT--PTAT7
123789 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
^-> A^ct T)0pTYT7
23478 PeCDF
2378 TCDD
^->^o TPT^T?
2378 TCDF
Octa CDD
Ontm PT^T?
Octa CDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDD
No.
of
test
runs
2,
4
3
3.
4
2.
4
3.
4
3.
4
O.
4
O.
4
4
3
Data
rating
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
T1TYT mTYT ^
4.9E-13 (9.8E-13)
riTYT /TIT^T ^
4.2E-12 (8.4E-12)
T1TYT /TtFiT ^
9.5E-13(1.9E-12)
T\T\\ (T\T\\ ^
4.2E-13 (8.4E-13)
T\T\\ (T\T\\ ^
1.1E-13(2.1E-13)
riTYT /TIT^T ^
4.8E-13 (9.7E-13)
T1TYT /TtFiT ^
1.2E-11 (2.5E-11)
riTYT /TIT^T ^
2.4E-12 (4.8E-12)
3.4E-12(6.9E-12)
1.6E-11(3.2E-11)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
ratinga
Zl Qln 1 1 ('Q Qln 1 "5^ In
Q ^!H 1 "5 fl Qln 10^ In
/I Oln 1 "? /'Q /lln 1 '?^ In
1 lln 1 1 /'O lln 1 "5^ In
A Qln 1 "? /'Q 'Tin 1 1\ In
1 Oln 1 1 (") ^!H 1 1 ^ In
0 /lln 1 0 /'/I Qln 10^ In
9.7E-12(1.9E-11), E
Ref
No.
o /i /^
339
->->r\
340
-•> /i /^
339
-> ^n
339
o /i /^
339
-> Ar\
339
•> /i /^
339
-> Af\
339
339
340
4-253
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
>T " fn 1
eit
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
18d
W*
23C
Pollutant
Total HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total HxCDF
Total PCDD
Total PCDD
Total PCDD/PCDF
Total PCDD/PCDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
No.
of
test
runs
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3-
4
Data
rating
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
3.7E-12 (7.4E-12)
6.6E-12(1.3E-11)
5.0E-12(1.0E-11)
7.1E-12(1.4E-11)
5.7E-12(1.2E-11)
7.3E-12(1.5E-11)
2.3E-11(4.5E-11)
4.4E-11 (8.8E-11)
3.8E-11 (7.5E-11)
6.7E-11(1.3E-10)
1.5E-11(3.0E-11)
2.3E-11 (4.6E-11)
1.3E-12(2.6E-12)
2.1E-11(4.2E-11)
1.6E-12(3.2E-12)
6.8E-12(1.4E-11)
BDL (BDL)
4.7E-13 (9.3E-13)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
5.2E-12(1.0E-11), E
6.1E-12(1.2E-11),E
6.5E-12(1.3E-11), E
4.0E-11(7.9E-11),E
6.0E-11 (1.2E-10), E
2.0E-11(4.0E-11),E
1.1E-11 (2.2E-11), E
4.2E-12(8.4E-11),E
4.7E-13 (9.3E-13), E
Ref.
No.
339
340
339
340
339
340
339
340
339
340
339
340
339
340
339
340
340
339
4-254
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter13
Fabric filter"
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
23C
18d
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
Pollutant
Total TCDF
Total TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1, 2,3,4 ,7,8-HxCDF
No.
of
test
runs
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.5E-12(3.0E-12)
2.2E-12 (4.5E-12)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
2.7E-12 (5.4E-12)
1.7E-11 (3.4E-11)
3.5E-11 (7.1E-11)
1.4E-9(2.7E-9)
1.4E-9(2.8E-9)
ND(ND)
1.7E-11 (3.3E-11)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
3.7E-11 (7.4E-11)
2.7E-12 (5.4E-12)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
1.9E-12(3.7E-12), E
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
2.7E-12 (5.4E-12)
1.7E-11 (3.4E-11)
3.5E-11 (7.1E-11)
1.4E-9(2.7E-9)
1.4E-9(2.8E-9)
ND(ND)
1.7E-11 (3.3E-11)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
3.7E-11 (7.4E-11)
2.7E-12 (5.4E-12)
Ref.
No.
339
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
4-255
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
18e
Pollutant
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD+PCDF
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
ND(ND)
8.1E-13(1.6E-12)
ND(ND)
4.1E-12(8.1E-12)
5.4E-12(1.1E-11)
ND(ND)
1.9E-11(3.8E-11)
ND(ND)
7.7E-11(1.5E-10)
1.5E-9(3.0E-9)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
BDL (BDL)
8.1E-13(1.6E-12)
BDL (BDL)
4.1E-12(8.1E-12)
5.4E-12(1.1E-11)
BDL (BDL)
1.9E-11(3.8E-11)
BDL (BDL)
7.7E-11(1.5E-10)
1.5E-9(3.0E-9)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
ND = no data available; NR = not rated; BDL = below detection limit.
aEmission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are crossed out are not used for
emission factor development.
bControl device may provide only incidental control.
0 Facility processed 23 percent RAP during Runs 1, 2, and 3, and no RAP during Run 4.
d Facility processed 18 percent RAP during Runs 1 and 2 and no RAP during Run 3.
e These C-rated data are not included in the candidate emission factor because they are based on one-half of the
detection limit for non-detect runs; the factors based on one-half of the detection limit are higher than the
candidate emission factor based on actual measurements made during other tests.
4-256
-------
Table 4-18. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT
PRODUCTION DRUM MIX FACILITY - HOT OIL HEATERS
Type of
control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
TCDF (total)
PCDF (total)
HxCDF (total)
HpCDF (total)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
OCDF
HxCDD (total)
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
HpCDD (total)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
Formaldehyde
No. of
tests
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Emission
factor
rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Average emission factor,
kg/1 (Ib/gal) fuel consumed
2.0xlO-6 (1.7xlO-5)
2.4xlO-8 (2.0xlO-7)
6.4xlO-8 (5.3xlO-7)
2.8xlO-7 (2.3xlO-6)
5.9xlO-7 (4.9xlO-6)
2.2xlO-8 (l.SxlO-7)
5.3xlO-9 (4.4xlO-8)
3.8xlO-9 (3.2xlO-8)
1.2xlO-8 (l.OxlO-7)
4.0xlO-13 (3.3xlO-12)
5.8xlO-14 (4.8xlO-13)
2.4xlO'13 (2.0xlO-12)
1.2xlO-12 (9.7xlO-12)
4.2xlO'13 (3.5xlO-12)
1.4xlO-12 (1.2xlO-u)
7.4xlO'13 (6.2xlO-12)
9.1xlO-14 (7.6xlO-13)
8.3xlO-14 (6.9xlO-13)
2.4xlO-12 (2.0xlO-u)
l.SxlO'12 (1.5x10-")
1.9x10-" (1.6xlO-10)
0.0032 (0.027)
Ref.
No.
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
4-257
-------
Table 4-19. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM: BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet cyclone
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Low-energy scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
NA
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
No. of
test
runs
1
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
Data
rating
C
A
C
A
B
A
C
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00036 (0.00073)
0.00040 (0.00080)
0.00050 (0.0010)
0.00050 (0.0010)
0.00059 (0.0012)
0.00061 (0.0012)
0.00063 (0.0013)
0.00093 (0.0019)
0.0011 (0.0021)
0.0012 (0.0025)
0.0013 (0.0027)
0.0017(0.0034)
0.0017(0.0033)
0.0017(0.0034)
0.0018(0.0037)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0023 (0.0045)
0.0024 (0.0049)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0040 (0.0080)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0.0065 (0.013), A
Ref. No.
239
143
15
52
165
181
331
145
385
261
47
176
15
284
281
314
312
24
249
276
310
86
15
193
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Dual wet scrubbers
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
ND
ND
0
0
10
ND
30
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
30
10
0
0
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0053(0.011)
0.0056(0.011)
0.0061 (0.012)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0083 (0.017)
0.0096(0.019)
0.010(0.021)
0.013 (0.026)
0.033 (0.066)
0.034 (0.068)
0.059(0.12)
5.9xlO-6(1.2xlO-5)
5.4xlO-5 (0.00011)
0.00013 (0.00027)
0.00028 (0.00056)
0.00042 (0.00084)
0.00058 (0.0012)
0.00061 (0.0012)
0.00068 (0.0014)
0.00090(0.0018)
0.00091 (0.0018)
0.0011(0.0021)
0.0011(0.0023)
0.0014 (0.0029)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0.0021 (0.0041), A
Ref. No.
100
291
213
97
15
325
290
49
170
282
216,217
249
261
239
165
176
143
24
385
77
76
325
52
145
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
T7rnU*i«n £i1tn*i
T7rnU*i«n £i1tn*i
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Propane
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
T,
1 ropanc
Nrntll*lrn1 (Trne
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
26
0
35,26
15
0
ND
0
0
30
TI.TH
£1
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
0
0
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Prtnrl TTN/T
Prtnrl TTN/T
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2.
2.
ND
ND
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
D
D
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0019(0.0039)
0.0020 (0.0039)
0.0022 (0.0045)
0.0026(0.0051)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0034 (0.0067)
0.0040(0.0081)
0.0040 (0.0080)
0.0045 (0.0090)
0.0046(0.0091)
0.0091 (0.018)
n nn^Q fc\ c\c\nc\
n nnnT fc\ ^\c\c\^^ \
14 (27)
18(37)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0012 (0.0024)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.0014 (0.0029)
0.0014 (0.0027)
0.0014 (0.0028)
0.0016(0.0031)
0.0016(0.0033)
0.0017(0.0034)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
16 (32), E
0.013 (0.025), A
Ref. No.
97
72
79
69
61,62
83
86
170
47
80
49
^ Af\
\c
5
5
331
143
193
253
181
41
249
327
46
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
ND
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/ natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
26
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0017(0.0034)
0.0018(0.0037)
0.0019(0.0039)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0024 (0.0047)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0027 (0.0054)
0.0028 (0.0055)
0.0028 (0.0057)
0.0029 (0.0057)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0033 (0.0065)
0.0034 (0.0068)
0.0035 (0.0070)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0039 (0.0079)
0.0040 (0.0080)
0.0043 (0.0086)
0.0043 (0.0086)
0.0044 (0.0088)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No.
256
47
83
274
195
24
40
40
318
188
336
304
202
176
110
72
271
79
135
225
248
204
220
113
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Reprocessed No. 4
fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Coal/ liquid
propane
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
20
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0044 (0.0088)
0.0045 (0.0090)
0.0045 (0.0091)
0.0047 (0.0093)
0.0049 (0.0097)
0.0050(0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0054(0.011)
0.0054(0.011)
0.0059(0.012)
0.0060 (0.012)
0.0062 (0.012)
0.0062(0.013)
0.0064(0.013)
0.0068(0.014)
0.0070 (0.014)
0.0072 (0.014)
0.0075 (0.015)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0082(0.016)
0.0084 (0.017)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No.
224
382
265
239
240
261
281
320
317
203
86
263
276
323
328
264
199
138
313
219
319
97
321
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
ND
Natural gas
Coal/propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
Coal/propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Reprocessed oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
10
ND
ND
0
0
ND
10
ND
0
ND
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
ND,0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3,3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
B
C
B
A
C
B
C
A
A
B
A
C
A
B
B,A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0085 (0.017)
0.0086(0.017)
0.0091 (0.018)
0.0094(0.019)
0.011(0.022)
0.011(0.021)
0.011(0.021)
0.014 (0.027)
0.014(0.028)
0.015 (0.029)
0.015 (0.029)
0.016(0.033)
0.016(0.032)
0.018(0.036)
0.018(0.036)
0.019(0.037)
0.022 (0.044)
0.023 (0.046)
0.023 (0.046)
0.024 (0.048)
0.028 (0.055)
0.028 (0.057)
0.028 (0.057)
0.030 (0.060)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No.
282
275
308
326
165
312
314
170
325
296
100
213
98
222
15
40
284
126
283
302
1
161
140
200,201
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
T7rnU*i«n £i1tn*i
Fabric filter
T7rnU*i«n £i1tn*i
T7rnU*i«n £i1tn*i
T7rnU*i«n £!1tn*i
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Scrubber
Wet cyclonic scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet cyclone
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Low-energy scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Nrntimml ctuie
No. 2 fuel oil
>jn
1NU
NJ~L "* fll 1 J~Ll1
>jn
1NU
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
30
0
0
£1
0
£1
£1
£1
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
TTilt rTilmln PAtf
Filterable PM
TTilt rT.ln.1n PAtf
TTilt rT.1n.1n PAtf
TTilt rT.ln.1n PAtf
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.
3
TI.TH
LVLJ
3.
2.
3,3,3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
A
C
B
C
B
C
C
C
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.033 (0.065)
0.041 (0.082)
0.042 (0.085)
0.045 (0.089)
0.046(0.091)
0.050(0.10)
n n^,-i (c\ 1 1 'i
0.055(0.11)
H fl6'7 fC\ 1 Tl
n n^i fc\ i A\
n HOT fc\ i o^
0.087(0.17)
0.088(0.18)
0.014 (0.027)
0.014(0.028)
0.016(0.031)
0.017(0.034)
0.020(0.041)
0.026 (0.052)
0.035 (0.069)
0.049 (0.098)
0.052(0.10)
0.059(0.12)
0.061 (0.12)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0.061(0.12), C
0.012 (0.025), NR
Ref. No.
250
111
184
49
310
106
155
/in
215-217
385
177
69
52
139
15
15
15
291
290
307
15
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
ftrwrnw trtnrn*i
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas, waste
oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Nrntll*lrn1 (Trne
>jn
1NU
>jn
1NU
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
26,35
0
0
on
£1
£1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
TTilt rTilmln PAtf
TTilt rT.ln.1n PAtf
TTilt rT.1n.1n PAtf
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2. 5
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2. 5
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3,3
3
3
2.
TI.TH
LVLJ
TI.TH
LVLJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
3
1
1
1
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.061 (0.12)
0.078(0.16)
0.10(0.20)
0.17(0.34)
0.20 (0.40)
n ni ^ fc\ m^
n i A (c\ ift'i
n T> (c\ £,z.\
2.9(5.9)
3.9(7.8)
23% of filt. PM
14% of filt. PM
3. 5% of filt. PM
0.83% of filt. PM
47% of filt. PM
0.0010 (0.0020)
37.7% of filt. PM
40% of filt. PM
36% of filt. PM
33% of filt. PM
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
3.5 (6.9), NR
23% of filt. PM,
3.7 (7.4), E
14% of filt. PM,
2.2 (4.5), E
3. 5% of filt. PM,
0.56(1.1), E
0.83% of filt. PM,
0.13 (0.27), E
47% of filt. PM,
0.0059 (0.012), E
39% of filt. PM,
0.0049 (0.0098), E
36% of filt. PM,
0.0045 (0.0090), E
33% of filt. PM,
0.0041 (0.0083), E
Ref. No.
15
77
62,61
80
145
~ir
5
5
23
23
23
23
23C
24
23C
23C
23C
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
AirtiiltMmlo virnt
emuniln.ln.rM'ia
OV^l U-LV LVV^l O
AirtiiltMmlo virnt
s,n«llUUo*ii.
OV^l U-LV LVV^l O
TT7 J. 11
TT7 J. 11
TT7 J- 11
TTrnlrumn fliltrm
TTrnlrumn fliltrm
Fuel fired
ND
>.rn
1NJ_>/
>.rn
1NJ_>/
>.rn
1NJ_>/
NJ~L ^ fll 1 J~Ll1
NJ~L ^ fll 1 J~Ll1
\V t '1
v\ aot^, oil
\V t '1
v\ aot^, oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
^n
Pollutant
Filterable PM-1
T t 1 PTif
T t 1 PTif
T t 1 PTif
1 otal 1 M
T t 1 PTif
1 otal 1 M
T t 1 PTif
1 otal 1 M
T t 1 PTif
1 otal 1 M
T t 1 PTif
1 otal 1 M
No. of
test
runs
1
3.
3.
3.
3.
O.
O.
3.
Data
rating
C
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
30% of filt. PM
n nni^ /'n nnon^
n TT ('n '7^^
U.j/ (U./5J
n n^o /'n ^^ft^
n n*"! /'n ^'7ft^
n ntf". i (c\ i T ^
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
30% of filt. PM,
0.0038 (0.0075), E
Ref. No.
23C
/in
/in
/in
/in
/in
to ND = No data available, NR = not rated
ON "Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are crossed out are not used for emission factor development.
bEmission factors developed from data collected during a plant survey.
"Secondary data from Reference 26 within Reference 23.
-------
Table 4-20. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO2, METHANE, NOX, O3, SO2, AND TOC;
BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
TTnl 1-i T £i1tn*i
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Nrntll*lrn1 (Trne
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Coal/ liquid
propane
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
15
15
0
15
0
ND
T».rn
LVLJ
ND
0
0
ND
30
0
0
0
0
22
0,10
0
0,0,ND,15
10
0
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
r*C\
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
8
3
3.
3,3,3
4
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
3,3
1
1,1,1,1
3
2
1
3
1
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
rx
C,B,B
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.017(0.033)
0.019(0.039)
0.052(0.10)
0.055(0.11)
0.056(0.11)
0.095(0.19)
0.13(0.25)
0.60(1.2)
0.50(1.0)
0.19(0.37)
0.65(1.3)
0.035 (0.069)
6.8(14)
11(21)
11(21)
15 (29)
3.4(6.9)
14 (28)
7.0(14)
13 (26)
8.2(16)
8.7(17)
8.8(18)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (20)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0.20 (0.40), C
18 (37), A
Ref. No.
46
370
381
34
378
47
282
^nz~
215-217
24
161
204
49
219
336
98
126
222
310,313
287
232-235
308
276
288
203
286
264
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Low-energy
scrubber*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Dual wet
scrubbers
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet cyclone
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
0
ND
15
ND
30
0
0
0,ND,ND
ND
ND
15
0
0
20
15
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
35,26
0
15
ND
0
0
Pollutant
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
No. of test
runs
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
1
3
6
3
3
1
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
C
A
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
10 (20)
11(22)
11(22)
12 (23)
12 (24)
12 (23)
12 (24)
12 (24)
13 (25)
14 (27)
14 (28)
15 (29)
15(31)
15(31)
16(31)
17(33)
17(34)
17(35)
15 (29)
16 (32)
16 (32)
17(33)
17(33)
17(33)
17(34)
18(36)
19(38)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No.
46
15
289
370
278
76
285
15
231,237,238
282
328
381
15
72
382
378
215-217
385
284
277
135
61,62
283
378
279
176
86
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Multiple wet
scrubbers d
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter e
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
0
0,ND
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
8
3
3
12
1,1
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
C
B
A
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
19(37)
20(41)
20(41)
21 (43)
24 (47)
26(51)
28(55)
48 (96)
53(110)
78(160)
5.0(10)
9.0(18)
14 (28)
14 (28)
15(31)
15(31)
29 (58)
30 (59)
49 (98)
12 (24)
6.6(13)
8.8(18)
9.4(19)
10 (20)
12 (24)
12 (24)
12 (24)
14 (28)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No.
239
213
145
47
326
296
24
306,307
97
224
256
325
100
15
41
331
139
291
290
193
312
113
15
111
195
52
274
155
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
Pollutant
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
No. of test
runs
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
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
C
A
A
A
B
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
14 (27)
15(30)
16 (32)
16(31)
16 (32)
16(31)
17(34)
17(33)
17(34)
18(37)
19(38)
19(37)
20 (40)
21 (42)
25 (50)
25 (50)
28(55)
32 (64)
34 (69)
45(91)
47 (93)
10 (20)
14 (27)
16(31)
17(34)
19(38)
18(36)
19(37)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No.
253
261
110
181
170
248
188
226
314
204
250
302
249
271
323
304
184
281
138
106
161
177
317
318
319
275
83
140
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Reprocessed oil
Reprocessed oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
26
0
30
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND,0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
Pollutant
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane5
NOX
NO,
NO,
NO,
NOX
NO,
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
3
2
8
8
13
3
8
3
9
8
9
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B,C
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
19(39)
19(37)
20 (40)
23 (46)
29 (59)
11(23)
14 (27)
15(30)
17(34)
19(39)
25 (50)
28(55)
53 (110)
15(30)
19(38)
18(36)
15(31)
19(37)
0.00058 (0.0012)
0.0099 (0.020)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.011(0.022)
0.013 (0.026)
0.020 (0.039)
0.031 (0.061)
0.084(0.17)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0.0037(0. 0074), D
0.013(0. 025), D
0.058(0.12), E
Ref. No.
77
143
79
80
49
69
263
199
240
220
165
327
225
265
201
200,202
321
320
46
47
49
24
46
47
34
24
226
49
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
TTnl ri flit r
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
TTnl ri flit r
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/propane
C al'tr ran
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
ft
0
0
ND
0
30
0
0
0
0
ft
30
Pollutant
03
S02
q<"\
LJV^^
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
S02
TOC as propane
TOC as propane
TOC as propane
TOC as propane
TOC as propane
No. of test
runs
8
3
3.
8
3
3
8
9
1
8
9
3
3.
9
Data
rating
D
A
ti
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
8.4xlO-5 (0.00017)
0.022 (0.043)
0.0017(0.0034)
0.0029 (0.0057)
0.0013 (0.0027)
0.011 (0.021)
0.12(0.24)
0.0044 (0.0087)
0.0095 (0.019)
0.010(0.021)
0.0052(0.010)
A r\ /o r\\
*~r.U 1 o.U 1
0.021 (0.043)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
8.4xlO-5 (0.00017), NR
0.022 (0.043), E
0.0023 (0.0046), E
0.044 (0.088), E
0.0073(0. 015), D
0.021 (0.043), E
Ref. No.
226
126
QO
47
46
385
226
49
46
47
24
155
1^1
49
ND = No data available, NR = not rated
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are i
b Plant EE.
c Plant FF.
d Plant AA.
e Plant O.
f Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
sscd out are not used for emission factor development.
-------
Table 4-21. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS; BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
TTnl 1-i T £i1tn*i
TTnl-irir filt r
TTnl 1-i T £i1tn*i
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
NO
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Nrt A fnol t\<\
Nrt A fnol t\<\
Waste oil, No. 4
Waste oil
Natural gas
Pollutant
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Copper
Hexavalent chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Lead
Lead
Lead
T 1
ljL.aU
T A
.beau
T 1
ljL.aU
Lead
Lead
Manganese
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
6
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3.
3.
3.
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
A
B
C
A
B
B
A
C
B
A
B
B
A
C
A
B
B
A
pb
pb
pb
C
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.7xlO-7(3.3xlO-7)
4.9xlO-7(9.9xlO-7)
3.3xlO-8 (6.7xlO-8)
7.3xlO-7(1.5xlO-6)
I.lxl0-7(2.2xl0-7)
3.8xlO-8 (7.5xlO-8)
6.5xlO-7(1.3xlO-6)
1.9xlO-7(3.8xlO-7)
7.2x1 0-8(1. 4x1 0-7)
1.5xlO-7(3.0xlO-7)
4.5xlO-7(8.9xlO-7)
2.6xlO-7(5.2xlO-7)
9.9xlO-7(2.0xlO-6)
2.7xlO-6 (5.3xlO-6)
5.6xlO-7(l.lxlO-6)
4.9xlO'9 (9.7xlO-9)
4.3xlO-8 (8.6xlO-8)
1.9xlO-7(3.7xlO-7)
5.3xlO-7(l.lxlO-6)
5.7xlO-7(1.2xlO-6)
i Oiri n^ *"^ ^vi n*^
i.^/viw {3. /A1U )
1 0TT1 0^ C^i "^vl 0=>^
I.^AIW l^.-jAlU )
3.1xlO-6(6.2xlO-6)
7.0xlO-6(1.4xlO-5)
2.9xlO-6 (5.8xlO-6)
Candidate emission factor,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton), rating
2.3xlO-7(4.6xlO-7),D
7.3xlO-7(1.5xlO-6), E
7.4x1 0-8(1. 5x1 0-7), E
3.0xlO-7(6.1xlO-7),D
2.9xlO-7(5.7xlO-7),D
1.4xlO-6(2.8xlO-6),D
2.4xlO-8 (4.8xlO-8), E
4.5xlO-7(8.9xlO-7),D
5.1xlO-6(1.0xlO-5), E
3.5xlO-6(6.9xlO-6),D
Ref.
No.
34
40
226
24
34
226
34
24
226
34
24
226
24
34
226
34
226
34
24
226
">17
ji 1
->i r>
jiJ
->1 Q
177
321
34
-------
Table 4-21 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
No. of test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
C
A
B
B
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
7.1xlO-6(1.4xlO-5)
4.6xlO-7(9.2xlO-7)
2.3xlO-7(4.5xlO-7)
1.8xlO-7(3.6xlO-7)
1.0xlO-6(2.0xlO-6)
3.2xlO-6 (6.4xlO-6)
2.7xlO-7(5.4xlO-7)
4.6xlO-8 (9.2xlO-8)
4.4xlO-7(8.8xlO-7)
3.2xlO-6 (6.3xlO-6)
3.7xlO-6 (7.3xlO-6)
3.4xlO-6 (6.8xlO-6)
Candidate emission factor,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton), rating
2.0xlO-7(4.1xlO-7), E
1.5xlO-6(3.0xlO-6),D
2.4xlO-7(4.9xlO-7), E
3.4xlO-6(6.8xlO-6),D
Ref.
No.
24
226
34
226
34
24
226
34
226
24
34
226
ND = No data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. RAP was not processed during any of the tests. Data that are crossed out
are not used for emission factor development.
b These C-rated data are not included in the candidate emission factor because they are based on one-half of the detection limit for non-detect
runs; the factors based on one-half of the detection limit are higher than factors based on actual measurements made during other tests.
-------
Table 4-22. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS;
BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
TTnl ri flit r r
TTnl ri T fli1tn*i r
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
atmai gas
NJ~L C fll 1 J~Ll1
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Anthracene
Anthracene
Anthracene
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene4
Benzene4
Benzene
n.~n-~n.~
-Lj^/iiiL/llL.
„
Licnzcnc
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
13
20
3
3.
3.
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
C
D
A
B
A
A
C
B
A
A
(2£
£!£
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
5. 8xlO-5 (0.00012)
1.6xlO-5(3.3xlO-5)
S.OxlO'5 (6.0xlO-5)
1.0xlO-6(2.1xlO-6)
2.9xlO-7(5.7xlO-7)
1.0xlO-8(2.1xlO-8)
1.6xlO-7(3.2xlO-7)
7.0xlO-7(1.4xlO-6)
1.0xlO-8(2.0xlO-8)
0.00032 (0.00064)
6.0xlO-7(1.2xlO-6)
0.0032 (0.0064)
2.7xlO-7(5.3xlO-7)
4.4xlO-8 (8.8xlO-8)
8.3xlO-9(1.7xlO-8)
6.4xlO-5 (0.00013)
3.5xlO-5 (7.0xlO-5)
0.000096(0.00019)
0.00018(0.00036)
0.00025 (0.00050)
n nnnri'7 /TI nm i ~\
1.4xlO-9(2.8xlO-9)
3.2xlO-9 (6.3xlO-9)
1.6xlO-10(3.1xlO-10)
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
3.6xlO-5(7.1xlO-5),D
4.5xlO-7(9.0xlO-7),D
2.9xlO-7(5.8xlO-7),D
0.00016 (0.00032), E
0.0032 (0.0064), NR
l.lxlO-7(2.1xlO-7),D
6.4xlO-5 (0.00013), E
0.00014(0. 00028), D
2.3xlO'9 (4.6xlO-9), E
1.6xlO-10(3.1xlO-10), E
Ref. N.
24
47
49
46
34
226
34
46
226
24
34
24
46
34
226
24
34
24
382
46
AH
/IQ
46
226
226
-------
Table 4-22 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Pollutant
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Butyraldehyde/Isobutyraldehyde
Chrysene
Chrysene
Crotonaldehyde
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzened
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
13
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
I.lxl0-8(2.2xl0-8)
8.8xlO-10(1.8xlO-9)
2.2xlO-9 (4.5xlO-9)
2.5xlO-10(5.0xlO-10)
1.2xlO-8(2.4xlO-8)
5.6xlO-10(l.lxlO-9)
1.5xlO-5(3.0xlO-5)
3.1xlO-9(6.3xlO-9)
6.1xlO-10(1.2xlO-9)
1.5xlO-5(2.9xlO-5)
4.8x10-" (9. 5xlO-u)
0.00035 (0.00070)
0.00042 (0.00083)
0.00078 (0.0016)
0.0028 (0.0057)
2.1xlO-7 (4. IxlO'7)
2.2xlO-8 (4.4xlO-8)
5.3xlO-8(l.lxlO-7)
4.4xlO-8 (8.7xlO-8)
1.2xlO-5(2.4xlO-5)
1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6)
3.3xlO-7(6.5xlO-7)
8.8xlO-7(1.8xlO-6)
1.4xlO-7(2.7xlO-7)
0.00017(0.00035)
0.00074 (0.0015)
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
4.7xlO-9(9.4xlO-9),D
2.5xlO-10(5.0xlO-10),E
6.3xlO-9(1.3xlO-8), E
1.5xlO-5(3.0xlO-5), E
1.9xlO-9(3.8xlO-9),E
1.5xlO-5(2.9xlO-5),E
4.8x10-" (9. SxlO-11), E
0.0011 (0.0022), D
8.1xlO-8(1.6xlO-7),D
1.2xlO-5(2.4xlO-5),E
8.2xlO-7(1.6xlO-6),D
0.00036 (0.00074), D
Ref. N.
34
46
226
226
34
226
24
46
226
24
226
47
46
49
24
47
34
46
226
49
46
34
47
226
46
382
-------
Table 4-22 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter b'c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
TT7 J. 11 T
Till ri filt r r
TTnl ri -i fi1to*i r
Till ri filt r r
TT7 J. 11 r
TTnl ri -i fi1to*i
Till ri filt r r
TTnl ri T filto*™ r
Till ri filt r r
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
>.rn
>jn
>.rn
>T ^ fn 1 nil
NJ~L ^ fn 1 j~ii1
>T ^ fn 1 nil
NJ~L f fn 1 j~ii1
TT7 J-_, '1
v v ctoLL. Ull
\V t '1
v\ a^t^ oil
TT7 J--, ,. '1
v v ctoLL. Ull
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
T? i-i-m1^n1rn,r*1n
77 ,-rml rlnlnurln
T? i-rm1rln1rn,r^ln
77 ,-rml rlnlnurln
77 i-i-m1^n1rn,r*1n
77 ,-rml rlnlnurln
77 i-rm1rln1rn,r^ln
77 mnHnlii^ln
77 i-i-m1^n1rn,r*1n
77 mnHnViifHn
Hexanal
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2.
3.
3.
3.
3,
3.
3,
3.
3.
3.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
C
B
A
A
rx
ti
rx
ti
rx
ti
IA
IA
IA
IA
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0010(0.0021)
3.8xlO-5 (7.6xlO-5)
0.00040(0.00081)
6.2xlO-5 (0.00012)
0.00012 (0.00024)
n nmn fc\ nn^n^
n C\C\AA fC\ C\C\til7\
c\ nnn^** cc\ nm i ^
n nm Q fc\ nn^Q^
n nnnQQ cc\ nm Q\
1.2xlO-5(2.4xlO-5)
1.5xlO-10(3.0xlO-10)
1.3xlO-5(2.5xlO-5)
4.1xlO-5(8.1xlO-5)
9.5xlO-6(1.9xlO-5)
5.4xlO-6(l.lxlO-5)
2.2xlO-5 (4.5xlO-5)
1.0xlO-6(2.0xlO-6)
I.lxl0-6(2.2xl0-6)
2.7xlO-6 (5.5xlO-6)
3.7xlO-7(7.3xlO-7)
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
1.2xlO-5(2.4xlO-5),E
1.5xlO-10(3.0xlO-10), E
1.8xlO-5(3.6xlO-5),E
1.3xlO-6(2.6xlO-6),D
Ref. N.
24
34
49
47
226
/in
/in
/in
/ifi
/in
/in
i ,n
/in
/in
/in
24
226
47
46
34
226
49
34
47
46
226
-------
Table 4-22 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
TTnl ri flit r r
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
>T f fii 1 nil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Pollutant
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Quinone
Toluene
Toluene
Tollman
J. WILlL/llL/
Toluene
Toluene4
Xylene
Xylene
Xylene
Xylened
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.
3
13
3
3
3
13
Data
rating
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
(2£
A
B
C
C
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.9xlO-5(3.7xlO-5)
2.4xlO-8 (4.8xlO-8)
3.9xlO-8 (7.8xlO-8)
3.0xlO-8 (5.9xlO-8)
2.7xlO-5 (5.5xlO-5)
0.00014 (0.00027)
3.7xlO'5 (7.3xlO-5)
0.00030(0.00061)
0.00076(0.0015)
0.00099 (0.0020)
0.00035 (0.00070)
0.00078 (0.0016)
0.00079 (0.0016)
0.0035 (0.0069)
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
1.9xlO-5(3.7xlO-5), E
3.1xlO-8(6.2xlO-8),D
2.7xlO'5 (5.5xlO-5), E
0.00014 (0.00027), E
0.00052(0. 0010), D
0.0014 (0.0027), D
Ref. N.
49
34
46
226
49
24
34
47
jo
46
24
47
49
46
24
Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. ND = No data available. Data that are crossed out are not used for emission factor
development.
Feed included 30 percent RAP.
Control device may provide only incidental control.
Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
These C-rated data are not included in the candidate emission factor because they are based on one-half of the detection limit for non-detect runs; the factors
based on one-half of the detection limit are higher than the candidate emission factor based on actual measurements made during other tests.
-------
Table 4-23. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON BATCH MIX DATAa
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
P-value
Conclusion
FILTERABLE PM
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
VS, waste oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
FF, oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
VS, oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
FF, RAP 0.1
VS, RAP 0.1
8
3
24
5
46
5
0.021
0.17
0.025
0.12
0.020
0.11
0.024
0.16
0.029
0.13
0.024
0.16
FF, non waste oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
VS, non waste oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
FF, gas-fired,
RAP 0.1
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAP 0.1
WS, RAP 0.1
16
2
17
2
7
2
0.028
0.042
0.016
0.21
0.15
0.25
0.032
0.015
0.016
0.26
0.16
0.13
0.59
0.34
0.25
0.53
0.078
0.34
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF and
RAP O.I
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for VS and
RAP O.I
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O.I
Differentiate between control devices
for RAP O.I
No difference between VS and WS
for RAP O.I
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
FF, RAP 0.1
3
4
13
0.0093
0.0029
0.0042
0.015
0.0014
0.0037
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired,
RAP 0.1
VS, RAP 0.1
8
9
3
0.012
0.0048
0.0067
0.022
0.0043
0.0083
0.87
0.42
0.38
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between FF and VS for
RAP O.I
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired
VS, oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
FF, RAP 0.1
4
7
3
8
0.0077
0.0055
0.0040
0.0036
0.0075
0.0065
0.0045
0.0033
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, gas-fired,
RAP 0.1
VS, RAP 0.1
3
8
2
5
0.0027
0.0036
0.0040
0.0040
0.0046
0.0033
0.0016
0.0033
0.36
0.48
0.99
0.83
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O.I
No difference between FF and VS for
RAP O.I
-------
Table 4-23 (cont.)
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
P-value
Conclusion
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Oil-fired
2
0.026
0.023
Gas-fired
3
0.016
0.0066
0.49
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired
CARBON MONOXIDE
Oil-fired
4
0.46
0.57
Gas-fired
6
0.45
0.51
0.97
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired
CARBON DIOXIDE
Waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, RAP O.I
10
7
24
4
49
35
35
36
32
39
7.1
3.9
18
12
27
Nonwaste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, nonwaste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAP O.I
18
17
20
2
6
36
37
46
32
32
21
21
37
12
11
0.86
0.80
0.22
0.96
0.57
No difference between waste oil-fired
and non waste oil-fired for RAP <0. 1
No difference between waste oil-fired
and non waste oil-fired for FF and
RAPO.l
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O.I
No difference between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
NITROGEN OXIDES
Oil-fired
2
0.12
0.076
Gas-fired
4
0.025
0.011
0.34
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired
to
oo
o
'FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber. WS = unspecified wet scrubber.
-------
Table 4-24. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO BATCH MIX DATAa
Parameters
modeled
Conditions
No. of obs.
Significant effects
(p-value)
R2
Equation
FILTERABLE PM
R,P
R
P
FF
FF
VS
53
54
9
R (0.0067), P
(0.033)
R (0.0043)
P (0.039)
0.22
0.15
0.48
EF = 0.043 + 0.14R-
0.00012P
EF = 0.020 + 0.16R
EF = 0.35 - 0.00094P
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
R*P
R
All data
All data
17
17
R*P (<0.0001)
R (0.0001)
0.77
0.61
EF = 0.0041 +
0.00054RP
EF = 0.0050 +
0.079R
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
R, R*P
All data
19
R (0.011), R*P
(0.030)
0.35
EF = 0.0044 +
0.065R-0.00018RP
CARBON DIOXIDE
R, P, R*P
P
All data
All data
62
92
R (0.052), P
(0.0002), R*P
(0.043)
P (0.0009)
0.23
0.12
EF = 75- 170R-
0.18P + 0.67RP
EF = 59-0.10P
a R = squared correlation coefficient. R = percentage of RAP as a fraction. P = production rate in
ton/hr. EF = emission factor in Ib/ton. FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber, WS = unspecified wet
scrubber.
4-281
-------
Table 4-25. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON DRUM MIX DATAa
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
P-value
Conclusion
FILTERABLE PM
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, RAP 0.1
8
4
44
15
66
0.0095
0.047
0.015
0.030
0.014
0.0059
0.030
0.018
0.022
0.016
FF, nonwaste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, nonwaste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, RAP 0.1
36
11
19
8
26
0.016
0.021
0.012
0.018
0.026
0.019
0.14
0.015
0.015
0.021
0.35
0.18
0.57
0.25
0.015
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF and
RAPO.l
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for VS and
RAPO.l
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O.I
Differentiate between control devices
for RAP O.I
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, RAP 0.1
4
8
12
0.013
0.0080
0.0081
0.011
0.0052
0.0054
FF, nonwaste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, RAP 0.1
8
3
2
0.0062
0.0055
0.0038
0.0040
0.0050
0.00066
0.12
0.49
0.30
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
12
4
8
2
0.016
0.037
0.0095
0.0081
0.015
0.034
0.017
0.0074
FF, non waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
7
2
2
2
0.0097
0.0037
0.0011
0.013
0.015
0.0013
0.00056
0.010
0.42
0.26
0.51
0.60
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF and
RAPO.l
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for VS
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O.I
to
oo
to
-------
Table 4-25 (cont.)
Sample No. 1
Description
FF, RAP 0.1
No. of
obs.
11
MeanEF
0.0076
Std. dev.
0.014
Sample No. 2
Description
VS, RAP 0.1
No. of
obs.
5
Mean EF
0.0099
Std. dev.
0.0070
P-value
0.74
Conclusion
No difference between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FF, oil-fired
FF, RAP O.I
6
4
0.032
0.015
0.031
0.011
FF, gas-fired
VS, RAP O.I
5
3
0.058
0.058
0.042
0.022
0.28
0.060
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired
Differentiate between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
CARBON MONOXIDE
Oil-fired
6
0.18
0.22
Gas-fired
5
1.3
2.7
0.33
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired
CARBON DIOXIDE
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, waste oil-fired,
RAP 0.1
FF, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
7
3
43
14
43
17
38
38
32
35
32
25
14
9.8
9.7
14
9.7
9.3
Nonwaste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, nonwaste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
36
11
17
7
14
7
31
34
25
28
35
28
8.3
16
9.3
18
14
18
0.21
0.68
0.016
0.33
0.34
0.61
No difference between waste oil-fired
and non waste oil-fired for FF and
RAPO.l
No difference between waste oil-fired
and non waste oil-fired for VS and
RAPO.l
Differentiate between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O.I
No difference between FF and VS for
oil-fired and RAP O.I
No difference between FF and VS for
gas-fired and RAP O.I
NITROGEN OXIDES
Oil-fired
5
0.051
0.024
Gas-fired
4
0.029
0.016
0.15
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired
to
oo
OJ
-------
Table 4-25 (cont.)
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
MeanEF
Std. dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
P-value
Conclusion
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Waste oil-fired
Waste oil-fired, FF
FF, oil-fired
FF,RAP<0.1
3
3
5
3
0.091
0.091
0.060
0.18
0.073
0.073
0.068
0.30
Nonwaste oil-fired
Nonwaste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS,RAP<0.1
4
2
3
4
0.0072
0.012
0.0034
0.0043
0.0053
0.0011
0.0019
0.0036
0.18
0.24
0.21
0.28
No difference between waste oil-fired
and oil-fired
No difference between waste oil-fired
and oil-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas- fired for FF
No difference between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
a FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber. WS = unspecified wet scrubber.
to
oo
-------
Table 4-26. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO DRUM MIX DATAa
Parameters
modeled
Conditions
No. of obs.
Significant effects
(p-value)
R2
Equation
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
R
All data
36
R (0.047)
0.11
EF = 0.0074 + 0.033R
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
P
FF only
11
P (0.092)
0.28
EF = 0.11-0.00022?
NITROGEN OXIDES
R,P
All data
5
R (0.041), P (0.016)
0.97
EF = 0.27 - 0.20R - 0.00059P
a R = squared correlation coefficient. R = percentage of RAP as a fraction. P = production rate in
ton/hr. EF = emission factor in Ib/ton. FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber, WS = unspecified wet
scrubber.
4-285
-------
Table 4-27. REPORTED PARTICULATE-BASED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT Ca
Asphalt Loss on
Heating (RTFOT, %by
weight)
Load out Temperature
(°F)
90% Lower Confidence
Limit Capture
Efficiency
Run 1 Loading
-0.362
321
0.64
Corrected For CE%
gr/dscf
#/ton
Run 2 Loading
-0.322
316
0.65
Corrected For CE%
gr/dscf
#/ton
Run 3 Loading
-0.284
291
0.54
Corrected For CE%
gr/dscf
#/ton
Background Run
As
Measured
gr/dscf
0.45
Corrected
For CE%
gr/dscf
Particulateb
PM
MCEM
1.92e-03
1.68e-03
3.56e-04
3.12e-04
1.14e-03
3.50e-04
2.65e-04
8.16e-05
1.59e-03
5.05e-04
2.05e-04
6.52e-05
7.93e-04
3.78e-04
1.76e-03
8.40e-04
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
ppbvd
2.51e-01
2.62e-02
8.20e-02
1.39e-02
5.45e-03
1.60e-03
1.37e-03
1.63e-03
6.13e-03
7.90e-02
4.94e-04
5.10e-02
1.09e+00
5.92e-04
2.30e+00
1.27e+00
1.81e-02
l.Ole+00
1.366-01
#/ton
1.57e-07
1.64e-08
5.95e-08
1.29e-08
5.60e-09
1.64e-09
1.54e-09
1.68e-09
6.30e-09
7.35e-08
5.60e-10
4.20e-08
7.35e-07
7.00e-10
1.33e-06
6.65e-07
1.85e-08
7.35e-07
1.12e-07
ppbvd
3.28e-01
3.87e-02
6.24e-02
1.37e-02
5.21e-03
1.36e-03
1.21e-03
1.40e-03
4.81e-03
8.42e-02
NDC
4.65e-02
5.96e-01
NDC
3.34e+00
1.89e+00
1.12e-02
7.38e-01
1.35e-01
#/ton
1.24e-07
1.46e-08
2.73e-08
7.70e-09
3.23e-09
8.44e-10
8.19e-10
8.69e-10
2.98e-09
4.72e-08
NDC
2.31e-08
2.43e-07
NDC
1.17e-06
5.96e-07
6.95e-09
3.23e-07
6.70e-08
ppbvd
1.79e-02
2.60e-03
6.19e-03
3.29e-04
3.58e-04
NDC
1.36e-04
NDC
2.58e-04
6.81e-03
NDC
7.44e-03
4.83e-02
NDC
9.17e-02
NDC
NDC
1.136-01
1.49e-02
ppbvd
3.97e-02
5.78e-03
1.38e-02
7.32e-04
7.95e-04
NDC
3.02e-04
NDC
5.73e-04
1.51e-02
NDC
1.65e-02
1.076-01
NDC
2.04e-01
NDC
NDC
2.51e-01
3.31e-02
Other SVOHAP
Phenol
NDC
NDC
NDC
NDC
5.70e+00
1.32e-06
NDC
NDC
a Reference 355
Particulate and MCEM participate deposition data presented in the test report are 1.34 x 10 and
8.68 x 10 respectively.
c ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-286
-------
Table 4-28. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on
Heating (RTFOT, %by
weight)
Load out Temperature
(°F)
90% Lower Confidence
Limit Capture
Efficiency
Run 1 Loading
-0.362
321
0.64
Run 2 Loading
-0.322
316
0.65
Run 3 Loading
-0.284
291
0.54
Background Run
0.45
THC
Methane
Acetone (ppb)
CO
Ethylene
Corrected For CE%
ppm
l.lle+01
5.00e+00
1.28e+01
3.59e+00
1.72e-01
#/ton
1.72e-03
2.81e-04
2.51e-06
3.44e-04
1.72e-05
Corrected For CE%
ppm
1.18e+01
4.77e+00
6.62e+00
1.266+01
NDC
#/ton
2.00e-03
3.08e-04
1.68e-06
1.43e-03
NDC
Corrected For CE%
ppm
1.43e+01
6.11e+00
2.31e+00
1.246+01
2.59e-01
#/ton
1.70e-03
2.04e-04
3.57e-07
7.41e-04
1.56e-05
As
Measured
ppm
0.83 b
3
2.00e+00
3.5
NDC
Corrected
For CE%
ppm
1.84
6.67
4.43e+00
7.78
NDC
VOHAPS
Benzene (M 0030)
Benzene (M 18)
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Bisulfide
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 0030)
Cumene (M 18)
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Ethylbenzene (M 18)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
Hexane (M 18)
Isooctane
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
ppb
6.82e+00
NDC
1.83e+00
5.61e+00
4.66e-01
7.70e-02
NDC
3.34e+00
NDC
2.17e+01
2.47e+00
5.02e+01
NDC
3.19e+00
1.846+01
NDC
7.23e+00
1.536-01
NDC
#/ton
1.80e-06
NDC
5.89e-07
1.37e-06
1.20e-07
1.68e-08
NDC
5.72e-07
NDC
9.03e-06
8.89e-07
1.84e-05
NDC
9.32e-07
5.50e-06
NDC
2.08e-06
4.57e-08
NDC
ppb
4.39e+00
1.06e+01
5.00e-01
5.06e+00
1.57e+00
NDC
NDC
2.04e+00
NDC
1.516+01
6.79e-01
6.22e+01
NDC
3.48e+00
3.43e+01
3.33e-01
3.34e+00
6.60e-01
4.60e-01
#/ton
1.50e-06
3.31e-06
2.08e-07
1.60e-06
5.23e-07
NDC
NDC
4.51e-07
NDC
7.29e-06
3.16e-07
2.65e-05
NDC
1.31e-06
1.19e-05
1.67e-07
1.24e-06
2.55e-07
2.10e-07
ppb
3.33e+00
NDC
3.85e-02
1.68e+00
5.00e-01
NDC
NDC
1.06e+00
NDC
NDC
1.45e+00
2.24e+01
4.44e-02
3.26e+00
NDC
7.69e-02
1.196+01
5.40e-01
7.17e-01
#/ton
6.95e-07
NDC
9.76e-09
3.24e-07
1.02e-07
NDC
NDC
1.43e-07
NDC
NDC
4.12e-07
5.83e-06
2.78e-06
7.50e-07
NDC
2.34e-08
2.70e-06
1.27e-07
1.99e-07
ppb
1.07e+00
NDC
9.15e-02
2.67e-01
NDC
NDC
1.90e-02
3.74e-01
NDC
NDC
1.46e-01
1.556+01
NDC
3.90e-01
NDC
1.066-01
1.21e+01
7.07e-01
1.45e-01
ppb
2.37e+00
NDC
2.03e-01
5.93e-01
NDC
NDC
4.22e-02
8.31e-01
NDC
NDC
3.24e-01
3.43e+01
NDC
8.67e-01
NDC
2.35e-01
2.68e+01
1.57e+00
3.22e-01
4-287
-------
Table 4-28 (cont.)
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
Toluene (M 18)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
m-Xylene (M 18)
p-Xylene (M 18)
Formaldehyde
o-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene (M 18)
ppm
3.94e-01
9.83e+00
2.67e+01
NDC
NDC
8.78e-02
1.44e+01
1.09e+01
3.25e+01
NDC
4.46e+00
1.22e+01
#/ton
2.21e-07
3.07e-06
8.52e-06
NDC
NDC
4.09e-08
5.18e-06
4.00e-06
1.19e-05
NDC
1.60e-06
4.47e-06
ppm
3.19e-01
3.60e+00
4.48e+01
NDC
NDC
l.lle-01
3.84e+00
1.04e+01
2.03e+01
NDC
1.10e+00
8.57e+00
#/ton
2.31e-07
1.45e-06
1.66e-05
NDC
NDC
6.67e-08
1.78e-06
4.43e-06
8.64e-06
NDC
5.12e-07
3.65e-06
ppm
2.91e-01
5.00e+00
2.12e+01
NDC
NDC
1.49e-01
7.08e+00
NDC
NDC
4.44e-02
2.57e+00
NDC
#/ton
1.29e-07
1.23e-06
4.79e-06
NDC
NDC
5.47e-08
2.01e-06
NDC
NDC
2.78e-06
7.28e-07
NDC
ppm
8.65e-02
1.33e+00
1.056+01
3.40e-02
2.87e-03
7.42e-02
4.09e-01
NDC
NDC
NDC
1.74e-01
NDC
ppm
1.926-01
2.95e+00
2.33e+01
7.55e-02
6.39e-03
1.65e-01
9.09e-01
NDC
NDC
NDC
3.87e-01
NDC
a Reference 355.
b The value presented is the average reported for the first half of the test period. The average reported for the
second half of the test period was 1.6 ppm with a total run average of 1.2 ppm.
0 ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-288
-------
Table 4-29. REPORTED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS FOR PLANT Da
Asphalt Loss on Heating (RTFOT)
Load out Temperature (F)
Run 1
10/5/98
-0.204
306.7
Run 2
10/6/98
-0.246
325.1
Run 3
10/7/98
-0.261
326.7
Deposition
Particulate Matter (PM)
MCEM
THC (ppm)
Ib/ton
1.37e-03
2.46e-04
1.53e-03
Ib/ton
1.78e-03
1.50e-04
1.71e-03
Ib/ton
7.27e-04
1.27e-04
1.71e-03
Ib/ton
3.37e-05b
3.58e-06
a Reference 356.
Calculated from data reported in Appendix C and Appendix D of the PES test report.
4-289
-------
Table 4-30. BACKGROUND-CORRECTED PARTICULATE BASED
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
Run 1 Loading
-0.362
321
Run 2 Loading
-0.322
316
Run 3 Loading
-0.284
291
Particulate
PM
MCEM
gr/dscf
1.30e-03
1.30e-03
#/ton
2.41e-04
2.41e-04
gr/dscf
3.44e-04
-2.83e-05
#/ton
8.01e-05
0.00e+00a
gr/dscf
7.98e-04
1.27e-04
#/ton
1.03e-04
1.64e-05
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
ppbvd
2.33e-01
2.36e-02
7.58e-02
1.36e-02
5.09e-03
1.60e-03
1.23e-03
1.63e-03
5.87e-03
7.22e-02
4.94e-04
4.35e-02
1.04e+00
5.92e-04
2.20e+00
1.27e+00
1.81e-02
9.00e-01
1.21e-01
#/ton
1.46e-07
1.48e-08
5.50e-08
1.26e-08
5.23e-09
1.64e-09
1.39e-09
1.68e-09
6.03e-09
6.71e-08
5.60e-10
3.58e-08
7.02e-07
7.00e-10
1.28e-06
6.65e-07
1.85e-08
6.53e-07
9.97e-08
ppbvd
3.10e-01
3.61e-02
5.62e-02
1.34e-02
4.85e-03
1.36e-03
1.07e-03
1.40e-03
4.55e-03
7.74e-02
NDb
3.91e-02
5.48e-01
NDb
3.25e+00
1.89e+00
1.12e-02
6.25e-01
1.20e-01
#/ton
1.17e-07
1.37e-08
2.46e-08
7.51e-09
3.01e-09
8.44e-10
7.27e-10
8.69e-10
2.82e-09
4.34e-08
NDb
1.94e-08
2.24e-07
NDb
1.13e-06
5.96e-07
6.95e-09
2.74e-07
5.97e-08
Other SVOHAP
Phenol
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
5.70e+00
1.32e-06
a Values presented as O.OOe+00 had background concentrations higher than the capture
efficiency-corrected measured concentration.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-290
-------
Table 4-31. BACKGROUND CORRECTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT)
Load out Temperature (F)
Run 1 Loading
-0.362
321
Run 2 Loading
-0.322
316
Run 3 Loading
-0.284
291
THC
Methane
CO
Acetone (ppb)
Ethylene
ppm
1.03e+01
2.00e+00
9.37e-02
1.08e+01
1.72e-01
#/ton
1.59e-03
1.13e-04
8.97e-06
2.12e-06
1.72e-05
ppm
1.10e+01
1.77e+00
9.12e+00
4.62e+00
NDa
#/ton
1.86e-03
1.14e-04
1.03e-03
1.17e-06
NDa
ppm
1.34e+01
3.11e+00
8.91e+00
3.10e-01
2.59e-01
#/ton
1.60e-03
1.04e-04
5.32e-04
4.80e-08
1.56e-05
VOHAPS
Benzene (M 0030)
Benzene (M 18)
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 0030)
Cumene (M 18)
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Ethylbenzene (M 18)
Formaldehyde (ppm)
n-Hexane (M 0030)
Hexane (M 18)
Isooctane
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
Tetrachloromethane
ppb
5.75e+00
NDa
1.74e+00
5.34e+00
4.66e-01
7.70e-02
NDa
2.97e+00
NDa
2.17e+01
2.33e+00
3.48e+01
NDa
2.80e+00
1.84e+01
NDa
-4.83e+00
-5.54e-01
NDa
3.07e-01
#/ton
1.52e-06
NDa
5.59e-07
1.30e-06
1.20e-07
1.68e-08
NDa
5.08e-07
NDa
9.03e-06
8.37e-07
1.28e-05
NDa
8.19e-07
5.50e-06
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
NDa
1.73e-07
ppb
3.32e+00
1.06e+01
4.08e-01
4.80e+00
1.57e+00
NDa
NDa
1.67e+00
NDa
1.51e+01
5.33e-01
4.68e+01
NDa
3.09e+00
3.43e+01
2.28e-01
-8.73e+00
-4.62e-02
3.15e-01
2.32e-01
#/ton
1.13e-06
3.31e-06
1.70e-07
1.51e-06
5.23e-07
NDa
NDa
3.68e-07
NDa
7.29e-06
2.48e-07
1.99e-05
NDa
1.17e-06
1.19e-05
1.14e-07
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
1.44e-07
1.69e-07
ppb
2.27e+00
NDa
-5.29e-02
1.42e+00
5.00e-01
NDa
NDa
6.84e-01
NDa
NDa
1.31e+00
6.92e+00
4.44e-02
2.87e+00
NDa
-2.89e-02
-1.32e-01
-1.67e-01
5.72e-01
2.05e-01
#/ton
4.72e-07
NDa
0.00e+00b
2.73e-07
1.02e-07
NDa
NDa
9.21e-08
NDa
NDa
3.71e-07
1.80e-06
2.78e-06
6.60e-07
NDa
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
1.59e-07
9.06e-08
4-291
-------
Table 4-31 (cont.)
VOHAPS
Toluene (M 0030)
Toluene (M 18)
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
m-Xylene (M 18)
p-Xylene (M 18)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene(M18)
ppb
8.50e+00
1.63e+01
NDa
NDa
1.36e-02
1.40e+01
1.09e+01
3.25e+01
4.28e+00
1.22e+01
#/ton
2.65e-06
5.19e-06
NDa
NDa
6.33e-09
5.03e-06
4.00e-06
1.19e-05
1.54e-06
4.47e-06
ppb
2.27e+00
3.44e+01
NDa
NDa
3.66e-02
3.43e+00
1.04e+01
2.03e+01
9.27e-01
8.57e+00
#/ton
9.17e-07
1.27e-05
NDa
NDa
2.20e-08
1.59e-06
4.43e-06
8.64e-06
4.31e-07
3.65e-06
ppb
3.67e+00
1.07e+01
NDa
NDa
7.49e-02
6.67e+00
NDa
NDa
2.40e+00
NDa
#/ton
9.02e-07
2.42e-06
NDa
NDa
2.75e-08
1.89e-06
0.00e+00b
NDa
6.79e-07
NDa
a ND - Measured data below detection limits.
Values presented as O.OOe+00 had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency
corrected measured concentration.
4-292
-------
Table 4-32. ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN RESULTS FROM SELECTED STATESa
State
Massachusetts
Plant D - MA
Connecticut
North Carolina
Michigan
Minnesota
Plant C - CA
Number of
Samples
44
3
29
226
32
438
13
Average loss on heating
(ASTM D2872-88)
(percent mass change)
-0.232
-0.237
-0.355
-0.227
-0.272
-0.440
-0.330
Standard Deviation
0.124
0.030
0.147
0.160
0.173
0.289
0.040
References 355, 356 and 365 to 369.
Table 4-33. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS ON HEATING DATAa
Temperature
(deg F)
Date
Loss on Heating
(% by RTFOT)
California Test Data
300
325
350
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
-0.216
-0.200
-0.142
-0.171
-0.369
-0.311
-0.286
-0.292
-0.686
-0.611
-0.498
-0.510
Date
Loss on Heating
(% by RTFOT)
Massachusetts Test Data
10/05/99
10/06/99
10/07/99
10/05/99
10/06/99
10/07/99
10/05/99
10/06/99
10/07/99
-0.089
-0.105
-0.109
-0.216
-0.206
-0.218
-0.400
-0.395
-0.380
a References 355 and 356.
4-293
-------
Table 4-34. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
90% Lower Confidence Limit
Capture Efficiency
Run 1
-0.362
321
0.64
Run 2
-0.322
316
0.65
Run 3
-0.284
291
0.54
Average
Speciation
Profile
Particulatea
PM
MCEM
#/ton
3.66e-04
3.66e-04
#/ton
8.01e-05
O.OOe+00
#/ton
1.50e-04
6.34e-05
#/ton
1.99e-04
1.43e-04
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
#/ton
2.79e-07
2.83e-08
1.05e-07
2.42e-08
l.OOe-08
3.14e-09
2.65e-09
3.21e-09
1.15e-08
1.28e-07
1.07e-09
6.85e-08
1.34e-06
1.34e-09
2.44e-06
1.27e-06
3.54e-08
1.25e-06
1.91e-07
#/ton
4.53e-07
5.28e-08
9.50e-08
2.90e-08
1.16e-08
3.26e-09
2.81e-09
3.36e-09
1.09e-08
1.67e-07
NDb
7.49e-08
8.63e-07
NDb
4.38e-06
2.30e-06
2.68e-08
1.06e-06
2.30e-07
#/ton
3.66e-07
4.05e-08
l.OOe-07
2.66e-08
1.08e-08
3.20e-09
2.73e-09
3.28e-09
1.12e-08
1.48e-07
5.35e-10
7.17e-08
1.10e-06
6.69e-10
3.41e-06
1.79e-06
3.11e-08
1.15e-06
2.10e-07
PAH/MCEM
(%)
0.26%
0.028%
0.070%
0.019%
0.0076%
0.0022%
0.0019%
0.0023%
0.0078%
0.103%
0.00037%
0.050%
0.77%
0.00047%
2.38%
1.25%
0.022%
0.81%
0.15%
Other SVOHAPs
Phenol
NDb
NDb
5.08e-06
1.69e-06
1.18%
a Adjusted Particulate and MCEM particulate deposition data presented in the test report are 1.45 x 10
and 1.93 x 10 respectively.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-294
-------
Table 4-35. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
90% Lower Confidence Limit
Capture Efficiency
Run 1
-0.362
321
0.64
Run 2
-0.322
316
0.65
Run 3
-0.284
291
0.54
Average
Speciation
Profile
THCa
Methane
Acetone
CO
Ethylene
TOCC
#/ton
2.41e-03
1.70e-04
3.21e-06
1.36e-05
2.60e-05
#/ton
3.56e-03
2.18e-04
2.25e-06
1.98e-03
NDb
#/ton
6.20e-03
4.00e-04
1.85e-07
2.05e-03
6.01e-05
#/ton
4.05e-03
2.63e-04
1.88e-06
1.35e-03
2.87e-05
4.06e-03
VOHAP/THC
(%)
6.48%
0.046%
0.71%
VOHAPS
Benzene (M 0030)
Benzene (M 18)
Benzene (Average)
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 0030)
Cumene (M 18)
Cumene (Average)
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Ethylbenzene (M 18)
Ethylbenzene (Average)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
Hexane (M 18)
Hexane (Average)
Isooctane
#/ton
2.31e-06
ND
8.47e-07
1.98e-06
1.82e-07
2.55e-08
ND
7.70e-07
ND
1.37e-05
1.27e-06
1.93e-05
ND
1.24e-06
8.33e-06
ND
#/ton
2.17e-06
6.33e-06
3.25e-07
2.89e-06
l.OOe-06
ND
ND
7.04e-07
ND
1.39e-05
4.74e-07
3.81e-05
ND
2.23e-06
2.27e-05
2.17e-07
#/ton
1.82e-06
ND
0.00e+00d
1.05e-06
3.92e-07
ND
ND
3.56e-07
ND
ND
1.43e-06
6.96e-06
1.07e-05
2.55e-06
ND
O.OOe+00
#/ton
2.10e-06
3.91e-07
1.97e-06
5.25e-07
8.50e-09
6.10e-07
4.60e-06
1.13e-05
3.58e-06
6.17e-06
7.25e-08
0.052%
0.0096%
0.049%
0.013%
0.00021%
0.015%
0.11%
0.28%
0.088%
0.15%
0.0018%
4-295
-------
Table 4-35 (cont.)
VOHAPS
Methylene Chloride
MTBE.
Styrene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
Toluene (M 18)
Toluene (Average)
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
m-Xylene (M 18)
p-Xylene (M 18)
m-/p-Xylene (Average)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene(M18)
o-Xylene (Average)
#/ton
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
ND
2.61e-07
4.02e-06
7.86e-06
ND
ND
9.58e-09
7.63e-06
6.06e-06
1.81e-05
2.33e-06
6.78e-06
#/ton
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
2.75e-07
3.22e-07
1.75e-06
2.43e-05
ND
ND
4.21e-08
3.05e-06
8.47e-06
1.65e-05
8.23e-07
6.98e-06
#/ton
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
6.13e-07
3.50e-07
3.48e-06
9.35e-06
ND
ND
1.06e-07
7.29e-06
ND
ND
2.62e-06
ND
#/ton
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
2.96e-07
3.11e-07
8.46e-06
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
5.26e-08
1.66e-05
3.26e-06
0.0%
0.0%
0.0073%
0.0077%
0.21%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0013%
0.41%
0.080%
a THC as propane, as measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train or equivalent sampling train.
b ND - Measured data below detection limits.
c TOC equals THC plus formaldehyde.
Values presented as O.OOe+00 had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency
corrected measured concentration.
4-296
-------
Table 4-36. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED LOAD-OUT
EMISSIONS - PLANT D
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (F)
Particulate Matter (PM)
MCEM
THC (ppm)
Run 1
10/5/98
-0.204
306.7
Ib/ton
2.11e-03
9.90e-04
6.16e-03
Run 2
10/6/98
-0.246
325.1
Ib/ton
1.93e-03
3.04e-04
3.47e-03
Run 3
10/7/98
-0.261
326.7
Ib/ton
8.33e-04
2.33e-04
3.13e-03
Average
-0.237
319.5
Ib/ton
1.62e-03
5.09e-04
4.25e-03
Deposition
Ib/ton
3.89e-05a
8.77e-06
a Calculated from data reported in Appendix C and Appendix D of the PES test report.
Table 4-37. LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS AT -0.5% LOSS ON HEATING AND 325 °Fa
Total Particulate
MCEM Particulate
Inorganic Particulate
THC
Plant C Silo filling
Ib/ton
5.85e-04
2.53e-04
3.32e-04
1.22e-02
Plant C Load-out
Ib/ton
3.43e-04
1.62e-04
1.81e-04
4.05e-03
Plant D Load-out
Ib/ton
1.67e-03
5.18e-04
1.15e-03
4.25e-03
a Particulate values represent the sum of the average values from sampling and deposition.
4-297
-------
Table 4-38. REPORTED PARTICULATE BASED SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by Weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
Particulate Matter (PM)a
MCEMa
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Run 1
-0.362
321
Ib/ton
5.95e-04
2.06e-04
Run 2
-0.322
316
Ib/ton
4.37e-04
1.60e-04
Ib/ton
4.38e-07
NDb
1.31e-07
3.92e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
1.48e-07
NDb
1.27e-07
1.38e-06
NDb
6.46e-06
1.84e-06
4.84e-08
2.24e-06
5.30e-07
Run 3
-0.284
291
Ib/ton
1.53e-04
3.51e-05
Ib/ton
2.46e-07
NDb
8.12e-08
3.77e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
1.41e-07
NDb
9.71e-08
4.93e-07
NDb
2.90e-06
1.04e-06
NDb
9.28e-07
2.46e-07
Run 4
-0.284
291
Ib/ton
4.56e-07
2.71e-08
1.16e-07
5.30e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
1.85e-08
1.97e-07
NDb
1.23e-07
7.89e-07
NDb
4.19e-06
1.60e-06
3.45e-08
1.48e-06
3.58e-07
a Particulate and MCEM particulate deposition data presented in the test report are 7.12 x 10 and
1.12 x 10 Ib/ton respectively.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-298
-------
Table 4-39. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating (RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (F)
Run 1
-0.362
321
Run 2
-0.322
316
Run 3
-0.284
291
THC
Methane
CO
Acetone
Ethylene
Ib/ton
5.3e-03
6.1e-05
5.2e-04
1.41e-06
2.2e-05
Ib/ton
6.4e-03
1.2e-06
1.4e-04
4.98e-06
2.1e-06
Ib/ton
4.2e-03
NDaa
6.4e-04
2.21e-06
9.4e-05
Volatile HAPs
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene (M 0030)
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3-Butadiene
2-Butanone
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 18)
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,2-Epoxybutane
Ethyl acrylate
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
2.53e-06
NDa
NDa
2.54e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
8.99e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
1.74e-06
NDa
NDa
5.51e-07
NDa
3.40e-06
2.29e-06
NDa
NDa
7.55e-07
NDa
2.80e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
1.15e-06
NDa
NDa
8.96e-08
NDa
2.02e-06
3.94e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
4.18e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
4-299
-------
Table 4-39 (cont.)
Volatile HAPs
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
2-Hexanone
lodomethane
Isooctane
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
Ib/ton
3.21e-06
1.3e-04
1.13e-05
NDa
NDa
7.09e-08
NDa
5.01e-09
no data
2.5e-09
NDa
NDa
5.57e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.79e-05
5.21e-06
Ib/ton
9.37e-07
2.9e-05
3.46e-06
NDa
NDa
2.43e-09
NDa
4.85e-08
no data
3.54e-07
NDa
NDa
2.01e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
5.12e-06
1.90e-06
Ib/ton
1.87e-06
NDa
3.45e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
no data
3.38e-07
NDa
NDa
2.69e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
8.91e-06
2.44e-06
a ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-300
-------
Table 4-40. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
Run 1
-0.362
321
Run 2
-0.322
316
Run 3
-0.284
291
Run 4
-0.284
291
Average
Speciation
Profile
Particulate Matter (PM)a
MCEMa
Ib/ton
7.01e-04
3.12e-04
Ib/ton
5.83e-04
3.06e-04
Ib/ton
2.53e-04
1.36e-04
Ib/ton
5.12e-04
2.51e-04
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
8.37e-07
NDb
2.50e-07
7.49e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
2.83e-07
NDb
2.43e-07
2.64e-06
NDb
1.23e-05
3.52e-06
9.25e-08
4.28e-06
l.Ole-06
Ib/ton
9.50e-07
NDb
3.14e-07
1.46e-07
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
5.44e-07
NDb
3.75e-07
1.90e-06
NDb
1.12e-05
4.02e-06
NDb
3.58e-06
9.50e-07
Ib/ton
1.76e-06
1.05e-07
4.48e-07
2.05e-07
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
7.14e-08
7.61e-07
NDb
4.75e-07
3.05e-06
NDb
1.62e-05
6.18e-06
1.33e-07
5.71e-06
1.38e-06
Ib/ton
1.18e-06
3.49e-08
3.37e-07
1.42e-07
2.38e-08
5.29e-07
3.64e-07
2.53e-06
1.32e-05
4.57e-06
7.52e-08
4.53e-06
1.12e-06
PAH/MCEM
(%)
0.47%
0.014%
0.13%
0.056%
0.0095%
0.21%
0.15%
1.01%
5.27%
1.82%
0.030%
1.80%
0.44%
a Adjusted Particulate and MCEM particulate deposition data presented in the test report are 7.26 x 10
and 2.49 x 10 Ib/ton respectively.
-5
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-301
-------
Table 4-41. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
Run 1
-0.362
321
Run 2
-0.322
316
Run 3
-0.284
291
Average
Speciation Profile
THC (ppm)a
Methane
Acetone
CO
Ethylene
TOCC
Ib/ton
8.03e-03
9.24e-05
2.14e-06
7.88e-04
3.33e-05
Ib/ton
1.22e-02
2.29e-06
9.52e-06
2.68e-04
4.01e-06
Ib/ton
1.62e-02
NDb
8.53e-06
2.47e-03
3.63e-04
Ib/ton
1.22e-02
3.16e-05
6.73e-06
1.18e-03
1.33e-04
1.22e-02
THC (%)
0.26%
0.055%
1.09%
Volatile HAP
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene (M 0030)
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3-Butadiene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 18)
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
3.83e-06
NDa
NDa
3.85e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.36e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
3.33e-06
NDa
NDa
1.05e-06
NDa
6.50e-06
4.38e-06
NDa
NDa
1.44e-06
NDa
5.35e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
4.44e-06
NDa
NDa
3.46e-07
NDa
7.80e-06
1.52e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.61e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
3.87e-06
5.95e-07
4.77e-06
1.97e-06
4.81e-07
2.78e-06
VOHAP/THC (%)
0.032%
0.0049%
0.039%
0.016%
0.0039%
0.023%
4-302
-------
Table 4-41 (cont.)
Volatile HAP
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,2-Epoxybutane
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
2-Hexanone
lodomethane
Isooctane
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
NDa
4.86e-06
1.97e-04
1.71e-05
NDa
NDa
1.07e-07
NDa
7.59e-09
NDa
3.79e-09
NDa
NDa
8.44e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
2.71e-05
7.89e-06
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.79e-06
5.54e-05
6.61e-06
NDa
NDa
4.65e-09
NDa
9.27e-08
NDa
6.77e-07
NDa
NDa
3.84e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
9.79e-06
3.63e-06
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
NDa
7.22e-06
NDa
1.33e-05
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.31e-06
NDa
NDa
1.04e-05
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
3.44e-05
9.42e-06
Ib/ton
4.63e-06
8.41e-05
1.24e-05
3.74e-08
3.34e-08
6.62e-07
7.56e-06
2.38e-05
6.98e-06
VOHAP/THC (%)
0.038%
0.69%
0.10%
0.00031%
0.00027%
0.0054%
0.062%
0.19%
0.057%
THC as propane, as measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train or equivalent sampling train.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
TOC equals THC plus formaldehyde.
4-303
-------
Table 4-42. PREDICTED AND ADJUSTED LOSS-ON-HEATING VALUES
Temperature
(°F)
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
California Asphalt
Predicted
RTFOT (%)
-0.0893
-0.1002
-0.1125
-0.1262
-0.1417
-0.1590
-0.1785
-0.2004
-0.2249
-0.2524
-0.2833
-0.3180
-0.3570
Adjusted to
-0.5 % RTFOT @ 325 °F
-0.1404
-0.1575
-0.1768
-0.1985
-0.2228
-0.2501
-0.2807
-0.3150
-0.3536
-0.3969
-0.4455
-0.5000
-0.5613
Massachusetts Asphalt
Predicted
RTFOT (%)
-0.0456
-0.0522
-0.0598
-0.0686
-0.0785
-0.0900
-0.1031
-0.1181
-0.1352
-0.1549
-0.1775
-0.2033
-0.2329
Adjusted to
-0.5 % RTFOT @ 325 °F
-0.1122
-0.1285
-0.1472
-0.1686
-0.1931
-0.2212
-0.2535
-0.2903
-0.3326
-0.3810
-0.4365
-0.5000
-0.5728
4-304
-------
Table 4-43. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC PARTICULATE-BASED COMPOUNDS
Pollutant
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Speciation Profile for Load-out
Emissions
PAH/MCEM (%)a
0.26%
0.028%
0.070%
0.019%
0.0076%
0.0022%
0.0019%
0.0023%
0.0078%
0.103%
0.00037%
0.050%
0.77%
0.00047%
2.38%
1.25%
0.022%
0.81%
0.15%
Speciation Profile for Silo Filling
and Asphalt Storage Tank
Emissions
PAH/MCEM (%)
0.47%
0.014%
0.13%
0.056%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.0095%
0.21%
NDb
0.15%
1.01%
NDb
5.27%
1.82%
0.030%
1.80%
0.44%
Other SVOHAPs
Phenol
1.18%
NDb
a Emission Factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound
by the emission factor for Organic Particulate.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-305
-------
Table 4-44. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC VOLATILE
ORGANIC-BASED COMPOUNDS
Pollutant
Methane
Acetone
Ethylene
Speciation Profile for
Load-Out and Yard Emissions.
COMPOUND/TOC (%)a
6.48%
0.046%
0.71%
Speciation Profile for Silo
Filling and Asphalt Storage
Tank Emissions
COMPOUND/TOC (%)
0.26%
0.055%
1.09%
VOHAPS
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3-Butadiene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 ,2-Epoxybutane
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
NDb
NDb
0.052%
NDb
NDb
0.0096%
NDb
0.049%
0.013%
NDb
NDb
0.00021%
NDb
0.015%
0.11%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.28%
0.088%
NDb
NDb
0.032%
NDb
NDb
0.0049%
NDb
0.039%
0.016%
NDb
NDb
0.0039%
NDb
0.023%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.038%
0.69%
4-306
-------
Table 4-44 (cont.)
Pollutant
n-Hexane
2-Hexanone
lodomethane
Isooctane
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Speciation Profile for
Load-Out and Yard Emissions.
COMPOUND/TOC (%)a
0.15%
NDb
NDb
0.0018%
NDb
0.0%
0.0%
0.0073%
NDb
0.0077%
0.21%
0.0%
NDb
0.0%
0.0013%
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.41%
0.080%
Speciation Profile for Silo
Filling and Asphalt Storage
Tank Emissions
COMPOUND/TOC (%)
0.10%
NDb
NDb
0.00031%
NDb
0.00027%
NDb
0.0054%
NDb
NDb
0.062%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.19%
0.057%
a Emission Factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound
by the emission factor for Total Organic Compounds (THC).
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
c Values presented as 0.0% had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency corrected
measured concentration.
4-307
-------
Table 4-45. SUMMARY OF CURVE-FITTING RESULTS FOR YARD EMISSIONS DATA
Equation (grams)
r-squared
Time = 5 min
Time = 8 min
Time =10 min
Linear Function
1.75*7 + 0.96
0.927
9.7 grams
15.0 grams
18.5 grams
Nonlinear (quadratic)
-0.025*TA2+ 1.96*7 + 0.64
0.928
9.8 grams
14.7 grams
17.7 grams
Nonlinear (power)
2.45*TA0.855
0.951
9.7 grams
14.5 grams
17.5 grams
Table 4-46. PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR YARD EMISSIONSa
Equation (Ib/ton)
Time = 5 min
Time = 8 min
Time =10 min
Linear Function
Ib/ton
1.33 E-04*7 + 7.30 E-05
7.37 E-04
1.14E-03
1.41 E-03
Nonlinear (quadratic)
Ib/ton
-1.90 E-06*TA2+ 1.49 E-04*T + 4.87 E-06
7.45 E-04
1.12 E-03
1.35 E-03
Nonlinear (power)
Ib/ton
1.86E-04*TA0.855
7.37 E-04
1.10 E-03
1.33 E-03
For the average asphalt load of 29 tons.
4-308
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0076,
Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Seattle, WA, November 1971.
2. Guide For Air Pollution Control Of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Information Series 17, National
Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.
3. R. M. Ingels, etal., "Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in Los Angeles County",
Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 70(l):29-33, January 1960.
4. H. E. Friedrich, "Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot Mix Asphalt Paving Batch
Plants", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 79(12):924-928, December 1969.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1973. Out of Print.
6. G. L. Allen, etal, "Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes in Los Angeles
County, California", Information Circular 7627, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC, April 1952.
7. P. A. Kenline, Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chemical process industries,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1959.
8. Private communication between G. Sallee, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, and U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1970.
9. J. A. Danielson, Unpublished test data from asphalt batching plants, Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District, Presented at Air Pollution Control Institute, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA, November 1966.
10. M. E. Fogel, et al., Comprehensive Economic Study Of Air Pollution Control Costs For
Selected Industries And Selected Regions, R-OU-455, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1970.
11. Preliminary Evaluation Of Air Pollution Aspects Of The Drum Mix Process,
EPA-340/1-77-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
1976.
12. R. W. Beaty and B. M. Bunnell, "The Manufacture of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures in the Dryer
Drum", Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Quebec
City, Quebec, November 19-21, 1973.
13. J. S. Kinsey, "An Evaluation of Control Systems and Mass Emission Rates from Dryer Drum
Hot Asphalt Plants", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 26(12): 1163-1165,
December 1976.
14. Background Information For Proposed New Source Performance Standards, APTD-1352A
and B, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.
4-309
-------
15. Background Information For New Source Performance Standards, EPA 450/2-74- 003, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1974.
O J ' O ? " J
16. Z. S. Kahn and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Asphalt Paving Hot Mix,
EPA-600/2-77-107n, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, December 1977.
17. V. P. Puzinauskas and L. W. Corbett, Report On Emissions From Asphalt Hot Mixes,
RR-75-1A, The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD, May 1975.
18. Evaluation Of Fugitive Dust From Mining, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, PEDCo
Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1976.
19. J. A. Peters and P. K. Chalekode, "Assessment of Open Sources", Presented at the Third National
Conference on Energy and the Environment, College Corner, OH, October 1, 1975.
20. Illustration of Dryer Drum Hot Mix Asphalt Plant, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Santa
Monica, CA, 1978.
21. Herman H. Forsten, "Applications of Fabric Filters to Asphalt Plants", Presented at the 71st
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston, TX, June 1978.
22. Emission Of Volatile Organic Compounds From Drum Mix Asphalt Plants, EPA-600/2-81-026,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1981.
23. J. S. Kinsey, Asphaltic Concrete Industry - Source Category Report, EPA-600/7-86-038, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1986.
24. Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #6, LaCrosse, Wisconsin, EMB File
No. 91-ASP-ll, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February
1992.
25. Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #26, New Richmond, Wisconsin,
EMB File No. 91-ASP-10, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
April 1992.
26. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill,
North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, February 1988.
27. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lee Paving Company, Aberdeen, North Carolina,
RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1989.
28. Stationary Source Sampling Report, S. T. Wooten Company, Drugstore, North Carolina,
Entropy Environmentalists Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1989.
29. Source Sampling Report For Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill, North Carolina,
Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, October 1988.
30. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Of Shelby, Inc., Kings Mountain,
North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.
4-310
-------
31. Emission Test Report, Western Engineering Company, Lincoln, Nebraska, EMB Report
83-ASP-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September
1984.
32. Source Sampling Report For Smith And Sons Paving Company, Pineola, North Carolina,
Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, June 1988.
33. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Superior Paving Company, Statesville, North
Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.
34. Report Of AB2588 Air Pollution Source Testing As Industrial Asphalt, Irwindale, California,
Engineering-Science, Inc., Pasadena, CA, September 1990.
35. A Comprehensive Emission Inventory Report As Required Under The Air Toxics Hot Spots
Information And Assessment Act Of 1987, CalmatCo., Fresno II Facility, Fresno California,
Engineering-Science, Inc., Pasadena, CA, September 1990.
36. Emission Test Report, Sloan Company, Cocoa, Florida, EMB Report 84-ASP-8, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1984.
37. Emission Test Report, T. J. Campbell Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, EMB Report
83-ASP-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1984.
3 8. Characterization Of Inhalable Particulate Matter Emissions From A Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant,
Final Report, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1983.
39. NAPA Stack Emissions Program, Interim Status Report, Prepared by Kathryn O'C. Gunkel for
the National Asphalt Pavement Association, February 1993.
40. Written communication from L. M. Weise, State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
to B. L. Strong, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, May 15, 1992.
41. Stationary Source Sampling Report, Alliance Contracting Corporation, Durham, North
Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1988.
42. Paniculate Emission Testing On The Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Inc., Biscoe, North
Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, November 1987.
43. Paniculate Emission Testing On The Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Inc., Concord,
North Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, June 1989.
44. Air Pollution Source Testing At APAC Of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 7, 1991.
45. Air Pollution Source Testing At Lehman Roberts Company, Memphis, Tennessee, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 23, 1991.
4-311
-------
46. Report Of Air Pollution Source Testing For Selected Air Toxics At Industrial Asphalt,
Wilmington, California, Engineering-Science, Inc., Irwindale, CA, August 5, 1992.
47. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Fred Weber, Inc., Maryland Heights,
Missouri, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1-4, 1994.
48. Emission Test Report Determination Of Particulate, Condensable Paniculate, Sulfur
Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Total Hydrocarbon, And Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Emission Rates, WW Engineering & Science, Grand Rapids, MI, January, 1994.
49. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Macasphalt, Melbourne, Florida, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 2-4, 1992.
50. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Macasphalt, Cross City, Florida, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 7-9, 1992.
51. Results Of The September 30, 1994 Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The Baghouse
Outlet Stack At The Northland Constructors Facility Located in Duluth, Minnesota, Pace, Inc.,
Golden Valley, MN, November 15, 1994.
52. Air Emission Test Report, Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test Performed On A
Asphalt Batch Plant Wet Scrubber System, Tri-City Paving, Inc., Little Falls, Minnesota,
May 11, 1993, Twin City Testing Corporation, St. Paul, MN, June 7, 1993.
53. Results Of The Particulate Emissions Compliance Test On The Baghouse Stack At Thorson,
Inc., Roseau, Minnesota, Nova Environmental Services, Inc., Chaska, MN, November 16, 1993.
54. Results Of The August 5, 1994 NSPSParticulate And Opacity Test On The Mark Sand &
Gravel No. 8 Portable Asphalt Plant Near Fergus Falls, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, November 22, 1994.
55. Results Of The September 8, 1993 Particulate And Visual Emission Compliance Test On The
Baghouse Outlet At The Commercial Asphalt Company Facility Located in Ramsey,
Minnesota, Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 21, 1993.
56. Results Of The September 1, 1993 10 Micron Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The
Baghouse Stack At The Commercial Asphalt Redrock Facility Located in Newport, Minnesota,
Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 23, 1993.
57. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated by L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, June 18, 1993.
58. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated by L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, July 20, 1993.
4-312
-------
59. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, July 28, 1993.
60. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, September 2, 1993.
61. Results Of The August 3, 1993 State Paniculate Emission Compliance Test Of The
Stationary Asphalt Plant In Oronoco, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
August 31, 1993.
62. Results Of The July 7, 1994 Particulate And Opacity Emission Compliance Testing Of The
Shamrock Enterprises Stationary Asphalt Plant In Oronoco, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories,
Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 5, 1994.
63. Braun Intertec Report Number CMXX-94-0548, Braun Intertec Corporation, Mendota Heights,
MN, September, 1994.
64. Results Of The July 6, 1994 P articulate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The No. 2
Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed South Of Mankato, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, August 5, 1994.
65. Results Of The August 29, 1994 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The Baghouse
Outlet Stack At The Northland Constructors Facility Located In Twig, Minnesota, Pace, Inc.,
Golden Valley, MN, September 21, 1994.
66. Air Emission Test Report, Results Of Emission Compliance Test Performed On A Asphalt Plant
Baghouse System, Northern Asphalt Construction, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 17,
1993, Twin City Testing Corporation, St. Paul, MN, September 16, 1993.
67. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Test Conducted On The
Buffalo Bituminous Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Hanover, Minnesota, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, June 17, 1993.
68. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The No. 7Portable
Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Appleton, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines,
MN, July 7, 1993.
69. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The No. 7 Portable
Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Appleton, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines,
MN, July 7, 1993.
70. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, W. Hodgman & Sons, Inc., Northrup, Minnesota,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 11, 1993.
71. Results Of The June 17, 1993 NSPS Particulate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The
Bemidji Blacktop Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed North Of Bemidji, Minnesota, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 28, 1993.
4-313
-------
72. Results Of The June 21, 1993 NSPSPaniculate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The
T. A. Schifsky & Sons Stationary Asphalt Plant Located In North St. Paul, Minnesota, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 22, 1993.
73. Results Of The September 30, 1994 NSPS Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The
River City Portable Asphalt Plant Located in Hugo, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, October 26, 1994.
74. Results Of The Paniculate Emissions Testing On The Baghouse Stacks AtMarcoux &
Warroad, Minnesota, Nova Environmental Services, Inc., Chaska, MN, September 28, 1993.
75. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By Lakes Area
Asphalt, Inc., Brainerd, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
November 7, 1994.
76. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By
C. S. McCrossan, Maple Grove, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
November 17, 1994.
77. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix, Inc., Annandale, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St.
Paul, MN, June 23, 1994.
78. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By L. C. Kruse
& Sons, Inc., Near Adrian, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
August 26, 1994.
79. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By River Bend
Asphalt Company, Kasota, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
October 21, 1994.
80. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Scrubber Operated By
Elk River Bituminous, Elk River, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
November 10, 1993.
81. Braun Intertec Report Number CMXX-94-0518, Braun Intertec Corporation, Mendota Heights,
MN, October 10, 1994.
82. Results Of The September 9, 1993 Particulate And Visual Emission Compliance Test On The
Baghouse Stack At The Ulland Brothers, Inc. Facility Located In Shellrock Township,
Minnesota, Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 21, 1993.
83. Results Of The August 24, 1994 NSPS Particulate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The
Stationary Asphalt Plant At The Tower Asphalt Lakeland Facility, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, September 22, 1994.
84. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Paving Materials Supply, Baltimore County,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June, 1984.
4-314
-------
85. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, 'North East Hot Mix. Company Division Of James
Julian, Inc., Belair, Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May
28, 1987.
86. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corporation, Brooklyn,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 3 & 4, 1989.
87. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Bituminous Construction, Inc., Odenton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June, 1987.
88. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Bituminous Construction, Inc., Crofton, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August, 1986.
89. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5527, C. Nelson Sigmon Paving Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Conover, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, May 27, 1987.
90. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5474, Adams Construction Company, Batch
Mix Asphalt Plant, Benson, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle
Park, NC, April 22, 1987.
91. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Company, Hickory, North
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 21, 1988.
92. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5569, Cumberland Paving Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Princeton, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, June 29, 1987.
93. Particulate Emissions Test, Asphalt Plant, Carl Rose & Sons, May 20, 1992, Elkin, North
Carolina, Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, May, 1992.
94. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Maryland Paving, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, November, 1985.
95. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Mattingly Construction Company, Easton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June, 1984.
96. Stack Test Report No. AM39 82-22, F. O. Day Co., Inc., Boeing MS 400 Asphalt Plant,
Forrestville, Maryland, Division of Air Monitoring, State of Maryland, December 21, 1982.
97. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Reliable Contracting Asphalt Division, Gambrills,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 17, 1984.
98. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, R. F. Kline, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 9 & 10, 1986.
99. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, James Julian, Inc., North East, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August, 1984.
4-315
-------
100. Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Asphaltic Aggregate Dryer Stack, Glasgow
Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, June, 1989.
101. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Genstar Stone Products, Cockeysville, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July, 1984.
102. Source Sampling Report For Blythe Industries, Inc., Graham, North Carolina, Pace, Inc.,
Charlotte, NC, August, 1990.
103. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, A.P.A.C.-North Carolina, Burlington, North
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April, 1991.
104. Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 6780, Barnhill Contracting Company, Rocky
Mount, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, June 11,
1990.
105. Compliance Field Test Report For Outerbanks Contracting Asphalt Plant, Plymouth, NC,
Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1987.
106. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Paolino Paving And Supply, Inc., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 3, 1987.
107. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Basic Construction Company, Newport News,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July, 1989.
108. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Bituminous Construction Company, Crofton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May, 1986.
109. Stack Test Report No. 84-3, James Julian, Inc., Boeing Drum Mix Asphalt Plant, North East,
Cecil County, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, State of Maryland, May, 1984.
110. Stationary Source Sampling Of Paniculate Emissions At Wake Asphalt Plant For Nello L. Teer
Company, Apex Environmental Services, Apex, NC, August 29, 1990.
111. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Barrus Construction Company, Deppe, North
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 12, 1990.
112. Source Sampling Report For Blythe Industries, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina, Environmental
Testing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, October, 1989.
113. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Quality Materials, Edison, New Jersey, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 27 & 30, 1989.
114. Source Sampling Report For Thompson Contractors, Inc., Asphalt Plant Baghouse Stack,
Rutherfordton, North Carolina, Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, April, 1990.
115. Paniculate Emission Testing, Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Hendersonville, North
Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, May 10, 1988.
4-316
-------
116. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5630, REA Construction Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, August 21, 1987.
117. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Superior Asphalt, Bealeton, Virginia, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 27, 1989.
118. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Henry S. Branscome, Inc., Suffolk, Virginia,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 18, 1989.
119. Source Emissions Survey Of F. R. Lewis Construction Co., Inc., Asphalt Concrete Drum-Mix
Plant, Nacogdoches, Texas, METCO, Addison, TX, November, 1984.
120. An Investigation Of Emissions At The Erie St. Drum Mix Asphalt Plant, Engineering-Science,
Inc., Fairfax, VA, May, 1988.
121. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Blakemore Construction Company, Piney River,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May, 1989.
122. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, B & S Contracting Company, North
Harrisonburg, Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 21, 1990.
123. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Barb & Shumaker, Inc., Abingdon, Virginia,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 29, 1987.
124. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, B & S Contracting Company, Stuarts Draft,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 4, 1990.
125. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Maryland Paving, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 19, 1986.
126. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, R. F. Kline, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 9 & 10, 1986.
127. Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Particulate Emissions At PAPCO Asphalt Plant #5,
Apex Environmental Services, Salisbury, NC, May 9, 1991.
128. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, R.E. Heidt Construction Company, West Lake,
Louisiana, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, March 24, 1987.
129. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, APAC - Virginia, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 30, 1987.
130. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Corun & Gatch, Inc., Aberdeen, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 14, 1988.
131. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Hollow ay Construction Company, Hancock,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October, 1984.
4-317
-------
132. Source Sampling For F'articulate Emissions, Genstar Stone Products, Cockeysville, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, November, 1985.
133. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Genstar Stone Products, Frederick, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July, 1987.
134. TACB Testing Of Asphaltic Concrete Plant Stack Emissions, Wood Material Supply, Inc.,
Conroe, Texas, NUS Corporation, Houston, TX, July, 1987.
135. Source Sampling Report For Thompson-Arthur Paving Company, Greensboro, North Carolina,
Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, September, 1990.
136. Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 8116, S.T. Wooten Company, Princeton,
North Carolina, Particulate Emissions And Plume Opacity Testing, Rotary Dryer Stack,
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1, 1990.
137. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Wilmington Materials Company, New Castle,
Delaware, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May, 1987.
138. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Williams Corporation Of Virginia, Suffolk,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 12, 1989.
139. Particulate Emission Testing On The Scrubber Exhaust, Triangle Paving, Inc., Burlington,
North Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, November 16, 1990.
140. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, American Asphalt Of Wisconsin, Plant #2, Arnott,
Wisconsin, Mathy Construction Company, Onalaska, WI, May 21, 1991.
141. Report To Appleton Asphalt For Stack Emission Test, Green Bay Asphalt Plant, DePere,
Wisconsin, Environmental Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI,
May 20, 1991.
142. Report To Frank Brothers, Inc., For Stack Emission Test, CMI Drum Mix Asphalt Plant,
Milton, Wisconsin, Environmental Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI,
July 29, 1987.
143. Biehl Construction Asphalt Plant Emission Test At Fon du Lac, WI, Badger Laboratories &
Engineering Company, Inc., Appleton, WI, September 19, 1991.
144. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Baraboo Asphalt Company, Baraboo, Wisconsin,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 9, 1988.
145. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Brown County Highway Department, Green Bay,
Wisconsin, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 2, 1990.
146. Report To W. J. Kennedy & Son, Inc., For Stack Emission Test, Bituma 300 Plant, Janesville,
Wisconsin, Environmental Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI,
November 13, 1991.
4-318
-------
147. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Eau Claire Asphalt, Plant #50, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin, Mathy Construction Company, Onalaska, WI, May 30, 1990.
148. Source Test Report For Popejoy Construction Co., Inc., Ulysses, KS, Scrubber Exhaust Stack,
Recycle Asphalt Plant, Turner Engineering, Inc., Dallas, TX, July 9, 1984.
149. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Hudson Materials, Inc., Flanders, New Jersey,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, November, 1988.
150. STA Seal, Inc., Emission Compliance Test Program, Mansfield Township Facility, Air Nova,
Inc., Pennsauken, NJ, January, 1992.
151. Trap Rock Industries, Inc., Emission Compliance Test Program, Pennington Facility, Air Nova,
Inc., Pennsauken, NJ, January, 1992.
152. Technical Report For Stack Emission Compliance Testing On Three Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Owned And Operated by Weldon Asphalt Company, York Services Corporation, Stamford, CT,
September 26, 1991.
153. Report Of Emission Tests, Weldon Asphalt Corporation, Linden, New Jersey, N.J.D.E.P. ID
No. 040015, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental
Quality, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, September 4, 1987.
154. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Weldon Asphalt, Linden, New Jersey, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 25, 1988.
155. Stack Test Report, Hydrocarbon & Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Quality Materials, Inc,
Edison, NJ, Ecodynamics, Inc., Little Silver, NJ, November 20, 1989.
156. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Tri-County Asphalt Corporation, Baghouse Outlet
Stack (Plant 3), Lake Hopatcong, NJ, Recon Systems, Inc., Raritan, NJ, January 24, 1992.
157. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Tri-County Asphalt Corporation, Scrubber Outlet
Stack (Plant 4), Lake Hopatcong, NJ, Recon Systems, Inc., Raritan, NJ, January 24, 1992.
158. CO/THC Compliance Stack Emission Test Results, Burlington Asphalt Corporation, Mount
Holly, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Air Quality
Regulations Program, Bureau of Technical Services, West Trenton, NJ, May 29, 1992.
159. CO/THC Compliance Stack Emission Test Results, Brunswick Hot Mix Corporation, South
Brunswick, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Air
Quality Regulations Program, Bureau of Technical Services, West Trenton, NJ, June 8, 1992.
160. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Hudson Materials, Inc., Ringwood, New Jersey,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September, 1987.
161. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Jackson Asphalt And Concrete Company,
Jackson, New Jersey, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1, 1988.
4-319
-------
162. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At Claude C. Wood Company, Clements,
California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA, January 22, 1991.
163. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test A t Granite Construction Company Asphalt
Concrete Drum-Mix Plant, Sacramento, California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA,
January 29, 1991.
164. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At California Commercial Asphalt
Corporation, San Diego, California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA, January 29,
1991.
165. Source Emission Evaluation At Ace Paving Company, Inc. Barber Greene Asphalt Plant
Baghouse Stack Method 5 Testing, AM Test, Preston, WA, July 21, 1993.
166. Source Test Summary Of Emission To Atmosphere At Acme Concrete Co., Inc., Richmond, WA
Washington Department of Ecology, April 7, 1987.
167. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Ajax Materials Corp., Detroit, MI, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 13, 1988.
168. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions At Ajax Paving Industries Intenter Rd. Romulus,
MI, Ramcon Environmental Corp. Memphis, TN, August 10, 1992.
169. Stack Sampling Report For American Asphalt Paving Co., Shavertown, PA, Recon Systems Inc.,
Three Bridges, NJ, October 17, 1983.
170. Source Test Of Particulate Emissions To The Atmosphere At Asphalt, Inc. Lakeside, CA, San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, December 12, 1989.
171. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions Better Materials Corp., Penns Park, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 31, 1988.
172. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions Bi-Co Paving Co., Ragley, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 23, 1987.
173. Air Emissions Source Test Report At Associated Sand And Gravel Co., Inc., Everett, WA, Valid
Results Air Emissions Testing Specialist, Seattle, WA, November 10, 1993.
174. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions B. P. Short & Sons Paving Co., Lawrenceville, VA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 20, 1988.
175. Particulate Emissions Test Barber Brothers Constr., Houma, LA, State of Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA, November 3, 1989.
176. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Particulate Emissions Barrett Paving materials,
Inc. Lebanon, OH, Hayden Environmental Group, Inc. Dayton, OH, June 7, 1994.
4-320
-------
177. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Particulate And Lead
Emissions From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Troy, OH, Hayden Environmental
Group, Inc, June 3 0,1994.
178. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead
Emissions From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Fairborne, OH, Hayden
Environmental Group, Inc. Dayton, OH July 6, 1994.
179. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable P articulate And Lead
Emissions From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Sidney, OH, Hayden
Environmental Group, Dayton, OH, August 26, 1994.
180. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Bowen Construction Co., Lees Summit, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 24, 1989.
181. Report Of Paniculate And Visible Emission Testing At Berks Products Corp. Asphalt Batch
Plant, Ontelauee Township PA, Sports, Stevens and McCorp, Inc., April 3, 1992.
182. Source Emissions Report For C. B. Asphalt, Inc. Asphalt Facility Huntington, MO, Airsource
Technologies Lenexa, KS, May 5, 1993.
183. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead Emissions Barrett
Paving, Materials, Inc., Sidney, OH, Hayden Environmental group Inc. Dayton, OH, November
4, 1994.
184. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Paniculate Emission Rates From The Asphalt
Plant Butler Asphalt Fairborn, OH, Hayden Environmental Group Inc. Dayton, OH August 3,
1994.
185. Report On The results Of Velocity Profile And Paniculate Loading Tests performed At V. R.
Dennis Canyon Rock Co. San Diego, CA, San Diego Air Pollution Control District Dan Diego,
CA, September 17, 1985.
186. Stack Emissions Survey Dolphin construction Co., Calhoun, LA, Western Environmental
Services and Testing , Inc. Beaumont, TX, April 1987.
187. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions Curtman Contracting, Inc. Owensville, MO,
Ramcon Memphis, TN, October 16,1989.
188. Particulate Emission Testing Asphalt Plant Baghouse Springfield Pike Quarry Commercial
Stone, Connellsville, PA, Comprehensive Safety Compliance, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA, August 24,
1990.
189. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions City Wide Asphalt Company Sugar Creek, MO,
Ramcon, Memphis, TN, April 16, 1991.
190. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions City Wide Asphalt Co., Inc. St. Joseph, MO,
Ramcon, Memphis, TN, October 18, 1988.
4-321
-------
191. Stack Emissions Survey Chester Bross Construction Co. Asphalt Concrete Drum-Mix Plant
Plattsburg, MO, Western Environmental Services and Testing, Inc. Casper, WY, August 24,
1993.
192. Paniculate And Visible Emission Test For Camdenton County Asphalt Production, Asphalt
Drum Mixers, Camdenton, MO, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, July 25,
1990.
193. Report Of Air Pollution Source Testing For Paniculate Matter At Calmat (Industrial Asphalt
Corp.) Pala Indian Reservation, Pala, CA, Engineering Science, Irwindale, CA, February 25,
1990.
194. Source Test Of Particulate Emissions To The Atmosphere At Calmat Co., Pala, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 17, 1989.
195. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions At Wyoming Sand & Stone, Wilkes-Barre, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 14, 1988.
196. Source Test Of Particulate Emissions To The Atmosphere At California Commercial Asphalt
Corp., San Diego, CA, San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, March 19,
1990.
197. Summary Of Source Test Results At Kaiser Sand & Gravel Pleasanton, CA, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, May 20, 1991.
198. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions At F. G. Sullivan Co., Inc. Port Allen, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., October 21, 1992.
199. Source sampling For Particulate Emissions At H&B Batch-Mix Baghouse, Fred Weber Inc.
Pevely, MO, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 19, 1993.
200. Source Test Report Particulate Emissions Faylor Middlecreed, Winfield, PA, Mease
Engineering Assoc. State College, PA, August 1987.
201. Source Test Report Paniculate Emissions Faylor Middle Creek, Winfield, PA, Mease
Engineering Assoc., State College, PA, June 1988.
202. Report Of Particulate And Visible Emissions Testing HRI, Inc. Testing Performed On Asphalt
Batch Plant Baghouse Exhaust Stack, The General Crushed Stone Co. Lake Ariel, PA, SSM,
August 14-15, 1991.
203. Source sampling Report For Measurement Of Particulate Emissions Glasgow, Inc. Catanach
Facility, Batch Asphalt Plant, Gilbert Commonwealth, Inc. Reading, PA August, 1990.
204. Summary Of Source Test Results At Dumbarton Quarry Assoc., Fremont, CA, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, June 23, 1992.
205. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions F. G. Sullivan Co., Ramcon Environmental Corp.,
Memphis, TN March 6 & 7, 1991.
4-322
-------
206. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Cyclean, Inc. Mt. Hope, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 15, 1992.
207. Summary Of Source Test Results At Chevron USA, Inc., Richmond, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA, April 24, 1990.
208. Source Test Summary Emissions To Atmosphere At Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, November 23,1983.
209. Compliance Emission Test Coatings Asphalt Plant Baghouse At Charles Oliver & Sons,
Coalinga, CA, ETC Environmental Inc., Ventura, CA, July 13, 1993.
210. Source Sampling Report For Measurement Of Particulate, Visible And VOC Emissions At E.
J. Breneman, Inc. Sinking Spring, PA, Gilbert/ Commonwealth, Inc. Reading, PA, July 1992.
211. Central Valley Asphalt Compliance Stact Test Program At Central Valley Asphalt Division Of
Glenn O. Hawraker, Inc. Pleasant Gap, PA, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc.
Monroeville, PA, July 1990.
212. Compliance Test Program Scrubber Exhaust Stack At Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. State College,
PA, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc., Monroeville, PA, August 1991.
213. Compliance Test Rotary Drier Baghouse At Granite Construction, Goleta, CA, ETC
Environmental, Inc. Ventura, CA, May 8, 1990.
214. Source Testing At Granite Construction, Pitchaco, CA, EWE Associates, Inc. Medford, OR,
June 10, 1991.
215. Summary Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co. San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA October 3, 1989.
216. Summary Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co., San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Jose, CA, October 18, 1990.
217. Summary Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co., San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA September 13,1992.
218. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions Great Valley Construction Co., Devault, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, December 18, 1987.
219. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions At Haines & Kibblehouse, Blooming Glen, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 11, 1987.
220. Source Sampling Report For Measurement Of Particulate Emissions, Haines And Kibblehouse
Asphalt Batch Plant Chalpont, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, February 10,
1992.
221. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions HandweekMaterials, Inc. Hummelstown, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 14, 1988.
4-323
-------
222. Paniculate Emission Testing Of The Hastings Pavement Asphalt Plant, Leesport, PA, JMCA
Corp., Fort Washington, PA, May 1986.
223. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions L. A. Construction Corp., Bigler, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 29, 1987.
224. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L.A. Construction Corp., Port Alleghany, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 13, 1990.
225. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions I. A. Construction Corp. Punxsutawney, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 11, 1990 .
226. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Calmat (Industrial Asphalt),Pala Indian Reserve.,
CA., Engineering Science, Irwindale, CA, March 18, 1991.
227. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,Fresno, CA, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control, Fresno, CA, June 1, 1993.
228. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,Fresno, CA, Genesis
Environmental Services Co., Bakersfield, CA, May 12, 1992.
229. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,Fresno, CA, Genesis
Environmental Services Co., Bakersfield, CA, May 27, 1992.
230. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp., Vista, CA, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 24, 1987.
231. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 6, 1989.
232. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, January 24, 1990.
233. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 23, 1991.
234. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 21, 1991.
235. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Windsor Service, Reading, PA, United Energy
Services Corp., Reading, PA, October 21, 1992.
236. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp., Vista, CA, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 9, 1990.
237. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp., Vista, CA, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, September 17, 1991.
4-324
-------
238. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Inland Asphalt Co., Spokane, WA, Spokane
County Air Pollution Control Authority, Spokane, WA, August 15, 1985.
239. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, International Mill Service, Coatesville, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading PA, May 26-27, 1988.
240. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, James Julian, Inc.,Perry Township, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, October 16, 1991.
241. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, James Julian, Inc., Perry Township, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, June 25, 1992.
242. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, King Brothers, Inc., Moundsville, WV, TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, September 3-4, 1987.
243. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Plain Dealing, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 25, 1987.
244. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 6, 1989.
245. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 10, 1989.
246. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon,
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 8, 1993.
247. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lakeside Industries Barber Green Asphalt Plant,
Aberdeen, WA, Am Test, Inc., Redmond, WA, May 25, 1988.
248. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Kent, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, June 7-8, 1994.
249. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Lacey, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Seattle, WA, July 18, 1985.
250. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Shelton, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, June 3, 1992.
251. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Monroe, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, September 23, 1993.
252. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Port Angeles, WA, Am Test,
Inc., Seattle, WA, September 10, 1985.
253. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Monroe, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, July 26, 1993.
4-325
-------
254. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lash Paving And Excavating, Inc., Martins Ferry,
OH, Tra-Det, Inc., Wheeling, WV, October 14-15, 1992.
255. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Latrobe Construction Co., Latrobe, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, April 25, 1990.
256. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Leo Journagan Construction Co., Springfield,
MO, Aeromet Engineering Inc., Jefferson City, MO, July 20, 1994.
257. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lincoln Asphalt Paving, Inc., Ruston, LA,
Ramcon, Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 8, 1986.
258. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lincoln Asphalt Paving, Inc., Ruston, LA,
Ramcon, Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 19, 1990.
260. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lindy Paving, Inc., New Castle, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, May 13-14, 1992.
261. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Looker & Associates, Puyallup, WA, Am Test Inc.,
Preston, WA, September 8, 1994.
262. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, M.A. Segale, Inc., Tukwila, WA, Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency, Corvallis, OR, March 13, 1985.
263. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Marsh Asphalt, Inc., Uniontown, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, September 20-21, 1990.
264. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Marsolino Asphalt, Inc., Carmichaels, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, June 17, 1988.
265. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Martin Limestone, Inc., Blue Ball, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, September 6, 1989.
266. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Butler, MO, Ramcon,
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 9, 1987.
267. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Springfield, MO,
AirSource Technologies, Lenexa, KA, August 5-6, 1991.
268. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Woodworth & Company, Inc., Tacoma, WA, Am
Test, Inc., Redmond, WA, September 6, 1990.
270. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Buffalo, MO, Aeromet
Engineering, Inc., Jefferson City, MO, July 21, 1994.
271. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, McMinn s Asphalt Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, October 9, 1987.
4-326
-------
272. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, McMinn s Asphalt Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, July 17, 1990.
273. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Millcreek Township Asphalt Plant, Erie, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, June 23, 1991.
274. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, N.B. West Contracting Co., Brentwood, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 21, 1993.
275. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, New Enterprise Stone And Lime Co., Inc., New
Enterprise, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Pittsburgh, PA, October 19, 1988.
276. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Ohio Valley Paving Corp., Morristown, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August, 18, 1988.
277. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, February, 13, 1978.
278. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 3, 1990.
279. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, August 26, 1992.
280. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, September 5, 1991.
281. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Richardson & Bass Construction Co., Columbia,
MO, Aeromet Engineering, Jefferson City, MO, October 12, 1993.
282. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Southern Ohio Asphalt, Spring Valley, OH, The
Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, May 13, 1994.
283. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc., San Rafael, CA,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CAA, June 1, 1992.
284. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Sharp Excavating And Blacktopping, Shelocta,
PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Pittsburgh, PA, May 29, 1986.
285. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, July 30, 1991.
286. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, October 20, 1992.
287. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, CA, July 31, 1991.
4-327
-------
288. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, October 20, 1992.
289. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, September 19, 1991.
290. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, South Coast-Escondido, Escondido, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, September 16, 1992.
291. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., Fair field, OH,
The Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, November 12, 1990.
292. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., Fair field, OH,
The Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, November 6, 1991.
293. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., Fair field, OH,
The Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, March 25, 1993.
294. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Stabler Construction Co., Dupont, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 8, 1987.
295. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Stoneco, Inc., Maumee, OH, U. S. Environmental
Consulting, Inc., Troy, MI, June 11, 1992.
296. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Superior Asphalt, Lee s Summit, MO, AirSource
Technologies, Lenexa, KA, June 15, 1993.
297. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Syar Industries, Inc., Vallego, CA, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, April 4, 1990.
298. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, T.L. James Paving Co., Monroe, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, November 12, 1991.
299. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, T.L. James Paving Co., Opelousa, LA, Department
of Environment Quality, Baton Rouge, LA, April 22, 1989.
300. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Belleville, MI, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 17, 1987.
301. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Detroit, MI, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 7, 1988.
302. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Belleville, MI, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 29, 1988.
303. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, T. P. C . Paving And Supply, Delmont, PA,
Comprehensive Safety Compliance, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, May 31, 1990.
4-328
-------
304. Source Sampling For P articulate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Weir ton, WV, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 24, 1986.
305. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Washington, PA, Hemeon
Associates, Pittsburgh, PA, July 7, 1987.
306. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Wheeling, WV, West Virginia
Air Pollution Control Commission, Wheeling, WV, April 24, 1986.
307. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, V. R. Dennis-Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA,
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, December 16, 1991.
308. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, V. R. Dennis-Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA,
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 8, 1992.
309. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #5, Morrow, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp.,Memphis, TN, September 20, 1994.
310. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp.,Plant #3, Ross, OH, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 14, 1991.
311. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #9, Sharonville, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 19, 1989.
312. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #17, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 6, 1988.
313. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #5, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 27, 1991.
314. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #9, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 21, 1994.
315. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #20, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 23-24, 1992.
316. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #18, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 3, 1993.
317. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #17, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 6, 1988.
318. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #11, Xenia, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 23, 1993.
319. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #6, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 11, 1993.
4-329
-------
320. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #7, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 14, 1993.
321. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walls Bros. Asphalt Corp., Ansonia, OH, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 29, 1992.
322. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walls Bros. Asphalt & Manufacturing, Inc.,
Brookville, OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 2, 1991.
323. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, W.C. Hargis & Son, Brazil, IN, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 15, 1990.
324. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Herbert R. Imbt. Inc., Bellefonte, PA, Mease
Engineering Associates, State College, PA, July 26-27, 1988.
325. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Blue Top Grading, Colorado Springs, CO, WV
Air Pollution Control Commission, Charleston, WV, May 14-15, 1986.
326. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Hi-Line Asphalt Paving Co.,Inc., Seattle, WA, Am
Test, Seattle, WA, August 9, 1985.
327. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Highway Materials Inc., Philadelphia, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, July 26-27, 1989.
328. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Highway Materials, Inc., Plant #15,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, October 16-17, 1990.
329. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Highway Materials, Inc., Reading, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, October 22-23, 1986.
330. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Walsh & Kelly, Port Of Indiana, IN, Ramcon
Environmental, Memphis, TN, October 31, 1991.
331. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Watson Asphalt Paving Co.,Inc., Redmond, WA,
Am Test, Redmond, WA, September 21, 1990.
332. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Weidle Sand & Gravel, Germantown, OH, Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc., mason, OH, May 25, 1994.
333. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Wilson Blacktop Co., Martins Ferry Co., TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, July 1 & 3, 1987.
334. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Wilson Blacktop Co., Martins Ferry Co., TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, June 15, 1993.
335. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Willard Asphalt Paving Co., Lebanon, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 9-10, 1994.
4-330
-------
336. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wine Construction Co., Sewickley, PA, Hemeon
Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, June 30, 1992.
337. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, WinfordCo., Bossier City, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 1, 1986.
338. REFERENCE NUMBER DELETED-NOT USED.
339. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A,
Clayton, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-00-020, April 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer
Stack, Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A, Clayton, North Carolina, Volume 1 Of 2,
EPA-454/R-00-021a, April 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Manual
Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A, Clayton, North Carolina, Volume 2 Of 2,
EPA-454/R-00-021b, April 2000.
340. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B,
Gary, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-00-022, April 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer
Stack, Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B, Gary, North Carolina, Volume 1 Of 2,
EPA-454/R-00-023a, April 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Manual
Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B, Cary, North Carolina, Volume 2 Of 2, EPA-454/R-00-023b,
April 2000.
341. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 5 Asphalt Plant, Verona, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, October 24, 1995.
342. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 6 Asphalt Plant, Vienna, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 18, 1995.
343. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 7 Asphalt Plant, Franklin, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 21, 1995.
344. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 24 Asphalt Plant, Kiel, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, October 5, 1995.
345. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 26 Asphalt Plant, Fish Creek, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, May 13, 1997.
346. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 28 Asphalt Plant, Freedom, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, September 27, 1995.
347. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 52 Asphalt Plant, Rio, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, June 30, 1995.
348. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 59 Asphalt Plant, Wautoma, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 16, 1996.
349. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 63 Asphalt Plant, Larsen, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, August 2, 1996.
4-331
-------
350. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 65 Asphalt Plant, Green Bay, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 15, 1997.
351. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 68 Asphalt Plant, Menasha, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, June 24, 1997.
352. Measurement Of NO Emissions, General Crushed Stone, Inc., Glen Mills Asphalt Plant
Baghouse Exhaust, Easton, PA, United Energy Services Corp., Reading, PA, June 27, 1995.
353. Measurement Of NOx And VOC Emissions, General Crushed Stone, Inc., Glen Mills #2
Asphalt Plant Baghouse Exhaust, Easton, PA, United Energy Services Corp., Reading, PA,
November 10, 1995.
354. J. S. Gammie, Compliance Test Report, Hot Mix, Inc./Fuller Sand & Gravel, Inc., Baghouse
Exhaust, Danby, VT, Environmental Risk Limited, Bloomfield, CT, November 1995.
355. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading And Silo Filling, Instrumental Methods Testing,
Asphalt Plant C, Los Angeles, California, EPA-454/R-00-024, May 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt
Plants, Truck Loading And Silo Filling, Manual Methods Testing, Volumes 1 To 8, Asphalt
Plant C, Los Angeles, California, EPA-454/R-00-025a to h, May 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt
Plants, Technical Systems Audit For Testing A t Asphalt Plant C, Asphalt Plant C, Los Angeles,
California, EPA-454/R-00-026, May 2000.
356. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant D, Barre,
Massachusetts, EPA-454/R-00-027, May 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading,
Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant D, Barre, Massachusetts, EPA-454/R-00-028,
May 2000.
357. Written communication from R. Nadkarni to Chief, Emission Factor and Methodologies Section,
USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 7, 1994.
358. Pretest Survey And Screening Report Plant C.
359. W. K. Steinmetz and L. P. Cherry, Division Of Air Quality, Toxics Protection Branch, Air
Toxics Analytical Team, Analytical Investigation Of Inman Asphalt Terminal, Salisbury, North
Carolina, Rowan County, Investigation #98015, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, June 8, 1998.
360. J. R. Bowyer, A Study To Determine An Emission Rate Of Benzene From Asphalt Load-out,
ATAST #98026, Final Report (Revised), Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, 1998.
361. C. Lutes, R. Thomas, and R. Burnette, Evaluation Of Emissions From Paving Operations,
Final Report, EPA 600/R-94-135, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, August 1994.
362. Asphalt Hot Mix Emission Study, March Report 75-1 (RR-75-1), The Asphalt Institute, College
Park, MD, March 1975.
4-332
-------
363. P. Kariher, M. Tufts, and L. Hamel, Evaluation Of VOC Emissions From Heated Roofing
Asphalt, EPA 600/2-91-061, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, November 1991
364. Emission Testing, July 9-11, 1996, Job Number 1030, AIRx Testing, Ventura, CA, July 23,
1996.
365. Personal email communication, J. Wood, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Boston, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 15, 1999.
366. Personal email communication, K. Lane, Connecticut Department of Transportation , Hartford,
CT, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 18, 1999.
367. Personal email communication, K. Lane, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Hartford,
CT, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 19, 1999.
368. Personal email communication, W. Medford, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Raleigh, NC, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, October 20, 1999.
369. Personal email communication, J. McGraw, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,
MN, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
November 4, 1999.
370. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 2 Plant, Waukesha, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June 19, 1998.
371. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 4 Plant, Sussex, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 22, 1997.
372. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 8 Plant, Cedar Lake, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, August 14, 1997.
373. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 15 Plant, Saukville, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, August 27, 1997.
374. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 25 Plant, Markesan, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 7, 1998.
375. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 27 Plant, Horicon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 6, 1997.
376. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 28 Plant, Wautoma, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 1, 1999.
4-333
-------
377. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 29 Plant, Dousman, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, August 7, 1997.
378. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 31 Plant, Racine, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, May 26, 1998.
379. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 34 Plant, Environmental Technology and
Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, July 28 and October 6, 1999.
380. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 53 Plant, Newberry, MI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 1-2, 1998.
381. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 55 Plant, Horicon, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, May 27, 1998.
382. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 55 Plant, Horicon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 2, 1999.
383. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 56 Plant, Ripon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 3, 1997.
384. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 65 Plant, Green Bay, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June 24, 1999.
385. Results of the September 23, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test on the Monarch Paving
No. 10 Asphalt Plant Near Hager City, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN,
November 11, 1999.
386. Results of the August 11 & 28, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Tests on the Mathy/Northwoods
Paving Plant No. 25 Near Superior, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN,
September 24, 1999.
387. Results of the July 14, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test on the Mathy/American Asphalt
Plant No. 41 inHatley, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN, August 13, 1999.
388. Results of the October 7-8 & 12, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test on the Mathy
Construction/Monarch Paving Asphalt Plant No. 46 Near Danbury, Wisconsin, Interpoll
Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN, November 29, 1999.
389. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants: Response to Comments on Testing Program for Asphalt Plants C and
D, EPA-454/R-00-029, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 2000.
390. B. Frank, Asphalt s 10 Year Success Story, Compliance Monitoring Service, Linwood, New
Jersey, March 13, 1997.
391. Memorandum from B. Shrager, MRI, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Emission Factor Recommendations for the Hot Mix Asphalt AP-42 Revision.
November 15, 2000.
4-334
-------
392. 1996 U. S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
393. A Study Of The Use Of Recycled Paving Material - Report To Congress, FHWA-RD-93-147,
EPA/600/R-93/095, U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, June 1993.
394. Manufacturing Consumption Of Energy 1994, DOE/EIA-0512(94), U. S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
4-335
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
4-336
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF BATCH MIX DRYER EMISSION DATA
This appendix presents the detailed results of the statistical analyses performed on the
batch mix dryer data. The analyses were performed using STATA Statistical Software,
Release 4.0. The following sections present the actual printouts of the analyses of the data for the
following pollutants: filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, VOC,
CO, CO2, and NOX. The results of t-tests performed on the data are presented first, followed by
the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression models. Tables A-l and A-2
provide descriptions of the variables used in the analyses. Table A-3 summarizes the results of the
t-tests performed on the data, and Table A-4 summarizes the linear models fit to the data.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORICAL VARIABLES USED IN BATCH MIX DATA ANALYSIS
STATA variable
poll
fuel
aped
wastem
Description
Pollutant
Fuel category
Air pollution control device
Oil category
STATA
value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
Actual name
Filterable PM
Condensible inorganic PM
Condensible organic PM
Filterable PM-10
Condensible PM
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Back half
Oil
Gas
Coal/ gas
Coal/oil
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber or unspecified wet scrubber
Waste oil or No. 6 oil
Other types of fuel oil
Gas
Coal/gal
Coal/oil
-------
TABLE A-2. DESCRIPTION OF CONTINUOUS VARIABLES USED IN BATCH MIX DATA ANALYSIS'
STATA variable
rapm
ratem
Symbol in text
R
P
Description
Content RAP in mix
Production rate
Units
fraction (e.g., 0.2 for
20% RAP)
ton/hr
Range
Oto *
* to *
"NA = not applicable.
-------
TABLE A-3. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON BATCH MIX DATAa
No.
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
P-value
Conclusion
FILTERABLE PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP < 0. 1
VS, waste oil-fired, RAP < 0. 1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, RAP < 0. 1
VS, RAP < 0.1
8
3
24
5
46
5
0.021
0.17
0.025
0.12
0.020
0.11
0.024
0.16
0.029
0.13
0.024
0.16
FF, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
VS, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAP < 0.1
WS, RAP < 0.1
16
2
17
2
7
2
0.028
0.042
0.016
0.21
0.15
0.25
0.032
0.015
0.016
0.26
0.16
0.13
0.59
0.34
0.25
0.53
0.078
0.34
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
VS and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0.1
Differentiate between
control devices for
RAP < 0. 1
No difference between
VS and WS for RAP <
0.1
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
1
2
3
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, RAP < 0. 1
3
4
13
0.0093
0.0029
0.0042
0.015
0.0014
0.0037
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, RAP < 0.1
8
9
3
0.012
0.0048
0.0067
0.022
0.0043
0.0083
0.87
0.42
0.38
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0.1
-------
TABLE A-3 (cont.)
No.
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
P-value
Conclusion
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
4
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, RAP < 0. 1
4
7
3
8
0.0077
0.0055
0.0040
0.0036
0.0075
0.0065
0.0045
0.0033
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, RAP < 0.1
3
8
2
5
0.0027
0.0036
0.0040
0.0040
0.0046
0.0033
0.0016
0.0033
0.36
0.48
0.99
0.83
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
forFF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0.1
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1
Oil-fired
2
0.026
0.023
Gas-fired
3
0.016
0.0066
0.49
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
Oil-fired
4
0.46
0.57
Gas-fired
6
0.45
0.51
0.97
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
5
Waste oil-fired, RAP < 0. 1
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP < 0. 1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, RAP < 0. 1
10
7
24
4
49
35
35
36
32
39
7.1
3.9
18
12
27
Nonwaste oil-fired, RAP <
0.1
FF, nonwaste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAP < 0.1
18
17
20
2
6
36
37
46
32
32
21
21
37
12
11
0.86
0.80
0.22
0.96
0.57
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for
RAP < 0. 1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for FF
and RAP < 0. 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0.1
NITROGEN OXIDES
1
Oil-fired
2
0.12
0.076
Gas-fired
4
0.025
0.011
0.34
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
"FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber. WS = unspecified wet scrubber.
-------
TABLE A-4. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO BATCH MIX DATAa
No.
Parameters modeled
Conditions
No. of obs.
Significant effects (p- value)
Rz
Equation
FILTERABLE PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
R, P, R*P
R, P
P
FF
FF
FF
VS
VS
VS
53
53
54
8
8
9
P (0.077)
R (0.0067), P (0.033)
R (0.0043)
P (0.065)
P (0.044)
P (0.039)
0.22
0.15
0.48
EF = 0.043 + 0.14R-0.00012P
EF = 0.020 + 0.16R
EF = 0.35 - 0.00094P
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
R, P, R*P
R, R*P
R*P
R, P
R
P
All data
All data
All data
All data
All data
All data
17
17
17
17
17
17
R*P (0.065)
R*P (0.055)
R*P (<0.0001)
R(<0.0001)
R (0.0001)
None
0.77
0.61
EF = 0.0041 + 0.00054RP
EF = 0.0050 + 0.079R
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
R, P, R*P
R,R*P
R
All data
All data
All data
19
19
19
R (0.029)
R (0.011), R*P (0.030)
None
0.35
EF = 0.0044 + 0.065R - 0.00018RP
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
2
R, P, R*P
R, P
All data
All data
6
6
None
None
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
P
All data
All data
All data
All data
62
62
63
92
R (0.052), P (0.0002), R*P (0.043)
P (0.0013)
None
P (0.0009)
0.23
0.12
EF = 75 - 170R - 0. 18P + 0.67RP
EF = 59-0.10P
"R2 = squared correlation coefficient. R = percentage of RAP. P = production rate in ton/hr. EF = emission factor in Ib/ton. FF = fabric filter, VS = venturi scrubber, WS = unspecified wet scrubber.
-------
A.I FILTERABLE PM
A.1.1. Results of t-tests for Filterable PM
Filterable PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
combined
16
24
.0208387
.0278167
.0236497
.0318535
.0254907
.0290386
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.55 with 22 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.5903
Filterable PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
3
2
.1735333
.0416667
.1553881
.0146135
combined
.1207867
.1316919
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.14 with 3 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3385
Filterable PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel;
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
24
17
.0254907
.0163467
.0290386
.0158199
combined
41
.0216993
.0246125
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.18 with 39 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2461
Filterable PM t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable
combined
Obs
Mean
.1473238
Std. Dev.
1
2
5
2
.1207867
.2136667
.1316919
.2635151
.158711
A-7
-------
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.67 with 5 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.5347
Filterable PM t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & rap<0.1, by(aped) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
46
7
.0201284
.1473238
.0236928
.158711
combined
53
.0369278
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = -2.12 with 6.04 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.0783
Filterable PM t-test No. 6
Comparison: VS vs. WS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & rap<0.1, by(vw)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
5
2
.1075867
.2466667
.1637849
.1272792
combined
7
.1473238
.158711
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.06 with 5 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3386
A.1.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Filterable PM
Filterable PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 53 R-squared = 0.2260
Root MSE = .026097 Adj R-squared = 0.1786
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Filterable PM Model No. 2
Partial SS
.009742958
.001378489
.002223418
.000074674
.033370564
.043113522
df
3
1
1
1
49
52
MS
.003247653
.001378489
.002223418
.000074674
.000681032
.000829106
F Prob > F
4.77 0.0054
2.02 0.1612
3.26 0.0769
0.11 0.7420
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: FF
A-8
-------
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==l &
Number of
0.2243
apcd==l, cont(rapm ratem)
obs = 53 R-squared
Command:
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm
ratem
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
regress
SS
.009668283
.033445239
.043113522
Root MSE = .
Partial SS df
.009668283 2
.005344176 1
.003212796 1
.033445239 50
.043113522 52
df MS
2 .004834142
50 .000668905
52 .000829106
Coef. Std. Err. t
.0434277
011537 3.764
.1444664 .0511103 2.827
-.0001157 .0000528 -2.192
025863 Adj
MS
.004834142
.005344176
.003212796
.000668905
.000829106
R-squared
F
7.23
7.99
4.80
Number of obs
F( 2, 50)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
P>|t| [
0.000
0.007
0.033
95% Conf.
.020255
0418083
0002218
= 0.1932
Prob > F
0.0017
0.0067
0.0331
53
7.23
= 0.0017
= 0.2243
- 0.1932
= .02586
Interval]
.0666004
.2471246
-9.67e-06
Filterable PM Model No. 3
Parameters: R
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rap if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(rap)
Command:
Source
Model
Residual
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
regress
SS
.006330472
.036932921
t-
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.006330472
.006330472
.036932921
.043263393
df MS
1 .006330472
52 .000710248
= 54 R-squared
.02665 Adj R-squared
df MS
1 .006330472
1 .006330472
52 .000710248
53 .00081629
F
8.91
8.91
Number of obs
F( 1, 52)
Prob > F
R-squared
= 0.
= 0.
Prob
0.
0.
= 0.
= 0.
— n
1463
1299
> F
0043
0043
54
8.91
0043
1463
1 9QQ
A-9
-------
Total
efm
cons
rapm
Filterable
.043263393
Coef .
.019932
.1559074
2 PM Model No.
53
Std. Err
.0038989
.052222
4
00081629
t
5.112
2.985
P>|t|
0.000
0.004
Root MSE
[95% Conf.
.0121083
.0511162
= .02665
Interval]
.0277557
.2606986
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: VS
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==l & apcd==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 8 R-squared = 0.6602
Root MSE = .116473 Adj R-squared = 0.4054
Source
Partial SS
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm*ratem
Residual
Total
.105442267
.00107529
.086270461
.009764322
.054263592
.159705859
df MS
3 .035147422
1 .00107529
1 .086270461
1 .009764322
4 .013565898
7 .022815123
F
2.59
0.08
6.36
0.72
Prob > F
0.1901
0.7923
0.0652
0.4440
Filterable PM Model No. 5
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: VS
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==l & apcd==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 8 R-squared = 0.5991
Root MSE = .113162 Adj R-squared = 0.4387
Source
Partial SS
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
.095677945
.019436339
.091878173
.064027914
.159705859
df MS
2 .047838972
1 .019436339
1 .091878173
5 .012805583
7 .022815123
F
3.74
1.52
7.17
Prob > F
0.1018
0.2727
0.0439
Filterable PM Model No. 6
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: VS
Command: anova ef ratem if poll==l & apcd==2, cont(ratem)
Number of obs = 9 R-squared = 0.4802
Root MSE = .109735 Adj R-squared = 0.4059
Source
Partial SS
Model
.077855628
A-10
df MS
1 .077855628
F
6.47
Prob > F
0.0385
-------
ratem
Residual
.077855628
.084292847
Total
.162148475
077855628
012041835
020268559
6.47
0.0385
Command: regress
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
ratem
SS
.077855628
.084292847
.162148475
Coef.
.3488251
-.0009364
df MS
1 .077855628
7 .012041835
8 .020268559
Std. Err.
.088268
.0003683
t P>|t|
3.952 0.006
-2.543 0.039
Number of obs
F( 1, 7)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
[95% Conf.
.1401046
-.0018072
9
6.47
= 0.0385
= 0.4802
n A n R Q
= .10974
Interval]
.5575457
-.0000656
A.2 CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
A.2.1. Results of t-tests for Condensable Inorganic PM
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. nonwaste oil-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & apcd==l & wastem<3, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
3
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0092873
.0116324
.014965
.0222138
combined
11
.0109928
.019784
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.17 with 9 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.8716
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel;
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0029067
.0047623
.0014118
.0042598
combined
13
.0041914
.0036593
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.83 with 11 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.4226
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
A-ll
-------
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
13
3
.0041914
.0068889
.0036593
.0083255
combined
16
.0046972
.0045974
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.91 with 14 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3778
A.2.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Inorganic PM
Condensable Inorganic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.000664589
.000022515
1.3316e-06
.000052249
.000167122
.000831711
Condensable Inorqanic PM Model No. 2
17 R-squared = 0.7991
= .003585 Adj R-squared = 0.7527
df
3
1
1
1
13
16
MS
.00022153
.000022515
1.3316e-06
.000052249
.000012856
.000051982
F Prob > F
17.23 0.0001
1.75 0.2085
0.10 0.7527
4.06 0.0649
Parameters: R, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.000663258
.000023282
.000052937
.000168453
.000831711
Condensable Inorqanic PM Model No. 3
17 R-squared = 0.7975
= .003469 Adj R-squared = 0.7685
df
2
1
1
14
16
MS
.000331629
.000023282
.000052937
.000012032
.000051982
F Prob > F
27.56 0.0000
1.93 0.1859
4.40 0.0546
Parameters: R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs =
A-12
17
R-squared
= 0.7695
-------
Command: re
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm* ratem
Condensable
Parameters :
Conditions :
Command: anc
Condensable
Parameters :
Conditions :
Command: ar
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model .000639975
rapm*ratem .000639975
Residual .000191736
Total .000831711
;gress
SS df MS
.000639975 1 .000639975
.000191736 15 .000012782
.000831711 16 .000051982
Coef. Std. Err.
.0040732 .0009152 4.
.0005392 .0000762 7.
Inorqanic PM Model No. 4
R, P
None
3va ef rapm ratem if poll==2,
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model .00061234
rapm .000589875
ratem 2.0190e-06
Residual .000219371
Total .000831711
Inorqanic PM Model No. 5
R
None
lova ef rapm if poll==2, cont
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
= .003575 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .000639975 50.07
1 .000639975 50.07
15 .000012782
16 .000051982
Number of obs
T? 1 1 1 R *i
r ( 1 , 13 )
Prob > F
R-squared
Root MSE
t P>|t| [95% Conf.
451 0.000 .0021225
076 0.000 .0003768
cont ( rapm ratem)
= 17 R-squared
= .003958 Adj R-squared
df MS F
2 .00030617 19.54
1 .000589875 37.65
1 2.0190e-06 0.13
14 .000015669
16 .000051982
(rapm)
= 18 R-squared
= .004764 Adj R-squared
df MS F
= 0.7541
Prob > F
0.0000
0.0000
17
c. pi pi -7
= 0.0000
= 0.7695
n TR/II
= .00358
Interval]
.0060239
.0007016
= 0.7362
= 0.6986
Prob > F
0.0001
0.0000
0.7250
= 0.6108
= 0.5864
Prob > F
Model
rapm
.000569839
.000569839
A-13
1 .000569839 25.11 0.0001
1 .000569839 25.11 0.0001
-------
16
000022697
Command:
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm
Condensab^
Total
regress
SS
.000569839
.000363154
.000932992
Coef. S1
.0049623 .(
.0790843 .(
.e Inorqanic PM I
.000932992 17
df MS
1 .000569839
16 .000022697
17 .000054882
;d. Err. t
3011764 4.218
3157834 5.011
4odel No. 6
.000054882
Number of obs
Fi i i f^ \
( -L , -Lo)
Prob > F
R-squared
Root MSE
P>|t| [95% Conf.
0.001 .0024684
0.000 .0456251
18
OR -|-|
= 0.0001
= 0.6108
n R P C^A
= .00476
Interval]
.0074562
.1125435
Parameters: P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef ratem if poll==2, cont(ratem)
Number of obs = 28 R-squared = 0.0326
Root MSE = .024609 Adj R-squared = -0.0047
Source
Model
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS df
.000529771 1
.000529771 1
.015745817 26
.016275588 27
MS F
.000529771 0.87
.000529771 0.87
.000605608
.0006028
Prob > F
0.3582
0.3582
A. 3 CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
A. 3.1. Results of t-tests for Condensable Orqanic PM
Condensable
Comparison:
Orqanic PM t-test No. 1
Waste oil-fired vs. nonwaste oil-
fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l & wastem<3, by(wastem)
Variable
1
2
Ob s
4
3
Mean Std. Dev.
0076742 .0074651
0026955 .0045652
combined
.0055404
.0064725
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.01 with 5 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3595
Condensable Orqanic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF
A-14
-------
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
7
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0055404
.0036281
.0064725
.0033104
combined
15
.0045206
.0049405
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.74 with 13 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.4751
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
3
2
.0040111
.0040167
.0045402
.0015792
combined
.0040133
.0033061
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.00 with 3 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.9988
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 4
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0035832
.0040133
.0033453
.0033061
combined
13
.0037486
.0031967
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.23 with 11 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.8250
A.3.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Organic PM
Condensable Organic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==3, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Partial SS
.000203904
.00015002
2.2642e-07
.00007677
= 19 R-squared
= .005066 Adj R-squared =
df
3
1
1
1
MS
.000067968
.00015002
2.2642e-07
.00007677
F
2.
5.
0.
2.
65
84
01
99
= 0.
= 0.
3462
2155
Prob > F
0.
0.
0.
0.
0868
0288
9264
1042
A-15
-------
Residual
Total
.000385014
.000588919
15 .000025668
18 .000032718
Condensable Organic PM Model No. 2
Parameters: R, R*P
Conditions:
Command: anova ef rapm rapm*ratem if poll==3, cont(rapm ratem)
Command:
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
Source
Model
rapm
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
regress
SS
.000203678
.000385241
.000588919
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.000203678
.000197032
.000136207
.000385241
.000588919
df MS
2 .000101839
16 .000024078
18 .000032718
Coef. Std. Err.
.0044246 .0013291 3.
rapm .0648414 .0226668 2.
rapm*ratem -.0001841 .0000774 -2.
19
= .004907
df MS
R-squared
Adj R-squared
F
2 .000101839 4.23
1 .000197032 8.18
1 .000136207 5.66
= 0.3459
= 0.2641
Prob > F
0.0335
0.0113
0.0302
16 .000024078
18 .000032718
t P>|t|
329 0.004
861 0.011
378 0.030
Number of obs
F( 2, 16)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
[95% Conf.
.001607
.0167899
-.0003482
19
4.23
= 0.0335
= 0.3459
= 0.2641
= .00491
Interval]
.0072422
.1128929
-.00002
Condensable Orqanic PM Model No. 3
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==3, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 19 R-squared = 0.1146
Root MSE = .005538 Adj R-squared = 0.0625
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.000067471
.000067471
.000521448
.000588919
df
1
1
17
18
MS
.000067471
.000067471
.000030673
.000032718
F Prob
2.20 0.
2.20 0.
> F
1563
1563
A.4 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
A-16
-------
A. 4.1. Results of t-tests for VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==6, by(fuel)
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
---------- 1 ----------------------------------
1 2 .0264444 .0227846
2 3 .0161963 .0065603
--------- + ---------------------------------
combined 5 .0202956 .0135207
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.79 with 3 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.4870
A. 5 CARBON MONOXIDE
A. 5.1. Results of t-tests for CO
Carbon Monoxide t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==7, by(fuel)
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
---------- 1 ----------------------------------
1 4 .4607222 .570815
2 6 .4472519 .5098287
combined 10 .45264 .5030519
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.04 with 8 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.9698
A. 5. 2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO
CO Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions : None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==7, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 6 R-squared = 0.3276
Root MSE = .38664 Adj R-squared = -0.1206
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.21851152
.197991985
.179585504
0.00
.448472101
df
2
1
1
0
3
MS
.10925576
.197991985
.179585504
.1494907
F Prob > F
0.73 0.5514
1.32 0.3332
1.20 0.3532
Total .666983621
CO Model No. 2
A-17
-------
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==7, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 6 R-squared = 0.3276
Root MSE = .38664 Adj R-squared = -0.1206
Source | Partial SS
df
MS
Prob > F
A. 6 CARBON
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
DIOXIDE
.21851152
.197991985
.179585504
.448472101
.666983621
2 .10925576 0.73
1 .197991985 1.32
1 .179585504 1.20
3 .1494907
5 .133396724
0.5514
0.3332
0.3532
A. 6.1. Results of t-tests for CO,
Carbon Dioxide t-test No.
1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable
1
2
Obs
Mean Std.
Dev.
10 34.76167 7.053972
18
36 20.
66587
combined
28
35.55774
16.90717
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.18 with 26 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.8567
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & apcd==l & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable
combined
Obs
Mean
24
36.07986
Std. Dev.
1
2
7
17
34.
36.
60714
68627
3.900663
21.08941
17.72855
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.26 with 22 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.8005
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & apcd==l & rap<0.1 & fuel<3, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
A-18
-------
24
20
36.07986
46.29075
17.72855
35.69774
combined
44
40.72117
27.52529
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.23 with 42 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2246
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1 & fuel<3, by(fuel)
Variable
combined
Obs
Mean
32.22778
Std. Dev.
1
2
4
2
32.425
31.83333
12.15564
12.49222
10.95263
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.06 with 4 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.9582
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
combined
Obs
Mean
55
37.94185
Std. Dev.
1
2
49
6
38
32
.64153
.22778
26.90336
10.95263
25.66221
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.57 with 53 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.5682
A.6.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO,
CO, Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==E
Number of obs = 62
Root MSE = 22.4281
cont(rapm ratem)
R-squared = 0.2254
Adj R-squared = 0.1853
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Partial SS
1_
8487.3474
1987.12615
8214.30645
2147.50087
df
3
1
1
1
MS
2829.1158
1987.12615
8214.30645
2147.50087
F
5.62
3.95
16.33
4.27
Prob > F
0.0019
0.0516
0.0002
0.0433
A-19
-------
Residual 29175.0181
1
Total
37662.3655
58
61
503.017554
617.415828
Command: regress
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm
ratem
rapm* rater
SS
8487.3474
29175.0181
37662.3655
Coef .
75.05386
-165.6651
-.1800327
n .6709594
df
3 282
58 503
61 617
Std. Err.
9.691284
83.35083
.044551
.324729
MS
29.1158
017554
415828
7.
-1.
-4.
2.
t
744
988
041
066
P>
0.
0.
0.
0.
|t|
000
052
000
043
Number of obs
T? 1 "3 R P *i
M J, oo )
Prob > F
R-squared
7\ ^J ' T~> ^J
Root MSE
[95% Conf.
55.65464
-332.5099
-.2692112
.0209436
62
O . DZ
= 0.0019
= 0.2254
n i Q R Q
= 22.428
Interval]
94.45307
1.179693
-.0908542
1.320975
CO, Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==8, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
6339.84653
44.6913941
6067.06551
31322.519
37662.3655
= 23
df
2
1
1
59
61
62
.0411
3169
R-squared = 0.1683
Adj R-squared = 0.1401
MS
.92326
44.6913941
6067.06551
530.
617.
890153
415828
F Prob > F
5.97 0.0044
0.08 0.7727
11.43 0.0013
C09 Model No. 3
Parameters: R
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==8, cont(rapm)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Partial SS
244.812329
244.812329
37739.3748
37984.1871
= 24
df
1
1
61
62
63
.8732
244.
244.
618.
612.
R-squared
Adj R-squared
MS
812329
812329
678275
648179
F
0.40
0.40
= 0.
= -0.
Prob
0.
0.
0064
0098
> F
5317
5317
A-20
-------
CO, Model No. 4
Parameters: P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef ratem if poll==8, cont(ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
5045.
5045.
38396
13321
13321
.3688
43441.502
= 20
df
1
1
90
91
92
.6549
5045
5045
426
477.
R-squared = 0.1161
Adj R-squared = 0.1063
MS
.13321
.13321
.62632
379143
F Prob > F
11.83 0.0009
11.83 0.0009
Command: regress
Source SS
df
MS
Model
Residual
5045.13321
38396.3688
1 5045.13321
90 426.62632
Total
43441.502
91 477.379143
Number of obs = 92
F( 1, 90) = 11.83
Prob > F = 0.0009
R-squared = 0.1161
Adj R-squared = 0.1063
Root MSE = 20.655
efm
Coef.
Std. Err.
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
_cons
ratem
58.89581 6.661996
-.1009955 .029369
8.841 0.000
-3.439 0.001
45.66059
-.1593422
72.13103
-.0426488
A. 7 NITROGEN OXIDES
A.7.1. Results of t-tests for N0y
Nitrogen Oxides t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==9, by(fuel) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
2
4
.1150444
.0254063
.0761475
.0105156
combined 6 .0552856
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.66 with 1.02 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3423
A-21
-------
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF DRUM MIX DRYER EMISSION DATA
This appendix presents the detailed results of the statistical analyses performed on the
drum mix dryer data. The analyses were performed using STATA Statistical Software,
Release 4.0. The following sections present the actual printouts of the analyses of the data for the
following pollutants: filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, VOC,
CO, CO2, NOX, SO2 The results of t-tests performed on the data are presented first, followed
by the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression models. Tables B-l and B-2
provide descriptions of the variables used in the analyses. Table B-3 summarizes the results of the
t-tests performed on the data, and Table B-4 summarizes the linear models fit to the data.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORICAL VARIABLES USED
IN DRUM MIX DATA ANALYSIS
STATA
variable
poll
fuel
aped
wastem
Description
Pollutant
Fuel category
Air pollution
control device
Oil category
STATA
value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
Actual name
Filterable PM
Condensible inorganic PM
Condensible organic PM
Filterable PM-10
Condensible organic PM
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Back half
Oil
Gas
Coal/gas
Coal/oil
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber or unspecified wet scrubber
Waste oil or No. 6 oil
Other types of fuel oil
Gas
Coal/gas
Coal/oil
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2. DESCRIPTION OF CONTINUOUS VARIABLES USED IN DRUM
MIX DATA ANALYSIS"
STATA
variable
rapm
ratem
pdm
Symbol in
text
R
P
AP
Description
Percentage of RAP in
mix
Production rate
Scrubber pressure drop
Units
Percent
ton/hr
inches of water
Range
Oto *
* to *
"NA = not applicable.
B-3
-------
TABLE B-3. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON DRUM MIX DATAa
No.
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
P-value
Conclusion
FILTERABLE PM
1
2
3
4
5
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
VS, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, RAP < 0. 1
8
4
44
15
66
0.0095
0.047
0.015
0.030
0.014
0.0059
0.030
0.018
0.022
0.016
FF, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
VS, non waste oil-fired,
RAP < 0. 1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, RAP < 0.1
36
11
19
8
26
0.016
0.021
0.012
0.018
0.026
0.019
0.14
0.015
0.015
0.021
0.35
0.18
0.57
0.25
0.015
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
VS and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0.1
Differentiate between
control devices for
RAP < 0. 1
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
1
2
3
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, RAP < 0.1
4
8
12
0.013
0.0080
0.0081
0.011
0.0052
0.0054
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, RAP < 0.1
8
3
2
0.0062
0.0055
0.0038
0.0040
0.0050
0.00066
0.12
0.49
0.30
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0.1
w
-------
TABLE B-3 (cont.)
No.
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
P-value
Conclusion
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
4
5
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
VS, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, RAP < 0. 1
12
4
8
2
11
0.016
0.037
0.0095
0.0081
0.0076
0.015
0.034
0.017
0.0074
0.014
FF, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
VS, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, RAP < 0.1
7
2
2
2
5
0.0097
0.0037
0.0011
0.013
0.0099
0.015
0.0013
0.00056
0.010
0.0070
0.42
0.26
0.51
0.60
0.74
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
VS
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0.1
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1
2
FF, oil-fired
FF, RAP < 0. 1
6
4
0.032
0.015
0.031
0.011
FF, gas-fired
VS, RAP < 0.1
5
3
0.058
0.058
0.042
0.022
0.28
0.060
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
Differentiate between
FF and VS for RAP <
0.1
-------
TABLE B-3 (cont.)
No.
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
P-value
Conclusion
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
Oil-fired
6
0.18
0.22
Gas-fired
5
1.3
2.7
0.33
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
5
6
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
VS, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
7
3
43
14
43
17
38
38
32
35
32
25
14
9.8
9.7
14
9.7
9.3
Nonwaste oil-fired, RAP <
0.1
VS, nonwaste oil-fired, RAP
<0.1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0. 1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0. 1
36
11
17
7
14
7
31
34
25
28
35
28
8.3
16
9.3
18
14
18
0.21
0.68
0.016
0.33
0.34
0.61
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for FF
and RAP < 0. 1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for VS
and RAP < 0. 1
Differentiate between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0.1
No difference between
FF and VS for oil-fired
and RAP < 0. 1
No difference between
FF and VS for
gas-fired and RAP <
0.1
w
ON
-------
TABLE B-3 (cont.)
No.
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean
EF
Std.
dev.
P-value
Conclusion
NITROGEN OXIDES
1
Oil-fired
5
0.051
0.024
Gas-fired
4
0.029
0.016
0.15
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
SULFUR DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
Waste oil-fired
Waste oil-fired, FF
FF, oil-fired
FF, RAP < 0. 1
3
3
5
3
0.091
0.091
0.060
0.18
0.073
0.073
0.068
0.30
Non waste oil-fired
Non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, RAP < 0.1
4
2
3
4
0.0072
0.012
0.0034
0.0043
0.0053
0.0011
0.0019
0.0036
0.18
0.24
0.21
0.28
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
oil-fired
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
oil-fired for FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
forFF
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0.1
TF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber. WS = unspecified wet scrubber.
-------
TABLE B-4. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO DRUM MIX DATA
No.
Parameters modeled
Conditions
No. of
obs.
Significant effects (p- value)
R2
Equation
FILTERABLE PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
R, P, R*P
R, P
P
R
R, P, R*P
R, P
P
R
AP
AP
AP
FF
FF
FF
FF
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS, oil-fired
VS, gas-fired
108
108
123
108
33
33
36
33
34
20
10
P (0.0094)
P (0.020)
None
None
P (0.053)
None
None
None
None
None
None
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
1
2
R, P, R*P
R, P
All data
All data
24
24
None
None
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
All data
All data
All data
36
36
36
None
R (0.066)
R (0.047)
0.11
EF = 0.0074 + 0.033R
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
P
All data
All data
All data
FF only
FF only
FF only
FF only
12
12
12
9
9
9
11
P (0.093)
None
None
None
None
None
P (0.092)
0.28
EF = 0.11 -0.00022P
w
oo
-------
TABLE B-4 (cont.)
No.
Parameters modeled
Conditions
No. of
obs.
Significant effects (p- value)
R2
Equation
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
2
3
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
All data
All data
All data
7
7
7
None
None
None
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
R, P, R*P
R, P
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
FF, oil-fired
FF, oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, oil-fired
VS, gas-fired
FF
FF
FF
VS
All data
All data
All data
59
59
34
18
9
96
96
96
30
126
126
126
None
None
None
None
None
P (0.081)
None
None
None
None
None
None
NITROGEN OXIDES
1
2
R, P, R*P
R, P
All data
All data
5
5
None
R (0.041), P (0.016)
0.97
EF = 0.27-0.20R-0.00059P
SULFUR DIOXIDE
1
2
3
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
All data
All data
All data
12
12
12
None
None
None
w
aR2 = squared correlation coefficient.
-------
B.I FILTERABLE PM
B.I.I. Results of t-tests for Filterable PM
Filterable PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
8
36
.0095296
.0159718
.005893
.0190173
combined
44
.0148005
.0175027
Ho:
mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.94 with 42 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.3524
Filterable PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command:
ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
4
11
.0470803
.0209458
.0301435
.0138691
combined
15
.027915
Ho:
mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.67 with 3.47 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.1808
Filterable PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
44
19
.0148005
.0122165
.0175027
.0145437
combined
63
.0140212
.0165922
Ho:
mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.56 with 61 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.5747
Filterable PM t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel;
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
combined
15
8
23
.027915
.0177804
.0243899
.0217993
.014718
.0198919
B-10
-------
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.17 with 21 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2537
Filterable PM t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & rap<0.1, by(aped) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
66
26
.0141773
.0258898
.0163114
.0210337
combined
92
.0174873
Ho:
mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = -2.55 with 37.44 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.0149
B.I.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Filterable PM
Filterable PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 108 R-squared = 0.0805
Root MSE = .013242 Adj R-squared = 0.0540
Source
rapm*
Model
rapm
ratem
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.001596173
.000366664
.001228686
.000278869
.018237081
.019833254
df
3
1
1
1
104
107
MS
.000532058
.000366664
.001228686
.000278869
.000175357
.000185358
3
2
7
1
F
.03
.09
.01
.59
Prob > F
0
0
0
0
.0325
.1512
.0094
.2101
Filterable PM Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 108 R-squared = 0.0664
Root MSE = .013279 Adj R-squared = 0.0486
Source
Partial SS
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
001317304
000113396
000989757
df
2
1
1
.01851595 105
B-ll
MS
000658652
000113396
000989757
000176342
F
3.74
0.64
5.61
Prob > F
0.0271
0.4244
0.0197
-------
Total
.019833254
107 .000185358
Filterable PM Model No. 3
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
anova
: P
: FF
anova ef ratem
Source
Model
ratem
Residual
Total
PM Model No.
: R
: FF
anova ef rapm
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
PM Model No.
: R, P, R*P
: VS
if poll==l & apcd==l, cont (ratem)
Number of obs = 123 R-squared
Root MSE = .015271 Adj R-squared
Partial SS df MS F
.000109364 1 .000109364 0.47
.000109364 1 .000109364 0.47
.02821888 121 .000233214
.028328244 122 .000232199
4
if poll==l & apcd==l, cont (rapm)
Number of obs = 108 R-squared
Root MSE = .013565 Adj R-squared
Partial SS df MS F
.000327547 1 .000327547 1.78
.000327547 1 .000327547 1.78
.019505707 106 .000184016
.019833254 107 .000185358
5
efm rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==l & apcd==2, cont(rapm
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Number of obs = 33 R-squared
Root MSE = .018392 Adj R-squared
Partial SS df MS F
.001723644 3 .000574548 1.70
.000459815 1 .000459815 1.36
.001382238 1 .001382238 4.09
.00066461 1 .00066461 1.96
.00980926 29 .00033825
.011532904 32 .000360403
B-12
= 0.0039
= -0.0044
Prob > F
0.4948
0.4948
= 0.0165
= 0.0072
Prob > F
0.1850
0.1850
ratem)
= 0.1495
= 0.0615
Prob > F
0.1892
0.2531
0.0525
0.1716
-------
Filterable PM Model No. 6
Parameters : R, P
Conditions: VS
Command: anova efm rapm ratem if poll==l & apcd==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 33 R-squared
Root MSE = .018685 Adj R-squared
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
PM Model No. 7
: P
: VS
anova efm ratem
Partial SS
.001059035
.00042829
.000839386
.01047387
.011532904
if poll==l &
df
2
1
1
30 .
32 .
apcd==2,
MS F
000529517 1.52
.00042829 1.23
000839386 2.40
000349129
000360403
cont (ratem)
Number of obs = 36 R-squared
Root MSE = .021968 Adj R-squared
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
Source
Model
ratem
Residual
Total
PM Model No. 8
: R
: VS
anova efm rapm
Partial SS
.000502926
.000502926
.016407529
.016910456
if poll==l &
df
1
1
34
35
apcd==2 ,
MS F
000502926 1.04
000502926 1.04
000482574
000483156
cont ( rapm)
Number of obs = 33 R-squared
Root MSE = .019104 Adj R-squared
Filterable
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
PM Model No. 9
Partial SS
.000219649
.000219649
.011313255
.011532904
df
1
1
31 .
32 .
MS F
000219649 0.60
000219649 0.60
000364944
000360403
= 0.0918
= 0.0313
Prob > F
0.2358
0.2768
0.1315
= 0.0297
= 0.0012
Prob > F
0.3145
0.3145
= 0.0190
= -0.0126
Prob > F
0.4437
0.4437
B-13
-------
Conditions: VS
Command: anova ef pd if poll==l, cont(pd)
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
Number of obs =
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model .00003307
pdm .00003307
Residual .329597346
Total .329630415
PM Model No. 10
: • P
: VS, oil-fired
anova ef pd if poll==l & fuel==l
Number of obs =
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model .004115
pdm .004115
Residual .310259604
Total .314374604
PM Model No. 11
: • P
: VS, gas-fired
anova ef pd if poll==l & fuel==2
Number of obs =
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model .000335868
pdm .000335868
Residual .001438342
Total .001774211
34 R-squared
.101489 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .00003307 0.00
1 .00003307 0.00
32 .010299917
33 .0099888
, cont (pd)
20 R-squared
.131288 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .004115 0.24
1 .004115 0.24
18 .017236645
19 .016546032
, cont (pd)
10 R-squared
.013409 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .000335868 1.87
1 .000335868 1.87
8 .000179793
9 .000197135
= 0.0001
= -0.0311
Prob > F
0.9552
0.9552
= 0.0131
= -0.0417
Prob > F
0.6310
0.6310
= 0.1893
= 0.0880
Prob > F
0.2089
0.2089
B.2 CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
B.2.1. Results of t-tests for Condensable
Inorqanic PM
Condensable Inorqanic PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & apcd==l & wastem<3, by(wastem)
B-14
-------
Variable
Obs
4
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0133583
.0061808
.0108492
.004026
combined
12
.0085733
.0074098
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.72 with 10 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.1169
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0080208
.0055256
.0051853
.0047956
combined
11
.0073403
.0049779
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.72 with 9 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.4883
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
12
2
.0080897
.0038
.0054098
.00066
combined
14
.0074769
.0052176
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.08 with 12 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2998
Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Inorganic PM
Condensable Inorganic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 24 R-squared = 0.0545
Root MSE = .006796 Adj R-squared = -0.0873
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Partial SS
1_
.000053242
3.6999e-08
.000016803
5.4193e-07
df
3
1
1
1
MS
.000017747
3.6999e-08
.000016803
5.4193e-07
F
0.38
0.00
0.36
0.01
Prob > F
0.7655
0.9777
0.5532
0.9148
B-15
-------
Residual
Total
.000923787
.000977029
20 .000046189
23 .00004248
Condensable Inorganic PM Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 24 R-squared = 0.0539
Root MSE = .006634 Adj R-squared = -0.0362
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.0000527
.000012591
.000019871
.000924329
.000977029
df
2
1
1
21
23
MS
.00002635
.000012591
.000019871
.000044016
.00004248
F Prob > F
0.60 0.5587
0.29 0.5984
0.45 0.5090
B.3 CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
B.3.1. Results of t-tests for Condensable Organic PM
Condensable Oqanic PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0159375
.0030833
.0229889
.0020411
combined
.0095104
.0165979
Ho:
mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.11 with 6 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3079
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. oil-fired for VS
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==2 & wastem<3, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0369776
.0036683
.0342788
.0012563
combined
.0258745
.0316418
Ho:
mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.30 with 4 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2649
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
B-16
-------
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by (fuel;
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
---------- 1 ----------------------------------
1 8 .0095104 .0165979
2 2 .0011017 .0005633
combined 10 .0078287 .0150624
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.69 with 8 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.5127
Condensable
Comparison :
Command: t1
Variable
1
2
combined
Orqanic PM
Oil-fired
;est ef if
Obs
2
2
4
t-test No. 4
vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
poll==3 & apcd==2 & fuel<3 & rap<0.1,
Mean Std. Dev.
.0080552 .0073659
.0134833 .0100173
.0107692 .007833
by ( fuel
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.62 with 2 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.5999
Condensable Orqanic PM t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & rap<0.1, by (aped)
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
2
combined
11
5
16
.007623
.0099421
.0083477
.0143057
.0070312
.0122821
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.34 with 14 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.7392
B.3.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Orqanic PM
Condensable Orqanic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions : All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==3, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 36 R-squared = 0.1148
Root MSE = .017659 Adj R-squared = 0.0318
Source
Model
rapm
Partial SS
i_
r
.001294064
.000051198
df
3
1
MS
.000431355
.000051198
F
1.38
0.16
Prob > F
0.2657
0.6880
B-17
-------
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Condensable Orqanic PM Moc
5.7558e-07
9.5872e-06
.009978967
.011273031
iel No. 2
1
1
32
35
5.7558e-07
9.5872e-06
.000311843
.000322087
0.00 0.9660
0.03 0.8619
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==3, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.001284476
.001092036
.000031175
.009988554
.011273031
Condensable Orqanic PM Model No. 3
36 R-squared = 0.1139
= .017398 Adj R-squared = 0.0602
df
2
1
1
33
35
MS
.000642238
.001092036
.000031175
.000302683
.000322087
F Prob > F
2.12 0.1359
3.61 0.0663
0.10 0.7503
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==3, cont(rapm)
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Command: regress
Source SS
Model .001253301
Residual .010019729
Total .011273031
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.001253301
.001253301
.010019729
.011273031
df MS
1 .001253301
34 .000294698
35 .000322087
efm Coef. Std. Err.
cons .0073602 .0040267 1.
rapm .0332451 .0161209 2.
36
= .017167
df MS
R-squared
Adj R-squared
F
1 .001253301 4.25
1 .001253301 4.25
= 0.1112
= 0.0850
Prob > F
0.0469
0.0469
34 .000294698
35 .000322087
t P>|t|
828 0.076
062 0.047
Number of obs
F( 1, 34)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
[95% Conf.
-.000823
.0004836
36
4.25
= 0.0469
= 0.1112
- 0.0850
= .01717
Interval]
.0155434
.0660067
B.4 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
B-18
-------
B.4.1. Results of t-tests for VOC
VOC t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==6 & apcd==l, by(fuel)
Variable
1
2
combined
Obs Mean Std. Dev.
6 .0323435 .0308277
5 .0575833 .042113
11 .0438162 .0368553
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.15 with 9 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2802
VOC t-test No. 2
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==6 & rap<0.1, by(aped) unequal
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
+
1 4 .0146583 .0112003
2 3 .0575833 .0220331
1
combined 7 .0330548
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = -3.09 with 2.78 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.0595
B.4.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for VOC
VOC Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==6, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared = 0.4296
Root MSE = .031523 Adj R-squared = 0.2157
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
VOC Model No. 2
Partial SS
.005986614
.00112165
.003600991
.001666455
.007949832
.013936446
df
3
1
1
1
8
11
MS
.001995538
.00112165
.003600991
.001666455
.000993729
.00126695
F Prob > F
2.01 0.1915
1.13 0.3191
3.62 0.0934
1.68 0.2314
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==6, cont(rapm ratem)
B-19
-------
Number of obs = 12 R-squared = 0.3100
Root MSE = .032688 Adj R-squared = 0.1567
VOC Model
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
VOC Model
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
VOC Model
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
No. 3
: R
: All data
anova ef rapm if
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
No. 4
: R, P, R*P
: FF only
anova ef rap rate
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
No. 5
Partial SS
.004320159
.000583964
.001975596
.009616287
.013936446
poll==6, cont
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.002344563
.002344563
.011591883
.013936446
rap*rate if
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.006686548
.000956434
.002959925
.001744355
.006023135
.012709683
df
2
1
1
9 .
11
(rapm)
MS F
002160079 2.02
000583964 0.55
001975596 1.85
001068476
.00126695
= 12 R-squared
= .034047 Adj R-squared
df
1
1
10
11
poll==6
MS F
002344563 2.02
002344563 2.02
001159188
.00126695
& apcd==l, cont ( rap
= 9 R-squared
= .034708 Adj R-squared
df
3 .
1
1
1
5 .
8
MS F
002228849 1.85
000956434 0.79
002959925 2.46
001744355 1.45
001204627
.00158871
Prob > F
0.1883
0.4786
0.2070
= 0.1682
= 0.0851
Prob > F
0.1854
0.1854
rate)
= 0.5261
= 0.2418
Prob > F
0.2554
0.4137
0.1778
0.2827
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: FF only
Command: anova ef rap rate if poll==6 & apcd==l, cont(rap rate)
B-20
-------
VOC Model
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
VOC Model
Parameters
Conditions
Command:
Command:
Source
Model
Residual
Total
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
No. 6
: R
: FF only
anova ef rap if
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
No. 7
: P
: FF only
anova ef rate if
Source
Model
ratem
Residual
Total
regress
SS
.00385265
.009730511
.013583161
Number of obs =
Root MSE
Partial SS df
.004942193 2
.001425751 1
.001281254 1
.00776749 6
.012709683 8
poll==6 & apcd==l,
Number of obs =
Root MSE = .
Partial SS df
.003660939 1
.003660939 1
.009048744 7
.012709683 8
poll==6 & apcd==l
Number of obs =
Root MSE = .
Partial SS df
.00385265 1
.00385265 1
.009730511 9
.013583161 10
df MS
1 .00385265
9 .001081168
10 .001358316
9 R-squared
.03598 Adj R-squared
MS F
.002471096 1.91
.001425751 1.10
.001281254 0.99
.001294582
.00158871
cont (rap)
9 R-squared
035954 Adj R-squared
MS F
.003660939 2.83
.003660939 2.83
.001292678
.00158871
, cont (rate)
11 R-squared
032881 Adj R-squared
MS F
.00385265 3.56
.00385265 3.56
.001081168
.001358316
Number of obs
T? I 1 Q\
M i, y )
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R— squared
Root MSE
= 0.3889
= 0.1851
Prob > F
0.2283
0.3344
0.3582
= 0.2880
= 0.1863
Prob > F
0.1363
0.1363
= 0.2836
= 0.2040
Prob > F
0.0917
0.0917
11
— "3 R (^
— O . O D
= 0.0917
= 0.2836
— n 9 n A n
— u . z u 4 u
= .03288
B-21
-------
efm
Coef.
Std. Err.
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
cons
ratem
.1147887
-.0002217
.0388825
.0001175
2.952 0.016
-1.888 0.092
.0268304 .2027471
-.0004875 .000044
B.5 CARBON MONOXIDE
B.5.1. Results of t-tests for CO
CO t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==7, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
6
5
.1769496
1.293751
.2156134
2.657994
combined
11
.6845868
1.785882
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.04 with 9 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3270
B.5.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO
CO Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==7, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.117790389
.025548716
.00423678
.024201153
.087015827
.204806215
CO Model No. 2
7 R-squared = 0.5751
= .170309 Adj R-squared = 0.1503
df
3
1
1
1
3
6
MS
.039263463
.025548716
.00423678
.024201153
.029005276
.034134369
F Prob > F
1.35 0.4047
0.88 0.4172
0.15 0.7278
0.83 0.4284
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==7, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 7 R-squared
Root MSE = .166746 Adj R-squared
Source
Partial SS
Model
.093589235
df MS
2 .046794618
F
I.t
= 0.4570
= 0.1854
Prob > F
0.2949
B-22
-------
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
.001347606
.050258129
.11121698
i_
r
.204806215
1
1
4
6
.001347606
.050258129
.027804245
.034134369
0.
1.
05
81
0.8365
0.2500
CO Model No. 3
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==7, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 7 R-squared = 0.2116
Root MSE = .179708 Adj R-squared = 0.0539
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.043331106
.043331106
.16147511
.204806215
df
1
1
5
6
MS
.043331106
.043331106
.032295022
.034134369
F Prob > F
1.34 0.2990
1.34 0.2990
B.6 CARBON DIOXIDE
B . 5 . 1 . Results of t-tests for CO,
CO, t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command:
ttest ef if poll==8 & wastem<3 & apcd==l & rap<0.1, by(wastem) unequal
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
---------- 1 ----------------------------------
1 7 38.27143 14.13274
2 36 30.71505 8.303645
combined 43 31.94516
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.37 with 6.83 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.2142
CO, t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & wastem<3 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
2
combined
3
11
14
38.3596
34.31606
35.18253
9.765434
15.69357
14.39056
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.42 with 12 d.f.
B-23
-------
Pr > |t| = 0.6837
C07 t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & fuel<3 & apcd==l & rap<0.1, by(fuel;
Variable
1
2
combined
Obs Mean Std. Dev.
43 31.94516 9.693272
17 25.14552 9.322651
60 30.01859 10.00016
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 2.47 with 58 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.0163
CO, t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & fuel<3 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable
1
2
combined
Obs Mean Std. Dev.
14 35.18253 14.39056
7 27.99595 17.8402
21 32.78701 15.56085
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.00 with 19 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3310
CO, t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for oil-fired and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & fuel==l & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
1
2
combined
Obs Mean Std. Dev.
43 31.94516 9.693272
14 35.18253 14.39056
57 32.7403 10.97817
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.96 with 55 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3424
CO, t-test No. 6
Comparison: FF vs. VS for gas-fired and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & fuel==2 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
1
2
combined
Obs Mean Std. Dev.
17 25.14552 9.322651
7 27.99595 17.8402
24 25.97689 12.05154
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
B-24
-------
t = -0.52 with 22 d.f.
Pr > | t| = 0.6095
B . 6 . 2 . Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO?
CO, Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF, oil-fired
Command:
anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l & fuel==l, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 59 R-squared = 0.0117
Root MSE = 11.6932 Adj R-squared = -0.0422
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
89.2079924
5.16801432
55.547418
25.4321656
7520.18731
7609.39531
df
3
1
1
1
55
58
MS
29.7359975
5.16801432
55.547418
25.4321656
136.730678
131.196471
0
0
0
0
F
.22
.04
.41
.19
Prob
0.
0.
0.
0.
> F
8839
8466
5265
6680
CO, Model No. 2
Parameters : R, P
Conditions: FF, oil-fired
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l & fuel==l, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 59 R-squared = 0.0084
Root MSE = 11.6079 Adj R-squared = -0.0270
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
63.7758269
53.2176024
30.1304219
7545.61948
7609.39531
df
2
1
1
56
58
MS
31.8879134
53.2176024
30.1304219
134.743205
131.196471
F Prob > F
0.24 0.7900
0.39 0.5323
0.22 0.6381
CO, Model No. 3
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF, gas-fired
Command:
anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l & fuel==2, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 34 R-squared = 0.0326
Root MSE = 9.65883 Adj R-squared = -0.0642
Source Partial SS df MS F Prob > F
+
Model 94.2599773 3 31.4199924 0.34 0.7988
B-25
-------
rapm
ratem
rapm*ratem
Residual
8.01157907
64.3210424
18.429114
2798.79069
Total
2893.05066
1 8.01157907
1 64.3210424
1 18.429114
30 93.2930229
33 87.6682019
0.09
0.69
0.20
0.7715
0.4129
0.6599
CO, Model No. 4
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: VS, oil-fired
Command:
anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==2 & fuel==l, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 18 R-squared = 0.2704
Root MSE = 13.7181 Adj R-squared = 0.1141
Source
rapm*
Partial SS
T
Model
rapm
ratem
ratem
Residual
976.
137.
135.
257.
2634
Total
662216
485254
879179
345768
.61869
3611.2809
df
3
1
1
1
14
17
325.
137.
135.
257.
188.
212.
MS
554072
485254
879179
345768
187049
428288
1
0
0
1
F
.73
.73
.72
.37
Prob > F
0
0
0
0
.2067
.4071
.4098
.2618
CO, Model No. 5
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: VS, gas-fired
Command:
anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==2 & fuel==2, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 9 R-squared = 0.1634
Root MSE = 18.0319 Adj R-squared = -0.3386
Source
rapm*
Model
rapm
ratem
ratem
Residual
Partial SS
317.
238.
282.
256.
1625
460772
744789
545822
099662
.74337
df
3
1
1
1
5
105.
238.
282.
256.
325.
MS
820257
744789
545822
099662
148673
0
0
0
0
F
.33
.73
.87
.79
Prob > F
0.
0.
0.
0.
8078
4306
3940
4155
Total
1943.20414
8 242.900517
CO, Model No. 6
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l, cont(rapm
ratem)
B-26
-------
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
CO, Model No. 7
Parameters : R,
Conditions: FF
Command: anova
CO, Model No. 8
Parameters : R
Conditions: FF
Command: anova
CO, Model No. 9
Residual
Total
P
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
402.701995
92.9675725
374.687384
171.802039
11092.9505
11495.6525
ef rapm ratem if poll==8
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
ef rapm if
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
230.899956
74.8344081
203.854184
11264.7526
11495.6525
= 10
df
3
1
1
1
92
95
96 R-squared
.9807 Adj R-squared
MS
134.233998
92.9675725
374.687384
171.802039
120.575549
121.006869
F
1.11
0.77
3.11
1.42
= 0.
= 0.
Prob
0.
0.
0.
0.
0350
0036
> F
3479
3822
0813
2357
& apcd==l, cont(rapm ratem)
= 11
df
2
1
1
93
95
poll==8 & apcd==l,
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
27.0457727
27.0457727
11468.6068
11495.6525
= 11
df
1
1
94
95
96 R-squared
.0057 Adj R-squared
MS F
115.449978
74.8344081
203.854184
121.126372
121.006869
cont ( rapm)
0.95
0.62
1.68
96 R-squared
.0457 Adj R-squared
MS
27.0457727
27.0457727
122.006455
121.006869
F
0.22
0.22
= 0.
= -0.
Prob
0.
0.
0.
= 0.
= -0.
Prob
0.
0.
0201
0010
> F
3893
4339
1977
0024
0083
> F
6389
6389
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: VS
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==2, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 30 R-squared = 0.0515
Root MSE = 15.4465 Adj R-squared = -0.0579
B-27
-------
CO, Model No.
Parameters :
Conditions :
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
10
R, P, R*P
All data
Command: anova ef rapm
CO, Model No.
Parameters :
Conditions :
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
11
R, P
All data
Command: anova ef rapm
CO, Model No.
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
12
Partial SS
336.985831
.626097341
53.9158564
14.6330984
6203.48776
6540.47359
ratem rapm*ratem
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
272.073208
4.55369698
221.601606
36.3960543
18419.5904
18691.6636
ratem if poll==8,
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
235.677153
104.634483
190.574533
18455.9864
18691.6636
df
3
1
1
1
26
29
MS
112.32861
.626097341
53.9158564
14.6330984
238.595683
225.533572
F
0.47
0.00
0.23
0.06
Prob > F
0.7052
0.9595
0.6385
0.8064
if poll==8, cont ( rapm ratem)
= 12.
df
3
1
1
1
122
125
cont
= 12.
df
2
1
1
123
125
126 R-squared
2874 Adj R-squared
MS
90.6910692
4.55369698
221.601606
36.3960543
150.980249
149.533309
(rapm ratem)
F
0.60
0.03
1.47
0.24
126 R-squared
2494 Adj R-squared
MS
117.838577
104.634483
190.574533
150.04867
149.533309
F
0.79
0.70
1.27
= 0.0146
= -0.0097
Prob > F
0.6158
0.8624
0.2280
0.6243
= 0.0126
= -0.0034
Prob > F
0.4582
0.4053
0.2619
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==8, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 126 R-squared = 0.0024
Root MSE = 12.2628 Adj R-squared = -0.0056
B-28
-------
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Partial SS
45.1026198
45.1026198
18646.561
18691.6636
df MS
1 45.1026198
1 45.1026198
124 150.375492
125 149.533309
F Prob > F
0.30 0.5849
0.30 0.5849
B.7 NITROGEN OXIDES
B.7.1. Results of t-tests for NO,,
NO,, t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==9, by(fuel)
Variable
1
2
Obs
5
4
Mean Std
0509889
. Dev.
023875
0285833 .0155953
combined
.0410309
.0227081
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.61 with 7 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.1513
B.7.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for NO,,
NO,, Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem
Number of obs
Root MSE
if poll==9, cont(rapm ratem)
5 R-squared = 0.9713
= .009963 Adj R-squared = 0.8852
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
NO, Model No. 2
Partial SS
.003360569
.00001419
.000108409
5.5843e-07
.00009927
.003459838
df
3
1
1
1
1
4
MS
.00112019
.00001419
.000108409
5.5843e-07
.00009927
.00086496
F Prob > F
11.28 0.2146
0.14 0.7699
1.09 0.4860
0.01 0.9523
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==9,
Number of obs :
Root MSE
cont(rapm ratem)
5 R-squared = 0.9711
= .007065 Adj R-squared = 0.9423
B-29
-------
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.00336001
.001146707
.003007868
.000099828
.003459838
df
2
1
1
2
4
MS
.001680005
.001146707
.003007868
.000049914
.00086496
F Prob > F
33.66 0.0289
22.97 0.0409
60.26 0.0162
Command: regress
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm
ratem
SS
.00336001
.000099828
.003459838
Coef .
.2705603
-.2006977
-.0005937
df
2
2
4
Std.
MS
.001680005
.000049914
.00086496
Err.
.0312612
.0418724
.0000765
t
8.655
-4.793
-7.763
P>
0.
0.
0.
|t|
013
041
016
Number of obs
F( 2, 2)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
[95% Conf.
.136054
-.3808601
-.0009227
5
33.66
= 0.0289
= 0.9711
fl Q A 9 "3
= .00706
Interval]
.4050665
-.0205353
-.0002646
B.8 SULFUR DIOXIDE
B.8.1. Results of t-tests for SO,
SO, t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & wastem<3, by(wastem) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0914533
.0072046
.0732035
.0053212
combined
.0433112
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.99 with 2.02 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.1839
S09 t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & wastem<3 & apcd==l, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
3
2
.0914533
.0115833
.0732035
.0011078
combined
.0595053
.067775
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.46 with 3 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2395
B-30
-------
SO, t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & apcd==l & fuel<3, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
5
3
.0595053
.0033778
.067775
.0019087
combined
.0384575
.0589042
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.39 with 6 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2143
SO, t-test No. 4
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.1832733
.0042838
.3025781
.0035945
combined
.0809936
.1991929
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.22 with 5 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2753
B.8.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for SO,
SO, Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==10, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared = 0.0462
Root MSE = .176267 Adj R-squared = -0.3115
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
SO, Model No. 2
Partial SS
.01204143
.000443648
.009606716
.001334126
.248559193
.260600624
df
3
1
1
1
8
11
MS
.00401381
.000443648
.009606716
.001334126
.031069899
.023690966
F Prob > F
0.13 0.9401
0.01 0.9078
0.31 0.5934
0.04 0.8410
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==10, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared = 0.0411
Root MSE = .166631 Adj R-squared = -0.1720
B-31
-------
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.010707305
.002702477
.008510952
.249893319
df
2
1
1
9
MS
.005353652
.002702477
.008510952
.027765924
F
0.
0.
0.
19
10
31
Prob
0.
0.
0.
> F
8280
7622
5933
Total
.260600624
11 .023690966
SO, Model No. 3
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==10, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared = 0.0084
Root MSE = .16075 Adj R-squared = -0.0907
Source
Partial SS
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
.002196352
.002196352
.258404272
.260600624
df MS
1 .002196352
1 .002196352
10 .025840427
11 .023690966
Prob > F
0.7766
0.7766
B-32
------- |