-------
Table 3.1.4-3, LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION
FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS8
Location
Low altitude
(Excluding 1966-
1967 Calif.)
California
Low altitude
1
High altitude
Mode!
year
1957-1967
1966-1967
1968
1969
1970
1971-1972
1957-1967
1968
1969
1970
1971-1972
Carbon monoxide
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.72
1.79
3.06
3.57
3.60
4.15
2,29
2.43
2.47
2.84
3.00
10 ml/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.67
1.00
1.75
1.86
1,88
2.23
1.48
1.54
1.61
1.72
1.83
Hydrocarbons
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
1.87
2.96
2.96
2.61
2.75
2.34
2.10
2.04
2.35
2.17
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.12
1.66
1.65
1.51
1.63
1.37
1.27
1.22
1.36
1.35
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
1.16
1.04
1.08
1.13
1.15
1.33
1.22
1.22
1.19
1.06
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.09
1.00
1.05
1.05
1.03
1.20
1.18
1.08
1.11
1.02
'Driving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 6) were Input to the modal emission analysis model
(tea lection 3.1.2.3). The results predicted by the model (emissions at 5 and 10 mi/hr; 8 and 16 km/hr) were divided by FTP
emission factors for hot operation to obtain the above results. The above data are approximate and represent the best currently
available Information,
Table 3.1.4-4. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR8
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
£13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)b
0.061
0.095
0.094
0.103
0.083
0.076
0.076
0.063
0.054
0.043
0.036
0.024
0.185
Average annual
miles driven (b)
15.900
15,000
14,000
13,100
12,200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
6,700
4,500
a x b
970
1,425
1,316
1,349
1,013
869
783
592
459
327
241
161
832
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.094
0.138
0.127
0.131
0.098
0.083
0.076
0.057
0.044
0.032
0.023
0.016
0.081
•Vehicles In use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 7).
"References 7 and 8.
cm-ao/2ab.
12/75
EMISSION FACTORS
3.1.4-3
-------
Table 3.1.4-5. LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS AND
HOT/COLD VEHICLE OPERATION CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR FTP EMISSION FACTORS3
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
Temperature correction
b
-0.0 1 27 1+ 1,95
-0.01 13 1+ 1.8.1
-0.0046t+1.36
Hot/cold operation
correction [f(t)J b
0.0045 t + 0.02
0.0079 t + 0.03
-0.0068 t + 1 .64
aReference 9, Temperature (t) is expressed in °F, In order to apply these equations, °C must be first converted to F. The appro-
priate conversion formula is: F=(9/5)C + 32. For temperatures expressed on the Kelvin (K) scale: F=9/5 (K-273.16) +32.
''The formulae for z. tenable the correction of the FTP emission factors for ambient temperature effects only. The amount of
cold/hot operation 'is not attected. the formulae for f (t), on the other hand, are part of equation 3.1.4-2 for calculating rjptw.
The variable r!ptw corrects for cold/hot operation as well as ambient temperature. Note: zjpt can be applied without riptw, but
not vice versa.
FTP Emission Factor (Cjpn). The results of the EPA light-duty truck surveillance programs are summarized in
Table 3.1.4-1. These data are divided by geographic area into: low altitude (non-California), high altitude, and
California only. California emission factors are presented separately (as a footnote) because light-duty trucks
operated in California have been, in the case of several model years, subject to emission standards that differ from
those standards applicable to light trucks under the Federal emission control program. Emissions at high altitude
are differentiated from those at low altitude to account for the effect that altitude has on air-fuel ratios and
concomitant emissions. The tabulated values are applicable to calendar year 1972 for each model year.
Fraction of Annual Travel by Model Year (mjn). A sample calculation of this variable is presented in Table
3.1.4-4. In the example, nationwide statistics are used and the fraction of in-use vehicles by model year (vehicle
age) are weighted on the basis of the annual miles driven (again, nationwide data are used). The calculation may
be "localized" to reflect local (county, state, etc.) vehicle age mix, annual miles driven, or both. Otherwise, the
national data can be used. The data presented in Table 3.1.4-3 are for calendar year 1972 only; for later calendar
years, see Appendix D.
Speed Correction Factors (vjpg). Speed correction factors enable the "'adjustment" of FTP emission factors to
account for differences in average route speed. Because the implicit average route speed of the FTP is 19.6 mi/hr
(31.6 km/hr), estimates of emissions at higher or lower average speeds require a correction.
It is important to note the difference between "average route speed" and "steady speed." Average route speed
is trip-related and based on a composite of the driving modes (idle, cruise, acceleration, deceleration) encountered
during a typical home-to-work trip, for example. Steady speed is highway-facility-oriented. For instance, a group
of vehicles traveling over an uncongested freeway link (with a volume to capacity ratio of 0.1, for example) might
be traveling at a steady speed of about 55 mi/hr (89 km/hr). Note, however, that steady speeds, even at the link
level, are unlikely to occur where resistance to traffic flow occurs (unsynchronized traffic signaling, congested
flow, etc.).
In previous revisions to this section, the limited data available for correcting for average speed were presented
graphically. Recent research however, resulted in revised speed relationships by model year.5 To facilitate the
presentation, the data are given as equations and appropriate coefficients in Table 3.1.4-2. These relationships
were developed by performing five major tasks. First, urban driving pattern data collected during the CAPE-10
Vehicle Operation Survey1 ° were processed by city and time of day into freeway, non-freeway, and composite
speed-mode matrices. Second, a large number of driving patterns were computer-generated for a range of average
speeds (1.5 to 45 rrii/hr; 24 to 72 km/hr) using weighted combinations of freeway and non-freeway matrices. Each
of these patterns was filtered for "representativeness." Third, the 88 resulting patterns were input (second by
second speeds) to the EPA modal emission analysis model (see 3.1.2.3).11 The output of the model was
estimated emissions for each of 11 vehicle groups (see Table 3.1.4-2 for a listing of these groups). Fourth, a
regression analysis was performed to relate estimated emissions to average route speed for each of the 11 vehicle
groups. Fifth, these relationships were normalized to 19.6 mi/hr (31.6 km/hr) and summarized in Table 3.1.4-2.
3.1.4-4
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
12/75
-------
The equations in Table 3.1.4-2 apply only for the range of the data - from 15 to 45 mi/hr(24 to 72 km/hr).
Because of the need, in some situations, to estimate emissions at very low average speeds, correction factors have
been developed for this purpose. The speed correction factors for 5 and 10 mi/hr (8 and 16 km/hr) presented in
Table 3.1.4-3 were developed using a method somewhat like that described above, again using the modal emission
model. Because the modal emission model predicts warmed-up vehicle emissions, the use of this model to develop
speed correction factors makes the assumption that a given speed correction factor applies equally well to hot and
cold vehicle operation.
Temperature Correction Factor (zjpt)- The 1975 FTP requires that emission measurements be made witjiin the
limits of a relatively narrow temperature band (68 to 86°F). Such a band facilitates uniform testing in
laboratories without requiring extreme ranges of temperature control. Present emission factors for motor vehicle
are based on data from the standard Federal test (assumed to be at 75°F). Recently, EPA and the Bureau of
Mines undertook a test program to evaluate the effect of ambient temperatures on motor vehicle exhaust
emissions levels.9 The study indicates that changes in ambient temperature result in significant changes in
emissions during cold start-up operation. Because many Air Quality Control Regions have temperature
characteristics differing considerably from the 68 to 86°F range, the temperature correction factor should be
applied. The corrections factors are expressed in equational form and presented in Table 3.1.4-5 and can be
applied between 20 and 80°F. For temperatures outside this range, the appropriate endpoint correction factor
should be applied.
Hot/Cold Vehicle Operation Correction Factor Omtw)- The 197$ FTP measures emissions over three types of
driving: a cold transient phase (representative of vehicle start-up after a long engine-off period), a hot transient
phase (representative of vehicle start-up after a short engine-off period), and a stabilized phase (representative of
warmed-up vehicle operation). The weighting factors used in the 1975 FTP are 20 percent, 27 percent, and 53
percent of total miles (time) in each of the three phases, respectively. Thus, when the 1975 FTP emission factors
are applied to a given region for the purpose of assessing air quality, 20 percent of the light-duty trucks in the
area of interest are assumed to be operating in a cold condition, 27 percent in a hot start-up condition, and 53
percent in a hot stabilized condition. For non-catalyst equipped vehicles (all pre-1975 model year:vehicles),
emission in the two hot phases are essentially equivalent on a grams per mile (g/km) basis. Therefore, the 1975
FTP emission factor represents 20 percent cold operation and 80 percent hot operation.
' *
Many situations exist in which the application of these particular weighting factors may be inappropriate. For
example, light-duty truck operation in center city areas may have a much higher percentage of cold operation
during the afternoon pollutant emissions peak when work-to-home trips are at a maximum and vehicles have
been standing for 8 hours. The hot/cold vehicle operation correction factor allows the cold operation phase to
range from 0 to 100 percent of total light-duty truck operations. This correction factor is a function of the
percentage of cold operation (w) and the ambient temperature (t). The correction factor is:
riptw
w+(100-w)iXt)
20+80f(t)
(3.1.4-2)
where: f(t) is given in Table 3.1.4-5.
3.1.4.2.2 Crankcase and evaporative hydrocarbon emissions - Evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emissions
are determined using:
fn - 2- hj min
i=n-12
(3.1.4-3)
where: fn = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
•hj = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate for the i^1 model year.
Emission factors for this source are reported in Table 3.1.4-6. The crankcase and evaporative
emissions reported in the table are added together to arrive at this variable.
min = The weighted annual travel of the i*h model year vehicle during calendar year (n)
EMISSION FACTORS 3.1.4-5
12/75
-------
Table 3.1.4-6. CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR
LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas
except high
altitude and
California6
High altitude
Model
years
Pre-1963
1963-1967
1968-1970
1971
1972
Pre-1963
1963-1967
1968-1970
1971-1972
Crankcase
g/mi
4.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
emissions8
g/km
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
Evaporative
g/mi
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.1
4.6
4.6
4.6
3.9
emissions'*
g/km
2,2
2.2
2.2
1.9
1.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.4
"Reference 12. Tabulated values were determined by assuming that two-thirds of the light-duty trucks are 6000 Ibi GVW (2700 kg)
and under and that one-third are 6001 to 8600 Ibs GVW (2700 to 3660 kg).
"Light-duty vehicle evaporative data (section 3.1.2) and heavy-duty vehicle evaporative data (Table 3.1.4-8) were uted to estimate
the value*.
cFor California: Evaporative emiwlont for the 1970 model year ere 1.9 g/km (3.1 g/mi). All other model yesn are the tame at
those reported at "All ami except high altitude and California." Crankcase emissions for the pre-1961 California light-duty truck*
era 4.6 g/mi (2.9 e/km) and 1961 -1963 models years are 2.4 g/mi (1.5 g*/km) all post-1963 model yeer vehicles are 0.0 a/ml (0.0
g/km).
3.1.4.2.3 Sulfur oxide and particular emissions - Sulfur oxide and particulate emission factors for all model
year light trucks are presented in Table 3.1.4-7. Sulfur oxides factors are based on fuel sulfur content and fuel
consumption. Tire-wear particulate factors are based on automobile test results, a premise necessary because of
the lack of data. Light truck tire wear is likely to result in greater particulate emissions than automobiles because
of larger tires and heavier loads on tires.
Table 3.1.4-7. PARTICULATE AND SULFUR OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY,
GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Particulate3
Exhaust
Tire wear'3
Sulfur oxides0
(SOxasS02)
Emissions, Pre-1973 vehicles
9/mi
0.34
0.20
0.18
g/km
0.21
0.12
0.11
•"References 13 and 14. Based on tests of automobiles.
"Reference 14 summarized tests of automotive tire wear particulate. It is
assumed that light-duty truck emissions ere similar. The automotive tests
assume a four-tire vehicle. If corrections for vehicles with a greater num-
ber of tires are needed, multiply the above value by the number of tires
and divide by four.
cBased on an average fuel consumption 10.0 mi/gal (4.3 km/liter) from
Reference 15 and on the use of a fuel with a 0.032 percent sulfur content
from References 17 and 18 and a density of 6.1 Ib/gal (0,73 kg/liter)
from References 17 and 18.
3.1.4-6
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
12/75
-------
3.1.4.3 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions - Emissions research on heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles has been
limited in contrast to that for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. As a result, cold operation correction
factors, temperature correction factors, speed correction factors, idle emission rates, etc. are not available for
heavy-duty vehicles. For some of these variables, however, light-duty vehicle data can be applied to heavy-duty
vehicles. In instances in which light-duty vehicle data are not appropriate, a value of unity if assumed.
3.1.4.3.1 .Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxides emissions - The calculation of heavy-duty,
gasoline-powered vehicle exhaust emission factors can be accomplished using:
enps
i=n-12
cipn min vips
(3.1.4-4)
where: enps = Composite emission factor in grams per mile (grams per kilometer) for calendar year (n) and
pollutant (p) and average speed(s)
Cjpn * The test procedure emission rate (Table 3.1.4-8) for pollutant (p) in g/mi (g/km) for the im
model year in calendar year (n)
mm = The weighted annual travel of the im model year vehicles during calendar year (n). The
determination of this variable involves the use of the vehicle year distribution.
vips = The speed correction factor for the i*h model year vehicles for pollutant (p) an<3 average
speed(s)
Table 3,1.4-8. EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY,
GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 19723
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas except
high altitude
High altitude
onlyb
Model
year
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
359
299
299
299
g/km
148
117
117
117
223
186
186
186
Exhaust
hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
13.8
13.7
13.6
48.6
15.0
14.9
14.8
g/km
22.0
8.6
8.5
8.4
30.2
9.3
9.3
9.2
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.6
12.6
12.5
4.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
g/km
4.2
7.8
7.8
7.8
2.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
a Data from Reference; 19 and 20.
bBased on light-duty emissions at high altitude compered with light-duty emissions at low altitudes.
A brief discussion of the variables presented in the above equation is necessary to help clarify their
formulation and use. The following paragraphs further describe the variables qpn, min, and vjps as they apply to
heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles.
Test procedure emission factor (cjpn). The emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles (Table 3.1.4-8) for all areas
are based on tests of vehicles operated on-the-road over the San Antonio Road Route (SARR). The SARR,
located in San Antonio, Texas, is 7.24 miles long and includes freeway, arterial, and local/collector highway
segments.19 A constant volume sampler is carried on board each of the test vehicles for collection of a
12/75
EMISSION FACTORS
3.1.4-7
-------
proportional part of the exhaust gas from the vehicle. This sample is later analyzed to yield mass emission rates.
Because the SARR is an actual road route, the average speed varies depending on traffic conditions at the time of
the test. The average speed tends to be around 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr) with about 20 percent of the time spent at
idle. The test procedure emission factor is composed entirely of warmed-up vehicle operation. Based on
preliminary analysis of vehicle operation data6, almost all heavy-duty vehicle operation is under warmed-up
conditions.
Weighted annual mileage (mjn). The determination of this variable is illustrated in Table 3.1.4-9. For purposes of
this illustration, nation-wide statistics have been used. Localized data, if available, should be substituted when
calculating the variable mjn for a specific area under study.
Table 3.1.4-9. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF GASOLINE-POWERED,
HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE ANNUAL TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR8
Age.
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)1*
0.037
0.070
0.078
0.086
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.068
0.059
0.053
0.044
0.032
0.247
Average annual
miles driven (b)
19,000
18,000
17,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
9,500
9,000
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
axb
703
1,260
1,326
1,376
1,050
900
750
646
531
451
352
240
1,729
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.062
0.111
0.117
0.122
0.093
0.080
0.066
0.057
0.047
0.040
0.031
0,021
0;153
^Vehicles in use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 7).
"Reference 7.
cm = ab/2ab.
Speed correction factor (vjps). Data based on tests of heavy-duty emissions versus average speed are unavailable.
In the absence of these data, light-duty vehicle speed correction factors are recommended. The data presented in
Tables 3.1.4-10 and Table 3.1.4-11 should be considered as interim heavy-duty vehicle speed correction factors
until appropriate data become available.
3.1.4-8
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
12/75
-------
W)
Table 3.1.4-10. SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES8'*
V,
1
vi
Location
Low
altitude
High
altitude
Model
year
Pre-1970
1970-1972
Pre-1970
1970-1972
v. ^(A + BS+CS1)
vips e
Hydrocarbons
A
0.953
1.070
0.883
0.722
B
-6.00 x ID'2
-6.63 x ID"2
-5.58 x 10~2
-4.63 x 10-2
C
5.81 x 10 -4
5.98 x 10 -4
552 x 10 -4
4.80 x 10 -4
Carbon monoxide
A
0.967
1.047
0.721
0.662
B
-6.07 x 10-2
-6.52 x ID'2
-4.57 x 10-2
-4.23 x 10-2
C
5.78 x 10-4
6.01 x 10 -4
4.56 x 10 -4
4.33 x 10~4
vips=A + BS
Nitrogen oxides
A
0.808
0.888
0.602
0.642
B
0.980 x 10 -2
0.569 x 10 -2
2.027 x 10 -2
1.835x10-2
aReference5. Equations should not be extended beyond the range of data (15 to 45 mi/hr). These data are from tests of light-duty vehicles and are assumed applicable
to heavy-duty vehicles.
bSpeed(sJ is in miles per hour (1 mi/hr-1.61 km/hrj.
-------
Table 3.1.4-11. LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES3
Location
Low
altitude
High
altitude
Model
year
Pre-1970
1970-1972
Pre-1970
1970-1972
Carbon
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.72
3.06
2.29
2.43
monoxide
10 mi/hr
{16 km/hr)
1.57
1.75
1.48
1.54
Hydrocarbons
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
2.96
2.34
2.10
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.66
1.37
1.27
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
1.04
1.33
1.22
10 mi/hr)
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.00
1:20
1.18
aDriving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 6) were input to the modal emission analysis model
(see section 3.1.2.3). The results predicted by the model (emissions at 5 and 10 mi/hr; 8 and 16 km/hr) were divided by FTP
emission factors for hot operation to obtain the above results. The above data represent the best currently available information
for light-duty vehicles. These data are.assumed applicable to heavy-duty vehicles given the lack of better Information,
For an explanation of the derivation of these factors, see section 3.1.4.2.1.
In addition to exhaust emission factors, the calculation of evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emissions
are determined using:
n
fn - hj mm
i=n-12
(3.1.4-5)
where: f,
n
The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate for the i"1 model year.
Emission factors for this source are reported in Table 3.1.4-12.
hi.
min = The weighted annual travel of the im model year vehicle during calendar year (n)
Table 3.1.4-12. CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSION
FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas except
high altitude
and California
California only
High altitude
Model
years
Pre-1968
1968-1972
Pre-1964
1964-1972
Pre-1968
1968-1972
Crankcase hydrocarbon3
g/mi
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
g/km
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
Evaporative hydrocarbons'3
g/mi
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
7.4
7.4
g/km
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.6
4.6
^Crankcase factors are from Reference 12.
"References 1,21, and 22 were used to estimate evaporative emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles. Equation 3.1.2-6 was used to
calculate g/mi (g/km) values. (Evaporative emission factor = g + kd). The heavy-duty vehicle diurnal evaporative emissions (g) were
assumed to be three times the light-duty vehicle value to account for the larger size fuel tanks used on heavy-duty vehicles. Nine
trips per day (d = number of trips per day) from Reference 6 were used in conjunction with the light-duty vehicle hot soak emis-
sions (k) to yield a total evaporative emission rate in grams per day. This value was divided by 36.2 mi/day (58.3 km/day) from
Reference 7 to obtain the per mile (per kilometer) rate.
3.1.4-10
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
12/75
-------
3.1.4,3.2 Sulfur oxide and partlculate emissions - Sulfur oxide and particulate emission factors for all model
year heavy-duty vehicles are presented in Table 3.1.4-13. Sulfur oxides factors are based on fuel sulfur content
and fuel consumption. Tire-wear particulate factors are based on automobile test results - a premise necessary
because of the lack of data. Truck tire wear is likely to result in greater particulate emissions than automobiles
because of larger tires, heavier loads on tires, and more tires per vehicle. Although the factors presented in Table
3,1.4-13 can be adjusted for the number of tires per vehicle, adjustments cannot be made to account for the other
differences.
Table 3.1.4-13. PARTICULATE AND SULFUR OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY,
GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulate
Exhaust"
Tire wearb
Sulfur oxides"
(SOxasS02)
Emissions
g/mi
0.91
0.20T
0.36
g/km
0.56
0.12T
0.22
'Calculated from the Reference 13 value of 12 lb/103 gal (1,46g/llwr)
gasoline. A 6.0 ml/gal (2.6 km/liter) valua from Raferance 23 was used
to convert to a par kilometer (par mile) amluion factor.
"Reference 14. The data from thli reference are for passenger car*. In the
abianca of specifIc data for heavy-duty vehicles, they are assumed to be
representative of truck-tlre-waar partlculate. An adjustment It made for
trucks with more than four tires. T equals the number of tires divided by
four.
cBaied on an average fuel consumption of 6.0 ml/gal (2.6 km/liter) from
Reference 23, on a 0.04 percent sulfur content from Reference 16 and
17, and on a density of 6.1 Ib/gal (0.73 kg/liter) from References 16 and
17,
References for Section 3.1.4
1. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance. Calspan Corporation, Buffalo, N.Y. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. APTD-1544.March
1973.
2. Williams, M. E., J. T. White, L. A. Platte, and C, J. Domke. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surkreillance -
Analysis of the FY 72 Program. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. Publication No.
EPA460/2-74-001. February 1974. '
3. A Study of Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 Pound Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks. Automobile
Environmental Systems, Inc., Westminister, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann
Arbor, Mich. June 1973.
4. Ingalls, M. N. Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 Pound Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich.
under Contract No. 68-01-0467. Publication No. APTD-1571. June 1973.
5. Smith, M. Development of Representative Driving Patterns at Various Average Route Speeds. Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. February 1974. (Unpublished report.)
12/75
EMISSION FACTORS
3.1.4-11
-------
6. Heavy-duty vehicle operation data (CAPE-21) collected by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, S.C.,
under contract to Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. December 1974.
7. 1972 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D.C. 1974.
8, Strate, H. E. Nationwide Personal Transportation Study - Annual Miles of Automobile Travel. Report
Number 2, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. April
1972.
9. Ashby, H. A., R. C. Stahman, B. H. Eccleston, and R. W. Hum. Vehicle Emissions - Summer to Winter.
(Presented at Society of Automotive Engineers meeting. Warrendale, Pa. October 1974. Paper No. 741053.)
10. Vehicle Operations Survey. Scott Research Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared under contract
for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich., and Coordinating Research Council, New York,
N.Y. December 1971. (unpublished report.)
11. Kunselman, P., H, T. McAdarns, C. J. Domke, and M. Williams. Automobile Exhaust Emission Modal
Analysis Model. Calspan Corporation, Buffalo, N.Y. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann
Arbor, Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. EPA-460/3-74-005. January 1974.
12. Sigworth, H. W., Jr. Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission Rates. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. March 1971. (Unpublished report.)
13. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U.S, DHEW, National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-51, January 1969.
14. Subramani, J. P. Particulate Air Pollution from Automobile Tire Tread Wear. Ph.D. Dissertation. University
of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1971.
15. Automobile Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association. Washington, D.C. 1971.
16. Shelton, E. M. and C, M. McKinney. Motor Gasolines, Winter 1970-1971. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Bartlesville, Okla. June 1971.
17. Shelton, E, M. Motor Gasolines, Summer 1971. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Bartlesville, Okla. January 1972. ,
18. Automotive Fuels and Air Pollution. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. March 1971.
19. Ingalls, M. N. and K. J. Springer. In-Use Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck Emissions. Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. December
1974. (Unpublished report.)
20, Ingalls, M. N. and K. J. Springer. In-Use Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck Emissions, Part 1. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-113.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-73-002-a. February 1973.
21. Liljedahl, D. R. A Study of Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles in Denver, Houston, and Chicago. Fiscal
Year 1972. Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc., Aurora, Colo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. Publication No. APTD 1504,
22. A Study of Emissions from 1966-1972 Light Duty Vehicles in Los Angeles and St. Louis. Automotive
Environmental Systems, Inc., Westminister, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann
Arbor, Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0455. Publication No. APTD-1505. August 1973.
23. 1973 Motor Truck Facts. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C. 1973.
3.1.4-12 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 12/75
-------
3.1.5 Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles
revised by David S. jfr'rc/zer
andMarciaE. Williams
3,1.5.1 General1'2 — On the highway, heavy-duty diesel engines are primarily used in trucks and buses. Diesel
engines in any application demonstrate operating principles that are significantly different from those of the
gasoline engine.
3.1.5.2 Emissions - Diesel trucks and buses emit pollutants from the same sources as gasoline-powered vehicles:
exhaust, crankcase blow-by, and fuel evaporation. Blow-by is practically eliminated in the diesel, however,
because only air is in the cylinder during the compression stroke. The low volatility of diesel fuel along with the
use of closed injection systems essentially eliminates evaporation losses in diesel systems.
Exhaust emissions from diesel engines have the same general characteristics of auto exhausts. Concentrations
of some of the pollutants, however, may vary considerably. Emissions of sulfur dioxide are a direct function of
the fuel composition. Thus, because of the higher average sulfur content of diesel fuel (0.20 percent S) as
compared with gasoline (0.035 percent S), sulfur dioxide emissions are relatively higher from diesel exhausts.3'4
Because diesel engines allow more complete combustion and use less volatile fuels than spark-ignited engines,
their hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are relatively low. Because hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust
represent largely unbumed diesel fuel, their emissions are related to the volume of fuel sprayed into the
combustion chamber. Both the high temperature and the large excesses of oxygen involved in diesel combustion
are conducive to high nitrogen oxide emission, however.6
Particulates from diesel exhaust are in two major forms — black smoke and white smoke. White
emitted when the fuel droplets are kept cool in an environment abundant in oxygen (cold starts). Black
smoke is
smoke is
emitted when the fuel droplets are subjected to high temperatures in an environment lacking in oxygen (road
conditions).
Emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles during a calendar year (n) and for a pollutant (p) can be
approximately calculated using:
enps - cipnvips
i=n-12
(3.1.5-1)
!: enps 3 Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), and average
speed (s)
Cjpn * The emission rate in g/mi (g/km) for the i**1 model year vehicles in calendar year (n) over a
transient urban driving schedule with an average speed of approximately 18 mi/hr (29
km/hr) [
vios = The speed correction factor for the i"1 model year heavy-duty diesel vehicles for pollutant
(p) and average speed (s)
Values for cjpn are given in Table 3.1.5-1. These emission factors are based on tests of vehicles on-the-road
over the San Antonio Road Route (SARR). The SARR, located in San Antonio, Texas, is 7.24 miles long and
includes freeway, arterial, and local/collector highway segments.7 A constant volume sampler is carried on board
12/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.5-1
3W-637 0 - 80 - 8 (Pt. A)
-------
each test vehicle for collection of a proportional part of the vehicle's exhaust. This sample is later analyzed to
yield mass emission rates. Because the SARR is an actual road route, the average speed varies depending on traffic
conditions at the time of the test. The average speed, however, tends to be around 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), with
about 20 percent of the time spent at idle. The test procedure emission factor is composed entirely of warmed-up
vehicle operation. Based on a preliminary analysis of vehicle operation data, heavy-duty vehicles operate primarily
(about 95 percent) in a warmed-up condition.
Table 3.1.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
(ALL PRE-1973 MODEL YEARS) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1972
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Participate6
Sulfur oxidesc-d
(SOxasS02)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Aldehydes0
(as HCHO)
Organic acids0
Truck emissions8
g/mi
1,3
2.8
28.7
4.6
20.9
0.3
0.3
g/km
0.81
1.7
17.8
2.9
13.0
0.2
City bus emissions'1
g/mi
1.3
2.8
21.3
4.0
21.5
0.3
0.2 i 0.3
g/km
0.81
1.7
13.2
2,5
13.4
0.2
0.2
8Truck emissions are based On ever-the-road sampling of dlesel trucks by Reference 7. Sampling took place on the San Antonio
(Texas) Road Route (SARR), which is 7,24 miles (11.7 kilometers) long and includes freaway, arterial, and local/collector high-
way segments. Vehicles average about 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr) over this road route,
"Bus emission factors are also based on the SARR. 13-Mode emission data from Reference 6 were converted to SARR values using
cycle-to-cycle conversion factors from Reference 8.
cReference 6. Tire wear particulars not included In above partlculate emission factors. See tire wear particulate, heavy-duty gaso-
line section.
"Data based on assumed fuel sulfur content of 0.20 percent. A fuel economy of 4,6 mi/gal (2.0 km/liter) was used from Reference
9.
The speed correction factor, vjps, can be computed using data in Table 3.1.5-2. Table 3.1.5-2 gives heavy-duty
diesel HC, CO, and NOX emission factors in grams per minute for the idle mode, an urban transient mode with
average speed of 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), and an over-the-road mode with an average speed of approximately 60
mi/hr (97 km/hr). For average speeds less than 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), the correction factor is:
V =
Urban + (-£ -1) Idle
O
Urban
(3.1.5-2)
where: s is the average speed of interest (in mi/hr), and the urban and idle values (in g/min) are obtained from
Table 3.1,5-2. For average speeds above 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), the correction factor is:
vips
18
42S [(60-S) Urban + (S-l 8) Over the Road]
Urban
(3.1.5-3)
iere: S is the average speed (in mi/hr) of interest. Urban and over-the-road values (in g/min) are obtained from
ble 3.1.5-2. Emission factors for heavy-duty diesel vehicles assume all operation to be under warmed-up vehicle
iditions. Temperature correction factors, therefore, are not included because ambient temperature has minimal
..fects on warmed-up operation.
3.1.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table 3.1.5-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL VEHICLES
UNDER DIFFERENT OPERATING CONDITIONS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant .
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasNO2)
Idle
0.64
0.32
1.03
Emission factors? g/min
• Urban [18 mi/hr (29 km/hr)]
i 8.61
! 1.38
I 6.27
I '
i
Over-the-road
[60 mi/hr (97 km/hr]
5.40
2.25
28.3
aReference 7. Computed from data contained in the reference.
References for Section 3.1.5
1. The Automobile and Air Pollution: A Program for Progress. Part II. U.S, Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. December 1967. p. 34.
2. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Hydrocarbons from Mobile Sources. US.
DREW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number
AP-66. March 1970. p. 2-9 through 2-11.
3. McConnel, G. and H. E. Howels. Diesel Fuel Properties and Exhaust Gas-Distant Relations? Society of
Automotive Engineers. New York, N.Y. Publication Number 670091. January 1967.
4. Motor Gasolines, Summer 1969. Mineral Industry Surveys. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Washington, D.C. Petroleum Products Survey Number 63.1970. p. 5.
5. Hum, R. W. The Diesel Fuel Involvement in Air Pollution. (Presented at the National Fuels and Lubricants
Meeting, New York, N.Y. September 17-18,1969).
6. Young, T. C. Unpublished emission factor data on diesel engines. Engine Manufacturers Association Emission
Standards Committee, Chicago, 111. October 16,1974.
7. Ingalls, M. N. and K. J. Springer. Mass Emissions from Diesel Trucks Operated over a Road Course. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich.
under Contract No. 68-01-2113. Publication No. EPA-460/3-74-017. August 1974.
8. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Interim Standards Position Paper. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Control
Technology Division, Ann Arbor, Mich. January 1975.
9. Truck and Bus Fuel Economy. U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Mass, and Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. Report No. 7 of seven panel reports. January 10,1975.
12/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.5-3
-------
-------
3.1.6 Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles by David S. Kircher
3.1.6.1 General - Conversion of vehicles to gaseous fuels has been practiced for many years. In the past the
principal motivation for the conversion has been the economic advantage of gaseous fuels over gasoline rather
than lower air pollutant emission levels that result from their use. Recently, however, conversions have been made
for air pollution control as well as for lower operating cost. Liquified petroleum gas (LPG), the most common
form of gaseous fuel for vehicles, is currently used to power approximately 300,000 vehicles in the United States.
Natural gas, in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquified natural gas (LNG), is being used nationally
to power about 4,000 vehicles.1 Of the two natural gas fuels, CNG is the most common. Natural gas conversions
are usually dual fuel systems that permit operation on either gaseous fuel (CNG or LNG) or gasoline.
3.1,6.2 Emissions - Tables 3.1.6-1 and 3.1.6-2 contain emission factors for light- and heavy-duty vehicles
converted for either gaseous fuel or dual fuel operation. The test data used to determine the average light duty
emission factors were based on both the 1972 Federal test procedure and the earlier seven-mode method.7 >°
These test data were converted to the current Federal test procedure5 using conversion factors determined
empirically.10'11 This conversion was necessary to make the emission factors for these vehicles consistent with
emission factors reported in previous sections of this chapter.
Heavy-duty vehicle emission factors (Table 3.1.6-2) are based on tests of vehicles on an experimental
dynamometer test cycle6 and on the Federal test procedure. Emissions data for heavy-duty vehicles are limited to
tests of only a few vehicles. For this reason the factors listed in table 3.1.6-2 are only approximate indicators of
emissions from these vehicles.
Emission data on gaseous-powered vehicles are limited to dynamometer test results. Deterioration factors and
speed correction factors are not available. The data contained in the tables, therefore, are emission factors for
in-use vehicles at various mileages rather than emission rates (as defined in section 3.1.2).
Emission factors for a particular population of gaseous-fueled vehicles can be determined using the relation-
ship:
enpwc= Cjfj (1)
i = n-12
where: enpwc = Emission factor is grams per mile (or g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), vehicle weight
(w) (light- or heavy-duty), and conversion fuel system (c) (e.g. LPG)
Cj = The test cycle emission factor (Tables 3.1.6-1 and 3.1.6-2) for pollutant (p) for the fa model
year vehicles
fj = The fraction of total miles driven by a population of gaseous-fueled vehicles that are driven by
the i"1 model year vehicles
Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxides emission factors are listed in the tables. Particulates and
sulfur oxides are not listed because of the lack of test data. Because stationary external combustion of gaseous
fuel results in extremely low particulate and sulfur oxides, it is reasonable to assume that the emissions of these
pollutants from gaseous-fueled vehicles are negligible.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.6-1
-------
Table 3.1.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS BY MODEL YEAR FOR LIGHT-DUTY
VEHICLES USING LPG, LPG/DUAL FUEL, OR CNG/DUAL FUEL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Fuel and
model year
LPG
Pre-1970b
1970 through
1972°
LPG/Dual fuel"
Pre-1973
CNG/Dual fuel6
Pre-1973
Carbon
monoxide
-
11
3.4
7.8
9.2
g/km
6.8
2.1
4.8
5.7
Exhaust
hydrocarbons
g/mi
1.8
0.67
2.4
1.5
g/km
1.1.
0.42
. .1.6
0.93
Nitrogen
oxides (NOV as NO?)
g/mi
3.2
2.8
3.4
2.8
g/km
2.0
1.7
2.1
1.7
j| References 1 through 5.
b Emission factors are based on
available.
1969 m°del ^vehicles. Sufficient dataforearlier models are not
The dual fuel system represents certain compromises in emission
,io.uid (gasoline) fue.s. For this reason their emission factors are
6 Based on tests of 1968 and 1969 model year vehicles. It is likely that 1973 and 1974 model
£££»? * q"aritiesHto,those listed with the possible ex(*ption of ^^^
estimate 1 975 and later model year gaseous-fueled-vehicle emissions.
Table 3.1.6-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY
VEHICLES USING LPG OR CNG/DUAL FUEL
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Exhaust
hydrocarbons
N itrogen oxides
(NOX as NO2)
Emissions (all model vearsia
LPGb'c
g/mi
4.2
2.4
2.8
g/km
2.6
1.5
1.7
CNG/dual fueld
g/mi
7.5
2.2
5.8
g/km
4.6
1.4
3.6
a Test results are for 1959 through 1970 model years. These results
are assumed to apply to all future heavy-duty vehicles based on
present and future emission standards.
b References 2 and 4.
c LPG values for heavy-duty vehicles are based on a limited number
of tests of vehicles tuned for low emissions. Vehicles converted to
LPG solely for economic reasons gave much higher emission values.
For example, eleven vehicles (1950 through 1963) tested in Refer-
ence 6 demonstrated average emissions of 160 g/mi (99 g/km) of
carbon monoxide, 8.5 g/mi (5.3 g/km) of hydrocarbons, and 4.2
g/mil (2.6 g/km) of nitrogen oxides,
d Reference 5.
3.1.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 3.1.6
1 Conversion of Motor Vehicles to Caseous Fuel to Reduce Air Pollution. UA Environmental Protection
' Agency, Office of Ail Programs. Washington, D.C. April 1972.
2. Fleming, R.D. et aL Propane as an Engine Fuel for Clean Air Requirements. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
22:45 1-458. June 1972.
3 Genslak S.L. Evaluation of Gaseous Fuels for Automobiles. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. New
' York, N.Y. Publication Number 72012S. January 1972.
4. Eshelman, R.H. If Gas Conversion. Automotive Industries. Reprinted by Century LP-Gas Carburetion,
Marvel-Schebler. Decatur, III.
5 Pollution Reduction with Cost Savings. General Services Administration. Washington, D.C. 1971.
«• iff ^ra^^^
wKgton, D.C., under Contract Number PH 86-67-72, March 1969.
7 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines. Federal Register. Part II.
' 55(219): 17288-17313, November 10, 1970,
8 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines. Federal Register. Part II.
' 55(219): 17288-17313, November 10, 1970.
9 Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedure, Federal Register. Part II. 5<5(128): 12652-12663, July 2,
1971.
10 fflgworth, H.W., Jr. Unpublished estimates of motor vehicle emission rates. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. March 1971 .
»•
Contract Number 68-04-0042. June 1972.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.6-3
-------
/
-------
3.1.7 Motorcycles
by David S. Kircher
3.1.7.1 General - Motorcycles, which are not, generally, considered an important source of air pollution, have
become more popular and their numbers have been steadily increasing in the last few years. Sales grew at an
annual rate of 20 percent from 1965 to 1971 -1 The majority of motorcycles are powered by either 2- or 4-stroke,
air-cooled engines; however, water-cooled motorcycles and Wankel-powered motorcycles have recently been
introduced. Until recently the predominant use of 4-stroke motorcycles was on-highway and the 2-stroke variety
was off-highway. This difference in roles was primarily a reflection of significant weight and power variations
between available 2- and 4-stroke vehicles. As light-weight 4-strokes and more powerful 2-strokes become
available the relative number of motorcycles in each engine category may change. Currently the nationwide
population of motorcycles is approximately 38 percent 2-stroke and 62 percent 4-stroke. Individual motorcycles
travel, on the average, approximately 4000 miles per year.1 These figures, along with registration statistics, enable
the rough estimation of motorcycle miles by engine category and the computation of resulting emissions.
3.1.7.2 Emissions - The quantity of motorcycle emission data is rather limited in comparison with the data
available on other highway vehicles. For instance, data on motorcycle average speed versus emission levels are not
available. Average emission factors for motorcycles used on highways are reported in Table 3.1.7-1. These data,
from several test vehicles, are based on the Federal light-duty vehicle test procedure,? The table illustrates
differences in 2-stroke and 4-stroke engine emission rates. On a per mile basis, 2-stroke engines emit nearly five
times more hydrocarbons than 4-stroke engines. Both engine categories emit somewhat similar quantities of
carbon monoxide and both produce low levels of nitrogen oxides.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.7-1
-------
Table 3.1.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Exhaust
Crankcaseb
Evaporative0
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Particulates
Sulfur oxides'1
-------
3.2 OFF-HIGHWAY, MOBILE SOURCES
The off-highway category of internal combustion engines embraces a wide range of mobile and semirnobile
sources. Emission data are reported in this section on the following sources: aircraft; locomotives; vessek (inboard
and outboard); and small general utility engines, such as those used in lawnmowers and mimbikes. Other sources
that fall into this Category, but for which emission data are not currently available, include: snowmobiles
all-terrain vehicles, and farm and construction equipment. Data on these sources will be added to this chapter in
future revisions.
3.2.1 Aircraft by (Junto C. Mater
3211 General - Aircraft engines are of two major categories; reciprocating (piston) and gas turbine.
The basic element in the aircraft piston engine is the combustion chamber, or *^!^
fuel and air are burned and from which energy is extracted through a piston and crank »<*™ ?
propeuer. The majority of aircraft piston engines have two or more cylinders and are general
Stag to theTcyHnder arrangement - either "opposed" or radial." Opposed engines are installed m most
light or utility aircraft; radial engines are used mainly in large transport aircraft.
The gas turbine engine in general consists of a compressor, a combustion chamber, and a turbine >. Air entering
the forward end of the engine is compressed and then heated by burning fuel m the combustion chamber. The
Saior option of the energyto the heated air stream is used for aircraft propulsion. Part of the energy is expended
aior otion of the energyto the heated air stream s use or arcra pr.
£&$£ tS^Sne!Sh Tturn drives the compressor. Turbofan and turbodrt engines use energy from the
( turbine for propulsion; turbojet engines use only the expanding exhaust stream for propulsion.
The aircraft classification system used is listed in Table 3,2.1-1. Both turbine aircraft and piston engine
aircraft have been further divided into subclasses depending on the size of the aircraft and the most commonly
used engine for that class. Jumbo jets normally have approximately 40,000 pounds maximum thrust per engine
and medium-range jete have about 14,000 pounds maximum thrust per engine. For piston engines, this dmnon »
more pronounced. Thelarge transport piston engines are in the 500 to 3,000 horsepower range, whereas the small
piston engines develop less than 500 horsepower.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.2.1-1
-------
Table 3.2.M. AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION
Aircraft class
Jumbo jet
Long-range jet
Medium-range jet
Air carrier
turboprop
Business jet
General aviation
turboprop
General aviation
piston
Piston transport
Helicopter
Military transport
Military jet
Military piston
Representative aircraft
Boeing 747
Lockheed L- 1011
McDonald Douglas DC- 10
Boeing 707
McDonald Douglas DC-8
Boeing 727
Boeing 737
McDonald Douglas DC-9
Convair 580
Electra L-188
Fairchitd Miller FH-227
Gates Learjet
Lockheed Jet star
-
Cessna 210
Piper 32-300
Douglas DC-6
Sikorsky S-61
Vertol 107
Engines
per
aircraft
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
- •
1
1
4
2
2
Engine
commonly used
Pratt & Whitney
JT-9D
Pratt & Whitney
JT-3D
Pratt & Whitney
JT-8D
Allison 501-D13
General Electric
CJ610
Pratt & Whitney
JT-12A
Pratt & Whitney
PT-6A
Teledyne-Continen-
tal 0-200
Lycoming 0-320
Pratt & Whitney
R-2800
General Electric
CT-S8
Allison T56A7
General Electric
J-79
Continental J-69
Cunlss-Wright
R-1820
3.2.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/7?
-------
3212 Landing and takeoff Cycle - A ianding-takeoff (LTD) cycle includes all normal operation mode
performed by an aircraft between the time it descends through an altitude of 3,500 feet (1,100 meters) on it
approach and the time it subsequently reaches the 3,500 foot (1,100 meters) altitude after take. It should b.
made clear that the term "operation" used by the Federal Aviation Administration to describe either a landing u
a takeoff is not the same as the LTD cycle. Two operations are involved in one LTD cycle. The LTO cycle
incorporates the ground operations of idle, taxi, landing run, and takeoff run and the flight operations of takeoff
and climbout to 3,500 feet (1,100 meters) and approach from 3,500 feet (1,100 meters) to touchdown
Each class of aircraft has its own typical LTO cycle. In order to determine emissions, the LTO cycle is
separated into five distinct modes: (1) taxi-idle, (2) takeoff, (3) climbout, (4) approach and landing, and (5)
taxi-idle. Each of these modes has its share of time in the LTO cycle. Table 3.2.1-2 shows typical operating time
in each mode for the various types of aircraft classes during periods of heavy activity at a large metropolitan
airport Emissions factors for the complete LTO cycle presented in Table 3.2.1-3 were determined using the
typical times shown in Table 3.2.1 -2.
Table 3.2.1-2. TYPICAL TIME IN MODE FOR LANDING TAKEOFF CYCLE
AT A METROPOLITAN AIRPORT8
Aircraft
Jumbo jet
Long range
jet
Medium range
jet
Air carrier
turboprop
Business jet
General avia-
tion turboprop
General aviation
piston
Piston transport
Helicopter
Military transport
Military jet
Military piston
Time in mode, minutes
Taxi-idle
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
6.50
19.00
12.00
6.50
3.50
19.00
6.50
6.50
Takeoff
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.50
0.40
0.50
0.30
0.60
0
0.50
0.40
0.60
Climbout
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.50
0.50
2.50
4.98
5.00
6.50
2.50
0.50
5.00
Approach
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.50
1.60
4.50
6.00
4.60
6.50
4.50
1.60
4.60
Taxi-idle
7.00
7.00
7.00
' 7.00
6.50
7.00
4.00
6.50
3.50
7.00
6.50
6.50
References 1 and 2.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-3
-------
OJ
Table 3.2.1-3. EMISSION FACTORS PER AIRCRAFT LAN DING-TAKE OFF CYCLE0-"1
(Ib/engine and kg/engine)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Aircarft
Jumbo jet
Long range jet
Medium range jet
Air carrier
turboprop
Business jet
General aviation
turboprop
General aviation
piston
Piston transport
Helicopter
Military transport
Military jet
Military piston*
Solid
particulates3
Ib
1.30
1.21
0.41
1.1
0.11
0.20
0.02
0.56
0.25
1.1
0.31
0.2B
kg
0.59
0.55
0.19
0.49
0.05
0.09
0.01
0.25
0.11
0.49
0.14
0.13
Sulfur
oxides'*
tb
1.82
1.56
1.01
0.40
0.37
0.18
0.014
0.28
0.18
0.41
0.76
0.14
kg
0.83
0.71
0.46
0.18
0.17
0.08
0.006
0.13
0.08
0.19
0.35
0.04
Carbon
monoxide8
Ib
46.8
47.4
17.0
6.6
15.8
3.1
12.2
304.0
5.7
5.7
15.1
152.0
kg
21.2
21.5
7.71
3.0
7.17
1.4
5.5
138.0
2.6
2.6
6.85
69.0
Hydrocarbons6
Ib
12.2
41.2
4.9
2.9
3.6
1.1
0.40
40.7
0.52
2.7
9.93
20.4
kg
5.5
18.7
2.2
1.3
1.6
0.5
0.18
18.5
0.24
1.2
4.5
9.3
Nitrogen
oxidesd(NOxasNO2)
Ib
31.4
7.9
10.2
2.5
1.6
1.2
0.047
0.40
0.57
2.2
3.29
0.20
kg
14.2
3.6
4.6
1.1
0.73
0.54
0.021
0.18
0.26
1.0
1.49
0.09
i
q
o
8 References 1 through 5.
b Emission factors based on typical times in mode shown in Table 3.2.1-2.
c References t and 5.
d Based on 0,05 percent sulfur content fuel.
'eReferences'), 2,and4.
f Engine emissions based on Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine scaled down two times.
^
w
-------
3213 Modal Emission Factors - In Table 3.2.14 a set of modal emission factors by engine type are given for
carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and solid particulates along with the fuel flow rate per
engine for each LTO mode. With this data and knowledge of the time-in-mode, it is possible to construct any
LTO cycle or mode and calculate a more accurate estimate of emissions for the situation that exists at a specific
airport This capability is especially important for estimating emissions during the taxi-idle mode when large
amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are emitted. At smaller commercial airports the taxi-idle time
wfll be less than at the larger, more congested airports.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3,2.1-5
-------
to
I—I
o\
Table 3.2.1-4. MODAL EMISSION FACTORS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
o
58
9
o
Engine and mode
Pratt & Whitney
JT-9D
(Jumbo jet)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
General Elec-
tric CF6
iJumbo jet)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout"
Approach
Pratt & Whitney
JT-3D
{Long range jet)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Pratt & Whitney
JT-3C
(Long range jet)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Pratt & Whitney
JT-4A
(Long range jet)
Taxi -idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Fuel rate
Ib/hr
1,738
17,052
14,317
5,204
1,030
13,449
11,400
6,204
872
10,835
8,956
4,138
1,198
10,183
8,509
4,115
1,389
15.511
13,066
5,994
kg/hr
788
7,735
6,494
2,361
467
6,100
5,171
2,814
396
4,915
4,062
1,877
543
4,619
3,860
1,867
630
7,036
5,927
2,719
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/hr
102.0
8.29
11.7
32.6
51.7
6.7
6.6
18.6
109.0
12.3
15.3
39.7
92.6
9.04
16.0
49.0
62.8
18.8
18.3
26.3
Tcg/hr
46.3
3.76
5.31
14.8
23.5
3.04
2.99
8.44
49.4
5.60
6.94
18.0
42.0
• 4.10
7.26
22.2
28.5
8.53
8.30
11.9
Hydrocarbons
Ib/hr
27.3
2.95
2.65
3.00
15.4
1.3
1.3
1.9
98.6
4.65
4.92
7.84
92.2
0.855
0.893
8.26
64.8
0.674
1.27
3.83
kg/hr
12.4
1.34
1.20
1.36
7.0
0.59
0.59
0.86
44.7
Z11
2.23
3.56
41.8
0.388
0.405
3.75
29.4
0.306
0.576
1.74
Nitrogen
oxides (NOX asNO2)
Ib/hr
a 06
72ao
459.0
54.1
3.6
540.0
333.0
173.0
1.43
148.0
96.2
21.8
2.49
119.0
84.7
23.2
2.71
236.0
155.0
35.9
kg/hr
2.75
327.0
208.0
24.5
1.63
245.0
151.0
78.5
0.649
67.1
43.6
9.89
1.13
54.0
38.4
10.5
1.23
107.0
70.3
ias
Solid
particulates
Ib/hr
2.2
3.75
4.0
2.3
0.04
0.54
0.54
0.44
0.45
a25
8.5
ao
0.40
6.50
6,25
3.25
1.2
21.0
20.0
6.0
kg/hr
1.0
1.7
1.8
1.0
0.02
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.20
3.7
3.9
3.6
0.18
2.9
2.8
1.5
0.54
9.5
9.1
2.7
-------
Table 3.2.1-4 (continued). MODAL EMISSION FACTORS3
. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Engine and mode
General Elec-
tric CJ805
(Long range jet)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Pratt & Whitney
JT-8De
(Med. range jet)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Rolls Royce
SpreyMK511
(Med. range jet)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Allison T56-A15
(Air carrier
turboprop;
mil. trans-
port)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Allison T56-A7
(Air carrier
turboprop;
mil. trans-
port)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Fuel rate
Ib/hr
1,001
9,960
8,290
3,777
959
8,755
7,337
3,409
662
7,625
6,355
3,052
493
2,393
2,188
1,146
548
2,079
1,908
1,053
kg/hr
454
4,518
3,760
1,713
435
3,971
3,328
1,546
300
3,459
2,883
1,384
224
1,085
992
520
249
943
865
478
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/hr
63.8
29.1
28.9
42.8
33.4
7.49
8.89
18.2
60.2
14.2
15.3
39.1
8.74
3.77
3.40
3.49
15.3
2.15
3.01
3.67
kg/hr
28.9
13.2
13.1
19.4
15.2
3.40
4.03
8.26
27.3
6.44
6.94
17.7
3.96
1.71
1.54
1.58
e.w
0.975
1.37
1.66
Hydrocarbons
Ib/hr
27.3
0.556
0.583
2.43
6.99
0.778
0.921
1.75
66.1
Neg
0.242
4.22
7.39
0.440
0.399
0.326
6.47
0.430
0.476
0.517
Kg/hr
124
0.252
0.264
1.10
3.71
0.353
0.418
0.794
30.0
Neg
0.110
1.91
3.35
0.200
0.181
0.148
2.93
0.195
0.216
0.235
Nitrogen
oxides (NOX asN02)
Ib/hr
1.57
111.0
74.0
17.8
2.91
198.0
131.0
30.9
0.849
153.0
115.0
30.4
1.23
27.9
22.2
7.32
2.16
22.9
21.2
7.78
kg/hr
0.712
50.3
33.6
8.07
1.32
89.8
59.4
14.0
0.385
69.4
52.2
13.8
0.560
12.7
10.1
3.32
0.980
10.4
9.62
3.53
Solid
particulates
Ib/hr
1.3
15.0
15.0
5.0
0.36
3.7
2.6
1.5
0.17
16.0
10.0
1.5
1.6
3.7
3.0
3.0
1.6
3.7
3.0
3.0
kg/hr
0.59
6.8
6.8
2.3
0.16
1.7
1.2
0.68
0.077
7.3
4.5
0.68
0.73
1.7
1.4
1.4
0.73
1.7
1.4
1.4 .
w
-------
Table 3.2.1-4 (continued). MODAL EMISSION FACTORS?
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Engine and mode
Airesearch
(Gen. aviation
turboprop)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Teledyne/Con-
tinental 0-200
(Gen. aviation
piston)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Lycoming 0-320
(Gen. aviation
piston)
Taxi-idle
Takeoff
Climbout
Approach
Fuel rate
Ib/hr
146
365
339
206
7.68
48.4
48.4
21.3
13.0
65.7
63.5
23.1
kg/hr
66.2
166.0
154.0
93.4
3.48
22.0
22.0
9.66
5.90
29.8
28.8
10.5
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/hr
3.53
0.393
0.568
2.58
7,52
54.6
54.6
23.8
11.1
70£
65.8
24.3
kg/hr
1.60
0.178
0.258
1.17
3.41
24.8
24.8
10.8
5.03
32.2
29.8
11.0
Hydrocarbons
Ib/hr
0.879
0.055
0.053
0.240
0,214
0.720
0.720
0,380
0.355
1.49
1.31
0.496
kg/hr
0.399
0.025
0.024
0.109
0.097
0.327
a327
ai72
0.161
a.676
0.594
0.225
Nitrogen
oxides (NOK as NO2)
Ib/hr
0.955
3.64
3.31
1.69
0.009
0.259
0.259
0.052
0.013
0.214
0.375
0.051
kg/hr
0.433
1.65
t.5Q
0.767
0.004
0.117
0.117
0.024
0.006
0.097
0.170
0.023
Solid
particulates
Ib/hr
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.6
NAe
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
kg/hr
0.14
0.36
0.27
0.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
00
2
9
o
"g
a References 4 and 5.
bExtimated end/or calculated.
c "Diluted smokeless?' JT-8O. AS air camera scheduled for comeraon of JT-8D engines to smokeless by January 1973.
"Simiar to the PT-6A engine.
to
-------
References for Section 3.2.1
1 Nature and Control of Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions. Nor Aern Research and Engineering Collation
Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract
--7 November 1968.
, .
Number PH22-6S-27. November 1968.
2 The Potential Impact of Aircraft Emissions upon Air Quality. Northern Research ^ ^"gj
Corporation, Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., under Contract Number 68-02-0085. December 197 1 .
3 Assessment of Aircraft Emission Control Technology. Northern Research ^Engine.
Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Contract Number 68-04-0011. September 1971.
4 Analysis of Aircraft Exhaust Emission Measurements. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Inc. Buffalo, N.Y
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
68-04-0040. October 1971.
5. Private communication With Dr. E. Karl Bastress. IKOR Incorporated. Burlington, Mass. November 1972.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.2.1-9
-------
-------
3.2.2 Locomotives
by David S. Kircher
3221 General - Railroad locomotives generally follow one of two *ise patterns: railyard switching or road-haul
service Locomotives can be classified on the basis of engine configuration and use pattern into five categories:
2-stroke switch locomotive (supercharged), 4-stroke switch locomotive, 2-stroke road service locomotive
(supercharged), 2-stroke road service locomotive (turbocharged), and 4-stroke road service locomotive.
The engine duty cycle of locomotives is much simpler than many other applications involving diesel internal
combustion engines because locomotives usually have only eight throttle positions in addition to idle and
dynamic brake. Emission testing is made easier and the results are probably quite accurate because of the
simplicity of the locomotive duty cycle.
3222 Emissions - Emissions from railroad locomotives are presented two ways in this section. Table 3.2.2-1
contains average factors based on the nationwide locomotive population breakdown by category. Table 3.2.2-2
gives emission factors by locomotive category on the basis of fuel consumption and on the basis of work output
(horsepower hour).
The calculation of emissions using fuel-based emission factors is straightforward. Emissions are simply the
product of the fuel usage and the emissiori factor. In order to apply the work output emission factor, however, an
Table 3.2.2-1. AVERAGE LOCOMOTIVE
EMISSION FACTORS BASED
ON NATIONWIDE STATISTICS8
Pollutant
Particulatesc
Sulfur oxidesd
(SOX as S02>
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as NO2)
Aldehydes
(as HCHO)
Organic acids0
Averaqe emissions'1
Ib/IC^gal
25
57
130
94
370 .
5.5
7
kg/103 liter
3.0
6.8
16
11
44
0.66
0.84
9 Reference 1.
b Based on emission data contained in Table 3.2.2-2
and the breakdown of locomotive use by engine
category in the United States in Reference 1.
c Data based on highway diesel data from Reference
2. No actual locomotive participate test data are
available.
d Based on a fuel sulfur content of 0.4 percent from
Reference 3.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.2-1
-------
Table 3.2.2-2. EMISSION FACTORS BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE
CATEGORY8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
lb/103gal
kg/103 liter
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
Hydrocarbon
lb/1(Pgal
kg/103 liter
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
Nitrogen oxides
(N0y as N02)
Ib/lOSgal
kg/103 liter
. g/hphr
g/metric hphr
Engine category
2-Stroke
supercharged
switch
84
10
3.9
3.9
190
23
8.9
8.9
250
30
11
11
4-Stroke
switch
380
46
13
13
146
17
5.0
5.0
490
59
17
17
2-Stroke
supercharged
road
66
7.9
1.8
1.8
148
18
4.0
4.0
350
42
9.4
9.4
2-Stroke
turbocharged
road
160
19
4.0
4.0
28
3.4
0.70
0.70
330
40
8.2
8.2
4-Stroke
road
180
22
4.1
4.1
99
12
2.2
2.2
470
56
10
10
a Use average factors (Table 3.2.2-1) for pollutants not listed in this table.
additional calculation is necessary. Horsepower hours can be obtained using the following equation:
w=lph
where: w = Work output (horsepower hour)
1 = Load factor (average power produced during operation divided by available power)
p = Available horsepower
h = Hours of usage at load factor (1)
After the work output has been determined, emissions are simply the product of the work output and the
emission factor. An approximate load factor for a line-haul locomotive (road service) is 0.4; a typical switch
engine load factor is approximately 0.06.1
References for Section 3.2.2
1. Hare, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part 1. Locomotive Diesel Engines and Marine Counterparts. Final Report.
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHA 70-108. October 1972.
2. Young, T.C. Unpublished Data from the Engine Manufacturers Association. Chicago, 111. May 1970.
3. Hanley, G.P. Exhaust Emission Information on Electro-Motive Railroad Locomotives and Diesel Engines.
General Motors Corp. Warren, Mich. October 1971.
3.2.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
L
-------
3.2.3 Inboard-Powered Vessels
Revised by David S. Kircher
3.2.3.1 General - Vessels classified on the basis of use will generally fall into one of three categories: commercial,
pleasure, or military. Although usage and population data on vessels are, as a rule, relatively scarce, information on
commercial and military vessels is more readily available than data on pleasure craft. Information on military
vessels is available in several study reports,1"5 but data on pleasure craft are limited to sales-related facts and
Qgures,6-lO
Commercial vessel population and usage data have been further subdivided by a number of industrial and
governmental researchers into waterway classifications11"16 (for example, Great Lakes vessels, river vessels, and
coastal vessels). The vessels operating in each of these waterway classes have similar characteristics such as size,
weight, speed, commodities transported, engine design (external or internal combustion), fuel used, and distance
traveled. The wide variation between classes, however, necessitates the separate assessment of each of the waterway
classes with respect to air pollution.
Information on military vessels is available from both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard as a result of
studies completed recently. The U.S. Navy has released several reports that summarize its air pollution assessment
work.3'5 Emission data have been collected in addition to vessel population and usage information. Extensive
study of the air pollutant emissions from U.S. Coast Guard watercraft has been completed by the U.S, Department
of Transportation. The results of this study are summarized in two reports.1'2 The first report takes an iMepth
look at population/usage of Coast Guard vessels. The second report, dealing with emission test results, forms the
basis for the emission factors presented in this section for Coast Guard vessels as well as for non-military diesel
Although a large portion of the pleasure craft in the U.S. are powered by gasoline outboard motors (see section
3.2.4 of this document), there are numerous larger pleasure craft that use inboard power either with or without
"out-drive" (an outboard-like lower unit). Vessels falling into the inboard pleasure craft category utilize either Otto
cycle (gasoline) or diesel cycle internal combustion engines. Engine horsepower varies appreciably from the small
"auxiliary" engine used in sailboats to the larger diesels used In yachts.
3.2,3.2 Emissions
Commercial vessels. Commercial vessels may emit air pollutants under two major modes of operation:
underway and at dockside (auxiliary power).
Emissions underway are influenced by a great variety of factors including power source (steam or diesel), engine
size (in kilowatts or horsepower), fuel used (coal, residual oil, .or diesel oil), and operating speed and load.
Commercial vessels operating within or near the geographic boundaries of the United States fall into one of the
three categories of use discussed above (Great Lakes, rivers, coastline). Tables 3.2.3-1 and 3,2.3-2 contain emission
information on commercial vessels falling into these three categories. Table 3.2.3-3 presents emission factors for
diesel marine engines at various operating modes on the basis of horsepower. These data are applicable to any vessel
having a similar size engine, not just to commercial vessels, |
Unless a ship receives auxiliary steam from dockside facilities, goes immediately into dry dock, or is out of
operation after arrival in port, she continues her emissions at dockside, Power must be made available for the ship's
lighting, heating, pumps, refrigeration, ventilation, etc. A few steam ships use auxiliary engines (diesel) to supply
power, but they generally operate one or more main boilers under reduced draft and lowered fuel rates-a very
inefficient process, Motorships (ships powered by internal combustion engines) normally use diesel-powered
generators to furnish auxiliary power.1' Emissions from these diesel-powered generators may also be a source of
underway emissions if they are used away from port. Emissions from auxiliary power systems, in terms of the
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.3-1
-------
Table 3.2.3-1. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
COMMERCIAL MOTORSHIPS BY WATERWAY
CLASSIFICATION
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emissions3
Sulfur oxides'3
(SOxasS02)
kg/ft3 liter
lb/103 gal
Carbon monoxide
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Hydrocarbons
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
River
3.2
27
12
100
6.0
50
33
280
Classc
Great Lakes
3.2
27
13
110
7.0
59
31
260
Coastal
3.2
27
13
110
6.0
50
32
270
aExpressed as function of fuel consumed (based on emission data from •
Reference 2 and population/usage data from References 11 through 16.
bCalculated, not measured. Based on 0.20 percent sulfur content fuel
and density of 0.854 kg/liter (7.12 Ib/gal) from Reference 17.
every approximate paniculate emission factors from Reference 2 are
470 g/hr (1.04 Ib/hr). The reference does not contain sufficient
information to calculate fuel-based factors.
quantity of fuel consumed, are presented in Table 3.2.3-4. In some instances, fuel quantities used may not be
available, so calculation of emissions based on kilowatt hours (kWh.) produced may be necessary. For operating
loads in excess of zero percent, the mass emissions (e^) in kilograms per hour (pounds per hour) are given by:
6j = kief
where: k = a constant that relates fuel consumption to kilowatt
that is, 3.63 xlO"4 1000 liters fuel/kWh
or
9.59 xlO-5 1000 gal fuel/kWh
1= the load, kW
ef = the fuel-specific emission factor from Table 3.2.3-4, kg/103 liter (lb/103 gal)
3.2.3-2 EMISSION FACTORS
0)
1/75
-------
Ul
Table 3.2,3-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COMMERCIAL STEAMSHIPS-ALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Pollutant
Particulatesc
Sulfur oxides
(SOxasS02)e
Carbon monoxide0
Hydrocarbons0
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Fuel and operating mode3
Residual oilb
Hoteling
kg/103
liter
1.20d
19. IS
Negd
0.38d
4.37
lb/103
gat
10.0d
159S
Negd
3.2d
36.4
Cruise
kg/103
liter
2.40
19.1S
0.414
0.082
6.70
lb/103
gal
20.0
159S
3.45
0.682
55.8
Full
kg/103
liter
6.78
19.1S
0.872
0.206
7.63
lb/103
gal
56.5
159S
7.27
1.72
63.6
Distillate oilb
Hoteling
kg/103
liter
1.8
17.05
0.5
0.4
2.66
lb/103
gal
15
142S
4
3
22.2
Cruise
kg/103
liter
1.78
17.QS
0.5
0.4
2.83
lb/103
gal
15
142S
4
3
23.6
Full
kg/103
liter
1.78
17.0S
0.5
0.4
5.34
lb/103
gal
15
142S
4
3
44.5
a-.
§
m
§
The operating modes are based on the percentage of maximum available power: "hoteling" is 10 to 11 percent of available power, "full" is 100 percent of available power, and
"cruise" is an intermediate power (35 to 75 percent, depending on the test organization and vessel tested).
Test organizations used "Navy Special" fuel oil, which is not a true residual oil. No vessel test data were available for residual oil combustion. "Residual" oil results are from
References 2, 3, and 5. "Distillate" oil results are from References 3 and 5 only. Exceptions are noted. "Navy Distillate" was used as distillate test fuet.
"Paniculate, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emission factors for distillate oil combustion are based on stationary boilers tsee Section 1.3 of this document).
Reference 18 indicates that carbon monoxide emitted during hoteling is small enough to be considered negligible. This reference also places hydrocarbons at 0,38 kg/103 liter (3.2
elt)/10J gall and paniculate at 1.20 kg/103 liter (10.0 lb/103 gal). These data are included for completeness only and are not necessarily comparable with other tabulated data.
Emission factors listed are theoretical in that they are based on all the sulfur in the fuel converting to sulfur dioxide. Actual test data from References 3 and 5 confirm the validity of
these theoretical factors. "S" is fuel sulfur content in percent.
W
-------
Table 3.2.3-3. DIESEL VESSEL EMISSION FACTORS BY OPERATING MODE3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Horsepower
200
300
500
600
700
.900
1550
1580
2500
3600
Mode
Idle
Slow
Cruise
Full
Slow
Cruise
Full
Idle
Cruise
Full
Idle
Slow
Cruise
Idle
Cruise
Idle
2/3
Cruise
Idle
Cruise
Full
Slow
Cruise
Full
Slow
2/3
Cruise
Full
Slow
2/3
Cruise
Full
Emissions'1
Carbon monoxide
lb/103
gal
210.3
145.4
126.3
142.1
59.0
47.3
58.5
282.5
99.7
84.2
171.7
50.8
77.6
293.2
36.0
223.7
62.2
80.9
12.2
3.3
7.0
122.4
44.6
237.7
59.8
126.5
78.3
95.9
148.5
28.1
41.4
62.4
kg/103
liter
25.2
17.4
15.1
17.0
7.1
5.7
7.0
33.8
11.9
10.1
20.6
'6.1
9.3
35.1
4.3
26.8
7.5
9.7
1.5
0,4
0.8
14.7
5.3
28.5
7.2
15.2
9.4
11.5
17.8
3.4
5.0
7.5
Hydrocarbons
lb/103
gal
391.2
103.2
170.2
60.0
56.7
5T.1
21.0
118.1
44.5
22.8
68.0
16.6
24.1
95.8
8.8
249.1
16.8
17.1
0.64
1.64
16.8
22.6
14.7
16.8
21.3
60.0
25.4
32.8
29.5
kg/103
liter
46.9
12.4
20.4
7.2
6.8
6.1
2.5
14.1
5.3
2.7
8.2
2.0
2.9
11.5
1.1
29.8
2.0
2.1
0.1
0.2
2.0
2.7
1.8
2.0
2.6
7.2
3.0
4.0
3.5
Nitrogen ox ides
(NOX as N02)
lb/103
gal
6.4.
207.8
422.9
255.0
337.5
389.3
275.1
99.4
338.6
269.2
307.1
251.5
349.2
246.0
452.8
107.5
. 167.2
360.0
39.9
36.2
37.4
371.3
623.1
472.0
419.6
326.2
391.7
399.6
367.0
358.6
339.6
307.0
kg/103
liter
0.8
25.0
50.7
30.6
40.4
46.7
33.0
11.9
40.6
32.3
36.8
30.1
41.8
29.5
54.2
12.9
20.0
43.1
4.8
4.3
4.5
44.5
74.6
5.7
50.3
39.1
46.9
47.9
44.0
43.0
40.7
36.8
("Reference 2.
Paniculate and sulfur oxides data are not available.
3.2.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
Table 3.2.3-4. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR DIESEL-POWERED ELECTRICAL
GENERATORS IN VESSELSa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Rated
output,b
kW
20
40
200
500
,Load,c
% rated
output
0
25
50
75
0
25
50
75
0
25
50
75
0
25
50
75
Emissions
Sulfur oxides
(SOxasSQ2)d
lb/103
gal
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
kg/103
liter
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3,2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Carbon
monoxide
lb/103
gal
150
79.7
53.4
28.5
153
89.0
67.6
64.1
134
97.9
62.3
26.7
58.4
53.4
48.1
43.7
kg/103
liter
18.0
9.55
6.40
3.42
18.3
10.7
8.10
7.68
16.1
11.7
7.47
3.20
7.00
6.40
5.76
5.24
Hydro-
carbons
lb/103
gal
263
204
144
84.7
584
370
285
231
135
33.5
17.8
17.5
209
109
81.9
59.1
kg/103
liter
31.5
24.4
17.3
10.2
70.0
44.3
34.2
27.7
16.2
4.01
2.13
2.10
25.0
13.0
9.8
7.08
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
lb/103
gal
434
444
477
495
214
219
226
233
142
141
140
137
153
222
293
364
kg/103
liter
52.0
53.2
57.2
59.3
25.6
26.2
27.1
27.9
17.0
16.9
16.8
16.4
18.3
26.6
35.1
43.6
Reference 2.
Maximum rated output of the diesel-powered generator.
cGenerator electrical output (for example, a 20 kW generator at 50 percent load equals 10 kW output).
Calculated, not measured, based on 0.20 percent fuel sulfur content and density of 0.854 kg/liter (7.12 Ib/gal) from Reference 17.
At zero load conditions, mass emission rates (ej) may be approximated in terms of kg/hr (lb/hr) using the
following relationship:
el= tiratedSf (2)
where: k = a constant that relates rated output and fuel consumption,
that is, 6.93 xlO"5 1000 liters fuel/kW
or
1.83xlO-5 1000 gal fuel/kW
Crated = ^ rated output, kW
ef = the fuel-specific emission factor from Table 3.2.34, kg/103 liter (lb/103 gal)
Pleasure craft. Many of the engine designs used in inboard pleasure craft are also used either in military vessels
(diesel) or in highway vehicles (gasoline). Out of a total of 700,000 inboard pleasure craft registered in the United
States in 1972, nearly 300,000 were inboard/outdrive. According to sales data, 60 to 70 percent of these
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.3-5
-------
inboard/outdrive craft used gasoline-powered automotive engines rated at more than 130 horsepower.6 The
remaining 400,000 pleasure craft used conventional inboard drives that were powered by a variety of powerplants,
both gasoline and diesel. Because emission data are not available for pleasure craft, Coast Guard and automotive
data2'19 are used to characterize emission factors for this class of vessels in Table 3.2.3-5,
Military vessels. Military vessels are powered by a wide variety of both diesel and steam power plants. Many of the
emission data used in this section are the result of emission testing programs conducted by the U.S. Navy and the
U.S. Coast Guard.1"3 •* A separate table containing data on military vessels is not provided here, but the included
tables should be sufficient to calculate approximate military vessel emissions.
TABLE S.2.3.-5. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR INBOARD PLEASURE CRAFT8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Pollutant
Sulfur oxidesd
(SOX as S02)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
Based on fuel consumption
Diesel engine*1
kg/103
liter
3.2
17
22
41
lb/103
gal
27
140
180
340
Gasoline engine0
kg/103
liter
0.77
149
10.3
15.7
lb/103
gal
6.4
1240
86
131
Based on operating time
Diesel engine'1
kg/hr
-
-.
-
-
!b/hr
—
-
•*+. t
-
Gasoline engine0
kg/hr
0.008
1.69
0.117
0.179
Ib/hr
0.019
3.73
0.2S8
0.394
aAverage emission factors are based on the duty cycle developed for large outboards (> 48 kilowatts or > 65 horsepower) from Refer-
ence 7. The above factors take into account the impact of water scrubbing of underwater gasoline engine uxhaust also from Reference
7. All values given are for single engine craft and must be modified for multiple engine vessels.
"Based on tests of diesel engines in Coast Guard vessels. Reference 2.
cBased on tests of automotive engines. Reference 19, Fuel consumption of 11.4 liter/hr (3 gal/hr) assumed. The resulting factors are
only rough estimates.
dBased on fuel sulfur content of 0.20 percent for diesel fuel and 0.043 percent for gasoline from References 7 and 17. Calculated usina
fuel density of 0.740 kg/liter (6,17 Ib/gal) for gasoline and 0.854 kg/liter (7.12 Ib/gai) for diesel fuel.
References for Section 3.2.3
1. Walter, R. A., A, J. Broderick, J. C. Sturm, and E. C. Klaubert. USCG Pollution Abatement Program: A
Preliminary Study of Vessel and Boat Exhaust Emissions. U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation
Systems Center. Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for the United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. Report No
DOT-TSC-USCG-72-3. November 1971.119 p.
3.2.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
2. Souza, A. F. A Study of Emissions from Coast Guard Cutters. Final Report. Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.
Plumsteadville, Pa. Prepared for the Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center,
Cambridge, Mass., under Contract No. DOT-TSC-429. February 1973.
3. Wallace, B. L. Evaluation of Developed Methodology for Shipboard Steam Generator Systems. Department of
the Navy. Naval Ship Research and Development Center. Materials Department. Annapolis, Md. Report No.
28463. March 1973.18 p.
4. Waldron, A. L. Sampling of Emission Products from Ships' Boiler Stacks. Departrrent of the Navy. Naval Ship
Research and Development Center. Annapolis, Md. Report No. 28-169. April 1972.7 p.
5. Foernsler, R. 0. Naval Ship Systems Air Contamination Control and Environmental Data Base Programs;
Progress Report. Department of the Navy. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Annapolis, Md.
Report No. 28443. February 1973.9 p.
6. The Boating Business 1972. The Boating Industry Magazine. Chicago, 111. 1973.
7. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines, Final Report Part 2. Outboard Motors. Southwest Research Institute. San
Antonio, Tex. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract No. EHS 7'0-108. January 1973. 57 p.
8. Hurst, J. W. 1974 Chrysler Gasoline Marine Engines. Chrysler Corporation. Detroit, Mich.
9. Mercruiser Stemdrives/ Inboards 73. Mercury Marine, Division of the Brunswick Corporation. Fond du Lac,
Wise. 1972.
10. Boating 1972. Marex. Chicago, Illinois, and the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers.
Greenwich, Conn. 1972. 8 p.
11. Transportation Lines on the Great Lakes System 1970. Transportation Series 3. Corps df Engineers, United
States Army, Waterbome Commerce Statistics Center. New Orleans, La. 1970. 26 p.
12. Transportation Lines on the Mississippi and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 1970. Transportation Series 4.
Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Waterbome Commerce Statistics Center. New Orleans, La. 1970.232
P-
13. Transportation lines on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coasts 1970. Transportation Series 5. Corps of
Engineers. United States Army. Waterbome Commerce Statistics Center. New Orleans, La. 1970. 201 p.
14. Schueneman, J. J. Some Aspects of Marine Air Pollution Problems on the Great Lakes. J. Air Pol. Control
Assoc. 74:23-29, September 1964.
15. 1971 Inland Waterbome Commerce Statistics. The American Waterways Operations, Inc. Washington, D.C.
October 1972.38 p.
16. Horsepower on the Inland Waterways. List No. 23. The Waterways Journal. St. Louis, Mo. 1972. 2 p.
17. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part 1. Locomotive Diesel Engines and Marine Counterparts. Southwest
Research Institute. San Antonio, Tex. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108. October 1972. 39 p.
18. Pearson, J. R. Ships as Sources of Emissions. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Seattle, Wash,
(Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International Section of the Air Pollution Control
Association. Portland, Ore. November 1969.)
19. Study of Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles in Six Cities. Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc. San
Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract No. 68-04-0042. June 1971.
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.3-7
-------
-------
1.4 Outboard-Powered Vessels
by David S. Kirchcr
3.2.4.1 General - Most of the approximately 7 million outboard motors in use in the United States are 2-stroke
engines with an average available horsepower of about 25. Because of the predominately leisure-time use of
outboard motors, emissions related to their operation occur primarily during nonworking hours, in rural areas,
and during the three summer months. Nearly 40 percent of the outboards are operated in the states of New York,
Texas, Florida, Michigan, California, and Minnesota. This distribution results in the concentration of a large.
portion of total nationwide outboard emissions in these states.1
3.2.4.2 Emissions — Because the vast majority of outboards have underwater exhaust, emission measurement is
very difficult. The values presented in Table 3.2.4-1 are the approximate atmospheric emissions from outboards.
These data are based on tests of four outboard motors ranging from 4 to 65 horsepower.1 The emission results
from these motors are a composite based on the nationwide breakdown of outboards by horsepower. Emission
factors are presented two ways in this section: in terms of fuel use and in terms of work output (horsepower
hour). The selection of the factor used depends on the source inventory data available, Work output factors are
used when the number of outboards in use is available. Fuel-specific emission factors are used when fuel
consumption data are obtainable.
Table 3.2.4-1. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR OUTBOARD MOTORS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutantb
Sulfur oxidesd
(SOxasS02)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons0
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
Based on fuel consumption
lb/103gal
6.4
3300
1100
6.6
kg/103 liter
0.77
400
130
0.79
Based on work output0
g/hphr
0.49
250
85
0.50
g/metrlc hphr
0.49
250
85
0.50
* Reference 1. Data In thl« table are emissions to the atmosphere. A portion of the exhaust remains behind In
.the water.
"Paniculate emission factori are not available because of the problems involved with measurement from an
underwater exhaust system but are considered negligible.
c Horsepower hours are calculated by multiplying the average power produced during the hours of usage by
the population of outboards In a given area. In the absence of data specific to e given geographic area, the
hphr value can be estimated using average nationwide values from Reference 1, Reference 1 report* the
average power produced (not the available power) as 9,1 hp end the average annual usage per engine as 60
hours. Thus, hphr • (number of outboards) (9.1 hp) (BO hours/outboard-year). Metric hphr • 0,9863 hphr.
d Bated on fuel sulfur content of 0.043 percent from Reference 2 end on e density of & 17 Ib/gel.
• Includes exhaust hydrocarbons only. No crankcase emissions occur beceuse the majority of outboards are
2-ttroke engines that use crankcasa Induction. Evaporative emissions are limited by the widespread use of
unvented tanks.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.4-1
-------
References for sections 3.2.4
1. Haie, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Exhaust Emissipns from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part II, Outboard Motors. Final Report. Southwest Research Institute Sar!
Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park N C under
Contract Number EHS 70-108. January 1973. ' '*
2. Hare, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment
Using Internal Combustion Engines. Emission Factors and Impact Estimates for Light-Duty Air-Cooled Utility
Engines and Motorcycles. Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHS 70-108. January 1972.
3.2.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
3.2.5 Small, General Utility Engines
Revised by Charles C. Masser
3.2.5.1 General-This category of engines comprises small 2-stroke and 4-strpke, air-cooled, gasoline-powered
motors. Examples of the uses of these engines are: lawnmowers, small electric generators, compressors, pumps,
minibikes, snowthrowers, and garden tractors. This category does not include motorcycles, outboard motors, chain
saws, and snowmobiles, which are either included in other parts of this chapter or are not included because of the
lack of emission data.
Approximately 89 percent of the more than 44 million engines of this category in service in the United States
are used in lawn and garden applications.1
3.2.5.2 Emissions—Emissions from these engines are reported in Table 3.2.5-1. For the purpose of emission
estimation, engines in this category have been divided into lawn and garden (2-stroke), lawn and garden (4-stroke),
and miscellaneous (4-stroke). Emission factors are presented in terms of horsepower hours, annual usage, and fuel
consumption.
References for Section 3.2.5
1. Donohue, J. A., G. C. Hardwick, H. K. Newhall, K. S. Sanvordenker, and N. C. Woelffer. Small Engine Exhaust
Emissions and Air Quality in the United States. (Presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Detroit. January 1972.)
2. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related
Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines. Part IV, Small Air-Cooled Spark Ignition Utility Engines.
Final Report. Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Tex. Prepared for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108, May 1973.
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.5-1
-------
Table 3.2.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SMALL, GENERAL UTILITY ENGINESa'b
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Engine
2-Stroke, lawn
and garden
g/hphr
g/metric
hphr
g/gal of
fuel
g/unit-
year
4-Stroke, lawn
and garden
g/hphr
g/metric
hphr
g/gal of
fuel
. g/unit-
year
4-Stroke
miscellaneous
g/hphr
g/metric
hphr
g/gal of
fuel
g/u nit-
year .
Sulfur
oxides0
(SOX as S02)
0.54
0.54
1.80
38
0.37
0.37
2.37
26
0.39
0.39
2.45
30
Paniculate
7.1
7.1
23.6
470
.. ' .'•' •«
i bl ' '
0.44
0.44
2.82
31
0.44
0.44
2.77
34
Carbon
monoxide
480
486
1,618
.. !.';.;£ '• ••'
:f^$DS •'
:''V":
279
279
1,790
19,100
250
250
1,571
19,300
Hydrocarbons
Exhaust
2f4
214
713
14,700
23.2-:
23.2
149
: 1,590
15.2
15.2
95.5
1,170
Evaporative0
— •.
-
—
113
• .. -; " •.-- ••-
•• • • •' ..'"
y .,,^.,
"•'.- •-._;'.'•• .
-
113
—
-
-
290
Nitrogen
oxides
(NOX as N02)
1.58
1.58
5.26
108
3.17
3.17
20.3
217
4.97
4,97
31.2
384
Alde-
hydes
(HCHO)
2,04
2.04
6.79
140
0.49
0.49
3.14
34
0.47
0.47
2.95
36
Reference 2. , J"i"- ., \
Values for g/unit-year were calculated assuming an annual usage of BffTiouKand a 40 percent load factor. Facto'ra for g/hphr can
be used In instances where annual usages, load factors, and rated hor&po^r are known. Horsepower noun are the product of the
usage in hours, the load-factor, and the rated horsepower.. '"•"-•" '.).. f
''Values calculated, not measured, based on the use of 0,043 percent sulfur content fuel.-
rf - • ' '' • ^ *'*'
Value; calculated from annual fuel consumption. Evaporative losses from storage and filling operations are not included (tee
Chapter.^). ;•' -.:" : •-'.„..
3.2.5-2 :
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
3.2.6 Agricultural Equipment
by DavidS. Kircher
3.2.6.1 General - Farm equipment can be separated into two major categories: wheeled tractors and other farm
machinery. In 1972, the wheeled tractor population on farms consisted of 4.5 million units with an average power
of approximately ?4 kilowatts (45 horsepower). Approximately 30 percent of the total population of these
tractors is powered by diesel engines. The average diesel tractor is more powerful than the average gasoline tractor,
that is, 52 kW (70 hp) versus 27 kW (36 tip).1 A considerable amount of population and usage data is available
for farm tractors. For example, the Census of Agriculture reports the number of tractors in use for each county in
the U.S.2 Few data are available on the usage and numbers of non-tractor farm equipment, however. Self-propelled
combines, forage harvesters, irrigation pumps, and auxiliary engines on pull-type combines and balers are examples
of non-tractor agricultural uses of internal combustion engines. Table 3.2.6-1 presents data on this equipment for
the'U.S.
3.2.6.2 Emissions — Emission factors for wheeled tractors and other farm machinery are presented in Table
3.2.6-2. Estimating emissions from the time-based emission factors-grams per hour (g/hr) and pounds per hour
Qb/hr)—requires an average usage value in hours. An approximate figure of 550 hours per year may be used or, on
the basis of power, the relationship, usage in hours = 450 + 5.24 (kW - 37.2) or usage in hours - 450 + 3.89 (hp -
50) may be employed.1
The best emissions estimates result from the use of "brake specific" emission factors (g/kWh or g/hphr).
Emissions are the product of the brake specific emission factor, the usage in hours, the power available, and the
load factor (power used divided by power available). Emissions are also reported in terms of fuel consumed.
Table 3.2.6-1. SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM EQUIPMENT
(OTHER THAN TRACTORS)8
Machine
Combine, self-
propelled
Combine, pull
type
Corn pickers
and picker-
shellers
Pick-up balers
Forage
harvesters
Miscellaneous
Units in
service, x103
434
289
687
655
295
1205
Typical
size
4.3m
(14ft)
2.4m
(8ft)
2-row
5400kg/hr
(6 ton/hr)
3.7m
(12 ft) or
3-row
-
Typical power
kW
82
19
_b
30
104
22
hp
110
25
40
140
30
Percent
gasoline
50
100
100
0
50
Percent
diesel
50
0
0
100
50
Reference 1.
Unpowered,
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.6-1
-------
Table 3.2.6-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR WHEELED FARM TRACTORS AND
NON-TRACTOR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Exhaust
hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Crankcase
hydrocarbons'1
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Evaporative
hydrocarbons'5
g/u nit-year
Ib/unit-year
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Aldehydes
(RCHO as HCHO)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Sulfur oxides0
-------
Table 3.2.6-2. (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR WHEELED FARM TRACTORS AND
NON-TRACTOR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Particulate
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Diesel farm
tractor
1.17
0.874
3.74
31.2
61.8
0.136
1.72
1.28
5.48
45.7
Gasoline farm
tractor
0.312
0.233
0.637
5.31
8.33
0.018
0.471
0.361
0.960
8.00
Diesel farm
equipment
(non-tractor)
1.23
0.916
3.73
31.1
34.9
0.077
2.02
1.51
6.16
51.3
Gasoline farm
equipment
(non-tractor)
0.377
0.281
0.634
5.28
7.94
0.017
0.489
0.365
0.823
6.86
"Reference 1.
Crankcase and evaporative emissions from diesel engines are considered negligible.
cNot measured. Calculated from fuel sulfur content of 0.043 percent and 0.22 percent for gasoline-powered and diesel-
powered equipment, respectively.
References for Section 3.2.6
1. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Final Report. Part 5: Heavy-Duty Farm, Construction and Industrial Engines.
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108. August 1973.97 p.
2. County Farm Reports. U.S. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.6-3
-------
-------
3.2,7 Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment
by David S. Kircher
3,2.7.1 General - Because few sales, population, or usage data are available for construction equipment, a number
of assumptions were necessary in formulating the emission factors presented in this section.' The useful life of
construction equipment is fairly short because of the frequent and severe usage it must endure. The annual usage of
the various categories of equipment considered here ranges from 740 hours (wheeled tractors and rollers) to 2000
hours (scrapers and off-highway trucks). This high level of use results in average vehicle lifetimes of only 6 to 16
years. The equipment categories in this section include: tracklaying tractors, tracklaying shovel loaders, motor
graders, scrapers, off-highway trucks, wheeled loaders, wheeled tractors, rollers, wheeled dozers, and miscellaneous
machines. The latter category contains a vast array of less numerous mobile and semi-mobile machines used in
construction, such as, belt loaders, cranes, pumps, mixers, and generators. With the exception of rollers, the
majority of the equipment within each category is diesel-powered.
3.2.7.2 Emissions - Emission factors for heavy-duty construction equipment are reported in Table 3.2,7-1 for
diesel engines and in Table 3,2.7-2 for gasoline engines. The factors are reported in three different forms-on the
basis of running time, fuel consumed, and power consumed. In order to estimate emissions from time-based
emission factors, annual equipment usage hi hours must be estimated. The following estimates of use for the
equipment listed in the tables should permit reasonable emission calculations.
Category
Tracklaying tractors
Tracklaying shovel loaders
Motor graders
Scrapers
Off-highway trucks
Wheeled loaders
Wheeled tractors
Rollers
Wheeled dozers
Miscellaneous
Annual operation, hours/year
1050
1100
830
2000
2000
1140
740
740
2000
1000
The best method for calculating emissions, however, is on the basis of "brake specific" emission factors (g/kWh
or g/hphi). Emissions are calculated by talcing the product of the brake specific emission factor, the usage in hours,
the power available (that is, rated power), and the load factor (the power actually used divided by the power
available).
References for Section 3.2.7
1. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines - Final Report Part 5: Heavy-Duty Farm, Construction, and Industrial Engines.
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108. October 1973.105 p.
2. Hare, C. T. Letter to C. C. Masser of Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
concerning fuel-based emission rates for farm, construction, and industrial engines, San Antonio, Tex, January
14,1974.4 p.
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.7-1
-------
Table 3.2.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Exhaust hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Aldehydes
(RCHO as HCHO)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Sulfur oxides
(SOX as S02>
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Particulate
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Track lay ing
tractor
175.
0.386
3.21
2.39
10.5
87.5
50.1
0.110
0.919
0.685
3.01
25.1
665.
1.47
12.2
9.08
39.8
332,
12.4
0.027
0.228
0.170
0.745
6.22
62.3
0.137
1.14
0.851
3.73
31.1
50.7
0.112
0.928
0.692
3.03
25.3
Wheeled
tractor
973.
2.15
5.90
4.40
19.3
161.
67.2
0.148
1.86
1.39
6.10
5Q.9
v ...
451, „
0.994
12.5
9.35
41.0
342.
13.5
0.030
0.378
0.282
1.23
10.3
40.9
0.090
1.14
0.851
3.73
31.1
61.5
0.136
1.70
1.27
5.57
46.5
Wheeled
dozer
335.
0.739
2.45
1.83
7.90
65.9
106.
0.234
0.772
0.576
2.48
20.7
2290.
5.05
16.8
12.5
53.9
450.
29.5
0.065
0.215
0.160
0.690
5.76
158.
0.348
1.16
0.867
3.74
31.2
75.
0.165
0.551
0.411
1.77
14.8
Scraper
660.
1.46
3.81
2.84
11.8
98.3
284.
0.626
1.64
1.22
5.06
42.2
2820.
6.22
16.2
12.1
50.2
419.
65.
0.143
0.375
0.280
1.16
9.69
210.
0.463
1.21
0.901
3.74
31.2
184.
0.406
1.06
0.789
3.27
27.3
Motor
grader
97.7
0.215
2.94
2.19
9.35
78.0
24.7
0.054
0.656
0.489
2.09
17.4
478.
1.05
14.1
10.5
44.8
374.
5.54
0.012
0.162
0.121
0.517
4.31
39.0
0.086
1.17
0.874
3.73
31.1
27.7
0.061
0.838
0.625
2.66
22.2
References 1 and 2.
3.2.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
Table 3.2.7-1 (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY. DIESEL-POWERED
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Exhaust hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Aldehydes
(RCHO as HCHO)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Sulfur oxides
(SOX as SO2>
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Part icu late
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Wheeled
loader
251.
0.553
3.51
2.62
11.4
95.4
84.7
0.187
1.19
0.888
3.87
32.3
1090.
2.40
15.0
11.2
48.9
408.
18.8
0.041
0.264
0.197
0.859
7.17
82.5
0.182
1.15
0.857
3.74
31.2
77.9
0.172
1.08
0.805
3.51
29.3
Tracklaying
loader
72.5
0.160
2.41
1.80
7.90
65.9
14.5
0.032
0.485
0.362
1.58
13.2
265.
0.584
8.80
6.56
28.8
240.
4.00
0.009
0.134
0.100
0.439
3.66
34.4
0.076
1.14
0.853
3.74
31.2
26.4
0.058
0.878
0.655
2.88
24.0
Off-
Highway
truck
610.
1.34
3.51
2.62
11.0
92.2
198.
0.437
1.14
0.853
3.60
30.0
3460.
7.63
20.0
14.9
62.8
524.
51.0
0.112
0.295
0.220
0.928
7.74
206.
0.454
1.19
0.887
3.74
31.2
116.
0.266
0.673
0.502
2.12
17.7
Roller
83.5
0.184
4.89
3.65
13.7
114.
24.7
0.054
1,05
0,781
2.91
24.3
474.
1.04
21.1
15.7
58.5 .
488.
7.43
0.016
0.263
0.196
0.731
6.10
30.5
0.067
1.34
1.00
3.73
31.1
22.7
0.050
1.04
0.778
2.90
24.2
Miscel-
laneous
188.
0.414
3.78
2.82
11.3
94.2
71.4
0.157
1.39
1.04
4.16
34.7
1030.
2.27
19.8
14.8
59.2
494.
13.9
0.031
0.272
0.203
0.813
6.78
64.7
0.143
1.25
0.932
3.73
31.1
63.2
0.139
1.21
0.902
3.61
30.1
References 1 and 2.
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.7-3
-------
Table 3.2.7-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE-POWERED
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Exhaust hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Evaporative
hydrocarbons0
g/hr
Ib/hr
Crankcase
hydrocarbons'3
g/hr
Ib/hr
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Aldehydes
(RCHOasHCHO)
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Sulfur oxides
g?hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Wheeled
tractor
4320.
9.52
190,
142.
389.
3250.
164.
0.362
7.16
5.34
14.6
122.
30.9
0.0681
32.6
0.0719
195.
0.430
8.54
6.37
17.5
146.
7.97
0.0176
0.341
0.254
0.697
5.82
7.03
0.0155
0.304
0.227
0.623
5.20
Motor
grader
5490.
12.1
251.
. 187.
469.
3910.
186.
0.410
8.48
6.32
15.8
132.
30.0
0.0661
37.1
0.0818
145.
0.320
6.57
4.90
12.2
102.
8.80
0.0194
0.386
0.288
0.721
6.02
7.59
0.0167
0.341
0.254
0.636
5.31
Wheeled
loader
7060.
15.6
219.
163.
435.
3630.
241.
0.531
7.46
5.56
14.9
124.
29.7
0.0655
48.2
0.106
235.
0.618
7.27
5.42
14.6
121.
9.65
0.0213
0.298
0.222
0.593
4.86
10.6
0.0234
0.319
0.238
0.636
5.31
Roller
6080.
13.4
271.
202.
460.
3840.
277.
0.611
12.40
9.25
21.1
176.
28.2
0.0622
55.5
0.122
164.
0.362
7.08
5.28
12.0
100.
7.57
0,0167
0.343
0.256
0.582
4.88
8.38
0.0185
0.373
0.278
0.633
6.28
Miscel-
laneous
7720.
17.0
266.
198.
475.
3960.
254.
0.560
8.70
6.49
15.6
130.
26.4
0.0560
60.7
0,112
187.
0.412
6.42
4.79
11.6
95.8
9.00
0.0198
0.298
0.222
0.532
4.44
10.6
0.0234
0.354
0.264
0.633
5.28
3.2.7-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
Table 3.2.7-2. (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOB HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE-POWERED
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Paniculate
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Wheeled
tractor
10,9
0.0240
0.484
0.361
0.991
8.27
Motor
grader
9.40
0.0207
0.440
0.328
0.822
6.89
Wheeled
loader
13.5
0.0298
0,421
0.314
0.839
7.00
Roller
11.8
0.0260
0.527
0.393
0.895
7.47
Miscel-
laneous
11.7
0.0258
0.406
0.303
0.726
6.06
References 1 and 2.
bEvaporative and crankcaw hydrocarbons based on operating time only (Reference 1).
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.7-5
-------
I
-------
3.2.8 Snowmobiles
by Charles C. J^asser
3.2.8.1 General - In order to develop emission factors for snowmobiles, mass emission rates must be known, and
operating cycles representative of usage in the field must be either known or assumed. Extending the applicability
of data from tests of a few vehicles to the total snowmobile population requires additional information on the
composition of the vehicle population by engine size and type. In addition, data on annual usage and total machine
population are necessary when the effect of this source on national emission levels is estimated.
An accurate determination of the number of snowmobiles in use is quite easily obtained because most states
require registration of the vehicles. The most notable features of these registration data are that almost 1.5 million
sleds are operated in the United States, that more than 70 percent of the snowmobiles are registered in just four
states (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York), and that only about 12 percent of all snowmobiles are
found in areas outside the northeast and northern midwest.
3.2.8.2 Emissions - Operating data on snowmobiles are somewhat limited, but enough are available so that an
attempt can be made to construct a representative operating cycle. The required end products of this effort are
time-based weighting factors for the speed/load conditions at which the test engines were operated; use of these
factors will permit computation of "cycle composite" mass emissions, power consumption, fuel consumption, and
specific pollutant emissions.
Emission factors for snowmobiles were obtained through an EPA-contracted study1 in which a variety of
snowmobile engines were tested to obtain exhaust emissions data. These emissions data along with annual usage
data were used by the contractor to estimate emission factors and the nationwide emission impact of this pollutant
source.
To arrive at average emission factors for snowmobiles, a reasonable estimate of average engine size was
necessary. Weighting the size of the engine to the degree to which each engine is assumed tojbe representative of
the total population of engines in service resulted in an estimated average displacement of 362 cubic centimeters
(cm3).
The speed/load conditions at which the test engines were operated represented, as closely as possible, the
normal operation of snowmobiles in the field. Calculations using the fuel consumption data obtained during the
tests and the previously approximated average displacement of 362 cm3 resulted in an estimated average fuel
consumption of 0.94 gal/hr.
To compute snowmobile emission factors on a gram per unit year basis, it is necessary to know not only the
emission factors but also the annual operating time. Estimates of this usage are discussed in Reference 1. On a
national basis, however, average snowmobile usage can be assumed to be 60 hours per year. Emission factors for
snowmobiles are presented in Table 3.2.8-1.
References for Section 3.2.8
1. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related
Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines. Final Report. Part 7: Snowmobiles. Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio, Tex. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
under Contract No. EHS 70-108. April 1974.
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.8-1
-------
Table 3.2.8-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SNOWMOBILES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur oxides0
Solid participate
Aldehydes (RCHO)
Emissions
g/un it-year3
58.700
37,800
600
51
1,670
552
g/galb
1.040.
670.
10.6
0.90
29.7
9.8
g/literb
275.
177.
2.8
0.24
7.85
2.6
g/hrb
978.
630.
10.0
0.85
27.9
9.2
aBased on 60 hours of operation per year and 362 cm3 displacement.
Based on 362 cm3 displacement and average fuel consumption of 0.94 gal/hr.
GBased on sulfur content of 0.043 percent by weight.
3.2.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
3.3 OFF-HIGHWAY, STATIONARY SOURCES
by David S. Kircher and
Charles C. Masser
In general, engines included in this category are internal combustion engines used in applications similar to those
associated with external combustion sources (see Chapter 1). The major engines within this category are gas
turbines and large, heavy-duty, general utility reciprocating engines. Emission data currently available for these
engines are limited to gas turbines and natural-gas-fired, heavy-duty, general utility engines. Most stationary
internal combustion engines are used to generate electric power, to pump gas or other Quids, or to compress air for
pneumatic machinery.
3.3.1 Stationary Gas Turbines for Electric Utility Power Plants
3.3.1.1 General - Stationary gas turbines find application in electric power generators, in gas pipeline pump and
compressor drives, and in various process industries. The majority of these engines are used in electrical generation
for continuous, peaking, or standby power.1 The primary fuels used are natural gas and No. 2 (distillate) fuel oil,
although residual oil is used in a few applications.
3.3.1.2 Emissions - Data on gas turbines were gathered and summarized under an EPA contract.2 The contractor
found that several investigators had reported data on emissions from gas turbines used in electrical generation but
that little agreement existed among the investigators regarding the terms in which the emissions were expressed.
The efforts represented by this section include acquisition of the data and their conversion to uniform terms.
Because many sets of measurements reported by the contractor were not complete, this conversion often involved
assumptions on engine air flow or fuel flow rates (based on manufacturers' data). Another shortcoming of the
available information was that relatively few data were obtained at loads below maximum rated (or base) load.
Available data on the population and usage of gas turbines in electric utility power plants are fairly extensive,
and information from the various sources appears to be in substantial agreement. The source providing the most
complete information.is the Federal Power Commission, which requires major utilities (electric revenues of $1
million or more) to submit operating and financial data on an annual basis. Sawyer and Farmer3 employed these
data to develop statistics on the use of gas turbines for electric generation in 1971. Although their report Involved
only the major, publicly owned utilities (not the private or investor-owned companies), the statistics do appear to
include about 87 percent of the gas turbine power used for electric generation in 1971.
Of the 253 generating stations listed by Sawyer and Farmer, 137 have more than one turbine-generator unit.
From the available data, it is not possible to. know how many hours each turbine was operated during 1971 for
these multiple-turbine plants. The remaining 116 (single-turbine) units, however, were operated an average of 1196
hours during 1971 (or 13,7 percent of the time), and their average load factor (percent of rated load) during
operation was 86.8 percent. This information alone is not adequate for determining a representative
pattern for electric utility turbines, but it should help prevent serious errors.
operating
Using 1196 hours of operation per year and 250 starts per year as normal, the resulting average operating day is
about 4.8 hours long. One hour of no-load time per day would represent about 21 percent of operating time, which
is considered somewhat excessive. For economy considerations, turbines are not run at off-design conditions any
longer than necessary, so time spent at intermediate power points is probably minimal. The bulk of turbine
operation must be at base or peak load to achieve the high load factor already mentioned.
If it is assumed that time spent at off-design conditions includes IS percent at zero load and 2 percent each at
25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent load, then the percentages of operating time at rated load (100 percent)
and peak load (assumed to be 125 percent of rated) can be calculated to produce an 86.8 percent load factor.
These percentages turn out to be 19 percent at peak load and 60 percent at rated load; the postulated cycle based
on this line of reasoning is summarized in Table 3.3.1 • 1.
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.3.1-1
-------
Table 3.3.1-1. TYPICAL OPERATING CYCLE FOR ELECTRIC
UTILITY TURBINES
Condition,
% of rated
power
0
25
50
75
100 (base)
125 (peak)
Percent operating
time spent
at condition
15
2
2
2
60
19
Time at condition
based on 4.8-hr day
hours
0.72
0.10
0.10
0.10
2.88
0.91
4.81
minutes
43
6
6
6
173
55
289
Contribution to load
factor at condition
0.00x0.15 = 0.0
0.25 x 0.02 = 0,005
0.50 x 0.02 = 0.010
0.76x0.02 = 0.015
1.0 x 0.60 = 0.60
1.25x0.19 = 0.238
Load factor =0.868
The operating cycle in Table 3.3.1-1 is used to compute emission factors, although it is only an estimate of actual
operating patterns.
Table 3.3.1-2. COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR 1971
POPULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITY TURBINES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Time basis
Entire population
Ib/hr rated load3
kg/hr rated load
Gas-fired only
Ib/hr rated load
kg/hr rated load
Oil-fired only
Ib/hr rated load
kg/hr rated load
Fuel basis
Gas-fired only
Ib/IO&ftSgas
kg/106m3 gas
Oil-fired only
lb/103 gal oil:
kg/103 liter oil
Nitrogen
oxides
8.84
4.01
7.81
3.54
9.60
4.35
413.
6615.
67.8
8.13
Hydro-
carbons
0.79
0.36
0.79
0.36
0.79
0.36
42.
673.
5.57
0.668
Carbon
Monoxide
2.18
0.99
2.18
0.99
2.18
0.99
115.
1842.
15.4
1.85
Partic-
ulate
0.52
0.24
0.27
0.12
0.71
0.32
14.
224.
5.0
0.60
Sulfur
oxides
0.33
0.15
0.098
0.044
0.50
0.23
940Sb
15,0005
140S
16.8S
aRated load expressed in megawatts.
bS is the percentage sulfur. Example: If the factor la 940 and the sulfur content Is 0.01 percent, the sulfur oxides emitted would
be 940 times 0.01, or 9.4 lb/106 ft3 gas.
Table 3.3.1-2 is the resultant composite emission factors based on the operating cycle of Table 3.3.1-1 and the
1971 population of electric utility turbines.
3.3.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
I
1/75
-------
Different values for time at base and peak loads are obtained by changing the total time at lower loads (0
through 75 percent) or by changing the distribution of time spent at lower loads. The cycle given in Table 3.3.1-1
seems reasonable, however, considering the fixed load factor and the economies of turbine operation. Note that t
cycle determines onfy the importance of each load condition in computing composite emission factors for eac.
type of turbine, not overall operating hours.
The top portion of Table 3.3.1-2 gives separate factors for gas-fired and oil-fired units, and the bottom portion
gives fuel-based factors that can be used to estimate emission rates when overall fuel consumption data are
available. Fuel-based emission factors on a mode basis would also be useful but present fuel consumption data are
not adequate for this purpose.
References for Section 3.3.1
1. O'Keefe, W. and R. G. Schwieger. Prime Movers. Power. 115(11): 522-531. November 1971.
2 Hare C T and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Final Report. Part 6: Gas Turbine Electric Utility Power Plants. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108, February 1974.
3. Sawyer, V. W. and R. C. Fanner. Gas Turbines in U.S. Electric Utilities. Gas Turbine International. JFanuary -
April 1973.
1/75 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.3.1-3
-------
-------
3.3.2 Heavy-Duty, Natural-Gas-Fired Pipeline Compressor Engines
by Susan fiercer
Alan Burgess
Tom Lahre
3.3.2.1 General1 - Engines in the natural gas industry are used primarily to power compressors used for pipeline
transportation, field gathering (collecting gas from wells), underground storage, and gas processing plant
applications. Pipeline engines are concentrated in the major gas producing states (such as those along the Gulf
Coast) and along the major gas pipelines. Both reciprocating engines and gas turbines are utilized, but the trend
has been toward use of large gas turbines. Gas turbines emit considerably fewer pollutants than do reciprocating
engines; however, reciprocating engines are generally more efficient in their use of fuel.
3.3.2.2 Emissions and Controls1'2 - The primary pollutant of concern is NOX, which readily forms in the high
temperature, pressure, and excess air environment found in natural-gas-fired compressor engines. Lesser amounts
of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are emitted, although for each unit of natural gas burned, compressor
engines (particularly reciprocating engines) emit significantly more of these pollutants than do external
combustion boilers. Sulfur oxides emissions are proportional to the sulfur content of the fuel and will usually be
quite low because of the negligible sulfur content of most pipeline gas.
The major variables affecting NOX emissions from compressor engines include the air fuel ratio, engine load
(defined as the ratio of the operating horsepower divided by the rated horsepower), intake (manifold) air
temperature, and absolute humidity. In general, NOX emissions increase with increasing load and intake air
temperature and decrease with increasing absolute humidity and air fuel ratio. (The latter already being, in most
compressor engines, on the "lean" side of that air fuel ratio at which maximum NOX formation occurs.)
Quantitative estimates of the effects of these variables are presented in Reference 2.
Because NOX is the primary pollutant of significance emitted from pipeline compressor engines, control
measures to date have been directed mainly at limiting NOX emissions. For gas turbines, the most effective
method of controlling NOX emissions is the injection of water into the combustion chamber. Nitrogen oxides
reductions as high as 80 percent can be achieved by this method. Moreover, water injection results in only
nominal reductions in overall turbine efficiency. Steam injection can also be employed, but the resulting NQg
reductions may not be as great as with water injection, and it has the added disadvantage that a supply of steam
must be readily available. Exhaust gas recirculation, wherein a portion of the exhaust gases is recirculated back
into the intake manifold, may result in NOX reductions of up to 50 percent. This technique, however, may not be
practical in many cases because the recirculated gases must be cooled to prevent engine malfunction. Other
combustion modifications, designed to reduce the temperature and/or residence time of the combustion gases,
can also be effective in reducing NOX emissions by 10 to 40 percent in specific gas turbine units.
For reciprocating gas-fired engines, the most effective NOX control measures are those that change the air-fuel
ratio. Thus, changes in engine torque, speed, intake air temperature, etc., that in turn increase the air-fuel ratio,
may all result in lower NOX emissions. Exhaust gas recirculation may also be effective in lowering NOX emissions
although, as with turbines, there are practical limits because of the large quantities of exhaust gas thai] must be
cooled. Available data suggest that other NOX control measures, including water and steam injection, have only
limited application to reciprocating gas-fired engines.
Emission factors for natural-gas-fired pipeline compressor engines are presented in Table 3.3.2-1.
4/76
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.3.2-1
-------
Table 3.3.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, NATURAL-
GAS-FIRED PIPELINE COMPRESSOR ENGINES8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Reciprocating engines
lb/103hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/kW-hr
lb/106scff
kg/106 Nm3f
Gas turbines
lb/103hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/kW-hr
Ib/106scf9
kg/106Nm39
Nitrogen oxides
(as N02)b
24
11
15
3,400
55,400
2.9
1.3
1.7
300
4,700
Carbon
monoxide
3.1
1.4
1.9
430
7,020
1.1
0.5
0.7
120
1,940
Hydrocarbons
(as C)c
9.7
4.4
5.9
1,400
21,800
0.2
0.1
0.1
23
280
Sulfur
dioxided
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.6
9.2
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.6
9.2
Paniculate6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
aAII factors based on References 2 and 3.
''These factors are for compressor engines operated at rated load. In general, NOX emissions will increase with increasing
load and intake (manifold) air temperature and decrease with increasing air-fuel ratios (excess air rates) and absolute
humidity. Quantitative estimates of the effects of these variables are presented in Reference 2.
cThese factors represent total hydrocarbons. Nonmethane hydrocarbons are estimated to make up to 5 to 10 percent of
these totals, on the average.
dBased on an assumed sulfur content of pipeline gas of 2000 gr/106 scf (4600 g/Nm3), If pipeline quality natural gas is
not fired, a material balance should be performed to determine SC>2 emissions based on the actual sulfur content.
efjot available from existing data.
These factors are calculated from the above factors for reciprocating engines assuming a heating value of 1050 Btu/scf
(9350 kcal/Nm3) for natural gas and an average fuel consumption of 7500 Btu/hp-hr (2530 kcal/kW-hr).
*These factors are calculated from the above factors for gas turbines assuming a heating value of 1,050 Btu/scf (9,350 keel/
Nm3) of natural gas and an average fuel consumption of 10,000 Btu/hp-hr (3,380 kcal/kW-hr).
References for Section 3.3.2
1. Standard Support Document and Environmental Impact Statement - Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines. Aerotherm/Acurex Corp., Mountain View, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-1318, Task Order No. 7, November 1974.
2. Urban, C.M. and K J. Springer. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Natural Gas Pipeline Compressor Engines.
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for American Gas Association, Arlington, Va.
February 1975.
3. Dietzmann, H.E. and KJ. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Piston and Gas Turbine Engines Used in Natural
Gas Transmission. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for American Gas Association,
Arlington, Va. January 1974. ,
3.3.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/76
C
-------
3.3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines
by David S. Kircher
3.3.3-1 General - This engine category covers a wide variety of industrial applications of both gasoline and diesel
internal combustion power plants, such as fork lift trucks, mobile refrigeration units, generators, pumps, and
portable well-drilling equipment. The rated power of these engines covers a rather substantial range-from less than
15 kW to 186 kW (20 to 250 hp) for gasoline engines and from 34 kW to 447 kW (45 to 600 hp) for diesel engines.
Understandably, substantial differences in both annual usage (hours per year) and engine duty cycles also exist. It
was necessary, therefore, to make reasonable assumptions concerning usage in order to formulate emission
factors.1
3.3.3-2 Emissions - Once reasonable usage and duty cycles for this category were ascertained, emission values
from each of the test engines 1 were aggregated (on the basis of nationwide engine population statistics) to arrive at
the factors presented in Table 3.3.3-1. Because of their aggregate nature, data contained in this table must be
applied to a population of industrial engines rather than to an individual power plant.
The best method for calculating emissions is on the basis of "brake specific" emission factor? (g/kWh or
Ib/hphr). Emissions are calculated by taking the product of the brake specific emission factor, the usage in hours
(that is, hours per year or hours per day), the power available (rated power), and the load factor (the power
actually used divided by the power available).
Table 3.3.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GASOLINE-
AND DIESEL-POWERED INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant8
Carbon monoxide
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Exhaust hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Evaporative hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
Crankcase hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
Engine category13
Gasoline
6700.
12.6
267.
199.
472.
3940.
101.
0.421
8.95
6.68
15.8
132.
62.0
0.137
38.3
0.084
Diesel
197.
0.434
4.06
3.03
12.2
102.
72.8
0.160
1.50
U2
4.49
37.5
_
_
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.3.3-1
-------
Table 3.3.3-1. (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR GASOLINE-
ANO DIESEL-POWERED INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant3
Nitrogen oxides
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Aldehydes
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Sulfur oxides
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Paniculate
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Engine category"
Gasoline
148.
0.326
6.92
5.16 .
12.2
102.
6.33
0.014
0.30
0.22
0.522
4.36
7.67
0.017
0.359
0.268
0.636
5.31
9.33
0.021
0.439
0.327
0.775
6.47
Diesel
910.
2.01
18.8
14.0
56.2
469, .
13.7
0.030
0.28
0.21
0.84
7.04
60.5
0.133
1.25
0.931
3.74
31.2
65.0
0.143
1.34
1.00
4.01
33.5
References 1 and 2.
As discussed in the text, the engines used to determine the results in this
table cover a wide range of uses and power. The listed values do not,
however, necessarily apply to some very large stationary diesel engines.
References for Section 3.3.3
1.
2.
Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Finw Report. Part 5: Heavy-Duty Farm, Construction, and Industrial Engines.
Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108. October 1973.105 p.
Hare, C. T. Letter to C. C. Masser of the Environmental Protection Agency concerning fuel-based emission
rates for farm, construction, and industrial engines. San Antonio, Tex. January 14,1974.
3.3.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
4. EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES
Evaporation losses include the organic solvents emitted from dry-cleaning plants and surface-
coating operations as well as the volatile matter in petroleum products. This chapter presents the
hydrocarbon emissions from these sources, including liquid petroleum storage and marketing. Where
possible, the effect of controls to reduce the emissions of organic compounds has been shown.
4.1 DRY CLEANING by Susan Sercer
4.1.1 General1'2
Dry cleaning involves the cleaning of fabrics with non-aqueous organic solvents. The dry cleaning
process requires three steps: (1) washing the fabric in solvent, (2) spinning to extract excess solvent, and
(3) drying by tumbling in a hot airstream.
Two general types of cleaning fluids are used in the industry: petroleum solvents and synthetic sol-
vents. Petroleum solvents, such as Stoddard or 140-F, are inexpensive, combustible hydrocarbon
mixtures similar to kerosene. Operations using petroleum solvents are known as petroleum plants
Synthetic solvents are nonflammable but more expensive halogenated hydrocarbons. Perchloro
ethylene and trichlorotrifluoroethane are the two synthetic dry cleaning solvents presently in
use. Operations using these synthetic solvents are called "perc" plants and fluorocarbon plants,
respectively.
There are two basic types of dry cleaning machines: transfer and dry-to-dry. Transfer machines ac-
complish washing and drying in separate machines. Usually the washer extracts excess solvent from the
clothes before they are transferred to the dryer, however, some older petroleum plants have separate
extractors for this purpose. Dry-to-dry machines are single units that perform all of the washing,
extraction, and drying operations. All petroleum solvent machines are the transfer type, but synthetic
solvent plants can be either type.
The dry cleaning industry can be divided into three sectors: coin-operated facilities, commercial
operations, and industrial cleaners. Coin-operated facilities are usually part of a laundry and supply
"self-service" type dry cleaning for consumers. Only synthetic solvents are used in coin-operated dry
cleaning machines. Such machines are small, with a capacity of 8 to 25 Ib (3.6 to 11.5 kg) of clothing.
Commercial operations, such as small neighborhood or franchise dry cleaning shops, clean soiled
apparel for the consumer. Generally, perchloroethylene and petroleum solvents are used in commer-
cial operations. A typical "perc" plant operates a 30 to 60 Ib (14 to 27 kg) capacity washer/extractor and
an equivalent size reclaiming dryer.
Industrial cleaners are larger dry cleaning plants which supply rental service of uniforms, ma IB,
mops, etc., to businesses or industries. Although petroleum solvents are used extensively, perchloro-
ethylene is used by approximately 50% of the industrial dry cleaning establishments. A typical large in-
dustrial cleaner has a 500 Ib (230 kg) capacity washer/extractor and three to six 100 Ib (38 kg) capacity
dryers.
A typical perc plant is shown in Figure 4.1-1. Although one solvent tank may be used, the typical
perc plant uses two tanks for washing. One tank contains pure solvent; the other tank contains
"charged" solvent—used solvent to which small amounts of detergent have been added to aid in clean-
ing. Generally, clothes are cleaned in charged solvent and rinsed in pure solvent, A water bath may also
be used.
4/77 Evaporative Loss Sources 4.1-1
-------
EXHAUST GAS/SOLVENT
WATER-
B
§
33
en
WASHER/EXTRACTOR
CHARGED
SOLVENT
TANK
DETERGENT
FILTER
FILTERED
SOLVENT
1
PURE
SOLVENT
TANK
HEATED
AIR
SEPARATOR
CONDENSER
«f
DRYER
CONDENSER
SOLVENT
1
SEPARATOR
-WATER
WATER
MEAT H
(DESORPTION)
CARBON
ADSORBER
. i
t • MUCK
t. — GASES
•« SOLVENT
~>^Aflf EMISSIONS
HEAT
DISTtt
BOT
SOLVENT
DISTILLATION
i
LATION!
TOMS '
(I -*•
.
STILL
RESIDUE
STORAGE
SEPARATOR
MUCK
COOKER
1
I
MUCK) r
L-*
\
^ DISPOSAL
HEAT
CONDENSER
^
FILTER
MUCK
STORAGE
\
DISPOSAL
IDESORBEDSOLVENT
' AND STEAM
WATER
Figure 4.M. Perchloroethyiene dry cleaning plant flow diagram.
-------
After the clothes have been washed, the used solvent is filtered, and part of the filtered solvent is re-
turned to the charged solvent tank for washing the next load. The remaining solvent is then distilled to
remove oils, fats, greases, etc., and returned to the pure solvent tank. The resulting distillation hot-,'
toms are typically stored on the premises until disposed of. The filter cake and collected solids (muck)
are usually removed from the filter once a day. Before disposal, the muck may be "cooked" to recover
additional solvent. Still and muck cooker vapors are vented to a condenser and separator where more
solvent is reclaimed. In many perc plants, the condenser off-gases are vented to a carbon adsorption
unit for additional solvent recovery.
After washing, the clothes are transferred to the dryer where they are tumbled in a heated air-
stream. Exhaust gases from the dryer, along with a small amount of exhaust gases from the washer/ex-
tractor, are vented to a water-cooled condenser and water separator. Recovered solvent is returned to
the pure solvent storage tank. In 30-50 percent of the perc plants, the condenser of f-gases are vented to
a carbon adsorption unit for additional solvent recovery. To reclaim this solvent, the unit must be
periodically desorbed with steam—typically at the end of each day. Desorbed solvent and water are
condensed and separated; recovered solvent is returned to the pure solvent tank.
A petroleum plant would differ from Figure 4.1-1 chiefly in that there would be no recovery of sol-
vent from the washer and dryer and no muck cooker. A fluorocarbon plant would differ in that a non-
vented refrigeration system would be used in place of a carbon adsorption unit. Another difference
would be that a typical fluorocarbon plant would use a cartridge filter which is drained and disposed
of after several hundred cycles.
Emissions and Controls1!2'3
The solvent material itself is the primary emission of concern from dry cleaning operations. Sol-
vent is given off by the washer, dryer, so'vent still, muck cooker, still residue and filter muck storage
areas, as well as leaky pipes, flanges, and pumps.
Petroleum plants have generally not employed solvent recovery because of the low cost of petro-
leum solvents and the fire hazards associated with collecting vapors. Some emission control, however,
can be obtained by maintaining all equipment in good condition (e.g., preventing lint accumulation,
preventing so'lvent leakage, etc.) and by using good operating practices (e.g., not overloading machin-
ery). Both carbon adsorption and incineration appear to be technically feasible controls for petroleum
plants, but costs are high.
Solvent recovery is necessary in perc plants due to the higher cost of perchloroethylene. As shown in
Figure 4.1-1, recovery is effected on the washer, dryer, still, and muck cooker through the use of con-
densers, water/solvent separators, and carbon adsorption units. Periodically (typically once a day), sol-
vent collected in the carbon adsorption unit is desorbed with steam, condensed, separated from the
condensed water, and returned to the pure solvent storage tank. Residual solvent emitted from treat-
ed distillation bottoms and muck is not recovered. As in petroleum plants, good emission control can
be obtained by good housekeeping practices (maintaining all equipment in good condition and using
good operating practices).
AH fluorocarbon machines are of the dry-to-dry variety to conserve solvent vapor, and all are closed
systems with built-in solvent recovery. High emissions can occur, however, as a result of poor mainte-
nance and operation of equipment. Refrigeration systems are installed on newer machines to recover
solvent from the washer/dryer exhaust gases.
Emission factors for dry cleaning operations are presented in Table 4.1-1.
4/77 Evaporative Loss Sources 4.1-3
-------
Table 4,1-1. SOLVENT LOSS EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Solvent type
(Process used)
Petroleum
(transfer process)
Perchloroethylene
(transfer process)
Trichlbrotrifluoroethane
(dry-to-dry process)
Source
washer/dryer^
filter disposal
uncooked (drained)
centrifuged-
still residue disposal
miscellaneousc
^ washer/dryer/still/muck cooker
filter disposal
uncooked muck
cooked muck
cartridge filter
still residue disposal
miscellaneous0
washer/dryer/still6
cartridge filter disposal
still residue disposal
miscellaneous0
Emission rate8
Typical systems
lb/1 00 Ib (kg/100 kg)
18
5
2
.3
8d
14
1.3
1.1
1,6
1.5
0
1
0.5
1 -3
Well-controlled system
lb/100lb(kg/100
2"
0.5-1
0.5-1
1
0.3b
0.5-1.3
0.5-1.1
0.5-1.6
1
0
1
0.5
1 -3
kg)
aUnits are in terms of weight of solvent per weight of clothes cleaned (capacity x loads). Emissions may be estimated on an alternative
basis by determining the amount of solvent consumed. Assuming that all solvent input to dry cleaning operations is eventually
evaporated to the atmosphere, an emission factor of 2000 Ib/ton of solvent consumed can be applied. All emission factors are based
on References 1, 2 and 3.
''Emissions from the washer, dryer, still, and muck cooker are collectively passed through a carbon adsorber.
c(Wiscellaneous sources include fugitive emissions from flanges, pumps, pipes, storage tanks, fixed losses (for example, opening and
closing the dryer), etc. '
^Uncontrolled emissions from the washer, dryer, still, and muck cooker average about 8 lb/100 Ib (8 kg/100 kg). Roughly 15% of
the solvent emitted comes from the washer, 75% from the dryer, and 5% from both the still and the muck cooker.
Emission factors are based on the typical refrigeration system installed in fluorocarbon plants.
f Different materials in the wash retain varying amounts of solvent (synthetic: 10 kg/100 kg, cotton: 20 kg/100 kg, leather: 40 kg/
100kg).
References for Section 4.1
1. Study to Support New Source Performance Standards for the Dry Cleaning Industry, EPA Con-
tract 68-02-1412, Task Order No. 4, prepared by TRW Inc., Vienna, Virginia, May 7, 1976.
Kleeberg, Charles, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
2. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement for the Dry Cleaning Industry. Dur-
ham, North Carolina. June 28, 1976.
'A Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Dry Cleaning Operations (Draft Document), Dur-
ham, North Carolina. April 15, 1977.
4.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
4.2 SURFACE COATING
4.2.1 Process Description1-2
Surface-coating operations primarily involve the application of paint, varnish, lacquer, or paint primer for
decorative or protective purposes. This is accomplished by brushing, rolling, spraying, flow coating, and dipping.
Some of the industries involved in surface-coating operations are automobile assemblies, aircraft companies,
container manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, appliance manufacturers, job enamelers, automobile re-
painters, and plastic products manufacturers.
4.2.2 Emissions and Controls3
Emissions of hydrocarbons occur in surface-coating operations because of the evaporation of the paint
vehicles, thinners, and solvents used to facilitate the application of the coatings. The major factor affecting these
emissions is the amount of volatile matter contained in the coating. The volatile portion of most common surface
coatings averages approximately 50 percent, and most, if not all, of this is emitted during the application and
drying of the coating. The compounds released include aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones,
esters, alkyl and aryl hydrocarbon solvents, and mineral spirits. Table 4.2-1 presents emission factors for
surface-coating operations.
Control of the gaseous emissions can be accomplished by the use of adsorbers (activated carbon) or
afterburners. The collection efficiency of activated carbon has been reported at 90 percent or greater. Water
curtains or filler pads have little or no effect on escaping solvent vapors; they are widely used, however, to stop
paint particulate emissions.
Table 4.2-1. GASEOUS HYDROCARBON EMISSION
FACTORS FOR SURFACE-COATING APPLICATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of coating
Paint
Varnish and shellac
Lacquer
Enamel
Primer (zinc chromate)
Emissions'1
Ib/ton
1120
1000
1S40
840
1320
kg/MT
560
500
770
420
660
a Reference 1.
^Reported as undefined hydrocarbons, usually organic solvents, both
aryl and alkyl. Paints weigh 10 to 15 pounds per gallon (1.2 to 1.9
kilograms per liter); varnishes weigh about 7 pounds per gallon
(0,84 kilogram per liter).
2/72
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2-1
-------
References for Section 4.2
1. Weiss, S.F, Surface Coating Operations. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Danielson, J.A. (ed). US )
DREW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40
p.387-390. '
- • -!
2. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Gases From Stationary Sources, U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-68. Oc'tober'l969! :
Chapter 7.6. ' i
• ' I
I
3. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
4.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
4.3 STORAGE OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS* by Charles C. Masser
Fundamentally, the petroleum industry consists of three operations: (1) petroleum production and
transportation, (2) petroleum refining, and (3) transportation and marketing of finished petroleum
products. All three operations require some type of storage for petroleum liquids. Storage tanks for
both crude and finished products can be sources of evaporative emissions. Figure 4.3-1 presents a
schematic of the petroleum industry and its points of emissions from storage operations.
4.3.1 Process Description
Four basic tank designs are used for petroleum storage vessels: fixed roof, floating roof (open type
and covered type), variable vapor space, and pressure (low and high).
4.3.1.1 Fixed Roof Tanks2 - The minimum accepted standard for storage of volatile liquids is the
fixed roof tank (Figure 4.3-2). It is usually the least expensive tank design to construct. Fixed roof tanks
basically consist of a cylindrical steel shell topped by a coned roof having a minimum slope of 3/4
inch in 12 inches. Fixed roof tanks are generally equipped with a pressure/vacuum vent designed to
contain minor vapor volume changes. For large fixed roof tanks, the recommended maximum operat-
ing pressure/vacuum is +0.03 psig/-0.03 psig (+2.1 g/cm2/-2.1 g/cmz).
4.3.1.2 Floating Roof Tanks3 -Floating roof tanks reduce evaporative storage losses by minimizing va-
por spaces. The tank consists of a welded or riveted cylindrical steel wall, equipped with a deck or roof
which is free to float on the surface of the stored liquid. The roof then rises and falls according to the
\ depth of stored liquid. To ensure that the liquid surface is completely covered, the roof is equipped
with a sliding seal which fits against the tank wall Sliding seals are also provided at support columns
and at all other points where tank appurtenances pass through the floating roof.
Until recent years, the most commonly used floating roof tank was the conventional open-type
tank. The open-type floating roof tank exposes the roof deck to the weather; provisions must be made
for rain water drainage, snow removal, and sliding seal dirt protection. Floating roof decks are of three
general types: pan, pontoon, and double deck. The pan-type roof consists of a flat metal plate with a
vertical rim and sufficient stiffening braces to maintain rigidity (Figure 4.3-3). The single metal plate
roof in contact with the liquid readily conducts solar heat, resulting in higher vaporization losses than
other floating roof decks. The roof is equipped with automatic vents for pressure and vacuum release.
The pontoon roof is a pan-type floating roof with pontoon sections added to the top of the deck around
the rim. The pontoons are arranged to provide floating stability under heavy loads of water and snow.
Evaporation losses due to solar heating are about the same as for pan-type roofs. Pressure/vacuum
vents are required on pontoon roof tanks. The double deck roof is similar to a pan-type floating roof,
but consists of a hollow double deck covering the entire surf ice of the roof (Figure 4.3-4). The double
deck adds rigidity, and the dead air space between the upper and lower deck provides significant insu-
lation from solar heating. Pressure/vacuum vents are also required.
The covered-type floating roof tank is essentially a fixed-roof tank with a floating roof deck inside
the tank (Figure 4.3-5). The American Petroleum Institute has designated the term "covered floating"
roof to describe a fixed roof tank with an internal steel pan-type floating root The term "internal float-
ing cover" has been chosen by the API to describe internal covers constructed of materials other than
steel Floating roofs and covers can be installed inside existing fixed roof tanks. The fixed roof protects
the floating roof from the weather, and no provision is necessary for rain or snow removal, or for seal
4/77 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.3-1
-------
w
OIL FIELD
CRUDE
STORAGE
TANKS
CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION
CRUDE
STORAGE
TANKS
PRODUCT
STORAGE
TANKS
REFINERY
TANK CAR
MARKETING
TERMINAL
STORAGE
TANKS
PETROCHEMICALS
BULK
PLANT
STORAGE
TANKS
TANK TRUCK
COMMERCIAL
ACCOUNTS-
STORAGE
TANKS
SERVICE
STATIONS
AUTOMOBILES
AND
OTHER MOTOR
VEHICLES
Figure 4.3-1. Flowsheet of petroleum production, refining, and distribution systems. (Sources of organic evaporative
emissions are indicated by vertical arrows,}
-------
PRESSURE-VACUUM
VENT
GAUGE HATCH,
MANHOLE
Figure 4.3-2. Fixed roof storage tank.
, ROOF SEAL (MfTAUJC SHOD
NOZ2LI
Figure 4.3-3. Pan-type floating roof storage tank (metallic seals).
BOOF SEAL
NOZZLE
Figure 4.3-4. Double deck floating roof storage tank (non-metallic seals).
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-3
-------
SCOOPS-
NOZZLE
HOE ROD
MAWOLE -W ||
Figure 4.3-5. Covered floating roof storage tank.
protection. Antirotational guides must be provided to maintain roof alignment, and the space be-
tween the fixed and floating roofs must be vented to prevent the possible formation of a flammable
mixture.
4.3.1.3 Variable Vapor Space Tanks* - Variable vapor space tanks are equipped with expandable
vapor reservoirs to accommodate vapor volume fluctuations attributable to temperature and baro-
metric pressure changes. Although variable vapor space tanks are sometimes used independently, they
are normally connected to the vapor spaces of one or more fixed roof tanks. The two most common
types of variable vapor space tanks are lifter roof tanks and flexible diaphragm tanks.
. Lifter roof tanks have a telescoping roof that fits loosely around the outside of the main tank wall
The space between the roof and the wall is closed by either a wet seal, which consists of a trough filled
with liquid, or a dry seal, which employs a flexible coated fabric in place of the trough (Figure 4 3-6)
ROOF S««.
tUOUO M
THROUGH)
NOZZLE
Figure 4.3-6. Lifter roof storage tank (wet seal).
Flexible diaphragm tanks utilize flexible membranes to provide the expandable volume. They may
be separate gasholder type units, or integral units mounted atop fixed roof tanks (Figure 4.3-7).
4.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
PRESSURE
VACUUM VENTS
NOZZLE.
Figure 4.3-7. Flexible diaphragm tank (integral unit).
4.3.1.4 Pressure Tanks* - Pressure tanks are designed to withstand relatively large pressure variations
without incurring a loss. They are generally used for storage of high volatility stocks, and they are
constructed in many sizes and shapes, depending on the operating range. The noded spheroid and
noded hemispheroid shapes are generally used as low-pressure tanks (17 to 30 psia or 12 to 21 mg/m2),
while the horizontal cylinder and spheroid shapes are generally used as high-pressure tanks (up to 265
psia or 186 mg/mz).
4.3.2 Emissions and Controls
There arc six sources of emissions from petroleum liquids in storage: fixed roof breathing losses,
fixed roof working losses, floating roof standing storage losses, floating roof withdrawal losses, vari-
able vapor space filling losses, and pressure tank losses.*
Fixed roof breathing losses consist of vapor expelled from a tank because of the thermal expansion
of existing vapors, vapor expansion caused by barometric pressure changes, and/or an increase in the
amount of vapor due to added vaporization in the absence of a liquid-level change.
Fixed roof working losses consist of vapor expelled from a tank as a result of filling and emptying
operations. Filling loss is the result of vapor displacement by the input of liquid. Emptying loss is the
expulsion of v apors subsequent to product withdrawal, and is attributable to vapor growth as the new-
ly inhaied air is saturated with hydrocarbons.
Floating root standing storage losses result from causes other than breathing or changes in liquid
level. The largest potential source of this loss is attributable to an improper fit of the seal and shoe to
the shell, which exposes some liquid surface to the atmosphere. A small amount of vapor may escape
between the flexible membrane seal and the roof.
Floating roc* withdrawal losses result from evaporation of stock which wets the tank wall as the
roof descends -JMring emptying operations. This loss is small in comparison to other types of losses.
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-5
-------
Variable vapor space filling losses result when vapor is displaced by the liquid input during filling
operations. Since the variable vapor space tank has an expandable vapor storage capacity, this loss if,
not as large as the filling loan associated with fixed roof tanks. Loss of vapor occurs only when the vapor
storage capacity of the tank is exceeded.
Pressure tank fosses occur when the pressure inside the tank exceeds the design pressure of the
tank, which results in relief vent opening. This happens only when the tank is filled improperly, or
when abnormal vapor expansion occurs. These are not regularly occurring events, and pressure tanks
are not a significant source of loss under normal operating conditions.
The total amount of evaporation loss from storage tanks depends upon the rate of loss and the per-
iod of time involved. Factors affecting the rate of loss include:
I. True vapor pressure of the liquid stored.
2. Temperature changes in the tank.
3. Height of the vapor space (tank outage).
4. Tank diameter.
5. Schedule of tank filling and emptying.
6. Mechanical condition of tank end seals.
7. Type of tank and type of paint applied to outer surface.
The American Petroleum Institute has developed empirical formulae, based on field testing, that cor-
relate evaporative Josses with the above factors and other specific storage factors.
4.3.2.1 Fixed Roof Tanks2.' - Fixed roof breathing losses can be estimated from:
LB = 2.2] x 10-4 M I^-LJ0-68 D1.73 H0.51 AT0.50 F c KC (1)
where: Lg = Fixed roof breathing loss (Ib/day),
M = Molecular weight of vapor in storage tank (Ib/Ib mole), (see Table 4.3-1).
P = True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9,
or Table 4.3-1.
D = Tank diameter (ft).
H = Average vapor space height, including roof volume correction (ft); see note (1).
AT = Average ambient temperature change from day to night (°F).
Fp = Paint factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-2.
C - Adjustment factor for small diameter tanks (dimensionless); see Figure 4.3-10.
KC = Crude oil factor (dimensioiiless); see note (2).
Note: (1) The vapor space in a cone roof is «quivalent in volume to a cylinder which has the
*ame base diameter as the cone and is one-third the height of the cone.
(2) Ke = (065) for crude oil, Kc = (1.0) for gasoline and all other liquids,
API reports that calculated breathing loss from Equation (1) may deviate in the order of ± 10 percrn:
from actual bireM,hir!£ !nss.
4.3-6 'EMISSION. FACTORS • . 4/77
-------
Table 4.3-1. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDROCARBONS 7'9
Hydrocarbon
Fuels
Gasoline RVP 13
Gasoline RVP 10
Gasoline RVP 7
Crude oil RVP 5
Jet naphtha (JP-4)
Jet kerosene
Distillate fuel No. 2
Residual oil No. 6
Petrochemicals
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Cyclohexane
1, 2 - Dietil or ethane
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl alcohol
1 sop ropy 1 alcohol
Methyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Methyl-ethyl ketone
M ethyl -methacry 1 ate
1, 1. 1 - Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
Vinylacetate
Vapor
molecular
weight
@6Q°F
62
66
68
50
80
130
130
190
SB
53
78
76
154
119
84
99
88
46
60
32
85
72
100
133
131
92
86
Product
density |dj,
Ib/gal @ 60°F
5.6
5.6
5.6
7.1
6.4
7.0
7.1
7-9
6.6
6.8
7.4
10.6
13.4
12.5
6.5
10.5
7.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
11-1
6.7
7.9
11.2
12.3
7.3
7.8
Condensed
vapor
density (w),
Ib/gal @ 60°F
4.9
5.1
5.2
4.5
5.4
6.1
6.1
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.4
10.6
13.4
12.5
6.5
10.5
7.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
11.1
6.7
7.9
11.2
12.3
7.3
7.8
Vapor pressure in psia at:
40°F
4.7
3.4
2.3
1.8
0.8
0.0041
0.0031
0.00002
1.7
0.8
0.6
3.0
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.7
3.1
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.7
50°F
5.7
4.2
2.9
2.3
1.0
0.0060
0.0045
0.00003
2.2
1.0
0.9
3.9
1.1
1.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.3
1.0
4.3
0.9
0.2
1.2
0.7
0.2
1.0
60°F
6.9
5.2
3.5
2.8
1.3
0.0085
0.0074
0.00004
2.9
1.4
1.2
4.8
1.4
2.5
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.5
1.4
5.4
1.2
0.3
1.6
0.9
0.3
1.3
70°F
8.3
6.2
4.3
3.4
1.6
0.011
0.0090
0.00006
3.7
1.8
1.5
6.0
1.8
3.2
1.6
1.4
1.5
0.9
0.7
2.0
6.8
1.5
0.5
2.0
1.2
0.4
1.7
80°F
9.9
7.4
5.2
4.0
1.9
0.015
0.012
0.00009
4.7
2,4
2.0
7-4
2.3
4.1
2.1
1.7
1,9
1.2
0.9
2.6
8.7
2.1
0.8
2.6
1.5
0.6
2.3
90°F
11.7
8.8
6.2
4.8
2.4
0.021
0.016
0.00013
5.9
3.1
2.6
9.2
3.0
5.2
2.6
2.2
2.5
1.7
1.3
3.5
10.3
2.7
1.1
3.3
2.0
0.8
3.1
100°F
13.8
10.5
7.4
5.7
2.7
0.029
0.022
0.00019
7.3
4.0
3.3
11.2
3.8
6.3
3.2
2.8
3.2
2.3
1.8
4.5
13.3
3.3
1.4
4.2
Z6
1.0
4.0
I.
O -
1
I
r:
OB
f
oa
-------
r— 0.20
hi
-J
3
3
E
^
2
I
<{
•^
c
£
0
1
=
llj
1
9
•t
£
e
£
B>
5
Ml
2
K
— 0.30
120-
— 0.40
— O.SO
3 1 10-
- 0.60 ^ o j
™ ®*^' 1 1 1 1 ' ' '•
I" *••<* III 100^
E" °'*° 1 -1-4- • :-
— i.oo T TT
* 111 90~
" 111
— 1.30 ' 1 Tl * ^
|||S ao-^
™ 1 L • ^rt ww _
^ i i^n ii . i
r 2-<»o T Tj, 4 jj- i
» 1 Tl *fQjJ
A T* 1 V Q«
r *•*« 1 M 6 2 j
r 3.00 \y[ o w-^
r 3.ao 1 KM' ,| « ^
\r 4'°° 18Kia - so"^
: w^ 14 :
—• S.OO wML '* ^
* 7UV/7 1® ^A "
• /uV/y 4j« ^ »
— 4 oo vnfr ~
r IF i
j- 7.00 30-^
t • ••
r B.OO "j
=• 9.00 **-=
*»*UOPE OF THE ASTM DISTILLATION CURVE AT :
— 10.0 10 PER CENT EVAPORATED » ~:
— 1 l.O OE« F AT 13 PER CENT MINUS DEC F AT S PER CENT 10 :
— 12.0 '« =
— 13.0 ~
IN THE ABSENCE OF DISTILLATION DATA THE FOLLOW- ^ :
- 14.0 ING AVERAGE VALUE OF S MAY BE USED : °-J
~" I5'° MOTOR GASOLINE a
™ I6'° AVIATION GASOLINE »
— 17.0 LIGHT NAPHTHA (9-14 LS «VP) 3.5
— ia.O NAPHTHA (2-6 L3 RVP) a.3
— 19.0
— 20.0
— 21.0
— 22.0
— 23.0
*
v
•
3
4
*
3
3
ri
•
4
:
*
:
?
t
1
I
e
z
5
in
Ul
I
z
a
5
w
0.
S
w
=-24.0
Figure 4.3-8. Vapor pressures of gasolines and finished petroleum products.
EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
1
i
I
1
i
K
£
§
|
Z
«n
Ul
0.
S
UJ
K
— 10 L_|5 40 -|
— . • =a
— it "5
12 30 — |
— - 13 -1
~ '* 20 -—
IS =
I ,0-f
20 _ =
— o —
4/77
Figure 4.3-9. Vapor pressures of crude oil.
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-9
-------
Table 4.3-2. PAINT FACTORS FOR FIXED ROOF TANKS2
Tank color
Roof
White
Aluminum (specular)
White
Aluminum (specular)
White
Aluminum (diffuse)
White
Light gray
Medium gray
Shell
White
White
Aluminum (specular)
Aluminum (specular)
Aluminum (diffuse)
Aluminum (diffuse)
Gray
Light gray
Medium gray
Paint factors (Fp)
Paint condition
Good
1.00
1.04
1.16
1.20
1.30
1.39
1.30
1.33
1.40
Poor
1.15
1.18
1.24
1.29
1.38
1.46
1.38
1.44a
1.58a
aEstimated from the ratios of the seven preceding paint factors.
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR C
^
Jo '*, at at b
o o o o o o
(I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
s
-^
*•
*~
trm
••
10 20
TANK DIAMETER IN FEET
Figure 4.3-10. Adjustment factor (C) for
small diameter tanks.
30
Fixed roof working losses can be estimated from:
Lw = 2.40xlO-2MPKNKc
(2)
4.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
where: LW = Fixed roof working loss (lb/10» gal throughput).
M = Molecular weight of vapor in storage tank (Ib/lb mole), see Table 4.3-1.
\ P = True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9,
or Table 4.3-1.
K« = Turnover factor (dimensionless); see Figure 4.3-11.
Kc = Crude oil factor (dimensionless); see note.
Note: Kc = (0.84) for crude oil, Kc = (1.0) for gasoline and all other liquids.
.0
Z _ .
J? 0.8
P'uu
o a6
£
ff ft A
uJ 0.4
I
K O.Z
38
'I
\
\
NOTE fO
Yfc
»v
^
R 3« TUftNOV
LR OR LESS.
BBS MB
Kn-1.0
-' ..-
100
200
300
400
TURNOVERS PER YEAR •
ANNUAL THROUGHPUT
TANK CAPACITY
Figure 4.3-11. Turnover factor (K|S|) for fixed roof tanks.
The fixed roof working loss (Lw)is th« sum of t*16 Ioadin8 and unloading loss. API reports that special
tank operating conditions may result in actual losses which are significantly greater or lower than the
estimates provided fcy Equation (2).
The AH recommends the use of these storage loss equations only for cases in which the stored petro-
leum liquids exhibit vapor pressures in the same range as gasolines. However, in the absence of any cor.
relation developed specifically for naphthas, kerosenes, and fuel oils, it is recommended that theee
storage loss equations also be used for the storage of these heavier fuels.
The method most commonly used to control emissions from fixed roof tanks is a vapor recovery sys-
tern that collects emissions from the storage vessels and converts them to liquid product. To recover va-
por, one or a combination of four methods may be used: vapor/liquid absorption, vapor compression,
vapor cooling, and vapor/solid adsorption. Overall control efficiencies of vapor recovery systems vary
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-11
-------
from 90 to 95 percent, depending on the method used, the design of the unit, the composition of vapors
recovered, and the mechanical condition of the system. .,
Emissions from fixed roof tanks can also be controlled by the addition of an internal floating cover
or covered floating roof to the existing fixed roof tank. API reports that this can result in an average
Idas reduction of 90 percent of the total evaporation loss sustained from a fixed roof tank.8
Evaporative emissions can be minimized by reducing tank heat input with water sprays, mechani-
cal cooling, underground storage, tank insulation, and optimum scheduling of tank turnovers.
4,3.2.2 Floating Roof Tanks3'7 • Floating roof standing storage losses can be estimated from:
P0-7
Lg = 9.21 x 10-3 M[_P_.J0-7 Dl-S
(3)
where: Lg = Floating roof standing storage loss (Ib/day).
M = Molecular weight of vapor in storage tank (Ib/lb mole); see Table 4.3-1.
P = True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8, 4,3-9,
or Table 4.3-1.
D = Tank diameter (ft); see note (1).
Vw = Average wind velocity (mi/hr); see note (2).
Kt = Tank type factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-3.
KB = Seal factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-3.
K = Paint factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-3.
KC - Crude oil factor (dimensionless); see note (3).
Note: (1) For D> 150, use DVT50 instead of D.i-s
(2) API correlation was derived for minimum wind velocity of 4 mph. If Vw
<. 4 mph, use Vw - 4mph.
(3) Kc = (0.84) for crude oil, Kc = (1.0) for all other liquids.
API reports that standing storage losses from gasoline and crude oil storage calculated from Equa-
tion (3) will not deviate from the actual losses by more than ±25 percent for tanks in good condition un-
der normal operation. However, losses may exceed the calculated amount if the seals are in poor condi-
tion. Although the API recommends the use of these correlations only .for petroleum liquids exhibit-
ing vapor pressures in the range of gasoline and crude oils, in the absence of better correlations, these
correlations are also recommended with caution for use with heavier naphthas, kerosenes, and fuel
oils.
4.3-12 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
Table 4.3-3. TANK, TYPE, SEAL, AND PAINT FACTORS
FOR FLOATING ROOF TANKS2
Tank type
Welded tank with pan or pontoon
roof, single or double seal
Riveted tank with pontoon roof,
double seal
Riveted tank with pontoon roof,
single seal
Riveted tank with pan roof,
double seal
Riveted tank with pan roof,
single seal
Kt
0.045
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.14
Seal type
Tight fitting (typical of modern
metallic and non-metallic seals)
Loose fitting (typical of seals
built prior to 1942)
Paint color of shell and roof
Light gray or aluminum
White
KS
1.00
1.33
Kp
1.0
0.9
API has developed a correlation based on laboratory data for calculating floating roof withdrawal
lose for gasoline storage.5 Floating roof withdrawal loss for gasoline can be estimated from:
22.4 dCp
*
(4)
where:
D
= Floating roof gasoline withdrawal loss (lb/108 gal throughput).
= Density of stored liquid at bulk liquid conditions (Ib/gal); see Table 4.3-1.
= Tank construction factor (dimensionless); see note.
= Tank diameter (ft).
Note: Cp = (0.02) for steel tanks, Cp = (1.0) for gunite-lined tanks.
Because Equation (4) was derived from gasoline data, its applicability to other stored liquids is uncer-
tain. No estimate of accuracy of Equation (4) has been given.
API has not presented any correlations that specifically pertain to internal floating covers or cov-
ered floating roofs. Currently, API recommends the use of Equations (3) and (4) with a wind speed of 4
mph for calculating the tossed from internal floating covers and covered floating roofs.
Evaporative emissions from floating roof tanks can be minimized by reducing tank heat input.
4.3.2.3 Variable Vapor Space Systems4!7- Variable vapor space system filling losses can be estimated
from:
LV = (2.40 x ID'2) ~^- [(V!) - (0.25 V2 N)] <5)
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-13
-------
where: Ly = Variable vapor apace filling loss (lb/10* gal throughput).
M = Molecular weight of vapor in storage tank (Ib/lb mole); see Table 4.3-1.
P = True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8,4.3-9, or Table
4.3-1.
Vj = Volume of liquid pumped into system: throughput (bbl).
V2 = Volume expansion capacity of system (bbl); see note (1).
N = Number of transfers into system (dimensionless); see note (2).
Note: (1) V is the volume expansion capacity of the variable vapor space achieved by roof-
lifting or diaphragm-flexing,
(2) N is the number of transfers into the system during the time period that corre-
sponds to a throughput of V,.
The accuracy of Equation (5) is not documented; however, API reports that special tank operating
conditions may result in actual losses which are significantly different from the estimates provided by
Equation (5). It should also be noted that, although not developed for use with heavier petroleum
liquids such as kerosenes and fuel oils, Equation (5) is recommended for use with heavier petroleum
liquids in the absence of better data.
Evaporative emissions from variable vapor space tanks are negligible and can be minimized by opti-
mum scheduling of tank turnovers and by reducing tank heat input. Vapor recovery systems can be
used with variable vapor space systems to collect and recover filling losses.
Vapor recovery systems capture hydrocarbon vapors displaced during filling operations and re-
cover the hydrocarbon vapors by the use of refrigeration, absorption, adsorption, and/or compres-
sion. Control efficiencies range from 90 to 98 percent, depending on the nature of the vapors and the
recovery equipment used.
4.3.2.4 Pressure Tanks - Pressure tanks incur vapor losses when excessive internal pressures result in
relief valve venting. In some pressure tanks vapor venting is a design characteristic, and the vented
vapors must be routed to a vapor recovery system. However, for most pressure tanks vapor venting is
not a normal occurrence, and the tanks can be considered closed systems. Fugitive losses are also as-
sociated with pressure tanks and their equipment, but with proper system maintenance they are in*
significant. Correlations do not exist for estimating vapor losses from pressure tanks.
4.3.3 Emission Factors
Equations (1) through (5) can be used to estimate evaporative losses, provided the respective para*
meters are known. For those cases where such parameters are unknown, Table 4.3-4 provides emission
factors for the typical systems and conditions. It should be emphasized that these emission factors are
rough estimates at best for storage of liquids other than gasoline and crude oil, and for storage con*
ditions other than the ones they are based upon. In areas where storage sources contribute a substan-
tial portion of the total evaporative emissions or where they are major factors affecting the air quality,
it is advisable to obtain the necessary parameters and to calculate emission estimates using Equations
(1) through (5).
4.3-14 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
4*
-4
Table 4.3-4. EVAPORATIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR STORAGE TANKS WITHOUT CONTROLS2-4-6-7
Product Stored
Fuels - 67,000 bM tanks
1. Gasoline RVP 13
2. Gasoline RVP 10
3. Gasoline RVP 7
t. Crude oil RVP 5
5. Jet naphtha (JP-4)
6. Jet kerosene
7. Distillate fuel no. 2
8. Residual oil no. 6
Fuel* - 250,000 bb* tanks
9. Gasoline flVP 13
10. Gasoline RVP 10
11. Gasoline FlVP 7
12. Crude oil RVP 5
13. Jet naphtha (JP-41
14. Jet kerosene
IB. Distillate fuel no. 2
16. Residual fuel no. 6
Petrochemicals* - 67,000 bbi tanks
1 7. Acetone
18. Acrvlonitrile
19. Benzene
20. Carbon disul fide
21. Carbon tetrachloride
22. Chloroform
23. Cyclohexane
24. 1,2-Dichlorethane
25. Ethyl acetate
26. Ethyl alcohol
27. Isopropyl alcohol
28. Methyl alcohol
20. Methylene chloride
30. Methyl-ethvl-ketone
31. Methyl methecrylate
32. 1.1,1-Trichloroethane
33. Trichloraethylene
34. Toluene
35. Vinyl acetate
Fixed roof tanks
Breathing loss
"New tank"
conditions
Ib/day-
I03ga|
0.30
0.23
0.16
0.064
0.086
0.0043
0.0039
0.00016
0.22
0.17
0,12
0.048
0.062
0.0031
0.0028
0.00012
0.12
0.060
0.079
0.24
0.17
0.21
0.085
0.087
0.063
0.028
0.031
0.036
0.31
0.073
0.036
0.17
0.11
0.035
0.092
kg/day-
103 liters
0.036
0.028
0.019
0.0077
0.010
0.00052
0.00047
0.000019
0.026
0.020
0.014
0.0055
0.0074
0.00037
0.00034
0.000014
0.014
0.0072
0.0094
0.029
0.021
6.025
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0034
0.0036
0.0044
0.037
0.0087
0.0046
0.020
0.013
0.0042
0.011
"Old tank"
conditions
Ib/day-
0.34
0.26
0.18
0.073
0.096
0.0049
0.0044
0.00016
0.25
0.19
0.13
0.052
0.071
0.0035
0.0032
0.00014
0.14
0.068
0.090
0.28
0.20
0.24
0.096
D.10
0.096
0.032
0.036
0.042
0.35
0.083
0.043
0.19
0.12
0.040
0.10
kg/day-
103 liters
0.041
0.031
0.022
0.0086
0.011
0.00059
0.00053
0.000022
0.030
0.023
0.016
0.0062
0.0065
0.00042
0.00038
0.000017
0.016
0.0082
0.011
0.033
0.024
0.029
0.012
0.012
0.011
"0.0038
0.0043
0.0050
0.042
0.0099
0.0052
0.023
0.014
0.0048
0.013
Working
loss
lb/103gal
throughput
10.0
6.2
5.7
2.8
2.5
0.027
0.023
0.00018
10.0
8.2
5.7
2.8
2.5
0.027
0.023
0.00018
4.0
1.6
2.2
8.8
5.2
7.1
2.4
2.4
2.3
0.66
0.72
1.1
11.0
2.1
0.72
5.1
2.8
0.86
2.7
kg/to3|iters
throughput
1.2
0.99
0.66
0.34
0.30
0.0032
0.0028
0.000022
1.2
0.99
0.68
0.34
0.30
0.0032
0.0028
0.000022
0.48
0.21
0.27
1.1
0.62
0.66
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.079
0.066
0.13
1.3
0.25
0.086
0.61
0.34
0.079
0.32
Floating roof tanks
Standing storage loss
"New tank"
conditions
Ib/day-
103ggl
0.044
0.033
0.023
0.012
0.012
0.00054
0.00049
0.000018
0.025
0.019
0.013
0.0077
0.0068
0.00031
0.00028
0.000010
0017
0X1084
0.011
0.035
0.024
0.030
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.0039
0.0043
0.0051
0.044
0.010
0.0051
0.023
0.015
0.0048
0.013
kg/day-
10J liters
0.0052
0.0040
0.0028
0.0014
0.0014
0.000065
0.000058
0.0000022
0.0030
0.0023
0.0016
0.0092
0.00062
0.000037
0.000034
0.0000012
0.0020
0:0010
0.0013
0.0042
0.0029
0.0036
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
0.00046
0.00052
0.00061
0.0053
0.0012
0.00061
0.0028
0.0018
0.00056
0.0016
"Old tank"
conditions
Ib/day-
0.10
0.078
0.055
€.028
0.028
0.0013
0.0011
0.000043
0.057
0.044
0.031
0.018
0.016
0.60074
0.00066
0.000024
0.039
0.020
0.026
0.063
0.056
0.071
0.028
0.029
0.027
0.0091
0.010
0.012
0.10
0.024
0.012
0.055
0.035
0.011
0.030
kg/dav-
IdSliters
0.012
0.0094
0.0066
0.0034
0.0034
0.00016
0.0(1014
0.0006052
0.0068
0.0053
0.0037
0.0022
0.0019
0.000069
0.000082
0.0000029
0.0047
0.0024
0.0031
0.0099
0.0069
0.0065
0.0034
0.0034
0.0033
0.0011
0.0012
0.0014
0.012 •
0.0029
0.0015
0.0066
0.0042
0.0014
0.0037 .
Withdrawal
loss
lb/103 aat
throughput
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.013
0.013
0.013
kg/103|iters
throughput
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
Variable vapor space
tanks
10,500 bbi
Filling
. loss
lb/103 gal
throughput
9.6
7.7
5.4
Not used
2.3
0.025
0.022
0.00017
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
3.8
1.7
2.1
U.2
4.8
6.7
2.3
2.2
2.2
0.62
0.68
1.0
10.0
1.9
0.68
4.8
2.6
0.62
2.5
kg/103|iters
throughput
1.2
0.93
0.85
Not used
0.28
0.0030
0.0026
0.000020
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
0.45
0.20
0.25
0.98
0.58
0.80
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.074
0.082
O.t2
1.2
0.23
0.082
0.58
0.31
0.074
0.30
*Due to safely and health regulations, loxicity, and value oi tnese petrochemicals, they are normally stored in lanfct w»(h vapor recovery conlroli which are 90 10 9B percent affic em.
Emiaion factors baled on the following parameters: Emission laclors based on the following parameter:
en
Ambient conditions:
Storage temperature: 60°F (15J6°C|.
Daily amfrient wmpnraiure change: 15°F (&3°CJ.
Wind wtocilv: IQmi/hr W.5 m/sec.l
Typical fixed roof lento:
Outage: BO percent at tanfc height.
Turnover* ptr year (N): 30 for crude; 13 for all other liquids.
Paini factor IFp): New lank-white paint- 1.OO;
Old tank-Hhite/aluminum paint-1.14.
For 67,000 bbl tankage 1)0.7 x ICr* liters*
Might: 48ft.ri4.6Fnr
Diameter: UOJt. 133.5m)
For 250,000 hot tankage (39.7 x tO& tilers)
Height: 44ft.(11,4m)
Diameter; 200 fi. (BO.Bmr
Typical Moating roof tanks:
Paint factor JKp|: New tank-white pairn-O.QSQ;
Old tank -vrfii I eValumiftum paint-0.96.
Seal Factor (Ks)r New tank-modern ieal»-1.0(X
OTd tank-50percent old seals 1.14.
Tank Type'actor IK,J: New lank-we1o>d-0-G45;
Old tank-50 percent riveted-Q.088.
Typical variable space tank:
Diamettr: SO (t. 115.2
-------
4.3.3.1 Sample Calculation • Breathing losses from a fixed roof storage tank would be calculated as
follows, using Equation (1).
Design basis:
Tank capacity • 100,000 bbl.
Tank diameter - 125 ft.
Tank height - 46 ft.
Average diurnal temperature change - 15° F.
Gasoline RVP • 9 psia.
Gasoline temperature - 70° F.
Specular aluminum painted tank.
Roof slope is 0,1 ft/ft.
Fixed roof tank breathing loss equation:
LB = 2.21 x lO^M -I^0-68 Dl-73 H0-51 AT^-50 Fp C Kc
where: M = Molecular weight of gasoline vapors (see Table 4.3-1)= 66.
P = True vapor of gasoline (see Figure 4.3-8) = 5.6 psia.
t
D = Tank diameter = 125 ft.
AT = average diurnal temperature change = 15° F.
Fp = paint factor (see Table 4.3-2) = 1.20.
C = tank diameter adjustment factor (see Figure 4.3-10) = 1.0.
KC = crude oil factor (see note for equation (1)) = 1.0.
H = average vapor space height. For a tank which is filled completely and emptied, the
average liquid level is 1/2 the tank rim height, or 23 ft. The effective cone height is 1/3
of the cone height. The roof slope is 0.1 ft/ft and the tank radius is 62.5 ft. Effective
cone height = (62.5 ft) (0.1 ft/ft) (1/3) = 2.08 ft.
H = average vapor space height = 23 ft + 2 ft = 25 ft.
Therefore:
LB = 2.21 x 10-4 (66>147-_56' (125)1-73 '(25)0-51 (15)0.50 (Ii2) (1.0) (LO)
LB = 10681b/day
4.3-16 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
References for Section 4.3
1. Burklin, C.E. and R.L. Honerkamp. Revision of Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Report No.
EPA-450/3-76-039. August 15, 1976.
2. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Fixed-Roof
Tanks. Bull. 2518. Washington, D.C 1962.
3. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Floating-Roof
Tanks. Bull. 2517. Washington, D.C 1962.
4. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Use of Variable Vapor-Space Systems
To Reduce Evaporation Loss. Bull. 2520. N.Y., N.Y. 1964
5. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Low-pressure
Tanks. Bull. 2516. Washington, D.C 1962.
6. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss In The Petroleum
Industry. Causes and Control. API Bull. 2513. Washington, D.C 1959.
7. American Petroleum Inst., Div. of Refining, Petrochemical Evaporation Loss From Storage
Tanks. API Bull. 2523. New York. 1969
8. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Use of Internal Floating Covers For
Fixed-Roof Tanks To Reduce Evaporation Loss. Bull. 2519. Washington, D.C 1962.
•
9. Barnett, Henry C et al. Properties Of Aircraft Fuels. Lewis Flight Propulsion Lab., Cleveland,
Ohio. NACA-TN 3276. August 1956.
4/77 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.3-17
-------
-------
4.4 TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING _. . _ ,.
OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS1 b? Lharles c- Masser
4.4.1 Process Description
As Figure 4.4-1 indicates, the transportation and marketing of petroleum liquids involves many
distinct operations, each of which represents a potential source of hydrocarbon evaporation loss.
Crude oil is transported from production operations to the refinery via tankers, barges, tank cars, tank
trucks, and pipelines. In the same manner, refined petroleum products are conveyed to fuel market-
ing terminals and petrochemical industries by tankers, barges, tank cars, tank trucks, and pipelines.
From the fuel marketing terminals, the fuels are delivered via tank trucks to service stations, commer-
cial accounts, and local bulk storage plants. The final destination for gasoline is usually a motor vehicle
gasoline tank. A similar distribution path may also be developed for fuel oils and other petroleum
products.
4.4.2 Emissions and Controls
Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from the transportation and marketing of petroleum liquids
may be separated into four categories, depending on the storage equipment and mode of transporta-
tion used:
1. Large storage tanks- Breathing, working, and standing storage losses,
2. Marine vessels, tank cars, and tank trucks: Loading, transit, and ballasting losses.
3. Service stations: Bulk fuel drop losses and underground tank breathing losses.
4. Motor vehicle tanks: Refueling losses.
(In addition, evaporative and exhaust emissions are also associated with motor vehicle operation.
These topics are discussed in Chapter 3.)
4.4.2.1 Large Storage Tanks - Losses from storage tanks are thoroughly discussed in Section 4.3.
4.4.2,2 Marine Vessels, Tank Cars, and Tank Trucks - Louses from marine vessels, tank cars, and tin*.
trucks can be categorized into loading losses, transit losses, and ballasting losses.
Loading losses are the primary source of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from marine vessel,
tank car, and tank truck operations. Loading losses occur as hydrocarbon vapors residing in empty
cargo tanks are displaced to the atmosphere by the liquid being loaded into the cargo tanks. The
hydrocarbon vapors displaced from the cargo tanks are a composite of (1) hydrocarbon vapors formed
in the empty tank by evaporation of residual product from previous hauls and (2) hydrocarbon vapors
generated in the lank as the new product is being loaded. The quantity of hydrocarbon losses from
loading operations is, therefore, a function of the following parameters:
* Physical and chemical characteristics of the previous cargo.
* Method of unloading the previous cargo.
4/77 Ivvfaporalioii Loss Source? 4.4-1
-------
f
OIL FIELD
CRUDE
STORAGE
TANKS
CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION
CRUDE
STORAGE
TANKS
REFINERY
MARKETING
TERMINAL
STORAGE
TANKS
TANK CAR
BULK
PLANT
STORAGE
TANKS
PETROCHEMICALS
SERVICE
STATIONS
PRODUCT
STORAGE
TANKS
COMMERCIAL
ACCOUNTS'
STORAGE
TANKS
AUTOMOBILES
AND
OTHER MOTOR
VEHICLES
Figure 4.4-1. Flowsheet of petroleum production, refining, and distribution systems.
(Sources of organic evaporative emissions are indicated by vertical arrows.)
-------
• Operations during the transport of the empty carrier to the loading terminal.
• Method of loading the new cargo.
• Physical and chemical characteristics of the new cargo.
The principal methods of loading cargo carriers are presented in Figures 4.4-2,4.4-3, and 4.4-4. In
the splash loading method, the fill pipe dispensing the cargo is only partially lowered into the cargo
tank. Significant turbulence and vapor-liquid contacting occurs during the splash loading operation,
resulting in high levels of vapor generation and loss. If the turbulence is high enough, liquid droplets
will be entrained in the vented vapors.
FILL PIPE
VAPOR EMISSIONS
-HATCH COVER
CARGO TANK
Figure 4.4-2. Splash loading method.
VAPOR EMISSIONS
FILL PIPE
PRODUCT
HATCH COVER
CARGO TANK
Figure 4.4-3. Submerged fill pipe.
A second method of loading is submerged loading. The two types of submerged loading are the
submerged fill pipe method and the bottom loading method. In the submerged fill pipe method, the
fill pipe descends almost to the bottom of the cargo tank. In the bottom loading method, the fill pipe
enters the cargo tank from the bottom. During the major portion of both forms of submerged loading
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-3
-------
VAPOR VENT
TO RECOVERY
OR ATMOSPHERE
HATCH CLOSED
PRODUCT ™==== _L
CARGO TANK
FILL PIPE
Figure 4.4-4. Bottom loading.
methods, the fill pipe opening is positioned below the liquid level. The submerged loading method
significantly reduces liquid turbulence and vapor-liquid contacting, thereby resulting in much lower
hydrocarbon losses than encountered during splash loading methods.
The history of a cargo carrier is just as important a factor in loading losses as the method of loading.
Hydrocarbon emissions are generally lowest from a clean cargo carrier whose cargo tanks are free from
vapors prior to loading. Clean cargo tanks normally result from either carrying a non-volatile liquid
such as heavy fuel oils in the previous haul, or from cleaning or venting the empty cargo tank prior to
loading operations. An additional practice, specific to marine vessels, that has significant impact on
loading losses is ballasting. After unloading a cargo, empty tankers normally fill several cargo tanks
with water to improve the tanker's stability on the return voyage. Upon arrival in port, this ballast
water is pumped from the cargo tanks before loading the new cargo. The ballasting of cargo tanks
reduces the quantity of vapor returning in the empty tanker, thereby reducing the quantity of vapors
emitted during subsequent tanker loading operations.
In normal dedicated service, a cargo carrier is dedicated to the transport of only one product and
does not clean or vent its tank between trips. An empty cargo tank in normal dedicated service will
retain a low but significant concentration of vapors which were generated by evaporation of residual
product on the tank surfaces. These residual vapors are expelled along with newly generated vapors
during the subsequent loading operation.
Another type of cargo carrier is one in "dedicated balance service." Cargo carriers in dedicated
balance service pick up vapors displaced during unloading operations and transport these vapors in
the empty cargo tanks back to the loading terminal. Figure 4.4-5 shows a tank truck in dedicated vapor
balance service unloading gasoline to an underground service station tank and filling up with dis-
placed gasoline vapors to be returned to the truck loading terminal. The vapors in an empty cargo
carrier in dedicated balance service are normally saturated with hydrocarbons.
4.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
MANIFOLD FOR RETURNING VAPORS
^/
VAPOR VENT LINE
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK
Figure 4.4-5. Tanktruck unloading into an underground service station storage tank.
Tanktruck is practicing "vapor balance" form of vapor control.
Emissions from loading hydrocarbon liquid can be estimated (within 30 percent) using the follow-
ing expression:
LL= 12.46
(1)
where: LL = Loading loss, lb/10s gal of liquid loaded.
M = Molecular weight of vapors, Ib/lb-mole (see Table 4.3-1).
P = True vapor pressure of liquid loading, psia (see Figures 4.3-8 and
4.3-9, and Table 4.3-1).
T = Bulk temperature of liquid loaded, °R.
S = A saturation factor (see Table 4.4-1),
4/77 Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-5
-------
The saturation factor (S) represents the expelled vapor's fractional approach to saturation and
accounts for the variations observed in emission rates from the different unloading and loadinc
methods. Table 4.4-1 lists suggested saturation factors (S).
Table 4.4-1. S FACTORS FOR CALCULATING PETROLEUM
LOADING LOSSES
Cargo carrier
Tank trucks and tank cars
Marine vessels9
Mode of operation
Submerged loading of a clean
cargo tank
Splash loading of a clean
Cargo tank
Submerged loading: normal
dedicated service
Splash loading: normal
dedicated service
Submerged loading: dedicated,
vapor balance service
Splash loading: dedicated,
vapor balance service
Submerged loading: ships
Submerged loading: barges
0.50
1.45
0.60
1.45
1.00
1.00
0.2
0.5
aTo be used for products other than gasoline; USB factors from Table 4 4-2 '
for marine loading of gasoline.
Recent studies on gasoline loading losses from ships and barges have led to the development of
raoreaccurate emission factors for these specific loading operations. These factors are presented in
TabM*4.4-2 and should be used instead of Equation (1) for gasoline loading operations at marine
terminals.2 .
Ballasting operations are a major source of hydrocarbon emissions associated with unloading
petroleum liquids at marine terminals. It is common practice for large tankers to fill several cargo
tanks with water after unloading their cargo. This water, termed ballast, improves the stability of the
empty tanker on rough seas during the subsequent return voyage. Ballasting emissions occur as hydro-
carbon-laden air in the empty cargo tank is displaced to the atmosphere by ballast water being pumped
into the empty cargo tank. Although ballasting practices vary quite a bit, individual cargo tanks are
ballasted about 80 percent, and the total vessel is ballasted approximately 40 percent of capacity.
Ballasting emissions from gasoline and crude oil tankers are approximately 0;8 and 0.6 lb/10» gal,
respectively, based on total tinker capacity. These estimates are for motor gasolines and medium
volatility crudes (RVPaS psia).2
An additional emission source associated with marine Vessel, tank car, and tank truck operations is
transit losses. During the transportation of petroleum liquids, small quantities of hydrocarbon vapors
are expelled from cargo tanks due to temperature and barometric pressure changes. The most signifi-
cant transit loss is from tanker and barge operations and can be calculated using Equation (2).1
4.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 4.4-2. HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR GASOLINE LOADING OPERATIONS
Vessel tank condition
Cleaned and vapor free
lb/1 03 gal transferred
kg/103 liter transferred
Ballasted
lb/1Q3 gal transferred
kg/103 liter transferred
Uncleared - dedicated service
lb/1 03 gal transferred
kg/10-3 liter transferred
Average cargo tank condition
Ib/IQSgal transferred
kg/1 Q3 liter transferred
Hydrocarbon emission factors
Ships
Range
0 to 2.3
0 to 0.28
0.4 to 3
0.05 to 0.36
0.4 to 4
0.05 to 0.48
a
Average
1.0
0.12
i.e
0.19
2.4
0.29
1.4
0.17
Ocean barges
Range
Oto3
0 to 0.36
0.5 to 3
0.06 to 0.36
0.5 to 5
0.06 to 0.60
a
Average
1.3
0.16
2.1
0.25
3.3
0.40
a
Barges
Range
a
b
1.4 to 9
0.1 7 to 1.08
a
Average
1.2
0.14
b
4.0
0.48
4.0.
0.48
are not available.
'•'Barges are not normally ballasted.
= o.i PW
(2)
where: L™, = Transit loss, lb/week-10s gal transported.
P - True vapor pressure of the transported liquid, psia
(see Figures 4.3-8 and 4.3-9, and Table 4.3-1).
W = Density of the condensed vapors, Ib/gal (see Table 4.3-1).
In the absence of specific inputs for Equations (1) and (2), typical evaporative hydrocarbon emis-
sions from loading operations are presented in Table 4.4-3. It should be noted that, although the crude
oil used to calculate the emission values presented in Table 4.4-3 has an BVP of 5, the RVP of crude oils
can range over two orders of magnitude. In areas where loading and transportation sources are major
factors affecting the air quality it is advisable to obtain the necessary parameters and to calculate
emission estimates from Equations (1) and (2).
Control measures for reducing loading emissions include the application of alternate loading
methods producing lower emissions and the application of vapor recovery equipment. Vapor recovery
equipment captures hydrocarbon vapors displaced during loading and ballasting operations and re-
covers the hydrocarbon vapors by the use of refrigeration, absorption, adsorption, and/or compres-
sion. Figure 4.4-6 demonstrates the recovery of gasoline vapors from tank trucks during loading oper-
ation at bulk terminals. Control efficiencies range from 90 to 98 percent depending on the nature of
the vapors and the type of recovery equipment employed.4
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-7
-------
Table 4.4-3. HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUID
TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING SOURCES
Emission source
Tank cars/trucks
Submerged loading-normal service
Ib/toS gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Splash loading-normal service
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Submerged loading-balance service
lb/103gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Splash loading-balance service
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Marine vessels
Loading tankers
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/1 03 liters transferred
Loading barges
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Tanker ballasting
lb/1 03 gal cargo capacity
kg/103 liters cargo capacity
Transit
lb/week-103 gal transported
kg/week-103 liters transported
Product emission factors
Gasoline
5
0.6
12
1.4
8
1.0
8
1.0
b
b
0.8
0.10
3
0.4
Crude
oil
3
0.4
7
0.8
5
0.6
5
0.6
0.7
0.08
1.7
0.20
0.6
0.07
1
0.1
Jet
naphtha
(JP-4)
1.6
0.18
4
0.5
2.5
0.3
2.5
0.3
0.5
0.06
1.2
0.14
c
0.7
0.08
Jet
kerosene
0.02
0.002
0.04
0.006
a
a
0.005
0.0006
0.013
0.0016
c
0.02
0.002
Distillate
oil
No. 2
0.01
0.001
0.03
0.004
a
a
0.005
0.0006
0.012
0.0014
c
0.005
0.0006
Residual
Oil
No. 6
0.0001
0.00001
0.0003
0.00004
a
a
0.00004
5x10-6
0.00009
1.1x10-5
c
3x10-5
4x10-6
1. Emission factors are calculated for dispensed fuel temperature of 60°F.
2. The example gasoline has an RVP of 10 psia.
3. The example crude oil has an RVP of 5 psia.
a. Not normally used.
b. See Table 4.4-2 for these emission factors.
c. Not Available.
Emissions from controlled loading operations can be calculated by multiplying the uncontrolled
emission rate calculated in Equations (1) and (2) by the control efficiency term:
[' n
4.4.2.3 Sample Calculation - Loading losses from a gasoline tank truck in dedicated balance service
and practicing vapor recovery would be calculated as follows using Equation (1).
4.4-8
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
tU
\
-I
VAPOR RETURN LINE
W
•5
o
I
VAPOR FREE
AIR VENTED TO
ATMOSPHERE
VAPOR
RECOVERY
UNIT
PRODUCT FROM
LOADING TERMINAL
STORAGETANK
Figure 4.4-6. Tanktruck loading with vapor recovery.
-------
Design basis:
Tank truck volume is 8000 gallons
Gasoline RVP is 9 psia
Dispensing temperature is 80° F
Vapor recovery efficiency is 05%
Loading loss equation:
where: S = Saturation factor (see Table 4.4-1) =1.0
P = True vapor pressure of gasoline (see Figure 4.3-8) = 6.6 psia
M = Molecular weight of gasoline vapors (see Table 4.3-l)|x66
T = Temperature of gasoline = 540" R
eff = The control efficiency = 95%
LT = 12>,6
LL 12.46
= 0.50 lb/103 gal
Total loading losses are
(0.50 lb/103 gal) (8.0 x 10s gal) = 4.0 Ib of hydrocarbon
-
—
4.4.2.4 Service Stations - Another major source of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions is the filling
of underground gasoline storage tanks at service stations. Normally, gasoline is delivered to service
stations in large (8000 gallon) tank trucks. Emissions are generated when hydrocarbon vapors in the
underground storage tank are displaced to the atmosphere by the gasoline being loaded into the tank.
As with other loading losses, the quantity of the service station tank loading loss depends on several
variables including the size and length of the fill pipe, the method of filling, the, tank configuration,
and the gasoline temperature, vapor pressure, and composition. An average hydrocarbon emission
rate for submerged filling is 7.3 lb/103 gallons of transferred gasoline, and the rate for splashi filling
is 11.5 lb/103 gallons of transferred gasoline (Table 4.4-4).*
Emissions from underground tank filling operations at service stations can be reduced by the use of
the vapor balance system (Figure 4.4-5). The vapor balance system employs a vapor return hose which
returns gasoline vapors displaced from the underground tank to the tank truck storage compartments
being emptied. The control efficiency of the balance system ranges from 93 to 100 percent. Hydrocar-
bon emissions from underground tank filling operations at a service station employing the vapor
balance system and submerged filling are not expected to exceed 0.3 lb/103 gallons of transferred
line.
4.4-10
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 4.4-4. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE
SERVICE STATION OPERATIONS
Emission source
Filling underground tank
Submerged filling
Splash filling
Balanced submerged filling
Underground tank breathing
Vehicle refueling operations
Displacement losses
(uncontrolled)
Displacement losses
(controlled)
Spillage
Emission rate
lb/1()3gal throughput
7.3
11.5
0.3
1
9
0.9
0.7
kg/103 liters throughput
0.88
1.38
0.04
0.12
1.08
0.11
0.084
A second source of hydrocarbon emissions from service stations is underground tank breathing.
Breathing losses occur daily and are attributed to temperature changes, barometric pressure changes,
and gasoline evaporation. The type of service station operation also has a large impact on breathing
losses. An average breathing emission rate is 1 lb/103 gallons throughput.5
4.4.2.5 Motor Vehicle Refueling - An additional source of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions at
service stations is vehicle refueling operations. Vehicle refueling emissions are attributable to vapors
displaced from the automobile tank by dispensed gasoline and to spillage.\The quantity of displaced
vapors is dependent on gasoline temperature, auto tank temperature, gasoline RVP, and dispensing
rates. Although several correlations have been developed to estimate losses due to displaced vapors,
significant controversy exists concerning these correlations. It is estimated that the hydrocarbon
emissions due to vapors displaced during vehicle refueling average 9 lb/103 gallons of dispensed
gasoline. **s
The quantity of spillage loss is a function of the type of service station, vehicle tank configuration,
operator technique, and operation discomfort indices. An overall average spillage loss is 0.7 lb/103
gallons of dispensed gasoline.6
Control methods for vehicle refueling emissions are based on conveying the vapors displaced from
the vehicle fuel tank to the underground storage tank vapor space through the use of a special hose and
nozzle (Figure 4.4-7). In the "balance" vapor control system, the vapors are conveyed by natural pres-
sure differentials established during refueling. In "vacuum assist" vapor control systems, the convey-
ance of vapors from the auto fuel tank to the underground fuel tank is assisted by a vacuum pump. The
overall control efficiency of vapor control systems for vehicle refueling emissions is estimated to be 88
to 92 percent.*
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-11
-------
SERVICE
STATION
PUMP
Figure 4.4-7. Automobile refueling vapor-recovery system,
References for Section 4.4
1. Burklin, C.E. and R.L. Honerkamp. Revision of Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors.
Research Triangle Park, N.C EPA Report No. 450/3-76-039. August 15, 1976.
2. Burklin, Clinton E. et al. Background Information on Hydrocarbon Emissions From Marine
Terminal Operations, 2 Vols., EPA Report No. 450/3-76-038a and b. Research Triangle Park, N.G
November 1976.
3. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Tank Cars,
Tank Trucks, and Marine Vessels. Washington, D.C. Bull. 2514. 19S9.
4. Burklin, Clinton E. et al. Study of Vapor Control Methods For Gasoline Marketing Operations,
2 Vols. Radian Corporation. Austin, Texas. May 1975.
5. Scott Research Laboratories, Inc. Investigation Of Passenger Car Refueling Losses, Final Report
2nd year program. EPA Report No. APTD-1453. Research Triangle Park, N.C. September 1972.
6. Scott Research Laboratories, Inc. Mathematical Expressions Relating Evaporative Emissions
*«°TmJT?t0r Vehlcles To Gasoline Volatility, summary report. Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania.
API Publication 4077. March 1971.
4.4-12
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
5. CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY
This section deals with emissions from the manufacture and use of chemicals or chemical products.
Potential emissions from many of these processes are high, but because of the nature of the compounds
they are usually recovered as an economic necessity. In other cases, the manufacturing operation is run
as a closed system allowing little or no escape to the atmosphere.
In general, the emissions that reach the atmosphere from chemical processes are primarily gaseous
and are controlled by incineration, adsorption, or absorption. In some cases, particulate emissions
may also be a problem. The participates emitted are generally extremely small and require very
efficient treatment for removal. Emission data from chemical processes are sparse* It was therefore
frequently necessary to make estimates of emission factors on the basis of material balances, yields, or
similar processes.
5.1 ADIPIC ACID byPamCanova
5.1.1 General1'2
Adipic acid, HOOC(CHZ)4COOH, is a white crystalline solid used in the manufacture of synthetic
fibers, coatings, plastics, urethane foams, elastomers, and synthetic lubricants. Ninety percent of all
adipic acid produced in the United States is used in manufacturing Nylon 6,6. Cyclohexane is generally
the basic raw material used to produce adipic acid; however, one plant uses cyclohexanone, which is a
by-product of another process. Phenol has also been utilized, but has proved to be more expensive and
less readily available than cyclohexane.
During adipic acid production, the raw material, cyclohexane or cyclohexanone, is transferred to a
reactor, -where it is oxidized at 260 to 330" F (130 to 170° C) to form a cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone
mixture. The mixture is then transferred to a second reactor and oxidized with nitric acid and a cata-
lyst (usually a mixture of cupric nitrate and ammonium vanadate) at 160 to 220° F (70 to 100" C) to
form adipic acid. The chemistry of these reactions is shown below.
2 H2C-CH2-COOH
|| +
-------
Dissolved NO x gas plus any light hydrocarbon by-products are stripped from the adipic acid/nitric
acid solution with air and steam. Various organic acid by-products, namely acetic acid, glutaric acid,
and succinic acid, are also formed and may be recovered and sold by some plants.
The adipic acid/nitric acid solution is then chilled, and sent to a crystallizer where .adipic acid
crystals are formed. The solution is centrifuged to separate the crystals. The remaining solution is sent
to another crystallizer, where any residual adipic acid is crystallized and centrifugally separated. The
crystals from the two centrifuges are combined, dried, and stored. The remaining solution is distilled
to recover nitric acid, which is routed back to the second reactor for re-use. Figure 5.1-1 presents a
general schematic of the adipic acid manufacturing process.
5.1.2 Emissions and Controls
Nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide are the major pollutants produced in adipic
acid production. The cyclohexane reactor is the largest source of CO and HC, and the nitric acid reactor
is the predominant source of NOX. Particulate emissions are low because baghouses are generally
employed for maximum product recovery arid air pollution control. Figure 5.1-1 shows the points of
emission of these pollutants.
The most significant emissions of HC and CO come from the cyclohexane oxidation unit, which is
equipped with high- and low-pressure scrubbers. Scrubbers have a 90 percent collection efficiency of
HC and are used for economic reasons to recover expensive hydrocarbons as well as for pollution
control. Thermal incinerators, flaring, and carbon absorbers can all be used to limit HC emissions
from the cyclohexane oxidation unit with greater than 90 percent efficiency. CO boilers control CO
emissions with 99.99 percent efficiency and HC emissions with practically 100 percent efficiency. The
combined use of a CO boiler and a pressure scrubber results in essentially complete HC and CO con-
trol. .-.'.''
Three methods are presently used to control emissions from the NOx absorber: water scrubbing,
thermal reduction, and flaring or combustion in a powerhouse boiler. Water scrubbers have a low
collection efficiency of approximately 70 percent because of the extended length of time needed to
remove insoluble NO in the absorber offgas stream. Thermal reduction, in which offgases containing
NOX are heated to high temperatures and reacted with excess fuel in a reducing atmosphere, operates
at up to 97.5 percent efficiency and is believed to be the most effective system of control. Burning off-
gas in a powerhouse or flaring has an estimated efficiency of 70 percent.
Emission factors for adipic acid manufacture are listed in Table 5.1-1.
5.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
*t
\
-I
ft
SP
1
7
A
en
5T
O-
e
in
-------
Table 5.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ADIPIC ACID MANUFACTURED
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Raw material storage
Uncontrolled
Cycluhexane oxidation
Uncontrolled0
W/boiler
W/thermal incinerator^
W/flaringe
W/carbon absorber*
W/scrubber plus boiler
Nitric acid reaction
Uncontrolled9
W/water scrubberh
W/thermal reduction'
W/flaring or combustion"
Adipicacid refining!
Uncontrolled1*
Adipic acid drying, loading,
and storage
Uncontrolled1*
Particulate
Ib/ton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0.8
kg/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0.4
Nitrogen
oxidesb
Ib/ton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
16
1
16
0,6
0
kg/MT
0
0
0
0
0
Hydrocarbon
Ib/ton
2.2
40
kg/MT
1.1
20
Meg1 • Neg
Neg
4
0 2
0 Neg
Neg
2
v
Neg
i
27 0 0
800
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
0
115
1
Neg
12
115
Neg
0
0
0.5 0 0 0
800
0.3 0.5 0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
kg/MT
0
58
0.5
Neg
6
58
Neg
0
0
0
0
0
0
aEmission factors are in units of pounds of pollutant per ton and kilograms of pollutant per metric ton of adipic acid produced.
is not considered a criteria
is in the form of NO and NC^. Although large quantities of N2
-------
v 5.2 AMMONIA
5.2.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of ammonia (NH3) is accomplished primarily by the catalytic reaction of hydrogen and
nitrogen at high temperatures and pressures. In a typical plant a hydrocarbon feed stream (usually natural gas) is
desulfurized, mixed with steam, and catalytically reformed to carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Air is introduced
into the secondary reformer to supply oxygen and provide a nitrogen to hydrogen ratio of 1 to 3. The gases then
enter a two-stage shift converter that allows the carbon monoxide to react with water vapor to form carbon
dioxide and hydrogen. The gas stream is next scrubbed to yield a gas containing less than 1 percent COj. A
methanator may be used to convert quantities of unreacted CO to inert Crfy before the gases, now largely
nitrogen and hydrogen in a ratio of 1 to 3, are compressed and passed to the converter. Alternatively, the gases
leaving the CC>2 scrubber may pass through a CO scrubber and then to the converter. The synthesis gases finally
react in the converter to form ammonia.
5.2.2 Emissions and Controls1
When a carbon monoxide scrubber is used before sending the gas to the converter, the regenerator offgases
contain significant amounts of carbon monoxide (73 percent) and ammonia 44 percent). This gas may be
scrubbed to recover ammonia and then burned to utilize the CO fuel value.2
The converted ammonia gases are partially recycled, and the balance is cooled and compressed to liquefy the
ammonia. The noncondensable portion of the gas stream, consisting of unreacted nitrogen, hydrogen, and traces
of inerts such as methane, carbon monoxide, and argon, is largely recycled to the converter. To prevent the
accumulation of these inerts, however, some of the noncondensable gases must be purged from the system.
The purge or bleed-off gas stream contains about 15 percent ammonia.2 Another source of ammonia is the
gases from the loading and storage operations. These gases may be scrubbed with water to reduce the atmospheric
emissions. In addition, emissions of CO and ammonia can occur from plants equipped with CO-scrubbing systems.
Emission factors are presented in Table 5.2-1.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.2-1
-------
Table 5.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR AMMONIA MANUFACTURING WITHOUT
CONTROL EQUIPMENT8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of source
Plants with methanator
Purge gas0
Storage and loading6
Plants with CO absorber and
regeneration system
Regenerator exit**
Purge gas"
Storage and load ingc
Carbon monoxide
Ib/toh
Neg
- -
200
Neg
—
kg/MT
Neg
- •
100
Neg
_
Hydrocarbons'3
Ib/ton
90
-
—
90
-
kg/MT
45
— •
_
45
-
Ammonia
Ib/ton
3
200
7
3
200
kg/MT
1.5
100
3.5
1.5
100
aReferences 2 and 3. .
"Expressed as methane.
cAmmonia emissions can be reduced by 99 percent by passing through three stages of a packed-tower water scrubber. Hydro-
carbons are not reduced.
A two-stage water scrubber and incineration system can reduce these emissions to a negligible amount.
References for Section 5.2
I. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119
April 1970.
2. Burns, W.E. and R.R. McMullan. No Noxious Ammonia Odor Here. Oil and Gas Journal p 129-131
February 25,1967.
3. Axelrod, L.C. and I.E. O'Hare. Production of Synthetic Ammonia. New York, M. W. Kellogg Company.
1964.
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.3 CARBON BLACK by Charles Mann
' 5.3.1 Process Description
Carbon black is produced by the reaction of a hydrocarbon fuel, such as oil or gas, with a limited
supply of combustion air at temperatures of 2500 to 3000° F (1370 to 1650° C). The unburned carbon is
collected as an extremely fine (10- to 400-nra diameter), black, fluffy particle. The three processes for
producing carbon black are the furnace process, thermal process, and channel process. In 1973 the
furnace process accounted for over 90 percent of production; the thermal process, 9 percent; and the
channel process, less than 1 percent. The primary use for carbon black is for strengthening rubber
products (mainly rubber tires); it is also used in printing inks, surface coatings, and plastics.
5.3,1,1 Furnace Process - Furnace black is produced by combustion of hydrocarbon feed in a refrac-
tory-lined furnace. Oil-fired furnaces now predominate. In this process (Figure 5.3-1) a heavy, aromatic
oil feed is preheated and fed into the furnace with about half of the air required for complete com-
bustion and a controlled amount of natural gas. The flue gases, which contain entrained carbon parti-
cles, are cooled to about 450° F (235° C) by passage through heat exchangers and water sprays. The
carbon black is then separated from the gas stream, usually by a fabric filter. A cyclone for primary
collection and particle agglomeration may precede the filter. A single collection system often serves a
number of furnaces that are manifolded together.
The recovered carbon black is finished to a marketable product by pulverizing and wet pelletizing
to increase bulk density. Water from the wet pelletizer is driven off in an indirect-fired rotary dryer.
The dried pellets are then conveyed to bulk storage. Process yields range from 35 to 65 percent, de-
pending on the particle size of the carbon black produced and the efficiency of the process. Furnace
designs and operating characteristics influence the particle size of the oil black. Generally, yields are
highest for large particle blacks and lowest for small particle sizes.
The older gas-furnace process is basically the same as the oil-furnace process except that a light
hydrocarbon gas is the primary feedstock and furnace designs are different. Some oil may also be
added to enrich the gas feed. Yields range from 10 to 30 percent, which is much less than in the oil
process, and comparatively coarser particles (40- to 80-nm diameter compared to 20- to 50-nm diameter
for oil-furnace blacks) are produced. Because of the scarcity of natural gas and the comparatively low
efficiency of the gas process, carbon black production by this method has been declining.
5.3.1.2 Thermal Process - The thermal process is a cyclic operation in which natural gas is thermally
decomposed to carbon particles, hydrogen, methane, and a mixture of other hydrocarbons. To start
the cycle, natural gas is burned to heat a brick checkerwork in the process furnace to about 3000° F
(1650° C). After this temperature is reached, the air supply is cut off, the furnace stack is closed, and
natural gas is introduced into the furnace. The natural gas is decomposed by the heat from the hot
bricks. When the bricks become cool, the natural gas flow is shut off. The effluent gases, containing
the thermal black particles, are flushed out ot the furnace and cooled by water sprays to about 250° F
(125° C) before passing through cyclonic collectors and fabric filters, which recover the thermal black.
The effluent gases, consisting of about 90 percent hydrogen, 6 percent methane, and a mixture of
other hydrocarbons, are cooled, compressed, and used as a fuel to reheat the furnaces. Normally, more
than enough hydrogen is produced to make the thermal-black process self-sustaining, and the surplus
hydrogen is used to fire boilers that supply process steam and electric power.
The collected thermal black is pulverized and pelletized to a final product in much the same man-
ner as furnace black. Thermal-process yields are generally high (35 to 60 percent), but the relatively
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.3-1
-------
Cn
Co
to
M
4^
•si
PRIMARY WATER QUENCH
NATURAL
7
i 1
REACTOR
f HEATE
HEATE
DOIL
DAIR
OIL
|
t\ J
j \!
i
I
AIR
|
N,i
1 \J
i *
P(l
WATER _
SPRAYS *
QUENCH CHAI
DRYER
RGEGAS
flBER
1
['
MAIN PROCESS VENT OR CONTROL DEVICE
FURNACE BLACK
CARBON
BLACK
STORAGE
—
PELLI
.rs
1
DRYER
•
f
1
FURNACE
t f
1
f
PELLETIZE
FURNACE BL
0
ACK
P
rvpl nilF
WET
ELLETIZEI
PULVERIZED
FURNACE BLACK
h-
WATER
IB GAS
Figure 5.3-1. Simplified flow diagram of carbon black production by the oil-fired furnace process.
-------
coarse particles produced (180- to 470-nm diameter) do not have the strong reinforcing properties re-
quired for rubber products.
5.3.1.3 Channel Process - In the channel-black process, natural gas is burned with a limited air supply
in long, low buildings. The flame from this burning impinges on long steel channel sections that swing
continuously over the flame. Carbon black deposited on the channels is scraped off into collecting
hoppers. The combustion gases, containing uncollected solid carbon, carbon monoxide, and other
combustion products, are then vented directly from the building. Yields from the channel-black
process are only 5 percent or less, but very fine particles are produced (10- to 30-nm diameter). Chan-
nel-black production has been declining steadily from its peak in the 1940's. Since 1974 no production
of channel black has been reported.
5.3.2 Emissions and Controls
Emissions from carbon black manufacture include particulates, sulfur compounds, carbon monox-
ide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Trace amounts of polynuclear organic matter (POM) are also
likely to be emitted. Emissions vary considerably from one process to another. Typical emission fac-
tors are given in Table 5.3-1.
The principal source of emissions in the furnace process is the main process vent. The vent stream
consists of the reactor effluent plus quench water vapor vented from the carbon-black recovery system.
Gaseous emissions vary considerably according to the grade of carbon black being produced. Hydro-
carbon and CO emissions tend to be higher for small-particle black production. Sulfur compound
emissions are a function of the feed sulfur content. Table 5.3-1 shows the normal emission ranges to be
expected from these variations in addition to typical average values. Some particulate emissions may
also occur from product transport, drier vents, the bagging and storage area, and spilled and leaked
materials. Such emissions are generally negligible, however, because of the high efficiency of collec-
tion devices and sealed conveying systems used to prevent product loss.
Particulate emissions from the furnace-black process are controlled by fabric filters that recover
the product from process and dryer vents. Particulate emissions control is therefore proportional to
the efficiency of the product recovery system. Some producers may use water scrubbers on the dryer
vent system.
Gaseous emissions from the furnace process may be controlled by CO boilers, incinerators, or
flares. The pellet dryer combustion furnace, which is in essence a thermal incinerator, may also be
employed in a control system. CO boilers, thermal incinerators, or combinations of these devices can
achieve essentially complete oxidation of CO, hydrocarbons, and reduced sulfur compounds in the
process flue gas. Particulate emissions may also be reduced by combustion of some of the carbon black
particles; however, emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are increased by these combustion
devices.
Generally, emissions from the thermal process are negligible. Small amounts of nitrogen oxides
and particulates may be emitted during the heating part of the process cycle when furnace stacks are
open. Entrainment of carbon particles adhering to the checker brick may occur. Nitrogen oxides may
be formed since high temperatures are reached in the furnaces. During the decomposition portion of
the production cycle, the process is a closed system and no emissions would occur except through leaks.
Considerable emissions result from the channel process because of low efficiency of the process and
the venting of the exhaust gas directly to the atmosphere. Most of the carbon input to the process is lost
as CO, CCh, hydrocarbons, and particulate.
4/77
Chemical Process Industry
5.3-3
-------
Cn
w
Table 5.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURE3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B (OIL FURNACE PROCESS)
C (GAS FURNACE, CHANNEL, THERMAL PROCESSES)
Process
Oil furnace process4
Uncontrolled
With CO boiler
With flare
Gas furnace process"
Channel process'
Thermal process!
Paniculate
Ib/ton
6(2-1 6)e
3
3
10
2,300
Nog
kg/MT
3(1-8)8
1.5
1,5
5
1.150
Neg
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/ton
260011400-3300)
10f
1309
6300(4200-6400)
33,600
Net
kg/MT
1300(700-1650)
5f
659
2650(2100-3200)
16,750
Nefl
Hydrocarbons''
Ib/ton
200(60-520)
3
10
1,800
11,500
Neg
kfl/MT
100(30-2601
1.6
5
900
5,750
Neg
Nitrogen
oxides
Ib/tbn
0.4
6
6
-
Neg
kj/MT
0.2
3
3
Ne9
Hydrogen
suifidec
Ib/ton
20S<1 OS-26S)
0.2S
0.2S
Neg
Neg
Neg
kg/MT
10SI5S-13S)
0.1 S
0.1S
Neg
Neo.
Neg
Sulfur
oxides':
Ib/ton
Neg
•SOS
40S
Nej
Neg
Neg
kg/Ml
Neg
20S
20S
Meg
Neg
Neg
Expressed in terms of pounds per ton and kilograms per metric ton of carbon black product.
bAs methane. Actual composition of emissions is 50-75% acetylene and the remainder methane.
°S is the weight percent sulfur in the feed. Emission factor based on a 50% yield of carbon in the feed to carbon black product and an average 50% conversion of sulfur in
thefeed toH2S. ........
"References 5 and 6.
eBased on fabric fitter collection efficiency of 99.5 to 995%.
fBased on over 99% control of CO. Thermal incinerators could also be expected to achieve 99% oxidation of CO. (Reference 6).
sBased on 95% oxidation of CO {Reference 6).
"References 1 and 2.
'References 1 and 2.
Emissions data are not available, but no significant emissions are believed to occur.
-------
References for Section 5.3
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston,
Virginia. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Drogin, I. Carbon Black. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 18:216-228, April 1968.
3. Cox, J.T. High Quality, High Yield Carbon Black. Chem. Eng. 57:116.117, June 1950.
4. Reinke, R.A. and T.A. Ruble. Oil Black. Ind. Eng. Chem. 44:685-694, April 1952.
5. Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry, Volume 1:
Carbon Black Manufacture by the Furnace Process. Houdry Division, Air Products and Chem-
icals, Incorporated. Publication Number EPA-450/3-73-006a. June 1974.
6. Hustvedt, Kent C., Leslie B. Evans, and William M. Vatavuk. Standards Support and Environ-
mental Impact Statement, An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for
Furnace Process Carbon Black Plants in the Carbon Black Industry. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. April 1976.
7. Carbon Black (Oil Black). Continental Carbon Company. Hydrocarbon Processing. 52:111.
November 1973.
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.3-5
-------
-------
) 5.4 CHARCOAL
5.4.1 Process Description^
Charcoal is generally manufactured by means of pyrolysis, or destructive distillation, of wood waste from
members of the deciduous hardwood species. In this process, the wood is placed in a retort where it is externally
heated for about 20 hours at 500 to 700°F (260 to 370°C). Although the retort has air intakes at the bottom,
these are only used during start-up and thereafter are closed. The entire distillation cycle takes approximately 24
hours, the last 4 hours being an exothermic reaction. Four units of hardwood are required to produce one unit of
charcoal.
5.4.2 Emissions and Controls1
In the pyrolysis of wood, all the gases, tars, oils, acids, and water are driven off, leaving virtually pure carbon.
All of these except the gas, which contains methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
aldehydes, are useful by-products if recovered. Unfortunately, economics has rendered the recovery of the
distillate by-products unprofitable, and they are generally permitted to be discharged to the atmosphere. If a
recovery plant is utilized, the gas is passed through water-cooled condensers. The condensate is then refined while
the remaining cool, noncondensable gas is discharged to the atmosphere. Gaseous emissions can be controlled by
means of an afterburner because the unrecovered by-products are combustible. If the afterburner operates
efficiently, no organic pollutants should escape into the atmosphere. Emission factors for the manufacture of
charcoal are shown in Table 5.4-1.
Table 6.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING4'11
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Paniculate (tar, oil)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons0
Crude methanol
Acetic acid
Other gases (HCHO, N2 NO)
Type of operation
With chemical
recovery plant
Ib/ton
3200
irjnb
60
kg/MT
16Qb
5Qb
30
Without chemical
recovery plant
Ib/ton
400
320b
100b
152
232
60"
kg/MT
200
160"
50*
76
116
30b
aCalcutated veluat bawd on data In Reference 2.
bEmlw!on« are negligible If afterburner It uted.
'Expressed es methane.
^Emission factors expretted in unlti of tons of charcoal produced.
References for Section 5.4
1, Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p. 619.
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.4-1
-------
-------
5.5 CHLOR-ALKALI
5.5.1 Process Description1
Chlorine and caustic are produced concurrently by the electrolysis of brine in either the diaphragm or mercury
cell. In the diaphragm cell, hydrogen is liberated at die cathode and a diaphragm is used to prevent contact of the
chlorine produced at the anode with either the alkali hydroxide formed or the hydrogen. In the mercury cell,
liquid mercury is used as the cathode and forms an amalgam with the alkali metal. The amalgam is removed from
the cell and is allowed to react with water in a separate chamber, called a denuder, to form the alkali hydroxide
and hydrogen.
Chlorine gas leaving the cells is saturated with water vapor and then cooled to condense some of the water.
The gas is further dried by direct contact with strong sulfuric acid. The dry chlorine gas is then compressed for
in-plant use or is cooled further by refrigeration to liquefy the chlorine.
Caustic as produced in a diaphragm-cell plant leaves the cell as a dilute solution along with unreacted brine.
The solution is evaporated to increase the concentration to a range of SO to 73 percent; evaporation also
precipitates most of the residual salt, which is then removed by filtration. In mercury-cell plants, high-purity
caustic can be produced in any desired strength and needs no concentration.
5.5.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions from diaphragm- and mercury-cell chlorine plants include chlorine gas, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and hydrogen. Gaseous chlorine is present in the blow gas from liquefaction, from vents in tank cars
and tank containers during loading and unloading, and from storage tanks and process transfer tanks. Other
emissions include mercury vapor from mercury cathode cells and chlorine from compressor seals, header seals,
and the air blowing of depleted brine in mercury-cell plants.
Chlorine emissions from chlor-alkali plants may be controlled by one of three general methods: (1) use of the
gas in other plant processes, (2) neutralization in alkaline scrubbers, and (3) recovery of chlorine from effluent gas-
streams. The effect of specific control practices is shown to some extent in the table on emission factors (Table
5.5-1).
References for Section 5.5
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Manufacture. U.S. EPA, Air Pollution Control Office. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-80. January 1971.
2. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 49.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.5-1
-------
Table 5.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of source
Liquefaction blow gases
Diaphragm cell, uncontrolled
Mercury cell'1, uncontrolled
Water absorber
Caustic or lime scrubber
Loading of chlorine
Tank car vents
Storage tank vents
Air-blowing of mercury-cell brine
Chlorine gas
lb/100 tons
2,000 to 10,000
4,000 to 16,000
25 to 1,000
1
450
1,200
500
kg/1 00 MT
1,000 to 6,000
2,000 to 8,000
12.6 to 500
0,5
226
600
250
'References 1 and 2,
bMercurv cell! loss about 1,5 pounds mercury per 100 toni (0.76 kg/100 MT) of chlorint liquefied.
5.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.6 EXPLOSIVES
5.6.1 General1
by Charles Mann
An explosive is a material that, under the influence of thermal or mechanical shock, decomposes rapidly and
spontaneously with the evolution of large amounts of heat and gas. Explosives fall into two major categories:
high explosives and low explosives. High explosives are further subdivided into initiating or primary high
explosives and secondary high explosives. Initiating high explosives are very sensitive and are generally used in
small quantities in detonators and percussion caps to set off larger quantities of secondary high explosives.
Secondary high explosives, chiefly nitrates, nitro compounds, and nitramines, are much less sensitive to
mechanical or thermal shock, but explode with great violence when set off by an initiating explosive. The chief
secondary high explosives manufactured for commercial and military use are ammonium nitrate blasting agents
and 2.4. 6,-trinitrotoluene (TNT). Low explosives, such as black powder and nitrocellulose, undergo relatively
slow autocombustion when set off and evolve large volumes of gas in a definite and controllable manner. A
multitude of different types of explosives are manufactured. As examples of the production of a high explosive
and a low explosive, the production of TNT and nitrocellulose are discussed in this section.
5.6.2 TNT Production «
TNT may be prepared by either a continuous process or a batch, three-stage nitration process using toluene,
nitric acid, and sulfuric acid as raw materials. In the batch process, a mixture of oleum (fuming sulfuric acid) and
nitric acid that has been concentrated to a 97 percent solution is used as the nitrating agent. The overall reaction
may be expressed as:
3HON0
Nitric
acid
H3S04
Sulfuric
acid
3H20
Water
H2S04
Sulfuric
acid
0)
Spent acid from the nitration vessels is fortified with make-up 60 percent nitric acid before entering the next
nitrator. Fumes from the nitration vessels are collected and removed from the exhaust by an oxidation-
absorption system. Spent acid from the primary nitrator is sent to the acid recovery system in which the sulfuric
and nitric acid are separated. The nitric acid is recovered as a 60 percent solution, which is used for
refortification of spent acid from the second and third nitrators. Sulfuric add is concentrated in a drum
concentrator by boiling water out of the dilute acid. The product from the third nitration vessel is sent to the
wash house at which point asymmetrical isomers and incompletely nitrated compounds are removed by washing
with a solution of sodium sulfite and sodium hydrogen sulflte (Sellite). The wash waste (commonly called red
water) from the purification process is discharged directly as a liquid waste stream/is collected and sold, or is
concentrated to a slurry and incinerated in rotary kilns. The purified TNT is solidified, granulated, and moved to
the packing house for shipment or storage. A schematic diagram of TNT production by the batch process is
shown in Figure 5.6-1.
12/75
Chemical Process Industry
5.6-1
-------
tJt
8
25
CONCENTRATOR
RESIDUAL HjSOa
OXIDATION
CHAMBER
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
OXIDATION
TOWERSAND
SEPARATORS
PURIFIED TNT OLEUM EXHAUST GAS
SULFURIC ACID
CONCENTRATOR
BUBBLE CAP
TOWER
EVAPORATORS
BOBBLE CAP
TOWER
WASTE LIQUOR
FUEL
FUEL
Ul
Figure 5.6-1. Flow diagram of typical batch process TNT plant.
-------
5,6.3 Nitrocellulose Production *
Nitrocellulose is prepared by the batch-type "mechanical dipper" process. Cellulose, in the form of cotton
linters, fibers, or specially prepared wood pulp, is purified, bleached, dried, and sent to a reactor (niter pot)
containing a mixture of concentrated nitric acid and a dehydrating agent such as sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid,
or magnesium nitrate. The overall reaction may be expressed as:
C6H703(OH)3 + 3HON03 + H2S04—v C6H702(ON02)s + 3H,0 + H2S04 (2)
Cellulose Nitric Sulfuric Nitrocellulose Water Sulfuric
acid acid acid
When nitration is complete, the reaction mixtures are centrifuged to remove most of the spent acid. The spent
acid is fortified and reused or otherwise disposed of. The centrifuged nitrocellulose undergoes a series of water
washings and boiling treatments for purification of the final product.
5.6.4 Emissions and Controls2*3'5
The major emissions from the manufacture of explosives are nitrogen oxides and acid mists, but smaller
amounts of sulfuric oxides and particulates may also be emitted. Emissions of nitrobodies (nitrated organic
compounds) may also occur from many of the TNT process units. These compounds cause objectionable Odor
problems and act to increase the concentration of acid mists. Emissions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides from
the production of nitric acid and sulfuric acid used for explosives manufacturing can be considerable. It is
imperative to identify all processes that may take place at an explosives plant in order to account for all sources
of emissions. Emissions from the manufacture of nitric and sulfuric acid are discussed in other sections of this
publication.
In the manufacture of TNT, vents from the fume recovery system, sulfuric acid concentrators, and nitric acid
concentrators are the principal sources of emissions. If open burning or incineration of waste explosives is
practiced, considerable emissions may result. Emissions may also result from the production of Sellite solution
and the incineration of red water. Many plants, however, now sell the red water to the paper industry where it is
of economic importance.
Principal sources of emissions from nitrocellulose manufacture are from the reactor pots and centrifuges,
spent acid concentrators, and boiling tubs used for purification.
The most important factor affecting emissions from explosives manufacture is the type and efficiency of the
manufacturing process. The efficiency of the acid and fume recovery systems for TNT manufacture will directly
affect the atmospheric emissions. In addition, the degree to which acids are exposed to the atmosphere during
the manufacturing process affects the NOX and SOX emissions. For nitrocellulose production, emissions are
influenced by the nitrogen content and the desired quality of the final product. Operating conditions will also
affect emissions. Both TNT and nitrocellulose are produced in batch processes. Consequently, the processes may
never reach steady state and emission concentrations may vary considerably with time. Such fluctuations in
emissions will influence the efficiency of control methods. Several measures may be taken to reduce emissions
from explosives manufacturing. The effects of various control devices and process changes upon emissions, along
with emission factors for explosives manufacturing, are shown in Table 5.6-1. The emission factors are all related
to the amount of product produced and are appropriate for estimating long-term emissions or for evaluating
plant operation at full production conditions. For short time periods or for plants with intermittent operating
schedules, the emission factors in Table 5.6-1 should be used with caution, because processes not associated with
the nitration step are often not in operation at the same time as the nitration reactor.
12/75 Chemical Process Industry 5.6-3
-------
Table 5.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
EMISSION FACTOR
Type of process
TNT - batch process13
Nitration reactors
Fume recovery
Acid recovery
Nitric acid concentrators
Su If uric acid concentrators0
Electrostatic
precipitator (exit)
Electrostatic precipitator
with scrubber^
Red water incinerator
Uncontrolled6
Wet scrubber*
Sellite exhaust
TNT • continuous process^
Nitration reactors
Fume recovery
Acid recovery
Red water incinerator
NitrocelluloseS
Nitration reactors'1
Nitric acid concentrator
Su If uric acid concentrator
Boiling tubs
Particulates
Ib/ton
-
-
-
25(0.03-126)
1
_ •
-
0.25(0.03-0.05)
-
kg/MT
-
-
-
12.5(0.015-63)
0.5
- ',. •
_
0.13(0.015-0.025)
-
Sulfur oxides
(S02)
Ib/ton
-
-
14(4-40)
Neg.
2(0.05-3.5)
2(0.05-3.5)
59(0.01-177)
-
0.24(0.05-0.43)
1.4(0.8-2)
68(0.4-135)
kg/MT
-
_•
7(2-20)
Neg.
1(0.025-1.75)
1(0.025-1.75)
29.5(0.005-88)
-
0.12(0.025-0.22)
0.7(0.4-1)
34(0.2-67)
8For some processes considerable variations in emissions have been reported. The average of the values reported is shown first,
with the ranges given in parentheses. Where only one number is given, only one source test was available.
"References.
cAcid mist emissions influenced by nitrobody levels and type of fuel used in furnace.
"No data available for NOX emissions after the scrubber. It is assumed that NOX emissions are unaffected by the scrubber.
5.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING"
RATING: C
Nitrogen oxides
(N02)
Ib/ton
25(6-38)
55(1-136)
37(16-72)
40(2-80)
40(2-80)
26(1.5-101)
5
—
8(6.7-10)
3(1-4.5)
7(6.1-8.4)
14(3.7-34)
14(10-18)
2
kg/MT
12.5(3-19)
27.5(0.5-68)
18.5(8-36)
20(1-40)
20(1-40)
13(0.75-50)
2.5
4(3.35-6)
1.5(0.5-2.25)
3.5(34.2)
7(1,85-17)
7(5-9)
1
Nitric acid mist
(100% HN03)
Ib/ton
1(0.3-1.9)
92(0.01-275)
-
-
-
-
_ .
1(0.3-1.9)
0.02(0.01-0.03)
-
19(0.5-36)
kg/MT
0.5(0.5-0.95)
46(0.005-137)
-
-
-
-
—
0.5(0.15-0.95)
0.01(0.005-0.015)
-
9.5(0.25-18)
Sulfuric acid mist
(100% H2S04)
Ib/ton
-
9(0.3-27)
65(1-188)
5(4*)
- .
6(0.6-16)
-
-
0.3
kg/MT
-
4.5(0.15-13.5)
32.5(0.5-94)
2.5(2-3)
-
3(0.3-8)
-
-
0.3
"Use low end of range for modfrn, tfflcitnt unit* and high and of rang* for older, leu eff relent units.
Apparent reduction* in NOX and paniculate after control may not be ilgnif leant because thete values are based on only one
test result.
B Reference 4.
hFor product with low nitrogen content (12 percent), use high.and of range. For products w^th higher nitrogen content, use lower
end of range.
12/75
Chemical Process Industry
5.6-5
-------
References for Section 5.6
1. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. p. 383-395.
2. Unpublished data on emissions from explosives manufacturing, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
Office of Criteria and Standards, Durham, N.C. June 1970.
3. Higgins, F.B., Jr., et al. Control of Air Pollution From TNT Manufacturing. (Presented at 60th annual meeting
of Air Pollution Control Association. Cleveland. June 1967. Paper 67-111.)
4. Air Pollution Engineering Source Sampling Surveys, Radford Army Ammunition Plant. VS. Army
Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, Md.
S. Air Pollution Engineering Source Sampling Surveys, Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant and Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant. U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, Md.
5.6-*$ EMISSION FACTORS 12/75 )
-------
5.7 HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Hydrochloric acid is manufactured by a number of different chemical processes. Approximately 80 percent of
the hydrochloric acid, however, is produced by the by-product hydrogen chloride process, which will be the only
process discussed in this section. The synthesis process and the Mannheim process are of secondary importance.
5.7.1 Process Description1
By-product hydrogen chloride is produced when chlorine is added to an organic compound such as benzene,
toluene, and vinyl chloride. Hydrochloric acid is produced as a by-product of this reaction. An example of a
process that generates hydrochloric acid as a by-product is the direct chlorination of benzene. In this process
benzene, chlorine, hydrogen, air, and some trace catalysts are the raw materials that produce chlorobenzene. The
gases from the reaction of benzene and chlorine consist of hydrogen chloride, benzene, chlorobenzenes, and air.
These gases are first scrubbed in a packed tower with a chilled mixture of monochlorobenzene and
dichlorobenzene to condense and recover any benzene or chlorobenzene. The hydrogen chloride is then absorbed
in a falling film absorption plant.
5.7.2 Emissions
The recovery of the hydrogen chloride from the chlorination of an organic compound is the major source of
hydrogen chloride emissions. The exit gas from the absorption or scrubbing system is the actual source of the
hydrogen chloride emitted. Emission factors for hydrochloric acid produced as by-product hydrogen chloride are
presented in Table 5.7-1.
Table 5.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROCHLORIC
ACID MANUFACTURING8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of process
By-product hydrogen chloride
With final scrubber
Without final scrubber
Hydrogen chloride emissions
Ib/ton
0.2
3
kg/MT
0.1
1.5
Reference 1.
Reference for Section 5.7
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing Processes. U.S. DHEW, PHS, CPEHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Durham, N.C. Publication Number AP-S4. September 1969.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.7-1
-------
-------
5.8 HYDROFLUORIC ACID
5,8.1 Process Description1
All hydrofluoric acid in the United States is currently produced by the reaction °*.
sulfuric acid for 30 to 60 minutes in externally fired rotary kilns at a temperature of 400 to 500 F (204 to
260°C) 2'3'4 The resulting gas is then cleaned, cooled, and absorbed in water and weak hydrofluoric acid to form
a strong acid solution. Anhydrous hydrofluoric acid is formed by distilling 80 percent hydrofluoric acid and
condensing the gaseous HP which is driven off.
5.8.2 Emissions and Controls1
Air pollutant emissions are minimized by the scrubbing and absorption systems used to purify and recover the
HP The initial scrubber utilizes concentrated sulfuric acid as a scrubbing medium and is designed to remove dust
sS2, S03> sulfuric acid mist, and water vapor present in the gas stream leaving the pnrnary dust collector The
S gases from the final absorber contain small amounts of HF, silicon tetrafluonde (SiF4), C02, and SOj and
may be scrubbed with a caustic solution to reduce emissions further. A final water ejector, sometHnes used to
S the gases through the absorption system, will reduce fluoride emissions. Dust emissions may also re sub .from
raw fluorspar grinding and drying operations. Table 5.8-1 lists the emission factors for the various operations.
Table5.8-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROFLUORIC ACID MANUFACTURING"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of operation
Rotary kiln
Uncontrolled
Water scrubber
Grinding and drying
of fluorspar
Fluorides
Ib/ton acid
50
0.2
kg/MT acid
25
0.1
P articulates
Ib/ton fluorspar
—
20b
kg/MT fluorspar
~
10b
^References 2 and 5.
bFactor given for well-controlled plant.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.8-1
-------
References for Section 5.8
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Rogers, W.E. and K. Muller. Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture. Chem. Eng. Progr. 59:85-88, May 1963.
3. Heller, A.N., S.T. Cuffe, and D.R. Goodwin. Inorganic Chemical Industry. In: Air Pollution Engineering
Manual. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Publication Number 999-AP-40.1967. p. 197-198.
4. Hydrofluoric Acid. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 9. New York, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. 1964. p. 444-485.
5. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company. Wilmington, Delaware. January 13,1970.
5.8-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.9 NITRIC ACID Revised by William Vatavuk
5.9.1 Process Description
5.9.1.1 Weak Acid Production1 - Nearly all the nitric acid produced in the United States is manufactured by the
high-pressure catalytic oxidation of ammonia (Figure 5.9-1). Typically, this process consists of three steps, each
of which corresponds to a distinct chemical reaction. First, a 1:9 ammonia-air mixture is oxidized at high
temperature and pressure (6.4 to 9.2 atmospheres), as it passes through a platinum-rhodium catalyst, according to
the reaction:
4NH3 + 502 —*- 4NO + 6H20 (1)
Ammonia Oxygen Nitric Water
oxide
After the process stream is cooled to 100°F (38°C) or less by passage through a cooler-condenser, the nitric oxide
reacts with residual oxygen:
2ND + 02 -*~ 2NO2 •*— N2(>4
Nitrogen Nitrogen (2)
dioxide tetroxide
Finally, the gases are introduced into a bubble-cap plate absorption column where they are contacted with a
countercurrent stream of water. The exothermic reaction that occurs is:
3N02 + H20 -*- 2HN03 + NO
Nitric acid (3)
50 to 70% aqueous
The production of nitric oxide in reaction (3) necessitates the introduction of a secondary air stream into the
column to effect its oxidation to nitrogen dioxide, thereby perpetuating the absorption operation.
The spent gas flows from the top of the absorption tower to an entrapment separator for acid mist removal,
through the ammonia oxidation unit for energy absorption from the ammonia stream, through an expander for
energy recovery, and finally to the stack. In most plants the stack gas is treated before release to the atmosphere
by passage through either a catalytic combustor or, less frequently,an alkaline scrubber.
5.9.1.2 High-Strength Acid Production1 - To meet requirements for high strength acid, the 50 to 70 percent acid
produced by the pressure process is concentrated to 95 to 99 percent at approximately atmospheric pressure. The
concentration process consists of feeding strong sulfuric acid and 60 percent nitric acid to the top of a packed
column where it is contacted by an ascending stream of weak acid vapor, resulting in the dehydration of the
latter. The concentrated acid vapor that leaves the column passes to a bleacher and countercurrent condenser
system to effect condensation of the vapors and separation of the small amounts of nitric oxides and oxygen that
form as dehydration by-products. These by-products then flow to an absorption column where the nitric oxide
mixes with auxiliary air to form nitrogen dioxide, which is, in turn, recovered as weak nitric acid. Finally,
unreacted gases are vented to the atmosphere from the top of the column.
4/73 Chemical Process Industry 5.9-1
-------
AIR
i
COMPRESSOR
EXPANDER
FFLUENT
STACK
AMMONIA
VAPOR
-f
FUEL
AIR
.PREHEATER
-V 1 1C t
UNI
\
\_
Jl
S f
\
\
DEDUCTION
•s __
S^\
j i \_ ,
vL/i
V-X V
i f^
STEAM
c
f -
/
^)
"j
N
WATE
y
R
s
J
\ 1
*\_
1 __
WASTE
HEAT
BOILER
PLATINUM
FILTER
WATER
SECONDARY AIR
ABSORPTION
TOWER
COOLER
CONDENSER
PRODUCT
(50 TO 70%
HN03)
Figure 5.9-1. Flow diagram of typical nitric acid plant using pressure process.
5.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
5.9.2 Emissions and Controls1'3
The emissions derived from nitric acid manufacture consist primarily of nitric oxide, which accounts for
visible emissions; nitrogen dioxide; and trace amounts of nitric acid mist. By far, the major source of nitrogen
oxides is the tail gas from the acid absorption tower (Table 5.9-1). In general, the quantity of NOX emissions is
directly related to the kinetics of the nitric acid formation reaction.
The specific operating variables that increase tail gas NOX emissions are: (1) insufficient air supply, which
results in incomplete oxidation of NO; (2) low pressure in the absorber; (3) high temperature in the
cooler-condenser and absorber; (4) production of an excessively high-strength acid; and (5) operation at high
throughput rates, which results in decreased residence time in the absorber.
Aside from the adjustment of these variables, the most commonly used means for controlling emissions is the
catalytic combustor. In this device, tail gases are heated to ignition temperature, mixed with fuel (natural gas,
hydrogen, or a mixture of both), and passed over a catalyst. The reactions that occur result in the successive
reduction of N02 to NO and, then, NO to N2- The extent of reduction of N©2 to N2 in the combustor is, in
turn, a function of plant design, type of fuel used, combustion temperature and pressure, space velocity through
the combustor, type and amount of catalyst used, and reactant concentrations (Table 5,9-1).
Comparatively small amounts of nitrogen oxides are also lost from acid concentrating plants. These losses
(mostly N02) occur from the condenser system, but the emissions are small enough to be easily controlled by the
installation of inexpensive absorbers.
Table 5.9-1. NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM NITRIC ACID PLANTS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of control
Weak acid
Uncontrolled
Catalytic combustor
(natural gas fired)
Catalytic combustor
(hydrogen fired)
Catalytic combustor
(75% hydrogen, 25%
natural gas fired)
High-strength acid
Control
efficiency, %
0
78 to 97
97 to 99.8
98 to 98.5
—
Emissions (N02)b
Ib/ton acid
50to55c
2to7<1
0.0 to 1.5
0.8 to 1.1
0.2 to 5.0
kg/MT acid
25.0 to 27.5
1.0 to 3.5
0.0 to 0.75
0.4 to 0.55
0.1 to 2.5
References 1 and 2.
bBated on 100 peccant acid production.
°Renga of values token from four plants measured at following process conditions:
production rate, 120 tons (109 MT) per day (100 percent rated capacity); absorber exit
temperature, 90° F (32° C); absorber exit pressure, 7.8 atmospheretjacid strength, 57
percent. Under different conditions, values can vary from 43 to 67 Ib/ton (21.5 to 28.5
kg/MT).
^To present a mor« realistic picture, ranges of values were used instead of averages.
4/73
Chemical Process Industry
5.9-3
-------
Acid mist emissions do not occur from a properly operated plant. The small amounts that may be present in
the absorber exit gas stream are removed by a separator or collector prior to entering the catalytic combustor or
expander. \
Finally, small amounts of nitrogen dioxide are lost during the filling of storage tanks and tank cars.
Nitrogen oxide emissions (expressed as N02) are presented for weak nitric acid plants in table 5.9-1. The
emission factors vary considerably with the type of control employed, as well as with process conditions. For
comparison purposes,, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for both new and modified plants is
3.0 pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced (l.S kilograms per metric ton), maximum 2-hour average,
expressed as NO2.4 Unless specifically indicated as 100 percent acid, production rates are generally given in terms
of the total weight of product (water and acid). For example, a plant producing 500 tons (454 MT) per day of 55
weight percent nitric acid is really producing only 275 tons (250MT) per day of 100 percent acid.
References for Section 5.9
1. Control of Air Pollution from Nitric Acid Plants. Unpublished Report. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
2. Atmospheric Emissions from Nitric Acid Manufacturing Processes. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air
Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-27. 1966.
3. Unpublished emission data from a nitric acid plant. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Office of Criteria and Standards. Durham, N.C. June 1970.
4. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC
Federal Register. 36(247); December 23,1971.
5-9-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
5.10 PAINT AND VARNISH
5.10.1 Paint Manufacturing1
The manufacture of paint involves the dispersion of a colored oil or pigment in a vehicle, usually an oil or
resin, followed by the addition of an organic solvent for viscosity adjustment. Only the physical processes of
weighing, mixing, grinding, tinting, thinning, and packaging take place; no chemical reactions are involved.
These processes take place in large mixing tanks at approximately room temperature.
The primary factors affecting emissions from paint manufacture are care in handling dry pigments, types of
solvents used, and mixing temperature.2'3 About 1 or 2 percent of the solvents is lost even under well-controlled
conditions. Paniculate emissions amount to 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the pigment handled.4
5.10.2 Varnish Manufacturing1 '3
The manufacture of varnish also involves the mixing and blending of various ingredients to produce a wide
range of products. However, in this case chemical reactions are initiated by heating. Varnish is cooked in either
open or enclosed gas-fired kettles for periods of 4 to 16 hours at temperatures of 200 to 6SO°F (93 to 340°C).
Varnish cooking emissions, largely in the form or organic compounds, depend on the cooking temperatures
and times, the solvent used, the degree of tank enclosure, and the type of air pollution controls used. Emissions
from varnish cooking range from 1 to 6 percent of the raw material.
To reduce hydrocarbons from the manufacture of paint and varnish, control techniques include condensers
and/or adsorbers on solvent-handling operations, and scrubbers and afterburners on cooking operations.
Emission factors for paint and varnish are shown in Table 5.10-1.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.10-1
-------
Table 5.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAINT AND VARNISH MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT1-*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of
product
Paint
Varnish
Bodying oil
Oleoresinous
Alkyd
Acrylic
Particulate
Ib/ton pigment
2
-
—
—
—
kg/MT pigment
1
-
— .
—
—
Hydrocarbons0
Ib/ton of product
30
40
150
160
20
kg/MT pigment
15
20
75
80
10
References 2 and 4 through 8.
bAfterburners can reduce gaseous hydrocarbon emissions by 99 percent and participates by about 90
percent. A water spray and oil filter system can reduce particulates by about 90 percent.^
"Expressed as undefined organic compounds whose composition depends upon the type of varnish or
paint.
References for Section 5.10
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Stenburg, R.L. Atmospheric Emissions from Paint and Varnish Operations. Paint Varn. Prod. p. 61-65 and
111-114, September 1959.
3. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer
Association. September 1969.
4. Unpublished engineering estimates based on plant visits in Washington, D.C. Resources Research,
Incorporated. Reston, Va. October 1969.
5. Chatfield, H,E. Varnish Cookers. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW,
PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40.1967. p.
688-695.
6. Lunche, E.G. et al. Distribution Survey of Products Emitting Organic Vapors in Los Angeles County. Chem.
Eng. Progr. 53. August 1957.
7. Communication on emissions from paint and varnish operations with G. Sallee, Midwest Research Institute.
December 17, 1969.
8. Communication with Roger Higgins, Benjamin Moore Paint Company. June 25,1968 .
5.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.11 PHOSPHORIC ACID
Phosphoric acid is produced by two principal methods, the wet process and the thermal process. The wet
process is usually employed when the acid is to be used for fertilizer production. Thermal-process acid is normally
of higher purity and is used in the manufacture of high-grade chemical and food products.
5.11.1 Wet Process1 -2
In the wet process, finely ground phosphate rock is fed into a reactor with sulfuric acid to form phosphoric
acid and gypsum. There is usually little market for the gypsum produced, and it is handled as waste material in
gypsum ponds. The phosphoric acid is separated from the gypsum and other insolubles by vacuum filtration. The
acid is then normally concentrated to about 50 to 55 percent P^S. When superphosphoric acid is made, the acid
is concentrated to between 70 and 85 percent ?2O5.
Emissions of gaseous fluorides, consisting mostly of silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen fluoride, are the major
problems from wet-process acid. Table 5.11-1 summarizes the emission factors from both wet-process acid and
thermal-process acid
5.11.2 Thermal Process1
In the thermal process, phosphate rock, siliceous flux, and coke are heated in an electric furnace to produce
elemental phosphorus. The gases containing the phosphorus vapors are passed through an electrical precipitator to
remove entrained dust. In the "one-step'- version of the process, the gases are next mixed with air to form P2Os
before passing to a water scrubber to form phosphoric acid. In the "two-step" version of the process, the
phosphorus is condensed and pumped to a tower in which it is burned with air, and the P2C>5 formed is hydrated
by a water spray in the lower portion of the tower.
The principal emission from thermal-process acid is V-fis acid mist from the absorber tail gas. Since all plants
are equipped with some type of acid-mist collection system, the emission factors presented in Table 5.11-1 are
based on the listed types of control.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.11-1
-------
Table 5.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source
Wet process (phosphate rock)
Reactor, uncontrolled
Gypsum pond
Condenser, uncontrolled
Thermal process (phosphorus burned0)
Packed tower
Venturi scrubber
Glass-fiber mist eliminator
Wire-mesh mist eliminator
High-pressure-drop mist eliminator
Electrostatic precipitator
Particulates
Ib/ton
_
_
-
4.6
5.6
3.0
2.7
0.2
1.8
kg/MT
__
_
-
2.3
2.8
1.5
1.35
0.1
0.9
Fluorides
Ib/ton
18a
1"
208
„
-*>*
-
kg/MT
9a
1.1b
103
._
'
•
-
References 2 and 3.
bPounds per acre per day (kg/hectare-day); approximately 0.5 acre (0.213 hectare) is
required to produce 1 ton of P2O5 daily.
c Reference 4.
References for Section 5.11
1. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 16.
2. Atmospheric Emissions from Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleigh, N.C. Publication Number AP-S7. April 1970.
3. Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions. Internal document. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Programs Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 1970.
4. Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing. Cooperative Study Project:
Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Incorporated, and Public Health Service. U.S, DHEW, PHS, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Durham, N.C. Publication Number AP-48. October 1968.
5.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.12 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
5.12.1 General1
by Pam Canova
Phthalic anhydride (PAN) production in the United States in 1972 was 0.9 billion pounds per year;
this total is estimated to increase to 2.2 billion pounds per year by 1985. Of the current production, 50
percent is used for plasticizers, 25 percent for alkyd resins, 20 percent for unsaturated polyester resins,
and 5 percent for miscellaneous and exports. PAN is produced by catalytic oxidation of either ortho-
xylene or naphthalene. Since naphthalene is a higher priced feedstock and has a lower feed utilization
(about 1.0 Ib PAN/lb o-xylene versus 0.97 Ib PAN/lb naphthalene), future production growth is pre-
dicted to utilize o-xylene. Because emission factors are intended for future as well as present applica-
tion, this report will focus mainly on PAN production utilizing o-xylene as the main feedstock.
The processes for producing PAN by o-xylene or naphthalene are the same except for reactors,
catalyst handling, and recovery facilities required for fluid bed reactors.
In PAN production using o-xylene as the basic feedstock, filtered air is preheated, compressed, and
mixed with vaporized o-xylene and fed into the fixed-bed tubular reactors. The reactors contain the
catalyst, vanadium pentoxide, and are operated at 650 to 725° F (340 to 385° C). Small amounts of
sulfur dioxide are added to the reactor feed to maintain catalyst activity. Exothermic heat is removed
by a molten salt bath circulated around the reactor tubes and transferred to a steam generation system.
Naphthalene-based feedstock is made up of vaporized naphthalene and compressed air. It is
transferred to the fluidized bed reactor and oxidized in the presence of a catalyst, vanadium pent-
oxide, at 650 to 725° F (340 to 385° C). Cooling tubes located in the catalyst bed remove the exothermic
heat which is used to produce high-pressure steam. The reactor effluent consists of PAN vapors, en-
trained catalyst, and various by-products and non-reactant gas. The catalyst is removed by filtering and
returned to the reactor.
The chemical reactions for air oxidation of o-xylene and naphthalene are as follows.
CH3 + 302
3H20
o-xylene + oxygen
phthalic water
anhydride
naphthalene
4/77
anhydride
Chemical Process Industry
2C02
6
phthalic + water . carbon
anhydride dioxide
5.12,1
-------
The reactor effluent containing crude PAN plus products from side reactions and excess oxygen passes
to a series of switch condensers where the crude PAN cools and crystallizes. The condensers are alter-
nately cooled and then heated, allowing PAN crystals to form and then melt from the condenser tube
fins.
The crude liquid is transferred to a pretreatment section in which phthalic acid is dehydrated to
anhydride. Water, maleic anhydride, and benzoic acid are partially evaporated. The liquid then goes
to a vacuum distillation section where pure PAN (99.8 wt. percent pure) is recovered. The product can
be stored and shipped either as a liquid or a solid (in which case it is dried, flaked, and packaged in
multi-wall paper bags). Tanks for holding liquid PAN are kept at 300"F (150°C) and blanketed with
dry nitrogen to prevent the entry of oxygen' (fire) or water vapor (hydrolysis to phthalic acid).
Maleic anhydride is currently the only by-product being recovered.
Figures 1 and 2 show the process flow for air oxidation of o-xylene and naphthalene, respectively.
5.12.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions from o-xylene and naphthalene storage are small and presently are not controlled.
The major contributor of emissions is the reactor and condenser effluent which is vented from the
condenser unit. Particulate, sulfur oxides (for o-xylene-based production), and carbon monoxide
make up the emissions, with carbon monoxide comprising over half the total. The most efficient (96
percent) system of control is the combined usage of a water scrubber and thermal incinerator. A
thermal incinerator alone is approximately 95 percent efficient in combustion of pollutants for o-
xylene-based production, and 80 percent efficient for naphthalene-based production. Thermal incin-
erators with steam generation show the same efficiencies as thermal incinerators alone. Scrubbers
have a 99 percent efficiency in collecting particulates, but are practically ineffective in reducing car-
bon monoxide emissions. In naphthalene-based production, cyclones can be used to control catalyst
dust emissions with 90 to 98 percent efficiency.
Pretreatment and distillation emissions—particulates and hydrocarbons—are normally processed
through the water scrubber and/or incinerator used for the main process stream (reactor and con-
denser) or scrubbers alone, with the same efficiency percentages applying.
Product storage in the liquid phase results in small amounts of gaseous emissions. These gas
streams can either be sent to the main process vent gas control devices or first processed through
sublimation boxes or devices used to recover escaped PAN. Flaking and bagging emissions are negli-
gible, but can be sent to a cyclone for recovery of PAN dust. Exhaust from the cyclone presents no
problem.
Table 5.12-1 gives emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled emissions from the production
of PAN.
5.12-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
PARTICULATE
SULFUR OXIDE
CARBON MONOXIDE
AIR
ft
A
I
t
on
on
I
FILTER AND
COMPRESSOR
SALT COOLER AMD
STEAM GENERATION
HOT AND COOL
CIRCULATING
OIL STREAMS/
WATER AND STEAM
STEAM
1
I
SWITCH
CONDENSERS
^^^
CRUDE
PRODUCT
STORAGE
PARTICULATE
A
PARTICULATE
HYDROCARBON
PRETREAT
MENT
V
STEAM-
PARTICULATE
STRIPPER
COLUMN
REFINING
COLUMN
•STEAM
PRODUCT
STORAGE
(MOLTEN)
FLAKERAND
BAGGING
(OPTIONAL)
PHTHAL1C
'ANHYDRIDE
Tl
PARTICULATE
HYDROCARBON
01
s
Figure 5.12-1. Flow diagram for phthalic anhydride using o-xylene as basic feedstock,1
-------
pi
M
tt)
HOT AMD COOL CIRCULATING
OIL STREAMS OR
WATER AND STEAM
PARTICULATE
CARBtiN MONOXIDE
FILTER
PARTICUiATE
W
I
NAPHTHALENE
X — N.
' 1
^>
FLUID
BED
REACTOR
CATAlflfST
RECYCLE
STEAM
DRUM
Rfl
AIR.
COMPRESSOR
BOILER FEED
WATER
. PARTICULATE
HYDROCARBON
COOLING
\
-I
PRODUCT
STORAGE
(MOLTEN)
FLAKING AND
BAGGING
OPERATION
(OPTIONAL)
*-PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
PARTICULATE
HYDROCARBON
Figure 5.12-2. Flow diagram for phthalic anhydride using naphthalene as basic feedstock. 1
-------
Table 5.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE1'3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Oxidation of o-xylene'3
Main process stream0
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
W/incinerator with
steam generator
Pretreatment
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
Distillation
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
Oxidation of naphthalene^
Main process streamc
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Pretreatment
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrgbber
Distillation
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Paniculate
Ib/ton
138d
6
7
7
13*
0.5
0.7
89d
4
4
569.i
n
0.6
5h
1
<0.1
389
8
0.4
kg/MT
69
-------
-------
) S.13 PLASTICS
5.13.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of most resins or plastics begins with the polymerization or linking of the basic compound
(monomer), usually a gas or liquid, into high molecular weight noncrystalline solids. The manufacture of the
basic monomer is not considered part of the plastics industry and is usually accomplished at a chemical or
petroleum plant.
The manufacture of most plastics involves an enclosed reaction or polymerization step, a drying step, and a
final treating and forming step. These plastics are polymerized or otherwise combined in completely enclosed
stainless steel or glass-lined vessels. Treatment of the resin after polmerization varies with the proposed use.
Resins for moldings are dried and crushed or ground into molding powder. Resins such as the alkyd resins that are
to be used for protective coatings ate normally transferred to an agitated thinning tank, where they are thinned
with some type of solvent and then stored in large steel tanks equipped with water-cooled condensers to prevent
loss of solvent to the atmosphere. Still other resins are stored in latex form as they come from Hie kettle.
5.13.2 Emissions and Controls1
The major sources of air contamination in plastics manufacturing are the emissions of raw materials or
monomers, emissions of solvents or other volatile liquids during the reaction, emissions of sublimed solids such as
phthalic anhydride in alkyd production, and emissions of solvents during storage and handling of thinned resins.
Emission factors for the manufacture of plastics are shown in Table 5.134.
Table 5.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PLASTICS
MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of plastic
Poly vinyl chloride
Polypropylene
General
Paniculate
Ib/ton
35"
3
5to 10
kg/MT
T7.5b
1.5
2.5 to 5
Gases
Ib/ton
17C
0.7d
kg/MT
8.5C
0.35d
References 2 and 3.
bUsually controlled with
percent.
cAs vinyl chloride.
dAs propylene.
a fabric filter efficiency of 98 to 99
Much of the control equipment used in this industry is a basic part of the system and serves to recover a
reactant or product. These controls include floating roof tanks or vapor recovery systems on volatile material,
storage units, vapor recovery systems (adsorption or condensers), purge lines that vent to a flare system, and
recovery systems on vacuum exhaust lines.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.13-1
-------
References for Section 5.13
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Unpublished data from industrial questionnaire. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Division of Air Quality and Emissions Data. Durham, N.C. 1969.
3. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and Maryland State Department of
Health, Baltimore, Md. November 1969.
5.13-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
, 5.14 PRINTING INK
5.14.1 Process Description1
There are four major classes of printing ink: letterpress and lithographic inks, commonly called oil or paste
inks; and flexographic and rotogravure inks, which are referred to as solvent inks. These inks vary considerably in
physical appearance, composition, method of application, and drying mechanism. Flexographic and rotogravure
inks have many elements in common with the paste inks but differ in that they are of very low viscosity, and they
almost always dry by evaporation of highly volatile solvents.2
There are three general processes in the manufacture of printing inks: (1) cooking the vehicle and adding dyes,
(2) grinding of a pigment into the vehicle using a roller mill, and (3) replacing water in the wet pigment pulp by
an ink vehicle (commonly known as the flushing process).3 The ink "varnish" or vehicle is generally cooked in
large kettles at 200° to 600°F (93° to 315°C) for an average of 8 to 12 hours in much the same way that regular
varnish is made. Mixing of the pigment and vehicle is done in dough mixers or in large agitated tanks. Grinding is
most often carried out in three-roller or five-roller horizontal or vertical mills.
5.14.2 Emissions and Controls1'4
Varnish or vehicle preparation by heating is by far the largest source of ink manufacturing emissions. Cooling
the varnish components — resins, drying oils, petroleum oils, and solvents — produces odorous emissions. At
about 350°F (175°C) the products begin to decompose, resulting in the emission of decomposition products
from the cooking vessel. Emissions continue throughout the cooking process with the maximum rate of emissions
occuring just after the maximum temperature has been reached. Emissions from the cooking phase can be
reduced by more than 90 percent with the use of scrubbers or condensers followed by afterburners/'5
) • . . . ' . ;- '
Compounds emitted from the cooking of oleoresinous varnish (resin plus varnish) include water vapor, fatty
acids, glycerine, acrolein, phenols, aldehydes, ketones, terpene oils, terpenes, and carbon dioxide. Emissions of
thinning solvents used in flexographic and rotogravure inks may also occur.
The quantity, composition, and rate of emissions from ink manufacturing depend upon the cooking
temperature and time, the ingredients, the method of introducing additives, the degree of stirring, and the extent
of air or inert gas blowing. Particulate emissions resulting from the addition of pigments to the vehicle are
affected by the type of pigment and its particle size. Emission factors for the manufacture of printing ink are
presented in Table 5.14-1.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.14-1
-------
Table 5.14-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRINTING INK
MANUFACTURING8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of process
Vehicle cooking
General
Oils
Oleoresinous
Alkyds
Pigment mixing
Gaseous organic1*
Ib/ton
of product
120
40
150
160
-
kg/MT
of product
60
20
75
80
-
Participates
Ib/ton
of pigment
-
-
• -
—
2
kg/MT
of pigment
— .
—
—
—
1
aBased on data from section on paint and varnish.
bEnVrtted as gas, but rapidly condense as the effluent is cooled.
References for Section 5.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. Aprfl 1970.
2. Shreve, R. N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw Hill Book Co. 1967. p. 454-455.
3. Larsen, L.M. Industrial Printing Inks. New York, Reinhold Publishing Company. 1962.
4. Chatfield, H.E. Varnish Cookers. In,: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW,
PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40,1967. p.
688-695.
5. Private communication wilh Interchemical Corporation, Ink Division. Cincinnati, Ohio. November 10,1969.
5.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
) 5.15 SOAP AND DETERGENTS
5,15.1 Soap Manufacture1
The manufacture of soap entails the catalytic hydrolysis of various fatty acids with sodium or potassium
hydroxide to form a glycerol-soap mixture. This mixture is separated by distillation, then neutralized and blended
to produce soap. The main atmospheric pollution problem in the manufacture of soap is odor, and, if a spray
drier is used, a particulate emission problem may also occur. Vent lines, vacuum exhausts, product and raw
material storage, and waste streams are all potential odor sources. Control of these odors may be achieved by
scrubbing all exhaust fumes and, if necessary, incinerating the remaining compounds. Odors emanating from the
spray drier may be controlled by scrubbing with an add solution.
5.15.2 Detergent Manufacture1
The manufacture of detergents generally begins with the sulfuration by sulfuric acid of a fatty alcohol or linear
alkylate. The sulfurated compound is then neutralized with caustic solution (NaOH), and various dyes, perfumes,
and other compounds are added.2*3 The resulting paste or slurry is then sprayed under pressure into a vertical
drying tower where it is dried with a stream of hot air (400° to 500° F or 204° to 260°C). The dried detergent is
then cooled and packaged. The main source of particulate emissions is the spray-drying tower. Odors may also be
emitted from the spray-drying operation and from storage and mixing tanks. Particulate emissions from
spray-drying operations are shown in Table 5.15-1.
Table 5.16-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SPRAY-DRYING DETERGENTS'
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Control device
Uncontrolled
Cycloneb
Cyclone followed by:
Spray chamber
Packed scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Overall
efficiency, %
85
92
95
97
Paniculate
Ib/ton of
product
90
14
7
5
3
emissions
kg/MT of
product
46
7
3.5
2.5
1.5
aBwed on analysis of data In References 2 through 6.
bSomB type of primary collector, such as a cyclone, Is contidered an
Integra! part of the spray4ry!ng system.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.15-1
-------
References for Section 5.15
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Phelps, A.H. Air Pollution Aspects of Soap and Detergent Manufacture. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
7 7(8): 505-507, August 1967.
3. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries. 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
544-563.
4. Larsen, GJ., G.I. Fischer, and W.J. Hamming. Evaluating Sources of Air Pollution. Ind. Eng. Chem.
45:1070-1074, May 1953.
5. McCormick, P.Y., RX. Lucas, and D.R. Wells. Gas-Solid Systems. In: Chemical Engineer's Handbook. Perry,
J.H. (ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1963. p. 59.
6. Private communication wim Maryland State Department of Heatth, Baltimore, Md. November 1969.
5.15-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.16 SODIUM CARBONATE (Soda Ash)
5.16.1 Process Description1
Soda ash is manufactured by three processes: (1) the natural or Lake Brine process, (2) the Solvay process
(ammonia-soda), and (3) the electrolytic soda-ash process. Because the Solvay process accounts for over 80
percent of the total production of soda ash, it will be the only one discussed in this section.
In the Solvay process, the basic raw materials are ammonia, coke, limestone (calcium carbonate), and salt
(sodium chloride). The salt, usually in the unpurified form of a brine, is first purified in a series of absorbers by
precipitation of the heavy metal ions with ammonia and carbon dioxide. In this process sodium bicarbonate is
formed. This bicarbonate coke is heated in a rotary kiln, and the resultant soda ash is cooled and conveyed to
storage.
5.16.2 Emissions
The major source of emissions from the manufacture of soda ash is the release of ammonia. Small amounts of
ammonia are emitted in the gases vented from the brine purification system. Intermittent losses of ammonia can
also occur during the unloading of tank trucks into storage tanks. The major sources of dust emissions include
rotary dryers, dry solids handling, and processing of lime. Dust emissions of fine soda ash also occur from
conveyor transfer points and air classification systems, as well as during tank-car loading and packaging. Emission
factors are summarized in Table 5.16-1.
Table 5.16-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SODA-ASH
PLANTS WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: 0
Type of source
Ammonia recovery8'1*
Conveying, transferring,
loading, etc.c
Partfculates
Ib/ton
_
6
kg/MT
3
Ammonia
Ib/ton
7
—
kg/MT
3.5
—
'Reference 2.
bRepreserrts ammonia loss following the recovery system.
GBased on data in References 3 through 5.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.16-1
-------
References for Section 5.16
1, Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National )
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.Cvunder Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
225-230.
3. Facts and Figures for the Chemical Process Industries. Chem. Eng. News. 43:51-118, September 6,1965.
4. Faith, W.L., D.B. Keyes, and R.L. Clark. Industrial Chemicals, 3rd Ed. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
1965.
5. Kaylor, F.B. Air Pollution Abatement Program of a Chemical Processing Industry. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
75:65-67, February 1965.
5.16-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID Revised by WiUiam Vatavuk
and Donald Carey
5.17.1 Process Description
All sulfuric acid is made by either the lead chamber or the contact process. Because the contact process
accounts for more than 97 percent of the total sulfuric acid production in the United States, it is the only process
discussed in this section. Contact plants are generally classified according to the raw materials charged to them:
(1) elemental sulfur burning, (2) spent acid and hydrogen sulfide burning, and (3) sulfide ores and smelter gas
burning plants. The relative contributions from each type of plant to the total acid production are 68, 18.5, and
13.5 percent, respectively.
All contact processes incorporate three basic operations, each of which corresponds to a distinct chemical
ction. First, the sulfur in the feedstock is burned to sulfur dioxide:
S + 02 •-*- SCK
Sulfur Oxygen Sulfur (1)
dioxide
reaction
Then, the sulfur dioxide is catalytically oxidized to sulfur trioxide;
2S02 + 02 -*• 2S03.
Sulfur Oxygen Sulfur
dioxide trioxide
Finally, the sulfur trioxide is absorbed in a strong, aqueous solution of sulfuric acid:
S03 + H20 -*- H2S04.
Sulfur Water Sulfuric
trioxide acid
(3)
5.17.1.1 Elemental Sulfur-Burning Plants1'2 - Elemental sulfur, such as Frasch-process sulfur from oil refineries,
is melted, settled, or filtered to remove ash and is fed into a combustion chamber. The sulfur is burned in clean
air that has been dried by scrubbing with 93 to 99 percent sulfuric acid. The gases from the combustion chamber
are cooled and then enter the solid catalyst (vanadium pentoxide) converter. Usually, 95 to 98 percent of the
sulfur dioxide from the combustion chamber is converted to sulfur trioxide, with an accompanying large
evolution of heat. After being cooled, the converter exit gas enters an absorption tower where the sulfur trioxide
is absorbed with 98 to 99 percent sulfuric acid. The sulfur trioxide combines with the water in the acid and forms
more sulfuric acid. '
If oleum, a solution of uncombined $03 in H2S04, is produced, 503 from the converter is first passed to an
oleum tower that is fed with 98 percent add from the absorption system. The gases from the oleum tower are
then pumped to the absorption column where the residual sulfur trioxide is removed.
A schematic diagram of a contact process sulfuric acid plant that bums elemental sulfur is shown in Figure
5.17-1.
4/73 Chemical Process Industry 5.17-1
-------
(/I
§
8
z
^v
»•
f
STEAM DRIHI
BLOW DOWN -* —
J,
T:
. jL^
i ""^C
\)
JJT-
\
\ :
1
L.
!
x — ^^v.
llfllHIIIIIIH
— o— — o
mimiuiiii
-o - - o
minium
••••
1 i
1!
L.
DRYING
TOWER
AIR
BLOWER
LIQUID ;
SULFUR
STEAM
TO
1 ATMOSPHERE
BOILER
BOILER
CONVERTER
BOILER FEED WATER
ECONOMIZER
ABSORPTION
TOWER
ACID
COOLER
STORAGE
*- PRODUCT
Figure 5.17-1. Basic flow diagram of contact-process sulfuric acid plant burning elemental sulfur.
-------
ENTACID
SULFUR
FUEL OIL
WASTE HEAT
BOILER
DUST
COLLECTOR
GAS i
COOLERi
v\\\\vi
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATORS
HEAT
*~ EXCHANGERS "*"
BLOWER
ATMOS- I MIST
PHERE^J ELIMINATOR
nvmw
ABSORPTII
JOIiR,
ACID TRANSFER-*
ACID COOLERS
98% ACID _
PUMP TANK
93% ACID
PUMPTAHiT
Figure 5.17-2. Basic flow diagram of contact-process sulfurlc acid plant burning spent acid.
4/73
Chemical Process Industry
5.17-3
-------
5.17.1.2 Spent Acid and Hydrogen Sulfide Burning Hants1'2 - Two types of plants are used to process this type
of sulfuric acid. In one the sulfur dioxide and other combustion products from the combustion of spent acid
and/or hydrogen sulfide with undried atmospheric air are passed through gas-cleaning and mist-removal
equipment. The gas stream next passes through a drying tower. A blower draws the gas from the drying tower and
discharges the sulfur dioxide gas to the sulfur trioxide converter. A schematic diagram of a contact-process
sulfuric acid plant that burns spent acid is shown in Figure 5.17-2.
In a "wet-gas plant," the wet gases from the combustion chamber are charged directly to the converter with no
intermediate treatment. The gas from the converter flows to the absorber, through which 93 to 98 percent
sulfuric acid is circulating.
S.I7.1.3 Sulfide Ores and Smelter Gas Plants - The configuration of this type of plant is essentially the same as
that of a spent-acid plant (Figure 5.17-2) with the primary exception that a roaster is used in place of the
combustion furnace.
The feed used in these plants is smelter gas, available from such equipment as copper converters, reverberatory
furnaces, roasters, and flash smelters. The sulfur dioxide in the gas is contaminated with dust, acid mist, and
gaseous impurities. To remove the impurities the gases must be cooled to essentially atmospheric temperature and
passed through purification equipment consisting of cyclone dust collectors, electrostatic dust and mist
precipitators, and scrubbing and gas-cooling towers. After the gases are cleaned and the excess water vapor is
removed, they are scrubbed with 98 percent acid in a drying tower. Beginning with the drying tower stage, these
plants are nearly identical to the elemental sulfur plants shown in Figure 5.17-L
5.17.2 Emissions and Controls
5.17.2.1 Sulfur Dioxide1"3 - Nearly all sulfur dioxide emissions from sulfuric acid plants are found in the exit
gases. Extensive testing has shown that the mass of these SC>2 emissions is an inverse function of the sulfur
conversion efficiency (S02 oxidized to 803). This conversion is, in turn, affected by the number of stages in the
catalytic converter, the amount of catalyst used, the temperature and pressure, and the concentrations of the
reactants, sulfur dioxide and oxygen. For example, if the inlet SC>2 concentration to the converter were 8 percent
by volume (a representative value), and the conversion temperature were 473°C, the conversion efficiency would
be 96 percent. At this conversion, the uncontrolled emission factor for 862 would be 55 pounds per ton (27.5
kg/MT) of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced, as shown in Table 5.17-1. For purposes of comparison, note that
the Environmental Protection Agency performance standard3 for new and modified plants is 4 pounds per ton
(2kg / Ml) of 100 percent acid produced, maximum 2-hour average. As Table 5.17-1 and Figure 5.17-3 indicate,
achieving this standard requires a conversion efficiency of 99.7 percent in an uncontrolled plant or the equivalent
S02 collection mechanism in a controlled facility. Most single absorption plants have SC^conversion efficiencies
ranging from 95 to 98 percent.
In addition to exit gases, small quantities of sulfur oxides are emitted from storage tank vents and tank car and
tank truck vents during loading operations; from sulfuric acid concentrators; and through leaks in process
equipment. Few data are available on emissions from these sources.
Of the many chemical and physical means for removing 502 ^rom S35 streamsi only the dual absorption and
the sodium sulfite-bisulfite scrubbing processes have been found to increase acid production without yielding
unwanted by-products.
5.17-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
T
Table 6.17-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFURIC
ACID PLANTS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Conversion of S02
toS03,%
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
99.6
99.7
100
SO, emissions
Ib/tonof 100"%
H2S04
96
82
70
55
40
27
14
7
4
0
kg/MTof 100%
H2S04
48.0
41.0
35.0
27.6
20.5
13.0
7.0
3.5
2.0
0.0
aReference 1.
bThe following linear interpolation formula can be used for
calculating emission factors for conversion efficiencies between 93
and 100 percent: emission factor (Ib/ton acid) --13.65 (percent
conversion efficiency) + 1365.
In the dual absorption process, the 803 gas formed in the primary converter stages is sent to a primary
absorption tower where ^804 is formed. The remaining unconverted sulfur dioxide is forwarded to the final
stages in the converter, from whence it is sent to the secondary absorber for final sulfur trioxide removal. The
result is the conversion of a much higher fraction of S02 to 563 (a conversion of 99.7 percent or higher, on the
average, which meets the performance standard). Furthermore, dual absorption permits higher converter inlet
sulfur dioxide concentrations than are used in single absorption plants because the secondary conversion stages
effectively remove any residual sulfur dioxide from the primary absorber.
Where dual absorption reduces sulfur dioxide emissions by increasing the overall conversion efficiency, the
sodium sulfite-bisulfite scrubbing process removes sulfur dioxide directly from the absorber exit gases. In one
version of this process, the sulfur dioxide in the waste gas is absorbed in a sodium sulfite solution, separated, and
recycled to the plant. Test results from a 750 ton (680 MT) per day plant equipped with a sulfite scrubbing
system indicated an average emission factor of 2.7 pounds per ton (1.35 kg/MT).
15.17.2.2 Acid Mist1'3 - Nearly all the acid mist emitted from sulfuric acid manufacturing can be traced to the
absorber exit gases. Acid mist is created when sulfur trioxide combines with water vapor at a temperature below
the dew point of sulfur trioxide. Once formed within the process system, this mist is so stable that only a small
quantity can be removed in the absorber.
In general, the quantity and particle size distribution of acid mist are dependent on the type of sulfur
feedstock used, the strength of add produced, and the conditions in the absorber. Because it contains virtually no
water vapor, bright elemental sulfur produces little acid mist when burned; however, the hydrocarbon impurities
in other feedstocks - dark sulfur, spent add, and hydrogen sulflde - oxidize to water vapor during combustion.
The water vapor, in turn, combines with sulfur trioxide as the gas cools in the system.
4/73
Chemical Process Industry
5.17-5
-------
99.92
10,000
SULFUR CONVERSION,«feedstock sulfur
99.7
100
1-5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 15 20 25 30 40 SO 60708090100
SOaEMSSIONS, Ih/lon of 100% H2S04 produced
Figure 5.17-3. Sulfuric acid plant feedstock sulfur conversion versus volumetric and
mass SOg emissions at various inlet SOg concentrations by volume.
5.17-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
The strength of acid produced—whether oleum or 99 percent sulfuric acid—also affects mist emissions. Oleum
plants produce greater quantities of finer, more stable mist For example, uncontrolled mist emissions from
oleum plants burning spent acid range from 0.1 to 10.0 pounds per ton (0.05 to S.O kg/Ml), while those from 98
percent acid plants burning elemental sulfur range from 0.4 to 4.0 pounds per ton (0.2 to 2.0 kg/MT).
Furthermore, 85 to 95 weight percent of the mist particles from oleum plants are less than 2 microns in diam-
eter, compared with only 30 weight percent that are less than 2 microns in diameter from 98 percent add plants.
The operating temperature of the absorption column directly affects sulfur trioxide absorption and,
accordingly, the quality of acid mist formed after exit gases leave the stack. The optimum absorber operating
temperature is dependent on the strength of the acid produced, throughput rates, inlet sulfur trioxide
concentrations, and other variables peculiar to each individual plant. Finally, it should be emphasized that the
percentage conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide has no direct effect on *cid mist emissions. In Table
5.17-2 uncontrolled acid mist emissions are presented for various sulfuric acid plants.
Two basic types of devices, electrostatic precipitators and fiber mist eliminators, effectively reduce the add
mist concentration from contact plants to less than the EPA new-source performance standard, which is 0.15
pound per ton (0.075 kg/MT) of add. Precipitators, if properly maintained, are effective in collecting the mist
particles at efficiencies up to 99 percent (see Table 5.17-3).
The three most commonly used fiber mist eliminators are the vertical tube, vertical panel, and horizontal
dual-pad types. They differ from one another in the arrangement of the fiber elements, which are composed of
either chemically resistant glass or Quorocarbon, and in the means employed to collect the trapped liquid. The
operating characteristics of these three types are compared with electrostatic precipitators in Table 5.17-3.
Table 5.17-& ACID MIST EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFURIC
ACID PLANTS WITHOUT CONTROLS'
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Raw material
Recovered sulfur
Bright virgin sulfur
Dark virgin sulfur ...
Sulf ide ores
Spent acid
Oleum produced.
% total output
Oto43
0
33 to 100
Oto25
Oto77
Emissions"
Ib/ton acid
0.35 to 0.8
1.7
0.32 to 6.3
1.2 to 7.4
2.2 to 2.7
kg/MT acid
0.1 75 to 0.4
0.85
0.16 to 3.15
0.6 to 3.7
1.1 to 1.35
'Reference 1.
Emissions are proportional to the percentage of oleum in the total product. USB
the low end of ranges for low oleum percentage and high end of ranges for high
oleum percentage.
4/73
Chemical Process Industry
5.17-7
-------
Table 5.17-3. EMISSION COMPARISON AND COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF TYPICAL
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR AND FIBER MIST ELIMINATORS'
Control device
Electrostatic
precipitator
Fiber mist eliminator
Tubular
Panel
Dual pad
Particle size
Ml lection efficiency, %
>3/im
99
100
100
100
<3/im
100
95 to 99
90 to 98
93 to 99
Acid mist
98% acid plants"
Ib/ton
0,10
0.02
0.10
0.11
kg/MT
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.055
emissions
oleum plants
Ib/ton
0.12
0.02
0.10
0.11
kg/MT
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.055
"Reference 2.
""Based on manufacturers' generally expected results; calculated for 8 percent sulfur dioxide
concentration in gas converter.
References for Section 5.17
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air
Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number 999-AP-13.1966.
2. Unpublished report on control of air pollution from sulfuric acid plants. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. August 1971.
3. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Federal Register. 36(247): December 23,1971.
5.17-8
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
5.18 SUUFUR
By William Vatavuk
5.18.1 Process Description
Nearly all of the elemental sulfur produced from hydrogen sulfide is made by the modified Glaus process.
The process (Figure 5.18-1) consists of the multi-stage Oxidation of hydrogen sulfide according to the following
reaction:
\
2H2S
Hydrogen
sulfide
02
Oxygen
2S
Sulfur
2H2O
Water
In the first step, approximately one-third of the hydrogen sulfide is reacted with air in a pressurized boiler (1.0
to 1.5 atmosphere) where most of the heat of reaction and some of the sulfur are removed. After removal of the
water vapor and sulfur, the cooled gases are heated to between 400 and 500°F, and passed over a "Claus" catalyst
bed composed of bauxite or alumina, where the reaction is completed. The degree of reaction conpletion is a
function of the number of catalytic stages employed. Two stages can recover 92 to 95 percent of the potential
sulfur; three stages, 95 to 96 percent; and four stages, 96 to 97 percent The conversion to sulfur is ultimately
limited by the reverse reaction in which water vapor recombines with sulfur to form gaseous hydrogen sulfide and
sulfur dioxide. Additional amounts of sulfur are lost as vapor, entrained mist, or droplets and as carbonyl sulfide
and carbon disulfide (0.25 to 2.5 percent of the sulfur fed). The latter two compounds are formed in the
pressurized boiler at high temperature (1500 to 2500°F) in the presence of carbon compounds.
The plant tail gas, containing the above impurities in volume quantities of 1 to 3 percent, usually passes to an
incinerator, where all of the sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide at temperatures ranging from 1000 to 1200°F.
The tail gas containing the sulfur dioxide then passes to the atmosphere via a stack.
5.18,2 Emissions and Controls1'2
Virtually all of the emissions from sulfur plants consist of sulfur dioxide, the main incineration product. The
quantity of sulfur dioxide emitted is, in turn, a function of the number of conversion stages employed, the
process temperature and pressure, and the amounts of carbon compounds present in the pressurized boiler.
The most commonly used control method involves two main steps - conversion of sulfur dioxide to hydrogen
sulfide followed by the conversion of hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur. Conversion of sulfur dioxide to
hydrogen sulfide occurs via catalytic hydrogenation or hydrolysis at temperatures from 600 to 700° F. The
products are cooled to remove the water vapor and then reacted with a sodium carbonate solution to yield
sodium hydrosulfide. The hydrosulfide is oxidized to sulfur in solution by sodium vanadate. Finely divided sulfur
appears as a froth that is skimmed off, washed, dried by centrifugation, and added to the plant product. Overall
recovery of sulfur approaches 100 percent if this process is employed. Table 5.18-1 lists emissions from
controlled and uncontrolled sulfur plants.
4/73
Chemical Process Industry
5.18-1
-------
CLEAN GAS
SOUR
GAS
COOLER
REACTIVATOR
HEAT
EXCHANGER
COOLE
2
R
R |
1
, 2 'f 2>
1 1 \
| AIR
' 1 -r-1 A -r-
1 1, • "
J i I L
j (CONVERTER CONVERTE
, BOILER J J L
S SCRUBBER
1 ' ' - - ''• ' ' ' '
GAS PURIFICATION •
STACK
SCRUBBER
•SULFUR CONVERSION
(CLAUS SECTION)
Figure 5.18-1. Basic flow diagram of modified Glaus process with two converter stages
used in manufacturing sulfur.
Table 5.18-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODIFIED-CLAUS
SULFUR PLANTS EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Number of
catalytic stages
Two, uncontrolled
Three, uncontrolled
Four, uncontrolled
Sulfur removal process
Recovery of
ofsulfiir,%
92 to 95
95 to 96
96 to 97
99.9
S0.j emissions8
Ib/ton
100% sulfur
211 to 348
167 to 211
124 to 167
4.0
kg/MT
100% sulfur
106 to 162
84 to 106
62 to 84
2.0
•The range In emission factors correspond* to the range in the percentage recovery of
sulfur.
References for Section 5.18
1. Beavon, David K. Abating Sulfur Plant Tail Gases. Pollution Engineering. 4(l):34-35, January 1972.
2. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 19. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1969
5.18-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
) 5.19 SYNTHETIC FIBERS
5.19.1 Process Description1
Synthetic fibers are classified into two major categories, semi-synthetic and "true" synthetic. Semi-synthetics,
such as viscose rayon and acetate fibers, result when natural polymeric materials such as cellulose are brought into
a dissolved or dispersed state and then spun into fine filaments. True synthetic polymers, such as Nylon, * Orion,
and Dacron, result from addition and other polymerization reactions that form long chain molecules.
True synthetic fibers begin with the preparation of extremely long, chain-like molecules. The polymer is spun
in one of four ways:2 (1) melt spinning, in which molten polymer is pumped through spinneret jets, the polymer
solidifying as it strikes the cool air; (2) dry spinning, in which the polymer is dissolved in a suitable organic
solvent, and the resulting solution is forced through spinnerets; (3) wet spinning, in which the solution is
coagulated in a chemical as it emerges from the spinneret; and (4) core spinning, the newest method, in which a
continuous filament yam together with short-length "hard" fibers is introduced onto a spinning frame in such a
way as to form a composite yarn.
5.19.2 Emissions and Controls1
In the manufacture of viscose rayon, carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide are the major gaseous emissions.
Air pollution controls are not normally used to reduce these emissions, but adsorption in activated carbon at an
efficiency of 80 to 95 percent, with subsequent recovery of the €82 can be accomplished.3 Emissions of gaseous
hydrocarbons may also occur from the drying of the finished fiber. Table 5.19-1 presents emission factors for
semi-synthetic and true synthetic fibers.
Table 5.19-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SYNTHETIC FIBERS MANUFACTURING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of fiber
Semi-synthetic
Viscose rayona-b
True synthetic6
Nylon
Dacron
Hydrocarbons
Ib/ton
7
kg/MT
3.5
Carbon
disulfide
Ib/ton
55
kg/MT
27.5
Hydrogen
sulfide
Ib/ton
6
kg/MT
3
Oil vapor
or mist
Ib/ton
15
7
kg/MT
7.5
3.5
'Reference 4.
''May be reduced by 80 to 95 percent adsorption in activated charcoal.3
cReference 5.
•Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-1
-------
References for Section 5.19
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Fibers, Man-Made. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc. 1969.
3. Fluidized Recovery System Nabs Carbon Disuffide. Chem. Eng. 70(8):92-94, April 15,1963.
4. Private communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and Rayon Manufacturini Plant
December 1969.
5. Private communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and E.I. Dupont de Nemours and
Company. January 13,1970,
5.19-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.20 SYNTHETIC RUBBER
5.20.1 Process Description1
Coporymers of butadiene and styrene, commonly known as SBR, account for more than 70 percent of all
synthetic rubber produced in the United States. In a typical SBR manufacturing process, the monomers of
butadiene and styrene are mixed with additives such as soaps and mercaptans. The mixture is polymerized to a
conversion point of approximately 60 percent. After being mixed with various ingredients such as oil and carbon
black, the latex product is coagulated and precipitated from the latex emulsion. The rubber particles are then
dried and baled.
5.20.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions from the synthetic rubber manufacturing process consist of organic compounds (largely the
monomers used) emitted from the reactor and blow-down tanks, and particulate matter and odors from the
drying operations.
Drying operations are frequently controlled with fabric filter systems to recover any particulate emissions,
which represent a product loss. Potential gaseous emissions are largely controlled by recycling the gas stream back
to the process. Emission factors from synthetic rubber plants are summarized in Table 5.20-1.
Table 5.20-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SYNTHETIC RUBBER PLANTS: BUTADIENE-
ACRYLONITRILE AND BUTADIENE-STYRENE
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Compound
Alkenes
Butadiene
Methyl propene
Butyne
Pentadiene
Alkanes
Dimethy (heptane
Pentane
Ethanenitrlle
Cartaonyls
Acrylonitrile
Acrolein
Emlssi
Ib/ton
40
15
3
1
1
2
1
17
3
ons«'b
kg/MT
20
7.5
1.5
0.6
0.5
1
0.5
8.6
1.5
*The butadiene emlulon It not continuous and li
greatatt right after a batch of partially polymerized
latex inter* the blow-down tank.
bReferencti2end3.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.20-1
-------
References for Section 5.20
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air -
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. The Louisville Air Pollution Study. U.S, DHEW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1961. p.
26-27 and 124.
3. Unpublished data from synthetic rubber plant. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Division of Air Quality and Emissions Data. Durham, N.C. 1969.
5.20-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.21 TEREPHTHALIC ACID
5.21.1 Process Description1*2
The main use of terephthalic acid is to produce dimethyl terephthalate, which is used for polyester fibers (like
Dacron) and films. Terephthalic acid can be produced in various ways, one of which is the oxidation of p-xylene
by nitric acid. In this process an oxygen-containing gas (usually air), p-xylene, and HN(>3 are all passed into a
reactor where oxidation by the nitric acid takes place in two steps. The first step yields primarily NjO; the second
step yields mostly NO in the offgas. The terephthalic acid precipitated from the reactor effluent is recovered by
conventional crystallization, separation, and drying operations.
5.21.2 Emissions
The NO in the offgas from the reactor is the major air contaminant from the manufacture of terephthalic acid.
The amount of nitrogen oxides emitted is roughly estimated in Table 5.21-1.
Table 5.21-1. NITROGEN OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR
TEREPHTHALIC ACID PLANTS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of operation
Reactor
Nitrogen oxides
(NO)
Ib/ton
13
kg/MT
6.5
Reference 2.
References for Section 5.21
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Terephthalic Acid. In: Kiik-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 9. New York, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. 1964.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.21-1
-------
-------
6. FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
Before food and agricultural products are used by the consumer they undergo a number of processing steps,
such as refinement, preservation, and product improvement, as well as storage and handling, packaging, and
shipping. This section deals with the processing of food and agricultural products and the intermediate steps that
present air pollution problems. Emission factors are presented for industries where data were available. The
primary pollutant emitted from these processes is particulate matter.
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING by Tom Lahre
6.1.1 General1'3
Dehydrated alfalfa is a meal product resulting from the rapid drying of alfalfa by artifical means at
temperatures above 212°F (100°C). Alfalfa meal is used in chicken rations, cattle feed, hog rations, sheep feed,
turkey mash, and other formula feeds. It is important for its protein content, growth and reproductive factors,
pigmenting xanthophyfls, and vitamin contributions.
A schematic of a generalized alfalfa dehydiator plant is given in Figure 6.1-1. Standing alfalfa is mowed and
chopped in the field and transported by truck to a dehydrating plant, which is usually located within 10 miles of
the field. The truck dumps the chopped alfalfa (wet chops) onto a self-feeder, which carries it into a direct-fired,
rotary drum. Within the drum, the wet chops are dried from an initial moisture content of about 60 to 80 percent
(by weight) to about 8 to 16 percent. Typical combustion gas temperatures within the oil- or gas-fired drums
range from 1800 to 2000°F (980 to 1092°C) at the inlet to 250 to 300°F (120 to 150°C) at the outlet.
From the drying drum, the dry chops are pneumatically conveyed into a primary cyclone that separates mem
from the high-moisture, high-temperature exhaust stream. From the primary cyclone, the chops are fed into a
hammemull, which grinds the dry chops into a meal. The meal is pneumatically conveyed from the hammermfll
into a meal collector cyclone in which the meal is separated from the airstream and discharged into a holding bin.
Meal is then fed into a pellet null where it is steam conditioned and extruded into pellets.
From the pellet mill, the pellets are either pneumatically or mechanically conveyed to a cooler, through which
air is drawn to cool the pellets and, in some cases, remove fines. Fines removal is more commonly effected in
shaker screens following or ahead of the cooler, with the fines being conveyed back into the meal collector
cyclone, meal bin, or pellet mill. Cyclone separators may be employed to separate entrained fines in the cooler
exhaust and to collect pellets when the pellets are pneumatically conveyed from the pellet mill to the cooler.
Following cooling and screening, the pellets are transferred to bulk storage. Dehydrated alfalfa is most often
stored and shipped in pellet form; however, in some instances, the pellets may be ground in a hammermill and
shipped in meal form. When the finished pellets or ground pellets are pneumatically transferred to storage or
loadout, additional cyclones may be employed for product airstream separation at these locations.
6.1.2 Emissions and Controls1'3
Particulate matter is the primary pollutant of concern from alfalfa dehydrating plants although some odors
arise from the organic volatiles driven off during drying. Although the major source is the primary cooling
cyclone, lesser sources include the downstream cyclone separators and the bagging and loading operations.
4/76 6.1-1
-------
Emission factors foi the various cyclone separators utilized in alfalfa dehydrating plants are given in Table
6.1-1. Note that, although these sources are common to many plants, there will be considerable variation from
the generalized flow diagram in Figure 6.1-1 depending on the desired nature of the product, the physical layout
of the plant, and the modifications made for air pollution control. Common variations include ducting the
exhaust gas stream from one or more of the downstream cyclones back through the primary cyclone and ducting
a portion of the primary cyclone exhaust back into the furnace. Another modification involves ducting a part of
the meal collector cyclone exhaust back into the hammermfll, with the remainder ducted to the primary cyclone
or discharged directly to the atmosphere. Also, additional cyclones may be employed if the pellets are
pneumatically rather than mechanically conveyed from the pellet mul to the cooler or if the finished pellets or
ground pellets are pneumatically conveyed to storage or loadout.
Table 6.1-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALFALFA DEHYDRATING PLANTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: PRIMARY CYCLONES: A
ALL OTHER SOURCES: C
Sources9
Primary cyclone
Meal collector cyclone^
Pellet collector cyclone6
Pellet cooler cyclone*
Pellet regrind cyclone^
Storage bin cyclone"
Emissions
Ib/ton of product13
10C
2.6
Not available
3
8
Neg.
kg/MT of product0
5<=
1.3
Not available
1.5
4
Neg.
^The cyclones used for product/airstr
separation are the air pollution sources in alfalfa dehydrating plants.
All factors are based on References 1 and 2.
bProduct consists of meal or pellets. These factors can be applied to the quantity of incoming wet chops by
dividing by a factor of four.
cTh!s average factor may be used even when other cyclone exhaust streams are ducted back into the primary
cyclone. Emissions from primary cyclones may range from 3 to 35 Ib/ton (1.5 to 17.5 kg/MT) of product
and are more a function of the operating procedures and process modifications made for air pollution control
than whether other cyclone exhausts are ducted back through the primary cyclone. Use 3 to 15 Ib/ton (1.5 to
7.5 kg/MT) for plants employing good operating procedures and process modifications for air pollution control.
Use higher values for older, unmodified, or less well run plants. .
dThis cyclone is also called the air meal separator or hammermill cyclone. When the meal collector exhaust is
ducted back to the primary cyclone and/or the hammermill, this cyclone is no longer a source.
°This cyclone will only be present if the pellets are pneumatically transferred from the pellet mill to the pellet
cooler.
fThii cyclone Is also celled the pellet meal air separator or pellet mill cyclone. .When the pellet cooler cyclone
exhaust is ducted back into the primary cyclone, It is no longer a source.
"This cyclone is also called the pellet regrind air separator. Regrind operations are more commonly found at
terminal storage facilities than at dehydrating plants,
''Small cyclone Collectors may be used to collect the finished pellets when they are pneumatically transferred
to storage.
Air pollution control (and product recovery) is accomplished in alfalfa dehydrating plants in a variety of ways.
A simple, yet effective technique is the proper maintenance and operation of the alfalfa dehydrating equipment.
Particulate emissions can be reduced significantly if the feeder discharge rates are uniform, if the dryer furnace is
operated properly, if proper airflows are employed in the cyclone collectors, and if the hammermill is well
maintained and not overloaded. It is especially important in this regard not to overdry and possibly bum the
chops as this results in the generation of smoke and increased fines in the grinding and palletizing operations.
6.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/76
-------
c? FRESH-CUT
g, ALFALFA (WET CHOPS)
» FROM HELD
TRUCK DUMP
AND LIFT
p«ra
JPRIMABY1
r4-PELLET I
COLLECTOR1
COOLING
FAN
NATURAL
GAS
BURNERS
STEAM
AIR
BLOWER
STORAGE-
LOADOUT
Figure 6.1-1. Generalized flow diagram for alfalfa dehydration plant.
-------
Equipment modification provides another means of particulate control. Existing cyclones can be replaced with.
more efficient cyclones and concomitant air flow systems. In addition, the furnace and burners can be modified v
or replaced to minimize flame impingement on the incoming green chops. In plants where the hammermffl is a )
production bottleneck, a tendency exists to overdry the chops to increase throughput, which results in increased
emissions. Adequate hammermfll capacity can reduce this practice.
Secondary control devices can be employed on the cyclone collector exhaust streams. Generally, this practice
has been limited to the installation of secondary cyclones or fabric filters on the meal collector, pellet collector,
or pellet cooler cyclones. Some measure of secondary control can also be effected on these cyclones by ducting
their exhaust streams back into the primary cyclone. Primary cyclones are not controlled by fabric filters because
of the high moisture content in the resulting exhaust stream. Medium energy wet scrubbers are effective in
reducing particulate emissions from the primary cyclones, but have only been installed at a few plants.
Some plants employ cyclone effluent recycle systems for particulate control. One system skims off the
particulate-laden portion of the primary cyclone exhaust and returns it to the furnace for incineration. Another
system recycles a large portion of the meal collector cyclone exhaust back to the hammermill. Both systems can
be effective in controlling particulates but may result in operating problems, such as condensation in the recycle
lines and plugging or overheating of the hammermill.
References for Section 6.1
1. Source information supplied by Ken Smith of the American Dehydrators Association, Mission Kan
December 1975.
2. Gorman, P.G. et al. Emission Factor Development for the Feed and Grain Industry. Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C
under Contract No. 68-02-1324. Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-QS4. October 1974.
3. Smith, K.D. Particulate Emissions from Alfalfa Dehydrating Plants - Control Costs and Effectiveness. Final \
Report. American Dehydrators Association. Mission, Kan. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency '
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Grant No. R801446. Publication No. 650/2-74-007. January 1974.
EMISSION FACTORS 4/76
-------
6.2 COFFEE ROASTING
6.2.1 Process Description1-2
Coffee, which is imported in the form of green beans, must be cleaned, blended, roasted, and packaged before
being sold In a typical coffee roasting operation, the green coffee beans are freed of dust and chaff by dropping
the beans into a current of air. The cleaned beans are then sent to a batch or continuous roaster. During the
roasting, moisture is driven off, the beans swell, and chemical changes take place that give the roasted beans their
typical color and aroma. When the beans have reached a certain color, they are quenched, cooled, and stoned.
6.2.2 Emissions1-2
Dust, chaff, coffee bean oils (as mists), smoke, and odors are the principal air contaminants emitted from
coffee processing. The major source of paniculate emissions and practically the only source of aldehydes,
nitrogen oxides, and organic acids is the roasting process. In a direct-fired roaster, gases are vented without
recirculation through the flame. In the indirect-fired roaster, however, a portion of the roaster gases are
recirculated and participate emissions are reduced. Emissions of both smoke and odors from the roasters can be
almost completely removed by a properly designed afterburner.1 -2
Particulate emissions also occur from the stoner and cooler. In the stoner, contaminating materials heavier
than the roasted beans are separated from the beans by an air stream. In the cooler, quenching the hot roasted
beans with water causes emissions of large quantities of steam and some paniculate matter.3 Table 6.2-1
summarizes emissions from the various operations involved in coffee processing.
Table 6.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROASTING PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of process
Roaster
Direct-fired
Indirect-fired
Stoner and cooler0
Instant coffee spray dryer
Pollutant
Particulates8 .
Ib/ton
7.6
• 4,2
1.4
1.4*
kg/MT
3.8
2.1
0.7
0.7d
N0yb
Ib/ton
0.1
0.1
_
-
kg/MT
0.05
0.05
—
-
Aldehydes13
Ib/ton
0.2
0.2
_
-
kg/MT
0.1
0.1
_
-
Organic acidsb
Ib/ton
0.9
0.9
_
-
kg/MT
0.45
0.45
_
-
"Reference 3.
bReference1.
clf cyclone is used, emission! can be reduced by 70 percent.
dCyclone plui met scrubber always used, repranntlng a controlled factor.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.2-1
-------
References for Section 6.2
I. Polglase, W.L., H.F. Dey, and R.T. Walsh. Coffee Processing. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual
Damelson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati Ohio
Publication Number 999-AP-40.1967. p. 746-749. '
2. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42.1968. p. 19-20.
3. Partee, F. Air PoBution in the Coffee Roasting Industry. Revised Ed. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air
Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-9.1966.
6.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6.3 COTTON GINNING
6.3.1 General1
The primacy function of a cotton gin is to take raw seed cotton and separate the seed and the lint. A large
amount of trash is found in the seed cotton, and it must also be removed. The problem of collecting and
disposing of gin trash is two-fold. The first problem consists of collecting the coarse, heavier trash such as burrs,
sticks, stems, leaves, sand, and dirt. The second problem consists of collecting the finer dust, small leaf particles,
and fly lint that are discharged from the lint after the fibers are removed from the seed. From 1 ton (0.907 MT)
of seed cotton, approximately one 500-pound (226-kilogram) bale of cotton can be made.
6.3.2 Emissions and Controls
The major sources of particulates from cotton ginning include the unloading fan, the cleaner, and the stick and
burr machine. From the cleaner and stick and burr machine, a large percentage of the particles settle out in the
plant, and an attempt has been made in Table 6.3-1 to present emission factors that take this into consideration.
Where cyclone collectors are used, emissions have been reported to be about 90 percent less.1
Table 6.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COTTON GINNING OPERATIONS
WITHOUT CONTROLS"-11
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Process
Unloading fan
Cleaner
Stick and burr
machine
Miscellaneous
Total
Estimated total
particulates
Ib/bale
5
1
3
3
12
kg/bale
2.27
0.45
1.36
1.36
5.44
Particles >1 00 jum
settled out, %
0
70
35
50
— .
Estimated
emission factor
(released to
atmos
Ib/bale
5.0
0.30
0.20
1.5
7.0
phere)
kg/bale
2.27
0.14
0.09
0.68
3.2
References 1 and 2.
bOne bale weighs 500 pounds (226 kilograms).
References for Section 6.3
1. Air-Borne Particutote Emissions from Cotton Ginning Operations. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1960.
2. Control and Disposal of Cotton Ginning Wastes. A Symposium Sponsored by National Center for Air
Pollution Control and Agricultural Research Service, Dallas, Texas.' May 1966.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.3-1
-------
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS
6.4.1 General'-3
Grain elevators are buildings in which grains are gathered, stored, and discharged for use, further
processing, or shipping. They are classified as "country," "terminal," and "export" elevators, according
to their purpose and location. At country elevators, grains are unloaded, weighed, and placed in
storage as they are received from farmers residing within about a 20-mile radius of the elevator. In
addition, country elevators sometimes dry or clean grain before it is shipped to terminal elevators or
processors.
' Terminal elevators receive most of their grain from country elevators and ship to processors, other
terminals, and exporters. The primary functions of terminal elevators are to store large quantities of
grain without deterioration and to dry, clean, son, and blend different grades of grain to meet buyer
specifications.
Export elevators are similar to terminal elevators except that they mainly load grain on ships for
export.
Processing of grain in mills and feed plants ranges from,very simple mixing steps to complex
industrial processes. Included are such diverse processes as: (1) simple mixing operations in feed mills,
(2) grain milling in flour mills, (3) solvent extracting in soybean processing plants, and (4) a complex
series of processing steps in a corn wet-milling plant.
6.4.2 Emissions and Controls
) Grain handling, milling, and processing include a variety of operations from the initial receipt of
the grain at either a country or terminal elevator to the delivery of a finished product. Flour, livestock
feed, soybean oil, and corn syrup are among the products produced from plants in the grain and feed
industry. Emissions from the feed and grain industry can be separated into two general areas, those
occurring at grain elevators and those occurring at grain processing operations.
6.4.2.1 Grain Elevators - Grain elevator emissions can occur from many different operations in the
elevator including unloading (receiving), loading (shipping), drying, cleaning, headhouse (legs),
tunnel belt, gallery belt, and belt trippers. Emission factors for these operations at terminal, country,
and export elevators are presented in Table 6.4-1. All of these emission factors are approximate average
values intended to reflect a variety of grain types. Actual emission factors for a specific source may be
considerably different, depending on the type of grain, i.e., corn, soybeans, wheat, and other factors
such as grain quality.
The emission factors shown in Table 6.4-1 represent the amount of dust generated per ton of grain
processed through each of the designated operations (i.e., uncontrolled emission factors). Amounts of
grain processed through each of these operations in a given elevator are dependent on such factors as
the amount of grain turned (interbin transfer), amount dryed, and amount cleaned, etc. Because the
amount of grain passing through each operation is often difficult to determine, it may be more useful
to express the emission factors in terms of the amount of grain shipped or received, assuming these
amounts are about the same over the long term. Emission factors from Table 6.4-1 have been modified
accordingly and are shown in Table 6.4-2 along with the appropriate multiplier that was used as repre-
sentative of typical ratios of throughput at each operation to the amount of grain shipped or received.
This ratio is an approximate value based on average values for turning, cleaning, and drying in each
i 4/77 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.4-1
-------
type of elevator. However, because operating practices in individual elevators are different, these
ratios, like the basic emission factors themselves, are more valid when applied to a group of elevators
rather than individual elevators.
Table 6.4-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR UNCONTROLLED GRAIN ELEVATORS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of source
Terminal elevators
Unloaded (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying"
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
Drying"
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying15
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belts)
Emission factor3
Ib/ton
1.0
0.3
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.7
3.0
•1.5
.0
.0
.4
.1
3.0
.5
.0
kg/MT
0.5
0.2
1.7
0.6
1.5
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.8
»
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.5
0.8
0.5
'Emission factors are in terms of pounds of dust emitted per ton of
grain processed by each operation. Most of the factors for terminal
and export elevators are based on Reference 1. Emission factors
for drying are based on References 2 and 3. The emission factors
for country elevators are based on Reference 1 and specific country
elevator test data in References 4 through 9.
bEm!ssion factors for drying are based on 1.8 Ib/ton for rack dryers
and 0.3 Ib/ton for column dryers prorated on the basis of distribu-
tion of these two types of dryers in each elevator category, as
discussed in Reference 3.
"Emission factor of 3.0 for cleaning is an average value which may
range from
-------
Table 6.4-2. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAIN ELEVATORS BASED ON
AMOUNT OF GRAIN RECEIVED OR SHIPPED8
Type of source
Terminal elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying6
Cleaning6
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
Dryingb
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying"
Cleaning*
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Emission factor,
Ib/ton processed
1.0
0.3
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.7
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.1
3,0
1.5
1.0
X
Typical ratio of tons processed
to tons received or shipped"
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.1
0.2
3.0
1.7
1.0
1.0
2.1
0.3
0.1
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.01
0.2
2.2
1.1
a;
Emission factor,
Ib/ton received or shipped
1.0
0.3
2.8
0.1
0.6
4.5
1.7
0.6
0.3
2.1
0.2
0.3
4.7
1.0
1.0
1.7
0.01
0.6
3.3
1.1
8Assume that over the long term the amount received is approximately equal to amount shipped.
bSeeNoteb in Table 6.4-1.
•See Notsc In Table 6.4-1.1
dRatios shown are average values taken from a survey of many elevators across the U.S.3 These ratios can be considerably different
for any individual elevator or group of elevators in the same locale.
Some of the operations listed in the table, such as the tunnel belt and belt tripper, are internal or
in-house duet sources which, if uncontrolled, might show lower than expected atmospheric emissions
because of internal settling of dust. The reduction in emissions via internal settling is not known,
although it is possible that all of this dust is eventually emitted to the atmosphere due to subsequent
external operations, internal ventilation, or other means.
Many elevators utilize control devices on at least some operations. In the past, cyclones have com-
monly been applied to legs in the headhouse and tunnel belt hooding systems. More recently, fabric
filters have been utilized at many elevators on almost all types of operations. Unfortunately, some
sources in grain elevators present control problems. Control of loadout operations is difficult because
of the problem of containment of the emissions. Probably the most difficult operation to control,
because of the large flow rate and high moisture content of the exhaust gases, is the dryers. Screen-
houses or continuously vacuumed screen systems are available for reducing dryer emissions and have
been applied at several facilities. Detailed descriptions of dust control systems for grain elevator oper-
ations are contained in Reference 2.
6.4.2.2 Grain Processing Operations -Grain processing operations include many of the operations
performed in a grain elevator in addition to milling and processing of the grain. Emission factors for
different grain milling and processing operations are presented in Table 6.4-3. Brief discussions of
these different operations and the methods used for arriving at the emission factor values shown in
Table 6.4-3 are presented below.
4/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.4-3
-------
Table 6.4-3. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR GRAIN PROCESSING OPERATIONS^A3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of source
Feed mills
Receiving
Shipping
Handling
Grinding
Pel let coolers
Wheat mills
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Millhouse
Durum mills
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Millhouse
Rye milling
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Millhouse
Dry corn milling
Receiving
Drying
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Degerming and milling
Oat milling
Total
Rice milling
Receiving
Handling and precleaning
Drying
Cleaning and mill house
Soybean mills
Receiving
Handling
Cleaning
Drying
Cracking and denuding
Hull grinding
Emission factor1.0
(uncontrolled except where indicated)
Ib/ton
1.30
0.50
3.00
0.10C
0.10°
1.00
5.00
70.00
1.00
5.00
-
"
1.00
5.00
70.00
1.00
0.50
5.00
6.00
"•
2.50d
0.64
5.00
-
"
1.60
5.00
7.20
3.30
2.00
kg/MT
0.65
0.25
1.50
0.05°
0.05C
0.50
2.50
35.00
0.50
2.50
•;
0.50
2.50
35.00
0.50
0.25
2.50
3.00
1.25d
0.32
2.50
"
0.80
2.50
3.60
1.00
6.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 6.4-3 (continued). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR GRAIN PROCESSING OPE RATIONS!.2,3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING! D
Type of source
Bean conditioning
Flaking
Meal dryer
Meal cooler
Bulk loading
Corn wet milling
Receiving
Handling
Cleaning
Dryers
Bulk loading
Emission factor3.*5
(uncontrolled except where indicated)
Ib/ton
0.10
0.57
1.50
1.80
0.27
1.00
5.00
6.00
kg/MT
0.05
0.29
0.75
0.90
0.14
0.50
2.50
3.00
"Emission factor* art expressed In terms of pounds of duct emitted per ton of grain
entering the plant (i.e., received), which It not necessarily the tame ai the amount
of materiel processed by each operation.
^Blanki indicate Insufficient information.
"Controlled, emission f ector (controlled with cyclones).
^Controlled emission fector.(Thls represents several sources In one plant; some
controlled with cyclones and others controlled with fabric filters.)
Emission factor data for feed mill operations are sparse. This is partly due to the fact that many
ingredients, whole grain and other dusty materials (bran, dehydrated alfalfa, etc.), are received by
both truck and rail and several unloading methods are employed. However, because some feed mill
operations (handling, shipping, and receiving) are similar to operations in a grain elevator, an emis-
sion factor for each of these different operations was estimated on that basis. The remaining
operations are based on information in Reference 2.
Three emission areas for wheat mill processing operations are grain receiving and handling, clean-
ing house, and milling operations. Data from Reference 1 are used to estimate emissions factors for
grain receiving and handling. Data for the cleaning house are insufficient to estimate an emission
factor, and information contained in Reference 2 is used to estimate the emission factor for milling
operations, The large emission factor for the milling operation is somewhat misleading because almost
all of the sources involved are equipped with control devices to prevent product losses; fabric filters
are widely used for this purpose.
Operations for durum mills and rye milling are similar to those of wheat milling. Therefore, most
of these emission factors are assumed equal to those for wheat mill operations.
The grain unloading, handling, and cleaning operations for dry corn milling are similar to those in
other grain mills, but the subsequent operations are somewhat different. Also, some drying of corn
received at the mill may be necessary prior to storage. An estimate of the emission factor for drying is
obtained from Reference 2. Insufficient information is available to estimate emission factors for
degerming and milling.
Information necessary to estimate emissions from oat milling is unavailable, and no emission'
factor for another grain is considered applicable because oats are reported to be dustier than many
other grains. The only emission factor data available are for controlled emissions.* An overall con-
trolled emission factor of 2.5 Ib/ton is calculated from these data.
4/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6,4-5
-------
Emission factors for rice milling are based on those for similar operations in other grain handling
facilities. Insufficient information is available to estimate emission factors for drying, cleaning, and
mill house operations.
Information contained in Reference 2 is used to estimate emission factors for soybean mills.
Emissions information on corn wet-milling is unavailable in most cases due to the wide variety of
products and the diversity of operations. Receiving, handling, and cleaning operations emission
factors are assumed to be similar to those for dry corn milling.
Many of the operations performed in grain milling and processing plants are the same as those in
grain elevators, so the control methods are similar. As in the case of grain elevators, these plants often
use cyclones or fabric filters to control emissions from the grain handling operations (e.g., unloading,
legs, cleaners, etc.). These same devices are also often used to control emissions from other processing
operations; a good example of this is the extensive use of fabric filters in flour mills. However, there are
also certain operations within some milling operations that are not amenable to use of these devices.
Therefore, wet scrubbers have found some application, particularly where the effluent gas stream has
a high moisture content. Certain other operations have been found to be especially difficult to control,
such as rotary dryers in wet corn mills. Descriptions of the emission control systems that have been
applied to operations within the grain milling and processing industries are contained in Reference 2.
This section was prepared for EPA by Midwest Research Institute.10
References for Section 6.4
1. Gorman, P.G. Potential Dust Emission from a Grain Elevator in Kansas City, Missouri. Prepared
by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C under Contract No. 68-02-0228, Task Order No. 24. May 1974.
2. Shannon, L.J. et al. Emission Control in the Grain and Feed Industry, Volume I - Engineering
and Cost Study. Final Report. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency by Midwest
Research Institute. Document No. EPA-450/3-73-003a. Research Triangle Park, N.C December
1973.
3. Shannon, L.J. et al. Emission Control in the Grain and Feed Industry, Volume II - Emission
Inventory. Final Report. Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C Report.No. EPA-450/3-73-003b, September 1974.
4. Maxwell, W.H. Stationary Source Testing of a Country Grain Elevator at Overbrook, Kansas.
Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1403. Research Triangle Park, N.C February 1976.
5. Maxwell, W.H. Stationary Source Testing of a Country Grain Elevator at Great Bend, Kansas.
Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 6842-1403. Research Triangle Park, N.C. April 1976.
6, Belgea, FJ. Cyclone Emissions and Efficiency Evaluation. Report submitted to North Dakota
State Department of Health on tests at an elevator in Edenburg, North Dakota, by Pollution
Curbs, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota. March 10, 1972.
7. Trowbridge, A.L. Particulate Emission Testing • ERC Report No. 4-7683. Report submitted to
North Dakota State Department of Health on tests at an elevator in Egeland, North Dakota, by
Environmental Research Corporation. St. Paul, Minnesota. January 16, 1976.
6.4-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
8 Belgea F J. Grain Handling Dust Collection Systems Evaluation for Farmers Elevator Company,
Minot, North Dakota. Report submitted to North Dakota State Department of Health, by
Pollution Curbs, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota. August 28,1972.
9. Belgea, F.J. Cyclone Emission and Efficiency Evaluation. Report submitted to North Dakota
State Department of Health on tests at an elevator in Thompson, North Dakota, by Pollution
Curbs, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota. March 10,1972.
10. Schrag, M.P. et al. Source Test Evaluation for Feed and Grain Industry. Prepared by Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo., for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C, under Contract No. 68-02-1403, Task Order No. 28. December 1976. Publication No.
EPA450/3-76-043.
4/77 Food and Agricultural Industry . 6.4-7
-------
-------
, 6.5 FERMENTATION
6.5.1 Process Description1
For the purpose of this report only the fermentation industries associated with food will be considered. This
includes the production of beer, whiskey, and wine.
The manufacturing process for each of these is similar. The four main brewing production stages and their
respective sub-stages are: (1) brewhouse operations, which include (a) malting of the barley, (b) addition of
adjuncts (com, grits, and rice) to barley mash, (c) conversion of starch in barley and adjuncts to maltose sugar by
enzymatic processes, (d) separation of wort from grain by straining, and (e) hopping and boiling of the wort; (2)
fermentation, which includes (a) cooling of the wort, (b) additional yeast cultures, (c) fermentation for 7 to 10
days, (d) removal of settled yeast, and (e) filtration and carbonation; (3) aging, which lasts from 1 to 2 months
under refrigeration; and (4) packaging, which includes (a) bottling-pasteurization, and (b) racking draft beer.
The major differences between beer production and whiskey production are the purification and distillation
necessary to obtain distilled liquors and the longer period of aging. The primary difference between wine making
and beer making is that grapes are used as the initial raw material in wine rather than grains.
6.5.2 Emissions1
Emissions from fermentation processes are nearly all gases and primarily consist of carbon dioxide, hydrogen,
oxygen, and water vapor, none of which present an air pollution problem. Emissions of participates, however, can
occur in the handling of the grain for the manufacture of beer and whiskey. Gaseous hydrocarbons are also
emitted from the drying of spent grains and yeast in beer and from the whiskey-aging warehouses. No significant
emissions have been reported for the production of wine. Emission factors for the various operations associated
with beer, wine, and whiskey production are shown in Table 6.5-1.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.5-1
-------
Table 6.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FERMENTATION PROCESSES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of product
Beer
Grain handling3
Drying spent grains, etc.8
Whiskey
Grain handling8
Drying spent grains, etc.8
Aging
Wine
Participates
Ib/ton
3
5
3
5
Nege
kg/MT
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
Neg
Hydrocarbons
Ib/ton
NAb
NA
IF
Neg«
kg/MT
NA
NA
0.024d
Neg
Bgased on section on grain processing.
bNo emission factor available, but emissions do occur.
cpounds per year per barrel of whiskey stored.2
^Kilograms per year per liter of whiskey stored.
eNo significant emissions.
References for Section 6.5
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
t
2. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
S91-608.
6.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
6.6 FISH PROCESSING revised by Susan Sercer
) 6.6.1 Process Description
Fish processing includes the canning of fish and the manufacturing of by-products such as fish oil
and fish meal. The manufacturing of fish oil and fish meal are known as reduction processes. A general-
ized fish processing operation is presented in Figure 6.6-1.
Two types of canning operations are used. One is the "wet fish" method in which trimmed and
eviscerated fish are cooked directly in open cans. The other operation is the "pre-cooked" process in
which eviscerated fish are cooked whole and portions are hand selected and packed into cans. The pre-
cooked process is Used primarily for larger fish such as tuna.
By-product manufacture of rejected whole fish and scrap requires several steps. First, the fish scrap
mixture from the canning line is charged to a live steam cooker. After the material leaves the cooker,
it is pressed to remove water and oil. The resulting press cake is broken up and dried in a rotary drier.
Two types of driers are used to dry the press cake: direct-fired and steam-tube driers. Direct-fired
driers contain a stationary firebox ahead of the rotating section. The hot products of combustion from
the firebox are mixed with air and wet meal inside the rotating section of the drier. Exhaust gases are
generally vented to a cyclone separator to recover much of the entrained fish meal product. Steam-
tube driers contain a cylindrical bank of rotating tubes through which hot, pressurized steam is
passed. Heat is indirectly transferred to the meal and the air from the hot tubes. As with direct-fired
driers, the exhaust gases are vented to a cyclone for product recovery.
6.6.2 Emissions and Controls
Although smoke and dust can be a problem, odors are the most objectionable emissions from fish
\ processing plants. By-product manufacture results in more of these odorous contaminants than
cannery operations because of the greater state of decomposition of the materials processed. In gener-
al, highly decayed feedstocks produce greater concentrations of odors than do fresh feedstocks.
The largest odor sources are the fish meal driers. Usually, direct-fired driers emit more odors than
steam-tube driers. Direct-fired driers will also emit smoke, particularly if the driers are operated
under high temperature conditions. Cyclones are frequently employed on drier exhaust gases for
product recovery and particulate emission control.
Odorous gases from reduction cookers consist primarily of hydrogen sulfide [H2S] and trimethyl-
amine [(CH3).,N]. Odors from reduction cookers are emitted in volumes appreciably less than from fish
meal driers. There are virtually no particulate emissions from reduction cookers.
Some odors are also produced by the canning processes. Generally, the pre-cooked process emits
less odorous gases than the wet-fish process. This is because in the pre-cooked process, the odorous
exhaust gases are trapped in the cookers, whereas in the wet-fish process, the steam and odorous
offgases are commonly vented directly to the atmosphere.
Fish cannery and fish reduction odors can be controlled with afterburners, chlorinator-scrubbers,
and condensers. Afterburners are most effective, providing virtually 100 percent odor control; how-
ever they are costly from a fuel-use standpoint. ChForinator-scrubbers have been found to be 95 to
-------
ODORS
FISH*
FISH SCRAP
I
STEfl
£t
•4
1
CANHIKG
COOKERS
CAMMED
FfSH
OOOflS
L
1
LtVE STEAM COOKER
EXHA
•
UST GASES
CONDENSER
.
WATERAND
SOLUABLES
COOKED
SCRAP
t
CENTRIFUGE
PRESS
CAKE,
GRINDER
\PRESS
WATEI
SOLIDS
SEPARATION
SOLIDS
LIQUIDS
WATER AND
- SOLUBLES
. FISH OIL
PARTICIPATE)
AND ODORS C
ROTARY FISH MEAL
DRYER
EXHAUST GASES AND
ENTRAINED FfSH HEAL
DRIED FISH MEAL
RECOVERED FISH MEAL
1 TO FISH MEAL
Figure 6.6-1, A generalized fish processing flow diagram.
-------
Table 6.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FISH PROCESSING PLANTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emission source
Cookers, canning
Cookers, fish scrap
Fresh fish
Stale fish
Dryers
Particulates
Ib/ton
Neg.8
Neg.a
Nog.8
0.1 d
kg/MT
Neg.a
Neg.a
Neg.a
0.05d
Trimeth
(CH2
Ib/ton
NAb
0.3C
3.5C
NAd
ylamine
)3N
kg/MT
NAb
0.15°
1.75°
NAd
Hydrogen sulfide
(HsS)
Ib/ton
NAb
0.01 c
0.2°
NAd
kg/MT
NAb
0.005C
0.100
NAd
"Reference 1. .
^Although it li known that odors are emitted from canning cookers, quantitative eitlmatet are not available.
^Limited data tuagatt that there It not much difference In paniculate eminiom between tteam tube and direct-fired
dryer*. Bated on reference 1,
References for Section 6.6
1. Walsh, R.T., K.D. Luedtke, and L.K. Smith. Fish Canneries and Fish Reduction Plants. In: Air
Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 760-770.
2. Summer, W. Methods of Air Deodorfaation. New York, Ekevier Publishing Company. 1963. p.
284-286.
4/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.6-3
-------
-------
6.7 MEAT SMOKEHOUSES
6.7.1 Process Description1
Smoking is a diffusion process in which food products are exposed to an atmosphere of hardwood smoke,
causing various organic compounds to be absorbed by the food. Smoke is produced commerically in the United
States by three major methods: (1) by burning dampened sawdust (20 to 40 percent moisture), (2) by burning
dry sawdust (5 to 9 percent moisture) continuously, and (3) by friction. Burning dampened sawdust and
kiln-dried sawdust are the most widely used methods. Most large, modern, production meat smokehouses are the
recirculating type, in which smoke is circulated at reasonably high temperatures throughout the smokehouse.
6.7.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions from smokehouses are generated from the burning hardwood rather than from the cooked product
itself. Based on approximately 110 pounds of meat smoked per pound of wood burned (110 kilograms of meat
per kilogram of wood burned), emission factors have been derived for meat smoking and are presented in Table
6.7-1.
Emissions from meat smoking are dependent on several factors, including the type of wood, the type of smoke
generator, the moisture content of the wood, the air supply, and the amount of smoke recirculated. Both
low-voltage electrostatic precipitators and direct-fired afterburners may be used to reduce paniculate and organic
emissions. These controlled emission factors have also been shown in Table 6.7-1,
Table 6.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MEAT SMOKING3-"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Pollutant
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons (CH4)
Aldehydes (HCHO)
Organic acids (acetic)
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton of meat
0.3
0.6
0.07
0.08
0.2
kg/MT of meat
0.15
0.3
0.035
0.04
0.10
Contr
Ib/ton of meat
0.1
Neg"
Neg
0.05
0.1
olledc
kg/MT of meat
0.05
Neg
Neg
0.025
0.05
8Basad on 110 pounds of meat smoked per pound of wood burned (110 kg meat/kg wood burned).
^References 2,3, and section on charcoal production. '
cControls consist of either a wet collector and low-voltage precipitator in series or a direct-fired afterburner.
dWith afterburner.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.7-1
-------
References for Section 6.7
»
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National {
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970,
2. Carter, E. Private communication between Maryland State Department of Health and Resources Research,
Incorporated. November 21,1969.
3. Polglase, W.L., H.F. Dey, and R.T. Walsh. Smokehouses. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.
A, (ed.). U.S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 750-755. I
6.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6.8 NITRATE FERTILIZERS
6.8.1 General1'2
For this report, nitrate fertilizers are defined as the product resulting from the reaction of nitric acid and
ammonia to form ammonium nitrate solutions or granules. Essentially three steps are involved in producing
ammonium nitrate: neutralization, evaporation of the neutralized solution, and control of the particle size and
characteristics of the dry product.
Anhydrous ammonia and nitric acid (57 to 65 percent HN03)3'4 are brought together in the neutralizer to
produce ammonium nitrate. An evaporator or concentrator is then used to increase the ammonium nitrate
concentration. The resulting solutions may be formed into granules by the use of prilling towers or by ordinary
granulators. Limestone may be added in either process in order to produce calcium ammonium nitrate.5 •<>
6.8.2 Emissions and Controls
The main emissions from the manufacture of nitrate fertilizers occur in the neutralization and drying
operations. By keeping the neutralization process on the acidic side, losses of ammonia and nitric oxides are kept
at a minimum. Nitrate dust or particulate matter is produced in the granulation or prilling operation. Particulate
matter is also produced in the drying, cooling, coating, and material handling operations. Additional dust may
escape from the bagging and shipping facilities.
Typical operations do not use collection devices on the prilling tower. Wet or dry cyclones, however, are used
for various granulating, drying, or cooling operations in order to recover valuable products. Table 6.8-1 presents
emission factors for the manufacture of nitrate fertilizers.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.8-1
-------
Table 6.8-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITRATE FERTILIZER
MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of process3
With prilling towerb
Neutralize!-0-*1
Prilling tower
Dryers and coolers6
With granulatorb
Neutralize!*-1*
Granulator6
Dryers and coolers9-*
Particulates
Ib/ton
—
0.9
12
—
0.4
7
kg/MT
—
0.45
6
—
0.2
3.5
Nitrogen
oxides (NO;,)
Ib/ton
—
—
• —
• —
0.9
3
kg/MT
—
—
—
—
0.45
1.5
Ammonia
Ib/ton
2
—
• •—
2
0.5
1.3
kg/MT
1
—
—
1
0.25
0.65
aPlants will use either a prilling tower or a granulator but not both.
bReference 7.
cReference 8.
^Controlled factor based on 95 percent recovery in recycle scrubber.
eUse of wet cyclones can reduce emissions by 70 percent.
fUse of wet-screen scrubber following cyclone can reduce emissions by 95 to 97 percent.
References for Section 6.8
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors! Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Stem, A. (ed.). Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. In: Air Pollution Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 231-234.
3. Sauchelli, V. Chemistry and Technology of Fertilizers. New York, Reinhold Publishing Company. 1960.
4. Falck-Muus, R. New Process Solves Nitrate Corrosion. Chem. Eng. 74( 14): 108, July 3,1967.
5. Ellwood, P.-Nitrogen Fertilizer Plant Integrates Dutch and American Know-How. Chem. Eng. p. 136-138,
May 11,1964.
6. Chemico, Ammonium Nitrate Process Information Sheets.
7. Unpublished source sampling data. Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia.
8. Private communication with personnel from Gulf Design Corporation. Lakeland, Florida.
6.8-2 EMISSION FACTORS.
2/72
-------
6.9 ORCHARD HEATERS by Dennis H. Ackerson
6.9.1 General1-6
Orchard heaters are commonly used in various areas of the United States to prevent frost damage to fruit and
fruit trees. The five common types of orchard heaters-pipeline, lazy flame, return stack, cone, and solid fuel-are
shown in Figure 6.9-1. The pipeline heater system is operated from a central control and fuel is distributed by a
piping system from a centrally located tank. Lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters contain integral fuel
reservoirs, but can be converted to a pipeline system. Solid fuel heaters usually consist only of solid briquettes,
which are placed on the ground and ignited.
The ambient temperature at which orchard heaters are required is determined primarily by the type of fruit
and stage of maturity, by the daytime temperatures, and by the moisture content of the soil and air.
During a heavy thermal inversion, both convective and radiant heating methods are useful in preventing frost
damage; there is little difference in the effectiveness of the various heaters. The temperature response for a given
fuel rate is about the same for each type of heater as long as the heater is dean and does not leak. When there is
little or no thermal inversion, radiant heat provided by pipeline, return stack, or cone heaters is the most effective
method for preventing damage.
Proper location of the heaters is essential to the uniformity of the radiant heat distributed among the trees.
Heaters are usually located in the center space between four trees and are staggered from one row to the next.
Extra heaters are used on the borders of the orchard.
6.9.2 Emissions1'6
Emissions from orchard heaters are dependent on the fuel usage rate and the type of heater. Pipeline heaters
have the lowest paiticulate emission rates of all orchard heaters. Hydrocarbon emissions are negligible in the
pipeline heaters and in lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters that have been converted to a pipeline system.
Nearly all of the hydrocarbon losses are evaporative losses from fuel contained in the heater reservoir. Because of
the low burning temperatures used, nitrogen oxide emissions are negligible.
Emission factors for the different types of orchard heaters are presented in Table 6.9-1 and Figure 6.9-2.
4/73 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.9-1
-------
PIPELINE HEATER
CONE STACK
LAZY FLAME
SOLID FUEL
RETURN STACK
Figure 8.9-1. Types of orchard heaters.6
6.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
8 3 3
««wH0001-JH/qi'SNOISSIW3
12/75
Food and Agricultural Industry
6,9-3
-------
Table 6.9-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORCHARD HEATERS'
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Paniculate
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Sulfur oxides
Ib/htMir
kg/htr-hr
Carbon monoxide
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Hydrocarbons*
Ib/htr-yr
kg/htr-yr
Nitrogen oxides'1
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Type of heater
Pipeline
b
b
0.133d
0.06S
6.2
2.8
Negs
Neg
Neg
Neg
Lazy
flame
b
b
0.1 1S
0.05S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Return
stack
b
b
0.14S
0.06S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Cone
b
b
0.14S
0.06S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Solid
fuel
0.05
0.023
NAe
NA
NA
NA
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
"References 1.3.4, and 6.
"Particutate emissions for pipeline, lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters are
shown in Figure 6,9-2.
^Based on emission factors for fuel oil combustion in Section 1.3.
°S»sul fur content.
"Not available.
Based on emission factors for fuel oil combustion in Section 1.3. Evaporative
losses only. Hydrocarbon emissions from combustion are considered.negligible.
Evaporative hydrocarbon losses for units that are part of a pipeline system are
negligible.
^Negligible.
"Little nitrogen oxide is formed because of the relatively low combustion
temperatures.
References for Section 6.9
1. Air Pollution in Ventura County. County of Ventura Health Department, Santa Paula, Calif. June 1966.
2. Frost Protection in Citrus. Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, Ventura November
1967.
3, Personal communication with Mr. Wesley Snowden. Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Consulting Engineers,
Seattle, Washington. May 1971.
4. Communication with the Smith Energy Company, Los Angeles, Calif. January 1968.
5. Communication with Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, Ventura, Calif. October 1969.
6. Personal communication with Mr. Ted Wakai. Air Pollution Control District, County of Ventura, Qjai, Calif.
May 1972.
6.9-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
6.10 PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS
Nearly all phosphatic fertilizers are made from naturally occurring, phosphorus-containing minerals such as
phosphate rock. Because the phosphorus content of these minerals is not in a form that is readily available to
growing plants, the minerals must be treated to convert the phosphorus to a plant-available form. This conversion
can be done either by the process of acidulation or by a thermal process. The intermediate steps of the mining of
phosphate rock and the manufacture of phosphoric acid are not included in this section as they are discussed in
other sections of this publication; it should be kept in mind, however, that large integrated plants may have all of
these operations taking place at one location.
In this section phosphate fertilizers have been divided into three categories: (1) normal superphosphate, (2)
triple superphosphate, and (3) ammonium phosphate. Emission factors for the various processes involved are
shown in Table 6.10-1.
Table 6.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of product
Normal superphosphate13
Grinding, drying
Main stack
Triple superphosphate*3
Run-of-pile (ROP)
Granular
Diammonium phosphate0
Dryer, cooler
Ammoniator-granulator
Partio
Ib/ton
9
80
2
jlates8
kg/MT
4.5
40
1
aControl efficiencies of 99 percent can be obtained with fabric filters.
"References 1 through 3.
^References 1,4, and 5 through 8.
6.10.1 Normal Superphosphate
6.10.1.1 General4-9-Normal superphosphate (also called single or ordinary superphosphate) is the product
resulting from the acidulation of phosphate rock with sulruric acid. Normal superphosphate contains from 16 to
22 percent phosphoric anhydride (P^ps). The physical steps involved in making superphosphate are: (1) mixing
rock and acid, (2) allowing the mix to assume a solid form (denning), and (3) storing (curing) the material to
allow the acidulation reaction to be completed. After the curing period, the product can be ground and bagged
for sale, the cured superphosphate can be sold directly as run-of-pile product, or the material can be granulated
for sale as granulated superphosphate.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.10-1
-------
6.10.1.2 Emissions - The gases released from the acidulation of phosphate rock contain silicon tetrafluoride,
carbon dioxide, steam, particulates, and sulfur oxides. The sulfur oxide emissions arise from the reaction of
phosphate rock and sulfurlc acid.1 ° )
If a granulated superphosphate is produced, the vent gases from the granulator-ammoniator may contain
particulates, ammonia, silicon tetrafluoride, hydrofluoric acid, ammonium chlonde, and fertilizer dust. Emissions
from the final drying of the granulated product will Include gaseous and paniculate fluorides, ammonia, and
fertilizer dust.
6.10.2 Triple Superphosphate
6.10.2.1 General4-9-Triple superphosphate (also called double or concentrated superphosphate) Is the product
resulting from the reaction between phosphate rock and phosphoric acid. The product generally contains 44 to
52 percent P20s, which is about three times the PjOs usually found in normal superphosphates.
Presently, there are three principal methods of manufacturing triple superphosphate, One of these uses a cone
mixer to produce a pulverized product that is particularly suited to the manufacture of ammoniated fertilizers.
This product can be sold as run-of-plle (ROP), or it can be granulated. The second method produces In a
multi-step process a granulated product that is well suited for direct application as a phosphate fertilizer. The
third method combines the features of quick drying and granulation in a single step.
6.10.2.2 Emissions-Most triple superphosphate is the nongranular type. The exit gases from a plant producing
the nongranular product will contain considerable quantities of silicon tetrafluoride, some hydrogen fluoride, and
a small amount of partlculates. Plants of this type also emit fluorides from the curing buildings.
In the cases where ROP triple superphosphate is granulated, one of the greatest problems is the emission of
dust and fumes from the dryer and cooler. Emissions from ROP granulation plants include silicon tetrafluoride,
hydrogen fluoride, ammonia, particulate matter, and ammonium chloride.
In direct granulation plants, wet scrubbers are usually used to remove the silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen
fluoride generated from the initial contact between the phosphoric acid and the dried rock. Screening stations
and bagging stations are a source of fertilizer dust emissions In this type of process.
6.10,3 AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE
6.10.3.1 General-The two general classes of ammonium phosphates are monammonlum phosphate and
dlammonium phosphate, The production of these types of phosphate fertilizers is starting to displace the
production of other phosphate fertilizers because the ammonium phosphates have a higher plant food content
and a lower shipping cost per unit weight of P205.
There are various processes and process variations in use for manufacturing ammonium phosphates, In general,
phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, and anhydrous ammonia are allowed to react to produce the desired grade of
ammonium phosphate. Potash salts are added, if desired, and the product is granulated, dried, cooled, screened,
and stored.
6.10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6 10 3 2 Emissions-The major pollutants from ammonium phosphate production are fluoride, particufctes, and
ammonia. The largest sources of particulate emissions are the cage mills, where oversized products from the
JSSns are ground before being recycled to the ammoniator. Vent gases from the ammoniator tanks are the major
source of ammonia. This gas is usually scrubbed with acid, however, to recover the residual ammonia.
References for Section 6.10
1. Unpublished data on phosphate fertilizer plants. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Division of Abatement. Durham, N.C. July 1970.
2. Jacob, K. 0., H. L. Marshall, D. S. Reynolds, and T. H. Tremearne. Composition and Properties of
Superphosphate. Ind. Eng.Chem. 34(6): 722-728. June 1942.
3. Slack, A. V. Phosphoric Acid, Vol. 1, Part II. New York, Marcel Dekker, Incorporated. 1968. p. 732.
4. Stearn, A. (ed.). Air Pollution, Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control, Vol. HI, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 231-234.
5. Teller, A. J. Control of Gaseous Fluoride Emissions. Chem. Eng. Progr. 65(3):75-79, March 1967.
6. Slack, A. V. Phosphoric Acid, Vol. I, Part II. New York, Marcel Dekker, Incorporated. 1968. p. 722.
7. Slack, A. V. Phosphoric Add, Vol. 1, Part II. New York, Marcel Dekker, Incorporated. 1968. p. 760-762.
8. Salee, G. Unpublished data from industrial source. Midwest Research Institute. June 1970.
9. Bixby, D. W. Phosphatic Fertilizer's Properties and Processes. The Sulphur Institute. Washington, D.C.
October 1966.
10. Sherwin, K. A. Transcript of Institute of Chemical Engineers, London. 32'. 172,1954.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6,10-3
-------
-------
6.11 STARCH MANUFACTURING
n
6.11.1 Process Description1
TTie basic raw material in the manufacture of starch is dent corn, which contains starch. The starch in the
corn is separated from the other components by "wet milling."
The shelled grain is prepared for milling in cleaners that remove both the light chaff and any heavie._foreign
material The cleLd com is then softened by soaking (steeping) it in warm water acidified with sulfur U*.
The Sened corn goes through attrition mUls that tear the kernels apart, freeing the germ and looser^toJudL
Tte Sung mixLe of stardi, gluten, and hulls is finely pound, and the coarser fiber particles are removed^by
screening. Thf mixture of starch and gluten is then separated by centrifuges, after which the Starch is filtered and
washed. At this point it is dried and packaged for market.
6.11.2 Emissions
The manufacture of starch from corn can result in significant dust emissions. The various cleaning, grinding,
and™'eTnTg operations are the major sources of dust emissions. Table 6.11-1 presents emission factors for starch
manufacturing.
Table 6.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS
FOR STARCH MANUFACTURING"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of operation
Uncontrolled
Controlled1*
Particu lates
Ib/ton
8
0.02
kg/MT
4
0.01
Reference 2,"
bBased on centrifugal gas scrubber.
References for Section 6.11
1. Starch Manufacturing. In: Kiik-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. IX. New York, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1964.
2. Storch, H. L. Product Losses Cut with a Centrifugal Gas Scrubber. Chem. Eng. Progr. 62:51-54. April 1966.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.11-1
-------
-------
i
6.12 SUGAR CANE PROCESSING
6.12.1 General1'3
revised by Tom Lahre
Sugar cane is burned in the field prior to harvesting to remove unwanted foliage as well as to control rodents
and insects. Harvesting is done by hand or, where possible, by mechanical means.
After harvesting, the cane goes through a series of processing steps for conversion to the final sugar product. It
is first washed to remove dirt and trash; then crushed and shredded to reduce the size of the stalks. The juice is
next extracted by one of two methods, milling or diffusion. In milling, the cane is pressed between heavy rollers
to squeeze out the juice; in diffusion, the sugar is leached out by water and thin juices. The raw sugar then goes
through a series of operations including clarification, evaporation, and crystallization in order to produce the final
product. The fibrous residue remaining after sugar extraction is called bagasse.
All mills fire some or all of their bagasse in boilers to provide power necessary in their milling operation. Some,
having more bagasse than can be utilized internally, sell the remainder for use in the manufacture of various
chemicals such as furfural.
6.12.2 Emissions 2>3
The largest sources of emissions from sugar cane processing are the openfield burning in the harvesting of the
crop and the burning of bagasse as fuel. In the various processes of crushing, evaporation, and crystallization,
relatively small quantities of particulates are emitted. Emission factors for sugar cane field burning are shown in
Table 2.4-2. Emission factors for bagasse firing in boilers will be included in Chapter 1 in a future supplement.
References for Section 6.12
\ •
1. Sugar Cane. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. DC. New York, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. 1964.
2. Dailey, E. F. Air Pollution Emissions from Burning Sugar Cane and Pineapple from Hawaii. In: Air Pollution
from Forest and Agricultural Burning. Statewide Air Pollution Research Center, University of California,
Riverside, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Grant
No. R80071 I.August 1974.
3. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Performance for New Sources. Raw Cane
Sugar Industry. Environmental Engineering, Inc. Gainesville, Fla. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order 9c. July 15,1971.
J4/76
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.12-1
-------
References for Section 6.12
• 1U ^ugMt0ftii^:Ita?v.pfkfOthmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol,
Sons, Inc. 1 ' '
Jtohn Wgev an
-------
7. METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY
The metallurgical industries can be broadly divided into primary and secondary metal production operations.
The term primary metals refers to production of the metal from ore. The secondary metals industry includes the
recovery of metal from scrap and salvage and the production of alloys from ingot.
The primary metals industries discussed in Sections 7.1 through 7.7 include the nonferrous operations of
primary aluminum production, copper smelters, lead smelters, and zinc smelters. These industries are
characterized by the large quantities of sulfur oxides and particulates emitted. The primary metals industry also
includes iron and steel mills, ferroalloy production, and metallurgical coke manufacture.
The secondary metallurgical industries discussed in Sections 7.8 through 7.14 are aluminum operations, brass
and bronze ingots, gray iron foundries, lead smelting, magnesium smelting, steel foundries, and zinc processing.
The major air contaminants from these operations are particulates in the forms of metallic fumes, smoke, and
dust.
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
7.1.1 Process Description1 Revised by William M. Vatavuk
Bauxite, a hydrated oxide of aluminum associated with silicon, titanium, and iron, is the base ore for aluminum
production. Most bauxite ore is purified by the Bayer process in which the ore is dried, ground in ball mills, and
mixed with sodium hydroxide. Iron oxide, silica, and other impurities are removed by settling, dilution, and
filtration. The aluminum hydroxide is precipitated from this diluted, cooled solution and calcified to produce
pure alumina, according to the reaction:
2A1(OH)3 •* 3H20 + A1203 (i)
Aluminium hydroxide Water Alumina
Aluminum metal is manufactured by the Hall-Heroult process, which involves the electrolytic reduction of
alumina dissolved in a molten salt bath of cryolite (a complex of NaF • A1F3) and various salt additives:
Electrolysis
2A1203 ^ 4A1 + 302 (2)
Alumina Aluminum Oxygen . ' *• '
The electrolysis is performed in a carbon crucible housed in a steel shell, known as a "pot." The electrolysis
employs the carbon crucible as the cathode (negative pole) and a carbon mass as the anode (positive pole). The
type of anode configuration used distinguishes the three types of pots: prebaked (PB), horizontal-stud Soderberg
(HSS), and vertical-stud Soderberg (VSS).
The major portion of aluminum produced in the United States (61.9 percent of 1970 production) is processed
in prebaked cells. In this type of pot, the anode consists of blocks that are formed from a carbon paste and baked
4/73 7.1-1
-------
in an oven prior to their use in the cell. These blocks-typically 14 to 24 per cell-are attached to metal rods and
serve as replaceable anodes. As the reduction proceeds, the carbon in these blocks is gradually consumed (at a rate
of about 1 inch per day) by reaction with the oxygen by-product (see Table 7.1-1),
Table 7.1-1. RAW MATERIAL AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
Parameter
Cell operating temperature
Current through pot line
Voltage drop per cell
Current efficiency
Energy required
Weight alumina consumed
Weight electrolyte fluoride consumed
Weight carbon electrode consumed
Representative value
~1740°F (~950°C)
60,000 to 125,000 amp
4.3 to 5.2
85 to 90%
6.0 to 8.5 kwh/lb aluminum
(13.2 to 18.7 kwh/kg aluminum)
1.89 to 1.92 Ib AL203/lb aluminum
(1.89 to 1.92 kg AL203/kg aluminum)
0.03 to 0.10 Ib fluoride/lb aluminum
(0.03 to 0.10 kg fluoride/kg aluminum)
0.45 to 0.55 Ib electrode/lb aluminum
(0.45 to 0.55 kg electrode/kg aluminum)
The second most commonly used furnace (25.5 percent of 1970 production) is the horizontal-stud Soderberg
This type of cell uses a "continuous" carbon anode; that is, a mixture of pitch and carbon aggregate called
paste is added at the top of the superstructure periodically, and the entire anode assembly is moved
downward as the carbon burns away. The cell anode is contained by aluminum sheeting and perforated steel
channels, through which electrode connections, called studs, are inserted into the anode paste. As the baking
anode is lowered, the lower row of studs and the bottom channel are removed, and the flexible electrical
connectors are moved to a higher row. One disadvantage of baking the paste in place is that heavy organic
materials (tars) 'are added to the cell effluent stream. The heavy tars often cause plugging of the ducts fans and
control equipment, an effect that seriously limits the choice of air cleaning equipment.
The vertical-stud Soderberg is similar to the horizontal-stud furnace, with the exception that the studs are
mounted vertically in the cell. The studs must be raised and replaced periodically, but that is a relatively simple
process. Representative raw material and energy requirements for aluminum reduction cells are presented in Table
7.1-1. A schematic representation of the reduction process is shown in Figure 7.1-1.
7.1.2 Emissions and Controls1 >2 -3
Emissions from aluminum reduction processes consist primarily of gaseous hydrogen fluoride and particulate
fluorides, alumina, hydrocarbons or organics, sulfur dioxide from the reduction cells and the anode baking
furnaces. Large amounts of particulates are also generated during the calcining of aluminum hydroxide but the
economic value of this dust is such that extensive controls have been employed to reduce emissions to relatively
small quantities. Finally, small amounts of particulates are emitted from the bauxite grinding and materials
handling processes.
The source of fluoride emissions from reduction cells is the fluoride electrolyte, which contains cryolite
aluminum fluoride (A1F3), and fluorspar (CaF^. For normal operation, the weight or "bath" ratio of sodium
fluoride (NaF) to A1F3 is maintained between 1.36 and 1.43 by the addition of Na-?C03, NaF, and A1F?
Experience has shown that increasing this ratio has the effect of decreasing total fluoride effluents Cell fluoride
emissions are also decreased by lowering the operating temperature and increasing the alumina content in the
bath. Specifically, the ratio of gaseous (mainly hydrogen fluoride) to particulate fluorides varies from 1 2 to 1 7
with PB and HSS cells, but attains a value of approximately 3.0 with VSS cells.
7,1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
TO CONTROL DEVICE
SODIUM
HYDROXIDE
BAUXITE
SETTLING
CHAMBER
DILUTION
WATER
RED MUD
(IMPURITIES)
DILUTE
SODIUM
HYDROXIDE
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
CRYSTALLIZER
I
FILTER
AQUEOUS SODIUM
ALUMINATE
TO CONTROL DEVICE
BAKING
FURNACE
BAKED
ANODES
TO CONTROL DEVICE
PREBAKE
REDUCTION
CELL
ANODE PASTE
TO CONTROL DEVICE
HORIZONTAL
OR VERTICAL
SODERBERG
REDUCTION CELL
MOLTEN
ALUMINUM
Figure 7.1-1. Schematic diagram of primary aluminum production process.
4/75
Metallurgical Industry
7.1-3
-------
Table 7.1-Z REPRESENTATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
OF UNCONTROLLED EFFLUENTS FROM PREBAKED AND
HORIZONTAL-STUD SODERBERG CELLS1
Size range,jitm
<1
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 44
>44
Particles within size range, wt%
Prebaked
35
25
8
5
5
22
Horizontal-stud Soderberg
44
26
8
6
4
12
Particulate emissions from reduction cells consist of alumina and carbon from anode dusting, cryolite,
aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite (Na5Al3F14), and ferric oxide. Representative size distributions for
PB and HSS particulate effluents are presented in Table 7.1-2. Particulates less than 1 micron in diameter
represent the largest percentage (35 to 44 percent by weight) of uncontrolled effluents.
Moderate amounts of hydrocarbons derived from the anode paste are emitted from horizontal- and
vertical-Soderberg pots. In vertical cells these compounds are removed by combustion via integral gas burners
before the off-gases are released.
Because many different kinds of gases and particulates are emitted from reduction cells, many kinds of control
devices have been employed. To abate both gaseous and particulate emissions, one or more types of wet scrubbers
- spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds, Venturis, and self-induced sprays - are
used on all three cells and on anode baking furnaces. In addition, particulate control methods, such as
electrostatic precipitators (wet and dry), multiple cyclones, and dry scrubbers (fluid-bed and coated-fllter types)
are employed with baking furnaces on PB and VSS cells. Dry alumina adsorption has been used at several PB and
VSS installations in foreign countries. In this technique, both gaseous and particulate fluorides are controlled by
passing the pot off-gases through the entering alumina feed, on which the fluorides are absorbed; the technique
has an overall control efficiency of 98 percent.
In the aluminum hydroxide calcining, bauxite grinding, and materials handling operations, various dry dust
collection devices-such as centrifugal collectors, multiple cyclones, or electrostatic precipitators-and wet
scrubbers or both may be used. Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for fluorides and total particulates
are presented in Table 7.1 .-3.
7.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
Table 7.1-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION PROCESSES*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
I
I
U)
Type of operation
Bauxite grind ing3-0
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating-bed
scrubber
Quench tower and
spray screen
Electrostatic pre-
cipitator
Calcining of aluminum
hydroxide*-11
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating-bed
scrubber
Quench tower and
spray screen
Electrostatic pre-
cjpitator
Anode baking fumacef
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Dry electrostatic
preciphator
Self-induced spray
Prebaked reduction
celt"
Uncontrolled
Multiple cyclone
Fluid-bed dry
scrubber system
Total participates11
Ib/ton
6.0
1.8e
1.7
1.0
0.12
200.0
60.0
56.0
34.0
4.0
3.0
(1.0 to 5.0)9
NA
1.13
0.06
81.3
(11.9to177.0t
17.9
2.02
kg/MT
3.0
0.90
0.85
0.50
0.060
100.0
30.0
28.0
17.0
2.0
1.5
(0.5 to 2.5)
NA
0.57
0.03
40.65
(5.95 to 88.5)
a95
1.01
Gaseous fluorides (HF)
Ib/ton
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
0.93
0.0372
0.93
0.0372
24.7
(13.8 to 34.8)
24.7
0.247
kg/MT
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
0.47
0.0186
0.47
0.0186
12.35
(6.9 to 17.4)
12.35
0.124
Particulatefluorides(F)
Ib/ton
NAd
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
20.4
(9.8 to 35.5}
4.49
0.507
kg/MT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
10.2
(4.9 to 17.8)
2.25
0.253
-------
Table 7.1-3 (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION PROCESSES0
i
55
co
I
en
w
Type of operation
scrubber system
Coated filter dry scrubber
Dry electrostatic
precipitator
Spray tower
Floating-bed
scrubber
Chamber scrubber
Vertical flow
packed bed
Dry alumina ad-
sorption
Horizontal-stud
Soderbergcell1
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating-bed
scrubber
Wet electrostatic
precipitator
Vertical-stud
Soderberg cell'
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Self-induced
spray
Venturi scrubber
Wet electrostatic
precipitator
Multiple cyclones
Dry alumina ad-
sorption
Materials handling0
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Total particulatesb
Ib/ton
1.62
1.62 to 8.94
16.2
16.2
12.2
12.2
7.62
98.4
(93.6 to 104.0)
19.6 to 36. 4
21.6
7.10
78.4
19.6
NA
3.14
0.784 to 7.84
3.92 to 4. 7
1.57
10.0
3.0
kg/MT
0.81
0.81 to 4.47
8.1
8.1
6.1
6.1
0.81
49.2
(46.8 to 52.0)
9.8 to 18.2
10.8
3.55
39.2
9.8
NA
1.57
0.392 to 3.92
1.96 to 2. 35
0.784
5.0
1.5
Gaseous fluorides (HF)
Ib/ton
1.98 to 5.93
24.7
0.494 to 2.72
0.494
2.96
8.4
0.494
26.6
(25.2 to 28.8)
1 .86 to 2.39
0.532
26.6
30.4
(20.0 to 35.0)
0.304
0.304
0.304
30.4
30.4
0.608
Neg
Neg
kg/MT
0.99 to 2.97
12.35
0.247 to 1.36
0.247
1.48
4.2
0.247
13.3
(12.6 to 14.4)
0.93 to 1.195
0.266
13.3
15.2
(10.0 to 17.5)
0.152
0.152
0.152
15.2
15.2
0.304
Neg
Neg
Particulatefluorides(F)
Ib/ton
0.408
0.408 to 2.24
4.08
4.08
3.06
3.06
0.408
15.6
(14.4 to 16.2)
3.12 to 5.77
0.343
1.13
10.6
(5.6 to 55.3)
2.65
NA
0.424
0.106 to 1.06
5.30 to 6. 36
0.212
NA
NA
kg/MT
0.204
0.204 to 1.12
2.04
2.04
1.53
1.53
0.204
7.8
(7.2 to 8.1)
1 .56 to 2.885
0,1715
0.563
5.3
(2.8 to 27.7)
1.325
NA
0.212
0.053 to 0.53
2.65 to 3. 18
0.106
NA
NA
-------
(*>
2
ft
a
D.
ui
Table 7.1-3 (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION PROCESSES8
EMISSION FACTOR RAT! IMG: A
Type of operation
Floating-bed
scrubber
Quench tower and
spray screen
Electrostatic
precipitator
Total participates13
Ib/ton
2.8
1.7
0.20
kg/MT
1.4
0.85
0.10
Gaseous fluorides (HF)
. Ib/ton
Neg
Neg
Neg
kg/MT
Neg
Neg
Neg
Paniculate fluorides(F)
Ib/ton
NA
NA
NA
kg/MT
NA
NA
NA
aEmission factors for bauxite grinding expressed as pounds per ton (kg/MT) of bauxite processed. Factors for calcining of aluminum hydroxide expressed i
pounds per ton (kg/MT) of alumina produced. All other factors in terms of tons (MTl of molten aluminum produced.
^Includesparticulate fluorides.
cReferences 1 and 3.
dfOo information available.
eControiled emission factors are based on average uncontrolled factors and on average observed collection efficiencies.
'References 1,2. and 4 through 6.
9Numbers in parentheses are ranges of uncontrolled values observed.
"References 2 and 4 through 6. •
'Reference 1. .
'References 2 and 6.
-------
References for Section 7.1
1. Engineering and Cost Effectiveness Study of Fluoride Emissions Control, Vol. I. TRW Systems and
Resources Research Corp., Reston, Va. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHSD-71-14, January 1972.
2. Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Vol. I. Singmaster and Breyer, New York, N.Y.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-70-21 .March 1972.
3. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1971.
4. Source Testing Report: Emissions from Wet Scrubbing System. York Research Corp., Stamford, Conn.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report
Number Y-7730-E.
5. Source Testing Report: Emissions from Primary Aluminum Smelting Plant. York Research Corp., Stamford,
Conn. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Report Number YT730-B. June 1972,
6. Source Testing Report: Emissions from the Wet Scrubber System, York Research Corp., Stamford, Conn.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report
Number Y-7730-F. June 1972.
7.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
7.2 METALLURGICAL COKE MANUFACTURING
7.2,1 Process Description1
Coking is the process of heating coal in an atmosphere of low oxygen content, i.e., destructive distillation.
During this process, organic compounds in the coal break down to yield gases and a residue of relatively
nonvolatile nature. Two processes are used for the manufacture of metallurgical coke, the beehive process and the
by-product process; the by-product process accounts for more than 98 percent of the coke produced.
Beehive oven:1 The beehive is a refractory-lined enclosure with a dome-shaped roof. The coal charge is
deposited onto the floor of the beehive and leveled to give a uniform depth of material. Openings to the beehive
oven are then restricted to control the amount of air reaching the coal. The carbonization process begins in the
coal at the top of the pile and works down through it. The volatile matter being distilled escapes to the
atmosphere through a hole in the roof. At the completion of the coking time, the coke is "watered out" or
quenched.
By-product process:1 The by-product process is oriented toward the recovery of the gases produced during the
coking cycle. The rectangular coking ovens are grouped together in a series, alternately interspersed with heating
flues, called a coke battery. Coal is charged to the ovens through ports in the top, which are then sealed. Heat is
supplied to the ovens by burning some of the coke gas produced. Coking is largely accomplished at temperatures
of 2000° to 2100° F (1100° to 1150° C) for a period of about 16 to 20hours. At the end of the coking period,
the coke is pushed from the oven by a ram and quenched with water.
7.2.2 Emissions1
Visible smoke, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and other emissions originate from the following by-product
coking operations: (1) charging of the coal into the incandescent ovens, (2) oven leakage during the coking
period, (3) pushing the coke out of the ovens, and (4) quenching the hot coke. Virtually no attempts nave been
made to prevent gaseous emissions from beehive ovens. Gaseous emissions from the by-product ovens are drawn
off to a collecting main and are subjected to various operations for separating ammonia, coke-oven gas, tar,
phenol, light oil (benzene, toluene, xylene), and pyridine. These unit operations are potential sources of
hydrocarbon emissions.
Oven-charging operations and leakage around poorly sealed coke-oven doors and lids are major sources of
gaseous emissions from by-product ovens. Sulfur is present in the coke-oven gas in the form of hydrogen sulfide
and carbon disulfide. If the gas is not desulfurized, the combustion process will emit sulfur dioxide.
Associated with both coking processes are the material-handling operations of unloading coal, storing coal,
grinding and sizing of coal, screening and crushing coke, and storing and loading coke. All of these operations are
potential particulate emission sources. In addition, the operations of oven charging, coke pushing and quenching
produce particulate emissions. The emission factors for coking operations are summarized in Table 7.2-1.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.2-1
-------
to
TaUe 7.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALLURGICAL COKE MANUFACTURE WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
en
1
Vi
Type of operation
By-product cokingc
Unloading
Charging
Coking cycle
Discharging
Quenching
Underfifingd
Beehive ovense
Particulates
Ib/ton
0.4
1.5
0.1
0.6
0.9
—
200
kg/MT
0,2
0.75
0.05
0.3
0.45
—
100
Sulfur
dioxide
Ib/ton
—
0.02
—
—
—
4
—
kg/MT
—
0.01
—
—
—
2
—
Carbon
monoxide
ib/ton
—
0.6
0.6
0.07
—
—
1
kg/MT
—
0.3
0.3
0.035
—
—
0.5
Hydrocarbons*1
Ib/ton1
—
2.5
1.5
0.2
—
—
8
kg/MT
—
1.25
0.75
0.1
—
—
4
Nitrogen
oxides (N02>
Ib/ton
_
0.03
0.01
_
—
—
—
kgTMT
—
0.015
0.005
_
—
— •
—
Ammonia
Ib/ton
_
0.02
0.06
0.1
—
—
2
kg/MT
—
0.01
0.03
0.05
—
—
1
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of coal charged.
"Expressed as methane.
References 2 and 3.
Reference 5. The sulfur dioxide factor is based on the following representative conditions: (1) sulfur content of coal charged to oven is 0.8
percent by weight; (2) about 33 percent by weight of total sulfur in the coal charged to oven is transferred to the coke-oven gas; (3) about 40
percent of coke-oven gas is burned during the under fir ing operation and the remainder is used in other parts of the steel operation where the rest of
the sulfur dioxide is discharged-about 6 Ib/ton (3 kg/MT) of coal charged; and (4> gas used in underftring has not been desulfurized.
"References 1 and 4.
-------
References for Section 7.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April
1970.
2. Air Pollution by Coking Plants. United Nations Report: Economic Commission for Europe, ST/ECE/
Coal/26-1968. p. 3-27.
3. Fullerton, R.W. Impingement Baffles to Reduce Emissions from Coke Quenching. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
/ 7:807-809. December 1967.
4. Sallee, G. Private Communication on Particulate Pollutant Study. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number
22-69-104. June 1970.
5. Varga, J. and H.W. Lownie, Jr. Final Technological Report on: A Systems Analysis Study of the Integrated
Iron and Steel Industry. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. DHEW, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number PH 22-68-65. May 1969.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.2-3
-------
c
-------
7.3 COPPER SMELTERS
7.3.1 Process Description1-2
Copper is produced primarily from low-grade sulfide ores, which are concentrated by gravity and flotation
methods. Copper is recovered from the concentrate by four steps: roasting, smelting, converting, and refining.
Copper sulfide concentrates are normally roasted in either .nultiple-hearth or fluidized-bed roasters to remove the
sulfur and then calcined in preparation for smelting in a reverberatory furnace. For about half the smelters the
roasting step is eliminated. Smelting removes other impurities as a slag with the aid of fluxes. The matter that
results from smelting is blown with air to remove the sulfur as sulfur dioxide, and the end product is a crude
metallic copper, A refining process further purifies the metal by insertion of green logs or natural gas. This is
often followed by electrolytic refining.
7.3.2 Emissions and Controls2
The high temperatures attained in roasting* smelting, and converting cause volatilization of a number of the
trace elements present in copper ores and concentrates. The raw waste gases from these processes contain not
only these fumes but also dust and sulfur oxide. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides may also be emitted, but
no quantitative data have been reported in the literature.
The value of the volatilized elements dictates efficient collection of fumes and dusts. A combination of
cyclones and electrostatic precipitators seems to be most often used. Table 7.3-1 summarizes the Uncontrolled
emissions of participates and sulfur oxides from copper smelters.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.3-1
-------
Table 7.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER
SMELTERS WITHOUT CONTROLS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of operation:
Roasting ;..•.,,..
Smelting (reverberatory
furnace)
Converting
Refining
Total uncontrolled
Pafticulatesb-c
Ib/ton
45
20
60
10
135
kg/MT
22.5
10
30
5
67.5
Sulfur
OXJ
Ib/ton
60
320
870
— . .
1250
des
-------
7.4 FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
7.4.1 Process Description1 >2
Ferroalloy is the generic term for alloys consisting of iron and one or more other metals. Ferroalloys are used
in steel production as alloying elements and deoxidants. There are three basic types of ferroalloys; (1)
silicon-based alloys, including ferrosilicon and calciumsilicon; (2) manganese-based alloys, including fer-
romanganese and silicomanganese; and (3) chromium-based alloys, including ferrochromium and ferrosilico-
chrome.
The four major procedures used to produce ferroalloy and high-purity metallic additives for steelmaking are:
(1) blast furnace, (2) electrolytic deposition, (3) alumina silico-therrnic process, and (4) electric smelting furnace.
Because over 75 percent of the ferroalloys are produced in electric smelting furnaces, this section deals only with
that type of furnace.
The oldest, simplest, and most widely used electric furnaces are the submerged-arc open type, although
semi-covered furnaces are also used. The alloys are made in the electric furnaces by reduction of suitable oxides.
For example, in making ferrochromium the charge may consist of chrome ore, limestone, quartz (silica), coal and
wood chips, along with scrap iron.
7.4.2 Emissions3
The production of ferroalloys has many dust- or fume-producing steps. The dust resulting from raw material
handling, mix delivery, and crushing and sizing of the solidified product can be handled by conventional
techniques and is ordinarily not a pollution problem. By far the major pollution problem arises from the
ferroalloy furnaces themselves. The conventional submerged-arc furnace utilizes carbon reduction of metallic
oxides and continuously produces large quantities of carbon monoxide. This escaping gas carries large quantities
of particulates of submicron size, making control difficult.
In an open furnace, essentially all of the carbon monoxide burns with induced air at the top of the charge, and
CO emissions are small. Particulate emissions from the open furnace, however, can be quite large. In the
semi-closed furnace, most or all of the CO is withdrawn from the furnace and burns with dilution air introduced
into the system, The unburned CO goes through particulate control devices and can be used as boiler fuel or can
be flared directly. Particulate emission factors for electric smelting furnaces are presented in Table 7.4-1. No
carbon monoxide emission data have been reported in the literature.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.4-1
32H-637 0 - 80 - 2 (Pt, B)
-------
Table 7.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
FERROALLOY PRODUCTION IN
ELECTRIC SMELTING FURNACES'
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furance and
product
Open furnace
50% FeSib
75%FeSic
90% FeSib
Silicon metal d
Silicomanganese6
Semi-covered furnace
Ferro manganese6
Particulates
Ib/ton
200
315
565
625
195
45
kg/MT
100
157.5
282.5
312.5
97.5
22.5
Emission factors expressed as units per unit
weight of spicified product produced.
"Reference 4.
••References 5 and 6.
dReferences4end7.
^References.
References for Section 7.4
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-1 19. April 1970.
2. Ferroalloys: Steel's All-purpose Additives. The Magazine of Metals Producing. February 1 967.
3. Person, R. A. Control of Emissions from Ferroalloy Furnace Processing. Niagara Falls, New York. 1969.
4. Unpublished stack test results. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
Furnace F"ro"loy
lon' Unlted
7.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.5 IRON AND STEEL MILLS Revised by William M. Vatawk
and L.K. Fetteisen
7.5.1 General1
Iron and steel manufacturing processes may be grouped into five distinct sequential operations: (1) coke
production; (2) pig iron manufacture in blast furnaces; (3) steel-making processes using basic oxygen, electric arc,
and open hearth furnaces; (4) rolling mill operations; and (5) finishing operations (see Figure 7.5-1). The first
three of these operations encompass nearly all of the air pollution sources. Coke production is discussed in detail
elsewhere in this publication.
7.5.1.1 Pig Iron Manufacture2'3-Pig iron is produced in blast furnaces, which are large refractory-lined chambers
into which iron ore, coke, and limestone are charged and allowed to react with large amounts of hot air to
produce molten iron. Slag and blast furnace gases are by-products of this operation. The production of 1 unit
weight of pig iron requires an average charge of 1.55 unit weights of iron-bearing charge, 0.55 unit weight of
coke, 0.20 unit weight of limestone, and 2.3 unit weight of air. Blast furnace by-products consist of 0.2 unit
weight of slag, 0.02 unit weight of flue dust, and 2.5 unit weights of gas per unit of pig iron produced. Most of
the coke used in the process is produced in by-product coke ovens. The flue dust and other iron ore fines from
the process are converted into useful blast furnace charge via sintering operations.
Blast furnace combustion gas and the gases that escape from bleeder openings constitute the major sources of
particulate emissions. The dust in the gas consists of 35 to 50 percent iron, 4 to 14 percent carbon, 8 to 13
percent silicon dioxide, and small amounts of aluminum oxide, manganese oxide, calcium oxide, and other
materials. Because of its high carbon monoxide content, this gas has a low heating value (about 100 Btu/ft) and is
utilized as a fuel within the steel plant. Before it can be efficiently oxidized, however, the gas must be cleaned of
particulates. Initially, the gases pass through a settling chamber or dry cyclone, where about 60 percent of the
dust is removed. Next, the gases undergo a one- or two-stage cleaning operation. The primary Cleaner is normally
a wet scrubber, which removes about 90 percent of the remaining particulates. The secondary cleaner is a
high-energy wet scrubber (usually a venturi) or an electrostatic precipitator, either of which can remove up to 90
percent of the particulates that have passed through the primary cleaner. Taken together, these control devices
provide an overall dust removal efficiency of approximately % percent.
All of the carbon monoxide generated in the gas is normally used for fuel. Conditions such as "slips," however,
can cause instantaneous emissions of carbon monoxide. Improvements in techniques for handling blast furnace
burden have greatly reduced the occurrence of slips. In Table 7.5-1 particulate and carbon monoxide emission
factors are presented for blast furnaces.
7,5.1.2 Steel-Making Processes -
7.5.1.2,1 Open Hearth Furnaces2'3-In the open hearth process, a mixture of scrap iron, steel, and pig iron is
melted in a shallow rectangular basin, or "hearth," for which various liquid gaseous fuels provide the heat.
Impurities are removed in a slag.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.5-1
C
-------
•-FLUE GAS
(SINTER
OPERATION)
DUST, FINES,
AND COAL
SINTER
OPERATION
(P)
IRON ORE
GAS
PURIFICATION
COAL
COKE
OPERATION
(P)
LIMESTONE
SCARFir
MACHIN
WISHING
PERATIONS
Figure 7.5-1. Basic flow diagram of iron and steel processes.
"P" denotes a major source of particulate emissions.
7.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
Emissions from open hearths consist of participates and small amounts of fluorides when fluoride-bearing ore,
fluorspar, is used in the 'charge. The particulates are composed primarily of iron oxides, with a large portion (45
to 50 percent) in the 0 to 5 micrometer size range. The quantity of dust in the off-gas increases considerably
when oxygen lancing is used (see Table 7.5-1).
The devices most commonly used to control the iron oxide and fluoride participates are electrostatic
precipitators and high-energy venturi scrubbers, both of which effectively remove about 98 percent of the
particulates. The scrubbers also remove nearly 99 percent of the gaseous fluorides and 95 percent of the
paiticulate fluorides.
7.5.1.2,2 Basic Oxygen Furnaces^ >3-The basic oxygen process, also called the Linz-Donawitz (LD) process, is
employed to produce steel from a furnace charge composed of approximately 70 percent molten blast-furnace
metal and 30 percent scrap metal by use of a stream of commercially pure oxygen to oxidize the impurities,
principally carbon and silicon.
The reaction that converts the molten iron into steel generate., a considerable amount of particulate matter,
largely in the form of iron oxide, although small amounts of fluorides may be present. Probably as the result of
the tremendous agitation of the molten bath by the oxygen lancing, the dust loadings vary from 5 to 8 grains per
standard cubic foot (11 to 18 grams/standard cubic meter) and high percentages of the particles are in the 0 to 5
micrometer size range.
In addition, tremendous amounts of carbon monoxide (140 Ib/ton of steel and more) are generated by the
reaction. Combustion in the hood, direct flaring, or some other means of ignition is used in the stack to reduce
the actual carbon monoxide emissions to less than 3 Ib/ton (1.5 kg/MT).
The particulate control devices used are venturi scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, both of which have
overall efficiencies of 99 percent. Furthermore, the scrubbers are 99 percent efficient in removing gaseous
fluorides (see Table 7.5-1).
7.5.1.2.3 Electric Arc Furnaces2'3— Electric furnaces are used primarily to produce special alloy steels or to melt
large amounts of scrap for reuse. Heat is furnished by direct-arc electrodes extending through the roof of the
furnace. In recent years, oxygen has been used to increase the rate of uniformity of scrap-melt-down and to
decrease power consumption.
The particulates, primarily oxides of iron, manganese, aluminum, and silicon, that evolve when steel is being
processed in an electric furnace result from the exposure of molten steel to extremely high temperatures. The
quantity of these emissions is a function of the cleanliness and composition of the scrap metal charge, the refining
procedure used (with or without oxygen lancing), and the refining time. As with open hearths, many of the
particulates (40 to 75 percent) are in the 0 to 5 micrometer range. Additionally, moderate amounts of carbon
monoxide (15 to 20 Ib/ton) are emitted.
Particulate control devices most widely used with electric furnaces are venturi scrubbers, which have a
collection efficiency of approximately 98 percent, and bag filters, which have collection efficiencies of 99 percent
or higher.
7.5.1.3 Scarfing3-Scarfing is a method of surface preparation of semi-finished steel. A scarfing machine removes
surface defects from the steel billets and slabs, before they are shaped or rolled, by applying jets of oxygen to the
surface of the steel, which is at orange heat, thus removing a thin upper layer of the metal by rapid oxidation.
Emissions from scarfing operations consist of iron oxide fumes. The rate at which particulates are emitted is
dependent on the condition of the billets or slabs and the amount of metal removal required (Table 7.5-1).
Emission control techniques for the removal of fine particles vary among steel producers, but one of the most
commonly used devices is the electrostatic precipitator, which is approximately 94 percent efficient.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.5-3
-------
I
Table 7.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLSa-b
EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS: A (PARTICIPATES AND CARBON MONOXIDE)
C (FLUORIDES)
Type of operation
Pig iron production
Blastfurnaces6
Ore charge, uncontrolled
Agglomerates charge.
uncontrolled
Total, uncontrolled
Settling chamber or dry
cyclone
Plus wet scrubber
Plusventuri or electro-
static precipitator
Sintering1
Windbox, uncontrolled^
Dry cyclone
Dry cyclone plus elec-
trostatic precipitator
Dry cyclone plus wet
scrubber
Discharge, uncontrolled
Dry cyclone
Dry cyclone plus elec-
trostatic precipitator
Steel production
Open hearthh
No oxygen lance, uncon-
trolled
Venturi scrubber
Electrostatic
precipitator
Oxygen lance, uncontrolled
Total particulates
Ib/ton
110
40
150
(130 to 200)
60
15
1.5
20
2.0
1.0
0.04
22
2.2
0.11
8.3
(5.8 to 12.0}
0.17
0.17
17.4
(9.3 to 22.0)
kg/WIT
55
20
75
(€5 to 100}
30
7.5
0.75
10
1.0
0.5
0.02
11
1.1
0.055
4.15
(2.9 to 6.0}
0.085
0.085
8.7
(4.65 to 11.0)
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
1750
(1400 to 2100)
-
1750
(1400 to 2100)
-
—
—
—
—
-
— -
44
44
44
—
—
- " '
-
kg/MT
875
(7 00 to 1050}
—
875
(7 00 to 1050}
• —
—
- '•
— • •
-
—
- " '— .
22
22
22
• —
. —
-
—
Flu
Gaseous (HF}
tb/ton
-
• —
—
—
—
-
— •
- '
—
—
-
-
—
0.100
0.011
0.100
0.100
...
kg/MT
-
—
—
—
—
-
—
- " •
—
—
- .
-
—
0.05
0.0055
0.050
0.050
-
pridesc'd
Particulates {CaF,}
Ib/ton
'-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
0.030
0.0015
0.0006
0.030
kg/MT
—
— •
— •
— '
•— -
.—
- ••—
-
- • —
. — '
- -
-
. ' —
0.015
0.0008
0.0003
0.015
fl\
un
V)
O
"Z
-------
Table 7.5-1 (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS*'1*
EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS: A (PARTICIPATES AND CARBON MONOXIDE)
Wl
Type of operation
Venturi scrubber
Electrostatic
precipitator
Basic oxygen, uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
E lectrostatic
precipitator
Spray chamber
Electric arc*
No oxygenlance1 , uncon-
trolled
Venturi scrubber
Electrostatic
precipitator
Baghouse
Oxygen lance?
uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Electrostatic
precipitator
Baghouse
Scarfing" . uncontrolled
Electrostatic precipitator
Venturi scrubber
Total particulates
Ib/ton
0.17
0.35
51
(32 to 86)
0.51
0.51
15.3
9.2
(7.0 to 10.6)
0.18
0.28 to 0.74
0.09
11
0.22
033 to 0.88
0.11
<1
)
Ib/ton
0.0015
0.0006
0.200
0.002
0.002
0.030
0.238
0.011
0.011
0.0024
0.238
0.011
0.011
0.0024
-
—
•*—
kg/MT
0.0008
0.0003
0.100
0.001
0.001
0.030
0.119
0.0055
0.0055
0.0012
0.119
0.0055
0.0055
0.0012
—
—
—
•Emission factors expressed at units per unit weight of metal produced.
lumbers in parentheses after uncontrolled value* are range*. Controlled
factors are calculated uring average uncontrolled factors and observed
equipment efficiencies.
Reference 4.
dValue included in "Total Particulates" figure.
8Reforence»2,3,«nd5.
ffliese factor* «honld be used to estimate partirailflte and caibon monoxide
erainloBj torn the entire blast fiuoace operation. The total puticulate
ftctoi* far on cbugiiig and aggjonwntes chaiging apply only to those
opentioni.
flRefmnn 3.
hApproxhnit«IV 013 pound* of luHur dioxide per ton (O.1B kfl/MT) of ibiMr ft
produced at windbox.
'References, 2, 3,S,*nd 6.
'Reference* 2 through 10.
kValuei are for carbon type electric arc- furnace*. For alloy type furnace^
multiplv given value* by 2.80.
^Hefarancw 2 fhrough 5.
mReierenon 3 and 4,
"Factor* ore bated on operating experience and engineering judgment.
-------
References for Section 7.5
1. Bramer, Henry C. Pollution Control in the Steel Industry. Environmental Science and Technology. P
1004-1008, October 1971. '
2. Celenza. C.J. Air Pollution Problems Faced by the Iron and Steel Industry. Plant Engineering, p. 60-63, April
jUj 19/UJ
3. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Revised). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C, Publication Number AP-42. 1972.
4. Personal communication between Ernest Kirkendall, American Iron and Steel Institute, and John McGinnity,
Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, N.C. September 1970.
5. Particulate Pollutant Systems Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract
Number CPA 22-69-104. May 1971.
6. Walker, A.B. and R.F. Brown. Statistics on Utilization, Performance, and Economics of Electrostatic
Precipitation for Control of Particulate Air Pollution. (Presented at 2nd International Clean Air Congress,
International Union of Air Pollution Prevention Association, Washington, D.C. December 1970.)
7. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 2. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Program, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
68-02-0228. February 1972.
8. Source Testing Report -. EPA Test 71-MM-24. Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, D.C. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract
Number 68-02-0225. March 1972.
9. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 2. Rust Engineering Co., Birmingham, Ala. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Program, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number CPA
70-132. April 1972.
10. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 4. Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pa. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
68-02-0231.
7-5-6 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
7.6 LEAD SMELTING Revised by William M. Vatavuk
7.6.1 Process Description !-3
Lead is usually found in nature as a sulfide ore containing small amounts of copper, iron, zinc, and other trace
elements. It is normally concentrated at the mine from an ore of 3 to 8 percent lead to an ore concentrate of 55
to 70 percent lead, containing from 13 to 19 percent free and uncombined sulfur by weight.
Normal practice for the production of lead metal from this concentrate involves the following operations
(see Figure 7. 6-1): . .
1. Sintering, in which the concentrate lead and sulfur are oxidized to produce lead oxide and sulfur dioxide.
(Simultaneously, the charge material, comprised of concentrates, recycle sinter, sand, and other inert materials,
is agglomerated to form a dense, permeable material called sinter.)
2. Reducing the lead oxide contained in the sinter to produce molten lead bullion.
3. Refuting the lead bullion to eliminate any impurities.
Sinter is produced by means of a sinter machine, a continuous steel-pallet conveyor belt moved by gears and
sprockets. Each pallet consists of perforated or slotted grates, beneath which are situated windboxes connected
to fans that provide a draft on the moving sinter charge. Depending on the direction of this draft, the sinter ma-
chine is either of the updraft or downdraft type. Except for the draft direction, however, all machines are simi-
lar in design, construction, and operation.
The sintering reaction is autogenous and occurs at a temperature of approximately 1 000°C:
Operating experience has shown that system operation and product quality are optimum when the sulfur content
of the sinter charge is between 5 and 7 percent by weight. To maintain this desired sulfur content, sulfide-free
fluxes such as silica and limestone, plus large amounts of recycled sinter and smelter residues are added to the
mix. The quality of the product sinter is usually determined by its hardness (Ritter Index), which is inversely
proportional to the sulfur content. Hard quality sinter (low sulfur content) is preferred because it resists crushing
during discharge from the sinter machine. Conversely, undersized sinter will usually result from insufficient de-
sulfurization and is recycled for further processing.
Of the two kinds of sintering machines used, the updraft design is superior for many reasons. First, the sinter
bed height is more permeable (and, hence, can be greater) with an updraft machine, thereby permitting a higher
production rate than that of a downdraft machine of similar dimensions. Secondly, the small amounts of ele-
mental lead that form during sintering will solidify at their point of formation with updraft machines; whereas, in
downdraft operation, the metal tends to flow downward and collect on the grates or at the bottom of the suiter
charge, thus causing increased pressure drop and attendant reduced blower capacity. In addition, the updraft
system exhibits the capability of producing sinter of higher lead content and requires less maintenance than the
downdraft machine. Finally, and most important from an air -pollution control standpoint, updraft sintering
can produce a single strong SC>2 effluent stream from the operation, by use of weak gas recirculation. This, in
turn, permits the more efficient and economical use of such control methods as sulfuric acid recovery plants.
Lead reduction is carried out in a blast furnace, basically a water-jacketed shaft furnace supported by a re-
fractory base. Tuyeres, through which combustion air is admitted under pressure, are located near the bottom
and are evenly spaced on either side of the furnace.
The furnace is charged with a mixture of sinter (80 to 90 percent of charge), metallurgical coke (8 to 14 per-
cent of the charge), and other materials, such as limestone, silica, litharge, slag-forming constituents, and various
recycled and clean-up materials. In the furnace the sinter is reduced to lead bullion; most of the impurities are
5/74 Metallurgical Industry 7.6-1
-------
LEAD
SILICEOUS
ICEOUS I CRUDE I ZINC PLANT I I I
— _!--— _RESIDUE » LIMEROCK* j SLAG* j BY-PRODUCTS*
^PRESSURE LEACHING |
| |—»-CtiS04,ZnS04 SOLUTION 1
AUTOCLAVE EXTRACTION AND ELECTRO- 1
"1 LYTIC COPPER RECOVERY I
! PbS04 RESIDUE
L- __"M.-zn"-.r.-™™"^r
*THESE PRODUCTS ARE ALL CRUSHED AND
GROUND IN A ROD MILL TO 1 8 in, SIZE
LEADED
ma
CHARGE PREPARATION
D AND L SINTERING
REFINERY DROSSES
BLAST FURNACE
CONCENTRATION FOR CADMIUM-
EXTRACTION ELECTRIC FURNACE"
BY-PRODUCT FURNACE
DELEADING KILN
SOFTENING FURNACE
MATTE AND SPEISS
TO MARKET
REFINING KETTLE
REFINED LEAD
TO MARKET
DEZINCED GRANULATED
SLAG TO STORAGE
SLAG TO BUST FURNACE
[RETORTS
GOLD DORE
TO MARKET
Figure 7.6-1. Typical flowsheet of pyrometallurglcal lead smeltlng.2
7.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/74
-------
eliminated in the slag. Solid products from the blast furnace generally separate into four layers: speiss (basic-
ally arsenic and antimony, the lightest material); matte (composed of copper sulfide and other metal sulfides);
slag (primarily silicates); and lead bullion. The fust three layers are combined as slag, which is continually
collected from the furnace and either processed at the smelter for its metal content or shipped to treatment
facilities.
A certain amount of S02 is also generated in blast furnaces due to the presence of small quantities of residual
lead sulfide and lead sulfates in the sinter feed. The quantity of these emissions is a function of not only the re-
sidual sulfur content in the sinter, but of the amount of sulfur that is captured by copper and other impurities in
the slag.
Rough lead bullion from the blast furnace usually requires preliminary treatment (dressing) in steel cast-iron
kettles before undergoing refining operations. First, the bullion is cooled to 700 to 800°F; copper and small
amounts of sulfur, arsenic, antimony, and nickel are removed from solution and collect on the surface as a dross.
This dross, in turn, is treated in a reverberatory-type furnace where the copper and other metal impurities are
further concentrated before being routed to copper smelters for their eventual recovery. Drossed lead bullion is
further treated for copper removal by the addition of sulfur-bearing material and zinc and/or aluminum to lower
the copper content to approximately 0.01 percent.
The final phase of smelting, the refining of the bullion is cast-iron kettles, occurs in five steps:
1. Removal of antimony, tin, and arsenic;
2. Removal of precious metals via the Parke's Process, in which zinc metal combines with gold and silver to
form an insoluble intermetallic at operating temperatures;
3. Vacuum removal of zinc;
4. Bismuth removal using the Betterson Process, which involves the addition of calcium and magnesium,
which in turn, form an insoluble compound with the bismuth that is skimmed from the kettle; and
5. Removal of remaining traces of metal impurities by addition of NaOH and NaNOa.
The final refined lead, commonly of 99 99 to 99.999 percent purity, is then cast into 100-pound pigs before
shipment,
7.6.2 Emissions and Controls U
Each of the three major lead smelting operations generates substantial quantities of particulates and/or sulfur
dioxide.
Nearly 85 percent of the sulfur present in the lead ore concentrate is eliminated in the sintering operation.
In handling these process offgases, either a single weak stream is taken from the machine hood at less than 2 per-
cent SOj or two streams are taken-one weak stream (2) from the discharge end of the machine
and one strong stream (5 to 7 percent 862) taken from the feed end. Single stream operation is generally used
when there is little or no market for the recovered sulfur, so that the uncontrolled weak S(>2 stream is emitted
to the atmosphere. Where there is a potential sulfur market, however, the strong stream is sent to a sulfuric add
plant, and the weak stream is vented after particulate removal.
When dual gas stream operation is used with updraft sinter machines, the weak gas stream can be recirculated
through the bed to mix with the strong gas stream, resulting in a single stream with an SO; concentration of
about 6 percent. This technique has the overall effect of decreasing machine production capacity, but does per-
mit a more convenient and economical recovery of the SC>2 via sulfuric acid plants and other control methods.
Without weak gas recirculation, the latter portion of the sinter machine acts as a cooling zone for the sinter
and consequently assists in the reduction of dust formation during product discharge and screening. However,
5/74 Metallurgical Industry 7.6-3
-------
when recirculation is used, the sinter is usually discharged in a relatively hot state (400 to 500°C), with an attend-
ant increase in paniculate formation. Methods for reducing these dust quantities include recirculation of off-
gases through the sinter bed, relying upon the filtering effect of the latter, or ducting the gases from the dis-
charge through a paiticulate collection device directly to the atmosphere. Because reaction activity has ceased
in the discharge area in these cases, these latter gases contain little SC>2.
The particulate emissions from sinter machines consist of from 5 to 20 percent of the concentrated ore feed.
When expressed in terms of product weight, these emissions are an estimated 106.5 kg/MX (213 Ib/ton) of lead pro-
duced. This value, along with other particulate and SC>2 factors, appears in Table 7.6-1.
Table 7.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD
SMELTING PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Ore crushing13
Sintering (updraft)c
Blast furnaceb
Dross reverberatory furnaceb
Materials handlingb
Participates
kg/MT
1.0
106,5
180.5
10.0
2.5
Ib/ton
2.0
213.0
361.0
20.0
5.0
Sulfur dioxide
kg/MT
275.0
22.5
Neg
Ib/ton
550.0
45.0
Neg
aOre crushing emission factors expressed es kg/MT (Ib/ton) of crushed ore; all other emission factors expressed as kg/MT (Ib/ton)
of lead product.
^Reference 2. . .
References 1 , 4, 5, and 6L
^References 1, 2, and 7.
Typical material balances from domestic lead smelters indicate that about 1 0 to 20 percent of the sulfur in the
ore concentrate fed to the sinter machine is eliminated in the blast furnace. However, only half of this amount
(about 7 percent of the total) is emitted as S02i the remainder is captured by the slag. The concentration of this
S02 stream can vary from 500 to 2500 ppm by volume, depending on the amount of dilution air injected to ox-
idize the carbon monoxide and cool the stream before baghouse treatment for particulate removal.
Particulate emissions from blast furnaces contain many different kinds of material, including a range of lead
oxides, quartz, limestone, iron pyrites, iron-lime-silicate slag, arsenic, and other metals-containing compounds
associated with lead ores. These particles readily agglomerate, are primarily submicron in size, difficult to wet,
cohesive, and will bridge and arch in hoppers. On the average, this dust loading is quite substantial (see Table
Virtually no sulfur dioxide emissions are associated with the various refining operations. However, a small
amount of particulates is generated by the dross reverberatory furnace ( 1 0 kg/MT of lead).
Finally, minor quantities of particulates are generated by ore crushing and materials handling operations.
These emission factors are also presented in Table 7 .6-1 .
Methods used to control emission from lead smelter operations fall into two broad categories-particulate
and sulfur dioxide control techniques. The most commonly employed high-efficiency particulate control devices
are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators, which, in turn, often follow centrifugal collectors and tubular
coolers (pseudogravity collectors). Three of the six lead smelters presently operating in the United States use
single absorption sulfuric acid plants for control of sulfur dioxide emissions from sinter machines and, occasion-
ally, blast furnaces. Other technically feasible S02 control methods are elemental sulfur recovery plants and
7.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
5/74
-------
dimethylaniline (DMA) and ammonia absorption processes.
efficiencies are listed in Table 7.6-2.
These methods and their representative control
Table 7.6-2. EFFICIENCIES OF REPRESENTATIVE CONTROL DEVICES
USED WITH PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING OPERATIONS
C
Control device or method
Centrifugal collector (e.g., cyclone)3
Electrostatic precipitatora
Fabric f liter*
Tubular cooler (associated with waste heat boiler)9
Sulfuric acid plant (single contact)b>c
Elemental sulfur recovery plantb-d
Dimethylaniline (DMA) absorption process1*'6
Ammonia absorption process^
Control device efficiency range
Particulates
80 to 90
95 to 99
95 to 99
70 to 80
99.5 to 99.9
—
—
—
Sulfur dioxide
—
—
—
—
96 to 97
90
95 to 98.8
92 to 95.2
Reference 2.
^Reference 1.
CHigh participate control efficiency due to action of acid plant gas precleaning system, Range of SOj efficiencies based on inlet
and outlet concentrations of 5 to 7 percent and 2000 ppm, respectively.
dCo!lection efficiency for a two-stage, uncontrolled Claus-type plant. Refer to Section 5.18 for more information.
eRange of SC>2 efficiencies based on inlet and outlet concentrations of 4 to 6 percent and 500 to 3000 ppm, respectively.
fRange 'of SO2 efficiencies based on Inlet and outlet concentrations of 13 to 2.5 percent and 1200 ppm, respectively.
References for Section 7.6
1. Darvin, Charles and Frederick Porter. Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters. (Draft). Emission Standards and Engineering Division, UJS.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1973.
2. Handbook of Emissions, Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary Particulate Pollution Sources. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. Prepared for UJ3. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract Number CPA 22-69-104. November 1970.
3. Worchester, A, and D. H. Beflstein. Lead-Progress and Prognosis: The State of the Art: Lead Recovery
(Presented at 10th Annual Meeting of Metallurgical Society of AIME. New York. Paper No. A71-S7. March
1971.)
4, Trip report memorandum. T. J. Jacobs to Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Uj$. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Subject: Plant
visit to St. Joe Minerals Corporation Lead Smelter at Herculaneum, Missouri. October 21,1971.
5. Trip report memorandum. T. J. Jacobs to Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U£. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Subject: Plant
visit to Amax Lead Company of Missouri Lead Smelter at Boss, Missouri. October 28,1971.
6. Personal communication from R. B. Paul, Plant Manager, American Smelting and Refining Company Lead
Smelter at Glover, Missouri, to Regional Administrator, EPA Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri. April 3,1973.
7. Source Testing Report: Emissions from a Primary .Lead Smelter Blast Furnace. Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, Missouri. Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report No. 72-MM-14. May 1972.
5/74
Metallurgical Industry
7.6-5
-------
-------
7.7 ZINC SMELTING
7.7.1 Process Descriptionl -2
As stated previously, most domestic zinc comes from zinc and lead ores, Another important source of raw
material for zinc metal has been zinc oxide from fuming furnaces. For efficient recovery of zinc, sulfur must be
removed from concentrates to a level of less than 2 percent. This is done by fluidized beds or multiple-hearth
roasting occasionally followed by sintering. Metallic zinc can be produced from the roasted ore by the horizontal
or vertical retort process or by the electrolytic process if a high-purity zinc is needed.
7.7.2 Emissions and Controls1-2
Dust, fumes, and sulfur dioxide are emitted from zinc concentrate roasting or sintering operations. Particulates
may be removed by electrostatic precipitators or baghouses. Sulfur dioxide may be converted directly into
sulfuric acid or vented. Emission factors for zinc smelting are presented in Table 7.7-1.
Table 7.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY
SMELTING WITHOUT CONTROLS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
ZINC
Type of operation
Roasting (multiple-hearth)b
Sintering0
Horizontal retorts8
Vertical retorts6
Electrolytic process
Particulates
Ib/ton
120
90
8
100
3
kg/MT
60
46
4
50
1.5
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
1100
d
kg/MT
550
d
'Approximately 2 unit weights of concentrated ore are required to
produce 1 unit weight of zinc metal. Emission factor* expressed as units
per unit weight of concentrated ore produced.
bRaferences 3 end 4.
0 References 2 and 3.
dlncluded in S02 losses from roasting.
'Reference 3.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.7-1
-------
References for Section 7.7
1. Duprey. R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW. PHS. National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP42. 1968. p. 26-28.
2. Stern, A. (ed,). Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. In: Air Pollution, Vol. HI, 2nd Ed New York
Academic Press, 1968. p. 182-186. '
3. Sallee, G. Private communication on Paniculate Pollutant Study. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C.. under Contract Number
22-69-104. June 1970.
4. Systems Study for Control of Emissions in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry. 3 Volumes, San
Francisco, Arthur G.;McKee and Company, June 1969.
7-7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72 (
-------
7.8 SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
7.8.1 Process Description1 >2
Secondary aluminum operations involve making lightweight metal alloys for industrial castings and ingots.
Copper, magnesium, and silicon are the most common alloying constituents. Aluminum alloys for castings are
melted in small crucible furnaces charged by hand with pigs and foundry returns. Larger melting operations use
open-hearth reverberatory furnaces charged with the same type, of materials but by mechanical means. Small
operations sometimes use sweating furnaces to treat dirty scrap in preparation for smelting.
To produce a high-quality aluminum product, fluxing is practiced to some extent in all secondary aluminum
melting. Aluminum fluxes are expected to remove dissolved gases and oxide particles from the molten bath.
Sodium and various mixtures of potassium or sodium chloride with cryolite and chlorides of aluminum zinc are
used as fluxes. Chlorine gas is usually lanced into the molten bath to reduce the magnesium content by reacting
to form magnesium and aluminum chlorides.3-4
7.8.2 Emissions2
Emissions from secondary aluminum operations include fine particulate matter and gaseous chlorine. A large
part of the material charged to a reverberatory furnace is low-grade scrap and chips. Paint, dirt, oil, grease, and
other contaminants from this scrap cause large quantities of smoke and fumes to be discharged. Even if the scrap
is clean, large surface-to-volume ratios require the use of more fluxes, which can cause serious air pollution
problems. Table 7.8-1 presents particulate emission factors for secondary aluminum operations.
Table 7.8-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY
ALUMINUM OPERATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of operation
Sweating furnace
Smelting
Crucible furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Chlorination station13
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
14.5
1.9
4.3
1000
kg/MT
7.25
0.95
2.15
500
Baghouse
Ib/ton
3.3
1.3
50
kg/MT
1.65
0.65
25
Electrostatic
precipitator
Ib/ton
1.3
kg/MT
0.65
aReferenee 5. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of metal processed
bPounds per ton (kg/MT) of chlorine used.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.8-1
-------
References for Section 7.8
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control, Durham, N. C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42.1968. p. 29.
2. Hammond, W.F. and H. Simon. Secondary Aluminum-Melting Processes. In: Air Pollution Engineering
Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati,
Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP40, 1967. p. 284-290.
3. Technical Progress Report: Control of Stationary Sources. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District.;: April 1960.
4. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Us Angeles County. Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D. C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
5. Hammond, W. F. and S. M. Weiss. Unpublished report on air contaminant emissions from metallurgical
operations in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. (Presented at Air
Pollution Control Institute, July 1964.)
7.8-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.9 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOTS (COPPER ALLOYS)
7.9.1 Process Description1
Obsolete domestic and industrial copper-bearing scrap is the basic raw material of the brass and bronze ingot
industry. The scrap frequently contains any number of metallic and nonmetallic impurities, which can be
removed by such methods as hand sorting, magnetizing, heat methods such as sweating or burning, and gravity
separation in a water medium.
Brass and bronze ingots ate produced from a number of different furnaces through a combination of melting,
smelting, refining, and alloying of the processed scrap material. Reverberatory, rotary; and crucible furnaces are
the ones most widely used, and the choice depends on the size of the melt and the alloy desired. Both the
reverberatory and the rotary furnaces are normally heated by direct firing, in which the flame and gases come
into direct contact with the melt. Processing is essentially the same in any furnace except for the dtfferenc0s in
the types of alloy being handled. Crucible furnaces are usually much smaller and are used principally for
special-purpose alloys.
7.9.2 Emissions and Controls1
The principal source of emissions in the brass and bronze ingot industry is the refining furnace. The exit gas
from the furnace may contain the normal combustion products such as fly ash, soot, and smoke. Appreciable
amounts of zinc oxide are also present in this exit gas. Other sources of particulate emissions include the
preparation of raw materials and the pouring of ingots,
The only air pollution control equipment that is generally accepted in the brass and bronze ingot industry is
the baghouse filter, which can reduce emissions by as much as 99.9 percent. Table 7.9-1 summarizes uncontrolled
emissions from various brass and bronze melting furnaces.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.9-1
-------
Table 7.9-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR BRASS AND
BRONZE MELTING FURNACES
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of furnace
Blast'
Crucible
Cupola
EJectric induction
Reverberatory
Rotary
Uncontrolled
emissions1*
Ib/ton
18
12
73
2
70
60
kg/MT
9
5
36.5
1
35
30
as
Reference 1. Emission factors expressed
units per unit weight of metal charged.
"The use of a baghouse can reduce emissions by
95 to 99.6 percent.
cRepresents emissions following precleaner.
Reference for Section 7.9
1.
Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and Bronze Smelting and Refining Industry. U, S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleigh, N. C. Publication Number AP-58. November 1969.
7.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRY
7.10.1 Process Description1
Three types of furnaces are used to produce gray iron castings: cupolas, reverberatory furnaces, and electric
induction furnaces. The cupola is the major source of molten iron for the production of castings. In operation, a
bed of coke is placed over the sand bottom in the cupola. After the bed of coke has begun to bum properly,
alternate layers of coke, flux, and metal are charged into the cupola. Combustion air is forced into the cupola,
causing the coke to burn and melt the iron. The molten iron flows out through a taphole.
Electric furnaces are commonly used where special alloys are to be made. Pig iron and scrap iron are charged
to the furnace and melted, and alloying elements and fluxes are added at specific intervals. Induction furnaces are
used where high-quality, clean metal is available for charging.
7.10.2 Emissions1
Emissions from cupola furnaces include gases, dust, fumes, and smoke and oil vapors. Dust arises fromi dirt on
the metal charge and from fines in the coke and limestone charge. Smoke and oil vapor arise primarily f rom the
partial combustion and distillation of oil from greasy scrap charged to the furnace. Also, the effluent from the
cupola furnace has a high carbon monoxide content that can be controlled by an afterburner. Emisaotas from
reverberatory and electric induction furnaces consist primarily of metallurgical fumes and are relatively low.
Table 7.10-1 presents emission factors for the manufacture of iron castings.
Table 7.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON
FOUNDRIES8'"-"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of furnace
Cupola
Uncontrolled
Wet cap
Impingement scrubber
High-energy scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Baghouse
Reverberatory
Electric induction
Participates
Ib/ton
17
8
5
0.8
0.6
0.2
2
1.5
kg/MT
8.5
4
2.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
1
0.75
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
145c,d
—
—
—
—
—
—
•—
kg/MT
72.5c-d
—
—
"•
—
—
—
"^
^References 2 through 5. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight
of metal charged.
bApproximatelv 85 percent of the total charge is metal. For every unit weight
of coke in the charge, 7 unit weights of gray iron are produced.
cReference 6.
dA well-designed afterburner can reduce emissions to 9 pounds per ton (4.5
kg/MT) of metal charged.2
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.10-1
-------
References for Section 7.10
1. Hammond, W. F, and J. T. Nance. Iron Castings. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed )
U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati^ Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 258-268.
2. Hammond, W. F. and S. M, Weiss. Unpublished report on air contaminant from emissions metallurgical
operations in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. (Presented at Air
Pollution Control Institute, July 1964),
3. Crabaugh, H. C. et al. Dust and Fumes from Gray Iron Foundries: How They Are Controlled in Los Angeles
County. Air Repair. 4(3): November 1954.
4. Hammond, W. F., and J. T. Nance. Iron Castings. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A,
(ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40.1967. p. 260.
S. Kane, J. M, Equipment for Cupola Control. American Foundryman's Society Transactions. 64:525-531.
1956.
6. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron Foundry Industry. A. T. Kearney and Company. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under,Contract Number CPA 22-69-106.
February 1971.
7-10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING Revised by William M. Vatavuk
7.11.1 Process Description 1-3
In the secondary smelting, refilling, and alloying of lead, the three types of furnace most commonly used are
reverberatory, blast or cupola, and pot. The grade of metal to be produced-softf semisoft. or hard-dictates
the type of funace to be used.
Used for the production of semisoft lead, the reverberatory furnace reclaims this metal from a charge of lead
scrap, battery plates, oxides, drosses, and lead residues. The furnace consists of an outer shell built in the shape
of a rectangular box lined with refractory brick. To provide heat for melting, the charge gas or oil-fired burners
are usually placed at one end of the furnace, and the material to be melted is charged through an openina in the
shell.
The charge is placed in the furnace in such a manner as to keep a small mound of unmelted material on top
of the bath. Continuously, as this mound becomes molten at the operating temperature (approximately 1250*C),
more material is charged. Semisoft lead is tapped off periodically as the level of the metal rises in the furnace.
The amount of metal recovered is about SO to 60 kilograms per square meter of hearth area per hour.
A similar kind of fumace-the revolving (rotary) reverberatory-is used at several European Installations for
the recovery of lead from battery scrap and lead sulfate sludge. Its charge makeup and operating characteri»tia
are identical to the reverberatories used in the United States, except that the furnace slowly revolves as the charge
is heated.
The blast (cupola) furnace, used to produce "hard" lead, is normally charged with the following: rerun flag
from previous runs (4.5 percent); cast-iron scrap (4.S percent); limestone (3 percent); coke (5.5 percent); and
drosses from pot furnace refining, oxides, and reverberatory slag (82.5 percent). Similar to an iron cupola, the
furnace consists of a steel sheet lined with refractory material. Air, under high pressure, is introduced at the
bottom through tuyeres to permit combustion of the coke, which provides the heat and a reducing atmosphere.
As the charge material melts, limestone and iron form an oxidation-retardant flux that floats to the top, and
the molten lead flows from the furnace into a holding pot at a nearly continuous rate. The rest (30 percent) of
the tapped molten material is slag, 5 percent of which is retained for later rerun. Prom the holding pot, the lead
is usually cast into large ingots called "buttons" or "sows."
Pot-type furnaces are used for remelting, alloying, and refining processes. These furnaces are usually gas fired
and range in size from 1 to 45 metric tons capacity. Their operation consists simply of charging ingots of lead or
alloy material and firing the charge until the desired product quality is obtained.
Refining processes most commonly employed are those for the removal of copper and antimony to produce
soft lead, and those for the removal of arsenic, copper, and nickel to produce hard lead.
Figure 7.11-1 illustrates these three secondary lead smelting processes,
7.11.2 Emissions and Controls I-2
The emissions and controls from secondary lead smelting processes may be conveniently considered according
to the type of furnace employed.
With the reverberatory furnaces, the temperature maintained is high enough to oxidize the sulfldes present in
the charge to sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, which, in turn, are emitted in the exit gas. Also emitted are such
particulates (at concentrations of 16 to 50 grams per cubic meter) as oxides, sulfldes, and sulfates of lead, tin,
5/74 Metallurgical Industry 7.11-1
-------
T? TO BLAST FURNACE
11 CONTROL SYSTEM
LEAD HOLDING,
MELTING,
AND REFINING POTS
BLASTAIR
SLAG I | LEAD
BLASTFURNACE
CHARG
POT FURNACE
_SLAG
LEAD.
TO VENTILATION
CONTROL SYSTEM
TO REVERBERATORY
FURNACE
CONTROL SYSTEM
REVERBERATORY FURNACE
Figure 7.11-1. Secondary lead smelter processes.4
arsenic, copper, and antimony. The particles are nearly spherical and tend to agglomerate. Emission factors for
reverberatory furnaces are presented in Table 7.11-1.
The most practical control system for a reverberatory furnace consists of a gas settling/cooling chamber and a
fabric filter. This system effects a particulate removal of well in excess of 99 percent. Because of the potential
presence of sparks and flammable material, a great deal of care is taken to control the temperature of the gas
stream. In turn, the type of filter cloth selected depends upon stream temperature and such parameters as gas
Table 7.1 M. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
WITHOUT CONTROLS"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Furnace type
Reverberatory t>
Blast (cupola)d
Pote
Rotary
reverberatoryf
Particulates
kg/MT
73.5 (28.0 to 156.5)<=
96.5 (10.5 to 190.5)
0.4
35.0
Ib/ ton
147 (56 to 31 3)
193 (21.0 to 381.0)
0.8
70.0
Sulfur dioxide
kg/MT
40.0 (35.5 to 44.0)
26.5 (9.0 to 55.0)
Neg
NA9
Ib/ton
80 (71 to 88)
53.0 (18 to 110)
Neg
NA9
aAII emission factors expressed in terms of kg/MT and Ib/ton of metal charged to furnace.
bReferences 2, 5 through 7.
°Numbers in parentheses represent ranges of values obtained.
dReferences 2, 7 through 9.
Reference 7.
fReference 3.
9NA-no data available to make estimates.
7.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/74
-------
stream corrosivity and the permeability and abrasion (or stress)-resisting characteristics of the cloth. In any case,
the filtering velocity seldom exceeds 0.6 m/min. Table 7.11-2 offers a listing of control devices and their
efficiencies.
Table 7.11-2. EFFICIENCIES OF PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
Control device
Fabric filter*
Dry cyclone plus fabric filter3
Wet cyclone plus fabric filter^
Settling chamber plus dry cyclone plus fabric filter0
Venturi scrubber plus demisted
Furnace type
Blast
Reverberatory
Blast
Reverberatory
Reverberatory
Blast
Particulate control
efficiency
98.4
99.2
99.0
99.7
99.8
99.3
3Reference2. ..
^Reference 5.
"Reference 6.
^Reference 8.
Combustion air from the tuyeres passing through the blast furnace charge conveys metal oxides, bits of coke,
and other particulates present in the charge. The particulate is roughly 7 percent by weight of the total charge
(up to 44 g/m3). In addition to particulates, the stack gases also contain carbon monoxide. However, the carbon
monoxide and any volatile hydrocarbons present are oxidized to carbon dioxide and water in the upper portion
of the furnace, which effectively acts as an afterburner.
Fabric filters, preceded by radiant cooling columns, evaporative water coolers, or air dilution jets, are also used
to control blast furnace particulates. Overall efficiencies exceeding 95 percent are common (see Table 7.11-2).
Representative size distributions of particles in blast and reverberatory furnace streams are presented in Table
7.11-3.
Compared with the other furnace types, pot furnace emissions are low (see Table 7.11-1). However, to main-
tain a hygienic working environment, pot furnace off gases, usually along with emission streams from other
furnaces, are directed to fabric filter systems.
C
Table 7.11-3. REPRESENTATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FROM A COMBINED BLAST AND REVERBERATORY
FURNACE GAS STREAM"
Size range,
Oto1
1 to 2
2 to 3
3to4
4 to 16
Fabric filter catch, wt %
13.3
45.2
19.1
14.0
8.4
aReference 1.
bThese particles are distributed log-normally, according to the following frequency distribution:
f(D) = 1.56exp
[-(log P-0.262)21
[ 0.131 J
5/74
Metallurgical Industry
7.11-3
-------
References for Section 7.11
1. Nance, J. T. and K. 0. Luedtke. Lead Refining. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. 2nd Ed. Danielson,
J. A. (ed.). Office of Air and Water Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Trianele Park'
N.C. Publication No. AP42. May 1973. p. 299-304.
2. Williamson, John E., Jpel|F. Nenzell, and Wayne E. Zwiacher. A Study of Five Source Tests on Emissions from
Secondary Lead Smelters. County of Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District. Environmental Protection
Agency Order No. 2PO-68-02-3326. February 11,1972.
3. Restricting Dust and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Lead Smelters (translated from German). Kommisston
Reinhaltung der Luft. Reproduced by U.S. DHEW, PHS. Washington, D.C. VDI Number 2285. September
1961.
4. Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards: Secondary Lead Smelters and
Refineries. Volume I, Main Text. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. June 1973.
5. Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Batelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs Research
Triangle Park, N.C, Report Number 72-CL8. July 1972.
6. Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs'
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number 72-CI-7. August 1972.
7. Particulate Pollutant Systems Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1971.
8. Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number 71-CI-33. August 1972.
9, Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number 71-CI-34. July 1972.
7.11-4 EMISSION FACTORS 5/74
-------
7.12 SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING
7.12.1 Process Description1
Magnesium smelting is carried out in crucible or pot-type furnaces that are charged with magnesium scrap
and fired by gas, oil, or electric heating. A flux is used to cover the surface of the molten metal because
magnesium will burn in air at the pouring temperature (approximately 1500CIF or 815°C). The molten
magnesium, usually cast by pouring into molds, is annealed in ovens utilizing an atmosphere devoid of oxygen.
7.12.2 Emissions1
Emissions from magnesium smelting include participate magnesium (MgO) from the melting, nitrogen oxides
from the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by the furnace temperatures, and sulfur dioxide losses from annealing
oven atmospheres. Factors affecting emissions include the capacity of the furnace; the type of flux used on the
molten material; the amount of lancing used; the amount of contamination of the scrap, including oil and other
hydrocarbons; and the type and extent of control equipment used on the process. The emission factors for a pot
furnace are shown in Table 7.12-1.
Table 7.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS
FOR MAGNESIUM SMELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Pot furnace
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Particulates3
Ib/ton
4
0.4
kg/MT
2
0.2
References 2 and 3. Emission factors
expressed as units per unit weight of
metal processed.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.12-1
-------
References for Section 7.12
1, Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va, Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, Q. L. et al, Contrpl of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County, Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C, Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
3. Hammond, W. F. Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. November 1966.
7.12-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES
7.13.1 Process Description1
Steel foundries produce steel castings by melting steel metal and pouring it into molds. The melting of steel for
castings is accomplished in one of five types of furnaces: direct electric-arc, electric induction, open-hearth,
crucible, and pneumatic converter. The crucible and pneumatic converter are not in widespread use, so this
section deals only with the remaining three types of furnaces. Raw materials supplied to the various melting
furnaces include steel scrap of all types, pig iron, ferroalloys, and limestone. The basic melting process operations
are furnace charging, melting, tapping the furnace into a ladle, and pouring the steel into molds. An integral part
of the steel foundry operation is the preparation of casting molds, and the shakeout and cleaning of these
castings. Some common materials used in molds and gores for hollow casting include sand, oil, clay, and resin.
Shakeout is the operation by which the cool casting is separated from the mold. The castings are commonly
cleaned by shot-blasting, and surface defects such as fins are removed by burning and grinding.
7.13.2 Emissions1
Particulate emissions from steel foundry operations include iron oxide fumes, sand fines, graphite, and metal
dust. Gaseous emissions from foundry operations include oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and hydrocarbons.
Factors affecting emissions from the melting process include the quality and cleanliness of the scrap,and the
amount of oxygen lancing. The concentrations of oxides of nitrogen are dependent upon operating conditions in
the melting unit, such as temperature and the rate of cooling of the exhaust gases. The concentration of carbon
monoxide in the exhaust gases is dependent on the amount of draft on the melting furnace. Emissions from the
shakeout and cleaning operations, mostly particulate matter, vary according to type and efficiency of dust
collection. Gaseous emissions from the mold and baking operations are dependent upon the fuel used by the
ovens and the temperature reached in these ovens. Table 7.13-1 summarizes the emission factors for steel
foundries.
References for Section 7.13
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Schueneman, J. J. et al. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963.
3. Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual, 2nd Ed. Des Plaines, Illinois, Foundry Air Pollution Control
Committee. 1967. p. 8.
4. Coulter, R. S. Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, Personal communication (April 24,1956). Cited in
Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air
Pollution Control.
5. Coulter, R. S. Smoke, Dust, Fumes Closely Controlled in Electric Furnaces. Iron Age. 173:107-110. January
14,1954.
6. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, Unpublished data as cited in Air Pollution Aspects of the
Iron and Steel Industry, p. 109.
7. Kane, J. M, and R. V. Sloan. Fume-Control Electric Melting Furnaces. American Foundryman. 75:33.35,
November 1950.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.13-1
-------
Table 7.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR STEEL FOUNDRIES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Melting
Electric arcb-c
6pen-hearthd'e
Open-hearth oxygen lancedf-a
Electric induction11
Partic
Ib/ton
13 (4 to 40)
11 (2 to 20)
10 (8 to 11)
0.1
Lilates3
kg/MT
6. 5. (2 to .20).
5.5(1 to 10)
5 (4 to 5.5)
0.05
Nitrogen
oxides
Ib/ton
0.2 .
0.01
kg/MT
0.1
0.005
•EmMon factors expressed as units per unit weight of metal processed. If the scrap metal is very dirty
Iancina is empioved- t
^Pi,tat0r' « to » "•"»"* «•*«>' oKW««V>- baghogse (fabric filter). 98 tp 99
rol eff.clency; venturi scrubber, 94 to 98 percent control efficiency
^-References 2 through 11,
Electrostatic precipitator, 95 to 98.5 percent control efficiency; baghouse, 99.9 percent control
effrc,ency; venturi scrubber. 96 to 99 percent control efficiency
"References 2 and 12 through 14.
Electrostatic precipitator, 95 to 98 percent control efficiency; baghouse, 99 percent control
efficiency; venturi scrubber, 95 to 98 percent control efficiency
^References? and IS,
hUsually not controlled.
8. Pier, H. M. and H. S. Baumgardner. Research-Cottrell, Inc., Personal Communication. Cited in: Air Pollution
r«£t ?™ r°n and Steel Industry- National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. June
1963. ; 109. ;
9. Faist C. A. Remarks-Electric Furnace Steel. Proceedings of the American Institute of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineers. 11: 160-1 61 ,1953. E
10. Faist, C. A. Burnside Steel Foundry Company, Personal communication. Cited in; Air Pollution Aspects of
the Iron and Steel Jndustry. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963. p. 109.
11. Douglas, I. H. Direct Fume Extraction and Collection Applied to a Fifteen-Ton Arc Furnace. Special Report
on Fume Arrestment. Iron and Steel Institute. 1964. p. 144, 149,
12. Inventory of Air Contaminant Emissions. New York State Air Pollution Control Board. Table XI, p. 14-19.
13. Elliot, A. C. and A. J. Freniere. Metallurgical Dust Collection in Open-Hearth and Sinter Plant Canadian
Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin. 55(606): 724-732, October 1962.
' C L> A'r Pollution
of ^e Steel Industry. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 70(3):208.218, March
15. Coy, D. W. Unpublished data. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
7.13-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
C
7.14 SECONDARY ZINC PROCESSING
7.14.1 Process Description1
Zinc processing includes zinc reclaiming, zinc oxide manufacturing, and zinc galvanizing. Zinc is wparated
from scrap containing lead, copper, aluminum, and iron by careful contro of temperat lire in the fjmac ,
allowing each metal to be removed at its melting range. The furnaces typicaUy employed are the pot, muffle,
reverberatory, or electric induction. Further refining of the zinc can be done in retort distilhng or vaponzattoo
furnaces where the vaporized zinc is condensed to the pure metallic form. Zinc oxide , i, produced by dstUhng
metallic zinc into a dr£ air stream and capturing the subsequently formed oxide in a .baghou*. ^BMWJ
carried out in a vat or in bath-type dip tanks utilizing a flux cover. Iron and steel pieces to be coated are cleaned
and dipped into the vat through the covering flux.
7.14.2 Emissions1
A potential for paniculate emissions, mainly zinc oxide, occurs if the temperature of the furnace exceeds
llOtfF (S958C). Zinc oxide (ZnO) may escape from condensers or distilling furnac es, and because of ite
extremely small particle size (0.03 to 0.5 micron), it may pass through even the most •^the°Ue^!^
Some loss of zinc oxides occurs during the galvanizing processes, but these losses are smaU because of foe flux
cover on the bath and the relatively low temperature maintained in the bath. Some «^r
-------
Table 7.14-1, PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Retort reduction
Horizontal muffle
Pot furnace
Kettle sweat furnace processing11
Clean metallic scrap
General metallic scrap
Residual scrap
Reverberatory sweat furnace processing6
Clean metallic scrap
General metallic scrap
Residual scrap
Galvanizing kettles
Calcining kiln
Emissic
Ib/ton
47
45
0.1
Neg
11
25
Neg
13
32
5
89
ns
kg/MT
23.5
22.5
0.05
Neg
5.5
12.5
Neg
6.5
16
2.5
44.5
"References 2 through 4. Emission fictors expressed as units per unit weight of
metal produced.
'"Reference 5.
References for Section 7.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April
3. Restricting Dust and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Lead Smelters (translated from German). Kommission
Remhaltung der Luft. Reproduced by U.S. DHEW, PHS. Washington, D.C. VDI Number 2285. September
4. Hammond, W. P. Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. November 1966.
5. Herring, W. Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control Problem Definition Study (Part I). Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number APTD-07C5
May 1971. '
7.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8. MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
This section involves the processing and production of various minerals. Mineral processing is characterized by
particulate emissions in the form of dust. Frequently, as in the case of crushing and screening, this dust is identical
to the material being handled. Emissions also occur through handling and storing the finished product because
this material is often dry and fine. Particulate emissions from some of the processes such as quarrying, yard
storage, and dust from transport are difficult to control. Most of the emissions from the manufacturing processes
discussed in this section, however, can be reduced by conventional particulate control equipment such as
cyclones, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Because of the wide variety in processing equipment acid final product,
emissions cover a Wide range; however, average emission factors have been presented for general use.
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
..''."... and James H. Sou therland
8.1.1 Process Description
Selecting and handling the raw material is the first step in the production of asphaltic concrete, a paving
substance composed of a combination of aggregates uniformly mixed and coated with asphalt cement. Different
applications of asphaltic concrete require different aggregate size distributions, so that the raw aggregates are
crushed and screened at the quarries. The coarse aggregate usually consists of crushed stone and gravel, but waste
materials, such as slag from steel mills or crushed glass, can be used as raw material.
Plants produce finished asphaltic concrete through either batch (Figure 8.1-1) or continuous (Figure 8.1-2)
aggregate mixing operations. The raw aggregate is normally stock-piled near the plant at a location where the
moisture content will stabilize between 3 and 5 percent by weight.
As processing for either type of operation begins, the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and placed in
the appropriate hoppers of the cold-feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor belt and
is transported into a gas- or oil-fired rotary dryer. Because a substantial portion of the heat is transferred by
radiation, dryers are equipped with flights that are designed to tumble the aggregate and promote drying.
As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of vibrating
screens where it is classified by size into as many as four different grades. At this point it enters the mixing
operation.
In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into one of four large bins. The operator controls the aggregate
size distribution by opening individual bins and allowing the classified aggregate to drop into a weigh hopper until
the desired weight is obtained. After all the material is weighed out, the sized aggregates are dropped into a mixer
and mixed dry for about 30 seconds. The asphalt, which is a solid at ambient temperatures, is pumped from
heated storage tanks, weighed, and then injected into the mixer. The hot, mixed batch is then dropped into a
truck and hauled to the job site.
4/73 8.1-1
C
-------
00
tn
en
SO
en
PRIMARY OUST
COLLECTOR
EXHAUST TO
ATMOSPHERE,
SECONDARY
COLLECTION
•DRAFT FAN
COARSE
AGGREGATE
STORAGE
PILE
LOADER STORAGE
PILE
FEEDERS—
Figure 8.1-1. Batch hot-mix asphalt plant. "P" denotes particulate emission points.1
-------
o
w
1
6)
I
Q,
En
SECONDARY
COLLECTION
EXHMJSTTO
ATMOSPHERE
PRIMARY OUST
COLLECTOR
DRAFT FAN (LOCATION:
DEPENDENT UPON !
TYPE OF SECONDARY)
COARSE
AGGREGATE
FIRE
AGGREGATE
STORAGE
TANK
(OPTIONAL)
FEEDERS
ELEVATORS^ TRUCK
Figure 8.1-2. Continous hot-mix asphalt plant. "P" denotes particulate emission points.1
00
-------
In a continuous plant/the classified aggregate drops into a set of small bins, which collect and meter the
classified aggregate to the mixer. From the hot bins, the aggregate is rnetered through a set of feeder conveyors to
another bucket elevator and into the mixer. Asphalt is metered into the inlet end of the mixer, and retention time
is controlled by an adjustable dam at the end of the mixer. The mix flows out of the mixer into a hopper from
which the trucks are loaded.
8.1.2 Emissions and Controls3'4
Dust sources are the rotary dryer; the hot aggregate elevators; the vibrating screens; and the hot-aggregate
storage bins, weigh hoppers, mixers, and transfer points. The largest dust emission source is the rotary dryer. In
some plants, the dust from the dryer is handled separately from emissions from the other sources. More
commonly, however, the dryer, its vent lines, and other fugitive sources are treated in combination by a single
collector and fan system. :
The choice of applicable control equipment ranges from dry, mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric
collectors; attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have met with little success. Practically all plants use
primary dust collection equipment, such as large diameter cyclone, skimmer, or settling chambers. These
chambers are often used as classifiers with the collected materials being returned to the hot aggregate elevator to
combine with the dryer aggregate load. The air discharge from the primary collector is seldom vented to the
atmosphere because high emission levels would result. The primary collector effluent is therefore ducted to a
secondary or even to a tertiary collection device. .
Emission factors for asphaltic concrete plants are presented in Table 8.1-1. Particle size information has not
been included because the particle size distribution varies with the aggregate being used, the mix being made, and
the type of plant operation.
Table 8.1-T. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR ASPHAITIC CONCRETE PLANTS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of control
Uncontrolled11
Precleaner
High-efficiency cyclone
Spray tower
Multiple centrifugal scrubber
Baffle spray tower
Orifice-type scrubber
Baghousec
Emissions
Ib/ton
45.0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.04
0.1
kg/MT
22.5
7.5
0.85
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.05
aReferences 1,2, and 5 through 10. .
^Almost all plants have at least a precleaner following the rotary
dryer. .
"Emissions from a properly designed, installed, operated, and main-
tained collector can be as low as 0.005 to 0.020 Ib/ton (0.0025 to
0.010 kg/MT).
8.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 8.1
1. Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study. Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Consulting
Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., under Contract Number 68-02-0076. November 1971.
2. Guide for Air Pollution Control of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. National Asphalt Pavement Association,
Riverdale, Md. Information Series 17,
3. Danielson, J. A. Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in Los Angeles County. J. Air Pol. Control
- Assoc.; 0(2): 29-33. 1960.
4 Friedrich, H. E. Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants.
American Precision Industries, Inc., Buffalo, N.Y. (Presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the An
Pollution Control Association.) APCA Paper Number 69-160.
S. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles. U.S. DHEW, Public
Health Service. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-40.1967.
6. Allen, G. L., F. H. Vicks, and L. C. McCabe. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes in Los
Angeles County, California, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington. Information Circular
7627. April 1952.
7. Kenline, P. A. Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chemical process industries. Robert A.
Taft Engineering Center. Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1959.
8 Sallee, G. Private communication on particulate pollutant study between Midwest Research Institute and
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. Prepared under Contract Number 22-69-104.
June 1970.
9 Danielson, J. A. 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, November 1966.)
10 Fogel, M. E. et al. Comprehensive Economic Study of Air Pollution Control Costs for Selected Industries and
Selected Regions. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Final Report Number R-OIM55. February 1970.
4/73
Mineral Products Industry 8.1-5
-------
c
-------
8.2 ASPHALT ROOFING
8.2.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of asphalt roofing felts and shingles involves saturating fiber media with asphalt by means of
dipping and/or spraying. Although it is not always done at the same site, preparation of the asphalt saturant is an
integral part of the operation. This preparation, called "blowing," consists of oxidizing the asphalt by bubbling
air through the liquid asphalt for 8 to 16 hours. The saturant is then transported to the saturation tank or spray
area. The saturation of the felts is accomplished by dipping, high-pressure sprays, or both. The final felts are made
in various weights: 15, 30, and 55 pounds per 100 square feet (0.72, 1.5, and 2.7 kg/mz). Regardless of the
weight .of the final product, the makeup is approximately 40 percent dry felt and 60 percent asphalt saturant.
8.2.2 Emissions and Controls1
The major sources of particulate emissions from asphalt roofing plants are the asphalt blowing operations and
the felt saturation. Another minor source of particulates is the covering of the roofing material with roofing
granules. Gaseous emissions from the saturation process have not been measured but are thought to be slight
because of the initial driving off of contaminants during the blowing process.
A common method of control at asphalt saturating plants is the complete enclosure of the spray area and
saturator with good ventilation through one or more collection devices, which include combinations of wet
scrubbers and two-stage low-voltage electrical precipitators, or cyclones and fabric filters. Emission factors for
asphalt roofing are presented in Table 8.2-1.
Table 85-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Operation
Asphalt blowing0
Felt saturation*1
Dipping only
Spraying only
Dipping and spraying
Particulates11
Ib/ton
2.5
1
3
2
kg/MT
1.25
0.5
1.5
1
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
0.9
kg/MT
0.45
Hydrocarbons (CHJ
IbTton
1.5
kg/MT
0.75
aApproximately 0.65 unit of asphalt input is required to produce 1 unit of saturated felt. Emission factors expressed as
units per unit weight of saturated felt produced,
bLow-voltage precipitators can reduce emissions by about 60 percent, when they are used in combination with a scrubber,
overall efficiency is about 85 percent.
cReference 2.
References 3 and 4.
"2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.2-1
-------
References for Section 8.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia, Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-U 9
April 1970.
2. Von Lehmden, D. JT, R, P. Hangebrauck, and J. E. Meeker. Polynuclear Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Selected Industrial Processes.J.Ai*fol. Control Assoc. A5:306-312, July 1965.
3. Weiss, S. M. Asphalt Roofing Felt-Saturators. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U,
S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40
1967. p. 378-383.
4. Goldfield, J. and R. G. McAnlis. Low-Voltage Electrostatic Precipitators to Collect Oil Mists from
Roofing-Felt Asphalt Saturators and Stills. J. Industrial Hygiene Assoc, July-August 1963.
8.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
C
8.3 BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
8.3.1 Process Description
The manufacture of brick and related products such as clay pipe, pottery, and some types of refractory brick
involves the mining, grinding, screening, and blending of the raw materials, and the forming, cutting or shaping,
drying or curing, arid firing of the final product.
Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits; most fine clays are found underground. After mining, the
material is crushed to remove stones and stirred before it passes onto screens that are used to segregate the
particles by size.
At the start of the forming process, clay is mixed with water, usually in a pug mill. The three principal
processes for forming brick are: stiff-mud, Soft-mud, and dry-process. In the stiff-mud process, sufficient water is
added to give the clay plasticity; bricks are then formed by forcing the clay through a die and using cutter wire to
separate the bricks. All structural tile and most brick are formed by this process. The soft-mud process is usually
used when the clay contains too much water for the stiff-mud process. The clay is mixed with water until the
moisture content reaches 20 to 30 percent, and the bricks are formed in molds. In the dry-press process, clay is
mixed with a small amount of water and formed in steel molds by applying a pressure of 500 to 1500 psi. The
brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 8.3-1.
Before firing, the wet clay units that have been formed are almost completely dried in driers that are usually
heated by waste heat from the kilns. Many types of kilns are used for firing brick; however, the most common are
the tunnel kiln and the periodic kiln. The downdraft periodic kiln is a permanent brick structure that has a
number of fireholes where fuel is fired into the furnace. The hot gases from the fuel are drawn up over the bricks,
down through them by underground flues, and out of the oven to the chimney. Although fuel efficiency is not as
high as that of a tunnel kiln because of lower heat recovery, the uniform temperature distribution through the
kiln leads to a good quality product. In most tunnel kilns, cars carrying about 1200 bricks each travel on rails
through the kiln at the rate of one 6-foot car per hour. The fire zone is located near the middle of the kiln and
remains stationary.
In all kilns, firing takes place in six steps: evaporation of free water, dehydration, oxidation, vitrification,
flashing, and cooling. Normally, gas or residual oil is used for heating, but coal may be used. Total heating time
varies with the type of product; for example, 9-inch refractory bricks usually require 50 to 100 hours of firing.
Maximum temperatures of about 2000°F (1090°C) are used in firing common brick.
8.3.2 Emissions and Controls1-3
Paniculate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of bricks. The main source of dust is the
materials handling procedure, which includes drying, grinding, screening, and storing the raw material.
Combustion products are emitted from the fuel consumed in the curing, drying, and firing portion of the process.
Fluorides, largely in gaseous form, are also emitted from brick manufacturing operations. Sulfur dioxide may be
emitted from the bricks when temperatures reach 2500°F (1370°C) or greater; however, no data on such
emissions are available.4
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.3-1
-------
MINING
—
(P)
CRUSHING
AND
STORAGE
PULVERIZING
(P)
SCREENING
+-
FORMING
AND
CUTTING
/
7
GLAZING
*
-
(P)
DRYING
-*-
HOT
GASES
«
FUEL
*•
f
(P)
KILN
(P)
STORAGE
AND
SHIPPING
Figure 8.3-1. Basic flow diagram of brick manufacturing process
source of particulate emissions,
'P." denotes a major
A variety of control systems may be used to reduce both particulate and gaseous emissions. Almost any type
of particulate control system will reduce emissions from the material handling process, but good plant design and
hooding are also required to keep emissions to a minimum.
The emissions of fluorides can be reduced by operating the kiln at temperatures below 2000°F (10908C) and
by choosing clays with low fluoride content. Satisfactory control can be achieved by scrubbing kiln gases with
water; wet cyclonic scrubbers are available that can remove fluorides with an efficiency of 95 percent, or higher.
Emission factors for brick manufacturing are presented in Table 8.3-1. Insufficient data are available to present
particle size information. '
8.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
^
^J
Table 8.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR BRICK MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Raw material handling0
Dryers, grinders, etc.
Storage
Curing and f iringd
Tunnel kilns
Gas-fired
Oil-fired
Coal-fired
Periodic kilns
Gas-fired
Oil-fired
Coal-fired
Particulates
Ib/ton
96
34
0.04
0.6
t.OA
O.It
0.9
1.6A
kg/MT
48
17
0.02
0.3
0.5A8
0.05
0.45
0.8A
Sulfur ox ides
tsoj
Ib/ton
—
—
Meg8
4.0Sf
7.2S
Neg
5.9S
12.0S
kg/MT
' —
—
Neg
2.0S
3.6S
Neg
2.95S
6.0S
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Ib/ton
—
—
0,04
Neg
1.9
0.11
Neg
3.2
kg/MT
—
—
0.02
Neg
0.95
0.05
Neg
1.6
Hydrocarbons
(HCI
Ib/ton
—
—
0.02
0.1
0.6
0.04
0.1
0.9
kg/MT
• —
—
0.01
0.05
0.3
0.02
0.05
0.45
Nitrogen oxides
(NOJ
Ib/ton
—
—
0.15
1.1
0.9
0.42
1.7
1.4
kg/MT
—
—
0.08
0.55
0.45
0.21
0.85
0.70
Fluorides11
(HF>
Ib/ton
—
—
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
kg/MT
—
—
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
aOna brick weighs about 6.5 pounds (2.95 kg). Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of brick produced.
bBased on data from References 3 and 6 through 10.
cBased on data from sections on ceramic clays and cement manufacturing in this publication. Because of process variation, some steps may be omitted. Storage losses
apply only to that quantity of material stored.
dBased on data from References 1 and 5 and emission factors for fuel combustion.
•Negligible.
' S is the percent sulfur in the fuel. •
5>A is the percent ash in the coal.
o
-------
References for Section 8.3
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Prepared for
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April
2. Technical Notes on Brick and Tile Construction. Structural Clay Products Institute Washington D C
Pamphlet Number 9. September 1961. '
3. Unpublished control techniques for fluoride emissions. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, .Research Triangle Park, N.C.
4. Allen, M. H. Report on Air Pollution, Air Quality Act of 1967 and Methods of Controlling the Emission of
Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants. Structural Clay products Institute, Washington, D. C. September
5. Norton, F. H. Refractories, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1949.
6. Semran, K. T. Emissions of Fluorides from Industrial Processes: A Review. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc
7(2):92-l 08. August 1957.
7. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. V, 2nd Ed. New York, Interscience (John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.), 1964. p. 561-567.
8. Wentzel, K. F. Fluoride Emissions in the Vicinity of Brickworks. Staub. 25(3):45,50. March 1965.
9. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. U. S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
10. Private communication between Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. and the State of New Jersey Air
Pollution Control Program, Trenton. July 20,1969.
8.3-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
8.4 CALCIUM CAR1IDE MANUFACTURING
8.4.1 Process Description1-2
Calcium carbide is manufactured by heating a mixture of quicklime (CaO) and carbon in an electric-arc
furnace, where the lime is reduced by the coke to calcium carbide and carbon monoxide. Metallurgical coke,
petroleum coke, or anthracite coal is used as the source of carbon. About 1900 pounds (860 kg) of lime and 1300
pounds (600 kg) of coke yield 1 ton (1 MT) of calcium carbide. There are two basic types of carbide
furnaces: (1) the open furnace, in which the carbon monoxide bums to carbon dioxide when it comes in contact
with air above the charge; and (2) the closed furnace, in which the gas is collected from the furnace. The molten
calcium carbide from the furnace is poured into chill cars or bucket conveyors and allowed to solidify. The
finished calcium carbide is dumped into a jaw crusher and then into a cone crusher to form a product of the
desired si/e.
8.4.2 Emissions and Controls
Particulates, acetylene, sulfur compounds, and some carbon monoxide are emitted from the calcium carbide
plants. Table 8.4*1 contains emission factors based on one plant in which some particulate matter escapes from
the hoods over each furnace and the remainder passes through wet-impingement-type scrubbers before being
vented to the atmosphere through a stack. The coke dryers and the furnace-room vents are also sources of
emissions.
Tablit.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CALCIUM CARBIDE PLANTS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of source
Electric furnace
Hoods
Main stack
Coke dryer
Furnace room vents
Particulates
Ib/ton
18
20
2
26
kg/MT
9
10
1
13
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
— *
3
3
kg/MT
—
1.5
1.5
Acety
Ib/ton
•**"
—
13
lene
kg/MT
^^
•*
a Reference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of calcium carbide produced.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.4-1
-------
References for Section 8.4
J. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N. C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 34-35.
2- ^ide' In: K"k-0thrner Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
3. The Louisville Air Pollution Study. U. S. DHEW, PHS, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1961. • , • »
EMISSION FACTORS 2/72 (
-------
8.5 CASTABLE REFRACTORIES
8.5,1 Process Description1'3
Castable or fused-cast refractories are manufactured by carefully blending such components as alumina,
zirconia, silica, chrome, and magnesia; melting the mixture in an electric-arc furnace at temperatures of 3200 to
4500°F (1760 to 2480°C); pouring it into molds; and slowly cooling it to the solid state. Fused refractories are
less porous and more dense than kiln-fired refractories.
8.5.2 Emissions and Controls1
Paniculate emissions occur during the drying, crushing, handling, and blending of the components; during the
actual melting process; and in the molding phase. Fluorides, largely in the gaseous form, may also be emitted
during the melting operations.
The general types of particulate controls may be used on the materials handling aspects of refractory
manufacturing. Emissions from the electric-arc furnace, however, are largely condensed fumes and consist of very
fine particles. Fluoride emissions can be effectively controlled with a scrubber. Emission factors for castable
refractories manufacturing are presented in Table 8.5-1.
Table 8.6-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CASTABLE
REFRACTORIES MANUFACTURING*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Raw material dryerb
Raw material crushing
and processing0
Electric-arc meltingd
Curing oven8
Molding and shakeoutb
Type of control
Baghouse
Scrubber
Cyclone
Baghouse
Scrubber
-
Baghouse
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
30
120
50
0.2
25
kg/MT
15
60
25
0.1
12,5
Controlled
Ib/ton
0.3
7
45
0.8
10
-
0.3
kg/MT
0.15
3.5
22.5
0.4
5
-
0.15
aFluoride emissions from the melt average about 1.3 pounds of HP par ton of melt (0.65 kg
HF/MT melt). Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of feed material.
bReference4.
cReferences 4 and 5.
^References 4 through 6,
8 Reference 5,
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.5-1
C
-------
References for Section 8.5
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22^9 119 April 1970
2' ?™69R' W> 3nd K' H' Sandmeyer< APPlicati<™ °f Fused-Cast Refractories. Chem, Eng. 76:106-114, June
3. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p. 15&.
5. Unpublished stack test data on refractories. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. 1969.
6. Unpublished stack test data on refractories. Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia. 1967,
8-5*2 EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.6 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
8.6.1 Process Description1'3
Portland cement manufacture accounts for about 98 percent of the cement productibn in the United States.
The more than 30 raw materials used to make cement may be divided into four basic components: lime
(calcareous), silica (siliceous), alumina (argillaceous), and iron (ferriferous). Approximately 3200 pounds of dry
raw materials are required to produce 1 ton of cement. Approximately 35 percent of the raw material weight is
removed as carbon dioxide and water vapor. As shown in Figure 8.6-1, the raw materials undergo separate
crushing after the quarrying operation, and, when needed for processing, are proportioned, ground, and blended
using either the wet or dry process.
In the dry process, the moisture content of the raw material is reduced to less than 1 percent either before or
during the grinding operation. The dried materials are then pulverized into a powder and fed directly into a rotary
kiln. Usually, the kiln is a long, horizontal, steel cylinder with a refractory brick lining. The kilns are slightly
inclined and rotate about the longitudinal axis. The pulverized raw materials are fed into the upper end and travel
slowly to the lower end. The kilns are fired from the lower end so that the hot gases pass upward and through the
raw material. Drying, decarbonating, and calcining are accomplished as the material travels through the heated
kiln, finally burning to incipient fusion and forming the clinker. The clinker is cooled, mixed with about 5
percent gypsum by weight, and ground to the final product fineness. The cement is then stored for later
packaging and shipment.
With the wet process, a slurry is made by adding water to the initial grinding operation! Proportioning may
take place before or after the grinding step. After the materials are mixed, the excess water is removed and final
adjustments are made to obtain a desired composition. This final homogeneous mixture is fed to the kilns as a
slurry of 30 to 40 percent moisture or as a wet filtrate of about 20 percent moisture. The burning, cooling,
addition of gypsum, and storage are carried out as in the dry process.
8.6.2 Emissions and Controls1*2*4
Participate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of portland cement. Emissions also include the
normal combustion products of the fuel used to supply heat for the kiln and drying operations, including oxides
of nitrogen and small amounts of oxides of sulfur.
Sources of dust at cement plants include: (!)• quarrying and crushing, (2) raw material storage, (3) grinding and
blending (dry process only), (4) clinker production, (5) finish grinding, and (6) packaging. The largest source of
emissions within cement plants is the kiln operation, which may be considered to have three units: the feed
system, the fuel-firing system, and the clinker-cooling and handling system. The most desirable method of
disposing of the collected dust is injection into the burning zone of the kiln and production of clinkers from the
dust. If the alkali content of the raw materials is top high, however, some of the dust is discarded or leached
before returning to the kiln. In many instances, the maximum allowable alkali content of 0.6 percent (calculated
as sodium oxide) restricts the amount of dust that can be recycled. Additional sources of dust emissions are raw
material storage piles, conveyors, storage silos, and loading/unloading facilities.
The complications of kiln burning and the large volumes of materials handled have led to the adoption of
many control systems for dust collection. Depending upon the emission, the temperature of the effluents in the
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.6-1
-------
00
9s
to
QUARRYING
RAW
MATERIALS
••
PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY
CRUSHING
RAW
MATERIALS
STORAGE
DRY PROCESS
RAW
MATERIAL
PROPORTIONED
GRINDING
MILL
AIR
SEPARATOR
OUST
COLLECTOR
WET PROCESS
tu
S
*N
cw
tfl
O
po
en
RAW
MATERIAL
PROPORTIONED
DRY MIXING
AND
BLENDING
STORAGE
SLURRY MIXING
AND
BLENDING
•
STORAGE
OUST
COLLECTOR
GRINDING
MILL
WATER
ADDED
KILN
I FUEL
i
1—
CLINKER
COOLER
•
Gl
STORAGE
GYPSUM
DUST
COLLECTOR
AIR
SEPARATOR
STORAGE |—[ SHIPMENT |
[ GRINDER |
Figure 8.6-1. Basic flow diagram of portland cement manufacturing process.
W
-------
olant in question and the paniculate emission standards in the community, the cement industry generally uses
mechanical collectors, electrical precipitators, fabric filter (baghouse) collectors, or combinations of these deuces
to control emissions,
Table 8.6-1 summarizes emission factors for cement manufacturing and also includes typical control
efficiencies of particulate emissions. Table 8.6-2 indicates the particle size distribution for particulate emissions
from kilns and cement plants before control systems are applied.
fable 86-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CEMENT MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLSa.b,c.i
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulated
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Sulfur dioxide6
Mineral sourcef '
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Gas combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Oil combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Coal combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Nitrogen oxides
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Dry Process
Kilns
245.0
122.0
10.2
5.1
Neg9
Neg
4.2Sh
2.1S
6.SS
3.4S
2.6
1.3
Dryers,
grinders, etc.
96.0
48.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wet process
Kilns
228.0
114.0
10.2
5,1
. Neg
Neg
4.2S
2.1S
6.8S
3.4S
2.6
1.3
Dryers,
grinders, etc.
32.0
16.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
"One barrel of cement weighs 376 pounds (171 kg).
''These emission factors Include emissions from fuel combustion, which should not be calculated
separately.
c References 1 and 2.
dTypical collection efficiencies for kilns, dryers, grinders, etc., are: multicyclones, 80 percent;
electrostatic precipitators, 95 percent; electrostatic precipitators with multicyclones, 97,5
percent; and fabric filter units, 99.8 percent.
•The sulfur dioxide factors presented take into account the reactions with the alkaline dusts
when no beghouses are used. With baghousas, approximately 50 percent more SO2 is removed
because of reactions with the alkaline particulate filter cake. Also note that the total SO, from
the kiln is determined by summing emission contributions from the mineral source and trie
appropriate fuel.
f These emissions are the result of sulfur being present in the raw material* and are thus depend-
ent upon source of the raw materials used. The 10.2 Ib/ton (5.1 kg/MT) factors account for
part of the available sulfur remaining behind in the product because of Its alkaline nature and
affinity for S02.
B Negligible.
"S Is the percent sulfu; in fuel.
'Emission factors expressed In units of tons of cement produced.
4/77
Mineral Products Industry
8.6-3
-------
Table 8.6-2. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DUST EMITTED
FROM KILN OPERATIONS
WITHOUT CONTROLS1-5
Particle size, /jm
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
Kiln dust finer than corresponding
particle size, %
93
90
84
' • 74
58
38
23
3
Sulfur dioxide may be generated from the sulfur compounds in the ores, as well as from combusion of fuel.
The sulfur content of both ores and fuels will vary from plant to plant and with geographic location. The alkaline
nature of the cement, however, provides for direct absorption of SO? into the product. The overall control
inherent in the process is approximately 75 percent or greater of the available sulfur in ore and fuel if a baghouse
that allows the SOo to come in contact with the cement dust is used. Control, of course, will vary according to
the alkali and sulfur content of the raw materials and fuel.6
References for Section 8.6
1. Kreichelt, T. E., D. A. Kemnitz, and S. T. Cuffe. Atmospheric Emissions from the Manufacture of Portland
Cement. U. S. DHEW, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-l 7, 1967.
2. Unpublished standards of performance for new and substantially modified portland cement plants.
Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Stationary Source Pollution Control, Research Triangle Park,
N.C.August 1971.
3. A Study of the Cement Industry in the State of Missouri. Resources Research Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for
the Air Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri. December 1967.
4. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register,
36{241, Pt II): December 23, 1971.
5. Paniculate Pollutant System Study. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control Office. Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-22-69.104. May 1971,
6. Restriction of Emissions from Portland Cement Works. VUI Richtlinien. Dusseldorf. Germany February
1967.
8-6-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
8.7 CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING
8.7.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of ceramic clay involves the conditioning of the basic ores by several methods. These include
the separation and concentration of the minerals by screening, floating, wet and dry grinding, and blending of the
desired ore varieties. The basic raw materials in ceramic clay manufacture are kaolinite (A^C^-^iC^^r^O)
and montmorillonite [(Mg, Ca) QrAljOs'SSK^'nl^O] clays. These clays are refined by separation and
bleaching, blended, kiln-dried, and formed into such items as whiteware, heavy clay products (brick, etc.),
various stoneware, and other products such as diatomaceous earth, which is used as a filter aid.
8.7.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions consist primarily of particulates, but some, fluorides and acid gases are also emitted in the drying
process. The high temperatures of the firing kilns are also conducive to the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen and
the subsequent release of NO, but no published information has been found for gaseous emissions. Particulates
are also emitted from the grinding process and from storage of the ground product.
Factors affecting emissions include the amount of material processed, the type of grinding (wet or dry), the
temperature, of the drying kilns, the gas velocities and flow direction in the kilns, and the amount of fluorine in
the ores.
Common control techniques include settling chambers, cyclones, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and
bag filters. The most effective control is provided by cyclones for the coarser material, followed by wet scrubbers,
bag filters, or electrostatic precipitators for dry dust. Emission factors for ceramic clay manufacturing are
presented in Table 8.7-1.
Table 8.7-1. PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING9
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Dryingd
Grinding6
Storage^
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
70
76
34
kg/MT
35
38
17
Cycloneb
Ib/ton
18
19
8
kg/MT
9
9.5
4
Multiple-unit
cyclone and scrubber0
Ib/ton
7
kg/MT
3.5
aEmission factors expressed 99 units per unit weight of input to process.
^Approximate collection efficiency: 75 percent.
cApproximate collection efficiency: 90 percent.
^References 2 through 5.
eReference 2.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.7-1
-------
References for Section 8.7-1
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
3. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the State of New
Jersey Air Pollution Control Program, Trenton, New Jersey. July 20,1969.
4. Henn, J. J. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of Two Lime Sinter Processes.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigations Number 7299.
September 1969.
5. Peters, F, A. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of the Lime-Soda Sinter
Process. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number 6927
1967.
8.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.8 CLAY AND FLY-ASH SINTERING
8.8.1 Process Description1
Although the processes for sintering fly ash and clay are similar, there are some distinctions that justify a
separate discussion of each process. Fly-ash sintering plants are generally located near the source, with the fly ash
delivered to a storage silo at the plant. The dry fly ash is moistened with a water solution of lignin and
agglomerated into pellets or balls. This material goes to a traveling-grate sintering machine where direct contact
with hot combustion gases sinters the individual particles of the pellet and completely burns off the residual
carbon in the fly ash. The product is then crushed, screened, graded, and stored in yard piles.
Clay sintering involves the driving off of entrained volatile matter. It is desirable that the clay contain a
sufficient amount of volatile matter so that the resultant aggregate will not be too heavy. It is thus sometimes
necessary to mix the clay with finely pulverized coke (up to 10 percent coke by weight).2'3 In the sintering
process the clay is first mixed with pulverized coke, if necessary, and then pelletized. The clay is next sintered in
a rotating kiln or on a traveling grate. The sintered pellets are then crushed, screened, and stored, in a procedure
similar to that for fly ash pellets.
8.8.2 Emissions and Controls1
In fly-ash sintering, improper handling of the fly ash creates a dust problem. Adequate design features,
including fly-ash wetting systems and paniculate collection systems on all transfer points and on crushing and
screening operations, would greatly reduce emissions. Normally, fabric filters are used to control emissions from
the storage silo, and emissions are low. The absence of this dust collection system, however, would create a major
emission problem. Moisture is added at the point of discharge from the silo to the agglomerator, and very few
emissions occur there. Normally, there are few emissions from the sintering machine, but if the grate is not
properly maintained, a dust problem is created. The consequent crushing, screening, handling, and storage of the
sintered product also create dust problems.
In clay sintering, the addition of pulverized coke presents an emission problem because the sintering of
coke-impregnated dry pellets produces more particulate emissions than the sintering of natural clay. The crushing,
screening, handling, and storage of the sintered clay pellets creates dust problems similar to those encountered in
fly-ash sintering. Emission factors for both clay and fly-ash sintering are shown in Table 8.8-1.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.8-1
-------
Table 85-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SINTERING OPERATIONS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of material
Fly ashd
Clay mixed with cokef -9
Natural clay*1''
Sintering operation*1
Ib/ton
110
40
12
kg/MT
55
20
6
Crushing, screening,
and yard storageb-c
Ib/ton
e
15
12
kg/MT
e
7.5
6
a Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of finished product.
bCyelones would reduce this emission bv about 80 percent.
Scrubbers would reduce this emission by about 90 percent.
cBased on data in section on stone quarrying and processing.
^Reference 1.
eIncluded in sintering losses.
f 90 percent clay, 10 percent pulverized coke; traveling-grate, single-pass, up-draft sintering
machine.
9 References 3 through 5.
hRotary dryer sinterer.
' Reference 2.
References for Section 8.8
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and a clay sintering firm.
October 2,1969.
3. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and an anonymous Air
Pollution Control Agency. October 16,1969.
4. Henn, J. J. et ai. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of Two Lime Sinter Processes.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number 7299.
September 1969.
5. Peters, F. A. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of the Lime-Soda Sinter
Process. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number
6927.1967.
8.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.9 COAL CLEANING
8.9.1 Process Description1
Coal cleaning is the process by which undesirable materials are removed from bituminous and anthracite coal
and lignite, The coal is screened, classified, washed, and dried at coal preparation plants. The major sources of air
pollution from these plants are the thermal dryers. Seven types of thermal dryers are presently used: rotary,
screen, cascade, continuous carrier, flash or suspension, multilouver, and fluidized bed. The three major types,
however, are the flash, multilouver, and fluidized bed.
In the flash dryer, coal is fed into a stream of hot gases where instantaneous drying occurs. The dried coal and
wet gases are drawn up a drying column and into the cyclone for separation. In the multilouver dryer, hot gases
are passed through falling curtains of coal. The coal is raised by flights of a specially designed conveyor. In the
fluidized bed the coal is suspended and dried above a perforated plate by rising hot gases.
8.9.2 Emissions and Controls1
Particulates in the form of coal dust constitute the major air pollution problem from coal cleaning plants. The
crushing, screening, or sizing of coal are minor sources of dust emissions; the major sources are the thermal
dryers. The range of concentration, quantity, and particle size of emissions depends upon the type of collection
equipment used to reduce paniculate emissions from the dryer stack. Emission factors for coal-cleaning plants are
shown in Table 8.9-1. Footnote b of the table lists various types of control equipment and their possible
efficiencies.
Table 8.9-1. PARTICULAR EMISSION FACTORS
FOR THERMAL COAL DRYERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of dryer
Fluidized bedc
Flash0
Mu!tilogveredd
Uncontrolled emissions'*
Ib/ton
20
16
25
kg/MT
10
8
12.5
' Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of coal dried.
^Typical collection efficiencies are: cyclone collectors (product recovery),
70 percent; multiple cyclones (product recovery), 85 percent; water
sprays following cyclones, 95 percent; and wet scrubber following
cyclones, 99 to 99.9 percent.
References 2 and 3.
"Reference 4.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.9-1
C
-------
References for Section 8.9
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Unpublished stack test results on thermal coal dryers. Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control. Harrisburg, Pa.
3. Amherst's Answer to Air Pollution Laws. Coal Mining and Processing, p. 26-29, February 1970.
4. Jones, D. W. Dust Collection at Moss. No. 3, Mining Congress Journal. 55(7): 53-56, July 1969.
EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING
8.10.1 Process Descriptioni-3
Concrete batching involves the proportioning of sand, gravel, and cement by means of weigh hoppers and
conveyors into a mixing receiver such as a transit mix truck. The required amount of water is also discharged into
the receiver along with the dry materials. In some cases, the concrete is prepared for on-site building construction
work or for the manufacture of concrete products such as pipes and prefabricated construction parts.
8.10.2 Emissions and Controls1
Particulate emissions consist primarily of cement dust, but some sand and aggregate gravel dust emissions do
occur during batching operations. There is also a potential for dust emissions during the unloading and conveying
of concrete and aggregates at these plants and during the loading of dry-batched concrete mix. Another source of
dust emissions is the traffic of heavy equipment over unpaved or dusty surfaces in and around the concrete
batching plant.
Control techniques include the enclosure of dumping and loading areas, the enclosure of conveyors and
elevators, filters on storage bin vents, and the use of water sprays. Table 8.10-1 presents emission factors for
concrete batch plants.
Table 8.10-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CONCRETE BATCHING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Concrete
batchingb
Uncontrolled
Good control
Emiss
Ib/yd3 of
concrete
0.2
0.02
ipn
kg/m3 of
concrete
0.12
0.012
aOne cubic yard of concrete weighs 4000 pounds (1 m3 = 2400 kg).
The cement content varies with the type of concrete mixed, but
735 pcundi 3t cement per yard (436 kg/m3) may be used as a .typi-
cal value.
bReference 4.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.10-1
-------
References for Section 8.10
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National \ir
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Vincent, E J and J. L. McGinnity. Concrete Batching Plants. In: Aii Pollution Engineering Manual.
Danielson, J A. (ed.). U.S, DREW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS
Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 334-335.
3. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the National Ready-Mix
Concrete Association. September 1969.
4. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
?-10'2 EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.11 FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING Revised by James H. Southerland
8.11.1 Process Description
Glass fiber products are manufactured by melting various raw materials to form glass (predominantly
borosilicate), drawing the molten glass into fibers, and coating the fibers with an organic material. The two basic
types of fiber glass products, textile and wool, are manufactured by different processes. Typical flow diagrams are
shown in Figures 8.11-1 and 8.11-2.
8.11.1.1 Textile Products-In the manufacture of textiles, the glass is normally produced in the form of marbles
after refining at about 2800°F (1540°C) in a regenerative, recuperative, or electric furnace. The marble-forming
stage can be omitted with the molten glass passing directly to orifices to be formed or drawn into fiber filaments.
The fiber filaments are collected on spools as continuous fibers and staple yarns, or in the form of a fiber glass
mat on a fiat, moving surface. An integral part of the textile process is treatment with organic binder materials
followed by a curing step*
8.11.1.2 Wool Products-In the manufacture of wool products, which are generally used in the construction
industry as insulation, ceiling panels, etc., the molten glass is most frequently fed directly into the forming line
without going through a marble stage. Fiber formation is accomplished by air blowing, steam blowing, flame
blowing, or centrifuge forming. The organic binder is sprayed onto the hot fibers as they fall from the forming
device. The fibers are collected on a moving, flat surface and transported through a curing oven at a temperature
of 400° to 600° F (200° to 315°C) where the binder sets. Depending upon the product, the wool may also be
compressed as a part of this operation.
8.11.2 Emissions and Controls1
The major emissions from the fiber glass manufacturing processes are particulates from the glass-melting
furnace, the forming line, the curing oven, and the product cooling line. In addition, gaseous organic emissions
occur from the forming line and curing oven. Paniculate emissions from the glass-melting furnace are affected by
basic furnace design, type of fuel (oil, gas, or electricity), raw material size and composition, and type and volume
of the furnace heat-recovery system. Organic and particulate emissions from the forming line are most affected by
the composition and quality of the binder and by the spraying techniques used to coat the fibers; very fine spray
and volatile binders increase emissions. Emissions from the curing ovens are affected by oven temperature and
binder composition, but direct-fired afterburners with heat exchangers may be used to control these emissions.
Emission factors for fiber glass manufacturing are summarized in Table 8.11-1. :
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.11 -1
-------
RAW MATERIALS
-*"
RAW MATERIAL
STORAGE
' *»
BATCHING
-*-
GLASS MELTING
AND
REFINING
(FURNACE)
BINDER
ADDITION
-»-
FORMING BY
DRAWING,
STEAM JETS,
OR AIR JETS
MARBLE
REMELT
FURNACE
-*-
MARBLE
FORMING
I
DRYING OR
CURING
COLLECT AND WIND
OR
CUT AND FABRICATE
PRODUCTS:
CONTINUOUS TEXTILES,
STAPLE TEXTILES,
MAT PRODUCTS, ETC.
Figure 8.11-1. Typical flow diagram of textile*type glass fiber production process
RAW MATERIALS
-^
RAW MATERIAL
STORAGE
— »•
BATCHING
-^
GLASS MELTING
AND
REFINING
(FURNACE)
COMPRESSION
(OPTIONAL DEPENDING
UPON PRODUCT)
ADDITION OF
BINDERS, LUBRICANTS
AND/OR ADHESIVES
FORMING BY AIR
BLOWING, STEAM
BLOWING, AND
CENTRIFUGE
i
CURING
(OPTIONAL DEPENDING
UPON PRODUCT)
COOL
PACK OR
FABRICATE
»
PRODUCTS: LOOSE WOOL
INSULATION, BONDED
WOOL INSULATION, WALL
AND CEILING PANELS,
INSULATION BOARD, ETC.
Figure 8.11-2. Typical flow diagram of wool-type glass fiber production process.
8.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
Table 8.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS8'1*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Textile products
Glass furnace0
Regenerative.
Recuperative
Electric
Forming
Curing oven
Wool products6
Glass furrtacec
Regenerative
Recuperative
Electric
Forming
Curing oven
Cooling
Paniculate
Ib/ton
16.4
27.8
NDd
1.6
1.2
21.5
28.3
0.6
57.6
3.5
1.3
kg/MT
8.2
13.9
-
0.8
0.6
10.8
14.2
0.3
28.8
1.8
0.7
Sulfur oxides (SO2)
Ib/ton
29.6
2.7
-
-
-
10.0
9.5
0.04
-•
NO
-
kg/MT
14.8
1.4
-
-
-
5.0
4.8
0.02
-
-
-
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
1.1
0.9
-
-
1.5
0.25
0.25
0.05
-
1.7
0,2
kg/MT
0.6
0.5
-
-
0.8
0.13
0.13
0.03
-
0.9
0.1
Nitrogen oxides (NO2>
Ib/ton
9.2
29.2
-
-
2.6
5.0
1.70
0.27
-
1.1
0.2
kg/MT
4.6
14.6
-
-
1.3
2.5
0.9
0.14
-
0.6
0.1
Fluorides
Ib/ton
3.8
12.5
-
-
-
0.12
0.11
0.02
-
_ .
—
kg/MT
1.9
6.3
-
-
-
0.06
0.06
0.01
-
-
-
8Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of material processed.
'"Reference 3,
cOnly one process is generally used at any one plant.
dNo data available.
eln addition, 0.09 Ib/ton (0.05 kg/MT) phenol and 3.3 Ib/ton (1.7 mg/MT) aldehyde are released from the wool curing and cooling operations.
po
*—
U>
-------
ReferencesforSection8.il
8-! M EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
8.12 FRIT MANUFACTURING
8.12.1 Process Description1'3
Frit is used in enameling iron and steel and in glazing porcelain and pottery. In a typical plant, the raw
materials consist of a combination of materials such as borax, feldspar, sodium fluoride or fluorspar, soda ash,
zinc oxide, litharge, silica, boric acid, and zircon. Frit is prepared by fusing these various minerals in a smelter,
and the molten material is then quenched with air or water. This quenching operation causes the melt to solidify
rapidly and shatter into numerous small glass particles, called frit. After a drying process, the frit is finely ground
in a- ball mill where other materials are added.
8.12.2 Emissions and Controls2
Significant dust and fume emissions are created by the frit-smelting operation. These emissions consist
primarily of condensed metallic oxide fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge. They also contain
mineral dust carryover and sometimes hydrogen fluoride. Emissions can be reduced by not rotating the smelter
too rapidly (to prevent excessive dust carry-over) and by not heating the batch too rapidly or too long (to prevent
volatilizing the more fusible elements).
The two most feasible control devices for frit smelters are baghouses and venturi water scrubbers. Emission
factors for frit smelters are shown in table 8.12-1. Collection efficiencies obtainable for venturi scrubbers are also
shown in the table.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.12-1
-------
Table 8.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT SMELTERS
WITHOUT CONTROLS0
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Rotary
Particulatesb
Ib/ton
16
kg/MT
8.
Fluo
Ib/ton
5
idesb
kg/MT
2.5
3Reference 2, Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of charge. .
bA venturi scrubber with a 21^inch (535-mm) water-gauge pressure drop can reduce par*
tlculate emissions by 67 percent and fluorides by 94 percent.
References for Section 8.12
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 37-38.
2. Spinks, J. L. Frit Smelters. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.), U.S. DHEW, PHS,
National Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP40. 1967. p.
738-744, r
8.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.13 GLASS MANUFACTURING
8.13.1 Process Description1-2
Nearly all glass produced commercially is one of five basic types: soda-lime, lead, fused silica, borosilicate, and
96 percent silica. Of these, the modern soda-lime glass constitutes 90 percent of the total glass produced and will
thus be the only type discussed in this section. Soda-lime glass is produced on a massive scale in large, direct-fired,
continuous-melting furnaces in which the blended raw materials are melted at 2700°F (1480°C) to form glass.
8.13.2 Emissions and Controls1'2
Emissions from the glass-melting operation consist primarily of particulates and fluorides, if
fluoride-containing fluxes are used in the process. Because the dust emissions contain particles that are only a few
microns in diameter, cyclones and centrifugal scrubbers are not as effective as baghouses or filters in collecting
particulate matter. Table 8.13-1 summarizes the emission factors for glass melting.
Table 8.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GLASS MELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of
glass
Soda-lime
Particulates3
Ib/ton
2
kg/MT
1
Fluorides'*
Ib/ton
4FC
kg/MT
2Fc
a Reference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of glass produced.
b Reference 4.
CF equals weight percent of fluoride in input to furnace; e.g., if fluoride content is 5 per-
cent, the emission factor would be 4F or 20 (2F or 10).
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.13-1
-------
References for Section 8.13
1. Netaley A. B. and J. L. McGinnity. Glass Manufacture. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.A.
(ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati r>hin PHC O,,KU«-*:™'
2- ' Nationd center
P°llution
al Processes: A Review- J' Air Po1- Control Assoc.
8-13'2 EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8,14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING
8.14.1 Process Description1
Gypsum, or hydrated calcium sulfate, is a naturally occurring mineral that is an important building material.
When heated gypsum loses its water of hydration, it becomes plaster of paris, or when blended with fillers it
serves as wall plaster. In both cases the material hardens as water reacts with it to form the solid crystalline
hydrate.2-3
' The usual method of calcination of gypsum consists of grinding the mineral and placing it in large, externally
heated calciners. Complete calcination of 1 ton (0.907 MT) of plaster takes about 3 hours and requires about 1.0
million Btu (0,25 million kcal).4'5
8.14.2 Emissions1
The process of calcining gypsum appears to be devoid of any air pollutants because it involves simply the
relatively low-temperature removal of the water of hydration. However, the gases created by the release of the
water of crystalization carry gypsum rock dust and partially calcined gypsum dust into the atmosphere.6 In
addition, dust emissions occur from the grinding of the gypsum before calcining and from the mixing of the
calcined gypsum with filler. Table 8.14-1 presents emission factors for gypsum processing.
Table 8.14-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Raw-material dryer (if used)
Primary grinder
Calciner
Conveying
Uncontrolled
emissions
Ib/ton
40
1
90
0.7
kg/MT
20
0.5
45
0.36
With
fabric filter
Ib/ton
0.2
0.001
0.1
0.001
kg/MT
0.1
0.0005
0.05
0.0005
With cyclone and
electrostatic
preci
Ib/ton
0.4
-
-
-
itator
kg/MT
0.2
-
-
—
Reference 7. Emijiiori factors expressed as units per unit weight of process throughput.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.14-1
-------
References for Section 8.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shrove, R. N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
180-182. • . -
3, Havinghorst, R, A Quick Look at Gypsum Manufacture. Chem. Eng. 72:52-54, January 4,1965,
4. Work, L. T, and A. L, Stern, Size Reduction and Size Enlargement. In: Chemical Engineers Handbook 4th
Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1%3. p. 51. '
5. Private communication on emissions from gypsum plants between M. M. Hambuik and the National Gypsum
Association, Chicago, Illinois. January 1970.
6. Culhane, F.R. Chem. Eng. Progr. <$4:72, January 1,1968.
7. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the Maryland State
Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland. November 1969.
8.14-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING by Tom Lahre
8.15.1 General1-4
Lime is the high-temperature product of the calcination of limestone. There are two kinds of lime:
high-calcium lime (CaO) and dolomitic lime (CaO • MgO). Lime is manufactured in various kinds of
kilns by one of the following reactions:
CaCOs + heat -* CO2 + CaO (high calcium lime)
CaCOs . MgCOs •*• heat -» COz + CaO . MgO (dolomitic lime)
In some lime plants, the resulting lime is reacted (slaked) with water to form hydrated lime.
The basic processes in the production of lime are (1) quarrying the raw limestone, (2) preparing the
limestone for the kilns by crushing and sizing, (3) calcining the limestone, (4) processing the quicklime
further by hydrating, and (5) miscellaneous transfer, storage, and handling operations. A generalized
material flow diagram for a lime manufacturing plant is given in Figure 8.15-1. Note that some of the
operations shown may not be performed in all plants.
The heart of a lime plant is the kiln. The most prevalent type of kiln is the rotary kiln, accounting
for about 90 percent of all lime production in the United States. This kiln is a long, cylindrical, slightly
inclined, refractory-lined furnace through which the limestone and hot combustion gases pass count-
ercurrently. Coal, oil, and natural gas may all be fired in rotary kilns. Product coolers and kiln-feed
preheaters of various types are commonly employed to recover heat from the hot lime product and
and hot exhaust gases, respectively.
The next most prevalent type of kiln in the United States is the vertical, or shaft, kiln. This kiln can
be described as an upright heavy steel cylinder lined with refractory material. The limestone is
charged at the top and calcined as it descends slowly to the bottom of the kiln where it is discharged. A
primary advantage of vertical kilns over rotary kilns is the higher average fuel efficiency. The primary
disadvantages of vertical kilns are their relatively low production rates and the fact that coal cannot
be used without degrading the quality of the lime produced. Although still prevalent in Europe, there
have been few recent vertical kiln installations in the United States because of the high production
requirements of domestic manufacturers.
Other, much less common, kiln types include rotary hearth and fluidized-bed kilns. The rotary
hearth kiln, or "calcimatic" kiln, is a circular-shaped kiln with a slowly revolving donut-shaped hearth.
In fluidized-bed kilns, finely divided limestone is brought into direct contact with hot combustion
air in a turbulent zone, usually above a perforated grate. Dust collection equipment must be installed
on fluidized-bed kilns for process economics because of the high lime carryover into the exhaust gases.
Both kiln types can achieve high production rates, hut neither ran operate with coal.
About 10 percent of all lime produced is converted to hydrated (slaked) lime. There are two kinds
of hydrators: atmospheric and pressure. Atmospheric hydrators, the most prevalent kind, are used to
produce high calcium and normal dolomitic hydrates. Pressure hydrators, on the other hand, are only
employed when a completely hydrated dolomitic lime is needed. Atmospheric hydrators operate
continuously, whereas pressure hydrators operate in a batch mode. Generally, water sprays or wet
scrubbers are employed as an integral part of the hydrating process to prevent product losses. Follow-
ing hydration, the resulting product may be milled and conveyed to air separators for further drying
and for removal of the coarse fractions.
4/77 Mineral Products Industry 8.15-1
-------
CONTROL
DEVICE
FUEL-
CONTROL
DEVICE
WATER-
HYDRATOR
HYDRATEO
LIME
MILL/AIR
SEPARATOR
STORAGE/
SHIPMENT
LIMESTONE
QUARRY/MINE
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
SECONOARY
CRUSHER
SCREENS AND
CLASSIFIERS
STONE
PREHEATER
(LIMESTONE
KILN
OST
KILN
LIME
EXHA
PRODUCT
COOLER
LIME
•AIR
WATER SPRAY/
WET SCRUBBER
WATER/OUST SLURRY
.^.STORAGE/
SHIPMENT
• STONE
>POTENT
EMITTIII
AIR/EXHAUST
"*WNA/ EMITTING POINTS
8.15-2
Figure 8.15-1. Generalized lime manufacturing plant
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
In the United States, the major use of lime is in chemical and metallurgical applications. Two of the
largest uses in these areas are as steel flux and in alkali production. Other lesser uses include con-
struction, refractory, and agricultural applications.
8.15.2 Emissions and Controls3-5
Potential air pollutant emitting points in lime manufacturing plants are shown in Figure 8.15-1.
Paniculate is the only pollutant of concern from most of the operations; however, gaseous pollutants
are also emitted from kilns.
The largest source or particulate is the kiln. Of the various kiln types in use, fluidized-bed kilns
have the highest uncontrolled particulate emissions. This is due primarily to the very small feed size
combined with the high air flow through these kilns. Fluidized-bed kilns are well controlled for
maximum product recovery. The rotary kiln is second to the fluidized-bed kiln in uncontrolled
particulate emissions. This is attributed to the small feed size and relatively high air velocities and
dust entrainment caused by the rotating chamber. The rotary hearth, or "ealcimatic" kiln ranks third
in dust production, primarily because of the larger feed size combined with the fact that the limestone
remains in a stationary position relative to the hearth during calcination. The vertical kiln has the
lowest uncontrolled dust emissions due to the large lump-size feed and the relatively slow air velocities
and slow movement of material through the kiln.
Some sort of particulate control is generally employed on most kilns. Rudimentary fallout chamb-
ers and cyclone separators are commonly used for control of the larger particles; fabric and gravel bed
filters, wet (commonly venturi) scubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are employed for secondary
control Table 8.15-1 yields approximate efficiencies of each type of control on the various types of
kilns.
Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur oxides are all produced in kilns, although the latter
are the only gaseous pollutant emitted in significant quantities. Not all of the sulfur in the kiln fuel is
emitted as sulfur oxides because some fraction reacts with the materials in the kiln. Some sulfur oxide
reduction is also effected by the various equipment used for secondary particulate control. Estimates
of the quantities of sulfur oxides emitted from kilns, both before and after controls, are presented in
Table 8.15-1.
Hydrator emissions are low because water sprays or wet scrubbers are usually installed for econom-
ic reasons to prevent product loss in the exhaust gases. Emissions from pressure hydra tors may be
higher than from the more common atmospheric hydrators because the exhaust gases are released
intermittently over short time intervals, making control more difficult.
Product coolers are emission sources only when some of their exhaust gases are not recycled
through the kiln for use as combustion air. The trend is away from the venting of product cooler ex-
haust, however, to maximize fuel use efficiencies. Cyclones, baghouses, and wet scrubbers have been
employed on coolers for particulate control. .
Other particulate sources in lime plants include primary and secondary crushers, mills, screens,
mechanical and pneumatic transfer operations, storage piles, and unpaved roads. If quarrying is a part
of the lime plant operation, particulate may also result from drilling and blasting. Emission factors
for some of these operations are presented in Sections 8.20 and 11.2.
Emission factors for lime manufacturing are presented in Table 8.15-1.
4/77 Mineral Products Industry 8.15*3
-------
Table 8.15-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source
Crushers, screens.
conveyors, storage
piles, unpaved roads
Rotary kilns
Uncontrolled0
After settling chamber
or large diameter
cyclone
After multiple cyclones
After secondary dust
collection*
Vertical kilns
Uncontrolled
Calcirnatic kilns'
Uncontrolled
After multiple cyclones
After secondary dust
collection!
Fluidized-bed kilns
Product coolers
Uncontrolled
Hydrators
Emissions3
Particulate
Ib/ton
b
i
340
200
85*
1
8
50
6
NA
NAk
401
O.lm
kg/MT
b
170
100
43e
0.5
4
25
3
IMA
NAk
20'
0.05™
Sulfur dioxide
Ib/ton
IVieg.
d
d
d
g
NAh
NA
NA
NA
NA
- Neg.
Neg.
kg/MT
Neg.
d
d
d
g
NAn
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg..
Neg.
Nitrogen oxides
Ib/ton
Neg.
3
3
3
3
NA ' .
0.2
0.2
0.2
NA
Neg,
Neg.
. kg/MT
Neg.
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
NA
Neg.
Neg.
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
Neg.
2
2
2
2_-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg.
Neg.
kg/MT
Neg.
1
•
1
1
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg.
Neg.
"All emission factors for kilns and coolers are per unit of lime produced. Divide by two to obtain factors per unit of limestone feed to the kiln.
Factors for hydrators are per unit of hydrated lime produced. Multiply by 1.25 to obtain factor) per unit of lime feed to the f'ydrator. All
emissions data ere based on References 4 through 6.
^Emission factors for these operations are presented in Sections 8,20 and 11.2.
*No paniculate control except for settling that may occur in the stack breaching and chimney base.
'V/hen low-sulfur (less than 1 percent, by weight) fuels are used, only about 10 percent of the fuel sulfur is emitted as SC>2. Wh«n high- .
sulfur fuels are used, approximately 50 percent of the fuel sulfur is emitted ai SCH.
*Thls factor should be used when coal is fired In the kiln. Limited data suggest that when only natural gai or oil is fired, particulate
emissions after multiple cyclones may be as low as 20 to 30 Ib/ton (10 to 15 kg/MT),
'Fabric or gravel bed filters, electrostatic precipitators, or wet (most commonly venturi)scrubbers. Particulate concentration! a* low as
0.2 Ib/ton (0.1 kg/MT) have been achieved using these devices.
9\A/hen scrubbers are used, less than S percent of the fuel sulfur will be emitted as SC>2, even with high-sulfur coal, When other secondary
collection devices are used, about 20 percent of the fuel sulfur will be emitted as SO; with high-sulfur fuels and IBM than 10 percent
with low-sulfur fuels.
"Not available.
'Calclmntlc kilns generally employ stone preheaters. All factors represent emissions after the kiln exhaust passe* through a preheater,
'Fabric filters and venturi scrubbers ha\/e been employed on calcimatic kilns. No data are available on paniculate Wniiiions after
secondary control.
"Ruldized-bed kilns must employ sophisticated dust collection equipment for process economics; hence, particulate emission) will
depend on the efficiency of the control equipment installed.
'Some or all of the cooler exhaust Is typically used in the kiln as combustion air. Emissions will result only from that fraction that
is not recycled to the kiln. -
mThij ic a typical particulate loading for atmospheric hydratorj following water sprays or wet scrubbers. Limited data luggett
paniculate emissions from pressure hydrators may be approximately 2 Ib/ton (1 kg/MT) of hydrate produced, after wet collectors.
8.15-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
References for Section 8.15
1. Lewis, C J. and B.B. Crocker. The Lime Industry's Problem of Airborne Dust. J. Air PoL Control
Asso. Vol. 19, No. 1. January 1969.
2. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 2nd Ed. Vol 12. New York, John Wiley and
Sons. 1967. p. 414-459.
3. Screening Study for Emissions Characterization From Lime Manufacture. Vulcan-Cincinnati.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Under Contract No. 68-02-0299. August 1974.
4. Evans, L.B. et al. An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction For Rotary Kilns
and Lime Hydrators in the Lime Industry. Standards Support and Environmental Impact
Statement. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C February 1976.
5. Source Test Data on Lime Plants from Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1976.
i
6. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. TRW Systems Group. Reston, Virginia. Prepared for the
National Air Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of Health,. Education, and
Welfare. Washington, D.C. under Contract No. CPA 22-69-119. April 1970. P. 2-2 through 2-19.
( 4/77 Mineral Products Industry 8.15-5
-------
-------
8.16 MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING
8.16.1 Process Description1'2
The product mineral wool used to be divided into three categories: dag wool, rock wool, and glass wool.
Today, however, straight slag wool and rock wool as such are no longer manufactured. A combination of slag and
rock constitutes the charge material that now yields a product classified as a mineral wool, used mainly for
thermal and acoustical insulation.
1 Mineral wool is made primarily in cupola furnaces charged with blast-furnace slag, silica rock, and coke. The
charge is heated to a molten state at about 3000°F (1650°C) and then fed to a blow chamber, where steam
atomizes the molten rock into globules that develop long fibrous tails as they are drawn to the other end of the
chamber. The wool blanket formed is next conveyed to an oven to cure the binding agent and then to a cooler.
8.16.2 Emissions and Controls
The major source of emissions is the cupola or furnace stack. Its discharge consists primarily of condensed
fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge and gases such as sulfur oxides and fluorides. Minor sources of
particulate emissions include the blowchamber, curing oven, and cooler. Emission factors for various stages of
mineral wool processing are shown in Table 8.16.1. The effect of control devices on emissions is shown in
footnotes to the table.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.16-1
-------
Table 8.16-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL PROCESSING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Cupola
Reverberatory furnace
Blow chamber0
Curing ovend
Cooler
Particulates
Ib/ton
22
5
17
4
2
kg/MT
11
2.5
8.5
2
1
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
0.02
Negb
Meg
Neg
Neg
kg/MT
0.01
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
"Reference 2. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of charge.
"Negligible,
eA centrifugal water scrubber can reduce particulate emissions by 60 percent.
dA direct'flame afterburner can reduce paniculate emissions by 50 percent.
References for Section 8.16
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control, Durham, N. C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 39-40.
2. Spinks, J. L. Mineral Wool Furnaces. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed,)- U.S.
DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 343-347.
8.16-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.17 PERLITE MANUFACTURING
8.17.1 Process Description1-2
Perlite is a glassy volcanic rock consisting of oxides of silicon and aluminum combined as a natural glass by
water of hydration. By a process called exfoliation, the material is rapidly heated to release water of hydration
and thus to expand the spherules into low-density particles used primarily as aggregate in plaster and concrete. A
plant for the expansion of perlite consists of ore unloading and storage facilities, a furnace-feeding device, an
expanding furnace, provisions for gas and product cooling, and product-classifying and product-collecting
equipment. Vertical furnaces, horizontal stationary furnaces, and horizontal rotary furnaces are used for the
exfoliation of perlite, although the vertical types are the most numerous. Cyclone separators are used to collect
the product.
8.17.2 Emissions and Controls2
A fine dust is emitted from the outlet of the last product collector in a perlite expansion plant. The fineness of
the dust varies from one plant to another, depending upon the desired product. In order to achieve complete
control of these particulate emissions, a baghouse is needed. Simple cyclones and small multiple cyclones are not
adequate for collecting the fine dust from perlite furnaces. Table 8.17-1 summarizes the emissions from perlite
manufacturing.
Table 8.17-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PERLITE EXPANSION FURNACES
WITHOUT CONTROLS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:C
Emissions'3
Type of furnace
Vertical
Ib/ton
21
kg/MT
10.5
a Reference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of
charge.
^Primary cyclones will collect 80 percent of the particulates above
20 micrometers, and baghouses will collect 96 percent of the particles
above 20 micrometers.2
2/72 , Mineral Products Industry 8.17-1
-------
References for Section 8.17
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 39.
2. Vincent, E. J. Perlite-Expanding Furnaces. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J, A. (ed.). U.S.
DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 350-352.
3. Unpublished data on perlite expansion furnace. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio.
July 1967.
8.17-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72 /
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
8.18.1 Process Description1
Phosphate rock preparation involves beneficiation to remove impurities drying tofc7«™. mff taw-
grinSng to improve reactivity. Usually, direct-fired rotary kilns are used to dry phosphate rock. These dryers
bU?n nftural gas or fuel oil and are fired counter-currently. The material from the dryers may be ground before
storage in large storage silos. Air-swept ball mills are preferred for grinding phosphate rock.
8.18.2 Emissions and Controls1
Although there are no significant emissions from phosphate rock beneficiation plants, emissions in the form of
fme rSusrrnay be expected from drying and grinding operations. Phosphate rock dryers are usually equipped
wUh toy cyclones followed by wet scrubber?. Particulate emissions are usually higher when drying pebble jock
ton when drying concentrate because of the small adherent particles of clay and shrne on the rock. Phosphate
oS grinde^can be a considerable source of particulates. Because of the extremely fine particle ^e,baghou
coUecKrs are normally used to reduce emissions. Emission factors for phosphate rock processing are
Table 8.18-1.
Table 8.18-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
WITHOUT CONTROLS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of source
Dryingb'c
Grind ingb-d
Transfer and storaged-e
Open storage piles6
Emissions
Ib/ton
15
20
2
40
kg/MT
7.5
10
1
20
Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of phosphate
rock.
References 2 and 3.
cDry cyclones followed by wet scrubbers can reduce emissions by
95 to 99 percent.
dDry cyclones followed by fabric filters can reduce emissions by
99.5 to 99.9 percent.
e Reference 3.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.18-1
-------
References for Section 8.18
1. Stern, A. (e
-------
8.19 SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING By James H. Southerland
8.19.1 Process Description1
Deposits of sand and gravel, the consolidated granular materials resulting from the natural disintegration of
rock or stone, are found in banks and pits and in subterranean and subaqueous beds.
Depending upon the location of the deposit, the materials are excavated using power shovels draglines
cableways suction dredge pumps, or other apparatus; light-charge blasting may be necessa***»•»*•
deposit The materials are transported to the processing plant by suction pump, earth mover bargetruck or
oSer means. The processing of sand and gravel for a specific market involves the use of different combma tons of
washerT; screens L classifiers, which segregate particle sizes; crushers, which reduce oversize material, and
storage and loading facilities.
8.19.2 Emissions2'3
Dust emissions occur during conveying, screening, crushing, and storing operations. Because
generally moist when handled, emissions are much lower than in a similar crushed stone ._
emissions may also occur as vehicles travel over unpaved roads and paved roads covered by dirt.
actual source testing has been done, an estimate has been made for particulate emissions from a plant using
crushers:
Particulate emissions: 0.1 Ib/ton (0.05 kg/MT) of product.3
References for Section 8.19
1. Walker, Stanton. Production of Sand and Gravel. National Sand and Gravel Association. Washington, D.C.
Circular Number 57. 1954.
2. Schreibeis, William J. and H. H. Schrenk. Evaluation of Dust and Noise Conditions at Typical Sand and
Gravel Plants. Study conducted under the auspices of the Committee on Public Relations, National Sand and
Gravel Association, by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. 1958.
3 Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. I, Mass Emissions. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
CPA 22-69-104. May 1971.
4/73
Mineral Products Industry 8.19-1
-------
-------
8.20 STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING
8.20.1 Process Description1
Rock and crushed stone products are loosened by drilling and blasting them from their deposit beds and are
removed with the use of heavy earth-moving equipment. This mining of rock is done primarily in open pits. The
use of pneumatic drilling and cutting, as well as blasting and transferring, causes considerable dust formation.
Further processing includes crushing, regrinding, and. removal of fines.2 Dust emissions can occur from all of
these operations, as well as from quarrying, transferring, loading, and storage operations. Drying operations, when
used, can also be a source of dust emissions.
8.20.2 Emissions1
As enumerated above, dust emissions occur from many operations in stone quarrying and processing. Although
a big portion of these emissions is heavy particles that settle out within the plant, an attempt has been made to
estimate the suspended particulates. These emission factors are shown in Table 8.20-1. Factors affecting emissions
include the amount of rock processed; the method of transfer of the rock; the moisture content of the raw
material; the degree of enclosure of the transferring, processing, and storage areas; and the degree to which
control equipment is used on the processes.
Table 8.20-1. PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROCK-HANDLING PROCESSES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Dry crushing operations'3'0
Primary crushing
Secondary crushing and screening
Tertiary crushing and
screening (if used)
Recrushing and screening
Fines mill
Miscellaneous operations'1
Screening, conveying.
and handling6
Storage pile losses*
Uncontrolled
total8
Ib/ton
0.5
1.5
6
5
6
2
kg/MT
0.25
0.75
3
2.5
3
1
Settled out
in plant.
%
80
60
40
50
25
Suspended
emis
Ib/ton
0.1
0.6
3.6
2.5
4.5
sion
kg/MT
0.05
0.3
1.8
1.25
2.25
aTypical collection efficiencies: cyclone, 70 to 85 percent; fabric filter, 99 percent.
"All values are based on raw material entering primary crusher, except those for recrushing and screening, which are based on
throughput for that operation.
cReference 3.
dBased on units of stored product.
e Reference 4.
f See section 11.2.3.
12/75
Mineral Products Industry
8.20-1
-------
References for Section 8.20
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the National Crushed
Stone Association. September 1969.
3. Culver, P. Memorandum to files. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Division
of Abatement, Durham, N.C. January 6,1968.
4. Unpublished data on storage and handling of rock products. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Division of Abatement, Durham, N.C. May 1967.
5. Stern, A. (ed.) In: Air Pollution, Vol. HI, 2nd Ed. Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 123-127.
8.20-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/7
-------
9. PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING Revised by William M, Vatavuk
9.1.1 General
Although a modern refinery is a complex system of many processes, the entire operation can be divided into
four major steps: separating, converting, treating, and blending. The crude oil is first separated into selected
fractions (e.g. gasoline, kerosene, fuel, oil, etc.). Because the relative volumes of each fraction produced by
merely separating the crude may not conform to the market demands for each fraction, some of the less valuable
products, such as heavy naptha, are converted to products with a greater sale value, such as gasoline. This
conversion is accomplished by splitting (cracking), uniting (polymerization), or rearranging (reforming) the
original molecules. The final step is the blending of the refined base stocks with each other and with various
additives to meet final product specifications. The various unit operations involved at petroleum refineries will be
briefly discussed in the following sections. A generalized petroleum refinery flow sheet is shown in Figure 9.1-1.
9.1.2 Crude Oil Distillation1*
Crude oil is a mixture of many different hydrocarbons, some of them combined with small amounts of
impurities. Crude oils vary considerably in composition and physical properties, but primarily consist of three
families of hydrocarbons: paraffins, saturated hydrocarbons having the empirical formula CnH2n+2« napthenes,
ring-structure saturated hydrocarbons with the formula CnH2n; and aromatics, characterized by a benzene ring,
CgHg, in the molecular structure. In addition to carbon and hydrogen, significant amounts of sulfur, oxygen, and
nitrogen can be present in crude petroleum.
Separation of these hydrocarbon constituents into their respective fractions is performed by simple distillation
in crude topping or skimming units. Crude oil is heated in pipe stills and passed to fractionating towers or
columns for vaporization and preparation. Heavy fractions of the crude oil, which do not vaporize in the topping
operation, are separated by steam or vacuum distillation. The heavy residuum products are reduced to coke and
more valuable volatile products via destructive distillation and coking. Depending on the boiling range of the stock
and its stability with respect to heat and product specifications, solvent extraction and/or absorption techniques
can also be used. The distillation fractions • "straight run products" - usually include refinery gas, gasoline,
kerosene, light fuel oil, diesel oils, gas oil, lube distillate, and heavy bottoms, the amount of each being
determined by the type and composition of the crude oil. Some of these products are treated to remove
impurities and used as base stocks or sold as finished products; the remainder are used as feedstock for other
refinery units.
9.1.2.1 Emissions-The main source of emissions from crude oil preparation processes is the barometric condenser
on the vacuum distillation column. This condenser, while maintaining a vacuum on the tower, often allows
noncondensable light hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulfide to pass through to the atmosphere. The quantity of
these emissions is a function- of the unit size, type of feedstock, and the cooling water temperature. Vapor
recovery systems reduce these emissions to negligible amounts (see Table 9.1-1).
4/73 9.1-1
-------
CUT. CR1OIEII
•tea !nc« tu
w
Figure 9.1-1. Basic flow diagram of petroleum refinery.
-------
w
Table 9.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
type of process
Boilers and process heaters?
lb/103 bbl oil burned
kg/103 liters oil burned
lb/103 ft3 gas burned
kg/103 m3 gas burned
Fluid catalytic cracking
units6
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
Electrostatic precipitator
and CO boiler
tb/103 bbl fresh
feed
kg/103 liters fresh
fresh feed
Moving-bed catalytic
crack ing units3
lb/103 bbl fresh
feed
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
Fluid coking unitsS
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
Electrostatic precipitator
lb/103 bbl fresh
feed
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
Participates
840
2.4
0.02
0.32
242
(93 to 340) f
0.695
(0.267 to 0.976)
44,7
(12.5 to 61.0)
0.128
(0.036 to 0.175)
17
0.049
523
1.50
6.85
0.0196
Sulfur
oxides
(S02)
6,720Sb
19.2S
2sd
32s
493
(31 3 to 525)
1.413
(0.898 to 1.505)
493
(313 to 525)
1.413
(0.898 to 1.505)
60
0.171
NAh
NA
NA
NA
Carbon
monoxide
Negf
Neg
Neg
Neg
13,700
39.2
Neg
Neg
3,800
10.8
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Hydro-
carbons
140
0.4
0.03
0.48
220
0.630
220
0.630
87
0.250
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Nitrogen
oxides
(N02)
2,900
8.3
0.23
3.7
71.0
(37.1 to 145.0)
0.204
(0.107 to 0.416)
71.0
(37.1 to 145.0)
0.204
(0.107 to 0.416)
5
0.014
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Aide-
hydes
25
0.071
0.003
0.048
19
0.054
19
0.054
12
0.034
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Ammonia
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
54
0.155
54
0.155
6
0.017
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
3
-------
Table ai-1. (continued). EMISSION FACTORS PETROLEUM REFINERIES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Compressor internal com-
bustion engines3
!b/103 ft3 gas burned
kg/103 m3 gas burned
Slowdown systems3
Uncontrolled
I b/103bbt refinery
capacity
kg/103 liters refinery
capacity
Vapor recovery system
or flaring
lb/103 bbl refinery
capacity
kg/103 liters refinery
capacity
Process drain s. Uncontrolled
lb/103 bta! waste
water
kg/103 liters waste
water
Vapor recovery or
separator covers
lb/103 bbJ waste
water
kg/103 liters waste water
Vacuum jets3
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl vacuum
distillate
kg/103 liters vacuum
distillate
Fume burner or waste-
heat boiler
lb/103 bbl vacuum
distillate
Particulates
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Sulfur
oxides
IS02»
25
32s
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Carbon
monoxide
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Hydro-
carbons
1.2
19.3
300
0.860
5
0.014
210
0.600
8
0.023
130
0.370
Neg
Nitrogen
oxides
(N02)
0.9
14.4
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Alde-
hydes
0.1
1.61
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Ammonia
0.2
3.2
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
I
Si
to
I
CQ
-------
Table 9.1-1. (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
kg/103 liters vacuum
distillate
Cooling towers3
lb/106 gal cooling
water
kg/106 liters cooling
water
Pipeline valves and
flanges3
lb/103 bbl refining
capacity
kg/103 liter refining
capacity
Vessel relief valves3
lb/103 bbl refining
capacity
kg/103 liter refining
capacity
Pump seals3
lb/103 bbl refining
capacity
kg/103 liter refining
capacity
Compressor seals3
lb/103 bbl refining
capacity
kg/103 liter refining
capacity
Miscellaneous (air blowing.
sampling, etc.)3
lb/103 bbl refining
capacity
kg/103 liter refining
capacity
Particulates
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Sulfur
oxides
|S02)
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Carbon
monoxide
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Hydro-
carbons
Neg
6
0.72
28
0.080
11
0.031
17
0.049
5
0.014
10
0.029
Nitrogen
ox ides
(N02)
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Alde-
hydes
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Ammonia
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
^
-J
3?
p+
o
IF
tn
B Reference 1.
bS = Fuel oil sulfur content (weight percent): factors based on 100 percent combustion of sulfur to SC>2 and assumed density of 336lb/bbl (0,96 kg/liter).
'Negligible emission,
ds= refinery gas sulfur content lib/100 ft3): factors based on 100 percent combustion of sulfur to SO2.
eRaferencet 1 through 6.
Numhnrs in parenthesis inritmro rnnaa or unliu» nhsarvarl.
-------
9.1.3 Converting
To meet quantity demands for certain types of petroleum products, it is often necessary to chemically convert
the molecular structures of certain hydrocarbons via "cracking" and "reforming" to'produce compounds of
different structures.
9.1.3.1 Catalytic Cracking1-In the cracking operation, large molecules are decomposed by heat, pressure and
catalysis into smaller, lower-boiling molecules. Simultaneously, some of the molecules combine (polymerize) to
form larger molecules. Products of cracking are gaseous hydrocarbons, gasoline, gas oil, fuel oil, and coke.
Most catalytic cracking operations in the U.S. today are performed by using four main methods: (1) fixed-bed,
a batch operation; (2) moving-bed, typified by thermofor catalytic cracking (TCC) and Houdriflow units; (3)
fliiidized-bed (FCC); and (4) "once-through" units. The two most widely used units are the moving- and
fluidized-bed types, with the latter most predominant.
In a moving-bed cracker, the charge (gas oil) is heated to 900°F under pressure and passed to the reactor where
it passes cross-flow to a descending stream of molecular sieve-type catalyst in the form of beads or pellets The
cracked products then pass to a fractionating tower where the various compounds are tapped off. Meanwhile the
spent catalyst flows through a regeneration zone where coke deposits are burned off in a continuous process The
regenerated catalyst is then conveyed to storage bins atop the reactor vessel for reuse.
In fluidized systems, finely powdered catalyst is lifted into the reactor by the incoming heated oil charge,
which vaporizes upon contact with the hot catalyst. Spent catalyst settles out in the reactor, is drawn off at a
controlled rate, purged with steam, and lifted by an air stream into the regenerator where the deposited coke is
burned off.
£>ras«OMS-Emissions from cracking unit regenerators consist of particulates (coke and catalyst fines),
hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, ammonia, and nitrogen oxides in the combusion gases.
In addition, catalyst fines may be discharged by vents on the catalyst handling systems on both TCC and FCC
units. Control measures commonly used on regenerators consist of cyclones and electrostatic preciprtators to
remove particulates and energy-recovery combustors to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. The latter recovers
the heat of combustion of the CO to produce refinery process steam.
9.1.3.2 Hydrocracking2-The hydrocracker uses a fixed-bed catalytic reactor, wherein cracking occurs in the
presence of hydrogen under substantial pressure. The-principal functions of the hydrogen are to suppress the
formation of heavy residual material and to increase the yield of gasoline by reacting with the cracked products.
High-molecular-weight, sulfur-bearing hydrocarbons are also cracked, and the sulfur combines with the hydrogen
to form hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Therefore, waste gas from the hydrocracker contains large amounts of HoS
which can be processed for removal of sulfur. ^
9.1.3.3 Catalytic Reforming! ^In reforming processes, a feedstock of gasoline undergoes molecular rearrange-
ment via catalysis (usually including hydrogen removal) to produce a gasoline of higher quality and octane
number, in various fixed-bed and fluidized-bed processes, the catalyst is regenerated continously, in a manner
similar to that used with cracking units.
There are essentially no emissions from reforming operations.
9.1.3.4 Polymerization, Alkylation, and Isomerization1-Polymerization and alkylation are processes used to
produce gasoline from the gaseous hydrocarbons formed during cracking operations. Polymerization joins two or
9-!-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
more olefms (noncyclic unsaturated hydrocarbons with C=C double bonds), arid alkylation unites an olefin and
an iso-paraffin (noncyclic branched-chain hydrocarbon saturated with hydrogen). Isomerization is the process for
altering the arrangement of atoms in a molecule without adding of removing anything from the original material,
and is usually used in the oil industry to form branched-chain hydrocarbons. A number of catalysts such as
phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, platinum, aluminum chloride, and hydrofluoric acid are used to promote the
combination or rearrangement of these light hydrocarbons.
9.1.3.5 Emissions-These three processes, including regeneration of any necessary catalysts, form essentially
closed systems and have no unique, major source of atmospheric emissions. However, the highly volatUe
hydrocarbons handled, coupled with the high process .pressures required, make valve stems and pump shafts
difficult to seal, and a greater emission rate from these sources can generally be expected in these process areas
than would be the average throughout the refinery. The best method for controlling these emissions is the
effective maintenance, repair, arid replacement of pump seals, valve caulking, and pipe-joint sealer.
9.1.4 Treating
"Hydrogen," "chemical," and "physical" treating are used in the refinery process to remove undesirable
impurities such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen to improve product quality.
9.1.4.1 Hydrogen Treating1-In this procedure hydrogen is reacted with impurities in compounds to produce
removable hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and water. In addition, the process converts diolefins (gum-forming
hydrocarbons with the empirical formula R=C=R) into stable compounds while minimizing saturation of
desirable aromatics.
Hydrogenation units are nearly all the fixed-bed type with catalyst replacement or regeneration (by
combustion) done intermittently, the frequency of which is dependent upon operating conditions and the
product being treated. The hydrogen sulfide produced is removed from the hydrogen stream via extraction and
converted to elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid or, when present in small quantities, burned to S(>2 in a flare or
boiler firebox.
9.1.4.2 ChemicalTreating1-Chemical treating is generally classified into four groups: (l)acid treatment, (2)
sweetening, (3) solvent extraction, and (4) additives. Acid treatment involves contacting hydrocarbons with
sulfuric acid to partially remove sulfur and nitrogen compounds, to precipitate asphaltic or gum-like materials,
and to improve color and odor. Spent acid sludges that result are usually converted to ammonium sulfate or
sulfuric acid.
Sweetening processes oxidize mercaptans (formula: R-S-H) to disulfide (formula: R-S-S-^.) without actual
sulfur removal. In some processes, air and steam are used for agitation in'mixing tanks and to reactivate chemical
solutions.
Solvent extraction utilizes solvents that have affinities for the undesirable compounds and that can easily be
removed from the product stream. Specifically, mercaptan compounds are usually extracted using a strong caustic
solution; hydrogen sulfide is removed by a number of commercial processes.
Finally, additives or inhibitors are primarily materials added in small amounts to oxidize mercaptans to
disulfide and to retard gum formation.
4/76 Petroleum Industry 9.1-7
-------
9.1.4.3 Physical Treating1-Some of the many physical methods used to remove impurities include electrical
coalescence, filtration, absorption, and air blowing. Specific applications of physical methods are desalting crude
oil, removing wax, decolorizing lube oils, and brightening diesel oil.
9.1.4.4 Emissions - Emissions from treating operations consist of SC>2, hydrocarbons, and visible plumes.
Emission levels depend on the methods used in handling spent acid and acid sludges, as well as the means
employed for recovery or disposal of hydrogen sulfide. Other potential sources of these emissions in treating
include catalyst regeneration, air agitation in mixing tanks, and other air blowing operations. Trace amounts of
malodorous substances may escape from numerous sources including settling tank vents, purge tanks, waste
treatment units, waste-water drains, valves, and pump seals.
Control methods used include: covers for waste water separators; vapor recovery systems for settling and surge
tanks; improved maintenance for pumps, valves, etc; and sulfur recovery plants.
9.1.5 Blending1
The final major operation in petroleum refining consists of blending the products in various proportions to
meet certain specifications, such as vapor pressure, specific gravity, sulfur content, viscosity, octane number,
initial boiling point, and pour point.
9.1.5.1 Emissions — Emissions associated with this operation are hydrocarbons that leak from storage vessels,
valves, and pumps. Vapor recovery systems and specially built tanks minimize storage emissions; good
housekeeping precludes pump and valve leakage,
9.1.6 Miscellaneous Operations1
In addition to the four refinery operations described above, there are many process operations connected with
all four. These involve the use of cooling towers, blow-down systems, process heaters and boilers, compressors,
and process drains. The emissions and controls associated with these operations are listed in Table 9 J -1.
References for Section 9.1
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries: A Guide for Measurement and Control. 0.S. DHEW,
Public Health Service. Washington, D.C. PHS Publication Number 763.1960.
2. Impurities in Petroleum. In: Petreco Manual. Long Beach, Petrolite Corp. 1958. p.l.
3, Jones, Ben G. Refinery Improves Particulate Control. The Oil and Gas Journal. <59(26):60-62. June 28,1971.
4. Private communications with personnel in the Emission Testing Branch, Applied Technology Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., regarding source testing at a petroleum
refinery preparatory to setting new source standards. June-August 1972.
5. Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide in Air Pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-52. January 1969.
6. Olson, H.N. and K.E. Hutchinson. How Feasible are Giant, One-Train Refineries? The Oil and Gas Journal.
70(.l):39-43. January 3, 1972.
9.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 4/76
-------
9.2 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING by Harry Butcher and Tom Lahre
9.2.1 General1
Natural gas from high-pressure wells is usually passed through field separators to remove hydrocarbon
condensate and water at the well. Natural gasoline, butane, and propane are usually present in the gas, and gas
processing plants are required for the recovery of these liquefiable constituents (see Figure 9.2-1), Natural gas is
considered "sour" if hydrogen sulfide is present in amounts greater than 0.25 grain per 100 standard cubic feet.
The hydrogen sulfide (H^S) must be removed (called "sweetening" the gas) before the gas can be utilized. If H2S
is present, the gas is usually sweetened by absorption of the H2S in an amine solution. Amine processes are used
for over 95 percent of all gas sweetening in the United States. Processes such as carbonate processes, solid bed
absorbents, and physical absorption methods are employed in the other sweetening plants. Emissions data for
sweetening processes other than amine types are very meager.
The major emission sources in the natural gas processing industry are compressor engines and acid gas wastes
from gas sweetening plants. Compressor engine emissions are discussed in section 3,3.2; therefore, only gas
sweetening plant emissions are discussed here,
9.2.2 Process Description 3-3
Many chemical processes are available for sweetening natural gas. However, at present, the most widely used
method for H2S removal or gas sweetening is the amine type process (also known as the Girdler process) in which
various amine solutions are utilized for absorbing H2S. The process is summarized in reaction 1 and illustrated in
Figure 9.2-2.
2 RNH2 + H2S »-(RNH3)2S (1)
where: R = mono, di, or tri-ethanol
N = nitrogen
H = hydrogen
S = sulfur
The recovered hydrogen sulfide gas stream may be (1) vented, (2) flared in waste gas flares or modern
smokeless flares, (3) incinerated, or (4) utilized for the production of elemental sulfur or other commercial
products. If the recovered H2S gas stream is not to be utilized as a feedstock for commercial applications, the gas
is usually passed to a tail gas incinerator in which the I^S is oxidized to sulfur dioxide and then passed to the
atmosphere via a stack. For more details, the reader should consult Reference 8.
9.2.3 Emissions4-5
Emissions will only result from gas sweetening plants if the acid waste gas from the amine process is flared or
incinerated. Most often, the acid waste gas is used as a feedstock in nearby sulfur recovery or sulfuric acid plants.
When flaring or incineration is practiced, the major pollutant of concern is sulfur dioxide. Most plants employ
elevated smokeless flares or tail gas incinerators to ensure complete combustion of all waste gas constituents,
including virtually 100 percent conversion of H2S to S02. Little participate, smoke, or hydrocarbons result from
these devices, and because gas temperatures do not usually exceed 1200°F (650°C), significant quantities of
nitrogen oxides are not formed. Emission factors for gas sweetening plants with smokeless flares or incinerators
are presented in Table 9.2-1.
4/76 Petroleum Industry 9.2-1
-------
SOUR GAS FEEDSTOCK TO CHEMICAL PLANTS
FLARE (ONLY DURING WELL TESTING
AND COMPLETION)
1 J3 •
(X "\i
GAS,
OIL, AND
WATER
HYDR
COM
MERGENCY FLARE OR VENT
1
1 1
SEPARATORS
AND
DEHYDRATORS .,
11
REINJECTION FLARE OR
EMERGENCY FLARE 4 FLARE OR INCINERATOR
i T INCINERATOR 1
A 1 t
GAS C02-H;
*" UftS swtt I tNING PLAN 1
SWEET
GAS
SWEET ,
GAS
1
EMERGENCY FLARE OH
1
^ R4SPRnnc!fs(NR
PLANT
REENJECTION "flfbLIAlb
1 IF SWEET
OCARBON WATER
ENSATES
*r- .... ».. «»n«L SULFUR fc
ERY PLANT
NATURAL GAS
«1 + C2»
LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM
GAS(C3+C4>
—* HIGHER
HYDROCARBONS
(C5+ HEAVIER)
Figure 9.2-1. Generalized flow diagram of the natural gas industry.
-------
Table 9.2-1, EMISSION FACTORS FOR GAS SWEETENING PLANTS9
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: SULFUR OXIDES: A
ALL OTHER FACTORS: C
Process*3
Amine
lb/106 ft3 gas processed
kg/103 m3 gas processed
Particulates
Neg.
Neg.
Sulfur oxides0
(S02)
1685Sd
26.98 Sd
Carbon
monoxide
Neg.
Neg.
Hydrocarbons
Neg.
Neg.
Nitrogen
oxides
Neg.
Neg.
,aEmission factors are presented in this section only for smokeless flares and tall gas incinerators on the amine gas sweetening
process. Too little emissions information exists to characterize emissions from older, less efficient waste gas flares on the
amine process or from other, less common gas sweetening processes. Emission factors for various internal combustion engines
utilized in a gas processing plant are given in section 3.3.2, Emission factors for sulfuric acid plants and sulfur recovery plants
are given in sections 6.17 and 5.18, respectively. . ...
bThese factors represent emissions after smokeless flares (with fuel gas and steam injection) or tail gas incinerators and are based
on References 2 end 4 through 7. .
"These factors are based on the assumptions that virtually 100 percent of all H-jS in the acid gas waste is converted to SC>2 during
flaring or incineration and that the sweetening process removes essentially 100 percent of the H^ present in the feedstock.
*% is the H^ content, on a mole percent basis, in the sour gas entering the ga» sweetening plant. For example, if the H-vS content
is 2 percent, the emission factor would be 1685 times 2, or 3370 Ib SOj per million cubic feetof sour gas processed, if the
H^S mole percent is unknown, average values from Table 9.2-2 may be substituted.
Note: If H2$ contents are reported in grains per 100 scf or ppm, use the following factors to convert to mole percent:
0.01 mol % HjS = 6.26 gr HjS/l 00 scf at 60° F and 29.92 in. Hg
1 gr/100 scf = 16 ppm (by volume)
To convert to or from metric units, use the following factor:
0.044 gr/100 scf = 1 mg/fctm3
ACID GAS
PURIFIED
_ GAS
HEAT EXCHANGER
Figure 9.2-2. Flow diagram of the amine process for gas sweetening.
4/76
Petroleum Industry
9.2-3
-------
Table 9,2-2. AVERAGE HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS
IN NATURAL GAS BY AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION"
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
AQCR name
Mobile-Pensacola'Panama City -
Southern Mississippi (Fla., Miss.)
Four Corners (Colo., N.M., Utah)
Monroe-El Dorado (La.)
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler
(La., Okla., Texas)
Metropolitan Los Angeles
San Joaquin Valley
South Central Coast
Southeast Desert
Four Corners (Ariz., N.M., Utah)
Metropolitan Denver
Pawnee
San Isabel
Yampa
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City •
Southern Mississippi (Ala., Miss.)
Northwest Kansas
Southwest Kansas
Monroe-El Dorado (Ariz.)
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler
(Ariz., Okla,, Texas)
Upper Michigan
Mississippi Delta
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City -
Southern Mississippi (Ala., Fla.)
Great Falls
Miles City
Four Corners (Ariz., Colo., Utah)
Pecos-Permian Basin
North Dakota
Northwestern Oklahoma
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler
(Ariz., La., Texas)
Southeastern Oklahoma
AQCR
number
5
14
19
22.
24
31
32
33
14
36
37
38
40
6
97
100
19
22
126
134
5
141
143
14
155
172
187
22
188
Average
H2S,mol%
3.30
0.71
0.15
0.55
2.09
0.89
3.66
1.0
0.71
0.1
0.49
0.3
0.31
3.30
0.005
0.02
0.16
0.55
0.5
0.68
3.30
3.93
0.4
0.71
0.83
1.74b
1.1
0.55
0.3
9.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/76
-------
Table 9.2-2 (continued). AVERAGE HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS
IN NATURAL GAS BY AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION8
State
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
AQCR name
Abilene-Wichita Falls
Amarillo-Lubbock
Austin-Waco
Corpus Christi-Victoria
Metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth
Metropolitan San Antonio
Midland-Odessa-San Angelo
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler
(Ariz., La., Okla.)
Four Corners (Ariz., Colo., N.M.)
Casper
Wyoming (except Park, Bighorn
and Washakie Counties)
AQCR
number
210
211
212
214
215
217
218
22
14
241
243
Average
H2S,mol%
0.055
0.26
0.57
0.59
2.54
1.41
0.63
0.55
0.71
1.262
2.34
Reference 9.
''Sour gas only reported for Burke, Williams, and McKenzie Counties.
cPark, Bighorn, and Washakie Counties report gas with an average 23 mol % H^S content.
Some plants still use older, less efficient waste gas flares. Because these flares usually burn at temperatures
lower than necessary for complete combustion, some emissions of hydrocarbons and participates as well as higher
quantities of t^S can occur. No data are available to estimate the magnitude of these emissions from waste gas
flares.
Emissions from sweetening plants with adjacent commercial plants, such as sulfuric acid plants or sulfur
recovery plants, are presented in sections 5.17 and 5.18, respectively. Emission factors for internal combustion
engines used in gas processing plants are given in section 3.3.2.
Background material for this section was prepared for EPA by Ecology Audits, Inc.8
References for Section 9.2
1. Katz, D.L., D. Cornell, R. Kobayashi, F.H. Poettmann, J.A. Vary, J.R. Elenbaas, and C.F. Weinaug.
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1959.802 p.
2. Maddox, R.R. Gas and Liquid Sweetening. 2nd Ed. Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman, Oklahoma. 1974.
298 p.
3. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Vol. 7. Kirk, R.E. and D.F. Othmer (eds.). New York, Interscjence
Encyclopedia, Inc. 1951.
4. Sulfur Compound Emissions of the Petroleum Production Industry. M.W. Kellogg Co., Houston, Texas.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-1308.
Publication No. EPA-650/2-75-030. December 1974.
5. Unpublished stack test data for gas sweetening plants. Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, Texas. 1974.
4/76
Petroleum Industry
9.2-5
-------
6. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from Stationary Sources, U.S. DHEW,
PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration* Washington, D.C. Publication No. AP-68. March
1970. p. 3-1 and 4-5.
7. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides from Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C, Publication No. AP-67. March 1970. p. 7-25 to 7-32.
8. Mullins, B.J. et al. Atmospheric Emissions Survey of the Sour Gas Processing Industry. Ecology Audits, Inc.,
Dallas, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract
No. 68-02-1865. Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-076. October 1975.
9. Federal Air Quality Control Regions. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication No. AP-102. January 1972,
4/76 EMISSION FACTORS 9.2-6
-------
10. WOOD PROCESSING
Wood processing involves the conversion of raw wood to either pulp, pulpboard, or one of several types of
wallboard including plywood, particleboard, or hardboard. This section presents emissions data for chemical
wood pulping, for pulpboard and plywood manufacturing, and tor woodworking operations. The burning of wood
waste in boilers and conical burners is not included as it is discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this publication.
10.1 CHEMICAL WOOD PULPING Revised by Thomas Lahre
10.1.1 General!
Chemical wood pulping involves the extraction of cellulose from wood by dissolving the lignin that binds the
cellulose fibers together. The principal processes used in chemical pulping are the kraft, sulfite, neutral sulfite
semichemical (NSSC), dissolving, and soda; the first three of these display the greatest potential for causing air
pollution. The kraft process accounts for about 65 percent of all pulp produced in the United States; the sulfite
and NSSC processes, together, account for less than 20 percent of the total. The choice of pulping process is de-
termined by the product being made, by the type of wood species available, and by economic considerations.
10.1.2 Kraft Pulping
10.1.2.1 Process Description1-2-The kraft process (see Figure 10.1.2-1) involves the cooking of wood chips
under pressure in the presence of a cooking liquor in either a batch or a continuous digester. The cooking liquor,
or "white liquor," consisting of an aqueous solution of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide, dissolves the lignin
that binds the cellulose fibers together.
When cooking is completed, the contents of the digester are forced into the blow tank. Here the major portion
of the spent cooking liquor, which contains the dissolved lignin, is drained, and the pulp enters the initial stage of
washing. From the blow tank the pulp passes through the knotter where unreacted chunks of wood are removed.
The pulp is then washed and, in some mills, bleached before being pressed and dried into the finished product.
It is economically necessary to recover both the inorganic cooking chemicals and the heat content of the spent
"black liquor," which is separated from the cooked pulp. Recovery is accomplished by first concentrating the
liquor to a level that will support combustion and then feeding it to a furnace where burning and chemical recovery
take place.
Initial concentration of the weak black liquor, which contains about 15 percent solids, occurs in the multiple-
effect evaporator. Here process steam is passed countercurrent to the liquor in a series of evaporator tubes that
increase the solids content to 40 to 55 percent. Further concentration is then effected in the direct contact
evaporator. This is generally a scrubbing device (a cyclonic or venturi scrubber or a cascade evaporator) in which
hot combustion gases from the recovery furnace mix with the incoming black liquor to raise its solids content to
55 to 70 percent.
The black liquor concentrate is then sprayed into the recovery furnace where the organic content supports
combustion. The inorganic compounds fall to the bottom of the furnace and are discharged to the smelt dissolving
tank to form a solution called "green liquor." The green liquor is then conveyed to a causticizer where slaked
lime (calcium hydroxide) is added to convert the solution back to white liquor, which can be reused in subsequent
cooks. Residual lime sludge from the causticizer can be recycled after being dewatered and calcined in the hot
lime kiln.
Many mills need more steam for process heating, for driving equipment, for providing electric power, etc., than
can be provided by the recovery furnace alone. Thus, conventional industrial boilers that burn coal, oil, natural
gas, and in some cases, bark and wood waste are commonly employed.
4/76 Wood Processing 10.1-1
-------
HzS, CH3SH, CH3SCH3,
AND HIGHER COMPOUNDS
CHIPS
RELIEF
CH3SH, CH3SCH3, H2S
NONCONDENSABLES
HEAT
EXCHANGER
rn
En
en
en
CONTAMINATED
•*• WATER
CH3SH, CHsSCHs, HzS
NONCONDENSABLES
TURPENTINE
CONTAMINATED WATER
STEAM, CONTAMINATED WATER,
H2S,ANDCH3SH
PULP 13% SOLIDS
SPENT AIR, CH3SCH3,-«-
AND CH3SSCH3
S
BLACK LIQUOR
50% SOLIDS
fl
DIRECT CONTACT
EVAPORATOR
LACK
LIQUOR 70% SOLIDS
-*
SULFUR WyER j
RECOVERY
FURNACE
OXIDIZING
ZONE
REDUCTION
ZONE
SMELT
-4
ON
Figure 10.1.2-1. Typical kraft sulfate pulping and recovery process.
-------
10.1.2.2. Emission and Controls1 -6-Particulate emissions from the kraft process occur primarily from the re-
covery furnace, the lime kiln, and the smelt dissolving tank. These emissions consist mainly of sodium salts but
include some calcium salts from the lime kiln. They are caused primarily by the carryover of solids plus the sub-
limation and condensation of the inorganic chemicals.
Paniculate control is provided on recovery furnaces in a variety of ways. In mills where either a cyclonic
scrubber or'cascade evaporator serves as the direct contact evaporator, further control is necessary as these devices
are generally only 20 to 50 percent efficient for particulates. Most often in these cases, an electrostatic precipitate:
is employed after the direct contact evaporator to provide an overall participate control efficiency of 85 to > 99
percent. In a few mills, however, a venturi scrubber is utilized as the direct contact evaporator and simultaneously
provides 80 to 90 percent paniculate control. In either case auxiliary scrubbers may be included after the
preeipitator or the venturi scrubber to provide additional control of particulates.
Paniculate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers. Smelt dissolving tanks are commonly
controlled by mesh pads but employ scrubbers when further control is needed.
The characteristic odor of the kraft mill is caused in large part by the emission of hydrogen sulfide. The major
source is the direct contact evaporator in which the sodium sulfide in the black liquor reacts with the carbon
dioxide in the furnace exhaust. The lime kiln can also be a potential source as a similar reaction occurs involving
residual sodium sulfide in the lime mud. Lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide are emitted with the noncondensible
off-gasses from the digesters and multiple-effect evaporators.
The kraft-process odor also results from an assortment of organic sulfur compounds, all of which have extremely
low odor thresholds. Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with the wood component
lignin. Dimethyl disulfide is formed through the oxidation of mercaptan groups derived from the ligndn. These
compounds are emitted from many points within a mill; however, the main sources are the digester/blow tank
systems and the direct contact evaporator.
Although odor control devices, per se, are not generally employed in kraft mills, control of reduced sulfur
compounds can be accomplished by process modifications and by optimizing operating conditions. For example,
black liquor oxidation systems, which oxidize sulfides into less reactive thiosulfates, can considerably reduce
odorous sulfur emissions from the direct contact evaporator, although the vent gases from such systems become
minor odor sources themselves. Noncondensible odorous gases vented from the digester/blow tank system and
multiple-effect evaporators can be destroyed by thermal oxidation, usually by passing them through the lime
kiln. Optimum operation of the recovery furnace, by avoiding overloading and by maintaining sufficient oxygen
residual and turbulence, significantly reduces emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from this source. In addi-
tion, the use of fresh water instead of contaminated condensates in the scrubbers and pulp washers further reduces
odorous emissions. The effect of any of these modifications on a given mill's emissions will vary considerably.
Several new mills have incorporated recovery systems that eliminate the conventional direct contact evaporators.
In one system, preheated combustion air rather than flue gas provides direct contact evaporation. In the other,
the multiple-effect evaporator system is extended to replace the direct contact evaporator altogether. In both of
these systems, reduced sulfur emissions from the recovery furnace/direct contact evaporator reportedly can be
reduced by more than 95 percent from conventional uncontrolled systems.
Sulfur dioxide emissions result mainly from oxidation of reduced sulfur compounds in the recovery furnace.
It is reported that the direct contact evaporator absorbs 50 to 80 percent of these emissions; further scrubbing, if
employed, can reduce them another 10 to 20 percent.
Potential sources of carbon monoxide emissions from the kraft process include the recovery furnace and lime
kilns. The major cause of carbon monoxide emissions is furnace operation well above rated capacity, making it
impossible to maintain oxidizing conditions.
4/77 Wood Processing 10.1-3
-------
Some nitrogen oxides are also emitted from the recovery furnace and lime kilns although the
amounts are relatively small. Indications are that nitrogen oxides emissions from each of these sources
are on the order of 1 pound per air-dried ton (0.5 kg/air-dried MT) of pulp produced.5 6
A major source of emissions in a kraft mill is the boiler for generating auxiliary steam and power.
The fuels used are coal, oil, natural gas, or bark/wood waste. Emission factors for boilers are presented
in Chapter 1.
Table 10.1,2-1 presents emission factors for a conventional kraft mill. The most widely used
paniculate controls devices are shown along with the odor reductions resulting from black liquor
oxidation and incineration of noncondensible off-gases.
-10.1.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping by Tom Lahre
10.1.3.1 Process Description14 - The production of acid sulfite pulp proceeds similarly to kraft pulp-
ing except that different chemicals are used in the cooking liquor. In place of the caustic solution used
to dissolve the lignin in the wood, sulfurous acid is employed. To buffer the cooking solution, a bisul-
fite of sodium, magnesium, calcium, or ammonium is used. A simplified flow diagram of a magnesium-
base process is shown in Figure 10.1.3-1.
Digestion is carried out under high pressure and high temperature in either batch-mode or con-
tinuous digesters in the presence of a sulfurous acid-bisulfite cooking liquor. When cooking is com-
leted, the digester is either discharged at high pressure into a blow pit or its contents are pumped out
at a lower pressure into a dump tank. The spent sulfite liquor (also called red liquor) then drains
through the bottom of the tank and is either treated and disposed, incinerated, or sent to a plant for
recovery of heat and chemicals. The pulp is then washed and processed through screens and centri-
fuges for removal of knots, bundles of fibers, and other materials. It subsequently may be bleached,
pressed, and dried in paper-making operations.
Because of the variety of bases employed in the cooking liquor, numerous schemes for heat and/or
chemical recovery have evolved. In calcium-base systems, which are used mostly in older mills, chemi-
cal recovery is not practical, and the spent liquor is usually discarded or incinerated. In ammonium-
base operations, heat can be recovered from the spent liquor through combustion, but the ammonium
base is consumed in the process. In sodium- or magnesium-base operations heat, sulfur, and base
recovery are all feasible.
If recovery is practiced, the spent weak red liquor (which contains more than half of the raw
materials as dissolved organic solids) is concentrated in a multiple-effect evaporator and direct contact
evaporator to 55 to 60 percent solids. Strong liquor is sprayed into a furnace «nd burned, producing
steam for the digesters, evaporators, etc., and to meet the mills power requirements.
When magnesium base liquor is burned, a flue gas is produced from which magnesium oxide is
recovered in a multiple cyclone as fine white powder. The magnesium oxide is then water-slaked and
used as circulating liquor in a series of venturi scrubbers which are designed to absorb sulfur dioxide
from the flue gas and form a bisulfite solution for use in the cook cycle. When sodium-base liquor is
burned, the inorganic compounds are recovered as a molten smelt containing sodium sulfide and
sodium carbonate. This smelt may be processed further and used to absorb sulfur dioxide from the
flue gas and sulfur burner. In some sodium-base mills, however, the smelt may be sold to a nearby kraft
mill as raw material for producing green liquor,
10.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
**
•si
"fl
3
O
CD
5"
Table 10.1.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFATE PULPING8
(unit weights of air-dried unbleached pulp}
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Source
Digester relief and
blow tank
Brown stock washers
Multiple effect
evaporators
Recovery boiler and
direct contact
evaporator
Smelt dissolving
tank
Lime kilns
Turpentine
condenser
Miscellaneous
sources '
Type
control
Untreated 9
Untreated
Untreated9
Untreated n
Venturi
scrubber)
Electrostatic
prectpitator
Auxiliary
scrubber
Untreated
Mesh pad
Untreated
Scrubber
Untreated
Untreated
Particutatesb
Ib/ton
—
—
150
VI
8
3 - 15*
5
1
45
3
—
_
kg/MT
—
-
75 ,
23.5
4
|^
t .5-7.5*
2.5
0.5
22.5
15
—
—
Sulfur
dioxide (SO2)C
Ib/ton
—
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
—.
—
kg/MT
—
Ol005
0.005
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.1
—
—
Carbon
monoxide*1
Ib/ton
—
—
—
2-60
2-60
2 -60
2-60
—
—
10
10
—
—
kg/MT
—
—
-
1 -30
t - 30
1 -30
1 -30
—
. —
5
5
-
—
Hydrogen
sulfidetS*)6 -
Ib/ton
0.1
0.02
0.1
12!
12'
12i
12*
0.04
0.04
0.5
0.5
0.01
_
kg/MT
0.06
0.01
0.05
6!
61
.
61
6'
0.02
0.02
0.25
0.25
0.005
—
RSH. RSR,
RSSR4S-}a"f
Ib/ton
1.5
0.2
0.4
1j.
11
.
11
1
11
0.4
0.4
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
kg/MT
0.75
0.1
0.2
0.5!
0.51
.
0.5
I
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.125
0.125
0.25
0.25
For more detailed data on specific types of mills, consult Reference 1.
References 1, 7, 8.
References 1. 7. 9, 10.
References 6, 11. Use higher value for overloaded furnaces.
References 1, 4, 7-10. 12, 13. These reduced sulfur compounds are usually expressed as sulfur.
fRSH-ma thy I mercaptan; RSR-dimethyl sulfids; RSSfi-dimethyl dtsulfide.
9lf the noncondensible gases from these sources are vented to the lime kiln, recovery furnace, or equivalent, the reduced sulfur compounds
are destroyed.-
These factors apply when either a cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator is used for direct contact evaporation with no further controls.
'These reduced sulfur compounds (TRS) are typically reduced by 60 percent when black liquor qxidatton is employed but can be cut lay 90 to
99 percent when oxidation is complete and the recovery furnace is operated optimally.
'These factors apply when a venturi scrubber is used for direct contact evaporation with no further controls.
^Use 15(7.5) when the auxiliary scrubber follows a venturi scrubber and 3(1.5) when employed after an electrostatic precipitator.
'insludes knotter vents, brownstock seal tanks, etc. When black liquor oxidation is included, a factor of 0.6(0.3) should be used.
-------
RECOVERY FURNACE/
ABSORPTION STREAM
EXHAUST
STEAM FOR
PROCESS AMDPDWER
M
s
o
2
Cfl
Figure 10.1.3-1. Simplified process flow diagram of magnesium-base process employing
chemical and heat recovery.
-------
If recovery is not practiced, an acid plant of sufficient capacity to fulfill the mill's total sulfite
requirement is necessary. Normally, sulfur is burned in a rotary or spray burner. The gas produced'is
then cooled by heat exchangers plus a water spray and then absorbed in a variety of different scrubbers
containing either limestone or a solution of the base chemical. Where recovery is practiced, fortifica-
tion is accomplished similarly, although a much smaller amount of sulfur dioxide must be produced
to make,up for that lost in the process.
10.1.3.2 Emissions and Controls14 • Sulfur dioxide isjfeneratly considered the major pollutant of
concern from sulfite pulp mills. The characteristic "kraft" odor is not emitted because volatile re-
duced sulfur compounds are not products of the lignin-bisulfite reaction.
• One of the major SOj sources is the digester and blow pit or dump tank system' Sulfur dioxide is
present in the intermittent digester relief gases as well as in the gases given off at the end of the cook
when the digester contents are discharged into the blow pit or dump tank. The quantity of sulfur oxide
evolved and emitted to the atmosphere in these gas streams depends on the pH of the cooking liquor,
the pressure at which the digester contents are discharged, and the effectiveness of the absorption
systems employed for SOj recovery. Scrubbers can be installed that reduce SO: from this source by as
much as 99 percent.
Another source of sulfur dioxide emissions is the recovery system. Since magnesium-, sodium-, and
ammonium-base recovery systems all utilize absorption systems to recover SO2 generated in the re-
covery furnace, acid fortification towers, multiple-effect evaporators, etc., the magnitude of SO:
emissions depends on the desired.efficiency of these systems. Generally, such absorption systems
provide better than 95 percent sulfur recovery to minimize sulfur makeup needs.
The various pulp washing, screening, and cleaning operations are also potential sources of SO;.
These operations are numerous and may account for a significant fraction of a mill's SOj emissions if
not controlled.
The only significant paniculate source in the pulping and recovery process is the absorption system
handling the recovery furnace exhaust. Less paniculate is generated in ammonium-base systems than
magnesium- or sodium-base systems as the combustion productions are mostly nitrogen, water vapor,
and sulfur dioxide.
Other major sources of emissions in a sulfite pulp mill include the auxiliary power boilers. Emis-
sion factors for these boilers are presented in .Chapter 1.
Emission factors for the various sulfite pulping operations are shown in Table 10.1.3-1.
10.1.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping
10.1.4.1 Process Description1^7'15'1* - In this process, the wood chips are cooked in a neutral solution of
sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate. The sulfite ion reacts with the lignin in the wood, and the
sodium bicarbonate acts as a buffer to maintain a neutral solution. The major difference between this
process (as well as all semichemical techniques) and the kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only a
portion of the lignin is removed during the cook, after which the pulp is further reduced by mechani-
cal disintegration. Because of this, yields as high as 60 to 80 percent can be achieved as opposed to 50 to
55 percent for other chemical processes.
4/77 Wood Processing 10.1-7
-------
Table 10.1.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFITE PULPING*
Source
Digester/blow pit or
dump tankc
Recovery system*
Acid plants
Other sources'
Base
All
MgO
MgO
MgO
MgO
NH3
NH3
Na
Ca
MgO
NH3
Na
NH3
Na
Ca
All
Control
None
Process change*
Scrubber
Process change
and scrubber
All exhaust
vented through
recovery system
Process .change
Process change
and scrubber
Process change
and scrubber
Unknown
Multiclone and
venturi
scrubbers
Ammonia
absorption and
mist eliminator
Sodium carbonate
scrubber
Scrubber
Unknown^
Jenssen
scrubber
None
Emission factOrb
Particulate
Ib/ADUT
Negd
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
2
0,7
•4
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
kg/ADUMT
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
1 •
0.36
' - 2 ; •
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Sulfur Dioxide
ib/AbUT
10-70
2-6
1
0.2
0
25
0.4
2 ..
67
9
7
2
0.3
0.2
8
12
kg/ADUMT
5-35
1-3
0.5
0.1
0
12.5
0:2
1
33.5
. 4.B
3.5
. 1 - • •
0.2
0.1
4
6
Emission
factor
rating
C
C
B
B
A
D
B
C
c
A
B
C
C
0
c
D
aAII emission factors represent long-term average emissions. '•'''.
bFactors expressed in terms of Ib (kg) of pollutant per air dried unbleached ton (MT) of pulp. All factors ere based on data
in Reference 14.
cThese factors represent emissions that occur after the cook is completed and when the digester contents are discharged in-
to the blow pit or dump tank. Some relief gases are vented from the digester during the cook cycle, but these are usually
transferred to pressure accumulators, and the SO? therein is reabsorbed for use in the cooking liquor. These factors repre-
sent long-term average emissions; in some mills, the actual emissions will be intermittent and for short time periods.
''Negligible emissions.
eProcess changes may include such measures as raising the pH of the cooking liquor, thereby lowering the free SO?, reliev-
ing the pressure in the digester before the contents are discharged, and pumping out the digester contents instead of blow-
ing them out.
'The recovery system at most mills is a closed system that includes the recovery furnace, direct contact evaporator, multi-
ple-effect evaporator, acid fortification tower, and SO2 absorption scrubbers. Generally, there will only be one emission
point for the entire recovery system. These factors are long-term averages and include the high SO? emissions during the
periodic purging of the recovery system,
^Acid plants are necessary in mills that have no or insufficient recovery systems.
"Control is practiced, but type of control is unknown.
! Includes miscellaneous pulping operations such as knotters, washers, screens, etc.
10.1*8
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Tlw NSSC process varies. I mm mill u» mill. Some nulls dispose of iheir spent liquor, some mills recover the
cooking chemicals, aitd'somc. which ate operated in conjunction with krall mills, mix their spent liquor with the
kiall liquor its ;i source «>!' makeup chemicals. When recovery is practiced, the steps involved parallel those of the
siillilc process.
(0.1.4.2 Emissions and.Controls1*7*1**16 Particulatc emissions arc a potential problem only when recovery
systems :ue employed. Mills thai do pructice recovery, but arc not operated in conjunction with kraft operations
often ulili/u llnidi/ed bed reactors to burn their spent liquor. Because the Due gas contains sodium sulfate and
sodium carbonate dust, ctTicicnt paniculate collection may be included to facilitate chemical recovery,
A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. The absorbing towers, digester/blow tank system, and recovery
furnace are the main sources of this pollutant with the amounts emitted dependent upon the capability of the
scrubbing devices installed for control and recovery.
Hydrogen sulfide can also be emitted from NSSC mills using kraft-type recovery furnaces. The main potential
source is the absorbing tower where a significant quantity of hydrogen sulfide is liberated as the cooking liquor is
made. Other possible sources include the recovery furnace, depending on the operating conditions maintained, as
well as the digester/blow tank system in mills where some green liquor is used in the cooking process. Where green
liquor is used, it is also possible that significant quantities of mercaptans will be produced. Hydrogen sulfide
emissions can be eliminated if burned to sulfur dioxide prior to entering the absorbing systems.
Because the NSSC process differs greatly from null to mill, and because of the scarcity of adequate data, no
emission factors arc presented.
References for Section 10.1
|. Hendrickson, E. R. et al. Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood Pulping Industry. Vol. I. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Wash-
ington, D.C. Final report under Contract No. CPA 22-69-18. March 15,1970.
2. Britt, K. W. Handbook of Pulp and Paper Technology. New York, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1964.
p. 166-200.
3. Hendrickson, E. R. et al. Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood Pulping Industry. Vol. III. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Wash-
ington, D.C. Final report under Contract No. CPA 22-69-18. March 15,1970.
4. Walther, J. E. and H. R. Amberg. Odor Control in the Kraft Pulp Industry. Chem. Eng. Progress. 66:73-
80, March 1970.
5. Galeano, S. F. and K. M. Leopold. A Survey of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides in the Pulp Mill. TAPPI.
5<5(3):74-76, March 1973.
6. Source test data from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1972. .
7. Atmospheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park,N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/1-73-002. September 1973.
4/77 Wood Processing 10.1-9
-------
8. Blosscr, R, 0. and H. B. Cooper. Paniculate Matter Reduction Trends in the Kraft Industry. NCASI paper,
Corvallis, Oregon.
9. Padfield, D. H. Control of Odor from Recovery Units by Direct-Contact Evaporative Scrubbers with
Oxidi/cd Black-Liquor. TAPPI. 56:83-86, January 1973.
10. Walthcr, J, E. and H. R. Amberg. Emission Control at the Kraft Recovery Furnaces. TAPPI 53(3)-1185-
1188, August 1972.
11. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources. US. Department of Health
Education and Welfare, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C Publication
No. AP-65: March 1970. p. 4-24 and 4-25.
12. Blosser, R. O. et al. An Inventory of Miscellaneous Sources of Reduced Sulfur Emissions from the Kraft
Pulping Process. (Presented at the 63rd APCA Meeting. St. Louis. June 14-18, 1970.)
13. Factors Affecting Emission of Odorous Reduced Sulfur Compounds from Miscellaneous Kraft Process
Sources. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 60. March 1972.
14. Background Document: Acid Sulfite Pulping. Prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
Gainesville, Fla., for Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-1402, Task Order No 14
. Document No. EPA-450/3-77-005. Research Triangle Park, N.C.January 1977.
15. Benjamin, M. et al. A General Description of Commercial Wood Pulping and Bleaching Processes J Air
Pollution Control Assoc. 79(3): 155-161, March 1969.
16. Galeano, S: F. and B. M. Dillard. Process Modifications for Air Pollution Control in Neutral Sulfite Seirii-
Chemical Mills. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 22(3): 195-199, March 1972.
10.1-10 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77 \(
-------
10.2 PULPBOARD
10.2.1 General)
Pulpboard manufacturing involves the fabrication of fibrous boards from a pulp slurry. This includes two dis-
tinct types of product, paperboard and fiberboard. Paperboard is a general term that describes a sheet 0.012 inch
(0.30 mm) or more in thickness made of fibrous material on a paper-forming machine.2 Fiberboard, also referred
to.as particle board, is thicker than paperboard and is made somewhat differently.
There are two distinct phases in the conversion of wood to pulpboard: (I) the manufacture of pulp from raw
wood and (2) the manufacture of pulpboard from the pulp. This section deals only with the latter as the former
is covered under the section on the wood pulping industry.
10.2.2 Process Description i
In the manufacture of paperboard, the stock is sent through screens into the head box, from which it flows
onto a moving screen. Approximately 15 percent of the water is removed by suction boxes located under the
screen. Another 50 to 60 percent of the moisture content is removed in the drying section. The dried board
then enters the calendar stack, which imparts the final surface to the product.
In the manufacture of fiberboard, the slurry that remains after pulping is washed and sent to the stock chests
where sizing is added. The refined fiber from the stock chests is fed to the head box of the board machine. The
stock is next fed onto the forming screens and sent to dryers, after which the dry product is finally cut and
fabricated.
10.13 Emissions!
Emissions from the paperboard machine consist mainly of water vapor; little or no particulate matter is emit-
ted from the dryers.3-5 Particulates are emitted, however, from the fiberboard drying operation. Additional
particulate emissions occur from the cutting and sanding operations. Emission factors for these operations are
given in section 10.4. Emission factors for pulpboard manufacturing are shown in Table 10.2-1.
Table 10.2-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
PULPBOARD MANUFACTURING*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of product
Paperboard
Fiberboardb
Emissions
Ib/ton
Neg
0.6
kg/MT
Neg
0.3
Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of finished product.
bReference 1.
References for Section 10.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C. under Contract No. CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. The Dictionary of Paper. New York, American Paper and Pulp Association, 1940.
4/76 EMISSION FACTORS 10,2-1
-------
3. Hough, G. W. and 1. J. Gross. Air Emission Control in a Modern Pulp and Paper Mill, Arncr. Paper Industry
51:36, February 1969.
4. Pollution Control Progress. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 77:410, June 1967,
5. Private communication between I. Gellman and the National Council of the Paper Industry for Clean Air
and Stream Improvement. New York, October 28,1969.
10.2-2 Wood Processing 4/76 (
-------
10.3 PLYWOOD VENEER AND LAYOUT OPERATIONS
By Thomas iMhre
10.3.1 Process Description*
Plywood is a material made of several thin wood veneers bonded together with an adhesive. Its uses are many
and include wall sidings, sheathing, roof-decking, concrete-formboards, floors, and containers.
During the manufacture of plywood, incoming logs are sawed to desired length, debarked, and then peeled
into thin, continuous veneers of uniform thickness. (Veneer thicknesses of 1/4S to 1/5 inch are common.)
These veneers are then transported to special dryers where they are subjected to high temperatures until dried to
a desired moisture content. After drying, the veneers are sorted, patched, and assembled in layers with some
type of thermosetting resin used as the adhesive. The veneer assembly is then transferred to. a hot press where,
under presssure and steam heat, the plywood product is formed. Subsequently, all that remains is trimming,
sanding, and possibly some sort of finishing treatment to enhance the usefullness of the plywood.
10.3.2 Emissions^
The main sources of emissions from plywood manufacturing are the veneer drying and sanding operations.
A third source is the pressing operation although these emissions are considered minor.
The major pollutants emitted from veneer dryers are organics. These consist of two discernable fractions:
(1) condensibles, consisting of wood resins, resin acids, and wood sugars, which form a blue haze upon cooling
in the atmosphere, and (2) volatiles, which are comprised of terpines and unbumed methane-the latter occurring
when gas-fired dryers are employed. The amounts of these compounds produced depends on the wood species
dried, the drying time, and the nature and operation of the dryer itself. In addition, negligible amounts of fine
wood fibers are also emitted during the drying process.
Sanding operations are a potential source of particulate emissions (see section 10.4). Emission factors for ply-
wood veneer dryers without controls are given in Table 10.3-1.
Table 10.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source
Veneer dryers
Organic compound3-13
Condensible
lb/10* ft2
3.6
kg/103 m2
1.9
Volatile
lb/1Q4ft2
2.1
kg/103 m2
1.1
•Emission factors expressed in pounds of pollutant per 10,000 square feet of 3/8-in. plywood produced (kilograms per 1,000
square meters on a 1-cm basis).
bRef erences 2 and 3.
4/76
EMISSION FACTORS
10.3-1
321-637 0 - 30 - 9 (Pt. B)
-------
References for Section 10,3
1. Hemming, C. B. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 2nd Kd. Vol. |5. New York, John Wiley and Sons
1968. p.896-907.
2. Monroe, F. L. et al. Investigation of Emissions from Plywood Veneer Dryers. Final Report. Washington
.State University. Pullman. Washington. Prepared for the Plywood Research Foundation and the \^S, tn-
vironmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,N.C. Publication No. APTD-1144. February 1972.
3. Mick, Allen and Dean McCargar. Air Pollution Problems in Plywood, Particleboard, and Hardbdard Mills in
the Mid-Willamette Valley. Mid-Willamette Valley Air Pollution Authority, Salem Oregon." March 24, 1969.
10-3-2 Wood Processing 4/76
-------
10.4 WOODWORKING OPERATIONS by Tom Lahre
••••••':• • • • .'.-..
10.4.1 General's
"Woodworking," as defined in this section, includes any operation that involves the generation of small wood
waste particles (shavings, sanderdust, sawdust, etc.) by any kind of mechanical manipulation of wood, bark, or
wood byproducts. Common woodworking operations include sawing, planing, chipping, shaping, moulding,
hogging, latheing, and sanding. Woodworking operations are found in numerous industries such as sawmills;
plywood, particleboard, and hardboard plants; and furniture manufacturing plants.
*
Most plants engaged in woodworking employ pneumatic transfer systems to remove the generated wood waste
from the immediate proximity of each woodworking operation. These systems are necessary as a housekeeping
measure to eliminate the vast quantity of waste material that would otherwise accumulate. They are also a
convenient means of transporting the waste material to common collection points for ultimate disposal. Large
diameter cyclones have historically been the primary means of separating the waste material from the airstreams
in the pneumatic transfer systems, although baghouses have recently been installed in some plants for this
purpose.
The waste material collected in the cyclones or baghouses may be burned in wood waste boilers, utilized in the
manufacture of other products (such as pulp or particleboard), or incinerated in conical (teepee/wigwam)
burners. The latter practice is declining with the advent of more stringent air pollution control regulations and
because of the economic attractiveness of utilizing wood waste as a resource.
10.4.2 Emissions1'6
The only pollutant of concern in woodworking operations is participate matter. The major emission points are
the cyclones utilized in the pneumatic transfer systems. The quantity of participate emissions from a given
cyclone will depend on the dimensions of the cyclone, the velocity of the airstream, and the nature of the
operation generating the waste. Typical large-diameter cyclones found in the industry will only effectively collect
particles greater than 40 micrometers in diameter. Baghouses, when employed, collect essentially all of the waste
material in the airstream.
It is difficult to describe a typical woodworking operation and the emissions resulting therefrom because of
the many types of operations that may be required to produce a given type of product and because of the many
variations that may exist in the pneumatic transfer and collection systems. For example, the waste from
numerous pieces of equipment often feed into the same cyclone, and it is common for the material collected in
one or several cyclones to be conveyed to another cyclone. It is also possible for portions of the waste generated
by a single operation to be directed to different cyclones.
Because of this complexity, it is useful when evaluating emissions from a given facility to consider the waste
handling cyclones as air pollution sources instead of the various woodworking operations that actually generate
the particulate matter. Emission factors for typical large-diameter cyclones utilized for waste collection in
woodworking operations are given in Table 10.4-1,
Emission factors for wood waste boilers, conical burners, and various drying operations—often found in
facilities employing woodworking operations-are given in sections 1.6,2.3,10.2, and 10,3.
c
4/76 Wood Processing 10.4-1
-------
Table 10.4.1. PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
DIAMETER CYCLONES3 IN WOODWORKING INDUSTRY
Types of waste handled
Sanderdustc
Otherf
Part icu late emissions'3
gr/scf
0.055d
0.030
g/Nrr.3
0.1 26d
0.079
Ib/hr
5e
2h
kg/hr
2.3e
0,91h
^Typical (waste collection cyclones range from 4 to 16 feet (1.2 to 4.9 meters) in diameter
and employ airflows ranging from 2,000 to 26,000 standard cubic feet (57 to 740 normal
cubic meters) per minute. Note: if baghousts are used for waste collection, participate
emissions will be negligible.
bBased on Information in References 1 through 3.
''These factors should be used whenever waste from sanding operations is fed directly into
the cyclone in question.
dThese factors represent the median of all values observed. The observed values range from
0.005 to 0.16 gr/scf (0,0114 to 0.37 g/Bm3).
These factors represent the median of all values observed. The observed values range from
0.2 to 30 Ib/hr (0.09 to 13.6 kg/hr).
fThese factors shoufd be used for cyclones handling waste from all operations other than
sanding. This includes cyclones that handle waste (including sanderdust) already collected
by another cyclone.
SThese factors represent the median of all values observed. The observed values range from
0.001 to 0.16 gr/scf (0.002 to 0.37 g/Nm3).
hThese factors represent the median of all values observed. The observed values range from
0.03 to 24 Ib/hr (0.014 to 10.9 kg/hr).
References for Section 10.4
1. Source test data supplied by Robert Harris of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland
Ore. September 1975.
2. Walton, J.W., et al. Air Pollution in the Woodworking Industry. (Presented at 68th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association. Boston. Paper No. 75-34-1. June 15-20,1975.)
3. Patton, J.D. and J.W. Walton. Applying the High Volume Stack Sampler to Measure Emissions From Cotton
Gins, Woodworking Operations, and Feed and Grain Mills. (Presented at 3rd Annual Industrial Air Pollution
Control Conference. Knoxville. March 29-30,1973,)
4. Sexton, C.F. Control of Atmospheric Emissions from the Manufacturing of Furniture. (Presented at 2nd
Annual Industrial Air Pollution Control Conference. Knoxville. April 20-21,1972.)
5. Mick, A. and D. McCargar. Air Pollution Problems in Plywood, Particleboard, and Hardboard Mills in the
Mid-Willamette Valley. Mid-Willamette Valley Air Pollution Authority, Salem, Ore, March 24,1969.
6. Information supplied by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Raleigh, N C
December 1975. • »>
10.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/76
-------
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
This chapter contains emission factor information on those source categories that differ substantially from—and
hence cannot be grouped with-the other "stationary" sources discussed in this publication. These "miscellaneous"
emitters (both natural and man-made) are almost exclusively "area sources", that is, their pollutant generating
processes) are dispersed over large land areas (for example, hundreds of acres, as in the case of forest wildfires), as
opposed to sources emitting from one or more stacks with a total emitting area of only several square feet. Another
characteristic these sources have in common is the nonapplicability, in most cases, of conventional control
methods, such as wet/dry equipment, fuel switching, process changes, etc. Instead, control of these emissions,
where possible at all, may include such techniques as modification of agricultural burning practices, paving with
asphalt or concrete, or stabilization of dirt roads. Finally, miscellaneous sources generally emit pollutants
intermittently, when compared with most stationary point sources. For example, a forest fire may emit large
quantities of particulates and carbon monoxide for several hours or even days, but when measured against the
emissions of a continuous emitter (such as a sulfuric acid plant) over a long period of time (1 year, for example), its
emissions may seem relatively minor. Effects on air quality may also be of relatively short-term duration.
11.1 FOREST WILDFIRES by William M. Vatavuk, EPA
and George Yamate, IIT (Consultant)
11.1.1 General1
A forest "wildfire" is a large-scale natural combustion process that consumes various ages, sizes, and types of
botanical specimens growing outdoors in a defined geographical area. Consequently, wildfires are potential sources
of large amounts of air pollutants that should be considered when trying to relate emissions to air quality.
The size and intensity (or even the occurrence) of a wildfire is directly dependent on such variables as the local
meteorological conditions, the species of trees and their moisture content, and the weight of consumable fuel per
acre (fuel loading). Once a fire begins, the dry combustible material (usually small undergrowth and forest floor
litter) is consumed first, and if the energy release is large and of sufficient duration, the drying of green, live
material occurs with subsequent burning of this material as well as the larger dry material. Under proper
environmental and fuel conditions, this process may initiate a chain reaction that results in a widespread
conflagration.
The complete combustion of a forest fuel will require a heat flux (temperature gradient), an adequate oxygen
supply, and sufficient burning time. The size and quantity of forest fuels, the meteorological conditions, and the
topographic features interact to modify and change the burning behavior as the fire spreads; thus, the wildfire will
attain different degrees of combustion during its lifetime.
The importance of both fuel type and fuel loading on the fire process cannot be overemphasized. To meet the
pressing need for this kind of information, the U.S. Forest Service is developing a country-wide fuel identification
system (model) that will provide estimates of fuel loading by tree-size class, in tons per acre. Further, the
environmental parameters of wind, slope, and expected moisture changes have been superimposed on this fuel
model and incorporated into a National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDR). This system considers five classes of
fuel (three dead and two living), the components of which are selected on the basis of combustibility, response to
moisture (for the dead fuels), and whether the living fuels are herbaceous (plants) or ligneous (trees).
Most fuel loading figures are based on values for "available fuel" (combustible material that will be consumed in
a wildfire under specific weather conditions). Available fuel values must not be confused with corresponding values
for either "total fuel" (all the combustible material that would burn under the most severe weather and burning
ll.M
c
-------
d th
wildfire). It must be
±S
L remains even after »" extremely WSH intensity
, however, that the various methods of fuel identification are of value only when
C0™ d by the fire> - the geographic area and
For the sake of conformity (and convenience), estimated fuel loadings were obtained for the vegetation in the
fl U Fi!rS 1 M °!iS f d ^V™6 areas established by the U.S. Forest Service, and are presented in Table
11 .1-1 . Figure 1 1 .1-1 illustrates these areas and regions.
Table 11.1-1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FUEL
CONSUMED BY FOREST FIRES*
Area and
Rocky Mountain
Region 1 :
Region 2:
Region .3:
Region 4:
Region15
group
Northern
Rocky Mountain
Southwestern
Intermountain
Pacific group
Region 5:
Region 6:
Region 10:
California
Pacific Northwest
Alaska
Coastal
Interior
Southern group
Region 8:
Southern
Eastern group
North Central group
Region 9:
Conifers
Hardwoods
Estimated average fuel loading
MT/hectare
83
135
67
22
40
43
40
135
36
135
25
20
20
25
25
22
27
ton/acre
37
60
30
10
8
19
18
60
16
60
11
9
9
11
11
10
12
Reference 1.
bSee Figure 11.1-1 for regional boundaries.
11.1.2 Emissions and Controls1
It has been hypothesized (but not proven) that the nature and amounts of air pollutant emissions are directly
related to the intensity and direction (relative to the wind) of the wildfire, and indirectly related to the rate at
which the fire spreads. The factors that affect the rate of spread are (1) weather (wind velocity, ambient
temperature and relative humidity), (2) fuels (fuel type, fuel bed array, moisture content, and fuel size) and (3)
topography (slope and profile). However, logistical problems (such as size of the burning area) and difficulties in
safely situating personnel and equipment close to the fire have prevented the collection of any reliable
experimental emission data on actual wildfires, so that it is presently impossible to verify or disprove the
above-stated hypothesis. Therefore, until such measurements are made, the only available information is that
11.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
• HEADQUARTERS
REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
Figure 11.1-1. Forest areas and U.S. Forest Service Regions.
obtained from burning experiments in the laboratory. These data, in the forms of both emissions and emission
factors, are contained in Table 11.1-2. It must be emphasized that the factors presented here are adequate for
laboratory-scale emissions estimates, but that substantial errors may result if they are used to calculate actual
wildfire emissions,
The emissions and emission factors displayed in Table 11,1-2 are calculated using the following formulas:
Fi=PiL
Ei» FjA-PjLA
where: Fj = Emission factor (mass of pollutant/unit area of forest consumed)
P! = Yield for pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant/unit mass of forest fuel consumed)
~ 8.5kg/MT(171b/ton)fortotalparticulate
= 70 kg/MT (140 lb/ton) for carbon monoxide
» 12 kg/MT (24 lb/ton) for total hydrocarbon (as CH4)
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
0)
(2)
11.1-3
-------
Table 11.1-2. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR FOREST WILDFIRES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
H—
i-
Geographic area0
Rocky Mountain
group
Northern,
Region 1
Rocky Mountain,
Region 2
Southwestern,
Region 3
glntermountain.
Region 4
co Pacific group
O California,
2 Region 5
5 Alaska,
§ Region 10
Pacific N.W.
ya Region 6
CO j
Southern group
Southern,
Region 8
North Central group
Eastern, Region 9
(Both groups are
in Region 9}
Eastern group
(With Region 9}
Total United States
Area
consumed
by
wildfire,
hectares
313,397
142,276
65,882
83,765
21,475
469,906
18,997
423,530
27,380
806,289
806,289
94,191
141,238
47,046
1,730,830
Wildfire
fuel
consumption,,
Ml/hectare
83
135
67
22
40
43
40
36
135
20
20
25
25
25
38
Emission factors, kg/hectare
Panic-
ulate
706
1,144
572
191
153
362
343
305
1,144
172
172
210
210
210
324
Carbon
monoxide
5,810
9.420
4,710
1,570
1,260
2,980
2,830
2,510
9,420
1,410
1,410
1,730
1,730
1,730
2,670
Hydro-
carbons
996
1,620
808
269
215
512
485
431
1,620
242
242
296
296
296
458
Nitrogen
oxides
166
269
135
45
36
85
81
72
269
40
40
49
49
49
76
Emissions, WIT
Partic-
ulate
220,907
162,628
37,654
15,957
3,273
170,090
6,514
129,098
31,296
138,244
138,244
19,739
29,598
9,859
560,552
Carbon
monoxide
1,819,237
1,339,283
310.086
131,417
26,953
1,400,738
53,645
1,063,154
257,738
1,138,484
1,138,484
162,555
243,746
81,191
4,616,317
Hydro-
carbons
311,869
229,592
53,157
22.533
4,620
240,126
9,196
182,255
44,183
195,168
195,168
27,867
41,785
13,918
791,369
Nitrogen
oxides
51.978
38,265
8,860
3,735
770
40,021
1,533
30,376
7,363
32,528
32,528
4,644
6,964
2,320
131,895
>_i Areas consumed by wildfire and emissions are for 1971.
Xl Geographic areas are defined in Figure 11.1-1.
°Hydrocarbons expressed as methane.
-------
= 2 kg/MT (4 Ib/ton) for nitrogen oxides (NOX)
= Negligible for sulfur oxides (SOX)
L = Fuel loading consumed (mass of forest fuel/unit land area burned)
A = Land area bumed
Ej = Total emissions of pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant)
For example, suppose that it is necessary to estimate the total particulate emissions from a 10,000 hectare
wildfire in the Southern area (Region 8). From .Table 11.1-1 it is seen that the average fuel loading is 20,
MT/hectare (9 ton/acre). Further, the pollutant yield for particulates is 8.5 kg/MT (17 Ib/ton). Therefore, the
emissions are:
E = (8.5 kg/MT of fuel) (20 MT of fuel/hectare) (10,000 hectares)
E = 1,700,000 kg =1,700 MT
The most effective method for controlling wildfire emissions is, of course, to prevent the occurrence of forest
fires using various means at the forester's disposal. A frequently used technique for reducing wildfire occurrence is
"prescribed" or "hazard reduction" burning. This type of managed bum involves combustion of litter and
underbrush in order to prevent fuel buildup on the forest floor and thus reduce the danger of a wildfire. Although
some air pollution is generated by this preventative burning, the net amount is believed to be a relatively smaller
quantity than that produced under a wildfire situation.
Reference for Section 11.1
1. Development of Emission Factors for Estimating Atmospheric Emissions from Forest Fires. Final Report. IIT
Research Institute, Chicago, 111. Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-0641, October 1973. (Publication
No. EPA-4SO/3-73-009).
1/75 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 11.1-5
-------
-------
11.2 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES by Charles O. Mann. EPA.
and Chatten C. Cowherd, Jr.,
Midwest Research Institute
Significant sources of atmospheric dust arise from the mechanical disturbance of granular material exposed to
the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" because it is not discharged to the
atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Common sources of fugitive dust include: (1) unpaved roads, (2)
agricultural tilling operations, (3) aggregate storage piles, and (4) heavy construction operations.
For the above categories of fugitive dust sources, the dust generation process is caused by two basic physical
phenomena:
1. Pulverization and abrasion of surface materials by application of mechanical force through implements
(wheels, blades, etc.).
2. Entrainment of dust particles by the action of turbulent air currents. Airborne dust may also be generated
independently by wind erosion of an exposed surface if the wind speed exceeds about 12 mi/hr (19 km/hr).
The air pollution impact of a fugitive dust source depends on the quantity and drift potential of the dust
particles injected into the atmosphere. In addition to large dust particles that settle out near the source (often
creating a localized nuisance problem), considerable amounts of fine particles are also emitted and dispersed over
much greater distances from the source.
Control techniques for fugitive dust sources generally involve watering, chemical stabilization, or reduction of
surface wind speed using windbreaks or source enclosures. Watering, the most common and generally least
expensive method, provides only temporary dust control. The use of chemicals to treat exposed surfaces provides
longer term dust suppression but may be costly, have adverse impacts on plant and animal life, or contaminate
the treated material. Windbreaks and source enclosures are often impractical because of the size of fugitive dust
sources. At present, too few data are available to permit estimation of the control efficiencies of these methods.
11.2.1 Unpaved Roads (Dirt and Gravel)
11.2.1.1 General-Dust plumes trailing behind vehicles traveling on unpaved roads are a familiar sight in rural
areas of the United States. When a vehicle travels over an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the road
surface cause pulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels, and the
road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The turbulent wake behind the
vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle has passed.
11.2.1.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters - The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of
unpaved road varies linearly with the volume of traffic. In addition, emissions depend on correction parameters
(average vehicle speed, vehicle mix, surface texture, and surface moisture) that characterize the condition of a
particular road and the. associated vehicular traffic.
In the typical speed range on unpaved roads, that is, 30-50 mi/hr (48-80 km/hr), the results of field
measurements indicate that emissions are directly proportional to vehicle speed.1"3 Limited field measurements
further indicate that vehicles produce dust from an unpaved road in proportion to the number of wheels.1 For
roads with a significant volume of vehicles with six or more wheels, the traffic volume should be adjusted to the
equivalent volume of four-wheeled vehicles.
Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary in direct proportion to the fraction of silt (that is,
particles smaller than 75 jum in diameter—as defined by American Association of State Highway Officials) in the
road surface material.1 The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of loose, dry, surface dust
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2-1
-------
that passes a 200-mesh screen. The silt content of gravel roads averages about 12 percent, and the silt content of a
dirt road may be approximated by the silt content of the parent soil in the area.1 , .
Unpaved roads have a hard, nonporous surface that dries quickly after a rainfall. The temporary reduction in
emissions because of rainfall may be accounted for by neglecting emissions on "wet" days, that is, days with
more than 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) of rainfall.
11.2.1.3 Corrected Emission Factor - The quantity of fugitive dust emissions from an unpaved road, per
vehicle-mile of travel, may be estimated (within ± 20 percent) using the following empirical expression1:
where: E= Emission factor, pounds per vehicle-mile
s= Silt content of road surface material, percent
S = Average vehicle speed, miles per hour
w = Mean annual number of days with 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) pr more of rainfall (see Figure 11,2-1)
The equation is valid for vehicle speeds in the range of 30-50 mi/hr (48-80 km/hr).
On the average, dust emissions from unpaved roads, as given by,equation 1, have the following particle size
characteristics:1
Particle size Weight percent
< 30 Aim 60
> 30 urn 40
The 30 fjtm value was determined1 to be the effective aerodynamic cutoff diameter for the capture of road dust by
a standard high-volume filtration sampler, based on a particle density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3. On this basis, road dust
emissions of particles larger than 30-40 jum in diameter are not likely to be captured by high-volume samplers
remote from unpaved roads. Furthermore, the potential drift distance of particles is governed by the initial
injection height of the particle, the particle's terminal settling velocity, and the degree of atmospheric turbulence.
Theoretical drift distances, as a function of particle diameter and mean wind speed, have been computed for
unpaved road emissions.1 These results indicate that, for a typical mean wind speed of 10 mi/hr (16 km/hr),
particles larger than about 100 jum are likely to settle out within 20-30 feet (6-9 m) from the edge of the road.
Dust that settles within this distance is not included in equation 1. Particles that are 30-100 jum in diameter are
likely to undergo impeded settling. These particles, depending upon the extent of atmospheric turbulence, are
likely to settle within a few hundred feet from the road. Smaller particles, particularly those less than 10-15 Jim
in diameter, have much slower gravitational settling velocities and are much more likely to have their settling rate
retarded by atmospheric turbulence. Thus, based on the presently available data, it appears appropriate to report
only those particles smaller than 30 /an (60 percent of the emissions predicted by Equation 1) as emissions that
may remain indefinitely suspended.
11.2.1.4 Control Methods - Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treating with
penetration chemicals, working of soil stabilization chemicals into the roadbed, watering, and traffic control
regulations. Paving as a control technique is often not practical because of its high cost. Surface chemical
treatments and watering can be accomplished with moderate to low costs, but frequent retreatments are required
for such techniques to be effective. Traffic controls, such as speed limits and traffic volume restrictions, provide
moderate emission reductions, but such regulations may be difficult to enforce. Table 11.2.1-1 shows
11.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
tA
I
en
o
190
0 50180 201 300 400 500
120
Figure 11.2-1. Mean number of days with 0.01 inch or more of precipitation in United States 4
-------
approximate control efficiencies achievable for each method. Watering, because of the frequency 6f treatments
required, is generally not feasible for public roads and is effectively used only where watering equipment is
readily available and roads are confined to a single site, such as a construction location.
table111.2.1-1 CONTROL METHODS FOR UNPAVED ROADS
Control method Approximate control efficiency, %
Paving, . 85
Treating surface with penetrating chemicals 50
Working soil stabilizing chemicals into roadbed 50
Speed control3
30 mi/hr 25
20 mi/hr 65
15 mi/hr 80
aBased on the assumption that "uncontrolled" speed is typically 40 mi/hr. Between 30-50 mi/hr emissions are linearlv
proport-ona. to vehicle speed. Below 30 mi/hr. however, emissions appear to be proportional theTquare oTthe vehicTe S!'
References for Section H .2.1
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. 450/3-74-037. June
2. Roberts, J W A. T Rossano P. T Bosserman, G. C. Hofer, and H. A. Watters. The Measurement, Cost and
Control of Traffic Dust and Gravel Roads in Seattle's Duwamish Valley. (Presented at Annual Meeting of
lfa !Cn ~~r?lwest Intemational Section of Air Pollution Control Association. Eugene. November 1972. Paper
JNo. AP-72-5.) r
3' el- ^1973 ReSUSpension from an Asphalt Road Caused by Car and Truck Traff»c. Atmos. Environ.
4. Climatic Atlas of the United States. U. S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Sciences Services
Administration, Environmental Data Service, Washington, D. C. June 1968.
5' JS G;AV K--Axet1eU' Jr-> and w- Parker- Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control.
SS°i^rr0TStll SPe^cialis*s' Inc" Cmci"nati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Task No. 4. Publication No EPA-450/3-74-
-2-4 EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
11.2.2 Agricultural Tilling
11.2.2.1 General - The two universal objectives of agricultural tilling are the creation of the desired soil
structure to be used as the crop seedbed and the eradication of weeds. Plowing, the most common method of
tillage, consists of some form of cutting loose, granulating, and inverting the soil and turning under the organic
litter. Implements that loosen the soil and cut off the weeds but leave the surface trash in place, have recently
become more popular for tilling in dryland farming areas.
During a tilling operation, dust particles from the loosening and pulverization of the soil are injected Into the
atmosphere as the soil is dropped to the surface. Dust emissions are greatest when the soil is dry and during final
seedbed preparation.
11.2.2.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters - The quantity of dust emissions from agricultural tilling is
proportional to the area of land tilled. In addition, emissions depend on the following correction parameters,
which characterize the condition of a particular field being tilled: (1) surface soil texture, and (2) surface soil
moisture content.
Dust emissions from agricultural tilling have been found to vary in direct proportion to the silt content (that
is, particles between 2 (tm and 50 jum in diameter-as defined by US. Department of Agriculture) of the surface
soil (0-10 cm depth).1 The soil sflt content is commonly determined by the Buoyocous hydrometer method.3
Field measurements indicate that dust emissions from agricultural tilling are inversely proportional to the
square of the surface soil moisture (0-10 cm depth).1 Thomthwaite's precipitation-evaporation (PE) index3 is a
useful approximate measure of average surface soil moisture. The PE index is determined from total annual
rainfall and mean annual temperature ; rainfall amounts must be corrected for irrigation.
Available test data indicate no substantial dependence of emissions on the type of tillage implement when
operating at a typical speed (for example, 8-10 km/hr).1
11.2.2.3 Corrected Emission Factor - The quantity of dust emissions from agricultural tilling, per acre of land
tilled, may be estimated (within ± 20 percent) using the following empirical expression1 :
1.4s (2)
where: E = Emission factor, pounds per acre
s = Silt content of surface soil, percent
PE = Thomthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index (Figure 11.2-2)
Equation 2, Which was derived from field measurements, excludes dust that settles out within 20-30 ft (6-9 m) of
the tillage path.
On the average, the dust emissions from agricultural tilling, as given by Equation 2, have the following particle
size characteristics1 :
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.2-1
-------
Particle size Weight percent
< 30 Aim 80
20
The 30 tun value was determined1 to be the effective aerodynamic cutoff diameter for capture of tillage dust by a
standard high-volume filtration sampler, based on a particle density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3. As discussed in section
11.2,13, only particles smaller than about 30 /im have the potential for long range transport. Thus, for
agricultural tilling about 80 percent of the emissions predicted by Equation 2 are likely to remain suspended
indefinitely.
11.2.2.4 Control Methods4 - In general, contrpl methods are not applied to reduce emissions from agricultural
tilling. Irrigation of fields prior to plowing will reduce emissions, but in many cases this practice would make the
soil unworkable and adversely affect the plowed soil's characteristics. Control, methods for agricultural activities
are aimed primarily at reduction of emissions from wind erosion through such practices as continuous cropping,
stubble mulching, strip cropping, applying limited irrigation to fallow fields, building windbreaks, and using
chemical stabilizers. No data are available to indicate the effects of these or other control methods on agricultural
tilling, but as a practical matter it may be assumed that emission reductions are not significant.
References for Section 11.2.2.
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA450/3-74-037
June 1974.
2. Buoyocous, G. J. Recalibration of the Hydrometer Method for Making Mechanical Analyses of Soils Aaron J
45:434438,1951.
3. Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America According to a New Classification. Geograph. Rev. 21:
633-655,1931.
4. Jutze, G. A., K. Axetell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control.
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
11.2.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
t/i
A,
ta
•vj
O
8
g
GO
o
s
Figure 11.2-2. Map of Thornthwatte's Precipitation-Evaporation Indsx3 values for state climatic divisions.
-------
-------
11.2.3 Aggregate Storage Piles
11.2.3.1 General - An inherent part of the operation of plants that utilize minerals in aggregate form is the
maintenance of outdoor storage piles. Storage piles are usually left uncovered, partially because of the necessity
for frequent transfer of material into or out of storage.
Dust emissions occur at several points in the storage cycle-during loading of material onto the pile, during
disturbances by strong wind currents, and during loadout of material from the pile. The movement of trucks and
loading equipment in the storage pile area is also a substantial source of dust emissions.
11.2,3.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters - The quantity of dust emissions from aggregate storage
operations varies linearly with the volume of aggregate passing through the storage cycle. In addition, emissions
depend on the following correction parameters that characterize the condition of a particular storage pile: (1) age
of the pile, (2) moisture content, and (3) proportion of aggregate fines.
When freshly processed aggregate is loaded onto a storage pile, its potential for dust emissions is at a
maximum. Fines are easily disaggregated and released to the atmosphere upon exposure to air currents resulting
from aggregate transfer or high winds. As the aggregate weathers, however, the potential for dust emissions is
greatly reduced. Moisture causes aggregation and cementation of fines to the surfaces of larger particles. Any
significant rainfall soaks the interior of the pile, and the drying process is very slow.
11.2.33 Corrected Emission Factor - Total dust emissions from aggregate storage piles can be divided into the
contributions of several distinct source activities that occur within the storage cycle:
1. Loading of aggregate onto storage piles.
2. Equipment traffic in storage area.
3. Wind erosion.
4. Loadout of aggregate for shipment.
Table 11.2.3-1 shows the emissions contribution of each source activity, based on field tests of suspended dust
emissions from crushed stone and sand and gravel storage piles.1 A 3-month storage cycle was assumed in the
calculations.
Table 11.2.3-1 AGGREGATE STORAGE EMISSIONS
Source activity
Loading onto piles
Vehicular traffic
Wind erosion
Loadout from piles
; Correction ;
| parameter
j PE index3
j Rainfall frequency
! Climatic factor
I PE index8
Approximate
percentage of total
12
40
33
15
Total ! 100
^hornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index.
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.3-1
-------
Also shown in Table 11.2.3-1 are the climatic correction parameters that differentiate the emissions potential
of one aggregate storage area from another. Overall, Thorn thwaite's precipitation-evaporation index2 best
characterizes the variability of total emissions from aggregate storage piles.
The quantity of suspended dust emissions from aggregate storage piles, per ton of aggregate placed in storage,
may be estimated using the following empirical expression1 :
F - 0.33
"
where: E = Emission factor, pounds per ton placed in storage
PE = Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index (see Figure 11.2-2)
Equation 3 describes the emissions of particles less than 30 urn in diameter. This particle size was determined1 to
be the effective cutoff diameter for the capture of aggregate dust by a standard high-volume filtration sampler,
based on a particle density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3 . Because only particles smaller than 30 Aim are included, equation 3
expresses the total emissions likely to remain indefinitely suspended. (See section 1 1 .2.1 .3).
1 1.2.3.4 Control Methods - Watering and use of chemical wetting agents are the principal means for control of
aggregate storage pile emissions. Enclosure or covering of inactive piles to reduce wind erosion can also reduce
emissions. Watering is useful mainly to reduce emissions from vehicular traffic in the storage pile area. Frequent
watering can, based on the breakdowns shown in Table 11.2-3, reduce total emission by about 40 percent.
Watering of the storage piles themselves typically has only a very temporary, minimal effect on total emissions. A
much more effective technique is to apply chemical wetting agents to provide better wetting of fines and longer
retention of the moisture film. Continuous chemical treatment of material loaded onto piles, coupled with
watering or treatment of roadways, can reduce total particulate emissions from aggregate storage operations by
up to 90 percent.3
References for Section 1 1 .2.3
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-037.
June 1974.
2. Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America According to a New Classification. Geograph. Rev. 21:
633-655,1931.
3. Jutze, G, A., K. Axetell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control.
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
11.2.3-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
11.2.4 Heavy Construction Operations
11.2.4.1 General - Heavy construction is a source of dust emissions that may have substantial temporary impact
on local air quality. Building and road construction are the prevalent construction categories with the highest
emissions potential. Emissions during the construction of a building or road are associated with land clearing,
blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and the construction of the particular facility itself. Dust
emissions vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the
prevailing weather, A large portion of the emissions result from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the
construction site.
11.2.4.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters — The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations
are proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity. Also, by analogy to the
parameter dependence observed for other similar fugitive dust sources,1 it is probable that emissions from heavy
construction operations are directly proportional to the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than 75
jum in diameter) and inversely proportional to the square of the soil moisture, as represented by Thomthwaite's
precipitation-evaporation (PE) index.2
11.2.4.3 Emission Factor - Based on field measurements of suspended dust emissions from apartment and
shopping center construction projects, an approximate emission factor for construction operations is:
1.2 tons per acre of construction per month of activity
This value applies to construction operations with: (1) medium activity level, (2) moderate silt content ("V30
percent), and (3) semiarid climate (PE 'v/SO; see Figure 11.2-2). Test data are not sufficient to derive the specific
dependence of dust emissions on correction parameters.
The above emission factor applies to particles less than about 30 jtim in diameter, which is the effective cut-off
size for the capture of construction dust by a standard high-volume filtration sampler1, based on a particle
density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3.
11.2.4.4 Control Methods — Watering is most often selected as a control method because water and necessary
equipment are usually available at construction sites. The effectiveness of watering for control depends greatly on
the frequency of application. An effective watering program (that is, twice daily watering with complete
coverage) is estimated to reduce dust emissions by up to 50 percent.3 Chemical stabilization is not effective in
reducing the large portion of construction emissions caused by equipment traffic or active excavation and cut and
fill operations. Chemical stabilizers are useful primarily for application on completed cuts and fills at the
construction site. Wind erosion emissions from inactive portions of the construction site can be reduced by about
80 percent in this manner, but this represents a fairly minor reduction in total emissions compared with emissions
occurring during a period of high activity.
References for Section 11.2.4
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emissions Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-037.
June 1974.
2. Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America According to a New Classification. Geograph. Rev. 21:
633-655, 1931.
3. Jutze, G. A., K. Axetell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control,
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.4-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
MISCELLANEOUS DATA
Note- Previous editions of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors presented a table.entitled Percentage
Distribution by Size of Particles from Selected Sources without Control Equipment. Many of the data have
become obsolete with the development of new information. As soon as the new information is sufficiently
refined, a new table, complete with references, will be published for addition to this document.
9/73 A-1
-------
Table A-1. NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS FOR 1971
Pollutant
Participates
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
JT3 Hydrocarbons
3 Nitrogen oxides
Stationary
combustion
ton/yr
6,500,000
26,300.000
1,000.000
300,000
10,200,000
ttg/yrC
5,900.000
23,900,000
900.000
300.000
9.300,000
Solid waste
disposal
ten/yr
700,000
100,000
3,800,000
1.000,000
200,000*
Hg/yr
600.000
100,000
3,400,000
900,000
200,000
Mobile
combustion
ton/yr
1 ,000,000
1 ,000,000
77,500,000
14,700,000
U, 200 ,000
«9/yr
900,000
1,000,000
70,200,000
13,300.000
10,200,000
Industrfal
processes
ton/yr
13,500,000
5,100,000
11,400,000
5.600,000
200.000
Mg/yr
12,200.000
4,600,000
10.300,000
5,100,000
200,000
Miscellaneous
ton/yr
5,200,000
100,000
6,500,000
5,000,000
200,000
Hg/yr
4,600,000
100.000
5,900.000
4.500,000
200,000
Total b
ton/yr
26,900,000
32.600,000
100,200.000
26.600,000
22,000.000
Mg/yr-
24,400.000
29.700,000
90,700,000
2*. 100, 000
20, 100, 000
'Reference 1.
bSome totals may be rounded to a convenient number of figures.
cMg - megagrans.
«o
••a
BO
-------
Table A-2. DISTRIBUTION BY PARTICLE SIZE OF AVERAGE COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES
FOR VARIOUS PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT3-1*
Type of collector
Baffled settling chamber
Simple cyclone
Long-cone cyclone
Multiple cyclone
(12-in. diameter)
Multiple cyclone
(6-in. diameter)
Irrigated long-cone
cyclone
Electrostatic
precipitator
Irrigated electrostatic
precipitator
Spray tower
Self-induced spray
scrubber
Disintegrator scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet-impingement scrubber
Baghouse
Efficiency, %
Particle size range, urn
Overall
58.6
65.3
84.2
74.2
93.8
91.0
97,0
99.0
94.5
93.6
98.5
99.5
97.9
99.7
Oto5
7.5
12
40
25
63
63
72
97
90
85
93
99
96
99.5
5 to 10
22
33
79
54
95
93
94.5
99
96
96
98
99.5
98.5
100
10 to 20
43
57
92
74
98
96
97
99.5
98
98
99
100
99
100
20 to 44
80
82
95
95
99.5
98.5
99.5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
>44
90
91
97
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
References 2 and 3.
''Data based on standard silica dust with the following particle size and weight distribution:
Particle size
range, tun
Oto 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 44
>44
Percent
by weight
20
10
15
20
35
2/72
C
EMISSION FACTORS
A-3
-------
Table A-3. THERMAL EQUIVALENTS FOR VARIOUS FUELS
Type of fuel
Btu (gross)
kcal
Solid fuels
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Lignite
Wood
Liquid fuels
Residual fuel oil
Distillate fuel oil
Gaseous fuels
Natural gas
Liquefied petroleum gas
Butane
Propane
(21.0 to 28.0) x
106/ton
25.3 x 106/ton
16.0x 106/ton
21.0x106/cord
6.3 x 106/bbl
5.9 x 106/bbl
1,050/ft3
97,400/gal
90,500/gal
(5.8 to 7.8) x
106/MT
7.03 x 106/MT
4.45x106/MT
1.47x106/m3
10 x 103/liter
9,35 x 103/liter
9,350/m3
6,480/liter
6,030/liter
Table A-4. WEIGHTS OF SELECTED
SUBSTANCES
Type of substance
Asphalt
Butane, liquid at 60° F
Crude oil
Distillate oil
Gasoline
Propane, liquid at 60° F
Residual oil
Water
Ib/gal
8.57
4.84
7.08
7.05
6.17
4.24
7.88
8.4
g/liter
1030
579
850
845
739
507
944
1000
A-4
Appendix
2/72
-------
Table A-5. GENERAL CONVERSION FACTORS
Type of substance
Conversion factors
Fuel
Oil
Natural gas
Agricultural products
Corn
Milo
Oats
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Concrete
Mobile sources
Gasoline-powered motor vehicle
Diesel-powered motor vehicle
Steamship
Motorship
Other substances
Paint
Varnish
Whiskey
Water
Miscellaneous factors
Metric system
1 bbl = 42 gal = 159 liters
1 therm = 100,000 Btu = 95 ft3
1 therm = 25,000 kcal = 2.7 m3
1 bu = 56 Ib = 25.4 kg
1 bu = 56 Ib = 25.4 kg
1 bu = 32 Ib = 14.5 kg
1bu = 48lb = 21.8kg
1 bu = 60 Ib = 27.2 kg
1 bale = 500 Ib = 226 kg
1 brick = 6.5 Ib = 2.95 kg
1bbl = 375lb=l70kg
1yd3 = 2500lb=1130kg
1yd3 = 4000lb=1820kg
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1 gal = 10 to 15 Ib = 4.5 to 6.82 kg
1 gal = 7 Ib = 3.18 kg
1 bbl = 50gal = 188 liters
1 gal = 8.3 lb= 3.81 kg
1 |b = 7000 grains = 453.6 grams
1 ft3 = 7.48 gal = 28.32 liters
ft = 0.3048 m
mi=1609 m
Ib = 453.6 g
ton (short) = 907.2 kg
ton (short) = 0.9072 MT
(metric ton)
2/72
EMISSION FACTORS
A-5
C. •
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX
for 197a Environmei""
1 Stajrmand, C.J. The Design and Performance of Modem Gas Cleaning Equipmsnt! J. ln.t. Fuel. 29-.5S40.
froni
A"6 Appendix
2/72
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSION FACTORS
AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency for various industrial categories and the page reference in this publication where uncontrolled
emission factors for those sources are discussed are presented in Tables B-l and B-2. Note that, in the
case of steam-electric power plants, the NSPS encompass much broader source categories than the
corresponding emission factors. In several instances, the NSPS were formulated on different bases
than the emission factors (for example, grains per standard cubic foot versus pounds per ton). Non-
criteria pollutant standards have not been included in Table B-2. Finally, note that NSPS relating to
opacity have been omitted because they cannot (at this time) be directly correlated with emission
factors.
c
B-l
-------
Table B-1. PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
Fossil-fuel-fired steam generators
with > 63 x 10* kcal/hr (250 x 10* Btu/
hr) of heat input
Pulverized wet bottom
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Pulverized dry bottom
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Pulverized cyclone
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Spreader stoker
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NO2>
Residual-oil-burning plants
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NO2>
Natural-gas-burning plants
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides (as N02>
Municipal incinerators
Particulates
Portland cement plants
Kiln-dry process
Particulates
New Source
Performance Standard
(maximum 2-hr average)
0,18g/10*calheat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2 g/106 cal heat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g/106' cal 'heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/106 calheat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2 g/iO6 cal heat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g7106 cal heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18g/10*calheat
input (0.10 Ib/TO6 Btu)
2.2 g/106 calheat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g/106 calheat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2 g/106 calheat
input (1,2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g/106 calheat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/106 calheat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
1.4 g/106 calheat
input (0.80 lb/106 Btu)
0.54 g/106 calheat
input (0.30 lb/106 Btu)
0.1 8 g/106 calheat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
0.36 g/ 106 cal heat
input (0.20 lb/106 Btu)
0.18g/Nm3 (0.08 gr/scf)
corrected to 12%COo
f.
0.15kg/MT(0.30lb/ton)
of feed to kiln'
AP-42
page
reference
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.3-2
1.3-2
1.3-2
1.4-2
1.4-2
2.1-1
8.6-3
li-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table B-1. (continued). PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
Kiln-wet process
Particulates
Clinker cooler
Particulates
Nitric acid plants
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Su If uric acid plants
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfuric acid mist
(as H2 S04)
New Source
Performance Standard
(maximum 2-hr average)
0.15kg/MT(0.30!b/ton)
of feed to kiln
0.050 kg/MT (0.10 Ib/
ton) of feed to kiln
1,5 kg/MT (3.0 Ib/ton)
of 100% acid produced
2.0 kg/MT (4.0 Ib/ton)
of 100% acid produced
0.075 kg/MT (0.1 Sib/
ton) of 100% acid produced
AP-42
page
reference
8.6-3
8.6-4
5.9-3
5.17-5
5.17-7
"Title 40 - Protection of Environment, Part 60-Standards of Performance for New Stationary Source*. Federal Register.
36 (247):24876. December 23, 1971
4/77
Appendix B
B-3
-------
Table B-2. PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
New source
performance standard
AP-42
page
reference
Asphalt concrete plants3
Particulates
Petroleum refineries
Fluid catalytic cracking units3
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Fuel gas combustion
S02
Storage vessels for petroleum
liquids3
"Floating roof" storage tanks
Hydrocarbons
Secondary lead smelters3
Blast (cupola) furnaces
Particulates
Reverberatory furnaces
Particulates
Secondary brass and bronze
ingot production plants3
Reverberatory furnaces
Particulates
Iron and steel plants3.f
Basic oxygen process furnaces
Particulates
Electric arc furnaces
Particulates
Sewage treatment plants3
Sewage sludge incinerators
Particulates
Primary copper smeltersc
Dryer
Particulates
Roaster
Sulfur dioxide
Smelting Furnace*
Sulfur dioxide
Copper converter
Sulfur dioxide
'Reverberatory furnaces that
process high-impurity feed
materials are exempt from
sulfur dioxide standard
Primary lead smeltersc
Blast furnace
Particulates
Reverberatory furnace
Particulates
Sintering machine
discharge end
Particulates
90 mg/Nm3 (0.040 gr/dscf)
60 mg/Nm3 (0.026 gr/dscf )b
0.050% by volume
230 mg H2S/Nm3
(O.IOgrH^/Nm3
For vapor pressure 78-570
mm Hg, equip with floating roof,
vapor recovery system, or
equivalent; for vapcr pressure
> 570 mm Hg, equip with vapor
recovery system or equivalent.
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
12 mg/Nm3 (0.0052 gr/dscf)
0.65 g/kg (1.30 Ib/ton)
of dry- sludge input
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
0.065%
0.065%
0.065%
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (Q.Q22 gr/dscf)
8.1-4
9.1-3
9.1-3
4.3-8
7,11-2
7.11-2
7.9-2
7.5-5
7.5-5
2.5-2
7.3-2
7.3-2
7.3-2
7.3-2
7.6-4
7,6-4
7.6-4
B-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table B-2 (continued). PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
New source
performance standard
AP-42
page
reference
Electric smelting furnace
Sulfur dioxide
Converter
Sulfur dioxide
Sintering machine
Sulfur dioxide
Primary zinc smelters6
Sintering machine
Particulates
Roaster
Sulfur dioxide
Coal preparation plants*1
Thermal dryer
Particulates
Pneumatic coal cleaning
equipment
Particulates
Ferroalloy production facilities"
Electric submerged arc
furnaces
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
0.065%
0.065%
0.065%
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
0.065%
70 mg/Nm3 (0.031 gr/dscf)
40 mg/Nm3 (0.018 gr/dscf)
0.45 kg/Mw-hr (0.99 Ib/Mw-hr)
("high silicon alloys")
0.23 kg/Mw-hr (0.51 Ib/Mw-hr)
(chrome and manganese alloys)
No visible emissions may escape
furnace capture system.
No visible emissions may escape
tapping system for > 40% of each
tapping period.
20% volume basis
7.6-4
7.6-4
7.6-4
7.7-1
7.7-1
8.9-1
8.9-1
7.4-2
7.4-1
- Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Additions and Miscellaneous Amendments. Federal Register.
39(47). March 8, 1974.
bine actual NSPS reads "1.0 kg/1000 kg (1 .0 lb/1000 Ib) of coke burn-off in the catalyst
regenerator," which is approximately equivalent to an exhaust gas concentration of
60 mg/Nm3 (n.026 gr/dscf).
^Title 40- Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters. Federal Register. 41.
January 1 5, 1 976.
- Protection of Environment. Part 60 • Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Coal Preparation Plants. Federal Register. 41. January 15, 1976.
- Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources:1 Ferroalloy Production Facilities. Federal Register. 41. May 4, 1976.
fTitle 40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry. Federal Register. 40.
September 23, 1975.
c.
4/77
Appendix B
B-5
32t-637 0-80-11 (PC. B)
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
NEDS SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES
AND
EMISSION FACTOR LISTING
The Source Classification Codes (SCC's) presented herein comprise the basic "building blocks" upon which the
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) is structured. Each SCC represents a process or function within a source
category logically associated with a point of air pollution emissions. In NEDS, any operation that causes air
pollution can be represented by one or more of these SCC's.
Also presented herein are emission factors for the five NEDS pollutants (particulates, sulfur oxides nitrogen
oxides hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide) that correspond to each SCC. These factors are utilized m NEDS to
automatically compute estimates of air pollutant emissions associated with a process when a more^ accurate
estimate is not supplied to the system. These factors are, for the most part, taken directly from AP-42. In certain
cases, however, they may be derived from better information not yet incorporated into AP-42 or be based merely
on the similarity of one process to another for which emissions information does exist.
Because these emission factors are merely single representative values taken, in many cases, from a broad range
of possible values and because they do not reflect all of the variables affecting emissions that are described m detail
in this document, the user is cautioned not to use the factors listed in Appendix C out of context to estimate the
emissions from any given source. Instead, if emission factors must be used to estimate emissions, the appropriate
section of this document should be consulted to obtain the most applicable factor for the source in question. The
factors presented in Appendix C are reliable only when applied to numerous sources as they are in NEDS.
NOTE- The Source Classification Code and emission factor listing presented in Appendix C was created on Octo-
ber 21, 1975, to replace the listing dated June 20,1974. The listing has been updated to include several new
Source Classification Codes as well as several new or revised emission factors that are considered necessary for the
improvement of NEDS. The listing will be updated periodically as better source.and emission factor information
becomes available. Any comments regarding this listing, especially those pertaining to the need for additional
SCC's, should be directed to:
Chief, Emission Factor Section (MD-14)
National Air Data Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
C-l
C.
-------
•••
rifc- iiL-p'bp vn ig/gi/rs
ElTCOBR BOILER -ELECTRIC GEN£R»TN
•NTHRICITE CO»L
i-ot-noi-ni >I(IOHHBTU POLVIZD
1.01.001.07 MonxMBTu STOKERS
1-01-001*01 IO-IOONHBttl PULVO
1-01-00,-QI lO.inOHKRYu SYOKR
1-01-00,-oS IOOMH*TII PULVORY
1.01-002-01 HOOHN6TII CYCLONE
1-01-002-01 klOOMMRTU SPDSTKR
I-.OI-002-05 JIOOMHBTU/H9 OP-*
IWOI-002-0. 10-IOOMHRTu PULHT
1-01-002-07 IO.|OOM«BTU PULOY
1-01-002-0* 10-lonMMBTU OFSTIt
1-01-002-09 10-IOONxBTU UPSTK
I-OI-002-IO IOO"KBTU PULVWIT
1-01-003-02 HOOHMBTU PULVORY
1.01-003-03 MOOMHRTU CYCLONE
I.OI-OOl-OI HOOHMBTU OF STKR
1.01*003-05 HOOHMBTU UP STKR
1. 01-00). 06 XOOpMRTU S'DSTrft
l-01.ft03.17 lO-IOIttMBTM DYPUL
l.0l-00i.0» 10-IOOMHBTU WTPUL
1*01-001-10 IO-IOOHHBTU UFSTK
l-OI-nOJ.il |onMHBTU/HR 6ENL
l-OI-OOS-02 10-innMMRTU/HRCNL
l-1|.00«.03 IOOHHBTU/HR
l-0|.00*.n» 10-IOONMBTU/HR
1-01-004-03 . lnO»HBTU/HR
1-01-007-0! IO.|noHHBTu/HR
1-01-007-01 IOOHHBTU/HR
1-01-009-1)1 BtRK BOILER
I*ni-oo*-o2 woon/BiRK BOILER
1-01-009. n) WDOD BOILER
«»5«5SC
l-0|-OII-ni XOOHHBTU/HR
i-ni-ni,.o} lo-tonnnBTu/HR
l-OI-OI|.n3 10 >l»STE-SPEC|PY
l-ni-017-ni >|00 HMBTU/HO
l-ni-ni*.n2 10-100 MHBTU/MR
K-OJ. 012*01 110 NHBTU/HR
' INOICiTIES THF i*H TflNtrbT. *«« tuin**
NiTJON.L EMISSION 01
SOURCE CL-SSIPic.T
"•" )*•" |B,0
'•00 In.O 10.5
I7'° "1B.O |B,0
'|:»; |::; i::!
*T"0 3B.O IB.O
"•' I'.O 30.0
..oo 3,;0 5J;S
n.o ,.,n ,5,0
T • OCl 1AO 1 t n
-••«*• j n « u i 1 5 1 0
!»'•;. «'S ""°
|7'° 3#*n II. 0
5.00 J«.*0 ,'5)0
7*n° i*f n AiOO
' »00 3ri»0 A nfl
17*0 3*t«0 'ISO
*o»n I0*o.
*t 50 3rt*H 130
4-50 30.0 13|0
*-5n 30,0 I7.o
6 1 50 30*0 1 i n
4,50 1n»0 - i 1*0
6*51 30,0 |3»!o
* * - n 3di ft 1 3 »rt
'•50 30.0 ,3.0
*'50 10.0 ,3.0
^ • '0 30. P 130
6.50 30.1 ,.;„
* *^o 3n»o isn
* • $P 30*0 i » n
'•50 Jn.O |3.'o
6. SO jn.o ijln
"•00 |57. ,05.
'•°0 157. los.
".00 |S7. IOS.
".00
"•00 !•«. |(|S|
A * OH i ! 1.50 )0.'o
^0.0 I.SO 10.0
22,0 n.
ll'.o S' !•»?
v. 2*00
T 1 S
ION (
U N |
"e
0,03
0.20
0.0]
O.io
0.01
o.Ir
n.03
o.ln
O.ln
0.10
l.oo
1.00
n.ln
O.ln
1.00
1.00
3.00
l.On
n.ln
0.10
0..10
0.30
0,30
0.30
0.3n
O.iri
0.10
O.lO
i.on
1.00
l.oo
1.00
3.0o
1.00
].00
2.00
2, on
2.00
2.00
2.00
2. On
l.oo
l.nn
1 .on
l.on
1.00
i .on
0.01
i.oo
2. on
5.0o
2,00
2.00
2.00
Y S T f H
ODES
T
CO UNITS
i.no TONS RU«NEO
4. nO TONS BURNED
1.50 TONS BtJRNED
6. no TONS BU*NEO
1.10 TONS BURNFO
|0,1 TONS BURNED
1.00 TDNS BURNCD
1 ,no TONS BURNCO
1,10 TONS BURNED
1.10 TONS BU>N£0
2.nn TONS BURNED
2.10 TONS BURNED
I.no TONS BURNED
1.10 TONS BURNED
2.'-n TONS BURNED
2. no TONS R.URNEO
lO.n TONS BORNEO
10.1 TONS BURNED
I. CO TONS BlrRNCO
0.5(1 TONS BURNED
1.00 TONS BURNED
l.on TONS BURNED
1.10 TONS BURNED
2.10 TONS BURNED
2.10 TDNS BURNED
2.00 TONS BURNED
1.10 TnNS BURNED
1.00 TONS BURNED
2,"0 TDNS BURNED
2.00 TONS BURNED
2.00 TONS BURNED
lO.D TONS BURNED
10.1 TONS KURNED
10.0 TDNS BURNED
10,1 TONS BURNED
3.10 IOOO«»ULONS «llRNEr>
3, On lOOOGALLONS BURNED
1.10 IOOniS«LLDNS BURNED
1.10 lOOOGtLLONS BURNED
3.10 10005»ULONS BURNED
l.nn looosiLLONS BURNED
I'.O "ILLION CUBIC PEET RURNEO
I'.O MILLION CUBIC PTET BIJRNCD
I'.o NILLION Cu»IC FEET -URNFB
i7.n MILLION CUBIC TEET BURNED
|7,ft BILLION CUBIC PEET BURNED
I'.O "ILLION CUBIC FPET BURNED
l.nO TONS BURNED
2.-0 TONS BIIPNEO
2;on TONS BU«NFO
10. n TONS BURNED
2.00 TONS 'BURNED
2.10 TONS BU«NEO
2.00 TON-; BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS "URNED
INDIC.TES T-E
or THE
..s,s ,BY ,E,SHT,
C-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
NATIONAL ( H | $ S I 0 1 0 « T A SYSTC''
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION c o e e s
P n U N 0 S
PART
BOILER
-ELECTHtc SEN5RATN
(KITTED PEP
SIX N(l»
U N
Lt« BASTE-
I-OI-PIJ-OI >IOO M«»TU/HR
l-Ot-013.0* 10-IPO MNBTU/MR
I.P1-8I3-PJ IS
1-02-003-1*
RESIDUAL OIL
1.02*000-01
|.02'00rR if
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD 1
>IOO«NBTU PULVWET i
>IOOHHBTU *ULVDRY 15
XOONM6TU CYCLONE i
>iOO«»BTU SPOSTKR 1
IO.IOQHHBTU OFStK '
lO.IOOHMBTU UFSTI •
10.IPOMMBTU PUIWT 1
10-IOOMMBTU PULOT 1
IO-IOOM«BTUSPDSTK 1
IOOHHBTU/HR 2
lO-IOOKHBTU/HR 2
IOOHHBTU/HR l[
lO.IOOH'BTu/HR U
IOO
BLAST FNC 10-100
BLAST FNC
-------
EUTCOHB BOILER
•INDUSTRIE.
RROCESS e»s
1-02-007.07
l-OZ-007-11
l-OZ-007-0*
l-02-007-»*
COKE
CONTINUED
COrE OVEN >IOO
co«-0! HOOO/BiRK BOILER
l-OZ-01 -01 HOOD BOILER
US PETROL JM G»5
l-02-0ln-nz 10-IOOHMBTU/HR
1-02-010-03 OOlHBTu/HR
l-07-Oll-OI >100 MMaTU/MR
I-OZ>OI|.OZ 10-IOOBMBTu/HR
I>0?-DH-0> 100
l-nz-(il7-iz i on- 1 oo
' LIQ W«STE-SRtf |FY
l-OJ-013-01 >100 HMBTU/WR
l«tlJ-OI]-CI 10.100 MH9TU/HB
I-OS-9IJ-01 <10 "NITW/HR
OTHER/NOT CL»S|rO
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TON* BURNEO
1000 GIUONS BURNED
1000 5ALLONJ DURNED
1000 G1LLON5 BURNPD
(JTCOHK BOILER
.SFECIFT IN REH1RK
IN »E«»>I«
-COKBERCL- INSTUTNL
curie rccr BUR«ED
1000 6HL01 (uRNtO t
TONS BURNED ISOtlDI
»NTHR»dTE
IrSJiooi'io*
1. 03-001-07
l-03-OOI-Cid
1-01-001-0'
| — OJ — DO | — |_o
1 —03— TO | — RR
BITUMINOUS CO»L
I-03-OOJ-07
I.D3-102-H
1-03-102-10
1.01-002-1 1
I.OJ. 002-11
l-03-OOJ-SR
LIGNITE
I-03-OC3-OS
I-03-001-J4
1.03-003.07
I-03-P0.1-0*
I-03-SP3-IO
l-fl3-103-l 1
1-01-101-13
1-03-013" 11
10-IOOWHBTU PULWT
IO.|nOH»HTU PULOV
ID-lOOHHBTUSPriSTV
!o
Jeln
3R,0
30.0
30.0
30,0
«ih n
jn i u
10.0
In 0
so.'n
30, P
30 . n
so. ri
s
5
s
s
?
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
30.0
1 fl . 1
19.1
4.00
IS.O
ie.0
33.0
Id, 9
IS.O
u.o
IS.O
3.0Q
t.on
4.00
4.00
1>00
15.1
13.0
13. 0
11.0
13*0
13.0
13.1
13.1
13.0
11. n
11.1
"0.01
0.01
1.00
0.01
O.Jo
1.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
I. 00
1. no
1.00 .
3.00
20,0
o.lo
.PO
,00
.01
.00
.OP
.01
,00
.no
20. "
I.^O
1.01
Z.OO
1.00
10.1
I.1P
1.00
1.00
Z.10
Z.10
Z.oo
eo.o
io!o
to, n -
Z.oo
2, TO
2, in
'.'if
!o!«
IO./1
tO.n
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TCNS
TONS
TPNS
TO'J^
TONS
T01S
TONS
TDNS
TONS
TONS
TPN1
TONS
TON"!
Tr»S
TONS
TONS
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNCO
BU»NE0
BURNED
"URNEO
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNED
RUINED
BURNED
BUKNEO
BURNED
BURNED
BU'NfD
BURNJD
BURNED
BURNfD
BURNER
PlI'-ICD
SURNCO
"URNEO
INOIC.TES
THE
»«5IS |BT
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
KtllOH-LENISSIONOtTi It -STEM
JOIJUCe eL«I5!'IC»Tt«N COOES
PnUNBSEHITtrO ft* UNIT
ClTCONB BOILEB .COMMEaCL-I^TUTNL
UNITS
•EIIOUtL OIL
I.OJ-00«-nl
l.01-00«-0* 10-IOOHMOTU/MN
l-Ol-Odl-01 IOOMN|fU/MK
|. 01-00*. 01 10'IOOMIIlTU/HI
|.0»-OOt«OJ OONHITW/N*
21. 0
D.O
is.o
IS.O
II. 0
lo.o
10,0
a»
1-01.007. HI
1.01.007-CJ
|.OJ-nOT.O>
I . oi-ooj. »» OTNCI/NOT
StW*af>IOO»»»TUHH
IS-IOO
Lll
|.OJ-00»-ni I*M IOHt»
|.01-00«-0» HOOO/BMK IOILEB
|.01-00«-0> WOOD
«>s
1.01-010-0* 10-IOOMMBTU/MR
I.01«OIO«0»
11.0
I.OJ.OIl-OI 10-100 NNITU/M*
1. 01-911-0) 00 MNITU/N*
I.OJ-IMJ-OI noo M».BTU/U«
|.0).I)I1.8J 10*100 MMITU/HR
17.S
10.0
i.n
i.tt
1ST.
117.
l«. 1
Kit *
!»»• S
o,»o
o.»o
,.SO
10
1,10
M.I I
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.o
to. 9
40.0
no,
ltd.
10,0
00
10.0
f.10
1*00
i«eo
1.08
3.0(1
1.0(1
1.00
• .no
I.PB
1.00
IlOD
1.09
1.00
0.71
.no
i.oo
i.oo
10. o
»0,0
10.o
1000 5»LtO«!
IDOO StLLOHS IUIN[I)
1000 »LLONJ IUINCR
1000 5HI.ONS
lOOn S4H.OH1
MILLION cu*ic 'tft
MILLION cuite 'tit
"ILLION tunic rttT IU««(8
MILLION cuttc
MILLION euiie retr »u«"i»
"ILLIOH tUilt UtT IU*N(I>
MILLION CU»It KIT »U»"fO
t.OO TONS
>>«0 TONS SU'NtO
10. 0 TONS
l.»5 1000 IlLLONS
I.tt 1000 IILLONS «U«NfO
TON* IU»NIO
TONI IU*NCO
TONS
1000 IHLLONI KUIINtB
1000 I'LLONS IUINID
1000 «»LLONJ IVVNIO
IN
MILLION CUMC "[T tuniro
1000 0»LLON tu*N(B ILI9UIDI
TONS lUHNtB HOLlBI
FtTCONI IOIL"
IMBUSTKUL
|.01-001-01
l-Ot-001'01
i.oi-om-oi
|.Of001*0*
i.o»-ooi«o»
I.OMOOI-0*
l-OS-OUI'fl
|.0»-00|.»»
CONMERCL-IN9TUTN1
1NTHHCITI CO>L
(ITUBtNOUJ COIL
LI«N|T(
•CSIOUH OIL
OlSTILLlTt OIL
N«TU»»L «•!
Lll HTIOLtUH «>S
OTHtP-SHCIfT
OTHtt-lKCI'V
•NTMUlClTC
BITUMINOUS COAL
LIIHITC
HfJIflUiL OIL
BIST)LL»TC 0|L
NtruniL 1*1
LIU PCTKOLCUH ««S
i.o»>001.01
i.os.ooj.nl
I.05-001-01
i .M.ooj-05
l>0«>001«04
i.o!-oo;-in
l.(l««001-»" OTHCI-SVCCI^T
TONS
TOMS IUDNCO
TONS AUHNID
1000 «*LLON! BUDNtO
1000 a.LLONS 1U*N|»
NILLION-CUIIC
1000 QILLONS IVINCB
TON! BUKNtO
IOCS G'LLONS gW*N(D
MILLION cuitc rccr
TONS BUKNCD
TONS IUHNCO
TONS BUHNCO
looo DILLONS «U*NEB
1000 GALLONS BUIN[D
MILLION cuite 'ret BURNED
1000 CtLLONS BU»NCD
TONI IUNNCD
1(100 «»LLON1 IU«Ngn
MILLION CUBIC ".tt BUINEO
INDICtTCS tMt »SN CONTENT, •»' INIMC*TES fMf JIILfU* CONTENT Of THE fUEL ON 1 ff«ENT 1»S|S I»T WEISHTl
12/75
Appendix C
C-S
-------
INTERILCOMU'JI'ION
BISMLL'TE OIL
I. 01-001-01
J-OI-OOI-OJ
7.01-15(17-0!
OICSEL
RESIDU1L Oil,
JET FUEL
7-01-005-01
CRUSE OIL
7-OI-POS-OI
PROCESS S»(
PIRT Sl« NO«
-ELECTRIC «EN£R»TN
TUR1INE 5.00 |10. S 47.)
TURBINE 11.0 «10. * 1(3.
REC!»ROe»T|N6 13.0 |«0. S 170.
TURBINE 5.00 |10. ! 47.8
TURBINF |f«. ;
tURP.NE ..,«
TURBINE ,»t, ;
1.01-1)07-01 TURBINE »50. S
OThCR/NOT CL>S|FD
1NTEPNLCOMBUSTI9N
DISTILLATE OIL
1. 01-001' 01
MTUHAL GAS
J-OJ-OOZ.OI
7. 07-007. 07
4"."o».r,03.o,
OIF.SEL FUEL
RESIDUAL OIL
JET FUEL
J-07-004-01
CRUDE CIL
J- Of- 007-01
PROCESS «A?
r^"":?!
SPECirr IN RENtRK
1PECIFV IN BEHJBIf
-INBUSTR|»L
TURBINE 5.00 |1Q. 5 4*.t
secl«Rpc»T|'J5 31,5 |««, $ ntt.
TURBINC |1,D *10. S 1)3.
•REC IPROCAT |Ntt 410. S
RECIPROCATING 4,50 5.30 102.
RECIPROCATING 33.5 |11. S 1t»,
TURBINE 5, no i»o, S 47,1
TURBINE |S*. 5
TURBINE 4.70
TURBINE 114, ;
TURBINE 450. S
HEC1 PROcATJNg *50. S
" R UNIT
«C CO U N 1 T S
IPPP «ILLON* BURNED
HJ. o n5. MILLION CUBIC FFIT
HILLIIH CUBIC rtti
i-5' 15. .1 IOI>0 OtLLON-t BURMEO
1000 GALLON* BURN[0
loao CALLONS BU»NE»
lOOn GALLON5 rURNEC1
BILLION CUBIC F«T
HILLION CUBIC rreT BURNEO
1000 GALLON! BURNED
$.57 15. » 1000 BILLON1 BURNED
37.5 |02, IT 00 GALLONS BURNED
•}•" lit. MILLION CUBIC rttt
HILLION CUBIC FPET
141. l.t«0. 1000 C1LUONS ».»NFO
l',5 ICT7. Igon GALLON? BURNED
S'*7 15, « IfOO GALLON'S BURNED
1000 GALLONS BURNED
IDOn GALLONS BURNED
IDOn GALLONS ftMRNFO
"ILLION CUBIC ''EET
MILLION CUBIC FEET BURIED
OTHER/NOT CLt!|FD
}.fl{.fft.*7 SHciFt IN XEHJRK
IN BFNJBK
"ILLION CUBIC FttT BURNfD
IOOD S>LLONt |>U*Nf(!
••• InniClTrs THE »»M CONTENT, tj' INOICITES T»E -iULfUR CONTFNT OF THE FUEL ON * RF^CtNT B4SIS |BT WEISHTl
C-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
•I«TtRNLCOH«uSTIO» -COIMC"CL-IN5TUTNL
N i T I 0 u » L f « 1 S s I P « D « T • s T s T E f
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION coots
p 0 u P» n s EMITTED rt* UNIT
P»RT Sf« N3» "C
II N I t
X.OJ-OOI'Dt RECIP»OC»TING 11.S 19*. S *i*. 17.5
OTMER/NOT CL»S|FO
1-03-9*9.»7 SPECIFT IN RE»»Hr
».03-***-9« SPECtPT IN REfURK
INTERNLCOMIIUSTION "ENSINE TESTING
|nl. THOUSANDS Of G'LLONS
MILLION eusie FEET »ij**re
1000 ttLLONS tU'Hft
TURBOJET 11.6 11(0 I*.* '4.0
PROPELLENT
Z-0«-OOI-11
ROCKET MOTOR
j.(u-ooj-nt
ATHEH/NOT
7.01-*"-" SPectrr IN
t.01-***-«l SPrCIFT IN RCHtRK
2.p*.1V*-9« SPECIFT IN REHtRE
P»OCES -CMEBICH HFG
12.7 THOU»»IBS or
TONS or
HIH.I01 CUBIC PEtT
1000 eiLLONS RU*MCB
TONS IURNEB
101PIC ICID PROD
3-DI-OOI-9I GENER1L-CTCLOHEI 0.
3-01-001-9* OTHER/NOT CLtStro
tMHONIl k/HETHNTR
). 01-001-01 PURGE OS 0.
1.01-OOZ-OZ 5TOR»GE/LO«BI»G 0.
1HH1SU V/COIRSR*
1-01" OOJ-OI REGCNERlTO* E«JT 0.
3.01.003-02 PURGE GlS 0,
l-OI-003-nl STOR»«E/LO«OI»S 0.
3.01-003-99 OTHER/NOT CLtSIFO
4HHONIUM NITRKTF
3-01-001-01 GENERAL
l-0|.n04.9* OTHER/NOT CL«SIFD
J. 0| -005-01 CHANNEL PROCESS 2.300.
l.OI-ODK-Ot THERMAL PROCESS 0.
3.01-005-03 FURNtCE PROC CIS
3-01-005-0* FURNICE PROC OIL
3-01-005-05 FURNICE W/G>S/Olt 220.
3.01-005-99 OTHER/NOT (LiSFO
CM4RC01L MFG
3.01-006-01 PTROL/DISTIL/GtNL *0n.
1-01-00*-** OTHER/NOT CL1SF0
CHLORINF
3-01-007-01 SENERIL
3-01-007-99 OTHER/NOT CLISI'O
CHLOR-IUI'LI
1-OI-00)-02 LIOUirT1l-ME«C CCL
3. 01-001-01 L01DING TNKCIRVNT 0.
3-Ql*aO>-ni L01OING STGTNKVNT 0.
3-OI-OOH-05 IIR.ftLOU "C nR|NE 0.
3-OI-00§-9* OTHER/NOT CLtSiri)
a.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
n
0
n
|2.0 0. n. TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
0. 90.0 0. TONS PRODUCED
0. 0. n. TONS PRODUCED
0. 0. XOO. TONS PRODUCED
0. 90.0 0. TONS PRODUCED
0. 0. 0. TONS PRODUCES
TONS PROBUCCO
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
0* 11,500. 11. SOD. TONS PRODUCED
0. 0. 0. TONS PRODUCED
I, nog. s.soo. TONS PROOUCEO
•00> 9, BOO. TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCT
100* 12B> TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PR10UCED
lea TONS CHLOVIWE tuurrirb
(DO TONS CHLORINE L|i)UEnt»
0. D. 0. 100 TONS CHLORINE LlatltrlEB
q. 0. 0. 100 TON* CHLORINE LI4UCPICO
0. 0. 0. 100 TONS CHLORINE LIOUCPIED
100 TONS CHLORINE IIOUEPIED
CkEiNtNC CHEHICtS
J-OI-009-OI S01P/OET S'RTORfR
3-01-009-10 SPECMLTT CLEIHRS
3.0I-H09.99 nTMERS/NOT CLtSPO
90,0
TONS PR^OUCEO
TONS PRODUCT
TONS
c
•i> irioiciTrs txr ISH CONTFN'I
IIDICITCS tut SULFUR contrNi or THE FUEL ON « PERCENT BASIS I*T WEIGHT)
12/75
Appendix C
C-7
-------
SOURCE
PART
INDUSTRIAL 'ROCES .CHEMICAL MFG
J.PI-1ICi:i NITRATION R.EACTRS 0,
}.n|-?lr-12 HN03 CONCTRTR5 0.
3.0l-rlr-53 HZSOK REGfNFRATR 0.
3.01-110-1" REB WATER INCIN 3Z.P
S-St-olr-is OPEN WASTE BURN
3.P|-fllO--;6 SELUITE EJHAUST 0.
S-OI-OIP-1* OTHE9/NM CLA'Ifn
-TD'ofuLoiMe ICID
3-OI-ni 1"?! BYPRODUCT W/SCI)U(I
3.0l-01l-9» OTHER/NOT CLASIFfJ
»YBROFLl'ORJC AC10
3-CI-017-OI ROTRYK iLNwyscRUPR o,
1.0I-1IZ-OZ ROTRYdLNW/OSCRUB 0.
J-OI-OI1-S1 GRIND/DRY fLUOS") 200.
3-OITOI7-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFB
NITRIC ACID
3-01-313-01 ANMONIAOKtDATNOLO
3.0|-013.->3 NITACO CONCTH OLD
J-OI-M3-r>5 UNCONTPSLLEO
J-y|*cl3-5* W/CA TTL/COHRUSTER
J-OI-3IJ-Oi W/ABSORoERS
3.0l-OI3-«» OT«EB/NOT CLASIPD
PAINT nPG
3-Ot-?l»-OI 6ENERAL 2.00
3-OI-OH-nz PIGTNT UlLN
J-OI-OII-ff OTHtR/NOT CLASFO
>-1l'3IS-3l BOOTING OIL 5ENL 0.
3.0I-DI5-OZ OtE«RES|NOu; GEHL • 0.
l-OI-OIS-03 ALKYO GENERAL 0.
>-P]-rlS-SS ACRYLIC GENERAL 0,
3-)l-3l5-»» DTHER/NeT CLASFO
J.OI-OIt-ll "EACTOR.UNCONTLO 0.
J-tl-OU-OJ GYPSUM POND 0.
3-01 -M ft-PS CONOENSR-UNCONTLD 0.
3.0I-OU-" OTHER/NOT CLASfO
*»OS"ACID THERliL
3-Ot-OU-PI GENERAL
J.OI-3l7-»» OTHER/HOT CLASPD
•LASTICS
1-OI'OI«-01 PVC-GENERAI. 35.0
3-01-018-0! 1AKELITE-GENERAL
3.01'OIB-tt OTHER/NOT CLAtfO
PHTHALIC ANHYOR10
).OI-OI».?J UNCONTROLLED. GENL
PRINTING INI
J-OI-OJO--)! COOVIMe.GEhERAL 0,
1-01-020-02 COOCING.OI1.S (1.
l.DI'OZO-03 COOtlNG.OLEtRESIN 0.
1-PI-02D-01 COOKIHG.ALCVDS 0.
J-OI-OZP-C5 "IOHFNT HlKINGGCN 7.00
3.n|-DZC"»» HTnER/NOT CLASfD
SOOIU" CARBONATE
).01-1Z|.ni SOLVAT-NH3 RECVRV 0.
l.ri-OZ|.nt SOLVAT-HANOL |NG ft. 00
].OI*flZ|.|t TRONI-DRfER
1.01-011-30 URINE PvAP.GENERL
).0|.0?t-** • OTHFR-/NBT CLASPD
cLAsstplc,t|9fc cones
sot HO< »e co ij t i T s
Ot l40« 0. 0. TONS PRHOuCFD
e> '«10 C. ". TONS PRODUCED
'*•" litO f, •>, TONS PROOUCFD
Z'nD 38, a 0. 1, TONS PRODUCED
TONS BURIED
TONS PRODUCED
°- TONS rtNAL AClO
Pt TONS PINAL ACIB
TONS FINAL ACIO
TONS ACID
TONS ACID
TONS FLUORSPAR.
TONS ACIO
51.* TONS PURE ACID PRODUCE"
'•50 TONS PURE ACID PRODUCE"
S'10 TONS PU»E ACID PRODUCES
O.ZO TONS PURE ACID PRODuC*1)
TONS PURE ACID PRODUCtf
TONS pun ACID pRoDuee"
TONS PURE ACIB pRoour'n
TONS PURE ACID PRODUCE!)
TONS PURE ACID PRODUCE?
30.0 TON? PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
HO.O TONS PRODUCED
150. TONS PRODUCED
1*0. TONS PRODUCED
20,0 TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PHOSPHATE ROCK
TONS PHflSPMATE ROCF
TpN! PHnsPHATI ROC'
• TONS PRCDUCEO
TONS PHOSPHOROUS SURNEO
TONS PRnOUCFD '
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PROOUCT
TONS PRODUCED
32. 0 TONS PRODUCED
I20i TONS PRODUCED
RO.O TONS PRODUCED
1(0. TONS PROBUCED
UO. TONS PKODUCEO
TONS PIGNENT
TONS PRODUCED
to*5 PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
'!• INDICATES THE ASH CONTrNT, «S- INHICATES TMr 5ULEU» fONTrit f>t THE fUEL On A PFKCENT
I iT
T(
C-8
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
J
0
0
o
z
£
z
A
™
n
*
t
i • •
» 0 O O
**» **
* »•
•* * •
«r ^
O rt
O 0
z z
n m
Ut M
9 O
9009
O
^
^*
0
Z
2
*
9 O
*
O
a *d o
A O O 4
^
"8
r>
V -4
-4 0
3L
C «
O V
c o
-i a
— c
n
o o o o o o
z z z z z z
M L» W1 (A Wl t*
a * » * » B
9 O O 9 O O
0 O O O O 0
C C C C C C
/> n n n nn
O O i
z z
ui tn
* •*
o o
O 0
c c
n n
-*-*-*-*
o o o o
z z z z
Ut iV* Ul M
• A 9 *
0 O 0 O
c c c c
53 ^ •>!
0
z
Ul
A
o
o
c
n
-*-«-*-*
o o o o
z z z z
Ul LA U» Ul
"• V 1 ^
• V » V
3300
o o o o
c c c c
-4 -« H -4 •
H ^
O O
z z
IA U»
f -^
• 4
9 3
a o
c c
-• -4
2
m
0
o
c
"
-i -I -I
O O O
Z Z Z
Ul L* JJ*
"• "< "•!
* a «
a o *
o o n
c c *
n n
O O
-i
o
Z :
•*
0
c.
-r •
o o
z z
e« m
0 0
o o
c c
""
o
r
w
••
a
o'
o
-4
o o
z z
L» VI
^1 •»
V 9
n n
• 9
ooooooooo o
zzzzzzzrz x.
WUIUIL0UI1AUI^iA «
ceecccccc c
2^5522222 2
-------
NATION»LE"I.SSI{iN DA.T* 5 I S T E M
SOURtECLASSlFICATION COOES
INDUSTRIAL "ocrs -CHEHICAL
POUND)
PART
E "• I
50«
NOX
UNIT
«C
PESTICIDES
3-01-033-01
J.01-03)-"
AMINES/AMIDES
BALATMION
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3-OI-031-9I SE1ERAL/OTHEB
PIGHENT-INORGAN
3-0|-03«-QI
3.01-03!-**
SODIUH SULrATE
1.01-034-01
3.01-034-0!
SODIUH SULrlTE
3»et-03T.r)l
3.01-037-07
CALCINATION
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
JODIUM
3-01-038-01
KILNS
«ENERAL/OTHER
KILNS
SENERtl,
3-OI-03*-QI
rERTILIZEB UREA
3-01-010-1)1 GENERAI.
NITROCELLULOSE
i.O1-0«1-01 REACTOR POT?
3-DI-Dtl-PZ HJJOS CoNCENTRTRS
3-01-011-09 BOILING TUBS
3-OI-ORI*** OTHER/NOT CLASIPD
AOHESIVES
J-OI-OSe-DI GCNI./CONPND UNKWN
CLASPD
ACETONE
3-CI-09I-PI OTHER/NOT CLASFD
HALEIC ANHYDRIDE
3-rn-lon-OI GENERAL/OTHER
POLVINL PTRILIOON
J.01-101-01 GENERAL/OTHER
5ULFONIC ACID/ATS
3-01-110-01 GENERAL/OTHER
ASBESTOS CHCHICAL
3.01-111-01 CAULKlNS
3-01-111-0! SEALANTS
3.01-111-03 MAKE LINE/GRIND
3-DI-tll-OI rtRE PROOF HpG
3-01-1ll-»t OTHERS^uOT CL'SFO
rORHALOEHTDE
S-OI-lJn-OI SILVER CATALTST
l.DI-|iO-n2 HI1ED OXOE CTLST
ETHTLCNt DICMLBDf
3.01-115-0} DIRECT CHLRNAT|ON
AHnONtUH SULrATE
1-01-130-01 NHJ-HISCII RROCES
3-01-1 30.03 COKE OVEN BY-PROD
l-Ol-ISn-01 CAPRKLCTH BT.PROO
1.30
65.0
0.
J».0
2.00
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
Oi
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0,
D.
o,
GALLONS OF PRlfeuCT
TONS PROOUCFO
TONS PRODUCT
TONS or PRODUCT
TONS OP PRODUCT
TON* PR10UCT
TONS PDHDUCT
TDNS PRODUCT
TONS PROOUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
n. TONS PRODUCED
T. TOWS PRODUCED
0. TONS PBoeuCEB
0» TtlNS PROOUteO
TONS PROOUCT
TONS PPCOUCT
TONS PBCOUCT
TONS PROOUCT
TONS PRHOUCT
TON* PRODUCT
n.
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
0. TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PR10UCT
•»• INDICATES THE ASH CONTFMT, -S» INDICATES T»r 5ULTUR fONTEXT OP THE PUEL ON A PrRCfNT KAStS (BT Wtl«MTI
C-10
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
ft
OOOO
l_ »- ». fr-
D C C O
*> vt in tft
z z z a
0 0 O O
SS
00
0 - 0
X h.
X J
*- • • • * 4
m ** *n *• ** *-
•m oooo «n
O C O O D Z
K •••• •• • »
V *l U •»•» U • O
u x -i x
inKtnoo uwoxcxxo
t 4 * 1 •
.
.intsoo
-
D O O C
t t * »
ft rt « «
OOO DO
CDOCOOOD
B O
1 1
D O
O C
J t
o o
1
1
is 0 o o
1 t 1 I •
D o o o c :
c o o o e
t » » i «
C 0 O O 0
J
L
49 O ^ O
???5
0 C P O
• • t •
O O D O
in
r»
-------
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -FOOD/ASStCULTURAL
A T | 0 N A L F »• I' S $ I 0 N DAT. 5
s°u»ce-. CL's-fTFiciTios
5 T t I"
P 0 U N 15
PART
^ I R UNIT
U N J T S
PtAt SMOKING
3.0Z-OI3-OI GENERAL
' STARCH »FS
>-02-"l«-OI GENERAL
SUOAS CANE PROCE5
3-02-015.01 GENERAL
3-02-015.99 OTHER/NOT
SU6AR BEET PROCES
3.02-014-01 DRYER OWL*
3.02-014-99 OTHER/NOT CL1SIFD
PEANUT PROCESSING
3-P2-OI7-7.0 OIL/NOT CLA5FD
0.30
«,00
CtNDT/CONFECTNRV
J-oz-ole-9» OTHER/IIOT
B»|RY PRODUCTS
1-07-030-1I HILK SPR«r-ORTER
3.0!-nlD.99 OtHE»/NOT CL45FO
CTHEH/N8T CLlStFD
0.07
P.
3-02-999-98 SPECIFY IN RfHARK
3.02-"9-99 SPECIFY IN BE-1RB
INOUSTRIAL PRPCES -PRIMARY METALS
ALUMINUM ORE-BAUJ
3-03-000-01 CRUSHING/HANDLING
3-03-001-01 PREflAHE CELLS
3.03-701-02 HORI7STP SOIERoRG
3-03-001-03 VERTSTO SOOERBERG
3-03-OOJ.01 MATERIALS HANDLNG
3-03-001-05 ANOOE BiKE FURNCE
3.03-001-99 OTHER/NOT CLA5FO
AL ORE'-CALC iLHYO
3-n3-007-01 GENERA!.
COUE fET BYP900UC
1-0.1.003-01 GCNC0AL
3-03-003-02 OVEN CHARGING
3-03-003-0,1 OVEN PUSHING
3-03-003-01 1UENCHING
3-03-003-05 UNLOADING
3-03-003-04 UNOERFIRING
3-03-on3-n? COAL CRUSH/HANOL
3.03-003.99 OTHER/NIT CLASFD
COKE HET. BEEHIVE
3-03-OOK-OI . GENERAL
COPPE" SMELTER
3-03-0115-01 TOYAU/GENERHI,
3-03-005-02 ROASTING
3.03-005-03 SHELTINr,
3-03-005-01 CONVERTING
3-03-005-15 REPINING
3-03-005-OA ORE ORTFP
3-03-005-9R FINISH OPER-GENL
3.03-005-9' OTHER/NOT CLASFD
fERALLOT OPEN FNC
3-03-OOt-OI 50« FESI
3-03-004-3J 75« FESI
3*03-30»-03 90» FESI
3-03-104-ni SILICON HETAL
6.00
81.3
7B.1
10.0
3.00
200.
3.50
1.50
o.to
0.90
0.10
200.
135.
15.0
20.0
40.0
10.0
200.
315.
1.00
0.02
1,00
0.
l,250i
32l!
«70,
0,
0.1)1
0.03
1.20
2,50
O.Jo
B.OU
0.40 TCNS HEtT S"0«EC
TONS STtRCH
1. 27
0.40
0,07
TONS SUGAR PRgDUCED
TONS PROCESSEO ,
TONS R*W BEETS
TONS R«H BECTJ
TONS PROOMCT
TONS
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS
TONS PROCtlJEo (INPUT!
TONS PRODUCED
TONS OF ORE
TONS >LUH[NUff
TONS 1LUH|NUH PKODUCCB
TONS ALUHINUH pitonueco
TON"! ILUHINUH PRODUCCB
TONS »LUM|NUll PRODUCED
TONS ALUHINUH PRODUCED
TOWS «Lu*iNtiH PRODUCED
TONS COtL CH:AR«CD
TONS COAL CWARCED
TONS COAL CHARGED
TONS COAL CHARGED
TONS COAL CHARGED
TONS COAL CHARGED
TONS COAL CKAACED
TONS COAL CHARGED
1.10 TONS COAL CHARGED
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
CONCENTRATED OPE
CONCENTRATED OKE
CONCENTRATED One
CONCENTRATED OPt
CONCENTRATED ORE
or ORE
PRODUCED
CONCENTRATED OPE
3.13-004-05 SILICOHA'iGANESE
'A' INDICATES THF ASH CONTfNT, 'S'
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PROOUCEB
TONS PRODUCED
T"F SULFUR COHTFNT ff THE FUEL ON A PERCENT H«SIS ("T HEIGHT)
C-12
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
l«OUSTR|»L
«Et*LS
SOURCE CL'SSIFItlTION C 0 B t
POUNOS E P I T T F, 0 PfR UHIT
PIRT soi io« "«
CONTINUE
3-03-in»-IO SCREENING
3-e3-PO»-ll ORE B"TER
3-01-P04-IJ LPWCIIB C«-REA(TR
».03-00«-»» OTHER/NUT CLASFD
J-OJ-007-DI
3-03-007.0J
IRON PRODUCTION
GENERAL
BLAST Fk
BLIST FNC»iGLCHG
SINTERING CCNERIL
)-03-P09-05
3.0J-00*-0»
).0)-aoa-o7
3.03-00*-30
l-01-00«--t
SORFINC
SINO H«NOLIN« OPN
HOLD OVENS
5L15 CRuSH/HtNDL
ATHCR/NOT CLiSFO
•TEtL PRODUCTION
OPNHE*RTN OIU'NCt
NOILNCC
j.oj-oo»-nz
].01-BO*-e* ELECT IRC W/L>NCE
).OJ-I>0*-0* ELECT IPC NOL»NCE
J.93-00«.|n FINISH/PICK!. INS
l-0)-10»-ll FINI4H/50AK UTS
3-CJ-nO»-l? FINISH/CRINBiETC
].09-00*-iO FlNllH/BTHE*
J-OSj-OO*-**
LEAD SHELTERS
).03-010-0!
1-03-OIO-OJ
1-01-OIO-03
1-01-010-31
l.Ol-Oin-05
j,ej«oio.»»
SINTtHINS
REVERI FURNtCE
ORE CRUSHING
HITERIUS HtNDlNS
J.03-011-01
1.01-01 1-01 HILLINO-«INF,»»L
3-03-OII-ft PHOCF9S.OTHFH
CHlOHtHITtflM ST1T
OTHKI/KOT
TIT»NIU«
3-03-OII-OI
3-01-01 !-«
«OLB
1.03-011-01
15,0
121.
H.O
1.00
0.
0.
(I.
n.
o.
0.
I.7SO.
R.30
51.0
ll.n
1*1.
97*.
J.OO
f.OO
11.»
Oi
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
tl*.
U.fl
|l. 0
n.
B.
(I,
UNITS
TONS F»OtESMO
TONS
T8N1
TONS
TONS P»ooueeo
TONRF,
TONS OF ORE CHUSMfO
TONS OF LCIB P«OOUtT
eoNCcNtn»TF« our
a.
HUNOHEOS OF TONS
TONS PtBOUCT
TONS PROCCSSEO
TONS PHOBUCT
TONS P»BCCS«En
TONS 0*C
3.03-OH-fll
3-03-91 «-OJ
OKI
UtOUCTN KttN
TONS MOCCSSCB
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PKOCESSCD
TBNS P»BCC?SED
3-01-01*•"!
l'0»-BI»-e>t (»UJ»1N(J
3.03-8IS-11 HEIT|N«
3.03-015-01 OUENCM/Ht«T TREAT
1.83-0 H-05
l-O)-OII-Or SlNTERINI
1.81'OI»-ni VENTILATION
1-01-015-0* LCACH/FILTE*
>-01»Oll>** BTHER/NOt CLASFB
<*ERCU*V NININt
3.01-OJ*.')!
]-0>-0>»-B)
1-01-OM-91
i-ei.oJS-o*
i-oi-eis-B7
suRrter ILASTING
SUKFACt DRILLING
SURFACE HANDLING
NATURAL V«'
STRIPPING
L9ABINO
A.
n.
0.
ft.
a.
n\
n.
o.
o.
o.
o>
a.
o.
o.
TONS OF BRt
TBNS p*ocessEo
TONS p*«ces
-------
INDUSTRIAL PRCCCS -PRIMARY METALS
"ERCURY 1INING CONTINUE"
3.01-025-0* CONV/HAUL WASTE
1.01*024-99 OTHER/NOT CUA5FO
"ERCURY ORE PROCS
l-"3. 024-11 CRUSHING
1-01-92A.P2 ROTARY FURNACE
3-03-1*4-03 RETORT FURNACE
1-03-026-01 CALCINE
1-03-OZ6-OS BURNT ORE BIN
3.01-OZ4.0* HOEING PROCESS
l-DJ-024-19 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
ZINC SMELTING
1-03-030-01 GENERAL
3-DI-010-02 RO»STN6/MU|.T.HRTH
3-03-030-03 SINTERING
1-01*910-01 HORI7 RETORTS
3.01-010-05 VER.T RETORTS
3-OS-OJO-S. ELECTROLYTIC PROC
1.01-010*9» OTHER/NOT CLASFO
OTHER/NOT CLASFT*
1-01-99*. 9* SPECIFY IN R-EHARK
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -SECONDARY MFTALS
ALUHINU" OPERATN
1-01-001-01 SWEATINGFURNACE
*01-00l-nz SHELT-CRUCI9LE
.01-001-01 SHELT-REVERR FNC
.01-001-01 CHLORINAt* STATN
•.01-001-10 FOIL ROLLING
-01-001-11 FOIL CONVERTING
.01*001-20 CAN MANUFACTURE '
-01. 001* SO ROLL-DRAW-EITRUDE
-01-001-9* OTHER/NOT CLASFD
BRA S/BRON2 CELT
-01-flOJ-OI BLAST FNC
-01-002-02 CRUCIBLE FNC
-01-002-01 CUPOLA FNC
-01-002-01 ELECT INDUCTION
-01-002-05 REVERB FNC
. 01-002' 04 ROTARY FNC
•01-012-94 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
GRA IRON
-01-001-01 CUPOLA
-01-903-02 PEVER* FtlS
-01-003-01 ELECT INDUCTION
.04-103-0* ANNEALING OPERATN
-01-003-30 HISC CAST-FA*CTN
-01-003-10 GRINBtNG-CLEANlNG
-01-001-50 SAND HANDL-GENL
-91-OOJ-9* OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
LEA S»ELT SEC
.01-001-01 POT FURNACE
-01-101-92 REVERB FNC
.01-001-01 PLAST/CUPOLA FNC
-01-001-01 ROTART REVER( FNC
-oi.poi-os LEAD OXIDE HFG
.01-001-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
LEA 8ATTERT
.01- HO*. 01 TOTAL'CENERAL
.01-005-12 CASTING FURNACE
-D1-D05-01 PASTE HIIER
-Oi-OOS-01 THREE PROCES OPER
.01-005-99 OTHER/HOT CLASIFD
«AG ESIU" SEC
-ni-01f.-l?l POT FUR>IACE
.01. 10*. 99 OTHER/NOT CL'SIFO
POUNBS EMITTED PER UNIT
PART S"X NO» HC CO
"•
0.
n.
P.
1*0. I.IO".
aioo
100.
3)00
11.5
J.»0
1.10
12.5 0.
IB.O
12.0
71.0
2.00
70.0
(.0.0
17.0
2. OP
1.50
0,
C.80 0,
117. (n.O
1*3. 5J.O
70.0 0,
0,»0 0.
0.01 0.
0.21 0.
n.ti p.
1,00
0. 0. p.
0. 0. D.
1.
0* 0., 0.
Ot • 0. n,
•0. 0, 2 0,
0.
0. 0. p.
p.
0.
n.
0.
us.
0,
0.
0. 0. 0,
0. 0. 0.
"• o. o.
0. 0, 9.
D. n, o.
0. t. n.
n. n. p.
n, P. o.
o. o. e.
UNITS
TONS OF ORE
TONS OF ORE
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TUNS PftOCESSEO
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS METAL PRODUCED
TONS METAL PRODUCE!*
TONS HETAL PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRfDUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCES
TONS pRooueeo
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS PRODUCED
TONS HETAL CHARGE
TONS HETAL CHAPGE
TONS HETAL CHARGE
TONS HETAL CHARGE
TONS PRRCESSEO
TONS PROCESSED
TONS HANDLEn
TONS HETAL CHARGE
TONS METAL CHARGED
TONS METAL CHARGED
TONS METAL CHARGED
TONS HETAL CHARGED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TOMS OF BATTERIES
TONS OF BATTERIES
TONS OF BATTERIES
TONS OF BATTERIES
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PR1CESSEB
TONS PROCESSES
PROOreE-J
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCE')
•A' INIICATE! T-E ASH CONTENT, 'S' 1NPICATES THF IJIII.FUR CONTENT'(IF THE fUEL 0(, A RECENT BASIS I«T WE1G"T|
C-14
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
C.
-------
INDUSTRIAL PP-OCES
STEEL FOUNDRY
J.0«-007-"l
1.01-007-H2
3.0«-007-OS
S»OR"OOT"flR
3-01-007-05
3-0*-007-Ot
3-0«-007-in
)-0*-007-l!
3.01-007.**
I INC SEC
3-0«-00§.OI
l-OI-OOI-OI
5-01OO&-OS
laOivooivO1*
1.0>-OOi.OS
i-oi-oo«-o»
i.o*-oni.o7
J.O»-OOI-0»
3.0I-00*-**
N 1
-SECONOART HETALS
ELECTRIC ARC F«c
OPEN HEARTH FNC
OPEN HFARTM L»NCO
HEAT. TUfAT FNC
INDUCTION FURNACE
SANO GRIND/HANOI
FINISH/SOAK PITS
FINISH/NOT CLASFO
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
RETORT FNC
HORI1 HUPPLE FNC
POT FURNACE
KETTLE'SfEAT FNC
gALVANIIING (ETTL
CALCINING HUN
CONCENTRATE D*TER
REVERB»SWEAT FNC
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
PART SOI NOX H<;
13.0 O.JO
II. 0 O.tl
10.0 0.
0.10 0. 0. 0.
17,0
4S.O
o.io
11*0
s.oo
»».o
13,0
n«LLC«»LC IKON
.»* OTHER/NOT
NKKCL
3.(H-OIO-OI
J.CH-OIO-tt
1 1 PICON I UK
fLUI
OTHCR/NaT
1.0.- 511-01 0«IOt KILN
3.0i<*OII-»» OTHCA/NOT
3-OH-OJO-O! NIIINC
3.0«-0*0-0> I>ITCH TIt»I1N«
>.0««020*«* OTHEH/NOT CHS I CO
IN
0.
0.
UNIT)
TONS
TONS f*OCE»EO
TONS PHOCE55ED
TONS "octsseo
TONS p»oees*(o
TONS HtNDLCO
TONS »TtNS
ATHEB'NOT CLISIFD
1SPH11TIC CONCRFT
1.05-OOJ-OI ROTiRT DRTER
j.os-ooi*ni oT«e» SOURCES
3-OS»Ofl).»» OTHER/NOT CH5IFO
ARICI HiNUP*CTU*E
1.50
1.00
I.00
t, on
15.0
10.0
|,5fi
0.
0.
3-0^-003-ni
3.05-003-OJ
3-05-003-03
3.05-OOS-PH
3.05-001-0!
3.05-00)-ni
1.05-001-**
nRVINI-PAH HTL
GRtNAINE'RAH HTL
STORAIE'RAN "U
CURINS GAS FIRED
CURING OIL PIREO
CURING C1AL FIRFO
OTMtR/NOT CLASIFO
70.0
74.0
31.0
0.01
0.07
l.ln A
n.oj
**no s
».*o s
0.
0.
0.
O.I*
l.<0
1.10
o.nj
0.10
0,'n
CALCIUM CARBIDE
i.os*nn<-ni
3.05-00«-nl
l.nj./ioi-**
ELECTRIC FNC
C0«f OPTCR
PNC R«OH VFNTS
OTNER/NOt CLASIFD
1(1.0
J.rio
2»,0
3. no
.i.nn
o.
0.40 TONS SiTgttTED PELT PRObUCEO
i, TONS S»TUR«TED PELT PRODUCED
n. TONS SITUR1TED FELT PRADUCED
n, TONS SATURATED PELT PRODUCED
TONS SATURATED PELT PRODUCED
TONS PROOUC'D
TONS P*n«UCEO
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCPO
TONS PRODUCFD
O.C7 TONS PRODUCED
1. TONS PROOUCFO
l.t.0 TONS PRHDUCFO
TONS PRKDUCEfl
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PROCESSEH
•A' INDICATES THE ASM CONTENT. •«• INOIC'TrS TNF. SULFUR CONTENT OP TNE FUFL ON A PERCENT RASIS I«T
12/75
Appendix C
015
321»-637 0 - 90 - 12 (Pt. B)
-------
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -MINERAL PRODUCTS
CASHABLE REFRACTT
3-05-005-rl RAWMATL DRYER
3.05-OOS-02 RAWMATL CRU5H/PRC
' 3-05-OOS-03 ELECTRIC ARC MELT
3-3S-OOS-01 CURING OVEN
3.D5-OGS-OS HOLD/SHAKEOUT
3-05-005-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
CEMENT ftFS DRY
3. 05-006-01 KILNS
3.05-006-02 n»YERJ/GPtlND£SeTC
3.05-004-03 H1LNS-OIL FIRED
3-05-004-01 KILNS-GAS FI1CD
3.0S-001.01 KILNS-COAL FIRED
3-05-004-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
CEMENT ,HFS MET.
3.0S-OD7-OI itlLNS
3-05-007-02 DRrERS/GRINOERETC
3.05-007-01 KILNS-OIL FIREO
3-05-007-0* KILNS CAS FIRED
3-05-007-05 KILNS-COAL FIRED
1-05-007-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
1-05-OOB-OI DRYING
3-05-001-132 SRINOING
3-05-0011.03 STORAGE
J-OS-OOd-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
CLAY/FLYASHSINTEft
3-05-009-01 >LYASH
3-05-009. HI NATURAL CLAY
3-05-009-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
J-tW-nlO-OI THERM/FLUID BED
3. 05-010- o) THERM/MULTILOUVPO
3-05-010-99 OTHFR/NPT CLASIFD
Cff'lCBETE BATCH|>I6
3.0^-01 l-n| GENERAL
l-OS-Oll-20 ASBEHT/CEHNT PBTS
3-05-01 1-ZI ROAD SURFACE
3-05-HI1-99 OTHER/HOT CLASFO
3-CS-MJ-Ot REVERBFNC-RF.GENEX
3-05-01 2-02 REvERBFHC-RFCUPEK
3-05-012-01 ELECTRIC IND FNC
3-05-012-ni ronpijus LINE
3. 05-0 IT-CIS CURING OVE»"
3.05-OI2-99 OTHtR/NnT CLASIFD
FRIT MFS
l-ri5-OI3-0| ROTARY FNC G£NL
3-05-013-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
GLASS MFS
.l-05-nll|-p| SOO'LlHE BENL FNC
3-05-011-10 RAw HAT KCc/STORG
3-05-111-12 MOLTEN HOLD TANKS
3-05-OI1-99 OTHER/NOT CLA3IFI)
GYPSU" HF6
1-05-015-01 "" MTL gRYER
3-01-015-02 PRIMARY GRINDER
3-05-015-03 CALC1NEP
3-05-015-99 OTHER/NOT fLASIFD
Ll«f »FB
3-05-nlA-n PRIHft&r CRU1HJNG
3-05-nl4-OJ SECNOPY CRUSHING
f D U N » S E ; » 1 T T f. 11 PER U N "I T
PART flit NOI HC
30.0
120.
50.0
jslo
•".o • 1,110 0.50
li.O
11*' \1'1 2. 40 0,
»J*. 10. S 2,60 0,
1J«0 3.00 0.50 0.
&.DO
zzs« H,* 2.40 0.
'28. |(J.2 J.IO 0.
zz"' 23. • I. tO 0.
ro.o
74,0
31.0
110.
S5.0
21.0
20.0
It.O
25.0
0,20
0.20 0. 0. 0,
0. 0. 0,
3.00
1.00
0.
60,0
7.00
It.O
2.00
o, n. o,
. n.
10.0
1.00
90,0
0,70
>1.0 0. o, 0,
2.00 n, a, o,
B.nn
E M
CO UNITS
TONS FEED H4TER|*i
f«NS FEFO MATERIAL
TONS FE'D MATERML
TONS rsro HATC«IAL
TONS FEED "»TE»I»L
;YONS FEfO MATFRIAL
BARRELS CEMENT PRODUCED
BARRELS .CEMENT PRCDIfCgD
n. TONS tEHENT PRiJOWCFb
C. TONS CEMENT PROSUCEO'
(it TONS CEHEHT PRODUCED
TONS CEMENT PR«DU«!EO
o» BARRELS. CEMENT pneDucE"
BABUFLS CEHENT PRODUCED
o. TONS ce»FNT PR«DUCFB
0. TONS CEHCNT PHOOWCEI)
0. TONS CEMENT PRDCIUCCD
TONS CEHCNT PPODUCtD
TONS INPUT TO PROCESS
TONS, INPUT TO PKOCESS
TONS INPUT TO PROCESS
TONS PRODUCED
TONS FINISHED P»OoUcT
'TONS FINISHED. PRODUCT
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCED
TONS COAL DRIED
TONS COAL 0»IE"
TONS COAL DRIED
TONS COAL CLEANED
CUP 1C TAROS CONCRETE P'ODUCEfl
a, TONS PPIDUCT
(1, TONS PRODUCT
- TONS PRiDUCT
TONS HATERHL PROCESSED
TONS MITER ML PROCESSED
TONS. HATER IAL PROCESSED
TONS MATERIAL PROfFjseo
TONS HATER I AL P'OCESiEl
TONS pROctsjta
.TONS CHARGE
TONS CHAujto
TONS CLASS PRODUCED
T'ONS PROCESSC9
1. TONS PROCESSES
TONS PRCICCSSED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
i, TONS P»DCES«D
0. TONS PROCESSED
TON* PROCESSED
•A- INDICATES THE «H cnMTr-iT, •*• iNnie»TES TME SULFUR CONTENT, or THE FUEL o,, • PERCENT RASIS i«» WEISHTI
C-16
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
M A t I 0
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -HINER»L PRQ9WCTS
P 0 U N
PiRT
s t
T p p
t •
T *
LIHE
CONTINUED
J.05-OI4-1H
3.05-014-0*
3-05-014-04
3-05-014*0*
1-OS-Olt-"
•INERAL WOOL
3-05-017-01
3-05-017-n!
3-05-017-33
J.05-OIT-0*
' 3-OS-OI'.95
3.05-017-f-
»ERL|TE "Ft
3. Aft. 111. 01
3.85-OI«-»»
PHOSPHITE ROCK
3.05-ni--oi
3.o$-oi*-oz
3.0S-OH-01
3.05-01 »-»»
3.05-120-01
3.05-o:0'02
1.0ST020-03
3-05-010-15
1.05-OZ0.04
3-05-019.07
3-P5-02C-9.
3-05-310-0*
3-05-020-?*
C«LC|NNG.*OTrKIL1
C'LCIHATIC KILN
fLUIOlin BEB KILN
HTDR4TOR
OTHER/NOT CL»5IFD
CUPOLt
REVERB FNC
BLOW CHAMBER
CUR INS OVEN
COOLER
OTHER/NOT CLlStFO
VERTICAL FNC SEN
CTHER/NOT CL1SIFO
DRTING
OPEN STORAGE
DfHER/NnT CLASIFB
iC
PRIHtRT CRUSHING
SEC CRUSH/SCREE"
REcJuSM/SCMENING
FINES HILL
SCREEN/CONVTyHUBL
OPEN STORAGE
CUT STONE-GENERAL
BLASTI»«-«ENER«L
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
ZOO.
21.0
s.oo
17.0
'.00
2.00
11.0
rt.o
20.0
I. 00
10.0
0.50
1.50
4.00
5.00
4.00
Z.OO
10.0
5»LT
3-05-OZI-ni GENERAL
POT15" PDOBUCTION
3.04-1Z2-** OTHER/NOT CLlSIFD
CALCIUM BOOATf
J.05-023-11 MININO/plOCESSING
3.05-023-9' OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3.05-02H-OI MINE/PROCESS
]-OS*01>**t OTHER/HOT CltStFO
3-05-025.01
3-(i*-n25-»»
3-05-OZ4-OI
3-05-OZ4.5-
CRUSHING/SCREEN
OTHER/NO* CLASIFO
H»NOLI«6
OTHER/NDT CLlSIFD
CERAMIC ELFCT PT5
l-(,5.ft3C.t-
ASBrsTns MINING
1-05-031-11
J.05-03l-f7
l.OS' 031-01
3-05*011.01
l.CS-Oll-OS
s-os-eii-o*
3-05-OH-07
1.05-Oll-OR
3-15-011-0*
3-05-031-10
1. 01-131-11
S-nS-OM-**
••• IN"IC*TE5 TT
12/75
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
SURFACE BLASTING
SURFACE DRILLING
COBBING
LOA01NS
CONVEY/HAUL ASBES
CONVFT/MAUL H'STe
UNLOADING
StR |PP|*!C
VENTILATIRN
STOCCPIL 1 NG
TAILINGS
HTHER/H1T CLAWO
ISH CONTENT. '•»• 1
0.01 ,
a.
0.
0.
a.
o.
a.
0.
0.
0.
4,10
0.
0.
n.
a.
o.
o.
n,
o.
n.
o.
o.
P.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0.
p.
0.
c.
0.
TONS MOCESsro
TONS P«ICES4fO
TOH« PROCESSED
TONS HtORITEO LI"E tRO!>UCm
TONS
TONS CHIRAC
TONS CH»BSE
TONS CH4RGC
TONS CHIR5E
TONS
-------
* «T I o N, A . I. E M , s 5 , „ ., „ , T „
SOURCE c L • s s i F , c. 4 T i o „ c „ „ e %
INDUSTRIAL PRQCES
•MINERAL PRODUCTS
PART 50,
' r "^ E
° UNIT
"C
CO
UNITS
'.SB'sTos HILLING
1:^:111:11
3-ps-oJr-o)
J-TS-ltjIJ-O1!
3-CS-D3J-P4
J-OS-032-H
CRUSHING
»£C»USM|NG
SCREENING
FIBCRIZING
OTHFP/NOT CLASFO
0.
0.
0,
t,
n •
0*
0.
0»
0*
Of
Of
o.
".
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
".
n.
n.
n.
T.
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
PRESSED
PRBCESSEO
P«1CESSEO
P'OCESSEO
PR'lCESSEn
P'^CESSED
PROCESSED
"INING-SPEC HATl
3— OS— ^Rp— R 1
3— 05— [*10— 02
3-06*040*03
3-OS-0*0*in
3-P5-ORO-SO
3-OS-OtO-ll
3-OS-010-23
3-OS-O'O-ZI
3.0S-0»0-25
3.DS-010-JD
3*05-0tn»31
3- 05-010-34
J-OS-0'0-33
3^05-010-3*
3-OS-010-J4
3-0$-D«0-9f
OPEN PIT-BLASTING
OPEN PIT-DRILL'ING
OPEN P|T»COBBING
UNOERGRD-VENTlLAT
LOADING
CONVEY/MAUL MATL
CONVEY/HAUL WASTE
UNLOAD1 NG
SYR | PP JNG
STOCUPILf
PRIMARY CRUSHER
SECONDARY CRUSMEP.
ORE CONCENTRATOR
ORE t>RTE»
SCREENING
TAILING PILES
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
Pt
0*
t
pf
d
0,
*)t
Of
*
o»
0.
f}(
Q»
o«
0 •
4*
Ot
fl»
0*
Ot
0 f
Oi>
Of
0 f
Ot
0 f
Of
Dt
Qi
f) f
,
Oi
, . 0,
s;
°;
0,
S'
°r
0,
Jr
0.
"•
o!
0,
0.
0,
0,.
r*»
i.
n.
n.
o'
0.'
0,
"(
°'
n.'
"r .
. 0.
0,
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TOhS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
VAklB
or HATERHL
OF MATERIAL
OF HATFRIAL
OF MATEAIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OF MATERIAL
OTHER/HOT CUtSJfO
J.O.f-«««-«t SPECIFT IN REMARK
, PROCES -PETRIUEu-l t1B»T
OF HATMtiL
PROCESS HEATER
3-Oi-01l.nl
3-04-001-0*
3-04-001-03
3-04-OOI-0«
FLUID CRACKERS
3-04-OOJ.OI
"OV-IED CAT.eRA
J-ni-003-ni
SLOW-DOWN SYSTM
3-04-OOR-OI
PROCESS DRAINS
3-04-008-01
3.04-005-OJ
VACUUM JETS
3-0»-On4-ot
3-04-004-01
COOLING TOWERS
l-04-on7-ni
MISCELLANEOUS
3-04-OOR-02
3-04-00»-03
3>»04-OOB-0*
1-06*OOD>05
OIL
GAS
OIL
GAS
GENERAL ,FCC,
^
GENERAL ITCCI
W/CONTROLS
W/0 CONTROLS
GEN W/CONTROL
GEN W/0 CONTROL
W/CONTROL
W/0 CONTROL
VC5L RELIEF VALUE
PUMP SEALS
COMPRESft SEALS
OTHER-GENL
B*0.
10.0
10,0
III.
17.0
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
D.
0.
O.SJ S
140. S
• 3(1. S
1*3.
40.0
1.
0.
n.
P.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
R.
0,
R.
4*<0
DO.
71.0
S.OO
0.
0,
n,
0.
e.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
110.
0.03
30,0
22n.
B7.P
5.00
loo.
ft.oo
0.
130.
4.00
ie.n
II. 0
17.0
5.00
10,0
0,
0.
o!
13,700,
3. BOO,
0.
0,
(1.
n.
R.
0.
1.
. 1,
0.
0,
0.
0.
FLA»ES
3-rt4-00*-OI NATURAL GAS
3.04-no»-»» OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
SLURce CONVERTED
3-04-nlP-ni ctNtsAi
•A* INDICATES IMF ASH COITfNT, 'S-
C-18
,HC suuru. CONTCNT
EMISSION FACTORS
TONS PROOuet
1000 BARRELS OIL BURNER
1000 CUBIC FEET GAS IU»",CF1
IOOP GALLONS OIL RUPNEO
MILLION CU9IC FEET BO»N[0
1009 BARRELS FRESH FEES
1000 BARREI..I r*ESH
1000 BARACLs REFINERY ..,.,.,,
0. 1000 BARRELS REFINERY CAPACITY
(I. 1000 BARRELS WASTE WATrp
n BARRELS WASTE WATER
0. 1000 BARRELS VACUUH DISTILLATION
1000 BARRELS VACUu" OISTILLATI01
"IH.IOH GALLONS COOLING WATER
lOflC BARRELS PSFlNtRY C|P«CITT
1000 B1PREI.4 REFINERY CAPACITY
lOOn BARREL1 RFFlNERY fAPACITT
IO«0 BARREIS REFINEDr CAPACITY
1000 BAPRet.1 REFINERY CAPACITY
HILLIOMS OF cum FIET
"ILL10NS OF CU1IC FtPT
TONS PROCESS?
PASIS |«Y
12/75
-------
!sB'.'ST«iu "sees »PET»III,EU« INBRY
H * T I 0 N 4 L F«I»SION»»T4 SYSTEM
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION COOES
POUNDS EN|TTFO PER UNIT
S0» NOI »C CO
UNITS
O»ME»/NCT
TONS P«OCESS£D
TONS "OCESStD
1-0*-?I2*OI 5ENE14L
l*0»OI2-?> COOL I "5 OPER
J-04O12-03
3-0**?l2-«« STOR1CE
«ENE**L
513.
IN RE"i«K
|N HEN
!s)l.!'»t»L "eery .WOOD M0DUCTS
1000 BtRIIEt.1 r»E5M reEn
1000 »»»»EI.? rR«M rrf
1QOO »»R»CLS f'ESH f££3
lOCO BtK*ELf f»ESH FEIt
looo B«**EL« mtSH tr.tf
TON)
ICCUNULT*
IHELT OIJSOLV TNK
LIHI KILNS
TURPENTINE tONOSH
FLUICBE8 C/tLClNEH
LI SUCH OXtON TIJBH
OTHER/NOT CU«S|rn
I.OT. 191-91 LMUOK «ECOVE»Y
S.07--OI-OJ SULfl't TOWE*
3. 07-701 -P»
J-07.P3I.C*
3.07-aC|.»1
3. (57-;5Z.eS tV
3,07-):?-?6 rUL* OI5E5TER
3. 07. ;»!.•• OTH!»/NOT
IS
e
0.
Ot
A.
5.00
0,
".
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CHE3 PuLP
TONS UN«LF»CHE» PULP
TONS VNILEtCHEO PULP
TONS UNSLE'CHE* PuLP
»IB.OUT TONS
«|R.DRT TONS
•IR.DRT TONS
l|».tl«T TONS
t)R»DRf TONS
TONS it* ORT
TONS 4 IP DRY
UNBLE>C4CB
UNBLE4CHIO PuLP
UW1LE4CME1) PULP
UN(LE«C»EO PULP
UN8LE4CHEO
PULP
PULP
OT«E«/NOT
OTHE*/NCT
3.I)7-:07.0I VCNEC*
J.Ot.JOT.9? >«ND|N«
OTHM/NOT CLlSlPO
0.
0.4(1
TONS riHIlMEO PRODUCT
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS OF WOOD tȣ*TEtl
TONS Of WOOB TWQJITFD
TONS or PRODUCT
n. tons
o. TONS pRoecsseo
TONS
TONS PROCCSSEO
3-07. ?!)»«»»
CU*I|FD
ATHE»/NOT CL*S|rD
. «»».«» 1ft « I'f IN •(•»«»«
TONS p*oees$EO
TONS PROCESStO
TONS PPOCESSCD
TONS PROCESSED
•«• |s«ie»'E) T«E *SH CONTENT, -S' INKICtTrS TM( SUIFUP, CONTENT Or THE FUEL ON * PC*CFNT »»M5 l*» WEl«MT»
12/75
Appendix C
C-19
-------
« A T I 0 N H L f " I S S I 0 N BAT»ST5TrP
SOURCE CLAgSiriCtTION CODES
IKCIUSTRML PROCES -»ET«L
IRON/STEEL
5-0»-03l-OI "ISC H»ROWA»E
3-09-001-02 FAR* mcHiNfRr
3.09-001-99 OTHER/NOT CLA5IFD
PLATING OPERATONS
J-09.flln-99 OTHER/NOT CLA5IFO
CAN mitiNe OPRNS
l-Of-OJO-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
M1CHINING OPFB
3-09-010-ni PRILLING-SP MATL
3-09-010-02 HILLING-SP »l»TL
3-09.010-03 REAMING. SP Hill.
3-09-310-0* GRINOING-SP MITL
J-d»-OJD-05 5»WI«5-5P H1TL
3-0?-030-Ot HONING-SP fUTL
OTHFR/MdT CL»Str"
P 0 U h fl S
PART
I T T
5(l«
n PER
NOX
0,
a.
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0.
0.
a.
o.
o.
o.
n,
a*
n.
•).
n.
a.
NITS,
TONS Or PRODUCT
TONS OP PBO!»UCT
TONS fU»TEO
TONS
TONS P'OCESSEB
tONS PHOCESSEO
TONS PHOCESBEO
TON5 PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS' PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PRBCtSSED
INOU«T»t»L P'OCES -LEHTHER P»OOUCtS
].2Q»99t-99 SPECIFY IN
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -TEJTIUt MFS
TONS PROCESSED
CENERHl FABRICS
-10-001-01
.30-001-0!
-JO-OOI-9*
r»R« PREP/BLEACH
PRINTING
OTHER/NUT SPECIFO
RUB e»I?ED rtBRIC
.3ll-0n?-0l IHPREGNtTION
.30-002-0! NET C01TING
•JO-OOJ-01 HOT HELT CRATING
•10-OOJ-99 OTHER/NOT 5PECIFO
CARPET OPERtTNS
3-10-003-99 OTHER/HOT SPECIPO
PROCES -INPROCES5 FUEL
TONS PROCESSED
TONS pRocEsseo
TpN«i PROCESSED
TONS PHOCESSEO
TONS RROCesSEO
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
»NTHR»ctTE COAL
3-9n.pn|.,9 OTHER/NOT CLiSIFO
BITUHINOUS COAL
1. 90-001-01
3-90-001-03
l>90-n02-D1
3.90-POJ-O*
5-90-002-07
3-?0-OOJ.Q(l
3-90-001-09
3-90-OOJ-79
RESIDUAL OIL
3-»o-ooi-ni
3.90-int-O?
3-90-ono-ol
3.90-(10»-0*
J-90-001-OS
3.90-OOK-06
1-90-001-0»
3-90'301-OB
).9n-001-0»
3. 90-001. in
3. 90*001-11
3.9P-OOil.)0
CEnENT rILH/ORTER
Ll«E KILN
KAOLIN ctLN
BRICK KILN/DRr
STPSUH KILN/ETC
COAL ORrCRS
ROCC/GRIVEU ORTER
OTHER/NOT CLASim
•5PH1LT OUTER
CEMENT KlLN/ORTER
LIME KILN
KAOLIN KILN
"ETAL HELTINS
BRtCC KILN/DRT
STPSHM HLN/ETC
GLASS FURNICE
POCK/GRiVtL ORTCR
FRIT SMELTER
PERLITE FURNICE
PEED/GRIIN ORYIN5
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
".
0,
0.
n.
n.
n.
o.
o.
o.
o,
o.
o>
n.
n.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
a.
Oi
o.
0<
0*
0*
a.
0.
o>
a.
o.
o.
o.
o.
•n.
at
0.
Oi
o.
o.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
o.
0.
0.
0.
a.
o.
o.
D.
0.
0.
0,
I). TONS RURNEO
•»• INOIC4TC5 THE 1SH CONTENT, »S« INDICATES THr SULFUR CONTENT OF THE ruEL. ON A PpRCENT "ASIS
r>.
0.
0.
«.
0.
0.
0.
n.
P.
0.
n.
Oi
0.
a*
q>
0,
0.
0.
n.
0.
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
loon
1 000
1000
1000
(ODD
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
tooo
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLON?
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLON;
GILLONS
GALLONS
GALLON;
GALLONS
BURNtD
BURNEO
BURNrn
BURNED
BURNED
PURNEO
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
IIS |BT WEIGHT)
C-20
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
•I 4 T I (I N *
E " I * S I 0 N »»T
5 t
P o u >i n 3
INOMSTHHL PROCES -INPROCESS FUEL
RESIDUAL OIL CONT|Nue(l
E • I
SOX
T f B f E
BO*
UNITS
ra
J.«0-ODR-« FERTILIZER DRYING
1»RO-OPR*50 UL pg ""*"
}«VO'004"SI PLYWOOO*D YC ?
jI*0-OOl|'1V DTMFR/NPT CLA5IFD
OISTILLATE OIL
Jp»0-OOS-OI ASPHALT ORYER
3.9C-OOS-01 CEMENT KILN/DRYER
3-90-005-03 LIME KILN
3.90-nOB-C" KAOLIN KILN
J.90-OOS-05 HETAk MEL'ING
J-tO-OOS-0* BRICr KILN/DRY
3,90-005-OT «YPSUH rlLN/E'C
1-?0-OOS-OB SLASS FuPNACE
)I«0-00»-IO FRIT SHELTER
3-90-006-11 PFRLItE FURN»CE
J.tO-OOSOCl FEEO/SRAIN ORYINfi
3.90-005-31 FOOD-ORY/COOC/ETC
). 90-005-31 FERTILISER DRYING
3-»0"OOS«Sn PULPBOARD'DRYERS
l.RO-OOS-SI PLYWOOD. DRYERS
3-90-005-SI PULP-RECO* POfLER
3-90-005-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
NATURAL SAS
J-7'3-006-01 1SPH1LT DRYER
J.»0-OOi-OJ CEMENT KlLN'ORYER
3-90-004-03 Lint KILN
3-90-004-0' KAOLIN CILN
3-90-004-05 nEYAL HrLTING
3-90-004-0* BRICK KILN/nRYS
J-»D»00.-a7 BYPSl'H KILN ETC
3-»0-004-OB GLASS FURN1CE
3-90-004-09 ROCK/GRAVEL DRYER
3-90-006-in FRIT SHELTER
1-90-006-11 PERLITE FUPNACE
J.90-00*-30 FEEO/BRlIN DRY|NS
3.90-004-31 FOOD.DRY/CO»K/ETC
3.90-004-32 FERTILIZER ORYINtt
3-90-006-50 PULPCOARB-DRYERS
}.»0-00t-5l PLTWDOO. DRYERS
3-90-004-5? PULP-RECOV BOILER
J.»n-004-»» OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
PROCESS «AS
1-90-007-01 CO/BLAST FURNACE
3-90-007-0? COEC OVFN (AS
l-»0-007-»» OTHER/NOT CLASIFB
COKE
1.90-00«-OI MINERAL WO«L FURN
J.»0-00((-»t OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
MOOD
3.90-009.99 OTHER/HOT CLASIFD
IIQ PFY 5«5 ILPSI
J.*n-0ln.«? OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
J.*n.«99-V* SPECIFY IN RE«*R<
S,90-»99-9» SPECIFY |N REHARC
J. 90-999. 99 SPECIFY |N REH«R«
Ot
0,
0.
Ot
4
Oi
0.
0.
D.
0.
0.
a.
. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0>
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
a.
0.
D.
D.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0>
0.
0,
0.
Oi
0.
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0,
0*
n.
Oi
Ot
Oi
Oi
Oi '
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0.
1).
n,
n.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
n.
n.
Oi
a.
0.
0.
0.
Oi
Oi
0.
n.
0.
a.
n.
n.
0,
Oi
0.
n.
0.
'o.
0,
0.
Oi
D.
0.
Oi
0>
0>
Oi
0*
0.
Oi
0-
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
0,
Oi
0.
Oi
0.
0>
Oi
Oi
0.
0>
0.
0.
Oi
Oi
0.
0.
Oi
Oi
Oi
Ol
Oi
Oi
Oi
0,
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Ol
Oi
Oi
Oi
0.
Oi
Oi
0.
Oi
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0.
D.
0.
0.
0.
0.
D.
0.
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0.
Oi
Oi
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
D.
0, 1000 GALLONS BURNCP
i. loao «ALLQN« BURIEO
Oi 1000 GALLONS »U»«i;fl
Oi 1000 GALLONS BURHCF
•>. 1000 GALLONS ffRMttl
0. 1000 GALLONS BU1NF9
Oi 1000 GALLONS BURNED
i. loon ctLLOv; BURNER
Oi 1000 61LLON1 SURAiES
Hi 1000 GALLONS BURNED
Oi 1000 GALLONS SUBHtO
Oi 1000 GALLON? BURNED
Oi 1000 GALLONS PURWED
0. 1000 GALLONS BURNED
n. looo GALLONS BURKE::
Oi lOOn GALLONS BURNED
0. 1000 GALLONS BURNf1*
0. 1000 GALLONS BURNED
di loon GALLONS si»me»'
Oi 1000 BALLONS SURNEO
0. 1000 GALLONS PURNFO
Oi 1000 BILLONS (URNEO
(It IOOD GALLONS BURNER
Oi lOOn BALLONS BURNED
o. MILLION CUBIC FEET IHIRKCD
o. MILLION cume FEET BUR»ED
1, MILLION CUBIC FfET !>V»NeS
(i. MILLION CUBIC FrtT QURHED
Oi MILLION CuSIC FTET "URNFO
0. BILLION CUBIC FCET tURNEA
n. MILLION CUPIC FftT BURNEO
0. MILLION CUBIC FfST BURNEO
o. BILLION CUBIC FHET BURNED
01 MILLION cusrc FFET ..jR>iro
P, MILLION CUBIC FSFT BURNJD
Oi MILLION CUBIC FEET BUR'1'5
p. MILLION cuflc FBET ?UR"EO
Oi NILLION CUBIC FFEY PURNFB
0. BILLION CUBIC FfET "L'RNep
(1. 1ILLION CUBIC FfET BUR1EB
n. MILLION CUBIC »*Er ••JRNEB
a. MILLION CUBIC Fftr Po'Nra
oi MILLION CUBIC F*ET PURN«O
n. MILLION CUBIC FEET PURNEO
n. MILLION CUBIC PFET HU»NF»
0. TOMS BURNED
fli TOMS
n. TONS BURNED
0, 10110 GALLONS PURNE5
oi MILLION CUBIC FIEET BURNEO
Oi IOC" GALLONS BURNED
Ot TONS BURNEO
I.NDU*t*!>k PROCES -OTBER/NffT CL1SIFD
IN RFHJPI
PRPCES'I!'
••• |Nn|CITC< Tur A5H CONTfWT, •S' lN»IC»Tfl THf SULFUR CO'ITFNT OF THE FUEL OM A PERCENT «AS|S |»Y we 15«T I
Appendix C
C-21
-------
POINT se rvAP
PRYCLEAN1N6
1. 01-001-01
1. 01-001-02
1.0I-OOI-9*
DECREASING
1-01-002-01
l-DI-002'02
4-01-002-01
1.0I-002- 01
1.01-002-9S
1.01-002-0*
1. 01-002- 9*
N A T 1 0 N A
-CLEANING SOLVENT
PERCHLORETHYLENE V 0.
STOOD4RO 0.
SPECIFY SOLVENT
ST006ARD 0.
TRICHLOROETHANE
PERCHLOROETHTLENE
HETHYLENE CHLOROE
TRICHLOROETHVLENE
TOLUENE
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
SOI NO* HC
"• 0. 210.
0. 0. 30S.
0. D.
CO M N | T S
0. TONS CLOTHES CLEANED
0. TONS CLOTHES CLEANEP
TONS CLOTHES CLEANED
0. TONS SOLVENT USEO
TONS SOLVENT USES
TONS SOLVENT USfO
TONS SOLVENT USEO
TONS SOLVENT USEO
TONS SOLVENT USEO
TONS SOLVENT USED
OTHE>/>IOT CLASIFO
4-01-999-9*
POVJT SC EVAP
PAINT
1-02-001. 0!
1-02-00)^02
4.0Z-OOI-OJ
1.02-001-01
4.02-001-05
1-02-001-9?
VARNISH/SHELLAC
4. 02* 003-01
1. 02-003. 02
1. 02-003-03
4-02-OOJ.04
1-02-003-OS
LAOUER
1-02-004-0)
4.02-004.02
H.02«OD1-OJ
1.0Z-001-04
1-02'004-OS
1.02.004-0*
1.02-001-07
»- 02-004-99
ENAHEL
1-OJ-OOS-OI
4.02-005-D2
1-02-OOS-03
4. 02»005-t)1
4.0?-OOS-OS
1-01-005-99
PRIMER
4-02*004-0)
4.02-004-02
4.02-006-D3
1.02-004-04
1-02-004-05
0.02-004-9*
AOMfSIVt
4-07-007-0)
4-02-007-02
4-P2-007-03
4.02-007.04
4-07-007-OS
4.02-007-99
COATING "VfN
4-02-001-0)
4.02-noe-oi
4-P2-[>n»'99
SPECIFY IN RCHARK
.SURFACE COATING
GENERAL 0.
ACETONE
ETHYL ACETATE
HEK
TOLUENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
ACETONE
ETHYL ACETATE
TOLUENE
ITLENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
ACETONE
ETHYL ACETATE
ISOPffOPrL ALCOHOL
HEK
TOLUENE
IYLCNE
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL 0.
CELLnsoivE ACETAT
MEK
TOLUENE
XVLENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
NAPHTHA
VYLENE
MINERAL SPIRITS
TOLUENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
HtK
TOLUENE
BENZENE
NAPHTHA
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
DRIED < I7SF
BAKED > l'!f
OTHER/SPECIfT
0. 0. 1 . 120.
2.000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2.000.
1,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000,
2,000.
2,000.
1.540.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2(000.
2,000.
2,000,
2,000.
0. 0. G10.
2,000.
2,000.
2.000.
2,000.
2,000.
1,120.
2.000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
.000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
TONS SOLVENT USEO
n. TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATIMn
TONS SOLVENT |N COSTING
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT |N COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT |N COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATINC
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN CFATING
TONS SOLVENT 'IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT |N COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COAT|N«
0. TDNS COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN CQAT|HG
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT ]•! COATING
TONS SOLVENT |M COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS COATING'
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT t» COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS COATING
TONS COATING
TONS COATING
TONS COATING
•A' ItniCATrS THF ASH CONTENT, «S« INDICATES TMf SULFUR CONTFNT OF THE FUEL ON A B.1 RCENT P.ASIS t»T H*I6HT>
022
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
POINT sc EVAP
SOLVENT
1-07.00t.0l
1.0J. 001.02
1.01*00*. 01
1*02-00*-01
1*07-00*«03
1- 01*00*. 0*
1-02*00*. 07
1i.OI.OOt.OA
1*01-AO**0*
1*02*00*. | 0
1.02-00*- II
1.02-00*- 11
1.02-00*. 11
1.02-00*-)*
1.02*00»-IS
«. 02-00*. 14
1.01. 00*. )7
1.02-0n*.|l
1.01-00*-)*
1.01*00*. 20
1.02*00*. 21
1.01* 0*3*. 22
1*02-00*- 11
<-02-00*-21
PART *0> NOI HC
•SURFACE COATING
GENERAL 2,0110,
ACETONE
BUTYL ACETATE
BUTTL ALCOHOL
CARftlTOL
CELLOSOLVE
CELLOSOLVE ACETAT
DIHETMYLFBRHAHIDE
ETMYL ACETATE
ETHYL ALCOHOL
GASOLINE
1SOPROPTL ALCOHOL
ISOPROPYL ACETATE:
KEROSENE
LACTOL SPIRITS
HETHYL ACETATE
HETHYL ALCOHOL
H£K
MlBK
HINER1L SPIRITS
NAPHTHA
TOLUENE
VARSOL
>TLEHE
,000.
.000.
,000.
,000.
.000.
,000.
,000.
,000,
tOBO.
,000.
.000.
,000.
lOOOt
,000.
.000.
,000.
,000.
tooo.
.000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
.000.
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
1.02-***-**
POINT S» EVAP
SPECIFT IN RENARK
•PETROL PROO STG
CO
T S
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
TONS COATING
MIED poor
••EATH.G(*OL|NE
1-0-3-001-02
I.OVOOI-O)
•-OJ.OOI-01
«. 03-001-05
•.Ol-ooi. n*
FLO
.01*001*0'
.01-001-01
-03-001-0'
•03-o.ai-io
-OJ-OOI-II
-oi-aai'ii
•01*001-13
•01*001-11
-03-001-15
•01*001- 1*
-01-001-50
•03.001-51
.03-001-52
•01*001* SI
.03-001*51
•01-OOI-5S
•03*001-54
-03-00 1-57
•01*00|*SI
-03-001-5*
.03-001*40
-03-001*41
-01*00). »•
•01-001.**
TING ROOF
-01*00*-AI
•03* 001-02
•01.002*01
•01-OOJ-O'
-03-002. OS
.01-002.0*
-01-002*07
.03-nOI'OI
.01-002*0*
.01-002.10
.01-002*11
-01.002*12
-01*002-11
•01*00). |1
•01*001-IS
-01*001*1*
-01*002-**
"R(iNG.GAS»LINE
HORKING*CRUOt
BPEATM.JET FUEL
RREATH*vEROS£NE
BREATH*Q.IST FUEL
BPEATH.dtNJENE
P.RE*TH>CVCLOHEl
BRE*YH*CVCLOPENT
BREATH. HEPTANE
BRE*TH*MEVANE
BRE1TM.|SOOCTANE
BREATH.1SOPENTANE
BRE*TH«PENTANE
HEATH. TOLUENE
WORKING-JET PUEL
HORK ING. KEROSENE
HORKING.DISr FUEL
WORKING-BENZENE
WORK ING.CTCLOHEI
WORKING-CYCLOPENT
WORKING. HEPTANE
WORK|NG*HElANE
lfORKING*ISOOCTANC
WORKING' ISOPENT
VORKING.PENTANE
• OP.KING. TOLUENE
tRClTME-SPCCIFY
WORKING-SPECIFY
STAND STG*GASOLN
WORKIMG*P*ODUCT
STAND 5TS-C'UOC
WORKING*CRUDC
STANO STG-JETPUEL
STAND 3YG*KEROSNE
STANO STG-OIST FL
STAND STG*OENZENE
STANO STG*CYCLHEI
STANO STG-CYCLPEN
STANO STG*HfPTANE
STAND STG-HEIANE
STANO 5TG-ISOOCTN
STAND STG-IIOPENT
STAND STG-PENTANE
STAND STG-TDLUENE
STAND STG-SPECIFT
o.
0.
0,
.0.
0.
Ot
0.
0.
Ot
Oi
Ot
0.
Ot
Qt
D.
DI
Ot
Oi
Hi
0.
Oi
Ot
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
0.
n.
Ot
0.
n.
Ot
Ot
Ot
0.
Oi
Ot
Ot
0.
0.
0.
Ot
0.
f)t
0.
0,
(1.
Oi
0.
Ot
Bt
a.
n.
Ot
o.
o.
0.
Ot
Ot
Ot
0.
0.
0,
0.
Ot
Ot
Ot
Ot
B.
n.
Bt
0.
0.
B.
6.
0.
Bt
0.
0.
0.
Oi
0.
0.
Oi
e.
0.
fit
0.
Oi
0.
Ot
Bt
0.
Oi
8.
Ot
Ot
Ot
Ot
Ot
Oi
b.
Oi
Oi
Ot.
Ot
Oi
lOt
Sit
*t
7.
2B.
11.
lit
lit
20.
Sit
lit
]>•
lit
1 lit
**t
S.
?•«
1.0
l.o
i.o
2tl
*»"
1.2
It*
1.5
15.7
10. t
0,4
Oi
Ot
Oi
Oi
0.
Ot
Oi
fit
0.
Ot
0.
Ol
Ot
Ot
12.1
0.
10. *
o.
lilt
1 1*0
I.'O
2t70
3.0J
It7*
l.4«
• iTft
ItOI
20. «
lit*
Otll
0.
n.
n.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
n*
0.
Qt
0.
Oi
n.
A,
Oi
1.
Ot
0.
0.
fll
Ot
Oi
0.
Ot
0.
0.
0.
(1.
Oi
fll
n.
0.
n.
n.
Ot
n.
f>.
Oi
0.
fit
Oi
1000
1000
looo
1000
1000
icon
looo
1000
1000
1001
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
looo
loon
1000
1000
loon
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
tooo
1000
.1000
1000
loan
1000
10(10
looo
1000
1000
1000
1000
lopn
lonn
IOTJO
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
ALLONS
ALLONS
ALLONS
ALLONS
ALLONS
ALLONS
ALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
STORAGE ClPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE: CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STQRlGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
STORAGE CAPACITY
YHRllpUT
STORAGE CAPACITY
THROUGHPUT
STORAGE CAPACITY
THROUGHPUT
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACIYY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
SToRtGF CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
STORAGE CAPACITY
•A1 INDICATES THE ASH CONTENT, -S- IHOICATES THE SULFUR CONTENT Or THE FUEL ON A PERCENT OASIS I«Y HEIGHT)
12/75
Appendix C
C-23
-------
POINT SC EVA*
•PETROL
s
PROD STG
0 It R C E
POUND
S C 1
SI)
ITTFB PER UNIT
CO
U N 1. T
S
VAR. VAPOR SPACE
1-01-00.1-0?
1-03-003-03
1-03*003-11
«.fl3-003-0*
R-03-003-nA
H.03-OOJ.07
•.03.003-01
1-OJ-003-0»
1-OJ-OOJ-IO
1-03-003-M
1-03*003-1!
R-C1-001«I»
1. 03-003-1*
1.03-003-t»
OTHER/NOT tL«S
1-OJ-M--RR
POINT sc *VAP
WORKING
HOOKING
WORKING
WORKING
WORKING
WORK INS
•
»
•
•
*
*
GASOLINE
JET FUEL
KEROSENf
D1ST rutL
RENZCNE
CTCLOHEl
WORKIN6.CYCLOPENT
WORKING
WORKING
.WORKING
WORK IN(
VORKINC
WORK INS
WORKING
rn
SPECIfT
•Hise OP.
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
G
HEPTANE
HEKANE
I500CTANE
ISOPENT
PENTANE
TOLUENt
SPECtrv
IN •CHIRK
INK STO«
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
o«
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
. 0 10.2
0
> 0
t
.
.
»
.
.
t
0.
n
*
0,
.31
• 00
.on
.10
.to
.20
.40
(00
.70
17. S
12.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
n.
n,
a.
I.
n.
1000
loon
1000
tooo
1000
loon
1 000
loon
loon
1000
1000
l.ooo
loon
10(10
toon
GALLON;
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLON!
GALLONS
S4LIONJ
GALLONS
GALLON!
5'ALLONS
GALLONS
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUOUPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THRUPUT
GAL STORIS
i.o
TONS SOLVENT
1-05-OOJ-OI GENERAL
1.05-OOr-OZ KEROSENE
•-0!.007-03 MINERAL SPIRITS
1-OI-OOJ." SOLVENT GENERAL
1.05-003*01
1-OS-OOJ.OJ
1.0S-003-0!
«-0!«OOS-0*
••05*003-07
CELLOSOLVE
ETHTL ALCOHOL
l!ORROP*l ALCOHOL
N.pROPYL ALCOHOL
NAPHTHA
SOLVENT GENERAL
1.Of.001.01 GENERAL
1.0S-001-03 ISOPROPTL ALCOHOL
1.0(»001.»* SOLVENT GENERAL
-Oi-00«-0»
•OS-OOS-OS
•nj-oos-o*
-05-OOS-07
«os-nos-o»
.05-005-0'
.05-00!-|n
(ENEIAl.
ETHTL ACETATE
ETHVL ALCOHOL
I40PROPVL ALCOHOL
HEK
MINERAL SPIRITS
N.P«OPV(. ALCOHOL
TOLUENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
700.
2,000.
J.OOO.
J,000.
I.JOG.
IlOOO.
tiOOQi
I.000,
1,000.
1,000.
>iOOOi
*,000,
700.
,000.
,000.
,300,
,00(1.
,000.
,0011,
,000.
.000.
,500.
,000,
,000,
tOOO.
lOOO.
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
•TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS'
TON!
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TON^
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
INK
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
INK
SOLVENT
SOLVtN*
SOLVENT'
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVCNT
SOLVENT
INK
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVCXT
INK
SOLVCNT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVtNT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
l«
IN
IN
.IN
in
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
INK
*A' INDICATES THE ASH CONTENT , '*,( INDICATES THr SULFUR CONTENT Of THE fUFL ON A RrRCENT "AJJS I8r WEIGHT)
G24
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
NATIONAL f, » I S 5 I 0 1 0 « ' » ? » S T ( »
SOURCE ei.As*iFie»Tioii routs
POI" SC FVAP
-PETROL HRKT-.T1ANS
P (I U N 0 5 f M | T T F
PART sni
CTB
C"
UNITS
CARS'TRUCKS
• -04-00 I-02
1.04-BOI-03
1-04-OOI-15 .
1-04-001-24 LOAOISUJNI-GASOLN
1-04-001-!? LOADISUPMI-CRUOE
4.04-001-31) LOADISURMI-DlST
4.04-OOI-SI UNLOAO-GASOL1NE
1-.04-OOI-5! UNLOAO-CRUOE OIL
,-(14-001-53 UNLOAD-JET FUEL
«.0»-OOI»54 UNLOAD.KEROSENE
l-Ol-oni-SS UNLOAO-BIST OJL
«-04'OOI-»»
MARINE VESSELS
UNLDABoSPfCIFV
1.04-002-03
,-04-002-94
,,06-OOJ-OS
,.04-002-1*
4.04-001-IB
4-04-002.J»
,.04.001-jn
So04-001-*«
L04BING-CKUBE OIL
LOABING.JET FUEL
LOADINfi.KEROSENE
LOADINC-BIST OIL
UNLOAO-CKUBt OIL
UNLOAD-jET FUEL
UNLBAB-BIST OIL
LBABING.SPECIFV
UNLOAD-SPECIF*
G*SO STG
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0>
0.
0.
0.
0.
D.
0,
0,
0.
0.
n.
n.
n.
P,
0.
0.
n.
0.
0. •
P,
0.
0,
n.
0.
n.
0,
n..
1.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0*
n.
12.1
10,6
O.M
0.4J
3. 41
0*4 1
0.15
2.11?
0.*5
0.23
n.
n.
n.
n.
n.
0.
0.
n.
?.
p.
n.
P.
0,
n*
i.
1000
1000
1(100
loon
1000
loop
IOPP
looo
1000
loon
1000
loon
1000
1000
IOPO
looo
IPOO
loon
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
TR4N•"
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n.
o*
n.
o.
o.
4-o*-ooj-ni
4*04-003-03
1.04-001-03
4.01-009-04
4. 04-003-04
4*04»D03*«*
SPLASH LOADING
SUB LOAO-UNCONT
SUB LOAD-BPN SYS
SUR LOAB-CLS SYS
UNLOADING
SPECIFY METHBO
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0>
Oi
0.
0.
II. S
r.3o
O.t"
0.
1.00
0.
n*
p.
0.
0*
0.
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
«ALLONS TR
GALLONS TR
«ALLONS TR
GALLONS TR
GALLONS
lOOfl
1000
1000
I ODD
1000
lopn
looo
looo
1000
loan
looo
1000
1000 «>LLONS
1000 CtLUONS TR»»SFE»Rr»
1000 5»LLON1 TR|NSFER*EI)
1000 e»(.LONS T»»NSF(R»EO
1000 GALLONS TR1NSFERRFO
1000 6HLON1 TR»NSFERRT»
1000 G1LL.OSS PU"PtO
1000 GILLQN* fdti'in
1000 «»LtOm PUHPEO
OTHER/NOT CL*S|FK
R.*0.«**-f* SPECIF* IN »£"»««
SOLIO W19TE -GOVERNMENT
TONS FROtESSEO
MUNICIPAL INCIN
?. 01-001-01
MULTIPLE CH«WB(P
SINGLE
OPEN BURNING PUHP
%.01-OOI-ftl
S-OI-002-OZ
"l-OI-OOJ-03
IHCINCOATOR
(-OI-005-OS
1-01-00*. 04
(.ni-ioi-or
S-OI-OOS-**
«ENER«L
LlNOSClPE/PRUNINg
JET FUEL
PiTMOLO(V|C«L
SLUOOf
CONICAL
OTHER/NOT CLASI'O
lU«.rUEL/NO EMS"S
>o.e
is.e
14.0
17.0
• .00
100.
20.0
t.so
J.fO
i.no
n.
l.oo
i.oo
I.00
».oo
j.no
j.oo
6.00
S.eo
I.So
IS."
9.0.0
10.0
1.00
10.1
J0.1
TONS BURNEO
TONS BURNED
«S.P TONi BURNED
40.13 ION) BURNED
HUNDREDS OF G«LLOS*
n. TONS BURNER
0. TONS ORT SLVDOE
40.n TON! DUIXIED
TONS BURNEO
s-ot-400-n»
S. 01-410. 04
S. 01-400-47
%. 01.4015-44
RESIDUAL BIL
DISTILLATE 0|L
NATURAL CAS
LPG
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
0
0
0
g
0
0
0
n.
0.
0,
n.
a.
0.
n.
fl.
p.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n,
P.
0.
0.
p.
p.
p
0
p
n
p
P
toon GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
MILLION tunic FEET
lonn GALLONS
MILLION CUBIC FJET
1000 GALLONS
Tnht
T0™5
INIMCATF.S TMF ASM CONTFNT. •»• INnlC»TfS T»IT SULFUR COHTFNT OF THE FUFL «N • PFRCENT «U|S |»» WEIS-Tl
12/75
Appendix C
C-25
-------
SOLID MISTE -COMB-lNST
INCI'IEOITOS 5fN
S-n?-on|.it| «ULT|PLF CHJHBER
5.02-001-03 CONTROLLED IIR
5.02-OOI-C1 CONICAL. REFUSE
5-02-nOI-PS CONICAt-HOno
OPEN BURNING
5-?2'00!-OI WOOO
5-32*002-07 REFUSE
IH1»T»E-*T INCIN
5-02.n03.pl PLUE FED
5-OJ-003.0Z FLUE FEB.MOfl If IEB
INCISERITOR
5-32-005-15 PATHOLOGICAL
5-DJ-OOS-OA SLUOSE
5.02-005. 99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
'UK, FUEL/NO CHSN5
.S.B2-90n.ni RESt.DUlL OIL
5.02-900-05 DISTILLATE OIL
5-02-900-04 NATURIL G»S
S-02-900'10 LPG,
5-02-900-97 OTHEII/NOT CLASIFD
5.02-900. 9« OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
5-02-900-99 OTHER/NOT CLISIFO
SOLlb wtS.TE -1NOU5TRHL
INCINER4TOR
5. 03-001-01 MULTIPLE CHIMBER
5.63.001-0* StUSLE CHAMBER
5-03.001-03 CONTROLLED »JR
S.B3-OOI-0"I CONICAL REFUSE
5»03-nOI-05 CONICAL wOOP
5.03-001-04 OPEN PIT
OPEN BURNING
5r3J-OOZ-(j| WOOD
S»03"002-OJ REFUSE
S-OJ-OOJ-03 AUTO BOH* CtllPTS
5.03-OOJ-01 COAL REFUSE PILES
IUTO 900Y INCIN"
5-03' 003-11 w/0 IFTERBlJBNEH
5-?3-003-D2 W/ AFTEBBUHNEP
R»IL C»R BURNING
. 5.03-001-01 . OPEN
INCINERITOR
5-03-005-04 5LU5GE
5.03-005-99 OTHER/N(lT CLASJFO
AU>. FUEL/NO EHSNS
5.03-90r-OR RESIDUAL OIL
5-03-900. CIS DISTILLATE OIL
5-03-90(1.04 NATURAL GAS
5-03-'00-07 PROCESS GAS
5-03-900-10 L F G
5-oj-»op-»7 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
<*03-9oo.9t OTHER/NOT CLISIFD
S-03-900.99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
•ISCCLLiVEDUS -FEDRL NCKEHITTER9
1THEB/UOT CL«S|FO
4-01-999.94 SPECirr i« REMARK
4. 1|. 999. 99 SRECIFt IN REMARK
w A T I n 14 ,
P 0 U N |
P»RT
7.00
IS.O
1.1)0
20.0
7,00
IT.O
30.0
4.00
e.oo
100.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
7.00
15.0
1.40
20,0
7.00
13.0
17,0
14,0
100.
0.90
?.DO
•(
100.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
A.
0.
SOS
2,50
2.50
1.50
o.'io
0.40
0.50
0,
1.00
0,
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0,
2,50
2.50
1.50
2.00
0.10
o.lo
0.
1.00
0.
I. 10
1.00
0.
0,
0 .
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
I F I f J 1
HOI
3.00
10.0
5.00
I.OD
!.00
3. no
10.9
3 * 00
5.00
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0,
0.
3.00
2.00
10,0
5. no
1.00
11.00
2.00
4.00
4. DO
0.10
0.10
0.02
5.00
0.
0,
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
n.
' 1 0 'I CO
HC
3.on
15. e
0.
20.0
11.0
H.Oo
IS.O
3,00
B.
1.00
o;
°!
0.
o;
n.
0^
3. DO
IS.O
0.
20.0
II. 0
0.
4. on
39. 0
jo. n
0.50
O.SB
P.
I.DO
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
n,
0.
0 E S
CO
10.0
ie.t
p.
40.9
130.
sb.r
20.0
10.0
0.
n.
n.
n.
0.
• n.
0.
0.
0.
10. 0
20,0
0,
40. n
130.
BO.O
R5.0
1*5.
2.50
2.50
0.
0.
0.
0*
0.
n.
0.
n,
p.
0*
UNITS
TONS BURNED
TOMS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BU»NED
TONS BURNEO
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BRt SLUD5E
TQNS BURNED
1000 GALLONS
1000 SALLONS
MILLION CUBIC FECT
1000 CILLONS
MILLION CUBIC FEET
1000 GALLONS
TJJNS
TONS BURNEB
T0»5 BURNED
TOMS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TOHB OF WASTE
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
CUBIC VAROS or RlLf
AUTOS BURNED
AUTOS ftURNfD
CARS BURNea
T0»* BRV SLUDGE
TONS BU*NEB
1000 SALLONJ
loon GALLONS
MILLION CUBIC FEET
MILLION cuiic FEET
1000 GALLON!
MILLION eusie FEET
1000 GALLONS
TONS
INSTALLATIONS (EACH)
A*EA/IC*ES
-.- INOIC.TES T«r .IN CONTENT, -S- ,N0|CATFS T»F SULFUR CONTfNT OF THE rwtL 0N i PFRCENT RAS|S ,,r WEIGHT,
026
EMISSION FACTORS
12/7S
-------
APPENDIX D
PROJECTED EMISSION FACTORS
FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES
prepared by
David S. Kircher,
MarciaE. Williams,
INTRODUCTION and Charles C. Masser
In earlier editions of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), projected emission factors for
highway vehicles were integrated with actual, measuied emission factors. Measured emission factors are mean
values arrived at through a testing program that involves a random statistical sample of in-use vehicles. Projected
emission factors, on the other hand, are a conglomeration of measurements of emissions from prototype vehicles,
best estimates based on applicable Federal standards, and, in some cases, outright educated guesses. In an attempt
to make the user more aware of these differences, projected emission factors are separated from the main body of
emission factors and presented as an appendix in this supplement to the report.
Measured emission estimates are updated annually at the conclusion of EPA's annual surveillance program.
Projected emission factors, however, are updated when new data become available and not necessarily on a
regular schedule. For several reasons, revisions to projected emission factors are likely to be necessary more
frequently than on an annual basis. First, current legislation allows for limited time extensions for achieving the
statutory motor vehicle emission standards. Second, Congressional action that would change the timetable for
achieving these standards, the standards themselves, or both is likely in the future. Third, new data on
catalyst-equipped (1975) automobiles are becoming available daily. As a result, the user of these data is
encouraged to keep abreast of happenings likely to affect the data presented herein. Every attempt will be made
to revise these data in a timely fashion when revisions become necessary.
This appendix contains mostly tables of data. Emission factor calculations are only briefly described because
the more detailed discussion in Chapter 3 applies in nearly all cases. Any exceptions to this are noted. The reader
is frequently referred to the text of Chapter 3; thus, it is recommended that a copy be close at hand.
Six vehicle categories encompassing all registered motor vehicles in use and projected to be in use on U.S.
highways are dealt with in this appendix. The categories in order of presentation are:
1. Light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles
2. Light-duty, gasoline-powered trucks
3. Light-duty, diesel-powered vehicles
4. Heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles
5. Heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles
6. Motorcycles
7. All highway vehicles
D-l
-------
-------
D.I LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
D.I.I General
data presented here,
D.I.2 CO, HC, NOX Exhaust Emissions
amPoPdal^T± to tT972 Sell year FTP emissions can be obtained, and this ratio can be applied to a
projected FTP value to adjust for the specific driving cycle of interest.
The calculation of composite emission factors for light-duty vehicles using the FTP procedure is given by:
enpstwx = Is «ipn ^in vjps zjpt riptwx
l=n-12
where: ennstwx * Composite emission factor in grams per mile (g/km) for calendar_year (;0>P°^tCp),
enpstwx aver^e speed (s)i amb.ent temperature (t)> percentage cold operation (w), and
percentage hot start operation (x)
' ciPn " The FTP mean emission factor for the ith model year llght-duty vehicles during calendar
year (n) and for pollutant (p)
rnln = The fraction of annual travel by the ith model year light-duty vehicles during calendar
year (n)
v« - The speed correction factor for the ith model year light-duty vehicles for pollutant (p),
P and average speed (s). This variable applies only to CO, HC, and NOX.
Zipt = The temperature correction for the ith model year light-duty vehicles for pollutant (p)
and ambient temperature (t)
fintwx - The hot/cold vehicle operation correction factor for the ith model year light-duty
P vehicles for pollutant (p), ambient temperature (t), percentage cold operation (w), and
percentage hot start operation (x).
The variable ci«n is summarized in Tables D.l-1 through D.l-21, segregated by location (California,
^aUfornla, rSgh StimdeVThe input min is described by example in Table D.l-22. The speed correction
factors are presented in Tables D.l-23 and D.l-24.
The temperature correction and hot/cold vehicle operation correction factors, given in Table D.l-25 are
separated into non-catalyst and catalyst correction factors. Catalyst correction factors should h> «ptod for
model years 1975-1977. For non-catalyst vehicles, the factors are the same as those presented in section 3.1.2.
12/75 Appendix D D.M
c. :
-------
For catalyst vehicles, emissions during the hot start phase of operation (vehicle start-up after a short—less than 1
hour-engine-off period) are greater than vehicle emissions during the hot stabilized phase. Therefore, the
correction factor is a function of the percentage of cold operation, the percentage of hot start operation, and the
ambient temperature(t).
riptw ~
riptwx ~
(10Q.w)f(t)
20 + 80 f(t)
w + x f(t) + (100-w-x) g(t)
20 + 27 f(t) + 53 g(t)
Pre-1975
model years
Post-1974
model years
(Dl-2)
(Dl-3)
Table D.1-1. CARBON MONOXIDE. HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
94.0
67.6
65.4
56.0
53.5
g/km
58.4
42,0
40.6
34.8
33.2
39.0 ,' 24.2
37.0
143
106
23.0
88.8
65.8
101 : 62.7
91.0 i 56.5
84.0 52.2
84.0 52.2
80.0 49.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.8
6.8
5.3
5.3
4.3
3.5
3.2
12.0
7.6
6.6
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.7
g/km
5.5
4.2
3.3
3.3
2.7
2.2
2.0
7.5
4.7
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.2
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
3.1
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
1.9
2.0 1.2
2.86 1.77
2.93 1.82
3.32 2.06
2.74 1.70
3.08 1.91
2.9 ! 3.1 1.93
Table D.I-2. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973 (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
g/km
i
94.0
81.0
81.0
58.4
50.3
50.3
67.6 t 42.0
65.4 40.6
56.0 I 34.8
53.5
49.0
37.0
33.2
30.4
23.0
!_ Hydrocarbons
9/mi
8.8
6.5
6.5
6.8
5.3
5.3
4.3
3.9
3.2
r g/km
5.5
4.0
4.0
4.2
3.3
3.3
2.7
2.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
2.0 3.1
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
1.9
D.l-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.I*. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIpES EXHAUST EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOP
CALENDAR YEAR 1974 (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
95.0
70.6
68.4
58.5
56.6
41.0
39.0
37.0
g/km
59.0
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.9
43.8 i 7.4
42.5 5.8
Wi+-Tgen
oxides
g/km | g/mi
i
5.5 3.34
4.6 4.32
3,6 5.08
36.3 5.8 3.6 4.35
34.8 4.7 2.9 i 4.30
25.5 3.8 : 2.4 ; 4.55
24.2 3.5 1 2.2 \ 3.3
23.0
145 i 90.0
111
106
95.0
88.0
88.0
84.0
80.0
68.9
66.8
59.0
54.6
54.6
52.2
49.7
3.2 2.0 3.1
12.1
8.3
7.2
6.6
7,5
5.2
4.5
4.1
6.2 I 3.9
5.7 i 3.5
5.2
4.7
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.0
1.9
2.0 1.2
2.86 i 1.78
2.93 1.82
3.32 2.06
2.74 1.70
3.08 1.91
3.2 3.3 2.05
2.9 3.1 1.9
Table D.1-4. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1974 (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
g/mi
95.0
82.0
82.0
70.6
68.4
58.5
56.0
51.0
39.0
37.0
Carbon
monoxide
i 9/km
i
59.0
50.9
< 50.9
43.8
42.5
36.3
34.8
31.7
24.2
23.0
-' " "• "*• *
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.9
7.1
7.1
7.4
5.8
5.8
4.7
4.2
3.5
3.2
g/km
5.5
4.4
4.4
4.6
3.6
3.6
2.9
2.6
2.2
2.0
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
3.3
2.0
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.05
1.2
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-3
32H-«37 0 - 80 - 13 (Pt. B)
-------
Table D.1-5. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION. FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
__. (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
96.0
73.6
71.4
61.0 .
58.5
43.0
41.0
39.0
9.0
147
116
111
99.0
92.0
92.0
88.0
84.0
19.5
g/km
. 59.6
45.7
44.3
37.9
36.3
26.7
25.5
24.2
5.6
91.3
72.0
68.9
61.5
57.1
57.1
54.6
52.2
12.1
Hydrocarbons
g7mi
9.0
8.0
6.3
6.3
5.1
4.1
3.8
3.5
1.0
12.2
9.0
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.2
1.46
g/km
5.6
5.0
3.9
3.9
3.2
2.5
2.4
2.2
0.6
7.6
5.6
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.2
0.91
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.0
2.86
2.93
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.2
2.0
1.9
.
1.2
1.78
1.82
3.32 ! 2.06
2.74 i 1.70
3.08 1.91
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.17
2.05
1.9
Table D.1-6. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
96.0
83.0
83.0
1968 73.6
1969
1970
1971
71.4
61.0
58.6
1972 53.0
1973 41.0
1974 39.0
1975 5.4
r
g/km
59.6
51.5
51.5
45.7
44.3
37.9
36.3
32.9
25.5
24.2
3.4
•\
\ Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.0
7.7
7.7
8.0
6.3
6.3
5.1
4.5
3.8
3.5
0.6
I
g/km
5.6
4.8
4.8
5.0
3.9
3.9
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.2
0.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
3.5
2.06
2.0
1
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.17
1.28
1.2
D.M
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-7. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low attitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
97,0
76.6
74.4
63.5
61.0
45.0
43.0
41.0
9.9
9.0
149
121
116
g/km
60.2
47.6
46.2
39.4
37.9
27.9
26.7
25.5
6.1
5.6
92.5
75.1
72.0
103 64.0
96.0
96.0
59.6
59.6
92.0 57.1
88.0 54.6
21.5 13.4
19.5 12.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.1
8.6
6.8
6.8
5.5
4.4
4.1
3.8
1.20
1.0
12.3
9.7
8.4
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.2
5.7
1.76
1.46
g/km
5.7
5.3
4.2
4.2
3.4
2.7
2.5
2.4
0.75
0.6
7.6
6.0
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.5
1.09
0.91
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.1
2.0
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.1
g/km
2.07
2.86
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.3
2,2
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.78
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
Table D.1-8. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
^974
1975
1976
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
97.0
84.0
84.0
76.6
74.4
63.5
61.0
55.0
43,0
41.0
5.9
5.4
g/km
60.2
52.2
52.2
47.6
46.2
39.4
37.9
34.2
26.7
25.5
3.7
3.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
' .
9.1
8.3
8.3
8.6
6.8
6.8
5.5
4.8
4.1
3.8
0.7
0.6
g/km
5.7
5.2
5.2
5.3
4.2
4.2
3.4
3.0
2.5
2.4
0.4
0.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
3.7
2.12
2.06
2.0
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.37
2.37
2.30
1.32
1.28
1.24
c
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-5
-------
Table D.1-9. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY. GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
_^ (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
Carbon
monoxide
^jTm'j"" *g/Rin
98.0
79.6
77.4
66.0
63.5
1972 ' 47.0
197"3 45.0
1974 i 43.0
1975 10.8
1976 9.9
1977 9.0
High altitude
Pre-1968 151
1968 I 126
1969
121
1970 : 107
1971 i 100
1972
100
1973 96.0
1974 i 92.0
1975 i 23.5
1976 | 21.5
1977 ! 9.0
60.9
49.4
48,1
41.0
39.4
29.2
Hydroc
g/mi "
9.2
9.2
7.3
7.3
5.9
4.7
27.9 ! 4.4
26.7 4.1
6.7 1.4
6.1 1.2
5.6 j 1.0
93.8
78.2
75.1
66.4
62.1
62.1
59.6
57.1
14.6
13.4
5.6
12.4
10.4
9.0
8.4
7.7
7.2
6.7
6.2
2.06
1.76
1.0
arbons
g/km
5.7
5.7
4.5
4.5
3.7
2.9
2.7
2.5
0.9
0.7
0.6
7.7
6.5
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
1.28
1.09
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi ' g/km
3.34 2.07
4.32 2.68
5.08 3.15
4.35 2.70
4.30 2.67
4.55 2.83
3.9 2.4
3.7 2.3
3.3 2.0
3.2 2.0
2.0 1.2
2.0 1.2
2.86 1.78
2.93 1.82
3.32 2.06
2.74 1.70
3.08 1.91
3.9 2.4
3.7 2.3
3.3 2.0
3.2 2.0
2.0 1.2
Table D.1-10. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1373
1974
1975
1976
1977
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
98.0
85.0
85.0
79.6
77.4
66.0
63.5
57.0
45.0
43.0
6.5
5.9
5.4
g/km
60.9
52.8
52.8
49.4
48.1
41.0
39.4
35.4
27.9
26.7
4.0
3.7
3.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.2
9.0
9.0
9.2
7.3
7.3
5.9
5.1
4.4
4.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
g/km
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.7
4.5
4.5
3.7
3.2
2.7
2.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
3.9
2.18
2.12
2.06
1.5
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.4
1.35
1.32
1.28
0.93
D.I-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-11. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
82.6
80.4
' 68.5
66.0
49.0
47.0
45.0
11.7
10.8
9.9
2.8
153
131
126
111
104
104
100
96.0
25.6
23.5
9.9
2.8
g/km
61.5
51.3
49.9
42.5
41.0
30.4
29.2
27.9
7.3
6.7
6.1
1.7
95
81.4
78.2
68.9
64.6
64.6
62.1
59.6
15.8
14.6
6.1
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/m'i
9.3
93
7.8
7.8
6.3
5.0
4.7
4.4
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.27
12.5
11.1
9.6
9.0
8.2
7.7
7.2
6.7
2.36
2.06
1.2
0.27
g/km
5.8
5.8
4.B
4,8
3.9
3.1
2.9
2.7
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.17
7.8
6.9
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.2
1.47
1.28
0.6
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
4.1
3.9
3.4
3.3
2.06
0.24
2.0
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
4.1
3.9
3.4
3.3
2.06
0.24
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.8S
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.3
0.15
1.2
1.78
1-82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.5
2.4
2.1
2,0
1.3
0.15
Table D.1-12. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
85.0
85.0
82.6
80.4
68.5
66.0
59.0
47.0
45.0
7.0
6.5
5.9
2.8
g/km
61.5
52.8
52.8
51.3
49.9
42.5
41.0
36.6
29.2
27.9
4.3
4.0
3.7
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.3
7.8
7.8
6.3
5.4
4.7
4.4
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.27
g/km
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.8
4.8
4.8
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35.
3.83
3.81
4.1
2.24
2.18
2.12
1.56
0.24
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2,85
1-39
1.35
1.32
0.97
0.15
17'75
Appendix D
D.l-7
-------
Table D.1-13. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOB CALENDAR YEAR 1979
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
82.6
83.4
71.0
68.5
51.0
49.0
47.0
12.6
11.7
10.8
3.1
2.8
153
131
131
115
108
108
104
100
27.5
25.5
10.8
3.1
2.8
g/km
61.5
51.3
51.8
44.1
42.5
31.7
30.4
29.2
7.8
7.3
6.7
1.9
1.7
95.0
81.4
81.4
71.4
67.1
67.1
64.6
62.1
17.1
15.8
6.7
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.3
9.3
8.3
8.3
6.7
5.3
5.0
4.7
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.32
0.27
12.5
11.1
10.2
9.6
8,7
8.2
7.7
7.2
2.66
2.36
1.4
0.32
0.27
g/km
5.8
5.8
5.2
5.2
4.2
3.3
3.1
2.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.20
0.17
7,8
6.9
6.3
6.0
5.4
5.1
4.8
4,5
1.65
1.47
0.9
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3,34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
4.3
4.1
3.5
3.4
2,12
0.29
0.24
2.00
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
4.3
4.1
3.5
3.4
2.12
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.07
2.68
3J5
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.1
1.32
0.18
0.15
1.20
1.78
1.82
2.06
1,70
1.91
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.1
1.32
0.18
0.15
Table D.1-14. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
85.0
85.0
82.6
83.4
71.0
68.5
61.0
49.0
47.0
7.6
7.0
6.5
3.1
2.8
g/km
52.8
52.8
51.3
51.8
44.1
42.5
37.9
30.4
29.2
4.7
4.3
4.0
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.0
9.0
9.3
8.3
8.3
6.7
5.7
5.0
4.7
1,1
1.0
0,8
0.32
0.27
g/km
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.2
5.2
4.2
3.5
3.1
2.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.20
0.17
• Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.61
3,61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
4.30
2.30
2.24
2.18
1.62
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.70
1.43
1.39
1.35
1.01
0.18
0.15
1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-15. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location a net
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
82.6
83.4
73.6
71.0
53.0
51.0
49.0
13.5
12.6
11.7
3.4
3.1
2.8
153
131
131
119
112
112
108
104
29.5
27,5
11.7
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
61.5
51.3
51.8
45.6
44.1
32.9
31.7
30.4
8.4
7.8
7.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
95.0
81.4
81.4
73.9
69.6
69.6
67.1
64.6
18.3
17.1
7.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.3
9.3
8.3
8.8
7.1
5.6
5.3
5.0
2.0
1.8
1,6
0.38
0.32
0.27
12.5
11.1
10.2
10.2
9.2
8.7
8.2
7.7
2.96
2.66
1.6
0.38
0.32
C.27
g/km
5.8
5.8
5.2
5.5
4.4
3.5
3.3
3.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.24
0.20
0.17
7.8
6.9
6.3
6.3
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.8
1.84
1.65
1.0
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
4.5
4.3
3.6
3.5
2.18
0.34
0.29
0.24
2.0
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
4.5
4.3
3.6
3.5
2.18
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.1S
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.2
1.35
0.21
0.18
0.15
.2
.78
,82
2.06
.70
.91
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.2
1.36
0.21
0.18
0.16
Table D.1-16. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
86.0
82.6
83.4
73.5
71.0
63.0
51.0
49.0
8.1
7.6
7.0
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
52.8
51.3
51.8
45.6
44.1
39.1
31.7
30.4
5.0
4.7
4.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.0
9.3
8.3
8.8
7.1
6.0
5.3
5.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
5.6
5.8
5.2
5.5
4.4
3.7
3.3
3.1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitr
ox
g/mi
3.61
4.32
6.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
4.50
2.36
2.30
2.24
1.68
0.34
0.29
0.24
ogen
des
g/km
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2,37
2.79
1.47
1.43
1.39
1.04
0.21
0.18
0.15
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-9
-------
Table D.M7. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
High altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
57.0
57.0
57.0
18.0
17.1
16.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
, 120
120
120
39.5
37.5
16.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
35.4
35.4
35.4
11.2
10.6
10.1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
74.5
74.5
74.5
24.5
23.3
10.1
3.0
2.8
2,6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
6.2
6.2
6.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.32
0,27
9.7
9.7
9.7
3.46
3.16
2.60
0.65
0.59
0.54 .
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
6.0
6.0
6.0
2.15
1.96
1.60
0.40
0.37
034
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.55
5.0
5.0
4.1
4.0
2.48
1.1
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0,29
0.24
3.08
5.0
5.0
4.1
4.0
2.48
1.00
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.83
3.1
3.1
2.5
2.5
1.54
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
1.91
3.1
3.1
2.5
2.5
1.54
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
Table D.1-18. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
67.0
57.0
57.0
10.8
10.3
9.7
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
41.6
35.4
35.4
6.7
6.4
6.0
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
6.6
6,2
6.2
1.8
1.7
1.6
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
4.1
3.9
3.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.81
5.0
2.60
2.60
2.54
1.98
1.1
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.37
3.1
1.61
1.61
1.58
1.23
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
D.l-10
EMISSION FACTORS
ja/75
-------
Table D.1-19. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOB CALENDAR YEAR 1990
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
t
Carbon
Nitrogen
Location and ;__ monoxide
model year g/mi T g/km
Low and high j
altitude :
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
18.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.2
I^Bb i 3.9
1987 3.6
1988 i 3.4
1989
3.1
11.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1990 ! 2R 1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi g/km
3.0 1,9
0.81 0.50
0.81 0.50
0.81 .' 0.50
0.76
0.70
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.27
0.47
0.43
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
ox
g/mi
2.6
1.70
.70
.70
.50
.30
.10
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24
ides
g/km
1.6
1.06
1.06
1.06
0.93
0.81
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
Table D.1-20. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
10.8
5,t>
5,6
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
6.7
3.5
3.5
1.5
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
1.8
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.76
0.70
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
1.1
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.47
0.43
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
2.10
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.50
1.30
1.10
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
1.30
1.06
1.06
1.06
0.93
0.81
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-11
3214-637 0 - 80 - I1* CPt. B)
-------
Table D.1-21. PARTICULATE, $ULFURIC ACID, AND TOTAL SULFUR OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWER ED VEHICLES
Pollutant
Paniculate
Exhaust3
g/mi
g/km
Tire wear
g/mi
g/km
Sulf uric acid
g/mi
g/km
Total sulfur oxides
g/mi
g/km
Emission factors
Non-catalyst
(Leaded fuel)
0.34
0.21
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.13
0.08
Non-catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.13
0.08
Catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.12
0,02-0.06b
0.01-0.04
0.13
0.08
^Excluding paniculate sulfate or suit uric acid aerosol.
"Sulfuric acid emission varies markedly with driving mode and fuel sulfur levels.
Table D.1-22. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR8
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)b
0.081
0.110
0.107
0.106
0.102
0.096
0.088
0.077
0.064
0,049
0,033
0.023
0.064
Average annual
miles driven (b)c
15,900
15,000
14,000
13,100
12,200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
6,700
6,700
axb
1,288
1,650
1,498
1,389
1,244
1,085
906
724
544
372
221
154
429
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)d
0.112
0.143
0.130
0.121
0.108
0.094
0.079
0.063
0.047
0.032
0.019
0.013
0.039
^References 1 through 6.
These data are for July 1, Data from References 2-6 were averaged to produce a value for m that is better suited for projections
^Mileage value) are the result* of at least squares analysis of data in Reference 1
dm - ab/Sab.
D.l-12
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Ui
Table D.1-23. COEFFICIENTS FOR SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES3-1*
Location
Low altitude
(Excluding 1966-
1967 Calif.)
California
Low altitude
High altitude
Model
year
1957-1967
1966-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post-1970
1957-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post- 1970
v. - P(A + BS + CS2)
vips e
Hydrocarbons
A
0.953
0.957
1.070
1.005
0.901
0.943
0.883
0.722
0.706
0.840
0.787
B
-6.00 x 10~2
-5.98 x 10-2
-6.63 x 10 -2
-6.27 x ID-2
-5.70 x 10-2
-5.92 x 1C-2
-5.58 x 10-2
-4.63 x 10-2
-4.55 x 10~2
-5.33 x ID-2
-4.99 x ID-2
C
5.81 x 10 ~4
5.63 x 10 -*
5.98 x 10 -4
5.80 x 10 -4
5.59 x 10 4
5.67 x 10 -*
5.52 x 10 -4
4.80 x 10 "4
4.84 x 10 ~4
5.33 x 10 4
4.99 x 10 -4
Carbon monoxide
A
0.967
0.981
1.047
1.259
1.267
1.241
0.721
0.662
0.628
0.835
0.894
B
-fi.07 x 1C-2
-6.22 x 10 2
-6.52 x 10-2
-7.72x 10-2
-7.72 x 10'2
-7.52 x ID-2
-4. 57 x 10-2
-4.23 x ID-2
-4.04 x 10 2
-5.24 x lO-2
-5.54 x ID"2
C
5,78 x 10 - 4
6.19 x 10 ~4
6.01 x 10 "4
6.60 x 10 4
6.40 x 10 4
6.09 x 10 4
4.56 x 10 4
4.33 x 10 ~4
4.26 x 10 -4
4.98 x 10 4
4.99 x 10 -4
vips = A + BS
Nitrogen oxides
A
0.808
0.844
0.888
0.915
0.843
0.843
0.602
0.642
0.726
0.614
0.697
B
0.980 x 10 - 2
0.798 x lO-2
0.569 x ID'2
0.432 x 10 2
0.798x 10 "2
0.804 x 10 -2
2.027 x lO-2
1.835x lO^2
1.403x ID'2
1.978x10-2
1.553x 10 -2
f
Reference 7. Equation) should not be extended beyond the range of the data U5 to 45 mi/hr; 24 to 72 km/hr). For speed correction factors at low speeds (5 and
10 mi/hr; 8 and 16 km/hr) see Table D.1-24.
bThe speed correction factor equations and coefficients presented in this table are expressed in terms of english units (miles per hour). In order to perform calcula-
tions using the metric system of units, it is suggested that kilometers per hour be first converted to miles per hour (1 km/hr = 0.621 mi/hr). Once speed correction
factors are determined, all other calculations can be performed using metric units.
-------
Table D.1-24. LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES3
Location
Low altitude
(Excluding 1966-
1967 Calif.)
California
Low altitude
High altitude
Model
year
1957-1967
1966-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post- 1970
1957-1967
1968
1969
1970
• Post- 1970
•
Carbon monoxide
5jni/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.72
1.79
3.06
3.57
3.60
4.15
2.29
2.43
2.47
2.84
3.00
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.57
1.00
1.75
1.86
1.88
2,23
1.48
1.54
1.61
1.72
1.83
Hydrocarbons
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
1.87
2.96
2.95
2.51
2.75
2.34
2.10
2.04
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.12
1.66
1.65
1.51
1.63
1.37
1.27
1.22
2.35 j 1.36
2.17 j 1.35
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
1.16
1.04
1.08
1.13
1.15
1.33
1.22
1.22
1.19
1.06
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.09
1.00
1.05
.05
.03
.20
.18
.08
.11
1.02
aDriving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 8) were input to the modal emission analysis
model (see section 3.1.2.3). Theresults predicted by the model (emissions at 5 and 10 mi/hr; 8 and 16 km/hr) were divided
by FTP emission factors for hot operation to obtain the above results. The above data are approximate and represent the best
currently available information.
Table D.I-25. LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS
AND HOT/COLD VEHICLE OPERATION CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR FTP EMISSION FACTORS8
Pollutant
and controls
Carbon monoxide
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Hydrocarbons
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Nitrogen oxides
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Temperature cor-
rection factor (Zjpt)b
-0.01271+1.95
-0.07431 + 6.58
-0.01 13t+ 1.81
-0.0304t + 3.25
-0.0046t+1.36
-0.0060t-H.52
Hot/cold vehicle operation
correction factors
g(t)
e0.035t - 5.24
0.001 8t + 0.0095
-O.OOIOt + 0.858
f(t)
0.0045t + 0.02
e0.036t -4.14
0.0079t + 0.03
O.OOSOt - 0.0409
-0.0068t+1.64
G.OOIOt + 0.835
aReference 9. Temperature (t) is expressed in F. In order to apply the above equations, C must first be converted to F (F= 9/5C
+32). Similarly "Kelvin (K) must be converted to °F (F= 9/5(K-273.161+32).
"The formulae for zipt enable the correction of FTP emission factors for ambient temperature. The formulae for fit) are used in
conjunction with Equation 01-2 to calculate r;ptvv. If the variable Cjptw is used in Equation D1-1, zjpt must be used also.
D.l-14
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
i(
-------
where- f(t) and g(t) are given in Table D.I-25, w is the percentage of cold operation, and x is the percentage
of hot start operation. For pre-1975 model year vehicles, non-catalyst factors should be used. For
1975-1977, catalyst factors should be used.
The use of catalysts after 1978 is uncertain at present. For model years 1979 and beyond, the use of those
correction factors that produce me highest emission estimates is suggested in order that emissions are not
underestimated. The extent of use of catalysts in 1977 and 1978 will depend on the impact of the 1979 sulfunc
acid emission standard, which cannot now be predicted.
D. 1.3 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors
In addition to exhaust emission factors, the calculation of hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline motor vehicles
involves evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factors. Composite crankcase emissions can be
determined using:
fn
hi min
i=n-12
where: fn * The composite crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
hi = The crankcase emission factor for the i*h model year
min = The weighted annual travel of the ith model year during calendar year (n)
Crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor by model year are summarized in Table D.l-26.
(DM)
Table D. 1-26. CRANKCASE HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Model
year
California only
Pre-1961
1961 through 1963
1964 through 1967
Post-1967
All areas except
California
Pre-1963
1963 through 1967
Post-1967
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
4.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.8
0.0
g/km
2.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.5
0.0
12/75
Appendix D
D.MS
-------
There are two sources of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from light-duty vehicles: the fuel tank and the
carburetor system. Diurnal changes in ambient temperature result in expansion of the air-fuel mixture in a
partially filled fuel tank. As a result, gasoline vapor is expelled to the atmosphere. Running losses from the fuel
tank occur as the fuel is heated by the road surface during driving, and hot soak losses from the carburetor system
occur after engine shutdown at the end of a trip. Carburetor system losses occur from such locations as the
carburetor vents, the float bowl, and the gaps around the throttle and choke shafts. Because evaporative emissions
are'a function of the diurnal variation in ambient temperature and the number of trips per day, emissions are best
calculated in terms of evaporative emissions per day per vehicle. Emissions per day can be converted to emissions
per mile (if necessary) by dividing the emissions per day be an average daily miles per vehicle value. This value is
likely to vary from location to location, however. The composite evaporative hydrocarbon emission factor is
given by:
(gi
(Dl-5)
,i=n-12
where: en - The composite evaporative hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n) in Ibs/day (g/day)
gj = The diurnal evaporative hydrocarbon emission factor for model year (i) in Ibs/day (g/day)
kj = The hot soak evaporative emission factor in Ibs/trip (g/trip) for the ith model year
d = The number of daily trips per vehicle (3.3 trips/vehicle-day is the nationwide average)
min = The weighted annual travel of the ith model year during calendar year (n)
The variables gi and kj are presented in Table D.l-27 by model year.
Table D.1-27. EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
Location and
model year
Pre-1970
1970 (Calif.)
1970 (non-Calif.)
1971
1972-1979
Post-1 979d
High altitude6
Pre-1971
1971-1979
Post-1 979e
By sourceb
Diurnal, g/day
26.0
16.3
26.0
16.3
12.1
37.4
17.4
Hot soak, g/trip
14.7
10.9
14.7
10.9
12.0
17.4
14.2
g/dayc
74.5
52.3
74.5
52.3
51.7
94.8
64.3
Composite
g/mi
2.53
1.78
2.53
1.78
1.76
0.5
3.22
2.19
a/km
1.57
1.11
1.57
1.11
1.09
0.31
2.00
1.36
^References 10 and 11.
bSee text for explanation.
°Gram per day values are diurnal emissions plus hot soak emissions multiplied by the average number of trips per day Nationwide
data from References 1 and 2 indicate that the average vehicle is used for 3.3 trips per day Gram/mile values^ere determined bv
dividing average g/day by the average nationwide travel per vehicle (29.4 mi/day) from Reference 2.
rati^hvdro™^iV!TiSS!.?r faCt
-------
D.I.4 ParticuJate and Sulfur Oxide Emissions
Light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles emit relatively small quantities of paniculate and sulfur oxides in.
comparison with emission levels of the three pollutants discussed above. For this reason, average rather than
composite emission factors should be sufficiently accurate for approximating participate and sulfur oxide
emissions from light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles. Average emission factors for these pollutants are presented
in Table D.l-21. No Federal standards for these two pollutants are presently in effect, although many areas do
have opacity (antismoke) regulations applicable to motor vehicles.
Sulfuric acid emission from catalysts is presently receiving considerable attention. An emission standard for
that pollutant is anticipated beginning in model year 1979.
D.I.5 Basic Assumptions
Light-duty vehicle emission standards. A critical assumption necessary in the calculation of projected composite
emission rates is the timetable for implementation of future emission standards for light- duty vehicles. The
timetable used for light-duty vehicles in this appendix is that which reflects current legislation and administrative
actions as of April 1,1975. This schedule is:
• For hydrocarbons - 1.5 g/mi (0.93 g/km) for 1975 through 1977 model years; 0.41 g/mi (0.25 g/km) for
1978 and later model years.
• For carbon monoxide -IS g/mi (9.3 g/km) for 1975 through 1977 model years; 3.4 g/mi (2.1 g/km) for
1978 and later model years.
• For nitrogen oxides - 3.1 g/mi (1.9 g/km) for 1975 and 1976 model years; 2.0 g/mi (1.24 g/km) for the
1977 model year; 0.4 g/mi (0.25 g/km) for 1978 and later model years.
Although the statutory standards of 0.41 g/mi for HC, 3.4 g/mi for CO, and 0.4 g/mi for NOX are legally
scheduled for implementation in 1978, consideration of increased sulfuric acid emission from catalysts, fuel
economy problems and control technology availability, and reevaluation of the level of NOX control needed to
achieve the N02 air quality standard led the EPA Administrator to recommend to Congress that the light-duty
vehicle emission control schedule be revised. The tabulated values in this appendix do not, however, reflect these
recent recommendations. If Congress accepts the proposed revisions, the appropriate tables will be revised.
Deterioration and emission factors. Although deterioration factors are no longer presented by themselves in this
publication, they are, nontheless, used implicitly to calculate calendar year emission factors for motor vehicles.
Based on an analysis of surveillance data,10-11 approximate linear deterioration rates for pre-1968 model years
were established as follows: carbon monoxide - 1 percent per calendar year, hydrocarbons-1 percent per
calendar year, and nitrogen oxides-0 percent per calendar year. For 1968-1974 model years, deterioration was
assumed to be 5 percent per calendar year for CO, 10 percent per calendar year for HC, and 7 percent per
calendar year for NOX. For all pre-1975 model years, linear deterioration was applied to the surveillance test
results to determine tabulated values.1 ] Vehicles of model year 1975 and later are assumed to have a
deterioration rate of 10 percent per calendar year for CO and 20 percent per calendar year for HC. For NOX, see
the following section on credit for inspection/maintenance systems. These deterioration rates are applied to new
vehicle emission factors for prototype cars.
D.I.6 Credit for Inspection/Maintenance Systems
If an Air Quality Control Region has an inspection/maintenance (1/M) program, the following-credits can be
applied to light-duty vehicles:
1. A 10 percent reduction in CO and HC can be applied to all model year vehicles starting the year I/M is
introduced.
2. Deterioration following the initial 10 percent is assumed to follow the schedules below:
12/75 Appendix D D.l-17
-------
HC CO
Pre-1975 vehicles 2 percent per year . 2 percent per year
1975 and later vehicles 12 percent per year 7 percent per year
3. This deterioration rate continues until a vehicle is 10 years old and remains stable thereafter. No catalyst
replacement is assumed.
4. The NOX emission deterioration and response to I/M is highly conjectural; the estimates below are based on
the assumption of engine-out emission of 1.2 g/mi at low mileage, deterioration of engine-out emission at 4
percent per year, NOX catalyst efficiency deterioration from 80 percent to 70 percent in the first 3 years,
and a linear deterioration in average catalyst efficiency from 70 percent to zero over the next 7 years
because of catalyst failures. The response to I/M without catalyst replacement is a reduction in the
engine-out deterioration from 4 to 2 percent per year. One catalyst replacement is assumed for the catalyst
replacement scenario. Note: There is no emission reduction due to I/M for pre-1978 vehicles.
NOX EMISSION DETERIORATION
(Standard is 0.4 g/mi, 0.25 g/km)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>10
g/mi
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.40
0.56
0.73
0.90
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
No I/M
g/km
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.56
0.68
0.81
0.93
1.1
I/M, no catalyst
replacement
g/mi g/km
0.24 0.15
0.28 0.17
0.33 0.20
0.38 0.24
0.52 0.32
0.66 0.41
0.81 0.50
0.96 0.60
1.12 0.70
1.3 0.81
1.5 0.93
I/M,
ref
g/mi
0.24
0.28
0.33
0.38
0.3£
0.40
0.47
0.55
0.63
0.71
0,80
one catalyst
placement
g/km
0.15
0.17
U.20
0.24
0.24
0.2
-------
I/I
Table D.1-28. EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS BY VEHICLE AGE
FOR SELECTED LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS
Vehicle age.
years8
1
2
3
4
5
1
Carbon monoxide
15.0g/mi
Standard
g/mi
9.0
9.9
10.8
11.7
12.6
6 < 13.5
7
8
9
10
14.4
g/km
5.6
6.1
6.7
7.3
7.8
8.4
8.9
15.3 ; 9.5
16.2 ! 10.1
17.1 : 10.6
11+ i 18.0 11.2
9.0 g/mi
Standard
g/mi
5.4
5.9
6.5
7.0
7.6
8.1
8.6
9.2
9.7
10.3
10.8
g/km
3.4
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.7
5.0
6.3
5.7
6.0
6.4
6.7
3.4 g/mi
Standard
g/mi
2.8
3.1
3.4
3.6
3.9
4.2
4,5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.6
g/km
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
Hydrocarbons
1 .5 g/mi
Standard
g/mi
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
15
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.5 3.0
g/km
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
0.9 g/mi
Standard
g/mi
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
g/km
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
03
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.41 g/mi
Standard
g/mi
0.27
0.32
0.38
0.43
0.49
0.54
0.59
0.65
0.70
0.76
0.81
g/km
0.17
0.20
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.34
0.37
0.40
0.43
0.47
0.50
Nitrogen oxides
2.0 g/mi
Standard
1
g/mi j g/km
2.00
2.06
2.12
2.18
2.24
2.30
2.36
2.42
2.48
2.54
2.60
1.2
1.28
1.32
1.3b
1 .5 g/mi
Standard
g/mi
1.50
1.56
1.62
1.68
1.39 ) 1.74
1.43 | 1.80
1.47
1.50
1.54
1.58
1.61
1.86
1.92
1.98
2.04
2.10
g/km
0.93
0.97
1.01
1.04
1.08
1.12
1.16
1.19
1.23
1.27
1.30
1 JO g/mi
Standard
g/mi
g/km
1.0 0.6
1.04
1.08
1.12
1.16
1.20
1.24
1.28
1.32
1.36
1.40
0.65
0.67
0.70
0.72
0.75
0.77
0.79
0.82
0.84
0.87
0.4 g/mi
Standard
g/mi
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.40
0.56
0.73
0.90
1.1.
1.3
1.5
1.7
g/km
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.56
0.68
0.81
0.93
1.06
I
O
8 Vehicle aja refer* to a year in a vehicle's life. For example, age one meant vehicles from 0 to 1 year old.
-------
This change in the standard schedule affects the tabulated values for the 1978 and \9'/9 model years presented ui
Tables D.l-11 through D.l-20. In other words, every number in every column in these tables beaded with "1978
or 1979" model year must be completely changed. The appropriate replacement values are summarized in Table
D.l-28. The age of the vehicle refers to a year in a vehicle's life. For example, the 1978 model year vehicles are
assumed to be age one in calendar year 1978, age two in calendar year 1979 and so on.
To change the 1978 model year column in Table D.l-11 to reflect our hypothetical Congressional action the
appropriate values are extracted from the first row (age one) of Table D.l-28. For a 9.0 g/mi CO standard the age
one emission factor for both low and high altitude locations is 5.4 g/mi (34 g/km). This value is used to replace
the existing value [2.8 g/mi (1.7 g/km)] in the 1978 column of Table D.l-11. A similar procedure is used for
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
To illustrate a slightly more complicated situation, consider the revision of Table D.l-16 to reflect our
hypothetical situation. All the values in the 1978 and 1979 columns must be changed. In 1980, the 1978 model
year vehicles are age three, thus from Table D.l-28 the appropriate carbon monoxide emission factor is 6 5 g/mi
(4.0 g/km). This value replaces the existing value of 3.4 g/mi (2.1 g/km). The 1979 model year carbon monoxide
emission factor is 5.9 g/mi (3.7 g/km), replacing the existing Table D.l-16 value of 3.1 g/mi (1.9 g/km) This
procedure is followed, using Table D.l-28, for all three pollutants. The procedure is similar for other standard
schedules and other calendar year tables.
The above methodology was designed to enable the user of this document to quickly revise the tables. Any
Congressional action will result in revision of the appropriate tables by EPA. Publication of these revised tables
takes time, however, and although every effort is made by EPA to make these changes quickly, the required lead
time is such that certain users may want to perform the modifications to the tables in advance. The standards
covered in Table D.l-28 represent the most likely values Congress will adopt, but by no means represent all
possible standards.
References for Section D.I
1. Strate, H. E. Nationwide Personal Transportation Study - Annual Miles of Automobile Travel. Report
Number 2. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C. April
2. 1973/74 Automobile Facts and Figures. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich, 1974.
3. 1972 Automobile Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1973.
4. 1971 Automotive Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1972.
5. 1970 Automotive Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1971.
6. 1969 Automotive Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1970.
7. Smith, M. Development of Representative Driving Patterns at Various Average Route Speeds, Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N. C. February 1974. (Unpublished report.)
8. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Operation Data. CAPE-21. Collected by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, S. C.,
under contract to Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. January 1975. (Unpublished.)
9. Ashby, H. A., R. C. Stahman, B. H. Eccleston, and R. W. Hum. Vehicle Emissions - Summer to Winter.
(Presented at Society of Automotive Engineers meeting. Warrendale, Pa. October 1974. Paper No. 741053.)
10. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance. Calspen Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. APTD-1544 March
1973.
11. Williams, M. E., J. T. White, L. A. Platte, and C. J, Domke. AutomobUe Exhaust Emission Surveillance -
Analysis of the FY 72 Program. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. Publication No.
EPA-460/2-74-001. February 1974.
D-1-20 EMISSION FACTORS 12/7*
-------
D.2 LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
D.2.1 General
This class of vehicles includes all trucks with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 8500 Ib (3856 kg) or less. It is
comprised of vehicles that formerly were included in the light-duty truck (6000 Ib; 2722 kg GVW and under)
and the heavy-duty vehicle (6001 Ib; 2722 kg GVW and over) classes. Generally, these trucks ar? used for
personal transportation as opposed to commercial use.
D.2.2 FTP Exhaust Emissions
Projected emission factors for light trucks are summarized in Tables D.2-1 through D.2-12, (For information
on projected emission factors for vehicles operated in California and at high altitude, see sections D.2.5 and
D.2.6). The basic methodology used for projecting light-duty vehicle emission factors (section D.1 of this
appendix) also applies to this class. As in section D.I , the composite emission factor for light-duty trucks is given
by:
enpstwx = cipn min vips Zjpt rirtwx
i=n-12
where: enpstwx = Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), average
speed (s), ambient temperature (t), percentage cold operation (w), and percentage hot
start operation (x)
Cjpn = The 1975 Federal Test Procedure mean emission factor for the i1*1 model year light-duty
trucks during calendar year (n) and for pollutant (p)
= The fraction of annual travel by the itn model year light-duty trucks during calendar year
(n)
vips « The speed correction factor for the itn model year light-duty trucks for pollutant (p) and
average speed (s)
Zjpt = The temperature correction for the itn model year light-duty trucks for pollutant (p) and
ambient temperature (t)
riptwx = Tne hot/cold vehicle operation correction factor for the itn model year light-duty trucks
for pollutant (p), ambient temperature (t), percentage cold operation (w), and percentage
hot start operation (x)
Values for mjn are given in Table D.2-11. Unless other data are available, Vjps (TablesD.2-12 and D.2-13),Zjpt,
and riptwx (Table D.2-1 4) are the same for this class as for light-duty vehicles.
12/75 Appendix D D.2-1
-------
Table D.2-1. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125.0
70.0
67.8
56.0
56.0
45.0
42.8
g/km
77.6
43.5
42.1
34.8
34.8
27.9
26.6
.
,
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
7.9
5.9
5.4
4.7
3.8
3.6
g/km
10.6
4.9
3.7
3.4
2.9
2.4
2.2
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2-
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
4.4
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
2.7
Table D.2-2. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1974
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
monoxide
g/mi
125.0
73.5
71.3
58.5
58.5
47.2
4S.O
1974 42.8
g/km
77.6
45.6
44.3
36.3
36.3
29.3
27.9
26.6
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
8.7
6.5
6.0
5.2
4.2
4.0
3.6
g/km
10.6
5.4
4.0
3.7
3.2
2.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
2.5 4.6
2.2 i 4.4
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
2.9
2.7
D.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.2-3. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Car
mom
g/mi
125
77.0
74.8
61.0
61.0
49.4
47.2
45.0
27.0
bon
ixide
g/km
77.6
47.8
46.5
37.9
37.9
30.7
29.3
27.9
16.8
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
9.5
7.1
6.6
5.7
4.6
4.4
4.0
2.7
g/km
10.6
5.9
4.4
4.1
3.5
2.9
2.7
2.5
1.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi ' g/km
j
4.2 i 2.6
4.9 3.0
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
4.8
4.6
4.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
Table D.2-4. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125
80.5
78.3
63.5
63.5
51.6
494
47.2
28.5
27.0
g/km
77.6
50.0
48.6
39.4
39.4
32.0
30.7
29.3
17.7
16.8
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
10.3
7.7
7.2
6.2
5.0
4.8
4.4
3.0
2.7
g/km
10.6
6.4
4.8
4.5
3.9
3.1
3.0
2.7
1.9
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.6
1.7 : 4.4
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.7
c
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-3
-------
Table 0.2-5. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Carbon !
monoxide Hydrocarbons
g/mi , g/km
Low altitude j
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
125
84.0
81.8
66.0
66.0
53.8
51.6
49.4
30.0
28.5
27.0
. 77.5
52.2
50.8
41.0
41.0
33.4
32.0
30.7
18.6
17.7
g/mi | g/km
17.0
11.1
8.3
7.8
6.7
5.4
5.2
4.8
3.3
3.0
16.8 2.7
10.6
6.9
5.2
4.8
4.2
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.0
1.9
1.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi ' g/km
4.2
4.9
2.6
3.0
5.3 3.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.7
Table D.2-6. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125
87.5
85.3
68.5
68.5
56.0
53.8
51.6
31.5
30.0
28.5
9.8
g/km
77.6
54.3
53.0
42.5
42.5
34.8
33.4
32.0
19.6
18.6
17.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
11.9
8.9
8.4
7.2
5.8
5.6
5.2
3.6
3.3
3.0
1.0
g/km
10.6
7.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
3.6
3.5
3.2
2.2
2.0
1.9
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
2.3
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
1.4
D.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table 0.2-7. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125
87,5
88.8
71.0
71.0
58.2
56.0
53.8
33.0
31,5
30.0
10.8
9.8
g/km
77.6
54.3
55.1
44.1
44.1
36.1
34.8
33.4
20.5
19.6
18.6
6.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
.g/mi
17.0
11.9
9.5
9.0
7.7
6.2
6,0
5.6
3.9
3.6
3.3
1.2
1.0
g/km
10.6
7.4
5.9
5.6
4.8
3.9
3.7
3.5
2.4
2.2
1.4
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides .
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
2.35
2.3
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
1.46
1.4
Table D.2-8. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
(BASED ON 197S FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125
87.5
88.8
73.5
73.5
60.4
58.2
56.0
34.5
33.0
31.5
11.8
10.8
9.8
g/km
77.6
54.3
55.1
45.6
45.6
37.5
36.1
34.8
21.4
20.5
19.6
7.3
6.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
11.9
9.5
9.6
8.2
6.6
6.4
6.0
4.2
3.9
3.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
g/km
10.6
7.4
5,9
6.0
5.1
4.1
4.0
3.7
2.6
2.4
2.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
2.4
2.35
2.3
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
1.5
1.46
1.4
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-5
-------
Table D.2-9. PROJECTED CARBON MONODIDE, HYDROCARBON. AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CAUIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
64.8
64.8
64.8
42.0
40.5
39.0
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.8
g/km
. 40.2
40.2
40.2
26.1
25.1
24.2
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.6
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
7.4
7.6
7.6
5.7
5.4
5.1
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
g/km
4.6
4.7
4.7
3.5
3.4
3.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
5.3
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.0
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
2.45
2.4
2.35
2.3
g/km
3.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.7
1.65
1.6
1.58
1.6
1.52
1.5
1.46
1.4
D.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.2-10. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
42.0
19.8
19.8
19.8
18.8
17.8
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.8
g/km
26.1
12.3
12.3
12.3
11.7
11.1
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.7
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
5.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
g/km
3.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.4
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
2.45
2.4
2.35
2.3
g/km
4.0
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.71
1.68
1.65
1.61
1.58
1.55
1.52
1.49
1.46
1.43
Table D.2-11. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCK TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.061
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.083
0.076
0.076
0.063
0.054
0.043
0.036
0.024
0.185
Average annual
miles driven (b)b
15,900
15,000
14,000
13,100
12,200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
6,700
4,500
a x b
970
1,455
1,358
1,270
1,013
859
783
592
459
327
241
161
832
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.094
0.141
0.132
0.123
0.098
0.083
0.076
0.057
0.044
0.032
0.023
0.016
0.081
aVehlcles in use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 1 and 2).
"Reference 2.
cm-ab/Sab.
Appendix D
D.2-7
32t-637 0-80-15 (Pt. B)
-------
Table D.2-12. COEFFICIENTS FOR SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS3
Location
Low altitude
(Excluding 1966-
1967 Calif.)
California
Low altitude
High attitude
Model
year
1957-1967
1966-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post-1970
1957-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post-1970
vips e
Hydrocarbons
A
0.953
0.957
1.070
1.005
0.901
0.943
0.883
0.722
0.706
0.840
0.787
B
-6.00 x 10-2
-5.98x10-2
-6.63x10-2
-6.27 x ID-2
-5.70x10-2
-5.92x10-2
-5.58 x ID-2
-4.63 x ID"2
-4.55 x ID-2
-5.33 x 10-2
-4.99 x 10-2
C
5,81 x 10 ~4
5.63 x 10 -4
5.98 x 10 ~*
5.80 x 10 -4
5.59 x 10 ~*
5.67 x 70 -~*
5.52 x 10 -4
4.80 x 10 -4
4.84 x 10 -4
5.33 x 10 -4
4.99 x 10 ~*
Carbon monoxide
A
0.967
0.981
1.047
1.259
1.267
1.241
0.721
0.662
0.628
0.835
0.894
B
-6.07x10-2
-6.22 x ID"2
-6.52x10-2
-7.72x10-2
-7,72x10-2
-7.52x10-2
-4.57 x ID"2
-4.23x ID-2
-4.04x10-2
-5.24 x ID-2
-5.54 x 10-2
C
5.78 x 10 ~4
6.19 x 10 -4 .
6.01 x 10-4
6.60 x 10-*
6.40 x 10 ~4
6.09 x 10 -"
4.56 x ID"4
4.33 x 10 -4
4.26 x 10 -4
4.98 x 10 ~4
4.99 x 10 -4
vips = A + BS
Nitrogen oxides
A
0.808
0.844
0.888
0.915
0.843
0.843
0.602
0.642
0.726
0.614
0.697
B
0.980 x 10 ~:2
0.798x ID-2
0.569 x TO'2
0.432 x TO"2
0.798x 10-2
0.804 x 10 -2
2.027 x 10 -2
1.835x10-2
1.403 x ID-2
1.978x ID"2
1.553x ID-2
I
z
H
O
aReference 3. Equation thoukf not be extended beyond the range of data (15 to 45 mi/hr). These data are for light-duty vehicles and are assumed applicable to tight-
dotv trucks.
U)
-------
Table D.2-13. LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS8
Location
Low altitude
(Excluding 1966-
1967 Calif.)
California
Low altitude
High altitude
Model
year
1957-1967
1966-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post-1970
1957-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post-1970
Carbon monoxide
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.72
1.79
3.06
3.57
3.60
4,15
2.29
2.43
2.47
2.84
3.00
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.57
.00
.75
.86
.88
2.23
.48
.54
.61
.72
1.83
Hydrocarbons
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
1.87
2.96
2.95
2.51
2.75
2.34
2.10
2.04
2.35
2.17
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.12
1.66
1.65
1.51
1.63
1.37
1.27
1.22
1.36
1.35
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
.16
.04
.08
.13
.15
.33
.22
.22
1.19
1.06
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.09
**1jOO
1.05
1.05
1.03
1,20
1.18
1.08
1.11
1.02
a Driving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 4) were input to the modal emission analysis model
(see section 3.1.2.3). The results predicted by the model (emissions at 5 and 10 mi/hr (8 and 16 km/hr) were divided by FT?
emission factors for operation to obtain the above results. The above data are approximate and represent the best currently
available information.
Table D.2-14. LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS
AND HOT/COLD VEHICLE OPERATION CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR FTP EMISSION FACTORS3
Pollutant
and controls
Carbon monoxide
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Hydrocarbons
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Nitrogen oxides
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Temperature cor-
rection factor (zjpt)b
-0.01 27t+ 1.95
-0.0743t + 6.58
-0.01 13t + 1.81
-0.0304t + 3.25
-0.0046t +• 1 .36
-0.0060t + 1,52
Hot/cold vehicle operation
correction factors
g(t)
e0.035t -5.24
0>00l8t + 0.0095
-0.0010t + 0.858
f(t>
0.0045t -ir 0.02
e0.036t ^4.14
0.0079t f 0.03
O.OOSOt - 0.0409
I
-0.0068t+1,64
0.00101 + 0.835
a Reference 5. Temperature ft) is expressed in °F, In order to apply the above equations, C must first be converted to °F (F-9/5C
+ 32). Similarly Kelvin (K) must to converted to F
-------
For pre-1975 model year vehicles, noncatalyst temperature correction factors should be used. For 1975-1977
model year vehicles, temperature-dependent correction factors should be calculated for the catalyst and%
noncatalyst class, and the results weighted into an overall factor that is two-thirds catalyst, one-third noncatalyst.
For 1978 and later model year vehicles, noncatalyst temperature correction factors should be applied.
D.2.3 Evaporative and Crankcase Emissions
In addition to exhaust emission factors, evaporative crankcase hydrocarbon emissions are determined using:
n
(D2-2)
f
n
i-n-12
where: f,
n
* The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
- The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate for the i* model year.
Emission factors for this source are reported in Table D.2-15. The crankcase and evaporative
emissions reported in the table are added together to arrive at this variable.
= The weighted annual travel of the itn model year vehicle during calendar year (n)
Table D.2-15. CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBONS
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas
except high
altitude and
California0
High
altitude
Model
years
Pre-1963
1963*1967
1968-1970
1971
1972-1979
Post-1 979d
Pre-1963
1963-1967
1968-1970
1971-1979
Post-1 979d
Crankcase emissions3
g/km
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
g/mi
4.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Evaporative emissions'3
g/km
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.9
1.9
0.3
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.4
0.3
g/mi
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.1
0.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
3.9
0.5
aReference 6. Tabulated values were determined by assuming that two-thirds of the light-duty trucks are GOOD Ibs GVW (2700 kg)
and under, and that one-third are 6001-8500 Ibs GVW (2700-3860 kg).
"Light-duty vehicle evaporative data (section 3.1.2) and heavy-duty vehicle evaporative data (section 3.1.4) were used to estimate
the listed values.
cFor California: Evaporative emissions for the 1970 model year are 1.9 g/km (3.1 g/mi) all other model years are the same as those
reported as, "All area except high altitude and California". Crankcase emissions for the pre-1961 California light-duty trucks are
4.6 g/mi (23 g/km), 1961-1963 model years are 2.4 (g/mi (1.5 g/km), all post-1963 model year vehicles are 0.0 g/mi (0.0 g/km).
^Post-1979 evaporative emission factors are based on the assumption that existing technology, when applied to the entire light
truck class, can result in further control of evaporative hydrocarbons.
D.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.2.4 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emissions
Participate and sulfur oxides emission factors are presented in Table D.2-16,
Table D.2-16. PARTICULATE, SULFURIC ACID, AND TOTAL SULFUR OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
Pollutant
Particulate
Exhaust3
g/mi
g/km
Tire wear
g/mi
g/km
Sulfuric acid
g/mi
g/km
Total sulfur oxides
g/mi
g/km
Emission factors
Non-catalyst
(Leaded fuel)
0.34
0.21
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.18
0.11
Non-catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.18
0.11
Catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.12
O.oi-0.06b
0.01-0.04
0.18
0.11
aExcluding paniculate sulfate or sulfuric acid aerosol.
bSulfuric acid emission varies markedly with driving mode and fuel sulfur levels.
D.2.S Basic Assumptions
Composition of class. For emission estimation purposes, this class is composed of trucks having a GVW of 8500
Ib (3856 kg) or less. Thus, this class includes the group of trucks previously defined in AP-42 as light-duty
vehicles (LDV) plus a group of vehicles previously defined as heavy-duty vehicles (HDV). On the basis of numbers
of vehicles nationwide, the split is two-thirds LDVs, one-third HDVs.
Standards. The pollutant standards assumed for this category are weighted averages of the standards applicable to
the various vehicle classes that were combined to create the light-duty truck class. Until 1975, those light-duty
trucks that weighed 6000 Ib (2722 kg) and under were required to meet light-duty vehicle emission standards.
Beginning in 1975, in accordance with a court order, a separate light truck class was created. This class, which
comprises two-thirds of the light-duty truck class (as defined here), is required to meet standards of 20 g/mi (12.4
g/km) of carbon monoxide, 2 g/mi (1.2 g/km) of hydrocarbons, and 3.1 g/mi (1.9 g/km) of nitrogen oxides from
1975 through 1977. The remaining one-third of the light-duty trucks are currently subject to heavy-duty vehicle
standards. Data presented in section D.2 are based on the assumption that, beginning in 1978, the light-duty
truck class of 0-8500 Ib (3856 kg) GVW will be subject to the following standards: carbon monoxide-17.9 g/mi
(11.1 g/km), hydrocarbon-1.65 g/mi (1.0 g/km), and nitrogen oxides-2.3 g/mi (1.4 g/km).
Deterioration. The same deterioration assumptions discussed in section D.I for light-duty vehicles apply except
that 1975-1977 model year vehicles weighing between 6000 and 8500 Ib (2722-3856 kg) are assumed not to be
equipped with catalytic converters. Therefore, the deterioration factors for light-duty trucks are weighted values
composed of 6000-lb (2722 kg) GVW truck deterioration values and 6001 to 8500-lb (2722-3856 kg) GVW truck
deterioration values. The weighting factors are two-thirds and one-third, respectively.
Actual emission values. For 1972 and earlier model year vehicles, emission values are those measured in the EPA
Emiision Surveillance Program7'8 and the baseline study of 6,000- to 10,000-lb (2,722-4,536 kg) trucks.9'10
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-11
-------
The tabulated values are weighted two-thirds for 0-6000-lb (0-2722 kg) trucks and one-third for 6000- to 85004b
(2722-3856 kg) trucks. For 1973-1974 model year emission values, this same weighting factor is applied to
projected 1973-1974 light-duty vehicle emissions and 1972 model year 6,000- to 10,000-lb (2,722-4,536 kg)
emission values. 1975-1977 model year emission values for 0- to 6000-lb (0 to 2722 kg) GVW trucks are based on
unpublished certification test data along with estimates of prototype-to-production differences. Post-1977 model
year emission values are based on previous relationships of low mileage in-use emission values to the standards.
California values. Projected emission factors for vehicles operated in California were not computed because of a
lack of information. The Pre-1975 California light-duty vehicle ratios can be applied to the light-duty trucks as a
best estimate (see section D.I). For 1975 and later, no difference is expected except in the value for nitrogen
oxides in 1975-1976? the California, standards can be weighted two-thirds, and the truck baseline value of 7.1
g/mi (4.4 gm/km) one-third to get an estimated value for nitrogen oxides in 1975-1976.
D.2.6 High Altitude and Inspection/Maintenance Corrections
To correct for high altitude for all pollutants for light-duty trucks, the light-duty vehicle ratio of high altitude
to low altitude emission factors for the model year vehicle is applied to the calendar year in question (see section
D.I). Credit for inspection/maintenance for light-duty trucks is the same as that given for autos in section D.I. of
this appendix.
References for Section D.2
1. Strate, H. E. Nationwide Personal Transportation Study - Annual Miles of Automobile Travel. Report
Number 2. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C. April
. 1972.
2. 1972 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D. C. 1974.
3. Smith, M. Development of Representative Driving Patterns at Various Average Route Speeds, Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, N. C. February 1974. (Unpublished report).
4. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Operation Data. CAPE-21. Collected by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, S.C.,
under contract to Environmental Protection Agency, .Ann Arbor, Mich. January 1975. (Unpublished.)
5. Ashby, H. A., R. C. Stahrnan, B. H, Eccleston, and R. W. Hum. Vehicle Emissions - Summer to Winter.
(Presented at Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. meeting. Warrendale, Pa. October 1974. Paper no.
741053.)
6, Sigworth, H. W., Jr. Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission Rates. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N. C. March 1971. (Unpublished report.)
7. Automobiles Exhaust Emission Surveillance. Calspan Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. Prepared for Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. APTD-1544.
March 1973.
8. Williams, M. E., J. T. White, L. A. Platte, and C. J. Domke. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance -
Analysis of the FY 72 Program. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor Mich. Publication No.
EPA-460/2-74-001. February 1974.
9. A Study of Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 Pound Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks. Automotive
Environmental Systems, Inc., Westminster, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor,
Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0468. Publication No. APTE-1572. June 1973.
10. Ingalls, M. H. Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 pound Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-01-0467. June 1973.
D.2-12 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
D.3 LIGHT-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
D.3.1 General
Although light-duty diesels represent only a small fraction of automobiles in use, their n^bers can be
exacted S inSease m the future Currently, only two manufacturers produce d.esel-powered automobJes for
Sein: the United States, but this may change as the demand for Ibw polluting, economical engines grows.
D.3.2 Emissions
Th*rittr£^^
factor Sd die fraction of travel by model year (see main text, section 3.1.3). The values presented in Table
3.13-1 apply to all model years and pollutants.
D.3.3 Basic Assumptions
Standards. See section D.I, Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles.
Deterioration. Because of the lack of data, no deterioration factors are assumed Diesels are ^pected toncontinue
to emit carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons at their present rates but to meet future NOX standards exactly.
12/75 Appendix D
-------
-------
D.4 HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
D.4.1 General
This class includes vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of more than 8500 Ib (3856 kg). Most of the vehicles
are trucks; however, buses and special purpose vehicles such as motor homes are also included. As in other
sections of this appendix the reader is encouraged to refer to the main text (see section 3.1.4) for a much more
detailed presentation. The discussion presented here is brief, consisting primarily of data summaries.
D.4.2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emissions
The composite exhaust emission factor is calculated using:
n
enps = ^ cipnminvips
i=n-12
(D.4-1)
where: enps = Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n) pollutant (p), and average speed
(s)
Cjpn = The test procedure emission factor for pollutant (p) in g/mi (g/km) for the i"1 model year in
calendar year (n)
mjn = The weighted annual travel of the i**1 model year vehicles during calendar year (n). The
determination of this variable involves the use of the vehicle year distribution.
vios = The speed correction factor for the i*h model year vehicles for pollutant (p) and average speed
(s)
The projected test procedure'emission factors (cjpn) are summarized in Tables D.4-1 through D.4-10. These
projected factors are based on the San Antonio Road Route test (see section 3.1.4) and assume 100 percent
warmed-up vehicle operation at an average speed of approximately 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr). Table D.4-11 contains a
sample calculation of the variable mm, using nationwide statistics. Speed correction factor data are contained in
Table D.4-12 and Table D.4-13.
Table D.4-1. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
13.9
13.8
13.7
13.6
g/km
22.0
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
g/km
4.2
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
12/75
Appendix D
D.4-1
-------
Table D.4-2. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALI FORM IA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1974
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
167
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.0
13.9
13.8
13.7
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
g/km
4.2
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Table D.4-3. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972,
1973
1974
1975
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
168
167
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
104
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.1
14.0
13.9
13.8
13.2
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.2
8.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
g/km
4.2
7.9
7:9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Table D.4-4. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
169
168
167
g/km
-
148
117
117
117
117
105
104
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.2
14.1
14,0
13.9
13.3
13.2
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.3
8.2
8.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
g/km
4.2
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
D.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D 4-5. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
170
169
168
167
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
106
105
104
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.3
14.2
14.1
14.0
13.4
13.3
13.2
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
g/km
4.2
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Table D.4-6. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
171
170
169
168
117
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
106
106
105
104
73
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.4
14.3
14.2
14.1
13.5
13.4
13.3
13.2
6.0
g/km
22.0
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.2
3.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
11.4
g/km
4.2
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.1
c
12/75
Appendix D
D.4-3
-------
Table D.4-7. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY. GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOB CALENDAR YEAR 1979
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1976
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
172
171
170
169
118
1979 i 117
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
107
106
106
105
73
73
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.4
14.4
14.3
14.2
13.6
13.5
13.4
13.3
6.0
6.0
g/km
22.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
13.0
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
3.7 11.6
3.7 11.4
g/km
4.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7,8
7.2
7.1
Table D.4-8. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
Carbon
Location and j monoxide
model year g/mi
Low altitude i
Pre-1970 238
1970 188
1971 188
1972 188
1973 i 188
1974 173
1975 172
1976 171
1977 170
1978 119
1979 118
1980 117
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
107
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.3
13.7
107 I 13.6
106
106
73
73
13.5
g/km
22.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
13.0
13.0
12.9
8.9 12.9
8.5
12.8
8.4 ! 12.8
8.4 ; 12.7
13.4 j 8.3 12.7
6.1 j 3.8 11.8
6.0 s 3.7 11.6
6.0
g/km
4.2
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.3
7.2
3.7 11,4 7.1
D.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
it
-------
Table D.4-9. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOB CALENDAR YEAR 1985
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
188
188
176
176
175
174
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
g/km
117
117
109
109
109
108
77
76
76
75
75
74
73
73
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
14.4
14.4
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.9
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.0
g/km
8.9
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.9
8.6 12.9
3.9 12.8
3.9 12.6
3.9 12.4
3.9 12.2
3.8 12.0
3.8 11.8
3.8 11.6
3.7 11.4
g/km
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.1
Table D.4-10. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
176
126
126
126
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
g/km
109
78
78
78
78
78
77
76
76
75
75
74
73
73
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
14.0
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
g/km
8.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.8
12.6
12.4
12.2
12.0
11.8
11.6
11.4
g/km
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.1
12/75
Appendix D
D.4-S
-------
Table D.4-11. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLE TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.037
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.068
0.059
0.053
0.044
0.032
0.247
Average annual
miles driven (b)b
19,000
18,000
17,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
9,500
9,000
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
a x b
703
1,404
1,326
1,248
1,050
900
750
646
531
451
352
240
1,729
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.062
0.124
0.117
0.110
0.093
0.080
0.066
0.057
0.047
0.040
0.031
0.021
0.153
aVehicles in use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 1).
Reference 1.
D.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Wl
Table DM2. COEFFICIENTS FOR SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY. GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES"*
Location
Low
altitude
High
altitude
Model
year
Pre-1970
Post-1969
Pre-1970
Post-1969
„ -JA + BS + CS2)
ips
Hydrocarbons
A
0.953
1,070
0.883
0.722
8
-6.00 x 10-2
-6.63 x 10~2
-5.58x10-2
-4.63 x TO"2
C
5.81 x 10 -4
5.98 x 10 ~4
5.52 x 10 -4
4.80 x 10 ~4
Carbon monoxide
A
0.967
1.047
0.721
0.662
B
-6.07 x 10-2
-6.52 x 10-2
-4.57 x 10-2
-4.23 x ID-2
C
5.78 x 10 -4
6.01 x 10 ~4
4.56 x 10 ~*
4.33 x 10-4
vips = A + BS
Nitrogen oxides
A
0.808
0.888
0.602
0.642
B
0.980 x 10 ~2
0.569x10-2
2.027 x 10 -2
1.835 x 10-2
aRafarance 2. Equations should not be extended beyond the range of date 1l5 to 45 mi/hr). These data are from tests of light-duty vehicles and are assumed appli-
cable to heavy-duty vehicles.
''Speed (s) is in mites per hour (1 mi/hr • 1.61 km/hr).
-------
Table D.4-13. LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES8
Location
Low altitude
High altitude
Model
year
Pre-1970
Post- 1969
Pre-1970
Post- 1969
Carbon monoxide
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.72
3.06
2.29
2.43
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.57
1.75
1.48
1.54
Hydrocarbons
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
2.96
2.34
2.10
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.66
1.37
1.27
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
1.04
1.33
1.22
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.00
1.20
1.18
aDriving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 3) were input to the modal emission analysis model
(see section 3.1.2.3). The results predicted by the model (emissions at 8 and 16 km/hr; 5 and 10 mi/hr) were divided by FTP
emission factors for hot operation to obtain the above results. The above data represent the best currently available information
for light-duty vehicles. These data are assumed applicable to heavy-duty vehicles given the lack of better information.
D.4.3 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbons
In addition to exhaust emission factors, the calculation of evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emissions
are determined using:
(D.4-2)
i=n-12
where: fn = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
min
= The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate for the i*h model year.
Emission factors for this source are reported in Table D.4-14. Crankcase and evaporative
emissions must be combined before applying equation D.4-2.
= The weighted annual travel of the i*h model year vehicle during calendar year (n)
Table D.4-14. CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSION
FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas
except high
altitude and
California
California only
High altitude
Model
years
Pre-1968
Post-1 967C
Pre-1964
Post-1963c
Pre-1968
Post-1 967C
Crankcase emissions0
g/mi
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
g/km
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
Evaporative emissions3
g/mi
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
7.4
7.4
g/km
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.6
4.6
aReferences 4 through 6 were used to estimate evaporative emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV). The formula from
section 3.1.2.5 was used to calculate g/mi (g/km) values, (evaporative emission factor = g + kd). The HDV diurnal evaporative
emissions (g) were assumed to be three times the LDV value to account for the larger size fuel tanks used on HDV. Nine trips
per day (d = number of trips per day) from Reference 3 were used in conjunction with the LDV hot soak emissions (t) to yield
a total evaporative emission rate in grams per day. This value was divided by 36.2 miles per day (58.3 km/day) from Reference
1 to obtain the per mile (per kilometer) rate.
bCrankcase factors are from Reference 7.
CHDV evaporative emissions are expected to be controlled in 1978. Assume 50 percent reduction over the above post-1967 values
(post-1963 California).
D.4-8
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.4.4 Sulfur Oxide and Particulate Emissions
Projected sulfur oxide and particulate emission factors for all model year heavy-duty, gasoJme-powered
vehicles are presented in Table D.4-15. Sulfur oxides factors are based on fuel sulfur content and fuel
consumption. (Sulfuric acid emissions are between 1 and 3 percent of sulfur oxides emissions.) Tire-wear
particulate factors are based on automobile test results, a premise necessary because of the lack of data for
heavy-duty vehicles. Truck tire wear is likely to result in greater particulate emission than that for automobiles
because of larger tires, heavier loads on tires, and more tires per vehicle. Although the factors presented in Table
D.4-15 can be adjusted for the number of tires per vehicle, adjustments cannot be made to account for the other
differences.
Table D.4-15. SULFUR OXIDES AND PARTICULATE
EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY,
GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulate
Exhaust3
Tire wear1*
Sulfur oxides0
(SOxasSO2)
Emissions
9/mi
0.91
0.20T
0.36
g/km
0.56
0.1 2T
0.22
"Calculated from the Reference 8 value of 12 lb/103 gal (1.46 g/llter)
gasoline. A 6.0 mi/gal (2.6 km/liter) value from Reference 9 was used
to convert to a per kilometer (per mile) emission factor.
bReference 10. The data from this reference are for passenger cars. I n
the absence of specific data for heavy-duty vehicles, they are assumed
to be representative of truck-tire-wear particulate. An adjustment is
made for trucks with more than four tires. T equals the number of tires
divided by four.
°Based on an average fuel consumption of 6,0 mi/gal (2.6 km/liter) from
Reference 9, on a 0.04 percent sulfur content from References 11 and
12, and on a density of 6.1 Ib/gal (0.73 kg/liter) from References 11
and 12.
D.4.S Basic Assumptions
Emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) are based on San Antonio Road Route data for controlled
(1970-1973 model years) trucks13 and for uncontrolled (pre-1970 model years) trucks.14 Unpublished data on
1974 trucks and technical judgment were used to estimate emission factors for post-1973 HDV. In doing so, it
was assumed that diesel trucks will take over most of the "heavy" HDV market (trucks weighing more than
13,000 kg) and that the average weight of a gasoline-powered HDV will be approximately 26,000 Ibs (11,790 kg).
It is expected that interim standards for HDV, which will result in significant HC reduction, will be implemented
in 1978.
Projected emission factors at high altitude and for the State of California are not reported in these tables;
however, they can be derived using the following methodologies. Although all pre-1975 model year HDV
emission factors for California vehicles are the same as those reported in these tables, the hydrocarbon and
nitrogen oxides values for 1975-1977 model years in California can be assumed equal to the national (tabulated)
values for the 1978 model year. Carbon monoxide levels for 1975-1977 HDV in California can be assumed to be
9 percent lower than the 1975-1977 national levels. To convert the national HDV levels for high altitude for all
pollutants in a given calendar year, the light-duty vehicle (LDV) ratio of high altitude to low altitude emission
factors (by pollutant) can be used. For pre-1970 model year trucks, the pre-1968 model year LDV ratio can be
applied. For 1970-1973 model year trucks, the 1968 model year LDV ratio can be applied. For 1974-1977
trucks, the 1970 LDV ratio can be applied. For post-1977 trucks, the 1975 model year LDV ratio can be applied.
See section D.I of this appendix to obtain the data necessary to calculate these ratios.
12/75 Appendix D D.4-9
32it-637 0 - 80 - 16 (Pt. B)
-------
References for Section D.4
1. 1972 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U, S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D.C. 1974.
2. Smith, M. Development of Representative Driving Patterns at Various Average Route Speeds. Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
' Park, N.C. February 1974. (Unpublished report.)
3. Heavy duty vehicle operation data collected by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, S.C., under contract
to Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich, December 1974.
4. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance. Calspan Corporation, Buffalo, N.Y. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. Under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. APTD-1544. March
1973.
5. Liljedahl, D. R. A Study of Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles in Denver, Houston, and Chicago. Fiscal Year
1972. Automotive Testing, Laboratories, Inc., Aurora, Colo. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Ann Arbor, Mich. Publication No. APTD-1504. July 1973.
6. A Study of Emissions from 1966-1972 Light Duty Vehicles in Los Angeles and St. Louis. Automotive
Environmental Systems .Inc., Westminister, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor,
Mich. Under Contract No. 68-01-0455. Publication No. APTD-1505. August 1973,
7. Sigworth, H. W., Jr. Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission Rates. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. March 1971. (Unpublished report.)
8. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U.S. DHEW, National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C. Publication No. AP-51. January 1969.
9. 1973 Motor Truck Facts. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Washington, D,C. 1973.
10. Subramani, J. P. Particulate Air Pollution from Automobile Tire Tread Wear. Ph. D. Dissertation. University
of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1971.
11. Shelton, E. M. and C. M. McKinney. Motor Gasolines, Winter 1970-1971. U. S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Bartlesville, Okla. June 1971.
12. Shelton, E. M, Motor Gasolines, Summer 1971. U. S. Department of die Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Bartlesville, Okla. January 1972.
13. Ingalls, M. N and K. J. Springer. In-Use Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck Emissions. Part 1. Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Under Contract No. EHS 70-113. Publication No. EPA460/3-002-a. February 1973.
14. Ingalls, M.N. and KJ. Springer. In-Use Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck Emissions. Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich., December 1974.
(Unpublished report.)
i \
D.4-10 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
D.5 HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
D.5.1 General
This class of vehicles includes all diesel vehicles with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of more than 6000 Ib
(2772 kg). On the highway, heavy-duty diesel engines are primarily used in trucks and buses. Diesel engines in any
application demonstrate operating principles that are significantly different from those of the gasoline engine.
D.5.2 Emissions of Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and Nitrogen Oxides
Emissions from heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles during a calendar year (n) and for a pollutant (p) can be
approximately calculated using:
n
«npr-'E- cipnminvips (D'5'1)
i=n-12
where: enps = Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), and average
speed (s)
q-n = The emission rate in g/mi (g/km) for the 1th model year vehicles in calendar year (n) over a
transient urban driving schedule with average speed of approximately 18 mi/hr
= The fraction of total heavy-duty diesel miles (km) driven by the 1th model year vehicles during
calendar year (n)
vips = The speed correction factor for the 1th model year heavy-duty diesel vehicles for pollutant (p)
and average speed (s)
Values for cion are given in Table D.5-1; values for mm are in Table D.5-2. The speed correction factor (vjps) can
be computedusing data in Table D.S-3. Table D.5-3 gives heavy-duty diesel HC, CO, and NOX emission factors in
grams per minute for idle operation, for an urban route with average speed of 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), and for
operation at an over-the-road speed of 60 mi/hr (97 km/hr).
12/75 Appendix D
-------
p
In
Table D.5-1. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS
FOR HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES BY CALENDAR YEAR
Pollutant
Carbon
monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen
oxides
Model
year
All
All
Pre-
1978
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Emission factors by calendar year3
1973
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
9/km
17.8
2.9
13.0
1974
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
g/km
17.8
2.9
13.0
1975
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
g/km
17.8
2.9
13.0
1976
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
g/km
173
2.9
13.0
1977
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
g/km
17.8
2.9
13.0
1978
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
18.1
g/km
173
2.9
13.0
11.2
1979
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
19.0
18.1
g/km
173
2.9
13.0
113
11.2
1980
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
19.9
19.0
18.1
g/km
173
23
13.0
12.4
11.8
11.2
1985
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
20.9
20.9
203
20.9
203
19.9
19.0
18.1
g/km
173
2.9
13.0
13.0
13JO
13.0
13.0
12.9
12.4
11.8
11.2
1990
g/mi
28.7
4.6
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
209
20.9
20.9
20.9
203
19.9
19.0
18.1
g/km
17.8
2.9
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.9
12.4
113
11.2
r/j
O
9
o
Reference 1.
U)
-------
Table D.5-2. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLE TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.077
0.135
0.134
0.131
0.099
0.090
0.082
0.062
0.045
0.033
0.025
0.01 5
0.064
Average annual
miles driven (b)b
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
62,000
50,000
46,000
43,000
42,000
30.000
25,000
25,000
25,000
a x b
5,390
9,450
9,380
9,170
6,138
4,500
3,772
2,666
1,890
990
625
375
1,600
Fraction
of annual
travel (rn)c
0.096
0.169
0.168
0.164
0.110
0.080
0.067
0.048
0.034
0.018
0.011
0.007
0.029
aVehicles in use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 2).
bReference2.
cm = ab/£ab,
Table D.5-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
UNDER DIFFERENT OPERATING CONDITIONS3
(g/min)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Operating mode
Idle
0.64
0.32
1.03
Urban
(18 mi/hr; 29 km/hr)
8.61
1.38
6.27
Over-the-road
(6Q mi/hr; 97 km/hr)
5.40
2.25
28.3
"Data are obtained by analysis of results in Reference 1.
For average speeds less than 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), the correction factor is:
vips
Urban + (—• • 1) Idle
Urban
(D.5-2)
Where: s is the average speed of interest (in mi/hr), and the urban and idle values (in g/min) are obtained from
Table D.5-3. For average speeds above 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), the correction factor is:
18
42S [(60-S) Urban + (S-18) Over the Road]
Urban
(D.5-3)
Where: S is the average speed (in mi/hr) of interest. Urban and over-the-road values (in g/min) are obtained from
Table D.5-3. Emission factors for heavy-duty diesel vehicles assume all operation to be under warmed-up vehicle
conditions. Temperature correction factors, therefore, are not included because ambient temperature has.minimal
effects on warmed-up operation.
12/75
Appendix D
D.5-3
-------
D.5.3 Emissions of Other Pollutants
Emissions of sulfur oxides, sulfuric acid, particulate, aldehydes, and organic acids arb summarized in Table
D.54.
Table D.54. SULFUR OXIDES, PARTICULATE,
ALDEHYDES, AND ORGANIC ACIDS
EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY,
DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulate
Sulfur oxides'3
(SOxasS02)
Aldehydes
(as HCHO)
Organic acids
Emissions8
g/mi
1.3
2.8
0.3
0.3
g/km
0.81
1.7
0.2
0.2
* Reference 3. Particulate doei not Includt tire wear; tea heavy-duty
gatolina vehicle lection for tlrt wear emlulon factori.
bData bated on aiiumed fuel mlfur content of 0.20 percent. A fual
economy of 4.6 ml/gal (2.0 km/lltir) wai uiad from Reference 4,
Sulf u'rlo acid arnlnloni range from 0,5 • 3.0 percent .of the tulf ur
oxldei emliiloni, with the bait ettlmate being 1 percent. Than titl-
matei are bated on engineering Judgment rather than meaiurement
data.
D.5.4 Basic Assumptions
Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide levels for heavy-duty diesel vehicles until model year 1978 are given by
Reference 1. An interim standard for diesel HDV that will restrict nitrogen oxides levels, but not hydrocarbon or
carbon monoxide levels, is expected to be implemented to 1978. For purposes of the projections, the nitrogen
oxides standard was assumed to be 9 grams per brake horsepower per hour. Nitrogen oxide emission standards in
California for 1975-1977 model year HDV are assumed to be equivalent to the national levels in 1978;
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide levels in California will be the same as national levels. A separate table is not
given for California, but emissions are the same at those reported in Table D.5-1, with the exception of the
1975-1977 model years. It is assumed that the effect of altitude on diesel emissions is minimal and can be
considered negligible.3
References for Section D.5
1. Ingalls, M. N. and K. J. Springer. Mass Emissions from Diesel Trucks Operated Over a Road Course. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Under Contract No. 68-01-2113. Publication No. EPA-460/3-74-017. August 1974.
2. Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D. C. 1974.
3. Young T. C. Unpublished emission factor data on diesel engines. Engine Manufacturers Association Emission
Standards Committee, Chicago, 111. October 16,1974.
4. Truck and Bus Fuel Economy. U. S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Mass, and Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. November 1974.
D.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.6 MOTORCYCLES
D.6.1 General
Motorcycles are becoming an increasingly popular mode of transportation as reflected by steady increases in
sales over the past few years. A detailed discussion of motorcycles may be found in section 3.1.7.
D.6,2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emissions
The composite exhaust emission factor is calculated using:
n
enps = cipnminvips
i=n-12
(P.6-1)
where: enps = Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), and average
speed (s)
The test procedure emission factor for pollutant (p) in g/mi (g/km) for the ith model year in
calendar year (n)
The weighted annual travel of the 1th model year vehicles during calendar year (n). The
determination of this variable Involves the use of the vehicle year distribution.
VJD. • The speed correction factor for the 1th model year vehicles for pollutant (p) and pverage speed
(0
The emission factor results of the Federal Test Procedure (cipn) as modified for motorcycles are summarized in
Tables D.6-1 through D.6-6. Table D.6-7 contains a sample calculation of the variable mm using nationwide
statistics,3 Because there are no speed correction factor data for motorcycles, the variable VipS will be assumed to
equal one. The emission factor for paniculate, sulfur oxide, and aldehyde and for crankcase and evaporative
hydrocarbons are presented in Table D.6-8.
Table D.6-1. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON AND NITROGEN
OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR PRE-1977
AND 1977 CALENDAR YEARS
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977'-b
1977b
Carbon
monoxide
fl?ml
30.8
28.0
g/km
19.0
17.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
S.O
g/km
5.0
3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/rnT
0.2
0.25
g/km
0.1
0.16
*F«otor* for prt-1977 cilcndir y«*ra,
DFictortforc«l»nd«r ya«r 1977.
12/75
Appendix D
D.6-1
-------
Table D.6-2. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
29.4
28.0
g/km
19.0
18.3
17.4
. Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
5.5
5.0
g/km
5.0
3.4
3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.2
0.25
0.25
g/km
0.1
0.16
0.16
Table D.6-3. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
30.6
29.4
28.0
g/km
19.0
19.0
18.3
17.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
6.0
5.5
5.0
g/km
5.0
3.7
3.4
3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.2
0.25
0.25
0.25
g/km
0.1
0.16
0.16
0.16
Table D.6-4. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
30.6
30.6
29.4
1980 | 28.0
g/km
19.0
19.0
19.0
18.3
17.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
g/km
5.0
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.1
. Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.2
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
g/km
0.1
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Table D.6-5. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
29.4
2.1
g/km
19.0
19,0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
18.3
1.3
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
0.41
g/km
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.7
3.4
0.25
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.2
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.4
g/km
0.1
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.2
D.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.fr6. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
g/km
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
0.81
0.73
0.65
0.57
0.49
0.41
g/km
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
g/km
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Table D.6-7. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
MOTORCYCLE TRAVE L BY MODE L YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>12
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.04
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.0005
0.085
Average annual
miles driven (b)b
2.500
2,100
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,100
1,000
950
900
850
800
axb
100
420
342
256
140
108
55
30
29
18
4
68
Fraction
of annual
travel
-------
Table D.6-8. SULFUR OXIDE, ALDEHYDE, AND CRANKCASE AND
EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES8
Jlutant
Hydrocarbons
Crankcaseb
Evaporative0
Particulates
Sulfur oxidesd
(SOxasS02)
Aldehydes
(RCHO as HCHO)
Emissions
2-stroka engine
g/mi
—
0.36
0.33
0.038
0.11
g/km
—
0.22
0.21
0.024
0.068
4-stroke engine
g/mi
0.60
0.36
0.046
0.022
0.047
g/km
0.37
0.22
0,029
0.014
0.029
•Reference 1.
bMott 2-ttroke anginas uw crankcaie induction and produce no crankcata losses,
cEvaporatlva emissions were calculated assuming that carburetor losses were negligible. Diurnal breathing of the fuel tank (a func-
tion of fuel vapor pratiura, vapor tpaca in tha tank, and diurnal temperature variation) was assumed to account for all the evapora-
tlva loam awoclatad with motorcycles. The value presented ii bated on average vapor prenura, vapor ipace, and tamparatura
variation,
""Calculated uilng a 0.043 percent tulfur content (by weight) for regular fuel uied In 2-stroke engines and 0.022 percent tulfur con-
tent (by walght) for premium fuel uied In 4-stroke engines.
D.6.3 Basic Assumptions
Baseline emission data are from Reference 1. The motorcycle population was assumed to be 60 percent
4-stroke and 40 percent 2-stroke.
For the interim standards, deterioration factors for 1977 through 1984 were assumed to be: 10 percent per
calendar year for hydrocarbons, 5 percent per calendar year for carbon monoxide, and 0 percent per calendar
year for nitrogen oxides. For 1985 and beyond, deterioration factors are: 20 percent per calendar year for
hydrocarbon, 10 percent per calendar year for carbon monoxide, and 0 percent per calendar year for nitrogen
oxides. Motorcycles are assumed to deteriorate until they reach uncontrolled emission values, The deterioration
rate is a fixed percentage of base year emissions.
References for Section D.6
1. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part III, Motorcycles. Final Report. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio,
Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C. under Contract No. EHS
70-108. Publication No. APTD-1492. March 1973.
2. Motorcycle Usage and Owner Profile Study. Hendrix, Tucker and Walder, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif. March
1974.
D.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.7 ALL HIGHWAY VEHICLES
D.7.1 General
Emission factors foi 1972 for all major classes of highway vehicle are summarized in section 3.1.1. A number
of scenarios that embody a range of local conditions, such as different ambient temperatures and average route
speeds, are considered. Although similar data for calendar years 1973 through 1990 are presented here, only one
scenario is presented. This single scenario is presented because it is general in nature and, therefore, most
appropriate for a range of applications. The authors, however, believe that projections of any significance should
be based on the data and methodologies presented in sections D.I through D.6 of this appendix. The data
presented in this section are, clearly, only approximations and are useful only for rough estimates.
"The scenario considers the four major highway vehicle classes: light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles (LDV);
light-duty, gasoline-powered trucks (LOT); heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles (HDV); and heavy-duty,
diesel-powered vehicles (HDD). An average route speed of approximately 19.6 mi/hr (31.6 km/hr) is assumed.
The ambient temperature is assumed to be 24°C (75°F). Twenty percent of LDV and LOT operation is
considered to be in a cold operation; all HDV and HDG operation is taken to be in warmed-up condition. The
percentage of total vehicular travel by each of the vehicle classes is based on nationwide data.1 •* The percentage
of travel by class is assumed to be 80.4 percent by LDV, 11.8 percent by LDT, 4.6 by HDV, and 3.2 percent by
HDD.
D.7.2 Emissions
Emissions for the five pollutants for all highway vehicles are presented in Table D.7-1. The results are only an
approximate indication of how future emission-controlled vehicles will influence the overall emissions from the
fleet of vehicles on the road. These values do not apply to high altitude areas, nor do they apply to vehicles in the
State of California.
Table D.7-1. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES
FOR SELECTED CALENDAR YEARS
Calendar
year
1973
1974
1976
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1985
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/ml
71.5
67.5
61.1
54.6
48.3
42,7
36.8
31.0
16.7
11.3
g/km
44.4
41.9
37.9
33.9
30.0
26.5
22.9
19.3
9.8
7.0
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
10.1
9.4
8.8
8.0
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.4
2.7
1.9
g/km
6.3
5.8
5.6
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.8
3,4
1.7
1.2
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
2.4
2.0
g/km
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.2
1.5
1.2
Sulfur
oxides8
g/mi
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.19
g/km
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
Part icu late
g/mi
0.61
0.61
0.59
0.57
0.64
0.51
0.49
0.47
0.41
0.40
g/km
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.35
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.25
0.25
'Fuel tulfur levalt may ba reduced in the1 future. If so, sulfur oxides emissions will be reduced proportionately.
12/75
Appendix D
D7-1
-------
References for Section D.7.
1. Highway Statistics 1971. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C. 1972. p. 81
2. 1972 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D.C. 1974.
P.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instmctioas on the reverie before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
AP-42
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
Third Edition (Including Supplements 1-7)
6. REPORT DATE
Auaust 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11, CONTRACT/GRANT NO,
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
13. TYPE OP REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IB. ABSTRACT
Emission data obtained from source tests, material balance studies, engineering
estimates, etc., have been compiled for use by individuals and groups responsible
for conducting air pollution emission inventories. Emission factors given in this
document, the result of the expansion and continuation of earlier work, cover most
of the common emission categories: fuel combustion by stationary and mobile sources;
combustion of solid wastes; evaporation of fuels, solvents, and other volatile sub-
stances; various industrial processes; and miscellaneous sources. When no specific
source-test data are available, these factors can be used to estimate the quantities
of primary pollutants (particulates, CO, SO;?, NOX, and hydrocarbons) being released
from a source or source group.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Fuel combustion
Emissions
Emission factors
Mobile sources
Stationary sources
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS fThk Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
477
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2230.1 (»-73)
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 0 - 321»-637 (Pt, B)
-------
-------