Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 10.8
Wood Preserving
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
EPA Purchase Order No. 8D-1933-NANX
MRI Project No. 4945
August 1999
-------
Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 10.8
Wood Preserving
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Attn: Mr. Dallas Safriet (MD-14)
EPA Purchase Order No. 8D-1933-NANX
MRI Project No. 4945
August 1999
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-D2-0159 and Purchase Order No. 8D-1933-NANX
to Midwest Research Institute. It has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The work was begun
under Contract No 68-D2-0159, and completed under EPA Purchase Order No. 8D-1933-NANX (MRI
Project No. 4945). Mr. Dallas Safriet was the requester of the work.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Roy Neulicht
Program Manager
Environmental Engineering Department
Jeff Shular
Director, Environmental Engineering
Department
August 1999
in
-------
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY 2-1
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2.1 Preservatives 2-1
2.2.2 Conditioning 2-2
2.2.3 Treating 2-3
2.3 EMISSIONS 2-5
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2-5
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS 3-1
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING 3-1
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-1
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-3
4. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT 4-1
4.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SECTION NARRATIVE 4-1
4.2 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 4-1
4.2.1 Review of Specific Data Sets 4-1
4.2.2 Review of XATEF and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors 4-8
4.2.3 Results of Data Analysis 4-8
4.2.3.1 Process Emission Factors 4-8
4.2.3.2 Fugitive Emissions 4-10
5. DRAFT AP-42 SECTION 10.8 5-1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1. Flow diagram of the full-cell and modified full-cell pressure treating processes 2-7
2-2. Flow diagram for the empty-cell pressure treating process 2-8
4-1. Naphthalene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-11
4-2. Acenaphthalene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-11
4-3. Acenaphthene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-12
4-4. Fluorene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-12
4-5. Phenanthrene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-13
4-6. Anthracene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-13
4-7. Fluoranthene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-14
4-8. Pyrene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood 4-14
4-9. Naphthalene temperature correction factors for fugitive emission equation 4-15
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1. SUMMARY OF SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR
WOOD PRESERVING 2-9
2-2. WOOD PRESERVING PLANTS BY STATE 2-11
2-3. PRODUCTION OF TREATED WOOD IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995 2-12
2-4. SUMMARY OF PRESERVATIVES CONSUMED IN 1995 2-13
2-5. 1995 PRODUCTION BY WOOD SPECIES 2-13
2-6 COMPOSITIONS OF COMMON WOOD PRESERVATIVES 2-14
4-1. REFERENCES FOR WOOD PRESERVING 4-16
4-2. REFERENCES REJECTED FOR EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 4-18
4-3. COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN CREOSOTE SAMPLES 4-19
4-4. PARAMETER VALUES FOR ESTIMATING EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS FROM CREOSOTE-TREATED WOOD 4-20
4-5. EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS OF PAH's
FROM CREOSOTE-TREATED WOOD STORAGE 4-21
4-6. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAH'S FROM OPEN STORAGE OF
CREOSOTE-TREATED WOOD 4-22
4-7. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING-VACUUM SYSTEM/CONDITIONING (BOULTON) CYCLE 4-23
4-8. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING-VACUUM SYSTEM 4-24
4-9. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING- PRESERVATIVE RETURN/WORKING TANK VENT
BLOWBACK 4-25
4-10. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING-WORKING TANK VENT/STEAMING CYCLE 4-25
4-11. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE
WOOD PRESERVING-PRESERVATIVE FILLING/AIR RELEASE 4-26
4-12. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE
WOOD PRESERVING OPERATIONS 4-27
4-13. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING SHOWING DATA GAPS 4-28
4-14. SUMMARY OF COMBINED EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING 4-29
4-15. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CHROMATED COPPER
ARSENATE WOOD PRESERVING-VACUUM SYSTEM/VACUUM CYCLE 4-30
4-16. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
CREOSOTE EMPTY-CELL WOOD PRESERVING 4-31
4-17. CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR INORGANIC POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS FROM EMPTY-CELL CHROMATED COPPER ARSENATE WOOD
PRESERVING 4-32
vn
-------
Vlll
-------
EMISSION FACTOR DOCUMENTATION FOR AP-42 SECTION 10.8
Wood Preserving
1. INTRODUCTION
The document Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) has been published by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1972. Supplements to AP-42 have been routinely
published to add new emission source categories and to update existing emission factors. AP-42 is routinely
updated by EPA to respond to new emission factor needs of EPA, State and local air pollution control
programs, and industry.
An emission factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released
to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. Emission factors usually are
expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by the unit weight, volume, distance, or duration of the activity
that emits the pollutant. The emission factors presented in AP-42 may be appropriate to use in a number of
situations, such as making source-specific emission estimates for areawide inventories for dispersion
modeling, developing control strategies, screening sources for compliance purposes, establishing operating
permit fees, and making permit applicability determinations. The purpose of this report is to provide
background information from test reports and other information to support preparation of AP-42
Section 10.8, Wood Preserving.
This background report consists of five sections. Section 1 includes the introduction to the report.
Section 2 gives a description of the wood preserving industry. It includes a characterization of the industry, a
description of the different process operations, a characterization of emission sources and pollutants emitted,
and a description of the technology used to control emissions resulting from these sources. Section 3 is a
review of emission data collection (and emission measurement) procedures. It describes the literature search,
the screening of emission data reports, and the quality rating system for both emission data and emission
factors. Section 4 details how the new AP-42 section was developed. It includes the review of specific data
sets and a description of how candidate emission factors were developed. Section 5 presents the AP-42
Section 10.8, Wood Preserving.
1-1
-------
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION1'3
Wood preservation is the pressure or thermal impregnation of chemicals into wood to provide
effective long-term resistance to attack by fungi, bacteria, insects, and marine borers. By extending the
service life of timber products by five to ten times, wood preservation reduces the need for harvest of already
stressed forestry resources, reduces operating costs in industries such as utilities and railroads, and ensures
safe working conditions where timbers are used as support structures.
Wood preserving facilities fall under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2491, Wood
Preserving. This classification includes establishments primarily engaged in treating wood, sawed or planed
in other establishments, with creosote, pentachlorophenol, or inorganic preservatives to prevent decay and to
protect against fire and insects. Wood preserving facilities fall under the six-digit Source Classification Code
(SCC) 307005. Table 2-1 lists the SCC's for wood preserving.
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY3
In 1995, the 451 wood preserving plants operating in the United States produced a total of
16,404,000 cubic meters (m3) (578,874,000 cubic feet [ft3]) of treated wood. The Southeast and South-
Central States accounted for more than 60 percent of this production for the year. Table 2-2 lists the number
of wood preserving plants by State.
Treatment by waterborne preservatives amounted to 77.8 percent of the total production, followed by
creosote(15.9 percent), oilborne preservatives (5.7 percent) and fire retardants (0.6 percent). In terms of
volume treated, the most commonly treated product was lumber, which accounted for 43.4 percent of the total
volume treated, followed by timber (12.8 percent), crossties (12.8 percent), and poles (11.9 percent). A
summary of 1995 production by type of product and preservative is presented in Table 2-3. Consumption of
preservatives in 1995 are summarized in Table 2-4, and production by wood species is summarized in Table
2-5.
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION1'9
2.2.1 Preservatives
There are two general classes of wood preservatives: oils, such as creosote and petroleum solutions
of pentachlorophenol; and waterborne salts that are applied as water solutions. The effectiveness of the
preservatives varies greatly and can depend not only upon their composition, but also upon the quantity
injected into the wood, the depth of penetration, and the conditions to which the treated material is exposed in
service. The following paragraphs describe the general characteristics of the major preservative types.
Table 2-6 provides a list of the components of some of the most commonly used preservative formulations.
Coal tar creosote. Coal tar creosote is described by the American Wood-Preservers' Association as,
"a distillate of coal tar produced by high temperature carbonization of bituminous coal; it consists principally
of liquid and solid aromatic hydrocarbons and contains appreciable quantities of tar acids and tar bases." It is
heavier than water, and has a continuous boiling range from about 200°C (392°F) to 540°C (1000°F).
There are approximately 200 compounds in coal tar creosote, most of which are polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH's). The relative concentrations of these components can vary because of the character of
the tar, variations in the distillation process, and other factors. The components also serve to complement
each other in effecting the wood preservation because the lighter molecules are usually more toxic to decay
2-1
-------
organisms, while the heavier molecules help prevent moisture changes and splitting of the wood, and help
"retain" the lighter, more toxic compounds.
Creosote solutions. Coal tar creosote can be mixed with petroleum oil to lower the cost of the
preservative and still exhibit a satisfactory performance. Creosote-petroleum solutions help reduce splitting
and weathering of the treated wood, and frequently out-perform straight creosote for wood preservation.
Creosote-coal tar distillate solutions also have been used for wood treating, but are no longer in use in the
United States.
Pentachlorophenol solutions. These solutions consist primarily of chlorinated phenols and heavy
petroleum oils. Methylene chloride and liquid petroleum gas also have been used as solvents in
pentachlorophenol solutions, but no longer are in use in the United States. The primary use of
pentachlorophenol solutions is in the treatment of utility poles.
Waterborne preservatives. Standard wood preservatives used in water solution include chromated
copper arsenate (CCA), Types A, B, and C, and ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA). Waterborne
preservatives generally leave the wood surface clean, paintable, and free from objectionable odor. They
typically are used at low treating temperatures (38° to 66°C [100° to 150°F]) because they are unstable at
higher temperatures.
The ACZA and CCA formulations are included in specifications for such items as building
foundations, building poles, utility poles, marine piles, and piles for land and fresh water use, as well as for
above-ground uses.
2.2.2 Conditioning
With most wood treating methods, significant amounts of free water in the wood cell cavities may
slow or prevent the entrance of the preservative chemical. Therefore, wood moisture content must be reduced
prior to treatment. Moisture reduction can be accomplished by using artificial conditioning treatments or by
air-seasoning (i.e., storing the untreated wood outdoors in piles). Unseasoned wood that is exposed to the
open air generally dries slowly until it comes into approximate equilibrium with the relative humidity of the
air. However, some wood species will rot before the air drying is complete.
Because certain wood species will rot before air drying can be completed in some climates, wood is
artificially conditioned by one of three primary methods: (1) steaming-and-vacuum, (2) boiling-under-
vacuum (commonly referred to as the Boulton process), and (3) kiln drying. Vapor drying also has been used,
but currently is used rarely, if ever. These conditioning treatments remove a substantial amount of moisture
from the wood and also heat the wood to a more favorable treating temperature. Steaming and Boultonizing
have the added effect of disinfecting the wood. In segregated systems, conditioning is performed in separate
"clean" cylinders that do not contain preservatives.
The steaming and vacuum method of conditioning is used primarily for treating southern pine poles.
Steaming and vacuum may be performed in a dedicated cylinder or in the same cylinder used for treating the
wood. In this process, the wood charge is heated with live steam. Then, a vacuum is drawn.
The Boulton process is used primarily for Douglas fir and hardwoods. The Boulton process usually
is performed in the same cylinder used to treat the wood. In this process, the cylinder is charged with wood,
and heated preservative is used to heat the wood charge for 1 to 24 hours. At that point, a vacuum is drawn.
Finally, the preservative is returned to the work tank. This step is referred to as "blow back" from the
2-2
-------
practice of using compressed air to blow the preservative back into the work tank. However, many treatment
systems use pumps to withdraw preservative from the treatment cylinder and return it to the work tank.
Although such systems do not actually blow back the preservative, the term still is used to refer to this step of
the process.
2.2.3 Treating
Most wood-preserving methods may be classified as either pressure processes, in which the wood is
placed in a treating cylinder or retort and impregnated with preservative under considerable force, and
nonpressure processes, which do not involve the use of induced pressure. Nonpressure processes can be
classified as thermal processes, in which heat is applied, and nonthermal processes, such as brushing,
spraying, dipping, and soaking. Nonpressure processes generally are used only with oilborne preservatives.
Because the majority of wood treated annually is impregnated by pressure methods in closed cylinders, only
pressure processes are discussed in the following sections.
Pressure processes operate on the same general principle, though they may differ in the specifics of
the process. The treatment is carried out in steel cylinders or retorts. Most units conform to size limits of
2 to 3 m (6 to 9 ft) in diameter and up to 46 m (150 ft) or more in length, and are built to withstand working
pressures up to 1,720 kilopascals (kPa) (250 pounds per square inch [psi]). The wood is loaded on special
tram cars and moved into the retort, which is then closed and filled with preservative. Pressure is applied to
force the preservative into the wood until the desired amount has been absorbed. Three processes, the full-
cell, modified full-cell, and empty-cell, are in common use. These processes are distinguished by the
sequence in which vacuum and pressure are applied to the retort. The terms "empty" and "full" refer to the
level of preservative retained in the wood cells. The full cell process achieves a high level of retention of
preservative in the wood cells, but less penetration than the empty cell process, and the empty cell process
achieves relatively deep penetration with less preservative retention than does the full cell process.
Full-cell process. The full-cell (Bethel) process is used when maximum preservative retention levels
are desired, such as when treating timbers with creosote for protection against marine borers. Figure 2-1
presents a flow diagram for the full-cell pressure treating process. In addition to creosote, the full-cell
process also is used primarily with waterborne preservatives. The full-cell process steps are listed below:
1. The charge of wood is sealed in the treating cylinder, and an initial vacuum is applied for
approximately half an hour to remove as much air as possible from the wood and from the cylinder;
2. The preservative, either heated or at ambient temperature depending on the system, enters the
cylinder without breaking the vacuum;
3. After the cylinder is filled, the cylinder is pressurized until no more preservative will enter the
wood or until the desired preservative retention is obtained;
4. At the end of the pressure period, the pressure is released, and the preservative is removed from
the cylinder; and
5. A final vacuum may be applied to remove the excess preservative that would otherwise drip from
the wood.
If the wood is steam-conditioned, the preservative is introduced after the vacuum period following
steaming. The final steps in the process are the unloading of the retort and storage of the treated wood.
2-3
-------
Modified full-cell process. The modified full-cell process generally is used for the application of
waterborne preservatives. This method is similar to the full-cell process except for the initial vacuum levels.
The modified full-cell process uses lower initial vacuums, which are determined by the wood species being
treated and the preservative retention levels desired. The flow diagram shown in Figure 2-1 also
characterizes the modified full-cell pressure treating process.
Empty-cell process. The empty-cell process obtains deep preservative penetration with a relatively
low net preservative retention level. If oil preservatives are used, the empty-cell process most likely will be
used, provided it will yield the desired retention level. The Rueping process and the Lowry process are the
two most commonly used empty-cell processes. Both use compressed air to drive out a portion of the
preservative absorbed during the pressure period. Figure 2-2 presents a flow diagram for the empty-cell
pressure treating process.
In the Rueping process, compressed air is forced into the treating cylinder containing the charge of
wood to fill the wood cells with air prior to preservative injection. Pressurization times vary with wood
species. For some species only a few minutes of pressurization are required, while more resistant species may
require pressure periods of from 30 minutes to 1 hour. Air pressures used typically range from 172 to 690
kPa (25 to 100 psi) depending on the net preservative retention desired and the resistance of the wood.
After the initial pressurization period, preservative is pumped into the cylinder. As the preservative
enters the treating cylinder, the air escapes into an equalizing or Rueping tank at a rate which maintains the
pressure within the cylinder. When the treating cylinder is filled with preservative, the pressure is raised
above that of the initial air and maintained until the wood will not take any more preservative or until enough
has been absorbed to leave the desired preservative retention level after the final vacuum.
After the pressure period, the preservative is removed from the cylinder, typically by pumping, and
surplus preservative is removed from the wood with a final vacuum. This final vacuum may recover from 20
to 60 percent of the gross amount of preservative injected. The retort then is unloaded, and the treated wood
stored.
The Lowry process is an empty-cell process without the initial air pressure. Preservative is pumped
into the treating cylinder without either an initial air pressurization or vacuum, trapping the air that is already
in the wood. After the cylinder is filled with the preservative, pressure is applied and the remainder of the
process is identical to the Rueping process.
The advantage of the Lowry process is that full-cell equipment can be used without the accessories
required by the Rueping process, such as an air compressor, an extra tank for the preservative, or a pump to
force the preservative into the cylinder against the air pressure. However, both processes are used widely and
successfully.
2.3 EMISSIONS1'2'5-6'9
For waterborne preservatives, emissions from wood preserving processes generally are not
significant. For oilborne preservatives, the primary sources of emissions from wood preservation processes
are: (1) the treated charge immediately after removal from the treating cylinder, (2) the vacuum system
(conditioning cycle and final vacuum cycle), and (3) displaced air from working tank blow backs.
The elevated temperature of the treated charge when it is pulled from the cylinder causes some of the
lower boiling point organic compounds to volatilize as aerosols, forming a white emission plume that
2-4
-------
typically dissipates within a few minutes. Volatile organic compound emissions include those organic
compounds present in the wood that are released when heated during conditioning and treatment, and the
PAH's that are evaporated from the creosote solution and removed from the retort through the vacuum
system during the Boulton (boiling-under-vacuum) process and during the final vacuum applied during the
Rueping process. Creosote emissions can be estimated as the sum of the emissions of the PAH's.
The emission point for the steaming and vacuum method of conditioning is the vacuum pump system
vent. Vacuum systems include condensers, which are considered part of the process equipment and not
separate emission control devices. The emission points for the Boulton process are the vacuum pump vent
during the vacuum stage of the conditioning process and the work tank vent during the blow back or
preservative withdrawal stage of the conditioning process.
Working tank blow backs also occur at the end of a preservative treatment cycle when the treating
solution is returned to the work tank. The air displaced by the returning solution is vented via a control
device to the atmosphere. In some systems, the displaced air in the work tank is vented back into the
treatment cylinder to fill the head space created as the preservative is withdrawn from the cylinder. In such
systems, there are no emissions associated with blow backs. A problem may arise when the quantity of
preservative being blown back is not monitored closely and air begins to blow up through the work tank.
Volatile compounds are picked up by the air as it bubbles up through the treating solution and are carried out
through the tank vent.
In addition to the three primary process emission sources, emissions are generated from wastewater
treatment and organic liquid storage tanks. Oilborne wood treatment plants frequently have on-site
wastewater treatment facilities designed to separate organic materials from the wastewater generated during
the treating process. This wastewater treatment is a potential source of VOC and HAP emissions. Emission
factors for this source are not presented in this section, as they are more appropriate for AP-42 Chapter 4,
Evaporation Loss Sources, Section 4.3, Waste Water Collection, Treatment and Storage.
Liquid storage tanks for the various preservatives are also sources of VOC and HAP. Emissions
from these storage tanks are covered in AP-42 Chapter 7, Liquid Storage Tanks.
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY1'2'9-12
There are few options for controlling fugitive emission losses from treated charges. Constructing a
ventilation hood to collect VOC's emanating from the freshly treated charge is economically infeasible due to
the size of the hood needed for covering the cylinder end and drip pad. The effectiveness of controlling
emissions by using water to cool freshly treated wood by spraying or quenching is questionable. A primary
drawback to the water quench systems is that the contaminant is merely transferred to water, resulting in the
need for an effluent treatment system. In addition, water quench systems generate significant amounts of
wastewater which include listed hazardous substances, and, thus, is not desirable.
A 1993 survey of 97 wood preserving facilities found that at least eight facilities used wet scrubbers
for controlling emissions from creosote wood preserving vacuum systems and/or working and storage tank
vents; use of both venturi scrubbers and packed-bed scrubbers was reported. One facility also reported using
a packed-bed scrubber to control VOC emissions from a PCP wood preserving process. At least two creosote
facilities used condensers and one facility used an incinerator to control VOC emissions from creosote wood
preserving. The results of one emissions test on the incinerator-controlled facility indicated a VOC control
efficiency of more than 99 percent for the Boulton process and first blowback. None of the wood preserving
facilities currently in operation use incineration for emission control. A few facilities control emissions from
2-5
-------
creosote wood preserving processes by means of a knock-out tank followed by a venturi scrubber. The
results of an emission test on such a system indicated a VOC control efficiency of 75 percent.
Odorous emissions from some steam jet vacuum systems suggest that a single-pass water-cooled
condenser may not condense all of the organics in the exhaust. One option for correcting this problem is to
install a larger condenser capable of further reducing the organic content in the vapor. A properly sized
condenser with adequate cooling water will condense virtually all of the organics in the exhaust stream.
Another option is to modify the vacuum system to include two steam jet ejectors in series with a barometric
(direct contact) intercondenser between them. In this system, the barometric intercondensers condense the
oily vapors in the steam and remove them with the intercondensed water. A third option is to replace the
steam jet ejectors with a vacuum pump and duct the exhaust vapors to an activated carbon adsorption system
or to an afterburner. Both are efficient means for removing organic compounds from the exhaust gas.
Working tank blow back vapors can be controlled by bubbling the vapors through water or through a
water spray before venting to the atmosphere. However, the effectiveness of these systems will deteriorate if
the water is allowed to reach saturation and is not changed periodically. Another option for controlling these
vapors is to incinerate them with the vacuum system exhaust. However, incinerators are not in use currently
at any domestic wood preserving facilities.
2-6
-------
EMISSION ^
POINTS
© [> Kl
t
J
STORAGE
PILES
PROCESS
STEPS
i
i
OPEN AIR
SEASONING
RETORT
LOADING
4
4)
TANK
LN
1 ^ t
fc
1 T
VACUUM
PUMP
RFCFIVING
AND STORAGE
' ©
t
-------
EMISSION
POINTS
PROCESS
STEPS
1; WORK TANK EMISSIONS
VACUUM SYSTEM EMISSIONS
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
FUGITIVE VOC AND PM EMISSIONS
4) OTHER VOC EMISSION POINT
Figure 2-2. Flow diagram for the empty-cell pressure treating process.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF SOURCE CLASSIFICATION
CODES FOR WOOD PRESERVING
sec
3-07-005-01
3-07-005-05
3-07-005-10
3-07-005-11
3-07-005-12
3-07-005-20
3-07-005-21
3-07-005-22
3-07-005-13
3-07-005-14
3-07-005-23
3-07-005-24
3-07-005-30
3-07-005-31
3-07-005-32
3-07-005-33
3-07-005-34
3-07-005-40
3-07-005-41
3-07-005-42
3-07-005-43
3-07-005-44
3-07-005-50
3-07-005-51
3-07-005-52
3-07-005-53
3-07-005-54
3-07-005-60
3-07-005-61
3-07-005-62
3-07-005-63
Description
Wood pressure treating, creosote ** (use process-specific SCCs)
Untreated wood storage
Full-cell process, creosote
Full-cell process, pentachlorophenol
Full-cell process, other oilbome preservative
Full-cell process with artificial conditioning, creosote
Full-cell process with artificial conditioning, pentachlorophenol
Full-cell process with artificial conditioning, other oilborne preservative
Modified full-cell process, chromated copper arsenate
Modified full -cell process, other waterbome preservative
Modified full-cell process with artificial conditioning, chromated copper arsenate
Modified full-cell process with artificial conditioning, other waterbome preservative
Empty-cell process, creosote
Empty-cell process, pentachlorophenol
Empty-cell process, other oilborne preservative
Empty-cell process, chromated copper arsenate
Empty-cell process, other waterbome preservative
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning, creosote
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning, pentachlorophenol
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning, other oilbome preservative
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning, chromated copper arsenate
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning, other waterbome preservative
Empty -cell process with steam heating, creosote
Empty -cell process with steam heating, pentachlorophenol
Empty -cell process with steam heating, other oilbome preservative
Empty -cell process with steam heating, chromated copper arsenate
Empty-cell process with steam heating, other waterbome preservative
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning and steam heating, creosote
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning and steam heating, pentachlorophenol
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning and steam heating, other oilbome preservative
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning and steam heating, chromated copper arsenate
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-1. continued
sec
3-07-005-64
3-07-005-90
3-07-005-91
3-07-005-92
3-07-005-93
3-07-005-94
3-07-005-97
3-07-005-98
3-07-005-99
Description
Empty -cell process with artificial conditioning and steam heating, other waterbome preservative
Treated wood storage, creosote
Treated wood storage, pentachlorophenol
Treated wood storage, other oilborne preservative
Treated wood storage, chromated copper arsenate
Treated wood storage, other waterborne preservative
Wood pressure treating, other not classified
Wood pressure treating, other not classified
Wood pressure treating, other not classified
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-2. WOOD PRESERVING PLANTS BY STATEa
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
No. of plants
39
0
2
17
11
5
1
0
25
40
5
5
9
7
2
0
8
15
1
6
3
11
9
21
9
2
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total*
No. of plants
2
1
1
2
1
6
28
1
11
3
10
19
1
17
3
7
28
2
0
20
13
9
11
2
451
aReference 3.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-3. PRODUCTION OF TREATED WOOD IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995a
Product
Crossties
Switch and
bridge ties
Poles
Piling
Fence posts
Lumber
Timber
Plywood
Otherf
Total
Volume of wood treated, 1,000 ft3
Creosote
solution*3
69,947
6,125
8,941
1,415
244
1,810
1,754
e
1,515
91,751
Oilborne
preservatives0
0
360
30,617
0
339
320
77
3
1,048
32,764
Waterborne
preservatives'1
4,177
2,647
29,215
7,820
18,204
247,436
72,031
16,528
52,538
450,596
Fire retardants
0
0
0
0
0
1,714
0
2,049
0
3,763
Total
74,124
9,132
68,773
9,235
18,787
251,280
73,862
18,580
55,101
578,874
aReference 3.
bCreosote, creosote-coal tar, and creosote-petroleum.
°Copper naphthenate, pentachlorophenol, and others.
dChromated copper arsenate (CCA), ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA), acid copper chromate
(ACC), ammoniacal copper quat (ACQ), and others.
Included in "other" category.
Includes crossarms, landscape timbers, highway posts and guardrails, mine ties and timbers, crossing
planks, and other miscellaneous products.
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-4. SUMMARY OF PRESERVATIVES CONSUMED IN 1995a
Preservative
CCA (Chromated Copper Arsenate)
Other waterborne preservatives (includes ACZA, ACQ, ACA, etc.)
Oilborne preservatives
Total
(concentrate)
(solvent)
Creosote solutions
Fire retardants
Consumption
138,470,000 pounds
8,693,000 pounds
39,734,000 gallons
8,588,000 gallons
3 1,146,000 gallons
92,000,000 gallons
7,832,000 pounds
aReference 3.
TABLE 2-5. 1995 PRODUCTION
BY WOOD SPECIESa
Wood species
Douglas Fir
Hemlock
Lodgepole pine
Mixed hardwoods
Mixed softwoods
Norway pine
Oak
Ponderosa pine
Southern yellow pine
Other
TOTAL
Volume as
percentage of total
3.6
3.8
0.9
4.7
0.8
0.1
9.3
2.3
69.0
5.3
100
aReference 3.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-6. COMPOSITIONS OF COMMON WOOD PRESERVATIVES'1
Preservative
Chemical constituent
Composition, percent
Oilborne preservatives
Creosote13
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Copper naphthenate
Solubilized copper-8-quinolinolate
Alkyl ammonium compound (AAC)
phenanthrene
fluorene
fluoranthene
acenaphthalene
pyrene
dibenzofuranc
methylanthracenes
naphthalene0
methylfluorenes
methylphenanthrenes
chrysene
dimethylnaphthalenes
anthracene
carbazole
benzofluorenes
2-methylnaphthalene
1 -methylnaphthalene
biphenylc
chlorinated phenols0
hydrocarbon solvents
copper naphthenate
hydrocarbon solvents
copper-8-quinolinolate
nickel-2-ethylhexoatec
hydrocarbon solvents
didecyldimethylammonium chloride
dialkyldimethylammonium chlorides
21
10
10
9
8.5
5
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1.2
0.9
0.8
>5
<95
6 to 8
92 to 94
>10
>10
<80
>90
<10
Waterborne preservatives
Acid copper chromate (ACC)
Ammoniacal copper arsenate (ACA)
Ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA)
Chromated copper arsenate, (CCA), Type A
Chromated copper arsenate, (CCA), Type B
Chromated copper arsenate, (CCA), Type C
Chromated zinc chloride (CZC)
copper, as CuO
hexavalent chromium, as CrO3c
copper, as CuO
arsenic, as As2C>5C
dissolved in a solution of ammonia (NH3) in
water
copper, as CuO
zinc, as ZnO
arsenic, as As2O5C
dissolved in a solution of ammonia (NH3) in
water
hexavalent chromium, as CrO3c
copper, as CuO
arsenic, as As2O5c
hexavalent chromium, as CrO3c
copper, as CuO
arsenic, as As2O5c
hexavalent chromium, as CrO3c
copper, as CuO
arsenic, as As2O5c
hexavalent chromium, as CrO3c
zinc, as ZnO
28.0 to 31. 8
63. 3 to 68.2
47.7 to 49. 8
47.6 to 50.2
45.0 to 55.0
22.5 to 27. 5
22.5 to 27. 5
59.4 to 69.3
16.0 to 20.9
14.7 to 19.7
33.0 to 38.0
18.0 to 22.0
42.0 to 48.0
44.5 to 50. 5
17.0 to 21.0
30.0 to 38.0
19 to 20
76 to 80
References 1,4 and 7.
Constituent concentrations vary depending on the source of the creosote.
cHazardous air pollutant.
2-14
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. C. C. Vaught and R. L. Nicholson, Evaluation of Emission Sources from Creosote Wood Treatment
Operations, EPA-450/3-89-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
June 1989.
2. Electronic communication (e-mail) from Nick Bock, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, to George
Parris, American Wood Preservers Institute, September 17, 1998.
3. The 1995 Wood Preserving Industry Production Statistical Report, American Wood Preservers
Institute, Vienna, VA, September 1996.
4. American Wood-Preservers'Association Books of Standards, 1991. American Wood Preservers'
Association, Woodstock, MD, 1992.
5. Written communication from Martin Wikstrom, American Wood Preservers Institute, to Dallas Safriet,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 18, 1994.
6. Written communication from Gene Bartlow, American Wood Preservers Institute, Vienna, VA, to
Dallas Safriet, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 10, 1997.
7. Written communication from Carlton Degges, Vulcan Chemicals, Birmingham, AL, to Dallas Safriet,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 9, 1996.
8. Wood Preserving Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Compliance Guide, A Guide to Federal
Environmental Regulation, EPA-305-B-96-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., June 1996.
9. Electronic communication (e-mail) from George Parris, American Wood Preservers Institute, to
Richard Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, September 17, 1998.
10. Draft Industry Profile, technical memorandum from B. Gatano, Research Triangle Institute, to Eugene
Grumpier, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 2, 1993.
11. Wood Treatment Plant Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Avoca,
Pennsylvania, EMB Report 94-WDT-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park,NC, September 1994.
12. Gaseous Organic Compound Emission Study, Naphthalene Knock-Out Tank and Water Scrubber,
Birmingham Wood, Inc., Warrior, Alabama, Allied Signal, Inc., April 12 & 13, 1994, T.L., Inc.,
Tuscaloosa, AL, May 1994.
2-15
-------
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING
Data for this investigation were obtained from a number of sources within the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and from outside organizations. The Emission Standards Division
provided test reports and other information on the industry, processes, and emissions. The Factor
Information and Retrieval (FIRE), Crosswalk/Air Toxic Emission Factor Data Base Management System
(XATEF), and VOC/PM Speciation Data Base Management System (SPECIATE) data bases were searched
by SCC code for identification of the potential pollutants emitted and emission factors for those pollutants. A
general search of the Air CHIEF CD-ROM also was conducted to supplement the information from these
data bases.
A search of the Test Method Storage and Retrieval (TSAR) data base was conducted to identify test
reports for sources within the wood preserving industry. However, no test reports were located using the
TSAR data base. The EPA library was searched for additional test reports. Using information obtained on
plant locations, individual facilities and State and Regional offices were contacted about the availability of
test reports. In addition, the American Wood Preservers Institute, the Railway Tie Association, and specific
facilities within the industry provided review and comments of draft versions of this report.
To screen out unusable test reports, documents, and information from which emission factors could
not be developed, the following general criteria were used:
1. Emission data must be from a primary reference:
a. Source testing must be from a referenced study that does not reiterate information from previous
studies.
b. The document must constitute the original source of test data. For example, a technical paper was
not included if the original study was contained in the previous document. If the exact source of the data
could not be determined, the document was eliminated.
2. The referenced study should contain test results based on more than one test run. If results from
only one run are presented, the emission factors must be down rated.
3. The report must contain sufficient data to evaluate the testing procedures and source operating
conditions (e.g., one-page reports were generally rejected).
A final set of reference materials was compiled after a thorough review of the pertinent reports,
documents, and information according to these criteria.
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM1
As part of the analysis of the emission data, the quantity and quality of the information contained in
the final set of reference documents were evaluated. The following data were excluded from consideration:
3-1
-------
1. Test series averages reported in units that cannot be converted to the selected reporting units;
2. Test series representing incompatible test methods (i.e., comparison of EPA Method 5 front half
with EPA Method 5 front and back half);
3. Test series of controlled emissions for which the control device is not specified;
4. Test series in which the source process is not clearly identified and described; and
5. Test series in which it is not clear whether the emissions were measured before or after the control
device.
Test data sets that were not excluded were assigned a quality rating. The rating system used was that
specified by EFIG for preparing AP-42 sections. The data were rated as follows:
A—Multiple tests that were performed on the same source using sound methodology and reported in
enough detail for adequate validation. These tests do not necessarily conform to the methodology specified in
EPA reference test methods, although these methods were used as a guide for the methodology actually used.
B—Tests that were performed by a generally sound methodology but lack enough detail for adequate
validation.
C—Tests that were based on an untested or new methodology or that lacked a significant amount of
background data.
D—Tests that were based on a generally unacceptable method but may provide an order-of-
magnitude value for the source.
The following criteria were used to evaluate source test reports for sound methodology and adequate
detail:
1. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is well documented in the report.
The source was operating within typical parameters during the test.
2. Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures conformed to a generally acceptable
methodology. If actual procedures deviated from accepted methods, the deviations are well documented.
When this occurred, an evaluation was made of the extent to which such alternative procedures could
influence the test results.
3. Sampling and process data. Adequate sampling and process data are documented in the report,
and any variations in the sampling and process operation are noted. If a large spread between test results
cannot be explained by information contained in the test report, the data are suspect and are given a lower
rating.
4. Analysis and calculations. The test reports contain original raw data sheets. The nomenclature
and equations used were compared to those (if any) specified by EPA to establish equivalency. The depth of
review of the calculations was dictated by the reviewer's confidence in the ability and conscientiousness of the
tester, which in turn was based on factors such as consistency of results and completeness of other areas of
the test report.
3-2
-------
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM1
The quality of the emission factors developed from analysis of the test data was rated using the
following general criteria:
A—Excellent: Developed only from A- and B-rated test data taken from many randomly chosen
facilities in the industry population. The source category is specific enough so that variability within the
source category population may be minimized.
B—Above average: Developed only from A- and B-rated test data from a reasonable number of
facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random sample
of the industries. The source category is specific enough so that variability within the source category
population may be minimized.
C—Average: Developed only from A-, B-, and/or C-rated test data from a reasonable number of
facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random sample
of the industry. In addition, the source category is specific enough so that variability within the source
category population may be minimized.
D—Below average: The emission factor was developed only from A-, B-, and/or C-rated test data
from a small number of facilities, and there is reason to suspect that these facilities do not represent a random
sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of variability within the source category population.
Limitations on the use of the emission factor are noted in the emission factor table.
E—Poor: The emission factor was developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there is reason to
suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry. There also may be
evidence of variability within the source category population. Limitations on the use of these factors are
footnoted.
The use of these criteria is somewhat subjective and depends to an extent upon the individual
reviewer. Details of the rating of each candidate emission factor are provided in Section 4.
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 3
1. Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1997.
3-3
-------
4. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT
4.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SECTION NARRATIVE
The draft AP-42 section is a new section addressing wood preserving processes. The new section is
based on information gathered from the references cited, and includes a description of the industry, process
diagrams, and emission factors for specific process emission points.
4.2 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Eighteen references were documented and reviewed in the process of developing emission factors for
the section on wood preserving. Table 4-1 presents a list of these references. Twelve of the eighteen
references could not be used to develop emission factors. Table 4-2 lists the reasons for rejecting those
references. The following subsection describes the six references (References 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 17) that
were used for emission factor development. In addition, a fourth reference (Reference 14) is described
because it provides representative control efficiency data.
4.2.1 Review of Specific Data Sets
4.2.1.1 Reference 10. The objective of this project was to measure and/or estimate the emission
rates of toxic compounds that are emitted from the Koppers Industries, Incorporated, wood treatment facility
in Oroville, California. The facility uses the empty-cell process for both creosote and chromated copper
arsenate wood preserving. A literative review was conducted to establish the best methods to measure the
stack emissions and fugitive emissions. Emission factors based on material balance calculations were used to
estimate the emission rates from those sources that could not be directly sampled. A program of ambient air
quality monitoring and meteorological monitoring was conducted at the site in October 1988 to measure the
evaporative emissions from the treated wood storage area. A stack sampling and wastewater sampling
program was conducted at the site in February 1989.
Emissions were sampled from the creosote vacuum system vents during the conditioning cycle and
the additional vacuum cycle (following steaming); the creosote working tank vents during blowback and
during the steam cycle; and the CCA vacuum system vents during the vacuum cycle. Two EPA Method 5 test
runs were conducted on the CCA cylinder vacuum exhaust to measure particulate and vapor phase metals.
Three volatile organic sampling train (VOST) and semivolatile organic sampling train (semi-VOST) test runs
were conducted on the No. 4 creosote cylinder vacuum system exhaust during the conditioning cycle and
during the final vacuum cycle. Two VOST and semi-VOST test runs were conducted on the No. 4 creosote
working tank vent during blowback and during the steam cycle.
The report does not specify the volume of wood charged during the testing. In addition, emission
rates are reported only in units of kilograms per year, and other test data are not provided in the report.
However, the report provides typical annual production rates and the corresponding number of loads (cycles).
By assuming a typical density of 640 kg/m3 (40 lb/ft3), emission factors were developed for various process
steps. Emission factors were developed only for those pollutants for which concentrations in the exhaust
stream were above the detection limit. The report provides no information on emission controls; it is
assumed that the data represent uncontrolled emissions.
Emission factors for several speciated organic compounds were calculated for creosote working tank
vent blowback and steam cycle emissions and creosote vacuum system conditioning cycle and final vacuum
emissions. Emission factors for total chromium and copper were calculated for CCA vacuum system
4-1
-------
emissions. Because of the lack of details on the process and the tests conducted, the emission data were rated
D.
4.2.1.2 Reference 11. This report documents measurements of emissions from a creosote wood
treating facility. The test, which was conducted in September 1993, was sponsored by EPA for the purposes
of establishing baseline HAP emissions and the maximum achievable control technology for creosote wood
treating industry.
The facility uses the Boulton process to condition wood prior to treating the wood by the empty-cell
(Rueping) process. Emissions were sampled from two wood treating cylinders, each of which measured 2.1
m in diameter by 46 m in length (7 ft in diameter by 150 ft in length). Emissions from the cylinders are
controlled with a natural gas-fired thermal incinerator. Emissions from the cylinders were sampled for VOC
at both the inlet and outlet to the incinerator using Method 25A. Two runs were conducted. The first run was
conducted on one of the cylinders and encompassed a 14-hr Boulton conditioning cycle and a 4-hr final
vacuum cycle. The second run was conducted on the other cylinder and included a 12-hr Boulton cycle.
However, the second run was terminated prematurely due to a cylinder gasket failure during the
pressurization cycle. Furthermore, because one of the two Method 25A analyzers was damaged during
shipment to the site, it was not possible to measure both inlet and outlet concentrations during complete test
runs. Instead, incinerator inlet emissions were quantified during the first 7.75 hr of the Boulton cycle of Run
1, at which time the analyzer was moved to the incinerator outlet for the remainder of the treating cycle.
During the second run, the analyzer was located at the incinerator outlet during the entire cycle, and a second
analyzer was obtained and positioned to sample incinerator inlet emissions at approximately 4 hr into Run 2.
Run 2 was terminated when the cylinder gasket failed.
Inlet emissions were quantified for the Boulton cycle; the first blowback, which occurs when the
Boulton cycle vacuum is broken and the creosote is withdrawn from the cylinder; and the subsequent
pressurization of the cylinder. With the exception of brief periods, approximately 30 seconds in length, the
VOC emission concentrations at the incinerator outlet were below the detection limit of 2 parts per million.
In addition to the emissions measurements, the creosote was sampled and analyzed for 66 organic
compounds, 16 of which were found in concentrations above the detection limit of 2.0 micrograms per
milliliter (,ug/ml). Table 4-3 lists these compounds and their concentrations.
Emission factors were developed for uncontrolled VOC emissions from the Boulton process and the
first blowback of the empty cell (Rueping) process. In addition, the incinerator control efficiency was
determined to be more than 99 percent for the Boulton process and the first blowback. Emission rates also
were reported for the pressurization step following the first blowback. However, the emissions are the result
of the air flow generated by the induced draft fan on the control system; the pressurization step is a closed
process and, as such, does not generate emissions. Therefore, an emission factor was not developed from the
pressurization emission data. The emission data for the conditioning step (Boulton process) are rated C
because sampling was not performed over the entire cycle. The emission data for the first blowback are rated
B. It should be noted that this incinerator is no longer in use.
4.2.1.3 Reference 13. This report documents measurements of emissions from a creosote wood
treating facility. The test, which was conducted in May 1990, was sponsored by the facility for the purpose
of determining emissions of creosote compounds from the process.
The facility uses the Boulton process to condition wood prior to treating the wood by the empty-cell
(Rueping) process. Emissions were sampled from two wood treating cylinders, each of which measured 2.4
m in diameter by 43 m in length (8 ft in diameter by 140 ft in length). Emissions from the cylinders are
4-2
-------
controlled with a condenser, and samples were collected at both the inlet and outlet of the condenser.
Emissions from the cylinders were sampled using a modified Method 5 with an XAD absorbent canister. A
composite sample was collected during a 1-hr period of the 6- to 7-hr Boulton cycles on both cylinders, and a
second 1-hr sample was collected from one of the cylinders later in the Boulton process. Following the
conditioning and the initial pressurization steps, six samples were collected over the 22-minute air pressure
release cycle for one cylinder, and samples were collected over a one-hr period of the final 2-hr vacuum for
one of the cylinders. The samples were analyzed for 18 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) according
to Method 610.
Emission factors were developed for uncontrolled emissions from the conditioning cycle, air pressure
release, and final vacuum steps of the process. The results of the condenser outlet emissions samples were
inconclusive due to high fluctuations in flow measurements and sample concentrations, and emission factors
were not developed for controlled emissions. The emission data are rated C because sampling was not
performed over the entire cycle for each steps in the wood treating process.
4.2.1.4 Reference 14. This report documents measurements of emissions from a creosote wood
treating facility. The test, which was conducted in April 1994, was sponsored by the facility for the purpose
of determining the effectiveness of a knock-out tank and wet scrubber in controlling emissions from the wood
treating process.
The facility uses the Boulton process to condition wood prior to treating the wood by the empty-cell
(Rueping) process. Emissions were sampled from two wood treating cylinders. One of the cylinders
measured 2.1 m in diameter by 18.6 m in length (7 ft in diameter by 61 ft in length), and the other cylinder
measured 1.8 m in diameter by 15.5 m in length (6 ft in diameter by 51 ft in length). Emissions from the
cylinder vacuum systems were ducted together, and the combined gas stream was ducted to a naphthalene
knock-out tank, followed by a venturi scrubber. Creosote storage tank emissions were vented directly to the
same venturi scrubber. Emissions were sampled at the inlet of the knock-out tank and the scrubber outlet.
Volatile organic compound emissions were sampled using Method 25A.
Emission factors could not be developed from the data because process rates were not reported, and
the emissions streams sampled included emissions from both cylinders, which were out of phase with one
another (e.g., while one cylinder was being pressurized, preservative was being withdrawn from the other).
However, the overall control efficiency determined from the data should be representative of the effectiveness
of the emission controls used. This overall VOC control efficiency was determined to be 75 percent.
4.21.5 References 15. 16. 17. and 20. Reference 15 is an emission test report, and References 16,
17, and 20 provide supplemental data for Reference 15. The following paragraphs describe these references
in more detail.
Reference 15 presents the results of an emission test to quantify fugitive emissions from the storage
of creosote-treated wood. The test was performed for the California Hot Spots Program (AB 2588). A
temporary total enclosure was constructed, and treated poles were placed in the enclosure. The enclosure was
sealed, and air was drawn through the enclosure at the rate of 3,000 actual cubic feet per minute simulate a
2 mile per hour wind. A series of emission tests were performed on the exhaust line from the enclosure. In
each test, emissions from six treated utility poles were sampled. The poles were approximately 10 inches in
diameter and 45 feet long. Total surface area for the poles was reported as 699 ft2. Sampling was performed
on a set of freshly-treated poles, 1-day old poles (time since treatment), 4-day old poles, 7-day old poles, 12-
day old poles, and 30-day old poles.
4-3
-------
Emissions samples were analyzed for several organic pollutants. The samples were tested for
17 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) using CARB Method 429; CARB Method 430 was used to sample
for formaldehyde emissions; emissions of benzene and toluene were measured using CARB Method 410/422;
and the samples were analyzed for phenols and creosols by EPA Method TO-8. Three runs each were
performed with the fresh poles, 1-day old poles, and 4-day old poles; only one run was performed on the 7-
day, 12-day, and 30-day old poles. Background samples also were analyzed. The Method 429 tests
quantified emissions of eight PAH's: naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthracene,
anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene. Emissions of the other PAH's were not detected. The Method 430
tests for formaldehyde yielded inconsistent results; for many of the test runs formaldehyde concentrations
were less than the background concentrations. It was suspected that formaldehyde emissions from a nearby
wood panelboard plant were at least partly responsible for the erratic measurements. As a result, the
formaldehyde results were not considered to be valid. The Method 410/422 results also were not useful;
benzene concentrations were below detection limit for all runs, and the toluene concentrations were near or
below the background concentrations on most runs. Finally, the TO-8 detected none of the target phenols and
cresols.
Reference 16 is a report that presents a method for estimating fugitive emissions of naphthalene from
the storage of creosote-treated cross-ties and poles. The method is based on simple linear regressions of the
natural logs of the emission test data presented in Reference 15. Three separate equations are developed,
which, according to the report, correspond to three specific phases of emissions following removal of
creosote-treated wood from the retort. The first phase, which is referred to as the temperature-driven
emissions, encompasses the first 6 hours following removal from the retort. The second phase is
characterized by thin film emissions, which occur during the next 18 hours. During the final phase, pore-
space emissions occur. The final phase continues indefinitely. However, during this phase, the emission rate
gradually decreases and becomes negligible after approximately 3 to 4 months, depending on the compound.
Emissions from the first phase are estimated using the following expression:
E! = 1.37 x io-3Ae(°-4668t) (1)
where:
Ej = naphthalene emissions in lb/ft2 of effective treated surface area,
A = effective surface area in ft2 of the treated wood (i.e., the surface area of the wood that is open
and from which the creosote constituents can be released), and
t = time in days since the wood was removed from the retort.
Integrating over the first 6 hours, this equation reduces to the following:
Ej = 0.000363A (2)
where:
Ej and A are as defined above.
Emissions from the second phase can be estimated as follows:
E2 = 2.78 x 10-3Ae(-2'435t) (3)
4-4
-------
where: E2 = naphthalene emissions in lb/ft2 of effective treated surface area, and t and A are as defined
previously.
Integrating over the next 18 hours, this equation reduces to the following:
E2 = 0.000521 A (4)
where: E2 and A are as defined previously.
Emissions from the third phase can be estimated as follows:
E3 = 2.53 x 10-4Ae(-0-0436t) (5)
where: E3 = naphthalene emissions in lb/ft2 of effective treated surface area, and A and t are as defined
previously.
Integrating from day 1 to day x, the equation reduces to the following:
E3 = 0.0058 lA(e(-°-0436) - e(-°-0436t)) (6)
where: E3 and A are as defined previously, and
t = time in days from the time the retort was opened to day x.
The report also makes that the assumption that emissions primarily are a function of vapor pressure,
which is driven by temperature. Accordingly, Antoine's vapor pressure equation can be used to develop a
temperature correction factor. Using the average monthly temperature of 27°C (80°F) at the test site, the
expression for the correction factor for naphthalene is as follows:
-11,161 1 - —) ,„,
TCP = e \T + 46° 540/ (7)
naph
where:
TCP h = temperature correction factor for naphthalene, and
T = average temperature in °F.
Reference 17 provides information that supplements the emission test report (Reference 15). Most
notably, Reference 17 provides the corrected sampling times for each test run. These times differ from those
use in the Reference 16 study. Because the sampling times were used in the linear regression equations, the
differences in the times are significant.
A review of the emission and sampling time data indicates a trend of increasing emission with time
of day, as would be expected if emissions are a function of ambient temperature. The models reported in
Reference 16 do not account for the apparent confounding effect of ambient temperature on emissions. To
minimize the ambient temperature effect, new models were developed using as data points the average
emission rates and average sampling times for the fresh poles, 1-day old poles, and 4-day old poles. In
addition, two (rather than three) equations were developed: the first equation was developed using the fresh
pole data and the Day 1 data, and the second equation was developed by modeling the data from Day 1 to
Day 30. The same method was to develop the equations as was used in the Reference 16 report; that is,
4-5
-------
simple linear regressions of the natural logs of the emission rates were performed. In addition to the
naphthalene data, the emission data for the other seven PAH's detected also were modeled. The resulting
equations for emissions over the first day following removal from the retort are of the following form:
Epl =ACpl(l -e^) (8)
where:
E j = emission factor for pollutant p for the first day in pounds per thousand square foot of effective
treated wood surface area (lb/1,000 ft2),
A = effective surface area of treated wood in thousands of square feet (1,000 ft2),
C j = constant for pollutant p for the first day, and
x , = exponential term for pollutant p for the first day.
Emissions for subsequent days up to Day "t" are of the following form:
where:
E 2 = emission factor for pollutant p for the first day in pounds per thousand square foot of effective
treated wood surface area (lb/1,000 ft2),
A = effective surface area of treated wood in thousands of square feet (1,000 ft2),
C 2 = constant for pollutant p for the subsequent days up to Day "t," and
x 2 = exponential term for pollutant p for the subsequent days up to Day "t."
The values of these variables for each of the eight PAH's are presented in Table 4-4. For example,
the equation for estimating the naphthalene emission factor for Day 1 emissions is:
Enaphl = 0.839A(l-e-2-106) = 0.74A (10)
where:
Enaphl = emission factor for naphthalene for the first day in lb/1,000 ft2, and
A = effective surface area of treated wood in thousands of square feet (1,000 ft2).
The equation for estimating the naphthalene emission factor for emissions from Day 1 to Day "t" is:
Enaph2 = 5.78A(e-0-0357-e-°-0357t) (11)
where:
Enaph2 = emission factor for naphthalene in lb/1,000 ft2 for the period from Day 1 to Day "t," and
A = effective surface area of treated wood in thousands of square feet (1,000 ft2).
Equations 10 and 11 can be combined to give the total cumulative naphthalene emissions as follows:
F — 0 74. A + S 78 A (p-0.0357 ,,-0.0357t\
^naphthalene ~ U./4A + 5./8A(e ' ^ „ '
= 0.74A + 5.78A (0.965 - e-°-0357t)
-5.58A-5.78Ae-°-0357t)
4-6
-------
Enaphthalene = (6.3 1 - 5.78e-°-0357t)A (12)
Table 4-5 shows the comparable equations for cumulative emissions for each of the eight PAH's,
and Table 4-6 shows the solutions to the equations for time periods up to 300 days. For example, the
cumulative emission factor for fluorene from creosote-treated wood that has been stored for 120 days is
1.67 lb/1,000 ft2. The values shown in Table 4-5 for each of the eight PAH's are presented graphically in
Figures 4-1 to 4-8. The temperature correction factor for naphthalene, which can be determined using
Equation 7, is shown graphically in Figure 4-9. It should be noted that this correction factor applies only to
naphthalene emissions. Reference 20 presents a temperature correction factor for creosote as a whole. That
factor can be expressed as:
-8,531 1 - —, ,,-,
J(-F = e IT + 460 540/ (13)
creosote
where:
TCFcreosote = temperature correction factor for creosote, and
T = average temperature in °F.
As depicted in Figures 4-1 to 4-8, the fugitive emission rates decrease with time, and become
negligible after a period of 2 to 4 months. Beyond those time periods, cumulative fugitive emissions can be
estimated using the constant in each of the equations in Table 4-5. These constants represent the maximum
emission factors for emissions that result from the open storage of creosote-treated wood. These maximum
emission factors, rounded to two significant figures, also are listed separately in Table 4-5. For example, the
maximum emission factor for naphthalene emissions (rounded to two significant figures) is 6.3 lb/1,000 ft2;
the maximum emission factor for fluorene emissions (rounded to two significant figures) is 1.7 lb/1,000 ft2.
To adjust the naphthalene emission factor for temperature, the factor should be multiplied by the correction
factor represented by Equation 7 and depicted graphically in Figure 4-9. For example, the correction factor
for an average temperature of 70°F is 0.68, and the adjusted emission factor for the maximum naphthalene
emissions is:
6.3 x 0.68 = 4.3 lb/1,000 ft2
4.2.1.6. Reference 18. This reference is a guidance document prepared by AWPI to help wood
preserving facilities determine the applicability and content of reporting requirements for the Toxic Release
Inventory System under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The
document includes methods for estimating process and fugitive emissions from wood preserving facilities.
However, all of the methods presented are based on estimation methods for other industries. Fugitive
emission rates for pump seals, valves flanges, seals, and connections are based on emission factors developed
for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI). The emission factors for creosote are
assumed to be 10 percent of the corresponding factor for SOCMI sources, and the factors for
pentachlorophenol are assumed to be 1 percent of the corresponding SOCMI factors. Process emissions for
retort door opening, tank venting, and vacuum exhaust are based on the vapor weight fractions of the wood
preservative constituents. This method is addressed in AP-42 Section 7.1.4, HAP Speciation Methodology.
Because the estimation methods presented in Reference 18 are based on estimation methods for other
industries, the methods have not been incorporated in the AP-42 section on wood preserving.
4.2.2 Review of XATEF and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors
4-7
-------
A search of the XATEF data base revealed 37 emission factors for wood preserving. Fifteen of the
emission factors are based on Reference 3. This reference is reviewed above in Section 4.2.1.1 of this report.
Twenty-one of the 37 emission factors are based on an Office of Research and Development report
that includes an assessment of fugitive emissions from one unspecified wood treating plant (B. DaRos, et al,
Emissions and Residue Values from Waste Disposal During Wood Preserving, prepared by Acurex
Corporation, EPA-600/2-82-062, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, April 1982).
Nine of these 21 emission factors are for the thermal evaporation of wastewater. These emission factors have
not been incorporated into the draft AP-42 Section 10.8 because they are more appropriate for AP-42
Chapter 4, Evaporation Source Losses. Six more of these 21 emission factors are for waste incineration.
These sludges are classified as hazardous waste, hence their incineration, which is addressed in AP-42
Chapter 2, Solid Waste Disposal. Remaining are three emission factors for creosote treating cylinder fugitive
emissions and three emission factors for pentachlorophenol treating cylinder fugitive emissions. These six
emission factors are given in concentration units (milligrams per standard cubic meter of gas leaked). The
report states that it was not feasible to quantify mass emission rates due to the large fluctuation in ambient air
dilution caused by changing wind speed and direction. For this reason, these emission factors have not been
incorporated into the draft AP-42 Section 10.8.
The remaining emission factor is referenced to a locating and estimating document (Locating and
Estimating Air Emissions from Sources ofChlorobenzenes, EPA-450/4-84-007m, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1987). This document does not include emission factors for
wood preserving operations. However, it does state that where preservatives containing
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene are used, an estimated 1 percent of the 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is emitted to the
atmosphere during application and handling. Because the reference does not include a true emission factor,
this XATEF emission factor was not incorporated into the draft AP-42 Section 10.8.
The SPECIATE data base includes emission factors for a number of speciated VOC's from wood
preserving. However, the emission factors are all surrogates based on averages of all emission profiles. For
that reason, these emission factors have not been incorporated into the draft AP-42 Section 10.8.
The SPECIATE data base includes emission factors for speciated PM from wood preserving.
However, the emission factors are all surrogates based on averages for the wood products industry as a
whole. For that reason, these emission factors have not been incorporated into the draft AP-42 Section 10.8.
4.2.3 Results of Data Analysis
4.2.3.1 Process Emission Factors. The test data for emissions from creosote wood preserving
operations are presented in Tables 4-7 to 4-11. Table 4-12 is a summary of the creosote wood preserving
data. The four steps in the empty cell treatment process during which emissions occur are: conditioning,
preservative filling/air release, preservative return/blowback, and vacuum. For none of the pollutants listed in
Table 4-12 are there complete data for all four of these steps. For example, there are VOC emission data for
the conditioning (Boulton) and preservative return/blowback steps only; for naphthalene, there are emission
data for the conditioning (Boulton), preservative filling/air release, and vacuum steps only. To provide an
estimate of the emission factors for the complete empty cell process, these data gaps for each pollutant were
filled using ratios of the emission factors for process steps for which data were available as follows:
(1) For conditioning, the emission factor data gaps were filled by dividing the preservative
filling/air release value by the average of the ratios of the preservative filling/air release
4-8
-------
values to the conditioning values; this average equals 0.0337. For example, for
fluoranthene, the conditioning value was estimated to be:
(2.0 x 10-8)/(0.0337) = 5.9 x 1Q'7
(2) For preservative filling/air release, the emission factor data gaps were filled by multiplying
the preservative filling/air release value by the average of the ratios of the preservative
filling/air release values to the conditioning values; this average equals 0.0337. For
example, for VOC, the preservative filling/air release value was estimated to be:
(5.1 x !Q-3)x (0.0337)= 1.7 x lO'4
(3) For preservative return/blowback, the emission factor data gaps were filled by multiplying
the conditioning value by the ratio of the preservative return/blowback value to the
conditioning value for VOC; this ratio equals 0.0131. For example, for anthracene, the
preservative return/blowback value was estimated to be:
(1.1 x lQ-7)x (0.0131)= 1.4 x lO'9
(4) For the vacuum step, the emission factor data gaps were filled by multiplying the
preservative filling/air release value by the average of the ratios of the preservative filling/air
release values to the vacuum step values; this average equals 2.93. For example, for pyrene,
the vacuum step value was estimated to be:
(1.7 x lO'8) x (2.93) = 5.0 x lO'8
Table 4-13 shows the emission factors for each step in the process for each pollutant for which test
data were available. Table 4-14 shows the same table with the additional emission factors that were
estimated using the gap-filling procedures described above. Table 4-14 also shows the emission factors for
the total treatment process with and without conditioning by the Boulton process. These emission factors for
the total process are simply the sum of the factors for the individual steps in the process.
Table 4-15 summarizes the available test data for CCA treatment operations. Table 4-16 presents
the candidate emission factors for the overall creosote wood preserving process. Table 4-17 presents the
candidate emission factors for the CCA treatment process.
For most of the process steps sampled and pollutants quantified, data were available from a single
emission test. However, for some speciated organics, emission data for creosote wood preserving were
available from both References 10 and 13. For most compounds, the emission factors developed from the
Reference 10 data were 1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding factors developed from
Reference 13 data. Because the emission factors developed from the Reference 10 data are based on several
assumptions and are inconsistent with the data from the other test reports reviewed, the factors developed
from the Reference 10 data were not used to develop candidate emission factors for creosote wood
preserving. In the case of CCA wood preserving, the Reference 10 are the only data found. In the absence of
other data, the factors developed from Reference 10 for CCA wood preserving emissions were incorporated
into the AP-42 section.
4-9
-------
Because all of the candidate emission factors are based on one emission test, and, with the exception
of one B-rated data set, the data sets are rated C or D, the emission factors developed from the data all are
assigned a rating of E.
4.2.3.2 Fugitive Emissions. The basis for the fugitive emission equations for storage of creosote-
treated wood, as presented in Table 4-5 and presented graphically in Figures 4-1 to 4-8, are the emission test
documented in Reference 15 and the related report (Reference 16). That emission test was designed to
quantify emissions from treated wood that was exposed on all surfaces. In practice, treated wood is stacked
in such a way that a significant amount of wood surface area is in contact with other pieces of treated wood
and/or the ground or pad on which the wood is stacked. Furthermore, the enclosure in which the test pieces
were located during the emission test was continuously exhausted with sweep air to ensure a quantifiable
exhaust flow rate from the enclosure to the test point. This sweep air enhanced volatilization of creosote
constituents from the test pieces and is not representative of air movement through a typical stack of treated
wood. For these reasons, the equations presented in Table 4-5 and the figures are very likely to provide an
overestimate of fugitive emissions from actual treated wood storage yards.
References 16 and 19 describe a method for estimating the effective surface area (i.e., the surface
area that is open and free to release volatile compounds from the creosote-treated wood). According to those
two documents, the effective surface area can be estimated as the outside (visible) surface area of the stack,
assuming specific stacking configurations for crossties and poles. For crossties, the net result is an effective
surface area that is approximately 10 percent of the total surface area of the wood (i.e., 10 percent of the sum
of the individual surface area for each piece of treated wood in the stack). For poles, the proposed effective
surface area is approximately 15 percent of the total surface area of the wood. Although Reference 19
proposes several reasons for why using the total surface area overestimates fugitive emissions, the document
provides no data or calculations to substantiate that the authors' proposed method for determining effective
surface areas for crossties and poles.
Using the total surface area of each piece of treated wood would undoubtedly provide an
overestimate of fugitive emissions from yard storage. However, the effective surface area proposed in
References 16 and 19 appears to result in an unreasonably low estimate of fugitive emissions. In the absence
of a substantiated method for estimating the effective surface area, the equations presented in Table 4-5 have
not been incorporated into the AP-42 section.
4-10
-------
60
a
o 50
o
o
4.0
3 0
g
W
50
100 150 200
Days since treatment
250 300
Figure 4-1. Naphthalene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
0.100
0.080 -
a
o
0
o
g 0.060
Emission factor,
o o o
o o io
O to -t^
o o o
r-1 .1.1
I 1
i
i ;
! j.- --""""~;
• -"'i •
!, i ]
•i i
! ! !
?! i :
; i 1
i 1
!' ' '
i i ' :
! !________L_.
? 1 !
1 !
i : I
! ]
!! t^^~~~—~~-~^^~~~—~~-~^^^~~~—~~^^^^~—~^
1 ! • i
^^^^^^^l^^^^^^^l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
'
:
i i
50 100
150
200 250 300
Days since treatment
Figure 4-2. Acenaphthalene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
4-11
-------
3.5
3.0
a
o2.5
o
o
2.0 --
1.5
1.0 4
0.5
0.0
o
50
100 150 200
Days since treatment
300
Figure 4-3. Acenaphthene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
1.80
1.60
1.40
I 1.20
~ 1.00
(-H
_O
1 0.80
g
•S 0.60
w 0.40 • '
0.20 :J
0.00
0
50
100 150 200
Days since treatment
300
Figure 4-4. Fluorene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
4-12
-------
a
o
o
o
1.50
o
"5
LOO
0.50
0.00
50
100 150 200
Days since treatment
250
300
Figure 4-5. Phenanthrene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
0.120
0.100 -
a
| 0.080 -
| 0.060
1
.| 0.040 -
w
0.020 -
0.000
0
II'
: i i :
: I i :
i i '
: i ! 1 1 !
1 ! ! 1 1 !
i . -•'•"V : ! i : '
: ' i
••! i , :
,M 'i '. :
'• <
•; • •
': i
si :
,!! i
' i 1
i
•
i i
' i^^J^^^^^^^^^
i^^Z^Z^^^Z
: i !
i i
i i ' :
i !
50 100 150 200 250 300
Days since treatment
Figure 4-6. Anthracene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
4-13
-------
0.100 -
a
| 0.080 -
| 0.060
<2
g
.| 0.040 -
w
0.020 -
n nnn
II ! !
• ! i
! i i
1 ' : 1 i :
1 i ; : | i :
i ...•••""( '• . 1 i '. '•
1 i ; ;
.;•' i ',
i i
i i 1 :
! ! :
I
! 1 !
i
i l^^l^:^^^^
1 • '
•
•
I I !
50
100 150 200
Days since treatment
250
300
Figure 4-7. Fluoranthene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
0.025
0.020
a
o
o
o
0.015
o
"5
<£3
g 0.010
'
w
0.005
50
100 150 200
Days since treatment
250
300
Figure 4-8. Pyrene emissions from open storage of creosote-treated wood.
4-14
-------
1.60
i jro
1 "*0
| 1.00
m
| 0.80
D
040
0 ^0
0.00
0
Naphthalene Temperature Correction Factor
for fugitive emission equation
^^^™
• •
-*
10
j— • — '
i^p*-
20
jff"
***•
JO
+y
^x
-^
X
40 50
Teu^ierature,
/
70
/
/
/
/
SO
y
/
/
90
i
100
Figure 4-9. Naphthalene temperature correction factors for fugitive emission equation.
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-1. REFERENCES FOR WOOD PRESERVING
Ref. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Citation
C. C. Vaught and R. L. Nicholson, Evaluation of Emission Sources from Creosote Wood Treatment
Operations, EPA-450/3-89-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, June 1989.
B. DaRos, et al., Emissions and Residue Values from Waste Disposal During Wood Preserving,
prepared by Acurex Corporation, EPA-600/2-82-062, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, April 1982.
Emission Test Report, Air Toxics Sampling at Wyckoff, Inc., Bainbridge Island, Washington,
prepared by Engineering Science, EPA-9 10/9-86- 149, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March 1986.
Report of Emissions Test: Koppers Industries Wood Fired Boiler, Florence, SC, prepared for
Koppers Industries, by ATEC Associates, Inc., October 8, 1991.
Non-criteria Pollutant Emissions Calculations for Koppers Industries, Salem, VA, prepared for
Koppers Industries, by ETS, Inc., June 17, 1991.
Assessment of the Fume Scrubber Operational Performance at Burke-Parsons-Bowlby, Dubois, PA,
prepared for Burke -Parsons-Bowlby, by Allied-Signal, Inc., Environmental Systems, May 1992.
Determination of Air Toxic Emissions from Non-traditional Sources in the Puget Sound Region,
EPA-9 10/9-86- 148, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X and Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency, Seattle, WA, by Engineering-Science, Inc., April 1986.
Engineering Calculation of Pentachlorophenol Air Emissions at Wood Preserving Facilities,
prepared for Vulcan Chemicals, Birmingham, AL, by H.M. Rollins Company, Inc., August 31, 1992.
Results of the September 1991 Air Emission Compliance Test on the Pole Treatment Facility at the
Bell Lumber and Pole Plant in New Brighton, Minnesota, prepared for Bell Lumber and Pole
Company, by Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., October 24, 1991.
Final Emission Data Report: Emission Testing Program at Koppers Superfund Site, Oroville,
California, prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, by Ebasco Services
Incorporated, December 1989.
Wood Treatment Plant Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Avoca,
Pennsylvania, EMB Report 94-WDT-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, September 1994.
Wood Treatment Plant Emission Test Report, Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation, DuBois,
Pennsylvania, EMB Report 94-WDT-02, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, September 1994.
Koppers Industries, Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Susquehanna Wood Treating Facilities
Vacuum Pump Emissions Study, Chester Environmental, Pittsburgh, PA, April 1994.
Gaseous Organic Compound Emission Study, Naphthalene Knock-out Tank and Water Scrubber,
Birmingham Wood, Inc., Warrior, Alabama, Allied Signal, Inc., April 12 & 13, 1994, TTL, Inc.,
Tuscaloosa, AL, May 1994.
Koppers Industries, Inc., Oroville, CA, AB 2588 Emissions Test Program, Test Date: October 8 thru
12, 1990, Best Environmental, Hayward, California, November 14, 1990.
Calculated Emissions From Creosote-Treated Wood Products (Cross-Ties and Poles), AquaAeTer,
Brentwood, Tennessee, and American Wood Preservers Institute, Vienna, Virginia, October 13, 1994.
Written communication from Steve Smith, Koppers Industries, Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
to Rick Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, North Carolina, July 10, 1997.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Ref. No.
Citation
18 TRI Reporting (Form R) Guidance Manual for Wood Preserving Facilities, 1995 Edition, American
Wood Preservers Institute, Vienna, Virginia, 1995.
19 Personal communication from Michael R. Com and Douglas S. Smith, AquAeTer, Incorporated, to
Martin Wikstrom, American Wood Preservers Institute, December 28, 1994.
20 Personal communication from Mike Pierce and Michael R. Com, AquAeTer, Incorporated, to George
Parris, American Wood preservers Institute, September 17, 1998.
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-2. REFERENCES REJECTED FOR EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Ref. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
14
18
19
20
Reason(s) for rejection
No process data; emission estimates appear to be based on material balance approach.
No emission rates; large fluctuations in process flow rates precluded conversion from
concentrations to emission rates.
Reported volumetric air flows are erroneous and cross-contamination of samples occurred.
Test not conducted on wood preserving process source; insufficient process data to allow
calculation of an emission factor.
Emission estimates based on testing at another facility; no test data presented.
Insufficient process data to allow calculation of an emission factor.
Insufficient process data to allow calculation of an emission factor.
No test data; includes only engineering estimates of emissions.
Insufficient process data to allow calculation of an emission factor.
Contaminated creosote preservative used during test.
Process rates not provided and emissions not representative of a single step in the wood
preserving process.
Emission estimation methods based on sources addressed in other AP-42 sections; does
not present test data.
Does not contain emission data.
Does not contain emission data.
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-3. COMPOUNDS DETECTED
IN CREOSOTE SAMPLES51
Compound
Naphthalene*3
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Dibenzofuranb
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Biphenylb
Quinolineb
Concentration, ,ug/ml
223.44
150.18
216.12
131.87
128.21
300.37
40.29
227.11
163.50
51.28
40.29
21.98
13.55
16.12
36.63
36.63
aReference 11.
bListed as HAP in Clean Air Act.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-4. PARAMETER VALUES FOR ESTIMATING EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
FROM CREOSOTE-TREATED WOOD
Parameter11
CP1
*pl
CP2
V
Naphthalene
0.839
-2.1066
5.775
-0.0357
Acenaphthylene
0.0142
-1.885
0.08441
-0.0633
Acenaphthene
0.4041
-1.897
2.815
-0.0446
Fluorene
0.2127
-1.451
1.593
-0.0515
Phenanthrene
0.2860
-0.9488
2.129
-0.0544
Anthracene
113.5
-0.0001491
0.08906
-0.0759
Fluoranthene
0.02209
-0.7661
0.09568
-0.0838
Pyrene
0.01612
-0.1693
0.01954
-0.0939
aVariables used in Equations 8 and 9.
-------
TABLE 4-5. EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR CUMULATIVE
EMISSIONS OF PAH's FROM CREOSOTE-TREATED WOOD STORAGE
Pollutant
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Emission factor equation, lb/1,000
ft2
E = 6.31-5.78e-°-0357t
E = 0.0912-0.0844e-°-0633t
E = 3.04 - 2.82e-°-0446t
E=1.68-1.59e-°-0515t
E = 2.19-2.13e-°-0544t
E = 0.0995 - 0.0891e-°-0759t
E = 0.0998 - 0.0957e-°-0838t
E = 0.0203 -0.0195e-°-0939t
Emission factor for
maximum emissions,
lb/1, 000ft2
6.3
0.091
3.0
1.7
2.2
0.10
0.10
0.020
E = emission factor in units of lb/1,000 ft2 of effective surface area of treated wood, t = number of days
since removal from retort.
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-6. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAH'S FROM OPEN STORAGE OF CREOSOTE-TREATED WOOD
Day
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
140
160
180
200
250
300
Emission factor, lb/1,000 if
Naphthalene
0.74
1.48
2.27
2.93
3.48
3.94
4.33
4.65
4.92
5.15
5.34
5.63
5.83
5.98
6.08
6.15
6.23
6.27
6.29
6.30
6.31
6.31
6.31
Acenaphthylene
0.0120
0.0297
0.0464
0.0586
0.0674
0.0739
0.0786
0.0820
0.0845
0.0863
0.0877
0.0893
0.0902
0.0907
0.0909
0.0911
0.0912
0.0912
0.0912
0.0912
0.0912
0.0912
0.0912
Acenaphthene
0.34
0.78
1.23
1.59
1.88
2.11
2.30
2.45
2.56
2.66
2.73
2.84
2.91
2.96
2.99
3.00
3.02
3.03
3.03
3.04
3.04
3.04
3.04
Fluorene
0.16
0.44
0.72
0.94
1.11
1.24
1.34
1.41
1.47
1.52
1.55
1.60
1.63
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.67
1.67
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.68
1.68
Phenanthrene
0.18
0.57
0.96
1.25
1.47
1.65
1.78
1.87
1.95
2.01
2.05
2.11
2.14
2.16
2.18
2.18
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
Anthracene
0.0169
0.0385
0.0578
0.0709
0.0799
0.0861
0.0903
0.0932
0.0952
0.0965
0.0975
0.0985
0.0990
0.0993
0.0994
0.0994
0.0995
0.0995
0.0995
0.0995
0.0995
0.0995
0.0995
Fluroanthene
0.0118
0.0369
0.0584
0.0726
0.0819
0.0880
0.0921
0.0947
0.0965
0.0976
0.0984
0.0992
0.0995
0.0997
0.0998
0.0998
0.0998
0.0998
0.0998
0.0998
0.0998
0.0998
0.0998
Pyrene
0.0025
0.0081
0.0127
0.0155
0.0173
0.0184
0.0191
0.0196
0.0198
0.0200
0.0201
0.0202
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
0.0203
to
to
-------
TABLE 4-7. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING-VACUUM SYSTEM/CONDITIONING (BOULTON) CYCLE
Type of
control
N/K
N/K
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Pollutant
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
VOC
Carbazole
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Chrysene
No. of
test runs
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Data
rating
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Emission factor
Range,
kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
Not reported3
Not reported3
Not applicable
1.5xlO-5-6.6xl(r5
(9.4xl(T7-4.1xlCr6)
3.4xl(T4-2.0xlO-3
(2.1xl(T5-1.3xlO-4)
5.7xl(T5-7.6xlCr4
3.6xl(T6-4.7xlO-5)
5.7xl(T5-2.4xlCr4
(3.6xl(T6-1.5xlCr5)
6.6xl(T5-1.0xlO-3
(4.1xl(T6-6.2xlCr5)
5.4xlO-5-6.8xl(r5
(3.4xlO-6-4.2xl(r6)
1.8xl(T5-3.5xlCr5
(i.ixi(r7-2.ixicr6)
4.7xl(T7-3.0xlCr6
(2.9xlO-8-1.9xlQ-7)
8.5xlO-7-1.0xlQ-6
(5.3 x 1CT8 - 6.5 x 1CT8)
Average,
kg/m
(lb/ft3)
0.00049
(3.1 x 10'5)
0.00060
(3.7 xlO'5)
0.082
(0.0051)
4.1 x 10'5
(2.5 x 10'6)
0.0012
(7.4 x 10'5)
0.00041
(2.6 x 10'5)
0.00015
(9.3 x 10'6)
0.00053
(3.3 x 10'5)
6.1 x 10'5
(S.SxlO'6)
2.6 xlO'5
(l.exlO'6)
1.7X10'6
(l.lxlO'7)
9.5 x 10'7
(5.9 x 10'8)
Ref No.
10
10
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
N/K = not known
kg/m3 = kg of pollutant per cubic meter of wood treated
lb/ft3 = Ib of pollutant per cubic foot of wood treated
aAlthough three runs were made, only the average emission rate for each pollutant was reported in the reference.
Therefore, only the average emission factor could be calculated.
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-8. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING-VACUUM SYSTEM
Type of
control
Pollutant
No. of
test runs
Data
rating
Emission factor
Range, kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
Average, kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
Ref. No.
MAIN VACUUM STEP
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Chrysene
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.8 xlCr5
(3.0 xlCr6)
T.lxlCr6
(4.4 x ICr7)
1.6xlCr5
(l.OxlCr6)
3.6 xlCr7
(2.3 x ICr8)
3.4 xlCr6
(2.1xlCr7)
6.2 xlCr8
(3.9xlCr9)
5.5xlCr8
(3.5xlCr9)
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
ADDITIONAL VACUUM STEP (FOLLOWING STEAMING PROCESS)
N/K
N/K
N/K
N/K
N/K
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
3
3
3
3
3
D
D
D
D
D
Not reporteda
Not reported21
Not reporteda
Not reported21
Not reported21
0.0022
(0.00014)
0.0034
(0.00021)
0.00015
(9.4 x 10'6)
1.2xlO-5
(7.5 x 10'7)
1.2xlO-5
(7.5 x 10'7)
10
10
10
10
10
N/K = not known
kg/m3 = kg of pollutant per cubic meter of wood treated
lb/ft3 = Ib of pollutant per cubic foot of wood treated
aAlthough two or three runs were made, only the average emission rate for each pollutant was reported in the reference.
Therefore, only the average emission factor could be calculated.
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-9. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING- PRESERVATIVE RETURN/WORKING TANK VENT BLOWBACK
Type of
control
N/K
N/K
None
Pollutant
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
VOC
No. of
test runs
2
2
1
Data
rating
D
D
B
Emission factor
Range,
kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
Not
reported51
Not
reporteda
Not
applicable
Average,
kg/m
(lb/ft3)
0.0018
(0.00011)
0.0016
(0.00010)
0.0011
(6.7 xlO'5)
Ref.
No.
10
10
11
N/K = not known
kg/m3 = kg of pollutant per cubic meter of wood treated
lb/ft3 = Ib of pollutant per cubic foot of wood treated
aOnly the average emission rate for each pollutant was reported in the reference. Therefore, only the average
emission factor could be calculated.
TABLE 4-10. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD
PRESERVING-WORKING TANK VENT/STEAMING CYCLE
Type of
control
N/K
N/K
N/K
N/K
Pollutant
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Phenanthrene
No. of test
runs
2
2
2
2
Data
rating
D
D
D
D
Emission factor
Range,
kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
Average,
kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
0.041
(0.0026)
0.049
(0.0031)
0.014
(0.00087)
0.0024
(0.00015)
Ref.
No.
10
10
10
10
N/K = not known
NA = data not available
kg/m3 = kg of pollutant per cubic meter of wood treated
lb/ft3 = Ib of pollutant per cubic foot of wood treated
aOnly the average emission rate for each pollutant was reported in the reference. Therefore, only the average
emission factor could be calculated.
4-25
-------
TABLE 4-11. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE
WOOD PRESERVING-PRESERVATIVE FILLING/AIR RELEASE
Type of
control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Pollutant
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
No. of
test runs
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Data
rating
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Emission factor,
kg/m3 (lb/ft3)
9.9 xlO'6
(6.2 xlO'7)
2.0 xlO'6
(1.3 xlO'7)
6.5 xlO'6
(4.1xlO-7)
7.9 xlO'8
(4.9 xlO'9)
7.6 xlO'7
(4.8xlO-8)
1.7xlO-7
(l.lxlO'8)
3.3xl(r7
(2.0 xlO'8)
2.7 xlO'7
(1.7xlO-8)
6.2 xlO'8
(3.9xlO-9)
6.6 xlO'8
(4.1xlQ-9)
6.0 xlO'8
(3.7xlO-9)
2.3 xlO'8
(1.4 xlO'9)
3.0X10'8
(1.9xlO-9)
Ref.No.
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
4-26
-------
TABLE 4-12. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE
WOOD PRESERVING OPERATIONSa
Source
Conditioning
(Boulton) cycle
Preservative filling/air
release
Preservative return/
working tank vent
blowback
Vacuum cycle
CASRN
83-32-9
120-12-7
86-74-8
218-01-9
132-64-9
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
83-32-9
120-12-7
50-32-8
218-01-9
132-64-9
206-44-0
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
120-12-7
218-01-9
132-64-9
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
Pollutant
VOC
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
VOC
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Emission factor
kg/m3
0.082
0.00015
0.00041
1.7xlO'6
4.1 x 10'5
9.5 x 10'7
0.00053
6.1 x 10'5
0.0012
2.6 xlO'5
2.0 xlO'6
1.7xlO'7
6.2 xlO'8
6.0 x 10'8
2.3 x 10'8
3.0 xlO'8
6.6 x 10'8
6.5 x 10'6
3.3 x 10'7
7.9 x 10'8
9.9 x 10'6
7.6 x 10'7
2.7 xlO'7
0.0011
7.1 x 10'6
6.2 xlO'8
5.5xlO-8
1.6X10'5
3.6 xlO'7
4.8xlO'5
3.4 xlO'6
lb/ft3
0.0051
9.3 x 10'6
2.6 xlO'5
l.lxlO'7
2.5 x 10'6
5.9 xlO'8
3.3 xlO'5
3.8xlO'6
7.5xlO'5
1.6X10'6
l.SxlO'7
l.lxlO'8
3.9 xlO'9
3.7 xlO'9
1.4xlO'9
1.9xlO'9
4.1 x 10'9
4.1 x 10'7
2.0 xlO'8
4.9 xlO'9
6.2 x 10'7
4.8xlO'8
1.7xlO'8
6.7 xlO'5
4.4 x 10'7
3.9 xlO'9
3.5xlO'9
l.OxlO'6
2.3 x 10'8
3.0 xlO'6
2.1 x 10'7
Ref No.
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
a For empty-cell process. All emission factors rated E. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions. Emission factor units are kilograms
per cubic meter and pounds per cubic foot of wood treated. CASRN = Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number.
4-27
-------
TABLE 4-13. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD PRESERVING SHOWING DATA GAPSa
Pollutant
VOC
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Benzo(k)flouranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Conditioning by
Boulton process*3
5.1 x ICT3
9.3 x icr6
2.6 x icr5
1.1 x ICT7
2.5 x icr6
5.9 x icr8
3.3 x icr5
3.8 x icr6
7.4 x icr5
1.6x icr6
Preservative
filling/
air release
1.3 x icr7
1.1 x icr8
3.9 x icr9
3.7 x icr9
1.4x icr9
1.9 x icr9
4.1 x icr9
4.1 x icr7
2.0 x icr8
4.9 x icr9
6.2 x icr7
4.8 x icr8
1.7 x icr8
Preservative
return/
blowback
6.7 x icr5
Vacuum
4.4 x icr7
3.9 x icr9
3.5 x icr9
l.Ox icr6
2.3 x icr8
3.0 x lO'6
2.1 x ID'7
Additional
vacuum
(optional)
Total, with
conditioning by
Boulton
process*3
Total, without
conditioning
to
oo
aF actors in units of Ib/ft of wood
Does not include emissions from
treated. References 11 and 13.
preservative retum/blowback associated with Boulton process.
-------
TABLE 4-14. SUMMARY OF COMBINED EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMPTY-CELL CREOSOTE WOOD PRESERVING*1
Pollutant
VOC
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Benzo(k)flouranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Conditioning by
Boulton process*3
5.1 x icr3
9.3 x icr6
2.6 x icr5
1.1 x icr7
1.2x ICT7
1.1 x icr7
4.2 x icr8
5.6 x icr8
2.5 x icr6
5.9 x icr8
3.3 x icr5
5.9 x icr7
3.8 x icr6
7.4 x icr5
1.6x icr6
5.1 x icr7
Preservative
filling/
air release
1.7x icr4
1.3 x icr7
8.7 x icr7
1.1 x icr8
3.9 x icr9
3.7 x icr9
1.4x icr9
1.9 x icr9
8.4 x icr8
4.1 x icr9
4.1 x icr7
2.0 x icr8
4.9 x icr9
6.2 x icr7
4.8 x icr8
1.7 x icr8
Preservative
return/
blowback
6.7 x icr5
1.2x icr7
3.4 x icr7
1.4x icr9
1.5 x icr9
1.4x icr9
5.5 x icr10
7.4 x icr10
3.3 x icr8
7.8 x icr10
4.3 x icr7
7.8 x icr9
5.0 x ID'8
9.7 x lO'7
2.1 x icr8
6.6 x icr9
Vacuum
5.0 x ID'4
3.8 x lO'7
4.4 x icr7
3.9 x icr9
1.1 x icr8
1.1 x icr8
4.1 x icr9
5.6 x icr9
2.5 x icr7
3.5 x icr9
l.Ox icr6
5.9 x icr8
2.3 x icr8
3.0 x lO'6
2.1 x ID'7
5.0 x lO'8
Additional
vacuum
(optional)
Total, with
conditioning by
Boulton
process*3
5.8 x ID'3
9.9 x icr6
2.8 x icr5
1.3 x icr7
1.3 x icr7
1.3 x icr7
4.8 x icr8
6.5 x icr8
2.9 x icr6
6.7 x icr8
3.5 x icr5
6.8 x icr7
3.9 x icr6
7.9 x icr5
1.9 x icr6
5.8 x icr7
Total, without
conditioning
7.4 x ID'4
6.3 x icr7
1.7x icr7
1.6 x icr8
1.7 x icr8
1.6 x icr8
6.0 x ID'9
8.2 x lO'9
3.6 x icr7
8.4 x icr9
1.8 x icr6
8.6 x icr8
7.8 x icr8
4.6 x icr6
2.8 x icr7
7.3 x icr8
4^
NJ
aF actors in units of Ib/ft of wood
Does not include emissions from
treated. References 11 and 13.
preservative retum/blowback associated with Boulton process.
-------
TABLE 4-15. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR EMPTY-CELL CHROMATED COPPER
ARSENATE WOOD PRESERVING-VACUUM SYSTEM/VACUUM CYCLEa
Type of
control
N/K
N/K
Pollutant
Chromium
Copper
No. of
test runs
2
2
Data
rating
D
D
Emission factor
Range,
kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
NAb
NAb
Average,
kg/m3
(lb/ft3)
2.2 xlCr8
(1.4xlCr9)
3.0 xlCr8
(1.9xlO-9)
Ref.
No.
10
10
aN/K = not known; NA = data not available; kg/m3 = kg of pollutant per cubic meter of wood treated; and
lb/ft3 = Ib of pollutant per cubic foot of wood treated,
bOnly the average emission rate for each pollutant was reported in the reference. Therefore, only the average emission
factor could be calculated.
4-30
-------
TABLE 4-16. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
CREOSOTE EMPTY-CELL WOOD PRESERVING
Process (SCC)a
Treatment cycle
without conditioning
(SCC: 3-07-005-30)
Treatment cycle
with conditioning by
the Boulton process
(SCC: 3-07-005-40)
Pollutant
VOC
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Benzo(k)flouranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
VOC
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Emission
factor, lb/ft3
7.4 x 10'4
6.3 x 10'7
1.7X10'6
1.6X10'8
1.7X10'8
1.6X10'8
6.0 xlO'9
8.2 x 10'9
3.6 xlO'7
8.4 x 10'9
1.6X10'6
8.6 xlO'8
7.8xlO'8
4.6 xlO'6
2.8xlO'7
7.3 x 10'8
5.8xlO-3
9.9 xlO'6
2.8X10'5
l.SxlO'7
l.SxlO'7
l.SxlO'7
4.8xlO'8
6.5xlO'8
2.9 xlO'6
6.7 xlO'8
S.SxlO'5
6.8xlO'7
3.9 xlO'6
7.9 xlO'5
1.9X10'6
5.8xlO'7
Ref
No.
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
aSCC = Source Classification Code.
4-31
-------
TABLE 4-17. CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR INORGANIC POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS FROM EMPTY-CELL CHROMATED COPPER ARSENATE WOOD PRESERVINGa
Source (SCC)
Vacuum cycle
CASRN
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
Name
Chromium
Copper
Emission factor
kg/m3
2.2 xlO'8
3.0xlO-8
lb/ft3
1.4 xlO'9
1.9xlO-9
Rating
E
E
Ref.
No.
10
10
a CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
kg/m3 = kg of pollutant per cubic meter of wood treated
lb/ft3 = Ib of pollutant per cubic foot of wood treated
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. C. C. Vaught and R. L. Nicholson, Evaluation of Emission Sources from Creosote Wood Treatment
Operations, EPA-450/3-89-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
June 1989.
2. B. DaRos, et al,Emissions and Residue Values from Waste Disposal During Wood Preserving,
prepared by Acurex Corporation, EPA-600/2-82-062, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, April 1982.
3. Emission Test Report, Air Toxics Sampling at Wyckoff, Inc., Bainbridge Island, Washington, prepared
by Engineering Science, EPA-910/9-86-149, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1986.
4. Report of Emissions Test: Koppers Industries Wood Fired Boiler, Florence, SC, prepared for Koppers
Industries, by ATEC Associates, Inc., October 8, 1991.
5. Non-criteria Pollutant Emissions Calculations for Koppers Industries, Salem, VA, prepared for
Koppers Industries, by ETS, Inc., June 17, 1991.
6. Assessment of the Fume Scrubber Operational Performance at Burke-Parsons-Bowlby, Dubois, PA,
prepared for Burke-Parsons-Bowlby, by Allied-Signal, Inc., Environmental Systems, May 1992.
7. Determination of Air Toxic Emissions from Non-traditional Sources in the Puget Sound Region,
EPA-910/9-86-148, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X and Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency, Seattle, WA, by Engineering-Science, Inc., April 1986.
8. Engineering Calculation ofPentachlorophenolAir Emissions at Wood Preserving Facilities, prepared
for Vulcan Chemicals, Birmingham, AL, by H.M. Rollins Company, Inc., August 31, 1992.
9. Results of the September 1991 Air Emission Compliance Test on the Pole Treatment Facility at the
Bell Lumber and Pole Plant in New Brighton, Minnesota, prepared for Bell Lumber and Pole
Company, by Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., October 24, 1991.
4-32
-------
10. Final Emission Data Report: Emission Testing Program at Koppers Superfund Site, Oroville, CA,
prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, by Ebasco Services Incorporated,
December 1989.
11. Wood Treatment Plant Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Avoca,
Pennsylvania, EMB Report 94-WDT-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park,NC, September 1994.
12. Wood Treatment Plant Emission Test Report, Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation, DuBois,
Pennsylvania, EMB Report 94-WDT-02, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park,NC, September 1994.
13. Koppers Industries, Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Susquehanna Wood Treating Facilities
Vacuum Pump Emissions Study, Chester Environmental, Pittsburgh, PA, April 1994.
14. Gaseous Organic Compound Emission Study, Naphthalene Knock-out Tank and Water Scrubber,
Birmingham Wood, Inc., Warrior, Alabama, Allied Signal, Inc., April 12 & 13, 1994, TTL, Inc.,
Tuscaloosa, AL, May 1994.
15. Koppers Industries, Inc., Oroville, CA, AB 2588 Emissions Test Program, Test Date: October 8 - 12,
1990, Best Environmental, Hayward, California, November 14, 1990.
16. Calculated Emissions From Creosote-Treated Wood Products (Cross-Ties and Poles), AquaAeTer,
Brentwood, Tennessee, and American Wood Preservers Institute, Vienna, Virginia, October 13, 1994.
17. Written communication from Steve Smith, Koppers Industries, Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
to Rick Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, North Carolina, July 10, 1997.
18. TR1Reporting (Form R) Guidance Manual for Wood Preserving Facilities, 1995 Edition, American
Wood Preservers Institute, Vienna, Virginia, 1995.
19. Personal communication from Michael R. Corn and Douglas S. Smith, AquAeTer, Incorporated, to
Martin Wikstrom, American Wood Preservers Institute, December 28, 1994.
20. Personal communication from Mike Pierce and Michael R. Corn, AquAeTer, Incorporated, to George
Parris, American Wood preservers Institute, September 17, 1998.
4-33
-------
5. DRAFT AP-42 SECTION 10.8
Please refer to AP-42, Section 10.8, Wood Preserving, on the EPA web site.
5-1
------- |