AP42 Section APPENDIX B.1
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND
SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED
SOURCES
Originally "C.1" in 4th edition
References; Assorted 1.8 through 12. xxx
-------
United States
Erivironmentat Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
U
jjjj,
Emission Test Report
uar
ryant.
nv
-------
NONFOSSIL FUELED BOILERS
Emission Test Report
U.S. Sugar Company
Bryant, Florida
Project No.: 80-WFB-6
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
by
James A. Peters and Charles F. Duncan
Contract 68-02-2818, Work Assignment No. 25
May 1980
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 454C7
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED GAS ANALYSES, U.S.
SUGAR-BRYANT MILL, DECEMBER 17-18, 1979
Run
number
1
2
3
Average
Date
12/17/79
12/18/79
12/18/79
CO 2
10.
11,
11.
11.
«
8
1
3
1
CO
y
jt
0.
0.
0.
0.
/
0
0
0
0
°l
9.
9.
9.
9,
-
2
0
4
2
Nz,
80.
79.
79.
79.
0
9
3
1
Ib/lb
30.
30.
30,,
30.
mole
1
1
2
1
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ANDERSEN PARTICLE SIZING RESULTS,
U.S. SUGAR-BRYANT MILL, DECEMBER 17-18, 1979
Run No. 1
Discarded
Run No. 2
Flow rate = 0.927 acfro
Isokinetic rate = 107.1%
Cumulative %
]
>]
50
30
95
88
94
58
39
.0
10.50
L0.50
- 10.50
- 6.50
- 4.30
- 2.95
-1.88
-0.94
-0,58
- 0.39
Run No.
3
1
3
7
11
12
12
19
16
11
3
.99
.46
.06 •
,98
.30
.40
.90
.15
.49
.30
94.
94.
91.
83.
72.
59.
• 46.
27,
11.
0
55
55
52
54
24
94
94
79
30
Flow rate = 0.908 acfm
Isokinetic rate = 105,5%
stage
Size range
Percent in
size range
Cumulative!
10.60
>10.60
6.60 - 10.60
60
4.40
3.00
1,90
0.96
0.59
0.40
0.0
- 6,
-4.40
- 3,00
- 1.90
- 0.96
-0.59
- 0.40
6,56
2.01
4.28
7.47
8.66
8.66
10.48
20.60
16.68
14,59
91.43
91.43
87.14
79.67
71.01
62.35
51.87
31.27
14.59
0
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 80-WFB-1
February 1980
Air
vvEPA Nonfossil Fueled Boik
Emission Test Report
City of Salem
Salem, Virginia
-------
NONFOSSIL FUELED BOILERS
Emission Test Report
City of Salem
Salem, Virginia
5-8 November 1979
Project No.: 80-WFB-l
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
by
James A. Peters and Windle H. McDonald
Contract 68-02-2818, Work Assignment No. 23
February 1980
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45418
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY^^ INTEGRATED GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS, CITY
OF SALEM WASTE DISPOSAL PLANT, NOVEMBER 6-7, 1979
Run no.
Average
C0
2,
CO,
Date
N2, Molecular weight,
lb/lb»mole
6-1
7-1
7-2
11-6-79
11-7-79
11-7-79
7
6
7
.8
.2
.2
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
11
13
12
.0
.2
.0
81.
80.
80.
2
6
8
29.
29.
29.
69
52
63
7.1
0.0
12.1
80.8
29.61
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZING RESULTS, WEST STACK, CITY
OF SALEM WASTE DISPOSAL PLANT, NOVEMBER 6-7, 1979
Run : 1
Stage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Backup filter
Run: 2
Stage
t
0 !
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Backup filter
Run: 3
Stage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Backup filter
Date: 11-6-7$
Wt % in
size range
29.4
10.6
5.5
3.7
3.3
6.9
11.9
10.7
18.0
Date: 11-7-79
Wt » in
size range
7.0
3.1
0.7
4.7
5.9
7.5
13.1
14.6
43.4 -
Date: 11-7-79
Wt » in
size range
62.6
0.1
0.2
1.3
2.1
1.2
6.6
10.2
15.7
Flow rate,
Cum. %
m
70.6
60.0
54.5
50.8
47.5
40.6
28.7
1B.O
Flow rate,
Cum. »
B
93.0
89.9
89.2
84.5
78.6
71.1
58.0
43.4
Flow rate,
Cum. »
«
37.4
37.3
37.1
35.8
33.7
32.5
25,9
15.7
acfm: 1.10
Size range,
microns
>10.6
6.6 - 10.6
4.5 - 6.6
3.05 - 4.5
1.94 - 3.05
0.99 - 1.94
0.62 - 0.99
0.43 - 0.62
0 - 0.43
acfm: 1.01
Size range.
macrons
>11.1
6.9 '-'11.1
4.7 - 6.9
3.19 - 4.7
2.04 - 3.19
1.03 - 2.04
0.65 - 1.03
0.43 - 0.65
0 - 0.43
acfm: 0.82
Size range.
microns
>12.4
7.6 - 12.4
5.21 - 7.6
3.55 - 5.21
2.26 - 3.55
1.14 - 2.26
0.72 - 1.14
0.49 - 0.72
0 - 0.49
-------
SERIES NO: 00234
• STREAM DESIGN CH
COMPONENT
NO NAME
1 PROBE*10 CYC
2 3 UM CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
4 FILTER
STREAM NO: 01 TEST ID NO: 1 SAMPLE NO: 02
DESCRIPTION
%
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE!
STAGE HEIGHTS
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE!
STAGE HEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZES
STAGE HEIGHT:
VALUE
6. 30
1.30E+01
1.90
.60
8.10E+00
.01
8.00E-01
PAGE 10
SERIES FORM 7 DATE 06/21X63
UM
MG
UH
MS
UM
MG
UM
M6
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE •
DS6C MICRONS I
STAGE HEIGHTS(MILLIGRAMS 1
MICROGRAHS/DNCM/STAGE
NUMBER/DNCn/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTfHS
..FPEIS SERIES REPORT
SERIES FORM 1
PAGE 1
DATE 06/21/83
fl
23<» DESCRIBES SAMPLINS AT, SITE FROM 02/W/78 TO 02/14/78 BY KVB, INC.
X - •
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CONTRACT NUMBER: , A6-191-30 PURPOSE or TEST: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS tMULTIMEDIA!
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUrtBIR!, 000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION-
soufiCE CATEGORY;
SOURCE TYPE:
PRODUCT/DEVICE:
PROCESS TYPE:
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY:
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE!
FABRICATED MTL PROD
METAL PRODUCTS
AUTOMOBILES
SURFACE COATING
307 KG/HR
INORG CHEM
SOURCI NAHEs
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
sic CODE:
CONFIDENTIAL
LOS ANGELES
00000
EADS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES-
REFERENCE REPORT-
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH HERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOHStTEST SERIES NUMBER-TSN):
LEDS TSN: BEDS TSN: 00086 SODS TSN:
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER
PUBLICATION DATE
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY AND MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN,
TABACK H.J.
KVB REPORT 5806-783 PB 293 923/AS FEBRUARY 1979
TEST SERIES COMMENTS-
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TO INVENTORY TSP EMISSIONS,TO PREPARE A COM-
PREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF EMISSIDNStI.E. BY SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION),AND TO OESCRIBf ALT. METHODS OF CONTROL,
EQUIPMENT TESTED IS CUSTOM MADE SPRAY BOOTH, PAINT USED IS A
HATER-BASED ENAMEL.
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00234
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 01
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 7
DATE 06/31/83
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
COMPONENT
NO NAME
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
I PROBE+10 CYC
2 3 UH CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE!
STAGE WEIGHT:
COMPONENT (ALIQUOT) MASS/VOLUME-"
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY NAME:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZES
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE!
STAGE HEIGHT:
9.EQ UM
1.18E*OZ MG
41.500 MG
ARMAME
3.80 UM
5.20E+00 MG
1.30 UM
7.60E»OD MG
.01 UN
8.10E400 HG
STAGE •
050( MICRONS)
STAGE WEIGHTS(MILLIGRAMS)
MICROGRAMS/ONCM/STAGE
NUMBER/ONCM/STASE
CUM. XMASS
-------
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TES
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
(PLANT NAME
Carbon Black Division
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
-------
EMB Test Number 73-CBK-l
Phillips Petroleum Company
Carbon Black Division
Toledo, Ohio
R E.V I S I 0 N
September 1974.
-------
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT PERCENT LESS THM STATED MICRON SIZE
10 15 20
PERCENTAGE
40 SO GO
'----'•••-~-"~ "• J-'rV;': • * -'-'''t- "•' r''' ''; ;'_-•_ :.'-?..!" " -":
70
83 85 90
95
~~J_T.±±u" ' !—i^— : '. ';.''[ :.- ::_..!":•
j ". — .'"-"I --Z..11;1 , -"':"
..mm*,-*. .,„„ nnLmnnm..-.— ..-!... J» . .»•
nir^iiss
:(-:::-::
I L '
-U....
^i
L-S"°L..^j -'. "^°S" r ^ *^1
U
b
-- -- -^ .-v::.,, r flr — ..- — -- ---- ~ ' ". — ..- -H-^»*- -. -~. . .- " . ............. .~-L .. — -«
f-; :—^- » "^-- -- f -^ .-^v:.:.,, ^ir — ..
t^m -- irrr^j"- j ILT — c^"t ^i_: --- t.
1 ' 1 !
< ,1
I i I
-'i;r. I""-—--i—--;•-•-<• ••r_p-_£±—^••" -'~ " }•—-— — •—;—— -•—~~J^~
=-=-t
~Si"imrz.T:f~^r::' "I'Trrfi.—^T'.::! ,„_i_
rz->...r^ in i r™ ~iir" r~vro.-.ff.-.4- •,^1^1..'^^
,t..L. „
B FIGURE 4
PARTICLE SIZING SUMMARY OF RESULTS
PBE-1 - A
PBE-2 - B
PBE-3 - C
4.0
4.5
I I I i
5.0
PRQBiTS
i I I
5.5
t I I i I
6.0
7,0
-------
EPA-450/2-77-019
September 1977
FINAL GUIDELINE DOCUMENT:
CONTROL OF SULFURIC ACID
MIST EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING
SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION UNITS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/2-77-019
FINAL GUIDELINE DOCUMENT:
CONTROL OF SULFURIC ACID
MIST EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING
SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION UNITS
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1977
-------
6. Reference 3, above, p. 30.
7. Reference 2, above, p. 111-9.
8. Reference 2, above, p. 111-10.
9. Kurek, R.W. Special Report on EPA Guidelines for State
Emission Standards for Sulfuric Acid Plant Vist dated
June 1974. L.I. du Pont de Nemours ft Co., Inc., Industrial
Chemicals Department. Wilmington, Delaware. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection/"nency, Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards. October 4, 1974. Exhibit 15.
10. Reference 3, above, p. 32.
11. Brink, J.A., Jr. Cascade Impactor for Adiabatic Measure-
ments. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 50: 647,
April 1958.
12. Reference 9, above, Exhibit 12.
13. Reference 2, above, pp. 111-14, 15 and 22.
14. Reference 2, above, p. IV-15.
15. Brink, J.A., Jr. and C.N. Dougald. Particulate Removal
from Process Exhaust Gases. Proceedings of International
Sulfite Conference, TAPPI and CPPA, Boston, Mass., October
30 - November 1, 1972. October 30, 1972. pp. 377-309.
4-13
-------
ibseade tmpactor for Adiabatic Measurements
|j!jpiftfo on development, design,
w«e of a practical instrument
JM&eJifcid make tt possible to
Mrtocpnvenient tested device
(fefflfecial purposes. Particle-
•s_i i •
K» .oeosurements make possi-
;iJ4ftWrnim.ition of acceptable
«S^i; -.discharges of aerosols,
'ion of installed collection
srtf, rational se!&cffon and
R.of etiuipihonf, and recog-
5rtTi of pofenlial problems
c!^.%m .she development of
i' processes,
IprtsWJiKNT uiivirxs have K-. ,1 uwcl
$(•• fin Vr i.vup.i-11; aas-b ,rj,i |»;tni-
jjp'if^j' < .''•*'•'>•< U') a in! I'^riy, l''an,
ftvfiliriMjnii •'/_! >i»r;il 2) sii>!;nl ;. I and ii
JPflfel ididr I-i . 'Ici'I SUHM,H<> Hi" mis
?* « • * *
nj*j.&ya- i Sii',[/>'!id!:d iii y
g !ii ji.iviide size iVftta i ID 50
. La.«kin '/"* >i*:;l May's iiujKic-
eWb.ivy ..rru.Mji |);ii-- of ttiicroii
'icri.it ,»'.-;•*. A iu.:(|i;ii'fl CiiS-
-';3^ !i>hiisi!ni(! u', -'1, fti'd i.'.hi-rs in
'ir ui" llliii.ii? ''ih-iu-i-,
j TliMiD.ii (/iy) an,, \\'i!«.<».\
:-75] i:ivfjiijiated ilie «-!i.ir;,i M risiivi
.isiii II"»K!I: "liti-ilir i.v iin-
iits!;"i;i] jilani'. acr. .;t>[» .:ic
i-'i Iliglt cmu-<:nu'aiii>ijs in g«i»i:5
atii' *vi;ji vaiior ai 30" to _'-Og (.':.
' . . ......
riTu'- IKi:'iU'li>3l-'<' '.'j^i- M-MiUn'^
Impoctor and Auxiliary Apparatus
% uc c.tscacie impactor haa five tii-iinc
iHiiji'S, c;;th of which h,(5 ;> ;-t dial uiiii/i'S
u n>ilcccnn cup as an inij>a''.i> i.tip hi
JJ|;K <:, The panicles stiSpcjidrJ in ihc
)j:iM-s pass thrxiiijh y \r.(, ]>;i'l:i-l<-d with
suMii icnt iiirr'.t impart aj;."t-4i ;i «;icp,
jnul the rcinaiiifft.T pusri ilnu"r,'i •uinuUir
sK>'i located around the cup. K.i'.'ti noi-
li:i:iifui cup hits annular sluu v.'iih a ii.u.il
ci'iWs-scctionHl area 3(> ciim:; 'lit' ii'.'ea uf
(In: largi-.st jcl; tticbtilcin cl.'-<.:•; ;i( »!>c
siou 'vcrc Jicgli'^ible widi ihi-, dcsi^ii.
The dimensions of iht imj^iccif jets
f I'iililt: I) were Mtlcciod oj etl by
Kan/. ;md Wong {//). 'P. iiii|iact>ir
ii IS'/j inches ''ing :>,nd w.i1- ,n,u-!iinrd
rrniii 3K) siainlfM stci-t. r:i:'sii'U-» i'i ()»•
t».3- l», 3.0-micron ranijc aic • 4i>-ciflass cyrlone, %vidi the .^iine iliiiicu-
ai'im ;i5 that describee) by < !i!!csi)ic (2, .i),
i.< used upstn-aiu from rof im,
Two filters, coissisung of (....ming Ki
9480 filter tubes packed ti^'iiiy with >'••
800 Pyrcx glass u-ool, co!i'---: pariirici
less than 0.3 micron in dior-.-tcr. T!i--
cyclone-, impartor, and ultitrs .'n--
mounted in a box with a removable
side. A No. 2'/5 L-lt Matuilacutiin-..
Co. b'owcr, inside the box, is driven b\ ;>
8WO r.p.in. I'.iiirhilcl Jnih!s;ii>:s (M<«\--!
Table I,
Jet Ko,
l
2
j
4
5
" From
Dimensions of C
p actor Jef-f
Dimccr-lov
Jcl dinnt.
0.219
0.1775
O.UV6
0.0946
0.0731
roller! ion <•>!(» .'uri'ic,'
.iscade 1'
. CtTI.
-'•incinp o
. i openiit.-
0,747
0.533
0.41'."
0.282
0.220
COLLECTION
CUP
SPRING
JET SPINDLE
GASKET
^
\/ft* Kx ^ ' c\vK'-'>/y
m -" /;> m
•:/A • "' w'S.
ikZt _A
v
, a_ ..h.
in-line ii^poct-^r l,,r. I-... '.lo.iijs. f'oi licit"
-------
•3 SLOTS
Collection cups are positioned so that
the distance from the jet decreases
as the jet diameter becomes smaller.
Annular slots around cup minimize
turbulence
1401) motor on the back side of the box.
A heater, consisting of dircc 12-inch
sections of Nichromc resistance wire
> •}}(,, A\if I, I'MiIrd I Mi' ,
• i' M'1?, t.-f'.K I* flM'l'>H«'«1 i'i <••)).
i :i 100" (i) 1''D" !•'. tin- ;il
i..«.. (,';it;it"i', N.I. IV'-i.ii},
r- * N'MljilHtl ;< i ch.it .:!' MIH'JJ
"ii ,il ;: tiinh vrlnriiv pn-n 'tic
•-i;i*i«*liii'. ;iuil lilii'i,- 'i In
:••; HIM ii.iij;r.< .'III ' liiri"r,'ilurc of the ;iii" entering (he
blower at»l leaving the healer. Two
ni;im>iiic!'.'i.s, mounted mi (he removable
sidf of ihc lx>x ;ind connected 10 Ihc
impatuor, ine.Tsurc ihc static pressure at
the iuicl and (lie pressure drop across the
iiupactor. ,
A Kiiu^lc line, hca\cd wiih !lexi!»k'
wpc heaters (dtclromagneiic healing
t.-ipe, Mr>wc
fUnv ihrnu^h the impar.tur w;is FUn'U-d
SWITCHES
GASES FROM
PROCESS LINE
GLASS CYCLONE
THERMOSTAT-
GASES TO
ASPIRATOR\J
^•-NEEDLE VALVE
vGLASS WOOL FILTERS
Compocf make-up of itnpoclor and its ouxiliary equipment make ii suiicble for
tests ihrougHo"' fhc pUiuf
I- [(I - ll!i"l l"i
A I'.'ICIHII.I !P '" >?"
I „.. ||v. W • •*•
. | •!! I»M •
* iu' •i.U*'
• .til, iiinin-i
lii III'1 L'lid lit I >»«,
i.i," ivcitn 5f iis:11"''"
•i! <••• pnr .-tintitc.'
up '•• :.'ut: cf the in-
• >" i MH: svns limilc 1
(...,,, i|ii> cup; a :;• ^
• I'. .»l,l»il;i;'" ('I'll''! !«' ' IlllcCtlifi • '
•;i n'iiti'iti1 ( I'li'i rti'iliU*11(< 'I In*
,ni: ,|>':* i;i"f n/lS '(Scd, Sn tlfl'
'ill
iiiltcf .up-. \Viih 'in<- trlnl niii,}l!i"'
(lew t;iu- I'm' xnlt«'ji|tn'in mnj ivassctai f.[
level li'-ai wcntld give inaxiinurn collet**
linn mi, ih<: ihivd in middle stage of.lhS'
impacior, ;u)tl the sample lime was, 5c5.
;il lite maximum limr Icasihle-widioU't.
ic-i'iitraiiiinent. ' ; '
Aftt-r nanh irst (he raniplo cup's*Wnf;
reiiiovcd fuMii itie inipartor with twft'E-
i-i-n. 'Ihc (uinniii)' t-tiliecteij 'oH*''eacIi;
rnj» \\"if dr.l«*rnu!u:tj In' ivctghing an'd/or1
••hcmicnl analyses. Tiie glass 'cycloi'C'
was \vn«hed \vitii svalev and (he soSutto
aiu'ly/rd. The glass unol (liters Wt'tc'
Icarhocl with HTilcr and tiir resultin|'
si'luiiwi \v;if an'il\v,i:d' "•' the glass wool
n-as iciHin'fd, tin* lilk-r hnUli'i was riiijfi!.
;in(! die gla-i.i \\'!'dl and stjiutiuii were ai'.i'-
ly/ed other vuliiiiu'ti ie.'ilh* or grnvimi't*
licalH. depending t>n the type 01" aet'c'-'
51'1. O-.-'ih wcigliinit and chemical anaiv-
Kvf '-.rvc used whr-n r.undi'usatton.-i*
'•vp.|v-i'fitioii was ,! |to(rnii<~it source oi
MANOMETERS
/
NK
s
/
.^Lj
/
—THERMOMETERS
'ntri'o '
-------
CASCADEIMPAGTOR
. cnnr; double atinKsi'ii shouxd ifuii er-
yoii due ti> ixmden.H uion ur ovaporiilinii
were negligible and s;uti|>Hiig v.-as adi.'i-
baiic.
i
Calibration ot'lmpacfor
I iic ill-line imprict'ij- wi\i deiiyr.t.d
with ihe internal dina-.isiemj used bv
Rani and Wong (/?), except ihai die
gases leaving any stage parsed through
Annular slots armmd the O'lUxtion cups
rather lluut,mu the side. As tin; vrliioi-
litj lluvugh* (lie slots' \vovt: l/J» Hi '/aw
the jt!i vclueilrea, the in-line iiii|i;n:uir
Wsexpccjwl In [ii'ifonn in iht: same xvay
W iiiipaclurn used by Ran/, and \Vt sliunld have liie muiw
, Calibrai ioi* ;IN tlcu:nuincti by ihoju,
* U'iili .1 gas mcicr, (In; in-lin<: hii|i,tctor
was calibrated as a i!o»»'ii'n;lei'. The rc-
lani):ialiip lieiu'cen gas How t!>rougb ihe
iiiipactor and pressure drop across che
'ir. density.
PorliclB-Siia Distribution
•Calculations
C!|ilcti!aiioil (if p.iniule-iizc. disiiibii-
^ioiu \va» based un lln: j-ciierali'/ccl «-a!i-
bf,.., F.qnationS
2, 4, and u ir.in l-ii. <-(,tnbir.,:d to give
./where (v''to)';f = 0.33 for loumljcts (II).
. "However, as the C t'aciiiv is a function of
Dp, taleiilaliuu uf Dtt is not ai slraigbt-
Ijrvvai-L) as indicated by Kri ,n<: <-.\|;,indi;d ilu'fsiisjli a jci,
the l« H:|::'t;iHiii i>h:titi*c cut be ijitimntcd
on the ba»ii 01' Jnciioolcis adiabatic ilow
for a perfd.'l gaa f..i) Mowevcr, in most
cases this iein|KT.ttni<.- change is negli-
gible and the veiueicy of the gases at the
jet throat, <•«, can be csiiumed as follows:
^ + -T-f^ ^ :_'..-•
The characwristic diamvicrs for each
stage <)f the impactor can be calculated
directly from Equation 7. \Vhcn Df/
L X (iO)-4 < 2.7, Equations 2, 3, and 6
must be solved by approximutioii. For
any lest, afier f>/tc was calculated for
30
Sz.o
o
a: 1.5
o
CL
,.o
08
£ 0.6
0.4
0.3
UJ
02
o:
2
O.I
—
—
f**?
^
—
.^H
^->^
^>-^
*•
•z^-
>"
,•
p^
x^
0
9
V
x**"^
X
^
&
^
^
f^
^_^.
y
^
%
^
MIST RETENTION
LOADING TIME
(MG SOS/S.C.FS (MSN)
14. 1 0!
19.3 O.I .
11.7 12.0
1
1
12 5 10 20 30 50 70 90 95 99
CUMULATIVE MASS PERCENT LESS. THAN Dp
Figure I, Cumulative particle iiie distribution of sulfurte acid mist generated in
the laboratory is o function of mist loading and retention t»me
PARTICLE DIAMETER, Dp (MICRONS)
O opoop— _ ro c».tiCj
•o iti 'f* ij< CD o bio ooc
...
.
y
—
0 X
---$
, —
-^1.
r
k~J
'X
^X^
IX
X*
/
m
s
^
^
*
.X"!
.
^^
)
^
ilium i
MIST LOADING
(MG.S03/S.C.F)
0 1.17
X 1.69
[
!
ij ir ,r'
""I ? 5 IO 2030 50 70 90 9S 99
CUMULATIVE MASS PERCENT LESS THAN Dp
Figure 2. Giiwiktlivo particle size distribution of sulfuiic odd ;ikmt aerosols
VOI, 30, NO, 1 « At'tlil »95B 647!
-------
OillllllullOr
Curvo Calculation
.1.11 0.30 U'».t,l
1.63 O.ftS OH.9.»
I. 1(1 .i.7-1 Hfi. IU
0.57 i I. fill 74.5'J
(I.J.I 54.7.1 lO.Hfi
'I In' i V !•<•!•• !ii/,r. flisli if/iiiiiu) itiiil
,,i,|il|l "_ nl 'I i ',il I |('Hvlllf( " U''«' I'lMllil'- I
.snlllhi' HI ill |.{ nil :sri' jilumn ill 1'i^iiii* '«'«
Hi*:* j'l.'iH K i.l sh<* i .coanr*l-MiiMS.inii'
ilr$i;;n, ;• •iiiix'1' (mil u'ilh ;i rjilcrl r;<|>;i>'
lIV .-I" 'M>0 tut,-. | ||iy (111 ll IflO1^, -Mil
Ginis liilcr
e;icii singe, ctiiTiulaiirc disinbulions ,ns
shown in Figtircs 1 to 3 were calculated.
l-'«ir example, Ctinsider ihc curve given for
a IIMKI l9%. This calculation was contin-
u<.'fl ;),* shown in 'Table 11 and then the
Ciirvr was plotted as shown in Figure 1.
Field Measurements
'i in- impaetor and auxiliary apparatus
Ii;ivc. l)c:cn used extensively ;it plants
llirouijiioui the country. Measurements
of p.'ii'iiele-sizc distributions of aerosols
wiltun and Ipaving eight 'didi-iem acid
plains Ijave been measured, and collec-
tion efficiencies :iiri' Me > Mtrtni'nl.s -H'e rccjiiiixxt
A H j'i'*i! JI.'H iiH*'-sivt; fJi^lriljiuion Hfsr
ilir in "! COM f«':r ing ;i |jltt>s|j|j(>ric aei'l
jila'ii i< i;i-.'i"n in I igurc 3.
I'i'nii l>- «i,'r i|rirriiiiiKili«iui by cliriin-
cal II)III;KI[)V prrsuiiiK'l niiiku jHissibli/.
(li'lcniiinalioii i.'f acceptable siar.k ili.«-
rluii'j>rs nl" in'ros/'ls, evalu.'itiiin of in-
siallnl (nllrciion r.(]uipnn:nt, ratiunnl
seSectidii and design of equipment, and
recogniiini! of potential ptobleins early
in the dovi'lopnirni of new processes.
Acknowledgment
The many Ix'ipful suggi'stions in.'ide
by H. 1:. .ff>lin.<-1"iif,W. E. Kanz, Mcrhert
Kraenirr, .{. B ^'ung, ami G. U. Gtllcs-
pie on (he dc3ii>u and operation of cas-
cade imjiarkirs arc gratefully acknowl-
edged.
Jl. P. \Vilif.i .'ui^f ;\ ctm'.pany report on
which this discussion H based. W. ,M,
Davis made scvrrni heljjful sugyestiDtis.
Nomenclature
C — empirical i orn-<:ii(ni far lor fiir
5 pi
,U
^"* A, A
tn ^.U
z
o ~* n
*-s a.U
DC
O
___ d.O
'% t S
O i. 3
UJ i'i-k
H 1.0
UJ n Q
^ U.o
5
•~ ri c
O U.b
f\ e;
u 0-5
-J n A
0 °4
h r» ^
a: U-J
S
Op
0
X
/
R
Rl
J
^
i «
IN r
JN r
Y
> i
*jn i
40.2
0 2
Q.
.-jX-
0 3
X>
0
k^
5
/
0
'
7
^1^
0
"'""
i—., ..
/£
.
9
• 01
0
"^
j
0 9
;;ig I'" mo
uX^
5 9
CUMULATIVE MASS PERCENT LESS THAN, Dp
Figure 3. Distribution of phosphoric acid mlsl leaving typical plant can bo tied
to control process. Analysis of aerosols unde> varying plant conditions aids in (lie
selection of np.w eq'jipmeni
.},"
'I',
l''n
nl* Mimll |i;Ii li' I' .t !i i (!i f !()€
l'ljl
' r>f
mi. uiii.'i
I •>. ) (,iliu.'l< MI..•«.••"•..)*
l«n ;lil her p.till (i'l j'.ii Iti'ilcClllf
i Hi /, " 'i>/in'
--•- ;il).v.,luic pi't-iiin: ;>t Uiicl i
- pn's'tiiic jilii'r j''i, iiiin.
"• pivssiiri' drop ni'iu"! impaclo.
•-> lcin|>i'i;iliin' :iltri }<•>.. "K.
-• i>iis fltiw at inl'.-i !«' impaclo;
i:r./.«rctniel. I',, = 2-1.5 (A/*)c''
fur nir iH 25" ':. and 1'i.
p.s.i.a, '. , ''
=- average linc:ir velncily of pa
(hrough jci, nl /'j ."Hid '.T-
ctn. per sccfintl ',* .
•- average inrdivulnr veliM'ity q
g;is, t'tii, per SCCDII'.I i? =• (10)
I'Bgf I\'C< .013} ,/v
V-'
-- diin'~i»ionl<.'ss incriial parameter
_
-• iii'Tiial punuiiclcr fur inijjactO;
eniei«-m:y of 5t)';o
— K.'O fU'iisuy nfiev 'y\ M "l'% ahc
/'-.. gran) PIT IT, ' •
•' ii M«ii\ ol :n'tiK''il j'.'n'ick', gr.lft
! ({"r i't'.. . .
•• vi-ii't -sin of i^as ;tflrr )>", ill /;anc
/',. . li'in.ir.-i.-.,) ' '•
Literature Cilcd
(l| I riry. R. ,\|., J.'nn-. I,. I'... Ibil'nann,
M. «.!., O,em. Km. i-l, «'.' (I-.-9),
(2) Cillr-pk:, C.'. l< . I'.ilft. l;X|d. Stn.
Univ. (llinoi?. I ireh. Rcpt. 3;
O) Cilloiiii-. G^ R.. .Inhnsinne, H.1 F.,1
C.7iJ.i. £•>£. r>»K,. -,\.'U\- (1MS).
l-n i:ir,.n',uri(,' I... Smith. C. W , V,$,
. tin.. Minn Kr>.(. hi', tit MJl'l
'.DJ..II,
("1,1 lla'trl,, T. U'arrcn, It.. 1 Jrirtkrr, I1'
.,'. (H.:. lift. '1'iM'ctl. M, JOt ;s932J.
((>) Kai/.. S. Jl.. ot!irr«. l!. S. Pub.'
ifeali,. Unlj;, Hi,!,'.' (1925). •"• J
(7) L;if Uranium Coni-1
poitiuis," ftl, ijy G. Vot:<{tlii\ 'anil'
H. C. Hwlft,', MrGraw-Hill, New"
York-, 194'.)." . ' ' '•
/S) iM:!y, .1. !<., ,' AV-. fmf. M, 181
(I'j.if)!. « •
\')) Owens, ,1. S., I'm,: Hn: ,V»,: (Londin)
A t(JI, 1M (19221 " .'.' ;
(Ki) I'itcli-'.r, J. M., Mitch':)!, R, I.:
'riii«ii!«s, H, K., 1'iot. Chen*. Sjxt!
Mni. A.nur, tlkrecinlter I'-'TiS;. • i'
(II) Han*. W. K.,' \V.mSl .1. H,, AM.t,
Att.lt, In,!. /A,", anil Oitil/mlaiul',
Mr,l. 5,4M (I;)'.S2). I |
(12) Raiv/., W. ]•'.,. W0nB. .1. 11.. INC/
I'.NC CHUM. •*•!, '.V;i (l'J52).
(131 Smtkiii. !.. S., ./, /«,/. rfi.". Tnvi'«i,:
UB, 2f-') 1 1 WC.'. ' i
(1-1! Wilr-,i», .f. p.. ,l,1,'..r.-l;<-/i. /«». H)t.\
nml II. , „/.::!!,>•:, it Mr,l. 7, .^.6 ''I'l.SS),
1)5! n'ilo.v. .1, IX, Vuu Anuvtp. >\" R.,
Jr.. ?H/.I ,li^-. /••,»'. /,Vn;"l II, 422:
Rr!;i:n-i:i> :V-r ccvimi- Maicli 2], 195'''
Acc.Kr i i-.u .\\iRirtt 14, 1957
Annual M»'i-.tir.( , AlChK. IV.ision, NJasi.,
Heerin!}<;i !n>i6 ' •
648
ENGIWEERINO CHR
-------
PARTiCULATE EMISSIONS
FROM NON-FIRED SOURCES
IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES:
A REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA
API PUBLICATION NO. 4363
American Petroleum institute
2101 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20037
-------
DCN-82-203-007-10
PARTIOJLATE EMISSIONS
FROM NON-FIRED SOURCES
IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES:
A REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
American Petroleum Institute
The Particulates Task Force
Prepared by:
G. E. Harris and L. A. Rohlack
Radian Corporation
P. 0. Box 9948
Austin, TX 78766
-------
RADIAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Those individuals and companies who supplied unpublished data de-
serve a special commendation.
The API Particulates Task Force is to be commended for its respon-
siveness and aid in determining the objectives and approach to the study.
Tnose Radian employees who worked on this project and their
contributions include: W, D. Balfour, review of test methods; M. A.
Capalongan, data source reviews; S. R. Fernandes, program management;
S. L. Henneman, report production; W. R. Hearn, engineering review; J. L.
Meling, data source reviews; and the library staff, source identification
and retrieval.
-------
RADIAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a study of particulate emissions
from non-fired sources in petroleum refineries. These sources include cata-
lytic cracking processes, coking, sulfur species control operations, cooling
towers, asphalt blowing, solids handling, and other miscellaneous sources.
The objective of this API-funded study was to gather and evaluate all availabl
data on refinery non-fired particulate emissions. In addition to mass emissio
data, the particle size distribution (PSD) and the chemical composition of the
particulate matter were of interest.
1.1 Te_chn i c a 1 App r oach
The task of data collection was accomplished by a literature search
for published data and a limited survey to find unpublished data. Published
data were identified by a combination of computer based on-line searches and
a manual search of recent issues of appropriate journals. The on-line data
bases searched are listed in Table 1-1. After completing the collection of
published literature, Radian sent a request for unpublished data to the EPA,
several states, vendors, and six major oil companies. The unpublished data
thus obtained were used to supplement the literature data and to provide an
accurate picture of the available data on refinery non-fired particulate
emissions.
Each piece of test data was carefully reviewed to.determine whether
or not it was suitable for inclusion in the data base. -Review criteria in-
cluded documentation of methodology, acceptability of test methods, documenta-
tion of process conditions, and representativeness of process conditions.
Based on these criteria, each source was rated as good, fair, poor, unknown,
or unacceptable quality.. Only sources of good and fair quality were included
in the final data base. Guidelines for assessing data quality are given in
Table 1-2.
1-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Technical Approach 1-2
1.2 Summary of Results 1-4
2-0 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA 2-1
2.1 Available Data by Source Type 2-1
2.1.1 Catalytic Cracking Processes 2-1
2.1.1.1 Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU). 2-3
2.1.1.2 Other Catalytic Cracking Processes 2-19
2.1.2 Fluid Coking . . . ' 2-19
2.1.3 Sulfur Species Control Operations 2-19
2.1.3.1 Sulfur Recovery 2-19
2.1.3.2 Sulfuric Acid Production 2-23
2.1.4 Cooling Towers 2-23
2.1.5 Asphalt Blowing 2-30
2.1.6 Miscellaneous Solids Handling 2-30
2.2 Study Limitations '...,. 2-30
2.3 Data Source References 2-31
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 PSD for FCCU's with Internal Cyclones 2-5
2-2 PSD for FCCU's with Internal Cyclones 2-6
2-3 PSD for FCCU's with Internal Cyclones 2-7
2-4 PSD for FCCU with External Cyclone 2-8
2-5 PSD for FCCU with CO Boiler 2-9
2-6 PSD for FCCU with ESP 2-10
2-7 PSD for FCCU's with ESP and CO Boiler 2-11
2-8 PSD for FCCU with CO Boiler and Scrubber 2-12
2-9 Comparison of FCCU PSD: Internal Cyclones vs. ESP
and CO Boiler 2-13
2-10 Mean PSD for FCCU's with Various Control Technologies 2-14
2-11 PSD for Fluid Cokers ' 2-22
2-12 PSD for Sulfuric Acid Plants (Duros, R#ll) 2-24
2-13 PSD for Sulfuric Acid Plants (Brink, R/M) 2-25
2-14 PSD for Sulfuric Acid Plants (Donovan, R#10) 2-26
2-15 PSD for Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers 2-28
2-16 PSD for Natural Draft Cooling Towers 2-29
-------
RADIAN
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 On-Line Data Bases Searched 1-2
1-2 Criteria for Evaluating Data 1-3
2-1 Summary of Available Particulate Data for Refinery
Non-Fired Sources 2-2
2-2 FCCU Mass Emission Data 2-4
2-3 Elemental Composition of FCCU Particulate __. 2-16
2-4 FCCU Particulate Polycyclic Organic Matter Content 2-17
2-5 Mass Emission Data for other Cracking Processes 2-20
/
2-6 Other Cracking Particulate Polycyclic Organic
Matter Content 2-21
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 1-1. ON-LINE DATA BASES SEARCHED
Data Base
Description
APILIT
APTIC
CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS
COMPENDEX
COMPREHENSIVE DISSERTATION
INDEX
CONFERENCE PAPERS INDEX
DOE ENERGY
ENVIROLINE
NTIS
POLLUTION
Worldwide refining literature.
Broad air pollution data base.
Papers on pure and applied chemistry.
Worldwide coverage of major journals,
publications, and societies.
Guide to doctoral dissertations from
American Universities.
Papers from technical meetings.
Literature on all aspects of energy.
Environmental literature.
Government sponsored research.
Worldwide environmental literature.
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 1-2. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DATA
1. Good Quali_ty - Well documented, standard procedures
have been used to acquire these data; these data have
withstood peer review (i.e., publication in a respect-
journal) ; data precision and accuracy have been
statistically evaluated.
2. Fair Quality - the procedure (or individual steps
within a procedure) is either poorly defined, not
well documented, or has been modified.
3. Poor Quality - Data need replacement; inappropriate
or perhaps invalid procedures have been used in data
acquisition; data does not withstand peer analysis;
the accuracy and precision of the data are unknown
or undefined.
4. Unknown Quality - Data require corroboration; samp-
ling and/or analytical techniques are new or unknown;
applicability of methods used for data acquisition
to a specific problem is uncertain.
-* • ^° Practical Utility - Data cannot fce substantiated;
data are known to be unreliable and should not be
used; data lack some critical piece of information
(for instance, if mass emission data is expressed in
Ib/hr and no process capacity is given, the data can-
not be normalised for comparison to other units).
1-3
-------
RADIAN
A worksheet was completed for each data source. These worksheets
provided a quick summary of the data source, refinery source, emission data,
and data quality rating. The completed worksheets are included as Appendix
A, and the existing data base is summarized in Section 2.
1.2 s\irnmary of Results
A large volume of data on particulate emissions from non-fired re-
finery' sources was located. The existing data base was deemed to be adequate
for the following sources:
• Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU) with conventional
control technology (cyclones, CO Boilers, electrostatic
precipitators, and scrubbers)
• sulfuric acid plants, and
• cooling towers.
A second group of sources was found to be only partially character-
ized, but of little significance due to extremely low particulate emissions
and/or unit populations. That group included:
• other cracking processes,
• sulfur recovery operations,
• asphalt blowing/incineration, and
• fluid coking.
A third group was identified as possibly needing further characteri-
zation. These units have little or no data in the existing data base ar».d
either have significant current populations or growth potential. Included
-------
RADIAN
in this group are delayed cokers and FCCU's with emerging technology (heavy
oil cracking, SC>2 adsorbing catalyst, etc,)-
1-5
-------
RADIAN
2.0 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA
Available published and unpublished data on participate emissions
from refinery non-fired sources have been reviewed for this study. Table 2-1
summarizes the resulting data base by source type/control technology catego-
ries. The term "data element," as used in the table, denotes an independent
piece of data on a process unit. If one literature reference presented data
on three different units, that was considered as three data elements. If a
source was tested three times on successive days, the results were averaged
and considered as one data element. If, however, that source was tested at
three widely separated times (e.g., start~of-run, mid-run, end-of-run), each
test was considered a data element.
The data have been sorted by the type of refinery process and, where
appropriate, by the type of emission control applied. The data have been
further subdivided into mass emission data, particle size distribution (PSD)
data, and chemical composition data. The PSD data are presented in the range of
0.1 to 10 microns. This was done because most of the available data fell with-
in that range. The following subsections summarize the data by those catego-
ries. More detailed data can be found in the individual worksheets in Appendix
.A. Each worksheet has a reference identification which corresponds to the
reference list at the end of this section,
2.1 Available.Data by Source Type
i-
2.1.1 Catalytic Cracking Processes
Most of the data found in the open literature were associated with
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU). The FCCU data are presented by control
type, followed by a brief summary of data on other catalytic cracking processes.
2-1
-------
TABU' 2-1. SUMMARY OF AVAj.LAHLF, PAHT.F CUl-ATE DATA FUR KEF I.NF.RY NON-FI.HEI) SOUKCKS
I-J
I
Source Type/Emission Control
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU)/
Internal Cyclones
External Cyclones
CO Boiler
Electros tatlc I'recf pit.Tt.or (F,SP)
ESP and CO Boiler
CO Boiler and Wet Scrubber
Granular Bed Filter
Centrifugal Swirl Vane Separator
lilfili Temperature Regeneration and
SO? Absorbing Catalyst
Thermofor Catalytic Cracking Unit (TCCU)
Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking Unit
Houdriflow Catalytic Cracking Un,it (TCCU)
Fluid Cokcrs
Sulfur Species Control Operations
Clans Units
Claua plus Beavon/Stretford . '
Sulfur storage vent
Sulfuric Acid Plants,.
Cooling Towers - Mechanical Draft
- Natural Draft
Asphalt Blowing/ Incineration
Other Miscellaneous Solids Handling
Number of.
Mans
Emissions
9
1
2
/,
20
3
0
]
L
3
1
0
5
0
2
1
1.
2
1
0
0
Acceptable
PartJclc
Sizes
/"~\
M
w
i
2
5
1
.1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
2
0
0
Data Elements
Composition
1
0
2
0
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
Number of
Unusable
Data Elements
14
1
3
n
.1
1
0
0
I
-------
2.1.1.1 Fluid Catalytic^ Cracking Units (FCCU)
The FCCU is potentially the most significant particuiate emitter of
all refiner}1 processes, but a variety of sophisticated emission control sys-
tems has greatly reduced those emissions. A large body of FCCU test data was
found in both the open literature and from unpublished sources, but because of
the many diverse emission controls, this source category is still only partially
characterized.
The FCCU data have been subdivided into mass emission data, particle
size distribution (PSD) data, and chemical composition data. The available
aiass emission data have been summarized in Table 2-2. Each mass emission data
element is given along with its reference identification. The range and mean
of the available data are also presented.
The available particle size distribution (?SD) data are presented
graphically in Figures 2-1 through 2-10. Figures 2-1 through 2-3 present data
for FCCU's with internal cyclones. Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 present data for
external cyclones, CO Boiler, and ESP, respectively. Figure 2-7 presents PSD
data for units with both an ESP and CO Boiler. Figure 2-8 presents data on
FCC units with wet scrubbers. Figure 2-9 presents the range of PSD data for
the two best characterized cases, units with internal cyclones and units with
both ESP and CO boiler. Figure 2-10 presents a "typical" PSD for each control
technology.
A few observations can be made concerning the FCCU PSD data. The
median particle size ranged from under 1 to over 10 microns, with a mean value
in the 2 to 3 micron range. Submicron particles accounted for from 10 to 50
percent of the total particuiate mass, and that percentage increased with in-
creasing control efficiency. Particles of greater than 10 microns were a sig-
nificant component of uncontrolled FCCU emissions (15 to 60%), but were only a
cinor proportion when highly efficient controls were used (1 to 20%).
2-3
-------
KJ
1
JO
Crafs0i0n Control Synteea
Inte rnn I Cyc loneft
Ksicrnfi 1 Cyclone(s)
CO Bnl Icr
ESr and CO Boiler
CO Boiler nod Scrubber
Complete Rcgencral Ion find
SOj Absorbing Cutily^t
TABLE 2-2. FCCtl MASS EMISSION PATA
Ih/ln1 1*1 » FtUSil Feed
Hiss Bnlssion ftjt.,1 Hlownts
(Reference 1)
244 ) 5! to BHJ (»ll«)
10.1 (UIO)
6B.2 (DA) 10.8-657 (BdlB)
»*.9 (R*J)
i? (RI34) 20 (RIMi 11 (RI34)
21,1 (RI23) IJ.ft (Rl)i) 20.9 (RI31)
64.6 (HIJI) 12.4 (Mil) 9,1 (M»ll)
2fl.8 (RI31) 13.3 (RI31) 10.1 (R»J!)
18. 1 (RI31) 15. J (Rill) 33.5 {BI21)
U.2 (R»,13) ? - 150 (RI5)
10
(255)
9.1 - 150
(29.9)
8.1 - 10
(9.1}
(*J.'>
I1 — ATM2 ™~
Factor
(Pcfcrince 15
'=«
-
'
45
(Hi 30)
-
-
P
IS
z
-------
CO
z
O
DC
O
OC
UJ
100
9,0
n.o
7.0
6.n
5.0
3.0
-i 20
Q
UI
O
K
OC
<
Q.
O
O
O
(X
uu
<
LLJ
t.O
0.9
0,8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
O 0.2
LU
U.
U.
LU
0.1
o
ci
ITS — CM in ~
°. a o o
V-
frt
i Unpublished Source // 6
I Unpublished Source // 7
Unpublished Source ft 8
OUnpublished Source ff 10
m o o o o
O
(O
O
o»
-------
Unpublished Source ff 12
Unpublished Source tf 13
Unpublished Source //
O Unpublished Source I 15
D Unpublished Source 0 15
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
70A29B7
Figure 2-2. PSD for FCCU's with Internal Cyclones
-------
o
a:
(j
5
a:
LU
LU
10.0
a
O
oc
UJ
<
UJ
>
u
UJ
UJ
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
O
in *- cvj m •- f^J f
(Q Ol
CT) Ol
Ol CD
Oi
Oi
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
• Unpublished Source ti 9
Unpublished Source // 9
A Unpublished Source // 9
D Unpublished Source // 16
Unpublished Source if 17
70A2987
Figure 2-3. TSI) for FCDU's with Internal Cyclones
-------
IU U
8n
fn 7 n
*- 60
o
o: *o
0 5'°
^ 40
DC
LLJ 30
H J
U.I
< ", r.
Q
01
Q
H-
tr
*-
>
t\
.
u
/
y /
^-—
RJ
T C
/
J
/
3
^
P
/
C
c
/ y
9
3 C
si r*
^
7
\ 5
/•
/
Jf
f
" C
If
J
/
~T~
/
r j
^
^
? s
p
^
-•
p
/
3 C
3 t-
/
/
» C
d
W
J
3
S
> If
s O
•j
^
a
o
J 0
1 O
n a
» a
O
) c
{ 5
' 2
T m
O
Unpublished Source I 10
External €%rclone Exit
Unpublished Source 9 10
Cyclone. Inlet
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
<% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
Figure 2-4. PSD For FCCLI with External Cyclone
-------
1 U U
»« 7 n
z 60
o
0
DC
m T n
UJ
5
< an
O
UJ
_J
O
f-
tr
-
i C
- c
3 C
U tj
D C
»
r» •
D
f
-^
a
u
;3p-"*
•«
n c
^~~
3
C
r
— •-•
3 C
^ r
J
4
> c
•>
/
/
y c
i u
1
I
"> «
/
/
r
J S
y
/
•
7
/
/
r
3 C
- n
/
/
g
c
c
3 U
n c
•>
i
<
g i
ji a
" «
c
1 t
n e
n <
?* c
R 8!
Unpublished Source // 4
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
F.igure 2-5. PSD for FCCU with CO Boiler
70A29R7
-------
o
100
(/} ' u
Z R ft
o
cc s n
0
CK
UJ
Q
Ltj
_J
O
1 10
O 0.8
2 °-7
C
3
- r
3 C
M U
D C
1 ~~
3
(S
>j
, ,
ij
n c
5
C
r
•> c
y r
S C
1 *
/
3 C
f il
j
1
I
f
\
? f
I
1
/
J
f
I i
j
1
.
I
3 e
Q
J
(
I
r
i
J U
B c
T
n
a
c
0 C
n c
I> a
" c
3 C
n (
•> (
D 0
* a
OJ
Unpublished
Source if 20
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
?0A208?
Figure 2-6, PSD for FCCU with ESP
-------
fO
I
O
CC
O
i
erf
tu
h-
IU
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
Q.
O
O
O
oc
LU
<
UJ
(J
UJ
11.
LL
LU
-S an
Q
UJ
j
O
h-
cr
i.O
0.9
on
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.»
a
d
z
• Unpublished Source d 19
! Unpublished
Source // 23
_
2.1.. Re I sman
O 29. Taback
s
s §
co
en
03 OT
0i oi
Ol
O1
2?
o>
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
Figure 2-7, PSD for FCCU'S with ESP and CO BniJ.Kr
-------
10.0
o n
(/) '-U
*2" R ft
o
ft n n
0
cc
iij in
5
< , n
Q
LU
a:
1 O 0.8
*-* ^ n 7
K> 5 a/
C
">
/
/
3 C
i tf
/
it
> c
T
n
a
e
0 C
i S
B o
a
3 C
1 t
1 <
3 8
:n Ch
• Unpublished Source ff 5
moan ^5*range
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
70A2987
Figure 2-8. PSD for FCCU with CO Boiler and Scrubber
-------
NJ
I
U)
z
o
a:
o
oc
IU
\-
U.I
10 U
9.0
no
7.0
6.0
1.0
3.0
S ?n
o
UJ
_l
y
oc
< 1.0
a. 0.9
O 08
5 0.7
< 0.6
Z
> 0.5
g 01
UJ
"* 0.3
UJ
O
LU
U-
u.
UJ
0.2
0.1
q
o
IX
ix
Z
z
S»- CN
. CS C3
O
o o o o o
01
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
en
01
70A2987
"* Ijit:ernn.l Cyclones
f.nrne Boundary
-O In te enn I Cyc lones
.Smnll Boundary
« ESP 6, €0 Roller
Largo Boundary
ESP & c;o Boiler
Small Boundahy
Figure 2-9. Comparison of FCCU FSH: InLcrnnl Cyclones vs ESP and CO Boiler
-------
i to
I
IU.U
a n
Bn
ir\ 70
f~ fi f)
O
fC r, n
0
5 A n
n:
LU TO
LU
< TO
O
ID
0
1—
a:
8
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
Intern.'tl Cv«:lones
External, Cyclones
O ESP and Co Boiler
D CO Boiler and Scrubber
Crnnu.lar Bed Filter
A Centrifugal Swirl
Vane Separator
Figure 2-1.0. Mean PSD for KCCU' s with Various Control Technologies
-------
Data on the chemical composition of particulates from FCCU's were
found for seven units. The majority of the data were inorganic elemental
analysis, and these data are summarized in Table 2-3. Some data were also
found concerning particulate polycyclic organic material (PPOM) which are
presented in Table 2-4.
A brief discussion of the factors which can potentially affect
particulate emissions from an FCCU is worthwhile at this point. The most
significant factor is certainly the type of emission control equipment em-
ployed, and all of the data presented here are organized by type of particulate
control, Particulate emissions can also be affected by the type of regenera-
tion, the type of catalyst, and the feed to the FCCU. Since such detailed
process information was not available for most of the test data, these
factors cannot be accounted for quantitatively. The following general dis-
cussion will point out the directional effects of these factors.
Conventional operation of an FCCU regenerator combusts the coke on
catalyst at temperatures ranging from 1000 to 1100°F and results in a flue
gas with roughly equal concentrations of CO and C02. The combustion of the
flue gas is often completed in a downstream CO Boiler. During the mid-1970's,
refiners began to experiment with completing the flue gas combustion in the
regenerator. This was initially accomplished- by raising the regenerator
temperature to the 1100 to 1350DF range and was called high temperature re-
generation. This new type of regeneration offered many benefits, but its
acceptance was slow because the regenerator metallurgy in many existing units
could not withstand the higher temperatures. That problem was largely
circumvented by the development of combustion promoters which allowed com-
plete flue gas combustion at or near conventional regeneration temperatures.
t
A breakdown of the type of regeneration used in August 1978 is presented below.
Although more .recent figures have not been located, it is anticipated that cur-
rent operations have shifted to favor the promoted combustion type of regenera-
tion.
2-15
-------
Table 2-3. IJLJiHKNTAI. COMPOSITION OF FCCU PARTI.CIJI.ATK
NJ
t
Element
Alum (mum
Arsenic
Barium
I'adnvium
CnJ.c I urn
Chromium
Copper
I r on
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Seleni urn
Silicon
Silver
Sod I ura
Tin
Vanadium
Z i.nc
Total. Carbon
Vol.; n tile Carbon
Solvent Extractables
Hydrogen
Nl trogen
Reference Number
3/1 3f> 11 m
(Stark 11)* (Stack I/.)*
ppmw ppmw Wt . 7,
MC** MC <0.0l
4 4 <0.01 \
860 790 <0.0.l
<0.3 <0.5 <0.0,l
MC MC < 0.0.1
MC 840 0.11
140 40 0,05
MC MC <0.01
29 54 <0.01
200 MC < 0.0.1
<0,3 <0.01
550 300 0.11
MC MC <0.0l
5 36 0.01
MC MC <0.01
<0.3 0.5 <0.01
MC MC <0.01
4 5 <0.01
100 150 <0.01
130 260 0.07
. _ 22.6
_ _
- - J.8.0
5.9
4.3
33 (B)
Wt. %
-
0.01
0.02
<0.01
-
0.01
0.09
-
<0.01
-
<0.01
0.01
_
<0.01
-
-
_
-
0.01
0.13
20.0
_
29.0
1.8
0.3
U 19 29
Wt. Z Wt. %
NQ**
d**
_
_
NQ . t**
_
0.03
0.95 t
d
-
-
0.03 d
_
_
NQ 10
_
NQ
..
-------
. TABLE 2-4. I'CCU PAHTJ.CULATE P01.YCYCU.C ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT
Component
Ben 7.o(n) Py rene
Pyrcne
Bcnzo(6) Pyrcne
Peryleiie
Ben?.o[ghi]Perylene
AJI tli rene
Coronene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthrene
Emission Factor ib/106 Bh.l. of Fresh Feecl
R//32. Facility //I
CO Boiler Inlet
3.52
3.74
1.17
nd*
0.33
nd*
nd*
nd*
3.52
CO Boiler Outlet
0.24
1.92
0.46
ml*
nd*
nd*
nd*
nd*
1.59
U032. Facility 02
CO Boiler Inlet
10.1.3
616.7
79.29
nd*
9.25
46.3
nd*
8811
440.5
CO Boiler Outlet
0.483
3.74
0.4
nd*
1.21
nd*
nd*
nd*
1.87
*nd - not detected.
-------
RADIAN
% of US FCCU's Using
Regeneration Technique That Technique_Augus t,19_78
Conventional Regeneration 53% (R$37)
High Temperature Regeneration 26%
Combustion Promoting Catalyst 10%
Combustion Promoters 11%
(separate from the catalyst)
The. type of regeneration can affect particulate emissions in several
ways. The regeneration temperature has an effect on. the rate of sintering
of catalyst particles. It is this fracturing of catalyst particles which is
largely responsible for the formation of particulate matter which is fine
enough to escape the internal cyclones. Thus, the severity of regenerator
conditions can affect both the particulate emission rate and size distribu-
tion. The particulate composition is also affected, since conventional re-
generation results in a coke content on catalyst of 6 to 7 weight percent,
while high temperature and combustion promoted regeneration can. achieve coke
levels below 5 weight percent.
FCCU catalyst has evolved significantly over the last 20 years,
going from natural clays to synthetic zeolites to present day combustion
promoted and/or S02 adsorbing catalyst. Each type of catalyst has different
characteristics in terms cf fracture resistance due to mechanical and thermal
stresses. As previously explained, it is the rate and nature of the catalyst
fracturing that largely determines the particulate emission rate and size
distribution. Since each of these catalysts may have different formulations,
the particulate composition is also affected.
The feedstock to be cracked can also have a noticeable effect on
particulate emissions. A heavier (more refractive) feedstock is more diffi-
cult to crack and may require higher catalyst circulation rates. Heavier
feedstocks tend to produce more coke, which requires more severe regeneration.
Heavier feedstocks typically contain higher metals content, much of which is
deposited on the catalyst as coke. The combined effects of higher catalyst
circulation, higher coke yield, and higher metals content could cause a
significant effect in particulete emissions rates, sizes, and compositions.
2-18
-------
RADIAN
2.1.1.2 Other Catalytic Cracking Processes
Particulate emission data were also found for Thermofor Catalytic
Cracking Units (TCCU), Moving Bed Catalytic Crackers, and Houdriflow Catalytic
Cracking Units (HCCU). Most of the available data were in the form of mass
emission factors and are summarized in Table 2-5. Sotae PPOM data were also
identified and are presented in Table 2-6.
2.1.2 Fluid Coking
A limited -amount of data were found on particulate emissions from
fluid coking. The mass emissions data are summarized below:
Reference Control Emission Factor
R//30 (AP-42) Internal Cyclone 523 lb/103 Bbl. Fresh Feed
Ri?34 Internal Cyclone 437
Ri'34 Scrubber and CO Boiler 153
Ri'5 Internal Cyclone 523
R??5 ESP and CO Boiler 6.85
In addition, PSD data from two sources are presented graphically in Figure
2-11. No composition data were found.
2.1.3 Sulfur Species Control Operations
Sulfur species, primarily H2S from desulfurizing units, are typically
controlled in refineries by either sulfur recovery or sulfuric acid plants.
Both operations have some potential for producing particulate emissions.
2.1.3.1 Sulfur Recovery
Only very limited data on particulate emissions from sulfur recovery
vere found. Groenendaal (Ri:3) reported Sg aerosols as 0.3 volume percent in
Claus tail gas, but found none after incineration. An unpublished source
2-19
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 2-5. MASS EMISSION DATA FOR OTHER CRACKING PROCESSES
Process
Emission Factors
lb/103Bbl (Reference //)
Range
(Mean)
Thersofor Catalytic Cracking
Uncontrolled
Cyclones
CO Boiler
17 (M30) (AP-42)
18.3 (R#9)
15 (R*34)
15-18.3
(16,8)
Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking
17
(R//5)
(17)
Houdriflov Catalytic Cracking
No data
2-20
-------
TABLE 2-6. OTHliK CRACK J NO PAKTICULATE POLYCYCLIC OKOANJ.C MATTl-R CONTKNT
ro
I
K)
Component
zo(a) Pyrene
Pyrenc
izo(n) Py rene
Perylene
z.o[ghi] Perylene
Antlirene
Coroncne
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthrene
Emission Factor Ib PPOM/106 Bill. Fresh Fecxl
(K/?32) TCCU //I
COB Outlet
26/i3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(R//32) TCCU 112
COD Inlet
1299
5617
1443
157.5
1080
23.1.3
7.93
7510
440.5
(R//32) TCCU n
COB Outlet
680
6170
1810
-
-
-
_ •
-
-
(R//32) IICCU with CO Boile.r
COB Inlet
45.15.4
2885
6828
748.9
660.8
20.83
242.3
462.55
182.82
COn Outlet
0.99
0.86
2 . 1.4
0.11
2.86
0.18
0.18
1.83
0.51
i
-------
C) ()
R fl
rr\ 7 0
Z 60
o
CT. nn
u 5
? 40
of
UJ 30
t
5
< 20
Q
UJ
U
h-
cr
- n 1
Q
O 04
rc °-4
** ni
IU
>
P
On ?
til
u_
IL
UJ
0 1
c
c
iy
3 C
3 C
> •-
'-
f>
C
i
. _, J
/
(
I
d
Y
> c
i r
4
I
> c
» -i
}
fa
V
' S
0
/
U
r
> c
1 U
_ s<
/
/
/
/
> c
J <>.
/
1
/
J
t
' S
t
/
/
}
/
'
c
c
o—
i S
a
a
i a
i a
1 CC
g
> 0
i a
1 C
n g>
ri *
B O)
O Unpublished Source I? Iti
D 7. Byers
CUMULATIVE HERCENTAGE
'(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
70A2QB7
Fl.gi.ire 2-.U. PSD for Fluid Cokcrs
-------
RADIAN
(U24) reported 0,91 pounds per hour of particulate matter in a sulfur storage
tank vent. Two other unpublished sources (U2, 153) reported 0.39 and 0.35
pounds particulate per ton of sulfur produced, respectively. These figures
are for Claus units with Beavon/Stretford tail gas treating. There is no
parciculate matter emission factor for sulfur recovery units in AP-42.
2,1.3.2 Sulfuric Acid Production
Only one data element concerning mass emissions from sulfuric acid
plants was located. Donovan (R#10) reported particulate emissions of 0.064
pounds per ton of acid produced, based on testing several umi_s ranging irum
800 to 2000 tons per day production. AP-42 (R//30) presents emission factors
for 985 acid plants with'ESP's as 0.10 Ib/tonjand for (iiber. misj.. elimina.to-r-s
as 0.02, 0.10, 0.11 Ib/ton for tubular, panel, and dual pad configurations..
respectively, "Several sources presented PSD data which are graphically sum-
marized in Figures 2-12, 2-13, and 2-14. _No data were found pertaining to
:.he che£Tc~ar~coinposiTi"on of the particulate from sulfuric acid plants, but
it c£~ be safely assumed that the bulk is sulfuric acid mist.
2.1.4" pooling Towers
The literature contains many papers on cooling tower drift, but
cost of those are slanted toward plume deposition models and data. Most drift
calculations, are expressed as a percent of the circulating water lost. The
accepted industry standard for drift was 0.2% loss, but advances in mist
eliminator design and in direct measurement of drift rates have greatly re-
duced that factor. Roffman (R#24) reports a range of 0.001 to 0.02% loss for
both mechanical and natural draft towers, based on a summary of previous test-
ing. Furlong (R#12) reports on a mechanical draft cooling tower that was
guaranteed by the manufacturer to have drift losses less than 0.008% of circu-
lation. Holmberg (Ri!-15) reported a 0.002% drift loss for a natural draft
towe r,
2-23
-------
I
ro
z
o
IX
o
o
01
LU
D
UJ
_J
O
P
tr
<
IX
O
2
<
Z
>
o
O
(T
UJ
<
LU
>
I-
o
ui
u_
IL
UJ
0 I
Drying Column
• Primary Absorber
(98% Acid)
A Primary Absorber
(Oleum)
9 Secondary Ahsorhei
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
70A2U87
Figure 2-12. PSD Tor Sulfurf.c Acid Plants (Duros, R/Ml)
-------
NJ
I
ro
l-n
CO
2
O
QC
U
DC
<
n.
U
D
O
DC
ill
<
ILJ
O
UJ
IL
U.
IU
IUO
<).()
80
7.0
6.0
50
4.0
rr
UJ 3
UJ
-* 20
Q
ID
_j
O
1.0
09
08
07
O.G
0.5
0.-1
0.3
0.2 i
0.1
ui —
o'
o o
ta t^
CO O)
O CT^
0> 01
%
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
Figure. 2-13. PSD for Sulfur.ic Acid Plants (Brink. R/M)
-------
*u.u
<> fl
fl o
in 7 0
O *'
CT r. n
o °°
"^ A o
of
ID TO
H
LU
<
Q
LU
F
DC
^ 10
^ ^ fi 3
*( 06
O
O 04
QC
< 0 -j
LU
O n ?
yi
IL
IL
UJ
0 1
c
<:
ir
3 C
3 C
> r-
> C
- f>
i c
> c
j *.
3
^*^
6
^
l
L|
1 C
.*•"-•
--
>
-
•^
c
r-
^
3 C
j r1
^
J C
•) 1
I
^"
/
> c
F I/
•^
3 C
1 in
> en
c{
a
3 0
1 O
r> a
» 0
o
3 e
) C
i e
n CT
' Z
P
-------
RADIAN
PSD data for mechanical draft cooling towers are presented in Figure
2-15. Similar data for natural draft towers are presented in Figure 2-16.
Ko data were found pertaining to the chemical composition of drift
fro~ cooling towers, but it can be assumed that the composition of the drift
would be the same as that of the circulating water. Although a dedicated
search was not performed for circulating water composition, two sources were
found in the drift-related literature. Susstnan (R,;28) reported the following:
. pH = 4.3
• Chloride = 931 mg/1
• Sulfate = 3500 mg/1
• CaCOa = 860 mg/1
• Iron = 250 mg/1
woffinden (Rf/36) presented a list of elements and classified them as trace
quantities or predominant elements. The exact salts and their concentrations
oresent in the drift will vary widely with chemical treatment, makeup water
quality, and tower operation.
Cooling towers emit a different type of particulate than the other
sources covered in this study. The bulk of cooling tower participates are
water droplets of comparatively large diameter (from 100 to 10,000 microns).
Tne salt content of the circulating water will contribute some."permanent"
particulate mass, but there are no data in the literature.to characterize
this. Tne range of cooling tower particulate impact is also small compared
to other sources, with 80% of the particulace mass deposited within 500 feet
(Reference #12). Of the smaller particulates which are dispersed in the
plume, much is "fog" rather than drift. Here, drift is defined as a water
particle sheared away from the circulating water and having much the same
mineral concentration. Fog is a water particle which condenses in the air
stream and is relatively pure water (Reference £14).
2-27
-------
NJ
I
o
cc
O
a:
IU
H-
UJ
5
<
o
ai
_j
O
IT
<
OL
O
Z
>
D
O
PC
UJ
UJ
U
UJ
u_
UJ
HO)
rYH
'
w;
fjn
WJ
'00
IrY
u
rr
5C
1
*•
t
/
™ U
3 C
,
i -
3. c
/
- r
3 C
/
g i
3 f
/
1 -
a
,
/
f
/
g
^
u
,/
/
n c
.
/
5
/I
c
f
^
D C
\j r
/
5 e
•> ^
/-
3 C
r U
"
3 C
T U
3 C
n r-
x-
? §
^
3
0
C
C
^
3 U
n c
T
r>
^-
a
c
•^
3 C
n c
, ,,,-^
n a
n c
c
x'
3 C
•> e
n c
-
^X^
^^
n 01
ri w
n 3?
24. Ro f F ma n
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
70A29B?
Figure 2-15. PSD for Mechanical. Draft Cooling Towers
-------
K3
I
to
2
o
OC
O
TO
MO
sro
•101)
30)
l«
K
K
yo
10
//
U-
X
X
X
-\—r
X
i
-: o o o
o
»n
o o
co o>
oq a;
oi oi
R//2A
R//15
"» Fish and Duncan
Research Cottrc.ll
GPU
rO
Sine Wave Mist
Eliminator
Duplex Mist
Eliminator
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
(% BY WEIGHT < DIAMETER)
70A2987
Figure 2-16. PSD £or Natural Draft Cooling Towers
-------
RADIAN
2.1.5 Asphalt Bloving.
Very little data on psrticuiates from asphalt bloving were located,
An EPA report (R/-32) gave emission factors for aerosols of pyrene and anthra-
cene as O.OOS and 0,0006 pounds per ton of asphalt respectively.
2.1.6 Miscellaneous Solids Handling
No data were found tc characterize particulate emissions from other
solids handling processes in refineries.
2.2 S tudy_ Limit at ions
A significant effort was made to gather all available particulace
emission data pertaining to non-fired sources in petroleum refineries. An
extensive on-line search for published data was supplemented by a manual searc
of receni issues of major journals. In addition, a list of agencies and
companies that would potentially have pertinent unpublished dats was contacted
That group included the U.S. EPA, state air pollution control agencies in
heavily industrialized states, vendors of emission control equipment, and six
major oil"companies. The" result of these searches is a large, and fairly
comprehensive, data base. In spite of this, some limitations to the data
base should be noted.
The published data base should be relatively - complete, especially
for data sources specific to refining that were published in a najor journal
within the last 5 to 10 years. It is possible that some older publications,
some foreign data, or some papers from minor conferences may have been missed.
The one significant area where additional published data may exist is in
other industries vith similar sources. Such possibilities were investigated
on a limited basis when little refinery—specific data were found. For in-
stance, data from electric utility and other industries were usec to supple-
ment the cooling tower data base. The scope of this project, however, did
not wllov a full exploration of such "technology transfer" possibilities.
2-30
-------
RAEMAN
me search for unpublished data was also quite successful, yielding nearly as
much quantity as published data, and niuch of it was of higher quality.
2.3 Data Source References
i. Arnold, B.W. and I.E. Gvyn, "Optimum Cat Fines Recovery Benefits
FCC Unit," Oil and Gas Journal, Tl_ (22), 1979.
2. Balfour, W.D., FCCU Emissions Study, confidential Radian report,
February 1978.
3. Blanton, W.A., "FCC S0x Controlled Catalytically in Plants," Oil
and_ Ga_s_ Journal, May 24, 1982.
4. Brink, I.A. and R.W. Karek, "Cascade Irapactor for Adiabatic
Measurements," Inidustrial and E ng inee r i ng Chemistry, M) (647),
April, 1968.
5. Burklin, C.E., Revision of Emission Factors f_or Petroleum Refining,
EPA-450/3-77-030, March, 1977.
6. Byers, R.L., "Evaluation of Effluent Gas Particulate Collection and
Sizing Methods," presented at 38th API Division of Refining Mid-
year Meeting. Philadelphia, May 14-17, 1973.
7. Byers, R.L., "Multicyclones for Control of Petroleum Coke
Emissions," Chemical Engineering Progress, December, 1981.
8. Cunic, J.D., "Scrubber Controls Cracker SO Emissions," Hydrocarbon
Processing, 47_ (9), pg. 31, May, 1978.'
9. Danielson, D.A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, May 1973.
10. Donovan, J.R.S et al. "Analysis and Control of Sulfuric Acid
Plant Emissions" Chemical Engineering Progress, June 1977.
lly Duros, D.R. and E.D. Kennedy, "Acid Mist Control," Chemical
Engineering Progress, September, 1978.
12. Furlong, D. "The Cooling Tower Business Today," Environmental
Science_anc Technology, V8, #8 August, 1974.
13. Groenendaal, "Shell Launches Its Claus Off-Gas Desulfurization
Process," Petroleum and Petrochemical International, 12 (9) pg. 54,
1972.
14. Hanna, S.R. "Fog and Drift Deposition from Evaporative Cooling
Towers," Kuclear Safety, Vol. 15, No. 2, March-April, 1974.
2-31
-------
RADIAN
15. Holmberg, J.D., "Drift Management in the Chalk Point Cooling
Tower," from Cooling^Tower Environment, edited by J. Pell and S.R.
Hanna, ERDA Symposium Series, pp. 128-146, 1974.
16. Jones, 5.G., "Refinery Improves Particulate Control," Oil and Gas
Journal, 6_9 (26)', 1971.
17. Kalen, B. and F.A. Zenz, "Filtering Effluent from a Cat Cracker,"
Chemical Engineering^Progress, June, 1973.
18. Little, A.D., Inc., Screening Study to Determine Need for NSPS
for New FCC Regenerators, prepared under U.S. EPA contract No.
68-02-1332, June 1976.
19. Malarkey, E.J., and C. Rudosky, "The Role of Electrostatic
Precipitators in Petroleum Refining," Paper No. AM-71-11, presented
at the National Petroleum Refiners Association meeting, San
Francisco, March 21-23, 1971.
20. Manshilin, et al., "Trapping Fine Fractions of Aluminosilicate
Catalyst," Chemical Technical Fuels and Oils, 14 (3-4), 1978.
21. Reisman, E., et al. , I_n-S tack Tr ansmissome ter Mea sur ement o f
Particulate Opacity and Mass Concentration, EPA-650/2-74-120,
November 1974.
22. Rochow, J.J., "Measurements and Vegetational Impact cf Chemical
Drift from Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers," Environmental Science
andTechnology, Vol. 12, No. 13, December, 1978.
23. Rodriguez, D.G., "The Measurement of Opacity and Dust Loading in
Fluid Catalytic Cracker Flue Gas," Paper No- 36D, presented at
the 75th AICHE National Meeting, Detroit, June 3-6, 1973.
24. Roffman, A. and L.D. Van Vleck," The State of the Art cf Measuring
and Predicting Cooling Tower Drift and Its Deposition," Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association, 24 (9) September, 1974.
25. Senges, D.C., et al, Closed-Cycle Cooling Sys terns for Steam-Ele ctric
Power Plants: A State-of-the-Art Manual, EPA 600/7-79-001, PB
299290, January, 1979.
26. Shannon, L.J., et al., Particulate Pollutant System Study,Volume
II: Fine Particle Emissions, APTD-0774, August 1977.
27. Shea, E.P., Source Testing, EPA Test No. 6. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
Wilmington^ CA, EPA contract No. 68-02-0228, April 1972.
2-32
-------
RADIAN
28. Sussman, S., "Facts on Water Use in Cooling Towers," Hydrocarbon
Processing. July, 1975.
29. Taback, K.J., et al. , Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary
Miscellaneous Sources in the South Coas^t Air Basin, California
Air Resources Board contract No. A6-191-30, February 1979-
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation^ of Air
Pollution Emission Factors, Publication No. AP-42. August, 1977.
31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Background Information on
Proposed New Source Performance Standards, APTD-13526, June 1973.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sclent if i c and Technical
Assessment Report on Particulate Polycyclic Organic Matter, EPA
600/6-75-001, March 1975.
33. Weston, Roy F., Summary of Particulate Test Data and Test Results
From 2 FCCU Sources, Roy F. "Weston, Inc., Weston Way, West Chester,
Pennsylvania, 19380, Project No. 2184-01-01. August, 1982.
34. Wetherold, R.G., et al., Assessment of Atmospheric'Emissions from
Petroleum Refining, EPA - 600/2-80-075, Radian Corporation,
April 1980.
25. Wilson, J.G. and D.W. Miller, "The Removal of Particulate Matter
from Fluid Bed Catalytic Cracking Unit Stack Gasses," JAPCA, 17
(10), October, 1967.
36. Woffinder, G.J., "Airborne Monitoring of Cooling Tower Effluents,"
Electric Power Research Institute, EA-420, June, 1977.
37. Kemp, V.E. and O.W. Dykerca, Inventory of Combustion-Related
Emissions From Stationary Sources, Update No. 2, EPA-600/7-78-100,
Aerospace Corporation, Environmental and Energy Conservation
Division, El Segundo, CA, June 1978.
U 1. Unpublished source If 1 (FCCU with COB and ESP).
U 2. Unpublished source # 2 (SRU with Beavon/Stretford).
"u 3. Unpublished source 1! 3 (SRU with Beavon/Stretford).
U A. Unpublished source it A (FCCU with COB).
U 5. Unpublished source it 5 (FCCU with COB and Scrubber).
Unpublished source i- 6 (FCCU) .
Unpublished source it 1 (FCCU) ,
Unpublished source // 8 (FCCU).
2-33
-------
RADIAN
U 9. Unpublished source $ 9 (FCCU).
I" 10. Unpublished source i; 10 (FCCU with External Cyclone)
U II. Unpublished source // 11 (FCCU).
U 12. Unpubulished source ;/ 12 (FCCU).
l; 13. Unpublished source // 13 (FCCU).
V 14. Unpublished source ff 14 (FCC'J).
U 15. Unpublished source $ 15 (FCCU).
I 16. Unpublished source. ''• 16 (FCCU).
U 17. Unpublished source if 17 (FCCU).
U 18. Unpublished source // IS (Fluid Coker) .
U 19. Unpublished source if 19 (FCCU with HSF and CGB) .
U 20. Unpublished source ;/ 20 (FCCU with ESF) .
U 21. Unpublished source // 21 (FCCU with ESP).
U 22. Unpublished source £ 22 (FCCU with ESP).
U 23. Unpublished source ••' 23 (FCCU with ESP and COB).
U 24. Unpublished source # 24 (SRU Storage Vent).
U 25. Unpublished source •! 25 (HCCU)
2-34
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS PAGE 1
FPEIS SERIES REPORT SERIES FORM 1 DATE 06/21/83
IS MO: 236 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 12/l«/77 TO 12/14/77 BY K.VB, INC.
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CONTRACT HU11BER: A6-191-30 PURPOSE OF TEST: ENVIRONHENTAL ASSESSMENTS IHULTIMEDIAJ
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION-
SOURCE CATEGORY: CHEMICAL MANUFAC SOURCE NAME: CONFIDENTIAL
SOURCE TYPE: INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC SITE NAME:
PRODUCT/DEVICE: BORIC ACID ADDRESS:
PROCESS TYPE: BORAX * SULFURIC LOS ANGELES ,CA 00000
DESIGN PROCESS RATE: ' 10800 KG/HR
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY: INORG CHEH
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE: SIC CODE: 2819
EADS NASTE STREAM DATA BASES-
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA HHICH MERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOWS!TEST SERIES NUMBER-TSN):
LED5 TSN: GEDS TSN: 00088 SDDS TSN:
REFERENCE REPORT-
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER PUBLICATION DATE
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY AND MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN.
TABACK H.J.
KVB REPORT 5806-783 PB 293 923/AS •-- FEBRUARY 1979
TEST SERIES COMMENTS—-
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TO INVENTORY TSP EMISSIONS,TO PREPARE A COM-
PREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS)I.E. BY SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION),AWJ TO DESCRIBE ALT. METHODS OF CONTROL.
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00236
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CH
COMPONENT
NO NAME
1 PROBE»10 CYC
2 3 UM CYCLONE
3 1 UH CYCLONE
4 FILTER
STAGE •
D50( MICRONS 1
STAGE WEIGHTSr MILLIGRAMS)
MICROGRAMS/OHCM/STAGE
NUHBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. KMASS
DH-LOGD/I NUMBER/DHMJ)
fTIMMFMTT** flW THF FFF I I1FMT
In.Ut if IC.ril.3 %lrt I F 1C CF F uwCri I
COMPONENT
NO, NAME
STREAM NO: ol TEST ID NO: 1 SAMPLE NO:
DESCRIPTION
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
COMPONENT ( ALIQUOT 1 MASS/VOLUME:
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY NAME:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
1234
8.30 1.90 .60 .01
1.41E*03 6. OOE-01 1.50E*00 8. OOE-01
9.77E + OS 4.16E+D2 1.0<»E*03 5.S<«E*02
3.08E+11 1.27E*10 1.63f*12 2.28E»15
.21 .16 .06
1.23E+03 9.75E«02 3.39E*02 O.OOEtOO
2.01E»D3 1.59E + 03 5.5^tE»02 O.OOE^OO
1.8EE*01 J.97E*00 1.07E*OB 7.7SE-08
1.43E»06 6.49E*02 2.06E*03 3.12E+02
4.51E»11 1.98E«10 3.26E»12 1.26E*15
f H 4C A f T F D T *IT 1 f" *5 ™ — — ___,_„_
REMARKS
01 PAGE 7
SERIES FORM 7 DATE 06/21/83
VALUE
8.30 UM
1.41E»03 MG
114.000 MG
ARMAME
1.90 UM
6. OOE-01 MS
.60 UM
l.SOEtOO MG
.01 UM
8. OOE-01 MG
PROBE«10 CYC
ARMAMENT LAB DID THE ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS AND ROCKWELL DID THE
SULFATEi NITRATE t TOTAL CARBON. PROBE MT IS 1.36.
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO! 00236
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO! 02
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 10
DATE 06/21/83
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
COMPONENT
NO NAME
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1 PROBE+10 CYC
2 3 UH CYCLONE
3 1 UH CYCLONE
<« FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
COMPONENT (ALIQUOTI MASS/VOLUME:
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY NAME:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
9,20 UH
2.25E»02 MG
154.000 MS
ARMAME
3,80 UM
5.50E*QO MG
1.30 UM
3.60E*00 MG
.01 UH
2.60E*00 MG
STAGE a
D501 MICRONS)
STAGE WEIGHTSCHILLIGRAMSJ
MICROGRAMS/ONCM/STAGE
NUHBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XHASS<050
CUM. MICROGBAMS/ACM<050
CUM. MICROG1AMS/DNCM
ON- LOG0/( NUMBER/ONUS)
COMMENTS ON THE EFFLUENT CHAF
COMPONENT
NO. NAME
Z
8
1
Z
it
1
1
I
j*l*Tr
\ Mw 1 C
1
9.20
.25E+02
.2SE+03
.23E+35
4.9%
.5BE*02
.29E»02
.92E+01
.291+0%
-50E+35
BTGTf f«5
REMARKS
5
2
7
1
2
5
5
2
Z
3.80
.50E+00
.02E»02
.79E+34
2.62
.37E+OZ
.27E+02
.91E»00
.25E»02
.31E+35
3
1
1
5
9
2
2
2
3
1.30
.60E+00
.32E*02
.32E+36
1.10
.73E+01
.54E+01
.22E»00
.83E«02
.66E+36
4
.01
2.60E»00
9.54E*01
5.31E*36
O.OOEtOO
O.OOE»00
1.14E-01
4.51E*01
1.16E+36
PROBE+10 CYC
ARMAMENT LAB DID THE ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS AND ROCKWELL DID THE
SULFATE, NITRATE ( TOTAL CARBON. PROBE WT IS 70.5 MG.
-------
Air
&EPA
Potash
Test Report
Kerr Me Gee
Trona, California
-------
SET 2653-01-0679
FINAL REPORT
Particulate Emissions From A
Potassium Chloride Drier Controlled By
Two Cyclones And A Venturi Scrubber, And A
Potassium Sulfate Drier Controlled By A Baghouse
EPA Contract No. 68-02-2813
Work Assignment No. 31
EMB Report No. 79-POT-4
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
Emissions Measurement Branch *'
ESED Mail Drop #13
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
May 1, 1979
by
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
2600 Cajon Boulevard
• San Bernardino, California 92411
i iAn "]
j{SJ! ScotiEnvironmentallechndb^ylnc
-------
12653-01-0679
2-3
TABLE 2.3
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 4-18-79
Location: Kerr-McGee Plant
Sampling Location: Cyclone Inlet, Run No,
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 25
bar
Stack Temp. (°F)
Sample Time (Min) -.
Sample Volume (cf)
Moisture (% H20)
Meter Temp (°F)
Flow Setting, £H (in H20)
Nozzle Diameter (Inches).
28.14
549
3
1.79
11.9
91
0.85
0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions): 0.72 cfm
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
Net Wt.
(mg)
1171. 452
1.10
4.60
6.15
3.90
4.90
4.25
0.00
0.00
%
97.91
0.09
0.38
0.51
0.32
0.40
0.35
0.00
0.00
Cumulative
%
100.00
2.08
1.98
1.60
1.09
0.76
0.35
0.00
0.00
ECD1
(Microns)
14.46 and larger
8.96
5.89
4.35
2.69
1.38
0.86
0.56
<0.56
TOTAL 1196.35
1
ECD = Effective tutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
2
Weight includes participate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle, cyclone
and head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
Q*n
it wI Score Environmental
>\/ Irvr
-------
12653-01-0679
2-4
TABLE 2.4
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 4-19-79 Time: 1631
Location: Kerr-McGee Plant
Sampling Location: Cyclone Inlet, Run No,
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 30
Pbar (in Hg)
Stack Temp. (°F) ,
Sample Time (Min)
Sample Volume (cf) ,
Moisture (% pO) ...,
Meter Temp ( F)
Flow Setting, AH (in H20),
Nozzle Diameter (Inches).
28.25
494
6
4.59
18.0
91
1.52
0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions): 1.00 cfm
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
Net Wt.
(ing)
3219. 22
33.10
49.65
40.45
27.25
9.95
2.80
2.70
1.65
,
95.05
0.97
1.46
1.19
0.80
0.29
0.08
0.07
0.04
Cumulative
100.00
4.94
3.96
2.50
1.30
0.50
0.21
0.12
0.04
ECD1
(Microns)
12.05 and larger
7.53
5.02
3.45
2.26
1.13
0.68
0.45
<0.45
TOTAL 3386.75
1
ECO = Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
"Weight includes participate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle, cyclone
and head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
ort Environ mental Technology tnr
-------
#2653-01-0679
2-5
TABLE 2-5
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 4-19-79 Time: 2125
Location: Kerr-McGee Plant
Sampling Location: Cyclone Inlet, Run No,
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 30
bar
Stack Temp. (F)
Sample Time (Min)
Sample Volume (cf)
Moisture (% tbO)
Meter Temp ( F)
Flow Setting, AH (in H20)
Nozzle Diameter (Inches),
28.25
494
6
4.45
18.0
91
1.52
0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions): 0.97 cfm
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
Net Wt.
(nig)
3539. 42
21.80
73.60
71.35
47.90
15.05
2.15
3.60
1.70
%
93.72
0.57
1.94
1.88
1.26
0.39
0.05
0.09
0.04
Cumulative
100.00
6.27
5.70
3.75
1.86
0.59
0.19
0.14
0.04
ECD1
(Microns)
12.05 and larger
7.66
5.08
3.51
2.26
1.15
0.68
0.46
* 0.46
TOTAL 3776.55
1
ECD = Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
"Weight includes participate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle, cyclone
and head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
#2653-01-0679
2-6
TABLE 2.6
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 4-19-79 Time: 1951
Location: Kerr-McGee Plant
Sampling Location: Scrubber Outlet
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 9
Pbar (in Hg) 28.35
Stack Temp. (°F)
141
Sample Time (Min) 60
Sample Volume (cf) 52.92
Moisture (X IfcO) 14-4
Meter Temp (°F) 101
Flow Setting, AH (in H20) 2-18
Nozzle Diameter (Inches) 0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions): 1-01 cfm
Plate Net Wt.
No. (mg) %
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 i
Back-up
Filter
21. 902
0.25
0.25
1.00
1.80
10.15
13.50
15.70
37.10
21.54
0.24
0.24
* 0.98
1.77
9.98
13.28
15.44
36.49
Cumulative
%
100.00
78.45
78.20
77.96
76.97
75.20
65.22
51.94.
36.49
ECD1
(Microns)
10.02 and larger
6.39
4.20
2.90
1.86
0.94
0.56
0.38
<0.38
TOTAL 101.65
1
ECD = Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
'Weight includes particulate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle, cyclone
and head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
#2653-01-0679
2-7
TABLE 2.7
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 4-19-79 Time: 1745
Location: Kerr-McGee Potash Plant
Sampling Location: Baghouse Outlet
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 4
'bar *"
Stack Temp. (UF)
Sample Time (Min)
Sample Volume (cf)...
Moisture (% HgO)
Meter Temp ( F)
Flow Setting, ^H (in
Nozzle Diameter (Inches).
28.25
233
50
41.03
9.6
106
1.80
0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions): 0.91 cfm
Plate Net Vlt.
No. (mg) %
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
55.95Z
2.90
3.00
1.30
7.25
19,55
3.95
0.45
0.45
59.01
3.05
3.16
1.37
7.64
20.62
4.16
0.47
0.47
Cumulative
100.00
40.98
37.92
34.75
33.38
25.73
5.11
0.94
0.47
ECD1
{Microns)
11.14 and larger
7.09
4.67
3.23
2.06
1.05
0.63
0.42
<.0.42
TOTAL
94.80
1
ECD = Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
"Weight includes particulate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle, cyclone
and head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
99 98 95 , 90 / 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
I 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 ' 0.01
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS-CYCLONE INLET
KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
4-18-79 AND 4-19-79
It±tt±r±i±ttffillllt.
Cumulative %, Less Than Stated
Particle Size
LiDiiiiifflinTrrmTnTniiTiTn 11 rrm
0,01 O.fli O.| O.Z 0.5 1
10
30
5Q
BO
50 _ 05
. __ 25.8
-------
10-
8_
a.
99 99
99 9 99 8
99 98
95 90
80 70 50 SO 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.? O.t 0.05 .- O.i
^&
e
•
9_.
Particle Size
Microns
t —
ii
•FJ
I
=£=»:
. i j.
""""
r'
1ft
iui
SI.!!
TT
i
ii
iff'
HU
-t4i j
fll!
4
F
a-
M:!.
.1
t
M
W
-i
1 : t
Ui.
1
! 'L
sirri
•.
i it
111.
iii'
ilJ.
^
> :i
1
Hi
iTn
Wt
^ffl*
4:
TI_
T.LjJr
ipi
Tl
3
III
J,
it
CJl
I
i —
O ~;
Cfi ^
tO •^•-
ro
• i
FIGURE 2.2
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS-SCRUBBER OUTLET
KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION
4-19-79
ttttmiLLUiiitffitmj.
Cumulative %t Less Than Stated
Particle Size
-irrTn^fTTn.Trm]TTTniJjTi'!Tifrrrrj.iii!iii!i!
-------
EPA
Wrtfeb 3«tes
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 79-POT-5
April 1979
Air
Potash
Emission Test Report
Kerr Me Gee
Trona, California
-------
SET 2674-01-0979
FINAL REPORT
Particulate Emissions From A
Potassium Chloride Drier Controlled By
Two Cyclones And A Venturi Scrubber, And A
Potassium Sulfate Drier Controlled By A Baghouse
EPA Contract No. 68-02-2813
Work Assignment No. 35
EMB Report No. 79-POT-5
Prepared For:
Environmental Protection Agency
Emissions Measurement Branch
ESED Mail Drop #13
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
September 4» 1979
by
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC,
2600 Cajon Boulevard
San Bernardino, California 92411
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.
-------
#2674-01-0979
2-3
TABLE 2.4
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 7-10-79
Time: 1922
Sampling Location: Cyclone Inlet
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 15
Run No.: 1
Pbar(in. Hg): 28.15
Stack Temp. (°F): 487
Sample Time (Min): 5
Sample Volume (cf):3.57
Moisture (% H?0): 12.0
Meter Temperature ( F): 160
Flow Setting, AH (in. H»0): 1.24
Nozzle Diameter (In.): 0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions) - 0.84 cfm
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Net Wt.
(mg)
7895. 72
12.45
17.75
15.80
10,65
7.15
5.80
5.25
Cumulative
Back-up
Filter 2.05
99.03
0.15
0.22
0.19
0.13
0.08
0.07
0.06
100.0
0.96
0.80
Q.58
0.38
0.25
0.16
0.09
0.02
0.02
ECD1
(Micrometers)
13.26 and larger
8.43
5.56
3.84
2.45
1.25
0.75
0.50
<0.50
Total 7972.6
1
ECO - Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
'Weight includes particulate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle and
head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
#2674-01-0979
2-4
TABLE 2.5
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 7-11-79
Time: 1255
Sampling Location: Cyclone Inlet
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 15
Run No.: 2
Pbar(in. Hg): 28.22
Stack Temp. (°F): 466
Sample Time (Win): 5
Sample Volume (cf): 3.88
Moisture (% H?0): J1.6
Meter Temperature ( F): 147
Flow Setting, AH (in. O): 1-40
Nozzle Diameter (In.): 0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions) - 0.91 cfm
Plate
'No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Net Wt.
(mg)
5291. 22
6.35
15.15
10.20
7.25
3.25
1.Z5
0.00
%
99.17
0.11
0.28
0.19
0.13
0.06
0.02
0.00
Back-up
Filter 0.6D
0.01
Cumulative
%
100.0
0.82
0.70
0.42
0.23
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.01
ECD1
(Micrometers)
12.61 and larger
8.03
5.28
3.65
2.33
1.19
0.71
0.48
<0.48
Total
5335.25
1
ECD - Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
"Weight includes participate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle and
head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
#2674-01-0979
2-5
TABLE 2.6
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 7-11-79
Time: 1937
Sampling Location: Cyclone Inlet
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 15
Run No.: 3
Pbar(in- Hg): 28.11
Stack Temp. (°F): 431
Sample Time (Min): 5
Sample Volume (cf): 3.92
Moisture (55 H^O): 16.0
Meter Temperature ( F): 150
Flow Setting, AH (in. H20): 1.62
Nozzle Diameter (In.): 0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions) - 0.96
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
Net Wt.
(ing)
8160. 42
3.75
19.65
13.80
9.85
6.90
9.85
2.35
0.85
99.18
0.04
0.23
0.16
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.02
0.01
Cumulative
%
100.0
0.81
0.76
0.52
0.36
0.24
0.15
0.03
0.01
ECD1
(Micrometers)
12.02 and larger
7.66
5.04
3.49
2.23
1.13
0.68
0.45
<0.45
Total 8227.4
1
ECD - Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
Weight includes particulate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle and
head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
#2674-01-0979
2-6
TABLE 2.7
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 7-12-79
Time: 1206
Sampling Location: Cyclone Inlet
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 15
Run No.: 4
Pbar(1n. Hg): 28.17
Stack Temp. (°F): 454
Sample Time (Min): 5
Sample Volume (cf): 4.19
Moisture (% H?0): 15.2
Meter Temperature ( F): 134
Row Setting, AH (in. O): 1.70
Nozzle Diameter (In.): L 0.250
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions) - 1.03
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Net Wt.
(rag)
6345. 92
7.85
18.35
15.80
8.75
8.65
9.75
4.50
%
98.85
0.12
0.28
0.24
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.07
Back-up
Filter 0.15
0.00
Cumulative
%
100.0
1.14
1.02
0.74
0.49
0.35
0.22
0.07
0.00
ECD1
(Micrometers)
11.75 and larger
7.50
4.93
3.41
2.18
1.11
0.66
0.44
<0.44
Total 6419.7
1
ECD - Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
"Weight includes particulate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle and
head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
JQ 95.99 99.9 39.8 99 98 95
9
8 '
7
R
5 .
4
J
9
7
6
5--
\
4
a
2
1
Particle Size, Hicrometers —
—
_____
_T^-
_,,__.,
_.-..
f1
i
"J Xi
H:/ I
'$1
TTJf-/-
-4^
--..
~=r
— ,
—
-_
.
-
j
i
j
--)-
-
f
1
; E .
'-
._
_l_
-
—
I.
- .'-(—'
;r
—
,/
/I "
/
1
V
-
i -.J/
Ii 'I/
1! f
| ! /
r , / ~
Hi/
-
|J
1
i
j z
ij -
r
J T"1
i 1
I-J
1
i
-
-
-
i t _..
-
-
V"
-_
__
i
•'• f
™-*~
/-
—
^
1
f--
....
f.
i
-
-1
-
EJ£|..
-
.-
•if
1
—i-
—
—
-
-:
-
-
-
-
— — y^-f-
; '-ft /
jl
•/ill
//ii
111
44-L
'i!
-_[_;(•
- - "- <:
.iti
S. i •
f" •1,1
]:
~fi~
L- .
•t!l-
i
i ,
-
-• •• •
jr.-;: I-v. _
i i »'
Tr
!?
: —
• — —
. —
. —
) i' --•..
0
A
—
...
—
•~
-
...
_
—
_-•
(• • -Irlj-^rr/.-
• --E-'K-
£__ Zp-fc
Ht"^^
ih i
-
j _- -,.-
III -
-i • -p
z
I f
v~ Cur
Pa
~=\
^
,-
—
nu
rt
-
—
la
1C
n
so
-•J-r'p j-
: ' S i,j.
.Vi."
-i
•H-
Run
Run
T.np:
-
....
-
-=
-
_
.:*.-
-:».".
-. :;
..i..
i
_
_
;
:
N
N
'i
- i-
.J_r_j.
.
-
t
1
1
_1_»-
! i t
" ! 1
•* l
rjT|~f
_~
._
H
i\
B
1
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5
-
-
-;.
- •
it;.
1 _______
0. ]
0. t
f
i
I
- i
i
f '
— — -
i i
1 i
: i ;
L
>
f
! T
1
i
t
-
! f
1 i
Ii
F:.
J
—
jj
|
^e % Less
Size
IT Tin in
70 60 50 40 30 20 ID
'I "
—
i
i
i
— i— *. ^~
* i. "
"1: '
•:•!::
-i_bc.
j_-r •
S
-
"
f J
1
j ,|
""'„
i
i
j. •
1 -i - t
f" "}-r
a-j^.j.
{- --T-
i 1 !
Than
']
10 20
^t;t
..I, i: - .!
"i -:'l
! I
• !
i j
ij _i
T .1 :
•W ':-"-\
I i't'
1 i ! i ! '
i, j - J
i L
ll
. if.
.. .
i j.
; " !
•
!> ' '• •
— • - — - •
i
I '
1 .-.
•} . ••)••• . -
tii . ...
.jrrjd. ..a-..
;r; IT f :ri '
' r i
till 1 1 i j
Stated
•;!; ,::J_i: vrPi: i,.
'..'-. - Tf: T. :.-f i'
J!l: i
; ! 1 . ! i
i :• j " i
: i ! ; • i
_.y- **™_.™p .-. ... £7f™~ ~*
l . |T| . J
,i n't
t-l I-f -1 I-*-!-
tl .1 1]:::
.1 ., ,.,].! „
,lT;.-i
^._L-:x:.i
TttTJTl.u. i!
1 ..!.., l
. . .;|
•It! :.!--!.:: i
: ': i i' !'1 : ;
:.! :. i : • • • ; t
""" CYCLONE
KERR
La-
July
|j.|--..iSTJr|!J
h. • -i±r Jitl; L:
j' , xi J. ' L. n
... j-jLp-KH-,,.;
I -i I- U
"t:: JICTLL::: •
l r l
-.l-lILplU
n i
i_! TlITT
,. ; ' =r
1 1.
"F ™ "r.t.""
*
j j
j. !
1"*"
.
i " '.t.'
1- a
H--
t * .
i
r ; ! • :
! i- !
.Ii
<
;
£
* .
rrl
5
_ ,
"
~
-
: "i.
~
_
"
^.
.-.
iM-.j=l:?
vi£
r *
~
-
_
1.
.
:
I
_
..
-
~
-_
1
.
2
H;~-
JEfc
- :.. .
•_: • :•
" '.. _.:;
r. ::.vl?;-r
r., .in .nil
T
—
_..7'
ri4 i
1 I
f
-4—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
', - ' J2 r tn. • ~- L __ i,_t; •:
* "LtJTt.r
£K^H^'
1 C..
.: ' \: '
_._._
I.Llri
j.
:
~* I™
{
-T
j.
1,
.*
i
fi
i_
-
-
j* "£ '
j; : ':.
IH"
ft;
\
j ;
I
!
H;-i
r
JZ
„
—
0.2 O.I 0.05 0,01
fr
_H "
.• .-:•-•.
L _.j...
* *
t! i^i_^
-!
i
r"
r
!
: i
:1-
T
!
+
1
;•;::
m
. i _
-
-
:
~~,
—
E[£
1 —
i.
_
-
-
—
—
'-:i.--H:
.-.—•;:._•.
•— -t
il
'"T"
•::t.~-
.jHr
,,
:l_z
" [ — |
-E: t
:_~ JL
„!__. j
—
I
—
'. i, _
:ii.i
FIGURE 2.1
INLET-PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
HIGH PRESSURE DROP
McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION
TRONA, CALIFORNIA
10, 1978 and July 11, 1979
! .fl;
*. j i t.
U- 3 'J™L-
r-T'Jl-
v ' *.i:L
.. ..|
"'."
(.}.
i L
•\\
xjij-^
-j-i-H-
1:
t
t
-
30 40 SO 60 70 80 90
i_
q
-
b
i
>-
J
—
-
!
-
1 : ; : ;
1
Lj_i —
j
_
95
m
4
.i..
::tt
..t
[•
Ui™
.L
1
1.
98
-
j,i ... .
j . _
.L i—
.fcr.,L-
•it
•
f
r
..-_!
—
_
-J
_
—
) 1
I
"
-
d
_
:
99
— H"'
-i — :f
4- j!
i „.. i.;."
I :l.
_______ |_j
i1 1
..... ii
-±i^
; • '"- ~"
, . _.
; ..; znz
. • '.:•!-.:}'—
:^SEE:
1 1
i
i. . ..I........
' 1 ' 1
1 1
j
! ._
1 1
.. _
".". zr :^ —
! ;,. :r :;..::: .
" 'ifl^.
-^— "— —
•• •;'-'"5:
^l=:
.:b^|EE|
' "iii,"^ —
.-4ii=j=:.
j
.xtpi:
'
10
9
3
7
6
S
4
3
2
I
9
B
7
S
5
4
3
2
1
99.8 99.3 59.99
-------
99.99
39.9 99.8
99 98
95
90
1 O.S 0,2 O.I 0.05 0.01
-------
12674-01-0979
2-9
TABLE 2,8
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 7-11-79
Time; 1510 to 1610
Sampling Location: Scrubber Outlet
Traverse Point No. Sampled: 23
Run No.: l
High Pressure Drop
Pbar(in. Hg): 28.11
Stack Temp. (°F): 139
Sample Time (Min): 60
Sample Volume (cf): 28.49
Moisture (% HO): 16.8
Meter Temperature ( F): 145
How Setting, aH (in. H?0): 0.56
Nozzle Diameter (In.): 0.1875
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions) - 0.55 cfm
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
•-6
7
8
Net Wt.
(mg)
23.20
0.05
0.30
0.25
0.35
0.20
0.05
0.00
Cumulative
Back-up
Filter 0.70
92.42
0.19
1.19
0.99
1.39
0.79
0.19
0.00
100.00
7.57
7.37
6.17
5.17
3.78
2.98
2.78
2.78
2.78
ECD1
(Microns)
13.70 and larger
8.64
5.72
3.96
2.52
1.30 .
0.79
0.53
<0.53
Total 25.10
1
ECD - Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
"Weight includes particulate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle and
head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
^2674-01-0979
2-10
TABLE 2.9
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Date: 7-12-79
Time: 1245 to 1345
Sampling Location: Scrubber Outlet
Inverse Point No. Sampled: 23
Run No.: 2
Low Pressure Drop
28.17
Stack Temp. (°F): 141
Sample Time (Min): 60
Sample Volume (cf): 10.88 ,
Moisture (% H?0): 18.4
Meter Temperature ( F): 148
Flow Setting, M (in. H?0): 1.10
Nozzle Diameter (In.): 0.1875
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions) - 0.80 cfm
Plate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
Net Wt.
(mg)
18. 202
0.00
0.40
0.35
1.15
6.90
i
21.15
24.25
9.80
22.14
0.00
0.48
0.42
1.39
8.39
25.72
29.50
11.92
Cumulative
100.0
77.85
77.85
77.37
76.94
75.54
67.15
41.42
11.92
ECD1
|Microns)
11.31 and larger
7.18
4.74
' 3.27
2.09
1.07
0.64
0.43
<0.45
Total 82.20
1
ECD - Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding plate.
'Weight includes particulate collected on Plate No. 0 and in nozzle and
head of sampler upstream of the collection plates.
-------
99.33
59.8
KU /J
"TO—' 30 TO
,0
raiF
rnmjK
,9
,8
,7-
.6..
,3-.
,3-.
,2-
lili
ii
»
n
rt
H-
O
H-
N
ro
n
ft
o
S
ro
rt
fD
H
IJ
::L-
j.l!
mi
44
1 1
fill
-!:.
11
I!
tFf
III
j
M
• i • < . i
TTfitr
Li 1111
TOP
1.
.ITi.
1 !
1TM
J.l.
I
.it.
iUl
--
ll
f
.LLL.
A
" iiL
i! at.
i : t
j#
•— p
frf O Run No. 1 drr
! •« 1 - V^' • f ••'
Hi Press. Dror
;U - I
^ Run NQ^ 2
M Lo Press. Drop
. -. -.t.
'J~IZ
Lr;
i
±
^
EEE
T.
H-
m
iil'..
-R?
o
FIGURE 2.3
SCRUBBER OUTLET-PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
KERR McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION
IRONA, CALIF.
"T~
3 [
itt
.dttt.i
Cumulative %, Less Than Stated
Particle Size
TnTrrmmTmTnimin
ttttfc
i i i i
iEE
7-11-79 and 7-12-79-+
rdiz
J
ii
it
:rn
nit
in.
': 1
!Uf
ILIJJ
i i
0.01 O.Oi 01 02 0.5 1
10
20
30 40 50 GO 70 80
90
ss
IS 53
D3.8 99.9
93,93
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS PAGE 1
FPEIS SERIES REPORT SERIES FORM 1 DATE 06/20/83
ES NO: 27 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM TO BY U.S. EPA
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: u.s. EPA
COflTRACT NUII3ER: PURPOSE OF TEST: SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE CATEGORY: NATURAL PRODUCTS SOURCE NAME:
SOURCE TYPE: AGRICULTURAL SITE NAME:
PRODUCT/DEVICE: COTTON ADDRESS:
PROCESS TYPE: GINNING ,CA 00000 USA
DESIGN PROCESS RATE: 136 M6G/D
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY! AGRI FEED
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE: SIC CODE: 724
EADS WASTE STREAH DATA BASES
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH MERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOWSITEST SERIES NUI1BER-TSH):
LEDS TSN: GEDS TSN: SODS TSH'-
REFERENCE REPORT
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER PUBLICATION DATE
CONCENTRATION AND SIZE OF TRACE METAL EMISSIONS FROM A POWER
PLANT, A STEEL PLANT, AND A COTTON GIN.
LEE.R.E..ET.AL.
ENV.SCI. < TECH JULY 1975
TEST SERIES COMMENTS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: OOOE7 STREAM HO'- 01 TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE »o: 01
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 7
DATE 06/20/83
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
COMPONENT
NO NAME
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1 STAGE 1
2 STAGE Z
3 STAGE 3
<» STAGE
5 STAGE 5
6 FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STASE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
30.00 UM
1.98E»03 UG/DMM3
20.00 UN
9.8<*E*02 UG/DNM3
10.00 UM
5.25E*03 UG/DHM3
S.OO UM
4.76E+03 UG/DNM3
1,00 UM
2.62E*03 UG/DNM3
.50 UM
8.20E*OZ UG/ONM3
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE f
D50(MICRONS I
MICROG!UMS/DNCH/STAGE
NUtTBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
-------
FPEI5 TEST SERIES NO: 00027
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 02
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 10
DATE 06/20/83
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
COMPONENT
HO NAME
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1 STAGE 1
2 STAGE I
STAGE 3
STAGE
-------
PAPER NO._
COLLECTING PARTICLES FROM GIN LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUSTS
by
S, E. Hughs, M. N. Gillum, and D. M. Armijo
Research Leader, Agricultural Engineer, and Engineering Technician,
res pecCively
For presentation at the 1981 Winter Meeting
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS
Palmer House
Chicago, Illinois
December 15-18, 1981
SUMMARY:
An evaluation was made of the effectiveness of cyclone
collectors as primary, and a cyclone wet scrubber as a
secondary particulate collector on a lint cleaner ex-
haust. The cyclone collectors captured an average of
90,8% by weight of the particles as a primary cleaner.
The scrubber removed an average of 73.57. by weight as
.a secondary ,cl,ea/iexx _.(_ „,,„, ^...^ ._.._..,.„„,._.„,.,*. ,*,..<
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
:&.•" >
Papers presented boforo ASAE meetings are considered !o ba the propany of the Socioty.
In general, Iho Socioiy rosorvoa ihu right of lifsl publicaiion of such papers, in complete
form. Howovof, it has no objeciion to publication, in condanscd form, wijh credit to the
Society and the author. Permission to publish a paper in full may be requested Imm ASAE,
P.O. Box 410, Si, Joseph, Michigan 49085.
The Society is no\ icsporuubto tor statements or opinions advanced in papers or discussions
81 its meetings. Papers have noi bean subjected !o the review process by ASAi editorial
committees; therefore, ere not w bo considered «s relofeed.
-------
COLLECTING PARTICLES FROM GIN LINT
CLEANER AIR EXHAUSTS
by
S. E. Hughs, M. N. Gillum, and B. M Armijo
Introduction
The encroachment of cities into once rural areas coupled with the
increased public concern about air pollution is putting pressure on the
ginning industry to reduce particulate emissions. Gins have used or are
using sma11-Jiameter cyclones (Harrell and Moore, 1962), skimmers
(Kirk et al, 1976), and unifilter collectors (McCaskill and Wesley, 1976)
on many of their high-pressure exhausts and unifilter collectors, screen
cayes (Harrell and Moore, 1962), and inline air filters (Alberson and
Baker, 1964) on their low-pressure exhausts to reduce pnrCiculate emissions
However, very low permissible emission levels and increased public pressure
is forcing the ginning industry to search for still better methods of
particulate emission control.
The staff at the Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Laboratory has
been conducting research concentrating on finding new ways of applying
current technology to the gin particulate emission problem. An earlier
paper (Gillura ec. al, 1980) gave a preliminary report of the effectiveness
of cyclone collectors as primary and a wet scrubber as a secondary particu-
late collector on a lint-cleaner exhaust. Gillum et al gave data of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) source emission tests of cotton gins
-------
S. E. Hughs 2
in Arizona and California (see Table 1). The seed-cotton system or the
lint system exhaust alone exceeded allowable emissions in the majority of
the cases, shown in Table 1. In all cases, the sum of the emissions of the
two systems exceeded allowable levels by factors anywhere from 1.26 to
3,38.
Gillum et al, showed preliminary results that indicated that unabated
lint-cleaner exhaust emissions could be reduced by as much as 977,, and
that controlled lint exhaust emissions could be further reduced by at least
50%. This paper gives a description of the emission control system tested
by Gillum et al and the final test results.
, Table 1.--Cotton gin source test results
State
Arizona
Arizona
California--
California--
California--
Seed cotton
process
rate**
kR/h(Lb/h)
2318(5100)
5864(12900)
8864(19500)
14045(30900)
15682(34500)
Lint process
rate
Bales/
hr
3.4
8.6
13.0
20.6
23.0
Total
emissions
kR/h(lb/h).
3.4(7.5)
13.4(29.5)
23.7(52.2)
15.6(34.3)
18.0(39.6)
Seed
cotton
system
emissions
kR/h(lb/h)
1.9(4.i)c
7. 3(16. l)c
ll.9(26.2)c
10.0(22,0)u+c
9.5(20.9)*u+c
Lint
system
emissions
kg/hUb/h)
1.5(3.4)1
6.1(13.5)1
11.8(26,0)1
5.6(12.4)*u+c
8,5(18.8)u+e
Total
a llowahle
emissions***
kg/h(lb/h)
2.7(6.0)
5.1(11.2)
7.0(15.4)
9.3(20.4)
9.9(21,8)
*Not measured, a calculated estimate, c *» cyclones, 1 = lint cages, u * unffilter.
Some of the low-pressure exhausts raay have not been going into the unifilter.
**Using 682 kg(1500 Ib) of seed cotton per bale of cotton lint.
process weight table for appropriate state, at time of test.
-------
S. E. Hughs 3
Test Installation
Figure 1 shows a schematic of Che long-cone cyclone and cyclone wet-
scrubber test installation at a commercial gin. A set of small-diameter
(1D3D design) long-cone cyclone collectors were installed on the No. 1
lint-cleaner air exhaust to serve as primary collectors (see Fig. 2). A
second vaneaxial fan was installed prior to the cyclones to overcome the
additional back pressure created in the lint-cleaner exhaust line by the
addition of the cyclones.
A cyclone wet scrubber was installed after the long-cone cyclones to
serve as a secondary particulato collector. The scrubber consisted of n
sheet metal cylinder 1.14 m (3.75 ft) in diameter and 4.88 m (16 ft) tall.
The exhaust air from the primary long-cone cyclones .was induced tangen-
tially at the bottom of the scrubber with an average velocity of 384.6 m/min.
(1262 ft/min.) and flowed out the top of the scrubber. The average pressure
drop through the cyclone wet scrubber at the 384.6 m/min (1262 ft/min.)
inlet air velocity was approximately 10 mm (0.4 in. of water). The air
inlet section of the cyclone wet scrubber resembled the inlet section of
a cyclone. There were two high-volume water-spray nozzles located along
the center line of the cyclone wet scrubber. These nozzles sprayed down-
ward against the airflow through the scrubber. The nozzles were 33 cm
(13 in.) apart with the lower nozzle 45.7 cm (18 in.) above the top of the
scrubber air inlet. The nozzles were rated at 76.8 1/min. (20.3 g.p.m.)
at the operating pressure of 197 kPa (28.6 p.s.i.). Spray water collected
-------
S. E. Hughs 4
ac the bottom of the scrubber and was drained by .gravity to the settling
tank. From the settling tank, Che water was then recirculated by two 2-hp
pumps back through the spray nozzles in the cyclone wet scrubber.
The test installation was constructed so that dust sampling could be
done at the long-cone cyclone collectors, between the long-cone cyclone
collectors and the cyclone wet scrubber, and after the wet scrubber. The
dust-sampling station at the long-cone cyclone collectors consisted of a
"Y-valve" installed at the bottom of each cyclone collector. Plastic bags
were attached to the outlets of the valves. Dust and cotton lint removed
from the exhaust air stream were collected in the plastic bags during
sampling periods. The bags were removed at the end of each 4-hour test
run and weighed to determine the total amount of trash caught by the
cyclone collectors. Sampling at other points was done using Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Method 5 procedures. A sampling station for a
Method 5 sampling train was located on the air discharge duct of the long-
cone cyclone collectors. Another Method 5 sampling station was located on
the air discharge of the cyclone wet scrubber. The two Method 5 sampling
stations were used simultaneously to determine the rate of particulate
emissions from the long-cone collectors and the cyclone wet scrubber. Data
from all three sampling points gave a complete picture of the rate of
emissions and effectiveness of the devices used to control emissions.
Measurements were taken during the ginning season and while processing
both machine-picked and ground-harvested upland cotton.
-------
S. E. Hughs 5
Results and Discuss ion
The primary long-cone cyclones and secondary cyclone wet scrubber
equipped with a recirculating water system and settling tank were operated
425 hours while ginning about 2500 bales. Tables 2 and 3 give the partic-
ulate emission test results. Table 2 shows that the long-cone cyclones
collected an average of 0.689 g/s (5.47 Ib/h) of trash and emitted an
average of .069 g/s (0.549 Ib/h) of trash at an average ginning rate of
6.8 bales of lint per hour. This collection rate yields an average
cyclone collection efficiency of 90.85%.
Table 3 siiows that of the average .069 g/s (0.549 Ibs/h) of particu-
lates emitted by the cyclones, the cyclone wet scrubber captured all but
0.017 g/s (0.135 ib/h) for an average collection efficiency of 73.53%. *•
The average combined cyclone and cyclone wet scrubber system efficiency
was 97.58%. This system collection efficiency did not vary appreciably
through the ginning season on input material that varied from clean first-
picked to late-season ground-harvested seed cotton. Total first lint-
cleaner-exhaust loading rates varied during this time from 0.446 g/s
(3.54 Ib/h) to 1.585 g/s (12.58 Ib/h) .
Figure 3 gives the cumulative percentages of particle sizes determined
by the Coulter counter from EPA Method 5 particulate samples taken from the
long-cone-cyclone and wet-scrubber exhausts. There are virtually no
particles greater than 32 microns exhausted from the cyclones and 95% of
-------
Table 2.--Results of the eleven test runs of the long-cone cyclone on the first lint-cleaner exhaust
1-1
o
*3
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Avg
one outlet
craturc
^4 P.
u e
>\
m/s(ft/tnin)
13.5(2648)
13.2(2592)
13.1(2575)
13.7(2700)
13,5(2662)
13.6(2673)
13.0(2551)
13.1(2570)
12.7(2508)
12.9(2549)
12.6(2487)
13.2(2592)
3
O
U-l
k>
•fj
<
m /s(dscfm)
2.62(5561)
2.64(5598)
2.59(5489)
2.74(5802)
2.65(5607)
2.70(5727)
2.73(5781)
2.75(5824)
2.63(5573)
2.64(5602)
2.58(5473)
2.66(5640)
moisture
olume
p>
v«
1-t r**t
^C *"*
Pet
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
inettc
atlon
^ *M
o s-i
Ul Q
l-l >
Pet
104
106
104
108
107
105
100
103
103
102
102
104
ust
icula te
cntration
a u u
J= U C
X <3 O
w o- u
mg/m
16.48
19.78
29.06
20.05
23.06
19.21
15.98
20.15
23.86
59.41
40.05
26.10
a)
I-.
CO
a
c
c.
•H
O
Bales/
hr
8.5
5.5
5.3
7.5
7.8
7,3
6.5
7.3
8.3
5.0
6.3
6.8
o
u
£. CJ
03 «-•
Q —>
>-< O
H w
g/s(lb/hr)
0.431(3.42)
0.394(3.13)
0.605(4.80)
0.546(4.33)
0.743(5.90)
0.649(5.15)
0.592(4.70)
0.489(3.88)
0.706(5.60)
1.428(11.33)
0.993(7.88)
0.689(5.47)
c
o
n
U) 01
*rW U
U K
R/s(lb/hr)
.0432(0.343)
.0523(0.415)
.0753(0.598)
.0549(0.4*36)
.0610(0.484)
.0519(0.412)
.0436(0.346)
.0554(0.440)
.0627(0.498)
.1571(1.247)
.1034(0.821)
.0692(0.549)
>J U
Q C
XJ Q)
U iJ
6J U
~-i -H
J 't I
o <*-<
Pet
90.86
88.29
88.93
90.85
92.41
92.59
93.14
89.81
91.83
90.08
90.56
90.85
w
re
w
en
-------
Table 3.--Results of the eleven test runs of the wet scrubber on the first lint-cleaner exhaust
o
-1
No.
1
2
3
4
-"5
-6
7
8
9
10
11
Avg
Scrubber
outlet
temperature
Deg. C,
(Deg, F)
18(65)
15(59)
16(61)
16(61).
19(66)
17(62)
9(49)
8(46)
13(55)
12(54)
12(53)
14(57) »
Inlet
velocity
m/s (f t/min)
6.25(1231)
6.46(1272)
6.40(1259)
6.44(1267)
6.51(1282)
6.35(1250)
6.74(1326)
6.65(1309)
6.27(1235)
6.14(1209)
6.31(1242)
6.41(1262)
m
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Airflow
3
/s(dscfm)
.28(4822)
.40(5087)
.33(4940)
.37(5016)
.36(5002)
.32(4918)
.57(5456)
.55(5402)
.35(4979)
.29(4850)
.35(4985)
.38(5042)
Air moisture
by volume
Pet
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
Isokinetic
vnria tion
Pet
103
104
105
106
106
106
104
102
104
103
103
104
Exhaust
particulate
concentration
3
mg/m
8.26
4.53
8.12
5.11
5.88
4.06
3.87
5.65
6.55
9.75
8.78
6.41
c
o .
•H ^%
W ft)
•H 4J
e 03
g/sQb/hr)
.0217(0
.0120(0
.0210(0
.0140(0
.0156(0
.0110(0
.0106(0
.0155(0
.0173(0
.0258(0
.0227(0
.0170(0
.172)
.095)
.167)
.111)
.124)
.087)
.084)
.123)
.137)
.205)
.180)
.135)
Collector
efficiency
Pet
49.91
77.11
72.07
74.53
74.49
78-84
75.80
71-95
72.53
83.58
78.07
73.53
Combined
efficiency
Pet
95.42
97.32
96.91
97.67
98.07
98.43
98.34
97-14
97.76
98.37
97.93
97.58
\J SCFM from cyclone exhaust and concentration from scrubber exhaust were used to find scrubber
emission rate.
32
C
-------
S. E. Hughs 8
the particles have a diameter of approximately 22 microns or less. These
data are in close agreement with Parnell and Davis (1979). Parnell and
Davis found that long-cone cyclones did not emit particles above 18 microns
in diameter when tested under different loading conditions using grain dust.
Cotton trash emissions would probably tend to be made up of particles some-
what larger than grain dust which would account for the particle cutoff to
be somewhat higher for the lint-cleaner exhaust emissions. Even at
collection efficiencies above 997*, a few large particles will be emitted
from a cyclone exhaust.
The cyclone wet scrubber greatly reduced the larger fraction of
particles emitted from the cyclone. Referring to Figure 3, 957. of the
particles emitted from the scrubber had a diameter of 12.7 microns or less
compared to approximately 22 microns for the cyclone. Figure 4 shows the
cumulative weight of particles emitted from both the cyclone and cyclone
wet scrubber versus particle sire. Figure 4 shows that the cyclone wet
scrubber is not effective on particles 5 microns in diameter or less, but
the scrubber's collection efficiency increases rapidly on particles whose
diameter exceeds 5 microns. Figures 3 and 4 show that the cyclone wet
scrubber collected virtually everything whose diameter exceede 12.7 microns.
Application
The first three gins shown in Table 1 used lint cages on their lint
system exhausts. The particulate collection efficiency of screen cages is
unknown but is undoubtedly low. This study shows that a cyclone-cyclone
-------
S. E. Hughs 9
wet-scrubber system added to an unabated lint system exhaust has a
collection efficiency of 977.. It should be a reasonable assumption that
replacing the lint cages on the first three gins in Table 1 with a cyclone-
cyclone wet-scrubber system would result in at least an additional reduction
in lint system emissions of 80%.
McCaskill and Wesley (1976) showed that the unifilter had an average
particulate collection efficiency on cotton gin emissions of 99.57..
Gillum et al (1980) showed that high-efficiency cyclones had collection
efficiencies that averaged 99.67. on gin trash. The size characteristics
of the particulntes emitted by cyclones and unifilters should be very
similar given their nearly identical collection efficiencies. It has been
shown that a cyclone wet scrubber has an average collection efficiency of
73.57. on cyclone particulate emissions. Therefore, a cyclone wet scrubber
should have a collection efficiency of at least 707, on unifilter particulate
emissions. The last two gins using unifilters shown in Table 1, should be
t
able to reduce their emissions by 707. with the addition of a cyclone wet
scrubber on their unifilter exhausts. The characteristics of the particu-
lates in seed-cotton system and lint system exhausts using cyclones as
collectors should be identical, other than perhaps for loading rates.
Therefore, the gins in Table 1 using cyclones on their seed-cotton system
exhaust should be able to reduce those emissions by an additional 707..
Taken all assumptions together, 807. reduction of lint-cage emissions,
707. reduction of unifilter emissions and 707. reduction of seed-cotton
-------
S. E. Hughs 10
system cyclone emissions^ the figures in Table 1 would look like the
figures in Table 4. If the assumptions are correct, all the gins shown
would be able to meet their total allowable emission requirements as shown
in, Table 1. It may not be necessary to install a cyclone wet scrubber or
a cyclone-cyclone wet scrubber system of all gin exhausts to bring them in
compliance with emission standards. Many gin exhausts such as the seed
handling system and press-condervser exhausts are lightly loaded compared
to seed-cotton unloading and number one lint cleaning exhausts. Additions
of a cyclone wet scrubber or a cyclone-cyclone wet-scrubber system on only
these more heavily loaded exhausts may bring a gin in compliance with
emission standards.
-------
S. E. Hughs 11
Table 4.--Assumed gin source tesc results
Scace
Arizona
Arizona
California
Ca lifornia
Ca li fornia
Lint
process
race
Bales/h
3.4
8.6
13.0
20.6
23.0
Seed
cotton
system
emissions
kR/h(lb/h)
.56(1.23)
2.19(4.83)
3.56(7.86)
2.99(6.60)
2.84(6.27)
Lint
system
emissions
kg/h(lb/h)
.31(.68)
1.22(2.70)
2.36(5.20)
1.69(3.72)
2.56(5.64)
Total
emissions
kR/h(lb/h)
.87(1.91)
3.42(7.53)
5.92(13.06)
4.68(10.32)
5.40(11.91)
Total
a 1 lovable
emissions*
ks/h(lb/h)
2.7 (6.0)
5.1(11.2)
7.0(15.4)
9.3(20.4)
9.9(21.8)
>'fAs shown in Table 1, current standards may have changed,
-------
References
I Harrell, E. A. and V, P. Moore. 1962. Trash collecting systems at
cotton gins. USDA ARS 42-62. 22 p.
2 Kirk, I. W., A. L. Vandergriff, M. N. Giilum, and C. G. Leonard. 1976.
An alternate method of emission control for cotton gin exhausts, Texas
Cotton Ginners' Journal and Yearbook, March 1976.
3 McCaskill, 0. L. and R, A. Wesley. 1976. Unifilter collecting system
for cotton-gin waste materials. USDA-ARS-S-144.
4 Alberson, D. M. and R. V. Baker. 1964. An inline air filter for
collecting gin condenser air pollutants. USDA-ARS 42-103.
5 Gillum, M. N., S. E. Hughs, R. N. Rakoff, and T. E. Wright. 1980.
Primary and secondary cleaning of lint cleaner exhaust air: a progress
report. Presented at the 1980 Summer Meeting ASAE, San Antonio, Texas.
6 Parncll, C. B., Jr. and D. Davis. 1979. Predicted effects of the use
of new cyclone designs on agricultural processing particulate emissions.
Southwest Region Meeting, ASAE, Hoc Springs, Ark.
-------
F1CVJKE I - CYCLONE TEST INSTALLATION
LINT
CLEANER
#1
VANEAXIAL
FAN
29" DIA.
VANEAXIAL
FAN
26" DIA.
6000 CFM
EXHAUST
TO
ATMOSPHERE
h-
2D*^
1
1
SAMPLING
POINT
CYCLONE
WET
SCRUBBER
45" DIA.
S3
SETTLING
TANK
SAMPLING
POINT
SAMPLING
POINT
02
* "D" DENOTES AIR DUCT DIAMETER
-------
Figure 2.--Cyclone and wet scrubber installation--long-conc
cyclones, right of center by seed hopper, cyclone
wet scrubberj center, and sludge tankSj left side
directly in front of car.
-------
if)
o
o
403
32.0
25.4
20.2
o
H
DC
<
Q.
; 16.0
~ 12.7
i 10.1
5 8.0
6.4
5.0
4.0
3.2
2.5
2.0
O-CYCLONE EXHAUST
Q-SCRUBBER EXHAUST
Average of lots 5, 6, 8, 10
0.1 0.5 ! 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 90 95 9899
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF PARTICLES
99.9
Figure 3.--Particle size versus cumulative weight percentage of particles in exhaust sample.
-------
X
o
LU
.6
.5
.4
.3
.1
o
0
0
o - CYCLONE EXHAUST
Q - SCRUBBER EXHAUST
5 10 15 20 25
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
30
35
Figure 4.--Cumulative weight of particles emitted versus particle size.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS
FPEIS SERIES REPORT
SERIES FORM 1
PAGE 1
DATE 06/21/63
3EBIE5 NO: 229 DESCRIBES SAHPLING AT SITE FROM 01/23/78 TO 03/23/78 BY KVB, INC.
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: CALIFORNIA AI« RESOURCES BOARD
CONTRACT NUMBER: A6-191-30 PURPOSE OF TEST: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS fMULTIMEDIA I
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION-
SOURCE CATEGORY:
SOURCE TYPE:
PRODUCT/DEVICE:
PROCESS TYPE:
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY:
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE:
FOOD INDUSTRY
GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS
CAROB KIBBLE
ROASTING
300 KG/HR
AGRI FEED
SOURCE NAME:
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
sic CODE:
CONFIDENTIAL
LOS ANGELES
,CA
00000
EAOS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES-
REFERENCE REPORT-
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA HHICH HERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY HITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOHS(TEST SERIES NUHBER-TSN):
LEDS TSN: GEOS TSN: 00081 SODS TSN:
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR HEPOBT NUMBER NTIS NUtBEB
PUBLICATION DATE
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY AND MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN,
TABACK H.J,
KVB REPORT 5806-783 PB Z93 923/AS FEBRUARY 1979
TEST SERIES COMMENTS-
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TO INVENTORY TSP EMISSIONS,TO PREPARE A COM-
PREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS!I,E. BY SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION!,AND TO DESCRIBE ALT. METHODS OF CONTROL.
ROASTER HEAT INPUT IS 795H KJ/HR OF NATURAL GAS.
-------
PEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00229
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID »«K
SAMPLE NO: 01
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 7
DATE 86/21/83
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
OESCRIPTIOM
COMPONENT
NO NAME
VALUE
1 PROBE«1Q CYC
Z 3 UH CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
4 FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE!
STAGE WEIGHT:
COMPONENT (ALIQUOT I MASS/VOLUME:
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY NAME:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE!
STAGE HEIGHT:
a. 30 UH
1.65E+OZ H6
385.000 HG
ARHAME
1.90 UM
1.00E«00 MG
.60 UH
8.10E+00 KG
.01 Urt
Z.10E*00 MG
'ARTICLE SIZE TABLE-
STAGE ff
D5EM MICRONS)
STAGE WEI6HTS( MILLIGRAMS!
MICROGRAhS/DNCM/STAGE
NUtlBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. KMASSnnMFM"T*t fiw TUP FFFI IIFMT TMAI
i>unnc,n 1 3 un inc. err i_ucn i L.nAi
COMPONENT
HO. NAME
5
9
3
1
1
1
1
4
3 Af-TC
t At. 1 C
8.30
.65E+02
.60E404
.03E+10
1.94
.08E+03
.90E»03
.82E+01
-41E+05
.44E+10
DT*STTf*
-------
RJ£-I "T
ype.
, Ech )
/
~V7
-53
-3C.
-------
Number ©-F
ueft row »3* a. p»iWt «'
«s , __
of X^pq-r-t^r*J1^^3*^ Mark JJI
^/l * "
6rJI
Melfboef ^ " /mp/'e^s m,€lhoj^5 procedure3 6Jefg> U5eo
-------
-------
Emission Testing Report
EMB Test No.: 74-GRN-7
BUNGE CORPORATION
Destrehan, Louisiana
Project Officer
Roger 0. Pfaff
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
:;•.'-;• '•'/• January 1974
-------
TABLE 5
Particle Size Results
Run 1
Characteristic • • '
Diameter, Dn
Stage urn yg
Probe & cyclone
1 3.14
2 1.63
3 1.10
4 0.57 .
5 . 0.33
«
Probe & cyclone
1 3.14
2 1.63
3 1.10
4 0.57
5 0.33
22,450
1 ,480
190
210
120
70
TOTAL 2,070 ••'
Run 2
44,900
1,260
"90
30
40
. 20
TOTAL 1 ,440
Weight
Percent
71.5
9.2
10.1
5.8
3.4
87.5
6.3
2.1
2.8
1.4
Cumulative Weight
Percent,
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS PAGE 1
FPEIS SERIES REPORT SERIES FORM 1 DATE 06/eO/83
! NO: 154 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 09/07/75 TO 09/07/75 BY HASH. DEPT. OF ECOLOGt
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: WASHINGTON DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
CONTRACT NUMBER: PURPOSE OF TEST: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (MULTIMEDIA)
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE CATEGORY: . FOOD INDUSTRY SOURCE NAME:
SOURCE TYPE: GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS SITE NAME: UNIONTOWN
PRODUCT/DEVICE: GRAIN ADDRESS:
PROCESS TYPE: PROCESSING , 00000
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY: AGRI FEED
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE: SIC CODE: 2041
EADS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES
WASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH WERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOWSITEST SERIES NUMBER-TSN):
LEOS TSN: GEDS TSN: SODS TSN:
REFERENCE REPORT
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTI3 NUMBER PUBLICATION DATE
NELSON,P.A.
TEST SERIES COMMENTS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 0015*
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 01
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 9
DATE 06/20/63
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
COHPOHENT
NO NAME
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
11 STAGE 11
STAGE 12
13 STAGE 13
FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS?
,06 UH
1,OOE»00 UG/DNM3
.03 UM
1.15E*01 UG/DNM3
.02 UH
2.04E*00 UG/DNM3
.01 UM
3.28E*01 UG/BNM3
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE 8
D501MICRONS I
MICROGRAMS/DNCM/STAGE
NUMBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS<050
CUM. HICROGRAMS/DNCH
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00154
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID N0=
SAMPLE NO: 02
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 12
DATE 06/20/83
fFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
DESCRIPTION
COMPONENT
NO NAME
VALUE
11 STAGE II
12 STAGE 12
13 STAGE 13
FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS'-
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS-'
.06 UH
1.00E+00 UG/DNM3
.03 UH
Z.67E*01 UG/DNMJ
,02 UM
1.29E+01 UG/DNMJ
.01 UM
S.71E+02 US/DNM3
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE •
D50(MICRONS)
MICR06RAMS/DNCM/STA6E
HUHBER/ONCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 0015*
STREAM HO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 03
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE IS
DATE 06/20/83
EFFLUEMT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
DESCRIPTION
COMPONENT
NO HAHE
VALUE
11 STAGE 11
12 STAGE 12
13 STAGE 13
FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE MASS:
STABE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HASS:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HASS:
.06 UM
0,OOE*00 UG/BNM3
UM
UG/DHH3
.02 UM
8.03E*00 UG/DNM3
.01 UM
<».C6E»01 UG/DNH3
.PARTICLE SIZE TABLE ---------
STAGE 1
D50( MICRONS I
NICROGRAMS/DNCM/STAGE
NUHBER/DNCH/STA6E
CUM. ZMASS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS
FPEIS SERIES REPORT
SERIES FORM 1
PAGE 1
DATE 06/21/83
I NO! 228 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 10/11/77 TO 10/11/77 BY KVB, INC.
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION; CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CONTRACT NUMBER: A6-191-30 PURPOSE OF TEST:. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (MULTIMEDIA)
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION-
SOURCE CATEGORY:
SOURCE TYPE:
PRODUCT/DEVICE:
PROCESS TYPE:
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY:
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE:
FOOD INDUSTRY
GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS
RICE
PROCESSING
90800 KG/HR
AGRI FEED
SOURCE NAME: CONFIDENTIAL
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
LOS ANGELES
sic CODE:
>CA
00000
2044
EAOS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES-
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA HHICH WERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY HITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOHSITEST SERIES NUHBER-TSN):
LEDS TSN: GEDS TSN: 00080 SDDS TSN:
REFERENCE REPORT-
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER
PUBLICATION DATE
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY AND MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN.
TABACK H.J.
KVB REPORT 5806-783 PB Z93 923/AS FEBRUARY 1979
TEST SERIES COMMENTS-
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TO INVENTORY TSP EMISSIONS,TO PREPARE A COM-
PREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS!I.E. BY SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION LAND TO DESCRIBE ALT. METHODS OF CONTROL.
RICE DRYER IS A HOLLOW,DOUBLE-WALL CYLINDER ENCLOSED IN A BLDG.
VENTED THRU 6-4.1M DIA. SCREENS ft HEATED BY 4-9.54KJ/HR BURNERS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00228
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO!
SAMPLE NO: 01
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 6
DATE 06/31/83
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
DESCRIPTION
COMPONENT
NO NAME
VALUE
1 PROBE»10 CYC
Z 3 UM CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
COMPONENT (ALIQUOT) MASS/VOLUME:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
COMPONENT (ALIQUOT) MASS/VOLUME:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT;
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
9.20 UM
3.65E+02 MG
327.800 MG
3.SO UM
6.49E«01 MG
64.900 MG
1.30 UM
7.60E*00 MG
.01 UM
1.00E»00 MG
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE 9
D50(MICRONS!
STAGE HEIGHTS!MILLIGRAMS)
MICROGRAMS/ONCM/STAGE
NUMBER/DHCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS<050
CUM. MICROGRAMS/ACM
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIlS MO: 00228
STREAM NO: 01
TEST JO HO:
SAMPLE NO:
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 11
DATE 06/21/63
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
COMPOMEHT
NO NAME
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1 PROBE+10 CYC
2 3 UM CrCLONE
1 1 UH CYCLONE
4 FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
COMPONENT tALIQUOT 1 MASS/VOLUME:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZES
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZES
STAGE WEIGHT!
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE!
STAGE WEIGHT:
a.so UH
1.78E+02 MS
141.000 MG
1.90 UM
2.20E+00 MG
.60 UM
l.OOEtOO MS
.01 UM
7.00E-01 MG
STAGE t
050 (MICRONS)
STAGE HEIGHTS! MILLIGRAMS!
HICROGRANS/DNCM/STAGE
NUMBER/ONCM/STAGf.
CUM. XHASS<050
CUM. HICROGRAMS/ACHm y IK. n i >j un i nt tr r E.WCFI •
COMPONENT
NO. NAME
1
3
2
l{,1
7
7
1
4
6
1
a. 30
.76E+02
.26E*04
-B3E*35
1 2.14
.!<«Et02
.14E+02
.82E*01
.77E+04
.22E+3S
2
4
6
3
3
3
6
1
2 3
1.90 .60
.20E«00
.03E+02
.54E*35
),gC .93
. 11E+02
7llE«02
.97E*00
.29E*02
.OOE*00
.83E492
-06E+37
(?.~1C? * 38
. 26E+02
.28E*02
.07E»00
.66E+02
.15E436 2.12E+37
7.
1.
0.
0.
0.
7.
4
.01
OOE-01
28E«02
OOE-0
OOE+00
OOE+00
75E-02
7.21E«01
0.
OOE-0
REMARKS
PROBE«10 CYC ARMAMENT LAB DID ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS I ROCKWELL DID SULFATE.
NITRATE • TOT.CARBON. PROBE WT. IS 36.6 MG I CYCLONE IS 141 MG.
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
=>A-450/3-79-034a
"December "-"" '
Air
Ammonium Sulfate
Manufacture —
Background Information
for Proposed Emission
Standards
-------
EPA-450/3-79-034a
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture —
Background Information for
Proposed Emission Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air. Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1979
-------
0.1
0.01 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.1 99.9 99.99
Cumulative Percentage
(Z Weight
-------
Table C-14. AMMONIUM SULFATE PARTICLE
SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Facility: B
Date: 10/4/78
Sampling Method: Brinks Cascade Impactor
Impactor
Fraction
Cyclone
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Back-up i
Filter
Range of
Effective
Diameter Net Wt.
Microns (mg)
>8.04 289.2
2.74-8.04 2.0
1.62-2.74 <0.1
1.10-1.62 <0.1
0.58-1.10 <0.1
0.36-0.58 <0.1
'' <0.36 0.06
Size Distribution by Weight
Cumulat ive
Percent Percent
99.3 100
0.7 0.7
<0.1 <0.1
-------
Table C-13, AMMONIUM SUIFATE PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Facility: A
Date: 9/13/78
Sampling Method; Anderson Cascade Impactor
Plate No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
Back-up
Filter
Total
Effective
Diameter,
Microns
9.5
6.0
4.0
2.72
1.72
0.87
0.83
0.35
Net Wt.
mg.
45.7
3.7
1.8
1.0
1.5
0.8
0.8
1.3
0,8
57.4
Weight
Percent
79.6
6.4
3.2
1.7
2.6
1.4
1.4
2.3
1.4
100
Cumulative
Wt. Percent
100
20.3
13.9
10.8
9.1
6.5
5.1
3.7
1.4
C-25
-------
Table 3-3. -SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED AS EMISSION DATA -
EPA EMISSION TESTS OK AS DETERS*
Average uncontrolled AS emissions
Dryer
Plant type gm/dscn Igr(dscf)] fcg/Mg (Ib/ton)
A lotary Dryer 4.38 (1.93) 0.41 (0.82)
B Fluidized Bed Dryer 39.0 (17.2) 110 (221)
C Rotary Dryer 8.87 (3.91) 3.4i (6.92)
D Rotary Dryer 98.3 (43.3) 77 (153)
*Detalled uncontrolled emission data for the individual plants is
given in Appendix C, Tables C-l, C-4, C-6. and C-8.
3-11
-------
Table C-15. AMMONIUM SULFATE PARTICLE
SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Facility: C
Date: 12/6/78
Sampling Method: Anderson Cascade Impactor
'Plate No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
Total
Effective
Diameter ,
Microns
ni.8
7.49
4.94
3.42
2.18
1.11
0.67
0.45
<0.45
Net ¥t.
ng.
450.4*
200.8
818.3
253.4
42.2
56.0
11.5
11.5
31.3
1875.4
Weight
Percent
24.0
10.7
43.6
13.5
2.3
3.0
0.6
0.6
1.7
Cumulative
Wt. Percent
100.0
76.0
65.3
21.7
8.2
5.9
2.9
2.3
1.7
*Weight includes particulate collected in Plate No. 0 and in
nozzle and head of sampler up stream of the collection plates,
C-27
-------
Table C-16. AMMONIUM SULFATE PARTICLE
SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Facility; D
Dace: 12/13/78
Sampling Method: Anderson Cascade Impactor
Plate No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Back-up
Filter
Total
Effective
Diameter,
Microns
>14.73
9.28
6.15
4.26
2.11
1.40
0.85
0.58
<0.58
Net Wt.
ng.
157.3
789,5
1271.6
413.8
71.2
13.2
0.5
0.0
0.3
2717.4
Weight
Percent
5.8
29.1
46.8
15.2
2.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cumulative
¥t. Percent
100.0
94.2
65.1
18.3
3.1
0,5
0.0
0.0
0.0
C-28
-------
4.6 REFERENCES
1. Perry, J. H.» Chemical Engineering Handbook, McGraw Hill
Publishing Company, N.Y., N.Y., 3rd Ed.f o. 196.
JacksonTTTT'IT. ancI'Marks", P. J.7 Source Emissions Test
Report, Occidental Chemical Co., Houston, .Texas, Ammonium
Sulfate Dryer Baghouse, R. F. Weston, Inc., EPA Contract
No. §8-02-2816, Drift Report, p. 24.
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., Draft Report,
Emission Testing at an Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing
Plant, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
No. 78-NHF-l, Southfield, Michigan, November, 1978, p. 13.
A'. Scott, Environmental Technology, Inc., Particulate Emissions
From An Ammonium Sulfate Plant Controlled by a Cyclonic
Scrubber. U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-02-2813, Work Assignment
No. 27, Draft Report, p. 2-4.
•5^ Scott, Environmental Technology, Inc., Particulate Emissions
From An Ammonium Sulfate Plant Controlled by a Venturl
Scrubber. U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-02-2813, Work Assignment
No. 28. Draft Resort. D. 2-4.
6. Cheremisinoff, P. N. and Young, R. A., Wet Scrubbers - A
Special Report, Pollution Engineering, Volume 6, No. 5,
p. 34, May, 1974.
7. Cheremisinoff, P. M. and Young, R. A., Air Pollution Control
and Design Handbook, Marcel Dekker, Inc., N.Y., N.Y., 1977,
Part 2, p. 751.
8. Data provided by the Ducon Company, Mineola, N.Y., in a
telephone conversation between H. Krockta and Craig Sherwood
of U.S. EPA, OAQPS on December 20, 1978.
9. Data provided by American Air Filter, Inc., Louisville,
Kentucky, in a telephone conversation between W. Klimczak
and Craig Sherwood of U.S. EPA, OAQPS on December 11, 1978.
10. Op. Cit., Ref. 34, p. 3S.
11. Response of Occidental Petroleum Corp., Plalnview, Texas,
to EPA 114 request.
12. Magill, P. C., et al., Air Pollution Handbook, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., N.Y., N.Y., 1956, p. 13-48.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 80-MET-8
May 1980
Air
Metallic Minerals
Emission Test Report
Reynolds Metals
Company
Corpus Christi, Texas
-------
SOURCE EMISSIONS TEST REPORT
Reynolds Metals Company
Sherwin Plant
Corpus Christ!, Texas
Sources Tested:
* Ship Unloading Process
• Fine Ore Storage Area
August 1980
David A. Ralston
Assistant Project Scientist
~t,
Barry I^A Jack
Project wanag e1
Air Testing
RFW Report No. 0300-81-16
Contract No. 68-02-2816
Work Assignment No, 14
Prepared by
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Designers - Consultants
Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania
(215) 692-3030
-------
Table 10
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Date: 6-24-80 P ' (in. Hg.) 23.3k
Location: Reyno1ds Meta1s Company Stack Temp ( F) 76
Sampling Location: Shfp Unloading Scb.0utls.amPle Time (Mln.) 95.0
Traverse Point No. Sampled: X-15 Sample Volume (cf) 59.3
Run No. 1 Moisture (% £0) 3.5
Meter Temp (°F) IQQ
Flow Setting, AH 1.2
(in. H20)
Nozzle Diameter (in.) 0.188
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions):0-61 cfm
Plate Net Wt. % Cumulative EAD
No. (mg) I (Microns)
1 18.9 32.7 100.0 12.5
2 0-5 0.8 67.3 7.8
3 0.9 1.6 66.5 5.2
4 1-8 3.1 6^.9 3.6
5 *».5 7.8 61.8 2.7
6 IS.** 26.6 5^.0 1.2
7 - 8.7 15.1 27.** 0.71
8 4-8 8.3 12.3 0.48
Backup
Filter 2.3 '».0 4.0
TOTAL 57.8
-31-
-------
Figure 7
(A
o
u
i
u»
ro
i
o
cc
LU
«t
LU
o
LU
LU
10.0
2'°
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
k.O
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
Ship Unloading Scrubber Outlet
Run No. 1 Particle Size Distribution
0.01 B.05 I.I 0.7 0.5 I
ID 20 30 40 M SO 70 00 10
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
Bv Weight Less Than Diameter
OS
96 90
ao.i at.8
9S.09
-------
Table 11
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Date: 6-25-80 Pbgr (fn. Hg.) 30.00
Location: Reynolds Hetals Company Stack Temp ( F) 9°
Sampling Location: No. T 6- No. 2 Fine Ore Sample Time (Min.)90.0
Bins Exhaust Stack . . --. c
Traverse Point No. Sampled; X-3 Sample Volume (cf)-'/»P
Run No. 1 Moisture (| H20) 2.0
Meter Temp (°F)
Flow Setting. & H]-35
(in. H20)
Nozzle Diameter On.)o.l85
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions):0,63 cfm
Plate
No.
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
Met Wt.
(mg)
2.4
1.0
1.1
• 0.8
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.5
%
17.8
7.4
8.2
•5.9
11.1
11.9
9.6
11.1
Cumulative EAD
% (Microns)
100 12.2
82.2 7.6
74.8 5.2
66.6 3.6
60.7 2.4
49.6 1.2
37.7 0.71
28.1 0.47
Backup
Filter 2-3 17.0 17.0
TOTAL 13-5
-33-
-------
Ftgure 8
No. 1 and No. 2 Fine Ore Bins Exhaust Stack
Run No. 1 Particle Size Distribution
EFFECTIVE AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
O O O O O O O OO— N> \>i 4- vn 0\ -%j OtHOC
— Kl Ul f \n O\ *4 OOU> O O O OOOOOOC
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
*
j
•1
« /
/
/
/
/
•/
/
0.01 D.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
ID 2D 3D 40 SO SB 70 SO
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
By Weight Less Than Diameter
10
IS
M II
II.I II.I
99.89
-------
Table 12
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Date: 6-25-80 P, (!n. Hg.) 29-99
Location: Reynolds Hetals Stack Temp ( F) 9°
Sampling Location: No, f & No, 2 Fine Ore Sample Time (Mln.) 180
Bins Exhaust Stack . . . . „ _
Traverse Point Mo. Sampled: X-3 Sample Volume (cf) 113.152
Run No. 2 H°lsture (* H20) 2'°
Meter Temp (°F) 95
Flow Setting, AH 1.35
(In. H20)
Nozzle Diameter (in.)°-l85
Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions) :0,62 cfrn
Net Wt. % Cumulative EAO
% (Microns)
1 12.2 55.5 100 12.2
2 1.5 6.8 kk.S 7.6
3 1.3 5.9 37,7 5.2
** 0.5 2.3 31.8 3.6
5 1.2 5.5 29.5 2.b
6 0.8 3.6 2^.0 1.2
7 1.1 5.0 20.4 0.71
8 1.0 k.S 15.* 0.47
Backup 2,k 10.9 10.9
FiIter
TOTAL 22.0
-35-
-------
Figure 9
o
o
"i
LU
o
QC
O
cc.
LU
<
LU
>
H
<_>
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
No. 1 and No. 2 Fine Ore Bins Exhaust Stack
Run No. 2 Particle Size Distribution
0.01 0.OS 1.10.2 0.5 I 2
10 20 10 40 SO 80 70 10 10
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
M 11
ii.i ii.t
99.88
-------
REPORT NO. 76-BAT-4
AIR POLLUTION
EMISSION TEST
O
GLOBE UNION, INC.
CANBY, OREGON
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Cnroltnn
-------
SOURCE TESTING OF A LEAD ACID BATTERY
MANUFACTURING PLANT
Globe Union, Inc.
Canby, Oregon
Test No. 76-BAT-4
Test Conducted by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Report Prepared by
Robert M. Martin
Environmental Protection Specialist
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
GLOBE UNI DM
9 SFPTEMBFR Ig7f,
CD
CASCADE I^PACTOR PAKTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUM
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
5
4
5
FILTER
SAHHLIN& TIME MIN
PRESSURE DROP IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN HG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE DEC F
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY li/CC
WT OF MATERIAL DPC MG/ACF
0.300 0.27
U.705 U.99 0.6?
0,030 0,56 0.03
0.010 0,36 0.01
O.OH1 0.15 0.04
0.010 0.07 0.01
0,000 0.00
10.0
5.50
-5.00
9.53
29.76
28.8
96.0
0,00019
0.00100
WT PCNT
27.37
6«4.32
2,7%
0,91
3.7<*
0.91
0.00
CUM WT PCNT
100.00
72.63
8.30
5,57
<*,&5
0.91
0.00
Table 21.
-------
GLOpt UNION
9 SEPTEMBER
oo
oo
CASCADE IMPACTOR PA«TICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN 2X
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
«t
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME MIN
PRESSURE DROP IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN Ht
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE OEG F
GAS VISCOSITY POlSE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL DPC MG/ACK
1.200 1.07
0.701 1.00 0.62
0.016 0.56 0.01
0.028 0.36 0.02
0.019 0.15 0.02
0.01U 0,07 0,01
0.050 O.OH
10.0
5.50
-6.00
9.53
29.92
28. H
93.0
0.00019
0.00100
WT PCNT
59.29
3H.63
0.79
l.Sfl
0.9H
0.<+9
2.H7
CUM WT PCf^T
100.00
<*0.71
6,oa
5.29
3.90
2.96
2.»47
Table 23.
-------
GLURL UNION
9 SEPTEMBER 1976
o
CASCADE IMPACTOR PAKTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN 3X
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
H
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME MIN
PRESSUHE DNOP IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY 6/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN Ht
GAS MCL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE DEG F
GAS VISCOSITY POISL
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL OPC IG/ACF
2.300 2.05
0.700 1.00 O.h?
0,001 0.56 0.00
0.006 0.36 0.01
O.OOM 0.15 0.00
O.OOt U.07 0.00
1.600 1.43
10.0
5.50
-6.10
9.53
29.92
26.8
90.0
0,00019
0.00100
WT PCNT
«+9.8«t
15.17
0.02
0.13
0.09
0.09
3^.67
CUM WT PCNT
100.00
50,16
3%, 99
3^.97
S'+.fl'*
3I»,76
3«*,67
Table 25.
-------
Table 42. Andersen Particle Size Data - Continued
RUN IB
DPC
>4.13
4.13
2.58
1.71*
1.22
.796
.393
.240
.161
of Material (m&) WT POT
1.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0.1
0. 3
0.2
0.5
35.
3.
12
6
6
0
3
9
6
16
48
23
90
45
23
68
45
13
CUM V/T PCT
100.00
64.52
61.29
48.39
Hi. 9"
35.^9
35.^9
32.26
22.58
16.13
DPC
>4,06
4.06
2.55
1.71
1.21
.822
.333
.235
.155
<.158
Vit of Material (mg)
1.2
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
. 2
n
WT_PCT
63-16
5.26
0
0
0
0
0
10.53
10.53
10.53
CUM V.'T PCT
100.00
36.85
31.59
31-59
59
r— r.
31
31.53
31-59
31.59
21.06
10.53
DPC
^J. 00
4.00
2.51
1.68
1.18
.739
.377
.232
-155
<-155
jf Material
, mi
V/T PCT
0.9
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0:2
0.6
17. ^O
4.17
8.333
0
0
0
8,333
8.333
8.333
25.00
"i 00.
62.
55.
49.
• 43.
4 9 .
50.
41.
33-
25.
00
50
33
99
99
99
00
67
33
00
10?
-------
GLOBE UNION
9 SEPTEMBER 1976
CASCADE IMPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN 2A
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
SAMPLING TIME NIN
PRESSURE DROP , IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN HG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE UEG F
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
STATE WT OF P-ATERIftL DPC MG/ACF
10
*• CYCLONE 2.1.00 2.78
1 0.103 1.10 0,«*3
2 0,001 0,63 0.00
3 0.000 O.HI 0.00
«* o.oos o.ia o.oi
5 0,002 0,09 0.00
FILTER 1,«»00 l.«*9
10.0
3. BO
-5.60
9.53
29.92
28. &
70.0
0.00019
0.00100
WT PCNT
58, 9<*
9.14
0.02
0.00
0.11
0,05
31. 7<*
CUM WT PCNT
100.00
Hi. 06
31,92
31.90
31.90
31.78
31.74
Table 29.
-------
GLOBE UNION
9 SEPTEMBER 197ft
vo
CASCADE IMPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUM
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
*
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME MIN
PRESSURE D&OP IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN HPO
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN HG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE DE6 f
GAS VISCOSITY PQlSE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL DPC MG/ACF
1.060 1.11
o.iaa 1.09 0.20
O.OOb 0.62 0.01
0.002 0.40 0.00
0.006 0.18 0.01
0.15b 0.08 0,16
0.066 0.07
10.0
3.80
-5.00
9.53
29.92
28.8
98.0
0.00019
0.00100
WT PCNT
71.48
12.68
Q.4Q
0.13
0.40
10.45
4.45
CUM WT PCNT
100.00
28.52
15.85
15.44
15.31
14.90
4.45
US
Table 27.
-------
GLOBE UNION
9 SEPTEMBER 1976
CASCADE IMPACTOR PAKTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN 3A
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
H
5
FlLTfR
SAMPLING TIME MIN
PRESSURE DROP IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN HG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPEHATURE OEG F
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
yT OF MATERIAL DPC MG/ACF
0.200 0,21
1.005 1.10 1,07
0,001 0.62 0,00
0.000 0.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA 3T3TEH3
FPEIS SERIES REPORT
SERIES ram i
PAGE 1
DATE 06/20/83
E3 N0> 117 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 01/26/73 TO 04/26/73 BY SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST
NOT SPECIFIED
SPONSOR ORGANIZATIONi
CONTRACT NUMBER:
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER* 000
PURPOSE OF TESTI SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
SOURCE DESCRIPTION-
SOURCE CATEGORY"
SOURCE TtPE:
PRODUCT/DEVICE:
PROCESS TTPEI
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
PEED MATERIAL CATESOPT:
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE!
METALS
SECONDARY FERROUS
STEEL
FOUNDRY
NOT SPECFD
SOURCE NAME:
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
SIC CODEi
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
3320
00000
EAOS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES-
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH HERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY KITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOWS!TE3T SERIES NUMBER-TSNH
LEDS TSN! BEDS TSH: SODS TSN:
REFERENCE REPORT-
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER
PUBLICATION DATE
BIRD, ALVIN N.
SORI-EAS-7J-ZOO
TEST SERIES COMMEMTS-
THE PURPOSE HAS TO CONDUCIpPARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS TO DETER-
MINE THE SIZE RANGE OF PARTICLES FROM HOOD DUCTS IN A STEEL
FOUNDRY. WHEN PIPE MOLDS ARE BROKEN SMALL PARTICLES ARE RELEASE
0 AND DRAWN THROUGH HOOD DUCTS.
-------
FPCIS TEST SERIES NUMBERi 00117 STREAM NO: 001 TEST ID NO! 1 PAGE 5
SERIES rORH C6 PATE 0*/20/83
PARTICLE DIAMETERS BASED ON CLASSIC AERODYNAMIC DEFINITION I TASK GROUP ON LUNG DYNAMICS!
PARTICLE SIZE SUMMARY
PARTICLE DIAMETER IN MICROMETERS
SAMPLE LOCATIONS UG/DNN3
SAMPLE NO. DEVICE SYSTEM 20.II li.O 10.0 6.0 2.S 1.2S 1.0 0.625
01 OUTLET CUM MASS CONC 4.62E*04 4.I1E«04 3.§9E*f>4 3.21E*04 1.00E*04 3.07E404 3.0frE*04 3.02E*04
DM/DLOG D 4.41E*04 3.73E*04 2.07E+04 1.24E*04 O.OOE«00 9,14E*02 1.11E*03 3.25E+OJ
EXTRAPOL EXTRAPOL EXTRAPOL INTERPOL INTCRPOL INTERPOL INTERPOL INTERPOL
02 OUTLET CUM MASS CONC 4.90E«04 4.56E*04 4.23E*04 4.07E«04 3.80E*04 3.66E*04 3.48E*04 Z.38E*04
DH/DL06 0 E.96E*04 2.44E*04 l.IBE«04 4.ME*03 4.70C*03 4.75E*03 3.741*04 6.92E»04
EXTRAPOL EXTRAPOL EXTRAPOL INTERPOL INTERPOL INTERPOL INTERPOL INTERPOL
-------
PPEI3 TEST SERIES NO! 00117
STREAK NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE HO'- 02
SERIES roan cr
PAGE 11
DATE 06/20/83
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE t
DSOINICRONS)
HICROGRAHS/DNCM/STA6E
NUHBER/DtCN/STAGE
CUM. XHASS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS
FPEI3 SERIES REPORT SERIES FORM
;ES NO: 233 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 03/21/76 TO 03/21/78 BY KVB, INC.
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CONTRACT NUMBER: A6-191-30 PURPOSE OF TEST: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS I MULTIMEDIA)
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 000
PAGE 1
DATE 06/21/63
SOURCE DESCRIPTION-
SOURCE CATEGORY:
SOURCE TYPE:
PRODUCT/DEVICE'
PROCESS TYPE:
DESIGN PROCESS RATE>
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY:
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE:
METALS
SECONDARY FERROUS
STEEL
OPEN HEARTH
6260 K6/HR
HTL SCRAP
SOURCE NAME: CONFIDENTIAL
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
LOS ANGELES
>CA
00000
sic CODE:
3320
EADS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES-
REFERENCE REPORT-
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA MHICH MERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY UITtf THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOMSCTEST SERIES NUMBER-TEN):
LEDS TSN: BEDS TSN: 00065 SODS TSN:
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER
PUBLICATION DATE
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY AND MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN.
TABACK H.J.
KVB REPORT 5806-783 PB 293 923/A3 FEBRUARY 1979
TEST SERIES CtJMHENTS-
PROGHAH OBJECTIVES TO INVENTORY TSP EMISSIONS,TO PREPARE A COM-
PREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS!I.E. BY SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION I,AND TO DESCRIBE ALT. METHODS OF CONTROL.
-------
SERIES NO: 00233
STREAM DESIGN CM A
COMPONENT
NO NAME
1 PROBE*10 CYC
2 3 UM CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
4 FILTER
IIZE TABLt— -------
WNS)
EIGHTS(MILLIGRAMS)
AMS/DNCM/STAGE
DNCM/STAGE
ASS MASS/VOLUME» - .!«?«
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY NAME: ARMAME
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE: »l;?L«i JT
STAGE HEIGHT: 9.91E.01 MG
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE: itlLn* Jf
STAGE WEIGHT: !;!„«« MR
COMPONENT 1 ALIQUOT! MASS/VOLUME » 5B5.000 MG
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE: .« «1
STAGE HEIGHT: •;• "*" J
COMPONENT (ALIQUOT) MASS/VOLUME: 683.000 MS
1 2 3 *
8.30 1.90 .60 .01
4.97E*02 9.91E*01 5.85E+02 B.83E+02
1.02E»05 Z.03E*04 1.20E*05 1.81E*05
3.21E»10 6.19E«11 1.88E*1* 7.43E+17
75.92 71.12 <»2.78
1.77E+05 1.66E*05 9.96E*0* O.OOE*00
3.21E»05 3.01E«05 1.81E*05 O.OOEtOO
1.82E»01 3.97E+00 1.07E»00 7.75E-02
1.49E*05 3.17E»04 2.39E»05 1.02E»05
4.71E»10 9.67E*11 3.76E*1<» <».18E*17
CHARACTERISTICS— "
REMARKS
1 PROBE+10 CYC ARMAMENT LAB DID ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS ft ROCKWELL DID JULFATE, NI-
TRATE ft TOTAL CARBON. PROBE WT IS 228MG ft CYCLONE HT IS 269 MG
8
06/21/83
-------
SERIES NO: 00233 STREAM HO: 01 TEST ID NO: 1 SAMPLE HO: 02
SERIES Fn»1 7
PAGE 12
DATE 06/21/83
STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
:OMPONENT
10 NAME DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1 PROBEUO CYC
2 3 UH CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHTS
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
COMPONENT (ALIQUOT! MASS/VOLUME:
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY NAME:
9.20 UH
4.43E*02 KG
3.80 UM
6.61E»01 KG
1.30 un
1.61E*02 KG
161.000 MG
ARHAME
FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
COMPONENT
-------
1
Report No. 76-BAT-3
ESB CANADA LIMITED
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
UNITED STATES ENV.'RGNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quasity Planning and Siandards
Emission Measurem<;ni Bcnuch
Research Triangle Park. North
-------
SOURCE TESTING
AT A
LEAD ACID 3ATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY
ESB Canada Limited
Mississauga, Ontario
Test Conducted By
Monsanto Research Corporation
Dayton, Ohio
August 16-20, 1976
Report-Prepared by
Robert Martin
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N. C.
-------
Misstss.'iuga, Ontario
D?C
(microns ) ivt. of Material (nig) Wt. % Cum.
*un 3A
D?C
£rni__c r on s) V/c . o f_ ?•!a terial (rnp)
%
>5.^2 4.04 54.30 100.00
5-42 0.1 1-3- ^5-70
1 3.3S 0.3 ^.03 ^-36
2 2.26 0.1 1.34 40.33
3 1.5S 0.5 6.72 33.99
4 0.98 0.7 - 9-41 32.27
5 0.51 0.9 12.10 22.86
6 0.31 0.5 6.72 10.76
7 0.20 0.1 1.34 4.0'!
? <0,20 0.2 2.70 2.70
Run 2 A
DPC
. (microns ) Wt. of Material (mg) \ft. %_ pJiiBju-iiL:
r.c-zle >5-32 . 3.7^ 78.90 100.00
''0 5.32 ! 0 0 21.10
1 3.38 0,2 4,22 21.10
2 2.23 0.1 2.11 16.88
3 1.57 0.2 M.22 14.77
b- 0.98 0.2 iJ.22 10.55
5 0.50 o.l 2.11 6.33
6 0.31 0.1 2.11 4.22
7 0.20 0 0 2.11
?' <0.20 0.1 2.11
>5-32 1.34 '19.19 100.00
0 5-32 0 0 50.31
1 3-32 0.1 2.6? c.0.5l
2 2.25 0.4 10.70 48.14
3 1-55 0.4 10.70 37-44
4 0.96 0.4 10.70 26.74
5 0.50 0 0 16.04
5 0.31 0.5 13-37 15.04
7 0.20 0.1 2.67 2.5"
? <0.20 0 0 0
T-2
24 [
-------
Andersen Particle Size Data
ESS Canada Ltd.
Mississauga, Ontario
Hun I'D)
DPC
Stage (microns) Wt. of Material (mg) Wt. % Cum. Wt. %
nozzle >4.26 2.34 35.40 100.00
0 4.26 0.1 3-65 14.60
1 2.67 0.1 3-65 10.95
2 1.75 0 0 7-30
3 1.25 0.1 3-65 7.30
4 0.78 0 0 3-65
5 0.40 0 0 3.65
6 0.24 0 0 3-65
7 0.16 0 0 3-65
F <0.l6 0.1 3-65 3-65
>4.33 2.14 78.10 100.00
4.33 0.2 7.30 21.90
2.73 0 0 14.60
1.80 0 0 14.60
1.26 0 Q 14.60
0.79 0.3 10.95 14.60
5 0.41' 0 0 3.65
6 0.25 0 0 3-55
7 0.17 0.1 3.65 3-65
? < 0. 17 0 0 0
13
DPC
Stage (microns) Wt. of Material (mg) Wt. %_ Cum. Wt. *
nozzle >4.20 2.54 86.40 ' 100:00
0 4.20 0 0 13-60
1 2.62 0.1 3-40 13-60
2 1.74 0 0 10.20
3 1.23 0 0 10.20
4 0.77 0.2 6.30 10.20
5 0.39 0.1 3-40 3-40
6 0.24 0 00
7 0.16 0 00
F <0.l6 0 0 0
Hun 3D
DPC
Wt. of Material
1-3
-------
1976
CASCADE IMPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN ic
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
i
1
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME WIN
PRESSURE DROP IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAHOi«ETRIC PRESSURE IN HG
GAS I^CL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE DEG F
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL DPC KG/ACF
20,600 9.6i+
3.787 1.25 1.81
5,383 0.72 2.57
5,137 U.it7 2,<+5
^.0^6 0.22 1.93
3,802 0/12 1.62
0,200 0,10
30,0
1.66
-4. 15
9,53
29.99
28.8
156.0
0, OOOlta
0.00100
WT PCMT CUM WT PCMT
H7.95 100.00
8.82 52.05
12.53 ^3,23
11.96 30,70
9.42 10, 7f
6.85 9.32
0.^7 0.47
T-4
26
-------
NOVEMBER 1976
CASCADE IMPACTQR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUN 1C
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STAGE:
CYCLONE
i
2
3
IT
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME MIN
PRESSURE DROP CM HG
STATIC PRESSURE CM H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CM HG .
GAS FOL WT
GAS TEfPEHATURE DEG C
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL OPC MG/ACM
20,600 0,23
3.737 1.25 0,05
5.333 0,72 0,07
5.137 U,^7 0.07
H. DHfl 0 .22 0,05
3.302 0,12 0.05
0.20U 0.00
30 .0
!*.27
-10.5"*
9,53
76.17
28.8
68.9
o.oooia
0.00100
WT PCNT CUM WT PChT
H7.95 100,00
B.82 52,05
12.53 ^3.23
11.96 30.70
9.42 13.74
8. d5 9 ..32
0.47 O.H7
T-5
27
-------
V 1\.OV£"..J!B£.^ I-; 76
CASCADE IHPACTOR PARTICLE. SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOH MUH
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
S T A 7 L
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME MIN
PRESSURE ORCP IN n'6
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN KG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TFMPEKATJRE DEG f
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL DPC MG/ACF
15.400 10 ,00
4.172 1.23 2.92
3.533 0.71 2.46
2.487 0,46 1.74
1.762 0,22 1.24
3.1-93 0.11 2.59
o. ncc o.oo
20.0
l.=6
-4.10
9.53
29.99
28.8
. 188.0
0 . G 0 0 i 5
0 , GOiOO
WT PC. NT CUr, WT PCNT
49.feO 100. 00
1J.44 50.^0
11.33 3i,9&
3. 01 25.53
5.68 17.57
11.69 11,39
0 . G 0 0.00
T-6
28
-------
4 NOVEMBER 1976
CASCADE IMPACTCR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RUM ac
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS INPUT DATA
STAGE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIf.E MIN
PRESSURE DROP CM HG
STATIC PRESSURE CM h'20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CM HG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE CEG C
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL DPC MG/ACM
15.4-00 0,31
4.172 1.23 0.08
3.533 0.71 0.07
2.^87 0.46 0.05
1.762 0.22 0.03
3.693 0.11 0.07
0.000 0.00
2C.C
4,27
-10.41
9.53
76.17
28.8
86.7
0.00018
0 . 00100
WT PCNT CUM WT PCNT
49.60 100.00
13.44- 50.40
11.38 36.96
8.01 25.58
5.68 17.57
11.89 11 ,89
0,00 0.00
T-7
7Q
-------
4 NOVEMBER 1976
^CASCADE IMPACTOR PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR RijNi 3C
INPUT VARIABLE UMITS INPUT DATA
STATE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
4
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME WIN
PRESSURE DROP IN HG
STATIC PRESSURE IN H20
PARTICLE DENSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN HG
GAS MOL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE DEG F
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS DENSITY G/CC
WT OF MATErlflL OPC MG/ACF
23.500 11. 20
7.775 1.25 3.71
2.106 U.72 1.00
3.104 0.47 1.48
3.342 ' 0.22 1.59
2.720 0.12 1.30
0 .000 0 .00
30.0
1.66
-3.70
9.53
29.99
23.8
160.0
O.OOOlfc
u .00100
WT PCf'JT
55.23
18.27
4.95
7.30
7.85
6.39
0.00
CUM WT PCN'
100,00
44.77
.26.49
21.54
14.25
6.39
0 .00
7-3
-------
4 NOVE.1J?eE!P 1976
CASCADE IMPACTCR PARTICLE SI2E DISTRIBUTION FOR PUN 3C
INPUT VARIABLE UNITS IMPUT DATA
STAGE
CYCLONE
1
2
3
H
5
FILTER
SAMPLING TIME MIM
PRESSURE DROP CM HG
STATIC PRESSURE CM H20
PARTICLE DEMSITY G/CC
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CM HG
GAS i^QL WT
GAS TEMPERATURE " DEG C
GAS VISCOSITY POISE
GAS CEivSITY G/CC
WT OF MATERIAL DPC l^G/ACM
23.500 0.32
7.775 1.25 0.10
2.106 0.72 0,03
3. 104 0,47 0 , 0«
3.342 0.22 0.05
2.720 U.12 0.04
0. 000 0,00
30.0
4.27
,-9.40
9.53
76.17
28.8
71.1
0.00018
0,00100
WT PCNT CUH WT PCMT
55.23 100,00
18.27 44.77
4,95 26,49
7.30 21.54
7.85 14.25 '
6.39 6,39
0.00 0,00
T-9
31
-------
.Source.
—Source. Foe I "Type. •
- )
'•5"
-------
BATCH TINNER
Pre-formed tubes are fed into the batch tinner, a maximum of
six at a time. These tubes pass through a flux bath to remove
oxides from the tubing before the lead-tin coating is applied in
the tinner. The batch tinner has an exhaust system which col-
%
lects any vapors produced in the tinner. Under operating con-
ditions utilizing the scrubber, it is reported that the gases are
exhausted at 70 acfm. During this test series, all vapors were
exhausted through the bypass system.
-------
-------
REPORT NO.
Y-7730-G
PAGE
OF
PAGES
REPORT
.: by
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
on
EMISSIONS FROM THE
FLORENCE HIKING COMPANY
COAL PROCESSING PLANT
at
SEWARD, PENNSYLVANIA
By
Richard W. Kling
Project Engineer
February 18, 1972 :
REPORT NO. Y-7730-G
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
-------
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING Co.
COULTER COUNTER'
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6O6O1
226 NORTH LA 5«i_i_c Sinter
312/726.B434
w
u
A
V
• . — — . ujje: j. a LDL |jat-£»
material and sample no. electrolyte & disoersant aoerture
Y-7730-G (out)
Isoton Aerosol OT
Ultrasonic
bath
400 p.
280 p
100 u
3O u
100
10
0
0.2
0.5
5 10
microns diameter
20
50
100
JO
-------
REPORT NO. Y-7730-H
PAGE
OF
February
REPORT
by
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
on
EMISSIONS FROM THE
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY
COAL PROCESSING PLANT
at
VANSANT. VIRGINIA 2U656
By
Richard W. Kling
Project Engineer
1972
YORK RESEARCH
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
-------
REPORT NO. Y-7730-H
PAGE
OF 64 PAGES
TABLE I
. : . SUMMARY OF RESULTS - TEST #1
Inlet
Date: . 1/25/72
Stack Flow Rate - SCFM 156,000
. • % Water Vapor - Vol. % 15.0
% C02 - Vol. % Dry ... - 1.1
% 02 - Vol. % Dry 17.4
•v % N2 - Vol. % Dry . 81.5-
362 Emission - ppm , ^37.1
• . NO? Emission - ppm
#1 ' ; • - •
' • • • #2 • '•'..-.
#3 ....-_'
. * Hydrocarbons - ppm
- #1
#2 -
-. :• #3 . • -
Particulate Emission - Filter,
Cyclone and Probe
Gr./CF @ Stack Conditions '1.2719
Gr./SCFD 1.8360
Lb./hr. 2450.
. Particulate Emission - Total
Gr./CF @> Stack Conditions . 1.2763
Gr./SCFD . 1.8423
Lb/hr. 2460.
^~x\\
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION RY;I:I:^
Outlet
1/25/72
162,000
13.3
1.1
17.4 '
81.5
% 6.71
73.9
69.6
53.9
44.91
64.53
62.78
0.0177
0.0236
32.8
.0229
0.0305
42.3
STAMFORD, CONNECTICU1
-------
DEPORT NO. Y-7730-H
PAGE 5 OF GH PAGES
Date:
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - TEST #2
Inlet .
. 1/26/72
Stack Flow Rate - SCFM
% Water Vapor - Vol. %
% C02 - Vol. % Dry
% 02 - Vol. % Dry
% N2 - Vol. % Dry
SOj) Emission -_ppm
NO? Emission - ppm
#1
#2
• #3
Hydrocarbons - ppm
#1
#2
#3
ParticulateEmission - Filter,
Cyclone and Probe
Gr./CF © Stack Conditions
Gr./SCFD
Lb,/hr.
Par ticulate Emiss i on - Tota 1
GrTcF i> Stack Conditions
Gr/SCFD .
Lb./hr
\
157,000
8.1
1,6
17.3
81.1
m.o
.5518
.73S6
990.
.5627
.7502
1010.
Outlet
1/26/72
157,000
13.H
1.6
17.7
80.7
2.68
17.2
71.7
88.3
53.6^
65.40
0.0088
0.0118
15.9
0.0117
0.0157
21.1
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
-------
' REPORT NO, Y-7730-H
PAGE 6 OF 64 PAGES
:,-v;;;;v;-.' •'-• '•• • ; TABLE HI '
: V •'. •'•'•" :-•'•':• •;SUMMARY OF RESULTS - TEST
Date;
Stack Flow Rate - SCFM
•% Water Vapor - Vol. %
% C02 - Vol. % Dry ''.'•
% 02 - Vol. % Dry • '
"% N2 - Vol. % Dry :.:j
50^ Emissions- ppm
N 02 Em i s s i ons -
-#! .
. '-#2 •-.-,.
--- ' #3 .- '' . ••
Hydrocarbons - ppm ''•."'' / :."
. . .#1 • ' V 'v'.-!. i.-'-
•; ' ' #2 ' •••••-.".. '',
#3 ' ;•••• •
Particulate Emission - Filter,
Cyclone and Probe
. Gr/CF @ Stack Conditions
• Gr/SCFD
Lb. /hr . .'•, ;
Parti culate Emission - TptaJL
Gr/CF @-Stack Conditions;
•V..! iGr/SCFD:-.-.:'.:>..•..•/.•.-'''.I. .V . ..;. .
'''
Inlet
,1/27/72
170,000
9.6
1.6
17.8
80.6 " •'••.
44.5
1.6255
2.164^
3150.
.1.6285
2.1684
3160.
Outlet
1/27/72
157,000
12.7
1.5
17.7
80.8
25.7
13.1
72.5
71.8
175.5
160.5
0.0120
0.0159
21.M
0.0157
0.0208
28.0
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
-------
REPORT NO. 'JY-7730-H
PAGE 7 OF OH PAGES
•!. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
;;. The following two graphs show the particle size distribution
-; of the inlet and the outlet samples on the first test.
' This report was submitted to York Research by Commercial
'/:'.Testing and Engineering Company of Chicago, Illinois.
•'; All analyses were done on the Coulter Counter. Each sample
was dispersed with Aerosol OT/ and further dispersed using
,'" an ultrasonic bath'. . Ispton was .the electrolyte used.
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
STAMFORD, CONNICTICLT
-------
COMMERCIAL TESTING a ENGINEERING Co
COULTER COUNTER*
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6O6OI
220 NORTH LA SALLI STRUT
912/726-6434
Source
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
Operator^
LSB
2-16-72
material and sample no. electrolyte & dispersant aperture
0
LJ
A
$
Y-7730-H (in)
Isoton Aerosol OT
Ultrasonic
bath
1OO u
30 u
•
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
• 30
20
10
•
f
\
\
0.1
0.2
0.5
10
•H!
1
I
50
100
200
-------
COMMERCIAL TESTING & ENGINEERING Co,
COULTER COUNTER*
Source YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 606OI
22B NOVTH LA SAL LI
312/726-8434
Operator.
LSB
Date.
2-18-72
material and sample no. electrolyte & dispersant aperture
0
LJ
A
$
Y-7730-H (outh
Isoton Aerosol OT
Ultrasonic
bath
28O )i
1OO u
30 p
. •
.
100
: 20
100
200
-------
.5
ource-
A^o
Fuel "Type. •
-Souroe. IbfiLseripioM C*Siie..<,'K*h»M , Ecf". )
ls pmnwy-Wbo* 15 to
»K/c)tcaJ
-------
Vf
Number crF tests Tub/ *
A/ ^rbqtk.^5'
'*& '^
I crit
eria.
are OA/ a^vtraac, of -j-h
aa
Example. Mciliod v5 - /mp/i£^s ^^fhoj^5 pr0ce.cJor<*3 Were,
-------
STATIONARY SOU1CE TESTING OF A PHOSPHATE ROCK PLANT
At
The Beker Industries Corporation
Conda, Idaho
By
Emile Baladi
Midwest Research Institute
EPA Project Report No. 75-PRP-4
FINAL REPORT
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1403
Mil Project No. 392?-C(13)
For
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
Attn: Mr. R, Terry Harrison
-------
EMB REPORT NUMBER 75-PRP-4
O
AIR POLLUTION
EMISSION TEST
BEKER INDUSTRIES, INC.
Conda, Idaho
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC.Y
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
WEIGH! % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
95 90 50 10 5
O.I
0.01 O.I 0.5 I
5 10 50 90 95
WEIGHT % IfSS THAN SlATID SIZE
0.1 0.01
I—I I I—I 1 I II
99.9 99.99
Figure 2 - Particle Diameter Versus Weight Percent Less/Greater Than Stated
Size for Brink Tests (Baghouse Inlet)
-------
tn
99.99 99.9
10.0
o
u
I—
a;
<
0.01
99
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
95 90 50 10 5
0.5 1
10 50 90 95
WEIGHT % IfSS THAN STATED SIZE
99
0.1 0.01
99,9 99.99
Figure 7 - Particle Diameter Versus Weight Percent Less/Greater Than Stated Size
for Andersen Tests (Scrubber Outlet Runs)
-------
TABLE 20
SUMHARY OF ANDERSEN SAMPLING PARAMETERS
vo
Run
1
2
4
5
6
7
Run
1
2
4
5
6
7
Start
Date Time
4-8-75 13:26
4-8-75 15:06
4-9-75 16:10
4-9-75 17 5 33
4-9-75 18:36
4-9-75 19:53
Stack
Temperature
('F)S/
150
148
148
154
156
154
Duration
(rnin)
45
40
35
35
35
35
Barometric
Pressure
(In. Hg)»/
24.32
24.32
24.37
24.32
24.32
24.37
Stack Gas Compos it ion(%)
Sampling Location
Scrubber outlet
Scrubber outlet
Scrubber outlet
Scrubber outlet
Scrubber outlet
Scrubber outlet
Static Sample
Pressure Volume
(in. H20)2/ (cf)fi/
0.0 25.90
0.0 Z3.10
0.0 19.83
0.0 20.50
0.0 20.10
0.0 20.50
oo2
9.3
9.5
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
Sample
Rate
(«cfm)
0.791
0.758
0.722
0.762
0.777
0.794
02 CO
11.7 0.0
11.4 0.0
10.4 0.0
10.4 0.0
10.4 0.0
10.4 0.0
Sample
Volume
(d«cf)S/
20.08
17.51
14.64
15.27
15.00
15.42
Molecular Wt .
N2 H20 Dry Wet
79.0
79.0
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
Nozzle
Diameter
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
20.1 29
18.5 29
18.4 29
18.4 29
21.2 29
21.1 29
Grain
gr/scia/
0.016
0.018
0.030
0.026
0.030
0.026
.95 27.55
.95 27.73
.97 27.77
.97 27.77
.97 27.43
.97 27.44
Loading
ng/in%/
36.57
41.14
68.57
59.43
68.57
59.43
a/ °F - degrees Fahrenheit
in. Kg * Inches of mercury
In. HjO ° Inches of water
cf « cubic feet (meter condition)
dscf •> dry standard cubic feet
tn. = inches
gr/scf = grains per standard cubic foot
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter.
-------
TABLE 21
ANALYSIS SUMHARf (RUN NUMBER 1-S)
out
b«OB7
tENSHr- l.OQO
CF*
GH
.0213-
FltH»~ —
STAGt/
KLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
i/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
PlATt
» PAN
.49935
.70636
.68799
.702*4
.6*303
.70568
.68721
.701^7
.6S9&7
F0>-
SAMPLE
D. 00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
O.OObOO
0.00000
JAKt
.ate
PAN
.4993S
.70660
.6879V
.70213
.68303
.70517
.66614
.69655
FOrf
0.00000
0.00000
D.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAKC" • S*H-
UF
Pl_ATt IGMi
. »ic/Jt> 0.00000
.70660 ,Q002d
.6o799 0.00000
.70213 .00031
.bd303 0.00000
.70517 .00051
.00107
'EIGHT
>e«C£Nr
0.00
2.36
0.90
2.62
0.00
4.31
9.04
40.71
40.96
CUM.
HEIGHT
PERCENT
0.00
2.36
2.36
4.98
4.9B
9.29
18.33
S9.04
100.00
KUGHT
pe*««r
0.00
1.31
a. oo
1.45
0.00
2.39
S.OI
22.58
22.72
I.UK.
Peitf.1
0.00
1.31
I.J1
z . i*
6o.au
113-32
1P9.40
Jl J.OV
556.61
1346,86
2434.66
49HS. 31
••--TIC
I Htfil
10. 42
6. el
* ,62
J.I*
2.01
1.00
,«, |
.« 1
-------
TABLE 22
ASOERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMAHY (RUN NUMBER 2-S)
UENSITY*
0*TE 0-.0875 I»»P.EfF.C=
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
T/e
SAMPLE
PLATE
* PAN
.53297
.7081*
.69299
.69572
,69327
.71109
.66662
.T2U9
.69*11
PAN
F(JM
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAME
PLATE
* PAN
.53297
.T0787
.69299
.69S72
,6933?
.71145
.68688
.71566
,68d26
1.000
.1*0
PAN
Fu*
T*ȣ
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
MLTEH *T = .00648 CM
HATE a .75767 CF« TOTAL »T*= .02061 GM
-*ITHt,UT FILTER- —i
T*KC
OF '
PLATE
,>3ii7
I?fl?»T
.69299
.69a72
.69327
.71145
.68668
.71566
.b8b26
isANHLt
MEII.HT
(bNl
0.00000
.00027
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
.00044
.00194
.00573
.005d5
•tIGHT
PERCENT
0.00
1.90
0.00
0.00
9.00
3.09
13.63
40.27
41.11
CUM,
riEISHT
PERCENT
0.00
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
4.99
18.62
58.89
100.00
riEIGnT
PEflCEUT
- 0.00
1.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.13
9.41
27.80
20.38
'. •-»'««
•ElbnT
•WENT
O.UO
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.31
3.44
12.86
40.66
SV.O*
JtT
vtL.
(M/SI
58.3*
108.79
181.51
300.04
533.41
1290.71
23S2.33
4704.63
furtl \C
JlA*»
(M1CRI
11.16
6.96
4.T2
3.21
2.06
1.02
.63
.42
-------
TABLE 23
»N, t-SE.* ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUH NUMBER i.-S)
0»TE
uENSlTV: 1.000
«F.CFF.C= .!«..!
»T =
T;»T«L
-•ITHOUI FlLJcB- —K
STdCE/
PLATt
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
i>/6
6/7
7/fl
SAMPtt
PLATE
« PAN
.61bl7
.0*601
.d3*33
.81663
.nl 1 15
.80362
.60806
.63588
.83753
PAN
F<»<-
!>ANPLi
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAht
PLftTt
* PAN
.Blbir
.82732
.83210
PAH
Fu-
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0,00000
0.00000
TA>«i
UF
PLATE
.61317
,84521
.03405
.B1617
.olO:a2
.00201
.80239
.82732
.03210
,MMk |.
*£I(»HT
luHI
0.00000
.000*0
.ooo<>e
,00u»6
.00063
.00161
.OOS67
.00056
.005*3
*EI6HT
PERCENT
0,00
3.41
1.19
1.96
2.69
6.87
24.19
36.5
-------
TABLE 24
ANOErtSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN NUMBER 5-S)
•JENS1TY"
D»TE 0*0975 1»P.EFF.C*
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
*/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAHHU
PLATE
. PAN
.61902
.83151
.82199
.83351
.80700
.84024
.84146
,B»ao5
.83962
PAN
FD-
SAHPLt
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARt
f-LATE
• PAN
.61902
.U3143
.62191
.83316
.80652
.83895
.83641
.84045
.03396
1.000
.100
HAN
F(Jn
TAME
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
SAMPLING rlLTtR ml* .00513 liN
tfAIt. a .76257 CFM TJTAL «T»
FILTER- —«ITrt
TArifc
OF
PLATE
.6M02
.83143
.82191
.83318
.80652
.83895
.836*1
.8*0*5
.83396
SANr-Lt
•EIGHT
I'JM)
U. 00000
.OOOOrt
.00008
.OOU33
.00046
.00129
.00505
.00760
.00566
HEIGHT
PERCENT
0.00
.39
,39
1 »hO
2.33
6.27
24.55
36.95
27.52
CUM.
•EIGHT
PERCENT
0.00
.39
.78
2.3B
4. 72
10.99
35.54
72. *a
100.00
HEIGH
PERCEI
0.00
.31
.31
I. 2s
1.87
5.02
19.65
29.57
22.02
Cor.
9.GO
.31
3.77
D. 7*
dO.04
JET
vCL.
Ifl9.*9
3r>l.*e>
536.86
1299.06
2367.54
CilAr>.
(MICRI
11.12
6.94
3.20
e.os
1.02
.62
.42
-------
TABLE 25
*Njt>-SEN ANALYSIS SUMM*UY(RUN NUHBEK 6-S)
OtIE
0«.097S
!-.(-.EFF.C*
l.ObU
-»»It = .77667 CfN
-"JlTMi.UT FILTM- — -IfM Flul".- —
HLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/6
5/6
6/7
7/H
SANPit
PLAlt
. PAN
.txflOO
.82B6S
.8242B
.84281
.02711
.83132
.82*25
.87961
,87225
PAH
fill
«HPLC-
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.90000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.90000
LflTt
PAN
.biflOO
.82818
.82383
.U42S1
.82656
.03039
.82077
.872T&
.IS6421
Fo-
T«-£
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooooo
O.&ffOOO
F
' «t lliHT
CUM.
•£IbMT WEIGHT
t.ATt ' (OH) PERCENT
.C4100
. B2dlS
.S23H3
.8*251
.82656
,8303V
.82077
.872TS
.81*21
0.00000
.000*7
.000*5
.00030
.00055
.00093
.003*8
.00686
.OOdO*
0
2
2
1
2
4
It,
32
30
.00
.23
.11
.42
.61
.41
.51
.5*
.1*
PERCENT
0.
2.
*.
5.
«.
12.
29.
61.
100.
00
23
36
79
40
81
32
66
00
• t
16hT
*>t
PEHCtNT -E
0
1
1
1
1
3
11
23
27
.00
.60
.S3
.02
.87
.16
.81
.29
.29
0
1
3
*
%
9
,»y
".«
71
1 '-"I T . tL .
»-Ct i 1
.C J
• CO
« li
.1*
. L 1
.16
• •»*>
«<^t>
.55
' < C
-."»
Ill
Idb
3U7
646
1323
^-11
•»• 2
-------
TABLE 26
ANOC4SEN ANALYSIS SUHMASY (aim NUMBER 7-S)
OENS1TY=
DATE o*Q4?s IHP.EFF.CS
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
*/3
3/4
*/5
5/6
6/7
7/6
SAMPLE
PLATE
• PAN
.66990
.6655*
.85830
.87362
.86899
.877*3
,82517
.84*25
.8*519
PAN
FO*
SAMPLE
O.DOOOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,60000
o.ooooo
0.00000
0.00000
TANt
PLAU
* PAN
.6699a
.86*89
.85818
.87329
.86*»S9
.87585
.82006
.83802
.83950
1.000
.1*3
PAN
FU«
TAKE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
SAMPLING
HATc =
GK
OF
.6699B
.86*89
.85818
.87329
.86859
.87595
.02006
.83802
.83950
CF"
«T« .02559
-•ITnliUT FILTER- —.ITH FlLTc« —
CUH. : .-:. JET
•tlOHl HEIGHT HE16H\ HEIGHT «EK'«T V£L.
(oM) PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PErfCtNT
0.00000
.00066
.00012
.00033
.000*0
.00511
.00623
.00569
0.00
3.28
.60
l.b*
1.99
7.85
25. *0
30.96
28.28
0.00
3.28
3.8B
5.52
7.5U
15.36
*0.7t>
71.72
100.00
0.00
2.SB
,*7
t
k.5b
19.^7
22.2*'.
o.ou
J.OS
*.J*
S.'*u
12.08
32.0*
56.39
61.17
11*.07
31*159
559.27
1353.40
2*66.39
10.90
6.80
*.61
3.13
2.01
1.00
.61
-------
» z,«
REPORT NO. 75-PRP-2
o
AIR POLLUTIO
EMISSION TEST
THE ROYSTEE COMPANY
MULBERRY, FLORIDA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Qualify Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Pfirk, North Caroliii.'i
-------
EPA REPORT FOR
THE ROYSTER COMPANY
PHOSPHATE ROCK FACILITY
MULBERRY, FLORIDA
EPA REPORT NO. 75-PRP-2
TASK NO. 14
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-1406
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurements Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Submitted by
Engineering-Science, Inc.
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
January 1976
-------
TABLE 11-12
PARTICULATE MASS COLLECTED IN THE BRINK PARTICLE SIZING TRAIN
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
(Royster Chemical)
Run 4
Grams
e 0.04117
0.00583
0.00727
0.00457
0.00331
0.00092
0.00016
•
&ryscfa/
1.241
0.176
0.219
0.138
0.100
0.028
0.005
Run 5
Grams
0.04427
0.00491
0.00982
0.00612
0.00144
0.00111
0.00004
gr/scfl/
1.335
0.148
0.296
0.185
0.043
0.033
0.001
Total
0.06323
1.907
0.06771
2.041
a/ gr/sef = grains per standard cubic foot.
TABLE 11-13
a/
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT PERCENT- VERSUS PARTICLE SIZE FOR THE
BRINK SAMPLING TRAIN
Filter^'
(Royster Chemical)
Run 4
Cum. Jtt'L
65.11
74.33
85.83
93.06
98.29
99.75
100.00
Run 5
Cum.
a/
65.38
72.63
87,14
96.17
98.30
99.94
100.00
7
2.93
1.73
1.18
0.63
0.40
0.30
ai/ Dp = Effective cutoff diameter (microns) based on unit density particles,
Cum. wt7, = Cumulative weight percent includes particulate collected on
the back-up filter, all stages, and the cyclone,
b_/ Dp for the filter was assumed to be 0.3 pm (over 99% of particulate
2t 0.3 um are collected on the filter according to manufacturer data).
11-17
-------
1-1
I
OS
99.99 99.9 99
10.0
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
95 90 50 10 5
c
o
1.0
Q
IAJ
_I
0.1
i I i
J—J L
0.01 O.I 0.5 t
J 1 1 1 1 S i I »
J
10 50 90 95
WEIGHT % IfSS THAN STATED SIZE
99
0.1 0.01
99.9 99.99
FIGURE II-l - Particle Diameter Versus Weight Percent Less/Greater
Than Stated Size (Inlet)
-------
•TABLE 11-16
ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY
i.ooo
MLTt-
DtTE
03*575
10
U!
STASE/
FLATf
/O "
0/1
1/2
?/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
h/7
7/3
S-AHPLt
PLATt
• PAN
.4D640
.61887
.C£»707
.600 .6
.597B6
.61652
.69679
.71924
.6912-
MAti
F0>-
SAMPLr
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
U. 00000
0.00000
0.001)00
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
. EFF.C«
TAKC"
*L;™
.4*640
.61667
.59662
.600*2
.59740
.61611
,6-<&*5
.71^21
.6-J125
»*t*
K«
U. 00000
0.00000
0.00000
O.OUOOO
0.00000
o.ooooc
b.UUOOO
o.uoooo
0.00000
0.00000
,00<»43
-WITHOUT FILTtH- —WITH
T*1**:
CF
PLATE
.4(^40
.61B67
.54662
.60042
.59740
.61611
.6964S
•71v21
.6-U23
' ^A**"'. f
•*ilf'HT
1-iM)
0.00000
.00020
.OOIK5
.00054
.OOU4b
.00041
.U0034
.00003
0.00000
HEIGHT
PEHCENT
0.00
8.23
18.52
22.22
18. 93
16.87
13.99
1.23
0.00
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
0.00
8.23
26.75
48.97
67.90
84.77
96.77
100.00
100.00
W RIGHT
PEHCENT
0.00
a. 23
IB. 52
32.22
Id. 43
16.67
13.99
1.23
0.00
. Ll/S.
WE.I6NT
PEKCENT
0.00
a. 23
26.75
43.97
67.90
a*. 77
9H.77
100.00
100.00
JET
VEL.
(CH/S>
67.68
126.21
210.57
3*8.09
618.82
1497.40
2729.02
5<.5b.03
DIftf'
10.35
4.37
2.98
1.91
,95
.39
-------
TABLE 11-17
ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY
M
t->
I
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
KUN NUMaE» f
0& TE 0
SAMPLE
PLATE
* PAN
.65152
.67685
.64572
.65351
.66353
75
PAN
F OS--
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
IȣNSITT =
1"U.EFF.C=
TARE
PLATE
» PAN
.4*884
.65152
.6529fc
.67685
.64569
.66194
.6534o
.66355
«670tt5
1.000
.140
PAN
FIV-.
TAt-t
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ouooo
0.00000
0.00000
«r>LlNfj
•*Tt = .90400 f.FK
TARE
OF
PLATE
.46*84
.65152
,6'i£9li
.6T685
.64569
.6*»l-*4
.65J4-*
.66355
.67(iB;'
' b«MCi.c
h El GMT
IbHI
o.ooooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00003
O.OOQOU
.00003
0.00000
0.00000
FILTK*' wT= .0022a 6N
Tl»TiL iT= .00231 G*
-WITHOUT FILTER- — WITH FILT£« —
HEIGHT
PEKCENT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
CUM.
HEIGHT
PERCENT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.00
1.30
0.00
0.00
CUM.
FLIGHT
P£»CENT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30
1.30
1.60
2.60
if .60
JET
VEL.
ICM/S1
69.60
129. -SO
216.56
357.99
636.43
1539.99
21*06.63
5613.2?
PA3TIC
DU'-'.
tflCR)
10.21
6.3T
4.31
2.93
i.aa
.93
.57
.38
-------
K>
CD
0.1
0.01
99.9
99
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
95 90 50 10 . 5
0.1 0.5 1
10 50 90 95 99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
0,\ 0.01
I 1—_l It I
99.9 99.99
FIGURE II-6 - Partlculate Diameter Versus Weight Percent Less/Greater
Than Stated Size (Outlet)
-------
• '-^^^a
•* , .»"-• ..- .<<' i r-.i^r-^-:.
EMB REPORT NUMBER 75-PRP-3
'-WM i $?$$
!" * • * /"';"•;'•• '"'• ••- • '.--•-- -:^;^
*: •"v. ;.'; :'"•* ",• • > v :.- '"'' ••' >'.':_i'.:''<:.^
.-•"- V*V:', j* **":'.*' '• ^- ;-:'.t *.-.-;!• -":.
'•'
• • : &?$%&&
•'*•"•*•'•»<3s98
•. ,i';.^i|^^S&
• / '•~<.'y,'Wfi ^*4^S^*j*';r f&*'*M2b>4>%5
• :.f--*-/r^ "'^r*-%|
•> ••••';..;"':.-.v .'^.^tvW^w*
••/v>* .>^?-*^«
' • \ ••• ": • --r-t'-^^
;:-;-:..;-::^*-;*^5es
.
:;C'S^
^h
• ,;., .-to V,;K
=»• -..i :Cu
MOBIL CHEMICAL
Nichols, Florida
..-.^ .^-.--.u
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OMice or Air and Waste Management
OKice ol Air Qualily Planning and Standards
Emission Measurenuml Branch
Rcsoarch Triangle* Park, Noilh Carolina
-------
EPA REPORT FOR
MOBIL CHEMICAL
NICHOLS, FLORIDA
NO. 75-P1P-3
Task No. 15
Contract No. 68-02-1406
Submitted to
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Programs and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Submitted by
Engineering-Science, Inc.
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
January 1976
-------
TABLE II-6
PARTICULATE MASS COLLECTED IN THE BRINK PARTICLE SIZING TRAIN
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Total
Grams
0.06835
0.03600
0.01100
0.00452
0.00300
0.00141
0.00205
0.12633
K/sct
1.340
0.710
0.216
0.089
0.059
0.028
0.040
2.4772
Grams
0.05120
0.01029
0.01062
0.00387
0.00166
0.00050
0.00040
0.07854
R/scf
1.434
0.288
0.297
0.108
0.046
0.014
0.011
2.198
Grams
0.02811
0.00179
0.00509
0.00242
" 0.00197
0.00074
0.00109
0.04121
R/scf
0.966
0.061
0.175
0.083
0.068
0.025
0.037
1.415
TABLE II-7
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT PERCENT^/ VERSUS PARTICLE SIZE
FOR THE BRINK SAMPLING TRAIN
Sta^e
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter^/
Run
Cum. Wt 7,-
54.10
82.60
91.31
94.89
97.26
98.38
100.00
1
Dp („„,)£/
7
3.55
1.99
1.37
0.72
0.47
0.30
Run 2
Cum. Wt % Dj
65.19
78.29
91.81
96.74
98.85
99.49
100.00
? (»m)
7
3.35
1.99
1.37
0.72
0.47
0.30
Run
Cum. Wt %
68.21
72.56
84.91
90.78
95.56
97.36
100.00
3
Dp (urn)
7
3.19
1.89
1.29
0.69
0.44
0.30
§_/ Dp = Effective cutoff diameter (microns) based on unit density particles,
Cum. wt. 7, = Cumulative weight percent includes particulate collected
on the back-up filter, all stages, and the cyclone.
b/ Dp for the filter was assumed to be 0.3 pra. (Over 99% of particulate
^ 0.3 Jim are collected on the filter according to manufacturer data.)
12
-------
99,99
10.0
99.9
99
95
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
90 50 10
0.1 0.0!
c
2
u
I i.o
IX
<
o.
0.1
Run 1
T I
Run 2
INLET RUNS
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
-Run 3
J L
I I 1 I I
J 1 1 '
0.01 O.I 0.5 1
FIGURE II-l
10 50
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
90 95
Particle Diameter Versus Weight 7. Less/Greater Than
Stated Size - Scrubber Inlet
99.9 99.99
-------
TABLE 11-11
ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY
fcUN "bUnhErf 1 CtNSITf*
DUE 041B75 lfi>.EFF.C=
SAMPLE »*« TAME
$TASE/ PL«TE • FO- - PL^TE
PLATE • PAN SAMPLfc * P»W
/o
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
D/7
7/8
.48875
.6335J*
.6264*
.63361
.63497
.643^6
.65172
.63601
.655PO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.oouoo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.48851
.63326
.62606
.633bO
.6348?
.64300
.64V74
.6U360
.6547<»
1.000 SAMPLING
.140 -»AT£ a .dNQOO LFM
•>*N TARE S-AHU e
Fit- OF Htl&HT
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.4»H51
.63326
.62606
.63350
.634*7
.64360
.64V74
.6H360
.o»47*
.00024
.00032
.00043
.00011
.00010
.00036
,ooi vh
.00*41
.OOlu^i
FILT-N NT= .00X33 GM
TafAl iff* .00*39 (j«
-tflTrt.'lUT F.1LTE1- --«ITM FILTFN —
CUM. LUh.
UEISHT WEIGHT WEIGHT *Ei'iMT
PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT
3.42
4.56
6.13
1.57
1.43
.5.14
2H.cfS
34. 3H
15.12
.3*. 4*
7.99
14.12
15.63
17.12
22.25
50.50
t»4.8a
100.00
2.56
3.41
4.5^
1.17
1.06
3^3
21.09"
25.67
11. ZV
i.56
S.1**1
1U.54
"11.71
I?. 78
16.61
~ 37.73
63.37
7».65
JtT
•VEL.
(CM/SI
66.22 .
123. 4*
206.02
340.56
605.45
1465.04
2670.03
b340.06
P4*TtC
CIA",
10.47
6.53
4.42
3.01
1.93
.VA
.t>8
.3s*
-------
TABLE 11-12
ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY
HUH
UftfE
J
J>1975
1.000
.EFF.C= .140
sa»»
Tf'T«l
•»'ITH')OT FJLTE.R- —WITH
ST«S€/
PLSTC
* PAN
/o
0/1
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
-3/7
7/a
.65482
.64536
.64676
PAH
.62226
0.00300
0*00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00003
o.oouoo
0.00000
TANK
PLATE
* PAN
.45700
.1*7112
.65472
.6B475
.bh-vlO
.644>-4
,6441V
.6S704
.620i<7
PAN
f 0»-
TMc
0.00000
O.OOOUD
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Tflf-t
OF
Pl.STt
.45700
.60475
.66*10
.64419
.6i704
!*,•».
MIC.1-!
10
b
4
3
1
.42
.SO
.40
.00
.92
.95
• 58
.39
-------
Ul
99.99 99,9
10.0
o
u
s
Q
UJ
_l
U
t—
<
0.1
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
95 90 50 10
i i
J I
I 1 I 1
J I
Rl»n3
J I
0.01 O.I 0.5 I
FIGURE 11-6
90 95
99
5 10 50
WEIGHT % If SS THAN STATED SIZE
Particle Diameter Versus Weight 7. Less/Greater Than
Stated Size - Scrubber Outlet
o.l o.oi
99,9 99.99
-------
REPORT NO. 75-PRP-l
L\\
o
AIR POLLUTION
EMISSION TEST
W. R. GRACE CHEMICAL CO.
BARTOW, FLORIDA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Managemenl
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
-------
EPA REPORT FOR
W.R. GRACE CHEMICAL COMPANY
BARTOW, FLORIDA
EPA REPORT NO. 75-PRP-l
TASK NO, 14
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-1406
Submitted to
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurements Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Submitted by
Engineering-Science, Inc.
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
January 1976
-------
STAGE/
PLATE
/o
0/1
1/2
if/3
"J/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/e
PLATfc
* PAN
,4.-9S«
.67971
.67036
.rif 123
.6545J
.6632^
,6'-S--0
.65b8S
.6-?t>».'
Ff--.
SAMPLE
b. 00000
0.00000
O.ObOQO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
= 1.000
I««P.eFF.C= .140
TAN?,
.hTI
PAN
.67^63
.67035
.6*712
,t.H7o5
0.00000
O.OOOOD
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooooj
0.00000
O.ObOOO
o.uooou
TABLE II-8
AN Jt-StN ANALYSIS StlKHAPV
^U»,
'-.* If » . If -"OH CFN
TA-£
OF
PI.ATE
.4 -.939
,67V6'i
. 6 7 0 JS
. 63121
md^t^l
,6631-i
.64*55
.6S71?
.65T45
1 i"«N-- '*
• F.IfaHT
«.m
.0001-.
.OOOU6
O'.OOOOO
.0000?
.0000"»
.00004
. oo i jS
.00173
.00107
FKT-.. V.
T'lTAl, *
-•ITH.1UT
'WEIGHT
PERCENT
3. if.
1.3H
0.00
.45
. 6rl
.90
30.41
3fa.V6
<4.1«
T« .000^1' "jrt
T» .00*
FlLTF.rt-
r.UM,
WEIGHT
PERCENT
3.15
4.5U
4 .-.0
*.9i
5.63
6.-J3
3ft. 9*
75.90
100.00
». 0M
— fITH Fl
HEIGHT
PEHCENT
3.02
l .<;*»
0.00
.43
' .65
. C6
<»V.rt9
37 ,^h
«;3.0b
ILT..-K-
tUM.
•tldHT
PEwCENT
.1.02
4.31
4.T1
4.74
5. 3^
6.2b
35.34
7?. 63
93.b9
JET
VEL.
tCM/S)
41.43
vO» 3?
150, 6R
?«9. '1 9
44
-------
TABLE II-9
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
-«UN NU--E*-
475
l.OOU
.140,
**aTt. »
Iff-
H
l-t
I
NJ
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/.1
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAHCL?
PL»TE
* PAN
.47089
.61770
.63295
.62252
.57386
.5965i
.652-*
0.00000
.00036
.00046
.00060
.00037
.OOOii*
Iool?o
.OOOSJ
f ILTC>- VT» .0003'' GM
TOTAL fcT = .0066*
21.6V
27.26
40.51
6
-------
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
I
t->
u>
99.99 99.9
10.0
10/5
0.1
o.ot
0.5 1
10 50 90 95
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
99
0.1 0.01
99.9 99.99
Figure II-l - Particle Diameter Versus Weight Percent Less/Greater
Than Stated Size (Outlet)
-------
Project No. 76-NMM-l
O
AIR POLLUTION
EMISSION TEST
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS AND
CHEMICAL COMPANY
SPRUCE PINE, N. C.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park. North Caroliiui
-------
EMISSION STUDY
a t a
FELDSPAR CRUSHING AND GRINDING FACILITY
International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
Spruce Pines North Carolina
September 27-29, 1976
Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
by
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc
25711 Southfield Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075
Project NMM-1
fask 25
Contract No. 68-02-1408
-------
PARTICLE
NO. 2 MILL
- 26 -
TABLE IV-1
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
BAGHOUSE NORTH INLET
International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
Spruce Pine, North Carolina
September 27-29, 1976
Characteristic
Diameter
n f
xf ^
Particles
(microns )
>45
30 - 45
20 - 30
10 - 20
8.0 - 10
6.3 - 8.0
5.0 - 6.3
4.0 - 5.0
3.2- 4.0
2.5-3.2
2.0-2.5
1.6 - 2.0
1.3- 1.6
1.0 - 1.3
0.5 - 1.0
<0.5
TOTAL
Weight
(go)
11.400
4.175
3.345
7.834
0.147
0.405
0.710
0.666
0.841
1.028
0.902
0.621
0.349
0.401
0.396
0. 119
33.339
'Size Distribution
by Weight
Percent
34.2
12.5
10.0
23.5
0.4
1.2
2.1
2.0
2.5
3.1
2.7
1.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
0.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
100.0
65.8
53.3
43.3
19.8
19.4
18,2
16.1
14.1
11.6
8.5
5.8
- 3.9
2.8
1.6
0.4
—
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc
-------
- 27 -
TABLE IV-2
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
NO. 2 MILL BAGHOUSE SOUTH INLET
International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
Spruce Pine, North Carolina
September 27-29, 1976
Characteristic
Diameter
_ c
o t
Particles
(microns )
>45
30 - 45
20-30
10 - 20
5.0 - 10
4.0 - 5.0
3.2 - 4.0
2.5 - 3.2
2.0 - 2.5
1.6 - 2.0
1.3 - 1.6
1.0 - 1.3
0.5 - 1.0
<0.5
TOTAL
Weight
(gn»)
0.366
0.271
0.233
0.141
0.094
0.006
0.016
0.030
0.040
0.044
0.036
0.034
0.073
0.039
1.423
Size Distribution
by Weight
Percent
25.7
19.1
16.4
9.9
6.6
0.4
1. 1
2.1
2.8
3.1
2.5
2.4
5.1
2.8
100.0
Cumulative
Perc ent
100.0
74.3
55.2
38.8
28.9
22.3
21.9
20.8
18.7
15.9
12.8
10.3
7.9
2.8
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc,
-------
^9°° Jmm
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
1 i fflV
..
..
—
....
-•'
Effective
Particle
Diame ter
(microns )
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
- i
—
—
.__.
—
...
—
...
—
V~
...
-
_
.i
. i
j
— j-
• •
1
"f
- -
--
---
._.
i !
1 ' :
: T'
i:
• i •
i
•I
* i
t : ;
i
i
-•
i
•
. - " T '
! "i
H-
"T
1
i " '
-.'.
r —
!
i •
1
-.
-
"
—
t
H. ..
_
-
-•
--;
T."
—
-
•
-
~
-
—
-
.
••
-
-
-
...
-4- . . i
1 '
-r • > —
; - • J
. . . .
if" r
•• -i- \ •
\
j.
.....
i
..I.
rf^
••-
•• - .;•—
: • -7:':-:
;. "
T..11
- • • —'_-
-
..
.
:.(...._
. . . —
. j.
F*
'
-:
i|:: 5E
• - —
. —
~L
....
. ....
".-:-
•-.:
—
—
-
".:.
-~
~-
_ ~
— -
A
^•H JHH ff
:: . ; 1 " -
• •
T-: 7K .. ;
-:" '-- .i ;; '• r . . '
... '...i . . „._
:;•:.:.'.:_
. . L.
. . .. -
- ^ . I -
.
...... . .)'.,..
•••'•• T r F n
! , | I J ' J
,,, 1^17
4il/
- • • 1' j
: : :;.- 1- .:.::... | y .
"i L- [7': • T yf" •
:; -• " ' T H" L\ "T
----7-1-j*--::
v- •:- / hi.
tvj|| :i-
£;;':;/••.: , •''
= -f -.:;:.. ' :. .
. '
'A - . _ .
/::;::••:• ;-
":::;;.... i. ;_
3.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 D 10 20
• £•• ^^H '"•
J I
.. j "
" t j ' i r
t'-.
• • t ii/ji
t . • ^-.••'•yjii
1 -iL.::..
X |UJ.:::;
-.:::••[ I?::: :::::::
~ ' • •• ..---..
j
/
i
-y f —
fl'-jJTJ-'- t-,--]— -
4...1..4...J :.
I!
J Tr
i. .1.
1 NO
1., internatio
-'-
_ _. .._
j - -
' r . '.:.:
•
. _
t
--
1
-
_.
-
-
"
'"
i
T
.. . . . .
.. . . . .
-
il
1
•LI
*
• : .
1
'. :: " "
: : :
•
-
'
•
.
i
-.'
:_"
.;
~.
-
-
^
r
::
-
'-
--
-
-
-;-.
-
•-:
:?i
"
-
—
-
-
IB
.— .
.-":
~-
~
—
—
—
....
....
^T"
!
. -::.
.^'- :
'.-":~:
:.:"
— . .
r •
... .
I
* -
nt
i
1 1
... ,
1 i!
i
1
1
i
i i
T '.;rr
' r . I
i
. i
j ~
*^^ -«^iB,; -^H
"-"-
-
'
~
-
^
-•
—
•'-r
:'.'-
~
~
...
—
_-
r.
...
-
11
jj
i
'• il
"' M-
:
'.'.'
•.:.'• 1
.--. 1
E.
~
—
—
!
. — Tl
I ;
•
l-
::'.-
: :
. -
. . .
i
..
-
-
:
-
.._ —
-
::
:....;
—
-
''•:.
•:.
E.
—
_..
i
FIGURE 3
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
. 2 MILL BAGHOUSE NORTH INLET
nal Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
Spruce Pine, North Carolina
September 27-29, 1976
30 40 50 60 70 60
....
-
.
-
:
"
....
..
".:: 1
• i
.._..
90 9G 98
i
99
-
...
-
i
i
99.8 99,9
....
-
...
...
i
u_
..::
—
—
99.09
00
i
Cumulative Percentage Less Than Indicated Diameter
-------
Effective
Particle
Diame ter
(microns)
1
US
FIGURE 4
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
NO. 2 MILL BAGHOUSE SOUTH INLET
International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
Spruce Pine, North Carolina
September 27-29, 1976
1.0
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2
2 5 ' 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 95 98 99
Cumulative Percentage Less Than Indicated Diameter
99.8 99.9
99.99
-------
-J)ad"
—Source. Fuel "Type. *
5
/O
y
(r«5i«e.,"R*t»i
-------
/
-F
o-
Tuu «LI
"Test" A\eJ"hocl * * "^lg- pat»»tof aueifcy.ugidc.ty
' •-
Wo IDnwi-or Hade- ° , Wo.5
**
rate,
U5e,
c/
-------
FPEIS SERIES REPORT SERIES FORM 1 DATE 06/20/63
to: 88 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 02/14/73 TO 02/15/73 BY SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: TQMBIGBEE LTMT AG, co.
CONTRACT HUflBER: PURPOSE OF TEST: CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE CATEGORY: MINERALS SOURCE NAME; CLAY DRYER
SOURCE TYPE: BUILDING MATERIALS SITE NAME: TQHBIGBEE LTMT A6GRT CO.
PRODUCT/DEVICE: CERAMIC/CLAY ADDRESS:
PROCESS TYPE: PRODUCTION - LIVINGSTON ,AL 35470 USA
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY: NOT SPECFD
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE: SIC CODE: 3259
EADS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES
WASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH HERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY MITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOHSCTEST SERIES HUMBER-TSNJ:
LEDS TSN: GEDS TSN: SDD5 TSN:
REFERENCE REPORT •
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER PUBLICATION DATE
MCCAIN,J,D.
SORI-EAS-73-052 FEBRUARY 1973
TEST SERIES COMMENTS —
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00088
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO'-
SAMPLE NO: 01
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 7
DATE 06/20/81
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE f
D50( MICRONS 1
MICRQGRAflS/DNCH/STAGE
HUM8ER/Dl!CM/STAGE
CUM. *MASS
1
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00088
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 02
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 10
DATE 06/20/83
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE 9
0501 MICRONS)
MICROGRAHS/DNCM/STAGE
HUMBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS<050
CUM. MICROGRAMS/ACM
DN-LOGD/C NUHBER/ONM3 >
30.02
8,Z3E»05
9.57E»09
68.31
8.45E+05
1.77E+06
5.4BE+01
1.58E+06
l.83E*10
7.50
Z.30E«Q5
1.3QE*11
59.45
7.36E+05
l.SOE+01
3.82E+05
2.16E+11
5
B
9
5
Z
Z
4. 23
.50E»05
.88E+12
38.27
.63E*00
.21E»06
.36E*13
2,49
3.13Ef05
1.75E+13
26,22
3.25E»05
6.81E+05
3.25E»00
1.36E*06
7.60E+13
1
3,
2,
5,
Z,
9.
2,
1.69
.65E*Q5
.65E«13
19,87
.16E+05
.OSEtOO
.17E+14
1
1
3
1
5
5
.88
-51E«14
.78E+05
.73E405
-22E+00
.05E+05
.31E+1*
1
6
1
2
6
5
Z
.54
.07E»05
10.24
.27E*OS
.66E+05
-89E-01
.05E»05
.27
2.66E*05
9.13E+15
O.OOE+00
O.OOE*00
3.82E-01
3.03E416
-------
FPE1S TEST SERIES NO: 00088
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 03
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 13
DATE 06/20/83
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE t
D50(MICRONS)
MICROGRAMS/DNCH/STAGE
NUMBER/DNCH/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
4.82
9.08E+05
1,64E»11
54.47
5.18Et05
1.09E*06
E.19E+01
6.90E+05
1.25£*I1
3.02
3.90E+05
1.34E+13
34,92
3.33E+0§
6.96E+05
3.82E+00
1.92E*06
6.61E+13
1.76
2.19E+OS
3.41E*13
23.94
2.28E*05
4.77E+05
2.31E»CO
9.34E»OS
1.46E+14
1.18
1.30E405
a.30E*13
17.42
1.66E+05
3.47E»05
1.4'
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00088
STREAM NO*. 01
TEST 10 HO:
SAMPLE NO: 04
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 16
DATE 06/20/83
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE t
DSOtMICROHSI
HICROGRAHS/DHCM/STAGE
NUJI8ER/DHCM/STAGE
CUM. XHASS
DN-LOGD/(NUMBER/DNM3)
28.56
1.05E+06
1.3ZE*10
62.28
8.26E*05
1.73E+06
B.S'iE+Ol
1.93E*06
2.42E410
7.3
-------
FPEI5 TEST SERIES NO: 00088
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 01
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 21
DATE 06/20/83
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE S
D5005
6.44E-01
8.66E+05
6.20E+15
.25
2.54E>05
1.10E+16
O.OOE+00
O.OOEtOO
3.54E-01
8.44E>05
3.65E+16
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS PAGE 1
FPEIS SERIES REPORT SERIES FORM 1 DATE 06/21/03
Q: 342 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 10/21/80 TO 10/22/60 BY PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: EPA/OAQPS/EMB
CONTRACT NUMBER: 66-02-3546 PURPOSE OF TEST: STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 001
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE CATEGORY: MINERALS SOURCE NAME: CLINKER COOLER
SOURCE TYPE: BUILDING MATERIALS SITE NAME: ARKANSAS LGTWST AGGREGATE
PRODUCT/DEVICE! CERAMIC/CLAY ADDRESS!
PROCESS TYPE: PRODUCTION WEST MEMPHIS ,AR ooooo USA
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY: COAL
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE: SIC CODE: 3259
EADS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES —
WASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH MERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOWS!TEST SERIES NUHBER-TSNIS
LEDS TSN: 6EDS TSN: SDDS TSN:
REFERENCE REP^^ !•"-"'••• «*•»••«-«---••-••»'•«••• >*^——-•••«-*••—•*«*»*»——•»
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER PUBLICATION DATE
EMISSION TEST REPORT-METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR CLAY,
SHALE,AM) SLATE AGGREGATE INDUSTRY
EMB RPT 80-LWA-2 MAY 1981
TEST SERIES COMMENTS
CLINKER COOLER IS RECIPROCATING 6RATE TYPE
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00342
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE •
D50(MICRONS 1
MICROBRAMS/DNCM/STASE
NUMB Efi/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
-------
FPEI5 TEST SERIES NO: 00342
STREAM NO: 01
TEST 10 NO:
SAMPLE NO: 02
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 12
DATE 06/21/83
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
*
STAGE 9
D50
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00342
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE HO: 03
SERIES FORM C7
PASE 15
DATE 06/21/83
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE *
D50
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 0034Z
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE 8
D50(MICRONS)
MICHOGRAHS/DNCM/STAGE
NUMBER/ONCH/STAGE
CUM. ZMASSEAM NO: 01
1
10.29
6.94E*04
4.02E*09
50.93
6.38E»04
7.20E+04
3.21E+01
7,03E*04
4.07E*09
2
5
6
6
9
8
1
TEST
2
9.S2
.82E+05
.55E+09
48.94
.13E404
.92E+0*
.90E+00
.35E+0*
.64E*11
ID NO: 1
3
6.18
1.02E*04
4.32E+10
«1.73
5.Z3E*04
5.90E + 0'*
7.&7E+00
S.44E*04
2.301*11
SAHPLE
4
3.98
1.10E+04
l.7ZE*ll
33.95
4.25E+04
4.80E+04
4.96E400
5.76E*0
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO:
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE •
050CMICRONSJ
HICRDGUAHS/DNCN/STAGi
NUMBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. ZHASS
DN-LOGD/INUMBEH/DNH31
EAM NO: 01 TEST
1 Z
10.26
7,58E*04
4.41E+09
54.24
7.96E*04
8.99E+04
3.20E+01
7.67£*04
4.45E+09
9.50
4.91i»03
9.74E»09
51. 28
7.52E*04
a.49C*04
9.87E+00
1.47E»05
2.92E*11
ID
1
5
6
7
7
6
2
NO: 1
3
6.17
,30E*04
.53E+10
43.43
,37E*04
.19E+04
.66E»00
.94E*04
-95E+11
SAMPLE
3.97
1.61E*0<*
2.54E»11
33.71
4.94E*04
5.5flE+04
4.95E+00
8.41E*04
1.32E+12
NO: 05
. §
2.
1.
3.
3.
3.
9.
6.
2. 12
lflE + 0<+
49E*12
20.55
01E404
40E+04
03E+00
34E«04
38E+12
6
1.15
1.51E+04
6.62E+12
11.44
1.68E+04
1.89E+0<4
1.63E+00
4.95E«04
2.17E*13
PAGE 21
SERIES FORM C7 DATE 06/21/83
789
.75
7.37E*03
1.76E»13
6.99
1.03E*04
1.16E«04
9.29E-01
3.97C+04
9.47E+13
2
Z
a
9
5
1
1
.45
.46E*03
.4QE*13
5.51
.07E+03
-12E+03
.81E-01
.11E+04
.08E+14
.10
9.12E*03
1.82E+15
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.12E-01
l.40E*04
2.79E*15
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00342
PASTICLI SIZE TABLE
STAGE t
D50(MICRONS)
HlCROGR*tfS/ONCH/STA6E
NUMBER/BNCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO'. 00342
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE f
D5DIMICRONS)
MICROGRAMS/DNCM/STAGE
NUMBER/DNCH/STA6E
CUH. XHASS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00342
PARTICLE SIZE TABLI
STAGE 8
D50(MICRONS)
MICROGRAHS/DNCH/STAGE
NUH8ER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XHASS
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 2771
EM«
RO-LWA-3
Air
Lightwei
Industry
(Clay, Shale,
Emission Test
Texas Industrie
Clodine, Texas
~^
^&&5T^mm*fL>!:-&-,,>,^,;:>f-!
..mLI Hi iij . i I.L .
-------
0 EMISSION TEST REPORT °
METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR
CLAY, SHALE, AND SLATE AGGREGATE INDUSTRY:
Texas Industries, Inc.
Clodine, Texas
ESED 80/12
By
PEDCo Environmental, Inc
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-3546
Work Assignment No. 1
PN 3530-1
EPA Task Manager
Frank Clay
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
EMISSION STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
May 1981
-------
CJ
I
10.0
100
PARTICLE SIZE, microns
Figure 3.1-1. Particle size distribution, kiln exhaust scrubber outlet.
-------
-Source-
—Source, rue. I !vpe_« C
J3ourc£_. -
k,\*
UWcow
,-tfbileJ
v
CKL
lf
Suur
a proCfi-SS "4o"to w 5
KI(H
to le.55
/a
Zo
/o
Zo
er-
I / /)
ro
IkJ
*
3 '
33
c J
-------
/e. J 7
^f
.-H, J :
UMc.rfr.HO-
/¥£_
¥p£_ o
>
Ay
Specific-
l
, ,
J - 6.d» -4*1 rf /H
- Anxk.rse.iJ /f»rfc. HI
7.
I cnt
en*.
^
y
V
/oat/oft -
Methoc/
im
pies
OJere, U5e
c/
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS PAGE 1
FPEIS SERIES REPORT SERIES FORM 1 DATE 06/21/63
0: 341 DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 10/21/60 TO 10/22/80 BY PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION: EPA/OAQPS/EMB
CONTRACT NUMBER: 68-02-3546 PURPOSE OF TEST: STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 001
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE CATEGORY: MINERALS SOURCE NAME: ROTARY KILN >
SOURCE TYPE: BUILDING MATERIALS SITE NAME: ARKANSAS LGTWGT AGGREGATE
PRODUCT/DEVICE: CERAMIC/CLAY ADDRESS:
PROCESS TYPE: PRODUCTION WEST MEMPHIS ,AR 00000 USA
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY: COAL
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE: SIC CODE: 3259
CADS HASTE STREAM DATA BASES
HASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH HERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOWS(TEST SERIES NUMBER-TSN):
LEDS TSN: GEDS TSN: SODS TSN:
REFERENCE REPORT
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER PUBLICATION DATE
EMISSION TEST REPORT-METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR CLAY,
SHALE,AND SLATE AGGREGATE INDUSTRY
80-LMA-4 NOVEMBER 1980
TEST SERIES COMMENTS
-------
FPEI3 TEST SERIES NO: 00341
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE-
STAGE 8
D50CHICRONS)
HICROGRAMS/ONCH/STA6E
NUMBER/0HCM/STA5E
CUM. XHASS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00341
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE t
05Q(HICRONS>
HICROGRAHS/ONCM/STAGE
NUHBER/DNCH/STASE
CUH. XHASS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00341
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE •
D50(MICRONS I
MICROGHAHS/DNCM/STASE
NUHBER/DNCH/STAGE
CUM. KMASS<050
CUM. NICROGRAMS/ACmOSO
CUM. HICROGRAMS/DNCWDSO
GEOn 050
OM/OLOGO-t UG/DW131
DN-LOGD/IWMBER/DNM3J
EMI NO: 01 TEST
1 2
10.1*
1.64E+05
9.70E+09
69.55
3.32E+05
3.75E+OS
3.18E+01
1.65E+OS
9.76E+09
9.39
5.44E+04
1.12E+11
59.45
2.83E+Q5
3.20E+05
9.76E+00
1.63E+06
3.35E*12
ID
4
2
2
2
7
2
1
HO: 1
3.
6.09
.83E+04
.13E+11
50.48
.41E+05
.72E+0S
.56E*00
.57E*05
»13E*12
SAMPLE
3.92
NO: 03
5
2.29
1,57E*04 3.14E404
2.57E+11
47.57
2.27E+05
2.S6E405
4.09E»00
8.21E*04
1.34E*12
2
1
2
3
1
9
.23EU2
41.74
.99E*05
.25E+05
.OOE«00
.35E+05
.55E+12
6
1.13
4.23E-I04
1.94E+13
33.88
1.62E*05
1.62E+05
1.61E+00
1.38E+05
6.33E*1S
PA5E 15
SERIES FORM C7 DATE 06/21/83
789
5
1
1
1
9
2
7
.74
.20E404
.30E*14
24.23
.16E+05
.30E+05
.14E-01
.63E+05
,06E*14
.44
7.61E-»0<»
7.82E+14
10.10
4.82EfQ4
5.44E+04
5.71E-01
3.37E+OS
3.46E*15
.10
5.44E+Q4
1.13E+16
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.10E-01
8.45E+04
1.75E+16
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00341
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 04
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 18
DATE 06/21/63
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE 8
050(MICRONS)
MICROGRAMS/DNCM/STA6E
NUMBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
-------
FPEI5 TEST SERIES NO: 00341
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE —
STAGE *
D50(MICROMS)
MICROGRAnS/DNCM/STA6E
NWBER/DNCM/STA6E
CUM. XMASS<050
CUM. f1ICROBRAMS/ACM.36E+05
4.93E*05
4.52E+00
O.OOEtOO
O.OOE-0
NO: 05
5
2.12
4.&4E+04
4.33E+1Z
59.25
3.93E+05
4.44E+05
2.77E+00
2.07E405
1.85E+13
6
1.05
9.67E+0*
5.S6E+13
46.35
3.08E+05
3.
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00341
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE
STAGE t
0501 MICRONS)
HICROGRAHS/DNCH/STA6E
NUMBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XMASS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO'- 00341
PARTICLE SIZE TABii
STAGE •
D50(MICRONS)
MICROGRAMS/DNCM/STA6E
NUHBER/DNCM/STAGE
CUM. XHASS
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00341
STREAM HO'- 01
TEST ID KO:
SAMPLE HO: 03
SERIES FORM C7
PAGE 35
DATE 06/21/83
PARTICLE SIZf TABLf
STAGE 8
D50
1
10.45
5.53E+04
3.13E»09
84. S7
2.75E*OS
3.10E+05
3.23E+01
5.64E»04
3.19E+09
Z
9.67
4.50E+04
8.46E410
72.56
2.35E+05
Z.65E»05
1.01E*01
2.51E+12
3
6.28
3.9BEtOt
61,67
2.00E»05
2.25E+05
7.79E»00
2.12E+05
8.57E+H
4
4.04
2.11E*11
57.81
1.67E«05
2.11E+05
7.36E*04
5
2.36
O.OOE-0
O.OOE-0
57.81
1.67E+05
e.HE+05
3.09E+00
O.OOE»00
O.OOE-0
6
1.17
4.63E+12
54.64
1.77E+05
2.00E405
1.66E*00
3.61E*04
1.58E»13
7
.76
5.14E+03
1.17E+13
53.23
1.72E+05
1.95E*05
9.43E-Q1
6.25E*13
a
.46
E,57E*03
2.37E»13
52.53
1.70E*05
1.92E+05
5.91E-01
1.09E414
9
.10
1.92E+05
3.72E*16
O.OOE+00
O.OOEtOO
2.14E-01
2.90E+05
5.61E+16
-------
If*
united states • unice ot Air duality
Environmental Proiection Planning and Standards EMB Report 80-LWA-4
Agency Rssearch Triangle Park NC 27711 ,
A7r' ' '
ndu-stry
(Clay, ar
Emission Te
Vulcan
S-^Mii1.; '•"••TT^T*!^*^~$JV^i&*.^*r ••^Tj
-------
0 EMISSION TEST REPORT °
METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR
CLAY, SHALE, AND SLATE
AGGREGATE INDUSTRY
Vulcan Materials Company
Bessemer, Alabama
ESED 80/12
by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-3546
Work Assignment No. 1
PN: 3530-1
EPA Task Manager
Frank Clay
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
EMISSION STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
March 1982
-------
I
NJ
UJ
PARTICLE SIZE, microns
Figure 3-3. Particle size distribution - clinker cooler exhaust.
-------
PARTICLE SIZE, micron*
Figure 3-3 (continued)
-------
LJ
I
K)
in
PARTICLE SIZE, microns
Figure 3-3 (continued)
-------
UJ
i
to
or>
L_14imjLUM.M'M 1 P
i T iiin if ,.t 73 ri n.i h:i
nnn ijlinrj
10.0
100
PARTICLE SIZE, microns
Figure 3-3 (continued)
-------
.5
ource-
ource-
— Source. RJe.
-Vb-c_
r cooler
Cooler
Coofrolkcy bva. 5ettmvy ch
/o
4.
'e
/
rg
Co ?ym
Ib part
TON pr<
-------
o-F "fe-^ti Purs/ S r.oMtfrtlle.d = /
s
st ***<•
of T^ <• ^ r-r . ^^fcfaeij l^ar k
70 .^.M
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 80-LWA-6
February 1982
Air
g>«.-lt> -V- *vV-%:
gc4 ^'-if'.I ^'..^J&
-------
EMISSION TEST REPORT
METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR
CLAY, SHALE, AND SLATE
AGGREGATE INDUSTRY
Galite Corporation
Rockmart, Georgia
ESED 80/12
by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc,
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-3546
Work Assignment No. 1
PN: 3530-1
EPA Task Manager
Frank Clay
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
EMISSION STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
April 1982
-------
OJ
I
U)
o
HHmJliijTO^
1.0
10.0
PARTICLE SIZE, micrometers
Figure 3-10. Average particle size distribution for the clinker cooler.
-------
UJ
I
U)
•.1
1.0
10.0
PARTICLE Sill, afcrometers
Figure 3-11. Particle size distribution for Run No. CCPS-1.
-------
004
UJ
I
u»
NJ
PARTICLC SIZE, nlcromelers
Figure 3-12. Particle size distribution for Run No. CCPS-4,
-------
u»
I
u>
UJ
PARTICLE SUE, micrometers
Figure 3-13. Particle size distribution for Run No. CCPS-5.
-------
I
U)
44- U.. Ill Ui Uli iiM 1U im lyuJVt i 1 UL II... .11 ,i
iT 111 T ™ it- . • II.. .1 i », Ii. •". . T ' i I TT T T i
Figure 3-14.
PARTICLE SIZE, micrometers
Particle size distribution for Run No. CCPS-7.
-------
u>
i
LTl
^ ALII U " -Tp[ ipp jM|iiJlipl^u||
i.o
10,0
PARTICLt SIZE, micrometers
Figure 3-15. Particle size distribution for Run No. CCPS-8.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standard*
Research Triangle Ptrfc NC 27711
EMB Report 80-IWA-2
May 1981
Air
<&ERfV Lightweight AggregatA
Emission Test Report
Arkansas Lightweight
Aggregate Corporation
W. Memphis, Arkansas
-------
TABLE 2-1. PROCESS DATA FOR EMISSION TEST AT ARKANSAS LIGHTWEIGHT
AGGREGATE PLANT, WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS: OCTOBER 20-23, 1980;
ESEO PROJECT 80/12; MRI PROJECT 4659-L
Production report, Monday. October 20
First
shift
Coal input, tons 0
Gas input, MCF* 509
Clay input, tons 278.7
Product output, yd3 317.7
Second
shift
11.65
205
298.8
340.6
Third
shift
16.90
55
317.0
361.4
24- h
Total
28.55
769
894.5
1019.7
Product density (average composite); 33 lb/ft3
Productionreport, Tuesday. October 21
Coal input, tons
Gas input, MCF
Clay input, tons
Product output, yd3
First
shift
18.81
36
317.7
362.2
Second
shift
17.99
29
317.2
361.6
Third
shift
17.56
45
317.4
361.8
24- h
Total
54.36
110
952.3
1085.6
Product density (average composite): 33 lb/ft3
*Mi11ion cubic feet.
(continued)
2-2
-------
both of which were heated to approximately 121°C (250°F). The
condensible organic and inorganic fractions represent material
that condensed out or was trapped in the impinger section of the
sample train at a temperature of approximately 20°C (68°F).
The volumetric flow rate averaged 31,283 dscmh (1,104,749
dscfh) at an average temperature of 89 °C (191°F). The moisture
content averaged 1.9 percent; and oxygen, carbon dioxide, and
carbon monoxide contents averaged 18.8, 1.6, and 0.0 percent,
respectively.
Filterable particulate concentrations averaged 175.6 mg/dscm
(0.076 gr/dscf) with a corresponding mass emission rate of 5.5
kg/h (12.1 Ib/h). The condensible organic and inorganic concen-
trations averaged 1.5 mg/dscm (0.0007 gr/dscf) each with a. corre-
sponding mass emission rate of 0.05 kg/h (0.105 Ib/h).
3.2.2 Partic 1 e 5iz eD i s t r ibut i on
A total of nine samples were collected from the clinker
cooler cyclone exhaust. The first test was a preliminary run and
is not considered representative; therefore, it is not included
in the overall data averages. The sampling and analytical pro-
cedures as well as the data reduction technique are the same as
those described in Section 3.1.2 and Appendix A of this report.
Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 present the distribution curves for
each set of four samples collected. Individual data points for
each test were plotted manually. The distribution curve was
plotted manually and represents the best-fit average curve for
the specified number of test runs. All particle size results are
based on aerodynamic diameters and unit density (1 g/cc) .*
3-18
-------
^••S
^•^#p
Appendix
C.I
Reference 60
PFIZER, INC.
VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
OUice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
EMISSION SOURCE TEST FROM A BAGHOUSE
SERVING A TALC_GRINDING MILL
AT
PFIZER, INC.
Victor-vine, California
Task Order 112
Contract No. 68-02-1405
July, 1977
Robert J. Bryan, Director of Field Services
Robert L, Norton, Project Manager
Pacific Environmental Services, INC.
CORPORATE AND ENGINEERING 1930 14thStr»«l S»ntt Monica. California 90404 Ttltphone (213> 393-9449
MIDWEST OPERATIONS Suite 228N 2625 Buuerfieid Road Q»k Brook, Illinois 60521 Telephone (312! 325-5586
-------
Table III-3. PARTICLE SIZE DATA
Particle Size
Range
1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
Total Count
Sampl
Particle
Count
2925
1855
1024
759
476
334
210
139
87
67
34
21
12
9
7
7959
e #1
% of
Total
36.8
23.3
12.9
9.5
6.0
4.2
2.6
1.7
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
100
Sample
Particle
Count
3181
1898
998
895
497
366
229
142
104
94
45
36
15
9
11
8520
12
% of
Total
37.3
22.3
11.7
10.5
5.8
4.3
2.7
1.7
1.2
1.1
0.5
0.4
.0.2
0.1
0.1
100
Average
Particle
Count
3053
1876
1011
827
. 486
350
220
140
96
80
40
28
14
9
9
8239
% of
Total
37.1
22.8
12.3
10.0
5.9
4.2
2.7
1,7
1.2
1.0
0.5
0.3
0,2
0.1
0.1
100
I
CO
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATA SYSTEMS
FPEIS SERIES REPORT
SERIES FORM 1
PAGE 1
DATE 06/21/63
IES NO: 2M DESCRIBES SAMPLING AT SITE FROM 02/24/78 TO 02/24/78 BY KVB, INC.
SPONSOR ORGANIZATION:
CONTRACT NUMBER:
TASK/DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
A6-191-30 PURPOSE OF TEST: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (MULTIMEDIA)
000
SOURCE DESCRIPTION-
SOURCE CATEGORY:
SOURCE TYPE:
PRODUCT/DEVICE:
PROCESS TYPE:
DESIGN PROCESS RATE:
FEED MATERIAL CATEGORY:
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE:
LUMBER & HOOD PROD
MILLWORK
HOUSING PRODUCTS
FINISHING
1110 MZ/HR
MOOD
SOURCE NAME: CONFIDENTIAL
SITE NAME;
ADDRESS:
LOS ANGELES
sic CODE:
>CA
00000
2431
EADS WASTE STREAM DATA BASES-
REFERENCE REPORT-
WASTE STREAM DATA FROM OTHER MEDIA WHICH WERE COLLECTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS TEST SERIES
ARE AS FOLLOWS!TEST SERIES NUMBER-TSN):
LEDS TSH: GEDS TSN: 00090 SODS TSN:
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR REPORT NUMBER NTIS NUMBER
PUBLICATION DATE
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY AND MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN.
TABACK H.J.
KVB REPORT 5806-783 PB 293 923/AS FEBRUARY 1979
TEST SERIES.COMMENTS-
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TO INVENTORY TSP EMISSIONS,TO PREPARE A COM-
PREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF EMISSIONStI.E. BY SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION I,AND TO DESCRIBE ALT. METHODS OF CONTROL.
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 00238
STREAM MO: 01
TEST ID NO:
SAMPLE NO: 02
SERIES FORM 7
PAGE 10
DATE 06/21/83
EFFLUENT STREAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS-
COHPONEMT
NO NAME
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1 PHOBEtlO CYC
Z 3 UM CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
FILTER
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE WEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
STASE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT:
STAGE/FILTER CUT SIZE:
STAGE HEIGHT.-
8,30 UM
8.19E*01 MG
1.90 UM
Z.13E+01 MG
.60 UM
2,38E*01 MB
.01 UM
7.00E-01 MS
PARTICLE SIZE TABLE —
STAGE •
050CMICRONS 1
STAGE HEIGHTStMILLIGRAMS I
HICROGRAHS/OHCM/STAGE
NU116ER/ONCM/STASE
CUM. ;
-------
FPEIS TEST SERIES NO: 0023d
STREAM NO: 01
TEST ID NO: 1 SAMPLE NO: 03 PAGE 12
SERIES FORM 7 DATE 06/21/83
pec 1 1 ICMT «STOFAH nP«iTfiM rMADarTPDT«ETTr •'••••••'•""••••••«•
COMPONENT
NO NAME
i pR06E«io crc
2 3 UM CYCLONE
3 1 UM CYCLONE
4 FILTER
TACll C______.,___
STAGE •
050 (MICRONS!
STAGE WEIGHTS( MILLIGRAMS!
HICROGRAHS/OHCM/STAGE
NUMBER/OHCM/5TAGE
CUtt. XMAS5
------- |