[Note: with the publication o f the Fifth Edition of AP-42, the Section number for Ammonium
Nitrate was changed to 8.3.]
BACKGROUND REPORT
AP-42 SECTION 6.8
AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OAQPS/TSD/EIB
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1-96
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 12077
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919/941-0333
l
-------
1-96
AP-42 BACKGROUND REPORT
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ii
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Technical Support Division of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, EPA. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available through
the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 2
2.1 GENERAL 2
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2
2.3 EMISSIONS AND CONTROLS 5
2.4 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS 11
2.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 13
3.0 GENERAL EMISSION DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES 15
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING SOURCE
TESTS 15
3.2 EMIS SION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 16
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 18
3 .4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 20
4.0 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 21
4.1 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS 21
4.2 CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DATA 29
4.3 NONCRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DATA 56
4.4 DATA GAP ANALYSIS 68
4.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 69
APPENDIX A. AP-42 Section 6.8 70
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.3-1 (METRIC UNITS) EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESSES IN
AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING PLANTS 6
TABLE 2.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESSES IN
AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING PLANTS 7
TABLE 2.3-2 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR UNCONTROLLED
EMISSIONS FROM AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING
FACILITIES 10
TABLE 4.2-1 (METRIC UNITS) PARTICULATE MATTER 32
TABLE 4.2-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) PARTICULATE MATTER 36
TABLE 4.2-2 (METRIC UNITS) FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE
PARTICULATE MATTER 40
TABLE 4.2-2 (ENGLISH UNITS) FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE
PARTICULATE MATTER 44
TABLE 4.2-3 (METRIC UNITS) FILTERABLE PARTICULATE MATTER 48
TABLE 4.2-3 (ENGLISH UNITS) FILTERABLE PARTICULATE MATTER 52
TABLE 4.3-1 (METRIC UNITS) AMMONIA 58
TABLE 4.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) AMMONIA 63
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.2-1 AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS 3
v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The document "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (AP-42) has been
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) since 1972. Supplements to
AP-42 have been routinely published to add new emission source categories and to update
existing emission factors. AP-42 is routinely updated by the EPA to respond to new emission
factor needs of the EPA, State, and local air pollution control programs and industry.
An emission factor relates the quantity (weight) of pollutants emitted to a unit of activity
of the source. The uses for the emission factors reported in AP-42 include:
1. Estimates of area-wide emissions;
2. Emission estimates for a specific facility; and
3. Evaluation of emissions relative to ambient air quality.
The purpose of this report is to provide background information from process information
obtained from industry comment to support revision of the process description and/or emission
factors for ammonium nitrate fertilizer production.
Including the introduction (Chapter 1), this report contains four chapters. Chapter 2 gives a
description of the ammonium nitrate process industry. It includes a characterization of the
industry, an overview of the different process types, a description of emissions, a description of
the technology used to control emissions resulting from ammonium nitrate fertilizer production,
and a review of references.
Chapter 3 is a review of emissions data collection and analysis procedures. It describes the
literature search, the screening of emission data reports, and the quality rating system for both
emission data and emission factors. Chapter includes a review of specific data sets, details
criteria and noncriteria pollutant emission factor development, and includes the results of a data
gap analysis. Appendix A presents a copy of the revised AP-42 Section 6.8.
1
-------
2.0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
2.1
GENERAL
Ammonium nitrate (NH4N03) is produced by neutralizing nitric acid (HN03) with
ammonia (NH3). In 1991, there were 58 U.S. ammonium nitrate plants located in 22 states
producing about 8.2 million megagrams (nine million tons) of ammonium nitrate. Approximately
15 to 20 percent of this amount was used for explosives and the balance for fertilizer.
Ammonium nitrate is marketed in several forms, depending upon its use. Liquid
ammonium nitrate may be sold as a fertilizer, generally in combination with urea. Liquid
ammonium nitrate may be concentrated to form an ammonium nitrate "melt" for use in solids
formation processes. Solid ammonium nitrate may be produced in the form of prills, grains,
granules or crystals. Prills can be produced in either high or low density form, depending on the
concentration of the melt. High density prills, granules and crystals are used as fertilizer, grains
are used solely in explosives, and low density prills can be used as either.
The manufacture of ammonium nitrate involves several major unit operations including
solution formation and concentration; solids formation, finishing, screening and coating; and
product bagging and/or bulk shipping. In some cases, solutions may be blended for marketing as
liquid fertilizers. These operations are shown schematically in Figure 2.2-1.
The number of operating steps employed depends on the end product desired. For
example, plants producing ammonium nitrate solutions alone use only the solution formation,
solution blending and bulk shipping operations. Plants producing a solid ammonium nitrate
product may employ all of the operations.
All ammonium nitrate plants produce an aqueous ammonium nitrate solution through the
reaction of ammonia and nitric acid in a neutralizer as follows:
2.2
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
nh3 + hno3 - nh4no3
(1)
2
-------
Figure 2.2-1 Ammonium nitrate manufacturing operations
ADDITIVE
AMMONIA
NITRIC ACID
">¦ SOLUTION
FORMATION
SOLUTIONS
SOLUTION
CONCENTRATION
OFFSIZE RECYCLE
SOLIDS
FORMATION
PRILLING
GRANULATING
SOLIDS
FINISHING
DRYING
COOLING
SOLUTION
BLENDING
SOLIDS
SCREENING
SOLIDS
COATING
BULK
SHIPPING
1
r
>
r
BULK
SHIPPING
BAGGING
ADDITIVE MAY BE ADDED BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER CONCENTRATION
SCREENING MAY BE PERFORMED BEFORE OR AFTER SOLIDS FINISHING
3
-------
Approximately 60 percent of the ammonium nitrate produced in the U.S. is sold as a solid
product. To produce a solid product, the ammonium nitrate solution is concentrated in an
evaporator or concentrator. The resulting "melt" contains about 95 to 99.8 percent ammonium
nitrate at approximately 149°C (300°F). This melt is then used to make solid ammonium nitrate
products.
Prilling and granulation are the most common processes used to produce solid ammonium
nitrate. To produce prills, concentrated melt is sprayed into the top of a prill tower. In the tower,
ammonium nitrate droplets fall countercurrent to a rising air stream that cools and solidifies the
falling droplets into spherical prills. Prill density can be varied by using different concentrations
of ammonium nitrate melt. Low density prills, in the
range of 1.29 specific gravity, are formed from a 95 to 97.5 percent ammonium nitrate melt, and
high density prills, in the range of 1.65 specific gravity, are formed from a 99.5 to 99.8 percent
melt. Low density prills are more porous than high density prills. Therefore, low density prills
are used for making blasting agents because they will absorb oil. Most high density prills are
used as fertilizers.
Rotary drum granulators produce granules by spraying a concentrated ammonium nitrate
melt (99.0 to 99.8 percent) onto small seed particles of ammonium nitrate in a long rotating
cylindrical drum. As the seed particles rotate in the drum, successive layers of ammonium nitrate
are added to the particles, forming granules. Granules are removed from the granulator and
screened. Offsize granules are crushed and recycled to the granulator to supply additional seed
particles or are dissolved and returned to the solution process. Pan granulators operate on the
same principle as drum granulators, except the solids are formed in a large, rotating circular pan.
Pan granulators produce a solid product with physical characteristics similar to those of drum
granules.
Although not widely used, an additive such as magnesium nitrate or magnesium oxide may
be injected directly into the melt stream. This additive serves three purposes: to raise the
crystalline transition temperature of the final solid product; to act as a desiccant, drawing water
into the final product to reduce caking; and to allow solidification to occur at a low temperature
by reducing the freezing point of molten ammonium nitrate.
The temperature of the ammonium nitrate product exiting the solids formation process is
approximately 66 to 124°C (150 to 255 °F). Rotary drum or fluidized bed cooling prevents
deterioration and agglomeration of solids before storage and shipping. Low density prills have a
4
-------
high moisture content because of the lower melt concentration, and therefore require drying in
rotary drums or fluidized beds before cooling.
Since the solids are produced in a wide variety of sizes, they must be screened for
consistently sized prills or granules. Cooled prills are screened and offsize prills are dissolved
and recycled to the solution concentration process. Granules are screened before cooling.
Undersize particles are returned directly to the granulator and oversize granules may be either
crushed and returned to the granulator or sent to the solution concentration process.
Following screening, products can be coated in a rotary drum to prevent agglomeration
during storage and shipment. The most common coating materials are clays and diatomaceous
earth. However, the use of additives in the ammonium nitrate melt before solidification, as
described above, may preclude the use of coatings.
Solid ammonium nitrate is stored and shipped in either bulk or bags. Approximately ten
percent of solid ammonium nitrate produced in the U.S. is bagged.
2.3 EMISSIONS AND CONTROLS
Emissions from ammonium nitrate production plants are particulate matter (ammonium
nitrate and coating materials), ammonia and nitric acid. Ammonia and nitric acid are emitted
primarily from solution formation and granulators. Particulate matter (largely as ammonium
nitrate) is emitted from most of the process operations and is the primary emission addressed
here.
The emission sources in solution formation and concentration processes are neutralizers
and evaporators, primarily emitting nitric acid and ammonia. The vapor stream off the top of the
neutralization reactor is primarily steam with some ammonia and NH4N03 particulates present.
Specific plant operating characteristics, however, make these emissions vary depending upon use
of excess ammonia or acid in the neutralizer. Since the neutralization operation can dictate the
quantity of these emissions, a range of emission factors is presented in Table 2.3-1. Particulate
emissions from these operations tend to be smaller in size than those from solids production and
handling processes and generally are recycled back to the process.
Emissions from solids formation processes are ammonium nitrate particulate matter and
ammonia. The sources of primary importance are prill towers (for high density and
5
-------
TABLE 2.3-1 (METRIC UNITS)
EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESSES IN
AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING PLANTS3
All Emission Factors are in kg/Mg of Product
Ratings (A-E) Follow Each Factor
Particulate Matter
Process
1
o
&
sd
Controlled
3
Ammonia
Uncontrolle
dc
Nitric A
cid
Neutralizer
0.045-4.3
B
0.002-0.22
B
0.43-18.0
B
0.042-ld
B
Evaporation/concentration
operations
0.26
A
0.27-16.7
A
Solids Formation Operations
High density prill towers
1.59
A
0.60
A
28.6
A
Low density prill towers
0.46
A
0.26
A
0.13
A
Rotary drum granulators
146
A
0.22
A
29.7
A
Pan granulators
1.34
A
0.02
A
0.07
A
Coolers and dryers
High density prill coolers6
0.8
A
0.01
A
0.02
A
Low density prill coolers6
25.8
A
0.26
A
0.15
A
Low density prill dryers6
57.2
A
0.57
A
0-1.59
A
Rotary drum granulator
coolers6
8.1
A
0.08
A
Pan granulator coolers6
18.3
A
0.18
B
Coating operations'
< 2.0
B
< 0.02
B
Bulk loading operations'
< 0.01
B
Some ammonium nitrate emission factors are based on data gathered using a modification of EPA Method
5 (See Reference 1).
b
Based on the following control efficiencies for wet scrubbers, applied to uncontrolled emissions:
neutralizes, 95 percent; high density prill towers, 62 percent; low density prill towers, 43 percent; rotary
drum granulators, 99.9 percent; pan granulators, 98.5 percent; coolers, dryers, and coaters, 99%.
C
Given as ranges because of variation in data and plant operations. Factors for controlled emissions not
presented due to conflicting results on control efficiency.
d
e Based on 95 percent recovery in a granulator recycle scrubber.
Factors for coolers represent combined precooler and cooler emissions, and factors for dryers represent
combined predryer and dryer emissions.
'Fugitive particulate emissions arise from coating and bulk loading operations.
6
-------
TABLE 2.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS)
EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESSES IN
AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING PLANTS3
All Emission Factors are in lb/ton of Product
Ratings (A-E) Follow Each Factor
Particulate Matter
Process
1
o
&
sd
Controlled
3
Ammonia
Uncontrolle
dc
Nitric A
cid
Neutralizer
0.09-8.6
B
0.004-0.43
B
0.86-36.0
B
0.084-2d
B
Evaporation/concentration
operations
0.52
A
0.54-33.4
A
Solids Formation Operations
High density prill towers
3.18
A
1.20
A
57.2
A
Low density prill towers
0.92
A
0.52
A
0.26
A
Rotary drum granulators
392
A
0.44
A
59.4
A
Pan granulators
2.68
A
0.04
A
0.14
A
Coolers and dryers
High density prill coolers6
1.6
A
0.02
A
0.04
A
Low density prill coolers6
51.6
A
0.52
A
0.30
A
Low density prill dryers6
114.4
A
1.14
A
0-3.18
A
Rotary drum granulator
coolers6
16.2
A
0.16
A
Pan granulator coolers6
36.6
A
0.36
B
Coating operations'
< 4.0
B
< 0.04
B
Bulk loading operations'
< 0.02
B
Some ammonium nitrate emission factors are based on data gathered using a modification of EPA Method
5 (See Reference 1).
b
Based on the following control efficiencies for wet scrubbers, applied to uncontrolled emissions:
neutralizes, 95 percent; high density prill towers, 62 percent; low density prill towers, 43 percent; rotary
drum granulators, 99.9 percent; pan granulators, 98.5 percent; coolers, dryers, and coaters, 99%.
C
Given as ranges because of variation in data and plant operations. Factors for controlled emissions not
presented due to conflicting results on control efficiency.
d
e Based on 95 percent recovery in a granulator recycle scrubber.
Factors for coolers represent combined precooler and cooler emissions, and factors for dryers represent
combined predryer and dryer emissions.
'Fugitive particulate emissions arise from coating and bulk loading operations.
7
-------
low density prills) and granulators (rotary drum and pan). Emissions from prill towers result
from carryover of fine particles and fume by the prill cooling air flowing through the tower.
These fine particles are from microprill formation, attrition of prills colliding with the tower or
one another, and from rapid transition of the ammonia nitrate between crystal states. The
uncontrolled particulate emissions from prill towers, therefore, are affected by tower airflow,
spray melt temperature, condition and type of melt spray device, air temperature, and crystal state
changes of the solid prills. The amount of microprill mass that can be entrained in the prill tower
exhaust is determined by the tower air velocity. Increasing spray melt temperature causes an
increase in the amount of gas phase ammonium nitrate generated. Thus, gaseous emissions from
high density prilling are greater than from low density towers.
Microprill formation resulting from partially plugged orifices of melt spray devices can
increase fine dust loading and emissions. Certain designs (spinning buckets) and practices
(vibration of spray plates) help reduce microprill formation. High ambient air temperatures can
cause increased emissions because of entrainment as a result of higher air flow required to cool
prills and because of increased fume formation at the higher temperatures.
The granulation process in general provides a larger degree of control in product formation
than does prilling. Granulation produces a solid ammonium nitrate product that, relative to prills,
is larger and has greater abrasion resistance and crushing strength. The air flow in granulation
processes is lower than that in prilling operations. Granulators, however, cannot produce low
density ammonium nitrate economically with current technology. The design and operating
parameters of granulators may affect emission rates. For example, the recycle rate of seed
ammonium nitrate particles affects the bed temperature in the granulator. An increase in bed
temperature resulting from decreased recycle of seed particles may cause an increase in dust
emissions from granule disintegration.
Cooling and drying are usually conducted in rotary drums. As with granulators, the design
and operating parameters of the rotary drums may affect the quantity of emissions. In addition to
design parameters, prill and granule temperature control is necessary to control emissions from
disintegration of solids caused by changes in crystal state.
Emissions from screening operations are generated by the attrition of the ammonium
nitrate solids against the screens and against one another. Almost all screening operations used in
the ammonium nitrate manufacturing industry are enclosed or have a cover over the uppermost
screen. Screening equipment is located inside a building and emissions are ducted from the
process for recovery or reuse.
8
-------
Prills and granules are typically coated in a rotary drum. The rotating action produces a
uniformly coated product. The mixing action also causes some of the coating material to be
suspended, creating particulate emissions. Rotary drums used to coat solid product are typically
kept at a slight negative pressure and emissions are vented to a particulate control device. Any
dust captured is usually recycled to the coating storage bins.
Bagging and bulk loading operations are a source of particulate emissions. Dust is emitted
from each type of bagging process during final filling when dust laden air is displaced from the
bag by the ammonium nitrate. The potential for emissions during bagging is greater for coated
than for uncoated material. It is expected that emissions from bagging operations are primarily
the kaolin, talc or diatomaceous earth coating matter. About 90 percent of solid ammonium
nitrate produced domestically is bulk loaded. While particulate emissions from bulk loading are
not generally controlled, visible emissions are within typical state regulatory requirements
(below 20 percent opacity).
Table 2.3-1 summarizes emission factors for various processes involved in the
manufacture of ammonium nitrate. Uncontrolled emissions of particulate matter, ammonia and
nitric acid are given in Table 2.3-1. Emissions of ammonia and nitric acid depend upon specific
operating practices, so ranges of factors are given for some emission sources.
Emission factors for controlled particulate emissions are also in Table 2.3-1, reflecting wet
scrubbing particulate control techniques. The particle size distribution data presented in Table
2.3-2 indicate the cumulative weight distribution of emissions up through 10 microns in size. In
addition, wet scrubbing is used as a control technique because the solution containing the
recovered ammonium nitrate can be sent to the solution concentration process for reuse in
production of ammonium nitrate, rather than to waste disposal facilities.
9
-------
TABLE 2.3-2
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
FROM AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES3
Operation
Cumulative Weight %
< 2.5 (im < 5 (im < 10 (im
Solids Formation Operations
Low density prill tower
56
73
83
Rotary drum granulator
0.07
0.3
2
Coolers and Dryers
Low density prill cooler
0.03
0.09
0.4
Low density prill predryer
0.03
0.06
0.2
Low density prill dryer
0.04
0.04
0.15
Rotary drum granulator cooler
0.06
0.5
3
Pan granulator precooler
0.3
0.3
1.5
References 5, 12 13 23 and 24. Particle size determinations were not done in strict
accordance with EPA Method 5. A modification was used to handle the high
concentrations of soluble nitrogenous compounds (See Reference 1). Particle size
distributions were not determined for controlled particulate emissions.
10
-------
2.4 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS
Pacific Environmental Services (PES) contacted the following sources to obtain
the most up-to-date information on process descriptions and emissions for this industry:
1) Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Air Division,
Montgomery, Alabama.
2) Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Division of Air
Pollution, Little Rock, Arkansas.
3) Florida Department of Environmental Regulation - Bureau of Air Quality
Management, Tallahassee, Florida.
4) Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Environmental Protection
Division, Atlanta, Georgia.
5) Kansas Department of Health and Environment - Bureau of Air Quality,
Topeka, Kansas.
6) Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Pollution Control
Division, Lansing, Michigan.
7) Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Quality, Jefferson City, Missouri.
8) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Unit, Twinsburg,
Ohio.
9) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
10) Tennessee Valley authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
Responses were received from Sources 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 listed above. No
responses were received from the remaining sources. Sources 1 and 2 provided source
tests containing particulate and ammonia emissions data. Source 3 provided computer
generated emission summary reports containing particulate emission test data. Source 9
provided an emission test summary report containing particulate data. Source 10
provided a 1991 statistical report entitled "North American Fertilizer Capacity Data,
December 1991" and is discussed as Reference 3 below. None of the new emissions data
received from Sources 1, 2, 3 or 9 could be used to modify the emission factors due to
one or more of the reasons listed in Section 3.2. The primary reasons were the source
11
-------
process not being clearly identified and described, and insufficient production rate data.
However, the source tests and summaries are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 Review of
Specific Data Sets. The particulate and ammonia emissions data contained in these new
references are presented as background information and discussed in detail in Sections
4.2 Criteria Pollution Emissions Data and 4.3 Noncriteria Pollution Emissions Data,
respectively.
The only change made to the general industry discussion and the process
description during this revision was the addition of 1991 production data obtained from
Source 10, which is discussed below.
Reference 3. North American Fertilizer Capacity Data. Tennessee Vallev Authority.
Muscle Shoals. Alabama. December 1991
The Tennessee Valley Authority provided a list of U.S. fertilizer producers and
their fertilizer production capacities. The 1991 statistical data in Section 2.1 were
obtained from this reference.
12
-------
2.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
1. Ammonium Nitrate Manufacturing Industry: Technical Document. EPA-450/3-81-
002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January
1981.
2. W.J. Search and R.B. Reznik, Source Assessment: Ammonium Nitrate Production.
EPA-600/2-77-107i, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, September 1977.
3. North American Fertilizer Capacity Data, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle
Shoals, AL, December, 1991.
4. Memo from C.D. Anderson, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, to Ammonium
Nitrate file, July 2, 1980.
5. D.P. Becvar, et al.. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Union Oil Company
of California. EMB-78-NHF-7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 1979.
6. K.P. Brockman, Emission Tests for Particulates. Cominco American, Beatrice,
NE, 1974.
7. Written communication from S.V. Capone, GCA Corporation, Chapel Hill, NC,
To E.A. Noble, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, September 6, 1979.
8. Written communication from D.E. Cayard, Monsanto Agricultural Products
Company, St. Louis, MO, to E.A. Noble, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 4, 1978.
9. Written communication from D.E. Cayard, Monsanto Agricultural Products
Company, St. Louis, MO, to E.A. Noble, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, December 27, 1978.
10. Written communication from T.H. Davenport, Hercules Incorporated, Donora, PA,
to D.R. Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, November 16, 1978.
11. R.N. Doster and D.J. Grove, Source Sampling Report: Atlas Powder Company.
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.
12. M.D. Hansen, et al.. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Swift Chemical
Company. EMB-79-NHF-11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, July 1980.
13
-------
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
R.A. Kniskern, et al.. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Cominco
American. Inc.. Beatrice, NE, EMB-79-NHF-9, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
Written communication from J.A. Lawrence, C.F. Industries, Long Grove, IL, to
D.R. Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, December 15, 1978.
Written communication from F.D. McLauley, Hercules Incorporated, Louisiana,
MO, to D.R. Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, October 31, 1978.
W.E. Misa, Report of Source Test: Collier Carbon and Chemical Corporation
(Union Oil). Test No. 5Z-78-3, Anaheim, CA, January 12, 1978.
Written communication from L. Musgrove, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Atlanta, GA, to R. Rader, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, May 21,
1980.
Written communication from D.J. Patterson, Nitrogen Corporation, Cincinnati,
OH, to E.A. Noble, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, March 26, 1979.
Written communication from H. Schuyten, Chevron Chemical Company, San
Francisco, CA, to D.R. Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March
2, 1979.
Emission Test Report: Phillips Chemical Company. Texas Air Control Board,
Austin, TX, 1975.
Surveillance Report: Hawkeve Chemical Company. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 29, 1976.
W.A. Wade and R.W. Cass, Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: C.F.
Industries. EMB-79-NHF-10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1979.
W.A. Wade, et al.. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Columbia Nitrogen
Corporation. EMB-80-NHF-16, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, January, 1981.
York Research Corporation, Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Nitrogen
Corporation. EMB-78-NHF-5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.
14
-------
3.0 GENERAL EMISSION DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING SOURCE TESTS
The first step in the investigative process involved a search of available literature relating
to criteria and noncriteria pollutant emissions associated with ammonium nitrate production. This
search examined the following sources:
AP-42 background files maintained by the Emission Factor and Methodologies Section.
PES obtained the EPA Background File for the previous version of the AP-42 Section 6.8
Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizers. Some of the references cited in the previous version of Section
6.8 were not in the Background File. Therefore, PES obtained these missing references from
other sources as discussed below.
Files maintained by the EPA Emission Measurement Branch. PES contacted EMB on
several occasions in unsuccessful attempts at obtaining a report cited in the emission factor tables
in Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate as discussed in Section 4.1 (Report No. EMB-78-NHF-7.)
References in the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). A reference cited in the
emission factor tables in the previous version of Section 6.8 (January 1984) but was not found in
the Background File. This report was unavailable through the EPA Library and was therefore
obtained from NTIS as discussed in Section 4.1. under Reference 7.
EPA databases: VOC/Particulate Matter (PM) Speciation Database Management System
(SPECIATE), the Crosswalk/Air Toxic Emission Factor Data Base Management System
(XATEF), National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NATICH), Clearinghouse for
Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF), and the Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS). Information concerning hazardous air pollutants contained in the particulate emission
stream from the production of ammonium nitrate prills was obtained from SPECIATE and is
discussed in detail in Section 4.3. No information was found in the other databases.
EPA Library. PES obtained several references (Reference 9 through 11 as listed in Chapter
4) that were cited in the AP-42 Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate emission factor table, but were
not contained in the EPA Background File.
To reduce the amount of literature collected to a final group of references pertinent to this
report, the following general criteria were used:
1. Emissions data must be from a primary reference, i.e. the document must constitute
the original source of test data. For example, a technical paper was not included if
the original study was contained in the previous document.
15
-------
2.
3.
The referenced study must contain test results based on more than one test run.
The report must contain sufficient data to evaluate the testing procedures and source
operating conditions (e.g., one-page reports were generally rejected).
If no primary data was found and the previous update utilized secondary data, this
secondary data was still used and the Emission Factor Rating lowered, if needed. A final set of
reference materials was compiled after a thorough review of the pertinent reports, documents,
and information according to these criteria. The final set of reference materials is given in
Chapter 4.0.
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
As part of Pacific Environmental Services' analysis of the emission data, the quantity and
quality of the information contained in the final set of reference documents were evaluated. The
following data were excluded from consideration:
1. Test series averages reported in units that cannot be converted to the selected
reporting units;
2. Test series representing incompatible test methods (i.e., comparison of the EPA
Method 5 front-half with the EPA Method 5 front- and back-half);
3. Test series of controlled emissions for which the control device is not specified;
4. Test series in which the source process is not clearly identified and described; and
5. Test series in which it is not clear whether the emissions were measured before or
after the control device.
Data sets that were not excluded were assigned a quality rating. The rating system used
was that specified by the OAQPS for the preparation of AP-42 sections. The data were rated as
follows:
A Rating
Multiple tests performed on the same source using sound methodology and reported in
enough detail for adequate validation. These tests do not necessarily conform to the
methodology specified in EPA reference test methods, although these methods were
certainly used as a guide for the methodology actually used.
16
-------
B Rating
Tests that were performed by a generally sound methodology but lack enough detail for
adequate validation.
C Rating
Tests that were based on an untested or new methodology or that lacked a significant
amount of background data.
D Rating
Tests that were based on a generally unacceptable method but may provide an order-of-
magnitude value for the source.
The following criteria were used to evaluate source test reports for sound methodology and
adequate detail:
1. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is well documented
In the report. The source was operating within typical parameters during the test.
2. Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures conformed to a generally acceptable
methodology. If actual procedures deviated from accepted methods, the deviations
are well documented. When this occurred, an evaluation was made of the extent such
alternative procedures could influence the test results.
3. Sampling and process data. Adequate sampling and process data are documented in
the report. Many variations can occur unnoticed and without warning during testing.
Such variations can induce wide deviations in sampling results. If a large spread
between test results cannot be explained by information contained in the test report,
the data are suspect and were given a lower rating.
4. Analysis and calculations. The test reports contain original raw data sheets. The
nomenclature and equations used were compared to those (if any) specified by the
EPA to establish equivalency. The depth of review of the calculations was dictated
by the reviewer's confidence in the ability and conscientiousness of the tester, which
in turn was based on factors such as consistency of results and completeness of other
areas of the test report.
17
-------
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
The quality of the emission factors developed from analysis of the test data was rated utilizing the
following general criteria:
A (Excellent)
Developed only from A-rated test data taken from many randomly chosen facilities in the
industry population. The source category is specific enough so that variability within the
source category population may be minimized.
B (Above average)
Developed only from A-rated test data from a reasonable number of facilities. Although no
specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random sample of
the industries. As in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so that variability
within the source category population may be minimized.
C (Average)
Developed only from A- and B-rated test data from a reasonable number of facilities.
Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random
sample of the industry. As in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so that
variability within the source category population may be minimized.
D (Below average)
The emission factor was developed only from A- and B-rated test data from a small number
of facilities, and there is reason to suspect that these facilities do not represent a random
sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of variability within the source category
population. Limitations on the use of the emission factor are noted in the emission factor
table.
E (Poor)
The emission factor was developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there is reason to
suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry. There
also may be evidence of variability within the source category population. Limitations on
the use of these factors are always noted.
The use of these criteria is somewhat subjective and depends to an extent on the individual
reviewer.
18
-------
3.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
1. Technical Procedures for Developing AP-42 Emission Factors and Preparing AP-42
Sections. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Inventory Branch, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, April, 1992.
[Note: this document is currently being revised at the time of this printing.]
2. AP-42. Supplement A, Appendix C.2, "Generalized Particle Size Distributions." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October, 1986.
19
-------
4.0 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
4.1 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS
Six new references (References 1 through 6) were received documenting emissions from
the manufacture of ammonium nitrate. However, none of these source tests could be used to
modify the emission factors according to the criteria listed in Section 3.2. The data are presented
for information purposes in Tables 4.2-1 and 4.3-1.
References 7 through 11 were cited in the previous version of Section 6.8 (January 1984.)
PES was unsuccessful in its attempts to obtain an additional reference was cited in the original
tables: Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Union Oil Company of California, by D P.
Becvar, et. al., EMB-78-NHF-7, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, October, 1979. See Section 4.2 for a more
detailed discussion of this missing document. This missing document, coupled with the fact that
no emission factor development documentation (e.g, hand written calculations) was contained in
the Background File, precluded a verification of the emission factors presented in Table 2.3-1.
A detailed discussion of each of the new references (References 1 through 6) and the
references cited in Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate (References 7 through 11) is given below:
Reference 1. Summary of test results from the Hvdra-Clean System Stacks (Prc-Drvcr No. 1.
Dryer No. 2. and Cooler No. 3 at IRECO. Donora. Pennsylvania
This reference was obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. This reference contained summary data of a particulate
matter compliance test conducted on October 10 and 12, 1990, by Clean Air Engineering at the
IRECO facility located in Donora, Pennsylvania. The information received consisted only of a
five page summary of particulate emissions data and was not the entire source test. This reference
lacked a process description, testing method documentation, and calibration data. A copy of a
letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources to IRECO was attached to
the summary. This letter contained information regarding the production rate of the facility (400
tons per day of ammonium nitrate, or 16.67 tons per hour assuming 24 hour per day operation) as
well as a discussion of a potential problem with the close proximity of the ports to the I.D. fan and
fan belt housing during testing. The data from this reference were presented for information
purposes only in Table 4.2-1, because this reference did not meet the criteria discussed in Chapter
3 and therefore, could not be used to modify the emission factors.
20
-------
The emission factors for particulate matter were 0.009, 0.00835, and 0.029 kg/Mg (0.019,
0.0167, 0.064 lb/ton) from the dryer, cooler and prill tower, respectively. These factors are
significantly lower than the corresponding uncontrolled particulate emission factors in Table 2.3-1
for both high and low density prills. The low density emission factors in Table 2.3-1 are 57.2,
25.8, and 0.46 kg/Mg (114.4, 51.6, and 0.92 lb/ton) from the low density dryer, low density cooler
and low density prill tower, respectively. The uncontrolled high density emission factors in Table
2.3-1 are 0.8 and 1.59 kg/Mg (1.6 and 3.18 lb/ton) from the high density prill cooler and high
density prill tower, respectively.
PES is uncertain why these data differ by such magnitude.
Reference 2. Summary of test results from the Ammonium Nitrate Prill Tower No. 2 at Nitram.
Inc.. Tampa. Florida
This reference was obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Bureau of Air Quality Management in Tallahassee, Florida. This reference is a computer
generated emission summary report containing particulate emission test data from the Nitram, Inc.
facility in Tampa, Florida. This printout shows that a test was conducted on February 20, 1991,
for particulate matter emitted from the prill tower with a wet scrubber. The results indicate that
the facility was emitting 25.9 pounds of particulate per hour while producing 46 tons of
ammonium nitrate per hour. As shown in Table 4.2-1, this would result in an emission factor of
0.56 lbs/ton. This factor is higher that the emission factor for controlled particulate from high
density prill tower of 1.20 lb/ton as shown in Table 2.3-1, but lower than the low density prill
tower emission factor of 0.52 lb/ton. This reference was only a computer print out summary report
and lacked a process description, testing method documentation, and calibration data. The data
from this reference were presented for information purposes only in Table 4.2-1, because they did
not meet the criteria discussed in Chapter 3.
Reference 3. Summary of test results from the Ammonium Nitrate Plant - Prill Tower at Air
Products & Chemicals. Inc.. Pensacola. Florida
Similar to Reference 2, this reference was obtained from the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Air Quality Management in Tallahassee, Florida. This
reference is a computer generated emission summary report containing particulate emission test
data from the Air Products & Chemical, Inc. facility in Pensacola, Florida. This printout shows
that particulate emission tests were conducted at the prill tower equipped with a venturi scrubber
21
-------
(with 98% efficiency) on 1/25/91, 1/26/90, 1/10/89, 2/6/88, 1/23/87, 2/8/82, 1/21/81, and 1/17/79.
The corresponding results indicate controlled emissions of 24.9125, 22.8625, 28.5, 19.5, 16.542,
10.56, 13.63, and 27.84 pounds of particulate per hour while producing 30, 34, 33, 30, 30, 32, 31,
and 30 tons of ammonium nitrate per hour, respectively. As shown in Table 4.2-1, dividing the
emission rates by the corresponding production rates results emission factors of 0.83, 0.67, 0.86,
0.65, 0.54, 0.33, 0.44, and 0.93 lbs/ton, respectively. The average of these emission factors is 0.66
lbs/hour, which is higher than both the controlled particulate emission factor of 0.52 lb/ton for
low density prill towers and 0.02 lb/ton for high density prill towers as shown in Table 2.3-1. This
reference was only a computer print out summary report and lacked a process description, testing
method documentation, and calibration data. The data from this reference were presented for
information purposes only in Table 4.2-1, but did not meet the criteria discussed in Chapter 3.
Therefore, this reference could not be used to modify the emission factors.
Reference 4. Source Sampling for Particulate & Ammonia Emissions. El Dorado Chemical
Company. El Dorado. Arkansas, conducted by RAMCON Environmental Corp.. Memphis. TN.
January 28. 1992.
This reference was conducted by RAMCON Environment Corporation at the El Dorado
Chemical Company in El Dorado, Arkansas on January 28, 1992. This report was provided by the
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. This reference contains both particulate
matter and ammonia emission data from a dryer/cooler scrubber as presented in Tables 4.2-1 and
4.3-1, respectively. This report lacks any process description whatsoever, nor is there a
description of the process or the product (high density or low density.) Therefore, the report is
presented as background information only. Three runs were performed measuring 16.48, 16.05
and 14.88 lbs/hr of particulate and 79.49, 154.55, and 140.87 lbs/hr of ammonia during runs 1, 2
and 3, respectively. The production rate was listed as 581 tons/day (approximately 24 tons/hr
assuming 24 hours/day operation). The emission factors for runs 1, 2, and 3 were calculated from
the emission and production rates (emission rate/production rate) to be 0.69, 0.67, and 0.62 lbs of
particulate matter per ton and 3.3, 6.4, and 5.9 pounds of ammonia per ton, respectively, from the
combined dryer/cooler scrubber. The average controlled particulate emission factor of 0.66 lb/ton
is less than the combined controlled emission factors as shown in Table 2.3-1 of 0.52 and 1.14
lb/ton from the low density cooler and low density dryer, respectively. The average ammonia
emission factor from the combined dryer/cooler scrubber in Reference 4 is 5.2 lb/ton. This is
higher than the combination of the uncontrolled low density cooler and low density dryer
22
-------
emission factors of 0.30 and 3.18, respectively, as shown in Table 2.3-1. The lack ofhigh density
prill dryer emission factors in Table 6.8 precluded a comparison with the dryer/cooler
combination from Reference 4. It is unclear why there were no high density prill dryer emission
factors in the previous version of Section 6.8.
The average controlled particulate emission factor rate for particulate of 15.80 lbs/hour and
for ammonia of 124.97 lbs/hour showed the facility to be in compliance for particulate (State of
Arkansas allowable limit is 20 lb/hr) and out of compliance for ammonia (State of Arkansas
allowable limit is 100 lbs/hour). Although this test provides EPA test method documentation and
calibration data, it lacks the necessary process and product descriptions for use in modification of
the emission factors.
Reference 5. Preliminary Sampling of Drver/Cooler Scrubber. El Dorado Chemical Company. El
Dorado. Arkansas, conducted by RAMCON Environmental Corp.. Memphis. TN. November 21.
1991.
This preliminary source test was conducted at the same facility as described above for
Reference 4. Like Reference 4, this source test did not provide product or process descriptions
necessary for use in the modification of emission factors. However, the particulate matter and
ammonia emissions data contained in this report are presented in Tables 4.2-1 and 4.3-1,
respectively, for background information. In addition to no product or process descriptions,
problems occurred during testing concerning the pH controller transmitter. Apparently, after
completion of the test, it was discovered that the pH controller transmitter (which controls the pH
of the scrubber solution) was erratic and inaccurate. These problems resulted in an average
emission rate of 29.81 lbs/hours of particulate, exceeding the 20 lbs/hour compliance limit set by
the State of Arkansas. However, the average rate of 14.98 lbs/hr of ammonia was below the 100
lbs/hour compliance limit. The lack of product and process descriptions coupled with the process
problems encountered during tested, precluded the use of this reference in the modification of
emission factors; the data are presented for background information only.
The average particulate emission factor from the combined dryer/cooler scrubber from
Reference 5 is 1.16 lb/ton. The average ammonia emission factor from the combined dryer/cooler
scrubber from Reference 5 is 0.586 lb/ton.
23
-------
Reference 6. Particulate Emissions Test Report for LaRoche Industries. Inc. Cherokee. Alabama-
Prill Tower and Wet Scrubber Outlet, conducted by Sanders Engineering & Analytical Services.
Inc.. Mobile Alabama. March 11. 1992.
This reference was provided by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
and contains emissions data for particulate matter. This reference included a very brief process
description for ammonium nitrate prills and definitions of high density prills (produced from
solutions concentrated to 99.5 to 99.8 percent ammonium nitrate) and low density prills (produced
from concentrates of only 95 to 97.5 percent ammonium nitrate), but did not specify which
product was being manufactured during the test. Therefore, the test report could not be used for
the modification of the emissions factors, but the data are presented in Table 4.2-1 for background
information purposes. Four runs were conducted at both the prill tower and the wet scrubber
outlet. The first run was discarded due to an insufficient flow rate. Particulate emission flow rates
for runs 2, 3 and 4 were reported as 1.8, 1.6 and 1.6 lbs/hour from the prill tower and 1.3, 1.6 and
1.2 lbs/hour from the wet scrubber outlet, respectively. The production rate for all three runs was
reported as 12.50 tons/hour. Dividing the emission rates by the production rate resulted in
emission factors of 0.14, 0.13 and 0.13 lbs/ton from the prill tower and 0.10, 0.13 and 0.09 from
the scrubber for runs 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
The average uncontrolled particulate emission factor from the prill tower in Reference 6 is
0.13 lb/ton, which is less than both the uncontrolled prill tower particulate emission factor of 0.92
lb/ton for low density prills and 3.18 lb/ton for high density prills as shown in Table 2.3-1. The
average controlled particulate emission factor from the wet scrubber in Reference 6 is 0.11 lb/ton,
which is less than both the controlled prill tower particulate emission factor of 0.52 lb/ton for low
density prills and 1.20 lb/ton for high density prills as shown in Table 2.3-1.
A detailed discussion of References 7 through 11 is given below. These are not new
references, but were obtained from the AP-42 Background File, EPA Library or NTIS.
Reference 7. Ammonium Nitrate Manufacturing Industry Technical Document. EPA-450/3-81-
002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC. January 1981.
Reference 7, Ammonium Nitrate Manufacturing Industry Technical Document, is a report
that describes the industry and summarizes emissions data and control techniques. Because this
reference is not a source test and because the majority of the data presented in this reference was
obtained from References 8 through 11, the emissions data are not duplicated here. (The emission
24
-------
data from References 8 through 11 are presented in Tables 4.2-2, 4.2-3 and 4.3-1.) Although this
reference was cited in emission factor Table 2.3-1 as taken from Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate,
only a copy of the cover page was contained in the EPA Background File. PES obtained a
complete copy of this report from NTIS. However, without emission factor development
documentation (e.g., hand written calculations) it was impossible to discern or reconstruct how
this reference impacted the development of the emission factors.
Reference 8. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Swift Chemical Company. EMB-79-
NHF-11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC. July 1980.
This reference was contained in the EPA Background File for Section 6.8 Ammonium
Nitrate. The particulate emission results of this test are presented in Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3. The
ammonia emission results are presented in Table 4.3-1. The plant produces granulated ammonium
nitrate for fertilizer use. The ammonium nitrate is made by a rotary drum granulator, which
operated continuously, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Emission sampling of particulate and
ammonia were conducted at the rotary drum granulator scrubber inlet and outlet, as well as at the
rotary drum cooler outlet. Problems occurred during Runs 1 and 2 at the scrubber and were not
reported. Runs 3, 4 and 5 were considered to be valid for the scrubber. Independent (not
concurrent with the scrubber runs) Runs 1, 2 and 3 were considered to be valid for the cooler
outlet. This test was performed in accordance with EPA Reference Methods 1-5, contains all
necessary documentation for validation, has consistent results, and is thus rated "A."
Reference 9. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Cominco American. Inc.. Beatrice-
Nebraska. EMB-79-NHF-9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC.
April 1979.
This reference was cited in Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate emission factor tables. The
particulate emission results from this test are presented in Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3. The ammonia
emissions results are presented in Table 4.3-1. This plant produces granulated ammonium nitrate
for use as a fertilizer. The ammonium nitrate granules are manufactured by two rotary drum
granulators and are cooled by two rotary drum coolers using countercurrent air flow. The
emissions from these units are controlled by wet impingement scrubbers. Emission sampling was
conducted on the No. 1 rotary drum cooler scrubber inlet and outlet. During train cleanup on Run
3, a residue was noted on the inside of the probe. This residue was not present in Runs 1 and 2.
The duct work was checked to determine if a residue build up was present on the surfaces; none
25
-------
was found. The outlet sample collected in Run 3 was also found to be more acidic than in Runs 1
and 2. Furthermore, the outlet ammonium nitrate concentration was found to be greater than that
in the inlet. The specific reason was not provided in the report, although a scrubber upset
condition was suspected (i.e. entrainment). The report concluded that the data listed for Run 3
were believed to be non-typical of the sampled source and therefore were not included in the
averages. Data for Runs 1 and 2 were consistent, the test was performed in accordance with EPA
Reference Methods 1-5, and contains all necessary documentation for validation. However, due to
the report containing only two valid runs, this report was rated "B."
Reference 10. Ammonium Nitrate Emissions Test Report: Columbia Nitrogen Corporation. EMB-
80-NHF-16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC. January 1981.
This reference was cited in Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate emission factor tables. The
particulate emission results from this test are presented in Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3. The ammonia
emissions results are presented in Table 4.3-1. This plant produces both high and low density
ammonium nitrate prills. Testing for particulate and ammonia emissions were performed at the
prill tower, dryers, and fluidized-bed cooler. Testing was performed during time of normal low
density ammonium nitrate production process operations. This test was performed in accordance
with EPA Reference Methods 1-5, contains all necessary documentation for validation, has
consistent results, and is thus rated "A."
Reference 11. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: N-ReN Corporation. EMB-78-NHF-5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC. May 1979.
This reference was cited in Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate emission factor tables. The
particulate emission results of this test are presented in Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3. The ammonia
emissions results are presented in Table 4.3-1. This plant is an ammonium nitrate pan granulation
facility. Testing was performed to measure particulate and ammonia emissions at the evaporator
scrubber inlet, the combined evaporator-pan granulator scrubber inlet, the combined evaporator-
pan granulator scrubber outlet, the precooler scrubber inlet, the chain mill scrubber inlet, the
combined precooler-chain mill scrubber outlet, and the cooler scrubber inlet. Three runs were
conducted at each location with the exception of the cooler scrubber inlet; four runs were
conducted at this location. The first test was repeated due to an unacceptable final leak check on
the sampling apparatus and several process disturbances. However, all four runs were consistent
and were included in the average. During the first run at the evaporator outlet, the filter was
26
-------
reportedly contaminated with H2S04 and no average was presented. Further problems were
reported during all three runs at the evaporator/granulator scrubber inlet; cyclonic flow patterns
were suspected which would cause the results to be 10 to 15 percent low. However, this test was
performed in accordance with EPA Reference Methods 1-5, contains all necessary documentation
for validation, and has consistent results. However, because of the problems that occurred during
test as described above this report is rated "B."
27
-------
4.2
CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DATA
Volatile organic compounds.
No data on emissions of these pollutants were found for the ammonium nitrate
manufacturing process.
Lead.
No quantitative data on emissions of lead were found for the ammonium nitrate
manufacturing processes. However, the VOC/PM Speciate Database Management System
(SPECIATE) identified lead as being present in the particulate matter emission streams from the
production of ammonium nitrate prill.
Sulfur dioxide.
No data on sulfur dioxide emissions were found for the ammonium nitrate manufacturing
process.
Nitrogen oxides.
No data on nitrogen oxides emissions were found for the ammonium nitrate manufacturing
process.
Carbon monoxide.
No data on carbon monoxide emissions were found for the ammonium nitrate
manufacturing process.
Particulate Matter.
Emissions of particulate matter can be divided into three categories: filterable, organic
condensible, and inorganic condensible. Filterable particulate matter is that which collects on the
filter and in the sampling probe assembly of a particulate sampling train. When emissions testing
is performed in accordance with Method 5, the filter and probe are maintained at approximately
120 °C (248 °F); materials that condense at a temperature lower than this will pass through the
filter. Many emissions tests also quantify emissions of condensible particulate matter, typically
that which condenses at or above 20 °C (68 °F). This condensible particulate matter is collected by
28
-------
passing the effluent gas through ice water-cooled impingers such that the gas exiting the last
impinger is at a temperature less than 20 °C. The preferred method for quantification of emissions
of condensible particulate matter is EPA Reference Method 202. This method entails extraction of
the organic portion of the condensible, or back-half, catch with methylene chloride, evaporation of
the extract at room temperature, desiccation, and weighing. The inorganic portion of the back-half
catch is evaporated at 105 °C (221 °F), desiccated, and weighed.
Because of the short time Method 202 has existed, the data reviewed for this update do not
follow the organic condensible particulate matter recovery procedures outlined above. Nearly all
of the emissions references report both filterable and condensible particulate matter emissions.
The procedure used to quantify the condensible particulate matter emissions in these tests is
equivalent to the inorganic condensible fraction measurement procedure in Method 202.
Six new source tests (References 1 through 6) were received documenting particulate
emissions from the manufacture of ammonium nitrate. However, none of these source tests could
be used to modify the emission factors due to one or more of the reasons listed in Section 3.2.
These references are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 Review of Specific Data Sets. The data are
presented for information purposes only in Table 4.2-1. These references did not specify the
method by which the particulate emission were measured and are reported as particulate matter.
In order to verify the ammonium nitrate emission factors, PES obtained the EPA
Background File for Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate. Only one of the references (Reference 8)
used to develop the emission factors in Table 2.3-1 was found in the Background File. The file
contained only copies of the cover pages of the remaining references (References 7 and 9 through
11). However, PES was able to obtain these references from the EPA Library and NTIS.
Reference 7, Ammonium Nitrate Manufacturing Industry Technical Document, is a report that
describes the industry and summarizes emissions data and control techniques. Because Reference
7 is not a source test and because the majority of the data presented in this reference was obtained
from References 8 through 11, the emissions data are not duplicated here. Both filterable plus
inorganic condensible particulate matter and filterable particulate matter emission data from
References 8 through 11 are presented in Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3, respectively.
An additional reference was cited in the original tables: Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test
Report: Union Oil Company of California, by D.P. Becvar, et. al., EMB-78-NHF-7, U.S. EPA,
RTP, NC, October, 1979. PES obtained the report corresponding to the EMB report number;
however, the actual title is Urea Manufacture. Emission Test Report. Union Oil Company of
29
-------
California. October 1979. PES contacted the EPA Library and EMB in an attempt to obtain the
correct ammonium nitrate report. EMB suggested report number EMB-80-NHF-15. PES obtained
this document; however, this report is the entitled "Urea Manufacture" as well, but is dated
September 1980. Curiously, the Background File for Section 6.8 Ammonium Nitrate contains a
copy of a cover page entitled Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Union Oil Company of
California, by D.P. Becvar, et. al., EMB-78-NHF-7, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, October, 1979.
This missing document, coupled with the fact that no emission factor development
documentation (i.e., hand written calculations) was contained in the Background File, precluded a
verification of the ammonium nitrate emission factors presented in Table 2.3-1.
30
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (METRIC UNITS)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref. #
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control devi
:e: None ("tw
o inoperative
impingement
scrubbers")
1
Pre-Dryer
Rejected
5
1
15.12
0.124
0.007
2
15.12
0.078
0.004
3
15.12
0.423
0.025
Average
15.12
0.209
0.01
Control device: None ("two inoperative impingement scrubbers")
1
Dryer
Rejected
5
1
15.12
0.280
0.017
2
15.12
0.099
0.006
3
15.12
0.059
0.004
Average
15.12
0.15
0.009
Control device: None ("two inoperative impingement scrubbers")
1
Cooler
Rejected
5
1
15.12
0.165
0.0109
2
15.12
0.137
0.00906
3
15.12
0.0771
0.00510
Average
15.12
0.126
0.00835
Control device: None ("two inoperative impingement scrubbers")
1
Prill
Tower
Rejected
5
1
15.12
0.472
0.028
2
15.12
0.378
0.023
3
15.12
0.603
0.036
Average
15.12
0.485
0.029
Control device: Wet Scrubber - 91% efficiency
2
Prill
Tower1
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
42
11.7
0.26
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d Only summary data reported. Not indicated if reported numbers are averages or a single run.
31
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control devi
:c: Venturi Sc
:rubber - 98'
^ Efficiency
/
3
Prill
Towerd
1/25/91
Rejected
Not
Reported
Averag
e
27
11.3001
0.38
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
1/26/90
Rejected
Not
Reported
Averag
e
31
10.3703
0.31
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Towerd
1/10/89
Rejected
Not
Reported
Averag
e
30
12.9274
0.39
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
2/6/88
Rejected
Not
Reported
Averag
e
27
8.8451
0.29
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Towerd
1/23/87
Rejected
Not
Reported
Averag
e
28
7.5033
0.25
11 Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d Only summary data reported. Not indicated if reported numbers are averages or a single run.
32
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
:: Venturi Scr
ubber - 98%
Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
2/8/82
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
29
4.7899
0.15
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
1/21/81
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
28
6.1825
0.20
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill Towerd
1/17/79
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
27
12.6280
0.42
Control device: Scrubber
4
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber
Rejected
5
1
22
7.48
0.31
2
22
7.28
0.30
3
22
6.75
0.28
Average
22
7.17
0.30
Control device: Scrubber
5
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber6
Rejected
5
1
23.2
13.05
0.509
2
23.2
12.96
0.506
3
23.2
14.56
0.568
Average
23.2
13.52
0.528
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d Only summary data reported. Not indicated if reported numbers are averages or a single run.
e pH controller transmitter malfunctioned during testing resulting in higher emissions.
33
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref. #
Test Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
: None
6
Rejected
5
1
11.34
0.82
0.063
Prill Tow er1
2
11.34
0.72
0.059
3
11.34
0.72
0.059
Average
11.34
0.77
0.059
Control device: Wet Scrubber
6
Rejected
5
1
11.34
0.59
0.045
Wet
Scrubber
2
11.34
0.72
0.059
Outletd
3
11.34
0.54
0.041
Average
11.34
0.63
0.050
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d Insufficient flow rate during Run 1.
34
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (ENGLISH UNITS)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control de\
ice: None ("tw
o inoperative
impingement
scrubbers")
1
Pre-
Dryer
Rejected
5
1
16.67
0.274
0.016
2
16.67
0.173
0.010
3
16.67
0.932
0.056
Average
16.67
0.460
0.027
Control device: None ("two inoperative impingement scrubbers")
1
Dryer
Rejected
5
1
16.67
0.618
0.037
2
16.67
0.218
0.013
3
16.67
0.130
0.0078
Average
16.67
0.322
0.019
Control device: None ("two inoperative impingement scrubbers")
1
Cooler
Rejected
5
1
16.67
0.364
0.0218
2
16.67
0.303
0.0182
3
16.67
0.170
0.0102
Average
16.67
0.279
0.0167
Control device: None ("two inoperable impingement scrubbers")
1
Prill
Tower
Rejected
5
1
16.67
1.04
0.062
2
16.67
0.833
0.050
3
16.67
1.33
0.080
Average
16.67
1.07
0.064
Control device: Wet Scrubber - 91% Efficiency
2
Prill
Tower1
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
46
25.9
0.56
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lbs/hr.
c Units in lbs/ton.
d Only summary data reported. Not indicated if reported numbers are averages or a single run.
35
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control de\
ice: Venturi Sc
:rubber - 98'
^ Efficiency
3
Prill
Towerd
1/25/91
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
30
24.9125
0.83
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
1/26/90
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
34
22.8625
0.67
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Towerd
1/10/89
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
33
28.5000
0.86
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
2/6/88
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
30
19.5000
0.65
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Towerd
1/23/87
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
30.5
16.5420
0.54
11 Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lbs/hr.
c Units in lbs/ton.
d Only summary data reported. Not indicated if reported numbers are averages or a single run.
36
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control devi
:c: Venturi Scr
ubber - 98%
Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
2/8/82
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
32
10.5600
0.33
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Towerd
1/21/81
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
31
13.6300
0.44
Control device: Venturi Scrubber - 98% Efficiency
3
Prill
Tower1
1/17/79
Rejected
Not
Reported
Average
30
27.8400
0.93
Control Device: Scrubber
4
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber
Rejected
5
1
24
16.48
0.69
2
24
16.05
0.67
3
24
14.88
0.62
Average
24
15.80
0.66
Control device: Scrubber
5
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber6
Rejected
5
1
25.6
28.76
1.12
2
25.6
28.58
1.12
3
25.6
32.09
1.25
Average
25.6
29.81
1.16
" Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lbs/hr.
c Units in lbs/ton.
d Only summary data reported. Not indicated if reported numbers are averages or a single run.
e pH controller transmitter malfunctioned during testing resulting in higher emissions.
37
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control de\
ice: None
6
Prill
Towerd
Rejected
5
2
12.50
1.8
0.14
3
12.50
1.6
0.13
4
12.50
1.6
0.13
Average
12.50
1.7
0.13
Control device: Wet Scrubber
6
Wet
Scrubber
Outletd
Rejected
5
2
12.50
1.3
0.10
3
12.50
1.6
0.13
4
12.50
1.2
0.09
Average
12.50
1.4
0.11
11 Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d Insufficient flow rate during Run 1.
38
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (METRIC UNITS)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGAN
IC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production Emission
Ratea | Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
None
8
Rotary drum
granulator
scrubber
inlet
A
5
3
13.15
2142.3
162.9
4
15.82
2342.0
148.0
5
18.60
2429.9
130.6
Average
15.86
2304.7
147.2
Control device: Scrubber
8
Rotary
drum
granulator
scrubber
outlet
A
5
3
13.2
4.24
0.320
4
15.8
3.38
0.210
5
18.6
4.21
0.222
Average
15.9
3.94
0.244
Control device: None
8
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Outlet
A
5
1
18.96
153.4
8.115
2
18.87
135.8
7.190
3
18.96
139.8
7.390
Average
18.93
143.0
7.565
Control device: None
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
B
5
1
11.48
99.36
8.650
2
11.26
97.71
8.680
3d
11.88
11.26
0.946
Average
11.37
98.54
8.665
Control device: Scrubber
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Outlet
B
5
1
11.54
0.408
0.0354
2
11.26
0.386
0.0343
3d
11.84
62.1
5.25
Average
11.39
0.397
0.0349
" Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
0 Units in kg/Mg.
d Run 3 described as "questionable" and not included in averages in Ref. 9.
39
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref. #
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device: Scrubber
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
21.1
0.803
0.0380
2
22.2
0.303
0.0136
3
23.1
0.907
0.0392
Average
22.1
0.671
0.0303
Control device: None
10
Prill Tower
Bypass
A
5
1
21.1
5.3039
0.251
2
22.2
4.7478
0.213
3
23.1
5.4662
0.236
Average
22.1
5.1755
0.234
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
40
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production Emission
Ratea | Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
10
Combined
Pre dryer-
dryer
scrubber
outlet
A
5
1
20.0
12.4
0.625
2
19.0
12.0
0.630
3
18.5
13.3
0.720
Average
19.1
12.6
0.655
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
1
19.1
895.8
47.0
2
19.0
609.6
32.2
3
20.3
667.7
32.9
Average
19.4
723.9
37.3
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Bypass
A
5
1
19.1
5.79
0.314
2
18.5
7.44
0.402
3
19.3
6.08
0.299
Average
19.3
6.12
0.317
Control device: None
11
Evaporator
Outlet
A
5
ld
13.3
d
d
2
13.3
0.44
0.033
3
13.8
0.41
0.030
Average
13.5
d
d
Control device: None
11
Evaporator/G
ranulator
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
le
13.3
34.59
2.59
2e
13.3
12.14
0.911
3e
13.8
10.31
0.748
Average
13.5
19.01
1.42
" Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d During Run 1 "filter contaminated with H2S04", "no average presented"
e "Cyclonic flow patterns suspected; results suspected to be 10 to 15 percent low." See Section 4.3 for
more discussion.
41
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
13.3
0.39
0.030
2
13.3
0.32
0.024
3
13.8
0.26
0.019
Average
13.5
0.33
0.024
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Precooler
Outlet
A
5
1
13.5
186.4
13.8
2
13.3
260.5
19.5
3
13.2
302.4
22.8
Average
13.3
249.7
18.7
Control device: None
11
Chain
Mill
Outlet
A
5
1
13.5
6.681
0.494
2
13.3
4.37
0.328
3
13.2
6.350
0.480
Average
13.3
5.80
0.434
Control device: None
11
Precooler/
Chain Mill
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
13.5
1.15
0.0850
2
13.3
2.21
0.166
3
13.2
1.59
0.120
Average
13.4
1.65
0.124
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
ld
13.1
3.58
0.274
2
13.3
2.19
0.164
3
12.8
4.18
0.327
4
13.3
2.45
0.184
Average
13.2
3.10
0.238
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d "First test was repeated due to an unacceptable final lead check on the sampling apparatus and several
process disturbances."
42
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (ENGLISH UNITS)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULAT
E MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
;: None
8
Rotary drum
granulator
scrubber
inlet
A
5
3
14.5
4724.5
325.9
4
17.4
5164.6
296.8
5
20.5
5358.4
261.3
Average
17.5
5082.5
294.7
Control device: Scrubber
8
Rotary
drum
granulator
scrubber
outlet
A
5
3
14.5
9.26
0.639
4
17.4
7.29
0.419
5
20.5
9.08
0.443
Average
17.5
8.54
0.488
Control device: None
8
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Outlet
A
5
1
20.85
338.3
16.23
2
20.82
299.4
14.38
3
20.85
308.1
14.78
Average
20.84
315.3
15.13
Control device: None
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
B
5
1
12.66
219.0
17.30
2
12.41
215.4
17.36
3d
13.10
24.79
1.892
Average
12.53
217.2
17.33
Control device: Scrubber
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Outlet
B
5
1
12.72
0.900
0.0708
2
12.41
0.850
0.0685
3d
13.05
137.0
10.5
Average
12.56
0.875
0.0697
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d Run 3 described as "questionable" and not included in averages in Ref. 9.
43
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factorc
Control device: Scrubber
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
23.3
1.770
0.0760
2
24.5
0.667
0.0272
3
25.5
2.000
0.0784
Average
24.4
1.479
0.0606
Control device: None
10
Prill Tower
Bypass
A
5
1
23.3
11.693
0.502
2
24.5
10.467
0.427
3
25.5
12.051
0.473
Average
24.4
11.410
0.468
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
44
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production Emission
Rate1 | Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
10
Combined
Pre dryer-
dryer
scrubber
outlet
A
5
1
22.0
27.4
1.25
2
20.9
26.5
1.26
3
20.4
29.3
1.44
Average
21.1
27.7
1.31
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
1
21.0
1975
94.0
2
20.9
1344
64.3
3
22.4
1472
65.7
Average
21.4
1596
74.6
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Bypass
A
5
1
21.0
13.2
0.629
2
20.4
16.4
0.804
3
22.4
13.4
0.598
Average
21.3
13.5
0.634
Control device: None
11
Evaporator
Outlet
A
5
ld
14.7
d
d
2
14.7
0.96
0.065
3
15.2
0.90
0.059
Average
14.9
d
d
Control device: None
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
le
14.7
76.25e
5.19
2e
14.7
26.1T
1.82
3e
15.2
22.73e
1.50
Average
14.9
41.92e
2.84
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d During Run 1 "filter contaminated with IN H2S04", "no average presented"
e "Cyclonic flow patterns suspected; results suspected to be 10 to 15 percent low"
45
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PLUS INORGANIC CONDENSIBLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production Emission
Ratea | Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
14.7
0.87
0.059
2
14.7
0.71
0.048
3
15.2
0.57
0.038
Average
14.9
0.72
0.048
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Precooler
Outlet
A
5
1
14.9
410.9
27.6
2
14.7
574.4
39.1
3
14.6
666.6
45.7
Average
14.7
550.6
37.4
Control device: None
11
Chain
Mill
Outlet
A
5
1
14.9
14.73
0.988
2
14.7
9.64
0.656
3
14.6
14.00
0.959
Average
14.7
12.8
0.868
Control device: Scrubber
11
Precooler/
Chain Mill
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
14.9
2.53
0.170
2
14.7
4.88
0.332
3
14.6
3.50
0.240
Average
14.7
3.64
0.247
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
ld
14.4
7.89
0.548
2
14.7
4.83
0.328
3
14.1
9.22
0.654
4
14.7
5.41
0.368
Average
14.5
6.84
0.475
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d "First test was repeated due to an unacceptable final leak check on the sampling apparatus and several process disturbances."
46
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 (METRIC UNITS)
FILTERABL
E PARTICULATE MAT1
rER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run Production
# | Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
None
8
Rotary drum
granulator
scrubber
inlet
A
5
3
13.15
0.423
0.032
4
15.82
0.303
0.019
5
18.60
0.371
0.020
Average
15.86
0.366
0.024
Control device: Scrubber
8
Rotary
drum
granulator
scrubber
outlet
A
5
3
13.2
0.308
0.023
4
15.8
0.605
0.038
5
18.6
0.697
0.037
Average
15.9
0.537
0.033
Control device: None
8
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Outlet
A
5
1
18.96
2.064
0.109
2
18.87
1.214
0.064
3
18.96
0.438
0.023
Average
18.93
1.239
0.065
Control device: None
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
B
5
1
11.48
0.19
0.017
2
11.26
0.16
0.0145
3d
11.88
0.03
0.0019
Average
11.37
0.18
0.016
Control device: Scrubber
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Outlet
B
5
1
11.54
0.03
0.0028
2
11.26
0.02
0.0014
3d
11.84
0.05
0.0039
Average
11.39
0.03
0.0021
" Units in Mg/hr.
Units in kg/hr.
Units in kg/Mg.
d Run 3 described as "
questionable" an
TA
1 not included in
lBLE 4.2-3
averages in Ref.
(METRIC
9.
JNITS) (contu
tued)
47
-------
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref. #
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factorc
Control device: Scrubber
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
21.1
0.4817
0.0230
2
22.2
0.000
0.000
3
23.1
0.202
0.00850
Average
22.1
0.228
0.0105
Control device: None
10
Prill Tower
Bypass
A
5
1
21.1
1.486
0.0705
2
22.2
0.0
0.0
3
23.1
0.0
0.0
Average
22.1
0.3383
0.0225
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
48
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
F1
LTERABLE PARTIC1
LJLATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
10
Combined
Pre dryer-
dryer
scrubber
outlet
A
5
1
20.0
0.0
0.0
2
19.0
0.3819
0.200
3
18.5
0.0
0.0
Average
19.1
0.1275
0.00650
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
1
19.1
d
d
2
19.0
d
d
3
20.3
d
d
Average
19.4
d
d
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Bypass
A
5
1
19.1
d
d
2
18.5
d
d
3
19.3
d
d
Average
19.3
d
d
Control device: None
11
Evaporator
Outlet
A
5
le
13.3
e
e
2
13.3
0.009
0.0007
3
13.8
0.009
0.0007
Average
13.5
e
e
Control device: None
11
Evaporator/G
ranulator
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
lf
13.3
1.24
0.093
2f
13.3
0.21
0.016
3f
13.8
0.32
0.024
Average
13.5
0.59
0.044
" Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d Below detection limit.
e During Run 1 "filter contaminated with H2S04", "no average presented"
f "Cyclonic flow patterns suspected; results suspected to be 10 to 15 percent low." See Section 4.3 for
more discussion.
49
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
FI
LTERABL1
E PARTICULATE MAT!
ER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
13.3
0.04
0.003
2
13.3
0.02
0.002
3
13.8
0.11
0.009
Average
13.5
0.06
0.005
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Precooler
Outlet
A
5
1
13.5
7.013
0.5190
2
13.3
9.408
0.7055
3
13.2
12.40
0.9360
Average
13.3
9.607
0.7200
Control device: None
11
Chain
Mill
Outlet
A
5
1
13.5
0.31
0.023
2
13.3
0.20
0.016
3
13.2
0.28
0.021
Average
13.3
0.27
0.020
Control device: None
11
Precooler/
Chain Mill
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
13.5
0.059
0.0045
2
13.3
0.19
0.014
3
13.2
0.059
0.0045
Average
13.4
0.10
0.0075
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
ld
13.1
0.18
0.014
2
13.3
0.10
0.0075
3
12.8
0.16
0.013
4
13.3
0.13
0.0095
Average
13.2
0.14
0.011
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d "First test was repeated due to an unacceptable final lead check on the sampling apparatus and several
process disturbances."
50
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 (ENGLISH UNITS)
FILTERAB]
LE PARTICULATE MAI
fTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
;: None
8
Rotary drum
granulator
scrubber
inlet
A
5
3
14.5
0.93
0.064
4
17.4
0.67
0.039
5
20.5
0.82
0.040
Average
17.5
0.81
0.048
Control device: Scrubber
8
Rotary
drum
granulator
scrubber
outlet
A
5
3
14.5
0.68
0.047
4
17.4
1.33
0.076
5
20.5
1.54
0.075
Average
17.5
1.18
0.066
Control device: None
8
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Outlet
A
5
1
20.85
4.457
0.218
2
20.82
2.680
0.129
3
20.85
0.965
0.046
Average
20.84
2.731
0.131
Control device: None
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
B
5
1
12.66
0.427
0.034
2
12.41
0.360
0.029
3d
13.10
0.513
0.0039
Average
12.53
0.394
0.032
Control device: Scrubber
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Outlet
B
5
1
12.72
0.0716
0.0056
2
12.41
0.0344
0.0028
3d
13.05
0.1022
0.0078
Average
12.56
0.053
0.0042
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d Run 3 described as "questionable" and not included in averages in Ref. 9.
51
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factorc
Control device: Scrubber
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
23.3
1.062
0.046
2
24.5
0
0
3
25.5
0.446
0.017
Average
24.4
0.503
0.021
Control device: None
10
Prill Tower
Bypass
A
5
1
23.3
3.275
0.141
2
24.5
0
0
3
25.5
0
0
Average
24.4
1.084
0.044
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
52
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Rate1
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
10
Combined
Pre dryer-
dryer
scrubber
outlet
A
5
1
22.0
0
0
2
20.9
0.842
0.040
3
20.4
0
0
Average
21.1
0.281
0.013
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
1
21.0
d
d
2
20.9
d
d
3
22.4
d
d
Average
21.4
d
d
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Bypass
A
5
1
21.0
d
d
2
20.4
d
d
3
22.4
d
d
Average
21.3
d
d
Control device: None
11
Evaporator
Outlet
A
5
le
14.7
e
e
2
14.7
0.02
0.0014
3
15.2
0.02
0.0013
Average
14.9
e
e
Control device: None
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
lf
14.7
2.74f
0.186
2f
14.7
0.46f
0.031
3f
15.2
0.71f
0.047
Average
14.9
1.30f
0.088
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d Below detection limit.
e During Run 1 "filter contaminated with IN H2S04", "no average presented"
f "Cyclonic flow patterns suspected; results suspected to be 10 to 15 percent low"
53
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
F1
LTERABLE PARTIC1
LJLATE MATTER
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
14.7
0.09
0.006
2
14.7
0.05
0.004
3
15.2
0.25
0.017
Average
14.9
0.13
0.009
Control device:
11
Rotary
Drum
Precooler
Outlet
A
5
1
14.9
15.46
1.038
2
14.7
20.74
1.411
3
14.6
27.33
1.872
Average
14.7
21.18
1.440
Control device: None
11
Chain
Mill
Outlet
A
5
1
14.9
0.69
0.046
2
14.7
0.45
0.031
3
14.6
0.61
0.042
Average
14.7
0.59
0.040
Control device: Scrubber
11
Precooler/
Chain Mill
Scrubber
Outlet
A
5
1
14.9
0.13
0.009
2
14.7
0.41
0.028
3
14.6
0.13
0.009
Average
14.7
0.23
0.015
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
5
ld
14.4
0.39
0.027
2
14.7
0.22
0.015
3
14.1
0.36
0.026
4
14.7
0.28
0.019
Average
14.5
0.31
0.022
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d "First test was repeated due to an unacceptable final leak check on the sampling apparatus and several process disturbances."
54
-------
4.3
NONCRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DATA
Hazardous Air Pollutants.
Ammonia is defined as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Two new source tests (References 4 and 5) were received documenting ammonia
emissions from the manufacture of ammonium nitrate. However, neither of these source tests
could be used to modify the emission factors for one or more of the reasons discussed in Section
3.2. These tests are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 Review of Specific Data Sets under
References 4 and 5, and the data are presented in Table 4.3-1 for information purposes only. The
reference numbers listed in the table correspond to the references as listed in Section 4.5
References for Chapter 4.
In addition to ammonia, the VOC/PM Speciation Database Management System
(SPECIATE) identified phosphorus, chlorine, chromium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, selenium,
cadmium, antimony, and lead as being present in the particulate matter emission streams from the
production of ammonium nitrate prill. All of these chemicals are listed as HAPs. However, no
quantitative data were available to develop emission factors for these HAPs.
In order to verify the ammonium nitrate emission factors, PES obtained the references to
the previous version of Section 6.8. References 8 through 11 were used to develop the emission
factors in Table 2.3-1. The emission data from References 8 through 11 are presented in Table
4.3-1. The reference numbers listed in the table correspond to the references as listed in Section
4.5 References for Chapter 4.
An additional reference was cited in the original tables: Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test
Report: Union Oil Company of California, by D.P. Becvar, et. al., EMB-78-NHF-7, U.S. EPA,
RTP, NC, October, 1979. An attempt to obtain this report was unsuccessful as discussed in
Section 4.2.
This missing document, coupled with the fact that no emission factor development
documentation (e.g., hand written calculations or raw data) was contained in the Background File,
precluded a verification of the emission factors presented in Table 2.3-1.
Global Warming Gases.
Pollutants such as methane, carbon dioxide, and N20 have been found to contribute to
overall global warming. No data on emissions of these pollutants were found for the ammonium
nitrate manufacturing processes.
55
-------
Since there is no combustion involved in the manufacture of ammonium nitrate, the gas
composition in References 8, 9 and 10 were assumed to be air, with the percent C02 equal to zero.
Reference 11 explicitly reported the gas composition from Orsat analyses; the percent C02 was
reported as zero for all locations tested.
Ozone Depletion Gases.
Chlorofluorocarbons have been found to contribute to ozone depletion. No data on
emissions of these pollutants were found for the ammonium nitrate manufacturing processes.
Nitric Acid.
In order to verify the ammonium nitrate emission factors, PES obtained the references to
the previous version of Section 6.8. Reference 8 through 11 were used to develop the emission
factors in Table 2.3-1. An additional reference was cited in the original tables: Ammonium Nitrate
Emission Test Report: Union Oil Company of California, by D.P. Becvar, et. al., EMB-78-NHF-7,
U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, October, 1979. This attempt was unsuccessful as discussed in Section 4.1.
None of these references (References 7 through 11) contained any nitric acid emissions data. The
nitric acid emission factors presented in Table 2.3-1 may have been derived from the missing
document. However, no emission factor development documentation (e.g., hand written
calculations or raw data) was contained in the Background File. Therefore, no verification of the
nitric acid emission factors presented in Table 2.3-1 could be performed.
56
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (METRIC UNITS)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device: Scrubber
4
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber
Rejected
N/A
1
22
36.06
1.7
2
22
70.10
3.2
3
22
63.90
2.9
Average
22
56.69
2.6
Control device: Scrubber
5
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber"1
Rejected
N/A
1
23.2
5.84
0.252
2
23.2
6.23
0.269
3
23.2
8.31
0.358
Average
23.2
6.79
0.293
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d pH controller transmitter malfunctioned during testing resulting in higher emissions.
57
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
;: None
8
Rotary drum
granulator
scrubber
inlet
A
N/A
3
13.15
1542.1
117.3
4
15.82
518.8
32.79
5
18.60
616.8
33.16
Average
15.86
892.6
61.08
Control device: Scrubber
8
Rotary
drum
granulator
scrubber
outlet
A
N/A
3
13.15
1.964
0.149
4
15.82
0.834
0.053
5
18.60
4.258
0.229
Average
15.86
2.352
0.144
Control device: None
8
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Outlet
A
N/A
1
18.91
28.1
1.49
2
18.89
21.5
1.14
3
18.91
22.5
1.19
Average
18.90
24.0
1.27
Control device: None
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
B
N/A
1
11.48
35.2
3.07
2
11.26
33.3
2.96
3d
11.88
36.76
3.11
Average
11.37
34.3
3.02
Control device: Scrubber
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Outlet
B
N/A
1
11.54
0.289
0.0250
2
11.26
0.260
0.0231
3d
11.84
14.3
1.21
Average
11.39
0.274
0.0240
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
0 Units in kg/Mg.
d Run 3 described as "questionable" and not included in averages in Ref. 9.
58
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
;: None
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Inlet
A
N/A
1
21.1
3.305
0.157
2
22.1
3.345
0.151
3
23.1
2.767
0.120
Average
22.1
3.161
0.143
Control device: Scrubber
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Outlet
A
N/A
1
21.1
1.13
0.0536
2
22.1
1.01
0.0457
3
23.1
1.18
0.0511
Average
22.1
1.10
0.0498
Control device: None
10
Prill Tower
Bypass
A
N/A
1
21.1
1.39
0.0659
2
22.1
1.55
0.0701
3
23.1
1.69
0.0732
Average
22.1
1.55
0.0701
Control device: None
10
Rotary
Drum
Pre dryer
Outlet
A
N/A
1
20.0
138
6.90
2
19.0
167
8.79
3
18.5
166
8.97
Average
19.1
157
8.23
Control device: None
10
Rotary
Drum
Dryer
Outlet
A
N/A
1
20.0
322
16.1
2
19.0
444
23.2
3
18.5
443
23.9
Average
19.1
403
21.1
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
59
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factorc
Control device:
Scrubber
10
Combined
Pre dryer-
Dryer
Scrubber
Outlet
A
N/A
1
20.0
11.4
0.570
2
19.0
15.8
0.832
3
18.5
11.1
0.600
Average
19.1
12.8
0.670
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
N/A
1
19.1
207
10.9
2
19.0
128
6.74
3
20.3
139
6.85
Average
19.4
157
8.09
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Bypass
A
N/A
1
19.1
1.37
0.0717
2
18.5
1.43
0.0773
3
20.3
1.27
0.0626
Average
19.3
1.35
0.0699
Control device: None
11
Evaporator
Outlet
A
N/A
1
13.3
1.06
0.0797
2
13.3
1.03
0.0774
3
13.8
0.86
0.0623
Average
13.5
0.98
0.0726
Control device: None
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Inlet
A
N/A
ld
13.3
8.3 ld
0.634
2d
13.3
2.96d
0.222
3d
13.8
3.09d
0.225
Average
13.5
4.84d
0.360
a Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d "Cyclonic flow patterns suspected; results suspected to be 10 to 15 percent low"
60
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (METRIC UNITS) (.continued)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Outlet
A
N/A
1
13.3
7.98
0.599
2
13.3
5.50
0.413
3
13.8
4.15
0.301
Average
13.5
5.88
0.438
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Precooler
Outlet
A
N/A
1
13.5
37.44
2.77
2
13.3
50.22
3.77
3
13.2
43.46
3.28
Average
13.3
43.70
3.27
Control device: None
11
Chain
Mill
Outlet
A
N/A
1
13.5
1.31
0.0970
2
13.3
0.98
0.0737
3
13.2
1.31
0.0992
Average
13.3
1.20
0.0902
Control device: Scrubber
11
Precooler/
Chain Mill
Scrubber
Outlet
A
N/A
1
13.5
0.61
0.0452
2
13.3
4.82
0.362
3
13.2
6.51
0.492
Average
13.3
3.98
0.300
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
N/A
ld
13.1
0.72
0.056
2
13.3
0.44
0.034
3
12.8
0.85
0.067
4
13.3
0.49
0.037
Average
13.2
0.63
0.049
Units in Mg/hr.
b Units in kg/hr.
c Units in kg/Mg.
d "First test was repeated due to an unacceptable final leak check on the sampling apparatus and several process disturbances.'
61
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control Device: Scrubber
4
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber
Rejected
N/A
1
24
79.49
3.3
2
24
154.6
6.4
3
24
140.9
5.9
Average
24
124.9
5.2
Control device: Scrubber
5
Dryer/
Cooler
Scrubber"1
Rejected
N/A
1
25.6
12.88
0.503
2
25.6
13.73
0.535
3
25.6
18.32
0.715
Average
25.6
14.98
0.586
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lbs/hr.
c Units in lbs/ton.
d pH controller transmitter malfunctioned during testing resulting in higher emissions.
62
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
AMMO
NIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
;: None
8
Rotary drum
granulator
scrubber
inlet
A
N/A
3
14.5
3401.0
235
4
17.4
1143.9
65.7
5
20.5
1359.1
66.3
Average
17.5
1968.0
122
Control device: Scrubber
8
Rotary
drum
granulator
scrubber
outlet
A
N/A
3
14.5
4.292
0.296
4
17.4
1.752
0.101
5
20.5
9.422
0.406
Average
17.5
5.155
0.286
Control device: None
8
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Outlet
A
N/A
1
20.85
61.9
3.13
2
20.82
47.5
2.36
3
20.85
49.6
2.4
Average
20.84
53.0
2.6
Control device: None
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
B
N/A
1
12.66
77.7
6.14
2
12.41
73.4
5.91
3d
13.10
80.8
6.17
Average
12.53
75.6
6.03
Control device: Scrubber
9
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Outlet
B
N/A
1
12.72
0.638
0.0502
2
12.41
0.573
0.0462
3d
13.05
31.5
2.41
Average
12.56
0.605
0.0481
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d Run 3 described as "questionable" and not included in averages in Ref. 9.
63
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device
;: None
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Inlet
A
N/A
1
23.3
7.287
0.313
2
24.4
7.374
0.301
3
25.5
6.101
0.239
Average
24.4
6.968
0.286
Control device: Scrubber
10
Prill Tower
Scrubber
Outlet
A
N/A
1
23.3
2.49
0.107
2
24.5
2.23
0.091
3
25.5
2.60
0.102
Average
24.4
2.42
0.099
Control device: None
10
Prill Tower
Bypass
A
N/A
1
23.3
3.07
0.132
2
24.5
3.42
0.139
3
25.5
3.73
0.146
Average
24.4
3.42
0.140
Control device: None
10
Rotary
Drum
Pre dryer
Outlet
A
N/A
1
22.0
304
13.8
2
20.9
369
17.7
3
20.4
366
17.9
Average
21.1
346
16.4
Control device: None
10
Rotary
Drum
Dryer
Outlet
A
N/A
1
22.0
709
32.2
2
20.9
979
46.8
3
20.4
976
47.8
Average
21.1
889
42.1
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
64
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Control device: Scrubber
10
Combined
Pre dryer-
dryer
scrubber
outlet
N/A
Average
22.0
20.9
20.4
21.1
25.1
34.9
24.5
28.2
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
N/A
Average
21.0
20.9
22.4
21.4
457
283
299
346
Control device: None
10
Fluidized
Bed
Cooler
Scrubber
Bypass
N/A
Average
21.0
20.4
22.4
21.3
3.01
0.143
3.16
0.155
2.80
0.125
2.98
0.140
Control device: None
11
Evaporator
Outlet
N/A
Average
14.7
14.7
15.2
14.9
2.34
0.159
2.28
0.155
1.89
0.124
2.17d
0.146
Control device: None
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Inlet
N/A
Average
14.7
14.7
15.2
14.9
18.32
1.27
6.53d
0.444
6.82
0.449
10.66
0.720
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d "Cyclonic flow patterns suspected; results suspected to be 10 to 15 percent low"
65
-------
TABLE 4.3-1 (ENGLISH UNITS) (.continued)
AMMONIA
Ref.
#
Test
Rating
Test
Method
Run
#
Production
Ratea
Emission
Rateb
Emission
Factor0
Control device:
Scrubber
11
Evaporator/
Granulator
Scrubber
Outlet
A
N/A
1
14.7
17.60
1.20
2
14.7
12.13
0.825
3
15.2
9.15
0.602
Average
14.9
12.96
0.875
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Precooler
Outlet
A
N/A
1
14.9
82.53
5.54
2
14.7
110.71
7.53
3
14.6
95.82
6.56
Average
14.7
96.35
6.54
Control device: None
11
Chain
Mill
Outlet
A
N/A
1
14.9
2.88
0.193
2
14.7
2.17
0.148
3
14.6
2.89
0.198
Average
14.7
2.65
0.180
Control device: Scrubber
11
Precooler/
Chain Mill
Scrubber
Outlet
A
N/A
1
14.9
1.34
0.090
2
14.7
10.63
0.723
3
14.6
14.36
0.984
Average
14.7
8.78
0.599
Control device: None
11
Rotary
Drum
Cooler
Scrubber
Inlet
A
N/A
ld
14.4
1.59
0.111
2
14.7
0.98
0.067
3
14.1
1.88
0.134
4
14.7
1.09
0.074
Average
14.5
1.39
0.097
a Units in tons/hr.
b Units in lb/hr.
c Units in lb/ton.
d "First test was repeated due to an unacceptable final leak check on the sampling apparatus and several
process disturbances."
66
-------
4.4 DATA GAP ANALYSIS
Although six new source tests were received for the manufacture of ammonium nitrate,
none could be used to modify the emission factors. PES unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an
additional reference was cited in the original tables: Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report:
Union Oil Company of California, by D.P. Becvar, et. al., EMB-78-NHF-7, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC,
October, 1979. This missing document, coupled with the fact that no emission factor development
documentation (e.g., hand written calculations or raw data) was contained in the Background File,
precluded a verification of the emission factors in Table 2.3-1. Furthermore, emission factors for
nitric acid are presented in the emission factor tables in Section 6.8. It is unclear why such factors
were presented, since no data on nitric acid emissions were found in any of the cited references
obtained by PES. This data may have been obtained from the missing document or from another
source not cited in the tables. Therefore, PES has elected not to delete these factors in this
revision.
67
-------
4.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
1. Summary of test results from the Hydra-Clean System Stacks (Pre-Dryer No. 1, Dryer No.
2, and Cooler No. 3 at IRECO, Donora, Pennsylvania, conducted by Clean Air Engineering,
October 10 and 12, 1990 (CAE Project No. 5314).
2. Summary of test results from the Ammonium Nitrate Prill Tower No. 2 at Nitram, Inc.,
Tampa, Florida, printer from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Air
Pollutant Information System, Master Detail Report, File: AIRF09, District:
SOUTHWEST, County: HILLSBOROUGH, Facility ID: 40HIL29002906, Run Date:
04/10/92, pages 1, 9-10.
3. Summary of test results from the Ammonium Nitrate Plant - Prill Tower at Air Products &
Chemicals, Inc., Pensacola, Florida, printed from the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Air Pollutant Information System, Master Detail Report, File: AIRF09, District:
NORTHWEST, County: SANTA ROSA, Facility ID: 10PEN57000416, Run Date: 04/7/92,
pages 1, 44-48.
4. Source Sampling for Particulate & Ammonia Emissions. El Dorado Chemical Company. El
Dorado. Arkansas, conducted by RAMCON Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, January
28, 1992.
5. Preliminary Sampling of Dryer/Cooler Scrubber. El Dorado Chemical Company. El
Dorado. Arkansas, conducted by RAMCON Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN,
November 21, 1991.
6. Particulate Emissions Test Report for LaRoche Industries. Inc. Cherokee. Alabama. Prill
Tower and Wet Scrubber Outlet, conducted by Sanders Engineering & Analytical Services,
Inc., Mobile Alabama, March 11, 1992.
7. Ammonium Nitrate Manufacturing Industry Technical Document. EPA-450/3-81-002, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1981.
8. M.D. Hansen, et.al.. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Swift Chemical Company.
EMB-79-NHF-11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
July 1980.
9. R.A. Kniskern, et.al.. Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Cominco American. Inc..
Beatrice, Nebraska, EMB-79-NHF-9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. April 1979.
10. W.A. Wade et.al.. Ammonium Nitrate Emissions Test Report: Columbia Nitrogen
Corporation. EMB-80-NHF-16, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. January 1981.
11. York Research Corporation, Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: N-ReN
Corporation. EMB-78-NHF-5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, May 1979.
68
-------
APPENDIX A.
AP-42 Section 6.8
[Not presented here. See instead current AP-42 Section 8.3]
5/92
Chemical Process Industry
A-l
6.8-1
------- |