Supplement A to Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume 1. Stationary Point and Area Sources. Fifth Edition


AP-42
Fifth Edition
Supplement A
February 1996
SUPPLEMENT A
COMPILATION
OF
AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSON FACTORS
Volume I:
Stationary Point
And Area Sources
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Office Of Air And Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
February 1996

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial
products is not interned to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
AP-42
Fifth Edition
Volume I
Supplement A
n

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO.
AP-42, FifUi Edition
2.
3, ki
4. Triti-: and subtitle
Supplement A To
Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources
5- REPORT DATE
February 1996
6. PKRR JRMING ORGANIZATH >N O «>E
1. AUTHOR(S)
& PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
1. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMH AND ADDRESS
Emission Factor And Inventory Group, EM AD (MD 14)
Office Oi Air Quality Planning And Standards
U, S. EnvironmcntaJ Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
li. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY C( )DE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
If-. ABSTRACT
This document contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories.
These emission factors have been compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates, mid
tliey can be used judiciously in making emission estimations for various purposes. When specific source test data are
available, they should be preferred over the generalized factors presented in this document.
This Supplement to AP-42 addresses pollutant-generating activity from Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal
Combustion; Anthracite Coal Combustion; Fuel Oil Combustion; Natural Gas combustion; Wood Waste Combustion In
Boilers; Lignite Combustion; Waste Oil Combustion: Stationary Gas Turbines For Electricity Generation; Heavy-duty
Natural Gas-fired Pipeline Compressor Engines; Large Stationary Diesel And All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines; Natural
Gas Processing; Organic Liquid Storage Tanks; Meat Smokehouses; Meat Rendering Plants; Canned Fruits And
Vegetables; Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables; Pickles, Sauces And Salad Dressings; Grain Elevators And Processes;
Cereal Breakfast Foods; Pasta Manufacturing; Vegetable Oil Processing; Wines And Brandy; Coffee Roasting; Charcoal;
Coal Cleaning; Frit Manufacturing; Sand And Gravel Processing; Diatomitc Processing; Talc Processing; Vermiculite .
Processing; Paved Roads; and Unpaved Roads. Also included is information on Generalized Particle Size Distributions.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRKTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I PieUi/f ir-juji
Emission Factors Area Sources
Emission Estimation Criteria Pollutants
Stationary Sources Toxic Pollutants
Point Sources

1*. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
!
-------
Instructions For Inserting
Supplement A Of Volume I
Into AP-42
Pp. 1.1-3 through -24 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 1.2-3 through -6 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 1.3-1 through -12 and -15 through -18 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 1.4-3 and -4 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 1.6-3 through -6 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 1.7-3 through -8 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 1.11-5 and -6 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 3.1-3 through -6 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 3.2-3 and -4 and -7 and -8 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 3.4-3 and -4 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 5.3-1 through -8 (blank) replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 7.0-1 and -2 (blank) replace same. Revised Chapter Introduction.
Pp. 7.1-1 through -102 (blank) replace 7.1-1 through -108 (blank). Major Revision.
Pp. 9.5.2-1 through -6 replace 9.5.2-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.5.3-1 through -8 replace 9.5.3-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.8.1-1 through -8 replace 9.8.1-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.8.2-1 tlirough -4 replace 9.8.2-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.8.3-1 tlirough -4 replace 9.8.3-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.9.1-1 and -2 (blank) replace same. New Information.
Pp. 9.9.2-1 tlirough -12 replace 9.9.2-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.9.5-1 tlirough -4 (blank) replace 9.9.5-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.11.1-1 tlirough-12 (blank) replace 9.11.1-1 and-2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.12.2-1 through -10 (blank) replace 9.12.2-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 9.13.2-1 through -8 (blank) replace 9.13.2-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 10.7-1 through -8 (blank) replace 10.7-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 11.10-1 tlirough-8 (blank) replace 11.10-1 through-4. Major Revision.
Pp. 11.14-1 tlirough -6 (blank) replace 11.14-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 11.19.1-1 tlirough -8 replace 11.19.1-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 11.22-1 tlirough -6 (blank) replace 11.22-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 11 .26- through -8 (blank) replace 11.26-1 through -4 (blank). Major Revision.
Pp. 11.28-1 through -4 replace 11.28-1 and -2 (blank). New Section.
Pp. 13.2.1-1 tlirough -28 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. 13.2.2-1 through -8 replace same. Editorial Change.
Pp. B.2-3 and -4 replace same. Editorial Change.
Insert new Technical Report Data Sheet.
-------
N©
Table 1.1-1 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR OXIDES (SOx), NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx),
AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION3
m
X
cS
—$
3
EL
O
o
3
cr
c
oo
r+
o"
3
C/3
o
c
-n
o
-------
Table 1.1-1 (cont.).
m
§
55
C/3
O
z
•n
>
O
to
(75

SOxb
NOx°
COd,e
Firing Configuration
SCC
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Feed stoker, with
multiple cyclones'
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
38S
(35S)
B
7.5
A
6
B
Underfeed stoker
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
3 IS
B
9.5
A
11
B
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclones
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
31S
B
9.5
A
11
B
Hand-fed units
1-03-002-14
31S
D
9.1
E
275
E
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
1-01-002-18
1-02-002-18
1-03-002-18
_g
E
3.9
E
18
E
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
_g
E
15.2
D
18
D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired. SCC = Source
Classification Code.
b Expressed as S02, including S02, S03, and gaseous sulfates. Factors in parentheses should be used to estimate gaseous SOx
emissions for subbituminous coal. In all cases, S is weight percent sulfur content of coal as fired. Emission factor would be
calculated by multiplying the weight percent sulfur in the coal by the numerical value preceding S. For example, if fuel is 1.2%
sulfur, then S equals 1.2. On average for bituminous coal, 95% of fuel sulfur is emitted as S02, and only about 0.7% of fuel sulfur
is emitted as S03 and gaseous sulfate. An equally small percent of fuel sulfur is emitted as particulate sulfate (References 9, 13).
Small quantities of sulfur are also retained in bottom ash. With subbituminous coal, about 10% more fuel sulfur is retained in the
bottom ash and particulate because of the more alkaline nature of the coal ash. Conversion to gaseous sulfate appears about the
same as for bituminous coal.
c Expressed as N02. Generally, 95+ volume % of nitrogen oxides present in combustion exhaust will be in the form of NO, the rest
N02 (Reference 11). To express factors as NO, multiply factors by 0.66. All factors represent emission at baseline operation (i. e.,
60 to 110% load and no NOx control measures).
-------
Table 1.1-1 (cont.).
Nominal values achievable under normal operating conditions. Values 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher can occur when
combustion is not complete.
Emission factors for C02 emissions from coal combustion should be calculated using C02/ton coal = 73.3C, where C is the weight
percent carbon content of the coal. For example, if coal is 83% carbon, then C equals 83.
Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
Sulfur dioxide emission factors for fluidized bed combustion are a function of fuel sulfur content and calcium-to-sulfur ratio. For
both bubbling bed and circulating bed design, use: lb S02/ton coal = 39.6(S)(Ca/S)"1-9. In this equation, S is the weight percent
sulfur in the fuel and Ca/S is the molar calcium-to-sulfur ratio in the bed. This equation may be used when the Ca/S is between 1.5
and 7. When no calcium-based sorbents are used and the bed material is inert with respect to sulfur capture, the emission factor for
underfeed stokers should be used to estimate the FBC S02 emissions. In this case, the emission factor ratings are E for both
bubbling and circulating units.
-------
Table 1.1-2 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR OXIDES (SOx), NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx),
AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION3
ffl
C/J
O
z
"T1
>
n
o
73
C/3
t/1

soxb
NOxc
COd-e
Firing Configuration
see
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Pulverized coal fired,
dry bottom, wall fired
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
19S
(17.5S)
A
10.85
A
0.25
A
Pulverized coal fired,
dry bottom,
tangentially fired
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
19S
(17.5S)
A
7.2
A
0.25
A
Pulverized coal fired,
wet bottom
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
19S
(17.5S)
D
17
C
0.25
A
Cyclone furnace
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
19S
(17.5S)
D
16.9
C
0.25
A
Spreader stoker
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
19S
(17.5S)
B
6.85
A
2.5
A
Spreader stoker, with
multiple cyclones, and
reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
19S
(17.5S)
B
6.85
A
2.5
A
Spreader stoker, with
multiple cyclones, no
reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
19S
(17.5S)
A
6.85
A
2.5
A
Overfeed stokerf
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
19S
(17.5S)
B
3.75
A
3
B
-------
Table 1.1-2 (cont.).

SO
b
X
NO/
COd'e
Firing Configuration
SCC
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Overfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclonesf
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
19S
(17.5S)
B
3.75
A
3
B
Underfeed stoker
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
15.5S
B
4.75
A
5.5
B
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclone
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
15.5S
B
4.75
A
5.5
B
Hand-fed units
1-03-002-14
15.5S
D
4.55
E
137.5
E
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
1-01-002-18
1-02-002-18
1-03-002-18
_g
E
1.95
E
9
E
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
_g
E
7.6
D
9
D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired. SCC = Source
Classification Code.
b Expressed as S02, including S02, S03, and gaseous sulfates. Factors in parentheses should be used to estimate gaseous SOx
emissions for subbituminous coal. In all cases, S is weight percent sulfur content of coal as fired. Emission factor would be
calculated by multiplying the weight percent sulfur in the coal by the numerical value preceding S. For example, if fuel is 1.2%
sulfur, then S equals 1.2. On average for bituminous coal, 95% of fuel sulfur is emitted as S02, and only about 0.7% of fuel sulfur
is emitted as S03 and gaseous sulfate. An equally small percent of fuel sulfur is emitted as particulate sulfate (References 9, 13).
Small quantities of sulfur are also retained in bottom ash. With subbituminous coal, about 10% more fuel sulfur is retained in the
bottom ash and particulate because of the more alkaline nature of the coal ash. Conversion to gaseous sulfate appears about the
same as for bituminous coal.
c Expressed as N02. Generally, 95+ volume % of nitrogen oxides present in combustion exhaust will be in the form of NO, the rest
N02 (Reference 11). To express factors as NO, multiply factors by 0.66. All factors represent emission at baseline operation
(i. e., 60 to 110% load and no NOx control measures).
-------
Table 1.1-2 (cont,).
Nominal values achievable under normal operating conditions. Values 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher can occur when
combustion is not complete.
Emission factors for C02 emissions from coal combustion should be calculated using C02/Mg coal = 36.7C, where C is the weight
percent carbon content of the coal. For example, if coal is 83% carbon, then C equals 83.
Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
Sulfur dioxide emission factors for fluidized bed combustion are a function of fuel sulfur content and calcium-to-sulfur ratio. For
both bubbling bed and circulating bed design, use: kg S02/Mg coal = 19.8(S)(Ca/S)"1-9. In this equation, S is the weight percent
sulfur in the fuel and Ca/S is the molar calcium-to-sulfur ratio in the bed. This equation may be used when the Ca/S is between 1.5
and 7. When no calcium-based sorbents are used and the bed material is inert with respect to sulfur capture, the emission factor for
underfeed stokers should be used to estimate the FBC S02 emissions. In this case, the emission factor ratings are E for both
bubbling and circulating units.
-------
Table 1.1-3 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) AND PM LESS THAN
10 MICROMETERS (PM-10) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION4
m
X
3
££.
n
o
3
cr
a
I—+-
o*
E3
C/S
o
c
-t
o
n>
•vO

Filterable PMb
PM-
10
Firing Configuration
see
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Pulverized coal fired, dry
bottom, wall fired
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
10A
A
2.3A
E
Pulverized coal fired, dry
bottom, tangential ly fired
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
10A
B
2.3AC
E
Pulverized coal fired, wet
bottom
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
7Ad
D
2.6A
E
Cyclone furnace
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
2Ad
E
0.26A
E
Spreader stoker
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
66®
B
13.2
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, and reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
17
B
12.4
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, no reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
12
A
7.8
E
Overfeed stokerf
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
16g
C
6.0
E
-------
Table 1.1-3 (cont.).

Filterable PMb
PM-
10
Firing Configuration
SCC
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Overfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclonesf
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
9h
C
5.0
E
Underfeed stoker
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
15'
D
6.2
E
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclone
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
llh
D
6.2-i
E
Hand-fed units
1-03-002-14
15
E
6.2k
E
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
m
E
m
E
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
1-01-002-18
1-02-002-18
1-03-002-18
m
E
m
E
en
•M
V)
C/5
O
Z
-n
>
n
H
O
73
c/5
vO
t^l
Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired.
SCC = Source Classification Code.
Based on EPA Method 5 (front half catch) as described in Reference 28. Where particulate is expressed in terms of coal ash
content, A, factor is determined by multiplying weight % ash content of coal (as fired) by the numerical value preceding the A. For
example, if coal with 8% ash is fired in a pulverized coal fired, dry bottom unit, the PM emission factor would be 10 x 8, or 80
lb/ton. The "condensable" matter collected in back half catch of EPA Method 5 averages <5% of front half, or "filterable", catch
for pulverized coal and cyclone furnaces; 10% for spreader stokers; 15% for other stokers; and 50% for handfired units (References
6, 29, 30).
No data found; emission factor for pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers used.
Uncontrolled particulate emissions, when no fly ash reinjection is employed. When control device is installed, and collected fly ash
is reinjected to boiler, particulate from boiler reaching control equipment can increase up to a factor of two.
Accounts for fly ash settling in an economizer, air heater, or breaching upstream of control device or stack. (Particulate directly at
boiler outlet typically will be twice this level.) Factor should be applied even when fly ash is reinjected to boiler from air heater or
economizer dust hoppers.
-------
Table 1,1-3 (cont,).
f Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
g Accounts for fly ash settling in breaching or stack base. Particulate loadings directly at boiler outlet typically can be 50% higher,
h See Reference 34 for discussion of apparently low multiple cyclone control efficiencies, regarding uncontrolled emissions.
J Accounts for fly ash settling in breaching downstream of boiler outlet.
k No data found; emission factor for underfeed stoker used.
m No data found; use emission factor for spreader stoker with multiple cyclones and no reinjection.
tn
X
8"
3
BL
O
o
3
O"
c
o*
3
-------
Table 1.1-4 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) AND PM LESS THAN
10 MICROMETERS (PM-10) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION3
tfl
on
on
O
Z
>T|
>
o
H
O
73
on

Filterable PMb
PM
-10
Firing Configuration
see
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Pulverized coal fired, dry
bottom,
wall fired
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
5A
A
1.15A
E
Pulverized coal fired, dry
bottom,
tangentially fired
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
5A
B
1.15AC
E
Pulverized coal fired, wet
bottom
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
3.5Ad
D
1.3A
E
Cyclone furnace
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
1 Ad
E
0.13A
E
Spreader stoker
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
33e
B
6.6
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, and reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
8.5
B
6.6
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, no reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
6
A
3.9
E
Overfeed stokerf
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
8s
C
3.0
E
-------
Table 1.1-4 (cont.).

Filterable PMb
PM-10
Firing Configuration
SCC
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Overfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclones1
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
4.5h
C
2.5

E
Underfeed stoker
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
7,5)
D
3.1

E
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclone
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
5.5h
D
3.1'

E
Hand-fed units
1-03-002-14
7.5
E
3. lk

E
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
6
E
6.6m

E
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
1-01-002-18
1-02-002-18
1-03-002-18
8.5
E
6.6

E
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired.
SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Based on EPA Method 5 (front half catch) as described in Reference 28. Where particulate is expressed in terms of coal ash
content, A, factor is determined by multiplying weight % ash content of coal (as fired) by the numerical value preceding the A. For
example, if coal with 8% ash is fired in a pulverized coal fired, dry bottom unit, the PM emission factor would be 5 x 8, or 40
kg/Mg. The "condensable" matter collected in back half catch of EPA Method 5 averages <5% of front half, or "filterable", catch
for pulverized coal and cyclone furnaces; 10% for spreader stokers; 15% for other stokers; and 50% for handfired units (References
6,29,30).
c No data found; use assumed emission factor for pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers.
d Uncontrolled particulate emissions, when no fly ash reinjection is employed. When control device is installed, and collected fly ash
is reinjected to boiler, particulate from boiler reaching control equipment can increase up to a factor of two.
e Accounts for fly ash settling in an economizer, air heater, or breaching upstream of control device or stack. (Particulate directly at
boiler outlet typically will be twice this level.) Factor should be applied even when fly ash is reinjected to boiler from air heater or
economizer dust hoppers.
-------
Table 1.1-4 (cont.).
f Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
8 Accounts for fly ash settling in breaching or stack base. Particulate loadings directly at boiler outlet typically can be 50%
h See Reference 34 for discussion of apparently low multiple cyclone control efficiencies, regarding uncontrolled emissions.
J Accounts for fly ash settling in breaching downstream of boiler outlet.
k No data found; use emission factor for underfeed stoker.
mNo data found; use emission factor for spreader stoker.
-------
Table 1.1-5 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR DRY BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED BITUMINOUS COAL3
Particle
Sizeb
Om)
Cumulative Mass % < Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor6 (kg/Mg [lb/ton | Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Uncontrolled11
Controlled6
Multiple
Cyclones
Scrubber
ESP
Baghouse
Multiple
Cyclones^
Scrubber8
ESPg
Baghousef
15
32
54
81
79
97
1.6A
0.54 A
0.24 A
0.032A
0.010A

(3.2 A)
(1.08A)
(0.48A)
(0.064A)
(0.02 A)
10
23
29
71
67
92
1.15A
0.29A
0.21 A
0.027A
0.009A

(2.3A)
(0.58A)
(0.42A)
(0.054A)
(0.02A)
6
17
14
62
50
77
0.85 A
0.14A
0.19A
0.020A
0.008A

(1.7A)
(0.28A)
(0.3 8 A)
(0.024A)
(0.02 A)
2.5
6
3
51
29
53
0.3A
0.03A
0.15A
0.012A
0.005A

(0.6A)
(0.06A)
(0.3A)
(0.024A)
(0.01 A)
1.25
2
1
35
17
31
0.10A
0.01A
0.11 A
0.007A
0.003A

(0.2A)
(0,02 A)
(0.22 A)
(0.01 A)
(0.006A)
1.00
2
1
31
14
25
0.10A
0.01 A
0.09A
0.006A
0.003A

(0.2A)
(0.02 A)
(0.18A)
(0.01 A)
(0.006A)
0.625
1
1
20
12
14
0.05A
0.01 A
0.06A
0.005A
0.001 A

(0.10A)
(0.02 A)
(0.12 A)
(0.01 A)
(0.002A)
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
5A
1A
0.3A
0.04A
0.01A

(10A)
(2A)
(0.6 A)
(0.08 A)
(0.02 A)
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-02, 1-02-002-02, 1-03-002-06, 1-01-002-12, 1-02-002-12, and
1-03-002-16. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c A = coal ash weight percent, as fired. For example, if coal ash weight is 8.2%, then A = 8.2.
d EMISSION FACTOR RATING = C.
e Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclones is 80%; for scrubber, 94%; for ESP, 99.2%; and for baghouse, 99.8%.
f EMISSION FACTOR RATING = E.
8 EMISSION FACTOR RATING = D.
-------
Table 1.1-6 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR WET BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED
BITUMINOUS COALa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
(ft m)
Cumulative Mass % < Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [lb/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Controlled11
Multiple
Cyclones
ESP
Multiple
Cyclones
ESP
15
40
99
83
1.4A
0.69A
0.023A

(2.8 A)
(1.38A)
(0.046A)
10
37
93
75
1.30A
0.65A
0.021 A

(2.6A)
(1.3 A)
(0.042A)
6
33
84
63
1.16A
0.59A
0.018A

(2.32A)
(1.18 A)
(0.036A)
2.5
21
61
40
0.74A
0.43A
0.011 A

(1.48A)
(0.86A)
(0.022A)
1.25
6
31
17
0.21 A
0.22A
0.005A

(0.42 A)
(0.44 A)
(0.01 A)
1.00
4
19
8
0.14A
0.13 A
0.002A

(0.28A)
(0.26A)
(0.004A)
0.625
2
e
e
0.07A
e
C

(0.14A)

TOTAL
100
100
100
3.5A
0.7A
0.028A

(7.OA)
(1.4A)
(0.056A)
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-01, 1-02-002-01, and
1-03-002-05. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter,
c A = coal ash weight %, as fired. For example, if coal ash weight equals 8.2%, then A = 8.2.
d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclones is 94%; and for ESP, 99.2%.
e Insufficient data.
1.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.1-7 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR CYCLONE FURNACES BURNING
BITUMINOUS COAL*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Cumulative Mass % < Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [lb/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Particle
Sizeb
0*m)

Controlled

Controlled®
Uncontrolled
Multiple
Cyclones
ESP
Uncontrolled
Multiple
Cyclones
ESP
15
33
95
90
0.33A
(0.66A)
0.057A
(0.114A)
0.0064A
(0.013A)
10
13
94
68
0.13A
(0.26A)
0.056A
(0.112A)
0.0054A
(0.011 A)
6
8
93
56
0.08A
(0.16 A)
0.056A
(G.112A)
0.0045A
(0.009A)
2.5
0
92
36
0
0.055A
(0.11 A)
0.0029A
(0.006A)
1.25
0
85
22
0
0.051 A
(0.1 OA)
0.0018A
(0.004A)
1.00
0
82
17
0
0.049A
(0.1 OA)
0.0014A
(0.003A)
0.625
0
d
d
0
_d

TOTAL
100
100
100
1A (2A)
0.06 A
(0.12A)
0.008A
(0.016A)
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-03, 1-02-002-03, and
1-03-002-03. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c A = coal ash weight percent, as fired.
d Insufficient data.
e Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclones is 94%; and for ESP, 99.2%.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.1-17
-------
Table 1.1-8 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPREADER STOKERS BURNING BITUMINOUS COALa
m
§
So
c/3
O
Z
Tl
>
n
H
O
70
on
Particle
Sizeb
(cm)
Cumulative Mass % £ Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor0 (kg/Mg [lb/ton]) Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Uncontrolled0
Controlled11
Multiple
Cyclones0
Multiple
Cyclones'1
ESP
Baghouse
Multiple
Cyclones°'f
Multiple
Cyclones'1'c
ESPf'8
Baghouse0'5
15
28
86
74
97
72
9.2
7.3
4.4
0.23
0.043

(18.5)
(14.6)
(8.8)
(0.46)
(0.086)
10
20
73
65
90
60
6.6
6.2
3.9
0.22
0.036

(13.2)
(12)
(7.8)
(0.44)
(0.072)
6
14
51
52
82
46
4.6
4.3
3.1
0.20
0.028

(9.2)
(8.6)
(6.2)
(0.40)
(0.056)
2.5
7
8
27
61
26
2.3
0.7
1.6
0.15
0.016

(4.6)
(1.4)
(3.2)
(0.30)
(0.032)
1.25
5
2
16
46
18
1.6
0.2
1.0
0.11
0.011

(3.3)
(0.4)
(2.0)
(0.22)
(0.022)
1.00
5
2
14
41
15
1.6
0.2
0.8
0.10
0.009

(3.3)
(0.4)
(1.6)
(0.20)
(0.018)
0.625
4
1
9
h
7
1.3
0.1
0.5
h
0.004

(2.6)
(0.2)
(1.0)

(0.008)
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
33
8.5
6.0
0.24
0.08

(66.0)
(17.0)
(12.0)
(0.48)
(0.12)
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-04, 1-02-002-04, 1-03-002-09. ESP = electrostatic
precipitator.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c With flyash reinjection.
d Without flyash reinjection.
e EMISSION FACTOR RATING = C.
f EMISSION FACTOR RATING = E.
s Estimated control efficiency for ESP is 99.22%; and for baghouse, 99.8%.
— h Insufficient data.
>.o
U\
-------
Table 1.1-9 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR OVERFEED STOKERS BURNING
BITUMINOUS COAL8
Particle
Sizeh
0*m)
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [lb/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
Multiple
Cyclones
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Multiple Cyclones
Controlled4®
Factor
RATING
Factor
RATING
15
49
60
3.9 (7.8)
C
2.7 (5.4)
E
10
37
55
3.0 (6.0)
C
2.5 (5.0)
E
6
24
49
1.9 (3.8)
c
2.2 (4.4)
E
2.5
14
43
1.1 (2.2)
c
1.9 (3.8)
E
1.25
13
39
1.0 (2.0)
c
1.8 (3.6)
E
1.00
12
39
1.0 (2.0)
c
1.8 (3.6)
E
0.625
C
16
C
c
0.7 (1.4)
E
TOTAL
100
100
8.0 (16.0)
c
4.5 (9.0)
E
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-05, 1-02-002-05, and
1-03-002-07.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
0 Insufficient data.
d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclones is 80%.
Table 1.1-10 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNDERFEED STOKERS BURNING
BITUMINOUS COALa
Particle Size1'
(m)
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
Uncontrolled Cumulative Emission Factor"
(kg/Mg [lb/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Factor
RATING
15
50
3.8 (7.6)
C
10
41
3.1 (6.2)
C
6
32
2.4 (4.8)
C
2.5
25
1.9 (3.8)
C
1.25
22
1.7 (3.4)
C
1.00
21
1.6 (3.2)
C
0.625
18
1.4 (2.7)
C
TOTAL
100
7.5 (15.0)
C
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-02-002-06 and 1-03-002-08.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
u May also be used for uncontrolled hand-fired units.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.1-19
-------
Table 1.1-11 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR METHANE (CH4), NONMETHANE TOTAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(NMTOC). AND NITROUS OXIDE (N20) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION3
m
§
S3
00
O
Z
-o
>
q
g
C/5

CH4b
NMTOCb'c
N2Od
Firing Configuration
see
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Pulverized coal fired, dry bottom,
wall fired
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
0.04
B
0.06
B
0.09
D
Pulverized coal fired, dry bottom,
tangentially fired
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
0.04
B
0.06
B
0.03
D
Pulverized coal fired, wet bottom
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
0.05
B
0.04
B
0.09®
E
Cyclone furnace
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
0.01
B
0.11
B
0.09®
E
Spreader stoker
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
0.06
B
0.05
B
0.09®
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, and reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
0.06
B
0.05
B
0.09®
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, no reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
0.06
B
0.05
B
0.09e
E
sO
Lh
-------
Table 1.1-11 (cont.).

CH4b
NMTOCb,c
N2Od
Firing Configuration
SCC
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Overfeed stokerf
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
0.06
B
0.05
B
0,09e
E
Overfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclones
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
0.06
B
0.05
B
0,09e
E
Underfeed stoker
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
0.8
B
1.3
B
0.09®
E
Underfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclone
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
0.8
B
1.3
B
0.09e
E
Hand-fed units
1-03-002-14
5
E
10
E
0.09®
E
Fluidized bed combustor, bubbling
bed
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
0.06
E
0.05
E
5.5«
E
Fluidized bed combustor, circulating
bed
1-01-002-18
1-02-002-18
1-03-002-18
0.06
E
0.05
E
5.5
E
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired. SCC = Source
Classification Code.
b Reference 35. Nominal values achievable under normal operating conditions; values 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher can occur
when combustion is not complete.
c Nonmethane total organic compounds are expressed as C2 to C16 alkane equivalents (Reference 31). Because of limited data, the
effects of firing configuration on NMTOC emission factors could not be distinguished. As a result, all data were averaged
collectively to develop a single average emission factor for pulverized coal units, cyclones, spreaders, and overfeed stokers.
d References 36-38.
e No data found; emission factor for pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers used.
f Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
g No data found; emission factor for circulating fluidized bed used.
-------
Table I.I 12 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR METHANE (CH4). NONMETHANE TOTAL. ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(NMTOC), AND NITROUS OXIDE (N20) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTIONa
m
XSi
GO
o
z
T
>
n
H
O
73
GO

CH4b
NMTOCb,c
n2o"
Firing Configuration
see
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Pulverized coal fired, dry bottom,
wall fired
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
0.02
B
0.04
B
0.045
D
Pulverized coal fired, dry bottom,
tangentially fired
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
0.02
B
0.04
B
0.015
D
Pulverized coal fired, wet bottom
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
0.025
B
0.02
B
0.045e
E
Cyclone furnace
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
0.005
B
0.055
B
0.045e
E
Spreader stoker
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
0.03
B
0.025
B
0.045®
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, and reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
0.03
B
0.025
B
0.045e
E
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, no reinjection
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
0.03
B
0.025
B
0.045e
E
NO
-------
Table 1.1-12 (cont,).

CH4b
NMTOCb'c
N7p"
Firing Configuration
SCC
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Overfeed stokerf
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
0.03
B
0.025
B
0.045e
E
Overfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclones
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
0.03
B
0.025
B
0.045e
E
Underfeed stoker
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
0.4
B
0,65
B
0,045e
E
Underfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclone
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
0.4
B
0,65
B
0.045e
E
Hand-fed units
1-03-002-14
2.5
E
5
E
0.045e
E
Fluidized bed combustor, bubbling
bed
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
0.03
E
0.025
E
2.75s
E
Fluidized bed combustor, circulating
bed
1-01-002-18
1-02-002-18
1-03-002-18
0.03
E
0.025
E
2.75
E
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired. SCC = Source
Classification Code.
b Reference 35. Nominal values achievable under normal operating conditions; values 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher can occur
when combustion is not complete.
c Nonmethane total organic compounds are expressed as C2 to C16 alkane equivalents (Reference 31). Because of limited data, the
effects of firing configuration on NM 1'OC emission factors could not be distinguished. As a result, all data were averaged
collectively to develop a single average emission factor for pulverized coal units, cyclones, spreaders, and overfeed stokers.
d References 36-38.
e No data found; use emission factor for pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers.
f Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
g No data found; use emission factor for circulating fluidized bed.
-------
Table 1.1-13 (English Units). F.MISS10N FACTORS FOR TRACE ELEMENTS, POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER (POM),
AND FORMALDEHYDE (HCOH) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

l/i
C/5
O
X
>
n
H
O
73
Ui
Firing Configuration
(SCC)

Emission Factor,
lb/1012 Btu

As
Be
Cd
Cr
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
POM
HCOH
Pulverized coal, configuration
unknown (no SCC)
ND
ND
ND
1922
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
112b
Pulverized coal, wet bottom
(1-01-002-01/21, 1-02-002-01/21,
1-03-002-05/21)
538
81
44-70
1020-1570
507c
808-2980
16
840-1290
ND
ND
Pulverized coal, dry bottom
(1-01-002-02/22, 1-02-002-06/22,
1 -03-002-06/22)
684
81
44,4
1250-1570
507c
228-2980
16
1030-1290
2.08
ND
Pulverized coal, dry bottom,
tangential (1-01-002-12/26,
1-02-002-12/26, 1-03-002-16/26)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4
ND
Cyclone furnace (1-01-002-03/23,
1-02-002-03/23, 1-03-002-03/23)
115
<81
28
212-1502
507°
228-1300
16
174-1290
ND
ND
Stoker, configuration unknown
(no SCC)
ND
73
ND
19-300
ND
2170
16
775-1290
ND
ND
Spreader stoker (1-01-002-04/24,
1-02-002-04/24, 1-03-002-09/24)
264-542
ND
21-43
942-1570
507c
ND
ND
ND
ND
221d
Overfeed stoker, traveling grate
(1-01-002-05/25, 1-02-002-05/25,
1-03-002-07/25)
542-1030
ND
43-82
ND •
507°
ND
ND
ND
ND
140e
a References 39-44. The emission factors in this table represent the ranges of factors reported in the literature. If only 1 data point
was found, it is still reported in this table. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Based on 2 units; 456 MWe and 133 million Btu/hr.
__ c Lead emission factors were taken directly from an EPA background document for support of the NAAQS.
55 d Based on 1 unit; 59 million Btu/hr.
e Based on 1 unit; 52 million Btu/hr.
-------
Older traveling grate stokers are often uncontrolled. Indeed, particulate control has often
been considered unnecessary because of anthracite's low smoking tendencies and the fact that a
significant fraction of large size fly ash from stokers is readily collected in fly ash hoppers as well as in
the breeching and base of the stack. Cyclone collectors have been employed on traveling grate
stokers, and limited information suggests these devices may be up to 75 percent efficient on
particulate. Flyash reinjection, frequently used in traveling grate stokers to enhance fuel use
efficiency, tends to increase PM emissions per unit of fuel combusted. High-energy venturi scrubbers
can generally achieve PM collection efficiencies of 90 percent or greater.
Emission factors and ratings for pollutants from anthracite coal combustion and anthracite
culm combustion are given in Tables 1.2-1, 1.2-2, 1.2-3, 1.2-4, 1.2-5, 1.2-6, and 1.2-7. Cumulative
size distribution data and size-specific emission factors and ratings for particulate emissions are
summarized in Table 1.2-8. Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific emission factors are presented
in Figure 1.2-1. Particle size distribution data for bituminous coal combustion may be used for
uncontrolled emissions from pulverized anthracite-fired furnaces, and data for anthracite-fired
traveling grate stokers may be used for hand-fired units (Figure 1.2-2).10-13
Table 1.2-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPEC1ATED METALS
FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION IN STOKER FIRED BOILERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Emission Factor Range
Average Emission Factor
Pollutant
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton
Mercury
4.4 E-05 - 6.5 E-05
8.7 E-05 - 1.3
E-04
6.5 E-05
1.3 E-04
Arsenic
BDL - 1.2 E-04
BDL - 2.4 E
-04
9.3 E-05
1.9 E-04
Antimony
BDL
BDL

BDL
BDL
Beryllium
1.5 E-05 - 2.7 E-04
3.0 E-05 - 5.4
E-04
1.5 E-04
3.1 E-04
Cadmium
2.3 E-05 - 5.5 E-03
4.5 E-05 -1.1
E-04
3.6 E-05
7.1 E-05
Chromium
3.0 E-03 - 2.5 E-02
5.9 E-03 - 4.9
E-02
1.4 E-02
2.8 E-02
Manganese
4.9 E-04 - 2.7 E-03
9.8 E-04 - 5.3
E-03
1.8 E-03
3.6 E-03
Nickel
3.9 E-03 - 1.8 E-02
7.8 E-03 - 3.5
E-02
1.3 E-02
2.6 E-02
Selenium
2.4 E-04 -1.1 E-03
4.7 E-04-2.1
E-03
6.3 E-04
1.3 E-03
a Reference 9. Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and lb of pollutant/ton of coal burned.
Source Classification Codes are 1-01-001-02, 1-02-001-04, and 1-03-001-02. BDL = below
detection limit.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.2-3
-------
Table 1.2-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (TOC) AND METHANE (CH4) FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORS3

TOC Emission Factor
ch4
Emission Factor
Source Category
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATING
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATING
Stoker fired boilers1'
(SCC 1-01-001-02,
1-02-001-04, 1-03-001-02)
0.10
0.20
E
ND
ND
NA
Residential space heatersc
(SCC A2104001000)
ND
ND
NA
4
8
E
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and lb of pollutant/ton of coal burned. SCC = Source
Classification Code. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
h Reference 9.
c Reference 14.
Table 1.2-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORS*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Stoker Fired Boilersb
(SCC 1-01-001-02,
1-02-001-04,
1-03-001-02)
Residential Space Heaters"
(No SCC)
Emission Factor
Emission Factor Range
Emission Factor
Biphenyl
1.25 E-02
ND
ND
Phenanth rene
3.4 E-03
4.6 E-02 - 2.1 E-02
1.6 E-01
Naphthalene
0.65 E-01
4.5 E-03 - 2.4 E-02
1.5 E-01
Acenaphthene
ND
7.0 E-03 - 3.4 E-01
3.5 E-01
Acenaphthalene
ND
7.0 E-03 - 2.0 E-02
2.5 E-01
Fluorene
ND
4.5 E-03 - 2.9 E-02
1.7 E-02
Anthracene
ND
4.5 E-03 - 2.3 E-02
1.6 E-02
Fluoranthrene
ND
4.8 E-02 - 1.7 E-01
1.1 E-01
Pyrene
ND
2.7 E-02 - 1.2 E-01
7.9 E-02
B e n zo (a )a nth ra c e n e
ND
7.0 E-03 - 1.0 E-01
2.8 E-01
Chrysene
ND
1.2 E-02 - 1.1 E-01
5.3 E-02
Benzo(k)fluoranthrene
ND
7.0 E-03 - 3.1 E-02
2.5 E-01
Benzo(e)pyrene
ND
2.3 E-03 - 7.3 E-03
4.2 E-03
Benzo(a)pyrene
ND
1.9 E-03 - 4.5 E-03
3.5 E-03
Perylene
ND
3.8 E-04 - 1.2 E-03
8.5 E-04
lndeno(123-cd) perylene
ND
2.3 E-03 - 7.0 E-03
2.4 E-01
Benzo(g,h,i,) perylene
ND
2.2 E-03 - 6.0 E-03
2.1 E-01
Anthanthrene
ND
9.5 F.-05 - 5.5 E-04
3.5 E-03
Coronene
ND
5.5 E-04 - 4.0 E-03
1.2 E-02
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of anthracite coal burned. SCC = Source Classification Code.
ND = no data.
b Reference 9.
c Reference 14.
1.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.2-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Stoker Fired Boilersb
(SCC 1-01-001-02,
1-02-001-04,
1-03-001-02)
Residential Space Heaters0
(SCC A2104001000)
Emission Factor
Emission Factor Range
Emission Factor
Biphenyl
2.5 E-02
ND
ND
Phenanthrene
6.8 E-03
9.1 E-02 - 4.3 E-02
3.2 E-01
Naphthalene
1.3 E-01
9.0 E-03 - 4.8 E-02
3.0 E-01
Acenaphthene
ND
1.4 E-02 - 6.7 E-01
7.0 E-01
Acenaphthalene
ND
1.4 E-02 - 3.0 E-01
4.9 E-01
Fluorene
ND
9.0 E-03 - 5.8 E-02
3.4 E-02
Anthracene
ND
9.0 E-03 - 4.5 E-02
3.3 E-02
Fluoranthrene
ND
9.6 E-02 - 3.3 E-01
2.2 E-01
Pyrene
ND
5.4 E-02 - 2.4 E-01
1.6 E-01
Benzo(a)anthraeene
ND
1.4 E-02 - 2.0 E-01
5.5 E-01
Chrysene
ND
2.3 E-02 - 2.2 E-01
1.1 E-01
Benzo(k)fluoranthrene
ND
1.4 E-02 - 6.3 E-02
5.0 E-01
Benzo(e)pyrene
ND
4.5 E-03 - 1.5 E-02
8.4 E-03
Benzo(a)pyrene
ND
3.8 E-03 - 9.0 E-03
7.0 E-03
Perylene
ND
7.6 E-04 - 2.3 E-03
1.7 E-03
lndeno(123-cd) perylene
ND
4.5 E-03 - 1.4 E-02
4.7 E-01
Benzo(g,h,i,) perylene
ND
4.3 E-03 - 1.2 E-02
4.2 E-01
Anthanthrene
ND
1.9 E-04 - 1.1 E-03
7.0 E-03
Coronene
ND
1.1 E-03 - 8.0 E-03
2.4 E-02
a Units are lbs. of pollutant/ton of anthracite coal burned. SCC. = Source Classification Code.
ND = no data.
b Reference 9.
c Reference 14.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.2-5
-------
Table 1,2-5 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) AND LEAD (Pb)
FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORSa
Source Category
Filterable PM
Emission Factor
Condensable PM
Emission Factor
Pb
Emission Factor
kg/Mg ib/ton RATING
kg/Mg lb/ton RATING
kg/Mg lb/ton RATING
Stoker fired boilers1'
(SCC 1-01-001-02, 1-02-001-04,
1-03-001-02)
Hand fired unitsd (SCC 1-02-002-07.
1-03-001-03)
0.4AC 0.8A C
5 10 B
0.04 A 0.08A C
ND ND NA
4.5 E-03 8.9 E-03 E
ND ND NA
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and lb of pollutant/ton of coal burned. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
NA = not applicable.
b References 9-12.
c A = ash content of fuel, weight percent.
d Reference 16.
-------
1.3 Fuel Oil Combustion
1.3.1 General1"2'26
Two major categories of fuel oil are burned by combustion sources: distillate oils and
residual oils. These oils are further distinguished by grade numbers, with Nos. 1 and 2 being
distillate oils; Nos. 5 and 6 being residual oils; and No. 4 either distillate oil or a mixture of distillate
and residual oils. No. 6 fuel oil is sometimes referred to as Bunker C. Distillate oils are more
volatile and less viscous than residual oils. They have negligible nitrogen and ash contents and
usually contain less than 0.3 percent sulfur (by weight). Distillate oils are used mainly in domestic
and small commercial applications. Being more viscous and less volatile than distillate oils, the
heavier residual oils (Nos. 5 and 6) must be heated for ease of handling and to facilitate proper
atomization. Because residual oils are produced from the residue remaining after the lighter fractions
(gasoline, kerosene, and distillate oils) have been removed from the crude oil, they contain significant
quantities of ash, nitrogen, and sulfur. Residual oils are used mainly in utility, industrial, and large
commercial applications.
1.3.2 Emissions27
Emissions from fuel oil combustion depend on the grade and composition of the fuel, the type
and size of the boiler, the firing and loading practices used, and the level of equipment maintenance.
Because the combustion characteristics of distillate and residual oils are different, their combustion
can produce significantly different emissions. In general, the baseline emissions of criteria and
noncriteria pollutants are those from uncontrolled combustion sources. Uncontrolled sources are
those without add-on air pollution control (APC) equipment or other combustion modifications
designed for emission control. Baseline emissions for sulfur dioxide (S02) and particulate matter
(PM) can also be obtained from measurements taken upstream of APC equipment.
In this section, point source emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), S02, PM, and carbon
monoxide (CO) are being evaluated as criteria pollutants (those emissions for which National Primary
and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established. Particulate matter emissions are
sometimes reported as total suspended particulate (TSP). More recent data generally quantify the
portion of inhalable PM that is considered to be less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
(PM-10). In addition to the criteria pollutants, this section includes point source emissions of some
noncriteria pollutants, nitrous oxide (N20), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), as well as data on particle size distribution to support PM-10 emission inventory
efforts. Emissions of carbon dioxide (C02) are also being considered because of its possible
participation in global climatic change and the corresponding interest in including this gas in emission
inventories. Most of the carbon in fossil fuels is emitted as C02 during combustion. Minor amounts
of carbon are emitted as CO, much of which ultimately oxidizes to C02 or as carbon in the ash.
Finally, fugitive emissions associated with the use of oil at the combustion source are being included
in this section.
Tables 1.3-1, 1.3-2, 1.3-3, and 1.3-4 present emission factors for uncontrolled emissions of
criteria pollutants from fuel oil combustion. A general discussion of emissions of criteria and
noncriteria pollutants from coal combustion is given in the following paragraphs. Tables 1.3-5,
1.3-6, 1.3-7, and 1.3-8 present cumulative size distribution data and size-specific emission factors for
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-1
-------
us
i
Table 1.3-1 (Metric Units). CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
m
GO
t/i
>—*
o
z
T1
>
o
d
o
in
vO
u%

SO,b
SO/
NOvd
COe,f
Filterable PMg,h
Firing Configuration
(SCCf
kg/103 L
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/103 L
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/103 L
EMISSION-
FACTOR
RATING
9T
o
r
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/103 L
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Utility boilers

No. 6 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-004-01)
19S
A
0.69S
C
8
A
0.6
A
1.12(S)+0.37
A
No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-004-04)
19S
A
0.69S
C
5
A
0.6
A
1.12(S)+0.37
A
No. 5 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-004-05)
19S
A
0.69S
C
8
A
0.6
A
1.2
B
No. 5 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-004-06)
19S
A
0.69S
C
5
A
0.6
A
1.2
B
No. 4 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-005-04)
18S
A
0.69S
C
8
A
0.6
A
0.84
B
No. 4 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-005-05)
18S
A
0.69S
C
5
A
0.6
A
0.84
B
Industrial boilers

No. 6 oil fired (1-02-004-01/02/03)
19S
A
0.24S
A
6.6
A
0.6
A
1.12(S)+0,37
A
No. 5 oil fired (1-02-004-04)
19S
A
0.24S
A
6.6
A
0.6
A
1.2
B
Distillate oil fired (1-02-005-01/02/03)
17S
A
0.24S
A
2.4
A
0.6
A
0.24
A
No. 4 oil fired (1-02-005-04)
18S
A
0.24S
A
2.4
A
0.6
A
0.84
B
Commercial/institutional/residential
combustors

No. 6 oil fired (1-03-004-01/02/03)
19S
A
0.24S
A
6.6
A
0.6
A
1.12(S) + 0.37
A
No. 5 oil fired (1-03-004-04)
19S
A
0.24S
A
6.6
A
0.6
A
1.2
B
Distillate oil fired (1-03-005-01/02/03)
17S
A
0.24S
A
2.4
A
0.6
A
0.24
A
No. 4 oil fired (1-03-005-04)
18S
A
0.24S
A
2.4
A
0.6
A
0.84
B
Residential furnace
(A2104004/A2104011)
17S
A
0.24S
A
2.2
A
0.6
A
0.3
A
-------
Table 1.3-1 (cont.).
SCC = Source Classification Code.
References 1-6,23,42-46. S indicates that the weight % of sulfur in the oil should be multiplied by the value given. For example, if
the fuel is 1.0% sulfur, then S = i.0.
References 1-5,45-46,22.
References 3-4,10,15,24,42-46,48-49. Expressed as N02. Test results indicate that at least 95% by weight of NOx is NO for all
boiler types except residential furnaces, where about 75% is NO. For utility vertical fired boilers use 12.6 kg/103 L at full load
andnormal (>15%) excess air. Nitrogen oxides emissions from residual oil combustion in industrial and commercial boilers are
related to fuel nitrogen content, estimated by the following empirical relationship: kg N02 /103 L = 2.465 + 12.526(N), where N
is the weight percent of nitrogen in the oil. For example, if the fuel is 1.0% Nitrogen, then N equals 1.0.
References 3-5,8-10,23,42-46,48. CO emissions may increase by factors of 10 to 100 if the unit is improperly operated or not well
maintained.
Emission factors for C02 from oil combustion should be calculated using kg CO2/103 L oil = 31.0 C (distillate) or 34.6 C
(residual). C equals the weight percent carbon in the fuel. For example, if the fuel is 86% carbon, then C equals 86.
References 3-5,7,21,23-24,42-46,47,49. Filterable PM is that particulate collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or
equivalent) sampling train. PM-10 values include the sum of that particulate collected on the PM-10 filter of an EPA Method 201 or
201A sampling train and condensable emissions as measured by EPA Method 202.
Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion are, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content: where S is
the weight % of sulfur in oil. For example, if the fuel is 1.0% sulfur, then S = 1.0.
-------
's*>
Table 1.3-2 (English Units). CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED FUEL OIL COMBUSTION

so2b
SO/
NOxd
COc'f
Filterable PM"'h

EMISSION

EMISSION
lb/103
EMISSION

EMISSION

EMISSION
Firing Configuration
lb/103
FACTOR
lb/103
FACTOR
FACTOR
lb/103
FACTOR
ib/103
FACTOR
(SCCV
gal
RATING
gal
RATING
gal
RATING
gal
RATING
gal
RATING
Utility boilers

No. 6 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-004-01)
157S
A
5.7S
C
67
A
5
A
9.19(S)+3.22.
A
No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-004-04)
157S
A
5.7S
C
42
A
5
A
9.19(S)+3.22
A
No. 5 oil fired, normal firine
(1-01-004-05)
157S
A
5.7S
c
67
A
5
A
10
B
No. 5 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-004-06)
157S
A
5.7S
c
42
A
5
A
10
B
No. 4 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-005-04)
150S
A
5.7S
c
67
A
5
A
7
B
No. 4 oil fired, tangential firine
(1-01-005-05)
150S
A
5.7S
c
42
A
5
A
7
B
Industrial boilers

No. 6 oil fired (1-02-004-01/02/03)
157S
A
2S
A
55
A
5
A
9.19(S)+3.22
A
No. 5 oil fired (1-02-004-04)
157S
A
2S
A
55
A
5
A
10
B
Distillate oil fired (1-02-005-01/02/03)
142S
A
2S
A
20
A
5
A
2
A
No. 4 oil fired (1-02-005-04)
150S
A
2S
A
20
A
5
A
7
B
Commercial/institutional/residential
combustors

No. 6 oil fired (1-03-004-01/02/03)
157S
A
2S
A
55
A
5
A
9.19(S) + 3.22
A
No. 5 oil fired (1-03-004-04)
157S
A
2S
A
55
A
5
A
10
B
Distillate oil fired
(1-03-005-01/02/03)
142S
A
2S
A
20
A
5
A
2
A
No. 4 oil fired (1-03-005-04)
150S
A
2S
A
20
A
5
A
7
B
Residential furnaee (A2104004/A2104011)
142S
A
2S
A
18
A
5
A
3
A
m
in
O
Z
T1
>
n
H
O
TO
c/5
o
Ln
-------
Table 1,3-2 (cont.).
SCC = Source Classification Code.
References 1-6,23,42-46. S indicates that the weight % of sulfur in the oil should be multiplied by the value given. For example, if
the fuel is 1.0% sulfur, then S equals 1.0.
References 1-5,45-46,22.
References 3-4,10,15,24,42-46,48-49. Expressed as N02. Test results indicate that at least 95% by weight of NOx is NO for all
boiler types except residential furnaces, where about 75% is NO. For utility vertical fired boilers use 105 lb/103 gal at full load and
normal (>15%) excess air. Nitrogen oxides emissions from residual oil combustion in industrial and commercial boilers are related
to fuel nitrogen content, estimated by the following empirical relationship: lb NOz /103 gal = 20.54 + 104.39(N), where N is the
weight percent of nitrogen in the oil. For example, if the fuel is 1.0% Nitrogen, then N equals 1.0,
References 3-5,8-10,23,42-46,48. CO emissions may increase by factors of 10 to 100 if the unit is improperly operated or not well
maintained.
Emission factors for C02 from oil combustion should be calculated using lb CO2/103 gal oil = 259 C (distillate) or 288 C
(residual). C equals the weight percent carbon in the fuel. For example, if the fuel is 86% carbon, then C equals 86.
References 3-5,7,21,23-24,42-46,47,49. Filterable PM is that particulate collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or
equivalent) sampling train. PM-10 values include the sum of that particulate collected on the PM-10 filter of an EPA Method 201 or
201A sampling train and condensable emissions as measured by EPA Method 202.
Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion are, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content: where S is
the weight % of sulfur in oil. For example, if the fuel is 1.0% sulfur, then S equals 1.0.
-------
Table 1.3-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
CTOC), METHANE, AND NONMETHANE TOC (NMTOC) FROM UNCONTROLLED
FUEL OIL COMBUSTION

TOCb
Methane15
NMTOCb
Firing Configuration
(SCC)8
kg/103 L
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/103 L
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
kg/103 L
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Utility boilers

No. 6 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-01)
0.125
A
0.034
A
0.091
A
No. 6 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-04)
0.125
A
0.034
A
0.091
A
No. 5 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-05)
0.125
A
0.034
A
0.091
A
No. 5 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-06)
0.125
A
0.034
A
0.091
A
No. 4 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-005-04)
0.125
A
0.034
A
0.091
A
No. 4 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-005-05)
0.125
A
0.034
A
0.091
A
Industrial boilers

No. 6 oil fired
(1-02-004-01/02/03)
0.154
A
0.12
A
0.034
A
No. 5 oil fired
(1-02-004-04)
0.154
A
0.12
A
0.034
A
Distillate oil fired
(1-02-005-01/02/03)
0.030
A
0.006
A
0.024
A
No. 4 oil fired
(1-02-005-04)
0.030
A
0.006
A
0.024
A
Commercial/institutional/
residential combustors

No. 6 oil fired
(1-03-004-01/02/03)
0.193
A
0.057
A
0.136
A
No. 5 oil fired
(1-03-004-04)
0.193
A
0.057
A
0.136
A
Distillate oil fired
(1-03-005-01/02/03)
0.067
A
0.026
A
0.041
A
No. 4 oil fired
(1-03-005-04)
0.067
A
0.026
A
0.041
A
Residential furnace
(No SCC)
0.299
A
0.214
A
0,085
A
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b References 16-19, Volatile organic compound emissions can increase by several orders of
magnitude if the boiler is improperly operated or is not well maintained.
1.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.3-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(TOC), METHANE, AND NONMETHANE TOC (NMTOC) FROM UNCONTROLLED
FUEL OIL COMBUSTION

TOCb
Methane*5
NMTOCb
Firing Configuration
(SCC)a
lb/103 gal
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/103 gal
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
lb/103 gal
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Utility boilers

No. 6 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-01)
1.04
A
0.28
A
0.76
A
No. 6 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-04)
1.04
A
0.28
A
0.76
A
No. 5 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-05)
1.04
A
0.28
A
0.76
A
No. 5 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-06)
1.04
A
0.28
A
0.76
A
No. 4 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-005-04)
1.04
A
0.28
A
0.76
A
No. 4 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-005-05)
1.04
A
0.28
A
0.76
A
Industrial boilers

No. 6 oil fired
(1-02-004-01/02/03)
1.28
A
1.0
A
0.28
A
No. 5 oil fired
(1-02-004-04)
1.28
A
1.0
A
0.28
A
Distillate oil fired
(1-02-005-01/02/03)
0.252
A
0.052
A
0.2
A
No. 4 oil fired
(1-02-005-04)
0.252
A
0.052
A
0.2
A
Commercial/institutional/
residential combustors

No. 6 oil fired
(1-03-004-01/02/03)
1.605
A
0.475
A
1.13
A
No. 5 oil fired
(1-03-004-04)
1.605
A
0.475
A
1.13
A
Distillate oil fired
(1-03-005-01/02/03)
0.556
A
0.216
A
0.34
A
No. 4 oil fired
(1-03-005-04)
0.556
A
0.216
A
0.34
A
Residential furnace
(No SCC)
2.493
A
1.78
A
0.713
A
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b References 16-19. Volatile organic compound emissions can increase by several orders of
magnitude if the boiler is improperly operated or is not well maintained.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-7
-------
U)
00
Table 1.3-5 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UTILITY BOILERS FIRING RESIDUAL OILa

Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor [kg/103 L (lb/103 gal)]
Particle
Sizeb
Om)

Controlled
Uncontrolled0
ESP Controlled'1
Scrubber Controlled®
Uncontrolled
ESP
Scrubber
Factor
RATING
Factor
RATING
Factor
RATING
15
80
75
100
0.80A (6.7A)
C
0.0060A (0.05A)
E
0.06A (0.50A)
D
10
71
63
100
0.71A (5.9A)
C
0.005A (0.042A)
E
0.06A (0.050A)
D
6
58
52
100
0.58A (4.8A)
c
0.0042A (0.035A)
E
0.06A (0.50A)
D
2.5
52
41
97
0.52A (4.3A)
c
0.0033A (0.028A)
E
0.058A (0.48A)
D
1.25
43
31
91
0.43A (3.6A)
c
0.0025A (0.02.1 A)
E
0.055A (0.46A)
D
1.00
39
28
84
0.39A (3.3A)
c
0,0022A (0.018A)
E
0.050A (0.42A)
D
0.625
20
20
64
0.20A (1.74)
c
0.0008A (0.007A)
E
0.038A (0.32A)
D
TOTAL
1(X)
100
100
1A (8.3A)
c
0.008A (0.067A)
E
0.06A (0.50A)
D
a Reference 29. Source Classification Codes 1-01-004-01/04/05/06 and 1-01-005-04/05. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and
sulfur content where S is the weight % of sulfur in the oil. For example, if the fuel is 1.0% sulfur, then S equals 1.0.
No. 6 oil: A = 1.12(S) + 0.37 kg/103 L,
No. 5 oil: A = 1.2 kg/103 L
No. 4 oil: A = 0.84 kg/103 L
d Estimated control efficiency for ESP is 99.2%.
e Estimated control efficiency for scrubber is 94%.
sO
U\
-------
Table 1.3-6 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING RESIDUAL OILa
Particle
Sizeb
(jim)
Cumulative Mass
% < Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor0 [Kg/103 1 (lb/103
gal)]
Uncontrolled
Multiple Cyclone
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Multiple Cyclone Controlled6
Factor
RATING
Factor
RATING
15
91
100
0.91 A (7.59A)
D
0.20A (1.67A)
E
10
86
95
0.86A (7.17A)
D
0.19A (1.58A)
E
6
77
72
0.77A (6.42A)
D
0.14A (1.17A)
E
2.5
56
22
0.56A (4.67A)
D
0.04A (0.33A)
E
1.25
39
21
0.39A (3.25A)
D
0.04A (0.33A)
E
1.00
36
21
0.36A (3.00A)
D
0.04A (0.33A)
E
0.625
30
d
0.30A (2.50A)
D
d
NA
TOTAL
100
100
1A (8.34A)
D
0.2A (1.67A)
E
a Reference 29. Source Classification Codes 1-02-004-01/02/03/04 and 1-02-005-04. NA = not applicable.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and
sulfur content where S is the weight % of sulfur in the oil. For example, if the fuel is 1.0% sulfur, then S equals 1.0.
No. 6 oil: A = 1.12(S) + 0.38 kg/103 L,
No. 5 oil: A = 1.2 kg/103 L
No. 4 oil: A = 0.84 kg/103 L
d Insufficient data.
e Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone is 80%.
-------
Table 1.3-7 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING
DISTILLATE OILa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
(nm)
Cumulative Mass % < Stated
Size
Cumulative Emission Factor
[kg/103 L (lb/103 gal)]
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
15
68
0.16 (1.33)
10
50
0.12 (1.00)
6
30
0.07 (0.58)
2.5
12
0.03 (0.25)
1.25
9
0.02 (0.17)
1.00
8
0.02 (0.17)
0.625
2
0.005 (0.04)
TOTAL
100
0.24 (2.00)
a Reference 29. Source Classification Codes 1-02-005-01/02/03.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
1.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.3-8 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED COMMERCIAL BOILERS
BURNING RESIDUAL AND DISTILLATE OIL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Cumulative Mass
% < Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor0
[kg/103 L Ob/103 gal)]
Particle
Sizeb
(jim)
Uncontrolled,
Residual
Oil
Uncontrolled,
Distillate
Oil
Uncontrolled,
Residual
Oil
Uncontrolled,
Distillate
Oil
15
78
60
0.78A (6.50A)
0.14 (1,17)
10
62
55
0.62A (5.17A)
0.13 (1.08)
6
44
49
0.44A (3.67A)
0.12 (1.00)
2.5
23
42
0.23A (1.92A)
0.10 (0.83)
1.25
16
38
0.16A (1.33A)
0.09 (0.75)
1.00
14
37
0.14A (1.I7A)
0.09 (0.75)
0.625
13
35
0.13A (1.08A)
0.08 (0.67)
TOTAL
100
100
1A (8.34A)
0.24 (2.00)
a Reference 29. Source Classification Codes: 1-03-004-01/02/03/04 and 1-03-005-01/02/03/04.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average, a
function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content where S is the weight % of sulfur in the oil. For
example, if the fuel is 1.0% sulfur, then S equals 1.0.
No. 6 oil: A = 1.12(S) + 0.37 kg/103 L,
No. Soil: A = 1.2 kg/103 L
No. 4 oil: A = 0.84 kg/103 L
No. 2 oil: A = 0.24 kg/103 L
particulate emissions from fuel oil combustion. Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific emission
factors are presented in Figure 1.3-1, Figure 1.3-2, Figure 1.3-3, and Figure 1.3-4. Distillate and
residual oil categories aregiven separately, because their combustion produces significantly different
particulate, S02, and NOx emissions.
1.3.2.1 Particulate Matter Emissions3"7,12"13,21,23"24 -
Particulate matter emissions depend predominantly on the grade of fuel fired. Combustion of
lighter distillate oils results in significantly lower PM formation than does combustion of heavier
residual oils. Among residual oils, firing of Nos. 4 or 5 oils usually produces less PM than does the
firing of heavier No. 6 oil.
In general, PM emissions depend on the completeness of combustion as well as on the oil ash
content. The PM emitted by distillate oil-fired boilers is primarily carbonaceous particles resulting
from incomplete combustion of oil and is not correlated to the ash or sulfur content of the oil.
However, PM emissions from residual oil burning is related to the oil sulfur content. This is because
low sulfur No. 6 oil, either refined from naturally low sulfur crude oil or desulfurized by one of
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-11
-------
1.0A
0.9A
0.8A
0.7A
0.6A
O.SA
0.4A
OJA
0.2A
0.1 A
ft
Unconttollcd
Sf,r«Hhcj
0.10A
0.09A
0.08A
0.07A
0.06A
O.OSA
0.04A
0.03A
0.02A
0.01 A
b 3
O »-<
! i
0.01A
0.006A
O.OMA
0.002A
- 0.001 A
J
3 *
O.OOO&A5* A
1
0.0004A S
0.0002A
0.0001A
.1
.4 .6 1
4 6 10 20
40 60 100
Particle diameter ( m)
Figure 1.3-1. Cumulative size-specific emission factors for utility boilers firing residual oil.
0.20A
0,18 A
0.16 A
uncontrolled
0.14A
0.12A
0.10A
Multiple
cyclone
O.OSA
O.06A
O.iMA
0.02A
OA
60 100
Particle diameter ( m)
Figure 1.3-2. Cumulative size-specific emission factors for industrial boilers firing residual oil.
1.3-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
combustion (SC), reduced air preheat (RAP), low NOx burners (LNBs), or some combination thereof
may result in NOx reductions of 5 to 60 percent. Load reduction (LR) can likewise decrease NOx
production. Nitrogen oxides emissions may be reduced from 0.5 to 1 percent for each percentage
reduction in load from full load operation. It should be noted that most of these variables, with the
exception of excess air, influence the NOx emissions only of large oil fired boilers. Low excess air-
firing is possible in many small boilers, but the resulting NOx reductions are less significant.
Recent N20 emissions data indicate that direct N20 emissions from oil combustion units are
considerably below the measurements made prior to 1988. Nevertheless, the N20 formation and
reaction mechanisms are still not well understood or well characterized. Additional sampling and
research is needed to fully characterize N20 emissions and to understand the N20 formation
mechanism. Emissions can vary widely from unit to unit, or even from the same unit at different
operating conditions. It has been shown in some cases that N20 increases with decreasing boiler
temperature. For this update, average emission factors based on reported test data have been
developed for conventional oil combustion systems. These factors are presented in Table 1.3-9.
Table 1.3-9 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITROUS OXIDE (NzO),
POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER (POM), AND FORMALDEHYDE (HCOH)
FROM FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Firing Configuration
(SCC)a
Emission Factor, kg/103 L (lb/103 gal)
N2Ob POMc HCQHC
Utility/industrial/commercial boilers
No. 6 oil fired
(1-01-004-01, 1-02-004-01, 1-03-004-01)
Distillate oil fired
(1-01-005-01, 1-02-005-01, 1-03-005-01)
Residential furnaces (No SCC)
0.013 (0.11) 0.00013-0.00015 0.0029-0.0073
(0.0011-0.0013) (0.024-0.061)
0.013 (0.11) 0.00040 0.0042-0.0073
(0.0033) (0.035-0.061)
0.006 (0.05) ND ND
a SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b References 28-29.
c References 16-19.
d Particulate and gaseous POM.
e Particulate POM only.
The new source performance standards (NSPS) for PM, S02, and NOx emissions from
residual oil combustion in fossil fuel-fired boilers are shown in Table 1.3-10.
1.3.2.4 Carbon Monoxide Emissions16"19 -
The rate of CO emissions from combustion sources depends on the oxidation efficiency of the
fuel. By controlling the combustion process carefully, CO emissions can be minimized. Thus if a
unit is operated improperly or not well maintained, the resulting concentrations of CO (as well as
organic compounds) may increase by several orders of magnitude. Smaller boilers, heaters, and
furnaces tend to emit more of these pollutants than larger combustors. This is because smaller units
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-15
-------
Table 1.3-10 (Metric And English Units). NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
FOSSIL FUEL FIRED BOILERS
Standard/
Boiler Size
Fuel
PM
so2
NOx
Boiler Types/
MW
Or
ng/J
ng/J
ng/J
Applicability
(Million
Boiler
(Ib/MMBtu)
(lb/MMBtu)
(lb/MMBtu)
Criteria
Btu/hr)
Type
[% reduction]
[% reduction]
[% reduction]
Subpart D
>73
Gas
43
NAd
86

(>250)

(0.10)

(0.20)
Industrial-Utility

Oil
43
340
129

(0.10)
(0.80)
(0.30)
Commence construction

Bit./Subbit.
43
520
300
after 8/17/71

Coal
(0.10)
(1.20)
(0.70)
Subpart Da
>73
Gas
13
340
86

(>250)

(0.03)
(0.80)
(0.20)

[NA]
[90]a
[25]
Utility

Commence construction

Oil
13
340
130
after 9/18/78

(0.03)
(0.80)
(0.30)

[70]
[90]a
[30]

Bit./Subbit.
13
520
260/210°

Coal
(0.03)
(1.20)
(0.60/0.50)

[99]
[90]a
[65/65]
Subpart Db
>29
Gas
NAd
NAd
43f

(>100)

(0,10)
Industrial-Commercial

Distillate Oil
43
340"
43f
Institution

(0.10)
(0.80)
(0.10)

[90]

Commence construction

Residual Oil
(Same as for
(Same as for
130*
after 6/19/84™

distillate oil)
distillate oil)
(0.30)

Pulverized
22®
520®
300

Bit./Subbit.
(0.05)
(1.20)
(0.70)

Coal

[90]

Spreader
22s
520e
260

Stoker &
(0.05)
(1.20)
(0.60)

FBC

[90]

Mass-Feed
22e
520e
210

Stoker
(0.05)
(1.20)
(0.50)

[90]

1.3-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.3-10 (cont.).
Standard/
Boiler Size
Fuel
PM
so2
NOx
Boiler Types/
MW
Or
ng/J
ng/J
ng/J
Applicability
(Million
Boiler
(lb/MMBtu)
(lb/MMBtu)
(lb/MMBtu)
Criteria
Btu/hr)
Type
[% reduction]
[% reduction]
[% reduction]
Subpart Dc
2.9 - 29
Gas
_h

—

(10 - 100)

Small Industrial

Oil
hj
215
,—
Commercial-

(0.50)

Institutional

Commence construction

Bit./Subbit.
22>,k
520k
—
after 6/9/89

Coal
(0.05)
(1.20)

[90]

a Zero percent reduction when emissions are less than 86 ng/J (0.20 lb/MMBtu). FBC = fluidized
bed combustion. NA = not applicable.
b 70 percent reduction when emissions are less than 260 ng/J (0.60 lb/MMBtu).
0 The first number applies to bituminous coal and the second to subbituminous coal.
d Standard applies when gas is fired in combination with coal; see 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db.
e Standard is adjusted for fuel combinations and capacity factor limits; see 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db,
f For furnace heat release rates greater than 730,000 J/s-m3 (70,000 Btu/hr-ft3), the standard is
86 ng/J (0.20 lb/MMBtu).
g For furnace heat release rates greater than 730,000 J/s-m3 (70,000 Btu/hr-ft3), the standard is
170 ng/J (0.40 lb/MMBtu).
h Standard applies when gas or oil is fired in combination with coal; see 40 CFR 60, Subpart Dc.
J 20 percent capacity limit applies for heat input capacities of 8.7 Mwt (30 MMBtu/hr) or greater.
k Standard is adjusted for fuel combinations and capacity factor limits; see 40 CFR 60, Subpart Dc.
m Additional requirements apply to facilities which commenced construction, modification, or
reconstruction after 6/19/84 but on or before 6/19/86 (see 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60,
Subpart Db).
n 215 ng/J (0.50 lb/million Btu) limit (but no percent reduction requirement) applies if facilities
combust only very low sulfur oil (<0.5 wt. % sulfur).
usually have a higher ratio of heat transfer surface area to flame volume leading to reduced flame
temperature and combustion intensity and, therefore, lower combustion efficiency than larger
combustors.
The presence of CO in the exhaust gases of combustion systems results principally from
incomplete fuel combustion. Several conditions can lead to incomplete combustion, including:
- insufficient oxygen (02) availability;
- poor fuel/air mixing;
- cold wall flame quenching;
- reduced combustion temperature;
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-17
-------
- decreased combustion gas residence time; and
- load reduction (i. e., reduced combustion intensity).
Since various combustion modifications for NOx reduction can produce one or more of the above
conditions, the possibility of increased CO emissions is a concern for environmental, energy
efficiency, and operational reasons.
1.3.2.5 Organic Compound Emissions16"19'30"35'64 -
Small amounts of organic compounds are emitted from combustion. As with CO emissions,
the rate at which organic compounds are emitted depends, to some extent, on the combustion
efficiency of the boiler. Therefore, any combustion modification which reduces the combustion
efficiency will most likely increase the concentrations of organic compounds in the flue gases.
Total organic compounds (TOCs) include VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, and
condensible organic compounds. Emissions of VOCs are primarily characterized by the criteria
pollutant class of unburned vapor phase hydrocarbons. Unburned hydrocarbon emissions can include
essentially all vapor phase organic compounds emitted from a combustion source. These are
primarily emissions of aliphatic, oxygenated, and low molecular weight aromatic compounds which
exist in the vapor phase at flue gas temperatures. These emissions include all alkanes, alkenes,
aldehydes, carboxylic acids, and substituted benzenes (e. g., benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethyl
benzene).
The remaining organic emissions are composed largely of compounds emitted from
combustion sources in a condensed phase. These compounds can almost exclusively be classed into a
group known as polycyclic organic matter (POM), and a subset of compounds called polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA or PAH). There are also PAH-nitrogen analogs. Information available
in the literature on POM compounds generally pertains to these PAH groups.
Formaldehyde is formed and emitted during combustion of hydrocarbon-based fuels including
coal and oil. Formaldehyde is present in the vapor phase of the flue gas. Formaldehyde is subject to
oxidation and decomposition at the high temperatures encountered during combustion. Thus, larger
units with efficient combustion (resulting from closely regulated air-fuel ratios, uniformly high
combustion chamber temperatures, and relatively long gas retention times) have lower formaldehyde
emission rates than do smaller, less efficient combustion units. Average emission factors for POM
and formaldehyde from fuel oil combustors are presented in Table 1.3-9, together with N20
emissions data.
1.3.2.6 Trace Element Emissions16"19'36"40 -
Trace elements are also emitted from the combustion of oil. For this update of AP-42, trace
metals included in the list of 189 hazardous air pollutants under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments are considered. The quantity of trace metals emitted depends on combustion
temperature, fuel feed mechanism, and the composition of the fuel. The temperature determines the
degree of volatilization of specific compounds contained in the fuel. The fuel feed mechanism affects
the separation of emissions into bottom ash and fly ash.
The quantity of any given metal emitted, in general, depends on:
- the physical and chemical properties of the element itself;
- its concentration in the fuel;
1.3-18
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.4-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM)
FROM NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION3
Combustor Type
(Size, 106 Btu/hr Heat Input)
(SCC)b
Filterable PMC
Condensable PMd
kg/106 m3
lb/106 ft3
RATING
kg/106 m3
lb/106 ft3
RATING
Utility/large industrial boilers (> 100)
(1-01-006-01, 1-01-006-04)
16 - 80
1 - 5
B
ND
ND
NA
Small industrial boilers (10 - 100)
(1-02-006-02)
99
6.2
B
120
7.5
D
Commercial boilers (0.3 - <10)
(1-03-006-03)
72
4,5
C
120
7.5
C
Residential furnaces (<0.3)
(No SCC)
2.8
0.18
c
180
11
D
a References 9-14. All factors represent uncontrolled emissions. Units are kg of pollutant/106 cubic meters natural gas fired and lb of
pollutant/106 cubic feet natural gas fired. Based on an average natural gas higher heating value of 8270 kcal/m3 (1000 Btu/scf).
The emission factors in this table may be converted to other natural gas heating values by multiplying the given emission factor by
the ratio of the specified heating value to this average heating value. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
h SCC = Source Classification Code.
e Filterable PM is that particulate matter collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.
d Condensable PM is that particulate matter collected using EPA Method 202, (or equivalent). Total PM is the sum of the filterable
PM and condensable PM. All PM emissions can be assumed to be less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic equivalent diameter
(PM-10).
-------
f"
¦t-
Table 1.4-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02), NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx).
AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) FROM NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION*
m
g
So
C/3
O
z
T!
>
n
H
O
w
C/i
Combustor Type

S02c

NOxd

coe

(Size, 106 Btu/hr Heat Input)

(SCC)b
kg/106 m3
lb/106 ft3
RATING
kg/106 m3
lb/106 ft3
RATING
kg/106 m3
lb/106 ft3
RATING
Utility/large Industrial Boilers

(>100) (1-01-006-01,

1-01-006-04)

Uncontrolled
9.6
0.6
A
8800
550f
A
640
40
A
Controlled - Low NOx
9.6
0.6
A
1300
81f
D
ND
ND
NA
burners

Controlled - Flue gas
9.6
0.6
A
850
53f
D
ND
ND
NA
recirculation

Small Industrial Boilers

(10 - 100) (1-02-006-02)

Uncontrolled
9.6
0.6
A
2240
140
A
560
35
A
Controlled - Low NOx
9.6
0.6
A
1300
81f
D
980
61
D
burners

Controlled - Flue gas
9.6
0.6
A
480
30
C
590
37
C
recirculation

Commercial Boilers

(0.3 - <10) (1-03-006-03)

Uncontrolled
9.6
0.6
A
1600
100
B
330
21
C
Controlled - Low NOx
9.6
0.6
A
270
17
C
236
15
c
burners

Controlled - Flue gas
9.6
0.6
A
580
36
D
ND
ND
NA
recirculation

Residential Furnaces (<0.3)

(No SCC)

Uncontrolled
9.6
0.6
A
1500
94
B
640
40
B
a Units are kg of pollutant/106 cubic meters natural gas fired and lb of pollutant/106 cubic feet natural gas fired. Based on an average
natural gas fired higher heating value of 8270 kcal/m3 (1000 Btu/scf). The emission factors in this table may be converted to other
natural gas heating values by multiplying the given emission factor by the ratio of the specified heating value to this average heating
value. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
_ b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 7. Based on average sulfur content of natural gas, 4600 g/106 Nm3 (2000 gr/106 scf).
-------
Currently, the four most common control devices used to reduce PM emissions from wood-
fired boilers are mechanical collectors, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), and fabric
filters. The use of multitube cyclone (or multiclone) mechanical collectors provides particulate
control for many hogged boilers. Often, two multiclones are used in series, allowing the first
collector to remove the bulk of the dust and the second to remove smaller particles. The efficiency of
this arrangement is from 65 to 95 percent. The most widely used wet scrubbers for wood-fired
boilers are venturi scrubbers. With gas-side pressure drops exceeding 4 kPa (15 inches of water),
particulate collection efficiencies of 90 percent or greater have been reported for venturi scrubbers
operating on wood-fired boilers.
Fabric filters (i. e., baghouses) and ESPs are employed when collection efficiencies above
95 percent are required. When applied to wood-fired boilers, ESPs are often used downstream of
mechanical collector precleaners which remove larger-sized particles. Collection efficiencies of 93 to
99.8 percent for PM have been observed for ESPs operating on wood-fired boilers.
A variation of the ESP is the electrostatic gravel bed filter. In this device, PM in flue gases
is removed by impaction with gravel media inside a packed bed; collection is augmented by an
electrically charged grid within the bed. Particulate collection efficiencies are typically near
95 percent.
Fabric filters have had limited applications to wood-fired boilers. The principal drawback to
fabric filtration, as perceived by potential users, is a fire danger arising from the collection of
combustible carbonaceous fly ash. Steps can be taken to reduce this hazard, including the installation
of a mechanical collector upstream of the fabric filter to remove large burning particles of fly ash
(i. e., "sparklers"). Despite complications, fabric filters are generally preferred for boilers firing salt-
laden wood. This fuel produces fine particulates with a high salt content. Fabric filters are capable
of high fine particle collection efficiencies; in addition, the salt content of the particles has a
quenching effect, thereby reducing fire hazards. In two tests of fabric filters operating on salt-laden
wood-fired boilers, particulate collection efficiencies were above 98 percent.
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from wood-fired boilers are lower than those from coal-
fired boilers due to the lower nitrogen content of wood and the lower combustion temperatures which
characterize wood-fired boilers. For stoker and FBC boilers, overfire air ports may be used to lower
NOx emissions by staging the combustion process. In those areas of the U. S. where NQX emissions
must be reduced to their lowest levels, the application of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to waste wood-fired boilers has either been accomplished (SNCR)
or is being contemplated (SCR). Both systems are post-combustion NOx reduction techniques in
which ammonia (or urea) is injected into the flue gas to selectively reduce NOx to nitrogen and water.
In one application of SNCR to an industrial wood-fired boiler, NOx reduction efficiencies varied
between 35 and 75 percent as the ammonia-to-NOx ratio increased from 0.4 to 3.2.
Emission factors and emission factor ratings for wood waste boilers are summarized in
Tables 1.6-1, 1,6-2, 1.6-3, 1.6-4, 1.6-5, 1,6-6, and 1.6-7.21-22 Emission factors are for uncontrolled
combustors unless otherwise indicated. Cumulative particle size distribution data and associated
emission factors are presented in Tables 1.6-8 and 1.6-9. Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific
emission factors are plotted in Figure 1.6-1 and Figure 1.6-2. All emission factors presented are
based on the feed rate of wet, as-fired wood with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture
and 2,500 kcal/kg (4,500 Btu/lb) higher heating values.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.6-3
-------
~ Table 1.6-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM), PARTICULATE MATTER LESS
THAN 10 MICROMETERS (PM-10), AND LEAD FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION4
m
S
S3
C/5
o
z
•n
>
O
vo

PMC
PM-10d
Lead6
Source Category
(SCC)b
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATING
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATING
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATIN
G
Bark-fired boilers
(1-01-009-01, 1-02-009-01,
1-02-009-04, 1-03-009-01)

Uncontrolled
23.5
47
B
8.4
16.8
D
1.4E-03
2.9 E-03
D
Mechanical collector
with flyash reinjection
without flyash reinjection
7
4.5
14
9.0
B
B
5.5
1.62
11.0
3.24
D
D
NDf
ND

Wet scrubber
1.44
2.88
D
1.25
2.50
D
ND
ND

Wood/bark-fired boilers
(1-01-009-02, 1-02-009-02,
1-02-009-05, 1-03-009-02)

Uncontrolled
3.6
7.2
C
3.24
6.48
E
ND
ND

Mechanical collector
with flyash reinjection
without flyash reinjection
3.0
2,7
6.0
5.4
C
C
2.73
0.86
5.46
1.72
E
E
1.6 E-04S
1.6 E-04g
3.2 E-04S
3.2 E-04g
D
Wet scrubber
0.24
0.48
D
0.216
0.432
E
1.8 E-04
3.5 E-04
D
Electrostatic precipitator
0.02
0.04
D
ND
ND

8.0 E-05
1.6 E-05
D
Wood-fired boilers
(1-01-009-03, 1-02-009-03,
1-02-009-06, 1-03-009-03)

Uncontrolled
4.4
8.8
C
ND
ND

ND
ND

Mechanical collector
without flyash reinjection
2.1
4.2
c
l,3h
2.6h
D
1.5 E-04
3 1 E-04
D
Electrostatic precipitator
0.08
0.17
D
ND
ND

5.5 E-03
1.1 E-03
D
-------
Table 1.6-1 (cont.).
Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood waste burned and lb of pollutant/ton of wood waste burned. Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired
wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and 2500 kcal/kg (4500 Btu/lb) higher heating value.
SCC = Source Classification Code.
References 11-15.
References 13,16.
References 11,13-15,17.
ND = no data.
Due to lead's relative volatility, it is assumed that fly ash reinjection does not have a significant effect on lead emissions following mechanical
collectors.
Based on one test in which 61 percent of emitted PM was less than 10 micrometer in size.
-------
Table 1.6-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx), SULFUR OXIDES (SOx), AND
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION8
Source Category
(SCC)b
NOxc
SOxd
COe
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATING
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATING
kg/Mg
lb/ton
RATING
Fuel cell/Dutch
oven boiler
(no SCC)
Stoker boilers
(no SCC)
FBC boilers
(no SCC)
0.19 0.38 C
(0.0017 - 0.75) (0.0033 - 1.5)
0.75 1.5 C
(0.33 - 1.8) (0,66 - 3.6)
1.0 2.0 D
0.037 0.075 B
(0.005 - 0.1) (0.01 - 0.2)
0.037 0.075 B
(0.005 - 0.1) (0.01 -0.2)
0.037 0.075 B
(0.005 - 0.1) (0.01 - 0.2)
3.3 6.6 C
(0.33 - 11) (0.65 - 21)
6.8 13.6 C
(0.95 - 40) (1.9 - 80)
0.7 1.4 D
(0.24 - 1.2) (0.47 - 2.4)
g a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood waste burned and lb of pollutant/ton of wood waste burned. Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired
~ wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and 2,500 kcal/kg (4,500 Btu/Ib) higher heating value. FBC = fluidized
£2 bed combustion.
§ b SCC = Source Classification Code.
m c References 12-14,18-20. NOx formation is primarily a function of wood nitrogen content. Higher values in the range (parentheses) should be
^ used for wood nitrogen contents above a typical value of 0.08 weight percent, as fired,
g d Reference 23. Lower limit of the range (in parentheses) should be used for wood and higher values for bark,
e References 11-15,18,24-26. Higher values in the range (in parentheses) should be used if combustion conditions are less than adequate, such
as unusually wet wood or high air-to-fuel ratios.
vO
Lh
-------
Table 1.7-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR OXIDES (SOx),
NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx), AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
FROM UNCONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION®

SO
c,f
X
NOxd
coe
Firing Configuration
(SCC)b
Emission
Factor
RATING
Emission
Factor
RATING
Emission
Factor
RATING
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
(SCC 1-01-003-02)
15S
C
3.7
C

Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, wall fired
(SCC 1-01-003-01)
15S
c
5.6
C
0.13
c
Cyclone
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
15S
c
6.3
c

Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
15S
c
2.9
c

Traveling Grate
(overfeed) stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-04)
15S
c
ND

Atmospheric fluidized
bed
5S
D
1.8
c
0.08
C
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned. ND = no data.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 2.
d References 2-3,7-8,15-16.
e References 7,16.
f S = Weight % sulfur content of lignite, wet basis. For example, if the sulfur content equals 3.4%,
then S = 3,4. For high sodium ash (Na20 > 8%), use 1 IS. For low sodium ash (Na20 < 2%),
use 17S. If ash sodium content is unknown, use 15S.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.7-3
-------
Table 1.7-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR OXIDES (SOx),
NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx), AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
FROM UNCONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION3

so/'1
NO,"
COe
Firing Configuration
(SCC)b
Emission
Factor
RATING
Emission
Factor
RATING
Emission
Factor
RATING
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
(SCC 1-01-003-02)
30S
C
7.3
C

Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, wall fired
(SCC 1-01-003-01)
30S
C
11.1
C
0.25
C
Cyclone
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
30S
C
12.5
C

Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
30S
C
5.8
C

Traveling grate
(overfeed) stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-04)
30S
C
ND

Atmospheric fluidized
bed
10S
D
3.6
C
0.15
C
a Units are lb of pollutant/ton of fuel burned.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 2.
d References 2-3,7-8,15-16.
e References 7,16.
f S = Weight % sulfur content of lignite, wet basis. For example, if the sulfur content equals 3.4%,
then S = 3.4. For high sodium ash (Na20 > 8%), use 22S. For low sodium ash (Na20 < 2%),
use 34S. If ash sodium content is unknown, use 30S.
1.7-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.7-3 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
(PM) AND NITROUS OXIDE (N20) FROM LIGNITE COMBUSTION8
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
PMb
N2Oc
Emission Factor
RATING
Emission Factor
RATING
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
(SCC 1-01-003-02)
3.3A (6.5A)
E

Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, wall fired
(SCC 1-01-003-01)
2.6A (5.1 A)
E

Cyclone
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
3.4A (6.7A)
C

Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
4.OA (8.OA)
E

Other stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-04)
1.7A (3.4A)
E

Atmospheric fluidized bed

1.2 (2.5)
E
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned and lb of pollutant/ton of fuel burned.
SCC = Source Classification Code.
h References 5-6,12,14. A = weight % ash content of lignite, wet basis. For example, if the ash
content is 5%, then A = 5.
c Reference 18.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.7-5
-------
Table 1.7-4 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
FOR BOILERS FIRING PULVERIZED LIGNITE3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING; E

Cumulative Mass % < Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factorc
Particle Sizeb

Multiple Cyclone

Multiple Cyclone
0i m)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Controlled11
15
51
77
1.7A (3.4A)
0.51 A (I.OA)
10
35
67
1.2A (2.3A)
0.44A (0.88A)
6
26
57
0,86A (1.7A)
0.38A (0.75A)
2.5
10
27
0.33A (0.66A)
0.18A (0.36A)
1.25
7
16
0.23A (0.47A)
0.11A (0.21 A)
1.00
6
14
0.20A (0.40A)
0.093A (0.19A)
0.625
3
8
0.1 OA (0.19A)
0.053A (0.11 A)
TOTAL

3.3A (6.6A)
0.66A (1.3A)
a Reference 13. Based on tangential-fired units. For wall-fired units, multiply emission factors in the table by 0.79.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
u Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned and lb of pollutant/ton of fuel burned. A = weight % ash content of coal, wet basis.
d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone is 80%,
-------
Table 1.7-5 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
FOR LIGNITE-FIRED SPREADER STOKERS8
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Cumulative Mass % < Stated Size
Cumulative Emission Factor0
Particle Sizeb

Multiple Cyclone

Multiple Cyclone
(ixm)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Control ledd
15
28
55
1.1 A (2.2A)
0.44A (0.88A)
10
20
41
0.80A (1.6A)
0.33A (0.66A)
6
14
31
0.56A (1.1 A)
0.25A (0.50A)
2.5
7
26
0.28A (0.56A)
0.21 A (0.42A)
1.25
5
23
0.20A (0.40A)
0.18A (0.37A)
1.00
5
22
0.20A (0.40A)
0.18A (0.35A)
0.625
4
e
0.16A (0.33A)
e
TOTAL

4,OA (8.OA)
0.80A (1.6A)
a Reference 13.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned and lb of pollutant/ton of fuel burned. A = weight % ash content of lignite, wet basis. For
example, if the lignite is 5% ash, then A equal 5.
d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone is 80%.
e Insufficient data.
-------
3A
2.7 A
2.4A
2.1 A
1.8 A
1.5A
1.2A
r2 W)
o ^ 0.9A
^ 0.6A
O
tS "O
c K
.2 G
55 1/1
.23 50
g -f
8 §
-O O
0.3A
0
Multiple
-
cyclone N.

/\ -
1 1.. 1 1 1 TTlEI- 1 L 1,
Uncontrolled
i i i ii 1 i i i i i i i i
I.OA
o

0.9A
o
<*-4
c

0.8A
o
*V3

0.7A
g
T2
•o"
p
0.6A
tB
JU

c
50
0.3A
"o
o

0.2A
M

0.1 A
*+~>
3
s

.1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter { m)
20
40 60 100
Figure 1.7-1. Cumulative size-specific emission factors for boilers
firing pulverized lignite.
C
o
>>
j-.
O

CJ
t>
T3
a>
Q—i
4>

c
£
~—*
o

'ka

e
in
*¦
"O
s
03
o
§
a>
O

*13
00
s
-a

S
O
£
G

G
O

O
u

1.0A

0.9A
-

0.8A
-
Uncontrolled

0.7A
-
V

0.6A
-

0.5A
-

0.4A
-

0.3A
-

0.2A
-

Multiple cyclone
0.1A
-

0
1 1 l
llill. 1 1 11 1 I I 1
1 1 1 1 MIL
.2
.6 1 2 4 6 10
Particle diameter ( m)
20
40 60 100
Figure 1.7-2. Cumulative size-specific emission factors for
lignite-fired spreader stokers.
1.7-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 1.11-3 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (TOC), HYDROGEN
CHLORIDE (HCi), AND CARBON DIOXIDE (C02) FROM WASTE OIL COMBUSTORSa
Source Category
{SCC)h
TOC
HCI
o
u
kg/m3
lb/1000 gal
RATING
kg/m3
lb/1000 gal
RATING
kg/m3
lb/1000 gal
RATING
Small boilers0
(1-03-013-02)
0.1
1.0
D
7,9Cld
66C1
C
2,400
20,000
C
Space heaters6
Vaporizing burner
(1-05-001-14,
1-05-002-14)
0.1
1.0
D
ND
ND

2,700
23,000
D
Atomizing burner
(1-05-001-13,
1-05-002-13)
0.1
1.0
D
ND
ND

2,900
24,000
D
a Units are kg of pollutant/cubic meter of waste oil burned and lb of pollutant/1000 gallons of waste oil burned. ND = no data.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References 2,4,6-7,9.
d CI = weight percent chlorine in fuel. Multiply numeric value by CI to obtain emission factor.
e References 4,6-7,9.
-------
Table 1,11-4 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPEC1ATED METALS
FROM WASTE OIL COMBUSTORSa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
m
Crt
c/5
o
z
*T)
>•
n
o
73
Pollutant
Small Boilers'5
(SCC 1-03-013-02)
Space Heaters: Vaporizing Burner®
(SCC 1-05-001-14, 1-05-002-14)
Space Heaters: Atomizing Burner0
(SCC 1-05-001-13, 1-05-002-13)
kg/m3
lb/1000 gal
kg/m3
lb/1000 gal
kg/m3
lb/1000 gal
Antimony
ND
ND
4.1 E-05
3.4 E-04
5.4 E-04
4.5 E-03
Arsenic
1.3 E-02
1.1 E-01
3.0 E-04
2.5 E-03
7.2 E-03
6.0 E-02
Beryllium
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.1 E-04
1.8 E-03
Cadmium
1.1 E-03
9.3 E-03
1.8 E-05
1.5 E-04
1.4 E-03
1.2 E-02
Chromium
2.4 E-03
2.0 E-02
2.3 E-02
1.9 E-01
2.2 E-02
1.8 E-01
Cobalt
2.5 E-05
2.1 E-04
6.8 E-04
5.7 E-03
6.2 E-04
5.2 E-03
Manganese
8.2 E-03
6.8 E-02
2.6 E-04
2.2 E-03
6.0 E-03
5.0 E-02
Nickel
1.3 E-03
1.1 E-02
6.0 E-03
5.0 E-02
1.9 E-02
1.6 E-01
Selenium
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Phosphorous
ND
ND
4.3 E-03
3.6 E-02
ND
ND
a Pollutants in this table represent metal species measured for waste oil combustors. Other metal species may also have been emitted
but were either not measured or were present at concentrations below analytical detection limits. Units are kg of pollutant/cubic
meter of waste oil burned and lb of pollutant/1000 gallons of waste oil burned. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Reference 6.
c References 6-7.
LK
-------
Table 3.1-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
UNCONTROLLED GAS TURBINES3
Pollutant
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATINGb
Natural Gas
(SCC 2-01-002-01)
Fuel Oil (Distillate)
(SCC 2-01-001-01)
g/kW-hrc
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
g/kW-hrc
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
X
o
z
C
2.15
190
3.41
300
CO
D
0.52
46
0.233
20.6
co2d
B
546
48,160
799
70,520
TOC (as methane)
D
0.117
10.32
0.083
7.31
SOx (as S02)e
B
4.57S
404S
4.92S
434.3S
PM-10

Solids
E
0.094
8.30
0.185
16.3
Condensables
E
0.11
9.72
0.113
9.89
Sizing %

<0.05 /xm
D
15%
15%
16%
16%
<0.10 /xm
D
40%
40%
48%
48%
<0.15 /xm
D
63%
63%
72%
72%
<0.20 /xm
D
78%
78%
85%
85%
<0.25 /xm
D
89%
89%
93%
93%
< 1 /xm
D
100%
100%
100%
100%
a References 1-8. SCC = Source Classification Code. PM-10 = particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 micrometers (/*m) aerodynamic diameter, and sizing % is expressed in /xm.
b Ratings reflect limited data and/or a lack of documentation of test results, may not apply to specific
facilities or populations, and should be used with care.
0 Calculated from ng/J assuming an average heat rate of 11,318 kJ/kW-hr.
d Based on 100% conversion of the fuel carbon to C02. C02 [ng/J] = 3.67*C/E, where C = carbon
content of the fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, 55.6 kJ/g. The uncontrolled
C02 emission factors are also applicable to controlled gas turbines.
e All sulfur in the fuel is assumed to be converted to S02. S = % sulfur in fuel.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.1-3
-------
Table 3.1-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
UNCONTROLLED GAS TURBINES®
Pollutant
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING*1
Natural Gas
(SCC 2-01-002-01)
Fuel Oil (Distillate)
(SCC 2-01-001-01)
lb/hp-hrc
(power output)
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
lb/hp-hrc
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
NOx
C
3.53 E-03
0.44
5.60 E-03
0.698
CO
D
8.60 E-04
0.11
3.84 E-04
0.048
co2d
B
0.897
112
1.31
164
TOC (as methane)
D
1.92 E-04
0.024
1.37 E-04
0.017
SOx (as S02)e
B
7.52 E-03S
0.94S
8.09 E-03S
1.Q1S
PM-10

Solids
E
1.54 E-04
0.0193
3.04 E-04
0.038
Condensables
E
1.81 E-04
0.0226
1.85 E-04
0.023
Sizing %

<0.05 jxm
D
15%
15%
16%
16%
<0.10 iim
D
40%
40%
48%
48%
<0.15 fim
D
63%
63%
72%
72%
<0.20 /xm
D
78%
78%
85%
85%
<0.25 fim
D
89%
89%
93%
93%
< 1 fiTtL
D
100%
100%
100%
100%
a References 1-8. SCC = Source Classification Code. PM-10 = particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 fim aerodynamic diameter, and sizing % is expressed in ftrn. Condensables are also
PM-10 and all PM from oil and gas fired turbines is less than 1 nm in size and therefore are
considered PM-10.
h Ratings reflect limited data and/or a lack of documentation of test results, may not apply to specific
facilities or populations, and should be used with care.
c Calculated from Ib/MMBtu assuming an average heat rate of 8,000 Btu/hp-hr.
d Based on 100% conversion of the fuel carbon to C02- C02 [lb/MMBtu] = 3.67*C/E, where
C = carbon content of fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, (0.0239 MMBtu/lb).
The uncontrolled C02 emission factors are also applicable to controlled gas turbines.
e All sulfur in the fuel is assumed to be converted to S02. S = % sulfur in fuel. When sulfur
content is not available, 0.6 lb/106 ft3 (0.0006 lb/MMBtu) can be used; however, the equation is
more accurate.
3.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 3.1-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE GAS-FIRED
CONTROLLED GAS TURBINES8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Water Injection
(0.8 water/fuel ratio)
Steam Injection
(1.2 water/fuel ratio)
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction
(with water
injection)
Pollutant
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
ng/J
(fuel input)
NOx
0.66
61
0.59
52
3.78b
CO
1.3
120
0.71
69
3.61
TOC (as methane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.02
nh3
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.80
NMHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.38
Formaldehyde0
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.16
a References 3,10-15. Source Classification Code 2-01-002-01. All data are averages of a limited
number of tests and may not be typical of those reductions that can be achieved at a specific
location. NMHC = nonmethane hydrocarbons. ND = no data.
b An SCR catalyst reduces NOx by an average of 78%.
c Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.1-5
-------
Table 3.1-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE GAS-FIRED
CONTROLLED GAS TURBINES8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Water Injection
(0.8 water/fuel ratio)
Steam Injection
(1.2 water/fuel ratio)
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction
(with water
injection)
Pollutant
lb/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
lb/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
X
o
z
1.10 E-03
0.14
9.70 E-04
0.12
0.03b
CO
2.07 E-03
0.28
1.17 E-03
0.16
0.0084
TOC (as methane)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.014
nh3
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0065
NMHC
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0032
Formaldehyde0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0027
a References 3,10-15. Source Classification Code 2-01-002-01. All data are averages of a limited
number of tests and may not be typical of those reductions that can be achieved at a specific
location. NMHC = nonmethane hydrocarbons. ND = no data.
h An SCR catalyst reduces NOx by an average of 78%.
c Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
3.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 3.2-1 (Metric Units). CRITERIA EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERSa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A (except as noted)

Gas Turbines
(SCC 2-02-002-01)
2-Cycle Lean Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-52)
4-Cycle Lean Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-53)
4-Cycle Rich Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-54)
Pollutant
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
NOx
1.70
145
14.79
1,165
16.1
1,376
13.46
989
CO
1.11
71
2.04
165
2.15
181
11.55
687
co2b
543
47,424
543
47,424
543
47,424
543
47,424
TOC
0.24
22.8
8.14
645
6.57
516
1.66
116
TNMOC
0.013
0.86
0.58
47.3
0.97
77.4
0.19
12.9
ch4
0.228
21.9
7.56
615
5.50
473
1.48
103
a References 1-5. Factors are based on entire population. Factors for individual engines from specific manufacturers may vary.
SCC = Source Classification Code. TNMOC = total nonmethane organic compounds.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B. Based on 100% conversion of the fuel carbon to C02. C02 [ng/J] = 3.67*C/E, where
C = carbon content of fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, 55.6 kJ/g. The uncontrolled C02 emission factors are also
applicable to natural gas prime movers controlled by combustion modifications, NSCR, and SCR.
-------
Table 3.2-2 (English Units). CRITERIA EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A (except as noted)

Gas Turbines
(SCC 2-02-002-01)
2-Cycle Lean Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-52)
4-Cycle Lean Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-54)
4-Cycle Rich Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-53)
Pollutant
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
lb/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
NOx
2.87 E-03
0.34
0.024
2.7
0.026
3.2
0.022
2.3
CO
1.83 E-03
0.17
3.31 E-03
0.38
3.53 E-03
0.42
0.019
1.6
co2b
0.89
110
0.89
110
0.89
110
0.89
110
TOC
3.97 E-04
0.053
0.013
1.5
0.011
1.2
2.65 E-03
0.27
TNMOC
2.20 E-05
0.002
9.48 E-04
0.11
1 59 E-03
0.18
3.09 E-04
0.03
ch4
3.75 E-04
0.051
0.012
1.4
9.04 E-03
1.1
2.43 E-03
0.24
a References 1-5. Factors are based on entire population. Factors for individual engines from specific manufacturers may vary.
SCC = Source Classification Code. TNMOC = total nonmethane organic compounds.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B. Based on 100% conversion of the fuel carbon to C02. C02 [lb/MMBtu] = 3.67*C/E, where
C = carbon content of fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, 0 0239 MMBtu/lb. The uncontrolled C02 emission
factors are also applicable to natural gas prime movers controlled by combustion modifications, NSCR, and SCR.
-------
Table 3.2-5 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS:
NSCR ON 4-CYCLE RICH BURN ENGINE3
(SCC 2-02-002-53)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Inlet
Outlet
Pollutant
g/kW-hr
lb/hp-hr
ng/J
lb/MMBtu
g/kW-hr
lb/hp-hr
ng/J
lb/MMBtu
NOx
10
0.017
770
1.8
3.4
5.51 E-03
250
0.58
CO
16
0.026
1208
2.8
14
0.022
1000
2.4
TOG
0.44
7.28 E-04
33.97
0.079
0.27
4.41 E-04
20
0.047
nh3
0.07
1.10 E-04
5.16
0.012
1.10
1.81 E-03
82
0.19
C7 - €16
0.026
4.19 E-05
1.81
0.0042
0.0055
9.04 E-06
0.39
0.0009
C16 +
0.029
3.75 E-05
1.72
0.004
0.0008
1.32 E-06
0.043
0.0001
PM solids
(front half)
0.004
6.61 E-06
0.301
0.0007
0.004
6.61 E-06
0.30
0.0007
Benzeneb
ND
ND
0.31
7.1 E-04
ND
ND
0.047
1.1 E-04
Toluene*7
ND
ND
0.099
2.3 E-04
ND
ND
<0.0099
<2.3 E-05
Xylenesb
ND
ND
<0.025
<5.9 E-05
ND
ND
<0.017
<4.0 E-05
Propylene
ND
ND
<0.069
< 1.6 E-04
ND
ND
<0.069
<1.6 E-04
Naphthalene^
ND
ND
<0.021
<4.9 E-05
ND
ND
<0.021
<4.9 E-05
Formaldehyde1'
ND
ND
<0.69
<1.6 E-03
ND
ND
<0.003
<7.2 E-06
Acetaldehyde"
ND
ND
<0.026
<6.1 E-05
ND
ND
<0.0021
<4.8 E-06
Acrolein13
ND
ND
<0.016
<3.7 E-05
ND
ND
<0.0041
<9.6 E-06
a References 4,7. Ratings reflect very limited data and may not apply to specific facilities. ND = no data.
b Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
-------
Table 3.2-6 (Metric And English Units). CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS:
SCR ON 4-CYCLE LEAN BURN ENGINEa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Inlet
Outlet
g/kW-hr
lb/hp-hr
ng/J
lb/MMBtu
g/kW-hr
lb/hp-hr
ng/J
lb/MMBtu
NO*
26
0.042
2,800
6.4
4.8
7.94 E-03
510
1.2
CO
1.6
2.65 E-03
160
0.38
1.5
2.43 E-03
160
0.37
nh3
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.36
5.95 E-04
39
0.091
C7 - C16
0.009
1.54 E-05
0.99
0.0023
0.0042
6.83 E-06
0.56
0.0013
€16 +
0.017
2.87 E-05
1.9
0.0044
0.0032
5.29 E-06
0.34
0.0008
a Reference 8. Ratings reflect very limited data and may not apply to specific facilities. C02 emissions are not affected by control.
ND = no data.
-------
Table 3.4-1 (Metric Units). GASEOUS EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE UNCONTROLLED STATIONARY DIESEL AND ALL
STATIONARY DUAL-FUEL ENGINES2

Diesel Fuel
(SCC 2-02-004-01)
Dual Fuelb
(SCC 2-02-004-02)
Pollutant
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
EMISSION
FACTOR RATING
g/kW-hr
(power output)
ng/J
(fuel input)
EMISSION
FACTOR RATING
NOx
14
1,322
C
12.3
1,331
D
CO
3.2
349
C
3.1
340
D
scv
4.92Sj
434Sj
B
0.25S, + 4.34S2
21.7SJ + 384S2
B
co2d
703
70,942
B
469
47,424
B
TOC (as CH4)
0.43
38
C
3.2
352
D
Methane
0.04
4
Ec
2.4
240
Ef
Nonmethane
0.44
45
Ec
0.8
80
Ef
a Based on uncontrolled levels for each fuel, from References 4-6. When necessary, the average heating value of diesel was assumed to be
44,900 J/g with a density of 851 g/liter. The power output and fuel input values were averaged independently from each other, because
of the use of actual brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) values for each data point and of the use of data possibly sufficient to
calculate only 1 of the 2 emission factors (e. g., enough information to calculate ng/J, but not g/kW-hr). Factors are based on averages
across all manufacturers and duty cycles. The actual emissions from a particular engine or manufacturer could vary considerably from
these levels. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Dual fuel assumes 95% natural gas and 5% diesel fuel.
c Assumes that all sulfur in the fuel is converted to S02. St = % sulfur in fuel oil; S2 = % sulfur in natural gas.
d Assumes 100% conversion of carbon in fuel to C02 with 87 weight % carbon in diesel, 70 weight % carbon in natural gas, dual-fuel
mixture of 5% diesel with 95% natural gas, average BSFC of 9,901,600 J/kW-hr, diesel heating value of 44,900 J/g, and natural gas
heating value of 47,200 J/g.
e Based on data from 1 engine.
f Assumes that nonmethane organic compounds are 25% of TOC emissions from dual-fuel engines. Molecular weight of nonmethane gas
stream is assumed to be that of methane.
-------
Table 3.4-2 (English Units). GASEOUS EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE UNCONTROLLED STATIONARY DIESEL AND ALL
STATIONARY DUAL-FUEL ENGINES3

Diesel Fuel
(SCC 2-02-004-01)
Dual Fuelb
(SCC 2-02-004-02)
Pollutant
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
EMISSION
FACTOR RATING
lb/hp-hr
(power output)
lb/MMBtu
(fuel input)
EMISSION
FACTOR RATING
NOx
0.024
3.1
C
0.020
3.1
D
CO
5.29 E-03
0.81
C
5.07 E-03
0.79
D
GO
o
X
8.09 E-03Sj
1.01S,
B
4.06 E-04Sj + 9.57 E-03S-,
0.05S] + 0.895S2
B
co2d
1.16
165
B
0.772
110
B
TOC (as CH4)
7.05 E-04
0.09
C
5.29 E-03
0.8
D
Methane
e
e
Ec
3.97 E-03
0.6
Ef
Nonmethane
e
e
Ec
1.32 E-03
0.2
Ef
a Based on uncontrolled levels for each fuel, from References 4-6. When necessary, the average heating value of diesel was assumed to be
19,300 Btu/lb with a density of 7.1 lb/gallon. The power output and fuel input values were averaged independently from each other,
because of the use of actual brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) values for each data point and of the use of data possibly sufficient to
calculate only 1 of the 2 emission factors (e. g., enough information to calculate lb/MMBtu, but not Ib/hp-hr). Factors are based on
averages across all manufacturers and duty cycles. The actual emissions from a particular engine or manufacturer could vary
considerably from these levels. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Dual fuel assumes 95% natural gas and 5% diesel fuel.
c Assumes that all sulfur in the fuel is converted to S02- Sj = % sulfur in fuel oil; S2 = % sulfur in natural gas.
d Assumes 100% conversion of carbon in fuel to C02 with 87 weight % carbon in diesel, 70 weight % carbon in natural gas, dual-fuel
mixture of 5% diesel with 95% natural gas, average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr, diesel heating value of 19,300 Btu/lb, and natural gas
heating value of 1050 Btu/scf,
e Based on data from 1 engine, TOC is by weight 9% methane and 91 % nonmethane,
f Assumes that nonmethane organic compounds are 25% of TOC emissions from dual-fuel engines. Molecular weight of nonmethane gas
stream is assumed to be that of methane.
-------
5.3 Natural Gas Processing
5.3.1 General1
Natural gas from high-pressure wells is usually passed through field separators at the well to
remove hydrocarbon condensate and water. Natural gasoline, butane, and propane are usually present
in the gas, and gas processing plants are required for the recovery of these liquefiable constituents
(see Figure 5.3-1). Natural gas is considered "sour" if hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is present in amounts
greater than 5.7 milligrams per normal cubic meters (mg/Nm3) (0.25 grains per 100 standard cubic
feet lgr/100 scfj). The H2S must be removed (called "sweetening" the gas) before the gas can be
utilized. If H2S is present, the gas is usually sweetened by absorption of the H2S in an amine
solution. Amine processes are used for over 95 percent of all gas sweetening in the United States.
Other methods, such as carbonate processes, solid bed absorbents, and physical absorption, are
employed in the other sweetening plants. Emission data for sweetening processes other than amine
types are very meager, but a material balance on sulfur will give accurate estimates for sulfur dioxide
(S02).
The major emission sources in the natural gas processing industry are compressor engines,
acid gas wastes, fugitive emissions from leaking process equipment and if present, glycol dehydrator
vent streams. Compressor engine emissions are discussed in Section 3.3.2. Fugitive leak emissions
are detailed in Protocol For Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, F.PA-453/R-95-017, November
1995. Regeneration of the glycol solutions used for dehydrating natural gas can release significant
quantities of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, as well as a wide range of less toxic
organics. These emissions can be estimated by a thermodynamic software model (GRI-GLYCatc™)
available from the Gas Research Institute. Only the S02 emissions from gas sweetening operations
are discussed here.
5.3.2 Process Description2"3
Many chemical processes are available for sweetening natural gas. At present, the amine
process (also known as the Girdler process), is the most widely used method for H2S removal. The
process is summarized in reaction 1 and illustrated in Figure 5.3-2.
2 RNH2 + H2S
where:
R = mono, di, or tri-ethanol
N = nitrogen
H = hydrogen
S = sulfur
- (RNH3)2S (1)
The recovered hydrogen sulfide gas stream may be: (1) vented, (2) flared in waste gas flares
or modern smokeless flares, (3) incinerated, or (4) utilized for the production of elemental sulfur or
sulfuric acid. If the recovered H2S gas stream is not to be utilized as a feedstock for commercial
applications, the gas is usually passed to a tail gas incinerator in which the H2S is oxidized to S02
and is then passed to the atmosphere out a stack. For more details, the reader should consult
Reference 8.
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.3-1
-------
Ul
u>
I
SOUR GAS FEEDSTOCK TO CHEMICAL PLANTS
m
00
VI
t—t
o
2
¦n
>
o
H
O
»
on
REINJECTION
FLARE OR
INCINERATOR
FLARE OR
INCINERATOR
FLARE (ONLY DURING WELL TESTING
AND COMPLETION)
EMERGENCY FLARE
ELEMENTAL
SULFUR
SOUR
GAS
NATURAL 6AS
IC| ~ C2»
SWEET
GAS
EMERGENCY FLARE OR VENT
LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM
CAS(Cj + C4)
SWEET
GAS
EMERGENCY FLARE OR VENT
HIGHER
HYDROCARBONS
(C5 *+• HEAVIER)
GAS,
OIL, AND
WATER
PIPELINE
SULFUR RECOV-
ERY PLANT
SEPARATORS
ANO
DEHYDRATORS
GAS PROCESSING
PLANT
GAS SWEETENING PLANT
HYDROCARBON
CONDENSATES
WATER
v©
Figure 5.3-1. General flow diagram of the natural gas industry.
-------
ACID 6AS
COOLER
PURIFIEO
GAS
LEAN AMINE
SOLUTION
o
SOUR
GAS
STEAM
REBOILER
PUMP
RICH AMINE
SOLUTION
ixl-
HEAT EXCHANGER
Figure 5.3-2. Flow diagram of the amine process for gas sweetening.
5.3.3 Emissions4"5
Emissions will result from gas sweetening plants only if the acid waste gas from the amine
process is flared or incinerated. Most often, the acid waste gas is used as a feedstock in nearby sulfur
recovery or sulfuric acid plants. See Sections 8.13 "Sulfur Recovery", or 8.10, "Sulfuric Acid",
respectively, for these associated processes.
When flaring or incineration is practiced, the major pollutant of concern is S02. Most plants
employ elevated smokeless flares or tail gas incinerators for complete combustion of all waste gas
constituents, including virtually 100 percent conversion of H2S to S02. Little particulate, smoke, or
hydrocarbons result from these devices, and because gas temperatures do not usually exceed 650°C
(1200°F), significant quantities of nitrogen oxides are not formed. Emission factors for gas
sweetening plants with smokeless flares or incinerators are presented in Table 5.3-1. Factors are
expressed in units of kilograms per 1000 cubic meters (kg/103 m3) and pounds per million standard
cubic feet (lb/106 scf).
Some plants still use older, less-efficient waste gas flares. Because these flares usually burn
at temperatures lower than necessary for complete combustion, larger emissions of hydrocarbons and
particulate, as well as H2S, can occur. No data are available to estimate the magnitude of these
emissions from waste gas flares.
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.3-3
-------
Table 5.3.1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR
GAS SWEETENING PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: SULFUR OXIDES: A
ALL OTHERS: C

Sulfur Oxidesc
Carbon

Nitrogen
Process11
Particulate
(S02)
Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Oxides
Amine

kg/103 m3 gas processed
Neg
26.98 Sd
Neg
e
Neg
lb/106 scf gas processed
Neg
1685 Sd
Neg
©
Neg
a Factors are presented only for smokeless flares and tail gas incinerators on the amine gas
sweetening process with no sulfur recovery or sulfuric acid production present. Too little
information exists to characterize emissions from older, less-efficient waste gas flares on the amine
process or from other, less common gas sweetening processes. Factors for various internal
combustion engines used in a gas processing plant are given in Section 3.3, "Gasoline and Diesel
Industrial Engines". Factors for sulfuric acid plants and sulfur recovery plants are given in
Section 8.10, "Sulfuric Acid", and Section 8.13, "Sulfur Recovery", respectively.
Neg = negligible.
b References 2,4-7. Factors are for emissions after smokeless flares (with fuel gas and steam
injection) or tail gas incinerators.
c Assumes that 100% of the H2S in the acid gas stream is converted to S02 during flaring or
incineration and that the sweetening process removes 100% of the H2S in the feedstock.
d S is the H2S content of the sour gas entering the gas sweetening plant, in mole or volume percent.
For example, if the H2S content is 2%, the emission factor would be 26.98 times 2,
or 54.0 kg/1000 m3 (3370 lb/106 scf) of sour gas processed. If the H2S mole % is unknown,
average values from Table 5.3-2 may be substituted. Note: If H2S contents are reported in ppm or
grains (gr) per 100 scf, use the following factors to convert to mole %:
10,000 ppm H2S = 1 mole % H2S
627 gr H2S/100 scf = 1 mole % H2S
The m3 or scf are to be measured at 60°F and 760 mm Hg for this application
(1 lb-mol = 379.5 scf).
e Flare or incinerator stack gases are expected to have negligible hydrocarbon emissions. To estimate
fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from leaking compressor seals, valves, and flanges, see "Protocol
For Equipment Leak Emission Estimates", EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995 (or updates).
5.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
Table 5.3-2. AVERAGE HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS
IN NATURAL GAS BY AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION8
State
AQCR Name
AQCR
Number
Average H2S,
mole %
Alabama
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern
Mississippi (FL, MS)
5
3.30
Arizona
Four Corners (CO, NM, UT)
14
0.71
Arkansas
Monroe-El Dorado (LA)
19
0.15

Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler (LA, OK, TX)
22
0.55
California
Metropolitan Los Angeles
24
2.09

San Joaquin Valley
31
0.89

South Central Coast
32
3.66

Southeast Desert
33
1.0
Colorado
Four Corners (AZ, NM, UT)
14
0.71

Metropolitan Denver
36
0.1

Pawnee
37
0.49

San Isabel
38
0.3

Yampa
40
0.31
Florida
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern
Mississippi (AL, MS)
5
3.30
Kansas
Northwest Kansas
97
0.005

Southwest Kansas
100
0.02
Louisiana
Monroe-El Dorado (AR)
19
0.15

Shreveport-T exarkana-Ty ler (AR, OK, TX)
22
0.55
Michigan
Upper Michigan
126
0.5
Mississippi
Mississippi Delta
134
0.68

Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern
Mississippi (AL, FL)
5
3.30
Montana
Great Falls
141
3.93

Miles City
143
0.4
New Mexico
Four Corners (AZ, CO, UT)
14
0.71

Pecos-Permian Basin
155
0.83
North Dakota
North Dakota
172
L74b
1/95
Petroleum Industry

5.3-5
-------
Table 5.3-2 (cont.).
State
AQCR Name
AQCR
Number
Average H2S,
mole %
Oklahoma
Northwestern Oklahoma
187
1.1

Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler (AR, LA, TX)
22
0.55

Southeastern Oklahoma
188
0.3
Texas
Abilene-Wichita Falls
210
0.055

Amarillo-Lubbock
211
0.26

Austin-Waco
212
0.57

Corpus Christi-Victoria
214
0.59

Metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth
215
2.54

Metropolitan San Antonio
217
1.41

Midland-Odessa-San Angelo
218
0.63

Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler (AR, LA, OK)
22
0.55
Utah
Four Corners (AZ, CO, NM)
14
0.71
Wyoming
Casper
241
1.262

Wyoming (except Park, Bighorn, and
Washakie Counties)
243
2.34c
8 Reference 9. AQCR = Air Quality Control Region.
b Sour gas only reported for Burke, Williams, and McKenzie Counties, ND.
c Park, Bighorn, and Washakie Counties, WY, report gas with an average H2S content of 23 mole
%.
References For Section 5.3
1. D. K. Katz, et al, Handbook Of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1959.
2. R. R. Maddox, Gas And liquid Sweetening, 2nd Ed. Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman,
OK, 1974.
3. R. E, Kirk and D. F. Othmer (eds.), Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology. Vol. 7,
Interscience Encyclopedia, Inc., New York, NY, 1951.
4. Sulfur Compound Emissions Of The Petroleum Production Industry, EPA-650/2-75-030.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1974.
5. Unpublished stack test data for gas sweetening plants, Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX,
1974.
5.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
6. Control Techniques For Hydrocarbon And Organic Solvent Emissions From Stationary
Sources, AP-68, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
March 1970.
7. Control Techniques For Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary Sources, AP-67,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1970.
8. B. J. Mullins, et al., Atmospheric Emissions Survey Of The Sour Gas Processing Industry,
EPA-450/3-75-076, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 1975.
9. Federal Air Quality Control Regions, AP-102, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1972.
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.3-7
-------
7. LIQUID STORAGE TANKS
This chapter presents models for estimating air emissions from organic liquid storage tanks.
It also contains detailed descriptions of typical varieties of such tanks, including horizontal, vertical,
and underground fixed roof tanks, and internal, external, and domed external floating roof tanks.
The emission estimation equations presented herein have been developed by the American
Petroleum Institute (API), which retains the legal rights to these equations. API has granted EPA
permission for the nonexclusive, noncommercial distribution of this material to governmental and
regulatory agencies. However, API reserves its rights regarding all commercial duplication and
distribution of its material. Hence, the material presented is available for public use, but it cannot be
sold without written permission from both the American Petroleum Institute and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
The major pollutant of concern is volatile organic compounds. There also may be speciated
organic compounds that may be toxic or hazardous.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.0-1
-------
7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1,1 Process Descripti on1"2
Storage vessels containing organic liquids can be found in many industries, including
(1) petroleum producing and refining, (2) petrochemical and chemical manufacturing, (3) bulk storage
and transfer operations, and (4) other industries consuming or producing organic liquids. Organic
liquids in the petroleum industry, usually called petroleum liquids, generally are mixtures of
hydrocarbons having dissimilar true vapor pressures (for example, gasoline and crude oil). Organic
liquids in the chemical industry, usually called volatile organic liquids, are composed of pure
chemicals or mixtures of chemicals with similar true vapor pressures (for example, benzene or a
mixture of isopropyl and butyl alcohols).
Six basic tank designs are used for organic liquid storage vessels: fixed roof (vertical and
horizontal), external floating roof, domed external (or covered) floating roof, internal floating roof,
variable vapor space, and pressure (low and high). A brief description of each tank is provided below.
Loss mechanisms associated with each type of tank are provided in Section 7.1.2.
The emission estimating equations presented in Section 7.1 were developed by the American
Petroleum Institute (API). API retains the copyright to these equations. API has granted permission
for the nonexclusive; noncommercial distribution of this material to governmental and regulatory
agencies. However, API reserves its rights regarding all commercial duplication and distribution of its
material. Therefore, the material presented in Section 7.1 is available for public use, but the material
cannot be sold without written permission from the American Petroleum Institute and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
7.1.1.1 Fixed Roof Tanks -
A typical vertical fixed roof tank is shown in Figure 7.1-1. This type of tank consists of a
cylindrical steel shell with a permanently affixed roof, which may vary in design from cone- or dome-
shaped to Hat. Losses from fixed roof tanks are caused by changes in temperature, pressure, and
liquid level.
Fixed roof tanks are either freely vented or equipped with a pressure/vacuum vent. The latter
allows the tanks to operate at a slight internal pressure or vacuum to prevent the release of vapors
during very small changes in temperature, pressure, or liquid level. Of current tank designs, the fixed
roof tank is the least expensive to construct and is generally considered the minimum acceptable
equipment for storing organic liquids.
Horizontal fixed roof tanks are constructed for both above-ground and underground service
and are usually constructed of steel, steel with a fiberglass overlay, or fiberglass-reinforced polyester.
Horizontal tanks are generally small storage tanks with capacities of less than 40,000 gallons.
Horizontal tanks are constructed such that the length of the tank is not greater than six times the
diameter to ensure structural integrity. Horizontal tanks are usually equipped with pressure-vacuum
vents, gauge hatches and sample wells, and manholes to provide access to these tanks. In addition,
underground tanks may be cathodically protected to prevent corrosion of the tank shell. Cathodic
protection is accomplished by placing sacrificial anodes in the tank that are connected to an impressed
current system or by using galvanic anodes in the tank. However, internal cathodic protection against
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-1
-------
corrosion is no longer widely used in the petroleum industry, due to corrosion inhibitors that are now
found in most refined petroleum products.
The potential emission sources for above-ground horizontal tanks are the same as those for
vertical fixed roof tanks. Emissions from underground storage tanks are associated mainly with
changes in the liquid level in the tank. Losses due to changes in temperature or barometric pressure
are minimal for underground tanks because the surrounding earth limits the diurnal temperature
change, and changes in the barometric pressure result in only small losses.
7.1.1.2 External Floating Roof Tanks -
A typical external floating roof tank (EFRT) consists of an open- topped cylindrical steel shell
equipped with a roof that floats on the surface of the stored liquid. The floating roof consists of a
deck, fittings, and rim seal system. Floating decks that are currently in use are constructed of welded
steel plate and are of two general types: pontoon or double-deck. Pontoon-type and double-deck-type
external floating roof tanks are shown in Figures 7.1-2 and 7.1-3, respectively. With all types of
external floating roof tanks, the roof rises and falls with the liquid level in the tank. External floating
decks are equipped with a rim seal system, which is attached to the deck perimeter and contacts the
tank wall. The purpose of the floating roof and rim seal system is to reduce evaporative loss of the
stored liquid. Some annular space remains between the seal system and the tank wall. The seal
system slides against the tank wall as the roof is raised and lowered. The floating deck is also
equipped with fittings that penetrate the deck and serve operational functions. The external floating
roof design is such that evaporative losses from the stored liquid are limited to losses from the rim
seal system and deck fittings (standing storage loss) and any exposed liquid on the tank walls
(withdrawal loss).
7.1.1.3 Internal Floating Roof Tanks -
An internal floating roof tank (IFRT) has both a permanent fixed roof and a floating roof
inside. There are two basic types of internal floating roof tanks: tanks in which the fixed roof is
supported by vertical columns within the tank, and tanks with a self-supporting fixed roof and no
internal support columns. Fixed roof tanks that have been retrofitted to use a floating roof are
typically of the first type. External floating roof tanks that have been converted to internal floating
roof tanks typically have a self-supporting roof. Newly constructed internal floating roof tanks may be
of either type. The deck in internal floating roof tanks rises and falls with the liquid level and cither
floats directly on the liquid surface (contact deck) or rests on pontoons several inches above the liquid
surface (noncontact deck). The majority of aluminum internal floating roofs currently in service have
noncontact decks. A typical internal floating roof tank is shown in Figure 7,1-4.
Contact decks can be (1) aluminum sandwich panels that are bolted together, with a
honeycomb aluminum core floating in contact with the liquid; (2) pan steel decks floating in contact
with the liquid, with or without pontoons; and (3) resin-coated, fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP),
buoyant panels floating in contact with the liquid. The majority of internal contact floating decks
currently in service are aluminum sandwich panel-type or pan steel-type. The FRP decks are less
common. The panels of pan steel decks are usually welded together.
Typical noncontact decks are constructed of an aluminum deck and an aluminum grid
framework supported above the liquid surface by tubular aluminum pontoons or some other buoyant
structure. The noncontact decks usually have bolted deck seams. Installing a floating roof minimizes
evaporative losses of the stored liquid. Both contact and noncontact decks incorporate rim seals and
deck fittings for the same purposes previously described for external floating roof tanks. Evaporative
losses from floating roofs may come from deck fittings, nonwelded deck seams, and the annular space
7.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
between the deck and tank wall. In addition, these tanks are freely vented by circulation vents at the
top of the fixed roof. The vents minimize the possibility of organic vapor accumulation in the tank
vapor space in concentrations approaching the flammable range. An internal floating roof tank not
freely vented is considered a pressure tank. Emission estimation methods for such tanks are not
provided in AP-42.
7.1.1.4 Domed External Floating Roof Tanks -
Domed external (or covered) floating roof tanks have the heavier type of deck used in external
floating roof tanks as well as a fixed roof at the top of the shell like internal floating roof tanks.
Domed external floating roof tanks usually result from retrofitting an external floating roof lank with a
fixed roof. This type of tank is very similar to an internal floating roof tank with a welded deck and a
self supporting fixed roof. A typical domed external floating roof tank is shown in Figure 7.1-5.
As with the internal floating roof tanks, the function of the fixed roof is not to act as a vapor
barrier, but to block the wind. The type of fixed roof most commonly used is a self supporting
aluminum dome roof, which is of bolted construction. Like the internal floating roof tanks, these
tanks are freely vented by circulation vents at the top of the fixed roof. The deck fittings and rim
seals, however, are identical to those on external floating roof tanks. In the event that the floating
deck is replaced with the lighter IFRT-type deck, the tank would then be considered an internal
floating roof tank.
7.1.1.5 Variable Vapor Space Tanks -
Variable vapor space tanks arc equipped with expandable vapor reservoirs to accommodate
vapor volume fluctuations attributable to temperature and barometric pressure changes. Although
variable vapor space tanks are sometimes used independently, they are normally connected to the
vapor spaces of one or more fixed roof tanks. The two most common types of variable vapor space
tanks are lifter roof tanks and flexible diaphragm tanks.
Lifter roof tanks have a telescoping roof that fits loosely around (lie outside of the main tank
wall. The space between the roof and the wall is closed by either a wet seal, which is a trough filled
with liquid, or a dry seal, which uses a flexible coated fabric.
Flexible diaphragm tanks use flexible membranes to provide expandable volume. They may
be either separate gasholder units or integral units mounted atop fixed roof tanks.
Variable vapor space tank losses occur during tank filling when vapor is displaced by liquid.
Loss of vapor occurs only when the tank's vapor storage capacity is exceeded.
7.1.1.6 Pressure Tanks -
Two classes of pressure tanks are in general use: low pressure (2,5 to 15 psig) and high
pressure (higher than 15 psig). Pressure tanks generally are used for storing organic liquids and gases
with high vapor pressures and are found in many sizes and shapes, depending on the operating
pressure of the tank. Pressure tanks are equipped with a pressure/vacuum vent that is set to prevent
venting loss from boiling and breathing loss from daily temperature or barometric pressure changes.
High-pressure storage tanks can be operated so that virtually no evaporative or working losses occur.
In low-pressure tanks, working losses can occur with atmospheric venting of the tank during filling
operations. No appropriate correlations arc available to estimate vapor losses from pressure tanks.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-3
-------
7.1.2 Emission Mechanisms And Control
Emissions from organic liquids in storage occur because of evaporative loss of the liquid
during its storage and as a result of changes in the liquid level. The emission sources vary with tank
design, as does the relative contribution of each type of emission source. Emissions from fixed roof
tanks are a result of evaporative losses during storage (known as breathing losses or standing storage
losses) and evaporative losses during filling and emptying operations (known as working losses).
External and internal floating roof tanks are emission sources because of evaporative losses that occur
during standing storage and withdrawal of liquid from the tank. Standing storage losses arc a result of
evaporative losses through rim seals, deck fittings, and/or deck seams. The loss mechanisms for fixed
roof and external and internal floating roof tanks are described in more detail in this section. Variable
vapor space tanks are also emission sources because of evaporative losses that result during filling
operations. The loss mechanism for variable vapor space tanks is also described in this section.
Emissions occur from pressure tanks, as well. However, loss mechanisms from these sources are not
described in this section.
7.1.2.1 Fixed Roof Tanks -
The two significant types of emissions from fixed roof tanks are storage and working losses.
Storage loss is the expulsion of vapor from a tank through vapor expansion and contraction, which are
the results of changes in temperature and barometric pressure. This loss occurs without any liquid
level change in the tank.
The combined loss from filling and emptying is called working loss. Evaporation during
filling operations is a result of an increase in the liquid level in the tank. As the liquid level increases,
the pressure inside the tank exceeds the relief pressure and vapors are expelled from the tank.
Evaporative loss during emptying occurs when air drawn into the tank during liquid removal becomes
saturated with organic vapor and expands, thus exceeding the capacity of die vapor space.
Fixed roof tank emissions vary as a function of vessel capacity, vapor pressure of the stored
liquid, utilization rate of the tank, and atmospheric conditions at the tank location.
Several methods are used to control emissions from fixed roof tanks. Emissions from fixed
roof tanks can be controlled by installing an internal floating roof and seals to minimize evaporation of
the product being stored. The control efficiency of this method ranges from 60 to 99 percent,
depending on the type of roof and seals installed and on the type of organic liquid stored.
Vapor balancing is another means of emission control. Vapor balancing is probably most
common in the filling of tanks at gasoline stations. As the storage tank is filled, the vapors expelled
from the storage tank are directed to the emptying gasoline tanker truck. The truck then transports the
vapors to a centralized station where a vapor recovery or control system is used to control emissions.
Vapor balancing can have control efficiencies as high as 90 to 98 percent if the vapors are subjected to
vapor recovery or control. If the truck vents the vapor to the atmosphere instead of to a recovery or
control system, no control is achieved.
Vapor recovery systems collect emissions from storage vessels and convert them to liquid
product. Several vapor recovery procedures may be used, including vapor/liquid absorption, vapor
compression, vapor cooling, vapor/solid adsorption, or a combination of these. The overall control
efficiencies of vapor recovery systems are as high as 90 to 98 percent, depending on the methods used,
the design of the unit, the composition of vapors recovered, and the mechanical condition of the
system.
7.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
In a typical thermal oxidation system, the air/vapor mixture is injected through a burner
manifold into the combustion area of an incinerator. Control efficiencies for this system can range
from 96 to 99 percent.
7.1.2.2 Floating Roof Tanks2"7 -
Total emissions from floating roof tanks are the sum of withdrawal losses and standing storage
losses. Withdrawal losses occur as the liquid level, and thus the floating roof, is lowered. Some
liquid remains on the inner tank wall surface and evaporates. For an internal floating roof tank that
has a column supported fixed roof, some liquid also clings to the columns and evaporates.
Evaporative loss occurs until the tank is filled and the exposed surfaces are again covered. Standing
storage losses from floating roof tanks include rim seal and deck fitting losses, and for internal floating
roof tanks also include deck seam losses for constructions other than welded decks. Other potential
standing storage loss mechanisms include breathing losses as a result of temperature and pressure
changes.
Rim seal losses can occur through many complex mechanisms, but for external floating roof
tanks, the majority of rim seal vapor losses have been found to be wind induced. No dominant wind
loss mechanism has been identified for internal floating roof or domed external floating roof tank rim
seal losses. Losses can also occur due to permeation of the rim seal material by the vapor or via a
wicking effect of the liquid, but permeation of the rim seal material generally does not occur if the
correct seal fabric is used. Testing has indicated that breathing, solubility, and wicking loss
mechanisms are small in comparison to the wind-induced loss. The rim seal factors presented in this
section incorporate all types of losses.
The rim seal system is used to allow the floating roof to rise and fall within the tank as the
liquid level changes. The rim seal system also helps to fill the annular space between the rim and the
tank shell and therefore minimize evaporative losses from this area. A rim seal system may consist of
just a primary seal or a primary and a secondary seal, which is mounted above the primary seal.
Examples of primary and secondary seal configurations are shown in Figures 7.1-6, 7.1-7, and 7.1-8.
The primary seal serves as a vapor conservation device by closing the annular space between
the edge of the floating deck and the tank wall. Three basic types of primary seals are used on
external floating roofs: mechanical (metallic) shoe, resilient filled (nonmetallic), and flexible wiper
seals. Some primary seals on external floating roof tanks are protected by a weather shield. Weather
shields may be of metallic, clastomeric, or composite construction and provide the primary seal with
longer life by protecting the primary seal fabric from deterioration due to exposure to weather, debris,
and sunlight. Internal floating roofs typically incorporate one of two types of flexible, product-
resistant seals; resilient foam-filled seals or wiper seals. Mechanical shoe seals, resilient filled seals,
and wiper seals are discussed below.
A mechanical shoe seal uses a light-gauge metallic band as the sliding contact with the shell of
the tank, as shown in Figure 7.1-7. The band is formed as a series of sheets (shoes) which are joined
together to form a ring, and are held against the tank shell by a mechanical device. The shoes arc
normally 3 to 5 feet deep, providing a potentially large contact area with the tank shell. Expansion
and contraction of the ring can be provided for as the ring passes over shell irregularities or rivets by
jointing narrow pieces of fabric into the ring or by crimping the shoes at intervals. The bottoms of the
shoes extend below the liquid surface to confine the rim vapor space between the shoe and the floating
deck.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-5
-------
The rim vapor space, which is bounded by the shoe, the rim of llie floating deck, and the
liquid surface, is sealed from the atmosphere by bolting or clamping a coated fabric, called the primary
seal fabric, that extends from the shoe to the rim to form an "envelope". Two locations are used for
attaching the primary seal fabric. The fabric is most commonly attached to the top of the shoe and the
rim of the floating deck. To reduce the rim vapor space, the fabric can be attached to the shoe and the
Heating deck rim near the liquid surface. Rim vents can be used to relieve any excess pressure or
vacuum in the vapor space.
A resilient filled seal can be mounted to eliminate the vapor space between the rim seal and
liquid surface (liquid mounted) or to allow a vapor space between the rim seal and the liquid surface
(vapor mounted). Both configurations are shown in Figures 7.1-6 and 7.1-7. Resilient filled seals
work because of the expansion and contraction of a resilient material to maintain contact with the tank
shell while accommodating varying annular rim space widths. These rim seals allow the roof to move
up and down freely, without binding.
Resilient filled seals typically consist of a core of open-cell foam encapsulated in a coated
fabric. The seals are attached to a mounting on the deck perimeter and extend around the deck
circumference. Polyurethanc-coated nylon fabric and polyurethane foam are commonly used materials.
For emission control, it is important that the attachment of the seal to the deck and the radial seal
joints be vapor-tight and that the seal be in substantial contact with the tank shell.
Wiper seals generally consist of a continuous annular blade of flexible material fastened to a
mounting bracket on the deck perimeter that spans the annular rim space and contacts the tank shell.
This type of seal is depicted in Figure 7.1-6. New tanks with wiper seals may have dual wipers, one
mounted above the other. The mounting is such that the blade is flexed, and its elasticity provides a
sealing pressure against the tank shell.
Wiper seals are vapor mounted; a vapor space exists between the liquid stock and the bottom
of the seal. For emission control, it is important that the mounting be vapor-tight, that the seal extend
around the circumference of the deck and that the blade be in substantial contact with the tank shell.
Two types of materials arc commonly used to make the wipers. One type consists of a cellular,
elastomeric material tapered in cross section with the thicker portion at the mounting. Rubber is a
commonly used material; urcthane and cellular plastic are also available. All radial joints in the blade
are joined. The second type of material that can be used is a foam core wrapped with a coated fabric.
Polyurethane on nylon fabric and polyurethane foam are common materials. The core provides the
flexibility and support, while the fabric provides the vapor barrier and wear surface.
A secondary seal may be used to provide some additional evaporative loss control over that
achieved by the primary seal. Secondary seals can be cither flexible wiper seals or resilient filled
seals. For external floating roof tanks, two configurations of secondary seals are available: shoe
mounted and rim mounted, as shown in Figure 7.1-8. Rim mounted secondary seals are more
effective in reducing losses than shoe mounted secondary seals because they cover the entire rim vapor
space. For internal floating roof tanks, the secondary seal is mounted to an extended vertical rim
plate, above the primary seal, as shown in Figure 7.1-8. However, for some floating roof tanks, using
a secondary seal further limits the tank's operating capacity due to the need to keep the seal from
interfering with fixed roof rafters or to keep the secondary seal in contact with the tank shell when the
tank is filled.
7.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
The deck fitting losses from floating roof tanks can he explained hv the same mechanisms as
the rim seal losses. However, the relative contribution of each mechanism is not known. The deck
fitting losses identified in this section account for the combined effect of all of the mechanisms.
Numerous fittings pass through or are attached to floating roof decks to accommodate
structural support components or allow for operational functions. Internal floating roof deck fittings
are typically of different configuration than those for external floating roof decks. Rather than having
tall housings to avoid rainwater entry, internal floating roof deck fittings tend to have lower profile
housings to minimize the potential for the fitting to contact the fixed roof when the tank is filled.
Deck fittings can be a source of evaporative loss when they require openings in the deck. The most
common components that require openings in the deck are described below.
1. Access hatches. An access hatch is an opening in the deck with a peripheral vertical well
that is large enough to provide passage for workers and materials through the deck for construction or
servicing. Attached to the opening is a removable cover that may be bolted and/or gasketed to reduce
evaporative loss. On internal floating roof tanks with noneontact decks, the well should extend down
into the liquid to sea! off the vapor space below the noneontact deck. A typical access hatch is shown
in Figure 7.1-9.
2. Gauge-floats. A gauge-float is used to indicate the level of liquid within the tank. The
float rests on the liquid surface and is housed inside a well that is closed by a cover. The cover may
be bolted and/or gasketed to reduce evaporation loss. As with other similar deck penetrations, the well
extends down into the liquid on noneontact decks in internal floating roof tanks. A typical gauge-float
and well are shown in Figure 7.1-9.
3. Gauge-hatch/samnle ports. A gaugc-hatch/sample port consists of a pipe sleeve equipped
with a self-closing gasketed cover (to reduce evaporative losses) and allows hand-gauging or sampling
of the stored liquid. The gauge-hatch/sample port is usually located beneath the gauger's platform,
which is mounted on top of the tank shell. A cord may be attached to the self-closing gasketed cover
so that the cover can be opened from the platform. A typical gauge-hatch/sample port is shown in
Figure 7.1-9.
4. Rim vents. Rim vents are used on tanks equipped with a seal design that creates a vapor
pocket in the seal and rim area, such as a mechanical shoe seal. A typical rim vent is shown in
Figure 7.1-10. The vent is used to release any excess pressure or vacuum that is present in the vapor
space bounded by the primary-seal shoe and the floating roof rim and the primary seal fabric and the
liquid level. Rim vents usually consist of weighted pallets that rest on a gasketed cover.
Deck drains. Currently two types of deck drains are in use (closed and open deck drains)
to remove rainwater from the floating deck. Open deck drains can be either flush or overflow drains.
Both types consist of a pipe that extends below the deck to allow the rainwater to drain into the stored
liquid. Only open deck drains are subject to evaporative loss. Flush drains are flush with the deck
surface. Overflow drains are elevated above the deck surface. Typical overflow and flush deck drains
are shown in Figure 7.1-10. Overflow drains are used to limit the maximum amount of rainwater that
can accumulate on the floating deck, providing emergency drainage of rainwater if necessary. Closed
deck drains carry rainwater from the surface of the deck though a flexible hose or some other type of
piping system that runs through the stored liquid prior to exiting (he tank. The rainwater does not
come in contact with the liquid, so no evaporative losses result. Overflow drains arc usually used in
conjunction with a closed drain system to carry rainwater outside the tank.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-7
-------
6. Deck leas. Deck legs are used to prevent damage to fittings underneath the deck and to
allow for tank cleaning or repair, by holding the deck at a predetermined distance off the tank bottom.
These supports consist of adjustable or fixed legs attached to the floating deck or hangers suspended
from the fixed roof. For adjustable legs or hangers, the load-carrying element passes through a well or
sleeve into the deck. With noncontact decks, the well should extend into the liquid. Evaporative
losses may occur in the annulus between the deck leg and its sleeve. A typical deck leg is shown in
Figure 7.1-10.
7. Unslotted guidepoles and wells. A guidepole is an antirotational device that is fixed to the
top and bottom of the tank, passing through a well in the floating roof. The guidepole is used to
prevent adverse movement of the roof and thus damage to deck fittings and the rim seal system. In
some cases, an unslotted guidepole is used for gauging purposes, but there is a potential for differences
in the pressure, level, and composition of the liquid inside and outside of the guidepole. A typical
guidepole and well arc shown in Figure 7.1-11.
8. Slotted (perforated) guidepoles and wells. The function of the slotted guidepole is similar
to the unslotted guidepole but also has additional features. Perforated guidepoles can be either slotted
or drilled hole guidepoles. A typical slotted guidepole and well are shown in Figure 7.1-11. As
shown in this figure, the guide pole is slotted to allow stored liquid to enter. The same can be
accomplished with drilled holes. The liquid entering the guidepole is well mixed, having the same
composition as the remainder of the stored liquid, and is at the same liquid level as the liquid in the
tank. Representative samples can therefore be collected from the slotted or drilled hole guidepole.
However, evaporative loss from the guidepole can be reduced by modifying the guidepole or well or
by placing a float inside the guidepole. Guidepoles are also referred to as gauge poles, gauge pipes, or
stilling wells.
9. Vacuum breakers. A vacuum breaker equalizes the pressure of the vapor space across the
deck as the deck is cither being landed on or floated off its legs. A typical vacuum breaker is shown
in Figure 7.1-10. As depicted in this figure, the vacuum breaker consists of a well with a cover.
Attached to the underside of the cover is a guided leg long enough to contact the tank bottom as the
floating deck approaches. When in contact with the tank bottom, the guided leg mechanically opens
the breaker by lifting the cover off the well; otherwise, the cover closes the well. The closure may be
gasketed or ungasketed. Because the purpose of the vacuum breaker is to allow the free exchange of
air and/or vapor, the well does not extend appreciably below the deck.
Fittings used only on internal floating roof tanks include column wells, ladder wells, and stub
drains.
1. Columns and wells. The most common fixed-roof designs are normally supported from
inside the tank by means of vertical columns, which necessarily penetrate an internal floating deck.
(Some fixed roofs are entirely self-supporting and, therefore, have no support columns.) Column wells
are similar to unslotted guide pole wells on external floating roofs. Columns arc made of pipe with
circular cross sections or of structural shapes with irregular cross sections (built-up). The number of
columns varies with tank diameter, from a minimum of 1 to over 50 for very large diameter tanks. A
typical fixed roof support column and well are shown in Figure 7.1-9.
The columns pass through deck openings via peripheral vertical wells. With noncontact decks,
the well should extend down into the liquid stock. Generally, a closure device exists between the top
of the well and the column. Several proprietary designs exist for this closure, including sliding covers
and fabric sleeves, which must accommodate (he movements of the deck relative to the column as the
7.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
liquid level changes. A sliding cover rests on the upper rim of the column well (which is normally
fixed to the deck) and bridges the gap or space between the column well and the column, The cover,
which has a cutout, or opening, around the column slides vertically relative to the column as the deck
raises and lowers. At the same time, the cover slides horizontally relative to the rim of the well. A
gasket around the rim of the well reduces emissions from this fitting. A flexible fabric sleeve seal
between the rim of the well and the column (with a cutout or opening, to allow vertical motion of the
seal relative to the columns) similarly accommodates limited horizontal motion of the deck relative fo
the column.
2. Ladders and wells. Some tanks arc equipped with internal ladders that extend from a
manhole in the fixed roof to the tank bottom. The deck opening through which the ladder passes is
constructed with similar design details and considerations to deck openings for column wells, as
previously discussed. A typical ladder well is shown in Figure 7.1-12.
3. Stub drains. Bolted internal floating roof decks are typically equipped with stub drains to
allow any stored product that may be on the deck surface to drain back to the underside of the deck.
The drains are attached so that they are Hush with the upper deck. Stub drains arc approximately
1 inch in diameter and extend down into the product on noncontact decks.
Deck seams in internal floating roof tanks are a source of emissions to the extent that these
seams may not be completely vapor tight if the deck is not welded. Generally, the same loss
mechanisms for fittings apply to deck seams. The predominant mechanism depends on whether or not
the deck is in contact with the stored liquid. The deck seam loss equation accounts for the effects of
all contributing loss mechamisms.
7.1.3 Emission Estimation Procedures
The following section presents the emission estimation procedures for fixed roof, external
floating roof, domed external floating roof, and internal floating roof tanks. These procedures are
valid for all petroleum liquids, pure volatile organic liquids, and chemical mixtures with similar true
vapor pressures. It is important to note that in all the emission estimation procedures the physical
properties of the vapor do not include the noncondensibles (e. g., air) in the gas but only refer to the
eondensible components of the stored liquid. To aid in the emission estimation procedures, a list of
variables with their corresponding definitions was developed and is presented in Table 7.1-1.
The factors presented in AP-42 are those that are currently available and have been reviewed
and approved by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. As storage tank equipment vendors
design new floating decks and equipment, new emission factors may be developed based on that
equipment. If the new emission factors are reviewed and approved, the emission factors will be added
to AP-42 during the next update.
The emission estimation procedures outlined in tliis chapter have been used as the basis for the
development of a software program to estimate emissions from storage tanks. The software program
entitled "TANKS" is available through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Bulletin Board
System maintained by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-9
-------
7.1.3.1 Total Losses From Fixed Roof Tanks4,8 14 -
The following equations, provided to estimate standing storage and working loss emissions,
apply to tanks with vertical cylindrical shells and fixed roofs. These tanks must be substantially
liquid- and vapor-tight and must operate approximately at atmospheric pressure. Total losses from
fixed roof tanks arc equal to the sum of the standing storage loss and working loss;
Lj = Ls + L^y (1 -1)
where:
Lt = total losses, Ib/yr
Ls = standing storage losses, Ib/yr
Lw = working losses, Ib/yr
Standing Storage Loss - Fixed roof tank breathing or standing storage losses can be estimated from:
Ls = 365 VvWvKeKs (1-2)
where:
Ls = standing storage loss, Ib/yr
Vv = vapor space volume, ft3
Wv = vapor density, lb/ft3
Kp = vapor space expansion factor, dimensionless
Ks = vented vapor saturation factor, dimensionless
365 = constant, d/yr
Tank Vapor Space Volume, V^ - The tank vapor space volume is calculated using the following
equation:
Vv = * D2 HV() (1-3)
where:
Vv = vapor space volume, ft3
D = tank diameter, ft, see Note 1 for horizontal tanks
HV{) = vapor space outage, ft
The vapor space outage, Hvo is the height of a cylinder of tank diameter, D, whose volume is
equivalent to the vapor space volume of a fixed roof tank, including the volume under the cone or
dome roof. The vapor space outage, Hvo, is estimated from:
7.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Hvo = Hs - Hl + HR()
(1-4)
where:
HV() = vapor space outage, ft
Hs = tank shell height, ft
Hj = liquid height, ft
Hro = roof outage, ft; see Note 2 for a cone roof or Note 3 for a dome roof
Notes:
1. The emission estimating equations presented above were developed for vertical fixed roof
tanks. If a user needs to estimate emissions from a horizontal fixed roof tank, some of the tank
parameters can be modified before using the vertical tank emission estimating equations. First, by
assuming that the tank is one-half tilled, the surface area of the liquid in (he tank is approximately
equal to the length of the tank times the diameter of the tank. Next, assume that this area represents a
circle, i. c., that the liquid is an upright cylinder. Therefore, the effective diameter, D^, is then equal
to:
where:
De = effective tank diameter, ft
L = length of tank, ft
D = actual diameter of tank, ft
One-half of the actual diameter of the horizontal tank should be used as the vapor space outage, HV()
This method yields only a very approximate value for emissions from horizontal storage tanks. For
underground horizontal tanks, assume that no breathing or standing storage losses occur (Ls = 0)
because the insulating nature of the earth limits the diurnal temperature change. No modifications to
the working loss equation are necessary for either above-ground or underground horizontal tanks.
2. For a cone roof, the roof outage, HRO, is calculated as follows:
(1-5)
Hro = 1/3 HR
(1-6)
where:
Hro = roof outage (or shell height equivalent to the volume contained under the roof), ft
Hr - tank roof height, ft
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
-------
The lank roof height, HR. is equal to SR Rs
where:
SR = tank cone roof slope, if unknown, a standard value of 0.0625 ft/ft is used, ft/ft
Rs = tank shell radius, ft
3, For a dome roof, the roof outage, HRO, is calculated as follows:
Hro ~HR

V
2
1/2 + 1/6

LRsj

where;
Hr() = roof outage, ft
HR = tank roof height, ft
Rs = tank shell radius, ft
The lank roof height, HR, is calculated:
HR = Rr - (Rr2 - Rs2)0 5
where:
(1-7)
(1-8)
HR = tank roof height, ft
Rr = tank dome roof radius, ft
Rs = tank shell radius, ft
The value of Rr usually ranges from 0.8D - 1.2D, where D = 2 Rs. If Rr is unknown, the tank
diameter is used in its place. If the tank diameter is used as the value for Rr, Equations 1-7 and 1-8
reduce to HR = 0.268 Rs and HR() = 0.137 Rs,
Vapor Density, - The density of the vapor is calculated using the following equation:
MVPVA
wv=.
RT
(1-9)
LA
where:
Wv = vapor density, lb/ft3
Mv = vapor molecular weight, lb/lb-mole; see Note 1
7,1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
R = the ideal gas constant, 10.731 psiaftVlb-mole*0R
PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2
T, A = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R; see Note 3
Notes:
1. The molecular weight of the vapor, Mv, can he determined from Table 7.1-2 and 7.1-3 for
selected petroleum liquids and volatile organic liquids, respectively, or by analyzing vapor samples.
Where mixtures of organic liquids are stored in a tank, Mv can be calculated from the liquid
composition. The molecular weight of the vapor, Mv, is equal to the sum of the molecular weight,
Mj, multiplied by the vapor mole fraction, y;, for each component. The vapor mole fraction is equal
to the partial pressure of component i divided by the total vapor pressure. The partial pressure of
component i is equal to the true vapor pressure of component i (P) multiplied by the liquid mole
fraction, (Xj). Therefore,
/ \
PXj

EMjyj = EMj
VA
(1-10)
)
where;
PVA, total vapor pressure of the stored liquid, by Raoult's Law, is:
pVA = IPxi a-11)
For more detailed information, please refer to Section 7.1.4.
2. True vapor pressure is the equilibrium partial pressure exerted by a volatile organic liquid,
as defined by ASTM-D 2879 or as obtained from standard reference texts. Reid vapor pressure is the
absolute vapor pressure of volatile crude oil and volatile nonviscous petroleum liquids, except liquified
petroleum gases, as determined by ASTM-D-323. True vapor pressures for organic liquids can be
determined from Table 7.1-3. True vapor pressure can he determined for crude oils using
Figures 7.1-13a and 7.1-13b. For refined stocks (gasolines and naphthas), Table 7.1-2 or
Figures 7.1-14a and 7.1-14b can be used. In order to use Figures 7.1-13a, 7.1-13b, 7.1-14a, or
7.1 - 14b, the stored liquid surface temperature, T, A, must be determined in degrees Fahrenheit. See
Note 3 to determine T, A,
Alternatively, true vapor pressure for selected petroleum liquid stocks, at the stored liquid
surface temperature, can he determined using the following equation:
PVA = exp [A - (B/Tj A)J (1 -12a)
where:
exp = exponential function
A = constant in the vapor pressure equation, dimensionless
B = constant in the vapor pressure equation, °R
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-13
-------
T| A = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R
PVA = true vapor pressure, psia
For selected petroleum liquid stocks, physical property data are presented in Table 7.1-2. For
refined petroleum stocks, the constants A and B can be calculated from the equations presented in
Figure 7.1-15 and the distillation slopes presented in Table 7.1-4. For crude oil stocks, the constants
A and B can be calculated from the equations presented in Figure 7.1-16. Note that in
Equation 1-12a, Tj A is determined in degrees Rankine instead of degrees Fahrenheit,
The true vapor pressure of organic liquids at the stored liquid temperature can he estimated by
Antoine's equation:
log Pva = A- B (1 - 12b)
I .A +
where:
A = constant in vapor pressure equation
B = constant in vapor pressure equation
C = constant in vapor pressure equation
TLA = daily average liquid surface temperature, °C
PVA = vapor pressure at average liquid surface temperature, mm Hg
For organic liquids, the values for the constants A, B, and C are listed in Table 7.1-5. Note
that in Equation I -12b, T, A is determined in degrees Celsius instead of degrees Rankine. Also, in
Equation 1-12b, PVA is determined in mm of Hg rather than psia (760 mm Hg = 14.7 psia).
3. If the daily average liquid surface temperature, Tf A. is unknown, it is calculated using the
following equation:
tLA = 0.44taa + 0.56Tb + 0.0079 al (1-13)
where:
Tj A = daily average liquid surface temperature, "R
Taa = daily average ambient temperature, "R; see Note 4
Tb = liquid bulk temperature, °R; see Note 5
a = tank paint solar absorptance, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-6
I = daily total solar insolation factor, Btu/ft2-d; sec Table 7.1-7
If Tla is used to calculate PVA from Figures 7.1-13a, 7,1-13b, 7.1- 14a. or 7.1-14b, T| A must be
converted from degrees Rankine to degrees Fahrenheit (°F = °R - 460). If TLA is used to calculate
PVA from Equation 1- 12b, T| A must be converted from degrees Rankine to degrees Celsius
7.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
(°C = [ R - 492]/1.8). Equation 1-13 should not be used to estimate liquid surface temperature from
insulated tanks. In the ease of insulated tanks, the average liquid surface temperature should he based
on liquid surface temperature measurements from the tank.
4. The daily average ambient temperature, taa» is calculated using the following equation:
TAa = (Tax + Tan)/2 d-14)
where:
Taa = daily average ambient temperature, °R
Tax = daily maximum ambient temperature, °R
Tan = daily minimum ambient temperature, °R
Table 7.1-7 gives values of T^ and TAN for selected U. S. cities.
5. The liquid bulk temperature, TB, is calculated using the following equation:
TB = I'aa + 6ot - I (1-15)
where:
TB = liquid bulk temperature, °R
Taa = daily average ambient temperature, °R, as calculated in Note 4
a - tank paint solar absorptance, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-6.
Vapor Space Expansion Factor, Kf, - Tlie vapor space expansion factor, Kp, is calculated using the
following equation:
ATV APV - APR
K F=__l+^ 1 (1-16)
Tla pa-pva
where:
ATV = daily vapor temperature range, "R; sec Note 1
APV = daily vapor pressure range, psi; see Note 2
APB = breather vent pressure setting range, psi; see Note 3
PA = atmospheric pressure, psia
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-15
-------
PVA - vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2 for
Equation 1-9
Tla = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R; see Note 3 for Equation 1-9
Notes:
1. The daily vapor temperature range, ATV, is calculated using the following equation:
ATV = 0.72 ATa + 0.028 cxI (1-17)
where:
ATV = daily vapor temperature range, °R
ATa = daily ambient temperature range, °R; see Note 4
a = tank paint solar absorptance, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-6
I = daily total solar insolation factor, Btu/ft2xl; see Table 7.1-7
2. The daily vapor pressure range, APV, can be calculated using the following equation:
APV = Pvx - PVN (1-18)
where:
APV = daily vapor pressure range, psia
Pvx = vapor pressure at the daily maximum liquid surface temperature, psia; see Note 5
PVN = vapor pressure at the daily minimum liquid surface temperature, psia; see Note 5
The following method can be used as an alternate means of calculating APV for petroleum
liquids:
0.50 B PVA ATV
APV = _ - (1-19)
T 2
1 LA
where:
APV = daily vapor pressure range, psia
B = constant in the vapor pressure equation, °R; see Note 2 to Equation 1 -9
PVA = vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2
to Equation 1-9
Tj A = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R; see Note 3 to Equation 1-9
ATV = daily vapor temperature range, °R; see Note 1
7.1-16 EMISSION FACTORS 2/96
-------
where:
3. The breather vent pressure setting range, APB, is calculated using the following equation:
APB = PBP-PBV d-20)
APB = breather vent pressure setting range, psig
PBP = breather vent pressure setting, psig
PBV = breather vent vacuum setting, psig
If specific information on the breather vent pressure setting and vacuum setting is not
available, assume 0.03 psig for PBP and -0.03 psig for PBV as typical values. If the fixed roof tank is
of bolted or riveted construction in which the roof or shell plates are not vapor tight, assume that
APB = 0, even if a breather vent is used. The estimating equations for fixed roof tanks do not apply
to either low or high pressure tanks. If the breather vent pressure or vacuum setting exceeds 1.0 psig,
the standing storage losses could potentially be negative.
4. The daily ambient temperature range, ATa, is calculated using the following equation:
ATa = Tax-Tan (1-21)
where:
ATa = daily ambient temperature range, °R
T^ = daily maximum ambient temperature, °R
Tan = daily minimum ambient temperature, °R
Table 7.1-7 gives values of T^ and TAN for selected cities in the United States.11
5. The vapor pressures associated with daily maximum and minimum liquid surface
temperature, Pvx and PVN, respectively are calculated by substituting the corresponding temperatures,
T| x and T, N, into the vapor pressure function discussed in Notes 1 and 2 to Equation 1-9. If TLX
and Tj N are unknown, Figure 7.1-17 can be used to calculate their values.
Vented Vapor Saturation Factor, Kg - The vented vapor saturation factor, Ks, is calculated using the
following equation:
K. = ! (1-22)
s 1 + 0.053 PvaHvo
where:
Ks = vented vapor saturation factor, dimensionless
PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2 to
Equation 1-9
Hvo = vapor space outage, ft, as calculated in Equation 1-4
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-17
-------
Working Loss - The working loss, Lw, can be estimated from:
Lw = 0.00 f 0 MvPvaQKnKp, (I -23)
where:
Lw = working loss, lb/yr
Mv = vapor molecular weight, lb/lb-mole; see Note 1 to Equation 1-9
PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2 to
Equation 1-9
Q = annual net throughput (tank capacity [bbl] times annual turnover rate), bbl/yr
Kn, = turnover factor, dimensionless; see Figure 7.1-18
for turnovers > 36, KN = (180 + N)/6N
for turnovers < 36, KN = 1
N = number of turnovers per year, dimensionless
N = 5-6l4Q (1-24)
Vlx
where:
N = number of turnovers per year, dimensionless
Q = annual net throughput, bbl/yr
VLX = tank maximum liquid volume, ft3
and
vl,x = 7d2hi.x 0-25)
where:
D = diameter, ft
Hlx = maximum liquid height, ft
Kp - working loss product factor, dimensionless, 0.75 for crude oils. For all other organic
liquids, KP = 1
7.1.3.2 Total Losses From Floating Roof Tanks3"5'13'15"17 -
Total floating roof tank emissions are the sum of rim seal, withdrawal, deck fitting, and deck
seam losses. The equations presented in this subsection apply only to floating roof tanks. The
equations arc not intended to be used in the following applications:
1. To estimate losses from unstable or boiling stocks or from mixtures of hydrocarbons or
petrochemicals for which the vapor pressure is not known or cannot readily be predicted;
7.1-18 EMISSION FACTORS 2/96
-------
2. To estimate losses from closed internal or closed domed external floating roof tanks (tanks
vented only through a pressure/vacuum vent); or
3. To estimate losses from tanks in which the materials used in the rim seal and/or deck
fittings are either deteriorated or significantly permeated by the stored liquid.
Total losses from floating roof tanks may be written as:
L J = Lr + Lyy]-) + Lp- + L] j (2-1)
where:
Lt = total loss, lb/yr
LR = rim seal loss, lb/yr; see Equation 2-2
LWd = withdrawal loss, lb/yr; see Equation 2-4
Lf = deck fitting loss, lb/yr; see Equation 2-5
Ld = deck seam loss (internal floating roof tanks only), lb/yr; see Equation 2-9
Rim Seal Loss - Rim seal loss from floating roof tanks can be estimated using the following equation:
Lr = (KRa + KRb vI1)DP*MvKc (2-2)
where:
Lr = rim seal loss, lb/yr
KRa = zero wind speed rim seal loss factor, lb-mole/ffyr; see Table 7.1-8
KRb = wind speed dependent rim seal loss factor, lb-mole/(mph)nft-yr; see Table 7.1-8
v = average ambient wind speed at tank site, mph; see Note 1
n = seal-related wind speed exponent, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-8
P* = vapor pressure function, dimensionless; see Note 2
* P VA^5 A
P = A A (2-3)
[1 +(1 - [Pva/PaD0 5]2
where:
PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia;
See Notes 1 and 2 to Equation 1-9 and Note 3 below
PA = atmospheric pressure, psia
2/96 Liquid Storage Tanks 7.1-19
-------
D = tank diameter, ft
Mv = average vapor molecular weight, Ib/lb-mole; see Note 1 to Equation 1-9,
= product factor; Kc = 0,4 for crude oils; = 1 for all other organic liquids.
Notes:
1. If the ambient wind speed at the tank site is not available, use wind speed data from the
nearest local weather station or values from Table 7.1-9. If the tank is an internal or domed external
floating roof tank, the value of v is zero.
2. P* can be calculated or read directly from Figure 7.1-19.
3. The API recommends using the stock liquid temperature to calculate PVA for use in
Equation 2-3 in lieu of the liquid surface temperature. If the stock liquid temperature is unknown,
API recommends the following equations to estimate the stock temperature:
Average Annual Stock
Tank Color Temperature, Ts (°F)
White
Taa + °a
Aluminum
Taa + 2.5
Gray
Taa + 3.5
Black
Taa + 5.0
aTAA is the average annual ambient temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.
Withdrawal Loss - The withdrawal loss from floating roof storage tanks can be estimated using
Equation 2-4.
_ (0.943)QCW,
lwd = —
NrFr
1 + C c
D
(2-4)
D
where:
Lwd = withdrawal loss, Ib/yr
Q = annual throughput (tank capacity [bbl] times annual turnover rate), bbl/yr
C = shell clingage factor, bbl/1,000 ft2; see Table 7.1-10
W, = average organic liquid density, lb/gal; see Note 1
D = tank diameter, ft
0.943 = constant, 1,000 ft3 -gal/bbl2
Nc = number of fixed roof support columns, dimcnsionless; see Note 2
Fc = effective column diameter, ft (column perimeter [ft|/n); see Note 3
7.1-20 EMISSION FACTORS 2/96
-------
Notes:
1. A listing of the average organic liquid density for select petrochemicals is provided in
Tables 7.1-2 and 7.1-3. If W( is not known for gasoline, an average value of 6.1 lb/gal can be
assumed.
2. For a self-supporting fixed roof or an external floating roof tank:
Nc = °-
For a column-supported fixed roof:
Nc = use tank-specific information or see Table 7.1-11.
3. Use tank-specific effective column diameter or
Fc = 1.1 for 9-inch by 7-inch built-up columns, 0.7 for 8-inch-diameter pipe
columns, and 1.0 if column construction details are not known
Deck Fitting Loss - Deck fitting losses from floating roof tanks can be estimated by the following
equation:
9
Lp = Fp P*MVKC (2-5)
where:
LF = the deck fitting loss, lb/yr
Fp = total deck fitting loss factor, lb-mole/yr
Ff = t(Np Kp ) + (Np Kp ) + ... +(Np Kf )] (2-6)
1 4 1 1 2 4 2 4 n f n f
where:
Np = number of deck fittings of a particular type (i = 0,l,2,...,nf), dimensionless
Kp = deck fitting loss factor for a particular type fitting
1 (i = 0,l,2,...,nf), lb-mole/yr; see Equation 2-7
nf = total number of different types of fittings, dimensionless
P*, Mv, K<~ are as defined for Equation 2-2.
The value of Fp may be calculated by using actual tank-specific data for the number of each
fitting type (Np) and then multiplying by the fitting loss factor for each fitting (Kp).
The deck fitting loss factor, Kp for a particular type of fitting, can be estimated by the
following equation: 1
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-21
-------
KF, = KFa_ - KPbi (Kvvf'
(2-7)
where:
Kk = loss factor for a particular type of deck fitting, lb-mole/yr
i
KFu = zero wind speed loss factor for a particular type of fitting, lb-mole/yr
KPb. = wind speed dependent loss factor for a particular type of fitting, lb-mole/(mph),n-yr
nij = loss factor for a particular type of deck fitting, dimensionless
i = 1,2, ..., n, dimensionless
Kv = fitting wind speed correction factor, dimensionless; see below
v = average ambient wind speed, mph
For external floating roof tanks, the fitting wind speed correction factor, K^,, is equal to 0.7.
For internal and domed external iloating roof tanks, the value of v in Equation 2-7 is zero and the
equation becomes:
Kf. = Kp (2-8)
I 1
Loss factors KFa, KFb, and m are provided in Tabic 7.1-12 for the most common deck fittings
used on floating roof tanks. These factors apply only to typical deck fitting conditions and when the
average ambient wind speed is below 15 miles per hour. Typical numbers of deck fittings for floating
roof tanks are presented in Tables 7.1-11, 7.1-12, 7.1-13, 7.1-14, and 7.1-14,
Deck Seam Loss - Neither welded deck internal Iloating roof tanks nor external floating roof tanks
have deck seam losses. Internal floating roof tanks with bolted decks may have deck seam losses.
Deck seam loss can be estimated by the following equation:
L„ = KbSbDVMvKc (2-9)
where:
Kd = deck scam loss per unit scam length factor, Ib-mole/ft-yr
= 0.0 for welded deck
= 0.34 for bolted deck; see Note
SD = deck seam length factor, ft/ft2
'\leck
7.1-22
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
where:
Lseam ~ total ot deck scams, ft
Adeck = area of deck, ft2 = n D2/4
D, P*, Mv, and Kc arc as defined for Equation 2-2
If the total length of the deck scam is not known, Table 7.1-16 can be used to determine SD.
For a deck constructed from continuous metal sheets with a 7-ft spacing between the seams, a value of
0.14 ft/ft2 can be used. A value of 0.33 ft/ft2 can be used for SD when a deck is constructed from
rectangular panels 5 ft by 7.5 ft. Where tank-specific data concerning width of deck sheets or size of
deck panels are unavailable, a default value for SD can be assigned. A value of 0.20 ft/ft2 can be
assumed to represent the most common bolted decks currently in use.
Note: Recently vendors of bolted decks have been using various techniques in an effort to reduce
deck seam losses. However, emission factors are not currently available in AP-42 that
represent the emission reduction achieved by these techniques. Some vendors have developed
specific factors for their deck designs; however, use of these factors is not recommended until
approval has been obtained from the governing regulatory agency or permitting authority.
7.1.3.3 Variable Vapor Space Tanks18 -
Variable vapor space filling losses result when vapor is displaced by liquid during filling
operations. Since the variable vapor space tank has an expandable vapor storage capacity, this loss is
not as large as the filling loss associated with fixed roof tanks. Loss of vapor occurs only when the
tank's vapor storage capacity is exceeded. Equation 3-1 assumes that one-fourth of the expansion
capacity is available at the beginning of each transfer.
Variable vapor space system filling losses can be estimated from:
Lv=(2.40 x 10~2) MvPva/V, [(V,) - (0.25 V2N2)] (3-1)
where:
Lv = variable vapor space filling loss, lb/1,000 gal throughput
Mv = molecular weight of vapor in storage tank, lb/lb-mole: see Note 1 to Equation 1-9
PVA = true vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1
and 2 to Equation 1-9
V! = volume of liquid pumped into system, throughput, bbl/yr
V2 = volume expansion capacity of system, bbl; see Note 1
N2 = number of transfers into system, dimensionlcss; see Note 2
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-23
-------
Notes:
1. V2 is the volume expansion capacity of the variable vapor space achieved by roof lifting or
diaphragm flexing,
2. N2 is the number of transfers into the system during the time period that corresponds to a
throughput of Vj.
The accuracy of Equation 3-1 is not documented. Special tank operating conditions may result
in actual losses significantly different from the estimates provided by Equation 3-1. For example, if
one or more tanks with interconnected vapor spaces are filled while others arc emptied simultaneously,
all or part of the expelled vapors will be transferred to the tank, or tanks, being emptied. This is
called balanced pumping. Equation 3-1 does not account for balanced pumping, and will overestimate
losses under tills condition. It should also be noted that, although not developed for use with heavier
petroleum liquids such as kerosenes and fuel oils, the equation is recommended for use with heavier
petroleum liquids in the absence of better data.
7.1.3.4 Pressure Tanks -
Losses occur during withdrawal and tilling operations in low-pressure (2.5 to 15 psig) tanks
when atmospheric venting occurs. High-pressure tanks are considered closed systems, with virtually
no emissions. Vapor recovery systems arc often found on low-pressure tanks. Fugitive losses are also
associated with pressure tanks and their equipment, but with proper system maintenance, these losses
arc considered insignificant. No appropriate correlations are available to estimate vapor losses from
pressure tanks.
7.1.3.5 Variations Of Emission Estimation Procedures -
All of the emission estimation procedures presented in Section 7.1.3 can be used to estimate
emissions for shorter time periods by manipulating the inputs to the equations for the time period in
question. For all of the emission estimation procedures, the daily average liquid surface temperature
should be based on the appropriate temperature and solar insolation data for the time period over
which the estimate is to be evaluated. The subsequent calculation of the vapor pressure should be
based on the corrected daily liquid surface temperature. For example, emission calculations for the
month of June would he based only on the meteorological data for June. It is important to note that a
1-month time frame is recommended as the shortest time period for which emissions should be
estimated.
In addition to the temperature and vapor pressure corrections, the constant in the standing
storage loss equation for fixed roof tanks would need to be revised based on the actual time frame
used. The constant, 365, is based on the number of days in a year. To change the equation for a
different time period, the constant should be changed to the appropriate number of days in the time
period for which emissions are being estimated. The only change that would need to be made to the
working loss equation for fixed roof tanks would be to change the throughput per year to the
throughput during the time period for which emissions arc being estimated.
Other than changing the meteorological data and the vapor pressure data, the only changes
needed for the floating roof rim seal, deck fitting, and deck seam losses would be to modify the time
frame by dividing the individual losses by the appropriate number of days or months. The only
change to the withdrawal losses would be to change the throughput to the throughput for the time
period for which emissions are being estimated.
7.1-24
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Another variation that is frequently made to the emission estimation procedures is an
adjustment in the working or withdrawal loss equations if the tank is operated as a surge tank or
constant level tank. For constant level tanks or surge tanks where the throughput and turnovers are
high but the liquid level in the tank remains relatively constant, the actual throughput or turnovers
should not he used in the working loss or withdrawal loss equations. For these tanks, the turnovers
should be estimated by determining the average change in the liquid height. The average change in
height should then be divided by the total shell height. This adjusted turnover value should then he
multiplied by the actual throughput to obtain the net throughput for use in the loss equations.
Alternatively, a default turnover rate of four could be used based on data from these type tanks.
7.1.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) Speciation Methodology
In some cases it may be important to know the annual emission rate for a component (c. g„
HAP) of a stored liquid mixture. There are two basic approaches thai can be used to estimate
emissions for a single component of a stored liquid mixture. One approacli involves calculating the
total losses based upon the known physical properties of the mixture (i. e., gasoline) and then
determining the individual component losses by multiplying the total loss by the weight fraction of the
desired component. The second approach is similar to the first approach except that the mixture
properties are unknown; therefore, the mixture properties are first determined based on the composition
of the liquid mixture.
Case 1 — If the physical properties of the mixture arc known (PVA, Mv, ant* ^1C
total losses from the tank should be estimated using the procedures described previously for the
particular tank type. The component losses are then determined from either Equation 4-1 or 4-2. For
fixed roof tanks, the emission rate for each individual component can be estimated by;
Lt = emission rate of component i, Ib/yr
i
Zv = weight fraction of component i in the vapor, lb/lb
V j
Lt = total losses, lb/yr
For floating roof tanks, the emission rate for each individual component can be estimated by:
1
(4-1)
where:
LT| = (ZV.)(LR + Lf +Ld) + (Zj )(LWj5)
(4-2)
where:
Lt = emission rate of component i, lb/yr
Zv = weight fraction of component i in the vapor, lb/lb
Lr = rim seal losses, Ib/yr
Lp = deck fitting losses, lb/yr
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7,1-25
-------
Ld = deck seam losses, Ib/yr
Z, = weight fraction of component i in the liquid, lb/lb
i
two = withdrawal losses, lb/yr
If Equation 4-1 is used in place of Equation 4-2 for floating roof tanks, the value obtained will be
approximately the same value as that achieved with Equation 4-2 because withdrawal losses are
typically minimal for floating roof tanks.
In order to use Equations 4-1 and 4-2, the weight fraction of the desired component in the
liquid and vapor phase is needed. The liquid weight fraction of the desired component is typically
known or can be readily calculated for most mixtures. In order to calculate the weight fraction in the
vapor phase, Raoult's Law must first he used to determine the partial pressure of the component. The
partial pressure of the component can then be divided by the total vapor pressure of the mixture to
determine the mole fraction of the component in the vapor phase. Raoult's Law states that the mole
fraction of the component in the liquid (xs) multiplied by the vapor pressure of the pure component (at
the daily average liquid surface temperature) (P) is equal to the partial pressure (P;) of that component:
Pi = (P)(xj) (4-3)
where:
Pj = partial pressure of component i, psia
P = vapor pressure of pure component i at the daily average liquid surface temperature,
psia
x; = liquid mole fraction, Ib-mole/lb-mole
The vapor pressure of each component can be calculated from Antoine's equation or found in
standard references, as shown in Section 7.1.3.1. In order to use Equation 4-3, the liquid mole
fraction must be determined from the liquid weight fraction by:
xi = (ZljXMl) / (Mi) (4-4)
where:
Xj = liquid mole fraction of component i, Ib-mole/lb-molc
Z, = weight fraction of component i, lb/lb
i
Ml = molecular weight of liquid stock, Ib/lb-molc
Mj = molecular weight of component i, lb/lb-mole
If the molecular weight of the liquid is not known, the liquid mole fraction can be determined by
assuming a total weight of the liquid mixture (see Example 1 in Section 7.1.5).
7.1-26
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
The liquid mole fraction and the vapor pressure of the component at the daily average liquid surface
temperature can then be substituted into Equation 4-3 to obtain the partial pressure of the component.
The vapor mole fraction of the component can be determined from the following equation:
(4-5)
where:
yj = vapor mole fraction of component i, lb-mole/lb-mole
Pj = partial pressure of component i, psia
PVA = total vapor pressure of liquid mixture, psia
The weight fractions in the vapor phase are calculated from the mole fractions in the vapor phase.
Zv = vapor weight fraction of component i, lb/lb
yj = vapor mole fraction of component i, lb-mole/lb-mole
Mj = molecular weight of component i, Ib/lb-mole
Mv = molecular weight of vapor stock, lb/lb-mole
The liquid and vapor weight fractions of each desired component and the total losses can be
substituted into either Equations 4-1 or 4-2 to estimate the individual component losses.
Case 2 — For cases where the mixture properties are unknown but the composition of the
liquid is known (i. e., nonpetroleum organic mixtures), the equations presented above can be used to
obtain a reasonable estimate of the physical properties of the mixture. For nonaqueous organic
mixtures, Equation 4-3 can be used to determine the partial pressure of each component. If
Equation 4-4 is used to determine the liquid mole fractions, the molecular weight of the liquid stock
must be known. If the molecular weight of the liquid slock is unknown, then the liquid mole fractions
can be determined by assuming a weight basis and calculating the number of moles (see Example 1 in
Section 7.1.5). The partial pressure of each component can then be determined from Equation 4-3.
For special cases, such as wastewater, where the liquid mixture is a dilute aqueous solution,
Henry's Law should be used instead of Raoult's Law in calculating total losses. Henry's Law states
that the mole fraction of the component in the liquid phase multiplied by the Henry's Law constant for
the component in the mixture is equal to the partial pressure (Pj) for that component. For wastewater,
Henry's Law constants are typically provided in the form of atmmVg-mole.
2/96 Liquid Storage Tanks 7.1-27
(4-6)
where:
-------
Therefore, the appropriate form of Henry's Law equation is:
Pi = (Ha) (Cs) (4-7)
where:
Ps = partial pressure of component i, atm
Ha = Henry's Law constant for component i, atm-m3/g-molc
Cj = concentration of component i in the wastewater, g-mole/m3; see Note
Section 4,3 of AP-42 presents Henry's Law constants for selected organic liquids. The partial pressure
calculated from Equation 4-7 will need to be converted from atmospheres to psia (1 atm = 14.7 psia).
"2
Note: Typically wastewater concentrations are given in mg/liter, which is equivalent to g/nr. To
convert the concentrations to g-mole/m3 divide the concentration by the molecular weight of
the component.
The total vapor pressure of the mixture can be calculated from the sum of the partial pressures:
PVA = X Pi (4-8)
where:
PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia
P| = partial pressure of component i, psia
This procedure can be used to determine the vapor pressure at any temperature. After
computing the total vapor pressure, the mole fractions in the vapor phase are calculated using
Equation 4-5. The vapor mole fractions are used to calculate the molecular weight of the vapor, Mv.
The molecular weight of the vapor can be calculated by:
Mv = X Miyj (4-9)
where:
Mv = molecular weight, of the vapor, Ib/lb-mole
Mj = molecular weight of component i, lb/lb-mole
yj = vapor mole fraction of component i, lb-mole/lb-mole
Another variable that may need to be calculated before estimating the total losses, if it is not
available in a standard reference, is the density of the liquid, WL. If the density of the liquid is
unknown, it can be estimated based on the liquid weight fractions of each component (see
Section 7.1.5, Example 3).
7.1-28
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
All of the mixture properties arc now known (PVA, Mv, and W,), These values can now be
used with the emission estimation procedures outlined in Section 7,1.3 to estimate total losses. After
calculating the total losses, the component losses can be calculated by using either Equations 4-1 or
4-2. Prior to calculating component losses, Equation 4-6 must be used to determine the vapor weight
fractions of each component.
7.1.5 Sample Calculations19
Example 1 - Chemical Mixture in a Fixed Roof Tank
Determine the yearly emission rate of the total product mixture and each component for a chemical
mixture stored in a vertical cone roof tank in Denver, Colorado. The chemical mixture contains (for
every 3,171 lb of mixture) 2,812 lb of benzene, 258 lb of toluene, and 101 lb of cyclohexane. The
tank is 6 ft in diameler, 12 ft high, usually holds about 8 ft of product, and is painted white. Hie tank
working volume is 1,690 gallons. The number of turnovers per year for the tank is five (i. e., the
throughput of the tank is 8,450 gal/yr).
1. Determine tank type. The tank is a fixed-cone roof, vertical tank.
2. Determine estimating methodology. The product is made up of three organic liquids, all of which
are miscible in each other, which makes a homogenous mixture if the material is well mixed. The
tank emission rate will be based upon the properties of the mixture. Raoult's Law (as discussed in the
HAP Spcciaiion Section) is assumed to apply to the mixture and will be used to determine the
properties of the mixture.
3. Select equations to be used. For a vertical, fixed roof storage tank, the following equations apply:
Solution
(1-1)
Ls = 365 WvVvKeK,
V V E S
(1-2)
Lw = 0.0010 MvPVAQKNKp
(1-23)
where:
Lt = total loss, lb/yr
Ls = standing storage loss, lb/yr
Lw = working loss, lb/yr
Vv = tank vapor space volume, ft3
Vv = tt/4 D2 Hvo
(1-3)
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-29
-------
Wv = vapor density, lb/ft3
MyPyA !\ m
Wv = v VA (1-9)
rtla
Ke = vapor space expansion factor, dimensionless
ATV APV - APR
K„ = I + ! I (1-16)
T, A PA - PVA
Ks = vented vapor space saturation factor, dimensionless
Ko = ! (1-22)
S 1 + 0.053 PvaHvo
D = diameter, ft
HV()= vapor space outage, ft
Mv = molecular weight of vapor, lb/lb-molc
PVA = vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia
D , , , 10,731 psia • ft3
R = ideal gas constant = :
lb-mole • °R
Tla = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R
ATV = daily vapor temperature range, °R
APV = daily vapor pressure range, psia
APB = breather vent pressure setting range, psi
PA = atmospheric pressure, psia
Q = annual net throughput, bbl/yr
Kn = working loss turnover factor, dimensionless
Kp = working loss product factor, dimensionless
4. Calculate each component of the standing storage loss and working loss functions.
a. Tank vapor space volume, Vv:
Vv = tc/4 D2 Hvo (1-3)
D = 6 ft (given)
7.1-30 EMISSION FACTORS 2/96
-------
For a cone roof, the vapor space outage, HV() is calculated by;
HVO = Hs - Hl + Hro (1-4)
Hs = tank shell height, 12 ft (given)
Hl = stock liquid height, 8 ft (given)
Hro= roof outage, 1/3 HR = 1/3(Sr)(Rs) (1-0)
SR = tank cone roof slope, 0.0625 ft/ft (given) (sec Note 1 to Equation 1-4)
Rs = tank shell radius = 1/2 D = 1/2 (6) = 3
Substituting values in Equation 1-6 yields,
Hro = i (0.0625X3) = 0.0625 ft
3
Then use Equation 1-4 lo calculate HV(),
Hvo = 12 - 8 + 0.0625 = 4.0625 ft
Therefore,
Vv = E (6)2 (4.0625) = 114.86 ft3
b. Vapor density, Wv:
, "V PVA (1-9}
R tla
R = ideal gas constant = 10.731 psia-ft
lb-mole-°R
Mv = stock vapor molecular weight, Ib/lb-mole
PVA = stock vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia
TLa = daily average liquid surface temperature, R
First, calculate TLA using Equation 1-13.
Tla = 0.44 Taa + 0.56 Tb + 0.0079 a I (1-13)
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-31
-------
where:
Taa = daily average ambient temperature, "R
Tb = liquid bulk temperature, ' R
I = daily total solar insolation, Btu/ft2-d = 1,568 (see Table 7.1-7)
a = tank paint solar absorptanee = 0,17 (see Table 7.1-6)
Taa and TB must be calculated from Equations 1-14 and 1-15.
T = Tax + tan (1.14)
. 'AA j
from Table 7.1-7, for Denver, Colorado:
TAX = daily maximum ambient temperature = 64.3°F
Tan = daily minimum ambient temperature = 36.2°F
Converting to °R:
Tax = 64.3 + 460 = 524.3°R
Tan = 36.2 + 460 = 496.2°R
Therefore,
Taa = (524.3 + 496.2)/2 = 510.25 °R
TB = liquid bulk temperature = TAA + 6a - 1 (1-15)
Taa = ^^ fr°m previous calculation
a - paint solar absorptanee = 0.17 (see Table 7.1-6)
I = daily total solar insolation on a horizontal surface = 1,568 Btu/ft2,d (see
Table 7.1-7)
Substituting values in Equation 1-15
TB = 510.25 + 6 (0.17) - 1 = 510.27 °R
Using Equation 1-13,
Tla = (0.44) (510.25°R) + 0.56 (510.27°R) + 0.0079 (0.17) (1.568) = 512.36°R
Second, calculate PVA using Raoult's Law.
7.1-32
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
According to Raoult's Law, the partial pressure of a component is the product of its pure vapor
pressure and its liquid mole fraction. Hie sum of the partial pressures is equal to the total vapor
pressure of the component mixture stock.
The pure vapor pressures for benzene, toluene, and cyclohexane can be calculated from Antoine's
equation. Table 7.1-5 provides the Antoine's coefficients for benzene, which are A = 6.905,
B = 1,211.033, and C = 220.79. For toluene, A = 6.954, B = 1,344.8, and C = 219.48. For
cyclohexane, A = 6.841, B = 1,201.53, and C = 222.65, Therefore:
log P = A - -
T + C
Tla, average liquid surface temperature (°C) = (512.36 - 492)/1.8 = 11
For benzene,
log P = 6.905
1,211.033
(11°C + 220.79)
P = 47.90 mmHg = 0.926 psia
Similarly for toluene and cyclohexane,
P = 0.255 psia for toluene
P = 0.966 psia for cyclohexane
In order to calculate the mixture vapor pressure, the partial pressures need to be calculated for each
component. The partial pressure is the product of the pure vapor pressures of each component
(calculated above) and the mole fractions of each component in the liquid.
The mole fractions of each component are calculated as follows;
Component
Amount, lb
*M,
Moles

Benzene
2,812
78.1
36.0
0.90
Toluene
258
92.1
2.80
0.07
Cyclohexane
101
84.2
1.20
0.03
Total

40.0
1.00
where:
M; = molecular weight of component
Xj = liquid mole fraction
The partial pressures of the components can then be calculated by multiplying the pure vapor pressure
by the liquid mole fraction as follows:
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-33
-------
Component
P at 52°F
xi
P
partial
Benzene
0.926
0.90
0.833
Toluene
0.255
0.07
0.018
Cyclohexane
0.966
0.03
0.029
Total

1.0
0.880
The vapor pressure of the mixture is then 0.880 psia.
Third, calculate the molecular weight of the vapor, Mv. Molecular weight of the vapor depends upon
the mole fractions of the components in the vapor.
Mv = EMjyj
where:
M; = molecular weight of the component
yj = vapor mole fraction
The vapor mole fractions, yjT are equal to the partial pressure of the component divided by the total
vapor pressure of the mixture.
Therefore,
y benzene = Ppartial/P<«tal = 0.833/0.880 = 0.947
Similarly, for toluene and cyclohexane,
^toluene ~ ^partia/^total — 0.020
ycyclohexane = ^partia/^total = 0-^33
The mole fractions of the vapor components sum to 1.0.
The molecular weight of the vapor can be calculated as follows:
Component
M>
yi
Mv
Benzene
78.1
0.947
74.0
Toluene
92.1
0.020
1.84
Cyclohexane
84.2
0.033
2.78
Total

1.0
78.6
7.1-34
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Since all variables have now been solved, the stock density, Wv, can be calculated:
w MvPva
wv =
R ti .a
(78.6) (0.880) - ,.26 x I0-2 lb
(10.731) (512.36) ft3
c. Vapor space expansion factor, Kk:
ATV^PV-AP„ (M()
tla Pa " pva
where:
ATV = daily vapor temperature range, "R
APV = daily vapor pressure range, "R
APB = breather vent pressure setting range, psia
PA = atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia (given)
PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia = 0.880 psia (from
Step 4b)
Tla = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R - 512.36"R (from Step 4b)
First, calculate the daily vapor temperature range from Equation 1-17:
ATy = 0.72ATa + 0.028al (1-17)
where:
ATV = daily vapor temperature range, R
ATa = daily ambient temperature range = TAX - TAN
a - tank paint solar absorptance, 0.17 (given)
1 = daily total solar insolation, 1,568 Btu/ft2-d (given)
from Table 7.1-7, for Denver, Colorado;
Tax= 64.3uF
Tan= 36.2°F
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-35
-------
Converting to °R,
= 64.3 + 460 = 524.3°R
Tan= 36.2 + 460 = 496,2°R
From equation 1-17 and ATax = TAX - TAN
ATa= 524.3 -496.2 = 28.1 °R
Therefore,
ATV = 0.72 (28.1) + (0.028)(0.17)(1568) = 27.7°R
Second, calculate the daily vapor pressure range using Equation 1-18:
APv = Pvx " Pvn (1-18)
Pvx, PVN = vapor pressures at the daily maximum, minimum liquid temperatures can be calculated
in a manner similar to the PVA calculation shown earlier.
Tlx = maximum liquid temperature, T, A + 0.25 ATV (from Figure 7.1-17)
T, N = minimum liquid temperature, T, A - 0.25 ATV (from Figure 7.1-17)
Tla = 512.36 (from Step 4h)
ATV= 27.7°R
Tlx = 512.36 + (0.25) (27.7) = 519.3°R or 59°F
Tln = 512.36 - (0.25) (27.7) = 505.4°R or 45°F
Using Antoine's equation, the pure vapor pressures of each component at the minimum liquid surface
temperature are:
Pbenzene= 0.758 psia
Ptoluene = 0.203 psia
Pcyclohexane - 0.794 psia
7.1-36
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
The partial pressures for each component at TLN can then be calculated as follows:
Component
P at 45 °F
xi
p
partial
Benzene
0.758
0.90
0.68
Toluene
0.203
0.07
0.01
Cyclohexane
0.794
0.03
0.02
Total

1.0
0.71
Using Antoine's equation, the pure vapor pressures of each component at the maximum liquid
surface temperature are:
^benzene = '-^psia
^toluene — 0.32 psia
^cyclohexane — psi
-------
d. Vented vapor space saturation factor, Ks:
Ko - __
s 1 + 0.053 P
(1-22)
where:
PVA = 0.880 psia (from Step 4b)
Hvo = 4.0625 ft (from Step 4a)
K, = :
s 1 + 0.053(0.880)(4.0625)
= 0.841
5. Calculate standing storage losses.
Ls = 365 WvVvKeK,
V Vyl^IVg
Using the values calculated above:
Wv = 1.26 x 10"2 lb (from Step 4b)
ft3
Vv = 114.86 ft3 (from Step 4a)
Ke = 0.077 (from Step 4c)
Ks = 0.841 (from Step 4d)
Ls = 365 (1.26 x 10 2)(114.86)(0.077)(0.841) = 34.2 lb/yr
6. Calculate working losses.
The amount of VOCs emitted as a result of filling operations can be calculated from the
following equation:
From Step 4:
Mv = 78.6 (from Step 4b)
PVA = 0.880 psia (from Step 4b)
Q = 8,450 gal/yr x 2.381 bbl/100 gal = 201 bbl/yr (given)
Kp = product factor, dimensionless = 1 for volatile organic liquids, 0.75 for crude oils
Kn = 1 for turnovers <36 (given)
N = turnovers per year = 5 (given)
Lw = (0.0010) (Mv)(PVA)(Q)(KN)(Kp)
(1-23)
7.1-38
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Lw = (0.0010)(78.6)(0.880)(201)(1)(1) = 13.9 Ib/yr
7. Calculate total losses, LT.
= Ls +
where:
l.s = 34.2 lb/yr
Lw = 13,9 lb/yr
Lt= 34.7 + 13.9 = 48.1 lb/yr
8. Calculate the amount of each component emitted from the tank.
The amount of each component emitted is equal to the weight fraction of the component in the
vapor times the amount of total VOC emitted. Assuming 100 moles of vapor arc present, the number
of moles of each component will be equal to the mole fraction multiplied by 100. This assumption is
valid regardless of the actual number of moles present. The vapor mole fractions were determined in
Step 4b. The weight of a component present in a mixture is equal to the product of the number of
moles and molecular weight, Mis of the component. The weight fraction of each component is
calculated as follows:
Weight fraction = Pou"^si
total pounds
Therefore,
Component
No. of moles x
M;
PoundSj
Weight
fraction
Benzene
(0.947 x 100) = 94.7
78.1
7,396
0.94
Toluene
(0.02 x 100) = 2.0
92.1
184
0.02
Cyclohexane
(0.033 x 100) = 3.3
84.3
278
0.04
Total
100

7,858
1.0
The amount of each component emitted is then calculated as:
.Emissions of component; = (weight fractionj)(LT)
Component
Weight fraction x
Total VOC emitted,
lb/yr =
Emissions, lb/yr
Benzene
0.94
48.1
45.2
Toluene
0.02
48.1
0.96
Cyclohexane
0.04
48.1
1.92
Total

48.1
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1 -39
-------
Example 2 - Chemical Mixture in a Horizontal Tank - Assuming that the tank mentioned in
Example 1 is now horizontal, calculate emissions. (Tank diameter is 6 ft and length is 12 ft.)
Solution:
Emissions from horizontal tanks can be calculated by adjusting parameters in the fixed roof equations.
Specifically, an effective diameter, DR, is used in place of the tank diameter, D. The vapor space
height, HV(), is assumed to be half the actual tank diameter.
1. Horizontal tank adjustments. Make adjustments to horizontal tank values so that fixed roof tank
equations can be used. The effective diameter, Dp, is calculated as follows:

PL
0.785
Dc
(6) (12)
0.785
= 9.577 ft
The vapor space height, Hvo is calculated as follows:
Hvo = 1/2 D = 1/2 (6) = 3 ft
2. Given the above adjustments the standing storage loss, Ls, can be calculated.
Calculate values for each effected variable in the standing loss equation.
Ls = 365 VvWvKhKs
Vv and Ks depend on the effective tank diameter, DR, and vapor space height, Hvo
These variables can be calculated using the values derived in Step 1:
Vv = -£(Dh)2Hvo
Vv = JL (9.577)2 (3) = 216.10 ft3
4 ¦
1
1 + (0.053) (PVA) (Hvo)
! = 0.877
1 + (0.053) (0.880) (3)
7.1-40
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
3. Calculate standing storage loss using the values calculated in Step 2.
Ls = 365 VvWvKFKs
Vv = 216.10 ft3 (from Step 2)
Wv = 1.26 x 10"2 lb/It3 (from Step 4b, example 1)
Ke = 0.077 (Irom Step 4c, example 1)
Ks = 0.877 (from Step 2)
Ls = (365X1.26 x 1 () 2)(216.10)(0.077)(0.877)
Ls = 67.1 lb/yr
4. Calculate working loss. Since the parameters for working loss do not depend on diameter or vapor
space height, the working loss for a horizontal tank of the same capacity as the tank in Example 1 will
be the same.
Lw = 13.9 lb/yr
5. Calculate total emissions.
Lj — Lg + L^y
Lt = 67.1 + 13.9 = 81 lb/yr
Example 3 - Chemical Mixture in an External Floating Roof Tank - Determine the yearly emission
rate of a mixture that is 75 percent benzene, 15 percent toluene, and 10 percent cyclohexane, by
weight, from a 100,000-gallon external floating roof tank with a pontoon roof. The tank is 20 feet in
diameter. The tank has 10 turnovers per year. The tank has a mechanical shoe seal (primary seal) and
a shoe-mounted secondary seal. The tank is made of welded steel and has a light rust covering the
inside surface of the shell. The tank shell is painted white, and the tank is located in Newark, New
Jersey. The floating deck is equipped with the following fittings: (1) an ungasketed access hatch with
an unbolted cover, (2) an unspecified number of ungasketed vacuum breakers with weighted
mechanical actuation, and (3) ungasketed gauge hatch/sample ports with weighted mechanical
actuation.
Solution:
1. Determine tank type. The tank is an external floating roof storage tank.
2. Determine estimating methodology. The product consists of three organic liquids, all of which arc
miscible in each other, which make a homogenous mixture if the material is well mixed. The tank
emission rate will be based upon the properties of the mixture. Because the components have similar
structures and molecular weights, Raoult's Law is assumed to apply to the mixture.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-41
-------
3. Select equations to be used. For an external floating roof tank,
Lj — Lyyj-) + LR + Lp + Lp
LWI) = (0.943) QCWl/D
Lr = (KRa +
Lf = FpP*MvK^.
LI) = kdsdd2p*mvkc
(2-9)
(2-4)
(2-2)
(2-5)
(2-1)
where:
Lt = total loss, lb/yr
LWd = withdrawal loss, lb/yr
Lk = rim seal loss from external floating roof tanks, lb/yr
Lp = deck fitting loss, lb/yr
Ld = deck scam loss, lb/yr = 0 for external floating roof tanks
Q = product average throughput, bbl/yr
C = product withdrawal shell clingage factor, bbl/1,000 ft2; see Tabic 7.1-10
WL = density of product, lb/gal
D = tank diameter, ft
KRa = zero wind speed rim seal loss factor, lb-mole/ft-yr; see Table 7.1.8
KRb = wind speed dependent rim seal loss factor, lb-mole/(mph)nft7r; see Table 7.1-8
v = average ambient wind speed for the tank site, mph
n = seal wind speed exponent, dimensionless
P* = the vapor pressure function, dimensionless
(PVA/PA)/(1 + [1-(Pva/Pa)]°'5)2
where:
PVA= the true vapor pressure of the materials stored, psia
PA = atmospheric pressure, psia = 14.7
7,1-42
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Mv = molecular weight of product vapor, lb/lb-mole
Kc = product factor, dimcnsionless
Ff = the total deck fitting loss factor, Ib-mole/yr
nf
= I (Nf Kp,) = [(NP K ) + (NF K, ) + ... + NF KF )]
ri ri rl rl 2 2 uf nf
where:
NF = number of fittings of a particular type, dimcnsionless. Np, is determined for the specific
1 tank or estimated from Tables 7.1-12, 7.1-13, or 7.1-14 1
Kp = deck fitting loss factor for a particular type of fitting, lb-molc/yr. Kp is determined for
1 each fitting type from Equation 2-7 and the loss factors in Table 7.1-12
nf = number of different types of fittings, dimensionless; nf = 3 (given)
Kf) = deck seam loss per unit scam length factor, lb-molc/lt/yr
SD = deck seam length factor, ft/ft2
4. Identify parameters to be calculated/determined from tables. In this example, the following
parameters are not specified: WL> Fp, C, KRa, KRb, v, n, PVA, P , Mv, and Kc. The following values
are obtained from tables or assumptions:
Kc = 1.0 for volatile organic liquids (given in Section 7.1.3.2)
C = 0.0015 bbl/1,000 ft2 for tanks with light rust (from Table 7.1-10)
KRa = 1,6 (from Table 7.1-8)
KRb = 0.3 (from Table 7.1-8)
n = 1.6 (from Table 7.1-8)
Since the wind speed for the actual tank site is not specified, the wind speed for Newark, New
Jersey is used:
v= 10.2 mph (see Table 7.1-9)
Ff, WL, PVA, P* , and Mv still need to be calculated.
Ff is estimated by calculating the individual KF. and NF for each of the three types of deck
fittings used in this example. For the ungasketed access hatches1 with unbolted covers, the KF value
can be calculated using information from Table 7.1-12. For this fitting, KFa = 36, Kpb = 5.9, and
m = 1.2. The value for Kv for external floating roof tanks is 0.7 (see Section 7.1.3, Equation 2-7).
There is normally one access hatch. So,
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-43
-------
^Facccss hatch ^Fa
KPb(KVv)m
- 36 + 5.9 [(0.7)(10.2)]12
^Faccess hatch — 98,4 lb-mole/yr
^Faccess hatch — ^
The number of vacuum breakers can be taken from Table 7.1-13. For a tank with a diameter
of 20 feet and a pontoon roof, the typical number of vacuum breakers is one. Table 7.1-12 provides
fitting factors for weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed vacuum breakers when the average wind
speed is 10.2 mph. Based on this table, KFa = 7.8, KFb = 0.01, and m = 4. So,
K, , , = Kc + Kcu (K. v)m
**Fvacuum breaker Fa rh ^ t ;
= 7-8 + Ml K0.7)C10.2)14
KFvacUum breaker = 33'8 'b-mole/yr
^Fvacuum breaker — '
For the ungasketed gauge hatch/sample ports with weighted mechanical actuation, Table 7.1-12
indicates that floating roof tanks normally have only one. This table also indicates that KFa = 2.3, KFh
= 0, and m = 0. Therefore,
^Fgauge hatch/sample port ~~ ^Fa + ^Fb (^vv)
K =23+0
Fgaugo hatch/sample port
^Fgauge hatcli/sample port — lh-mole/yr
^Fgauge hatcli/sample port — ^
Ff can be calculated from Equation 2-6;
3
Ff = I (KF<)(Np)
i=I 1 1
= (98.4)( 1 )+(33.8)( 1 )+(2.3)( 1)
= 134.5 Ib-mole/yr
5. Calculate mole fractions in the liquid. The mole fractions of components in the liquid must be
calculated in order to estimate the vapor pressure of the liquid using Raoult's Law. For this example,
the weight fractions (given as 75 percent benzene, 15 percent toluene, and 10 percent cyclohexane) of
the mixture must be converted to mole fractions. First, assume that there are 1,000 lb of liquid
mixture. Using this assumption, the mole fractions calculated will be valid no matter how many
pounds of liquid actually are present. The corresponding amount (pounds) of each component is equal
to the product of the weight fraction and the assumed total pounds of mixture of 1,000. The number
7.1-44
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
of moles of each component is calculated by dividing the weight of each component by the molecular
weight of the component. The mole fraction of each component is equal to the number of moles of
each component divided by the total number of moles. For this example the following values are
calculated:
Component
Weight
fraction
Weight, lb
Molecular
weight, Mj,
lb/lb-mole
Moles
Mole
fraction
Benzene
0.75
750
78.1
9.603
0,773
Toluene
0.15
150
92.1
1.629
0.131
Cyclohexane
0.10
100
84.2
1.188
0.096
Total
1.00
1,000

12,420
1.000
For example, the mole fraction of benzene in the liquid is 9.603/12.420 = 0.773.
6- Determine the daily average liquid surface temperature. The daily average liquid surface
temperature is equal to:
Ti A = 0.44 Taa + 0.56 TB + 0.0079 a I
Taa = (Tax + Tan)/2
tb = Taa + 6a - 1
For Newark, New Jersey (see Table 7.1-7):
= 62.5°F = 522.2°R
Tan = 45.9°F = 505.6°R
I = 1,165 Btu/ft2-d
From Table 7.1-6, a = 0.17
Therefore;
Taa = (522.2 + 505,6)/2 = 513.9°R
Tb = 513.9°R + 6 (0.17) - 1 = 513.92°R
TLA = 0M (513.9) + 0.56 (513.92) + 0.0079 (0.17)( 1,165)
= 515.5°R = 55.80F = 56°F
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-45
-------
7. Calculate partial pressures and total vapor pressure of the liquid. The vapor pressure of each
component at 56°F can be determined using Antoine's equation. Since Raoult's Law is assumed to
apply in this example, the partial pressure of each component is the liquid mole fraction (Xj) times the
vapor pressure of the component (P).
Component
P at 56°F
xi
p
partial
Benzene
1.04
0.773
0.80
Toluene
0.29
0.131
0.038
Cyclohexane
1.08
0.096
0.104
Totals

1.00
0.942
where:
The total vapor pressure of the mixture is estimated to be 0.942 psia.
8. Calculate mole fractions in the vapor. The mole fractions of the components in the vapor phase
are based upon the partial pressure that each component exerts (calculated in Step 7).
So for benzene:
Wene = Ppart,a/P
-------
where:
Mv = molecular weight of the vapor, lb/lb-mole
Mj = molecular weight of component i, lb/lb-mole
yi = mole fraction of component i in the vapor, lb-mole/lb-mole
Component
Mi
yi
Mv = KMjXy;)
Benzene
78.1
0.85
66.39
Toluene
92.1
0.040
3.68
Cyclohexane
84.2
0.110
9.26
Total

1.00
79.3
The molecular weight of the vapor is 79.3 lb/lb-mole.
10. Calculate weight fractions of the vapor. The weight fractions of the vapor are needed to calculate
the amount (in pounds) of each component emitted from the tank. The weight fractions are related to
the mole fractions calculated in Step 7 and total molecular weight calculated in Step 9:
zv =
yiMi
M
V
= (0-85X78.1) = 0 84 for benzene
vi 79.3
= (0.040(92.1) = aM for tolueng
v' 79.3
= (0-H0X84.2) = 0 j 2 for cyclohexane
vi 79.3
11. Calculate total VOC emitted from the tank. The total VOC emitted from the tank is calculated
using the equations identified in Step 3 and the parameters calculated in Steps 4 through 9.
Lt = Lwd + Lr + Lf
a. Calculate withdrawal losses:
LWI) = 0.943 QCWl/D
where:
Q = 100,000 gal x 10 turnovers/yr (given)
= 1,000,000 gal x 2.381 bbl/100 gal = 23,810 bbl/yr
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-47
-------
C = 0.0015 bbl/103 ft2 (from Table 7.1-10)
WL - 1/[E (wt fraction in liquid)/(liquid component density from Table 7.1-3)]
Weight fractions
Benzene = 0.75 (given)
Toluene = 0.15 (given)
Cyclohexane = 0.10 (given)
Liquid densities
Benzene = 7.4 (see Table 7.1-3)
Toluene = 7.3 (see Table 7.1-3)
Cyclohexane = 6.5 (see Table 7.1-3)
WL = 1/1(0.75/7.4) + (0.15/7.3) + (0.10/6.5)]
= 1/(0.101 + 0.0205 + 0.0154)
= 1/0.1369
= 7.3 lb/gal
D = 20 ft (given)
LW[) = 0.943 QCWl/D
= [0.943(23,810)(0.0015)(7.3)/20]
= 12 lb of VOC/yr from withdrawal losses
b. Calculate rim seal losses;
LR=(KRa+KRbvn)DP*MvKc
where;
KRa = 1.6 (from Step 4)
KRh =0.3 (from Step 4)
v = 10.2 mph (from Step 4)
n = 1.6 (from Step 4)
Kc = 1 (from Step 4)
PVA = 0.942 psia (from Step 7) (formula from Step 3)
7.1-48
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
D = 20 ft
p* = (Pva^aVO + [1-(Pva/pa)10-5)2
= (0.942/14.7)/( 1+[ 1 -(0.942/14.7) ]° 5)2 = 0.017
Mv = 79.3 lb/lb-mole (from Step 9)
Lr = [(1.6 + (0.3)(i0.2),f,)](0.017)(20)(79.3)(1.0)
= 376 lb of VOC/yr from rim seal losses
c. Calculate deck fitting losses:
LF = FfP*MvKc
where:
Fp = 134.5 lb-mole/yr (from Step 4)
P* = 0.017
Mv = 79.3 lb/lb-mole
= 1.0 (from Step 4)
Lf = (134.5)(0.017)(79.3)( 1.0)
= 181 lb/yr of VOC emitted from deck fitting losses
d. Calculate total losses:
Lt = LWI) + Lr + Lp
= 12 + 376 + 181
= 569 lb/yr of VOC emitted from tank
12. Calculate amount of each component emitted from the tank. For an external floating roof tank,
the individual component losses arc determined by Equation 4-2:
Lfj = (Zy.)(LR + Lp) + (Zl.)(Lwd)
Therefore,
LTbenzene = (0.84)(557) + (0.75)(12) = 477 lb/yr benzene
LTtoluene = (0.040)(557) + (0.15)(12) = 24 lb/yr toluene
LTcyciohexane = (0.12)(557) + (0.10)( 12) = 68 lb/yr cyclohcxane
2/96 Liquid Storage Tanks 7.1-49
-------
Example 4 - Gasoline in an Internal Floating Roof Tank - Determine emissions of product from a
1 million gallon, internal floating roof tank containing gasoline (RVP 13). The tank is painted white
and is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The annual number of turnovers for the tank is 50. The tank is
70 ft in diameter and 35 ft high and is equipped with a liquid-mounted primary seal plus a secondary
seal. The tank has a column-supported fixed roof. The tank's deck is welded and equipped with the
following: (1) two access hatches with unbolted, ungasketed covers; (2) an automatic gauge float well
with an unbolted, ungasketed cover; (3) a pipe column well with a flexible fabric sleeve seal; (4) a
sliding cover, gasketed ladder well; (5) adjustable deck legs; (6) a slotted sample pipe well with a
gasketed sliding cover; and (7) a weighted, gasketed vacuum breaker.
Solution:
1. Determine tank type. The following information must be known about the tank in order to use the
floating roof equations:
- the number of columns
-- the effective column diameter
- the rim seal description (vapor- or liquid-mounted, primary or secondary seal)
- the deck fitting types and the deck seam length
Some of this information depends on specific construction details, which may not be known.
In these instances, approximate values are provided for use.
2. Determine estimating methodology. Gasoline consists of many organic compounds, all of which
are miscible in each other, which form a homogenous mixture. The tank emission rate will be based
on the properties of RVP 13 gasoline. Since vapor pressure data have already been compiled, Raoult's
Law will not be used. The molecular weight of gasoline also will be taken from a table and will not
be calculated. Weight fractions of components will be assumed to be available from SPEC I ATE data
base.
3. Select equations to be used.
Lj = L\yj) + Lr + Lp + Ljj (3-1)
L - (0.943) QCW, f| + ( NCFC)1 (J 4)
D D
lr = (KRa + KRbvn)DP*MvKC
Lp = FfP'mvKc (3-5)
Ld= KdSdD2P*MvKc (3-6)
where:
Lj = total loss, Ib/yr
L\vd = withdrawal loss, lb/yr
Lr = rim seal loss, lb/yr
Lf = deck fitting loss, lb/yr
7.1 -50
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Ld = deck scam loss, lb/yr
Q = product average throughput (tank capacity [bbl] times turnovers per year),
bbl/yr
C = product withdrawal shell clingage factor, bbl/1,000 ft2
Wj = density of liquid, lb/gal
D = tank diameter, ft
Nc = number of columns, dimensionless
Fc = effective column diameter, ft
KRa = zero wind speed rim seal loss factor, lb-mole/ft-yr
KRb = wind speed dependent rim seal loss factor, Ib-moIe/(mph)nft-yr
v = average ambient site wind speed (zero for internal floating roof tanks), mph
Mv = the average molecular weight of the product vapor, lb/lb-molc
= the product factor, dimensionless
P* = the vapor pressure function, dimensionless
= (PVA/PA)/[1 + (1-([PVa/pa1))°'5))2
and
PVA = the vapor pressure of the material stored, psia
PA = average atmospheric pressure at tank location, psia
Ff = the total deck fitting loss factor, lb-mole/yr
nf
= I (NF KF.) = [(NF|KF|) + (NfKfJ + ... + (Nf Kp. )1
._j ri ri MM 2 2 nf nf
and:
Np = number of fittings of a particular type, dimensionless. Np is determined
1 for the specific tank or estimated from Table 7.1-12 1
Kp = deck fitting loss factor for a particular type of deck fitting, lb-mole/yr.
1 Kp is determined for each fitting type using Table 7.1-12
n, = number of different types of fittings, dimensionless
Kd = the deck seam loss factor, lb-mole/ft-yr
= 0.34 for nonwelded decks
= 0 for welded decks
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-51
-------
SD = deck seam length factor, ft/ft2
= I /A
scam deck
and:
Lscam = total length of deck scams, ft
Adcck = area of deck, ft2 = 7rD2/4
4. Identify parameters to be calculated or determined from tables. In this example, the following
parameters are not specified: Nc, Fc, P, Mv, KRa, KRh, v, P , K^., Ff, Kd, and SD. The density of
the liquid (W,) and the vapor pressure of the liquid (P) can be read from tables and do not need to be
calculated. Also, the weight fractions of components in the vapor can be obtained from spcciation
manuals. Therefore, several steps required in preceding examples will not be required in this example.
In each case, if a step is not required, the reason is presented.
The following parameters can be obtained from tables or assumptions:
Kc = 1.0 for volatile organic liquids
Nc = 1 (from Table 7.1-11)
Fc = 1.0 (assumed)
KRa = 0.3 (from Table 7.1-8)
KRb = 0.6 (from Table 7.1-8)
v = 0 for internal floating roof tanks
Mv = 62 Ib/lb-mole (from Table 7.1-2)
WL = 4.9 lb/gal (from Table 7.1-2)
C = 0.0015 bbl/1,000 ft2 (from Table 7.1-10)
Kd = 0 for welded decks so SD is not needed
ff = I (KF nf.)
11 * 1
5. Calculate mole fractions in the liquid. This step is not required because liquid mole fractions are
only used to calculate liquid vapor pressure, which is given in this example.
6. Calculate the daily average liquid surface temperature. The daily average liquid surface
temperature is equal to:
tla = °'44 taa + u-56 tb + a0079 a 1
taa - (Tax + Tan)/2
7.1-52
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
tb = taa + 6a - 1
For Tulsa, Oklahoma (see Tabic 7,1-7):
Tax = 71.3°F = 530.97°R
Tan = 49.2°F = 508.87°R
I = 1,373 Btu/ft2*d
From Tabic 7.1-6, a = 0.17
Therefore,
Taa = (530.97 + 508.87)/2 = 519.92HR
Tb = 519.92 + 6(0.17) - 1 = 519.94°R
T, A = 0.44 (519.92) + 0.56 (519.94) + 0.0079(0.17)( 1,373)
Tla = 228.76 + 291.17 + 1.84
Tla = 52I.77°R or 62"F
7. Calculate partial pressures and total vapor pressure of the liquid. The vapor pressure of gasoline
RVP 13 can be interpolated from Table 7.1-2. The interpolated vapor pressure at 62"F is equal to
7.18 psia. Therefore,
P*
PVA/PA
[1 + (1 - |PVA/PA])°'5]2
P* = (7.18/I4.7)/| I + (1-(7.18/14.7))0'5]2
0.166
8. Calculate mole fractions of components in the vapor. This step is not required because vapor mole
fractions are needed to calculate the weight fractions and the molecular weight of the vapor, which are
already specified.
9. Calculate molecular weight of the vapor. This step is not required because the molecular weight of
gasoline vapor is already specified.
10. Calculate weight fractions of components of the vapor. The weight fractions of components in
gasoline vapor can be obtained from a VOC spcciation manual.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-53
-------
11. Calculate total VOC emitted from the tank. The total VOC emitted from the tank is calculated
using the equations identified in Step 3 and the parameters specified in Step 4.
Lt = Lwd + Lr + Lf + Ld
a. Calculate withdrawal losses:
[(0.943)QCWl]/D [1 + (NCFC)/D|
(1,000,000 gal)(50 turnovers/yr)
(50,000,000 gal)(2.381 bbl/100 gal) = 1,190,500 bbl/yr
0.0015 bbl/1,000 ft2
4.9 lb/gal
70 ft
1
1
[(0.943)(1,190,500)(0.0015)(4.9)]/70[1 + (l)(l)/70] = 120 lb/yr VOC for withdrawal
losses
b. Calculate rim seal losses:
Lr = (KRa + KRhvI1)DP*MvKc
Since v = 0 for IFRT's:
Lr = KRaDP*MyKc
where:
KRa = 0.3 lb-mole/ft*yr
D = 70 ft
P* = 0.166
Mv = 62 Ib/Ib-mole
= 1.0
Lr = (0.3)(0.166)(7Q)(62)( 1.0) = 216 lb/yr VOC from rim seals
lwd _
where:
Q =
c =
WL =
D =
Nc =
FC =
lwd =
7.1-54
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
c. Calculate deck fitting losses:
LF = FfP*MvKc
where;
Ff = I (KF NF.)
11
Kp = Kp.v for internal floating roof tanks since the wind speed is zero (see Equation 2-8)
Substituting values for KFa, taken from Tables 7.1-12 and 7.1-15 for access hatches, gauge float well,
pipe column well, ladder well, deck leg, sample pipe well, and vacuum breaker, respectively, yields:
Ff = (36)(2) + (14)(1) + (1())(1) + (56)(1) + 7.915 + (70/10) + (702/600)) + (43.1)(1) +
(6.2)(1)
= 361 lb-mole/yr
P* = 0.166
Mv = 62 lb/lb-mole
Kc = 1
Lf = (361 )(0.166)(62)( 1.0) = 3,715 Ib/yr VOC from deck fittings
d. Calculate deck seam losses:
Lu = KdSdD2P*MvKc
Since K„ = 0 for IFRT's with welded decks,
Ld = 0 lb/yr VOC from deck seams
e. Calculate total losses:
Lt = LW[) + Lr + Lf + Ld
= 120 + 216 + 3,715 + 0 = 4,051 lb/yr of VOC emitted from the tank
12. Calculate amount of each component emitted from the tank. The individual component losses arc
equal to:
Lt. = (ZV.)(LR + Lf + Ln) + (ZvJ(Lwn)
Since the liquid weight fractions are unknown, the individual component losses are calculated based on
the vapor weight fraction and the total losses. This procedure should yield approximately the same
values as the above equation because withdrawal losses are typically low for floating roof tanks. The
amount of each component emitted is the weight fraction of that component in the vapor (obtained
from a VOC species data manual and shown below) times the total amount of VOC emitted from the
tank. The table below shows the amount emitted for each component in this example.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-55
-------
Constituent
Weight Percent In Vapor x 4,051 Ib/yr
= Emissions, Ib/yr
Air toxics

Benzene
0.77
31.2
Toluene
0.66
26.7
Ethyl benzene
0.04
1.62
O-xylenc
0.05
2.03
Nontoxics

Isomers of pentane
26.78
1,085
N-butane
22.95
930
Iso-butane
9,83
398
N-pentanc
8.56
347
Isomers of hcxane
4.78
194
3-methyl pentane
2.34
94.8
Hexanc
1,84
74.5
Others
21.40
867
Total
100
4,051
Pr«ssure/Voeuum Vent
Gauge-Hatch/
Samp I a We I i
Roo f Cot ufnn
Shei t
7.1-56
Figure 7.1-1. Typical fixed-roof tank.1
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Open top (no fixed roof)
Overflow drain
Dock leg
(center area)
Access hatch
Gauge hatch/
sample port
Deck leg
(pontoon area)
Solid guidepole
(unslotted)
Vacuum breaker
Gauge float
Rim seal —
(mechanical-shoe)
•Tank shell
Rim vent
2/96
Figure 7.1 -2. External floating roof tank {pontoon type),21
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-57
-------
Overflow drain
Open top (no fixed roof)
Access hatch
Deck leg
Gauge hatch/
sample port
Rim seal —
(mechanical-shoe)
Solid guidepole
(unslotted)
J
vacuum breaker
-Gauge float
Rim vent
7.1-58
Figure 7.1-3. External floating roof tank (double-deck type).21
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
¦ Peripheral roof vents
-Fixed-roof center vent
Fixed roof
(column-
supported)
Rim seal
(vapor-mounted)
Deck leg
Gauge float
Sample port
Ladder
Vacuum breaker
Access hatch
Tank shell
Fixed-roof
support column
Deck drain
2/96
Figure 7.1-4. Internal floating roof tank,21
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-59
-------
-Fixed-roof center vent
-Peripheral venting typically
provided at the eaves
(mechanical-shoe)
Rim vent
vacuum breaker
Deck leg
(pontoon area)
Gauge float
Solid guidepole
(unslotted)
Deck leg
(center area
Overflow drain
Gauge hatch/
sample port
Tank shell
Access hatch
7.1-60
Figure 7.1-5. Domed external floating roof tank.21
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Tank shell
Floating roof deck
Floating roof deck
Liquid surface
Resilient-filled seal
(not in contact with the liquid surface)
(see section view below)
Flexible-wiper seal
(wiper position may vary with the
floating roofs direction of travel)
(see section views below)
Tank'
shell
Rim vapor
space
Liquid
surface
Elasiomerio-coated
fabric envelope
Resilient
foam core
Floating
roof
deck

Tank,
shell
Rim vapor
space
Liquid
surface
Tank,
shell
Rim vapor
space
Liquid
surface
Elastomeric blade
Floating
roof
deck
Foam core
Elastameric-coated
fabric envelope
Floating
roof
deck
ililllliilliiillllll?
2/96
Figure 7.1-6. Vapor-mounted primary seals.21
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-61
-------
Floating roof deck
Liquid surface
Tank she
Resilient-filled seal
(bottom of seal in contact with the liquid surface)
(see section view below)
Tank-
shell
Elastomerio
coated
fabric
envelope,
Liquid-
surface
Weatherehield
(not shown above)
Resilient core
"(foam or liquid-filled)
Floating
roof
deck
r—Tank shel
%
Floating roof deck
Primary-seal
fabric
surface
Metallic shoe
(see section view below)
Metallic
shoe.
Rim vapor
space
Liquid —
surface

Tank shell
Primary-seal fabric
/— Floating
M roof
deck
7,1-62
Figure 7,1-7, Liquid-mounted and mechanical shoe primary seals.21
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Rim-mounted secondary seal
over
resilient-filled primary seal
Secondary seal
(flexible wiper shown)
Primary seal
(resilient-filled)
Liquid
surface
-Rim extender
-Floating
roof
deck
Shoe-mounted secondary seal
over
mechanical-shoe primary seal
-Tank shell
Primary seal I —Secondary-seal
shoe) (shoe-mounted)
(Lsr*
Liquid-
surface
Floating
roof
deck
Rim-mounted secondary seal
over
flexible-wiper primary seal
Tank-
shell
Primary seal'
(flexible-wiper)
Liquid
surface
Secondary seal
(flexible wiper shown)
-Rim extender
-Floafino
roof
deck
Rim-mounted secondary seal
over
mechanical-shoe primary seal
Tank shell
Primary seal
(mechanical
shoe)-
Liquid-
surface
Secondary-seal
(rim-mounted)
Floating
roof
deck
2/96
Figure 7.1-8. Secondary rim seals.21
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-63
-------
Floating
roof
deck
Removable
cover
(see section view below)
Handle -
Removable cover-
Gasket •
Well-
- Bolted
closed
Liquid-
surface

^ li , II
^
A J roof

f 1^
k

Floating
roof
deck
¦ Pipe column
• Sliding
cover
(see section view below)
Pipe column
Gasket
Well—

Liquid
surface

Well
-Sliding
cover
/—Floating
={ deck
(noncontact
type shown)
Access Hatch
Fixed-Roof Support Column
Cable
Floating
roof
-deck
Removable
cover
Well
Cable
Gasket -
Well-
Liquid—
surface
Float-
(see section view below)
Removable cover
Bolted
closed
sr . '
Gauge float
Self- Cord-
closmg-
cover
Pipe
sleeve
througly
the
deck-
Funnel
and slit-
fabric seal
Gauge-hatch/
sample port
Slit-
fabric
sample port
(internal floating roofs only)
(see section view below)
Cord
(shown pulling
cover open)
Gasket
Pipe
sleeve
Liquid-
surface

-Funnel
' ^-Floating
r . root
=£=j deck
i
Sample Ports
7,1-64
Figure 7.1 -9. Deck fittings for floating roof tanks.21
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Leg-activated
cow
Floating
roof
-deck
Well.
Gasket
Leg guide
Liquid—
surface
(see section view below)
Adjustable leg
Cover
Hemative pinhole
Pin
Floating
roof
*=i deck
(noncontact
type shown)
Flush Floating
drain roof
deck
cover
Pipe
sleeve
Overflow
drain
-Pipe stub
(see seeUon new below)
Screened rFlush drain
-Floating
roof
deck
Overflow
{noncontact
i shown
i side)
Vacuum Breaker
Deck Drains
Deck leg
Pin
Floating
roof
deck
Mechanical
shoe seal
Leg
sleeve
(see section view below)
Adjustable leg
Leg sleeve
t
Iternative pinhole
Pin
-Floating
roof
deck
i
Deck Leg
• Rim vent
-Floating
roof
deck
(see section view below)
Mechanical-
shoe seal-
Liquid-
surface
Rim vent
¦Pipe
sleeve
^•Floating
roof
deck

Rim Vent
2/96
Figure 7,1-10. Deck fittings for floating roof tanks.21
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-65
-------
Solid guidepola
Sliding p
cover
Roller assembly
™}r-FloaHng
jff\ n»f
^ > deck
Wei'
Solid guidepole
Solid guidepole
(see section views below)
Pole Sliding
wiper cover
Roller assembly
Sliding
cover
Pole
sleeve
Unslotted (solid) Guidepole
Slotted guidepole -
Roller assembly-

Slots in guidepole
(2 staggered rows
on opposite sides)
Slotted guidepole -
Roller assembly -
Sliding cover-
Removable
gasketed
float-
wwi
Liquid -
surface

t
lotted guidepole
Roller assembly
Floating
(see section views below)
Sliding cover
Removable
gasketed
float
bating
surface
Pole
-sleeve
Slotted (perforated) Guidepole
7.1-66
Figure 7.1-11. Slotted and unslotted guidcpoles.21
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Floating
roof
deck-
¦ Ladder
Sliding
¦cover
-Well
Ladder-
(see section view below)
J
¦ Sliding
cover
-Floating
roof
=i deck
(noncontact
type shown)
2/96
Figure 7.1-12. Ladder well.21
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-67
-------
Figure 7.1-13a. True vapor pressure of crude oils with a Rcid vapor
pressure of 2 to 15 pounds per square inch.4
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
t— o 20
0.30
040
120-
0.50
060
0.70
0.80
090
1,00
no
100-
90-f
1.50
ao-
2.00
2.S0
3.00
3.S0
4.00
70-
^ J
60-
50-
S.00_
40-
600
7.00
30-
- 8.00
- 900
-10.0
-11.0
-12.0
-13.0
- 14.0
"15.0
-16.0
-17.0
-18.0
-19.0
-20.0
-21.0
- 22.0
- 23.0
- 24 0
20
10—
Notes:
1. S » slope of the ASTM distillation curve *t 10 percent evaporated, in degrees
Fahrenheit per percent
» ((T at IS percent) - (T at 5 percent)]/(10 percent).
In the absence of distillation data, the following average values of 5 may be used:
Motor gasoline—3.0.
Aviation gasoline—2.0.
Light naphtha (RVP of 9-14 pounds per square inch)—3.5.
Naphtha (RVP of 2-8 pounds per square inch)—2.5.
2. The broken line illustrates a sample problem for a gasoline stock (S » 3.0) with a
Raid vapor pressure of 10 pounds per square inch and a slock temperature of 62.5T.
Figure 7.1- 14a. True vapor pressure of refined petroleum stocks with a Reid vapor
pressure of 1 to 20 pounds per square inch.4
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-69
-------
exp
( 2,799 ^
L v
T + 459,6
-2.227
log10 (RVP)

7,261
V
T + 459.6
+ 12.82
Where;
P = stock true vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch absolute.
T = stock temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
RVP = Reid vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch.
Note: This equation was derived from a regression analysis of points read off Figure 7.1 -14a over the full
range of Reid vapor pressures, slopes of the ASTM distillation curve at 10 percent evaporated, and
stock temperatures. In general, the equation yields P values that are within +0.05 pound per square
inch absolute of the values obtained directly from the nomograph.
Figure 7.1-13b. Equation for true vapor pressure of crude oils
with a Reid vapor pressure of 2 to 15 pounds per square inch.4
exp
0.7553
/ 2,416 ^
( 413,0 ^
T + 459.6
\
Sa5log10 (RVP)
1.854
/ 1,042 x
v'
T + 459.6
/
,0.5
T + 459.6
2.013
/
rog10(RVP) "
8,742
T + 459.6
+ 15.64

Where:
F = stock true vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch absolute.
T = stock temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
RVP = Reid vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch.
S = slope of the ASTM distillation curve at 10 percent evaporated, in degrees Fahrenheit per percent.
Note; This equation was derived from a regression analysis of points read off Figure 7.1-13a over the full range of
Reid vapor pressures, slopes of the ASTM distillation curve at 10 percent evaporated, and stock temperatures.
In general, the equation yields P values that are within +0.05 pound per square inch absolute of the values
obtained directly from the nomograph.
Figure 7.1-141). Equation for true vapor pressure of refined
petroleum stocks with a Reid vapor pressure of
1 to 20 pounds per square inch.4
A = 15,64 - 1,854 S0'5 - (0.8742-0.3280 S0J)ln(RVP)
B = 8,742 - 1,042 S0'5 - (1.049-179.4 S°'S)ln(RVP)
where:
RVP = stock Reid vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch
In = natural logaritlun function
S = stock ASTM-D86 distillation slope at 10 volume percent
evaporation (°F/vol %)
Figure 7.1-15. Equations to determine vapor pressure constants A and B for refined
petroleum stocks.8
7.1-70
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------

A = 12.82 - 0.9672 In (RVP)

B = 7,261 - 1,216 In (RVP)
where;

RVP = Reid vapor pressure, psi

In = natural logarithm function
Figure 7.1-16. Equations to determine vapor pressure Constants A and B for crude oil stocks.8
Daily Maximum and Minimum Liquid Surface Temperature, (°R)
Tlx = T, A + 0.25 ATV
T| N = TLA - 0.25 ATV
where:
Tlx = daily maximum liquid surface temperature, °R
Tla is as defined in Note 3 to Equation 1-9
ATV is as defined in Note 1 to Equation 1-16
Tln = daily minimum liquid surface temperature, °R
Figure 7.1-17. Equations for the daily maximum and minimum liquid surface temperatures.8
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7,1-71
-------
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
200
100
400
300
TURNOVER PER YEAR » ANNUAL THROUGHPUT
TANK CAPACITY
Note: For 36 turnover* per year or lass, K* = 1,0
Figure 7.1-18. Turnover factor (KN) lor fixed roof tanks.8
7.1-72
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02

h
-

f-
-

/ -
-

*
/ -
-

r
-
1

=
iimnii

E
-

11111 M I I
-

-
-

—
-

-
-

-
-
/
r

-
-
/

-
!/
f

'/a

—
1 1 1 1 1 III!

In
1

|
{1
I
+ |1
1
- (pip.
1
)tr
i
i
i
-J
i
Illl1 1 II 1
0.01
3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13
Stock turn vapor pracsun, P (pound* ptr aquam inch abtoiuta)
14
15
Notes:
t. Broken line illustrates sample problem for P — 5.4 pounds per square inch absolute.
2. Curve is for atmospheric pressure, Pv equal to 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute.
2/96
Figure 7.1-19. Vapor pressure function 4
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-73
-------

-J
Tabic 7.1-1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TANK EQUATIONS
Variable Description Variable Description Variable Description
cn
OO
o
z
11
>
n
d
o
73
L,-
total losses, lb/yr
P
true vapor pressure of
Pop
breather vent pressure setting,
Ls
standing storage losses, lb/yr

component i, psia
psig
Lw
working losses, lb/yr
vapor space volume, ft
A
constant in vapor pressure
Pbv
breather vent vacuum setting,
vv

equation, dimensionless
psig
wv
vapor density, lb/ft3
B
constant in vapor pressure
Q
annual net throughput, bbl/yr
K>-
vapor space expansion factor,

equation, °R
kn
turnover factor, dimensionless

dimensionless
Taa
daily average ambient
N
number of turnovers per year,
Ks
vented vapor saturation factor,
temperature, °R

dimensionless

dimensionless
tb
liquid bulk temperature, °R
71
constant, (3.14159)
D
tank diameter, ft
a
tank paint solar absorptance,
VLX
tank maximum liquid volume,
»vo
vapor space outage, ft

dimensionless
ft3
Ho
tank shell height, ft
I
daily total solar insolation
Hlx
maximum liquid height, ft
hl
liquid height, ft

factor, Btu/ft*-d
v
lVp
working loss product factor for
Hro
roof outage, ft
Tax
daily maximum ambient

fixed roof tanks, dimensionless
Hr
tank roof height, ft
temperature, °R
lr
rim seal loss, lb/yr
sr
tank cone roof slope, ft/ft
Tan
daily minimum ambient
Lwd
withdrawal loss, lb/yr
Rs
tank shell radius, ft
temperature, °R
lf
%a
deck fitting loss, lb/yr
Rr
tank dome roof radius, ft
Df
effective tank diameter, ft
zero wind speed rim seal loss
vapor molecular weight,
L "
length of tank, ft
factor, lb-mole/ft-vr
lb/lb-mole
ATV
daily vapor temperature range,
cr
wind speed dependent rim seal
R
ideal gas constant,
(10.731 psia-ft /lb-mole-°R)
°R
loss factor, lb-mole/

AP y
daily vapor pressure range, psi

(mph)nft-yr
PVA
vapor pressure at daily average
apb
breather vent pressure setting
V
average wind speed, mph
liquid surface temperature, psia
range, psig
n
seal-related wind speed
Tla
daily average liquid surface
St*
atmospheric pressure, psi

exponent, dimensionless
temperature, °R
daily ambient temperature
p*
vapor pressure function,
M,
molecular weight of

range, °R

dimensionless

component i, lb/lb-mole
pvx
vapor pressure at the daily
Fr
rim deck loss factor.
y\
vapor mole fraction of
maximum liquid surface
lb-mole/ft-yr

component i, Ib-mole/lb-mole

temperature, psia
Kc
product factor for floating roof
xi
liquid mole fraction of
PVN
vapor pressure at the daily
tanks, dimensionless

component i, lb-mole/lb-mole
minimum liquid surface
temperature, psia
C
shell clingage factor,
bbl/1,000 ft2

wL
average organic liquid density,

lb/gal

Fp
total deck fitting loss factor,
Ib-mole/yr
to
o
-------
number of deck fittings of a
particular type, dimensionless
number of columns
number of vacuum breakers
number of drains
number of deck legs
total number of different types
of fittings, dimensionless
loss factor for a particular type
of deck fitting, lb-mole/yr
zero wind speed loss factor for
a particular type of deck
fitting, lb-mole/yr
wind speed dependent loss
factor for a particular type of
fitting, lb-mole/ mphm*yr
fitting wind speed correction
factor, dimensionless
loss factor for a particular type
of deck fitting, dimensionless
1,2, n, dimensionless
deck seam loss, Ib/yr
number of columns, dimen-
sionless
effective column diameter, ft
deck seam loss per unit seam
length factor, Ib-mole/ft-yr
deck scam length factor, ft/ft2
total length of deck seam, ft
area of deck, ft2
partial pressure of component
i, psia
liquid weight fraction of
component i, lb/lb
molecular weight of liquid
mixture, lb/lb-mole
Table 7.1-1 (com.).
Variable Description
Zv vapor weight fraction of
1 component i, lb/lb
NTotal total number of moles in
mixture, lb-mole
Wj liquid density of component i,
lb/ft3
L-j- emission rate of component i,
Ib/yr
Lv variable vapor space filling
loss, lb/1,000 gal throughput
V j volume of liquid pumped into
system, bbl/yr
V2 volume expansion capacity, bbl
N, number of transfers into
system, dimensionless
-------
Table 7.1-2. PROPERTIES (Mv, Wvc, PVA, W,) OF SELECTED PETROLEUM LIQUIDSa
Petroleum Liquid
Vapor
Molecular
Weight at 60°F.
Mv
(lb/lb-mole)
Condensed
Vapor Density
At 60°F.
wvc
(lb/gal)
Liquid
Density At
60°F.
WL
(lb/gal)
True Vapor Pressure, PVA (psi)
40°F
50°F
60=F
70°F
80°F
90°F
100°F
Gasoline RVP 13
62
4.9
5.6
4.7
5.7
6.9
8.3
9.9
11.7
13.8
Gasoline RVP 10
66
5.1
5.6
3.4
4.2
5.2
6.2
7.4
8.8
10.5
Gasoline RVP 7
68
5.2
5.6
2.3
2.9
3.5
4.3
5.2
6.2
7.4
Crude oil RVP 5
50
4.5
7.1
1.8
2.3
2.8
3.4
4.0
4.8
5.7
Jet naphtha (JP-4)
80
5.4
6.4
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.4
2.7
Jet kerosene
130
6.1
7.0
0.0041
0.0060
0.0085
0.011
0.015
0.021
0.029
Distillate fuel oil No. 2
130
6.1
7.1
0.0031
0.0045
0.0074
0.0090
0.012
0.016
0.022
Residual oil No. 6
190
6.4
7.9
0.00002
0.00003
0.00004
0.00006
0.00009
0.00013
0.00019
a References 10 and 11.
-------
Tabic 7.1-3. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SELECTED PETROCHEMICALS8
Name
Formula
Molecular
Weight
Boiling
Point At
1 Atmosphere
<°F)
Liquid
Density At
60"~F (lb/gal)
Vapor Pressure (psia) At
40'F
50°F
60SF
703F
80°F
90°F
100°F
Acetone
CH^COCH,
58,08
133.0
6,628
1.682
2.185
2.862
3.713
4.699
5.917
7.251
Aeetonitrile
CH^CN
41,05
178.9
6.558
0.638
0.831
1.083
1.412
1.876
2.456
3.133
Acrylonitrile
CH2:CHCN
53.06
173.5
6.758
0.812
0.967
1.373
1.779
2.378
3.133
4.022
Allyl alcohol
ChU:CHCH2OH
58.08
206.6
7.125
0.135
0.193
0.261
0.387
0.522
0.716
1.006
AUyl chloride
CHj:CHCH2C1
76.53
113.2
7.864
2.998
3.772
4.797
6.015
7.447
9.110
11.025
Ammonium hydroxide

{28.8% solution)
nh,oh-h2o
35.05
83.0
7.481
5.130
6.630
8.480
10.760
13.520
16.760
20.680
Benzene
c6h6
78.11
176.2
7.365
0.638
0.870
1.160
1.508
1.972
2.610
3.287
wo-Butyl alcohol
(CHj)2CHCH2OH
74,12
227.1
6.712
0.058
0.097
0.135
0.193
0.271
0.387
0.541
/ert-Butyl alcohol
(CH3)3COH
74.12
180.5
6.595
0.174
0.290
0.425
0.638
0.909
1.238
1.702
«~Butyl chloride
ch,ch2ch2ch2ci
92,57
172.0
7.430
0.715
1.006
1.320
1.740
2.185
2.684
3.481
Carbon disulfide
cs2
76.13
115.3
10,588
3.036
3.867
4.834
6.014
7.387
9.185
11.215
Carbon tetrachloride
ca4
153.84
170.2
13,366
0.793
1.064
1.412
1.798
2.301
2.997
3.771
Chloroform
CHC13
119.39
142.7
12,488
1.528
1.934
2.475
3.191
4.061
5.163
6.342
Chloroprene
CH,:CC1CH:CH2
88.54
138.9
8.046
1.760
2.320
2.901
3.655
4.563
5.685
6.981
Cyclohcxane
C«H12
84.16
177.3
6.522
0.677
0.928
1.218
1.605
2.069
2.610
3.249
Cyclopentane
C5"l0
70.13
120.7
6.248
2.514
3.287
4.177
5.240
6.517
8.063
9.668
1.1 -Dichloroethane
CH,CHC12
98.97
135.1
9.861
1.682
2.243
2.901
3.771
4.738
5.840
7.193
1.2-Dichloroe thane
ch2cich2ci
98,97
182.5
10.500
0.561
0.773
1.025
1.431
1.740
2.243
2.804
cis-1,2- Dichloro-

ethylene
CHC1:CHC1
96.95
140.2
10.763
1.450
2.011
2.668
3.461
4.409
5.646
6.807
trans-1,2-Dichloro-

ethylene
CHC1:CHC1
96.95
119.1
10.524
2.552
3.384
4.351
5.530
6.807
8.315
10.016
Diethylamine
(C2Hj)2NH
73.14
131.9
5.906
1.644
1.992
2.862
3.867
4.892
6.130
7.541
Diethyl ether
c2hsoc2h5
74.12
94.3
5.988
4.215
5.666
7.019
8.702
10.442
13.342
Boils
Di-wo-propyl ether
(ChJ)2CHOCH(CH3)2
102.17
153.5
6.075
1.199
1.586
2.127
2.746
3.481
4.254
5.298
1.4-Dioxane
och2ch2och2ch2
88.10
214.7
8.659
0.232
0.329
0.425
0.619
0.831
1.141
1.508
Dipropyl ether
ch3ch2ch,och2ch2ch3
102.17
195.8
6,260
0,425
0.619
0.831
1.102
1.431
1.876
2.320
Ethyl acetate
c2h5oocch3
88.10
170.9
7.551
0.580
0.831
1,102
1.489
1.934
2.514
3.191
Ethyl acrylate
C2H5OOCCH:CH2
100.11
211.8
7.750
0.213
0.290
0,425
0.599
0.831
1.122
1.470
Ethyl alcohol
C,H,OH
46.07
173.1
6.610
0.193
0.406
0.619
0.870
1.218
1.682
2.320
-------
--4
"O
Tabic 7.1-3 (cent.).
Name
Formula
Molecular
Weight
Boiling
Point At
1 Atmosphere
(°F)
Liquid
Density At
60°F (Pounds
Per Gallon)
Vapor Pressure (Pounds Per Square Inch Absolute) At
40°F
50UF
60°F
70°F
80 ~F
90° F
100CF
Freon 11
CCljF
13738
75.4
12.480
7.032
8.804
10.900
13.40
16.31
19.69
23.60
/i-Hcptane
CH3{CH2)3CH3
100.20
209.2
5.727
0.290
0.406
0.541
0.735
0.967
1.238
1,586
«-Hexanc
CH3(CH2)4CH3
86.17
155.7
5.527
1.102
1.450
1.876
2.436
3.055
3.906
4.892
Hydrogen cyanide
HCN
27.03
78.3
5.772
6.284
7.831
9.514
11.853
15.392
18.563
22.237
Isooctanc
(CH3)3CCH2CH(CH,)2
114.22
210.6
5.794
0.213
0.387
0.580
0.812
1,093
1.392
1.740
Isopentane
(CHj)2CHCH2CH3
72.15
82.1
5.199
5.878
7,889
10.005
12,530
15.334
18.370
21.657
Isoprcno
(CH2):C(CH3)CH:CH2
68.11
93.5
5.707
4.757
6.130
7.677
9.668
11.699
14.503
17.113
Isopropyl alcohol
(CH3)2CHOH
60.09
180.1
6.573
0.213
0.329
0.483
0.677
0.928
1.296
1.779
Methaerylonitrile
CH2:CH(CH3)CN
67.09
194.5
6.738
0.483
0,657
0,870
1.160
1.470
1.934
2.456
Methyl acetate
CH3OOCCH3
74.08
134.8
7.831
1.489
2.011
2.746
3.693
4.699
5.762
6.961
Methyl acrylate
CH3OOCCH:CH2
86.09
176.9
7.996
0.599
0.773
1.025
1.354
1.798
2.398
3.055
Methyl alcohol
ch3oh
32.04
148.4
6.630
0.735
1.006
1,412
1.953
2.610
3,461
4.525
Mcthylcvclohexane
CHjCgH,,
98.18
213.7
6.441
0.309
0.425
0.541
0.735
0.986
1.315
1.721
Methylcyclopentane
ch,c5h9
84.16
161.3
6.274
0.909
1.160
1.644
2.224
2.862
3.616
4.544
Methylene chloride
ch2ci2
84.94
104.2
11.122
3.094
4.254
5.434
6.787
8.702
10.329
13.342
Methyl ethyl ketone
ch3coc2h5
72.10
175.3
6.747
0.715
0.928
1,199
1.489
2.069
2.668
3.345
Methyl methacrylate
CH,0()C{CH3):CH2
100.11
212.0
7.909
0.116
0.213
0.348
0.541
0,773
1.064
1.373
Methyl propyl ether
ch3oc3h7
74.12
102.1
6.166
3.674
4.738
6.091
7.058
9.417
11.602
13.729
Nitromethane
ch3no2
61.04
214.2
9.538
0.213
0.251
0,348
0,503
0.715
1.006
1.334
n-Pentane
CH3(CH,)3CH3
72.15
96.9
5.253
4.293
5.454
6.828
8.433
10.445
12.959
15.474
^-Propylamine
c3h7nh2
59.11
119.7
6.030
2.456
3.191
4.157
5.250
6.536
8.044
9.572
1.1.1 -Trichloroethane
CH3CC13
133.42
165.2
11.216
0.909
1.218
1.586
2.030
2.610
3.307
4.199
Trichloroethylene
CHC1:CC17
131.40
188.6
12.272
0.503
0.677
0.889
1.180
1.508
2.030
2.610
Toluene
ch3-c6h5
92.13
231.1
7.261
0.174
0.213
0.309
0.425
0.580
0.773
1.006
Vinyl acetate
CH2:CHOOCCH3
86.09
162.5
7.817
0.735
0.986
1.296
1.721
2.262
3.113
4.022
Vinylidene chloride
CH2:CC12
96.5
89.1
10.383
4.990
6.344
7.930
9.806
11.799
15.280
23.210
m
00
or>
O
Z
Tl
>
O
H
O
70
00
Reference 11.
25
Ch
-------
Table 7.1-4. ASTM DISTILLATION SLOPE FOR SELECTED REFINED
PETROLEUM STOCKS'1
Refined Petroleum Stock
Reid Vapor Pressure, RVP
(psi)
ASTM-D86 Distillation Slope
At 10 Volume Percent
Evaporated, ("F/vol%)
Aviation gasoline
ND
2.0
Naphtha
2-8
2.5
Motor gasoline
ND
3.0
Light naphtha
9-14
3.5
a Reference 8. ND = no data.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-79
-------
Table 7,1-5. VAPOR PRESSURE EQUATION CONSTANTS
FOR ORGANIC LIQUIDS3
Name
Vapor Pressure Equation Constants
A
B
C
(Dimensionless)
(°C)
("C)
Acetaldehyde
8.005
1600.017
291.809
Acetic acid
7.387
1533.313
222.309
Acetic anhydride
7.149
1444.718
199.817
Acetone
7.117
1210.595
229,664
Acetonitrile
7.119
1314.4
230
Acrylamide
11.2932
3939.877
273.16
Acrylic acid
5.652
648.629
154.683
Acrylonitrile
7.038
1232.53
222.47
Aniline
7.32
1731.515
206.049
Benzene
6.905
1211.033
220,79
Butanol (iso)
7.4743
1314.19
186,55
Butaiiol-(l)
7.4768
1362.39
178.77
Carbon disulfide
6.942
1169.11
241.59
Carbon tetrachloride
6.934
1242.43
230
Chlorobenzene
6.978
1431.05
217.55
Chloroform
6.493
929,44
196.03
Chloroprene
6.161
783.45
179,7
Cresol(-M)
7.508
1856.36
199.07
Cresol(-O)
6.911
1435.5
165.16
Cresol(-P)
7.035
1511.08
161.85
Cumene (isopropylbenzene)
6.963
1460.793
207.78
Cyclohexane
6.841
1201.53
222.65
Cyclohexaiiol
6.255
912,87
109.13
Cyclohexanone
7.8492
2137.192
273.16
Dichloroethane( 1,2)
7,025
1272.3
222.9
Dichloroetliylene(l ,2)
6.965
1141.9
231.9
Diediyl (N,N) anilin
7.466
1993.57
218.5
Dimetiiyl form amide
6.928
1400.87
196.43
Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1)
7.408
1305.91
225.53
Dimetiiyl phtlialate
4.522
700.31
51.42
Dinitrobenzene
4,337
229.2
-137
Dioxaiie(l,4)
7.431
1554.68
240.34
Epichloroliydrin
8.2294
2086.816
273.16
Ethanol
8.321
1718,21
237.52
Ethanolamine(mono-)
7.456
1577.67
173.37
Etiiyl acetate
7.101
1244.95
217.88
Etliyl acrylate
7.9645
1897.011
273.16
Ethyl benzene
6.975
1424.255
213.21
Etliyl chloride
6.986
1030.01
238,61
Ethyl etlier
6.92
1064.07
228.8
Formic acid
7.581
1699.2
260.7
Furan
6,975
1060,87
227,74
Furfural
6.575
1198.7
162.8
Heptane(iso)
6.8994
1331.53
212.41
Hexane(-N)
6.876
1171.17
224,41
7.1-80
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Tabic 7.1-5 (cont.).
Name
Vapor Pressure Equation Constants
A
B
C
(Dimensionless)
CO
CC)
Hexanol(-l)
7.86
1761.26
196.66
Hydrocyanic acid
7.528
1329.5
260.4
Methanol
7.897
1474.08
229.13
Methyl acetate
7.065
1157.63
219.73
Methyl ethyl ketone
6.9742
1209.6
216
Methyl isobutyl ketone
6.672
1168.4
191.9
Methyl methacrylate
8.409
2050.5
274.4
Methyl styrene (alpha)
6.923
1486.88
202.4
Methylene chloride
7.409
1325.9
252.6
Morpholine
7.7181
1745.8
235
Naphthalene
7.01
1733.71
201.86
Nitrobenzene
7.115
1746.6
201.8
Pentachloroetliane
6.74
1378
197
Phenol
7.133
1516.79
174.95
Picoline(-2)
7.032
1415.73
211.63
Prop;uiol (iso)
8.117
1580.92
219.61
Propylene glycol
8.2082
2085.9
203.540
Propylene oxide
8.2768
1656.884
273.16
Pyridine
7.041
1373.8
214.98
Resorcinol
6.9243
1884.547
186.060
Styrene
7.14
1574.51
224.09
Tetrachloroethane( 1,1,1,2)
6.898
1365.88
209.74
T etrachloroetliane( 1,1,2,2)
6.631
1228.1
179.9
Tetrachloroethylene
6.98
1386.92
217.53
Tetrahydrofuran
6.995
1202.29
226.25
Toluene
6.954
1344.8
219.48
T richloro( 1,1,2)trifluoroetliane
6.88
1099.9
227.5
T richloroethane( 1,1,1)
8.643
2136.6
302.8
Trichloroetliane( 1,1,2)
6.951
1314.41
209.2
Trichloroethylene
6.518
1018.6
192.7
T r i c h 1 o ro tl u o rom e th an e
6.884
1043.004
236.88
Trichloropropane( 1,2,3)
6.903
788.2
243.23
Vinyl acetate
7.21
1296.13
226.66
Vinylidene chloride
6.972
1099.4
237.2
Xylene(-M)
7.009
1426.266
215.11
Xylene(-O)
6.998
1474.679
213.69
"Reference 12.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-81
-------
Table 7.1-6. PAINT SOLAR ABSORPTANCE FOR FIXED ROOF TANKSa
Paint Color
Paint Shade Or Type
Paint Factors (a)
Paint Condition
Good
Poor
Aluminum
Specular
0.39
0.49
Aluminum
Diffuse
0.60
0.68
Gray
Light
0.54
0.63
Gray
Medium
0.68
0.74
Red
Primer
0.89
0.91
White
NA
0.17
0.34
a Reference 8. If specific information is not available, a white shell and roof, with the paint in good
condition, can be assumed to represent the most common or typical tank paint in use. If the tank
roof and shell are painted a different color, a is determined from a = (aR + as)/2; where aR is the
tank roof paint solar absorptance and as is the tank shell paint solar absorptance. NA = not
applicable.
7.1-82
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Tabic 7.1-7. METEOROLOGICAL DATA (T^, TAN, I) FOR SELECTED U.S. LOCATIONS8
Location
Property
Monthly Averages
Annua!
Average
Symbol
Units
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct,
Nov.
Dec.
Birmingham. AL
Tax
:F
52.7
57.3
65.2
75.2
81.6
87.9
90,3
89.7
84.6
74.8
63.7
55.9
73.2

Tan
:F
33.0
35.2
42.1
50,4
58.3
65.9
69,8
69.1
63.6
50.4
40.5
35.2
51.1

I
Btu/fr-d
707
967
1296
1674
1857
1919
1810
1724
1455
1211
858
661
1345
Montgomery. AL
Tax

57.0
60.9
68.1
77.0
83.6
89.8
91.5
91.2
86.9
77.5
67.0
59.8
75.9

Tan

36.4
38.8
45.5
53.3
61.1
68.4
71.8
71.1
66.4
53.1
43.0
37.9
53.9

I
Btu/fr-d
752
1013
1341
1729
1897
1972
1841
1746
1468
1262
915
719
1388
Homer. AK
'ax
=F
27.0
31,2
34.4
42.1
49.8
56.3
60.5
60.3
54.8
44.0
.34.9
27.7
43.6

tan
=F
14,4
17.4
19,3
28.1
34,6
41.2
45,1
45.2
39.7
30.6
22.8
15.8
29.5

1
Btu/fr-d
122
334
759
1248
1583
1751
1598
1189
791
437
175
64
838
Phoenix. AZ
Tax
:"F
65.2
69.7
74,5
83,1
92,4
102.3
105.0
102.3
98.2
87.7
74.3
66.4
85.1

'an
f'F
*>
39.4
42.5
46.7
53.0
61.5
70.6
79.5
77.5
70.9
59.1
46.9
40.2
57.3

I
Btu/fr-d
1021
1374
1814
2355
2677
2739
2487
2293
2015
1577
1151
932
1869
Tucson. AZ
''ax
"F
64.1
67.4
71.8
80.1
88.8
98.5
98.5
95.9
93.5
84.1
72.2
65.0
81.7

Tan
'F
38.1
40.0
43.8
49.7
57.5
67.4
73.8
72.0
67.3
56.7
45.2
39.0
54,2

1
Btu/fr-d
1099
1432
1864
2363
2671
2730
2341
2183
1979
1602
1208
996
1872
Fort Smith. AR
.'.AX
:F
48,4
53.8
62.5
73.7
81.0
88.5
93,6
92.9
85.7
75.9
61.9
52.1
72.5

'an
>F
26.6
30.9
38.5
49.1
58.2
66.3
70.5
68.9
62.1
49.0
37.7
30.2
49.0

I
Btu/fr-d
744
999
1312
1616
1912
2089
2065
1877
1502
1201
851
682
1404
Little Rock, AR
Tax
=F
49.8
54.5
63.2
73.8 '
81.7
89.5
92.7
92.3
85.6
75.8
62.4
53.2
72,9

tan
CF
29.9
33.6
41.2
50.9
59.2
67.5
71.4
69.6
63.0
50.4
40.0
33.2
50.8

I
Btu/fr-d
731
1003
1313
1611
1929
2107
2032
1861
1518
1228
847
674
1404
Bakersfield. CA
Tax
"F
57.4
63.7
68.6
75,1
83.9
92.2
98.8
96.4
90.8
81.0
67.4
57.6
77.7

tan
*F
38.9
42.6
45,5
50.1
57.2
64.3
70.1
68.5
63.8
54.9
44.9
38.7
53.3

I
Btu/fr-d
766
1102
1595
2095
2509
2749
2684
2421
1992
1458
942
677
1749
Long Beach. CA
Tax
''F
66.0
67.3
68.0
70.9
73.4
77.4
83.0
83.8
82.5
78.4
72.7
67.4
74.2

tan
vp
44.3
45.9
47.7
50.8
55.2
58.9
62,6
64.0
61.6
56.6
49.6
44.7
53.5

I
Btu/fr-d
928
1215
1610
1938
2065
2140
2300
2100
1701
1326
1004
847
1598
Los Angeles A P. CA
Tax
CF
64.6
65.5
65.1
66.7
69.1
72.0
75.3
76.5
76.4
74.0
70.3
66.1
70.1

Tan
=F
47.3
48.6
49.7
52.2
55.7
59.1
62.6
64.0
62.5
58.5
52.1
47.8
55.0

I
Btu/fr-d
926
1214
1619
1951
2060
2119
2308
2080
1681
1317
1004
849
1594
Sacramento. CA
Tax
-f
52.6
59.4
64.1
71.0
79.7
87.4
93,3
91.7
87.6
77.7
63.2
53.2
73.4

Tan
¦v
37.9
41.2
42.4
45.3
50.1
55.1
57.9
57.6
55.8
50.0
42.8
37.9
47,8

I
Btu/ft'-d
597
939
1458
2004
2435
2684
2688
2368
1907
1315
782
538
1643
San Francisco AP.
Tax
'F
55.5
59.0
60.6
63.0
66.3
69.6
71.0
71.8
73.4
70.0
62.7
56.3
64.9
CA
T.an

41.5
44.1
44,9
46.6
49.3
52.0
53.3
54.2
54.3
51.2
46.3
42.2
48.3

I
Btu/fr-d
708
1009
1455
1920
2226
2377
2392
2117
1742
1226
821
642
1608
oe
-------
Table 7.1-7 (cont.).

Property
Monthly Averages
Annual
Location
Symbol
Units
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
Santa Maria. CA
'ax
'an
1
op
aF
Btu/fr*d
62.8
38.8
854
64.2
40.3
1141
63.9
40.9
1582
65.6
42.7
1921
67,3
46.2
2141
69.9
49.6
2349
72.1
52.4
2341
72.8
53.2
2106
74.2
51.8
1730
73,3
47.6
1353
68.9
42.1
974
64.6
38.3
804
68.3
45.3
1608
Denver, CO
Tax
Tan
I
°F
op
Btu/ft2-d
43.1
15.9
840
46.9
20.2
1127
51.2
24.7
1530
61.0
33.7
1879
70.7
43.6
2135
81.6
52.4
2351
88.0
58.7
2273
85.8
57.0
2044
77.5
47.7
1727
66.8
36.9
1301
52.4
25.1
884
46.1
18.9
732
64.3
36.2
1568
Grand Junction. CO
tax
tan
I
'F
op
Btu/ft2-d
35.7
15.2
791
44.5
22.4
1119
54.1
29.7
1554
65.2
38.2
1986
76.2
48,0
2380
87.9
56.6
2599
94.0 '
63.8
2465
90.3
61.5
2182
81.9
52.2
1834
68.7
41.1
1345
51.0
28.2
918
38.7
17.9
731
65.7
39.6
1659
Wilmington. DE
Tax
Tan
I
°F
=F
Btu/ft2-d
39.2
23.2
571
41.8
24.6
827
50.9
32.6
1149
63.0
41.8
1480
72.7
51,7
1710
81.2
61.2
1883
85.6
66.3
1823
84.1
65.4
1615
77.8
58.0
1318
66.7
45.9
984
54.8
36.4
645
43.6
27,3
489
63.5
44.5
1208
Atlanta. GA
Tax
Tan
I
"F
°F
Btu/fr-d
51.2
32.6
718
55.3
34.5
969
63.2
41.7
1304
73.2
50.4
1686
79.8
58.7
1854
85.6
65.9
1914
87.9
69.2
1812
87.6
68.7
1709
82.3
63.6
1422
72.9
51.4
1200
62.6
41.3
883
54.1
34.8
674
71.3
51.1
1345
Savannah. GA
Tax
Tan
I
=F
=F
Btu/ft2-d
60.3
37.9
795
63.1
40.0
1044
69.9
46.8
1399
77.8
54.1
1761
84.2
62.3
1852
88.6
68.5
1844
90,8
71.5
1784
90.1
71.4
1621
85.6
67.6
1364
77.8
55.9
1217
69.5
45.5
941
62.5
39.4
754
76.7
55.1
1365
Honolulu. HI
?**
! AN"
I
op
5F
Btu/ft"-d
79.9
65.3
1180
80.4
65.3
1396
81.4
67.3
1622
82.7
68,7
1796
84.8
70,2
1949
86.2
71.9
2004
87.1
73.1
2002
88.3
73.6
1967
88.2
72.9
1810
86.7
72.2
1540
83.9
69.2
1266
81.4
66.5
1133
84.2
69.7
1639
Chicago. IL
Tax
Tax
I
°F
°F
Btu/ft2-d
29.2
13.6
507
33.9
18.1
760
44.3
27.6
1107
58.8
38.8
1459
70.0
48.1
1789
79.4
57.7
2007
83.3
62.7
1944
82.1
61.7
1719
75.5
53.9
1354
64.1
42.9
969
48.2
31.4
566
35.0
20.3
402
58.7
39.7
1215
Springfield. IL
"'ax
1AN
I
'F
cp
Btu/fr-d
32.8
16.3
585
38.0
20.9
861
48.9
30.3
1143
64.0
42.6
1515
74.6
52.5
1866
84,1
62.0
2097
87.1
65.9
2058
84.7
63.7
1806
79.3
55.8
1454
67.5
44.4
1068
51.2
32.9
677
38.4
23.0
490
62.6
42.5
1302
Indianapolis. IN
Tax
'an
1
op
:F
Btu/fr-d
34.2
17.8
496
38.5
21.1
747
49.3
30.7
1037
63.1
41.7
1398
73.4
51.5
1638
82.3
60.9
1868
85.2
64.9
1806
83.7
62.7
1644
77.9
55.3
1324
66.1
43.4
977
50.8
32.8
579
39.2
23.7
417
62.0
42.2
1165
Wichita. KS
Tax
'an
1
cV
"F
Btu/ft2*d
39.8
19.4
784
46.1
24.1
1058
55.8
32.4
1406
68.1
44.5
1783
77.1
54.6
2036
87.4
64.7
2264
92,9
69.8
2239
91.5
67.9
2032
82.0
59.2
1616
71,2
46.9
1250
55.1
33.5
871
44.6
24.2
690
67.6
45.1
1502
OC
4^
m
C/3
00
O
z
•fl
>
o
-3
o
ye
oo
KJ
-------
Table 7.1-7 (cont,).
I .ocation
Pro
perty
Monthly Averages
Annual
Average
Symbol
Units
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
.Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Louisville. KY
Tax
°F
40.8
45.0
54.9
67.5
76.2
84.0
87.6
86.7
80.6
69.2
55.5
45.4
66.1

tax
°F
24.1
26.8
35.2
45.6
54.6
63.3
67.5
66.1
59.1
46.2
36.6
28.9
46.2

I
Btu/fr-d
546
789
1102
1467
1720
1904
1838
1680
1361
1042
653
488
1216
Baton Rouge. LA
Tax
=F
61.1
64.5
71.6
79.2
85.2
90.6
91.4
90.8
87.4
80,1
70.1
63.8
78.0

Tan

40.5
42.7
49.4
57.5
64.3
70.0
72.8
72.0
68.3
56.3
47.2
42.3
57.0

I
Btu/ft2-d
785
1054
1379
1681
1871
1926
1746
1677
1464
1301
920
737
1379
Lake Charles. LA
Tax
op
60.8
64.0
70.5
77.8
84.1
89.4
91.0
90.8
87.5
80.8
70.5
64.0
77.6

Tax
°F
Btu/ft2-d
42.2
44.5
50.8
58.9
65.6
71.4
73.5
72.8
68.9
57.7
48.9
43.8
58.3

I
728
1010
1313
1570
1849
1970
1788
1657
1485
1381
917
706
1365
New Orleans. LA
Tax
op
61.8
64.6
71.2
78.6
84.5
89.5
90.7
90.2
86.8
79.4
70.1
64.4
77.7

tan
-F
43.0
44.8
51.6
58.8
65.3
70.9
73.5
73.1
70.1
59.0
49.9
44.8
58.7

1
Btu/ft2-d
835
1112
1415
1780
1968
2004
1814
1717
1514
1335
973
779
1437
Detroit. MI
Tax
5F
30.6
33.5
43.4
57.7
69.4
79.0
83.1
81.5
74.4
62.5
47.6
35.4
58.2

Tax
op
16.1
18.0
26.5
36.9
46.7
56.3
60.7
59.4
52.2
41.2
31.4
21.6
38.9

I
Btu/ft2-d
417
680
1000
1399
1716
1866
1835
1576
1253
876
478
344
1120
Grand Rapids. MI
Tax
•F
29.0
31.7
41.6
56.9
69.4
78.9
83.0
81.1
73.4
61.4
46.0
33.8
57.2

Tax
°F
14.9
15.6
24.5
35.6
45.5
55.3
59.8
58.1
50.8
40.4
30.9
20.7
37.7

I
Btu/fr-d
370
648
1014
1412
1755
1957
1914
1676
1262
858
446
311
1135
Minneapolis-
Tax
=p
19.9
26.4
37.5
56.0
69.4
78.5
83.4
80.9
71.0
59.7
41.1
26.7
54.2
St. Paul. M.N
tan
T
2.4
8.5
20.8
36.0
47.6
57.7
62.7
60.3
50.2
39.4
25.3
11.7
35.2

I
Btu/ft2-d
464
764
1104
1442
1737
1928
1970
1687
1255
860
480
353
1170
Jackson, MS
Tax
op
56.5
60.9
68.4
77.3
84.1
90.5
92.5
92.1
87.6
78.6
67.5
60.0
76.3

Tax
°F
34.9
37,2
44.2
52.9
60.8
67.9
71.3
70.2
65.1
51.4
42.3
37,1
52.9

1
Btu/ft2-d
754
1026
1369
1708
1941
2024
1909
1781
1509
1271
902
709
1409
Billings. MX
7>*
°F
29.9
37,9
44.0
55.9
66.4
76.3
86.6
84.3
72.3
61.0
44.4
36.0
57.9

'an
5F
11.8
18.8
23.6
33.2
43.3
51.6
58.0
56.2
46.5
37.5
25.5
18,2
35.4

I
Btu/ft2-d
486
763
1190
1526
1913
2174
2384
2022
1470
987
561
421
1325
I-as Vegas. NV
Tax
cp
56.0
62.4
68.3
77.2
87.4
98.6
104.5
101.9
94.7
81.5
66.0
57.1
79.6

Tax
=p
33.0
37.7
42,3
49.8
59.0
68,6
75.9
73.9
65.6
53.5
41.2
33.6
52.8

1
Btu/fr-d
978
1340
1824
2319
2646
2778
2588
2355
2037
1540
1086
881
1864
Newark. NJ
Tax

38.2
40.3
49.1
61.3
71.6
80.6
85.6
84.0
76.9
66.0
54.0
42.3
62.5

Tan
5F
24.2
25.3
33.3
42.9
53.0
62.4
67.9
67.0
59,4
48.3
39.0
28.6
45.9

I
Btu/fr-d
552
793
1109
1449
1687
1795
1760
1565
1273
951
596
454
1165
OC-
U\
-------
Tabic 7.1-7 (cool.).
Location
Property
Monthly Averages
Annual
Average
Symbol
Units
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov,
Dec.
Roswell. NM
'ax
5F
55.4
60.4
67.7
76.9
85.0
93.1
93.7
91.3
84.9
75.8
63.1
56,7
75,3

rAN
"F
27.4
31.4
37.9
46.8
55.6
64.8
69,0
67,0
59,6
47.5
3.5.0
28.2
47.5

1
Btu/fr-d
1047
1373
1807
2218
2459
2610
2441
2242
1913
1527
1131
952
1810
Buffalo. NY
tax
°F
30.0
31.4
40.4
54.4
65.9
75,6
80.2
78.2
71.4
60.2
47.0
35.0
55,8

AN
2F
17.0
17.5
25.6
36.3
46.3
56,4
61.2
59.6
52.7
42.7
33.6
22.5
39.3

I
Btu/ft*-d
349
546
889
1315
1597
1804
1776
1513
1152
784
403
283
1034
New York. NY
Tax
°F
37.4
39.2
47.3
59.6
69.7
78,7
83.9
82.3
75.2
64.5
52.9
41.5
61.0
(I„aGuardia
Tax
°F
26.1
27.3
34.6
44.2
53.7
63.2
68.9
68,2
61.2
50.5
41.2
30.8
47.5
Airport)
I
Btu/ft*-d
548
795
1118
1457
1690
1802
1784
1583
1280
951
593
457
1171
Cleveland. Oil
Tax
°F
32.5
34.8
44.8
57.9
68.5
78.0
81.7
80.3
74.2
62.7
49.3
37.5
58.5

Tan
"F
18.5
19.9
28.4
38,3
47.9
57.2
61.4
60.5
54.0
43.6
34.3
24.6
40.7

I
Blu/ft2-d
388
601
922
1350
1681
1843
1828
1583
1240
867
466
318
1091
Columbus. OH
Tax
"T
34.7
38.1
49.3
62.3
72.6
81.3
84.4
83.0
76.9
65.0
50.7
39.4
61.5

tan
°F
19.4
21.5
30.6
40.5
50.2
59.0
63.2
61.7
54.6
42.8
33.5
24.7
41.8

I
Btu/ft2-d
459
677
980
1353
1647
1813
1755
1641
1282
945
538
387
1123
Toledo. OH
tax
"F
30.7
34.0
44.6
59.1
70.5
79,9
83,4
81.8
75.1
63.3
47.9
35.5
58.8

^ AN
I
°F
15.5
17.5
26.1
36.5
46.6
56.0
60.2
58.4
51.2
40.1
30.6
20.6
38.3

Btu/ft2-d
435
680
997
1384
1717
1878
1849
1616
1276
911
498
355
1133
Oklahoma City. OK
7**
°F
46.6
52.2
61.0
71.7
79.0
87,6
93.5
92,8
84.7
74.3
59.9
50.7
71.2

'an
nF
25.2
29.4
37.1
48.6
57.7
66.3
70.6
69.4
61.9
50.2
37.6
29.1
48.6

I
Btu/ft2-d
801
1055
1400
1725
1918
2144
2128
1950
1554
1233
901
725
1461
Tulsa. OK
Tax
"F
45.6
51.9
60.8
72.4
79.7
87.9
93.9
9.3.0
85.0
74.9
60.2
50.3
71.3

Tan
°F
24.8
29.5
37.7
49.5
58.5
67.5
72.4
70.3
62.5
50.3
38.1
29.3
49.2

I
Btu/ft2-d
732
978
1306
1603
1822
2021
2031
1865
1473
1164
827
659
1373
Astoria, OR
Tax
3F
46.8
50.6
51.9
55.5
60.2
63.9
67.9
68.6
67.8
61.4
53.5
48,8
58.1

tan
CF
35.4
37.1
36.9
39.7
44.1
49.2
52.2
52.6
49.2
44.3
39.7
37.3
43.1

I
Btu/ft2-d
315
545
866
1253
1608
1626
1746
1499
1183
713
387
261
1000
Portland. OR
Tax
'F
44.3
50.4
54.5
60.2
66.9
72.7
79.5
78.6
74.2
63.9
52.3
46.4
62.0

tan
°F
33.5
36.0
37.4
40.6
46.4
52.2
55.8
55.8
51.1
44.6
38.6
35.4
44.0

I
Btu/ft2-d
310
554
895
1308
1663
1773
2037
1674
1217
724
388
260
1067
Philadelphia. PA
Tax
°F
38.6
41.1
50.5
63.2
73.0
81.7
86.1
84.6
77.8
66.5
54.5
43.0
63.4

Tan
°F
23.8
25.0
33.1
42.6
52.5
61.5
66.8
66.0
58.6
46.5
37.1
28.0
45.1

I
Btu/fr-d
555
795
1108
1434
1660
1811
1758
1575
1281
959
619
470
1169
-------
Table 7.1-7 (cont).
Location
Pro
pcrty
Monthly Averages
Annual
Average
Symbol
Units
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec,
Pittsburgh, PA
Tax
=F
34.1
36.8
47.6
60.7
70.8
79.1
82.7
81.1
74.8
62.9
49.8
38.4
59,9

Tan
n:
19.2
20.7
29.4
39.4
48.5
57,1
61.3
60.1
53.3
42,1
33.3
24.3
40.7

I
Btu/fr-d
424
625
943
1317
1602
1762
1689
1510
1209
895
505
347
1069
Providence, RI
Tax
'F
36,4
37.7
45.5
57.5
67.6
76.6
81.7
80,3
73.1
63.2
51.9
40.5
59,3

tan
=F
20.0
20.9
29.2
38,3
47.6
57,0
63.3
61.9
53.8
43.1
34.8
24.1
41.2

I
Btu/fr-d
506
739
1032
1374
1655
1776
1695
1499
1209
907
538
419
1112
Columbia. SC
Tax
T
56.2
59,5
67.1
77.0
83.8
89,2
91.9
91.0
85.5
76.5
67.1
58.8
75.3

Tan
°F
33.2
34.6
41.9
50.5
59.1
66.1
70.1
69.4
63.9
50.3
40.6
34.7
51,2

I
Btu/fr-d
762
1021
1355
1747
1895
1947
1842
1703
1439
1211
921
722
1380
Sioux Falls. SD
Iax
=F
22.9
29.3
40.1
58.1
70.5
80,3
86.2
83.9
73.5
62.1
43.7
29.3
56.7

Tan
=F
1.9
8.9
20.6
34.6
45,7
56,3
61.8
59.7
48.5
36.7
22.3
10.1
33.9

I
Btu/ft *d
533
802
1152
1543
1894
2100
2150
1845
1410
1005
608
441
1290
Memphis. TN
Tax
"F
48.3
53.0
61.4
72.9
81.0
88.4
91.5
90.3
84.3
74.5
61.4
52.3
71.6

Tan
"F
_ 1
30.9
34.1
41.9
52.2
60.9
68.9
72.6
70.8
64.1
51.3
41.1
34.3
51,9

I
Btu/fr-d
683
945
1278
1639
1885
2045
1972
1824
1471
1205
817
629
1366
Amarillo. TX
Tax
3F
49.1
53.1
60.8
71.0
79.1
88.2
91.4
89.6
82.4
72.7
58,7
51.8
70.7

Tan-
op
21,7
26.1
32,0
42.0
51.9
61.5
66,2
64.5
56.9
45.5
32.1
24.8
43.8

I
Btu/ft2-d
960
1244
1631
2019
2212
2393
2281
2103
1761
1404
1033
872
1659
Corpus Christi. TX
Tax
°F
66.5
69.9
76.1
82.1
86.7
91.2
94.2
94.1
90.1
83.9
75,1
69.3
81.6

'an
"F
46.1
48.7
55.7
63.9
69.5
74.1
75.6
75.8
72.8
64.1
54,9
48.8
62.5

I
Btu/ft2-d
898
1147
1430
1642
1866
2094
2186
1991
1687
1416
1043
845
1521
Dallas. TX
Tax
5F
54.0
59.1
67.2
76.8
84.4
93.2
97.8
97.3
89.7
79.5
66.2
58.1
76.9

rAN
,JF
33.9
37.8
44.9
55.0
62.9
70.8
74.7
73.7
67.5
56.3
44.9
37.4
55.0

1
Btu/fr-d
822
1071
1422
1627
1889
2135
2122
1950
1587
1276
936
780
1468
Houston. TX
tax
?F
61.9
65.7
72.1
79.0
85.1
90.9
93.6
93.1
88.7
81.9
71.6
65.2
79.1

Tan
op
40.8
43.2
49.8
58.3
64.7
70,2
72.5
72.1
68.1
57.5
48.6
42.7
57.4

I
Btu/ft2-d
772
1034
1297
1522
1775
1898
1828
1686
1471
1276
924
730
1351
Midland-Odessa.
Tax
*F
57.6
62.1
69.8
78.8
86.0
93.0
94.2
93.1
86.4
77.7
65.5
59.7
77.0
TX
tan
*F
29.7
33,3
40.2
49.4
58.2
66.6
69,2
68.0
61.9
51.1
39.0
32.2
49.9

I
Btu/fr-d
1081
1383
1839
2192
2430
2562
2389
2210
1844
1522
1176
1000
1802
Salt Lake City. UT
rAX
CF
37.4
43.7
51.5
61.1
72.4
83.3
93.2
90.0
80.0
66.7
50.2
38.9
64.0

tax
°F
19.7
24.4
29,9
37.2
45.2
53.3
61.8
59.7
50.0
39.3
29.2
21,6
39.3

I
Btu/fr-d
639
989
1454
1894
2362
2561
2590
2254
1843
1293
788
570
1603
oc
-------
Tabic 7.1-7 (cont.).
Location
Property
Monthly Averages
Annual
Average
Symbol
Units
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Richmond. VA
tax
T
46.7
49.6
58.5
70.6
77.9
84.8
88.4
87.1
81.0
70.5
60.5
50.2
68.8

1 AN
I
T
26.5
28.1
35.8
45.1
54.2
62.2
67.2
66.4
59.3
46.7
37.3
29.6
46.5

Btu/ft2 day
6? 2
877
1210
1566
1762
1872
1774
1601
1348
1033
733
567
1248
Seattle. WA
AX
"F
43.9
48.8
51.1
56.8
64.0
69.2
75.2
73.9
68.7
59.5
50.3
45.6
58.9
(Sea-Tae Airport)
Tan
I
:F
34.3
36.8
37.2
40.5
46.0
51.1
54.3
54.3
51.2
45.3
39.3
36.3
43.9

Btu/ft" day-
262
495
849
1294
1714
1802
2248
1616
1148
656
337
211
1053
Charleston. WV

op
41.8
45.4
55.4
67.3
76.0
82.5
85.2
84.2
78.7
67.7
55.6
45.9
65.5

Tan
I
¦¦F
23.9
25.8
34.1
43.3
51.8
59.4
63.8
63.1
56.4
44.0
35.0
27.8
44.0

Btu/ft" day
498
707
1010
1356
1639
1776
1683
1514
1272
972
613
440
1123
Huntington. WV
tax
°F
41.1
45.0
55.2
67.2
75.7
82.6
85.6
84.4
78.7
67.6
55.2
45.2
65.3

Tan
I
,F
24.5
26.6
35.0
44.4
52.8
60.7
65.1
64.0
57.2
44.9
35.9
28.5
45.0

Btu/ft2 day
526
757
1067
1448
1710
1844
1769
1580
1306
1004
638
467
1176
Cheyenne. WY
Tax
°F
37.3
40.7
43.6
54.0
64.6
75.4
83.1
80.8
72.1
61.0
46.5
40.4
58.3

tan
I
°F
14.8
17.9
20.6
29.6
39.7
48.5
54.6
52.8
43.7
34.0
23.1
18.2
33.1

Btu/ft" day
766
1068
1433
1771
1995
2258
2230
1966
1667
1242
823
671
1491
Z a References 13 and 14, = daily maximum ambient temperature, TAN = daily minimum ambient temperature, I = daily total solar
insolation factor.
>
n
H
o
70
on
to
sC
O\
-------
Tabic 7.1-8. RIM-SEAL LOSS FACTORS, KR KRb, and n.
FOR FLOATING ROOF TANKS
Tank Construction And
Rim-Seal System
Average-Fitting Seals
Kr:i
(Ib-mole/ft-yr)
If
Rb n
I lb-mole/( mph r-ft-yr]
n
(dimensionless)
Welded Tanks
Mechanieal-shoe seal

Primary only*1
5,8
0,3
2.1
Shoe-mounted secondary
1,6
0.3
1.6
Rim-mounted secondary
0.6
0.4
1.0
Liquid-mounted seiil

Primary only
1.6
0.3
1.5
Weather shield
0.7
0.3
1.2
Rim-mountcd secondary
0.3
0.6
0.3
Vapor-mounted seal

Primary only
6,7°
0,2
3.0
Weailier shield
3.3
0.1
3.0
Rim-mounted secondary
2.2
0.003
4.3
Riveted Tanks
Mechanical-shoe seal
Primary only
Shoe-mounted secondary
Rim-mounted secondary
10,8
9,2
1,1
0.4
0.2
0.3
2.0
1.9
1.5
Note: The rim-seal loss factors KRa, KRb, and n may only he used for wind speeds below 15 miles
per hour.
a Reference 15.
b If no specific information is available, a welded tank with an average-fit ting mcchanical-shoe
primary seal can be used to represent the most common or typical construction and rim-seal system
in use for external and domed external floating roof tanks.
e If no specific information is available, this value can be assumed to represent the most common or
typical rim-seal system currently in use for internal floating roof tanks.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-89
-------
Table 7.1-9. AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED (v) FOR SELECTED U. S. LOCATIONS3
Location
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Location
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Location
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Alabama

Arizona (continued)

Delaware

Birmingham
7.2
Winslow
8.9
Wilmington
9.1
Hunlsville
8.2
Yuma
7.8
District of Columbia

Mobile
9.0

Dulles Airport
7.4
Montgomery
6.6
Arkansas
Fort Smith
7.6
National Airport
9.4
Alaska

Little Rock
7.8
Florida

Anchorage
6.9

Apalachicola
7.8
Annette
10.6
California

Daytona Beach
8,7
Barrow
11.8
Bakers! ield
6.4
Fort Meyers
8.1
Baiter Island
13.2
Blue Canyon
6.8
Jacksonville
8.0
Bethel
12.8
Eureka
6.8
Key West
11.2
Bettlcs
6.7
Fresno
6.3
Miami
9.3
Big Delta
8.2
Long Beach
6.4
Orlando
8.5
Cold Bay
17.0
Los Angeles (City)
6.2
Pensacola
68.4
Fairbanks
5.4
Los Angeles Int'I. Airport
7.5
Tallahassee
6.3
Gulkana
6.8
Mount Shasta
5.1
Tampa
8.4
Homer
7.6
Sacramento
7.9
West Palm Beach
9.6
Juneau
8.3
San Diego
6.9

King Salmon
10.8
San Francisco (City)
8.7
Georgia

Kodiak
10.8
San Francisco Airport
10.6
Athens
7.4
Kotzebue
13.0
Santa Maria
7.0
Atlanta
9.1
McGrath
5.1
Stockton
7.5
Augusta
6.5
Nome
10.7

Columbus
6.7
St. Paul Island
17.7
Colorado

Macon
7.6
Talkeetna
4.8
Colorado Springs
10.1
Savannah
7.9
Valdez
6.0
Denver
8.7

Yakutat
7.4
Grand Junction
8.1
Hawaii

Pueblo
8.7
Hilo
7.2
Arizona

Honolulu
11.4
Flagstaff
6.8
Connecticut

Kahului
12.8
Phoenix
6.3
Bridgeport
12.0
Lihue
12.2
Tucson
8.3
Hartford
8.5

7.1-90
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Table 7.1-9 (cont.).

Wind

Speed

Speed
Location
(mph)
Location
(mph)
Location
(mph)
Idaho

Louisiana

Mississippi

Boise
8.8
Baton Rouge
7.6
Jackson
7.4
Pocatello
10.2
Lake Charles
8.7
Meridian
6.1

New Orleans
8.2

Illinois

Shreveport
8.4
Missouri

Cairo
8.5

Columbia
9.9
Chicago
10.3
Maine

Kansas City
10.8
Molinc
10.0
Caribou
11.2
Saint Louis
9.7
Peoria
10.0
Portland
8.8
Springfield
10,7
Rockford
10.0

Springfield
11.2
Maryland

Montana

Baltimore
9.2
Billings
11.2
Indiana

Glasgow
10.8
Evansville
8.1
Massachusetts

Great Fill Is
12,8
Fort Wayne
10.0
Blue Hill Observatory
15.4
Helena
7,8
Indianapolis
9.6
Boston
12.4
Kalispeli
6.6
Soutli Bend
10.3
Worcester
10.2
Missoula
6.2
Iowa

Michigan

Nebraska

Des Moines
10.9
Alpena
8.1
Grand Island
11.9
Sioux City
11.0
Detroit
10.2
Lincoln
10.4
Waterloo
10.7
Flint
10.2
Norfolk
11,7

Grand Rapids
9.8
North Platte
10.2
Kansas

Houghton Lake
8.9
Omaha
10.6
Concordia
12.3
Lansing
10.0
Scottsbuff
10.6
Dodge City
14.0
Muskegon
10.7
Valentine
9.7
Good land
12.6
Sault Sainte Marie
9.3

Topeka
10.2

Nevada

Wichita
12.3
Minnesota

Elko
6.0

Dulutli
11.1
Ely
10.3
Kentucky

International Falls
8.9
Las Vegas
9.3
Cincinnati Airport
9.1
Minneapolis-Saint Paul
10.6
Reno
6.6
Jackson
7.2
Rochester
13.1
Winnemucca
8.0
Lexington
9.3
Saint Cloud
8.0

Louisville
8.4

2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-91
-------
Table 7.1-9 (cont.).
Location
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Location
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Location
Wind
Speed
(mph)
New Hampshire

Ohio

Rhode Island

Concord
6.7
Akron
9.8
Providence
10.6
Mount Washington
35.3
Cleveland
Columbus
10.6
8.5
South Carolina

New Jersey

Dayton
9.9
Charleston
8.6
Atlantic City
10.1
Mansfield
11.0
Columbia
6.9
Newark
10.2
Toledo
Youngstown
9.4
9.9
Greenville-
Spartanburg
6.9
New Mexico

Sou tli Dakota

Albuquerque
9.1
Oklahoma

Aberdeen
11.2
Roswell
8.6
Oklahoma City
12.4
Huron
11.5

Tulsa
10.3
Rapid City
11.3
New York

Sioux Falls
11.1
Albany
8.9
Oregon

Birmingham
10.3
Astoria
12.4
Tennessee

Buffalo
12.0
Eugene
7.6
Bristol-Johnson
City
5.5
New York (Central Park)
9,4
Medlord
4.8
Chattanooga
6.1
New York (JFK Airport)
12.0
Pendleton
8.7
Knoxville
7.0
New York (La Guardia
Airport)
12.2
Portland
7.9
Memphis
8.9
Rochester
9.7
Salem
7.1
Nashville
8.0
Syracuse
9.5
Sexton Summit
11.8
Oak Ridge
4.4
North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Texas

Asheville
7.6
Allentown
9.2
Abilene
12,0
Cape Hatteras
11.1
Avoca
8.3
Amarillo
13,6
Charlotte
7.5
Erie
11.3
Austin
9.2
Greensboro-High Point
7.5
Harrisburg
7.6
Brownsville
11.5
Raleigh
7.8
Philadelphia
9.5
Corpus Christi
12.0
Wilmington
8.8
Pittsburgh Int'l
Airport
9.1
Dallas-Fort Worth
10,8

Williamsport
7.8
Del Rio
9.9
North Dakota

EI Paso
8,9
Bismark
10.2
Puerto Rico

Galveston
11.0
Fargo
12.3
San Juan
8.4
Houston
7.9
Williston
10.1

Lubbock
12.4
7.1-92
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Tabic 7.1-9 (cont.).

Wind

Speed

Speed
Location
(mph)
Location
(mph)
Texas (continued)

Wisconsin

Midland-Odessa
11.1
Green Bay
10.0
Port Arthur
9.8
La Crosse
8.8
San Angeto
10.4
Madison
9.9
.San Antonio
9.3
Milwaukee
11.6
Victoria
10.1

Waco
11.3
Wyoming

Wichita Falls
11.7
Casper
12.9

Cheyenne
13.0
Utah

Lander
6.8
Salt Lake City
8.9
Sheridan
8.0
Vermont

Burlington
8.9

Virginia

Lynchburg
7.7

Norfolk
10.7

Richmond
7.7

Roanoke
8.1

Washington

Olympia
6.7

Quillayute
6.1

Seattle Int'l. Airport
9.0

Spokane
8.9

Walla Walla
5.3

Yakima
7.1

West Virginia

Belkley
9.1

Charleston
6.4

Elkins
6.2

Huntington
6.6

a Reference 13.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-93
-------
Table 7.1-10. AVERAGE CLINGAGE FACTORS, Ca
(bbl/103 ft2)
Product Stored
Shell Condition
Light Rust
Dense Rust
Gunite Lining
Gasoline
0.0015
0.0075
0.15
Single-component stocks
0.0015
0,0075
0.15
Crude oil
0.0060
0.030
0.60
a Reference 3. If no specific information is available, the values in this table can be assumed to
represent the most common or typical condition of tanks currently in use.
Table 7.1-11. TYPICAL NUMBER OF COLUMNS AS A FUNCTION OF TANK
DIAMETER FOR INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS WITH COLUMN-
SUPPORTED FIXED ROOFS2

Typical Number
Tank Diameter Range D, (ft)
Of Columns, Nc
0 < D < 85
I
85 < D < 100
6
100 < D < 120
7
120 < D < 135
8
135 < D < 150
9
150 < D < 170
16
170 < D < 190
19
190 < D < 220
22
220 < D < 235
31
235 < D < 270
37
270 < D < 275
43
275 < D < 290
49
290 < D < 330
61
330 < D < 360
71
360 < D < 400
81
a Reference 4. This table was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers. The actual number
of columns in a particular tank may vary greatly with age, fixed roof style, loading specifications,
and manufacturing prerogatives. Data in this table should not be used when actual tank data are
available.
7.1-94
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Table 7.1-12. DECK-FITTING LOSS FACTORS, KFa, KFb,
AND m, AND TYPICAL NUMBER OF DECK FITTINGS, Npa
Fitting Type And Construction Details
Loss Factors
Typical Number Of
Fittings, Np
K,.a
(lb-mole/yr)
KPb
(lb-mole/(mph) -yr)
m
(dimensionless)
Access hatch (24-inch diameter well)

1
Bolted cover, gasketedb
1.6
0
0

Unbolted cover, ungasketed
36c
5.9
1.2

Unbolted cover, gasketed
31
5.2
1.3

Fixed roof support column well'1

Nc
Round pipe, ungasketed sliding cover
31

(Table 7.1-11)
Round pipe, gasketed sliding cover
25

Round pipe, flexible fabric sleeve seal
10

Built-up column, ungasketed sliding coverc
47

Built-up column, gasketed sliding cover
33

Unskilled guide-pole and well (8-inch

diameter unslotted pole, 21-inch

diameter well)

1
Ungasketed sliding cover11
31
150
1.4

Ungasketed sliding cover w/pole sleeve
25
2.2
2.1

Gasketed sliding cover
25
13
2.2

Gasketed sliding cover w/pole wiper
14
3.7
0.78

Gasketed sliding cover w/pole sleeve
8.6
12
0.81

Slotted guide-pole/sample well (8-inch

diameter slotted pole, 21-inch

f
diameter well)5

Ungasketed or gasketed sliding cover
43
270
1.4

Ungasketed or gasketed sliding cover,

2.0

with float®
31
36

Gasketed sliding cover, with pole wiper
41
48
1.4

Gasketed sliding cover, with pole sleeve
11
46
1.4

Gasketed sliding cover, with float and

pole wiper®
21
7.9
1.8

Gasketed sliding cover, with float, pole

sleeve, and pole wiper1'
11
9.9
0.89

Gauge-float well (automatic gauge)

1
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
14c
5.4
1.1

Unbolted cover, gasketed
4.3
17
0.38

Bolted cover, gasketed
2.8
0
0

Gauge-hatch/sample port

1
Weighted mechanical actuation.

gasketed1'
0.47
0.02
0.97

Weighted mechanical actuation.

ungasketed
2.3
0

Slit fabric seal, 10% open areaL
12

Vacuum breaker

Nvb (Table 7.1-13V
Weighted mechanical actuation,
7.8
0.01
4.0

ungasketed

0.94

Weighted mechanical actuation, gasketedb
6.2C
1.2

2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-95
-------
Table 7.1-12 (cont.).
Fitting Type And Construction Details
Loss Factors
Typical Number Of
Fittings, Nj,-
K,.;l
(lb-mole/yr)
Kfb
(lb-mole/(mpli) -yr)
m
(dimensionless)
Deck drain (3-inch diameter)

Nd (Table 7.1-13)
()penl1
1.5
0.21
1.7

closed
1.8
0.14
1.1

Stub drain (1-inch diameter)*1
1.2

Nd (Table 7.1-15)
Deck leg (3-inch diameter)

N, (Table 7.1-15),
Adjustable, internal floating deck1
7.9

(Table 7.1-14)
Adjustable, pontoon area - ungasketed'1
2.0
0.37
0.91

Adjustable, puntuon area - gasketed
1.3
0.08
0.65

Adjustable, pontoon area - sock
1.2
0.14
0.65

Adjustable, center area - ungaskcted*'
0.82
0.53
0.14

Adjustable, center area - gasketed"1
0.53
0.11
0.13

Adjustable, center area - sock"'
0.49
0.16
0.14

Adjustable, double-deck roofs
0.82
0.53
0.14

Fixed
0
0
0

Rim vent"

1
Weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed
0.68
1.8
1.0

Weighted mechanical actuation. gasketedb
0.7]
0.10
1.0

Ladder well

ld
Sliding cover, ungasketed1
76

Sliding cover, gasketed
56

Note: The deck-fitting loss factors, KFa, KFh> and m, may only be used for wind speeds below
15 miles per hour.
a Reference 5, unless otherwise indicated.
b If no specific information is available, this value can be assumed to represent the most common or
typical deck lilting currently in use for external and domed external floating roof tanks.
L If no specific information is available, this value can be assumed to represent the most common or
typical deck fitting currently in use for internal floating roof tanks,
d Column wells and ladder wells are not typically used with self supported fixed roofs.
e References 16,20.
1 A slotted guide-pole/saniple well is an optional fitting and is not typically used.
g Tests were conducted with floats positioned with the float wiper at and 1 inch above the sliding
cover. The user is cautioned against applying these factors to floats that are positioned with the
wiper or top of the float below the sliding cover ("short floats"). The emission factor for such a
float is expected to be between the factors for a guidepole without a float and with a float,
depending upon the position of the float top and/or wiper within the guidepole.
h Tests were conducted with floats positioned with the float wiper at varying heights with respect to
the sliding cover. This fitting configuration also includes a pole sleeve which restricts the airflow
from the well vapor space into the slotted guidepole. Consequently, the float position within the
guidepole (at, above, or below the sliding cover) is not expected to significantly affect emission
levels for this fitting configuration, since the function of the pole sleeve is to restrict the flow of
vapor from the vapor space below the deck into the guidepole.
' Nvb = 1 for internal floating roof tanks.
k Stub drains are not used on welded contact internal floating decks.
m These loss factors were derived using the results from pontoon-area deck legs with gaskets and
socks.
n Rim vents are used only with mechanical-shoe primary seals.
7.1-%
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Table 7.1-13. EXTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS: TYPICAL NUMBER OF
VACUUM BREAKERS, Nvb» AND DECK DRAINS, N/
Tank Diameter
D (feet)b
Number Of Vacuum Breakers, Nvh
Number Of Deck drains, Nd
Pontoon Roof
Double-Deck Roof
50
1
1
1
100
1
1
1
150
2
2
2
200
3
2
3
250
4
3
5
300
5
3
7
350
6
4
ND
400
7
4
ND
a Reference 3. This table was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers. The actual number
of vacuum breakers may vary greatly depending on throughput and manufacturing prerogatives. The
actual number of deck drains may also vary greatly depending on the design rainfall and
manufacturing prerogatives. For tanks more than 350 feet in diameter, actual tank data or the
manufacturer's recommendations may be needed for the number of deck drains. This table should
not be used when actual tank data are available. ND = no data.
b If the actual diameter is between the diameters listed, the closest diameter listed should be used. If
the actual diameter is midway between the diameters listed, the next larger diameter should be used.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-97
-------
Tabic 7.1-14. EXTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS: TYPICAL NUMBER OF
ROOF LEGS, Nja

Pontoon Roof

Number Of Pontoon

Number Of Legs On
Taiik Diameter, D (feet)b
Legs
Number Of Center Legs
Double-Deck Roof
30
4
2
6
40
4
4
7
50
6
6
8
60
9
7
10
70
13
9
13
80
15
10
16
90
16
12
20
100
17
16
25
110
18
20
29
120
19
24
34
130
20
28
40
140
21
33
46
150
23
38
52
160
26
42
58
170
27
49
66
180
28
56
74
190
29
62
82
200
30
69
90
210
31
77
98
220
32
83
107
230
33
92
115
240
34
101
127
250
35
109
138
260
36
118
149
270
36
128
162
280
37
138
173
290
38
148
186
300
38
156
200
310
39
168
213
320
39
179
226
330
40
190
240
340
41
202
255
350
42
213
270
360
44
226
285
370
45
238
300
380
46
252
315
390
47
266
330
400
48
281
345
a Reference 3. This table was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers. The actual number
of roof legs may vary greatly depending on age, style of floating roof, loading specifications, and
manufacturing prerogatives. This table should not be used when actual tank data are available.
b If the actual diameter is between the diameters listed, the closest diameter listed should be used. If
the actual diameter is midway between the diameters listed, the next larger diameter should be used.
7.1-98
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
Tabic 7.1-15, INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS: TYPICAL NUMBER
OF DECK LEGS, N,, AND STUB DRAINS, N(|a
Deck fitting type
Typical Number Of Fittings, NF
Deck leg or hanger wellb
Stub drain (1-inch diameter}*1,0
D D2.
(5+ + )
10 600
D2
u }
125
a Reference 4
h D = tank diameter, ft
c Not used on welded contact internal floating decks.
Table 7.1-16. DECK SEAM LENGTH FACTORS (SD) FOR TYPICAL DECK
CONSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKSa
Deck Construction
Typical Deck Seam Length Factor,
SD (ft/ft2)
Continuous sheet construction11

5 ft wide
0.2(f
6 ft wide
0.17
7 ft wide
0.14
Panel construction'1

5 x 7.5 ft rectangular
0.33
5 x 12 ft rectangular
0.28
a Reference 4. Deck seam loss applies to bolted decks only.
b SD = 1AV, where W = sheet width (ft).
c If no specific information is available, this value can be assumed to represent the most common
bolted decks currently in use.
d SD = (L+W)/LW, where W = panel width (ft) and L = panel length (ft).
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-99
-------
References for Section 7.1
1. Laverman, R.J., Emission Reduction Options For Floating Roof Tanks, Chicago Bridge and
Iron Technical Services Company, Presented at the Second International Symposium on
Aboveground Storage Tanks, Houston, TX, January 1992.
2. VOC Emissions From Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks-Background Information For
Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-8 l-003a, U, S, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, July 1984.
3. Evaporative Loss From External Floating Roof Tanks, Third Edition, Bulletin No, 2517,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1989.
4. Evaporation Loss From Internal Floating Roof Tanks, Third Edition, Bulletin No. 2519,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1982.
5. Manual Of Petroleum Measurement Standards: Chapter 19: Evaporative Loss Measurement,
Section 2, Evaporative Loss From Floating Roof Tanks, Preliminary Draft, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, December 1994,
6. Ferry, R.L., Estimating Storage Tank Emissions-Changes Are Coming, TGB Partnership,
1994.
7. Benzene Emissions From Benzene Storage Tanks-Background Information For Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-80-034a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, December 1980.
8. Evaporative Loss From Fixed Roof Tanks, Second Edition, Bulletin No. 2518, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C„ October 1991.
9. Estimating Air Toxics Emissions From. Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, EPA-450/4-88-004,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1988.
10. Barnett, H.C., et ai, Properties Of Aircraft Fuels, NACA-TN 3276, Lewis Flight Propulsion
Laboratory, Cleveland, OH, August 1956.
11. Petrochemical Evaporation Loss From Storage Tanks, First Edition, Bulletin No. 2523,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 1969,
12. SIMS Data Base Management System., Version 2.0, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1990.
13. Comparative Climatic Data Through 1990, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Asheville, NC, 1990.
14. Input For Solar Systems, U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental and Information Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville,
NC, prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy, Division of Solar Technology, November
1978 (revised August 1979).
7,1-100
EMISSION FACTORS
2/96
-------
15. Ferry, R.L., Documentation Of Rim Seal Loss Factors For The Manual Of Petroleum
Measurement Standards: Chapter I9-Evaporative Loss Measurement: Section 2--Evaporative
Loss From Floating Roof Tanks, preliminary draft, American Petroleum Institute, April 5,
1995.
16. Written communication from R. Jones, et al., Midwest Research Institute, to D. Beauregard,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Fitting Loss Factors For Internal And External
Floating Roof Tanks, May 24. 1995.
17. Written communication from A. Parker and R. Neulicht, Midwest Research Institute, to
D. Beauregard, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fitting Wind Speed Correction Factor
For External Floating Roof Tanks, September 22, 1995.
18. Use Of Variable Vapor Space Systems To Reduce Evaporation Loss, Bulletin No, 2520,
American Petroleum Institute, New York, NY, 1964.
19. SPECIATE Data Base Management System, Emission Inventory Branch, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1990.
20. Written communication from A. Parker, Midwest Research Institute, to D. Beauregard, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Final Deck Fitting Loss Factors for AP-42 Section 7.1,
February 23, 1996.
21. Courtesy of R. Ferry, TGB Partnership, Hillsborough, NC.
2/96
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-101
-------
9.5.2 Meat Smokehouses
9.5.2.1 General1"3,7"9
Meat smokehouses are used to add flavor, color, and aroma to various meats, including pork,
beef, poultry, and fish. Smokehouses were at one time used to smoke food for preservation, but
refrigeration systems have effectively eliminated this use.
Four operations are typically involved in the production of smoked meat: (1) tempering or
drying, (2) smoking, (3) cooking, and (4) chilling. However, not all smoked foods are cooked, thus
eliminating the cooking and chilling processes from some operations. Important process parameters
include cooking/smoking time, smoke generation temperature, humidity, smoke density, type of wood
or liquid smoke, and product type.
The two types of smokehouses that are almost exclusively used are batch and continuous
smokehouses. Figures 9.5.2-1 and 9.5.2-2 show typical batch and continuous smokehouses,
respectively. Both types of systems circulate air at the desired process conditions (temperature,
humidity, and smoke density) over the surface of the meat. In batch smokehouses, the meat is placed
on stationary racks for the entire smoking process. In continuous smokehouses, the meat is hung on
sticks or hangers and then conveyed through the various zones (smoking, heating, and chilling) within
the smokehouse. Following processing in the smokehouse, the product is packaged and stored for
shipment.
Several methods are used to produce the smoke used in smokehouses. The most common
method is to pyrolyze hardwood chips or sawdust using smoke generators. In a typical smoke
generator, hardwood chips or sawdust are fed onto a gas- or electrically-heated metal surface at 350°
to 400°C (662° to 752°F). Smoke is then ducted by a smoke tube into the air recirculation system in
the smokehouse. Smoke produced by this process is called natural smoke.
Liquid smoke (or artificial smoke), which is a washed and concentrated natural smoke, is also
used in smokehouses. This type of smoke (as a fine aerosol) can be introduced into a smokehouse
through the air recirculation system, can be mixed or injected into the meat, or can be applied by
drenching, spraying, or dipping.
9.5.2.2 Emissions And Controls1"2,4
Particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), organic acids, acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and
nitrogen oxides have been identified as pollutants associated with meat smokehouses. The primary
source of these pollutants is the smoke used in the smokehouses. Studies cited in Reference 1 show
that almost all PM from smoke has an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.0 micrometers (jxm).
Acetic acid has been identified as the most prevalent organic acid present in smoke, followed by
formic, propionic, butyric, and other acids. Also, acetaldehyde concentrations have been shown to be
about five times greater than formaldehyde concentrations in smoke. Heating zones in continuous
smokehouses (and the cooking cycle in batch smokehouses) are a source of odor that includes small
amounts of VOC. The VOC are a result of the volatilization of organic compounds contained in the
meat or the smoke previously applied to the meat. Heating zones are typically heated with ambient
air that is passed over electrically-heated or steam-heated coils (steam from boilers used elsewhere at
the facility). Therefore, heating zones are not a source of combustion products. Factors that may
9/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.5.2-1
-------
vo
U\
k>
t-b
m
??
S
E/5
O
z
TO
>
n
o
*3
00
so
SO
v<
o©
~
TO CONTROL DEVICE
OR ATMOSPHERE
MEAT STUFFING
AND LOADING
HUMIDIFIER
BLOWER
BATCH SMOKEHOUSE
(SCC 3-02-013-02, -03)

A
j
!
i
i
i

FINISHED PRODUCT
UNLOADING
A
HEATING EQUIPMENT
AMBIENT AIR-
SMOKE GENERATOR
HARDWOOD CHIPS
OR SAWDUST
Figure 9.5.2-1. Typical batch smokehouse.1
(Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
~ AIR OR EXHAUST STREAM
~ PRODUCT STREAM
0 PM EMISSIONS
0 GASEOUS EMISSIONS
-------
sO
U\
¦n
o
o
Q.
>
3
Cl
>
OTQ
H2.
o*
c
3
Q.
c:
—i
NO
Lh
"to
di
MEAT STUFFING
AND LOADING
w
w
CHILI ZONE
SMOKE ZONE
(SCG 3-02-013-04)
HEAT ZONE
(SCO 3-02-013-05)
HEAT ZONE
(SCC 3-02-013-05)
HARDWOOD CHIPS
OR SAWDUST
AMBIENT AIR.
SMOKE
GENERATOR
HUMIDIFIER
HEATING
EQUIPMENT
BLOWER
TO CONTROL DEVICE
OR ATMOSPHERE
FINISHED
PRODUCT
UNLOADING
~ AIR OR EXHAUST STREAM
PRODUCT STREAM
(T) PM EMISSIONS
@ GASEOUS EMISSIONS
Figure 9.5,2-2. Typical continuous smokehouse.1
(Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
-------
effect smokehouse emissions include the amount and type of wood or liquid smoke used, the type of
meat processed, the processing time, humidity, and the temperature maintained in the smoke
generators.
Control technologies used at meat smokehouses include afterburners, wet scrubbers, and
modular electrostatic precipitators (ESP). Emissions can also be reduced by controlling important
process parameters. An example of this type of process control is maintaining a temperature not
higher than about 400°C (752°F) in the smoke generator, to minimize the formation of PAH.
Afterburners are an effective control technology for PM, organic gases, and CO from
smokehouses, but energy requirements may be costly for continuous smokehouse operations. Also,
the additional air pollution resulting from afterburner fuel combustion makes afterburners a less
desirable option for controlling smokehouse emissions.
Wet scrubbers are another effective control technology for both PM and gaseous emissions.
Different types of scrubbers used include mist scrubbers, packed bed scrubbers, and vortex scrubbers.
Mist scrubbers introduce a water fog into a chamber, and exhaust gases are then fed into the chamber
and are absorbed. Packed bed scrubbers introduce the exhaust gases into a wetted column containing
an inert packing material in which liquid/gas contact occurs. Vortex scrubbers use a whirling flow
pattern to shear water into droplets, which then contact the exhaust gases. Limited test data (from
Reference 4) show a vortex scrubber (followed by a demister) achieving about 51 percent
formaldehyde removal, 85 percent total organic compound removal, 39 percent acetic acid removal,
and 69 percent PM removal. Particulate matter removal efficiencies for scrubbers can be increased
through the use of surfactants, which may enhance the capture of smoke particles that do not combine
with the scrubber water.
Elecrostatic precipitators are effective for controlling PM emissions. Combined control
technologies, such as a wet scrubber for gaseous emission control followed by an ESP for PM
removal, may also be used to control emissions from smokehouses.
Smokehouse control devices are operated during the smoking cycle and are sometimes
bypassed during the cooking and cooling cycles. Continuous smokehouses may include separate vents
for exhaust streams from the different zones, thus minimizing the air flow through the control device.
The average emission factors for meat smokehouses are shown in Tables 9.5.2-1 and 9.5.2-2.
These emission factors are presented in units of mass of pollutant emitted per mass of wood used to
generate smoke. Normally, emission factors are based on either units of raw material or units of
product. In this industry, the amount of smoke flavor applied to the meats varies; consequently the
emissions are dependent on the quantity of wood (or liquid smoke) used, rather than the quantity of
meat processed. The emission factors presented in Tables 9.5.2-1 and 9.5.2-2 were developed using
data from only two facilities and, consequently, may not be representative of the entire industry.
9.5.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
Table 9.5.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH AND CONTINUOUS
MEAT SMOKEHOUSES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Filterable PM
PM
PM-10
Condensible PM
Inorganic
Organic
Total PM
Total
PM
Batch smokehouse, smoking
cycleb
(SCC 3-02-013-02)
Continuous smokehouse, smoke
zone
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
Continuous smokehouse, smoke
zone, with vortex wet scrubber
and demister
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
23
66
13
ND°
NDC
NDC
11
36
9.8
19
39
6.0
30
75
16
53
140
29
a Emission factor units are lb/ton of wood or sawdust used. ND = no data available. SCC = Source
Classification Code.
h Reference 5.
c Although data are not directly available, Reference 1 states that all PM from smoke is less than
2 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter.
d References 4-6.
Table 9.5.2-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH AND
CONTINUOUS MEAT SMOKEHOUSES8
Process
VOC
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Formaldehyde
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Acetic
Acid
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Batch smokehouse, smoking
cycle"
(SCC 3-02-013-02)
44
D
ND
NA
ND
NA
Batch smokehouse, cooking
cycle
(SCC 3-02-013-03)
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
Continuous smokehouse,
smoke zone®
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
17
D
1.3
E
4.5
E
Continuous smokehouse,
smoke zone, with vortex
wet scrubber and demister
(SCC 3-02-013-04)
4.4
E
0.62
E
2.8
E
Continuous smokehouse,
heat zone
(SCC 3-02-013-05)
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
a Emission factor units are lb/ton of wood or sawdust used, unless noted. ND = no data available. NA = not
applicable. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 5. VOC, measured as methane.
c References 5-6. VOC, measured as methane.
d Reference 4. VOC, measured as methane. VOCs were measured on a gas chromatograph calibrated against
acetaldehyde, and the results were converted to a methane basis.
9/95 Food And Agricultural Industry 9.5.2-5
-------
References For Section 9.5.2
1. J. R. Blandford, "Meat Smokehouses", in Chapter 13, Food And Agriculture Industry, Air
Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand Reinhold Press, 1992.
2. Written communication from J. M. Jaeckels, Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation, Madison, WI,
to S. Lindem, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, April 1, 1992.
3. Joseph A. Maga, Smoke In Food Processing, CRC Press, Incorporated, Boca Raton, FL,
1988.
4. KSI-2 & KSI-3 Continuous Smokehouses Stack Emissions Testing, Hillshire Farm & Kahn's,
New London, WI, September 19-20, 1991.
5. Report On Diagnostic Testing, Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation, Madison, WI, January 13,
1994.
6. Written correspondence from D. Sellers, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, WI, to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Files, Madison, WI, June 17,
1994.
7. Written communication from J. M. Jaeckels, BT2, Inc., Madison, WI, to D. Safriet, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 15, 1994.
8. Telephone communication between B. L. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, and
J.M. Jaeckels, BT2, Inc., Madison, WI, March 16 and 17, 1995.
9. Emission Factor Documentation, AP-42 Section 9.5.2, Meat Smokehouses, EPA Contract
No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Cary, NC, September 1995.
9.5.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
9.5.3 Meal Rendering Plants
9.5.3.1 General1
Meat rendering plants process animal by-product materials for the production of tallow,
grease, and high-protein meat and bone meal. Plants that operate in conjunction with animal
slaughterhouses or poultry processing plants are called integrated rendering plants. Plants that collect
their raw materials from a variety of offsite sources are called independent rendering plants.
Independent plants obtain animal by-product materials, including grease, blood, feathers, offal, and
entire animal carcasses, from the following sources: butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants,
fast-food chains, poultry processors, slaughterhouses, farms, ranches, feedlots, and animal shelters.
The two types of animal rendering processes are edible and inedible rendering. Edible
rendering plants process fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The plants are normally
operated in conjunction with meat packing plants under U. S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety
and Inspection Services (USDA/FSIS) inspection and processing standards. Inedible rendering plants
are operated by independent Tenderers or are part of integrated rendering operations. These plants
produce inedible tallow and grease, which are used in livestock and poultry feed, soap, and
production of fatty-acids.
9.5.3.2 Process Description1"1
Raw Materials —
Integrated rendering plants normally process only one type of raw material, whereas
independent rendering plants often handle several raw materials that require either multiple rendering
systems or significant modifications in the operating conditions for a single system.
Edible Rendering —
A typical edible rendering process is shown in Figure 9,5.3-1. Fat trimmings, usually
consisting of 14 to 16 percent fat, 60 to 64 percent moisture, and 22 to 24 percent protein, are
ground and then belt conveyed to a melt tank. The melt tank heats the materials to about 43 X
(110°F), and the melted fatty tissue is pumped to a disintegrator, which ruptures the fat cells. The
proteinaceous solids are separated from the melted fat and water by a centrifuge. The melted fat and
water are then heated with steam to about 93°C (200°F) by a shell and tube heat exchanger. A
second-stage centrifuge then separates the edible fat from the water, which also contains any
remaining protein fines. The water is discharged as sludge, and the "polished" fat is pumped to
storage. Throughout the process, direct heat contact with the edible fat is minimal and no cooking
vapors are emitted. For this reason, no emission points are designated in Figure 9.5.3-1.
Inedible Rendering —
There are two processes for inedible rendering: the wet process and the dry process. Wet
rendering is a process that separates fat from raw material by boiling in water. The process involves
addition of water to the raw material and the use of live steam to cook the raw material and
accomplish separation of the fat. Dry rendering is a batch or continuous process that dehydrates raw
material in order to release fat. Following dehydration in batch or continuous cookers, the melted fat
and protein solids are separated. At present, only dry rendering is used in the United States. The
wet rendering process is no longer used because of the high cost of energy and of an adverse effect
9/95
Food And Agriculture
9.5.3-1
-------
•p
Fat Trimmings
Grinder
m
K>
C/a
C—I
O
Z
¦n
>
n
o
»
cn
Fat Tank
Centrifuge
Protein and
Water
Sludge Tank
?
To Inedible
Rendering or
Wastewater
Treatment
\0
U\
Figure 9.5,3-1
Fat and
Water
Steam
Melt Tank
Disintegrator
Feed Tank
Centrifuge
Storage or
Disposal
Note: No cooking vapors are directly emitted
so no emission points are indicated.
Edible rendering process.
-------
on the fat quality. Table 9.5,3-1 shows the fat, protein, and moisture contents for several raw
materials processed by inedible rendering plants.
Batch Rendering Process —
In the batch process, the raw material from the receiving bin is screw conveyed to a crusher
where it is reduced to 2.5 to 5 centimeters (cm) (1 to 2 inches [in.]) in size to improve cooking
efficiency. Cooking normally requires 1.5 to 2.5 hr, but adjustments in the cooking time and
temperature may be required to process the various materials. A typical batch cooker is a horizontal,
cylindrical vessel equipped with a steam jacket and an agitator. To begin the cooking process the
cooker is charged with raw material, and the material is heated to a final temperature ranging from
121° to 135°€ (250° to 275°F). Following the cooking cycle, the contents are discharged to the
percolator drain pan. Vapor emissions from the cooker pass through a condenser where the water
vapor is condensed and noncondensibles are emitted as VOC emissions.
The percolator drain pan contains a screen that separates the liquid fat from the protein solids.
From the percolator drain pan, the protein solids, which still contain about 25 percent fat, are
conveyed to the screw press. The screw press completes the separation of fat from solids, and yields
protein solids that have a residual fat content of about 10 percent. These solids, called cracklings, are
then ground and screened to produce protein meal. The fat from both the screw press and the
percolator drain pan is pumped to the crude animal fat tank, centrifuged or filtered to remove any
remaining protein solids, and stored in the animal fat storage tank.
Continuous Rendering Process —
Since the 1960, continuous rendering systems have been installed to replace batch systems at
some plants. Figure 9.5.3-2 shows the basic inedible rendering process using the continuous process.
The system is similar to a batch system except that a single, continuous cooker is used rather than
several parallel batch cookers. A typical continuous cooker is a horizontal, steam-jacketed cylindrical
vessel equipped with a mechanism that continuously moves the material horizontally through the
cooker. Continuous cookers cook the material faster than batch cookers, and typically produce a
higher quality fat product. From the cooker, the material is discharged to the drainer, which serves
the same function as the percolator drain pan in the batch process. The remaining operations are
generally the same as the batch process operations.
Current continuous systems may employ evaporators operated under vacuum to remove
moisture from liquid fat obtained using a preheater and a press. In this system, liquid fat is obtained
by precooking and pressing raw material and then dewatered using a heated evaporator under
vacuum. The heat source for the evaporator is hot vapors from the cooker/dryer. The dewatered fat
is then recombined with the solids from the press prior to entry into the cooker/dryer.
Blood Processing And Drying —
Whole blood from animal slaughterhouses, containing 16 to 18 percent total protein solids, is
processed and dried to recover protein as blood meal. At the present time, less than 10 percent of the
independent rendering plants in the U. S. process whole animal blood. The blood meal is a valuable
ingredient in animal feed because it has a high lysine content. Continuous cookers have replaced
batch cookers that were originally used in the industry because of the improved energy efficiency and
product quality provided by continuous cookers. In the continuous process, whole blood is
introduced into a steam-injected, inclined tubular vessel in which the blood solids coagulate. The
coagulated blood solids and liquid (serum water) are then separated in a centrifuge, and the blood
solids dried in either a continuous gas-fired, direct-contact ring dryer or a steam tube, rotary dryer.
9/95
Food And Agriculture
9.5.3-3
-------
Table 9.5.3-1. COMPOSITION OF RAW MATERIALS FOR
INEDIBLE RENDERING"
Source
Tallow/Grease,
wt %
Protein Solids,
wt %
Moisture,
wt %
Packing house offalb and bone
Steers
30-35
15-20
45-55
Cows
10-20
20-30
50-70
Calves
10-15
15-20
65-75
Sheep
25-30
20-25
45-55
Hogs
25-30
10-15
55-65
Poultry offal
10
25
65
Poultry feathers
None
33
67
Dead stock (whole animals)
Cattle
12
25
63
Calves
10
22
68
Sheep
22
25
53
Hogs
30
28
42
Butcher shop fat and bone
31
32
37
Blood
None
16-18
82-84
Restaurant grease
65
10
25
" Reference 1.
b Waste parts; especially the entrails and similar parts from a butchered animal.
9.5.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
VOC Emissions
VOC Emissions
VOC Emissions
VOC Emissions
Protein
Solids
VOC Emissions
Fat
Fat
Protein
PM Emissions
PM Emissions
Drainer
Continuous
Cookers
Crusher
Protein Meal
Storage Hopper
Screen
Screw Press
Receiving Bin
Grinder
Condenser
Crude Animal
Fat Tank
Centrifuge or
Filter
Animal Fat
Storage Tank
Oversize
Figure 9.5.3-2. Continuous rendering process.
-------
Poultry Feathers And Hog Hair Processing —
The raw material is introduced into a batch cooker, and is processed for 30 to 45 minutes at
temperatures ranging from 138° to 149°C (280° to 300°F) and pressures ranging from (40
to 50 psig). This process converts keratin, the principal component of feathers and hog hair, into
amino acids. The moist meal product, containing the amino acids, is passed either through a hot air,
ring-type dryer or over steam-heated tubes to remove the moisture from the meal. If the hot air dryer
is used, the dried product is separated from the exhaust by cyclone collectors. In the steam-heated
tube system, fresh air is passed countercurrent to the flow of the meal to remove the moisture. The
dried meal is transferred to storage. The exhaust gases are passed through controls prior to discharge
to the atmosphere.
Grease Processing —
Grease from restaurants is recycled as another raw feed material processed by rendering
plants. The grease is bulk loaded into vehicles, transported to the rendering plant, and discharged
directly to the grease processing system. During processing, the melted grease is first screened to
remove coarse solids, and then heated to about 93 °C (200°F) in vertical processing tanks. The
material is then stored in the processing tank for 36 to 48 hr to allow for gravity separation of the
grease, water, and fine solids. Separation normally results in four phases: (1) solids, (2) water,
(3) emulsion layer, and (4) grease product. The solids settle to the bottom and are separated from the
water layer above. The emulsion is then processed through a centrifuge to remove solids and another
centrifuge to remove water and any remaining fines; the grease product is skimmed off the top.
9.5.3.3 Emissions And Controls1"5
Emissions —
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the primary air pollutants emitted from rendering
operations. The major constituents that have been qualitatively identified as potential emissions
include organic sulfides, disulfides, C-4 to C-7 aldehydes, trimethylamine, C-4 amines, quinoline,
dimethyl pyrazine, other pyrazines, and C-3 to C-6 organic acids. In addition, lesser amounts of C-4
to C-7 alcohols, ketones, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and aromatic compounds are potentially emitted.
No quantitative emission data were presented. Historically, the VOCs are considered an odor
nuisance in residential areas in close proximity to rendering plants, and emission controls are directed
toward odor elimination. The odor detection threshold for many of these compounds is low; some as
low as 1 part per billion (ppb). Of the specific constituents listed, only quinoline is classified as a
hazardous air pollutant (HAP). In addition to emissions from rendering operations, VOCs may be
emitted from the boilers used to generate steam for the operation.
Emissions from the edible rendering process are not considered to be significant because no
cooking vapors are emitted and direct heat contact with the edible fat is minimal. Therefore, these
emissions are not discussed further.
For inedible rendering operations, the primary sources of VOC emissions are the cookers and
the screw press. Other sources of VOC emissions include blood and feather processing operations,
dryers, centrifuges, tallow processing tanks, and percolator pans that are not enclosed. Raw material
may also be a source of VOC emissions, "but if the material is processed in a timely manner, these
emissions are minimal.
In addition to VOC emissions, particulate matter (PM) is emitted from grinding and screening
of the solids (cracklings) from the screw press and other rendering operations such as dryers
processing blood and feathers. No emission data quantifying VOC, HAP, or PM emissions from the
9.5.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
rendering process are available for use in developing emission factors. Only test data for a blood
dryer operation were identified.
Controls —
Emissions control at rendering plants is based primarily on the elimination of odor. These
controls are divided into two categories: (1) those controlling high intensity odor emissions from the
rendering process, and (2) those controlling plant ventilating air emissions. The control technologies
that are typically used for high intensity odors from rendering plant process emissions are waste heat
boilers (incinerators) and multistage wet scrubbers.
Boiler incinerators are a common control technology because boilers can be used not only as
control devices but also to generate steam for cooking and drying operations. In waste heat boilers,
the waste stream can be introduced into the boiler as primary or secondary combustion air. Primary
combustion air is mixed with fuel before ignition to allow for complete combustion, and secondary
combustion air is mixed with the burner flame to complete combustion. Gaseous waste streams that
contain noncondensibles are typically "cleaned" in a combination scrubber and entrainment separator
before use as combustion air.
Multistage wet scrubbers are equally as effective as incineration for high intensity odor
control and are used to about the same extent as incinerators. Sodium hypochlorite is considered to
be the most effective scrubbing agent for odor removal, although other oxidants can be used.
Recently, chlorine dioxide has been used as an effective scrubbing agent. Venturi scrubbers are often
used to remove PM from waste streams before treatment by the multistage wet scrubbers. Plants that
are located near residential or commercial areas may treat process and fugitive emissions by ducting
the plant ventilation air through a single-stage wet scrubbing system to minimize odorous emissions.
In addition to the conventional scrubber control technology, activated carbon adsorption and
catalytic oxidation potentially could be used to control odor; however, no rendering plants currently
use these technologies. Recently, some plants have installed biofilters to control emissions.
No data are currently available for VOC or particulate emissions from rendering plants. The
only available data are for emissions from blood dryers, which is an auxiliary process in meat
rendering operations. Less than 10 percent of the independent rendering plants in the U. S. process
whole blood. Table 9.5.3-2 provides controlled emission factors in English units for particulate
matter (filterable and condensible), hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia from natural gas, direct-fired
blood dryers. The filterable PM was found to be 100 percent PM-10. Emission factors are
calculated on the basis of the weight of dried blood meal product. In addition to natural gas, direct-
fired dryers, steam-coil, indirect blood dryers (SCC 3-02-038-12) are also used in meat rendering
plants. No emission data were found for this type of dryer. The emission control system in
Reference 4 consisted of a cyclone separator for collection of the blood meal product followed by a
venturi wet scrubber and three packed bed scrubbers in series. The scrubbing medium for the three
packed bed scrubbers was a sodium hypochlorite solution. The emission control system in
Reference 5 was a mechanical centrifugal separator.
9/95
Food And Agriculture
9.5.3-7
-------
Table 9.5.3-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED BLOOD DRYERS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Emissions, lb/ton®
Filterable PM-10b (SCC 3-02-038-11)
0.76
Condensible PMk (SCC 3-02-038-11)
0.46
Hydrogen sulfide0 (SCC 3-02-038-11)
0.08
Ammonia* (SCC 3-02-038-11)
0.60
* Emission factors based on weight of dried blood meal product.
direct-fired dryers.
b References 4-5.
c Reference 4.
Emissions are for natural gas,
References For Section 9.5.3

1. W.H. Prokop, Section on rendering plants, in Chapter 13, "Food And Agriculture Industry",
Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand Reinhold Press, 1992.
2. H.J. Rafson, Odor Emission Control For The Food Industry, Food And Technology,
June 1977.
3. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.5.3, Meat Rendering Plants,
EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute , Kansas City, MO,
September 1995.
4. Blood Dryer Operation Stack Emissions Testing, Environmental Technology and Engineering
Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 1989.
5. Blood Dryer Particulate Emission Compliance Test, Interpoll Report No. 7-2325, Interpol!
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, January 1987.
9.5.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
9.8.1 Canned Fruits And Vegetables
9.8.1.1 General1"2
The canning of fruits and vegetables is a growing, competitive industry, especially the
international export portion. The industry is made up of establishments primarily engaged in canning
fruits, vegetables, fruit and vegetable juices; processing ketchup and other tomato sauces; and
producing natural and imitation preserves, jams, and jellies.
9.8.1.2 Process Description3"6
The primary objective of food processing is the preservation of perishable foods in a stable
form that can be stored and shipped to distant markets during all months of the year. Processing also
can change foods into new or more usable forms and make foods more convenient to prepare.
The goal of the canning process is to destroy any microorganisms in the food and prevent
recontamination by microorganisms. Heat is the most common agent used to destroy
microorganisms. Removal of oxygen can be used in conjunction with other methods to prevent the
growth of oxygen-requiring microorganisms.
In the conventional canning of fruits and vegetables, there are basic process steps that are
similar for both types of products. However, there is a great diversity among all plants and even
those plants processing the same commodity. The differences include the inclusion of certain
operations for some fruits or vegetables, the sequence of the process steps used in the operations, and
the cooking or blanching steps. Production of fruit or vegetable juices occurs by a different sequence
of operations and there is a wide diversity among these plants. Typical canned products include beans
(cut and whole), beets, carrots, corn, peas, spinach, tomatoes, apples, peaches, pineapple, pears,
apricots, and cranberries. Typical juices are orange, pineapple, grapefruit, tomato, and cranberry.
Generic process flow diagrams for the canning of fruits, vegetables, and fruit juices are shown in
Figures 9.8.1-1, 9.8.1-2, and 9.8.1-3. The steps outlined in these figures are intended to the basic
processes in production. A typical commercial canning operation may employ the following general
processes: washing, sorting/grading, preparation, container filling, exhausting, container sealing, heat
sterilization, cooling, labeling/casing, and storage for shipment. In these diagrams, no attempt has
been made to be product specific and include all process steps that would be used for all products.
Figures 9.8.1-1 and 9.8.1-2 show optional operations, as dotted line steps, that are often used but are
not used for all products. One of the major differences in the sequence of operations between fruit
and vegetable canning is the blanching operation. Most of the fruits are not blanched prior to can
filling whereas many of the vegetables undergo this step. Canned vegetables generally require more
severe processing than do fruits because the vegetables have much lower acidity and contain more
heat-resistant soil organisms. Many vegetables also require more cooking than fruits to develop their
most desirable flavor and texture. The methods used in the cooking step vary widely among
facilities. With many fruits, preliminary treatment steps (e. g., peeling, coring, halving, pitting)
occur prior to any heating or cooking step but with vegetables, these treatment steps often occur after
the vegetable has been blanched. For both fruits and vegetables, peeling is done either by a
mechanical peeler, steam peeling, or lye peeling. The choice depends upon the type of fruit or
vegetable or the choice of the company.
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.1-1
-------
\o
00
1
VOCAND PM EMISSIONS
m
00
GO
O
z
•Ti
n
*"""3
o
yd
oo
PM EMISSIONS
STORAGE
r
RECEIVING
AND
STORAGE

WASH

LABELING AND

CASING
PEELER OR
CORER
COOKER
SORT AND
GRADE

CHOPPER
AND SUCER

CAN FILLER

SYRUP

MACHINE

X
~

WATER COOLER

HEAT

CAN

STEAM

STERILIZATION

SEALER

EXHAUSTING
FRUIT CANNING
Figure 9.8.1-1. Generic process diagram for fruit canning.
-------
oo
vo
VOC AND PM EMISSIONS
o
o
Q~
>
3
Q~
>
Crq
o"
£
r^-
c
¦n
3
a
c
vs
CUTTER
PM EMISSIONS

RECEIVING
AND
STORAGE

WASH

PEELER
WASH
SORTAND
GRADE

BLANCHER
OR COOKER

CAN FILLER

STEAM
EXHAUSTING

CAN SEALER
STORAGE

LABELING AND

CASING

WATER

COOLER

HEAT

STERILIZATION
VEGETABLE CANNING
OO
Figure 9.8.1-2. Generic process diagram for vegetable canning.
-------
\o
oe
m
§
S?
00
O
Z
T!
>
n
o
73
00
PM
EMISSIONS
PM
EMISSIONS
VOC
EMISSIONS
PM
EMISSIONS
DRIED
PEEL
DRIER
RECEIVING
JUICE
JUICE
FLASH
WASH
EXTRACTOR
STRAINER
PASTEURIZER
LIME

PRESS

HAMMERMILL

PEELS, SEEDS,
AND PULP

CITRUS MOLASSES-
JUICE
EVAPORATOR
VOC
EMISSIONS

LABELING AND

CASING
WATER

CAN
SEALER

CAN
FILLER

JUICE CANNING
Figure 9,8.1-3. Generic process diagram for juice canning.
-------
Some citrus fruit processors produce dry citrus peel, citrus molasses and D-limonene from the
peels and pulp residue collected from the canning and juice operations. Other juice processing
facilities use concentrates and raw commodity processing does not occur at the facility. The peels and
residue are collected and ground in a hammermill, lime is added to neutralize the acids, and the
product pressed to remove excess moisture. The liquid from the press is screened to remove large
particles, which are recycled back to the press, and the liquid is concentrated to molasses in an
evaporator. The pressed peel is sent to a direct-fired hot-air drier. After passing through a condenser
to remove the D-Iimonene, the exhaust gases from the drier are used as the heat source for the
molasses evaporator.
Equipment for conventional canning has been converting from batch to continuous units. In
continuous retorts, the cans are fed through an air lock, then rotated through the pressurized heating
chamber, and subsequently cooled through a second section of the retort in a separate cold-water
cooler. Commercial methods for sterilization of canned foods with a pH of 4.5 or lower include use
of static retorts, which are similar to large pressure cookers. A newer unit is the agitating retort,
which mechanically moves the can and the food, providing quicker heat penetration. In the aseptic
packaging process, the problem with slow heat penetration in the in-container process are avoided by
sterilizing and cooling the food separate from the container. Presterilized containers are then filled
with the sterilized and cooled product and are sealed in a sterile atmosphere.
To provide a closer insight into the actual processes that occur during a canning operation, a
description of the canning of whole tomatoes is presented in the following paragraphs. This
description provides more detail for each of the operations than is presented in the generic process
flow diagrams in Figures 9.8.1-1, 9.8.1-2, and 9.8.1-3.
Preparation -
The principal preparation steps are washing and sorting. Mechanically harvested tomatoes are
usually thoroughly washed by high-pressure sprays or by strong-flowing streams of water while being
passed along a moving belt or on agitating or revolving screens. The raw produce may need to be
sorted for size and maturity. Sorting for size is accomplished by passing the raw tomatoes through a
series of moving screens with different mesh sizes or over differently spaced rollers. Separation into
groups according to degree of ripeness or perfection of shape is done by hand; trimming is also done
by hand.
Peeling And Coring -
Formerly, tomatoes were initially scalded followed by hand peeling, but steam peeling and lye
peeling have also become widely used. With steam peeling, the tomatoes are treated with steam to
loosen the skin, which is then removed by mechanical means. In lye peeling, the fruit is immersed in
a hot lye bath or sprayed with a boiling solution of 10 to 20 percent lye. The excess lye is then
drained and any lye that adheres to the tomatoes is removed with the peel by thorough washing.
Coring is done by a water-powered device with a small turbine wheel. A special blade
mounted on the turbine wheel spins and removes the tomato cores.
Filling -
After peeling and coring, the tomatoes are conveyed by automatic runways, through washers,
to the point of filling. Before being filled, the can or glass containers are cleaned by hot water,
steam, or air blast. Most filling is done by machine. The containers are filled with the solid product
and then usually topped with a light puree of tomato juice. Acidification of canned whole tomatoes
with 0.1 to 0.2 percent citric acid has been suggested as a means of increasing acidity to a safer and
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.1-5
-------
more desirable level. Because of the increased sourness of the acidified product, the addition of 2 to
3 percent sucrose is used to balance the taste. The addition of salt is important for palatability.
Exhausting -
The objective of exhausting containers is to remove air so that the pressure inside the
container following heat treatment and cooling will be less than atmospheric. The reduced internal
pressure (vacuum) helps to keep the can ends drawn in, reduces strain on the containers during
processing, and minimizes the level of oxygen remaining in the headspace. It also helps to extend the
shelf life of food products and prevents bulging of the container at high altitudes.
Vacuum in the can may be obtained by the use of heat or by mechanical means. The
tomatoes may be preheated before filling and sealed hot. For products that cannot be preheated
before filling, it may be necessary to pass the filled containers through a steam chamber or tunnel
prior to the sealing machine to expel gases from the food and raise the temperature. Vacuum also
may be produced mechanically by sealing containers in a chamber under a high vacuum.
Sealing -
In sealing lids on metal cans, a double seam is created by interlocking the curl of the lid and
flange of the can. Many closing machines are equipped to create vacuum in the headspace either
mechanically or by steam-flow before lids are sealed.
Heat Sterilization -
During processing, microorganisms that can cause spoilage are destroyed by heat. The
temperature and processing time vary with the nature of the product and the size of the container.
Acidic products, such as tomatoes, are readily preserved at 100°C (212°F). The containers
holding these products are processed in atmospheric steam or hot-water cookers. The rotary
continuous cookers, which operate at 100°C (212°F), have largely replaced retorts and open-still
cookers for processing canned tomatoes. Some plants use hydrostatic cookers and others use
continuous-pressure cookers.
Cooling -
After heat sterilization, containers are quickly cooled to prevent overcooking. Containers may
be quick cooled by adding water to the cooker under air pressure or by conveying the containers from
the cooker to a rotary cooler equipped with a cold-water spray.
Labeling And Casing -
After the heat sterilization, cooling, and drying operations, the containers are ready for
labeling. Labeling machines apply glue and labels in one high-speed operation. The labeled cans or
jars are the packed into shipping cartons.
9.8.1.3 Emissions And Controls4,5"9
Air emissions may arise from a variety of sources in the canning of fruits and vegetables.
Particulate matter (PM) emissions result mainly from solids handling, solids size reduction, drying
(e. g., citrus peel driers). Some of the particles are dusts, but others (particularly those from thermal
processing operations) are produced by condensation of vapors and may be in the low-micrometer or
submicrometer particle-size range.
9.8.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
The VOC emissions may potentially occur at almost any stage of processing, but most usually
are associated with thermal processing steps, such as cooking, and evaporative concentration. The
cooking technologies in canning processes are very high moisture processes so the predominant
emissions will be steam or water vapor. The waste gases from these operations may contain PM or,
perhaps, condensable vapors, as well as malodorous VOC. Particulate matter, condensable materials,
and the high moisture content of the emissions may interfere with the collection or destruction of
these VOC. The condensable materials also may be malodorous.
Wastewater treatment ponds may be another source of odors, even from processing of
materials that are not otherwise particularly objectionable. Details on the processes and technologies
used in waste water collection, treatment, and storage are presented in AP-42 Section 4.3; that section
should be consulted for detailed information on the subject.
No emission data quantifying VOC, HAP, or PM emissions from the canned fruits and
vegetable industry are available for use in the development of emission factors. Data on emissions
from fruit and vegetable canning are extremely limited. Woodroof and Luh discussed the presence of
VOC in apricots, cranberry juice, and cherry juice. Van Langenhove, et al., identified volatile
compounds emitted during the blanching process of Brussels sprouts and cauliflower under laboratory
and industrial conditions. Buttery, et al., studied emissions of volatile aroma compounds from tomato
paste.
A number of emission control approaches are potentially available to the canning industry.
These include wet scrubbers, dry sorbants, and cyclones. No information is available on controls
actually used at canning facilities.
Control of VOC from a gas stream can be accomplished using one of several techniques but
the most common methods are absorption, adsorption, and afterburners. Absorptive methods
encompass all types of wet scrubbers using aqueous solutions to absorb the VOC. Most scrubber
systems require a mist eliminator downstream of the scrubber.
Adsorptive methods could include one of four main adsorbents: activated carbon, activated
alumina, silica gel, or molecular sieves. Of these four, activated carbon is the most widely used for
VOC control while the remaining three are used for applications other than pollution control. Gas
adsorption is a relatively expensive technique and may not be applicable to a wide variety of
pollutants.
Particulate control commonly employs methods such as venturi scrubbers, dry cyclones, wet
or dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or dry filter systems. The most common controls are likely
to be the venturi scrubbers or dry cyclones. Wet or dry ESPs could be used depending upon the
particulate loading of the gas stream.
Condensation methods and scrubbing by chemical reaction may be applicable techniques
depending upon the type of emissions. Condensation methods may be either direct contact or indirect
contact with the shell and tube indirect method being the most common technique. Chemical reactive
scrubbing may be used for odor control in selective applications.
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.1-7
-------
References for Section 9.8.1
1. U. S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U. S. Industrial Outlook
1992-Food and Beverages.
2. 1987 Census of Manufacturers, MC87-1-20-C, Industries Series, Preserved Fruits and
Vegetables.
3. B. S. Luh and J. G. Woodroof, ed., Commercial Vegetable Processing, 2nd edition, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1988.
4. J. L. Jones, et al., Overview Of Environmental Control Measures And Problems In The Food
Processing Industries. Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
Kenneth Dostal, Food and Wood Products Branch, Grant No. R804642-01, January 1979.
5. N. W. Deroiser, The Technology Of Food Preservation, 3rd edition, The Avi Publishing
Company, Inc., Westport, CT, 1970.
6. J. G. Woodroof and B. S. Luh, ed., Commercial Fruit Processing, The Avi Publishing
Company, Westport, CT, 1986.
7. H. J. Van Langenhove, et al., Identification Of Volatiles Emitted During The Blanching
Process Of Brussels Sprouts And Cauliflower, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
55:483-487, 1991.
8. R. G. Buttery, et al., Identification Of Additional Tomato Paste Volatiles, Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 38(3):792-795, 1990.
9. H. J. Rafson, Odor Emission Control For The Food Industry, Food Technology, June 1977.
9.8.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
9.8.2 Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables
9.8.2.1 General12
Dehydration of fruit and vegetables is one of the oldest forms of food preservation techniques
known to man and consists primarily of establishments engaged in sun drying or artificially
dehydrating fruits and vegetables. Although food preservation is the primary reason for dehydration,
dehydration of fruits and vegetables also lowers the cost of packaging, storing, and transportation by
reducing both the weight and volume of the final product. Given the improvement in the quality of
dehydrated foods, along with the increased focus on instant and convenience foods, the potential of
dehydrated fruits and vegetables is greater than ever,
9.8.2.2 Process Description12
Dried or dehydrated fruits and vegetables can be produced by a variety of processes. These
processes differ primarily by the type of drying method used, which depends on the type of food and
the type of characteristics of the final product. In general, dried or dehydrated fruits and vegetables
undergo the following process steps: predrying treatments, such as size selection, peeling, and color
preservation; drying or dehydration, using natural or artificial methods; and postdehydration
treatments, such as sweating, inspection, and packaging,
Predrying Treatments -
Predrying treatments prepare the raw product for drying or dehydration and include raw
product preparation and color preservation. Raw product preparation includes selection and sorting,
washing, peeling (some fruits and vegetables), cutting into the appropriate form, and blanching (for
some fruits and most vegetables). Fruits and vegetables are selected; sorted according to size,
maturity, and soundness; and then washed to remove dust, dirt, insect matter, mold spores, plant
parts, and other material that might contaminate or affect the color, aroma, or flavor of the fruit or
vegetable. Peeling or removal of any undesirable parts follows washing. The raw product can be
peeled by hand (generally not used in the United States due to high labor costs), with lye or alkali
solution, with dry caustic and mild abrasion, with steam pressure, with high-pressure washers, or
with flame peelers. For fruits, only apples, pears, bananas, and pineapples are usually peeled before
dehydration. Vegetables normally peeled include beets, carrots, parsnips, potatoes, onions, and
garlic. Prunes and grapes are dipped in an alkali solution to remove the natural waxy surface coating
which enhances the drying process. Next, the product is cut into the appropriate shape or form (i. e.,
halves, wedges, slices, cubes, nuggets, etc.), although some items, such as cherries and corn, may
by-pass this operation. Some fruits and vegetables are blanched by immersion in hot water (95° to
100°C [203° to 212°F]) or exposure to steam.
The final step in the predehydration treatment is color preservation, also known as sulfuring.
The majority of fruits are treated with sulfur dioxide (SO,) for its antioxidant and preservative effects.
The presence of S02 is very effective in retarding the browning of fruits, which occurs when the
enzymes are not inactivated by the sufficiently high heat normally used in drying. In addition to
preventing browning, S02 treatment reduces the destruction of carotene and ascorbic acid, which are
the important nutrients for fruits. Sulfuring dried fruits must be closely controlled so that enough
sulfur is present to maintain the physical and nutritional properties of the product throughout its
expected shelf life, but not so large that it adversely affects flavor. Some fruits, such as apples, are
treated with solutions of sulfite (sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite in approximately equal
9/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.2-1
-------
proportions) before dehydration. Sulfite solutions are less suitable for fruits than burning sulfur (SO,
gas), however, because the solution penetrates the fruit poorly and can leach natural sugar, flavor,
and other components from the fruit.
Although dried fruits commonly use S02 gas to prevent browning, this treatment is not
practical for vegetables. Instead, most vegetables (potatoes, cabbage, and carrots) are treated with
sulfite solutions to retard enzymatic browning. In addition to color preservation, the presence of a
small amount of sulfite in blanched, cut vegetables improves storage stability and makes it possible to
increase the drying temperature during dehydration, thus decreasing drying time and increasing the
drier capacity without exceeding the tolerance for heat damage.
Drying Or Dehydration -
Drying or dehydration is the removal of the majority of water contained in the fruit or
vegetable and is the primary stage in the production of dehydrated fruits and vegetables. Several
drying methods are commercially available and the selection of the optimal method is determined by
quality requirements, raw material characteristics, and economic factors. There are three types of
drying processes: sun and solar drying; atmospheric dehydration including stationary or batch
processes (kiln, tower, and cabinet driers) and continuous processes (tunnel, continuous belt, belt-
trough, fluidized-bed, explosion puffing, foam-mat, spray, drum, and microwave-heated driers); and
subatmospheric dehydration (vacuum shelf, vacuum belt, vacuum drum, and freeze driers).
Sun drying (used almost exclusively for fruit) and solar drying (used for fruit and vegetables)
of foods use the power of the sun to remove the moisture from the product. Sun drying of fruit crops
is limited to climates with hot sun and dry atmosphere, and to certain fruits, such as prunes, grapes,
dates, figs, apricots, and pears. These crops are processed in substantial quantities without much
technical aid by simply spreading the fruit on the ground, racks, trays, or roofs and exposing them to
the sun until dry. Advantages of this process are its simplicity and its small capital investment.
Disadvantages include complete dependence on the elements and moisture levels no lower than 15 to
20 percent (corresponding to a limited shelf life). Solar drying utilizes black-painted trays, solar
trays, collectors, and mirrors to increase solar energy and accelerate drying.
Atmospheric forced-air driers artificially dry fruits and vegetables by passing heated air with
controlled relative humidity over the food to be dried, or by passing the food to be dried through the
heated air, and is the most widely used method of fruit and vegetable dehydration. Various devices
are used to control air circulation and recirculation. Stationary or batch processes include kiln, tower
(or stack), and cabinet driers. Continuous processes are used mainly for vegetable dehydration and
include tunnel, continuous belt, belt-trough, fluidized-bed, explosion puffing, foam-mat, spray, drum,
and microwave-heated driers. Tunnel driers are the most flexible, efficient, and widely used
dehydration system available commercially.
Subatmospheric (or vacuum) dehydration occurs at low air pressures and includes vacuum
shelf, vacuum drum, vacuum belt, and freeze driers. The main purpose of vacuum drying is to
enable the removal of moisture at less than the boiling point under ambient conditions. Because of
the high installation and operating costs of vacuum driers, this process is used for drying raw material
that may deteriorate as a result of oxidation or may be modified chemically as a result of exposure to
air at elevated temperatures. There are two categories of vacuum driers. In the first category,
moisture in the food is evaporated from the liquid to the vapor stage, and includes vacuum shelf,
vacuum drum, and vacuum belt driers. In the second category of vacuum driers, the moisture of the
food is removed from the product by sublimination, which is converting ice directly into water vapor.
The advantages of freeze drying are high flavor retention, maximum retention of nutritional value,
9.8.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
minimal damage to the product texture and structure, little change in product shape and color, and a
finished product with an open structure that allows fast and complete rehydration. Disadvantages
include high capital investment, high processing costs, and the need for special packing to avoid
oxidation and moisture gain in the finished product,
Postdehydration Treatments -
Treatments of the dehydrated product vary according to the type of fruit or vegetable and the
intended use of the product. These treatments may include sweating, screening, inspection,
instantization treatments, and packaging. Sweating involves holding the dehydrated product in bins
or boxes to equalize the moisture content. Screening removes dehydrated pieces of unwanted size,
usually called "fines". The dried product is inspected to remove foreign materials, discolored pieces,
or other imperfections such as skin, carpel, or stem particles. Instantization treatments are used to
improve the rehydration rate of the low-moisture product. Packaging is common to most all
dehydrated products and has a great deal of influence on the shelf life of the dried product.
Packaging of dehydrated fruits and vegetables must protect the product against moisture, light, air,
dust, microflora, foreign odor, insects, and rodents; provide strength and stability to maintain original
product size, shape, and appearance throughout storage, handling, and marketing; and consist of
materials that are approved for contact with food. Cost is also an important factor in packaging.
Package types include cans, plastic bags, drums, bins, and cartons, and depend on the end-use of the
product.
9.8.2.3 Emissions And Controls1,1"6
Air emissions may arise from a variety of sources in the dehydration of fruits and vegetables.
Particulate matter (PM) emissions may result mainly from solids handling, solids size reduction, and
drying. Some of the particles are dusts, but other are produced by condensation of vapors and may
be in the low-micrometer or submicrometer particle-size range.
The VOC emissions may potentially occur at almost any stage of processing, but most usually
are associated with thermal processing steps, such as blanching, drying or dehydration, and sweating.
Particulate matter and condensable materials may interfere with the collection or destruction of these
VOC. The condensable materials also may be malodorous. The color preservation (sulfuring) stage
can produce S02 emissions as the fruits and vegetables are treated with S02 gas or sulfide solution to
prevent discoloration or browning.
Wastewater treatment ponds may be another source of VOC, even from processing of
materials that are not otherwise particularly objectionable. Details on the processes and technologies
used in wastewater collection, treatment, and storage are presented in AP-42 Section 4.3. That
section should be consulted for detailed information on the subject.
No emission data quantifying VOC, HAP, or PM emissions from the dehydrated fruit and
vegetable industry are available for use in the development of emission factors. However, some data
have been published on VOC emitted during the blanching process for two vegetables and for
volatiles from fresh tomatoes. Van Langenhove, et al., identified volatiles emitted during the
blanching process of Brussels sprouts and cauliflower under laboratory and industrial conditions. In
addition, Buttery, et al., performed a quantitative study on aroma volatiles emitted from fresh
tomatoes.
A number of VOC and particulate emission control techniques are available to the dehydrated
fruit and vegetable industry. No information is available on the actual usage of emission control
9/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.2-3
-------
devices in this industry. Potential options include the traditional approaches of wet scrubbers, dry
sorbents, and cyclones.
Control of VOC from a gas stream can be accomplished using one of several techniques but
the most common methods are absorption and adsorption. Absorptive methods encompass all types of
wet scubbers using aqueous solutions to absorb the VOC, Most scrubber systems require a mist
eliminator downstream of the scrubber.
Adsorptive methods could include one of four main adsorbents: activated carbon, activated
alumina, silica gel, or molecular sieves. Of these four, activated carbon is the most widely used for
VOC control while the remaining three are used for applications other than pollution control. Gas
adsorption is a relatively expensive technique and may not be applicable to a wide variety of
pollutants.
Particulate control commonly employs methods such as venturi scrubbers, dry cyclones, wet
or dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or dry filter systems. The most common controls are likely
to be the venturi scrubbers or dry cyclones. Wet or dry ESPs could be used depending upon the
particulate loading of the gas stream.
Condensation methods and scrubbing by chemical reaction may be applicable techniques
depending upon the type of emissions. Condensation methods may be either direct contact or indirect
contact with the shell and tube indirect method being the most common technique. Chemical reactive
scrubbing may be used for odor control in selective applications.
References For Section 9.8.2
1. L. P. Somogyi and B. S. Luh, "Dehydration Of Fruits", Commercial Fruit
Processing, Second Ed., J. G. Woodroof and B. S. Luh, Editors, AVI Publishing
Company, Inc., 1986.
2. L. P. Somogyi and B. S. Luh, "Vegetable Dehydration", Commercial Vegetable
Processing, Second Ed., B. S. Luh and J. G. Woodroof, Editors, An AVI Book
Published by Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.
3. J. L. Jones, et al., "Overview Of Environmental Control Measures And Problems In The
Food Processing Industries", Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
K. Dostal, Food and Wood Products Branch, Grant No. R804642-01, January 1979.
4. H. J. Van Langenhove, et al., "Identification Of Volatiles Emitted During The Blanching
Process Of Brussels Sprouts And Cauliflower", Journal Of The Science Of Food And
Agriculture, 55:483-487, 1991.
5. R. G. Buttery, et al, "Fresh Tomato Aroma Volatiles: A Quantitative Study", J. Agric.
Food Chem., 35:540-544, 1987.
6. H. J. Rafson, "Odor Emission Control For The Food Industry", Food Technology, June 1977,
9.8.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
9.8.3 Pickles, Sauces, and Salad Dressings
9.8.3.1 General1
This industry includes facilities that produce pickled fruits and vegetables, salad dressings,
relishes, various sauces, and seasonings. The two vegetables that account for the highest production
volume in the U. S. are cucumbers (pickles) and cabbage (sauerkraut). Sauces entail a wide diversity
of products but two of the more common types are Worcestershire sauce and hot pepper sauces.
Salad dressings are generally considered to be products added to and eaten with salads. In 1987,
21,500 thousand people were employed in the industry. California, Georgia, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania are the leading employment States in the industry,
9.8.3.2 Process Description2"3
Pickled Vegetables —
In the U. S., vegetables are pickled commercially using one of two general processes:
brining or direct acidification (with or without pasteurization), or various combinations of these
processes. For sodium chloride brining, fresh vegetables are placed in a salt solution or dry salt is
added to cut or whole vegetables whereupon the vegetables undergo a microbial fermentation process
activated by the lactic acid bacteria, yeasts, and other microorganisms. Direct acidification of fresh
or brined vegetables, through the addition of vinegar, is a major component of commercial pickling.
This process may be accompanied by pasteurization, addition of preservatives, refrigeration, or a
combination of these treatments. While cucumbers, cabbage, and olives constitute the largest volume
of vegetables brined or pickled in the U. S., other vegetables include peppers, onions, beans,
cauliflower, and carrots.
In the United States, the term "pickles" generally refers to pickled cucumbers. Three
methods currently are used to produce pickles from cucumbers: brine stock, fresh pack, and
refrigerated. Smaller quantities are preserved by specialized brining methods to produce pickles for
delicatessens and other special grades of pickles. Pickling cucumbers are harvested and transported to
the processing plants. The cucumbers may be field graded and cooled, if necessitated by the
temperature, prior to transport to the plants.
The brine stock process begins with brining the cucumbers through the addition of salt or a
sodium chloride brining solution. The cucumbers undergo a fermentation process in which lactic acid
is formed. During fermentation, the cucumbers are held in 5 to 8 percent salt; after fermentation, the
salt content is increased weekly in 0.25 to 0.5 percent increments until the final holding strength is 8
to 16 percent salt. The cucumbers, called brine stock, are then graded and cut (optional), before
being desalted by washing in an open tank with water at ambient temperature to obtain the desired salt
level and processed into dill, sour, sweet, or other pickle products. Containers are filled with the cut
or whole pickles, and sugar and vinegars are added. Preservatives are also added if the product is not
pasteurized. The containers are then vacuum sealed and pasteurized (optional) until the temperature
at the center of the cucumbers reaches about 74°C (165°F) for about 15 minutes. The product is then
cooled, and the containers are labeled, packaged, and stored.
The fresh pack process begins with grading of the pickling cucumbers, followed by washing
with water. The cucumbers are then either cut and inspected before packaging, or are sometimes
"blanched" if they are to be packaged whole. The "blanching" consists of rinsing the cucumber with
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.3-1
-------
warm water to make it more pliable and easier to pack in the container. It is not a true blanching
process. Containers are filled with the cut or whole cucumbers, and then salt, spices, and vinegars
are added. The containers are then vacuum sealed and heated (pasteurized) until the temperature at
the center of the cucumbers reaches about 74°C (165°F) for about 15 minutes. The product is then
cooled, and the containers are labeled, packaged, and stored.
The refrigerated process begins with grading of the pickling cucumbers, followed by washing
with water. The washed cucumbers are packed into containers, and then salt, spices, vinegars, and
preservatives (primarily sodium benzoate) are added. The containers are then vacuum sealed, labeled,
and refrigerated at 34° to 40°F. In this process, the cucumbers are not heat-processed before or after
packing.
In the sauerkraut process the cabbage is harvested, transported to the processing plant,
washed, and prepared for the fermentation by coring, trimming, and shredding. The shredded
cabbage is conveyed to a fermentation tank where salt is added up to a final concentration of 2 to
3 percent (preferably 2.25 percent), by weight. After salt addition, the mixture is allowed to ferment
at ambient temperature in a closed tank. If insufficient salt is added or air is allowed to contact the
surface of the cabbage, yeast and mold will grow on the surface and result in a softening of the final
sauerkraut product. When fermentation is complete, the sauerkraut contains 1.7 to 2.3 percent acid,
as lactic acid. Following fermentation, the sauerkraut is packaged in cans, plastic bags, or glass
containers; cans are the most prevalent method. In the canning process, the sauerkraut, containing
the original or diluted fermentation liquor, is heated to 85° to 88°C (185° to 190°F) by steam
injection in a thermal screw and then packed into cans. The cans are steam exhausted, sealed, and
cooled. After cooling, the cans are labeled, packed, and stored for shipment. In the plastic bag
process, the sauerkraut, containing the fermentation liquor, is placed in plastic bags and chemical
additives (benzoic acid, sorbic acid, and sodium bisulfite) introduced as preservatives. The bags are
sealed and refrigerated. Small quantities, approximately 10 percent of the production, are packaged
in glass containers, which may be preserved by heating or using chemical additives.
Sauces —
A typical sauce production operation involves the mixture of several ingredients, often
including salts, vinegars, sugar, vegetables, and various spices. The mixture is allowed to ferment
for a period of time, sealed in containers, and pasteurized to prevent further fermentation. The
production processes for Worcestershire sauce and hot pepper sauces are briefly described as
examples of sauce production.
The name "Worcestershire Sauce" is now a generic term for a type of food condiment that
originated in India. In the preparation of the true sauce, a mixture of vinegar, molasses, sugar, soy,
anchovies, tamarinds, eschalots, garlic, onions, and salt is prepared and well mixed. Spices,
flavorings, and water are added and the mixture transferred to an aging tank, sealed, and allowed to
mature and ferment over a period of time. The fermenting mixture is occasionally agitated to ensure
proper blending. After fermentation is complete, the mixture is processed by filtration through a
mesh screen which allows the finer particles of the mixture to remain in the liquid. The product is
then pasteurized prior to bottling to prevent further fermentation. Following bottling, the product is
cooled, labeled, and packaged.
Hot sauce or pepper sauce is a generic name given to a large array of bottled condiments
produced by several manufacturers in the U. S. The hot peppers, usually varieties of Capsicum
annum and Capsicum frutescens, give the products their heat and characteristic flavor; vinegar is the
usual liquid medium. Manufacturing processes vary by producer; however, in most, the harvested
9.8.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
hot peppers are washed and either ground for immediate use or stored whole in brine for several
months until processed. In processing, the whole peppers are ground, salt and vinegar added, and the
mixture passed through a filter to remove seeds and skin. The end-product, a stable suspension of the
pulp from the pepper, vinegar, and salt, is then bottled, labeled, and stored for shipment.
Salad Dressings —
Salad dressings (except products modified in calories, fat, or cholesterol) are typically made
up of oil, vinegar, spices, and other food ingredients to develop the desired taste. These dressings
are added to many types of foods to enhance flavor. There are U.S. FDA Standards of Identity for
three general classifications of salad dressings: mayonnaise, spoonable (semisolid) salad dressing, and
French dressing. All other dressings are nonstandardized and are typically referred to as "pourable".
Mayonnaise is a semisolid emulsion of edible vegetable oil, egg yolk or whole egg, acidifying
ingredients (vinegar, lemon or lime juice), seasonings (e. g., salt, sweeteners, mustard, paprika),
citric acid, malic acid, crystallization inhibitors, and sequestrants to preserve color and flavor.
Mayonnaise is an oil-in-water type emulsion where egg is the emulsifying agent and vinegar and salt
are the principal bacteriological preservatives. The production process begins with mixing water,
egg, and dry ingredients and slowly adding oil while agitating the mixture. Vinegar is then added to
the mixture and, after mixing is complete, containers are filled, capped, labeled, and stored or
shipped. Improved texture and uniformity of the final product is achieved through the use of
colloidalizing or homogenizing machines.
Salad dressing is a spoonable (semisolid) combination of oil, cooked starch paste base, and
other ingredients. During salad dressing production, the starch paste base is prepared by mixing
starch (e. g., food starch, tapioca, wheat or rye flours) with water and vinegar. Optional ingredients
include salt, nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners (e. g,, sugar, dextrose, corn syrup, honey), any spice
(except saffron and tumeric) or natural flavoring, monosodium glutamate, stabilizers and thickeners,
citric and/or malic acid, sequestrants, and crystallization inhibitors. To prepare the salad dressing, a
portion of the starch paste and other optional ingredients, except the oil, are blended and then the oil
is slowly added to form a "preemulsion". When one-half of the oil is incorporated, the remainder of
the starch paste is added at the same rate as the oil. After all of the starch paste and oil have been
added, the mixture continues to blend until the ingredients are thoroughly mixed and then the mixture
is milled to a uniform consistency. The salad dressing is placed into containers that are subsequently
capped, labeled, and stored or shipped.
Liquid dressings, except French dressing, do not have a FDA Standard of Identity. They are
pourable products that contain vegetable oil as a basic ingredient. Dressings may also contain catsup,
tomato paste, vinegars, cheese, sherry, spices, and other natural ingredients. Liquid dressings are
packaged either as separable products with distinct proportions of oil and aqueous phases or as
homogenized dressings that are produced by the addition of stabilizers and emulsifiers. The
homogenized dressings are then passed through a homogenizer or colloidalizing machine prior to
bottling.
9.8.3.3 Emissions And Controls4
No source tests have been performed to quantify emissions resulting from the production of
pickles, sauerkraut, sauces, or salad dressings. For most of these industries, processes are conducted
in closed tanks or other vessels and would not be expected to produce significant emissions. For
some products, in certain instances, the potential exists for emissions of particulate matter (PM) or
odor (VOC),
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.8.3-3
-------
Emissions of PM potentially could result from solids handling, solids size reduction, and
cooking. If raw vegetables are transported directly from the field, the unloading of these vegetables
could result in emissions of dust or vegetative matter. For those products that involve cooking or
evaporative condensation in open vessels, PM emissions may be produced by condensation of vapors
and may be in the low-micrometer or submicrometer particle-size range.
The VOC emissions are most usually associated with thermal processing steps (e, g., cooking
or evaporative condensation) or other processing steps performed in open vessels. Thermal
processing steps conducted in closed vessels generally do not result in VOC emissions. Gaseous
compounds emitted from those steps conducted in open vessels may contain malodorous VOC.
Because no emission data are available that quantify any VOC, HAP, or PM emissions from
any of these industries, emission factors cannot be developed.
A number of VOC and particulate emission control techniques are potentially available to
these industries. These include the traditional approaches of wet scrubbers, dry sorbants, and
cyclones. No information is available on controls actually used in these industries. The controls
discussed in this section are ones that theoretically could be used. The applicability of controls and
the specific type of control device or combination of devices would vary from facility to facility
depending upon the particular nature of the emissions and the pollutant concentration in the gas
stream.
For general industrial processes, control of VOC from a gas stream can be accomplished
using one of several techniques but the most common methods are absorption, adsorption, and
afterburners. Absorptive methods encompass all types of wet scrubbers using aqueous solutions to
absorb the VOC. The most common scrubber systems are packed columns or beds, plate columns,
spray towers, or other types of towers. Adsorptive methods could include one of four main
adsorbents: activated carbon, activated alumina, silica gel, or molecular sieves; activated carbon is the
most widely used for VOC control. Afterburners may be either thermal incinerators or catalytic
combustors.
Particulate control commonly employs methods such as venturi scrubbers, dry cyclones, wet
or dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or dry filter systems. The most common controls are likely
to be the venturi scrubbers or dry cyclones. Wet or dry ESPs could be used depending upon the
particulate loading of the gas stream.
References For Section 9.8.3
1. 1987 Census of Manufacturers, MC87-1-20-C, Industries Series, Preserved Fruits And
Vegetables.
2. G. Fuller and G. G. Dull, "Processing Of Horticultural Crops In The United States", in
Handbook Of Processing And Utilization In Agriculture, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL,
1983.
3. N.W. Desrosier, Elements Of Food Technology, AVI Publishing Company, Westport, CT,
1977.
4. H. J. Rafson, Odor Emission Control For The Food Industry, Food Technology, June 1977.
9.8.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
9.9.1 Grain Elevators And Processes
[Work In Progress]
The recommended interim AP-42 Section on Grain Elevators And Processes is available either
through the Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTN BBS) of EPA's Office Of Air
Quality Planning And Standards or from the Emission Factor And Inventory Group's Fax CHIEF
service.
The BBS can be accessed with a computer and modem at (919) 541-5407, The interim
Section is found on the BBS in the "Q&A's/Policies/Recommendations" area under the "AP-42/EF
Guidance" area of the "Clearinghouse For Emission Inventories And Factors" technical area.
The interim Section can be obtained also from the Fax CHIEF service by calling (919)
541-0548 or -5626 from the telephone handset of a facsimile machine and following the directions
provided to request a document.
For assistance with either of these procedures, call the Info CHIEF help desk, (919)
541-5285, between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm Eastern time, Tuesday through Friday.
The interim emission factors for Grain Elevators And Processes are subject to change pending
completion of emission source testing being conducted in early 1996.
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.9.1-1
-------
9.9.2 Cereal Breakfast Food
9.9.2.1 General1
Breakfast cereal products were originally sold as milled grains of wheat and oats that required
further cooking in the home prior to consumption. In this century, due to efforts to reduce the amount
of in-home preparation time, breakfast cereal technology has evolved from the simple procedure of
milling grains for cereal products that require cooking to the manufacturing of highly sophisticated
ready-to-eat products that are convenient and quickly prepared.
9.9.2.2 Process Description1"3
Breakfast cereals can be categorized into traditional (hot) cereals that require further cooking
or heating before consumption and ready-to-eat (cold) cereals that can be consumed from the box or
with the addition of milk. The process descriptions in this section were adapted primarily from
reference 3 and represent generic processing steps. Actual processes may vary considerably between
plants, even those manufacturing the same type of cereal.
Traditional Cereals -
Traditional cereals are those requiring cooking or heating prior to consumption and are made
from oats, farina (wheat), rice, and corn. Almost all (99 percent) of the traditional cereal market are
products produced from oats (over 81 percent) and farina (approximately 18 percent). Cereals made
from rice, corn (excluding corn grits), and wheat (other than farina) make up less than 1 percent of
traditional cereals.
Oat cereals. The three types of oat cereals arc old-fashioned oatmeal, quick oatmeal, and
instant oatmeal. Old-fashioned oatmeal is made of rolled oat groats (dehulled oat kernels) and is
prepared by adding water and boiling for up to 30 minutes. Quick oat cereal consists of thinner flakes
made by rolling cut groats and is prepared by cooking for 1 to 15 minutes. Instant oatmeal is similar
to quick oats but with additional treatments, such as the incorporation of gum to improve hydration;
hot water is added but no other cooking is required. The major steps in the production of traditional
oat cereal include grain receiving, cleaning, drying, hulling, groat processing, steaming, and flaking.
Figure 9.9.2-1 is a generic process flow diagram for traditional oat cereal production.
Oats arrive at the mill via bulk railcar or truck and are sampled to ensure suitable quality for
milling. Once the grain is deemed acceptable, it is passed over a receiving separator to remove coarse
and tine material and binned according to milling criteria. Raw grain handling and processing is
discussed in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.
Cleaning removes foreign material, such as dust, stems, and weed seeds, and oats that are
unsuitable for milling. The cleaning process utilizes several devices to take advantage of particular
physical properties of the grain. For example, screens utilize the overall size of the grain, aspirators
and gravity tables utilize grain density, and discs with indent pockets and/or indent cylinders utilize the
grain length or shape. After completing the cleaning process, the grain is called clean milling oats or
green oats.
In the hulling process, most facilities use the impact huller, which separates the hull from the
groat by impact, rather than traditional stone hulling. The groat is the portion of the oat that remains
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9,2-1
-------
GRAIN RECEIVING

PM
CLEANING

PM
HULLING

PM
GROAT
PROCESSING

PM
STEAMING

VOC
FLAKING

PM
PACKAGING
PM
9.9.2-2
Figure 9.9.2-1. Traditional oat cereal production.
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
after the hull has been removed and is the part processed for human consumption. In impact hulling,
the oats are fed through a rotating disc and flung out to strike the wall of the cylindrical housing
tangentially, which separates the hull from the groat. The mixed material then falls to the bottom of
the huller and is subjected to aspiration to separate the hulls from the groats. Impact hulling does not
require predrying of the oats, although some facilities still use the traditional dry-pan process to
impart a more nutty and less raw or green flavor to the final product. In the traditional dry-pan
process, the green oats are dried in a stack of circular pans heated indirectly by steam to a surface
temperature of 93° to 100°C (200° to 212°F). However, most facilities utilize enclosed vertical or
horizontal grain conditioners or kilns to dry the groat after it has been separated from the hull because
of the inefficiency of drying hulls. The grain conditioners have both direct (sparging) steam and
indirect steam to heat the oats and impart flavor to the groats comparable to that resulting from the
pan drying process.
After the groats are hulled, they are sized to separate the largest groats from the average-sized
groats. The large groats are used to make the so-called old-fashioned oats and the other groats are
cut using steel cutters to make quick oats. After groat processing, the groats (either whole or cut
pieces, depending on the end product) typically pass through an atmospheric steamer located above
the rollers. The groats must remain in contact with the live steam long enough to achieve a moisture
content increase from 8 to 10 percent up to 10 to 12 percent, which is sufficient to provide
satisfactory flakes when the whole or steel-cut groats are rolled.
The production of old-fashioned oat and quick oat flakes is the same, except for the starting
material (old-fashioned oats start with whole groats and quick oats start with steel-cut groats). Both
products are rolled between two cast iron equal-speed rolls in rigid end frames. Quick-oat products
are rolled thinner than old-fashioned oats. Following rolling, the flakes are typically cooled and
directed to packaging bins for holding.
Instant oatmeal is processed similarly to quick oatmeal through the steaming stage. After the
groats are steamed, they are rolled thinner than those of quick oatmeal. The final product, along with
specific amounts of hydrocolloid gum, salt, and other additives, is packaged into premeasured
individual servings. The most important difference between instant oatmeal and other oatmeal
products is the addition of hydrocolloid gum, which replaces the natural oat gums that would be
leached from the flakes during traditional cooking, thus accelerating hydration of the flakes.
The standard package for old-fashioned and quick oatmeal is the spirally wound two-ply fiber
tube with a paper label. Folded cartons are also used to package old-fashioned and quick oatmeal.
Most of the instant hot cereals are packed in individual, single-serving pouches.
Farina cereals. Cereals made from farina are the second largest segment of the traditional hot
cereal market, making up 18 percent. Farina is essentially wheat endosperm in granular form that is
free from bran and germ. The preferred wheat for producing farina is hard red or winter wheat
because the granules of endosperm for these types of wheat stay intact when hot cereals are prepared
at home. As shown in Figure 9.9.2-2, farina cereal production begins with the receiving and milling
of wheat. Information on wheat receiving, handling, and milling can be found in AP-42
Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes. After milling, traditional farina cereals are packaged.
Quick cook farina cereals are prepared primarily by the addition of disodium phosphate, with or
without the further addition of a proteolytic enzyme. An instant (cook-in-the-bowl) product may be
made by wetting and pressure-cooking the farina, then flaking and redrying prior to portion
packaging.
Wheat, rice, and corn cereals. Other traditional cereals include whole wheat cereals, rice
products, and corn products. These cereals make up less than 1 percent of the traditional cereal
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.2-3
-------
PM
FM
~ VOC
~ PM
~ VOC
PM
GRAIN RECEIVING
HEAT TREATMENT
PACKAGING
MILLING
aNot required for traditional or quick-cooking farina cereals.
Figure 9.9.2-2, Typical instant cook farina cereal production,
9.9.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS 8/95
-------
market. Whole wheat traditional cereals include milled, rolled, and cracked wheat products. Milled
cereals are made in a hard wheat flour mill by drawing off medium-grind milled streams. Rice
products have yet to find acceptance as a hot cereal, although rice can be ground into particles about
the size of farina and cooked into a hot cereal resembling farina. Corn products include corn grits,
cornmeal, corn flour, and corn bran. Corn grits are served primarily as a vegetable accompaniment
to the main breakfast item and are not usually classified as a breakfast cereal although they can be
consumed as such. Cornmeal, corn flour, and corn bran are used primarily as ingredients in the
preparation of other foods and are not classified as breakfast cereals.
Ready-To-Eat Cereals -
In the United States, the word "cereal" is typically synonymous with a processed product that
is suitable for human consumption with or without further cooking at home and is usually eaten at
breakfast. Ready-to-eat cereals are typically grouped by cereal form rather than the type of grain
used. These groups are flaked cereals, extruded flaked cereals, gun-puffed whole grains, extruded
gun-puffed cereals, oven-puffed cereals, shredded whole grains, extruded shredded cereals, and
granola cereals.
Flaked cereals. Flaked cereals are made directly from whole grain kernels or parts of kernels
of corn, wheat, or rice and are processed in such a way as to obtain particles, called flaking grits,
that form one flake each. The production of flaked cereals involves preprocessing, mixing, cooking,
delumping, drying, cooling and tempering, flaking, toasting, and packaging. A general process flow
diagram for cereal flake production is presented in Figure 9.9.2-3. Grain preparation, including
receiving, handling, cleaning, and hulling, for flaked cereal production is similar to that discussed
under traditional cereal production and in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.
Before the grains can be cooked and made into flakes, they must undergo certain preprocessing steps.
For corn, this entails dry milling regular field corn to remove the germ and the bran from the kernel,
leaving chunks of endosperm. Wheat is preprocessed by steaming the kernels lightly and running
them through a pair of rolls to break open the kernels. Care is taken not to produce flour or fine
material. Rice does not require any special preprocessing steps for the production of rice flakes other
than those steps involved in milling rough rice to form the polished head rice that is the normal
starting material.
The corn, wheat, or rice grits are mixed with a flavor solution that includes sugar, malt, salt,
and water. Weighed amounts of raw grits and flavor solution are then charged into rotating batch
cookers. After the grits are evenly coated with the flavor syrup, steam is released into the rotating
cooker to begin the cooking process. The cooking is complete when each kernel or kernel part has
been changed from a hard, chalky white to a soft, translucent, golden brown. When the cooking is
complete, rotation stops, the steam is turned off, and vents located on the cooker are opened to
reduce the pressure inside the cooker to ambient conditions and to cool its contents. The exhaust
from these vents may be connected to a vacuum system for more rapid cooling. After pressure is
relieved, the cooker is uncapped and the rotation restarted. The cooked grits are then dumped onto
moving conveyor belts located under the cooker discharge. The conveyors then pass through
delumping equipment to break and size the loosely held-together grits into mostly single grit particles.
Large volumes of air are typically drawn through the delumping equipment to help cool the product.
It may be necessary to perform delumping and cooling in different steps to get proper separation of
the grits so that they are the optimum size for drying; in this case, cooling is typically performed first
to stop the cooking action and to eliminate stickiness from the grit surface. After cooking and
delumping, the grits are metered in a uniform flow to the dryer. Drying is typically performed at
temperatures below 121cC (250°F) and under controlled humidity, which prevents case hardening of
the grit and greatly decreases the time needed for drying to the desired moisture level. After drying,
the grits are cooled to ambient temperature, usually in an unheated section of the dryer. After they
are cooled, the grits are tempered by holding them in large accumulating bins to allow the moisture
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.2-5
-------
PREPROCESSING

PM
ADDITIVES-
STEAM
HEAT
MIXER
I
BLENDED GRITS
COOKER
COOKED LUMPS
OF GRITS
INDIVIDUAL COOKED
GRIT PIECES
DRYER
DRY GRrT
PIECES
COOUNG AND
TEMPERING
1
COOL/DRY
GRIT PROCESS
FLAKER
FLAKED PIECES
VOC
DELUMPER
VOC
VOC
VOC
PM
DRYER/
TOASTER
PACKAGING
VOC
PM
VOC
Figure 9.9.2-3. Process diagram for cereal flake production.1
9.9.2-6 EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
content to equilibrate between the grit particles as well as from the center of the individual particles to
the surface. After tempering, the grits pass between pairs of very large metal rolls that press them
into very thin flakes. Flakes are toasted by suspending them in a hot air stream, rather than by laying
them onto a flat baking surface. The ovens, sloped from feed end to discharge end, are perforated on
the inside to allow air flow. These perforations are as large as possible for good air flow but small
enough so that flakes cannot catch in them. The toasted flakes are then cooled and sent to packaging.
Extruded flake cereals. Extruded flakes differ from traditional flakes in that the grit for
flaking is formed by extruding mixed ingredients through a die and cutting pellets of the dough into
the desired size. The steps in extruded flake production are preprocessing, mixing, extruding, drying,
cooling and tempering, flaking, toasting, and packaging. Figure 9.9.2-4 presents a generic process
flow diagram for the production of extruded flake cereals. The primary difference between extruded
flake production and traditional flake production is that extruded flakes replace the cooking and
delumping steps used in traditional flake production with an extruding step. The extruder is a long,
barrel-like apparatus that performs several operations along its length. The first part of the barrel
kneads or crushes the grain and mixes the ingredients together. The flavor solution may be added
directly to the barrel of the extruder by means of a metering pump. Heat input to the barrel of the
extruder near the feed point is kept low to allow the ingredients to mix properly before any cooking
or gelatinization starts. Heat is applied to the center section of the extruder barrel to cook the
ingredients. The die is located at the end of the last section, which is generally cooler than the rest of
the barrel. The dough remains in a compact form as it extrudes through the die and a rotating knife
slices it into properly-sized pellets. The remaining steps for extruded flakes (drying, cooling, flaking,
toasting, and packaging) are the same as for traditional flake production.
Gun-puffed whole grain cereals. Gun-puffed whole grains are formed by cooking the grains
and then subjecting them to a sudden large pressure drop. As steam under pressure in the interior of
the grain seeks to equilibrate with the surrounding lower-pressure atmosphere, it forces the grains to
expand quickly or "puff." Rice and wheat are the only types of grain used in gun-puffed whole grain
production, which involves pretreatment, puffing, screening, drying, and cooling. A general process
flow diagram is shown in Figure 9.9.2-5. Wheat requires pretreating to prevent the bran from
loosening from the grain in a ragged, haphazard manner, in which some of the bran adheres to the
kernels and other parts to be blown partially off the kernels. One form of pretreatment is to add
4 percent, by weight, of a saturated brine solution (26 percent salt) to the wheat. Another form of
pretreatment, called pearling, removes part of the bran altogether before puffing. The only
pretreatment required for rice is normal milling to produce head rice. Puffing can be performed with
manual single-shot guns, automatic single-shot, automatic multiple-shot guns, or continuous guns. In
manual single-shot guns, grain is loaded into the opening of the gun and the lid is closed and sealed.
As the gun begins to rotate, gas burners heat the sides of the gun body causing the moisture in the
grain to convert to steam. When the lid is opened, the sudden change in pressure causes the grain to
puff. Automatic single-shot guns operate on the same principle, except that steam is injected directly
into the gun body. Multiple-shot guns have several barrels mounted on a slowly rotating wheel so
that each barrel passes the load and fire positions at the correct time. The load, steam, and fire
process for any one barrel is identical to that of the single-shot gun. After the grain is puffed, it is
screened and dried before it is packaged. The final product is very porous and absorbs moisture
rapidly and easily so it must be packaged in materials that possess good moisture barrier qualities.
Extruded gun-puffed cereals. Extruded gun-puffed cereals use a meal or flour as the starting
ingredient instead of whole grains. The dough cooks in the extruders and is then formed into the
desired shape when extruded through a die. The extrusion process for gun-puffed cereals is similar to
that for extruded flake production. After the dough is extruded, it is dried and tempered. It then
undergoes the same puffing and final processing steps as described for whole grain gun-puffed
cereals.
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.2-7
-------
ADDITIVES -
STEAM
HEAT
PREPROCESSING

CEREAL GRITS
MIXER
PREPARED GRITS

FLAKER
FLAKED PIECES
T
PM
EXTRUDER

COOKED
CEREAL
PIECES
VOC
DRYER

DRY COOKED
CEREAL PIECES
voc
COOLING AND

TEMPERING

COOL/DRY

.CEREAL PROCESS
VOC
PM
DRYER/

TOASTER

FINISHED FLAKES
VOC
t
PACKAGING
PM
VOC
9.9.2-8
Figure 9.9.2-4. Process diagram for extruded flake production.1
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
STEAM
HEAT
PRETREATMENT
~ PM

RAW GRAIN

PIECES

OR WHOLE
PUFF NG
DRYING
FINISHED
CEREAL
PRODUCT
PACKAGING
VOC
SCREENING

PM
PM
VOC
VOC
8/95
Figure 9.9.2-5. Gun-puffed whole grain production.1
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.2-9
-------
Oven-puffed cereals. Oven-puffed cereals are made almost exclusively using whole-grain rice
or corn, or mixtures of these two grains, because rice and corn inherently puff in the presence of high
heat and the proper moisture content. The grains are mixed with sugar, salt, water, and malt and
then pressure-cooked. After cooking, the grain is conveyed through a cooling and sizing operation.
After cooling and sizing, the kernels are dried and tempered. The kernels are then passed through
flaking rolls to flatten them slightly. The kernels are dried again and then oven-puffed, which
requires a proper balance between kernel moisture content and oven temperature. After puffing, the
cereal is cooled, fortified with vitamins (if necessary), and frequently treated with antioxidants to
preserve freshness. The final product is then packaged.
Whole-grain shredded cereals. Wheat (white wheat) is primarily used to produce shredded
whole grains. The steps involved in producing whole-grain shredded cereal are grain cleaning,
cooking, cooling and tempering, shredding, biscuit formation, biscuit baking, and packaging. A
generic process flow diagram for shredded cereal production is presented in Figure 9.9.2-6. Cooking
is typically performed in batches with excess water at temperatures slightly below the boiling point at
atmospheric pressure. Cooking vessels usually have horizontal baskets big enough to hold 50 bushels
of raw wheat. Steam is injected directly into the water to heat the grain. After the cooking cycle is
completed, the water is drained from the vessel and the cooked wheat is dumped and conveyed to
cooling units, which surface-dry the wheat and reduce the temperature to ambient levels, thus
stopping the cooking process. After the grain is cooled, it is placed in large holding bins and allowed
to temper. The shredding process squeezes the wheat kernels between one roll with a smooth surface
and another roll with a grooved surface. A comb is positioned against the grooved roli and the comb
teeth pick the wheat shred from the groove. There are many variations in the grooved roll. After the
shreds are produced, they fall in layers onto a conveyer moving under the rolls. After the web of
many layers of shreds reaches the end of the shredder, it is fed through a cutting device to form the
individual biscuits. The edges of the cutting device are dull, rather than sharp, so that the cutting
action compresses the edges of the biscuit together to form a crimped joint, which holds the shreds
together in biscuit form. After the individual biscuits are formed, they are baked in a band or
continuous conveyor-belt oven. After the biscuits are baked and dried, they are ready for packaging.
Extruded shredded cereals. Extruded shredded cereals are made in much the same way as
whole-grain shredded cereals except that extruded shredded cereals use a meal or flour as a raw
material instead of whole grains. Raw grains include wheat, corn, rice, and oats, and, because the
grains are used in flour form, they can be used alone or in mixtures. The steps involved in extruded
shredded cereal production are grain preprocessing (including grain receiving, handling, and milling),
mixing, extruding, cooling and tempering, shredding, biscuit formation, baking, drying, and
packaging. The preprocessing, mixing, extruding, and cooling and tempering steps are the same as
those discussed for other types of cereal. Shredding, biscuit formation, baking, drying, and
packaging are the same as for whole-grain shredded cereal. Extruded shredded cereals are typically
made into small, bite-size biscuits, instead of the larger biscuits of whole-grain shredded wheat.
Granola cereals. Granola cereals are ready-to-eat cereals that are prepared by taking regular,
old-fashioned whole-rolled oats or quick-cooking oats and mixing them with other ingredients, such as
nut pieces, coconut, brown sugar, honey, malt extract, dried milk, dried fruits, water, cinnamon,
nutmeg, and vegetable oil. This mixture is then spread in a uniform layer onto the band of a
continuous dryer or oven. The toasted layer is then broken into chunks.
Packaging -
The package materials for ready-to-eat breakfast cereals include printed paperboard cartons,
protective liners, and the necessary adhesives. The cartons are printed and produced by carton
suppliers and are delivered, unfolded and stacked on pallets, to the breakfast cereal manufacturers.
9.9.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
GRAIN
CLEANING

PM
COOKING

voc
COOKING AND
TEMPERING

voc
PM
SHREDDING—
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
BAKING
DRYING
BISCUIT
FORMATION
PACKAGING
8/95
Figure 9.9.2-6. Whole grain shredded cereal production.
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.2-11
-------
The liners, also supplied by outside sources, must be durable and impermeable to moisture or
moisture vapor. However, cereals that are not hygroscopic and/or retain satisfactory texture in
moisture equilibrium with ambient atmosphere do not require moisture-proof liners. The most
common type of liners used today are made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) film. The
adhesives used in cereal packaging are water-based emulsions and hot melts. The cereal industry is
the second largest user of adhesives for consumer products. Several variations of packaging lines
may be used in the ready-to-eat breakfast cereal industry, including lines that fill the liners either
before or after they have been inserted into the carton and lines that utilize more manual labor and
less automated equipment.
9.9.2.3 Emissions And Controls
Air emissions may arise from a variety of sources in breakfast cereal manufacturing.
Particulate matter (PM) emissions result mainly from solids handling and mixing. For breakfast
cereal manufacturing, PM emissions occur during the milling and processing of grain, as the raw
ingredients are dumped, weighed, and mixed, as the grains are hulled, and possibly during screening,
drying, and packaging. Emission sources associated with grain milling and processing include grain
receiving, precleaning and handling, cleaning house separators, milling, and bulk loading. Applicable
emission factors for these processes are presented in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and
Processes. There are no data on PM emissions from mixing of ingredients or packaging for breakfast
cereal production.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions may potentially occur at almost any stage in the
production of breakfast cereal, but most usually are associated with thermal processing steps, such as
drying, steaming, heat treatment, cooking, toasting, extruding, and puffing. Adhesives used during
packaging of the final product may also be a source of VOC emissions. No information is available,
however, on any VOC emissions resulting from these processes of breakfast cereal manufacturing.
Control technology to control PM emissions from breakfast cereal manufacturing is similar to
that discussed in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes. Because of the operational
similarities, emission control methods are similar in most grain milling and processing plants.
Cyclones or fabric filters are often used to control emissions from grain handling operations
(e. g., unloading, legs, cleaners, etc.) and also from other processing operations. Fabric filters are
used extensively in flour mills. However, certain operations within milling operations are not
amenable to the use of these devices and alternatives are needed. Wet scrubbers, for example, are
applied where the effluent gas stream has a high moisture content. No information exists for VOC
emission control technology for breakfast cereal manufacturing.
References For Section 9.9.2
1. R. E. Tribelhorn, "Breakfast Cereals", Handbook Of Cereal Science And Technology,
K. J. Lorenz and K. Kulp, Editors. Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1991.
2. 1987 Census Of Manufactures: Grain Mill Products, Industry Series. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Issued April 1990.
3. R. B. Fast, "Manufacturing Technology Of Ready-To-Eat Cereals", Breakfast Cereals
And How They Are Made, R. B. Fast and E. F. Caldwell, Editors. American
Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., 1990.
4. D. L. Maxwell and J. L. Holohan, "Breakfast Cereals", Elements Of Food
Technology, N. W. Desrosier, Editor. AVI Publishing Company, Inc., 1977.
9.9.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
9.9.5 Pasta Manufacturing
9.9.5.1 General1"2
Although pasta products were first introduced in Italy in the 13th century, efficient
manufacturing equipment and high-quality ingredients have been available only since the 20th century.
Prior to the industrial revolution, most pasta products were made by hand in small shops. Today,
most pasta is manufactured by continuous, high capacity extruders, which operate on the auger
extrusion principle in which kneading and extrusion are performed in a single operation. The
manufacture of pasta includes dry macaroni, noodle, and spaghetti production.
9.9.5.2 Process Description1"2
Pasta products are produced by mixing milled wheat, water, eggs (for egg noodles or egg
spaghetti), and sometimes optional ingredients. These ingredients are typically added to a continuous,
high capacity auger extruder, which can be equipped with a variety of dies that determine the shape
of the pasta. The pasta is then dried and packaged for market.
Raw Materials —
Pasta products contain milled wheat, water, and occasionally eggs and/or optional ingredients.
Pasta manufacturers typically use milled durum wheat (semolina, durum granulars, and durum flour)
in pasta production, although farina and flour from common wheat are occasionally used. Most pasta
manufacturers prefer semolina, which consists of fine particles of uniform size and produces the
highest quality pasta product. The water used in pasta production should be pure, free from off-
flavors, and suitable for drinking. Also, since pasta is produced below pasteurization temperatures,
water should be used of low bacterial count. Eggs (fresh eggs, frozen eggs, dry eggs, egg yolks, or
dried egg solids) are added to pasta to make egg noodles or egg spaghetti and to improve the
nutritional quality and richness of the pasta. Small amounts of optional ingredients, such as salt,
celery, garlic, and bay leafs, may also be added to pasta to enhance flavor. Disodium phosphate may
be used to shorten cooking time. Other ingredients, such as gum gluten, glyceryl monostearate, and
egg whites, may also be added. All optional ingredients must be clearly labeled on the package.
Wheat Milling —
Durum wheat is milled into semolina, durum granular, or durum flour using roll mills.
Semolina milling is unique in that the objective is to prepare granular middlings with a minimum of
flour production. Grain milling is discussed in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes.
After the wheat is milled, it is mixed with water, eggs, and any other optional ingredients.
Mixing —
In the mixing operation, water is added to the milled wheat in a mixing trough to produce
dough with a moisture content of approximately 31 percent. Eggs and any optional ingredients may
also be added. Most modern pasta presses are equipped with a vacuum chamber to remove air
bubbles from the pasta before extruding. If the air is not removed prior to extruding, small bubbles
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.5-1
-------
will form in the pasta which diminish the mechanical strength and give the finished product a white,
chalky appearance.
Extruding —
After the dough is mixed, it is transferred to the extruder. The extrusion auger not only
forces the dough through the die, but it also kneads the dough into a homogeneous mass, controls the
rate of production, and influences the overall quality of the finished product. Although construction
and dimension of extrusion augers vary by equipment manufacturers, most modern presses have
sharp-edged augers that have a uniform pitch over their entire length. The auger fits into a grooved
extrusion barrel, which helps the dough move forward and reduces friction between the auger and the
inside of the barrel. Extrusion barrels are equipped with a water cooling jacket to dissipate the heat
generated during the extrusion process. The cooling jacket also helps to maintain a constant extrusion
temperature, which should be approximately 51 °C (124°F). If the dough is too hot (above 74°C
[165°F]), the pasta will be damaged.
Uniform flow rate of the dough through the extruder is also important. Variances in the flow
rate of the dough through the die cause the pasta to be extruded at different rates. Products of
nonuniform size must be discarded or reprocessed, which adds to the unit cost of the product. The
inside surface of the die also influences the product appearance. Until recently, most dies were made
of bronze, which was relatively soft and required repair or periodic replacement. Recently, dies have
been improved by fitting the extruding surface of the die with Teflon® inserts to extend the life of the
dies and improve the quality of the pasta.
Drying —
Drying is the most difficult and critical step to control in the pasta production process. The
objective of drying is to lower the moisture content of the pasta from approximately 31 percent to 12
to 13 percent so that the finished product will be hard, retain its shape, and store without spoiling.
Most pasta drying operations use a preliminary drier immediately after extrusion to prevent the pasta
from sticking together. Predrying hardens the outside surface of the pasta while keeping the inside
soft and plastic. A final drier is then used to remove most of the moisture from the product.
Drying temperature and relative humidity increments are important factors in drying. Since
the outside surface of the pasta dries more rapidly than the inside, moisture gradients develop across
the surface to the interior of the pasta. If dried too quickly, the pasta will crack, giving the product a
poor appearance and very low mechanical strength. Cracking can occur during the drying process or
as long as several weeks after the product has left the drier. If the pasta is dried too slowly, it tends
to spoil or become moldy during the drying process. Therefore, it is essential that the drying cycle
be tailored to meet the requirements of each type of product. If the drying cycle has been successful,
the pasta will be firm but also flexible enough so that it can bend to a considerable degree before
breaking.
Packaging —
Packaging keeps the product free from contamination, protects the pasta from damage during
shipment and storage, and displays the product favorably. The principal packaging material for
noodles is the cellophane bag, which provides moisture-proof protection for the product and is used
easily on automatic packaging machines, but is difficult to stack on grocery shelves. Many
manufacturers utilize boxes instead of bags to package pasta because boxes are easy to stack, provide
good protection for fragile pasta products, and offer the opportunity to print advertising that is easier
to read than on bags.
9.9.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
8/95
-------
9,9,5.3 Emissions and Controls
Air emissions may arise from a variety of sources in pasta manufacturing. Particulate
matter (PM) emissions result mainly from solids handling and mixing. For pasta manufacturing, PM
emissions occur during the wheat milling process, as the raw ingredients are mixed, and possibly
during packaging. Emission sources associated with wheat milling include grain receiving,
precleaning/handling, cleaning house, milling, and bulk loading. Applicable emission factors for
these processes are presented in AP-42 Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes. There are no
data for PM emissions from mixing of ingredients or packaging for pasta production.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions may potentially occur at almost any stage in the
production of pasta, but most usually are associated with thermal processing steps, such as pasta
extruding or drying. No information is available on any VOC emissions due to the heat generated
during pasta extrusion or drying.
Control of PM emissions from pasta manufacturing is similar to that discussed in AP-42
Section 9.9.1, Grain Elevators and Processes. Because of the operational similarities, emission
control methods used in grain milling and processing plants are similar to those in grain elevators.
Cyclones or fabric filters are often used to control emissions from the grain handling operations
(e. g., unloading, legs, cleaners, etc.) and also from other processing operations. Fabric filters are
used extensively in flour mills. However, certain operations within milling operations are not
amenable to the use of these devices and alternatives are needed. Wet scrubbers, for example, may
be applied where the effluent gas stream has a high moisture content.
References for Section 9.9.5
1. D. E. Walsh and K. A. Gilles, "Pasta Technology", Elements Of Food Technology,
N. W. Desrosier, Editor, AVI Publishing Company, Inc., 1977.
2. 1992 Census Of Manufactures: Miscellaneous Food And Kindred Products,
Preliminary Report Industry Series, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, Issued August 1994.
8/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.5-3
-------
9.11.1 Vegetable Oil Processing
9.11.1.1 General'"5
The industry group producing fats and oils includes cottonseed oil mills, soybean oil mills,
vegetable oil mills (other than corn, cottonseed, and soybean), and other mills. Wet corn mills are
the primary producers of corn oil. Approximately 137 vegetable oil plants operate in the United
States. Soybean processing, which dominates the industry, produces approximately 80 percent of the
volume of vegetable oil and is concentrated in the states of Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana,
and Minnesota, but also found across the nation. Likewise, wet corn mills are concentrated in Corn
Belt states. Cottonseed oil mills are found in southern states and California.
9.11.1.2 Process Description6^
The following process description discusses only soybean oil manufacture, because emission
factors are available only for that activity. Corn, cottonseed, and peanut oil processing are similar to
soybean processing, except for differences in the soybean preparation for oil extraction. The process
for soybeans typically consists of five steps: oilseed handling/elevator operations, preparation of
soybeans for solvent extraction, solvent extraction and oil desolventizing, flake desolventi/ing, and oil
refining.
Oilseed Handling/Elevator Operations -
Figure 9.11.1-1 is a schematic diagram of a typical soybean handling/elevator operation that
precedes the preparation of soybeans for the solvent extraction process.
Soybeans received at the facility by truck or rail are sampled and analyzed for moisture
content, foreign matter, and damaged seeds. Then the beans are weighed and conveyed to large
concrete silos or metal tanks for storage prior to processing. When the facility is ready to process the
soybeans, the beans are removed from the silo or tank and cleaned of foreign materials and loose
hulls. Screens typically are used to remove foreign materials such as sticks, stems, pods, tramp
metal, sand, and dirt. An aspiration system is used to remove loose hulls from the soybeans; these
hulls may be combined later with hulls from the dehulling aspiration step. The beans are passed
through dryers to reduce their moisture content to approximately 10 to 11 percent by weight and then
are conveyed to process bins for temporary storage and tempering for 1 to 5 days in order to facilitate
dehulling.
Preparation Of Soybeans For Solvent Extraction -
Figure 9.11.1-2 is a schematic diagram of the process used to prepare soybeans for the
solvent extraction process. The process, which is fairly well'standardized, consists of four principal
operations: cracking, dehulling/hull removal, conditioning, and flaking.
Soybeans are conveyed from the process bins to the mill by means of belts or mass flow
conveyors and bucket elevators. In the mill, the beans may be aspirated again, weighed, cleaned of
tramp metal by magnets, and fed into corrugated cracking rolls. The cracking rolls "crack" each
bean into four to six particles, which are passed through aspirators to remove the hulls (processed
separately after the removal of residual bean chips). These hulls may be combined with the hulls
from the grain cleaning step.
11/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.11.1-1
-------
Particulate Emissions
Particulate Emissions
Trash
Hulls (may be combined with hulls
from dehulling aspiration)
(see Figure 9.11.1-2)
Particulate Emissions
Raw Soybean
Receiving
(3-02-007-81)
Process Bins
Grain Drying
(3-02-007-84)
Grain Cleaning
(3-02-007-83)
Handling/Storage
(3-02-007-82)
Sampling
Soybeans To Preparation
(see Figure 9.11.1-2)
Figure 9.11.1-1. Flow diagram of typical soybean handling/elevator operations.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.11.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
Soybeans from
Handling/Elevator
upttrauuris
(see Figure 9.11.1-1)
OPTIONAL PROCESS
Particulate
Emissions
Hulls with Beans
Particulate
Emissions
Bean Return
Particulate
Emissions"
Hulls
Hulls from Grain
Cleaning
(see Figure 9.11.1-1)
Particulate
Emissions"
Hulls to Sizing, Grinding,
and Loadout
(see Figure 9.11.1-4)
Flaking
(3-02-007-88)
Cracked Bean
Conditioning
(3-02-007-87)
Cracking
(3-02-007-85)
Dehulling Aspiration
(3-02-007-85)
Aspiration
Dehulling Aspiration
(3-02-007-85)
Flakes to Solvent Extraction
(see Figure 9.11.1-3)
Figure 9.11.1-2. Flow diagram of the typical process for preparing soybeans for solvent extraction.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11/95 Food And Agricultural Industry 9.11.1-3
-------
Next, the cracked beans and bean chips are conveyed to the conditioning area, where they are
put either into a rotary steam tubed device or into a stacked cooker and are heated to "condition"
them (i. e., make them pliable and keep them hydrated). Conditioning is necessary to permit the
flaking of the chips and to prevent their being broken into smaller particles. Finally, the heated,
cracked beans are conveyed and fed to smooth, cylindrical rolls that press the particles into smooth
"flakes", which vary in thickness from approximately 0.25 to 0.51 millimeters (0.010 to
0.020 inches). Flaking allows the soybean oil cells to be exposed and the oil to be more easily
extracted.
Solvent Extraction and Oil Desolventizing -
The extraction process consists of "washing" the oil from the soybean flakes with hexane
solvent in a countercurrent extractor. Then the solvent is evaporated (i, e., desolventized) from both
the solvent/oil mixture (micella) and the solvent-laden, defatted flakes (see Figure 9.11.1-3). The oil
is desolventized by exposing the solvent/oil mixture to steam (contact and noncontact). Then the
solvent is condensed, separated from the steam condensate, and reused. Residual hexane not
condensed is removed with mineral oil scrubbers. The desolventized oil, called "crude" soybean oil,
is stored for further processing or loadout.
Desolventizing Flakes -
The flakes leaving the extractor contain up to 35 to 40 percent solvent and must be
desolventized before use. Flakes are desolventized in one of two ways; either "conventional"
desolventizing or specialty or "flash" desolventizing. The method used depends upon the end use of
the flakes. Flakes that are flash desolventized are typically used for human foods, while
conventionally desolventized flakes are used primarily in animal feeds.
Conventional desolventizing takes place in a desolventizer-toaster (DT), where both contact
and noncontact steam are used to evaporate the hexane. In addition, the contact steam "toasts" the
flakes, making them more usable for animal feeds. The desolventized and toasted flakes then pass to
a dryer, where excess moisture is removed by heat, and then to a cooler, where ambient air is used to
reduce the temperature of the dried flakes. The desolventized, defatted flakes are then ground for use
as soybean meal (see Figure 9.11.1-4).
Flash desolventizing is a special process that accounts for less than 5 percent by volume of the
annual nationwide soybean crush. The production of flakes for human consumption generally follows
the flow diagram in Figure 9.11.1-3 for the "conventional" process, except for the desolventizing
step. In this step, the flakes from the oil extraction step are "flash" desolventized in a vacuum with
noncontact steam or superheated hexane. This step is followed by a final solvent stripping step using
steam. Both the hexane vapor from the flash/vacuum desolventizer and the hexane and steam vapors
from the stripper are directed to a condenser. From the condenser, hexane vapors pass to the mineral
oil scrubber and the hexane-water condensate goes to the separator, as shown in Figure 9.11.1-3.
The flakes produced by the flash process are termed "white flakes". A process flow diagram for the
flash desolventizing portion of the soybean process is shown in Figure 9.11.1-5. From the stripper,
the white flakes pass through a cooker (an optional step) and a cooler prior to further processing steps
similar to the "conventional" process. A plant that uses specialty or "flash" desolventizing requires
different equipment and is far less efficient in energy consumption and solvent recovery than a plant
that uses conventional desolventizing. Given these facts, solvent emissions are considerably higher
for a specialty desolventizing process than for a similar-sized conventional desolventizing process.
9.11.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
Hexane and Steam Vapors
Flakes from
Reparation
(sea Figure 9.11.1-2)
Hexane
and
Water
Hexane
Water i
Hexane and Steam Vapors
Hexane Vapor to
Mineral Oil Scrubber
Hexane and
Steam Vapors
Extracted
Rakes and
Hexane
Hexane and Oil
Hexane Emissions
Hexane and
Steam Vapors
Desolventlzed and
Toasted Meal
Hexane and
Particulate
Emissions
Dried Meal
Hexane and
Particulate
Emissions
j Cooled Meal
Cooled Dried Meal to
Sizing, Grinding,
and Loadout
(see Figure 9.11.1-4)
Reboiler
Hexane-Water
Separation
Meal Dryer
(3-02-007-89)
Flake
Desoiventlzlng
and Toasting
FSifi
Desolventizing
(SOQ
Figure 9.11.1-5)
Oil Extraction
Further Prooessini
or Loadout
Oll/Hexane
Distillation
Mineral Oil
Scrubber System
Hexane-Steam
Condensing
Crude OH
Storage
Soybean Extraction Facility-Total Hexane Losses
(3-02-019-97)
(3-02-019-98)
Figure 9.11.1-3. Flow diagram of the "conventional" solvent extraction process.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.11.1-5
-------
Particulate.
Emissions
Cooled Dried Meal from
Solvent Extraction
(Figure 9.11.1-3)
Hulls from
Detailing Aspiration
(Figure 9.11,1-2)
I
Particulate
Emissions
OPTIONAL PROCESS
Typical or nominal values;
actual values may vary.
Toasted Hull
(Millfeed) Storage
10% Protein*
Meal Storage
(Low Protein)
Meal Grinding
and Sizing
(3-02-007-93)
Hull Toasting
Meal Storage
(High Protein)
48% Protein*
Hull Grinding
and Sizing
(3-02-007-86)
Meal-Millfeed
Blending
44% Protein Meal
Sampling
1
f '
i i
r
Loadout
(Rail, Truck, Barge)
(3-02-007-91)
Particulate
Emissions
Figure 9.11.1-4. Flow diagram for "conventional" process of dry material sizing, grinding,
and loadout.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.11.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
Solvent Laden Flakes
From Oil Extraction
(see (Figure 9.11.1-3)
Super-Heated
Hexane
Hexane and Steam Vapors
Stripping Steam.
Stripper
Hexane-Steam
Condenser
Cooker
(Optional)
Particulate
Emissions
Defatted, Desolventized
Flakes to Further
Processing
Figure 9.11.1-5. Flow diagram of the flash desolventizing process.
(Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
Vegetable Oil Refining -
Crude oil is typically shipped for refining to establishments engaged in the production of
edible vegetable oils, shortening, and margarine. Crude vegetable oils contain small amounts of
naturally occurring materials such as proteinaceous material, free fatty acids, and phosphatides.
Phosphatides are removed for lecithin recovery or to prepare the crude oil for export. The most
common method of refining oil is by reacting it with an alkali solution which neutralizes the free fatty
acids and reacts with the phosphatides. These reacted products and the proteinaceous materials are
then removed by centrifuge. Following alkali refining, the oil is washed with water to remove
residual soap, caused by saponification of small amounts of the triglycerides (oil). Color-producing
substances within an oil (i. e., carotenoids, chlorophyll) are removed by a bleaching process, which
employs the use of adsorbents such as acid-activated clays. Volatile components are removed by
deodorization, which uses steam injection under a high vacuum and temperature. The refined oil is
then filtered and stored until used or transported.
White Rake Cooler
(3-02-007-92)
11/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.11.1-7
-------
9.11.1.3 Emissions And Controls6,1"0
Emissions -
Particulate matter and volatile organic compounds are the principal emissions from vegetable
oil processing. Particulate matter (PM) results from the transfer, handling, and processing of raw
seed. VOC emissions are the oil extraction solvent, hexane, which is classified as a hazardous air
pollutant. Particulate emissions from grain handling are discussed in the Interim AP-42
Section 9.9.1, "Grain Elevators And Processes".
Solvent emissions arise from several sources within vegetable oil processing plants. There are
potential solvent emissions from the transfer and storage of hexane on site as well as potential leaks
from piping and vents. Small quantities of solvent (up to 0.2 percent by volume of oil) are present in
the crude vegetable oil after the solvent is recovered by film evaporators and the distillation stripper.
This hexane may volatilize during the oil-refining process; however, no emission data are available.
Trace quantities of solvent are present and available for volatilization in waste water collected from
the condensation of steam used in the distillation stripper and desolventizer-toaster. Emission data
from waste water also are not available.
Vents are another source of emissions. Solvent is discharged from three vents: the main vent
from the solvent recovery section, the vent from the meal dryer, and the vent from the meal cooler.
The main vent receives gases from the oil extractor, the film evaporator and distillation stripper, and
the desolventizer-toaster. Vents for the meal dryer and meal cooler typically vent to atmosphere.
Hexane Emissions -
The recommended method for estimating annual hexane emissions from soybean solvent
extraction facilities is to obtain the annual hexane usage from the specific plant's records, and to
assume that all hexane make-up is due to losses to the air (SCC 3-02-019-97). (Some hexane leaves
the facilities as a small fraction of the oil or meal products, but this amount has not been quantified.)
If the hexane usage is determined from purchase records and the purchased amount accounts for any
change in quantities stored on-site, then storage tank losses would already be accounted for in the loss
estimate. If the usage is determined from the amount metered out of the storage tanks, then the
storage tank losses should be calculated separately, and in addition to, the usage losses, using the
equations in AP-42 Chapter 7 or in the TANKS software. Careful application of such a material
balance approach should produce emission estimates comparable in quality to those derived from a B-
rated emission factor.
The mean total hexane loss reported by the plants in References 11 through 19 was 3.3 L/Mg
(0.89 gal/ton [4.9 lb/ton]) of raw soybeans processed (SCC 3-02-019-98). This represents an overall
total loss factor for soybean oil processing, encompassing all sources of vented and fugitive emissions
(and storage tanks), as well as any hexane leaving the facility as part of the oil or meal products. For
a new facility or if plant-specific usage data are unavailable, this factor, rated D, can be used as a
default value until the relevant data for the facility become available. The default value should be
used only until the facility can compile the data needed to develop a plant-specific hexane loss for the
period of interest.
Particulate Emissions -
Table 9.11.1-1 presents emission factors for total PM emissions resulting from handling and
processing soybeans in vegetable oil manufacturing. Emission factors are provided for PM-generating
processes for the meal production process, including meal drying and cooling.
9.11.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
Table 9.11.1-1, TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOYBEAN MILLING1
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Process
Control Device
Emission Factor
(lb/ton)h
Receiving0 (SCC 3-02-007-81)
None
0.15
Handling (SCC 3-02-007-82)
ND
ND
Cleaning (SCC 3-02-007-83)
ND
ND
Diying (SCC 3-02-007-84)
ND
ND
Craeking/dehulling (SCC 3-02-007-85)
Cyclone
0.36
Hull grinding (SCC 3-02-007-86)
Cyclone
0.20
Bean conditioning (SCC 3-02-007-87)
Cyclone
0.010
Flaking rolls (SCC 3-02-007-88)
Cyclone
0,037
White flake cooler (SCC 3-02-007-92)
Cyclone
0.95
Meal cooler (SCC 3-02-007-90)
Cyclone
0.19
Meal dryer (SCC 3-02-007-89)
Cyclone
0.18
Meal grinder/sizing (SCC 3-02-007-93)
Cyclone
0.34
Meal loadouf1 (SCC 3-02-007-91)
None
0.27
1 Emission factors are based on pounds per ton of soybeans processed by the unit. Factors
represent controlled emissions, except as noted. Divide the lb/ton factor by two to obtain
kg/Mg. SCC = Source Classification Code, ND = No Data.
b Reference 21. These data were obtained from unpublished emission test data and from
industry questionnaires. Because these are secondary data, the test data and the questionnaire
results were weighed equally and the emission factors were calculated as arithmetic means of
the data. The emission factor rating is a reflection of the source of the data.
c See Interim AP-42 Section 9.9.1, "Grain Elevators And Processes".
d Reference 22.
Controls -
Hexane is recovered and reused in the oil-extraction process because of its cost. The steam
and hexane exhausts from the solvent extractor, desolventizer-toaster, and oil/hexane stripping are
passed through condensers to recover hexane. Residual hexane from the condensers is captured by
mineral oil scrubbers. The most efficient recovery or control device is a mineral oil scrubber (MOS),
which is approximately 95 percent efficient. The meal dryer and cooler vents are typically exhausted
to the atmosphere with only cyclone control to reduce particulate matter. Process controls to reduce
breakdowns and leaks can be used effectively to reduce emissions. Quantities of hexane may be lost
through storage tanks, leaks, shutdowns, or breakdowns. These losses are included in the material
balance.
11/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.11.1-9
-------
References for Section 9.11.1
1. P. T. Bartlett, et at., National Vegetable Oil Processing Plant Inventory, TRC Environmental
Consultants Inc., Wethersfield, CT, April 1980.
2. J. M. Farren, et al, U. S. Industrial Outlook '92, U. S. Department Of Commerce,
Washington, DC, 1992.
3. 1987 Census Of Manufactures: Fats And Oils, U. S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of
Census, Washington, DC, 1988.
4. Corn Annual 1992, Corn Refiners Association Inc., Washington, DC, 1992.
5 . 95-96 Soya Bluebook Plus - Annual Directory Of The World Oilseed Industry, Soyatech, Inc.,
Bar Harbor, ME; data supplied by the National Oilseed Processors Association,
September 1995.
6. Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Manufacture Of Vegetable Oils,
EPA-450/2-78-035, U, S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
June 1978.
7. Test Method For Evaluation Of Hexane Emissions From Vegetable Oil Manufacturing, PEDCo
Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, April 1979.
8. Written communication from D. C. Ailor, Director Of Regulatory Affairs, National Oilseed
Processors Association, Washington, DC, to D. Reisdorph, Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, MO, September 20, 1992.
9. Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42, Section 9.11.1, Vegetable Oil Processing,
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, November 1995.
10. R. L. Chessin, "Investigating Sources Of Hexane Emissions", Oil Mill Gazetteer, #6(2):35-
36, 38-39, August 1981.
11. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated (East
Plant), Cedar Rapids, Iowa, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1979.
12. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated (West
Plan!), Cedar Rapids, Iowa, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1979.
13. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, AGRI Industries, Mason
City, Iowa, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1979.
14. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated,
Fayetteville, North Carolina, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, July 1979.
15. Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Emission Test Report, Central Soya Inc., Delphos, Ohio, EMB
Report 78-VEG-4, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.
9.11.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
16. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, MFA Soybeans, Mexico,
Missouri, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, July 1979,
17. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated,
Sidney, Ohio, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, July 1979.
18. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Ralston Purina Company,
Memphis, Tennessee, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, August 1979.
19. Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Ralston Purina Company,
Bloomington, Illinois, PEDCo Environmental Inc., Cincinnati, OH, August 1979.
20. "Liquid Storage Tanks", in Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I:
Stationary Point And Area Sources, AP-42, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, January 1995.
21. Emissions Control In The Grain And Feed Industry, Volume / - Engineering And Cost Study,
EPA-450/3-73-003a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
December 1973.
22. "Grain Elevators And Processing Plants", in Supplement B To Compilation Of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point And Area Sources, AP-42, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
11/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.11.1-11
-------
9.12.2 Wines And Brandy
9.12.2.1 General
Wine is an alcoholic beverage produced by the fermentation of sugars in fruit juices,
primarily grape juice. In general, wines are classified into two types based on alcohol content; table
wines (7 percent to 14 percent, by volume) and dessert wines (14 percent to 24 percent, by volume).
Table wines are further subdivided into still and sparkling categories, depending upon the carbon
dioxide (C02) content retained in the bottled wine. Stil! table wines are divided into three groups:
red, ros6 (blush), and white, based on the color of the wine.
9.12.2.2 Process Description1"4
The production of still table wines is discussed in the following paragraphs, followed by more
concise discussions of the production of sweet table wines, sparkling wines, dessert wines, and
brandy.
Still Table Wines -
The basic steps in vinification (wine production) include harvesting, crushing, pressing,
fermentation, clarification, aging, finishing, and bottling A simplified process diagram outlining the
basic steps in the production of still table wines is shown in Figure 9.12.2-1.
Harvesting of grapes is usually conducted during the cooler periods of the day to prevent or
retard heat buildup and flavor deterioration in the grape. Most wineries transport the whole grapes
but some crush the grapes in the vineyard and transport the crushed fruit to the winery Stemming
and crushing are commonly conducted as soon as possible after harvest. These two steps are
currently done separately using a crusher-stemmer, which contains an outer perforated cylinder to
allow the grapes to pass through but prevents the passage of stems, leaves, and stalks. Crushing the
grapes after stemming is accomplished by any one of many procedures. The three processes
generally favored are: (1) pressing grapes against a perforated wall; (2) passing grapes through a set
of rollers; or (3) using centrifugal force. Generally, 25 to 100 milligrams (mg) of liquified sulfur
dioxide (S02) are added per liter of the crushed grape mass to control oxidation, wild yeast
contamination, and spoilage bacteria.
Maceration is the breakdown of grape solids following crushing of the grapes. The major
share of the breakdown results from the mechanical crushing but a small share results from enzymatic
breakdown. In red and rosd wine production, the slurry of juice, skins, seeds, and pulp is termed the
"must". In white wine production, the skins, seeds, and pulp are separated from the juice before
inoculation with yeast and only the juice is fermented. A fermenting batch of juice is also called
"must". Thus, the term "must" can refer to either the mixture of juice, seeds, skins, and pulp for red
or rose wines or only the juice for white wines. Maceration is always involved in the initial phase of
red wine fermentation. The juice from the grapes may be extracted from the "must" in a press.
Additionally, gravity flow juicers may be used initially to separate the majority of the juice from the
crushed grapes and the press used to extract the juice remaining in the mass of pulp, skins, and seeds
(pomace). There are many designs of dejuicers but, generally, they consist of a tank fitted with a
perforated basket at the exit end. After gravity dejuicing has occurred, the pomace is placed in a
press and the remaining juice extracted. There are three major types of presses. The horizonal press
is used for either crushed or uncrushed grapes, A pneumatic press can be used for either crushed or
10/95
Food And Agricultural Products
9.12,2-1
-------
to
to
I
to
m
X
C/3
O
Z
T1
>
O
H
O
so
on
CO 2
ETHANOL
YEAST1 VOC
JUICE
WHITE
WINE
MACERATION 1
FERMENTATION
(SCC 3-02-011-05)
PULP, SEEDS,
SKIN
ETHANOL
VOC
VOC, ETHANOL
POMACE
PRESS
(SCC 3-02-011-12) !
'—-^-LIQUID TO BLENDING
SOLIDS TO DISPOSAL
RED AND
ROSE WINE
PULP, SEEDS,
SKIN
STORAGE
co2
ETHANOL
VOC
VOC. ETHANOL
JUICE
ETHANOL
VOC
so2
! CONTINUED !
| FERMENTATION j.
j (ROSE WINE) i
SCREENING
(SCC 3-02-011-11)
S02
YEAST
SCREENING
HARVEST
CRUSHING
STEMMING
BOTTLING
(SCC 3-02-011-21)
MACERATION AND
FERMENTATION
(SCC 3-02-011-06)
MATURATION AND
NATURAL
CLARIFICATION i
FINISHING AND
STABILIZATION
(SCC 3-02-011-03)
Figure 9.12.2.-1. Basic steps in still table wine production.
© (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
L/i
-------
uncrushed grapes as well as for fermented "must". In the continuous screw press, the "must" is
pumped into the press and forced in the pressing chamber where perforated walls allow the juice to
escape. After pressing, white "must" is typically clarified and/or filtered prior to fermentation to
retain the fruity character. The white juice is commonly allowed to settle for up to 12 hours but may
be centrifuged to speed the clarification.
Fermentation is the process whereby the sugars (glucose and fructose) present in the "must"
undergo reaction by yeast activity to form ethyl alcohol (ethanol) and C02 according to the equation;
C6H1206 - 2 CJHjOH + 2 CO,
In the U. S., the sugar content of the juice is commonly measured with a hydrometer in units
of degree Brix (°B), which is grams (g) of sugar per 100 grams of liquid. Fermentation may be
initiated by the addition of yeast inoculation to the "must". The fermentation process takes place in
tanks, barrels, and vats of a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and technical designs. Tanks are different
from vats in that tanks are enclosed, whereas vats have open tops. In most of the larger wineries,
tanks have almost completely replaced vats. Since the 1950s, the move has been away from the use
of wooden tanks, primarily to stainless steel tanks. Lined concrete tanks are also used, and fiberglass
tanks are becoming more popular because of their light weight and lower cost.
The fermentation process is an exothermic reaction and requires temperature control of the
fermenting "must". Red wines are typically fermented at 25° to 28°C (70° to 82°F) and white wines
at 8° to 15°C (46° to 59°F). Almost all of the fermentation is conducted by the batch process and
continuous fermentors are rarely used in the U. S. Size of the fermentors is based primarily on the
volume of "must" to be fermented. During fermentation of red wines, the C02 released by the yeast
metabolism becomes entrapped in the pomace (layer of skins and seeds) and causes it to rise to the
top of the tank where it forms a cap. The pomace cap is periodically covered with the "must" to
increase color removal, aerate the fermenting "must", limit growth of spoilage organisms in the cap,
and help equalize the temperature in the fermenting "must". For white wines, the main technical
requirement is efficient temperature control. Temperature is one of the most influential factors
affecting the fermentation process. During fermentation of both white and red "must", the C02,
water vapor, and ethanol are released through a vent in the top of the tank. Malolactic fermentation
sometimes follows the primary fermentation and results in a reduction in acidity and increased pH.
There are very diverse opinions about this step because the fermentation, to varying degrees, can
improve or reduce wine quality.
After fermentation, all wines undergo a period of adjustment (maturation) and clarification
prior to bottling. The process of maturation involves the precipitation of particulate and colloidal
material from the wine as well as a complex range of physical, chemical, and biological changes that
tend to maintain and/or improve the sensory characteristics of the wine. The major adjustments are
acidity modification, sweetening, dealcoholization, color adjustment, and blending. Following the
fermentation process, a preliminary clarification step is commonly accomplished by decanting the
wine from one vessel to another, called racking, in order to separate the sediment (lees) from the
wine. Current racking practices range from manually decanting wine from barrel to barrel to highly
sophisticated, automated, tank-to-tank transfers. In all cases, separation occurs with minimal agitation
to avoid resuspending the particulate matter. The residue from racking may be filtered to recover
wine otherwise lost with the lees or may be used "as is" for brandy production.
Stabilization and further clarification steps follow maturation and initial clarification to
produce a permanently clear wine with no flavor faults. The steps entail various stabilization
10/95
Food And Agricultural Products
9.12.2-3
-------
procedures, additional clarification (fining), and a final filtration prior to bottling. The most common
stabilization technique used for many red wines and some white wines is aging the wine for a period
of months or years. Vessels used to store and age wine, termed cooperage, are produced in a wide
range of sizes, depending on their intended use. White oak has traditionally been used for the barrels
to age wine, but currently its usage is reserved primarily for the production of premium white and red
wines and some fortified wines. Water and ethanol are lost through the barrel surfaces and a partial
vacuum develops in the space created by this loss. Each barrel is periodically opened and topped off
with wine to fill the void created by the ethanol and water loss. Cooperage constructed from
materials other than wood has many advantages and is less expensive to maintain. Stainless steel is
often preferred, but fiberglass and concrete are also used. In addition to aging, other stabilization
procedures are used to prevent formation of potassium bitartrate or calcium tartrate crystals, haziness
(casse) resulting from protein coalescence, casse resulting from oxidation of tannins present in the
wine, and haziness due to metal ions such as iron and copper. Enzyme mixtures are used to remove
polysaccharides which can cause filtration problems and haze formation. Most wines contain viable
but dormant microorganisms. Racking is used as an initial step in microbial stabilization but long-
term stability frequently requires use of sulfur dioxide as the antimicrobial agent. Other methods
include pasteurization and filter sterilization. Sulfur dioxide may be added at various stages in wine
production to prevent microbial growth and oxidation. Finishing (fining) agents are commonly added
to accelerate the precipitation of suspended material in wine. Prior to bottling, a final clarification
step is used to remove any remaining suspended material and microbes in the wine. This step
involves only physical methods of clarification, generally a filtration procedure.
Glass bottles are the container of choice for premium quality wines and for sparkling wines.
Because of disadvantages such as weight and breakage, glass bottles are sometimes being replaced by
new containers, such as bag-in-box, for many standard quality, high volume wines. To protect the
wine against microbial spoilage, and to limit oxidation, the S02 content in the wine is adjusted to a
final level of 50 mg/L before filling. Precaution is taken to minimize contact with air during filling
and thereby to reduce oxidation. This is done by either flushing the bottle with inert gas before
filling or flushing the headspace with inert gas after filling.
Sweet Table Wines -
The most famous of the sweet wines are those made from noble-rotted, ficm'/w-infected
grapes. These wines are produced to a limited extent in the United States. The Botrytis mold acts to
loosen the grape's skin so moisture loss occurs rapidly and the sugar concentration increases in the
grape. The grapes are then selectively picked, followed by pressing, and fermentation. Fermentation
is a slow process, however, because of the high sugar content and the use of S02 to retard the growth
of undesirable molds and microorganisms. Nonbotrytized sweet wines are also produced by drying
the grapes. Drying involves allowing the grapes to dehydrate on mats or trays in the shade for weeks
or months and then crushing the grapes and fermenting the concentrated juice. Heating, boiling, or
freezing is also used to concentrate juice for semisweet wines.
Sparkling Wines -
Most sparkling wines obtain C02 supersaturation using a second alcoholic fermentation,
typically induced by adding yeast and sugar to dry white wine. There are three principal methods of
sparkling wine production: the methode champagnoise, the transfer method, and the bulk method. In
the methode champagnoise, both red and white grapes may be used, but most sparkling wines are
white. The grapes are harvested earlier than those used for still table wines and pressed whole
without prior stemming or crushing to extract the juice with a minimum of pigment and tannin
extraction. This is important for producing white sparkling wines from red-skinned grapes. Primary
fermentation is carried out at approximately 15°C (59°F) and bentonite and/or casein may be added
9.12.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
10/95
-------
to aid the process and improve clarity. The blending of wines produced from different sites,
varieties, and vintages distinguishes the traditional method. Before preparing the blend (cuvie), the
individual base wines are clarified and stabilized. Aging typically takes place in stainless steel tanks
but occasionally takes place in oak cooperage. The secondary fermentation requires inoculation of the
cuvie wine with a special yeast strain. A concentrated sucrose solution is added to the cuvie just
prior to the yeast inoculation. The wine is then bottled, capped, and stacked horizontally at a stable
temperature, preferably between 10° to 15°C (50° to 59°F), for the second fermentation. After
fermentation, the bottles are transferred to a new site for maturation and stored at about 10°C (SOT),
Riddling is the technique used to remove the yeast sediment (lees). The process involves
loosening and suspending the cells by manual or mechanical shaking and turning, and positioning the
bottle to move the lees toward the neck. Disgorging takes place about 1 or 2 years after bottling.
The bottles are cooled and the necks immersed in an ice/CaCl2 or ice/glycol solution to freeze the
sediment. The disgorging machine rapidly removes the cap on the bottle, allowing for ejection of the
frozen yeast plug. The mouth of the bottle is quickly covered and the fluid level is adjusted. Small
quantities of SO, or ascorbic acid may be added to prevent subsequent in-bottle fermentation and limit
oxidation. Once the volume adjustment and other additions are complete, the bottles are sealed with
special corks, the wire hoods added, and the bottles agitated to disperse the'additions. The bottles are
then decorated with their capsule and labels and stored for about 3 months to allow the corks to set in
the necks. The transfer method is identical to the methode champagnoise up to the riddling stage.
During aging, the bottles are stored neck down. When the aging process is complete, the bottles are
chilled below 0°C (32°F) before discharge into a transfer machine and passage to pressurized
receiving tanks. The wine is usually sweetened, sulfited, clarified by filtration, and sterile filtered
just before bottling.
In the bulk method, fermentation of the juice for the base wine may proceed until all the
sugar is consumed or it may be prematurely terminated to retain sugars for the second fermentation.
The yeast is removed by centrifugation and/or filtration. Once the cuvee is formulated, the wines are
combined with yeast additives and, if necessary, sugar. The second fermentation takes place in
stainless steel tanks similar to those used in the transfer process. Removal of the lees takes place at
the end of the second fermentation by centrifugation and/or filtration. The sugar and SO, contents are
adjusted just before sterile filtration and bottling.
Other methods of production of sparkling wine include the "rural" method and carbonation.
The rural method involves prematurely terminating the primary fermentation prior to a second in-
bottle fermentation. The injection of CO, (carbonation) under pressure at low temperatures is the
least expensive and the least prestigious method of producing sparkling wines.
Dessert Wines -
Dessert wines are classified together because of their elevated alcohol content. The most
common dessert wines are sherries and ports.
Baking is the most popular technique for producing sherries in the United States. Grapes are
crushed and stemmed and S02 added as soon as possible to control bacteria and oxidation. The
maximum amount of juice is separated from the skins and the juice is transferred to fermentors. The
juice is inoculated with starter and fermented at temperatures of 25° to 30°C (77° to 86 °F). The new
wine is then pumped from the fermentor or settling tank to the fortification tank. High proof spirits
are added to the sherry material, or shermat, to raise the alcohol content to 17 to 18 percent by
volume and then the wine is thoroughly mixed, clarified, and filtered before baking. Slow baking
occurs when the wine is stored in barrels exposed to the sun. More rapid baking is achieved through
10/95
Food And Agricultural Products
9.12.2-5
-------
the use of artificially heated storage rooms or heating cons in barrels or tanks. After baking, the
sherry is cooled, clarified, and filtered. Maturation is then required and is usually carried out in oak
barrels. Aging can last from 6 months to 3 years or more.
Port wines are produced by the premature termination of fermentation by addition of brandy.
When the fermenting must is separated from the pomace by gravity, it is fortified with wine spirits
containing about 77 percent alcohol, by volume. Most white ports are fortified when half the original
sugar content has been fermented, except for semidry and dry white ports which are fortified later.
The type and duration of aging depend on the desired style of wine. Blending is used to achieve the
desired properties of the wine. The final blend is left to mature in oak cooperage for several months
prior to fining, filtration, stabilization, and bottling.
Brandy Production —
Brandy is an alcoholic distillate or mixture of distillates obtained from the fermented juice,
mash, or wine from grapes or other fruit (e. g., apples, apricots, peaches, blackberries, or
boysenberries). Brandy is produced at less than 190° proof and bottled at a minimum of 80° proof.
(In the United States, "proof" denotes the ethyl alcohol content of a liquid at 15.6°C (60°F), stated as
twice the percent ethyl alcohol by volume.) Two types of spirits are produced from wine or wine
residue: beverage brandy and "wine spirits".
In brandy production, the grapes are pressed immediately after crushing. There are major
differences in the fermentation process between wine and brandy production. Pure yeast cultures are
not used in the fermentation process for brandy. Brandy can be made solely from the fermentation of
fruit or can be distilled either from the lees leftover from the racking process in still wine production
or from the pomace cap that is leftover from still red wine fermentations.
In the United States, distillation is commenced immediately after the fermentation step,
generally using continuous column distillation, usually with an aldehyde section, instead of pot stills.
For a detailed discussion of the distillation, and aging of distilled spirits, which include brandy and
brandy spirits, refer to AP-42 Section 9.12.3, "Distilled And Blended Liquors", After distillation, the
brandy is aged in oak casks for 3 to 15 years or more. During aging, some of the ethanol and water
seep through the oak and evaporate, so brandy is added periodically to compensate for this loss.
Caramel coloring is added to give the brandy a characteristic dark brown color. After aging, the
brandy may be blended and/or flavored, and then chilled, filtered, and bottled.
9.12.2.3 Emissions And Controls5 "
Ethanol and carbon dioxide are the primary compounds emitted during the fermentation step
in the production of wines and brandy. Acetaldehyde, methyl alcohol (methanol), n-propyl alcohol,
n-butyl alcohol, sec-butyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, isoamyl alcohol, and hydrogen sulfide also are
emitted but in much smaller quantities compared to ethanol emissions. In addition, a large number of
other compounds are formed during the fermentation and aging process. Selected examples of other
types of compounds formed and potentially emitted during the fermentation process include a variety
of acetates, monoterpenes, higher alcohols, higher acids, aldehydes and ketones, and organosulfides.
During the fermentation step, large quantities of CO, are also formed and emitted.
Fugitive ethanol emissions also occur during the screening of the red wine, pressing of the
pomace cap, aging in oak cooperage, and the bottling process. In addition, as a preservative, small
amounts of liquified SO, are often added to the grapes after harvest, to the "must" prior to
9.12.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/95
-------
fermentation, or to the wine after the fermentation is completed; S02 emissions can occur during these
steps. There is little potential for VOC emissions before the fermentation step in wine production.
Except for harvesting the grapes and possibly unloading the grapes at the winery, there is
essentially no potential for particulate (PM) emissions from this industry.
Emission controls are not currently used during the production of wines or brandy. Five
potential control systems have been considered and three have been the subject of pilot-scale emission
test studies at wineries or universities in California. The five systems are (1) carbon adsorption,
(2) water scrubbers, (3) catalytic incineration, (4) condensation, and (5) temperature control. All of
the systems have disadvantages in either low control efficiency, cost effectiveness, or overall
applicability to the wide variety of wineries.
Emission factors for VOC and hydrogen sulfide emissions from the fermentation step in wine
production are shown in Table 9.12.2-1. The emission factors for controlled ethanol emissions and
the uncontrolled emissions of hydrogen sulfide and other VOCs from the fermentation step should be
used with caution because the factors are based on a small number of tests and fermentation
conditions vary considerably from one winery to another
The only emission factors for wine production processes other than fermentation, were
obtained from a 1982 test.7 These factors represent uncontrolled fugitive ethanol emissions during
handling processes. The factor for fugitive emissions from the pomace screening for red wine
(SCC 3-02-011-11) is 0.5 lb/1,000 gal of juice. An ethanol emission factor for the pomace press is
applicable only to red wine because the juice for white wine goes through the pomace press before the
fermentation step. The emission factor for red wine (SCC 3-02-011-12) is 0.02 lb/ton of pomace.
Although fugitive emissions occur during the bottling of both red and white wines, an emission factor
is available only for the bottling of white wine. The factor for white wine bottling
(SCC 3-02-011-21) is 0.1 lb/1,000 gal of wine. All of these factors are rated E. These emission
factors should be used with extreme caution because they are based on a limited number of tests
conducted at one winery. There is no emission factor for fugitive emissions from the finishing and
stabilization step (aging).
There are no available data that can be used to estimate emission factors for the production of
sweet table wines, dessert wines, sparkling wines, or brandy.
10/95
Food And Agricultural Products
9.12.2-7
-------
|3 Table 9.12.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR WINE FERMENTATION8
is>
i
°° EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Wine type
Type of control
Ethyl
alcohol,
lb/103 gal
Methyl
alcohol,
lb/103 gal
n-Propyl
alcohol,
lb/10' gal
n-Butyl
alcohol,
lb/10' gal
Sec-Butyl
alcohol,
lb/103 gal
Isobutyl
alcohol,
lb/10' gal
Isoamyl
alcohol,
lb/103 gal
Aeet-
aldehyde,
lb/10' gal
Hydrogen
sulfide,
lb/10' gal
Red
Noneb
4.6"
0.0025
0.0034
5.5E-5
4.5E-5
0.0036
0.014
0.0027
0.0017
(SCC 3-02-011-06)

Carbon adsorption''
0.1 T
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Catalytic incineration0
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Wet scrubber®
0.056
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
White
Noneb
1.8C
6.4E-4
0.0023
ND
ND
6.9E-4
0.0051
7.2E-5
0.0014
(SCC 3-02-011-05)

Carbon adsorption"1
0.092*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Catalytic incineration®
0.15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Wet scrubber"
0.083
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
O
O a Emission factor units are lb/1,000 gal of fermented juice produced, SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
&S b References 8-11.
0 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
d References 8-10,
° Reference 8.
MS
U\
-------
References For Section 9.12.2
1. R. S. Jackson, Wine Science: Principles And Application, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
1994.
2. M. A. Amerine, "Wine", in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Third
Edition, Volume 24, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984.
3. J. A. Heredia, "Technical Assessment Document On Ethanol Emissions And Control From
California Wineries", Master of Science Dissertation, California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA, June 1993.
4. M. A. Amerine, et al., Technology Of Wine Making, Fourth Edition, AVI Publishing
Company, Westport, CT, 1980.
5. G. C. Miller, et al., "Loss Of Aroma Compounds In Carbon Dioxide Effluent During White
Wine Fermentation", Food Technol. Aust., 39(5):246-249, 1987.
6. Written communication from Dean C. Simeroth, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento,
CA, to Mark Boese, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, CA,
November 1, 1994.
7. EAL Corporation, "Characterization Of Ethanol Emissions From Wineries", Final Report,
California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, July, 1982.
8. Ethanol Emissions And Control For Wine Fermentation And Tanks, Report tt ARB/ML-88-
027, California Air Resources Board, April 1988.
9. D.F. Todd, et al., "Ethanol Emissions Control From Wine Fermentation Tanks Using
Charcoal Adsorption: A Pilot Study", California Air Resources Board, published by
California Agricultural Technology Institute, March 1990.
10. Ethanol Emissions Control From Wine Fermentation Tanks Utilizing Carbon Adsorption
Technology, Akton Associates, Martinez, CA, June 1991.
11. Written communication from Arthur Caputi, Jr., E&J Gallo Winery, Modesto, CA, to Maria
Lima, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, CA, December 14,
1992.
10/95
Food And Agricultural Products
9.12.2-9
-------
9.13.2 Coffee Roasting
9.13.2.1 General
The coffee roasting industry involves the processing of green coffee beans into roasted coffee
products, including whole and ground beans and soluble coffee products. The Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code for coffee roasting is 2095.
9.13.2.2 Process Description1"6
The coffee roasting process consists essentially of cleaning, roasting, cooling, grinding, and
packaging operations. Figure 9.13.2-1 shows a process flow diagram for a typical coffee roasting
operation. Bags of green coffee beans are hand- or machine-opened, dumped into a hopper, and
screened to remove debris. The green beans are then weighed and transferred by belt or pneumatic
conveyor to storage hoppers. From the storage hoppers, the green beans are conveyed to the roaster.
Roasters typically operate at temperatures between 370° and 540°C (698° and 1004°F), and the beans
are roasted for a period of time ranging from a few minutes to about 30 minutes. Roasters are
typically horizontal rotating drums that tumble the green coffee beans in a current of hot combustion
gases; the roasters operate in either batch or continuous modes and can be indirect- or direct-fired.
Indirect-fired roasters are roasters in which the burner flame does not contact the coffee beans,
although the combustion gases from the burner do contact the beans. Direct-fired roasters contact the
beans with the burner flame and the combustion gases. At the end of the roasting cycle, water sprays
are used to "quench" the beans. Following roasting, the beans are cooled and run through a
"destoner". Destoners are air classifiers that remove stones, metal fragments, and other waste not
removed during initial screening from the beans. The destoners pneumatically convey the beans to a
hopper, where the beans are stabilize and dry (small amounts of water from quenching exist on the
surface of the beans). This stabilization process is called equilibration. Following equilibration, the
roasted beans are ground, usually by multi-stage grinders. Some roasted beans are packaged and
shipped as whole beans. Finally, the ground coffee is vacuum sealed and shipped.
Additional operations associated with processing green coffee beans include decaffeination and
instant (soluble) coffee production. Decaffeination is the process of extracting caffeine from green
coffee beans prior to roasting. The most common decaffeination process used in the United States is
supercritical carbon dioxide (CO,) extraction. In this process, moistened green coffee beans are
contacted with large quantities of supercritical CO, (C02 maintained at a pressure of about
4,000 pounds per square inch and temperatures between 90° and 100°C [194° and 212°Fj), which
removes about 97 percent of the caffeine from the beans. The caffeine is then recovered from the
CO,, typically using an activated carbon adsorption system. Another commonly used method is
solvent extraction, typically using oil (extracted from roasted coffee) or ethyl acetate as a solvent. In
this process, solvent is added to moistened green coffee beans to extract most of the caffeine from the
beans. After the beans are removed from the solvent, they are steam-stripped to remove any residual
solvent. The caffeine is then recovered from the solvent, and the solvent is re-used. Water extraction
is also used for decaffeination, but little information on this process is available. Decaffeinated coffee
beans have a residual caffeine content of about 0.1 percent on a dry basis. Not all facilities have
decaffeination operations, and decaffeinated green coffee beans are purchased by many facilities that
produce decaffeinated coffee.
9/95
Food and Agricultural Products
9.13.2-1
-------
GREEN COFFEE BEAN
UNLOADING
(SCC-3-02-002-04)

SCREENING
(SCC 3-02-002*06)

¦o
o
GREEN COFFEE BEAN
STORAGE AND
HANDLING
(SCC 3-02-002-08)
•o
ROASTING
BATCH-(SCC 3-02-002-20,-24)
CONT!NUOUS--(SCC 3-02-002-21 .-2fc)
• COOLING
(SCC 3-02-002-28)

DESTONING
(SCC 3*02*002-30)
O L
•©
®
DECARFEIMATION
CAFFEINE EXTRACTlOf
(SCC 3-02-002-10,-11)
-®
STEAM OR HOT AIR
DRYING
(SCC 3-02-002-16)
—PRODUCT STREAM
EXHAUST STREAM
.. „ _ OPTIONAL PROCESS
T) PM EMISSIONS
^2) VOC EMISSIONS
VN OTHER GASEOUS EMISSIONS
sU (CO, CC£ , METHANE HO }
EQUILIBRATION
(SCC 3-02-002-34)
GRINDING
PACKAGING
SHIPPING
•o
INSTANT COFFEE PRODUCTION
WATER EXTRACTION

SPRAY DRYING
OR FREEZE DRYING
(SCC 3-02-003-01 ,-06)

9.13.2-2
Figure 9.13.2-1. Typical coffee roasting operation.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
In the manufacture of instant coffee, extraction follows the roasting and grinding operations.
The soluble solids and volatile compounds that provide aroma and flavor are extracted from the coffee
beans using water. Water heated to about 175°C (347°F) under pressurized conditions (to maintain
the water as liquid) is used to extract all of the necessary solubles from the coffee beans.
Manufacturers use both batch and continuous extractors. Following extraction, evaporation or freeze-
concentration is used to increase the solubles concentration of the extract. The concentrated extracts
are then dried in either spray dryers or freeze dryers. Information on the spray drying and freeze
drying processes is not available.
9.13.2.3 Emissions And Controls
Particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC), organic acids, and combustion
products are the principal emissions from coffee processing. Several operations are sources of PM
emissions, including the cleaning and destoning equipment, roaster, cooler, and instant coffee drying
equipment. The roaster is the main source of gaseous pollutants, including alcohols, aldehydes,
organic acids, and nitrogen and sulfur compounds. Because roasters are typically natural gas-fired,
carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (C02) emissions are expected as a result of fuel
combustion. Decaffeination and instant coffee extraction and drying operations may also be sources
of small amounts of VOC. Emissions from the grinding and packaging operations typically are not
vented to the atmosphere.
Particulate matter emissions from the receiving, storage, cleaning, roasting, cooling, and
stoning operations are typically ducted to cyclones before being emitted to the atmosphere. Gaseous
emissions from roasting operations are typically ducted to a thermal oxidizer or thermal catalytic
oxidizer following PM removal by a cyclone. Some facilities use the burners that heat the roaster as
thermal oxidizers. However, separate thermal oxidizers are more efficient because the desired
operating temperature is typically between 650°C and 816°C (1200°F and 1500°F), which is 93°C to
260°C (200°F to 500°F) more than the maximum temperature of most roasters. Some facilities use
thermal catalytic oxidizers, which require lower operating temperatures to achieve control efficiencies
that are equivalent to standard thermal oxidizers. Catalysts are also used to improve the control
efficiency of systems in which the roaster exhaust is ducted to the burners that heat the roaster.
Emissions from spray dryers are typically controlled by a cyclone followed by a wet scrubber.
Table 9.13.2-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM and condensible PM emissions
from coffee roasting operations. Table 9.13.2-2 presents emission factors for volatile organic
compounds (VOC), methane, CO, and CO, emissions from roasting operations. Emissions from
batch and continuous roasters are shown separately, but with the exception of CO emissions, the
emissions from these two types of roasters appear to be similar.
9/95
Food and Agricultural Products 9.13.2-3
-------
Table 9.13.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COFFEE ROASTING OPERATIONS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Filterable PM,
lb/ton
Condensible PM
lb/ton
Batch roaster with thermal oxidizerb
(SCC 3-02-002-20)
0.12
ND
Continuous cooler with cyclone"
(SCC 3-02-002-28)
0.028
ND
Continuous roaster*1
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
0.66
ND
Continuous roaster with thermal oxidizer
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
0.092*
0.10c
Green coffee bean screening, handling, and
storage system with fabric filter'
(SCC 3-02-002-08)
0.059
ND
Destoner
(SCC 3-02-002-30)
ND
ND
Equilibration
(SCC 3-02-002-34)
ND
ND
" Emission factors are based on green coffee bean feed. Factors represent uncontrolled
emissions unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data. D-rated and
E-rated emission factors are based on limited test data; these factors may not be representative
of the industry.
b References 12,14.
c Reference 15.
d References 8-9.
e References 7-9,11,15. Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.
f Reference 16. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
9.13.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
Table 9.13.2-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COFFEE ROASTING OPERATIONS'
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
voc»,
lb/ton
Methane,
lb/ton
CO,
lb/ton
C02,
lb/ton
Batch roaster0
(SCC 3-02-002-20)
0.86
ND
ND
180
Batch roaster with
thermal oxidizer
(SCC 3-02-002-20)
0.047d
ND
0.55d
530e
Continuous roaster
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
1.4f
0.26*
1.5"
120'
Continuous roaster
with thermal
oxidizer
(SCC 3-02-002-21)
0.16k
0.15m
0.098k
200"
Decaffeination: solvent or
supercritical C02 extraction
(SCC 3-02-002-10,-11)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Steam or hot air dryer
(SCC 3-02-002-16)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Spray drying
(SCC 3-02-003-01)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Freeze drying
(SCC 3-02-003-06)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Emission factors are based on green coffee bean feed. Factors represent uncontrolled
emissions unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data. D-rated and
E-rated emission factors are based on limited test data; these factors may not be representative
of the industry.
Volatile organic compounds as methane. Measured using GC/FID.
Reference 14.
References 12-14.
References 12,14.
References 8-9,11,15.
References 8-9,11,15.
References 8-9,15.
References 8-9,11,15.
References 8-9,11,15.
References 8-9,11,15.
RATING: E.
References 9,11,15. Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.
Includes data from thermal catalytic oxidizers.
EMISSION FACTOR
9/95
Food and Agricultural Products
9.13.2-5
-------
References For Section 9.13.2
1. M. N. Clifford and K. C. Willson, COFFEE--Botany, Biochemistry And Production Of Beans
And Beverage, The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, CT, 1985.
2. R. G. Ostendorf (ed.), "Coffee Processing", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY, 1992.
3. J. M. L. Penninger, Supercritical Fluid Technology-Potential In The Fine Chemicals And
Pharmaceutical Industry, Presented at the Workshop on Prevention of Waste and Emissions in
the Fine Chemicals/Pharmaceutical Industry, Cork, Ireland, October 1993.
4. Telephone communication between B. Shrager, Midwest Research Institute, Cary, NC, and
M. Wood, Tetley's Corporation, Palisades Park, NJ, December 20, 1994.
5. R. J. Clarke and R. MacRae, editors, Coffee, Volume 2: Technology, Elsevier Science
Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1987.
6. G. Wasserman et al, "Coffee", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, 4th. Ed.,
Volume No. 6, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.
7. Source Test Report, Particulate Emissions, Premium Coffee, Wall, New Jersey, Princeton
Testing Lab, Princeton, NJ, January 1987.
8. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Hills Brothers Coffee, Inc., Edgewater, New Jersey,
Ambient Engineering, Inc., Parlin, NJ, September 23, 1988.
9. Stack Sampling Report For Hills Brothers Coffee, Inc., Edgewater, New Jersey, On Thermal
Oxidizer #22 Inlet/Outlet, Ambient Engineering, Inc., Parlin, NJ, October 5, 1988.
10. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For General Foods Corporation, Maxwell House Division,
Hobo ken, New Jersey, On Thermal Oxidizer Inlet And Outlet, Reeon Systems, Inc., Three
Bridges, NJ, March 13, 1989.
11. Nestle Foods Corporation Compliance Emission Testing Report, AirNova, Inc.,
Pennsauken, NJ, October 1990.
12. Source Test Report For Particulate, Volatile Organic Compounds, And Carbon Monoxide
Emissions From The Coffee Roaster 7D Thermal Oxidizer At General Foods-Maxwell House
Division, Hoboken, New Jersey, Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL,
December 20, 1990.
13. Source Test Report For Volatile Organic Compounds And Carbon Monoxide Emissions From
The Coffee Roaster 7D Thermal Oxidizer At General Foods-Maxwell House Division,
Hoboken, New Jersey, Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, May 9, 1991,
14. Melitta USA, Inc., Blaw Knox Roaster Emission Compliance Test Program, AirNova, Inc,
Pennsauken, NJ, February 1992.
9.13.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
15. Nestle Beverage Co, Source Test Report, Coffee Roaster And Cooler, Best Environmental,
Inc., San Leandro, CA, October 1, 1992.
16. Summary Of Source Test Results, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco,
CA, January 1991.
9/95 Food and Agricultural Products 9.13.2-7
-------
-------
10.7 Charcoal
10.7.1 Process Description"
Charcoal is the solid carbon residue following the pyrolysis (carbonization or destructive
distillation) of carbonaceous raw materials. Principal raw materials are medium to dense hardwoods
such as beech, birch, hard maple, hickory, and oak. Others are softwoods (primarily long leaf and
slash pine), nutshells, fruit pits, coal, vegetable wastes, and paper mill residues. Charcoal is used
primarily as a fuel for outdoor cooking. In some instances, its manufacture may be considered as a
solid waste disposal technique. Many raw materials for charcoal manufacture are wastes, as noted.
Charcoal manufacture is also used in forest management for disposal of refuse.
Recovery of acetic acid and methanol byproducts was initially responsible for stimulating the
charcoal industry. As synthetic production of these chemicals became commercialized, recovery of
acetic acid and methanol became uneconomical.
Charcoal manufacturing kilns generally can be classified as either batch or continuous multiple
hearth kilns; continuous multiple hearth kilns are more commonly used than are batch kilns. Batch
units such as the Missouri-type charcoal kiln (Figure 10.7-1) are small manually-loaded and -unloaded
kilns producing typically 16 megagrams (Mg) (17.6 tons) of charcoal during a 3-week cycle.
Continuous units (Figure 10.7-2) produce an average of 2.5 Mg per hour (Mg/hr) (2.75 tons per hour
[tons/hr]) of charcoal. During the manufacturing process, the wood is heated, driving off water and
highly volatile organic compounds (VOC). Wood temperature rises to approximately 275°C (527°F),
and the VOC distillate yield increases. At this point, external application of heat is no longer
required because the carbonization reactions become exothermic. At 350°C (662 °F), exothermic
pyrolysis ends, and heat is again applied to remove the less volatile tarry materials from the product
charcoal.
Fabrication of briquettes from raw material may be either an integral part of a charcoal
producing facility, or an independent operation, with charcoal being received as raw material.
Figure 10.7-3 presents a flow diagram for charcoal briquette production. Raw charcoal is first
crushed to pass through an approximately 3 millimeter (0.12 inch) screen aperture and then stored for
briquetting. The charcoal is then mixed with a binder to form a 65 to 70 percent charcoal mixture.
Typical binder solutions are 9 to 10 percent by weight solutions of cornstarch, milostarch, or
wheatstarch. Sawdust or other materials may be added to obtain faster burning or higher
temperatures. Briquettes are then formed in a press and dried at approximately 135°C (275°F) for
3 to 4 hours, resulting in a product with a 5 percent moisture content. This process generates a
briquette of approximately 90 percent pyrolysis product.
10.7.2 Emissions And Controls3"12
There are five types of products and byproducts from charcoal production operations:
charcoal, noncondensible gases (carbon monoxide [CO], carbon dioxide [COJ, methane, and ethane),
pyroacids (primarily acetic acid and methanol), tars and heavy oils, and water. With the exception of
charcoal, all of these materials are emitted with the kiln exhaust. Product constituents and the
distribution of these constituents vary, depending on raw materials and carbonization parameters.
Organics and CO are naturally combusted to C02 and water before leaving the retort. Because the
extent of this combustion varies from plant to plant, emission levels are quite variable. Some of the
9/95
Wood Products Industry
10.7-1
-------
ROOF VENTILATION
PORTS
CLAY PIPE STACKS

AIR PIPES
CONCRETE WALLS
AND ROOF
STEEL DOORS
10.7-2
Figure 10.7-1. The Missouri-type charcoal kiln.7
(Source Classification Code: 3-01-006-03.)
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
COOLING AIR DISCHARGE
FLOATING DAMPER
POM EMISSIONS
DRYING
ZONE

zzzzzzzz
COMBUSTION
ZONE
COOLING
ZONE
CHARCOAL
PRODUCT
COOLING AIR FAN
FEED MATERIAL
RABBLE ARM AT
EACH HEARTH
COMBUSTION
"AIR RETURN
RABBLE ARM
DRIVE
Figure 10.7-2. The continuous multiple hearth kiln for charcoal production.4
(Source Classification Code: 3-01-006-04.)
9/95
Wood Products Industry
10.7-3
-------
GROUND
CHARCOAL
STORAGE
KILN
ELEVATOR
STARCH
STORAGE
AND
FEEDER
PRESS
LUMP
CHARCOAL
STORAGE
STACK
CHARCOAL
FEEDER
DRYER
MIXER
CRUSHER
SCREEN
COOLING ELEVATOR
10.7-4
Figure 10.7-3. Flow diagram for charcoal briquette production.3
(Source Classification Code: 3-01-006-05.)
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
specific organic compounds that may be found in charcoal kiln emissions include ethane, methane,
ethanol, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). If uncombusted, tars may solidify to form PM
emissions, and pyroacids may form aerosol emissions.
The charcoal briquetting process is also a potential source of emissions. The crushing,
screening, and handling of the dry raw charcoal may produce PM and PM-10 emissions. Briquette
pressing and drying may be a source of VOC emissions, depending on the type of binder and other
additives used.
Continuous production of charcoal is more amenable to emission control than batch
production because emission composition and flow rate are relatively constant. Emissions from
continuous multiple hearth charcoal kilns generally are controlled with afterburners. Cyclones, which
commonly are used for product recovery, also reduce PM emissions from continuous kilns.
Afterburning is estimated to reduce emissions of PM, CO, and VOC by at least 80 percent. Control
of emissions from batch-type charcoal kilns is difficult because the process and, consequently, the
emissions are cyclic. Throughout a cycle, both the emission composition and flow rate change.
Batch kilns do not typically have emission control devices, but some may use after-burners.
Particulate matter emissions from briquetting operations can be controlled with a centrifugal
collector (65 percent control) or fabric filter (99 percent control).
Emission factors for criteria pollutant emissions from the manufacture of charcoal are shown
in Table 10.7-1. Table 10.7-2 presents factors for emission of organic pollutants from charcoal
manufacturing.
Table 10.7-1 EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING-
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND CO/
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

lb/ton
Source
Total PMb
NOx
CO
VOC
o
o
Charcoal kiln° (SCC 3-01-006-03, -04)
310J
24c
29Gf
270s
l,100f
Briquetting1' (SCC 3-01-006-05)
56f
ND
ND
ND
ND
' Factors represent uncontrolled emissions. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
Emission factors units are lb/ton of product. One lb/ton = 0.5 kg/Mg.
b Includes condensibles and consists primarily of tars and oils.
c Applicable to both batch and continuous kilns.
d References 2,6-7.
c Reference 3. Based on 0.14 percent nitrogen content of wood.
f References 2,6-7,11.
g References 2-3,6.
k For entire briquetting process.
9/95
Wood Products Industry
10.7-5
-------
Table 10.7-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING-
MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC POLLUTANTS"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Pollutant
Emission factor, lb/ton
Charcoal kilnb (SCC 3-01-006-3, -04)
Methanec
110

Ethaned
52

Methanol®
150

POMf
0.0095
" Factors represent uncontrolled emissions. SCC = Source Classification Code. Emission factors
units are lb/ton of product. One lb/ton = 0.5 kg/Mg.
b Applicable to both batch and continuous kilns.
r References 2,6.
d References 3,6.
c Reference 2.
' Reference 7.
References For Section 10.7
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.
2. R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1967.
3. C. M. Moscowitz, Source Assessment: Charcoal Manufacturing State of the Art,
EPA-600/2-78-004z, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, December
1978.
4. Radian Corporation, Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Polycyclic
Organic Matter (POM), EPA-450/4-84-007p, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1988.
5. Riegel's Handbook Of Industrial Chemistry, Seventh Edition, J. A. Kent, ed., Van Nostrand
Reinhold, NY, 1974.
6. J, R, Hartwig, "Control of Emissions from Batch-Type Charcoal Kilns", Forest Products
Journal, 27(9):49-50, April 1971.
7. W. H. Maxwell, Stationary Source Testing Of A Missouri-Type Charcoal Kiln,
EPA-907/9-76-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, MO, August 1976.
8. R. W. Rolke, etal., Afterburner Systems Study, EPA-RZ-72-062, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.
9. B. F. Keeling, Emission Testing The Missouri-Type Charcoal Kiln, Paper 76-37.1, presented
at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Portland, OR, June
1976.
10.7-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/95
-------
10. P. B. Hulraan, et al., Screening Study On Feasibility Of Standards Of Performance For Wood
Charcoal Manufacturing, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608, Radian Corporation, Austin, TX,
August 1978.
11. Emission Test Report, Kingsford Charcoal, Bumside, Kentucky, prepared by Monsanto
Research Corporation for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, August 1980.
12. Written communication from J. Swiskow, Barbecue Industry Association, Naperville, IL, to
D. Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 11, 1994.
9/95
Wood Products Industry
10.7-7
-------
11.10 Coal Cleaning
11.10.1 Process Description1"2,9
Coal cleaning is a process by which impurities such as sulfur, ash, and rock are removed
from coal to upgrade its value. Coal cleaning processes are categorized as either physical cleaning or
chemical cleaning. Physical coal cleaning processes, the mechanical separation of coal from its
contaminants using differences in density, are by far the major processes in use today. Chemical coal
cleaning processes are currently being developed, but their performance and cost are undetermined at
this time. Therefore, chemical processes are not included in this discussion.
The scheme used in physical coal cleaning processes varies among coal cleaning plants but
can generally be divided into four basic phases: initial preparation, fine coal processing, coarse coal
processing, and final preparation. A process flow diagram for a typical coal cleaning plant is
presented in Figure 11.10-1,
In the initial preparation phase of coal cleaning, the raw coal is unloaded, stored, conveyed,
crushed, and classified by screening into coarse and fine coal fractions. The size fractions are then
conveyed to their respective cleaning processes.
Fine coal processing and coarse coal processing use similar operations and equipment to
separate the contaminants. The primary difference is the severity of operating parameters. The
majority of coal cleaning processes use upward currents or pulses of a fluid such as water to fluidize
a bed of crushed coal and impurities. The lighter coal particles rise and are removed from the top of
the bed. The heavier impurities are removed from the bottom. Coal cleaned in the wet processes
then must be dried in the final preparation processes.
Final preparation processes are used to remove moisture from coal, thereby reducing freezing
problems and weight and raising the heating value. The first processing step is dewatering, in which
a major portion of the water is removed by the use of screens, thickeners, and cyclones. The second
step is normally thermal drying, achieved by any one of three dryer types: fluidized bed, flash, and
multilouvered. In the fluidized bed dryer, the coal is suspended and dried above a perforated plate by
rising hot gases. In the flash dryer, coal is fed into a stream of hot gases for instantaneous drying.
The dried coal and wet gases are both drawn up a drying column and into a cyclone for separation.
In the multilouvered dryer, hot gases are passed through a falling curtain of coal, which is then raised
by flights of a specially designed conveyor.
11.10.2 Emissions And Controls1"2,9"10
Emissions from the initial coal preparation phase of either wet or dry processes consist
primarily of fugitive particulate matter (PM) as coal dust from roadways, stock piles, refuse areas,
loaded railroad cars, conveyor belt pouroffs, crushers, and classifiers. The major control technique
used to reduce these emissions is water wetting. Another technique that applies to unloading,
conveying, crushing, and screening operations involves enclosing the process area and circulating air
from the area through fabric filters. Uncontrolled emission factors for various types of fugitive
sources in coal cleaning facilities can be developed from the equations found in Section 13.2,
"Fugitive Dust Sources".
11/95
Coal Cleaning
11.10-1
-------
to
m
S
oo
on
O
Z
T1
>
n
H
O
no
oo
o©@
DRYER
EXHAUST
REFUSE
HEAVY MEDIA
CONTROL
DEVICE
RAW COAL
UNLOAD fJG
(3 05-010-00.-310-08)
SCREENNG
(3-05-010-12,-310-12)
STORAGE
(3-05-010-09,-310-09)
CRUSH NG
(3-05-010-10,-310-10)
COARSE COAL
STORAGE
(3-05-010-09,-310-09)
RNALCOAL
STORAGE
(3-05-010-14.-310-14)
RNECOAL
CLASSFCAI CH-
AIR TABLES
(3-05010-13,-310-13)
COAL
0EWATERNQ
0RYNG
(3-05-0104)1, -02.03,
-04,-310-01,-02,-03,-04)
PROOUCT STREAM
EXHAUST STREAM
O PM EMISSIONS
(2) VOC EMISSIONS
(7) NOx. SOz, AND Cd2 EMISSIONS
VO
Figure 11.10-1. Typical coal cleaning plant process flow diagram.
(Source Classification Codes in parenthesis.)
-------
The major emission source in the fine or coarse coal processing phases is the air exhaust from
the air separation processes (air tables). For the dry cleaning process, these emissions are generated
when the coal is stratified by pulses of air. Particulate matter emissions from this source are
normally controlled with cyclones followed by fabric filters. Potential emissions from wet cleaning
processes are very low.
The major source of emissions from the final preparation phase is the thermal dryer exhaust.
This emission stream contains coal particles entrained in the drying gases and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) released from the coal, in addition to the standard products of coal combustion
resulting from burning coal to generate the hot gases (including carbon monoxide [CO], carbon
dioxide [C02], VOC, sulfur dioxide [S02], and nitrogen oxides [NOx]). Table 11.10-1 shows
emission factors for PM. Emission factors for S02, NOx, VOC, and C02 are presented in
Table 11.10-2. The most common technology used to control dryer emissions is venturi scrubbers
and mist eliminators downstream from the product recovery cyclones. The control efficiency of these
techniques for filterable PM ranges from 98 to 99.9 percent. Scrubbers also may achieve between 0
and 95 percent control of S02 emissions. The use of a neutralizing agent (such as NaOH) in the
scrubber water increases the S02 removal efficiency of the scrubber.
A number of inorganic hazardous air pollutants are found in trace quantities in coal. These
include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, thorium,
and uranium. It is likely that many of these are emitted in trace amounts from crushing, grinding,
and drying operations.
The new source performance standards (NSPS) for coal preparation plants were promulgated
in January 1976 (40 CFR Subpart Y). These standards specify emission limits for PM from coal
cleaning thermal dryers and pneumatic cleaning equipment sources, and opacity limits for fugitive
emissions from coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer and
loading systems.
11/95
Coal Cleaning
11.10-3
-------
Table 11.10-1. PM EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL CLEANING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)

Filterable PMb
Condensible PMC
Process
PM
PM-2.5
PM-1.0
Inorganic
Organic
Multilouvered dryerd
(SCC 3-05-010-03)
3.7
ND
ND
0.057
0.018
Fluidized bed dryer®
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
26f
3.8«
1.1«
0.034h
0.0075h
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi
scrubberJ
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
0.17
ND
ND
0.043
0.0048
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi scrubber
and tray scrubber1'
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
0.025
ND
ND
ND
ND
Air tables with fabric filter"1
(SCC 3-05-010-13)
0.032"
ND
ND
0.033P
0.00261
a Emission factor units are lb/ton of coal feed, unless noted. 1 lb/ton = 2 kg/Mg. SCC =
Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or
equivalent) sampling train.
c Condensible PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 11. Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-03, which corresponds to units of lb/thousand tons
of coal feed. To determine the emission factor for this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in
this table by 1,000.
e Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-01, which corresponds to units of lb/thousand tons of coal feed.
To determine the emission factor for this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in this table by
1,000.
f References 12,15.
g References 12,15. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E. Particle size data from Reference 15
used in conjunction with filterable PM data from References 12 and 15. Actual cut size of
PM-2.5 data was 2.7 microns.
h Reference 12.
j References 12-13,15-16,20. See footnote "e" above for alternate SCC.
k Reference 21. Tray scrubber using NaOH as the scrubbing liquid. See footnote "e" above
for alternate SCC.
m Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-13, which corresponds to units of lb/thousand tons of coal feed.
To determine the emission factor for this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in this table by
1,000.
" References 18-19.
p Reference 19.
q Reference 18.
11.10-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
Table 11.10-2. GASEOUS POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS
FOR COAL CLEANING4
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
VOCb
S02
NOx
C02
Multilouvered dryerc
(SCC 3-05-010-03)
ND
ND
ND
160
Fluidized bed dryerd
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
ND
1.4e
0.16f
308
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi scrubber11
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
0.098'
k
0.16f
308
Fluidized bed dryer with venturi scrubber
and tray scrubber"1
(SCC 3-05-010-01)
ND
0.072"
0,16f
308
a Emission factor units are lb/ton of coal feed, unless noted. 1 lb/ton = 2 kg/Mg.
SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b VOC as methane, measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train. Measurement may
include compounds designated as nonreactive.
c Reference 11. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E. Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-03, which
corresponds to units of lb/thousand tons of coal feed. To determine the emission factor for
this alternate SCC, multiply the factor in this table by 1,000.
d Alternate SCC is 3-05-310-01, which corresponds to units of lb/thousand tons of coal feed.
To determine the emission factor for this alternate, SCC, multiply the factor in this table by
1,000.
e References 12,14,17. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
f References 12,14,21. Includes NOx measurements before and after control devices that are
not expected to provide control of NOx emissions.
g References 12-16,20. Includes C02 measurements before and after control devices that are
not expected to provide control of C02 emissions.
" See footnote "d" above for alternate SCC.
J References 13-14.
k Venturi scrubbers may achieve between 0 and 95% control of S02 emissions. The use of a
neutralizing agent in the scrubber water increases the SO^ control efficiency.
m Venturi scrubber followed by tray scrubber using a NaOH solution as the scrubbing liquid.
See footnote "d" above for alternate SCC.
n Reference 21.
11/95
Coal Cleaning
11.10-5
-------
References For Section 11.10
1. Background Information For Establishment Of National Standards Of Performance For New
Sources: Coal Cleaning Industry, EPA Contract No. CPA-70-142, Environmental
Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, July 1971.
2. Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Contract No. CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research Inc.,
Reston, VA, April 1970.
3. Stack Test Results On Thermal Coal Dryers (Unpublished), Bureau Of Air Pollution Control,
Pennsylvania Department Of Health, Harrisburg, PA.
4. "Amherst's Answer To Air Pollution Laws", Coal Mining And Processing, 7(2):26-29,
February 1970.
5. D. W. Jones, "Dust Collection At Moss No. 3", Mining Congress Journal, J5(7):53-56,
July 1969.
6. E. Northcott, "Dust Abatement At Bird Coal", Mining Congress Journal, 53:26-29,
November 1967.
7. Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants, Volume 2:
Test Data Summary, EPA-450/2-74-021b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.
8. Estimating Air Toxic Emissions From Coal And Oil Combustion Sources, EPA-450/2-89-001,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1989.
9. Second Review Of New Source Performance Standards For Coal Preparation Plants,
EPA-450/3-88-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 1988.
10. Estimating Air Toxic Emissions From Coal and Oil Combustion Sources, EPA-450/2-89-001,
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1989.
11. Emission Testing Report: Bureau Of Mines, Grand Forks, North Dakota, EMB
Report 73-CCL-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
April 1973.
12. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Consolidation Coal Company, Bishop, West Virginia,
EMB Report 72-CCL-19A, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, February 1972.
13. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Westmoreland Coal Company, Wentz Plant, EMB
Report 72-CCL-22, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
April 1972.
14. Emission Test Report, U.S. Steel #50, Pineville, West Virginia, EMB Report 73-CCL-l, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1972.
11.10-6
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
15. Emission Test Report, Westmoreland Coal Company, Quinwood, West Virginia, EMB
Report 75-CCL-7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
May 1976.
16. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests: Consolidation Coal Company, Bishop, West Virginia,
EMB Report 73-CCL-19, U. S, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, November 1972.
17. Report By York Research Corporation On Emissions From The Island Creek Coal Company
Coal Processing Plant, Vansant, Virginia, EMB Report 72-CCL-6, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1972.
18. Report By York Research Corporation On Emissions From The Florence Mining Company
Coal Processing Plant, Seward, Pennsylvania, EMB Report 72-CCL-4, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1972.
19. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests: Eastern Associates Coal Company, Keystone, West
Virginia, EMB Report 72-CCL-13, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, February 1972.
20. Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests: Island Creek Coal Company, Vansant, Virginia,
EMB Report 73-CCL-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, September 1972.
21. Report On Compliance Testing, Performed For Peabody Coal Company, Hawthorne Mine,
Carlisle, Indiana, Clean Air Engineering, Palatine, IL, May 6, 1993.
11/95
Coal Cleaning
11.10-7
-------
11,14 Frit Manufacturing
11.14-1 Process Description1"6
Frit is a homogeneous melted mixture of inorganic materials that is used in enameling iron
and steel and in glazing porcelain and pottery. Frit renders soluble and hazardous compounds inert
by combining them with silica and other oxides. Frit also is used in bonding grinding wheels, to
lower vitrification temperatures, and as a lubricant in steel casting and metal extrusion. The six digit
Source Classification Code (SCC) for frit manufacturing is 3-05-013.
Frit is prepared by fusing a variety of minerals in a furnace and then rapidly quenching the
molten material. The constituents of the feed material depend on whether the frit is to be used as a
ground coat or as a cover coat. For cover coats, the primary constituents of the raw material charge
include silica, fluorspar, soda ash, borax, feldspar, zircon, aluminum oxide, lithium carbonate,
magnesium carbonate, and titanium oxide. The constituents of the charge for a ground coat include
the same compounds plus smaller amounts of metal oxides such as cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, copper
oxide, and manganese oxide.
To begin the process, raw materials are shipped to the manufacturing facility by truck or rail
and are stored in bins. Next, the raw materials are carefully weighed in the correct proportions. The
raw batch then is dry mixed and transferred to a hopper prior to being fed into the smelting furnace.
Although pot furnaces, hearth furnaces, and rotary fiirnaces have been used to produce frit in batch
operations, most frit is now produced in continuous smelting furnaces. Depending on the application,
frit smelting furnaces operate at temperatures of 930° to 1480°C (1700° to 2700°F). If a continuous
furnace is used, the mixed charge is fed by screw conveyor directly into the furnace. Continuous
furnaces operate at temperatures of 1090° to 1430°C (2000° to 2600°F). When smelting is
complete, the molten material is passed between water-cooled metal rollers that limit the thickness of
the material, and then it is quenched with a water spray that shatters the material into small glass
particles called frit.
After quenching, the frit is milled by either wet or dry grinding. If the latter, the frit is dried
before grinding. Frit produced in continuous furnaces generally can be ground without drying, and it
is sometimes packaged for shipping without further processing. Wet milling of frit is no longer
common. However, if the frit is wet-milled, it can be charged directly to the grinding mill without
drying. Rotary dryers are the devices most commonly used for drying frit. Drying tables and
stationary dryers also have been used. After drying, magnetic separation may be used to remove
iron-bearing material. The frit is finely ground in a ball mill, into which clays and other electrolytes
may be added, and then the product is screened and stored. The frit product then is transported to
on-site ceramic manufacturing processes or is prepared for shipping. In recent years, the electrostatic
deposition spray method has become the preferred method of applying frit glaze to surfaces. Frit that
is to be applied in that manner is mixed during the grinding step with an organic silicon encapsulating
agent, rather than with clay and electrolytes. Figure 11.14-1 presents a process flow diagram for frit
manufacturing.
11/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.14-1
-------
CLAYS, OTHER
ELECTROLYTES
RAW MATERIALS
STORAGE
WEIGHING
(SCC 3-05-013-02)
MIXING
(SCC 3-05-013-03)
CO
k
CO
k
| CD PM EMISSIONS
(2) GASEOUS EMISSIONS
FURNACE
CHARGING
(SCC 3-05-013-04)
T "
SMELTING FURNACE
(SCC 3-05-014-05,-06)
QUENCHING
(SCC 3-05-013-10)
CO
k
CO®
k k
(l J(2)
k k
' .0 ^
DRYING
(SCC 3-05-013-11)
WET
MILLING
(GRINDING)
DRY MILLING
(GRINDING)
(SCC 3-05-013-15)
CLAY AND OTHER
. ELECTROLYTES OR
ENCAPSULATING
AGENT
(0
SCREENING
(SCC 3-05-013-16)
PACKAGING
SHIPPING
TO CERAMIC
MANUFACTURING
PROCESS
Figure 11.14-1. Process flow diagram for frit manufacturing.
(Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
11.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
11.14-2 Emissions And Controls1,7*10
Significant emissions of particulate matter (PM) and PM less than 10 micrometers (PM-10)
are created by the frit smelting operation in the form of dust and fumes. These emissions consist
primarily of condensed metallic oxide fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge. The
emissions also contain mineral dust and sometimes hydrogen fluoride. Emissions from furnaces also
include products of combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), and nitrogen
oxides (NOx). Sulfur oxides (SOx) also may be emitted, but they generally are absorbed by the
molten material to form an immiscible sulphate that is eliminated in the quenching operation.
Particulate matter also is emitted from drying, grinding, and materials handling and transfer
operations.
Emissions from the furnace can be minimized by careful control of the rate and duration of
raw material heating, to prevent volatilization of the more fusible charge materials. Emissions from
rotary furnaces also can be reduced with careful control of the rotation speed, to prevent excessive
dust carryover. Venturi scrubbers and fabric filters are the devices most commonly used to control
emissions from frit smelting furnaces, and fabric filters are commonly used to control emissions from
grinding operations. No information is available on the type of emission controls used on quenching,
drying, and materials handling and transfer operations.
Tables 11.14-1 (metric units) and 11.14-2 (English units) present emission factors for
filterable PM, CO, NOx, and C02, emissions from frit manufacturing. Table 11.14-3 (metric and
English units) presents emission factors for other pollutant emissions from frit manufacturing.
Table 11.14-1 (Metric Units).
EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Filterable PMb
CO
NOx
C02
Smelting furnace
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
8.1c
2.4°
49d
l,100e
Smelting furnace with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
0^
g
g
g
Smelting furnace with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
0.061h
g
B
i
* Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factor units are kg/Mg of feed
material. ND = no data. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
sampling train.
c Reference 1.
d Reference 10. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
e References 7-10.
f References 7-9. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
8 See factor for uncontrolled emissions.
h Reference 10.
11/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.14-3
-------
Table 11.14-2 (English Units).
EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT MANUFACTURING2
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Filterable PMb
CO
O
X
CN
O
u
Smelting furnace
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
16c
4.8°
99
2,100®
Smelting furnace with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
1.8d
g
g
g
Smelting furnace with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
0.12h
g
g
g
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. Emission factor units are
lb/ton of feed material. ND = no data. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
sampling train.
c Reference 1.
d Reference 10. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
e References 7-10.
f References 7-9. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
s See factor for uncontrolled emissions.
h Reference 10.
Table 11.14-3 (Metric And English Units).
EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT MANUFACTURING-ORGANIC POLLUTANTS2
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Emission factor,

Pollutant
kg/Mg
lb/ton
Smelting furnace with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-013-05,-06)
fluorides
barium
2.6
8.4 x 10"5
5.2
0.00017

chromium
4.2 x 10"5
8.3 x lO"5

cobalt
1.3 x 10"5
2.5 x 10"5

copper
5.6 x 10"5
0.00011

lead
2.9 x 10"5
5.7 x 10"5

manganese
4.3 x 10"5
8.5 x lO"5

nickel
5.0 x 10"5
0.00010

zinc
0.00038
0.00075
a Reference 10. Factor units are kg/Mg and lb/ton of material feed.
SCC = Source Classification Code.
11.14-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
References For Section 11.14
1. J. L. Spinks, "Frit Smelters", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Danielson, J. A. (ed.), PHS
Publication Number 999-AP-40, U. S. Department Of Health, Education, And Welfare,
Cincinnati, OH, 1967.
2. "Materials Handbook", Ceramic Industry, Troy, MI, January 1994.
3. Andrew I. Andrews, Enamels: The Preparation, Application, And Properties Of Vitreous
Enamels, Twin City Printing Company, Champaign, IL, 1935.
4. Written communication from David Ousley, Alabama Department Of Environmental
Management, Montgomery, AL, to Richard Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC,
April 1, 1993.
5. Written communication from Bruce Larson, Chi-Vit Corporation, Urbana, OH, to David Ousley,
Alabama Department Of Environment Management, Montgomery, AL, October 10, 1994.
6. Written communication from John Jozefowski, Miles Industrial Chemicals Division, Baltimore,
MD, to Ronald E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
September 22, 1994.
7. Particulate Emissions Test Results, No. 2 North Stack, Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg, Alabama,
ATC, Inc., Auburn, AL, May 1987.
8. No. 1 South Stack Particulate Test Report, Chi-Vit Corporation, Leesburg, Alabama, April 1989,
ATC, Inc., Auburn, AL, May 1989.
9. Frit Unit No. 2, Scrubber No. 2, Particulate Emission Test Report, Chi-Vit Corporation,
Leesburg, Alabama, April 1991, ATC, Inc., Auburn, AL, April 1991.
10. Diagnostic Test, Dry Gas Cleaning Exhauster Stack, Miles, Inc., International Technology
Corporation, Monroeviile, PA, February 1994.
11/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.14-5
-------
11.19.1 Sand And Gravel Processing
11.19.1.1 Process Description1"6
Deposits of sand and gravel, the unconsolidated granular materials resulting from the natural
disintegration of rock or stone, are generally found in near-surface alluvial deposits and in
subterranean and subaqueous beds. Sand and gravel are siliceous and calcareous products of the
weathering of rocks and unconsolidated or poorly consolidated materials. Such deposits are common
throughout the country. The six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for construction sand and
gravel processing is 3-05-025, and the six-digit SCC for industrial sand and gravel is 3-05-027.
Construction Sand And Gravel -
Sand and gravel typically are mined in a moist or wet condition by open pit excavation or by
dredging. Open pit excavation is carried out with power shovels, draglines, front end loaders, and
bucket wheel excavators. In rare situations, light charge blasting is done to loosen the deposit.
Mining by dredging involves mounting the equipment on boats or barges and removing the sand and
gravel from the bottom of the body of water by suction or bucket-type dredges. After mining, the
materials are transported to the processing plant by suction pump, earth mover, barge, truck, belt
conveyors, or other means.
Although significant amounts of sand and gravel are used for fill, bedding, subbase, and
basecourse without processing, most domestic sand and gravel are processed prior to use. The
processing of sand and gravel for a specific market involves the use of different combinations of
washers, screens, and classifiers to segregate particle sizes; crushers to reduce oversized material; and
storage and loading facilities. A process flow diagram for construction sand and gravel processing is
presented in Figure 11.19.1-1. The following paragraphs describe the process in more detail.
After being transported to the processing plant, the wet sand and gravel raw feed is stockpiled
or emptied directly into a hopper, which typically is covered with a "grizzly" of parallel bars to
screen out large cobbles and boulders. From the hopper, the material is transported to fixed or
vibrating scalping screens by gravity, belt conveyors, hydraulic pump, or bucket elevators. The
scalping screens separate the oversize material from the smaller, marketable sizes. Oversize material
may be used for erosion control, reclamation, or other uses, or it may be directed to a crusher for
size reduction, to produce crashed aggregate, or to produce manufactured sands. Crushing generally
is carried out in one or two stages, although three-stage crushing may also be performed. Following
crushing, the material is returned to the screening operation for sizing.
The material that passes through the scalping screen is fed into a battery of sizing screens,
which generally consists of either horizontal or sloped, and either single or multideck, vibrating
screens. Rotating trommel screens with water sprays are also used to process and wash wet sand and
gravel. Screening separates the sand and gravel into different size ranges. Water is sprayed onto the
material throughout the screening process. After screening, the sized gravel is transported to
stockpiles, storage bins, or, in some cases, to crushers by belt conveyors, bucket elevators, or screw
conveyors.
The sand is freed from clay and organic impurities by log washers or rotary scrubbers. After
scrubbing, the sand typically is sized by water classification. Wet and dry screening is rarely used to
size the sand. After classification, the sand is dewatered using screws, separatory cones, or
11/95
Sand And Gravel Processing
11.19.1-1
-------
I
oversize
Crushing
(3-05-025-10)
l
underslze
gravel
i
water spray
sand
Fine Screening
(3-05-025-23)
Rodmilling
(3-05-025-22)
; Fine Screening
"i (3-05-025-23)
Mining
Scalping Screening
(3-05-025-11)
Wet
Classifying
Sizing Screening
Product Storage
Raw Material
Storage
(3-05-025-07)
Washing/scrubbing
Product Storage
Raw Material
Transport
(3-05-025-04)
Dewatering
i Optional process
PM emissions
Figure 11.19.1-1. Process flow diagram for construction sand and gravel processing.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11,19.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
hydroseparators. Material may also be rodmilled to produce smaller sized fractions, although this
practice is not common in the industry. After processing, the sand is transported to storage bins or
stockpiles by belt conveyors, bucket elevators, or screw conveyors.
Industrial Sand And Gravel -
Industrial sand and gravel typically are mined from open pits of naturally occurring quartz-
rich sand and sandstone. Mining methods depend primarily on the degree of cementation of the rock.
In some deposits, blasting is required to loosen the material prior to processing. The material may
undergo primary crushing at the mine site before being transported to the processing plant.
Figure 11.19.1-2 is a flow diagram for industrial sand and gravel processing.
The mined rock is transported to the processing site and stockpiled. The material then is
crushed. Depending on the degree of cementation, several stages of crushing may be required to
achieve the desired size reduction. Gyratory crushers, jaw crushers, roll crushers, and impact mills
are used for primary and secondary crushing. After crushing, the size of the material is further
reduced to 50 micrometers (jim) or smaller by grinding, using smooth rolls, media mills, autogenous
mills, hammer mills, or jet mills. The ground material then is classified by wet screening, dry
screening, or air classification. At some plants, after initial crushing and screening, a portion of the
sand may be diverted to construction sand use.
After initial crushing and screening, industrial sand and gravel are washed to remove
unwanted dust and debris and are then screened and classified again. The sand (now containing 25 to
30 percent moisture) or gravel then goes to an attrition scrubbing system that removes surface stains
from the material by rubbing in an agitated, high-density pulp. The scrubbed sand or gravel is
diluted with water to 25 to 30 percent solids and is pumped to a set of cyclones for further desliming.
If the deslimed sand or gravel contains mica, feldspar, and iron bearing minerals, it enters a froth
flotation process to which sodium silicate and sulfuric acid are added. The mixture then enters a
series of spiral classifiers where the impurities are floated in a froth and diverted to waste. The
purified sand, which has a moisture content of 15 to 25 percent, is conveyed to drainage bins where
the moisture content is reduced to about 6 percent. The material is then dried in rotary or fluidized
bed dryers to a moisture content of less than 0.5 percent. The dryers generally are fired with natural
gas or oil, although other fuels such as propane or diesel also may be used. After drying, the
material is cooled and then undergoes final screening and classification prior to being stored and
packaged for shipment.
11.19.1.2 Emissions And Controls6'14
Emissions from the production of sand and gravel consist primarily of particulate matter (PM)
and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM-10) in aerodynamic diameter, which are emitted
by many operations at sand and gravel processing plants, such as conveying, screening, crushing, and
storing operations. Generally, these materials are wet or moist when handled, and process emissions
are often negligible. A substantial portion of these emissions may consist of heavy particles that settle
out within the plant. Other potentially significant sources of PM and PM-10 emissions are haul
roads. Emissions from dryers include PM and PM-10, as well as typical combustion products
including CO, C02, and NOx. In addition, dryers may be sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) or sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions, depending on the type of fuel used to fire the dryer.
With the exception of drying, emissions from sand and gravel operations primarily are in the
form of fugitive dust, and control techniques applicable to fugitive dust sources are appropriate.
Some successful control techniques used for haul roads are dust suppressant application, paving, route
11/95
Sand And Gravel Processing
11.19.1-3
-------
©
For use as construction
sand and gravet
Washing, wet classifying,
scrubbing, and desliming
i | Draining
-j (34)6-027-17)
©00
Mining
Raw Material
Storage
Drying
(3-05-027-20, -21,
-22, -23, -24)
Cooling
(3-05-027-30)
Final Classifying
(3-05-027-40)
Grinding
(3-05-027-09)
Wet Processing
Ground Material
Storage
Product Storage
(3-05-027-50)
Raw Material
Transport
Emission point
(T) PM emissions
(2) Combustion product emissions
Organic emissions
Figure 11.19.1-2. Process flow diagram for industrial sand and gravel processing.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.19.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
modifications, and soil stabilization; for conveyors, covering and wet suppression; for storage piles,
wet suppression, windbreaks, enclosure, and soil stabilizers; for conveyor and batch transfer points,
wet suppression and various methods to reduce freefall distances (e. g., telescopic chutes, stone
ladders, and hinged boom stacker conveyors); and for screening and other size classification, covering
and wet suppression.
Wet suppression techniques include application of water, chemicals and/or foam, usually at
crusher or conveyor feed and/or discharge points. Such spray systems at transfer points and on
material handling operations have been estimated to reduce emissions 70 to 95 percent. Spray
systems can also reduce loading and wind erosion emissions from storage piles of various materials 80
to 90 percent. Control efficiencies depend upon local climatic conditions, source properties and
duration of control effectiveness. Wet suppression has a carryover effect downstream of the point of
application of water or other wetting agents, as long as the surface moisture content is high enough to
cause the fines to adhere to the larger rock particles.
In addition to fugitive dust control techniques, some facilities use add-on control devices to
reduce emissions of PM and PM-10 from sand and gravel processing operations. Controls in use
include cyclones, wet scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, and fabric filters. These types of controls are
rarely used at construction sand and gravel plants, but are more common at industrial sand and gravel
processing facilities.
Emission factors for criteria pollutant emissions from industrial sand and gravel processing
are presented in Table 11.19.1-1 (metric and English units), and emission factors for organic pollutant
emissions from industrial sand and gravel processing are presented in Table 11.19.1-2 (metric and
English units). Although no emission factors are presented for construction sand and gravel
processing, emission factors for the crushing, screening, and handling and transfer operations
associated with stone crushing can be found in Section 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing." In the
absence of other data, the emission factors presented in Section 11.19.2 can be used to estimate
emissions from corresponding sand and gravel processing sources. The background report for this
AP-42 section also presents factors for the combined emissions of total suspended particulate from
construction gravel storage pile wind erosion, material handling, and vehicle traffic. However,
because the applicability of those emission factors to other storage piles is questionable, they are not
presented here. To estimate emissions from fugitive sources, refer to AP-42 Chapter 13,
"Miscellaneous Sources". The emission factors for industrial sand storage and screening presented in
Table 11.19.1-1 are not recommended as surrogates for construction sand and gravel processing,
because they are based on emissions from dried sand and may result in overestimates of emissions
from those sources. Construction sand and gravel are processed at much higher moisture contents.
11/95
Sand And Gravel Processing
11.19.1-5
-------
Table 11.19.1-1 (Metric And English Units).
EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Total PM
NOx
O
O
Source
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton
kg/Mg
lb/ton
Sand dryer
(SCC 3-05-027-20)
0.98b,c
2.0M
0.016d
0.031d
14e
27e
Sand dryer with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-027-20)
0.019b,f
0.039b,f
1
1
g
s
Sand dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-027-20)
0.0053b,h
0.010b»h
s
8
g
8
Sand handling, transfer, and storage
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-027-60)
0.00064»
0.0013J
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sand screening with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-027-13)
0.0042k
0.0083k
ND
ND
ND
ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Dryer emission factors in units of kg/Mg
and lb/ton of dried material produced; other factors in units of kg/Mg and lb/ton of material stored
or screened. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Factors are for filterable PM only. Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of
an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train. Condensible organic and inorganic PM emission
factors are not available. Factors presented can be considered a conservative underestimate of total
PM.
c Reference 12. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
d Reference 10.
6 References 10,13.
f References 5,13. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
g Control device has no effect on emissions. See factor for uncontrolled emissions.
h References 7,11.
J Reference 9. For dried sand.
k Reference 14. Screening of dried sand.
11.19.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
Table 11.19.1-2 (Metric And English Units).
EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING-
ORGANIC POLLUTANTS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Pollutant
Emission factor
CASRNb
Name
kg/Mg
lb/ton
Diesel-fired rotary sand

dryer with fabric filter
50-00-0
Formaldehyde
0.0021
0.0043
(SCC 3-05-027-22)
206-44-0
Fluoranthene
3.0 x 10"6
6.0 x 10-*

91-20-3
Naphthalene
2.9 x 10"5
5.9 x 10"5

85-01-8
Phenanthrene
7.5 x 10"6
1.5 x 10"5
a Reference B. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Dryer emission factors in
units of kg/Mg and lb/ton of material dried. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number.
References For Section 11.19.1
1. Air Pollution Control Techniques For Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-450/3-82-014,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1982.
2. S. Walker, "Production Of Sand And Gravel", Circular Number 57, National Sand And
Gravel Association, Washington, DC, 1954.
3. "Construction Sand And Gravel", U. S. Minerals Yearbook 1989, Volume I: Metals And
Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC.
4. "Industrial Sand And Gravel", U. S. Minerals Yearbook 1989, Volume I: Metals And
Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC.
5. Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, October 1985.
6. Written communication from R. Morris, National Aggregates Association, Silver Spring,
MD, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
December 30, 1994.
7. Stack Test Report For Redi-Crete Corporation, Trace Technologies, Inc. Bridgewater, NJ,
December 19, 1988.
8. P. W. Gillebrand Company, Toxic Emissions Testing, Specialty Sand Dryer, BTC
Environmental, Inc., Ventura, CA, November 8, 1991,
11/95
Sand And Gravel Processing
11.19.1-7
-------
9. U. S. Silica Company, Newport, New Jersey, Emission Compliance Test Program, AirNova,
Inc., Collingswood, NJ, April 1990.
10. The Morie Company, Inc., Mauricetown Plant, Emission Compliance Test Program, AirNova,
Inc., Collingswood, NJ, November 1989.
11. Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Number Two Sand Dryer, Jesse S. Morie & Son,
Inc., Mauricetown, New Jersey, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, August 1987.
12. Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Sand Dryer System, New Jersey Pulverizing
Company, Bayville, New Jersey, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, January 1988.
13. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Richard Ricci Company, Port Norris, NJ, Recon
Systems, Inc., Three Bridges, NJ, July 31, 1987.
14. Report To Badger Mining Corporation, Fairwater, Wisconsin, For Stack Emission Test,
Particulate Matter, Sand Rescreening System, St. Marie Plant, April 7, 1987, Environmental
Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June 17, 1987.
11.19.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
11.22 Diatomite Processing
11.22.1 Process Description1 "2
Diatomite is a chalky, sedimentary rock consisting mainly of an accumulation of skeletons
remaining from prehistoric diatoms, which are single-celled, microscopic aquatic plants. The
skeletons are essentially amorphous hydrated or opaline silica occasionally with some alumina.
Diatomite is primarily used to filter food processing products such as beer, whiskey, and fruit juice,
and to filter organic liquids such as solvents and oils. Diatomite also is often used as a filler in paint,
paper, asphalt products, and plastic. The six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for diatomite
processing is 3-05-026.
Most diatomite deposits are found at or near the earth's surface and can be mined by open pit
methods or quarrying. Diatomite mining in the United States is all open pit, normally using some
combination of bulldozers, scraper-carriers, power shovels, and trucks to remove overburden and the
crude material. In most cases, fragmentation by drilling and blasting is not necessary. The crude
diatomite is loaded on trucks and transported to the mill or to stockpiles. Figure 11.22-1 shows a
typical process flow diagram for diatomite processing.
The processing of uncalcined or natural-grade diatomite consists of crushing and drying.
Crude diatomite commonly contains as much as 40 percent moisture, in many cases over 60 percent.
Primary crushing to aggregate size (normally done by a hammermill) is followed by simultaneous
milling-drying, in which suspended particles of diatomite are carried in a stream of hot gases. Flash
and rotary dryers are used to dry the material to a powder of approximately 15 percent moisture.
Typical flash dryer operating temperatures range from 70° to 430°C (150° to 800°F). The
suspended particles exiting the dryer pass through a series of fans, cyclones, and separators to a
baghouse. These sequential operations separate the powder into various sizes, remove waste
impurities, and expel the absorbed water. These natural-milled diatomite products are then bagged or
handled in bulk without additional processing.
For filtration uses, natural grade diatomite is calcined by heat treatment in gas- or fuel oil-
fired rotary calciners, with or without a fluxing agent. Typical calciner operating temperatures range
from 650° to 1200°C (1200° to 2200°F). For straight-calcined grades, the powder is heated in large
rotary calciners to the point of incipient fusion, and thus, in the strict technical sense, the process is
one of sintering rather than calcining. The material exiting the kiln then is further milled and
classified. Straight calcining is used for adjusting the particle size distribution for use as a medium
flow rate filter aid. The product of straight calcining has a pink color from the oxidation of iron in
the raw material, which is more intense with increasing iron oxide content.
Further particle size adjustment is brought about by the addition of a flux, usually soda ash,
before the calcining step. Added fluxing agent sinters the diatomite particles and increases the
particle size, thereby allowing increased flow rate during liquid filtration. The resulting products are
called "flux-calcined". Flux-calcining produces a white product, believed to be colored by the
11/95
Diatomite Processing
11.22-1
-------
MINING
MILLING/DRYING
CLASSIFICATION
FINAL PRODUCT SHIPPING
MILLING
NATURAL MILLED PRODUCTS
CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY CRUSHING
©
—~©
•©
11.22-2
Figure 11.22-1. Typical process flow diagram for diatomite processing.
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
conversion of iron to complex sodium-aluminum-iron silicates rather than to the oxide. Further
milling and classifying follow calcining.
11.22.2 Emissions And Controls1"2
The primary pollutant of concern in diatomite processing is particulate matter (PM) and PM
less than 10 micrometers (PM-10). Particulate matter is emitted from crushing, drying, calcining,
classifying, and materials handling and transfer operations. Emissions from dryers and calciners
include products of combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides (SOx), in addition to filterable and condensible PM. Table 11.22-1
summarizes the results of a trace element analysis for one type of finished diatomite. These elements
may constitute a portion of the PM emitted by the sources listed above.
Wet scrubbers and fabric filters are the most commonly used devices to control emissions
from diatomite dryers and calciners. No information is available on the type of emission controls'
used on crushing, classifying, and materials handling and transfer operations.
Because of a lack of available data, no emission factors for diatomite processing are
presented.
11/95
Diatomite Processing
11.22-3
-------
TABLE 11.22-1. TRACE ELEMENT CONTENT OF FINISHED DIATOMITE2
Element8
ppmb
Element
ppm
Antimony*
2
Mercury*
0.3
Arsenic*
5
Molybdenum
5
Barium
30
Neodymium
20
Beryllium*
1
Nickel*
120
Bismuth
<0.5
Niobium
5
Boron
100
Osmium
<0.5
Bromine
20
Palladium
<1
Cadmium*
2
Platinum
<2
Cerium
10
Praseodymium
2
Cesium
5
Rhenium
<0.5
Chlorine
400
Rhodium
<0.5
Chromium*
100
Rubidium
10
Cobalt*
5
Ruthenium
<1
Copper
40
Samarium
2
Dysprosium
< 1
Scandium
20
Erbium
<0.5
Selenium*
10
Europium
1
Silver
<0.5
Fluorine
50
Strontium
20
Gadolinium
<1
Tantalum
20
Gallium
5
Tellurium
<2
-Germanium
<10
Terbium
<0.2
Gold
<0.5
Thallium
<0.5
Hafnium
<0.5
Thorium
5
Holmium
<0.2
Thulium
0.2
Indium
<0.5
Tin
< 1
Iodine
1
Tungsten
<0.5
Iridium
<0.5
Uranium
5
Lanthanum
10
Vanadium
200
Lead*
2
Ytterbium
<0.5
Lithium
1
Yttrium
100
Lutetium
<0.2
Zinc
<10
Manganese*
60
Zirconium
20
a Listed hazardous air pollutants indicated by an asterisk (*).
b < indicates below detection limit.
11.22-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
References For Section 11.22
1. Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-025a, U. S, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, October 1985.
2. F. L. Kadey, "Diatomite", Industrial Rocks And Minerals, Volume /, Society Of Mining
Engineers, New York, 1983.
11/95
Diatomite Processing
11.22-5
-------
11,26 Talc Processing
11.26.1 Process Description1"9
Talc, which is a soft, hydrous magnesium silicate (3Mg0-4Si02'H20), is used in a wide range
of industries including the manufacture of ceramics, paints, paper, and asphalt roofing. The end-uses
for talc are determined by variables such as chemical and mineralogical composition, particle size and
shape, specific gravity, hardness, and color. There is no Source Classification Code (SCC) for the
source category.
Over 95 percent of the talc ore produced in the United States comes from open-pit mines.
Mining operations usually consist of conventional drilling and blasting methods.
Figure 11.26-1 is a process flow diagram for a typical domestic talc plant. Talc ore generally
is hauled to the plant by truck from a nearby mine. The ore is crushed, typically in a jaw crusher,
and screened. The coarse (oversize) material then is returned to the crusher. Rotary dryers may be
used to dry the material. Secondary grinding is achieved with pebble mills or roller mills, producing
a product that is 44 to 149 micrometers (/xm) (325 to 100 mesh) in size. Some roller mills are
designed to use heated air to dry the material as it is being ground. Hammer mills or steam- or
compressed air-powered jet mills may be used to produce additional final products. Air classifiers
(separators), generally in closed circuit with the mills, separate the material into coarse, coarse-plus-
fine, and fine fractions. The coarse and coarse-plus-fine fractions then are stored as products. The
fines may be concentrated using a shaking table (tabling process) to separate product containing small
quantities of nickel, iron, cobalt, or other minerals and then may undergo a one-step flotation process.
The resultant talc slurry is dewatered and filtered prior to passing through a flash dryer. The
flash-dried product is then stored for shipment, unless it needs further grinding to meet customer
specifications. The classified material also may be pelletized prior to packaging for specific
applications. In the pelletizing step, processed talc is mixed with water to form a paste and then is
extruded as pellets.
Talc deposits mined in the southwestern United States contain organic impurities and must be
calcined prior to additional processing to yield a product with uniform chemical and physical
properties. Generally, a separate product will be used to produce the calcined talc. Prior to
calcining, the mined ore passes through a crusher and is ground to a specified screen size. After
calcining in a rotary kiln, the material passes through a rotary cooler. The cooled calcine (0 percent
free water) is then either stored for shipment or further processed. Calcined talc may be mixed with
dried talc from other product lines and passed through a roller mill prior to bulk shipping.
11.26.2 Emissions And Controls1"2,4"5'7"8,1043
The primary pollutants of concern in talc processing are particulate matter (PM) and PM less
than 10 fim (PM-10). Particulate matter is emitted from drilling, blasting, crushing, screening,
grinding, drying, calcining, classifying, materials handling and transfer operations, packaging, and
storage. Although pelletizing is a wet process, PM may be emitted from the transfer and feeding of
processed talc to the pelletizer. Depending on the purity of the talc ore body, PM emissions may
include trace amounts of several inorganic compounds that are listed hazardous air pollutants (HAP),
including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and phosphorus.
11/95
Mineral Products
11.26-1
-------
Process flow
pm EMISSIONS
GASEOUS EMISSIONS
©
*

TALC MINE
PRODUCTION

CRUDE ORE DRYER
(3-06-089-09, -10)

CONVEYOR
(3-0S489-08)

u©

~
CRUSHED TALC RAIL
LOADOUT
(3-05-089-12)

PRIMARY CRUSHER

(3-05-089-11)

I
©
i
I

CRUSHED TALC
STORAGE BIN
LOADING
(3-05-089-14)

SCREEN
(3-05-089-17)

OVERSIZE ORE
o®
t_L
o®
ROTARY CALCINER
(3-0S-069-31.-33)
0®r
tJ_
UNDERS1ZE ORE
\
ROTARY DRYER
(3-05-089-21,-23)
0
~
o©
t ~
I I
I l_
ROTARY COOLER
(3-06-089-41)
GRINDING
GRINDING WITH HEATED
MAKEUP AIR
(3-0S483-47)
o©
1 ~
GROUND TALC STORAGI•
BIN LOADING
(3O508&49)
AIR CLASSIFIERS
(3-06-089-50)
PELLET1ZER
(3-06-089-53)
COARSE
PELLET DRYER
(3-05-089-55)
J
t
CLASSIF1EI
FINES
"1
PNEUMATIC COARSE AND FINES
CONVEYOR VENTING
(346089-58)
r
TABUNG PROCESS
(3-05-089-81)
©
i
FINAL PRODUCT STORAGE
BIN LOADING
(346-089-85)
©
~
T
PACKAGING
(3-05-069-88)
FLOTATION. DEWATERING,
FILTRATION
Q©
i i
L_ J..
FLASH DRYER
(3-05-069-71 ,-73)
CUSTOM GRINDING
(3-06-089-82)
~
Figure 11.26-1. Process flow diagram for talc processing.1,4,6
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.26-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
The emissions from dryers and calciners include products of combustion, such as carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, in addition to filterable and
condensible PM. Volatile organic compounds also are emitted from the drying and calcining of
southwestern United States talc deposits, which generally contain organic impurities. Products of
combustion and VOC may also be emitted from roller mills that use heated air and from the furnaces
that provide the heated air to the mill.
Emissions from talc dryers and calciners are typically controlled with fabric filters. Fabric
filters also are used at some facilities to control emissions from mechanical processes such as crushing
and grinding. Emission factors for emissions from talc processing are presented in Table 11.26-1.
Particle size distributions for talc processing are summarized in Table 11.26-2 and are depicted
graphically in Figure 11.26-2.
11/95
Mineral Products
11.26-3
-------
Table 11.26-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TALC PROCESSING*
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Total PMb
CO,
lb/1,000 lb
lb/1,000 lb
Natural gas-fired crude ore drying with fabric filter®
0.0020
ND
(SCC 3-05-089-09)

Primary crushing, with fabric filterd
0.00074
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-11)

Crushed talc railcar loading*
0.00049
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-12)

Screening, with fabric filter*
0.0043
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-17)

Grinding, with fabric filter8
0.022
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-45)

Grinding with heated makeup air, with fabric filter
0.0228
9.3h
(SCC 3-05-089-47)

Classifying, with fabric filter'
0.00077
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-50)

Pellet drying, with fabric filter11
0.032
ND
(SCC 3-05-089-55)

Pneumatic conveyor venting, with fabric filter"1
0.0018
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-58)

Packaging, with fabric filter"
0.0090
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-88)

Crushed talc storage bin loading, with fabric filter?
0.0036
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-14)

Ground talc storage bin loading, with fabric filterq
0.0016
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-49)

Final product storage bin loading, with fabric filter?
0.0035
NA
(SCC 3-05-089-85)

* Units are lb/1,000 ib of production unless noted. One lb/1,000 lb is equal to 1 kg/Mg.
SCC = Source Classification Code. NA = not applicable. ND = no data.
b Total PM includes the PM collected in the front half and the inorganic PM caught in the back half
(impingers) of a Method 5 sampling train.
c Reference 15. Filterable PM fraction is 60%, and condensible inorganic fraction is 40%.
d References 10,13,15.
e Reference 14.
f References 10,13. For crushed talc ore.
8 References 11,13.
h References 10-11. For roller mill using heated makeup air. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
j Reference 13. For ground talc.
k Reference 13. Filterable PM fraction is 56%, and condensible inorganic fraction is 44%.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
m Reference 13. For final product. Units are lb/1,000 lb of material conveyed.
" Reference 10,13.
p Reference 13. Units are lb/1,000 lb of material loaded into storage bin.
q Reference 12. Units are lb/1,000 lb of material loaded into storage bin.
11.26-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
Table 11.26-2, SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
TALC PROCESSING8

Cumulative Percent Less
Process
Diameter, pm
Than Diameter
Primary crushing
55.4
91.3
(SCC 3-05-089-11)
34.9
78.2

22.0
56.7

17.4
47.2

11.0
38.8

6.9
21.4

3.0
3.0

2.0
0.94

1.0
0.11
Grinding
29.0
100.0
(SCC 3-05-089-45)
18.8
99.7

14.9
99.4

11.9
97.1

9.4
80.8

7.5
43.3

4.7
7.5

3.0
2.1

1.9
0.28

1.0
0.04
Storage, bagging, air classification
43.9
99.9
(SCC 3-05-089-85,-88,-50)
27.7
97.9

17.4
86.6

13.8
73.2

11.0
56.8

6.9
24.5

4.4
7.4

3.0
3.1

2.0
0.92

1.0
0.10
* Reference 5. Optical procedures used to determine particle size distribution, rather than inertial
separators. Data are suspect. SCC = Source Classification Code.
11/95
Mineral Products
11.26-5
-------
0)
¦$
E
2
TJ
V
CD
.>
3
E
Z3
O
100
90-
70-
50'
40"
30"
10
Crushing
Grinding
Packaging and storage
_1—(—|f | t
10
i—i—i i i
100
Particle diameter, pm
Figure 11,26-2. Particle size distribution for talc processing.
References For Section 11.26
1. Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, October 1985.
2. L. A. Roe and R. H. Olson, "Talc", Industrial Rocks And Minerals, Volume I, Society Of
Mining Engineers, NY, 1983.
3. R. L. Virta, The Talc Industry - An Overview, Information Circular 9220, Bureau Of Mines,
U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.
4. Written communication from B. Virta, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
Washington, DC, to R. Myers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, March 28, 1994.
11.26-6
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
5. Emission Study At A Talc Crushing And Grinding Facility, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company,
Johnson, Vermont, October 19-21,1976, Report No. 76-NMM-4, Office Of Air Quality
Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, 1977.
6. Written communication from S. Harms, Montana Talc Company, Three Forks, MT, to
R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
1994.
7. R. A. James and K. Ganesan, Particulate Emissions From Montana Talc Company,
Sapping ton, Montana, December 1986, Whitehall, MT, December 1986.
8. Written communication from J. Parks, Barretts Minerals Incorporated, Dillon, MT, to
R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 23, 1995.
9. Written communication from R. Virta, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
Washington, DC, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, February 13, 1995.
10. Emission Test Report - Plant A, Test No. 1, July 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01,
Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01,
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
11. Emission Test Report - Plant A, Test No. 2, September 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01,
Confidential Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01,
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
12. Initial Compliance Test For Particulate Emissions, Luzerne America, Three Forks Mill,
Montana Air Quality Permit 02282-02, January/February 1995, Bison Engineering, Inc.,
Helena, MT, April 25, 1995.
13. Particulate Emissions Compliance Test, Luzenac America, Sappington Mill, Montana Air
Quality Permit 1996-03, December 1994-March 1995, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT,
March 29, 1995.
14. Compliance Test For Particulate Emissions, Luzenac America, Three Forks Mill, Montana Air
Quality Permit # 2282-02, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT, May 17, 1995.
15. Particulate Emissions And Visible Opacity, Rotary Dryer And Crusher/Loadout, Permit 2282,
Luzenac America, Yellowstone Trail, Three Forks, MT, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT,
February 15 and 16, 1994.
11/95
Mineral Products
11.26-7
-------
11.28 Vermiculite Processing
11.28.1 Process Description1 "9
Vermiculite is the geological name given to a group of hydrated laminar minerals that are
aluminum-iron-magnesium silicates and that resemble mica in appearance. The chemical formula for
vermiculite is (Mg,Ca,K,Fe+2)3(Si,Al,Fe+3)4O10(OH)2#4H2O. When subjected to heat, vermiculite
has the unusual property of exfoliating, or expanding, due to the interlaminar generation of steam.
Uses of unexpanded vermiculite include muds for oil-well drilling and fillers in fire-resistant
wallboard. The six-digit source classification code (SCC) for vermiculite processing is 3-05-033.
Vermiculite ore is mined using open-pit methods. Beneficiation includes screening, flotation,
drying in rotary or fluid bed dryers, and expansion by exposure to high heat. All mined vermiculite
is dried and sized at the mine site prior to exfoliation.
Crude Ore Processing -
Figure 11.28-1 is a process flow diagram for vermiculite processing. Crude ore from open-
pit mines is brought to the mill by truck and is loaded onto outdoor stockpiles. Primary processing
consists of screening the raw material to remove the waste rock greater than 1.6 centimeters (cm)
(5/8 inch [in.]) and returning the raw ore to stockpiles. Blending is accomplished as material is
removed from stockpiles and conveyed to the mill feed bin. The blended ore is fed to the mill, where
it is separated into fractions by wet screening and then concentrated by gravity. All concentrates are
collected, dewatered, and dried in either a fluidized bed or rotary dryer. Drying reduces the moisture
content of the vermiculite concentrate from approximately 15 to 20 percent to approximately 2 to
6 percent. At least one facility uses a hammermill to crush the material exiting the dryer. However,
at most facilities, the dryer products are transported by bucket elevators to vibrating screens, where
the material is classified. The dryer exhaust generally is ducted to a cyclone for recovering the finer
grades of vermiculite concentrate. The classified concentrate then is stored in bins or silos for later
shipment or exfoliation.
The rotary dryer is the more common dryer type used in the industry, although fluidized bed
dryers also are used. Drying temperatures are 120° to 480°C (250° to 900°F), and fuel oil is the
most commonly used fuel. Natural gas and propane also are used to fuel dryers.
Exfoliation -
After being transported to the exfoliation plant, the vermiculite concentrate is stored. The ore
concentrate then is conveyed by bucket elevator or other means and is dropped continuously through a
gas- or oil-fired vertical furnace. Exfoliation occurs after a residence time of less than 8 seconds in
the furnace, and immediate removal of the expanded material from the furnace prevents damage to the
structure of the vermiculite particle. Flame temperatures of more than 540°C (1000°F) are used for
exfoliation. Proper exfoliation requires both a high rate of heat transfer and a rapid generation of
steam within the vermiculite particles. The expanded product falls through the ftirnace and is air
conveyed to a classifier system, which collects the vermiculite product and removes excessive fines.
The furnace exhaust generally is ducted through a product recovery cyclone, followed by an emission
control device. At some facilities, the exfoliated material is ground in a pulverizer prior to being
classified. Finally, the material is packaged and stored for shipment.
11/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.28-1
-------
WET SCREENING,
CONCENTRATING, AND
DEWATERtNG
CONVEYOR TRANSFER
(346-033-41)
MINING
WET
PROCESSING
ORE STORAGE
ORE STORAGE
CONCENTRATE
STORAGE
PROOUCT
STORAGE
ORE BLENDING
(3-06-033-19)
ORETRANSPORT
ORE SCREENING
(3-06-033-12)
PRODUCT
CLASSIFYING
(3-06-033-6C)
CONCENTRATE
CLASSIFYING
(3-06-033-38)
PRODUCT
GRINDING
(3-05-033-61)
CONCENTRATE
CRUSHING
(3-05-033-31)
CONCENTRATE
DRYING
(3-05-033-21,-22,-26,-27)
Figure 11.28-1. Process flow diagram for vermiculite processing.
(Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.28-2
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
11.28.2 Emissions And Controls1,4"11
The primary pollutants of concern in vermiculite processing are particulate matter (PM) and
PM less than 10 micrometers (PM-10). Particulate matter is emitted from screening, drying,
exfoliating, and materials handling and transfer operations. Emissions from dryers and exfoliating
furnaces, in addition to filterable and condensible PM and PM-10, include products of combustion,
such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides
(SOx).
Wet scrubbers are typically used to control dryer emissions. The majority of expansion
furnaces are ducted to fabric filters for emission control. However, wet scrubbers also are used to
control the furnace emissions. Cyclones and fabric filters also are used to control emissions from
screening, milling, and materials handling and transfer operations.
Table 11.28-1 summarizes the emission factors for vermiculite processing.
Table 11.28-1 EMISSION FACTORS FOR VERMICULITE PROCESSING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Filterable
PMb
Condensible
organic PMC
Total PMd
CO,
Process
kg/Mg
kg/Mg
kg/Mg
kg/Mg
Rotary dryer, with wet collector
(SCC 3-05-033-21,-22)
0.29e
ND
ND
50f
Concentrate screening, with cyclone
(SCC 3-05-033-36)
0.30s
NA
0.30s
NA
Concentrate conveyor transfer, with cyclone
(SCC 3-05-033-41)
0.0138
NA
0.013s
NA
Exfoliation - gas-fired vertical furnace, with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-033-51)
0.32h
0.18)
0.50*
ND
Product grinding, with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-033-61)
0.18m
NA
0.18m
NA
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factor units for drying are kg/Mg
of material feed; emission factor units for other processes are kg/Mg of product. 1 kg/Mg is
equivalent to 1 lb/1,000 lb. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data. NA = not
applicable.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
sampling train.
0 Condensible PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train. Condensible
organic PM is the organic fraction of the condensible PM.
d Total PM equals the sum of the filterable PM, condensible organic PM, and condensible
inorganic PM.
c Reference 8. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
f References 8,11. Factor represents uncontrolled emissions of C02.
8 Reference 11. For dried ore concentrate.
h Reference 10.
J Reference 10. Emissions may be largely from volatilization of oil used in ore beneficiation.
k Sum of factors for filterable PM and condensible organic PM; does not include condensible
inorganic PM.
m Reference 9.
11/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.28-3
-------
References For Section 11.28
1. Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, October 1985.
2. P. R. Strand and O. F. Stewart. "Vermiculite", Industrial Rocks And Minerals, Volume I,
Society Of Mining Engineers, New York, 1983.
3. Vermiculite, Its Properties And Uses, The Vermiculite Association, Incorporated, Chicago,
IL.
4. Written communication from Jeffrey A. Danneker, W. R. Grace And Company, Cambridge,
MA, to Ronald E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, August 26, 1994.
5. W. J. Neuffer, Trip Report For The September 30, 1980, Visit To W. R. Grace And
Company, Enoree, South Carolina, ESD Project No. 81/08, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 6, 1981.
6. Site Visit: Virginia Vermiculite Limited, Trevilians, Virginia, memorandum from A. J.
Nelson, Midwest Research Institute, Cary, NC, to W. J. Neuffer, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 8, 1983.
7. Site Visit: W. R. Grace And Company, Irondale, Alabama, memorandum from A. J. Nelson,
Midwest Research Institute, Cary, NC, to W. J. Neuffer, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 29, 1983.
8. Rotary Dryer Particulate Emissions Testing, Performed For Virginia Vermiculite Limited,
Boswell's Tavern, Virginia. RTP Environmental Associates, Research Triangle Park, NC,
November 1979.
9. Particulate Emission Compliance Test On Grinder Baghouse On August 8, 1989 At W. R.
Grace And Company Kearney Exfoliating Plant, Enoree, South Carolina 29335,
Environmental Engineering Division, PSI, Greenville, SC, August 24, 1989.
10. Particulate Emissions Sampling, W. R. Grace And Company, Dallas, TX, April 2-4, 1990,
Turner Engineering, Dallas, TX, April 10, 1990.
11. Particulate Emissions Test Report For W. R. Grace And Company, August 1991, RTP
Environmental Associates, Inc, Greer, SC, August 1991.
11.28-4
EMISSION FACTORS
11/95
-------
13.2.1 Paved Roads
13.2.1.1 General
Particulate emissions occur whenever vehicles travel over a paved surface, such as a road or
parking lot. In general terms, particulate emissions from paved roads originate from the loose
material present on the surface. In turn, that surface loading, as it is moved or removed, is
continuously replenished by other sources. At industrial sites, surface loading is replenished by
spillage of material and trackout from unpaved roads and staging areas. Figure 13.2.1-1 illustrates
several transfer processes occurring on public streets.
Various field studies have found that public streets and highways, as weli as roadways at
industrial facilities, can be major sources of the atmospheric particulate matter within an area.1"9 Of
particular interest in many parts of the United States are the increased levels of emissions from public
paved roads when the equilibrium between deposition and removal processes is upset. This situation
can occur for various reasons, including application of snow and ice controls, carryout from
construction activities in the area, and wind and/or water erosion from surrounding unstabilized areas.
13.2.1.2 Emissions And Correction Parameters
Dust emissions from paved roads have been found to vary with what is termed the "silt
loading" present on the road surface as well as the average weight of vehicles traveling the road. The
term silt loading (sL) refers to the mass of silt-size material (equal to or less than 75 micrometers
[/xm] in physical diameter) per unit area of the travel surface.4"5 The total road surface dust loading
is that of loose material that can be collected by broom sweeping and vacuuming of the traveled
portion of the paved road. The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of the loose
dry surface dust that passes through a 200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method. Silt loading
is the product of the silt fraction and the total loading, and is abbreviated "sL". Additional details on
the sampling and analysis of such material are provided in AP-42 Appendices C.l and C.2.
The surface sL provides a reasonable means of characterizing seasonal variability in a paved
road emission inventory. In many areas of the country, road surface loadings are heaviest during the
late winter and early spring months when the residual loading from snow/ice controls is greatest.
13.2.1.3 Predictive Emission Factor Equations10
The quantity of dust emissions from vehicle traffic on a paved road may be estimated using
the following empirical expression:
0.65 1.5 (1)
E = k (sL/2) (W/3) 1 ;
where:
E = particulate emission factor
k = base emission factor for particle size range and units of interest (see below)
sL = road surface silt loading (grams per square meter) (g/m2)
W = average weight (tons) of the vehicles traveling the road
1/96 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-1
-------
LP
jo
i
K>
tn
§
GO
GO
O
Z
-d
>
o
H
o
so
GO
m
K Removal
Reentrainment
Wind Erosion
Displacement
Rainfall Runoff to Catch Basin
Street Sweeping
o
f Deposition
1) Pavement Wear and Decomposition (jk) Erosion from Adjacent Areas
. 2J Vehicle-related Deposition
„ 3J Dustfall
. 4) Litter
- ^ ' Mud and Dirt Carryout

7) Spills
8) Biological Debris
. 9 J ice Control Compounds
Deposition and removal processes.
-------
It is important to note that Equation 1 calls for the average weight of all vehicles traveling the
road. For example, if 99 percent of traffic on the road are 2 Mg cars/trucks while the remaining
1 percent consists of 20 Mg trucks, then the mean weight "W" is 2.2 Mg. More specifically,
Equation 1 is not intended to be used to calculate a separate emission factor for each vehicle weight
class. Instead, only 1 emission factor should be calculated to represent the "fleet" average weight of
all vehicles traveling the road.
The particle size multiplier (k) above varies with aerodynamic size range as follows:
Particle Size Multipliers For Paved Road Equation
Size Range3
Multiplier kb
g/VKT
g/VMT
lb/VMT
PM-2.5
2.1
3.3
0.0073
PM-10
4.6
7.3
0.016
PM-15
5.5
9.0
0.020
PM-30C
24
38
0.082
a Refers to airborne particulate matter (PM-x) with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than
x micrometers.
b Units shown are grams per vehicle kilometer traveled (g/VKT), grams per vehicle mile traveled
(g/VMT), and pounds per vehicle mile traveled (lb/VMT).
c PM-30 is sometimes termed "suspendable particulate" (SP) and is often used as a surrogate for TSP.
To determine particulate emissions for a specific particle size range, use the appropriate value of
k above.
The above equation is based on a regression analysis of numerous emission tests, including
65 tests for PM-10. Sources tested include public paved roads, as well as controlled and
uncontrolled industrial paved roads. No tests of "stop-and-go" traffic were available for inclusion in
the data base. The equations retain the quality rating of A (B for PM-2.S), if applied within the range
of source conditions that were tested in developing the equation as follows:
Silt loading: 0.02 - 400 g/m2
0,03 - 570 grains/square foot (ft2)
Mean vehicle weight: 1.8 - 38 megagrams (Mg)
2.0 - 42 tons
Mean vehicle speed: 16 - 88 kilometers per hour (kph)
10 - 55 miles per hour (mph)
To retain the quality rating for the emission factor equation when it is applied to a specific
paved road, it is necessary that reliable correction parameter values for the specific road in question
be determined. The field and laboratory procedures for determining surface material silt content and
surface dust loading are summarized in Appendices C.l and C.2. In the event that site-specific values
cannot be obtained, an appropriate value for an industrial road may be selected from the mean values
given in Table 13.2.1-1, but the quality rating of the equation should be reduced by 1 level. Also,
recall that Equation 1 refers to emissions due to freely flowing (not stop-and-go) traffic.
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-3
-------
£ Table 13.2.1-1 (Metric And English Units). TYPICAL SILT CONTENT AND LOADING VALUES FOR PAVED ROADS AT
T INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES"
m
09
C/5
o
z
¦n
>
n
H
O
70
m

No. Of
Sites
No. Of
Samples
Silt Content (%)
No. Of
Travel
Lanes
Total Loading x 10 3
Silt Loadin
I (g/m2)
Industry
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Unitsb
Range
Mean
Copper smelting
1
3
15.4-21.7
19.0
2
12.9-19.5
45.8-69.2
15.9
55.4
kg/km
lb/mi
188-400
292
Iron and steel
production
9
48
1.1-35.7
12.5
2
0.006-4.77
0.020-16.9
0.495
1.75
kg/km
lb/mi
0.09-79
9.7
Asphalt batching
1
3
2.6-4.6
3.3
1
12.1-18.0
43.0-64 0
14.9
52.8
kg/km
lb/mi
76-193
120
Concrete batching
1
3
5.2-6.0
5.5
2
1.4-1.8
5.0-6.4
1.7
5.9
kg/km
lb/mi
11-12
12
Sand and gravel
processing
1
3
6.4-7.9
7.1
1
2.8-5.5
9.9-19.4
3.8
13.3
kg/km
lb/mi
53-95
70
Municipal solid
waste landfill
2
7

2
¦

1.1-32.0
7.4
Quarry
1
6
—
—
2
—
—
—
2.4-14
8.2
a References 1-2,5-6,10-12. Values represent samples collected from industrial roads. Public road silt loading values are presented in
Figure 13.2.1-2, Figure 13.2.1-3, Figure 13.2.1-4, Figure 13.2.1-5, Figure 13.2.1-6, and Figure 13.2.1-7, and Tables 13.2.1-2 and
13.2.1-3. Dashes indicate information not available.
b Multiply entries by 1000 to obtain stated units; kilograms per kilometer (kg/km) and pounds per mile Ob/mi).
V©
On
-------
With the exception of limited access roadways, which are difficult to sample, the collection
and use of site-specific sL data for public paved road emission inventories are strongly recommended.
Although hundreds of public paved road sL measurements have been made since 1980,8' 14-21
uniformity has been lacking in sampling equipment and analysis techniques, in roadway classification
schemes, and in the types of data reported.10 The assembled data set (described below) does not
yield any readily identifiable, coherent relationship between sL and road class, average daily traffic
(ADT), etc., even though an inverse relationship between sL and ADT had been found for a subclass
of curbed paved roads in urban areas.8 The absence of such a relationship in the composite data set
is believed to be due to the blending of data (industrial and nonindustrial, uncontrolled, and
controlled, and so on). Further complicating any analysis is the fact that, in many parts of the
country, paved road sL varies greatly over the course of the year, probably because of cyclic
variations in mud/dirt carryout and in use of anti-skid materials. For example, repeated sampling of
the same roads over a period of 3 calendar years at 4 Montana municipalities indicated a noticeable
annual cycle. In those areas, silt loading declines during the first 2 calendar quarters and increases
during the fourth quarter.
Figure 13.2.1-2 and Figure 13.2.1-3 present the cumulative frequency distribution for the
public paved road sL data base assembled during the preparation of this AP-42 section.10 The data
base includes samples taken from roads that were treated with sand and other snow/ice controls.
Roadways are grouped into high- and low-ADT sets, with 5000 vehicles per day being the
approximate cutpoint. Figure 13.2.1-2 and Figure 13.2.1-3, respectively, present the cumulative
frequency distributions for high- and low-ADT roads.
In the absence of site-specific sL data to serve as input to a public paved road inventory,
conservatively high emission estimates can be obtained by using the following values taken from the
figures. For annual conditions, the median sL values of 0.4 g/m2 can be used for high-ADT roads
(excluding limited access roads that are discussed below) and 2.5 g/m2 for low-ADT roads. Worst-
case loadings can be estimated for high-ADT (excluding limited access roads) and low-ADT roads,
respectively, with the 90th percentile values of 7 and 25 g/m2. Figure 13.2.1-4, Figure 13.2.1-5,
Figure 13.2.1-6, and Figure 13.2.1-7 present similar cumulative frequency distribution information
for high- and low-ADT roads, except that the sets were divided based on whether the sample was
collected during the first or second half of the year. Information on the 50th and 90th percentile
values is summarized in Table 13.2.1-2.
Table 13.2.1-2 (Metric Units). PERCENTILES FOR NONINDUSTRIAL SILT LOADING (g/m2)
DATA BASE
Averaging Period
High-ADT Roads
Low-ADT Roads
50th 90th
50th 90th
Annual
January-June
July-December
0.4 7
0.5 14
0.3 3
2.5 25
3 30
1.5 5
In the event that sL values are taken from any of the cumulative frequency distribution figures, the
quality ratings for the emission estimates should be downgraded 2 levels.
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-5
-------
As an alternative method of selecting sL values in the absence of site-specific data, users can
review the public (i. e., nonindustrial) paved road sL data base presented in Table 13.2.1-3 and can
select values that are appropriate for the roads and seasons of interest. Table 13.2.1-3 presents paved
road surface loading values together with the city, state, road name, collection date (samples collected
from the same road during the same month are averaged), road ADT if reported, classification of the
roadway, etc. Recommendation of this approach recognizes that end users of AP-42 are capable of
identifying roads in the data base that are similar to roads in the area being inventoried. In the event
that sL values are developed in this way, and that the selection process is fully described, then the
quality ratings for the emission estimates should be downgraded only 1 level.
Limited access roadways pose severe logistical difficulties in terms of surface sampling, and
few sL data are available for such roads. Nevertheless, the available data do not suggest great
variation in sL for limited access roadways from 1 part of the country to another. For annual
conditions, a default value of 0.02 g/m2 is recommended for limited access roadways. Even fewer of
the available data correspond to worst-case situations, and elevated loadings are observed to be
quickly depleted because of high ADT rates. A default value of 0.1 g/m2 is recommended for short
periods of time following application of snow/ice controls to limited access roads.
13.2.1.4 Controls6'22
Because of the importance of the surface loading, control techniques for paved roads attempt
either to prevent material from being deposited onto the surface (preventive controls) or to remove
from the travel lanes any material that has been deposited (mitigative controls). Regulations requiring
the covering of loads in trucks, or the paving of access areas to unpaved lots or construction sites, are
preventive measures. Examples of mitigative controls include vacuum sweeping, water flushing, and
broom sweeping and flushing.
In general, preventive controls are usually more cost effective than mitigative controls. The
cost-effectiveness of mitigative controls falls off dramatically as the size of an area to be treated
increases. That is to say, the number and length of public roads within most areas of interest
preclude any widespread and routine use of mitigative controls. On the other hand, because of the
more limited scope of roads at an industrial site, mitigative measures may be used quite successfully
(especially in situations where truck spillage occurs). Note, however, that public agencies could make
effective use of mitigative controls to remove sand/salt from roads after the winter ends.
Because available controls will affect the sL, controlled emission factors may be obtained by
substituting controlled silt loading values into the equation. (Emission factors from controlled
industrial roads were used in the development of the equation.) The collection of surface loading
samples from treated, as well as baseline (untreated), roads provides a means to track effectiveness of
the controls over time.
13.2.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
1 -°l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1—
¦22
¦3"
32
¦¦¦ «2
0.9 2»2
22.
32
32
¦ ¦3
0.8 4»
¦4
33
•3»
5
0.7 «4
23
¦4
32
5
0.6 «32
32
4.
¦22
5
0.5 4«
32
4b
4"
3 3
0.4 «22
32
4«
5
0.3 32
23
6 High-ADT roads, including majors,
¦3« arterials, collectors with ADT
5 given as > 5000 vehicles/day
0.2 2-2
4"
¦ 4
5
¦ 4
0.1 42
3 ¦¦
5
¦ ¦ 2 ¦
2
0.0 I I— J I JL I I I I 1 I 1 1—
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
SILT LOADING, "sL" (g/m2)
Figure 13.2.1-2. Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on high-ADT roadways.
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-7
-------
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
1.0
"I I I I I I I I I I I
¦ ¦¦
2
3
¦2
2
2-
2"
3
2
2»
2»
*2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2«
« 2
2
2»
3
2.
2*
¦ ¦
3
3
¦2
2
¦ 2
¦2
3
2
3
¦2
¦2
2 Low-ADT roads, including local,
2» residential, rural, and collector
3 (excluding collector, with A0T given
•» « as > 5000 vehicles/day)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
2 ¦
2 ¦
2
0,0 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
SILT LOADING, "sL"
-------
0.01 0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
T
10
—r
20
—r
50
—r
100
—I—
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
High-ADT roads, including majors,
arteriats, collectors with ADT
given as > 5000 vehicles/day
First 2 calendar quarters
2-
32
¦3
2 2
2 ¦
23
¦2>
4
22-
4
23
-3
4
¦3-
•3
¦4
3»
4
¦3.
22
4«
22
0.4
3.
-3-
¦3
¦2 ¦
4"
3«
0.3
0.2
0.1
4
3.
4»
¦3
.3
2 3
2 2
5
3
0.0
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
SILT LOADING, "sL"
2 2
(g/m )
10
20
50
100
Figure 13.2.1-4. Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
high-ADT roadways, based on samples during first half of the calendar year.

-------
1.0
0.9
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2 0.5 1
2 5 10 20 50
100
1

i
[
i i t
i 111 i
*
¦
¦
¦
m
I

0.8

¦
¦
m
¦
a

0.7

¦
¦
¦
¦
¦

0.6
0.5
0.4
-

¦
m
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
•
¦
¦

0.3
-

¦
¦
a
¦
¦
High-ADT roads, including majors,
arterials, collectors with ADT
given as > 5000 vehicles/day
Last 2 calendar quarters

0.2

¦
¦
a
¦
¦

0.1

¦
¦
¦
¦

0.0
)

i
t
1 1 !
i iii i
I

0.01
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2 0.5 1
SILT LOADING, «$L"
2 5 10 20 50
(g/m )
100
Figure 13.2.1-5. Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
high-ADT roadways, based on samples during second half of the calendar year.
13.2.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1
0.2 0.5 1 2
5 10 20 50 100
i i I I
i til
III II
¦¦

¦ ¦

¦¦

¦ ¦

¦
¦

¦ ¦¦

¦ ¦

¦¦

•
2

¦¦

¦ ¦

2
Low-ADT roads, including Locals,

¦ ¦
residential, rural and collector

¦¦
(excluding collector with ADT given

2
as > 5000 vehicles/day)

2
-
¦¦

First 2 calendar quarters
¦ ¦

¦ ¦

¦
II II
i ill
lit ii
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
SILT LOADING, "sL" (g/m2)
Figure 13.2.1-6. Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
low-ADT roadways, based on samples during first half of the calendar year.
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-11
-------
1.0
5000 vehicles/day)
Last 2 calendar quarters

0.0
1 1
1
1
I I
t
1
ill ii

o
o
o
o
rv
0,05
0.1
0.2 0.5
SILT LOADING,
1
"sL"
2 2
(g/nr)
5 10 20 50 100

Figure 13.2.1-7. Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
low-ADT roadways, based on samples during second half of the calendar year.
13.2.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
Table 13.2.1-3. NONINDUSTRIAL PAVED ROAD SAMPLING DATA3
S
Vi
a
ST
3
o
e
£/3
o
c
3
d>
to
I
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class8
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
Billings
ND
Rural
04/78
50
0.6
18.5
3.4

MT
Billings
Yellowstone
Residential
04/78
115
0.5
14.3
3.5

MT
Missoula
Bancroft
Residential
04/78
4000
8.4
33.9
24.9

MT
Butte
1st St
Residential
04/78
679
24.6
10.6
232.4

MT
Butte
N Park PI
Residential
04/78
60
103.7
7
1480.8

MT
Billings
Grand Ave
Collector
04/78
6453
1.6
19.1
13.05
2 samples, range: 1.0 - 2.2
MT
Billings
4th Ave E
Collector
04/78
3328
7.7
7.7
99.5

MT
Missoula
6th St
Collector
04/78
3655
26
62.9
6

MT
Butte
Harrison
Arterial
04/78
22849
1.9
5
37.3

MT
Missoula
Highway 93
Arterial
04/78
18870
1.9
55.9
3.3

MT
Butte
Montana
Arterial
04/78
13529
0.8
6.6
11.9

MT
East Helena
Thurman
Residential
04/83
140
13.1
4.3
305.2

MT
East Helena
1st St
Local
04/83
780
4
13.6
29

MT
East Helena
Montana
Collector
04/83
2700
8.2
9.4
86.6

MT
East Helena
Main St
Collector
04/83
1360
4.7
8.4
55.3

MT
Libby
6th
Local
03/88
1310
ND
14.8
ND

MT
Libby
5th
Local
03/88
331
ND
16.5
ND

MT
Libby
Champion Int So gate
Collector
03/88
800
ND
27.5
ND

MT
Libby
Mineral Ave
Collector
03/88
5900
7
16
43.5

-------
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class*
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(*>
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
Libby
Main Ave btwn 6th &
Collector
03/88
536
61
20.4
299.2

MT
Libby
California
Collector
03/88
4500
ND
12.1
ND

MT
Libby
US 2
Arterial
03/88
10850
ND
12.3
ND

MT
Butte
Garfield Ave
Residential
04/88
562
2.1
10.9
19.3

MT
Butte
Continental Dr
Arterial
04/88
5272
0.9
10.1
8.8

MT
Butte
Garfield Ave
Residential
06/89
562
1
8.7
11.2

MT
Butte
So Park Ave
Residential
06/89
60
2.8
10.9
25.5

MT
Butte
Continental Dr
Arterial
06/89
5272
7.2
3.6
197.6

MT
East Helena
Morton St
Local
08/89
250
1.7
6.8
24.6

MT
East Helena
Main St
Collector
08/89
2316
0.7
4.1
17

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
08/89
7900
2.1
12.5
16,5

MT
Columbia Falls
7th St
Residential
03/90
390
ND
9.5
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
4th St
Residential
03/90
400
18.8
14.3
131.5

MT
Columbia Falls
3rd Ave
Residential
03/90
50
ND
14.3
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
4th Ave
Residential
03/90
1720
ND
5.4
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
CF Forest
Local
03/90
240
ND
16.3
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
12th Ave
Collector
03/90
1510
ND
8.8
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
3rd St
Collector
03/90
1945
ND
7
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
03/90
4730
15.4
10
153.9

On
-------
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class3
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
Columbia Falls
Plum Creek
Collector
03/90
316
ND
6.2
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
6th Ave
Collector
03/90
1764
ND
4.2
ND

MT
Columbia Falls
US 2
Arterial
03/90
13110
2.7
18.7
14.6

MT
East Helena
Morton
Residential
07/90
250
1.6
17
9.3

MT
East Helena
Main St
Collector
07/90
2316
5.6
10.6
52.5

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
07/90
7900
3.2
15.4
20.9

MT
Columbia Falls
4th Ave
Local
08/90
400
1.5
4
37.7

MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
08/90
530
2.4
17.9
13.2

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
08/90
5730
0.8
5.3
16

MT
Columbia Falls
US 2
Arterial
08/90
13039
0.2
7
2.9

MT
East Helena
Morton
Local
10/90
250
3.4
10.2
33.6

MT
East Helena
Main
Collector
10/90
2316
4.5
5.6
81.3

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
10/90
7900
0.6
13.9
4.3

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
11/06/90
5670
5.2
13.5
38

MT
Columbia Falls
US 2
Arterial
11/06/90
15890
1.7
24.1
7.2

MT
Libby
US 2
Arterial
12/08/90
10000
21.5
9.6
223.9

MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
12/09/90
530
13.6
27.1
50.3

MT
Butte
Texas
Collector
12/13/90
3070
1
15.4
6.4

MT
East Helena
King
Local
01/91
75
1
3.4
30.6

-------
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class3
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
East Helena
Prickly Pear
Local
01/91
425
12
1.8
666.5

MT
East Helena
Morton
Local
01/91
250
14.1
3.5
402.3

MT
East Helena
Main St
Collector
01/91
2316
36.7
12.1
303.4

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
01/91
7900
0.8
14
5.6

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
01/23/91
920
9.2
9.9
93

MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
01/23/91
5000
33.3
27.2
122.2

MT
East Helena
Seaver Park Rd
Local
02/91
150
21.6
7.1
304.7

MT
East Helena
New Lake Helena Dr
Collector
02/91
2140
19.2
9
213.4

MT
East Helena
Porter
Collector
02/91
850
74.4
7.7
966.8

MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
02/14/91
530
33.3
18.7
178.2

MT
Libby
US 2
Arterial
02/17/91
10000
69.3
21
330.3

MT
Butte
Texas
Collector
02/21/91
3070
1.2
11
10.9

MT
Butte
Harrison
Arterial
02/21/91
22849
2.9
7.9
36.6

MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
02/24/91
2653
30.5
24.8
122.9

MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
02/24/91
14730
17.4
20.4
85.2

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
02/25/91
920
35.7
17.9
199.6

MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
02/25/91
5000
66.8
17.8
375.3

MT
Helena
Montana
Arterial
03/91
21900
15.4
6.2
248.3

vO
On
-------
Table 13,2.1-3 (cont).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class3
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
03/09/91
2653
39,1
29.1
134.5

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
03/91
5670
30.1
17
174.6
2 samples, range: 0.8 - 0.8
MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
03/09/91
14730
17.6
24.7
71.4

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
03/91
920
4.4
8.3
51
2 samples, range; 2.8 - 5.9
MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
03/91
5000
4.3
15.5
28.9
2 samples, range: 1.0 - 7.5
MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
03/91
530
14.8
33.1
44.9
2 samples, range: 13.5 - 16.1
MT
Libby
US 2
Arterial
03/91
11963
20
19.5
111.9
3 samples, range: 11.4 - 32.4
MT
East Helena
Morton
Local
04/91
250
4.3
8.8
48.7

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
04/91
7900
0.5
8.7
5.7

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
04/91
920
1.2
15.7
6,3
4 samples, range: 0.3 - 4.0
MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
04/04/91
5000
2
13.4
14.7
2 samples, range: 1.1 - 2.2
MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
04/91
530
3.5
44
7.8
2 samples, range: 2.5 - 4.4
MT
Libby
US 2
Arterial
04/91
12945
11.8
20.5
57.2
4 samples, range: 1.2 - 22.9
MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
04/14/91
2653
15.1
37.1
40.9

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
04/91
5670
9
19.8
47.6

MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
04/14/91
14730
13
44.5
29.4

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
05/91
5670
2.4
17.5
15.9
4 samples, range: 1.3-3.8
MT
Columbia Falls
US 2
Arterial
05/91
14712
5.5
20.7
24.8
5 samples, range: 1.5 - 14.2
MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
05/19/91
530
1.7
31
5.7

-------
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class8
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
{%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
06/27/91
530
1.7
24.3
7.1

MT
Libby
US 2
Arterial
06/27/91
10000
3.8
12.6
30.6

MT
East Helena
Morton
Local
07/91
250
1.7
11.4
15.3

MT
East Helena
Main
Collector
07/91
2316
8.8
11
79.7

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
07/09/91
920
10.9
11
98.7

MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
07/09/91
5000
2,1
8.1
25.9

MT
Helena
Montana
Arterial
07/17/91
21900
0.9
4.7
19.4

MT
Butte
Texas
Collector
07/26/91
3070
2.5
28.2
8.9

MT
Butte
Harrison
Arterial
07/26/91
22849
1.6
28.2
5.8

MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
08/03/91
2653
5.8
23
25.3

MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
08/03/91
14730
4
21
19.3

MT
Columbia Falls
US 2
Arterial
08/11/91
15890
0.1
5.6
2.3

MT
Missoula
Russel btwn 4th & 5th
Road
08/30/91
5270
1.6
8.3
19.3

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
08/30/91
7900
7
20.5
34.3

MT
Butte
Texas
Collector
10/03/91
3070
1
17.7
5.4

MT
Butte
Harrison
Arterial
10/03/91
22849
2.1
23.1
9,1

MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
10/06/91
2653
10
31.3
31.9

MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
10/06/91
14730
4.3
27.7
15,7

MT
East Helena
Morton
Local
10/16/91
250
1.8
31
5.9

VO
Ov
-------
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class3
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
East Helena
Main St
Collector
10/16/91
2316
1.6
20.5
7.7

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
10/16/91
7900
1
6.7
14.9

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
10/20/91
5670
1.9
13.9
13.3

MT
Columbia Falls
US 2
Arterial
10/20/91
15890
1.2
11.3
10.2

MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
11/06/91
2653
2.2
12.3
17.8

MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
11/28/91
14730
2.7
8.6
30.8

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
12/17/91
920
4
18.1
22.5

MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
12/17/91
5000
1.5
13.2
11.6

MT
Butte
Texas
Collector
02/02/92
3070
19.1
11.6
164.5

MT
Butte
Harrison
Arterial
02/02/92
22849
8.3
12
69.3

MT
East Helena
Morton
Local
02/03/92
250
78.3
9.5
824.7

MT
Libby
W 4th St
Local
02/03/92
350
36.3
56.3
64.5

MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
02/03/92
530
10.7
49.9
21.4

MT
East Helena
Main St
Collector
02/03/92
2316
57.9
14.8
391

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
02/03/92
5670
29.2
20.1
145.4

MT
Columbia Falls
US 2
Arterial
02/92
12945
51.3
32.2
143.1
2 samples, range: 13.0 - 89.5
MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
02/03/92
7900
2.9
14.3
20.7

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
02/22/92
920
0.5
18
2.6

MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
02/22/92
5000
1.2
14.6
8.1

-------
UJ
K>
to
O
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class8
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1 st
Collector
03/15/92
2653
81,1
37.3
217.3

MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
03/15/92
14730
16.5
32.1
51.3

MT
Thompson Falls
Preston
Local
04/92
920
0.43
14.9
3.2

MT
Thompson Falls
Highway 200
Collector
04/92
5000
0.8
18.2
4.7
3 samples, range: 0.4 - 1.0
MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn 2nd & 3rd
Local
04/26/92
450
20.9
45.8
45.5

MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
04/26/92
2653
19.2
50.9
37,7

MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
04/26/92
14730
10.7
33.5
32.1

MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn 2nd & 3rd
Local
05/92
450
8.3
35.6
23.5
3 samples, range: 6.6 - 10.3
MT
Kalispell
3rd btwn Main & 1st
Collector
05/92
2653
8.5
32.4
25.8
3 samples, range: 6.3 - 11.4
MT
Kalispell
Main
Arterial
05/92
14730
5.1
23.6
21.7
3 samples, range: 3.8 - 5.9
MT
Libby
W 4th St
Local
05/11/92
350
13.4
56.5
23.7

MT
Libby
Main Ave 4th &
Collector
05/11/92
530
5.6
58.9
9.4

MT
Libby
US 2
Arterial
05/92
12945
10.4
25.6
29.4

MT
East Helena
Morton
Local
05/15/92
250
6.9
6.7
103

MT
East Helena
Main St
Collector
05/15/92
2316
6.4
10.2
62.8

MT
East Helena
US 12
Arterial
05/15/92
7900
1.2
6.9
17

MT
Columbia Falls
Nucleus
Collector
05/25/92
5670
1
21.7
4.5

MT
Missoula
Inez btwn 4th & 5th
Local
06/04/92
500
1
17.4
5.6

tn
w
v*
O
Z
*n
>
n
H
O
pa
00
o\
-------
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class3
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
<%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
MT
Missoula
Russel btwn 3rd & 4th
Collector
06/04/92
5270
15.2
14
108.4

MT
Missoula
3rd btwn Prince & In
Arterial
06/04/92
12000
2
13.1
15.7

CO
Denver
E. Colfax
Princ.
Arterial15
03/89
1994c
0.21
2
19.9
4 samples, range: 0.04 - 0.47
CO
Denver
E. Colfax
Princ,
Arterialb
04/89
2228c
0.73
1.7
106,7
18 samples, range: 0.08 - 1.76
CO
Denver
York St
Princ.
Arterial*5
04/89
780c
0.86
1.2
74.8
2 samples, range: 0.83 - 0.89
CO
Denver
E, Belleview
Princ.
Arterial*5
04/89
ND
0.07
4.2
2
3 samples, range: 0.03 - 0.09
CO
Denver
1-225
Expressway13
04/89
473 lc
0.02
3.6
0.4
3 samples, range: 0.01 - 0.02
CO
Denver
W, Evans
Princ.
Arterial15
05/89
1905°
0.76
1.9
74
11 samples, range: 0.03 - 2.24
CO
Denver
W. Evans
Princ.
Arterial15
06/89
1655°
0.71
1.2
66.1
12 samples, range: 0.07 - 3.34
CO
Denver
E. Louisiana
Minor
Arterial15
06/89
515c
0.14
4.66
3.5
5 samples, range: 0.08 - 0.24
CO
Denver
E. Louisiana
Minor
Arterial15
01/90
ND
1.44d
ND
ND
6 samples, range: 0.12 - 2.8
CO
Denver
E. Jewell Ave
Collector15
01/24/90
ND
2.24d
ND
ND

CO
Denver
State Highway 36
Expressway*5
01/30/90
ND
0.56d
ND
ND
2 samples, range: 0.56 - 0.56
-------
w
"to
to
to
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class3
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
CO
Denver
State Highway 36
Expressway1^
02/01/90
ND
1.92d
ND
ND
4 samples, range: 1.92 - 1.92
CO
Denver
W. Evans Ave
Princ.
Arterialb
02/03/90
ND
1.64d
ND
ND
2 samples, range: 1.64 - 1.64
CO
Denver
E. Mexico St
Localb
02/07/90
ND
2,58d
ND
ND
3 samples, range: 2.58 - 2.58
CO
Denver
E. Colfax Ave
Princ.
Arterialb
02/90
ND
0.09d
ND
ND
16 samples, range: 0.02 - 0.17
CO
Denver
State Highway 36
Expressway1'
03/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
7 samples
CO
Denver
E. Louisiana Ave
Minor
Arterialb
03/10/90
ND
ND
ND
ND
3 samples
CO
Denver
W. Evans Ave
Princ.
Arterialb
03/90
ND
l,27d
ND
ND
5 samples, range: 0.07 - 3.38
CO
Denver
W. Colfax Ave
Princ.
Arterialb
03/90
ND
0.41d
ND
ND
21 samples, range: 0.04 - 2.61
CO
Denver
Parker Rd
Localb
04/90
ND
0.05d
ND
ND
6 samples, range: 0.01 - 0.11
CO
Denver
W. Byron PI
Princ.
Arterial15
04/90
ND
0.3d
ND
ND
6 samples, range: 0.21 - 0.35
CO
Denver
E. Colfax Ave
Princ.
Arterialb
04/18/90
ND
0.21d
ND
ND

UT
Salt Lake
County
700 East
Arterial
e
42340
0.137
11,5
1.187
4 samples, range: 0.107 - 0.162
rn
&
Zn
t/3
O
z
•n
>
O
>i «il
o
25
C/5
VO
Q\
-------
Table 13,2,1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class8
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g<'m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
UT
Salt Lake
County
State St
Collector
e
27140
0.288
17
1.692
4 samples, range: 0.212 - 0.357
UT
Salt Lake
County
1-80
Freeway
e
77040
0.023
21.4
0.1
5 samples, range: 0.011 - 0,034
UT
Salt Lake
County
1-15
Freeway
e
146180
0.096
23.5
0.419
6 samples, range: 0.078 - 0,126
UT
Salt Lake
County
400 East
Local
e
5000
1.967
4.07
46.043
14 samples, range: 0.177 - 5.772
NV
Las Vegas
Lake Mead
Major
07/15/87
ND
0.81
12.4
6.51

NV
Las Vegas
Perliter
Local
07/15/87
ND
2.23
31.2
7.14

NV
Las Vegas
Bruce
Collector
07/15/87
ND
1.64
26.1
6.3

NV
Las Vegas
Stewart
Major
09/29/87
ND
0.38
24
1 63
3 samples, range: 0.24 - 0.46
NV
Las Vegas
Ambler
Local
09/29/87
ND
1.38
23
6.32
3 samples, range: 0,64 - 2.00
NV
Las Vegas
28th St
Collector
09/29/87
ND
0.52
15.8
3.4
3 samples, range: 0.51 - 0.54
NV
Las Vegas
Lake Mead
Major
10/07/87
ND
0.19
14.9
1.26
2 samples, range: 0.17 - 0.20
NV
Las Vegas
Perliter
Local
10/07/87
ND
1.5
31.9
4.76
2 samples, range: 1.48 - 1.52
NV
Las Vegas
Bruce
Collector
10/07/87
ND
0.9
24.1
3.74
2 samples, range: 0.76 - 1.03
AZ
Phoenix
Broadway
Arterial
_f
ND
0.127
12.2
1.071

AZ
Phoenix
South Central
Arterial

ND
0.085
5
1.726

AZ
Phoenix
Indian School & 28th
Arterial

ND
0.035
3.1
1.021

-------
I
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class3
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
(%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
AZ
Glendale
43rd & Vista
Arterial

ND
0.042
3.9
1.049

AZ
Glendale
59th & Peoria
Arterial

ND
0.099
8.2
1.183

AZ
Mesa
Mesa Drive
Arterial
_f
ND
0.099
8.9
1.085

AZ
Mesa
E. McKellips & Olive
Arterial

ND
0.014
17
0.092

AZ
Phoenix
17th & Highland
Collector

ND
0.028
13.4
0.232

AZ
Mesa
3rd & Miller
Collector

ND
0.07
11.8
0.627

AZ
Phoenix
Avalon & 25th
Collector

ND
0.528
11.1
4.79

AZ
Phoenix
Apache
Collector

ND
0.282
6.4
4.367

AZ
Phoenix
N. 28th St & E.
Glenrosa
Collector

ND
0.035
2.3
1.479

AZ
Pima County
6th Ave
Collector

ND
1.282
6.417
19.961

AZ
Pima County
Speedway Blvd
Arterial

ND
0.401
8.117
4.937

AZ
Pima County
22nd St
Arterial

ND
0.028
16.529
0.176

AZ
Pima County
Amklam Rd
Collector

ND
0.014
5.506
0.197

AZ
Pima County
Fort Lowel Rd
Arterial
-J
ND
0.113
3.509
3.268

AZ
Pima County
Oracle Rd
Arterial

ND
0.014
1.556
0.725

AZ
Pima County
Inn Rd
Arterial
_f
ND
0.021
18.756
0.127

AZ
Pima County
Orange Grove
Arterial
_f
ND
0.162
21.989
0.725

AZ
Pima County
La Canada
Arterial

ND
0.106
3.975
2.571

vC
o
-------
Table 13.2.1-3 (cont.).
ST
City
Sampling Location,
Street, Road Name
Class®
Date
ADTa
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)
Silt
Content
<%)
Total
Loading
(g/m2)
Comments
KS
Kansas City
7th
Arterial
02/80
ND
0.29
6.8
4.2
3 samples, range: 0.15 - 0.46
MO
Kansas City
Volker
Arterial
02/80
ND
0.67
20.1
3.5
3 samples, range: 0.43 -1.00
MO
Kansas City
Rockhill
Arterial
02/80
ND
0.68
21.7
3.3

KS
Tonganoxie
4th
Collector
03/80
ND
2.5
14.5
17.1

KS
Kansas City
7th
Arterial
03/80
ND
0.29
12.2
2.4

MO
St. Louis
1-44
Expressway
05/80
ND
0.02
ND
ND
4 samples
MO
St. Louis
Kingshighway
Collector
0S/80
ND
0.08
10.9
0.7
3 samples, range: 0.05 - 0.11
IL
Granite City
24th
Arterial
05/80
ND
0.78
6.4
12.3
2 samples, range: 0,7 - 0.83
IL
Granite City
Benton
Collector
05/80
ND
0.93
8.6
10.8

MN
Duluth
US 53
(northbound lanes)
Highway
03/19/92
5000
0.23
28
1.94
8 samples, range: 0.04 - 0.77
MN
Duluth
US 53
(southbound lanes)
Highway
02/26/92
5000
0.24
13.4
2.3
5 samples, range: 0.05 - 0.37
a References 7,13-20. Classifications and values as given in reference, except as noted. ADT = average daily traffic. ND = no data.
b Reference 16.
c Value given is the hourly traffic rate observed during testing. ADT values not reported.
d Samples are said to wet sieved. Wet sieving results are not directly comparable to those for the dry sieving described in AP-42
Appendix C.2.
e No specific date given for sampling. Samples are said to be "post storm".
f No specific date given for sampling.
-------
References For Section 13.2,1
1. D. R. Dunbar, Resuspension Of Particulate Matter, EP A-450/2-76-031, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1976.
2. R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.
3. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.
4. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Quantification Of Dust Entrainment From Paved Roadways,
EPA-450/3-77-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
July 1977.
5. Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.
6. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al, Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control
Evaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
October 1983.
7. J. P. Reider, Size-specific Particulate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial Ami Rural
Roads, EPA Contract 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
September 1983.
8. C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J. Englehart, Paved Road Particulate Emissions, EPA-600/7-84-077,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1984.
9. C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J. Englehart, Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For
Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, September 1985.
10. Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42, Sections 11.2.5 and 11.2.6 — Paved Roads, EPA
Contract No. 68-D0-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1993.
11. Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1979.
12. PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1987.
13. Chicago Area Particulate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, Contract
No. 68-02-4395, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, May 1988.
14. Montana Street Sampling Data, Montana Department Of Health And Environmental Sciences,
Helena, MT, July 1992.
15. Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
October 1989.
13.2.1-26
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
16. Evaluation Of PM-10 Emission Factors For Paved Streets, Harding Law son Associates,
Denver, CO, October 1991,
17. Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, RTP Environmental Associates, Inc., Denver,
CO, July 1990.
18. Post-storm Measurement Results — Salt Lake County Road Dust Silt Loading Winter 1991/92
Measurement Program, Aerovironment, Inc., Monrovia, CA, June 1992.
19. Written communication from Harold Glasser, Department of Health, Clark County (NV).
20. PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.
21. Characterization Of PM-10 Emissions From Antiskid Materials Applied To Ice- And Snow-
covered Roadways, EPA Contract No. 68-D0-0137, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
MO, October 1992.
22. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-27
-------
13.2.2 Unpaved Roads
13,2.2.1 General
Dust plumes trailing behind vehicles traveling on unpaved roads are a familiar sight in rural
areas of the United States. When a vehicle travels an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the
road surface causes pulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the
rolling wheels, and the road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the
surface. The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle
has passed.
13.2.2.2 Emissions Calculation And Correction Parameters
The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of unpaved road varies linearly with the
volume of traffic. Field investigations also have shown that emissions depend on correction
parameters (average vehicle speed, average vehicle weight, average number of wheels per vehicle,
road surface texture, and road surface moisture) that characterize the condition of a particular road
and the associated vehicle traffic.1"4
Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary in direct proportion to the
fraction of silt (particles smaller than 75 micrometers [/*m] in diameter) in the road surface
materials.1 The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of loose dry surface dust that
passes a 200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method. Table 13.2.2-1 summarizes measured silt
values for industrial and rural unpaved roads.
Since the silt content of a rural dirt road will vary with location, it should be measured for
use in projecting emissions. As a conservative approximation, the silt content of the parent soil in the
area can be used. Tests, however, show that road silt content is normally lower than in the
surrounding parent soil, because the fines are continually removed by the vehicle traffic, leaving a
higher percentage of coarse particles.
Unpaved roads have a hard, generally nonporous surface that usually dries quickly after a
rainfall. The temporary reduction in emissions caused by precipitation may be accounted for by not
considering emissions on "wet" days (more than 0.254 millimeters [mm] [0.01 inches (in.) ] of
precipitation).
The following empirical expression may be used to estimate the quantity of size-specific
particulate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT) or vehicle mile
traveled (VMT):
E = k(1.7)
s

r s

' W '
0.7
w
0.5
365-p
12

2.7

365
(kilograms [kg]/VKT)
(1)
E = k(5.9)
s

r s ]

' W'
0.7
w
0.5
[ 365-pi
12

4
I J

365
(pounds [lb]/VMT)
1/95 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-1
-------
Table 13.2.2-1. TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIAL
ON INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADSa

Road Use Or
Surface Material
Plant
Sites
No. Of
Samples
Silt Content (%)
Industry
Range
Mean
Copper smelting
Plant road
1
3
16-19
17
Iron and steel production
Plant road
19
135
0.2 - 19
6.0
Sand and gravel processing
Plant road
1
3
4.1 -6.0
4.8
Stone quarrying and
processing
Plant road
2
10
2.4 - 16
10

Haul road
1
10
5.0 - 15
9.6
Taconite mining and
processing
Service road
1
8
2.4-7.1
4.3

Haul road
1
12
3.9-9.7
5.8
Western surface coal
mining
Haul road
3
21
2.8 - 18
8.4

Access road
2
2
4.9-5.3
5.1

Scraper route
3
10
7.2 - 25
17

Haul road
(freshly graded)
2
5
18-29
24
Rural roads
Gravel/crushed
limestone
3
9
5.0 - 13
8.9

Dirt
7
32
1.6-68
12
Municipal roads
Unspecified
3
26
0.4 - 13
5.7
Municipal solid waste
landfills
Disposal routes
4
20
2.2 - 21
6.4
a References 1,5-16.
where:
E = emission factor
k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
s = silt content of road surface material (%)
S = mean vehicle speed, kilometers per hour (km/hr) (miles per hour [mph])
W = mean vehicle weight, megagrams (Mg) (ton)
w = mean number of wheels
p = number of days with at least 0.254 mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation per year (see
discussion below about the effect of precipitation.)
13.2.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95
-------
The particle size multiplier in the equation, k, varies with aerodynamic particle size range as
follows:
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier (k) For Equation 1
<30 ^ma
1.0
<30 fim <15 [im <10 fim <5 fim
0.80 0.50 0.36 0.20
<2.5 fim
0.095
a Stokes diameter.
It is important to note that Equation 1 calls for the average speed, weight, and number of
wheels of all vehicles traveling the road. For example, if 98 percent of traffic on the road are
4-wheeled cars and trucks while the remaining 2 percent consists of 18-wheeled trucks, then the mean
number of wheels "w" is 4.3. More specifically, Equation 1 is not intended to be used to calculate a
separate emission factor for each vehicle class. Instead, only one emission factor should be calculated
that represents the "fleet" average of all vehicles traveling the road.
The number of wet days per year, p, for the geographical area of interest should be
determined from local climatic data. Figure 13.2.2-1 gives the geographical distribution of the mean
annual number of wet days per year in the United States.17 The equation is rated "A" for dry
conditions (p = 0) and "B" for annual or seasonal conditions (p > 0). The lower rating is applied
because extrapolation to seasonal or annual conditions assumes that emissions occur at the estimated
rate on days without measurable precipitation and, conversely, are absent on days with measurable
precipitation. Clearly, natural mitigation depends not only on how much precipitation falls, but also
on other factors affecting the evaporation rate, such as ambient air temperature, wind speed, and
humidity. Persons in dry, arid portions of the country may wish to base p (the number of wet days)
on a greater amount of precipitation than 0.254 mm (0.01 in.). In addition, Reference 18 contains
procedures to estimate the emission reduction achieved by the application of water to an unpaved road
surface.
The equation retains the assigned quality rating, if applied within the ranges of source
conditions that were tested in developing the equation, as follows:
Ranges Of Source Conditions For Equation
Road Silt Content
(wt %)
Mean Vehicle Weight
Mean Vehicle Speed
Mean No.
Of Wheels
Mg
ton
km/hr
mph
4.3 - 20
2.7 - 142
3 - 157
21 -64
13-40
4 - 13
Moreover, to retain the quality rating of the equation when addressing a specific unpaved road, it is
necessary that reliable correction parameter values be determined for the road in question. The field
and laboratory procedures for determining road surface silt content are given in AP-42
Appendices C.l and C.2. In the event that site-specific values for correction parameters cannot be
obtained, the appropriate mean values from Table 13.2.2-1 may be used, but the quality rating of the
equation is reduced by 1 letter.
For calculating annual average emissions, the equation is to be multiplied by annual vehicle
distance traveled (VDT). Annual average values for each of the correction parameters are to be
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.2-3
-------
l» if /(/ISIS
ALASKA
^g_g»jg|jgD
Figure 13.2.2-1. Mean number of days with 0.01 inch or more of precipitation in United States.
-------
substituted for the equation. Worst-case emissions, corresponding to dry road conditions, may be
calculated by setting p = 0 in the equation (equivalent to dropping the last term from the equation).
A separate set of nonclimatic correction parameters and a higher than normal VDT value may also be
justified for the worst-case average period (usually 24 hours). Similarly, in using the equation to
calculate emissions for a 91-day season of the year, replace the term (365-p)/365 with the term
(91 -p)/91, and set p equal to the number of wet days in the 91-day period. Use appropriate seasonal
values for the nonclimatic correction parameters and for VDT.
13.2.2.3 Controls18"21
Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treating with penetration
chemicals, working stabilization chemicals into the roadbed, watering, and traffic control regulations.
Chemical stabilizers work either by binding the surface material or by enhancing moisture retention.
Paving, as a control technique, is often not economically practical. Surface chemical treatment and
watering can be accomplished at moderate to low costs, but frequent treatments are required. Traffic
controls, such as speed limits and traffic volume restrictions, provide moderate emission reductions,
but may be difficult to enforce. The control efficiency obtained by speed reduction can be calculated
using the predictive emission factor equation given above.
The control efficiencies achievable by paving can be estimated by comparing emission factors
for unpaved and paved road conditions, relative to airborne particle size range of interest. The
predictive emission factor equation for paved roads, given in Section 13.2.4, requires estimation of
the silt loading on the traveled portion of the paved surface, which in turn depends on whether the
pavement is periodically cleaned. Unless curbing is to be installed, the effects of vehicle excursion
onto shoulders (berms) also must be taken into account in estimating control efficiency.
The control efficiencies afforded by the periodic use of road stabilization chemicals are much
more difficult to estimate. The application parameters that determine control efficiency include
dilution ratio, application intensity, mass of diluted chemical per road area, and application frequency.
Other factors that affect the performance of chemical stabilizers include vehicle characteristics
(e. g., traffic volume, average weight) and road characteristics (e. g., bearing strength).
Besides water, petroleum resin products historically have been the dust suppressants most
widely used on industrial unpaved roads. Figure 13.2.2-2 presents a method to estimate average
control efficiencies associated with petroleum resins applied to unpaved roads.19 Several items should
be noted:
1. The term "ground inventory" represents the total volume (per unit area) of petroleum
resin concentrate (not solution) applied since the start of the dust control season.
2. Because petroleum resin products must be periodically reapplied to unpaved roads, the
use of a time-averaged control efficiency value is appropriate. Figure 13.2.2-2 presents
control efficiency values averaged over 2 common application intervals, 2 weeks and
1 month. Other application intervals will require interpolation,
3. Note that zero efficiency is assigned until the ground inventory reaches 0.2 liter per
square meter (L/m2) (0.05 gallon per square yard [gal/yd2]).
As an example of the application of Figure 13.2.2-2, suppose that the equation was used to
estimate an emission factor of 2.0 kg/VKT for PM-10 from a particular road. Also, suppose that,
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.2-5
-------
OJ
k>
io
i
On
Ground Inventory
(liters/square meter)
0.25
0.5
0.7S
0.25
0.5
0,75
100
80
§ 60
*3
ic
ca
£
c
o
U 40
to
tu
«:
20
Note: Averaging periods (2 weeks or 1 month)
refer to time between applications
2 weeks
2 weeks
I month
Total Particulate
-1 month
Particles <10 mA
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2 0.25 0
(gallons/square yard)
Ground Inventory
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Figure 13.2.2-2. Average control efficiencies over common application intervals.
-------
starting on May 1, the road is treated with 1 L/m2 of a solution (1 part petroleum resin to 5 parts
water) on the first of each month through September. Then, the following average controlled
emission factors are found:
Period
Ground
Inventory
(L/m2)
Average Control
Efficiency4
(%)
Average Controlled
Emission Factor
(kg/VKT)
May
0.17
0
2.0
June
0.33
62
0.76
July
0.50
68
0.64
August
0.67
74
0.52
September
0.83
80
0.40
a From Figure 13.2.2-2, <10 /nm. Zero efficiency assigned if ground inventory is less than
0.2 L/m2 (0.05 gal/yd2).
Newer dust suppressants are successful in controlling emissions from unpaved roads. Specific
test results for those chemicals, as well as for petroleum resins and watering, are provided in
References 18 through 21.
References For Section 13.2.2
1. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development Of Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust Sources,
EPA-450/3-74-037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
June 1974.
2. R. J. Dyck and J. J. Stukel, "Fugitive Dust Emissions From Trucks On Unpaved Roads",
Environmental Science And Technology, i0(10): 1046-1048, October 1976.
3. R. O. McCaldin and K. J. Heidel, "Particulate Emissions From Vehicle Travel Over Unpaved
Roads", Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Houston, TX, June 197B.
4. C. Cowherd, Jr, et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
EPA-600/2-79-013, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.
5. R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.
6. Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1979.
7. C. Cowherd, Jr., and T, Cuscino, Jr., Fugitive Emissions Evaluation, MRI-4343-L, Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1977.
8. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.
1/96
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.2-7
-------
9. Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining Sources,
2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental and Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO, July 1981.
10. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control
Evaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
October 1983.
11. Size Specific Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.
12. C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. Englehart, Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Industrial
And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH, September 1985.
13. PM-I0 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract 68-02-3891,
Work Assignment 30, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1987.
14. Chicago Area Particulate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-4395, Work Assignment 1, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
May 1988.
15. PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.
16. Oregon Fugitive Dust Emission Inventory, EPA Contract 68-D0-0123, Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO, January 1992.
17. Climatic Atlas Of The United States, U. S. Department Of Commerce, Washington, DC,
June 1968.
18. C. Cowherd, Jr. et ah, Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
19. G. E. Muleski, et al, Extended Evaluation Of Unpaved Road Dust Suppressants In The Iron
And Steel Industry, EPA-600/2-84-027, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH, February 1984.
20. C. Cowherd, Jr., and J. S. Kinsey, Identification, Assessment And Control Of Fugitive
Particulate Emissions, EPA-600/8-86-023, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, August 1986.
21. G. E. Muleski and C. Cowherd, Jr., Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Chemical Dust
Suppressants On Unpaved Roads, EPA-600/2-87-102, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1986.
13.2.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/96
-------
CONTENTS
Page
B.2.1 Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions B.2-5
B.2.2 How to Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Uncontrolled Processes . . B.2-5
B.2.3 How to Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Controlled Processes .... B.2-20
B.2.4 Example Calculation B.2-20
References B.2-22
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
B.2-3
-------